1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
5: %\documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}
6: %\usepackage{natbib}
7:
8: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
9: %\usepackage{mathptmx}
10: %\usepackage{txfonts}
11: \usepackage{color}
12:
13: %\input epsf.sty
14:
15: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.}
16: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g., }
17: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e., }
18: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}
19: \newcommand{\Rsun}{R_{\odot}}
20: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$}
21: \newcommand{\ergs}{erg~s$^{-1}$}
22: \newcommand{\Fefs}{$^{56}$Fe}
23: \newcommand{\Cofs}{$^{56}$Co}
24: \newcommand{\Nifs}{$^{56}$Ni}
25: \newcommand{\Mms}{M_{\rm MS}}
26: \newcommand{\Mej}{M_{\rm ej}}
27: \newcommand{\KE}{E_{\rm K}}
28: \newcommand{\Mni}{M({\rm ^{56}Ni})}
29: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 4pt \hbox{\hskip 1pt $\sim$}}\raise 1pt
30: \hbox {$>$}}}
31: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 4pt \hbox{\hskip 1pt $\sim$}}\raise 1pt
32: \hbox {$<$}}}
33: \newcommand{\vph}{v_{\rm ph}}
34: \def\pa{\partial}
35: \def\ion#1#2{{\rm #1}~{\sc #2}}
36:
37: \shorttitle{Type Ib Supernova 2008D}
38: \shortauthors{Tanaka et al.}
39:
40: \begin{document}
41:
42: \title{Type I\lowercase{b} Supernova 2008D associated with the Luminous X-ray Transient 080109:
43: An Energetic Explosion of a Massive Helium Star
44: }
45: \author{
46: Masaomi Tanaka\altaffilmark{1,2},
47: Nozomu Tominaga\altaffilmark{3,1},
48: Ken'ichi Nomoto\altaffilmark{2,1},
49: S. Valenti\altaffilmark{4},
50: D.K. Sahu\altaffilmark{5},
51: T. Minezaki\altaffilmark{6},
52: Y. Yoshii\altaffilmark{6,7},
53: M. Yoshida\altaffilmark{8},
54: G.C. Anupama\altaffilmark{5},
55: S. Benetti\altaffilmark{9},
56: G. Chincarini\altaffilmark{10,11},
57: M. Della Valle\altaffilmark{12,13},
58: P. A. Mazzali\altaffilmark{14,9}, and
59: E. Pian\altaffilmark{15}
60: }
61:
62:
63: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, School of Science, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan; mtanaka@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp}
64: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, University of Tokyo, Kashiwanoha 5-1-5, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8568, Japan}
65: \altaffiltext{3}{Division of Optical and Infrared Astronomy, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan; nozomu.tominaga@nao.ac.jp}
66:
67: \altaffiltext{4}{Astrophysics Research Centre, School of Maths and Physics, Queen's University, Belfast, BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, UK}
68: \altaffiltext{5}{Indian Institute of Astrophysics, II Block Koramangala, Bangalore 560034, India}
69: \altaffiltext{6}{Institute of Astronomy, School of Science, University of Tokyo, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-0015, Japan}
70: \altaffiltext{7}{Research Center for the Early Universe, School of Science, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-003, Japan}
71: \altaffiltext{8}{Okayama Astrophysical Observatory, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan}
72: \altaffiltext{9}{Istituto Naz. di Astrofisica-Oss. Astron., vicolo dell'Osservatorio, 5, 35122 Padova, Italy}
73: \altaffiltext{10}{Universit degli Studi di Milano Bicocca, Dipartimento di Fisica, Piazza della Scienze 3, 20126 Milano, Italy}
74: \altaffiltext{11}{INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, via E. Bianchi 46, 23807 Merate (LC), Italy}
75: \altaffiltext{12}{Capodimonte Astronomical Observatory, Salita Moiariello 16, I-80131, INAF- Napoli, Italy}
76: \altaffiltext{13}{European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 2, D-85748, Garching, Germany}
77: \altaffiltext{14}{Max-Planck Institut f\"ur Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 2 D-85748 Garching bei M\"unchen, Germany}
78: \altaffiltext{15}{Istituto Naz. di Astrofisica-Oss. Astron., Via Tiepolo, 11, 34131 Triste, Italy}
79:
80:
81: \begin{abstract}
82: We present a theoretical model for supernova (SN) 2008D associated
83: with the luminous X-ray transient 080109.
84: The bolometric light curve and optical spectra of the SN are modelled based on
85: the progenitor models and the explosion models obtained from
86: hydrodynamic/nucleosynthetic calculations.
87: We find that SN 2008D is a more energetic explosion than normal
88: core-collapse supernovae, with an ejecta mass of $\Mej = 5.3 \pm 1.0\ \Msun$
89: and a kinetic energy of $\KE = 6.0 \pm 2.5 \times 10^{51}$ erg.
90: The progenitor star of the SN has a $6-8 \Msun$ He core
91: with essentially no H envelope ($< 5 \times 10^{-4}\ \Msun$)
92: prior to the explosion.
93: The main-sequence mass of the progenitor
94: is estimated to be $\Mms =20-25\ \Msun$,
95: with additional systematic
96: uncertainties due to convection, mass loss, rotation, and binary effects.
97: These properties are intermediate between those of
98: normal SNe and hypernovae associated with gamma-ray bursts.
99: The mass of the central remnant is estimated as $1.6-1.8 \Msun$, which
100: is near the boundary between neutron star and black hole formation.
101: \end{abstract}
102:
103: \keywords{supernovae: general --- supernovae: individual (SN~2008D) ---
104: nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances --- radiative transfer}
105:
106:
107: \section{Introduction}
108: \label{sec:intro}
109:
110:
111: A luminous X-ray transient was discovered in NGC 2770
112: in the {\it Swift} XRT data taken
113: on 2008 January 9 for the observation of SN 2007uy in the same galaxy
114: (Berger \& Soderberg 2008; Kong \& Maccarone 2008).
115: The X-ray emission of
116: the transient reached a peak $\sim 65$ seconds, lasting $\sim 600$ seconds,
117: after the observation started (Page et al. 2008).
118: The X-ray spectrum is soft, and no $\gamma$-ray counterpart was detected by
119: the {\it Swift} BAT (Page et al. 2008).
120:
121: Given the small total X-ray energy and the soft X-ray emission,
122: Soderberg et al. (2008) and Chevalier \& Fransson (2008)
123: interpreted the X-ray transient as a supernova (SN) shock breakout.
124: On the other hand, Xu et al. (2008), Li (2008) and Mazzali et al. (2008)
125: considered this transient as the least energetic end of
126: gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and X-ray flashes (XRFs).
127:
128: The optical counterpart was discovered at the position of
129: the X-ray transient (Deng \& Zhu 2008; Valenti et al. 2008a),
130: confirming the presence of a SN, named SN 2008D (Li \& Filippenko 2008).
131: To study this event in detail, intensive follow-up observations were carried
132: out over a wide wavelength range including X-rays
133: (Soderberg et al. 2008; Modjaz et al. 2008b),
134: optical/NIR (Soderberg et al. 2008; Malesani et al. 2009;
135: Modjaz et al. 2008b; Mazzali et al. 2008), and radio (Soderberg et al. 2008).
136:
137: \begin{deluxetable*}{lrrrrrrrrrr}
138: %\rotate
139: \tablewidth{0pt}
140: \tablecaption{Explosion Models}
141: \tablehead{
142: Model &
143: $\Mms$ \tablenotemark{a} &
144: $M_{\alpha}$ \tablenotemark{b} &
145: $R_*$ \tablenotemark{c} &
146: $M_{\rm cut}$ \tablenotemark{d} &
147: $\Mej$ \tablenotemark{e} &
148: $\KE$ \tablenotemark{f} &
149: $M($\Nifs$)$ \tablenotemark{g} &
150: $v_{\rm He}$ \tablenotemark{h} &
151: $v_{\rm Ni}$ \tablenotemark{i} &
152: $M_{0.1c}$ \tablenotemark{j}
153: }
154: \startdata
155: HE4 & $\approx$ 15 & 4 & 3.5 & 1.3 & 2.7 & 1.1 & 0.07
156: & $<$3500 & 7900 & $< 3.0 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
157: HE6 & $\approx$ 20 & 6 & 2.2 & 1.6 & 4.4 & 3.7 & 0.065
158: & 6700 & 7000 & 0.007 \\
159: HE8 & $\approx$ 25 & 8 & 1.3 & 1.8 & 6.2 & 8.4 & 0.07
160: & 10500 & 9000 & 0.04 \\
161: HE10 & $\approx$ 30 & 10 & 1.2 & 2.3 & 7.7 & 13.0 & 0.07
162: & 12500 & 10600& 0.09 \\
163: HE16 & $\approx$ 40 & 16 & 0.74 & 3.6 & 12.4& 26.5 & 0.07
164: & 17500 & 14000& 0.24 \\
165: \hline
166: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Soderberg et al. (2008)} & & $\sim 1$ \tablenotemark{k}
167: & & 3-5 & 2-4 & 0.05 & & & \\
168: Mazzali et al. (2008) & $\sim 30$ & &
169: & & $\sim$7 & $\sim$6 & 0.09 & & & 0.03
170: \enddata
171: \tablenotetext{a}{Main-sequence mass ($\Msun$) estimated
172: from the approximate formula obtained by Sugimoto \& Nomoto (1980)}
173: \tablenotetext{b}{The mass of the He star ($\Msun$)}
174: \tablenotetext{c}{Progenitor radius prior to the explosion ($\Rsun$)}
175: \tablenotetext{d}{Mass cut ($\Msun$)}
176: \tablenotetext{e}{The mass of the SN ejecta ($\Msun$)}
177: \tablenotetext{f}{The kinetic energy of the SN ejecta ($10^{51}$ erg)}
178: \tablenotetext{g}{The mass of ejected \Nifs\ ($\Msun$)}
179: \tablenotetext{h}{Velocity at the bottom of the He layer (\kms)}
180: \tablenotetext{i}{Velocity at the outer boundary of \Nifs\ distribution (\kms)}
181: \tablenotetext{j}{The ejecta mass at $v > 0.1c$ ($\Msun$)}
182: \tablenotetext{k}{Estimated from the photospheric radius and temperature
183: of the early part of the LC ($t \lsim 4$ days)
184: using the formulae by Waxman et al. (2007).
185: This is consistent with the estimate by Modjaz et al. (2008b) while
186: Chevalier \& Fransson (2008) derived $\sim 9 \Rsun$ using
187: $\Mej$ and $\KE$ estimated by Soderberg et al. (2008)
188: and the formulae by Chevalier (1992).}
189: \label{tab:models}
190: \end{deluxetable*}
191:
192:
193: SN 2008D showed a broad-line optical spectrum
194: at early epochs ($t \lsim 10$ days, hereafter $t$ denotes time
195: after the transient, 2008 Jan 9.56 UT; Soderberg et al. 2008).
196: However, the spectrum changed to that of normal Type Ib SN, \ie
197: SN with He absorption lines and without H lines (Modjaz et al. 2008c).
198: To date, the SN associated with GRBs or XRFs are all Type Ic,
199: \ie SNe without H and He absorption.
200:
201: Soderberg et al. (2008) and Mazzali et al. (2008)
202: estimated the ejected mass and the kinetic energy of SN 2008D.
203: Using analytic formulae, Soderberg et al. (2008) suggested that this SN has
204: the ejecta mass $\Mej = 3 - 5 \Msun$
205: and the kinetic energy of the ejecta $\KE \sim 2 - 4 \times 10^{51}$ erg.
206: Mazzali et al. (2008) did model calculations and suggested that this event is
207: intermediate between normal SNe and GRB-associated SNe (or hypernovae),
208: with $\Mej \sim 7 \Msun$ and $\KE \sim 6 \times 10^{51}$ erg.
209: In their model calculations, hydrodynamic/nucleosynthetic models are not
210: used, and thus, their estimate of the core mass prior to the explosion
211: and the progenitor main-sequence mass is less direct.
212:
213:
214: In this paper, we present detailed theoretical study of
215: emission from SN 2008D.
216: The bolometric light curve (LC) and optical spectra are modelled
217: based on the progenitor models and the explosion models obtained from
218: hydrodynamic/nucleosynthetic calculations.
219: In \S \ref{sec:models}, we show the progenitor and explosion models.
220: The optical LC and spectra are modelled in \S \ref{sec:LC}
221: and \S \ref{sec:spec}, respectively.
222: We discuss the nature of SN 2008D in \S \ref{sec:discussion}
223: and finally give conclusions in \S \ref{sec:conclusions}.
224: Throughout this paper, we adopt 31 Mpc ($\mu = 32.46$ mag)
225: for the distance to SN 2008D (Modjaz et al. 2008b; Mazzali et al. 2008)
226: and $E(B-V)=0.65$ mag for the total reddening (Mazzali et al. 2008).
227:
228:
229: \section{Models}
230: \label{sec:models}
231:
232:
233: To understand the nature of SN 2008D and its progenitor star,
234: (1) we first construct the exploding He star models
235: with various masses by performing hydrodynamic/nucleosynthetic calculations
236: for the presupernova He star models.
237: (2) The important parameters of the SN, such as the mass ($\Mej$)
238: and kinetic energy of the ejecta ($\KE$),
239: are estimated by modelling the bolometric LC (\S \ref{sec:LC}) and
240: the optical spectra (\S \ref{sec:spec}).
241: Then, (3) the He star mass ($M_{\alpha}$) can be estimated from the
242: best set of $\Mej$ and $\KE$.
243: Finally, (4) the main-sequence mass ($\Mms$) of the progenitor star
244: can be estimated by the evolution models,
245: which predict the $\Mms$-$M_{\alpha}$ relation.
246:
247: In this section, we construct hydrodynamic models using an evolutionary model.
248: The progenitor model and hydrodynamic/nucleosynthetic calculations
249: are described in \S \ref{sec:progenitor} and \S \ref{sec:hydro}, respectively.
250: The hydrodynamic models are tested in \S \ref{sec:LC} and \S \ref{sec:spec}.
251:
252:
253:
254: \subsection{Progenitor Models}
255: \label{sec:progenitor}
256:
257: In the strategy described above,
258: presupernova He star models are required as input for
259: the hydrodynamic calculations.
260: The Wolf-Rayet star models with stellar winds tend to form the
261: He stars whose masses are larger than that inferred for
262: SN 2008D (\eg Soderberg et al. 2008).
263: To study the properties of the ejecta and the progenitor star
264: without specifying the mass loss mechanism (stellar winds
265: in Wolf-Rayet star or Roche lobe overflow in close binary, \ie
266: possible binary progenitor scenario, \eg Wellstein \& Langer 1999),
267: we adopt the He star evolution models with various masses.
268: We use five He star models with
269: the masses of $4$, $6$, $8$, $10$ and $16 \Msun$
270: (Nomoto \& Hashimoto 1988; Nomoto et al. 1997; Nakamura et al. 2001b),
271: where the mass loss is not taken into account.
272: These models are called HE4, HE6, HE8, HE10 and HE16, respectively.
273: The corresponding main-sequence masses of these models are
274: $\approx 15$, $20$, $25$, $30$ and $40 \Msun$,
275: respectively (Table \ref{tab:models}),
276: which is estimated from the approximate formula
277: of the $\Mms$-$M_{\alpha}$ relation obtained by
278: Sugimoto \& Nomoto (1980; Eq. 4.1).
279:
280: The difference in the density structure of the He core is negligible
281: among different stellar evolutionary calculations
282: if the He core mass is the same.
283: As a result, the observable quantities (\ie LC and spectra)
284: after the hydrodynamic and radiative transfer calculations
285: are not affected by the variety of the evolutionary models.
286: Thus, the estimate of $\Mej$ and $\KE$ does not depend on
287: the evolutionary models.
288:
289: \begin{figure}
290: \begin{center}
291: %\epsscale{1.0}
292: %\plotone{f1.eps}
293: \includegraphics[scale=0.75]{f1.eps}
294: \caption{Relation between the main-sequence mass
295: and the He core mass in the formula derived by Sugimoto \& Nomoto
296: (1980; red, used in Nomoto \& Hashimoto 1988).
297: It is compared with the relation between the main-sequence mass
298: and the He core mass at the presupernova stage in the models by
299: Limongi \& Chieffi (2006, blue), Hirschi et al. (2004, green and cyan for
300: non-rotating and rotating models, respectively),
301: and Rauscher et al. (2002, black).
302: The models shown in open squares have H envelope while
303: the models shown in filled squares have a bare He core.
304: \label{fig:ms_core}}
305: \end{center}
306: \end{figure}
307:
308:
309: However, the $\Mms$-$M_{\alpha}$ relation
310: depends on the several evolutionary processes that are subject to
311: uncertainties, \eg
312: the convective overshooting, wind mass loss, shear mixing and
313: meridional circulation in rotating stars.
314: The different assumptions adopted in different stellar calculation
315: codes may affect the $\Mms$-$M_{\alpha}$ relation
316: as summarized in Figure \ref{fig:ms_core}.
317: The red line shows the formula derived by Sugimoto \& Nomoto (1980).
318: The other lines show
319: the relations obtained by
320: the models including mass loss (Limongi \& Chieffi 2006,
321: blue; Hirschi et al. 2004, green; Rauscher et al. 2002, black), and
322: rotation ($v_{ZAMS}=300$ \kms; Hirschi et al. 2004, cyan).
323: The models shown in open squares have a H envelope
324: prior to the explosion while
325: the models shown in the filled squares have a bare He core.
326:
327: These models assume the solar abundance for the initial abundance.
328: The mass loss causes the smaller $M_{\alpha}$ for $\Mms> 30 \Msun$
329: in the models by Limongi \& Chieffi (2006) and Hirschi et al. (2004).
330: For the lower metallicity models, the mass loss
331: rate is lower, so that the $\Mms$-$M_{\alpha}$ relation would be closer to
332: that of Sugimoto \& Nomoto (1980).
333: For the stars with $\Mms \lsim 30 \Msun$ or $M_{\alpha} \lsim 10 \Msun$,
334: the gradient in the plot is similar among the models.
335:
336: At the presupernova stage, the He stars consist of the Fe core,
337: Si-rich layer, O-rich layer, and He-rich layer.
338: The mass of the Fe-core is $\sim 1.4 - 1.6 \Msun$, depending on the model.
339: The mass of the O-rich layer is sensitive to the progenitor mass, while
340: the mass of the He-rich layer is $\sim 2 \Msun$
341: irrespectively of the He star mass.
342: Note that the mass of He-rich layer can be as large as $\sim 3 \Msun$
343: depending on the evolutionary models (\eg Limongi \& Chieffi 2006) and
344: can also be smaller than $2 \Msun$ prior to the explosion by mass loss.
345:
346: The mass fraction of O in the O-rich layer is $\sim 0.8$.
347: Other abundant elements in this layer are Ne, Mg, and C,
348: with mass fractions of order 0.1.
349: These are almost irrespective of the evolutionary models.
350: The He mass fraction in the He-rich layer is $\sim 0.9$.
351: The second most abundant element in this layer is C, with a mass fraction
352: of $\sim 0.03$, but this is rather uncertain (\S \ref{sec:LC}).
353: Oxygen is also produced in the He-rich layer,
354: but the mass fraction of O is only $\sim 0.01$.
355:
356:
357:
358: \begin{figure}
359: \begin{center}
360: %\epsscale{1.0}
361: %\plotone{f1.eps}
362: \includegraphics[scale=1.1]{f2.eps}
363: \caption{
364: Density profile of the explosion models at one day after the explosion.
365: Red (HE4), blue (HE6), green (HE8), magenta (HE10), and gray (HE16)
366: lines show the models for SN 2008D (see Table \ref{tab:models}).
367: The black line shows the C+O star explosion model
368: used for SN 1998bw in Nakamura et al. (2001a).
369: The vertical lines show the velocity at the bottom of the He layer
370: in each model (with the same colors).
371: \label{fig:dens}}
372: \end{center}
373: \end{figure}
374:
375:
376: \subsection{Hydrodynamics \& Nucleosynthesis}
377: \label{sec:hydro}
378:
379:
380: The hydrodynamics of the SN explosion and explosive nucleosynthesis
381: are calculated for the five progenitor models.
382: The hydrodynamic calculations are performed
383: by a spherical Lagrangian hydrodynamic code
384: with the piecewise parabolic method (PPM; Colella \& Woodward 1984).
385: The code includes nuclear energy production from the $\alpha$ network.
386: The equation of state includes gas, radiation, e$^-$-e$^+$ pairs,
387: Coulomb interaction between ions and electrons and phase transition
388: (Nomoto 1982; Nomoto \& Hashimoto 1988).
389: The explosion is initiated by increasing the temperatures
390: at a few meshes below the mass cut (see below), \ie a thermal bomb.
391:
392: The SN ejecta become homologous at $\sim 1000$ s after the explosion.
393: After the hydrodynamic calculations, nucleosynthesis is calculated
394: for each model as a post-processing (Hix \& Thielemann 1996, 1999).
395: The reaction network includes 280 isotopes up to $^{79}$Br.
396: The results of the nucleosynthesis depends on the progenitor mass
397: and the kinetic energy of the explosion.
398: The kinetic energies in the five models are determined to explain the
399: observed LC (\S \ref{sec:LC}).
400:
401: The explosion models are summarized in Table \ref{tab:models}.
402: The mass cut ($M_{\rm cut}$) is defined after the nucleosynthesis
403: calculation to eject the optimal amount of \Nifs\ to power the LC.
404: Figure \ref{fig:dens} shows the density structure of the explosion models
405: at one day after the initiation of the explosion.
406: The ``bump'' in the density profile is caused by the reverse shock
407: generated at the boundary of the C+O/He layers.
408:
409: The vertical lines in Figure \ref{fig:dens} show the velocity at the bottom
410: of the He layer after the expansion of SN ejecta become homologous
411: ($v_{\rm He}$, Table \ref{tab:models}).
412: Since strong mixing is expected in less massive stars
413: ($M_{\alpha} \lsim 4 \Msun$, Hachisu et al. 1991), the value of $v_{\rm He}$
414: in model HE4 is the upper limit of the inner velocity of the He-rich layer.
415: If the mass of the He layer prior to the explosion is
416: larger (smaller) than $\sim 2 \Msun$ as in our model set,
417: $v_{\rm He}$ can be lower (higher).
418:
419:
420: \section{Bolometric Light Curve}
421: \label{sec:LC}
422:
423: \begin{figure*}
424: \begin{center}
425: \begin{tabular}{cc}
426: \includegraphics[scale=1.1]{f3a.eps}&
427: \includegraphics[scale=1.1]{f3b.eps}
428: \end{tabular}
429: \caption{
430: Pseudo-bolometric ($UBVRIJHK$) LC of SN 2008D
431: (Minezaki et al. in preparation)
432: compared with the results of LC calculations with the models HE4 (red),
433: HE6(blue), HE8 (green), HE10 (magenta) and HE16 (gray).
434: The pseudo-bolometric LC is shown in filled (left)
435: and open (right) circles.
436: The thin black line shows the decay energy from \Nifs\ and \Cofs\
437: [$M$(\Nifs) $=$ 0.07 $\Msun$].
438: The bolometric magnitude at $t \sim 4$ days after the X-ray
439: transient is brighter by $\sim 0.25$ mag
440: than that shown by other papers (Soderberg et al. 2008;
441: Malesani et al. 2009; Modjaz et al. 2008b; Mazzali et al. 2008),
442: which is shown by the thin arrow in the left panel (see Appendix \ref{app:LC}).
443: \label{fig:LC}}
444: \end{center}
445: \end{figure*}
446:
447: The pseudo-bolometric ($UBVRIJHK$) LC was constructed by Minezaki et al.
448: (in preparation, see Appendix \ref{app:LC}) compiling optical data taken by the MAGNUM telescope
449: (Yoshii 2002; Yoshii, Kobayashi \& Minezaki 2003),
450: the Himalayan Chandra Telescope, and {\it Swift} UVOT
451: ($U$-band, Soderberg et al. 2008),
452: and also NIR data taken by the MAGNUM telescope.
453: The first part of the LC ($t \lsim 4$ days) seems to be related
454: to the X-ray transient or the subsequent tail
455: (Soderberg et al. 2008; Chevalier \& Fransson 2008) while
456: the later part ($t \gsim 4$ days) is the SN component,
457: powered by the decay of \Nifs\ and \Cofs.
458:
459: The first part of the LC depends on the progenitor radius and
460: radiation-hydrodynamics at outer layers, as well as
461: $\Mej$ and $\KE$.
462: To determine the global properties of the SN ejecta,
463: we focus on the second, principal part, which depends on
464: $\Mej$, $\KE$ and the amount of ejected \Nifs\ mass [$\Mni$].
465: The progenitor radius is discussed in \S \ref{sec:comp}.
466:
467: The LCs are calculated for the five explosion
468: models presented in \S \ref{sec:models} (see Table \ref{tab:models}).
469: Our LTE, time-dependent radiative transfer code (Iwamoto et al. 2000)
470: solves the Saha equation to obtain the ionization structure.
471: Using the calculated electron density, the Rossland mean opacity is
472: calculated approximately by the empirical relation to the electron scattering
473: opacity derived from the TOPS database (Magee et al. 1995, Deng et al. 2005).
474: For the initial temperature structure of the SN ejecta, we use results of
475: adiabatic hydrodynamic calculations at one day after the explosion.
476: The hydrodynamics and the radiative transfer are not coupled.
477:
478: Asphericity of the ejecta of SN 2008D is suggested by the emission line
479: profile in the spectrum at $t = 109$ days (Modjaz et al. 2008b).
480: To include the possible effect of aspherical explosion, we modify the
481: distribution of \Nifs\ from that derived from nucleosynthetic calculation.
482: In hydrodynamic/nucleosynthetic calculations of aspherical explosion,
483: more \Nifs\ is mixed to the surface in the more aspherical cases
484: (see \eg Maeda et al. 2006, Tominaga 2009).
485: A constant mass fraction of \Nifs\ is assumed below
486: $v_{\rm Ni}$, the outer boundary of \Nifs\ distribution in velocity.
487: The value of $v_{\rm Ni}$ is determined so as to explain the rising part
488: of the LC.
489: The estimated $v_{\rm Ni}$ is listed in Table \ref{tab:models}.
490: The resultant mass fraction of \Nifs\ is from 0.03 (HE4) to 0.01 (HE16).
491:
492: Figure \ref{fig:LC} shows the calculated LCs compared with the observed LC.
493: The model LCs of HE8, HE10, and HE16 reproduce the observed
494: LC around the peak very well.
495: The LCs of HE4 and HE6 tend to be narrower than the observations.
496: At a later phase, the five LCs are all in good agreement with the observations.
497: The steep decline in the calculated LCs at $t \lsim 4$ days
498: could be a relic of the
499: shock-heated envelope, and radiation-hydrodynamics calculations
500: are required to study this part.
501:
502: HE4 and HE6 need some enhancement of C in the He layer
503: to reproduce the observed LC near the peak more nicely.
504: The C-abundance in the He layer is poorly known because of the uncertainties
505: involved in the C-production by convective 3 $\alpha$-reaction in progenitor
506: models and those in the Rayleigh-Taylor instability at the He/C+O interface
507: during explosions, which tends to be stronger for lower mass He stars
508: (Hachisu et al. 1991). In view of these uncertainties, we include HE4 and HE6
509: in the further spectral analysis, rather than excluding them from
510: the possible models.
511:
512: The timescale around the peak depends on both $\Mej$ and $\KE$
513: as $\propto \kappa^{1/2} \Mej^{3/4} \KE^{-1/4}$,
514: where $\kappa$ is the optical opacity (Arnett 1982).
515: Thus, for each model, a kinetic energy can be specified
516: so as to reproduce the observed timescale.
517: The derived set of ejecta parameters are ($\Mej/\Msun$, $\KE/10^{51}$ erg) =
518: (2.7, 1.1), (4.4, 3.7), (6.2, 8.4), (7.7, 13.0) and (12.4, 26.5)
519: for the case of HE4, HE6, HE8, HE10 and HE16, respectively.
520: The ejected \Nifs\ mass is $\sim 0.07 \Msun$ in all models.
521:
522: The model with $\Mej= 3-5 \Msun$ and $\KE = 2-4 \times 10^{51}$ erg
523: suggested
524: by Soderberg et al. (2008) is close to our HE6 model, while the model of
525: Mazzali et al. (2008), with
526: $\Mej= 7 \Msun$ and $\KE = 6 \times 10^{51}$ erg is close to our HE8 model.
527: Model HE4 has the canonical explosion energy of core-collapse SNe
528: (\ie $\sim 10^{51}$ erg)
529: while HE10 and HE16 have the explosion energy of hypernovae ($> 10^{52}$ erg).
530:
531: In all five models, the late evolution of the LC ($t>200$ days)
532: is not very different, with a decline rate of $\sim 0.015$ mag day$^{-1}$
533: (right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:LC}).
534: This decline is faster than the \Cofs\ decay rate (0.01 mag day$^{-1}$,
535: thin black line in Fig. \ref{fig:LC}) because some $\gamma$-rays escape
536: without depositing energy in the SN ejecta at such late epochs.
537: These models predict that the optical magnitude of SN 2008D
538: is $\sim -10.5$ mag
539: (observed magnitude $\sim 23.8$ with no bolometric correction)
540: in 2008 October,
541: \ie $\sim 300$ days after the explosion, when the SN can be observed again,
542: and $\sim -9.6$ mag ($\sim 24.7$ mag) at one year after the explosion
543: (if dust does not form in the ejecta).
544:
545:
546:
547:
548:
549: \begin{figure}
550: \begin{center}
551: \includegraphics[scale=1.1]{f4.eps}
552: \caption{
553: Spectrum of SN 2008D at $t=4.6$ days from the X-ray transient
554: (black line, Mazzali et al. 2008)
555: compared with synthetic spectra (color lines).
556: The spectra are shifted by 6.0, 4.5, 3.0, 1.5, 0.0 from top to bottom.
557: The model spectra are reddened with $E(B-V)=0.65$ mag.
558: From top to bottom, the synthetic spectra calculated with HE4, HE6, HE8,
559: HE10, and HE16 are shown.
560: The red, blue and green lines show the synthetic spectra with oxygen
561: mass fraction $X$(O) = 0.01, 0.1, and 0.5, respectively.
562: Since the synthetic spectra with $X$(O) = 0.1 for more massive models
563: than HE4 already show too strong \ion{O}{i} line, the spectra with $X$(O) = 0.5
564: are not shown for these models.
565: \label{fig:t4}}
566: \end{center}
567: \end{figure}
568:
569: \section{Optical Spectra}
570: \label{sec:spec}
571:
572: In this section, the five models are tested against the observed spectra.
573: Optical spectra have been shown by Soderberg et al. (2008),
574: Malesani et al. (2009), Modjaz et al. (2008b) and Mazzali et al. (2008).
575: We use the data set presented by Mazzali et al. (2008).
576: The spectral sequence can be divided into three parts.
577: At the earliest epochs ($t \lsim 4$ days),
578: the spectra are almost featureless
579: \footnote{Two absorption features are identified
580: around 4000 \AA\ in the spectra at $t \sim 2$ days
581: ($t=1.77$ days, Malesani et al. 2009; $t=1.84$ days, Modjaz et al. 2008b),
582: while they are not seen in the spectra at $t=1.54$ and $2.49$ days
583: presented by Mazzali et al. (2008).
584: These absorptions might be due to more highly-ionized ions, such as
585: \ion{C}{iii}, \ion{N}{iii}. and \ion{O}{iii}
586: (Modjaz et al. 2008b; Quimby et al. 2007).
587: We have investigated these lines
588: by the Monte Carlo spectrum synthesis code, but
589: we don't find a large contribution of these ions
590: because ionizations by the photospheric radiation only is not enough
591: for the strong contributions of such ions,
592: as noted by Modjaz et al. (2008b).}.
593: This is probably the result of shock heating (the first part of the LC).
594: At $4 \lsim t \lsim 10$ days, the spectra show broad-line features.
595: Around and after maximum ($t \gsim 10$ days), the spectrum shows strong He
596: features as in Type Ib SNe.
597: The velocity of the He lines is $\sim 9000$ - $10,000$ \kms\
598: (\S \ref{sec:vel}).
599: We present spectral modelling at the SN dominated phase, \ie $t \gsim 4$ days.
600:
601: For spectral modelling, we use the one-dimensional
602: Monte Carlo spectrum synthesis code (Mazzali \& Lucy 1993).
603: The code assumes a spherically symmetric, sharply defined photosphere.
604: Electron and line scattering are taken into account.
605: For line scattering, the effect of line branching is included
606: (Lucy 1999; Mazzali 2000).
607: The ionization structure is calculated with modified nebular approximation
608: as in Mazzali \& Lucy (1993, see also Abbott \& Lucy 1985).
609: Although it is known that the non-thermal excitation is important for the He
610: lines (Lucy 1991), non-thermal processes are not included in our analysis.
611: Thus, we do not aim to obtain a good fit of the He lines.
612:
613: To determine the temperature structure, many photon packets are first
614: traced above the photosphere with an assumed temperature structure.
615: The Monte Carlo ray tracing gives the flux at each mesh and
616: the temperature structure is then updated using the flux.
617: This procedure is repeated until the temperature converges.
618: Finally a model spectrum is obtained using a formal integral (Lucy 1999).
619:
620: The input parameters of the code are emergent luminosity ($L$),
621: the position of the photosphere in velocity
622: (photospheric velocity, $\vph$), and element abundances (mass fractions)
623: above the photosphere (\ie in the SN atmosphere).
624: Note that $L$ and $\vph$ do not depend much on the model parameters
625: such as $\Mej$ and $\KE$.
626: They are constrained by the absolute flux of the spectrum and the
627: line velocities, respectively
628: (and also by the relation of $L \propto \vph^2 t^2 T_{\rm eff}^4$,
629: where $T_{\rm eff}$ is the effective temperature of the spectrum).
630:
631: With the estimated luminosity and photospheric velocity,
632: mass fractions of elements are optimized.
633: For simplicity, homogeneous abundances are assumed above the
634: photosphere without using the results of nucleosynthetic calculations.
635: We compare the derived abundances with those by nucleosynthetic calculations
636: for the progenitor models.
637: The goodness of the fit is judged by eyes
638: because of the complex dependences of the parameters
639: and the difficulty in obtaining the perfect fit of the overall spectrum.
640:
641:
642:
643:
644: \subsection{Broad-Line Spectrum: At $t = 4.6$ Days}
645: \label{sec:broad}
646:
647: We first perform model calculations for the spectrum at $t=4.6$ days
648: (Fig. \ref{fig:t4}).
649: The spectrum shows broad-line features.
650:
651: \subsubsection{Intermediate Mass Model HE8}
652:
653: We use model HE8, the middle of our model sequence, as a fiducial case.
654: A good agreement with the observed spectrum is obtained with
655: $\vph = 18,500$ \kms\ and log $L$ (erg s$^{-1}$) = 41.7.
656: Since this velocity is higher than the He line velocities observed
657: later phases ($\sim 9000$-$10,000$ \kms),
658: the photosphere at this epoch is expected to be located in the He-rich layer.
659:
660: Figure \ref{fig:t4} shows a comparison of the observed and synthetic spectrum.
661: The spectrum has P-Cygni profiles of \ion{O}{i}, \ion{Na}{i},
662: \ion{Ca}{ii}, \ion{Ti}{ii}, \ion{Cr}{ii}, and \ion{Fe}{ii} lines.
663: The line at 6000 \AA\ is identified as \ion{Si}{ii}.
664: The contribution of the high velocity H$\alpha$ is quite small,
665: which is discussed in Appendix \ref{app:H}.
666: The spectrum at wavelengths bluer than 5500\AA\
667: is dominated by \ion{Ti}{ii}, \ion{Cr}{ii}, and \ion{Fe}{ii} lines.
668: Given the uncertainty in the metal abundances in outer layers,
669: reflecting the uncertainty of the explosion mechanism or the degree of mixing,
670: these features can be fitted using the optimal value of the metal abundances.
671:
672: In contrast to the heavy, synthesized elements, the oxygen abundance cannot
673: be totally parameterized because the majority of oxygen is synthesized
674: during the evolution of the progenitor star.
675: The red and blue line shows synthetic spectra with oxygen abundance
676: $X$(O)=0.01 and 0.1, respectively.
677: In these models, the abundance of He is $X$(He)$\sim$0.8 and 0.7, respectively.
678: The spectrum with $X$(O)=0.01 (red) gives a good match
679: with the observed \ion{O}{i}$\lambda$7774 line around 7400\AA, while the
680: \ion{O}{i} line in the model spectrum with $X$(O)=0.1 (blue) is too strong.
681: Since the oxygen abundance in the He-rich layer is of the order of $10^{-2}$
682: almost irrespective of evolutionary models,
683: this is consistent with the fact that the
684: photosphere is located in the He-rich layer.
685:
686: In the observed spectrum, the \ion{O}{i} and \ion{Ca}{ii} IR triplet are
687: blended at 7000 - 8500 \AA\ while they are separated in the synthetic spectra.
688: This is caused by the insufficient \ion{Ca}{ii} absorption in the model at
689: the very high velocity layer with $v \sim 0.1c$.
690: The ejecta mass at $v> 0.1c$ in HE8 is $0.04 \Msun$
691: (Table \ref{tab:models}),
692: which is consistent with that in the model presented by Mazzali et al. (2008).
693: Note that the mass at $v>0.1c$ is much smaller than in the model for
694: SN 1998bw ($\sim 1.5 \Msun$, CO138E50 in Nakamura et al. 2001a, see also
695: Fig. \ref{fig:dens}).
696:
697:
698:
699: \subsubsection{Massive Models HE10 and HE16}
700:
701: Next, we use the more massive models.
702: For model HE10, the \ion{O}{i} line in the model with $X$(O)=0.01 (red) seems
703: to be strong, but we can obtain a good fit with slightly smaller oxygen
704: abundance.
705: For model HE16, the strength of the \ion{O}{i} line with $X$(O)=0.01 (red) is
706: similar to that in HE10.
707: In these massive models, the \ion{O}{i} feature is too strong in the model
708: spectra with $X$(O)=0.1 (blue).
709: This is consistent with the fact that the photosphere ($v=18,500$ \kms) is
710: located in the He-rich layer.
711:
712:
713: \subsubsection{Less Massive Models HE6 and HE4}
714:
715: Finally, we use less massive models.
716: For the less massive model HE6, $X$(O)=0.01 gives a reasonable fit to
717: the \ion{O}{i} line.
718: In contrast, $X$(O)=0.1 yields too strong a line.
719: This is a similar behavior to the more massive models, and
720: implies that the photosphere is located in the He-rich layer.
721:
722: For HE4, the synthetic spectra with $X$(O)=0.01 and 0.1
723: do not give a strong enough \ion{O}{i} absorption (red and blue lines).
724: To explain the observed absorption, $X$(O)=0.5 is required (green line)
725: because of the low density at the outer layer of HE4 (Fig. \ref{fig:dens}).
726: This requires that the layer at $v= 18,500$ \kms\ should already be O-rich,
727: which is clearly inconsistent with the observed He line velocity
728: ($v \sim 9000$-$10,000$ \kms).
729: Therefore, HE4 is not likely to be a viable model for SN 2008D.
730:
731:
732:
733: \begin{figure}
734: \begin{center}
735: \includegraphics[scale=1.1]{f5.eps}
736: \caption{
737: Spectrum of SN 2008D at $t=32.4$ days from the X-ray transient
738: (black line, Mazzali et al. 2008) compared with
739: synthetic spectra (color lines).
740: The spectra are shifted by 20.0, 15.0, 10.0, 5.0, 0.0 from top to bottom.
741: The model spectra are reddened with $E(B-V)=0.65$ mag.
742: From top to bottom, the synthetic spectra calculated with HE4, HE6, HE8,
743: HE10, and HE16 are shown.
744: The red and blue lines show the synthetic spectra with an oxygen
745: mass fraction of $X$(O) = 0.01 and 0.8, respectively.
746: Dashed, vertical
747: lines show the position of the He lines (\ion{He}{i} 5876, 6678, 7065)
748: blueshifted with $v=10,000$ \kms.
749: Note that the He lines are not treated in the code.
750: \label{fig:t32}}
751: \end{center}
752: \end{figure}
753:
754:
755: \subsection{Type Ib Spectrum: At $t = 32.4$ Days }
756: \label{sec:Ib}
757:
758:
759: At $t=32.4$ days, the observed spectrum shows typical Type Ib features.
760: The overall features are fitted well with
761: $\vph = 7500$\,\kms\ and log $L$ (erg s$^{-1}$) = 42.1 (Fig. \ref{fig:t32}).
762: The observed Fe lines at 4500 - 5000\,\AA\ are too narrow to be reproduced
763: by the massive models (HE8, HE10 and HE16). This is caused by our crude
764: assumption of a homogeneous abundance distribution, which is not appropriate
765: for synthesized elements such as Fe in the inner layer.
766: The spectra might be improved using a stratified abundance distribution
767: or non-spherical models (Tanaka et al. 2007).
768:
769:
770: \subsubsection{Intermediate Mass Model HE8}
771:
772: The model spectrum with $X$(O)=0.01, as assumed for the spectrum at t=4.6 days,
773: is shown in red line.
774: The synthetic \ion{O}{i} line at 7500 \AA\ is
775: slightly weaker than the observation.
776: A value $X$(O)=0.8 yields a reasonably strong \ion{O}{i} line (blue), which
777: implies that the photosphere ($v =7500$ \kms) is not located in the He-rich
778: layer, consistent with $v_{\rm He} = 10500$ \kms\
779: (velocity at the bottom of the He layer) of HE8.
780:
781:
782: \subsubsection{Massive Models HE10 and HE16}
783: \label{sec:t32massive}
784:
785: The synthetic spectra calculated using HE10 and HE16 show
786: the stronger \ion{O}{i} line than HE8.
787: The spectrum with $X$(O)=0.01 (red) gives a slightly weaker \ion{O}{i} line
788: than in the observation, while
789: the spectrum with $X$(O)=0.8 (blue) yields a sufficiently strong line.
790: Although the synthetic \ion{O}{i} line with $X$(O)=0.8
791: is too strong especially at high velocity (\ie at bluer wavelength),
792: this is caused by the assumption of the homogeneous abundance distribution.
793: Thus, near the photosphere, a high mass fraction of O is preferred.
794: This is consistent with the high $v_{\rm He}$ of these models
795: ($12,500$ and $17,500$ for HE10 and HE16, respectively).
796:
797: However, the observed He line velocities ($v \sim 9000$-$10,000$ \kms)
798: suggest that the layer at $v \sim 10,000$ \kms\ is still He-rich.
799: This is inconsistent with the high $v_{\rm He}$ in HE10 and HE16,
800: requiring that the layers at $v \sim 10,000$ \kms\ be O-rich.
801:
802:
803: \subsubsection{Less Massive Models HE6 and HE4}
804:
805:
806: \begin{figure}
807: \begin{center}
808: \includegraphics[scale=1.]{f6.eps}
809: \caption{
810: Spectral evolution of SN 2008D (black, Mazzali et al. 2008) compared with
811: the sequence of the synthetic spectra computed with HE8 (red).
812: The epoch in the figure shows the days from the X-ray transient.
813: The values in the parenthesis shows the mass fraction of oxygen
814: assumed in the calculation.
815: The spectra are shifted by 16.0, 14.0, 12.0, 10.0, 8.0, 6.0,
816: 4.0, 2.0, 0.0 from top to bottom.
817: The model spectra are reddened with $E(B-V)=0.65$ mag.
818: Dashed, vertical lines show the position of the He lines
819: (\ion{He}{i} 5876, 6678, 7065)
820: blueshifted with $v=10,000$ \kms.
821: Note that the He lines are not treated in the code.
822: \label{fig:spec_seq}}
823: \end{center}
824: \end{figure}
825:
826:
827: The synthetic spectra using HE6 also have similar trend with those of HE8.
828: The spectrum with $X$(O)=0.8 (blue)
829: gives a reasonable fit to the \ion{O}{i} line.
830: Although the low velocity at the bottom of the He layer in HE6
831: ($v_{\rm He}=6700$ \kms) suggests that the photosphere at this epoch
832: ($v=7500$ \kms) is still in the He layer, this small difference is within
833: the uncertainty of $v_{\rm He}$ caused by the variation of the
834: He layer mass depending on evolutionary models.
835:
836: For HE4, the \ion{O}{i} absorption is reproduced with $X$(O)$=0.8$.
837: However, the very low $v_{\rm He}$ of HE4 ($<3500$ \kms) is
838: not consistent with the fact that the spectrum model
839: requires the O-dominated photosphere at $v=7500$ \kms.
840:
841:
842: \subsection{Velocity Evolution}
843: \label{sec:vel}
844:
845:
846: \begin{figure}
847: \begin{center}
848: \includegraphics[scale=1.1]{f7.eps}
849: \caption{
850: Time evolution of photospheric velocity calculated by the LC code
851: (color lines) and that derived from the spectral modelling (filled circles).
852: Open black symbols show the line velocity of He lines.
853: The horizontal lines show $v_{\rm He}$ for each model (Table \ref{tab:models}).
854: Note that $v_{\rm He}$ can be varied depending on evolutionary models
855: with different masses of the He layer.
856: \label{fig:vph}}
857: \end{center}
858: \end{figure}
859:
860:
861: Using the fiducial model HE8, we calculate the spectral evolution
862: (Fig. \ref{fig:spec_seq}).
863: The values in the parenthesis is the oxygen mass fraction adopted
864: in the fitting.
865: We find that a higher oxygen mass fraction is preferred for the later
866: spectra.
867: Although a homogeneous mass fraction is assumed in the calculation,
868: the photospheric position seems to transit from the He-rich layer
869: to the O-rich layer around $t=25.5$ days.
870: Thus, the boundary between the He-rich and O-rich layers
871: is located near $v = 7800$ \kms.
872:
873: Figure \ref{fig:vph} shows the photospheric velocities derived
874: from the spectral modelling (filled black circles), which does not depend
875: much on the model parameters.
876: In Figure \ref{fig:vph}, the photospheric velocities obtained from the
877: synthetic LCs (\S \ref{sec:LC}) are also shown (solid lines).
878: The photospheric velocities for HE6 and HE8 are close to the values derived
879: from spectral modelling.
880: However, it should be noted that the photospheric velocities obtained from
881: the LC models are only approximate because the LC model assumes LTE
882: and does not fully take into account the contribution of the line opacity.
883: Thus, uncertainty of a few thousand \kms\ is expected.
884: Nevertheless, the decreasing trend of the photospheric velocity
885: derived from the spectral modelling is reproduced by our LC calculations
886: because (1) we use the hydrodynamic models (Fig. \ref{fig:dens})
887: having a decreasing density structure toward the outer layers
888: and (2) we solve the ionization in the ejecta,
889: and thus, the opacity is time-dependent.
890:
891: In Figure \ref{fig:vph}, the Doppler velocities of three \ion{He}{i} lines
892: measured at the absorption minimum (open symbols) are also shown.
893: Malesani et al. (2009) and Modjaz et al. (2008b) show the subsequent spectral
894: evolution, and the He line velocity declines slowly to $v \sim 9000$ \kms.
895:
896: The horizontal lines in Figure \ref{fig:vph} mark the velocity at the bottom
897: of the He layer for the five models ($v_{\rm He}$, see Table \ref{tab:models}).
898: In HE10 and HE16, $v_{\rm He}$ is too high compared with the observed
899: velocities (\S \ref{sec:t32massive}).
900: Also in HE8, it may be higher than the minimum of the observed
901: He line velocity ($v \sim 9000$ \kms).
902: The lower $v_{\rm He}$ in HE4 and HE6 cannot be excluded
903: from the observed line velocities.
904: But the spectral modelling shows that the layer at $v \sim 7500$ \kms\
905: is not He-rich (\S 4.2).
906: This is inconsistent with the very low $v_{\rm He}$ in HE4.
907: It must be cautioned that $v_{\rm He}$ is affected by the mass of the He layer
908: (\ie by the choice of evolutionary models).
909:
910:
911: \section{Discussion}
912: \label{sec:discussion}
913:
914:
915:
916: \begin{figure}
917: \begin{center}
918: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f8a.eps}
919: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f8b.eps}
920: \caption{
921: Kinetic energy of the explosion (upper) and the ejected \Nifs\ mass
922: as a function of the estimated main-sequence mass of the progenitors
923: for several core-collapse SNe.
924: The parameters are listed in Table \ref{tab:param} with references.
925: The progenitor mass of SNe shown in the figure is estimated
926: based on the $\Mms$-$M_{\alpha}$ relation
927: by Sugimoto \& Nomoto (1980; used in Nomoto \& Hashimoto 1988)
928: as in this paper.
929: \label{fig:ME}}
930: \end{center}
931: \end{figure}
932:
933:
934: \subsection{Optimal Model for SN 2008D}
935:
936: For the five He star progenitor models, we calculate hydrodynamics of the
937: explosions and explosive nucleosynthesis.
938: To reproduce the observed LC,
939: we obtain the possible set of the mass and kinetic energy of the ejecta:
940: ($\Mej/\Msun$, $\KE/10^{51}$ erg) =
941: (2.7, 1.1), (4.4, 3.7), (6.2, 8.4), (7.7, 13.0) and (12.4, 26.5)
942: for HE4, HE6, HE8, HE10 and HE16, respectively.
943: These five models are tested against the optical spectra.
944:
945: Model HE4 has many difficulties in reproducing the observed spectra.
946: At early epochs, the calculated \ion{O}{i} line is too weak
947: because of the too small oxygen mass in the He-rich layer.
948: At later epoch, the model spectrum suggests that
949: the photospheric layer at $v = 7500$ \kms\ is O-rich,
950: which is not consistent with the explosion model that has
951: He-rich or He-O mixed layers at $v \gsim 3000$ \kms.
952:
953: Model HE6 can reproduce the observed spectra well.
954: The evolution of the photospheric velocity calculated with HE6
955: is in reasonable agreement
956: with the velocities derived from the spectral modelling (Fig. \ref{fig:vph}).
957: The spectral model at $t=32.4$ suggests that the layer at
958: $v \sim 7500$ \kms\ is not the He-rich layer,
959: while the slightly lower $v_{\rm He}$ of HE6 ($6700$ \kms)
960: implies that the photosphere at this epoch is He-rich.
961:
962: Model HE8 is reasonably consistent with all the aspects studied in this paper
963: At all epochs, the optical spectra can be explained
964: with a reasonable abundance distribution,
965: and the calculated photospheric velocities are consistent with those derived
966: from spectrum synthesis.
967: However, the velocity at the bottom of the He layer ($v_{\rm He}$) in HE8
968: is slightly higher than the observed He line velocities.
969:
970: Model HE10 and HE16 reproduce the early and later spectra reasonably well.
971: However, these models predict too high photospheric velocity
972: (Fig. \ref{fig:vph}).
973: In addition, the velocities at the bottom the He layer
974: ($v_{\rm He}=12,500$ and $17,500$ \kms for HE10 and HE16, respectively),
975: are not consistent with the observed line velocity
976: ($v \sim 9000$ - $10,000$ \kms).
977:
978: In summary HE4, HE10 and HE16 are not consistent with SN 2008D.
979: Both HE6 and HE8 have a small inconsistency related to the
980: boundary between the He-rich and O-rich layers.
981: It seems that a model between HE6 and HE8 may be preferable.
982: However, since there is uncertainty in $v_{\rm He}$ in our model set,
983: depending on the mass of the He layers,
984: we include both HE6 and HE8 as possible models.
985:
986: We conclude that the progenitor star of SN 2008D has a He core mass
987: $M_{\alpha} = 6-8 \Msun$ prior to the explosion.
988: This corresponds to a main-sequence
989: mass of $\Mms =20-25 \Msun$ under the $\Mms$-$M_{\alpha}$ relation
990: by Sugimoto \& Nomoto (1980; used in Nomoto \& Hashimoto 1988).
991: We find that SN 2008D is an explosion with $\Mej = 5.3 \pm 1.0 \Msun$
992: and $\KE = 6.0 \pm 2.5 \times 10^{51}$ erg.
993: The mass of the central remnant is $1.6 - 1.8 \Msun$, which is near
994: the boundary mass between the neutron star and the black hole.
995: Note that the error bars only reflect the uncertainty of the LC
996: and spectral modelling.
997: Possible additional uncertainties of the parameters are discussed below.
998:
999: \begin{deluxetable*}{llllll}
1000: \tablewidth{0pt}
1001: \tablecaption{Parameters of Supernovae}
1002: \tablehead{
1003: SN (Type) &
1004: $\Mej$ \tablenotemark{a} &
1005: $\KE$ \tablenotemark{b} &
1006: $M($\Nifs$)$ \tablenotemark{c} &
1007: $M_{\rm MS}$ \tablenotemark{d} &
1008: Refs.
1009: }
1010: \startdata
1011: SN 1987A (II pec) & $14.7$ & $1.1\pm 0.3$ & $0.07 $
1012: & $20 \pm 2$ & 1, 2 \\
1013: SN 1993J (IIb) & $3.2 \pm 0.3$ & $1.1\pm 0.1$ & $0.08 \pm 0.03$
1014: & $13.5 \pm 1.5$ & 3 \\
1015: SN 1994I (Ic) & $1.05 \pm 0.15$ & $1.0 \pm 0.2$ & $0.07 \pm 0.03$
1016: & $14 \pm 1$ & 4, 5 \\
1017: SN 1997D (II) & $\sim 24$ & $\sim 0.4$ & $0.0045 \pm 0.0035$
1018: & $30 \pm 10$ & 6 \\
1019: SN 1997ef (Ic) & $8.6 \pm 1$ & $12.75 \pm 4.75$& $0.15 \pm 0.03$
1020: & $32.5 \pm 2.5$ & 7, 8 \\
1021: SN 1998bw (Ic) & $10.4 \pm 1$ & $40 \pm 10$ \tablenotemark{e} & $0.43 \pm 0.05$
1022: & $40 \pm 5$ & 9, 10 \\
1023: SN 1999br (II) & $\sim 14$ & $\sim 0.6$ & $0.002$
1024: & $25 \pm 9$ & 11 \\
1025: SN 2002ap (Ic) & $3.25 \pm 0.75$ & $4 \pm 1$ & $0.075 \pm 0.005$
1026: & $22.5 \pm 2.5$ & 12 \\
1027: SN 2003dh (Ic) & $7 \pm 3$ & $35 \pm 15$ & $0.4 \pm 0.125$
1028: & $32.5 \pm 7.5$ & 13, 14 \\
1029: SN 2003lw (Ic) & $\sim 13$ & $55 \pm 5$ & $0.55 \pm 0.05$
1030: & $45 \pm 5$ & 15 \\
1031: SN 2005bf (Ib pec)& $6.5 \pm 0.5$ & $1.25 \pm 0.25$ & $0.04 \pm 0.02$ \tablenotemark{f}
1032: & $25 \pm 2$ & 16, 17 \\
1033: SN 2006aj (Ic) & $1.8 \pm 0.8$ & $2.0 \pm 1.0$ & $0.21 \pm 0.04$
1034: & $20 \pm 2$ & 18 \\
1035: SN 2008D (Ib) & $5.3 \pm 1.0$ & $6.0 \pm 2.5$ & $0.07 \pm 0.005$
1036: & $22.5 \pm 2.5$ & this work \\
1037: \enddata
1038: \tablenotetext{a}{The mass of the SN ejecta ($\Msun$)}
1039: \tablenotetext{b}{The kinetic energy of the SN ejecta ($10^{51}$ erg)}
1040: \tablenotetext{c}{The mass of ejected \Nifs\ ($\Msun$)}
1041: \tablenotetext{d}{Estimated main-sequence mass ($\Msun$)}
1042: \tablenotetext{e}{$\KE = 20 \times 10^{51}$ erg is derived
1043: from the modelling with a multi-dimensional model
1044: (in the polar-viewed case, Maeda et al. 2006; Tanaka et al. 2007).}
1045: \tablenotetext{f}{The mass of \Nifs\ is derived from
1046: the late time observation (Maeda et al. 2007).
1047: The early observations suggest $M$(\Nifs)$=0.3 \Msun$
1048: (Tominaga et al. 2005; Folatelli et al. 2006).}
1049: \tablerefs{(1) Shigeyama \& Nomoto (1990), (2) Blinnikov et al. (2000),
1050: (3) Shigeyama et al. (1994), (4) Iwamoto et al. (1994),
1051: (5) Sauer et al. (2006), (6) Turatto et al. (1998),
1052: (7) Iwamoto et al. (2000), (8) Mazzali, Iwamoto \& Nomoto (2000),
1053: (9) Nakamura et al. (2001a), (10) Iwamoto et al. (1998),
1054: (11) Zampieri et al. (2003), (12) Mazzali et al. (2002),
1055: (13) Mazzali et al. (2003), (14) Deng et al. (2005),
1056: (15) Mazzali et al. (2006a), (16) Tominaga et al. (2005),
1057: (17) Maeda et al. (2007), (18) Mazzali et al. (2006b)
1058: }
1059: \label{tab:param}
1060: \end{deluxetable*}
1061:
1062:
1063: {\bf Distance and reddening:}
1064: since the distance to the host galaxy and the reddening toward the SN
1065: include some uncertainties, the ejected \Nifs\ mass could also
1066: contain $\sim 20$\% uncertainties.
1067: However, $\Mej$ and $M_{\rm cut}$ are not affected
1068: because these values are much larger than the ejected \Nifs\ mass.
1069: Thus, the estimated core mass and progenitor mass are not largely affected
1070: by the uncertainty of the distance and the reddening.
1071:
1072: {\bf Asphericity of the explosion:}
1073: possible effects on the estimate of $\Mej$ and $\KE$
1074: from asphericity of the ejecta are of interest.
1075: These effects were studied
1076: for SN 1998bw associated with GRB 980425
1077: by Maeda et al. (2006) and Tanaka et al. (2007).
1078: They found that the kinetic energy can be smaller
1079: by a factor of $\lsim 2$ in the on-axis case of highly aspherical
1080: explosion than in the spherical model.
1081: There is little effect in the off-axis case.
1082:
1083: Modjaz et al. (2008b) presented the spectrum at $t = 109$ days
1084: and suggested the asphericity of SN 2008D by
1085: the doubly-peaked emission profile of the \ion{O}{i} line.
1086: Such a profile of the \ion{O}{i} line
1087: has been interpreted as an off-axis line-of-sight in the axisymmetric
1088: explosion (Maeda et al. 2002; Mazzali et al. 2005;
1089: Maeda et al. 2008; Modjaz et al. 2008a).
1090: Thus, the estimate by the modelling under spherical symmetry may not
1091: be largely changed even for the aspherical models.
1092: The quantitative discussion should wait for
1093: the later spectra, the detailed modelling of the line profile,
1094: and determination of the degree of asphericity and the line-of-sight.
1095:
1096: The effects of asphericity, especially aspherical mass ejection and
1097: fallback, are also important to determine the relation between the ejected
1098: \Nifs\ mass and the remnant mass.
1099: The remnant mass in this paper is determined to eject the optimal amount
1100: of \Nifs\ by one-dimensional hydrodynamic/nucleosynthetic calculations.
1101: However, since the remnant mass could be either larger or smaller depending
1102: on the asphericity and details of the explosion mechanism,
1103: the estimate by one-dimensional calculations is a reasonable approximation.
1104:
1105: {\bf Possible presence of hydrogen:}
1106: Soderberg et al. (2008) identified
1107: the high velocity H$\alpha$ for the absorption line at 6150 \AA.
1108: If the mass of the H layer is not negligible, it might affect
1109: the core mass, which we estimate by assuming non-existence of H,
1110: \ie a bare He core.
1111: However, we find a large mass of the H layer is inconsistent with
1112: the spectrum at $t = 4.6$ days (Appendix \ref{app:H}).
1113: The mass of the H layer is smaller than $5 \times 10^{-4} \Msun$,
1114: and thus, there is no effect on the parameters.
1115:
1116: {\bf Evolutionary models:}
1117: the estimate of the main-sequence mass uses
1118: the approximate $\Mms$-$M_{\alpha}$ relation by Sugimoto \& Nomoto
1119: (1980; Eq. 4.1), which is used in Nomoto \& Hashimoto (1988).
1120: The $\Mms$-$M_{\alpha}$ relation of several evolutionary models
1121: are shown in Figure \ref{fig:ms_core}.
1122: The systematic differences in this relation
1123: for $\Mms \lsim 30 \Msun$ ($M_{\alpha} \lsim 10 \Msun$)
1124: may stem from the differences in the treatment of convection, mass loss,
1125: rotation, and binary effects (\S \ref{sec:progenitor}).
1126: Thus, we should keep in mind that
1127: the main-sequence mass is subject to
1128: systematic uncertainties of $3-5 \Msun$ (Fig. \ref{fig:ms_core}).
1129: Note that our estimate of the He core mass depends only on
1130: the estimates of $\Mej$ and $\KE$
1131: from hydrodynamic/nucleosynthetic calculations, and thus,
1132: our determination of
1133: the He core mass is not affected by the variety of the evolutionary models.
1134:
1135:
1136:
1137: \begin{figure}
1138: \begin{center}
1139: \includegraphics[scale=1.1]{f9.eps}
1140: \caption{
1141: Spectral comparison among SNe 1993J (IIb; Barbon et al. 1995),
1142: 1999ex (Ib/c; Hamuy et al. 2002), 2008D (Ib)
1143: and 2005bf (peculiar Ib; Anupama et al. 2005).
1144: The epoch for SNe 1993J, 1999ex, and 2005bf
1145: is given in the estimated days from the explosion.
1146: Dashed, vertical lines show the position of the He lines
1147: (\ion{He}{i} 5876, 6678, 7065) blueshifted with $v=10,000$ \kms.
1148: The spectra except for SN 2008D are taken from the SUSPECT database.
1149: \label{fig:comp}}
1150: \end{center}
1151: \end{figure}
1152:
1153:
1154:
1155: \subsection{Comparison with Previous Works}
1156: \label{sec:comp}
1157:
1158: Soderberg et al. (2008) have estimated the parameters of the ejecta as
1159: $\Mej = 3-5 \Msun$ and $\KE = 2-4 \times 10^{51}$ ergs,
1160: which are smaller than those derived in this paper.
1161: The difference seems to stem from their assumptions of
1162: the homogeneous sphere and time-independent opacity.
1163: These assumptions lead an almost time-independent photospheric velocity,
1164: which is not the case in SNe.
1165: Especially for SN 2008D, the very early spectra show the broad-line features,
1166: and the photospheric velocity at $t \sim 5$ days after the X-ray transient
1167: is almost twice as high as the velocity around maximum.
1168:
1169: Adopting the cooling envelope model by Waxman et al. (2007) to the
1170: blackbody temperature and the radius at $t \lsim 4$ days,
1171: Soderberg et al. (2008) estimated a progenitor radius to be
1172: $R_* \sim 1 \Rsun$ with $E(B-V)=0.61$ mag,
1173: $\Mej=5 \Msun$ and $\KE=2 \times 10^{51}$ erg.
1174: Modjaz et al. (2008b) also derived a similar value,
1175: $R_* = 1.1 \pm 0.46 \Rsun$ with $E(B-V)=0.6$ mag
1176: and the same $\Mej$ and $\KE$ with Soderberg et al. (2008).
1177: If $\Mej$ and $\KE$ derived in this paper are adopted,
1178: the estimated radius is $\sim 80 \%$ of their estimate.
1179: This is marginally consistent with the radius of model HE8
1180: while it is smaller than HE6.
1181: In this sense, model HE8 seems to be more self-consistent.
1182: It must be noted, however, that Chevalier \& Fransson (2008) derived
1183: a larger radius, $R_* \sim 9 \Rsun$ by using the model by Chevalier (1992,
1184: and using the blackbody temperature and the radius presented by
1185: Soderberg et al. 2008).
1186:
1187: Mazzali et al. (2008) estimated the ejecta parameters
1188: by modelling the bolometric LC and optical spectra.
1189: Their largest assumption is that a central remnant as massive
1190: as $\sim 3 \Msun$ is implicitly assumed,
1191: which leads a massive He core mass ($\sim 10 \Msun$), and thus,
1192: a massive progenitor mass ($\sim 30 \Msun$).
1193: Our hydrodynamic/nucleosynthetic calculations show that a smaller central
1194: remnant is preferred ($\sim 1.6-1.8 \Msun$, Table \ref{tab:models}).
1195:
1196:
1197:
1198: \subsection{SN 2008D in the Context of Type Ib/c Supernovae}
1199: \label{sec:Ibc}
1200:
1201:
1202: Figure \ref{fig:ME} shows the kinetic energy of the ejecta and the ejected
1203: \Nifs\ mass as a function of the estimated main-sequence mass for several
1204: core-collapse SNe (see, \eg Nomoto et al. 2007).
1205: The parameters shown in Figure \ref{fig:ME} are also listed in
1206: Table \ref{tab:param}.
1207: SN 2008D is shown by a red circle in Figure \ref{fig:ME}.
1208: The ejecta parameters for other SNe shown in Figure \ref{fig:ME}
1209: and Table \ref{tab:param} are derived from one-dimensional modelling
1210: as in this paper.
1211: Although there is a systematic uncertainty in the progenitor mass
1212: (Fig. \ref{fig:ms_core}),
1213: the progenitor mass of SNe shown in Figure \ref{fig:ME} is estimated
1214: based on the $\Mms$-$M_{\alpha}$ relation
1215: by Sugimoto \& Nomoto (1980; used in Nomoto \& Hashimoto 1988)
1216: as in this paper.
1217: Thus, the relative position of SNe in the plots are robust.
1218:
1219: The main-sequence mass of the progenitor of SN 2008D is estimated to
1220: be between normal SNe and GRB-SNe (or hypernovae).
1221: The kinetic energy of SN 2008D is also intermediate.
1222: Thus, SN 2008D is located between the normal SNe and the ``hypernovae branch''
1223: in the $\KE\ - \Mms$ diagram (upper panel of Fig. \ref{fig:ME}).
1224: The ejected \Nifs\ mass in SN 2008D ($\sim 0.07 \Msun$)
1225: is similar to the \Nifs\ masses ejected by normal SNe and much smaller than
1226: those in GRB-SNe.
1227:
1228: Figure \ref{fig:comp} compares the spectra of
1229: SNe 1993J (IIb, Barbon et al. 1995), 1999ex (Ib/c, Hamuy et al. 2002),
1230: 2005bf (Ib, Anupama et al. 2005, Tominaga et al. 2005, Folatelli et al. 2006),
1231: and 2008D (Ib).
1232: The epoch for SNe 1993J, 1999ex, and 2005bf
1233: is given in the estimated days from the explosion.
1234: The explosion epoch is uncertain up to $\sim 15$ days in SN 2005bf
1235: (Folatelli et al. 2006)
1236: while it is well constrained in SNe 1993J and 1999ex ($\lsim 2$ days,
1237: Wheeler et al. 1993; Hamuy et al. 2002).
1238:
1239: The spectra of SN 2008D and SN 1999ex are very similar (Valenti et al. 2008b),
1240: while SN 2005bf has a lower He velocities.
1241: Although the epoch of SN 2005bf is uncertain,
1242: the He line velocities in SN 2005bf is always lower than 8000 \kms\
1243: (Tominaga et al. 2005).
1244: The He lines in SN 1993J are very weak at this epoch.
1245: The Fe features at 4500-5000\AA\ are similar in these four SNe,
1246: but those in SN 2005bf are narrower.
1247:
1248: Malesani et al. (2009) suggested that
1249: the bolometric LCs of SNe 1999ex and 2008D are similar.
1250: If it is the case (although some discrepancy is shown by Modjaz et al. 2008b),
1251: the similarity in both the LC and the spectra suggests that SN 1999ex is
1252: located close to SN 2008D in the $\KE\ - \Mms$ and $\Mni - \Mms$ diagrams.
1253:
1254: Comparison with other Type Ib SNe shown in Figure \ref{fig:ME} is
1255: possible only for SN 2005bf although SN 2005bf is
1256: a very peculiar SN that shows a double peak LC with
1257: a very steep decline after the maximum, and increasing He line velocities
1258: (Anupama et al. 2005; Tominaga et al. 2005; Folatelli et al. 2006;
1259: Maeda et al. 2007).
1260: The LC of SN 2005bf is broader than that of SN 2008D,
1261: while the expansion velocity of SN 2005bf is lower than that of SN 2008D.
1262: These facts suggest
1263: that SN 2005bf is the explosion with lower $\KE/ \Mej$ ratio
1264: (Table \ref{tab:param}).
1265:
1266: Malesani et al. (2009) also pointed the similarity of
1267: the LCs of SNe 1993J and 2008D.
1268: But the expansion velocity is higher in SN 2008D
1269: (see, \eg Barbon et al. 1995; Prabhu et al. 1995).
1270: Thus, both the mass and the kinetic energy of
1271: the ejecta are expected to be smaller in SN 1993J.
1272: In fact, SN 1993J is explained by the explosion of a $4 \Msun$ He core
1273: with a small mass H-rich envelope
1274: (Nomoto et al. 1993; Shigeyama et al. 1994; Woosley et al. 1994).
1275:
1276:
1277: \section{Conclusions}
1278: \label{sec:conclusions}
1279:
1280: We presented a theoretical model for SN 2008D associated
1281: with the luminous X-ray transient 080109.
1282: Based on the progenitor models,
1283: hydrodynamics and explosive nucleosynthesis are calculated.
1284: Using the explosion models, radiative transfer calculations are performed.
1285: These models are tested against the bolometric LC and optical spectra.
1286: This is the first detailed model calculation for Type Ib SN
1287: that is discovered shortly after the explosion.
1288:
1289: We find that SN 2008D is a more energetic explosion than
1290: normal core-collapse SNe.
1291: We estimate that the ejecta mass is $\Mej = 5.3 \pm 1.0 \Msun$
1292: and the total kinetic energy of $\KE = 6.0 \pm 2.5 \times 10^{51}$ erg.
1293: The ejected \Nifs\ mass is $\sim 0.07 \Msun$.
1294: To eject the optimal amount of \Nifs,
1295: the mass of the central remnant is estimated to be $1.6 - 1.8 \Msun$.
1296: The error bars include only the uncertainty of the LC and spectral modelling.
1297:
1298: Summing up the above masses, it is concluded that
1299: the progenitor star of SN 2008D has a $6 - 8 \Msun$ He core
1300: prior to the explosion.
1301: There is essentially no H envelope with the upper limit of
1302: $5 \times 10^{-4} \Msun$.
1303: Thus, the corresponding main-sequence mass
1304: of the progenitor is $\Mms =20-25 \Msun$ under
1305: the $\Mms$-$M_{\alpha}$ relation by Sugimoto \& Nomoto
1306: (1980, used in Nomoto \& Hashimoto 1988).
1307: We note that there exist additional systematic uncertainties
1308: in this relation due to convection, mass loss, rotation, and binary effects.
1309: Our estimates of these masses and energy suggest that SN 2008D is near
1310: the border between neutron star-forming and black hole-forming SNe, and has
1311: properties intermediate between those of normal SNe and
1312: hypernovae associated with gamma-ray bursts.
1313:
1314:
1315: \acknowledgments
1316: M.T. and N.T. are supported by the JSPS
1317: (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science)
1318: Research Fellowship for Young Scientists.
1319: We have utilized the SUSPECT database.
1320: We would like to thank the contributors of the spectra used in the paper.
1321: This research has been supported in part by World Premier International
1322: Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan, and by
1323: the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the JSPS
1324: (10041110, 10304014, 11740120, 12640233, 14047206, 14253001, 14540223,
1325: 16740106, 18104003, 18540231, 20540226) and MEXT
1326: (19047004, 20040004, 20041005, 07CE2002).
1327:
1328:
1329: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1330:
1331: \bibitem{abb85} Abbott, D. C., \& Lucy, L. B. 1985, ApJ, 288, 679
1332:
1333: \bibitem{anu05} Anupama, G. C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 631, L125
1334:
1335: \bibitem{arn82} Arnett, W.D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785
1336:
1337: \bibitem{bar95} Barbon, R., Benetti, S., Cappellaro, E., Patat, F., Turatto, M., \& Iijima, T. 1995, A\&AS, 110, 513
1338:
1339: \bibitem{ber08} Berger, E., \& Soderberg, A. M. 2008, GCN Circ., 7159
1340:
1341: \bibitem{bli00} Blinnikov, S., Lundqvist, P., Bartunov, O., Nomoto, K., \& Iwamoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1132
1342:
1343: \bibitem{bra06} Branch, D., Jeffery, D. J., Young, T. R., \& Baron, E. 2006, PASP, 118, 791
1344:
1345: \bibitem{che92} Chevalier, R. A. 1992, ApJ, 394, 599
1346:
1347: \bibitem{che08} Chevalier, R. A., \& Fransson, C. 2008, ApJ, 683, L135
1348:
1349: \bibitem{col84} Colella, P., \& Woodward, P.R. 1984, J. Comput. Phy. 54, 174
1350:
1351: \bibitem{den05} Deng, J., Tominaga, N., Mazzali, P. A., Maeda, K., \& Nomoto, K. 2005, ApJ, 624, 898
1352:
1353: \bibitem{den08} Deng, J., \& Zhu, Y. 2008, GCN Circ., 7160
1354:
1355: \bibitem{elm06} Elmhamdi, A., Danziger, I. J., Branch, D., Leibundgut, B., Baron, E., \& Kirshner, R. P. 2006, A\&A, 450, 305
1356:
1357: \bibitem{fol06} Folatelli, G, et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1039
1358:
1359: \bibitem{hac91} Hachisu, I., Matsuda, T., Nomoto, K., \& Shigeyama, T. 1991, ApJ, 368, L27
1360:
1361: \bibitem{ham02} Hamuy, M., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 417
1362:
1363: \bibitem{hir04} Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., \& Maeder, A. 2004, A\&A, 425, 649
1364:
1365: \bibitem{hix96} Hix, W. R., \& Thielemann, F.-K. 1996, \apj, 460, 869
1366:
1367: \bibitem{hix99} Hix, W. R., \& Thielemann, F.-K. 1999, \apj, 511, 862
1368:
1369: \bibitem{iwa94} Iwamoto, K., Nomoto, K., Hoflich, P., Yamaoka, H., Kumagai, S., \& Shigeyama, T. 1994, ApJ, 437, L115
1370:
1371: \bibitem{iwa98} Iwamoto, K., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 672
1372:
1373: \bibitem{iwa00} Iwamoto, K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 534, 660
1374:
1375: \bibitem{kon08} Kong, A. K. H., \& Maccarone, T.J. 2008, ATel, 1355
1376:
1377: \bibitem{li08} Li, L.-X. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 603
1378:
1379: \bibitem{liw08} Li, W., Filippenko, A. V. 2008, CBET, 1202, 1
1380:
1381: \bibitem{lim06} Limongi, M., \& Chieffi, A. 2006, ApJ, 647, 483
1382:
1383: \bibitem{luc91} Lucy, L. B. 1991, ApJ, 383, 308
1384:
1385: \bibitem{luc99} Lucy, L. B. 1999, A\&A, 345, 211
1386:
1387: \bibitem{mae02} Maeda, K., Nakamura, T., Nomoto, K., Mazzali, P. A., Patat, F., \& Hachisu, I. 2002, 565, 405
1388:
1389: \bibitem{mae06} Maeda, K., Nomoto, K., Mazzali, P. A., \& Deng, J. 2006, ApJ, 640, 854
1390:
1391: \bibitem{mae07} Maeda, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1069
1392:
1393: \bibitem{mae08} Maeda, K., et al. 2008, Science, 319, 1220
1394:
1395: \bibitem{mag95} Magee, N. H., et al. 1995, in ASP Conf. Ser. 78., Astrophyical Applications of Powerful New Databases, ed. S. J. Adelman \& W. L. Wiese (San Francisco, CA :ASP), 51
1396:
1397: \bibitem{mal08} Malesani, D., et al. 2009, 692, L84
1398:
1399: \bibitem{maz93} Mazzali, P. A. \& Lucy, L.B. 1993, A\&A, 279, 447
1400:
1401: \bibitem{maz00} Mazzali, P. A. 2000, A\&A, 363, 705
1402:
1403: \bibitem{maz00b} Mazzali, P. A., Iwamoto, K., \& Nomoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 545, 407
1404:
1405: \bibitem{maz02} Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, L61
1406:
1407: \bibitem{maz03} Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 599, L95
1408:
1409: \bibitem{maz05} Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2005, Science, 308, 1284
1410:
1411: \bibitem{maz06a} Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 645, 1323
1412:
1413: \bibitem{maz06b} Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2006b, Nature, 442, 1018
1414:
1415: \bibitem{maz08} Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2008, Science, 321, 1185
1416:
1417: \bibitem{min08} Minezaki, T., et al. in preparation
1418:
1419: \bibitem{mod08a} Modjaz, M., Kirshner, R. P., Blondin, S., Challis, P., \& Matheson, T. 2008a, ApJ, 687, L9
1420:
1421: \bibitem{mod08b} Modjaz, M., et al. 2008b, submitted to ApJ (arXiv:0805.2201)
1422:
1423: \bibitem{mod08c} Modjaz, M., Chornock, R., Foley, R. J., Filippenko, A. V., \& Li, W. 2008c, CBET, 1221, 1
1424:
1425: \bibitem{nak01a} Nakamura, T., et al. 2001a, ApJ, 550, 991
1426:
1427: \bibitem{nak0b} Nakamura, T., Umeda, H., Iwamoto, K., Nomoto, K., Hashimoto, M., Hix, W. R., \& Thielemann, F.-K. 2001b, ApJ, 555, 880
1428:
1429: \bibitem{nom82} Nomoto, K. 1982, ApJ, 253, 798
1430:
1431: \bibitem{nom88} Nomoto, K., \& Hashimoto, M. 1988, Phys. Rep., 163, 13
1432:
1433: \bibitem{nom95} Nomoto, K., Suzuki, T., Shigeyama, T., Kumagai, S., Yamaoka, H., \& Saio, H 1993, Nature, 364, 507
1434:
1435: \bibitem{nom97} Nomoto, K., Hashimoto, M., Tsujimoto, T., Thielemann, F.-K., Kishimoto, N., Kubo, Y., \& Nakasato, N. 1997, Nucl. Phys. A, 616, 79
1436:
1437: \bibitem{nom07} Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Tanaka, M., Maeda, K., Suzuki, T., Deng, J. S., \& Mazzali, P. A. 2007, SWIFT and GRBs: Unveiling the Relativistic Universe, Il Nuovo Cimento, 121, 1207-1222 (astroph/0702472)
1438:
1439: \bibitem{pag08} Page, K. L., et al. 2008, GCN Report, 110.1
1440:
1441: \bibitem{pra95} Prabhu, T. P., et al. 1995, A\&A, 295, 403
1442:
1443: \bibitem{qui07} Quimby, R. M., Aldering, G., Wheeler, J. C., H\"oflich, P., Akerlof, C. W., \& Rykoff, E. S. 2007, ApJ, 668, L99
1444:
1445: \bibitem{rau02} Rauscher, T., Heger, A., Hoffman, R. D., \& Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 576, 323
1446:
1447: \bibitem{shi90} Shigeyama, T. \& Nomoto, K. 1990, ApJ, 360, 242
1448:
1449: \bibitem{shi94} Shigeyama, T., Suzuki, T., Kumagai, S., Nomoto, K., Saio, H., \& Yamaoka, H. 1994, ApJ, 420, 341
1450:
1451: \bibitem{sau06} Sauer, D. N., Mazzali, P. A., Deng, J., Valenti, S., Nomoto, K., \& Filippenko, A. V. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1939
1452:
1453: \bibitem{sod08} Soderberg, A. M. 2008, Nature, 453, 469
1454:
1455: \bibitem{sug80} Sugimoto, D., \& Nomoto, K. 1980, Space Science Reviews, 25, 155
1456:
1457: \bibitem{tan07} Tanaka, M., Maeda, K., Mazzali, P. A., \& Nomoto, K. 2007, ApJ, 668, L19
1458:
1459: \bibitem{tom05} Tominaga, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, L97
1460:
1461: \bibitem{tom07} Tominaga, N. 2009, ApJ, 690, 526
1462:
1463: \bibitem{tur98} Turatto, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 498, L129
1464:
1465: \bibitem{val08a} Valenti, S., Turatto, M., Navasardyan, H., Benetti, S., \& Cappellaro, E. 2008a, GCN Circ., 7163
1466:
1467: \bibitem{val08b} Valenti, S., D'Elia, V., Della Valle, M., Benetti, S., Chincarini, G., Mazzali, P. A., \& Antonelli, L. A. 2008b, GCN Circ., 7221
1468:
1469: \bibitem{wax07} Waxman, E., M\'esz\'aros, P., \& Campana, S. 2007, ApJ, 667, 351
1470:
1471: \bibitem{wel97} Wellstein, S., \& Langer, N. 1999, A\&A, 350, 148
1472:
1473: \bibitem{whe93} Wheeler, J. C., et al. 1993, ApJ, 417, L71
1474:
1475: \bibitem{wos94} Woosley, S. E., Eastman, R. G., Weaver, T. A., \& Pinto, P. A 1994, ApJ, 429, 300
1476:
1477: \bibitem{xu08} Xu, D., Zou, Y. C., \& Fan, Y. Z. 2008 (arXiv:0801.4325)
1478:
1479: \bibitem{yos02} Yoshii, Y. 2002, in New Trends in Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, ed. K. Sato and T. Shiromizu (Tokyo: Universal Academy Press), 235
1480:
1481: \bibitem{yos03} Yoshii, Y., Kobayashi, Y., \& Minezaki, T. 2003, BAAS, 202, 38.03
1482:
1483: \bibitem{zam03} Zampieri, L., Pastorello, A., Turatto, M., Cappellaro, E., Benetti, S., Altavilla, G., Mazzali, P., \& Hamuy, M. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 711
1484:
1485: \end{thebibliography}
1486:
1487:
1488: \appendix
1489:
1490:
1491: \section{A. Construction of Bolometric Light Curve}
1492: \label{app:LC}
1493:
1494: The bolometric LC shown in this paper was constructed
1495: by using optical data taken by the MAGNUM telescope
1496: (Yoshii 2002; Yoshii, Kobayashi \& Minezaki 2003),
1497: the Himalayan Chandra Telescope,
1498: and {\it Swift} UVOT (U-band, Soderberg et al. 2008),
1499: and also NIR data taken by the MAGNUM telescope.
1500:
1501: The bolometric luminosity was derived integrating
1502: the flux from $U$ (with the edge of $9.68 \times 10^{14}$ Hz)
1503: to $K$ ($1.00 \times 10^{14}$ Hz) band.
1504: The photometric points are interpolated by the third order natural spline.
1505: If the data point of a certain band is not available,
1506: we use linear interpolation of the magnitude.
1507:
1508: The derived bolometric LC can be compared with that by
1509: Soderberg et al. (2008), Malesani et al. (2009),
1510: Modjaz et al. (2008b, $U$-$K_S$ integration)
1511: and Mazzali et al. (2008).
1512: Although the scatter up to 0.4 mag is found
1513: among the LCs by direct comparison,
1514: it is caused mainly by the difference in the assumed distance and
1515: reddening.
1516:
1517: If the same distance and reddening are used
1518: (here we approximately correct the difference
1519: in the bolometric magnitude $\Delta M_{\rm bol}$
1520: caused by the difference in the assumed reddening by
1521: $\Delta M_{\rm bol} = R_{V} \Delta E(B-V)$, where $ R_{V}$=3.1 and
1522: $\Delta E(B-V)$ is the difference in the assumed color excess),
1523: the LCs around/after the maximum is consistent
1524: among those by this paper, Soderberg et al. (2008),
1525: Modjaz et al. (2008b) and Mazzali et al. (2008) within 0.1 mag,
1526: while the LC by Malesani et al. (2009) is fainter by 0.2-0.5 mag.
1527: For the pre-maximum epochs, the LCs by these papers are consistent
1528: within 0.2 mag
1529: except that the magnitude at $t=4$ days by this paper
1530: (shown by the arrow in the left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:LC})
1531: is brighter than other ones by 0.25 mag.
1532:
1533: Since the scatter in the maximum luminosity among the papers
1534: is up to 0.2 mag, it causes the uncertainty of the ejected \Nifs\ mass
1535: up to $\sim 20 \%$.
1536: However, this uncertainty does not affect
1537: our determination of the ejecta mass
1538: because the change in the \Nifs\ mass (and mass cut)
1539: is negligible compared to the ejecta mass (\S \ref{sec:discussion}).
1540: In addition, the time scale of the bolometric LC around the maximum is
1541: reasonably consistent among the papers,
1542: the kinetic energy of the ejecta is also not affected.
1543:
1544:
1545: \section{B. Nonexistence of the Hydrogen Layers}
1546: \label{app:H}
1547:
1548:
1549: \begin{figure*}
1550: \begin{center}
1551: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1552: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f10a.eps}&
1553: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f10b.eps}
1554: \end{tabular}
1555: \caption{
1556: {\it Left}: Optical spectrum at $t=18.5$ days (Mazzali et al. 2008)
1557: compared with the synthetic spectra.
1558: The red and blue lines show the synthetic spectra with the models where
1559: the Si mass fraction is twice as large as the solar abundance (best fit) and
1560: the same as the solar abundance, respectively.
1561: The element abundances are assumed to be homogeneous in these models.
1562: The green and magenta lines show the synthetic spectra with
1563: $X$(H)=0.8 and 0.4 at $v > 18000$ \kms, respectively.
1564: The corresponding mass of H is 0.4 and 0.2 $\Msun$, respectively.
1565: The homogeneous, solar abundance of Si is assumed in these models.
1566: {\it Right}: The optical spectrum at $t=4.6$ days (Mazzali et al. 2008)
1567: compared with the synthetic spectra.
1568: The red line shows the model with the solar abundance of Si, which gives
1569: a good fit to the observed spectrum.
1570: The green, blue, magenta and cyan lines show the models with
1571: $X$(H) = $0.4, 0.05, 0.005$ and $0.001$ at $v > 18000$ \kms, respectively.
1572: The corresponding mass of H is 0.4, 0.025, 0.0025 and 0.0005 $\Msun$,
1573: respectively.
1574: \label{fig:H}
1575: }
1576: \end{center}
1577: \end{figure*}
1578:
1579: Soderberg et al. (2008) identified
1580: the high velocity (HV) H$\alpha$ line for the absorption feature
1581: around 6150 \AA\ in the spectra around maximum.
1582: It is blended with the strong \ion{Si}{ii} line, and
1583: discrimination is not easy (\eg Branch et al. 2006; Elmhamdi et al. 2006).
1584: The presence of H is important to specify the
1585: properties of the progenitor star just prior to the explosion.
1586: In addition, if the H layer is present,
1587: the estimate of $\Mej$ and $\KE$ may be affected
1588: since we have used bare He stars for the LC and spectral modelling.
1589:
1590: First, we test the presence of H in the spectrum around maximum
1591: using model HE8.
1592: The left panel of Figure \ref{fig:H} shows the comparison between
1593: the observed spectrum at $t=18.5$ days (Mazzali et al. 2008)
1594: and synthetic spectra.
1595: The photospheric velocity at this epoch is 9000 \kms\ (Fig. \ref{fig:vph}).
1596: If the absorption at 6150 \AA\ is \ion{Si}{ii} $\lambda$6355,
1597: the Doppler velocity of the absorption at 6150 \AA\ is $9300$ \kms,
1598: which is well consistent with the photospheric velocity.
1599: The red line shows the best fit model that includes Si twice as large
1600: as the solar abundance.
1601: The absorption is slightly shallower in the model
1602: with solar abundance Si (blue).
1603: Since the abundance twice as large as the solar abundance is reasonable
1604: for the middle layers of the ejecta,
1605: the HV \ion{H}{i} is not necessarily required.
1606:
1607: However, this does not exclude the possibility of the presence of H
1608: at the outer layers.
1609: If the absorption at 6150 \AA\ is H$\alpha$,
1610: the Doppler velocity is $18500$ \kms.
1611: To test the presence of the H at such high velocity layers,
1612: we calculate model spectra by replacing He at $v>18000$ \kms\ with H.
1613: The green and magenta lines show the models with $X$(H)=0.8 and 0.4
1614: at $v>18000$ \kms, respectively.
1615: The corresponding mass of H is 0.4 and 0.2 $\Msun$, respectively.
1616: The models also include the solar abundance of Si at at $v > 9000$ \kms.
1617: While the model with $X$(H)=0.8 gives a too strong absorption,
1618: the model with $X$(H)=0.4 agree with the observed spectrum.
1619: Thus, the presence of 0.2 $\Msun$ of H cannot be denied from
1620: the spectrum around the maximum.
1621:
1622: Next, we perform the similar tests using the very early spectrum.
1623: The right panel of Figure \ref{fig:H} shows the comparison between
1624: the observed spectrum at $t=4.6$ days (Mazzali et al. 2008)
1625: and the synthetic spectra.
1626: The red line shows the best fit model, which include the solar abundance of Si.
1627: The blue line shows the model that have the solar abundance of Si and
1628: $X$(H)=0.4 at $v>18000$ \kms.
1629: Although this model gives a reasonable fit to the
1630: spectrum at $t$=18.5 days (left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:H}),
1631: it shows too strong H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ at $t=4.6$ days
1632: (the lack of H$\beta$ has been pointed out by Malessani et al. 2009).
1633: We get the stronger line at earlier epochs because
1634: the density at the high velocity layers ($v=18000$ \kms) becomes
1635: lower with time, and the line forming there is more effective at
1636: earlier epochs.
1637:
1638: The green, magenta and cyan lines show the models with smaller mass fraction
1639: of H, $X$(H)=0.05, 0.005, and 0.001, respectively.
1640: The corresponding mass of H is 0.025, 0.0025 and 0.0005 $\Msun$.
1641: The models with $X$(H) = 0.05 and 0.005 (green and magenta)
1642: still shows too strong \ion{H}{i} lines.
1643: With $X$(H) = 0.001, the H$\alpha$ line has little effect
1644: on the absorption at 6150 \AA\ although the model spectrum still has
1645: a sharp absorption of the HV H$\alpha$.
1646:
1647: If we use model HE6, the mass at the outer layers is smaller.
1648: Thus, we conclude that the mass of H is smaller than $5 \times 10^{-4} \Msun$.
1649:
1650:
1651:
1652:
1653:
1654:
1655:
1656: \end{document}
1657: