Solid Earth
Solid Earth
SE
Articles | Volume 16, issue 6
Articles | Volume 16, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-457-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-457-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 16, issue 6
Method article
 | 
20 Jun 2025
Method article |  | 20 Jun 2025

On the choice of finite element for applications in geodynamics – Part 2: A comparison of simplex and hypercube elements

Cedric Thieulot and Wolfgang Bangerth

Viewed

Total article views: 5,630 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
4,316 918 396 5,630 232 346
  • HTML: 4,316
  • PDF: 918
  • XML: 396
  • Total: 5,630
  • BibTeX: 232
  • EndNote: 346
Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Jun 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Jun 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 5,630 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 5,584 with geography defined and 46 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 14 Jun 2026
Download
Short summary
One of the main numerical methods in geodynamics is the finite element method. Many types of elements have been used in the past decades in hundreds of publications. They usually fall under two categories: quadrilaterals and triangles. For the first time we compare results obtained with the most-used elements of each type on a series of geodynamical benchmarks and draw conclusions as to which are the best ones and which are to be preferably avoided.
Read more
Share