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...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
213 views
TRANSCRIPT
![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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
![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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
![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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
![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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
![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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
![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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d5d5503460f94a3c5a4/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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