Radial Velocity Curves of Ellipsoidal Red Giant Binaries in the LMC

Radial Velocity Curves of Ellipsoidal Red Giant Binaries in the Large Magellanic Cloud

Abstract

Ellipsoidal red giant binaries are close binary systems where an unseen, relatively close companion distorts the red giant, leading to light variations as the red giant moves around its orbit. These binaries are likely to be the immediate evolutionary precursors of close binary planetary nebula and post-asymptotic giant branch and post-red giant branch stars. Due to the MACHO and OGLE photometric monitoring projects, the light variability nature of these ellipsoidal variables has been well studied. However, due to the lack of radial velocity curves, the nature of their masses, separations, and other orbital details has so far remained largely unknown. In order to improve this situation, we have carried out spectral monitoring observations of a large sample of 80 ellipsoidal variables in the Large Magellanic Cloud and we have derived radial velocity curves. At least 12 radial velocity points with good quality were obtained for most of the ellipsoidal variables. The radial velocity data are provided with this paper. Combining the photometric and radial velocity data, we present some statistical results related to the binary properties of these ellipsoidal variables.

Subject headings:
binaries: close – Magellanic Clouds – stars: AGB and post-AGB

1. Introduction

The variable red giants in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) fall on six or more distinct sequences in a period–luminosity (PL) diagram, i.e., –log diagram (Wood et al., 1999; Ita et al., 2004; Soszynski et al., 2007; Fraser, Hawley, & Cook, 2008). One of these sequences, sequence E, consists of binary systems that are mainly red giant ellipsoidal binaries (Wood et al., 1999; Soszyński et al., 2004). In these ellipsoidal binary systems, the red giant is the primary and it substantially fills its Roche lobe. The secondary, which is usually an unevolved main-sequence star, is unseen observationally in most cases. Due to the substantial filling of the Roche lobe, the red giant is distorted. Rotation of the distorted shape of the red giant as the binary progresses around its orbit causes a change in the apparent light seen by a distant observer. This leads to the characteristic light and velocity curves of ellipsoidal variables that have two cycles of light variation in one orbital period but only one cycle of radial velocity variation (e.g. Nicholls et al., 2010)

The sequence E stars are low-mass stars ( 1.85 ) or intermediate-mass stars (1.85  7.0 ). They can lie on either the red giant branch (RGB) or the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) and they are therefore in an evolutionary phase where the stellar radius is increasing. It is when the radius of the expanding red giant becomes a significant fraction of the binary separation that the ellipsoidal variability becomes detectable with current surveys such as MACHO and OGLE. The orbital periods of sequence E stars in the LMC lie in the range 30–1000 days and the light amplitude is usually 0.3 mag in the MACHO red band . Statistically, the sequence E stars make up approximately 0.5–2% of the RGB and AGB stars in the LMC. About 7% of the sequence E stars are eclipsing and about 10% of them have unusually shaped light curves which indicate significant eccentricity of the system orbits (Soszyński et al., 2004).

Due to the MACHO and OGLE projects, the variability nature of sequence E stars is well studied. However, at the present time, there are few radial velocity studies of the sequence E stars, due to the difficulties of long-time spectral monitoring. Adams, Wood, & Cioni (2006) observed two sequence E stars in the LMC, and their preliminary results indicated that the red giant is filling its Roche lobe and transferring mass to the companion since the derived mass of the red giant is close to that of the red giant core. Nicholls et al. (2010) carried out spectral observations on 11 sequence E stars (including the two in Adams, Wood, & Cioni, 2006) to derive radial velocity variations. The average full velocity amplitude derived for those 11 sequence E samples was 43.4 km s, consistent with the inference that sequence E stars are red giants in binary systems with roughly solar-mass components.

A problem with the current understanding of sequence E stars is that the eccentricity should be close to zero due to tidal interaction with the companion, yet about 10% of them have significant eccentricities (Soszyński et al., 2004). Complete orbital solutions for ellipsoidal red giant binaries with a range of eccentricities could possibly show in which part of parameter space eccentricity can be maintained. As a start to such a study, Nicholls & Wood (2012) monitored the radial velocities of 7 eccentric sequence E stars and derived complete orbital solutions.

In general, a knowledge of the complete set of orbital properties (masses, separations, eccentricities, orientations) for a large sample of ellipsoidal red giant binaries in the LMC will provide a good resource for understanding the evolution of these close binary systems. These observed parameters can be used to constrain Monte Carlo simulations of the population of sequence E stars, such as those in Nie, Wood, & Nicholls (2012). These Monte Carlo calculations provide estimates for the production rate of binary post-AGB stars, binary planetary nebulae (PNe), binary post-RGB stars, and luminous white dwarfs relative to the production rate of single-star post-AGB stars and PNe. The relative numbers of the various types of objects listed above, now quite well known in the LMC, can be used to parameterize the binary interaction process, especially common envelope evolution, and to calibrate models for the formation of cataclysmic variable stars, AM CVn systems, the progenitors of SNe Ia, etc. So knowledge of the parameters of a large sample of the precursor binaries should help us better understand the interaction processes and the evolutionary fates of close red giant binaries.

In this study, we present the results of radial velocity monitoring of a large sample of ellipsoidal variables in the LMC. In Section 2, the design of our observing project and the data reduction is described. In Section 3, we present observed properties of binary stars based on the radial velocity and light variation data. Some statistical analyses are also provided and compared with theoretical models.

2. Observations and Data Reduction

2.1. Selection of Objects

We initially selected 86 sequence E candidates from those given in Soszyński et al. (2004). Only objects with mag were considered since good radial velocities could not be obtained in a reasonable time (20 minute exposure) for fainter objects. Also, the data quality of fainter stars is relatively poor in the MACHO and OGLE databases, so their light curves have large dispersions and this is not good for fitting orbital solution.

All the sequence E candidates in Soszyński et al. (2004) and our 86 ellipsoidal variable candidates are plotted in the and planes in Figure 1, where is a reddening-free Weisenheit index (Madore, 1982). It should also be noted that is the orbital period, which is twice the period obtained by Fourier analysis of raw light curves since ellipsoidal variables have two maxima and two minima of the light curve per orbital period. The sequence E variables are often plotted in PL diagrams using the semi-period.

Figure 1.— Location of our 86 ellipsoidal variable candidates (red dots) on the and planes. The small black dots show the full sample of ellipsoidal variables in Soszyński et al. (2004). The blue line in the top panel is a line parallel to the main part of sequence E. Stars above this line are brighter than normal for their period and are expected to be intermediate-mass stars. Objects in our sample that lie above the line are shown in both plots as circled points. The green squares are ellipsoidal variables studied by Nicholls & Wood (2012) and the area of the square is proportional to the mass of the red giant derived by them. The green crosses are ellipsoidal variables studied by Nicholls et al. (2010). Due to the lack of band data, 3 objects of Nicholls et al. (2010) are absent.

Our aim was to select a sample of objects with as wide a set of parameters as possible. We therefore selected objects randomly throughout sequence E, as shown in Figure 1, subject to the constraint . Note that the magnitude cut of 16.5 is about 2 mag below the RGB tip, so our sample includes low-mass sequence E stars, even down to the masses of globular cluster red giants. We also made no attempt to select highly eccentric stars so the sample should include a range of eccentricities (note that Nicholls & Wood, 2012, have already studied a sample of 7 eccentric sequence E stars).

At a given orbital period, more massive binary systems will have larger separations so the red giant will need to get to a higher luminosity (radius) before the Roche lobe filling factor is large enough to produce detectable ellipsoidal light variations. The more massive binaries should therefore preferentially lie in the high-luminosity side of sequence E in Figure 1. The results of Nicholls & Wood (2012), shown in Figure 1, indicate that the higher-mass stars do indeed lie on the high-luminosity side of sequence E. In order to be sure of selecting a good sample of intermediate-mass stars (1.85 M), we preferentially included extra stars above the blue line in Figure 1. Our final sample consists of 86 stars.

With 86 ellipsoidal candidates, plus 11 sequence E stars whose radial velocities were obtained by Nicholls et al. (2010) (green crosses in Figure 1) and the 7 eccentric sequence E stars studied by Nicholls & Wood (2012) (green squares in Figure 1) , we have a combined sample of approximately 100. The full sample will give us statistical information about properties such as masses, mass ratio, eccentricity, separation, Roche lobe filling factor, and red giant luminosity for field red giants in the LMC. Derivation of some of these properties will require the use of a binary orbit modeling tool such as the Wilson–Devinney code (Wilson & Devinney, 1971; Wilson, 1979, 1990; Wilson et al., 2009).

2.2. Spectral Observation

The radial velocity observations were taken using the Wide Field Spectrograph (WiFeS; Dopita et al., 2007, 2010) mounted on the Australian National University 2.3m telescope at Siding Spring Observatory. WiFes is an integral field, double-beam, imaging-slicing spectrograph with a field of view 2538 square arcsec, imaged onto 25 slits that are 1 arcsec wide and 38 arcsec long. It has six gratings, giving high (R=7000) and low (R=3000) spectral resolutions. For our observations, the gratings B7000 (wavelength coverage of 4184–5580Å) and I7000 (wavelength coverage of 6832–9120Å) were chosen for the blue and red CCD, respectively. These two gratings give a two-pixel resolution R=7000, corresponding to a 45 km s velocity resolution.

We carried out 18 weeks of radial velocity monitoring, from 2010 September to 2012 March, to cover at least one orbital period for nearly all of the 86 objects. The observations were approximately evenly distributed throughout the 18 months, roughly one radial velocity observation per star per month. The exposure time was generally set to 300 s for objects with 13 mag, 600 s for 14 mag, and 900 s for 15 mag, which gives a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of at least 20. For fainter objects (16 mag), the exposure time was increased to 1200 s. We also increased the exposure time when observing in bad weather, to guarantee a S/N of 20.

For our observations, we chose the “stellar” mode exposure, in which case only 12 slits of the spectrograph were used. For flatfielding the QI-1 lamp was used and for wavelength calibration a Ne–Ar arc lamp exposure was taken at the beginning of the night. For velocity derivation, the radial velocity standard star HR9014 was observed. In addition, the white dwarf star EG131 was observed so that telluric lines could be used to remove any zero point error in the wavelength calibration arising from spectrograph drift over the night. To achieve high S/N, the exposure times of HR9014 and EG131 were set to 10 s and 900 s, respectively.

2.3. Data Reduction

Spectrum Reduction

The WiFes data reduction pipeline (Dopita et al., 2010) was used for the spectrum reduction. The pipeline combines the calibration and science data and provides one-dimensional spectra with most of the cosmic rays and sky emission lines removed. Since all our objects are red, most of their flux is concentrated in the red region of the spectrum. Therefore, we did not reduce the blue beam spectra because these spectra are of low S/N. The red spectra (6832–9120Å) contain many prominent telluric absorption lines as well as emission lines of water, OH, and O. The pipeline-reduced spectra sometimes contained some residual telluric lines and cosmic rays. Because of this, we checked by eye all the reduced spectra of the same object and, by comparison, removed residual cosmic rays and residual sky emission lines manually.

Spectrally, red giant binaries with white dwarf or neutron star companions always show characteristic emission lines (Allen, 1984; Kenyon, 1986; Mikolajewska et al., 1997; Belczyński et al., 2000). These objects are the symbiotic stars. In passing, we note that none of our ellipsoidal variables show emission lines in their spectra. This means that none of the companions are likely to be white dwarfs or neutron stars.

Radial Velocity Calculation

  1. Relative radial velocity The relative radial velocity and its error were computed using the IRAF package. The package uses a Fourier cross-correlation method to find the wavelength shift between an object and a template spectrum in a specified cross-correlation region. The template was usually a radial velocity standard star with well-determined radial velocity and a spectral type similar to that of the program object. In our case, all the 86 ellipsoidal variables are stars of K–M spectral type, so we choose as the template HR9014, which is a K5 star with a well-determined radial velocity of km s. The cross correlation was made on the wavelength interval 8400–8750 Å which contains the Ca II triplet lines and is relatively free of telluric lines. The heliocentric radial velocity (), obtained from after heliocentric correction and the inclusion of the heliocentric radial velocity of HR9014, was saved along with its error. The error in is normally below 4 km s. If the error was larger than 10 km s (due to bad weather and low S/N), then the velocity point was excluded from our data set.

  2. Zero-point correction To check the velocity calibration, all spectra of each program star were cross correlated with a template consisting of a single spectrum of the telluric standard star EG131. EG131 is a white dwarf that radiates almost like a blackbody. Thus, its spectrum has only telluric lines, making it an ideal template for the zero-point correction. In principle, the relative velocity of the telluric lines in different spectra should be zero, but, due to the movement of the CCD system and spectrograph between the taking of the arc spectrum at the beginning of the night and the taking of the object spectrum, as well as the changes of the atmospheric pressure, there can be shifts in velocity. To compute this zero-point velocity shift , program stars were cross correlated with EG131 in the wavelength interval of 8120–8370 Å. This region is dominated by telluric lines and it is close to the region of Ca II triplet, so the zero-point correction in this region should similar to that of Ca II triplet region. The zero-point velocity correction varied from about 10 to 34 km s across the many nights of the observation. HR9014 was also cross correlated with EG131 to obtain its zero point velocity correction ().

  3. Absolute radial velocity To compute the absolute value for the observed radial velocity including a zero-point correction, we use the formula

    (1)

The final radial velocity data for 2 objects are given in Table 1. The full table is available online.

OGLE 050659.79 -692540.4 OGLE 051256.36 -684937.5
HJD( 2450000+) HJD( 2450000+)
5463.06104 246.14 1.74 5461.14209 237.26 1.70
5513.99023 251.84 2.10 5513.03125 247.21 1.64
5563.00781 284.43 1.48 5563.07324 257.77 1.54
5590.98877 270.53 2.71 5590.06592 256.17 2.27
5603.96924 257.47 2.12 5647.92578 243.94 1.51
5649.00684 232.40 1.40 5673.95508 229.63 2.68
5678.97363 264.23 4.53 5693.92676 230.36 1.53
5679.01221 250.28 4.04 5765.23242 231.89 2.03
5764.26514 246.01 3.65 5846.08301 242.70 1.92
5783.19287 239.24 1.88 5867.01807 252.29 1.39
5848.15039 273.73 7.73 5907.19336 257.03 1.75
5868.03613 282.79 2.54 5944.04883 255.03 1.35
5906.11133 270.63 1.82 5991.98584 243.43 1.50
5944.17676 242.22 3.00 - - -
Table 1Radial velocities and 1 Errors in km s. Stars are identified by their OGLE II R.A. and decl.

3. Results

3.1. Properties of the Observed Ellipsoidal Variables

Before presenting the properties of the observed ellipsoidal variables, we need to remove candidates that are not clearly ellipsoidal variables with the help of the observed radial velocity. Among our 86 objects, we found that 80 of them are real ellipsoidal variables, showing two light maxima and two minima but only one velocity maximum and minimum in one orbital period. The remaining 6 candidates do not clearly satisfy this requirement due to their low-velocity amplitude relative to the noise so they were removed. These 6 objects could be ellipsoidal variables whose orbital plane lies close to the plane of the sky or they could be sequence D stars as these stars lie close to the sequence E stars in the and planes and they have small velocity amplitudes (Nicholls et al., 2009). For the remainder of this paper, we focus on the 80 real ellipsoidal variables while we discuss the 6 rejected objects in the Appendix.

Table 2 shows various properties of the 80 ellipsoidal variables. For all objects, the period given has been re-derived because the original value from Soszyński et al. (2004) is not accurate enough. The MACHO and OGLE II light curve data were taken more than 10 years before our radial velocity data, which was obtained between years 2010 and 2012. Because of the long time span between the two sets of data, a small error in the period can cause a significant error in the phase of the light curve projected forward by more than 10 years. To obtain a more reliable period, when OGLE III data existed, we combined OGLE III and OGLE II light curves (covering the interval 1998–2009) and used the phase dispersion minimization (PDM) method (Stellingwerf, 1978) to calculate the period from the combined light curve. If the OGLE III data was not available for an object, we combined the OGLE II and MACHO data, covering the interval 1992–2000.

The effective temperature was calculated by converting to using spline fits to the data in Houdashelt et al. (2000a, b). The reason we used as the color index is because most of our sequence E stars are K- or early-M-type stars, and for these red giants varies much more with than so that photometric errors are less important for . The mean magnitude was derived from the OGLE photometry, while the magnitude was obtained from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) catalog (Cutri et al., 2003) . To remove reddening, we adopted =0.08 (Keller & Wood, 2006) along with (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis, 1998), and and (Rieke & Lebofsky, 1985). The bolometric correction BC was calculated from using the data in Houdashelt et al. (2000a, b) and the bolometric luminosity was calculated from and BC, with a distant modulus of the LMC 18.54 (Keller & Wood, 2006).

Finally, in Table 2, we indicate whether a star is below (a “1” in the last column) or above (a “2” in the last column) the higher-mass line in Figure 1. The last column in Table 2 also provides notes on unusual variability characteristics as given in Soszyński et al. (2004). Stars for which there is OGLE III data available are also indicated. The data in Table 2 are available online.

No Object Remark
(OGLE II Name) (day) (mag) (mag) (mag) (mag) (mag) (mag) (km s) () (K) ()
1 050107.08–692036.9 166.8 14.05 14.75 - - 13.14 0.110 70 3278 5773 58 2,ogle3
2 050222.40–691733.6 107.8 16.00 17.53 16.85 15.87 13.90 0.070 32 581 3990 51 1
3 050254.15–692013.8 171.5 15.67 17.08 - - 13.82 0.025 35 736 4234 51 1
4 050258.71–684406.6 433.8 15.24 16.96 16.85 15.65 13.18 0.040 38 1149 4020 71 1
5 050334.97–685920.5 101.1 14.32 15.04 14.85 14.40 13.36 0.200 110 2526 5666 53 2
6 050350.55–691430.2 224.7 15.51 17.10 16.85 15.78 13.46 0.060 24 896 4030 62 1
7 050353.41–690230.8 323.6 14.67 16.36 16.28 15.13 12.65 0.060 7 1915 4049 90 1,ogle3
8 050438.97–693115.3 383.2 14.75 16.24 - - 12.99 0.070 14 1673 4321 74 1
9 050454.49–690401.2 220.2 13.59 14.28 - 13.72 12.79 0.070 120 5175 6018 67 2,ogle3
10 050504.70–683340.3 238.9 15.82 17.25 16.95 16.00 14.05 0.040 40 631 4327 45 1
11 050512.19–693543.5 204.3 16.02 17.50 17.30 16.33 13.92 0.050 40 570 3988 51 1
12 050554.57–683428.5 270.1 13.85 15.39 15.10 14.07 11.85 0.035 26 4028 4061 129 2
13 050558.70–682208.9 264.0 15.43 16.88 - - 13.48 0.020 22 938 4128 60 1
14 050604.99–681654.9 201.7 15.59 16.99 17.01 15.98 13.69 0.030 30 802 4174 55 1
15 050610.03–683153.0 318.5 15.59 17.19 - - 13.71 0.030 35 798 4197 54 1,e
16 050651.36–695245.4 220.2 15.85 17.49 17.30 16.13 13.96 0.045 30 630 4192 48 1
17 050659.79–692540.4 156.4 15.37 16.84 16.74 15.75 13.54 0.070 50 963 4254 58 1
18 050709.66–683824.8 206.1 15.14 16.67 16.65 15.60 13.19 0.060 37 1223 4121 69 1
19 050720.82–683355.2 521.4 13.94 15.50 15.53 14.42 11.95 0.020 30 3699 4072 123 2
20 050758.17–685856.3 198.1 14.23 15.64 15.50 14.56 12.37 0.050 45 2744 4210 99 1
21 050800.52–685800.8 276.2 13.73 15.14 15.02 14.06 11.87 0.050 42 4337 4199 126 2
22 050843.38–692815.1 121.8 16.21 17.67 17.30 16.32 14.23 0.040 23 464 4098 43 1
23 050900.02–690427.2 156.5 15.96 17.42 17.25 16.23 14.14 0.025 16 561 4273 44 1
24 050948.63–690157.4 75.60 14.65 15.96 15.80 14.85 13.06 0.200 26 1779 4529 69 2
25 051009.20–690020.0 321.3 15.32 16.99 16.79 15.63 13.27 0.027 20 1067 4024 68 1,e
26 051050.92–692228.0 326.2 15.19 16.67 16.40 15.47 13.39 0.035 14 1128 4284 62 1,ogle3
27 051101.04–691425.1 282.5 15.69 17.15 16.95 15.97 13.78 0.030 20 732 4173 52 1,e
28 051200.23–690838.4 641.3 14.27 16.34 16.13 14.80 11.89 0.030 14 3131 3737 135 1,e+sr,ogle3
29 051205.44–684559.9 390.5 15.08 16.62 16.57 15.54 12.90 0.060 27 1382 3912 82 1,ogle3
30 051220.63–684957.8 486.5 14.54 16.27 16.10 14.92 12.45 0.070 19 2202 3983 99 1,e+sr,ogle3
31 051256.36–684937.5 341.9 14.82 16.82 16.60 15.28 12.50 0.130 29 1851 3784 101 1,ogle3
32 051345.17–692212.1 197.9 16.24 17.74 17.50 16.38 14.19 0.040 42 459 4038 44 1
33 051347.73–693049.7 306.6 15.48 17.09 - - 13.52 0.040 20 899 4114 60 1,e
34 051515.95–685958.1 322.7 13.74 15.18 15.02 13.98 11.91 0.030 24 4269 4229 123 2,e
35 051620.47–690755.3 240.7 15.17 16.94 16.85 15.58 13.05 0.150 40 1249 3963 76 1,ogle3
36 051621.07–692929.6 179.3 14.21 15.46 15.17 14.36 12.43 0.030 17 2748 4294 96 2
37 051653.08–690651.2 269.2 14.63 16.36 16.35 14.93 12.32 0.080 29 2193 3792 110 1
38 051738.19–694848.4 297.7 15.45 17.03 16.80 15.73 13.31 0.050 29 975 3943 68 1,e
39 051746.55–691750.2 225.2 14.41 16.01 - - 12.33 0.050 15 2478 3985 105 1
40 051818.84–690751.3 463.9 15.46 17.29 - - 13.03 0.050 26 1076 3710 80 1,e
41 051845.02–691610.5 320.0 15.65 16.97 - - 13.90 0.040 55 734 4349 48 1
42 052012.26–694417.5 177.4 14.84 16.46 - 15.23 12.75 0.040 18 1675 3983 87 1
43 052029.90–695934.1 171.0 14.85 16.05 15.88 15.00 13.23 0.045 50 1489 4492 64 1
44 052032.29–694224.2 72.70 14.35 14.99 14.73 14.31 13.52 0.060 60 2569 5973 48 2,e
45 052048.62–704423.5 488.5 14.79 - - - 12.95 0.030 5 1641 4231 76 1
46 052115.05–693155.1 194.9 14.98 16.08 15.78 15.03 13.38 0.020 49 1318 4525 60 1
47 052117.49–693124.8 243.3 15.39 16.97 16.60 15.55 13.21 0.060 38 1044 3908 71 1
48 052119.56–710022.1 300.9 14.97 16.84 16.65 15.40 12.79 0.010 23 1531 3907 86 1,ogle3
49 052203.16–704507.8 362.5 15.62 17.01 16.72 15.82 14.04 0.035 14 734 4564 44 1
50 052228.85–694313.7 231.0 14.74 16.04 15.77 14.85 12.99 0.030 37 1684 4334 74 1
51 052238.43–691715.1 77.53 14.73 15.78 15.41 14.74 13.47 0.070 55 1638 5046 53 2
52 052324.57–692924.2 312.4 14.09 15.16 15.08 14.43 12.39 0.030 40 3016 4388 96 2
53 052422.28–692456.2 485.4 14.95 16.67 16.65 15.49 12.82 0.060 18 1535 3948 85 1,+sr,ogle3
54 052425.52–695135.2 206.7 14.67 16.04 15.87 15.03 12.93 0.040 42 1792 4345 75 1
55 052438.19–700435.9 192.8 15.57 16.96 16.70 15.87 13.79 0.040 25 794 4314 51 1
56 052438.40–700028.8 410.8 13.62 15.11 14.83 14.00 11.71 0.060 50 4852 4147 136 2,e
57 052458.88–695107.0 340.6 14.67 16.53 16.33 15.20 12.35 0.075 5 2117 3790 108 1,+sr,ogle3
58 052510.82–700123.9 189.7 14.74 16.05 15.87 15.05 12.99 0.030 30 1686 4328 74 1
59 052513.34–693025.2 259.4 14.76 16.03 15.97 15.14 13.12 0.030 45 1621 4471 68 1
60 052542.11–694847.4 514.6 14.41 16.04 15.90 14.85 12.35 0.030 35 2461 4004 104 1,e
61 052554.91–694137.4 182.8 15.30 16.87 16.95 15.85 13.23 0.120 40 1092 4008 69 1
62 052703.65–694837.7 350.4 13.35 14.85 14.70 13.78 11.43 0.100 60 6230 4131 156 2
63 052833.50–695834.6 183.2 14.19 15.64 15.65 14.75 12.31 0.060 20 2861 4186 103 2
64 052928.90–701244.2 531.5 15.68 17.29 - - 13.71 0.060 25 751 4105 55 1,e
65 052948.84–692318.7 421.7 14.92 16.85 16.55 15.35 12.70 0.070 16 1625 3873 90 1,e+sr,ogle3
66 052954.82–700622.5 154.7 16.27 17.66 17.48 16.63 14.33 0.050 40 434 4149 41 1
67 053141.27–700647.1 384.1 14.73 16.78 - - 12.36 0.090 24 2044 3751 108 1,e+sr,ogle3
68 053156.08–693123.0 412.2 14.73 16.50 - - 12.57 0.070 22 1899 3916 96 1,e+sr,ogle3
69 053202.44–693209.2 426.5 15.51 17.12 - - 13.48 0.030 25 892 4042 62 1,e
70 053219.66–695805.0 89.55 15.85 17.32 16.70 15.90 12.14 0.010 18 1749 3264 132 1
71 053226.48–700604.7 454.7 15.00 16.78 16.43 15.28 12.72 0.070 40 1547 3817 91 1,e+sr,ogle3
72 053337.07–703111.7 315.5 14.67 16.76 16.60 15.28 12.37 0.130 16 2108 3799 107 1,e,ogle3
73 053338.94–694455.2 126.9 16.19 17.75 17.60 16.51 14.23 0.090 32 469 4128 43 1
74 053356.79–701919.6 205.3 16.27 17.69 17.53 16.55 14.35 0.040 40 432 4169 40 1
75 053438.78–695634.1 384.7 14.64 16.69 16.35 15.07 12.28 0.070 19 2218 3751 113 1,ogle3
76 053733.21–695026.9 263.0 15.18 16.85 16.84 15.63 13.07 0.050 19 1235 3970 75 1
77 053946.88–704257.8 265.0 16.09 17.81 17.78 16.55 13.93 0.040 41 547 3929 51 1
78 054006.47–702820.4 361.5 15.26 16.98 16.85 15.63 13.08 0.070 29 1176 3906 76 1,e,ogle3
79 054258.34–701609.2 164.0 15.75 17.29 - - 13.79 0.040 20 703 4114 53 1
80 054736.16–705627.2 135.9 15.79 17.31 17.05 16.03 13.96 0.030 35 657 4253 48 1

Note. – Columns 4–8 are mean magnitudes in different bands; Column 9 is the mean amplitude of light variability in band; Column 10 is the full amplitude of radial velocity; Columns 11–13 are the luminosity, effective temperature and mean radius derived as described in the text; Column 14 contains remarks: number 1 for stars below the line in Figure 1 and number 2 for stars above the line, lower case letters stand for binary types: “,” eccentric, “,” a binary whose red giant shows semi-regular variability as well as ellipsoidal variability, and “ogle3” denotes an object which has OGLE III light curve data.

Table 2Properties of the observed ellipsoidal variables

3.2. Light Curves and Radial Velocity Curves

We present samples of light and radial velocity curves for the ellipsoidal variables in Figure 2. Light and radial velocity curves for all objects are available as online data. The time series data for the light curves are from the MACHO, OGLE II, and OGLE III databases if they are available. Each radial velocity curve has at least 12 good quality data points in one orbital period, good enough for a binary orbital solution. As confirmed by Nicholls et al. (2010), our observed ellipsoidal variables show two light maxima and two minima in one orbital period, while the velocity shows only one maximum and one minimum. Among our 80 objects, most of them (60/80=75%) have almost circular orbits, since they have equal light maxima and they have the same light curve widths for the first and second maxima (e.g., the top two objects of Figure 2). The other systems are eccentric binaries (20/80=25%) since they show different light maxima or light curve widths in one orbital period (e.g., the bottom two objects of Figure 2). In addition, there are binary systems that contain a semi-regular pulsating red giant (8/80=10%) (e.g., object OGLE 052948.84 in Figure 2), similar to those noted by Nicholls & Wood (2012). For these systems, both pulsation theory and binary theory can be used to constrain and compare stellar parameters.

Figure 2.— Light and radial velocity curves of ellipsoidal variables. and are the MACHO red and blue magnitudes, respectively. The top two objects are ellipsoidal variables with circular orbits while the bottom two have eccentric orbits. For the band data, chocolate points are from OGLE III and red points are from OGLE II.

3.3. The Velocity Amplitude

The distribution of full radial velocity amplitude for the 80 ellipsoidal variables plus the combined sample from Nicholls et al. (2010) and Nicholls & Wood (2012) is presented in the left panel of Figure 3 (red). From the figure, it can be seen that the velocity amplitude varies from 5 to 130 km s, with a peak near 30 km s. Note that the number of stars with velocity amplitudes larger than 80 km s is small.

Our observed velocity amplitude distribution is also compared to the model prediction of Nie, Wood, & Nicholls (2012) (the black dashed line in the left panel of Figure 3). The predicted distribution is for ellipsoidal red giant binaries on the top one magnitude of the RGB (870–2190 L) that have light amplitudes detectable by the OGLE II observations. Our comparison sub-sample of observations consists of 51 objects for which the luminosity lies on the top one magnitude of the RGB (the blue solid line in the left panel). Note that we compare to the model of Nie, Wood, & Nicholls (2012) which is calibrated on the OGLE II data of Soszyński et al. (2004) because that calibration is better than the one based on MACHO data due to the extra sensitivity of OGLE II observations to small-amplitude light variations.

The cumulative distributions corresponding to the histograms of the ellipsoidal variables on the top one magnitude of the RGB in Figure 3 are shown in the right panel. A two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test gives a probability of up to 0.20 that the observation and model come from the same underlying distribution. There is thus a modest probability that the model is consistent with both the OGLE II photometry and the velocity amplitudes derived in this study.

Figure 3.— Distribution of the full radial velocity amplitude . Left panel: the red solid line shows the distribution for the 80 ellipsoidal variables and the combined sample of Nicholls et al. (2010) and Nicholls & Wood (2012), the blue solid line shows the observed distribution for 51 ellipsoidal variables on the top one magnitude of the RGB, and the black dashed line shows the predicted distribution for ellipsoidal variables on the top one magnitude of the RGB by the model of Nie, Wood, & Nicholls (2012) with the calibration of OGLE II data. Right panel: the predicted cumulative distribution for ellipsoidal variables on the top one magnitude of the RGB. Blue is for observations from 51 objects, and black is for the model of Nie, Wood, & Nicholls (2012) with the calibration of OGLE II data. Note that all the distribution peaks are normalized to unity.

3.4. The Mass Function

The binary mass function of a binary system where the primary star (in our case, the red giant) is observable is

(2)

where is the radial velocity semi-amplitude of the primary star, is the orbital period, is the mass of the primary star, and is the mass of the secondary star. Note that is a minimum estimate for . The distribution of for our sample of red giant ellipsoidal variables in the LMC is shown in Figure 4. The figure shows a peak at about 0.2 , presumably due to the dominant low-mass population, but there are a few objects that must be in more massive binaries where the secondary star is of intermediate- mass with . Red giants of this mass were found in ellipsoidal binaries in the LMC by Nicholls & Wood (2012). If we assume a random pole orientation for the binary orbit, which implies that the mean of , and if we also assume that the mean mass ratio is , then for stars in the peak of the distribution around , the mean mass of the red giant is 1.35 . This is similar to peak in the mass distribution of red giants predicted by modeling the star formation history of the LMC (e.g., Nie, Wood, & Nicholls, 2012).

Figure 4.— Binary mass function distribution for red giant ellipsoidal variables in the LMC. The red line denotes our observation, the green line denotes the combined observations of Nicholls et al. (2010) and Nicholls & Wood (2012), and the black dashed line is the sum of the two distributions.

3.5. The PL Diagram

The variations of light amplitude, velocity amplitude and mass function across the PL diagram are shown in Figure 5. In the top panel, we can see that the higher-amplitude ellipsoidal variables tend to lie on the higher luminosity, shorter period side of sequence E. This is just as demonstrated by Soszyński et al. (2004) and is presumably because as the red giant in a binary system (with a given orbital period) evolves to higher luminosity, it will expand to a greater filling fraction of its Roche lobe and hence be more distorted and have a large light variation amplitude.

The middle panel of Figure 5 shows a tendency for higher- velocity amplitudes to be associated with shorter-period orbits, as might be expected. Of course, low-velocity amplitudes can be seen for shorter- period orbits if the orbital plane is oriented close to the plane of the sky: there are a few objects that seem to fall in this category.

The mass function also shows some correlation with position in the PL diagram (bottom panel of Figure 5). The most massive objects, with  , lie on the upper part of sequence E in agreement with the results shown in Figure 1.

Figure 5.— PL diagram for the our 80 ellipsoidal variables. The top panel shows the position on the PL diagram of objects with different full-amplitude , the middle panel shows the position of objects with different full-amplitude and the bottom panel shows the position of objects with different mass function . In all panels, filled circles denote observations from this work and open triangles denote observations from Nicholls et al. (2010) and Nicholls & Wood (2012).

3.6. Velocity Amplitude versus Light Amplitude

In Figure 6, we present the light amplitude as a function of the velocity amplitude. Red symbols are our observation, and green symbols are observations from Nicholls et al. (2010) and Nicholls & Wood (2012). The 20 eccentric ellipsoidal variables from our observations and the 7 highly eccentric ellipsoidal variables studied by Nicholls & Wood (2012) are marked as open triangles. As expected, there is generally no correlation of the light and velocity amplitudes. The former depends on the Roche lobe filling factor (and inclination), while the latter depends on the stellar masses and the orbital separation. In principal, the orbital separation could influence the Roche lobe filling factor, but in practice the orbital separation effectively determines the luminosity on the giant branch where the Roche lobe nearly fills and ellipsoidal variability becomes detectable. This suggests that the orbital separation (velocity amplitude) should depend on luminosity for red giant ellipsoidal variables, but the light amplitude should not depend on orbital separation (velocity amplitude).

Figure 6.— Relation between the velocity amplitude and light amplitude. Red: observations from this work; circles are for circular binaries and triangles are for eccentric binaries. Green: observations from Nicholls et al. (2010) and Nicholls & Wood (2012); circles are for circular binaries and triangles are for eccentric binaries. Note that some objects are overwritten because they have the same velocity and light curve amplitude.

3.7. Velocity Amplitude versus Luminosity

As suggested in the last section, the velocity amplitude should show some correlation with luminosity. In Figure 7, we show the dependence of luminosity on velocity amplitude. The binaries with larger velocity amplitudes do tend to have lower luminosities although the effect is not prominent. This is as expected, since higher-velocity amplitude generally means a smaller separation and thus Roche lobe filling should occur at a lower luminosity.

Figure 7.— Relation between velocity amplitude and luminosity. Symbols are as in Figure 6.

4. Summary and Conclusions

We have presented radial velocity observations obtained for 80 ellipsoidal red giant binaries in the LMC. This sample is much larger than the previous samples of Nicholls et al. (2010) and Nicholls & Wood (2012). The mass function of the sample suggests that the typical mass of the red giants in the ellipsoidal binaries is 1.35 M, in agreement with estimates derived from the star formation history of the LMC.

The main purpose of this paper was to present radial velocity data and basic observational properties of 80 ellipsoidal variables in the LMC. In future work, the radial velocity data will be combined with MACHO and OGLE photometric light curve data to give complete orbital solutions for these binary systems. This is possible because the distance, and hence the luminosity, of these LMC objects is well known (e.g. Nicholls & Wood, 2012). The results of the complete solutions will yield statistical distributions of masses, mass ratios, separations, and eccentricities in the period range observed. These distributions of orbital elements for binaries in the LMC can be compared with the solar vicinity statistical data given in the classic paper of Duquennoy & Mayor (1991) and the recent paper by Raghavan et al. (2010). It will be interesting to see if the same distributions exists in samples of binaries with different metallicity distributions and different star formation histories.

We acknowledge constructive comments by the anonymous referee. J.D. N. thanks Geoff White, Donna Burton, Catherine Farage, and the other technical staff at Siding Springs Observatory (SSO) for their assistance and support throughout this observing project. J.D.N. is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) through grant 11303043 and the Young Researcher Grant of National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences. P.R.W. received partial support for this project from Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant DP120103337.

Appendix A List of objects rejected

Here we present data for the 6 objects that we removed from the 86 ellipsoidal candidates due to their poor velocity data relative to the noise. Properties of these 6 stars are given in Table 3, and their light and velocity curves are presented in Figure 8. Their velocity data is given in Table 1.

No Object Remark
(OGLE II Name) (day) (mag) (mag) (mag) (mag) (mag) (mag) (km s) () (K) ()
1 050716.07-693259.7 563.3 14.81 16.18 - - 13.09 0.025 - 1571 4368 70 1
2 051111.34-693714.9 147.7 15.69 17.41 - - 13.59 0.060 - 772 3984 59 1
3 051150.57-685627.0 119.3 15.55 16.91 16.73 15.77 13.80 0.025 - 804 4344 51 1
4 052346.66-695140.6 259.0 15.34 16.77 - - 13.54 0.050 - 983 4290 57 1,+sr,ogle3
5 053500.22-702643.4 286.5 15.19 16.71 16.60 15.52 13.34 0.060 - 1141 4225 64 1,ogle3
6 054109.54-704610.5 378.8 14.81 17.17 17.30 15.55 12.05 0.200 - 2298 3517 130 1,ogle3
Table 3Properties of Objects Rejected
Figure 8.— Light and radial velocity curves of the 6 objects in the Appendix.

Footnotes

  1. affiliation: Key Laboratory of Optical Astronomy, National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100012, China;jdnie@bao.ac.cn
  2. affiliation: Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Cotter Road, Weston Creek, ACT 2611, Australia;peter.wood@anu.edu.au
  3. affiliation: Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Cotter Road, Weston Creek, ACT 2611, Australia;peter.wood@anu.edu.au

References

  1. Allen, D. A. 1984, Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 5, 369
  2. Adams E., Wood P. R., Cioni M.-R., 2006, MmSAI, 77, 537
  3. Belczyński, K., Mikołajewska, J., Munari, U., Ivison, R. J., & Friedjung, M. 2000, A&AS, 146, 407
  4. Cutri R. M., et al., 2003, yCat, 2246, 0
  5. Dopita M., Hart J., McGregor P., Oates P., Bloxham G., Jones D., 2007, Ap&SS, 310, 255
  6. Dopita M., et al., 2010, Ap&SS, 327, 245
  7. Duquennoy A., Mayor M., 1991, A&A, 248, 485
  8. Fraser O. J., Hawley S. L., Cook K. H., 2008, AJ, 136, 1242
  9. Houdashelt M. L., Bell R. A., Sweigart A. V., Wing R. F., 2000a, AJ, 119, 1424
  10. Houdashelt M. L., Bell R. A., Sweigart A. V., 2000b, AJ, 119, 1448
  11. Ita Y., et al., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 705
  12. Kenyon, S. J. 1986, Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1986, 295 p.
  13. Keller S. C., Wood P. R., 2006, ApJ, 642, 834
  14. Nicholls C. P., Wood P. R., Cioni M.-R. L., Soszyński I., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 2063
  15. Nicholls C. P., Wood P. R., Cioni M.-R. L., 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1770
  16. Nicholls C. P., Wood P. R., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2616
  17. Nie J. D., Wood P. R., Nicholls C. P., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2764
  18. Mikolajewska, J., Acker, A., & Stenholm, B. 1997, A&A, 327, 191
  19. Madore B. F., 1982, ApJ, 253, 575
  20. Raghavan D., et al., 2010, ApJS, 190, 1
  21. Rieke G. H., Lebofsky M. J., 1985, ApJ, 288, 618
  22. Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
  23. Stellingwerf R. F., 1978, ApJ, 224, 953
  24. Soszyński I., et al., 2004, AcA, 54, 347
  25. Soszynski I., et al., 2007, AcA, 57, 201
  26. Wood P. R., et al., 1999, IAUS, 191, 151
  27. Wilson R. E., Devinney E. J., 1971, ApJ, 166, 605
  28. Wilson R. E., Chochol D., Komžík R., Van Hamme W., Pribulla T., Volkov I., 2009, ApJ, 702, 403
  29. Wilson R. E., 1979, ApJ, 234, 1054
  30. Wilson R. E., 1990, ApJ, 356, 613
101843
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
Upvote
Downvote
Edit
-  
Unpublish
""
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
Submit
Cancel
Comments 0
Request comment
""
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
Add comment
Cancel
Loading ...

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test
Test description