On the Impact of Three Dimensions in Simulations of Neutrino-Driven Core-Collapse Supernova Explosions

Abstract

We present 1D, 2D, and 3D hydrodynamical simulations of core-collapse supernovae including a parameterized neutrino heating and cooling scheme in order to investigate the critical core neutrino luminosity (L crit ) required for explosion. In contrast to some previous works, we find that 3D simulations explode later than 2D simulations, and that L crit at fixed mass accretion rate is somewhat higher in 3D than in 2D. We find, however, that in 2D L crit increases as the numerical resolution of the simulation increases. In contrast to some previous works, we argue that the average entropy of the gain region is in fact not a good indicator of explosion but is rather a reflection of the greater mass in the gain region in 2D. We compare our simulations to semi-analytic explosion criteria and examine the nature of the convective motions in 2D and 3D. We discuss the balance between neutrino-driven-buoyancy and drag forces. In particular, we show that the drag force will be proportional to a buoyant plume's surface area while the buoyant force is proportional to a plume's volume and, therefore, plumes with greater volume-to-surface area ratios will rise more quickly. We show that buoyant plumes in 2D are inherently larger, with greater volume-to-surface area ratios, than plumes in 3D. In the scenario that the supernova shock expansion is dominated by neutrino-driven buoyancy, this balance between buoyancy and drag forces may explain why 3D simulations explode later than 2D simulations and why L crit increases with resolution. Finally, we provide a comparison of our results with other calculations in the literature.

Systematic features of axisymmetric neutrino-driven core-collapse supernova models in multiple progenitors

“…The systematic behaviors that we found, as shown in Figure 13 for example, might be subject to change quantitatively. At least, our 2D results showing that higher numerical resolutions lead to slower evolution of the shock radius and the diagnostic explosion energy, are consistent with Couch (2013) and Takiwaki et al (2014). A systematic resolution study including a detailed comparison between different numerical codes, schemes, and setups should be done urgently, which we leave for future work.…”

“…Further global simulation, taking account of gravitational energy of an envelope and nuclear energy released via recombination process behind the shock, is necessary to determine the final explosion energy ( Figure 15). Moreover, the finding of this study should be reexamined by 3D models (Hanke et al 2012;Dolence et al 2013;Couch 2013;Couch & O'Connor 2014;, in which neutrino transport is appropriately solved (see, discussions in Hanke et al 2013;Nagakura et al 2014;Mezzacappa et al 2014). It is also important to study the impacts of the precollapse non-spherical structures (e.g., Arnett & Meakin 2011) on fostering the shock revival (e.g., Couch & Ott 2013).…”

“…For low-mass progenitors with O-NeMg core, the neutrino mechanism works successfully to explode in one-dimensional (1D) simulations because of the tenuous envelope (Kitaura et al 2006). For more massive progenitors with iron core, multi-dimensional (multi-D) effects such as neutrino-driven convection (e.g., Bethe 1990;Herant et al 1994;Burrows et al 1995;Janka & Müller 1996;Müller & Janka 1997) and the standing-accretion-shock-instability (SASI, Blondin et al 2003;Foglizzo et al 2006;Foglizzo et al 2007;Ohnishi et al 2006;Blondin & Mezzacappa 2007;Iwakami et al 2008;Iwakami et al 2009;Fernández & Thompson 2009;Hanke et al 2012; 2012; Couch 2013;Fernández et al 2014, see Foglizzo et al 2015 for a review) have been suggested to help the onset of the neutrino-driven explosion. Recently this has been confirmed by a number of self-consistent two-(2D) and three-dimensional (3D) simulations (e.g., Buras et al 2006;Ott et al 2008;Marek & Janka 2009;Bruenn et al 2013;Suwa et al 2010;Suwa et al 2014;Müller et al 2012a;Müller et al 2013;Takiwaki et al 2012;Takiwaki et al 2014;Hanke et al 2013;Dolence et al 2014;Bruenn et al 2014;Müller & Janka 2014, see Mezzacappa et al 2015Burrows 2013;Kotake et al 2012 for recent review)).…”

The Development of Explosions in Axisymmetric Ab Initio Core-Collapse Supernova Simulations of 12–25 Stars

“…They increase the effective neutrino heating efficiency because rising fluid elements have lower neutrino emissivities after adiabatic expansion, reducing losses due to neutrino cooling, and the non-radial motions increase the dwell time of fluid elements in the gain region, thereby increasing the time they are subject to neutrino heating. In addition, as was pointed out by Burrows et al (1995), Dolence et al (2013), Couch (2013a) and demonstrated more quantitatively by Murphy et al (2013) and Couch & Ott (2015), the rising turbulent convective plumes exerts a dynamical pressure on the shock aiding its expansion. We will discuss these effects in the context of our models in more detail below.…”

General-Relativistic Three-Dimensional Multi-Group Neutrino Radiation-Hydrodynamics Simulations of Core-Collapse Supernovae

“…Imposing symmetries on simulations of CCSNe can have significant consequences for their evolution (e.g., Hanke et al 2012;Couch 2013;Murphy et al 2013). Detailed spherically symmetric one-dimensional (1D) simulations do not explode (Liebendörfer et al 2001), except when particular low-mass progenitor models are used (e.g., Fischer et al 2010;Hüdepohl et al 2010).…”