AGB stars

Inma Dominguez
Sergio Cristallo
Oscar Straniero
 Evolution of Low & Intermediate
Mass Stars
M 8 M C-O White Dwarfs

MCO ~ 1.1 M C ignition MMS = MUP ~ 8 M

Becker, Iben 1979-80
Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram

G B
- A
TP

B
AG
RGB

E-
He central
burning
Pre
Main Sequence

H central
FDU
burning
 AGB stars
Nucleosynthesis 75% of the mass return to the ISM
12
C & 14N Life cycles
7
Li (BBN)
26
Al (Early SS)
s-elements main & strong component
(88 A 210)

Pieces of their envelopes Meteorites

Not an Thermal pulses HBB

easy 3er Dredge-up Mixing process
phase Mass Loss CBP
 Solar System Abundances
BBN SNII
AGB SNII
SNII ?
SNIa
BBN AGB
AGB Weak Main Strong
A<90 90<A<204 204<A<210

Beyond Fe-peak: neutron captures

Anders & Grevesse 1989

Cameron 1982
 Why to care about AGBs ?
Final phase of the evolution of stars with M < 8 M
the Majority !!
PNe WDs Novae/Thermonuclear SNe

Border: WD or Core Collapse Sne

Initial to Final Mass Relation Mass return to ISM

WD Progenitors of Type Ia

75% to the total mass return from to the

ISM (Sedlmayr 1994)

Elements Beyond the Fe peak (A > 85)

slow neutron captures (s-process)
 Why to care about AGBs ?
C and N, crucial for organic chemistry and life cycles
half of all the observed 12C (?) at least 30% !!
7Li (Nucleosynthesis of the Light Elements)

Most extrasolar grains recovered in meteorites

Pieces of AGB stars in terrestial laboratories !!

Contamination of the protosolar nebula right before its

collapse by a local source AGB or SN ??
AGB star !!! (Wasserburg et al. 1994,1995, 2006;Busso et al. 1999)

26
Al 36
Cl 41
Ca 60
Fe 107
Pd (radiactivities)
 Dredge-ups
The bottom of the Convective Envelope (CE) moves
downward

The CE penetrates a nuclear processed zone

Products of nuclear burning are carried to the surface

they can be observed
return to the ISM via mass loss

1st D-up 2nd D-up 3rd D-up

Phase: RGB E-AGB TP-AGB
Products Central Shell H and He
of H-burning H-burning Shell burning
 2nd D-up
Dredge-ups

1st D-up 4
He 14
N
12
C 16
O

3rd D-up
1 M

N 12C 16O
14

s-process
14
N 12
C 16
O
 The 2nd Dredge-up STOPS the C-O
core mass growth
AGB phase
Convective Envelope
H-shell 3 M
Main growth
He-shell CO core
E- AGB

Still increases
2nd D-up TP-AGB
5 M
TPs
 The CO Core

E-AGB
MCO He shell
TP-AGB

TP-AGB
H
MCO ~ cte
C-O Convective
He Envelope
TPs
He-shell
H-shell He shell pulses
H shell
Observed Mass Distribution of WDs

Samples
0.6 M
2 WDs 1.1 M
Napiwotski, Green, Saffer
1999
2 WDs 1.4 M
Napiwotski et al. 2006

15 WDs 1.1 M
Vennes, 1999

O-Ne WDs ??
Weidemann 2000
Mergers ??
Segretain et al 97
 The C-O Core Mass

Core Mass at He ignition Core Mass at 1st TPs

Cb
2nd D-up
He-core

CO-Core

Domnguez et al. 1999

 Semiempirical Initial to Final
Mass Relation

New Data Mi Mf

Hyades 3 0.68
Herwig 1995
(Hipparcos)

NGC 3532 4 0.80

TPs Weidemann 1987
PG 0922+162

Weidemann 2000
our models
Single-valued
Mi Mf

Few TPs
 CO core growth
during TP-AGB phase

Convective envelope
M CO ~ 10-7 M/yr
5 M How Long is the
TP-AGB phase ??
H-shell
5 106 yr MCh
He-shell

Strong Mass Loss

CO core observed !!!
10-7 10-4 M /yr
 s-process in AGB stars
The Neutron Source

22
Ne(,n)25Mg
T > 300 106 K
nn > 3-5x108 cm-3
M > 4 M
13
C(,n)16O
T ~ 90 106 K
nn < 107 cm-3
M < 3-4 M

For comparison, r-process (SNII ?) nn ~ 1022 cm-3

 Constraining observationally the
neutron density from abundances of Rb
vs. Sr, Y, Zr
22
Ne(,n)25Mg T n Mass: 4 8 M (85 Rb)
13
C(,n)16O T n 10
3 M ( Rb)
87

5 M

1.5 M Low Mass !!

85
Kr
-2 -1.5 -1 [Fe/H] 0 0.5
 s-process elements
2 Thermal Pulses

C/O

22
Ne(,n)25Mg

Lattanzio
 STARTING PARAMETERS
M = 2 M

Z = Z [Fe/H]=0 but....
Calibration of the SSM (Standard Solar Model) with
the new composition
New determination of solar C, N and O

(Allende-Prieto et al. 2002, Asplund et al. 2004):

Heini = 0.27 Z 0.015

ini mixing length = 1.9
 MASS-LOSS in our code
UP TO EARLY-AGB REIMERS MASS-LOSS
PHASE (=0.4)

Fitto observational data of Whitelock et al. (2003)

and derivation of dM/dt=f (Period)
Period-Luminosity relation by Feast et al. (1989)

AGB PHASE

log dM/dt
 How we treat the convection
Schwarschild criterion: to determine convective
borders
Mixing length theory: to calculate the element
velocities inside the convective zones
v = vbce exp (-d/ Hp)
At the boundaries we assume Vbce is the convective velocity at
that the velocity profile drops, the inner border of the
following an exponentially convective envelope (CE)
decaying law d is the distance from the CE
Hp is the scale pressure height
= 0.1

WARNING: vbce=0 except during Dredge Up episodes

Efficiency of the mixing: we take it proportional to the ratio between the

convective time scale and the time step of the calculation (Spark & Endal 1980)
 THE NETWORK
About 500 isotopes
More than 700 reactions
fully coupled with
the physic evolution
Reactions Reference
(n,) Bao & Kaeppeler
(n,p) and (n,) Koehler,Wagemans
p and captures NACRE
beta decay Takahashi&Yokoi
The TP-AGB Phase
Low Mass
First formation
of the 13C-pocket
2 M

Z=Z

ACTIVATION
OF THE
13
C(,n)16O reaction
3 D-up
rd
 Formation of the 13C-pocket
(4th pulse with TDU)

12
C H
12
C(p,)13N
14
N
13
N( +)13C
13
C
13
C(,n)16O

Poison

14
N(p,)15O
THE TP-AGB PHASE DISK STARS

First TDU episode and

M=2M
consequent 13C-pocket C/O~2
formation
Z= Z
C/O=1 (Z=1.5x10-2)
C-star C/Oini=0.54
Convective
envelope Radiative burning of
13C(,n)16O reaction

Mass Loss !!!

C-O core
Engulfment of the
13C-pocket in the

convective shell
Surface enrichment during TPs + DUP

Hf, Ta, W, Pb
2th TDU
Cd,episode
Pd, Sn 3rd peak

Sr, th
Y,Zr Ba group
1 TDU episode:
hs
ls 2nd peakEu
1st peak
Strongneutron flux,
but too short
timescale

El NEl NEl ,
Fe log NFe log NFe ,
 TP-AGB phase: some numbers...
Pulse MTOT MH MTDU tINTERP C/O
(with TDU)
(M) (M) (10-3 M) (105 yr)
1 1.901 0.561 0.4 1.52 0.33
2 1.894 0.568 1.5 1.77 0.36
3 1.878 0.575 2.5 1.68 0.46
4 1.843 0.583 3.5 1.60 0.61
5 1.771 0.590 4.4 1.52 0.82
6 1.650 0.596 4.2 1.43 1.06
7 1.457 0.603 4.7 1.33 1.36
8 1.196 0.609 3.5 1.21 1.67
9 0.923 0.615 0.07 1.05 1.67
Comparison with Galactic Carbon C(N) Stars

Z ~ Z
Surface C/O=1
s-process
Observations
Abia et al. 2002
FRANEC
2M 6th TP with TDU

hs:
Ba La Ce Nd Sm
ls:
Sr Y Zr

Intrinsic C-stars Abia et al 2001

 Toward lower metallicities Z=10-4
Pulse by pulse surface enrichments
Lead-star
C-star 2M
[Pb/Fe] ~ 3.1
Z=10-4 HALO STARS
[hs/Fe]~2.3 Observations (14 )
[Fe/H]~-2.2
[ls/Fe]~1.7
10
0.4<[ls/Fe]<1.3
0.9<[hs/Fe]<2.3
5 1.9<[Pb/Fe]<3.3
Aoki et al. 2002
Barbuy et al. 2005
1 Cohen et al. 2003
Van Eck et al. 2003

Extrinsic Dilution
Comparison with LEAD (Halo) stars

REQUESTED
DILUTION
tr
[Fe/H]=-2.1
(Van Eck et al. 2003)
M AGB
ini
M ENV COMP

EXTRINSIC
AGB
ORBITAL PARAMETERS !!

McClure & Woodsworth,

1990
EARLY SOLAR SYSTEM
SHORT RADIOACTIVITIES

Murchison, Australia 1969

 Measured radioactivities, lifetimes, abundance ratios in ESS
. . . .
Rad.(R) Ref. (S) (Myr) Observ. Ratio

26 27
Al Al 1.03 5x10-5
36 35
Cl Cl 0.43 1.4x10-6
41 40
Ca Ca 0.15 1.5x10-8
53 55
Mn Mn 5.3 2.3x10-6 6x10-5
60 56
Fe Fe 2.2 4x10-9 (PD)
107 108
Pd Pd 9.4 2.0x10-5
129 127
I I 23 10-4
146 144
Sm Sm 148 0. 005
182 180
Hf Hf 13 2.0x10-4
244 238
Pu U 115 0.007
 Measurements from INTEGRAL

INTEGRAL data imply ~ 2.8 M of live 26Al, of which ~ 2 M come

from massive stars (Limongi, Chieffi 2006). A further contribution
of up to 1 M in a diffuse background (from AGBs and novae?) cannot
be excluded (Lentz et al. 1999).

The ISM 26
Al/27Al=8.4 10-6 ratio is 5 times smaller than in the
ESS.

This confirms a late contamination by a local source, in the

collapsing cloud (e.g. stellar winds from the early Sun) or very close
to it (e.g. a close-by nucleosynthesis event in a dying star). The
nature of the source must still be decided (SN or AGB).
 Several
sources
required

AGB 26
Al, 60
Fe, 41
Ca, 107
Pd
 Radioactivities & AGB Stars
Production sites of short lived radioactive isotopes
. . . . . .
Rad. Stable MS, Type II SN Type Ia SN LMS, IMS (AGB) PR/PS

26 27
Al Al H-shell, expl. Ne expl. Ne H-shell, HBB 0.004;.0.001 0.05
36 35
Cl Cl s-process O-burn ? s-process 0.006; 0.0016
41 40
Ca Ca s-process O-burn ? s-process 0.006 - 0.003
53 55
Mn Mn expl. Si, NSE NSE ------------------- 0.1 < 0.1 ---
60 56
Fe Fe s-process, nNSE nNSE s-process 3x10-5 - 0.01-3x10-4
107 108
Pd Pd s- and r-processes ? s-process 0.6 - 0.007
129 127
I I r-process ? --------------------- 1.4 -----
146 144
Sm Sm p-process p-process --------------------- 0.1 -----
182 180
Hf Hf r- or n-processes ? (s-process) 0.21 (3.5x10-4)
244 238
Pu U Extreme r-process ? ---------------------- 0.7 -----
EARLY SOLAR SYSTEM Measured
SHORT RADIOACTIVITIES
Al/27Al
26

5 10-5
1.03 Myr
M=2M
Z=Z Ca/40Ca
41

1.5 10-8
0.15 Myr

Fe/56Fe
60

4 10-9
2.2 Myr

Pd/108Pd
107

2 parameters 2 10-5
9.4 Myr

lower mass 1.3M

s-process nucleosynthesis vs. [Fe/H]
Models: Travaglio et al. 2004

1st peak
Known distances
Dependence of SMC
Draco
Mixing and
Nucleosynthesis Sgr dsph

with Z

3rd peak 2nd peak

Carina

UMi Sculptor
 [hs/ls]
vs.
hs: [Fe/H]
Ba La Nd Sm
ls: C1 Theoretical
Sr Y Zr B30 Sgr Prediction
SMC Confirmed !!

But
Observed
C3
C/O ~ 1 !!!
Sgr
Models
C/O >>
Galactic
Observed
12
C/13C too
de Laverny et al. 2006 low vs models
 Extramixing-CBP
during the interpulse period
Needed for: Observed in Draco
- 12C/13C 461 [Fe/H]~ -2
- 17O/18O/16O log (Li)=3.50.4
-26Al in grains
-7Li
Does not alter CBP
AGB structure 2
and evolution
BUT:
2 free STD
parameters!
Nollett et al. 2003

Physical Mechanism ???? Domnguez et al. 2004

 Synthetic fit to D461 spectrum

4.2 m WHT+ ISIS, Roque de los Muchachos R ~ 6500

IRAF
S/N ~ 60

Model Atmospheres
SAM12 (Pavlenko 2003)
CaI
LiI
log (Li)=no Li Best fit
1.5 Teff ~ 3600 K
3.0
[Fe/H]=-2.00.2
3.5
C/O=3-5
log g= 0
=2.5 km/s
 7
Li Production in
Cameron-Fowler belt Mechanism
3He(,)7Be T> 20-30 106 K
HBB in Intermediate-Massive

7Be(e-,)7Li 1/2 ~ 29 yr (T~ 25 106 K)

7
Li(p,)4He T> 2 106 K
mixing < 1/2 (7Be + e-)

Low mass Extra-mixing or CBP

Wasserburg, Boothroyd, Sackmann 1995
Nollet, Busso, Wasserburg 2003
 Constraints to D461 Mass & AGE
C/O 12
C/13C [Ba/Fe] Teff g 1.5 M Z=3 10-4
Luminosity Core Mass Occurrence of 3rd D-up
Menv > 0.4-0.5 M
D461: Mv = -2.740.14
(Shetrone et al. 2001) (Straniero et al. 2003)

M < 2.0 M > 1 Gyr

M > 1.3 M < 3 Gyr
M > 1.3 M AGE < 3 Gyr
Recent formation in Draco
The first AGB stars
Chieffi, Domnguez, Limongi, Straniero 2001

Z=0 4 8 M
H burning PP chains T
CNO cycle + 3
6-8 M SDU 4-5 M Convection HCE
He C
CNO
O N
TDU
Normal
SDU TPs
 Contribution of the first AGB stars to
the chemical Evolution of the Early Universe
Abia et al. 2001 Chieffi et al. 2001

Observations:
IGM abundances (Ly-) [C/H] > -2.4
and halo [Fe/H] -2.5 [C,N/ Fe] > 1 EMP C-

Z=0 IMF & yields 4 100 M IMF

Z=0 YIELDS 4 8 M Nakamura & Umemura
Yoshii & Saio
Salpeter

IMF
IMF 4-7 M
[C,N/ Fe] > 1

rem<0.001 b
 Final Remarks
The main component and the strong component of the s-
process (85 A 210) can be explained in a unique
scenario: low mass AGB stars of different metallicities.
Neutron captures are dominated by the 13C(,n)16O
Galactic AGB C-stars confirm this picture
Extragalactic AGB C-stars show the expected
dependence of the s-process with metallicity
Problems to reproduce the observed low C/O & 12
C/13C in
metal poor AGB stars rich in s-elements
Extra-mixing is needed to explain 7Li in Li-rich AGB C-
also explain 12C/13C, 16O/17O/18O & 26Al
But Physics of extramixing ??
 Final Remarks
Why the observed C/O in AGB C-stars (metal poor)
is low ?? Dust ?? Condensation ?? Huge DUP ?

Presolar grains: isotopic compositions have confirmed

the general picture and the need of extramixing

Solar System formation: an AGB of low mass ~ 1.3 M

contaminated the collapsing cloud in short radioactivities
(work in progress)

The first AGB stars (Pop. III) enriched the IGM with
metals, relevant for C and N !!!
 Open problems in the
simulations
Mixing regions
Convection (1D mixing-length !! 3D ??)
DUP (Hydrodynamics ??)
Extra-mixing CBP (Physical Mechanism ?)

Mass-loss
When the AGB ends Number of TPs
Huge effect on yields

AGB simulations take a lot of CPU

1 model 1 month
parameters !!!!
 Most relevant for Chemical Evolution

Around half of the Galactic C

12

Main and Strong component of the s-process

85 < A < 210 coming from Low Mass AGB stars
of different Z
 The beauty of science is that
nature will tell you when you are
wrong. So will your colleagues, but
they may not always be right!
Jerry Wasserburg
Crafoord Prize, 1986