Skip to main content

Full text of "The Impact of Type Ia Supernova Explosions on their Companions in Binary System"

See other formats


The Impact of Type la Supernova Explosions on their Companions 

in Binary System 



X. Meng 1 ' 2 , X. Chen 1 and Z. Han 1 

1 National Astronomical Observatories/ Yunnan Observatory, the Chinese 
Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650011, China, conson859@msn.com 

2 Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences 

Abstract 

Using a simple analytic method, we calculate the impact effect between 
the ejecta of a SN la and its companion to survey the influence of initial 
parameters of the progenitor's system, which is useful for searching the 
companion in a explosion remnant. The companion models are obtained 
from Eggleton's evolution code. The results are divided into two groups 
based on mass transfer stage. For a given condition, more hydrogen-rich 
material is stripped from the envelope of a Hertzsprung-gap companion 
than that of a main-sequence companion, while a larger kick velocity 
and a larger luminosity are gained for a main-sequence companion. The 
kick velocity is too low to significantly affect the final spatial velocity of 
the companion, which is mainly affected by the initial parameters of the 
progenitor systems. The spatial velocity of the stripped material has an 
upper limit within the range of 8000 - 9500 km/s, which only depends 
on the total kinetic energy of the explosion. The stripped mass, the ratio 
of the stripped mass to the companion mass and the kick velocity of the 
companion all significantly depend on the initial companion mass and 
orbital period. Our model may naturally explain the spatial velocity of 
the star G in the remnant of Tycho's supernova, while an energy-loss 
mechanism is needed to interpret its luminosity. 

Keywords: supernova: general - supernova: individual: SN 1572 



1 Introduction 

Type la supernova (SNe la) have been successfully used to determine cosmo- 
logical parameters, e.g. Qu and Q\ (Reiss et al. [1998 ; Perlmutter et al. 
|1999j ). although we do not know about the exact nature of SNe la, especially 
about their progenitors. The most widely accepted model is a single degen- 
erate Chandrasekhar mass model, in which a carbon-oxygen white dwarf (CO 
WD) increases its mass by accreting hydrogen- or helium-rich matter from its 
companion, and explodes when its mass approaches the Chandrasekhar mass 
limit (Whelan & Iben [1973] ). The companion may be a main-sequence star 
(WD+MS) or a red-giant star(WD+RG) (Yungelson et al. [1555] ; Li et al. 
[TW7] ; Hachisu et al. [1999a] [1999b] ; Nomoto et al. [TM)] ; Langer et al. 
[2000J). Hachisu & Kato f |2003aj . |2003b| ) argued that supersoft X -ray sources, 
which belong to the WD+MS channel, may be good candidates for the progen- 
itors of SNe la. Observation of the remnant of SN 1572 (Tycho's supernova) 



1 



favors the model of WD+MS and suggests that a star named star G is likely to 
be the companion of Tycho's supernova ( Ruiz-Lapuente et al. [2004] ; Branch 

In the single degenerate model, the supernova ejecta collides into the enve- 
lope of its companion and strips some hydrogen-rich material from the surface 
of the companion (Cheng [Ml]; Wheeler et al. [MS]; Fryxell & Arnett [1551] ; 
Taam & Fryxell [11)84] ; Chugai [1986] ; Livne et al. [1992] ; Langer et al. [2000] ). 
The stripped hydrogen-rich material may reveal itself by narrow H a emission 
or absorption lines in later-time spectra of SNe la (Chugai [1986] ; Filippenko 
[E)9T] ). Marietta et al. ( [2U0U] . hereafter MOO) ran several high-resolution 
two-dimensional numerical simulations of the collision between the ejecta and 
the companion, which is a MS star, a subgiant (SG) star or a red giant (RG) 
star. They found that about 0.15 M Q - 0.17 M Q of hydrogen-rich material is 
stripped from a MS or a SG companion and there is no difference between the 
two companions. After the impact, the companion gains a small kick velocity 
and its luminosity will rise dramatically to as high as 5000 Lq. However, the 
SG companion model in MOO was gained by adjusting the entropy profile of the 
companion to simulate the effect of binary mass transfer and the MS compan- 
ion model in MOO was represented by a 1.0 M Q solar model. Their companion 
models were not from a detailed binary evolution calculation and the study was 
only for Z = 0.02, which lead the results to be different from an actual case. In 
this paper, we use some companion models obtained from the Eggleton's evo- 
lution code ( [1971] . [1972] . [1973] ). which are more realistic than that in MOO, 
to examine the effects of some initial parameters on the collision by a simple 
analytic method. 

2 Method and Results 
2.1 method 

We consider the case where a CO WD accretes matter from its companion which 
may be a MS star or a Hertzsprung-gap (HG) star. When the CO WD increases 
its mass to close to the Chandrasekhar mass, i.e. 1.378 Mq (Nomoto, Thiele- 
mann & Yokoi [1984] ). it explodes as a SN la. Using the method of Han & 
Podsiadlowski ( 12004] ). we get 23 companion models for different metallicitics 
which are listed in table [1] Then, the changes in the secondary structure due to 
mass transfer are taken into account naturally. An optically thick wind (Hachisu 
et al. [1996] ) is used to calculate the mass loss and angular moment loss from the 
binary system. The prescription of Hachisu ( [1999a] ) about hydrogen accretion 
is adopted to calculate the growth of the WD mass. The mass accumulation 
efficiency for helium-shell flashes is from Kato & Hachisu ( 20041 ) . We changed 
one initial parameter and fixed the others to test the effect of different param- 
eters on the final results. In table [U we see that the mass transfer between a 
CO WD and its companion may begin as the companion is a MS star or a HG 
star. Note that the definition of HG stars in this paper is similar to that of the 



2 



SG model in MOO. Evolving these binaries, we get the companion models as 
the WD mass increases to 1.378 M©. After the explosion, a large amount of 
material is ejected as a series of spherically expanding shells and impact on the 
surface of the companion. The leading edge of these expanding shells collides 
into the envelope of the companion with a velocity Vsn,o a t fo — a/Vsnfl, where 
a is the orbital separation of the binary system at the moment of the explosion 
and it is deduced from Eggleton's equation (Eggleton [1983] ) by assuming that 
the companion radius i?| N equals the critical radius of its Roche lobe R CI . We 
assume that the density in each spherical shell is uniform and that each shell 
moves at a fixed velocity Vsn = 0,/t, where i and to both take the moment of 
the explosion as the zero point of time. The density of the expanding shell at a 
distance r = a from the explosion center is scaled as 

3M SN t -.3 / -1 \ 

after t > to, where Msn is the total mass of the CO WD at explosion, i.e. 1.378 
M© (Chugai [1986J ) . The definitions of the density and the velocity are similar 
to those of MOO. Then, the total kinetic energy of the ejecta is 

f°° 1 3 
£k = jf ^Psn -V-dt- Ana 2 • V 2 = — M SN F s 2 Ni0 (2) 

and the total momentum of the ejecta is 

f°° 3 
Pt= psN-V-dt-4TTa 2 -V=-M S NVsN,o, (3) 

J to 

where A/sn is the total mass of the ejecta. As shown in Fig. [1] the ejecta mass 
which collides into the ith slab in the envelope is calculated by 

M^ = M SN . R ^-^-\ (4) 

where i?2,i is the radius of the ith slab stripped from the companion. Then, 
the momentum of Mf N is Pi = §Mf N PsN,o- Assuming that the ejecta and the 
envelope material leave with the same velocity v along the same direction of 
the ejecta velocity, we may get v by momentum conservation. If v exceeds the 
escape velocity V asc of the companion, the envelope material is stripped. Then, 
the amount of the stripped material is the sum of all the material in these 
stripped slabs. Since only the kinetic properties of the ejecta are considered, 
the composition of the ejecta is not considered. After the impact of the ejecta, 
a shock like a bowl develops (Fryxell & Arnett |1981j ; MOO). However, our 
method is unable to calculate the effect of the shock. We discuss whether our 
simplification is reasonable or not in the next subsection. The kinetic energy 
of the supernov ejecta is assumed to be 1 x 10 51 erg, which corresponds to the 
lower limit of the kinetic energy of normal SNe la (Gamezo et al. [2003] ). 

