Parameterising the Third Dredge-up in Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars

By Amanda I. Karakas, J. Lattanzio, O. Pols. Publications Astronomical Society of Australia, 2002

172 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract We present new evolutionary sequences for low and intermediate mass stars (1−6M ⊙) for three different metallicities, Z = 0.02, 0.008, and 0.004. We evolve the models from the pre-main sequence to the thermally-pulsing asymptotic giant branch phase. We have two sequences of models for each mass, one which includes mass loss and one without mass loss. Typically 20 or more pulses have been followed for each model, allowing us to calculate the third dredge-up parameter for each case. Using the results from this large and homogeneous set of models, we present an approximate fit for the core mass at the first thermal pulse, M c 1, as well as for the third dredge-up efficiency parameter, λ, and the core mass at the first dredge-up episode, M c min, as a function of metallicity and total mass. We also examine the effect of a reduced envelope mass on the value of λ.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/87a91b4a811ccf9541e9ee791428f584d7195996

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

STELLAR YIELDS FROM METAL-RICH ASYMPTOTIC GIANT BRANCH MODELS (2016, methodology): “…calculations Post-processing calculations have been performed on all of the canonical helium composition models from 6 λ = ∆Mdredge/∆Mc, where ∆Mdredge is the amount of material dredged up, and ∆Mc is the core mass growth during the preceding interpulse phase, see Karakas et al. (2002).”
Evolution of massive AGB stars - II. model properties at non-solar metallicity and the fate of Super-AGB stars (2007, unknown): “For λ in the interval [0, 0.9] (see Karakas et al. 2002 for a study of the dependence of λ on Z and Mini in lower mass AGB stars), we can estimate that 5 × 10−8 <∼ Ṁcore/(M yr−1) <∼ 5 × 10−7.”
Chemical enrichment in cosmological, smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations (2009, background): “Building on pioneering work by Iben & Truran (1978) and Renzini & Voli (1981), various groups have published AGB yields (e.g. Forestini & Charbonnel 1997; van den Hoek & Groenewegen 1997; Marigo 2001; Chieffi et al. 2001; Karakas et al. 2002; Izzard et al. 2004).”
The Dawes Review 2: Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Yields of Low- and Intermediate-Mass Single Stars (2014, methodology): “Stancliffe et al. (2005) were able to reproduce the CSLF of the LMC by computing AGB models without convective overshoot using the Cambridge STARS code, which predicts deeper TDU at smaller core masses than Straniero et al. (1997) or Karakas et al. (2002).”
Thermohaline instability and rotation-induced mixing I. Low- and intermediate-mass solar metallicity stars up to the end of the AGB (2010, methodology): “In the present study we assume no convectively induced extra-mixing below the convectiveenvelope as usually required to induce the third dredge-up in low-mass TP-AGB models (Herwig et al. 1997; Herwig 2000; Herwig et al. 2007; Mowlavi 1999; Karakas et al. 2002; Karakas 2010).”
Evolution of Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars (2005, background): “Nevertheless, this modification avoids the He/H abundance discontinuity described above, and it is therefore not surprising that Stancliffe, Tout & Pols (2004b) find the third dredge-up with comparable efficiency as do, for example, Karakas et al. (2002) or Mowlavi (1999).”
Scaled solar tracks and isochrones in a large region of the Z-Y plane I. From the ZAMS to the TP-A (2008, methodology): “We use a more realistic description of the process as a function of stellar mass and metallicity, with the aid of available analytic relations of the characteristic parameters, i.e. minimum core massMminc (M, Z) and efficiency λ(M, Z), as derived from full AGB calculations (Karakas et al. 2002).”
Quantifying the uncertainties of chemical evolution studies II. Stellar yields (2010, background): “These models did not show any decrease in TDU efficiency with decreasing envelope mass, but in general low-metallicity models tend to experience more efficient mixing (e.g. Boothroyd & Sackmann 1988; Karakas et al. 2002).”
THE s-PROCESS IN ASYMPTOTIC GIANT BRANCH STARS OF LOW METALLICITY AND THE COMPOSITION OF CARBON-ENHANCED METAL-POOR STARS (2011, background): “This can have the effect of increasing the efficiency of the TDU (Frost & Lattanzio 1996; Karakas et al. 2002).”
Updated stellar yields from asymptotic giant branch models (2009, methodology): “There is evidence to suggest that λ decreases with decreasing envelope masses for low-mass (Straniero et al. 1997; Karakas et al. 2002) and intermediate-mass AGB stars (Vassiliadis & Wood 1993).”
The evolution of isotope ratios in the Milky Way Galaxy (2011, unknown): “The TDU efficiency governs the nucleosynthesis in the lower mass models; this was found to vary as a function of H-exhausted core mass, metallicity, and envelope mass (see Karakas et al. 2002, for details).”
The Supernova Channel of Super-AGB Stars (2007, methodology): “Third Dredge-up For the dependence of the third dredge-up on the initial mass we use the data from Karakas et al. (2002).”
FORETELLINGS OF RAGNARÖK: WORLD-ENGULFING ASYMPTOTIC GIANTS AND THE INHERITANCE OF WHITE DWARFS (2012, background): “First, the envelope massMenv is approximated byM⋆−Mc, whereM⋆ is the star’s total mass, andMc, the core mass, has been taken as its value at the first thermal pulse from the parameterization, as a function of the initial mass and metallicity, given by Karakas et al. (2002).”
A new synthetic model for asymptotic giant branch stars (2004, methodology): “2 F U L L E VO L U T I O NA RY M O D E L S Our full stellar evolution models used are those described in Karakas et al. (2002) (hereafter K02).”
Theoretical uncertainties of the Type Ia supernova rate (2014, methodology): “0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mi(M⊙) 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 M f( M ⊙) Hurley et al. 2000 Karakas et al. 2002 Our model Fig.”
Delay-time distribution of core-collapse supernovae with late events resulting from binary interaction (2017, methodology): “For postmain-sequence stars, Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars, and thermally pulsating AGB stars, we use Kudritzki & Reimers (1978), Vassiliadis & Wood (1993), and Karakas et al. (2002) respectively, as described in Izzard et al. (2009).”
Evolution of asymptotic giant branch stars. I. Updated synthetic TP-AGB models and their basic calibration (2007, background): “1) Starting from the work by Wagenhuber & Groenewegen (1998), recent theoretical works (Karakas et al. 2002, hereafter K02; Izzard et al. 2004, hereafter I04) have significantly detailed and extended the range of validity of analytical relations describing the evolution of TP-AGB stars – e.g., the…”