These aspects are summarized in Table 12 for most of the numerical methods discussed in this review.
Since their introduction in numerical RHD in the early 1990s, Riemann-solver-based HRSC methods have demonstrated their ability to describe accurately (i.e., in a stable way and without excessive smearing) relativistic flows of arbitrarily large Lorentz factors and strong discontinuities reaching the same quality as in classical hydrodynamics. In addition (as it is the case for classical flows, too), HRSC methods show the best performance compared to any other method (e.g., artificial viscosity, FCT or SPH). This last assertion applies also to the symmetric HRSC relativistic algorithms developed recently.
Nevertheless, a lot of effort has been put into improving non-HRSC methods. Using a consistent
formulation of artificial viscosity has significantly enhanced the capability of SPH (e.g., [262])
and of finite difference schemes. A good example of the latter case is the algorithm recently
proposed in [10
], but the 40% overshoot in the post-shock density in Problem 2 confirms the
need for an implicit treatment of the equations as originally proposed by [214
]. Concerning
relativistic SPH, recent investigations using a conservative formulation of the hydrodynamic
equations [53
, 262
, 204
] have reached an unprecedented accuracy compared to previous SPH simulations,
although some issues still remain. Besides the strong smearing of shocks, the description of contact
discontinuities and of thin structures moving at ultra-relativistic speeds needs to be improved (see
Section 6.2).
Concerning FCT, codes based on a conservative formulation of the RHD equations have been able to
handle special relativistic flows with discontinuities at all flow speeds, although the quality of the results is
lower than that of HRSC methods in all cases [257, 245, 247].
The extension to multi-dimensions is straightforward for most relativistic codes. Finite difference
techniques are easily extended using directional splitting. HRSC methods based on exact solutions of the
Riemann problem [181, 295
] benefit from the development of a multi-dimensional relativistic Riemann
solver [235
]. The adaptive grid, artificial viscosity, implicit code of Norman and Winkler [214], and the
relativistic Glimm method of Wen et al. [295
] are restricted to one-dimensional flows. The latter method
produces the best results in all the tests analyzed in Section 6.
The symmetric TVD scheme proposed by Davis [68] and extended to GRMHD (see below) by
Koide et al. [138
] combines several characteristics making it very attractive. It is written in
conservation form and is TVD, i.e., it is converging to the physical solution. In addition, it does not
require spectral information, and hence allows for a simple extension to RMHD. Quite similar
statements can be made about the approach proposed by van Putten [287
]. In contrast to FCT
schemes (which are also easily extended to general systems of equations), both Koide et al.’s
and van Putten’s methods are very stable when simulating mildly relativistic flows (maximum
Lorentz factors
4) with discontinuities. Their only drawback is an excessive smearing of the
latter. Expectations concerning the correct description of ultrarelativistic MHD flows by means
of symmetric TVD schemes may be met in the near future by global third-order symmetric
schemes [72
].
Concerning the extension of Riemann-solver-based HRSC schemes to RMHD, we mention the efforts by
Balsara [14] and Komissarov [143
] in 1D and 2D RMHD (see Section 8.2.4).
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-7 |
© Max Planck Society and the author(s)
Problems/comments to |