4.5 Article

Toward a consistent use of overshooting parametrizations in 1D stellar evolution codes

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 580, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526294

关键词

stars: evolution; stars: interiors; hydrodynamics; convection; turbulence

资金

  1. European Research Council [341157-COCO2CASA]
  2. National Science Foundation [OCI-1053575]
  3. NSF at the University of Arizona [1107445]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1107445] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several parametrizations for overshooting in 1D stellar evolution calculations coexist in the literature. These parametrizations are used somewhat arbitrarily in stellar evolution codes, based on what works best for a given problem or even for the historical reasons related to the development of each code. We point out that these different parametrizations correspond to different physical regimes of overshooting, depending on whether the effects of radiation are dominant, marginal, or negligible. Our analysis is based on previously published theoretical results, as well as on multidimensional hydrodynamical simulations of stellar convection where the interaction between the convective region and a stably stratified region is observed. Although the underlying hydrodynamical processes are the same, the outcome of the overshooting process is profoundly affected by radiative effects. Using a simple picture of the scales involved in the overshooting process, we show how three regimes are obtained, depending on the importance of radiative effects. These three regimes correspond to the different behaviors observed in hydrodynamical simulations so far and to the three types of parametrizations used in 1D codes. We suggest that the existing parametrizations for overshooting should coexist in 1D stellar evolution codes and should be applied consistently at convective boundaries depending on the local physical conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据