1: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: %\documentstyle{article}

4: \input epsf

5: 

6: \newcommand\bs{\hspace{-0.25cm}}

7: \newcommand\bss{\hspace{-0.07cm}}

8: 

9: \newcommand\tablevar       {1}

10: \newcommand\tablek         {2}

11: \newcommand\tableop        {3}

12: \newcommand\tablesim       {4}

13: 

14: 

15: 

16: \newcommand\figstencil     {1}

17: \newcommand\figct          {2}

18: \newcommand\figalfven      {3}

19: \newcommand\figdynamo      {4}

20: \newcommand\figalfvenb     {5}

21: \newcommand\figstagger     {6}

22: 

23: 

24: \newcommand\aaa{{\bf a}}

25: \newcommand\B{{\bf B}}

26: %\newcommand\k{{\bf k}}

27: \newcommand\E{{\bf E}}

28: \newcommand\J{{\bf J}}

29: \newcommand\bb{{\bf B}}

30: \newcommand\f{{\bf f}}

31: \newcommand\kk{{\bf k}}

32: \newcommand\s{{\bf s}}

33: \newcommand\U{{\bf U}}

34: \newcommand\V{{\bf V}}

35: \newcommand\A{{\bf A}}

36: \newcommand\vv{{\bf V}}

37: \newcommand\x{{\bf x}}

38: \newcommand\zze{{\bf \zeta}}

39: \newcommand\bnabla{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

40: \newcommand\hh{\hspace{1mm}}

41: \newcommand\h{\hspace{-2mm}}

42: 

43: %\newcommand\bxi{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}}

44: %\newcommand\bomega{\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}}

45: \newcommand\smf{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf}

46: \newcommand\spa{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{Pade}}

47: \newcommand\spf{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{FD}}

48: %\newcommand\refnew#1{(\ref{#1})}

49: %\newcommand\lesssim

50: %{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}

51: %\newcommand\gtrsim

52: %{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}

53: %\\smf{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf}

54: 

55: %\documentstyle{article}

56: %\documentstyle[psfig,../aasms4]{article}

57: %\documentclass[12pt]{cit_thesis}

58: %\usepackage{epsf,times,latexsym}

59: 

60: %\pagestyle{empty}

61: %\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.0in}

62: %\setlength{\headheight}{0in}

63: %\setlength{\headsep}{0in}

64: %\setlength{\voffset}{0in}

65: %\setlength{\textwidth}{7.25in}

66: %\setlength{\textheight}{10.5in}

67: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{.5in}

68: %\setlength{\evensidemargin}{.5in}

69: 

70: %\addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.6in}

71: %\addtolength{\evensidemargin}{-0.6in}

72: %\addtolength{\topmargin}{-1.0in}

73: %\addtolength{\textwidth}{1.2in}

74: %\addtolength{\textheight}{1.5in}

75: %\setlength{\parskip}{0.15in}

76: 

77: 

78: \begin{document}

79: 

80: \nonumber

81: \setcounter{equation}{0}

82: 

83: \title{A constrained-transport magnetohydrodynamics algorithm with

84: near-spectral resolution.}

85: 

86: %\title{A finite difference magnetohydrodynamics algorithm with near

87: %ideal wavenumber resolution using high-order volume-centered constrained

88: %transport and tuned gradients.}

89: 

90: \author{Jason L. Maron\altaffilmark{1}}

91: \author{Mordecai-Mark Mac Low\altaffilmark{2}}

92: \author{Jeffrey S. Oishi\altaffilmark{3}}

93: \affil{Department of Astrophysics, American Museum of Natural History,

94: 79th Street at Central Park West, New York, NY 10024-5192}

95: \altaffiltext{1}{badger@amnh.org}

96: \altaffiltext{2}{mordecai@amnh.org}

97: \altaffiltext{3}{Also Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia,

98:   Charlottesville, VA; joishi@amnh.org}

99: 

100: 

101: \begin{abstract}

102: 

103: Numerical simulations including magnetic fields have become important

104: in many fields of astrophysics.  Evolution of magnetic fields by the

105: constrained transport algorithm preserves magnetic divergence to

106: machine precision, and thus represents one preferred method for the

107: inclusion of magnetic fields in simulations.  We show that constrained

108: transport can be implemented with volume-centered fields and

109: hyperresistivity on a high-order finite difference

110: stencil. Additionally, the finite-difference coefficients can be tuned

111: to enhance high-wavenumber resolution. Similar techniques can be used

112: for the interpolations required for dealiasing corrections at high

113: wavenumber.  Together, these measures yield an algorithm with a

114: wavenumber resolution that approaches the theoretical maximum achieved

115: by spectral algorithms.  Because this algorithm uses finite

116: differences instead of fast Fourier transforms, it runs faster and

117: isn't restricted to periodic boundary conditions.  Also, since the

118: finite differences are spatially local, this algorithm is easily

119: scalable to thousands of processors.  We demonstrate that, for

120: low-Mach-number turbulence, the results agree well with a high-order,

121: non-constrained-transport scheme with Poisson divergence cleaning.

122: 

123: \end{abstract}

124: 

125: 

126: \section{Introduction} \label{ct}

127: 

128: 

129: Many astrophysical flows involve dynamically significant magnetic fields, such

130: as molecular clouds, accretion disks, the galactic dynamo, jets, galaxy

131: clusters, stellar dynamos and coronae, the solar wind and the interstellar

132: medium. These problems tend to be three-dimensional, multiscale and turbulent,

133: so there is an ongoing interest in developing high-resolution and efficient

134: magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) algorithms for them. In this paper, we

135: outline an extension of the constrained transport algorithm (Evans \& Hawley

136: 1988) to the combination of higher spatial order and zone-centered grids, and

137: with resolution-enhanced tuned derivatives.  We then describe how these

138: measures fit together to yield an algorithm that closely approaches the

139: theoretical maximum wavenumber resolution of spectral algorithms.

140: 

141: \subsection{Constrained transport}

142: 

143: The induction equation for a magnetic field $\B$ and a velocity field $\V$

144: in ideal MHD is

145: \begin{equation}

146: \partial_t \B = \bnabla \times (\V \times \B). \label{eqct}

147: \end{equation}

148: Analytically, this equation conserves magnetic divergence: $\partial_t

149: (\bnabla \cdot \B) = 0$.  However, this may or may not be the case for

150: a finite-difference treatment of this equation.  T\'{o}th (2000)

151: reviews the methods taken by various algorithms to treat the

152: divergence in MHD simulations.  A spectral code explicitly projects

153: the Fourier components so that $\hat{\B}(\kk) \cdot \kk = 0$. For a

154: finite difference code, the magnetic field can be evolved by a

155: constrained transport scheme that preserves the magnetic divergence to

156: machine precision (Evans \& Hawley 1988).  Alternatively, if the

157: discretization doesn't conserve magnetic divergence, the divergence

158: can be removed with measures such as periodic use of a Poisson solver

159: (Brackbill \& Barnes 1980), adding a divergence diffusion term

160: $\partial_t \B = \bnabla \bnabla \cdot \B$ to the magnetic evolution,

161: or following an artificial and independently evolving divergence field

162: (Dedner et al.\ 2002) to propagate divergence away from where it is

163: produced and then dissipate it. The Powell scheme (Powell et al.\

164: 1999) adds a source term to advect divergence rather than let it grow

165: in place.  A finite difference code can also employ a vector potential

166: ${\bf A}$ such that $\B = \bnabla \times {\bf A}$, in which case the

167: magnetic divergence is automatically zero.  This requires the use of a

168: higher-order advection algorithm to ensure accurate

169: second-derivatives, as is done in the Pencil code (Brandenburg \&

170: Dobler 2002).

171: 

172: We denote any finite difference scheme for MHD that explicitly conserves the

173: magnetic divergence to machine precision

174: as constrained transport (CT), and any scheme that does not as

175: unconstrained transport (UT). Several variations of CT

176: are possible.  If the electric field is differenced as a curl: $\partial_t \B =

177: - \bnabla \times \E,$ 

178: then the magnetic divergence is preserved to machine

179: precision for most grid types (see Appendix).  Evans \& Hawley (1988)

180: introduced CT for staggered grids and T\'{o}th (2000)

181: showed that it works for centered grids as well (see the Appendix

182: for explanation of centered and staggered grids).  Londrillo \& Del Zanna

183: (2000) further showed that high-order CT is possible on

184: staggered grids with a radius-two stencil. In this paper, we show that

185: volume-centered CT is possible on arbitrarily large stencil

186: sizes, with hyperresistivity, and that the resolution of this algorithm

187: at moderately high order approaches the theoretical maximum exhibited by a

188: spectral code.

189: 

190: 

191: In \S~\ref{algorithms}, we discuss the specifics of the algorithm, and

192: in \S~\ref{simulations}, we describe test simulations that demonstrate

193: the capabilities of 

194: CT with high-order spatial derivatives.

195: 

196: \section{Algorithms} \label{algorithms}

197: 

198: Our algorithm is based on a constrained transport scheme, plus

199: measures to enhance the resolution and maintain stability.  High

200: wavenumber resolution is achieved by a combination of high-order and

201: tuned finite differences plus hyperdiffusivity, and stability is

202: achieved by Runge-Kutta timestepping and hyperdiffusivity.

203: 

204: \subsection{Timestepping}

205: 

206: A high-order timestepping scheme for the

207: evolution equations is essential for the

208: stability of most algorithms. The time update for a variable $Q(t)$ is

209: $Q(\Delta t) = Q(0) + \Delta t Q^*$, where $Q^*$ represents some

210: estimate of $\int_0^{\Delta t} \partial_t Q(t) dt$. One example is the

211: second-order Runge-Kutta scheme, which estimates $Q(\Delta t/2)

212: \approx Q(0) + (\Delta t / 2) Q^\prime(0),$ and then identifies $Q^* =

213: Q^\prime(\Delta t/2)$. Another class of algorithms maintains the

214: conservation of mass and momentum by computing fluxes through zone

215: boundaries. A variety of techniques exist for time-extrapolating the

216: fluxes at $t=\Delta t/2$, such as piecewise parabolic advection

217: (Colella and Woodward 1984), Total Variation Diminishing (Harten

218: 1983), Riemann solvers (Toro 1999), the method of characteristics

219: (Stone \& Norman 1992a, Hawley \& Stone 1995), and many more. MHD

220: poses a challenge to time extrapolation because there are seven or

221: eight wavemode characteristics, depending on the technique used for

222: treating magnetic divergence.  In particular, the well-known

223: method-of-characteristics algorithm interpolates along the Alfv\'en

224: characteristic while neglecting the fast and slow mode

225: characteristics.  For our simulations, we use Runge-Kutta for

226: time-extrapolation because it doesn't invoke any diffusive spatial

227: interpolations (\S~\ref{diffusivity}), and because it automatically

228: captures all three MHD wavemode types.  In our demonstration

229: implementation, we use second-order Runge-Kutta while the Pencil code

230: (Brandenburg \& Dobler 2002) uses third-order, although either order has

231: proven successful.

232: 

233: \subsection{Diffusivity} \label{diffusivity}

234: 

235: 

236: A common class of algorithms is based on momentum fluxes that are

237: time-extrapolated with upwind spatial interpolations.  The errors from

238: the interpolations required for these flux transport algorithms

239: produce an intrinsic diffusivity that can stabilize the evolution,

240: even in the absence of any explicit diffusive terms.

241: The nature and magnitude of the diffusivity has been characterized in

242: Zhong (1998) and Dobler et al (2006).

243: 

244: Runge-Kutta timestepping, on the other hand, has no spatial

245: interpolations, and thus no intrinsic diffusivity.

246: One then generally needs an explicit stabilizing diffusivity.

247: One has various options for the form of this diffusivity, with

248: Laplacian or hyper-Laplacian typically chosen.

249: These diffusivities have the benefit that their magnitude is easily

250: characterized, and the diffusive coefficient can be tuned to have the

251: minimum value necessary to preserve stability. Consider:

252: \begin{equation}

253: \partial_t \V =

254:   \nu_{\smf 2} \bnabla^2 \V

255: - \nu_{\smf 4} \bnabla^4 \V

256: + \nu_{\smf 6} \bnabla^6 \V

257: - \nu_{\smf [4]} \bnabla^{[4]} \V.

258: \end{equation}

259: Let the Fourier components be

260: $\hat{\V}(\kk),$ where $\kk = \{k_x, k_y, k_z\}$ is

261: the wavenumber.

262: They evolve according to

263: \begin{equation}

264: \partial_t \hat{\V}(\kk) =

265: - \nu_{\smf 2} \kk^2 \hat{\V}(\kk)

266: - \nu_{\smf 4} \kk^4 \hat{\V}(\kk)

267: - \nu_{\smf 6} \kk^6 \hat{\V}(\kk).

268: - \nu_{\smf [4]} (k_x^4 + k_y^4 + k_z^4) \hat{\V}(\kk).

269: \end{equation}

270: The $\nu_{\smf 2}$ term is the Laplacian viscosity and the others are

271: higher-order hyperdiffusivities. Specifically, $\bnabla^4 = \bnabla^2

272: \bnabla^2,$ $\bnabla^6 = \bnabla^2 \bnabla^2 \bnabla^2,$ and

273: $\bnabla^{[4]} = \partial_x^4 + \partial_y^4 + \partial_z^4.$

274: They differ in that

275: the higher the order, the more selective they are in diffusing high-k

276: structure while preserving low-k structure. Equivalently stated, high-order

277: hyperdiffusivities erase small-scale structure without affecting the larger

278: scales. For many physical applications, such as the

279: turbulent magnetic dynamo, the large scale structure is

280: unaffected by the nature of the small-scale diffusivity

281: (Haugen \& Brandenburg 2004), and so

282: in these instances, the use of hyperdiffusivity instead of Laplacian

283: diffusivity enhances the wavenumber resolution.

284: 

285: The $\bnabla^4$ operator is spherically symmetric in Fourier space

286: while the $\bnabla^{[4]}$ operator is not.  This affects the maximum-possible

287: timestep because in order to

288: be advectively stable, the Courant condition implies that the product $|k|

289: \Delta t$ must be less than a given value, and so the high-k corners of the 3D

290: Fourier cube are the most vulnerable to advective instability.

291: In these corners, the $\bnabla^4$ term delivers more diffusion

292: than the $\bnabla^{[4]}$ term, but with a

293: cost of twice as many finite difference operations.

294: 

295: Hyperdiffusivity acts together with high-order finite differences to

296: enhance the resolution of a simulation. High-order finite differences

297: allows structure to be finite differenced with less error,

298: and hyperdiffusivity allows this structure to evolve with less dissipation

299: than it would with Laplacian diffusivity.

300: 

301: 

302: Hyperdiffusivity can benefit the timestep as well as the resolution.  Suppose

303: one chooses the Laplacian term to provide the dominant fraction of the

304: diffusivity.  One typically then evaluates by trial and error the minimum value

305: of $\nu_{\smf 2}$ and the maximum timestep $\Delta t$ that one can get away

306: with to maintain stability. Once these values are chosen, the addition of a

307: small measure of hyperdiffusivity, small enough so as not to contribute

308: significantly to the total diffusivity, but large enough to affect the

309: highest-k structure, increases the maximum stable timestep by about 50\%.  This

310: technique works because the highest-wavenumber structure is the most vulnerable

311: to instability, and so the timestep depends most critically on the value of the

312: diffusivity for these wavenumbers.

313: 

314: One could additionally note that ``maximum stable timestep" is not sharply

315: defined. For instance, a timestep at the cusp of stability might be

316: unstable, but only after perhaps more than 10 timesteps. Also, the maximum

317: stable timestep depends on the maximum value of the velocity in the simulation,

318: which is changing in time.

319: 

320: \subsection{Magnetohydrodynamic equations}

321: 

322: The equations of incompressible MHD with diffusivity and hyperdiffusivity are

323: \begin{equation}

324: \partial_t \V = - \V \cdot \bnabla \V + \B \cdot \bnabla \B

325: + \nu_{\smf 2} \bnabla^2 \V

326: - \nu_{\smf 4} \bnabla^4 \V \label{equtv}

327: - \nu_{\smf [4]} \bnabla^{[4]} \V \label{equtv}

328: + \nu_{\smf 6} \bnabla^6 \V \label{equtv}

329: + \nu_{\smf [6]} \bnabla^{[6]} \V \label{equtv}

330: + \nu_{\smf D} \bnabla \bnabla \cdot  \V

331: \label{eqctv}

332: \end{equation}

333: \begin{equation}

334: \partial_t \B

335: =

336: \bnabla \times \left[

337: {\bf V} \times {\bf B}

338: - \eta_{\smf 2}     {\bf J}

339: + \eta_{\smf 4}     \bnabla^2 {\bf J}

340: - \eta_{\smf 6}     \bnabla^4 {\bf J}

341: - \eta_{\smf 2,[4]} \bnabla^[4] {\bf J}

342: \bf \right]

343: + \eta_{\smf D} \bnabla \bnabla \cdot \B

344: \label{eqctb}

345: \end{equation}

346: \begin{equation}

347: \J = \bnabla \times \B

348: \end{equation}

349: 

350: \begin{table}

351: \begin{center}

352: \begin{tabular}{

353: ll @{\hspace{25mm}}

354: ll}

355: \hline

356: \V         & Velocity   &  \B       & Magnetic field\\

357: 

358: %{\bf E}    & Electric field &

359:               & &

360: \J & Current ($\bnabla \times \B$) \\

361: 

362: $\nu_{\smf 2}$    & Laplacian Viscosity   &

363: $\eta_{\smf 2}$ & Laplacian resistivity\\

364: 

365: $\nu_{\smf 4}$    & Hyperviscosity for $\bnabla^4$ &

366: $\eta_{\smf 4}$   & Hyperresistivity for $\bnabla^4$ \\

367: 

368: $\nu_{\smf [4]}$  & Hyperviscosity for $\bnabla^{[4]}$ &

369: $\eta_{\smf [4]}$ & Hyperresistivity for $\bnabla^{[4]}$ \\

370: 

371: $\nu_{\smf 6}$    & Hyperviscosity for $\bnabla^6$ &

372: $\eta_{\smf 6}$   & Hyperresistivity for $\bnabla^6 $ \\

373: 

374: $\nu_{\smf 2,[4]}$ & Hyperviscosity for $\bnabla^2 \bnabla^{[4]}$ &

375: $\eta_{\smf 2,[4]}$& Hyperresistivity for $\bnabla^2 \bnabla^{[4]}$ \\

376: 

377: $\nu_{\smf [6]}$  & Hyperviscosity for $\bnabla^{[6]}$ &

378: $\eta_{\smf [6]}$ & Hyperresistivity for $\bnabla^{[6]}$ \\

379: 

380: $\nu_{\smf D}$    & Divergence viscosity &

381: $\eta_{\smf D}$   & Divergence resistivity\\

382: \hline

383: \end{tabular}

384: \end{center}

385: \caption{ \label{tablevar}

386: Variables in the equations of MHD}.

387: \end{table}

388: 

389: 

390: The variables are defined in Table (\ref{tablevar}).  The magnetic

391: equation~(\ref{eqctb}) is written as a curl so that the contrained

392: transport scheme can preserve the magnetic divergence (Appendix).  The

393: remaining term proportional to $\eta_{\smf D}$ outside of the curl has

394: the effect of diffusing away any magnetic divergence present, and does

395: nothing otherwise (\S~\ref{divergence}).  Similarly, the term

396: proportional to $\nu_{\smf D}$ term can be used to help quell kinetic

397: divergence in incompressible simulations, although for the simulations

398: in this paper we use a spectral projection to accomplish this.

399: 

400: We clarify the meaning of equation~(\ref{eqctb}),

401: by assuming that $\bnabla \cdot \B = 0:$

402: \begin{displaymath}

403: \partial_t \B

404: = \B \cdot \bnabla \V - \V \cdot \bnabla \B - \B \, \bnabla \cdot \V

405: \end{displaymath}

406: \begin{equation}

407: \label{laplaceb}

408: + \eta_{\smf 2}     \bnabla^2 \B

409: - \eta_{\smf 4}     \bnabla^4 \B

410: + \eta_{\smf 6}     \bnabla^6 \B

411: + \eta_{\smf 2,[4]} \bnabla^2 \bnabla^{[4]} \B

412: + \eta_{\smf D}     \bnabla \bnabla \cdot \B

413: \end{equation}

414: The $\J$ terms in equation~(\ref{eqctb}) are seen to have the role of

415: diffusivities in equation~(\ref{laplaceb}). In the simulations in

416: \S~\ref{simulations}, we use equation~(\ref{eqctb}) for

417: constrained transport and equation~(\ref{laplaceb})

418: for unconstrained transport.

419: 

420: Time centering of the staggered-grid and centered-grid constrained

421: transport equations encounter a similar circumstance as with the

422: kinetic equation.  In the staggered-grid constrained transport

423: configuration employed by Hawley and Stone (1995), the electric fields

424: are spatially interpolated from the nearest 8 velocity and magnetic

425: field vectors, and they are also time-interpolated to the next half

426: step with an Alfv\'en wave Method of Characteristics scheme (Hawley

427: and Stone 1995).  The implicit diffusivity inherent in these

428: interpolations stabilizes the magnetic field evolution, even in the

429: absence of explicit diffusivity.  For Runge-Kutta timestepping

430: on a centered grid, there are no spatial interpolations in

431: constructing the electric field, and no accompanying intrinsic

432: diffusivity. Some form of diffusivity is then generally required to maintain

433: stability.

434: 

435: 

436: 

437: \subsection{Divergence} \label{divergence}

438: 

439: 

440: In a constrained transport simulation, the magnetic divergence remains

441: zero to machine precision. For unconstrained transport, we set the

442: magnetic divergence to zero with a Poisson projection in Fourier space

443: once every four timesteps. In tests, we found that the evolution is

444: virtually identical whether the divergence is removed once every

445: timestep or once every four timesteps (Maron 2004), and in both cases

446: the fractional magnetic divergence remains below one percent.  For

447: both constrained and unconstrained transport simulations of

448: incompressible flow that we describe below, the kinetic divergence is

449: removed once every timestep in Fourier space, although for

450: quasi-incompressible flow, it suffices to do this only once every few

451: timesteps (Maron 2004).

452: 

453: The divergence diffusivity term $\partial_t \B = \eta_{\smf D} \bnabla

454: \bnabla \cdot \B$ is helpful for reducing the effect of magnetic

455: divergence in the timesteps between Poisson projections.  It diffuses

456: any magnetic divergence present, but otherwise does nothing. If

457: each Fourier component has the form $\hat{\B}({\bf k}) =

458: \hat{\B}_\parallel {\bf k} / |{\bf k}| + \hat{\B}_\perp$, then the

459: $\bnabla \bnabla \cdot \B$ term evolves $\hat{\B}$ as $\partial_t

460: \hat{\B}_\parallel = - k^2 \hat{\B}_\parallel$ and $\partial_t

461: \hat{\B}_{\perp} = 0$.  The divergence diffusivity is also helpful for

462: a constrained transport simulation. Without it, CT preserves the

463: magnetic divergence but does nothing to remove it. With the divergence

464: diffusivity, any divergence present is diffused away.

465: 

466: 

467: \subsection{Initialization} \label{initial}

468: 

469: The constrained transport algorithm evolves the magnetic field in such

470: a way as to conserve magnetic divergence. If the initial conditions

471: have zero divergence, the divergence remains zero indefinitely.

472: Even if any monopoles do grow slowly, they can be removed at negligible

473: computational expense with a Fourier projection, say, once every thousand

474: timesteps.Care

475: must be taken with the initial conditions, however, because the

476: divergence depends on the method for approximately evaluating

477: derivatives. One may use, for example, a spectral or a finite

478: difference divergence operator. For constrained transport to work, the

479: derivatives used for making the initial conditions divergenceless must

480: be the same as those used in the simulation.  Even an analytic

481: function with vanishing divergence may not have vanishing numerical

482: divergence.

483: 

484: 

485: To initialize the magnetic field, we apply the following procedure.

486: In three dimensions, let the wavenumbers for the

487: magnetic field Fourier components $\hat{\B}$

488: be ${\bf k}$, the length of each side of the simulation volume be

489: ${\bf L}$, and the number of grid zones on each side be ${\bf N}$. If

490: the magnetic divergence is defined spectrally, then the constraint on

491: the magnetic field is $\hat{\B}({\bf k}) \cdot {\bf k} = 0$.

492: For a finite difference derivative the constraint is slightly different.

493: If we use the high-order finite difference from \S~\ref{rez}

494: (eq.~\ref{stencil}), we can define an adjusted dimensionless wavenumber

495: by

496: \begin{equation}

497: k^*_i = \sum_{j=-S}^{S} m_j \sin(k_i L_i j / N_i),\end{equation} 

498: and then the finite difference condition for zero divergence

499: is

500: \begin{equation}\hat{\B}(\kk) \cdot \kk^* = 0

501: \label{divformula}.\end{equation} 

502: The initial conditions for a constrained

503: transport simulation should satisfy this condition, which is easily

504: implemented in Fourier space.  

505: 

506: 

507: \subsection{High-wavenumber finite differences} \label{rez}

508: 

509: High-order spatial derivatives can enhance the wavenumber resolution of a

510: simulation. To quantify this, define a function $f_j(x_j)$ on a periodic grid

511: $x_j = j$, with $j$ an integer. Then construct a finite difference derivative

512: $f^\prime(0)$ at $x=0$ using a

513: radius-$S$ stencil. The familiar result for the gradient on

514: a radius-one stencil

515: is $f^\prime(0) \sim (f_{1} - f_{-1})/2$, which is obtained from fitting a

516: polynomial of order $2$ to $f_j$ at $j=0$. For an order 4 polynomial on a

517: radius-two stencil, \begin{equation}f^\prime(0) \sim \frac{1}{12} f_{-2}

518:   - \frac{2}{3} f_{-1} + \frac{2}{3} f_1 - \frac{1}{12} f_2.

519: \end{equation} 

520: For a stencil of order $S$,

521: \begin{equation} f^\prime(0) \sim \sum_{j=-S}^{S} m_j f_j \label{stencil}

522: \end{equation} where $m_{-j} = -m_j$. The coefficients for a radius-three stencil

523: are $\{m_1,m_2,m_3\}=\{3/4,3/20,1/60\}$.

524: 

525: Consider the finite-difference error at $x=0$

526: for a Fourier mode $\sin(\pi k x)$.

527: (Cosine modes can be ignored because they don't contribute to the derivative at

528: $x=0$.)  We scale the wavenumber $k$ to grid units so that $k=1$

529: corresponds to the maximum (Nyquist) wavenumber expressible on the grid. The

530: finite difference formula (eq.~\ref{stencil}) gives

531: \begin{equation}

532: f_k^\prime(0) \sim 2

533: \sum_{j=1}^S m_j \sin(\pi j k) \label{eqderiv}

534: \end{equation}

535: whereas the correct value is $k \pi$. The spectral procedure of taking

536: the derivative by transforming to Fourier space and back gives the

537: correct value up to $k=1$, but at a cost of $5 \log_2N$ floating point

538: operations per grid point per transform, where $N$ is the number of

539: grid points, whereas the finite difference derivative (equation

540: \ref{stencil}) on a radius $S$ stencil costs $3S-1$ floating point

541: operations.  Figure~(\ref{figstencil}) exhibits the accuracy of finite

542: difference derivatives of different orders as a function of

543: wavenumber.  The wavenumber resolution increases with polynomial order.

544: 

545: The polynomial fit can be tuned by adjusting the coefficients to

546: enhance high-wavenumber accuracy substantially at the expense of a

547: negligible loss of accuracy at low wavenumbers (Maron

548: 2004). Table~\ref{tablek} gives the coefficients for finite difference

549: operators at various orders, along with the maximum wavenumber for

550: which they are 0.5\% accurate.  In Figure~\ref{figstencil} we also

551: show the wavenumber accuracy for a

552: radius-three stencil using tuned coefficients,

553: designed to have a relative precision of $< 0.5$\% for $k=0$ to $0.50$. We

554: will see in \S~\ref{overlap} that a simulation based on this tuned radius-three

555: scheme performs better than a radius-four simulation with conventional

556: coefficients.

557: We note that power spectra do not reveal a difference

558: between turbulence simulations with tuned and untuned coefficients,

559: because errors in the derivative manifest as an advective dispersion

560: rather than as a diffusivity.  One has instead to examine the fields

561: in real space rather than in Fourier space.

562: 

563: \begin{figure}

564: \plotone{f1.eps}

565: \caption{ \label{figstencil}

566: The accuracy of finite-difference derivatives as a function of

567: the Nyquist-scaled wavenumber $k.$ ``Polynomial-N" denotes a

568: radius-N stencil with polynomial-based coefficients, and ``Tuned-N"

569: denotes a radius-N stencil with tuned coefficients (\S~\ref{rez} and

570: Table~\ref{tablek}). The ``Exact" curve is the derivative as

571: evaluated by a Fourier transform. A radius-N stencil with

572: polynomial-based coefficients is accurate to order $2N.$}

573: \end{figure}

574: 

575: \begin{table}

576: \begin{center}

577: \begin{tabular}{lrrrrrrrrrl}

578: \hline

579: Operation &\bs $m_0$&\bs $m_1$&\bs $m_2$&\bs $m_3$&\bs $m_4$&\bs $m_5$&

580: \bs $m_6$&$m_7$&$m_8$ & $k_{max}$\\

581: \hline

582: 

583: $\partial/\partial x$\,(P1)&\bs 0&\bs 0.50000&\bs &\bs &

584: \bs &\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs & 0.12\\

585: 

586: $\partial/\partial x$\,(P2)&\bs 0&\bs 0.66667&\bs -0.08333 & \bs &

587: \bs &\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs & 0.24\\

588: 

589: $\partial/\partial x$\,(P3)&\bs 0&\bs 0.75000&\bs -0.15000 &\bs 0.01667&

590: \bs &\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs & 0.34\\

591: 

592: $\partial/\partial x$\,(P4)&\bs 0&\bs 0.80000&\bs -0.20000 &\bs 0.03810&

593: \bs-0.00357 &\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs & 0.40\\

594: 

595: $\partial/\partial x$\,(P5)&\bs 0&\bs 0.83333&\bs -0.23810 &\bs 0.05952&

596: \bs-0.00992 &\bs 0.00079&\bs &\bs &\bs & 0.44 \\

597: 

598: $\partial/\partial x$\,(P8)&\bs 0&\bs 0.88889&\bs -0.31111&\bs 0.11313&

599: \bs -0.03535&\bs 0.00870&\bs -0.00155&\bs 0.00018&\bs -0.00001 & 0.56 \\

600: 

601: $\partial/\partial x$ (T3)& \bs 0 &\bs 0.81796&\bs -0.21324&\bs 0.03683&

602: \bs        &\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs & 0.50 \\

603: 

604: $\partial/\partial x$ (T8)& \bs 0 &\bs  0.95951 &\bs -0.42312 &\bs 0.22746 &

605: \bs -0.12450 &\bs 0.06461 &\bs -0.03004 &\bs 0.01156 &\bs -0.00273 & 0.76\\

606: 

607: %Tune-8 k=.76 w=.00092039 0.9595116 -0.4231150 0.2274565 -0.1244969 0.6460959E-01

608: %                -0.3004304E-01  0.1155808E-01 -0.2727237E-02 m=16/20

609: 

610: $\partial/\partial x$ (T8)& \bs 0 &\bs  0.96685    &\bs -0.43635  &\bs  0.24410  &

611: \bs -0.14168       &\bs  0.07976 &\bs -0.04148 &\bs  0.01884 &\bs -0.00536 & 0.80 \\

612: 

613: %Tune-8, k=.80, w=.00266301

614: %.9668453 -0.4363475 0.2441007 -0.1416759E+00

615: %                0.7975759E-01 -0.4148324E-01  0.1883914E-01 -0.5359367E-02

616: 

617: 

618: $\partial^2/\partial x^2$ \bss (P3)&\bs -2.72222&\bs 1.5&\bs -0.15&

619: \bs 0.01111&\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs & \\

620: 

621: $\partial^4/\partial x^4$ \bss (P3)&\bs 9.33333 &\bs -6.5 &\bs 2.&

622: \bs -0.16667&\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs & \\

623: 

624: $\partial^6/\partial x^6$ \bss (P3)&\bs -20.&\bs 15. &\bs -6. &

625: \bs 1. &\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs & \\

626: 

627: Interpolation \bss (P3) & \bs 0 &\bs  0.58594 &\bs -0.09766 &\bs  0.01172 &

628: \bs        &\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs & 0.35 \\

629: 

630: Interpolation \bss (T3) & \bs 0 &\bs  0.60103 &\bs -0.12312 &\bs  0.02214 &

631: \bs        &\bs &\bs &\bs &\bs & 0.50 \\

632: 

633: Interpolation \bss (T8) & \bs 0 &\bs   0.63099 &\bs -0.19580 &\bs  0.10149&

634: \bs  -0.05770 &\bs  0.03248&\bs -0.01709&\bs  0.00793&\bs -0.00233& 0.80  \\

635: 

636: %tune-8 k=.80 w=.00119544

637: %     0.6309936E+00 -0.1958019E+00  0.1014883E+00 -0.5769893E-01  0.3247978E-01

638: %    -0.1708539E-01  0.7929849E-02 -0.2326164E-02

639: 

640: 

641: \hline

642: \end{tabular}

643: \end{center}

644: \caption{ \label{tablek}

645: Coefficients for finite difference

646: operations. The column $``k_{max}"$ indicates the maximum wavenumber

647: for which the operator is no worse than $0.5 \%$ accurate.  For the odd-order

648: derivatives, $m_{-j} = -m_j$, and for the even-order derivatives as

649: well as the interpolations, $m_{-j} = m_j$. The interpolation

650: coefficients are for interpolation to a point halfway between two grid

651: zones using the nearest $S$ grid points on each side (\S~\ref{interpolate})

652: }.  

653: \end{table}

654: 

655: \subsection{Dealiasing} \label{dealiasing}

656: 

657: Nonlinear terms in the MHD equations such as $\V \cdot \bnabla \V$

658: suffer an aliasing error for high-wavenumber structure.  We first

659: illustrate this with a 1D example before treating the 3D case (Canuto

660: et al.\ 1987).  Let $A_j$ and $B_j$ be discrete functions on a

661: one-dimensional grid with $N=16$ grid points: $1 \leq j \leq N$, and

662: with accompanying Fourier modes ranging from $-N/2 \leq s \leq

663: (N/2)-1.$ The Fourier expansion of $A$ is \begin{equation} A_j =

664: \sum_{s=-N/2}^{N/2-1} \hat{A}_s \, \exp(2 \pi i j s / N)

665: \end{equation} and similarly for $B_j$. Let $A$ and $B$ each be

666: composed of a single Fourier mode with $s=6$. The product $C = A B$ is

667: then composed of a single Fourier mode with $s=12$, but in this

668: discrete representation, this is equivalent to $s=-4$. This remapping

669: of high wavenumber modes to low wavenumber modes is known as aliasing

670: error.  Note that $s=6$ is within the Nyquist limit of $|s| \leq N/2$

671: while the product mode $s=12$ is not. While $A_j$ and $B_j$ might be

672: resolvable on the grid, their product need not be.  This can be fixed

673: by truncating before and after the product all modes outside $|s| \leq

674: N/3$ to ensure that no modes in the product will exceed the Nyquist

675: limit.  A spectral code can make this truncation because the fields

676: are in Fourier space, while a finite difference code cannot. As a

677: practical matter it suffices to set the diffusivities high enough so

678: that negligible structure exists outside the $N/3$ aliasing limit.

679: 

680: Alternatively, 

681: the aliasing problem can be remedied with a

682: staggered-grid correction (Canuto et al.\ 1987), and then

683: the truncation isn't necessary.  Additionally, this allows

684: us to simulate structure beyond $k=2/3.$ We first exhibit this

685: procedure in 1D and then extend it to 3D below. To implement

686: the staggered-grid correction, first construct the

687: usual product $C_j = A_j B_j$. Then interpolate the centered grids

688: $A_j$ and $B_j$ to the staggered grids $A_{j+1/2}$ and $B_{j+1/2}$,

689: multiply to produce $C_{j+1/2}$ and transform back to the centered

690: grid $C_j^\prime$. Finally, combine the centered and staggered results

691: as $C_j \leftarrow (C_j + C_j^\prime) / 2$. This result is free from

692: aliasing error for all Fourier modes, and so no Fourier-space

693: truncation is necessary.  In Fourier space, the fields on the

694: staggered grid can be computed exactly by applying a phase shift to

695: each Fourier mode. A finite difference scheme can accomplish this with

696: the high-order interpolation discussed in \S~\ref{stagger}.

697: 

698: In three dimensions the aliasing error can be eliminated by truncating

699: the Fourier modes outside $|{\bf \vec{s}}| < {\bf \vec{N}}/3$, where

700: ${\bf \vec{s}} = \{s_x,s_y,s_z\}$ and ${\bf \vec{N}} = \{N_x, N_y,

701: N_z\}$. The grid-shift correction is more complicated. Seven grid

702: shifts are needed to completely correct the error, but it is more

703: efficient to settle for a more limited correction involving just one

704: shift (Canuto et al.\ 1987).  Interpolate $A$ and $B$ to the staggered

705: grid $\{j_x+1/2,j_y+1/2,j_z+1/2\}$, multiply, return to the centered

706: grid $\{j_x,j_y,j_z\}$, and as in the one-dimensional case, average

707: the result with the product carried out on the original centered grid.

708: This yields an alias-free result if accompanied by a Fourier

709: truncation of all modes outside $|{\bf \vec{s}}| < \sqrt{3} {\bf

710: \vec{N}}/2$, which is 94 \% of the Nyquist limit. For a finite

711: difference code, the diffusivity can be set to minimize the energy

712: outside the truncation zone.

713: When the three-dimensional, staggered-grid, aliasing correction is

714: combined with high-order, volume-centered, constrained transport,

715: magnetic divergence is still preserved to machine precision. This

716: scheme uses the high-order finite differences and interpolations

717: discussed in \S~\ref{rez} and \S~\ref{interpolate}.

718: 

719: 

720: \subsection{Interpolation} \label{interpolate} \label{stagger}

721: 

722: High-order interpolation allows implementation of the staggered

723: aliasing correction discussed in \S~\ref{dealiasing}.  It can also be

724: used for doubling the grid size. In this case, the new points in the

725: doubled three-dimensional grid can be generated with a set of

726: interpolations along and diagonal to the three grid axes. Doubling the

727: grid is also useful for interpolating to points that are not exactly

728: halfway between grid points. For example, the grid can be doubled with

729: the high-order interpolation discussed above, and then a simpler

730: algorithm can be used to further interpolate to a point anywhere

731: within the refined grid.  We used this technique to trace the path of

732: magnetic fieldlines in our studies of cosmic ray diffusion (Maron

733: 2003), and also for doubling the resolution of turbulent dynamo

734: simulations in Maron et al.\ (2004).  Lastly, we have found that

735: high-order tuned derivatives and interpolations are useful for

736: post-simulation analysis of timeslice data without the need for

737: computationally expensive fast Fourier transforms.

738: 

739: A high-order interpolation to a point halfway between two grid points

740: can be accomplished with

741: \begin{equation}

742: f_{j+1/2} = \sum_{i=1}^S m_i (f_{j+i} + f_{j+1-i}).

743: \label{eqinterp}

744: \end{equation}

745: The error in the interpolation as a function of wavenumber can be calculated by

746: applying

747: equation~(\ref{eqinterp}) to a cosine mode centered on $f_{j+1/2}$:

748: $f_i = \cos(\pi k (i - (j + 1/2)))$.

749: The interpolated value is

750: \begin{equation}

751: f_{j+1/2}^* = \sum_{i=1}^S m_j \cos(\pi i k)

752: \end{equation}

753: whereas the correct value is $f_{j+1/2} = 1$.

754: Table~\ref{tablek} gives coefficients for

755: an interpolation based on a radius-three

756: stencil from a polynomial fit to $f_j$, in the row labeled

757: ``Interpolation (P3)." Tuning the coefficients can improve the

758: wavenumber resolution of the interpolation in a similar manner as was done

759: for the derivative.

760: Tuned

761: coefficients for radius 3 and 8 stencils are given in Table~(\ref{tablek})\,

762: in the rows labeled T3 and T8, with the column labeled $k_{max}$

763: giving the maximum wavenumber for which the interpolation is $0.5 \%$ accurate.

764: 

765: 

766: \subsection{Operation count} \label{sectionop}

767: 

768: A finite difference derivative on a radius $S$ stencil costs $S$ multiplies and

769: $2S - 1$ adds. Since add and multiply units tend to come in pairs on most

770: modern machines, this is effectively $4S - 2$ floating point operations per

771: grid cell. A code with $F$ finite difference convolutions per timestep involves

772: $F(4S-2)$ floating point operations.

773: 

774: 

775: The computation cost per timestep scales as the number of derivatives

776: computed per grid element per time update. For constrained transport,

777: one needs to calculate three derivatives for $\partial_i \rho$, three

778: for $\partial_i e$, nine for $\partial_i \V_j$, six for $\bnabla

779: \times \B$ and six for $\bnabla \times \E$. Diffusion terms such as

780: $\bnabla^2 \V$ and $\bnabla^2 \J$ aren't included in the tally because

781: they need only be applied every few timesteps (Maron 2004). The same

782: is true for the Fourier-space Poisson projection to make the fields

783: divergenceless. Maron (2004) found that the results were

784: effectively identical whether these terms were applied once every

785: timestep or once every four timesteps.

786: 

787: In Table~\ref{tableop} we list the number of derivatives computed per timestep

788: for various classes of algorithms.  Pencil is a vector potential code

789: (Brandenburg \& Dobler 2002) that calculates $\J$ directly from $\A$ to take

790: advantage of the cache memory.  This involves 15 distinct 2-level derivatives

791: computed from a 2D stencil.

792: For a radius-S finite difference, a 2D derivative

793: involves $4S^2 - 1$ adds,

794: compared to $2S - 1$ adds for a conventional 1D derivative.

795: We don't consider multiples because they are always less numerous than

796: adds, and because CPUs tend to feature

797: add and multiply units in pairs.

798: As a result, a 2D derivative corresponds to $2S+1$ times the computational

799: effort of a conventional 1D derivative.

800: Thus, the calculation of $\J$ with $S=3$ corresponds effectively to about $105$

801: conventional derivatives.

802: Alternatively, a vector potential algorithm can instead calculates

803: $\B$ from $\A$ and then $\J$ from $\B$ in separate stages, at a possible

804: cost of extra memory latency. In table~\ref{tableop}, we denote a vector

805: potential algorithm that calculates $\J$ directly from $\A$ as ``1-stage,"

806: and a vector potential algorithm that calculates $\B$ from $\A$ and then

807: $\J$ from $\B$ as ``2-stage."

808: The constrained transport

809: algorithm evolves $\V$ and $\B$ according to equations~(\ref{eqctv})

810: and~(\ref{eqctb}), and the unconstrained transport algorithm evolves $\V$ and

811: $\B$ according to equations~(\ref{eqctv}) and~(\ref{laplaceb}). The spectral

812: algorithm computes 15 Fourier transforms instead of derivatives and thus

813: doesn't directly compare with the finite difference codes.

814: 

815: A vector potential code such as Pencil can be adapted to the algorithm

816: described here by substituting equation~(\ref{eqctb}) for the vector

817: potential equation, and by changing the finite difference coefficients

818: from the polynomial-based values to the tuned values. This allows one to

819: compute boundary conditions using the magnetic field instead of the

820: vector potential.  However, there is an extra round of inter-processor

821: communication associated with calculating ${\bf J}$ from $\B$ and then

822: applying the curl.

823: 

824: \begin{table}

825: \begin{center}

826: \begin{tabular}{lll}

827: \hline

828: Algorithm & Terms & Derivatives \\

829: \hline

830: 

831: Constrained transport &

832: $\partial_i \rho$, $\partial_i e$, $\partial_i \V_j$,

833: $\bnabla \times \B$, $\bnabla \times \E$&

834: 27\\

835: 

836: Unconstrained transport &

837: $\partial_i \rho$, $\partial_i e$, $\partial_i \V_j$, $\partial_i \B_j$,

838: $\partial_i (\bnabla \cdot \B)$ &

839: 30 \\

840: 

841: 2-stage vector potential &

842: $\partial_i \rho$, $\partial_i e$, $\partial_i \V_j$,

843: $\bnabla \times \A$, $\bnabla \times \B$ &

844: 27 \\

845: 

846: 1-stage vector potential (Pencil) &

847: $\partial_i \rho$, $\partial_i e$, $\partial_i \V_j$,

848: $\bnabla \times \A$, $\bnabla \times \bnabla \times \A$ &

849: 120 \\

850: 

851: %Pencil &

852: %$\partial_i \rho$, $\partial_i e$, $\partial_i \V_j$,

853: %$\partial_{ii} \A_j$, $\partial_{ij} \A_k$ &

854: %42 \\

855: 

856: Spectral &

857: 15 Fourier transforms &

858: N/A \\

859: 

860: %$\sim$ 100 \\

861: 

862: \hline

863: \end{tabular}

864: \end{center}

865: \caption{

866: \label{tableop} The number of derivatives computed per time update

867: (see \S~\ref{sectionop}).}

868: \end{table}

869: 

870: A convenient unit for execution speed is

871: Kilo-grid Elements per CPU GigaFLOPS per Second (KEGS).  A constrained

872: transport code with a radius-three stencil and two Runge-Kutta steps per

873: timestep

874: would run ideally at a speed of 1850 KEGS. The actual speed is slower of course

875: because of overhead and because the finite difference convolutions don't run at

876: the peak floating point speed.  In benchmarks, we have observed that

877: the Pencil code, which has 3 Runge-Kutta

878: stages, runs at a speed of around 100 KEGS for serial operation and

879: 

880: 50 KEGS for massively parallel operation.  For comparison, the highly-optimized

881: spectral-MHD code Tulku (Maron \& Goldreich 2001), has a speed of around

882: 80 KEGS in serial and 40 KEGS in parallel (Maron 2004).

883: 

884: 

885: \section{Simulations} \label{simulations}

886: 

887: \subsection{The turbulent nonhelical dynamo} \label{dynamo}

888: 

889: Our first test model is the turbulent, nonhelical, MHD dynamo

890: (Batchelor 1950), which is the magnetic analogue of the Kolmogorov

891: cascade for hydrodynamic turbulence.  The Kolmogorov cascade is the

892: long-term, steady state of hydrodynamic turbulence that is forced at

893: the large scale and dissipated by viscosity at the small scale, and it

894: has an energy spectrum of $E(k) \sim k^{-5/3}$. The nonhelical MHD

895: dynamo has the same setup but includes a spatially homogeneous

896: magnetic field with unit magnitude and zero mean. Maron et al.\ (2004)

897: found that the steady state of this system has a kinetic

898: energy spectrum of $E(k) \propto k^{-2}$, where the energy is

899: dominantly in large-scale eddys, and a magnetic spectrum with the

900: energy predominantly in the smallest-scale (resistive-scale) magnetic

901: structures. The kinetic and magnetic spectra are shown in figure

902: \ref{figct}.

903: \begin{figure}

904: {\plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}}

905: \caption

906: { \label{figct} {\em (a)} The kinetic ($\V$) and magnetic ($\B$)

907: spectra for a set of simulations with identical initial conditions,

908: after two crossing times.  {\em (b)} The value of $B_y$ along a grid

909: line parallel to the $x$-axis after 0.4 crossing times, for the same

910: set of simulations.  The high-order constrained and unconstrained

911: transport simulations (CT3, CT8 \& UT8) more closely resemble each

912: other than they do the low-order constrained transport simulations

913: (CT1 \& CT2).}

914: \end{figure}

915: 

916: 

917: \subsubsection{Models}

918: 

919: We ran a set of simulations of forced homogeneous MHD turbulence (Table

920: \ref{tablesim}) with and without constrained transport and at various spatial

921: orders to test the effectiveness of high-order constrained

922: transport. Each simulation has the same timestep,

923: viscosity and resistivity. The grid used in all cases

924: has $64^3$ zones covering a periodic unit cube.  The forcing power, density,

925: initial RMS velocity and magnetic field are all unity, and they remain so in

926: the long-term steady state.  

927: 

928: The initial state is the same for all

929: simulations. It was taken from a simulation of forced magnetized turbulence

930: (\S~\ref{dynamo}) in the long-term steady state. The magnetic divergence is

931: zero in Fourier space: $\hat{\B}(\kk) \cdot \kk = 0$. The initial state was

932: modified slightly for the constrained transport simulations to make it

933: magnetically divergenceless according to the finite-difference derivative

934: (\S~\ref{initial}).  This amounts to a very small adjustment in the fields,

935: much less than the difference between the fields after a crossing time of

936: evolution.

937: 

938: Constrained transport needs some form of diffusivity, either Laplacian

939: or hyperdiffusivity, to maintain stability. With diffusivity, it is

940: stable indefinitely, whereas it is unstable without it. To establish

941: this, we evolved the MHD equations with constrained transport for ten

942: crossing times stably.  The diffusivities used in these models are

943: Laplacian viscosity $\nu_2 = 10^{-3}$, hyperviscosity $\nu_{\smf [4]} = 2.5

944: \times 10^{-8}$ and hyperresistivity $\eta_{\smf 2,[4]} = 7 \times 10^{-12}$,

945: which we empirically find are the minimum values that maintain

946: stability for $V_{\smf RMS} = B_{\smf RMS} = 1$ on a $64^3$ grid.

947: Expressed in dimensionless form:

948: $\overline{\nu}_n = \nu_n / (V_{\smf RMS} dx^{n-1})$

949: and $\overline{\eta}_n = \eta_n / (V_{\smf RMS} dx^{n-1}),$ these are

950: $\overline{\nu}_2 = .064,$ $\overline{\eta}_{\smf [4]} = 6.6 \cdot 10^{-3}$

951: and $\overline{\eta}_{\smf 2,[4]} = 7.5 \cdot 10^{-3}.$

952: 

953: 

954: 

955: \begin{table}

956: \begin{center}

957: \begin{tabular}{|llrlll|}

958: \hline

959: Tag   & Method  & Stencil & Finite difference & $k_{max}$ & $L_2$ norm\\

960:       &         & radius  & technique         &           & \\

961: \hline

962: CT1   & Constrained transport   & 1 & Polynomial           & 0.12 & 0.561 \\

963: CT2   & Constrained transport   & 2 & Polynomial           & 0.24 & 0.193 \\

964: CT3   & Constrained transport   & 3 & Polynomial           & 0.34 & 0.083 \\

965: CT4   & Constrained transport   & 4 & Polynomial           & 0.40 & 0.042 \\

966: CT5   & Constrained transport   & 5 & Polynomial           & 0.44 & 0.023 \\

967: CT8   & Constrained transport   & 8 & Polynomial           & 0.56 &  0   \\

968: CT3t1 & Constrained transport   & 3 & Tuned                & 0.50 & 0.034 \\

969: CT3t2 & Constrained transport   & 3 & Tuned                & 0.52 & 0.037 \\

970: UT8   & Unconstrained transport & 8 & Polynomial           & 0.56 & 0.267 \\

971: \hline

972: 

973: \end{tabular}

974: \end{center}

975: \caption{

976: \label{tablesim}

977: Index of simulations. CT and UT denote constrained

978: and unconstrained transport. The column labeled ``finite difference technique"

979: specifies whether

980: the finite difference coefficients are from a polynomial fit or if they

981: have been tuned to enhance high-wavenumber accuracy

982: (\S~\ref{rez}).

983: $k_{max}$ denotes the largest wavenumber for which derivatives are $0.5 \%$

984: accurate.

985: The $L_2$ norms are taken with respect to UT8, as discussed in \S~\ref{overlap}

986: The simulations with tuned coefficients are

987: CT3t1, which has $k_{max}$

988: set to $0.50$, and CT3t2, which has $k_{max}$ set

989: to $0.52$.

990: }

991: \end{table}

992: 

993: 

994: 

995: The forcing is the same as used by Maron et al.\ (2004).  A random forcing

996: field is added to the velocity every timestep.  The spectrum of the forcing

997: field is $k^{-5/3}$, truncated 2.5 lattice units from the origin in Fourier

998: space, and the Fourier components have random phases. The forcing power,

999: simulation volume and density are unity, which yields RMS velocity and

1000: magnetic fields of order unity (Maron 2004).

1001: 

1002: 

1003: \subsubsection{Results} \label{overlap}

1004: 

1005: The diffusivities are

1006: given in \S~\ref{simulations}.

1007: We plot the kinetic and magnetic spectra in figure \ref{figct}{\em (a)}.  The

1008: spectra are very similar for constrained and unconstrained transport

1009: simulations, and also for different orders.  However the spectra alone

1010: do not distinguish between simulations of different orders because an

1011: error in the derivative manifests itself as an advective dispersion

1012: rather than as a diffusivity (\S~\ref{rez}). One instead has to

1013: examine the fields in real space.

1014: 

1015: In Figure~\ref{figct}{\em (b)}, we compare the magnetic fields at

1016: t=0.4 crossing times. For the comparison, we examine the difference

1017: between the fields integrated over space by computing the $L_2$ norm

1018: between simulations $i$ and $j:$ \begin{equation} A_{ij}^2 = \frac{

1019: \int [B_y(i) - B_y(j)]^2 d(\mbox{Vol})} {\int B_y(i)^2 d\mbox{Vol} +

1020: \int B_y(j)^2 d(\mbox{Vol})}.

1021: \end{equation} 

1022: Stone et. al. (1992b) argue that this kind of comparison is more

1023: meaningful than merely plotting the overlay of both fields.  The

1024: constrained transport simulation with polynomial-based finite

1025: differences on a radius-eight stencil (CT8 in Table \ref{tablesim}) serves

1026: as the basis of comparison.

1027: We compare the constrained transport simulations to an unconstrained

1028: transport simulation on a radius-eight tuned finite-difference stencil (UT8).

1029: We use UT8 as a stand-in for the spectral algorithm because of its high

1030: wavenumber resolution.

1031: 

1032: The spectral algorithm delivers the highest-attainable resolution because

1033: spectral derivatives are exact for all wavenumbers.  With this, a 3D

1034: spectral simulation without an aliasing grid-shift correction can resolve

1035: structure up to k=2/3, and with a grid-shift correction it can resolve up to

1036: k=.94 (Canuto 1987).  The spectral algorithm can also set the magnetic

1037: divergence to zero in Fourier space at negligible cost.

1038: Unconstrained transport does not explicitly conserve

1039: magnetic divergence and so in model UT8 the divergence is cleaned with a

1040: Fourier projection every timestep. We also tried applying the correction

1041: every fourth timestep and with virtually identical results.

1042: The radius-eight stencil of UT8 yields derivatives that are accurate up to

1043: k=.56.

1044: 

1045: The $L_2$ norms given in

1046: Table~(\ref{tablek}) show how the simulations progressively approach

1047: the CT8 result as the stencil size increases.  

1048: The match is poor for CT1 and better for CT3. 

1049: We also note that the radius-three simulation with

1050: tuned derivatives (CT3t) performs better than the radius-four simulation

1051: with polynomial-based derivatives, establishing the effectiveness of

1052: tuned derivatives.

1053: This can also be qualitatively seen in Figure (\ref{figct}), where

1054: we see that the fields for CT8 and UT8 are closely aligned

1055: (Fig.~\ref{figct}), and that they also

1056: closely resemble those for CT3.

1057: 

1058: We attribute the remaining differences between CT8 and UT8 to the fact that

1059: the magnetic divergence is removed spectrally in UT8, while it is handled

1060: by constrained transport in CT8.

