1: %\documentclass{emulateapj} \usepackage{apjfonts}

2: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}

3: %

4: %===============================================================

5: 

6: \newcommand\cm{{\;\rm cm}}

7: \newcommand\pcc{{\;\rm cm}^{-3}}

8: \newcommand\Kel{{\;\rm K}}

9: \newcommand\cs{c_s}

10: \newcommand\dmax{\rho_{\rm max}}

11: \newcommand\dmid{\rho_{00}}

12: \newcommand\dz{\rho_0 (z)}

13: \newcommand\vA{v_{\rm A}}

14: \newcommand\yr{{\;\rm yr}}

15: \newcommand\Myr{{\;\rm Myr}}

16: \newcommand\Msun{{\;\rm\,M_\odot}}

17: \newcommand\Lsun{{\;\rm\,L_\odot}}

18: \newcommand\kms{{\;\rm km\,s^{-1}}}

19: \newcommand\mh{m_{\rm H}}

20: \newcommand\torb{t_{\rm orb} }

21: \newcommand\tcro{t_{\rm cross} }

22: \newcommand\pc{{\;\rm\,pc}}

23: \newcommand\kpc{{\;\rm kpc}}

24: \newcommand\Kcm{{\;\rm K\,cm^{-3}}}

25: \newcommand\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}

26: \newcommand\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}

27: \newcommand\xhat{\hat{\mathbf{x}} }

28: \newcommand\yhat{\hat{\mathbf{y}} }

29: \newcommand\zhat{\hat{\mathbf{z}} }

30: \newcommand\Rhat{\hat{R}}

31: \newcommand\phihat{\hat{\phi}}

32: \newcommand\vel{\mathbf{v}}

33: \newcommand\ergs{{\rm \;erg\,s^{-1}}}

34: 

35: %===============================================================

36: \shorttitle{SPIRAL SHOCKS WITH THERMAL INSTABILITY}

37: \shortauthors{KIM, KIM, \& OSTRIKER}

38: %===============================================================

39: \begin{document}

40: 

41: \title{Galactic Spiral Shocks with Thermal Instability}

42: 

43: \author{Chang-Goo Kim\altaffilmark{1}, Woong-Tae Kim\altaffilmark{1},

44: and Eve C.\ Ostriker\altaffilmark{2}}

45: \affil{$^1$Department of Physics \& Astronomy, FPRD,

46: Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Republic of Korea}

47: \affil{$^2$Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, 

48: College Park, MD 20742, USA}

49: \email{kimcg@astro.snu.ac.kr, wkim@astro.snu.ac.kr, ostriker@astro.umd.edu}

50: \slugcomment{Accepted for Publication in \apj}

51: %\slugcomment{Last Modified: \today}

52: 

53: \begin{abstract}

54: Using one-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations including 

55: interstellar heating, cooling, and thermal conduction,

56: we investigate nonlinear evolution of gas flow across galactic spiral

57: arms.  We model 

58: the gas as a non-self-gravitating, unmagnetized fluid, and follow

59: its interaction with a stellar spiral potential in a local frame 

60: comoving with the stellar pattern.

61: Initially uniform gas with density $n_0$ in the range 

62: $0.5\pcc\leq n_0 \leq 10\pcc$

63: rapidly separates into warm 

64: and cold phases as a result of thermal instability (TI), and also

65: forms a quasi-steady shock that prompts phase transitions.

66: After saturation, the flow follows a recurring cycle: 

67: warm and cold phases in the interarm region are 

68: shocked and immediately cool to become a denser cold medium in the

69: arm; post-shock expansion reduces the mean density

70: to the unstable regime in the transition zone and TI subsequently 

71: mediates evolution back into warm and cold interarm phases.

72: For our standard model with $n_0=2\pcc$, the gas resides in 

73: the dense arm, thermally-unstable transition zone, and interarm

74: region for 14\%, 22\%, 64\% of the arm-to-arm crossing time. 

75: These regions occupy 1\%, 16\%, and 83\% of the arm-to-arm distance,

76: respectively.  Gas at intermediate temperatures (i.e.\ neither warm

77: stable nor cold states) represents $\sim25$-30\% 

78: of the total mass, similar to the fractions estimated from \ion{H}{1}

79: observations (larger interarm distances could reduce this

80: mass fraction, whereas other physical processes associated with 

81: star formation could increase it).

82: Despite  transient features and multiphase structure, 

83: the time-averaged shock profiles 

84: can be matched to that of a diffusive isothermal medium

85: with temperature $1,000\Kel$ (which is $\ll T_{\rm warm}$) and 

86: ``particle'' mean free path of $l_0=100\pc$.

87: Finally, we quantify numerical conductivity associated with translational 

88: motion of phase-separated gas  on the grid, and show that 

89: convergence of numerical results requires the numerical conductivity 

90: to be comparable to or smaller than the physical conductivity.

91: \end{abstract}

92: \keywords{galaxies: ISM --- instabilities --- ISM: kinematics and dynamics

93: --- methods: numerical --- stars: formation}

94: 

95: \section{Introduction}

96: 

97: Spiral arms are the most prominent features in disk galaxies.

98: As the interstellar medium (ISM) passes through the moderate

99: gravitational potential 

100: well of the stellar spiral arms, it is strongly compressed

101: and shocked, producing narrow dust lanes in optical images.

102: Active star formation is subsequently triggered in high-density

103: clouds inside the arms, resulting in downstream optical arms that 

104: contain OB associations and giant \ion{H}{2} regions 

105: distributed in a ``beads on a string'' fashion 

106: (e.g., \citealt{baa63,elm83,2006ApJ...642..158E,she07}). 

107: Other arm substructures include filamentary gaseous spurs (or feathers) 

108: seen in optical extinction, IR emission from dust, and

109: H$\alpha$ emission from star formation

110: (e.g. 

111: \citealt{1980ApJ...242..528E,scorec01,sco01,ken04,2004ApJS..154..222W,

112: lav06,gor07}), 

113: and giant molecular associations and atomic superclouds seen 

114: in CO and \ion{H}{1} radio observations

115: (e.g., \citealt{elm83,vog88,ran90,kna93}).

116: The locations of these arm substructures downstream from the primary dust

117: lanes indicates that the shock compression represents the first 

118: step in an evolutionary sequence that begins with diffuse ISM gas and

119: ends with star formation (for strongly-bound cores) 

120: and dispersal (for more weakly self-gravitating structures),

121: although it is uncertain whether spiral arms actually enhance 

122: star formation rate or just organize it

123: (e.g., \citealt{ger78,elm86,sle96,sei02}).

124: 

125: Studies of galactic spiral shocks date back to \citet{rob69}, 

126: who used a semi-analytic approach to 

127: obtain one-dimensional, stationary shock profiles 

128: as functions of the distance perpendicular to the shocks

129: (see also \citealt{fuj68,rob70,shu73}).  

130: \citet{woo75} used time-dependent calculations to show that spiral

131: shocks in local models indeed develop within one or two crossings 

132: of 

133: the background arm potential.  This and subsequent work

134: (e.g. \citealt{kim02}) suggests spiral arm 

135: shocks in the one-dimensional approximation are highly stable

136: for a range of the arm strength.  On the other hand, spiral shocks

137: have been shown to be intrinsically unstable when the vertical dimension is 

138: included \citep{mar98,gom02,gom04,bol06,kim06}. 

139: Since the arm-to-arm crossing periods are in general incommensurable 

140: with the vertical oscillation periods, the gas streamlines are not closed,

141: giving rise to shock flapping motions that dump a significant amount of 

142: random kinetic energy in the gas  \citep{kko06}.  Under certain

143: (strong compression) conditions, two-dimensional {\it in-plane} 

144: spiral shocks can also become unstable due to strong shear within the arm

145: \citep{wad04,dob06}.  However, these in-plane modes are stabilized by

146: moderate magnetic fields \citep{she06,dob08}, and suppressed in fully

147: three-dimensional models due to vertical dynamics \citep{kim06}.

148: 

149: Inclusion of gaseous self-gravity tends to enhance the arm response and 

150: symmetrize the density profile \citep{lub86}, and causes the shock front

151: to move downstream relative to the minimum in the potential \citep{kim02}.  

152: High post-shock density enhances the growth of self-gravitating

153: perturbations 

154: within spiral arms, although postshock flow expansion can limit this growth 

155: \citep{bal85,bal88}.

156: Using two-dimensional simulations with both self-gravity and magnetic 

157: fields, 

158: \citet{kim02} demonstrated that magneto-Jeans instability (in which magnetic

159: tension forces counterbalance the stabilizing Coriolis forces) leads

160: to the formation of both arm spurs and GMAs/GMCs with realistic properties

161: (see also \citealt{lyn66,elm94}). Subsequent studies including

162: three-dimensional effects \citep{kim06} and global spiral structure 

163: \citep{she06} have confirmed these findings.

164: 

165: While recent work has improved our understanding of

166: galactic spiral shocks and their larger 

167: substructures, these studies have oversimplified

168: the ISM thermodynamics, usually adopting 

169: an isothermal equation of state.

170: This ignores  potential consequences of thermal instability (TI) 

171: (\citealt{fie65}; see also \citealt{mee96} for review), which

172:  changes an otherwise homogeneous ISM to clumpy, multi-phase gas. 

173: (e.g., \citealt{fie69,hei01,wol03}).  In the classical

174: two-phase picture of the ISM,  cold dense clouds are in pressure equilibrium

175: with warm intercloud media that surround them \citep{fie69}.

176: Supernovae lead to a hot, diffuse third phase

177: \citep{1974ApJ...189L.105C,mo77}, but because massive star formation

178: is spatially

179: correlated and much of the hot gas produced is vented away, most of

180: the volume remains relatively unaffected (e.g. 

181: \citealt{1998ApJ...503..700F,2004A&A...425..899D}).

182: Since the cold clouds and the warm intercloud gas 

183: differ in density and temperature

184: by about two orders of magnitudes, their respective responses to 

185: spiral shocks and downstream expansion flows will be much different 

186: from the isothermal case.

187: When realistic thermal processes are considered, for instance,

188: warm rarefied gas in the interarm region can be converted 

189: via shocks  to cold dense gas in the arm regions. 

190: The reverse phase transition can then occur downstream for some

191: fraction of the mass, yielding  a quasi-steady cyclic exchange.

192: 

193: \citet{shu72} were the first to study the effects of gas cooling and 

194: heating on spiral shocks.  By considering a mixture of the comoving two 

195: stable phases and allowing for phase transitions, they calculated 

196: steady-state shock profiles for both cold and warm phases.  However, 

197: they employed a pressure-density relation, instead of solving 

198: the time-dependent energy equation, based on the assumption of

199: instantaneous thermal equilibrium; this precluded the possibility 

200: of unstable-phase gas in their calculations.

201: 

202: More recent years have seen 

203: a few numerical studies of spiral shocks with explicit heating and cooling, but

204: most of these suffer from strong numerical diffusion.

205: \citet{bak74} argued that allowance 

206: for thermal phase changes produces ``accretion fronts/waves'' 

207: instead of spiral shocks, in which the inflowing material radiates

208: its energy away.  As they mentioned, however, 

209: this result could  be due to large numerical diffusion;

210: we will indeed show below that in a moving medium, 

211: numerical conductivity can be large enough to 

212: suppress TI. On the other hand,

213: \citet{tub80} and \citet{mar83} have shown that some models

214: develop spiral shocks in which phase transitions from warm interarm gas 

215: to cold arm clouds occur, although insufficient resolution in their models

216: made the cloud sizes and separations significantly overestimated 

217: and prevented the transition regions from cold to warm phases 

218: from being resolved.

219: Very recently, \citet{dob07} and \citet{dob08} studied 

220: the effects of the warm phase on a pre-existing cold phase using

221: particle simulations, but they did not allow for phase transitions 

222: that are crucial in spiral shocks with TI.

223: 

224: In this paper, we initiate a study of galactic spiral shocks 

225: subject to ISM heating and cooling, using 

226: very high-resolution numerical hydrodynamic simulations.

227: We consider one-dimensional models that represent slices

228: perpendicular to the arm.  

229: We ignore the gaseous self-gravity and magnetic fields here,

230: deferring studies of these effects to future work.  

231: Our primary objectives are to determine overall shock structures under TI,

232: to explore where and how the transitions among the cold, warm, and 

233: unstable phases occur, and to find statistical properties 

234: such as temperature distributions, mass fractions, and velocity dispersions. 

235: 

236: The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: 

237: in \S2 we describe the basic equations we solve and present 

238: our model parameters and numerical methods.

239: In \S3 we test our numerical code and quantify the

240: diffusion (due to translational motion over the grid)

241: in terms of a numerical conductivity.

242: In \S4 we address the evolution  of cold and warm 

243: phases as they traverse spiral shocks, and provide statistical

244: measures to quantify the exchange cycle that develops. 

245: Finally, we summarize our results and discuss their implications in \S5. 

246: 

247: \section{Numerical Methods}

248: 

249: \subsection{Basic Equations}

250: 

251: We study  galactic gas flows and thermodynamic evolution in response

252: to an external

253: stellar spiral potential, which is assumed to be tightly wound

254: with a pitch angle $i\ll1$, and rotating at a constant pattern speed $\Omega_p$

255: with respect to an inertial frame.

256: For local simulations, it is advantageous to

257: set up a frame corotating with the spiral pattern, 

258: centered at the position $(R, \phi) =(R_0, \Omega_p t)$.

