4.7 Article

Common Envelope Wind Tunnel: Range of Applicability and Self-similarity in Realistic Stellar Envelopes

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 899, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba75c

Keywords

Binary stars; Common envelope binary stars; Close binary stars; Common envelope evolution; Stellar evolution; Late stellar evolution; Stellar interiors

Funding

  1. Eugene V. Cota-Robles Fellowship
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship Program [1339067]
  3. Heising-Simons Foundation
  4. Danish National Research Foundation [DNRF132]
  5. Vera Rubin Presidential Chair for Diversity at UCSC
  6. Kavli Foundation
  7. DNRF
  8. Dark Cosmology Centre
  9. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  10. Division Of Graduate Education [1339067] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Common envelope evolution, the key orbital tightening phase of the traditional formation channel for close binaries, is a multistage process that presents many challenges to the establishment of a fully descriptive, predictive theoretical framework. In an approach complementary to global 3D hydrodynamical modeling, we explore the range of applicability for a simplified drag formalism that incorporates the results of local hydrodynamic wind tunnel simulations into a semi-analytical framework in the treatment of the common envelope dynamical inspiral phase using a library of realistic giant branch stellar models across the low, intermediate, and high-mass regimes. In terms of a small number of key dimensionless parameters, we characterize a wide range of common envelope events, revealing the broad range of applicability of the drag formalism as well its self-similar nature across mass regimes and ages. Limitations arising from global binary properties and local structural quantities are discussed together with the opportunity for a general prescriptive application for this formalism.

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