1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{natbib}
5: \usepackage{journal_shortcuts}
6: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
7: %
8: %
9: %nnnnnnnnnnnnnn NEW COMMANDS nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
10: %\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
11: %\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
12: %\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: %\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
14: %
15: %\newcommand{\sech}{\mathrm{sech}}
16: %%
17: \newcommand{\Sun}{_{\sun}}
18: \newcommand{\Rot}{_{\mathrm{rot}}}
19: %\newcommand{\Therm}{_{\mathrm{therm}}}
20: \newcommand{\Max}{_{\mathrm{max}}}
21: \newcommand{\Min}{_{\mathrm{min}}}
22: \newcommand{\New}{_{\mathrm{new}}}
23: \newcommand{\Old}{_{\mathrm{old}}}
24: %\newcommand{\Mean}{_{\mathrm{mean}}}
25: %\newcommand{\Pot}{_{\mathrm{pot}}}
26: %\newcommand{\Kin}{_{\mathrm{kin}}}
27: %\newcommand{\Tot}{_{\mathrm{tot}}}
28: \newcommand{\Cluster}{_{\mathrm{cluster}}}
29: \newcommand{\Metal}{_{\mathrm{metal}}}
30: \newcommand{\Bubble}{_{\mathrm{bbl}}}
31: \newcommand{\Inj}{_{\mathrm{inj}}}
32: \newcommand{\Evac}{_{\mathrm{evac}}}
33: \newcommand{\ICM}{_{\mathrm{ICM}}}
34: %\newcommand{\ISM}{_{\mathrm{ISM}}}
35: %\newcommand{\DM}{_{\mathrm{DM}}}
36: %\newcommand{\DMnull}{_{\mathrm{0,DM}}}
37: %\newcommand{\Gas}{_{\mathrm{gas}}}
38: %\newcommand{\Stars}{_*}
39: %\newcommand{\Bulge}{_{\mathrm{bulge}}}
40: %\newcommand{\Starsnull}{_{\mathrm{0,stars}}}
41: %\newcommand{\Ram}{_{\mathrm{ram}}}
42: %\newcommand{\Switch}{_{\mathrm{switch}}}
43: %\newcommand{\Strip}{_{\mathrm{strip}}}
44: %\newcommand{\Fallback}{_{\mathrm{fb}}}
45: %\newcommand{\Stay}{_{\mathrm{stay}}}
46: %\newcommand{\Origreg}{_{\mathrm{orig}}}
47: %\newcommand{\Cylreg}{_{\mathrm{cyl}}}
48: %\newcommand{\Bound}{_{\mathrm{bnd}}}
49: %\newcommand{\Visc}{_{\mathrm{visc}}}
50: %\newcommand{\Grav}{_{\mathrm{grav}}}
51: %\newcommand{\Disc}{_{\mathrm{disc}}}
52: %%
53: %\newcommand{\const}{\textrm{const.}}
54: %\newcommand{\degree}{^o}
55: \newcommand{\K}{\,\textrm{K}}
56: \newcommand{\Kpc}{\,\textrm{kpc}}
57: %\newcommand{\Mpc}{\,\textrm{Mpc}}
58: %\newcommand{\PC}{\,\textrm{pc}}
59: %\newcommand{\Yr}{\,\textrm{yr}}
60: %\newcommand{\CM}{\,\textrm{cm}}
61: %\newcommand{\Sec}{\,\textrm{s}}
62: \newcommand{\Myr}{\,\textrm{Myr}}
63: \newcommand{\Gyr}{\,\textrm{Gyr}}
64: \newcommand{\Kms}{\,\textrm{km}\,\textrm{s}^{-1}}
65: %\newcommand{\Cm}{\,\textrm{cm}}
66: \newcommand{\Erg}{\,\textrm{erg}}
67: \newcommand{\CCM}{\,\textrm{cm}^{-3}}
68: \newcommand{\gccm}{\,\textrm{g}\,\textrm{cm}^{-3}}
69: \newcommand{\ii}{\item}
70: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}
71: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}
72: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
73: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
74:
75: %nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
76:
77:
78: \title[Ram pressure histories of cluster galaxies]
79: {Ram pressure histories of cluster galaxies}
80:
81: \author[M. Br\"uggen et al.]{M.~Br\"uggen$^{1}$, G.~De Lucia$^{2}$ \\
82: $^1$ Jacobs University Bremen, P.O. Box 750\,561, 28725 Bremen,
83: Germany\\
84: $^2$ Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 1, 85748
85: Garching, Germany
86: }
87:
88: \begin{document}
89:
90: \date{Accepted. Received; in original form }
91:
92: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2007}
93:
94: \maketitle
95:
96: \label{firstpage}
97:
98: \begin{abstract}
99: Ram pressure stripping can remove significant amounts of gas from
100: galaxies that orbit in clusters and massive groups, and thus has a
101: large impact on the evolution of cluster galaxies. In this paper,
102: we reconstruct the present-day distribution of ram-pressure, and
103: the ram pressure histories of cluster galaxies. To this aim, we
104: combine the Millennium Simulation and an associated semi-analytic
105: model of galaxy evolution with analytic models for the gas
106: distribution in clusters. We find that about one quarter of
107: galaxies in massive clusters are subject to strong ram-pressures
108: that are likely to cause an expedient loss of all gas. Strong
109: ram-pressures occur predominantly in the inner core of the
110: cluster, where both the gas density and the galaxy velocity are
111: higher. Since their accretion onto a massive system, more than 64
112: per cent of galaxies that reside in a cluster today have
113: experienced strong ram-pressures of $>10^{-11}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$
114: which most likely led to a substantial loss of the gas.
