1: %Hydro paper 1: post-submitted version; June 5, 2008

2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}

3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}

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

5: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}

6: \slugcomment{{\em}}

7: %\usepackage{graphicx,emulateapj5}

8: %\usepackage{epsf}

9: 

10: \def\ar{{\it Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.} \,}

11: \def\aa{{\it Astron. Astrophys.} \,}

12: \def\apj{{\it Ap. J.} \,}

13: \def\apjs{{\it Ap. J. Supp.} \,}

14: \def\n{{\it Nature} \,}

15: \def\apjl{{\it Ap. J. Lett.} \,}

16: \def\mn{{\it MNRAS} \,}

17: \def\aj{{\it Astron. J.} \,}

18: \def\ph{{\it astro-ph/}}

19: \def\na{{\it New Astron./}}

20: \def\gp{{\it{GALPROP}} \,}

21: \def\rel{relativistic \,}

22: 

23: \def\araa{{\it Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.} \,}

24: \def\aa{{\it Astron. Astrophys.} \,}

25: \def\apj{{\it ApJ.} \,}

26: \def\apjs{{\it Ap. J. Supp.} \,}

27: \def\n{{\it Nature} \,}

28: \def\apjl{{\it Ap. J. Lett.} \,}

29: \def\mn{{\it MNRAS} \,}

30: \def\aj{{\it Astron. J.} \,}

31: \def\ajl{{\it Astron. J. Lett.} \,}

32: \def\rmp{{\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} \,}

33: \def\n{{\it Nature} \,}

34: \def\pasj{{\it PASJ} \,}

35: \def\ph{{\it astro-ph/}}

36: \def\na{{\it New Astron. \,}}

37: \def\pasj{{\it Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan \,}}

38: 

39: \def\eg{{\it e.g.\,}}

40: 

41: \newcommand{\Lam}{\Lambda}

42: \newcommand{\lam}{\lambda}

43: \newcommand{\Del}{\Delta}

44: \newcommand{\del}{\delta}

45: \newcommand{\mpc}{{\rm Mpc}}

46: \newcommand{\kpc}{{\rm kpc}}

47: \newcommand{\pc}{{\rm pc}}

48: \newcommand{\cm}{\rm cm}

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

50: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\odot}}

51: \newcommand{\lsun}{L_{\odot}}

52: \newcommand{\zsun}{Z_{\odot}}

53: \newcommand{\hinv}{h^{-1}}

54: \newcommand{\himpc}{\hinv{\rm\,Mpc}}

55: \newcommand{\hikpc}{\hinv{\rm\,kpc}}

56: \newcommand{\himsun}{\,\hinv{\Msun}}

57: 

58: \begin{document}

59: %\title{A New Approach For Determining Clusters Properties}

60: \title{A New Approach for Simulating Galaxy Cluster Properties}

61: 

62: \author{Y. Arieli$^{1,2}$,  Y. Rephaeli$^{1,2}$ \& M. L. Norman$^2$}

63:  

64: \affil{$^1$ School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, 

65: Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel \\

66: $^2$ Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of 

67: California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0424 \\ }

68: 

69: \begin{abstract}

70: 

71: We describe a subgrid model for including galaxies into hydrodynamical 

72: cosmological simulations of galaxy cluster evolution. Each galaxy 

73: construct-- or {\em galcon}-- is modeled as a physically extended object 

74: within which star formation, galactic winds, and ram pressure stripping 

75: of gas are modeled analytically. Galcons are initialized at high redshift 

76: ($z \sim 3$) after galaxy dark matter halos have formed but before the 

77: cluster has virialized. Each galcon moves self-consistently within the 

78: evolving cluster potential and injects mass, metals, and energy into 

79: intracluster (IC) gas through a well-resolved spherical interface layer. 

80: We have implemented galcons into the {\em Enzo} adaptive mesh refinement 

81: code and carried out a simulation of cluster formation in a $\Lambda$CDM 

82: universe. With our approach, we are able to economically follow the 

83: impact of a large number of galaxies on IC gas. We compare the results of the galcon 

84: simulation with a second, more standard simulation where star formation 

85: and feedback are treated using a popular heuristic prescription. One 

86: advantage of the galcon approach is explicit control over the star 

87: formation history of cluster galaxies. Using a galactic SFR derived 

88: from the cosmic star formation density, we find the galcon simulation 

89: produces a lower stellar fraction, a larger gas core radius, a more 

90: isothermal temperature profile, and a flatter metallicity gradient 

91: than the standard simulation, in better agreement with observations. 

92: 

93: \end{abstract}

94: 

95: \keywords{galaxies: clusters: general -- methods: numerical}

96: 

97: 

98: \section{Introduction}

99: \label{sec:intro}

100: 

101: Current hydrodynamic cosmological simulations of galaxy clusters show 

102: an appreciable level of inconsistency with results from high-precision 

103: optical and X-ray observations. Discrepancies are particularly apparent 

104: in intracluster (IC) gas properties 

105: %%(e.g., Tornatore et al. 2003, Borgani et al. 2003)

106: %(for recent review references see Borgani et al. 2008)

107: (e.g., Tornatore et al. 2003, Kay et al. 2007, Tornatore et al. 2007; 

108: for a recent review, see Borgani et al. 2008) 

109: - spatial distributions of density, temperature, and metallicity, but 

110: also in the stellar component for which simulations usually over-predict 

111: the stellar mass fraction while underpredicting the total number of 

112: galaxies (Nagamine et al. 2004 and references therein.). Physical 

113: processes, such as galactic winds, ram-pressure stripping, mergers of 

114: subclusters, energetic particle heating, and gravitational drag, affect 

115: the dynamical and thermal state of IC gas. Several attempts to implement 

116: some of these phenomena have been made (e.g., Kapferer et al. 2006, 

117: Domainko et al. 2006, Bruggen \& Ruszkowski 2005, Sijacki \& Springel 

118: 2006, Cora 2006, Kapferer et al. 2007), with some success in 

119: reconstructing IC gas properties. However, different combinations of 

120: these processes and their specific implementation in numerical codes 

121: generally result in quite different gas properties. 

122: 

123: Because modeling star formation (SF) self-consistently requires 

124: prohibitively high level of spatial resolution, most current simulations 

125: use a SF prescription that follows the formation of collisionless star 

126: `particles' which feedback mass and energy to IC gas (Cen \& 

127: Ostriker 1992; Nagai \& Kravtsov 2005).

128: This approach overestimates the SF rate (SFR) at low z (Nagamine 

129: et al. 2004), which leads to a higher than expected star to gas mass 

130: ratio. In addition, feedback from the star particles is unresolved, 

131: leading to unrealistically low levels of gas (including metals) and 

132: energy transfer from galaxies into IC gas, and consequently insufficient 

133: suppression of cooling and gas overdensity in cluster cores. This 

134: unsatisfactory state motivates our attempt to develop a new method 

135: that partly overcomes current numerical limitations.

136: 

137: In this {\em Letter} we briefly describe a new approach (Section 2) for 

138: including galaxies in hydrodynamical cosmological simulations of 

139: cluster evolution which provides improved control over the relevant 

140: physical processes. Galaxies which are otherwise under-resolved (or 

141: absent!) are replaced with a physically-extended galaxy subgrid model 

142: which we refer to as a {\em galcon} within which SF, galactic winds, and 

143: ram pressure stripping of gas are modeled analytically. Galcons are 

144: initialized at high redshift after galaxy dark matter (DM) halos have 

145: formed but before the cluster has virialized. Mass, metals, and energy 

146: are injected from galcons into IC gas. In Section 3 we compare the 

147: results of our galcon simulation with a standard simulation using a 

148: popular star formation and feedback recipe, and summarize our main 

149: conclusions in Section 4.

150: 

151: 

152: \section{Simulation and Modeling Procedures}

153: \label{model}

154: 

155: Cluster evolution is followed using Enzo, a powerful adaptive mesh 

156: refinement (AMR) cosmological hydrodynamical code (Bryan \& Norman 1997). 

157: A high resolution cosmological simulation with baryons is performed 

158: starting at an initial redshift $z_i \simeq 60$; the evolution is 

159: stopped at $z_r=3-5$ (the 'replacement' redshift), where we know from 

160: observations the SFR peaked and early galaxies were already highly 

161: developed. At this time galactic halos with total mass $10^9-10^{12} 

162: M_\odot$ within the Lagrangian volume of the cluster are identified 

163: by a halo finding 

164: %

165: %technique 

166: technique. Since the dyanmics of DM halos is followed, they are allowed 

167: to merge, but galcons in merged halos are still identified as separate 

168: systems. Also, no new galcons are created at $z<3$, but this hardly 

169: matters since high-mass galaxies already formed by $z \sim 3$.