259: The local frame is tilted by an angle $i$ relative to the radial direction 

260: in such a way that the two orthogonal axes correspond to the directions 

261: perpendicular ($x$-axis) and parallel ($y$-axis) to the local arm segment, 

262: respectively \citep[][]{rob69}.

263: We assume that all physical variables depend only on the $x$-coordinate,

264: while allowing nonzero velocity in the $y$-direction.

265: Since the independent variable in our local models is a projection of 

266: the position on a streamline in a large-scale flow onto the $x$-axis,

267: the distance on the $x$-axis divided by $\sin i$ represents the 

268: distance that the flow has traversed in the azimuthal direction

269: along the streamline.  Therefore, the {\it temporal} interval between 

270: one arm crossing and the next crossing is the same as it would be for a 

271: global model. 

272: 

273: In the local arm frame, the background velocity due to galactic rotation 

274: is approximately given by

275: \begin{equation}\label{eq:v0}

276:  \vel_0=R_0(\Omega_0-\Omega_p)\sin i\xhat

277: +[R_0(\Omega_0-\Omega_p)-q_0\Omega_0 x]\yhat,

278: \end{equation}

279: where $\Omega_0$ is the angular velocity of gas at $R_0$ in the inertial frame

280: and $q_0\equiv-(d\ln\Omega/d\ln R)|_{R_0}$ is the local shear rate 

281: in the background flow in the absence of the spiral potential 

282: \citep[][]{kim02,kim06}.

283: Assuming that the motions induced by the stellar potential are much smaller 

284: than $R_0\Omega_0$, the basic equations of ideal hydrodynamics expanded in

285: the local frame read

286: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cont}

287:  \frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot(\rho \vel_T)=0,

288: \end{equation}

289: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mom}

290: \frac{\partial\vel_T}{\partial t}+\vel_T\cdot\nabla\vel_T=

291: -\frac{1}{\rho}\nabla P -q_0\Omega_0 v_{0x}\yhat-2\mathbf{\Omega}_0\times

292: \vel-\nabla\Phi_{\rm ext},

293: \end{equation}

294: \begin{equation}\label{eq:energy}

295: \frac{\partial e}{\partial t} +\vel_T\cdot\nabla e =

296: -\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}P\nabla\cdot\vel_T -\rho\mathcal{L}+\nabla\cdot(\mathcal{K}\nabla T),

297: \end{equation}

298: \citep[see][]{rob69, shu73, bal88, kim02,pio04}, 

299: where $\vel_T\equiv \vel_0+\vel$ is the total velocity in the local frame,

300: $\Phi_{\rm ext}$ is the external stellar spiral potential, 

301: $\rho\mathcal{L}(\rho, T)$ is the net cooling function,

302: and $\mathcal{K}$ is the thermal conductivity. 

303: Other symbols have their usual meanings. 

304: We adopt an ideal gas law $P=(\gamma-1)e$ with $\gamma=5/3$.

305: 

306: For the stellar spiral potential, we consider a 

307: simple sinusoidal shape:

308: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ephi}

309:  \Phi_{\rm ext}=\Phi_{\rm sp}\cos\left(\frac{2\pi x}{L_x}\right),

310: \end{equation}

311: analogous to a

312: logarithmic potential of \citet{rob69} and \citet{shu73}.

313: In equation (\ref{eq:ephi}), $\Phi_{\rm sp}$ denotes the amplitude of the 

314: spiral potential, while $L_x =2\pi R_0\sin i/m$ 

315: is the arm-to-arm separation for an $m$-armed spiral.  

316: We take the size of the simulation domain equal to $L_x$;

317: since $x$ varies from $-L_x/2$ to $L_x/2$ and $\Phi_{\rm sp}<0$, 

318: $\Phi_{\rm ext}$ attains its minimum at the center ($x=0$).

319: We parametrize the spiral arm strength using 

320: \begin{equation}\label{eq:F}

321: F\equiv \frac{m}{\sin i}\left(\frac{|\Phi_{\rm sp}|}{R_0^2\Omega_0^2}\right),

322: \end{equation}

323: which measures the maximum force due to the spiral 

324: potential relative to the the mean axisymmetric gravitational force 

325: \citep{rob69}.  

326: 

327: The net cooling function per unit volume is given by 

328: $\rho\mathcal{L}\equiv n(n\Lambda[T]-\Gamma)$, 

329: where $n=\rho/(\mu m_{\rm H})$ is the gas number density 

330: and $\mu=1.27$ is the the mean molecular weight per particle.

331: For the heating and cooling rates of the atomic ISM, 

332: we take the fitting formulae

333: \begin{equation}\label{eq:heat}

334:  \Gamma = 2.0\times10^{-26}\ergs,

335: \end{equation}

336: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cool}

337:  \frac{\Lambda(T)}{\Gamma}=10^7\exp\left(\frac{-1.184\times10^5}{T+1000}\right)

338:  +1.4\times10^{-2}\sqrt{T}\exp\left(\frac{-92}{T}\right) \cm^3,

339: \end{equation}

340: suggested by \citet{koy02} (see also \citealt{vaz07}).  

341: Under the adopted net cooling curve, the minimum and maximum

342: pressures for the coexistence of the classical warm/cold phases 

343: in a static equilibrium are 

344: $P_{\rm min}/k_B=1600\Kcm$ and $P_{\rm max}/k_B=5000\Kcm$.

345: The corresponding transition temperatures

346: $T_{\rm max}=5012\Kel$ and $T_{\rm min}=185\Kel$  

347: define cold ($T<T_{\rm min}$), warm ($T>T_{\rm max}$),

348: and intermediate-temperature phases ($T_{\rm min}<T<T_{\rm max}$).

349: To resolve the length scales of TI numerically 

350: (e.g., \citealt{koy04,pio04}), 

351: we include a constant value of thermal conductivity 

352: $\mathcal{K}_0=10^5\ergs\cm^{-1}{\, \rm K}^{-1}$.\footnote{While thermal 

353: conductivity is proportional to $T^{1/2}$ for neutral hydrogen at 

354: kinetic temperatures below $4.5\times 10^4\Kel$  \citep{par53},

355: we choose for simplicity a fixed value corresponding to 

356: thermal equilibrium at $T=1500\Kel$ for our standard density $n_0=2\pcc$.} 

357: The associated Field length below which thermal conduction 

358: erases temperature perturbations completely is defined by

359: \begin{equation}\label{eq:field}

360:  \lambda_F=2\pi\left\{\frac{\rho^2\Lambda}{\mathcal{K}_0T}

361:  \left[1-\left(\frac{\partial \ln \Lambda}{\partial \ln T}

362:  \right)\right]\right\}^{-1/2}

363: \end{equation}

364: \citep{fie65}.  In our models, $\lambda_F$ typically 

365: amounts to $\sim 0.18\pc$. 

366: 

367: \subsection{Model Parameters \& Numerical Methods}

368: 

369: We consider a simulation box in which the gas is initially homogeneous 

370: with density $n_0$ and pressure

371: $P_0$ when a spiral perturbation is absent.

372: Other than thermal processes involving TI, overall dynamics and

373: structures of spiral shocks in our models are completely characterized by 

374: the arm-to-arm distance $L_x$ and the flow speed $v_{0x}$ relative to 

375: the perturbing stellar potential in 

376: the $x$-direction (as well as $\sin i$, $q_0$, $F$, and $\Omega_p/\Omega_0$).

377: The azimuthal wavenumber $m$ of spiral arms is arbitrary,  and

378: the box location and the gaseous angular speed 

379: relative to the arms can then be specified as

380: $R_0=mL_x/(2\pi\sin i)$ and 

381: $\Omega_0-\Omega_p=2\pi v_{0x}/(mL_x)$, respectively.

382: To achieve the numerical resolution sufficient to resolve the Field length, 

383: we consider a small box with $L_x=628$ pc. 

384: For the relative velocity, we choose $v_{0x}=13\kms$  corresponding to 

385: the rotational velocity of $R_0\Omega_0=260\kms$ with a flat rotation curve 

386: ($q_0=1$).  

387: The corresponding arm-to-arm crossing time is $\tcro\equiv L_x/v_{0x} = 

388: 4.7\times10^7\yr$, which we choose as the fiducial time unit in our 

389: presentation.  

390: For spiral arm parameters, we take pattern speed $\Omega_p=\Omega_0/2$,

391: pitch angle $\sin i=0.1$, and strength $F=5\%$ in all the models. 

392: We note that driven by numerical requirement, 

393: spiral arms in our models have a small separation and thus a short 

394: dynamical time, so that some of our numerical results 

395: (e.g., mass fractions) that depend 

396: on the ratio of cooling time to dynamical time may not be 

397: applicable to spiral arms with a much larger arm-to-arm crossing time.

398: 

399: To simulate spiral shocks with varying total gas contents, 

400: we consider 12 models that have the same initial thermal pressure 

401: $P_0/k_B$ but differ in the initial density $n_0$;  

402: we adopt the solar neighborhood value at $P_0/k_B=3000\Kcm$ 

403: based on the observational (e.g., \citealt{fer01,hei03,jen07}) and theoretical 

404: (e.g., \citealt{wol03}) arguments.

405: Note that although some models are out of thermal equilibrium initially,

406: they immediately tend towards equilibrium owing to rapid

407: heating and cooling, with the equilibrium pressure

408: depending on $n_0$. 

409: Table~\ref{tbl:model} lists the model parameters and simulation outcomes.

410: Column (1) labels each run; while the models with the prefix SU

411: rapidly undergo TI even with $F=0$, the

412: SW and SC models would stay warm or cold throughout

413: were it not for the spiral perturbations. 

414: Column (2) lists $n_0$.  Columns (3)--(8) give the width

415: of, and time spent in, the arm, transition, and interarm regions,

416: respectively,  in each model. 

417: The mass and volume fractions of the cold, warm, and intermediate-temperature 

418: phases are given in columns (9)-(14), respectively.

419: We take model SU2 with $n_0=2\pcc$ as our fiducial model; at this density,

420: the total surface density would be $\sim 12\Msun\pc^{-2}$

421: for vertical scale height of $\sim100\pc$.

422: 

423: We integrate the time-dependent partial differential equations 

424: (\ref{eq:cont})--(\ref{eq:energy})

425: using a modified version of the Athena code \citep{gar05}. 

426: Athena implements a single step, directionally unsplit Godunov scheme for 

427: compressible hydrodynamics in multi-spatial dimensions and

428: allows a variety of spatial reconstruction methods and approximate Riemann 

429: solvers;

430: the version we use here employs the piecewise linear method (PLM) with 

431: the Roe Riemann solver.\footnote{

432: Although the piecewise parabolic method (PPM) is known to provide 

433: in general less diffusive spatial reconstruction than the PLM, 

434: our experiments have shown that the PPM often produced negative 

435: internal energy in the presence of strong radiative cooling

436: inside spiral shocks.} 

437: We implement the shearing-periodic boundary condition at the 

438: $x$-boundaries \citep{haw95}.

439: Because of the very short cooling time, energy updates from net 

440: cooling are made implicitly based on Newton-Raphson iteration,

441: while the conduction term is solved fully explicitly. 

442: For stable and accurate results, we ensure the time step is kept 

443: smaller than the CFL condition for thermal conduction as well as the 

444: cooling/heating time (see \citealt{pio04}).

445: Our standard models employ $N=16,384$ zones, corresponding to 

446: grid spacing of $\Delta x = 0.04\pc$, which satisfies the condition

447: $\Delta x < \lambda_F/3$ for convergence of numerical results 

448: \citep{koy04}; we also ran models with different

449: grid sizes in order to study the effects of numerical resolution. 

450: 

451: \section{Code Test and Numerical Conductivity\label{sec:numc}}

452: 

453: The Athena code we use has been verified on a wide variety of test 

454: problems including hydrodynamic shock tubes, advection of a square box

455: in a background shear flow, and one-dimensional propagation of sound waves

456: in a rotating, shearing medium.

457: For simulations involving cooling/heating and conduction terms, 

458: it is crucial to check if

459: the numerical scheme employed can resolve the length and times scales of 

460: the fastest growing TI modes.  This test is of particular importance

461: for the current work since the gas in our models is non-static, moving 

462: in the $x$-direction at an average speed of $v_{0x}=13\kms$, so that

463:  numerical diffusion associated with advection and zone averaging 

464: may reduce the growth rates of TI at small scales.

465: In this section, we describe the test results 

466: of our numerical code on the development of TI 

467: in static, rotating, and moving media 

468: in the absence of spiral potential perturbations, and 

469: provide a quantitative measure of the

470: numerical diffusion in terms of numerical conductivity.

471: 

472: \subsection{Linear Dispersion Relation}

473: 

474: We test our code by comparing the numerical growth rate of a 

475: particular TI mode with the corresponding analytic prediction.  

476: To this end, we derive a dispersion relation for local, axisymmetric TI 

477: in a homogeneous medium that is rotating, shearing, and undergoing uniform 

478: translational motion with $\vel_{0}$.  

479: We linearize equations (\ref{eq:cont})--(\ref{eq:energy}) 

480: (dropping the external potential), assuming 

481: plane-wave disturbances $\propto  e^{nt - i k x}$, 

482: where $n$ and $k$ are the growth rate and

483: wavenumber of the disturbances in the $x$-direction, respectively.

484: We follow the same steps as in \citet{fie65}, except that we include

485: the non-zero background motions and the indirect forces arising from 

486: galaxy rotation.  The resulting dispersion relation for local disturbances

487: is given by

488: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:disp}

489:   \tilde n^3   

490: + \tilde n^2 a\left(k_T+\frac{k^2}{k_\mathcal{K}}\right) 

491: + \tilde n(\kappa^2+k^2 a^2) 

492: + a\left[\frac{a^2k^2}{\gamma}\left(k_T-k_\rho+\frac{k^2}{k_\mathcal{K}}\right)

493:    +\kappa^2\left(k_T+\frac{k^2}{k_\mathcal{K}}\right)\right]=0,

494: \end{eqnarray} 

495: where 

496: $\tilde n \equiv n - i kv_{0x}$ is the Doppler-shifted growth rate,

497: $a\equiv(\gamma k_B T/\mu m_H)^{1/2}$ is the adiabatic speed of sound,

498: $\kappa\equiv( R^{-3}d(R^4\Omega^2)/dR|_{R_0})^{1/2}=(4-2q_0)^{1/2}\Omega_0$

499: is the local epicyclic frequency,

500: and $k_T, k_\rho, k_\mathcal{K}$ are the wavenumbers defined by

501: \begin{eqnarray}

502: k_T=\frac{\gamma(\gamma-1)}{a^3} 

503:  \left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial\ln T}\right)_\rho, \;\;\; 

504: k_\rho=\frac{\gamma(\gamma-1)}{a^3} 

505:  \left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial\ln \rho}\right)_T, \;\;\;

506: k_\mathcal{K} = \frac{a^3\rho}{\gamma(\gamma-1)\mathcal{K} T},

507: \end{eqnarray}

508: (e.g., \citealt{fie65}).

509: In the limit of $q_0=0$ and $v_{0x}=0$, 

510: equation (\ref{eq:disp}) recovers the dispersion relation given by 

511: \citet{fie65} for TI in a rigidly-rotating medium with

512: no translational motion.  The fact that $v_{0x}$ occurs in the

513: dispersion relation only through $\tilde n$ implies that 

514: a constant translational motion does not change 

515: the growth rates of TI if measured in a frame moving with $v_{0x}$,

516: analogous to Galilean invariance in mechanics.

517: 

518: For isobaric TI to occur, the term in the square 

519: brackets in equation (\ref{eq:disp}) must be negative. 

520: This of course necessitates $k_T - k_\rho < 0$, the 

521: Field criterion for isobaric TI \citep{fie65}.

522: Thermal conduction and rotation suppress short and long wavelength 

523: perturbations against TI, respectively, reducing the unstable 

524: range of wavelengths to $k_1 < k < k_2$, where

525: $k_1$ and $k_2$ are two positive roots of 

526: $k^4 + (k_\mathcal{K}[k_T - k_\rho] + \gamma \kappa^2/a^2) k^2

527: + \gamma \kappa^2k_Tk_\mathcal{K}/a^2=0$.

528: One can show that 

529: $k_2 \rightarrow (k_\mathcal{K}[k_\rho - k_T])^{1/2}=2\pi/\lambda_F$

530: for weakly- or non-rotating systems ($\kappa \rightarrow 0$), 

531: while $k_1^2 \rightarrow \gamma \kappa^2 k_T /(a^2[k_\rho - k_T])$

532: in the limit of vanishingly small conductivity 

533: ($k_\mathcal{K} \rightarrow \infty$).

534: Figure~\ref{fig:grate} plots as various lines sample growth rates 

535: $\tilde n$ of TI calculated from equation (\ref{eq:disp})

536: for cases $\mathcal{K}=\Omega_0=0$ (\textit{dotted line}),

537: $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{K}_0$ with $\Omega_0=0$ (\textit{solid line}),

538: and $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{K}_0$  with $\Omega_0=130\kms\kpc^{-1}$ 

539: (\textit{dashed line}).

540: The density, pressure, and shear parameter are taken to be $n_0=2\pcc$, 

541: $P_0/k_B=3000\pcc$, and $q_0=1$, corresponding to our fiducial model SU2.

542: Stabilization of TI by rotation and conduction are apparent at large

543: and small scales, causing the wavelengths of the most unstable 

544: disturbances to occur at $\lambda\sim3\pc$ in between the

545: cut-off wavelengths.

546: 

547: \subsection{Numerical Conductivity} 

548: 

549: For our code tests, we consider three kinds of models depending

550: on $\Omega_0$ and $\Omega_p$:

551: (1) a static disk ($\Omega_0=\Omega_p=0$);

552: (2) a rotating disk without translational motion 

553: ($\Omega_0=\Omega_p=130\kms\kpc^{-1}$, yielding $v_{0x}=0$

554: from eq.\ [\ref{eq:v0}]) 

555: (3) a rotating disk with translational motion 

556: ($\Omega_0=2\Omega_p=130\kms\kpc^{-1}$, so that $v_{0x}=13\kms$).

557: The same conductivity $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{K}_0$ is adopted

558: for all the models.

559: Other parameters including $n_0$, $P_0$, and $q_0$ are 

560: the same as in model SU2.

561: In each model, we initialize an eigenmode of TI with wavelength $\lambda$ 

562: and vary the box size to fit it in, while keeping the grid

563: spacing $\Delta x=0.04\pc$ fixed.  We monitor the evolution of the maximum

564: density and measure its growth rate numerically in the linear regime.

565: Figure~\ref{fig:grate} plots the resulting growth rates from 

566: the runs as cross, diamond, and plus symbols for the first,

567: second, and third types of models, respectively.

568: Evidently, the numerical and analytic results are in good agreement for 

569: models without the translational motion, confirming the performance of our

570: implementation of the heating/cooling and conduction terms.

571: While the translational motion of the gas at a level of $v_{0x}=13\kms$ 

572: does not affect large-scale modes much,

573: it significantly reduces the numerical growth rates for small-scale modes 

574: with $\lambda < 2\pc$.

575: The discrepancy between the numerical and analytic results 

576: appear to be due to numerical diffusion that causes the thermal energy 

577: to spread out as cooling/heating regions are advected 

578: with the background flow.

579: 

580: To quantify the strength of numerical heat diffusion in our code, 

581: we solve the linear dispersion relation (\ref{eq:disp}) 

582: for a given set of parameters to find the effective conductivity 

583: $\mathcal{K}_{\rm eff}$ that yields an analytic growth rate equal 

584: to the numerical value obtained from the model simulation with 

585: the same parameters except for the 

586: physical conductivity $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{K}_0$.

587: We then calculate the numerical conductivity from

588: $\mathcal{K}_n=\mathcal{K}_{\rm eff}-\mathcal{K}$.

589: In the case of models with $v_{0x}=13\kms$ 

590: and $\lambda=2.56$ and 1.28 pc shown 

591: in Figure~\ref{fig:grate}, for instance,

592: $\mathcal{K}_n=3.4\times10^{5}$ and

593: $1.2\times10^{6}\ergs\cm^{-1}\Kel^{-1}$, 

594: respectively,

595: about 3.4 and 12 times larger than $\mathcal{K}_0$.

596: 

597: In order to find the parametric dependences of $\mathcal{K}_n$ on 

598: the translational velocity, grid size, and perturbation wavelength,

599: we ran a suite of models varying $v_{0x}$ from 

600: 2.6 to $26\kms$, $\Delta x$ from 0.02 to $0.16\pc$,

601: and $\lambda$ from 0.32 to $10.2\pc$.  

602: We also explored the cases with different levels of physical conductivity at

603: $\mathcal{K}=0$, $\mathcal{K}_0$, or $4\mathcal{K}_0$.

604: The numerical conductivity is calculated only when 

605: the numerical growth rate is lower than the analytic value at

606: the same $\mathcal{K}$ by more than 1\%.

607: Figure~\ref{fig:knum} plots as various symbols the resulting numerical

608: conductivity based on the PLM scheme for spatial reconstruction,

609: showing that $\mathcal{K}_n$ is well fitted by

610: \begin{equation}\label{eq:numk}

611:  \mathcal{K}_n=10^{9.4}\left(\frac{v_{0x}}{1\kms}\right)

612:                        \left(\frac{\Delta x}{1\pc}\right)^3

613:                        \left(\frac{\lambda}{1\pc}\right)^{-2}

614: \ergs\cm^{-1}{\, \rm K}^{-1}.

615: \end{equation}

616: This suggests that the numerical conductivity in a moving medium 

617: depends rather sensitively on the numerical resolution. 

618: Equation (\ref{eq:numk}) states that our models with $\Delta x=0.04\pc$

619: have numerical conductivity comparable to the physical conductivity

620: for the fastest growing modes,

621: so that the effect of numerical diffusion on the results presented

622: in this paper is not significant.

623: 

624: We repeated the same calculations using the higher-order PPM

625: reconstruction scheme, and found

626: the numerical conductivity is linearly proportional to 

627: $v_{0x}\Delta x^{4}\lambda^{-3}$.

628: Generalizing these results,  we rewrite equation (\ref{eq:numk}) as

629: $\mathcal{K}_n\propto v_{0x}\Delta x(\Delta x/ \lambda)^{p}$, 

630: where $p$ is the order of the spatial reconstruction scheme 

631: ($p=2$ and $3$ for PLM and PPM, respectively).  This implies that 

632: the numerical conductivity can be viewed as 

633: the diffusion coefficient ($\propto v_{0x}\Delta x$) modified by the

634: accuracy of the interpolation scheme used in spatial reconstruction 

635: ($\propto[\Delta x/\lambda]^{p}$).

636: 

637: \section{Nonlinear Simulations}

638: 

639: \subsection{Standard Model\label{sec:evol}}

640: 

641: We now study the nonlinear evolution of thermally-unstable gas flows 

642: under an imposed spiral potential.  In this subsection, we 

643: focus on model SU2 with $n_0=2\pcc$.  We initially apply density

644: perturbations created by a Gaussian random field with a

645: power spectrum $|\rho_k|^2 \propto k^{-5/3}$ for 

646: $1 \leq 2\pi k/L_x \leq 128$ 

647: and zero power for $2\pi k/L_x>128$ in the Fourier space, 

648: corresponding to a one-dimensional Kolmogorov spectrum for sonic disturbances. 

649: The standard deviation of the density perturbations is fixed to 

650: be 1\% in physical space.

651: In order to suppress rapid motions of the gas 

652: caused by an abrupt introduction of the spiral potential,

653: we slowly turn it on, reaching the full level $F=5\%$ at $t/\tcro\sim2.4$.

654: 

655: Figure~\ref{fig:tevol} shows density distributions of model SU2 

656: at $t/\tcro=0$, 1, 2.4, and 4.0 together with scatter plots of pressure 

657: versus density overlaid on the equilibrium cooling curve.

658: The gas initially has $T=1500\Kel$ and is thus thermally unstable

659: (Fig.\ \ref{fig:tevol}a).  It evolves rapidly to 

660: cold ($n>n_{\rm max}=8.6\pcc$ and $T<T_{\rm min}=185\Kel$) and 

661: warm ($n<n_{\rm min}=1\pcc$ and $T>T_{\rm max}=5012\Kel$)

662: phases within $0.5\tcro$.  The TI soon saturates, 

663: and random cloud motions aided by epicyclic shaking

664: cause cold clouds to collide and merge together, or split sometimes, 

665: resulting in, on average, 70 cold clouds with a mean cloud separation 

666: of $\sim 0.8\pc$, which are   

667: in rough pressure equilibrium with the surrounding

668: warm gas at $P/k_B=1900\Kcm$ (Fig.\ \ref{fig:tevol}b).  

669: At this time, the spiral potential remains weak and  

670: most gas in the unstable temperature range corresponds to the boundaries 

671: of the cold clouds.  

672: As the amplitude of the potential grows, the gas is gathered 

673: toward the potential minimum, forming a spiral shock near $x=0$. 

674: The shock reaches maximum strength at around $t/\tcro=2.5$ 

675: shortly after $F$ attains the full strength.

676: Both cold and warm phases in the interarm regions continually enter the shock 

677: front and are compressed to become cold gas with higher density.  

678: They subsequently 

679: expand and become thermally unstable as they leave the spiral arm regions, 

680: returning back to the cold and warm interarm phases (see below). 

681: At about $t/\tcro=3$, the overall shock structure reaches a quasi-steady 

682: state in the sense that the mass and volume fractions of each phase do

683: not change appreciably with time, although the shock oscillates slightly

684: around an equilibrium position and cold clouds shift as they follow 

685: galaxy rotation (projected onto the $\hat x$ direction). 

686: 

687: Figure~\ref{fig:sat} plots the distributions

688: of physical variables in model SU2 at $t/\tcro=4$ after this quasi-steady

689: state has been reached; many spikes and discontinuities in density as well as 

690: sawtooth-like velocity profiles are evident.

691: Figure~\ref{fig:schematic} schematically illustrates the evolutionary

692: tracks of the cold and warm phases in the $n$--$P$ plane.

693: Regions marked with A, B, C, and D correspond to interarm, 

694: immediate post-shock, spiral arm, and thermally-unstable 

695: transition zones, respectively;

696: the transition zone refers to the window downstream

697: from the arm (between $x/L_x\sim0.03-0.2$) in Figure \ref{fig:sat}b, 

698: where most of the gas has temperatures in the unstable range between

699: $T_{\rm min}$ and $T_{\rm max}$.

700: The subscripts 1 and 2 denote the warm and cold phases, respectively,

701: of interarm gas, and their respective immediate post-shock counterparts.

702: 

703: In the interarm regions (either $x/L_x<0$ or $x/L_x>0.2$

704: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:sat}), 

705: warm (A$_1$) and cold (A$_2$) phases are in rough equilibrium 

706: in terms of the total (= thermal + ram) pressure.

707: While the cold interarm clouds typically have slightly lower thermal

708: pressure than the warm interarm medium, their ram pressure is of

709: comparable magnitude, i.e. $P/k_B\sim 2000-4000\Kcm$. 

710: Some of the cold interarm 

711: clouds exhibit ``double-horned'' 

712: structure, a consequence of merging with neighbors or splitting into

713: two pieces (see e.g., Fig.\ \ref{fig:sat}a).

714: As the warm and cold interarm phases enter the shock front, they experience 

715: a strong compression, jumping to B$_1$ and B$_2$, respectively.

716: While the density jump is by a factor of $4$ for both cold and warm phases, 

717: the pressure jump for the cold phase is about 10 times larger than

718: in the warm phase since the former is about $100$ times colder.\footnote{

719: Strictly speaking, this holds true only for one-dimensional shocks.

720: In two or three dimensions, small clouds can experience enhanced 

721: compression as the shock wrapping around them is able to propagate 

722: towards the cloud centers. They may also be subject to dynamical effects 

723: such as Kelvin-Helmholtz and Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities 

724: (e.g., \citealt{woo76}).}

725: The shocked gas in states B$_1$ and B$_2$ is not in thermal balance

726: and subsequently undergoes strong post-shock cooling

727: (e.g., \citealt{muf74}), moving almost 

728: isobarically to C$_1$ and C$_2$. The transition from A to C is

729: essentially instantaneous (cooling time $\sim 10^3$ yrs).\footnote{

730: Because of its very large post-shock density, the transition 

731: from A$_2$ to C$_2$ occurs over an extremely short cooling scale

732: ($\sim 0.02$ pc) that is not resolved in our models.}

733: 

734: One of the characteristics of galactic spiral shocks is that gas

735: accelerates after the maximum shock compression 

736: (e.g., \citealt{rob69,bal88,kim02}).

737: Because of this post-shock expansion, the cold gas inside the arm 

738: ($0<x/L_x<0.03$) 

739: becomes progressively less dense, evolving from C to D.  

740: Since the dynamical time scale is much longer than the cooling time 

741: (due to the reduced velocity inside the arm), the cold gas either

742: at C$_1$ or C$_2$ moves all the way down to the transition zone D 

743:  following  the equilibrium curve in the $n$--$P$ plane.  

744: When the expanding gas reaches region D ($0.03<x/L_x<0.2$), it

745: becomes thermally unstable and turns back into either the warm (A$_1$) 

746: or cold (A$_2$) interarm phase.

747: For model SU2, it typically takes about

748: $\sim 0.14\tcro$ from C to D stages and $\sim 0.22\tcro$ from D to A stages.

749: Gas is in the interarm regime A for the balance of the cycle

750: ($\sim0.64\tcro$).

751: When averaged over $t/\tcro=5-8$, 

752: the arm, transition, and interarm regions in model SU2 occupy 

753: approximately 1, 16, 83\% of the spatial domain, respectively. 

754: 

755: Our models, as well as the real ISM, contain many interarm

756: clouds which would be too small to be detected individually in 

757: extra-galactic radio observations.

758: In modeling gaseous  spiral shocks,

759: \citet{lub86} did not explicitly solve for the cloudy structure.

760: Instead, they adopted an isothermal equation of state and treated 

761: the effects of cold clouds (and their

762: collisions) by including a viscous term parameterized by a mean

763: free path $l_0$ for the fluid.

764: They found that viscosity renders arm profiles smoother 

765: and more symmetric. 

766: In order to compare our models 

767: with a  single-phase viscous counterpart, 

768: we take a temporal average over $t/\tcro=5-8$ of the density 

769: distributions in model SU2. We then take a boxcar average 

770: of the time-averaged profile, with a window of $8$ pc.

771: Figure~\ref{fig:vis} plots the resulting mean density profile 

772: as a solid line.  For comparison, we have run isothermal models that 

773: include an explicit viscosity term in the momentum equation (\ref{eq:mom}) 

774: in a manner similar to in \citet{lub86}.  Selected results are shown 

775: in Figure~\ref{fig:vis}.

776: Evidently, larger viscosity tends to produce 

777: a weaker spiral shock, with a peak that is more symmetric and 

778: farther downstream.

779: In terms of the strength and placement of the spiral arm, 

780: an isothermal model with $T=1000\Kel$ and $l_0=100\pc$ provides a

781: fairly good match for the mean density profile when TI is included. 

782: The isothermal viscous model, however, has a slightly broader arm

783: compared to the time average of the multiphase model.

784: Our results thus demonstrate that (for the purposes of obtaining a

785: lower-resolution ``beam averaged'' profile) the effects of clouds 

786: embedded in a warm medium can be effectively modeled by viscosity

787: \citep{cow80,gam96}, but only if the medium's 

788: temperature and the mean free path are chosen appropriately.

789: We note that if a temperature comparable to that of the warm medium

790: were adopted for an isothermal counterpart, the shock would generally

791: be too weak.

792: 

793: \subsection{Effects of Initial Number Density\label{sec:ndep}}

794: 

795: All the SU models we consider start from a thermally-unstable initial state.

796: Since the TI growth time is short compared to the time over which we

797: turn on the spiral potential, these models 

798: first evolve into a thermally-bistable

799: state before developing shocks.  

800: Figure~\ref{fig:high_n} plots a density profile 

801: at $t/\tcro=4$ in model SU5 with $n_0=5\pcc$.

802: Comparing to model SU2 as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tevol},

803: Figure~\ref{fig:high_n} shows that the densities (and temperatures) 

804: of the cold and warm phases after TI saturates

805: are insensitive to the initial gas density, 

806: although of course 

807: models with higher $n_0$ produce more  cold clumps.\footnote{ 

808: Mass conservation requires the number of cold clouds $N_c$ to be 

809: given approximately by $N_c\approx n_0 L_x/(ln_c)$, 

810: where $l$ and $n_c$ are the mean size and number density of the clouds. 

811: From simulations with differing $n_0$, we

812: empirically found that $l\sim 0.8\pc\;(n_0/2\cm^{-3})^{0.3}$,

813: i.e. the mean cloud size (presumably set by merging

814: and splitting), depends only 

815: weakly on $n_0$.  This gives $N_c \propto n_0^{0.7}$.}

816: The ensuing development of spiral shocks and evolutionary tracks in

817: the $n$--$P$ plane  are 

818: also qualitatively similar to those described in the previous subsection.

819: 

820: Perhaps the most notable difference in the late-time states

821: with different $n_0$ is the size of the postshock transition zone.

822: Columns (3)-(8) of Table~\ref{tbl:model} show that 

823: the transition zone (and also the arm region, to a lesser extent)

824: widens with increasing $n_0$.  One can easily see this by 

825: comparing Figures~\ref{fig:sat}d and \ref{fig:high_n}.

826: This trend is of course because models with larger $n_0$

827: have a larger fraction of the total mass in the cold phase that

828: evaporates to maintain an unstable state.

829: In addition, the mean separation of cold clouds inside the arm is smaller in 

830: models with higher $n_0$, allowing for

831: merging with neighboring clouds more often during the postshock

832: expansion stage. This reduces the expansion rate effectively, 

833: thereby extending the size of zones with unstable density

834: toward downstream.  

835: 

836: Unlike the SU models, 

837: the SW and SC models initially have a low- or high-enough density

838: that they are thermally stable and the 

839:  early development of a spiral shock takes place in a 

840: single-phase medium.  Nevertheless, the shock compression and/or

841: post-shock expansion can still produce thermally unstable gas 

842: if the initial density is not far from the unstable range. 

843: For example, the shock in model SW0.5 drives 

844: the thermal pressure  above $P_{\rm max}$, and the gas evolves rapidly

845: via TI into  a cold stable phase

846: inside the arm. 

847: In model SC10, on the other hand, strong post-shock expansion 

848: drives the pressure of the initially cold gas below $P_{\rm min}$,

849: after which a 

850: fraction of the gas expands to become a warm phase. 

851: Consequently, the resulting structures at late times in models 

852: SW0.5 and SC10 are similar to those in the SU models.

853: In models with $n_0$ further away from the unstable values, however, 

854: changes in the gas pressure due to shock compression and  

855: postshock expansion are insufficient to trigger phase transitions. 

856: Figure~\ref{fig:single} plots equilibrium shock profiles in 

857: models SW0.1 and SC20, which start with $n_0=0.1$ and $20\pcc$, respectively.

858: The gas  in both of these models consists only of the warm or cold phase

859: and the profiles are smooth everywhere except at the shock front.

860: 

861: \subsection{Temperature Distribution}\label{sec:temp}

862: 

863: Figure~\ref{fig:pdf} plots the volume-weighted and mass-weighted 

864: temperature probability distribution functions (PDFs) 

865: for models SW0.5, SU2, SU5, and SC10, averaged over $t/\tcro=5-8$. 

866: The vertical dotted lines in each panel indicate 

867: $T_{\rm min}$ and $T_{\rm max}$, 

868: marking the cold, intermediate-temperature, and warm phases.

869: For the standard model SU2,

870: the mass-weighed temperature PDF is characterized by 

871: a broad cold peak at $T\sim 20-150\Kel$ and a narrow warm peak 

872: at $T\sim 6000-8000\Kel$, although there also exists a substantial 

873: amount of the intermediate-temperature gas. 

874: In the broad cold peak, the portion of gas with $T\simlt 50\Kel$

875: corresponds to the very dense arm population immediately behind the shock,

876: while the portion with $50\Kel \simlt T < T_{\rm min}$ 

877: includes both arm and interarm cold clouds.

878: Since a larger initial density implies a larger initial cold fraction

879: even before

880: the spiral potential is applied, the cold mass

881: fractions in both arm and interarm regions increase in models with 

882: larger $n_0$. 

883: For model SW0.5, on the other hand,  

884: introduction of the spiral potential allows only a small fraction 

885: of the gas to exceed $P_{\rm min}$ and undergo TI,

886: resulting in a lower cold peak and a higher warm peak than in model SU2.

887: For all the models, the cold peak is fractionally much broader

888: (i.e. larger $\Delta T/T$) than the warm peak.

889: 

890: Of the total intermediate-temperature phase, about $70\%$ is found in the 

891: post-shock transition zone for models with TI,

892: while the remaining portion resides in boundary layers between the cold and 

893: warm phases in the interarm region.

894: Figure~\ref{fig:pdf} shows that the

895: distribution of the intermediate phase is almost flat for model

896: SU2 and increasingly favors lower temperature as $n_0$ increases.  

897: This is because models with larger $n_0$ have a slower post-shock expansion 

898: rate, and thus more gas near  $T_{\rm min}$.

899: The mean density and density-weighted mean temperature of the 

900: intermediate-temperature gas are found to scale as 

901: $n_i \approx 0.41 n_0 + 1.29$ and $T_i \approx 4458/(n_0 + 1.81)\Kel$

902: for $0.5 \simlt n_0 \simlt 10$, where $n_i$ and $n_0$ are in units 

903: of $\pcc$.  For the cold and warm phases, the mean values 

904: are $n_c\approx23\pcc, T_c\approx86\Kel$, and $n_w\approx0.39\pcc, 

905: T_w\approx6400\Kel$,

906: almost independent of $n_0$. These points lie slightly above $P_{\rm min}$

907: on the cold and warm branches of the thermal equilibrium curve.

908: 

909: \subsection{Mass and Volume Fractions\label{sec:mf}}

910: 

911: For models with  thermal instability,  we calculate the mass and volume 

912: fractions of three phases averaged over $t/\tcro=5-8$.  

913: Figure~\ref{fig:conv} plots against numerical resolution the mean 

914: mass fractions in model SU2, along with the standard deviations as errorbars. 

915: While the warm mass fraction is fairly insensitive to the number of

916: grid points $N$, the cold (intermediate-temperature) 

917: mass fraction increases (decreases) with increasing resolution for 

918: $N \simlt 10^4$.  This is mainly because of the numerical conductivity 

919: associated with a large zone size for small $N$, 

920: as explained in \S\ref{sec:numc}.  When numerical conductivity is large,

921: the boundary layers in between the cold and warm phases thicken in 

922: proportion to the Field length.  This increase in the

923: intermediate-temperature mass (in the interarm) occurs primarily 

924: at the expense of the cold phase \citep{beg90,fer93,ino06}.

925: In addition,  large numerical conductivity tends to suppress 

926: TI in the post-shock transition zone, yielding less cold gas. 

927: 

928: Overall, the broadening of interarm cloud interfaces in low resolution models

929: is responsible for 80\% of the increase in the intermediate-temperature mass,

930: while the remaining 20\% is due to the suppression of TI in the post-shock

931: transition zone.  There is no interarm cold gas in models with $N\simlt 512$,  

932: while arm cold gas still exists in these lowest resolution models since

933: the post-shock regions are, when fully resolved, denser and broader than 

934: interarm clouds, and thus are less affected by zone averaging.

935: As long as $N \simgt 10^4$, 

936: the numerical conductivity becomes comparable to, or

937: smaller than, the physical conductivity, and the results are

938: numerically well resolved.

939: Because most of the difference between moderate and high resolution

940: models is at warm/cold interfaces, the extremely high resolutions 

941: that we find are needed for accurate measurement of the

942: thermally-unstable mass fraction would not be required for studies

943: that focus primarily on shock dynamics.

944: We find that the overall shock structure (in terms of the breadth of

945: the transition zone, and the time-averaged profiles) are comparable

946: to those in the converged models provided $N\simgt 10^3$.  At these

947: moderate resolutions, edges of individual clouds are smeared out, but the

948: physically-important transition zone downstream from the arm is still

949: recovered. 

950: 

951: In the case of model SU2, the converged values of the mass fractions

952: are 59\%, 14\%, and 27\% for the cold, warm, and 

953: intermediate-temperature phases, respectively.  

954: By volume the cold takes up 4\% of the total, 

955: while the warm and intermediate-temperature media occupy 70\% and 26\%. 

956: Since these proportions are 80\%, 10\%, and 10\% by mass

957: and 10\%, 80\%, and 10\% by volume when the spiral potential is weak

958: or absent (e.g., Fig.\ \ref{fig:tevol}b), this

959: implies that spiral shocks and subsequent post-shock expansion 

960: zone are important for populating the 

961: intermediate-temperature portion of the phase plane.

962: 

963: Columns (9)--(14) of Table~\ref{tbl:model} give the converged values 

964: of the mass and volume fractions of each phase in models 

965: with multiple phases.  

966: Figure~\ref{fig:mf_ndep} plots these proportions as functions of the initial 

967: number density $n_0$.  Interestingly,

968: the fraction of mass in the intermediate-temperature phase 

969: has a substantial value of 

970: $f_i \approx 0.28$, almost independent of $n_0$.\footnote{

971: By running models with differing $F$ (not listed in Table~\ref{tbl:model}),

972: we found that $f_i\approx 0.040 + 0.045 F(\%)$ 

973: for $3\%\leq F \leq 7\%$, but is insensitive to $n_0$ for the fixed 

974: arm parameters.}

975: The volume fraction of the intermediate phase increases with $n_0 \simlt 6\pcc$ 

976: and becomes flat at large $n_0$.  

977: Assuming that the cold, warm, and intermediate-temperature phases 

978: in each model are represented by the characteristic densities 

979: $n_c$, $n_w$, and $n_i$, respectively, mass conservation requires the mass 

980: fractions in the cold and warm phases to be 

981: $f_c = (1-n_w/n_0) - (1-n_w/n_i)f_i$ and

982: $f_w = n_w/n_0 - (n_w/n_i)f_i$, respectively,

983: where $n_c/n_w \gg 1$ is assumed (cf.\ \citealt{pio04}).

984: Dotted lines in Figure~\ref{fig:mf_ndep} plot these theoretical 

985: $f_c$ and $f_w$ using the empirical results $f_i=0.28$, $n_w=0.39\pcc$, and   

986: $n_i = 0.41 n_0 + 1.29\pcc$. These estimates are overall 

987: in good agreement with the simulation results.

988: 

989: \subsection{Velocity Dispersions\label{sec:veld}}

990: 

991: Finally, we quantify the level of random gas motions driven in our models

992: due to TI and spiral potential perturbations.

993: Spiral arms produce gas streaming  motions that are ordered but vary

994: perpendicular to the shock front.  Since streaming velocities are much

995: larger in amplitude than the true random motions, care is needed in

996: measuring the latter.  In addition, while the overall shock profiles reach

997: a quasi-steady state after $t/\tcro=5$, several other effects make it

998: difficult to measure turbulent amplitudes in multiphase models:

999: randomly-placed cold clouds move with varying 

1000: speeds in the interarm region, new structures are continuously developing 

1001: in the transition zone, and the spiral shocks themselves

1002: undergo small-amplitude oscillations perpendicular to the 

1003: shock front. 

1004: To separate out the background streaming from the total velocity 

1005: as cleanly as possible, 

1006: we first construct velocity template profiles $\langle v_x \rangle$ and 

1007: $\langle v_y \rangle$ for each model, where 

1008: the angle brackets denote a time average over

1009: $t/\tcro=5-8$.

1010: Dashed lines in Figure~\ref{fig:sat}d,e show sample

1011: $\langle v_x \rangle$ and $\langle v_y \rangle$ profiles in model SU2.

1012: We then calculate the density-weighted velocity dispersions using

1013: $\sigma_i^2\equiv \int \rho(v_i-\langle v_i\rangle)^2dx /\int\rho dx$

1014: (with $i=x$ or $y$) in the arm, interarm, and postshock transition zones

1015: separately.

1016: Figure~\ref{fig:veld_tevol} plots $\sigma_i(t)$ for model SU2,

1017: while Figure~\ref{fig:veld_ndep} draws

1018: the mean values $\bar\sigma_i \equiv \langle \sigma_i^2 \rangle^{1/2}$ 

1019: along with the standard deviations $\Delta \sigma_i$ 

1020: for models with multi-phase spiral shocks.

1021: 

1022: Figure~\ref{fig:veld_tevol} shows that the velocity dispersions of

1023: the cold phase in the arm region exhibit large-amplitude temporal 

1024: fluctuations, with characteristic periods of $\sim 0.4\tcro$ and $\sim0.2\tcro$

1025: for $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$, respectively.  

1026: These variations of $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ are due to 

1027: small-amplitude oscillations offsetting the spiral  shock front 

1028:  from its  mean position. 

1029: Since streaming varies strongly within the arm (Fig. \ref{fig:sat}d,e), 

1030: the offset of the shock position leads to large differences between

1031: instantaneous and mean streaming velocities within the arm; these

1032: contaminate the measured velocity dispersion at locations near the

1033: shock front.  

1034: During the quasi-periodic oscillations of the spiral shock front,

1035: $\sigma_x$ attains its minimum value when the shock is maximally displaced

1036: upstream, while

1037: $\sigma_y$ is smallest when the instantaneous shock 

1038: front coincides with its mean position. 

1039: Therefore, the local minima in the time series of 

1040: $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ correspond to 

1041: the upper limits to the level of random gas motions inside the arm.

1042: For model SU2, the average values of the local minima in 

1043: $\sigma_x(t)$ and $\sigma_y(t)$ are $\sim 2$ and $\sim 3\kms$, respectively,

1044: which roughly equals  $\bar\sigma_i - \Delta\sigma_i$. As 

1045: Figure~\ref{fig:veld_ndep} shows, $\bar\sigma_i - \Delta\sigma_i$ 

1046: does not vary much with $n_0$, suggesting that the true velocity

1047: dispersion within the arm is relatively independent of mean density. 

1048: 

1049: Unlike their behavior in the arm region, the time-averaged velocity 

1050: profiles in the interarm and transition zones are relatively smooth, so that 

1051: the velocity dispersions as calculated 

1052: in these regions are relatively  free of

1053: streaming motions. As Figures~\ref{fig:veld_tevol} and 

1054: \ref{fig:veld_ndep} show, the velocity dispersions in the interarm and 

1055: transition zones are similar, 

1056: amounting to $\bar\sigma_x\sim1.3\kms,\bar\sigma_y\sim0.8\kms$ 

1057: for model SU2, and decreasing slowly with increasing $n_0$.

1058: The ratios of the velocity dispersions in the $x$- to $y$-directions

1059: for all regions are consistent with predictions from epicyclic analysis

1060: (e.g., \citealt{bin87}),

1061: $\bar\sigma_y^2/\bar\sigma_x^2 = \kappa^2/(4\Omega_0^2) = 1 - q/2$.  Here,

1062: the local shear rate

1063: $q\equiv 2 - (2-q_0)n/n_0$ is modified from the background value 

1064: $q_0\equiv -d\ln\Omega_0/d\ln R$, due to 

1065: the constraint of potential vorticity conservation 

1066: \citep{gam96,gam01,kim01,kim02}. 

1067: For a flat rotation curve ($q_0=1$), 

1068: local shear is reversed inside the arm where the local density exceeds

1069: $2n_0$; this in turn increases 

1070: $\bar\sigma_y /\bar\sigma_x \approx (n/2n_0)^{1/2}$ above $1/\sqrt{2}=0.7$. 

1071: On the other hand, the whole interarm region and most of the unstable 

1072: region have $n<n_0$, and thus the ratio 

1073: $\bar\sigma_y /\bar\sigma_x$ is smaller than the prediction for a disk

1074: without spiral structure.

1075: 

1076: \section{Summary \& Discussion}

1077: 

1078: \subsection{Summary}

1079: 

1080: Galactic spiral shocks in disk galaxies play an important role in 

1081: structural and chemical evolution  by forming 

1082: spiral-arm substructures and triggering star formation. 

1083: Spiral shocks inherently involve large variations 

1084: in the background density, 

1085: while cooling and heating processes that determine the ISM density and

1086: temperature 

1087: depend rather sensitively on the local state.  The interplay between

1088: these processes

1089: may significantly alter

1090: the shock strengths and structures, 

1091: compared to those computed under an isothermal approximation. 

1092: In particular,  large-scale compressions and expansions

1093: across spiral arms may trigger

1094: TI, thereby 

1095: regulating transitions among the different ISM phases.

1096: In this paper, we have used high-resolution

1097: numerical simulations to

1098: investigate the dynamics and thermodynamics of this highly nonlinear

1099: process.  Our models include heating and cooling terms appropriate for

1100: atomic gas 

1101: explicitly in the energy equation, and thus naturally 

1102: allow for transitions among cold, warm, and intermediate-temperature phases. 

1103: The current investigation employs a one-dimensional model in which

1104: all the physical quantities vary only in the in-plane 

1105: direction perpendicular to

1106: a local segment of a spiral arm. We allow for 

1107: gas motions parallel to the arm, and include 

1108: galactic differential 

1109: rotation.  The effects of magnetic fields and self-gravity are neglected

1110: in the present paper.  

1111: 

1112: Our main results are summarized as follows:

1113: 

1114: 1. Background flow over the grid, represented by $v_{0x}$ in our

1115: models, may result in a significant level of numerical diffusion  

1116: in  finite-difference schemes dealing with the cooling/heating and conduction 

1117: terms if the numerical resolution is not high enough.

1118: We quantify the numerical diffusion of our implementation 

1119: in terms of an effective numerical conductivity, and measure it using

1120: growing modes of the thermal instability.  By comparing growth rates

1121: with predictions from the linear dispersion relation including conduction,

1122: we find that the numerical diffusion in the Athena code we use behaves 

1123: as $\mathcal{K}_n\propto (v_{0x}\Delta x)(\Delta x/\lambda)^{p}$, 

1124: where $\Delta x$ is the grid width, $p$ is the order of 

1125: spatial reconstruction method ($p=2$ for PLM and 3 for PPM), and

1126: $\lambda$ is the spatial wavelength.

1127: For typical values of

1128: $v_{0x}=13\kms$, $\Delta x=0.04\pc$, and $\lambda = 3.5\pc$

1129: in our models, the numerical conductivity

1130: with the PLM amounts to $\mathcal{K}_n 

1131: \sim 2.3\times 10^{5}\ergs\cm^{-1}\Kel^{-1}$, 

1132: comparable to the physical conductivity 

1133: $\mathcal{K}_0 =10^5 \ergs\cm^{-1}\Kel^{-1}$

1134: adopted in the current work.

1135: 

1136: 

1137: 2. Stellar spiral potential perturbations induce shocks that reach a

1138: quasi-steady state after a few orbits.  The resulting flow contains

1139: phase transitions provided the mean gas density is in the range 

1140: $0.5\pcc \leq n_0 \leq 10 \pcc$, for the parameters considered 

1141: in the present work.  Models with $n_0 \leq 0.1\pcc$ or $n_0 \geq 20\pcc$

1142: yield single-phase spiral shock profiles.

1143: We divide the flow into three distinct zones based on thermal regime: 

1144: arm, interarm, and transition.

1145: The ``arm'' refers to the highly-compressed postshock region filled with 

1146: cold gas at $T<T_{\rm min}=185\Kel$, while in the ``interarm'' 

1147: region far from the shock most of the volume is occupied 

1148: by warm gas with $T>T_{\rm max}=5012\Kel$.  The ``transition'' zone

1149: corresponds to the expanding region downstream from the arm where  

1150: intermediate-temperature gas ($T_{\rm min} <T<T_{\rm max}$) undergoes TI.

1151: Figure~\ref{fig:schematic} summarizes the evolutionary cycle in the 

1152: density--pressure plane: the warm/cold interarm gas (A$_1$/A$_2$) is

1153: shocked (B$_1$/B$_2$) and immediately cools 

1154: to become the denser cold arm gas (C$_1$/C$_2$); this 

1155: subsequently enters the unstable transition zone (D)  

1156: and evolves back into the warm and cold interarm phases. 

1157: For our standard model SU2 with mean density $n_0=2\pcc$,

1158: the duration of the arm, transition, and interarm stages are 

1159: approximately 14\%, 22\%, and 64\% of the cycle, 

1160: respectively, 

1161: occupying roughly 1\%, 16\%, and 83\% of the simulation domain.

1162: 

1163: 3.  At late times, instantaneous profiles in models with TI 

1164: show many  density spikes representing 

1165: cold clouds. Time-averaged profiles

1166: are, however, relatively smooth, and the density peaks representing

1167: the arm are more symmetric than in non-diffusive, isothermal models.

1168: We find that a viscous isothermal model with 

1169: $T=1,000\Kel$ and mean free path of $l_0=100\pc$ yields a similar peak

1170: density and arm width to the average profile from 

1171: model SU2.  This confirms the notion that for purposes where detailed

1172: ISM knowledge is not needed, multiphase effects 

1173: on shocks can be approximately treated via a viscosity 

1174: modeling excursions and collisions of dense clouds, as suggested by 

1175: \citet{cow80} and \citet{lub86}.  Simulations such as those we have

1176: performed are needed in order to calibrate the viscous/isothermal

1177: model parameters, however.

1178: 

1179: 4.  For models with multi-phase spiral shocks, 

1180:  intermediate-temperature gas amounts to 

1181: $\sim 0.25-0.3$ of the total by mass, insensitive to $n_0$.  

