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
