Paper detail

Three-dimensional simulations of gravitationally confined detonations compared to observations of SN 1991T

The gravitationally confined detonation (GCD) model has been proposed as a possible explosion mechanism for Type Ia supernovae in the single-degenerate evolution channel. Driven by buoyancy, a deflagration flame rises in a narrow cone towards the surface. For the most part, the flow of the expanding ashes remains radial, but upon reaching the outer, low-pressure layers of the white dwarf, an additional lateral component develops. This makes the deflagration ashes converge again at the opposite side, where the compression heats fuel and a detonation may be launched. To test the GCD explosion model, we perform a 3D simulation for a model with an ignition spot offset near the upper limit of what is still justifiable, 200 km. This simulation meets our deliberately optimistic detonation criteria and we initiate a detonation. The detonation burns through the white dwarf and leads to its complete disruption. We determine nucleosynthetic yields by post-processing 10^6 tracer particles with a 384 nuclide reaction network and we present multi-band light curves and time-dependent optical spectra. We find that our synthetic observables show a prominent viewing-angle sensitivity in UV and blue bands, which is in tension with observed SNe Ia. The strong dependence on viewing-angle is caused by the asymmetric distribution of the deflagration ashes in the outer ejecta layers. Finally, we perform a comparison of our model to SN 1991T. The overall flux-level of the model is slightly too low and the model predicts pre-maximum light spectral features due to Ca, S, and Si that are too strong. Furthermore, the model chemical abundance stratification qualitatively disagrees with recent abundance tomography results in two key areas: our model lacks low velocity stable Fe and instead has copious amounts of high-velocity 56Ni and stable Fe. We therefore do not find good agreement of the model with SN 1991T.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access12 authors3 topics

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.

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.