# Enzo-E Methods¶

*[ This page is under development ]*

This section decribes all Methods available in Enzo-E: what they do, what method-specific parameters they have, what fields / particles they access or update, what solvers if any used, and how different Methods are intended to be used with each other.

Current Enzo-E methods available include those listed below.

`"ppm"`

: hydrodynamics¶

This implements the modified piecewise parabolic method (PPM) in Enzo.

### parameters¶

Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
---|---|---|---|

`"density_floor"` |
float | 1.0e-6 | Lower limit on density |

`"diffusion"` |
logical | false | PPM diffusion parameter |

`"dual_energy"` |
logical | false | Whether to use dual-energy formalism |

`"dual_energy_eta_1"` |
float | 0.001 | Dual energy parameter eta 1 |

`"dual_energy_eta_2"` |
float | 0.1 | Dual energy parameter eta 2 |

`"flattening"` |
integer | 3 | PPM flattening parameter |

`"minimum_pressure_support_parameter"` |
integer | 100 | Enzo’s MinimumPressureSupportParameter |

`"number_density_floor"` |
float | 1.0e-6 | Lower limit on number density |

`"pressure_floor"` |
float | 1.0e-6 | Lower limit on pressure |

`"pressure_free"` |
logical | false | Pressure-free flag |

`"steepening"` |
logical | false | PPM steepening parameter |

`"temperature_floor"` |
float | 1.0e-6 | Lower limit on temperature |

`"use_minimum_pressure_support"` |
logical | false | Minimum pressure support |

`"mol_weight"` |
float | 0.6 | Mean molecular mass |

### fields¶

Field | Type | Read/Write | Description |
---|---|---|---|

`"density"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | |

`"velocity_x"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | |

`"velocity_y"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | if rank ≥ 2 |

`"velocity_z"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | if rank ≥ 3 |

`"total_energy"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | |

`"acceleration_x"` |
`enzo_float` |
[r] | if gravity |

`"acceleration_y"` |
`enzo_float` |
[r] | if gravity and rank ≥ 2 |

`"acceleration_z"` |
`enzo_float` |
[r] | if gravity and rank ≥ 3 |

`"pressure"` |
`enzo_float` |
[w] | computed from `total_energy` |

`"ppml"`

: MHD¶

PPML ideal MHD solver

`"mhd_vlct"`

: hydrodynamics/MHD¶

This implements the VL + CT (van Leer + Constrained Transport) unsplit
Godunov method described by Stone & Gardiner (2009)
. This solver operates in 2 modes (designated by the required
`Method:mhd_vlct:mhd_choice`

parameter):

- a pure hydrodynamical mode (it cannot handle magnetic fields)
- a MHD mode.

The algorithm is a predictor-corrector scheme, with attributes similar to the MUSCL-Hancock method. For both modes, the method includes two main steps. First the values are integrated to the half time-step. Then, the values at the half time-step are used to caluclate the change in the quantities over the full time-step.

In the MHD mode, the algorithm is combined with the constrained transport method. The primary representation of the magnetic field, \(\vec{B}\), components are stored in 3 face-centered Cello fields. In more detail:

- \(B_x\) is stored on the x-faces
- \(B_y\) is stored on the y-faces
- \(B_z\) is stored on the z-faces

The method also tracks components of the magnetic fields at the cell-centers, which just store the average of the values from the cell’s faces.

Currently, this method only support 3-dimensional problems. In the future, alternative modes supporting MHD could easily be implemented that use divergence-cleaning schemes instead of constrained transport.

### parameters¶

Note that the courant factor (specified by the `"courant"`

parameter) should be less than 0.5.

Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
---|---|---|---|

`"mhd_choice"` |
string | none | Specifies handling of magnetic fields (or lack thereof) |

`"density_floor"` |
float | none | Lower limit on density (must exceed 0) |

`"pressure_floor"` |
logical | none | Lower limit on thermal pressure (must exceed 0) |

`"riemann_solver"` |
string | hlld | name of the Riemann Solver to use |

`"half_dt_reconstruct_method"` |
string | nn | Reconstruction method for half timestep |

`"full_dt_reconstruct_method"` |
string | plm | Reconstruction method for full timestep |

`"theta_limiter"` |
float | 1.5 | controls dissipation of the “plm”/”plm_enzo” reconstruction method. |

`"dual_energy"` |
logical | false | Whether to use dual-energy formalism |

`"dual_energy_eta"` |
float | 0.001 | Dual energy parameter eta |

### fields¶

Field | Type | Read/Write | Description |
---|---|---|---|

`"density"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | |

`"velocity_x"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | |

`"velocity_y"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | |

`"velocity_z"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | |

`"total_energy"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | specific total energy |

`"bfield_x"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | Cell-centered bfield (average of the corresponding `bfieldi_x` ) |

`"bfield_y"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | Cell-centered bfield (average of the corresponding `bfieldi_y` ) |

`"bfield_z"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | Cell-centered bfield (average of the corresponding `bfieldi_z` ) |

`"bfieldi_x"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | Primary representation of x-component of bfield (lies on x-faces). |

`"bfieldi_y"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | Primary representation of y-component of bfield (lies on y-faces). |

`"bfieldi_z"` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | Primary representation of z-component of bfield (lies on z-faces). |

`"pressure"` |
`enzo_float` |
[w] | computed from `total_energy` (`internal_energy` if dual-energy) |

`internal_energy` |
`enzo_float` |
[rw] | if dual-energy |

In hydro-mode, none of the 6 fields used to store the magnetic field should be defined.

At initialization the face-centered magnetic field should be
divergence free. Trivial configurations (e.g. a constant magnetic
field everywhere) can be provided with the `"value"`

initializer. For non-trivial configurations, we have provide the
`"vlct_bfield"`

initializer which can initialize the magnetic fields
(face-centered and cell-centered) from expression(s) given in the
parameter file for component(s) of the magnetic vector potential.

### dual-energy formalism¶

The implementation of the dual-energy more closely resembles the implementation employed in Enzo’s Runge–Kutta integrator than the original conception used by Enzo’s ppm integrator, (for a description of that implementation, see Bryan et al (1995) ). There are 3 main differences from the original conception:

- internal energy is always used to compute pressure. In the original conception, pressure could be computed from
`total_energy`

or`internal_energy`

(the decision was independent of synchronization).`pressure`

and`internal_energy`

are not separately reconstructed. Instead, just the pressure is reconstructed. The`internal_energy`

is computed at the left and right interfaces from the reconstructed quantities.- Synchronization of the total and internal energies is a local operation that doesn’t require knowledge of cell neighbors. In the original conception, knowledge of the immediate neighbors had been required (each synchronization incremented the stale depth - 3 extra ghost zones would have been required).

For clarity, the conditions for synchronization are provided below. The
specific `internal_energy`

, \(e\), is set to
\(e'= E - (v^2 + B^2/\rho)/2\) (where \(E\) is the specific
`total_energy`

) when the following conditions are met:

- \(c_s'^2 > \eta v^2\), where \(c_s'^2=\gamma(\gamma - 1) e'\).
- \(c_s'^2 > \eta B^2/\rho\) (this is always satisfied in hydro mode)
- \(e' > e /2\)

If the above condition is not met, then `total_energy`

is set to
\(e + (v^2 + B^2/\rho)/2\) in MHD mode (in hydro mode, it’s set to
\(e + v^2/2\)).

When `"dual_energy_eta"`

, is set to `0`

, \(e\) is always set to
`e'`

. This is done to provide support for Grackle (in the future)
without the dual-energy formalism.

*Note: in the future, the behavior described in difference 2, may change
to achieve better compatibility with Grackle.*

### reconstruction¶

This subsection details the available interpolation methods for reconstructing the left and right states of the cell-centered interfaces. Presently, all available methods perform reconstruction on cell-centered primitive quantites, \({\bf w} = (\rho, {\bf v}, p, {\bf B})\)

To simplify the determination of the necessary number of ghost zones for a given combination of reconstruction algorithms on a unigrid mesh, we define the concepts of “stale depth” and “staling rate”. We define a “stale” value as a value that needs to be refreshed. “Stale depth” indicates the number of field entries, starting from the outermost field values on a block, that the region encompassing “stale” values extends over. Every time quantities are updated over a (partial/full) timestep, the stale depth increases. We define the amount by which it increases as the “staling rate” (which depends on the choice of interpolation method).

For a unigrid simulation, the number of required ghost zones is given by the sum of the staling rates for each selected reconstruction method.

We provide the names used to specify each available method in the input file, the associated staling depth, and a brief description.

Name | Staling Depth | Description |
---|---|---|

`"nn"` |
1 | Nearest Neighbor - (1st order) reconstruction of primitives |

`"plm"` or `"plm_enzo"` |
2 | Piecwise Linear Method - (2nd order) reconstruction of
primitives using the slope limiter from Enzo’s Runge–Kutta
integrator. This is tuned by the `"theta_limiter"`
parameter, which must satisfy ```
1 <= "theta_limiter" <=
2
``` . As in Enzo, the default value is 1.5. A value of 1 is the
most dissipative and it is equivalent to the traditional minmod
limiter. A value of 2 is the least dissipative and it
corresponds to an MC limiter (monotized central-difference
limiter). |

`"plm_athena"` |
2 | Piecwise Linear Method - (2nd order) reconstruction of primitives using the slope limiter from Athena (& Athena++). For some primitive variable, \({\bf w}_{i}\), the limited slope is defined in terms of the left- and right-differences: \(\delta{\bf w}_{L,i}={\bf w}_{i}-{\bf w}_{i-1}\) and \(\delta{\bf w}_{R,i}={\bf w}_{i-1}-{\bf w}_{i+1}\). If the signs of the differences don’t match (or at least 1 is 0), then the limited slope is 0. Otherwise the limited slope is the harmonic mean of the differences. |

We provide a few notes about the choice of interpolator for this algorithm:

- The recommended choices of reconstruction algorithms are
`"nn"`

for the half-timestep and then piecewise-linear reconstruction for the full-timestep (most test problems have been run using`plm`

with`theta_limiter=2`

, matching the integrator description in Stone & Gardiner 2009 ). Using`"nn"`

both times also works, however tests show that errors arise when piecewise linear reconstruction is used both times.- It is supposed to be possible to reconstruct the characteristic quantities for this method or to use higher order reconstruction in place of
`"plm"`

- Reconstruction is always performed on the cell-centered magnetic fields. After reconstructing values along a given axis, the values of the reconstructed magnetic field component for that axis are replaced by the face-centered magnetic field values.

### riemann solvers¶

This subsection details the available Riemann Solvers. Currently all available Riemann Solvers are defined to use magnetic fields, however, they all appropriately handle the cases where the magnetic fields are unformly 0. We provide a list of the names used to specify each Riemann Solver in the input file, and a brief description for each of them:

`"hll"`

The HLL approximate Riemann solver with wavespeeds bounds estimated as \(S_L = \min(u_L - a_L, u_R - a_R)\) and \(S_R = \max(u_L + a_L, u_R + a_R)\). This is one of the proposed methods from Davis, 1988, SIAM J. Sci. and Stat. Comput., 9(3), 445–473. The same wavespeed estimator was used in MHD HLL solver implemented for Enzo’s Runge Kutta solver. Currently, this has only been implemented for MHD mode and it will raise an error as it isn’t tested.`"hlle"`

The HLLE approximate Riemann solver - the HLL solver with wavespeed bounds estimated according to Einfeldt, 1988, SJNA, 25(2), 294–318. This method allows the min/max eigenvalues of Roe’s matrix to be wavespeed estimates. For a description of the procedure for MHD quantities, see Stone et al. (2008) . If using an HLL Riemann Solver, this is the recommended choice. Currently, this has only been implemented for MHD mode.`"hllc"`

The HLLC approximate Riemann solver. For an overview see Toro, 2009,Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, Springer-Verlag. This is a solver for hydrodynamical problems that models contact and shear waves. The wavespeed bounds are estimated according to the Einfeldt approach. This can only be used in hydro mode.`"hlld"`

The HLLD approximate Riemann solver described in Miyoshi & Kusano, 2005. JCP, 315, 344. The wavespeed bounds are estimated according to eqn 67 from the paper. This reduces to an HLLC Riemann Solver when magnetic fields are zero (the wavespeed bounds will differ from`"hllc`

). This can only be used in MHD mode.

Note

When the dual-energy formalism is in use, all of the solvers treat the internal energy as a passively advected scalar.

This is not completely self-consistent with the assumptions made by the HLLD solver. Unlike the other HLL-solvers which assume constant pressure in the intermediate regions of the Riemann Fan the HLLD solver assumes constant total pressure. It is unclear whether this causes any problems.

`"pm_deposit"`

: particle-mesh¶

Particle-mesh (“PM”) method component to deposit of field and particle mass into a “total density” field

### parameters¶

Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
---|---|---|---|

`"alpha"` |
float | 0.5 | Deposit mass at time t + alpha * dt |

### fields¶

### particles¶

`"pm_update"`

: particle-mesh¶

Particle-mesh (“PM”) method component to update particle positions given acceleration fields

`"heat"`

: heat equation¶

A sample Method for implementing forward-euler to solve the heat equation.

`"grackle"`

: chemistry/cooling¶

Calls methods provided by the external Grackle 3.0 chemistry and cooling library.

`"comoving_expansion"`

: comoving expansion¶

Adds the comoving expansion terms to the physical variables.

`"turbulence"`

: driving¶

Turbulence driving.

`"gravity"`

: particle-mesh¶

Particle-mesh (“PM”) method component to compute gravitational potential given a total density field, and calculate associated acceleration fields.

`"trace"`

: tracer particles¶

Moves tracer particles given the velocity field.