Evolution, Explosion, and Nucleosynthesis of Core-Collapse Supernovae

By M. Limongi, A. Chieffi. 2003

201 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present a new set of presupernova evolutions and explosive yields of massive stars of initial solar composition (Y = 0.285, Z = 0.02) in the mass range 13-35 M☉. All the models have been computed with the latest version (4.97) of the FRANEC code that now includes a nuclear network extending from neutrons to 98Mo. The explosive nucleosynthesis has been computed twice: a first one with a hydro code and a second one following the simpler radiation-dominated shock approximation (RDA). The main results concerning the models and the associated explosions are as follows: (1) the inclusion of the latest available input physics does not alter significantly the main properties of the presupernova models with respect to our previous ones; (2) the differences between the old and new explosive yields computed with the RDA remain confined within a factor of 2 for most of the nuclei; (3) the differences between the elemental RDA yields and those computed with a hydro code do not exceed 0.1 dex, with the exceptions of the elements produced mainly by the complete explosive Si burning: in this case the variations are anyway less than a factor of 3; (4) the relation between the final kinetic energy and the 56Ni ejected weakens as the mass of the progenitor star increases; (5) the yields corresponding to the ejection of a given amount of 56Ni are in fair agreement with those obtained by a more energetic explosion in which the mass cut is chosen in order to give the same 56Ni. The production factors (integrated over a Salpeter mass function between 13 and 35 M☉) of the majority of the isotopes show an almost scaled solar distribution relative to oxygen. The few exceptions are discussed in detail. We also find that the present integrated yields allow a fraction of the order of 10%-20% of Type Ia supernovae if their latest available yields are adopted.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7fd609b3786a255b2880ea8f4fb3b1867d0dd60a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

The Nucleosynthesis of 26Al and 60Fe in Solar Metallicity Stars Extending in Mass from 11 to 120 M☉: The Hydrostatic and Explosive Contributions (2006, methodology): “Let us finally remark that our 60Fe yields already published in 2003 and 2004 (Limongi & Chieffi 2003; Chieffi & Limongi 2004) are in very close agreement with the present ones.”
Quantifying the uncertainties of chemical evolution studies II. Stellar yields (2010, background): “Among these we recall Woosley & Weaver (1995); Limongi & Chieffi (2003); Chieffi & Limongi (2004).”
THE CHEMICAL EVOLUTION OF THE DRACO DWARF SPHEROIDAL GALAXY (2009, methodology): “Sc production in SNII is highly dependent on the details of the explosion, including both the metallicity and mass of the progenitor (Woosley & Weaver 1995; Limongi & Chieffi 2003).”
PRE-SUPERNOVA EVOLUTION OF ROTATING SOLAR METALLICITY STARS IN THE MASS RANGE 13–120 M☉ AND THEIR EXPLOSIVE YIELDS (2012, methodology): “Here we describe only the main features of this new release with respect to the previous one, which is described in detail in Limongi & Chieffi (2003).”
The evolution of the Milky Way from its earliest phases: Constraints on stellar nucleosynthesis (2004, background): “…(1999) for the yields from type Ia SNe (model W7) and the yields of Woosley and Weaver (1995) (hereafter WW95, their case A for stars below 30M⊙ and their case B for stars between 30 and 40 M⊙), Nomoto et al. (1997) (hereafter N97) and Limongi and Chieffi (2003) (hereafter LC03) for massive stars.”
Galactic Chemical Evolution: Carbon through Zinc (2006, methodology): “Umeda & Nomoto (2002, 2005, hereafter UN05) updated the progenitor star models with a metallicity range of Z = 0 − 0.02 (see also Limongi & Chieffi 2003), and calculated the explosive nucleosynthesis yields for larger energies (E51 > 1).”
STELLAR ABUNDANCES IN THE SOLAR NEIGHBORHOOD: THE HYPATIA CATALOG (2014, background): “Sulfur is produced within massive stars, via hydrostatic and explosive oxygen and burning (Clayton 1968; Heger et al. 2000; Rauscher et al. 2002; Limongi & Chieffi 2003).”
A COOL DUST FACTORY IN THE CRAB NEBULA: A HERSCHEL STUDY OF THE FILAMENTS (2012, methodology): “The total amount of heavy elements (and therefore the mass available to form dust) in the SN ejecta from a 9–12M⊙ progenitor star varies from 0.2 to 0.5M⊙ depending on the model used and the mass of the progenitor (Maeder 1992; Woosley & Weaver 1995; Limongi & Chieffi 2003; Nomoto et al. 2006).”
SPI observations of the diffuse ^60Fe emission in the Galaxy (2007, result): “As a result, predicted flux ratios 60Fe/26Al rather fell into the range 0.8 ± 0.4 (see Prantzos 2004, based on, e.g. Rauscher et al. 2002; Limongi & Chieffi 2003) – such high values would be inconsistent with several observational limits and our SPI result (but see Woosley & Heger 2007 for comments…”
Evolution of Stars and Stellar Populations (2005, background): “Present evaluations of supernovae yields (see for instance [129]) are based on a free-parametrization of this quantity.”
Stellar evolution with rotation XII. Pre-supernova models (2004, methodology): “We note that the equations are still hydrostatic (no acceleration term) as in the pre–supernova models of Limongi & Chieffi (2003).”
Optical and near infrared coverage of SN 2004et: physical parameters and comparison with other type IIP supernovae (2009, background): “Stellar evolutionary models predict that most single stars with masses in the range∼ 8–30 M⊙ should end their lives as red supergiants and produce type II SNe (Eldridge & Tout 2004; Heger et al. 2003; Hirschi et al. 2004; Limongi & Chieffi 2003).”
The nebular spectra of SN 2012aw and constraints on stellar nucleosynthesis from oxygen emission lines (2013, background): “Reviewing a variety of models for nucleosynthesis yields (Thielemann, Nomoto & Hashimoto 1996; Nomoto et al. 1997; Limongi & Chieffi 2003; Hirschi, Meynet & Maeder 2005; Woosley & Heger 2007), the factor two variety in oxy- gen yield for a given ZAMS mass is confirmed.”
Chemical evolution with rotating massive star yields - I. The solar neighbourhood and the s-process elements (2018, background): “At solar metallicity, on the contrary, it is mainly produced by the explosion in the two lowest masses (13 and 15 M ) and by core He burning in the more massive ones (Limongi & Chieffi 2003; Chieffi & Limongi 2004).”
Nucleosynthesis and remnants in massive stars of solar metallicity (2007, result): “Later calculations (Rauscher et al., 2002; Limongi and Chieffi, 2003), however, using stellar and nuclear physics23 that was nominally “improved” gave a much larger synthesis of 60Fe that was not in line with observations (Prantzos, 2004).25 Please cite this article as: S.E. Woosley, A. Heger,…”
Explosive Yields of Massive Stars from Z = 0 to Z = Z☉ (2004, background): “Some years ago we began a long-term project devoted to the study of the evolution of massive stars and their associated explosive yields (Chieffi et al. 1998; Limongi et al. 2000; Limongi & Chieffi 2002, 2003, hereafter LC03; Chieffi & Limongi 2002).”