1: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

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

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

4: 

5: %\documentclass{emulateapj}

6: %\usepackage{apjfonts}

7: \usepackage{graphicx}

8: 

9: 

10: \shorttitle{Long-wavelength FU Ori emission} \shortauthors{Zhu et al.}

11: 

12: \begin{document}

13: 

14: \title{Long-wavelength excesses of FU Orionis objects: flared outer disks or infalling envelopes?}

15: 

16: \author{Zhaohuan Zhu\altaffilmark{1}, Lee Hartmann\altaffilmark{1}, Nuria Calvet\altaffilmark{1},Jesus Hernandez\altaffilmark{1,2},  Ajay-Kumar Tannirkulam\altaffilmark{1},

17: Paola D'Alessio\altaffilmark{3}}

18: 

19: \altaffiltext{1}{Dept. of Astronomy, University of Michigan, 500

20: Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; zhuzh@umich.edu,

21: lhartm@umich.edu, ncalvet@umich.edu, hernandj@umich.edu,

22: atannirk@umich.edu, monnier@umich.edu} \altaffiltext{2}{Centro de

23: Investigaciones de Astronomia, Apartado Postal 264, Merida 5101-A,

24: Venezuela} \altaffiltext{3}{Centro de Radioastronomia y Astrofisica,

25: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 58089 Morelia, Michoacan,

26: Mexico; p.dalessio@astrosmo.unam.mx}

27: 

28: \newcommand\msun{\rm M_{\odot}}

29: \newcommand\lsun{\rm L_{\odot}}

30: \newcommand\rsun{\rm R_{\odot}}

31: \newcommand\msunyr{\rm M_{\odot}\,yr^{-1}}

32: \newcommand\be{\begin{equation}}

33: \newcommand\en{\end{equation}}

34: \newcommand\cm{\rm cm}

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

36: \newcommand\K{\rm K}

37: \newcommand\etal{{\rm et al}.\ }

38: \newcommand\sd{\partial}

39: 

40: \begin{abstract}

41: The mid- to far-infrared emission of the outbursting FU Orionis

42: objects has been attributed either to a flared outer disk or to an

43: infalling envelope.  We revisit this issue using detailed radiative

44: transfer calculations to model the recent, high signal-to-noise data

45: from the IRS instrument on the {\em Spitzer Space Telescope}.  In

46: the case of FU Ori, we find that a physically-plausible flared disk

47: irradiated by the central accretion disk matches the observations.

48: Building on our previous work, our accretion disk model with outer

49: disk irradiation by the inner disk reproduces the spectral energy

50: distribution between $\sim$~4000~\AA~ to $\sim 40 $~$\mu$m. Our

51: model is consistent with near-infrared interferometry but there are

52: some inconsistencies with mid-infared interferometric results.

53: Including the outer disk allows us to refine our estimate of the

54: outer radius of the outbursting, high mass accretion rate disk in FU

55: Ori as $\sim$ 0.5 AU, which is a crucial parameter in assessing

56: theories of the FU Orionis phenomenon.  We are able to place an

57: upper limit on the mass infall rate of any remnant envelope infall

58: rate to $\sim 7 \times$10$^{-7}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ assuming a

59: centrifugal radius of 200 AU.  The FUor BBW 76 is also well modelled

60: by a 0.6 AU inner disk and a flared outer disk. However, V1515 Cyg

61: requires an envelope with an outflow cavity to adequately reproduce

62: the IRS spectrum.  In contrast with the suggestion by Green et al.,

63: we do not require a flattened envelope to match the observations;

64: the inferred cavity shape is qualitatively consistent with typical

65: protostellar envelopes.  This variety of dusty structures suggests

66: that the FU Orionis phase can be present at either early or late

67: stages of protostellar evolution.

68: 

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: \keywords{accretion disks, circumstellar matter, stars:

72: formation,stars: variables: other, stars: pre-main sequence} \

73: 

74: \section{Introduction}

75: The FU Orionis systems are a small but remarkable class of variable

76: young stellar objects (YSOs) which undergo outbursts in optical

77: light of 5 magnitudes or more \citep{herbig77}, with a F-G

78: supergiant optical spectra and K-M supergiant near-infrared

79: (near-IR) spectra dominated by deep CO overtone absorption. FU

80: Orionis objects (FUors) have been modelled as a high mass accretion

81: disk around pre-main-sequence stars (Hartmann $\&$ Kenyon 1985,

82: 1987a, 1987b) to explain the infrared color excesses and the

83: variations of both the spectral type and rotational line width with

84: wavelength (Hartmann $\&$ Kenyon 1996; Paper I).

85: 

86: \cite{herbig77} argued that at least some FU Orionis outbursts must

87: be repetitive, and \cite{Lee96} suggested that this could be

88: explained by infall from an envelope to the disk, replenishing the

89: disk mass for further outbursts. The infall picture is also

90: suggested by the presence of scattered light envelopes around FUors,

91: suggesting that they are objects in early stages of star formation

92: \citep{herbig77,goodrich87}. In the evolution sequence, FUors may

93: play significant role in transfering a large amount of mass

94: ($\geq$10$\%$) to the central star, which is even higher than the

95: mass accumulated in the T Tauri phase \citep{leebook}.

96: 

97: However, not all FUors show the large mid-infrared (mid-IR) excesses

98: that clearly demand dense infalling envelopes. In particular,

99: \cite{ALS1987} suggested that FU Ori itself had only a depleted or

100: low-density envelope. \cite{kenyon91} suggested that a pure flared

101: disk model could explain FU Ori while an infalling envelope was

102: needed for V1057 Cyg, but \cite{turner97} proposed that both FU Ori

103: and V1057 Cyg required flattened envelopes. Finally, taking

104: advantage of IRS spectra obtained with the Spitzer Space Telescope,

105: \cite{jgreen06} concluded that the SEDs of V1057 and V1515 Cyg

106: required envelopes and derived crude models for these objects, while

107: FU Ori and BBW 76 might be explained with flared disks only. Some

108: recent studies about the silicate features also show FUors can be

109: classified as two categories and some objects are evolved (FU Ori

110: and BBW 76) with only disks left \citep{quanz2007}.

111: 

112: The IRS spectra provide us with the opportunity to perform a much

113: more detailed SED analysis for FUors. In Paper I, we developed

114: detailed accretion disk models to study the inner disk of FU Ori and

115: we derived an inner disk size $\sim$ 1 AU. In this paper, we

116: re-examine the interpretation of mid-IR excesses, taking advantage

117: of the IRS spectra, with more detailed radiative transfer models, to

118: resolve the disk/envelope problem. We will describe the

119: observational data in \S 2. In \S 3, the method to calculate the

120: temperature structure of the irradiated surface and the resulting

121: spectrum is described.  Model results for three FU Orionis objects

122: (FU Ori, BBW 76, and V1515 Cyg) are presented in \S 5.  Finally, in

123: \S 6 we discuss some implications of our results.

124: 

125: \section{Optical and infrared data }

126: \subsection{Photometry and Spectra}

127: Because FU Orionis objects are significantly variable, it is crucial

128: to minimize differences in the times of observations at differing

129: wavelengths. We build on the database assembled in Paper I for FU

130: Ori. For other FU Orionis objects, we also collected optical

131: photometry from \cite{jgreen06}. These data were obtained in 2004 at

132: the Maidanak Observatory and all the data collected in this year for

133: the same band were averaged considering FUors are variable objects.

134: Near-IR fluxes are from 2MASS point-source catalog (PSC). V1057 Cyg

135: was observed in June, 2000; V1515 Cyg was observed in November,

136: 1998; BBW 76 was observed in February 1999. As mentioned in

137: \cite{jgreen06}, because FU Orionis objects are fading slowly, the

138: extrapolation from the 2MASS epoch ($\sim$1998) to the IRS epoch

139: ($\sim$2004) is not important; thus, we adopted the 2MASS JHK

140: photometry without any correction. Mid-infrared fluxes are derived

141: from the {\em Spitzer} IRS spectra observed in 2004

142: \citep{jgreen06}.

143: 

144: The spectral energy distributions (SEDs) need to be corrected for

145: extinction to assess the brightness of the mid-IR excess relative to

146: the central hot disk, which will determine whether or not a flared

147: disk can explain the observations. To get the right extinction

148: correction, we de-reddened the optical and near-IR photometry by a

149: variety of extinction parameters (A$_{V}$). Then we compared these

150: de-reddened observations with the steady disk spectra calculated

151: with our disk model (Paper I), in which disk temperatures peak

152: around 6000 K. Through this comparison, the extinction parameter

153: which gave the best fit to the model spectrum was chosen for that

154: object. Because the disk radial temperature distribution may deviate

155: from the steady disk and boundary layer emission may be present, we

156: estimate the uncertainty of our extinction values as $\Delta A_V

157: \sim$ 0.5.

158: 

159: \subsection{Interferometry}

160: We use both the near-IR and mid-IR interferometry to test our

161: modelling of FU Ori.  The near-IR interferometric data are from

162: \cite{malbet05}, who obtained 287 long-baseline interferometric

163: observations in the H and K bands from 1998 to 2003, with resolution

164: of AU scales at the distance of FU Ori. The $(u,v)$-plane coverage

165: is shown in Fig. 1 in their paper and the averaged square

166: visibilities are provided in Table 3 of their paper. The mid-IR

167: interferometric data are from \cite{quanz2006}, who carried

168: measurements from 8~$\mu$m to 13 $\mu$m at three baselines (44.56m,

169: 86.25m, and 56.74m) between October 31 and November 4 2004 with the

170: Mid-Infrared Interferometric Instrument (MIDI) at ESO's Very Large

171: Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) on Paranal, Chile.  The visibilities

172: are provided in Table 5 of their paper.

173: 

174: 

175: \section{Model calculations}

176: 

177: \subsection{Temperature structure of the irradiated surface}

178: We follow the method of \cite{calvet91} to calculate the temperature

179: structure of the outer flaring surface irradiated by the inner hot

180: high $\dot{M}$ disk. In this treatment we have not considered the

181: outer disk self-heating, which is not important for a moderate

182: flaring disk, but has a non-negligible effect on a highly flared

183: envelope, as discussed further in \S 5.2. We have assumed the

184: flaring surface is very optically thick whether it is the disk

185: surface or the outflow cavity driven into an opaque envelope.

186: Milne's reflection effect is included and LTE is assumed. Milne's

187: reflection effect tells us that, without additional heating sources,

188: the incident radiation alters the temperature structure of the

189: low-optical depth layers such that all the energy incident on those

190: layers is radiated back or, in other words, the net fluxes of those

191: layers are zero. In the case of LTE, when the source function is

192: determined by local conditions, the transfer equation is a linear

193: equation and solutions can be superposed.

194: 

195: Specifically, if $T_1(\tau)$ is the temperature structure of the

196: standard viscous heating disk with zero incident radiation but net

197: viscous flux

198: \begin{equation}

199:  F_{V}=\frac{3GM\dot{M}}{8\pi R^{3}}\left[1-\left(\frac{R_{*}}{R}\right)^{1/2}\right]

200: \end{equation}

201:  and $T_{2}(\tau)$ is

202: a temperature structure with a given incident radiation but zero net

203: flux, then the temperature structure of the disk with both of a net

204: flux $F_{V}$ and a given incident radiation is

205: $T^{4}=T_{1}^{4}+T_{2}^{4}$. We can solve $T_{2}$ by assuming the

206: incident radiation from the central star/high $\dot{M}$ disk covers

207: a well separated frequency range from the disk emergent radiation;

208: details can be found in \cite{calvet91}. If the incident radiation

209: consists of a parallel beam carrying energy $E_{0}$(ergs cm$^{-2}$),

210: incident at an

211:  angle cos$^{-1}\mu_{0}$ to the normal of the disk surface, a fraction

212: $\sigma$ of the energy in the beam will be scattered and a fraction

213: $\alpha$ of the incident beam will be truly absorbed and remitted.

214: The temperature structure corresponding to an atmosphere that has

215: $F_{V}$ net flux and incident radiation of flux $E_{0}\mu_{0}$ is

216: \begin{equation}

217: T^{4}(\tau_{d})=\frac{3}{4}T_{V}^{4}(\tau_{d}+\frac{2}{3})+\frac{\alpha

218: E_{0}\mu_{0}}{4 \sigma_{R}}

219: \times[C_{1}'+C_{2}'e^{-q\tau_{d}/\mu_{0}}+C_{3}'e^{-\beta q

220: \tau_{d}}] \label{eq:t}

221: \end{equation}

222: where

223: \begin{equation}

224: C_{1}'=(1+C_{1})(2+\frac{3\mu_{0}}{q})+C_{2}(2+\frac{3}{\beta q})

225: \end{equation}

226: \begin{equation}

227: C_{2}'=\frac{1+C_{1}}{\mu_{0}}(q-\frac{3\mu_{0}^{2}}{q})

228: \end{equation}

229: \begin{equation}

230: C_{3}'=C_{2}\beta(q-\frac{3}{q\beta^{2}})

231: \end{equation}

232: and

233: \begin{equation}

234: C_{1}=-\frac{3\sigma \mu_{0}^{2}}{1-\beta^{2}\mu_{0}^{2}}

235: \end{equation}

236: \begin{equation}

237: C_{2}=\frac{\sigma(2+3\mu_{0})}{\beta[1+(2\beta/3)](1-\beta^{2}\mu_{0}^{2})}

238: \end{equation}

239: where $\alpha=1-\sigma$, $\beta=(3\alpha)^{1/2}$ and

240: $q=\tau_{s}/\tau_{d}$. $\tau_{s}$ and $\tau_{d}$ are the optical

241: depths at the stellar and disk frequency. For a viscous heating

242: disk,

243: \begin{equation}

244: \sigma_{R}T_{V}^{4}=\frac{3GM\dot{M}}{8\pi

245: R^{3}}\left[1-(\frac{R_{*}}{R})^{1/2}\right],

246: \end{equation} while for an

247: envelope without viscous heating, $T_{V}=0$.

248: 

249:  We assume a two part model: an

250:  inner steady accretion disk of high mass accretion rate

251:  $\dot{M}$ with outer radius $R_{in}$, which is optically thick

252:  but geometrically thin and flat with height $H_{0}$; and an outer optically thick region, $R\geq

253:  R_{in}$,

254:  which is heated by absorption of the light from the inner disk.

255:   The geometrical details are described in the Appendix A and Fig. \ref{fig:1}.

256:   The values of the quantities $\mu_{0}$ and $E_{0}$ characterizing the incoming radiation to every outer annulus

257:  are calculated by integrating the mean intensity arriving from every part of

258:  the inner disk. These quantities depend on

259:  both of the inner disk physical condition (eg. the peak temperature,

260:  disk size) and the geometry of the outer disk surface (Appendix A).

261: 

262: We used the same parametrization to describe the flared surface

263: geometry of the disk outside $R_{in}$ as \cite{calvet91}. The scale

264: height of a vertically isothermal disk is

265: \begin{equation}

266: H=\frac{c_{s}}{\Omega}

267: \end{equation}

268: where $c_{s}$ is the sound speed at the disk midplane and $\Omega$

269: is the angular velocity. For typical disk temperature distributions,

270: $T\propto R^{-n}$, where 3/4 $\lesssim$ n $\lesssim$ 1/2. Thus, for

271: a Keplerian disk, $H\propto R^{\gamma}$, where 9/8 $\lesssim \gamma

272: \lesssim $ 5/4.

273: 

274: For a very optically thick disk, the absorption height $H_{s}$ where

275: most of the inner disk radiation is absorbed is a nearly constant

276: multiple of $H$ \citep{dalessio2001}; thus we parameterize $H_{s}$

277: as

278: \begin{equation}

279: H_{s}=H_{0}(\frac{R}{R_{in}})^{\gamma} \label{eq:surf}

280: \end{equation}

281: where $H_{0}$ is the disk height of the inner high $\dot{M}$ disk

282: and $R_{in}$ is the outer radius of the inner high $\dot{M}$ disk,

283: which is also the inner boundary of the flared outer surface (Fig.

284: \ref{fig:1}). Thus, for FU Ori, $R_{in}\sim$0.5-1 AU. We adopt this

285: form to model all objects. When it turns out that $H_{s}\gg H$, or

286: $\gamma>5/4$, we conclude that the absorbing surface we are

287: describing is not that of a flared disk but rather represents the

288: edge of a cavity in a dusty opaque envelope. Our outer disk (or

289: envelope) structure joins abruptly to the inner flat thin disk. In

290: reality we expect a smoother joining between inner and outer

291: regions, but this depends upon the precise geometry of the inner

292: disk (height,flaring) which in turn depends upon the detailed

293: viscosity, etc. Thus, the details of our model near $R_{in}$ (and

294: the precise values of $R_{in}$ and $H_{0}$) are uncertain, while the

295: structure at $R>R_{in}$ is more robustly modeled.

296: 

297: The gas opacity used in this model is the same as we used in Paper

298: I. We improve our dust opacity by using the prescription in

299: \cite{dalessio2001}. For each dust component, the grain size

300: distribution is given by a power law of the grain radius,

301: $n(a)=n_{0}a^{-p}$, between a minimum and maximum radius. We choose

302: $a_{min}$=0.005 $\mu$m, $a_{max}$=1 $\mu$m, and $p$=3.5. The

303: detailed ingredients of the dust are shown in Table 1. With this

304: monochromatic dust opacity and gas opacity from Paper I, we

305: calculate the $\alpha$ and $q$ parameters of Eq. (\ref{eq:t}). For

306: $\alpha$, we weight the monochromatic $\alpha_{\nu}$ by the Planck

307: function at the stellar temperature. For $q$, we calculate the

308: Rosseland mean opacity weighted by the planck function at the

309: stellar temperature and the disk temperature separately, and then

310: divide them. We also use the same opacity to calculate the emergent

311: spectra and disk images. Although the dust ingredients may vary for

312: different objects, we use the ingredients in Table \ref{tab1} for

313: all, considering that larger uncertainties caused by the invalidity

314: of the plane parallel assumption, as discussed below.

315: 

316: \subsection{Emergent spectra and disk images}

317: Given $\alpha$, $q$, $\mu_{0}$ and E$_{0}$, we can calculate the

318: temperature structure of every outer irradiated annulus using Eq.

319: (\ref{eq:t}).  The emergent intensity of any annulus at any outgoing

320: direction then can be derived by solving the radiative transfer

321: equation. Our calculation of the emergent spectrum does not include

322: scattering. Scattering is unlikely to be important in the

323: mid-infrared but may have an effect in the near-infrared; we will

324: consider a detailed scattering treatment in a future paper.

325: 

326: When the intensity of every annulus, every outgoing direction and

327: every wavelength is derived, the total flux and the image of the

328: flared surface for any inclination angle can be derived, for given

329: flared surface geometry.

330:  The total flux can be compared with the IRS spectra while

331: the image can be used to do interferometric tests. The details are

332: shown in Appendix B.

333: 

334: \section{Results}

335: \subsection{FU Ori}

336: 

337: Fig. \ref{fig:fuorispe} shows the final model spectra for FU Ori

338: compared with the observed SED. The parameters are in Table 2. The

339: inner disk model is that of Paper I, which shows absorption features

340: because it is internally heated by viscous dissipation. The outer

341: flared disk exhibits

342:  10 and 18 $\mu$m silicate emission features due to

343: the strong irradiation by the inner high $\dot{M}$ disk, which

344: produces a temperature inversion at its surface.  The model does not

345: fit the 18 $\mu$m feature very well, suggesting that either the size

346: distribution we are using for the dust may vary with radius or the

347: temperature structure of the outer region is not accurate.

348: 

349: The adopted surface has the parameters $H_{s} = 0.19

350: (R/R_{in})^{1.125}$~AU, where $R_{in}$=0.58 AU (see Fig.

351: \ref{fig:fuorisurf}). To investigate whether this surface is

352: plausibly that of a flared disk, we computed the approximate local

353: vertical scale height $H = c_s/\Omega$, assuming that the central

354: mass is 0.3 M$_{\odot}$ (Paper I) and the temperature at the

355: mid-plane is equal to the temperature at $\tau_{d}$=10 (i.e., the

356: disk interior temperature distribution is roughly isothermal.).  The

357: results indicate that our adopted surface lies roughly 3 scale

358: heights above the midplane (Fig. \ref{fig:fuorisurf}), comparable to

359: the dusty disk scale heights estimated for typical T Tauri stars

360: \citep{kenyon87,dalessio1998,dalessio2001}. Thus, a

361: physically-plausible flared disk can reproduce the mid-IR flux of FU

362: Ori. The temperature at $\tau_{d}=2/3$ is shown in Fig.

363: \ref{fig:surftemp}. Because the disk is isothermal when

364: $\tau_{d}>\sim$$1$, the midplane temperature is almost the same as

365: Fig. \ref{fig:surftemp}.

366: 

367: In Paper I, without considering the flux from the flared outer

368: surface, we derived an inner high $\dot{M}$ disk size of $\sim$ 1

369: AU, constrained by the mid-IR IRS spectrum.  The flared outer disk

370: contributes some emission shortward of 10 $\mu$m, necessitating a

371: reduction of the outer radius of the inner outbursting disk from 1

372: AU to $\sim$ 0.58 AU. This reduction of the outer radius does not

373: significantly affect the conclusions of Paper I; in particular, the

374: model of Bell \& Lin (1994) still cannot reproduce the observations.

375: 

376: We next compare model results with near-IR and mid-IR

377: interferometry. The images at the H and K bands are calculated by

378: assuming the above flared surface geometry and all the parameters

379: flow strictly from the SED fitting. To compensate for the lack of

380: scattering in our models, we add an extra component of emission

381: corresponding to an ``effective albedo'' of about 30\% in H and K;

382: compared with the case without scattering, the scattering model

383: decreases the square visibilities by only 5\%. We adopt the 55

384: degree inclination angle estimated by \cite{malbet05}. We further

385: adopt a -30 degree position angle for the disk, which is roughly

386: perpendicular to the axis of large-scale reflection nebulosity seen

387: in optical imaging \citep{Lee96}, although due to the large error

388: bars in the observed visibilities, the

389: choice of the position angle has little effect.%??

390: 

391: With the image as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:image}, the resulting model

392: visibilities are compared with the observations in Fig.

393: \ref{fig:HKvis}. Within the relatively large observational errors,

394: our FU Ori model is consistent with the near-IR interferometry.

395:  Considering

396: 90\% of the flux at H and K bands is from the inner disk, the

397: near-IR interferometry only tests the inner disk modeling and longer

398: wavelength data are needed to test the outer disk modeling. We

399: compute the mid-infrared visibilities, and compare with the

400: VLTI-MIDI data from \cite{quanz2006}; The comparison is shown in

401: Fig. \ref{fig:midi}. While the model predictions are in reasonable

402: agreement with the observations at the shortest wavelengths, the

403: predicted visibilities are considerably lower than the observations

404: at long wavelengths. Although self-heating is not important in SED

405: fitting because only 17$\%$ of the inner disk radiation intercepted

406: by the outer disk within 10 AU by Eq. 7 in \cite{jgreen06},

407: self-heating may change the visibility a little bit. However, it is

408: not apparent to tell whether the visibility will increase or

409: decrease, because the inclusion of the self-heating will decrease

410: the flaring slightly, and thus decrease the amount of light

411: intercepted from the inner disk, to keep the same SED.

412: 

413:  The

414: comparison with the mid-infrared observation might be improved if

415: the disk has a higher inclination angle than estimated by Malbet et

416: al. With a bigger inclination angle, the disk would be less resolved

417: (higher visibility) for the 44.56 m baseline which lies on the short

418: axes of the disk image.

419:  The visibilities for other two baselines

420: would also increase, though not as much as for the 44.56 m baseline.

421: However, a bigger inclination angle may also increase the

422: visibilities at shorter wavelengths which may contradict with the

423: observed visibilities around 8 $\mu$m. Unfortunately we can not test

424: this by our model because the light from the inner disk has to

425: travel through the outer disk to reach us at higher inclination

426: angle and this needs a more complicated radiative transfer treatment

427: than adopted in this paper.

428: 

429: Another possibility is that there might be an abrupt change in the

430: disk absorption height at the radius around $R_{in}$ where dust

431: condenses, due to the

432:  much larger opacity of dust than gas; this might produce

433: a radially-sharp mid-infrared emission feature in the disk where the

434: dust begins to form at T$\sim$1500 K, by intercepting more

435: irradiated flux from the inner disk. Finally, there might simply be

436: narrower structures than we can model, such as non-axisymmetric

437: spiral arms due to gravitational instability in the outer disk

438: (Paper I).

439: 

440: Overall, the spectrum fitting and the near-infrared interferometry

441: support our flared disk model.  Better uv plane coverage in mid-infrared

442: interferometry would help to improve our understanding of

443: the outer disk structure.

444: 

445: \subsection{BBW 76}

446: We fit the SED of BBW 76 following the same procedure as used for FU

447: Ori (Fig. \ref{fig:BBWspe}). Given the similarity of the large scale

448: nebulosity to that of FU Ori, we adopt a similar inclination angle

449: of 50 degrees. %LH

450: Because BBW 76 has the same rotational velocity broadening as FU Ori

451: (Reipurth et al. 2002), we choose the same central star mass 0.3

452: M$_{\odot}$. The parameters of the best fit model are displayed in

453: Table 2. The flared surface (solid curve in Fig.

454: \ref{fig:fuorisurf}) also lies close to 3 scale heights, and is

455: therefore consistent with a flared disk structure. With the same

456: relative strength of the IRS spectrum with respect to the optical

457: flux and the same IRS spectrum shape as FU Ori, we derived a similar

458: outer radius of the inner high $\dot{M}$ disk $\sim$0.6 AU. However,

459: the outer disk extends further than in FU Ori, to $\sim$ 200 AU, due

460: to the slightly higher 18 $\mu$m excess of BBW 76.

461: 

462: \subsection{V1515 Cyg}

463: 

464: The nebulosity seen on large scales suggests that we view V1515 Cyg

465: nearly pole-on, looking right down an outflow cavity (Goodrich

466: 1987). For simplicity we assume an inclination angle of 0; small

467: departures from this will have little effect on our modelling.

468: Because of the low inclination, it is difficult to constrain the

469: central star mass very well (Kenyon, Hartmann, \& Hewett 1988). We

470: therefore assume the central star is like FU Ori with a mass of 0.3

471: M$_{\odot}$. In contrast to FU Ori and BBW 76, the absorption height

472: of the surface required to fit the SED of V1515 Cyg is highly flared

473: (Fig. \ref{fig:v1515spe}). This surface lies at about 6 scale

474: heights (Fig. \ref{fig:fuorisurf}) with the assumption that the

475: central star mass is 0.3 M$_{\odot}$; this value is higher than a

476: physically plausible height for a disk. Instead, the large dust

477: surface height and relatively small opening angle (H/R $>\sim$ 1)

478: strongly suggest that this surface defines an outflow-driven cavity

479: in an infalling envelope, as suggested by Kenyon \& Hartmann (1991)

480: and Green et al. (2006).

481: 

482: Though this surface may extend to a very large radius, most of the

483: IRS mid-IR flux comes from small radii, eg. 80 $\%$ of 10 $\mu$m

484: flux and 50 $\%$ of 20 $\mu$m flux come within 10 AU. This can be

485: roughly estimated from Fig. \ref{fig:surftemp}. By wien's law, 100 K

486: blackbody has its peak flux at 20 $\mu$m and from Fig.

487: \ref{fig:surftemp} 100 K corresponds to 10 AU.

488: 

489: Our assumed dust properties fit the silicate emission features of FU

490: Ori very well, but in V1515 Cyg the model continuum is a bit too

491: steeply declining longward of 30 $\mu$m; in addition, the model

492: predicts slightly stronger silicate features than observed (Fig.

493: \ref{fig:v1515spe}). These discrepancies might be reduced if we had

494: adopted larger dust grain sizes which can make the silicate features

495: wider and shallower. However, it could also be that our assumption

496: of plane-parallel geometry is not correct for the outer envelope. As

497: Fig. \ref{fig:surftemp} shows, although the fluxes at $\lambda <10

498: \mu m$ (characteristic of a black body temperature $<$ 300 K) are

499: mainly from the surface within 10 AU, the long wavelength fluxes may

500: come from a much larger radius from 10 AU to 100 AU. Because

501: infalling envelopes are much less optically thick than disks at

502: these radii, long wavelength photons may travel further into the

503: envelope, invalidating the plane-parallel assumption.

504: 

505: 

506: \section{Discussion}

507: \subsection{Flared Disks}

508: The inner disks of the FUors are internally-heated accretion disks,

509: which produce absorption features. However, the silicate emission

510: features must arise in a dusty region that is externally heated to

511: produce a temperature inversion in the surface of optically-thick

512: dusty disks and envelopes. In the cases of FU Ori and BBW 76, we

513: find that the IRS SED can be explained with physically plausible

514: flared disks.

515: 

516: For the flared disks of FU Ori and BBW 76 we derived $H_{s}/R \sim

517: 0.5$ which is larger than the value of 0.2 crudely estimated by

518: \cite{jgreen06} for FU Ori.  The main reason for the discrepancy is

519: that we adopt a smaller $A_{V}$ than \cite{jgreen06}, which makes

520: the inner disk fainter and thus requires a more flared outer disk to

521: absorb and reemit the same luminosity (the long-wavelength spectrum

522: is relatively unaffected at these low values of extinctions).  If

523: anything our extinction estimate is likely to be low, which means

524: that we may have overestimated the required flaring, and thus makes

525: it even more plausible that the long-wavelength emission comes from

526: the outer disks.

527: 

528: We note that, in estimating the number of scale heights for the

529: disk, we have assumed that the disk has been able to relax to

530: vertical hydrostatic equilibrium after the outburst. Before the

531: outburst, we expect the outer disk to be cooler and thus thinner.

532: After the outburst, the outer disk is heated by the inner hot disk

533: and gets puffed up. The time scale for the disk to adjust its

534: vertical hydrostatic equilibrium to the extra irradiation is

535: $H/c_{s}$, where $H$ is the disk scale height and $c_{s}$ is the

536: sound speed. Since $H = c_{s}/\Omega$, $H/c_{s} =1/\Omega$ or $P/2

537: \pi$, where $P$ is the orbital period. Thus,

538: \begin{equation}

539: \frac{H}{C_{s}}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{(R/1AU)^{3/2}}{

540: (M/M_{\odot})^{1/2}} yr

541: \end{equation}

542: As the outburst of FU Ori has been proceeding for over 70 years now,

543: our assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium is good for the inner

544: parts of the flared disk, but may be less appropriate for the outer

545: disk; beyond 50 AU for an assumed 0.3 M$_{\odot}$ central star

546: (Paper I), the hydrostatic equilibrium time starts to become longer

547: (100 yrs) than the length of the current outburst.%? Zhaohuan

548: 

549: While it is not necessary to include disk accretion energy in the

550: outer disk to fit the spectrum reasonably well, this does not mean

551: that the disk is not accreting; the local viscous energy release is

552: simply much less than the irradiation heating. We find that outer

553: disk accretion rates greater than $\sim 1/4$ of the inner disk

554: accretion rate yield silicate features shallower than observed in

555: the IRS spectra. Thus, the data suggest that the outer disk

556: accretion rates in BBW 76 and FU Ori are significantly smaller than

557: the inner disk accretion rates. This is consistent with models in

558: which material piles up and then accretes in bursts (e.g., Kenyon

559: $\&$ Hartmann 1991; Armitage et al. 2001).

560: 

561: \subsection{Envelopes }

562: 

563: The IRS SED of V1515 Cyg cannot be explained with a reasonably

564: flared disk.  A much more plausible explanation is that we are

565: observing emission from the surface of a cavity in a dusty,

566: infalling envelope. \cite{jgreen06} also inferred an envelope around

567: V1515 Cyg, and estimated a maximum solid angle of the outer envelope

568: of $H_{s}/R \sim 0.37$ based on 14\% of the inner disk radiation

569: being intercepted and reradiated by the envelope. However, their

570: estimate was a lower limit because they did not include emission at

571: longer wavelengths than observed by the IRS.

572: 

573: 

574: %LH the below isn't a good procedure, because you are using the model to EXTRAPOLATE

575: %to wavelengths that are not observed.  Rather, what you should do

576: %is show that the part of the model which corresponds to the IRS range

577: %covers a similar or whatever fraction of solid angle.

578: %Based on our radiative

579: %transfer model, the total energy coming from the outer disk is

580: %22$\%$ of the energy from the inner disk.

581: %Based on Eqn.7 of

582: %\cite{jgreen06}, H/R $\sim$ 0.53, which agrees with Fig

583: %\ref{fig:v1515surf}.

584: 

585: %LH

586: In our radiative transfer model, 80$\%$ of the 10 $\mu$m flux and

587: 50\% of the 20 $\mu$m flux arises from within 10 AU.  At this radius

588: the height of the envelope surface is about 10 AU (Fig.

589: \ref{fig:fuorisurf}), so that the fraction of solid angle covered at

590: this point is about 70\%. This is roughly twice the solid angle

591: estimated by  $H_{s}/R \sim 0.37$ from Green et al. , but the

592: assumed geometries are different. Our cavity structure (Fig.

593: \ref{fig:fuorispe}) is much more consistent with typical outflow

594: cavity structures \citep{Dougados2000} and our radiative transfer

595: methods are more robust. We estimate that self-heating of the outer

596: flared disks, which we ignore, is a relatively small effect because

597: the outer disk only intercepts a small fraction of the inner disk

598: flux. This is not true of the envelope for V1515 Cyg, and so our

599: results for this object can only be suggestive rather than

600: conclusive. Our main point is that a flared disk model cannot

601: reproduce the observations of V1515 Cyg and V1057 Cyg. We are

602: currently exploring models o these two objects with two-dimensional

603: radiative transfer and will report results in a future paper.

604: 

605: We have also begun to investigate V1057 Cyg. Our preliminary model

606: is very similar to that of V1515 Cyg, with a highly flared envelope.

607: However, when the object is not pole-on or a flat disk our method is

608: questionable (i.e., maybe we are looking along the edge of the

609: envelope, or even through some of the envelope), thus we will

610: revisit V1057 Cyg using a more detailed radiative transfer method in

611: a subsequent paper.

612: 

613: The near-IR Keck interferometer \citep{Millan2006} also found a

614: difference between the near-IR sizes for V1515 Cyg and V1057 Cyg

615: compared with FU Ori. The low near-IR visibilities suggest V1515 Cyg

616: and V1057 Cyg are more resolved than FU Ori, which suggests dense

617: envelops may be present for these objects. This is an additional

618: support for the envelope model, but in future the detailed modeling

619: is needed to fit these interferometry data.

620: \subsection{Do FU Ori and BBW 76 have envelopes? }

621: 

622: As both FU Ori and BBW 76 have large-scale reflection nebulosities,

623: it suggests that they have remnant infalling envelopes, if

624: sufficiently optically thin. We can estimate an upper limit to the

625: amount of possible envelope material in FU Ori and BBW 76 from a

626: limit on the visual extinction. We use the rotating collapse model

627: of Terebey, Shu, \& Cassen (1984). When $r \gg r_{c}$ ,where $r_{c}$

628: is the centrifugal radius,

629: \begin{equation}

630: \rho\sim\frac{\dot{M}}{4\pi(2GM)^{1/2}}r^{-3/2}\,;

631: \end{equation}

632: when $r \ll r_{c}$,

633: \begin{equation}

634: \rho\sim\frac{\dot{M}}{8\pi

635: r_{c}(GM)^{1/2}}(1+\cos\theta)^{-1/2}r^{-1/2}

636: \end{equation}

637: Integrating the above equations from 0 to $\infty$ and then

638: multiplying by the visual dust opacity $\kappa_{V}$ at the V band,

639: \begin{equation}

640: \tau_{V}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\kappa_{V}\rho dr

641: =\frac{\dot{M}\kappa_{V}}{4\pi(GMr_{c})^{1/2}}((1+\cos(\theta))^{-1/2}+2^{1/2})

642: \end{equation}

643: With $\theta = 60^{o}$, $M=0.3 M_{\odot}$, $\kappa_{V}$=100

644: cm$^{2}$/gr, and $\tau_{V}<$2 constrained by A$_{V}$$\sim$2, we find

645: \begin{equation}

646: \frac{\dot{M}}{r_{c}^{1/2}}<\frac{7\times10^{-7}M_{\odot}yr^{-1}}{(200

647: AU)^{1/2}}

648: \end{equation}

649: If $r_{c}$=200 AU, we thus estimate an upper limit of $\dot{M}

650: \lesssim 7 \times 10^{-7} M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, which is considerably

651: smaller than typical Class I infall rates of $2 - 10 \times 10^{-6}

652: M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$.

653: %LH ApJ style is to use yr$^{-1}$.

654: 

655: \cite{ALS1987} also suggested that FU Ori has a highly depleted

656: dusty envelope, with a density depletion factor 0.01 with respect to

657: the density derived by their standard infall envelope model. Though

658: they didn't give the mass infall rate for the depleted envelope

659: models, we can estimate their mass infall rate is

660: $\sim$10$^{-7}$M$_{\odot}$/yr by multiplying the depletion factor

661: 0.01 by their standard mass infall rate 10$^{-5}$M$_{\odot}$/yr.

662: Because they didn't consider the flared outer disk which is the main

663: contributor at IRS range, this infall rate is an upper limit.

664: Submillimeter observations barely resolve FU Ori and BBW 76

665: \citep{2001ApJS..134..115S}, which also implies highly evolved or

666: absent envelopes.

667: 

668: \subsection{Dust properties}

669: 

670: The 18 $\mu$m features in the SEDs are not well fit, indicating that

671: we may need to use a different grain opacity or a more detailed

672: radiative transfer method. However, we can still study the dust

673: properties from the 10 $\mu$m silicate emission features. The dust,

674: with a power-law distribution of the grain radius and a maximum

675: radius 1 $\mu$m, is larger than the typical interstellar medium dust

676: with a maximum grain radius 0.25 $\mu$m \citep{dalessio2001}.

677: Although this dust composition differs from the one used by

678: \cite{quanz2007}, where they use a mixture of grains with three

679: different sizes (0.1,1.5 and 6 $\mu$m), it also suggests that grain

680: growth has taken place in the disk. Our results confirm

681: \cite{quanz2007} that a significantly higher fraction of

682: $\sim$1$\mu$m grains is required. BBW 76 is similar to FU Ori while

683: V1515 Cyg seems to require grains growing to even larger sizes.

684: 

685: In Paper I, we suggested that dust might be depleted in the inner

686: disk, based on the observed water vapor absorption features at $8

687: \mu$m. However, if we deplete the dust in the outer disk of FU Ori

688: and BBW 76, we predict a strong water vapor emission at 8 $\mu$m,

689: which is not observed. Thus, there may not be significant depletion

690: in the outer disk, which may be reasonable given the youth of the

691: system and the likelihood that grain growth/settling timescales are

692: longer at larger radii \citep{weiden1997}.  However, this is not a

693: firm conclusion, as the abundance of water vapor is poorly

694: understood and the region of the disk where most of the 8 $\mu m$

695: flux comes from is at the region where we join the inner and outer

696: disk solutions, and thus is uncertain.

697: 

698: 

699: 

700: \subsection{Evolutionary states and FU Ori classification}

701: 

702: The (meager) event statistics suggest that there must be repeated FU

703: Orionis outbursts in at least some young stars (Herbig 1977;

704: Hartmann \& Kenyon 1996).  Kenyon \& Hartmann (1991) proposed that

705: continued infall was needed to replenish the material accreted onto

706: the central star during an outburst. While we are unable to

707: determine the infall rate for V1515 Cyg from our particular

708: modelling, previous estimates suggest that sufficient matter may be

709: falling in to make repeat outbursts possible in V1515 Cyg and in

710: V1057 Cyg (Kenyon \& Hartmann 1991; Green \etal 2006).

711: 

712: In contrast, we have shown that FU Ori and BBW 76 have little or no infall from

713: remnant envelopes.  The low upper limits of infall in these objects

714: suggest that continuing infall may not be important in continuing outbursts;

715: any subsequent outbursts may have to rely on material already present in these

716: disks.  Thus, we suggest that FU Ori and BBW 76 are nearing the end of their

717: outburst lives, while V1515 Cyg and V1057 Cyg have a much higher probability

718: of continuing their activity.

719: 

720: The significant difference between FU Ori and BBW 76 on the one

721: hand, and V1515 Cyg and V1057 Cyg on the other, is also supported by

722: submillimeter observations. FU Ori and BBW 76 are very faint and

723: hardly resolved at submilimeter wavelengths

724: \citep{2001ApJS..134..115S}, suggesting that they have more depleted

725: envelopes than other FU Orionis objects.

726: 

727: Overall, the variety of the FU Orionis

728: envelopes suggests that FU Orionis phenomenon is observed at

729: different stages of the protostars and every YSO may experience

730: several FU Orionis outbursts from the early to the late stages of protostellar

731: infall.

732: 

733: %LH: should we invent new "categories"?  why not just call them Class I or Class II?

734: In this regard, young stellar objects (YSO) have been classified as

735: two categories based on their spectral index $n\equiv d$ log($\nu

736: F_{\nu})/d$ log $\nu$ in the near-infrared and mid-infrared

737: \citep{ALS1987}. $n\leq 0$ represents the protostars embedded in

738: infalling envelopes (Class I) and $n>0$ represents the T Tauri stars

739: without envelopes (Class II). This classification helps us to

740: understand the evolutionary sequence of YSO, from protostars to

741: pre-main-sequence stars. As we discussed above, FU Orions objects

742: are in a stage between Class I and Class II. Thus, it is also

743: helpful to classify FU Orions objects in two categories

744: \citep{quanz2007}. However because of the strong near-IR flux

745: produced by the high $\dot{M}$ disk, $n$ is always positive in the

746: near-IR and mid-IR (1-10 $\mu$m) range. Thus, based on the spectra

747: and envelope structures of FU Ori, BBW 76 and V1057 Cyg, we suggest

748: a criterion to classify FU Orionis objects by using mid-IR spectral

749: index $n\equiv d$ log($\nu F\nu)/d$ log $\nu$ from 14 to 40 $\mu$m,

750: where most of the flux is contributed by the outer region beyond the

751: inner disk. If $n$ is negative or close to zero, this FU Orionis

752: object has a circumstellar envelope which produces a flat mid-IR

753: spectrum (eg: V1057 Cyg and V1515 Cyg). If $n$ is positive it may

754: have a remnant envelope far away and the mid-IR flux is contributed

755: by a flared outer disk (eg: FU Ori and BBW 76).

756: 

757: This classification method is different from the method used by

758: \cite{quanz2007} where they used the 10 $\mu$m silicate feature to

759: classify FU Orionis objects. They suggest that the objects with

760: absorption features are in Category I, embedded in circumstellar

761: envelopes, while the objects with emission features are in Category

762: II, which are more evolved and show properties of Class II sources.

763: However, as discussed above, some FU Orionis objects embedded in

764: envelopes have cavities (eg. V1057 Cyg and V1515 Cyg) with moderate

765: opening angles. Thus, if we view these objects pole on, we will

766: still detect the emission features and would classify them as

767: Category I by the emission silicate feature method.

768: 

769: Another benefit of using a  mid-IR index is that the strength of 10

770: $\mu$m silicate features are dependent on the inclination angle. In

771: contrast, for continuum emission at 14-40 $\mu$m is not affected

772: significantly by the inclination and envelope extinction, since the

773: opacity at 14 $\mu$m is close to the opacity at 30 $\mu$m, and 5

774: times smaller than the opacity at 9 $\mu$m for a$_{max}$=1 $\mu$m

775: olivine grains. Even for a highly embedded FU Orionis objects,

776: A$_{V}$=10 (A$_{silicate}$=0.7), A$_{14\mu m}$ is only $\sim$ 0.15,

777: in which case an extinction correction is not necessary. With the

778: mid-IR index method, we get the same classification for the objects

779: listed in \cite{quanz2007} except that V1057 Cyg, V1515 Cyg, and V

780: 1647 Ori are identified in Category I. In this paper, we suggest

781: that V1057 Cyg, V1515 Cyg have normal envelopes, thus they are

782: indeed in Category I. V1647 Ori object is a special FUor with both

783: large extinctions, A$_{V}\simeq$11 and silicate emission features.

784: \cite{quanz2007} suggests there maybe a foreground cloud between

785: this object and us, which makes it hard to classify and it needs

786: detailed modelling.

787: 

788: \section{Conclusions}

789: With the latest IRS spectra and a detailed radiative transfer model

790: including irradiation, we revisited the envelope/flared disk problem

791: of FUors. We confirmed the results of \cite{jgreen06} that FU Ori

792: and BBW 76 have flared outer disks while V1515 Cyg has a

793: circumstellar envelope. However, instead of a flattened envelope and

794: a large opening angle \citep{jgreen06}, we derived a more reasonable

795: cavity structure.

796: 

797: For FU Ori, near-infrared interferometry also supports our model,

798: while mid-infrared interferometry does not fit perfectly and needs

799: further modelling. Including the contribution from the outer flared

800: disk, we gave a tighter constraint on the outer radius of the inner

801: disk $\sim$0.5 AU, which is essential to test outburst theories

802: (Paper I).

803: 

804: We also suggest using a spectral index $n$ from 14 $\mu$m to 40

805: $\mu$m to classify FUors into early (Category I) and late (Category

806: II), which is less sensitive to the viewing angle. The variety of FU

807: Orionis envelopes suggests that FU Orionis phenomenon is observed at

808: different stages of the protostars, and every YSO may experience

809: several FU Orionis outbursts from very early to late stages of the

810: infalling envelope.

811: 

812: This research was supported in part by the University of Michigan.

813: In addition, this work was based in part on observations made with

814: the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion

815: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with

816: NASA. We gratefully acknowledges John D. Monnier who drew our

817: attention to the interferometry and gave us many helpful advices.

818: 

819: %Zhaohuan??  \keyword{Spitzer}

820: 

821: \appendix{}

822: \section{Flared surface geometry}

823:  The inner disk and outer flared surface are

824: shown in Figure 1. For

825:  point A, located at distance $R_{A}$ from the center, the

826: quantities $\mu_{0}$ and $E_{0}$ are derived as follows. We define

827: several vectors as shown in the Figure 1; the normal vector to the

828: flaring surface at A is:

829: \begin{equation}

830: \hat{n}=-sin\alpha\,\hat{y}+cos\alpha\, \hat{z}

831: \end{equation}

832: The vector from the shaded area at R$_{i}$ in the inner disk to

833: point A at the flaring outer disk is:

834: \begin{equation}

835: \vec{r}=R_{i}sin\phi\hat{x}+(R_{A}-R_{i}cos\phi) \hat{y}+(H_{A}-H_{0})\hat{z}

836: \end{equation}

837: where

838: \begin{equation}

839:  \hat{r}=\frac{\vec{r}}{|\vec{r}|}

840: \end{equation}

841: 

842: 

843: The solid angle $d\omega$ extended by S with respect to point A is (

844: S is the area of the tiny shaded region at R$_{i}$ in figure 1.)

845: \begin{equation}

846: d\omega=\frac{\vec{S}\cdot\hat{r}}{|\vec{r}|^{2}}

847: \end{equation}

848: where

849: \begin{equation}

850: \vec{S}=S\hat{z}

851: \end{equation}

852: Thus $E_{in}^{i}$, the amount of energy irradiated from the inner

853: disk annulus R$_{i}$ to unit area normal to $\vec{r}$ at point A ,

854: is $I_{i}\Delta\omega$ integrated over all the area of annulus i.

855: Thus,

856: \begin{equation}

857: E_{in}^{i}=\int_{annulus R_{i}} I_{i} d\omega=\int_{0}^{2\pi}

858: I_{i}\frac{\hat{z}\cdot\hat{r}}{|\vec{r}|^{2}} R_{i} \Delta R d\phi

859: =I_{i}\frac{2\pi R_{i} sin\gamma \Delta R

860: }{R_{A}^{2}+(H_{A}-H_{0})^{2}}

861: \end{equation}

862: Because of limb darkening, $I_{i}$ from the inner disk annulus i

863: equals to $I_{i}^{0}\times\frac{3}{5}(\frac{2}{3}+\mu)$, where

864: $I_{i}^{0}$ is the intensity at radius R$_{i}$ towards z direction

865: (direction perpendicular to the inner disk surface) and $\mu$ is the

866: cosine of the angle between $\vec{r}$ and z direction; thus we use

867: $sin\gamma$ to approximate $\mu$.

868: 

869:  Then, $E_{in}^{i}\mu_{i}$, the amount of energy irradiated from the inner

870: disk annulus R$_{i}$ to unit area at the flaring surface point A

871: (notice it is different from the above unit area normal to $\vec{r}$

872: at point A), is

873: \begin{equation}

874: E_{in}^{i}\mu_{i}=\int_{annulus R_{i}} I_{i}\hat{n}\cdot\hat{r}

875: d\omega

876: =\int_{0}^{2\pi}I_{i}\frac{\hat{z}\cdot\hat{r}}{|\vec{r}|^{2}}\hat{n}\cdot\hat{r}R_{i}\Delta

877: Rd\phi

878: \end{equation}

879: 

880: Finally, we add the contributions of all the inner annuli together

881: to get the flux $E_{0}$,

882: \begin{equation}

883: E_{0}=\Sigma_{i}E_{in}^{i}

884: \end{equation}

885: and the equivalent $\mu_{0}$ ( cosine of the equivalent incident

886: angle $\overline{\beta}$ ) :

887: \begin{equation}

888: \mu_{0}=cos\overline{\beta}=\frac{\Sigma_{i}(E_{in}^{i}\mu_{i})}{\Sigma_{i}E_{in}^{i}}

889: \end{equation}

890: 

891: \section{Emergent flux and image}

892: To derive the total flux and the image detected by the observer on

893: earth, the flared surface needs to be projected onto the plane of

894: sky . For a tiny patch of the flared surface $dS_{A}$, with area

895: vector $\vec{dS_{A}}$ normal to the surface, the projection area to

896: the plane which is normal to our line of sight is

897: $dS_{A}^{\bot}=\vec{dS_{A}}\cdot \hat{l}$, where $\hat{l}$ is the

898: unit vector pointing to the observer along our line of sight. The

899: angle between $\hat{l}$ and $\vec{dS_{A}}$

900:  is $\varphi$=cos$^{-1}$($\hat{l}\cdot \vec{dS_{A}}$/$|\vec{dS_{A}}|$).

901: The flux we observed from $dS_{A}$ can be derived by multiplying the

902: intensity at direction $\varphi$, $I_{\varphi}$, and the solid angle

903: extended by $dS_{A}$ towards us, $F_{A}=I_{\varphi}

904: dS_{A}^{\bot}/d^{2}$, $d$ is the distance between the object and the

905: observer. The addition over all the surface, $\int I_{\varphi}

906: dS_{A}^{\bot}/d^{2}$, is the total flux. The image of the flared

907: surface could also be derived in this way.

908: 

909: \begin{thebibliography}

910: 

911: \bibitem[Adams et al.(1987)]{ALS1987} Adams, F.~C., Lada,

912: C.~J., \& Shu, F.~H.\ 1987, \apj, 312, 788

913: 

914: \bibitem[Armitage et al.(2001)]{armitage01} Armitage, P.~J., Livio, M., \& Pringle, J.~E.\ 2001, \mnras, 324, 705

915: 

916: \bibitem[Bell \& Lin(1994)]{bell94} Bell, K.~R., \& Lin,

917: D.~N.~C.\ 1994, \apj, 427, 987

918: 

919: \bibitem[Calvet et al.(1991)]{calvet91} Calvet, N., Patino, A.,

920: Magris, G.~C., \& D'Alessio, P.\ 1991, \apj, 380, 617

921: 

922: \bibitem[D'Alessio et al.(2001)]{dalessio2001} D'Alessio, P.,

923: Calvet, N., \& Hartmann, L.\ 2001, \apj, 553, 321

924: 

925: \bibitem[D'Alessio et al.(1998)]{dalessio1998} D'Alessio, P., Canto,

926: J., Calvet, N., \& Lizano, S.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 411

927: 

928: \bibitem[Dougados et al.(2000)]{Dougados2000} Dougados, C., Cabrit,

929: S., Lavalley, C., \& M{\'e}nard, F.\ 2000, \aap, 357, L61

930: 

931: \bibitem[Green et al.(2006)]{jgreen06} Green, J.~D., Hartmann,

932: L., Calvet, N., Watson, D.~M., Ibrahimov, M., Furlan, E., Sargent,

933: B., \& Forrest, W.~J.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 1099

934: 

935: \bibitem[Goodrich(1987)]{goodrich87} Goodrich, R.~W.\ 1987, \pasp,

936: 99, 116

937: 

938: \bibitem[Hartmann(1998)]{leebook} Hartmann, L.\ 1998, Accretion

939: processes in star formation / Lee Hartmann.~Cambridge, UK ; New York

940: : Cambridge University Press, 1998.~(Cambridge astrophysics series ;

941: 32) ISBN 0521435072.,

942: 

943: \bibitem[h (1985)]{hk85} Hartmann, L., \& Kenyon, S.~J.\ 1985, \apj, 299, 462

944: 

945: \bibitem[h (1987)a]{hk87a} Hartmann, L., \& Kenyon, S.~J.\ 1987a, \apj, 312, 243

946: 

947: \bibitem[h (1987)b]{hk87b} Hartmann, L., \&

948: Kenyon, S.~J.\ 1987b, \apj, 312, 243

949: 

950: \bibitem[Hartmann \& Kenyon(1996)]{Lee96} Hartmann, L., \&

951: Kenyon, S.~J.\ 1996, \araa, 34, 207

952: 

953: \bibitem[Herbig(1977)]{herbig77} Herbig, G.~H.\ 1977, \apj, 217,

954: 693

955: 

956: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Hartmann(1987)]{kenyon87} Kenyon, S.~J., \&

957: Hartmann, L.\ 1987, \apj, 323, 714

958: 

959: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Hartmann(1991)]{kenyon91} Kenyon, S.~J., \&

960: Hartmann, L.~W.\ 1991, \apj, 383, 664

961: 

962: \bibitem[Kenyon et al.(1988)]{kenyon88} Kenyon, S.~J., Hartmann,

963: L., \& Hewett, R.\ 1988, \apj, 325, 231

964: 

965: \bibitem[Malbet et al.(2005)]{malbet05} Malbet, F., et al.\

966: 2005, \aap, 437, 627

967: 

968: \bibitem[Millan-Gabet et al.(2006)]{Millan2006} Millan-Gabet, R.,

969: et al.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 547

970: 

971: \bibitem[Quanz et al.(2006)]{quanz2006} Quanz, S.~P., Henning,

972: T., Bouwman, J., Ratzka, T., \& Leinert, C.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 472L127

973: 

974: \bibitem[Quanz et al.(2007)]{quanz2007} Quanz, S.~P., Henning,

975: T., Bouwman, J., van Boekel, R., Juh{\'a}sz, A., Linz, H.,

976: Pontoppidan, K.~M., \& Lahuis, F.\ 2007, \apj, 668, 359

977: 

978: \bibitem[Sandell \& Weintraub(2001)]{2001ApJS..134..115S} Sandell, G., \&

979: Weintraub, D.~A.\ 2001, \apjs, 134, 115

980: 

981: \bibitem[Terebey et al.(1984)]{1984ApJ...286..529T} Terebey, S., Shu,

982: F.~H., \& Cassen, P.\ 1984, \apj, 286, 529

983: 

984: \bibitem[Turner et al.(1997)]{turner97} Turner, N.~J.~J.,

985: Bodenheimer, P., \& Bell, K.~R.\ 1997, \apj, 480, 754

986: 

987: \bibitem[Weidenschilling et al.(1997)]{weiden1997}

988: Weidenschilling, S.~J., Spaute, D., Davis, D.~R., Marzari, F., \&

989: Ohtsuki, K.\ 1997, Icarus, 128, 429

990: 

991: \bibitem[Zhu et al.(2007)]{zhu2007} Zhu, Z., Hartmann, L.,

992: Calvet, N., Hernandez, J., Muzerolle, J., \& Tannirkulam, A.-K.\

993: 2007, \apj, 669, 483 (Paper I)

994: 

995: 

996: \end{thebibliography}

997: 

998: 

999: \begin{figure}

1000: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{The geometry used to

1001: calculate the irradiation and the emergent flux. The inner disk has

1002: the radius R$_{in}$ and a height H$_{0}$. The absorption height of

1003: the outer disk at R$_{A}$ is H$_{A}$, and the normal to the flared

1004: surface is $\hat{n}$. } \label{fig:1}

1005: \end{figure}

1006: 

1007: \begin{figure}

1008: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f2.eps} \caption{SED of FU Ori and the

1009: adopted model. Dark curves and dots are observed spectra and

1010: photometry. The light dotted curve is the SED of the inner hot disk

1011: with outer radius R$_{i}$=0.58 AU, while the light dashed curve is

1012: the SED of the flared outer disk with outer radius R$_{o}$=70 AU.

1013: The light solid curve is the total SED with both of the inner and

1014: outer disk.} \label{fig:fuorispe}

1015: \end{figure}

1016: 

1017: \begin{figure}

1018: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f3.eps} \caption{

1019: %LH use a dot-dash for FU Ori and then you can plot

1020: %the 3 scale height surface as a dotted line, which

1021: %is more useful than the 1 scale height plot.

1022: The absorption height of the surface of the outer disk for FU

1023: Ori(dotted line), BBW 76 (dashed line) and V1515 Cyg (long dashed

1024: line) as described in Eq. (\ref{eq:surf}). The solid line

1025: corresponds to three scale height of the FU Ori disk (see text).}

1026: \label{fig:fuorisurf}

1027: \end{figure}

1028: 

1029: \begin{figure}

1030: \epsscale{.80}\plotone{f4.eps}\caption{The effective temperature of

1031: V1515 Cyg (solid line) and FU Ori (dotted line) with respect to the

1032: radius. }\label{fig:surftemp}

1033: \end{figure}

1034: 

1035: \begin{figure}

1036: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f5.ps} \caption{The H band image

1037: %LH!!!

1038: of the FU Ori model with -30$^{o}$ position angle.

1039: %LH!!!

1040: Each contour corresponds to a decrease a factor of 4 in intensity,

1041: starting at the innermost contour. } \label{fig:image}

1042: \end{figure}

1043: 

1044: \begin{figure}

1045: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f6.eps} \caption{Visibility square-baseline

1046: at H and K band. Solid dots with error bars are the visibilities

1047: from \cite{malbet05} and the dots are the synthetic visibilities

1048: predicted by our model.} \label{fig:HKvis}

1049: \end{figure}

1050: 

1051: \begin{figure}

1052: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f7.eps} \caption{Visibility-wavelength at

1053: three baselines (44.56 m, 56.74 m, 86.25 m). Observations are from

1054: \cite{quanz2006}. The synthetic visibilities are calculated by

1055: assuming -30$^{o}$ postition angle. } \label{fig:midi}

1056: \end{figure}

1057: 

1058: \begin{figure}

1059: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f8.eps} \caption{SED of BBW 76 and adopted

1060: model. Symbols are as in Fig. \ref{fig:fuorispe}.}

1061: \label{fig:BBWspe}

1062: \end{figure}

1063: 

1064: \begin{figure}

1065: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f9.eps} \caption{SED of V1515 Cyg and

1066: adopted model. Symbols are as in Fig. \ref{fig:fuorispe}.}

1067: \label{fig:v1515spe}

1068: \end{figure}

1069: 

1070: 

1071: \clearpage

1072: \begin{table}

1073: \begin{center}

1074: \caption{Adopted dust composition \label{tab1}}

1075: \begin{tabular}{cll}

1076: \tableline\tableline

1077: Ingredient  &  $\zeta$\tablenotemark{a} & T$_{sub}$ (K)\tablenotemark{b} \\

1078: \tableline

1079:  Mg$_{0.8}$Fe$_{1.2}$SiO$_{4}$ (Olivine) & 0.0017 & 1460 \\

1080:  Mg$_{0.8}$Fe$_{0.2}$SiO$_{3}$ (Pyroxene)& 0.0017 & 1460 \\

1081:  Graphite & 0.0041 & 734 \\

1082:  Water ice & 0.0056 & 146 \\

1083: \tableline

1084: \end{tabular}

1085: \tablenotetext{a}{Dust-to-gas mass ratio of the particular

1086: ingredient} \tablenotetext{b}{Sublimation temperature at the gas

1087: density $\rho$=10$^{-10}$g/cm$^{3}$}

1088: \end{center}

1089: \end{table}

1090: \clearpage

1091: 

1092: \begin{table}

1093: \begin{center}

1094: \caption{Parameters for best fit models \label{tab2}}

1095: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}

1096: \tableline\tableline

1097: Object  & A$_{V}$ & Inclination &  $M\dot{M}$ & $R_{*}$  & $L_{d}$ & $R_{in}$ \tablenotemark{a}  & $H_{0}$ &  $\gamma$  & $R_{o}$ \tablenotemark{b}\\

1098: & & angle &10$^{-5}$M$_{\odot}^{2}$yr$^{-1}$& R$_{\odot}$&

1099: L$_{\odot}$&AU&R$_{\odot}$ &&AU

1100:  \\

1101: \tableline

1102:  FU Ori & 1.5 & 55 & 7.4 & 5 & 232 & 0.58 & 41.5 & 1.125 & 70 :\\

1103:  BBW 76 & 2.2 & 50 & 8.1 & 4.6 & 277 & 0.64 & 49.22 & 1.125 & 200 :\\

1104:  V1515 Cyg & 3.2 & 0 & 1.3 & 2.8 & 73 & 0.25 & 16.8 & 1.3 & 10$^{4}$ :\\

1105: \tableline

1106: \end{tabular}

1107: \tablenotetext{a}{R$_{in}$ and H$_{0}$ are described in Eq.

1108: \ref{eq:surf}} \tablenotetext{b}{The outer radii are poorly

1109: constrained by the data.}

1110: \end{center}

1111: \end{table}

1112: 

1113: \end{document}

1114: