Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
134
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION AND EXPLOSION OF MASSIVE STARS
CHALLENGES OF THE NEXT CENTURY
Marco Limongi
INAF ndash Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma ITALY
email marcooa-romainafit
Alessandro Chieffi
INAF ndash Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica Cosmica ITALY
email alessandrochieffiiasf-romainafit
234WHY ARE MASSIVE STARS IMPORTANT IN THE GLOBAL
EVOLUTION OF OUR UNIVERSE
Light up regions of stellar birth induce star formation
Production of most of the elements (those necessary to life)
Mixing (winds and radiation) of the ISM
Production of neutron stars and black holes
Cosmology (PopIII)
Reionization of the Universe at zgt5
Massive Remnants (Black Holes) AGN progenitors
Pregalactic Chemical Enrichment
High Energy Astrophysics
GRB progenitors
The understanding of these stars is crucial for the interpretation of many astrophysical events
Production of long-lived radioactive isotopes (26Al 56Co 57Co 44Ti 60Fe)
Chemical Evolution of Galaxies
334OVERVIEW OF MASSIVE STARS EVOLUTION
Grid of 15 stellar models 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 25 30 35 40 60 80 and 120 M
Initial Solar Composition (AampG89)
All models computed with the FRANEC (Frascati RAphson Newton Evolutionary Code) release 5050419
4 physical + N chemical equations (mixing+nuclear burning) fully coupled and solved simultaneously (Henyey)
Nuclear network very extended
282 nuclear species (H to Mo) and ~ 3000 processes (Fully Automated)
(NO Quasi (QSE) or Full Nuclear Statistical Equilibrium (NSE) approximation)
Evolution followed from the Pre Main Sequence up to the beginning of the core collapse
Convective Core Overshooting d=02 Hp
Mass Loss Vink et al (20002001) (Teffgt12000 K) De Jager (1988) (Tefflt12000 K) Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (Wolf-Rayet)Langer 1898 (WNEWCO)
(Limongi amp Chieffi 2006 ApJ 647 483)
434
CNO Cycle
Convective Core
Mmin(O) = 14 M
t(O)t(H burning) 015 (14 M ) ndash 079 (120 M)
MASS LOSS
CORE H BURNING
Core H
Burning
Models
534
He Convective
Core
3+ 12C()16O
H burning shell
H exhausted core (He Core)
CORE He BURNING
Core He
Burning
Models
M le 30 M RSG
M ge 35 M BSG
634
H
He
He CO
(N)Hlt04
WNEWCO
Log (Teff)gt40 H
HHe
WNLHeCO
M ge 30 MM ge 35 MM ge 40 M
734MASSIVE STARS MASS LOSS DURING H-He BURNING
O-Type 60000 gt T(K) gt 33000
WNL 10-5lt Hsup lt04 (H burning CNO products)
WNE Hsuplt10-5 (No H)
WNWC 01 lt X(C)X(N) lt 10 (both H and He burning products N and C)
WC X(C)X(N) gt 10 (He burning products)
WR Log10(Teff) gt 40
M lt 30 Mס explode as Red SuperGiant (RSG)
M ge 30 Mס explode as Blue SuperGiant (BSG)
WNLRSG 3530 O MM
WNEWNLRSG 4035 O MM
WCOWNEWNLRSG 6040 O MM
WCOWNE WNL 60 O MM
834ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Neutrino losses play a dominant role in the evolution of a massive star beyond core He burning (Tgt109 K)
eeee
H-burn shell
He core
He-burn shell
CO core
Core burning
The Nuclear Luminosity (Lnuc) closely follows the energy losses
Mt
EL
nuc
nuc L
MEt nucnuc
Evolutionary times of the advanced burning stages reduce dramatically
934MASSIVE STARS LIFETIMES
Fuel Tc (K) c (gcm3) Enuc (ergg) Estimated
Lifetime (no )
Real Lifetime
H 41(7) 47 644(18) 22(7) yr
(L=51038 )
687(6) yr
(Ltot=51038 )
He 21 (8) 72(2) 870(17) 16(6) yr
(L=91038 )
527(5) yr
(Ltot=91038 )
C 83(8) 17(5) 400(17) 63(5) yr
(L=11039 )
627(3) yr
(Ltot=81040 )
Ne 16(9) 25(6) 110(17) 17(5) yr
(L=11039 )
190 days
(Ltot=21043 )
O 21(9) 58(6) 498(17) 79(5) yr
(L=11039 )
243 days
(Ltot=91043 )
Si 35(9) 37(7) 190(17) 30(5) yr
(L=11039 )
19 days
(Ltot=21045 )
L
MEt nucnuc
1034ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Four major burnings ie carbon neon oxygen and silicon
Central burning formation of a convective core
Central exhaustion shell burning convective shell
Local exhaustion shell burning shifts outward in mass convective shell
1134ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
The details of this behavior (number timing overlap of convective shells) is mainly driven by the CO core mass
and by its chemical composition (12C 16O)
CO core mass Thermodynamic history
12C 16O Basic fuel for all the nuclear burning stages after core He burning
At core He exhaustion both the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initial mass
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
234WHY ARE MASSIVE STARS IMPORTANT IN THE GLOBAL
EVOLUTION OF OUR UNIVERSE
Light up regions of stellar birth induce star formation
Production of most of the elements (those necessary to life)
Mixing (winds and radiation) of the ISM
Production of neutron stars and black holes
Cosmology (PopIII)
Reionization of the Universe at zgt5
Massive Remnants (Black Holes) AGN progenitors
Pregalactic Chemical Enrichment
High Energy Astrophysics
GRB progenitors
The understanding of these stars is crucial for the interpretation of many astrophysical events
Production of long-lived radioactive isotopes (26Al 56Co 57Co 44Ti 60Fe)
Chemical Evolution of Galaxies
334OVERVIEW OF MASSIVE STARS EVOLUTION
Grid of 15 stellar models 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 25 30 35 40 60 80 and 120 M
Initial Solar Composition (AampG89)
All models computed with the FRANEC (Frascati RAphson Newton Evolutionary Code) release 5050419
4 physical + N chemical equations (mixing+nuclear burning) fully coupled and solved simultaneously (Henyey)
Nuclear network very extended
282 nuclear species (H to Mo) and ~ 3000 processes (Fully Automated)
(NO Quasi (QSE) or Full Nuclear Statistical Equilibrium (NSE) approximation)
Evolution followed from the Pre Main Sequence up to the beginning of the core collapse
Convective Core Overshooting d=02 Hp
Mass Loss Vink et al (20002001) (Teffgt12000 K) De Jager (1988) (Tefflt12000 K) Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (Wolf-Rayet)Langer 1898 (WNEWCO)
(Limongi amp Chieffi 2006 ApJ 647 483)
434
CNO Cycle
Convective Core
Mmin(O) = 14 M
t(O)t(H burning) 015 (14 M ) ndash 079 (120 M)
MASS LOSS
CORE H BURNING
Core H
Burning
Models
534
He Convective
Core
3+ 12C()16O
H burning shell
H exhausted core (He Core)
CORE He BURNING
Core He
Burning
Models
M le 30 M RSG
M ge 35 M BSG
634
H
He
He CO
(N)Hlt04
WNEWCO
Log (Teff)gt40 H
HHe
WNLHeCO
M ge 30 MM ge 35 MM ge 40 M
734MASSIVE STARS MASS LOSS DURING H-He BURNING
O-Type 60000 gt T(K) gt 33000
WNL 10-5lt Hsup lt04 (H burning CNO products)
WNE Hsuplt10-5 (No H)
WNWC 01 lt X(C)X(N) lt 10 (both H and He burning products N and C)
WC X(C)X(N) gt 10 (He burning products)
WR Log10(Teff) gt 40
M lt 30 Mס explode as Red SuperGiant (RSG)
M ge 30 Mס explode as Blue SuperGiant (BSG)
WNLRSG 3530 O MM
WNEWNLRSG 4035 O MM
WCOWNEWNLRSG 6040 O MM
WCOWNE WNL 60 O MM
834ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Neutrino losses play a dominant role in the evolution of a massive star beyond core He burning (Tgt109 K)
eeee
H-burn shell
He core
He-burn shell
CO core
Core burning
The Nuclear Luminosity (Lnuc) closely follows the energy losses
Mt
EL
nuc
nuc L
MEt nucnuc
Evolutionary times of the advanced burning stages reduce dramatically
934MASSIVE STARS LIFETIMES
Fuel Tc (K) c (gcm3) Enuc (ergg) Estimated
Lifetime (no )
Real Lifetime
H 41(7) 47 644(18) 22(7) yr
(L=51038 )
687(6) yr
(Ltot=51038 )
He 21 (8) 72(2) 870(17) 16(6) yr
(L=91038 )
527(5) yr
(Ltot=91038 )
C 83(8) 17(5) 400(17) 63(5) yr
(L=11039 )
627(3) yr
(Ltot=81040 )
Ne 16(9) 25(6) 110(17) 17(5) yr
(L=11039 )
190 days
(Ltot=21043 )
O 21(9) 58(6) 498(17) 79(5) yr
(L=11039 )
243 days
(Ltot=91043 )
Si 35(9) 37(7) 190(17) 30(5) yr
(L=11039 )
19 days
(Ltot=21045 )
L
MEt nucnuc
1034ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Four major burnings ie carbon neon oxygen and silicon
Central burning formation of a convective core
Central exhaustion shell burning convective shell
Local exhaustion shell burning shifts outward in mass convective shell
1134ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
The details of this behavior (number timing overlap of convective shells) is mainly driven by the CO core mass
and by its chemical composition (12C 16O)
CO core mass Thermodynamic history
12C 16O Basic fuel for all the nuclear burning stages after core He burning
At core He exhaustion both the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initial mass
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
334OVERVIEW OF MASSIVE STARS EVOLUTION
Grid of 15 stellar models 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 25 30 35 40 60 80 and 120 M
Initial Solar Composition (AampG89)
All models computed with the FRANEC (Frascati RAphson Newton Evolutionary Code) release 5050419
4 physical + N chemical equations (mixing+nuclear burning) fully coupled and solved simultaneously (Henyey)
Nuclear network very extended
282 nuclear species (H to Mo) and ~ 3000 processes (Fully Automated)
(NO Quasi (QSE) or Full Nuclear Statistical Equilibrium (NSE) approximation)
Evolution followed from the Pre Main Sequence up to the beginning of the core collapse
Convective Core Overshooting d=02 Hp
Mass Loss Vink et al (20002001) (Teffgt12000 K) De Jager (1988) (Tefflt12000 K) Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (Wolf-Rayet)Langer 1898 (WNEWCO)
(Limongi amp Chieffi 2006 ApJ 647 483)
434
CNO Cycle
Convective Core
Mmin(O) = 14 M
t(O)t(H burning) 015 (14 M ) ndash 079 (120 M)
MASS LOSS
CORE H BURNING
Core H
Burning
Models
534
He Convective
Core
3+ 12C()16O
H burning shell
H exhausted core (He Core)
CORE He BURNING
Core He
Burning
Models
M le 30 M RSG
M ge 35 M BSG
634
H
He
He CO
(N)Hlt04
WNEWCO
Log (Teff)gt40 H
HHe
WNLHeCO
M ge 30 MM ge 35 MM ge 40 M
734MASSIVE STARS MASS LOSS DURING H-He BURNING
O-Type 60000 gt T(K) gt 33000
WNL 10-5lt Hsup lt04 (H burning CNO products)
WNE Hsuplt10-5 (No H)
WNWC 01 lt X(C)X(N) lt 10 (both H and He burning products N and C)
WC X(C)X(N) gt 10 (He burning products)
WR Log10(Teff) gt 40
M lt 30 Mס explode as Red SuperGiant (RSG)
M ge 30 Mס explode as Blue SuperGiant (BSG)
WNLRSG 3530 O MM
WNEWNLRSG 4035 O MM
WCOWNEWNLRSG 6040 O MM
WCOWNE WNL 60 O MM
834ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Neutrino losses play a dominant role in the evolution of a massive star beyond core He burning (Tgt109 K)
eeee
H-burn shell
He core
He-burn shell
CO core
Core burning
The Nuclear Luminosity (Lnuc) closely follows the energy losses
Mt
EL
nuc
nuc L
MEt nucnuc
Evolutionary times of the advanced burning stages reduce dramatically
934MASSIVE STARS LIFETIMES
Fuel Tc (K) c (gcm3) Enuc (ergg) Estimated
Lifetime (no )
Real Lifetime
H 41(7) 47 644(18) 22(7) yr
(L=51038 )
687(6) yr
(Ltot=51038 )
He 21 (8) 72(2) 870(17) 16(6) yr
(L=91038 )
527(5) yr
(Ltot=91038 )
C 83(8) 17(5) 400(17) 63(5) yr
(L=11039 )
627(3) yr
(Ltot=81040 )
Ne 16(9) 25(6) 110(17) 17(5) yr
(L=11039 )
190 days
(Ltot=21043 )
O 21(9) 58(6) 498(17) 79(5) yr
(L=11039 )
243 days
(Ltot=91043 )
Si 35(9) 37(7) 190(17) 30(5) yr
(L=11039 )
19 days
(Ltot=21045 )
L
MEt nucnuc
1034ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Four major burnings ie carbon neon oxygen and silicon
Central burning formation of a convective core
Central exhaustion shell burning convective shell
Local exhaustion shell burning shifts outward in mass convective shell
1134ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
The details of this behavior (number timing overlap of convective shells) is mainly driven by the CO core mass
and by its chemical composition (12C 16O)
CO core mass Thermodynamic history
12C 16O Basic fuel for all the nuclear burning stages after core He burning
At core He exhaustion both the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initial mass
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
434
CNO Cycle
Convective Core
Mmin(O) = 14 M
t(O)t(H burning) 015 (14 M ) ndash 079 (120 M)
MASS LOSS
CORE H BURNING
Core H
Burning
Models
534
He Convective
Core
3+ 12C()16O
H burning shell
H exhausted core (He Core)
CORE He BURNING
Core He
Burning
Models
M le 30 M RSG
M ge 35 M BSG
634
H
He
He CO
(N)Hlt04
WNEWCO
Log (Teff)gt40 H
HHe
WNLHeCO
M ge 30 MM ge 35 MM ge 40 M
734MASSIVE STARS MASS LOSS DURING H-He BURNING
O-Type 60000 gt T(K) gt 33000
WNL 10-5lt Hsup lt04 (H burning CNO products)
WNE Hsuplt10-5 (No H)
WNWC 01 lt X(C)X(N) lt 10 (both H and He burning products N and C)
WC X(C)X(N) gt 10 (He burning products)
