A numerical dynamo benchmark

142 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Mean-field concept and direct numerical simulations of rotating magnetoconvection and the geodynamo (2006, unknown): “The code has been validated by benchmarking it with other three-dimensional models (Christensen et al. 2001).”
Spherical convective dynamos in the rapidly rotating asymptotic regime (2016, methodology): “Both implementations use a toroidal-poloidal decomposition of the solenoidal vector fields u and B (equations 2.4,2.5), the same Crank-Nicolson/Adams-Bashforth semi-implicit adaptative time stepping scheme of second order in time, and are benchmarked against each other (Christensen et al. 2001).”
Geodynamo Simulations—How Realistic Are They? (2002, methodology): “…models designed to study the Earth’s core were developed a decade later (Glatzmaier & Roberts 1995a, Kageyama & Sato 1997, Kuang & Bloxham 1997, Kida et al. 1997, Busse et al. 1998, Christensen et al. 1998, Sakuraba & Kono 1999, Katayama et al. 1999, Hollerbach 2000, Christensen et al. 2001).”
The magnetic structure of convection-driven numerical dynamos (2008, methodology): “PARODY has been benchmarked against other major implementations (Christensen et al. 2001).”