Paper detail

A comparison of evolutionary tracks for single Galactic massive stars

In this paper, we compare the currently available evolutionary tracks for Galactic massive stars. Our main goal is to highlight the uncertainties on the predicted evolutionary paths. We compute stellar evolution models with the codes MESA and STAREVOL. We compare our results with those of four published grids of massive stellar evolution models (Geneva, STERN, Padova and FRANEC codes). We first investigate the effects of overshooting, mass loss, metallicity, chemical composition. We subsequently focus on rotation. Finally, we compare the predictions of published evolutionary models with the observed properties of a large sample of Galactic stars. We find that all models agree well for the main sequence evolution. Large differences in luminosity and temperatures appear for the post main sequence evolution, especially in the cool part of the HR diagram. Depending on the physical ingredients, tracks of different initial masses can overlap, rendering any mass estimate doubtful. For masses between 7 and 20 Msun, we find that the main sequence width is slightly too narrow in the Geneva models including rotation. It is (much) too wide for the (STERN) FRANEC models. This conclusion is reached from the investigation of the HR diagram and from the evolution of the surface velocity as a function of surface gravity. An overshooting parameter alpha between 0.1 and 0.2 in models with rotation is preferred to reproduce the main sequence width. Determinations of surface abundances of carbon and nitrogen are partly inconsistent and cannot be used at present to discriminate between the predictions of published tracks. For stars with initial masses larger than about 60 Msun, the FRANEC models with rotation can reproduce the observations of luminous O supergiants and WNh stars, while the Geneva models remain too hot.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.