170: %

171: %(Eisenstein \& Hut 1998), 

172: and the baryon density profiles are fit by $\beta$ models. Galcons with 

173: these analytic density profiles are inserted into the centers of each 

174: halo, and assigned the halo velocity. Each galcon's central density and 

175: outer radius are determined from the fit and the baryonic mass within the 

176: halo virial radius. An equal amount of baryons is removed from the 

177: simulated density field. Note that the total mass density field, which 

178: is the sum of DM, baryonic gas, and stars is not affected by this 

179: replacement. Thus, an unphysical instantaneous change in the simulated 

180: density distribution does not occur. 

181: 

182: Both stellar and gaseous components are included in galcons, and since 

183: %

184: %their spatial distributions are expected to be initially very similar

185: %it is reasonable to take for both 

186: stars form in the same high gas density interstellar (IS) central regions 

187: that contain most of the gas and can be assumed to have initially 

188: roughly similar spatial distributions, it is reasonable to approximate 

189: both by  

190: %

191: the same $\beta$-profile parameters, but with different central densities. 

192: The mean initial baryonic mass density in galaxies can be determined by 

193: multiplying the mass density of halos from the Press \& Schechter (PS, 

194: 1974) mass function by the universal baryonic density parameter $\Omega_b$. 

195: The stellar mass density is calculated by integrating the cosmic SFR 

196: density (to be specified below) over the interval $[z_{i}, z_{r}]$. 

197: 

198: Having initialized galcons, we follow their motion dynamically using 

199: Enzo's N-body machinery and follow the mass and energy ejection processes 

200: that enrich and heat up IC gas - galactic winds and ram pressure 

201: stripping -- through simple analytic models. Galactic winds reduce the 

202: total stellar mass while ram pressure stripping continuously reduces the 

203: galcon outer gas radius (as quantified below). Since galactic winds are 

204: SN driven, their elemental abundances are higher than in IS gas by a 

205: factor of $\sim 3$. We follow the enrichment by both processes, separately 

206: and jointly.

207: 

208: Observations of galactic winds (\eg, Heckman 2003) provide direct 

209: evidence for the relation between the mass and energy ejection 

210: rates and the SFR, $\dot{M}_\ast$,

211: \begin{eqnarray}

212: \label{eq:wind_ejecta}

213: \dot{E}_{w}=e_{w} \dot{M}_\ast c^2\; \nonumber \\

214: \dot{M}_{w}=\beta_{w} \dot{M}_\ast \;,

215: \end{eqnarray}

216: where the parameters $e_{w}$ and $\beta_{w}$ are energy and mass 

217: ejection efficiencies, respectively, and $c$ is the speed of light. 

218: The ejection efficiencies cannot be directly predicted from simple 

219: considerations, but they can be roughly estimated from observations 

220: (e.g., Pettini et al 2001; Heckman et al. 2001), from which typical 

221: values of $e_{w}=5\times 10^{-6}$ and $\beta_{w}=0.25$ are adopted 

222: (e.g., Cen \& Ostriker 1993, Leitherer et al. 1992).

223: 

224: An advantage of the galcon approach is analytic control over the SF 

225: history of each galaxy which we take from observations. The galactic 

226: SF history is determined indirectly from the closely related stellar 

227: mass density, which can be estimated by fitting multiband photometric 

228: observations to simulated galaxy spectra generated by a population 

229: synthesis model (e.g., Brinchmann \& Ellis 2000, Cohen 2002, Glazebrook 

230: et al. 2004). Ideally, we would use the SF history of observed cluster 

231: galaxies for our galcons. As this information is not yet available to 

232: us, we instead use the observed cosmic SF density to illustrate our 

233: method. It has been suggested (Nagamine et al. 2006) that the cosmic 

234: SF density can be expressed as the sum of two exponential terms based 

235: on the characteristic SF times of disk and spheroid galaxies, where the 

236: scaling between the two components is determined by the spheroid to disk 

237: stellar mass ratio. The mean SFR in a galaxy can then be roughly 

238: estimated from the universal SFR rate by simply taking the ratio of the 

239: mass density of galaxies - determined from the PS mass function - to the 

240: observationally deduced universal SFR per unit volume. The 

241: two-parameter fit 

242: $s(t) = 1.58 \times 10^{-2} t^{\alpha} exp(-\gamma t) \,$ 

243: $Gyr^{-1}$, with (cosmological time) $t$ in Gyr, $\alpha = -0.70$, 

244: and $\gamma = 0.07$, represents well the SFR density. The total SFR in 

245: a galaxy at a given time, which is used to set the energy and mass 

246: ejection by galactic winds, can then be calculated by multiplying the 

247: above SFR density by the total mass of the galaxy.

248: 

249: SN ejecta from the galactic disk quickly interact through shocks and mix 

250: with the surrounding IS gas. Thus, the wind contains a blend of

251: metals from stars and IS medium. However, the fraction of gas in the 

252: ejecta cannot accurately be determined. We assume that most of the wind 

253: ejecta come from the stellar component whose metallicity is approximately 

254: solar; accordingly, we subtract the energy and mass carried by the wind 

255: from the galcon stellar content, and increase the metallicity of IC gas 

256: by an amount which is proportional to galcon mass ejecta. The transfer of 

257: mass and energy to IC gas is implemented by isotropically distributing 

258: the ejecta over a thin shell - typically a few kpc - surrounding the 

259: outer galcon radius. Also, since the level of SN activity is roughly 

260: linearly proportional to the local star density, the wind does not modify 

261: the spatial stellar profile. Thus, we only adjust the central density of 

262: the stellar component to reflect the loss of stellar material.

263: 

264: Ram pressure stripping is implemented by determining (at any given time) 

265: the stripping radius, where the local IC gas pressure is equal to the 

266: local galactic IS pressure, simply assuming that all IS gas outside this 

267: radius is stripped on a relatively short dynamical timescale. We 

268: generalize the analytic Gunn \& Gott (1972) stripping condition by 

269: including the (generally dominant) contribution of DM to the galactic 

270: gravitational force (which was ignored in some previous works). 

271: Observational evidence supports the expectation that stripping truncates 

272: the gaseous disk but does not modify the gas profile; neither does it 

273: appreciably affect the dynamics of the stellar and DM components of the 

274: galaxy (Kenney \& Koopmann 1999; Kenney, Van Gorkom \& Vollmer 2004). 

275: Thus, the outer radius of the galcon gas component is reduced to the 

276: stripping radius without modifying the central density or the scale 

277: radius of its profile. 

278: 

279: \section{Results}

280: \label{results}

281: 

282: \begin{figure}

283: \epsscale{0.9}

284: \plotone{f1.eps}\label{fig:positions}

285: \figcaption{Positions of galcons at z=0 are shown over a map of 

286: projected gas density iso-density contours. The red circle indicates 

287: the virial radius, $R_{v}=1.71 \; Mpc$.}

288: \end{figure}

289: 

290: In order to quantify the improvements in the description of the evolution 

291: of IC gas in our new code, we have performed two high resolution runs 

292: with AMR and radiative cooling (Sutherland \& Dopita 1993). The first - 

293: hereafter the galcon run (GR) - included the additional physical 

294: processes and galcons, whereas the second - the comparison run (CR) - 

295: included the SF and feedback recipe of Cen \& Ostriker (1992). The setup 

296: of both runs includes a root grid of $128^3$ cells which covers a 

297: comoving volume of 54 $Mpc^3$ with two nested inner grids. The most 

298: refined grid covers a comoving volume of 27 Mpc$^3$ divided into 

299: $128^3$ cells and can be further refined by up to 5 levels, with a 

300: maximum $\sim$9 kpc resolution.

301: 

302: Both runs were initialized at $z=60$ assuming a $\Lambda$CDM 

303: model with $\Omega_m=0.27$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.73$, $\sigma_8=

304: 0.9$, and $h=0.71$ ($H_0$ in units of 100 $km\; s^{-1}\; 

305: Mpc^{-1}$). The CR was evolved continuously to $z=0$. The GR was 

306: stopped at $z=3$, and a halo-finding algorithm (Eisenstein \& Hut 

307: 1998) was used to locate 89 galactic halos with mass in the 

308: range $10^9-10^{12}\; M_\odot$ within a volume which eventually 

309: collapsed to form the cluster. The baryonic content of these halos 

310: was analyzed and replaced by galcons, as described in section 

311: \ref{model}. The simulation was then evolved to $z=0$ with the 

312: additional physical processes and galcons. Both simulations included 

313: radiative cooling over the entire ($z \geq 0$) evolution. A fuller 

314: description of the simulation and the models will be given in a 

315: forthcoming paper (Arieli, Rephaeli \& Norman, in preparation). 

316: 

317: Relatively rich $\sim 5.4 \times 10^{14} \; M_\odot$ clusters 

318: with similar global properties were generated in both runs. Near equality 

319: in the global properties of the simulated clusters is expected since 

320: (identically treated) DM dynamics govern cluster formation and evolution. 

321: However, the composition of the cluster and the properties of the 

322: baryonic component, particularly in the core, are substantially 

323: different. A significant difference is seen in the number of cluster 

324: %galaxies. We 

325: galaxies; we 

326: identified a final number of 81 galaxies within the virial radius of 

327: the GR cluster (Fig. 1), whereas only 6 galaxies were identified in the 

328: CR cluster. 

329: %

330: Thus, 

331: The drastically lower number of identified galaxies in the CR cluster 

332: stems from inadequate force resolution which results in the unphysical 

333: merging of galaxy DM halos (the ``overmerging problem"; Moore et al. 

334: 1996, Klypin et al. 1999.) Klypin et al. 1999 argue that a {\em proper} 

335: force resolution of $\leq 2 h^{-1}$ kpc and mass resolution 

336: $\leq 10^9 h^{-1} M_{\odot}$ is required for galaxy mass halos to 

337: survive in the dense cluster core. While our Enzo simulation meets the 

338: mass resolution requirement, its {\em comoving} force resolution is 

339: 7.8 $h^{-1}$ kpc -- less than required. However, by replacing the 

340: baryon content of galaxies with galcons at z=3, where the proper force 

341: resolution is four times better, we ``lock in" their mass distribution 

342: in a resolution-independent way. During the N-body dynamics phase of the 

343: calculation, the galcon's extended mass distribution is deposited to the 

344: mesh where it helps anchor the DM halo despite less than optimal force 

345: resolution. 

346: 

347: Our galaxies remain intact as they pass through the cluster core as they 

348: are ``indestructable." This has important consequences for IC gas 

349: properties, as we discuss next.

350: 

351: \begin{figure}

352: \epsscale{1.1}

353: \label{fig:four_panels}

354: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}

355: \plottwo{f2c.eps}{f2d.eps}

356: \figcaption{The SFR density (top left) and the profiles of IC gas 

357: matallicity (top right), density (bottom left), and temperature 

358: (bottom right) in the simulated GR (green) and CR (red) clusters 

359: are shown in the four panels. Also shown are the separate contributions 

360: to the metallicity from wind ejecta (dashed-dotted line) and from ram 

361: pressure stripping (dashed line) in the GR cluster.} 

362: \end{figure}

363: 

364: 

365: \subsection{Star formation and heating}

366: \label{sec:star-formation}

367: 

368: SF history is a central driver of gas feedback processes. It is therefore 

369: very important to verify that our GR simulation produces the required 

370: heating to overcome overcooling, and results in a reasonable stellar

371: mass fraction. As stated before, the simulation does not directly 

372: input the observational cosmic SFR to each galaxy. Rather, it only 

373: incorporates the functional behavior of the SFR, with its actual 

374: level and history determined based on the galcon mass and redshift. 

375: The SFR density in the GR and CR clusters is shown in the top left 

376: panel of Fig. 2. The cosmic SFR density in 

377: the GR cluster is consistent with observations; the agreement is 

378: good at high $z$, whereas below $z \sim$0.5 the SFR density is at 

379: the lower end of the observationally deduced range. This could 

380: possibly be due to the lack of galcon mergers, events during which 

381: the SFR is enhanced. Analysis of the simulation does show that at $z=0$ 

382: %some $15\%$ of the 

383: a small number of 

384: galcons are sufficiently close to merge. However, mergers and the 

385: associated boost of SF are not implemented in the current version of 

386: the simulation; their impact will be explored in planned subsequent 

387: work. The star to gas mass ratio is $\sim$9.5\%, in good agreement 

388: with the observationally deduced value (e.g., Balogh et al. 2001, Wu 

389: \& Xue 2002).

390: 

391: \subsection{Gas metallicity, density and temperature}

392: \label{cluster_properties}

393: 

394: Metallicity in the GR cluster (top right panel of Fig. 

395: 2) is due to enrichment by both winds and 

396: ram pressure stripping, with the former process being more effective 

397: at higher redshifts, since it is driven by shocks from SN that are 

398: then more prevalent. At these early periods of cluster evolution a 

399: higher fraction of galaxies are outside the cluster core, where metals 

400: are preferentially deposited. As the cluster evolves galaxies are more 

401: centrally distributed, so metals are more effectively spread in the 

402: central region. This results in an approximately constant metallicity 

403: across the cluster. On the other hand, because gas stripping depends on 

404: the local IC gas density, which builds up as the cluster evolves, the 

405: contribution to the metallicity is larger at lower $z$, and is more 

406: concentrated in the high density core, resulting in a substantial 

407: metallicity gradient.

408: 

409: The total metallicity in the GR cluster is roughly constant out to 

410: $\sim$700 kpc; it decreases at larger radii. Its mean value across 

411: the cluster is 0.32$Z_{\odot}$, within the observationally determined 

412: range, $(0.3-0.4)Z_{\odot}$. The mean metallicity in the CR cluster 

413: is 0.25$Z_{\odot}$, somewhat lower than typical. Moreover, its steep 

414: decline already in the central region is also at odds with observations, 

415: which show a nearly constant metallicity in the central few hundred kpc 

416: %(Hayakawa et al. 2006, Pratt et al. 2006).

417: (Hayakawa et al. 2006, Pratt et al. 2006), with the exception of a small 

418: galactic-size region at the cluster center where the metallicity is higher 

419: (Snowden et al. 2008). A much shallower gradient is observed in cooling 

420: flow clusters (e.g., De Grandi et al. 2004), but our simulated clusters 

421: have no cooling flows. We conclude that in our GR simulation - which 

422: includes galactic winds and ram pressure stripping - both the level of 

423: metallicity and its spatial profile are consistent with observations, 

424: whereas neither property is well reproduced in the CR cluster.

425: 

426: The density profiles (bottom left panel of Fig. 2) 

427: are similar at large radii, including a steep hump at $r \sim$600 kpc, 

428: indicating the location of a very massive clump. The profiles flatten 

429: towards the center, but the GR cluster has a substantially larger core 

430: of $\sim$180 kpc compared to a relatively small core of $50$ kpc in 

431: the CR cluster. The shape of the density profile in the central region 

432: is mainly determined by the fraction of IC gas that cooled down and 

433: converted into stars. The absence of sufficient feedback in the CR 

434: cluster results in too much cool gas in the inner core. Excessive 

435: cooling results in a small core as well as an unrealistically high 

436: number of stars, while the GR cluster includes stronger and more 

437: efficiently spread feedback, resulting in suppression of overcooling 

438: and in a larger core.

439: 

440: In a non cooling-flow cluster the core is isothermal and the temperature 

441: profile declines rapidly with radius outside the core (e.g., De Grandi 

442: \& Molendi 2002). This decrease is indeed seen in both clusters at 

443: radii larger than $\sim$200 kpc (bottom right panel of Fig. 

444: 2). However, only the GR cluster has a flat 

445: isothermal core, while in the CR cluster the temperature continues a 

446: moderate rise towards 

447: the center. In the CR simulation a local SF prescription is used; this 

448: leads to formation of star groups which are at locations where the gas 

449: is dense and cold. Feedback heating from these star groups remains 

450: localized to their immediate inner core region, too concentrated to heat 

451: the outer core. This is particularly apparent at lower $z$. In contrast, 

452: in our GR simulation the implementation of winds out of galcons 

453: effectively spreads out the heating over a much larger volume, 

454: resulting in a large isothermal core. 

455: 

456: \section{Conclusion}

457: 

458: The combinination of our galaxy constructs and new semi-analytic 

459: modeling of the relevant physical processes yields a powerful tool that is 

460: capable of reproducing the basic properties of clusters. Our new approach 

461: successfully describes SF and the basic properties of IC gas, including 

462: its metallicity and energy feedback. The ever improving observational 

463: data motivate further development of the code and inclusion of additional 

464: physical processes previously unaccounted for, such as AGN feedback. We 

465: plan to improve the description of galactic mergers, and intend to 

466: implement an improved algorithm for replacing galactic halos with new 

467: galcons as the cluster evolves, instead of performing this replacement 

468: only at an initial redshift as has been done in the simulations reported 

469: here. Ongoing work on this project will hopefully lead to a much better 

470: understanding of the intrinsic properties of both DM and baryons in 

471: clusters.

472: 

473: \acknowledgments We thank Drs. Alexei Kritsuk and Brian O'Shea for many 

474: useful discussions, and the referee for useful comments. Work at Tel 

475: Aviv University was supported by ISF grant 225/03.

476: 

477: % \bibliographystyle{apj}

478: \begin{thebibliography}{}

479: \bibitem []{} Balogh M.L. et al. 2001, \mn 326, 1228.

480: \bibitem []{} Borgani S. et al. 2003, \ph0310794.

481: \bibitem []{} Borgani S. et al. 2008, SSRv 134, 269.

482: \bibitem []{} Borgani S. et al. 2008, SSRv 134, 379.

483: \bibitem []{} Brinchmann J. \& Ellis R. 2000, \apj 536, L77.

484: \bibitem []{} Bruggen M. \& Ruszkowski M. 2005, \ph0512148.

485: \bibitem []{} Bryan G. L. \& Norman M. L. 1997, in ASP Conf. Ser. 123,

486: Computational Astrophysics, ed. D. A. Clarke \& M. Fall (San Francisco: ASP),

487: 363.

488: \bibitem []{} Cora S.A. 2006,\mn 368, 1540.

489: \bibitem []{} Cen R. \& Ostriker J.P. 1992, \apjl 399, L113.

490: 

491: \bibitem []{} Cen R. \& Ostriker J.P. 1993, \apj 417, 404.

492: \bibitem []{} Cohen J. G. 2002, \apj 567, 672.

493: \bibitem []{} De Grandi S. et al. 2004, \aa, 419, 7.

494: \bibitem []{} De Grandi S. \& Molendi S., 2002, \apj 567, 163.

495: \bibitem []{} Domainko, W., et al. 2006, \aa 452, 795.

496: \bibitem []{} Eisenstein D. J. \& Hut P. 1998, \apj 498, 137.

497: \bibitem []{} Glazebrook K. et al. 2004, \ph/0401037.

498: \bibitem []{} Gunn J.E. \& Gott J.R. 1972, \apj 176, 1.

499: \bibitem []{} Hayakawa A. et al. 2006, \pasj 58, 695.

500: \bibitem []{} Heckman, T. M. et al. 2001, \apj 558 56.

501: \bibitem []{} Heckman, T. M. 2003, RevMexAA (Serie de Conferencias) 17, 47.

502: \bibitem []{} Kapferer W. et al. 2006, \aa 447, 827

503: \bibitem []{} Kapferer W. et al. 2007, \aa 466, 813.

504: \bibitem []{} Kay et al. 2007, 

505: \bibitem []{} Kenney J.D.P. \& Koopmann R. 1999, \aj 117, 181.

506: \bibitem []{} Kenney J.D.P., Van Gorkom J. H. \& Vollmer B. 2004, \aj 127, 3361.

507: \bibitem []{} Klypin A., Gottlober S. \& Kravtzov A.V. 1999, \apj 516, 530.

508: \bibitem []{} Leitherer C., Robert C. \& Drissen L. 1992, \apj 401, 596.

509: \bibitem []{} Moore B., Katz N. \& Lake G. 1996, \apj 457, 455.

510: \bibitem []{} Nagai D. \& Kravtsov A.V. 2005, \apj, 618, 557

511: \bibitem []{} Nagamine K. et al. 2004, \apj 610, 45.

512: \bibitem []{} Nagamine et al. 2006, \apj 653, 881.

513: \bibitem []{} Pettini et al. 2001, \apj 554, 981.

514: \bibitem []{} Pratt G.M. et al. 2006, \ph0609480.

515: \bibitem []{} Press, W. H., \& Schechter, 1974, \apj 187, 425

516: \bibitem []{} Sijacki D. \& Springel V. 2006, \mn 366, 397.

517: \bibitem []{} Snowden S.L. et al. 2008, \aa 478, 615.

518: \bibitem []{} Sutherland R.S. \& Dopita M.A. 1993, \apjs 88, 253.	

519: \bibitem []{} Tornatore L. et al. 2003, \ph0302575.

520: \bibitem []{} Tornatore L. et al. 2008, 

521: \bibitem []{} Wu X.P. \& Xue Y.J. 2002, \apj 569, 112.

522: \end{thebibliography}

523: 

524: \end{document}

525: 

526: 

527: 

528: 

529: 

530: 

531: