1: % aa.dem
2: % AA vers. 6, LaTeX class for Astronomy & Astrophysics
3: % demonstration file
4: % (c) Springer-Verlag HD
5: % revised by EDP Sciences
6: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7: %
8: %\documentclass[referee]{aa} % for a referee version
9: %\documentclass[onecolumn]{aa} % for a paper on 1 column
10: %\documentclass[longauth]{aa} % for the long lists of affiliations
11: %\documentclass[rnote]{aa} % for the research notes
12: %
13: \documentclass{aa} % questo e' quello giusto!
14: %
15: \usepackage{graphicx}
16: %\usepackage{natbib}
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: \usepackage{txfonts}
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: \def\nafe{[Na/Fe]}
21: \def\ffe{[F/Fe]}
22: \def\ofe{[O/Fe]}
23: \def\feh{[Fe/H]}
24: \def\alfe{[Al/Fe]}
25: \def\mgfe{[Mg/Fe]}
26: \def\ne22{$^{22}$Ne}
27: \def\tbce{T_{\rm bce}}
28: \def\msun{$M_{\odot}$}
29:
30: %
31: \begin{document}
32: %
33: \title{The self-enrichment scenario in intermediate metallicity
34: globular clusters}
35: \authorrunning {Ventura \& D'Antona}
36: \titlerunning {AGB models of intermediate metallicity}
37:
38: % \subtitle{I. Overviewing the $\kappa$-mechanism}
39:
40: \author{P. Ventura \and F. D'Antona}
41:
42: \offprints{P. Ventura}
43:
44: \institute{INAF - Observatory of Rome, Via Frascati 33,
45: 00040 MontePorzio Catone (RM) - Italy
46: \email{ventura, dantona@oa-roma.inaf.it}
47: }
48:
49: % \date{Received September 15, 1996; accepted March 16, 1997}
50:
51: % \abstract{}{}{}{}{}
52: % 5 {} token are mandatory
53:
54: \abstract
55: % context heading (optional)
56: % {} leave it empty if necessary
57: {We present stellar yields computed from detailed models of intermediate
58: mass asymptotic giant branch stars of low metallicity. In this work, the
59: whole main microphysics inputs have been updated, and in particular
60: $\alpha-$enhancement is explicitly taken into account both in the
61: opacities and equation of state.}
62: % aims heading (mandatory)
63: {The target of this work is to provide a basis to test the reliability of the
64: AGB self-enrichment scenario for Globular Clusters of intermediate metallicity.
65: These Globular Clusters exhibit well defined abundance patterns, which have
66: often been interpreted as a consequence of the pollution of the interstellar
67: medium by the ejecta of massive AGBs.}
68: % methods heading (mandatory)
69: {We calculated a grid of intermediate mass models with metallicity Z=0.001;
70: the evolutionary sequences are followed from the
71: pre-Main sequence along the whole AGB phase. We focus our attention on
72: those elements largely studied in the spectroscopic investigations of
73: Globular Clusters stars, i.e. oxygen, sodium, aluminum, magnesium and fluorine.}
74: % results heading (mandatory)
75: {The predictions of our models show an encouraging agreement with the
76: demand of the self-enrichment scenario for what concerns the
77: abundances of oxygen, aluminum, fluorine and magnesium. The question
78: of sodium is more tricky, due to the large uncertainties of the
79: cross-sections of the Ne-Na cycle. The present results show that only a
80: relatively small range of initial masses ($M=5,6$\msun) can be responsible
81: for the self enrichment.}
82: % conclusions heading (optional), leave it empty if necessary
83: {}
84:
85: \keywords{Stars: abundances --
86: Stars: AGB and post-AGB --
87: Stars: evolution --
88: Stars: chemically peculiar --
89: Globular Clusters: general
90: }
91:
92: \maketitle
93: %
94: %________________________________________________________________
95:
96: \section{Introduction}
97: Deep spectroscopic investigations in the last decades {\bf have shown}
98: that Globular Clusters (GC) stars are not chemically homogeneous
99: samples, rather they show clear trends involving the chemical
100: abundances of some light elements (Kraft 1994), like magnesium,
101: aluminum, oxygen, fluorine and sodium; the same behaviour is not
102: followed by halo field stars, which present star to star variations limited
103: to carbon and nitrogen, i.e. those elements whose surface abundances
104: are expected to change following the first dredge-up and the mixing
105: possibly following the bump on the red giant branch (hereinafter RGB).
106: In almost the totality of the GCs investigated, is present a main
107: stellar population, whose surface chemistry is in agreement with the
108: standard $\alpha-$enhanced abundances, and a second component,
109: whose surface abundances of the afore mentioned elements define
110: well determined patterns (for a recent update, see Carretta 2006;
111: Smith et al. 2005). These stars show depletion of oxygen and fluorine, while
112: the abundances of sodium and aluminum are enhanced with respect to the
113: solar values; the question of a possible depletion of magnesium by
114: $\sim 0.2$ dex is still under debate (Cohen \& Melendez 2005). A common
115: feature of all the GCs investigated is that the C+N+O sum is constant
116: within a factor $\sim 2$ (Ivans et al. 1999; Cohen \& Melendez 2005).
117:
118: Two explanations, possibly acting together, are currently
119: investigated to explain such chemical anomalies. a) the deep mixing
120: scenario (DPS): a large non canonical extra-mixing, while
121: the stars ascend the RGB, might push inwards the convective
122: envelope to reach layers where a very advanced nucleosynthesis
123: (full CNO burning) might have acted (Denissenkov \& Weiss 2001;
124: Denissenkov \& Vandenbergh 2003; Denissenkov et al. 1998);
125: b) the self-enrichment scenario (SES): an early generation of massive AGBs,
126: evolving in the GC, eject into the interstellar medium material which is
127: nuclearly processed, stimulating the formation of a second generation of
128: stars, whose chemistry would trace the composition of the medium from which
129: they formed (Cottrell \& Da Costa 1981; Ventura et al. 2001)
130: \footnote{Here we do not consider the alternative SES proposed by Maeder
131: \& Meynet (2006), Prantzos \& Charbonnel (2006) and described by
132: Decressin et al. (2007), namely that self-enrichment is produced by the
133: envelopes of fast rotating massive stars.}.
134:
135: The capability of the DPS to fully explain the observed abundance patterns
136: was seriously undermined by the detection of the same chemical anomalies
137: even in main sequence and sub-giant stars of some GCs (Gratton et al. 2001),
138: because the interior of these stars is not expected to reach temperatures
139: so high to ignite a very advanced nucleosynthesis.
140:
141: The question concerning the SES is still open, basically because many ingredients
142: used in the stellar evolution theory, whose physical formulation is not
143: directly based on first principles
144: (e.g. convection, mass loss rate, extra-mixing), have a strong impact on the
145: physical and chemical aspects of the AGB evolution (Ventura \& D'Antona 2005a;b);
146: also, for one of the elements involved in the observed trends, i.e. sodium,
147: the uncertainties associated to the relevant cross-sections ($\sim 3$ dex, Hale et al.
148: 2002; 2004) are such to render the results obtained very uncertain (Ventura \&
149: D'Antona 2006). Within the context of the Mixing Length Theory (MLT) modeling
150: of turbulent convection (Vitense 1953), the theoretical ejecta of AGBs
151: point against the SES hypothesis, because the great number of third dredge
152: up (TDU) episodes, associated with a modest nucleosynthesis achieved at the
153: bottom of the outer convective envelope, favour a large growth of the
154: overall C+N+O abundances, and inhibits the depletion of oxygen (Fenner et
155: al. 2004; Denissenkov \& Herwig 2003).
156: On the other hand, Ventura \& D'Antona (2005b), studying the effects of
157: changing the treatment of convection on the AGB modeling, show that when
158: the Full Spectrum of Turbulence (FST, Canuto \& Mazzitelli 1991) is used to
159: model the convective regions, the FST high efficiency
160: of convection favours {\bf higher} temperatures at the bottom of the convective
161: envelope, thus an advanced nucleosynthesis (which is usually referred to
162: as ``Hot Bottom Burning'', HBB), a larger luminosity, and consequently a
163: smaller number of TDU episodes, thus keeping the C+N+O sum almost constant.
164:
165: An appealing prediction of the SES, and more generally of the role which
166: AGBs may play in the pollution of the interstellar medium within GCs,
167: is that their yields are expected to be helium rich, as a consequence of
168: the deep second dredge up (hereinafter II DUP) experienced
169: particularly by the most massive
170: models. A helium content Y$>0.30$, as found in previous investigations
171: (Ventura et al. 2001), may be at least partially consistent with the existence
172: of helium rich stellar populations in GCs, which allow the interpretation
173: of the morphology of extended horizontal branches in some GCs (D'Antona et
174: al. 2002; D'Antona \& Caloi 2004; Lee et al. 2005); the presence of a
175: helium rich population was also invoked to explain the presence of a blue
176: main sequence in NGC 2808 (D'Antona et al. 2005b; Piotto et al. 2007)
177: and $\omega$Cen (Bedin et al. 2004; Piotto et al. 2005).
178:
179: The possibility that DPS and SES might act together in order to explain the
180: O-Na anticorrelation observed in a few giants of M13 has
181: recently been explored by D'Antona \& Ventura (2007), and was previously
182: suggested by Denissenkov et al. (1998) to account for the Mg-Al
183: trend in the same cluster.
184:
185: {\bf Any SES model faces with a serious problem: it is difficult to understand how is
186: it possible that the self--enriched population is very abundant in most of the examined
187: clusters ---see, e.g., \cite{dantona-caloi2007}, concerning the ratio of the normal to
188: self--enriched populations derived from the analysis of the Horizontal Branch (HB)
189: morphology. In particular, for NGC~2808, both the HB ---\cite{franca1, dantona2005}---
190: the main sequence splittings ---\cite{dantona2005, piotto2007}--- and the spectroscopic
191: evidence ---\cite{carretta2006}--- indicate that about half of the cluster stars
192: is self--enriched. In order to accomplish this we need that: 1) either the
193: initial mass function (IMF) of the first generation stars is highly
194: anomalous, and is peaked at the intermediate mass
195: stars; 2) or the IMF is more or less normal, the initial cluster mass is much larger,
196: by about a factor 10, than the final mass, and the stars of the first generation have been
197: preferentially lost, as discussed, e.g., in \cite{franca1} and \cite{prantzos1}.
198: In addition, \cite{bekki2007} suggest that all GCs
199: formed within dwarf galaxies, so that the cluster formation may take
200: advantage of the infall from {\it all} the gas lost by massive AGBs evolving in the
201: galaxy and falling into the protocluster potential well.
202: }
203:
204: In this paper we model the AGB evolution by releasing some of the
205: approximations of our previous works. We focus on an
206: intermediate metallicity (\feh$\sim -1.3$). We postpone to forthcoming
207: papers the analysis concerning more metal rich and metal poor
208: composition. Our approach is as follows: we present and
209: discuss our intermediate mass models with metallicity Z=0.001, which were
210: calculated with the latest and most updated physical inputs. Consistently
211: with the hypothesis
212: which we want to test here, we adopt an $\alpha-$enhanced mixture.
213: We compare the yields of the individual elements with the abundances
214: observed in the GCs having metallicity appropriate for the present
215: investigation, taking care to restrict our comparison to those stars
216: which are scarcely evolved, to rule out any possible contamination from
217: canonical or non-canonical extra-mixing which the stars may experience
218: during the RGB evolution.
