Paper detail

Convergence of simulations of self-gravitating accretion discs II: Sensitivity to the implementation of radiative cooling and artificial viscosity

Recently it has been suggested that the fragmentation boundary in Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) and FARGO simulations of self-gravitating accretion discs with beta-cooling do not converge as resolution is increased. Furthermore, this recent work suggests that by carefully optimising the artificial viscosity parameters in these codes it can be shown that fragmentation may occur for much longer cooling times than earlier work suggests. If correct, this result is intriguing as it suggests that gas giant planets could form, via direct gravitational collapse, reasonably close to their parent stars. This result is, however, slightly surprising and there have been a number of recent studies suggesting that the result is likely an indication of a numerical problem with the simulations. One suggestion, in particular, is that the SPH results are influenced by the manner in which the cooling is implemented. We extend this work here and show that if the cooling is implemented in a manner that removes a known numerical artefact in the shock regions, the fragmentation boundary converges to a value consistent with earlier work and that fragmentation is unlikely for the long cooling times suggested by this recent work. We also investigate the optimisation of the artificial viscosity parameters and show that the values that appear optimal are likely introducing numerical problems in both the SPH and FARGO simulations. We therefore conclude that earlier predictions for the cooling times required for fragmentation are likely correct and that, as suggested by this earlier work, fragmentation cannot occur in the inner parts (r < 50 au) of typical protostellar discs.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.