WR Log10(Teff) gt 40
M lt 30 Mס explode as Red SuperGiant (RSG)
M ge 30 Mס explode as Blue SuperGiant (BSG)
WNLRSG 3530 O MM
WNEWNLRSG 4035 O MM
WCOWNEWNLRSG 6040 O MM
WCOWNE WNL 60 O MM
834ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Neutrino losses play a dominant role in the evolution of a massive star beyond core He burning (Tgt109 K)
eeee
H-burn shell
He core
He-burn shell
CO core
Core burning
The Nuclear Luminosity (Lnuc) closely follows the energy losses
Mt
EL
nuc
nuc L
MEt nucnuc
Evolutionary times of the advanced burning stages reduce dramatically
934MASSIVE STARS LIFETIMES
Fuel Tc (K) c (gcm3) Enuc (ergg) Estimated
Lifetime (no )
Real Lifetime
H 41(7) 47 644(18) 22(7) yr
(L=51038 )
687(6) yr
(Ltot=51038 )
He 21 (8) 72(2) 870(17) 16(6) yr
(L=91038 )
527(5) yr
(Ltot=91038 )
C 83(8) 17(5) 400(17) 63(5) yr
(L=11039 )
627(3) yr
(Ltot=81040 )
Ne 16(9) 25(6) 110(17) 17(5) yr
(L=11039 )
190 days
(Ltot=21043 )
O 21(9) 58(6) 498(17) 79(5) yr
(L=11039 )
243 days
(Ltot=91043 )
Si 35(9) 37(7) 190(17) 30(5) yr
(L=11039 )
19 days
(Ltot=21045 )
L
MEt nucnuc
1034ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Four major burnings ie carbon neon oxygen and silicon
Central burning formation of a convective core
Central exhaustion shell burning convective shell
Local exhaustion shell burning shifts outward in mass convective shell
1134ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
The details of this behavior (number timing overlap of convective shells) is mainly driven by the CO core mass
and by its chemical composition (12C 16O)
CO core mass Thermodynamic history
12C 16O Basic fuel for all the nuclear burning stages after core He burning
At core He exhaustion both the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initial mass
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
534
He Convective
Core
3+ 12C()16O
H burning shell
H exhausted core (He Core)
CORE He BURNING
Core He
Burning
Models
M le 30 M RSG
M ge 35 M BSG
634
H
He
He CO
(N)Hlt04
WNEWCO
Log (Teff)gt40 H
HHe
WNLHeCO
M ge 30 MM ge 35 MM ge 40 M
734MASSIVE STARS MASS LOSS DURING H-He BURNING
O-Type 60000 gt T(K) gt 33000
WNL 10-5lt Hsup lt04 (H burning CNO products)
WNE Hsuplt10-5 (No H)
WNWC 01 lt X(C)X(N) lt 10 (both H and He burning products N and C)
WC X(C)X(N) gt 10 (He burning products)
WR Log10(Teff) gt 40
M lt 30 Mס explode as Red SuperGiant (RSG)
M ge 30 Mס explode as Blue SuperGiant (BSG)
WNLRSG 3530 O MM
WNEWNLRSG 4035 O MM
WCOWNEWNLRSG 6040 O MM
WCOWNE WNL 60 O MM
834ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Neutrino losses play a dominant role in the evolution of a massive star beyond core He burning (Tgt109 K)
eeee
H-burn shell
He core
He-burn shell
CO core
Core burning
The Nuclear Luminosity (Lnuc) closely follows the energy losses
Mt
EL
nuc
nuc L
MEt nucnuc
Evolutionary times of the advanced burning stages reduce dramatically
934MASSIVE STARS LIFETIMES
Fuel Tc (K) c (gcm3) Enuc (ergg) Estimated
Lifetime (no )
Real Lifetime
H 41(7) 47 644(18) 22(7) yr
(L=51038 )
687(6) yr
(Ltot=51038 )
He 21 (8) 72(2) 870(17) 16(6) yr
(L=91038 )
527(5) yr
(Ltot=91038 )
C 83(8) 17(5) 400(17) 63(5) yr
(L=11039 )
627(3) yr
(Ltot=81040 )
Ne 16(9) 25(6) 110(17) 17(5) yr
(L=11039 )
190 days
(Ltot=21043 )
O 21(9) 58(6) 498(17) 79(5) yr
(L=11039 )
243 days
(Ltot=91043 )
Si 35(9) 37(7) 190(17) 30(5) yr
(L=11039 )
19 days
(Ltot=21045 )
L
MEt nucnuc
1034ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Four major burnings ie carbon neon oxygen and silicon
Central burning formation of a convective core
Central exhaustion shell burning convective shell
Local exhaustion shell burning shifts outward in mass convective shell
1134ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
The details of this behavior (number timing overlap of convective shells) is mainly driven by the CO core mass
and by its chemical composition (12C 16O)
CO core mass Thermodynamic history
12C 16O Basic fuel for all the nuclear burning stages after core He burning
At core He exhaustion both the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initial mass
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
634
H
He
He CO
(N)Hlt04
WNEWCO
Log (Teff)gt40 H
HHe
WNLHeCO
M ge 30 MM ge 35 MM ge 40 M
734MASSIVE STARS MASS LOSS DURING H-He BURNING
O-Type 60000 gt T(K) gt 33000
WNL 10-5lt Hsup lt04 (H burning CNO products)
WNE Hsuplt10-5 (No H)
WNWC 01 lt X(C)X(N) lt 10 (both H and He burning products N and C)
WC X(C)X(N) gt 10 (He burning products)
WR Log10(Teff) gt 40
M lt 30 Mס explode as Red SuperGiant (RSG)
M ge 30 Mס explode as Blue SuperGiant (BSG)
WNLRSG 3530 O MM
WNEWNLRSG 4035 O MM
WCOWNEWNLRSG 6040 O MM
WCOWNE WNL 60 O MM
834ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Neutrino losses play a dominant role in the evolution of a massive star beyond core He burning (Tgt109 K)
eeee
H-burn shell
He core
He-burn shell
CO core
Core burning
The Nuclear Luminosity (Lnuc) closely follows the energy losses
Mt
EL
nuc
nuc L
MEt nucnuc
Evolutionary times of the advanced burning stages reduce dramatically
934MASSIVE STARS LIFETIMES
Fuel Tc (K) c (gcm3) Enuc (ergg) Estimated
Lifetime (no )
Real Lifetime
H 41(7) 47 644(18) 22(7) yr
(L=51038 )
687(6) yr
(Ltot=51038 )
He 21 (8) 72(2) 870(17) 16(6) yr
(L=91038 )
527(5) yr
(Ltot=91038 )
C 83(8) 17(5) 400(17) 63(5) yr
(L=11039 )
627(3) yr
(Ltot=81040 )
Ne 16(9) 25(6) 110(17) 17(5) yr
(L=11039 )
190 days
(Ltot=21043 )
O 21(9) 58(6) 498(17) 79(5) yr
(L=11039 )
243 days
(Ltot=91043 )
Si 35(9) 37(7) 190(17) 30(5) yr
(L=11039 )
19 days
(Ltot=21045 )
L
MEt nucnuc
1034ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Four major burnings ie carbon neon oxygen and silicon
Central burning formation of a convective core
Central exhaustion shell burning convective shell
Local exhaustion shell burning shifts outward in mass convective shell
1134ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
The details of this behavior (number timing overlap of convective shells) is mainly driven by the CO core mass
and by its chemical composition (12C 16O)
CO core mass Thermodynamic history
12C 16O Basic fuel for all the nuclear burning stages after core He burning
At core He exhaustion both the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initial mass
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
734MASSIVE STARS MASS LOSS DURING H-He BURNING
O-Type 60000 gt T(K) gt 33000
WNL 10-5lt Hsup lt04 (H burning CNO products)
WNE Hsuplt10-5 (No H)
WNWC 01 lt X(C)X(N) lt 10 (both H and He burning products N and C)
WC X(C)X(N) gt 10 (He burning products)
WR Log10(Teff) gt 40
M lt 30 Mס explode as Red SuperGiant (RSG)
M ge 30 Mס explode as Blue SuperGiant (BSG)
WNLRSG 3530 O MM
WNEWNLRSG 4035 O MM
WCOWNEWNLRSG 6040 O MM
WCOWNE WNL 60 O MM
834ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Neutrino losses play a dominant role in the evolution of a massive star beyond core He burning (Tgt109 K)
eeee
H-burn shell
He core
He-burn shell
CO core
Core burning
The Nuclear Luminosity (Lnuc) closely follows the energy losses
Mt
EL
nuc
nuc L
MEt nucnuc
Evolutionary times of the advanced burning stages reduce dramatically
934MASSIVE STARS LIFETIMES
Fuel Tc (K) c (gcm3) Enuc (ergg) Estimated
Lifetime (no )
Real Lifetime
H 41(7) 47 644(18) 22(7) yr
(L=51038 )
687(6) yr
(Ltot=51038 )
He 21 (8) 72(2) 870(17) 16(6) yr
(L=91038 )
527(5) yr
(Ltot=91038 )
C 83(8) 17(5) 400(17) 63(5) yr
(L=11039 )
627(3) yr
(Ltot=81040 )
Ne 16(9) 25(6) 110(17) 17(5) yr
(L=11039 )
190 days
(Ltot=21043 )
O 21(9) 58(6) 498(17) 79(5) yr
(L=11039 )
243 days
(Ltot=91043 )
Si 35(9) 37(7) 190(17) 30(5) yr
(L=11039 )
19 days
(Ltot=21045 )
L
MEt nucnuc
1034ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Four major burnings ie carbon neon oxygen and silicon
Central burning formation of a convective core
Central exhaustion shell burning convective shell
Local exhaustion shell burning shifts outward in mass convective shell
1134ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
The details of this behavior (number timing overlap of convective shells) is mainly driven by the CO core mass
and by its chemical composition (12C 16O)
CO core mass Thermodynamic history
12C 16O Basic fuel for all the nuclear burning stages after core He burning
At core He exhaustion both the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initial mass
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
834ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Neutrino losses play a dominant role in the evolution of a massive star beyond core He burning (Tgt109 K)
eeee
H-burn shell
He core
He-burn shell
CO core
Core burning
The Nuclear Luminosity (Lnuc) closely follows the energy losses
Mt
EL
nuc
nuc L
MEt nucnuc
Evolutionary times of the advanced burning stages reduce dramatically
934MASSIVE STARS LIFETIMES
Fuel Tc (K) c (gcm3) Enuc (ergg) Estimated
Lifetime (no )
Real Lifetime
H 41(7) 47 644(18) 22(7) yr
(L=51038 )
687(6) yr
(Ltot=51038 )
He 21 (8) 72(2) 870(17) 16(6) yr
(L=91038 )
527(5) yr
(Ltot=91038 )
C 83(8) 17(5) 400(17) 63(5) yr
(L=11039 )
627(3) yr
(Ltot=81040 )
Ne 16(9) 25(6) 110(17) 17(5) yr
(L=11039 )
190 days
(Ltot=21043 )
O 21(9) 58(6) 498(17) 79(5) yr
(L=11039 )
243 days
(Ltot=91043 )
Si 35(9) 37(7) 190(17) 30(5) yr
(L=11039 )
19 days
(Ltot=21045 )
L
MEt nucnuc
1034ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Four major burnings ie carbon neon oxygen and silicon
Central burning formation of a convective core
Central exhaustion shell burning convective shell
Local exhaustion shell burning shifts outward in mass convective shell
1134ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
The details of this behavior (number timing overlap of convective shells) is mainly driven by the CO core mass
and by its chemical composition (12C 16O)
CO core mass Thermodynamic history
12C 16O Basic fuel for all the nuclear burning stages after core He burning
At core He exhaustion both the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initial mass
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
934MASSIVE STARS LIFETIMES
Fuel Tc (K) c (gcm3) Enuc (ergg) Estimated
Lifetime (no )
Real Lifetime
H 41(7) 47 644(18) 22(7) yr
(L=51038 )
687(6) yr
(Ltot=51038 )
He 21 (8) 72(2) 870(17) 16(6) yr
(L=91038 )
527(5) yr
(Ltot=91038 )
C 83(8) 17(5) 400(17) 63(5) yr
(L=11039 )
627(3) yr
(Ltot=81040 )
Ne 16(9) 25(6) 110(17) 17(5) yr
(L=11039 )
190 days
(Ltot=21043 )
O 21(9) 58(6) 498(17) 79(5) yr
(L=11039 )
243 days
(Ltot=91043 )
Si 35(9) 37(7) 190(17) 30(5) yr
(L=11039 )
19 days
(Ltot=21045 )
L
MEt nucnuc
1034ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Four major burnings ie carbon neon oxygen and silicon
Central burning formation of a convective core
Central exhaustion shell burning convective shell
Local exhaustion shell burning shifts outward in mass convective shell
1134ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
The details of this behavior (number timing overlap of convective shells) is mainly driven by the CO core mass
and by its chemical composition (12C 16O)
CO core mass Thermodynamic history
12C 16O Basic fuel for all the nuclear burning stages after core He burning
At core He exhaustion both the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initial mass
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
1034ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
Four major burnings ie carbon neon oxygen and silicon
Central burning formation of a convective core
Central exhaustion shell burning convective shell
Local exhaustion shell burning shifts outward in mass convective shell
1134ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
The details of this behavior (number timing overlap of convective shells) is mainly driven by the CO core mass
and by its chemical composition (12C 16O)
CO core mass Thermodynamic history
12C 16O Basic fuel for all the nuclear burning stages after core He burning
At core He exhaustion both the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initial mass
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
1134ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
The details of this behavior (number timing overlap of convective shells) is mainly driven by the CO core mass
and by its chemical composition (12C 16O)
CO core mass Thermodynamic history
12C 16O Basic fuel for all the nuclear burning stages after core He burning
At core He exhaustion both the mass and the composition of the CO core scale with the initial mass
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
1234ADVANCED BURNING STAGES
In general one to four carbon convective shells and one to three convective shell episodes for each of
the neon oxygen and silicon burnings occur
The number of C convective shells decreases as the mass of the CO core increases (not the total mass)
hence the evolutionary behavior scales as well
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
1334PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The complex interplay among the shell nuclear burnings and the timing of the convective zones determines in a direct way the final distribution of the chemical composition
14N 13C 17O14N 13C 17O
12C 16O
12C 16O s-proc
20Ne23Na 24Mg25Mg 27Als-proc
16O24Mg 28Si29S 30Si
28Si32S 36Ar40Ca 34S 38Ar
565758Fe 525354Cr
55Mn 59Co 62Ni
NSE
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
1434
In general the higher is the mass of the CO core the more
compact is the structure at the presupernova stage
PRESUPERNOVA STAR
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
and the density structure of the star at the presupernova stage
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
1534
The most recent and detailed simulations of core collapse SN explosions show that
THE SUPERNOVA PROBLEM
the shock still stalls No explosion is obtained
the energy of the explosion is a factor of 3 to 10 lower than usually observed
Work is underway by all the theoretical groups to better understand the problem and we may expect progresses in the
next future
The simulation of the explosion of the envelope is mandatory to have information on
the chemical yields (propagation of the shock wave compression and heating explosive nucleosynthesis)
the initial mass-remnant mass relation
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
1634EXPLOSION AND FALLBACK
Fe core
Shock WaveCompression and Heating
Induced Expansion
and Explosion
Initial Remna
nt
Matter Falling Back
Mass Cut
Initial Remna
nt
Final Remnant
Matter Ejected into the ISMEkin1051 erg
bull Piston (Woosley amp Weaver)
bull Thermal Bomb (Nomoto amp Umeda)
bull Kinetic Bomb (Chieffi amp Limongi)
Different ways of inducing the explosion
FB depends on the binding energy the higher is the initial mass the higher is the binding energy
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
1734
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNL
WNE WCWO
Remnant Mass
Neutron Star
Black Hole
SNII SNIbc
Fallback
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergNL00 WIND
THE FINAL FATE OF A MASSIVE STAR
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
1834
THE YIELDS OF MASSIVE STARS
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
1934CONCLUSIONS I
Stars with Mlt30 M explode as RSG Stars with Mge30 M explode as BSG
The minimum masses for the formation of the various kind of Wolf-Rayet stars are
WNL 25-30 M
WNE 30-35 M
WNC 35-40 M
The final Fe core Masses range between
MFe=120-145 M for M le 40 M
MFe=145-180 M for M gt 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIbc is
30-35 M
SNII SNIbc220
SNII
cSNIbSalpeter IMF
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is
25-30 M
NS BH
Mgt35 M (SNIbc) do not contribute to the intermediate and heavy elements (large fallback)
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
2034
PRESUPERNOVA EVOLUTION
Mass Loss during Blue and Red supergiant phases and Wolf-Rayet stages
Treatment of Convection extension of the convective zones (overshooting semiconvection) interaction mixing-nuclear burning
12C()16O cross section
Rotation
EXPLOSION
Lack of an autoconsistent hydrodynamical model (neutrino transport)
Induced explosion [Explosion energy (where and how) time delay fallback and mass cut (boundary conditions) mixing (inner and outer borders) extra-fallback Ye variation aspherical explosions]
MAIN UNCERTAINTIES
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
2134THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO
IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
Strong reduction of the He core during early core He burning
11 129 17 0510 ( ) M yrM L L Y Z
Nugis amp Lamers (2000) (NL00)
Langer (1989) (LA89)7 2510 ( ) M yrM M M
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
2234
LA89 NL00 LA89 NL00
THE ROLE OF THE MASS LOSS FOR WNEWCO IN THE ADVANCED BURNING PHASES
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
2334
Final kinetic energy = 1 foe (1051 erg)
CONSEQUENCES ON THE FALLBACK
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
2434
No Mas
s Loss
Final Ma
ss
He-Cor
e Mass
He-CC Mass
CO-Core Mass
Fe-Core Mass
WNLWNE
WCWO
Remnant Mass
NS
BH
SNII SNIbc
RSG
Z=Z
E=1051 ergLA89
WIND
NS
THE FINAL FATE OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
2534
THE YIELDS OF ldquoLA89rdquo MASSIVE STARS
NL00LA89
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
2634TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
Convection is in general a hydrodynamical multi-D phenomenon its inclusion in a hydrostatic 1-D stellar
evolution code consititutes a great source of uncertainty
Mixing-Length theory
Extension of the convective zones (stability criterion overshooting semiconvection)
Temperature Gradient
Interaction between nuclear burning and convective mixing
What about Mixing-Length theory for advanced burning stages of massive stars
224i i i i i
nuc conv nuc
dY Y Y Y Yr D
dt t t t m m
Does it make sense
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
2734TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
PRODUCTION OF 60Fe IN MASSIVE STARS
X
M
Tgt4 108
produced
22Ne 60Fe
He60Fe synthesize within the
He convective shell
Preserves 60Fe from destruction
Brings new fuel ( 22Ne)
Convection
XM gt 35 MO
M
He convective shell forms in a zone with variable composition
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
2834TREATMENT OF CONVECTION
THE MASS OF THE Fe CORE
Core Collapse and Bounce
Energy Losses1 x 1051 erg01M
Fe core Shock Wave
Final Fe Core Mass
Si exhausted Core
28SiM
ass
Fra
ctio
n
M
Si conv shell
Si exhausted Core
28Si
Mas
s F
ract
ion
MFinal Fe Core Mass
Si conv shell
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
2934UNCERTAINTY ABOUT 12C()16O
(Imbriani et al ApJ 2001)
C02 X(12C)=02
C04 X(12C)=04
C02
C04
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
3034THE ROLE OF ROTATION
Increasing rotation
GRATTON-
OumlPIK CELL
OBLATENESS Von Zeipel Theorem
rad effF g
Cells of Meridional Circulation
Advection of Angular Momentum
Shear Instabilities
- Mixing of chemical species
- Transport (diffusion) of angular momentum
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
3134THE ROLE OF ROTATION
How include this multi-D phenomenon in a 1-D code
Cylidrical Symmetry A( ) A( )r r
2A( ) A( ) A( ) (cos )r r r P
A( ) A( )r r0
0
Asin
A( ) A( )
sin
d
r r
d
A( )r A( )r
IsobarsEquipotentials 1D problem
Average values over characteristic surfaces
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
3234
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SIMULATION OF THE EXPLOSION (REMNANT MASS ndash NUCLEOSYNYHESIS)
Prompt vs Delayed Explosion (this may alter both the M-R relation and Ye of the presupernova model)
How to kick the blast wave
Thermal Bomb ndash Kinetic Bomb ndash Piston
How much energy to inject and where
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity [SN(~1051 erg)HN(~1052 erg)]
Efficiency of -process and changing of Ye
Extension and timing (beforeafter fallback) of mixing
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
3334INDUCED EXPLOSION
Hypernova model without mixing-fallback
(25M E51=10)
Hypernova model with mixing-fallback(25M E51=10)
Normal SN model (25M E51=1)
Hypernova model (25M E51=10 mixing-fallback Ye)
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
3434
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Convection hydrodynamical simulations in 3D derive simple prescriptions to be used in 1D hydrostatic
models (Arnett)
Rotation implementation of 3D stellar models
12C()16O ask to nuclear physicists
Explosive Nucleosynthesis and Stellar Remnants solve the ldquoSupernova Problemrdquo improve the treatment of neutrino transport
