Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Numerical viscosity and resistivity in MHD turbulence simulations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.10350 v3 pith:ZN2VICGJ submitted 2023-11-17 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMphysics.flu-dynphysics.plasm-ph

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMphysics.flu-dynphysics.plasm-ph
keywords numericaldissipationsimulationsturbulencevaluesfactormagneticturb
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Accurate magnetohydrodynamical (MHD) turbulence simulations require understanding numerical dissipation. We quantify numerical viscosity and resistivity in subsonic (M=0.1) and supersonic (M=10) turbulence regimes. The hydrodynamic (Re) and magnetic Reynolds numbers (Rm) on the turbulence driving scale l_turb in a cubic domain of side length L with N^3 resolution elements are well-described by Re=[2(N/N_Re)(l_turb/L)]^p_Re and Rm=[2(N/N_Rm)(l_turb/L)]^p_Rm. We provide two sets of fit values of (N_Re,p_Re,N_Rm,p_Rm): one with p_Re & p_Rm fixed at their theoretical values, and the other one allowing all 4 parameters to vary. The sets for M=0.1 are (1.57_{-0.12}^{+0.10},4/3,1.55_{-0.14}^{+0.45},4/3) and (0.83_{-0.08}^{+0.09},1.20_{-0.02}^{+0.02},4.19_{-4.05}^{+2.95},1.60_{-0.33}^{+0.18}), respectively. For M=10, they are (3.55_{-0.56}^{+0.78},3/2,1.03_{-0.11}^{+0.12},3/2) and (10.46_{-0.85}^{+0.96},1.90_{-0.04}^{+0.04},0.44_{-0.23}^{+0.61},1.32_{-0.09}^{+0.17}). The resulting magnetic Prandtl numbers (Pm=Rm/Re) are consistent with constant values of 1.0_{-0.2}^{+0.3} for M=0.1, and 6.2_{-4.8}^{+5.6} for M=10. These apply when the magnetic energy (E_mag) is <10% of the kinetic energy (E_kin). When E_mag/E_kin~0.1-1, Rm is reduced by a factor~3 (increase in N_Rm by a factor~2) for M=0.1, while Rm for M=10 and Re (for any M) remain largely unaffected. We compare our Re-N relation with 14 other simulations from the literature, employing various numerical methods (with & without Riemann solvers, different reconstruction schemes & orders, and smoothed particle hydrodynamics), and find agreement within a factor of 3. Additionally, we compare these results to target Re and Rm values from simulations with explicit dissipation. These comparisons and our relations help users determine the Re and Rm achievable at a given N, ensuring physical dissipation dominates over numerical dissipation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Density fluctuation-Mach number scaling in compressible, high plasma beta turbulence: in-situ space observations and high-Reynolds number simulations

    astro-ph.SR 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Both high-beta spacecraft data and a 10,080-cubed MHD simulation show density fluctuation scaling linearly with turbulent Mach number, with a proportionality constant near unity.

  2. A comparison of the turbulent dynamo in weakly-collisional and collisional plasmas: from subsonic to supersonic turbulence

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The weakly-collisional turbulent dynamo resembles the collisional MHD dynamo, with inferred Reynolds numbers of about 480 and 690 for subsonic and supersonic turbulence.

Pith tools