1 / 35

THE EFFECT OF ROTATION ON THE HYDROSTATIC AND EXPLOSIVE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS

THE EFFECT OF ROTATION ON THE HYDROSTATIC AND EXPLOSIVE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS. Marco Limongi INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, ITALY Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe , JAPAN marco.limongi@ oa-roma.inaf.it. and Alessandro Chieffi

herve
Télécharger la présentation

THE EFFECT OF ROTATION ON THE HYDROSTATIC AND EXPLOSIVE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE EFFECT OF ROTATION ON THE HYDROSTATIC AND EXPLOSIVE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS Marco Limongi INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, ITALY Institutefor the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, JAPAN marco.limongi@oa-roma.inaf.it and Alessandro Chieffi INAF – Istituto di Astrofisica e Planetologia Spaziali, Italy Centre for Stellar and PlanetaryAstrophysics, MonashUnivesity, Australia alessandro.chieffi@iasf-roma.inaf.it

  2. HYDROSTATIC AND EXPLOSIVE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS Remnant Ejecta mass cut

  3. HYDROSTATIC AND EXPLOSIVE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS Remnant Ejecta mass cut

  4. HYDROSTATIC AND EXPLOSIVE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS Hydrostatic Yields mainly depend on the presupernova evolution (convective history, diffusive mixing, core masses, mass loss) He C C O Si O C He H Ne Si O C Each zone keepstrack of the variouscentral or shell,convective and/or ratidative, burning

  5. HYDROSTATIC AND EXPLOSIVE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS Explosive Yields mainly depend on the presupernova chemical and density structure Complete Si burning Incomplete Si burning Explosive O burning Explosive Ne burning Explosive C burning NSE QSE 1 Clusters QSE 2 Cluster No Modification Mg Al P Cl Sc Ti Fe Co Ni Cr V Mn Si SAr K Ca Ne Na 3700 5000 6400 11750 13400 RADIUS (Km) Mass-Radius relation, Ye profile, Chemical Stratification @ Presupernova Stage Complete Si burning Incomplete Si burning Explosive O burning Explosive Ne burning Explosive C burning NSE QSE 1 Clusters QSE 2 Cluster No Modification Mg Al P Cl Sc Ti Fe Co Ni Cr V Mn Si SAr K Ca Ne Na INTERIOR MASS

  6. PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION Grid of models: 13, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 60, 80 and 120 M Initial Solar Composition(Asplund et al. 2009) Allmodelscomputed with the FRANEC (Frascati RAphson Newton Evolutionary Code) 6.0 Major improvements compared to the release 4.0 (ML & Chieffi2003) and 5.0 (ML & Chieffi 2006) • FULL COUPLING of: Physical Structure - Nuclear Burning - Chemical Mixing (convection, semiconvection, rotation) - INCLUSION OF ROTATION: - Conservative rotation law/Shellular Rotation (Meynet & Maeder 1997) - Transport of Angular Momentum (Advection/Diffusion, Maynet & Maeder2000) - Coupling of Rotation and Mass Loss - TWO NUCLEAR NETWORKS: - 163 isotopes (448 reactions) H/He Burning - 282 isotopes (2928 reactions) Advanced Burning - MASS LOSS: - OB: Vinket al. 2000,2001 - RSG: de Jager 1988+Van Loon 2005 (Dust driven wind) - WR: Nugis & Lamers 2000/Langer 1989

  7. FRANEC 6.0 (Coupled and solved simultaneously) (4th order  4 ODE soved by means of a relaxation method) or (Chieffi & ML in prep.)

  8. INFLUENCE OF ROTATION ON CORE H BURNING

  9. INFLUENCE OF ROTATION ON CORE H BURNING

  10. INFLUENCE OF ROTATION ON CORE H BURNING • Almostsame H exhausted core @ core H depletion (exception for M=120 M) • Shallowerchemicalprofiles in rotatingmodels due to rotationallyinduced mixing • H-richenvelopeenriched by core H burningproducts • Differentpath in the HR diagram different mass losshistory  Mass Lossdoesnot scale monotonically with rotation

  11. INFLUENCE OF ROTATION ON CORE AND SHELL He BURNING M≤60 M : Rotational mixing dominates • Rotationalinduced mixing beyond the He convective core • Reducedm-gradientbarrier largerconvectivecores v=300 km/s v=0 km/s

  12. INFLUENCE OF ROTATION ON CORE AND SHELL He BURNING M≤60 M : Rotational mixing dominates • Rotationalinduced mixing beyond the He convective core • Reducedm-gradientbarrier largerconvectivecores • Larger CO cores • Continuousinward mixing of fresh4He fuel  Lower 12C left over at core He depletion v=300 km/s v=0 km/s

  13. INFLUENCE OF ROTATION ON CORE AND SHELL He BURNING M≤60 M : Rotational mixing dominates • Rotationalinduced mixing beyond the He convective core • Reducedm-gradientbarrier largerconvectivecores • Larger CO cores • Continuousinward mixing of fresh4He fuel  Lower 12C left over at core He depletion • Formation of He convectiveshell in the region of variable He  He convectiveshellhotter  more 12C and 16O producedlocally v=300 km/s v=0 km/s Rotating and Non Rotating models show completely different structures

  14. INFLUENCE OF ROTATION ON CORE AND SHELL He BURNING M>60 M : Mass Loss dominates • Mass Lossuncovers the He core at the beginning of Core He burning v=300 km/s v=0 km/s

  15. INFLUENCE OF ROTATION ON CORE AND SHELL He BURNING M>60 M : Mass Loss dominates • Mass Lossuncovers the He core at the beginning of Core He burning • He convective core progressivelyrecedes in mass and leaves a region of variable He v=300 km/s v=0 km/s

  16. INFLUENCE OF ROTATION ON CORE AND SHELL He BURNING M>60 M : Mass Loss dominates • Mass Lossuncovers the He core at the beginning of Core He burning • He convective core progressivelyrecedes in mass and leaves a region of variable He • In thesestarsthisregionisnot due to the rotationallyinduced mixing but to the efficient mass lossthatprogressivelyerodes the He core v=300 km/s v=0 km/s

  17. INFLUENCE OF ROTATION ON CORE AND SHELL He BURNING M>60 M : Mass Loss dominates • Mass Lossuncovers the He core at the beginning of Core He burning • He convective core progressivelyrecedes in mass and leaves a region of variable He • In thesestarsthisregionisnot due to the rotationallyinduced mixing but to the efficient mass lossthatprogressivelyerodes the He core • Formation of He convectiveshell in the region of variable He in bothrotating and non rotatingmodels v=300 km/s v=0 km/s Rotating and Non Rotating models show similar structures

  18. ADVANCED BURNING STAGES: INTERNAL EVOLUTIONOF ROTATING AND NON ROTATING STARS Properties of the CO core at Core C-ignition Rotatingmodels show larger CO cores and smaller12C mass fractionsat core He depletioncompared to the non rotatingones Differencesprogressively reduce with the initial mass

  19. ADVANCED BURNING STAGES: INTERNAL EVOLUTION Four major burning, i.e., carbon, neon, oxygen and silicon. He C C O Si O C He H Ne Si O C Central burning  formation of a convective core Central exhaustion  shell burning  convective shell Local exhaustion shellburningshiftsoutward in mass  convectiveshell

  20. ADVANCED BURNING STAGES: INTERNAL EVOLUTION The details of thisbehavior (number, timing, mass extension and overlapof convectiveshells) ismainlydriven by the CO core mass and by itschemicalcomposition (12C, 16O) CO core mass Thermodynamic history Basic fuel for all the nuclearburningstagesafter core He burning 12C, 16O At core He exhaustionboth the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initialmass… v=0 km/s v=0 km/s

  21. ADVANCED BURNING STAGES: INTERNAL EVOLUTION ...hence, the evolutionarybehaviorscalesaswell He He C O C C Si O C H He He H O Si Ne Si O C O Ne Si In general, one to four carbon convectiveshells and one to threeconvectiveshellepisodes for each of the neon, oxygen and siliconburningoccur. Basic rule: the largeris the CO core, the loweris the 12C at core He exhaustion. the lessefficientis the C burningshell, the loweris the number of convectiveepisodes

  22. PRESUPERNOVA STAR Lessefficient C shellburningmeansstrongercontraction of the CO core The higheris the mass of the CO core (the loweris the 12C at the core He exhaustion ), the more compact is the structureat the presupernova stage v=0 km/s v=0 km/s

  23. ADVANCED BURNING STAGES: INTERNAL EVOLUTIONOF ROTATING AND NON ROTATING STARS Properties of the CO core at Core C-ignition Rotatingmodels showlarger CO cores and smaller12C mass fractionat core He depletioncompared to the non rotatingones Differencesprogressively reduce with the initial mass

  24. PRESUPERNOVA MODELS: ROTATING vs NON ROTATING STARS ....hence the behavior of anygivenrotating star during the more advancedburningstageswillresemblethat of a non rotating star having a higher mass (80-120 exceptions) Presupernovarotatingmodelsappearmuch more compact compared to the non rotatingones and with larger Fe cores Rotatingmodelshave a largerbindingenergycompared to the non rotatingones

  25. PRESUPERNOVA MODELS: ROTATING vs NON ROTATING STARS

  26. THE FINAL FATE Hydrodynamical simulations based on induced explosions for Eexpl=1051 erg (ML & Chieffi 2003, Chieffi & ML 2012 in prep) Larger binding energies  Larger fallback masses after the explosion  Rotating models less efficient in polluting the ISM with heavy elements In both cases no, or very few, heavy elements ejected for models with M>20 M Difficult to compare the ejected masses in this case

  27. EJECTED MASSES: COMPARISON Comparison made for a fixed amount of 56Ni ejected • Differences confined with a factor of 2 for the majority of the elements

  28. EJECTED MASSES: COMPARISON Comparison made for a fixed amount of 56Ni ejected • Differences confined with a factor of 2 for the majority of the elements • Overproduction of C and O in low-mass rotating models

  29. EJECTED MASSES: COMPARISON Comparison made for a fixed amount of 56Ni ejected • Differences confined with a factor of 2 for the majority of the elements • Overproduction of C and O in low-mass rotating models • Overproduction of F in rotating models with mass 20-40 M

  30. EJECTED MASSES: COMPARISON Comparison made for a fixed amount of 56Ni ejected • Differences confined with a factor of 2 for the majority of the elements • Overproduction of C and O in low-mass rotating models • Overproduction of F in rotating models with mass 20-40 M • Overproduction of Si-Sc elements in rotating models with mass ~ 20-25 M

  31. EJECTED MASSES: COMPARISON Comparison made for a fixed amount of 56Ni ejected • Differences confined with a factor of 2 for the majority of the elements • Overproduction of C and O in low-mass rotating models • Overproduction of F in rotating models with mass 20-40 M • Overproduction of Si-Sc elements in rotating models with mass ~ 13-25 M • Overproduction of s-process elements in rotating models with mass 20-40 M

  32. EJECTED MASSES: COMPARISON

  33. ENRICHMENT OF THE INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM 56Ni=0.1 M Rotating models produce more metals compared to the non rotating ones because of the larger CO cores and more compact structures Differences reduce with the mass

  34. PRODUCTION FACTORS

  35. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Influence of rotation on the presupernova evolution (from the point of view of the hydrostatic and explosive yields) • Negligibleeffect on the H exhausted core @ core H depletion Larger CO cores and smaller12C mass fractions @ core He depletionDifferencesprogressivelyreducedwith the initialmass Presupernovamodels more compact and with larger Fe coresLargerbindingenergies Largerfallbackmasses lessefficientenrichment of heavyelements for lowexplosionenergies Differences in the finalyieldsconfinedwithin a factor of ~2 for the majority of the elements Overproduction of C and O more pronounced in the low-mass models Overproduction of Si-Sc elements in models with mass ~ 20-25 M Overproduction of F and s-processelements in models with mass ~ 20-40 M F and s-process elments distribution closer to the solar one in stars with mass ~ 25-40 M

More Related