1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
2: %\documentclass{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
5:
6: \documentclass{emulateapj}
7:
8: %\input epsf.sty
9:
10: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.}
11: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g., }
12: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e., }
13: \newcommand{\atel}{Astron.~Tel.}
14: \newcommand{\cbet}{Cent.~Bur.~Electron.~Tel.}
15: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}
16: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}
17: \newcommand{\ergs}{ergs~s$^{-1}$}
18: \newcommand{\Fefs}{$^{56}$Fe}
19: \newcommand{\Cofs}{$^{56}$Co}
20: \newcommand{\Nifs}{$^{56}$Ni}
21: \newcommand{\Mej}{M_{\rm ej}}
22: \newcommand{\KE}{E_{\rm K}}
23: \newcommand{\Ed}{\dot{E}_{\rm dep}}
24: \newcommand{\Edep}{\dot{E}_{\rm dep,51}}
25: \newcommand{\MCini}{M_{\rm cut}{\rm (ini)}}
26: \newcommand{\Mni}{M{\rm (^{56}Ni)}}
27: \newcommand{\Mms}{M_{\rm ms}}
28: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 4pt \hbox{\hskip 1pt $\sim$}}\raise 1pt
29: \hbox {$>$}}}
30: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 4pt \hbox{\hskip 1pt $\sim$}}\raise 1pt
31: \hbox {$<$}}}
32: %\newcommand{\hour}{\hbox{$^{\rm h}$}}
33: \newcommand{\dif}{\mathrm{d}}
34: \newcommand{\me}{\mathrm{e}}
35: %\newcommand{\minute}{\hbox{$^{\rm m}$}}
36: \newcommand{\second}{\hbox{$^{\rm s}$}}
37: \newcommand{\ye}{Y_{\rm e}}
38: \newcommand{\Mjet}{M_{\rm jet}}
39: \newcommand{\Mbh}{M_{\rm rem}}
40: \newcommand{\Et}{{E}_{\rm dep}}
41: \newcommand{\Etep}{{E}_{\rm dep,51}}
42: \newcommand{\thj}{\theta_{\rm jet}}
43: \newcommand{\fth}{f_{\rm th}}
44: \newcommand{\Gj}{\Gamma_{\rm jet}}
45: \newcommand{\vj}{v_{\rm jet}}
46: \newcommand{\Min}{M_0}
47: \newcommand{\Rin}{R_0}
48: \newcommand{\Mfe}{M{\rm (Fe)}}
49: \newcommand{\Mc}{M{\rm (C)}}
50: \newcommand{\Mo}{M{\rm (O)}}
51: \newcommand{\Mmg}{M{\rm (Mg)}}
52: \newcommand{\Mpre}{M_{\rm preSN}}
53: \newcommand{\Mhe}{M_{\rm He}}
54: \newcommand{\Mco}{M_{\rm C+O}}
55: \newcommand{\kb}{k_{\rm B}}
56:
57: \begin{document}
58:
59: \title{Aspherical Properties of Hydrodynamics and Nucleosynthesis in Jet-induced Supernovae}
60:
61: \author{
62: Nozomu~Tominaga\altaffilmark{1,2}
63: }
64:
65: \altaffiltext{1}{Optical and Infrared Astronomy Division, National
66: Astronomical Observatory, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan;
67: nozomu.tominaga@nao.ac.jp}
68: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, School of Science,
69: University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan}
70:
71: \setcounter{footnote}{2}
72:
73: \begin{abstract}
74: Jet-induced supernovae (SNe) have been suggested to occur in gamma-ray
75: bursts (GRBs) and highly-energetic SNe (hypernovae).
76: I investigate hydrodynamical and nucleosynthetic properties of the
77: jet-induced explosion of a population III $40\Msun$ star with a
78: two-dimensional special relativistic hydrodynamical code. The abundance
79: distribution after the explosion and the angular dependence of the
80: yield are obtained for the models with high and low energy deposition rates
81: $\Ed=120\times10^{51}$~\ergs\ and $1.5\times10^{51}$~\ergs.
82: The ejection of Fe-peak products and the fallback of unprocessed
83: materials in the jet-induced SNe account for the abundance patterns of
84: the extremely metal-poor (EMP) stars.
85: It is also found that the peculiar abundance pattern of a
86: Si-deficient metal-poor star HE~1424--0241 is reproduced by the
87: angle-delimited yield for $\theta=30^\circ-35^\circ$ of the model with
88: $\Ed=120\times10^{51}$~\ergs. Furthermore, I compare the yield of
89: the jet-induced explosion with that of the spherical explosion and
90: confirm the ejection and fallback in the jet-induced explosion
91: is almost equivalent to the ``mixing-fallback''
92: in spherical explosions. In contrast to the spherical models, however,
93: the high-entropy environment is realized in the
94: jet-induced explosion and thus [(Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Co, Zn)/Fe] are enhanced.
95: The enhancements of [Sc/Fe] and [Ti/Fe] improve agreements
96: with the abundance patterns of the EMP stars.
97: \end{abstract}
98:
99: \keywords{Galaxy: halo
100: --- gamma rays: bursts
101: --- nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances
102: --- stars: abundances --- stars: Population II
103: --- supernovae: general}
104:
105: \section{Introduction}
106: \label{sec:2Drelintroduction}
107:
108: Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are phenomena emitting $\gamma$-ray for short
109: periods followed by a power-law decaying afterglow. The origin had been
110: covered for a long while, but it has become clear that
111: long GRBs are associated with supernovae (SNe). Three
112: GRB-associated SNe have been observed so far: GRB~980425/SN~1998bw
113: \citep{gal98}, GRB~030329/SN~2003dh \citep{sta03,hjo03}, and
114: GRB~031203/SN~2003lw \citep{mal04}. They are all energetic explosions of
115: massive stars, called hypernovae (\eg
116: \citealt{nom06,nom07} for a review).
117:
118: Although the explosion mechanism of GRBs and GRB-associated SNe is still
119: uncovered, the following photometric and spectroscopic observations
120: indicate that they are aspherical explosions with jet(s). (1) The
121: light curve of the GRB afterglow has shown a
122: polychromatic break in the power-law decay. The break is called a ``jet
123: break'' explained by a deceleration of a relativistic jet and
124: relativistic beaming of light (\eg \citealt{fra01,pir05}). (2) The nebular
125: spectra of SN~1998bw show narrower [\ion{O}{1}] lines than
126: [\ion{Fe}{2}] lines \citep{pat01} indicating that O locates in the
127: inner and lower-velocity region than Fe. This is realized in an aspherical explosion but not in a
128: spherical explosion \citep{mae02,mae06a}.
129:
130: The aspherical explosions are indirectly suggested from the abundance patterns
131: of extremely metal-poor (EMP) stars with [Fe/H] $<-3$.\footnote{Here [A/B]
132: $=\log_{10}(N_{\rm A}/N_{\rm B})-\log_{10}(N_{\rm A}/N_{\rm B})_\odot$,
133: where the subscript $\odot$ refers to the solar value and $N_{\rm A}$
134: and $N_{\rm B}$ are the abundances of elements A and B,
135: respectively.} Such EMP stars are likely to show the
136: nucleosynthesis yields of a single or a few core-collapse SN/SNe
137: \citep{aud95,bee05}.
138: The abundance patterns are reproduced by the
139: ``mixing-fallback'' models that assume the extensive mixing of the
140: shocked material before the fallback in a
141: spherical SN model \citep{ume02,ume03,ume05,iwa05,tom07b}.
142: In particular, the abundance patterns of EMP stars with high
143: [Co/Fe] and [Zn/Fe] ($\sim0.5$) are explained by energetic explosion
144: models because the high ratios require explosive nucleosynthesis under
145: high entropy (\eg \citealt{ume05,tom07b}). Since the fallback
146: doesnot take place in energetic spherical or quasi-spherical explosions
147: (\eg \citealt{woo95,iwa05}),
148: the mixing and fallback are
149: interpreted as a consequence of the aspherical explosion. Indeed,
150: the abundance patterns of the EMP stars are reproduced by the
151: jet-induced explosion model (\citealt{tom07a}).
152:
153: Since the jet-induced explosion contributes to many astronomical
154: phenomena, it is important to make a quantitative prediction on the
155: nucleosynthesis outcome of the jet-induced explosions. In order to
156: follow the jet propagation, fallback, and nucleosynthesis
157: on the site and
158: compare the jet-induced explosion models with the EMP stars,
159: GRBs, and SNe, it is required to calculate multi-dimensional
160: hydrodynamics and nucleosynthesis with the gravity and the special
161: relativity.\footnote{In order to follow the core
162: collapse, jet formation, and nucleosynthesis on the site, it is also
163: required to involve the neutrino, the general relativity, and possibly
164: the magnetic field (\eg \citealt{pru05,fro06,jan07}).}
165: Although there are many studies on
166: the GRB jet propagation of the stellar mantle using the special
167: relativistic hydrodynamics (\eg \citealt{alo00,zha04,miz06}),
168: they did not include the gravity or calculate nucleosynthesis.
169:
170: To investigate the yields of the jet-induced SNe, it is
171: crucial to include the gravity because the fallback plays an important
172: role on the nucleosynthesis yields. The studies by the use of Newtonian
173: calculations have concluded
174: that the energy deposition rate ($\Ed$) sensitively affects SN
175: nucleosynthesis \citep{mae03b,nag06}. This result has been confirmed for
176: the special relativistic cases \citep{tom07a}. In particular,
177: \cite{tom07a} have shown that the jet-induced explosions
178: with various $\Ed$ can explain both the variations of
179: GRB-associated SNe and the EMP, carbon-enhanced EMP (CEMP, [C/Fe]~$>1$),
180: and hyper metal-poor (HMP, [Fe/H]~$<-5$) stars.
181:
182: The previous studies have proved mostly the angle-integrated yields and
183: shown that the abundance patterns of the EMP stars are reproduced by the
184: angle-integrated yield. However, the abundance distribution of the
185: jet-induced explosion depends on the direction (\eg \citealt{mae03b}).
186: Thus, the abundance patterns of the next-generation stars might
187: depend on the direction.
188: I calculate aspherical stellar explosions
189: induced by highly relativistic jets and obtain hydrodynamical and
190: nucleosynthetic structures of such jet-induced explosion models. In
191: particular, I investigate the angular dependence of the yield to compare
192: the yields with the abundance patterns of the metal-poor stars.
193: Furthermore, I compare the jet-induced explosion with the spherical
194: SN model applied the mixing-fallback model and connect properties of the
195: jet-induced explosion to the mixing-fallback model.
196:
197: In \S~\ref{sec:model}, the applied models are described. In
198: \S~\ref{sec:hyd}, I present the hydrodynamical and nucleosynthetic
199: structures of the jet-induced explosion model, investigate the angular dependence
200: of the yields, and compared the jet-induced explosion model with the spherical
201: SN model. In \S~\ref{sec:summary}, the
202: conclusion and discussion are presented. In Appendixes, the
203: hydrodynamics and nucleosynthesis code is described and tested.
204:
205: \section{Models}
206: \label{sec:model}
207:
208: I investigate a jet-induced SN explosion of a Pop III $40\Msun$ star
209: \citep{ume05,tom07b} by means of a two-dimensional relativistic Eulerian
210: hydrodynamic and nucleosynthesis calculation with the gravity
211: (Appendix~\ref{sec:hydtest}). The nucleosynthesis calculation is
212: performed as a post-processing \citep{hix96,hix99} with the reaction
213: network including 280 isotopes up to $^{79}$Br (see Table~1 in
214: \citealt{ume05}). The thermodynamic histories are traced by maker
215: particles representing Lagrangian mass elements (\eg
216: \citealt{hac90,mae03b}, see also Appendix~\ref{sec:nuctest}).
217: A computational domain initially ranges up to the stellar surface where
218: $R_{\rm star}=2\times10^7~{\rm km}$ and is captured by 200 logarithmical
219: grids in the $r$-direction and 100 uniform grids in the
220: $\theta$-direction. A circumstellar matter (CSM) extends from the
221: stellar surface with the slope $\rho\propto r^{-2}$.
222:
223: The explosion mechanism of GRB-associated SNe is still under debate (\eg a neutrino
224: annihilation, \citealt{woo93a,mac99}; and a magneto-rotation,
225: \citealt{bla77,bro00,mizn04}). Thus, I do not consider how the jet is
226: launched, but the jet is dealt parametrically with the following five
227: parameters (Fig.~\ref{fig:2DrelJet}): energy deposition rate ($\Ed$),
228: total deposited energy ($\Et$), initial half angle of the jets ($\thj$),
229: initial Lorentz factor ($\Gj$), and the ratio of thermal to total
230: deposited energies ($\fth$).
231: The jet is injected from the inner boundary at an enclosed mass $\Min$
232: corresponding to a radius $\Rin$. The density, pressure, and
233: velocities of the jet are described with the five parameters
234: (Appendix~\ref{sec:jetin}) and put as a
235: boundary condition at the inner boundary.
236: The jet is assumed to consist of the
237: accreted matter and to expand adiabatically below the inner boundary.
238: After the jet is injected into the computational domain, the
239: thermodynamic histories are traced by the marker particles.
240:
241: \begin{figure}
242: \epsscale{.9}
243: \plotone{f1.eps}
244: \caption{Schematic picture of the jet-induced explosion. \label{fig:2DrelJet}}
245: \end{figure}
246:
247: \begin{deluxetable*}{c|ccc|cccc|c}
248: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
249: \tablecaption{Jet-induced explosion models. \label{tab:2Drelmodel}}
250: \tablewidth{0pt}
251: \tablehead{
252: \colhead{Name}
253: & \colhead{$\Min$}
254: & \colhead{$\Rin$}
255: & \colhead{$\Ed$}
256: & \colhead{$\Et$}
257: & \colhead{$\thj$}
258: & \colhead{$\Gj$}
259: & \colhead{$\fth$}
260: & \colhead{$\Mbh$}\\
261: \colhead{}
262: & \colhead{[$\Msun$]}
263: & \colhead{[km]}
264: & \colhead{[$10^{51} {\rm ergs~s^{-1}}$]}
265: & \colhead{[$10^{51} {\rm ergs}$]}
266: & \colhead{[degrees]}
267: & \colhead{}
268: & \colhead{}
269: & \colhead{[$\Msun$]}
270: }
271: \startdata
272: A& 1.4 & 900 & 120& 15 & 15 & 100 & 10$^{-3}$ & 9.1 \\
273: B& 1.4 & 900 & 1.5& 15 & 15 & 100 & 10$^{-3}$ &16.9 \\
274: C& 2.3 & 2700 & 120& 15 & 15 & 100 & 10$^{-3}$ & 8.1
275: \enddata
276: \end{deluxetable*}
277:
278: In this paper, I show three models; (A) a model with $\Edep=\Ed/(10^{51}{\rm ergs~s^{-1}})=120$ and
279: $\Min=1.4\Msun$ ($\Rin=900$ km), (B) a model with $\Edep=1.5$ and
280: $\Min=1.4\Msun$ ($\Rin=900$ km), and
281: (C) a model with $\Edep=120$ and $\Min=2.3\Msun$ ($\Rin=2700$ km). The other parameters
282: are same for each model; $\Et=1.5\times10^{52}$
283: ergs,\footnote{\cite{fra01} suggested the $\gamma$-ray energies
284: ($E_\gamma$) of GRBs are clustered at $E_\gamma\sim5\times10^{50}$ ergs.
285: Although $E_\gamma$ is 30 times smaller than $\Et$, there are large
286: uncertainties on the relation between $E_\gamma$ and $\Et$. For example,
287: the energy possessed by the relativistic
288: matter depends on the interactions between the relativistic jet and the
289: stellar mantle and is reduced compared to the injected energy
290: \citep{zha03,zha04}. Moreover, the radiative conversion efficiency of
291: a kinetic energy depends on an unknown $\gamma$-ray emission
292: mechanism. The efficiency is estimated to be $\sim2-40\%$ for collisions of
293: internal shocks \citep{kob97} or $>50\%$ for nonthermalized photospheric
294: emissions \citep{iok07}. $\Et$ adopted in this paper might be appropriate for
295: the former emission mechanism or excessive for the latter emission
296: mechanism. The dependence of the jet-induced explosions on $\Et$
297: will be studied in future.} $\thj=15^\circ$,
298: $\Gj=100$ and $\fth=10^{-3}$. The mass of jets is $\Mjet\sim8\times10^{-5}\Msun$.
299: The model parameters and the central remnant mass ($\Mbh$)
300: are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:2Drelmodel}.
301: Models A and B are used in \cite{tom07a} and they reproduce
302: the abundance patterns of the EMP stars\footnote{An averaged abundance
303: pattern of four EMP stars, CS~22189--009, CS~22172--002,
304: CS~22885--096, and CD~$-$38~245, is adopted.} \citep{cay04} and HE~1327--2326 (\eg
305: \citealt{fre05,fre06,col06}), respectively.
306:
307: \section{Results}
308: \label{sec:hyd}
309:
310: The hydrodynamical calculations are followed until the homologously
311: expanding structure is reached ($v\propto r$). Then, the ejected mass
312: elements are identified from whether their radial velocities exceed the
313: escape velocities at their positions. The density structures of models A
314: and B at $t=10^5$~s are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:2Drelvrho}.
315: The density along the jet axis is higher than the density along the equatorial
316: plane because the matter is more easily ejected along the jet axis
317: than along the equatorial plane. And the SN
318: ejecta of model A is denser and more compact than that of model B
319: because the ejected mass of model A is larger than that of model B.
320:
321: \begin{figure}
322: \epsscale{1.05}
323: \plotone{f2.eps}
324: \caption{Density structures at $t=10^5$~s along the jet axis ({\it
325: solid line}) and the equatorial plane ({\it dashed line}) of model A
326: ({\it thick line}) and B ({\it thin line}). \label{fig:2Drelvrho}}
327: \end{figure}
328:
329: \subsection{Fallback}
330: \label{sec:fallback}
331:
332: Figures~\ref{fig:2Drelfallback}a and \ref{fig:2Drelfallback}b show
333: ``accreted'' regions for models A and B, where the accreted mass
334: elements initially located in the progenitor. The O layer is
335: separated into the two layers: (1) the O+Mg layer with
336: $X({\rm ^{24}Mg})>0.01$ and (2) the O+C layer with $X({\rm ^{12}C})>0.1$.
337: The inner matter is ejected along the jet-axis but not along the
338: equatorial plane. On the other hand, the outer matter is ejected even
339: along the equatorial plane, since the lateral expansion of the shock
340: terminates the infall as the shock reaches the equatorial plane.
341:
342: \begin{figure}
343: \epsscale{1.}
344: \plotone{f3a.eps}
345: \plotone{f3b.eps}
346: \caption{Initial locations of the mass elements which are finally
347: accreted ({\it black}), for (a) model A and
348: (b) model B. The background circles represent the boundaries between the layers in the
349: progenitor star; the H, He, O+C, O+Mg, and Si layers from the outside. \label{fig:2Drelfallback}}
350: \end{figure}
351:
352: The accreted mass is larger for lower $\Ed$. This stems from the balance
353: between the ram pressures of the injecting jet ($P_{\rm jet}$) and the
354: infalling matter ($P_{\rm fall}$) (\eg \citealt{fry99,fry03,mae06c}).
355: While $P_{\rm jet}$ depends on $\Ed$, $P_{\rm fall}$ depends on the
356: presupernova structure. If the matter falls freely, $P_{\rm fall}$ is
357: proportional to $\rho_r r^{3/2}M_r$ for the matter having located at $r$
358: and $M_r$ in the progenitor where the presupernova density is $\rho_r$.
