Context Navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post →

single AGB

I tested two sets of data.

M_{\odot}	abseff	exteff	vpulse amplitude	luminosity	boundary radius	surface temp	surface density	number
1.0	0.3	1.0	5km/s	2342L_{\odot}	0.9	2900K	1.2\times10^{-8}g/cc	1
1.0	0.4	1.0	5km/s	2342L_{\odot}	0.9	2900K	1.2\times10^{-8}g/cc	2
1.0	0.4	0.9	4km/s	2342L_{\odot}	0.9	2900K	1.0\times10^{-8}g/cc	3

model 1 has extremely large mass loss rate - 1.5\times10^{-4}M_{\odot}/year and model 2 has 3\times10^{-5}M_{\odot}/year. In previous model, we can just achieve 1.5\times10^{-7}M_{\odot}/year because I may set the abseff a little higher (around 0.45?) and the resolution is poor. Also, we have changed the CFL number. Current CFL number is more appropriate.

Below is the mass loss rate in 3D single AGB star simulation.

We may use model 2 in our simulation. If the mass loss rate is still thought to be too high. I can lower the abseff to 0.45 and surface density to 8\times10^{-9}g/cc.

I can control the initial condition to avoid the strong shock now.

I can also control the variables outside the boundary cylinder to avoid in falling material and shocks.

Below are the simulation from model 1:

topdensityhml.gif

sidedensityhml.gif

Below are the simulation from model 2:

topdensitylml.gif

sidedensity.gif

Below is model 3: