4.6 Article

Benchmark problems for continuum radiative transfer High optical depths, anisotropic scattering, and polarisation

Journal

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
Volume 498, Issue 3, Pages 967-980

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811555

Keywords

radiative transfer; circumstellar matter; accretion, accretion disks; planetary systems: protoplanetary disks; methods: numerical

Funding

  1. European Commission's Seventh Framework Program as a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellow [PIEF-GA-2008-220891]
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F003277/1, PP/E001181/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. STFC [ST/F003277/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims. Solving the continuum radiative transfer equation in high opacity media requires sophisticated numerical tools. In order to test the reliability of such tools, we present a benchmark of radiative transfer codes in a 2D disc configuration. Methods. We test the accuracy of seven independently developed radiative transfer codes by comparing the temperature structures, spectral energy distributions, scattered light images, and linear polarisation maps that each model predicts for a variety of disc opacities and viewing angles. The test cases have been chosen to be numerically challenging, with midplane optical depths up 106, a sharp density transition at the inner edge and complex scattering matrices. We also review recent progress in the implementation of the Monte Carlo method that allow an efficient solution to these kinds of problems and discuss the advantages and limitations of Monte Carlo codes compared to those of discrete ordinate codes. Results. For each of the test cases, the predicted results from the radiative transfer codes are within good agreement. The results indicate that these codes can be confidently used to interpret present and future observations of protoplanetary discs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available