Explosive Yields of Massive Stars from Z = 0 to Z = Z☉

By A. Chieffi, M. Limongi. 2004

290 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present a new and homogeneous set of explosive yields for masses 13, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 M☉ and metallicities Z = 0, 10-6, 10-4, 10-3, 6 × 10-3, and 2 × 10-2. A wide network extending up to Mo has been used in all computations. We show that at low metallicities (Z ≤ 10-4), the final yields do not depend significantly on the initial chemical composition of the models, so a scaled solar distribution may be safely assumed at all metallicities. Moreover, no elements above Zn are produced by any mass in the grid up to a metallicity ~10-3. These yields are available for any choice of the mass cut on request.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a79ffbb0c777c984d492766205930bf95f898b1e

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

Citations in the corpus

Chemical enrichment in cosmological, smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations (2009, background): “While both Chieffi & Limongi (2004) and Woosley & Weaver (1995) evolve their models until the point of supernova and then begin supernova calculations, they do not include mass loss in their yield tables (since the goal of their studies was to investigate explosive nucleosynthesis).”
Composition of the Innermost Core-Collapse Supernova Ejecta (2004, background): “Supernova nucleosynthesis predictions have a long tradition (Woosley & Weaver 1986; Thielemann et al. 1990; Woosley & Weaver 1995; Thielemann et al. 1996; Nomoto et al. 1997; Nakamura et al. 2001; Rauscher et al. 2002; Chieffi & Limongi 2002; Chieffi & Limongi 2004; Umeda & Nomoto 2005).”
The most metal-poor damped Lyα systems: insights into chemical evolution in the very metal-poor regime★ (2011, methodology): “We also note the broad agreement between the metal-free models by Heger & Woosley (2010) and Chieffi & Limongi (2004).”
Supernova remnants: the X-ray perspective (2011, background): “Overall the yields of core collapse supernovae are dominated by carbon, oxygen, neon and magnesium, which are products of the various stellar burning phases (e.g. Woosley and Weaver, 1995; Thielemann et al., 1996; Chieffi and Limongi, 2004).”
Feedback and recycled wind accretion: assembling the z= 0 galaxy mass function (2009, methodology): “Type II SN metal enrichment uses the metallicity-dependent yields calculated from the Chieffi & Limongi (2004) SNe models.”
Very low-metallicity massive stars: - Pre-SN evolution models and primary nitrogen production (2006, methodology): “Metal-free stellar models are presented in Chieffi & Limongi (2004), Heger & Woosley (2002) and Umeda & Nomoto (2005).”
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 Nucleosynthesis of 26Al and 60Fe in Solar Metallicity Stars Extending in Mass from 11 to 120 M☉: The Hydrostatic and Explosive Contributions (2006, background): “However, more recent models (Rauscher et al. 2002; Limongi & Chieffi 2003; Chieffi & Limongi 2004) do predict much larger 60Fe/26Al flux ratios (0.5–1.0), leaving therefore plenty of room for an important contribution of theW-R stars to the synthesis of the 26Al (Prantzos 2004).”
Nucleosynthesis in the Early Galaxy (2007, background): “The neutron flux duration necessary to obtain a reasonable fit under the lowest neutron density (τ ≈ 1170 years for nn = 10 8 cm−3) far exceeds what is expected by present nucleosynthesis calculations in massive stars (Woosley et al. 2002; Rauscher et al. 2002; Chieffi & Limongi 2004).”
STELLAR ABUNDANCES IN THE SOLAR NEIGHBORHOOD: THE HYPATIA CATALOG (2014, background): “The only stable isotope of sodium, 23Na, is produced mainly in carbon-burning in massive stars, whose final abundance is sensitive to the overall neutron enrichment (Woosley & Weaver 1995; Chieffi & Limongi 2004).”
The evolution of runaway stellar collision products (2009, background): “Supernova yields of normal massive single stars are of course available from the literature (e.g. Woosley & Weaver 1995; Chieffi & Limongi 2004; Hirschi et al. 2005).”
NUCLEOSYNTHESIS AND EVOLUTION OF MASSIVE METAL-FREE STARS (2008, background): “Other recent surveys of zero-metallicity massive stars are Woosley & Weaver (1995), Marigo et al. (2001), Heger & Woosley (2002), Chieffi & Limongi (2004), Umeda & Nomoto (2005), Hirschi et al. (2006), and Tominaga et al. (2007).”
Chemical enrichment of galaxy clusters from hydrodynamical simulations (2007, methodology): “As for SNII, we adopt the metallicity-dependent yields by Woosley & Weaver (1995) (hereafter WW) in the reference run, while we will also show the effect of using instead the yields by Chieffi & Limongi (2004) (hereafter CL; see Table 2).”
The evolution of the Galactic metallicity gradient from high-resolution spectroscopy of open clusters (2008, methodology): “The best agreement of the model prediction with the observed time and radial behaviours of the Ti abundance is obtained adopting stellar yields from massive stars higher by a factor of ∼2 than those computed by Chieffi & Limongi (2004).”
FIRE-2 simulations: physics versus numerics in galaxy formation (2017, background): “…for solar-metallicity progenitors instead) if the standard deviation of the metallicity dependence |dMZ(species)/dZprogenitor| between the models of Chieffi & Limongi (2004), Woosley & Weaver (1995), and Nomoto et al. (2006) is larger than the magnitude of the actual predicted trend…”