Changes between Version 27 and Version 28 of u/EricasLibrary


Ignore:
Timestamp:
07/02/12 16:01:59 (12 years ago)
Author:
Erica Kaminski
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • u/EricasLibrary

    v27 v28  
     1== Numerics ==
     2=== AMR ===
     3
     4[[CollapsibleStart(Truelove, Klein, Mc Kee, et al. (‘98))]]
     5
     6[http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/495/2/821/pdf/36882.pdf Self-Gravitational hydrodynamics with 3d AMR: methodolgy and applications to molecular cloud collapse and fragmentation.]
     7
     8
     9=== Summary ===
     10Develops methods for AMR, dynamic grids that allot finer resolution over many length scales that is imperative for studying problems of gravitational collapse. The criteria for refinement is crucial, and it is the jeans condition. This sets the resolution smaller than the local Jean’s condition, allowing new benchmarks in the probing of the dynamics. They find uniformly rotating spherical clouds to collapse along the equatorial plane. When perturbed, these form ‘filamentary singularties’ that don’t fragment when isothermal.
     11
     12=== Methodology ===
     13This paper goes through in extensive detail on the 3 components of their code methodology: the hyperbolic solvers that employ the Gudonov method for solution of the hydro equations,  elliptic solvers that utilize AMR multigrid method to solve Poisson’s equation, and finally these two methods operation within an AMR framework. The use of stencils as different layers of cell-centered quantities used for averaging the node centered quantities (for self - gravity) is detailed. Paper refers to Almgren for discussion on AMR multigrid cycle procedures.
     14
     15=== AMR and refinement criteria ===
     16
     17Paper refers to Pember et al. (‘98) for a summary of the procedure for advancing grids. Their methods are based on Berger and Oliger (‘84), Berger and Collela (‘89), and Bell et al. (‘94).
     18
     19To trigger refinement from level 0 to level 1, the code employs a density criterion to cells that contain gas of the original cloud. Such cells are identified if they contain a density greater than or equal to 1/2 the original cloud density at the outer edge. This results in the level 0 cells effectively removing the boundary of the computational volume from the surface of the cloud. Jean's condition is than used for refinement to 2nd and higher levels (discussed below).
     20
     21
     22=== The Truelove criteria ===
     23
     24Jeans' analysis of the linearized 1D gravitohydrodynamic (GHD) equations of a medium of infinite extent lead to the expression for the jeans length:
     25
     26{{{#!latex
     27$ \lambda_j  = (\frac{\pi c_s^2}{G \rho})^{1/2}$
     28}}}
     29
     30which showed that perturbations that are larger than this are gravitationally unstable and collapse. Truelove ('97) showed that these instabilities can be triggered from numerical errors of the GHD solvers. Errors introduced on the cell scale at coarser grids can be transmitted to finer levels and can lead to 'artificial fragmentation'. A way to avoid this is to maintain resolution of the local jeans length. By defining:
     31
     32{{{#!latex
     33$ J =  \frac{\triangle x}{\lambda_j} $
     34}}}
     35
     36Truelove ('97) showed that keeping
     37
     38{{{#!latex
     39$ J \leqq 0.25$ 
     40}}}
     41
     42prevented artificial fragmentation of an isothermal cloud spanning 7 decades of density. It is expected to be necessary albeit not necessarily sufficient for isothermal collapse. By not having the resolution of gradients can trigger artificial viscosity (used for numerical stability), which can lead to an incorrect formulation of the problem originally deemed inviscid.
     43 
     44
     45
     46=== Poisson's boundary conditions ===
     47
     48The boundary condition they employ for self-gravity is periodic. They describe this as mimicking an infinite region of repeating boxes. Thus, when they model a cloud in the box using these boundary conditions, the solver for the gravity within this box, takes into account the gravitational effects of an infinite number of other spheres in boxes. To minimize the effect of these other spheres, they suggest making the distance between the center-to-center images d=4R. By increasing the d=8R, results in less gravitational pull by the mirrored clouds that hastens the collapse by only 1%.
     49
     50[[CollapsibleEnd]]
     51
     52=== Sink Particles ===
     53
     54[[CollapsibleStart(Fedderath, et al. (‘10))]]
     55
     56[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713..269F Modeling Collapse and Accretion in Turbulent Gas Clouds: Implementation and Comparison of Sink Particles in AMR and SPH]
     57
     58=== Background ===
     59
     60The numerical difficulty with modeling the collapse of a clump, while keeping track of the entire cloud, is given by the fact that the free-fall time, Tff, where
     61
     62 where
     63
     64
     65{{{#!latex
     66$ Tff = (3\pi / 32G\rho)^{1/2} $
     67}}}
     68
     69decreases with increasing density and so resolution of the subgrids is demanded over many dynamical time scales. The two methods thus far designed to deal with this matter are 'Jeans heating' and 'sink particles'. Sink particles are a more realistic methodology and was first developed for SPH by Bate et al. ('95). The algorithm was later adapted by Krumholz et al. ('04) for Eulerian AMR. This paper describes a more rigorous series of checks for sink formation.
     70
     71=== Sink Implentation ===
     72
     73Sink particles enable the star formation rate/star formation efficiency, and mass distribution, to be addressed in a robust and quantitative way.
     74
     75Sink algorithms originated from the notion of a density threshold. In earlier work, such a threshold was defined, and once surpassed, a sink particle was placed in the grid.
     76
     77The present work, however, has added in addition to this criterion, a series of checks to insure that sinks are formed only in gravitationally bound and collapsing structures. These are listed as follows:
     78
     79* Converging flow
     80* Bound system
     81* Jean's unstable
     82* Gravitational potential minima
     83
     84Else, under conditions such as shear, a sink may erroneously form.
     85
     86=== Tests ===
     87Tests included collapse of Bonner Ebert and singular isothermal spheres.
     88
     89[[CollapsibleEnd]]
     90
     91== Self Similarity Solutions for Collapse ==
     92
     93== Bonnor Ebert Spheres ==
     94
     95=== Collapse ===
     96
     97[[CollapsibleStart(Banerjee & Pudritz, et al. (‘04))]]
     98
     99
     100[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.355..248B The formation and evolution of protostellar discs; three-dimensional adaptive mesh refinement hydrosimulations of collapsing, rotating Bonnor-Ebert spheres]
     101
     102=== Summary ===
     1033d hydro, AMR simulations of rotating Bonnor Ebert spheres with varying degrees of initial rotation. Final collapse structures depend on the degree of rotation, with the general trend being slower rotation leads to bars/filaments, faster rotation leads to rings. Radiative cooling is incorporated into the model and a more complicated EOS.
     104
     105=== Methods ===
     106
     107Both high and low mass BE spheres were studied. All runs had an m=2 density perturbation. The EOS was more sophisticated than  earlier works in that it was a function of density and time.
     108
     109=== Results ===
     110
     111No fragmentation/non-central collapse in the isothermal regime.
     112
     113 Bars or rings form after the 'non-isothermal core' accretes surrounding gas and forms a disc.
     114
     115Temperature shocks form after the isothermal phase; as the core begins to hit up and halt the collapse, cold material from the envelope falls in and forms a shock front of temperature discontinuity. The inner shock front sets the conditions  that control subsequent disc structure and dynamics.
     116
     117
     118
     119
     120[[CollapsibleEnd]]
     121
     122
     123
     124=== Stability ===
     125
     126
     127[[CollapsibleStart(Foster and Chevalier (‘93))]]
     128
     129[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1993ApJ...416..303F&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf Gravitational Collapse of an Isothermal Sphere]
     130
     131=== Motivation ===
     132
     133While the collapse problem of an isothermal sphere is well studied, there remains some conflict on the correct analytic solution for the collapse. Larson and Penston (1969) produced a solution for the collapse problem that was later criticized by Shu (1977) as being ad hoc in some of the mathematical formulations. Later numerical studies by Hunter (1977), however, showed that the collapse does follow the LP solution. Despite this, the Shu solution remains the prominent treatment of the problem. The authors here set out to check which solution indeed describes the collapse problem.
     134
     135=== Summary ===
     136
     137The Shu solution begins from core formation (born out of a singular isothermal sphere) and initiates collapse into the medium through an 'expansion wave'. In contrast, the LP solution follows the collapse of a uniformly dense, static sphere prior to and up to core formation. Hunter, however, found that the LP solution can in fact be extended past core formation. The Shu solution evolves to a solution similar to homologous inflow like the LP solution.
     138
     139Foster and Chevalier ran simulations of a Bonner Ebert sphere with an outer density of 1/1000 the density at the outermost edge of the clump (my simulations used 1/100). The ambient therefore had a large sound speed throughout the constant pressure medium, that remained nearly constant throughout. Their results are robustly  similar to the LP solution.
     140
     141=== Stability Tests ===
     142
     143The 'marginally stable sphere' had a xi=xiCrit=6.451. A density enhancement of 1% above equilibrium value was needed to bring out expected stability behavior:
     144
     145* xi = 3, flow oscillated about v=0 for ~ 15 free fall times
     146* xi = 6.451, collapse happened in 5 ff times
     147* xi = 20, collapse happened in 6 ff times
     148
     149=== Collapse Results ===
     150
     151- Inflow is initially marked by velocity proportional to r for small r, peaking at xi = 2, and turning back to 0 velocity out toward edge of sphere.
     152
     153- Simulation approaches LP solution in center region.
     154
     155- Velocity smoothly transitions from homologous inflow to an inflow rate of ~ -3Cs after core formation.
     156
     157- Inner region evolves fast, outer evolves slow.
     158
     159- Core formation is not a subsonic adjustment of density with radius as Shu said. The inner regions collapse to a core supersonically.
     160
     161- Varying the boundary conditions/initial conditions did not change the behavior from tending to the LP solution. Likewise, neither did changing the perturbation conditions. The mass accretion rate, however, if it became constant, was proportional to the magnitude of the perturbation as Shu found.
     162
     163- Should compare anything to mass accretion rate?
     164
     165
     166
     167[[CollapsibleEnd]]
     168
     169
     170=== Rotation ===
     171
     172=== Multiple BE spheres ===
     173
     174== Molecular Clouds ==
     175
     176=== Lifetimes ===
     177
     178== Turbulence ==
     179
     180
     181
     182
     183
     184
     185