219: The effects of the uncertainties related to mass loss and the nuclear
220: reaction rates of the Ne-Na cycle and the Mg-Al chain are also examined.
221:
222:
223: %__________________________________________________________________
224:
225: \section{The ATON stellar evolution code}
226: The stellar evolution code used in this work is ATON3.1; a full
227: description of the numerical structure can be found in Ventura
228: et al. (1998). Here we briefly recall the main physics inputs, with
229: the most recent updates.
230:
231: \subsection{Opacities}
232: We adopt the latest opacities by Alexander \& Ferguson (2005) at temperatures
233: smaller than 10000 K and the OPAL opacities in the version documented by Iglesias
234: \& Rogers (1996). For both the above treatments we have the choice between the
235: opacities corresponding to solar mixture (Grevesse \& Sauval 1998), and to an
236: $\alpha-$enhanced mixture $[\alpha$/Fe$]=0.4$. The conductive opacities are taken
237: from Poteckhin (2006, see the web page www.ioffe.rssi.ru/astro/conduct/),
238: and are {\bf harmonically} added to the radiative opacities.
239:
240: \subsection{Equation of state}
241: Tables of the equation of state are generated in the (gas) pressure-temperature
242: plane, according to the method described in D'Antona et al. (2005a). For
243: mixtures including hydrogen, we use the latest OPAL EOS (2005), overwritten in
244: the pressure ionization regime by the EOS by Saumon, Chabrier \& Van Horn (1995).
245: The EOS is extended to the high density, high temperature domain according to the
246: treatment by Stoltzmann \& Bl\"ocker (2000).
247: After these large tables are written, for a given Z , six values of
248: each physical quantity are computed for six different X values. A
249: cubic unidimensional spline provides the interpolation for any input
250: value of X. The six tables for H/He and given Z are supplemented
251: by 15 tables of He/C/O in which the EOS is directly computed
252: according to Stolzmann \& Blocker (2000) as the non-ionized regions
253: are not present in stellar structure following helium ignition. The
254: interpolation among the 15 tables is performed using triangles in
255: the plane C/O, as the stechiometric condition is $Y=1-X_C-X_O$.
256:
257: \subsection{Convection}
258: The thermodynamic description of the regions unstable to convective
259: motions can be addressed either within the context of the traditional
260: MLT formulation (Vitense 1953), or by the FST model (Canuto et al. 1996).
261:
262: \subsection{Mixing}
263: Mixing of chemicals within convective zones can be addressed within
264: the instantaneous mixing framework or by a diffusive approach. In this
265: case, for each chemical species a diffusive-like equation
266: (Cloutman \& Eoll 1976) is solved:
267: $$
268: {dX_i\over dt}=\big( {\partial X_i\over \partial t} \big)_{nucl}+
269: {\partial \over \partial m_r} \big[ (4\pi r^2\rho )^2D{\partial X_i \over \partial m_r} \big]
270: \eqno{(1)}
271: $$
272: where D is the diffusion coefficient, for which, given the convective velocity
273: $v$ and the scale of mixing $l$, a local approximation ($D\sim {1\over 3}vl$)
274: is adopted.
275:
276: The borders of the convective regions are fixed according to the
277: Schwarzschild criterium. It is also possible to consider
278: extra mixing, by allowing convective velocities to decay exponentially
279: from the formal border, with an e-folding distance described by the
280: free-parameter $\zeta$ (see Ventura et al. (1998) for a complete
281: discussion regarding the variation of convective velocities in the
282: proximities of the convective borders).
283:
284: \subsection{Mass loss}
285: Mass loss can be treated according to different prescriptions. It is
286: possible to adopt the classic Reimers' treatment, the Vassiliadis
287: \& Wood (1993) formulation, or the prescription given by
288: Bl\"ocker (1995). In this latter case the strong increase of the mass
289: loss rate during the AGB evolution is modeled by multiplying the
290: Reimers' rate by an ad hoc luminosity power: the final expression is
291: $$
292: \dot M=4.83 \times 10^{-22} \eta_R M^{-3.1}L^{3.7}R
293: \eqno{(2)}
294: $$
295: where $\eta_R$ is the free parameter entering the Reimers' prescription.
296:
297: \subsection{Nuclear network}
298: The nuclear network includes 30 elements (up to $^{31}$P) and 64
299: reactions. The full list of the 30 chemicals and of the reactions included
300: can be found in Ventura \& D'Antona (2005a).
301:
302: The relevant cross section are taken from the NACRE compilation
303: (Angulo et al. 1999), with only the following exceptions:
304:
305: \begin{enumerate}
306:
307: \item{
308: $^{14}$N(p,$\gamma$)$^{15}$O (Formicola et al. 2004)
309: }
310:
311: \item{
312: $^{22}$Ne(p,$\gamma$)$^{23}$Na (Hale et al. 2002)
313: }
314:
315: \item{
316: $^{23}$Na(p,$\gamma$)$^{24}$Mg (Hale et al. 2004)
317: }
318: \item{
319: $^{23}$Na(p,$\alpha$)$^{20}$Ne (Hale et al. 2004)
320: }
321:
322: \end{enumerate}
323:
324:
325: \section{The results of the most recent spectroscopic surveys of
326: intermediate metallicity GC}
327: Several clusters of intermediate metallicity (i.e. $-1.5 \leq$ \feh $\leq -1.2$)
328: have been investigated spectroscopically in the last decade: among these, the most
329: extensively studied are M3,M4,M5,M13,NGC6752 and NGC6218. The first analyses
330: were focused on bright giants, and only in past few years turn-off (TO) and
331: sub-giant branch (SGB) stars were studied. Bright giants are of little help
332: for the main target of this paper, since the
333: abundances observed might be the result of some mixing episode from the bottom
334: of the convective envelope taking place during the RGB evolution; on the
335: other hand, TO and SGB stars never reach internal temperatures sufficiently high
336: to trigger any advanced nuclesynthesis, so any chemical anomaly must have
337: been imprinted in the matter from which they formed. Studies focused on the
338: TO and SGB stars are therefore the most useful for the present investigation.
339:
340: In the analysis of the observational results, we will consider the uncertainties
341: associated to the data, and the constant offsets among
342: the different observers, mainly due to differences in the assumed solar
343: abundances and in the temperature scale.
344:
345: The oxygen-sodium and magnesium-aluminum anticorrelations are by far the
346: most studied trends. For NGC 6752, the works related to TO and SGB stars
347: (Gratton et al. 2001; Carretta et al. 2005) and to bump stars (Gratton et
348: al. 2005), evidentiated a well defined stellar population in which the oxygen
349: was depleted up to 0.8 dex (\ofe $\sim -0.4$) compared to the ``standard''
350: abundance (\ofe $\sim +0.4$), while sodium was enhanced at most by 0.4 dex.
351: In Gratton et al. (2001) it is also shown that aluminum might be
352: anticorrelated with magnesium, the most peculiar stars showing an aluminum
353: enhancement slightly lower than 1 dex, and a magnesium spread of $\sim 0.3$dex.
354: For this cluster Pasquini et al. (2005) studied the lithium content of
355: TO stars, showing a clear anticorrelation between
356: sodium and lithium, the sodium rich stars having a lithium content
357: A(Li)=2\footnote{We use the notation A(Li)=$\log($Li/H)+12 (in number)},
358: a factor of 2 smaller than the value detected in the stars with standard sodium.
359:
360: The O-Na anticorrelation was recently confirmed
361: in the investigation of NGC 6218 performed by the same group
362: (Carretta et al. 2006): for the stars below the RGB bump, the authors find a
363: maximum extent of the oxygen depletion by $\sim 1$dex, and a maximum sodium
364: enhancement of 0.5 dex.
365:
366: Ramirez \& Cohen (2003) analyzed spectroscopically stars belonging to M5.
367: For the stars near the TO, they found a stellar population where sodium was
368: enhanced up to \nafe =0.3 dex, while for oxygen they could only find upper limits
369: for the estimated abundances: this is the main reason why the authors could not
370: detect any clear Na-O anticorrelation.
371:
372: The case of M4 is hard to analyse, as only red giants spectra are available.
373: A first extensive exploration by Ivans et al. (1999) evidentiated an anticorrelation
374: among the CN weak stars, with a depletion of oxygen by $\delta$ \ofe $\sim 0.6$dex,
375: and an enhancement in sodium up to \nafe=0.3 dex. The most oxygen poor stars
376: in this subsample are aluminum rich (\alfe=0.8 dex). The magnesium abundance
377: is constant within 0.2 dex. A more recent work by Smith et al. (2005), unfortunately
378: restricted to giants, confirmed the extent of the oxygen depletion (keeping into
379: account a clear constant offset, which may be understood in the left-upper panel
380: of their fig.4) and of the aluminum enhancement found by Ivans et al. (1999);
381: they also found a clear anticorrelation between sodium and fluorine, the most
382: sodium rich stars being depleted in fluorine by [F/Fe]=-0.8 dex.
383:
384: M3 and M13 have been extensively studied in the literature.
385: Sneden et al. (2004) evidentiated a clear O-Na anticorrelation, which, for the
386: high gravity stars (i.e. those well below the RGB bump) extends to
387: \ofe$\sim -0.4$, and \nafe=+0.4. They also confirm, even for this
388: high gravity population, that the most oxygen poor and sodium rich stars
389: are largely aluminum enhanced, with \alfe=1. The authors also claim the
390: detection in both clusters of a magnesium - aluminum anticorrelation, but this
391: result has been recently argued by Cohen \& Melendez (2005), who confirm
392: the extent of the oxygen depletion found by Sneden et al. (2004), but also
393: limit the sodium enhancement for the stars below the RGB bump to \nafe=+0.3.
394:
395: %_____________________________________________________________
396: % Two column Table
397: %_____________________________________________________________
398: %
399: \begin{table*}
400: \caption{Evolutionary properties of intermediate mass models}
401: \label{tabfis}
402: \centering
403: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} % 10 columns
404: \hline\hline
405: % To combine 4 columns into a single one
406: $M/M_{\odot}$ & $\tau_{\rm H}/10^6$ &
407: $\tau_{\rm He}/10^6$ & $\tau_{\rm AGB}/10^3$ & $\delta(M_{\rm 2dup})$ &
408: $M_{\rm core}/M_{\odot}$ & $\log(L/L_{\odot})_{\rm max}$ &
409: $T^{\rm bce}_{\rm max}$ & $N_{\rm pulse}$(TDU) & $\lambda$ \\
410: \hline
411: 3.0 & 275 & 49 & 410 & 0.01 & 0.76 & 4.40 & 74 & 6 & 0.7 \\
412: 3.5 & 195 & 31 & 340 & 0.05 & 0.80 & 4.50 & 83 & 6 & 0.7 \\
413: 4.0 & 145 & 21 & 250 & 0.15 & 0.83 & 4.60 & 88 & 8 & 0.7 \\
414: 4.5 & 112 & 16 & 190 & 0.27 & 0.86 & 4.67 & 95 & 9 & 0.6 \\
415: 5.0 & 91 & 12 & 120 & 0.36 & 0.90 & 4.74 & 100 & 13 & 0.5 \\
416: 5.5 & 75 & 9.5 & 85 & 0.47 & 0.94 & 4.80 & 110 & 17 & 0.5 \\
417: 6.0 & 63 & 7.7 & 42 & 0.56 & 1.00 & 4.90 & 110 & 20 & 0.3 \\
418: 6.3 & 57 & 7.0 & 32 & 0.62 & 1.03 & 4.95 & 112 & 21 & 0.2 \\
419: \hline
420: \end{tabular}
421: \end{table*}
422: %
423:
424:
425: On the basis of the results quoted above, we may summarize the following
426: chemical features which characterize the stars in the GCs
427: which should have not experienced any ``in situ''
428: mechanism to change their surface abundances:
429:
430: \begin{enumerate}
431:
432: \item{The oxygen depletion is at most by $\delta [O/Fe] \sim 0.8$}
433:
434: \item{The most aluminum rich stars show up an $^{27}$Al abundance of
435: \alfe=1}
436:
437: \item{Sodium is anticorrelated to oxygen. The extent of the largest
438: sodium enhancement is \nafe=0.4, but this result is uncertain by
439: at least 0.1 dex}
440:
441: \end{enumerate}
442:
443: Also, we may mention other two points, which must still be confirmed by
444: detailed spectroscopic investigations:
445:
446: \begin{enumerate}
447:
448: \item{Magnesium might be correlated to oxygen, and anticorrelated to
449: sodium and aluminum}
450:
451: \item{Fluorine might be strongly anticorrelated to sodium, but this
452: result was found at the moment only for giant stars}
453:
454: \item{Lithium is correlated to oxygen: the oxygen poor population
455: shows a lithium content smaller by a factor 2}
456:
457: \end{enumerate}
458:
459:
460:
461: \section{The physical properties of the intermediate mass models}
462: The models were evolved from the pre-MS through the whole AGB phase.
