4.7 Article

Common envelope evolution on the asymptotic giant branch: unbinding within a decade?

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa1273

关键词

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

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [AST-1515648, AST-181329, ACI-1548562]
  2. Department of Energy [DE-SC0001063]
  3. Space Telescope Science Institute [HST-AR-12832.01-A]
  4. 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

Common envelope (CE) evolution is a critical but still poorly understood progenitor phase of many high-energy astrophysical phenomena. Although 3D global hydrodynamic CE simulations have become more common in recent years, those involving an asymptotic giant branch (AGB) primary are scarce, due to the high computational cost from the larger dynamical range compared to red giant branch (RGB) primaries. But CE evolution with AGB progenitors is desirable to simulate because such events are the likely progenitors of most bi-polar planetary nebulae (PNe), and prominent observational testing grounds for CE physics. Here we present a high-resolution global simulation of CE evolution involving an AGB primary and 1-M-circle dot secondary, evolved for 20 orbital revolutions. During the last 16 of these orbits, the envelope unbinds at an almost constant rate of about 0.1-0.2M(circle dot) yr(-1). If this rate were maintained, the envelope would be unbound in less than 10 yr. The dominant source of this unbinding is consistent with inspiral; we assess the influence of the ambient medium to be subdominant. We compare this run with a previous run that used an RGB phase primary evolved from the same 2-M-circle dot main-sequence star to assess the influence of the evolutionary state of the primary. When scaled appropriately, the two runs are quite similar, but with some important differences.

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