4.7 Article

Common envelope evolution on the asymptotic giant branch: unbinding within a decade?

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 495, Issue 4, Pages 4028-4039

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa1273

Keywords

hydrodynamics; stars: AGB and post-AGB; binaries: close; stars: kinematics and dynamics; stars: mass-loss; stars: winds, outflows

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [AST-1515648, AST-181329, ACI-1548562]
  2. Department of Energy [DE-SC0001063]
  3. Space Telescope Science Institute [HST-AR-12832.01-A]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0001063] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Common envelope (CE) evolution is a critical but still poorly understood progenitor phase of many high-energy astrophysical phenomena. Although 3D global hydrodynamic CE simulations have become more common in recent years, those involving an asymptotic giant branch (AGB) primary are scarce, due to the high computational cost from the larger dynamical range compared to red giant branch (RGB) primaries. But CE evolution with AGB progenitors is desirable to simulate because such events are the likely progenitors of most bi-polar planetary nebulae (PNe), and prominent observational testing grounds for CE physics. Here we present a high-resolution global simulation of CE evolution involving an AGB primary and 1-M-circle dot secondary, evolved for 20 orbital revolutions. During the last 16 of these orbits, the envelope unbinds at an almost constant rate of about 0.1-0.2M(circle dot) yr(-1). If this rate were maintained, the envelope would be unbound in less than 10 yr. The dominant source of this unbinding is consistent with inspiral; we assess the influence of the ambient medium to be subdominant. We compare this run with a previous run that used an RGB phase primary evolved from the same 2-M-circle dot main-sequence star to assess the influence of the evolutionary state of the primary. When scaled appropriately, the two runs are quite similar, but with some important differences.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available