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

2: \documentclass{emulateapj}

3: 

4: %Used for picture environment.

5: %\usepackage{color}

6: \usepackage{amsmath}

7: 

8: \shorttitle{}

9: \shortauthors{}

10: 

11: \begin{document}

12: 

13: \title{BETHE-Hydro: An Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian

14:   Multi-dimensional Hydrodynamics Code for Astrophysical Simulations}

15: 

16: \author{Jeremiah W. Murphy\altaffilmark{1,2}}

17: \author{Adam Burrows\altaffilmark{1}}

18: 

19: \altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona,

20:   Tucson, AZ 85721; jmurphy@as.arizona.edu, burrows@as.arizona.edu}

21: \altaffiltext{2}{JINA Fellow.}

22: 

23: \begin{abstract}

24: In this paper, we describe a new hydrodynamics code for 1D and 2D

25: astrophysical simulations, BETHE-hydro, that uses time-dependent,

26: arbitrary, unstructured grids. The core of the hydrodynamics algorithm

27: is an arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) approach, in which the

28: gradient and divergence operators are made compatible using the

29: support-operator method.  We present 1D and 2D gravity solvers that

30: are finite differenced using the support-operator technique, and the

31: resulting system of linear equations are solved using the tridiagonal

32: method for 1D simulations and an iterative multigrid-preconditioned

33: conjugate-gradient method for 2D simulations. Rotational terms are

34: included for 2D calculations using cylindrical coordinates.  We

35: document an incompatibility between a subcell pressure algorithm to

36: suppress hourglass motions and the subcell remapping algorithm and

37: present a modified subcell pressure scheme that avoids this

38: problem. Strengths of this code include a straightforward structure,

39: enabling simple inclusion of additional physics packages, the ability

40: to use a general equation of state, and most importantly, the ability

41: to solve self-gravitating hydrodynamic flows on time-dependent,

42: arbitrary grids.  In what follows, we describe in detail the numerical

43: techniques employed and, with a large suite of tests, demonstrate that

44: BETHE-hydro finds accurate solutions with 2$^{nd}$-order convergence.

45: \end{abstract}

46: 

47: \keywords{hydrodynamics --- instabilities --- methods: numerical ---

48:   shock waves --- supernovae: general }

49: 

50: \section{Introduction}

51: 

52: The ability to simulate hydrodynamic flow is key to studying most astrophysical objects.

53: Supernova explosions, gamma-ray bursts, X-ray bursts, classical novae,

54: the outbursts of luminous blue variables (LBVs), and stellar winds are just a few

55: phenomena for which understanding and numerical tools evolve in tandem.  This is due

56: in part to the physical complexity, multi-dimensional character, and instabilities

57: of such dynamical fluids. Moreover, rotation is frequently a factor in the 

58: dynamical development of astrophysical transients.  One-dimensional hydrodynamics

59: is by and large a solved problem, but multi-dimensional hydrodynamics is still a challenge.

60: In the context of astrophysical theory, this is due primarily to the need to address 

61: time-dependent gravitational potentials, complicated equations of state (EOSs),

62: flexible grids, multi-D shock structures, and chaotic and turbulent flows.

63: As a result, theorists who aim to understand the Universe devote much of their 

64: time to code development and testing.  

65: 

66: One of the outstanding and complex problems in theoretical astrophysics is the 

67: mechanism for core-collapse supernovae. For more than two decades, 

68: the preferred mechanism of explosion has been the delayed neutrino mechanism \citep{bethe85}.

69: One-dimensional (1D) simulations generally fail to produce explosions

70: \citep{liebendorfer01a,liebendorfer01b,rampp02,buras03,thompson03,liebendorfer05}.

71: However, 2-dimensional (2D) simulations, and the accompanying

72: aspherical instabilities, suggest that the neutrino-mechanism may indeed be viable

73: \citep{herant94,janka95,burrows95,burrows07a,buras06,kitaura06}, though this

74: has yet to be proven.  In fact, \citet{burrows06} have recently reported an 

75: acoustic mechanism, which seems to succeed on long timescales when and if

76: other mechanisms fail.  These authors identified two primary

77: reasons why this mechanism might have been missed before:  1) 2D

78: radiation-hydrodynamic simulations with reasonable approximations are

79: still expensive to run, and with limited resources simulations are

80: rarely carried to late enough times; and 2), a noteworthy feature of the code

81: they used, VULCAN/2D, is its Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) structure.

82: VULCAN/2D incorporates non-standard grids that liberate the inner core from the Courant 

83: and resolution limitations of standard spherical grids. In this context, 

84: \citet{burrows06} claim that simulating all degrees of freedom

85: leads to a new mechanism in which the gravitational energy in aspherical

86: accretion is converted to explosion energy by first exciting

87: protoneutron star core g-modes. These modes then radiate acoustic power

88: and revive the stalled shock into explosion.  Remarkably, the acoustic

89: mechanism, given enough time, leads to successful

90: core-collapse supernovae in all progenitors more massive than $\sim$9

91: M$_{\odot}$ simulated to date \citep{burrows06,burrows07a}.  However, this is a

92: remarkable claim, and given the implications, must be thoroughly investigated.

93: For instance, one question to ask is: could the results seen by \citet{burrows06} 

94: be numerical artifacts of VULCAN?

95: 

96: Therefore, to address this and other issues that surround the acoustic 

97: supernova mechanism, as well as a host of other outstanding astrophysical puzzles, 

98: we have designed the new hydrodynamic code,

99: BETHE-hydro\footnote{Hydrodynamic core of BETHE ({\bf B}asic {\bf E}xplicit/Implicit {\bf

100:     T}ransport and {\bf H}ydrodynamics {\bf E}xplosion Code)}, from the bottom up.

101: BETHE-hydro will be coupled with the 2D mixed-frame radiation transport scheme of

102: \citet{hubeny07} to create the 2D radiation/hydrodynamics code BETHE, and the merger

103: of these two codes will be the subject of a future paper.  In

104: this paper, we present and test the hydrodynamic and gravity 

105: algorithms of BETHE-hydro. Since BETHE-hydro uses arbitrary grids and a general 

106: gravity solver, we expect it to be a powerful and flexible numerical tool, 

107: able to configure the grid to suit the computational challenge.

108: 

109: The core of BETHE-hydro is a 1D and 2D ALE

110: hydrodynamics solver.  First, solutions to the Lagrangian hydrodynamic

111: equations are obtained on an arbitrary polygonal grid.  Then, to avoid

112: tangled grids, the hydrodynamic variables can be remapped to another grid.

113: A unique and powerful feature of ALE schemes is their

114: flexibility to tailor an arbitrary grid to the computational challenge

115: and to alter the grid dynamically during runtime.  Hence, purely Lagrangian,

116: purely Eulerian, or arbitrarily moving grids (chosen to optimize

117: numerical performance and resolution) are possible.  These grids

118: can be non-orthogonal, non-spherical, and non-Cartesian.

119: 

120: Some of the earliest 2D hydrodynamic simulations in astrophysics were,

121: in fact, performed to address the core-collapse problem.  While some

122: employed standard fixed-grid schemes \citep{smarr81}, other 2D

123: simulations were calculated with adaptive grids.  Although many

124: utilized moving grids, for the most part, the differencing

125: formulations were Eulerian \citep{leblanc70,symbalisty84,miller93}.

126: On the other hand, \citet{livio80} did employ an ``Euler-Lagrange''

127: method involving a Lagrangian hydrodynamic solve, followed by a

128: remapping stage.  Even though these simulations did exploit radially

129: dynamical grids, they were restricted to be orthogonal and spherical.

130: 

131: Many of the current hydrodynamic algorithms used in

132: astrophysics are based upon either ZEUS \citep{stone92a} or

133: higher-order Godunov methods, in particular the Piecewise-Parabolic Method (PPM)

134: \citep{colella84,woodward84}.  Both approaches have been limited to

135: orthogonal grids.  One concern with PPM-based codes is that they

136: solve the hydrodynamic equations in dimensionally-split

137: fashion.  As a result, there have been concerns that these algorithms

138: do not adequately resolve flows that are oblique to the grid

139: orientation.  Rectifying this concern, recent unsplit higher-order

140: Godunov schemes, or approximations thereof, have been developed

141: \citep{truelove98,klein99,gardiner05,miniati07}.  Despite this

142: and the employment of adaptive mesh refinement (AMR), these codes must use

143: orthogonal grids that are often strictly Cartesian.

144: 

145: In BETHE-hydro, we use 

146: finite-difference schemes based upon the support-operator method \citep{shashkov95} of

147: \citet{caramana98c} and \citet{caramana98a}.  Differencing

148: by this technique enables conservation of energy to roundoff error in the absence of rotation and time-varying

149: gravitational potentials.  Similarly, momentum is conserved

150: accurately, but due to the artificial viscosity scheme that we employ,

151: it is conserved to roundoff error for hydrodynamic simulations

152: using Cartesian coordinates only.  Moreover, using the support-operator method and borrowing from an

153: adaptation of the support-operator technique for elliptic equations \citep{morel98},

154: we have developed a gravity solver for arbitrary grids. Unfortunately, by 

155: including a general gravity capability, we sacrifice strict energy and momentum conservation.

156: However, we have performed tests and for most cases the results are

157: reasonably accurate.  Furthermore, we have included rotational terms and we use a

158: modified version of the subcell pressure scheme to mitigate hourglass instabilities 

159: \citep{caramana98a}. 

160: 

161: To resolve shocks, we employ an artificial viscosity method, 

162: which is designed to maintain grid stability as well \citep{campbell01}, and there are 

163: no restrictive assumptions made about the equation of state.  

164: Higher-order Godunov techniques employ Riemann solvers to 

165: resolve shocks, but frequently need an artificial viscosity scheme 

166: to eliminate unwanted post-shock ringing.

167: Moreover, the inner workings of Riemann

168: solvers often make local approximations that the EOS has a gamma-law

169: form, which stipulates that as the internal energy goes to zero so

170: does the pressure. For equations of state appropriate for core-collapse supernovae, this

171: artificially imposed zero-point energy can pose problems for the

172: simulations \citep{buras06}.  

173: 

174: Two codes in astrophysics which have already capitalized on the

175: arbitrary grid formulations of ALE are Djehuty

176: \citep{bazan03,dearborn05} and VULCAN/2D \citep{livne93,livne04}.  In both

177: cases, the grids employed were designed to be spherical in

178: the outer regions, but to transition smoothly to a cylindrical grid near the

179: center.  These grid geometries reflected the basic structure of stars, while

180: avoiding the cumbersome singularity of a spherical

181: grid.  With this philosophy, \citet{dearborn06}, using Djehuty, have

182: studied the helium core flash phase of

183: stellar evolution in 3D.  In the core-collapse context,

184: \citet{burrows06,burrows07c,burrows07a}, using VULCAN/2D, performed 2D

185: radiation/hydrodynamic and radiation/MHD simulations with rotation.

186: 

187: Several gravity solvers have been employed in

188: astrophysics.  The most trivial are static or monopole approaches.

189: For arbitrary potentials, the most extensively used are N-body

190: schemes, which fit most naturally in Smooth Particle

191: Hydrodynamics (SPH) codes \citep{monaghan92}.  As a virtue, SPH solves

192: the equations in a grid-free context, and while SPH

193: has opened the way to three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic simulations

194: in astrophysics, including core-collapse simulations \citep{fryer02},

195: the smoothing kernels currently employed pose serious problems for

196: simulating fundamental hydrodynamic instabilities such as the

197: Kelvin-Helmholtz instability \citep{agertz07}.  Another approach

198: to the solution of Poisson's equation for gravity is the use of

199: multipole expansions of the potential \citep{muller95}.  This

200: technique achieves its relative speed by calculating simple

201: integrals on a spherical grid once. Then, the stored integrals are 

202: used in subsequent timesteps.  In BETHE-hydro, we

203: construct finite-difference equations for Poisson's equation using the

204: support-operator method and find solutions to the resulting linear

205: system of equations for the potentials via an iterative

206: multigrid-preconditioned conjugate-gradient method \citep{ruge87}.

207: 

208: In \S \ref{section:bethe_hydro}, we give a summary of BETHE-hydro and sketch the flowchart of the

209: algorithm.  The coordinates and mesh details are discussed in \S \ref{section:coords_mesh}. We then 

210: describe in \S\ref{section:lag_hydro} the discrete Lagrangian equations, including 

211: specifics of the 2$^{nd}$-order time-integration and rotational terms.  Section \ref{section:gravity} gives a

212: complete description of the 1D and 2D gravity solvers.  Hydrodynamic

213: boundary conditions are discussed in \S \ref{section:hydro_boundary}.

214: The artificial viscosity algorithm that provides shock resolution and grid stability

215: is described in \S \ref{section:artificial_viscosity}. In \S \ref{section:hourglass}, we present the

216: subcell pressure scheme that suppresses hourglass modes. Remapping is described

217: in depth in \S \ref{section:remap}.  In \S \ref{section:tests}, we

218: demonstrate the code's strengths and limitations with some test

219: problems. Finally,  in \S \ref{section:discussion} we summarize 

220: the central characteristics and advantages of BETHE-hydro.

221: 

222: \section{BETHE-Hydro:  An Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian Code}

223: \label{section:bethe_hydro}

224: In ALE algorithms, the equations of hydrodynamics are solved in

225: Lagrangian form.

226: Within this framework, equations for the conservation of mass,

227: momentum, and energy are: 

228: \begin{equation}

229: \label{eq:mass_lag}

230: \frac{d \rho}{d t} = - \rho \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v} \, ,

231: \end{equation}

232: \begin{equation}

233: \label{eq:mom_lag}

234: \rho \frac{d \vec{v}}{d t} = - \rho \vec{\nabla} \Phi - \vec{\nabla} P

235: \, ,

236: \end{equation}

237: and

238: \begin{equation}

239: \label{eq:ene_lag}

240: \rho \frac{d \varepsilon}{d t} = - P \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v} \, .

241: \end{equation}

242: $\rho$ is the mass density (which we refer to simply as

243: ``density'' and is distinct from the energy or

244: momentum densities), $\vec{v}$ is the fluid velocity, $\Phi$ is the gravitational

245: potential, $P$ is the isotropic pressure, $\varepsilon$ is the specific

246: internal energy, and $d/dt = \partial / \partial t + \vec{v} \cdot

247: \vec{\nabla}$ is the Lagrangian time derivative.  The equation of

248: state may have the following general form:

249: \begin{equation}

250: \label{eq:eos}

251: P = P(\rho,\varepsilon,X_i) \, ,

252: \end{equation}

253: where $X_i$ denotes the mass fraction of species $i$.

254: Therefore, we also solve the conservation equations:

255: \begin{equation}

256: \label{eq:advec}

257: \frac{d X_i}{dt} = 0 \, .

258: \end{equation}

259: Completing the set of equations for self-gravitating astrophysical flows 

260: is Poisson's equation for gravity:

261: \begin{equation}

262: \label{eq:poisson}

263: \nabla^2 \Phi = 4 \pi G \rho \, ,

264: \end{equation}

265: where $G$ is Newton's gravitational constant.

266: 

267: All ALE methods have the potential to solve eqs. (\ref{eq:mass_lag}-\ref{eq:ene_lag})

268: using arbitrary, unstructured grids.  In this lies the power and functionality of ALE methods.

269: The solutions involve two steps and are conceptually quite simple: 1) a Lagrangian solver moves the nodes of the mesh in

270: response to the hydrodynamic forces; and 2) to avoid grid tangling,

271: the nodes are repositioned, and a remapping algorithm interpolates hydrodynamic quantities from the old grid to this new grid.

272: Of course, the challenge is to find accurate solutions, while conserving

273: energy and momentum.  In constructing BETHE-hydro to satisfy these

274: requirements, we use the ALE hydrodynamic

275: techniques of \citet{caramana98c}, \citet{caramana98a},

276: \citet{campbell01}, and \citet{loubere05}.

277: 

278: To summarize the overall structure of BETHE-hydro, we present a

279: schematic flowchart, Fig. \ref{flowchart}, and briefly describe the

280: key steps.

281: Establishing the structure for

282: all subsequent routines, the first step is to construct

283: the arbitrary, unstructured grid.  This leads to the next step, problem

284: initialization.  Then, the main loop for timestep integration is

285: entered.  After a call to the EOS to obtain the pressure, solutions to Poisson's

286: equation for gravity are calculated using either the 2D or 1D

287: algorithms in \S \ref{section:gravity}.  Both use the

288: support-operator method to discretize eq. (\ref{eq:poisson}), and the

289: resulting system of linear equations is solved by a tridiagonal

290: solver in 1D and a multigrid pre-conditioned conjugate-gradient

291: iterative method in 2D (\S \ref{section:gravity}).

292: 

293: After the timestep is calculated (\S

294:   \ref{section:predictor_corrector}),

295: the Lagrangian equations of hydrodynamics are solved on

296: an arbitrary grid using the compatible hydrodynamics algorithm of

297: \citet{caramana98c} (see \S \ref{section:lag_hydro} for further discussion).  To ensure 2nd-order accuracy in both space and time, we employ a

298: predictor-corrector iteration (\S \ref{section:predictor_corrector}), in which a second call to the EOS and

299: the gravity solver are required.

300: Other than the gravity solver block, the

301: Lagrangian hydrodynamics solver (\S

302: \ref{section:lag_hydro}) is represented by the set of steps

303: beginning with Predictor and ending with Corrector

304: (Fig. \ref{flowchart}).

305: 

306: After finding Lagrangian hydrodynamic solutions at each timestep, one

307: could proceed directly to the next timestep, maintaining the

308: Lagrangian character throughout the simulation.  However, in multiple spatial dimensions,

309: grid tangling will corrupt flows with significant

310: vorticity. In these circumstances, we conservatively remap the Lagrangian

311: solution to a new arbitrary grid that mitigates tangled grids.  The

312: new grid may be the original grid, in which case we are solving the

313: hydrodynamic equations in the Eulerian frame, or it may be a new,

314: arbitrarily-defined, grid.

315: 

316: 

317: \section{Coordinate Systems and Mesh}

318: \label{section:coords_mesh}

319: 

320: In BETHE-hydro, eqs. (\ref{eq:mass_lag}-\ref{eq:poisson}) may be

321: solved with any of several

322: coordinate systems and assumed symmetries.  Included are the standard

323: 1D \& 2D Cartesian coordinate systems.  For astrophysical applications, we use 1D

324: spherical and 2D cylindrical coordinate systems.  Irrespective of the

325: coordinate system, we indicate a position by $\vec{x}$.  The components

326: of the Cartesian coordinate system are $x$ and $y$; the spherical

327: components are $r$, $\theta$, and $\phi$; and the cylindrical

328: coordinates are $r$, $z$, and $\phi$.

329: 

330: Distinct from the coordinate system is the grid, or mesh, which

331: defines an arbitrary discretization of space.  It is this unique

332: feature and foundation of ALE techniques that provides their flexibility.

333: Figure \ref{grid_ex} shows two example grids: the butterfly mesh on the

334: left and a spiderweb mesh on the right.  Either may be used in a 2D

335: Cartesian or 2D cylindrical simulations, although the placement of the

336: nodes is neither Cartesian nor cylindrical.  Instead, these meshes have

337: been designed to simulate spherically or cylindrically convergent

338: phenomena without the limitation of small zones near the center.

339: 

340: When using cylindrical coordinates in ALE algorithms, one may use control-volume

341: differencing (CVD) or area-weighted differencing (AWD); we use CVD.

342: Thorough comparisons of these two differencing schemes may be found in

343: \citet{caramana98c}.  Here, we give a basic justification for

344: choosing CVD.  For CVD, the volumes of the subcell, cell, and

345: node are calculated by straightforward partitioning of these regions by

346: edges.  Hence, volumes and masses are exact representations of their

347: respective regions.  While this discretization is natural and easy to

348: comprehend, it does not preserve strict spherical symmetry when using

349: a spherical grid and cylindrical coordinates.  On the other hand, AWD is designed

350: to preserve spherically symmetric flows, but only with the use of

351: spherical grids that have equal spacing in angle.  Since this

352: prevents the use of arbitrary grids, and the asymmetries of CVD are

353: small, we use CVD for discretization.

354:  

355: Construction of the grid begins with the arbitrary placement of nodes.  At

356: these nodes, coordinate positions, velocities, and accelerations are defined.

357: Simply specifying node locations does not completely define a mesh,

358: since there is not a unique way to assign cells and masses to these

359: nodes.  Therefore, the

360: user must specify the connectivity among nodes, which define the arbitrarily-shaped polygonal cells.  It is within these cells that

361: cell-centered averages of $\rho$,

362: $\varepsilon$, $P$, $X_i$, and $\Phi$ are defined.

363: 

364: With the node

365: positions, their connectivity, and the cells defined, a mesh is completely specified and all other useful

366: descriptions follow.  Cells are denoted by $z$, and nodes are indexed

367: by $p$.  The

368: set of nodes that defines cell $z$ are $p \in S(z)$, where

369: the nodes are ordered counterclockwise.

370: Conversely, the set of cells that shares node $p$ is denoted by $z \in S(p)$.

371: Each cell has $N_p(z)$ nodes that define it, and each node has

372: $N_z(p)$ cells that share it.  The sample sub-grid depicted in

373: Fig. \ref{fig:grid} helps to illustrate the nodal and cell structure. The filled circles

374: indicate node positions, $\vec{x}_p$, and the crosses indicate the

375: cell-center positions,

376: $\vec{x}_z = (1/N_p(z))\sum_{p \in S(z)} \vec{x}_p$.  The solid lines

377: are direction-oriented edges that separate cells from one

378: another, and the open circles indicate their mid-edge locations.

379: Partitioning the cell into subcells, the

380: dashed lines connect the mid-edges with the cell centers.  No matter how many sides a cell

381: has, with this particular division the subcells are always

382: quadrilaterals.  Naturally, the cell volumes (see appendix

383: \ref{section:integrals} for formulae calculating discrete volumes), $V_z$, are related to the

384: subcell volumes, $V^z_p$, by

385: \begin{equation}

386: \label{eq:volume_cell}

387: V_z = \sum_{p \in S(z)} V^z_p \, .

388: \end{equation}

389: Furthermore, each node has a volume, $V_p$, defined by the adjoining subcells

390: that share the node $p$:

391: \begin{equation}

392: \label{eq:volume_node}

393: V_p = \sum_{z \in S(p)} V^p_z \, .

394: \end{equation}

395: For calculating pressure forces and fluxes, 

396: vectors are assigned to each

397: half edge on either side of node $p$: $\vec{C}^z_{p+}$ and

398: $\vec{C}^z_{p-}$, where $+$ indicates the half edge in the

399: counterclockwise direction around the cell and $-$ indicates its opposite

400: counterpart.  Their magnitudes are the areas represented by the half edges, and their directions point

401: outward and normal to the surface of cell $z$.  From these half-edge

402: area vectors, an area vector, $\vec{S}^z_p$, that is

403: associated with zone $z$ and node $p$ is then defined:

404: \begin{equation}

405: \vec{S}^z_p = \vec{C}^z_{p+} + \vec{C}^z_{p-} \, .

406: \end{equation}

407: Similarly, vectors are associated with the lines connecting the

408: mid-edges and the cell centers: $\vec{a}^z_p$.  Again, their

409: magnitudes are the corresponding area, but while the vector is

410: normal to this line, the direction is oriented

411: counterclockwise around the cell.

412: 

413: \section{Discrete Lagrangian Hydrodynamics}

414: \label{section:lag_hydro}

415: The fundamental assumption of Lagrangian algorithms is that the mass,

416: $m_z$, of a discrete volume $V_z$ is constant

417: with time.  For staggered-grid methods, in which scalars are defined

418: as cell-centered averages and vectors are defined at the nodes, it is

419: necessary to define a

420: Lagrangian mass, $m_p$, for the nodes as well.  This nodal

421: mass is associated with the node's volume $V_p$ 

422: (eq. \ref{eq:volume_node}).  Conservation of mass (eq. \ref{eq:mass_lag}) implies zero mass flux across the boundaries,

423: $\partial V$, of either the cell volume or nodal volume.  Therefore, the region of overlap for

424: $V_z$ and $V_p$, which is the subcell volume $V^z_p$, is bounded by

425: surfaces with zero mass flux.  Consequently, the most elemental

426: Lagrangian mass is the subcell mass, $m^z_p$, and the cell mass ($m_z$) and node mass ($m_p$) are constructed as appropriate sums

427: of subcell masses:

428: \begin{equation}

429: \label{eq:mass_cell}

430: m_z = \sum_{p \in S(z)} m^z_p \, ,

431: \end{equation}

432: and

433: \begin{equation}

434: \label{eq:mass_node}

435: m_p = \sum_{z \in S(p)} m^p_z \, .

436: \end{equation}

437: Hence, we arrive at three discrete forms of mass conservation (eq. \ref{eq:mass_lag}):

438: \begin{equation}

439: \label{eq:mass_discrete}

440: \begin{array}{cccc}

441: \rho^z_p = \frac{m^z_p} {V^z_p} \, , &

442: \rho_p = \frac{m_p} {V_p} \, ,&

443: \mbox{and} &

444: \rho_z = \frac{m_z} {V_z} \, .

445: \end{array}

446: \end{equation}

447: 

448: In defining the discrete momentum and energy equations, we use the

449: compatible hydrodynamics algorithms developed by

450: \citet{caramana98c}. Specifically, the discrete divergence and

451: gradient operators are {\it compatible} in that

452: they faithfully represent their analog in continuous space

453: {\it and} their definitions are expressly related to one another using

454: the hydrodynamic expressions for conservation of momentum and

455: energy.  As a result, this approach leads to discretizations that satisfy momentum and energy conservation to machine

456: accuracy.  This is accomplished with the support-operator method

457: \citep{shashkov95}.  Given

458: the integral identity,

459: \begin{equation}

460: \label{eq:intidentity}

461: \int_V \Phi (\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{H}) dV 

462: + \int_V \vec{H} \cdot \vec{\nabla} \Phi dV 

463: = \oint_{\partial V} \Phi \vec{H} \cdot d\vec{S} \, ,

464: \end{equation}

465: where $\Phi$ is any scalar and $\vec{H}$ is some vector,

466: there is an incontrovertible connection between the divergence and

467: gradient operators.  For many choices of discretization, the discrete

468: counterparts of these operators could violate this integral identity.

469: Simply put, the goal of the support-operator method is to define the discrete operators so

470: that they satisfy eq. (\ref{eq:intidentity}).  The first step is to

471: define one of the discrete operators.  It is often, but

472: not necessary, that the discrete

473: divergence operator is defined via Gauss's Law:

474: \begin{equation}

475: \label{eq:gausslaw}

476: \int_V \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v} dV = \oint_{\partial V} \vec{v}

477: \cdot d\vec{S} \, ,

478: \end{equation}

479: and then eq. (\ref{eq:intidentity}) is used to compatibly define the other

480: discrete operator.  Discretizing the hydrodynamic

481: equations, 

482: \citet{caramana98c} begin by defining

483: $(\vec{\nabla}P)_p$ at the nodes and use the integral form of energy

484: conservation and an equation equivalent to eq. (\ref{eq:intidentity})

485: to define for each cell the discrete divergence of the velocity, $(\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v})_z$.

486: 

487: To begin, \citet{caramana98c} integrate eq. (\ref{eq:mom_lag}) (excluding gravity and rotational

488: terms) over the volume of node $p$, producing the discrete form for

489: $(\vec{\nabla P})_p$ and the momentum equation:

490: \begin{eqnarray}

491: \label{eq:mom_discrete1}

492: m_p \frac{\Delta \vec{v}_p}{\Delta t} & = & - \int_{V_p}\vec{\nabla} P \,

493: dV \nonumber \\

494: & = & - \oint_{\partial V_p} P \, d\vec{S} \nonumber \\ 

495: & = & - \sum_{z \in S(p)} P_z \vec{S^p_z} \, ,

496: \end{eqnarray}

497: %\begin{equation}

498: %\label{eq:mom_discrete1}

499: %m_p \frac{\Delta \vec{v}_p}{\Delta t} = - \int_{V_p}\vec{\nabla} P \,

500: %dV = - \oint_{\partial V_p} P \, d\vec{S} = - \sum_{z \in S(p)} P_z

501: %\vec{S^p_z} \, ,

502: %\end{equation}

503: where $\Delta \vec{v}_p = \vec{v}_p^{n+1} - \vec{v}^n_p$ is the change

504: in velocity from timestep $n$ to the next timestep $n+1$, the

505: timestep is $\Delta t$, and $P_z$ is the pressure in cell $z$.  In other words, the net force

506: on node $p$ is a sum of the pressure times the

507: directed zone areas that share node $p$.  Hence, the subcell force

508: exerted by zone $z$ on point $p$ is $\vec{f}^p_z = P_z \vec{S}^p_z$.  A more complete description of the

509: subcell force, however, must account for artificial

510: viscosity (\S \ref{section:artificial_viscosity}):

511: \begin{equation}

512: \vec{f}^p_z = P_z \vec{S}^p_z + \vec{f}^p_{z,\rm{visc}} \, ,

513: \end{equation}

514: where $\vec{f}^p_{z,\rm{visc}},$ is the subcell force due to

515: artificial viscosity.  Furthermore, in this work, we include gravity

516: and rotation for 2D axisymmetric simulations, and the full discrete

517: momentum equation becomes

518: \begin{equation}

519: \label{eq:mom_discrete2}

520: m_p \frac{\Delta \vec{v}_p}{\Delta t} =

521: \sum_{z \in S(p)} \vec{f}^p_z + m_p \vec{g}_p + m_p\vec{A}_p \, ,

522: \end{equation}

523: where $\vec{g}_p$ and $\vec{A}_p$ are the gravitational and rotational

524: accelerations, respectively.  For simplicity, and to parallel the discussion in

525: \citet{caramana98c}, we ignore these terms in the momentum equation

526: and proceed with the compatible construction of the energy equation

527: (see \S \ref{section:consenerot} and \S \ref{section:consenegravity}

528: for discussions of total energy conservation including rotation and

529: gravity, respectively).

530: 

531: To construct the discrete energy equation, \citet{caramana98c} integrate

532: eq. (\ref{eq:ene_lag}) over the discrete volume of cell $z$:

533: \begin{equation}

534: m_z \frac{\Delta \varepsilon_z}{\Delta t} = - \int_{V_z} P \vec{\nabla} \cdot

535: \vec{v} \, dV = - P_z ( \vec{\nabla} \cdot

536: \vec{v} )_z V_z \, ,

537: \end{equation}

538: where $\Delta \varepsilon_z = \varepsilon_z^{n+1} - \varepsilon_z^n$.

539: Then, the objective is to determine a discrete form for the right hand

540: side of this equation that conserves energy and makes the discrete

541: gradient and divergence operators compatible.

542: \citet{caramana98c} accomplish this with the integral for conservation

543: of energy (neglecting gravity):

544: \begin{eqnarray}

545: \int \left ( \rho \frac{d \varepsilon}{dt} + \frac{1}{2} \rho \frac{d

546:     v^2}{dt}\right ) dV 

547: & = & -\int_V (P \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v} + \vec{v} \cdot \vec{\nabla} P

548: ) dV \nonumber \\

549: & = & -\oint_{\partial V} P\vec{v} \cdot d\vec{S}

550: \, ,

551: \end{eqnarray}

552: %\begin{equation}

553: %\int \left ( \rho \frac{d \varepsilon}{dt} + \frac{1}{2} \rho \frac{d

554: %    v^2}{dt}\right ) dV 

555: %= -\int_V (P \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v} + \vec{v} \cdot \vec{\nabla} P

556: %) dV

557: %= -\oint_{\partial V} P\vec{v} \cdot d\vec{S}

558: %\, ,

559: %\end{equation}

560: where the second expression is the integral identity,

561: eq. (\ref{eq:intidentity}), that defines the physical relationship

562: between the gradient and divergence operators.

563: Neglecting boundary terms, the discrete form of this integral is

564: \begin{equation}

565: \label{eq:enecons_discrete}

566: \sum_z \left ( m_z \frac{\Delta \varepsilon_z}{\Delta t} + \sum_{p \in S(z)}

567: \vec{v}^{n+1/2}_p \cdot \vec{f}^p_z \right ) =

568: 0 \, ,

569: \end{equation}

570: where we used $\Delta \vec{v}^2_p = (\vec{v}^{n+1}_p)^2 -

571: (\vec{v}^n_p)^2 = 2 \vec{v}^{n+1/2}_p \cdot \Delta \vec{v}_p$, $\vec{v}^{n+1/2}_p = 1/2 ( \vec{v}^{n+1}_p + \vec{v}^n_p)$,

572:  and

573: substituted in eq. (\ref{eq:mom_discrete1}).  If we set the expression

574: for each zone in eq. (\ref{eq:enecons_discrete}) to zero, we

575: arrive at the compatible energy equation:

576: \begin{equation}

577: \label{eq:ene_discrete}

578: m_z \frac{\Delta \varepsilon_z}{\Delta t} = - \sum_{p \in S(z)}

579: \vec{v}^{n+1/2}_p \cdot \vec{f}^z_p \, .

580: \end{equation}

581: The RHS of

582: eq. (\ref{eq:ene_discrete}) is merely the $PdV$ work term of the first

583: law of thermodynamics.  Its unconventional form is a consequence of

584: the support-operator method.

585: 

586: Thus, we derive two significant results.  First, 

587: inspection of eqs. (\ref{eq:ene_discrete}) and

588: (\ref{eq:mom_discrete1}) leads to compatible definitions for the

589: discrete gradient and divergence operators. Specifically, the discrete

590: analogs of the gradient and divergence operators are

591: \begin{equation}

592: (\vec{\nabla} P)_p = \frac{1}{V_p} \sum_{z \in S(p)} P_z \vec{S}^p_z

593: \end{equation}

594: and 

595: \begin{equation}

596: (\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v})_z = \frac{1}{V_z} \sum_{p \in S(z)}

597: \vec{v}_p \cdot \vec{S}^p_z \, .

598: \end{equation}

599: Second, eqs. (\ref{eq:mass_discrete}), (\ref{eq:mom_discrete1}), and

600: (\ref{eq:ene_discrete}) form the compatible discrete equations of

601: Lagrangian hydrodynamics.

602: 

603: \subsection{Momentum Conservation}

604: \label{section:momcons}

605: 

606: In its current form, BETHE-hydro strictly conserves momentum for

607: simulations that use Cartesian coordinates and not cylindrical

608: coordinates.  \citet{caramana98c} show that the requirement for strict

609: conservation is the use of control-volume differencing, or that exact

610: representations of cell surfaces are employed.  As a simple example,

611: consider momentum conservation with pressure forces only:

612: \begin{equation}

613: \sum_p \vec{F}_p = \sum_p \sum_{z \in S(p)} \vec{f}^p_z = \sum_z

614: P_z \sum_{p \in S(z)} \vec{S}^z_p \, .

615: \end{equation}

616: For Cartesian coordinates, the sum $\sum_{p \in S(z)} \vec{S}^z_p$ is exactly

617: zero for each cell as long as the surface-area vectors are exact

618: representations of the cell's surface.  This is not the case for

619: area-weighted differencing, and hence momentum is not conserved in

620: that case.  For cylindrical coordinates, the sum of surface-area

621: vectors gives zero only for the $z$-component.  However, the assumption

622: of symmetry about the cylindrical axis ensures momentum conservation

623: for the $r$-component.  Therefore, control-volume differencing ensures

624: momentum conservation, even with the use of cylindrical coordinates.

625: 

626: Based upon similar arguments, the subcell-pressure forces that

627: eliminate hourglass motions (\S \ref{section:hourglass}) are formulated to conserve momentum for

628: both Cartesian and cylindrical coordinates.  On the other hand, because

629: we multiply the Cartesian artificial viscosity force by $2 \pi r_p$ to

630: obtain the force appropriate for cylindrical coordinates, the

631: artificial viscosity scheme (\S \ref{section:artificial_viscosity})

632: that we employ is conservative for Cartesian coordinates only.

633: 

634: We test momentum conservation with the Sedov blast wave problem (\S

635: \ref{section:sedov}) using Cartesian and cylindrical coordinates.

636: Symmetry dictates conservation in the $r$-component of the momentum.

637: Consequently, we compare the $z$-component of the total momentum at

638: $t=0$ s with subsequent times.  Since the initial momentum of this

639: test is zero, we obtain a relative error in momentum by $P_z(t)/P_{z,z >

640: 0}(t)$, where $P_z(t)$ is the $z$-component of the total momentum at

641: time $t$ and $P_{z,z > 0}(t)$ is a similar quantity for $z > 0$.  As

642: expected, the relative error using Cartesian coordinates reflects

643: roundoff error.  For cylindrical coordinates and 35,000 cells, the

644: relative error in momentum is $\sim 3 \times 10^{-7}$ after 0.8 s and

645: 71,631 timesteps.  Although momentum is strictly conserved for

646: simulations using Cartesian coordinates only, the Sedov blast wave

647: problem demonstrates that momentum is conserved very accurately, even

648: when cylindrical coordinates are used.

649: 

650: \subsection{Second-Order Time Integration: Predictor-Corrector}

651: \label{section:predictor_corrector}

652: 

653: Our method is explicit in time.  Therefore, for numerical convergence, we limit the timestep, $\Delta t$, to be smaller than

654: three timescales.  By the Courant-Friedrichs-Levy (CFL) condition we

655: limit $\Delta t$ to be smaller than the shortest sound-crossing time

656: and the time it takes flow to traverse a cell.  The latter condition

657: is useful to avoid tangled meshes and is necessary when remapping is

658: used.  In addition, it is

659: limited to be smaller than the fractional change in the volume

660: represented by $(\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v})_z$.  In calculating

661: these timescales a characteristic length for each cell is needed.

662: Given arbitrary polygonal grids, we simply use the shortest edge for

663: each cell.  In practice, the timestep is the shortest of these

664: timescales multiplied by a scaling factor, CFL.  In our

665: calculations, we set ${\rm CFL}= 0.25$.

666: 

667: To ensure second-order accuracy and consistency with the time

668: levels specified in eqs. (\ref{eq:mom_discrete2}) and

669: (\ref{eq:ene_discrete}), we employ predictor-corrector

670: time integration using the finite difference stencil from \citet{caramana98c}.

671: For each timestep, the

672: current time level of each quantity is identified with $n$ in

673: superscript.  The time-centered quantities are indicated with a

674: $n+1/2$ superscript, while the predicted values are labeled

675: $n+1,pr$, and the fully updated values for the next timestep are

676: labeled with a $n+1$ superscript.

677: 

678: Table \ref{table:predictor-corrector} lists the steps for the

679: predictor-corrector integration. 

680: The predictor step begins by defining the forces on nodes, $\vec{f}^n$,

681: using current pressures $P^n$, areas $\vec{S}^n$, and artificial

682: viscosity forces $\vec{f}^n_{\rm{visc}}$.

683: Eq. (\ref{eq:mom_discrete2}) is then used to calculate the predicted

684: velocity, $\vec{v}^{n+1,pr}$.  The predicted node coordinate is then

685: calculated by $\vec{x}^{n+1,pr} = \vec{x}^n + \Delta t

686: \vec{v}^{n+1/2}$, where $\vec{v}^{n+1/2}$ is the time-centered

687: velocity computed as $\vec{v}^{n+1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(\vec{v}^{n+1,pr} +

688: \vec{v}^n)$. Then, using $\vec{f}^n$ and $\vec{v}^{n+1/2}$ in

689: eq. (\ref{eq:ene_discrete}), the predicted specific internal energy,

690: $\varepsilon^{n+1,pr}$, is obtained.  Using the predicted node positions,

691: the predicted rotational acceleration ($\vec{A}^{n+1,pr}_p$), volume ($V^{n+1,pr}$), and density ($\rho^{n+1,pr}$), are

692: computed, which in turn are used to calculate the predicted gravitational

693: acceleration, $\vec{g}^{n+1,pr}$.  Calling the EOS with $\varepsilon^{n+1,pr}$ and

694: $\rho^{n+1,pr}$ gives the predicted pressure $P^{n+1,pr}$.  We finish

695: the predictor step and prepare for the corrector step by calculating the time-centered positions

696: $\vec{x}^{n+1/2}$, pressures $P^{n+1/2}$, rotational accelerations $\vec{A}^{n+1/2}_p$, and gravitational

697: accelerations $\vec{g}^{n+1/2}$ as simple

698: averages of their values at the $(n+1,pr)$ and $n$ time levels.  

699: 

700: The corrector step then proceeds similarly to the predictor step.  $P^{n+1/2}$ and

701: $\vec{S}^{n+1/2}$ are used to compute $\vec{f}^{n+1/2}$, which in

702: turn is used to compute the updated velocity, $\vec{v}^{n+1}$.  After

703: computing the new time-centered velocity, the node coordinates are

704: finally updated using the time-centered velocity.  Then, the specific internal energy, $\varepsilon^{n+1/2}$, is updated using

705: $\vec{f}^{n+1/2}$ and $\vec{v}^{n+1/2}$.  Finally, the volume,

706: $V^{n+1}$, and

707: density $\rho^{n+1}$ are computed for the next timestep. 

708: 

709: 

710: \subsection{Rotation in 2D cylindrical coordinates}

711: \label{section:rotation}

712: 

713: In 2D simulations using cylindrical coordinates, we have extended

714: BETHE-hydro to include rotation about the axis of symmetry.

715: For azimuthally symmetric configurations, all partial derivatives

716: involving $\phi$ are zero.  Consequently, the conservation of mass and

717: energy equations are

718: \begin{equation}

719: \label{eq:mass_lag_rot}

720: \frac{D \rho}{Dt} = - \rho \vec{\nabla}_{rz} \cdot \vec{v}

721: \end{equation}

722: and

723: \begin{equation}

724: \label{eq:ene_lag_rot}

725: \rho \frac{D \varepsilon}{Dt} = -P \vec{\nabla}_{rz} \cdot \vec{v} \, ,

726: \end{equation}

727: where the $rz$ subscript on the del operator reminds us that the

728: derivatives with respect to $\phi$ vanish.  For

729: concise notation, we define a pseudo Lagrangian derivative:

730: \begin{equation}

731: \frac{D}{Dt} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + v_z

732: \frac{\partial}{\partial z} + v_r\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \, .

733: \end{equation}

734: While eqs. (\ref{eq:mass_lag_rot}) and (\ref{eq:ene_lag_rot}) are

735: simple extensions of the true mass (eq. \ref{eq:mass_lag}) and

736: energy (eq. \ref{eq:ene_lag}) equations, the presence of ``Christoffel''

737: terms in the momentum equation give it extra terms:

738: \begin{equation}

739: \label{eq:mom_lag_rot}

740: \rho \frac{D \vec{v}}{Dt} = - \vec{\nabla}_{rz} P + \rho \vec{A} \, .

741: \end{equation}

742: where the extra rotational terms are represented by $\vec{A}$:

743: \begin{equation}

744: \vec{A} = 

745: \left\{

746: \begin{array}{l}

747: 0 \, \hat{e}_z\\

748: \frac{v^2_{\phi}}{r} \, \hat{e}_r\\

749: - \frac{v_{\phi}v_r}{r} \, \hat{e}_{\phi}\\

750: \end{array}

751: \right.

752: \end{equation}

753: 

754: To see the origin of these extra terms, one must begin with the

755: momentum equation in cylindrical coordinates and Eulerian form:

756: \begin{equation}

757: \label{eq:mom_cyl}

758: \begin{array}{rcl}

759: \rho \left (

760: \frac{\partial v_z}{\partial t} + v_z \frac{\partial v_z}{\partial z}

761: +  v_r \frac{\partial v_z}{\partial r} + v_{\phi}\frac{1}{r}

762: \frac{\partial v_z}{\partial \phi}

763: \right) &

764: = &

765: - \frac{\partial P}{\partial z} \\

766: 

767: \rho \left (

768: \frac{\partial v_r}{\partial t} + v_z \frac{\partial v_r}{\partial z}

769: +  v_r \frac{\partial v_r}{\partial r} + v_{\phi}\frac{1}{r}

770: \frac{\partial v_r}{\partial \phi} - \frac{v^2_{\phi}}{r}

771: \right) &

772: = &

773: - \frac{\partial P}{\partial r} \\

774: 

775: \rho \left (

776: \frac{\partial v_{\phi}}{\partial t} + v_z \frac{\partial v_{\phi}}{\partial z}

777: +  v_r \frac{\partial v_{\phi}}{\partial r} + v_{\phi}\frac{1}{r}

778: \frac{\partial v_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + \frac{v_{\phi}v_r}{r}

779: \right) &

780: = &

781: - \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial P}{\partial \phi} \, . \\

782: \end{array}

783: \end{equation}

784: Again, dropping terms involving partial derivatives of $\phi$, and

785: moving all terms not involving partial derivatives to the right-hand

786: side (RHS), eq. (\ref{eq:mom_cyl}) reduces to 

787: \begin{equation}

788: \label{eq:mom_azsymmetric}

789: \begin{array}{rcl}

790: \rho \left (

791: \frac{\partial v_z}{\partial t} + v_z \frac{\partial v_z}{\partial z}

792: +  v_r \frac{\partial v_z}{\partial r}

793: \right) &

794: = &

795: - \frac{\partial P}{\partial z} \\

796: 

797: \rho \left (

798: \frac{\partial v_r}{\partial t} + v_z \frac{\partial v_r}{\partial z}

799: +  v_r \frac{\partial v_r}{\partial r}

800: \right) &

801: = &

802: - \frac{\partial P}{\partial r}  + \rho \frac{v^2_{\phi}}{r}\\

803: 

804: \rho \left (

805: \frac{\partial v_{\phi}}{\partial t} + v_z \frac{\partial v_{\phi}}{\partial z}

806: +  v_r \frac{\partial v_{\phi}}{\partial r}

807: \right) &

808: = &

809: - \rho \frac{v_{\phi}v_r}{r} \, .\\

810: \end{array}

811: \end{equation}

812: Hence, using our definition for the pseudo Lagrangian derivative,

813: $D/Dt$, and $\vec{\nabla}_{rz}$ in eq. (\ref{eq:mom_azsymmetric}) we

814: obtain eq. (\ref{eq:mom_lag_rot}).  It is now apparent why $D/Dt$ is a

815: pseudo Lagrangian derivative.  Strictly, the ``extra'' rotational

816: terms are a result of ``Christoffel'' terms in the true Lagrangian

817: derivative.  Therefore, in defining $D/Dt$ without them, we've defined

818: a pseudo Lagrangian derivative.

819: 

820: Conveniently, the $\phi$ component of eq. (\ref{eq:mom_lag_rot}),

821: \begin{equation}

822: \rho \frac{D v_{\phi}}{D t}= 

823: - \rho \frac{v_{\phi}v_r}{r} \, ,

824: \end{equation}

825: is simply a statement of the conservation of angular momentum about the

826: axis of symmetry:

827: \begin{equation}

828: \label{eq:cons_ang}

829: \frac{D J}{D t} = 0 \, ,

830: \end{equation}

831: where $J$ is the angular momentum about the $z$-axis of a Lagrangian

832: mass.

833: 

834: Other than the appearance of an extra term on the RHS of the $r$-component

835: and of an equation for the $\phi$ component in

836: eq. (\ref{eq:mom_lag_rot}), the 2D hydrodynamic equations including

837: rotation about the $z$-axis are similar to the equations without

838: rotation.  Therefore, the algorithms for dynamics in the 2D plane

839: remain the same, except for the inclusion of the conservation of angular

840: momentum equation and the fictitious force term.

841: 

842: It seems natural to define $J = m_p v_{\phi,p} r_p$ and $v_{\phi,p} =

843: \omega_p r_p$, where $\omega_p$ is the angular velocity of node $p$.

844: In fact, our first implementation of rotation did just this.  However,

845: results indicated that this definition presents problems near the axis of rotation.  Whether

846: $v_{\phi,p}$ or $\omega_p$ is defined, the angular momentum at node

847: $p$ is associated with the region of subcells that comprise the node's

848: volume.

849: For the nodes on the axis, this definition states that $J = 0$

850: since $r_p =

851: 0$, which implies that the angular momentum for the region of subcells

852: near the axis is zero.  This awkward feature

853: causes no problems

854: for Lagrangian calculations with no remapping.  However, during the subcell remapping step, the

855: subcells near the axis contain no angular momentum, yet physically

856: there should be some angular momentum to be remapped. 

857: 

858: Therefore, we have devised an alternative method for including rotational terms in 2D

859: simulations.

860: Just as for mass, the angular momentum of a subcell, $J^z_p$, is a primary

861: indivisible unit, which by eq. (\ref{eq:cons_ang}) is constant during

862: a Lagrangian hydrodynamic timestep.  The angular momentum for a cell is

863: \begin{equation}

864: J_z = \sum_{p \in S(z)} J^z_p \, ,

865: \end{equation}

866: and for each node is

867: \begin{equation}

868: \label{eq:define_jp}

869: J_p = \sum_{z \in S(p)} J^z_p \, .

870: \end{equation}

871: To relate angular velocity and $v_{\phi}$ to the angular momentum, we

872: treat each subcell as a unit with constant angular velocity.

873: For such regions of space the angular momentum is related to the

874: angular velocity by

875: \begin{equation}

876: J^z_p = \omega^z_p \int_{V^z_p} \rho^z_p r^2 dV = \omega^z_p I^z_p \, ,

877: \end{equation}

878: where $I^z_p = \int_{V^z_p} \rho^z_p r^2 dV$ is the moment of inertia

879: for subcell $\{z,p\}$.  

880: Since we are interested in accelerations and velocities at the nodes,

881: we choose that $\omega^z_p = \omega_p$, which naturally leads to

882: \begin{equation}

883: \label{eq:define_jzp}

884: J^z_p = \omega_p I^z_p \, .

885: \end{equation}

886: Substituting eq. (\ref{eq:define_jzp}) into eq. (\ref{eq:define_jp}),

887: we define a relationship between the angular momentum at the nodes and

888: the angular velocity at the nodes:

889: \begin{equation}

890: J_p = \omega_p \mathcal{I}_p \, ,

891: \end{equation}

892: where

893: \begin{equation}

894: \mathcal{I}_p = \sum_{z \in S(p)} I^z_p \, .

895: \end{equation}

896: By conservation of angular momentum, $J^{n+1}_p = J^n_p = J_p =

897: \omega^{n+1}\mathcal{I}^{n+1}_p$, the angular velocity at the $n+1$

898: timestep , $\omega^{n+1}$, is

899: \begin{equation}

900: \omega^{n+1} = \frac{J_p}{\mathcal{I}^{n+1}_p} \, .

901: \end{equation}

902: 

903: Finally, a new form for the $r$-component of $\vec{A}_p$ is

904: constructed.  The previously defined form is $v_{\phi}^2/r$, and

905: having $r$ in the denominator poses numerical problems near and at

906: $r=0$.  Since $v_{\phi}^2/r = \omega^2r$, the new half timestep

907: acceleration is

908: \begin{equation}

909: \label{eq:arot}

910: \vec{A}_{r,p} = \left ( \omega^2_p r_p \right )^{n+1/2} \, .

911: \end{equation}

912: 

913: 

914: \subsubsection{Conservation of Energy with Rotation}

915: \label{section:consenerot}

916: 

917: Without rotation and time-varying gravity, the equations for 2D

918: simulations using cylindrical coordinates conserve energy to machine

919: precision.  However, with rotation, strict energy

920: conservation is lost.  Using the equations for energy and momentum

921: including rotation, eqs. (\ref{eq:ene_lag_rot}) and

922: (\ref{eq:mom_lag_rot}) the energy integral becomes

923: \begin{multline}

924: \int_v \left ( \rho \frac{D \varepsilon}{Dt} + \frac{1}{2} \rho

925:   \frac{D v^2}{Dt}\right ) dV

926: = \int_v \left ( - P \vec{\nabla}_{rz} \cdot \vec{v} \right . \\

927: \left . - \vec{v} \cdot

928:   \vec{\nabla}_{rz} P  

929: + \rho (v_{r}A_r + v_{\phi}A_{\phi}) \right ) dV \, .

930: \end{multline}

931: %\begin{equation}

932: %\int_v \left ( \rho \frac{D \varepsilon}{Dt} + \frac{1}{2} \rho

933: %  \frac{D v^2}{Dt}\right ) dV

934: %= \int_v \left (  -P \vec{\nabla}_{rz} \cdot \vec{v} - \vec{v} \cdot

935: %  \vec{\nabla}_{rz} P  

936: %+ \rho (v_{r}A_r + v_{\phi}A_{\phi}) \right ) dV \, .

937: %\end{equation}

938: Since the terms $v_rA_r$ and $v_{\phi}A_{\phi}$ are equal in magnitude

939: and opposite in sign, the rate of change for the total energy reduces

940: to the usual surface integral:

941: \begin{equation}

942: \frac{\partial E}{\partial t}= \oint P\vec{v} \cdot d \vec{S} \, .

943: \end{equation}

944: If the form of the energy equation is to remain the same, discrete

945: versions of $v_rA_r$ and $v_{\phi}A_{\phi}$ must be derived that

946: cancel one another.

947: 

948: In the previous section, we made

949: arguments not to use $J = m_p v_{\phi} r$.  However, it

950: is simpler and more intuitive to illustrate why the 2D equations, including rotation, can

951: not satisfy strict energy conservation, while satisfying angular

952: momentum conservation.  With conservation of angular

953: momentum we have $v^{n+1}_{\phi}r^{n+1} = v^n_{\phi}r^n$ or

954: \begin{equation}

955: v^{n+1}_{\phi} = v^n_{\phi} \left ( \frac{r^{n}}{r^{n+1}} \right ) \, .

956: \end{equation}

957: The discrete time derivative of $v_{\phi}$ is then

958: \begin{equation}

959: \label{eq:aphi_timelevels}

960: \frac{\Delta v_{\phi}}{\Delta t} = - \frac{v^n_{\phi}

961:   v^{n+1/2}_r}{r^{n+1}} \, ,

962: \end{equation}

963: where we have used $\Delta r = v^{n+1/2}_r \Delta t$.  This specifics

964: the required time levels for the components of $A_{\phi}$ to conserve

965: angular momentum.  Considering time integration, the discrete

966: analog of $v_rA_r + v_{\phi}A_{\phi}$ is $v^{n+1/2}_rA_r +

967: v^{n+1/2}_{\phi}A_{\phi}$.  To ensure that this sums to zero, the discrete analog of $A_r$ is

968: \begin{equation}

969: A_{r} = \frac{v^{n+1/2}_{\phi} v^n_{\phi}}{r^{n+1}} \, .

970: \end{equation}

971: With these time levels, the 2D equations, which include rotation,

972: would satisfy energy and angular momentum conservation to round-off error.  However,

973: $r^{n+1}$ and $v^{n+1/2}_{\phi}$ are not known at the beginning of the

974: timestep.  It is only

975: after the predictor step of the predictor-corrector method that

976: $v^{n+1/2}_{\phi}$ and $r^{n+1,pr}$ are obtained. As a result, $A_r$,

977: including the correct time levels and predictor values, is

978: \begin{equation}

979: A_{r} = \frac{v^{n+1/2}_{\phi} v^n_{\phi}}{r^{n+1,pr}} \, ,

980: \end{equation}

981: but to conserve angular momentum and energy, $r^{n+1}$ appears in the denominator.

982: Therefore, the terms $v^{n+1/2}_{\phi}A_{\phi}$ and $v^{n+1/2}_rA_{r}$

983: will not be exactly opposite and equal in magnitude, and angular

984: momentum and energy conservation can not be enforced to machine

985: precision at the same time.  

986: 

987: In the previous section, we motivated a different discretization of

988: angular momentum, angular velocity, and $v_{\phi}$.  However, the

989: basic results of this section do not change.  There is still the fundamental

990: problem that to strictly conserve angular momentum, positions at the

991: $n+1$ time level are required, while one must use the

992: predicted, $n+1,pr$, values in updating the radial velocity.

993: Sacrificing strict energy conservation, we have chosen to strictly

994: conserve angular momentum for simulations including rotation.

995: 

996: 

997: \subsubsection{Simple Rotational Test}

998: \label{section:rot_test}

999: 

1000: We have designed a test that isolates and tests rotation.

1001: Using cylindrical coordinates, the calculational domain lies in the

1002: $r-z$ plane and extends

1003: from the symmetry axis, $r = 0$, to $r = 1.0$ cm and from $z=-0.1$ cm to

1004: $z=0.1$ cm .  The initial density is homogeneous with $\rho = 1.0$ g cm$^{-3}$.

1005: Isolating the rotational forces, we eliminate pressure gradients by setting the

1006: internal energy everywhere to zero.  Consequently,

1007: the trajectory of a Lagrangian mass is a straight line in 3D and has a

1008: very simple analytic evolution for $r(t)$, determined only by its initial

1009: position and velocity.  We set $v_z = 0$ and give $v_{\phi}$ and $v_r$

1010: homologous profiles: $v_r = -3 r / r_0$ cm s$^{-1}$ and $v_{\phi} = r

1011: /r_0$ cm s$^{-1}$.  

1012: This produces a homologous self-similar solution for $v_r$ and

1013: $v_{\phi}$ that our algorithm for rotation should reproduce.

1014: 

1015: In Figure \ref{rottestplot}, plots of $v_{\phi}$ vs. $r$ (top

1016: panel) and $\Omega$ vs. $r$ panel (bottom) show that BETHE-hydro

1017: performs well with this test.  Simultaneously testing the rotational remapping (\S

1018: \ref{section:ang_vel_remap}) and hydrodynamic algorithms, we employ three remapping regions.  The inner 0.1 cm is

1019: Eulerian, zones exterior to 0.2 cm follow Lagrangian dynamics, and the

1020: region in between provides a smooth transition between the two domains.

1021: Both $v_{\phi}$ and  $\Omega$ profiles are presented at $t =

1022:   0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85$, and $1.0$ s.

1023: As designed the angular momentum is conserved to machine accuracy.

1024: In the top panel ($v_{\phi}$ vs. $r$), it is hard to discern any

1025: deviation of the simulation (crosses) from the analytic

1026: solution (solid line).  In fact, the maximum error as measured by

1027: $(v_{\phi,{\rm ana}} - v_{\phi})/ {\rm max}(v_{\phi,{\rm ana}})$

1028: ranges from

1029: $\sim 4 \times 10^{-5}$ near the beginning of the simulation to

1030: $\sim 8 \times 10^{-4}$ at the end.  $\Omega$ vs. $r$ (bottom panel) shows similar

1031: accuracy, except for the region near the axis.  At the center $(\Omega_{\rm ana} -\Omega)$

1032: reaches a maximum value of 0.2 rads s$^{-1}$ at $t = 0.55$ s.  On the

1033: whole, Fig. \ref{rottestplot} demonstrates that this code reproduces the analytic result with and without remapping.

1034: 

1035: \section{Gravity}

1036: \label{section:gravity}

1037: 

1038: There are two general strategies for solving Poisson's equation for

1039: gravity on

1040: arbitrary grids.  The first is to define another regular grid,

1041: interpolate the density from the hydro grid to this new gravity grid, and

1042: use many of the standard Poisson solvers for regular grids.  However,

1043: in our experience this approach can lead to numerical errors, which

1044: may lead to unsatisfactory results.  The second

1045: approach is to solve eq. (\ref{eq:poisson}) explicitly on the

1046: arbitrary hydro grid, eliminating an interpolation step.  We prefer the

1047: latter approach, giving potentials and accelerations that are more

1048: consistent with the hydrodynamics on an unstructured mesh. 

1049: 

1050: In determining the discrete analogs of eq. (\ref{eq:poisson}), we use the support-operator method.  After a bit of algebra these discrete equations

1051: may be expressed as a set of linear equations whose unknowns are the

1052: discretized gravitational potentials.  Solving for these potentials is

1053: akin to solving

1054: a matrix equation of the form, ${\bf A}\vec{x} = \vec{b}$, and since the solutions change little from

1055: timestep to timestep, we use an iterative matrix inversion approach

1056: in which the initial guess is the solution from the previous timestep. 

1057: 

1058: In solving Poisson's equation for gravity, we seek an algorithm

1059: satisfying the following conditions:  1) the potential should be defined at zone

1060: centers and the gravitational acceleration should be defined at the

1061: nodes;  2) we should conserve momentum and energy as accurately

1062: as possible;  and 3) the solver must be fast.  To this end, we employ

1063: the method described in \citet{shashkov95},

1064: \citet{shashkov96}, and \citet{morel98} for elliptic solvers.

1065: Specifically, we follow the particular implementation of

1066: \citet{morel98}.

1067: 

1068: Applying the support-operator method, we first define the divergence operator and, in

1069: particular, define $(\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{g})_z$.

1070: Poisson's equation for gravity may

1071: be written as an equation for the divergence of the acceleration,

1072: \begin{equation}

1073: \label{eq:poisson_div}

1074: - \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{g} = 4 \pi G \rho \, ,

1075: \end{equation}

1076:  where $\vec{g}$, the gravitational acceleration, is the negative of the

1077:  gradient of the potential.

1078: \begin{equation}

1079: \label{eq:gacc}

1080: \vec{g} = - \vec{\nabla} \Phi \, .

1081: \end{equation}

1082: Integrating eq. (\ref{eq:poisson_div}) over a finite volume gives

1083: \begin{equation}

1084: \label{eq:divtheorem}

1085: \int_V \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{g} dV = \oint_{\partial V} \vec{g}

1086: \cdot d\vec{S} = - \int_V 4 \pi G \rho dV \, ,

1087: \end{equation}

1088: and if the volume of integration, $V$, is chosen to be that of a cell, the RHS

1089: of eq. (\ref{eq:divtheorem}) becomes $- 4 \pi G m_z$.

1090: In discretizing the middle term in eq. (\ref{eq:divtheorem}),

1091: \begin{equation}

1092: \label{eq:discretegauss}

1093: \oint_{\partial V_z} \vec{g} \cdot d\vec{S} \longrightarrow

1094: \sum_e g_e A_e \, ,

1095: \end{equation}

1096: an expression for the divergence of $\vec{g}$ follows naturally:

1097: \begin{equation}

1098: \label{eq:discretediv}

1099: ( \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{g})_z =

1100: \frac{1}{V_z} \sum_{e \in S(z)} g_e A_e \, ,

1101: \end{equation}

1102: where 

1103: $A_e$ is the area of edge $e$, and $g_e$ is the component of the

1104: acceleration parallel to the direction of the edge's area vector.

1105: Therefore, substituting eq. (\ref{eq:discretediv}) into

1106: eq. (\ref{eq:divtheorem}) suggests a discrete expression for eq. (\ref{eq:poisson_div}):

1107: \begin{equation}

1108: \label{eq:discretepoisson_div}

1109: - \sum_e g_e A_e = 4 \pi G m_z \, .

1110: \end{equation}

1111: 

1112: 

1113: Having defined

1114: the discrete divergence of a vector, we then use the support-operator method to write the

1115: discrete equivalent of the gradient.  Once again, the integral identity relating

1116: the divergence and gradient operators is given by eq. (\ref{eq:intidentity}).

1117: Applying the definition for

1118: the discrete divergence, the first term on the LHS of

1119: eq. (\ref{eq:intidentity}) is approximated by

1120: \begin{equation}

1121: \label{eq:intidentity_lhs1}

1122: \int_V \Phi (\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{H}) dV

1123: \sim \Phi_z \sum_e h_e A_e \, ,

1124: \end{equation}

1125: where $h_e$ is the component of $\vec{H}$ perpendicular to edge $e$,

1126: and the RHS of eq. (\ref{eq:intidentity}) is approximated by

1127: \begin{equation}

1128: \label{eq:intidentity_rhs}

1129: \oint_{\partial V} \Phi \vec{H} \cdot d\vec{S}

1130: \sim \sum_e \Phi_e h_e A_e \, .

1131: \end{equation}

1132: It is already apparent that the discrete potential is

1133: defined for both cell centers ($\Phi_z$) and edges ($\Phi_e$).  This

1134: fact seems cumbersome.  However, we will demonstrate below that in the

1135: final equations the number of unknowns may be reduced by eliminating

1136: the cell-centered potentials, $\Phi_z$, in favor of the edge-centered

1137: potentials, $\Phi_e$.

1138: Completing the discretization of eq. (\ref{eq:intidentity}), the second

1139: term on the LHS is

1140: \begin{equation}

1141: \label{eq:intidentity_lhs2}

1142: \int_V \vec{H} \cdot \vec{\nabla} \Phi dV

1143: \sim - \sum_p \vec{H}_p \cdot \vec{g}_p W^z_p V_z \, ,

1144: \end{equation}

1145: where $W^z_p$ is a volumetric weight and $\vec{H}_p$ and $\vec{g}_p$

1146: are defined at the nodes.  The volumetric weight associated with each

1147: corner is defined as one quarter of the area of the parallelogram

1148: created by the sides that define the corner.  Additionally, the

1149: weights are normalized so that $\sum_{p \in N(z)} W^z_p = 1$.  The

1150: remaining task is to define the dot product $\vec{H}_p \cdot

1151: \vec{g}_p$ at each corner when the vector is expressed in components

1152: of a nonorthogonal basis set:

1153: \begin{equation}

1154: \label{eq:h_basis}

1155: \vec{H}_p = h_e \hat{e}_e+ h_{e-1} \hat{e}_{e-1} \, ,

1156: \end{equation}

1157: where $\hat{e}_{e-1}$ and $\hat{e}_e$ are basis vectors located at the

1158: center of the edges on either side of the corner associated with node

1159: $p$ with orientations perpendicular to the edges, and $h_{e-1}$ and

1160: $h_e$ are the corresponding magnitudes in this basis set.  With this

1161: basis set, the inner product is

1162: \begin{equation}

1163: \vec{H}_p \cdot \vec{g}_p = \langle S^p_{e,e-1}\vec{H}_p,\vec{g}_p \rangle \, ,

1164: \end{equation}

1165: where

1166: \begin{equation}

1167: \label{eq:smatrix}

1168: S^p_{e,e-1} = 

1169: \frac{1}{\sin^2 \theta^p_{e,e-1}}

1170: \left [

1171: \begin{array}{cc}

1172: 1 & \cos \theta^p_{e,e-1} \\

1173: \cos \theta^p_{e,e-1} & 1 \\

1174: \end{array}

1175: \right ] \, ,

1176: \end{equation}

1177: and $\theta^p_{e,e-1}$ is the angle formed by edges $e$ and $e-1$.

1178: Using eqs. (\ref{eq:h_basis})-(\ref{eq:smatrix}) in

1179: eq. (\ref{eq:intidentity_lhs2}), the second term on the LHS

1180: of eq. (\ref{eq:intidentity}) is

1181: \begin{multline}

1182: - \sum_p \vec{H}_p \cdot \vec{g}_p W^z_p V_z 

1183: = - \sum_e h_e \left ( (\alpha_p +\alpha_{p+1})g_e \right . \\

1184: \left . + \beta_p g_{e-1} + \beta_p g_{e+1} \right )

1185: \end{multline}

1186: %\begin{equation}

1187: %- \sum_p \vec{H}_p \cdot \vec{g}_p W^z_p V_z 

1188: %= - \sum_e h_e \left ( (\alpha_p +\alpha_{p+1})g_e 

1189: %+ \beta_p g_{e-1} + \beta_p g_{e+1} \right )

1190: %\end{equation}

1191: where $\alpha_p = W^z_p V_z / \sin^2 \theta_p$ and $\beta_p = W^z_p

1192: V_z \cos \theta_p / \sin^2 \theta_p$.

1193: Combining eqs. (\ref{eq:intidentity_lhs1}), (\ref{eq:intidentity_rhs}), and (\ref{eq:intidentity_lhs2}), we have the discrete form of the

1194: identity eq. (\ref{eq:intidentity}):

1195: \begin{multline}

1196: \label{eq:intidentity_discrete}

1197: \sum_e \left [

1198: (\Phi_e - \Phi_z)h_eA_e - h_e \left ( (\alpha_p +\alpha_{p+1})g_e \right . \right . \\

1199: \left . \left . + \beta_p g_{e-1} + \beta_p g_{e+1} \right )

1200: \right] = 0 \, .

1201: \end{multline}

1202: %\begin{eqnarray}

1203: %\label{eq:intidentity_discrete}

1204: %\sum_e \left [

1205: %(\Phi_e - \Phi_z)h_eA_e - h_e \left ( (\alpha_p +\alpha_{p+1})g_e \right . \rig%ht . \nonumber \\

1206: %\left . \left . + \beta_p g_{e-1} + \beta_p g_{e+1} \right )

1207: %\right] = 0 \, .

1208: %\end{eqnarray}

1209: %\begin{equation}

1210: %\label{eq:intidentity_discrete}

1211: %\sum_e \left [

1212: %(\Phi_e - \Phi_z)h_eA_e - h_e \left ( (\alpha_p +\alpha_{p+1})g_e 

1213: %+ \beta_p g_{e-1} + \beta_p g_{e+1} \right )

1214: %\right] = 0 \, .

1215: %\end{equation}

1216: 

1217: To find the equation for $g_e$ on each edge we set the

1218: corresponding $h_e = 1$ and set all others to zero.  This gives an

1219: expression for $g_e$ in terms of $\Phi_e$, $\Phi_z$, and the other

1220: edge-centered accelerations of cell $z$: 

1221: \begin{multline}

1222: \label{eq:ge_equation}

1223: (\Phi_e - \Phi_z)A_e - \left [ (\alpha_p +\alpha_{p+1})g_e \right . \\

1224: \left . + \beta_p g_{e-1} + \beta_p g_{e+1} \right ] = 0

1225: \end{multline}

1226: %\begin{equation}

1227: %\label{eq:ge_equation}

1228: %(\Phi_e - \Phi_z)A_e - \left [ (\alpha_p +\alpha_{p+1})g_e 

1229: %+ \beta_p g_{e-1} + \beta_p g_{e+1} \right ] = 0

1230: %\end{equation}

1231: or

1232: \begin{multline}

1233: \left [ (\alpha_p +\alpha_{p+1})g_e 

1234: + \beta_p g_{e-1} + \beta_p g_{e+1} \right ] \\

1235: = (\Phi_e - \Phi_z)A_e \, .

1236: \end{multline}

1237: %\begin{equation}

1238: %\left [ (\alpha_p +\alpha_{p+1})g_e 

1239: %+ \beta_p g_{e-1} + \beta_p g_{e+1} \right ] = (\Phi_e - \Phi_z)A_e \, .

1240: %\end{equation}

1241: Together, the set of equations for the edges of cell $z$ forms a

1242: matrix equation of the form\footnote{

1243: On a practical note, all terms involving $g_e$ on the $z$-axis are

1244: zero because the areas on the axis of symmetry are zero.

1245: Therefore, for the zones along the axis, one less equation and variable appear in the set of equations

1246: for $g_e$.}

1247: \begin{equation}

1248: {\bf Q} \vec{g} = \vec{b} \, ,

1249: \end{equation}

1250: where $\vec{b}$ is a vector based upon the edge values, $b_e =

1251: A_e(\Phi_z - \Phi_e)$.  Inverting this equation gives an expression

1252: for the edge accelerations as a function of the cell- and

1253: edge-centered potentials:

1254: \begin{equation}

1255: \label{eq:gacc_phiz_phie}

1256: g_e = \sum_{e'} a_{ee'} A_{e'}(\Phi_z - \Phi_{e'}) \, .

1257: \end{equation}

1258: After finding the edge acceleration for each zone,

1259: these values are inserted into eq. (\ref{eq:discretepoisson_div}).

1260: The stencil of potentials for this equation for each cell includes the

1261: cell center and all edges.  While eq. (\ref{eq:gacc_phiz_phie}) gives

1262: the edge accelerations associated with cell $z$, there is no

1263: guarantee that the equivalent equation for a neighboring cell will

1264: give the same acceleration for the same edge.

1265: To ensure continuity, we must include an equation which equates

1266: an edge's acceleration vectors from the neighboring cells:

1267: \begin{equation}

1268: \label{eq:gacc_continuity}

1269: -A_e g_{e,L} - A_e g_{e,R} = 0 \, ,

1270: \end{equation}

1271: where $g_{e,L}$ and $g_{e,R}$ are the edge accelerations as determined

1272: by eq. (\ref{eq:gacc_phiz_phie}) for the left ($L$) and right ($R$)

1273: cells.  While we could have chosen a simpler expression for

1274: eq. (\ref{eq:gacc_continuity}), the choice of sign and coefficients

1275: ensures that the eventual system of linear equations involves a

1276: symmetric positive-definite matrix.  This enables the use of fast and

1277: standard iterative matrix inversion methods such as the

1278: conjugate-gradient method. The stencil for this equation involves the

1279: edge in question, the 

1280: cell centers on either side, and the rest of the edges associated with

1281: these cells.  At first glance, it seems that we need to invert the

1282: system of equations that includes the cell-centered equations,

1283: eq. (\ref{eq:gacc_phiz_phie}), and the edge-centered equations, eq. (\ref{eq:gacc_continuity}).  Instead, we use

1284: eq. (\ref{eq:discretepoisson_div}) to express the cell-centered

1285: potentials in terms

1286: of edge-centered potentials and the RHS of the equation:

1287: \begin{equation}

1288: \label{eq:phizeq}

1289: \Phi_z = \frac{1}{\zeta_z}

1290: \left (

1291: \sum_{e'} A_{e'} \Phi_{e'} \psi_{e'} - 4 \pi G m_z

1292: \right ) \, ,

1293: \end{equation}

1294: where $\psi_e = \sum_{e'} A_e'a_{e'e}$, and $\zeta_z = \sum_e

1295: \sum_{e'} A_e a_{ee'}A_{e'} = \sum_{e'}A_{e'}\psi_{e'}.$  Substituting

1296: eq. (\ref{eq:phizeq}) into the expression for the edge acceleration,

1297: eq. (\ref{eq:gacc_phiz_phie}),

1298: \begin{equation}

1299: \label{eq:gacc_phie}

1300: g_k = - \frac{\eta_k}{\zeta_z} 4 \pi G m_z + \sum_e \Phi_e A_e 

1301: \left (

1302: \frac{\eta_k}{\zeta_z} \psi_e - a_{ke}

1303: \right ) \, ,

1304: \end{equation}

1305: where $\eta_k = \sum_e a_{ke} A_e$.  Finally, substituting

1306: eq. (\ref{eq:gacc_phie}) into eq. (\ref{eq:gacc_continuity}) gives the matrix equation for gravity with

1307: only edge-centered potential unknowns:

1308: \begin{multline}

1309: A_*\sum_{e^R} \Phi_e A_e(a_{*e}^R - \frac{\eta^R_* \psi^R_e}{\zeta_R})

1310: + A_*\sum_{e^L} \Phi_e A_e(a_{*e}^L - \frac{\eta^L_*

1311:   \psi^L_e}{\zeta_L}) \\

1312: = -4 \pi G A_* (\frac{\eta^R_*}{\zeta_R} m_R + \frac{\eta^L_*}{\zeta_L} m_L) \, .

1313: \end{multline}

1314: %\begin{eqnarray}

1315: %A_*\sum_{e^R} \Phi_e A_e(a_{*e}^R - \frac{\eta^R_* \psi^R_e}{\zeta_R})

1316: %+ A_*\sum_{e^L} \Phi_e A_e(a_{*e}^L - \frac{\eta^L_*

1317: %  \psi^L_e}{\zeta_L}) \nonumber \\

1318: %= -4 \pi G A_* (\frac{\eta^R_*}{\zeta_R} m_R + \frac{\eta^L_*}{\zeta_L} m_L) \, .

1319: %\end{eqnarray}

1320: %\begin{equation}

1321: %A_*\sum_{e^R} \Phi_e A_e(a_{*e}^R - \frac{\eta^R_* \psi^R_e}{\zeta_R})

1322: %+ A_*\sum_{e^L} \Phi_e A_e(a_{*e}^L - \frac{\eta^L_*

1323: %  \psi^L_e}{\zeta_L})

1324: %= -4 \pi G A_* (\frac{\eta^R_*}{\zeta_R} m_R + \frac{\eta^L_*}{\zeta_L} m_L) \, .

1325: %\end{equation}

1326: The stencil for this equation involves the edge and all other edges

1327: associated with the zones on either side of

1328: the edge in question.  Taken together, the equations result in a set of linear equations for the edge-centered

1329: potentials, $\Phi_e$.  

1330: 

1331: Since this class of matrix equations is ubiquitous,

1332: there exists many accurate and fast linear system

1333: solvers we can exploit.  To do so, we recast our discrete

1334: form of Poisson's equation as

1335: \begin{equation}

1336: \label{eq:linear}

1337: \mathbf{A} \vec{\Phi} = \vec{s} \, ,

1338: \end{equation}

1339: where $\vec{\Phi}$ is a vector of the edge-centered potentials,

1340:  and $\vec{s}$

1341: is the corresponding vector of source terms.

1342: We solve the matrix equation using the conjugate-gradient method with

1343: a multigrid preconditioner.  In particular, we use the algebraic

1344: multigrid package, AMG1R6\footnote{See \S \ref{section:corecollapse}

1345:   for details on performance.} \citep{ruge87}.

1346: 

1347: 

1348: \subsection{Gravitational Acceleration}

1349: \label{section:gravity_acceleration}

1350: 

1351: Unfortunately, this discretization scheme does not adequately define

1352: the accelerations at the nodes where they are needed in eq. (\ref{eq:mom_discrete2}).  Therefore, we use the least-squares

1353: minimization method to determine the gradient on the unstructured

1354: mesh.

1355: Assuming a linear

1356: function for the potential in the neighborhood of node $i$, $\hat{\Phi}_i(x,y)$, we seek to minimize the difference between

1357: $\Phi_k$ and $\hat{\Phi}_i(x_k,y_k)$, where $\Phi_k$ is the neighbor's

1358: value and $\hat{\Phi}_i(x_k,y_k)$ is the evaluation of

1359: $\hat{\Phi}_i(x,y)$ at

1360: the position of the neighbor, $(x_k,y_k)$.

1361: More explicitly, we minimize the following equation:

1362: \begin{equation}

1363: \label{eq:least_gacc_eq1}

1364: \sum_{k \in \mathcal{N}(i)} \omega^2_{ki} E^2_{ik} \, ,

1365: \end{equation}

1366: where the ``neighbors'' are the nearest cell-centers and

1367: edges to node $i$ and are denoted by $k \in \mathcal{N}(i)$,

1368: \begin{equation}

1369: E^2_{ik} = \left (

1370: \Phi_i - \Phi_k + \Phi_{x,i} \Delta x_{ik} + \Phi_{y,i} \Delta y_{ik}

1371: \right )^2 \, ,

1372: \end{equation}

1373: $\Delta x_{ik} = x_k - x_i$, $\Delta y_{ik} = y_k - y_i$, and $\omega^2_{ik} = 1/(\Delta x_{ik}^2 + \Delta y_{ik}^2)$.

1374: 

1375: Usually, minimization of

1376: eq. (\ref{eq:least_gacc_eq1}) leads to a matrix equation for two

1377: unknowns: $\Phi_{x,i}$ and $\Phi_{y,i}$, the gradients for $\Phi$ in

1378: the $x$ and $y$ directions, respectively (\S \ref{section:swept}).  However, $\Phi_i$, the potential at the node

1379: is not defined and is a third unknown with which

1380: eq. (\ref{eq:least_gacc_eq1}) must be minimized.

1381: Performing the least-squares minimization process with respect to the

1382: three unknowns, $\Phi_i$, $\Phi_{x,i}$, and $\Phi_{y,i}$, leads to the

1383: following set of linear equations for each node:

1384: \begin{equation}

1385: \begin{array}{rcl}

1386: a \Phi_i + b \Phi_{x,i} + c \Phi_{y,i} & = & k\\

1387: d \Phi_i + e \Phi_{x,i} + g \Phi_{y,i} & = & l\\

1388: h \Phi_i + i \Phi_{x,i} + j \Phi_{y,i} & = & m\\

1389: \end{array}

1390:  \, ,

1391: \end{equation}

1392: where 

1393: \begin{equation}

1394: \begin{array}{rcl}

1395: a & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik}\\

1396: b & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik} \Delta x_{ik}\\

1397: c & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik} \Delta y_{ik}\\

1398: d & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik} \Delta x_{ik}\\

1399: e & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik} \Delta x^2_{ik}\\

1400: g & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik} \Delta x_{ik} \Delta y_{ik}\\

1401: h & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik} \Delta y_{ik}\\

1402: i & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik} \Delta x_{ik} \Delta y_{ik}\\

1403: j & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik} \Delta y^2_{ik}\\

1404: k & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik} \Phi_k\\

1405: l & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik} \Phi_k \Delta x_{ik}\\

1406: m & = & \sum_{k} \omega^2_{ik} \Phi_k \Delta y_{ik}\\

1407: \end{array}

1408: \end{equation}

1409: Inversion of this linear system gives the potential and the gradient

1410: at the node.  Specifically, we use the adjoint matrix inversion method

1411: to find the inverse matrix and the three unknowns, including $\Phi_{x,i}$ and $\Phi_{y,i}$.

1412: 

1413: \subsection{Gravitational Boundary Conditions}

1414: \label{section:gravity_boundary}

1415: 

1416: The outer boundary condition we employ for the Poisson solver is a

1417:  multipole expansion for the gravitational potential at a spherical

1418:  outer boundary.  Assuming no material exists outside the calculational

1419:  domain and that the potential asymptotes to zero, the potential at the

1420:  outer boundary, ${\bf r}$, is given by

1421: \begin{equation}

1422: \label{eq:boundary_eq1}

1423: \phi({\bf r}) = - G \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{r^{n+1}} \int

1424: (r')^nP_n(\cos \theta') \rho({\bf r}')dV' \, ,

1425: \end{equation}

1426: where $P_n(\cos \theta')$ is the usual Legendre polynomial.  In

1427: discretized form, eq. (\ref{eq:boundary_eq1}) becomes

1428: \begin{equation}

1429: \phi({\bf r}) = - G \sum_{n=0}^{N_n} \frac{1}{r^{n+1}} \sum_z

1430: (r_z)^nP_n(\cos \theta_z) m_z \, ,

1431: \end{equation}

1432: where $N_n$ is the order at which the multipole expansion is truncated.

1433: 

1434: \subsection{Gravity: 1D Spherical Symmetry}

1435: \label{section:gravity_1d}

1436: 

1437: For 1D spherically symmetric simulations, calculation of gravity can

1438: be straightforward using

1439: \begin{equation}

1440: \label{eq:gacc_enclosed}

1441: g_p = - \frac{G m_{p,{\rm enclosed}}}{r_p^2} \, ,

1442: \end{equation}

1443: where $m_{p,{\rm enclosed}}$ is all of the mass enclosed by point

1444: $p$.  Instead, we solve Poisson's equation for

1445: gravity using similar methods to those employed for the 2D gravity.  By doing

1446: this, we remain consistent when comparing our 1D and 2D results.

1447: Furthermore, we show that deriving a Poisson solver based upon

1448: the support-operator method is equivalent to the more traditional form, eq. (\ref{eq:gacc_enclosed}).

1449: 

1450: The inherent symmetries of 1D spherical simulations reduce

1451: eq. (\ref{eq:ge_equation}) to the following form:

1452: \begin{equation}

1453: (\Phi_e - \Phi_z)A_e - V^z_p g_{e,z} = 0 \, .

1454: \end{equation}

1455: Unlike the full 2D version, one may eliminate the edge potentials in favor

1456: for the cell-centered potentials and the accelerations at the edges.

1457: Since each edge $e$ will have an equation for its value associated with

1458: cells $z$ and $z+1$, this leads to

1459: \begin{equation}

1460: \Phi_z A_e + V^z_p g_{e,z} = \Phi_{z+1} A_e + V^{z+1}_p g_{e,z+1} \, .

1461: \end{equation}

1462: Using the continuity of accelerations at the edges,

1463: \begin{equation}

1464: g_{e,z} = - g_{e,z+1} \, ,

1465: \end{equation}

1466: the expression for gravitational acceleration at edge $e$ in terms of

1467: the cell-centered potentials is

1468: \begin{equation}

1469: \label{eq:gacc_1dsph}

1470: g_{e,z} = \frac{1}{V_p}(\Phi_{z+1} - \Phi_z) A_e \, .

1471: \end{equation}

1472: Substituting this expression into

1473: \begin{equation}

1474: \label{eq:1dgaussgravity}

1475: \sum_e A_e g_{e,z} = - 4 \pi G m_z \, ,

1476: \end{equation}

1477: leads to a tridiagonal matrix equation for the cell-centered

1478: potential, which can be inverted in O(N) operations to give the cell-centered potentials.  Substituting these cell-centered potentials back into

1479: eq. (\ref{eq:gacc_1dsph}) gives the gravitational acceleration needed

1480: for the momentum equation (eqs. \ref{eq:mom_lag} and \ref{eq:mom_discrete2}).

1481: 

1482: It should be noted that eq. (\ref{eq:1dgaussgravity}) can be rewritten

1483: as a recursion relation for the gravitational acceleration, $g_p$, at node

1484: $p$:

1485: \begin{equation}

1486: \label{eq:recursive}

1487: A_p g_p = A_{p-1} g_{p-1} - 4 \pi G m_{z,{\rm interior}} \, ,

1488: \end{equation}

1489: where $m_{z,{\rm interior}}$ is the mass of the cell

1490: interior to point $p$.  With the boundary condition $g_1 = 0$ and

1491: then recursively solving eq. (\ref{eq:recursive}) for $g_p$ from the

1492: center outward, the expression for the

1493: gravitational acceleration simplifies to eq. (\ref{eq:gacc_enclosed}).

1494: This is the traditional form by which the gravitational acceleration

1495: is calculated for 1D spherically symmetric simulations and for which

1496: the potential is usually not referenced.  The beauty of our approach

1497: is that 1D and 2D simulations are consistent, and that it

1498: self-consistently gives the gravitational potential.  

1499: 

1500: \subsection{Conservation of Energy with Gravity}

1501: \label{section:consenegravity}

1502: 

1503: For self-gravitating hydrodynamic systems, the total energy is

1504: \begin{equation}

1505: \label{eq:totalenergy}

1506: E = \mathcal{E} + K + U \, ,

1507: \end{equation}

1508: where $\mathcal{E}$ is the total internal energy, $K$ is the total

1509: kinetic energy, and $U$ is the total potential energy:

1510: \begin{equation}

1511: \label{eq:totpot1}

1512: U = \frac{1}{2}\int_V \rho \Phi dV \, ,

1513: \end{equation}

1514: An alternative form is possible with the substitution of

1515: eq. (\ref{eq:poisson_div}) into eq. (\ref{eq:totpot1}) and integration

1516: by parts:

1517: \begin{equation}

1518: \label{eq:totpot2}

1519: U = -\frac{1}{8 \pi G} \left [ \oint_S \vec{g}\Phi \cdot d\vec{S}

1520:  + \int_V |\vec{g}|^2 dV

1521: \right ] \, .

1522: \end{equation}

1523: The integral form of eq. (\ref{eq:totalenergy}) is

1524: \begin{equation}

1525: E = \int_V (\rho e + \frac{1}{2}\rho v^2 + \frac{1}{2}\rho \Phi) dV \, ,

1526: \end{equation}

1527: and total energy conservation is given by

1528: \begin{equation}

1529: \label{eq:dedt}

1530: \frac{\partial E}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\int_V

1531: (\rho e + \frac{1}{2}\rho v^2 + \frac{1}{2}\rho \Phi) dV = 0\, .

1532: \end{equation}

1533: Since the solution to Poisson's equation for

1534: gravity, using Green's function, is

1535: \begin{equation}

1536: \Phi(\vec{x}) = -G \int{\frac{\rho(\vec{x}') dV'}{|\vec{x} - \vec{x}'|}} \, ,

1537: \end{equation}

1538: the time derivative of the total potential energy may take three forms:

1539: \begin{equation}

1540: \label{eq:dudt}

1541: \int_V \rho \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial t}dV = \int_V \Phi

1542: \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}dV = \frac{1}{2} \int_V \frac{\partial (\rho

1543:   \Phi)}{\partial t}dV \, .

1544: \end{equation}

1545: Note that this is true only for the total potential energy and does

1546: not imply $\rho \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial t} = \Phi \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial (\rho

1547:   \Phi)}{\partial t}$.

1548: Using eq. (\ref{eq:dudt}) and the Eulerian form of the hydrodynamics equations  (see appendix \ref{section:eulerian_hydro}),

1549: eq. (\ref{eq:dedt}) becomes a surface integral:

1550: \begin{equation}

1551: \frac{\partial E}{\partial t} = 

1552: - \oint_S (\rho e + P + \frac{1}{2}\rho v^2

1553:   + \rho \Phi) \vec{v}

1554: \cdot d \vec{S} \, ,

1555: \end{equation}

1556: which simply states that energy is conserved in the absence of a flux

1557: of energy through the bounding surface.

1558: 

1559: 

1560: The discrete analogs of $\mathcal{E}$ and

1561: $K$ are trivially obtained using $\mathcal{E} = \sum_z m_z \varepsilon_z$

1562: and $K = \frac{1}{2}\sum_p m_p v^2_p$, respectively.

1563: The discrete total potential energy may take two forms, the analogs of

1564: eqs. (\ref{eq:totpot1}) and (\ref{eq:totpot2}):

1565: \begin{equation}

1566: U = 

1567: \left \{

1568: \begin{array}{l}

1569: \frac{1}{2}\sum_z m_z \Phi_z \\

1570: -\frac{1}{8 \pi G} \left [

1571: \sum_{pb} \Phi_{pb} \vec{g}_{pb} \cdot \vec{S}_{pb}

1572: + \sum_p \vec{g}_p \cdot \vec{g}_p V_p

1573: \right ] \, ,\\

1574: \end{array}

1575: \right . 

1576: \end{equation}

1577: where $pb$ indicates outer-boundary values.

1578: Upon trying both forms, we get similar results.  Therefore, we use the

1579: simpler form involving the cell-center potential: $U = \frac{1}{2}\sum_z m_z \Phi_z$.

1580: 

1581: Because our discrete hydrodynamics equations including gravity do not give strict

1582: energy conservation, we use the

1583: core-collapse simulation (\S \ref{section:corecollapse}) to gauge how

1584: well energy is conserved.  

1585: Rather than measuring the relative error in total energy by $\Delta E /

1586: E_{\rm ref}$, where $\Delta E = E_n - E_{\rm ref}$, $E_{\rm ref}$ is

1587: the initial total energy, and $E_n$ is the

1588: total energy at timestep $n$, we use $\Delta E / |U_n|$.  For stellar

1589: profiles, the kinetic energy is small and the internal and gravitational

1590: energies are nearly equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign.

1591: Since the total energy is roughly zero

1592: in comparison to the primary constituents, $\mathcal{E}$ and $U$, of the total energy, we use the

1593: gravitational potential energy as a reference.  For example, the internal

1594: and gravitational energies start at $\sim 4 \times

1595: 10^{51}$ erg and reach $\sim 1 \times 10^{53}$ ergs at the end of the

1596: run.  However, the total energy is a small fraction of these energies

1597: initially, $\sim 5\times 10^{50}$,

1598: and after core bounce, $\sim 1.5 \times 10^{51}$.  Hence, we measure

1599: the relative error in total energy as $\Delta E / |U_n|$.

1600: 

1601: The total energy for the 1D and 2D core-collapse simulations evolve similarly and is

1602: conserved quite well.  For all times except a few milliseconds around

1603: bounce, total energy is conserved better than $\sim$1 $\times

1604: 10^{-3}$.  During collapse, from 0 to 147 ms, the total energy deviates by only $\sim$3

1605: $\times 10^{-4}$.  Over a span of 5 ms around bounce, $t = 148$ ms, the total energy changes by

1606: $\sim$2.2 $\times 10^{-2}$.  For 100s of milliseconds afterward, the

1607: relative error in the total energy reduces to $\sim$7 $\times 10^{-4}$.

1608: Hence, for all but about 5 ms of a simulation that lasts many hundreds

1609: of milliseconds the relative error in total energy is better than $\sim$1 $\times 10^{-3}$.

1610: 

1611: \subsection{Tests of Gravity}

1612: \label{section:gravity_tests}

1613: 

1614: We include here several assessments of the 1D and 2D Poisson solvers.  First, we calculate, using the

1615: butterfly mesh, the potential

1616: for a homogeneous sphere and compare to the

1617: analytic solution.  This tests overall accuracy and

1618: the ability of our solver to give spherically symmetric potentials

1619: when a non-spherical mesh is employed.  Similarly, we substantiate the

1620: algorithm's ability to produce aspherical potentials of homogeneous oblate spheroids.  Then, we verify that the

1621: hydrodynamics and gravity solvers give accurate results for stars in

1622: hydrostatic equilibrium, and for a dynamical problem, the Goldreich-Weber

1623: self-similar collapse \citep{goldreich80}.

1624: 

1625: Figure \ref{maclaurin_sphere} compares the simulated and analytic

1626: solutions for a homogeneous

1627: sphere, having density $\rho_0 =

1628: 1$ g cm$^{-3}$, and maximum radius $r_a = 1$ cm.  The analytic

1629: potential inside the sphere is $\Phi_{\rm{ana}} = G \rho_0 \frac{2}{3}

1630: \pi (r^2 + z^2 - 3 r_a^2)$, and the top panel of Fig. \ref{maclaurin_sphere}

1631:   shows the relative difference of the analytic potential and the

1632:   numerical solution, $\Phi_z$, as a function of radius.  Results for four

1633:   resolutions of the butterfly mesh are shown:

1634:   2550 cells with an effective radial resolution $\Delta r \sim$ 0.02

1635:   cm (blue); 8750 cells with $\Delta r \sim$ 0.01 cm (green); 15,200 cells with

1636:   $\Delta r \sim$ 0.006 cm (yellow); and 35,000 cells with $\Delta r

1637:   \sim$ 0.005 cm (red).  

1638:   Two facts are obvious:  1) the solutions are accurate at a level of

1639:   $\sim 3 \times 10^{-5}$ for $\Delta r/r_a \sim 0.005$ and $\sim 3

1640:   \times 10^{-4}$ for $\Delta r/r_a \sim 0.02$; and 2) the degree to

1641:   which the solution is spherically symmetric is similarly a few times

1642:   $10^{-5}$ for $\Delta r/r_a \sim 0.005$ and a few times $10^{-4}$

1643:   for $\Delta r/r_a \sim 0.02$.  Plotting the minimum error as a function of the effective

1644:   radial resolution, the bottom panel of

1645:   Fig. \ref{maclaurin_sphere}  verifies that the 2D Poisson

1646:   solver convergences with 2$^{\rm{nd}}$-order accuracy (solid line).

1647: 

1648: Next, we calculate the aspherical potential for an oblate spheroid .

1649: The homogeneous oblate spheroid has an elliptic meridional cross section, and the minor-

1650: and major-axes of the ellipse are $r_b$ and $r_a$,

1651: where $r_a$ is the equatorial radius.  Thus, the

1652: eccentricity of the spheroid is $e = \sqrt{1 -

1653:   (r_b/r_a)^2}$.  Given a uniform density, $\rho_0$, the potential for

1654: a spheroid is

1655: \begin{equation}

1656: \Phi_{\rm{ana}}(r,z) = - \pi G \rho_0 \left ( 

1657: I_{BT} r_a^2 - [ a_1 r^2 + a_3 z^2]

1658: \right ) \, ,

1659: \end{equation}

1660: where, for oblate spheroids,

1661: \begin{equation}

1662: a_1 = \left [

1663: \frac{\sin^{-1} e}{e} - (1 - e^2)^{1/2}

1664: \right ] \frac{(1 - e^2)^{1/2}}{e^2} \, ,

1665: \end{equation}

1666: \begin{equation}

1667: a_3 = 2 \left [

1668: (1 - e^2)^{-1/2} -  \frac{\sin^{-1} e}{e}

1669: \right ] \frac{(1 - e^2)^{1/2}}{e^2} \, ,

1670: \end{equation}

1671: and $I_{BT} = 2a_1 + a_3 (1 - e^2)$ \citep{chandrasekhar69}.

1672: 

1673: Numerical results with $e = 0.8$ are shown in Fig. \ref{maclaurin_spheroid}.

1674: As with the sphere, $\rho_0 = 1$ g cm$^{-3}$

1675: and $r_a = 1$ cm.  However, for the given eccentricity, the polar-axis

1676: radius, $r_b$, is 0.6 cm.  Once again, the grid is a butterfly mesh, but

1677: this time the outer boundary follows the ellipse defining the

1678: surface of the spheroid.  The top panel of

1679: Fig. \ref{maclaurin_spheroid} presents the spheroid's potential, and the degree of

1680: accuracy is presented in the bottom plot.  With $N_{\rm{cell}} =

1681: 35,000$ and $\Delta r/r_a \sim 0.005$, the relative error in the

1682: potential ranges from $\sim 2 \times 10^{-6}$ near the outer boundary

1683: to $\sim 3 \times 10^{-5}$ in interior regions.

1684: Conspicuous are

1685: features in the relative error that track abrupt grid orientation changes in

1686: the mesh.  Fortunately, these features have

1687: magnitudes smaller than or similar to the relative error in the local

1688: region.

1689: The relative error in the gravitational acceleration magnitude, $(|\vec{g}_p| -

1690: |\vec{g}_{\rm ana}| / {\rm max}(|\vec{g}_{\rm ana}|)$ ranges from

1691: $\sim$$-10^{-4}$ to $\sim$$10^{-4}$, where $\vec{g}_{\rm ana}$

1692: is the analytic acceleration and ${\rm max}(|\vec{g}_{\rm ana}|)$ is

1693: the maximum magnitude on the grid.  Typical errors in the acceleration

1694: direction range from $\sim$$-10^{-4}$ to

1695: $\sim$$10^{-4}$ radians with rare deviations as large as

1696: $\sim$$10^{-3}$ radians near the axis and abrupt grid orientation changes.

1697: 

1698: In Fig. \ref{laneemden_plot}, we demonstrate that the ALE

1699: algorithm in combination with our

1700: gravity solver produces reasonably accurate hydrostatic equilibria.

1701: The grid is the butterfly mesh with 8750 zones, and the initial model is a Lane-Emden polytrope with

1702:   $\gamma = 5/3$, $M = 1$ M$_{\sun}$, and $R = 2.9 \times 10^{10}$

1703:   cm.  Crosses show the density profile at $t = 1 \times 10^{4}$

1704:   s, while the solid line shows the maximum density

1705:   as a function of time and that the star pulsates.  These oscillations result from the slight difference between an analytic

1706:   hydrostatic equilibrium structure and a discretized hydrostatic

1707:   equilibrium structure, and with increasing resolution, they decrease in

1708:   magnitude.  Interestingly, the oscillations continue for many cycles with very little attenuation.

1709: 

1710: Simulating the

1711: Goldreich-Weber self-similar collapse \citep{goldreich80} in 1D and

1712: 2D is a good test of dynamic simulations including gravity. The analytic profile is similar to a Lane-Emden polytrope with $\gamma =

1713: 4/3$, and in fact, we use the gamma-law EOS with $\gamma = 4/3$.

1714: While the Lane-Emden

1715: polytropes are assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, the

1716: Goldreich-Weber self-similar collapse has a homologous velocity

1717: profile and a self-similar density profile.

1718: The physical dimensions have been scaled so that $M = 1.3$ M$_{\sun}$,

1719: the initial central density is $10^{10}$ g cm$^{-3}$, and the maximum

1720: radius of the profile is $1.66 \times 10^8$ cm.  For the 1D

1721: simulation, we initiate the grid with 200 evenly-spaced zones, and for

1722: 2D, a butterfly mesh with

1723: 35,000 zones (effectively with 200 radial zones) is used to initiate the

1724: grid.  Subsequent evolution for both simulations uses the Lagrangian

1725: configuration.

1726: 

1727: Figure \ref{gwplot} shows snapshots of density vs. radius

1728: for 1D (top

1729: panel) and 2D (bottom panel) simulations at $t = $0, 20, 40, 60, 80,

1730: 100, 120, and 130 ms.  Both plots indicate that the simulations

1731: (crosses) track the analytic solution (solid lines).  Quantitatively,

1732: we measure a relative difference, $(\rho_z - \rho_{\rm ana})/(\max

1733: (\rho_{\rm ana} ) )$, for the reported times, where $\rho_z$ are the simulated

1734: cell-center densities and $\rho_{\rm ana}$ are the analytic values.

1735: Consistently, the largest deviations are at the center and Table

1736: \ref{table:gw} gives these values for the 1D simulation (2$^{nd}$

1737: column) and the 2D simulation (3$^{rd}$ column).  The relative

1738: differences range from $-9.2 \times 10^{-8}$ at 0 ms to $-3.6 \times

1739: 10^{-2}$ at 130 ms for the 1D simulation and $-1.2 \times 10^{-7}$ at

1740: 0 ms to $-6.3 \times 10^{-2}$ at 130 ms for the 2D simulation.  At all times, the departure from spherical

1741: symmetry is no more than $\sim 1 \times 10^{-4}$.

1742: 

1743: \section{Hydrodynamic Boundary Conditions}

1744: \label{section:hydro_boundary}

1745: 

1746: Boundary conditions are implemented in one of two ways.  Either an

1747: external pressure is specified or the velocities at the nodes are

1748: fixed.  For external pressures, ghost cells are

1749: defined that have no true volume or mass associated with them.

1750: Their only function is to apply an external force to the boundary

1751: cells equal to an external pressure times the boundary surface area.

1752: Specifying nodal velocities on the boundary

1753: accomplishes the same task.  In this case, there is an implied

1754: external force and pressure.  In practice, generic dynamical

1755: boundaries use the external pressure boundary condition.  On the other

1756: hand, pistons, reflecting walls, and the azimuthal axis have

1757: the velocity perpendicular to the boundary specified, while the

1758: parallel component executes unhindered hydrodynamic motions.

1759: 

1760: \section{Artificial Viscosity}

1761: \label{section:artificial_viscosity}

1762: 

1763: To resolve shocks over just a few zones, we include artificial

1764: viscosity in the equations of hydrodynamics.  For 1D simulations, we

1765: add a viscous-like term to the pressure \citep{vonneumann50}.  We denote this viscous

1766: pressure by $q$.  The original realization of $q$ employed one term proportional to

1767: $(\Delta v)^2$, where $\Delta v$ is the difference in velocity from one

1768: zone to the next.  While this form adequately

1769: resolved shocks, unphysical oscillations were observed in the

1770: post-shock flow.  A second term, linear in $\Delta v$, was then added that

1771: effectively damped these oscillations \citep{landshoff55}.  Another form which we employ

1772: for our 1D simulations is

1773: \begin{multline}

1774: \label{eq:viscosity}

1775: q = \rho \left (

1776: c_2 \frac{\gamma + 1}{4} |\Delta v| \right. \\

1777: \left. +

1778: \sqrt{c^2_2 \left ( \frac{\gamma + 1}{4}\right )^2 (\Delta v)^2 +

1779:   c^2_1 c^2_s

1780: }

1781: \right ) |\Delta v| \, ,

1782: \end{multline}

1783: %\begin{equation}

1784: %\label{eq:viscosity}

1785: %q = \rho \left (

1786: %c_2 \frac{\gamma + 1}{4} |\Delta v| +

1787: %\sqrt{c^2_2 \left ( \frac{\gamma + 1}{4}\right )^2 (\Delta v)^2 +

1788: %  c^2_1 c^2_s

1789: %}

1790: %\right ) |\Delta v| \, ,

1791: %\end{equation}

1792: where $c_s$ is the sound speed, $c_1$ is the parameter associated with the

1793: linear term, and $c_2$ is the parameter associated with the quadratic term.

1794: This form has the appealing attribute that it is motivated by the

1795: expression for the shock-jump condition for pressure in an ideal gas \citep{wilkins80}.

1796: 

1797: For 2D simulations, the artificial viscosity scheme we have settled upon

1798: is the tensor artificial viscosity algorithm of \citet{campbell01}.

1799: Here, we do not re-derive the artificial viscosity scheme, but highlight

1800: some of its salient features and practical implementations.  The useful feature of the tensor algorithm is its ability to calculate artificial viscosity on an

1801: arbitrary grid, while suppressing artificial grid buckling when the

1802: flow is not aligned with the grid.  In the strictest sense, the tensor

1803: artificial viscosity does not employ the simple viscous pressure

1804: described above.  Instead, \citet{campbell01} assume that the

1805: artificial viscosity tensor is a combination of a scalar coefficient,

1806: \begin{equation}

1807: \label{eq:mu_av}

1808: \mu \propto \rho \left (

1809: c_2 \frac{\gamma + 1}{4} |\Delta v| +

1810: \sqrt{c^2_2 \left ( \frac{\gamma + 1}{4}\right )^2 (\Delta v)^2 +

1811:   c^2_1 c^2_s

1812: }

1813: \right ) \, ,

1814: \end{equation}

1815: and the gradient of the velocity tensor, $\vec{\nabla} \vec{v}$.

1816: Therefore, references to the parameters $c_1$ and $c_2$ in 1D and 2D

1817: refer to the same linear or quadratic dependence on $|\Delta \vec{v}|$.  With this assumption, the

1818: momentum equation, eq. (\ref{eq:mom_lag}), becomes

1819: \begin{equation}

1820: \label{eq:mom_lag_av}

1821: \rho \frac{d \vec{v}}{d t} = - \rho \vec{\nabla} \Phi - \vec{\nabla} P

1822: + \vec{\nabla} \cdot ( \mu \vec{\nabla} \vec{v} ) \, ,

1823: \end{equation}

1824: and the energy equation, eq. (\ref{eq:ene_lag}), is

1825: \begin{equation}

1826: \label{eq:ene_lag_av}

1827: \rho \frac{d \varepsilon}{d t} = - P \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v} 

1828: + \mu (\vec{\nabla} \vec{v}) : (\vec{\nabla} \vec{v})\, ,

1829: \end{equation}

1830: where $(\vec{\nabla} \vec{v}) : (\vec{\nabla} \vec{v}) = (\vec{\nabla}

1831: \vec{v})_{ij} (\vec{\nabla} \vec{v})_{ij}$, using the normal Einstein

1832: summation convention.  With the method of support operators,

1833: \citet{campbell01} derive discrete forms of these equations.

1834: Analogous to the gradient of the pressure term, the discrete artificial

1835: viscosity term in the momentum equation becomes a summation of corner

1836: forces, 

1837: \begin{equation}

1838: \vec{\nabla} \cdot ( \mu \vec{\nabla} \vec{v} ) \longrightarrow \sum_{z \in S(p)}\vec{f}^p_{z,\rm{visc}} \, ,

1839: \end{equation}

1840: and the

1841: corresponding term in the energy equation is the usual

1842: force-dot-velocity summation: 

1843: \begin{equation}

1844: \mu (\vec{\nabla} \vec{v}) : (\vec{\nabla} \vec{v}) \longrightarrow

1845: -\sum_{p \in S(z)} \vec{f}^z_{p,\rm{visc}} \cdot \vec{v}_p.

1846: \end{equation}

1847: Therefore, implementation of the artificial viscosity scheme is

1848: straightforward and similar to that for the pressure forces.

1849: 

1850: In practice, this artificial viscosity scheme is

1851: formulated for Cartesian coordinates, and to obtain the equivalent

1852: force for cylindrical coordinates, we multiply the Cartesian subcell

1853: force by $2 \pi r_p$.  In general, this works quite well,

1854: but sacrifices strict momentum conservation (See \S

1855: \ref{section:momcons}).

1856: 

1857: \section{Subcell Pressures: Eliminating Hourglass Grid

1858:   Distortion}

1859: \label{section:hourglass}

1860: A problem that can plague Lagrangian codes using cells with 4 or more sides is the

1861: unphysical hourglass mode \citep{caramana98a}.  To suppress this problem, we employ a modified version of the

1862: subcell pressure algorithm

1863: of \citet{caramana98a}.  For all

1864: physical modes (translation, shear, and extension/contraction) the

1865: divergences of the velocity on the subcell and cell levels are equal,

1866: \begin{equation}

1867: (\nabla \cdot {\bf v})^z_p = (\nabla \cdot {\bf v})_z \, .

1868: \end{equation}

1869: Hence, as long as the calculation is initiated such that the subcell

1870: densities of a cell are equal to the cell-averaged density, then they

1871: should remain equal at all subsequent times.  Any deviation of the

1872: subcell density from the cell density, $\delta \rho^z_p = \rho^z_p -

1873: \rho_z$, is a direct result of the hourglass mode.  The scheme of

1874: \citet{caramana98a} uses this deviation in subcell density to define a

1875: subcell pressure that is related to the deviation in subcell and cell

1876: density, $\delta \rho^z_p$, by

1877: \begin{equation}

1878: P^z_p = P_z + c^2_s \delta \rho^z_p

1879: \end{equation}

1880: with the corresponding deviation in pressure: $\delta P^z_p = c^2_s

1881: \delta \rho^z_p$.

1882: 

1883: Application of these pressures as subcell forces counteracts the hourglass distortion.

1884: However, the pressure throughout the cell is no longer uniform.  As

1885: a result, the subcell pressures exert forces on the cell centers

1886: and mid-edge points.  These locations in the grid are not subject to physical

1887: forces as are the nodes.  Instead, their movement is tied to the

1888: motions of the nodes.  To conserve momentum, the forces

1889: acting on these enslaved points must be redistributed to the dynamical

1890: nodes.  Though the choice of redistribution is not unique, we follow

1891: the  procedure established by \citet{caramana98a} for the form of the

1892: subcell force (for the definitions of $\vec{S}^z_p$ and

1893:   $\vec{a}^z_p$, see \S \ref{section:coords_mesh} and Fig. \ref{fig:grid}.):

1894: \begin{equation}

1895: \vec{f}^z_p = \delta P^z_p \vec{S}^z_p + \frac{1}{2}[

1896: (\delta P^z_p-\delta P^z_{p+1}) \vec{a}^z_p

1897: +(\delta P^z_{p-1}-\delta P^z_p) \vec{a}^z_{p-1}] \, .

1898: \end{equation}

1899: 

1900: 

1901: This particular scheme works quite well for Lagrangian

1902: calculations.  However, it can be incompatible with

1903: subcell remapping algorithms.  The hourglass suppression scheme

1904: described above assumes that only hourglass motions result in nonzero

1905: values for $\delta \rho^z_p$.  Even in calculations that are

1906: completely free of hourglass motions, the subcell remapping scheme can

1907: and will produce subcell densities within a cell that are different

1908: from the cell density.  Since this difference of subcell and cell densities

1909: has nothing to do with hourglass motions, any subcell forces that

1910: arise introduce spurious motions that don't correct the

1911: hourglass motions.

1912: 

1913: Investigating several alternative schemes, we settled on a

1914: modification of the \citet{caramana98a} approach.  After each remap, 

1915: we define a tracer density whose only purpose is to

1916: track the relative changes in the subcell and cell volumes during the

1917: subsequent hydrodynamic solve.  For

1918: convenience, and to keep the magnitude of the subcell pressures about

1919: right, we set the subcell tracer density equal to the cell density.  After

1920: replacing $\delta \rho^z_p$ with the difference between the subcell tracer

1921: density and the cell density, $\delta \rho^z_{p,tr}$, we proceed with

1922: the scheme prescribed by \citet{caramana98a}.  We have found that

1923: the subcell forces of \citet{caramana98a} significantly

1924: resist hourglass motions only after $\delta \rho^z_p$ achieves

1925: significant magnitude.  For our new hourglass scheme, if a remap is implemented

1926: after each hydrodynamic solve, $\delta \rho^z_{p,tr}$ does not

1927: have a chance to achieve large values, and hence, the

1928: subsequent subcell forces are not very resistant to hourglass

1929: distortions.  However, for many

1930: simulations, we have found that it is not necessary to remap after

1931: every Lagrangian hydrodynamic solve.  Rather, the remap may be performed after $N$

1932: timesteps.  In these circumstances, the subcell tracer density is

1933: allowed to evolve continuously as determined by the hydrodynamic

1934: equations.  With large $N$, $\delta \rho^z_{p,tr}$ does develop

1935: significant amplitude and the subcell forces become effective in

1936: suppressing the hourglass modes.  In fact, in the limit that $N \gg 1$,

1937: this scheme becomes the hourglass suppression scheme of \citet{caramana98a}.

1938: 

1939: In practice, we multiply this subcell force by a scaling factor.  To

1940: determine the appropriate magnitude of this scaling factor, we

1941: executed many test problems and found that problems that

1942: involved the perturbation of hydrostatic equilibrium provide a good

1943: test of the

1944: robustness of the hourglass fix.  During the testing protocol, we ran a simulation for at least 200,000 timesteps, ensuring that

1945: the hourglass fix remains robust for long calculations.  For

1946: Lagrangian calculations, a scaling factor $\sim 1$ produced

1947: reasonable results.  For runs in which remapping

1948: occurred after $N$ timesteps, we found that larger values of the

1949: scaling factor were required.  However, for very large values of $N$, such as 64 or

1950: greater, such large values compromised

1951: small structures in the flow.  Hence, we settled on scaling factors

1952: near 1 for large $N$.  For small $N$, we found that the difference in

1953: tracer density and the cell-centered density had little time to build

1954: to significant amplitudes, so larger values of the scaling factor are

1955: required, but anything above 4 produced noticeable problems in

1956: flows with many timesteps.  In summary, the scaling factor should be

1957: adjusted to be $\sim 1$ for large $N$ and $\sim 4$ for small $N$.

1958: 

1959: \subsection{Tests of the Hourglass Elimination Algorithm}

1960: 

1961: To demonstrate the need for an hourglass suppression scheme, and that

1962: our algorithm to address the hourglass distortions works, we show in

1963: Fig. \ref{gw_fmerit_comp} results for the Goldreich-Weber self-similar

1964: collapse in 2D (\S \ref{section:gravity_tests}), with and without the hourglass

1965: suppression (\S \ref{section:hourglass}).  These results

1966: represent a Lagrangian simulation of the self-similar collapse at $t =

1967: 118$ ms.  On the left (``$r < 0$'') the grid clearly shows problematic

1968: grid buckling when the hourglass suppression is turned off.  The grid

1969: on the right (``$r > 0$'') shows the elimination of grid buckling with

1970: the use of the hourglass suppression scheme and a scaling factor of 2.0. 

1971: 

1972: Figure \ref{rt_stills_fmerit} illustrates the problem of using the

1973: hourglass suppression scheme of \citet{caramana98a} in combination

1974: with the subcell remapping algorithm (\S \ref{section:remap}).  All

1975: three panels show the results of the single-mode Rayleigh-Taylor

1976: instability at $t = 12.75$ s.  For the left

1977: panel, no hourglass suppression is employed.  This panel

1978: represents our control.  While the hourglass instability does not cause serious

1979: problems for the calculation, one can see evidence of slight hourglass

1980: patterns at the scale of the grid resolution.  In particular, two

1981: blobs near the top and on the edges form distinct patterns.  The

1982: central panel demonstrates the problem of using the subcell remapping scheme and the

1983:   subcell pressure method of \citet{caramana98a}.  On the other hand,

1984:   the right panel demonstrates that the modified subpressure scheme we have developed

1985:   suppresses the hourglass distortions, while preserving the expected flow.

1986: 

1987: \section{Remapping}

1988: \label{section:remap}

1989: Fluid flows with large vorticity quickly tangle a Lagrangian

1990: mesh, presenting severe problems for Lagrangian

1991: hydrodynamic codes.  To avoid entangled grids, it is common to remap the state

1992: variables after each Lagrangian hydrodynamic advance to another less

1993: tangled mesh.  Even flows that exhibit very

1994: little vorticity, but extreme compression or expansion along a

1995: particular direction, leading to very skewed cells, can

1996: limit the accuracy of Lagrangian calculations.  In this case as well, one can

1997: employ a remapping scheme which is designed to minimize the

1998: calculational error.

1999: 

2000: To remap, a new grid must be established.

2001: One choice is to remap to the original

2002: grid, thereby effectively solving the hydrodynamics equations on an

2003: Eulerian mesh.  Another is to use a reference Jacobian matrix

2004: rezone strategy, which establishes a new mesh close to the

2005: Lagrangian mesh, while reducing numerical error by reducing unnecessarily

2006: skewed zones.  The arbitrary nature of the

2007: remapping algorithm even allows the freedom of choosing one

2008: rezoning scheme in one sector of the grid and another

2009: rezoning scheme in other sectors.  For example, one could remap in an

2010: Eulerian fashion in one sector, let the grid move in a

2011: Lagrangian manner in another, and in the intervening region smoothly

2012: match these two regions.

2013: 

2014: Generally, there are two options for remapping

2015: schemes.  One can remap from one arbitrary grid to another

2016: completely unrelated arbitrary grid.  For these unrelated grids, one needs to

2017: determine the overlap of the zones of the first grid with the zones

2018: of the second.  In general, this can be a very cumbersome and

2019: expensive process.  As a result most ALE codes, remap to an arbitrary grid

2020: that is not too different from the first.  Specifically, the usual

2021: stipulation employed is that the face of each cell does not traverse

2022: more than one cell during a timestep, and that the connectivity among nodes,

2023: faces, edges, and cells remains the same from the first grid to the

2024: remapped grid.  The regions swept by the faces then contain the mass,

2025: momentum, or energy which is added to the cell on one side of the face

2026: and subtracted from the cell on the other side.

2027: 

2028: It is in this context that we use the swept-region remapping

2029: algorithms of \citet{loubere05}, \citet{margolin03,margolin04}, \citet{kucharik03}, and \citet{loubere06}.  This

2030: remapping scheme may be described by four

2031: stages:

2032: \begin{enumerate}

2033: \item The first is the gathering stage.  This is a

2034:   stage in which subcell quantities of the mass, momenta, and

2035:   energies are defined in preparation for the bulk of the remapping

2036:   process.

2037: \item The second is to remap the subcell quantities from the

2038:   Lagrangian grid to the new rezoned grid using the swept-region

2039:   approximation.  In doing so, the remapping algorithm remains 2nd-order

2040:   accurate, but avoids time intensive routines to calculate the overlap

2041:   regions of the old and new grids.

2042: \item The third is to repair the subcell densities.  Because exact

2043:   spatial integration is avoided with the swept-region

2044:   approximation, local bounds of subcell densities may be violated.

2045:   Therefore, a

2046:   repair algorithm which redistributes mass, momentum, and energies to

2047:   preserve the local bounds is implemented.

2048: \item Finally, there is the

2049:   scattering stage, in which the primary variables of the hydrodynamics

2050:   algorithm are recovered for the new rezoned grid.

2051: \end{enumerate}

2052: 

2053: 

2054: \subsection{Gathering Stage}

2055: \label{section:gather}

2056: 

2057: In order to remap the primary quantities using the subcell remapping

2058: algorithm, mass, momenta, internal energy, and kinetic energy must be

2059: defined at the subcell level.  In the Lagrangian stage, the subcell mass, $m^z_p$, is already

2060: defined.  The subcell density which is a consequence of

2061: the change in the subcell volume ($V^z_p$) during the Lagrangian hydro step is

2062: \begin{equation}

2063: \rho^z_p = \frac{m^z_p}{V^z_p} \, .

2064: \end{equation}

2065: Unfortunately, there is no equivalent quantity for the subcell

2066: internal energy.  Instead, we define the internal energy density for

2067: each zone, $e_z = \varepsilon_z \rho_z$, fit a linear function for the

2068: internal energy density, $\hat{e}_z = e_z + (\vec{\nabla}e)_z \cdot

2069: (\vec{x} - \vec{x}_c)$, and integrate this function over the volume of

2070: each subcell to determine the total subcell internal energy and,

2071: consequently, the average subcell internal energy density:

2072: \begin{equation}

2073: \label{eq:gather_energy}

2074: \begin{array}{ccc}

2075: E^z_p = \int_{v^z_p} \hat{e} dV  &

2076: \mbox{and}&

2077:  e^z_p = \frac{E^z_p}{V^z_p} \, .

2078: \end{array}

2079: \end{equation}

2080: Performing the integration of eq. (\ref{eq:gather_energy}) involves a

2081: volume integral and volume integrals weighted by $x$ and $y$ in

2082: Cartesian coordinates or $r$ and $z$ in cylindrical coordinates (see appendix

2083: \ref{section:integrals} for formulae calculating these discrete integrals).

2084: Note, that, by construction, these newly defined internal energies

2085: satisfy conservation of internal energy for each zone, $m_z

2086: \varepsilon_z = \sum_{p \in S(z)} E^z_p$.

2087: 

2088: Similarly, there are no readily defined subcell-centered averages for the

2089: momenta, $\vec{\mu}^z_p$, or velocities, $\vec{u}^z_p$.  However, they

2090: should be related to one another by

2091: \begin{equation}

2092: \vec{\mu}^z_p = m^z_p \vec{u}^z_p \, .

2093: \end{equation}

2094: If the gathering stage is to preserve momentum conservation, then the

2095: following equality must hold:

2096: \begin{equation}

2097: \label{eq:momconssubcell}

2098: \sum_{p \in S(z)} m^z_p \vec{u}^z_p = \sum_{p \in S(z)} m^z_p

2099: \vec{v}_p \, .

2100: \end{equation}

2101: By inspection, it might seem natural to set $\vec{u}^z_p =

2102: \vec{v}_p$.  However, we follow the more accurate suggestion made by

2103: \citet{loubere05} to define the subcell-averaged velocity as follows:

2104: \begin{equation}

2105: \label{eq:subcellvel}

2106: \vec{u}^p_z = \frac{ 

2107: \vec{u}_z + \vec{v}_p + \vec{v}_{p+1/2} + \vec{v}_{p-1/2}}{4} \, ,

2108: \end{equation}

2109: where $\vec{u}_z$ is obtained by averaging over all nodal velocities associated

2110: with zone $z$, and $\vec{v}_{p+1/2}$ and $\vec{v}_{p-1/2}$ are edge-averaged velocities given by $\vec{v}_{p+1/2} = 1/2 \left (

2111:   \vec{v}_p + \vec{v}_{p+1} \right )$ and $\vec{v}_{p-1/2} = 1/2 \left

2112:   ( \vec{v}_p + \vec{v}_{p-1} \right )$.

2113: %\begin{equation}

2114: %\sum_{p \in S(z)} m^z_p \left (\frac{ 

2115: %\vec{u}_z + \vec{v}_p + \vec{v}_{p+1/2} + \vec{v}_{p-1/2}}{4}

2116: %\right )

2117: %= \sum_{p \in S(z)} m^z_p \vec{v}_p

2118: %\end{equation}

2119: Substituting eq. (\ref{eq:subcellvel}) into

2120: eq. (\ref{eq:momconssubcell}) and rearranging terms, we get an

2121: expression for the subcell velocity that depends on known subcell masses

2122: and nodal velocities:

2123: \begin{multline}

2124: \label{eq:vsubcellexplicit1}

2125: \vec{u}^p_z = \frac{1}{4} \left (

2126: 2\vec{v}_p + \frac{\vec{v}_{p+1}}{2} + \frac{\vec{v}_{p-1}}{2}

2127: \right ) \\

2128: + \sum_{p' \in S(z)} \frac{m^z_{p'}}{8 m_z} (4\vec{v}_{p'} -

2129: \vec{v}_{p'+1} - \vec{v}_{p'-1}) \, .

2130: \end{multline}

2131: %\begin{equation}

2132: %\label{eq:vsubcellexplicit1}

2133: %\vec{u}^p_z = \frac{1}{4} \left (

2134: %2\vec{v}_p + \frac{\vec{v}_{p+1}}{2} + \frac{\vec{v}_{p-1}}{2}

2135: %\right ) +

2136: %\sum_{p' \in S(z)} \frac{m^z_{p'}}{8 m_z} (4\vec{v}_{p'} -

2137: %\vec{v}_{p'+1} - \vec{v}_{p'-1}) \, .

2138: %\end{equation}

2139: We now rewrite

2140: eq. (\ref{eq:vsubcellexplicit1}) in a form that obviously makes it

2141: easy to write the

2142: gathering operation in matrix form:

2143: \begin{multline}

2144: \label{eq:vsubcellexplicit}

2145: \vec{u}^p_z = \frac{1}{4} \left (

2146: 2\vec{v}_p + \frac{\vec{v}_{p+1}}{2} + \frac{\vec{v}_{p-1}}{2}

2147: \right ) \\

2148: + \sum_{p' \in S(z)} \vec{v}_{p'} \left (

2149: \frac{-m^z_{p'-1} + 4 m^z_{p'} - m^z_{p'+1}}{8 m_z}

2150: \right ) \, .

2151: \end{multline}

2152: %\begin{equation}

2153: %\label{eq:vsubcellexplicit}

2154: %\vec{u}^p_z = \frac{1}{4} \left (

2155: %2\vec{v}_p + \frac{\vec{v}_{p+1}}{2} + \frac{\vec{v}_{p-1}}{2}

2156: %\right ) +

2157: %\sum_{p' \in S(z)} \vec{v}_{p'} \left (

2158: %\frac{-m^z_{p'-1} + 4 m^z_{p'} - m^z_{p'+1}}{8 m_z}

2159: %\right ) \, .

2160: %\end{equation}

2161: If ${\bf U}_z$ is a vector of one component of all

2162: velocities associated with cell $z$, and ${\bf U}^{SC}_z$ is the

2163: equivalent for subcell velocities, then

2164: \begin{equation}

2165: {\bf U}^{SC}_z = {\bf M}_z {\bf U}_z \, ,

2166: \end{equation}

2167: where the matrix, ${\bf M}_z$, for each zone is given by the

2168: coefficients in eq. (\ref{eq:vsubcellexplicit}).

2169: 

2170: To conserve total energy in the remap stage, we define the subcell

2171: kinetic energy and follow the same gather procedure

2172: as for the velocity by simply replacing

2173: velocity with the specific kinetic energy:

2174: \begin{equation}

2175: k_p = \frac{|\vec{v}|^2}{2} \, .

2176: \end{equation}

2177: We

2178: ensure conservation of total kinetic energy for a cell:

2179: \begin{equation}

2180: \sum_{p \in S(z)} m^z_p k^z_p = \sum_{p \in S(z)} m^z_p k_p = K_z \, ,

2181: \end{equation}

2182: where $k^z_p$ is the subcell-averaged specific kinetic energy.

2183: Then, the transformation from nodal specific

2184: kinetic energies to subcell-averaged specific kinetic energies is

2185: given by

2186: \begin{equation}

2187: {\bf k}^{SC}_z = {\bf M}_z {\bf k}_z \, ,

2188: \end{equation}

2189: where ${\bf k}^{SC}_z$ is a vector of the subcell-averaged specific

2190: kinetic energies, ${\bf k}_z$ is a vector of the nodal specific

2191: kinetic energies, and ${\bf M}_z$ is the same transformation matrix

2192: used for the velocity transformations.  Having found the specific

2193: kinetic energies, the calculation of the kinetic

2194: energy for each subcell is then straightforward: $K^z_p =

2195: m^z_p k^z_p$.

2196: 

2197: Upon completion of the gathering stage, each relevant quantity, $m^z_p$, $\vec{\mu}^z_p$, $E^z_p$, and $K^z_p$, is

2198: expressed as a fundamentally conserved quantity for each subcell.  From these conserved

2199: quantities and the subcell volumes, we have the corresponding

2200: densities, which, as is explained in \S \ref{section:swept}, are

2201: important components of the remapping process.

2202: 

2203: \subsection{Swept-edge Remap}

2204: \label{section:swept}

2205: 

2206: Having gathered all relevant subcell quantities, we begin

2207: the bulk of the remapping process.  Since all variables are now expressed in terms of

2208: a conserved quantity (subcell mass, energy, and momentum) and

2209: a density (mass density, energy density, and momentum density), for clarity of exposition, we focus on representative variables, subcell mass and density, to explain

2210: the generic remapping algorithm.  When there are differences in the algorithm for the other

2211: variables, we note them.

2212: 

2213: We have instituted the remapping algorithm of \citet{kucharik03}.  To avoid the

2214: expensive process of finding the overlap of the Lagrangian grid with

2215: the rezoned grid, this algorithm modifies the mass of each subcell

2216: with a swept-edge approximation for the rezoning process.  As

2217: long as the connectivity and neighborhood for each cell remain the

2218: same throughout the calculation, time spent in connectivity overhead

2219: is greatly reduced.  The objective of the remapping algorithm is then to

2220: find the amount of mass, $\delta m_e$, that each edge effectively sweeps up due to the rezoning

2221: process and to add or subtract this change

2222: in mass to the old subcell mass to obtain the new subcell mass, $\tilde{m}^z_p$:

2223: \begin{equation}

2224: \label{eq:swept_eq1}

2225: \tilde{m}^z_p = m^z_p + \sum_{e \in S(z)} \delta m_e \, .

2226: \end{equation}

2227: Of course, the change in mass is obtained by integration of a density

2228: function over the volume of the swept region:

2229: \begin{equation}

2230: \label{eq:swept_eq2}

2231: \delta m_e = \int_{\delta e} \hat{\rho} dV \, .

2232: \end{equation}

2233: The density function, $\hat{\rho}(x,y)$, may take on any functional

2234: form.  To maintain second-order accuracy of the algorithm we use a linear density function;

2235: \begin{equation}

2236: \hat{\rho} = \rho^p_z + (\vec{\nabla}\rho)^p_z \cdot (\vec{x} - \vec{x}^p_z) \, ,

2237: \end{equation}

2238: where $\vec{x}^p_z$ is the average of the nodal positions defining the subcell.

2239: 

2240: In determining the gradient, $(\vec{\nabla}\rho)^p_z$, we employ one of

2241: two standard methods for calculating the gradient using the densities

2242: from subcell $\{z,p\}$ and its neighbors.

2243: The first method uses Green's theorem to rewrite a bounded volume integral as a

2244: boundary integral around the same volume.  We begin

2245: with a definition of the average gradient of $\rho$ for a given

2246: region.  For each component, the

2247: average gradient is

2248: \begin{equation}

2249: \begin{array}{ccccc}

2250: \left < \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial x} \right > &

2251: = &

2252: \frac{1}{V}\int_{V} \rho_x dV &

2253: = &

2254: \frac{1}{V}\oint_{\partial V} \rho dy\\

2255: \left < \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial y} \right >&

2256: = &

2257: \frac{1}{V}\int_{V} \rho_y dV &

2258: = &

2259: -\frac{1}{V}\oint_{\partial V} \rho dx \, , \\

2260: \end{array}

2261: \end{equation}

2262: where $\rho_x$ and $\rho_y$ are the gradients in the x- and y-directions, respectively.

2263: The region over which the integrals are evaluated is defined by

2264: segments connecting the centers of the neighboring subcells.  Hence, 

2265: the discrete form of the average gradient is

2266: \begin{equation}

2267: \begin{array}{rcl}

2268: \left < \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial x} \right >^p_z&

2269:  = &

2270: \frac{1}{V}\sum_e \frac{\rho_1 + \rho_2}{2} \Delta y_{12}\\

2271: \left < \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial y} \right >^p_z&

2272:  = &

2273: -\frac{1}{V}\sum_e \frac{\rho_1 + \rho_2}{2} \Delta x_{12} \, .\\

2274: \end{array}

2275: \end{equation}

2276: While this method works reasonably well, an unfortunate consequence

2277: of the integration and division by volume is that the value of the gradient is

2278: directly influenced by the shape and size of the cell.

2279: 

2280: An alternative method for determining gradients, which is not as easily influenced by the shape

2281: of the mesh, is a least-squares procedure.  For simplicity of notation,

2282: we describe this method in the context of cells

2283: rather than subcells.  Again, assuming a linear

2284: form for $\hat{\rho}_z(x,y)$, we seek to minimize the difference between

2285: $\rho_c$ and $\hat{\rho}_z(x_c,y_c)$, where $\rho_c$ is the neighbor's

2286: value and $\hat{\rho}_z(x_c,y_c)$ is the extrapolation of cell $z$'s

2287: linear function to the position of the neighbor, $(x_c,y_c)$.

2288: More explicitly, we wish to minimize the following equation:

2289: \begin{equation}

2290: \label{eq:least_eq1}

2291: \sum_{c \in \mathcal{N}(z)} \omega^2_{cz} E^2_{zc} \, ,

2292: \end{equation}

2293: where the set of neighbors for cell $z$ is denoted by $c \in \mathcal{N}(z)$,

2294: \begin{equation}

2295: \label{eq:least_eq2}

2296: E^2_{zc} = \left (

2297: -\Delta \rho_{cz} + \rho_{x,z} \Delta x_{cz} + \rho_{y,z} \Delta y_{cz}

2298: \right )^2 \, ,

2299: \end{equation}

2300: $\rho_{x,z}$ and $\rho_{y,z}$ are the $x$ and $y$ components of the

2301: gradient, $\Delta \rho_{cz} = \rho_c - \rho_z$, $\Delta x_{cz} = x_c - x_z$, $\Delta

2302: y_{cz} = y_c - y_z$, and $\omega_{cz}^2 = 1/(\Delta x_{cz}^2 + \Delta y_{cz}^2)$.

2303: Minimizing eq. (\ref{eq:least_eq1}) with respect to the two unknowns, leads to the

2304: following set of linear equations:

2305: \begin{equation}

2306: \begin{array}{rcl}

2307: a \rho_x + b \rho_y & = & d\\

2308: b \rho_x + c \rho_y & = & e \, ,\\

2309: \end{array}

2310: \end{equation}

2311: for each subcell, where

2312: \begin{equation}

2313: \begin{array}{rcl}

2314: a & = & \sum_{c \in \mathcal{N}(z)} \omega^2_{cz} \Delta x^2_{cz}\\

2315: b & = & \sum_{c \in \mathcal{N}(z)} \omega^2_{cz} \Delta x_{cz} \Delta y_{cz}\\

2316: c & = & \sum_{c \in \mathcal{N}(z)} \omega^2_{cz} \Delta y^2_{cz}\\

2317: d & = & \sum_{c \in \mathcal{N}(z)} \omega^2_{cz} \Delta \rho_{cz} \Delta x_{cz}\\

2318: e & = & \sum_{c \in \mathcal{N}(z)} \omega^2_{cz} \Delta \rho_{cz} \Delta

2319: y_{cz} \, .\\

2320: \end{array}

2321: \end{equation}

2322: Solving this linear system with Cramer's rule then gives the least-squares gradients.

2323: 

2324: After calculating the gradient

2325: we ensure monotonicity using the Barth-Jespersen limiter

2326: \citep{barth97}.  The gradient is limited by a scalar, $\Phi_z$, that

2327: has a range between 0 and 1:

2328: \begin{equation}

2329: \hat{\rho}_z(x,y) = \rho_z + \Phi_z (\vec{\nabla}\rho)_z \cdot (\vec{x} - \vec{x}_z) \, .

2330: \end{equation}

2331: First, we determine the minimum and maximum value of $\rho$ among $\rho_z$ and

2332: its neighbors $\rho_c$:

2333: \begin{equation}

2334: \rho^{\rm min}_z = \min (\rho_z,\rho_c)

2335: \end{equation}

2336: \begin{equation}

2337: \rho^{\rm max}_z = \max (\rho_z,\rho_c) \, .

2338: \end{equation}

2339: We satisfy the requirement that

2340: \begin{equation}

2341: \rho^{\rm min}_z \leq \hat{\rho}(x,y) \leq \rho^{\rm max}_z \, .

2342: \end{equation}

2343: This is accomplished in the following way.

2344: \begin{equation}

2345: \Phi_z = \min ( \Phi^n_z) \, ,

2346: \end{equation}

2347: where $\Phi^n_z$ is a limiter associated with each node of the cell

2348: and is given by

2349: \begin{equation}

2350: \Phi^n_z =

2351: \left \{

2352: \begin{array}{lcr}

2353: \min \left ( 1,\frac{\rho^{\rm max}_z - \rho_z}{ \hat{\rho}(x_n,y_n) - \rho_z} \right ) & \mbox{for} &

2354: \hat{\rho}(x_n,y_n) - \rho_z > 0 \\

2355: \min \left ( 1,\frac{\rho^{\rm min}_z - \rho_z}{ \hat{\rho}(x_n,y_n) - \rho_z} \right ) & \mbox{for} &

2356: \hat{\rho}(x_n,y_n) - \rho_z < 0 \\

2357: 1 & \mbox{for} & \hat{\rho}(x_n,y_n) - \rho_z = 0 \, , \\

2358: \end{array}

2359: \right .

2360: \end{equation}

2361: where $\hat{\rho}(x_n,y_n)$ is the unlimited linear function evaluated at the nodes.

2362: 

2363: 

2364: With the linear function $\hat{\rho}$ defined for each subcell, we

2365: return to the task of determining the swept mass, $\delta m_e$.  The specific linear function $\hat{\rho}$ for density

2366: used in eq. (\ref{eq:swept_eq2}) depends upon which subcell the edge encroaches upon.  In fact,

2367: it is quite possible that the volume swept by the edge intersects more

2368: than one immediate neighbor of the subcell in question.  Of course, an

2369: accurate swept-edge integration scheme would take into account all

2370: spatial functions in the relevant subcells.  \citet{kucharik03}, and

2371: references therein, have noted that such an accurate scheme may be

2372: cumbersome and computational expensive.  Instead, they suggest an

2373: approximate swept region integration in which only the subcells to the

2374: left and right of the oriented edge need matter in determining the

2375: spatial function of density used for integration.  To this

2376: end, an oriented volume integral is defined:

2377: \begin{equation}

2378: \delta V_e = \oint xdy \, .

2379: \end{equation}

2380: Whether this volume integral is negative or positive, the density

2381: function is taken from either the left or right subcell:

2382: \begin{equation}

2383: \hat{\rho} = \left \{

2384: \begin{array}{lr}

2385: \hat{\rho}_r, & \delta V_e \geq 0 \, ,\\

2386: \hat{\rho}_l, & \delta V_e < 0

2387: \end{array}

2388: \right .

2389: \end{equation}

2390: 

2391: \subsection{Repair}

2392: 

2393: While the above scheme is second-order accurate and mass conserving, the

2394: approximations made in the swept-edge algorithm can violate local

2395: bounds.  In practice, the values of the remapped densities should be

2396: bounded by the neighborhood values of the original grid.

2397: Computationally expensive schemes that

2398: find the overlap regions among the old and new grid can be made to preserve the

2399: bounds.  However,

2400: the local bounds can be violated in swept-edge remapping.  Using the

2401: linearity-and-bound-preserving method of \citet{kucharik03}, we conservatively repair quantities by redistributing mass,

2402: energy, momenta, and number to neighbors satisfying the local bounds

2403: of the quantities on the previous Lagrangian grid.  However, the order

2404: in which one processes the cells and subcells influences the specific

2405: values that emerge from the repair process.  Therefore, we employ the order

2406: independent scheme of \citet{loubere06}.  These repair

2407: schemes are designed to repair subcell densities.  For velocities and

2408: composition we wish to preserve the bounds of $\vec{v}$ and $X_i$.

2409: Therefore, we have appropriately adjusted the scheme to conservatively

2410: repair momenta and particle number by preserving the local

2411: bounds of $\vec{v}$ and $X_i$, respectively.

2412: 

2413: \subsection{Scattering}

2414: \label{section:scatter}

2415: The final remap step is to recover the primary variables for the

2416: next hydrodynamic step.

2417: The new cell-centered and node-centered masses are

2418: \begin{equation}

2419: \tilde{m}_z = \sum_{p \in S(z)} \tilde{m}^z_p

2420: \end{equation}

2421: and

2422: \begin{equation}

2423: \tilde{m}_p = \sum_{z \in S(p)} \tilde{m}^p_z \, ,

2424: \end{equation}

2425: respectively. Consequently, the subcell and cell-averaged densities are

2426: \begin{equation}

2427: \tilde{\rho}^z_p = \frac{\tilde{m}^z_p}{\tilde{V}^z_p}

2428: \end{equation}

2429: and

2430: \begin{equation}

2431: \tilde{\rho}_z = \frac{\tilde{m}_z}{\tilde{V}_z} \, ,

2432: \end{equation}

2433: respectively.

2434: 

2435: Recovering the velocities at the nodes is slightly more involved.

2436: First, the new subcell-averaged velocity is defined using the remapped

2437: momenta and masses:

2438: \begin{equation}

2439: \tilde{v}^z_p = \frac{\tilde{\mu}^z_p}{\tilde{m}^z_p}

2440: \end{equation}

2441: Then, for each cell we invert the matrix equation that transforms node

2442: velocities into subcell velocities:

2443: \begin{equation}

2444: \label{eq:vmatrix}

2445: \tilde{\bf U}_z = \tilde{\bf M}^{-1}_z \tilde{\bf U}^{SC}_z \, .

2446: \end{equation}

2447: In this scheme, each cell provides its own velocity for a node, which may

2448: be different from another cell's value for the same node.  Therefore, for

2449: each node velocity, we average node velocities resulting from the

2450: inversion of eq. (\ref{eq:vmatrix}):

2451: \begin{equation}

2452: \tilde{v}_p = \frac{1}{\tilde{m}_p} \sum_{z \in S(p)} \tilde{m}^z_p 

2453: \tilde{v}_p(z) \, .

2454: \end{equation}

2455: 

2456: Finally, we recover the specific internal energy.  Comparing the sum of the old internal energy and

2457: kinetic energy with the sum of remapped internal energy and a kinetic

2458: energy defined by the remapped node velocities will not necessarily

2459: ensure conservation of total energy.  Therefore, the old

2460: kinetic energy is remapped along with the node velocities.  The

2461: discrepancy between these two kinetic energy representations is then

2462: added to the internal energy, ensuring conservation of total energy

2463: during the remap stage:

2464: \begin{equation}

2465: \label{eq:remap_conserve_ene}

2466: \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_z = \sum_{p \in S(z)} \tilde{\mathcal{E}}^z_p

2467: + \left [

2468: \left ( \sum_{p \in S(z)} \tilde{K}^z_p \right )

2469: - \left ( \sum_{p \in S(z)} \tilde{m}^z_p \frac{|\tilde{v}_p|^2}{2} \right )

2470: \right ] \, .

2471: \end{equation}

2472: The new cell-centered specific internal energy is then obtained using

2473: the modified internal energy, $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_z$, and the

2474: remapped mass, $\tilde{m}_z$: 

2475: \begin{equation}

2476: \tilde{\varepsilon}_z = \frac{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_z}{\tilde{m}_z} \, .

2477: \end{equation}

2478: 

2479: This ensures conservation of total energy at the expense of consistent

2480: remapping of internal energy.  Whichever is desirable depends upon the

2481: problem.  For example, in flows with large kinetic energies and small

2482: internal energies, the discrepancy in kinetic energy remapping could

2483: substantially alter or even dominate the internal energy.

2484: Consequently, we include a flag in BETHE-hydro that determines whether

2485: the remapped kinetic energy differences are added to the internal energy.

2486: 

2487: \subsection{Remapping Tests}

2488: \label{section:remap_test}

2489: 

2490: Figure \ref{rhoremap_step} demonstrates the basic effectiveness of the remapping

2491: algorithm.  We remap a 1D step function in density many times.  From

2492: $x=0$ to $x=1/2$ cm, the density is $\rho = 2.5$ g cm$^{-3}$, and from $x =

2493: 1/2$ to $x = 1$ cm, the density is $\rho = 1.5$ g cm$^{-3}$.  This test has 50 cells

2494: and $N_{nodes} = 51$ nodes.  Indexing each node by $i$, the positions of

2495: the nodes are

2496: \begin{equation}

2497: x_i = (1 - \alpha)  \left ( \frac{i-1}{N_{nodes}-1} \right ) + \alpha \left ( \frac{i-1}{N_{nodes}-1} \right )^2 \, ,

2498: \end{equation}

2499: where

2500: \begin{equation}

2501: \alpha = \frac{1}{4}\sin \left (4 \pi \frac{n}{n_{max}} \right ) 

2502: \end{equation}

2503: and the remapping

2504: step is $n$.  As a result, the grid completes two full cycles in this

2505: remapping test.  Figure \ref{rhoremap_step} shows the result of this

2506: remapping test where $n_{max} = 800$.  The top panel displays the density profile for remapping

2507: steps 0 to $n_{max}/2$, while the bottom panel shows the profile for

2508: steps $n_{max}/2$ to $n_{max}$.  Comparison of the first half (top

2509: panel) with the

2510: second half (bottom panel) indicates that the remapping process diffuses the

2511: discontinuity over a small number ($\sim$4) of zones initially, and

2512: ``diffusion'' slows substantially after the initial phase, maintaining

2513: a somewhat consistent width in the discontinuity.

2514: 

2515: \subsection{Composition Remap}

2516: \label{section:composition_remap}

2517: Barring any nuclear or chemical transformations, the composition

2518: equation, eq. (\ref{eq:advec}), states that $X_i$ is conserved.

2519: The Lagrangian hydro portion of our

2520: algorithm will not change a cell's composition.  All alterations in

2521: composition are, therefore, a result of advection, and in an ALE code

2522: advection is handled by the remapping algorithm.

2523: 

2524: Equation (\ref{eq:advec}) may be written in Eulerian form:

2525: \begin{equation}

2526: \label{eq:advec_eulerian}

2527: \frac{\partial (\rho X_i)}{\partial t} + \vec{\nabla} \cdot (\rho X_i

2528: \vec{v}) = 0 \, ,

2529: \end{equation}

2530: which implies a close dependence of the

2531: advection of $X_i$ on $\rho$ and $\vec{v}$.  In practice, if the

2532: composition is not advected in a manner entirely consistent with the

2533: advection of mass, then the advection of composition will develop

2534:  peculiarities.  Since the remapping of density is truly a

2535: remapping of the subcell masses, we have designed a scheme for the

2536: remapping of composition which operates on an equivalent subcell quantity.

2537: 

2538: Specifically, we define new Lagrangian quantities for

2539: composition.   They are the number of species $i$ in the cell,

2540: $N_{i,z}$, and the number of species $i$ in the subcell, $N^z_{i,p}$.

2541: Analogous to the mass density is the number density, $n_{i,z}$ and

2542: $n^z_{i,p}$.  These new quantities are related to the previously defined

2543: quantities by: $n_i = \rho X_i$ and $N_i = n_i V$ or $N_i = m X_i$.

2544: 

2545: The remap (or advection) of composition follows the scheme

2546: outlined for the advection of mass on the subcell level, with $n_i$

2547: replacing $\rho$ and $N_i$ replacing mass.  The new compositions are

2548: then determined by $\tilde{X}_{i,z} = \tilde{N}_{i,z}/\tilde{m_z}$.

2549: The final minor, but crucial, difference between mass and composition

2550: remapping occurs during the repair process.  While the repair process

2551: maintains the bounds on the number density, we also enforce bound

2552: preservation of the compositions.

2553: 

2554: While we do not address specific rate equations in this work,

2555: transport and nuclear processes will require consideration of nonzero

2556: terms on the RHS of eqs. (\ref{eq:advec}) and

2557: (\ref{eq:advec_eulerian}).  Since our division of composition into

2558: subcell compositions has consequences for discrete implementations with

2559: rates, we include here some discussion.

2560: 

2561: Normally, the discrete form of eq. (\ref{eq:advec}) with a nonzero

2562: RHS would be designed to operate at the cell

2563: level.  In other words, it would involve $N_{z,i}$ and $n_{z,i}$.

2564: However, the fundamental Lagrangian subunit is the subcell.

2565: Therefore, we have developed an algorithm to handle the composition

2566: changes, $\Delta X_i$, at the subcell level due to changes at the cell level.

2567: 

2568: Irrespective of the scheme employed, a condition which must be

2569: satisfied is that

2570: \begin{equation}

2571: \sum_z \Delta N_{z,i} = \sum_z \sum_{p \in S(z)} \Delta N^z_{p,i} \, .

2572: \end{equation}

2573: We'd like to convert the statement of number conservation into the more useful relationship:

2574: \begin{equation}

2575: \label{eq:deltancell}

2576: \Delta N_{z,i} = \sum_{p \in S(z)} \Delta N^z_{p,i} \, .

2577: \end{equation}

2578: When the change in composition due to the rates

2579: is applied in operator-split form to the discrete hydro

2580: equations, we have the following relations:

2581: \begin{equation}

2582: \label{eq:deltaxcriterion1}

2583: \Delta N_{i,z} = \Delta X_{i,z} m_z \, ,

2584: \end{equation}

2585: and

2586: \begin{equation}

2587: \Delta N^z_{i,p} = \Delta X^z_{i,p} m^z_p \, .

2588: \end{equation}

2589: Our dilemma is that the rate equations will determine $\Delta X_{z,i}$,

2590: but they put no constraint on $\Delta X^z_{p,i}$.  A fairly natural and

2591: simple choice is $\Delta X^z_{p,i} = \Delta X_{z,i}$, giving 

2592: \begin{equation}

2593: \label{eq:deltansubcell}

2594: \Delta N^z_{p,i} = \Delta X_{z,i} m^z_p \, .

2595: \end{equation}

2596: Substituting eq. (\ref{eq:deltansubcell}) into

2597: eq. (\ref{eq:deltancell}) we have

2598: \begin{equation}

2599: \Delta N_{z,i} = \sum_{p \in S(z)} \Delta X_{z,i} m^z_p = \Delta

2600: X_{z,i} \sum_{p \in S(z)}

2601: m^z_p = \Delta X_{z,i} m_z \, .

2602: \end{equation}

2603: Hence, by simply stating that $\Delta X^z_{p,i} = \Delta X_{z,i}$, we

2604: have developed discrete rate equations that satisfy conservation of

2605: species number and operates at the subcell level.

2606: 

2607: \subsection{Angular Velocity Remap}

2608: \label{section:ang_vel_remap}

2609: 

2610: The remap of the angular momentum deserves special mention.  As in mass remapping, we try

2611: to find 

2612: new subcell

2613: angular momenta, $\tilde{J^z_p}$, based upon an approximate swept-region

2614: approach.  In other words,

2615: \begin{equation}

2616: \tilde{J^z_p} = J^z_p + \sum_{e \in S(z)} \delta J_e \, ,

2617: \end{equation}

2618: which parallels eq. (\ref{eq:swept_eq1}) in form.  A notable

2619: difference, however, is the expression for the swept angular momentum.

2620: It no longer involves a simple volume integral, but an integral

2621: weighted by $r^2$ (see appendix

2622: \ref{section:integrals} for calculating the discrete analog of this integral):

2623: \begin{equation}

2624: \delta J_e = \omega \rho \int r^2 dV \, .

2625: \end{equation}

2626: After finding the new subcell angular

2627: momentum we determine the new cell angular momentum,

2628: \begin{equation}

2629: \tilde{J_z} = \sum_{p \in S(z)} \tilde{J^p_z} \, ,

2630: \end{equation}

2631: and node angular momentum,

2632: \begin{equation}

2633: \tilde{J_p} = \sum_{z \in S(p)} \tilde{J^p_z} \, ,

2634: \end{equation}

2635: and in turn determine the new angular velocity;

2636: \begin{equation}

2637: \tilde{\omega}_p = \frac{\tilde{J_p}}{\tilde{\mathcal{I}_p}} \, .

2638: \end{equation}

2639: 

2640: 

2641: 

2642: \section{Code Tests}

2643: \label{section:tests}

2644: 

2645: In this section, we characterize BETHE-hydro's 

2646: performance using several test problems.  First, we demonstrate that

2647: this code produces 2$^{nd}$-order accurate solutions for

2648: self-gravitating flows. To assess the accuracy of high Mach-number simulations, we use the Sod shock tube problem, Sedov blast

2649: wave, and Noh implosion problem, which all have analytic solutions.

2650: Furthermore, we simulate the Saltzman and

2651: Dukowicz piston problems to test the code's ability to simulate piston-driven shocks using oblique meshes.  In simulating two important

2652: hydrodynamic instabilities, the Rayleigh-Taylor and Kelvin-Helmholtz

2653: instabilities, we further demonstrate this

2654: code's strengths and limitations.  Demonstrating BETHE-hydro's ability to simulate

2655: astrophysical phenomena, we conclude with a core-collapse supernova simulation.

2656: 

2657: \subsection{2$^{\rm nd}$-Order Accuracy}

2658: \label{section:2ndorder}

2659: 

2660: To verify the 2$^{\rm nd}$-order character of BETHE-hydro, a smooth

2661: hydrodynamics flow is required.  The

2662: Goldreich-Weber self-similar collapse

2663: (see \S \ref{section:gravity_tests} and Fig. \ref{gwplot}) satisfies this requirement and is

2664: ideal to check convergence of the hydrodynamic and gravity solvers and

2665: their coupling.  We use $L^1$-norms of the error:

2666: \begin{equation}

2667: \label{eq:l1norm}

2668: L^1 = \sum |e_z \Delta r^d| \, ,

2669: \end{equation}

2670: where the error is $e_z = \rho_{\rm ana}(\vec{x_z}) -\rho_z$,

2671: $\rho_{\rm ana}$ is the analytic density at $t=130$ ms, $\Delta

2672: r$ is the zone size, and $d$ is 1 for 1D and 2 for 2D.  Strictly

2673: speaking, the simulations are Lagrangian and have time-varying zone sizes.

2674: Fortunately, this collapse problem is self-similar, implying a direct

2675: correlation between the starting resolution and the resolution at a

2676: later time.  Therefore, we use the initial zone size in eq. (\ref{eq:l1norm})

2677: and in Fig. \ref{gw_resstudy}.  The $L^1$-norm as a function of

2678: $\Delta r$ (crosses) is plotted in Fig. \ref{gw_resstudy}.  As the

2679: figure demonstrates, both 1D simulations (top panel) and 2D simulations (bottom panel)

2680: converge with roughly 2$^{\rm nd}$-order accuracy.

2681: 

2682: \subsection{Sod Shock Tube Problem}

2683: \label{section:sod}

2684: 

2685: The Sod shock tube problem is a standard analytic test that assesses the code's

2686: ability to simulate three characteristic waves:  a shock, a

2687: rarefaction wave, and a contact discontinuity.

2688: A simple gamma-law EOS is employed with $\gamma =

2689: 1.4$.  Initially, the computational domain is divided into left and

2690: right static

2691: regions with different densities and pressures.

2692: Specifically, the left and right regions have densities of 1.0 g

2693: cm$^{-3}$ and $0.125$ g cm$^{-3}$ and pressures of 1.0 erg cm$^{-3}$ and

2694: 0.1 erg cm$^{-3}$, respectively.  This gives rise to a self-similar

2695: solution involving a shock propagating to the right, a rarefaction

2696: wave propagating to the left, and a contact discontinuity in between.

2697: 

2698: 

2699: In Fig. \ref{sodplot}, we display the Sod shock tube test results for 1D Lagrangian, 1D

2700: Eulerian, 2D Lagrangian, and 2D Eulerian configurations.

2701: Cell-centered densities and locations are marked with plus signs, while

2702: the analytic results are denoted by solid dark lines.  The 1D Lagrangian

2703: result shows the appropriate density profile, while the other profiles

2704: have been shifted vertically so that distinguishing features are more

2705: easily compared.  In addition, the profiles are

2706: further distinguished by displaying them at different times: 1D Lagrangian

2707: ($t = 0.2$ s), 1D Eulerian ($t = 0.225$ s), 2D Lagrangian ($t = 0.25$

2708: s), and 2D Eulerian ($t = 0.275$ s).  The 1D calculations are resolved

2709: with 400 zones. Similarly, the 2D tests are resolved along the

2710: direction of shock propagation with 400 zones, and they are resolved

2711: in the perpendicular direction by 10 zones.

2712: 

2713: The overall features of the shock, post-shock material, contact

2714: discontinuity, and rarefaction wave are reproduced. For all scenarios,

2715: the shock is resolved within a few zones.  For the 1D Eulerian and Lagrangian

2716: calculations the post-shock density is good to $\sim 0.05$\% and $\sim

2717: 0.01$\%, respectively.  Upon viewing the

2718: profiles in greater detail, there is a

2719: noticeable departure from the analytic solution at the tail of the

2720: rarefaction wave where the density dips below the expected value.

2721: This error in density at the tail of the rarefaction wave is $\sim 2.5$\% for the

2722: Lagrangian simulation and $\sim 1$\% for the Eulerian simulation.  Since the

2723: contact discontinuity moves with the flow speed, both Lagrangian

2724: calculations resolve the contact discontinuity exactly from one zone to the next and

2725: maintain this resolution throughout the simulation.  The Eulerian

2726: calculations, not surprisingly, distribute the contact discontinuity

2727: over several ($\sim$4) zones.

2728: 

2729: \subsection{Sedov Blast Wave}

2730: \label{section:sedov}

2731: 

2732: A classic test, the Sedov blast wave problem provides a quantitative

2733: measure of a code's ability to simulate spherical explosions.

2734: Initial conditions are 

2735: set so that the total energy of the Sedov blast is 0.244816 ergs,

2736: $\rho_0 = 1.0$ g cm$^{-3}$, $\varepsilon_0 = 1 \times 10^{-20}$ ergs

2737: g$^{-1}$, and the gamma-law EOS has $\gamma = 5/3$.  

2738: We compare the simulations with the analytic result (solid lines) for the following

2739: scenarios: 1D Lagrangian, 1D Eulerian, 2D Lagrangian using the butterfly

2740: mesh, and 2D Lagrangian using the spiderweb mesh.

2741: 

2742: Results of the Sedov explosion are plotted in Fig. \ref{sedovplot}.

2743: The top panel compares the analytic and numerical density profiles, while

2744: the bottom panel shows the relative differences between the numerical

2745: solutions and the analytic profile.

2746: To easily

2747: distinguish different runs and details, we plot the 1D Lagrangian calculation

2748: at $t = 0.4$ s, the 1D Eulerian at $t = 0.53$ s, the 2D Lagrangian using the

2749: butterfly mesh at $t = 0.66$ s, and the 2D Lagrangian using the spiderweb

2750: mesh at $t = 0.80$ s.  The 1D calculations are resolved with 400

2751: zones. The spiderweb test has a total of 12,381 zones with 200 radial

2752: zones and a maximum of 64 angular zones, while the butterfly mesh has a

2753: total of 35,000 zones with effectively 200 radial

2754: and 200 angular zones.

2755: Qualitatively, all simulations reproduce the overall structure and

2756: position of the shock and post-shock flows.

2757: 

2758: There are some practical issues about formulating the Sedov runs that are worth

2759: mentioning.  For the 1D simulations, we found that simply placing the

2760: initial explosion energy in a small number of inner zones was

2761: adequate.  On the other hand, the 2D simulations using

2762: non-spherical grids required more care.  Simply depositing all the

2763: energy within a small number of zones near the center led to severe

2764: grid tangling and distortions.  We

2765: remedied this by initiating all profiles with the analytic solution at

2766: $t = 0.001$ s.

2767: 

2768: The bottom panel of Fig. \ref{sedovplot} emphasizes the quantitative accuracy of the

2769: post-shock solutions.  Plotted are the relative errors of the density,

2770: $(\rho - \rho_{\rm ana})/\rho_{\rm max}$, versus radius, where $\rho$

2771: is the simulated density profile, $\rho_{\rm ana}$ is the analytic

2772: profile, and $\rho_{\rm max}$ is the maximum density of the analytic profile.  The 1D Lagrangian simulation gives the best

2773: results with a maximum relative error near the shock of $\sim 2$\%.  In

2774: comparison, the 1D Eulerian test gives $\sim 4$\% deviation near the

2775: shock.  The 2D Lagrangian simulation using the spiderweb mesh has a

2776: maximum deviation similar to the 1D Lagrangian simulation, even though

2777: the 1D simulation has radial zones with half the zone size.  The simulation using

2778: the spiderweb mesh shows some slight departure from spherical

2779: symmetry.  Specifically, for

2780: most of the post-shock region, the peak-to-peak variation of density is less than

2781: $\sim 1$\%, and near the shock the peak-to-peak variation of density reaches

2782: $\sim 3$\%.  The 2D Lagrangian simulation using the butterfly mesh has

2783: a maximum density deviation of

2784: $\sim 4$\% near the shock and a deviation from

2785: spherical symmetry of similar magnitude.

2786: 

2787: \subsection{Noh Implosion Problem}

2788: 

2789: 

2790: Initial conditions for the Noh Problem are uniform density $\rho_0 =

2791: 1$ g cm$^{-3}$, zero (or

2792: very small) internal energy $\varepsilon_0 = 0$ ergs, a convergent velocity

2793: field with magnitude $v_0 = 1$ cm s$^{-1}$, and a gamma-law EOS with

2794: $\gamma = 5/3$.  Subsequent evolution produces a symmetric

2795: self-similar flow including supersonic accretion, an accretion shock, and

2796: stationary post-shock matter in which kinetic energy has been

2797: converted into internal energy.  The analytic solution for this problem

2798: is

2799: \begin{equation}

2800: \{ \rho, \varepsilon, v\} =

2801: \left \{

2802: \begin{array}{ll}

2803: \left \{ \rho_0 \left ( \frac{\gamma + 1}{\gamma - 1} \right )^d

2804: ,\frac{1}{2}v^2_0,0  \right \} &

2805: {\rm if} \, r < r_s \\

2806: \left \{ \rho_0 \left ( 1 - \frac{v_0 t}{r} \right )^{d-1}

2807: ,0,v_0  \right \} &

2808: {\rm if} \, r > r_s \\

2809: \end{array}

2810: \right .

2811: \end{equation}

2812: where $v$ is the velocity magnitude, the shock position is $r_s = u_s

2813: t$, the shock velocity is $u_s =

2814: \frac{1}{2}(\gamma-1) v_0$, and $d$ is 2 for 2D Cartesian, 3 for 2D

2815: simulations using

2816: cylindrical coordinates, and 3 for 1D spherically symmetric simulations.

2817: 

2818: In Fig. \ref{noh1dres}, we present the density profiles at $t = 0.2$ s

2819: for 1D, spherically

2820: symmetric simulations of the Noh problem using four

2821: resolutions.  The initial grid spans the range $x \in \{ 0: 1\}$ cm

2822: and is evenly divided into 200, 400, 800, and 1600 zones.

2823: The solid line is the analytic solution for $\gamma

2824:   = 5/3$.  Higher resolution simulations more accurately capture the shock

2825:   position and the post-shock density profile.  However, all resolutions depart significantly from the analytic

2826:   solution near the center.  This is ``wall heating'' and is a common problem for Lagrangian

2827:   schemes \citep{rider00}.

2828: 

2829: The four panels of Fig. \ref{nohplot_2d} present the density profiles

2830: for 2D simulations.  Three of the four panels show the results using Cartesian

2831: coordinates.  The top-left panel shows the results using a Cartesian

2832: grid with 100$\times$200 zones, the top-right panel shows the results

2833: using the butterfly mesh with 22,400 zones, and the lower-left panel shows the results

2834: using the spiderweb mesh.  The fourth panel, lower-right, shows the

2835: results using 2D cylindrical coordinates and a Cartesian mesh with

2836: 100$\times$200 zones.  Obvious is the fact that the mesh

2837: employed has consequences for the solution.  Both the top-left and

2838: bottom-right panels indicate that using the Cartesian mesh for this

2839: problem produces fairly smooth results, with some

2840: asymmetry ($\sim$7\%) in the post-shock region.  The lower-left panel

2841: shows that using the spiderweb mesh produces perfectly symmetric

2842: solutions except near the center where the deviation from symmetry is

2843: as large as $\sim$25\%.  Finally, simulations using the butterfly

2844: mesh, top-right panel, shows a similarly mixed capacity to preserve

2845: symmetry.  In this light, it is important to choose a grid that

2846: minimizes numerical artifacts for the problem at hand.  A task easily

2847: accomplished with the use of ALE methods.

2848: 

2849: \subsection{Saltzman Piston Problem}

2850: \label{section:saltzman}

2851: 

2852: A standard test for arbitrary grid codes, the Saltzman piston problem

2853: \citep{margolin88} addresses the ability of a code to simulate a simple

2854: piston-driven shock using a grid with mesh lines oblique to the shock normal.  The top panel of Fig. \ref{saltzman} shows the

2855: grid with $100 \times 10$ zones.  For a grid with $N_x \times N_y$ nodes within a domain defined

2856: by $x \in \{ 0 : x_{\rm max} \}$ and $y \in \{ 0 : y_{\rm max} \}$,

2857: where $x_{\rm max} = 1.0$ and $x_{\rm max} = 0.1$, the $x$ positions of the

2858: nodes are given by

2859: \begin{equation}

2860:   x = (i-1) \frac{x_{\rm max}}{N_x - 1}

2861:       + (N_y-j) \sin \left ( \pi \frac{(i-1)}{(N_x-1)} \right)

2862:      \frac{y_{\rm max}}{N_y - 1} \, ,

2863: \end{equation}

2864: where $i \in \{ 1 : N_x \}$ and $j \in \{ 1 : N_y \}$.

2865: At the piston, the left wall is

2866:   moving at a constant velocity, 1.0 cm s$^{-1}$, to the right.

2867:   Initially, the density and internal energy are set equal to 1.0 g

2868:   cm$^{-3}$ and 0.0 ergs, respectively, and we use a gamma-law EOS with $\gamma = 5/3$.

2869: 

2870: In the bottom panel of Fig. \ref{saltzman}, we show the grid and the

2871: density colormap at $t = 0.925$ s after the shock has traversed

2872: the domain twice, reflecting off the right and left walls once.

2873: In this snapshot, the shock is traveling to the right.  Our results are

2874: to be compared with Figs. 15 and 16 of \citet{campbell01}.  Figure 15 of

2875: \citet{campbell01} depicts a simulation with severe grid buckling, which we

2876: do not observe in our simulations.  Instead, our

2877: Fig. \ref{saltzman} shows reduced grid buckling and appropriate

2878: densities in accordance with the results of Fig. 16 of \citet{campbell01}.

2879: 

2880: \subsection{Dukowicz Piston Problem}

2881: \label{section:dukowicz}

2882: 

2883: The Dukowicz piston problem \citep{dukowicz92} is another test using an oblique mesh.  The initial setup involves two

2884: regions.  Region 1 has a density of 1 g cm$^{-3}$ and is resolved with

2885: $144 \times 120$ zones.  In the vertical domain, $y \in \{ 0 : 1.5 \}$ cm,

2886: and the mesh lines evenly partition the space into 120 sections.  Dividing

2887: region 1 horizontally involves mesh lines with changing orientation.

2888: The leftmost mesh line is parallel to the vertical, while the rightmost mesh line is

2889: oriented 60$^{\circ}$ relative to the vertical.  The mesh lines in

2890: between smoothly transition from 0$^{\circ}$ to 60$^{\circ}$.  Region 2 has a

2891: density of 1.5 g cm$^{-3}$ and is gridded with a $160 \times 120$ mesh,

2892: with the vertical mesh lines uniformly slanted at 60$^{\circ}$.

2893: Including region 1 and region 2, the bottom boundary spans the range

2894: $x \in \{ 0: 3 \}$ cm and is evenly divided into 304 segments.

2895: Initially, both regions are in equilibrium with $P = 1.0$ erg

2896: cm$^{-3}$.  The top, bottom, and right boundaries are reflecting, and

2897: the left boundary is a piston with a velocity in the positive $x$

2898: direction and a magnitude of 1.48 cm s$^{-1}$ (see the top panel of Fig. \ref{dukowicz} for a low

2899: resolution example of this grid).

2900: 

2901: A piston-driven shock

2902:   travels from left to right, and encounters the density jump at an

2903:   angle of 60$^{\circ}$, producing a rich set of phenomena.

2904:   The incident shock continues into the lower density region, a

2905:   transmitted/refracted shock propagates into the higher density

2906:   region, a vortex sheet develops behind the transmitted shock, and a

2907:   reflected shock propagates into the incident shock's post-shock flow

2908:   (see the labels in the bottom plot of Fig. \ref{dukowicz} for visual

2909:   reference).  The results are to be compared with the semi-analytic

2910:   shock-polar analysis presented by \citet{dukowicz92} (see Figure 13

2911:   and Table I of \citet{dukowicz92}).  In their paper, angles subtended by the five regions

2912:   are presented.  In Table \ref{table:dukowicz}, we recast this information as

2913:   the angles that the transmitted shock, vortex sheet, reflected

2914:   shock, and incident shock have with $x$-axis.  The first row gives

2915:   the analytic values, which should be compared with the simulated orientations in

2916:   the second row.  Strikingly, despite the fact that the incident

2917:   shock has traversed a grid with an oblique mesh, the simulated and

2918:   analytic orientations differ very little.  The simulated and

2919:   analytic reflected-shock orientations agree to within $\sim 0.5$\%,

2920:   and the orientations of the transmitted shock and vortex sheet agree

2921:   to within 2\%.

2922: 

2923: \subsection{Rayleigh-Taylor Instability}

2924: \label{section:rt}

2925: 

2926: Here, we simulate the growth of a single mode of the Rayleigh-Taylor Instability.

2927: A heavy fluid is placed on top

2928: of a lighter fluid in the presence of a constant gravitational

2929: acceleration.  The top and bottom densities are

2930: $\rho_1 = 2.0$ g cm$^{-3}$ and $\rho_2 = 1.0$ g cm$^{-3}$, respectively, and the gravitational

2931: acceleration points downward with magnitude $g = 0.1$ cm s$^{-2}$.

2932: The domain is a rectangle with $x \in \{ -0.25 : 0.24 \}$ cm and $y \in \{ -0.75

2933: : 0.75 \}$ cm and $100 \times 300$ grid zones.

2934: The top and bottom boundaries are reflecting while the left and right

2935: boundaries are periodic.  For such configurations, small perturbations

2936: of the interface between the heavy and light fluids are unstable to exponential

2937: growth.  Assuming that the boundaries are far from the

2938: interface, the exponential growth rate of a perturbation with

2939: wavenumber $k$ is

2940: \begin{equation}

2941: \omega = \sqrt{\frac{k g (\rho_1 - \rho_2)}{\rho_1 + \rho_2}} \, .

2942: \end{equation}

2943: For all single-mode Rayleigh-Taylor simulations we initiate the

2944: perturbation by setting the vertical component of the velocity equal to $v_y

2945: = 2.5 \times 10^{-3} (1 + \cos(2 \pi x / \lambda)) (1 + \cos(3 \pi

2946: y))$, where the wavelength, $\lambda$, is $0.5$ cm.

2947: Therefore, we simulate one wavelength of the mode, and the exponential

2948: growth rate ($\omega$) should be  0.65 s$^{-1}$. 

2949: 

2950: Figure \ref{rt_stills_res} shows the evolution of a single-mode

2951: Rayleigh-Taylor instability  at $t = 12.75$ s for four resolutions.

2952: From left to right, the grid sizes are $50 \times 150$, $74 \times

2953: 222$, $100 \times 300$, and $150 \times 450$.  Gross features

2954: compare well, with all the resolutions differing by only a few

2955: percent in the maximum and minimum position of the interface.

2956: However, higher resolution simulations manifest greater complexity for the Kelvin-Helmholtz rolls.

2957: One can compare the third panel to the results of Fig. 4.5 of

2958:   \citet{liska03}.  In a general sense, these authors conclude that

2959:   fewer features imply more dissipation.  However, it could be that

2960:   some of the Kelvin-Helmholtz rolls are seeded by grid noise in some schemes\footnote{See results from Jim Stone's Athena for a more

2961:   favorable comparison and a discussion of the grid noise issue

2962:   (http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~jstone/tests/rt/rt.html).}.

2963: 

2964: Next, we discuss the effects of artificial viscosity on the

2965: single-mode Rayleigh-Taylor flow.  As stated in \S

2966: \ref{section:artificial_viscosity}, artificial viscosity is a

2967: requirement for ALE algorithms in order to simulate shocks.  In

2968: the current formulation, there are two parameters of the artificial

2969: viscosity scheme.  One parameter, $c2$, is the coefficient for

2970: $(\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v})^2$, which is largest in

2971: shocks.  Effectively, this term provides shock resolution.  The second

2972: parameter, $c_1$, is the coefficient of the term that

2973: is proportional to $c_s (\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v})$ and is designed

2974: to reduce the amount of post-shock ringing in the solution.  Typical

2975: values suggested for both are 1.0 \citep{campbell01}.  For the

2976: single-mode Rayleigh-Taylor test, the

2977: flows are subsonic, so the term multiplied by $c_1$ has the

2978: greatest impact on the magnitude of the artificial viscosity forces.

2979: Each panel of Fig. \ref{rt_stills_visc} presents the nonlinear

2980: Rayleigh-Taylor flow after 12.75 s for different values of the

2981: artificial viscosity parameter, $c_1$.  Clearly, $c_1 = 0.01$ (left

2982: panel) reproduces the expected results for this low-Mach-number flow.  On the

2983: other hand, the $c_1 = 0.1$ run (center panel) displays significant departures for

2984: the Kelvin-Helmholtz rolls, while the overall progression of the

2985: plumes remains similar.  Unfortunately, the model with $c_1 = 1.0$ (right panel)

2986: completely suppresses the Kelvin-Helmholtz rolls on these scales and

2987: plume progression is severely retarded.  

2988: 

2989: In Fig. \ref{rt_linear}, the interface perturbation

2990: amplitude is plotted as a function of time (dashed lines).

2991: The

2992:   solid line is the analytic exponential growth rate scaled to the simulation

2993:   results.  The dashed lines show the simulation results for viscosity

2994:   parameters, $c_1$, of 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0.  Three distinct phases are apparent: an early transient phase, a phase in which

2995: the slope most closely matches the exponential growth rate, and the

2996: subsequent nonlinear phase.  The

2997:   simulations with $c_1 = 0.01$ and 0.1 manifest exponential growth for several

2998:   e-folding times.  The run with $c_1 = 1.0$, on the other hand, seems

2999:   to follow the linear phase for  only 1 s ($\sim$ 1/2 e-folding), if at

3000:   all.  Around 5 s, the evolution of the interface amplitude enters the

3001:   nonlinear phase.

3002: 

3003: For the artificial viscosity scheme that we employ, the Rayleigh-Taylor

3004: instability test indicates that lower values of $c_1$ are preferred.

3005: However, tests of the Sod shock-tube problem including a parameter

3006: study of $c_1$ indicate that unwanted post-shock ringing is diminished only for

3007: values above $\sim0.5$.  This represents the primary weakness of

3008: BETHE-hydro to simulate flows with both shocks and Rayleigh-Taylor

3009: instabilities.  To be clear, this does not represent a weakness of ALE

3010: methods in general, but of the tensor artificial viscosity

3011: algorithm designed to mitigate the hourglass instability that we

3012: employ.  Other artificial viscosity schemes such as edge viscosity

3013: (see \citet{campbell01} for references) allow for proper development

3014: of hydrodynamic instabilities, but do little to suppress the hourglass

3015: instability (Milan Kucharik, private communication).

3016: Of great interest to users of ALE is a methodology that suppresses the

3017: hourglass instability and post-shock ringing while enabling proper

3018: evolution of hydrodynamic instabilities.

3019: 

3020: \subsection{Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability}

3021: 

3022: Another important phenomenon we explore is the Kelvin-Helmholtz shear

3023: instability.  \citet{agertz07} have shown that SPH has trouble

3024: simulating the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability when extreme density

3025: contrasts are involved.  We find that this instability is reasonably

3026: well handled in BETHE-hydro, and that the evolution during the small amplitude regime

3027: is accurately characterized by analytic linear analysis.  The

3028: calculational domain covers the square region bounded by

3029: $x \in \{ 0 : 1 \}$ cm and $y \in \{ 0 : 1 \}$ cm and has $256 \times 256$ zones.

3030: The top and bottom boundaries are reflecting, while the left and right

3031: boundaries are periodic.

3032: For $y<0.5$ cm, $\rho_{\rm b} = 1.0$ g cm$^{-3}$, and for $y>0.5$ cm, $\rho_{\rm t}

3033: = \rho_{\rm b}/\chi$, where 

3034: $\chi = 8$.  These regions are in pressure equilibrium with $P =

3035: 1.0$ erg cm$^{-3}$.  The shearing velocity, $v_{\rm shear}$ is scaled with respect

3036: to the slowest sound speed (sound speed in the bottom region, $c_b$).

3037: This relative shearing velocity is split between the top region,

3038: which flows to the left with speed $\frac{1}{2} v_{\rm shear}$, and the

3039: bottom region, which flows to the right with the same speed.  For this

3040: test, the linear coefficient in the viscosity, $c_1$, is set to 0.01.  A gamma-law

3041: EOS is used with $\gamma = 5/3$.

3042: The initial

3043: perturbation (see Agertz et al. 2007 \nocite{agertz07}) is placed in a small band

3044: centered on the interface and is a perturbation in velocity given by 

3045: \begin{equation}

3046: \label{eq:kh_pert}

3047: v_y = \delta v_y v_{\rm shear}  \sin \left ( \frac{2 \pi x}{\lambda} \right ) \, {\rm for}

3048: \, \left | y - 0.5 \right | \le 0.025 \, ,

3049: \end{equation}

3050: where $\lambda = 1/3$ cm.  It should be noted that this perturbation

3051: is not an eigenmode of the instability.  Therefore, simulations have a transient phase at the

3052: beginning in which this perturbation settles into one or more modes of the

3053: instability.  We have found that using amplitudes suggested by

3054: \citet{agertz07}, $\delta v_y = 1/80$ and 1/40, produces strong transients that complicate the

3055: interpretation of the linear regime.  To avoid strong long-lasting

3056: transients, we set $\delta v_y = 1/160$.

3057: These initial conditions should produce a perturbation of the interface that

3058: grows exponentially in magnitude with an e-folding time given by

3059: \begin{equation}

3060: \tau_{\rm KH} = \frac{\lambda (\rho_{\rm top} + \rho_{\rm bot})}

3061: {2 \pi v_{\rm shear} \sqrt{\rho_{\rm top} \rho_{\rm bot}}  } \, .

3062: \end{equation}

3063: For the simulations presented here, we consider two shearing

3064: velocities: $v_{\rm shear} = \frac{1}{2} c_b = 0.6455$ cm s$^{-1}$ and $v_{\rm shear} =

3065: \frac{1}{4} c_b = 0.32275$ cm s$^{-1}$.  Hence, $\tau_{\rm KH}$ is

3066: 0.262 s and 0.523 s, respectively.

3067: 

3068: The top panel of Fig. \ref{kh_still} shows the evolution at

3069: $t= 5.5$ s for $v_{\rm shear} = \frac{1}{4} c_b$.  The first set of

3070: nonlinear Kelvin-Helmholtz rolls have appeared.  Qualitatively, the

3071: morphology of the rolls is

3072: similar to the results presented in Figure 13. of

3073: \citet{agertz07} labeled by ``grid 1'' at $t = 2 \pi \tau_{\rm KH}$ (there is a factor of $2 \pi$ difference in the definition of

3074: $\tau_{\rm KH}$ between our work and theirs).  There are two main

3075: differences.  For one, we simulate with a factor two larger wavelength

3076: to adequately resolve

3077: the wavelength for linear analysis.  Secondly, the time at which we

3078: present the results in the top panel of Fig. \ref{kh_still}

3079: corresponds to  $t = 1.67 \times (2 \pi \tau_{\rm KH})$, not $t = 2

3080: \pi \tau_{\rm KH}$.  We have noticed similar discrepancies in the time

3081: required to achieve similar evolution using $\lambda = 1/6$ and $v_{\rm shear} = \frac{1}{2}c_b$.  Additionally, we analyze the

3082: growth rate of the interface during the linear regime.  We determine the

3083: interface amplitude by generating a

3084: contour for $\rho = 0.5 (\rho_{\rm t} + \rho_{\rm b})$, measuring the

3085: peak to peak amplitude, and dividing by two.  The bottom

3086: plot of Fig.

3087: \ref{kh_still} shows this amplitude (solid line) versus time and

3088: compares to the expected exponential growth (dashed line) for

3089: a simulation with $v_{\rm shear} = \frac{1}{4}c_b$ (green) and $v_{\rm

3090: shear} = \frac{1}{2}c_b$ (blue).  There are three distinct phases

3091: in the log-linear plot: an early transient phase, a phase in which

3092: the slope most closely matches the exponential growth rate, and the

3093: subsequent nonlinear phase.  While the growth rate during the linear

3094: regime differs slightly ($\sim$10\%) from theory, the bottom panel of

3095: Fig. \ref{kh_still} demonstrates that the correct

3096: dependence of the growth rate on $v_{\rm shear}$ is obtained.

3097: 

3098: \subsection{Core-Collapse Test}

3099: \label{section:corecollapse}

3100: Incorporating all aspects of BETHE-hydro, we simulate 1D

3101: and 2D hydrodynamic core-collapse of a 15

3102: M$_{\sun}$ star.  We use the s15s7b2 model (S15) of \citet{woosley95} and the Shen EOS \citep{shen98} and initiate

3103: collapse using a $Y_e$-$\rho$ parameterization \citep{liebendorfer06}.  While there are no analytic solutions for such a

3104: test, we test to see whether the density profiles, timescales, and shock

3105: radii, etc. all match experience with other codes and results

3106: published \citep{liebendorfer01a,liebendorfer01b,rampp02,buras03,thompson03,liebendorfer05}.  For 2D simulations,

3107:   the grid is composed of a butterfly mesh in the interior with a minimum

3108:   cell size of $\sim$0.5 km and extends to 50 km where a spherical grid

3109:   carries the domain out to 4000 km.  In total, there are 23,750 cells,

3110:   with an effective resolution of $\sim$250 radial and $\sim$100 angular

3111:   zones.  For the best comparison, the 1D grid has

3112:   250 zones, mimicking the effective radial resolution of the 2D simulation.  Figure \ref{cc_rhoplot} depicts the density

3113: vs. radius for 1D (lines) and

3114:   2D (crosses) at times 0, 70, 110, 130, 140, and 150 ms after the

3115:   start of the calculation.  Core bounce occurs at 148 ms.    Other

3116:   than a $\sim$10\% difference in the shock radii at 150 ms, 1D and 2D

3117:   calculations track one another quite well.  Furthermore,

3118:   Fig. \ref{cc_gaccplot} shows an exceptional correspondence between the

3119:   1D and 2D gravitational accelerations.

3120: 

3121: Using this core-collapse test to best represent the conditions during

3122: astrophysical

3123: simulations, we describe some timing results of this problem.  A standard measure is the average CPU time spent per cell per

3124: cycle.  Using one core of a Dual-Core AMD Opteron\texttrademark 2.8 GHz

3125: processor for this test, the average time spent is $8.125 \times

3126: 10^{-5}$ CPU seconds/cycle/cell.  80\% of which is spent in AMG1R6,

3127: the multigrid solver.  For this problem, the iterative multigrid

3128: solver usually takes $\sim$5 to $\sim$10 cycles to achieve a

3129: fractional residual of $\sim$$10^{-7}$ to $\sim$$10^{-9}$, where the

3130: fractional residual of the linear system $A\vec{x} = \vec{b}$ is $(A\vec{x}-\vec{b})/\vec{b}$.

3131: 

3132: We re-simulate the

3133: collapse of the S15 model, but with an angular velocity profile of the form

3134:   $\Omega(r) = 1/(1 + (r/A)^2)$, where $A = 1000$ km and $\Omega_0 =

3135:   2$ radians s$^{-1}$.  The $\Omega$ vs. $r$ plot is shown in Fig. \ref{cc_angvelplot}.  

3136: Core

3137:   bounce occurs at 151 ms.  First of all, total

3138:   angular momentum is conserved to machine accuracy.  Since there are no analytic descriptions for

3139:   the evolution of angular velocity in core collapse scenarios, we

3140:   cannot validate the numerical results via analytic theory.  However, the central

3141:   angular velocity, $\Omega_c$ is proportional to $\rho_c^{2/3}$, where $\rho_c$ is

3142:   the central density.  Since the central density compresses from

3143:   $\sim$10$^{10}$ g cm$^{-3}$ at $t = 0$ ms to $\sim$2.2 $\times 10^{14}$ g

3144:   cm$^{-3}$ at $t = 160$ ms, $\Omega_c$ should be

3145:   $\sim$1600 radians s$^{-1}$ at $t = 160$ ms.  This is consistent with results shown

3146:   in Fig. \ref{cc_angvelplot}.  Furthermore, the angular velocity

3147:   evolves smoothly with no evidence of axis effects.  On the other hand, there is a slight,

3148:   but noticeable, glitch at the location of the shock.

3149: 

3150: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}

3151: \label{section:discussion}

3152: 

3153: In this paper, we have presented the algorithms employed in BETHE-hydro, a new code

3154: for 1D and 2D astrophysical hydrodynamic simulations.  The

3155: hydrodynamic core is an ALE algorithm, and its most

3156: striking feature is the ability to use

3157: arbitrary, unstructured grids.

3158: With finite-differencing based upon the support-operator method

3159: \citep{shashkov95} of \citet{caramana98c} and \citet{caramana98a},

3160: energy is conserved to roundoff error in the absence of rotation and

3161: gravity, and momentum is strictly conserved using Cartesian

3162: coordinates.  For all other circumstances, energy and momentum are

3163: conserved accurately, if not precisely.  We use a subcell remapping scheme that

3164: conservatively remaps mass, momentum, energy, and number density.  For

3165: 2D calculations using cylindrical

3166: coordinates, we include rotational terms in the Lagrangian solver, and

3167: develop a remapping algorithm that conservatively remaps angular

3168: momentum while minimizing unwanted features in the angular velocity near

3169: the axis.  To provide shock resolution and grid stability, we use the

3170: tensor artificial viscosity of \citet{campbell01}, and to minimize

3171: hourglass instabilities, we have developed a subcell pressure method

3172: that is a close derivative of the scheme developed by

3173: \citet{caramana98a}, but avoids pathological problems when used

3174: in conjunction with the subcell remapping algorithm.  Finally, we

3175: have developed a gravity solver for arbitrary grids that uses a

3176: support-operator technique for elliptic equations \citep{morel98} and

3177: an iterative multigrid-preconditioned

3178: conjugate-gradient method \citep{ruge87} to solve the system of linear

3179: equations.

3180: 

3181: Overall, BETHE-hydro offers many unique and useful features for

3182: astrophysical simulations.  For one, by using ALE techniques, the

3183: structure of BETHE-hydro is straightforward, enabling

3184: simple inclusion of a variety of additional physics packages.

3185: Examples, which will be discussed in future papers, are nuclear

3186: networks and time-dependent radiation transport.  In contrast with

3187: other techniques, such as higher-order Godunov

3188: methods, no assumptions are made in ALE techniques about characteristic

3189: waves nor the relationships among important thermodynamic variables.  Hence, one of its useful features is an ability to use a general EOS.

3190: 

3191: Most important among BETHE-hydro's strengths is the ability to

3192: solve self-gravitating hydrodynamic flows on arbitrary

3193: grids.  This is achieved primarily because the foundation of the Lagrangian

3194: hydrodynamics solver is an arbitrary, unstructured polygonal

3195: grid. Furthermore, grids may be time-dependent since the hydrodynamic

3196: flow from one timestep is remapped to another arbitrary grid for subsequent

3197: evolution.  Consequently, simulations may be executed using a purely

3198: Lagrangian, purely Eulerian, or an arbitrarily defined time-dependent

3199: grid.  With BETHE-hydro, simulations have great flexibility, tailoring

3200: the grid to minimize numerical error and suiting the grid to the

3201: computational challenge.

3202: 

3203: Ironically, this flexibility leads to BETHE-hydro's most prominent

3204: weakness, which is shared among all ALE codes, the hourglass

3205: instability and grid buckling.  We use subcell pressure and tensor artificial viscosity algorithms to mitigate these

3206: numerical artifacts, but the resolution is imperfect.  In \S

3207: \ref{section:hourglass}, we present a subcell pressure algorithm that

3208: is compatible with the subcell remapping algorithm, but the efficacy

3209: of hourglass elimination is slightly compromised.  Although the tensor

3210: artificial viscosity does well to mitigate grid buckling, it can be

3211: more resistive to the proper development of hydrodynamic instabilities

3212: compared to other artificial viscosity schemes used in

3213: ALE (Milan Kucharik, private communication).  Hence, we

3214: diminish the effects of the hourglass instability, but with some unwanted

3215: side effects.  While mitigation in 2D is tractable, the

3216: instability in 3D has many more modes and is not as easily eliminated

3217: (Guglielmo Scovazzi, private communication ),

3218: making long 3D ALE simulations a challenge.

3219: 

3220: Throughout this paper, we have not only demonstrated BETHE-hydro's

3221: flexibility, but have shown that it produces accurate and 2$^{nd}$-order

3222: convergent solutions.  With density distributions having analytic

3223: potentials, we have shown that the 2D gravity solver gives accurate

3224: spherically symmetric potentials when a non-spherical grid is used, it

3225: produces accurate non-spherical potentials, and solutions

3226: converge with 2$^{nd}$-order accuracy.  Further tests demonstrated

3227: accurate solutions for self-gravitating hydrostatic and dynamic

3228: problems.  We have shown that our hourglass elimination algorithm

3229: minimizes the hourglass instability and does not present problems when

3230: used in conjunction with subcell remapping.  In addition, we have

3231: quantified the accuracy of hydrodynamic simulations by simulating

3232: problems with analytic solutions.  Simulating piston-driven shocks

3233: using oblique meshes, we confirmed we can obtain accurate solutions in the context

3234: of arbitrary grids.  Verifying the code's ability to capture basic hydrodynamic

3235: instabilities, we simulate the Rayleigh-Taylor and Kelvin-Helmholtz

3236: instabilities.  Concluding the tests, we simulated a supernova core collapse, which demonstrates the ability to simulate complex

3237: astrophysical phenomena.

3238: 

3239: Simulating hydrodynamic flow is fundamental to understanding most

3240: astrophysical objects, and despite the long tradition of

3241: hydrodynamic simulations many puzzles remain.  This is due primarily to the need

3242: to address time-dependent gravitational potentials, complicated

3243: equations of state (EOSs), flexible grids, multi-D shock structures,

3244: and chaotic and turbulent flows.  Therefore, with BETHE-hydro, we introduce

3245: a uniquely flexible and functional tool for advancing the theory of complex

3246: astrophysical phenomena.

3247: 

3248: \acknowledgments

3249: We would like to thank Mikhail Shashkov, Raphael Loub{\`e}re, Milan

3250: Kucharik, and Burton Wendroff for valuable conversations about ALE

3251: techniques.  Discussions concerning the 2D gravity solver with Ivan Hubeny, Jim

3252: Morel, David Moulton, and David Keyes of TOPS were very 

3253: fruitful.

3254:  We acknowledge support for this work                                           

3255: from the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing                        

3256: (SciDAC) program of the DOE, under grant numbers DE-FC02-01ER41184              

3257: and DE-FC02-06ER41452, and from the NSF under grant number AST-0504947.         

3258: J.W.M. thanks the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics (JINA) for           

3259: support under NSF grant PHY0216783.

3260: We thank Jeff Fookson and Neal Lauber of the Steward Computer Support

3261: Group for their invaluable help with the local Beowulf cluster, Grendel.

3262: 

3263: \appendix

3264: 

3265: \section{Hydrodynamic equations:  Eulerian form}

3266: \label{section:eulerian_hydro}

3267: In Eulerian form, the equations for conservation of mass, momentum,

3268: and energy are

3269: \begin{equation}

3270: \label{eq:mass_eul}

3271: \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \vec{\nabla} \cdot ( \rho \vec{v})

3272: = 0 \, ,

3273: \end{equation}

3274: \begin{equation}

3275: \label{eq:mom_eul}

3276: \frac{\partial (\rho \vec{v})}{\partial t} 

3277: + \vec{\nabla} \cdot ( \rho \vec{v} \vec{v}) + \vec{\nabla} P = -\rho

3278: \vec{\nabla} \Phi \, ,

3279: \end{equation}

3280: and

3281: \begin{equation}

3282: \label{eq:ene_eul}

3283: \frac{\partial (\rho \varepsilon + 1/2 \rho v^2) }{\partial t}

3284: + \vec{\nabla} \cdot [ (\rho \varepsilon + P + 1/2 \rho v^2) \vec{v}]

3285: = - \rho \vec{\nabla} \Phi \cdot \vec{v} \, .

3286: \end{equation}

3287: 

3288: 

3289: \section{Volume and Weighted-Volume Integrals in 2D}

3290: \label{section:integrals}

3291: 

3292: In this appendix, we give the exact analytic volumes and

3293: weighted-volume integrals in discrete form.  Since we are dealing with

3294: 2D simulations all integrals are 2D integrals, and can be further

3295: reduced using Green's formula to 1D boundary integrals.  For example,

3296: the volume of zone $z$ in Cartesian coordinates is

3297: \begin{equation}

3298: \int_{V_z}dV = \oint_{\partial V_z} x dy

3299: = \sum_e \frac{1}{2}(x_1 + x_2)(y_2-y_1)

3300: \end{equation}

3301: or alternatively,

3302: \begin{equation}

3303: \int_{V_z}dV = - \oint_{\partial V_z} y dx

3304: = - \sum_e \frac{1}{2}(y_1 + y_2)(x_2-x_1) \, ,

3305: \end{equation}

3306: where the direction of the boundary integral is clockwise, $e$ indicates an edge of the cell, and subscripts 1 and 2

3307: represent the endpoints of edge $e$.  In cylindrical coordinates, the

3308: volume integral is

3309: \begin{equation}

3310: \int_{V_z}dV = 2\pi \frac{1}{2}\oint_{\partial V_z} r^2 dz

3311: = 2\pi \sum_e \frac{1}{6}(r^2_1 + r_1r_2 + r^2_2)(z_2-z_1) \, .

3312: \end{equation}

3313: 

3314: Throughout BETHE-hydro, integrals of linear functions produce volume integrals

3315: weighted by $x$ or $y$.  The discrete form of these integrals are

3316: \begin{equation}

3317: \int_{V_z}x dV = \frac{1}{2}\oint_{\partial V_z} x^2 dy

3318: = \sum_e \frac{1}{6}(x^2_1 + x_1x_2 + x^2_2)(y_2-y_1)

3319: \end{equation}

3320: and

3321: \begin{equation}

3322: \int_{V_z}y dV = - \frac{1}{2}\oint_{\partial V_z} y^2 dx

3323: = - \sum_e \frac{1}{6}(y^2_1 + y_1y_2 + y^2_2)(x_2-x_1) \, .

3324: \end{equation}

3325: Using cylindrical coordinates these are

3326: \begin{equation}

3327: \int_{V_z}rdV = 2\pi \frac{1}{3}\oint_{\partial V_z} r^3 dz

3328: = 2\pi \sum_e \frac{1}{12}(r^3_1 + r^2_1r_2 + r_1r^2_2 + r^3_2)(z_2-z_1)

3329: \end{equation}

3330: and

3331: \begin{equation}

3332: \begin{array}{lcl}

3333: \int_{V_z}z dV & = & 2\pi \frac{1}{2}\oint_{\partial V_z} r^2 z dz \\

3334: & = & 2 \pi \sum_e \frac{1}{6}\left [

3335: (\frac{3}{4}r^2_2 + \frac{1}{2}r_2r_1 + \frac{1}{4}r^2_1)(z_2 - z_1)

3336: +

3337: (r^2_2 + r_2r_1 + r^2_1)z_1

3338: \right ] (z_2 - z_1) \,.

3339: \end{array}

3340: \end{equation}

3341: 

3342: Finally, for angular momentum remapping, we require

3343: integrals in cylindrical coordinates weighted by $r^2$:

3344: \begin{equation}

3345: \int_{V_z}r^2dV = 2\pi \frac{1}{4}\oint_{\partial V_z} r^4 dz

3346: = 2\pi \sum_e \frac{1}{20}(r^4_1 + r^3_1r_2 + r^2_1r^2_2 + r_1r^3_2 + r^4_2)

3347: (z_2-z_1) \, .

3348: \end{equation}

3349: 

3350: 

3351: 

3352: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

3353: %\bibliography{jeremiah}

3354: \begin{thebibliography}{62}

3355: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

3356: 

3357: \bibitem[{{Agertz} {et~al.}(2007){Agertz}, {Moore}, {Stadel}, {Potter},

3358:   {Miniati}, {Read}, {Mayer}, {Gawryszczak}, {Kravtsov}, {Nordlund}, {Pearce},

3359:   {Quilis}, {Rudd}, {Springel}, {Stone}, {Tasker}, {Teyssier}, {Wadsley}, \&

3360:   {Walder}}]{agertz07}

3361: {Agertz}, O., {Moore}, B., {Stadel}, J., {Potter}, D., {Miniati}, F., {Read},

3362:   J., {Mayer}, L., {Gawryszczak}, A., {Kravtsov}, A., {Nordlund}, {\AA}.,

3363:   {Pearce}, F., {Quilis}, V., {Rudd}, D., {Springel}, V., {Stone}, J.,

3364:   {Tasker}, E., {Teyssier}, R., {Wadsley}, J., \& {Walder}, R. 2007, \mnras,

3365:   380, 963

3366: 

3367: \bibitem[{{Barth}(1997)}]{barth97}

3368: {Barth}, T.~J. 1997, {Numerical Methods for Gasdynamic Systems on Unstructured

3369:   Meshes}, ed. T.~{Kroner}, M.~{Ohlberger}, \& C.~{Rohde} (Springer, Berlin),

3370:   195--285

3371: 

3372: \bibitem[{{Baz{\'a}n} {et~al.}(2003){Baz{\'a}n}, {Dearborn}, {Dossa},

3373:   {Eggleton}, {Taylor}, {Castor}, {Murray}, {Cook}, {Eltgroth}, {Cavallo},

3374:   {Turcotte}, {Keller}, \& {Pudliner}}]{bazan03}

3375: {Baz{\'a}n}, G., {Dearborn}, D.~S.~P., {Dossa}, D.~D., {Eggleton}, P.~P.,

3376:   {Taylor}, A., {Castor}, J.~I., {Murray}, S., {Cook}, K.~H., {Eltgroth},

3377:   P.~G., {Cavallo}, R.~M., {Turcotte}, S., {Keller}, S.~C., \& {Pudliner},

3378:   B.~S. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol.

3379:   293, 3D Stellar Evolution, ed. S.~{Turcotte}, S.~C. {Keller}, \& R.~M.

3380:   {Cavallo}, 1--58381

3381: 

3382: \bibitem[{{Bethe} \& {Wilson}(1985)}]{bethe85}

3383: {Bethe}, H.~A., \& {Wilson}, J.~R. 1985, \apj, 295, 14

3384: 

3385: \bibitem[{{Buras} {et~al.}(2003){Buras}, {Rampp}, {Janka}, \&

3386:   {Kifonidis}}]{buras03}

3387: {Buras}, R., {Rampp}, M., {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Kifonidis}, K. 2003, Physical

3388:   Review Letters, 90, 241101

3389: 

3390: \bibitem[{{Buras} {et~al.}(2006){Buras}, {Rampp}, {Janka}, \&

3391:   {Kifonidis}}]{buras06}

3392: ---. 2006, \aap, 447, 1049

3393: 

3394: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Burrows}, {Dessart}, {Livne},

3395:   {Ott}, \& {Murphy}}]{burrows07c}

3396: {Burrows}, A., {Dessart}, L., {Livne}, E., {Ott}, C.~D., \& {Murphy}, J.

3397:   2007{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 664, 416

3398: 

3399: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(1995){Burrows}, {Hayes}, \& {Fryxell}}]{burrows95}

3400: {Burrows}, A., {Hayes}, J., \& {Fryxell}, B.~A. 1995, \apj, 450, 830

3401: 

3402: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2006){Burrows}, {Livne}, {Dessart}, {Ott}, \&

3403:   {Murphy}}]{burrows06}

3404: {Burrows}, A., {Livne}, E., {Dessart}, L., {Ott}, C.~D., \& {Murphy}, J. 2006,

3405:   \apj, 640, 878

3406: 

3407: \bibitem[{{Burrows} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Burrows}, {Livne}, {Dessart},

3408:   {Ott}, \& {Murphy}}]{burrows07a}

3409: ---. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 655, 416

3410: 

3411: \bibitem[{{Campbell} \& {Shashkov}(2001)}]{campbell01}

3412: {Campbell}, J.~C., \& {Shashkov}, M.~J. 2001, Journal of Computational Physics,

3413:   172, 739

3414: 

3415: \bibitem[{{Caramana} {et~al.}(1998){Caramana}, {Burton}, {Shashkov}, \&

3416:   {Whalen}}]{caramana98c}

3417: {Caramana}, E.~J., {Burton}, D.~E., {Shashkov}, M.~J., \& {Whalen}, P.~P. 1998,

3418:   Journal of Computational Physics, 146, 227

3419: 

3420: \bibitem[{{Caramana} \& {Shashkov}(1998)}]{caramana98a}

3421: {Caramana}, E.~J., \& {Shashkov}, M.~J. 1998, Journal of Computational Physics,

3422:   142, 521

3423: 

3424: \bibitem[{{Chandrasekhar}(1969)}]{chandrasekhar69}

3425: {Chandrasekhar}, S. 1969, {Ellipsoidal Figures of Equilibrium} (New Haven: Yale

3426:   University Press)

3427: 

3428: \bibitem[{{Colella} \& {Woodward}(1984)}]{colella84}

3429: {Colella}, P., \& {Woodward}, P.~R. 1984, Journal of Computational Physics, 54,

3430:   174

3431: 

3432: \bibitem[{{Dearborn} {et~al.}(2006){Dearborn}, {Lattanzio}, \&

3433:   {Eggleton}}]{dearborn06}

3434: {Dearborn}, D.~S.~P., {Lattanzio}, J.~C., \& {Eggleton}, P.~P. 2006, \apj, 639,

3435:   405

3436: 

3437: \bibitem[{{Dearborn} {et~al.}(2005){Dearborn}, {Wilson}, \&

3438:   {Mathews}}]{dearborn05}

3439: {Dearborn}, D.~S.~P., {Wilson}, J.~R., \& {Mathews}, G.~J. 2005, \apj, 630, 309

3440: 

3441: \bibitem[{{Dukowicz} \& {Meltz}(1992)}]{dukowicz92}

3442: {Dukowicz}, J.~K., \& {Meltz}, B. 1992, Journal of Computational Physics, 99,

3443:   115

3444: 

3445: \bibitem[{{Fryer} \& {Warren}(2002)}]{fryer02}

3446: {Fryer}, C.~L., \& {Warren}, M.~S. 2002, \apjl, 574, L65

3447: 

3448: \bibitem[{{Gardiner} \& {Stone}(2005)}]{gardiner05}

3449: {Gardiner}, T.~A., \& {Stone}, J.~M. 2005, Journal of Computational Physics,

3450:   205, 509

3451: 

3452: \bibitem[{{Goldreich} \& {Weber}(1980)}]{goldreich80}

3453: {Goldreich}, P., \& {Weber}, S.~V. 1980, \apj, 238, 991

3454: 

3455: \bibitem[{{Herant} {et~al.}(1994){Herant}, {Benz}, {Hix}, {Fryer}, \&

3456:   {Colgate}}]{herant94}

3457: {Herant}, M., {Benz}, W., {Hix}, W.~R., {Fryer}, C.~L., \& {Colgate}, S.~A.

3458:   1994, \apj, 435, 339

3459: 

3460: \bibitem[{{Hubeny} \& {Burrows}(2007)}]{hubeny07}

3461: {Hubeny}, I., \& {Burrows}, A. 2007, \apj, 659, 1458

3462: 

3463: \bibitem[{{Janka} \& {Mueller}(1995)}]{janka95}

3464: {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Mueller}, E. 1995, \apjl, 448, L109

3465: 

3466: \bibitem[{{Kitaura} {et~al.}(2006){Kitaura}, {Janka}, \&

3467:   {Hillebrandt}}]{kitaura06}

3468: {Kitaura}, F.~S., {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Hillebrandt}, W. 2006, \aap, 450, 345

3469: 

3470: \bibitem[{{Klein}(1999)}]{klein99}

3471: {Klein}, R.~I. 1999, J. Comp. App. Math, 109, 123

3472: 

3473: \bibitem[{{Kucharik} {et~al.}(2003){Kucharik}, {Shaskov}, \&

3474:   {Wendroff}}]{kucharik03}

3475: {Kucharik}, M., {Shaskov}, M.~J., \& {Wendroff}, B. 2003, Journal of

3476:   Computational Physics, 188, 462

3477: 

3478: \bibitem[{{Landshoff}(1955)}]{landshoff55}

3479: {Landshoff}, R. 1955, {A Numerical Method for Treating Fluid Flow in the

3480:   Presence of Shocks}, Tech. rep., Los Alamos National Laboratory

3481: 

3482: \bibitem[{{LeBlanc} \& {Wilson}(1970)}]{leblanc70}

3483: {LeBlanc}, J.~M., \& {Wilson}, J.~R. 1970, \apj, 161, 541

3484: 

3485: \bibitem[{{Liebend{\"o}rfer} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{a}}){Liebend{\"o}rfer},

3486:   {Mezzacappa}, \& {Thielemann}}]{liebendorfer01b}

3487: {Liebend{\"o}rfer}, M., {Mezzacappa}, A., \& {Thielemann}, F.-K.

3488:   2001{\natexlab{a}}, \prd, 63, 104003

3489: 

3490: \bibitem[{{Liebend{\"o}rfer} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{b}}){Liebend{\"o}rfer},

3491:   {Mezzacappa}, {Thielemann}, {Messer}, {Hix}, \& {Bruenn}}]{liebendorfer01a}

3492: {Liebend{\"o}rfer}, M., {Mezzacappa}, A., {Thielemann}, F.-K., {Messer}, O.~E.,

3493:   {Hix}, W.~R., \& {Bruenn}, S.~W. 2001{\natexlab{b}}, \prd, 63, 103004

3494: 

3495: \bibitem[{{Liebend{\"o}rfer} {et~al.}(2006){Liebend{\"o}rfer}, {Pen}, \&

3496:   {Thompson}}]{liebendorfer06}

3497: {Liebend{\"o}rfer}, M., {Pen}, U.-L., \& {Thompson}, C. 2006, in International

3498:   Symposium on Nuclear Astrophysics - Nuclei in the Cosmos

3499: 

3500: \bibitem[{{Liebend{\"o}rfer} {et~al.}(2005){Liebend{\"o}rfer}, {Rampp},

3501:   {Janka}, \& {Mezzacappa}}]{liebendorfer05}

3502: {Liebend{\"o}rfer}, M., {Rampp}, M., {Janka}, H.-T., \& {Mezzacappa}, A. 2005,

3503:   \apj, 620, 840

3504: 

3505: \bibitem[{{Liska} \& {Wendroff}(2003)}]{liska03}

3506: {Liska}, R., \& {Wendroff}, B. 2003, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 25, 995

3507: 

3508: \bibitem[{{Livio} {et~al.}(1980){Livio}, {Buchler}, \& {Colgate}}]{livio80}

3509: {Livio}, M., {Buchler}, J.~R., \& {Colgate}, S.~A. 1980, \apjl, 238, L139

3510: 

3511: \bibitem[{{Livne}(1993)}]{livne93}

3512: {Livne}, E. 1993, \apj, 412, 634

3513: 

3514: \bibitem[{{Livne} {et~al.}(2004){Livne}, {Burrows}, {Walder}, {Lichtenstadt},

3515:   \& {Thompson}}]{livne04}

3516: {Livne}, E., {Burrows}, A., {Walder}, R., {Lichtenstadt}, I., \& {Thompson},

3517:   T.~A. 2004, \apj, 609, 277

3518: 

3519: \bibitem[{{Loub{\`e}re} \& {Shashkov}(2005)}]{loubere05}

3520: {Loub{\`e}re}, R., \& {Shashkov}, M.~J. 2005, Journal of Computational Physics,

3521:   209, 105

3522: 

3523: \bibitem[{{Loub{\`e}re} {et~al.}(2006){Loub{\`e}re}, {Staley}, \&

3524:   {Wendroff}}]{loubere06}

3525: {Loub{\`e}re}, R., {Staley}, M., \& {Wendroff}, B. 2006, Journal of

3526:   Computational Physics, 211, 385

3527: 

3528: \bibitem[{{Margolin}(1988)}]{margolin88}

3529: {Margolin}, L.~G. 1988, {A centered artificial viscosity for cells with large

3530:   aspect ratio}, Tech. rep., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

3531: 

3532: \bibitem[{{Margolin} \& {Shaskov}(2003)}]{margolin03}

3533: {Margolin}, L.~G., \& {Shaskov}, M.~J. 2003, Journal of Computational Physics,

3534:   184, 266

3535: 

3536: \bibitem[{{Margolin} \& {Shaskov}(2004)}]{margolin04}

3537: ---. 2004, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 193, 4139

3538: 

3539: \bibitem[{{Miller} {et~al.}(1993){Miller}, {Wilson}, \& {Mayle}}]{miller93}

3540: {Miller}, D.~S., {Wilson}, J.~R., \& {Mayle}, R.~W. 1993, \apj, 415, 278

3541: 

3542: \bibitem[{{Miniati} \& {Colella}(2007)}]{miniati07}

3543: {Miniati}, F., \& {Colella}, P. 2007, Journal of Computational Physics,

3544:   227, 400

3545: 

3546: \bibitem[{{Monaghan}(1992)}]{monaghan92}

3547: {Monaghan}, J.~J. 1992, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 30, 543

3548: 

3549: \bibitem[{{Morel} {et~al.}(1998){Morel}, {Roberts}, \& J.}]{morel98}

3550: {Morel}, J.~E., {Roberts}, R.~M., \& J., S.~M. 1998, Journal of Computational

3551:   Physics, 144, 17

3552: 

3553: \bibitem[{{M{\"u}ller} \& {Steinmetz}(1995)}]{muller95}

3554: {M{\"u}ller}, E., \& {Steinmetz}, M. 1995, Computer Physics Communications, 89,

3555:   45

3556: 

3557: \bibitem[{{Rampp} \& {Janka}(2002)}]{rampp02}

3558: {Rampp}, M., \& {Janka}, H.-T. 2002, \aap, 396, 361

3559: 

3560: \bibitem[{{Rider}(2000)}]{rider00}

3561: {Rider}, W.~J. 2000, Journal of Computational Physics, 162, 395

3562: 

3563: \bibitem[{{Ruge} \& {Stuben}(1987)}]{ruge87}

3564: {Ruge}, J.~W., \& {Stuben}, K. 1987, {Algebraic multigrid (AMG)}, ed. S.~F.

3565:   S.~F.~{McCormick} (Philadelphia, PA: SIAM), 73–130

3566: 

3567: \bibitem[{{Shashkov} \& {Steinberg}(1995)}]{shashkov95}

3568: {Shashkov}, M.~J., \& {Steinberg}, S. 1995, Journal of Computational Physics,

3569:   118, 131

3570: 

3571: \bibitem[{{Shashkov} \& {Steinberg}(1996)}]{shashkov96}

3572: ---. 1996, Journal of Computational Physics, 129, 393

3573: 

3574: \bibitem[{{Shen} {et~al.}(1998){Shen}, {Toki}, {Oyamatsu}, \&

3575:   {Sumiyoshi}}]{shen98}

3576: {Shen}, H., {Toki}, H., {Oyamatsu}, K., \& {Sumiyoshi}, K. 1998, Nuclear

3577:   Physics A, 637, 435

3578: 

3579: \bibitem[{{Smarr} {et~al.}(1981){Smarr}, {Wilson}, {Barton}, \&

3580:   {Bowers}}]{smarr81}

3581: {Smarr}, L., {Wilson}, J.~R., {Barton}, R.~T., \& {Bowers}, R.~L. 1981, \apj,

3582:   246, 515

3583: 

3584: \bibitem[{{Stone} \& {Norman}(1992)}]{stone92a}

3585: {Stone}, J.~M., \& {Norman}, M.~L. 1992, \apjs, 80, 753

3586: 

3587: \bibitem[{{Symbalisty}(1984)}]{symbalisty84}

3588: {Symbalisty}, E.~M.~D. 1984, \apj, 285, 729

3589: 

3590: \bibitem[{{Thompson} {et~al.}(2003){Thompson}, {Burrows}, \&

3591:   {Pinto}}]{thompson03}

3592: {Thompson}, T.~A., {Burrows}, A., \& {Pinto}, P.~A. 2003, \apj, 592, 434

3593: 

3594: \bibitem[{{Truelove} {et~al.}(1998){Truelove}, {Klein}, {McKee}, {Holliman},

3595:   {Howell}, {Greenough}, \& {Woods}}]{truelove98}

3596: {Truelove}, J.~K., {Klein}, R.~I., {McKee}, C.~F., {Holliman}, II, J.~H.,

3597:   {Howell}, L.~H., {Greenough}, J.~A., \& {Woods}, D.~T. 1998, \apj, 495, 821

3598: 

3599: \bibitem[{{Von Neumann} \& {Richtmyer}(1950)}]{vonneumann50}

3600: {Von Neumann}, J., \& {Richtmyer}, R.~D. 1950, J. Appl. Phys., 21, 232

3601: 

3602: \bibitem[{{Wilkins}(1980)}]{wilkins80}

3603: {Wilkins}, M.~L. 1980, J. Comput. Phys., 36, 281

3604: 

3605: \bibitem[{{Woodward} \& {Colella}(1984)}]{woodward84}

3606: {Woodward}, P., \& {Colella}, P. 1984, Journal of Computational Physics, 54,

3607:   115

3608: 

3609: \bibitem[{{Woosley} \& {Weaver}(1995)}]{woosley95}

3610: {Woosley}, S.~E., \& {Weaver}, T.~A. 1995, \apjs, 101, 181

3611: 

3612: \end{thebibliography}

3613: 

3614: 

3615: \clearpage

3616: 

3617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3618: %%%%  Tables   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3619: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3620: 

3621: \begin{deluxetable}{ll}

3622: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

3623: \tablecaption{The predictor-corrector procedure.  The operations to

3624:   determine predicted and corrected values are listed in the left and

3625:   right columns, respectively.  See \S

3626:   \ref{section:predictor_corrector} for a detailed

3627:   discussion. \label{table:predictor-corrector}}

3628: \tablewidth{0pt}

3629: \tablehead{ \colhead{Predictor} & \colhead{Corrector}}

3630: \startdata

3631: $P^n \, \& \, \vec{S}^n \longrightarrow \vec{f}^{n}$ &

3632: $P^{n+1/2} \, \& \, \vec{S}^{n+1/2} \longrightarrow \vec{f}^{n+1/2}$

3633: \\

3634: $\vec{f}^n, \, \vec{f}^n_{\rm{visc}}, \, \vec{A}^n_p,

3635:   \, \& \, \vec{g}^n \longrightarrow

3636:   \vec{v}^{n+1,pr}$ &

3637: $\vec{f}^{n+1/2}, \, \vec{f}^n_{\rm{visc}}, \, \vec{A}^{n+1/2}_p,

3638:   \, \& \, \vec{g}^{n+1/2} \longrightarrow

3639:   \vec{v}^{n+1}$

3640: \\

3641: $\vec{v}^{n+1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(\vec{v}^{n+1,pr} + \vec{v}^n)$ &

3642: $\vec{v}^{n+1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(\vec{v}^{n+1} + \vec{v}^n)$

3643: \\

3644: $\vec{x}^{n+1,pr} = \vec{x}^n + \Delta t \vec{v}^{n+1/2}$ &

3645: $\vec{x}^{n+1} = \vec{x}^n + \Delta t \vec{v}^{n+1/2}$

3646: \\

3647: $\vec{f}^n \, \& \, \vec{v}^{n+1/2} \longrightarrow

3648: \varepsilon^{n+1,pr}$ &

3649: $\vec{f}^{n+1/2} \, \& \, \vec{v}^{n+1/2} \longrightarrow

3650: \varepsilon^{n+1}$

3651: \\

3652: $\vec{x}^{n+1,pr} \longrightarrow V^{n+1,pr} \longrightarrow

3653:   \rho^{n+1,pr}$ &

3654: $x^{n+1} \longrightarrow V^{n+1} \longrightarrow

3655:   \rho^{n+1}$

3656: \\

3657: calculate $\vec{g}^{n+1,pr} \, \& \, \vec{A}^{n+1,pr}_p$ &

3658: %calculate $\vec{g}^{n+1} \, \& \, \vec{A}^{n+1,pr}_p$

3659: \\

3660: $e^{n+1,pr} \& \rho^{n+1,pr} \longrightarrow P^{n+1,pr}$ &

3661: %$e^{n+1} \, \& \, \rho^{n+1} \longrightarrow P^{n+1}$

3662: \\

3663: $\vec{x}^{n+1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(\vec{x}^{n+1,pr} + \vec{x}^n)$ &

3664: 

3665: \\

3666: $P^{n+1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(P^{n+1,pr} + P^n)$ &

3667: 

3668: \\

3669: $\vec{g}^{n+1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(\vec{g}^{n+1,pr} + \vec{g}^n)$ &

3670: 

3671: \\

3672: $\vec{A}^{n+1/2}_p = \frac{1}{2}(\vec{A}^{n+1,pr}_p

3673: + \vec{A}^n_p)$ &

3674: 

3675: \\

3676: \enddata

3677: \end{deluxetable}

3678: 

3679: 

3680: \begin{deluxetable}{lll}

3681: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

3682: \tablecaption{

3683: Relative error in density, $(\rho_z - \rho_{\rm ana})/(\max(\rho_{\rm ana} ) )$,

3684: at the center for the Goldreich-Weber self-similar collapse test.  The

3685: first column is the time in milliseconds, and the second and third

3686: columns are the error between the simulation, $\rho_z$, and the analytic solution,

3687: $\rho_{\rm ana}$, scaled by the maximum density of the analytic

3688: solution $\max(\rho_{\rm ana})$ for 1D simulation and 2D simulations,

3689: respectively.  See \S \ref{section:gravity_tests} for a discussion.

3690: \label{table:gw}

3691: }

3692: \tablewidth{0pt}

3693: \tablehead{ \colhead{Time (ms)} & \colhead{1D} & \colhead{2D}}

3694: \startdata

3695: 0   & $-9.2 \times 10^{-8}$ & $-1.2 \times 10^{-7}$ \\

3696: 20  & $-7.2 \times 10^{-4}$ & $-1.4 \times 10^{-3}$ \\

3697: 40  & $-1.2 \times 10^{-3}$ & $-2.2 \times 10^{-3}$ \\

3698: 60  & $-1.9 \times 10^{-3}$ & $-3.6 \times 10^{-3}$ \\

3699: 80  & $-3.2 \times 10^{-3}$ & $-6.0 \times 10^{-3}$ \\

3700: 100 & $-6.2 \times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.1 \times 10^{-2}$ \\

3701: 120 & $-1.6 \times 10^{-2}$ & $-2.8 \times 10^{-2}$ \\

3702: 130 & $-3.6 \times 10^{-2}$ & $-6.3 \times 10^{-2}$ \\

3703: \enddata

3704: \end{deluxetable}

3705: 

3706: 

3707: \begin{deluxetable}{lllll}

3708: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

3709: \tablecaption{The analytic and simulated orientations of features for the Dukowicz

3710:   problem.  While \citet{dukowicz92} published the angles subtended by

3711:   various regions, we list the angles of each feature

3712:   with respect to the $x$-axis.\label{table:dukowicz}}

3713: \tablewidth{0pt}

3714: \tablehead{\colhead{} & \colhead{Transmitted Shock} & \colhead{Vortex Sheet} & \colhead{Reflected Shock} & \colhead{Incident shock}}

3715: \startdata

3716: Analytic (deg.) &-101.02 & -122.92 & 146.12 & 90 \\

3717: Simulation & -103.21 & -124.42 & 146.92 & 90.32 \\

3718: \enddata

3719: \end{deluxetable}

3720: 

3721: 

3722: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3723: %%%%  Figures  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3724: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3725: 

3726: \clearpage

3727: 

3728: \begin{figure}

3729: \epsscale{0.8}

3730: \plotone{f1.ps}

3731: \caption{The flowchart for BETHE-hydro. See \S \ref{section:bethe_hydro} for a discussion.\label{flowchart}}

3732: \end{figure}

3733: 

3734: 

3735: \clearpage

3736: 

3737: \begin{figure}

3738: \epsscale{1.0}

3739: \plottwo{f2a.ps}{f2b.ps}

3740: \caption{On the left, a representative butterfly mesh and on the

3741:   right, a representative spiderweb mesh.  In general, we construct

3742:   meshes with much higher resolution.  However, to easily see the

3743:   features of the mesh we reproduce low resolution versions here.

3744:   The butterfly mesh is a standard grid that captures the benefits of

3745:   a spherical grid near the outer boundary and avoids the singularity

3746:   at the center. 

3747:   The spiderweb mesh captures the benefits of

3748:   a spherical grid throughout, but near the center, the

3749:   angular resolution is modified to avoid extreme Courant-condition limits and the

3750:   singularity.  Construction begins with half of an octagon at the

3751:   center.  Subsequent tiers of nodes are placed $\Delta r$ farther in

3752:   radius from the interior set.  When $r\Delta \theta$ exceeds $\Delta

3753:   r$ the angular size is halved.  For these transition nodes, $\Delta r$

3754:   is alternately multiplied by $1 + \epsilon$ and $1-\epsilon$ to

3755:   exaggerate the concavity of the cells.\label{grid_ex}}

3756: \end{figure}

3757: 

3758: \clearpage

3759: 

3760: \begin{figure}

3761: \epsscale{0.9}

3762: \plotone{f3.ps}

3763: \caption{A portion of an unstructured, polygonal mesh.  Filled

3764:   circles indicate node positions, $p$.  Crosses mark cell

3765:   centers, $z$.  Open circles show the mid-edge

3766:   locations.  Cells are bounded by the edges (solid lines), and the

3767:   cell is further divided into subcells via dashed

3768:   lines. $\vec{C}^z_{p+}$ and $\vec{C}^z_{p-}$ are the half-edge

3769: area vectors.  $\vec{a}^z_p$ and $\vec{a}^z_{p-1}$ are the area

3770: vectors for the lines connecting the cell centers and mid-edges (see

3771: \S \ref{section:coords_mesh} for a discussion).\label{fig:grid}}

3772: \end{figure}

3773: 

3774: \clearpage

3775: 

3776: \begin{figure}

3777: \epsscale{0.6}

3778: \plotone{f4a.ps} \\

3779: \plotone{f4b.ps}

3780: \caption{Plots of $v_{\phi}$ vs. $r$ (top

3781: panel) and $\Omega$ vs. $r$ (bottom panel) for the simple rotational

3782: test discussed in \S \ref{section:rot_test}.  We employ three remapping regions.  The inner 0.1 cm is

3783: Eulerian, zones exterior to 0.2 cm follow Lagrangian dynamics, and the

3784: region in between provides a smooth transition between the two domains.

3785: $v_{\phi}$ and  $\Omega$ profiles are presented at $t =

3786:   0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85$, and $1.0$ s.

3787: In the top panel, the deviation of the simulation (crosses) from the analytic solution (solid lines) is not

3788: discernible.  The maximum error as measured by

3789: $(v_{\phi,{\rm ana}} - v_{\phi})/ {\rm max}(v_{\phi,{\rm ana}})$ is

3790: $\sim 4 \times 10^{-5}$ near the beginning of the simulation and

3791: $\sim 8 \times 10^{-4}$ at the end.  The $\Omega$ vs. $r$ panel (bottom) shows similar accuracy, except at the center, where

3792: $(\Omega_{\rm ana} -\Omega)$ reaches a maximum value of 0.2 rads

3793: s$^{-1}$ at $t = 0.55$ s.

3794: \label{rottestplot}}

3795: \end{figure}

3796: 

3797: \clearpage

3798: 

3799: \begin{figure}

3800: \epsscale{0.6}

3801: \plotone{f5a.ps}\\

3802: \plotone{f5b.ps}

3803: \caption{Potential of a uniform density sphere.  The density of the

3804:   sphere is 1 g cm$^{-3}$ and the radius is 1 cm.  Presented are

3805:   results for four

3806:   resolutions of the butterfly mesh (see left panel of Fig. \ref{grid_ex}):

3807:   2550 cells with an effective radial resolution $\Delta r \sim$ 0.02

3808:   cm (blue); 8750 cells with $\Delta r \sim$ 0.01 cm (green); 15,200 cells with

3809:   $\Delta r \sim$ 0.006 cm (yellow); and 35,000 cells with $\Delta r

3810:   \sim$ 0.005 cm (red).  

3811:   The top panel

3812:   shows $(\Phi - \Phi_{\rm{ana}})/|\Phi_{\rm{ana}}|$, where $\Phi$ are

3813:   the cell-center potentials as determined by the Poisson solver, and

3814:   $\Phi_{\rm{ana}}$ is the analytic potential.  The bottom panel shows the

3815:   minimum error for each resolution as a function of the effective

3816:   radial resolution.  The solid line illustrates the fact that the 2D Poisson

3817:   solver converges with 2$^{\rm{nd}}$-order accuracy.

3818: \label{maclaurin_sphere}}

3819: \end{figure}

3820: 

3821: \clearpage

3822: 

3823: \begin{figure}

3824: \epsscale{0.5}

3825: \plotone{f6a.ps}\\

3826: \plotone{f6b.ps}

3827: \caption{The potential of a homogeneous

3828: spheroid with $e = 0.8$ (top panel) and the relative accuracy of the

3829: potential, $(\Phi - \Phi_{\rm ana})/|\Phi_{\rm ana}|$ (bottom panel).

3830: $\rho_0 = 1$ g cm$^{-3}$ and the equatorial radius is $r_a = 1$ cm.  For the given eccentricity, the polar-axis

3831: radius, $r_b$, is 0.6 cm.  The grid is a butterfly mesh, but

3832: the outer boundary follows the ellipse defining the

3833: surface of the spheroid.  With $N_{\rm{cell}} =

3834: 35,000$ and $\Delta r/r_a \sim 0.005$, the relative error in the

3835: potential ranges from $\sim$2 $\times 10^{-6}$ near the outer boundary

3836: to $\sim$3 $\times 10^{-5}$ in interior regions.  

3837: Features in the relative error that track abrupt grid orientation changes in

3838: the mesh are apparent, but the magnitude of these features does not

3839: dominate the errors.

3840: \label{maclaurin_spheroid}}

3841: \end{figure}

3842: 

3843: \clearpage

3844: \begin{figure}

3845: \epsscale{.80}

3846: \plotone{f7.ps}

3847: \caption{Hydrostatic Equilibrium.  The grid is the butterfly mesh

3848:   with 8750 zones.  The initial model is a Lane-Emden polytrope with

3849:   $\gamma = 5/3$, $M = 1$ M$_{\sun}$, and $R = 2.9 \times 10^{10}$

3850:   cm.  The green crosses show the density profile at $t = 1 \times 10^{4}$

3851:   s.  The solid line shows the maximum density as a function of time.

3852:   The oscillations are due to the slight difference between an analytic

3853:   hydrostatic equilibrium structure and a discretized hydrostatic

3854:   equilibrium structure.  This figure shows the code's ability to follow

3855:   oscillations for many periods with very little or no attenuation. 

3856: \label{laneemden_plot}}

3857: \end{figure}

3858: 

3859: \clearpage

3860: 

3861: \begin{figure}

3862: \epsscale{.60}

3863: \plotone{f8a.ps} \\

3864: \plotone{f8b.ps}

3865: \caption{Density profiles

3866: for Goldreich-Weber self-similar collapse in 1D (top

3867: panel) and 2D (bottom panel) and at $t = $0, 20, 40, 60, 80,

3868: 100, 120, and 130 ms.  Simulation results (crosses) are compared with

3869: analytic solutions (solid lines).  

3870: A gamma-law EOS is used with $\gamma = 4/3$.

3871: The physical

3872:   dimensions have been scaled so that $M = 1.3$ M$_{\sun}$, the

3873:   initial central density is $10^{10}$ g cm$^{-3}$, and the maximum

3874:   radius of the profile is $1.66 \times 10^8$ cm.  The initial grid

3875:   for the 1D simulation

3876:   uses 200 evenly-spaced zones. For the 2D simulation, a butterfly mesh with 35,000 zones with

3877:   effectively 200 radial zones is used.  These tests are calculated

3878:   using the Lagrangian configuration.

3879: See \S \ref{section:gravity_tests}

3880: and Table \ref{table:gw} for quantitative discussion of the accuracy.

3881: \label{gwplot}}

3882: \end{figure}

3883: 

3884: \clearpage

3885: 

3886: \begin{figure}

3887: \epsscale{.90}

3888: \plotone{f9.ps}

3889: \caption{Comparison when hourglass suppression is turned off (left)

3890:   and on (right) for the Goldreich-Weber self-similar collapse.  The

3891:   simulations in this figure were run in the Lagrangian configuration

3892:   with the butterfly mesh.  Displayed in the

3893:   region ``$r > 0$'' are results at $t = 0.118$ s when the hourglass suppression scheme of

3894:   \S \ref{section:hourglass} is used and the scale factor has been

3895:   set to 2.0.  The results shown in the region ``$r < 0$'' represent what

3896:   happens when the hourglass suppression scheme is turned off. \label{gw_fmerit_comp}}

3897: \end{figure}

3898: 

3899: \clearpage

3900: 

3901: \begin{figure}

3902: \epsscale{.80}

3903: \plotone{f10.ps}

3904: \caption{Single-mode Rayleigh-Taylor instability: investigating

3905:   hourglass suppression schemes (see \S \ref{section:rt} for a

3906:   description of the setup).  We present the

3907:   results of the single-mode Rayleigh-Taylor instability with no

3908:   hourglass fix (left panel), the hourglass subcell pressure scheme of

3909:   \citet{caramana98a} (center panel), and the modified subpressure

3910:   scheme described in this paper (right panel).  While the results of

3911:   the left panel are acceptable, there are hints of hourglass patterns

3912:   in the contours.  The central panel is a consequence of

3913:   the incompatible nature of the subcell remapping scheme and the

3914:   subcell pressure scheme of \citet{caramana98a}, and our modified

3915:   subpressure scheme (right panel) suppresses the hourglass

3916:   distortions, while preserving the expected flow.

3917: \label{rt_stills_fmerit}}

3918: \end{figure}

3919: 

3920: \clearpage

3921: 

3922: \begin{figure}

3923: \epsscale{.90}

3924: \plotone{f11.ps}

3925: \caption{Remapping a 1D step function. A step function in density is

3926:   remapped many times with a grid that oscillates for two full cycles.

3927:   There are 51 nodes (50 cells) and $n_{\rm max} = 800$ remapping

3928:   steps.  The top panel displays the density profile for remapping

3929:   steps 0 to $1/2 n_{rm max}$, and the bottom panel shows the profile for

3930:   steps $1/2 n_{\rm max}$ to $n_{\rm max}$.  Initially, the

3931:   discontinuity spreads over a small number of zones ($\sim$4), and in

3932:   later steps (bottom panel) the discontinuity spreads very slowly.  \label{rhoremap_step}}

3933: \end{figure}

3934: 

3935: \clearpage

3936: 

3937: \begin{figure}

3938: \epsscale{0.7}

3939: \plotone{f12a.ps}\\

3940: \plotone{f12b.ps}

3941: \caption{

3942: The $L^1$-norm as a function of

3943: $\Delta r$ (crosses), the initial zone size, is plotted for Goldreich-Weber simulations in 1D

3944: (top panel) and 2D (bottom panel).  The $L^1$-norm is calculated at t

3945: = 130 ms for both simulations.  Both 1D and 2D simulations (crosses)

3946: converge with roughly 2$^{\rm nd}$-order accuracy (solid line).  See

3947: \S \ref{section:2ndorder}.

3948: \label{gw_resstudy}}

3949: \end{figure}

3950: 

3951: \clearpage

3952: 

3953: \begin{figure}

3954: \epsscale{.80}

3955: \plotone{f13.ps}

3956: \caption{Sod shock tube test.  For a gamma-law EOS and $\gamma = 1.4$,

3957:   we compare the results of the 1D Lagrangian (bottom), 1D Eulerian

3958:   (2nd from the bottom), 2D Lagrangian (3rd), and 2D Eulerian (top) Sod

3959:   shock tube tests with the analytic result (solid lines).  Other than

3960:   the 1D Lagrangian results, the density profiles have

3961:   been shifted vertically to distinguish features.  The profiles

3962:   are further separated by displaying them at different times: 1D

3963:   Lagrangian ($t = 0.2$ s), 1D Eulerian

3964:   ($t = 0.225$ s), 2D Lagrangian ($t = 0.25$ s), and 2D Eulerian ($t =

3965:   0.275$ s).  The 1D calculations are

3966:   resolved with 400 zones, and the 2D tests are resolved with 400x10

3967:   zones.  See \S \ref{section:sod} for a discussion.\label{sodplot}}

3968: \end{figure}

3969: 

3970: \clearpage

3971: \begin{figure}

3972: \epsscale{.60}

3973: \plotone{f14a.ps}\\

3974: \plotone{f14b.ps}

3975: \caption{

3976: Density profiles of the Sedov blast wave test.  The Sedov blast energy

3977: is 0.244816 ergs.  Initial conditions are 

3978: $\rho_0 = 1.0$ g cm$^{-3}$, $\varepsilon_0 = 1 \times 10^{-20}$ ergs

3979: g$^{-1}$, and the gamma-law EOS has $\gamma = 5/3$.  

3980: Top panel compares the simulations (crosses) with the analytic result

3981: (solid lines) for 1D Lagrangian ($t = 0.4$ s), 1D Eulerian ($t = 0.53$ s), 2D Lagrangian using the butterfly

3982: mesh ($t = 0.66$ s), and 2D Lagrangian using the spiderweb mesh ($t =

3983: 0.80$ s).

3984: 1D calculations are resolved with 400

3985: zones. The spiderweb test has a total of 12,381 zones with 200 radial

3986: zones and a maximum of 64 angular zones.  The butterfly mesh has a

3987: total of 35,000 zones with effectively 200 radial

3988: and 200 angular zones.

3989: Plotted in the bottom panel are the relative errors of the density,

3990: $(\rho - \rho_{\rm ana})/\rho_{\rm max}$, vs. radius, where $\rho$

3991: is the simulated density profile, $\rho_{\rm ana}$ is the analytic

3992: profile, and $\rho_{\rm max}$ is the maximum density of the analytic profile.

3993: \label{sedovplot}}

3994: \end{figure}

3995: 

3996: \clearpage

3997: 

3998: \begin{figure}

3999: \epsscale{.80}

4000: \plotone{f15.ps}

4001: \caption{Density profile for the Noh Problem at $t = 0.2$ s.  The solid line is the analytic solution for $\gamma

4002:   = 5/3$, and the crosses show the numerical results for resolutions of

4003:   200, 400, 800, and 1600 zones.  The downturn of the density profile near

4004:   the center is ``wall heating,'' a common problem for Lagrangian

4005:   schemes \citep{rider00}.  For the post shock material, the higher

4006:   resolution runs capture the analytic solution.  The upstream

4007:   flow matches the analytic solution for all resolutions.

4008: \label{noh1dres}}

4009: \end{figure}

4010: 

4011: \clearpage

4012: 

4013: \begin{figure}

4014: \epsscale{1.1}

4015: \plottwo{f16a.ps}{f16b.ps}\\

4016: \plottwo{f16c.ps}{f16d.ps}

4017: \caption{Similar to Fig. \ref{noh1dres}, except here we present the

4018:   results of 2D tests.  All but the lower-right show results using 2D

4019:   Cartesian coordinates.  The lower-right shows results using 2D cylindrical

4020:   coordinates.  The grids used are: a Cartesian

4021: grid with 100$\times$200 zones (top-left and lower-right), a butterfly

4022: mesh with 22,400 zones (top-right), and a spiderweb mesh with 8550

4023: zones (lower-left).  Both the top-left and

4024: bottom-right panels indicate that using the Cartesian mesh produces fairly smooth results, with some ($\sim$7\%)

4025: asymmetry in the post-shock region.  Using the spiderweb mesh produces

4026: perfectly symmetric solutions except near the center where the

4027: deviation from symmetry is as large as $\sim$25\%.  Using the butterfly

4028: mesh produces similar mixed accuracy in symmetry.

4029: \label{nohplot_2d}}

4030: \end{figure}

4031: 

4032: \clearpage

4033: \begin{figure}

4034: \epsscale{0.8}

4035: \plotone{f17a.ps} \\

4036: \plotone{f17b.ps}

4037: \caption{

4038: Saltzman piston problem. This problem tests the code's ability to

4039: resolve shocks that are oblique to the orientation of the grid. The

4040: top panel shows the initial  grid with $100 \times 10$ zones. The left

4041: wall is a piston moving at a constant velocity, 1.0 cm s$^{-1}$, to

4042: the right.  Initially, the density and internal energy are set equal

4043: to 1.0 g cm$^{-3}$ and 0.0 ergs, respectively, and we use a gamma-law

4044: EOS with $\gamma = 5/3$.  The grid and

4045: the density colormap are shown in the bottom panel at $t = 0.925$

4046: s. See \S \ref{section:saltzman} for a discussion of the results.

4047: \label{saltzman}}

4048: \end{figure}

4049: 

4050: \clearpage

4051: \begin{figure}

4052: \epsscale{0.8}

4053: \plotone{f18a.ps}\\

4054: \plotone{f18b.ps}

4055: \caption{

4056: The Dukowicz piston problem, another test

4057: using an oblique mesh.  The initial setup involves two

4058: regions having an interface with a 60$^{\circ}$ orientation with the

4059: vertical.  The top panel shows a low-resolution example of the grid used.  Region 1 has a density of 1 g cm$^{-3}$ and is resolved with

4060: $144 \times 120$ zones, and region 2 has a

4061: density of 1.5 g cm$^{-3}$ and is gridded with a $160 \times 120$ mesh,

4062: with the vertical mesh lines uniformly slanted at 60$^{\circ}$.

4063: Initially both regions are in equilibrium with $P = 1.0$ erg

4064: cm$^{-3}$.  The left boundary is a piston with a velocity in the positive $x$

4065: direction and a magnitude of 1.48 cm s$^{-1}$.

4066: The piston-driven shock

4067:   travels from left to right, and encounters the interface.

4068:   The incident shock continues to the lower density region, a

4069:   transmitted/refracted shock propagates into the higher density

4070:   region, a vortex sheet develops behind the transmitted shock, and a

4071:   reflected shock propagates into the incident shock's post-shock

4072:   flow.   The orientations of the flow are reproduced accurately (see

4073:   \S \ref{section:dukowicz} and Table \ref{table:dukowicz}).

4074: \label{dukowicz}}

4075: \end{figure}

4076: 

4077: \clearpage

4078: 

4079: \begin{figure}

4080: \epsscale{1.0}

4081: \plotone{f19.ps}

4082: \caption{

4083: Nonlinear phase of a single mode of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability at

4084: $t = 12.75$ s.

4085: The top and bottom densities are

4086: $\rho_1 = 2.0$ g cm$^{-3}$ and $\rho_2 = 1.0$ g cm$^{-3}$, respectively, and the gravitational

4087: acceleration points downward with magnitude $g = 0.1$ cm s$^{-2}$.

4088: The top and bottom boundaries are reflecting while the left and right

4089: boundaries are periodic.  From left to right, grid sizes are $50 \times 150$, $74 \times

4090: 222$, $100 \times 300$ (this is the resolution used in Fig. \ref{rt_stills_fmerit}), and $150 \times 450$.  See \S \ref{section:rt} for discussions

4091: comparing these results with those in other works.

4092: \label{rt_stills_res}}

4093: \end{figure}

4094: 

4095: \clearpage

4096: 

4097: \begin{figure}

4098: \epsscale{.80}

4099: \plotone{f20.ps}

4100: \caption{Single-mode Rayleigh-Taylor instability: investigating the

4101:   artificial viscosity parameter.  The same resolution, setup, and

4102:   time are shown as presented in Fig. \ref{rt_stills_fmerit} and the third panel

4103:   of Fig. \ref{rt_stills_res}.  Each panel shows results for

4104:   different values of the

4105:   artificial viscosity parameter, $c_1$, that is the coefficient of $c_s (\vec{\nabla}

4106:   \cdot \vec{v})$ (see \S \ref{section:artificial_viscosity}).

4107:   The artificial viscosity parameters are $c_1 = 0.01$ (left panel), $c_1 =

4108:   0.1$ (center panel) and, $c_1 = 1.0$ (right panel).  From this analysis, it would seem

4109:   that one should choose the lower values of $c_1$ to accurately

4110:   represent low Mach number Rayleigh-Taylor flows.  However,

4111:   higher values help to eliminate unwanted ringing in post

4112:   shock flows.

4113: \label{rt_stills_visc}}

4114: \end{figure}

4115: 

4116: \clearpage

4117: 

4118: \begin{figure}

4119: \epsscale{.80}

4120: \plotone{f21.ps}

4121: \caption{

4122: The interface

4123: amplitude vs. time for the single-mode Rayleigh-Taylor instability

4124: test.  Resolutions and setup are similar to those presented in Fig. \ref{rt_stills_visc}.

4125: We compare the analytic exponential growth rate (solid line) with

4126: simulation results (dashed lines) for viscosity

4127:   parameters, $c_1$, of 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0.  Simulations with $c_1 = 0.01$ and 0.1 manifest exponential growth for several

4128:   e-folding times, while the run with $c_1 = 1.0$ seems

4129:   to follow the linear phase for  only 1 s ($\sim$ 1/2 e-folding).

4130: \label{rt_linear}}

4131: \end{figure}

4132: 

4133: \clearpage

4134: \begin{figure}

4135: \epsscale{.70}

4136: \plotone{f22a.ps}\\

4137: \plotone{f22b.ps}

4138: \caption{

4139: Kelvin-Helmholtz shear instability.  The domain is resolved with $256

4140: \times 256$ zones.  The bottom region has $\rho_{\rm b} = 1.0$, and

4141: the top region has $\rho_{\rm t} = \rho_{\rm b}/\chi$, where $\chi =

4142: 8$, and both regions have $P = 1.0$ erg cm$^{-3}$.  A gamma-law EOS is

4143: used with $\gamma = 5/3$.  The top panel shows the development of Kelvin-Helmholtz rolls at

4144: $t= 5.5$ s for $v_{\rm shear} = \frac{1}{4} c_b$ and $\tau_{\rm KH} $

4145: 0.523 s.

4146: The bottom plot of Fig. \ref{kh_still} shows the interface amplitude

4147: (solid line) vs. time and compares to the expected exponential growth

4148: (dashed line) for a simulation with $v_{\rm shear} = \frac{1}{4}c_b$

4149: (green) and $v_{\rm shear} = \frac{1}{2}c_b$ (blue).  There are three

4150: distinct phases in the log-linear plot: an early transient phase, a

4151: phase in which the slope most closely matches the exponential growth

4152: rate, and the subsequent nonlinear phase.

4153: \label{kh_still}}

4154: \end{figure}

4155: 

4156: \clearpage

4157: 

4158: \begin{figure}

4159: \plotone{f23.ps}

4160: \caption{Density vs. radius for the core collapse of a 15-M$_{\sun}$ star.  The model is the s15

4161:   model of Weaver \& Woosley.  Density vs. radius for 1D (lines) and

4162:   2D (crosses) at times 0, 70, 110, 130, 140, and 150 ms after the

4163:   start of the calculation.  Core bounce occurs at 148 ms.  The 2D

4164:   grid is composed of a butterfly mesh in the interior with a minimum

4165:   cell size of $\sim$0.5 km and extends to 50 km.  A spherical grid

4166:   extends the domain out to 4000 km.  There are 23,750 cells in total,

4167:   with an effective resolution of $\sim$250 radial and $\sim$100 angular

4168:   zones.  The 1D grid has

4169:   250 zones, with similar resolution to the 2D run at all radii.  For the

4170:   most part, the 1D and 2D calculations track one another quite well.

4171:   There is roughly a $\sim$10\% difference in the shock radii at 150 ms.

4172: \label{cc_rhoplot}}

4173: \end{figure}

4174: 

4175: \clearpage

4176: 

4177: \begin{figure}

4178: \plotone{f24.ps}

4179: \caption{Radial component of the gravitational acceleration during the

4180:   core collapse of a 15-M$_{\sun}$ star.  Similar to

4181:   Fig. \ref{cc_rhoplot}.  Note the good match between the

4182:   1D and 2D results.

4183: \label{cc_gaccplot}}

4184: \end{figure}

4185: 

4186: \clearpage

4187: 

4188: \begin{figure}

4189: \plotone{f25.ps}

4190: \caption{

4191: Angular velocity evolution during the core collapse of a rotating 15-M$_{\sun}$ star.  This test problem was calculated on the same grid

4192:   as in Fig. \ref{cc_rhoplot}. The initial angular velocity profile is

4193:   constant on cylinders and is given by

4194:   $\Omega(r) = 1/(1 + (r/A)^2)$, where $A = 1000$ km and $\Omega_0 =

4195:   2$ radians s$^{-1}$.  As expected, the central

4196:   angular velocity, $\Omega_c$ is proportional to $\rho_c^{2/3}$, where $\rho_c$ is

4197:   the central density.  The central density compresses from

4198:   $\sim$10$^{10}$ g cm$^{-3}$ at $t = 0$ ms to $\sim$2.2 $\times 10^{14}$ g

4199:   cm$^{-3}$ at $t = 160$ ms.  Therefore, at $t = 160$ ms, $\Omega_c$ should be

4200:   $\sim$1600 radians s$^{-1}$, consistent with results shown

4201:   in this figure.  Other than a slight,

4202:   but noticeable, glitch at the location of the shock ($\sim$180 km), the angular velocity

4203:   evolves smoothly with no evidence of axis effects.

4204: \label{cc_angvelplot}}

4205: \end{figure}

4206: 

4207: \end{document}