1: % Apj-LATeX-File u6.tex
2: %
3: % Author : M.U. Feuchtinger, J.R. Buchler
4: % Created : 08-MAR-2000
5: % Modified: 12-MAR-2000
6: %
7: % Title : Hydrodynamical Survey of First Overtone Cepheids
8: %
9: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10:
11: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,flushrt,epsf,rotate]{article}
12: \documentstyle[emulateapj,flushrt,epsf]{article}
13:
14: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15: % Shortcuts and definitions
16: \def \th{\thinspace}
17: \def \ngth{\negthinspace}
18: \def \ni{\noindent}
19: \def \ub#1{{\underbar {#1}}}
20: \def \ul#1{{\underbar {#1}}}
21: \def \Teff{{$T_{\rm ef\!f} $}}
22: \def \Mo{{$M_\odot $}}
23: \def \Lo{{$L_\odot $}}
24: \def \K{{\th K}}
25: \def \at{{\rm\char'100}}
26: \def \apriori{{\it a priori\ }}
27: \def \eg{{{\it e.g.},\ }}
28: \def \etal{{\it et al.\ }}
29: \def \etc{{\it etc.\ }}
30: \def \cf{{\it cf.\ }}
31: \def \ia{{{\it inter alia},\ }}
32: \def \ie{{{\it i.e.},\ }}
33: \def \via{{\it via\ }}
34: \def \viz{{\it viz.\ }}
35: \def \vs{{\it vs.\ }}
36: % . with d above for day
37: \def \dotd{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm d}$}}
38: \def \dotm{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm m}$}}
39: \def \dd{{$^d$}}
40: \def\rn{\noindent\parshape 2 0truecm 8.8truecm 0.3truecm 8.5truecm}
41: \def\SA{{\bf A}}
42: \def\SB{{\bf B}}
43: \def\SC{{\bf C}}
44: \def\SD{{\bf D}}
45: \def\SE{{\bf E}}
46:
47: %\newcommand{\M}{\displaystyle}
48:
49: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50: \begin{document}
51:
52: %\voffset 0.0cm
53:
54: \submitted{ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, submitted}
55:
56: \title{Hydrodynamical Survey of First Overtone Cepheids}
57: \author{Michael Feuchtinger$^{1}$,
58: J. Robert Buchler$^{1}$ \&
59: Zolt\'an Koll\'ath$^{2}$}
60:
61: \begin{abstract}
62:
63: A hydrodynamical survey of the pulsational properties of first overtone
64: Galactic Cepheids is presented. The goal of this study is to reproduce their
65: observed light- and radial velocity curves. The comparison between the models
66: and the observations is made in a quantitative manner on the level of the
67: Fourier coefficients. Purely radiative models fail to reproduce the observed
68: features, but convective models give good agreement.
69:
70: It is found that the sharp features in the Fourier coefficients are indeed
71: caused by the P$_1$/P$_4 = 2$ resonance, despite the very large damping of the
72: 4th overtone. For the adopted mass-luminosity relation the resonance center
73: lies near a period of 4\dotd 2 $\pm$ 0.3 as indicated by the observed radial
74: velocity data, rather than near 3\dotd 2 as the light-curves suggest.
75:
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78: %\pacs{}
79:
80: \date{\today}
81:
82: \keywords{turbulence, convection, hydrodynamics,
83: oscillations of stars - \th Cepheids - \th s Cepheids - convection}
84:
85:
86: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
87: {\bigskip
88: {\footnotesize
89: \noindent $^1$Physics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA;
90: buchler\at physics.ufl.edu \\
91: \noindent $^2$Konkoly Observatory, Budapest, HUNGARY; kollath\at konkoly.hu
92: }}
93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
94: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
95: \section{Introduction}
96:
97: Historically, s Cepheids denote a certain type of low amplitude Cepheids with
98: almost sinusoidal light-curves. Recently, the large microlensing surveys EROS
99: (Beaulieu \etal 1995), MACHO (Welch \etal 1995) and OGLE (Udalski \etal 1997)
100: have confirmed unequivocally that these stars are overtone Cepheids. The vast
101: majority are first overtone pulsators that coexist with a few second overtone
102: Cepheids at the lower period end.
103:
104: %\begin{figure}
105: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9.0cm\epsfbox{fig_fou_obs.ps}}}
106:
107: \noindent{\small Fig.~1: Observational phase difference $\Phi_{21}$ of
108: Galactic first overtone Cepheids: light-curves [mag] (upper panel) and
109: radial velocity curves (lower panel).}
110:
111: \vspace{1cm}
112: %\end{figure*}
113:
114: For a comparison between the observational data and the calculated model
115: pulsations a Fourier decomposition provides an accurate quantitative
116: representation. A salient feature in the Galactic first overtone Cepheid
117: light-curve data (labelled with a superscript m) is a large and sharp drop of
118: the Fourier phase difference $\Phi_{21}^m$ as a function of period in the
119: vicinity of the 3\dotd 2 period. The upper panel of Fig.~1 shows the
120: observational data summarized in Poretti (1994), and supplemented with V351 Cep
121: and Anon C Mon (Moskalik, priv. comm.). The additional Fourier data are
122: displayed as solid triangles in the left panel of Fig.~3. The quantity
123: $\Phi_{31}^m$ exhibits a more or less monotonic, but large $\approx 2\pi$
124: rise. The amplitude ratios $R_{21}^m$ and $R_{31}^m$ display a local minimum
125: in the same vicinity.
126:
127: A large set of Galactic Cepheid radial velocity data has recently become
128: available (Kienzle \etal 1999, Krzyt \etal 2000). The phase difference
129: $\Phi_{21}^v$ for the radial velocity (superscript v) is plotted in the lower
130: panel of Fig.~1, and the other Fourier coefficients are displayed as solid
131: triangles in the left column of Fig.~3.
132:
133: Rapid variations in the Fourier phases are not special to the first overtone
134: Cepheids. Actually, one of the striking features of the classical (fundamental
135: mode) Cepheids is a Hertzsprung progression of these phases, so named after the
136: concomitant bump progression that \cite{Hertzsprung} noticed in the shape of
137: the light-curves. For the classical Cepheids the center of this progression
138: lies in the vicinity of the 10 day period. It was conjectured by Simon \&
139: Schmidt (1976) that this progression might have its origin in the presence of a
140: P$_0$/P$_2 = 2$ resonance between the fundamental mode of oscillation and the
141: second overtone. This conjecture was later put on a solid mathematical basis
142: with the help of the amplitude equation formalism (Buchler \& Goupil 1984,
143: Buchler \& Kov\'acs 1986, Kov\'acs \& Buchler 1989) and was confirmed with
144: concomitant numerical hydrodynamical modelling (Buchler, Moskalik \& Kov\'acs
145: 1990, Moskalik, Buchler \& Marom 1992).
146:
147: In fact, it is now well established mathematically that sharp features in the
148: Fourier coefficients, such as those observed in Cepheids and BL Herculis stars,
149: are due to the appearance of resonances of the excited mode with an overtone at
150: certain pulsation periods (\eg \cite{Mito}, Buchler 2000). Conversely the lack
151: of such structure as in RR Lyrae is indicative of the absence of resonances.
152:
153: Subsequently, Antonello \& Poretti (1986), from the behavior of $\Phi_{21}^m$
154: and $R_{21}^m$ with period (Fig.~3) and from the analogy with the Fourier data
155: of the fundamental Cepheids, have suggested that a similar resonance, \viz
156: P$_1$/P$_4 = 2$ is operative in the first overtone Cepheids and is located near
157: P$_1$ = 3\dotd 2. However, \cite{Kienzle}, on the basis of the corresponding
158: radial velocity data, suggest that the resonance center lies at a much higher
159: period, closer to 4\dotd 6. This incongruity suggests that it is dangerous to
160: guess the location of a resonance without proper theoretical input. We will
161: discuss this point further below.
