1 / 24

1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters:

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). Global parameters case 1.4:

tal
Download Presentation

1) Deeper comparison of the case 1.4 Parameters:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tests and future plans for the FRANEC code (Pise and Naples groups) 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)

  2. Global parameters case 1.4: • CESAM0 FRANEC D • Age [Myr] 7.043 7.764 0.10 • R/RO1.866 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. • rc [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

  3. Relative differences for c2 and X abundance DQ/Q=(FRANEC-CESAM0)/FRANEC The effect of doubling the number of meshes or reducing the time step by a factor 2 is negligible

  4. Comparison of the H profile

  5. Relative differences for T, P, r

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

  7. Zoom of the more external region

  8. Relative differences for T, P, r with and without intermediate screening The effect on the structure of taking out intermediate screening is small

  9. Relative difference for the opacity values

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

  11. Relative difference for the energy generation

  12. Energy generation profiles ____ CESAM0 ____ FRANEC

  13. 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)

  14. Global parameters case 1.1: • CESAM0 FRANEC D • Age [Myr] 6782 6839 0.008 • R/RO0.8916 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 • rc [g/cm3]150.9 151.0 0.0007 • Xc 0.3501 0.3499 -0.0006 • Renv/R 0.6958 0.6972 0.002

  15. Summary: • For the case 1.4 good agreement for C2, X, P, T, r 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

  16. 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

More Related