4.7 Article

On the cavity size in circumbinary discs

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 498, Issue 2, Pages 2936-2947

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa2536

Keywords

accretion, accretion discs; hydrodynamics; protoplanetary discs; binaries: close

Funding

  1. Australian Government
  2. Swinburne University
  3. European Union's H2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [823823]
  4. ANR (Agence Nationale de la Recherche) of France [ANR-16-CE31-0013]
  5. LABEX Lyon Institute of Origins of the Universite de Lyon within the programme 'Investissements d'Avenir' of the French government [ANR-10-LABX-0066, ANR-11-IDEX-0007]
  6. Australian Research Council [FT130100034, DP180104235]
  7. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [681601]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

How does the cavity size in circumbinary discs depend on disc and binary properties? We investigate by simulating disc cavities carved by binary companions using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. We find that a cavity is quickly opened on the dynamical time, while the cavity size is set on the viscous time. In agreement with previous findings, we find long-term cavity sizes of 2-5 times the binary semimajor axis, increasing with eccentricity and decreasing with disc aspect ratio. When considering binaries inclined with respect to the disc, we find three regimes: (i) discs that evolve towards a coplanar orbit have a large cavity, slightly smaller than that of an initially coplanar disc; (ii) discs that evolve towards a polar orbit by breaking have a small cavity, equal in size to that of an initially polar disc; and (iii) discs that evolve towards a polar orbit via warping have an intermediate-sized cavity. We find typical gas depletions inside the cavity of greater than or similar to 2 orders of magnitude in surface density.

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