arxiv:astro-ph/ v1 3 Jun 1997

Transcription

1 ULEYTHEI I TYE II UERAE. omoto a, M. Hashimoto b, T. Tsujimoto c, F.-. Thielemann d,. ishimoto a, Y. ubo a,. kasato a arxiv:astro-ph/ v 3 Jun 997 a Department of Astronomy, University of Tokyo,Tokyo 3, Japan b Department of hysics, Faculty of ience, yushu University, Fukuoka 80, Japan c tional Astronomical bservatory, Mitaka, Tokyo 8, Japan d Institut für Theoretische hysik, Universität Basel H-4056 Basel, witzerland resupernova evolution and explosive nucleosynthesis in massive stars for main-sequence masses from 3 M to 70 M are calculated. We examine the dependence of the supernova yields on the stellar mass, 2 (α,γ) 6 rate, and explosion energy. The supernova yields integrated over the initial mass function are compared with the solar abundances.. tellar ucleosynthesis and the 2 (α,γ) 6 Rate ucleosynthesis in massive stars is one of the major sources of nuclei in the cosmos. We present presupernova models for helium stars with masses of M α = 3.3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 6, and 32 M as an extension of the studies by omoto & Hashimoto (988). These helium star masses correspond approximately to main-sequence masses of M ms = 3, 5, 8, 20, 25, 40, and 70 M, respectively (ugimoto & omoto 980). The systematic study for such a dense grid of stellar masses enables us to understand how explosive nucleosynthesis depends on the presupernova stellar structure and to apply the results to the chemical evolution of galaxies. We use the hwarzschild criterion for convection and neglect overshooting. The initial compositions are: X( 4 He) = and X( 4 ) = 0.02, where all the original elements are assumed to be converted into 4 during core hydrogen burning. These helium stars are evolved from helium burning through the onset of the core collapse. uclear reaction rates are mostly taken from ughlan & Fowler (988). For the uncertain rate of 2 (α,γ) 6, we use the rate by ughlan et al. (985; FHZ85), which is larger than the rate by ughlan & Fowler (988; F88) by a factor of 2.3. To examine the influence of this difference, we evolve the M α = 8 M helium star, using the 2 (α,γ) 6 rate by F88 (case 25B). [The 25 M star model with the 2 (α,γ) 6 rate by FHZ85 is denoted as case 25A.] At the end of core helium burning, the formation of the carbon-oxygen core and its composition are influenced largely by the 2 (α,γ) 6 rate. The larger rate results in a smaller / ratio, which affects the abundances of, Mg, Al relative to in the more evolved cores. omparison of the presupernova density structures for the two cases 25A and 25B shows

2 2 that case 25B has a more concentrated core at M r < 2M (i.e., a steeper density gradient) and more extended outer layers than case 25A. This is due to a larger carbon abundance and thus stronger carbon shell burning for 25B. Model 25B has smaller masses of the core (.37 M ) and the -rich layer than those for 25A (.4 M ) due also to the stronger carbon shell burning. It is found that the size of the iron core is not a monotonic function of the helium core mass as shown by Barkat & Marom (990) and Woosley & Weaver (995). For M ms = 3, 5, 8, 20, 25 (case 25A), 40, and 70 M, the iron core masses are.8,.28,.36,.40,.42,.88, and.57 M, respectively. In case 25B, the iron core mass is.37 M, which is smaller than in case 25A. 2. Explosive ucleosynthesis The hydrodynamic phases of supernova explosions for the above eight presupernova models were followed with an extensive nuclear reaction network (Hashimoto et al. 989, 993; Thielemann et al. 990, 996). nce the mechanism of supernova explosions after core collapse is not fully understood yet, the explosion energy and the mass cut (or 56 mass) have remaining uncertainties, except for 987A. The final kinetic energy of the explosion is assumed to be E = erg as inferred from the modeling of 987A and 993J (e.g., higeyama & omoto 990; higeyama et al. 994). In the present study, the mass cut is chosen to produce 0.5 M 56 for 3 5 M stars and M 56 for 8 70 M stars. This is based on the estimates from the light curves of 993J and Type Ib supernovae for the 3 5 M stars (e.g., omoto et al. 993) and 987A for the 8 20 M stars (e.g., omoto et al. 993). For more massive stars, a similar mass of 56 is suggested from 990E (hmidt et al. 993). Figures and 2 show the integrated abundances of the ejecta relative to the solar values (Anders & Grevesse 989) for M ms = 3, 5, 8, 20, 40, and 70 M. Figure 3 shows three cases of M ms = 25 M, i.e., cases 25A, 25B, and 25BE (see below). Table gives the ejected masses (M ) of stable species for the 3-70 M stars. To examine the dependence on the explosion energy, we show the case 25BE, i.e., case 25B with E = erg. The larger explosion energy leads to the outward shift of the abundance distribution. This leads to minor differences between the abundances for the two explosion energies (Fig. 3). 3. Isotopic Abundances Figure 4 shows the isotopic abundances relative to their solar values(anders& Grevesse 989) after averaging over the mass range from 0 to 50 M with an initial mass function M.35. Here the upper mass limit 50 M is chosen from the comparison of [/] and [Mg/] with those of metal-poor stars (Tsujimoto et al. 993). We also assume no heavy element production below 0 M and approximate the abundances of 0 3 M stars by a linear interpolation between 0 and 3 M. Figure 4 shows that the relative abundance ratios from massive stars are in good agreement with the solar ratios for A < 27. [The sum of type Ia and type II products with a ratio of to 9 reproduces well the solar abundances for a wider range of A (Tsujimoto

3 et al. 995).] ote that this agreement is realized for the 2 (α,γ) 6 rate by FHZ85, i.e., case 25A. For case 25B,,, and Al relative to are overproduced with respect to the solar ratios as seen in Figure 3. This is due to the larger / ratio in case 25B after helium burning. nce the products of the 25 M star dominate type II supernova yields, this result suggests that the 2 (α,γ) 6 rate is higher than that of F88 and closer to FHZ85. The presently most reliable experimental investigations give values inbetween the two rates. We should note that the isotopic ratios in Figures 4 depend not only on the 2 (α,γ) 6 rate but also on convective overshooting, mixing fresh He into the core at late high temperature core helium burning stages. The above comparison that favors the FHZ85 rate is based on the calculations with no convective overshooting. If overshooting during convective core helium burning would reduce the / ratio, a smaller 2 (α,γ) 6 rate would be favored (Weaver & Woosley 993; Woosley & Weaver 995). Figure 4 also shows that some species, 35, 39, 44, 48, and 59 o, are underproduced relative to the solar values. If we include the weak component of the s-process nuclei 50 < A < 00 produced during core helium burning (rantzos et al. 990), 48 and 59 o are enhanced appreciably compared with the seed (solar) abundances. 35, 39 and 44 are enhanced only by a factor of 2. ynthesis of s-process elements during carbon shell burning would also be significant. Acknowledgements This work has been supported in part by the Grant in Aid for ientific Research ( , ) and E research (07E2002) of the Ministry of Education, ience, and ulture in Japan. 3

4 4 0 r. MgAl o u Mg Al r o u Mg. Al r o Figure. Abundances of stable isotopes relative to the solar values for the 3, 5, and 8 M stars (H-rich envelope is not included).

5 5 0 Mg Al. r o u Mg Al. r o Mg Al. r o u Figure 2. ame as Fig. but for the 20, 40, and 70 M stars.

6 6 0 Mg Al. r o Mg Al. r o u Mg Al. r o u Figure 3. ame as in Fig. but for the 25 M star (case 25A). se 25B uses the 2 (α,γ) 6 rate by F88 and case 25BE is the same as 25B but with E = erg s.

7 7 0 II / solar. Mg Al r o.0 u Figure4. ucleosynthesis products from0 50M starsaveraged over the IMF relative to solar abundances. Table ucleosynthesis products of II for various progenitor masses (H-rich envelope is not included). ynthesized isotopic mass (M ) pecies m=3 M m=5 M m=8 M m=20 M m=25 M m=40 M m=70 M E E-02.65E-0.4E-0.48E-0.48E E E E E-0.7E-0.03E E E E E E E E E E E-08.36E E E-0.04E-08.9E E-0 6.5E E E E E E E E E E E E-09.35E E E E-03.79E E-03 9 F 8.06E-0 2.2E- 7.67E E- 8.7E E E E E-02.6E E E E E E E E E E-03.4E E-04.25E E E E E E E-04.53E E-03.5E-03.8E E E Mg 9.23E E E-02.47E-0.59E E E-0 25 Mg.38E E E-03.85E E E-02.0E-0 26 Mg 8.96E E E-03.74E E-02.07E-0 2.9E-0 27 Al.04E E E-03.55E-02.95E E-02.44E E E E E-02.03E E E E E-03.76E E E E-02.08E E E E E E E-02.00E E E-04 4.E-04.05E E E E-02

8 8 pecies m=3 M m=5 M m=8 M m=20 M m=25 M m=40 M m=70 M 32.46E E E E E-02.77E E E E-05.48E E E E-04.02E E-03.49E-03.89E-03.26E E-03.4E-02.98E E E E E E-07.40E E E E E E E E-04.76E E E-06.04E E-06.32E-05.7E-04.0E E E E E E-03 3.E E E E E E E E E E E-09.42E E E-09.74E E E E E E E E E E E E-06.28E E E E E E-03 5.E E E E E E-05.63E-05.45E E-06.77E E-04.64E E-06.30E E E E E E E E-05.43E E-05 2.E E E E E- 3.23E-.2E- 2.60E E E E E-6.07E-5 2.4E-6.70E E E E E-08.8E-07.04E E-08.53E E E E E E E E-05.44E E E-06 3.E-07.73E-06 9.E E E E-04.58E E-05.85E E-05.58E-04.42E E E E E E E E E-0.2E-09.7E-0.2E E E E E E E-0 2.5E E-0 2.4E-09.52E E-06.25E-05.25E E E E-05.5E r 2.30E E E E E-05.49E-04.0E r.5e-03.36e-03.44e E-04.3E E E r 9.34E-05.35E-04.50E E-05.39E E-04.00E r 3.35E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-0.44E E E E E E E E E E-03.6E E E E-09.27E-08.37E E E-09.29E E o.39e-04.22e E-05.3E E E-05.59E E E E E-03.33E E E E E E E E E-04.77E E-04.43E E-05.59E E E-05.55E E E E E-04.70E-04.E-04.28E E E E E E E E-2 63 u.8e-06.0e E E-06.50E-07.62E E u 9.E E E E-07.42E-07.89E E E-05.99E E-06.78E E E-07.02E E-05.30E E E E E E E-08.54E E E E E-0.95E E E E E E-0.20E-0 9.5E-08

9 9 REFEREE. Anders, E., & Grevesse,. 989, Geochim. osmochim. Acta 53, Barkat, Z., & Marom, A. 990, in upernovae, ed. J.. Wheeler et al. (World ientific), p ughlan, G.R., Fowler, W.A., Harris, M.J., & Zimmerman, B.A. 985, Atomic Data & uclear Data Tables 32, ughlan, G.R., & Fowler, W.A. 988, Atomic Data & ucl. Data Tables 40, Hashimoto, M., omoto,., & higeyama, T. 989, A&A 20, L5 6. Hashimoto, M., omoto,., Tsujimoto, T., & Thielemann, F , in uclei in osmos, ed. F. äppeler &. Wisshak (Institute hysics ubl.), p omoto,., & Hashimoto, M. 988, hys. Rep. 63, 3 8. omoto,., higeyama, T., umagai,., Yamaoka, H., & uzuki, T. 994, in upernovae (Les Houches, ession LI), ed.. Bludman, R. et al. (Elsevier i. ubl.), p omoto,., uzuki, T., higeyama, T., umagai,., Yamaoka, H., & aio, H. 993, ture 364, rantzos,., Hashimoto, M., & omoto,. 990, A&A 234, 2. hmidt, B.. et al. 993, AJ 05, higeyama, T., & omoto,. 990, ApJ 360, higeyama, T., omoto,., Tsujimoto, T. & Hashimoto, M. 990, ApJ 36, L23 4. higeyama, T., uzuki, T., umagai,., omoto,., aio, H., & Yamaoka, H. 994, ApJ 420, ugimoto, D., & omoto,. 980, pace i. Rev. 25, Thielemann, F.-., Hashimoto, M., & omoto,. 990, ApJ 349, Thielemann, F.-., omoto,., & Hashimoto, M. 996, ApJ 460, Tsujimoto, T., omoto,., Hashimoto, M., Yanagida,., & Thielemann, F , MRA 277, Tsujimoto, T., Iwamoto,., Hashimoto, M., omoto,., & Thielemann, F , inriginandevolutionoftheelements, ed..ubono&t.ajino(worldientific) p Weaver, T., & Woosley,.E. 993, hys. Rep. 227, Woosley,.E., & Weaver, T.A. 995, ApJ 0, 8