162:
163: In contrast to the fundamental Cepheids, the first overtone Cepheid pulsators
164: have only received scant theoretical attention. Aikawa \etal (1987) computed
165: the radial velocity and light curves of 11 radiative overtone pulsator models
166: with the specific purpose of reproducing the observations of SU Cas, but were
167: not satisfied with their results. (One labels radiative models in which
168: convective heat transport is disregarded). Later, Antonello \& Aikawa (1993)
169: calculated two short sequences of Cepheids in order to see if numerical
170: hydrodynamic modelling would confirm the postulated role of the P$_1$/P$_4 = 2$
171: resonance in the vicinity of 3 days. Their results displayed some structure
172: near the resonance, but failed to reproduce the observed structure in the
173: Fourier coefficients, in particular the $\Phi_{21}^m$ variation. The number of
174: computed models was rather limited, and artificially enhanced opacities were
175: used. Subsequently, Schaller \& Buchler (1994), on the basis of an extensive
176: study of radiative first overtone Cepheids with the OPAL opacities, reached the
177: conclusion that radiative models cannot reproduce the observed structure of the
178: Fourier coefficient $\Phi_{21}^m$; a similar conclusion was also reached by
179: Antonello \& Aikawa (1995). This disagreement with observation came as a
180: surprise considering how well the fundamental mode Galactic Cepheid pulsations
181: can be modelled (\eg Moskalik, Buchler \& Marom 1992).
182:
183: In the last few years a lot of effort has been devoted to including convection
184: in the pulsation codes, and recently one of the major remaining challenges,
185: namely the modelling of beat pulsations, has been met (\eg Koll\'ath \etal
186: 1998, Feuchtinger 1998). In this paper we apply the same convective codes to
187: the study of first overtone pulsations.
188:
189: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
190: \section{Physical input}
191:
192: Linear and nonlinear models are calculated with the Vienna pulsation code
193: (Feuchtinger 1999a), which solves the equations of radiation hydrodynamics
194: together with a time-dependent model equation for turbulent convection. This
195: code recently has been extended by a linear nonadiabatic normal mode analysis,
196: details of which are presented in a separate paper. For comparison purposes
197: some of the calculations that are described in this paper have also been
198: performed in parallel with the Florida pulsation code (described in Koll\'ath,
199: Buchler, Szab\'o \& Csubry 2000). The latter uses a different numerical
200: approach, but with only minor differences in the input physics. We have
201: ascertained that the two codes give basically the same results.
202:
203: For the Rosseland mean of the opacity we use the most recent OPAL tables
204: (Iglesias \& Rogers 1996) which are augmented by the Alexander \& Ferguson
205: (1994) low temperature opacities below 6000\K. The Eddington factor is set to
206: 1/3.
207:
208: %\begin{figure}
209: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9.0cm\epsfbox{fig_p41_csr.ps}}}
210:
211: \noindent{\small Fig.~2: Period ratio $P_4/P_1$ versus pulsation period for
212: radiative models. Open triangles refer to vibrationally
213: stable models and filled circles to models which have a stable
214: limit-cycle. Labels on top indicate the stellar mass of
215: the corresponding sequence.}
216:
217: \vspace{1cm}
218: %\end{figure}
219:
220: Our {\it model sequences} have constant mass and luminosity and an equilibrium
221: effective temperature varying in steps of 100\K. They represent horizontal
222: paths through the instability strip (IS). We adopt a mass--luminosity (ML)
223: relation: \ \ $\log(L/L_{\odot}) = 0.79 + 3.56 \log(M/M_{\odot})$,\ \ which is
224: derived from the stellar evolution calculations of Schaller \etal (1992) which
225: make use of the same OPAL opacity data. For a good coverage of the observed
226: period range we vary the stellar mass between 4.25 and 6.5 \Mo\ in steps of
227: 0.25 \Mo. The chemical composition corresponds to a typical Galactic one of
228: (X,Y,Z) = (0.70, 0.28, 0.02).
229:
230:
231: \begin{figure*}
232: \vspace{0cm}
233: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{fig_fou_csr.ps}}}
234:
235: \noindent{\small Fig.~3: Fourier coefficients of radiative models (open
236: circles) compared to observations (filled triangles): {\sl Left:}
237: light-curve (mag) data; {\sl Right:} radial velocity (km/s) data.
238: The open circles connected by dotted lines refer to sequences with
239: the same mass, starting from M = 4.25 \Mo\ at the left to M = 6.25
240: \Mo\ at the right in steps of 0.25 \Mo.}
241:
242: \end{figure*}
243:
244: The Fourier decomposition of the resulting light- and radial velocity curves is
245: calculated by a least squares fit with a standard Fourier sum (8 terms).
246: Amplitude ratios $R_{n1} = A_n/A_1$ and phase differences $\Phi_{n1} = \Phi_n -
247: n \Phi_{1}$ are then used for the comparison to the observed data. Following
248: custom, a cos Fourier decomposition is used for the light-curve data, and a sin
249: decomposition for the radial velocity data. Note further that we compute
250: bolometric light variations, which are compared to V-band magnitudes. For the
251: case of RR Lyrae stars it has been shown that the differences in the low order
252: Fourier coefficients between bolometric and V light-curves are rather small, in
253: particular for low amplitude first overtone pulsations (Dorfi \& Feuchtinger
254: 1999, Feuchtinger \& Dorfi 2000). However, for metal-rich Galactic Cepheids
255: this has to be checked by detailed radiative transfer calculations, which will
256: be done in a companion paper.
257:
258: For the transformation between theoretical and observed radial velocities we
259: apply a constant projection and limb darkening factor ($u_{\rm obs} = u_{\rm
260: cal} / 1.4$) to the calculated velocity values (Cox 1980).
261:
262:
263: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
264: \section{Radiative models}
265:
266: As a first step we reexamine the difficulties encountered by radiative
267: pulsation models, \ie models that for simplicity disregard all convection.
268:
269: %\begin{figure}
270: \vskip 10pt
271: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9.0cm\epsfbox{fig_is_csr.ps}}}
272:
273: \noindent{\small Fig.~4: Linear blue edges of {\it radiative} models (R-FBE
274: and R-OBE) compared with those of convective models, series \SA\
275: (C-FBE and C-OBE). The labels on the right indicate the stellar
276: masses.}
277:
278: \vspace{1cm}
279: %\end{figure}
280:
281: As already discussed in the Introduction, a resonance between the first and the
282: fourth overtone is responsible for the characteristic variations in the Fourier
283: coefficients of both light- and radial velocity variations. The location of this
284: resonance with respect to the pulsation period, which is of particular
285: importance for the interpretation of nonlinear results, can best be determined
286: from linear results. In Fig.~2 the period ratio $P_4/P_1$ is plotted as a
287: function of $P_1$ for each sequence of constant mass, and filled circles denote
288: models with a stable overtone limit-cycle. Models close to the resonance
289: center ($P_1/P_4 = 2$), which fall within the region of stable overtone
290: pulsation, appear between about P$_1$ = 4 and 5\dotd 2.
291:
292: The results of the nonlinear radiative survey are summarized in Fig.~3 which
293: depicts the low order Fourier coefficients, on the left for the light-curves,
294: and on the right for the radial velocity curves. The observational data are
295: represented by filled triangles, the theoretical models by open circles with
296: dotted lines connecting the models of each sequence. We recall that the
297: sequences consist of models with a given mass and luminosity, with \Teff\
298: decreasing and $P_1$ increasing to the right.
299:
300: Even though the overall picture is not at all disastrous, several severe
301: problems are visible. First, and most strikingly, from the flatly distributed
302: theoretical $\Phi_{21}^m$ it is evident that the Z-shape of the observed data
303: cannot be reproduced at all -- a disagreement which has already been mentioned
304: in the Introduction. In addition, the theoretical $R_{21}^m$ values are too
305: low for periods greater than 4 days, and the $R_{31}^m$ are much too low
306: overall. In contrast, the $\Phi_{31}^m$ show reasonable agreement.
307:
308: While the overall level of the pulsation amplitudes is set by pseudo-viscosity,
309: it is interesting that the behavior of the amplitudes $A_1^m$ and $A_1^v$ as a
310: function of P$_1$ follows the observations rather well.
311:
312: For the radial velocity plots, the general agreement with observations is much
313: better than for the light-curves. In particular, the calculated data fit the
314: observed $\Phi_{21}^v$ distribution. However, several models lie off the well
315: defined observational distribution. The same discrepancy is also visible in
316: all the other quantities. Below we show that the inclusion of convection
317: gives better agreement.
318:
319: In summary we thus corroborate the fact that radiative models are not able to
320: reproduce satisfactorily the observational behavior of first overtone Cepheid
321: pulsations.
322:
323: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
324: \section{Convective models} \label{s:conv}
325:
326: In the last few years it has become evident that the inclusion of convective
327: energy transport is critical to the modelling of classical stellar pulsations,
328: rather than just being necessary for stabilizing the models at low \Teff. The
329: unpleasant consequence is that several free parameters ($\alpha$'s) have to be
330: added to the former parameter-free radiative pulsation models. Theory
331: unfortunately provides no guidance for choosing the values of these parameters,
332: and therefore a calibration with observational data becomes necessary (\eg
333: Stellingwerf 1984, Yecko \etal 1998, Feuchtinger 1999a).
334:
335: %\begin{figure}
336: \vskip 10pt
337: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9.9cm\epsfbox{fig_is_csz.ps}}}
338: \noindent
339:
340: {\small Fig.~5: Instability strip boundaries for {\it convective} models
341: (series \SA), bottom: in the Log L - Log \Teff\ plane,
342: top: in the Log P$_1$ - Log \Teff\ plane. From left to right:
343: (first) overtone linear blue edge (OBE),
344: fundamental linear blue edge (FBE),
345: nonlinear overtone red edge (NORE),
346: overtone linear red edge
347: (ORE) and fundamental linear red edge (FRE);
348: the labels on left refer to the stellar masses.}
349:
350: \vspace{1cm}
351: %\end{figure}
352:
353: For the present investigation we use the convection model according to
354: Kuhfu\ss~(1986) and Gehmeyr \& Winkler (1992) in the version of Wuchterl \&
355: Feuchtinger (1999). Essentially the same model has been adopted by the Florida
356: pulsation code (\cf Koll\'ath \etal~2000), but with a slightly different
357: parameterization. A summary of the free parameters (subsequently termed
358: $\alpha$'s) and the interrelations between the two sets of parameters are given
359: in Table~1. For details we refer to the above cited references.
360:
361:
362: \begin{table*}
363: \vspace{0.3cm}
364: {\small
365:
366: \noindent{Table~1: Free parameters of the time-dependent turbulent convection
367: model. Columns 2 and 3 list the free parameters as defined in the
368: Vienna and the Florida codes, respectively. Column 4 (interrelation)
369: gives the Florida values as a function of the Vienna values. Columns
370: \SA\ through \SE\ give the adopted parameter sets for our five model
371: series in terms of the Vienna parameterization. No interrelation is
372: given for the radiative cooling, as this effect is modelled slightly
373: differently in the two codes. The parameters $\bar\alpha_{s}$,
374: $\bar\alpha_{c}$ and $\bar c_{D}$ are normalized to their
375: standard values as given in the text. }
376:
377: \vspace{0.3cm}
378: \begin{center}
379: \begin{tabular}{lcclllllll}
380: \hline
381: \hline
382: \noalign{\smallskip}
383: Physical meaning & Vienna code & Florida code & interrelation &
384: Series: & \SA & \SB & \SC & \SD & \SE \\
385: \noalign{\smallskip}
386: \hline
387: \hline
388: \noalign{\smallskip}
389: \noalign{\smallskip}
390: mixing length & $\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm ML}$ & $\alpha_{\Lambda}$
391: & $\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm ML}$
392: & & 1.5 & 1.5 & 2.0 & 1.5 & 1.5 \\
393:
394: \vspace{0.05cm}
395: turbulent source & $\bar\alpha_{s}$ & $\bar\alpha_{s}$
396: & $\sqrt{\bar\alpha_{s}/\bar c_D}$
397: & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
398:
399: \vspace{0.1cm}
400: turbulent dissipation & $\bar c_D$ & $\bar\alpha_{d}$
401: & $\bar c_D$
402: & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 4 & 4 \\
403: \vspace{0.1cm}
404: convective flux & $\bar\alpha_{c}$ & $\bar\alpha_{c}$
405: & $\bar\alpha_{c} \bar\alpha_{s}$
406: & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1.5 & 1.5 \\
407: \vspace{0.05cm}
408: overshooting & $\alpha_{t}$ & $\alpha_{t}$
409: & $\alpha_{t} / c_D$
410: & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.001 \\
411: \vspace{0.05cm}
412:
413: turbulent viscosity & $\alpha_{\mu}$ & $\alpha_{\nu}$
414: & $\alpha_{\mu}$
415: & & 0.25 & 0.33 & 0.35 & 0.50 & 0.50\\
416:
417: \vspace{0.1cm}
418: turbulent pressure & $\alpha_{p}$ & $\alpha_{p}$
419: & $\alpha_{p}$
420: & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2/3 \\
421:
422: \vspace{0.1cm}
423: flux limiter & $\alpha_{L}$
424: & $Y_{\rm lim}$ & --
425: & & 0 & 3 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
426: \vspace{0.1cm}
427: radiative cooling & $\gamma_{\rm R}$ & $\alpha_{R}$
428: & --
429: & & 0 & 0 & 3.5 & 0 & 0 \\
430:
431: \hline
432: \hline
433: \end{tabular}
434: \end{center}
435: }
436: \end{table*}
437:
438:
439:
440: In the following we present five series of calculations, \SA\ through \SE,
441: whose $\alpha$'s are given in Table~1. In order to reduce the multidimensional
442: parameter space to a reasonable set of $\alpha$'s, we have pursued the
443: following strategy. The parameters $\alpha_{s}$, $c_D$ and $\alpha_{c}$ can be
444: chosen to reduce the model to mixing length theory in the local static limit
445: (Kuhfu\ss~1986, Wuchterl \& Feuchtinger 1998), for the values $\alpha_{s} = 1/2
446: \sqrt{2/3}$, $c_D = 8/3 \sqrt{2/3}$ and $\alpha_{c} = \alpha_{s}$. The
447: quantities $\bar\alpha_{s}$, $\bar\alpha_{c}$ and $\bar c_{D}$ in Table~1 are
448: given relative to these 'standard' values. We adopt the standard values in
449: series \SA, and in addition set the mixing length parameter
450: $\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm ML}$ to the widely used value of 3/2. The
451: parameter of the turbulent viscosity $\alpha_{\mu}$ is used to adjust the
452: pulsation amplitude. Turbulent pressure, overshooting, radiative losses and
453: the convective flux limiter are disregarded in \SA. Series \SB\ investigates
454: the effects of the flux limiter and series \SC\ the effects of radiative
455: losses. Series \SD\ has much lower turbulent energy than series \SA\, and
456: series \SE\ additionally includes the turbulent pressure and the turbulent
457: flux. We wish to emphasize that the adopted choices of free parameters are by
458: no means unique.
459:
460:
461: \vskip 10pt
462: \centerline{Instability Strip}
463: \vskip 10pt
464:
465: First we examine the influence of convection on the blue edge for series \SA\
466: and compare it to the radiative models. In Fig.~4 the radiative linear blue
467: edges (R-FBE and R-OBE) are drawn as solid lines, and the convective ones
468: (C-FBE and C-OBE) as dotted lines. In contrast to the frequently adopted
469: notion that convection is only important near the red edge of the IS (\cf
470: however Stellingwerf 1984), both the fundamental and the first overtone blue
471: edges are shifted toward higher temperatures (toward the left in the figure)
472: by about 350\K\ and 150\K\ for the fundamental and first overtone pulsations,
473: respectively.
474:
475:
476: \begin{figure*}
477: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{fig_fou_csz.ps}}}
478:
479: \noindent{\small Fig.~6: Fourier coefficients of convective models, series
480: \SA\ (open circles) compared to observations (filled triangles):
481: {\sl Left:} light-curve (mag) data; {\sl Right:} Radial velocity
482: (km/s) data. The open circles connected by dotted lines refer to
483: sequences with the same mass (from left to right: 4.25, 4.50, 4.75,
484: 5.00, 5.15, 5.20, 5.25, 5.50, 5.75, 6.0, 6.25, 6.50\Mo).}
485: \end{figure*}
486:
487:
488: The complete {\it linear} topography of the IS for series \SA\ is presented in
489: Fig.~5. The dotted lines refer to fundamental mode pulsation and the solid
490: lines to the first overtone, filled/open circles to blue edge/red edges. These
491: edges are somewhat sensitive to the values of the $\alpha$'s (\eg Yecko \etal
492: 1998) and we show a comparison of the three series below.
493:
494: The {\it nonlinear} first overtone red edge (NORE) is plotted as a dashed line
495: in Fig.~5. It is located at considerably higher temperatures than the
496: corresponding linear one. Slight smoothing has been applied because of the
497: rather coarse steps in effective temperature. The low mass models (with M $<$
498: 5.5\Mo) that are located at the right side of the NORE are double-mode
499: pulsators, whereas the more massive ones (M $>$ 5.5\Mo) pulsate in the
500: fundamental mode. This modal change is the reason for the kink in the NORE
501: (\cf Koll\'ath \etal~1998, Koll\'ath \etal~2000) for a detailed picture of the
502: modal selection problem).
503:
504: It is important to exercise considerable care that the computed overtone
505: limit-cycles are indeed stable, and not just on a transient to either
506: double-mode or to fundamental pulsations. These transients can be very long
507: lasting and give an erroneous impression of steady behavior. A very efficient
508: way of determining this stability with the 'analytical signal' method is
509: discussed in Koll\'ath \& Buchler (2000).
510:
511: As expected and already discussed earlier (Yecko \etal 1998 and \cite{KBBY}),
512: the fundamental and first overtone blue edges intersect at some point (at
513: $\sim$ 7.5 \Mo). This is consistent with the observational fact that the
514: overtone Cepheid periods exhibit an upper limit, which is around P$_1$ = 6 days
515: for the Galaxy (with one single star found at 7\dotd 57). The linear overtone
516: period at the intersection point is 8\dotd 9 here which is considerably higher
517: than the observations suggest. However, the region above 6.5\Mo\ where stable
518: overtone pulsations are possible is very narrow, which reduces the
519: observational likelihood of such long period first overtone Cepheids.
520: Furthermore the linear growth rates are found to be very small, and the
521: corresponding nonlinear models exhibit tiny amplitudes (around 0.03$^m$ for the
522: 7 \Mo\ sequence), since the pulsation amplitude scales with the square root of
523: the growth-rate ($A \sim$ $\sqrt \kappa$). From the nonlinear survey we find
524: that the maximum overtone period lies close to the observed one only when the
525: pulsation amplitudes are in general agreement with observed ones. Our efforts
526: to adjust the $\alpha$'s so as to lower the period at the intersection point,
527: reduce the growth-rates and the pulsation amplitudes too much.
528:
529:
530:
531: %\begin{figure}
532: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9.6cm\epsfbox{fig_light_curves.ps}}}
533:
534: \noindent{\small Fig.~7: {\sl Left:} Light curves and {\sl right:}
535: radial velocity
536: curves for a sequence parallel to the blue edge.
537: The light-curves are shifted vertically by 0.1 mag and the radial
538: velocity curves by 7 km/s. The curves are labelled with the
539: periods.}
540:
541: \vspace{1cm}
542: %\end{figure}
543:
544:
545: \vskip 10pt
546: \centerline{Light-Curves and Radial Velocities}
547: \vskip 10pt
548:
549: Fig.~6 displays the light- and radial velocity curve data for series \SA.
550: Again we use filled triangles for the observations, while open circles
551: represent our full amplitude pulsating models.
552:
553: The light-curve Fourier coefficients for series \SA, exhibited on the left of
554: Fig.~6, show great improvement with respect to the radiative series. The
555: theoretical $\Phi_{21}^m$ distribution attracts immediate attention with a very
556: conspicuous jump around P$_1$ = 3\dotd 4, in contrast to all the radiative
557: models. In fact, the last points of the sequences 5 through 7 fall in the
558: range 0.0--1.0, way below the scale. Even though the magnitude of the jump is
559: considerably higher than what is observed, our model series reproduces
560: qualitatively the observational $\Phi_{21}^m$ behavior. In addition, all other
561: light-curve Fourier coefficients show good overall agreement with observations.
562: The values of the 31 Fourier coefficients are practically the same for series
563: \SA\ through \SE\ and we refer to Fig.~10 for their display. Compared to the
564: radiative models there is an average increase in $R_{31}^m$ by almost a factor
565: of 10, and for small periods, the convective models also display higher
566: pulsation amplitudes and $R_{21}^m$ values.
567:
568:
569: The radial velocity data on the right of Fig.~6 show good overall agreement as
570: well. In particular, the $R_{21}^v$ and $\Phi_{21}^v$ distributions closely
571: follow the observed ones, and they produce a much better match than the
572: radiative models. For $R_{31}^v$ and $\Phi_{31}^v$ a similar behavior occurs,
573: even though the $R_{31}^v$ lie somewhat below the observed ones (\cf Fig.~10).
574: However, the $R_{31}^v$ are tiny which decreases the relevance of this
575: deviation. The only perhaps significant discrepancy appears in the calculated
576: amplitudes which, for the higher pulsation periods, are larger than the
577: observed ones. This is also reflected in the larger $R_{21}^v$.
578:
579: We have used the observed overall value of the pulsation amplitude to calibrate
580: the $\alpha$'s (in practice $\alpha_\mu$). When the amplitudes are increased
581: beyond the observed values the jump in $\Phi_{21}^m$ becomes increasingly weak
582: and in disagreement with the observations.
583:
584: %\begin{figure}
585: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9.0cm\epsfbox{fig_p41_csz.ps}}}
586:
587: \noindent{\small Fig.~8: Period ratio $P_4/P_1$ versus pulsation period for
588: convective models (series \SA). Open triangles denote vibrationally
589: stable models. Filled/Open circles
590: refer to models with a stable/unstable overtone limit-cycle.
591: The labels on the right indicate the stellar masses.}
592:
593: \vspace{1cm}
594: %\end{figure}
595:
596:
597: The shapes of the calculated light- and radial velocity curves are displayed in
598: Fig.~7 for a sequence of models running at 200\K\ distance parallel
599: to the overtone blue edge.
600:
601: Finally, we note that we have computed the same series \SA\ with the Florida
602: convective (Lagrangean) pulsation code, and that the results are essentially
603: identical. Despite the Lagrangean nature of the latter calculations the models
604: show a very smooth behavior, in contrast to the radiative models for which the
605: adaptive code is necessary (Buchler, Koll\'ath \& Marom 1996) to give smooth
606: light-curves (cf.~also Sect.~\ref{s:lag}).
607:
608: In summary we emphasize that the inclusion of convection is crucial for a
609: successful quantitative modelling of the pulsational properties of first
610: overtone Cepheids, in particular of the Fourier decomposition coefficients of
611: the light- and radial velocity curves.
612:
613: \vskip 10pt
614: \centerline{Location of Resonance}
615: \vskip 10pt
616:
617: We return here to the important question of whether the resonance center is
618: near P$_1$ = 3\dotd 2 as suggested by the light-curves (Antonello \& Poretti
619: 1986) or near 4\dotd 6 as the radial velocity data indicate (Kienzle \etal
620: 1999).
621:
622: First, we note that our calculations which used the Schaller \etal M--L
623: relation ($\log(L/L_{\odot}) = 0.79 + 3.56 \log(M/M_{\odot})$), reproduce the
624: observed shift with period between the light-curve and the radial velocity
625: curve $R_{21}$ and $\Phi_{21}$. From our calculated linear period ratios we
626: should therefore be able to locate the resonance center, and resolve this
627: issue. (We stress that it is important to use the same code, \ie the same
628: differencing scheme and the same mesh to compare the hydrodynamics results to
629: the linear periods). We note in passing that the relative differences between
630: the nonlinear and the linear periods are at most +0.4\%.
631:
632: The linear period ratios P$_4$/P$_1$ versus pulsation period for our convective
633: series \SA\ are shown in Fig.~8. The filled circles denote models with a
634: stable nonlinear overtone limit-cycle. Note that our nonlinear first overtone
635: IS is very narrow. We shall return later (\S6) to the importance of the
636: narrowness. Only two of our mass sequences (5.5 and 5.75 \Mo) can undergo
637: stable overtone pulsations with periods near the resonance center (in contrast
638: to the radiative models of Fig.~2). The corresponding pulsation periods reveal
639: the resonance to be located around P$_1$ = 4\dotd 2 $\pm 0.3$, in fact very
640: close to the value of 4\dotd 6 that Kienzle \etal (1999) had conjectured.
641:
642: Our calculations leave no doubt that the P$_1$/P$_4$ = 2 resonance is
643: responsible for the observed structure of the light and radial velocity Fourier
644: coefficients, and that the resonance is located in the vicinity of P$_1$ =
645: 4\dotd 2.
646:
647: It is somewhat surprising that the 2:1 resonance with the fourth overtone has
648: such a pronounced effect on the Fourier data, because after all this overtone
649: is so strongly damped. It has a relative damping rate per pulsation period of
650: $\kappa_4 $P$_0 \sim -0.4$\th in the vicinity of the resonance, \ie its
651: amplitude would decay by 33\% in one pulsation period.
652:
653:
654: %\begin{figure}
655: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9cm\epsfbox{fig_spike.ps}}}
656:
657: \noindent{\small Fig.~9: Effect of pulsation amplitude on the light-curve for
658: a series \SA\ model located at the $\Phi_{21}^m$ jump. Upper four
659: solid lines, have decreasing turbulent viscosity, 0.25 (top) to 0.1
660: (bottom) in steps of 0.05. The lowest solid line shows the
661: corresponding light-curve with the convective flux limiter
662: included, the dashed line refers to the same model without the flux
663: limiter.}
664:
665: \vspace{1cm}
666: %\end{figure}
667:
668:
669: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
670: \section{Sensitivity to numerical and physical input} \label{s:sensitivity}
671:
672: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
673:
674:
675: \subsection{Lagrangean versus adaptive mesh} \label{s:lag}
676:
677: We mentioned in the preceding paragraphs that a comparison between convective
678: Lagrangean and adaptive calculations reveals no differences, as far as first
679: overtone Cepheid models are concerned. This comes as no surprise, because
680: pulsation amplitudes are rather small, and no strong shock waves appear in the
681: dynamics which would require a more elaborate numerical treatment. Moreover,
682: the inclusion of convective energy transport considerably smoothes the sharp
683: features in the combined H--He ionization zone which are a well known headache
684: for radiative modelling.
685:
686: However, a word of caution is necessary here. As already discussed in detail
687: in Feuchtinger \& Dorfi (1994) and Buchler, Koll\'ath \& Marom (1996), adaptive
688: models suffer from advection errors due to the non-Lagrangean motion of the
689: cell boundaries. These errors are particularly severe in the interior where
690: the cell-masses increase rapidly. In order to keep these errors small, the
691: interior part of the model has to be treated as Lagrangean. The switching
692: point between Lagrangean and adaptive zoning therefore has to be chosen with
693: some care, as advection errors can considerably influence the dynamical
694: behavior and ultimately the morphology of the light- and radial velocity curve.
695: By comparing the adaptive results to Lagrangean results we checked in
696: detail that our results are not vitiated by advection errors.
697:
698:
699:
700: \subsection{Radiation hydrodynamics versus equilibrium diffusion}
701:
702: A standard radiation diffusion equation for radiative transport is much more
703: convenient and faster than a time-dependent treatment of radiative transfer
704: (radiation hydrodynamics). Since both codes are available, it has seemed
705: interesting to check whether the simplified diffusion was adequate for
706: pulsational behavior. On the basis of the study of several sequences of models
707: we find that, apart from small changes in the pulsation amplitudes, the
708: results are essentially the same for both treatments. In particular no
709: noticeable effect on the low order Fourier coefficients has been found.
710: A radiation diffusion treatment is therefore fully adequate.
711:
712:
713: \subsection{The M--L Relation}
714:
715: Our results do not depend sensitively on the chosen M--L relation as long as
716: the latter puts the resonance in the right place. This is so because the
717: agreement of the hydrodynamical results with the observations necessarily puts
718: the resonance at the right place and thus fixes the zero-point of the M--L
719: relation (Buchler \etal 1996). The properties of the models depend very little
720: on the slope of the M--L relation because of the relatively narrow mass range
721: of the overtone Cepheids.
722:
723:
724: \subsection{Convection and the $\alpha$ parameters}
725:
726: In the following we discuss how several of the convective parameters influence
727: the behavior of first overtone Cepheid models and in particular the Fourier
728: coefficients of the light- and radial velocity curves.
729:
730:
731: \begin{figure*}
732: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{fig_fou_csy.ps}}}
733:
734: \noindent{\small
735: Fig.~10: Fourier coefficients $R_{21}$ and $\Phi_{21}$ of convective
736: models series \SB\ with the convective enthalpy flux limiter (open
737: circles) compared to observations (filled triangles): {\sl Left:}
738: light-curve (mag) data; {\sl Right:} Radial velocity (km/s) data.
739: The open circles connected by dotted lines refer to sequences with
740: the same mass (from left to right: 4.25, 4.50, 4.75, 5.00, 5.15,
741: 5.25, 5.50, 5.75, 6.00, 6.25 \Mo). For comparison purposes the
742: scales are the same as in Figs. 7 and 12.}
743:
744: \vspace{1cm}
745:
746: \end{figure*}
747:
748:
749: \vskip 10pt
750: \centerline{Series \SB}
751: \vskip 10pt
752:
753: A striking feature of the convective models of series \SA\ in Section
754: \ref{s:conv} is the large jump of the $\Phi_{21}^m$, and it is interesting to
755: see whether the size of this jump can be decreased to observed values by
756: changing the $\alpha$'s.
757:
758:
759: First of all it is instructive to investigate whether there are any peculiar
760: features in the light-curve structure that are connected with that jump.
761: Fig.~9 (solid line at the top) shows the light-curve of a model of series \SA\
762: which is located just to the left of that jump. The light-curve exhibits a
763: shoulder on the rising branch that is absent in the observed light-curves.
764: This shoulder appears only in models near the $\Phi_{21}^m$ jump and no
765: corresponding feature can be found in the radial velocity curve. If the
766: pulsation amplitude of the model is increased beyond the observed value through
767: a decrease in the turbulent viscosity, the shoulder becomes increasingly
768: pronounced, as the lower solid lines indicate. Eventually a spike develops
769: that is similar to the one found in the convective models of RR Lyrae stars
770: (Feuchtinger 1999b).
771:
772: In order to cure the problem of the spike Wuchterl \& Feuchtinger (1998) capped
773: the size of the correlations $\langle s'u' \rangle \approx \langle h'u'
774: \rangle$ to which both the source of turbulent energy and the convective flux
775: are proportional (flux limiter). In series \SB\ we apply the same type of
776: limiter to the first overtone Cepheid models. However, in contrast to the RR
777: Lyrae models we use a higher value of $\alpha_{\rm L}$ = 3 instead of 1 which
778: diminishes the effect of the flux limiter and hence only slightly changes the
779: convective structure of the models. Because the limiter reduces the amount of
780: convection and therefore also the dissipation, we need to increase the
781: turbulent viscosity parameter $\alpha_{\mu}$ from 0.25 to 0.33 to maintain the
782: same pulsation amplitudes.
783:
784: The resulting change in the light-curve structure can be inferred from the
785: bottom of Fig.~9 which plots the flux limited light-curve (solid line) as
786: compared to the nonlimited case (dashed line). The Fourier analysis yields a
787: drop of $\Phi_{21}^m$ from 5.42 to 4.20 for the limited model. The comparison
788: of the whole flux-limited sequence with observations is given in Fig.~10. The
789: bottom panels show $R_{31}$, $\Phi_{31}$ and $A_1$. It turns out that the
790: inclusion of the flux limiter decreases the jump in $\Phi_{21}^m$ considerably,
791: while all other quantities remain almost unaffected. Clearly the best results
792: are obtained when a flux limiter is included.
793:
794: All our attempts to achieve the same effect as obtained with a flux limiter by
795: using various combinations of $\alpha$'s have proved in vain. Essentially the
796: same was found for RR Lyrae stars (Feuchtinger 1999b). This state of affairs
797: is somewhat disconcerting because of the {\sl ad hoc} nature of the flux
798: limiter, and its cause may well be found in the oversimplified nature of our 1D
799: treatment of turbulent convection.
800:
801:
802: \vskip 10pt
803: \centerline{Series \SC}
804: \vskip 10pt
805:
806:
807: Another effect that was omitted in the model series \SA\ of
808: Section~\ref{s:conv} concerns the decrease of turbulent kinetic energy through
809: radiative losses. This effect is important when the radiative diffusion time
810: scale becomes comparable to or smaller than the typical eddy rise time, \ie
811: when the P\'eclet number is small (This effect is treated differently in the
812: Vienna code (Wuchterl \& Feuchtinger 1998) and in the Florida code (Buchler \&
813: Koll\'ath 2000; Koll\'ath \etal 2000) who follow the recipe of Canuto \& Dubikov
814: 1998). A nonzero value of the corresponding parameter $\gamma_{r}$ causes both
815: a decrease of the convective flux and the turbulent kinetic energy. In our
816: sequence \SC\ we use $\gamma_{r}$ = 3.5. To compensate for the resulting decrease
817: of dissipation and to avoid too large an instability strip and too large
818: pulsation amplitudes, we increase the mixing length parameter
819: $\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm ML}$ from 1.5 to 2 and the turbulent viscosity
820: $\alpha_{\mu}$ from 0.25 to 0.35 (series \SC, see also Table~1). This yields
821: approximately the same pulsation amplitudes as obtained without the P\'eclet
822: correction.
823:
824: \begin{figure*}
825: \vskip 10pt
826: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{fig_fou_csp.ps}}}
827:
828: \noindent{\small Fig.~11: Fourier coefficients $R_{21}$ and $\Phi_{21}$ of
829: convective models (series \SC) that include radiative losses (open
830: circles) compared to observations (filled triangles): {\sl Left:}
831: light-curve (mag) data; {\sl Right:} Radial velocity (km/s) data.
832: The open circles connected with by lines refer to sequences with
833: the same mass (from left to right: 4.50, 4.75, 5.00, 5.25, 5.50,
834: 5.75, 6.00, 6.25, 6.50, 7.00 \Mo). For comparison purposes the
835: scales are the same as in Figs. 8 and 10.}
836:
837: \end{figure*}
838:
839:
840:
841:
842: The influence on the linear IS boundaries is shown in Fig.~12. The solid lines
843: refer to models including radiative losses (\SC), dashed to the original
844: sequence (\SA), and {\bf F} and {\bf O} denote the fundamental and first
845: overtone mode, respectively. Both fundamental and overtone blue edges are
846: shifted to the blue by the same amount of about 100K. In contrast, the average
847: fundamental red edge shift of about 550\K\ to the blue edge is much larger than
848: the corresponding 200\K\ for the overtone red edge. Considering the average
849: linear IS widths (taken at 6 \Mo) we end up with 580\K\ for the first overtone
850: and 780\K\ for the fundamental, compared to 700\K\ and 1200\K, respectively,
851: for the series without radiative losses. Consequently, the inclusion of
852: radiative losses has a differential effect on fundamental and first overtone
853: growth rates, which is important for the calibration of the whole Cepheid
854: picture (\cf~Section \ref{s:fund}).
855:
856: The nonlinear results for series \SC\ are shown in Fig.~11 and compared to
857: observed values. Even though the topology of the IS is changed considerably,
858: the influence on the Fourier coefficients is not conspicuous. In particular
859: the large jump of $\Phi_{21}^m$ is only slightly reduced compared to series
860: \SA\ in Fig.~6. Additionally, the position of that jump and also the maximum
861: of $\Phi_{21}^v$ remain at the same place. Bearing in mind that several
862: constraints involving fundamental and double-mode pulsations have not been
863: considered so far, such insensitivity is welcome because it provides leeway
864: for matching additional constraints (\cf~Section \ref{s:fund}).
865:
866:
867:
868: %\begin{figure}
869: \vskip 10pt
870: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=9cm\epsfbox{fig_is_csp.ps}}}
871:
872: \noindent{\small Fig.~12: Linear IS boundaries for
873: convective model series \SC\ (which include radiative losses, solid
874: lines) compared to series \SA\ (dashed lines) in the
875: HR diagram.}
876:
877: \vspace{1cm}
878: %\end{figure}
879:
880:
881:
882: \vskip 10pt
883: \centerline{Series \SD\ and \SE}
884: \vskip 10pt
885:
886: The Kuhfu\ss~standard choice for $\alpha_{\rm s}$, $\alpha_{\rm c}$ and $c_{\rm
887: D}$ which gives the mixing length theory (MLT) limit in the local and static
888: case, leads to rather high values of the turbulent kinetic energy $e_t$. For a
889: typical hydrostatic initial model $e_t$ peaks around 0.55$e$ in the H
890: ionization zone and at 0.25$e$ in the HeI zone, where $e$ denotes the internal
891: energy. Dynamical effects might lead to even higher values of $e_t$ during
892: some stages of the pulsation cycle (\cf Buchler, Yecko, Koll\'ath \& Goupil
893: 1999, Figs. 1 and 2). The corresponding convective Mach numbers $\sqrt{2/3 \,
894: e_t} / c_s$, where $c_s$ denotes the adiabatic sound-speed, reach values of
895: about 0.7. Clearly one is close to the limit of validity of our convection
896: model, which, by disregarding pressure fluctuations, assumes a convective
897: element always to be in pressure equilibrium with its surroundings. It is
898: therefore interesting to compute a model series with considerably lower $e_t$.
899: This can be accomplished in different ways because several $\alpha$ parameters
900: (\viz $\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm ML}$, $\alpha_{\rm s}$ and $c_D$) exhibit
901: a strong influence on $e_t$.
902:
903: In series \SD\ of Table~1 we increase the dissipation parameter $c_D$ by a
904: factor of 4, which leads to an average reduction of $e_t$ by a factor of 3. At
905: the same time we increase $\alpha_{c}$ to 1.5 times its original value (series
906: \SA), which results in approximately the same convective flux structure.
907: Moreover, in order to obtain the right pulsation amplitudes one needs to
908: increase the turbulent viscosity. Despite these rather dramatic changes of the
909: $\alpha$'s only minor changes in the pulsational properties of the models are
910: found.
911:
912: Series \SE\ includes both turbulent kinetic energy flux $F_t$ and turbulent
913: pressure $p_{\rm t}$, but has the same $\alpha$'s as the low $e_t$ series \SD.
914: The flux $F_t$ has only a small effect on the pulsation for reasonable values
915: of $\alpha_{\rm t}$, \ie as long as the convection zones do not invade the
916: outer boundary. The turbulent pressure is also unimportant as long as it
917: remains small compared to the gas pressure. The inclusion of these quantities
918: thus causes neither significant changes in the topography of the instability
919: strip nor in the Fourier coefficients.
920:
921: For some choice of the parameters $\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm ML}$,
922: $\alpha_{\rm s}$, $\alpha_{\rm c}$ and $c_{\rm D}$ the turbulent kinetic energy
923: $e_{\rm t}$ is very large. Then, because $p_{\rm t} = \alpha_{\rm p} \rho \,
924: e_{\rm t}$, the turbulent pressure can get as large or even larger than the gas
925: pressure for the standard value of the parameter $\alpha_{\rm p}$ = 2/3. Since
926: a much smaller value of $\alpha_{\rm p}$ does not seem appropriate in this
927: picture (/eg Baker 1987) this suggests that it would be preferably to use sets
928: of $\alpha$'s that yield a lower $e_{\rm t}$ profile and a reasonable $p/p_t$
929: ratio. On the other hand, such a problem might also reflect the limitations of
930: the simple 1D model of convection that we use.
931:
932:
933: \section{Width of the Instability Strip}
934:
935: We recall that the left (hot) side of the IS determined by the linear
936: growth-rates (which change sign there), but that the red (cool) edge is
937: determined by nonlinear effects, namely instability of the limit-cycles. At
938: low masses (and luminosities) the overtone limit-cycles become unstable to
939: double-mode pulsations, and at higher masses they turn into fundamental
940: pulsations (Udalski \etal 1987, Koll\'ath \etal 2000).
941:
942: The comparison of our calculated Fourier data with the observations suggests
943: that the overtone IS must be very narrow. Indeed, Figs.~6, 10 and 11 show a
944: strong tendency for the computed values of the $\Phi_{21}^m$ (dotted lines) to
945: climb above the observed values as the period of the models increases along
946: each mass sequence, in particular the low mass sequences. Had we chosen
947: $\alpha$'s that yield a much broader IS then the disagreement of the computed
948: values with the observations would have been severe.
949:
950: It is somewhat puzzling that the observations show practically no low amplitude
951: overtone Cepheids (Fig.~3), neither in light nor in radial velocity, and
952: neither at the blue edge nor at the red edge. Of course there is some
953: observational bias against low amplitude pulsators but we do not believe that
954: it can account for the observed deficiency. In Buchler, Koll\'ath \&
955: Feuchtinger (2000) we show that the build-up of the pulsation amplitude can be
956: delayed by stellar evolutionary effects. But this happens only on the redward
957: entry into the IS. Another possibility is that the behavior of the
958: growth-rates with \Teff\ is much steeper than our calculations indicate. If
959: this were the reason it would point to an inadequacy of the simple 1D treatment
960: of convection that we use.
961:
962:
963: \section{Fundamental mode pulsators} \label{s:fund}
964:
965: Even though our first overtone Cepheid models display good agreement with
966: observations, this tells only one part of the story. A comprehensive model for
967: Galactic Cepheids will have to reproduce the observed behavior of the complete
968: modal behavior (fundamental, overtone and double-mode pulsations) throughout
969: the whole IS. Accordingly, further constraints such as the Hertzsprung
970: progression of the Fourier coefficients of the fundamental Cepheid light- and
971: radial velocity curves (connected with the P$_0$/P$_2 = 2$ resonance), or the
972: location and properties of the double-mode pulsations need to be included.
973: Such a calibration is beyond the scope of this paper. There is no \apriori
974: guarantee that our adopted parameter sets, which give good results for first
975: overtone Cepheids, also work for fundamental Cepheids. We thought it useful to
976: ascertain that with our $\alpha$'s the fundamental mode models are at least
977: reasonably good. On the basis of a few sequences of models we find that even
978: though the agreement is not perfect, the main features in the Fourier
979: coefficients can be reproduced. There is therefore hope that future work will
980: be able to determine a set of $\alpha$'s that will yield a comprehensive
981: picture of the Galactic Cepheids.
982:
983: \vfill\eject
984:
985: \section{Low metallicity Cepheids}
986:
987: The Magellanic Clouds are thought to be metal-deficient compared to the Galaxy,
988: and presumably so are the SMC and LMC Cepheids. Nevertheless, the observed
989: characteristics of these Cepheids (\eg stellar parameters, pulsation
990: amplitudes, position of resonances, double-mode behavior, etc.) are very close
991: to those of their Galactic siblings. However, current models show a strong
992: metallicity (Z) dependence that is in conflict with the observed behavior (\eg
993: Buchler, Koll\'ath, Beaulieu \& Goupil 1996, Buchler 2000). This issue will be
994: addressed in detail in a forthcoming paper.
995:
996: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
997: \section{Summary and conclusions}
998:
999: In this paper we have addressed the modelling of Galactic first overtone
1000: Cepheids with two different state-of-the-art stellar pulsation codes. Both
1001: codes include a treatment of time-dependent convective energy transfer, \viz
1002: the Vienna and the Florida codes. A reexamination of radiative models with an
1003: adaptive mesh and radiation hydrodynamics code reveals no improvement when
1004: compared with the simpler Lagrangean radiative diffusion code. In particular,
1005: the conspicuous Z-shape of the $\Phi_{21}^m$ with period cannot be reproduced
1006: with radiative modelling.
1007:
1008: In contrast, we demonstrate that with the inclusion of convective energy
1009: transport it is possible to reproduce the observed behavior of Galactic first
1010: overtone Cepheids. The Schaller \etal M--L relation that we have used here
1011: puts both the overtone P$_1$/P$_4$=2 and the fundamental P$_0$/P$_2$=2
1012: resonances in approximately the right places as the agreement between the
1013: calculated and the observed Fourier data show. With a slight adjustment of the
1014: M--L relation the agreement with the observations could be further improved.
1015: In particular our models reveal that the P$_1$/P$_4 =2$ resonance which is
1016: responsible for the structure in the Fourier coefficients, is located at
1017: pulsation periods in the vicinity of $P_1$= 4\dotd 2, as conjectured by Kienzle
1018: \etal (1999) on the basis of their radial velocity data.
1019:
1020:
1021: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1022: \section{Acknowledgements}
1023:
1024: This work has been supported by NSF (grant AST 9819608) and by OTKA (T-026031).
1025:
1026: \vskip 10pt
1027:
1028: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1029: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1030:
1031: \bibitem[Aikawa etal]{}
1032: Aikawa T., Antonello E., Simon N.R., 1987, AA 181, 25
1033:
1034: \bibitem[Alexander \& Ferguson 1994]{molopas}
1035: Alexander, D. R. \& Ferguson, J. W. 1994, ApJ 437, 879
1036:
1037: \bibitem[Antonello \& Aikawa (1993)]{AntonelloA93}
1038: Antonello, E. \& Aikawa, T. 1993 AA 279, 119
1039:
1040: \bibitem[Antonello \& Aikawa 1995]{AntonelloA95}
1041: Antonello, E. \& Aikawa, T. 1995 AA 302, 105
1042:
1043: \bibitem[]{}
1044: Antonello, E. \& Poretti, E. 1986, AA, 169, 149%--153
1045:
1046: \bibitem[]{}
1047: Baker, N.H. 1987,
1048: in {\sl Physical Processes in Comets, Stars and Active
1049: Galaxies}, Eds. W. Hillebrandt, E. Meyer-Hofmeister \& H.-C. Thomas,
1050: p. 105 (Berlin: Springer-Verlag).
1051: % p. 105-124 (Berlin: Springer-Verlag).
1052: % summary and comparison of all theories up to 87
1053:
1054: \bibitem[Beaulieu \etal (1995)]{Beaulieu}
1055: Beaulieu, J.P. \etal 1995, AA 303, 137 %lmc f and o cepheids
1056:
1057: \bibitem[Buchler 1993]{Mito}
1058: Buchler, J. R., 1993, in {\it Nonlinear Phenomena in Stellar Variability},
1059: Eds. M. Takeuti \& J.R. Buchler (Kluwer: Dordrecht),
1060: repr.~from ApSS 210, 1
1061:
1062: \bibitem[]{}
1063: Buchler, J. R., 2000, in "The Impact of Large-Scale Surveys on
1064: Pulsating Star Research", Proc. IAU Colloquium 176, Budapest 1999,
1065: ASP Conf. Ser., Eds. L. Szabados \& D.W. Kurtz, 203, p. 343%--355.
1066:
1067: \bibitem[Buchler \& Goupil (1984)]{BuchlerG}
1068: Buchler, J. R. \& Goupil, M. J. 1984, ApJ 279, 394 %AESformalism
1069:
1070: \bibitem[Buchler, Koll\'ath, Beaulieu \& Goupil (1996)]{BuchlerKBG}
1071: Buchler, J.R., Koll\'ath, Z., Beaulieu, J.P. \& Goupil, M.J. 1996,
1072: ApJL 462, L83
1073:
1074: \bibitem[]{}
1075: Buchler, J. R. \& Koll\'ath, Z., 2000, in {\sl Astrophysical Turbulence and
1076: Convection}, Eds. J.R. Buchler \& H. Kandrup, Annals of the New York
1077: Academy of Sciences, Vol. 898, p. 39 %--58.
1078:
1079: \bibitem[]{}
1080: Buchler, J.R., Koll\'ath, Z. \& Feuchtinger, M. U. 2000, AA, submitted
1081:
1082: \bibitem[]{}
1083: Buchler, J.R., Koll\'ath, Z. \& Marom, A. 1996, Astrophys. Space Sci.
1084: 253, 139 %--160.
1085:
1086: \bibitem[]{}
1087: Buchler, J.R. \& Kov\'acs, G. 1986, ApJ 303, 749%--765.
1088:
1089: \bibitem[Buchler, Moskalik, \& Kov\'acs (1990)]{BuchlerMK}
1090: Buchler, J. R., Moskalik, P. \& Kov\'acs, G. 1990, ApJ 351, 617 %ceph
1091:
1092: \bibitem[]{} Buchler, J. R., Yecko, P., Koll\'ath, Z. \& Goupil, M. J. 1999, in
1093: {\sl Theory and Tests of Convection in Stellar Structure}, ASP Conf. Ser. 173,
1094: Eds. A. Gimenez, E.F. Guinan \& B. Montesinos, p. 141%--156.
1095:
1096: \bibitem[]{}
1097: Canuto, V. M. \& Dubikov, M., 1998, ApJ 493, 834
1098: %--847
1099:
1100: \bibitem[]{}
1101: Cox, J. P. 1980, {\sl Theory of Stellar Pulsation}, (Princeton: Univ. Press)
1102:
1103: \bibitem[]{}
1104: Dorfi, E. A. \& Feuchtinger, M. U. 1999, AA 348, 815
1105:
1106: \bibitem[]{}
1107: Feuchtinger, M.U., 1998, AA 337, L29%--33
1108:
1109: \bibitem[]{}
1110: Feuchtinger, M.U., 1999a, AAS 136, 217
1111:
1112: \bibitem[]{}
1113: Feuchtinger, M.U., 1999b, AA 351, 103
1114:
1115: \bibitem[]{}
1116: Feuchtinger, M.U. \& Dorfi, E.A., 1994, AA 291, 225
1117:
1118: \bibitem[]{}
1119: Feuchtinger, M.U. \& Dorfi, E.A., 2000, in "The Impact of Large-Scale Surveys
1120: on Pulsating Star Research", Proc. IAU Colloquium 176,
1121: Budapest 1999,
1122: Eds. Laszlo Szabados and Don Kurtz, ASP Conf. Ser., 203, p. 334
1123:
1124: \bibitem[]{}
1125: Gehmeyr, M. \& Winkler, K.-H. A. 1992,
1126: AA 253, 92 %--100
1127: % new formulation
1128:
1129: \bibitem[Hertzsprung (1926)]{Hertzsprung}
1130: Hertzsprung E. 1926, Bull. Astr. Inst. Netherlands 3, 115
1131:
1132: \bibitem[Iglesias \& Rogers (1996)]{OPAL}
1133: Iglesias, C.A. \& Rogers, F.J., 1996, ApJ, 464, 943.
1134:
1135: \bibitem[Kienzle \etal (1999)]{Kienzle}
1136: Kienzle, F., Moskalik, P., Bersier, D. \& Pont, F. 1999, AA 341, 818
1137:
1138: \bibitem[Koll\'ath \etal 1998]{KBBY}
1139: Koll\'ath, Z., Beaulieu, J. P., Buchler, J. R. \& Yecko, P., 1998,
1140: ApJ 502, L55
1141: %--L58.
1142: %Nonlinear Beat Cepheid Models.
1143:
1144: \bibitem[]{}
1145: Koll\'ath, Z. \& Buchler, J. R., 2000,
1146: in {\sl Nonlinear Studies of Stellar Pulsation}, Eds. M. Takeuti \&
1147: D.D. Sasselov, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Series, Kluwer (in
1148: press)
1149:
1150: \bibitem[]{}
1151: Koll\'ath, Z., Buchler, J.R., Szab\'o, R. \& Csubry, Z., 2000,
1152: ApJ, (submitted)
1153:
1154: \bibitem[Kov\'acs \& Buchler (1989)]{KovacsB89}
1155: Kov\'acs, G. \& Buchler, J.R., 1989, ApJ, 346, 898
1156: %Cepheid Bump Progression %and Amplitude Equations
1157:
1158: \bibitem[Krzyt \etal (2000)]{Krzyt}
1159: Krzyt, T., Moskalik, P., Gorynya, N. \& Samus, N. 2000, (in preparation)
1160:
1161: \bibitem[]{}
1162: Kuhfu{\ss}, R., 1986, AA 160, 116
1163:
1164: \bibitem[]{}
1165: Moskalik, P., Buchler, J.R. \& Marom, M. 1992, ApJ 385, 685%--693.
1166:
1167: \bibitem[1994]{poretti}
1168: Poretti, E., 1994, AA, 285, 524
1169:
1170: \bibitem[(Schaller \& Buchler 1994)]{SchallerB} Schaller G. \& Buchler,
1171: J. R. 1994, unpublished preprint, {\sl A Hydrodynamical Survey of s--Cepheid
1172: Pulsations}
1173:
1174: \bibitem[]{}
1175: Schaller, G. Schaerer, D. Meynet, G. \& Maeder, A. 1992, AAS 96, 269
1176:
1177: \bibitem[]{}
1178: Simon, N. R. \& Schmidt, E. G., 1976, ApJ 205, 162
1179:
1180: \bibitem[]{}
1181: Stellingwerf, R. F. 1984, ApJ 277, 322 % --326
1182:
1183: \bibitem[Udalski \etal (1997)]{Udalski}
1184: Udalski, A., \etal~1997, Acta Astr 47, 1
1185:
1186: \bibitem[Welch \etal (1995)]{Welch}
1187: Welch, D.L., Alcock, C., Bennett, D.P., \etal, 1995,
1188: in IAU~Coll.~155 ``Astrophysical Applications of Stellar Pulsation'',
1189: Eds.~R.S.~Stobie \& P.A.~Whitelock, ASP~Conference Series, Vol.~83,~p.~232
1190:
1191: \bibitem[]{}
1192: Wuchterl, G. \& Feuchtinger, M. U. 1998, AA 340, 419
1193:
1194: \bibitem[]{}
1195: Yecko, P.A., Koll\'ath, Z. \& Buchler, J.R., 1998, AA 336, 553
1196:
1197: \end{thebibliography}{}
1198: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1199: \end{document}
1200: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1201:
1202:
1203:
1204:
1205: We conclude this section by noting that the convective models produce a
1206: satisfactory picture of Galactic first overtone Cepheid pulsations.