Paper detail

Comparison of two- and three-dimensional compressible convection in a pre-main sequence star

Extending our recent studies of two-dimensional stellar convection to 3D, we compare three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations to identically set-up two-dimensional simulations, for a realistic pre-main sequence star. We compare statistical quantities related to convective flows including: average velocity, vorticity, local enstrophy, and penetration depth beneath a convection zone. These statistics are produced during stationary, steady-state compressible convection in the star's convection zone. Our simulations with the MUSIC code confirm the common result that two-dimensional simulations of stellar convection have a higher magnitude of velocity on average than three-dimensional simulations. Boundary conditions and the extent of the spherical shell can affect the magnitude and variability of convective velocities. The difference between 2D and 3D velocities is dependent on these background points; in our simulations this can have an effect as large as the difference resulting from the dimensionality of the simulation. Nevertheless, radial velocities near the convective boundary are comparable in our 2D and 3D simulations. The average local enstrophy of the flow is lower for two-dimensional simulations than for three-dimensional simulations, indicating a different shape and structuring of 3D stellar convection. We perform a statistical analysis of the depth of convective penetration below the convection zone, using the model proposed in our recent study (Pratt et al. 2017). Here we analyze the convective penetration in three dimensional simulations, and compare the results to identically set-up 2D simulations. In 3D the penetration depth is as large as the penetration depth calculated from 2D simulations.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 authors2 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.