<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Dear FLASH community,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="m_6055753200755198736gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>I have been trying to find the cause of a refinement boundary problem when using USM solver in cartesian 3D simulations. The problem appears as the accumulation of magnetic fields at the finer edge at the refinement boundary. I am not sure how to reproduce
the problem in a simple setting, but this seems to be prevalent in the simulations that I have been running. Usually, the anomalies dissipated after many timesteps and went unnoticed. However, it occasionally causes a few cells to drop to extremely small or
even negative density and crashes the simulation. I am wondering if anyone has seen similar behaviors.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here is a snapshot showing the By field in x-y plane. The quiver arrows indicate the fluid velocity.<br>
</div>
<div>
<div><img src="cid:ii_jtpy5byy0" alt="Group_L438_hdf5_plt_cnt_0339_Slice_z_magnetic_field_y.png" style="margin-right:0px" width="440" height="373">
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Some relavent parameters I used: RiemannSolver="Hybrid", order=3, slopelimiter="mc", CFL=0.4, energfix = .true.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="m_6055753200755198736gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>A few solutions that I have tried:</div>
<div>1. Lower CFL to 0.2 <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="m_6055753200755198736gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>-> does not help</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="m_6055753200755198736gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>2. Use E_upwind = .true. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="m_6055753200755198736gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>-> Enabling upwind scheme for E fields does seem to lower the frequency that the anomaly happens, but does not get rid of the problem completely.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="m_6055753200755198736gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>3. Refine or derefine the neighboring block to make the interface <span class="m_6055753200755198736gmail-gr_ m_6055753200755198736gmail-gr_21 m_6055753200755198736gmail-gr-alert m_6055753200755198736gmail-gr_gramm m_6055753200755198736gmail-gr_inline_cards m_6055753200755198736gmail-gr_disable_anim_appear m_6055753200755198736gmail-Punctuation m_6055753200755198736gmail-only-ins m_6055753200755198736gmail-replaceWithoutSep" id="m_6055753200755198736gmail-21" style="display:inline;border-bottom:2px solid transparent;background-repeat:no-repeat;color:inherit;font-size:inherit">not</span> at
the coarse-fine block boundary. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="m_6055753200755198736gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>-> This does prevent or dissipate the anomaly but does not seem to be a good general solution and I don't know how to identify the problem block on the fly.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A similar problem was discussed on the mailing list in 2016, although I am not sure the problem is the same.</div>
<div><a href="http://flash.uchicago.edu/pipermail/flash-users/2016-May/001962.html" target="_blank">http://flash.uchicago.edu/pipermail/flash-users/2016-May/001962.html</a></div>
<div>Following the discussion there, I found that the interpolation method for face-center variables in guardcells is set by
<font face="monospace, monospace">interp_mask_face[x,y,z]</font>. They are initialized to be 1 (linear) in
<font face="monospace, monospace">amr_initialize.F90</font>. During the creation of new child blocks, they are temporarily set to 0 (if prolMethod="injection_prol" as default) in <font face="monospace, monospace">Simulation_customizeProlong.F90</font>, and
are reverted to the old value after the prolongation.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have two questions here:</div>
<div>1. Why does FLASH use two different interpolation methods during (a) prolongation, or the creation of child blocks, and (b) guardcell filling from coarse to fine block? In the discussion linked above, it was mentioned that using different treatments was
based on experience with applications. I would like to learn more about this if possible.</div>
<div>2. It appears to me that the direct injection (0th order) is used in prolongation because it simply preserves the divergence-free nature of the B fields. I am not sure, but I suspect linear interpolation does not always preserve the divergence-free fields.
Thus, wouldn't it be a problem using linear interpolation for guardcell filling?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Any suggestions or possible directions to look into are very much appreciated.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best Regards,</div>
<div>Yi-Hao</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>