Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T18:15:16.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interaction of multidimensional convection and radial pulsation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Chris M. Geroux  and
Robert G. Deupree
Chris M. Geroux
Affiliation:
Institute for Computational Astrophysics and Department of Astronomy and Physics, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, NS B3H 3C3Canada.
Robert G. Deupree
Affiliation:
Now at Physics and Astronomy, University of Exeter, Stocker Road, Exeter, UKEX4 4QL email: geroux@astro.ex.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We have previously calculated a number of 2D hydrodynamic simulations of convection and pulsation to full amplitude. These revealed a significantly better fit to the observed light curves near the red edge of the instability strip in the globular cluster M 3 than did previous 1D mixing length models. Here we compare those 2D results with our new 3D hydrodynamic simulations calculated with the same code. As expected, the horizontal spatial behaviour of convection in 2D and 3D is quite different, but the time dependence of the convective flux on pulsation phase is quite similar. The difference in pulsation growth rate is only about 0.1% per period, with the 3D models having more damping at each of the five effective temperatures considered. Full amplitude pulsation light curves in 2D and 3D are compared.

Keywords

convectionhydrodynamicsmethods: numericalstars: oscillationsstars: variables
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 9 , Symposium S301: Precision Asteroseismology , August 2013 , pp. 415 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2014 

References

Bono, G. & Stellingwerf, R. F. 1994, ApJS, 93, 233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christy, R. F. 1964, Reviews of Modern Physics, 36, 555Google Scholar
Christy, R. F. 1966, ApJ, 144, 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corwin, T. M. & Carney, B. W. 2001, AJ, 122, 3183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. P., Cox, A. N., Olsen, K. H., King, D. S., & Eilers, D. D. 1966, ApJ, 144, 1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deupree, R. G. 1977, ApJ, 211, 509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastine, T. & Dintrans, B. 2011, A&A, 528, A6Google Scholar
Geroux, C. M. & Deupree, R. G. 2011, ApJ, 731, 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geroux, C. M. & Deupree, R. G. 2013, ApJ, 771, 113Google Scholar
Kuhfuss, R. 1986, A&A, 160, 116Google Scholar
Magic, Z., Collet, R., Asplund, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A26Google Scholar
Mundprecht, E., Muthsam, H. J., & Kupka, F. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, R. F. & Nordlund, Å. 1998, ApJ, 499, 914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stellingwerf, R. F. 1982a, ApJ, 262, 330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stellingwerf, R. F. 1982b, ApJ, 262, 339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiong, D. 1989, A&A, 209, 126Google Scholar