Uniqueness Problem

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 73182 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Siddhartha Gupta - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a numerical approach to the non Uniqueness Problem of cosmic ray two fluid equations at shocks
    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2021
    Co-Authors: Siddhartha Gupta, Prateek Sharma, A Mignone
    Abstract:

    Cosmic rays (CRs) are frequently modeled as an additional fluid in hydrodynamic (HD) and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of astrophysical flows. The standard CR two-fluid model is described in terms of three conservation laws (expressing conservation of mass, momentum and total energy) and one additional equation (for the CR pressure) that cannot be cast in a satisfactory conservative form. The presence of non-conservative terms with spatial derivatives in the model equations prevents a unique weak solution behind a shock. We investigate a number of methods for the numerical solution of the two-fluid equations and find that, in the presence of shock waves, the results generally depend on the numerical details (spatial reconstruction, time stepping, the CFL number, and the adopted discretization). All methods converge to a unique result if the energy partition between the thermal and non-thermal fluids at the shock is prescribed using a subgrid prescription. This highlights the non-Uniqueness Problem of the two-fluid equations at shocks. From our numerical investigations, we report a robust method for which the solutions are insensitive to the numerical details even in absence of a subgrid prescription, although we recommend a subgrid closure at shocks using results from kinetic theory. The subgrid closure is crucial for a reliable post-shock solution and also its impact on large scale flows because the shock microphysics that determines CR acceleration is not accurately captured in a fluid approximation. Critical test Problems, limitations of fluid modeling, and future directions are discussed.

A Mignone - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a numerical approach to the non Uniqueness Problem of cosmic ray two fluid equations at shocks
    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2021
    Co-Authors: Siddhartha Gupta, Prateek Sharma, A Mignone
    Abstract:

    Cosmic rays (CRs) are frequently modeled as an additional fluid in hydrodynamic (HD) and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of astrophysical flows. The standard CR two-fluid model is described in terms of three conservation laws (expressing conservation of mass, momentum and total energy) and one additional equation (for the CR pressure) that cannot be cast in a satisfactory conservative form. The presence of non-conservative terms with spatial derivatives in the model equations prevents a unique weak solution behind a shock. We investigate a number of methods for the numerical solution of the two-fluid equations and find that, in the presence of shock waves, the results generally depend on the numerical details (spatial reconstruction, time stepping, the CFL number, and the adopted discretization). All methods converge to a unique result if the energy partition between the thermal and non-thermal fluids at the shock is prescribed using a subgrid prescription. This highlights the non-Uniqueness Problem of the two-fluid equations at shocks. From our numerical investigations, we report a robust method for which the solutions are insensitive to the numerical details even in absence of a subgrid prescription, although we recommend a subgrid closure at shocks using results from kinetic theory. The subgrid closure is crucial for a reliable post-shock solution and also its impact on large scale flows because the shock microphysics that determines CR acceleration is not accurately captured in a fluid approximation. Critical test Problems, limitations of fluid modeling, and future directions are discussed.

Si Duc Quang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Chunxia Meng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Prateek Sharma - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a numerical approach to the non Uniqueness Problem of cosmic ray two fluid equations at shocks
    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2021
    Co-Authors: Siddhartha Gupta, Prateek Sharma, A Mignone
    Abstract:

    Cosmic rays (CRs) are frequently modeled as an additional fluid in hydrodynamic (HD) and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of astrophysical flows. The standard CR two-fluid model is described in terms of three conservation laws (expressing conservation of mass, momentum and total energy) and one additional equation (for the CR pressure) that cannot be cast in a satisfactory conservative form. The presence of non-conservative terms with spatial derivatives in the model equations prevents a unique weak solution behind a shock. We investigate a number of methods for the numerical solution of the two-fluid equations and find that, in the presence of shock waves, the results generally depend on the numerical details (spatial reconstruction, time stepping, the CFL number, and the adopted discretization). All methods converge to a unique result if the energy partition between the thermal and non-thermal fluids at the shock is prescribed using a subgrid prescription. This highlights the non-Uniqueness Problem of the two-fluid equations at shocks. From our numerical investigations, we report a robust method for which the solutions are insensitive to the numerical details even in absence of a subgrid prescription, although we recommend a subgrid closure at shocks using results from kinetic theory. The subgrid closure is crucial for a reliable post-shock solution and also its impact on large scale flows because the shock microphysics that determines CR acceleration is not accurately captured in a fluid approximation. Critical test Problems, limitations of fluid modeling, and future directions are discussed.