1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \title{Testing Disk Instability Models for Giant Planet Formation}
6:
7: \author{Alan P.~Boss}
8: \affil{Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of
9: Washington, 5241 Broad Branch Road, NW, Washington, DC 20015-1305}
10: \authoremail{boss@dtm.ciw.edu}
11:
12: \begin{abstract}
13:
14: Disk instability is an attractive yet controversial means for
15: the rapid formation of giant planets in our solar system and
16: elsewhere. Recent concerns regarding the first adiabatic exponent
17: of molecular hydrogen gas are addressed and shown not to lead to
18: spurious clump formation in the author's disk instability
19: models. A number of disk instability models have been calculated
20: in order to further test the robustness of the mechanism,
21: exploring the effects of changing the pressure equation of
22: state, the vertical temperature profile, and other parameters affecting
23: the temperature distribution. Possible reasons for differences in
24: results obtained by other workers are discussed. Disk instability
25: remains as a plausible formation mechanism for giant planets.
26:
27: \end{abstract}
28:
29: \keywords{solar system: formation -- planetary systems}
30:
31: \section{Introduction}
32:
33: The disk instability mechanism for giant planet formation is
34: based on the formation and survival of self-gravitating clumps
35: of gas and dust in a marginally gravitationally unstable
36: protoplanetary disk (Boss 1997; reviewed by Durisen et al. 2007).
37: In order for a disk instability to succeed, the disk must be
38: able to cool its midplane as the clumps form, allowing them
39: to continue to contract to higher densities, and the clumps
40: must be able to survive indefinitely in the face of Keplerian
41: shear, tidal forces, and internal thermal pressure. Considering
42: the complicated physical processes involved during the time
43: evolution of a three dimensional disk instability, it is perhaps
44: not surprising that the theoretical basis for the disk
45: instability hypothesis remains unclear even after a decade of
46: work on the subject.
47:
48: The Indiana University (IU) group has been active in studying disk
49: instabilities, and has generally found that disk instabilities
50: are unable to lead to the formation of self-gravitating, dense
51: clumps that could go on to form gas giant protoplanets (e.g., Pickett et
52: al. 2000; Mej\'ia 2004; Cai et al. 2006a,b; Boley et al. 2006, 2007a,b).
53: On the other hand, the Washington-Zurich group (e.g., Mayer et al.
54: 2002, 2004, 2007) has presented models that support the hypothesis
55: that disk instabilities can lead to the formation of long-lived
56: giant gaseous protoplanets. We present here
57: several new calculations that attempt to understand the reasons
58: for some of these different outcomes regarding disk instability.
59:
60: \section{Energy Equation of State}
61:
62: Boley et al. (2007a) pointed out that uncertainties about the
63: ortho/para ratio of molecular hydrogen at low temperatures might
64: lead to differences in the outcome of disk instability models.
65: They suggested that a mixture intermediate between pure parahydrogen
66: and a 3:1 ortho/para ratio might be the most appropriate choice.
67: Boley et al. (2007a) also noted that discontinuities in the
68: specific internal energy equation for molecular hydrogen could
69: lead to artificially low values of the first adiabatic exponent
70: for a simple perfect gas ($\Gamma_1 = \gamma = 1 + R_g/(\mu c_V$),
71: where $R_g$ is the gas constant, $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight,
72: and $c_V$ is the specific heat at constant volume; Cox \& Giuli 1968).
73: Values of $\gamma \le 4/3$ can lead to dynamical instabilities
74: (either expansion or contraction) away from a configuration of
75: hydrostatic equilibrium (Cox \& Giuli 1968). Boley et al. (2007a)
76: suggested that $\gamma \le 4/3$ could artificially lead to clump
77: formation.
78:
79: Boley et al. (2007a) stated that the energy equation of
80: state (EOS) used in disk instability models by Boss (2001, 2002b, 2005)
81: contained a discontinuity that might be responsible for artificially
82: lowering $\gamma$ below 4/3, leading to spurious fragmentation.
83: Boley et al. (2007a) based this assertion on the equations of
84: state described by Boss (1984). However, all of the hydrodynamical
85: models run by the present author since Boss (1989) have been based on a
86: different energy equation than that reported by Boss (1984), as a
87: result of a direct comparison with the equation of state routines
88: employed by Werner Tscharnuter. The models of Boss (1989) revised
89: the energy equation treatment to include an interpolation
90: between temperatures of 100 K and 200 K, but this revision was
91: not explicitly stated in the Boss (1989) paper as it seemed
92: insignificant at the time.
