Talk:Spectral element method

Mathematics Start‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

questionable statement

I cite: SEM, with fewer degrees of freedom per node,

I have the impression that the inverse is true: SEM has fewer nodes, but more degrees of freedom per node. J c stuifbergen 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Do not merge. The concepts are sufficiently distinct. Twbaroberts (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a low quality article. I removed most of the stuff which was not quite right and what's left is a stub. I think it would probably be best to simply merge it into finite element method.

Loisel 05:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the statement: "The only relationship it has with the spectral method is its good convergence properties." It is related to the multidomain Chebyshev psuedospectral method, so I don't think this statement is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.113.182 (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p-version and h-p version fem

Added a short note. But these would deserve their own article... Jmath666 (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Lee (Spectral Element Method in Structural Dynamics, 2009, p. 6), spectral element method in a form that is presented by Patera 1984, is only a class of finite element method. In the spectral element method, as it is understood currently, the idea is to formulate problem in a frequency domain, solve it, and then transform it into time domain using inverse of FFT. In the current form, this article is low quality and should be merged(away). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.24.11.118 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Development History

The page states the original development of the method was by Patera (1984). That article considered only CGL points, whereas the method usually implies the use of LGL points, which was considered by Maday and Patera (1989). However, that method was described as early as 1977 by Young (see links below). The equivalent hybrid collocation Galerkin method, developed at Rice University (Diaz, Wheeler, Rachford), appeared first in 1975. The linear version of the method is noted in Strang and Fix (1973) and the quadratic version was developed by Gray in 1977 and Hennart in 1982. In 1986 Leyk developed the method in a reorganization of the hybrid collocation Galerkin method. Most of these developments were independent of each other. The development history is covered in a recent article (see below).

I want to make changes to correct some of the misinformation on this page, but want to give you a heads up.

1977 paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284413721_A_preliminary_comparison_of_finite_element_methods_for_reservoir_simulation

1978/1983: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236367847_A_finite_element_method_for_reservoir_simulation

2019 paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004578251830522X — Preceding unsigned comment added by TilTech (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]