If the supernova ejecta injected into the companion envelope can not strip the 
material from the surface of the companion, i.e. v < V CS c, the ejecta will settle 



3 



in the companion and the momentum of the ejecta transfers to the companion. 
The companion then gains a kick velocity V kick (Cheng [1974] ; MOO). During this 
process, some material reverses to the explosion center and the companion gains 
an added momentum (Fryxell & Arnett [198 lj ; MOO). We neglect this effect 
because it does not significantly affect the final results (Fryxell & Arnett [1981] ; 
MOO). The kick velocity is gained by the conservation of linear momentum. 
Note that the ejecta is not always parallel to the axis between explosion center 
and companion center. However, we take the momentum of the ejecta settled in 
the companion as the ejecta's momentum paralleled to the axis and neglected 
the effect of angle on the momentum paralleled to axis because the angle is very 
small. 

2.2 discussion of the method 

It is well known that a shock will develop after the impact of the ejecta. A large 
part of the material in the companion's envelope will be heated by the shock and 
then be vaporized from the surface of the companion if their velocities exceed the 
escape velocity. So, the method used in this paper is very simple. To examine 
whether our method is reasonable or not, we use the same analytic method 
in this paper to calculate the models in MOO. We re-calculated the model in 
Li & van den Heuvel ( [1997 ), using their method to get the SG model used 
in MOO, and calculated the stripped mass using our analytic method, which is 
shown by a triangular point in Fig. [21 Here, the kinetic energy of the supernova 
ejecta is also from the W7 model of Nomoto et al. ( 1983] ) as used in MOO. 
The stripped mass from our SG model is smaller than that of MOO, but the 
difference is not very significant. We also calculate a 1 Mq solar model used 
in MOO by Eggleton's stellar evolution code, and calculate the stripped mass 
from this MS model using the same analytic method in this paper. a/i?2 is 
changed according to MOO, not from Eggleton's equation (Eggleton 1983 ). The 
results are shown by filled squares in Fig. [5J A similar linear relation between 
log(<5M) and log(a/i?2) is gained as indicated by MOO. However, the stripped 
mass in our model is smaller than that in MOO for small a/i?2 and larger than 
that in MOO for large a/i?2, which is derived from our simple method. Since 
the conservation of linear momentum and the completely inelastic collision are 
applied, and the shock induced in the secondary envelope by the impact of 
the ejecta is not considered, the effect of ablation induced by the shock is not 
considered. For the simple method, most of the energies which should be used 
to heat the secondary envelope and to vaporize the material in the envelope are 
lost with the stripped material for small a/i?2, while for large a/i?2, a part of 
energy which should heat the secondary envelope but were not used to strip the 
material are collected to strip the material from the surface of the companion 
in our model. Although the stripped mass in our models is different from that 
of MOO, our method can give a similar trend to MOO. We also use the same 
model as MOO and method in this paper to calculate the kick velocity of the 
companion. The results are shown in Fig. [3[ The difference between our results 
and that of MOO is very small for all the models. This is a natural result since 



4 



the kick velocity is mainly decided by the collision section of the companion 
for a given companion model. We also gain a similar linear relation between 
log(Vki c k) and log(a/i?2) to that indicated by MOO. Then, although the stripped 
mass is different from that of MOO, the kick velocity may be correct. Since we 
only want to discuss the trend of the effect of some initial parameters, in this 
context, it is not unreasonable for our method to do this. However, a fact must 
be emphasized that since log(a/i?2) concentrates in the range of (0.35-0.5) in 
our models, the stripped mass in our models should be taken as a lower limit 
for a real case, especially for MS models. 

2.3 results 

The stripped mass SM and the ratio of SM to the companion mass at 
explosion are presented in panels (a) and (b) of Fig. 2J Although there is no 
obvious difference between the MS and HG companions, the results seem to be 
divided into two groups based on the mass transfer stage. For a given a/i?2, the 
stripped mass SM of the MS models is always smaller than that of HG ones. 
Also, SM /Mf N of MS models is always slightly smaller than that of HG ones 
at a certain Mf N . These differences are derived from the different structure 
of the companions. If the mass transfer begins as the companion is in tjhe 
HG, the companion has a denser core and a more expanded envelope than the 
MS companion. Then, the binding energy is smaller and the material in the 
envelope is easier to strip off. 

The kick velocities of the companions are shown in panel (d) of Fig. [|] Vkick 
is low and has little influence on the spatial velocity of the companion, which 
is consistent with the numerical simulation (Fryxell & Arnett [1981] ; MOO). In 
Fig. |U we see that Vkick is relevant to the mass-transfer stage: Vkick of a HG 
companion is always smaller than that of a MS one at a certain Mf N . However, 
it is difficult to tell when the mass transfer begins only according to a given 
kick velocity. There seems to exist a peak value at a position of Mf N — 1.0M©. 
More calculation is needed to test whether this peak value is real or not. 

After the impact, the companion accretes a part of the ejecta and will be 
puffed up, and its luminosity will increase sharply. At the same time, the 
hydrogen-burning quenches because of its lower central temperature and density 
and the companion is similar to a pre-main-sequence star (MOO). Because it is 
difficult to estimate the thermal time scale of the companions in this situation, 
we simply assume that the time scale for the companion to recover its thermal 
equilibrium is 10 4 yr (MOO) for all of the models. Note however the thermal 
timescale actually depends on the properties of the companion's envelope before 
SN la explosion (Podsiadlowski [2003] ), and our assumption oversimplifies the 
problem. According to virial theorem, we assume that half of the kinetic energy 
of the ejecta accreted by the companion is radiated by photon energy. The 
companion's luminosity is estimated via the half of the kinetic energy being 
divided by 10 4 yr. The results are shown in panel (c) of Fig. [H which are 
well consistent with the numerical simulation of MOO. The luminosity depends 
slightly on the mass transfer stage. For a given a/i?2, the luminosity of the MS 



5 



models is slightly larger than that of the HG ones. The luminosity decreases 
with a/i?2, which is a natural result since the collision section of the companion 
decreases with a/Ri- Because of the rough estimation of the thermal time 
scale here, we do not discuss the relation between the luminosity and the initial 
parameters of the binary system. 

No obvious evidence shows that the stripped mass, SM, the ratio of the 
stripped mass to companion mass, SM/M^ N , and the kick velocity, Vjcick, depend 
significantly on the initial metallicity and the initial WD mass. The initial 
companion mass M\ and the initial orbital period P 1 affect the final result as 
shown in Fig. [5] In that figure, we see that both SM and SM/M^ increase 
with M\ and P 1 , and Vuck increases with M\ while it decreases with P 1 . These 
facts are relevant to the evolutionary degree of the companion at explosion - 
a more massive star evolves more quickly and has a less compact envelope at 
a given stage. Meanwhile, larger P 1 results in the companion being further 
away from zero age main sequence (ZAMS) and the companion also has an less 
compact envelope at explosion. The matter in this less compact envelope will 
be stripped off more easily. For the same evolutionary reason, a larger Mi and 
a smaller P 1 result in a larger collision section. 

The Vkick is not high compared to the orbital velocity, V^ r t>- The ratios 
of ^kick/Krb locate in the rang of 0.25 to 0.5. The spatial velocity, V 2 SN = 
V^kick + X>rb' °f the companion after an explosion is mainly decided by the 
initial parameters of the progenitor, except for metallicity. The spatial velocity 
increases with the companion mass and decreases with the WD mass and the 
period, which are natural results of binary evolution. The spatial velocity ranges 
from 120 km/s to 200 km/s and the velocity of star G (about 136 km/s) is located 
in this range. 

3 Discussion and Conclusion 

By numerical simulation, Marietta et al. ([2000 ) performed an excellent detailed 
study of the impact of a supernova's ejecta on its companion. The study shows 
that there is no difference for the stripped mass SM and for the ratio of SM/M^ 
between MS companions and SG companions. The simple analytic solution in 
this paper is similar to the result of numerical simulations. However, there seem 
to be two groups based on the mass-transfer stage - both SM and SM/M% N from 
SG models are always larger than those from MS models at certain conditions, 
i.e. at a fixed a/Ri or Mf N . This fact indicates that the companion structure 
is important to discriminate SM and <5M/Mf N during SNe la explosions. It is 
possible that the process of mass transfer has a significant effect on the final 
result. We did not find the linear relation between log(SM) and log(a/i?2) or 
between log(Vkick) and log(a/i?2) in Fig. [4] as given by MOO. This result is also 
relevant to the choice of the companion model and this is because Marietta et 
al. ( |2000j ) simply changed a/Ri for the same companion model to examine 
the effect of a/Ri. The importance of the companion structure is also verified 
by the fact that we can gain a similar relation to MOO by adopting a similar 



G 



assumption of MOO. 

A caveat must be emphasized that the kinetic energy of the supernova ejecta 
translates into the thermal energy of the companion envelope and a part of 
the material in the envelope is heated and is vaporized to escape from the 
companion, which may increase the stripped mass (Fryxell & Arnett [1981] ; 
MOO). We do not consider this effect in the analytic solution although this 
effect may affect the stripped mass significantly (Fryxell & Arnett [1981] ; MOO). 
Therefore, as discussed in subsection 12.21 6M in our models is only a lower 
limit. Note that our analytic method may have oversimplified the physics of the 
interaction between the ejecta and the companion star, e.g. we did not calculate 
the effect of the shock formed between the ejecta and the companion star. In 
this context, our results may be taken as a qualitative one giving the trend of 
real case. 

However, Leonard (private communication 2007) showed the amount of the 
stripped mass may be less than 0.01 Mq as derived from observation, although 
this result relies on the model of MOO. The contradiction between the observa- 
tion of Leonard and the prediction of MOO might be from the companion model 
used by MOO, especially the effect of the mass transfer on the structure of the 
companion. For a realistic case, before SN la explodes, most material in the 
companion's envelope has transferred onto the CO WD. At the same time, the 
radius of the companion decreases (Langer et al. 2000|). These facts make the 
companion more compact than that of a star with the same mass while without 
mass transfer, such as a solar model used in MOO. It is more difficult to strip 
material from the envelope of a compact companion and the stripped mass in 
MOO should therefor be lower. The result that the stripped mass in this paper is 
lower than that in MOO might go in the right direction, showing the importance 
of the companion models. 

We do not find the dependence of the SM, (SM/M| N and I4ick on the metal- 
licity. However, the result depends on an assumption that the mass of the 
evaporated material is independent of the metallicity. Since there is not any 
numerical simulation or analytic method to test this assumption, we have no 
way to estimate the effect of the metallicity on the evaporation by our simple 
method. Chugai ( [1986] ) showed that for the given explosion energy of a SN 
la, the mass of the evaporated material is proportional to (/?a 3 )~ 5 , where p is 
the density of the companion's envelope at the explosion and a is the orbital 
separation at the explosion. Increasing (pa 3 ) -0 5 leads more mass evaporated. 
According to our calculation, there is no systemic effect of the metallicity on 
pa 3 and pa 3 is mainly decided by the mass transfer. Then, it is plausible that 
there is no correlation between the metallicity and the 5M, <5M/M| N , Vkick- 

The effect of the kinetic energy of supernova ejecta can be examined by 
changing the kinetic energy. If E^ = 1.5 x 10 51 erg, which corresponds to the 
upper limit of the kinetic energy of normal SNc la (Gamezo et al. [2003 ), 
SM increases by about 0.01M Q compared with that of E^ = 1.0 x 10 51 erg, 
the luminosity of the companion increase by about 20% to 30% and the kick 
velocity also increases slightly. An interesting phenomenon is that there is a 
maximal spatial velocity at infinity for the stripped material and this maximal 



7 



velocity only depends on the kinetic energy of the supernova ejecta. It is in the 
range of 8000 km/s to 9500 km/s for an E h of 1.0 x 10 51 erg to 1.5 x 10 51 erg. 
However, almost for all the models, the special velocities of a half of the stripped 
materials are less than 1100 km/s. This is roughly consistent with the numerical 
simulation (820 km/s and 890 km/s for MS and SG models, respectively (M00)) 

By the same analytic method, we use a polytropic stellar model of 1 M Q to 
examine the influence of companion structure on the results. These results are 
plotted in Fig. 2] as a solar symbol. For a given condition, SM and 5Af/A/| N 
are much larger than that of our MS models and even larger than that of our 
HG models. L and Vkick increase by a factor of 2-9 and 3-8, respectively. These 
differences indicate that the values of SM, L and Vkick are overestimated by 
using a polytropic stellar model. Note the fact that we can gain similar results 
to MOO by using models similar to those of MOO, especially for kick velocity. So 
the influence of companion structure is very important. The different structures 
between the MS models and the SG models result in different stripped mass, 
luminosity and kick velocity. Then, the difference between our results and that 
in MOO might be from the different structure of the companion. 

Star G is likely to be the companion of Tycho's supernova and it has a lower 
spatial velocity and luminosity compared to theoretical predictions (Canal et 
al. [2001] ; Marietta et al. [2000] ). Our model may naturally interpret the 
spatial velocity of Star G, while the luminosity of Star G is lower than the 
prediction of our model and than that of the numerical simulation of MOO (by 
about 3 orders of magnitude). Although this result may be partly from our 
approximation of the thermal timescale of the companion, it may still reflect the 
fact to some extent. Podsiadlowski ([2003J) showed that if the energy injected 
into the companion's envelope is larger than 10 47 erg, the luminosity of the 
companion after 10 3 yr is higher than that of Star G by at least one order of 
magnitude. Noting that the energy injected into the companion's envelope in all 
of our models is much larger than 10 47 erg and considering that the time since 
Tycho supernova (SN 1572) exploded is less than 500 yr, we suggest that an 
energy-loss mechanism might be needed to explain the low luminosity of Star 
G. Much effort is needed to solve this problem. 

References 

[2004] Branch D., 2004, Nature, 431, 1044 

[2001] Canal R., Mendez J., Ruiz-Lapucntc P., 2001, ApJ, 550, L53 
[1974] Cheng A., 1974, Ap&SS, 31, 49 
[1986] Chugai N.N., 1986, SvA, 30, 563 
[1971] Eggleton P.P., 1971, MNRAS, 151, 351 
[1972] Eggleton P.P., 1972, MNRAS, 156, 361 



8 



1973] Eggleton P.P., 1973, MNRAS, 163, 279 
1983] Eggleton P.P., 1983, ApJ, 268, 368 
1997] Filippenko A.V., 1997, ARA&A, 35, 309 
1981] Fryxell B.A., Arnett W.D., 1981, ApJ, 243, 994 

2003] Gamezo V.N., Khokhlov A.M., Oran E.S. et al., 2003, Science, 299, 77 

1996] Hachisu L, Kato M., Nomoto K., 1996, ApJ, 470, L97 

1999a] Hachisu I., Kato M., Nomoto K. et al., 1999a, ApJ, 519, 314 

1999b] Hachisu I., Kato M., Nomoto K., 1999b, ApJ, 522, 487 

2003a] Hachisu I., Kato M., 2003a, ApJ, 588, 1003 

2003b] Hachisu I., Kato M., 2003b, ApJ, 590, 445 

2004] Han Z., Podsiadlowski Ph., 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1301 

2000] Hillebrandt W., Niemeyer J.C., 2000, ARA&A, 38, 191 

2004] Kato M., Hachisu I., 2004, ApJ, 613, L129 

2000] Langer N., Deutschmann A., Wellstein S. et al., 2000, A&A, 362, 1046 

1993] Leibundgut B., Kirshner R.P., Phillips MM. et al, 1993, AJ, 105, 301 

2000] Leibundgut B., 2000, A&ARv, 10, 179 

1997] Li X.D., van den Heuvel E.P.J. , 1997, A&A, 322, L9 

1992] Livne E., Tuchman Y., Wheeler J.C., 1992, ApJ, 399, 665 

2000] Marietta E., Burrows A., Fryxell B., 2000, ApJS, 128, 615 (MOO) 

1984] Nomoto K., Thielemann F-K., Yokoi K., 1984, ApJ, 286, 644 

1999] Nomoto K., Umeda H., Hachisu I. et al., 1999, in Truran J., Niemeyer 
T., eds, Type la Suppernova :Theory and Cosmology. Cambridge Univ. Press 
, New York, p. 63 

1999] Perlmutter S., Aldering C, Goldhaber G. et al., 1999, ApJ, 517, 565 
2003] Podsiadlowski Ph., |astro-ph/0303660| 

1998] Riess A.G., Filippenko A.V., Challis P. et al., 1998, AJ, 116, 1009 
2004] Ruiz-Lapuente P., Comeron F., Mendez J. et al., 2004, Nature, 431, 1069 
1984] Taam R.E., Fryxell B.A., 1984, ApJ, 279, 166 
1999] Umeda H., Nomoto K., Yamaoka H., et al., 1999, ApJ, 513, 861 



9 



Table 1: Initial parameters, i.e. metallicity (Column 2), WD mass (Column 
3), companion mass (Column 4) and orbital period (Column 5) for our binary 
system model. The stage when mass transfer begin is shown in Column 6. 



^rnodel 


Z l 


M^ D /M 


MyM Q 


log(PVday) 


Onset 


l 


0.01 


1.00 


2.40 


0.60 


HG 


2 


0.01 


1.00 


2.40 


0.40 


MS 


3 


0.01 


1.00 


2.20 


0.00 


MS 


4 


0.01 


1.10 


3.20 


0.20 


HG 


5 


0.01 


1.10 


2.40 


0.40 


HG 


6 


0.01 


1.20 


3.20 


0.20 


MS 


7 


0.01 


1.20 


2.20 


0.20 


MS 


8 


0.02 


0.75 


2.00 


0.20 


MS 


9 


0.02 


0.80 


2.20 


0.40 


HG 


10 


0.02 


1.00 


2.20 


0.40 


HG 


11 


0.02 


1.00 


2.20 


0.00 


MS 


12 


0.02 


1.00 


2.40 


0.20 


MS 


13 


0.02 


1.00 


2.40 


0.40 


HG 


14 


0.02 


1.00 


2.40 


0.60 


HG 


15 


0.02 


1.10 


3.20 


0.20 


MS 


16 


0.02 


1.10 


2.20 


0.40 


HG 


17 


0.03 


0.80 


2.20 


0.40 


HG 


18 


0.03 


1.00 


2.20 


0.00 


MS 


19 


0.03 


1.00 


2.40 


0.40 


HG 


20 


0.03 


1.00 


2.40 


0.60 


HG 


21 


0.03 


1.10 


2.40 


0.20 


MS 


22 


0.03 


1.10 


3.20 


0.20 


MS 


23 


0.03 


1.10 


2.20 


0.40 


HG 



[1995] Yungelson L., Livio M., Tutukou A. et al., 1995, ApJ, 447, 656 
[1975] Wheeler J.C., Lecar M., Mckee C.F., 1975, ApJ, 200, 145 
[1973] Whclan J. & Iben I., 1973, ApJ, 186, 1007 



10 



Figure 1: Schematic for the impact between the supernova's ejecta and its 
companion. Supernova ejecta collides into the envelope of its companion and 
strips some hydrogen-rich material from the surface of the companion. 



11 



7 i i i i i i . i . i 

0.4 0.6 0.8 1 

log(o^R 2 ) 

Figure 2: Comparison between the stripped masses in this paper and those of 
MOO. Filled circles are from MOO and filled squares are our results for the MS 
model. Dashed line and solid line fit linearly our results of MS models and those 
of MOO, respectively. The triangular and Hexagonal points are our result for 
the SG model and that of MOO, respectively. 



12 



0.4 0.6 0.8 1 

log(a/ft 8 ) 

Figure 3: Similar to Fig. [2j but for kick velocity. 



13 



a/R 2 
2.6 2.8 



1.5 



© k5 



(a) 

★ © ■ 
. *A" ★ ▲ 

; □ A nfr ▲ 

^*A 
"A 

a ; 


i i i | i i i i | i i i i | 
(b) 

A © 

: "a * ■ 

□ ' A* ★ 

A *"*a* ; 


: 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 

(c) : 

"* ^nA : 

A ' ★ □ 

A 

A 

i.i.i' 


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

* (D 
□ □ 

A" /■* *" 

A 
A 





O <o 



2.6 2.8 
a/R 2 



1 o» 1 - 5 



Figure 4: In panels (a) and (c), stripped mass, SM, and luminosity of com- 
panions, L, are shown as functions of the ratio of separation to the radius of 
companions, a/i? 2 - Panels (b) and (d) show the ratio of stripped mass to com- 
panion mass, 5M/Mf N , and the kick velocity, Vkick, vs the companion mass at 
the moment of explosion. Triangles, squares and pentacles denote the cases for 
Z=0.01, 0.02 and 0.03, respectively. Filled symbols denote that mass transfer 
onsets at Hertzsprung gap and hollow symbols denote that mass transfer onsets 
at main sequence. Solar symbols are the results from a polytropic stellar model 
of 1 M Q . 



14 



log(/>Vdays) 

0.2 0.4 




0.2 0.4 
logCP'/days) 



Figure 5: Stripped mass, SM, ratio of the stripped mass to companion mass, 
(5M/Mf N , and kick velocity of the companion, Vkick; vs the initial companion 
mass, Mj,, and orbital period, log(P'/day). The points linked by lines have same 
initial parameters excepting abscissas. The symbols are the same as in Fig. [5] 



15