4.7 Article

Smoothed particle magnetohydrodynamics -: III.: Multidimensional tests and the del•B=0 constraint

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 364, Issue 2, Pages 384-406

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09576.x

Keywords

magnetic fields; MHD; methods : numerical; stars : formation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In two previous papers (Papers I and II), we have described an algorithm for solving the equations of Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) using the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method. The algorithm uses dissipative terms in order to capture shocks and has been tested on a wide range of one-dimensional problems in both adiabatic and isothermal MHD. In this paper, we investigate multidimensional aspects of the algorithm, refining many of the aspects considered in Papers I and II and paying particular attention to the code's ability to maintain the del. B = 0 constraint associated with the magnetic field. In particular, we implement a hyperbolic divergence cleaning method recently proposed by Dedner et al. in combination with the consistent formulation of the MHD equations in the presence of non-zero magnetic divergence derived in Papers I and II. Various projection methods for maintaining the divergence-free condition are also examined. Finally, the algorithm is tested against a wide range of multidimensional problems used to test recent grid-based MHD codes. A particular finding of these tests is that in Smoothed Particle Magnetohydrodynamics (SPMHD), the magnitude of the divergence error is dependent on the number of neighbours used to calculate a particle's properties and only weakly dependent on the total number of particles. Whilst many improvements could still be made to the algorithm, our results suggest that the method is ripe for application to problems of current theoretical interest, such as that of star formation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available