ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: such amplification is two-fold: partly due to a contribution from vortical flow and partly associated with the enhanced Rayleigh–Taylor instability. The spatial location of the maximum magnetic field is quite near the immediate downstream, indicating that amplified magnetic field could occur in the immediate vicinity of an SNR shock. It is not surprising to see the discrepancy between our results and the results given by Guo et al. ( 2012 ), which could be attributed to the time-dependent effective adiabatic index adopted here. Reproducing such a feature is pivotal, as X-ray thin rims seen in some SNRs, and their coincidence with the inferred shock locations have suggested an amplified magnetic field occurring at or within a short distance to forward shock. The maximum values of density and magnetic field are also obtained under this circumstance. Besides, we also trace the relative positions of contact discontinuity and the derived profiles are consistent with the observational results for two typical Ia SNRs: SN 1006 and Tycho. It is noteworthy that the lowest value of our derived profile in both cases is about 1.02 which seems at odds with suggested value ∼1.0 from X-ray observations (Warren et al. 2005 ; Cassam-Chenaï et al. 2007 , 2008 ; Miceli et al. 2009 ). Meanwhile, we also find no obvious ejecta protrusions which have been identified by several authors both in Tycho and SN 1006 irrespective of their elusive origin (Velázquez et al. 1998 ; Rakowski et al. 2011 ). The foregoing inconsistency indicates us that there may exist alternative scenarios which can further enhance Rayleigh–Taylor instability or even modify the initial ejecta profile, thus reducing the relative positions of contact discontinuity to match observations. As a recent attempt, Ferrand et al. ( 2019 ) have investigated the imprint of an asymmetrical SN Ia explosion on the resulting SNR morphology with a state-of-the-art scheme. The clumpy patterns are clearly seen in their synthetic thermal emission maps and the entire SNR morphology seems very realistic-looking (resembling the X-ray observational results of Tycho). Some Rayleigh–Taylor fingers are even protruding beyond the main forward shock, which is in accord with the findings in Orlando et al. ( 2012 ) where the ejecta clumping serves as an underlying assumption. Moreover, by postprocessing our data, a compared inspection with the case of no acceleration is given. The shock positions, radially averaged magnetic fields, time evolutions of the maximum magnetic field strength, and its relative locations in different circumstances have been depicted. The closer analysis reveals that when consider the turbulent background solely, the forward shock extends but the ripples seem to be less obvious. The maximum radially averaged magnetic field is smaller than the case with efficient acceleration by a factor of about 1.9. Similar conclusion can be drawn for the evolution of the maximum magnetic field strength. As for the