115: \end{abstract}
116:
117: \begin{keywords}
118:
119: \end{keywords}
120:
121:
122: \section{Introduction}
123:
124: In clusters, galaxies can lose some or all of their gas by ram pressure
125: stripping (RPS) due to their motion through the intracluster medium
126: (ICM). Both analytical estimates and hydrodynamical simulations show that RPS
127: can remove a significant amount of gas from galaxies, and can thus explain
128: observations such as the HI deficiency of cluster disc galaxies (see
129: e.g.~\citealt{Haynes_Giovanelli_1986,Solanes_etal_2001,cayatte94}), and the
130: truncated star forming discs in the Virgo cluster
131: (\citealt{Warmels_1988,koopmann04b}).
132:
133: RPS only affects the gaseous component of the galaxy so that a distinct
134: feature of ram pressure stripped galaxies is that their gas discs are distorted
135: or truncated while their stellar discs appear undisturbed. An increasing number
136: of observations of ram-pressure stripped galaxies have become available in the
137: last years (see for example \citealt{Irwin_etal_1987},
138: \citealt{Veilleux_etal_1999}, \citealt{kenney04}, \citealt{vollmer04a},
139: \citealt{chung:07}, \citealt{sakelliou:05,sun:07}).
140:
141: RPS is commonly cited in early work as a possible explanation for the
142: increased fraction of S0 galaxies in rich clusters relative to the field
143: (\citealt{Biermann_Tinsley_1975}, \citealt{Butcher_Oemler_1978}). This
144: explanation was dismissed in the original paper by
145: \cite{dressler_1980} on the basis of the observation that the relation between
146: different galaxy populations and local density appears to hold independently of
147: the cluster richness. Later studies pointed out that additional mechanisms
148: that lead to a significant redistribution of mass and/or new star formation are
149: required to explain the entire S0 population of galaxy clusters (see for
150: example \citealt{moran:07} and references therein).
151:
152: The role of RPS in the chemical enrichment of the ICM has also been discussed.
153: Observational data suggest that the ICM is enriched with metals to
154: approximately one third of the solar value, suggesting that some fraction of
155: the metals must have originated from cluster galaxies and since been removed
156: from them. Processes responsible for the supply of this enriched gas include
157: AGN feedback (see e.g. \citealt{roediger:07c} and references therein), galactic
158: winds driven by supernovae explosions, and ram-pressure stripping
159: (\citealt{white:91,mori:00,schindler05,domainko:06}). It should be noted,
160: however, that although RPS certainly affects the metallicity of the ICM, it
161: may not be the dominant mechanism. Numerical simulations
162: by \cite{domainko:06} indicate that RPS can account for only about 10 per cent
163: of the ICM metal content within a radius of 1.3 Mpc.
164:
165: The first analytical estimate of RPS dates back to the paper by \citet{gunn72}
166: who proposed that for galaxies moving face-on through the ICM the success or
167: failure of RPS can be predicted by comparing the ram pressure with the galactic
168: gravitational restoring force per unit area. Later hydrodynamical simulations
169: of RPS (\citealt{abadi99}, \citealt{quilis00}, \citealt{schulz01},
170: \citealt{marcolini03,acreman03}, \citealt{roediger:06a},
171: \citealt{roediger:06b}, \citealt{roediger:07}) suggest that this analytical
172: estimate fares fairly well as long as the galaxies are not moving close to
173: edge-on. The ICM-ISM interaction is, however, a complex process influenced by
174: many parameters. Different aspects have been studied by several groups.
175: \cite{roediger05} and others have shown that the ICM-ISM interaction is a
176: multistage process: The most important phases are the instantaneous stripping,
177: on a time-scale of a few 10 Myr, an intermediate phase, on a time-scale of up
178: to a few 100 Myr, and a continuous stripping phase that, in principle, could
179: continue until all gas is lost from the galaxy.
180:
181: While numerical simulations and observations indicate that RPS has
182: important consequences on the amount of gas in cluster galaxies, this
183: physical process is usually not included in semi-analytic models of
184: galaxy formation. The effect of ram-pressure stripping has been
185: discussed only in a couple of studies using semi-analytic models
186: (\citealt{okamoto:03, lanzoni:05}), and is shown to produce only mild
187: variations in galaxy colours and star formation rates. This happens
188: because the stripping of the hot gas from galactic haloes
189: (strangulation) suppresses the star formation so efficiently that the
190: effect of ram-pressure is only marginal. We note that the studies
191: mentioned above include ram-pressure stripping based on the analytical
192: criterion formulated originally in Gunn \& Gott (1972). In recent
193: numerical work, \cite{roediger:07} have shown that this formulation
194: often yields incorrect mass loss rates. Other numerical studies
195: (e.g. \cite{vollmer01a}) have argued that ram-pressure stripping can
196: also temporarily enhance star formation. An updated modelling of
197: ram-pressure stripping that takes into account these results has not
198: been included yet in semi-analytic models. We plan to address this in
199: future studies.
200:
201: For a study of the ram pressure distribution, it is necessary to have
202: information on the dynamics of galaxies and on the properties of the ICM. The
203: dynamics of dark matter halos has been studied in a number of papers using
204: numerical simulations (e.g. \citealt{benson:05,khochfar:05, diemand:04}).
205: However, we know of no study on the distribution and history of ram pressures
206: experienced by galaxies in clusters. If ram-pressure plays some role in
207: establishing the observed morphological mix in galaxy clusters and/or the
208: observed radial trends, it is important to quantify the distribution and
209: history of ram pressures experienced by galaxies that reside in clusters today.
210: This is the subject of this paper.
211:
212: \section{Method}
213:
214: For this study, we rely on the Millenium simulation described in
215: \cite{springel:05}. This largest dark matter simulation to-date
216: follows $N=2160^3$ particles of mass $8.5\times 10^8h^{-1}M_{\odot}$
217: within a comoving box of size $ 500\,h^{-1}$ Mpc a side. The
218: underlying cosmological model is a $\Lambda$CDM model with
219: $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.25$, $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.045$,
220: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.75$, $n=1$, $\sigma_8=0.9$ and $h=0.73$, where the
221: Hubble constant is parametrised as $H_0=100\, h$ km s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$.
222: Given its high resolution and large volume, this simulation allows us
223: to make statistically significant inferences about the ram pressure
224: histories of galaxies in a representative sample of clusters.
225:
226: During the simulation, 64 snapshots were saved, together with group catalogues
227: and their embedded substructures. As explained in \cite{springel:05}, dark
228: matter haloes are identified using a standard friends-of-friends (FOF)
229: algorithm with a linking length of 0.2 in units of the mean particle
230: separation. Each FOF group is then decomposed into a set of disjoint
231: substructures identified as a locally overdense region in the density field of
232: the background halo. The selfbound part of the FOF group itself will then also
233: appear in the substructure list and represents what we will refer to below as
234: the main halo. This particular subhalo typically contains 90 per cent of the
235: mass of the FOF group. The group catalogues were then used to construct
236: detailed merging history trees of all gravitationally self-bound dark matter
237: structures. These merger trees form the basic input needed by the semi-analytic
238: model used in \cite{delucia:07b}.
239:
240: We extracted the orbital parameters of the galaxies from the public
241: archive of the Millenium Run data base\footnote{A description of the
242: publicly available catalogues, and a link to the database can be found
243: at the following webpage: http://mpa-garching.mpg.de/millennium/}, and
244: we refer to the original paper for details about the physical
245: processes that are part of the model. Our analysis uses only the
246: orbital parameters of model galaxies and therefore does not rely
247: explicitely on the details of the semi-analytic model itself. One
248: important limitation to take into account is that most of the galaxies
249: in massive clusters are "orphan" galaxies, i.e. galaxies that are not
250: associated with dark matter substructures. As explained in
251: \cite{delucia:07b} and in previous papers related to this model,
252: substructures allow us to trace the motion of the galaxies sitting at
253: their centres only until tidal truncation and stripping disrupt the
254: substructures down to the resolution limit of the simulation (which
255: for the Millennium Simulation is $1.7\times 10^{10} M_{\odot} h^{-1}$)
256: (e.g. \citealt{delucia:04b, kravtsov:04}). After this time, the
257: galaxy is assumed to merge onto the central galaxy of its own halo on
258: a dynamical friction time-scale, and its position and velocity are
259: traced by tracking the position and velocity of the most bound
260: particle of the halo at the last time there was a substructure.
261: Assuming that the position and velocity of the most bound particle at
262: the last time the substructure could be identified serve as correct
263: initial conditions to track the orbit of the galaxy, the ensuing ram
264: pressure will also be correct. Recent studies (\citealt{conroy:07})
265: have argued that a significant fraction of the satellite population
266: from disrupted subhaloes is unbound and goes to the intra-cluster
267: light component. A large fraction of galaxies in massive haloes is
268: represented by orphan galaxies. If, as argued in \cite{conroy:07}, the
269: model we have used in our study leaves behind an excess of orphan
270: galaxies, this would affect some of the results presented in this
271: study. However, the issue regarding orphan galaxies does not seem to
272: be settled. \cite{wang:06} have shown that orphan galaxies are needed
273: in order to reproduce the observed correlation function on small
274: scales. The existence of intra-cluster light suggests that tidal
275: effects or mergers can unbind some of the stars in the satellite
276: galaxies. Published results, however, offer little indication of
277: appropriate recipes for treating this process within semi-analytic
278: models. Observationally, the total amount of the intra-cluster light
279: is very difficult to estimate and published estimates vary from less
280: than 20\% to more than 50\% (see e.g. \citealt{zibetti:05,gonzalez:05}).
281:
282: %This means that for most of the galaxies in our sample,
283: %we are actually tracing the orbits of single dark matter particles.
284:
285: As the Millenium run is a dark-matter only simulation, we have to make
286: assumptions about the distribution of the gas in order to compute the ram
287: pressure exerted on the cluster galaxies. A first estimate is to approximate
288: the ICM as isothermal and hydrostatic in a NFW (\citealt{navarro96}) halo whose
289: profile is given by:
290:
291: \begin{equation}
292: \rho_{\rm DM}(r) = {\delta_c \rho_{c0} \over
293: (r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2 } ,
294: \label{eq:nfwprofile}
295: \end{equation}
296: where $\rho_{c0}$ is the critical density of the universe at $z=0$,
297: and
298:
299: \begin{eqnarray}
300: \label{eq:deltac}
301: \delta_c(M) &\approx& 3\times 10^3 \Omega_0 [1+z_{\rm f}(M)]^3, \\
302: \label{eq:rs}
303: r_s(M) &=& {r_{\rm vir}(M) \over c(M)}
304: = {1 \over c(M)} \left({3M \over 4\pi\Delta_c\rho_{c0}} \right)^{1/3}.
305: \end{eqnarray}
306: In the above expressions, $\Omega_0$ is the density parameter at
307: $z=0$, $\Delta_c(\Omega_0,\lambda_0)$ is the collapse factor in a
308: spherical nonlinear model, $z_{\rm f}(M)$ is the average formation
309: redshift of objects of mass $M$, and $c(M)$ the concentration parameter.
310:
311: For an isothermal spherical gas cloud with temperature $T_{\rm X}$, the density
312: distribution $\rho_g$ in hydrostatic equilibrium satisfies the equation:
313:
314: \begin{equation}
315: {kT_{\rm X} \over \mu m_p}{d \ln \rho_g \over dr} = - {G M(r) \over r^2} ,
316: \label{eq:equilib}
317: \end{equation}
318: where $\mu$ and $m_p$ denote the mean molecular weight (we adopt 0.59
319: below) and the proton mass. If one neglects the gas and galaxy
320: contributions to the gravitational mass in the right-hand side, then
321: the mass enclosed within a radius $r$, can be obtained from
322: Eq.~(\ref{eq:nfwprofile}) and is given by:
323:
324: \begin{equation}
325: M(r) = 4\pi \delta_c\rho_{c0} r_s^3 m(r/r_s) ,
326: \label{eq:mhalo}
327: \end{equation}
328: where $m(r/r_s)$ is the function $m$ evaluated at $r/r_s$ and $m$ is
329: given by
330: \begin{equation}
331: m(x) = \ln(1+x)-\frac{x}{1+x} .
332: \label{eq:m(x)NFW}
333: \end{equation}
334: Equation (\ref{eq:equilib}) can be integrated analytically to give
335:
336: %\begin{equation}
337: \begin{eqnarray}
338: \rho_{\rm g}(r) & = & \rho_{\rm g0}~\exp\left[-{27b \over 2}
339: \left(1-{\ln(1+r/r_s) \over r/r_s}\right)\right] \\
340: & = & \rho_{\rm g0}~\exp(-27b/2)~(1+r/r_s)^{27b/(2r/r_s)} ,
341: \label{eq:gasprofile}
342: \end{eqnarray}
343: %\end{equation}
344: with
345:
346: \begin{equation}
347: b\equiv {8\pi G\mu m_p\delta_c(M)\rho_{c0}r_s^2 \over 27kT_{\rm X}}
348: ,
349: \label{eq:bdef}
350: \end{equation}
351: as shown in \cite{makino:98}. The cluster gas temperature $T_{\rm X}$ is
352: expected to be close to the virial temperature $T_{\rm vir}(M)$ of the dark
353: matter halo. In the profile (\ref{eq:nfwprofile}), the latter is in fact
354: dependent on the radius $r$:
355:
356: \begin{equation}
357: kT_{\rm vir}(r) = \gamma {G\mu m_p M(r) \over 3 r},
358: \label{eq:tvir}
359: \end{equation}
360: where $\gamma$ is a fudge factor of order unity which should be determined by
361: the efficiency of the shock heating of the gas. \cite{eke:98} adopted
362: $\gamma=1.5$ as their canonical value in the analysis of X-ray cluster number
363: counts, and this is also the value we use here. Substituting (\ref{eq:tvir})
364: into equation (\ref{eq:bdef}), one finds that:
365:
366: \begin{equation}
367: b(r) = {2 \over 9\gamma}{r \over r_s}
368: \left[\ln\left(1+{r \over r_s}\right)- {r \over r+r_s}\right]^{-1} .
369: \end{equation}
370: For an absolute determination of the gas profile, we also need an estimate of
371: the cluster gas fraction which we chose to be equal to the universal gas mass
372: fraction $f_{\rm gas}=\Omega_b/\Omega_m= 0.022h^{-2}/0.3=0.14$. There is
373: evidence that in massive structures such as galaxy clusters this gas fraction
374: is fairly constant over time (\citealt{allen:07, laroque:06}). The
375: ram-pressures computed in the following scale simply with this gas
376: fraction.\\
377:
378: As shown by \cite{navarro96}, at large radii the density profile of an
379: isothermal gas drops less rapidly than the dark matter (see their Fig.~14).
380: This levelling (which is observed outside a radius $\sim 2\times R_{\rm
381: vir}$) is not observed in real clusters (\citealt{finoguenov:01b}). The
382: model by \cite{makino:98} has been later extended to non-isothermal gas with
383: a polytropic equation of state (e.g. \citealt{suto:98}; Ascasibar et al. 2003,
384: \citealt{voit:02}).
385:
386: One alternative approach to reconstruct cluster mass profiles has been
387: suggested by \cite{komatsu:01}. They present an analytic method to predict gas
388: density and temperature profiles in dark matter haloes that does not rely on
389: the isothermal approximation. {In this model, the gas density profile traces
390: the dark matter density profile in the outer parts of the haloes (an
391: assumption that is also supported by hydrodynamic simulations), and the gas
392: obeys a polytropic equation of state. In the inner regions of galaxy
393: clusters, gas temperature often increases with radius up to $100-200$~kpc and
394: then mildly decreases in the outer regions. The additional assumption that
395: the gas temperature has to vary monotonically with density therefore limits
396: this model to regions outside the inner $100-200$~kpc. In the model by
397: \cite{komatsu:01}, the gas density distribution is given by:}
398:
399: \begin{equation}
400: \rho_{\rm gas}(r)= \rho_{\rm gas}(0) y_{\rm gas}(r/r_{\rm s}),
401: \label{eq:gasprofile}
402: \end{equation}
403: where $\rho_{\rm gas}(0)$ is the gas density at $r=0$ and
404:
405: \begin{equation}
406: y^{\gamma-1}_{\rm gas}(x)
407: = 1-3\eta^{-1}\left(\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}\right)
408: \left[\frac{c}{m(c)}\right] [1-\ln(1+x)/x] \ ,
409: \label{eq:solution}
410: \end{equation}
411: where again we assume a NFW density profile of concentration $c$.
412: The effective value for $\gamma$ is found to depend weakly on
413: the concentration parameter according to the following equation:
414:
415: \begin{equation}
416: \label{eq:bestgamma}
417: \gamma=1.15 + 0.01\left(c-6.5\right),
418: \end{equation}
419: and the parameter $\eta$ is given by
420:
421: \begin{equation}
422: \eta(0)= 0.00676\left(c-6.5\right)^2
423: + 0.206 \left(c-6.5\right) + 2.48 .
424: \label{eq:eta}
425: \end{equation}
426: Equations (\ref{eq:gasprofile})-(\ref{eq:eta}) allow a reconstruction
427: of the gas profile, and, with the velocity information of the galaxy,
428: of the ram pressure.
429:
430: Both models discussed above, the isothermal and the \cite{komatsu:01}
431: model, rely on the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium. Numerical
432: simulations (e.g. \citealt{ascasibar:03}) show that that this is not
433: a bad approximation unless they have suffered a major merger in their
434: recent past. However, there is some indication that the dynamic ICM
435: can lead to variations in the ram pressure. E.g. it has been suggested
436: that in the Virgo cluster sloshing motions of the intracluster gas
437: lead to changes in the ram pressure (\citealt{vangorkom:07}).
438:
439: %However, since $p_{\rm ram}=\rho_{\rm gas}v^2$ the ambient gas
440: %density enters only linearly, and a rough approximation of the gas
441: %density will have to do for this study. In the following, we will use
442: %both approaches to model the gas density.
443:
444:
445: \section{Results}
446:
447:
448: \subsection{Present-day distribution of galactic ram pressures}
449:
450: In this section, we discuss the distribution of ram-pressures of cluster
451: galaxies at the present epoch (i.e. at $z=0$). For this analysis, we have
452: selected a number of massive haloes from the Millennium data base, and
453: identified all the galaxies from the De Lucia \& Blaizot (2007) semi-analytic
454: catalogue that share the same FOF group. For this analysis we have excluded
455: the central galaxy of each FOF group (i.e. the brightest cluster galaxies).
456:
457: Our sample is composed of 20 clusters with masses close to $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$
458: ($M_{200}$ between $7.3\cdot 10^{14}M_{\odot}$ and $1.2\cdot 10^{15}M_{\odot}$)
459: and 174 clusters with masses close to $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$ ($M_{200}$ between
460: $9.7\cdot 10^{13}M_{\odot}$ and $1.03\cdot 10^{14}M_{\odot}$), yielding a total
461: of 78,178 and 74,294 galaxies, respectively.
462:
463: Fig.~\ref{fig:dndp} shows the distribution of instantaneous ram pressures
464: exerted on galaxies within clusters of masses $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$ (black
465: histogram) and $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$ (red histogram). For the
466: $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$ clusters, the distribution peaks at $\sim 10^{-13}$ dyn
467: cm$^{-2}$, while for the $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$ clusters, it peaks at $\sim
468: 10^{-12}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ (see caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:dndp} for exact values of
469: the median and the mean). The shapes of the distributions for both mass ranges
470: are very similar, with a tail at lower ram pressures and a fairly sharp cutoff
471: at higher ram pressures. The corresponding plot for the model by
472: \cite{komatsu:01} is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dndp_komatsu}. The
473: peaks of the two distributions are at similar ram pressure
474: values. However, in the \cite{komatsu:01} model the
475: cut-off at high ram pressures is less sharp, and the distributions appear to be
476: less skewed. This is because in the isothermal model, the density is
477: underestimated at large radii. Thus galaxies at large distances from the centre
478: (which make up the tail of low ram-pressure values that is visible in Fig.~1)
479: suffer a lower ram pressure in the isothermal model compared to the Komatsu
480: model. In both Figs.~1 and 2, the solid histograms show the mean obtained
481: for all the clusters in each mass bin considered, while the error bars
482: indicate the scatter of the distributions.
483:
484: %FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
485: \begin{figure}
486: \centering\resizebox{\hsize}{!}%
487: {\includegraphics[angle=0]{dNdp.ps}}
488: \caption{Distribution of galactic ram pressures in isothermal clusters
489: with virial mass $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$ (black) and $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$
490: (red) at $z=0$. For $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$, the mean ram pressure is
491: $10^{-10.8}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ and the median $10^{-11.8}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$. For
492: $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$, the mean ram pressure is $10^{-11.4}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ and
493: the median $10^{-12.7}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$. The error bars denote the
494: cluster-to-cluster scatter.}
495: \label{fig:dndp}
496: % produced with /afs/mpa/home/marcus/Mill/makeplots.pro
497: \end{figure}
498: %FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
499:
500: %FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
501: \begin{figure}
502: \centering\resizebox{\hsize}{!}%
503: {\includegraphics[angle=0]{dNdp_komatsu.ps}}
504: \caption{Distribution of galactic ram pressures in clusters with
505: mass $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$ (black) and $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$ (red) at $z=0$
506: for the model by Komatsu \& Seljak (2001). For $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$,
507: the mean ram pressure is $10^{-10.7}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ and the median ram pressure is
508: $10^{-11.9}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$. For $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$, the mean ram pressure is
509: $10^{-11.3}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ and the median ram pressure is $10^{-12.6}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$.}
510: \label{fig:dndp_komatsu}
511: % produced with /afs/mpa/home/marcus/Mill/makeplots.pro
512: \end{figure}
513: %FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
514:
515: According to GG72, the mass lost from a galaxy through RPS depends on the
516: gravitational restoring force per unit area. Clearly, other factors, such as
517: inclination, gas content, morphological type, star formation rates, etc. also
518: play a potentially significant, albeit poorly understood, role. The catalogue
519: compiled by \cite{delucia:07b} contains information that would allow us to
520: estimate the mass loss due to RPS. However, ram-pressure stripping is not
521: self-consistently included in the model. Therefore, we focus here on merely
522: computing the ram-pressures experienced by the galaxies at a given time and
523: position within the cluster.
524:
525: In the simulations by \cite{roediger:06a}, ram pressures of
526: $\sim 10^{-12}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ were called weak, $\sim 10^{-11}$ dyn
527: cm$^{-2}$ medium and $\sim 10^{-10}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ strong. Subject to
528: strong ram pressure, a typical spiral galaxy as simulated in
529: \cite{roediger:06a} with mass $\sim 2\cdot 10^{11} M_{\odot}$ loses
530: all its gas within $\sim 50$ Myrs. Medium ram pressure removes
531: approximately half of the gas within $\sim 200$ Myrs, and weak ram
532: pressure removes relatively little gas. These numbers depend of course
533: on the structure of the gaseous, stellar and dark matter component,
534: and should just serve for orientation. Figs. \ref{fig:dndp} and
535: \ref{fig:dndp_komatsu} show that in a $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$
536: cluster, approximately 27 per cent of galaxies experience ram pressures of $>
537: 10^{-11}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ in the isothermal ICM model. In the \cite{komatsu:01}
538: model, the corresponding fraction is about 24 per cent. In a
539: $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$
540: cluster, these numbers are 10 \% for the isothermal model and 9 \% for
541: the \cite{komatsu:01} model, respectively.
542:
543: Since ram-pressure depends on the density of the gas and on the
544: velocity of the galaxy, it is expected to be stronger closer to the
545: centre. In Fig.~\ref{fig:pr15_k}, we plot the ram pressure as a
546: function of radius for the Komatsu (2001) model and a
547: $10^{15}M_{\odot}$ mass cluster. The distribution shows a sharp
548: upper edge which is determined by the escape velocity at this radius
549: and the gas density at that position. In the isothermal model, the
550: upper envelope can be approximated by:
551:
552: \begin{equation}
553: p_{\rm ram}^{\rm max}(r)\approx \rho_{\rm g} \frac{2GM(r)}{r} .
554: \label{eq:plim}
555: \end{equation}
556: If we approximate $M(r)$ by Eq.~(\ref{eq:mhalo}) and $\rho_{\rm g}$ by
557: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gasprofile}), we can rearrange the result to give
558:
559: \begin{equation}
560: p_{\rm ram}^{\rm max}(x)\approx 8\pi G \rho_{\rm
561: g0}\delta_c\rho_{c0} r_s^2 \frac{e^{-2B(x)}}{B(x)}(1+x)^{2B(x)/x} ,
562: \label{eq:plim2}
563: \end{equation}
564: where $x=r/r_s$ and
565:
566: \begin{equation}
567: B(x) = x [\ln(1+x)-x/(1+x)]^{-1} .
568: \end{equation}
569: Eq.~(\ref{eq:plim2}) describes the maximum ram pressure pretty well
570: for $x>0.2$.
571: Similar, though less simple, expressions can be found for the maximum
572: ram pressure in the \cite{komatsu:01} model. For the two gas models,
573: the isothermal and the \cite{komatsu:01} model, the distributions are
574: somewhat different. While within the virial radius the ram pressures
575: are very similar, at larger radii, the isothermal model yields lower
576: ram pressures than the \cite{komatsu:01} model. The latter model
577: allows the temperature to decrease at larger radii which leads to a
578: higher density than in the isothermal model. This also explains the
579: narrower distribution of ram pressures shown in
580: Fig.~\ref{fig:dndp_komatsu} with fewer galaxies in the low ram
581: pressure tail of this distribution.
582:
583:
584:
585:
586: %FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
587: \begin{figure}
588: \centering\resizebox{\hsize}{!}%
589: {\includegraphics[angle=0]{pram_vs_r_15_k.ps}}
590: \caption{Distribution of galactic ram pressures (in dyn cm$^{-2}$) with radius in a cluster with
591: mass $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$ at $z=0$ (model by Komatsu \& Seljak 2001). The thick
592: solid line denotes the mean of the distribution. The dashed line shows the mean
593: of the distribution for the isothermal model. The yellow points
594: indicate the ram pressures of the individual galaxies in the Komatsu
595: \& Seljak model.}
596: \label{fig:pr15_k}
597: % produced with /afs/mpa/home/marcus/Mill/pram_vs_r.pro
598: \end{figure}
599: %FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
600:
601:
602: \subsection{Ram pressures histories}
603:
604: In this section, we analyse the ram-pressure history suffered by
605: galaxies that reside in a cluster today. In the following, we
606: restrict our analysis to galaxies with with a B-band magnitude
607: mag$_B<-19$, where mag$_B$ is given in the De Lucia \& Blaizot
608: (2007) catalogue. For each galaxy, we walk its merger tree backwards
609: in time by linking it with its most massive progenitor at each
610: snapshot until the galaxy becomes a central galaxy of a FOF halo. In
611: Fig.~\ref{fig:history15}, we plot a random selection of the ram
612: pressure histories of galaxies that end up in $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$
613: clusters. This and the following plots refer to an isothermal ICM
614: (the corresponding results for the \cite{komatsu:01} model are very
615: similar). Fig.~\ref{fig:history15} shows that the ram pressures
616: fluctuate strongly with time. No strong trend with redshift is
617: visible, showing that galaxies underwent phases of strong ram
618: pressure even at high redshifts. In Fig.~\ref{fig:multiplot}, we
619: show how the ram pressure (top left panel), the mass of the parent
620: FOF group (top right panel), the relative velocity and the distance
621: to the cluster centre (bottom left panel), and the ambient ICM
622: density (bottom right panel) vary as a function of redshift for a
623: randomly selected galaxy that reside in a $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$
624: cluster at the present epoch. This plot shows that the galaxy
625: attains high velocities when it passes close to the cluster core. In
626: this region, the ambient ICM density is also highest, such that the
627: highest ram pressures values are obtained. We note that the outputs
628: of the simulation are not sampled finely enough in time to
629: reconstruct the galaxy ram pressure history very accurately. The
630: vertical lines in the top right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:multiplot}
631: show the redshifts of the simulation output. The time between
632: snapshots is too large to sample the orbits of the galaxies with
633: great precision. In some cases, the ram pressure fluctuates by 1-2
634: orders of magnitudes between snapshots and it is difficult to assess
635: in each case what happens in between. Consequently, the ram pressure
636: histories give conservative bounds on the maximum and minimum ram
637: pressures suffered by each galaxy in the course of its life. We also
638: note that periods of strong ram pressure are often interspersed with
639: periods of weak ram pressure.
640:
641: \begin{figure}
642: \centering\resizebox{\hsize}{!}%
643: {\includegraphics[angle=0]{histories15.ps}}
644: \caption{Ram pressure histories of a random sample of galaxies that end up in a
645: $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$ cluster.}
646: \label{fig:history15}
647: % produced with /afs/mpa/home/marcus/Mill/15/plothistory.pro
648: \end{figure}
649:
650: In these periods, the interstellar medium could be accreted back
651: onto the galaxy or replenished (by e.g. mergers with gas-rich
652: satellites that have not yet suffered significant stripping). The
653: median redshift at which a galaxy has most recently experienced
654: moderate or strong ram pressure is close to 0.1 for all galaxies in
655: our sample. Strong
656: ram-pressure episodes are, however, expected to have a significant
657: effect on the following evolution of the galaxy. In
658: Fig.~\ref{fig:maxrp}, we show the maximum ram-pressure that a galaxy
659: (or its most massive progenitor) has experienced since the time of
660: accretion. The solid histogram shows results for a
661: $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$ cluster, while the dashed histogram refers to a
662: $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$ cluster. The figure shows that in a massive
663: cluster, more than 64 per cent of galaxies have experienced ram
664: pressures of $>10^{-11}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$, and 32 per cent of galaxies
665: have had ram pressures greater than $>10^{-10}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$. Ram
666: pressures of this magnitude most likely strip the galaxy of all its
667: gas in a short time interval of a few million years. The corresponding
668: fraction for a $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$ cluster are lower but still
669: significant (52 per cent and 11 per cent respectively). If
670: ram-pressure stripping is responsible for the morphological
671: transformation of spiral galaxies infalling onto the cluster from the
672: field, these numbers indicate that about half of the galaxies residing
673: today in a $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$ cluster, and a larger fraction for
674: more massive clusters, should be gas poor. Ellipticals and lenticulars
675: make up about $70-80$ per cent of the galaxy population of massive
676: clusters in the local Universe (see e.g. Dressler 1980). A significant
677: fraction of these could be therefore entirely explained by
678: ram-pressure stripping.
679:
680: \begin{figure}
681: \centering\resizebox{\hsize}{!}%
682: {\includegraphics[angle=0]{multiplot.ps}}
683: \caption{Properties of one selected galaxy versus redshift. Top left: Ram pressure (in dyn cm$^{-2}$). Top right: Mass of the most massive FOF group (i.e. the host cluster or
684: group) of this galaxy. Vertical lines mark the redshifts of the
685: simulation output. Bottom left: Velocity (black, solid line) and
686: distance to cluster centre (red, dashed). Botton right: Ambient ICM
687: density (using the Komatsu \& Seljak (2001) model.}
688: % produced with /afs/mpa/home/marcus/Mill/15/plotprampos.pro
689: \label{fig:multiplot}
690: \end{figure}
691:
692: \begin{figure}
693: \centering\resizebox{\hsize}{!}%
694: {\includegraphics[angle=0]{maxrp.ps}}
695: \caption{Maximum ram pressure that a galaxy from a
696: $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$ (solid line) and $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$ cluster
697: (dashed line) or its most massive progenitor has
698: experienced during its life time.}
699: % produced with Mill/plothistory.pro
700: \label{fig:maxrp}
701: \end{figure}
702:
703: The original work by Dressler (1980) also showed that there is a clear
704: trend for an increasing fraction of early type galaxies with decreasing
705: distance from the cluster centre. Fig.~\ref{fig:fraction} shows the fraction
706: of galaxies that have suffered strong ($> 10^{-10}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$), medium
707: ($> 10^{-11}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$) and weak ($> 10^{-12}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$) ram
708: pressure as a function of their current ($z=0$) distance from the cluster
709: centre. The figure clearly shows that a larger fraction of the galaxies that
710: reside in the cluster core have suffered significant ram-pressure. This
711: fraction monotonically decreases with distance from the cluster centre, in
712: qualitative agreement with the observed trends. In $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$
713: clusters, virtually all galaxies in the inner 300 kpc have suffered strong
714: ram pressures after accretion. For $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$ clusters, this
715: fraction decreases to about 2/3. Nearly all galaxies in clusters have
716: experienced medium ram pressures and have thus been influenced to some degree
717: by ram pressure stripping.
718:
719: \begin{figure}
720: \centering\resizebox{\hsize}{!}%
721: {\includegraphics[angle=0]{fraction_k.ps}}
722: \caption{Fraction of galaxies that have suffered strong (solid line),
723: medium (long-dashed line) and
724: weak (short-dashed line) ram pressure in the course of their history as a
725: function of their current ($z=0$) position in the cluster. The black
726: lines correspond to $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$ clusters and the red lines
727: to $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$
728: clusters.}
729: % produced with
730: \label{fig:fraction}
731: \end{figure}
732:
733: \section{Conclusion}
734:
735: In this study we have taken advantage of the Millennium simulation by
736: \cite{springel:05} and of the publicly available semi-analytic model by De
737: Lucia \& Blaizot (2007) to reconstruct the ram-pressure distribution and
738: ram-pressure history of galaxies that reside in clusters at the present
739: epoch. The gas profile in dark matter is described through two analytic
740: models which give fairly similar results. We have not included ram-pressure
741: stripping self-consistently in the semi-analytic model employed for our
742: study. Instead we have simply used the available information about the
743: orbital distribution and galaxy merging trees to estimate the importance of
744: ram-pressure stripping on galaxies that reside in massive haloes at the
745: present epochs.
746:
747: We find that more than half of the galaxies in a $M=10^{15}M_{\odot}$
748: cluster, have experienced ram pressures of $> 10^{-11}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ after
749: their accretion onto a massive system. This fraction is only slightly lower
750: for $M=10^{14}M_{\odot}$ clusters, implying that a significant fraction
751: of galaxies in clusters at the present epoch suffered substantial gas loss
752: due to ram pressure stripping. The fraction of galaxies that suffered
753: significant ram-pressure after accretion increases with decreasing distance
754: from the cluster centre, in qualitative agreement with the observed increase
755: of early-type galaxies.
756:
757: As expected, strong episodes of ram-pressure occur predominantly in the inner
758: core of galaxy clusters, and are restricted to within the virial radius. Our
759: results show, however, that virtually all the galaxies in clusters suffered
760: weaker episodes of ram pressure, suggesting that this physical process might
761: have a significant role in shaping the observed properties of the entire
762: cluster galaxy population.
763:
764: The limited number of simulation outputs does not allow us to reconstruct
765: accurately the orbit of the cluster galaxies, and therefore their
766: ram-pressure histories. Our result show that ram pressure fluctuates strongly
767: so that episodes of strong ram-pressure alternate to episode of weaker
768: ram-pressure. During these time intervals, the gaseous reservoir could be
769: replenished and new episodes of star formation could occur. Our results
770: indicate that ram-pressure stripping must play a significant role in the
771: evolution of galaxies residing in massive clusters. A more self-consistent
772: modelling is however required in order to draw more quantitative
773: conclusions about the importance and effects of this physical process.
774:
775: \section*{Acknowledgements}
776:
777: We thank Simon White for useful comments and suggestions, and Volker Springel
778: and Gerard Lemson for their help with the Millennium data base.
779: MB acknowledges the support by the DFG grant BR 2026/3 within
780: the Priority Programme ``Witnesses of Cosmic History'' and the
781: supercomputing grants NIC 2195 and 2256 at the John-Neumann Institut
782: at the Forschungszentrum J\"ulich.
783: The Millennium Simulation databases used in this paper and the web application
784: providing online access to them were constructed as part of the activities of
785: the German Astrophysical Virtual Observatory.
786:
787: %*******************************************************************
788: %*************** R E F E R E N C E S *******************************
789: %*******************************************************************
790: %
791: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
792: \bibliography{%
793: /afs/mpa/home/marcus/MYPAPERS/BIBLIOGRAPHY/radio,%
794: /afs/mpa/home/marcus/MYPAPERS/BIBLIOGRAPHY/metals,%
795: /afs/mpa/home/marcus/MYPAPERS/BIBLIOGRAPHY/shbib,%
796: /afs/mpa/home/marcus/MYPAPERS/BIBLIOGRAPHY/marcus,%
797: /afs/mpa/home/marcus/MYPAPERS/BIBLIOGRAPHY/rphistory,%
798: /afs/mpa/home/marcus/MYPAPERS/BIBLIOGRAPHY/theory_simulations,%
799: /afs/mpa/home/marcus/MYPAPERS/BIBLIOGRAPHY/observations_galaxies,%
800: /afs/mpa/home/marcus/MYPAPERS/BIBLIOGRAPHY/observations_clusters,%
801: /afs/mpa/home/marcus/MYPAPERS/BIBLIOGRAPHY/galaxy_model,%
802: /afs/mpa/home/marcus/MYPAPERS/BIBLIOGRAPHY/icm_conditions%
803: }
804:
805: \bsp
806:
807: \label{lastpage}
808:
809: \end{document}
810: