Comparing Numerical Methods for Isothermal Magnetized Supersonic Turbulence

TL;DR

This paper compares nine astrophysical MHD simulation codes using a turbulence decay benchmark to evaluate their numerical dissipation, accuracy, and convergence, providing guidance for code improvement and selection in star formation modeling.

Contribution

It offers the most comprehensive comparison of MHD codes on an application-like problem, highlighting the importance of high-order accuracy and divergence-free magnetic field evolution.

Findings

High-order spatial reconstruction improves code performance.

Divergence-free magnetic field evolution yields better results.

Codes with less explicit viscosity perform well at lower resolutions.

Abstract

We employ simulations of supersonic super-Alfvenic turbulence decay as a benchmark test problem to assess and compare the performance of nine astrophysical MHD methods actively used to model star formation. The set of nine codes includes: ENZO, FLASH, KT-MHD, LL-MHD, PLUTO, PPML, RAMSES, STAGGER, and ZEUS. We present a comprehensive set of statistical measures designed to quantify the effects of numerical dissipation in these MHD solvers. We compare power spectra for basic fields to determine the effective spectral bandwidth of the methods and rank them based on their relative effective Reynolds numbers. We also compare numerical dissipation for solenoidal and dilatational velocity components to check for possible impacts of the numerics on small-scale density statistics. Finally, we discuss convergence of various characteristics for the turbulence decay test and impacts of various components of numerical schemes on the accuracy of solutions. We show that the best performing codes employ a consistently high order of accuracy for spatial reconstruction of the evolved fields, transverse gradient interpolation, conservation law update step, and Lorentz force computation. The best results are achieved with divergence-free evolution of the magnetic field using the constrained transport method, and using little to no explicit artificial viscosity. Codes which fall short in one or more of these areas are still useful, but they must compensate higher numerical dissipation with higher numerical resolution. This paper is the largest, most comprehensive MHD code comparison on an application-like test problem to date. We hope this work will help developers improve their numerical algorithms while helping users to make informed choices in picking optimal applications for their specific astrophysical problems.