EDP Sciences
Free Access
Volume 580, August 2015
Article Number A27
Number of page(s) 14
Section Stellar structure and evolution
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201425290
Published online 22 July 2015

Online material

Appendix A: Period spacing for iternative models

The comparison between the period spacing of the first and second best models is presented in Fig. A.1. A similar plot for the second and third best models is shown in Fig. A.2. Both Model 8 and Model 11 provide poorer fits to the period spacing on the short-period range of the series, than Model 4 (Fig. 4).

thumbnail Fig. A.1

Top panel: period spacing for Model 4 (filled circles) and Model 11 (empty squares). See Table 3 for their parameters. Bottom panel: absolute frequency deviations of the two models with respect to observations. See also Fig. 4 for a comparison.

Open with DEXTER

thumbnail Fig. A.2

Similar to Fig. 4 but for Model 8 (filled circles) and Model 11 (empty squares).

Open with DEXTER

Appendix B: Full overview of the Mixing, Fine and Metallicity grids

The Mixing, Fine and Metallicity grids introduced in Table 2 have identical physical ingredients, and it is safe to merge their goodness-of-fit into a single snapshot. Figure B.1 shows as a function of the dimensions of the three grids in addition to the model radius and surface gravity. Note the finger-like structures in panels (c), (g), and (h) where the age, overshooting and mixing parameters are constrained, respectively. In panel (i), the position of all models is shown on the Kiel diagram (log Teff vs. log g), and that of the best model is marked with a (white) star. Our Model 4 is found marginally inside the 2σ uncertainty box from spectroscopy.

thumbnail Fig. B.1

Behaviour of as a function of a) effective temperature Teff, b) surface gravity log g, c) age Xc, d) radius, e) initial mass, f) metallicity Z; g) exponential overshooting parameter fov, and h) extra diffusive mixing log Dmix. Panel i) shows the position of the two best models (star: Model 4, pentagon: Model 11) in the Kiel diagram, where the box indicates the 1σ and the dotted line the 3σ boundaries deduced from spectroscopy. The colour coding is based on .

Open with DEXTER

Appendix C: Deliverables, inlists, and opacity tables

We adhere to the MESA code of conduct as stated in Paxton et al. (2011), and make our setting files and physical ingredients publicly available for download. This also ensures reproducibility of our results. The following items are available at the CDS:

  • The MESA v.5548 input inlists,

  • The GYRE v.3.0 inlist,

  • The OP and OPAL opacity tables adapted to the A05+Ne, A09, and NP12 mixtures. They have to be used with a standard MESA composition optioninitial_zfracs = 5, 6 and 8, respectively. All tables are MESA compatible. When querying the OP and OPAL servers, we made a choice to redistribute the abundance residuals on all metals, based on their relative mass fraction instead of depositing them on the heaviest metals, which are Fe and Ni. This is a choice and may slightly influence the adiabatic and non-adiabatic results.

  • The internal structure of Model 4, Model 5, Model 8, Model 10, and Model 11 in a GYRE-compatible format.

Static links to download each of these products are available at https://fys.kuleuven.be/ster/Projects/ASAMBA at the CDS.

© ESO, 2015

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.