Transcript Slide 1

MASSIVE STARS: PRESUPERNOVA
EVOLUTION, EXPLOSION AND
NUCLEOSYNTHESIS
Marco Limongi
INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, ITALY
and
Centre for Stellar and Planetary Astrophysics
Monash University – AUSTRALIA
Email: [email protected]
What is a Massive star ?
It is a star that goes through all the hydrostatic
burnings in a quiescent way
from H to Si and eventually explodes as a core
collapse supernova
Mup’
8 - 10
< Massive stars
<
MPISN
>120
Why 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 z>5
Massive Remnants (Black Holes)  AGN progenitors
Pregalactic Chemical Enrichment
High Energy Astrophysics:
Production of long-lived radioactive isotopes:
(26Al, 56Co, 57Co, 44Ti, 60Fe)
GRB progenitors
The understanding of these stars, is crucial for the
interpretation of many astrophysical objects
Log Mass Fraction
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
BB
Novae
SNIa
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
CR
IMS
s-r
140
neut.
SNII
160
180
200
Atomic Weight
BB = Big Bang; CR = Cosmic Rays; neut. = n induced reactions in SNII;
IMS = Intermediate Mass Stars; SNII = Core collapse supernovae;
SNIa = Termonuclear supernovae; s-r = slow-rapid neutron captures
Le SNII contribuiscono in maniera rilevante all’evoluzione
chimica della Galassia.
Responsabili per la nucleosintesi degli elementi con
16<A<50 and 60<A<90
Computation of the Presupernova Evolution of
Massive Stars
60Zn 61Zn 62Zn 63Zn 64Zn 65Zn 66Zn 67Zn 68Zn
57Cu 58Cu 59Cu 60Cu 61Cu 62Cu 63Cu 64Cu 65Cu 66Cu 67Cu
56Ni
1. Extended Network
57Ni
58Ni
59Ni
60Ni
61Ni
62Ni
63Ni
64Ni
65Ni
54Co 55Co 56Co 57Co 58Co 59Co 60Co 61Co 62Co
52Fe
Including a large number of
isotopes and reactions
(captures of light partcles,
e± captures, β± decays)
37K
53Fe
54Fe
55Fe
56Fe
57Fe
58Fe
59Fe
60Fe
61Fe
51Mn 52Mn 53Mn 54Mn 55Mn 56Mn 57Mn
48Cr 49Cr 50Cr 51Cr 52Cr 53Cr 54Cr 55Cr
41Sc
42Sc
45V
46V
47V
48V
49V
50V
51V
52V
44Ti
45Ti
46Ti
47Ti
48Ti
49Ti
50Ti
51Ti
43Sc
44Sc
45Sc
46Sc
47Sc
48Sc
49Sc
50Sc
40Ca 41Ca 42Ca 43Ca 44Ca 45Ca 46Ca 47Ca 48Ca 49Ca
38K
39K
40K
41K
42K
35Ar 36Ar 37Ar 38Ar 39Ar 40Ar 41Ar
1H
3He
4He
2H
3H
25Al
33Cl
34Cl
35Cl
36Cl
37Cl
38Cl
31S
32S
33S
34S
35S
36S
37S
29P
30P
31P
32P
33P
34P
27Si
28Si
29Si
30Si
31Si
32Si
33Si
26Al
27Al
28Al
(a,n)
(a,g)
23Mg 24Mg 25Mg 26Mg 27Mg
n
21Na 22Na 23Na 24Na
(p,n)
b-,e+
20Ne 21Ne 22Ne 23Ne
7Be
8Be
6Li
7Li
17F
18F
19F
20F
15O
16O
17O
18O
19O
13N
14N
15N
16N
12C
13C
14C
10B
11B
9Be
10Be
(p,g)
(n,g)
(g,n)
(g,p)
(p,a)
(g,a)
(n,a)
(a,p)
b+,e(n,p)
Computation of the Presupernova Evolution of
Massive Stars
2. Strong coupling between physical and chemical evolution:
P
Gm
m
4r 4
r
1

m 4r 2  ( P, T , Yi )
Yi
  ci ( j ) jY j +  ci ( j, k ) N A  v  j ,k Y jYk
t
j
j ,k
L
 e nuc ( P, T , Yi ) + e ( P, T , Yi ) + e grav ( P, T , Yi )
m
T
GmT
( P, T , Yi )
2
m
4r P
H/He burnings:
Adv. burnings:
+
+  ci ( j, k , l )  2 N A  v  j ,k ,l Y jYk Yl
2
j , k ,l
i  1,........, N
   ( P, T ) ; e nuc  e nuc ( P, T ) ; e  e ( P, T ) ;
e grav  e grav ( P, T ) ;   ( P, T )
e nuc  e nuc ( P, T , Yi )
Decoupled
Coupled
Computation of the Presupernova Evolution of
Massive Stars
3. Tratment of convection:
- Time dependent convection
 mix  t
- Interaction between Mixing and Local Burning
P
m
r
m
L
m
T
m
Yi
t
 mix   nuc
Gm
4r 4
1

4r 2 
-
 e n u c + e + e g ra v
Gm T

2
4r P
 Yi 
 Yi 

 +

 t n u c  t  co n v
 
Yi 
 Yi 
2



 4r D

m 
 t conv m 
D = Diffusion Coefficient
Convective
Core
Core H burning
g
g
M2
Pc  4
R
g
CNO
Cycle
g
g
g
M
P  T  3 T
R
M
Tc 
R
g
g
Massive Stars powered by the CNO Cycle
3
 dT 

F
 
3
4acT
 dr  rad
Th  0.2  (1 + X H )
The Convective Core shrinks in mass
CNO Cycle
X i0
Xi
 A  A
i
i
i
i
12C
+ 1H  13N + g
13N
 13C + e+ + 
13C
+ 1H  14N + g
14N
+ 1H  15O + g
15O
15N
CN-Cycle
 15N + e+ + 
+ 1H  12C + 4He (99%)
16O
+ g (1%)
(T  3×107 K)
16O
+ 1H  17F + g
17F
17O
 17O + e+ + 
NO-Cycle
+ 1H  14N + 4He
CNO Processed Material
C N O
Ne-Na and Mg-Al Cycles
During Core H Burning the central temperature is high enough
(3-7×107 K) that the Ne-Na and Mg-Al cycles become efficient
Ne-Na Cycle
20Ne
+ 1H  21Na + g
21Na
21Ne
Mg-Al Cycle
24Mg
 21Ne + e+ + 
25Al
+ 1H  22Na + g
22Na
+ 1H  25Al + g
25Mg
 22Ne + e+ + 
+ 1H  26Al + g
26Al
22Ne
+ 1H  23Na + g
26Mg
23Na
+ 1H  20Ne + 4He
27Al
25Mg
 25Mg + e+ + 
 26Mg + e+ + 
+ 1H  27Al + g
+ 1H  24Mg + 4He

21Na
e

22Ne
slightly burnt

23Na
e

26Al
26Mg
destroyed
increases
(~10-7) produced
Evolutionary Properties of the Interior
t=6.8 106 yr
Evolutionary Properties of the Surface
Core H
Burning
Models
Mmin(O) = 14 M
t(O)/t(H burning): 0.15 (14 M ) – 0.79 (120 M)
Major Uncertainties in the computation of core H
burning models:
Extension of the Convective Core
(Overshooting, Semiconvection)
Mass Loss
Both influences the size of the He core that
drives the following evolution
Core He burning
3a+
12C(a,g)16O
4He
g
g
g
He
Convective
Core
g
g
+ 4He  8Be + g
8Be
8Be
 4He + 4He
+ 4He  12C + g
3 4He  12C + g
g
g
g
Tc  1.5 108 K
rad
He  C,O
Bordo
iniziale
CC
Mix He
Core Convettivo
H burning shell
H exhausted core
(He Core)
The He convective core
increases in mass
ad
Nucleosynthesis during Core He burning
3 4He  12C + g
12C
+ 4He  12O + g
16O
+ 4He  20Ne + g
20Ne
+ 4He  24Mg + g
Chemical composition at core He exhaustion: mainly C/O
The C/O ratio is one the quantity that mainl affects the
advanced evolution of Massive Stars (it determines the
composition of the CO core)
C/O ratio depends on:
1. Treatment of convection (late
stages of core He burning)
2.
12C(a,g)16O
cross section
Nucleosynthesis during Core He burning
14N,
produced by H burning activates the sequence of reactions:
14N
+ 4He  18F + g
18F
18O
+ 4He  22Ne + g
22Ne
For the CNO cycle:
 18O + e+ + 
+ 4He  25Mg + n
Xi
X i0
 A  A
i
i
i
i
X i0
 A  9.3610-4
i
i
For e Solar composition
i (12C,13C,14N ,15N ,16O,17O)
X14  9.3610-4 14  1.3 10-2
XCNO(iniziale)  X14N
For a Solat composition at core H exhaustion: X(14N) ~ ½ Z
X 14 
In general:
The efficiency of the
14N
1
Z
2
reactions scales with the metallicity
Nucleosynthesis during Core He burning
14N

22Ne
during the initial stages of core He burning
X 22 
X 14
 22  2  10-2  Z
14
He burning
14N (~1/2 Z)
22Ne (~Z)
H burning
CNO (~1/2 Z)
During core He burning,
by the nuclear reaction:
22Ne
Xn 
22Ne
is reduced by a factor of ~2
+ 4He  25Mg + n
1 X 22
1
 4.6  10-4 
Z
2 22
40
s-process nucleosynthesis
Neutron Mass Fraction
s-process during Core He burning
p
78Rb
86Kr
77Kr
s
85Br
76Br
79Rb
80Rb
81Rb
82Rb
83Rb
84Rb
85Rb
80Kr
81Kr
82Kr
83Kr
84Kr
80Br
81Br
82Br
83Br
78Se
79Se
80Se
81Se
82Se
77As
78As
79As
80As
81As
75Ge
76Ge
77Ge
78Ge
79Ge
80Ge
74Ga
75Ga
76Ga
77Ga
78Ga
79Ga
87Kr
88Kr
78Kr
79Kr
86Br
b-
87Br
77Br
78Br
79Br
b84Se
75Se
r
83As
74As
85Se
86Se
76Se
77Se
84As
b-
85As
75As
76As
b73Ge
74Ge
72Ga
73Ga
n,g
s,r
Both the neutron mass fraction and the seed nuclei abundances
scale with the metallicity
The abundance of the s-process nuclei scales with the
metallicity
Evolutionary Properties of the Interior
WIND
t=5.3 105 yr
Evolutionary Properties of the Surface
Core
Core
He
He
Burnin
Burnin
gg
Models
Models
M ≤ 30 M  RSG
M ≥ 35 M  BSG
Major Uncertainties in the computation of core
He burning models:

Extension of the Convective Core
(Overshooting, Semiconvection)
Central
12C
Convection +
mass fraction (Treatment of
12C(a,g)16O
cross section)
Mass Loss (determine which stars explode
as RSG and which as BSG)
22Ne(a,n)25Mg
(main neutron source for sprocess nucleosynthesis)
All these uncertainties affect the size of the
CO core that drives the following evolution
Advanced burning stages
Neutrino losses play a dominant role in the evolution of a massive star
beyond core He burning
At high temperature (T>109 K~0.08 MeV)
neutrino emission from pair production
start to become very efficient
g
H burning shell
H exhausted core
(He Core)
He burning shell
g  e+ + e-   e +  e
g


He exhausted
core (CO Core)
g


g
g
g

g



g
g
Core Burning
Advanced burning stages
Enuc
L
M
t nuc
t nuc  Enuc
M
L
Evolutionary times of the advanced burning
stages reduce dramatically
Evolutionary Properties of the Surface
M < 30 M  Explode as RSG
M ≥ 30 M  Explode as BSG
After core He burning
Lg  cost
At PreSN stage
L  10 10  Lg
8
10
Absolute Magnitude increases by ~25
Advanced Nuclear Burning Stages: Core C burning
H
He
CO
H burning
shell
He burning
shell
T~109 K
Advanced Nuclear Burning Stages: C burning
At high tempreatures a larger number of nuclear reactions are activated
Heavy nuclei start to be produced
C-burning
T ~ 109 K
Main Products of C burning
20Ne, 23Na, 24Mg, 27Al
Scondary Products of C burning
22
Ne(a , n) 25Mg
s-process nuclesynthesis
Advanced Nuclear Burning Stages: Core Ne burning
H
He
H burning
shell
He burning
shell
CO
NeO
C burning
shell
T~1.3×109 K
Advanced Nuclear Burning Stages: Ne burning
Ne-burning
T ~ 1.3 109 K
Main Products of Ne burning
16O, 24Mg, 28Si
Scondary Products of Ne burning
29Si, 30Si, 32S
Advanced Nuclear Burning Stages: Core O burning
H
He
CO
NeO
O
H burning
shell
He burning
shell
C burning
shell
Ne burning
shell
T~2×109 K
Advanced Nuclear Burning Stages: O burning
O-burning
T ~ 2 109 K
Main Products of
O burning
28Si
(~0.55)
32S
(~0.24)
Secondary Products of
O burning
34S
(~0.07)
36Ar
(~0.02)
38Ar
(~0.10)
40Ca
(~0.01)
Advanced Nuclear Burning Stages: O burning
Proton Number (Z)
During core O burning weak interactions become efficient
40Ca
41Ca
42Ca
43Ca
37K
38K
39K
40K
41K
42K
35Ar
36Ar
37Ar
38Ar
39Ar
40Ar
41Ar
33Cl
34Cl
35Cl
36Cl
37Cl
38Cl
31S
32S
33S
34S
35S
36S
37S
29P
30P
31P
32P
33P
34P
27Si
28Si
29Si
30Si
31Si
32Si
33Si
26Al
27Al
28Al
44Ca
Neutron Number (N)
Most efficient processes:
31S(b+)31P
33S(e-,)33P
30P(e-,)30Si
The electron fraction per nucleon
37Ar(e-,)37Cl
Zi
Ye   X i  0.5
i Ai
Advanced Nuclear Burning Stages: Core Si burning
H
He
CO
NeO
O
SiS
H burning
shell
He burning
shell
C burning
shell
Ne burning
shell
O burning
shell
T~2.5×109 K
Advanced Nuclear Burning Stages: Si burning
At Oxygen
exhaustion
Balance between forward
and reverse (strong
interaction) reactions for
increasing number of
processes
T ~ 2.5 109 K
j+l
i+k
rik  rjl
A measure of the degree of equilibrium reached
by a couple of forward and reverse processes
 (ij ) 
rik - rjl
(ij) 1
max( rik , rjl )
 (ij)  0
Non equilibrium
Full equilibrium
Advanced Nuclear Burning Stages: Si burning
At Oxygen exhaustion
T ~ 2.5 109 K
 (ij )  0.1
Sc
At Si ignition
At Si ignition
(panel a + panel b)
T ~ 3.5 109 K
T ~ 3.5 109 K
 (ij )  0.01
Si
A=44
Equilibrium
Equilibrium
56Fe
28Si
0.01   (ij )  0.1
 (ij )  0.1
Partial Eq.
 (ij )  0.1
Out of Equilibrium
A=45
Out of Eq.
 (ij)  0.1
Eq. Clusters
Advanced Nuclear Burning Stages: Si burning
T ~ 3.5 109 K
A=45
 (ij)  0.1
1.
56Fe
A=44
24Mg
3. The matter flows
from the lower to the
upper cluster through
a sequence of non
equilibirum reactions
20Ne
16O
Equilibrium
Clusters
Clusters di equilibrio
4He
is burnt through a
sequence of (g,a) reactions
2. The two QSE clusters
reajdust on the new
equilibrium abundances of
the light particles
28Si
12C
28Si
43
Ca (n, g ) 44 Ca
42
Ca (a , p ) 45 Sc
44
Sc (n, p ) 44 Ca
42
Ca (a , g ) 46 T i
42
Ca (a , n) 45 T i
44
T i(n, g ) 45 T i
44
Sc ( p, g ) 45 T i
41
43
Ca (a , n) 46 T i
44
41
K (a , p ) 44 Ca
4. Ye is continuosuly
decreased by the
weak interactions
(out of equilibrium)
Ca (a , g ) 45 T i
Sc (n, g ) 45 Sc
56,57,58Fe, 52,53,54Cr, 55Mn,
59Co, 62Ni
NSE
Pre-SuperNova Stage
H
He
CO
NeO
O
SiS
Fe
H burning
shell
He burning
shell
C burning
shell
Ne burning
shell
O burning
shell
T~4.0×109 K
Si burning
shell
Evolutionary Properties of the Interior
H burning
shell
He burning
shell
Ne burning
shell
O burning
shell
C burning
shell
Si burning
shell
Chemical Stratification at PreSN Stage
16O,24Mg,
14N, 13C, 17O
28Si,29Si,
30Si
12C, 16O
28Si,32S,
36Ar,40Ca,
34S, 38Ar
12C, 16O
s-proc
20Ne,23Na,
56,57,58Fe
,
52,53,54Cr
,
24Mg,25Mg,
27Al,
s-proc
55Mn,
59Co,
62Ni
NSE
Each zone keeps track of the various central or shell burnings
Main Properties of the PreSN Evolution
Fase
Time
(yr)
H
5.93(6)
Lnuc
L
Mcc
Tc
c
Mshell
Fuel
Main
Prod.
Sec.
Prod.
12.8
3.7(7)
7.2
8.7
1H
4He
13C,
14N,
17O
He
6.8(5)
6.02
1.5(8)
4.7(2)
6
4He
12C,
18O,
16O
22Ne,
s-proc.
C
9.7(2)
1.0(6)5.0(7)
4.0(7)1.0(9)
7.2(8)
1.2(5)
2.39
12C
20Ne,
25Mg,
23Na,
s-proc.
24Mg,
27Al
Ne
O
7.7(-1)
(280 d)
7.0(9)
3.3(-1)
(120 d)
5.0(10)
5.9(11)
2.2(9)
4.0(10)
0.62
1.05
1.2(9)
1.8(9)
2.1(6)
4.0(6)
2.39
1.7
20Ne
16O
16Ne,
29Si,
24Mg
30Si
28Si,
Cl, Ar,
K, Ca
32S,
36Ar,
40Ca,
Si
2.1(-2)
(7 d)
1.1(13)
1.0(12)
1.08
3.1(9)
7.5(7)
1.5
28Si
54Fe,
56Fe,
55Fe
Ti, V,
Cr, Mn,
Co, Ni
Evolution of More Massive Stars: Mass Loss
O-Type: 60000 > T(K) > 33000
Wolf-Rayet : Log10(Teff) > 4.0
• WNL: 10-5< Hsup <0.4 (H burning, CNO, products)
• WNE: Hsup<10-5 (No H)
• WN/WC: 0.1 < X(C)/X(N) < 10 (both H and He
burning products, N and C)
• WC: X(C)/X(N) > 10 (He burning products)
Final Masses at the PreSN stage
WIND
RSG
WNL
WNE
WC/WO
HEAVY ELEMENTS
Major Uncertainties in the computation of the advanced
burning stages:
Treatment of Convection (interaction between mixing and
local burning, stability criterion  behavior of convective
shells  final M-R relation  explosive nucleosynthesis)
Computation of Nuclear Energy Generation (minimum
size of nuclear network and coupling to physical equations,
NSE/QSE approximations)
Weak Interactions (determine Ye  hydrostatic and
explosive nucleosynthesis  behavior of core collapse)
Nuclear Cross Sections (nucleosynthesis of all the heavy
elements)
Partition Functions (NSE distribution)
Neutrino Losses
THE EVOLUTION UP TO THE IRON CORE COLLAPSE
The Iron Core is mainly composed by Iron Peak Isotopes at NSE
The following evolution leads to the collapse of the Iron Core:
The Fe core contracts to
gain the energy
necessary against gravity
T, increase
enuc lowers becaus the
matter is at NSE
The Fe core begins to
degenerate
The Chandrasekhar
Mass
MCh=5.85×(Ye)2 M is
reached
Tc ~ 1010 K, c ~ 1010 K
Pe ~ 1028 dyne/cm2
Pi ~ 2×1026 dyne/cm2
Prad ~ 3×1025 dyne/cm2
A strong gravitational
contraction begins
The Fermi energy increasesthe
electron captures on both the
free and bound protons incease
as well
The main source of pressure
against gravity (electron Pressure)
lowers
The gravitational
collapse begins
Fe Core
  3 1012 g/cm 3
  3 1011 g/cm 3
e- + p  e + n






  10 g/cm
14
Fe Core
 diffusion

-sphere

Neutrino Trapping
3

Shock
wave



Core Bounce and
Rebounce
Eenergy Losses
2x


1051
erg/0.1M
Stalled Shock


“Prompt”shocks eventually stall!
Strong Shock vs Weak Shock
A strong shock propagates.
Matter is ejected.
A weak shock stalls.
Matter falls back.
Neutrino-driven explosions
Stalled Shock
RS=200-300 Km
Energy deposition behind
the stalled shock wave
due to neutrino
interactions:
 heating
 cooling

 diffusion

p,n
 e , e
 e + e-   e + e e +  e  e- + eShock Wave reheated
e+,en,p
Explosion

Gain Radius
RG=100-150 Km
Neutrinosphere
R=50-700 Km
Explosive Nucleosynthesis
Propatagiont of the
shock wave through
the envelope
Compression
and
Heating
Explosive
Nucleosynthesis
Explosion Mechanism Still Uncertain
The explosive nucleosynthesis calculations for core collapse
supernovae are still based on explosions induced by injecting an
arbitrary amount of energy in a (also arbitrary) mass location of the
presupernova model and then following the development of the
blast wave by means of an hydro code.
• Piston
• Thermal Bomb
• Kinetic Bomb
Induced Explosion and Fallback
Induced
Shock
Compressio
n and
Heating
Induced
Expansio
n and
Explosio
n
Initial
Remnant
Injected
Energy
Matter Ejected
into the ISM
Ekin1051 erg
Matter
Falling
Back
Mass Cut
Initial
Remnant
Final
Remnant
Composition of the ejecta
The Iron Peak elements are those mostly affected by the properties
of the explosion, in particular the amount of Fallback.
The Final Fate of a Massive Star
Z=Z
E=1051 erg
SNII
SNIb/c
WNL
WNE
WC/WO
Fallback
Mass (M)
RSG
Black Hole
Neutron Star
Initial Mass (M)
Major Uncertainties in the simulation of the
explosion (remnant mass – 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 – Kinetic Bomb – Piston
Mass Location where the energy is injected
How much energy to inject:
Thermal Bomb (Internal Energy)
Kinetic Bomb (Initial Velocity)
Piston (Initial velocity and trajectory)
How much kinetic energy at infinity (typically ~1051 erg)
Nuclear Cross Sections and Partition Functions
Chemical Enrichment due to Massive Stars
Mto t
PFi 
 X i dm
Mcu t
Mto t
S un
X
 i dm
Mcu t
Different chemical composition of the
ejecta for different masses
Chemical Enrichment due to Massive Stars
Yields of Massive Stars used for the interepretation of the chemical
composition of the Galaxy
We can have information on the contribution of massive stars to
the solar composition by looking at the PFs of solar metallicity
massive star models.
ASSUMPTIONS
The average metallicity Z grows slowly and continuously
with respect to the evolutionary timescales of the stars that
contribute to the environment enrichment
Most of the solar system distribution is the result (as a first
approximation) of the ejecta of ‘‘quasi ’’–solar-metallicity stars.
The PF of the chemical composition provided by a
generation of solar metallicity stars should be flat
Chemical Enrichment due to Massive Stars
Yields averaged over a
Salpeter IMF
Mup
Yi tot 
 Yi (m)dm
 (m)  km-a
a  2.35
Mlow
Oxygen is produced predominantly by the core-collapse
supernovae and is also the most abundant element produced
by these stars
Use PF(O) to represents the overall increase of the average ‘‘metallicity ’’
and to verify if the other nuclei follow or not its behavior
Chemical Enrichment due to Massive Stars
Elements above the compatibility range  may constitute a problem
Elements below the compatibility range  produced by other sources
No room for other
sources (AGB)
No room
for AGB
Secondary
Isotopes?
 process.
Other sources
uncertain
Type Ia
Explosion?
AGB
Chemical Enrichment due to Massive Stars
Global Properties:
IMF: Salpeter
1
M
Initial Composition
(Mass Fraction)
X=0.695
Y=0.285
Z=0.020
NO Dilution
Mrem=0.186
Final Composition
(Mass Fraction)
X=0.444 (f=0.64)
Y=0.420 (f=1.47)
Z=0.136 (f=6.84)
Averaged Yields: Relative Contributions
Stars with M>35 M (SNIb/c) contribute for ~20% at maximum (large fallback)
with few exceptions
(H,He burning)
CONCLUSIONS
Stars with M<30 M explode as RSG
Stars with M≥30 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=1.20-1.45 M for
M ≤ 40 M
MFe=1.45-1.80 M for
M > 40 M
The limiting mass between SNII and SNIb/c is :
Salpeter IMF
SNIb / c
 0.22
SNII
30-35 M
SNII
SNIb/c
25-30 M
The limiting mass between NS and BH formation is:
(uncertainties on mass loss, simulated explosion, etc.)
NS
BH
CONCLUSIONS
Massive Stars are responsible for producing elements with 4<Z<38
Assuming a Salpeted IMF the efficiency of
enriching the ISM with heavy elements is:
For each solar mass
of gas returned to
the ISM
H: decreased by f=0.64
He: increased by f=1.47
Metals: increased by f=6.84
SNIb/c contribute for ~20% to the majority of
the elements (large fallback)
SNIb/c contribute for ~40% to the elements
produced by H and He burning that survive to
fallback

Depends on:
Simulated expl.
Mass Loss
Binary Systems
.......
.......
Pre/Post SN models and explosive yields available at
http://www.mporzio.astro.it/~limongi