4.7 Article

Testing stellar evolution models with the retired A star HD 185351

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw2559

关键词

asteroseismology; stars: individual: HD 185351; stars: interiors

资金

  1. Danish National Research Foundation [DNRF106]
  2. ASTERISK project (ASTERoseismic Investigations with SONG and Kepler) - European Research Council [267864]
  3. Australian Research Council's Discovery Projects [DE140101364]
  4. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NNX14AB92G]
  5. VILLUM FONDEN [10118]
  6. Villum Fonden [00010118] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The physical parameters of the retired A star HD 185351 were analysed in great detail by Johnson et al. using interferometry, spectroscopy, and asteroseismology. Results from all independent methods are consistent with HD 185351 having a mass in excess of 1.5M(circle dot). However, the study also showed that not all observational constraints could be reconciled in stellar evolutionary models, leading to mass estimates ranging from similar to 1.6 to 1.9M(circle dot) and casting doubts on the accuracy of stellar properties determined from asteroseismology. Here, we solve this discrepancy and construct a theoretical model in agreement with all observational constraints on the physical parameters of HD 185351. The effects of varying input physics are examined as well as the additional constraint of the observed g-mode period spacing is considered. This quantity is found to be sensitive to the inclusion of additional mixing from the convective core during the main sequence, and can be used to calibrate the overshooting efficiency using low-luminosity red giant stars. A theoretical model with metallicity [Fe/H] = 0.16 dex, mixing-length parameter alpha(MLT) = 2.00, and convective overshooting efficiency parameter f = 0.030 is found to be in complete agreement with all observational constraints for a stellar mass of M similar or equal to 1.60M(circle dot).

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