359: The critical energy deposition rate ($\dot{E}_{\rm dep,cri}$) giving
360: $P_{\rm jet}(\dot{E}_{\rm dep,cri})=P_{\rm fall}(M_r)$ is lower
361: for the outer layer (\ie larger $M_r$, \citealt{fry03,mae06c}).
362: Therefore, the jet injection with lower $\Ed$ is enabled at a later time
363: when the central remnant becomes more massive. Additionally, the lateral
364: expansion of the jet is more efficiently suppressed for lower $\Ed$. As
365: a result, the accreted region and $\Mbh$ are larger for lower $\Ed$.
366:
367: A model with lower $\Ed$ has larger $\Mbh$, higher [C/O], [C/Mg], and
368: [C/Fe], and smaller $\Mfe$ because of the larger amount of fallback \citep{tom07a}.
369: The larger amount of fallback decreases the mass of the inner core
370: (\eg Fe, Mg, and O) relative to the mass of the outer layer (\eg C,
371: Figs.~\ref{fig:2Drelfallback}ab). Since O and Mg are synthesized in the
372: inner layers than C, [C/O] and [C/Mg] are larger for the
373: larger infall of the O layer. Also, the fallback of the O layer decreases
374: $\Mfe$ because Fe is mainly synthesized explosively in the Si and O+Mg layers.
375: Therefore, the variation of $\Ed$ in the jet-induced explosions predicts that
376: the variations of [C/O], [C/Mg], and [C/Fe] are corresponding to
377: the variation of $\Mfe$.
378:
379: \subsection{Abundance distribution}
380: \label{sec:angledep}
381:
382: Figures~\ref{fig:2Drelej}a and \ref{fig:2Drelej}b show the abundance distributions and
383: density structures at $t=10^5$~s for models A and
384: B. I classify the mass elements by their abundances as follows:
385: (1) Fe with $X({\rm ^{56}Ni})>0.04$, (2) Si with $X({\rm ^{28}Si})>0.08$,
386: (3) O+Mg with $X({\rm ^{16}O})>0.6$ and $X({\rm ^{24}Mg})>0.01$,
387: (4) O+C with $X({\rm ^{16}O})>0.6$ and $X({\rm ^{12}C})>0.1$,
388: (5) He with $X({\rm ^{4}He})>0.7$, and (6) H with $X({\rm ^{1}H})>0.3$.
389: If a mass element satisfies two or more conditions, the mass element
390: is classified into the class with the smallest number.
391:
392: \begin{figure}
393: \epsscale{1.2}
394: \plotone{f4a.eps}
395: \plotone{f4b.eps}
396: \caption{Density structure ({\it back ground
397: gray scale}) and the positions of the mass elements at $t=10^5$~s
398: for (a) model A and (b) model B. Color of the marks
399: represents the abundance of the mass element (H: {\it yellow}, He: {\it
400: cyan}, O+C: {\it green}, O+Mg: {\it blue}, Si: {\it magenta}, and Fe: {\it
401: red}). Size of the marks represents the origin of the mass element
402: (the jet: {\it dots}, and the shocked stellar mantle: {\it filled circles}). \label{fig:2Drelej}}
403: \end{figure}
404:
405: The abundance distribution and thus the composition of the ejecta depend
406: on the direction. In model A, the O+Mg, O+C, He, and H mass elements
407: locate in the all direction. On the other hand, most of the Fe and Si
408: mass elements locate at $\theta<10^\circ$ and stratify in this order
409: from the jet axis and a part of them locate at
410: $15^\circ<\theta<35^\circ$. Interestingly, the Fe mass elements surround
411: the Si mass elements at $15^\circ<\theta<35^\circ$. In model B, most of
412: the O+C and He mass elements locate at $\theta<3^\circ$ because they
413: are ejected only along the jet axis, while the Fe
414: mass elements injected as a jet expand laterally up to
415: $\theta\sim50^\circ$ and the H mass elements are distributed in the all
416: directions. The lateral spread of the Fe mass elements in
417: models A and B are led by the collision with the stellar mantle and
418: the internal pressure of the jet.
419:
420: \subsubsection{Angular dependence of the yields}
421:
422: \begin{figure}
423: \epsscale{1.1}
424: \plotone{f5.eps}
425: \caption{Comparisons between the abundance patterns of the
426: angle-integrated yield ({\it black}), the EMP, CEMP, and HMP stars
427: ({\it red filled marks},
428: \citealt{cay04,fre07,chr02,bes05,col06,fre05,fre06}), and the
429: angle-delimited yields ({\it colored lines})
430: for (a) model A and (b) model B. The color of the lines
431: represent the yields integrated over $0^\circ\leq\theta<10^\circ$ ({\it
432: green line}),
433: $10^\circ\leq\theta<20^\circ$ ({\it blue line}),
434: $20^\circ\leq\theta<30^\circ$ ({\it magenta line}),
435: $30^\circ\leq\theta<40^\circ$ ({\it cyan line}), and
436: $40^\circ\leq\theta<50^\circ$ ({\it gray line}). (c) Comparison between the
437: abundance pattern of HE~1424--0241 ({\it red filled circles}, \citealt{coh06}) and the
438: angle-delimited yields of model A for $30^\circ\leq\theta<40^\circ$ ({\it
439: solid line}) and $30^\circ\leq\theta<35^\circ$ ({\it dashed line}). \label{fig:2Drelangledep}}
440: \end{figure}
441:
442: I investigate the angle-delimited yields integrated over each $10^\circ$
443: for models A and B, although the integration range might be too wide to
444: be taken in a single next-generation star.
445: Fe is mainly distributed at $\theta<40^\circ$ for model A (Fig.~\ref{fig:2Drelej}a)
446: and $\theta<50^\circ$ for model B (Fig.~\ref{fig:2Drelej}b).
447: Figures~\ref{fig:2Drelangledep}a and \ref{fig:2Drelangledep}b
448: show the abundance patterns of the angle-delimited yields for
449: $\theta<40^\circ$ of model A and $\theta<50^\circ$ of model B, respectively.
450: The yields are compared with the abundance patterns of the EMP
451: stars \citep{cay04}, the CEMP stars (HE~1300+0157, \citealt{fre07}),
452: and the HMP stars (HE~0107--5240, \eg
453: \citealt{chr02,bes05,col06} and HE~1327--2326, \eg \citealt{fre05,fre06,col06}).
454:
455: Figure~\ref{fig:2Drelangledep}a shows the angle-delimited yields of
456: model A. The abundance patterns of the angle-delimited yields are
457: determined by which mass elements are included into the integration.
458: Because of the stratified abundance distribution, the yields for
459: $0^\circ\leq\theta<10^\circ$ and $10^\circ\leq\theta<20^\circ$ show low
460: [C/Fe] and [O/Fe] and high [C/Fe] and [O/Fe], respectively.
461: Intriguingly, the region with $30^\circ\leq\theta<40^\circ$ includes the Fe mass
462: elements in the outer layer and the O+Mg and O+C mass elements in the
463: inner layer but not the Si mass elements. Thus, the yield for
464: $30^\circ\leq\theta<40^\circ$ shows a Si-deficient abundance pattern.
465: Furthermore, the Fe and Si mass elements at $15^\circ<\theta<35^\circ$
466: initially located along the jet axis ($\theta<10^\circ$), and thus the
467: high-entropy environment is realized in these mass
468: elements and [Sc/Fe], [Ti/Fe], [Co/Fe], and [Zn/Fe] are enhanced in
469: the yields for $10^\circ\leq\theta<40^\circ$.
470: On the other hand, [Sc/Fe] is low in the yield for
471: $0^\circ\leq\theta<10^\circ$ because the matter initially located at
472: $10^\circ\leq\theta$.
473:
474: Figure~\ref{fig:2Drelangledep}b shows the angle-delimited yields of
475: model B. The all angle-delimited yields of model B show high [C/Fe].
476: This is the same feature as the angle-integrated yield. Since most of the
477: heavy elements locate at $\theta<10^\circ$, the abundance pattern of the
478: yield for $0^\circ\leq\theta<10^\circ$ is similar to that of the
479: angle-integrated yield, except for N that is mostly contained in the H
480: mass elements. On the other hand, the yields for
481: $10^\circ\leq\theta<50^\circ$ consist of the Fe mass elements injected
482: as a jet and the O+C mass elements. In the yields for
483: $10^\circ\leq\theta<50^\circ$, [C/Mg] is almost similar and the
484: differences of [C/Fe] and [Mg/Fe] mainly stem from the different amount
485: of Fe.
486:
487: \subsubsection{Abundance patterns of the metal-poor stars}
488:
489: A very peculiar, Si-deficient, metal-poor star HE~1424--0241
490: was observed \citep{coh06}. Its abundance pattern with high [Mg/Si] ($\sim1.4$)
491: and normal [Mg/Fe] ($\sim0.4$) is difficult to be reproduced by
492: previous SN models. This is because
493: $\log\{[X({\rm Mg})/X({\rm Si})]/[X({\rm Mg})/X({\rm Si})]_\odot\}\lsim1.6$
494: is realized in the O+Mg layer at the presupernova stage (\eg
495: \citealt{woo95,ume05}). Thus, in order to reproduce
496: the abundance pattern of HE~1424--0241, the SN yield is required to
497: include explosively-synthesized Fe but not explosively-synthesized Si.
498:
499: The angle-delimited yield may possibly explain the high
500: [Mg/Si] and normal [Mg/Fe] (Fig.~\ref{fig:2Drelangledep}c). Figure~\ref{fig:2Drelangledep}c
501: shows that the yields integrated over $30^\circ\leq\theta<40^\circ$ and
502: $30^\circ\leq\theta<35^\circ$ of model A reproduce the abundance pattern of HE~1424--0241.
503: The yield consist of Mg in the inner region and Fe in the outer region
504: (Fig.~\ref{fig:2Drelej}a).
505: Although there are some elements to be improved, the elusive feature of
506: HE~1424--0241 could be explained by taking into account the angular
507: dependence of the yield. The high [Mg/Si] and normal [Mg/Fe] can be
508: realized with an appropriate integration range if the Fe mass elements
509: penetrate the stellar mantle (\ie the duration of the jet injection is
510: long) and if the O+Mg mass elements are ejected in all directions (\ie
511: $\Ed$ is high).
512:
513: If the yield depends on the direction, the abundance patterns of the
514: angle-delimited yields have a large scatter
515: (Fig.~\ref{fig:2Drelangledep}a).
516: Although the diversities of [C/Fe] and [O/Fe] in the angle-delimited
517: yields are similar to those in the observations of the EMP and CEMP
518: stars, the observations of the EMP stars provide abundance
519: ratios with comparatively small scatters (\eg [Sc/Fe], \citealt{cay04}). This
520: implies that SNe contributing to most of the EMP stars experienced strong
521: mixing of the ejecta, \eg due to an interaction with interstellar
522: medium (ISM), so that the yield no longer depends on the direction.
523: Actually, it was suggested that the interaction between the SN ejecta
524: and ISM induces further mixing of the abundances if ISM has an
525: inhomogeneous structure (\eg \citealt{nak00}). According to
526: structure formation calculations (\eg \citealt{yos07}), the Pop
527: III stars are surrounded by the inhomogeneous ISM. Therefore, the mixing of
528: the SN ejecta is likely to take place. On the other hand, the
529: abundance pattern of HE~1424--0241 implies weak mixing of the SN
530: ejecta. Such a different star formation process might cause the peculiar
531: abundance pattern of HE~1424--0241. In
532: order to conclude the origin of HE~1424--0241, it is necessary to
533: calculate three-dimensional evolution of a supernova remnant in the
534: inhomogeneous ISM.
535:
536: \subsection{Comparison with the spherical supernova model}
537: \label{sec:MFjet}
538:
539: \begin{figure*}
540: \epsscale{.5}
541: \plotone{f6a.eps}
542: \epsscale{.45}
543: \plotone{f6b.eps}
544: \epsscale{.75}
545: \plotone{f6c.eps}
546: \caption{(a) Density structure ({\it back ground
547: gray scale}) and the positions of the mass elements at $t=10^5$~s
548: for model C. The color and size of the marks represent the same as
549: Figs.~\ref{fig:2Drelej}ab.
550: (b) Initial locations of the mass elements which are finally
551: accreted ({\it black}) and ejected ({\it colored points}) for model
552: C. The color of the mass elements represents the same as
553: Figs.~\ref{fig:2Drelej}ab. (c) Comparison of the abundance patterns of
554: model C ({\it black line}), the EMP stars ({\it red circles},
555: \citealt{cay04}), and the mixing-fallback models with
556: (1) $M_{\rm cut}{\rm (ini)}=2.3\Msun$,
557: $M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)}=12.2\Msun$ and $f=0.41$ ({\it green line}), (2) $M_{\rm cut}{\rm (ini)}=2.3\Msun$,
558: $M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)}=10.3\Msun$ and $f=0.27$ ({\it blue line}), and (3) $M_{\rm cut}{\rm (ini)}=2.3\Msun$,
559: $M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)}=10.8\Msun$ and $f=0.19$ ({\it magenta line}). \label{fig:2DrelEdotfallP3}}
560: \end{figure*}
561:
562: The calculations of the jet-induced explosions show that the ejection
563: of the inner matter is compatible with the fallback of the outer matter
564: (Figs.~\ref{fig:2Drelfallback}ab). This is consistent with the
565: two-dimensional illustration of the mixing-fallback model (Fig.~12b in
566: \citealt{tom07b}).
567:
568: In this subsection, I clarify the relation between the mixing-fallback
569: model and the jet-induced explosion model by comparing the yields.
570: The mixing-fallback model has three parameters; initial mass cut
571: [$M_{\rm cut}{\rm (ini)}$], outer boundary of the mixing region
572: [$M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)}$], and a fraction of matter ejected from the
573: mixing region ($f$). The remnant mass is written as
574: \begin{equation}
575: \Mbh=M_{\rm cut}{\rm (ini)}+(1-f)[M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)} - M_{\rm cut}{\rm (ini)}].
576: \end{equation}
577: The three parameters would relate to the hydrodynamical properties of
578: the jet-induced explosion models, \eg the inner boundary ($\Min$),
579: the outer edge of the accreted region ($M_{\rm acc,out}$),
580: and the width between the edge of the accreted region and the jet axis.
581:
582: I apply model C for the comparison.
583: The inner boundary, the outer edge of the
584: accreted region, and the central remnant mass of model C are
585: $\Min=2.3\Msun$, $M_{\rm acc,out}=12.2\Msun$, and $\Mbh=8.1\Msun$. The
586: abundance distribution of model C at $t=10^5$~s is shown in
587: Figure~\ref{fig:2DrelEdotfallP3}a.
588:
589: Figure~\ref{fig:2DrelEdotfallP3}b shows the initial positions of the
590: ejected mass elements in model C. Color of the marks represents
591: the composition of the mass elements. Explosive
592: nucleosynthesis takes place in the mass elements between the edge of the
593: accreted region and the jet axis. Therefore, the amounts of the explosive
594: nucleosynthesis products are reduced relative to the
595: spherical explosions. The shock collision at the
596: equatorial plane realizes the mass ejection from the deep O+Mg layer
597: along the equatorial plane. Although the mass ejection could be due to
598: the reflective boundary condition on the equatorial plane, this does not
599: affect the following discussion
600: because the amount of the mass ejection is small.
601:
602: The angle-integrated yield of model C is compared with
603: the yields of the spherical SN model with
604: $\Mms=40\Msun$ and $\Et=3\times10^{52}$ ergs. For the spherical SN model, the
605: explosion energy is deposited instantaneously as a thermal bomb.
606: Here, I set $M_{\rm cut}{\rm (ini)}$
607: to be the same as $\Min$ [\ie $M_{\rm cut}{\rm (ini)}=2.3\Msun$] and apply
608: three sets of parameters, $M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)}$ and $f$, as follows:
609:
610: (1) $M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)}=12.2\Msun$ and $f=0.41$.
611: $M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)}$ corresponds to
612: $M_{\rm acc,out}$ and $f$ is the ratio of the
613: ejected mass and the total mass between $\Min$ and $M_{\rm acc,out}$.
614:
615: (2) $M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)}=10.3\Msun$ and $f=0.27$.
616: $f$ is the fraction of the solid angle of the region where the ejected mass
617: elements located at $r\sim10^3~{\rm km}$ (the Si-burning region,
618: hereafter the fraction is written as $f_{\rm Si}$).
619: $M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)}$ is set to yield the same $\Mbh$ as model C.
620:
621: (3) $M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)}=10.8\Msun$ and $f=0.19$.
622: $f$ and $M_{\rm mix}{\rm (out)}$ are set to yield the most resemblant
623: abundance pattern to model C. The resultant
624: $\Mbh$ ($=9.2\Msun$) is slightly larger than $\Mbh$ of
625: model C.
626:
627: Figure~\ref{fig:2DrelEdotfallP3}c shows that the angle-integrated abundance
628: pattern of model C is roughly reproduced by the mixing-fallback
629: model with the parameter sets of (2) and (3). Thus, I conclude that
630: the jet-induced explosion is approximated by the mixing-fallback model reasonably.
631: $\Min$, $f_{\rm Si}$, and $\Mbh$ in the jet-induced explosion model are represented by
632: $M_{\rm cut}{\rm (ini)}$, $f$, and $\Mbh$ in the mixing-fallback model,
633: respectively.
634:
635: There are some elements showing differences, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Co, and
636: Zn. The enhancements of [Sc/Fe] and [Ti/Fe] improve agreements with the
637: observations. The differences stem from the high-entropy explosion due to the
638: concentration of the energy injection in the jet-induced explosion (\eg \citealt{mae03b}).
639: In particular, Sc is the most sensitive element to the entropy and
640: [Sc/Fe] is more enhanced for the deeper $\Min$ because of the weaker lateral
641: expansion (Fig.~\ref{fig:2Drelangledep}a).
642: Such thermodynamical features of the jet-induced explosion model cannot
643: be reproduced by the mixing-fallback model exactly but a ``low-density''
644: modification might mimic the high-entropy environment (\eg
645: \citealt{ume05,tom07b}).
646:
647:
648: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}
649: \label{sec:summary}
650:
651: I perform two-dimensional hydrodynamical and nucleosynthesis
652: calculations of the jet-induced explosions of a Pop III $40\Msun$ star.
653: Here I test three jet-induced explosion models A, B, and C as summarized in
654: Table~\ref{tab:2Drelmodel} and conclude as follows.
655:
656: (1) {\bf Fallback}: The dynamics and the abundance distributions depend sensitively on
657: the energy deposition rate $\Ed$. The explosion with lower $\Ed$
658: leads to a larger amount of fallback, and consequently smaller $\Mfe$
659: and higher [C/O],
660: [C/Mg], and [C/Fe]. Such dependences of [C/Fe] and $\Mfe$ on $\Ed$
661: predict that higher [C/Fe] tends to be realized for
662: lower [Fe/H]. This is consistent with the observations (\eg
663: \citealt{bee05}). Note, however, the formation
664: of star with low [C/Fe] and [Fe/H] is possible because [Fe/H] depends on the
665: swept-up H mass, \ie the interaction between the SN ejecta and ISM (\eg
666: \citealt{cio88}).
667:
668: (2) {\bf Abundance distribution and angular dependence}: I present the
669: aspherical abundance distributions and investigate the angular
670: dependence of the yield. After the explosion, the elements ejected even
671: along the equatorial plane locate in the all directions, while the
672: elements ejected only along the jet axis expand laterally but tend to be
673: distributed along the jet axis. The abundance distributions in
674: the jet-induced SN ejecta could be examined by spatially-resolved
675: observations of supernova remnants (\eg \citealt{hwa04,keo07}).
676:
677: The angle-delimited yield could reproduce the extremely peculiar
678: abundance pattern of HE~1424--0241. However, the angle-delimited yields
679: of model A have a large scatter that may be inconsistent with the
680: relatively small scatter in the abundance ratios of the EMP
681: stars. This implies that the angular dependence of the yield in most SNe
682: is diluted by the strong mixing of the SN ejecta.
683: On the other hand, the angle-delimited yields of model B show high
684: [C/Fe] that is the same feature as the angle-integrated yield.
685:
686: The angle-delimited yield strongly depends on which mass elements are
687: included into the integration. This would be determined
688: by the abundance mixing in the SN ejecta and by the region where the
689: next-generation star takes in the metal-enriched gas. To investigate
690: this issue further, it is required to calculate three-dimensional
691: evolution of the supernova remnant in the ISM.
692:
693: (3) {\bf Comparison with the spherical explosion}:
694: The angle-integrated yield of the jet-induced explosion is well
695: reproduced by a spherical SN model applied the mixing-fallback model. This
696: confirms that the mixing-fallback model approximates the
697: jet-induced explosion well and that the mixing and fallback in
698: hypernovae assumed in the mixing-fallback model are actually
699: achieved in aspherical explosions.
700: The abundance ratios between elements synthesized
701: in different regions (\eg C, O, Mg, and Fe) depend on the hydrodynamical
702: structure of the explosion, \eg the fallback. Thus, such macroscopic
703: properties of the jet-induced explosion are represented by the
704: mixing-fallback model. In particular, $\Min$, $f_{\rm Si}$, and $\Mbh$
705: in the jet-induced explosion model are represented by $M_{\rm cut}{\rm
706: (ini)}$, $f$, and $\Mbh$ in the mixing-fallback model, respectively.
707:
708: On the other hand, the ratios between the explosively-synthesized elements depend on
709: the thermodynamical properties of the explosion. In particular, [Sc/Fe],
710: [Ti/Fe], [V/Fe], [Cr/Fe], [Co/Fe] and [Zn/Fe] are enhanced
711: by the high-entropy environment in the jet-induced explosion, thus
712: showing differences from the mixing-fallback model.
713: The enhancement of [Sc/Fe] and [Ti/Fe] improve the agreement with the
714: observations. Note, the enhancement of
715: [Ti/Fe] relative to the spherical SN model in this paper is larger than
716: in \cite{mae03b}. This might be because the relativistic jet suppresses
717: the lateral expansion and enhances the energy concentration.
718:
719: The enhancement of [Sc/Fe] is also suggested to be obtained by
720: nucleosynthesis in the $p$-rich ejecta expelled from the innermost
721: region \citep{pru04,pru05,fro06,iwa06}. However, it seems difficult to
722: enhance [Zn/Fe] ($\sim0.5$) and [Sc/Fe] ($\sim0$) only with
723: nucleosynthesis in the $p$-rich ejecta (see \S~5.2 in
724: \citealt{tom07b}). On the other hand, a jet-induced explosion enhances
725: [Sc/Fe], [Ti/Fe], and [Zn/Fe] simultaneously and realizes the mixing and
726: fallback in an energetic explosion. Therefore, I propose that the
727: jet-induced explosion is a presumable origin of the enhancement of
728: [Sc/Fe]. The origin would be concluded by future quantitative
729: investigations including various elements.
730:
731: Although the models with same $\thj$ are shown in this paper, the
732: asphericity is likely to be different for each SN. For example, the
733: observations of supernova remnants show various aspherical structures
734: (\eg Cassiopeia A, \citealt{hwa04,fes06}; and W49B, \citealt{mic06,keo07}).
735: Furthermore, recent observations of the nebular spectra of SNe suggested
736: that all core-collapse SNe are aspherical explosions
737: \citep{mae08,mod08}. The degree of asphericity in SNe in the
738: early universe will be revealed by detailed comparisons of
739: abundance ratios between the aspherical SN models with different $\thj$
740: and the metal-poor stars which represent the hydrodynamical and/or
741: thermodynamical properties.
742:
743: \acknowledgements
744:
745: This work formed a part of the author's PhD thesis (\citealt{tom07c}, completed in
746: September 2007).
747: The author would like to thank H.~Umeda, K.~Maeda, K.~Nomoto, and N.~Iwamoto
748: for providing the progenitor models and valuable discussion.
749: Data analysis were in part carried out on the general-purpose PC farm
750: at Center for Computational Astrophysics, CfCA, of National Astronomical
751: Observatory of Japan.
752: The author is supported through the JSPS (Japan Society
753: for the Promotion of Science) Research Fellowship for Young Scientists.
754:
755: \appendix
756:
757: \section{Special relativistic hydrodynamic code}
758: \label{sec:hydtest}
759:
760: A two-dimensional special relativistic Eulerian hydrodynamic
761: code is developed with Marquina's flux formula \citep{don98} and with a
762: conversion method from the observer frame to the proper frame \citep{mart96}.
763: The code applies third order Runge-Kutta method in time of
764: Shu \& Osher (1988, see also \citealt{alo99}) and second order piecewise
765: hyperbolic method (PHM) in space of \cite{marq94}.
766:
767: The equations of special relativistic hydrodynamics are described in
768: terms of a four-velocity vector field and an energy momentum tensor
769: \citep{mart94}. Physical quantities in a rest frame (relativistic
770: rest-mass density: $D$, the $i$-th components of momentum densities: $S_i$,
771: and energy density: $\tau$) and a comoving frame are related as follows:
772: \begin{eqnarray}
773: \nonumber D&=&\rho \Gamma, \\
774: \nonumber S_i&=&\rho h \Gamma^2 v_i, \\
775: \nonumber \tau&=&\rho h \Gamma^2 -p -\rho \Gamma,
776: \end{eqnarray}
777: where the light velocity is set to $c=1$, $\rho$ is the proper rest-mass
778: density, $v_i$ are the $i$-th components of velocities,
779: $\Gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\sum_i v_i^2}$ is the Lorentz factor of the fluid
780: element with respect to the rest frame, $p$ is the proper pressure, and
781: $h=1+e_{\rm pr,in}/\rho+p/\rho$ is the specific enthalpy (here,
782: $e_{\rm pr,in}$ is the proper internal energy per unit volume).
783:
784: The basic equations in the special relativistic hydrodynamics are written in
785: spherical polar coordinates ($r, \theta$) as
786: \begin{eqnarray}
787: {\partial D\over{\partial t}}+{\partial (r^2Dv_r)\over{\partial (r^3/3)}}+{1\over{r}}{\partial (\sin{\theta}Dv_\theta) \over{\partial (-\cos{\theta})}}&=&0, \\
788: {\partial S_r\over{\partial t}}+{\partial
789: (S_rv_r+p)\over{\partial r}}+{1\over{r}}{\partial
790: (\sin{\theta}S_rv_\theta)\over{\partial (-\cos{\theta})}}
791: &=&-2{S_rv_r\over{r}}+{S_\theta v_\theta\over{r}}+g_r \rho, \\
792: {\partial S_\theta \over{\partial t}}+{\partial (r^2S_\theta
793: v_r)\over{\partial (r^3/3)}}+{1\over{r}}{\partial (S_\theta v_\theta
794: +p) \over{\partial \theta}}
795: &=&-{1\over{r}}{\cos{\theta}\over{\sin{\theta}}}-{S_\theta v_r\over{r}}+g_\theta \rho, \\
796: {\partial \tau\over{\partial t}}+{\partial
797: \{r^2(S_r-Dv_r)\}\over{\partial(r^3/3)}}+{1\over{r}}{\partial
798: \{\sin{\theta}(S_\theta -Dv_\theta)\}\over{\partial
799: (-\cos{\theta})}}
800: &=&(g_r v_r+g_\theta v_\theta)\rho,
801: \end{eqnarray}
802: where $g_i$ ($i=r, \theta$) are the $i$-th gravitational acceleration
803: components.
804: The equations are an equation of continuity, momentum
805: conservation equations, an energy conservation equation.
806: The gravitational potential includes the contributions of the
807: self-gravity and the central remnant. I test two methods to include the
808: self-gravity as follows: (1) the Poisson equation is approximated with
809: an integration of spherical harmonics \citep{hac86} and (2) the sparse
810: banded matrix resulting from differencing the Poisson equation is solved
811: with a bi-conjugate gradient stabilized (BiCGSTAB) method
812: \citep{bar94}\footnote{Subroutines are available at Netlib
813: (\url{http://www.netlib.org/}).} with modified incomplete LU (MILU)
814: factorization. Since the results are consistent, I
815: apply the former method in the calculations.
816:
817:
818: \subsection{One-dimensional Riemann problems}
819: \label{sec:1Dshocktest}
820:
821: The code is tested with one-dimensional shock tube problems (\eg
822: \citealt{mart94}). I set the computational region
823: $0\leq x \leq 1$ where $c=1$ that is divided
824: into two regions, \ie left and right regions, at $x=0.5$. The density
825: ($\rho$), pressure ($p$), and velocity ($v$) of left and right regions are
826: represented by L and R subscripts, respectively.
827: The time variation is derived by the analytical solution of the Riemann
828: problem \citep{mart94}. I test three problems with $10^3$ uniform meshes
829: ($\Delta x =1/10^3$) and
830: a constant adiabatic index. The initial states are as follows:
831:
832: Problem (a) $\gamma=5/3$
833: \begin{eqnarray}
834: \nonumber (\rho_{\rm L},p_{\rm L},v_{\rm L})&=&(1, 10^3, 0) \ {\rm at} \ 0.0\leq x \leq 0.5, \\
835: \nonumber (\rho_{\rm R},p_{\rm R},v_{\rm R})&=&(1, 0.01, 0) \ {\rm at} \ 0.5\leq x \leq 1.0.
836: \end{eqnarray}
837:
838: Problem (b) $\gamma=4/3$
839: \begin{eqnarray}
840: \nonumber (\rho_{\rm L},p_{\rm L},{\Gamma}_{\rm L})&=&(1, 1, 10^3) \ {\rm at} \ 0.0\leq x \leq 0.5, \\
841: \nonumber (\rho_{\rm R},p_{\rm R},{\Gamma}_{\rm R})&=&(1, 10^{6}, 1) \ {\rm at} \ 0.5\leq x \leq 1.0.
842: \end{eqnarray}
843:
844: Problem (c) $\gamma=4/3$
845: \begin{eqnarray}
846: \nonumber (\rho_{\rm L},p_{\rm L},v_{\rm L})&=&(1, 10, -0.9) \ {\rm at} \ 0.0\leq x \leq 0.5, \\
847: \nonumber (\rho_{\rm R},p_{\rm R},v_{\rm R})&=&(10, 100, 0.9) \ {\rm at} \ 0.5\leq x \leq 1.0.
848: \end{eqnarray}
849:
850: The analytical solutions are reproduced by the calculations
851: (Figs.~\ref{fig:2Drel1Dshock}abc).
852: The agreements confirm that the code correctly solves
853: left- and right-oriented rarefaction and shock waves.
854:
855: \begin{figure}[h]
856: \epsscale{1.}
857: \plotone{f7.eps}
858: \caption{Comparison between the analytical solutions of the Riemann
859: problems ({\it black solid line}) and the results of the
860: special relativistic hydrodynamics calculations (density: {\it
861: red marks}, pressure: {\it green marks}, velocity: {\it magenta
862: marks}, Lorentz factor: {\it cyan marks}). \label{fig:2Drel1Dshock}}
863: \end{figure}
864:
865: \subsection{Two-dimensional shock tube problem}
866:
867: The two-dimensional shock tube problem was proposed by \cite{del02} and
868: repeated by subsequent studies (\eg \citealt{luc04,zha06,miz06}). I test the problem
869: with $10^3\times10^3$ square uniform meshes. In this problem, the
870: two-dimensional region ($0\leq x \leq 1, 0 \leq y \leq 1$) are
871: divided into the following four regions:
872: \begin{eqnarray}
873: \nonumber (\rho,p,v_x,v_y)&=&(0.50,1.00,0.00,0.00) \ {\rm at} \ 0.0\leq x \leq 0.5, 0.0\leq y \leq 0.5, \\
874: \nonumber (\rho,p,v_x,v_y)&=&(0.10,1.00,0.99,0.00) \ {\rm at} \ 0.0\leq x \leq 0.5, 0.5\leq y \leq 1.0, \\
875: \nonumber (\rho,p,v_x,v_y)&=&(0.10,0.01,0.00,0.00) \ {\rm at} \ 0.5\leq x \leq 1.0, 0.0\leq y \leq 0.5, \\
876: \nonumber (\rho,p,v_x,v_y)&=&(0.10,1.00,0.00,0.99) \ {\rm at} \ 0.5\leq x \leq 1.0, 0.5\leq y \leq 1.0,
877: \end{eqnarray}
878: where $v_i$ ($i=x,~y$) are the $i$-th components of velocities and the adiabatic index is
879: $\gamma=5/3$. Figure~\ref{fig:2Drel2Dshock} shows color contours of $\log(\rho)$ at $t=0.4$.
880:
881: \begin{figure}[h]
882: \epsscale{.55}
883: \plotone{f8.eps}
884: \caption{Two-dimensional shock tube problem at $t=0.4$ with
885: $10^3\times10^3$ square uniform meshes. Color contours of the logarithm
886: of the rest mass density are plotted. \label{fig:2Drel2Dshock}}
887: \end{figure}
888:
889: \subsection{Double Mach reflection problem}
890:
891: \cite{woo84} introduced a double Mach reflection problem of a strong shock in
892: the Newtonian case and the problem was extended to the special relativistic case
893: \citep{zha06}. I test the code with the same
894: initial conditions as in the previous studies \citep{zha06,miz06}. The
895: computational region is a $0\leq x \leq 4, 0 \leq y \leq 1$
896: rectangle captured by $512\times128$ uniform square meshes.
897: The density and pressure of the unshocked gas, the adiabatic index,
898: and the classical Mach number ($M_{\rm c}\equiv V_{\rm S}/c_{\rm s}$, where
899: $V_{\rm S}$ is a shock velocity and $c_{\rm s}$ is a sound speed) are
900: set to be $\rho=1.4$, $p=0.0025$, $\gamma=1.4$, and $M_{\rm c}=10$
901: respectively. Thus, the shock velocity is $V_{\rm S}=0.4984$ and the
902: density, pressure, and velocity of the post-shock gas are $\rho=8.564$,
903: $p=0.3804$, and $v=0.4247$. The shock front
904: is initially set to cross the $x$ axis at $x=1/6$ with an angle of
905: $60^\circ$. The initial conditions are as follows:
906: \begin{eqnarray}
907: \nonumber (\rho,p,v_x,v_y)&=&(1.4,0.0025,0.00,0.00) \ {\rm at} \ x - y \tan{60^\circ} < 1/6, \\
908: \nonumber (\rho,p,v_x,v_y)&=&(8.564,0.3804,0.4247 \sin{60^\circ}, 0.4247 \cos{60^\circ}) \ {\rm at} \ x - y \tan{60^\circ} > 1/6.
909: \end{eqnarray}
910: The boundary conditions are inflow of the post-shock gas at
911: $x=0$, at $0\leq x \leq 1/6$ on $y=0$ axis, and at
912: $0\leq x \leq (1/6+\tan{60^\circ}+V_{\rm S}t/\sin{60^\circ})$ on $y=1$ axis,
913: reflective boundaries at $1/6<x<4$ on $y=0$ axis, and freely inflow and
914: outflow conditions at the other boundaries. Figure~\ref{fig:2Drel2Dmach}
915: shows thirty-level iso-surfaces of $\log(\rho)$ at $t=4.0$.
916:
917: \begin{figure}[h]
918: \epsscale{.75}
919: \plotone{f9.eps}
920: \caption{Double-Mach reflection problem at $t=4.0$ with
921: $512\times128$ uniform square meshes. Thirty equally-spaced contours of
922: the logarithm of the rest
923: mass density are plotted.\label{fig:2Drel2Dmach}}
924: \end{figure}
925:
926:
927: \subsection{Emery step problem}
928:
929: A wind tunnel problem with a reflecting step, called the Emery step problem,
930: was introduced by \cite{eme68} and repeated by subsequent studies
931: \citep{zha06,miz06}. The computational domain is a
932: $0\leq x \leq 3, 0 \leq y \leq 1$ rectangle captured by $240\times80$
933: uniform square meshes. The domain is filled by a gas with $\rho=1.4$,
934: $p=0.1534$, and $v=0.999$. The pressure is set so that $M_{\rm c}=3$.
935: The wind tunnel has the reflecting step locating at $0.6\leq x$ and
936: $y\leq 0.2$. The following boundary conditions are applied: the upper
937: and lower boundaries are reflective and the boundaries at $x=0$ and
938: $x=3$ are open. Figure~\ref{fig:2Drel2Demery} shows thirty-level
939: iso-surfaces of $\log(\rho)$ at $t=4.0$.
940:
941: \begin{figure}[h]
942: \epsscale{.75}
943: \plotone{f10.eps}
944: \caption{Emery step problem at $t=4.0$ with $240\times80$ uniform square
945: meshes. Thirty equally-spaced contours of the logarithm of the rest
946: mass density are plotted. \label{fig:2Drel2Demery}}
947: \end{figure}
948:
949: \section{Nucleosynthesis calculation}
950: \label{sec:nuctest}
951:
952: The two-dimensional special relativistic hydrodynamical calculation
953: does not include nuclear energy releases and applies a constant
954: adiabatic index $\gamma=4/3$. The proper internal energy is written as
955: $e_{\rm pr,in}=p/(\gamma-1)$. Temperature $T$ is derived with an analytical equation
956: of state including radiation and ${\rm e}^-$-${\rm e}^+$ pair (\eg
957: \citealt{fre99}) as follows:
958: \begin{equation}
959: e_{\rm pr,in}=aT^4 \left\{1+{7\over{4}}\cdot{T_9^2\over{T_9^2+5.3}}\right\}.
960: \end{equation}
961: where $a=7.57\times10^{-15}$ ${\rm ergs~cm^{-3}~K^{-4}}$ is the
962: radiation-density constant and $T_9=T/10^9$ K.
963:
964: I calculate explosive nucleosynthesis in a non-relativistic spherical explosion of a $40\Msun$
965: star with $3\times10^{52}$~ergs. The post-processing calculations are
966: performed with the thermodynamic histories obtained by the two-dimensional special
967: relativistic Eulerian hydrodynamics code and a one-dimensional Lagrangian hydrodynamics code
968: used in \cite{ume02,ume05} and \cite{tom07b}.
969: The one-dimensional Lagrangian hydrodynamical
970: calculation includes nuclear energy releases from the $\alpha$-network
971: and the equation of state includes the gas, radiation,
972: ${\rm e}^-$-${\rm e}^+$ pair \citep{sug75}, Coulomb interactions between ions and electrons, and
973: phase transition \citep{nom82,nom88}.
974: The abundance distributions derived by both calculations are consistent
975: (Figs.~\ref{fig:2Drel2Dnuc}ab). This consistency justifies the results
976: of the two-dimensional special relativistic hydrodynamics and
977: nucleosynthesis calculations even with the simple assumptions.
978:
979: \begin{figure}[h]
980: \epsscale{.47}
981: \plotone{f11a.eps}
982: \plotone{f11b.eps}
983: \caption{Abundance distributions after the non-relativistic spherical
984: explosion of a $40\Msun$ star with $3\times10^{52}$ ergs. The
985: post-processing calculations are performed with the thermodynamic
986: histories obtained by (a) the one-dimensional spherical hydrodynamics
987: code and (b) the two-dimensional special relativistic
988: hydrodynamical code. \label{fig:2Drel2Dnuc}}
989: \end{figure}
990:
991: \section{Jet injection}
992: \label{sec:jetin}
993:
994: The jet characterized by the five parameters, $\Ed$, $\Et$, $\thj$,
995: $\Gj$, and $\fth$, is injected from the inner boundary at $\Rin$.
996: The jet injection is performed by putting the velocities
997: ($v_{r,{\rm jet}}$, $v_{\theta,{\rm jet}}$), pressure ($p_{\rm jet}$),
998: and density ($\rho_{\rm jet}$) of the jet at the inner boundary as the
999: boundary condition. $v_{r,{\rm jet}}$, $v_{\theta,{\rm jet}}$,
1000: $p_{\rm jet}$, and $\rho_{\rm jet}$ are derived from the five parameters.
1001:
1002: The superficial area of the jet injection is
1003: $A_{\rm jet}=4\pi\Rin^2(1-\cos\thj)$ and thus the energy deposition rate
1004: is $\Ed=A_{\rm jet}f_{e,{\rm jet}}$, where $f_{e,{\rm jet}}$ is an energy
1005: density flux of the jet. $f_{e,{\rm jet}}$ is written with
1006: the jet properties as
1007: $f_{e,{\rm jet}}=S_{r,{\rm jet}}-D_{\rm jet}v_{r,{\rm jet}}$, where
1008: $S_{r,{\rm jet}}=\rho_{\rm jet} h_{\rm jet} \Gj^2 v_{r,{\rm jet}}$,
1009: $D_{\rm jet}=\rho_{\rm jet} \Gj$, and $h_{\rm jet}$ is the specific
1010: enthalpy of the jet. Although the energy density flux at the inner
1011: boundary ($f_e$) depends on the properties of the jet and the infalling
1012: matter and changes with time, $f_e$ is
1013: equivalent to $f_{e,{\rm jet}}$ when the jet is injected freely.
1014:
1015: On the other hand, the energy density per unit volume is
1016: $e_{\rm jet}=\tau_{\rm jet}=\rho_{\rm jet} h_{\rm jet} \Gj^2 -p_{\rm jet}-\rho_{\rm jet} \Gj$.
1017: The energy density
1018: consists of the thermal energy density ($e_{\rm th,jet}$) and the
1019: kinetic energy density ($e_{\rm kin,jet}$). Applying
1020: $h_{\rm jet}=1+e_{\rm pr,in,jet}/\rho_{\rm jet}+p_{\rm jet}/\rho_{\rm jet}$
1021: and $e_{\rm pr,in,jet}=p_{\rm jet}/(\gamma-1)$, $e_{\rm th,jet}$ and
1022: $e_{\rm kin,jet}$ are written by the density $\rho_{\rm jet}$, pressure
1023: $p_{\rm jet}$, Lorentz factor $\Gj$, and adiabatic index $\gamma$ of the
1024: jet as follows:
1025: \begin{eqnarray}
1026: e_{\rm kin,jet}=(1-\fth) e_{\rm jet}=\rho_{\rm jet} \left(\Gj^2-\Gj\right), \\
1027: e_{\rm th,jet}=\fth e_{\rm jet}=p_{\rm jet} \left({\gamma\over{\gamma-1}}\Gj^2-1\right).
1028: \end{eqnarray}
1029:
1030: Since $e_{\rm jet}=f_{e,{\rm jet}}/v_{r,{\rm jet}}-p_{\rm jet}$, the
1031: velocities, pressure, and density of the jet are written as follows:
1032: \begin{eqnarray}
1033: v_r&=&\sqrt{1-1/\Gj^2},\\
1034: v_\theta&=&0,\\
1035: p_{\rm jet}&=&{{\fth \Ed}\over{v_r A_{\rm jet}\left({\gamma\over{\gamma-1}}\Gj^2-1+\fth\right)}},\\
1036: \rho_{\rm jet}&=&{(1-\fth)\left({\Ed \over{ v_r A_{\rm jet}}}-p_{\rm jet}\right)\over{\Gj^2-\Gj}}.
1037: \end{eqnarray}
1038:
1039: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1040:
1041: \bibitem[Aloy \etal (1999)]{alo99} Aloy, M.A., Ib\'a\~nez,
1042: J.M$^{\underline{\mbox{a}}}$., Mart\'{\i},
1043: J.M$^{\underline{\mbox{a}}}$., \& M\"uller, E. 1999,
1044: \apjs, 122, 151
1045:
1046: \bibitem[Aloy \etal (2000)]{alo00} Aloy, M.A., M\"uller, E., Ib\'a\~nez,
1047: J.${\rm M^a}$., Marti, J.${\rm M^a}$., \&
1048: MacFadyen, A. 2000, \apj, 531, L119
1049:
1050: \bibitem[Audouze \& Silk(1995)]{aud95} Audouze, J., \& Silk, J. 1995,
1051: \apj, 451, L49
1052:
1053: \bibitem[Barrett \etal(1994)]{bar94} Barrett, R., \etal\ 1994, Templates
1054: for the Solution of Linear Systems: Building
1055: Blocks for Iterative Methods (Philadelphia:
1056: SIAM Publications)
1057:
1058:
1059: \bibitem[Beers \& Christlieb(2005)]{bee05} Beers, T.C., \& Christlieb,
1060: N. 2005, \araa, 43, 531
1061:
1062: \bibitem[Bessell \& Christlieb(2005)]{bes05} Bessell,
1063: M. S., \& Christlieb, N. 2005, in From
1064: Lithium to Uranium: Elemental Tracers of
1065: Early Cosmic Evolution. eds. Hill, V., \etal,
1066: (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 228,
1067: 237
1068:
1069: \bibitem[Blandford \& Znajek(1977)]{bla77} Blandford, R. D., \& Znajek,
1070: R. L. 1977, \mnras, 179, 433
1071:
1072: \bibitem[Brown \etal(2000)]{bro00} Brown, G.E., Lee, C.-H.,
1073: Wijers, R.A.M.J., Lee, H.K., Israelian, G.,
1074: \& Bethe, H.A. 2000, New Astronomy, 5, 191
1075:
1076: \bibitem[Cayrel \etal(2004)]{cay04}Cayrel, R., \etal\ 2004,
1077: \aap, 416, 1117
1078:
1079: \bibitem[Christlieb \etal(2002)]{chr02}Christlieb, N., \etal\ 2002, \nat,
1080: 419, 904
1081:
1082: \bibitem[Cioffi \etal (1988)]{cio88} Cioffi, D. F.,
1083: McKee, C. F.,
1084: Bertschinger, E. 1988, \apj, 334, 252
1085:
1086: \bibitem[Cohen \etal(2007)]{coh06} Cohen, J. G., McWilliam, A.,
1087: Christlieb, N., Shectman, S., Thompson, I.,
1088: Melendez, J., Wisotzki, L., \& Reimers,
1089: D. 2007, \apj, 659, L161
1090:
1091: \bibitem[Collet \etal(2006)]{col06} Collet, R.,
1092: Asplund, M., \& Trampedach, R. 2006, \apj,
1093: 644, L121
1094:
1095: \bibitem[Del Zanna \& Bucciantini(2002)]{del02} Del Zanna, L., \&
1096: Bucciantini, N. 2002, \aap, 390, 1177
1097:
1098: \bibitem[Donat \etal (1998)]{don98} Donat, R., Font, J.A.,
1099: Ib\'a\~nez, J.M$^{\underline{\mbox{a}}}$., \& Marquina, A. 1998,
1100: J. Comput. Phys., 146, 58
1101:
1102: \bibitem[Emery(1968)]{eme68} Emery, A.F. 1968, J. Comp. Phys., 2, 306
1103:
1104: \bibitem[Fesen \etal(2006)]{fes06} Fesen, R.A., \etal\ 2006, \apj, 645, 283
1105:
1106: \bibitem[Frail \etal (2001)]{fra01} Frail, D.A., \etal\ 2001, \apj, 562, L55
1107:
1108: \bibitem[Frebel \etal (2005)]{fre05} Frebel, A., \etal\ 2005, \nat, 434, 871
1109:
1110: \bibitem[Frebel \etal (2006)]{fre06} Frebel, A., Christlieb, N., Norris,
1111: J. E., Aoki, W., \& Asplund,
1112: M. 2006, \apj, 638, L17
1113:
1114: \bibitem[Frebel \etal (2007)]{fre07} Frebel, A., Norris, J. E., Aoki,
1115: W., Honda, S., Bessell, M. S., Takada-Hidai,
1116: M., Beers, T. C., \& Christlieb, N. 2007,
1117: \apj, 658, 534
1118:
1119: \bibitem[Freiburghaus \etal (1999)]{fre99} Freiburghaus, C., Rembges,
1120: J.-F., Rauscher, T., Kolbe, E., Thielemann,
1121: F.-K., Kratz, K.-L., Pfeiffer, B., \& Cowan,
1122: J. J. 1999, \apj, 516, 381
1123:
1124: \bibitem[Fr\"ohlich \etal (2006)]{fro06} Fr\"ohlich, C., \etal\ 2006,
1125: \apj, 637, 415
1126:
1127: \bibitem[Fryer(1999)]{fry99} Fryer, C. L. 1999, \apj, 522, 413
1128:
1129: \bibitem[Fryer \& M\'esz\'aros(2003)]{fry03} Fryer, C. L., \& M\'esz\'aros,
1130: P. 2003, \apj, 588, L25
1131:
1132: \bibitem[Galama \etal(1998)]{gal98} Galama, T. J., \etal\ 1998, \nat, 395, 670
1133:
1134: \bibitem[Hachisu(1986)]{hac86} Hachisu, I. 1986, \apjs, 62, 461
1135:
1136: \bibitem[Hachisu \etal (1990)]{hac90} Hachisu, I., Matsuda, T., Nomoto,
1137: K., \& Shigeyama, T. 1990, \apj, 358, L57
1138:
1139: \bibitem[Hix \& Thielemann(1996)]{hix96} Hix, W. R., \& Thielemann,
1140: F.-K. 1996, \apj, 460, 869
1141:
1142: \bibitem[Hix \& Thielemann(1999)]{hix99} Hix, W. R., \& Thielemann,
1143: F.-K. 1999, \apj, 511, 862
1144:
1145: \bibitem[Hjorth \etal(2003)]{hjo03} Hjorth, J., \etal\ 2003, \nat, 423, 847
1146:
1147: \bibitem[Hwang \etal(2004)]{hwa04} Hwang, U., \etal\ 2004, \apj, 615. L117
1148:
1149: \bibitem[Ioka \etal(2007)]{iok07} Ioka, K., Murase, K., Toma, K.,
1150: Nagataki, S., \& Nakamura, T. 2007, \apj,
1151: 670, L77
1152:
1153: \bibitem[Iwamoto \etal(2005)]{iwa05} Iwamoto, N., Umeda, H., Tominaga,
1154: N., Nomoto, K., Maeda, K. 2005, Science, 309,
1155: 451
1156:
1157: \bibitem[Iwamoto \etal(2006)]{iwa06} Iwamoto, N., Umeda, H., Nomoto, K.,
1158: Tominaga, N., Thielemann, F.-K., \& Hix,
1159: W. R. 2006, in AIP Conf. Proc. 847, Origin of
1160: Matter and Evolution of Galaxies,
1161: ed. S. Kubono et al. (Melville: AIP), 409
1162:
1163: \bibitem[Janka \etal(2007)]{jan07} Janka, H.-Th., Langanke, K., Marek,
1164: A., Mart\'inez-Pinedo, G., \& M\"uller,
1165: B. 2007, \physrep, 442, 38
1166:
1167: \bibitem[Kobayashi \etal(1997)]{kob97} Kobayashi, S., Piran, T., \&
1168: Sari, R. 1997, \apj, 490, 92
1169:
1170: \bibitem[Keohane \etal(2007)]{keo07} Keohane, J. W., Reach, W. T., Rho,
1171: J., \& Jarrett, T. H. 2007, \apj, 654, 938
1172:
1173: \bibitem[Lucas-Serrano \etal(2004)]{luc04} Lucas-Serrano, A., Font,
1174: J.A., Ib\'a\~nez, J.M., \& Mart\'{\i}, J.M. 2004,
1175: \aap, 428, 703
1176:
1177: \bibitem[MacFadyen \& Woosley(1999)]{mac99} MacFadyen, A. I., \&
1178: Woosley, S. E. 1999, \apj, 524, 262
1179:
1180: \bibitem[Maeda \etal(2002)]{mae02} Maeda, K., Nakamura, T., Nomoto, K.,
1181: Mazzali, P.A., Patat, F., \& Hachisu,
1182: I. 2002, \apj, 565, 405
1183:
1184: \bibitem[Maeda \& Nomoto(2003)]{mae03b} Maeda, K., \& Nomoto, K., 2003,
1185: \apj, 598, 1163
1186:
1187: \bibitem[Maeda \etal(2006)]{mae06a} Maeda, K., Mazzali, P. A., \&
1188: Nomoto, K. 2006, \apj, 645, 1331
1189:
1190: \bibitem[Maeda \etal(2008)]{mae08} Maeda, K., \etal\ 2008, Science, 319,
1191: 1220
1192:
1193: \bibitem[Maeda \& Tominaga(2008)]{mae06c} Maeda, K., \& Tominaga,
1194: N. 2008, in preparation.
1195:
1196: \bibitem[Malesani \etal(2004)]{mal04} Malesani, D., et al. 2004,
1197: \apj, 609, L5
1198:
1199: \bibitem[Marquina(1994)]{marq94} Marquina, A. 1994, SIAM
1200: J. Sci. Comput., 15, 892
1201:
1202: \bibitem[Mart\'{\i} \& M\"uller(1994)]{mart94} Mart\'{\i}, J.M., \& M\"uller, E. 1994,
1203: J. Fluid Mech., 258, 317
1204:
1205: \bibitem[Mart\'{\i} \& M\"uller(1996)]{mart96} Mart\'{\i}, J.M., \& M\"uller, E. 1996,
1206: J. Comput. Phys., 123, 1
1207:
1208: \bibitem[Mizuno \etal(2004)]{mizn04} Mizuno, Y., Yamada, S., Koide, S.,
1209: \& Shibata, K. 2004, \apj, 615, 389
1210:
1211: \bibitem[Mizuta \etal(2006)]{miz06} Mizuta, A., Yamasaki, T., Nagataki,
1212: S., Mineshige, S. 2006, \apj, 651, 960
1213:
1214: \bibitem[Miceli \etal(2006)]{mic06} Miceli, M., Decourchelle, A.,
1215: Ballet, J., Bocchino, F., Hughes, J. P.,
1216: Hwang, U., \& Petre, R. 2006, \aap, 453, 567
1217:
1218: \bibitem[Modjaz \etal(2008)]{mod08} Modjaz, M., Kirshner, R. P., \&
1219: Challis, P. 2008, \apj, submitted (arXiv:0801.0221)
1220:
1221: \bibitem[Nagataki \etal(2006)]{nag06} Nagataki, S., Mizuta, A., \& Sato,
1222: K. 2006, \apj, 647, 1255
1223:
1224: \bibitem[Nakasato \& Shigeyama(2000)]{nak00} Nakasato, N., \& Shigeyama,
1225: T. 2000, \apj, 541, L59
1226:
1227: \bibitem[Nomoto \etal(1982)]{nom82} Nomoto, K. 1982, \apj, 253, 798
1228:
1229: \bibitem[Nomoto \& Hashimoto(1988)]{nom88} Nomoto, K., \& Hashimoto, M. 1988,
1230: \physrep, 163, 13
1231:
1232: \bibitem[Nomoto \etal(2006)]{nom06} Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Umeda, H.,
1233: Kobayashi, C., \& Maeda, K. 2006,
1234: \nphysa, 777, 424 (astro-ph/0605725)
1235:
1236: \bibitem[Nomoto \etal(2007)]{nom07} Nomoto, K., et al. 2007, {\em Nuovo
1237: Cinento}, 121, 1207 (astro-ph/0702472)
1238:
1239: \bibitem[Patat \etal(2001)]{pat01} Patat, F., \etal\ 2001, \apj, 555, 900
1240:
1241: \bibitem[Piran (2005)]{pir05} Piran, T. 2005, Rev. Mod. Phys., 76, 1143
1242:
1243: \bibitem[Pruet \etal(2004)]{pru04} Pruet, J., Surman, R.,
1244: \& McLaughlin, G.C. 2004, \apj, 602, L101
1245:
1246: \bibitem[Pruet \etal(2005)]{pru05} Pruet, J., Woosley, S. E., Buras, R.,
1247: Janka, H.-T., \& Hoffman, R. D. 2005,
1248: \apj, 623, 325
1249:
1250: \bibitem[Shu \& Osher(1988)]{shu88} Shu, C. W., \& Osher, S. J. 1988,
1251: J. Comput. Phys., 105, 92
1252:
1253: \bibitem[Stanek \etal(2003)]{sta03} Stanek, K. Z., \etal\ 2003, \apj, 591, L17
1254:
1255: \bibitem[Sugimoto \& Nomoto(1975)]{sug75} Sugimoto, D., \& Nomoto,
1256: K. 1975,
1257: Sci. Pap. Coll. Gen. Educ. Univ. Tokyo, 25,
1258: 109
1259:
1260: \bibitem[Tominaga \etal(2007a)]{tom07a} Tominaga, N., Maeda, K., Umeda,
1261: H., Nomoto, K., Tanaka, M., Iwamoto, N.,
1262: Suzuki, T. \& Mazzali, P. 2007a, \apj, 657,
1263: L77
1264:
1265: \bibitem[Tominaga \etal(2007b)]{tom07b} Tominaga, N., Umeda,
1266: H., \& Nomoto, K. 2007b, \apj, 660, 516
1267:
1268: \bibitem[Tominaga(2007)]{tom07c} Tominaga, N. 2007, PhD
1269: thesis, University of Tokyo
1270:
1271: \bibitem[Umeda \& Nomoto(2002)]{ume02} Umeda, H., \& Nomoto, K. 2002, \apj, 565, 385
1272:
1273: \bibitem[Umeda \& Nomoto(2003)]{ume03} Umeda, H., \& Nomoto, K. 2003, \nat, 422, 871
1274:
1275: \bibitem[Umeda \& Nomoto(2005)]{ume05} Umeda, H., \& Nomoto, K. 2005,
1276: \apj, 619, 427
1277:
1278: \bibitem[Woodward \& Colella(1984)]{woo84} Woodward, P.R., \& Colella,
1279: P. 1984, J. Comp. Phys., 54, 115
1280:
1281: \bibitem[Woosley(1993)]{woo93a} Woosley, S.E., 1993, \apj, 405, 273
1282:
1283: \bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver(1995)]{woo95} Woosley, S. E., \& Weaver,
1284: T. A. 1995, \apjs, 101, 181
1285:
1286: \bibitem[Yoshida \etal(2007)]{yos07} Yoshida, N., Oh, S. P., Kitayama,
1287: T., \& Hernquist, L. 2007, \apj, 663, 687
1288:
1289: \bibitem[Zhang \etal(2003)]{zha03} Zhang, W., Woosley, S.E., \&
1290: MacFadyen, A. I. 2003, \apj, 586, 356
1291:
1292: \bibitem[Zhang \etal(2004)]{zha04} Zhang, W., Woosley, S.E., \&
1293: Heger, A. 2004, \apj, 608, 365
1294:
1295: \bibitem[Zhang \& MacFadyen(2006)]{zha06} Zhang, W., \& MacFadyen,
1296: A.I. 2006, \apjs, 164, 255
1297:
1298: \end{thebibliography}
1299:
1300: \end{document}
1301:
1302: