STELLAR DYNAMOS AND CYCLES FROM NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF CONVECTION

We present a series of kinematic axisymmetric mean-field αΩ dynamo models applicable to solar-type stars, for 20 distinct combinations of rotation rates and luminosities. The internal differential rotation and kinetic helicity profiles required to calculate source terms in these dynamo models are extracted from a corresponding series of global three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of solar/stellar convection, so that the resulting dynamo models end up involving only one free parameter, namely, the turbulent magnetic diffusivity in the convecting layers. Even though the αΩ dynamo solutions exhibit a broad range of morphologies, and sometimes even double cycles, these models manage to reproduce relatively well the observationally inferred relationship between cycle period and rotation rate. On the other hand, they fail in capturing the observed increase of magnetic activity levels with rotation rate. This failure is due to our use of a simple algebraic α-quenching formula as the sole amplitude-limiting nonlinearity. This suggests that α-quenching is not the primary mechanism setting the amplitude of stellar magnetic cycles, with magnetic reaction on large-scale flows emerging as the more likely candidate. This inference is coherent with analyses of various recent global magnetohydrodynamical simulations of solar/stellar convection.

[1]  R. Simoniello,et al.  THE QUASI-BIENNIAL PERIODICITY AS A WINDOW ON THE SOLAR MAGNETIC DYNAMO CONFIGURATION , 2012, 1210.6796.

[2]  N. Pizzolato,et al.  The stellar activity-rotation relationship revisited: Dependence of saturated and non-saturated X-ray emission regimes on stellar mass for late-type dwarfs ? , 2003 .

[3]  P. Charbonneau,et al.  MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC SIMULATION-DRIVEN KINEMATIC MEAN FIELD MODEL OF THE SOLAR CYCLE , 2013 .

[4]  S. Saar,et al.  Time Evolution of the Magnetic Activity Cycle Period. II. Results for an Expanded Stellar Sample , 1999 .

[5]  Peter A. Gilman,et al.  Three-dimensional Spherical Simulations of Solar Convection. I. Differential Rotation and Pattern Evolution Achieved with Laminar and Turbulent States , 2000 .

[6]  N. O. Weiss,et al.  The relation between stellar rotation rate and activity cycle periods , 1984 .

[7]  S. Tobias Relating stellar cycle periods to dynamo calculations , 1998 .

[8]  A. F. Lanza,et al.  Multiple and changing cycles of active stars - II. Results , 2009, 0904.1747.

[9]  Nicholas J. Wright,et al.  THE STELLAR-ACTIVITY–ROTATION RELATIONSHIP AND THE EVOLUTION OF STELLAR DYNAMOS , 2011, 1109.4634.

[10]  Paul Charbonneau,et al.  ON THE MODE OF DYNAMO ACTION IN A GLOBAL LARGE-EDDY SIMULATION OF SOLAR CONVECTION , 2011 .

[11]  Carolus J. Schrijver,et al.  Heliophysics: Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos , 2009 .

[12]  The dependence of differential rotation on temperature and rotation , 2004, astro-ph/0410575.

[13]  A. Brandenburg,et al.  Magnetoconvection and dynamo coefficients: Dependence of the alpha-effect on rotation and magnetic field , 2001, astro-ph/0108274.

[14]  M. Miesch,et al.  Rapidly Rotating Suns and Active Nests of Convection , 2008, 0808.1716.

[15]  Paul Charbonneau,et al.  MAGNETIC CYCLES IN GLOBAL LARGE-EDDY SIMULATIONS OF SOLAR CONVECTION , 2010 .

[16]  Chromospheric variations in main-sequence stars , 1978 .

[17]  P. Gilman Dynamically consistent nonlinear dynamos driven by convection in a rotating spherical shell. II: Dynamos with cycles and strong feedbacks , 1983 .

[18]  Mark S. Miesch,et al.  MAGNETIC CYCLES IN A CONVECTIVE DYNAMO SIMULATION OF A YOUNG SOLAR-TYPE STAR , 2011, 1102.1993.

[19]  Mark S. Miesch,et al.  Solar Differential Rotation Influenced by Latitudinal Entropy Variations in the Tachocline , 2006 .

[20]  Paul Charbonneau,et al.  EULAG, a computational model for multiscale flows: An MHD extension , 2013, J. Comput. Phys..

[21]  L. Kitchatinov,et al.  The differential rotation of G dwarfs , 2011, 1101.5297.

[22]  P. Charbonneau,et al.  Fluctuations in Babcock-Leighton Dynamos. I. Period Doubling and Transition to Chaos , 2005 .

[23]  M. Ossendrijver,et al.  The solar dynamo , 2003 .

[24]  Juri Toomre,et al.  Turbulent Convection under the Influence of Rotation: Sustaining a Strong Differential Rotation , 2002 .

[25]  H. K. Moffatt Magnetic Field Generation in Electrically Conducting Fluids , 1978 .

[26]  D. Hughes,et al.  Mean induction and diffusion: the influence of spatial coherence , 2009, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[27]  W. Chaplin,et al.  A SEISMIC SIGNATURE OF A SECOND DYNAMO? , 2010, 1006.4305.

[28]  Allan Sacha Brun,et al.  Simulations of Turbulent Convection in Rotating Young Solarlike Stars: Differential Rotation and Meridional Circulation , 2007, 0707.3943.

[29]  A. Brandenburg,et al.  Reynolds stress and heat flux in spherical shell convection , 2010, 1010.1250.

[30]  D. Nandy,et al.  Space Climate and the Solar Stellar connection: What can we learn from the stars about long-term solar variability? , 2007 .

[31]  S. Baliunas,et al.  Rotation, convection, and magnetic activity in lower main-sequence stars , 1984 .

[32]  M. Miesch,et al.  PERSISTENT MAGNETIC WREATHS IN A RAPIDLY ROTATING SUN , 2010, 1011.2831.

[33]  Baliunas,et al.  A Dynamo Interpretation of Stellar Activity Cycles , 1996 .

[34]  E. Parker Hydromagnetic Dynamo Models , 1955 .

[35]  J. Prusa,et al.  EULAG, a computational model for multiscale flows , 2008 .