4.7 Article

CIRCUMVENTING THE RADIATION PRESSURE BARRIER IN THE FORMATION OF MASSIVE STARS VIA DISK ACCRETION

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 722, 期 2, 页码 1556-1576

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1556

关键词

accretion, accretion disks; circumstellar matter; hydrodynamics; methods: numerical; radiative transfer; stars: formation; stars: massive

资金

  1. International Max-Planck Research School for Astronomy and Cosmic Physics at the University of Heidelberg (IMPRS-HD)
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [DFG Forschergruppe 759]
  3. DFG [BE2578]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present radiation hydrodynamic simulations of the collapse of massive pre-stellar cores. We treat frequency-dependent radiative feedback from stellar evolution and accretion luminosity at a numerical resolution down to 1.27 AU. In the 2D approximation of axially symmetric simulations, for the first time it is possible to simulate the whole accretion phase (up to the end of the accretion disk epoch) for a forming massive star and to perform a broad scan of the parameter space. Our simulation series evidently shows the necessity to incorporate the dust sublimation front to preserve the high shielding property of massive accretion disks. While confirming the upper mass limit of spherically symmetric accretion, our disk accretion models show a persistent high anisotropy of the corresponding thermal radiation field. This yields the growth of the highest-mass stars ever formed in multi-dimensional radiation hydrodynamic simulations, far beyond the upper mass limit of spherical accretion. Non-axially symmetric effects are not necessary to sustain accretion. The radiation pressure launches a stable bipolar outflow, which grows in angle with time, as presumed from observations. For an initialmass of the pre-stellar host core of 60, 120, 240, and 480M(circle dot) the masses of the final stars formed in our simulations add up to 28.2, 56.5, 92.6, and at least 137.2 M-circle dot, respectively.

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