Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-1

Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics

Rony Keppens
Centre for Plasma-Astrophysics, K.U.Leuven (Belgium)
& FOM-Institute for Plasma Physics ‘Rijnhuizen’
& Astronomical Institute, Utrecht University

Guest lectures at Utrecht University, May-June 2009

With material based on PRINCIPLES OF MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS

by J.P. Goedbloed & S. Poedts (Cambridge University Press, 2004)
and on ADVANCED MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS
by J.P. Goedbloed R.Keppens & S. Poedts (CUP, to appear 2009-2010)
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-2

Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics
 

Overview

• Ideal MHD and conservation laws: general theory for nonlinear conservation laws:
primitive versus conservative formulations; Riemann invariants; illustration for 1.5D
isothermal MHD. Compound waves. TVDLF 1.5D isothermal MHD simulations.

• Riemann problems for full MHD: the good, the bad and the ugly.
• Multi-D MHD: MHD wave anisotropies; ∇ · B = 0 for shock-capturing schemes.
Illustration: Orszag-Tang evolution.
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-3

Conservative versus Primitive formulations:

• system of conservation laws expressed in conservation form:

∂U
+ ∇ · F(U) = 0
∂t
⇒ conservative variables U, fluxes F(U)
• ideal MHD, conservative variables U = (ρ, m, H, B)T
⇒ specific functions of density ρ, velocity v, pressure p, and B
• latter are ‘primitive variables’
⇒ can be any set involving v, B and 2 thermodynamic quantities (internal energy
e, temperature T , specific entropy s, S ≡ pρ−γ = f (s), ln(ρ), . . . )
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-4

Quasi-linear forms

• restrict to 1D, set of conservation laws

∂U
∂t + ∂F(U)
∂x = 0

⇒ n conservative variables U(x, t)

• many equivalent formulations in primitives V(x, t)
⇒ governing equations will have quasi-linear form
∂V
∂t
+ W ∂V
∂x
=0
⇒ square n × n matrix W (V)
• change in variables from U to V
⇒ quantified by transformation matrix
dU = UV dV
⇒ when invertable dV = U−1
V dU
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-5

• start from ∂U
∂t + ∂F(U)
∂x = 0
⇒ exploit flux Jacobian matrix FU
∂U ∂U
+ FU =0
∂t ∂x
⇒ primitive variables V with coefficient matrix W (V) obeys
FU = UV W (V)U−1
V

⇒ similarity relation for matrices FU and W (V)

⇒ identical eigenvalues, related eigenvectors
• eigenvalues computed from
| FU − λpIn |= 0
or
| W − λpIn |= 0
.
⇒ dimensional analysis: λp indicate velocities: characteristic speeds
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-6

• hyperbolic equations: n real eigenvalues λp for p = 1, . . . , n

⇒ corresponding sets of right ~rp and left eigenvectors ~lp from
FU~rp = λp~rp
~lpFU = ~lpλp
• write the set ~rp as columns of matrix R
FUR = RΛ
⇒ diagonal matrix Λ = diag(λ1, . . . , λn)
⇒ eigenvalues always distinct: strictly hyperbolic
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-7

• strictly hyperbolic case: linearly independent right eigenvectors in R

⇒ compute left eigenvectors ~lp by inverting matrix R
⇒ rows of R−1 contain left eigenvectors
⇒ then left and right eigenvectors orthonormal, i.e. ~lq · ~rp = δqp
• Denote R as matrix with right eigenvectors ~rp for W (V) in its columns, then
R = U−1
V R

⇒ left eigenvectors ~lp form rows of

R−1 = R−1 UV
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-8

Riemann Invariants

• may try to find set of variables R for which equations write

∂R ∂R
+Λ =0
∂t ∂x
⇒ Riemann invariants: constant on curves dx = λpdt in (x, t) plane
⇒ latter curves are the characteristics of the hyperbolic PDE
⇒ e.g. full IDEAL MHD has entropy conserved, hence Riemann invariant
∂S
∂t
+ v · ∇S = 0
⇒ S = pρ−γ remains constant through fast/slow rarefactions
• n-component system has several characteristic speeds:
⇒ introduce generalized Riemann invariants
dUi dUj
p = p for i 6= j ∈ {1, . . . , n}
~ri ~rj
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-9


Example: 1.5D Isothermal MHD

• isothermal MHD: for plasma at fixed, uniform temperature

⇒ justified in various astrophysical contexts, when cooling time very short com-
pared to all other dynamical time scales
⇒ in dilute environments with irradiation from star
⇒ relax energy conservation
• Restrict to 1D MHD, ∇ · B = 0 turns Bx parameter
∂
⇒ 1.5D means including By (x), vy (x) for ∂y =0
⇒ isothermal: p = c2i ρ, squared isothermal sound speed c2i
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-10

• 1.5D isothermal MHD in conservation form:

   mx
  
ρ 0
m2x 2 2 Bx2 +By2
 mx   − Bx + ci ρ + 2 0

 + ρ 
=
mx my
 
 my   0
ρ − Bx By

 
By t m 0
By mρx − Bx ρy
x
• primitive formulation
  
vx ρ 0 0
 
 
ρ ρ 0
c2i By
 vx  
 + ρ vx 0 ρ   vx 
 0
  = 
 vy    0 0 vx − Bρx  vy 0
  
By t 0 By −Bx vx By x 0

⇒ eigenvalues for FU and matrix W (V) found to be

λ1 = vx − cf λ2 = vx − cs
λ3 = vx + cs λ4 = vx + cf
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-11

• introduces slow cs and fast cf magnetoacoustic speeds computed from

! s
B 2
+ B 2
B 2 + B2 2
Bx2
 
2 1 2 x y 1 2 x y 2
cf,s = ci + ± ci + − 4ci
2 ρ 2 ρ ρ
⇒ some of the 4 eigenvalues coincide in certain limits
⇒ non-strictly hyperbolic system!
• right eigenvectors ~rp for Jacobian matrix FU in columns
 
1 1 1 1
 vx − cf vx − cs vx + cs vx + cf 
 cf Bx By cs Bx By cs BxBy cf Bx By

R= v + v + v −
 y ρc2f −Bx2 y ρc2s −Bx2 y ρc2s −Bx2 y ρc2f −Bx2 v − 

c2 By c2 B c2 B c2 By
 
f s y s y f
2
ρcf −Bx2 ρcs −Bx2
2 ρcs −Bx2
2 2
ρcf −Bx2

⇒ note indeterminacies where ρc2s,f = Bx2

⇒ left eigenvectors of FU in rows of R−1
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-12

• primitive variable formulation: right eigenvectors

 
1 1 1 1
 −f c cs cs c
 ρ − ρ ρ ρ
f 

R= c B B c B B c B B c Bx By
 f
2
x y s
2
x
ρ ρcf −Bx ρ ρcs −Bx
2
y
2 − s
2
x
ρ ρcs −Bx
y
2 − f
ρ ρc2f −Bx2


 c2 B 2 2 c2 B

f y cs By cs By f y
ρc2f −Bx2 ρc2s −Bx2 ρc2s −Bx2 ρc2f −Bx2

⇒ left eigenvectors from R−1

• Use columns in R to derive generalized Riemann invariants
⇒ for the wave family associated with λ1 = vx − cf find
cf dρ + ρ dvx = 0
Bx(c2f − c2i ) dvx + By c2f dvy = 0
ρcf dvy − Bx dBy = 0
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-13

• 3 generalized Riemann invariants per wave family, integrate equations as above

⇒ some in closed form
⇒ fast and slow magnetoacoustic RIs (not involving vx, vy )
ρc4i
2
 
2
−cs,f + B 2 cs,f − ci 2 2 2
 c s,f − c i

Js,f = 2 x
+ − 2 ln
 
cs,f − c2i c2s,f  c2s,f 
 

⇒ used later to verify correctness of numerical solutions!

Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-14


Compound waves

• flux f (u) in scalar conservation law convex when f ′′(u) has same sign everywhere
⇒ true for Burgers equation with flux function f (u) = u2/2
⇒ f (u) ≡ u3 then f ′′(u) = 6u changes sign at u = 0
⇒ characteristic speed is locally f ′(u) = 3u2
⇒ third possible outcome for Riemann problem!
• (x, t)-schematic: 3 outcomes Riemann problem for nonconvex law

Compound wave Shock Rarefaction

⇒ we will see that MHD allows for shocks, rarefactions, and compound
waves in both fast and slow wave families!
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-15

• simulate with TVDLF 3 Riemann problems for non-convex problem f (u) = u3

⇒ choose initial left-right states leading to compound/shock/rarefaction
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-16

TVDLF simulations for 1.5D isothermal MHD

• numerically solve Riemann problems for 1.5D isothermal MHD

• Test 1: unit domain, discontinuity at x = 0.4 separates
Vl = (1, 0, 0, 1) Vr = (0.125, 0, 0, −1)
⇒ parameters Bx = 0.75 and c2i = 1
• simulate till t = 0.15
⇒ leftgoing fast rarefaction, a slow compound wave (shock with rarefaction wave
attached to it), a rightgoing slow shock and fast rarefaction
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-17

• now verify: plot fast and slow magnetoacoustic Riemann invariants

⇒ fast invariant stays constant through fast rarefactions
⇒ slow invariant constant through rarefaction part of the slow compound wave
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-18

• Test 2: discontinuity at x = 0.3, states Vl = (1, 0, 0, −1) and Vr = (1, 2.5, 2.5, −1)
⇒ parameters Bx = 1 and c2i = 1, generate solution up to t = 0.15
• simulate till t = 0.15
⇒ fast compound wave, two slow rarefaction waves, fast compound wave
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-19

• now verify: plot fast and slow magnetoacoustic Riemann invariants

⇒ fast invariant stays constant through fast rarefaction parts
⇒ slow invariant constant through slow rarefactions
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-20

• Alfvén waves in zero-beta plasma

⇒ density ρ = 1, pulse in transverse velocity vy = 0.001 at x ∈ [1, 2]
⇒ pulse splits into 2 equal sized Alfvén signals

⇒ propagation and polarization in accord with linear shear Alfvén wave

Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-21

• Recall: 1.5D isothermal MHD system (subset of full MHD!)

⇒ Riemann problem gives rise to 4 wave signals, typically
• showed that fast or slow can be: shock/rarefaction/compound
⇒ also allow for the case where 1 or more wave is absent: 44 = 256 outcomes
• Exact nonlinear Riemann solver practically impossible
⇒ in 1D MHD, three more equations ⇒ 3 more waves!
⇒ eigenvalues for Jacobian FU
v x − c f , v x − bx , v x − c s , v x , v x + c s , v x + bx , v x + c f
√
⇒ slow, fast magnetoacoustic speeds, flow speed vx, Alfvén speed bx = |Bx|/ ρ
⇒ wave speed degeneracies: e.g. when Bx = 0: both Alfvén and slow pairs
collapse: quintuple umbilic point vx.
⇒ MHD is not strictly hyperbolic
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-22

• true nonlinear MHD Riemann solver

⇒ exploits both RH relations, and differential equations for integral curves
⇒ needs to handle special cases (degeneracies: umbilic points)
• overall outcome schematically: up to 7 wave speeds
⇒ x − t sketch of Riemann problem
v-c s
v v+cs
v-c a
v+ca

v-c f
v+cf

x
⇒ slow/fast signals could be shocks or rarefactions, compound waves
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-23


1D MHD simulations: the good

• use approximate Riemann solver scheme: compute Riemann problems

⇒ system including all vector components: 7 wave speeds
• entropy disturbances advected at flow speed vx
⇒ density/entropy/temperature jump (Contact Discontinuity)
√
• Alfvén signals traveling at vx ± Bx/ ρ ≡ vx ± bx
⇒ non-compressive disturbances in tangential vector components
• slow and fast compressive magneto-acoustic signals vx ± cf,s
 s 
2 2 2 2

2 1 γp + B γp + B γp Bx
cs,f =  ∓ −4 
2 ρ ρ ρ ρ

• ordered cs ≤ bx ≤ cf
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-24

• Test 1: from Torrilhon, J.Plasma Phys. 2003

⇒ left state Vl = (3, 0, 0, 0, 3, 1, 0) right state Vr (1, 0, 0, 0, 1, cos(1.5), sin(1.5))
⇒ take γ = 5/3 and Bx = 3/2, evolve till t = 0.38

⇒ fast rarefaction, rotational discontinuity, slow rarefaction, contact discontinuity,

slow shock, rotational discontinuity, fast shock.
⇒ entropy invariant fast/slow rarefactions, Alfvén discontinuities
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-25

• Test 2: take γ = 5/3 and B̄1 = 1, simulate till t = 80

(ρ, v1, v2, v3, p, B2, B3)L = (0.5, 0, 1, 0.1, 1, 2.5, 0)

(ρ, v1, v2, v3, p, B2, B3)R = (0.1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 2, 0)

⇒ density and v3 at t = 80: FR – A – SR – CD – SS – A – FS
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-26

• Can do planar MHD problems: 1.5D variables (ρ, ρv1, ρv2, H, B1, B2)
⇒ problem reduces to
 
  m1
ρ m21 2 m21 +m22 B̄12 +B22
 m1  

ρ − B̄1 + (γ − 1)H − (γ − 1) 2ρ + (2 − γ) 2


m1 m2
− B̄ B
   
 m2  +  ρ 1 2
  =0
2 2 2 2
   
m +m B̄ +B
 H   1 γH − (γ − 1) 1 2 + (2 − γ) 1 2 − B̄ (B̄ 1 + B 2 ) 
m m m
 ρ 2ρ 2 1 1 ρ 2 ρ 
B2 t
B2 mρ1 − B̄1 mρ2
x

⇒ 5-component PDE system, constants γ and B̄1

⇒ at most 5 waves in Riemann fan
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-27

• Test 3: Riemann problem γ = 5/3 and B̄1 = 2 separating

(ρ, v1, v2, p, B2)L = (0.5, 0, 2, 10, 2.5)
(ρ, v1, v2, p, B2)R = (0.1, −10, 0, 0.1, 2)

⇒ FR – SR – CD – SS – FS, shown at time t = 30

Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-28

• Test 4: Brio-Wu Riemann problem with γ = 2 and B̄1 = 0.75

⇒ plasma at rest with (ρ, p, B2)L = (1, 1, 1) and right state (0.125, 0.1, −1)

⇒ FR – slow compound wave – CD – SS – FR, shown at time t = 0.1

Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-29

1D MHD simulations: the bad

• 1D MHD still poses numerical challenges to modern schemes

⇒ Torrilhon, JCP 2003: non-coplanar RP with unique, regular solution
⇒ Vl = (1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0) and Vr = (0.2, 0, 0, 0, 0.2, cos(3), sin(3))
⇒ unique exact solution: FR, A, SS, CD, SS, A, FR
• all modern methods pseudo-converge to wrong solution containing a compound wave
for up to several 1000 grid points

⇒ true convergence to exact, regular solution: grid-adaptivity.

Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-30


1D MHD simulations: the ugly

• And what for non-conservative formulations?

⇒ redo Test 3 (from Falle, ApJ 577, 2002)
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-31

• Modern schemes may fail (numerical instabilities!)

⇒ catalogue of flaws inherent to characteristic based schemes
⇒ James Quirk, Inter. J. for Numer. Meth. Fluids 18, 555 (1994)
• known problems in computing Euler (HD) flows in 1D, 2D and 3D
⇒ many unknown failures for (M)HD simulations, lots of cures exist!
• conservation form stresses conservative variables (ρ, m, H, B)
⇒ need primitive variables (ρ, v, p, B) to calculate fluxes
⇒ typically, no guarantee to have positive pressure
• HD: kinetic energy ≫ thermal energy (very high Mach M = v/cs ≫ 1)
• MHD: dominant kinetic energy or magnetic energy (low β = 2p/B 2)
• possible remedies
⇒ switch to more diffusive limiter (minmod)
⇒ switch to more diffusive scheme (Roe → TVDLF)
⇒ use ‘pressure correction’: add (minute) thermal energy locally
• latter remedy destroys overall conservation!
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-32

Multi-D MHD and ∇ · B = 0

• multi-D MHD and MHD wave anisotropies

• dimensionality > 1 → non-trivial ∇ · B = 0 constraint
⇒ even if satisfied exactly t = 0: can numerically generate ∇ · B 6= 0
⇒ due to non-linearities of shock-capturing numerical methods
⇒ ∇ · B 6= 0 build-up ⇒ numerical instability (+ physical nonsense)
⇒ need to control this somehow
• strategies for ∇ · B = 0
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-33


MHD wave signals

• locally (δ -function) perturb homogeneous magnetized plasma at rest

⇒ take γ = 5/3, ρ = 1, pth = 0.6 and B = 0.9êx (c = 1, b = 0.9)
⇒ simulate on (x, y) ∈ [−0.5, 0.5]2 in 2.5D MHD (include vz , Bz )
⇒ perturb at origin with δρ = 0.1, δvz = 0.01 and δpth = 0.06
⇒ MHD counterpart of ‘throwing a stone in a puddle’

⇒ entropy, total pressure, Bz at finite time

Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-34

 

 ∇·B=0 

• physically: only exact solenoidal field is allowed

⇒ numerics: discretization error + machine precision unavoidable
• conservative form of momentum equation:
⇒ uses divergence of Maxwell stress tensor
⇒ equal to Lorentz force IF ∇ · B = 0 since
 2 
B
∇· I − BB = −(∇ × B) × B − B (∇ · B)
2
⇒ force orthogonal to B if solenoidal field
• would like discrete ∇ · B = 0, orthogonal Lorentz force, conservative form
⇒ difficult to satisfy all demands simultaneously
⇒ but possible, cfr. Tóth JCP 182, 346 (2002)!!!
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-35


Vector potential

• rewrite MHD equations in terms of vector potential A defined from

B=∇×A
⇒ keeps ∇ · B = 0 exactly analytically
⇒ still need discrete ∇ · (∇ × .) = 0
⇒ increases order of occuring spatial derivatives (accuracy loss)
⇒ Boundary Conditions on A not always straightforward
⇒ ‘conflicts’ with characteristic based solvers using B
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-36


Projection scheme

• sufficient to control numerical value of ∇ · B

⇒ enforce constraint in particular discretization to given accuracy
• Take corrective action by ‘projection scheme’ [Brackbill & Barnes 1980]
⇒ scheme yields B∗ with ∇ · B∗ 6= 0
⇒ correct to solenoidal B = B∗ − ∇φ, solve
∇2φ = ∇ · B∗
⇒ Poisson eqn., solve by (iterative) scheme up to desired accuracy
⇒ projects B∗ on subspace of zero divergence solutions
⇒ no change in current density
• accuracy: does not need to be machine precision!
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-37

Powell source terms

• solution ok up to truncation error: same goes for ∇ · B = 0

⇒ maintaining constraint to truncation error is sufficient
• system of 8 PDEs for ideal MHD equations in conservation form
⇒ not Galilean invariant
⇒ 8 × 8 system has eigenvalues zero, and v , v ± cs, v ± b, v ± cf
⇒ spurious eigenvalue which conflicts with constraint ∇ · B = 0
⇒ carries a jump in normal (to cell edge) component of B
• restore Galilean invariance by writing system as
Ut + (∇ · F) = S
⇒ sources S = (Sρ, Sρv , Se, SB ) proportional to ∇ · B
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-38

• Powell suggests following sources:

 
0
 −(∇ · B)B 
 
 −(∇ · B)B · v 
−(∇ · B)v
⇒ restore Galilean invariance, replace zero with extra v eigenvalue
⇒ introduces ‘8-wave’ approximate Riemann solver
• induction equation with source term
∂B
+ ∇ · (vB − Bv) = −v(∇ · B)
∂t
⇒ equivalent to evolution equation for ∇ · B given by
∂∇ · B
+ ∇ · (v(∇ · B)) = 0
∂t
⇒ passively convected scalar field ∇ · B/ρ
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-39


Constrained Transport

• enforce ∇ · B = 0 in one particular discretization

⇒ kept zero to machine precision in one discretization
⇒ note: CT does not ensure ∇ · B = 0 in any other discretization!
⇒ must have initial field with zero ∇ · B in chosen discretization
⇒ must have BCs compatible with zero ∇ · B in chosen discretization
• typical CT approaches employ staggered magnetic field representation
⇒ with ρ, H at cell center, take B at cell edges
⇒ fluxes in induction eqn at cell vertex (corners), ∇ · B cell centered
• Evans & Hawley CT: magnetic field components on cell interfaces
⇒ 2D: electric field Ez ≡ Ω = −(v × B)z at cell corners
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-40

• update cell interface B = (B x, B y ) from induction equation as

x,n+1 x,n
Bj+1/2,k − Bj+1/2,k Ωj+1/2,k+1/2 − Ωj+1/2,k−1/2
=−
∆t ∆y
y,n+1 y,n
Bj,k+1/2 − Bj,k+1/2 Ωj+1/2,k+1/2 − Ωj−1/2,k+1/2
=+
∆t ∆x
• then ∇ · Bn+1 = 0 if ∇ · Bn = 0 with
x x y y
Bj+1/2,k − Bj−1/2,k Bj,k+1/2 − Bj,k−1/2
(∇ · B)j,k = +
∆x ∆y

y
Ω b Ω

x x
b .b b

Ω b
y
Ω
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-41

Diffusive treatment

• add diffusion type source terms to energy/induction equation

⇒ diffuse ∇ · B errors at maximal rate
⇒ maximal rate = allowed by unchanged CFL condition
⇒ for parabolic equation
∂B
= ηD ∇2B get CFL constraint ∆t < ∆x2/ηD
∂t
⇒ take ηD ∝ ∆x2 and use sources
 
0
 0 
 B · Cd∆x2∇(∇ · B) 
 
Cd∆x2∇(∇ · B)
⇒ diffusion coefficient Cd ≈ 0.2
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-42

Numerical tests

• taken from Tóth (2000): 7 strategies on 9 2D MHD tests

⇒ fair comparison: same (approximate Riemann solver) base scheme
⇒ ‘best’ strategy is projection/field-CD/flux-CT scheme
⇒ need a strategy for ∇ · B, usually does not matter too much which
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-43

• 2D rotated shock tube: 1D Riemann problem in 2D rotated over angle

⇒ must maintain constant Bk (parallel to shock tube direction)

⇒ RH violation by Powell source terms

Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-44

• Orszag-Tang (1979) MHD vortex simulation (Picone & Dahlburg 1991)

⇒ 2D domain [0, 2π]2 with double periodic sides
⇒ t = 0 uniform ρ = 25/9, p = 5/3, velocity vortex = (− sin y, sin x)

⇒ magnetic islands 6= horizontal wavelength B = (− sin y, sin 2x)

⇒ with γ = 5/3: Mach 1 flow conditions

⇒ mimics evolution to compressible (supersonic) MHD turbulence
Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-45

• Orszag-Tang vortex problem, temperature at t = 3.14

Numerical Magnetohydrodynamics CMFD-46

Some references for ∇ · B

• G. Tóth, J. Comp. Phys. 161, 605 (2000)

• K.G. Powell et al., J. Comp. Phys. 154, 284 (1999)
• P.J. Dellar, J. Comp. Phys. 172, 392 (2001)
• P. Janhunen, J. Comp. Phys. 160, 649 (2000)
• G. Tóth, J. Comp. Phys. 182, 346 (2002)
• J.U. Brackbill, D.C. Barnes, J. Comp. Phys. 35, 426 (1980)
• A. Dedner et al., J. Comp. Phys. 175, 645 (2002)
• W. Dai, P.R. Woodward, Astrophysical Journal 494, 317 (1998)
• C.R. Evans, J.F. Hawley, Astrophysical Journal 332, 659 (1988)