4.7 Article

How drag force evolves in global common envelope simulations

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stz2813

关键词

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

资金

  1. NSF [PHY-160761]
  2. National Science Foundation [ACI-1548562, TG-AST120060, AST-1515648, AST-181329]
  3. Department of Energy [DE-SC0001063]
  4. Space Telescope Science Institute [HST-AR-12832.01-A]
  5. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0001063] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compute the forces, torque, and rate of work on the companion-core binary due to drag in global simulations of common envelope (CE) evolution for three different companion masses. Our simulations help to delineate regimes when conventional analytic drag force approximations are applicable. During and just prior to the first periastron passage of the in-spiral phase, the drag force is reasonably approximated by conventional analytic theory and peaks at values proportional to the companion mass. Good agreement between global and local 3D `wind tunnel' simulations, including similar net drag force and flow pattern, is obtained for comparable regions of parameter space. However, subsequent to the first periastron passage, the drag force is up to an order of magnitude smaller than theoretical predictions, quasi-steady, and depends only weakly on companion mass. The discrepancy is exacerbated for larger companion mass and when the inter-particle separation reduces to the Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion radius, creating a turbulent thermalized region. Greater flow symmetry during this phase leads to near balance of opposing gravitational forces in front of and behind the companion, hence a small net drag. The reduced drag force at late times helps explain why companion-core separations necessary for envelope ejection are not reached by the end of limited duration CE simulations.

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

4.7
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