Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:23:22.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Convergence of SPH and AMR simulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2011

David A. Hubber ,
Sam A. E. G. Falle  and
Simon P. Goodwin
David A. Hubber
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Hicks Building, Hounsfield Road, Sheffield, S3 7RH, UK School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
Sam A. E. G. Falle
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
Simon P. Goodwin
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Hicks Building, Hounsfield Road, Sheffield, S3 7RH, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We present the first results of a large suite of convergence tests between Adaptive Mesh Refinement (AMR) Finite Difference Hydrodynamics and Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations of the non-linear thin shell instability and the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. We find that the two methods converge in the limit of high resolution and accuracy. AMR and SPH simulations of the non-linear thin shell instability converge with each other with standard algorithms and parameters. The Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in SPH requires both an artificial conductivity term and a kernel with larger compact support and more neighbours (e.g. the quintic kernel) in order converge with AMR. For purely hydrodynamical problems, SPH simulations take an order of magnitude longer than the grid code when converged.

Keywords

hydrodynamicsmethods: numerical
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 6 , Symposium S270: Computational Star Formation , May 2010 , pp. 429 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2011

References

Agertz, O., Moore, B., Stadel, J., et al. , 2007, MNRAS, 380, 963Google Scholar
Chandrasekhar, S., 1961, ‘Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability’, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Federrath, C., Banerjee, R., Clark, P. C., Klessen, R. S., 2010, AJ, 713, 269Google Scholar
Gingold, R. A., & Monaghan, J. J., 1977, MNRAS, 181, 375Google Scholar
Hubber, D. A., Batty, C. P., McLeod, A., Whitworth, A. P., 2010, A&A, submittedGoogle Scholar
Lucy, L., 1977, AJ, 82, 1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junk, V., Walch, S., Heitsch, F., et al. , 2010, MNRAS, submittedGoogle Scholar
Monaghan, J. J., Lattanzio, J. C., 1985, A&A, 149, 135Google Scholar
Morris, J. P., 1996, PhD Thesis - ‘Analysis of Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics with Applications’, Monash UniversityGoogle Scholar
Price, D. J., 2008, JCoPh, 227, 10040Google Scholar
Read, J. I., Hayfield, T., Agertz, O., 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1513Google Scholar
Springel, V., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
vanLoo, S. Loo, S., Falle, S. A. E. G., Hartquist, T. W., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 975Google Scholar
Vishniac, E. T., 1994, ApJ, 428, 186CrossRefGoogle Scholar