1 / 7

Simulations of SN Feedback in Dwarf Disk Galaxies

Simulations of SN Feedback in Dwarf Disk Galaxies. P. Chris Fragile Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Collaborators: Stephen Murray, LLNL Doug Lin, UCSC. Simulations of SN Feedback in Dwarf Disk Galaxies. Goals Supernova enrichment histories of dwarf systems

chase
Download Presentation

Simulations of SN Feedback in Dwarf Disk Galaxies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Simulations of SN Feedback in Dwarf Disk Galaxies P. Chris Fragile Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Collaborators: Stephen Murray, LLNL Doug Lin, UCSC

  2. Simulations of SN Feedback in Dwarf Disk Galaxies • Goals • Supernova enrichment histories of dwarf systems • Building blocks for larger systems • Polluters of IGM • Star-formation histories of dwarf systems • Concentrated starbursts • Self-regulated (distributed) star formation

  3. Simulations of SN Feedback in Dwarf Disk Galaxies • Methodology • Computational domain • 30 kpc x 30 kpc x 15 kpc • 256x256x128 • Galaxy potential • Fixed (non-interacting) dark-matter potential • Gas distribution • Supernova input • Variables: input rate and distribution • Observables: mass ejection and metal ejection

  4. Results Model 1 0% distribution • Md=9.1x109M8 • Mg=109M8 • 30 SNae Myr-1 • Simulation = 100 Myr Model 4 30% distribution mass ejection metal ejection Model 3 80% distribution

  5. Results • Md=9.1x109M8 • Mg=109M8 • 30 SNae Myr-1 • Simulation = 100 Myr Model 1 0% distribution Model 2 0% distribution, offset Rd/2

  6. Integrated Column Density

  7. Implications • small systems vs. BIG systems • Metal retention is poor in systems below ~109 M8 • Self-regulated star-formation vs. Bursts • Metal retention is much higher during more quiescent or distributed star formation • Type I vs. Type II supernovae • “Drift” of Type I progenitors may increase expulsion of byproducts (Iron) • Preferential retention of Type II products in dwarf systems???

More Related