A&A 461, 571-583 (2007)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065356
R. Hirschi
Dept. of physics and Astronomy, University of Basel, Klingelbergstr. 82, 4056 Basel, Switzerland
Received 4 April 2006 / Accepted 27 July 2006
Abstract
Context. Precise measurements of the surface abundances of extremely low-metallicity stars have recently been obtained, and they provide new constraints for the stellar evolution models.
Aims. Stellar evolution models were computed in order to explain the surface abundances observed, in particular of nitrogen.
Methods. Two series of models were computed. The first series consists of 20
models with varying initial metallicity (Z=0.02 down to Z=10-8) and rotation (
km s-1). The second one consists of models with an initial metallicity of Z=10-8, masses between 9 and 85
,
and fast initial rotation velocities (
km s-1).
Results. The most interesting models are those with Z=10-8 ([Fe/H). In the course of helium burning, carbon and oxygen are mixed into the hydrogen-burning shell. This boosts the importance of the shell and causes a reduction of the CO core mass. Later in the evolution, the hydrogen shell deepens and produces a large amount of primary nitrogen. For the most massive models (
), significant mass loss occurs during the red supergiant stage. This mass loss is due to the surface enrichment in CNO elements via rotational and convective mixing. The 85
model ends up as a WO-type Wolf-Rayet star. Therefore the models predict SNe of type Ic and possibly long and soft GRBs at very low metallicities. The rotating 20
models can best reproduce the observed CNO abundances at the surface of extremely metal-poor (EMP) stars and the metallicity trends when their angular momentum content is the same as at solar metallicity (and therefore have an increasing surface velocity with decreasing metallicity). The wind of the massive-star models can reproduce the CNO abundances of the most metal-poor carbon-rich star known to date, HE1327-2326.
Key words: stars: abundances - stars: evolution - stars: rotation - stars: mass-loss - stars: Wolf-Rayet - stars: supernovae: general
Precise measurements
of surface abundances of extremely metal-poor (EMP) stars have recently
been obtained by Cayrel et al. (2004), Spite et al. (2005), and Israelian et al. (2004a).
These provide new constraints for the
stellar evolution models (see Prantzos 2005; Chiappini et al. 2005; François et al. 2004).
The most striking constraint is the need for primary 14N production
in very low-metallicity massive stars.
Other constraints are an increase in the
[C/O] ratio with a [C/Fe] ratio
(see for example Fig. 14 for C/O and Fig. 13 for C/Fe in Spite et al. 2005)
about constant or slightly decreasing (with increasing metallicity) at very low metallicities,
which requires an increase (with increasing metallicity) in oxygen yields
below [Fe/H.
About one quarter of EMP stars are carbon rich (C-rich EMP, CEMP stars).
Ryan et al. (2005) and Beers & Christlieb (2005) propose a classification for these CEMP stars. They find two
categories: about three quarters are main s-process enriched (Ba-rich)
CEMP stars and one quarter are enriched with a weak component of the
s-process (Ba-normal). The two most metal-poor stars known to date,
HE1327-2326 (Aoki et al. 2006; Frebel et al. 2005) and HE 0107-5240 (Christlieb et al. 2004), are both
CEMP stars. They are believed to have been enriched by only one
to several stars, and the yields of the models can therefore be compared to
their observed abundances without the filter of a galactic chemical
evolution model.
The evolution of low-metallicity or metal-free stars is not a new subject (see for example Chiosi 1983; Arnett 1996; El Eid et al. 1983; Carr et al. 1984). However, the observations cited above have definitely increased the interest in very metal-poor stars. There are many recent works studying the evolution of metal-free (or almost) massive (Heger & Woosley 2002; Umeda & Nomoto 2005; Meynet et al. 2006; Limongi & Chieffi 2005), intermediate-mass (Herwig 2004; Suda et al. 2004; Siess et al. 2002; Gil-Pons et al. 2005), and low-mass (Weiss et al. 2004; Picardi et al. 2004) stars in an attempt to explain the origin of the surface abundances observed.
In this work pre-supernova evolution models of rotating single stars were computed with metallicities ranging from solar metallicity down to Z=10-8 to study the impact of rotation and to see which initial rotation velocities can lead to the chemical enrichment that is observed. In Sect. 2, the model physical ingredients and the calculations are presented. Section 3 describes the evolution of the models. In Sect. 4, the stellar yields of light elements are presented and compared to observations. Section 5 gives the conclusions.
The stellar evolution model used to calculate the stellar models
is described in detail in Hirschi et al. (2004).
Convective stability is determined by the
Schwarzschild criterion.
Convection is no longer treated as an instantaneous mixing but as a
diffusive process from oxygen burning onwards.
The overshooting parameter is 0.1
for H- and He-burning cores
and 0 otherwise.
The reaction rates are taken from the
NACRE (Angulo et al. 1999) compilation for the experimental rates
and from the NACRE website (http://pntpm.ulb.ac.be/nacre.htm) for the
theoretical ones.
The initial composition of the models is given in Table 1,
and the solar metallicity composition is described in Hirschi et al. (2005b) so
only low metallicity compositions are presented here.
For a given metallicity Z (in mass fraction),
the initial helium mass fraction Y is given by the relation
,
where
is the primordial
helium abundance and
the slope of
the helium-to-metal enrichment law.
We used
and
according to recent
determinations (see Izotov & Thuan 2004, for example).
For the mixture of the heavy elements,
the same mixture as the one
used to compute the opacity tables for Weiss 95's alpha-enriched
composition (Iglesias & Rogers 1996) was adopted.
Element | Z=10-3 | Z=10-5 | Z=10-8 |
1H | 7.5650D-01 | 0.759965 | 0.759999965 |
3He | 2.5702D-05 | 2.5440D-05 | 2.5437D-05 |
4He | 2.4247D-01 | 0.23999956 | 0.239974588 |
12C | 7.5542D-05 | 7.5542D-07 | 7.5542D-10 |
13C | 9.0930D-07 | 9.0930D-09 | 9.0930D-12 |
14N | 2.3358D-05 | 2.3358D-07 | 2.3358D-10 |
15N | 9.2242D-08 | 9.2242D-10 | 9.2242D-13 |
16O | 6.7105D-04 | 6.7105D-06 | 6.7105D-09 |
17O | 2.7196D-07 | 2.7196D-09 | 2.7196D-12 |
18O | 1.5162D-06 | 1.5162D-08 | 1.5162D-11 |
20Ne | 7.8366D-05 | 7.8366D-07 | 7.8366D-10 |
22Ne | 6.3035D-06 | 6.3035D-08 | 6.3035D-11 |
24Mg | 3.2475D-05 | 3.2475D-07 | 3.2475D-10 |
25Mg | 4.2685D-06 | 4.2685D-08 | 4.2685D-11 |
26Mg | 4.8956D-06 | 4.8956D-08 | 4.8956D-11 |
28Si | 3.2769D-05 | 3.2769D-07 | 3.2769D-10 |
32S | 1.8897D-05 | 1.8897D-07 | 1.8897D-10 |
36Ar | 1.9797D-06 | 1.9797D-08 | 1.9797D-11 |
40Ca | 5.1728D-06 | 5.1728D-08 | 5.1728D-11 |
44Ti | 0 | 0 | 0 |
48Cr | 0 | 0 | 0 |
52Fe | 0 | 0 | 0 |
56Ni | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
20 | 2e-2 | 300 | 0.36 | 0.44 | 11.0 | 10.1 | 0.798 | 8.7626 | 8.66 | 6.59 | 2.25 | 1.27 | 2.57 |
20 | 1e-3 | 000 | - | 0.00 | 10.0 | 9.02 | 0.875 | 19.5567 | 6.58 | 4.39 | 1.75 | 1.16 | 2.01 |
20 | 1e-3 | 300 | 0.34 | 0.39 | 11.5 | 10.6 | 0.813 | 17.1900 | 8.32 | 6.24 | 2.27 | 1.33 | 2.48 |
20 | 1e-5 | 000 | - | 0.00 | 9.80 | 8.86 | 0.829 | 19.9795 | 6.24 | 4.28 | 1.67 | 1.18 | 1.98 |
20 | 1e-5 | 300 | 0.27 | 0.34 | 11.1 | 10.2 | 0.806 | 19.9297 | 7.90 | 5.68 | 1.99 | 1.30 | 2.34 |
20 | 1e-5 | 500 | 0.42 | 0.57 | 11.6 | 10.6 | 0.812 | 19.5749 | 7.85 | 5.91 | 2.18 | 1.35 | 2.39 |
20 | 1e-8 | 000 | - | 0.00 | 8.96 | 8.24 | 0.598 | 19.9994 | 4.43 | 4.05 | 1.91 | 1.05 | 1.92 |
20 | 1e-8 | 300 | 0.18 | 0.28 | 9.98 | 9.20 | 0.610 | 19.9992 | 6.17 | 5.18 | 1.96 | 1.29 | 2.21 |
20 | 1e-8 | 600 | 0.33 | 0.55 | 10.6 | 9.71 | 0.703 | 19.9521 | 4.83 | 4.36 | 2.01 | 1.29 | 2.00 |
09 | 1e-8 | 500 | 0.80 | 0.08 | 30.5 | 26.8 | 3.24 | 8.9995 | 1.90 | 1.34 | - | - | 1.21 |
40 | 1e-8 | 700 | 1.15 | 0.55 | 5.77 | 5.31 | 0.402 | 35.7954 | 13.5 | 12.8 | 2.56 | 1.49 | 4.04 |
60 | 1e-8 | 800 | 2.41 | 0.57 | 4.55 | 4.19 | 0.321 | 48.9747 | 25.6 | 24.0 | - | - | 7.38 |
85 | 1e-8 | 800 | 4.15 | 0.53 | 3.86 | 3.50 | 0.322 | 19.8677 | 19.9 | 18.8 | 3.19 | 1.84 | 5.79 |
a Lifetimes [Myr] (Cols. 6-8): total and core hydrogen and helium burning stages.
Various masses [![]() b Estimated from the CO core mass. |
Since mass loss rates are a key ingredient in the evolution of massive
stars,
the prescriptions used are summarised here.
The changes in the mass loss rates, ,
with
rotation are taken into account as explained in Maeder & Meynet (2000a).
As reference mass-loss rates,
the adopted mass-loss rates are the ones of Vink et al. (2000,2001),
who account for the occurrence of bi-stability
limits, which change the wind properties and mass-loss rates.
For the domain not covered by these authors,
the empirical law devised by de Jager et al. (1988) was used.
Note that this empirical law, which presents
a discontinuity in the mass flux near the Humphreys-Davidson limit,
implicitly accounts for the mass loss rates of LBV stars.
For the non-rotating
models, since the empirical values
for the mass loss rates are based on
stars covering the whole range of rotational velocities,
one must apply a reduction factor to the empirical rates to make
them correspond to the non-rotating case. The same reduction factor
was used as in Maeder & Meynet (2001).
During the Wolf-Rayet phase, the mass loss rates by Nugis & Lamers (2000)
were used.
The mass loss rates depend
on metallicity as
,
where Z is the mass fraction of heavy elements at the stellar surface.
The mass loss rates (and opacity) are determined fairly well
for chemical compositions that are similar to solar
composition or similar to a fraction of the
solar composition (or of the
alpha-enriched mixing). However, very little was known about the mass
loss of very low metallicity stars with a strong enrichment in CNO
elements until recently. Vink & de Koter (2005) studied the case of Wolf-Rayet
(WR) stars
and find a clear dependence with iron group mass fractions.
For red supergiant stars (RSG), recent studies
(see van Loon 2005, and references therein) show that dust-driven
winds at cool temperature show no metallicity dependence for
.
As we see later, the surface of the star is strongly enriched in CNO
elements during the RSG stage, due to rotational and
convective mixing. It is implicitly assumed
in this work (as in Meynet et al. 2006)
that CNO elements make a significant contribution to
opacity and mass loss rates.
The mass loss rates used depend
on metallicity as
,
where
Z is the mass fraction of heavy elements at the surface
of the star, also when the iron-group elements' content is much smaller
than
the CNO elements' content. The highest mass losses in the present calculations
occur during the RSG stage. This means that if the independence of the
mass loss rates from the metallicity in the RSG stage
(van Loon 2005) is confirmed at very low metallicities, the mass loss rate used
in this work possibly underestimate the real mass loss rate. This point
surely deserves to be studied in more detail in the future.
A specific treatment for mass loss was applied at break-up (see Meynet et al. 2006), when the mass loss rate adjusts itself in such a way that an equilibrium is reached between the two subsequent opposite effects. 1) The radial inflation due to evolution, combined with the growth of the surface velocity due to the internal coupling by meridional circulation, brings the star to break-up, and thus some amount of mass at the surface is no longer bound to the star. 2) By removing the most external layers, mass loss brings the stellar surface down to a level in the star that is no longer critical. Thus, at break-up, one should adapt the mass loss rates, in order to maintain the surface layers at the break-up limit. In practice, however, since the critical limit contains mathematical singularities, it was considered that during the break-up phase, the mass loss rates should be such that the model stays near a constant fraction (around 0.95) of the limit. Note that wind anisotropy (described in Maeder & Meynet 2000a) was not taken into account for the present work.
The instabilities induced by rotation
taken into account in this work are meridional circulation
and secular and dynamical shears. Meridional circulation is an advective
process and shears diffusive ones.
The equations for the transport of angular momentum and chemical
elements are given in Sect. 2.3 of Maeder & Meynet (2000b). For more details on
the equation for the transport of angular momentum, the reader can
refer to Maeder & Zahn (1998).
The equation for the change in the mass fraction of chemical
species i is the following:
![]() |
(1) |
![]() |
(2) |
Even though there is no free parameter in the prescriptions above to increase or decrease the importance of the coefficients, different authors use different prescriptions for the various processes (see for example Heger et al. 2000). The coefficient of horizontal turbulence was also recently revised (Maeder 2003). The new coefficient was used in Meynet et al. (2006) but not in this work, although the impact of this new coefficient is discussed briefly in Sect. 3.4.
![]() |
Figure 1:
HR diagrams: ( left) non-rotating 20 ![]() ![]() |
The value of 300 km s-1 as the initial rotation velocity at solar
metallicity
corresponds to an average velocity of about 220 km s-1 on the main
sequence (MS), which is
very close to the average observed value (see for instance Fukuda 1982).
It is unfortunately not possible to measure the rotational velocity of very low
metallicity massive stars since they all died a long time ago.
The higher observed ratio of Be to B stars in
the Magellanic clouds compared to our Galaxy (Maeder et al. 1999) could point
to how the stars rotate faster at lower metallicities.
Also a low metallicity star containing the same angular momentum
as a solar metallicity star has a higher surface rotation velocity due to
its smaller radius (one quarter of
radius for 20
stars). Since there is, however, no firm evidence yet for fast surface
rotation velocities at low metallicities, we explore in this work with 20
models
different velocities ranging between no rotation and surface velocities
corresponding to the same total angular momentum as in solar
metallicity stars.
In order to compare the
models at different metallicities and with different initial masses
with another quantity than the surface velocity,
the ratio
is used (see Table 2).
The critical velocity is reached when the gravitational acceleration is
balanced by radiative and centrifugal forces.
The critical velocity is given by the following formula if the star
is far from its Eddington limit (
):
![]() |
(3) |
![]() |
(4) |
In the first series of models, the aim is to scan the parameter space of
rotation and metallicity with 20
models since a 20
star is not far from the average massive star when a Salpeter (1955) like
IMF is used.
For this series, on top of non-rotating models,
two initial rotational velocities were
used at very low metallicities.
The first velocity is the same as at solar metallicity, i.e.
300 km s-1.
The ratio
decreases with
metallicity (see Table 2)
for the initial velocity of 300 km s-1.
The second
is 500 km s-1 at Z=10-5 ([Fe/H
)
and 600 km s-1at Z=10-8 ([Fe/H
). These values have
ratios of the initial velocity to the break-up velocity,
around 0.55, which is only slightly
higher than the solar metallicity value (0.44).
The 20
model at Z=10-8 and with 600 km s-1 has a total initial angular momentum
erg s, which is the same as for
the solar metallicity 20
model with 300 km s-1 (
erg s).
Even though a star at Z=10-8 with a velocity of 600 km s-1 at first glance seems to be an extremely fast rotator,
it is in fact similar to a solar metallicity star in terms of
angular momentum and ratio
.
In the second series of models, following the work of
Meynet et al. (2006), models were computed at Z=10-8 with initial masses of 9, 40, 60, and 85
and initial rotational velocities of 500, 700, 800, and 800 km s-1 respectively. Note that, for these models as well, the
initial total angular momentum is similar to the one contained in solar
metallicity models with rotational velocities equal to 300 km s-1.
The evolution of the models was in general followed until core Si-burning.
The 60
model was evolved until neon burning and the 9
model until carbon burning. The main characteristics of the models are presented
in Table 2. This table lists the initial parameters of the
models in Cols. 1 to 5 (mass, metallicity, rotation velocity [km s-1],
total angular momentum [1053 erg s], and
). Then the lifetimes
(in Mega-years) of the
entire evolution (
)
and core hydrogen (
)
and core helium (
)
burning are given in Cols. 6 to 8.
Finally, the final mass (
), the masses of the helium (
), carbon-oxygen (
),
silicon (
)
and iron cores (
),
and the remnant mass (
)
are listed in Cols. 9 to 14.
The effects of metallicity on stellar evolution have already been
discussed in the literature
(see for example Meynet et al. 1994; Chieffi & Limongi 2004; Heger et al. 2003).
But before looking at the very low metallicity models and the impact of
rotation, it is useful to summarise the effects that low metallicity has on the
evolution of massive stars.
A lower metallicity implies a lower luminosity, which leads to slightly smaller
convective cores. This can be seen in Table 2 by comparing
the core masses of the
non-rotating 20
models at different metallicities.
A lower metallicity implies lower opacity and lower
mass losses (as long as the chemical composition has not been changed by
burning or mixing in the part of the star one considers). Because of this,
at the start
of the evolution, lower metallicity stars are more compact. This can be
seen in the Herzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram (Fig. 1 left)
where the lower metallicity models have bluer tracks during the MS.
They also lose less
mass, as can be seen by looking at the final masses in Table 2.
The lower metallicity models also have a harder time reaching
the RSG stage
(see Maeder & Meynet 2001, for a detailed discussion). The non-rotating model
at Z=10-3becomes a RSG only during shell He-burning (see Fig. 2), and the
lower metallicity non-rotating models never reach the RSG stage. As long as the
metallicity is above about
Z=10-10, no significant differences have
been found in non-rotating models. Below this metallicity and for metal
free-stars, the CNO cycle cannot operate at the start of H-burning. At
the end of its formation, the
star therefore contracts until it starts He-burning because the
pp-chains cannot balance the effect of the gravitational force. Once
enough carbon and oxygen are produced, the CNO cycle can operate and the
star behaves like stars with
Z>10-10 for the rest of the MS.
Shell H-burning still differs between
Z>10-10 and metal-free stars.
Metal-free stellar models are presented in Chieffi & Limongi (2004),
Heger & Woosley (2002) and Umeda & Nomoto (2005).
In Meynet & Maeder (2002), they show that low metallicity (Z=10-5)
models have strong internal -gradients, which favours a
considerable mixing. This mixing leads to primary nitrogen production during
He-burning by rotational diffusion of carbon and oxygen into the
H-burning shell. Their results already point out that the primary
nitrogen yields strongly depend on the initial rotation velocity.
This dependence is studied further in Sect. 4.
Meynet et al. (2006) present the evolution of 60
models at
Z=10-8 and confirm the effects that were predicted in their
previous papers. The fast-rotating model with an initial rotational velocity
of 800 km s-1 reaches break-up, becomes a RSG and
produces significant amounts of primary
nitrogen. The model becomes a WR star due to large mass losses during the
RSG stage. These effects
are further discussed below and models at Z=10-8 with different
initial masses are presented.
At solar metallicity and metallicities higher than about
Z=10-5, rotational mixing increases the helium and CO core masses
(see Table 2). In particular, the oxygen yield is increased.
The impact of mixing on models at Z=10-8
(and at Z=0 see Ekström et al. 2006)
is, however, different for fast rotation
(
km s-1).
The impact of mixing on the structure and convective zones is
represented
in the Kippenhahn diagram for the Z=10-8 models (see Fig. 2).
During hydrogen burning and the start of helium burning,
the impact of mixing is the same as at higher metallicity, where mixing
increases the core sizes and mixing of helium above the core suppresses
the intermediate convective zones linked to shell H-burning.
The difference from higher metallicity models occurs during He-burning.
As shown in Fig. 12 (left) for the 20
with
km s-1, primary carbon and oxygen are
mixed outside of the convective core into the H-burning shell. Once the
enrichment is strong enough, the H-burning shell is boosted (the CNO cycle depends strongly on the carbon and oxygen mixing at such low
initial metallicities). The shell then
becomes convective, as can be seen in Fig. 3, which is a zoom
of the Kippenhahn diagram.
The boost phase, which could look like an instantaneous event in Fig. 2 (third line, right), is fully revealed in this zoom.
The calculations were
repeated with different time steps to
verify that the results did not depend on the numerical details.
The evolution of the final model was followed
with 2000 time steps between the time axis measures of 5.607 and 5.596.
In response to the shell boost, the core expands and the convective core mass decreases. At the end of He-burning, the CO core is less massive than in the non-rotating model (Fig. 2, third line, left and right). Since the yield of 16O is closely correlated with the mass of the CO core, it is therefore reduced due to the strong mixing. At the same time, the carbon yield is slightly increased (see Table 3). It is interesting to note that the H-burning shell's boost occurs in all models at Z=10-8, as can be seen in Fig. 2 (noticeable by the appearance of a strong intermediate convective shell due to H-burning and the corresponding sharp decrease in the He-burning convective core mass). This means that the relatively "low'' oxygen yields and "high'' carbon yields are produced over a wide mass range at Z=10-8. This could be an explanation for the possibly high [C/O] ratio observed in the most metal poor halo stars (ratio between the surface abundances of carbon and oxygen relative to solar; see Fig. 14 in Spite et al. 2005).
Figure 12 (left) shows the abundance profiles before the
H-burning shell's boost and Fig. 12 (middle) shows the
profiles after it. These profiles show that the carbon and oxygen brought
to the shell H-burning are transformed into primary nitrogen.
The bulk of
primary nitrogen is, however, produced later in the evolution,
when the H-burning shell deepens in mass during core helium burning for
the very massive models
and during shell He-burning for the 20
model.
The deepening of the convective H-burning shell is caused
by dynamical shear instabilities
(see Sect. 2.3 in Hirschi et al. 2004, and references therein).
Dynamical shear instabilities take place just below the bottom of the
convective zone due to the strong differential rotation between the
convective H-burning shell and the layers below (deeper in the star).
Dynamical shear
instabilities occur on a dynamical time scale as
opposed to secular shear, and they therefore induce a fast mixing just below
the convective zone.
Note that the dynamical shear instabilities are not influenced by mean molecular
weight gradients.
The consequences are the same as during the first boost. Carbon
and oxygen are mixed inside the H-burning shell and a new boost occurs,
this time producing more nitrogen because the newly mixed material is richer
in carbon and oxygen.
Figure 12 (right) shows the abundance profiles after the
second boost. The abundance of nitrogen does not change later during the
advanced stages and the pre-SN profile for nitrogen (see Fig. 13)
stays the same. The total production of primary nitrogen is
discussed further in Sect. 4.
Rotational mixing also influences the mass loss
of very massive stars strongly, as discussed below.
M |
![]() |
![]() |
4He |
![]() |
12C | 13C | 14N | 16O | 17O | 18O | 22Ne | Z |
20 | ![]() |
300 | 1.62 | -3.36 | 0.433 | 1.01e-3 | 4.33e-2 | 2.57 | -2.75e-6 | -1.96e-4 | 4.26e-2 | 3.98 |
20 | -3 | 000 | 2.47 | -2.84 | 0.373 | 2.58e-5 | 3.31e-3 | 1.46 | -5.48e-7 | -1.12e-5 | 2.48e-3 | 2.38 |
20 | -3 | 300 | 2.11 | -3.31 | 0.676 | 2.84e-5 | 3.10e-3 | 2.70 | 4.83e-7 | -1.89e-5 | 1.04e-2 | 3.77 |
20 | -5 | 000 | 2.50 | -3.32 | 0.370 | 1.93e-7 | 4.27e-5 | 1.50 | 3.05e-7 | -9.43e-8 | 2.11e-5 | 2.30 |
20 | -5 | 300 | 2.34 | -3.91 | 0.481 | 2.42e-6 | 1.51e-4 | 2.37 | 3.40e-7 | 5.27e-7 | 2.74e-3 | 3.35 |
20 | -5 | 500 | 2.26 | -4.08 | 0.648 | 1.53e-5 | 5.31e-4 | 2.59 | 4.79e-7 | 5.49e-6 | 1.07e-2 | 3.54 |
20 | -8 | 000 | 2.27 | -4.17 | 0.262 | 2.27e-4 | 8.52e-3 | 1.20 | 1.94e-7 | -2.15e-0 | 1.85e-6 | 2.14 |
20 | -8 | 300 | 2.03 | -4.37 | 0.381 | 1.80e-6 | 1.20e-4 | 1.96 | 1.70e-8 | 2.14e-7 | 5.48e-5 | 2.97 |
20 | -8 | 600 | 3.15 | -4.50 | 0.823 | 5.55e-3 | 5.90e-2 | 1.35 | 1.73e-5 | 2.52e-7 | 7.72e-5 | 2.49 |
09 | -8 | 500 | 1.43 | -1.76 | 0.082 | 1.35e-4 | 2.53e-3 | 5.85 | 5.64e-7 | 4.07e-5 | 1.86e-4 | 0.143 |
40 | -8 | 700 | 6.01 | -9.10 | 1.79 | 6.31e-2 | 1.87e-1 | 5.94 | 6.31e-5 | 4.74e-7 | 1.51e-4 | 9.64 |
60 | -8 | 800 | 8.97 | -13.3 | 3.58 | 5.00e-4 | 4.14e-2 | 12.8 | 6.26e-6 | 3.56e-7 | 1.66e-3 | 17.1 |
85 | -8 | 800 | 16.8 | -2.00 | 7.89 | 5.60e-1 | 1.75e+0 | 12.3 | 6.66e-4 | 4.95e-5 | 1.55e-3 | 25.5 |
a The corresponding ejected masses
can be calculated by adding the initial composition given in
Table 1 multiplied by the mass interval, the mass boundaries of
which (initial and remnant masses) are given in Table 2.
All masses and yields are in
solar mass units and velocities are in km s-1.
For the metallicity,
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
What happens in the models calculated in this study?
First, let us study the mass loss at break-up. Figure 4 presents
the evolution of the surface velocity and of the ratio of the surface angular velocity to the critical
angular velocity,
,
for the 85
,
40
,
and 20
models with fast rotation velocities,
km s-1, at Z=10-8.
It shows that the 20
model only reaches break-up velocities
at the end of the MS so does not lose mass due to
this phenomenon. However, more massive models reach critical velocities
early during the MS (the earlier, the more massive the model). The
evolution of rotation for the 60
model is very similar to the 40
model so is not shown here for the clarity of the plot.
The mass lost due to break up increases with the initial mass and
amounts to 1.1, 3.5, and 5.5
for the 40, 60, and 85
models, respectively (see the top solid line in Fig. 2 going down
during the MS).
At the end of core H-burning,
the core contracts and the envelope expands, thus decreasing the surface
velocity and
.
The mass-loss rates become
very low again until the star crosses the HR diagram and reaches the RSG stage. At this point the convective envelope dredges up CNO elements to
the surface thus increasing its overall metallicity. As said in Sect. 2.2, the total metallicity, Z, is used (including CNO elements)
for the metallicity dependence of the mass loss.
Therefore, depending on how much CNO is brought up to the surface, the
mass loss can become very large again. The CNO brought to the surface
comes from primary C and O produced in He-burning. As described in the
above subsection, rotational and convective mixing brings these elements
into the H-burning shell. A large fraction of the C and O is then
transformed into primary nitrogen via the CNO cycle.
Additional convective and rotational
mixing is necessary to bring the primary CNO to the surface of the star.
The whole process is complex and depends on
mixing (see Fig. 5).
Of particular importance is the surface convective zone, which appears
when the star becomes an RSG. This convective zone dredges up the CNO to the surface. For a very large mass loss to occur, it is necessary that the
star becomes an RSG in order to develop a convective envelope. It is also
important that the extent of the convective envelope is large enough to
reach the CNO-rich layers. Finally, the star must reach the RSG stage
early enough (before the end of core He-burning) so that there will be
time remaining to lose mass. Figure 6 shows the evolution of
the effective temperature as a function of the central helium mass
fraction. This figure shows that the 9 and 40
models reach the
RSG stage only after the end of helium burning, so too late for a large
mass loss. The 60
model reaches the RSG stage during
He-burning.
It would therefore have time to lose large amounts of mass.
However, the dredge-up is not strong enough.
The 85
model becomes an RSG during
He-burning earlier than the 60
model.
The dredge-up is stronger for this model and the surface CNO abundance
becomes very high (see Fig. 8 bottom). The
series of models presented here constrain the minimum initial mass for
significant mass loss (more than half of the initial mass) to be between 60 and 85
.
The dependence on mixing of the lower initial mass for a large mass loss
to occur can be estimated by
comparing the 60
model calculated here and the one presented by
Meynet et al. (2006). Their model, which does
not include overshooting and uses a different prescription for the
horizontal diffusion coefficient,
(Maeder 2003), loses a large fraction of its mass (and
becomes a WR star with high effective temperature) just before
the end of core helium burning (see Fig. 4 from Meynet et al. 2006).
The
used in Meynet et al. (2006), compared to the
used in
the present calculations, tends to
allow a greater enrichment of the surface
in CNO processed elements. This different physical ingredient
explains the differences between the two 60
models.
The fact that, out of two 60
models, one model does not lose
much mass and the other model with a different physics does
could mean that the minimum initial mass for the star to
lose a large fraction of its mass is around 60
.
M |
![]() |
4He | 3He | 12C | 13C | 14N | 16O | 17O | 18O | 22Ne | Z |
09 | 500 | 2.80e-5 | -8.34e-9 | 5.86e-08 | 1.72e-09 | 2.53e-08 | 2.33e-08 | 6.19e-12 | 1.20e-11 | 9.77e-12 | 1.10e-7 |
20 | 600 | 2.36e-4 | -1.04e-6 | -3.27e-11 | 5.06e-13 | 3.08e-10 | -2.54e-10 | 5.30e-13 | -7.22e-13 | 2.72e-16 | 7.59e-9 |
40 | 700 | 3.29e-1 | -1.03e-4 | 5.34e-03 | 8.06e-04 | 3.63e-03 | 2.42e-03 | 1.05e-06 | 2.18e-09 | 2.35e-07 | 1.17e-2 |
60 | 800 | 1.21e+0 | -2.72e-4 | 1.80e-05 | 4.94e-06 | 6.87e-04 | 5.48e-05 | 7.94e-08 | -9.49e-11 | 4.80e-08 | 7.25e-4 |
85 | 800 | 2.00e+1 | -1.64e-3 | 6.34e+00 | 5.60e-01 | 1.75e+00 | 3.02e+00 | 6.66e-04 | 4.95e-05 | 1.46e-03 | 1.16e+1 |
a The corresponding ejected masses can be calculated by adding the initial composition given in Table 1 multiplied by the mass interval, the mass boundaries of which (initial and final masses) are given in Table 2. For heavy elements with yields larger than 1e-6, ejected masses and stellar yields are essentially the same here since the initial total metallicity is 1e-8. |
In this section, the stellar yields of all the models are presented and discussed. They are then compared to the observations of carbon-rich EMP stars.
The 20
models are expected to produce neutron stars and
eject most of their envelope.
On the other hand, stars more massive than about 40
on the ZAMS are expected to form black holes directly and not
to eject anything during or after their collapse (Heger et al. 2003).
The present 40 and 60
models probably follow this scenario.
If this is the case, the wind
contribution is the only contribution to be taken into account.
The outcome is uncertain for the 85
model because the final
mass is only about 20
,
but the alpha and CO core masses are
very high (see Table 2). This model could produce a GRB, in
which case jets would be produced and some iron-rich matter would be
ejected.
In Fig. 9, the two possible outcomes for very massive
stars are compared. On the left, the stellar yields include the
SN contribution, and on the right, the stellar yields only include the
wind contribution for stars with
.
As can be expected, the two outcomes give very different yields for the 40
and 60
since
they do not lose much mass before the SN explosion. For stars above about
60
,
the difference is much smaller because the strong winds
peal off most of the CNO-rich layers before the final collapse.
The yields for 12C, 14N, and 16O are presented in Fig. 10.
The most stringent observational constraint at very low Z is a very
high primary 14N production.
This requires extremely high primary 14N production in massive
stars, of the order of 0.1
per star (
0.15
used
in the heuristic model
of Chiappini et al. 2005).
In Fig. 10, we can see that only the model at Z=10-8 and
with a fast rotation (
km s-1)
gets close to such high values.
The bulk of 14N is produced in the convective
zone created by the hydrogen-burning shell (see Sect. 3.3). If this
convective zone deepens enough
to engulf carbon (and oxygen) rich layers, then significant amounts of
primary 14N can be produced (
).
![]() |
Figure 10:
12C ( left), 14N ( centre), and 16O
( right) total stellar yields as a function of the initial
metallicity of the 20 ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 11:
Composition in [X/Fe] of the stellar wind ( left) and the
mixture of the wind and SN ejecta ( right) for the Z=10-8models.
The lines represent predictions from the models.
The following symbols correspond to the
values obtained from measurements at the surface of giant CEMP stars:
red hexagons for HE 0107-5240, [Fe/H
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The impact of the important primary nitrogen production and of the other yields on the initial composition, therefore on the evolution of the next stellar generations and their yields, is an interesting aspect that will also be studied in the future.
The stellar yields of the fast-rotating Z=10-8 models are presented in
Fig. 9. It shows that the significant (above 0.01 )
production of primary nitrogen occurs for the entire mass range.
For massive stars with
,
the yields depend on
whether or not the SN contributes to the total yields, as discussed
earlier. The production of nitrogen is accompanied by a production of 13C and 17O (and to a lesser extent 18O). The ratio 12C/13C is very different between the wind and the SN
contributions. It is around 5 for the wind and more than 100 for the SN and SN+wind contributions. This, with the N/C and N/O ratios,
are good tests for differentiating between
the two contributions. Part of the primary nitrogen also captures
two
-particles and becomes 22Ne. The primary 22Ne
yields are of the order of
,
and 22Ne is one of
the main neutron sources for the weak s-process in massive stars.
With a low
initial iron content due to the low initial overall metallicity, the
s-process could occur with a high neutron-to-seed ratio and produce
surprising results. This, too, will be the subject of a future study.
The zoo of extremely metal-poor stars has been classified by Beers & Christlieb (2005). Carbon-rich, extremely metal-poor stars (CEMPs also called CRUMPs at a recent meeting at Tegernsee, http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~crumps05) are different from normal EMP stars and are rarer (Ryan et al. 2005). About three quarters of the CEMPs show a standard s-process enrichment, which is best explained by accretion from an AGB companion in a binary system (Suda et al. 2004). The other CEMP stars show a weak s-process enhancement. Their peculiar abundances are therefore thought to originate from the previous generation of stars.
The two most metal-poor stars known to date: HE1327-2326 (Aoki et al. 2006; Frebel et al. 2005,2006) and HE 0107-5240 (Bessell et al. 2004; Christlieb et al. 2004) are both CEMP stars with a weak s-process enrichment. Chieffi & Limongi (2002) and Nomoto et al. (2005) studied the enrichment due to PopIII SNe. By using one or a few SNe and using a very large mass cut, they are able to reproduce the abundance of most elements (Limongi et al. 2003; Iwamoto et al. 2005). However, they are not able to reproduce the nitrogen surface abundance of HE1327-2326 without rotational mixing or the oxygen surface abundance of HE 0107-5240 without mixing and fall-back mimicking an aspherical explosion.
Here, the impact of rotation is explored.
The star HE1327-2326 is characterised by very high N, C, and O abundances,
high Na, Mg, and Al abundances, a weak s-process enrichment and depleted
lithium. This star is not evolved so has not had time to bring
self-produced CNO elements to its surface and is most likely a subgiant
(Korn, presentation at the CRUMPS meeting).
Most features of this star are similar to the properties of the
stellar winds of very metal-poor rotating stars (Meynet et al. 2006).
Therefore, HE1327-2326 could have formed
from gas, which was mainly enriched by stellar winds of rotating very
low-metallicity stars. In this scenario, a first generation of stars
(PopIII)
pollutes the interstellar medium to very low metallicities
([Fe/H). Then a PopII.5 star (Bromm 2005; Hirschi 2005; Karlsson 2006) like the
40
model calculated here
pollutes (mainly through its wind) the interstellar medium, out of
which HE1327-2326 forms.
This would mean that HE1327-2326 is a third generation star.
In this scenario,
the CNO abundances are reproduced well, in particular that of
nitrogen, which is 0.9 dex higher in [X/Fe] than oxygen
according to the new values for a subgiant from Frebel et al. (2006).
This is shown in Fig. 11 where the new abundances are
represented by the red stars and the best fit is
obtained by diluting the composition of the wind of the 40
model by a factor 600.
On the right side of Fig. 11, one sees that, when the SN contribution is added, the [X/Fe] ratio is usually lower for nitrogen than for oxygen. The lithium depletion cannot be explained by rotational and convective
mixing in the massive star if the wind material is diluted in the ISM by
a factor 600 (600 parts of ISM for 1 part of wind material), as
suggested above.
However, if the wind material is less enriched in CNO elements, a lower
dilution factor would be necessary to reproduce the observations.
Also if the massive star is born with a higher iron content, a lower dilution
factor is necessary. If this
dilution factor is of the order of unity, it becomes possible to explain
the lithium depletion by internal mixing in the massive star.
To investigate this possibility, more models have to be calculated with
different initial metallicities.
Although the existence of a minimum metallicity Z for low mass stars
to form is still under debate,
It is interesting to note that the very high CNO yields of the
40
stars brings the total
metallicity Z above the limit for the low-mass star formation
obtained in Bromm & Loeb (2003).
For HE 0107-5240 (red hexagons in Fig. 11),
rotation does not help since neither the wind contribution nor the
total contribution produces such a large overproduction of carbon compared
to nitrogen and oxygen. Possible origins for this star are presented
in Iwamoto et al. (2005) and (Suda et al. 2004).
For the other carbon-rich stars presented in Fig. 11, the
oxygen abundances are either not determined or still quite uncertain
(Izotov & Thuan 2004). The C and N surface abundances of G77-61 (Plez & Cohen 2005)
could originate in material similar to the wind of the 85 .
The C and N surface abundances of CS 22949-037 (Israelian et al. 2004b; Norris et al. 2002; Depagne et al. 2002)
resemble the wind composition of the 60
model, although some
oxygen needs to be ejected from the supernova.
The enrichment in C, N, and O is very similar for CS 29498-043
(around +2, see Aoki et al. 2004), and a partial ejection due to the supernova is
necessary to explain the oxygen enrichment since in the winds the oxygen
is usually under produced compared to C and N.
It will be interesting to follow the evolution of Na, Mg, and Al since the high yields of 22Ne seem to indicate that there could be an
overproduction of
these elements in the wind (see Table 3 and the
Z=10-5 model
presented in Meynet et al. 2006). Since 22Ne is a neutron source,
s-process calculations are also planned.
Two series of models were computed.
The first series consists of 20
models with varying initial
metallicity (solar down to Z=10-8) and rotation
(
km s-1). The second one consists of
models with an initial metallicity of Z=10-8, masses between 9 and
85
,
and fast initial rotation velocities.
The results presented confirm the crucial role of rotation in stellar
evolution and its impact on very low-metallicity stars (Meynet et al. 2006).
The evolution of the models with Z=10-8 ([Fe/H
)
is very interesting.
In the course of helium burning, carbon and oxygen are mixed into the
hydrogen-burning shell. This boosts the importance of the shell and
causes a reduction of the CO core mass. Later in the evolution,
the hydrogen-burning shell deepens and produces a large amount of
primary
nitrogen. For the most massive models (
),
significant mass
loss occurs during the RSG stage assuming that CNO elements
are important contributors to mass loss. This loss is due to
the surface enrichment in CNO elements via rotational and convective
mixing.
The models predict the production of WR stars for an initial mass higher
than 60
at Z=10-8 and the 85
model becomes a
WO; therefore, SNe of types Ib and Ic are predicted from single massive stars
at these low metallicities. The 85
model retains enough angular momentum to produce a GRB.
The stellar yields are presented for light elements. These yields
were used in a galactic
chemical evolution model and successfully reproduced the early
evolution of CNO elements (Chiappini et al. 2006). A scenario is proposed to
explain the abundances of the most metal-poor star known to date,
HE1327-2326 (Frebel et al. 2005).
In this scenario, a first generation of stars
(PopIII)
pollutes the interstellar medium to very low metallicities
([Fe/H). Then a PopII.5 star (Bromm 2005), like the
40
model calculated in this study,
pollutes (only with its wind) the interstellar medium, out of which
HE1327-2326 forms.
There are still many questions and issues that could not be treated in this work. It is necessary to determine over which metallicity range the large primary production of nitrogen and the other specific features of the Z=10-8 models occur. The impact of the yields on the initial composition, hence on the evolution of the next stellar generations, also needs to be studied. It will also be interesting to follow the evolution of Na, Mg, and Al since the high yields of 22Ne seem to indicate that there could be some overproduction of these elements in the wind (see Table 3 and the Z=10-5 model presented in Meynet et al. 2006). Since 22Ne is also a neutron source, s-process calculations are planned. The effects of magnetic fields (Woosley & Heger 2006; Maeder & Meynet 2005; Yoon & Langer 2005) on the results will be studied in the near future. The dependence of the mass loss rates on the metallicity, especially in the RSG stage, needs to be studied further to see how the results of van Loon (2005, mass loss in the RSG phase independent of metallicity) can be extrapolated to very low metallicities.
Acknowledgements
R. Hirschi is supported by the SNF grant 200020-105328.
![]() |
Figure 13: Final abundance profiles. The initial parameters of the models are given on top of each plot. |