Code Comparison in Galaxy-scale Simulations with Resolved Supernova Feedback: Lagrangian versus Eulerian Methods
We present a suite of high-resolution simulations of an isolated dwarf galaxy using four different hydrodynamical codes: Gizmo , Arepo , Gadget , and Ramses . All codes adopt the same physical model, which includes radiative cooling, photoelectric heating, star formation, and supernova (SN) feedback...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
IOP Publishing
2023-01-01
|
| Series: | The Astrophysical Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/accf9e |
| _version_ | 1797699383557357568 |
|---|---|
| author | Chia-Yu Hu Matthew C. Smith Romain Teyssier Greg L. Bryan Robbert Verbeke Andrew Emerick Rachel S. Somerville Blakesley Burkhart Yuan Li John C. Forbes Tjitske Starkenburg |
| author_facet | Chia-Yu Hu Matthew C. Smith Romain Teyssier Greg L. Bryan Robbert Verbeke Andrew Emerick Rachel S. Somerville Blakesley Burkhart Yuan Li John C. Forbes Tjitske Starkenburg |
| author_sort | Chia-Yu Hu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | We present a suite of high-resolution simulations of an isolated dwarf galaxy using four different hydrodynamical codes: Gizmo , Arepo , Gadget , and Ramses . All codes adopt the same physical model, which includes radiative cooling, photoelectric heating, star formation, and supernova (SN) feedback. Individual SN explosions are directly resolved without resorting to subgrid models, eliminating one of the major uncertainties in cosmological simulations. We find reasonable agreement on the time-averaged star formation rates as well as the joint density–temperature distributions between all codes. However, the Lagrangian codes show significantly burstier star formation, larger SN-driven bubbles, and stronger galactic outflows compared to the Eulerian code. This is caused by the behavior in the dense, collapsing gas clouds when the Jeans length becomes unresolved: Gas in Lagrangian codes collapses to much higher densities than that in Eulerian codes, as the latter is stabilized by the minimal cell size. Therefore, more of the gas cloud is converted to stars and SNe are much more clustered in the Lagrangian models, amplifying their dynamical impact. The differences between Lagrangian and Eulerian codes can be reduced by adopting a higher star formation efficiency in Eulerian codes, which significantly enhances SN clustering in the latter. Adopting a zero SN delay time reduces burstiness in all codes, resulting in vanishing outflows as SN clustering is suppressed. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T04:07:14Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e587e99edbf04272b834ea55a32790bc |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1538-4357 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T04:07:14Z |
| publishDate | 2023-01-01 |
| publisher | IOP Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | The Astrophysical Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-e587e99edbf04272b834ea55a32790bc2023-09-03T11:16:54ZengIOP PublishingThe Astrophysical Journal1538-43572023-01-01950213210.3847/1538-4357/accf9eCode Comparison in Galaxy-scale Simulations with Resolved Supernova Feedback: Lagrangian versus Eulerian MethodsChia-Yu Hu0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9235-3529Matthew C. Smith1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9849-877XRomain Teyssier2https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7689-0933Greg L. Bryan3https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2630-9228Robbert Verbeke4Andrew Emerick5https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2807-328XRachel S. Somerville6https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6748-6821Blakesley Burkhart7https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5817-5944Yuan Li8https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5262-6150John C. Forbes9https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1975-4449Tjitske Starkenburg10https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2539-8206Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik , Giessenbachstrasse 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany ; cyhu.astro@gmail.comUniversität Heidelberg, Zentrum für Astronomie, Institut für theoretische Astrophysik , Albert-Ueberle-Str. 2, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany; Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie , Königstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, GermanyDepartment of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University , Princeton, NJ 08544, USACenter for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute , 162 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA; Department of Astronomy, Columbia University , Pupin Physics Laboratories, New York, NY 10027, USAInstitute for Computational Science, University of Zurich , Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, SwitzerlandDepartment of Astronomy, Columbia University , Pupin Physics Laboratories, New York, NY 10027, USACenter for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute , 162 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USACenter for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute , 162 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University , 136 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USADepartment of Physics, University of North Texas , Denton, TX 76203, USACenter for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute , 162 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USACenter for Interdisciplinary Exploration and Research in Astrophysics (CIERA) and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University , 1800 Sherman Avenue, Evanston, IL 60201, USAWe present a suite of high-resolution simulations of an isolated dwarf galaxy using four different hydrodynamical codes: Gizmo , Arepo , Gadget , and Ramses . All codes adopt the same physical model, which includes radiative cooling, photoelectric heating, star formation, and supernova (SN) feedback. Individual SN explosions are directly resolved without resorting to subgrid models, eliminating one of the major uncertainties in cosmological simulations. We find reasonable agreement on the time-averaged star formation rates as well as the joint density–temperature distributions between all codes. However, the Lagrangian codes show significantly burstier star formation, larger SN-driven bubbles, and stronger galactic outflows compared to the Eulerian code. This is caused by the behavior in the dense, collapsing gas clouds when the Jeans length becomes unresolved: Gas in Lagrangian codes collapses to much higher densities than that in Eulerian codes, as the latter is stabilized by the minimal cell size. Therefore, more of the gas cloud is converted to stars and SNe are much more clustered in the Lagrangian models, amplifying their dynamical impact. The differences between Lagrangian and Eulerian codes can be reduced by adopting a higher star formation efficiency in Eulerian codes, which significantly enhances SN clustering in the latter. Adopting a zero SN delay time reduces burstiness in all codes, resulting in vanishing outflows as SN clustering is suppressed.https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/accf9eGalaxy formationStellar feedbackHydrodynamical simulations |
| spellingShingle | Chia-Yu Hu Matthew C. Smith Romain Teyssier Greg L. Bryan Robbert Verbeke Andrew Emerick Rachel S. Somerville Blakesley Burkhart Yuan Li John C. Forbes Tjitske Starkenburg Code Comparison in Galaxy-scale Simulations with Resolved Supernova Feedback: Lagrangian versus Eulerian Methods The Astrophysical Journal Galaxy formation Stellar feedback Hydrodynamical simulations |
| title | Code Comparison in Galaxy-scale Simulations with Resolved Supernova Feedback: Lagrangian versus Eulerian Methods |
| title_full | Code Comparison in Galaxy-scale Simulations with Resolved Supernova Feedback: Lagrangian versus Eulerian Methods |
| title_fullStr | Code Comparison in Galaxy-scale Simulations with Resolved Supernova Feedback: Lagrangian versus Eulerian Methods |
| title_full_unstemmed | Code Comparison in Galaxy-scale Simulations with Resolved Supernova Feedback: Lagrangian versus Eulerian Methods |
| title_short | Code Comparison in Galaxy-scale Simulations with Resolved Supernova Feedback: Lagrangian versus Eulerian Methods |
| title_sort | code comparison in galaxy scale simulations with resolved supernova feedback lagrangian versus eulerian methods |
| topic | Galaxy formation Stellar feedback Hydrodynamical simulations |
| url | https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/accf9e |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT chiayuhu codecomparisoningalaxyscalesimulationswithresolvedsupernovafeedbacklagrangianversuseulerianmethods AT matthewcsmith codecomparisoningalaxyscalesimulationswithresolvedsupernovafeedbacklagrangianversuseulerianmethods AT romainteyssier codecomparisoningalaxyscalesimulationswithresolvedsupernovafeedbacklagrangianversuseulerianmethods AT greglbryan codecomparisoningalaxyscalesimulationswithresolvedsupernovafeedbacklagrangianversuseulerianmethods AT robbertverbeke codecomparisoningalaxyscalesimulationswithresolvedsupernovafeedbacklagrangianversuseulerianmethods AT andrewemerick codecomparisoningalaxyscalesimulationswithresolvedsupernovafeedbacklagrangianversuseulerianmethods AT rachelssomerville codecomparisoningalaxyscalesimulationswithresolvedsupernovafeedbacklagrangianversuseulerianmethods AT blakesleyburkhart codecomparisoningalaxyscalesimulationswithresolvedsupernovafeedbacklagrangianversuseulerianmethods AT yuanli codecomparisoningalaxyscalesimulationswithresolvedsupernovafeedbacklagrangianversuseulerianmethods AT johncforbes codecomparisoningalaxyscalesimulationswithresolvedsupernovafeedbacklagrangianversuseulerianmethods AT tjitskestarkenburg codecomparisoningalaxyscalesimulationswithresolvedsupernovafeedbacklagrangianversuseulerianmethods |