24
1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9 . 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and future plans for the FRANEC code (Pise and Naples groups)

1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

  • View
    214

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4

Parameters:

M/MO=2.0 X0=0.70 Y0=0.28 Z0=0.02 lMLT/Hp=1.6

Target model: Tc=1.9.107 K (PMS)

Tests and future plans for the FRANEC code

(Pise and Naples groups)

Page 2: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Global parameters case 1.4:

CESAM0 FRANEC

•Age [Myr] 7.043 7.764 0.10

•R/RO 1.866 1.878 0.006

•L/LO 15.80 16.31 0.030

•Teff [K] 8431 8472 0.005

•Tc [107 K] 1.900 1.900 0.

• c [g/cm3] 49.22 50.47 0.025

•Xc 0.6994 0.6993 -0.0001

•Mcor/M 0.1075 0.0945 -0.121

•Renv/R 0.9988 0.9998 0.001

Page 3: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Relative differences for c2 and X abundance

The effect of doubling the number of meshes or reducing the time step by a factor 2 is negligible

Q/Q=(FRANEC-CESAM0)/FRANEC

Page 4: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Comparison of the H profile

Page 5: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Relative differences for T, P,

Page 6: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Only weak (Salpeter) screening for a better comparison with CESAM0

Page 7: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Zoom of the more external region

Page 8: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Relative differences for T, P, with and without intermediate screening

The effect on the structure of taking out intermediate screening is small

Page 9: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Relative difference for the opacity values

Page 10: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Relative difference between the CESAM0 opacity and the opacity calculated with our subroutine for T, , X taken from the CESAM0 model

Page 11: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Relative difference for the energy generation

Page 12: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Energy generation profiles

____ CESAM0

____ FRANEC

Page 13: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and
Page 14: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and
Page 15: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and
Page 16: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and
Page 17: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

2) Deeper comparison of the case 1.1

Parameters:

M/MO=0.9 X0=0.70 Y0=0.28 Z0=0.02 lMLT/Hp=1.6

Target model: Xc=0.35 (MS)

Page 18: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Global parameters case 1.1:

CESAM0 FRANEC

•Age [Myr] 6782 6839 0.008

•R/RO 0.8916 0.8997 0.009

•L/LO 0.6262 0.6273 0.002

•Teff [K] 5443 5421 -0.004

•Tc [107 K] 1.448 1.446 -0.001

• c [g/cm3] 150.9 151.0 0.0007

•Xc 0.3501 0.3499 -0.0006

•Renv/R 0.6958 0.6972 0.002

Page 19: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and
Page 20: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and
Page 21: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and
Page 22: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and
Page 23: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Summary:

•For the case 1.4 good agreement for C2, X, P, T, but relevant discrepancies for the energy production profile,extension of the convective core, total luminosity -> more tests are needed

•For the 1.1 case good agreement of all the quantities

Page 24: 1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters: M/M O =2.0 X 0 =0.70 Y 0 =0.28 Z 0 =0.02 l MLT /H p =1.6 Target model: T c =1.9. 10 7 K (PMS) Tests and

Future developments:

•All the others task1 models will be recalculated with weak screening, grey atmosphere, new element abundances and no conductive opacity

•The density derivative needed for the pulsation a(i) quantities will be computed analytically and the results will be compared with the ones obtained by other codes