I am trying to understand the difference between SEM and FEM. If I go by this paper, spectral element methods are a subset of FEM methods and the only difference lies in the choice of basis functions. If this is the case, are there any advantages in using traditional FEM based Lagrange basis functions or SEM based on GLL Lagrange basis functions as this leads to dense matrices and bad condition numbers. In general, when would one prefer FEM over SEM if looking for high order methods?

Are there any open source libraries (ex. dealii, firedrake, fenics) that has SEM as a feature with all the common basis functions used in SEM (chebyshev, Legendre Galerkin or Lagrange basis using Gauss-Legendre-Lobatto or Gauss-Chebyshev Lobatto points).


The main advantage is that it reduces the Runge phenomenon and leads to faster convergence rates.

It also presents less numerical dispersion and need less nodes per wavelength (see 1 and 2). So, I would say that you would prefer the method for wave propagation scenarios.

Regarding software that includes SEM, I am aware of the following:

  • FSELib: Matlab software accompanying the book Introduction to Finite and Spectral Element Methods using Matlab.
  • Nektar: Spectral/HP FEM open code.
  • RegSEM: used for seismic waves mainly.
  • SPECFEM3D: used for seismic waves mainly.


  1. Ainsworth, Mark, and Hafiz Abdul Wajid. "Dispersive and dissipative behavior of the spectral element method." SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 47.5 (2009): 3910-3937.

  2. Guarín-Zapata, Nicolás, and Juan Gomez. "Evaluation of the spectral finite element method with the theory of phononic crystals." Journal of Computational Acoustics 23.02 (2015): 1550004.

  • $\begingroup$ At what point does Runge phenomena dominate when using Lagrange polynomials such that it necessitates the use of spectral elements? $\endgroup$
    – Paul
    Jun 12 '19 at 16:53
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Paul, I don't have an answer for that and I have not seen any work addressing that particular question. Ainsworth is, probably, the person that has covered more in that direction, though. Giving a tangential answer to your question, you would need at least polynomials of order 3 (4×4 elements) to see an improvement because for 3×3 elements you have the same sampling points but worse quadrature. $\endgroup$
    – nicoguaro
    Jun 12 '19 at 17:07

The SEM is a FEM! It's almost like all these different names are designed to confuse the newcomer. I will speak primarily about the most popular form which uses a tensor product Lagrange basis with nodes at the Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto (LGL) points. Once you have chosen that basis and integrate with the LGL quadrature using the same nodes. You have a method with some nice computational features - lumped mass matrix, no integrals to evaluate, no interpolations needed to evaluate coefficients, can use conventional isoparametric elements, computational molecules with star structure for rectangular grids. In fact, it is a collocation method. You will find additional information in a recent article I wrote at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2018.10.019. I found the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_element_method) so misleading I edited it recently, contradicting much of what was there.

  • $\begingroup$ Your answer is technically correct but I think that it does not address the OP question. $\endgroup$
    – nicoguaro
    Jan 29 '20 at 23:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question asked “are there any advantages”. I gave 5. $\endgroup$
    – L. Young
    Jan 30 '20 at 15:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.