1061: Collectively, the high-order constrained and unconstrained transport

1062: simulations (CT3, CT8 \& UT8) more closely resemble each other than they do the

1063: low-order constrained transport simulations (CT1 \& CT2).  We conclude that CT3

1064: is already a good approximation to the spectral algorithm.

1065: 

1066: 

1067: \subsection{Comparison of the constrained transport and vector potential

1068: techniques} \label{pencil}

1069: 

1070: 

1071: We adapted the vector potential code Pencil to run in

1072: CT mode and used it to compare the vector potential and CT techniques.

1073: We ran an Alfv\'en wave

1074: on a $32^3$ grid with zero viscosity and resistivity.

1075: (Figure~\ref{figalfven}).

1076: After ten crossing times, both the vector potential and CT techniques yield

1077: wave profiles that agree with each other to within 1 percent.

1078: The shape of the profiles are also well-matched with the initial conditions,

1079: with a phase error of 10 percent.

1080: 

1081: 

1082: We also used both techniques to run a turbulent dynamo simulation 

1083: We started with an initially

1084: weak magnetic field in the form of a Beltrami wave and applied helical forcing

1085: until it grew to a steady state. The box size is $(2\pi)^3$, the density

1086: is unity, the forcing power is equal to $0.07,$

1087: the viscosity is equal to $5 \cdot 10^{-3},$ and the resistivity is equal

1088: to $5 \cdot 10^{-3}.$

1089: The RMS magnetic field

1090: strength is plotted in Figure~(\ref{figdynamo}). 

1091: After 30 crossing times, the values for $B_{RMS}$ for the CT and vector

1092: potential techniques agree to 1 percent (Figure~\ref{figdynamo}).

1093: 

1094: \begin{figure}

1095: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}

1096: \caption{

1097: \label{figalfven} The Alfv\'en wave profile after ten crossing

1098: times, with {\em (a)} the Pencil code using the vector potential form

1099: of the induction equation and {\em (b)} using CT (\S~\ref{pencil}).

1100: Alfven units denote the fluctuating field strengths compared to the

1101: uniform component of the magnetic field.

1102: } \end{figure}

1103: 

1104: \begin{figure}

1105: \plotone{f4.eps}

1106: \caption{

1107: \label{figdynamo} We plot the RMS magnetic field strength for a

1108: turbulent dynamo simulation using the Pencil code

1109: in vector potential and CT mode (\S~\ref{pencil}).

1110: Both techniques agree to 1 percent after 30 crossing times.

1111: }

1112: \end{figure}

1113: 

1114: \subsection{Oblique Alfv\'en wave test} \label{sectionalfven}

1115: 

1116: We ran an Alfv\'en wave test where the propagation axis is oblique

1117: to the grid axes, with the initial conditions in

1118: Gardiner \& Stone (2005):

1119: \begin{equation}

1120: \V = \{ 0, \,\,\, 0.1 \sin(2 \pi x + 4 \pi y), \,\,\,

1121: 0.1 \cos(2 \pi x + 4 \pi y)\}

1122: \end{equation}

1123: \begin{equation}

1124: \B = \{ 1, \,\,\, 0.1 \sin(2 \pi x + 4 \pi y), \,\,\,

1125: 0.1 \cos(2 \pi x + 4 \pi y)\}

1126: \end{equation}

1127: The simulation volume is a unit cube, modeled on a grid of

1128: size $16^3$. 

1129: The velocity field is quasi-incompressible, with the divergence removed

1130: spectrally every 4 timesteps.

1131: The kinetic and magnetic diffusivities

1132: are all set to zero for this linear problem.

1133: We ran two simulations: one with third-order polynomial finite differences

1134: and another with third-order tuned finite differences from

1135: Table~(\ref{tablek}).

1136: After the wave has traveled 16 times around the periodic box, the waveform

1137: remains almost indistinguishable from the initial conditions, with the tuned

1138: finite differences yielding a more precise result than the polynomial

1139: finite differences (figure~\ref{figalfvenb}).  

1140: 

1141: \begin{figure}

1142: \plotone{f5.eps} 

1143: \caption{ \label{figalfvenb} The oblique Alfv\'en wave test from

1144: \S~\ref{sectionalfven}.

1145: We plot the $B_z$ field as a function of $y,$

1146: with $x$ and $z$ equal to zero.  We show initial conditions {\em

1147: (solid points)}, and results from simulations with polynomial finite

1148: differences {\em (open circles)} and tuned finite differences {\em

1149: (crosses)}.  In each simulation, the grid size is $16^3$ and the

1150: wave has traveled 16 times around

1151: the periodic box. The tuned finite differences yield a more precise

1152: result.}

1153: \end{figure}

1154: %program helicalwave.f90

1155: 

1156: \section{Summary}

1157: 

1158: We have developed a new version of the constrained transport algorithm that

1159: uses

1160: volume-centered fields and hyperresistivity on a high-order finite difference

1161: stencil, with tuned finite difference coefficients to enhance high-wavenumber

1162: resolution. High-order interpolation allows implementation of staggered

1163: dealiasing. 

1164: Together, these measures yield a wavenumber resolution that

1165: approaches the ideal value achieved by the spectral algorithm.

1166: 

1167: 

1168: Volume centered fields are desirable because then $\V$, $\B$ and $\E$

1169: all reside at the same grid location, allowing $\E$ to be constructed

1170: directly from the cross product of $\V$ and $\B$ without

1171: interpolation. For staggered fields, $\V$ and $\B$ reside at the zone

1172: faces and $\E$ on the edges, and so constructing $\E$ involves

1173: spatial interpolation, which reduces wavenumber resolution.

1174: 

1175: High-order stencils and tuned finite difference coefficients both enhance the

1176: wavenumber resolution of finite differences. For a radius-three stencil with

1177: tuned coefficients, derivatives can be computed to a relative precision of $0.5

1178: \%$ up to a Nyquist-scaled wavenumber of $k=0.5$. Without tuning, this would be

1179: $k= 0.34$ for a radius-three stencil. A radius-one stencil derivative such

1180: as is used in Zeus (Stone \& Norman 1992a)

1181: is only accurate up to $k=0.12$. The spectral derivative

1182: is precise up to $k=1.00$, although in practice it is limited to $k=0.94$

1183: because

1184: of aliasing. Aliasing limits a finite-difference code to

1185: $k=0.66$ unless the finite-difference grid shift aliasing correction is used

1186: (\S~\ref{dealiasing}).

1187: 

1188: Hyperresistivity is desirable because it is more effective than Laplacian

1189: resistivity in diffusing high-wavenumber modes while at the same time

1190: preserving low-wavenumber modes. The fact that hyperresistivity can be written

1191: as a curl allows its inclusion into CT. If Laplacian diffusivity were used

1192: instead, too much high-wavenumber structure would be diffused for the

1193: high-order or tuned derivatives to matter.

1194: 

1195: The resolution of the algorithm described here approaches that of a

1196: spectral code, but because it uses finite differences, it runs faster

1197: than a spectral code and isn't restricted to periodic boundary

1198: conditions.  Also, since the finite differences are local, it is

1199: easily scalable to thousands of processors. The spectral algorithm is

1200: more difficult to scale to large numbers of processors because it involves

1201: all-to-all communications between processors. A finite difference code

1202: only passes information between processors whose subgrids are adjacent in

1203: physical space. Lastly, because the code works with the magnetic field

1204: rather than the vector potential, boundary conditions are often easier

1205: to implement.

1206: 

1207: \begin{acknowledgements}

1208: We received support for this work from NSF Career grant

1209: AST99-85392, NSF grants AST03-07854 and AST06-12724, and NASA grant

1210: NAG5-10103.  We acknowledge stimulating discussions with E. Blackman,

1211: A. Brandenburg, B. Chandran, and J. Stone, and we also acknowledge the

1212: referee, Wolfgang Dobler, for thorough comments that improved the paper."

1213: \end{acknowledgements}

1214: 

1215: 

1216: 

1217: \appendix

1218: 

1219: \section{Appendix} \label{ctapp}

1220: 

1221: Constrained transport expresses the magnetic induction equation as a pure curl

1222: plus a divergence diffusivity: $\partial_t \B = \bnabla \times {\bf F} +

1223: \eta_{\smf D} \bnabla \bnabla \cdot \B,$ where ${\bf F}$ is defined in

1224: equation~(\ref{eqctb}).  The $\eta_{\smf D}$ term serves to diffuse away

1225: magnetic divergence, and the finite differences are arranged so that $\bnabla

1226: \cdot \bnabla \times {\bf F} = 0.$ Thus, the curl term does not contribute to

1227: the evolution of the magnetic divergence, and if the initial conditions are

1228: divergence-free, the magnetic divergence remains zero throughout the evolution.

1229: 

1230: To see how constrained transport works,

1231: denote the vector field by

1232: ${\bf F_{\smf i,j,k}}$ = $\{F^x_{\smf i,j,k}, F^y_{\smf i,j,k},

1233: F^z_{i,j,k}\},$ where $\{i,j,k\}$ are integers specifying the locations of

1234: grid cell centers. There are two basic grid types: ``centered" and

1235: ``staggered" (figure~\ref{figstagger}).

1236: For a centered grid, scalar and vector quantities are

1237: located at cell centers. For a staggered grid,

1238: scalar quantities are located at

1239: cell centers and vector quantities at cell faces.

1240: For instance, we would index the components of ${\bf F}$ as

1241: $\{F^x_{\smf i+1/2,j,k}, F^y_{\smf i,j+1/2,k}, F^z_{\smf i,j,k+1/2}\}.$

1242: 

1243: The finite divergence divergence of the curl of ${\bf F}$ is $\bnabla \cdot

1244: \bnabla \times {\bf F} = \epsilon_{ijk} \partial_i \partial_j {\bf F}_k,$ which

1245: consists of terms such as $(\partial_1 \partial_2 - \partial_2 \partial_1)

1246: {\bf F}_k.$ One can straightforwardly see that this is zero for finite

1247: differences of the form eq.~\ref{stencil} for both

1248: centered and staggered grids. Thus, constrained

1249: transport can be coordinated with high-order and tuned finite differences,

1250: as well as with hyperresistivity.

1251: 

1252: 

1253: For a staggered grid, the ``${\bf F}$" vectors are located at cell

1254: edges, whereas the $\V$ and $\B$ vectors from which they are constructed

1255: are found at cell faces. A staggered grid CT scheme therefore involves

1256: spatial interpolation, one example

1257: being the method of characteristics scheme for

1258: time-interpolating Alfv\'en waves. We use volume-centered fields and

1259: Runge-Kutta timestepping because,

1260: among other reasons, no interpolation is required.

1261: 

1262: \begin{figure}[!] \plotone{f6.eps}

1263: \caption{

1264: \label{figstagger}

1265: We show the configuration for zone-centered and zone-staggered fields

1266: in two dimensions, where the generalization to three dimensions is

1267: straightforward. {\em (Left)} A zone-centered vector field, where both the

1268: $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{Y}$ vectors reside at zone centers. {\em (Right)} A

1269: zone-staggered vector field, where $\hat{X}$ vectors reside on

1270: $\hat{X}$ faces and $\hat{Y}$ vectors reside on $\hat{Y}$ faces.}

1271: \end{figure}

1272: 

1273: 

1274: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1275: 

1276: 

1277: \bibitem[]{} Batchelor, G. K. 1950, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lon., A201, 405

1278: 

1279: %\bibitem[]{} Batchelor, G. K.,

1280: %``On the spontaneous magnetic field in a conducting liquid in

1281: %turbulent motion,"  Proc. Roy. Soc. Lon., A201, 405, 1950.

1282: 

1283: \bibitem[]{}Brackbill, J. \& Barnes, D. 1980, J. Comput.\ Phys., 35, 426

1284: %\bibitem[]{}Brackbill, J. \& Barnes, D. 1980, JCP 35, 426-430

1285: 

1286: %\bibitem[]{}Brackbill \& Barnes, ``The effect of nonzero $\bnabla \cdot \B$ on

1287: %the numerical solution of the magnetohydrodynamic equations," JCP 35, 426-430,

1288: %1980

1289: 

1290: \bibitem[Brandenburg(2002)]{bra02} Brandenburg, A., \& Dobler,

1291:   W. 2002, Comput.\ Phys.\ Comm., 147, 471

1292: 

1293: \bibitem[Canuto(1987)]{can87} Canuto, C., Hussaini, M. Y., Quarteroni, A.,

1294: Zang, T. A., Jr. 1987, Spectral Methods in Fluid Dynamics

1295: (Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag)

1296: 

1297: %\bibitem[Canuto(1987)]{can87} Canuto, C., Hussaini, M. Y., Quarteroni, A.,

1298: %Zhang, t. A., ``Spectral Methods in Fluid Dynamics". Springer-Verlag 1987.

1299: 

1300: \bibitem[]{}

1301: Colella, P., \& Woodward, P. R. 1984, J. Comput. Phys., 54, 174

1302: %Colella and Woodward 1984, Woodward 1986

1303: %"The piecewise parabolic method (PPM) for gas-dynamical simulations"

1304: 

1305: \bibitem[]{} Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kroner, D., Munz, C.-D., Schnitzer, T.

1306: \& Wesenberg, M. 2002, J. Comput.\ Phys., 175, 645

1307: %\bibitem[]{} Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kroner, D., Munz, C.-D., Schnitzer, T.

1308: %\& Wesenberg, M. 2002, JCP 175, 645-673

1309: 

1310: %\bibitem[]{} Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kroner, D., Munz, C.-D., Schnitzer, T.

1311: %\& Wesenberg, M., ``Hyperbolic divergence cleaning for the MHD equations,"

1312: %JCP 175, 645-673, 2002

1313: 

1314: \bibitem[]{} Dobler, W., Stix, M. \& Brandenburg, A. 2006, ApJ 638, 336

1315: 

1316: \bibitem[]{} Evans, C.R. \& Hawley, J.F. 1988, ApJ, 332, 659

1317: 

1318: %\bibitem[]{} Evans, C.R. \& Hawley, J.F., ``Simulation of magnetohydrodynamic

1319: %flows: A constrained transport method," ApJ 332, 659, 1988

1320: 

1321: \bibitem[]{} Gardiner, T. \& Stone, J., J. Comput.\ Phys., 205, 509

1322: 

1323: \bibitem[]{} Harten, A. 1983, J. Comput.\ Phys., 49, 357

1324: %"High Resolution Schemes for Hyperbolic Conservative Laws"

1325: 

1326: \bibitem[]{} Haugen N. E. L., \& Brandenburg, A. 2004, PRE 70, 026405

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[]{} Hawley, J. F., \& Stone, J. M. 1995, Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm., 89, 127

1329: 

1330: \bibitem[]{} Londrillo, P. \& Del Zanna, L. 2000, ApJ, 530, 508

1331: %\bibitem[]{} Londrillo, P. \& Del Zanna, L. 2000, ApJ 530, 508-524

1332: 

1333: %\bibitem[]{} Londrillo, P. \& Del Zanna, L., ``High-order upwind schemes

1334: %for multidimensional magnetohydrodynamics," ApJ 530, 508-524, 2000

1335: 

1336: \bibitem[]{} Maron, J., 2004, J. Comput.\ Phys., submitted  (astro-ph/0402606)

1337: 

1338: %\bibitem[]{} Maron, J., "High-Wavenumber Finite Differences and Turbulence

1339: %Simulations," xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0402606

1340: 

1341: \bibitem[]{} Maron, J., Chandran, B. \& Blackman, E. 2004, PRL, 92, 045001

1342: 

1343: %\bibitem[]{} Maron, J., Chandran, B. \& Blackman, E., ``Divergence of

1344: %Neighboring Magnetic-Field Lines and Fast-Particle Diffusion in Strong

1345: %Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence, with Application to Thermal Conductionin

1346: %Galaxy Clusters," PRL, 92, 045001, 2004.

1347: 

1348: \bibitem[Maron \& Goldreich(2001)]{mar01} Maron, J. \& Goldreich, P.

1349: 2001, ApJ, 554, 1175

1350: 

1351: \bibitem[]{} Powell, K.G., Roe, P.L., Linde, T.J., Gombosi, T.J. \&

1352: De Zeeuw, D.L. 1999, J. Comput.\ Phys., 154, 284

1353: 

1354: %\bibitem[Stone and Norman(1992a)]{sto92a}

1355: %Stone, J. M. \& Norman, M. L. 1992a, ApJS, 80, 753

1356: 

1357: \bibitem[Stone and Norman(1992b)]{sto92b}

1358: Stone, J. M. \& Norman, M. L. 1992a, ApJS, 80, 791

1359: 

1360: %\bibitem[Stone and Norman(1992a)]{sto92a}

1361: %Stone, J. \& Norman, M., ``Zeus-2D, A Radiation Magnetohydrodynamics Code

1362: %for Astrophysical Flows in Two Space Dimensions: I. The Hydrodynamic

1363: %Algorithms and Tests", 1992a, ApJS, 80, 753.

1364: 

1365: \bibitem[]{}Stone, J., Hawley, J.F., Evans, C.R. \& Norman, M. 1992b,

1366: ApJ, 388, 415

1367: 

1368: %\bibitem[Stone and Norman(1992b)]{sto92b}

1369: %Stone, J. \& Norman, M., ``Zeus-2D, A Radiation Magnetohydrodynamics Code

1370: %for Astrophysical Flows in Two Space Dimensions: II. The Magnetohydrodynamic

1371: %Algorithms and Tests", 1992b, ApJS, 80, 791.

1372: 

1373: \bibitem[]{} T\'{o}th, G. 2000, J. Comput.\ Phys., 161, 605

1374: %\bibitem[]{} T\'{o}th, G. 2000, JCP 161, 605-652

1375: 

1376: %\bibitem[]{} T\'{o}th, G., ``The ${\bf \nabla \cdot B} = 0$ constraint in

1377: %shock-capturing magnetohydrodynamics codes," JCP 161, 605-652, 2000

1378: 

1379: \bibitem[]{} Toro, E. F. 1999, Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid

1380: Dynamics (Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag)

1381: 

1382: \bibitem[]{} Zhong, X. 1998, J. Comp. Phys. 144, 662

1383: %"High-order nite-dierence schemes for numerical simulation

1384: %of hypersonic boundary-layer transition"

1385: 

1386: 

1387: \end{thebibliography}

1388: 

1389: 

1390: 

1391: \end{document}

1392: 

1393: stencil4.eps      f1.eps

1394: ctspectrum.eps    f2a.eps

1395: ct.ray.eps        f2b.eps

1396: A_alfven_test.ps  f3a.eps

1397: CT_alfven_test.ps f3b.eps

1398: brms_vs_t_CT_A.ps f4.eps

1399: ct.alfven.eps     f5.eps

1400: ctfig.ps          f6.eps

1401: 

1402: 

1403: