3.8 Article

An approximation for the capture radius of gaseous protoplanets

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 507, Issue 1, Pages L62-L66

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab089

Keywords

methods: numerical; planet-disc interactions; planets and satellites: formation; gaseous planets; protoplanetary discs

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) [200020 188460]
  2. National Centre for Competence in Research 'PlanetS' - SNSF

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper discusses the importance of determining the heavy-element accretion rate of growing giant planets and presents an approximation for the capture radius that does not require numerical solution of the stellar structure equations. The study shows that the commonly assumed constant density assumption for inferring the capture radius leads to a large error in the calculated capture radius.
Determining the heavy-element accretion rate of growing giant planets is crucial for understanding their formation and bulk composition. The solid (heavy-element) accretion rate should be carefully modelled during the various stages of giant planet formation and therefore the planetary capture radius must be determined. In some simulations that model the heavy-element accretion rate, such as in N-body simulations, the presence of the gaseous envelope is either neglected or treated in an oversimplified manner. In this paper, we present an approximation for the capture radius that does not require the numerical solution of the stellar structure equations. Our approximation for the capture radius works extremely well for various planetesimal sizes and compositions. We show that the commonly assumed constant density assumption for inferring the capture radius leads to a large error in the calculated capture radius and we therefore suggest that our approximation should be implemented in future simulations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available