1182: Of this, about 70\% is found in the transition zone, 

1183: while the remaining 30\% lies at interfaces between the cold and

1184: warm media.  This suggests that the postshock expanding flows, an

1185: inherent feature of galactic spiral structure, is 

1186: important for producing intermediate-temperature gas.  

1187: The mean density and density-weighted mean temperature of the 

1188: intermediate-temperature phase are found to 

1189: be $n_i=0.41 n_0+1.29\pcc$ and $T_i = 4458/((n_0/1\pcc) + 1.81)\Kel$.

1190: The fractions of the cold and warm phases 

1191: are 59\% and 14\% by mass and 4\% and 70\% by volume for

1192: model SU2, respectively, and vary with $n_0$ according to simple

1193: expectations based on mass conservation with a prescribed density in

1194: each phase.

1195: 

1196: 

1197: 5. We find that one-dimensional spiral shocks with multi-phase gas 

1198: produces non-negligible random

1199: gas motions.  At late times, the gas in both interarm and 

1200: transition zones has 

1201: typical 

1202: density-weighted velocity dispersions of 

1203: $\sigma_x\sim1.3\kms$ and $\sigma_y\sim0.8\kms$  in the directions

1204: perpendicular and parallel to the spiral arms, respectively. 

1205: This is trans-sonic with respect to the cold medium, and subsonic with

1206: respect to the warm medium.

1207: The cold gas in the arms is estimated to 

1208: have slightly larger values $\sigma_x\sim 2\kms$ and 

1209: $\sigma_y\sim 3\kms$, although true turbulence levels may be slightly

1210: lower, because it is difficult to fully subtract streaming motions 

1211: in the arm region.

1212: 

1213: 

1214: \subsection{Discussion}

1215: 

1216: Since the growth rates of pure TI are maximized at the smallest available

1217: wavelengths, growth of grid-scale noise dominates numerical

1218: simulations if it is not suppressed.  To prevent this numerical problem,

1219: it is customary to include thermal conduction that 

1220: preferentially stabilizes small-scale perturbations 

1221: (e.g., \citealt{pio04,pio05}), and also broadens the transition

1222: layer between cold and warm phases (e.g., \citealt{beg90}). 

1223: \citet{koy04} studied TI in an initially static medium

1224: and showed that numerical results converge only if these conductive

1225: interfaces  are well resolved.

1226: They found this requires the cell size to be less than one third of 

1227: the Field length.  

1228: In modeling  systems with large turbulent 

1229: (e.g., \citealt{gaz05}) or ordered (this work) velocity 

1230: flows over the grid, numerical conductivity may be 

1231: considerable if resolution is inadequate.

1232: The convergence study presented in \S\ref{sec:mf} 

1233: suggests that the convergence criterion of \citet{koy04} is

1234: valid in a moving medium, too, with the condition that 

1235: the grid spacing must be smaller than the {\it effective}

1236: Field length based on the total (physical $+$ numerical) 

1237: conductivity.

1238: 

1239: In earlier work,

1240: \citet{tub80} and \citet{mar83} performed time-dependent simulations of

1241:  galactic spiral shocks that included cooling and heating, 

1242: but their models appear to suffer from large numerical

1243: conductivity associated with insufficient resolution. 

1244: While they showed that phase transitions from warm gas to cold clouds

1245: do occur in some models at the shock locations, they were unable to 

1246: resolve the post-shock transition zone.  In particular, the 

1247: $n_0=0.5\pcc$ model shown in Figure 7 of \citet{mar83} exhibits 

1248: a smooth density profile without any indication of TI although much of 

1249: the region is occupied by gas with density and temperature 

1250: in the unstable range.\footnote{The heating and cooling functions adopted by

1251: \citet{mar83} have the critical densities demarcating the warm, 

1252: intermediate-temperature,

1253: and cold phases about 20 times smaller than those in the present work. 

1254: Thus, their model with $n_0=0.5\pcc$ corresponds to our model SC10, which

1255: develops multi-phase structure.} 

1256: This is presumably because large numerical conductivity 

1257: (due to low resolution) renders

1258: the time and/or length scales of TI 

1259: in their simulations 

1260: longer than the duration and/or width of the post-shock transition zone.

1261: Indeed, we find that when we run our own models at 

1262: low resolution (e.g. with 512 zones or less for model 

1263: SC10), the numerical conductivity is

1264: large enough that 

1265: the gas in the transition zone does not undergo TI, and instead smoothly

1266: converts to interarm warm phase.

1267:  

1268: In terms of their time-averaged properties, the overall dynamics 

1269: and flow characteristics of spiral shocks with TI remain similar 

1270: to those of isothermal spiral shocks (e.g., \citealt{rob69,shu73,woo75,

1271: kim02}).  The salient features of spiral shocks with thermal 

1272: evolution  include 

1273: the facts that they allow phase transitions at the shock front 

1274: (from warm to cold)

1275: and in the post-shock transition zone (from cold to warm), 

1276: and that there are

1277: cold clumps in the interarm region.  Given the

1278: very high density and pressure within the arm, 

1279: cold gas downstream from the shock front

1280: would transform to molecular clouds if self-gravity and chemical reactions 

1281: for molecule formation were included.

1282: By running SPH simulations with separate 

1283: cold and warm ``particles'', 

1284: \citet{dob07} indeed found that the density of the cold component inside 

1285: arms is sufficient to form molecules

1286: (see also \citealt{dob08}).  These authors did not allow for phase 

1287: transitions between the cold and warm components, however, which 

1288: is an essential aspect of the evolution (cf. \citealt{shu72}).

1289: 

1290: A post-shock transition zone, where the gas is predominantly in

1291: the intermediate-temperature range, is a necessary feature of any

1292: quasi-steady state. 

1293: About 40\% of the atomic 

1294: gas in the local Milky Way is observed to be CNM

1295: \citep{hei01,hei03}, which is consistent with our results for mean

1296: density $n_0=1\pcc$, similar to the local Milky Way value.\footnote{The

1297: value of $n_0$ that produces the numerical results consistent with 

1298: observations may differ in models with different $L_x$ since the 

1299: fractional size of the transition region

1300: is likely to 

1301: depend on the ratio of cooling time to arm-to-arm crossing time.}

1302: \citet{hei03} also find that about half of the remaining atomic gas is

1303: consistent with being thermally-stable WNM, while the balance is in

1304: the unstable temperature range 500-5000K.  These fractions are also

1305: comparable to what we find for $n_0=1\pcc$.  The presence of

1306: thermally-unstable gas has been interpreted as owing to 

1307: dynamical effects which act on timescales comparable to the heating

1308: and cooling times.  Dynamical processes that have been investigated include

1309: magnetorotational instability \citep{pio04,pio05,pio07}, colliding flows 

1310: \citep{aud05,hei05,hei06,vaz06}, energy injection from OB stars

1311: \citep{vaz00,gaz01}, and supernova explosions \citep{avi05,mac05}.

1312: Here, we have shown that even without these additional small-scale 

1313: energy sources, a significant amount of intermediate-temperature 

1314: gas forms as a natural product of large-scale spiral shocks with TI,

1315: primarily in the expanding region downstream from the arm.

1316: 

1317: 

1318: Many numerical studies of TI have shown  that turbulent amplitudes driven

1319: by ``pure TI'' {\it alone} are quite small.  For example, 

1320: \citet{pio04} showed that pure TI in an initially static, uniform medium 

1321: in thermal equilibrium 

1322: produces only a modest level of random gas motions, 

1323: $\sigma \sim  0.2-0.3\kms$.  

1324: \citet{kri02a,kri02b} similarly found that TI of gas starting from

1325: thermal equilibrium, or with time-dependent heating, results in 

1326: only subsonic turbulence, $\sigma \sim0.2\kms$ when the cold gas dominates.

1327: The velocity dispersions $\sigma\sim1.5\kms$ of the gas found 

1328: in the interarm and transition zones in our one-dimensional models 

1329: are significantly larger than those from pure TI.  

1330: These velocities are much lower than those

1331: we found in previous (isothermal) simulations \citep{kim06,kko06} 

1332: in which the vertical shock structure is resolved, however.

1333: Evidently, shock flapping  offers a more effective means of converting

1334: galactic rotation to turbulence than simple in-plane oscillations. 

1335: Work is currently underway to see how TI interacts with

1336: vertically-resolved spiral shocks -- and differential buoyancy of cold

1337: and warm gas -- to generate turbulence and structure

1338: in the ISM.

1339: 

1340: 

1341: \acknowledgments

1342: We thank A.\ Kritsuk for drawing our attention to earlier work of

1343: Marochnik et al. on spiral shocks with thermal instability.

1344: This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded

1345: by the Korean Government (MOEHRD) (KRF -- 2007 -- 313 -- C00328).  The work of 

1346: E.~C.~O on this project was supported by the U.~S.\ National Science

1347: Foundation under grant AST0507315.

1348: The numerical computations presented in this work were performed on the

1349: Linux cluster at KASI (Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute)

1350: built with funding from KASI and ARCSEC.

1351: 

1352: 

1353: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1354: \bibitem[de Avillez \& Breitschwerdt(2004)]{2004A&A...425..899D} 

1355:  de Avillez, M.~A., \& Breitschwerdt, D.\ 2004, \aap, 425, 899

1356: \bibitem[Avillez \& Breitschwerdt(2005)]{avi05}

1357:    de Avillez, M.\ A., \& Breitschwerdt, D.\ 2005, \aap, 436, 585

1358: \bibitem[Audit \& Hennebelle(2005)]{aud05}

1359:    Audit, E., \& Hennebelle, P.\ 2005, \aap, 433, 1

1360: \bibitem[Baade(1963)]{baa63}

1361:    Baade, W.\ 1963, in The Evolution of Stars and Galaxies,

1362:    ed.\ C.\ Payne-Gaposchkin (Cambridge: Harvard Univ.\ Press), 218

1363: \bibitem[Balbus(1988)]{bal88}

1364:    Balbus, S.\ A.\ 1988, \apj, 324, 60

1365: \bibitem[Balbus \& Cowie(1985)]{bal85}

1366:    Balbus, S.\ A., \& Cowie, L.\ L. 1985, \apj, 297, 61

1367: \bibitem[Baker \& Barker(1974)]{bak74}

1368:    Baker, P.\ L., \& Barker, P.\ K.\ 1974, \aap, 36, 179

1369: \bibitem[Begelman \& McKee(1990)]{beg90}

1370:    Begelman, M.\ C., \& McKee, C.\ F.\ 1990, \apj, 358, 375

1371: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine(1987)]{bin87}

1372:    Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S.\ 1987,

1373:    Galactic Dynamics (Princeton: Princeton Univ.\ Press)

1374: \bibitem[Boley \& Durisen(2006)]{bol06}

1375:    Boley, A.~C., \& Durisen, R.~H.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 534

1376: \bibitem[Cowie(1980)]{cow80}

1377:    Cowie, L.\ L.\ 1980, \apj, 236, 868

1378: \bibitem[Cox \& Smith(1974)]{1974ApJ...189L.105C} Cox, D.~P., \& Smith, 

1379: B.~W.\ 1974, \apjl, 189, L105 

1380: \bibitem[Dobbs \& Bonnell(2006)]{dob06}

1381:    Dobbs, C.\ L., \& Bonnell, I.\ A.\ 2006, \mnras, 367, 873

1382: \bibitem[Dobbs \& Bonnell(2007)]{dob07}

1383:    Dobbs, C.\ L., \& Bonnell, I.\ A.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, 1747

1384: \bibitem[Dobbs \& Price(2008)]{dob08}

1385:    Dobbs, C.\ L., \& Price, D.\ J.\ 2008, \mnras, in press; astro-ph/710.3558

1386: \bibitem[Dobbs et al.(2006)]{dbp06}

1387:    Dobbs, C.\ L., Bonnell, I.\ A., \& Pringle, J.\ E.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 1663

1388: \bibitem[Elmegreen(1994)]{elm94} Elmegreen, B.\ G.\ 1994, \apj, 433, 39

1389: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Elmegreen(1983)]{elm83} 

1390:    Elmegreen, B.\ G., \& Elmegreen, D.\ M.\ 1983, \mnras, 203, 31

1391: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Elmegreen(1986)]{elm86}

1392:    Elmegreen, B.\ G., \& Elmegreen, D.\ M.\ 1986, \apj, 311, 554

1393: \bibitem[Elmegreen(1980)]{1980ApJ...242..528E} Elmegreen, D.~M.\ 1980, 

1394: \apj, 242, 528 

1395: \bibitem[Elmegreen et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...642..158E} Elmegreen, D.~M., 

1396: Elmegreen, B.~G., Kaufman, M., Sheth, K., Struck, C., Thomasson, M., \& 

1397: Brinks, E.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 158 

1398: \bibitem[Ferriere(1998)]{1998ApJ...503..700F} Ferriere, K.\ 1998, \apj, 

1399: 503, 700

1400: \bibitem[Ferriere(2001)]{fer01} Ferriere, K.\ 2001, Rev. Mod.\ Phys., 2001,

1401:   73, 1031

1402: \bibitem[Ferrara \& Shchekinov(1993)]{fer93}

1403:    Ferrara, A., \& Shchekinov, Y.\ 1993, \apj, 417, 595

1404: \bibitem[Field(1965)]{fie65}

1405:     Field, G.\ B.\ 1965, \apj, 142, 531

1406: \bibitem[Field et al.(1969)]{fie69}

1407:     Field, G.\ B., Goldsmith, D.\ W., \& Habing, H.\ J.\ 1969, \apj, 155, L149

1408: \bibitem[Fujimoto(1968)]{fuj68}

1409:     Fujimoto, M.\ 1968, in IAU Symp.\ No.\ 29, 453 

1410: \bibitem[Gammie(1996)]{gam96} Gammie, C.\ F.\ 1996, \apj, 462, 725

1411: \bibitem[Gammie(2001)]{gam01} Gammie, C.\ F.\ 2001, \apj, 553, 174

1412: \bibitem[Gardiner \& Stone(2005)]{gar05}

1413:     Gardiner, T.\ A., \& Stone, J.\ M.\ 2005, J.\ Comp.\ Phys., 205, 509

1414: \bibitem[Gazol et al.(2001)]{gaz01}

1415:     Gazol, A., V\'{a}zquez-Semadeni, E., S\'{a}nchez-Salcedo, F.\ J., \& Scalo, J.\ 2001, \apj, 557, L121

1416: \bibitem[Gazol et al.(2005)]{gaz05}

1417:     Gazol, A., V\'{a}zquez-Semadeni, E., \& Kim, J.\ 2005, \apj, 630, 911

1418: \bibitem[Gerola \& Seiden(1978)]{ger78}

1419:     Gerola, H., \& Seiden, P.\ E.\ 1978, \apj, 223, 129

1420: \bibitem[G\'{o}mez \& Cox(2002)]{gom02}

1421:     G\'{o}mez, G.\ C., \& Cox, D.\ P. 2002, \apj, 580, 235

1422: \bibitem[G\'{o}mez \& Cox(2004)]{gom04}

1423:     G\'{o}mez, G.\ C., \& Cox, D.\ P. 2004, \apj, 615, 744

1424: \bibitem[Gordon(2007)]{gor07} Gordon, K. (2007), 

1425: {\it Spitzer} press release at \\

1426: {\tt 

1427: http://gallery.spitzer.caltech.edu/Imagegallery/image.php?image\underline{\ }name=sig07-025

1428: }

1429: \bibitem[Hawley, Gammie, \& Balbus(1995)]{haw95}

1430:    Hawley, J.\ F., Gammie, C.\ F., \& Balbus, S.\ A.\ 1995, \apj, 440, 742

1431: \bibitem[Heiles(2001)]{hei01}

1432:    Heiles, C.\ 2001, \apj, 551, L105

1433: \bibitem[Heiles \& Troland(2003)]{hei03}

1434:    Heiles, C., \& Troland, T.\ H.\  2003, \apj, 586, 1067

1435: \bibitem[Heitsch et al.(2005)]{hei05}

1436:    Heitsch, F., Burkert, A., Hartmann, L.\ W., Slyz, A.\ D., \& Devriendt, 

1437:    J.\ E.\ G.\ 2005, \apj, 633, L113

1438: \bibitem[Heitsch et al.(2006)]{hei06}

1439:    Heitsch, F., Slyz, A.\ D., Devriendt, J.\ E.\ G., Hartmann, L.\ W., 

1440:    \& Burkert, A.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 1052

1441: \bibitem[Inoue et al.(2006)]{ino06}

1442:    Inoue,  T., Inutsuka, S., \& Koyama, H.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1331

1443: \bibitem[Jenkins \& Tripp(2007)]{jen07}

1444:    Jenkins, E. B., \& Tripp, T.\ M.\ 2007,

1445:    IAU Symposium: Triggered Star Formation in a Turbulent ISM, 

1446:    eds.\ B.\ G.\ Elmegreen \& J.\ Palous, 237, 53

1447: \bibitem[Kennicutt(2004)]{ken04}

1448:    Kennicutt, R.\ C.\  2004, Spitzer press release at  \\

1449:    {\tt http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2004-19/ssc2004-19a.shtml}

1450: \bibitem[Kim, Kim, \& Ostriker(2006)]{kko06}

1451:     Kim, C.-G., Kim, W.-T., \& Ostriker, E.\ C.\ 2006, \apj, 649, L13

1452: \bibitem[Kim \& Ostriker(2001)]{kim01}

1453:     Kim, W.-T., \& Ostriker, E.\ C.\ 2001, \apj, 559, 70 

1454: \bibitem[Kim \& Ostriker(2002)]{kim02}

1455:     Kim, W.-T., \& Ostriker, E.\ C.\ 2002, \apj, 570, 132

1456: \bibitem[Kim \& Ostriker(2006)]{kim06}

1457:     Kim, W.-T., \& Ostriker, E.\ C.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 213

1458: \bibitem[Knapen et al.(1993)]{kna93}

1459:    Knapen, J.\ H., Cepa, J., Beckman, J.\ E., Soledad del Rio, M.,

1460:    \& Pedlar, A.\  1993, \apj, 416, 563

1461: \bibitem[Kritsuk \& Norman(2002a)]{kri02a}

1462:     Kritsuk, A. G., \& Norman, M.\ L.\ 2002a, \apj, 569, L127

1463: \bibitem[Kritsuk \& Norman(2002b)]{kri02b}

1464:     Kritsuk, A. G., \& Norman, M.\ L.\ 2002b, \apj, 580, L51

1465: \bibitem[Koyama \& Inutsuka(2002)]{koy02}

1466:     Koyama, H., \& Inutsuka, S.\ 2002, \apj, 564, L97

1467: \bibitem[Koyama \& Inutsuka(2004)]{koy04}

1468:     Koyama, H., \& Inutsuka, S.\ 2004, \apj, 602, L25    

1469: \bibitem[La Vigne et al.(2006)]{lav06}

1470:     La Vigne, M.\ A., Vogel, S.\ N., \& Ostriker, E.\ C.\ 2006, \apj, 650, 818

1471: \bibitem[Lubow et al.(1986)]{lub86}

1472:     Lubow, S.\ H., Balbus, S.\ A., \& Cowie, L.\ L.\ 1986, \apj, 309, 496

1473: \bibitem[Lynden-Bell(1966)]{lyn66} Lynden-Bell, D.\ 1966, Observatory, 86, 57

1474: \bibitem[Mac Low et al.(2005)]{mac05}

1475:     Mac Low, M.-M., Balsara, D.\ S., Kim, J., \& Avillez, M.\ A.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 864 

1476: \bibitem[Marochnik et al.(1983)]{mar83}

1477:     Marochnik, L.\ S., Berman, B.\ G., Mishurov, YU.\ N., Suchkov, A.\ A.\ 1983, \apss, 89, 171

1478: \bibitem[Martos \& Cox(1998)]{mar98}

1479:     Martos, M.\ A., \& Cox, D.\ P. 1998, \apj, 509, 703

1480: \bibitem[McKee \& Ostriker(1977)]{mo77}

1481:    McKee, C.\ F., \& Ostriker, J.\ P.\ 1977, \apj, 218, 148

1482: \bibitem[Meerson(1996)]{mee96}

1483:    Meerson, B.\ 1996, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ 68, 215

1484: \bibitem[Mufson(1974)]{muf74}

1485:     Mufson, S.\ L.\ 1974, \apj, 193, 561 

1486: \bibitem[Parker(1953)]{par53}

1487:    Parker, E.\ N.\ 1953, \apj, 117, 431

1488: \bibitem[Piontek \& Ostriker(2004)]{pio04}

1489:    Piontek, R.\ A., \& Ostriker, E.\ C.\ 2004, \apj, 601, 905

1490: \bibitem[Piontek \& Ostriker(2005)]{pio05}

1491:    Piontek, R.\ A., \& Ostriker, E.\ C.\ 2005, \apj, 629, 849

1492: \bibitem[Piontek \& Ostriker(2007)]{pio07}

1493:    Piontek, R.\ A., \& Ostriker, E.\ C.\ 2007, \apj, 663, 183

1494: \bibitem[Rand \& Kulkarni(1990)]{ran90}

1495:    Rand, R.\ J., \& Kulkarni, S.\ R.\ 1990, \apj, 349, L43

1496: \bibitem[Roberts(1969)]{rob69}

1497:    Roberts, W.\ W. 1969, \apj, 158, 123

1498: \bibitem[Roberts \& Yuan(1970)]{rob70} 

1499:    Roberts, W.\ W., \& Yuan, C.\ 1970, \apj, 161, 887

1500: \bibitem[Scoville et al.(2001)]{sco01}

1501:    Scoville, N.\ Z., Polletta, M., Ewald, S., Stolovy, S.\ R.,

1502:    Thompson, R., \& Rieke, M.\ 2001 \aj, 122, 3017

1503: \bibitem[Scoville \& Rector(2001)]{scorec01}

1504:    Scoville, N.\ \& Rector  T.\ 2001, HST press release at \\

1505:   {\tt http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/2001/10/index.html}

1506: \bibitem[Seigar \& James(2002)]{sei02}

1507:    Seigar, M.\ S., \& James, P.\ A.\ 2002, \mnras, 337, 1113

1508: \bibitem[Shetty \& Ostriker(2006)]{she06}

1509:    Shetty, R., \& Ostriker, E.\ C.\ 2006, \apj, 647, 997

1510: \bibitem[Shetty et al.(2007)]{she07}

1511:    Shetty, R., Vogel, S.\ N., \& Ostriker, E.\ C., \& Teuben, P.\ T.\ 

1512:    2007, \apj, 665, 1138 

1513: \bibitem[Shu et al.(1972)]{shu72}

1514:    Shu, F.\ H., Milione, V., Gebel, W., Yuan, C., Goldsmith, D.\ W., \& Roberts, W.\ W.\

1515:    1972, \apj, 173, 557

1516: \bibitem[Shu et al.(1973)]{shu73}

1517:    Shu, F.\ H., Milione, V., \& Roberts, W.\ W.\ 1973, \apj, 183, 819

1518: \bibitem[Sleath \& Alexander(1996)]{sle96}

1519:    Sleath, J.\ P., \& Alexander, P.\ 1996, \mnras, 283, 353

1520: \bibitem[Tubbs(1980)]{tub80}

1521:     Tubbs, A.\ D.\ 1980, \apj, 239, 882

1522: \bibitem[V\'azquez-Semadeni et al.(2000)]{vaz00}

1523:     V\'azquez-Semadeni, E., Gazol, A., \& Scalo, J.\ 2000, \apj, 540, 271

1524: \bibitem[V\'azquez-Semadeni et al.(2006)]{vaz06}

1525:     V\'azquez-Semadeni, E., Ryu, D., Passot, T., Gonz\'alez, R. F., 

1526:     \& Gazol, A.\ 2006, \apj, 643, 245

1527: \bibitem[V\'azquez-Semadeni et al.(2007)]{vaz07}

1528:     V\'azquez-Semadeni, G\'omez, G.\ C., Jappsen, A.-K., Ballesteros-Paredes, 

1529:     J., Gonz\'alez, R.\ F., \& Klessen, R.\ S.\ 2007, \apj, 657, 870

1530: \bibitem[Vogel, Kulkarni, \& Scoville(1988)]{vog88} Vogel, S.\ N.,

1531:    Kulkarni, S.\ R., \& Scoville, N.\ Z.\ 1988, Nature, 334, 402

1532: \bibitem[Wada \& Koda(2004)]{wad04}

1533:     Wada, K., \& Koda, J.\ 2004, \mnras, 349, 270

1534: \bibitem[Willner et al.(2004)]{2004ApJS..154..222W} Willner, S.~P., et al.\ 

1535: 2004, \apjs, 154, 222

1536: \bibitem[Wolfire et al.(2003)]{wol03}

1537:    Wolfire, M.\ G., McKee, C.\ F., Hollenbach, D., Tielens, A.\ G.\ G.\ M.\

1538:    2003, \apj, 587, 278

1539: \bibitem[Woodward(1975)]{woo75}

1540:    Woodward, P.\ R.\ 1975, \apj, 195, 61  

1541: \bibitem[Woodward(1976)]{woo76}

1542:    Woodward, P.\ R.\ 1976, \apj, 207, 484 

1543: \end{thebibliography}

1544: 

1545: \clearpage

1546: 

1547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1548: %TABLE1

1549: \begin{deluxetable}{lccclcclcclccclccc}

1550: \rotate

1551: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

1552: \tablecaption{Summary of model parameters and simulation results\label{tbl:model}} \tablewidth{0pt}

1553: \tablehead{

1554: \colhead{Model} &

1555: \colhead{$n_0$} &

1556: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Arm} &

1557: \colhead{} &

1558: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Transition} &

1559: \colhead{} &

1560: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Interarm} &

1561: \colhead{} &

1562: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Mass Fractions (\%)} &

1563: \colhead{} &

1564: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Volume Fractions (\%)} \\

1565: \cline{3-4}\cline{6-7}\cline{9-10}\cline{12-14}\cline{16-18}

1566: \colhead{}&

1567: \colhead{}&

1568: \colhead{$\!\!\Delta L/L_x\!\!\!\!$} &

1569: \colhead{$\!\!\Delta t/\tcro\!\!\!\!$} &

1570: \colhead{}&

1571: \colhead{$\!\!\Delta L/L_x\!\!\!\!$} &

1572: \colhead{$\!\!\Delta t/\tcro\!\!\!\!$} &

1573: \colhead{}&

1574: \colhead{$\!\!\Delta L/L_x\!\!\!\!$} &

1575: \colhead{$\!\!\Delta t/\tcro\!\!\!\!$} &

1576: \colhead{}&

1577: \colhead{Cold} &

1578: \colhead{$\!\!\!\!$Intermediate$\!\!\!\!$} &

1579: \colhead{Warm} &

1580: \colhead{}&

1581: \colhead{Cold} &

1582: \colhead{$\!\!\!\!$Intermediate$\!\!\!\!$} &

1583: \colhead{Warm} \\

1584: \colhead{(1)}&

1585: \colhead{(2)}&

1586: \colhead{(3)} &

1587: \colhead{(4)} &

1588: \colhead{}&

1589: \colhead{(5)} &

1590: \colhead{(6)} &  

1591: \colhead{}&

1592: \colhead{(7)} &

1593: \colhead{(8)} &

1594: \colhead{}&

1595: \colhead{(9)} &

1596: \colhead{(10)} &

1597: \colhead{(11)} &

1598: \colhead{}&

1599: \colhead{(12)} &

1600: \colhead{(13)} &

1601: \colhead{(14)} 

1602: }

1603: \startdata

1604:   SW0.1 &    0.1 & \nodata & \nodata & & \nodata & \nodata & & \nodata & \nodata & &  0 &    0 &      100 &  &      0 &    0 &     100 \\

1605:   SW0.5 &    0.5 &  0.00 & 0.05 & & 0.04 & 0.14 & & 0.96 & 0.82 & &    18 &     26 &     55 &  &      0 &     10 &     90 \\

1606:     SW1 &    1.0 &  0.00 & 0.10 & & 0.10 & 0.21 & & 0.89 & 0.69 & &    43 &     25 &     31 &  &      2 &     16 &     83 \\

1607:     SU2 &    2.0 &  0.01 & 0.14 & & 0.16 & 0.22 & & 0.83 & 0.64 & &    59 &     27 &     14 &  &      4 &     26 &     70 \\

1608:     SU3 &    3.0 &  0.01 & 0.16 & & 0.22 & 0.24 & & 0.77 & 0.60 & &    62 &      30 &     8 &  &      7 &     35 &     58 \\

1609:     SU4 &    4.0 &  0.02 & 0.19 & & 0.26 & 0.25 & & 0.72 & 0.56 & &    65 &      29 &     5 &  &     11 &     40 &     49 \\

1610:     SU5 &    5.0 &  0.03 & 0.20 & & 0.28 & 0.25 & & 0.69 & 0.54 & &    66 &      30 &     3 &  &     14 &     43 &     43 \\

1611:     SU6 &    6.0 &  0.04 & 0.22 & & 0.32 & 0.28 & & 0.63 & 0.50 & &    67 &      31&     2 &  &     18 &     48 &     34 \\

1612:     SU7 &    7.0 &  0.05 & 0.23 & & 0.35 & 0.30 & & 0.60 & 0.47 & &    70 &      29&      2 &  &     23 &     47 &     30 \\

1613:     SU8 &    8.0 &  0.06 & 0.24 & & 0.35 & 0.29 & & 0.59 & 0.47 & &    73 &      26 &     1 &  &     29 &     45 &     26 \\

1614:    SC10 &   10.0 &  0.08 & 0.27 & & 0.40 & 0.32 & & 0.52 & 0.41 & &    76 &      24 &     1 &  &     37 &     46 &     17 \\

1615:    SC20 &   20.0 & \nodata & \nodata & & \nodata & \nodata & & \nodata & \nodata & &   100 &      0 &      0 &  &    100 &      0 &      0 \\

1616: \enddata

1617: \tablecomments{Col.\ (1): Model name;

1618: Col.\ (2): Initial number density in units of $\cm^{-3}$;

1619: Cols.\ (3)-(8): Width and duration of the arm, transition, 

1620: and interarm regions.

1621: Cols.\ (9)-(14): Mass and volume fractions of the cold, 

1622: intermediate-temperature, and warm phases

1623: }

1624: \end{deluxetable}

1625: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1626: %FIGURE1

1627: \begin{figure}

1628:  \epsscale{1.}

1629:  \plotone{fig1.eps}

1630:  \caption{Analytic growth rate of TI versus perturbation wavelength

1631: (eq.\ [\ref{eq:disp}]) for cases 

1632: $\mathcal{K}=\Omega_0=0$ (\textit{dotted}), 

1633: $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{K}_0$ with $\Omega_0=0$ (\textit{solid}),

1634: and $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{K}_0$ with $\Omega_0=130\kms\kpc^{-1}$ 

1635: (\textit{dashed}), showing that rotation and conduction stabilize

1636: perturbations at large and small scales, respectively.  

1637: Symbols indicate the numerical growth 

1638: rates measured from test simulations, all with

1639: $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{K}_0$: for a static medium (\textit{cross}),

1640: for a rotating medium without translational motion (\textit{diamond}), 

1641: and for a medium with both rotational and translational motion

1642: (\textit{plus}).  Note that numerical diffusion associated with 

1643: translational motion over the grid reduces the growth rates at small scales

1644: significantly.  See text for details.}

1645:  \label{fig:grate}

1646: \end{figure}

1647: 

1648: %FIGURE2

1649: \begin{figure}

1650:  \epsscale{1.}

1651:  \plotone{fig2.eps}

1652:  \caption{Dependence of numerical conductivity $\mathcal{K}_n$ on

1653: the translational velocity $v_{0x}$, the grid size $\Delta x$,

1654: and the perturbation wavelength $\lambda$ of TI, from

1655: the test simulations with physical conductivity 

1656: $\mathcal{K}=0$ (\textit{cross}), 

1657: $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{K}_0$ (\textit{diamond}),

1658: and $\mathcal{K}=4\mathcal{K}_0$ (\textit{plus}).

1659: Note that $v_{0x}$ is expressed in units of

1660: $\kms$, while $\Delta x$ and $\lambda$ are in parsecs.

1661: The solid line, represented by equation (\ref{eq:numk}), 

1662: gives the best fit to the test results based on 

1663: the second-order PLM for spatial reconstruction in the Athena code

1664: we use.

1665: }

1666:  \label{fig:knum}

1667: \end{figure}

1668: 

1669: %FIGURE3

1670: \begin{figure}

1671:  \epsscale{1.0}

1672:  \plotone{fig3.eps}

1673:  \caption{\textit{Left}: 

1674: Density snapshots at 

1675: $t/\tcro=0.0$, $1.0$, $2.4$, $4.0$ from model SU2.

1676: Dotted lines labeled by $n_{\rm max}$ and $n_{\rm min}$ demarcate

1677: the cold and warm phases.

1678: \textit{Right}: Corresponding scatter plots of $n$ versus $P/k_B$ 

1679: together with the equilibrium cooling curve (\textit{solid line}).

1680: Dot-dashed lines marked by $T_{\rm max}$ and $T_{\rm min}$ 

1681: divide the warm ($T>T_{\rm max}$), intermediate-temperature

1682: ($T_{\rm min}<T<T_{\rm max}$), and cold ($T<T_{\rm min})$ phases.

1683:  }

1684:  \label{fig:tevol}

1685: \end{figure}

1686: 

1687: %FIGURE4

1688: \begin{figure}

1689:  \epsscale{1.0}

1690:  \plotone{fig4.eps}

1691:  \caption{Profiles of number density, temperature, 

1692: pressure, and perturbation components of the 

1693: velocities perpendicular ($v_x = v_{T,x}-v_{0x}$) 

1694: and parallel ($v_y=v_{T,y}-v_{0y}$) to the arm,

1695: for  model SU2 at $t/\tcro=4.0$.

1696: In (a) to (c), dotted lines demark the transitions between

1697: the cold, intermediate-temperature, and warm phases.

1698: Dashed lines in (d) and (e) show the time-averaged 

1699: velocity (streaming) profiles over $t/\tcro=5-8$.

1700:  }

1701:  \label{fig:sat}

1702: \end{figure}

1703: 

1704: %FIGURE5

1705: \begin{figure}

1706:  \epsscale{1.}

1707:  \plotone{fig5.eps}

1708: \caption{Schematic evolutionary track in the $n-P$ plane (\textit{solid lines

1709: with arrows}) of gas cycling through a spiral pattern with TI.

1710: The dotted line is the thermal equilibrium curve, 

1711: while dot-dashed lines mark $T_{\rm max}$ and $T_{\rm min}$.

1712: The warm and cold phases in the interarm regions (A) are shocked

1713: (B), undergo radiative cooling (C), become thermally unstable 

1714: due to postshock expansion (D), and return to the 

1715: interarm two-phase state again (A).  See text for details.}

1716:  \label{fig:schematic}

1717: \end{figure}

1718: 

1719: 

1720: %FIGURE6

1721: \begin{figure}

1722:  \epsscale{1.0}

1723:  \plotone{fig6.eps}

1724:  \caption{Density profile averaged over

1725: $t/\tcro=5-8$ from model SU2 (\textit{solid}), compared to

1726: stationary shock profiles for isothermal models. \textit{Dotted curve}:  

1727: $T=1000\Kel$ non-viscous model; 

1728: \textit{dot-dashed curve}: $T=500\Kel$ 

1729: viscous models with $l_0=200\pc$; 

1730: \textit{dashed curve}:

1731: $T=1000\Kel$ viscous model with $l_0=100\pc$.

1732:  }

1733:  \label{fig:vis}

1734: \end{figure}

1735: 

1736: 

1737: %FIGURE7

1738: \begin{figure}

1739:  \epsscale{1.}

1740:  \plotone{fig7.eps}

1741:  \caption{

1742: Density profile of model SU5 with $n_0=5\pcc$ 

1743: at $t/\tcro=4$.   Note that

1744: the postshock transition zone in model SU5 is wider than that of

1745: model SU2 shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sat}.

1746: }

1747:  \label{fig:high_n}

1748: \end{figure}

1749: 

1750: %FIGURE8

1751: \begin{figure}

1752:  \epsscale{1.}

1753:  \plotone{fig8.eps}

1754:  \caption{Density profiles and scatter plots in the

1755: density--pressure plane of models SW0.1 with $n_0=0.1\pcc$ 

1756: (\textit{upper frames}) and 

1757: SC20 with $n_0=20\pcc$ (\textit{lower frames}) 

1758: at $t/\tcro=2.4$.

1759: Note that the spiral shocks in these models are smooth and 

1760: each case contains only a single phase of gas.  The shock compression is

1761: much stronger for all-cold than all-warm gas, because of the higher

1762: Mach number.}

1763:  \label{fig:single}

1764: \end{figure}

1765: 

1766: %FIGURE9

1767: \begin{figure}

1768:  \epsscale{1.}

1769:  \plotone{fig9.eps}

1770:  \caption{Mass-weighted ({\it thick lines}) 

1771: and volume-weighted ({\it thin lines}) temperature PDFs 

1772: averaged over $t/\tcro=5-8$ for models 

1773: SW0.1, SU2, SU5, and SC10.  In each panel, vertical 

1774: dotted lines indicate $T_{\rm min}$ and $T_{\rm max}$ to demark 

1775: the cold, intermediate-temperature, and warm phases.

1776: Of the cold component, the gas with $T\simlt 50\Kel$ is located in 

1777: the arm region, while cold clouds with $50\Kel\simlt T\simlt T_{\rm min}$

1778: are found in the interarm or transition zones.

1779:  }

1780:  \label{fig:pdf}

1781: \end{figure}

1782: 

1783: %FIGURE10

1784: \begin{figure}

1785:  \epsscale{1.}

1786:  \plotone{fig10.eps}

1787:  \caption{Mass fractions of the cold, intermediate-temperature,

1788: and warm phases in model SU2 versus numerical resolution.

1789: The numerical results are not affected by numerical conductivity

1790: as long as the number of zones is larger than $10^4$.

1791:  }

1792:  \label{fig:conv}

1793: \end{figure}

1794: 

1795: %FIGURE11

1796: \begin{figure}

1797:  \epsscale{1.}

1798:  \plotone{fig11.eps}

1799:  \caption{Mass and volume fractions of the cold (\textit{square}),

1800: warm (\textit{triangle}), and intermediate-temperature (\textit{diamond}) 

1801: phases averaged over $t/\tcro = 5-8$,

1802: as functions of the initial number density $n_0$. 

1803: Errorbars indicate the standard deviations of the measurements.

1804: Dotted lines show the theoretical estimates computed by adopting a

1805: constant value $f_i=0.28$ for the intermediate-temperature of the 

1806: mass fraction.

1807:  }

1808:  \label{fig:mf_ndep}

1809: \end{figure}

1810: 

1811: %FIGURE12

1812: \begin{figure}

1813:  \epsscale{1.}

1814: \plotone{fig12.eps}

1815: \caption{Density-weighted velocity dispersions $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$, 

1816: relative to time-averaged template values, of the gas in the arm 

1817: (\textit{solid}), transition (\textit{dotted}), interarm (\textit{dashed}) 

1818: regions of model SU2.  The large-amplitude fluctuations of 

1819: the velocity dispersions

1820: in the arm region are caused

1821: by incomplete subtraction of the arm streaming motions.  

1822: The velocity dispersions in both unstable and interarm regions

1823: are not subject to this effect, and have mean values of $\sim1.3\kms$

1824: and $\sim 0.8\kms$ in the $x$- and $y$-directions, respectively.

1825:  }

1826:  \label{fig:veld_tevol}

1827: \end{figure}

1828: 

1829: %FIGURE13

1830: \begin{figure}

1831:  \epsscale{1.}

1832: \plotone{fig13.eps}

1833:  \caption{Mean values (\textit{symbols}) and standard 

1834: deviations (\textit{errorbars}) of the density-weighted velocity 

1835: dispersions of each phase during the time span $t/\tcro=5-8$ 

1836: for models with multi-phase spiral shocks.

1837:  }

1838:  \label{fig:veld_ndep}

1839: \end{figure}

1840: 

1841: \end{document}

1842: