Difference between revisions of "ET Workshop Fall 2011 RAD"
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
** given enough computational power, very accurate | ** given enough computational power, very accurate | ||
** in 3D competitive with other methods in terms of computational needs | ** in 3D competitive with other methods in terms of computational needs | ||
| + | |||
| + | Implementations | ||
| + | * Shibata et al. | ||
| + | ** Leakage | ||
| + | ** Truncated Moment Formalism | ||
| + | * Shapiro et al. | ||
| + | ** Diffusion approximation, grey, 3D | ||
Revision as of 16:07, 2 November 2011
Possibilities
- Leakage scheme
- very ad-hoc
- only mimicks loss due to radiation
- Diffusion equation
- accurate only when mean free path is really short
- almost always implicit to avoid strong CFL limit
- cheap, usually inaccurate
- Flux limited diffusion
- Diffusion + "trick" at lower optical depths
- also simple, and has been used for supernovae simulations
- unclear if working in GR
- limits radiation speed: ad-hoc
- also not very accurate
- Two-Moment-Scheme / Truncated moment scheme
- start with Boltzmann equation
- decompose into moments
- truncate series
- close using some prescription (approximate the rest of the series)
- Full Transport equation
- Full discretization of Boltzmann equation
- extremely complex
- used, e.g., in reactor simulations
- SN/PN discretize equation in different way
- SN not scaling well
- PN might work better
- Monte-Carlo
- no equations, direct simulations
- very simple to implement complicated processes
- more expensive
- given enough computational power, very accurate
- in 3D competitive with other methods in terms of computational needs
Implementations
- Shibata et al.
- Leakage
- Truncated Moment Formalism
- Shapiro et al.
- Diffusion approximation, grey, 3D