463: The chemistry adopted is typical of the intermediate metallicity
464: GCs, i.e. Z=0.001 and Y=0.24.
465: The mixture, consistently with the main target of this investigation, is
466: assumed to be $\alpha-$enhanced, with [$\alpha$/Fe]=+0.4; the individual
467: abundances are taken from Grevesse \& Sauval (1998).
468: The range of masses involved is $3M_{\odot}\leq M \leq 6.3M_{\odot}$; the
469: limits were chosen to restrict the analysis to stars achieving HBB
470: during the AGB phase, and not undergoing any carbon ignition in the
471: interior.
472: Convection was modelled according to the FST treatment.
473: Due to the importance that CNO burning within the most
474: internal part of the convective envelope may have on the AGB evolution
475: (Herwig 2005; Mazzitelli et al 1999),
476: we adopted the diffusive treatment in all the models presented
477: here. In the phases preceeding the AGB evolution, a free
478: parameter $\zeta=0.02$ was used to model the exponential decay of velocities
479: within regions stable against convection;
480: this is in agreement with the calibration in Ventura et al. (1998).
481: For the whole AGB phase no extra-mixing was assumed from any convective
482: border. Mass loss was modelled according to Bl\"ocker (1995), with the free
483: parameter entering eq.2 set to $\eta_R=0.02$, according to the
484: calibration given in Ventura et al. (2000).
485:
486:
487:
488: \begin{figure*}
489: \centering{
490: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figM_L.eps}
491: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figM_Tb.eps}
492: }
493: \caption{Variation with the total mass of the luminosity (Left) and
494: Temperature at the bottom of the convective envelope (Right) of some
495: intermediate mass models during the AGB phase. For clarity reasons, only
496: models corresponding to initial masses 3,4,5,6$M_{\odot}$ are shown.}
497: \label{agbfis}%
498: \end{figure*}
499:
500:
501: The main physical properties of the models are reported in
502: Table \ref{tabfis}. Cols. 2 to 4 show the duration of the core H- and He-
503: burning phases (Myr) and of the AGB phase (Kyr).
504:
505: Within stars of intermediate mass, after the extinction of the CNO
506: burning shell following the core He-burning phase, the bottom of the convective
507: envelope sinks inwards, down to layers precedently touched by
508: nuclear burning; this is the second dredge-up (Iben 1991)
509: Col.5 reports the total mass previously involved in CNO burning
510: mixed with the convective envelope during the II DUP; in the most
511: massive models, where the amount of dredged-up matter is higher,
512: the surface chemistry is altered, with
513: a decrease of the surface oxygen abundance and an increase of the sodium
514: and helium mass fractions.
515:
516: These results are consistent with the old models calculated with the same
517: metallicity, presented in Ventura \& D'Antona (2005b, see Table 1).
518: In cols. 6-10 of Table \ref{tabfis} we give some details of the AGB evolution,
519: namely the core mass at the beginning of the Thermal Pulses (TPs) phase,
520: the maximum luminosity and the maximum temperature reached at the bottom
521: of the convective zone ($\tbce$), the number of the first TP followed by
522: a TDU episode, and the maximum efficiency of the TDU during the whole
523: stellar AGB life\footnote{We use here the usual descriprion of the
524: efficiency of the TDU in the terms of the quantity $\lambda$, defined
525: as the ratio of the total matter dredge-up after a TP to the
526: mass by which the H-exhausted core advanced from the previous TP}.
527:
528: Fig.\ref{agbfis} shows the variation with mass (decreasing
529: during the evolution) of the luminosity and $\tbce$ in some of our models.
530: We note in all cases, with
531: the only possible exception of the $3M_{\odot}$ model, a rapid increase
532: of the luminosity after the very first TPs, associated to an increase
533: of $\tbce$. This is a consequence of the high efficiency of the convective
534: model adopted, as correctly predicted by Bl\"ocker \& Sch\"onberner (1991),
535: and later confirmed by D'Antona \& Mazzitelli (1996) and
536: Ventura et al. (2000). A detailed comparison of the results obtained with
537: various efficiencies of the convective model can be found in Ventura
538: \& D'Antona (2005b).
539:
540: The large luminosities attained by our models have two important
541: consequences:
542:
543: \begin{enumerate}
544:
545: \item{A fast decrease of the mass of the envelope, with a consequent
546: small number of TPs, and therefore of TDUs}
547:
548: \item{A very advanced nucleosynthesis at the bottom of the envelope}
549:
550: \end{enumerate}
551:
552: In the most massive models, mass loss is so large that they
553: reach their maximum luminosity after a few TPs; they loose their
554: envelope so rapidly, that TDU takes place only in the latest stages of
555: their AGB evolution, and with a very modest efficiency
556: (see col.10 of Table \ref{tabfis}).
557: We stress that the larger is the luminosity, the faster is the
558: general cooling of the structure determined by the gradual loss of the
559: mass of the envelope: the maximum temperature achieved at the bottom
560: of the external convective zone reaches a maximum asymptotic value
561: (see col.8 of Table \ref{tabfis}), which, for large M, turns out to be
562: independent of the total initial mass of the star; in the present
563: computations, this upper limit is $\tbce=110$MK.
564:
565:
566: % Two column Table
567: %_____________________________________________________________
568: %
569: \begin{table*}
570: \caption{Chemical composition of the ejecta of intermediate mass models}
571: \label{tabchim}
572: \centering
573: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} % 11 columns
574: \hline\hline
575: $M/M_{\odot}$ & $\eta_R$ & Y & A(Li) & [$^{12}$C/Fe] & [$^{14}$N/Fe] &
576: [$^{16}$O/Fe] & [$^{19}$F/Fe] & [$^{23}$Na/Fe] & [Mg/Fe] & [$^{27}$Al/Fe] &
577: R(CNO) \\
578: \hline
579: 3.0 & 0.02 & .248 & 2.77 & 0.84 & 2.21 & 0.92 & 0.10 & 1.16 & 0.57 & 0.65 & 9.6 \\
580: 3.5 & 0.02 & .265 & 2.43 & 0.51 & 2.18 & 0.77 & -0.26 & 1.30 & 0.55 & 0.66 & 7.9 \\
581: 4.0 & 0.02 & .281 & 2.20 & 0.14 & 2.02 & 0.44 & -0.61 & 1.18 & 0.48 & 0.55 & 4.9 \\
582: 4.5 & 0.02 & .310 & 2.00 & 0.12 & 1.89 & 0.19 & -0.90 & 0.97 & 0.43 & 0.85 & 3.1 \\
583: 5.0 & 0.02 & .324 & 1.98 & 0.13 & 1.70 & -0.06 & -1.16 & 0.60 & 0.35 & 1.02 & 2.1 \\
584: 5.5 & 0.02 & .334 & 1.93 & -0.41 & 1.51 & -0.35 & -1.39 & 0.37 & 0.28 & 1.10 & 1.3 \\
585: 6.0 & 0.02 & .343 & 2.02 & -0.62 & 1.35 & -0.40 & -1.36 & 0.31 & 0.29 & 1.04 & 0.97 \\
586: 6.3 & 0.02 & .348 & 2.06 & -0.68 & 1.33 & -0.37 & -1.28 & 0.30 & 0.30 & 0.99 & 0.94 \\
587: 5.0 & 0.01 & .327 & 1.79 & 0.00 & 1.83 & -0.14 & -1.30 & 0.67 & 0.40 & 1.20 & 2.77 \\
588: 5.0 & 0.04 & .323 & 2.49 & -0.37 & 1.58 & -0.05 & -1.00 & 0.70 & 0.39 & 0.80 & 1.71 \\
589: 6.0 & 0.01 & .345 & 1.83 & -0.40 & 1.49 & -0.42 & -1.45 & 0.27 & 0.22 & 1.07 & 1.29 \\
590: \hline
591: \end{tabular}
592: \end{table*}
593: %
594:
595:
596: \section{The chemistry of the ejecta}
597: For each model, we calculate the average mass fractions in the ejecta,
598: for the chemical elements included in our network.
599: The results for the species of interest for this work, are presented in
600: Table \ref{tabchim}. For any isotope A, we give the quantity [A/Fe], defined
601: as [A/Fe$]=\log($A/Fe$)_{\rm ejecta}-\log($A/Fe$)_{\odot}$; the abundances are
602: mass fractions. The only exceptions are helium and lithium, for
603: which we list, respectively, the mass fraction Y and the standard A(Li) quantity.
604: Note that Mg in col.9 refers to the total magnesium abundance, and R(CNO) in the
605: last column gives the ratio between the total C+N+O in the ejecta and the initial
606: value.
607:
608: \begin{figure*}
609: \centering{
610: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figM_O.eps}
611: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figOyield.eps}
612: }
613: \caption{Left: Variation with the total mass of the surface oxygen mass
614: fraction of the AGB models with masses $3M_{\odot} \leq M \leq 6M_{\odot}$;
615: the strong depletion in the most massive models is a clear signature of
616: strong HBB at the bottom of the convective envelope. Right: oxygen
617: content of the ejecta as a function of the initial mass; a plateau value
618: of \ofe=-0.4 is reached for the highest masses}
619: \label{oxy}%
620: \end{figure*}
621:
622: \subsection{The oxygen depletion}
623: The depletion of the surface oxygen abundance requires a strong HBB at the
624: bottom of the convective envelope, as the activation of the full CNO cycle
625: demands temperatures approaching 100MK, which, within the context of the
626: AGB modelling, are attainable only via a very efficient description of
627: convection (Ventura \& D'Antona 2005b). The present models have been
628: calculated with the FST prescription, thus, at least in the most massive
629: models, we expect to reach such a high $\tbce$, as can be seen in the right
630: panel of Fig.\ref{agbfis}.
631:
632: The left panel of Fig.\ref{oxy} shows the variation with the total mass
633: of the surface oxygen abundance for the masses examined here, with the
634: only exception of the 6.3\msun model, which was omitted for clarity reasons,
635: being very similar to the 6\msun case.
636: We see that oxygen burning starts efficiently shortly after the beginning of
637: the AGB phase in all the models more massive than 4\msun. In the same panel
638: we may easily note the effects of the TDU, which, when sufficiently
639: efficient, increases the oxygen content of the envelope, because carbon and
640: oxygen rich material is dredged-up from the ashes of the precedent $3\alpha$
641: burning shell which forms during each TP. A strong oxygen depletion is thus
642: inhibited by repeated and efficient TDU episodes, so that in the less massive
643: models, which undergo many TDUs, and hardly reach the temperatures requested
644: to ignite oxygen burning, the oxygen is indeed produced rather than destroyed
645: within their envelopes.
646: With increasing mass, we shift progressively to a situation where the final
647: oxygen abundance is a delicate compromise between the depletion triggered by
648: the activation of the full CNO cycle and the increase due to the TDU
649: (4.5\msun$\leq M \leq$ 5.5\msun), to end up with the most massive models
650: ($M\geq$6\msun), in which oxygen can be eventually depleted by a factor
651: $\sim 20$ compared to the initial value (see the track corresponding to
652: the 6\msun model in the left panel of Fig.\ref{oxy}).
653:
654: In the right panel of Fig.\ref{oxy} we show the oxygen content of the ejecta
655: of the models calculated, in terms of \ofe, to allow a more straight comparison
656: with the observations outlined in Sect.2. We note a very high oxygen content
657: in the ejecta of the models with masses $M<4$\msun, consistently with the
658: previous discussion; the model with initial mass 4\msun shows an
659: oxygen content unchanged compared to the initial $\alpha-$enhanced value.
660: The mass-oxygen trend is progressively decreasing with mass, and reaches a
661: plateau value of \ofe$ \sim -0.4$dex for all the masses $M>5$\msun. The reasons
662: why this lower limit exists is twofold: a) on the one hand (see col.8 in
663: Table \ref{tabfis}), we saw that there is an upper limit for $\tbce$,
664: which therefore limits the degree of O-burning which may be achieved at
665: the bottom of the envelope; b) the luminosity in the most massive models is
666: so high that they loose mass rapidly, already from the very first TPs, when
667: the oxygen abundance is still large (see the different slope of the Oxygen-Mass
668: relation characterizing the 6\msun model compared to the other masses
669: in the left panel of Fig.\ref{oxy}). We will show that changing the mass loss
670: description does not change substantially this conclusion.
671: Finally, we note that this lower limit for \ofe is in good agreement with the
672: lowest oxygen abundances measured in TO and SGB stars belonging to intermediate
673: metallicity GCs.
674:
675: \subsection{Aluminum production and the activation of the Mg-Al cycle}
676: Cols. 10 and 11 of Table \ref{tabchim} report the Mg and Al content of the
677: ejecta.
678: While the observed spread in the Mg abundance, as outlined in Sect.3, is still
679: debated, and in any case restricted to 0.2-0.4 dex, the stars in GCs showing
680: up the largest degree of oxygen depletion are also strongly enriched in
681: aluminum, with \alfe=1 in the most extreme cases (Gratton et al.2001;
682: Sneden et al. 2004).
683:
684:
685: In the AGB modelling, an aluminum production at the bottom of the envelope
686: is made possible by the activation of the Mg-Al chain, which, favouring
687: proton captures by the heavy isotopes of magnesium, eventually leads
688: to the synthesis of $^{27}$Al (Denissenkov \& Herwig 2003; Ventura \&
689: D'Antona 2005a). Also TDU plays a role which is not negligible,
690: as a deep penetration
691: of the convective envelope within the region precedently touched by helium
692: burning may bring to the surface $^{25}$Mg and $^{26}$Mg synthetized via
693: $\alpha-$ captures by $^{22}$Ne nuclei; these isotopes, once the CNO burning
694: shell is reactivated, undergo proton capture and produce aluminum.
695:
696:
697: \begin{figure}
698: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figM_Al.eps}
699: \caption{The variation during the AGB phase of the surface aluminum
700: abundance, for the same models reported in fig.\ref{oxy}. Note the combined
701: effects of HBB and of TDU to increase the surface aluminum content}
702: \label{al}%
703: \end{figure}
704:
705:
706: Fig.\ref{al} shows the evolution of the surface aluminum content in the
707: models presented here. We note in all cases a trend increasing during the
708: evolution; in the most massive models, due to the stronger
709: nucleosynthesis activated, the aluminum production is larger.
710: Even in this case, as it was for the depletion of oxygen, we note an
711: upper limit to the aluminum enhancement, which can also be seen in
712: col.10 of Table \ref{tabchim} to be \alfe=1. The reasons for the
713: impossibility of a larger Al production are the upper limit of $\tbce=110$MK
714: found in our models, the negligible extent of TDU in the most massive stars,
715: preventing the transport of the magnesium isotopes from the interior to
716: the surface, and the strong mass loss suffered from these models at the
717: beginning of the AGB phase, which favours the ejection into the ISM
718: of material which is not aluminum rich.
719:
720: We see from col.11 of Table \ref{tabchim} that the ejecta of all the models
721: are characterized by $0.5\leq$\alfe$\leq 1$, and are
722: therefore fully consistent with the aluminum content of the stars with
723: the anomalous chemistry outlined by the spectrospic investigations
724: presented in Sect.3.
725:
726: The total magnesium abundance, as it is evident from the previous discussion,
727: is the result of the balance between the increase of Mg determined by the
728: TDU, and the depletion due to proton captures during HBB. This explains
729: the negative trend with mass which can be seen in col.9 of Table \ref{tabchim}.
730:
731: We underline here the striking difference between our findings and the
732: results obtained by Fenner et al. (2004, see the bottom panel of their
733: fig.1), where they found that the most Al-rich stars were also magnesium
734: rich. This was a result of the effects
735: of many TDUs, enriching the envelope with the heavy magnesium isotopes
736: produced in the $3\alpha$ shell; it is the different treatment of convection
737: between the two sets of models leading to this discrepancy, because the
738: use of the FST model reduces the number of TPs and TDUs.
739:
740: Contrary to oxygen, the predictive power of our results {\bf for Al}
741: is undermined by the range of uncertainties related to the relevant cross-sections.
742: Izzard et al. (2007) evidentiated that in massive AGBs the
743: yields of $^{27}$Al is affected by the uncertainties connected to both the
744: $^{26}$Mg(p,$\gamma)^{27}$Al and $^{26}$Al(p,$\gamma)^{27}$Si reaction rates:
745: we used
746: the upper NACRE limit for these reactions in the present investigation, but we
747: keep in mind that these results have an associated uncertainty which may be
748: estimated to be around 0.3-0.4 dex.
749:
750: \subsection{The puzzling behaviour of sodium}
751: The debate regarding the amount of sodium which may be synthesized within
752: AGBs is still open, due to the large uncertainties associated to a)
753: the cross-sections of the reactions involved in the Ne-Na cycle; b) the
754: cross sections of the $\alpha-$captures by \ne22;
755: c) other physical inputs which play a role in determining the sodium
756: content within the envelope of these stars.
757:
758: As outlined by Ventura \& D'Antona (2006), the surface sodium abundance first increases
759: due to the II DUP, then, particularly in AGB models calculated with an
760: efficient convective model, it is further produced by burning of the
761: dredged-up $^{22}$Ne,
762: and is later decreased when the rate of destruction exceeds that of production.
763: Any TDU favours sodium production, due to dredging up of primary $^{22}$Ne
764: synthesized
765: via $\alpha-$capture within the convective shell which forms during the TP.
766: This behaviour is confirmed by Fig.\ref{sodio}, which shows the variation of
767: the surface sodium abundance of the evolutionary models.
768: The behaviour of the M$ \leq 4$\msun stars is in qualitative agreement with the AGB
769: models used by Fenner et al.(2004) (see the upper panel of their Fig.1):
770: we note a great increase of the sodium abundance, due to
771: the dredge-up of $^{22}$Ne which is later converted to sodium.
772: Contrary to their findings, our more massive models show an opposite behaviour,
773: because the FST convective model favours a more advanced nucleosynthesis, with
774: a partial destruction of the sodium precedently created; also, we recall that
775: the higher mass loss favours a smaller number of TPs, thus acting against
776: sodium production.
777:
778:
779: \begin{figure}
780: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figM_Na.eps}
781: \caption{Variation with mass of the surface sodium abundance within
782: our standard models}
783: \label{sodio}%
784: \end{figure}
785:
786:
787: \begin{figure}
788: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figNa2.eps}
789: \caption{Variation of the sodium surface content within models with
790: initial masses 4,5,6\msun calculated with the recommended values of
791: the cross-sections of the Ne-Na cycle (dotted), and those maximising
792: sodium production (see text for details). The dashed tracks show the
793: results obtained when the upper limits of the $\alpha-$capture
794: reactions by $^{22}$Ne nuclei are adopted.}
795: \label{sodio2}%
796: \end{figure}
797:
798: The precedent discussion explains the clearly negative trend with mass
799: of the \nafe\quad values in the 9th column of Table \ref{tabchim}.
800: We focus our attention on the most massive models, which produce yields
801: which we saw to be aluminum rich and oxygen poor: the sodium content
802: of their ejecta is in the range 0.3-0.4 dex, which is consistent with
803: the sodium abundances derived by most of the research groups
804: for the stars with the most anomalous chemical composition.
805:
806: The uncertainties connected to the cross sections have a dramatic impact
807: on the value of \nafe\quad of the ejecta, even more than we saw for aluminum.
808: Concerning HBB, the main problems are associated to the cross section of the
809: $^{22}$Ne(p,$\gamma)^{23}$Na reaction, which is uncertain by a factor
810: $\sim 2000$ (Hale et al. 2002); even the other reaction relevant to
811: determine the correct sodium equilibrium value, i.e.
812: $^{23}$Na(p,$\alpha)^{20}$Ne, has a margin of uncertainty, which is
813: however smaller ($\sim 30\%$; Hale et al. 2004).
814:
815:
816:
817: \begin{figure*}
818: \centering{
819: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figLi.eps}
820: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figLiyield.eps}
821: }
822: \caption{Left: Variation as a function of the total stellar mass of the
823: surface lithium content of the intermediate mass models during the whole
824: AGB evolution. Right: The lithium content of the ejecta, as a function of
825: the initial mass.}
826: \label{litio}%
827: \end{figure*}
828:
829:
830: We {\bf ran} three models with initial masses 4,5,6\msun, where we used the
831: lower limit for the $^{22}$Ne(p,$\gamma)^{23}$Na reaction,
832: and the upper limit for $^{23}$Na(p,$\alpha)^{20}$Ne. The comparison
833: between these simulations (dotted tracks) and those described in
834: Table \ref{tabchim} (solid) {\bf is} shown in Fig.\ref{sodio2}.
835: We note that when the cross sections minimizing the sodium production are used,
836: with the only exception of the II DUP, sodium is destroyed when $\tbce$ becomes
837: sufficiently large to ignite proton capture by $^{23}$Na nuclei. The sodium contents
838: which we get are considerably lower, i.e. \nafe=0.6 for the 4\msun model,
839: \nafe=0.0 in the M=5\msun case, and \nafe=-0.2 for M=6\msun;
840: these values are smaller than those
841: reported in Table \ref{tabchim} by 0.6 dex.
842: Note that this is not proportional to the reduction factor of the
843: $^{22}$Ne(p,$\gamma)^{23}$Na reaction, because, as pointed out
844: by Izzard et al. (2007), once $^{22}$Ne is destroyed at the bottom of
845: the envelope, no further sodium can be created, despite the use of a cross
846: section for $^{22}$Ne burning which is a factor $\sim 2000$ higher.
847: This is also consistent with the investigation by Ventura \& D'Antona (2006),
848: who pointed out that a decrease of the $^{23}$Na(p,$\alpha)^{20}$Ne
849: reaction by a factor 2 could reconcile better the sodium content of
850: the ejecta of the most massive AGBs of intermediate metallicity with
851: the spectrospic measurements of GC stars.
852:
853: For the models experiencing TDU, another source of uncertainty
854: for the sodium yield is provided by the cross sections of the $\alpha-$
855: capture reactions by \ne22 nuclei, whose upper limit is 3 orders
856: of magnitude higher than the recommended values (Angulo et al. 1999).
857: These reactions determine the \ne22 content in the convective shell
858: which forms during the TP, hence the amount of \ne22 which may be dredged-up
859: in the after-pulse phase, and therefore the quantity of sodium which may be
860: sinthesized at the bottom of the envelope via proton capture by \ne22
861: nuclei.
862:
863: The dashed tracks in Fig.\ref{sodio2} show the results of the surface
864: sodium abundance when these upper limits are used: for the 4 and 5\msun
865: the overall sodium abundance is clearly reduced.
866: Differently from the previous case, the associated uncertainties
867: on the sodium yields are not uniform with mass, but rather show a
868: decreasing trend, ranging from a null effect for the most
869: massive models, to $\delta [Na/Fe]\sim 0.15$dex for $M=5M_{\odot}$, up to
870: $\delta [Na/Fe]\sim 0.3$dex for $M=4M_{\odot}$;
871: these results are actually not surprising, since dredging up of \ne22
872: becomes progressively more important in determining the sodium abundance
873: the smaller is the stellar mass.
874:
875: The yields of sodium from these sources are still highly uncertain; only
876: a more solid estimate of the relevant cross-sections may help increasing the
877: reliability of these investigations.
878:
879:
880: \subsection{The lithium problem}
881: Lithium is synthesized at the bottom of the convective envelope
882: of AGBs at temperatures exceeding $40 \times 10^6$K via the Cameron \&
883: Fowler (1971) mechanism. Sackmann \& Boothroyd (1992) first showed that
884: the use of a diffusive approach was mandatory to describe such a delicate
885: interplay among nuclear and mixing time scales, which could eventually
886: lead to lithium production. Ventura et al. (2000) used this approach to
887: reproduce the lithium vs. luminosity trend observed in the Large Magellanic
888: Cloud.
889:
890: The key factor to achieve lithium production is the activation of
891: the $^3$He($\alpha,\gamma)^7$Be reaction at the bottom of the convective
892: envelope, which is possible when $\tbce > 40 \times 10^6$K.
893:
894: The left panel of Fig.\ref{litio} shows that all our models
895: attain temperatures at the bottom
896: of the convective envelope sufficiently high to ignit the Cameron \& Fowler
897: mechanism; the most massive stars undergo a rapid consumpion of the whole
898: $^3$He available in the envelope, so that the surface lithium content, after
899: reaching a maximum value A(Li)$\sim 4$, rapidly declines to extremely low
900: abundances. This process becomes progressively slower as the mass decreases; we
901: end up with the 3\msun model, which is still lithium rich at the end of its
902: AGB evolution. This discusion explains the relation between the
903: initial mass of the star and the lithium content of its ejecta, shown in the
904: right panel of Fig.\ref{litio}; all the massive models have
905: A(Li) $\sim 2$, in excellent agreement with the lithium abundance of the
906: oxygen poor TO stars in NGC 6752 (Pasquini et al. 2005).
907:
908: \subsection{The helium enrichment}
909: The AGB models discussed here experience a small number of TPs, thus most of the
910: helium enrichment of the envelope takes place during the II DUP. Since this latter
911: is deeper the higher is the initial mass of the star (see col.5 of Table \ref{tabfis})
912: we expect the helium enrichment to increase with mass, as it is confirmed by the
913: results reported in col.3 of Table \ref{tabchim}. We find a small increase (compared
914: to the standard Big Bang value, Y=0.24) in the models with mass $M<4$\msun; the
915: maximum enrichment, for the masses close to the limit for carbon ignition, is
916: Y=0.35. We discuss in a forthcoming paper (Pumo et al. 2007) the overall helium
917: enrichment due to AGB and super-AGB stars of intermediate metallicity, and the
918: robustness of these predictions, related essentially to the efficiency of the
919: II DUP.
920:
921: \subsection{Comparison with previous models}
922: Ventura et al. (2002) presented models for the evolution of stars of
923: intermediate mass at various metallicities, ranging from
924: $Z=2\times 10^{-4}$ to $Z=0.01$. We compare the yields of the present
925: work with the results of that investigation, for the metallicity
926: $Z=0.001$. First, we note that the helium content is sistematically
927: higher here by $\sim 0.04$, as can be seen by comparing the third
928: column of Table \ref{tabchim} with the dashed curve giving the helium-mass
929: trend in fig.4 in Ventura et al. (2002). This results may be understood in
930: terms of the extra-mixing from the bottom of the convective envelope which
931: was assumed in the present models, and which was neglected in Ventura et al.
932: (2002).
933:
934: The combined effects of the overshooting from the envelope and the
935: different mixture adopted (solar in Ventura et al. (2002), $\alpha-$
936: enhanced here), favours smaller core masses in the present models, so that
937: a given model here can be compared with a model $0.5M_{\odot}$ less
938: massive in Ventura et al. (2002).
939:
940: Even with this assumption, we note differences in the CNO yields, the
941: overall C+N+O contribution being higher here compared to the corresponding
942: values in Ventura et al. (2002) (see fig.6 in Ventura et al. 2002, to be
943: compared with columns 5 to 7 in Table \ref{tabchim}). The reason for such
944: discrepancy is the different efficiency of the TDU found in the two sets
945: of models: we find a maximum efficiency of $\lambda=0.7$ here (which decreases
946: to $\lambda=0.5$ in the more massive models), whereas in Ventura et al. (2002)
947: $\lambda$ could hardly reach 0.5. This change, favoured by the different mixture
948: adopted, determines the differences in the yields obtained.
949:
950: The detailed comparison of the other yields is rendered hard by the differences
951: in the nuclear cross-sections adopted for the relevant reactions; Ventura et al. (2002)
952: used the NACRE compilation, whereas here we use the most updated releases present
953: in the literature.
954:
955: \section{The uncertainties related to mass loss}
956: Mass loss plays a fundamental role in the context of AGB evolution: it is
957: the reduction of the convective envelope via stellar winds which eventually
958: halts the TP phase, and leads to PN ejection. Also, the description of mass loss
959: determines the number of TPs experienced by the star, and, in turn, the
960: number of TDUs (Sch\"onberner 1979).
961:
962: Ventura et al.(2000) calibrated the parameter $\eta_R$ entering eq.(2) by
963: reproducing the luminosity function of lithium rich stars in the
964: Magellanic Clouds; the chemistry of the stars examined in the present work is
965: different, thus leaving some room for a possible variation of $\eta_R$. It is
966: therefore essential to understand to which extent the yields which we obtain
967: depend on this choice.
968:
969: On the physical side, a larger mass loss
970: leads the star evolve at lower luminosities; the degree of the
971: nucleosynthesis achieved at the bottom of the convective envelope is
972: reduced, because we have smaller temperatures.
973: This is confirmed by fig.\ref{mloss1}, where we show the evolution of the
974: luminosity and of $\tbce$ in models with initial masses 5 and 6\msun,
975: calculated with different $\eta_R$s.
976:
977: Chemically, the situation is complex, and not all the isotopes
978: follow the same trend with $\dot M$; this is
979: dependent on the modality with which any chemical species
980: is synthesized (or destroyed) within the convective envelope.
981: The last three lines of Table \ref{tabchim} report the chemistry of the
982: ejecta of the models of 5 and 6\msun calculated with a different mass loss
983: rate with respect to our standard case.
984:
985: The behaviour of lithium is the most linear. As can be seen in the left panel
986: of fig.\ref{mloss2}, lithium is produced only during the first TPs, so that the
987: average lithium content of the ejecta is determined essentially by the mass
988: lost by the star during this phase. A large $\dot M$ allows a larger release
989: of lithium rich material during the early phases of the AGB evolution, with a
990: consequent increase of A(Li): for a given mass, we see in Table \ref{tabchim}
991: an almost linear trend A(Li)-$\eta_R$. A similar, straight path is also
992: followed by fluorine, which is destroyed during the very first TPs, so that
993: the overall yield is determined by the strength of the stellar winds during
994: the first TPs; in this case the slope of the \ffe-$\eta_R$ relation is
995: lower compared to lithium, because the fluorine consumption is faster
996: than the duration of the whole phase of lithium production and destruction.
997:
998: Other elements show up a less defined behaviour, because their yield is
999: determined by the nucleosynthesis at the bottom of the envelope during
1000: the whole AGB phase, and also by the TDU. Interestingly, we find that in
1001: some cases the yields are not very sensitive to the mass loss rate adopted.
1002: A typical example is oxygen, for which we show the
1003: variation of the surface abundance in the right panel of fig.\ref{mloss2}.
1004: When mass loss is reduced, the tendency of the oxygen
1005: abundance of the ejecta to diminish (less oxygen-rich matter during the
1006: first TPs is lost by the star) is partly compensated by the larger number
1007: of TPs, which act to increase the surface oxygen content.
1008: The clearest example is the 6\msun model, for which
1009: a smaller $\eta_R$ (dotted track) leads to a smaller surface oxygen
1010: abundance until the total mass of the star drops to 3\msun, but to a
1011: larger mass fraction in the latest evolutionary phases, when the TDU
1012: becomes efficient.
1013: As can be seen in Table \ref{tabchim}, the oxygen content of the ejecta is almost
1014: independent of $\eta_R$, and so is the general conclusion which we reached
1015: in Sect.5.1 concerning the maximum depletion of oxygen obtainable by these
1016: models: playing with mass loss leaves unchanged the maximum depletion of
1017: oxygen obtainable at these metallicites, leading to a minimum oxygen content
1018: of the ejecta \ofe=-0.4.
1019:
1020: A behaviour similar to oxygen is also followed by sodium, again because its
1021: abundance in the envelope is a balance between destruction via proton capture
1022: and production via dredging up of $^{22}$Ne. Independently of mass, the
1023: related uncertainty is $\delta$\nafe$\sim 0.1$dex.
1024:
1025: The aluminum abundance of the ejecta decreases with $\dot M$, because
1026: a larger mass loss favours a larger release of mass at the beginning of the
1027: AGB phase, when the aluminum has not yet been synthesized in great amounts.
1028: The smaller number of TPs at large $\dot M$ tends to increase
1029: the $^{27}$Al abundance indirectly, via dredge-up of the heavy magnesium isotopes,
1030: which later form aluminum via proton capture. The variation of \alfe with the
1031: mass loss rate is ($\delta \alfe \sim 0.1$dex).
1032:
1033: Helium is not influenced by the details of the mass loss description,
1034: because the only {\bf substantial} change of its surface abundance takes place
1035: during the II DUP, and remains approximately constant during the whole
1036: following AGB phase.
1037:
1038: Finally, we note from the last column of Table \ref{tabchim} that the CNO ratio
1039: has a negative trend with mass loss, which is a mere consequence of the fact
1040: that when $\dot M$ is high the star experience a smaller number of TPs.
1041:
1042: We may summarize the effects of the uncertainties of mass loss during the
1043: AGB phase on the chemistry of the ejecta as follows:
1044:
1045: \begin{enumerate}
1046:
1047: \item{Oxygen is not sensitive to the mass loss rate adopted}
1048:
1049: \item{Sodium and aluminum show a positive trend with mass loss, but the
1050: {\bf uncertainty associated with the adopted description of mass loss}
1051: is considerably smaller than the indetermination due to the unknown
1052: relevant cross-sections}
1053:
1054: \item{Lithium and fluorine are more sensitive to mass loss, with a
1055: linear positive trend}
1056:
1057: \item{The CNO content of the ejecta is sensitive to mass loss, because
1058: a stronger $\dot M$ diminishes the number of TPs experienced by the
1059: stars, thus favouring a smaller C+N+O abundance}
1060:
1061:
1062: \end{enumerate}
1063:
1064: \begin{figure}
1065: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figml_fis.eps}
1066: \caption{Comparison between the variation with the total mass of the
1067: luminosity (top) and temperature at the bottom of the convective envelope
1068: (bottom) of models with initial masses 5,6\msun, calculated with
1069: different values of the parameter $\eta_R$ enetering eq.2}
1070: \label{mloss1}%
1071: \end{figure}
1072:
1073:
1074: \begin{figure*}
1075: \centering{
1076: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figml_li.eps}
1077: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figml_o.eps}
1078: }
1079: \caption{Variation with the total mass of the star of the lithium (Left)
1080: and oxygen (Right) surface abundances within models of initial mass
1081: 5 and 6\msun calculated with different mass loss rates. Note the
1082: straightforward dependency of lithium on mass loss, compared to the
1083: more tricky behaviour of oxygen, whose destruction is first amplified
1084: by a lower mass loss rate, and later prevented by TDU episodes}
1085: \label{mloss2}%
1086: \end{figure*}
1087:
1088:
1089: \section{Discussion: theory vs. observations}
1090: We discuss the self-enrichment scenario hypothesis for intermediate
1091: metallicity clusters, by asking whether the ejecta of the most massive
1092: AGBs can account for the chemical patterns traced by the abundances of
1093: the GC stars with the most anomalous chemistry. We restrict our attention
1094: on the least evolved stars (i.e. TO and SGB sources,
1095: or giants well below the RGB bump),
1096: despite the difficulties presented by their spectroscpic analysis,
1097: because this allows to rule out any possible change of the surface
1098: chemistry due to some non-canonical extra mixing while ascending the
1099: RGB; we therefore disentangle the primordial from the evolutionary
1100: effects, and focus only on the abundance patterns present directly
1101: in the matter from which the stars formed.
1102:
1103: Our goal is {\bf to} test the possibility that our ejecta can reproduce
1104: the observed O-Na and O-Al trends, and that the stars showing the
1105: strongest oxygen depletion are fluorine poor and possibly sligthly
1106: depleted in magnesium. Finally, we compare our results with the
1107: recent analysis of the lithium abundances in NGC 6752, which
1108: indicate that oxygen poor stars deviate from the Spite's plateau,
1109: having a lithium content a factor 2 smaller than the standard
1110: value (Pasquini et al. 2005).
1111:
1112: In making this comparison, we keep in mind that the oxygen abundances
1113: predictions are very robust, that the aluminum and even more sodium
1114: mass fractions are made uncertain by the poor knowledge of the relevant
1115: cross-sections in the range of temperatures of interest here (T$\sim 100$MK),
1116: and that lithium is strongly influenced by the assumed mass loss rate
1117: at the beginning of the AGB phase.
1118:
1119: The left panel of fig.\ref{antic} shows the observed oxygen-sodium trend
1120: for such stars. The dashed track and the two solid lines indicate the
1121: abundances of the ejecta of our models, differing in the chosen cross-sections
1122: for the reactions involving sodium: the upper solid track refers to models calculated
1123: with the upper limits for the $^{22}$Ne(p,$\gamma)^{23}$Na and the lower
1124: limits for the $^{23}$Na(p,$\alpha)^{20}$Ne reactions, while the lower
1125: refers to models calculated with the recommended values for the same
1126: reactions; the dashed track indicates the results obtained by maximizing the
1127: rates of the $\alpha-$capture reactions by $^{22}$Ne.
1128:
1129: According to our interpretation, the observed points
1130: inside the squared box in the right lower portion of the plane represent stars
1131: born with the original chemistry, while those belonging to the 2nd generation,
1132: whose initial chemistry traces the pollution by AGBs, are included within the
1133: squared box in the left-upper part. The remaining points, with high sodium
1134: and normal oxygen, may be stars formed by processed matter mixed with
1135: remnant primordial gas (Decressin et al. 2007).
1136: The uncertainties related to the cross-sections strongly
1137: limit the predictive power of the results obtained, and the observational
1138: spread ($\delta$\nafe $\sim 0.3$ for a given \ofe) makes the comparison
1139: not straightforward. However, we note that the ejecta of models with masses
1140: $M \geq 5M_{\odot}$ might account for the oxygen and sodium abundances
1141: detected in the 2nd generation of stars.
1142: {\bf Notice that here we are touching again the problem of the mass budget: if only the
1143: envelopes of stars from 5 up to 6.3\msun\ ---or at most up to 7-8\msun, if we can assume that
1144: also the superAGBs contribute with similar yields--- can form the self--enriched stars,
1145: the gas contained in this mass range, for reasonable IMFs, is only a few percent of the
1146: total initial cluster mass. As we remarked in the introduction, we must then hypothize
1147: that the initial cluster mass was much larger than the present mass, and that
1148: preferentially the second generation stars have been lost during the long term
1149: cluster evolution.}
1150:
1151: The right panel of Fig.\ref{antic} reports the observed points in the
1152: O-Al plane. Even in this case we report two theoretical lines,
1153: obtained with different choices of the rates of the Mg-Al chain
1154: reactions (the upper line refers to models calculated with the maximum
1155: allowed values of the cross-section of the proton capture reactions by
1156: the two heavy magnesium isotopes). In this case the observed trend is
1157: well reproduced, in particular for the chemistry of the most oxygen poor
1158: stars, which evidentiate an aluminum enhancement by \alfe$\sim$1.
1159: In the case of aluminum the comparison is more straightforward, because
1160: the theoretical uncertainties related to the cross-sections are smaller.
1161: The two squares in the figure have the same meaning as in the left panel.
1162:
1163: A welcome result from this investigation is that the lithium content
1164: of the ejecta of the most massive models, those showing the strongest
1165: depletion of oxygen, is A(Li)$\sim 2$ (see teb.\ref{tabchim}), and are
1166: therefore in excellent agreement with the recent analysis of TO stars
1167: in NGC 6752 by Pasquini et al. (2005). Actually, the overall O-Li trend
1168: in the range \ofe$<0.2$ is well reproduced (see their fig.3).
1169:
1170: Although the observed range of magnesium abundances is small, so that the
1171: existence of a real spread is still debated, our models indicate that
1172: a Mg-Al anticorrelation should be present, with a spread
1173: $\delta$\mgfe $\sim 0.3$dex.
1174:
1175: Finally, our models point in favour of a strong depletion of fluorine,
1176: which is burnt heavily at the very beginning of the AGB phase in all models
1177: whose initial mass exceeds 4\msun. This is in agreement with a recent
1178: investigation focused on M4 giants (Smith et al. 2005); a robust
1179: confirm of this scenario would be the determination of fluorine abundances
1180: in TO and SGB stars.
1181:
1182: \section{Conclusions}
1183: We present updated model for the evolution of AGB stars of
1184: $3M_{\odot}\leq M \leq 6.3M_{\odot}$, Y=0.24 and Z=0.001.
1185: We test the self-enrichment scenario hypothesis for GCs of intermediate
1186: metallicity, comparing the results of spectroscopic investigations of scarcely
1187: evovlved stars in GCs with the theoretical yields of intermediate mass stars.
1188: This task demanded the computation of a new set of models, calculated with
1189: the latest physical updates concerning the equation of state and the
1190: conductive opacities, and with an $\alpha-$enhanced mixture, to describe
1191: self-consistently the chemistry of the first generation of stars which form
1192: in the GCs.
1193:
1194: \begin{figure*}
1195: \centering{
1196: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{antOna.eps}
1197: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{antOal.eps}
1198: }
1199: \caption{Left: The observed Oxygen-sodium trend in stars in GCs. The solid lines
1200: indicate the content of the ejecta of our models, obtained with the recommended
1201: cross-sections for the reactions involved in the Ne-Na cycle (lower track), and
1202: with the reactions rates maximizing sodium production (upper lines); the dashed
1203: track shows the abundances of the ejecta from the models calculated with the
1204: enhanced cross sections for the $\alpha-$captures by $^{22}$Ne. Right: The
1205: observed Oxygen-Aluminum anticorrelation. The two solid lines indicate
1206: the results from our models, accroding to the choices made for the cross-section
1207: of the Mg-Al reactions. The observed points refer to the following works.
1208: Full triangles: NGC 6752 (Gratton et al. 2001); Open squares: M5 stars with
1209: $V>16$ (Ramirez \& Cohen 2003); Stars: M13 stars with $V>15$ (Cohen \& Melendez 2005);
1210: Open triangles: M3 stars with $V>15$ (Cohen \& Melendez 2005); Full points:
1211: NGC 6218 stars (Carretta et al. 2006); Open squares: High gravity M3 giants
1212: (Sneden et al. 2004); Full squares: High gravity M13 giants (Sneden et al. 2004)}
1213: \label{antic}%
1214: \end{figure*}
1215:
1216:
1217:
1218: The high efficiency of the convective model adopted confirms an important result
1219: obtained by this research group regarding the AGB evolution of intermediate mass
1220: stars, i.e. the possibility of a strong nucleosynthesis at the bottom of the
1221: external convective zone for all the masses M$>3$\msun; this HBB also favours
1222: a fast increase of the luminosity, a higher mass loss, and therefore reduces
1223: the number of thermal pulses experienced by the star during the AGB phase.
1224: The present investigation indicate that for this metallicity a maximum
1225: $\tbce=110$MK may be reached for the highest masses; this upper limit, and the
1226: strong mass loss suffered by the most massive models, limits the extent of the
1227: nucleosynthesis which may be achieved within the envelope.
1228:
1229: The combination of HBB and TDU in the most massive models favours a strong
1230: depletion of oxygen and fluorine, a modest reduction of magnesium, and a large
1231: production of aluminum. Sodium is also produced, via a delicate compromise
1232: between production by neon burning and destruction by proton capture. It is
1233: confirmed that lithium can be produced at the beginning of the AGB phase
1234: via the Cameron-Fowler mechanism, to be later destroyed due to $^3$He
1235: consumption within the envelope. The matter ejected by these models is
1236: helium rich, which a maximum enrichment of Y=0.35 found for the 6\msun model.
1237:
1238: On the basis of the results of this work, the strongest point in favour of
1239: the self-enrichment scenario is the oxygen depletion, for which both the
1240: observations an the theoretical predictions indicate a maximum limit of
1241: \ofe$=-0.4$; the theoretical oxygen yield is robust, as it turns out to be
1242: approximately independent of the details of the mass loss description, and
1243: the relevant cross-sections are known with sufficient accuracy.
1244:
1245: The O-Al trend is confirmed by the present investigation, though the extent of
1246: the aluminum enrichment of the ejecta is sensitive to the assumptions
1247: regarding the cross-sections of the proton capture reactions by the heavy
1248: magnesium isotopes and by $^{26}$Al: note that the largest enrichment,
1249: \alfe$=1$ is consistent with the aluminum content of the ejecta of the largest
1250: masses studied here, which are also those mostly depleted in oxygen.
1251: The production of aluminum is associated to magnesium burning, which we
1252: predict to be sligthly depleted, in agreement with the findings of some
1253: research groups.
1254:
1255: The sodium yield is the most uncertain, due to the huge uncertainties
1256: associated to the reactions of the Ne-Na cycle. Our models
1257: confirm that when the maximum allowed values for the reaction rates of
1258: the proton capture reaction by $^{22}$Ne nuclei are adopted, the most oxygen
1259: poor ejecta are also sodium rich, but the exact extent of
1260: the sodium enrichment, and the confirm that a clear anticorrelation exists,
1261: can be hardly fixed with the present cross-sections: the theoretical
1262: uncertainties related to the sodium content amount to 0.6 dex.
1263:
1264: The yield of lithium and fluorine are most sensitive to the mass loss rate
1265: adopted. With our standard choice, our models predict a O-Li trend which is
1266: in excellent agreeent with a recent investigation based on the lithium
1267: content of TO stars in NGC 6752. The fluorine content is expected to
1268: be extremely poor in any case, the exact abundance being determined by
1269: the details of the mass loss description.
1270:
1271:
1272:
1273:
1274:
1275:
1276:
1277:
1278:
1279:
1280:
1281:
1282:
1283: %\begin{acknowledgements}
1284: % Part of this work was supported by the German
1285: % \emph{Deut\-sche For\-schungs\-ge\-mein\-schaft, DFG\/} project
1286: % number Ts~17/2--1.
1287: %\end{acknowledgements}
1288:
1289: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1290:
1291: \bibitem[1999]{angulo} Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M.
1292: et al. 1999, Nucl. Phys. A, 656, 3
1293:
1294: \bibitem[2004]{bedin}Bedin, L.R., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., Cassisi,S.,
1295: King, I.R., Momany, Y., \& Carraro, G. 2004, ApJ, 605, L125
1296:
1297: \bibitem[Bekki et al.(2007)]{bekki2007} Bekki, K., Campbell,
1298: S.~W., Lattanzio, J.~C., \& Norris, J.~E.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, 335
1299:
1300: \bibitem[1995]{blocker2} Bl\"ocker, T. 1995, A\&A, 297, 727
1301:
1302: \bibitem[1991]{blocker1} Bl\"ocker, T., \& Sch\"onberner, D.
1303: 1991, A\&A, 244, L43
1304:
1305: \bibitem[1971]{cameron} Cameron, A.G.W., \& Fowler, W.A. 1971, ApJ, 164, 111
1306:
1307: \bibitem[1996]{canuto2} Canuto, V.M.C., Goldman, I., \&
1308: Mazzitelli, I. 1996, ApJ, 473, 550
1309:
1310: \bibitem[1996]{canuto2} Canuto, V.M.C., \& Mazzitelli, I. 1991, ApJ, 370, 295
1311:
1312: % \bibitem[2005]{carretta3} Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R.,
1313: % et al. 2005, A\&A, 450, 293
1314:
1315: \bibitem[2005]{carretta2} Carretta, E., Gratton, R., Lucatello, S.,
1316: et al. 2005, A\&A, 433, 597
1317:
1318: \bibitem[2006]{carretta1} Carretta, E. 2006, AJ, 131, 1766
1319:
1320: \bibitem[Carretta et al.(2006)]{carretta2006} Carretta, E.,
1321: Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R.~G., Leone, F., Recio-Blanco, A., \& Lucatello,
1322: S.\ 2006, \aap, 450, 523
1323:
1324: \bibitem[1976]{cloutman} Cloutman, L., \& Eoll, J.G.
1325: 1976, ApJ, 206, 548
1326:
1327: \bibitem[2005]{cohen} Cohen, J.G., \& Mel\'endez, J.
1328: 2005, AJ, 129, 303
1329:
1330: \bibitem[Cottrell \& Da Costa(1981)]{1981ApJ...245L..79C} Cottrell, P.~L.,
1331: \& Da Costa, G.~S.\ 1981, \apjl, 245, L79
1332:
1333: \bibitem[2002]{franca2} D'Antona, F., Caloi, V., Montalban, J., Ventura, P.,
1334: \& Gratton, R. 2002, A\&A, 395, 69
1335:
1336: \bibitem[D'Antona \& Caloi(2004)]{franca1} D'Antona, F., \& Caloi, V. 2004,
1337: ApJ, 611, 871
1338:
1339: \bibitem[D'Antona \& Caloi(2007)]{dantona-caloi2007} D'Antona, F., \&
1340: Caloi, V.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709, arXiv:0709.4601
1341:
1342: \bibitem[2005a]{franca5} D'Antona, F., Cardini, D., Di Mauro, M.P., Maceroni, C.,
1343: Mazzitelli, I., \& Montalb\'an, J. 2005a, MNRAS, 363, 847
1344:
1345: \bibitem[D'Antona et al.(2005b)]{dantona2005} D'Antona, F.,
1346: Bellazzini, M., Caloi, V., Pecci, F.~F., Galleti, S., \& Rood, R.~T.\ 2005b,
1347: \apj, 631, 868
1348:
1349: \bibitem[1996]{franca4} D'Antona, F., \& Mazzitelli, I. 1996, ApJ, 473, 550
1350:
1351: \bibitem[2007]{franca3} D'Antona, F., \& Ventura, P. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1431
1352:
1353: \bibitem[2007]{Decressin} Decressin, T., Meynet, G., Charbonnel, C.,
1354: Prantzos, N, Ekstr\"om, S. 2007, A\&A, 464 1029
1355:
1356: \bibitem[2003]{pavel2} Denissenkov, P., \& Herwig, F.
1357: 2003, ApJ, 590, L99
1358:
1359: \bibitem[1998]{pavel4} Denissenkov, P., Pinsonneault, M. \& Terndrup, D.M
1360: 2006, ApJ, 651, 438
1361:
1362: \bibitem[2003]{pavel5} Denissenkov, P., \& Vandenberg, D.A. 2003, ApJ, 593, 509
1363:
1364: \bibitem[2001]{pavel3} Denissenkov, P., \& Weiss, A. 2001, ApJ, 559, L115
1365:
1366: \bibitem[2004]{fenner} Fenner, Y., Campbell, S., Karakas, A.I.,
1367: Lattanzio, J.C., \& Gibson, B.K. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 789
1368:
1369: \bibitem[2005]{ferguson} Ferguson, J.W., Alexander, D.R., Allard, F.,
1370: et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585
1371:
1372: \bibitem[2004]{formicola} Formicola, A., Imbriani, G., Costantini, H.,
1373: et al. 2004, Phys Lett. B, 591, 61
1374:
1375: \bibitem[2001]{gratton2} Gratton, R., Bonifacio, P., Bragaglia, A., et al.
1376: 2001, A\&A, 369, 87
1377:
1378: \bibitem[2004]{gratton1} Gratton, R., Sneden, C., \& Carretta, E.
1379: 2004, ARA\&A, 42, 385
1380:
1381: \bibitem[1998]{GS98} Grevesse, N., \& Sauval, A.J. 1998, SSRv, 85, 161
1382:
1383: \bibitem[2005]{herwig1} Herwig, F. 2005, ARA\&A, 43, 435
1384:
1385: \bibitem[2002]{hale1} Hale, S.E., Champagne, A.E., Iliadis, C.,
1386: Hansper, V.Y., Powell, D.C., \& Blackmon, J.C. 2002, Phys.Rev.C, 65, 5801
1387:
1388: \bibitem[2004]{hale2} Hale, S.E., Champagne, A.E., Iliadis, C.,
1389: Hansper, V.Y., Powell, D.C., \& Blackmon, J.C. 2004, Phys.Rev.C, 70, 5802
1390:
1391: \bibitem[2005]{herwig05} Herwig, F. 2005, ARA\&A, 43, 435
1392:
1393: \bibitem[1996]{iglesias} Iglesias, C.A., \& Rogers, F.J.
1394: 1996, ApJ, 464, 943
1395:
1396: \bibitem[1999]{ines2} Ivans, I.I., Sneden, C., Kraft, R.P.,
1397: et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 1273
1398:
1399: \bibitem[2007]{izzard} Izzard, R.G., Lugaro, M., Karakas, A.I., Iliadis, C.,
1400: \& van Raai, M. 2007, A\&A, 466, 641
1401:
1402: \bibitem[1994]{kraft} Kraft, R.P. 1994, PASP, 106, 553
1403:
1404: \bibitem[2005]{Lee} Lee, Y.-W., Joo, S.-J., Han, S.-I., Chung, C., Ree, C.H. et al.
1405: 2005, ApJ, 621, L57
1406:
1407: \bibitem[2006]{andre1} Maeder, A., \& Meynet, G. 2006, A\&A, 448, L37
1408:
1409: \bibitem[1999]{italo} Mazzitelli, I., D'Antona, F., \& Ventura, P. 1999,
1410: A\&A, 348, 846
1411:
1412: \bibitem[2005]{pasquini} Pasquini, L., Bonifacio, P., Molaro, P., Francois, P.,
1413: Spite, F., et al. 2005, A\&A, 441, 549
1414:
1415: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2005)]{piotto1} Piotto, G., Villanova, S., Bedin, L.R.,
1416: et al.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 777
1417:
1418: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2007)]{piotto2007} Piotto, G., Bedin, L.R., Anderson, J.
1419: et al.\ 2007, \apj, 661, L53
1420:
1421: \bibitem[Prantzos \& Charbonnel(2006)]{prantzos1} Prantzos, A., \& Charbonnel, C. 2006, A\&A, 458, 135
1422:
1423: \bibitem[2003]{ramirez} Ramirez, S.V., \& Cohen, J.G. 2003, AJ, 125, 224
1424:
1425: \bibitem[1992]{sackmann}Sackmann, I.J., \& Boothroyd, A.I. 1992, ApJ, 392, L71
1426:
1427: \bibitem[1995]{SCV}Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., \& Van Horn, H.M. 1995, ApJS, 99, 713
1428:
1429: \bibitem[Shonberner(1979)]{shon1979} Sh\"onberner, D.\ 1979, A\&A, 79, 108
1430:
1431: \bibitem[2005]{smith1} Smith, V.V., Cunha, K., Ivans, I.I., Lattanzio, J.C.,
1432: Campbell, S., \& Hinkle, K.H. 2005, ApJ, 633, 392
1433:
1434: \bibitem[2004]{sneden1} Sneden, C., Kraft, R.P., Guhathakurta, P.,
1435: Peterson, R.C., \& Fulbright, J.P. 2004, AJ, 127, 2162
1436:
1437: \bibitem[2000]{SB2000} Stolzmann, W., \& Bl\"oecker, T. 2000, A\&A, 361, 1152
1438:
1439: \bibitem[1993]{wood} Vassiliadis, E., \& Wood, P.R.
1440: 1993, ApJ, 413, 641
1441:
1442: \bibitem[2005a]{ventura2} Ventura, P., \& D'Antona, F.
1443: 2005a, A\&A, 431, 279
1444:
1445: \bibitem[2005b]{ventura3} Ventura, P., \& D'Antona, F.
1446: 2005b, A\&A, 439, 1075
1447:
1448: \bibitem[2006]{ventura7} Ventura, P., \& D'Antona, F.
1449: 2006, A\&A, 457, 995
1450:
1451: \bibitem[2000]{ventura8} Ventura, P., D'Antona, F., \& Mazzitelli, I.
1452: 2000, A\&A, 363, 605
1453:
1454: \bibitem[2002]{ventura1} Ventura, P., D'Antona, F., \& Mazzitelli, I.
1455: 2002, A\&A, 393, 215
1456:
1457: \bibitem[2001]{ventura5} Ventura, P., D'Antona, F., Mazzitelli, I.,
1458: \& Gratton, R. 2001, ApJ, 550, L65
1459:
1460: \bibitem[1998]{ventura6} Ventura, P., Zeppieri, A., D'Antona, F.,
1461: \& Mazzitelli, I., 1998, A\&A, 334, 953
1462:
1463: \bibitem[1953]{vitense} Vitense, E. 1953, Zs.Ap., 32, 135
1464:
1465: \end{thebibliography}
1466:
1467: \end{document}
1468:
1469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1470: Examples for figures using graphicx
1471: A guide "Using Imported Graphics in LaTeX2e" (Keith Reckdahl)
1472: is available on a lot of LaTeX public servers or ctan mirrors.
1473: The file is : epslatex.pdf
1474: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1475:
1476: %_____________________________________________________________
1477: % A figure as large as the width of the column
1478: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1479: \begin{figure}
1480: \centering
1481: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{empty.eps}
1482: \caption{Vibrational stability equation of state
1483: $S_{\mathrm{vib}}(\lg e, \lg \rho)$.
1484: $>0$ means vibrational stability.
1485: }
1486: \label{FigVibStab}
1487: \end{figure}
1488: %
1489: %_____________________________________________________________
1490: % One column rotated figure
1491: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1492: \begin{figure}
1493: \centering
1494: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=3cm]{empty.eps}
1495: \caption{Vibrational stability equation of state
1496: $S_{\mathrm{vib}}(\lg e, \lg \rho)$.
1497: $>0$ means vibrational stability.
1498: }
1499: \label{FigVibStab}
1500: \end{figure}
1501: %
1502: %_____________________________________________________________
1503: % Figure with caption on the right side
1504: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1505: \begin{figure}
1506: \centering
1507: \includegraphics[width=3cm]{empty.eps}
1508: \caption{Vibrational stability equation of state
1509: $S_{\mathrm{vib}}(\lg e, \lg \rho)$.
1510: $>0$ means vibrational stability.
1511: }
1512: \label{FigVibStab}
1513: \end{figure}
1514: %
1515: %_____________________________________________________________
1516: %
1517: %_____________________________________________________________
1518: % Figure with a new BoundingBox
1519: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1520: \begin{figure}
1521: \centering
1522: \includegraphics[bb=10 20 100 300,width=3cm,clip]{empty.eps}
1523: \caption{Vibrational stability equation of state
1524: $S_{\mathrm{vib}}(\lg e, \lg \rho)$.
1525: $>0$ means vibrational stability.
1526: }
1527: \label{FigVibStab}
1528: \end{figure}
1529: %
1530: %_____________________________________________________________
1531: %
1532: %_____________________________________________________________
1533: % The "resizebox" command
1534: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1535: \begin{figure}
1536: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
1537: {\includegraphics[bb=10 20 100 300,clip]{empty.eps}
1538: \caption{Vibrational stability equation of state
1539: $S_{\mathrm{vib}}(\lg e, \lg \rho)$.
1540: $>0$ means vibrational stability.
1541: }
1542: \label{FigVibStab}
1543: \end{figure}
1544: %
1545: %______________________________________________________________
1546: %
1547: %_____________________________________________________________
1548: % Simple A&A Table
1549: %_____________________________________________________________
1550: %
1551: \begin{table}
1552: \caption{Nonlinear Model Results} % title of Table
1553: \label{table:1} % is used to refer this table in the text
1554: \centering % used for centering table
1555: \begin{tabular}{c c c c} % centered columns (4 columns)
1556: \hline\hline % inserts double horizontal lines
1557: HJD & $E$ & Method\#2 & Method\#3 \\ % table heading
1558: \hline % inserts single horizontal line
1559: 1 & 50 & $-837$ & 970 \\ % inserting body of the table
1560: 2 & 47 & 877 & 230 \\
1561: 3 & 31 & 25 & 415 \\
1562: 4 & 35 & 144 & 2356 \\
1563: 5 & 45 & 300 & 556 \\
1564: \hline %inserts single line
1565: \end{tabular}
1566: \end{table}
1567: %
1568: %_____________________________________________________________
1569: % Two column Table
1570: %_____________________________________________________________
1571: %
1572: \begin{table*}
1573: \caption{Nonlinear Model Results}
1574: \label{table:1}
1575: \centering
1576: \begin{tabular}{c c c c l l l } % 7 columns
1577: \hline\hline
1578: % To combine 4 columns into a single one
1579: HJD & $E$ & Method\#2 & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Method\#3}\\
1580: \hline
1581: 1 & 50 & $-837$ & 970 & 65 & 67 & 78\\
1582: 2 & 47 & 877 & 230 & 567& 55 & 78\\
1583: 3 & 31 & 25 & 415 & 567& 55 & 78\\
1584: 4 & 35 & 144 & 2356& 567& 55 & 78 \\
1585: 5 & 45 & 300 & 556 & 567& 55 & 78\\
1586: \hline
1587: \end{tabular}
1588: \end{table*}
1589: %
1590: %_____________________________________________________________
1591: % Table with foonotes
1592: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1593: %
1594: \begin{table}
1595: \begin{minipage}[t]{\columnwidth}
1596: \caption{LHNW source catalogue.}
1597: \label{catalog}
1598: \centering
1599: \renewcommand{\footnoterule}{} % to avoid a line before footnotes
1600: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1601: \hline \hline
1602: ID& RA & Dec & {\it S/N} & Flux \\
1603: ~ &(J2000) & (J2000) &~ & [{\rm mJy}] \\
1604: \hline
1605: LHJ10 &10:32:02.4 & +58:80:09 & 8 & 97 $\pm$ 15\\
1606: LHJ10 &10:33:08.8 & +58:80:30 & 5 & 80 $\pm$ 16\\
1607: LHJ10 &10:34:45.1 & +57:47:33\footnote{Text of the footnote}
1608: & 5 & 48 $\pm$ 10\\
1609: LHJ10 &10:32:49.7 & +57:37:19 & 5 & 56 $\pm$ 11\\
1610: LHJ10 &10:33:52.1 & +58:40:30\footnote{Text of the footnote}
1611: & 4 & 55 $\pm$ 14\\
1612: LHJ10 &10:33:04.3 & +57:36:37 & 4 & 55 $\pm$ 14\\
1613: LHJ10 &10:35:50.4 & +57:30:05 & 4 & 49 $\pm$ 11\\
1614: \hline
1615: \end{tabular}
1616: \end{minipage}
1617: \end{table}
1618: %
1619: %_____________________________________________________________
1620: % A rotated Table in landscape
1621: % In the preamble, use: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
1622: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1623: \begin{sidewaystable*}
1624: \begin{minipage}[t][180mm]{\textwidth}
1625: \caption{Summary for ISOCAM sources with mid-IR excess
1626: (YSO candidates).}\label{YSOtable}
1627: \centering
1628: \begin{tabular}{crrlcl}
1629: \hline\hline
1630: ISO-L1551 & $F_{6.7}$~[mJy] & $\alpha_{6.7-14.3}$
1631: & YSO type$^{d}$ & Status & Comments\\
1632: \hline
1633: \multicolumn{6}{c}{\it New YSO candidates}\\ % To combine 6 columns into a single one
1634: \hline
1635: 1 & 1.56 $\pm$ 0.47 & -- & Class II$^{c}$ & New & Mid\\
1636: 2 & 0.79: & 0.97: & Class II ? & New & \\
1637: 3 & 4.95 $\pm$ 0.68 & 3.18 & Class II / III & New & \\
1638: 5 & 1.44 $\pm$ 0.33 & 1.88 & Class II & New & \\
1639: \hline
1640: \multicolumn{6}{c}{\it Previously known YSOs} \\
1641: \hline
1642: 61 & 0.89 $\pm$ 0.58 & 1.77 & Class I & \object{HH 30} & Circumstellar disk\\
1643: 96 & 38.34 $\pm$ 0.71 & 37.5& Class II& MHO 5 & Spectral type\\
1644: \hline
1645: \end{tabular}
1646: \vfill
1647: \end{minipage}
1648: \end{sidewaystable*}
1649: %
1650: %_____________________________________________________________
1651: % Table longer than a single page
1652: % In the preamble, use: \usepackage{aalongtable}
1653: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1654: % All long tables have to be placed at the end, after
1655: % \end{thebibliography}
1656: %
1657: \begin{longtable}{lllrrr}
1658: \caption{\label{kstars} Sample stars with absolute magnitude}\\
1659: \hline\hline
1660: Catalogue& $M_{V}$ & Spectral & Distance & Mode & Count Rate \\
1661: \hline
1662: \endfirsthead
1663: \caption{continued.}\\
1664: \hline\hline
1665: Catalogue& $M_{V}$ & Spectral & Distance & Mode & Count Rate \\
1666: \hline
1667: \endhead
1668: \hline
1669: \endfoot
1670: %%
1671: Gl 33 & 6.37 & K2 V & 7.46 & S & 0.043170\\
1672: Gl 66AB & 6.26 & K2 V & 8.15 & S & 0.260478\\
1673: Gl 68 & 5.87 & K1 V & 7.47 & P & 0.026610\\
1674: & & & & H & 0.008686\\
1675: Gl 86
1676: \footnote{Source not included in the HRI catalog. See Sect.~5.4.2 for details.}
1677: & 5.92 & K0 V & 10.91& S & 0.058230\\
1678: \end{longtable}
1679: %
1680: %_____________________________________________________________
1681: % Table longer than a single page
1682: % and in landscape
1683: % In the preamble, use: \usepackage{aalongtable,lscape}
1684: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1685: % All long tables have to be placed at the end, after
1686: % \end{thebibliography}
1687: %
1688: \begin{landscape}
1689: \begin{longtable}{lllrrr}
1690: \caption{\label{kstars} Sample stars with absolute magnitude}\\
1691: \hline\hline
1692: Catalogue& $M_{V}$ & Spectral & Distance & Mode & Count Rate \\
1693: \hline
1694: \endfirsthead
1695: \caption{continued.}\\
1696: \hline\hline
1697: Catalogue& $M_{V}$ & Spectral & Distance & Mode & Count Rate \\
1698: \hline
1699: \endhead
1700: \hline
1701: \endfoot
1702: %%
1703: Gl 33 & 6.37 & K2 V & 7.46 & S & 0.043170\\
1704: Gl 66AB & 6.26 & K2 V & 8.15 & S & 0.260478\\
1705: Gl 68 & 5.87 & K1 V & 7.47 & P & 0.026610\\
1706: & & & & H & 0.008686\\
1707: Gl 86
1708: \footnote{Source not included in the HRI catalog. See Sect.~5.4.2 for details.}
1709: & 5.92 & K0 V & 10.91& S & 0.058230\\
1710: \end{longtable}
1711: \end{landscape}
1712: %
1713: \end{document}
1714:
1715:
1716: