Astrophysics and Space Science

, Volume 298, Issue 1–2, pp 25–32 | Cite as

Laboratory Astrophysics Experiments for Simulation Code Validation: A Case Study

  • A. C. CalderEmail author


The growing field of Laboratory Astrophysics seeks to study the extreme environments found in many astrophysical events in the controlled setting of a laboratory. In addition to the opportunity to perform basic research into the nature and properties of materials in astrophysical environments, laboratory astrophysics experiments serve beautifully for validating calculations performed by simulation codes designed to model astrophysical phenomena. I present results from our ongoing validation effort for FLASH, a parallel adaptive-mesh hydrodynamics code for the compressible, reactive flows of astrophysical environments. The first test case is a laser-driven shock propagating though a multilayer target introducing Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov fluid instabilities at the material interfaces. The second is an accelerating fluid interface that is subject to the Rayleigh–Taylor instability. We found good agreement between simulations and experiment for the multilayer target case, but disagreement between experiment and simulation in the Rayleigh–Taylor case. I discuss our findings and possible reasons for the disagreement.


methods numerical hydrodynamics instabilities 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AIAA: 1998, Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations, Report G-077-1998, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston.Google Scholar
  2. Calder, A.C. et al.: 2002, ApJSS 143, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandrasekhar, S.: 1981, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, Dover, New York, p. 428.Google Scholar
  4. Dimonte, G. et al.: 2004, Phys. Fluids 16, 1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dimonte, G. and Schneider, M.: 2000, Phys. Fluids 12, 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fryxell, B. et al.: 2002, ApJSS 131, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kane, J.O. et al.: 2001, Phys. Rev. E 63, 055401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kifonidis, K., Plewa, T., Janka, H.-Th. and Müller, E.: 2000, ApJ Lett. 531, 126.Google Scholar
  9. Richtmyer, R.D.: 1960, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 13, 297.Google Scholar
  10. Roach, P.J.: 1998a, Fundamentals of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Hermosa, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  11. Roach, P.J.: 1998b, Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering, Hermosa, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  12. Weirs, G., Dwarkadas, V., Plewa, T., Tomkins, C. and Mark, M.-L.: 2005, Ap&SS 298, 341.Google Scholar
  13. Youngs, D.L.: 1994, Laser Part. Beams 12, 725.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Astronomy and AstrophysicsThe University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.The Center for Astrophysical Thermonuclear FlashesThe University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations