Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Alexei Kritsuk
University of California, San Diego In collaboration with Rick Wagner, Mike Norman, & Paolo Padoan, UCSD
http://akpc.ucsd.edu/Isothermal
Outline
Motivation & Background Intermittency and simulations with AMR Turbulent structures at high Re Statistical properties: AMR vs. uniform grid Perspective Summary
0.02 pc
300 AU
Frisch 1995: . . . the number of degrees of freedom could be signicantly smaller than Re9/4 , thereby brightening the prospects for numerical simulations (but not on
uniform grids).
NASA ATP Review Panel Consensus 2004: . . . it is not clear whether AMR is
the appropriate approach to simulate turbulence since high resolution is needed for structure throughout the entire computational domain.
1/4
3 v0 0
3 3 v3 0 0
1/4
Re3/4
However, turbulent ows are NOT completely chaotic on both large and small scales it is expected that NDoF < Re9/4 , but how much smaller? K41 does not include intermittency, but fully developed turbulence at high Re is intermittent. Dimension of the most singular dissipative structures D < 3: D = 1 for incompressible turbulence (vortex laments) D = 2 for supersonic compressible turbulence (shocks) Volume lling factor of boxes covering dissipative structures scales as 3D , where is the box size; N D (e.g. von Koch curve, D = 1.2619. . . ) 3D 1+D this makes it promising for AMR applications, since (ideally) NDoF Re
5 Towards simulating turbulence with AMR
CMSO Workshop Madison WI, June 20-21, 2005
c Alexei Kritsuk
Our niche
Interplay of interstellar turbulence and star formation Turbulence and hierarchical structure of molecular clouds in
the context of multiphase ISM
6 Towards simulating turbulence with AMR
CMSO Workshop Madison WI, June 20-21, 2005
c Alexei Kritsuk
Our approach
Input 3D Euler equations Periodic box; Cartesian mesh Quasi-isothermal EOS ( = 1.001) Driven turbulence (Mach 6, solenoidal driving force with a constant pattern) High-order Godunov-type method (PPM), strong shocks are two-zones-wide Uniform grids 643 , 1283 , 2563 , 5123 , 10243 with PPM Also 5123 and 10243 simulations with the ZEUS solver for comparison Structured AMR with 12 levels of renement by 4 where needed (shocks & shear) Engine ENZO code for cosmology and astrophysics. Public since March 2004 Output Statistics of statistics
Towards simulating turbulence with AMR
CMSO Workshop Madison WI, June 20-21, 2005
c Alexei Kritsuk
Implosion Test
Sedov Blast
KH Instability
[0, 0.5].
1024AMR simulation with one level of renement by a factor of 4 was restarted from the 2563 data at t
corresponding 5123 datasets by regridding to ner 10243 grids. Then both were evolved up to
t = 0.5.
Towards simulating turbulence with AMR
CMSO Workshop Madison WI, June 20-21, 2005
c Alexei Kritsuk
Live structures
Follow the web links below to watch MPEG animations of (projected) gas density:
Full box projection Thick slice (100 zones across) Thin slice (one zone across)
The animations are based on the 1024AMR run and cover the evolution for t
10
11
12
13
Voids, as well as inactive windows within the high density regions, remain unrened. Towards simulating turbulence with AMR
CMSO Workshop Madison WI, June 20-21, 2005
c Alexei Kritsuk
14
Large-scale shocks are fragmented, consistent with observations of molecular gas by Brunt (2003)
Towards simulating turbulence with AMR
CMSO Workshop Madison WI, June 20-21, 2005
c Alexei Kritsuk
15
Mach angles of large-scale structures in this image correspond to relative motion with M 2 3
Towards simulating turbulence with AMR
CMSO Workshop Madison WI, June 20-21, 2005
c Alexei Kritsuk
16
Statistics of statistics
17
Density PDF
1024AMR 1024
18
-1
log10 P(k)
-2
19
-3
1024AMR 1024
1 Ev(k)
log10 k
5/3
20
0.5
1.5 log10 k
2.5
1024AMR 512
1 Ev(k)
21
log10 k 0 0
5/3
0.5
1.5 log10 k
2.5
1024AMR 256
1 Ev(k)
22
log10 k 0 0
5/3
0.5
1.5 log10 k
2.5
1024AMR 1024ZEUS
1 Ev(k)
23
log10 k 0 0
5/3
0.5
1.5 log10 k
2.5
24
1 Ev(k) log10 k 0 0
5/3
0.5
1.5 log10 k
2.5
25
log10 S (x)
26
log10 S (x)
2nd order velocity structure functions (1024 PPM) 2 lngP 0.98 trvP 0.93
27
1.5
log10 S (x)
0.5
2nd order velocity structure functions (1024 PPM and ZEUS) 2 lngP trvP lngZ trvZ
28
1.5
log10 S (x)
0.5
3rd order velocity structure functions (1024PPM) 3 lng 1.31 trv 1.23
29
2.5
2 log10 S (x)
3
1.5
0.5
3nd order velocity structure functions (1024 PPM and ZEUS) 3 lngP trvP lngZ trvZ
30
2.5
2 log10 S (x)
3
1.5
0.5
31
Transverse velocity structure functions: 1024 PPM vs. AMR 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -2 -1.5 -1 log10 x -0.5 0 PPM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AMR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
log10 S (x)
32
Longitudinal velocity structure functions: 1024 PPM vs. AMR 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -2 -1.5 -1 log10 x -0.5 0 PPM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AMR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
log10 S (x)
Perspective
Volume fraction covered by subgrids vs. their effective resolution.
33
Summary
Numerical simulations of MC turbulence with AMR return reasonable results For simulations of supersonic turbulence [with a high-order Godunov scheme], AMR is benecial at resolutions 109 High Re[solution] is needed to reproduce a complex pattern of nested hierarchical dense
structures in supersonic turbulent ows
34
These structures originate in (non)linear instabilities: Kelvin-Helmholtz instability [Helmholtz 1868] Nonlinear supersonic vortex sheet instability [Miles 1957] Nonlinear thin shell instability [Vishniac 1994] ... The instabilities, thus, may control the scaling properties of turbulence The fractal dimension of the dynamically important structures, 2 < D 2.3, is consistent
with observations [e.g., Elmegreen & Falgarone 1996; Chappell & Scalo 2001]