Paper detail

A comparison between grid and particle methods on the statistics of driven, supersonic, isothermal turbulence

We compare the statistics of driven, supersonic turbulence at high Mach number using FLASH a widely used Eulerian grid-based code and PHANTOM, a Lagrangian SPH code at resolutions of up to 512^3 in both grid cells and SPH particles. We find excellent agreement between codes on the basic statistical properties: a slope of k^-1.95 in the velocity power spectrum for hydrodynamic, Mach 10 turbulence, evidence in both codes for a Kolmogorov-like slope of k^-5/3 in the variable rho^1/3 v as suggested by Kritsuk et al. and a log-normal PDF with a width that scales with Mach number and proportionality constant b=0.33-0.5 in the density variance-Mach number relation. The measured structure function slopes are not converged in either code at 512^3 elements. We find that, for measuring volumetric statistics such as the power spectrum slope and structure function scaling, SPH and grid codes give roughly comparable results when the number of SPH particles is approximately equal to the number of grid cells. In particular, to accurately measure the power spectrum slope in the inertial range, in the absence of subgrid models, requires at least 512^3 computational elements in either code. On the other hand the SPH code was found to be better at resolving dense structures, giving max. densities at a resolution of 128^3 particles that were similar those resolved in the grid code at 512^3 cells, reflected also in the high density tail of the PDF. We find SPH to be more dissipative at comparable numbers of computational elements in statistics of the velocity field, but correspondingly less dissipative than the grid code in the statistics of density weighted quantities such as rho^1/3 v. For SPH simulations of high Mach number turbulence we find it important to use sufficient non-linear beta-viscosity to prevent particle interpenetration in shocks (we require beta=4 instead of the default beta=2).

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.