{"title":"关于地球动力学应用中有限元的选择。第二部分:单纯形元素和超立方体元素的比较","authors":"Cedric Thieulot, Wolfgang Bangerth","doi":"10.5194/egusphere-2024-1668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Abstract.</strong> Many geodynamical models are formulated in terms of the Stokes equations that are then coupled to other equations. For the numerical solution of the Stokes equations, geodynamics codes over the past decades have used essentially every finite element that has ever been proposed for the solution of this equation, on both triangular/tetrahedral (\"simplex\") and quadrilaterals/hexahedral (\"hypercube\") meshes. However, in many and perhaps most cases, the specific choice of element does not seem to have been the result of careful benchmarking efforts, but based on implementation efficiency or the implementers' background. In a first part of this paper (Thieulot & Bangerth, 2022), we have provided a comprehensive comparison of the accuracy and efficiency of the most widely used hypercube elements for the Stokes equations. We have done so using a number of benchmarks that illustrate \"typical\" geodynamic situations, specifically taking into account spatially variable viscosities. Our findings there showed that only Taylor-Hood-type elements with either continuous (<em>Q</em><sub>2</sub> × <em>Q</em><sub>1</sub>) or discontinuous (<em>Q</em><sub>2 </sub>× <em>P</em><sub>-1</sub>) pressure are able to adequately and efficiently approximate the solution of the Stokes equations. In this, the second part of this work, we extend the comparison to simplex meshes. In particular, we compare triangular Taylor-Hood elements against the MINI element and one often referred to as the \"Crouzeix-Raviart\" element. We compare these choices against the accuracy obtained on hypercube Taylor-Hood elements with approximately the same computational cost. Our results show that, like on hypercubes, the Taylor-Hood element is substantially more accurate and efficient than the other choices. Our results also indicate that hypercube meshes yield slightly more accurate results than simplex meshes, but that the difference is relatively small and likely unimportant given that hypercube meshes often lead to slightly denser (and consequently more expensive) matrices.","PeriodicalId":21912,"journal":{"name":"Solid Earth","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the choice of finite element for applications in geodynamics. Part II: A comparison of simplex and hypercube elements\",\"authors\":\"Cedric Thieulot, Wolfgang Bangerth\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/egusphere-2024-1668\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<strong>Abstract.</strong> Many geodynamical models are formulated in terms of the Stokes equations that are then coupled to other equations. For the numerical solution of the Stokes equations, geodynamics codes over the past decades have used essentially every finite element that has ever been proposed for the solution of this equation, on both triangular/tetrahedral (\\\"simplex\\\") and quadrilaterals/hexahedral (\\\"hypercube\\\") meshes. However, in many and perhaps most cases, the specific choice of element does not seem to have been the result of careful benchmarking efforts, but based on implementation efficiency or the implementers' background. In a first part of this paper (Thieulot & Bangerth, 2022), we have provided a comprehensive comparison of the accuracy and efficiency of the most widely used hypercube elements for the Stokes equations. We have done so using a number of benchmarks that illustrate \\\"typical\\\" geodynamic situations, specifically taking into account spatially variable viscosities. Our findings there showed that only Taylor-Hood-type elements with either continuous (<em>Q</em><sub>2</sub> × <em>Q</em><sub>1</sub>) or discontinuous (<em>Q</em><sub>2 </sub>× <em>P</em><sub>-1</sub>) pressure are able to adequately and efficiently approximate the solution of the Stokes equations. In this, the second part of this work, we extend the comparison to simplex meshes. In particular, we compare triangular Taylor-Hood elements against the MINI element and one often referred to as the \\\"Crouzeix-Raviart\\\" element. We compare these choices against the accuracy obtained on hypercube Taylor-Hood elements with approximately the same computational cost. Our results show that, like on hypercubes, the Taylor-Hood element is substantially more accurate and efficient than the other choices. Our results also indicate that hypercube meshes yield slightly more accurate results than simplex meshes, but that the difference is relatively small and likely unimportant given that hypercube meshes often lead to slightly denser (and consequently more expensive) matrices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Solid Earth\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Solid Earth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1668\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Solid Earth","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1668","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
On the choice of finite element for applications in geodynamics. Part II: A comparison of simplex and hypercube elements
Abstract. Many geodynamical models are formulated in terms of the Stokes equations that are then coupled to other equations. For the numerical solution of the Stokes equations, geodynamics codes over the past decades have used essentially every finite element that has ever been proposed for the solution of this equation, on both triangular/tetrahedral ("simplex") and quadrilaterals/hexahedral ("hypercube") meshes. However, in many and perhaps most cases, the specific choice of element does not seem to have been the result of careful benchmarking efforts, but based on implementation efficiency or the implementers' background. In a first part of this paper (Thieulot & Bangerth, 2022), we have provided a comprehensive comparison of the accuracy and efficiency of the most widely used hypercube elements for the Stokes equations. We have done so using a number of benchmarks that illustrate "typical" geodynamic situations, specifically taking into account spatially variable viscosities. Our findings there showed that only Taylor-Hood-type elements with either continuous (Q2 × Q1) or discontinuous (Q2 × P-1) pressure are able to adequately and efficiently approximate the solution of the Stokes equations. In this, the second part of this work, we extend the comparison to simplex meshes. In particular, we compare triangular Taylor-Hood elements against the MINI element and one often referred to as the "Crouzeix-Raviart" element. We compare these choices against the accuracy obtained on hypercube Taylor-Hood elements with approximately the same computational cost. Our results show that, like on hypercubes, the Taylor-Hood element is substantially more accurate and efficient than the other choices. Our results also indicate that hypercube meshes yield slightly more accurate results than simplex meshes, but that the difference is relatively small and likely unimportant given that hypercube meshes often lead to slightly denser (and consequently more expensive) matrices.
期刊介绍:
Solid Earth (SE) is a not-for-profit journal that publishes multidisciplinary research on the composition, structure, dynamics of the Earth from the surface to the deep interior at all spatial and temporal scales. The journal invites contributions encompassing observational, experimental, and theoretical investigations in the form of short communications, research articles, method articles, review articles, and discussion and commentaries on all aspects of the solid Earth (for details see manuscript types). Being interdisciplinary in scope, SE covers the following disciplines:
geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology;
geodesy and gravity;
geodynamics: numerical and analogue modeling of geoprocesses;
geoelectrics and electromagnetics;
geomagnetism;
geomorphology, morphotectonics, and paleoseismology;
rock physics;
seismics and seismology;
critical zone science (Earth''s permeable near-surface layer);
stratigraphy, sedimentology, and palaeontology;
rock deformation, structural geology, and tectonics.