93:
94: Using the notation of Boss (1984), the specific internal
95: energy for molecular hydrogen for temperatures $T < 100 K$ is
96: taken to be $E^*_{H_2} = 3/2 \ R_g T/\mu$, while for temperatures
97: between $100 K$ and $600 K$ it is $E^*_{H_2} = 5/2 \ R_g T/\mu$.
98: For intermediate temperatures, $100 K < T < 200 K$, the
99: internal energy is interpolated according to the equation
100: $E^*_{H_2} = 3/2 \ R_g T/\mu \ [1 + 2/3 \ (T - 100)/100]$.
101: The Erratum by Boley et al. (2007b) used this revised EOS.
102:
103: Boley et al. (2007a,b) showed that for a pure parahydrogen or 3:1
104: ortho:para mix, $\gamma$ decreases significantly at $\sim 100 K$,
105: but does not fall below 4/3. Figure 1 depicts the behavior of
106: $\gamma$ calculated with the revised Boss equation of state and shows
107: that $\gamma$ drops below 4/3 for $135 K < T < 200 K$. The
108: densest clumps found in Boss's disk instability models generally have
109: maximum temperatures below $135 K$, and even lower mean temperatures.
110: Boss (2005) presented a disk instability model with the highest spatial
111: resolution computed to date, and found that the densest clump that formed had
112: a maximum temperature of $120 K$ and a mean temperature of $94 K$.
113: Boss (2006c) found that clumps formed in disk instabilities around M dwarf
114: protostars had maximum temperatures less than $100 K$. Boss's (2002a)
115: Table 1 showed maximum clump temperatures of $115 K$ to $126 K$ for a range
116: of models with varied opacities.
117:
118: Perhaps the most important point raised by Boley et al. (2007a, b) is
119: that $\gamma$ is likely to decrease significantly around $100 K$,
120: and this softening of the pressure EOS will enhance the formation of
121: dense clumps, as happens in locally isothermal disks with an
122: effective $\gamma = 1$. In fact, Figure 1 in Boley et al. (2007b) shows
123: that the Boss $\gamma$ is higher than that of either of the preferred
124: hydrogen mixtures for $T < 100 K$, implying that clump formation is
125: suppressed somewhat in the Boss models as a result.
126:
127: \section{Pressure Equation of State}
128:
129: Several new models have explored using the same pressure EOS as is
130: used in the IU group models (e.g., Cai et al. 2006a,b; Boley et al.
131: 2006): the gas pressure $p$ is given by $(\gamma -1) \rho E$,
132: where $\gamma = 5/3$, $\rho$ is the gas density, and $E$ is the
133: specific internal energy of the gas. Three models were run
134: with this pressure EOS, starting from the same initial disk
135: model as model HR in Boss (2001) -- a $0.091 M_\odot$ disk orbiting
136: a $1 M_\odot$ protostar with an outer disk radius of 20 AU.
137: The calculations were made with the same three dimensional, gravitational,
138: radiative hydrodynamics code as in Boss (2001) and in all subsequent
139: Boss disk instability calculations (see these earlier papers for more
140: details about the calculational techniques and initial conditions). The
141: models had $N_\phi = 256$ and $N_{Ylm} = 32$, though, compared to
142: $N_\phi = 512$ and $N_{Ylm} = 48$ for model HR (Boss 2001).
143:
144: The three new models varied the choice for the critical disk
145: density ($\rho_{cr} = 10^{-13}$, $10^{-12}$, or $10^{-11}$ g cm$^{-3}$)
146: below which the disk temperature was forced back to its initial
147: value (typically $40 K$ in the outer disk). This artifice was employed
148: in Boss (2001) and subsequent models in order to maintain a
149: reasonably large time step when low density regions develop in the disk
150: that are undergoing decompressional cooling.
151:
152: In all three models, spiral arms and transient clumps form
153: within 200 yrs of evolution, similar to the behavior with the
154: usual (Boss 1984) pressure EOS (e.g., Boss 2001). Relatively high
155: density clumps form, with maximum densities similar to those in a calculation
156: with the same spatial resolution but the usual pressure EOS.
157: Evidently using the $\gamma = 5/3$ EOS does not alter the results in a
158: significant way because the Boss EOS also has $\gamma = 5/3$ for
159: $T < 100 K$, the regime where clumps form. The choice of
160: $\rho_{cr}$ makes little difference as well, as was found by
161: Boss (2006b) for disk instability models in binary star systems.
162: These results suggest that the reason for differing outcomes must
163: be sought elsewhere (see Discussion).
164:
165: \section{Varied Disk Temperature Parameters}
166:
167: We now present a set of four models varying several of the parameters
168: that could affect the temperature distribution in the disk models.
169: Table 1 summarizes the four models, which are all variations
170: on model HR of Boss (2001). However, these models all had the same
171: spatial resolution ($N_\phi = 512$) and number of terms in the
172: spherical harmonic expansion for the gravitational potential
173: ($N_{Ylm} = 48$) as model HR in Boss (2001). The parameters that
174: were varied included: the temperature of the thermal bath (i.e., the
175: envelope temperature $T_e$), the critical density in the disk below
176: which the temperature was reset to the initial disk temperature at that
177: orbital radius (as in the previous section), the critical density in the
178: envelope below which the gas was assumed to be at a temperature equal
179: to the envelope temperature $T_e$ (for grid points at least 8 degrees
180: above the disk midplane), and finally, whether the temperature was forced
181: to decline monotonically (Boss 2002a) with vertical height inside the disk
182: (mono) or not (free). The former constraint errs on the side of artificially
183: cooling the disk by removing local temperature maxima in the vertical
184: direction. All models started at a time of 322 yrs of evolution in model
185: HR, and continued for at least another 17 yrs of evolution ($\sim 1$
186: clump orbital period).
187:
188: The results of these variations on the standard assumptions
189: are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The variation that produced the largest
190: deviation from the standard assumptions (model H in Figure 2) was relaxing
191: the constraint on the monotonic vertical (more precisely, in the
192: $\theta$ angle) decline of temperatures within the disk
193: (model TZ in Figure 3), though even this model led to the formation
194: of well-defined clumps that were no more than a factor of two less
195: dense than in model H. Models T and TE led to evolutions that were
196: very similar to that of model H and so are not shown. The models
197: show that these three variations in the details of how the disk
198: thermodynamics is treated in the Boss models are not particularly
199: significant for the outcome of a disk instability, presumably because
200: of the thermal bath assumption.
201:
202: \section{Discussion}
203:
204: There are a number of possible reasons for different outcomes
205: compared to other groups:
206:
207: {\it Spatial resolution} -- Clump formation is strongly enhanced
208: as the spatial resolution in the critical azimuthal direction is
209: increased from $N_\phi = 64$ to 512 (Boss 2000). Boss (2005)
210: presented a model with $N_\phi = 1024$ and a locally refined radial
211: grid (equivalent to a calculation with over $8 \times 10^6$ grid
212: points) that implied that in the continuum limit, the outcome
213: of a disk instability is the formation of dense, self-gravitating
214: clumps. Cai et al. (2006a,b) calculated models with $N_\phi = 128$,
215: increasing $N_\phi$ to 512 for two models only after those
216: models had entered a phase of evolution when nonaxisymmetry
217: was no longer growing. Boley et al. (2006) similarly calculated models
218: with $N_\phi = 128$, increasing $N_\phi$ for some models to 512
219: for the earliest phase of evolution, leading to the formation of
220: dense clumps at the intersections of spiral structures. The clumps
221: disappeared in a fraction of an orbital period. Clumps typically last
222: no more than an orbital period in even the highest spatial
223: resolution models of Boss (2005). Boss (2005) thus used virtual
224: protoplanets to allow the orbital evolution of these dense clumps
225: to be followed further than is possible with even a high spatial
226: resolution calculation with a fixed Eulerian grid code.
227:
228: {\it Gravitational potential solver} -- The Boss models use a spherical
229: harmonic ($Y_{lm}(\theta, \phi)$) expansion to solve Poisson's equation
230: for the gravitational potential, with the accuracy of the
231: resulting gravitational potential being strongly dependent
232: on the number of terms ($N_{Ylm}$) carried along in the expansion.
233: As we have seen, model HR in Boss (2001) used $N_{Ylm} = 48$.
234: Boss (2000, 2001) found that increasing $N_{Ylm}$ led to the
235: formation of significantly denser clumps. Boss (2005) further
236: explored the effects of using an enhanced gravitational potential
237: solver by replacing some of the mass in the densest regions
238: of a clump with a point mass at the center of the relevant grid cell,
239: finding that this led to even better defined, higher density
240: clumps. In comparison, the IU group uses a direct solution of
241: Poisson's equation, with a boundary potential employing
242: terms up to $l = m = 10$ (Pickett et al. 2000), implying
243: a limited ability to depict small-scale gravitational forces in a
244: strongly nonaxisymmetric disk. Mej\'ia (2004) considered Fourier
245: analysis of her disk models for $m \le 6$, while Boley et al.
246: (2006) considered $m \le 63$, finding increasingly little power
247: in modes with $m > 10$, possibly consistent with the cutoff at
248: $l = m = 10$ in their boundary potential.
249:
250: {\it Artificial viscosity} -- Pickett \& Durisen (2007) found
251: that the inclusion of certain artificial viscosity (AV) terms could
252: enhance the survival of clumps formed in a disk instability,
253: and suggested that AV could thus explain the long-lived clumps
254: found in SPH calculations by Mayer et al. (2002, 2004, 2007). Pickett \&
255: Durisen (2007) further noted that even calculations without any
256: explicit AV (e.g., the Boss models) should be considered suspect,
257: given the intrinsic numerical viscosity of any numerical code.
258: Boss (2006b) showed that with a large amount of explicit AV,
259: clump formation is suppressed, as was also found by Pickett \&
260: Durisen (2007). However, the level of intrinsic numerical
261: viscosity in Boss code models with $N_\phi = 256$ appears to be
262: equivalent to an $\alpha$-viscosity of $\sim 10^{-4}$ or smaller
263: (Boss 2004), a level that appears to be negligible in
264: comparison to typical explicit AV levels. Considering that
265: the virtual protoplanet (VP) models of Boss (2005) had $N_\phi = 256$,
266: the continued survival of the VP for at least 30 orbital periods
267: in these models is not likely to have been affected by the intrinsic
268: numerical viscosity of the Boss code.
269:
270: {\it Stellar irradiation} -- Mej\'ia (2004) considered
271: the effects of stellar irradiation on the surface of the disk
272: as a means of heating the disk surface and thereby possibly
273: suppressing clump formation. The Boss models assume that
274: the disk is immersed in a thermal bath appropriate for
275: backscattering from infalling dust grains in the protostellar
276: envelope, with an envelope temperature appropriate for a
277: protostar that is not undergoing an FU Orionis outburst
278: (Chick \& Cassen 1997). While the Boss models thus
279: do not include the effects of direct irradiation by the
280: central protostar, the dynamical evolution of a three
281: dimensional disk leads to strongly variable vertical
282: oscillations and structures (Mej\'ia 2004; Boley \& Durisen 2006;
283: Jang-Condell \& Boss 2007) that are not considered in simple
284: theoretical models of flared accretion disks. The highly
285: corrugated inner disk surfaces (stretching at least 29 degrees above the
286: disk midplane; Jang-Condell \& Boss 2007) will shield the outer disk
287: surfaces from the central protostar, eliminating this source
288: of heating for much of the outer disk.
289:
290: {\it Radiative transfer} -- Boley et al. (2006) have calculated
291: disk instability models using the flux-limited diffusion
292: approximation (FLDA) along with a detailed treatment of
293: the transition from the optically thick disk to the optically
294: thin atmosphere of the disk. They suggest using a plane-parallel (one
295: dimensional) atmosphere as a test case. Boss (2001) investigated the effects
296: of using the FLDA instead of the standard diffusion approximation
297: (DA) coupled with a thermal bath for low optical depths, but
298: did not find any significant differences. Myhill \& Boss (1993)
299: showed the results of the fully three dimensional, standard nonisothermal
300: test case for protostellar collapse, calculated with their two independent
301: Eddington approximation (EA) codes, finding good agreement.
302: Whitehouse \& Bate (2006) found that their FLDA models of
303: the standard nonisothermal collapse problem led to temperature
304: profiles similar to those found by Myhill \& Boss (1993), though with
305: appreciably hotter gas temperatures where the optical depth was
306: $\sim$ 2/3. They attribute this difference to the FLDA retarding
307: the loss of radiation in these layers compared to the EA.
308: Given that the choice of the flux limiter can have an effect
309: on the outcome (Bodenheimer et al. 1990), it is unclear whether
310: any particular implementation of the FLDA is superior to the EA.
311: The standard Boss models have used the DA coupled with a thermal
312: bath to force the DA models to mimic an EA calculation.
313:
314: {\it Numerical heating} -- In calculations by the IU group,
315: nonaxisymmetric perturbations tend to grow rapidly for a certain
316: period of time and then begin to damp out (e.g., Cai et al. 2006a,b).
317: In the Boley et al. (2006) calculations, the disk starts out
318: with a mass of 0.07 $M_\odot$ and a radius of 40 AU, but then
319: expands outward to a radius of $\sim$ 80 AU, leading to the formation
320: of rings inside 20 AU and a gravitationally stable region outside
321: 20AU with spiral arms that do not fragment. The latter behavior
322: is roughly consistent with the models by Boss (2003), who studied
323: disks extending from 10 AU to 30 AU, and found fragments
324: to form at 20 AU but not at 30 AU. Similarly, Boss (2006a)
325: studied disks extending from 100 AU to 200 AU, and found no
326: evidence for fragmentation. Thus on scales larger than $\sim 20$ AU,
327: the results of Boley et al. (2006) and Boss (2003, 2006a) are
328: in basic agreement. The disagreement arises about what happens
329: in the inner disks. Fragmentation typically occurs
330: at 8 to 10 AU in the Boss models, whereas the
331: inner disk rings do not fragment in the Boley et al. (2006)
332: models. Boley et al. (2006) state that their inner disk is stable
333: to ring fragmentation because of ``numerical heating'' at distances
334: out to $\sim 7$ AU. This non-physical heating appears to have affected
335: the models of Cai et al. (2006a,b) as well as those of Boley et al. (2006),
336: making the IU results for inner disks difficult to accept.
337:
338: \section{Conclusions}
339:
340: While there are a number of potential reasons for the differences
341: in disk instability models calculated by the IU group and the
342: present author, at this time the major sources of these differences
343: would appear to be some combination of several effects, namely
344: spatial resolution, gravitational potential solver accuracy,
345: and numerical heating in the inner disk of the IU models. Handling of
346: the boundary conditions for the disk's radiative energy losses is
347: another possibility that is still under investigation by the author,
348: though the models presented here suggest that this may not be a dominant
349: effect. Given the current state of knowledge, and the new results presented
350: herein, it appears that reports of the death of the disk instability
351: model for giant planet formation have been greatly exaggerated.
352:
353: I thank Aaron Boley, Kai Cai, and Megan Pickett for working with me to
354: understand the differences between their group's results and my results,
355: and the referees for their remarks.
356: This research was supported in part by NASA Planetary Geology and Geophysics
357: grant NNG05GH30G and is contributed in part to NASA Astrobiology Institute
358: grant NCC2-1056. The calculations were performed on the Carnegie Alpha
359: Cluster,
360: the purchase of which was partially supported by NSF Major Research
361: Instrumentation grant MRI-9976645.
362:
363: \begin{references}
364:
365: \reference{r}
366: Bodenheimer, P., Yorke, H. W., R\'o\`zyczka, M., \& Tohline, J. E. 1990,
367: ApJ, 355, 651
368:
369: \reference{r}
370: Boley, A. C., \& Durisen, R. H. 2006, ApJ, 641, 534
371:
372: \reference{r}
373: Boley, A. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 517
374:
375: \reference{r}
376: Boley, A. C., Hartquist, T. W., Durisen, R. H., \& Michael, S. 2007a,
377: ApJL, in press
378:
379: \reference{r}
380: ------. 2007b, ApJL (Erratum), submitted
381:
382: \reference{r}
383: Boss, A. P. 1984, ApJ, 277, 768
384:
385: \reference{r}
386: ------. 1989, ApJ, 346, 336
387:
388: \reference{r}
389: ------. 1997, Science, 276, 1836
390:
391: \reference{r}
392: ------. 2000, ApJL, 536, L101
393:
394: \reference{r}
395: ------. 2001, ApJ, 563, 367
396:
397: \reference{r}
398: ------. 2002a, ApJ, 567, L149
399:
400: \reference{r}
401: ------. 2002b, ApJ, 576, 462
402:
403: \reference{r}
404: ------. 2003, ApJ, 599, 577
405:
406: \reference{r}
407: ------. 2004, ApJ, 616, 1265
408:
409: \reference{r}
410: ------. 2005, ApJ, 629, 535
411:
412: \reference{r}
413: ------. 2006a, ApJL, 637, L137
414:
415: \reference{r}
416: ------. 2006b, ApJ, 641, 1148
417:
418: \reference{r}
419: ------. 2006c, ApJL, 643, 501
420:
421: \reference{r}
422: Cai, K., et al. 2006a, ApJL, 636, L149
423:
424: \reference{r}
425: ------. 2006b, ApJL (Erratum), 642, L173
426:
427: \reference{r}
428: Chick, K. M., \& Cassen, P. 1997, ApJ, 477, 398
429:
430: \reference{r}
431: Cox, J. P., \& Giuli, R. T. 1968, Principles of Stellar Structure
432: (New York, Gordon and Breach)
433:
434: \reference{r}
435: Durisen, R. H., et al. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, B. Reipurth,
436: D. Jewitt, \& K. Keil, eds. (Tucson, Univ. Arizona Press), p. 607
437:
438: \reference{r}
439: Jang-Condell, H., \& Boss, A. P. 2007, ApJL, in press
440:
441: \reference{r}
442: Mayer, L, Quinn, T., Wadsley, J., \& Stadel, J. 2002, Science, 298, 1756
443:
444: \reference{r}
445: ------. 2004, ApJ, 609, 1045
446:
447: \reference{r}
448: ------. 2007, astro-ph/0606361
449:
450: \reference{r}
451: Mej\'ia, A. C. 2004, PhD thesis, Indiana Univ.
452:
453: \reference{r}
454: Myhill, E. A., \& Boss, A. P. 1993, ApJS, 89, 345
455:
456: \reference{r}
457: Pickett, B. K., Cassen, P., Durisen, R. H., \& Link, R. 2000, ApJ, 529,
458: 1034
459:
460: \reference{r}
461: Pickett, M. K., \& Durisen, R. H. 2007, ApJL, 654, L155
462:
463: \reference{r}
464: Whitehouse, S. C., \& Bate, M. R. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 32
465:
466: \end{references}
467:
468: \clearpage
469: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
470: \tablecaption{Models with varied disk temperature parameters.\label{tbl-1}}
471:
472: \tablehead{\colhead{model} &
473: \colhead{$T_e$ (K) } &
474: \colhead{$\rho_{cr}$ (disk) } &
475: \colhead{$\rho_{cr}$ (envelope) } &
476: \colhead{$T(\theta)$ } }
477:
478: \startdata
479:
480: H & 50K & $10^{-11}$ & $10^{-11}$ & mono \\
481:
482: T & 100K & $10^{-13}$ & $10^{-11}$ & mono \\
483:
484: TZ & 50K & $10^{-13}$ & $10^{-11}$ & free \\
485:
486: TE & 50K & $10^{-13}$ & $10^{-13}$ & mono \\
487:
488: \enddata
489: \end{deluxetable}
490: \clearpage
491:
492: %\suppressfloats
493:
494: \begin{figure}
495: \vspace{-2.0in}
496: \plotone{f1.eps}
497: \caption{Adiabatic exponent $\Gamma_1 = \gamma$ used in Boss (2001)
498: and in all subsequent Boss disk instability models (solid line).
499: The short-dashed line shows $\gamma = 4/3$, while the long-dashed line
500: shows $\gamma = 5/3$, as used by Cai et al. (2006a,b) and Boley et al.
501: (2006).}
502: \end{figure}
503:
504: \clearpage
505:
506: \begin{figure}
507: \vspace{-2.0in}
508: \plotone{f2.eps}
509: \caption{Equatorial density contours for model H after 339 yrs of evolution.
510: The disk has an outer radius of 20 AU and an inner radius of 4 AU.
511: Hashed regions denote clumps and spiral arms with densities higher than
512: $10^{-10}$ g cm$^{-3}$. Density contours represent factors of two
513: change in density.}
514: \end{figure}
515:
516: \clearpage
517:
518: \begin{figure}
519: \vspace{-2.0in}
520: \plotone{f3.eps}
521: \caption{Same as Figure 2, but for model TZ.}
522: \end{figure}
523:
524: \end{document}
525:
526: