Astron. Astrophys. 363, 675-691 (2000)
8. Results
For different sets of modeling parameters we have computed
evolutionary tracks using the convection theories of
Böhm-Vitense (1958, MLTBV) and
Canuto & Mazitelli (1991 , 1992,
MLTCM). Using the
minimization described in
Sect. 6, we have selected the best fits taking into account the
accuracy of the observational constraints. Table 1 and
Table 5 (bottom panel) present the characteristics of
Cen A & B and Sun models computed
with the same input physics. Fig. 1 presents the evolutionary
tracks in the versus
H-R diagram. We also performed
minimization with the constraint
, but, for brevity sake, we do not
report the results as they do not significantly differ from those
obtained without this constraint. For all
Cen A models a convective core,
caused by an enhancement of the CNO nuclear energy generation, appears
as soon as the central temperature becomes slightly larger than 17 M K
and the mass fraction of hydrogen .
Fig. 1, Table 1 and Table 5 clearly show that various
sets of modeling parameters allow to verify the observational
constraints within the error bars. In absence of seismological
observations there is no criterion available to discriminate between
models. Table 1 and Table 5 show that, within the confidence
domains, the values of the mixing length parameter of the two
components are very close.
![[FIGURE]](img210.gif) |
Fig. 1. Evolutionary tracks in the H-R diagram of models , (full), , (dashed) and , (dot-dash-dot). Dashed rectangles delimit the uncertainty domains. Top panel: full tracks from PMS. The stellar evolution sequences are initialized on the pre main-sequence soon after the deuteron ignition. The "+" denote 1 Gyr time intervals along the evolutionary tracks. Middle left and right panels: enlargements around the observed Cen A, & B loci. Bottom left and right panels: loci of Cen A & B models computed with the MLTBV convection theory and modeling parameters within the confidence domains presented in Table 5 ; full triangle: changes only, full star: changes only, empty circle: changes only and full dot: changes only.
|
8.1. MLTBV models
Models &
have an age
Myr compatible with the estimate of
Pourbaix et al. (1999). The values of the convection parameters
are almost equal ( ) and close to the
value derived if they are forced to be identical in the
minimization. They are quite close to
the value obtained by Noels et al. (1991) but differ notably from
the estimate of Pourbaix et al. (1999) though remaining within
their large confidence domains. They are smaller than the solar value
. In
a convective core is formed at time
Gyr a few Myr just before
. Fig. 1, bottom panels, shows
the loci in the H-R diagram reached by the
&
models when one modeling parameter
changes within its uncertainty domain, the other modeling parameters
being fixed. The limited extents of the permitted solutions are
consequences of limits in metallicity. Table 6 shows the partial
derivatives of the observed parameters with respect to the modeling
ones. Our results are similar to those of Brown et al. (1994),
except for the derivatives with respect to the age which are very
dependent on the exact evolutionary stage on the main sequence. As
already noticed by Guenther & Demarque (2000), the
luminosities are very sensitive to the helium mass fraction (see the
large values of their derivatives with respect to
in Table 6), which in turn gives
a narrow confidence level for the initial helium abundance (see
Table 1).
![[TABLE]](img247.gif)
Table 6. Partial derivatives of observables , , , , , and with respect to modeling parameters (Myr), , , and of models & .
For both components the surface lithium depletion is not sufficient
enough to fit the observed values.
Models &
with overshooting of convective
cores have an age significantly larger than models
&
. Indeed their outer convective
zones penetrate deeper. For model
this depletion is marginally compatible with the observation, while it
is not large enough for model . All
these differences with models &
, of course, result from the
overshooting of convective cores but in a roundabout way via the
minimization which adjusts the
modeling parameters as a whole. The convective core of model
is formed at time
Gyr.
Models &
are calibrated according to the
Guenther & Demarque (2000) observational constraints and
masses. The age, initial helium mass fraction and metallicity and the
convection parameters are significantly larger than those derived
using the mass values of Pourbaix et al. (1999). We have obtained
similar modeling parameters from the
minimization using models with Guenther & Demarque (2000)
masses and our observational constraints. Therefore, the differences
between the modeling parameters of models
&
and
&
mainly result from the mass
differences, but also from the disparity of observing targets,
although in a less extent. For models
&
the convection parameters are close
to the solar value. In the model
the convective core is formed at the time
Gyr, larger than in other
MLTBV models and the lithium depletion at
the surface is marginally compatible with the observed value. The
value of the central hydrogen mass fraction is half that obtained in
the other MLTBV models. In model
the lithium depletion is compatible
with the observation.
8.2. MLTCM models
In agreement with Canuto & Mazitelli (1991 , 1992)
convection theory, the convection parameters of models
&
are close to unity and close to the
solar value. The age is slightly smaller than the solar one but larger
than that of models &
; the outer convection zone is
deeper. According to the observations, the lithium of model
is almost totally depleted but
practically no depletion occurred in models
and the solar one. The convective
core of model is formed at time
Gyr.
8.3. Seismological analysis of Cen A & B
The stars Cen A & B are
solar-like stars. The oscillations of such stars may be stochastically
excited by the convection as in the case of the Sun. The amplitudes of
solar-like oscillations have been estimated for stars of different
masses and ages (Houdek 1996; Houdek et al. 1999). The models we
have calibrated are close in the H-R diagram, but have different
internal structure and they could be discriminated with the help of
seismology. The properties of the stellar oscillations are related to
the variation along the radius of the sound speed c and of the
Brunt-Väissälä frequency N
(Christensen-Dalsgaard & Berthomieu 1991). The p-mode
frequencies are mainly related to c, while the g-modes,
with lower frequencies, are determined essentially by N. We
have computed for all our models the adiabatic frequencies of
oscillation for modes of low degrees
=0 to 3, which may be detected by
future observations. Table 8 presents the p-mode
frequencies for the models and
. As in the solar case (Provost et
al. 2000), the lowest frequency p-mode oscillations of
Cen A have a mixed character between
p- and g-mode behavior and are very sensitive to the
structure of the central stellar regions.
8.3.1. p-mode oscillations
The frequencies of p-modes of given degree
are almost quasi-equidistant.
Fig. 2 represents the variation of
as a function of the frequency for
models and
; n is the radial order of
the mode. represents the large
spacing between the mode frequencies. It is roughly constant at large
frequencies, larger than Hz for
Cen A and
Hz for
Cen B. Below these frequencies it
varies within 10%. In the lower frequency range,
has an oscillatory behavior which
is the signature of the helium ionization zone (e.g. Gough 1991).
We note that it is important to take into account such a variation
while searching peak equidistancy in the p-mode power
spectrum.
![[FIGURE]](img276.gif) |
Fig. 2. Variations of the large frequency separations between modes of consecutive radial order for p-modes of degree (full point) and (open point) as a function of the frequency for Cen A & B (models & ). The relation between the frequencies and the radial order are taken from Table 8. As asymptotically predicted, is almost constant at high frequency.
|
Another characteristic quantity of the oscillation spectrum is the
small separation, i.e. the difference between the frequencies of modes
with a degree of same parity and with consecutive radial order:
![[EQUATION]](img278.gif)
This small quantity is very sensitive to the structure of the core
mainly to its hydrogen content. Asymptotic analysis predicts that it
is proportional to . Fig. 3
gives and
as a function of the frequencies
for the models and
. For a given model, these two
quantities are very close at high frequencies, as expected from
asymptotic approximation and they vary almost linearly with frequency
for radial orders n larger than about 16 for
Cen A and 10 for
Cen B.
![[FIGURE]](img292.gif) |
Fig. 3. Variations of the small frequency differences and as a function of the frequency for Cen A & B (models & ). Same symbols as in Fig. 2.
|
In the high frequency range the large and small frequency spacings
which characterize the p-mode spectrum are usually estimated by
analytical fits of the frequencies and of the small frequency
separations. The numerical frequencies are fitted by the following
polynomial expression (Berthomieu et al. 1993b):
![[EQUATION]](img294.gif)
The quantity varies almost
linearly with the frequency or the radial order. The small spacing is
estimated by using the fit:
![[EQUATION]](img296.gif)
As in the solar case, we consider a set of 9 modes centered at
21, which corresponds approximately
to the middle of the range of the expected excited frequencies (i.e.
mHz) for
Cen A, according to
Houdek (1996). The fitted coefficients
are very small. The quantity
does not much depend on the degree,
so that and it characterizes the
large frequency spacing. The small spacings are conventionally
measured by . Table 7 shows the
quantities ,
,
and which have been computed for
the models of Cen A & B given in
Table 5.
![[TABLE]](img337.gif)
Table 7. Theoretical global asymptotic characteristics of the low degree p-mode and g-mode spectrum of the star Cen A & B. The quantities , and ( ), describing the p-mode oscillations, are given in µHz - see definitions Sect. 8.3.1. The characteristic g-mode period is given in mn. The lower panel presents the variations , , and for the models computed with the theory and extreme modeling parameters , , and within the confidence domains presented in Table 1.
![[TABLE]](img340.gif)
Table 8. Low degree frequencies for Cen A and B.
These large and small separations of frequency, which characterize
the p-mode oscillation spectrum, depend on the stellar mass and
age and slightly decrease with the age
(Christensen-Dalsgaard 1984; Audard et al. 1995).
and
are mainly related to the envelope
structure of the stellar model and they vary proportionally to
, while the values of
and
reflect the structure in the
core.
The computed values of are
respectively smaller ( larger) than
the solar ones due to larger (
smaller) masses of Cen A
(
Cen B). These values do not depend
much on the description of the convection or on the convective core
overshoot, as can be seen from a comparison of the models
,
,
and ,
,
. On the contrary, the value of
obtained for the oldest model
of
Cen A, which has also a larger mass,
is significantly smaller by about
Hz. The result is opposite for
Cen B. All these differences can be
accounted for by the differences in mass and radius.
The small separations and
decrease with stellar age and mass
(Christensen-Dalsgaard 1984). The values of
and
obtained for our calibrated models
are comparable to those of Pourbaix et al. (1999). As expected,
they decrease with the age for the models without core overshoot, and
thus are significantly smaller for the
model of
Cen A. Future asteroseismic
observations could help to discriminate between such models.
The lower panel of Table 7 presents the variations
,
and for the models computed with
the MLTBV theory and extreme modeling
parameters ,
, and
within the confidence domains
presented in Table 1. The variations of
with
, and
are essentially due to the difference
of model radii. The small spacings
and depend mainly on the age and
are less sensitive to the differences in radius.
According to Gough (1991), further information on the stellar
structure can be provided by low degree oscillations, from the second
order difference of frequencies:
![[EQUATION]](img349.gif)
When plotted as a function of the frequency (Fig. 4), this
quantity has a sinusoidal behavior with two different "periods" of
order Hz and
Hz. The larger period has the
largest amplitude and is due to the rapid variation of the adiabatic
index in the HeII ionization zone.
Its contribution to the frequency is also clearly visible in
Fig. 2. The lower period is an
indication for a discontinuity in the derivative of the sound velocity
at the base of the convection zone and is the inverse of twice the
travel time of the sound from the surface to the base of the
convection zone (e.g. Audard & Provost 1994):
![[EQUATION]](img376.gif)
![[FIGURE]](img374.gif) |
Fig. 4. Variations of the differences of frequencies for p-modes of degree as a function of the frequency for Cen A & B (models & ). The "period" of the small oscillation is Hz for and Hz for
|
The predicted value of is larger
for Cen B than for
Cen A, mainly due to a deeper
convection zone for Cen B (see
Table 5). The corresponding amplitude is sensitive to different
processes, like convective penetration below the convection zone (e.g.
Berthomieu et al. 1993a).
8.3.2. g-mode oscillations
In the low frequency range, the frequencies are mainly determined
by the Brunt-Väissälä frequency N. The period of
low degree gravity modes is proportional to a characteristic
period:
![[EQUATION]](img377.gif)
The integral, which defines , is
taken in the inner radiative zone, i.e. from the radius of the
convective core for
Cen A, or from the center for
Cen B, to the base of the external
convection zone . For stars without
convective core, like the Sun or
Cen B,
depends on the degree of the
oscillation, ; for stars with
convective core (like Cen A)
(Christensen-Dalsgaard 1984).
Table 7 gives the values of
for the models of Cen A & B. When
the calibration of ,Cen A is made with
a core overshoot (which increases the extent of the convective core)
is significantly larger (by 23%).
The other differences between the values of
for the models of
Cen A & B are accounted for by
the differences in mass and in radius.
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 2000
Online publication: December 11, 2000
helpdesk.link@springer.de  |