Hydromagnetic turbulence in computer simulations
By Axel Brandenburg, Wolfgang Dobler. 2001
201 citations recorded by the source corpus.
The usefulness of high-order schemes in astrophysical MHD turbulence simulations is discussed. Simple advection tests of hat profiles are used to compare schemes of different order. Higher order schemes generally need less explicit diffusion. In the case of a standing Burgers shock it is shown that the overall accuracy improves as the order of the scheme is increased. A memory efficient 3-step 2N-RK scheme is used. For cache efficiency, the entire set of equations is solved along pencils in the yz-plane. The advantage of solving for the magnetic vector potential is highlighted. Finally, results from a simulation of helical turbulence exhibiting large scale dynamo action are discussed.
Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Computational Mechanics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f1aff350689fcfe4101b8fd34894f90eaa273a78
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Astronomy and Astrophysics
- C. Pfrommer
- J. Papaloizou
- Anders Johansen
- roy Lesur
- Geo
- Torsten A. Ensslin
- Volker Springel
- Philip Armitage
In Computational Mechanics
- P. Hopkins
- J. Papaloizou
- Anders Johansen
- K. Subramanian
- Chao-Chin Yang
- roy Lesur
- Geo
- Torsten A. Ensslin
Citations in the corpus
- A new class of accurate, mesh-free hydrodynamic simulation methods (2014, methodology): “…to the method in PHURBAS (Maron et al. 2012) or FPM.16 We have also compared to fixed-grid Cartesian finite difference methods; specifically using the ZEUS code (Stone & Norman 1992), but this is similar in many tests to other methods like those in the PENCIL code (Brandenburg & Dobler 2002).”
- Concentrating small particles in protoplanetary disks through the streaming instability (2016, methodology): “To evolve this system of gas and particles, we use the Pencil Code2, a high-order finite-difference simulation code for astrophysical fluids and particles (Brandenburg & Dobler 2002).”
- THERMAL DIAGNOSTICS WITH THE ATMOSPHERIC IMAGING ASSEMBLY ON BOARD THE SOLAR DYNAMICS OBSERVATORY: A VALIDATED METHOD FOR DIFFERENTIAL EMISSION MEASURE INVERSIONS (2015, methodology): “The fully compressible MHD simulation was performed using the Pencil code (Brandenburg & Dobler 2002; Bingert & Peter 2011) and includes a realistic treatment of magnetic field aligned thermal conduction in the solar corona.”
- MHD simulations of the magnetorotational instability in a shearing box with zero net flux - I. The issue of convergence (2007, methodology): “…reason why this state of affairs should not apply when using Godunov codes like ATHENA (Gardiner & Stone 2005a) or RAMSES (Teyssier 2002; Fromang et al. 2006) or other codes making use of hyperviscosity to stabilise the numerical scheme, like the PENCIL code (Brandenburg & Dobler 2002) for example.”
- Cosmic ray transport in galaxy clusters: implications for radio halos, gamma-ray signatures, and cool core heating (2010, background): “6 Brandenburg & Dobler (2002); Brandenburg (2003); Hanasz & Lesch (2003); Snodin et al. (2006); Hanasz et al. (2010a,b).”
- MHD simulations of the magnetorotational instability in a shearing box with zero net flux II. The effect of transport coefficients (2007, methodology): “…are not strongly affected by numerical dissipation or numerical details such as, for example, the boundary conditions, we reproduced that simulation using three other codes: NIRVANA (Ziegler & Yorke 1997), a spectral code (Lesur & Longaretti 2007) and the PENCIL code (Brandenburg & Dobler 2002).”
- The excitation of spiral density waves through turbulent fluctuations in accretion discs – II. Numerical simulations with MRI-driven turbulence (2008, methodology): “We use the Pencil Code (see e.g. Brandenburg & Dobler 2002) to solve the MHD equations in the shearing box.”
- A comparative study of disc–planet interaction (2006, unknown): “…250 References: 1: Ziegler and Yorke (1997);2: Kley (1989);3: Hawley and Stone (1995);4: Masset (2000a);5: Masset (2000b);6: Klahr et al. (1999);7: Brandenburg and Dobler (2002); 8: Plewa and Müller (2001);9: Fryxell et al. (2000);10: Blondin and Lufkin (1993);11: Colella and Woodward (1984);12:…”