We compare a particular selection of approximate solutions of the Riemann problem in the context of ideal relativistic magnetohydrodynamics. In particular, we focus on Riemann solvers not requiring a full eigenvector structure. Such solvers recover the solution of the Riemann problem by solving a simplified or reduced set of jump conditions, whose level of complexity depends on the intermediate modes that are included. Five different approaches - namely the HLL, HLLC, HLLD, HLLEM, and GFORCE schemes - are compared in terms of accuracy and robustness against one - and multidimensional standard numerical benchmarks. Our results demonstrate that - for weak or moderate magnetizations - the HLLD Riemann solver yields the most accurate results, followed by HLLC solver(s). The GFORCE approach provides a valid alternative to the HLL solver being less dissipative and equally robust for strongly magnetized environments. Finally, our tests show that the HLLEM Riemann solver is not cost-effective in improving the accuracy of the solution and reducing the numerical dissipation.

A comparison of approximate non-linear Riemann solvers for Relativistic MHD

Mignone, A
2022-01-01

Abstract

We compare a particular selection of approximate solutions of the Riemann problem in the context of ideal relativistic magnetohydrodynamics. In particular, we focus on Riemann solvers not requiring a full eigenvector structure. Such solvers recover the solution of the Riemann problem by solving a simplified or reduced set of jump conditions, whose level of complexity depends on the intermediate modes that are included. Five different approaches - namely the HLL, HLLC, HLLD, HLLEM, and GFORCE schemes - are compared in terms of accuracy and robustness against one - and multidimensional standard numerical benchmarks. Our results demonstrate that - for weak or moderate magnetizations - the HLLD Riemann solver yields the most accurate results, followed by HLLC solver(s). The GFORCE approach provides a valid alternative to the HLL solver being less dissipative and equally robust for strongly magnetized environments. Finally, our tests show that the HLLEM Riemann solver is not cost-effective in improving the accuracy of the solution and reducing the numerical dissipation.
2022
Inglese
Esperti anonimi
510
1
481
499
19
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510..481M/abstract
MHD; relativistic processes; shock waves; methods: numerical
GERMANIA
1 – prodotto con file in versione Open Access (allegherò il file al passo 6 - Carica)
262
2
Mattia, G; Mignone, A
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
open
03-CONTRIBUTO IN RIVISTA::03A-Articolo su Rivista
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2022.Mattia_Mignone.pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 2.14 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.14 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1841000
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact