4.6 Article

Evolution of protoplanetary disks: constraints from DM Tauri and GM Aurigae

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 442, 期 2, 页码 703-725

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041905

关键词

accretion, accretion disks; solar system : formation; planetary systems : formation; planetary systems : protoplanetary disks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a one-dimensional model of the formation and viscous evolution of protoplanetary disks. The formation of the early disk is modeled as the result of the gravitational collapse of an isothermal molecular cloud. The disk's viscous evolution is integrated according to two parameterizations of turbulence: the classical a representation and a beta parameterization, representative of non-linear turbulence driven by the keplerian shear. We apply the model to DM Tau and GM Aur, two classical T-Tauri stars with relatively well-characterized disks, retrieving the evolution of their surface density with time. We perform a systematic Monte-Carlo exploration of the parameter space (i.e. values of the alpha-beta parameters, and of the temperature and rotation rate in the molecular cloud) to find the values that are compatible with the observed disk surface density distribution, star and disk mass, age and present accretion rate. We find that the observations for DM Tau require 0.001 < alpha < 0.1 or 2 x 10(-5) < beta < 5 x 10(-4). For GM Aur, we find that the turbulent viscosity is such that 4 x 10(-4) < alpha < 0.01 or 2 x 10(-6) < beta < 8 x 10(-5). These relatively large values show that an efficient turbulent diffusion mechanism is present at distances larger than similar to 10AU. This is to be compared to studies of the variations of accretion rates of T-Tauri stars versus age that mostly probe the inner disks, but also yield values of alpha similar to 0.01. We show that the mechanism responsible for turbulent diffusion at large orbital distances most probably cannot be convection because of its suppression at low optical depths.

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

4.6
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