Paper detail

Revisiting Impacts of Nuclear Burning for Reviving Weak Shocks in Neutrino-Driven Supernovae

We revisit potential impacts of nuclear burning on the onset of the neutrino-driven explosions of core-collapse supernovae. By changing the neutrino luminosity and its decay time to obtain parametric explosions in one-(1D) and two-dimensional (2D) models with or without a 13-isotope alpha network, we study how the inclusion of nuclear burning could affect the postbounce dynamics for four progenitor models; three for 15.0 Msun stars, one for an 11.2 Msun star. We find that the energy supply due to nuclear burning of infalling material behind the shock can energize the shock expansion especially for models that produce only marginal explosions in the absence of nuclear burning. These models are energized by nuclear energy deposition when the shock front passes through the silicon-rich layer and/or later it touches the oxygen-rich layer. Depending on the neutrino luminosity and its decay time, a diagnostic energy of explosion increases up to a few times 10^50 erg for models with nuclear burning compared to the corresponding models without. We point out that these features are most remarkable for the Limongi-Chieffi progenitor in both 1D and 2D, because the progenitor model possesses a massive oxygen layer with its inner-edge radius being smallest among the employed progenitors, so that the shock can touch the rich fuel on a shorter timescale after bounce. The energy difference is generally smaller (~0.1-0.2 times 10^51 erg) in 2D than in 1D (at most ~0.6 times 10^51 erg). This is because neutrino-driven convection and the shock instability in 2D models enhance the neutrino heating efficiency, which makes the contribution of nuclear burning relatively smaller compared to 1D models. Considering uncertainties in progenitor models, our results indicate that nuclear burning should remain as one of the important ingredients to foster the onset of neutrino-driven explosions.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.