|
||||||||||
Home Astronomy research Software Infrastructure: MESA FLASH-X STARLIB MESA-Web starkiller-astro My instruments White dwarf pulsations: 12C(α,γ) & overshooting Probe of 12C(α,γ)16O Impact of 22Ne Impact of ν cooling Variable white dwarfs MC reaction rates Micronovae Novae White dwarf supernova: Stable nickel production Remnant metallicities Colliding white dwarfs Merging white dwarfs Ignition conditions Metallicity effects Central density effects Detonation density Tracer particle burning Subsonic burning fronts Supersonic fronts W7 profiles Massive stars: Pop III with HST/JWST Rotating progenitors 3D evolution to collapse MC reaction rates Pre-SN variations Massive star supernova: Yields of radionuclides 26Al & 60Fe 44Ti, 60Co & 56Ni SN 1987A light curve Constraints on Ni/Fe An r-process Effects of 12C +12C Neutron Stars and Black Holes: Black Hole spectrum Mass Gap with LVK Compact object IMF He burn neutron stars Neutrino Emission: Neutrino emission from stars Identifying the Pre-SN Neutrino HR diagram Pre-SN Beta Processes Pre-SN neutrinos Stars: Hypatia catalog SAGB stars Nugrid Yields I He shell convection BBFH at 40 years γ-rays within 100 Mpc Iron Pseudocarbynes Pre-Solar Grains: C-rich presolar grains SiC Type U/C grains Grains from massive stars Placing the Sun SiC Presolar grains Chemical Evolution: Radionuclides in 2020s Zone models H to Zn Mixing ejecta Thermodynamics, Opacities & Networks Radiative Opacity Skye EOS Helm EOS Five EOSs Equations of State 12C(α,γ)16O Rate Proton-rich NSE Reaction networks Bayesian reaction rates Verification Problems: Validating an astro code Su-Olson Cog8 Mader RMTV Sedov Noh Software Instruments AAS Journals 2024 AAS YouTube 2024 AAS Peer Review Workshops 2024 ASU Energy in Everyday Life 2024 MESA Classroom Outreach and Education Materials Other Stuff: Bicycle Adventures Illustrations Presentations Contact: F.X.Timmes my one page vitae, full vitae, research statement, and teaching statement. |
Validating Astrophysical Simulation Codes (2004)
Astrophysical simulations model phenomena that can't be fully reproduced terrestrially. Validation then requires carefully devising feasible experiments with the relevant physics. Validation then requires carefully devising feasible experiments with the relevant physics In this article we describe validating simulations against experiments that probe fluid instabilities, nuclear burning, and radiation transport, and then discuss insights from – and the limitations of – these tests.
On Validating an Astrophysical Simulation Code (2002) In this article, we present a case study of validating an astrophysical simulation code. Our study focuses on validating FLASH, a parallel, adaptive-mesh hydrodynamics code for studying the compressible, reactive flows found in many astrophysical environments. We describe the astrophysics problems of interest and the challenges associated with simulating these problems. We describe methodology and discuss solutions to difficulties encountered in verification and validation. We present the results of two validation tests in which we compared simulations to experimental data. The first is of a laser-driven shock propagating through a multilayer target, a configuration subject to both Rayleigh-Taylor and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities. The second test is a classic Rayleigh-Taylor instability, where a heavy fluid is supported against the force of gravity by a light fluid. Our simulations of the multilayer target experiments showed good agreement with the experimental results, but our simulations of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability did not agree well with the experimental results. We discuss our findings and present results of additional simulations undertaken to further investigate the Rayleigh-Taylor instability.
|
|||||||||
|
---|