A Sequel to AUSM

We present two new Lagrangian methods for hydrodynamics, in a systematic comparison with moving-mesh, smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), and stationary (non-moving) grid methods. The new methods are designed to simultaneously capture advantages of both SPH and grid-based/adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) schemes. They are based on a kernel discretization of the volume coupled to a high-order matrix gradient estimator and a Riemann solver acting over the volume ‘overlap’. We implement and test a parallel, second-order version of the method with self-gravity and cosmological integration, in the code gizmo:1 this maintains exact mass, energy and momentum conservation; exhibits superior angular momentum conservation compared to all other methods we study; does not require ‘artificial diffusion’ terms; and allows the fluid elements to move with the flow, so resolution is automatically adaptive. We consider a large suite of test problems, and find that on all problems the new methods appear competitive with moving-mesh schemes, with some advantages (particularly in angular momentum conservation), at the cost of enhanced noise. The new methods have many advantages versus SPH: proper convergence, good capturing of fluid-mixing instabilities, dramatically reduced ‘particle noise’ and numerical viscosity, more accurate sub-sonic flow evolution, and sharp shock-capturing. Advantages versus non-moving meshes include: automatic adaptivity, dramatically reduced advection errors and numerical overmixing, velocity-independent errors, accurate coupling to gravity, good angular momentum conservation and elimination of ‘grid alignment’ effects. We can, for example, follow hundreds of orbits of gaseous discs, while AMR and SPH methods break down in a few orbits. However, fixed meshes minimize ‘grid noise’. These differences are important for a range of astrophysical problems.

A new class of accurate, mesh-free hydrodynamic simulation methods

The aims of this paper are threefold: to increase the level of awareness within the shock-capturing community of the fact that many Godunov-type methods contain subtle flaws that can cause spurious solutions to be computed; to identify one mechanism that might thwart attempts to produce very-high-resolution simulations; and to proffer a simple strategy for overcoming the specific failings of individual Riemann solvers.

/pdf/a-contribution-to-the-great-riemann-solver-debate-54n7nbyg4g.pdf

S. Imlay

Papers

Blunt-body flow simulations