The Effect of Donor Star Rejuvenation on Common Envelope Evolution

TL;DR

This study uses 3D hydrodynamics simulations to examine how donor star rejuvenation affects common envelope evolution in binary systems, revealing significant impacts on inspiral duration and ejecta morphology.

Contribution

It introduces the first detailed comparison of common envelope evolution with rejuvenated versus non-rejuvenated donor star models.

Findings

Rejuvenation halves the inspiral duration.

Rejuvenated donors produce more asymmetric, equatorially concentrated ejecta.

Rejuvenation reduces unbound mass by 20-40%.

Abstract

In close binary star systems, common envelope evolution may occur after a previous phase of mass transfer. Some isolated formation channels for double neutron star binaries suggest that the donor of common envelope evolution was the accretor of a previous phase of stable mass transfer. Accretion should substantially alter the structure of the donor, particularly by steepening the density gradient at the core-envelope interface and rejuvenating the star. We study the common envelope evolution of a donor that was the accretor of a previous phase of stable mass transfer and has a rejuvenated structure. We perform 3D hydrodynamics simulations of the common envelope evolution of a 18 $M_\odot$ supergiant with a 1.4 $M_\odot$ companion using rejuvenated and non-rejuvenated 1D stellar models for the donor. We compare the two simulations to characterize the effect of the rejuvenation on the outcome of the common envelope phase and the shape of the ejecta. We find that accounting for a previous phase of mass transfer reduces the duration of the inspiral phase by a factor of two, likely due to the different structure in the outer layers of the donor. In the rejuvenated case, the simulations show more equatorially concentrated and asymmetric ejecta, though both cases display evidence for the formation of a pressure-supported thick circumbinary disk. During the dynamical inspiral phase, the impact of rejuvenation on the unbinding of the envelope is unclear; we find that rejuvenation decreases the amount of unbound mass by 20$\%$ to 40$\%$ depending on the energy criterion used.