1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\usepackage{graphics}
4:
5: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
6:
7: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
8: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
9:
10: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
11:
12: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
13: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
14: %% use the longabstract style option.
15:
16: %\documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
17:
18: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
19:
20: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
21:
22: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
23: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
24:
25: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
26: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
27: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
28: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
29: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
30: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
31:
32: \shorttitle{Runaway Merging in Cluster with Mass Segregation}
33:
34: \shortauthors{Ardi, Baumgardt and Mineshige}
35:
36: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
37: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
38:
39:
40:
41: \begin{document}
42:
43: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
44: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
45: %% you desire.
46:
47:
48:
49: \title{The influence of initial mass segregation on the runaway merging of stars}
50:
51: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
52: %% author and affiliation information.
53: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
54: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
55: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
56: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
57:
58:
59: \author{Eliani Ardi,\altaffilmark{1} Holger Baumgardt,\altaffilmark{2} and
60: Shin Mineshige \altaffilmark{3}}
61: \altaffiltext{1}{Kyoto International University, 610-0311 Kyoto, Japan.}
62:
63: \altaffiltext{2}{Argelander Institute for Astronomy, University of Bonn, D-53121 Bonn, Germany}
64: \altaffiltext{3}{Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan.}
65:
66: \begin{abstract}
67: We have investigated the effect of initial mass segregation on the runaway
68: merging of stars. The evolution of multi-mass, dense star clusters was
69: followed by means of direct N-body simulations of up to 131.072 stars.
70: All clusters started from King models with dimensionless central potentials
71: of $3.0 \le W_0 \le 9.0$. Initial mass segregation was realized by varying
72: the minimum mass of a certain fraction of stars whose either (1) distances
73: were closest to the cluster center or (2) total energies were lowest.
74: The second case is more favorable to promote the runaway merging of stars
75: by creating a high-mass core of massive, low-energy stars.
76:
77: Initial mass segregation could decrease the central
78: relaxation time and thus help the formation of a high-mass core. However,
79: we found that initial mass segregation does not help the runaway stellar
80: merger to happen if the overall mass density profile is kept constant.
81: This is due to the fact that the collision rate of stars is not increased
82: due to initial mass segregation. Our simulations show that initial mass
83: segregation is not sufficient to allow runaway merging of stars to occur
84: in clusters with central densities typical for star clusters in the Milky Way.
85:
86:
87: %{\noindent \emph{Draft of March 24,2008}}
88:
89:
90: \end{abstract}
91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
92:
93: \keywords{ stellar dynamics --- globular clusters: general --- methods: n-body simulations}
94: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
95:
96: \section{Introduction}
97:
98: The discovery of point-like, ultra-luminous X-ray (ULX) sources with
99: luminosities larger than $L_X > 10^{40}~\rm{ergs~s^{-1}}$
100: by the {\it Chandra} satellite \citep{mat01,kaa01}, corresponding to a few
101: hundred $M_{\odot}$ black holes (BHs) if the sources are
102: not beamed and accrete at the Eddington rate,
103: could be a first hint for the
104: existence of so called intermediate-mass black holes (IMBH). IMBHs would
105: bridge the gap between stellar-mass BHs which form as the end-product
106: of normal stellar evolution and the supermassive BHs observed at the
107: centers of galaxies. The connection between IMBHs and ULX is also supported by
108: quasi-periodic oscillations in the X-ray spectrum found in some of the sources
109: \citep{str03,fio04}.
110:
111: Several additional arguments have also suggested the presence of IMBHs in
112: globular clusters (see \citet{bau05} for a review), such as (1) the extrapolation
113: of the $M_{BH}-M_{bulge}$ relation found for supermassive black holes in
114: galactic nuclei \citep{mag98} (2) the analysis of the central velocity dispersion in the globular clusters
115: \object{M15} \citep{ger02} and \object{G1} \citep{geb05} (3) N-body
116: simulations of runaway merging of stars in young star clusters in \object{M82} \citep{por04}.
117:
118: How IMBHs can form is still an open question. \citet{ebi01} proposed a
119: scenario in which IMBHs form through successive merging of massive stars in
120: dense star clusters. In a dense enough cluster, mass segregation of massive
121: stars is faster than their stellar evolution and the massive stars sink into
122: the center of the cluster by dynamical friction and form a dense inner
123: core. In the inner core, massive stars undergo a runaway merging process and
124: a very massive star forms with a mass exceeding several 100 solar masses.
125:
126: A recent study of collisionally merged massive stars by \citet{suz07} showed that the merger products
127: return to an equilibrium state on a Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale
128: and then evolve like single homogeneous stars with corresponding mass and
129: abundance. The final fate of the very massive stars will depend on the assumed
130: mass loss rate, but IMBH formation is one possible outcome \citep{bel07}.
131:
132: Direct N-body simulations of star clusters with up to 65536 stars by
133: \citet{por02} showed that runaway merging can cause the formation of a massive
134: star with up to 0.1\% of the total cluster mass before it turns into an
135: IMBH. Formation of very massive stars, as progenitors of IMBHs through runaway
136: collisions in young star clusters has also been studied recently by
137: \citet{fre06a,fre06b} using Monte Carlo simulations. Utilizing a large number of
138: particles ($10^6$ -- $10^8$ particles), they found that runaway
139: collisions could lead to formation of very massive stars with masses $\ge$
140: 400 $M_{\odot}$.
141:
142: Runaway merging of stars in the star cluster \object MGG-11 in the
143: starburst galaxy M82, whose position is consistent with a luminous X-ray
144: source, has been intensively examined by \citet{por04}. They reported that
145: \object MGG-11 can host an IMBH if its initial dimensionless central potential
146: was high enough. A dimensionless central-potential $W_0 \ge 9.0$ was
147: required for runaway growth through collisions to form an IMBH. Unfortunately,
148: such a high dimensionless central potential leads to a central density $\rho_c
149: \ge 10^6 M_\odot/{\rm pc}^3$ which is rarely seen in present-day star
150: clusters, implying that the formation of IMBHs in star clusters is a very rare
151: event.
152:
153: One possible way which would allow runaway collisions to occur in clusters
154: with lower central density is the assumption of initial mass
155: segregation. Initial mass segregation, which allows massive stars to start
156: their life in the cluster center, might be a way to lower the density
157: requirement for the onset of runaway collisions. The
158: tendency for massive stars to form preferentially near the cluster center is
159: expected as a result of star formation feedback in dense gas clouds
160: \citep{mur96} and from competitive gas accretion onto protostars and mutual
161: mergers between them \citep{bon02}. Observational evidence for initial
162: mass segregation in globular clusters as well as in open clusters has also
163: been reported \citep{bon98,deg04}.
164:
165: Dynamical evolution of young dense star clusters with initial mass segregation
166: until the onset of core-collapse stage has been studied by \citet{gur04} by
167: using Monte Carlo simulations. Besides decreasing the core collapse time, they
168: found that initial mass segregation applied in clusters with $N = 1.25 \times 10^6$ stars which
169: followed a Plummer density profile initially, results
170: in a total mass of the collapsed core of about 0.2 \% of the total cluster mass.
171:
172: Motivated by results of \citet{por04}, that without initial mass segregation,
173: the dense star cluster MGG-11 could experience runaway merging only if the
174: central density was higher than $10^6 M_\odot/{\rm pc}^3$, in the present
175: study we want to explore whether or not initial mass segregation could lower
176: the density required for runaway collisions in \object MGG-11 like
177: clusters. For this purpose, we perform $N$-body
178: simulations of \object MGG-11 like clusters starting from different initial
179: conditions which are described in detail in the next section. Results and
180: analysis of our simulations are shown in section~3 while the discussion and
181: conclusions are presented in section~4.
182:
183: \section{Details of numerical simulations}\label{sec:ns}
184:
185: We have conducted a number of $N$-body simulations, using the collisional
186: $N$-body code NBODY4 (Aarseth 1999) on the GRAPE-6 special purpose computers
187: provided by ADC - CfCA NAO Japan, to follow the evolution of multi-mass star
188: clusters. All simulations are run for a time span of 3 Myrs by which time
189: we assume that the
190: runaway stars are turned into BHs and stop the simulations.
191:
192: Our clusters contain 131.072 stars initially, distributed according to a
193: Salpeter IMF with minimum mass and maximum mass equal to 1.0
194: $M_{\odot}$ and 100 $M_{\odot}$ respectively, which is chosen to fit the
195: \citet{mcc03} observations for MGG-11. Stellar evolution is modeled
196: according to \citet{hur00}. Since we only follow the first 3 Myrs of cluster evolution,
197: stellar evolution is important only for the most massive stars. Two stars are assumed to
198: 'collide' if the distance between them becomes smaller than the sum of
199: their radii. We assume that the total mass of both stars ends in the merger
200: product and do not follow the stellar evolution of the runaway stars. We
201: examine the evolution of \citet{kin66} models with central
202: concentration $3.0 \le W_0 \le 9.0$. The initial half-mass
203: radius and total cluster mass are chosen similar to what \citet{por04} chose
204: to fit the observed parameters of MGG-11, namely $r_{h} = 1.3~\rm{pc}$ and $M
205: = 3.5 \times 10^5 M_{\odot}$. Details of the simulated
206: clusters without initial mass segregation are presented in Table~1.
207:
208: In order to examine the effect of initial mass segregation, we study
209: two scenarios. In the first scenario, we vary the minimum mass
210: $m_{min}$ within the lagrangian radius containing 5\% of the total
211: cluster mass ($R_{005}$). Increasing the minimum mass $m_{min}$ within
212: $R_{005}$ (from 1 $M_\odot$ to $m_{min} > 1 M_{\odot}$ for clusters with
213: initial mass segregation), while keeping the total cluster mass and energy
214: constant, will consequently decrease the number of stars within this
215: sphere. This scenario allows massive stars to start their life in the
216: cluster center. It is proposed to meet observations which show that massive
217: stars are preferentially formed near the cluster center \citep{bon98,deg04}.
218: Details of runs where mass segregation
219: is introduced inside a certain radius are given in Table~2.
220:
221: In the second scenario, we choose a certain fraction of stars
222: (whose total mass is 5 \% -- 20 \% of total mass of the cluster) with
223: the lowest total energy
224: and then vary the minimum mass of them, while keeping the total cluster
225: mass and energy constant. The number of stars is again lower than in a normal
226: cluster. Compared to the first scenario, the second scenario brings
227: massive stars even closer to the center since stars located in the center at
228: time t=0 could still have high energies and spent most of their life
229: outside the center. Hence support for runaway collisions should be stronger
230: in the second scenario.
231:
232: We also vary the half-mass radius of the clusters to see the effect of
233: different central densities.
234: Table~3 reports details for clusters with initial mass segregation, using
235: the second scenario.
236:
237: \section{Results and Analysis}\label{sec:sim}
238:
239: \subsection{Clusters without initial mass segregation}
240:
241: We run five cluster models without initial mass segregation as shown
242: in Table~1. Each cluster contains 131.072 stars, but has different $W_0$.
243: Four of them are set to have the same half-mass radius, which is 1.3 pc,
244: to mimic MGG-11. In addition, we also examine a $W_0$ = 7.0 cluster
245: with a smaller half-mass radius of $r_h$ = 0.5 pc. The central density of
246: each cluster refers
247: to the density within the core radius of the cluster, which is determined
248: with the method of \citet{cas85}.
249: For clusters with the same $r_h$, the central density is higher
250: for clusters with higher dimensionless central potential $W_0$.
251:
252: We also calculate the central relaxation time of each cluster to study the
253: influence of this parameter on the occurrence of runaway merging.
254: The central relaxation time $T_{rel,c}$ is defined as \citep{spi87}:
255: \begin{equation}
256: T_{\rm rel,c}= \frac{\sigma^3_{3D}}{4.88 \pi G^2 \ln(0.11 N)n \langle m
257: \rangle^2} ,
258: \end{equation}
259: where $\sigma_{3D}$, $n$ and $\langle m\rangle$ are the three-dimensional
260: velocity dispersion, number density and average stellar mass at the cluster
261: core. Here the cluster core refers to the region inside the core radius
262: $\rm r_{core}$.
263:
264: Our simulations of MGG-11 like clusters (with $r_h$ = 1.3 pc) show (see
265: Table~1) that
266: only the star cluster with the highest dimensionless central potential ($W_0$ = 9.0,
267: corresponding to a central density of 3.24 $\times 10^6~M_{\odot}/{\rm{pc^3}}$),
268: experiences runaway merging. This result is in a good agreement with
269: the one found by \citet{por04}. Our result again proves that high central
270: density is required to allow runaway merging to occur. Collisions among
271: massive stars also occur in the lower density cluster but none of them
272: experiences subsequent collisions leading to a super-massive star.
273:
274: Fig.~1 depicts the evolution of lagrangian radii containing 1\% -- 20 \%
275: of total mass of cluster models~1~--~3. Core radii ($\rm r_{core}$), which
276: are marked by bold lines, are calculated according to \citet{cas85}.
277: The inner shells of the $W_0= 9.0$ cluster (model~1) suffer strong contractions
278: due to the high central density. Core collapse happens in this cluster at
279: $t \approx$ 0.6 Myrs. The core collapse supports the runaway merging to
280: happen since runaway merging sets in at $t = $ 0.54 Myrs, about the same
281: time when core collapse happens (see the 10th column of Table~1.). Inner shells of $W_0$ = 7.0 cluster
282: (model~2), on the other hand, contract very slowly. Even until 3 Myrs, the contraction is not
283: strong enough to produce core collapse. Consequently, no runaway merging
284: occurs in this cluster. Evolution of inner shells of $W_0$ = 7.0 cluster
285: however looks different when we decrease $r_h$ to 0.5 pc (model~3).
286: Mild contraction brings the cluster to collapse. Core collapse occurs at
287: $t \approx $ 2.6 Myrs. At the same time, the first collision
288: leading to runaway merging happens ($t = $ 2.55 Myrs, see the 10th column of
289: Table~1).
290: Although the runaway merging started later than in the $W_0 =$ 9.0
291: cluster, three collisions are enough to form a super-massive star
292: with few hundred $M_\odot$ (see columns 9 and 11 of Table~1).
293:
294: The two clusters which experience runaway merging (models~1 and ~3),
295: have very high central densities. The $W_0$ = 7.0 model has
296: $\rho_c$ = 2.95 $\times 10^6~M_{\odot}/\rm{pc^3}$ while
297: the $W_0$ = 9.0 model has $\rho_c$ = 3.24 $\times 10^6~M_{\odot}/\rm{pc^3}$.
298: Runaway merging does not occur in clusters whose central densities are lower
299: than $10^6~M_{\odot}/\rm{pc^3}$.
300: Therefore the critical density which allows clusters without initial mass
301: segregation to experience runaway stellar merging should be larger than
302: $10^6 M_{\odot}/\rm{pc^3}$. This limit holds for globular-cluster-size
303: objects with masses of $10^5 M_{\odot}$.
304:
305: Since in our runs the central density is varied, we find that
306: the central relaxation time (see column 6 of Table 1) mainly depends on the
307: number density of stars in the center, where $T_{rel,c} \propto n^{-1}$ (see
308: eq. 1). The central relaxation time is hardly affected by the change of
309: velocity dispersion $\sigma$ and average mass $\langle m \rangle$ (on average
310: $\sigma \approx$ 27.9 km/s and $\langle m \rangle \approx$ 2.64 $M_{\odot}$.) A high number density of stars in the cluster center seems to be required
311: to support runaway stellar merger in a cluster without initial mass
312: segregation.
313:
314: Our result, that runaway merging does not occur in clusters with too low central
315: density, is in good agreement with the one found by
316: \citet{fre06a,fre06b}. Fig.~1 of \citet{fre06b} (which is essentially the
317: same as Fig.~1 of \citet{fre06a}) shows that a cluster with mass 3 $\times$
318: $10^5 M_{\odot}$ and dimensionless central potential $W_0 = 8.0$ experiences
319: runaway collisions if its N-body length unit $(R_{NB})$ $\le$ 2 pc. This
320: value corresponds to an initial half mass radius $R_h \le$ 1.74 pc (see
321: sec.~2.1 of their paper where they show that $R_{NB} \simeq 1.15~R_h$ for $W_0 =
322: 8.0$). This value is not too far from the critical value we find, since our
323: simulations show that a $W_0 = 7.0$ cluster without initial mass segregation experiences
324: runaway collisions when its initial half-mass radius is somewhere between 1.3
325: pc and 0.5 pc (see models~2 and 3 in Table~1), while a $W_0 = 9.0$ cluster
326: with initial half-mass radius 1.3 pc experiences runaway collisions.
327:
328: %In the following sections we will study if this limit is lowered if we
329: %introduce initial mass segregation.
330:
331: \subsection{Clusters with initial mass segregation}
332:
333: In models 6 -- 8, we introduce initial mass segregation by replacing stars
334: within the
335: 5 \% lagrangian radius ($R_{005}$) with massive stars whose masses are higher
336: or equal than the mass $m_{min}$ written in the 6th column of Table~2.
337: Replacing is done by randomly selecting new positions and velocities
338: for the massive stars from the positions and velocities of innermost stars. The
339: number of massive stars is chosen such that the overall mass density
340: profile remains constant.
341:
342: As we keep the mass within the $R_{005}$ lagrangian radius constant,
343: introducing initial mass segregation by increasing $m_{min}$ means to
344: increase the average mass $\langle m\rangle$ of stars and lower the
345: total number of stars (see the 3rd column of Table~2). The increase of
346: $\langle m\rangle$ in this region consequently decreases the central
347: relaxation time $T_{rel,c}$. The central relaxation time of these clusters
348: should be lower than the one of a $W_0$ = 7.0 cluster without initial mass
349: segregation (see column 6 of model~2 in Table~1). As the central parts of these clusters
350: relax faster, the clusters may evolve faster and core collapse could
351: happen earlier. One may therefore expect that runaway merging should
352: now occur at lower central densities.
353:
354: The top part of Fig.~2 shows that model~6 (with $m_{min} =
355: 30~M_{\odot}$) does not experience core collapse before 3 Myrs.
356: Even increasing $m_{min}$ up to
357: $90~M_{\odot}$, as in model~8, does not
358: lead the cluster to experience core collapse before 3 Myrs either
359: (see bottom part of Fig.~2). Our simulations also show that no
360: runaway merger occurs in these clusters.
361: The reason why runaway merging does not happen is that
362: massive stars, which start their life in the region within $R_{005}$ do not
363: constantly stay there. Some of these massive stars, whose initial
364: velocities are high enough, leave this region. Since the cluster is initially
365: mass segregated, this outward movement of massive stars is not balanced by a sufficiently
366: large number of massive stars moving inward, hence the average mass of stars
367: decreases in the center. We note however that, since our clusters are started in
368: virial equilibrium, the expansion of the
369: high-mass stars is balanced by a corresponding number of low-mass stars moving further in, so that
370: the central density remains constant.
371:
372: The depletion of massive stars from the initial $R_{005}$ is shown for model~6 in
373: Fig.~3. This figure depicts the evolution of lagrangian radii of
374: massive stars whose masses are higher than 30 $M_{\odot}$ and that started
375: their life inside $R_{005}$. Total mass fraction of these massive stars is
376: indicated by $M_{005}$. The lagrangian radii containing between 10 \% up to
377: 100 \% of these stars are presented.
378: The upper figure shows the change of lagrangian radii within the first
379: 0.05 Myrs. We can see that within a few core crossing times ($
380: t_{cross} \approx 8
381: \times 10^3 \rm{yrs}$ ) some of these
382: massive stars leave the initial $R_{005}$. At t=0.05 Myrs, total mass of massive stars
383: which still reside inside this region is only 60 \% of the initial mass
384: $M_{005}$. Bottom figure shows that
385: up to t=3 Myrs, this region contains only about 30 \% of total mass
386: of these massive stars.
387:
388:
389: Increasing
390: the minimum mass of stars whose distances are closest to
391: the cluster center does not succeed to produce high-mass
392: cores. In order to keep massive stars in the cluster core, we used a second
393: scenario where initial mass
394: segregation is realized by varying the minimum mass of a certain fraction
395: of stars whose total energies are lowest. Since the second scenario is more
396: favorable to create a high-mass core of massive, low-energy stars, we will base
397: our results on this scenario.
398:
399: In the second scenario, initial mass segregation was
400: introduced by replacing
401: stars which have the lowest total energy, up to 5 \% -- 20 \% of the total
402: mass of the cluster (models 9 -- 15, see $M_{IMS}$ in column~5 of Table~3)
403: with massive
404: stars whose masses are higher than $m_{min}$. The coordinates and
405: velocities of massive stars are randomly chosen from the stars with the lowest total energy
406: and their total number is again adjusted such to keep the overall
407: mass density profile constant and the cluster in virial equilibrium.
408:
409: In order to show that clusters are in virial equilibrium, Figs. 4 and 5 depict the evolution
410: of lagrangian radii of all stars and those of massive (M $\ge$ 30 $M_{\odot}$) and less massive
411: stars (M $< 30~M_{\odot}$) of cluster model~11. As can be seen lagrangian radii of
412: massive as well as less massive stars are nearly constant within the
413: first few crossing times. This shows that the cluster is in a stable equilibrium
414: condition after mass segregation was introduced.
415:
416: The central density and central relaxation time are measured for the
417: region inside the cluster core. Since massive stars
418: are not strongly concentrated toward the cluster center, the mean mass
419: of stars within the cluster core is not very high (4.77 $M_{\odot}$ -- 11.82 $M_{\odot}$).
420: Therefore the central relaxation time of clusters with $r_h$ = 1.3 pc (6.55 $\rm{Myrs}$ $\le T_{rel,c} \le$ 8.69 $\rm{Myrs}$)
421: is not as low as that of the clusters in Table~2
422: (3.54 $\rm{Myrs}$ $\le T_{rel,c} \le$ 3.84 $\rm{Myrs}$).
423: One may expect that the central relaxation time should be short enough that
424: massive, low-energy stars spiral into the cluster core and create
425: a high-mass core. Once in the cluster core, these massive stars could
426: collide with each other and promote runaway merging.
427:
428: Nevertheless, our simulations do not show runaway merging (see models~9 -- 12
429: of Table~3). Reducing the half-mass radius $r_h$
430: from 1.3 pc to 0.5 pc in order to increase the central density
431: (models~13 -- 15, see column 4 of Table~3) does not
432: help runaway merger to occur either.
433:
434: Model~15 actually has the same initial central density and half-mass radius as
435: model~3. Initial mass segregation is not introduced in model~3, but the
436: cluster experiences runaway merging through three collisions (see
437: Table~1). Fig.~6 depicts the evolution of lagrangian radii of inner shells of
438: these two models. Both clusters experience contractions of their
439: cores. While the contraction of model~3 is sufficiently strong to
440: let core-collapse occur at $t=2.6$ Myrs, the core of model~15 does not
441: collapse until 3 Myrs and no runaway merging occurs.
442:
443: By using the Monte Carlo method, \citet{gur04} studied core-collapse of star
444: clusters with initial mass segregation. A direct comparison of their results
445: with ours is again difficult due to differences in the adopted initial mass
446: spectrum, density profile, number of particles (up to $N = 10^7$ for
447: \citet{gur04}) and the method used in introducing initial mass
448: segregation. \citet{gur04} note in the caption of Fig.~13 that stellar
449: evolution can reverse core collapse. This agrees at least qualitatively with what
450: we see in our runs, since for example Fig.~6 shows that, despite of similar
451: size and density profile, model 3 goes into core collapse earlier than model
452: 15. This could be due to the fact that core collapse in model 15, whose core
453: contains many high-mass stars due to initial mass segregration, is delayed by
454: the stronger mass loss from the core due to stellar evolution.
455:
456: Besides the effect of stellar evolution, the difference of the evolution of
457: models~3 and~15 may due to the difference of their collision rates. We examine the collision rate of
458: these models by calculating the the collision rate $N_{Coll}$ using equation (8-122) of \citet{bin87}
.
459:
460: \begin{equation}
461: N_{Coll\star} = 4\sqrt{\pi} n \sigma {(2~R_{\star})}^2 + 4 \sqrt{\pi} G M_{\star} n (2~R_{\star})/\sigma.
462: \end{equation}
463:
464: Here $N_{Coll\star}$ is the average number of collisions that a star suffers
465: per unit time, $n$ indicates the number density of stars,
466: $\sigma$ is the velocity dispersion of stars,
467: $R_{\star}$ and $M_{\star}$ denote radius and mass of colliding stars,
468: and $G$ is the gravitational constant. The first term is derived from the
469: kinetic theory for inelastic encounters and the second term represents the
470: enhancement in the collision rate by the gravitational attraction of the two
471: colliding stars.
472:
473: Let us consider the region inside the core radius $\rm r_{core}$. The average number of collisions per unit time $N_{Coll}$
474: is obtained by multiplying $N_{Coll\star}$ with the number of stars inside
475: the core radius $N_{\star core}$. Therefore
476: \begin{equation}
477: N_{Coll} = N_{Coll\star}~N_{\star core}.
478: \end{equation}
479: The number density
480: of stars inside the core radius $n$ can be written as
481: \begin{equation}
482: n = N_{\star core} / V_{core}.
483: \end{equation}
484: where $V_{core} = \frac{4\pi}{3} \rm r_{core}^3$.
485: Thus
486: \begin{equation}
487: N_{Coll} = N_{Coll \star}~n~V_{core}.
488: \end{equation}
489: Substituting $N_{Coll\star}$ with the expression written in eq.~2, we see that
490: \begin{equation}
491: N_{Coll} \propto n^2.
492: \end{equation}
493:
494: We use the theoretical prediction of the collision rate (eqs.~2 and~5) to
495: follow the growth in the number of collisions per unit time in models~3 and 15.
496: $N_{Coll\star}$ is calculated by considering the mass and radius of
497: each star and then summing up over all stars within the region inside
498: the core to obtain $N_{Coll}$. Core parameters and collision rates
499: are calculated each time $N$-body data was stored and are then summed up
500: over all times.
501:
502: The theoretical estimates are compared with the collision rate we
503: find in our simulations in Fig.~7. Both theoretical and simulation results
504: (see column 7 of Table~1 and column 9 of Table~3)
505: show that the collision rate of model~3, which
506: experiences runaway merging, is higher than the one in model~15.
507: The theoretical prediction of the collision rate overestimates the simulation
508: results by a factor $\approx$ 2. This may be due to assumptions
509: (i.e. mass and radius of colliding stars are the same) and idealizations
510: (i.e. distribution function of velocity is Maxwellian) used in the
511: derivation of eq.~2, while in the
512: simulations we use a mass spectrum and stellar radii according to
513: a certain mass-radius relation.
514:
515: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}\label{sec:discon}
516:
517: We have followed the evolution of multi-mass, dense star clusters with
518: dimensionless central potentials of 3.0 $\le W_0 \le$ 9.0. Our simulations
519: show a good agreement with the results of \citet{por04} that in MGG-11 type clusters
520: without initial mass segregation, dimensionless central potentials $W_0 \ge 9.0$
521: corresponding to
522: central number densities larger than $10^6/\rm{pc}^3$ are required
523: for runaway mergers to occur. Examining clusters with lower dimensionless central potential,
524: $W_0 \le 7.0$, confirm this limit for runaway mergering, as shown in Fig.~8.
525:
526: Initial mass segregation increases the average mass of stars within
527: the cluster center and thus decreases the central relaxation time. It
528: also allows to form a high-mass core. However, as long as the mass density
529: profile is kept constant, we find that
530: initial mass
531: segregation does not support runaway stellar merging to happen since
532: the collision rate is decreased.
533:
534: In spite of the differences in adopted IMF, number of particles, treatment of
535: stellar evolution and stellar collisions, our results are in line with
536: \citet{fre06a,fre06b} (see sec.~3.1) and \citet{gur04} (see sec.~3.2).
537:
538: The data of Milky Way globular cluster given by \citet{har96} provide
539: the central luminosity density (in $L_{\odot}/pc^3$) which can be converted
540: into a central mass density by assuming a mass-to-light ratio $M/L = 1$.
541: Doing this, we find that about 67 \% of Milky Way
542: globular clusters have central densities $10^2~M_{\odot}/\rm{pc^3} < \rho_c <
543: 10^5~M_{\odot}/\rm{pc^3}$. Only 4 \% have central densities exceeding $\rho_c
544: = 4.3 \times 10^5~M_{\odot}/\rm{pc^3}$, while none has a central density
545: larger than $\rho_c = 10^6~M_{\odot}/\rm{pc^3}$, as depicted on Fig.~9.
546: Studies of the evolution of clusters containing IMBHs by \citet{bau04a,bau04b} have
547: shown that clusters with IMBHs expand due to energy generation in their cusp.
548: \citet{bau04b} found that the
549: cluster expansion can be strong enough that very concentrated clusters can end up
550: among the least dense clusters. However, Milky Way globular clusters have
551: half-mass radii very similar to the radii of clusters which form today, like
552: galactic open clusters or super-star clusters in interacting galaxies
553: (see i.e. \citet{sch06,tra07}), which speaks against strong expansion.
554: If the current densities are representative
555: of the densities with which the clusters formed, then runaway merging would not have
556: happened in any of these clusters. In addition, the data of young star clusters in the LMC given by
557: \citet{mac03} (see Table 6 of their paper) also shows that nearly all LMC
558: clusters, including very young ones, have central densities far below the
559: critical value needed for runaway merging. Other possibilities
560: of forming IMBHs like the merging of many stellar mass black holes
561: \citep{mil02} also need extreme initial conditions like very massive
562: clusters \citep{gul04,ras06}.
563:
564: Hence it seems likely that most star clusters did not have
565: sufficient high central densities to form IMBHs.
566: This indicates that the formation of IMBHs in star
567: clusters must have been a rare event.
568:
569: \acknowledgments
570:
571: We thank for Douglas Heggie for valuable discussions. This work was
572: supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education, Culture,
573: Sports, Science and Technology, Japan,~(14079205; EA,SM). Numerical computations
574: were carried out on GRAPE system at Center for Computational Astrophysics of
575: National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. Data analysis were in part carried
576: out in YITP, Kyoto University.
577:
578:
579: \begin{thebibliography}{}
580: \bibitem[Aarseth (1999)]{aar99}
581: Aarseth, S.J. 1999, \pasp, 111, 1333
582: \bibitem[Baumgardt et al.(2003a)]{bau03a}
583: Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., McMillan, S. and Portegies Zwart S. 2003a, \apj, 582, L21
584: \bibitem[Baumgardt et al.(2003b)]{bau03b}
585: Baumgardt, H., Makino, J., Hut, P., McMillan, S. and Portegies Zwart S.
586: 2003b, \apj, 589, L25
587: \bibitem[Baumgardt et al.(2004a)]{bau04a}
588: Baumgardt, H., Makino, J., and Ebisuzaki T. 2004a, \apj, 613, 1133
589: \bibitem[Baumgardt et al.(2004b)]{bau04b}
590: Baumgardt, H., Makino, J., and Ebisuzaki T. 2004b, \apj, 613, 1143
591: \bibitem[Baumgardt et al.(2005)]{bau05}
592: Baumgardt, H., Makino, J., and Hut, P. 2005, \apj, 620, 238
593: \bibitem[Belkus et al.(2007)]{bel07}
594: Belkus, H., Van Bever, J., and Vanbeveren, D. 2007, \apj, 659, 1576
595: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine (1987)]{bin87}
596: Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S. 1987, in Galactic Dynamics, Princeton University
597: Press
598: \bibitem[Bonnell \& Davies (1998)]{bon98}
599: Bonnell, I.A.,\& Davies, M.B. 1998, \mnras, 295, 691
600: %\bibitem[Bonnell et al.(2001)]{bon01}
601: % Bonnell, I.A., Bate, M.R., Clarke, C.J., and Pringle, J.E. 2001, \mnras, 323,
602: %785
603: \bibitem[Bonnell \& Bate (2002)]{bon02}
604: Bonnell, I.A., \& Bate, M.R. 2002, \mnras, 336, 659
605: \bibitem[Casertano \& Hut (1985)]{cas85}
606: Casertano, S., \& Hut, P. 1985, \apj, 298, 80
607: \bibitem[de Grijs et al.(2004)]{deg04}
608: de Grijs, R., Gilmore, G.F., Johnson, R.A. 2004, in STScI Symp., The Local
609: Group as an Astrophysical Laboratory, ed. M. Livio
610: \bibitem[Ebisuzaki et.al.(2001)]{ebi01}
611: Ebisuzaki, T. et.al. 2001, \apj, 562, L19
612: %\bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2002)]{geb02}
613: % Gebhardt, K., Rich, R.~M., and Ho, L.~C. 2002, \apj, 578, L41 OK
614: \bibitem[Fiorito \& Titarchuk (2004)]{fio04}
615: Fiorito, R., \& Titarchuk, L. 2004, \apj, 614, L113
616: \bibitem[Freitag et al.(2006a)]{fre06a}
617: Freitag, M., Rasio, F.A., and Baumgardt, H. 2006a, \mnras, 368, 121
618: \bibitem[Freitag et al.(2006b)]{fre06b}
619: Freitag, M., G\"urkan, M.A., Rasio, F.A. 2006b, \mnras, 368, 141
620: %\bibitem[Gal-Yam et al.(2007)]{gal07}
621: % Gal-Yam, A., Leonard, D.C., Fox, D.B., Cenko, S.B., Soderberg, A.M., Moon,
622: % D.S., Sand, D.J. Li, W., Filippenko, V., Aldering, G and Copin, Y., 2007, \apj, 656, 372
623: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2005)]{geb05}
624: Gebhardt, K., Rich, R.M., and Ho, L.C. 2005, \apj, 634, 1093
625: \bibitem[Gerssen et al.(2002)]{ger02}
626: Gerssen, J., van der Marel, R.P., Gebhardt, K., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson
627: R.C., and Pryor, C., 2002, \aj, 124, 3270
628: %\bibitem[Gerssen et al.(2003)]{ger03}
629: % Gerssen, J., van der Marel, R.P., Gebhardt, K., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson
630: %R.C., and Pryor, C., 2003, \aj, 125, 376
631: \bibitem[G\"ultekin et al.(2004)]{gul04}
632: G\"ultekin, K., Miller, M.C., and Hamilton, D.P., 2004, \apj, 616, 221
633: \bibitem[G\"urkan et al.(2004)]{gur04}
634: G\"urkan, M.A., Freitag, M., and Rasio, F.A., 2004, \apj, 604, 632
635: \bibitem[Harris (1996)]{har96}
636: Harris, W.E., 1996, \aj, 112, 1487
637: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(2000)]{hur00}
638: Hurley, J.R., Pols, O.R., Tout, C.A., 2000, \mnras, 315, 543
639: %\bibitem[Ishii et al.(1999)]{ish99}
640: %Ishii, M., Ueno, M., \& Kato, M. 1999, \pasj, 51, 417
641: \bibitem[Kaaret et.al.(2001)]{kaa01}
642: Kaaret, P. et.al. 2001, \mnras, 321, L29
643: \bibitem[King (1966)]{kin66}
644: King, I.R. 1966, \mnras, 71, 64
645: \bibitem[Mackey \& Gilmore (2003)]{mac03}
646: Mackey, A.D. \& Gilmore, G.F., 2003, \mnras, 338, 85
647: \bibitem[Magorian et al.(1998)]{mag98}
648: Magorrian, J. et.al. 1998, \aj, 115, 2285
649: \bibitem[Matsumoto et al.(2001)]{mat01}
650: Matsumoto, H. et.al. 2001, \apj, 574, L25
651: \bibitem[McCrady et al.(2003)]{mcc03}
652: McCrady, N., Gilbert, A.M., Graham, J.R., 2003, \aj, 596, 240
653: \bibitem[Miller \& Hamilton (2002)]{mil02}
654: Miller, M.C. \& Hamilton, D.P., 2002, \apj, 576, 894
655: \bibitem[Murray \& Lin (1996)]{mur96}
656: Murray, S.D. \& Lin, D.N.C. 1996, \apj, 467, 728
657: %\bibitem[Noyola \& Gebhardt (2004)]{noy04}
658: % Noyola, E. \& Gebhardt, K. 2004, \aj
659: %\bibitem[Peebles(1972)]{pee72}
660: % Peebles, P.~J. 1972, \apj, 178, 371
661: %\bibitem[Portegies Zwart et al.(1999)]{por99}
662: % Portegies Zwart, S.~F., Makino, J., McMillan, S.~L.~W., \& Hut, P. 1999, \aap, 348, 117
663: \bibitem[Portegies Zwart et al.(2004)]{por04} Portegies Zwart, S.F.,
664: Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., and McMillan, S.L.W. 2004, \nat, 438,
665: 724
666: \bibitem[Portegies Zwart \& McMillan (2002)]{por02}
667: Portegies Zwart, S.F. \& McMillan S.L.W., 2002, \apj, 576, 899
668: %\bibitem[Raboud \& Mermilliod (1998)]{rab98} Raboud, D. \& Mermiliod,
669: % J.C. 1998, \aap, 333, 897
670: \bibitem[Rasio et al.(2006)]{ras06}
671: Rasio, F.A., Baumgardt, H., Corongiu, A., D'Antona, F.,Fabbiano, G.,
672: Fregeau, J.M., Gebhardt, K., Heinke, C.O., Hut, P., Ivanova, N., Maccarone,
673: T.J., Ransom, S.M., and Webb, N.A. 2006, astro-ph/0611615
674: \bibitem[Schilbach et al.(2006)]{sch06}
675: Schilbach, E., Kharchenko, N.V., Piskunov, A.E., R\"{o}ser, S., and Scholz, R.D. 2006, \aap, 456, 523
676: \bibitem[Spitzer (1987)]{spi87} Spitzer, L. 1987, Dynamical Evolution of
677: Globular Clusters, Princenton University Press, Princenton
678: \bibitem[Strohmayer \& Mushotzky (2003)]{str03}
679: Strohmayer, T.E. \& Mushotzky, R.F. 2003, \apj, 586, 61
680: \bibitem[Suzuki et al.(2007)]{suz07}
681: Suzuki, T.K., Nakasato, N., Baumgardt, H., Ibukiyama, A., Makino, J., and
682: Ebisuzaki , T. 2007, \apj, 668, 435
683: %\bibitem[Spitzer \& Hart (1971)]{spi71} Spitzer, L.Jr. \& Hart, M.H. 1971,
684: % \apj, 164, 399 OK
685: %\bibitem[van den Marel (2002)]{van02} van den Marel et.al. 2002, \aj, 124,
686: % 3255
687: %Hubble Space Telescope Evidence for an Intermediate-Mass Black Hole in the Globular Cluster M15. I. STIS Spectroscopy and WFPC2 Photometry
688: %\bibitem[Vesperini \& Chernoff(1994)]{ves94} Vesperini, E. \& Chernoff, D.~F.\
689: % 1994, \apj, 431, 231
690: %\bibitem[Zezas \& Fabiano(2002)]{zez02a} Zezas, A. and Fabiano, G.2002 \apj,
691: % 577, 726
692: %\bibitem[Zhao \& Bailyn (2005)]{zha05} Zhao, B. \& Bailyn, C.~D. 2005, \aj,
693: % 129, 1934
694: \bibitem[Trancho et al.(2007)]{tra07}
695: Trancho, G., Bastian, N., Schweizer, F., and Miller, B.W. 2007, \apj, 658,
696: 993
697: \bibitem[van der Marel (2001)]{van01}
698: van der Marel, R.P. 2001, in Black Holes in Binaries and Galactic Nuclei,
699: ed. E.P.J. van den Heuvel \& P.A. Woudt (Garching:ESO), 246
700: \bibitem[Zezas et al.(2002)]{zez02}
701: Zezas, A., Fabbiano, G., Rots, A.H., and Murray, S.S. 2002, \apj, 577, 710
702:
703: \end{thebibliography}
704: %\onecolumn
705: \begin{figure}
706: %\epsscale{0.6}
707: %\vspace{5mm}
708: %\plotone{lagrangeW7m30.eps}
709: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f1.eps}
710: %\plotone{f1.eps}
711: %\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{lagrW9W7W7rh05_v2.ps}
712: \caption{Evolution of lagrangian radii of inner shells containing 1\%, 2\%,
713: 3\%, 5\%, 10\% and 20\% of the total cluster mass of models~1 --~3. Core
714: radii $\rm{r_{core}}$ are marked by bold lines. Model~1 has short
715: enough central relaxation time that core collapse and subsequent runaway
716: merging of stars happen within a few Myrs. Model~2 has a higher $T_{rel,c}$
717: (see column 6 of Table~1) which prevents its core to collapse. Compared to model~1,
718: model~3 has similar value of $\rho_c$ which allows mild contractions
719: to bring the core to collapse before 3 Myrs.
720: \label{fig1}}
721: \end{figure}
722:
723: \begin{figure}
724: %\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{lagrange_W7m30-90.eps}
725: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f2.eps}
726: %\plotone{f2.eps}
727: %\vspace{-7cm}
728: \caption{Evolution of lagrangian radii of inner shells containing 1\% -- 10\%
729: of the total cluster mass of model~6 (top) and model~8 (bottom). Filling the
730: region inside the 5 \% lagrangian radii $R_{005}$ with stars more massive than
731: 30 $M_{\odot}$ (model~6) does not support the core to collapse. Even
732: increasing the minimum mass of stars in this region to 90 $M_{\odot}$
733: (model~8) does not help core collapse to happen. The reason is that a large
734: fraction of massive stars, which start their life inside the $R_{005}$, move
735: out of this region on a crossing time-scale (see Fig.~3).
736: \label{fig2}}
737: \end{figure}
738:
739: \begin{figure}
740: %\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{lagrange_all-005.eps}
741: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f3.eps}
742: %\plotone{f3.eps}
743: %\vspace{-7cm}
744: \caption{Evolution of lagrangian radii of massive stars ($m_{min} = 30
745: M_{\odot}$) which start their life inside the 5 \% lagrangian radius of the
746: cluster model~6 (a) up to the first 0.05 Myrs, (b) until 3 Myrs. Total mass
747: fraction of these massive stars is indicated by $M_{005}$. Within a crossing
748: time-scale, some massive stars leave the region within the initial 5\%
749: lagrangian radius, which is 0.24 pc in this model,
750: due to their high initial velocities. The escape of the
751: massive stars is balanced by low-mass stars moving in from larger radii
752: (which is not shown in these figures).
753: \label{fig3}}
754: \end{figure}
755:
756: \begin{figure}
757: %\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{lagrange_k7m30_010.ps}
758: \plotone{f4.eps}
759: %\vspace{-7cm}
760: \caption{Evolution of lagrangian radii of inner shells containing 1\% -- 10\%
761: of the total cluster mass of model~11. Replacing 10\% of the lowest total
762: energy stars with stars more massive than 30
763: $M_{\odot}$ does not support the core to collapse. This happens because the
764: high-mass core did not be form until 3 Myrs.
765: \label{fig4}}
766: \end{figure}
767:
768: %\newpage
769: \begin{figure}
770: %\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{lagrange_massive-non010.ps}
771: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f5.eps}
772: %\plotone{f5.eps}
773: %\vspace{-5cm}
774: \caption{Evolution of lagrangian radii of massive stars whose masses are at
775: least 30 $M_{\odot}$ (top) and low-mass stars whose masses are less
776: than 30 $M_{\odot}$ (bottom) up to 10 Nbody unit. These figures depict stable
777: evolution of shells containing 1\% -- 10\%
778: of the total mass of these stars in the cluster model~11.
779: \label{fig5}}
780: \end{figure}
781:
782: \begin{figure}
783: %\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{model3-15.ps}
784: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f6.eps}
785: %\plotone{f6.eps}
786: %\vspace{-7cm}
787: \caption{Evolution of lagrangian radii containing 1\% -- 30\% of total
788: mass of model~15 and model~3. Initial
789: mass segregation is applied in model~15 by replacing 20 \% of stars with
790: the lowest total energy by massive stars with $m_{min}$ = 30
791: $M_{\odot}$. The inner shells experience contraction but no core collapse
792: until 3 Myr. Therefore runaway merger does not occur in this cluster. The cluster model~3 has same initial density profile and
793: same half-mass radius as model~15, but no initial mass
794: segregation. However, mild contraction in the inner shells of model~3 is
795: enough to let runaway mergings occur. This may happen since the number of
796: collisions inside the inner shells of model~3 is higher than the one in
797: model~15 (see Fig.~7).
798: \label{fig6}}
799: \end{figure}
800:
801:
802: \begin{figure}
803: %\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{colrate.eps}
804: \plotone{f7.eps}
805: %\vspace{-7cm}
806: \caption{Collision rate inside inner shells of cluster models~3 and~15
807: obtained from simulations, compared to the theoretical prediction of
808: collision rate based on inelastic encounters. The collision rate of the
809: model without mass segregation (model~3) is higher than the model with
810: initial mass segregation (model~15) because there are more stars inside the
811: cluster core. Therefore the possibility for a runaway merger to occur
812: is also higher.
813: \label{fig7}}
814: \end{figure}
815:
816: \begin{figure}
817: %\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f8.eps}
818: \plotone{f8.eps}
819: %\vspace{-7cm}
820: \caption{Plot of log central density vs. the log number density of stars
821: for all calculated models. In order for runaway mergers to occur, a number
822: density of stars larger than $10^6/\rm{pc}^3$ in the core is necessary.
823: \label{fig8}}
824: \end{figure}
825:
826: \begin{figure}
827: %\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f9.eps}
828: \plotone{f9.eps}
829: %\vspace{-7cm}
830: \caption{Distribution of central densities of Milky Way globular clusters. The
831: dashed lines mark the central densities of clusters in which runaway merging
832: occured (models~1 and 3 of Table~1). Most galactic globular clusters have
833: central densities far below this limit, meaning that runaway merging of stars
834: was unlikely to have occured in them.
835: \label{fig9}}
836: \end{figure}
837:
838:
839:
840: \onecolumn
841: \begin{table}
842: \begin{center}
843: \caption{Properties of simulated clusters without initial mass segregation \label{tab1}}
844: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
845: \tableline\tableline
846: ${}_1$ & ${}_2$ & ${}_3$ & ${}_4$ & ${}_5$ & ${}_6$ & ${}_7$ & ${}_8$
847: & ${}_9$ & ${}_{10}$ & ${}_{11}$ & ${}_{12}$ \\
848: $Model$ & $W_0$ & $N_{Star}$ & $r_h$ & $log~\rho_c$ &
849: $T_{\rm rel,c}$ & $Col$ & $\langle T_{\rm col}\rangle$ & $Col_{\rm rm}$ & $
850: T_{\rm rm}$ & $M_{RS}$ & $RM$ \\
851: & & & $(pc)$ & $(M_{\odot}/pc^3)$ &
852: $(Myr)$ & & $(Myr)$ & & $(Myr)$ & $(M_{\odot})$ & $(Y/N)$
853: \\
854: \tableline
855: 1 & 9.0 & 131072 & 1.3 & 6.51 & 1.16 & 104 & 0.03 & 96 & 0.54 & 2786 & Yes \\
856: 2 & 7.0 & 131072 & 1.3 & 5.67 & 5.98 & 5 & 0.60 & - & - & - & No \\
857: 3 & 7.0 & 131072 & 0.5 & 6.47 & 2.71 & 37 & 0.08 & 3 & 2.55 & 258 & Yes \\
858: 4 & 5.0 & 131072 & 1.3 & 5.20 & 18.36 & - & - & - & - & - & No \\
859: 5 & 3.0 & 131072 & 1.3 & 4.91 & 39.75 & - & - & - & - & - & No \\
860: \end{tabular}
861: \tablecomments{1: The first column indicates the cluster model, followed by
862: the dimensionless central potential $W_0$ in the 2nd column. The number of stars in the
863: cluster and the half-mass radius are given in the 3rd and 4th columns, respectively.
864: The 5th column shows
865: the logarithm of central density followed by the logarithm of the central
866: relaxation time. The 7th column gives the total number of collisions that
867: occur up to 3 Myrs, followed by the average time between collisions. The 9th
868: and the 10th columns indicate the number of collisions leading to runaway
869: mergers and the time when runaway merging starts. The mass of the runaway
870: star produced at the end of the runaway merging process is given in the 11th
871: column. The last column shows whether runaway
872: merging happens or not.}
873:
874: \end{center}
875: \end{table}
876:
877:
878: \onecolumn
879: \begin{table}
880: \begin{center}
881: \caption{Properties of clusters with initial mass segregation introduced within a certain radius \label{tab2}}
882: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
883: \tableline\tableline
884: ${}_1$ & ${}_2$ & ${}_3$ & ${}_4$ & ${}_5$ & ${}_6$ & ${}_7$ &
885: ${}_8$ &
886: ${}_9$ & ${}_{10}$ & ${}_{11}$ & ${}_{12}$ \\
887: $Model$ & $W_0$ & $N_{Star}$ & $r_h$ & $M_{IMS}$ & $m_{min}$ & $log~\rho_c$ &
888: $T_{\rm rel,c}$ & $Col$ & $\langle T_{\rm col} \rangle$ & $Col_{\rm rm}$ & $RM$ \\
889: & & & $(pc)$ &$(r \le R_{005})$ & $(M_{\odot})$& $(M_{\odot}/pc^3)$ &
890: $(Myr)$ & & $(Myr)$ & & $(Y/N)$ \\
891: \tableline
892:
893: 6 & 7.0 & 124420 & 1.3 & 0.05 & 30.0 & 5.52 & 3.54 & 3 & 1.00 & - & No \\
894: 7 & 7.0 & 124305 & 1.3 & 0.05 & 50.0 & 5.52 & 3.78 & 7 & 0.43 & - & No \\
895: 8 & 7.0 & 124201 & 1.3 & 0.05 & 90.0 & 5.52 & 3.84 & 2 & 1.50 & - & No \\
896: \end{tabular}
897: \tablecomments{2: The first and second columns indicate the cluster model and
898: the dimensionless central potential $W_0$. The 3rd column shows the number of stars in the
899: cluster followed by the half-mass radius in the 4th column. The 5th column gives
900: the fraction of total mass of cluster (which is contained within the 5 \% lagrangian
901: radius) where the first scenario of IMS is applied. We choose some of these stars
902: randomly and assign them with new masses which are larger than the minimum mass
903: indicated in the 6th column. The logarithm of central density and the logarithm of the central
904: relaxation time are given in the 7th and 8th columns. The 9th and 10th
905: columns indicate the total number of collisions that occur up to 3 Myrs and
906: the average time between collisions. The 11th columns gives the number of
907: collisions leading to runaway mergers. Here we see that none of these
908: collisions leads to a runaway merger process. The last column shows whether
909: runaway merging happens or not.}
910:
911: \end{center}
912: \end{table}
913:
914: %\clearpage
915:
916: \onecolumn
917: \begin{table}
918: \begin{center}
919: \caption{Properties of simulated clusters with initial mass segregation introduced below a certain energy \label{tab3}}
920: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
921: \tableline\tableline
922: ${}_1$ & ${}_2$ & ${}_3$ & ${}_4$ & ${}_5$ & ${}_6$ & ${}_7$ &
923: ${}_8$
924: & ${}_9$ & ${}_{10}$ & ${}_{11}$ & ${}_{12}$ \\
925: $Model$ & $W_0$ & $N_{Star}$ & $r_h$ & $M_{IMS}$ &$m_{min}$ & $log~\rho_c$ &
926: $T_{\rm rel,c}$ & $Col$ & $\langle T_{\rm col}\rangle$ & $Col_{\rm rm}$ & $RM$ \\
927: & & & $(pc)$ &$(\rm{lowest} E_{tot})$ & $(M_{\odot})$& $(M_{\odot}/pc^3)$ &
928: $(Myr)$ & & $(Myr)$ & & $(Y/N)$ \\
929: \tableline
930: 9 & 7.0 & 124420 & 1.3 & 0.05 & 30.0 & 5.59 & 8.24 & 2 & 1.50 & - & No \\
931: 10 & 7.0 & 124297 & 1.3 & 0.05 & 50.0 & 5.58 & 8.69 & 6 & 0.50 & - & No \\
932: 11 & 7.0 & 118805 & 1.3 & 0.10 & 30.0 & 5.54 & 8.07 & 1 & 3.00 & - & No \\
933: 12 & 7.0 & 106669 & 1.3 & 0.20 & 30.0 & 5.47 & 6.55 & 2 & 1.50 & - & No \\
934: 13 & 7.0 & 106669 & 0.7 & 0.20 & 30.0 & 6.01 & 3.25 & 12 & 0.25 & - & No \\
935: 14 & 7.0 & 106669 & 0.6 & 0.20 & 30.0 & 6.21 & 2.57 & 8 & 0.38 & - & No \\
936: 15 & 7.0 & 106669 & 0.5 & 0.20 & 30.0 & 6.45 & 1.96 & 20 & 0.15 & - & No \\
937: \end{tabular}
938: \tablecomments{Same as Table~2 except that the 5th column indicates the
939: fraction of stars with lowest total energy which were replaced by
940: massive stars. The minimum masses $m_{min}$ of these stars are given in column 6.}
941:
942:
943: \end{center}
944: \end{table}
945:
946: \end{document}
947: