1 / 22

A Semi-Analytic Model of Type Ia Supernovae

A Semi-Analytic Model of Type Ia Supernovae. Kevin Jumper Advised by Dr. Robert Fisher March 22, 2011. Review of Important Terms. White Dwarf Chandrasekhar Limit Type Ia Supernovae Flame Bubble Self-Similarity Deflagration Breakout GCD Model.

dai-chan
Télécharger la présentation

A Semi-Analytic Model of Type Ia Supernovae

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. A Semi-Analytic Model of Type Ia Supernovae Kevin Jumper Advised by Dr. Robert Fisher March 22, 2011

  2. Review of Important Terms • White Dwarf • Chandrasekhar Limit • Type Ia Supernovae • Flame Bubble • Self-Similarity • Deflagration • Breakout • GCD Model

  3. A Visualization of a GCD Type Ia Supernova Credit: Dr. Robert Fisher

  4. Project Objectives • Determine the fractional mass burned during deflagration. • Analyze the evolution of the flame bubble. • Compare the results against other models and simulations.

  5. Preliminary Results For the following conditions: Initial Mass: 1.360 solar masses Initial Radius: 2,500 kilometers • Breakout occurs in about 1.2 seconds. • Fractional burnt mass is generally too high. • Breakout velocities are around 2,600 km /s. • Maximum velocity is attained shortly before breakout. • Bubble self-similarity appears to be supported.

  6. Preliminary Results: Bubble-Self Similarity • We saw the near-independence of breakout velocity from bubble conditions. • This seemed to justify our spherical assumption for the model.

  7. Log Velocity vs. Log Position

  8. Log Velocity vs. Log Radius

  9. Comparison to 3-D Simulation Results • Dr. Fisher asked me to compare my model to David’s simulation. • Initial Conditions of Simulation • Progenitor Mass: 1.366 solar masses • Progenitor Radius: ≈ 2,000 km • Initial Bubble Radius: 16 km • Initial Bubble Offset: 40 km

  10. Recalibrating the Model’s Bubble Radius • Initially, the simulation had a greater fractional burnt mass. • This was a consequence of the resolution of the simulation. • To start with the same fractional burnt mass, the model’s bubble radius had to be changed to 24 km.

  11. Log Speed vs. Log Position

  12. Log Area vs. Position

  13. Log Volume vs. Position

  14. Fractional Burnt Mass vs. Position

  15. Observations • There is relatively good agreement with the simulation’s velocities. • The area and volume diverge from the simulation over time. • The model area and volume obey power laws. • There is a significant discrepancy between the fractional burned mass of the model and simulation.

  16. Testing the Spherical Geometry of the Simulation • The above equation is satisfied if the geometry of the bubble is spherical. • We concluded that the simulation’s bubble was non-spherical.

  17. Testing the Spherical Geometry:Ratio versus Time Credit: David Falta

  18. Comparing to the Tabular Results • The model’s code also has a routine to read in data about the progenitor instead of calculating it. • However, the same general behavior as the semi-analytic model was observed. • There was also a greater discrepancy in the fractional mass burnt.

  19. Varying the Coefficient of Drag • Dr. Fisher hypothesized that the coefficient of drag might be too high in the model. • I was instructed to repeatedly halve the coefficient of drag and see if we could obtain the simulation’s fractional burnt mass. • This is also affected by the Reynolds number, which describes turbulence.

  20. Effect of Changing Reynolds Numbers/Drag Coefficients Credit: Milton van Dyke

  21. Fractional Burnt Mass vs. Position (C = 3/16)

  22. Questions? A Semi-Analytic Model of Type Ia Supernovae

More Related