1: %\documentclass{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
4:
5: %%\usepackage{epsf}
6:
7: \def\ctrline#1{\centerline{#1}}
8: \def\linebreak{\hfil\break}
9: \def\blankline{\par\vskip \baselineskip}
10: \def\twocol#1{\halign{##\quad\hfil &##\hfil\cr #1}}
11: \def\subreak{\blankline}
12: \def\nl{\hfil\linebreak}
13: \def\
14: {\hfil\linebreak}
15: \def\singlespace{\baselineskip=14pt}
16: \def\smallspace{\baselineskip=13pt}
17: \def\footspace{\baselineskip=12pt}
18: \def\tinyspace{\baselineskip=10pt}
19: \def\singlespace{%
20: \lineskip .15ex
21: \baselineskip 3.0ex
22: \lineskiplimit 0ex
23: \parskip 0.60ex plus .30ex minus .15ex
24: }%
25:
26: % single centered line for dividing table header from body of table
27: %
28: %
29: %----------------------- CONVENIENT DEFINITIONS ----------------------------
30: %
31: \def\degree{\ifmmode {^\circ}\else {$^\circ$}\fi}
32: \def\mum{\ifmmode {\rm \mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \mu {\rm m}$\fi}
33: \def\arcsec{\ifmmode ^{\prime \prime}\else $^{\prime \prime}$\fi}
34: \def\secpoint{\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}}
35: \def\minpoint{\mbox{$'\mskip-4.6mu.$}}
36: \def\degreepoint{\mbox{$\degree\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}}
37: \def\inch{\ifmmode ^{\prime \prime}\else $^{\prime \prime}$\fi}
38: \def\arcmin{\ifmmode ^{\prime}\else $^{\prime}$\fi}
39: \def\refline{\underbar{\hskip.75in}.\ }
40: \def\mearth{M$_\oplus$}
41: \def\msun{M$_\odot$}
42: \def\lsun{L$_\odot$}
43: \def\2470{[24]--[70]}
44:
45: %
46: \newbox\grsign \setbox\grsign=\hbox{$>$} \newdimen\grdimen \grdimen=\ht\grsign
47: \newbox\simlessbox \newbox\simgreatbox
48: \setbox\simgreatbox=\hbox{\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}\llap
49: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}\ht1=\grdimen\dp1=0pt
50: \setbox\simlessbox=\hbox{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}\llap
51: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}\ht2=\grdimen\dp2=0pt
52: \def\simgreat{\mathrel{\copy\simgreatbox}}
53: \def\simless{\mathrel{\copy\simlessbox}}
54: %
55:
56: \begin{document}
57:
58:
59: \title{Variations on Debris Disks: Icy Planet Formation
60: at 30--150~AU for 1--3 \msun\ Main Sequence Stars}
61: \vskip 7ex
62: %
63: \author{Scott J. Kenyon}
64: \affil{Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,
65: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
66: \email{e-mail: skenyon@cfa.harvard.edu}
67:
68: \author{Benjamin C. Bromley}
69: \affil{Department of Physics, University of Utah,
70: 201 JFB, Salt Lake City, UT 84112}
71: \email{e-mail: bromley@physics.utah.edu}
72: %
73: %-------------------------- ABSTRACT ----------------------------------
74: %
75: %\doublespace
76:
77: \begin{abstract}
78:
79: We describe calculations for the formation of icy planets and debris
80: disks at 30--150~AU around 1--3~\msun\ stars. Debris disk formation
81: coincides with the formation of planetary systems. As protoplanets
82: grow, they stir leftover planetesimals to large velocities. A cascade
83: of collisions then grinds the leftovers to dust, forming an observable
84: debris disk. Stellar lifetimes and the collisional cascade limit the
85: growth of protoplanets. The maximum radius of icy planets,
86: $r_{max} \approx$ 1750 km, is remarkably independent of initial disk
87: mass, stellar mass, and stellar age. These objects contain $\lesssim$
88: 3\%--4\% of the initial mass in solid material. Collisional cascades
89: produce debris disks with maximum luminosity $\sim 2 \times 10^{-3}$
90: times the stellar luminosity. The peak 24~$\mu$m excess varies from
91: $\sim$ 1\% times the stellar photospheric flux for 1 \msun\ stars to
92: $\sim$ 50 times the stellar photospheric flux for 3 \msun\ stars.
93: The peak 70--850 $\mu$m excesses are $\sim$ 30--100 times the stellar
94: photospheric flux. For all stars, the 24--160~$\mu$m excesses rise at
95: stellar ages of 5--20~Myr, peak at 10--50~Myr, and then decline. The
96: decline is roughly a power law, $ f \propto t^{-n}$ with $n \approx$
97: 0.6--1.0. This predicted evolution agrees with published observations
98: of A-type and solar-type stars. The observed far-IR color evolution of
99: A-type stars also matches model predictions.
100:
101: \end{abstract}
102:
103: \keywords{planetary systems -- solar system: formation --
104: stars: formation -- circumstellar matter -- infrared: stars}
105:
106: \section{INTRODUCTION}
107:
108: During the past 25 years, observations from {\it IRAS}, {\it ISO},
109: and {\it Spitzer} have revealed substantial mid-infrared (mid-IR)
110: excesses associated with hundreds of normal main sequence stars
111: \citep[e.g.,][]{bac93,hab01,rie05,bry06,moor06,rhe07a}.
112: Current samples include stars with spectral types A--M and ages
113: $\sim$ 5~Myr to $\sim$ 10 Gyr
114: \citep[e.g.,][]{che05,kim05,rie05,bei06,su06,hil08}.
115: Although binary stars and single stars in dense clusters and in
116: the field are roughly equally likely to have IR excesses
117: \citep{stau05,su06,bry06,gor06,cur07a,sie07,tri07}, the frequency
118: of excess emission declines from $\sim$ 30\%--40\% for A-type stars
119: \citep{su06} to $\sim$ 10\%--20\% for solar-type stars
120: \citep{gre03,tri08,mey08}. Thus, this phenomenon is common among
121: main sequence stars and may depend on stellar mass.
122:
123: High quality images demonstrate that dust orbiting the central star
124: produces the excesses \citep{smi84,bra04,sta04,kal05,mey07}. In
125: $\beta$ Pic and AU Mic, the dust is in a geometrically thin, edge-on
126: disk with an outer radius of $a \sim$ 200--1000~AU
127: \citep{smi84,tel88,gol93,kal04,liu04a,aug06}.
128: In these disks, the small scale height of the dust, $H/a \sim$ 0.1,
129: is consistent with material in roughly circular orbits
130: \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{bac93,kal04}. Although broad
131: tori of dust are visible in many other systems
132: \citep[e.g.][]{gre98,au99,hol03,kal06,su06,fit07},
133: narrow rings of dust produce the emission in $\alpha$ PsA and HR 4796A
134: \citep{jay98,sch99,gre00,tel00,kal05b}.
135: For systems with face-on rings and tori, the total emission constrains
136: the scale height, $H/a \sim$ 0.1. Thus, the dust in these systems is
137: as highly flattened as the structures in $\beta$ Pic and AU Mic.
138:
139: Broadband spectral energy distributions constrain the luminosity, size,
140: temperature, and total mass of the dust \citep{bac93,lag00,den00,wol03}.
141: Some stars have excesses from grains plausibly associated with the
142: terrestrial zone
143: \citep[e.g.,][]{bei05,abs06,cur07b,rhe07b,mey08,lis07c}.
144: Optically thin emission from cooler material with temperature $T \sim$
145: 20--150~K is more typical \citep[e.g.][]{su06,tri08,hil08}.
146: For systems with submm observations, the measured fluxes suggest grains
147: with sizes $\sim$ 1~$\mu$m--1~cm and total mass $\sim$
148: 0.01~\mearth\ \citep{liu04b,naj05,che06,wil06}.
149: The grains have compositions similar to dust in the asteroid belt,
150: comets, or the trans-Neptunian region of the Solar System
151: \citep{gru95,bro97,lis07a,lis07b}.
152: Because the dust mass in these systems lies between the initial mass
153: of solids in protostellar disks
154: \citep[$\sim$ 100--1000~\mearth;][]{nat2000,and05}
155: and the dust mass in the Solar System
156: \citep[$\lesssim 10^{-4}$ \mearth;][]{hah02,lan02,nes06}, the
157: dusty structures in these systems are often called `debris disks'
158: \citep{bac93,lag00}.
159:
160: In addition to the dust properties, several other observations suggest
161: plausible links between debris disks and the formation of planetary systems.
162: Observations of A-type stars suggest a `rise and fall' of debris disk
163: emission \citep{cur08a}, with a clear increase in the typical 24~$\mu$m
164: excess at 5--10~Myr, a peak at 10--20~Myr, and a decline for $t \gtrsim$
165: 20--30~Myr. The rise in debris disk emission roughly coincides with the
166: disappearance of optically thick emission from protostellar disks
167: \citep[e.g.][]{hai01,sic06,her06,cur07a,cur07c}.
168: The broad plateau occurs at a time when radiometric dating
169: \citep{yin02} and theory \citep{cha01,kb06} suggest the Earth
170: contained $\sim$ 90\% of its final mass. The decline of dusty debris
171: around A-type stars is at roughly the same time as a gradual decrease
172: in the cratering rate of objects in the Solar System
173: \citep{swi93,mel93,wad00,koe03}. These results suggest that the evolution
174: of dust in debris disks parallels the evolution of larger solid objects
175: in the Solar System.
176:
177: Simple physical arguments also link debris disks with the formation of
178: planetary systems. Because radiation removes 1--100~$\mu$m grains on
179: timescales shorter than the stellar age, some process replenishes the dust.
180: To maintain the observed dust masses for long timescales, normal stars
181: must have a large reservoir, $\sim$ 10--100 \mearth, of unseen objects
182: that continuously collide at large velocities and fragment into smaller
183: objects. Remnant material from planet formation satisfies both needs.
184: The growth of 1000 km or larger planets in a disk of small grains
185: naturally leaves behind an ensemble of `leftover' 1--10~km `planetesimals'
186: on eccentric orbits \citep[][2004b]{kb04a}. For a mass of $\sim$
187: 10--100~\mearth\ in leftovers, high velocity collisions produce enough
188: dust for most debris disks \citep[e.g.,][]{bac93,hab01,kb04b}. If this
189: interpretation is correct, debris disks provide conclusive evidence
190: for the formation of Pluto-mass or larger planets around many, if not
191: most, main sequence stars.
192:
193: In addition to these considerations, numerical calculations suggest that
194: an evolving swarm of 1--10~km planetesimals explains several observed
195: trends in the properties of debris disks. Starting with an ensemble
196: of $\lesssim$ 1 km-sized planetesimals, \citet[][2004a, b, 2005]{kb02b}
197: show that
198: collisions and mergers form 500--1000~km-sized objects in 1--50 Myr.
199: These protoplanets stir up leftover planetesimals along their orbits.
200: Destructive collisions among the leftovers then produce a collisional
201: cascade -- where collisions gradually grind large objects into smaller
202: ones -- along with copious amounts of dust
203: \citep[see also][]{wil94,dur97,qui07}. \citet{dom03}, \citet{wya07a}, and
204: \citet{loh08} show that collisional evolution in a belt of high velocity
205: planetesimals naturally produces a dust luminosity that declines roughly
206: inversely with time \citep[see also][2004b, 2005]{kb02a}, explaining
207: the observed time evolution -- $L_d \propto t^{-n}$, with $n \approx$
208: 0.5--1 -- suggested by recent observations of A-type stars
209: \citep[e.g.,][]{kal98,hab01,dec03,gre03,rie05,rhe07a}. To account for
210: the large observed range of IR excesses among stars of similar ages,
211: \citet{wya07a} propose belts with a range of initial masses and semimajor
212: axes, as suggested from submm observations of protostellar disks
213: \citep[][2007b]{and05}.
214:
215: Here, we continue to explore the evolution of dusty debris arising from
216: planet formation in a disk of icy planetesimals. Our suite of calculations
217: for disks at 30--150~AU around 1--3~\msun\ stars yields robust predictions
218: for the maximum sizes of icy planets as a function of semimajor axis and
219: stellar age. Results for the long-term evolution of IR excesses account
220: for many fundamental aspects of the data. These calculations are the
221: first to explain the `rise and fall of debris disks' around A-type stars
222: \citep{cur08a} and the apparent peak in the 70--160~$\mu$m excesses of G-type
223: stars with ages of $\sim$ 100~Myr \citep{hil08}. Comparisons between our
224: models and current observations suggest that the minimum stable grain size
225: and the slope of the IR emissivity law are critical parameters.
226:
227: The models suggest a set of further critical observations. Spatially
228: resolved images of debris disks around A-type and solar-type stars can
229: improve our understanding of the minimum stable grain size. Larger
230: samples of debris disks with high quality submm data from ALMA, Herschel,
231: and SOFIA can place better constraints on the slope of the emissivity law.
232: Together, these data can test our predictions for the time evolution
233: of debris disk emission around 1--3 \msun\ stars and provide input for
234: more complete calculations that include the formation and dynamical
235: evolution of giant planets.
236:
237: We outline our model in \S2. We describe results for the formation of
238: icy planets in \S3 and the evolution of debris disks in \S4. After
239: discussing several applications of our calculations in \S5, we conclude
240: with a brief summary in \S6.
241:
242: \section{THE MODEL}
243:
244: \citet[][2002a, 2004a, 2004c]{kb01} and \citet{bk06} describe our hybrid
245: multiannulus numerical model for planetesimal growth. \citet[][1999]{kl98},
246: \citet[][2002a]{kb01}, and \citet{bk06} compare results with analytical
247: and numerical calculations. We adopt the \citet{saf69} statistical
248: approach to calculate the collisional evolution of an ensemble of
249: planetesimals in orbit around a star of mass $M_{\star}$
250: \citep[see also][]{spa91,wei97,kri06,the07,loh08}. The model grid contains
251: $N$ concentric annuli with widths $\delta a_i$ centered at semimajor axes
252: $a_i$. Calculations begin with a differential mass distribution $n(m_{ik}$)
253: of objects with horizontal and vertical velocities $h_{ik}(t)$ and
254: $v_{ik}(t)$ relative to a circular orbit. The horizontal velocity is
255: related to the orbital eccentricity,
256: $e_{ik}^2(t)$ = 1.6 $(h_{ik}(t)/V_{K,i})^2$, where $V_{K,i}$ is the circular
257: orbital velocity in annulus $i$. The orbital inclination depends on the
258: vertical velocity, $i_{ik}^2(t)$ = sin$^{-1}(2(v_{ik}(t)/V_{K,i})^2)$.
259:
260: The mass and velocity distributions evolve in time due to inelastic collisions,
261: drag forces, and gravitational forces. For inelastic collisions, we solve
262: the coagulation equations for a particle in mass batch $k$ of annulus $i$
263: colliding with another particle in mass batch $l$ of annulus $j$,
264: \begin{equation}
265: \delta n_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime}} = \delta t \left [ \epsilon_{ijkl} A_{ijkl} n_{ik} n_{jl}
266: ~ - ~ n_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime}} A_{i^{\prime}jk^{\prime}l} n_{jl} \right ] ~ + ~ \delta n_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime},f}~ - ~ \delta n_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime},gd}
267: \label{eq:deltan}
268: \end{equation}
269: \begin{equation}
270: \delta M_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime}} = \delta t ~ m_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime}} \left [ \epsilon_{ijkl} A_{ijkl} n_{ik} n_{jl} ~ - ~ n_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime}} A_{i^{\prime}jk^{\prime}l} n_{jl} \right ] ~ + ~ \delta M_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime},f} - ~ \delta M_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime},gd}
271: \label{eq:deltam}
272: \end{equation}
273: where $t$ is time,
274: $M_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime}}$ is the total mass in mass bin
275: $k^{\prime}$ in annulus $i^{\prime}$, $A_{ijkl}$ is the cross-section,
276: $\epsilon_{ijkl} = 1/2$ for $i = j$ and $k = l$, and
277: $\epsilon_{ijkl} = 1$ for $k \ne l$ and any $i, j$.
278: The terms in these equations represent (i) mergers of $m_{ik}$ and $m_{jl}$
279: into a body of mass $m_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime}} = m_{ik} + m_{jl} - m_{e,ijkl}$,
280: (ii) loss of $m_{i^{\prime}k^{\prime}}$ through mergers with other objects,
281: (iii) addition of mass from debris produced by the collisions of other
282: objects \citep{kl99}, and (iv) loss of mass by gas drag \citep{kl98}.
283: In each equation, the second term includes the possibility that a
284: collision can produce debris but no merger
285: \citep[rebounds; see][and references therein]{dav85,kl99}.
286:
287: The collision cross-section is
288: \begin{equation}
289: A_{ijkl} = \alpha_{coll}~\left ( \frac{1}{4~H_{ijkl}~\langle a_{ij} \rangle~ \langle \Delta a_{ij} \rangle} \right ) ~V_{ijkl}~F_{g,ijkl}~(r_{ik} + r_{jl})^2 ~ ,
290: \label{eq:Across}
291: \end{equation}
292: where
293: $\alpha_{coll}$ is a constant \citep{wet93, kl98},
294: $H_{ijkl}$ = $\sqrt{2 ~ (v_{ik}^2 + v_{jl}^2)} / \langle \Omega_{ij} \rangle$
295: is the mutual scale height, $\langle a_{ij} \rangle $ and
296: $ \langle \Delta a_{ij} \rangle $ are the average heliocentric
297: distance and width for the two interacting annuli,
298: $\langle Omega_{ij} \rangle$ is the average angular velocity,
299: $V_{ijkl}$ is the relative particle velocity,
300: $F_{g,ijkl}$ is the gravitational focusing factor, and
301: $r_{ik}$ and $r_{jl}$ are the particle radii.
302: We adopt the piecewise analytic approximation of \citet{spa91}
303: for the gravitational focusing factor in the dispersion regime
304: and the collisional cross-sections of \citet{gre91} in the
305: shear-dominated regime \citep[see also][1992]{grz90}. For more
306: details of this algorithm, see \citet{kl98}, \citet{kb02a},
307: \citet{kb04a}, and \citet{bk06}.
308:
309: To choose among possible collision outcomes, we use an energy-scaling
310: algorithm. If $Q_d^*$ is the collision energy needed to eject half
311: the mass of a pair of colliding planetesimals and $Q_c$ is the center
312: of mass collision energy, the mass of the ejecta is
313: \begin{equation}
314: m_{e,ijkl} = 0.5 ~ (m_{ik} + m_{jl}) \left ( \frac{Q_c}{Q_d^*} \right)^{9/8} ~ ,
315: \label{eq:mej}
316: \end{equation}
317: where $m_{ik}$ and $m_{jl}$ are the masses of the colliding planetesimals.
318: This approach allows us to derive ejected masses for catastrophic
319: collisions with $Q_c \sim Q_d^*$ and cratering collisions with
320: $Q_c \ll Q_d^*$ \citep[see also][]{wet93,st97,kl99}. Consistent with
321: N-body simulations of collision outcomes \citep[e.g.,][]{ben99}, we set
322: \begin{equation}
323: Q_d^* = Q_b r_{ijkl}^{\beta_b} + Q_g \rho_g r_{ijkl}^{\beta_g}
324: \label{eq:Qd}
325: \end{equation}
326: where $r_{ijkl}$ is the radius of a merged object with mass
327: $m_{ik}$ + $m_{jl}$, $\rho_g$ is the mass density of a planetesimal,
328: $Q_b r^{\beta_b}$ is the bulk component of the binding energy, and
329: $Q_g \rho_g r^{\beta_g}$ is the gravity component of the binding energy.
330:
331: \citet{kb05} and \citet{kbod08} describe how collisional evolution
332: depends on various choices for $Q_d^*$. For icy objects, detailed
333: numerical collision simulations yield
334: $Q_b \lesssim 10^7$ erg cm$^{-\beta_b}$ g$^{-1}$,
335: $-0.5 \lesssim \beta_b \lesssim$ 0,
336: $\rho_g \approx$ 1--2 g cm$^{-3}$,
337: $Q_g \lesssim$ 1--2 erg cm$^{3-\beta_g}$ g$^{-2}$, and
338: $\beta_g$ $\approx$ 1--2 \citep[e.g.,][]{ben99,lein08}.
339: Calculations for the breakup of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9
340: suggest a smaller component of the bulk strength,
341: $Q_b r^{\beta_b} \sim 10^3$~erg~g$^{-1}$
342: \citep[e.g.,][]{asph96}, which yields smaller disruption
343: energies for smaller objects. Because nearly all models
344: for collisional disruption yield similar results for objects
345: with $r \gtrsim$ 1~km \citep[e.g.,][]{kb04c,kbod08}, collisional
346: evolution is relatively independent of these uncertainties as
347: planetesimals grow into larger objects. Thus, we choose standard
348: values -- $Q_g$ = 1.5 erg cm$^{1.75}$ g$^{-2}$, $\rho_g$ =
349: 1.5~g~cm$^{-3}$, and $\beta_g$ = 1.25 -- for the gravity component
350: of $Q_d^*$. To check how the evolution of the small planetesimals
351: depends on $Q_d^*$, we consider a broad range in the bulk component
352: of the strength, $Q_b$ = 1--$10^5$ erg g$^{-1}$ with $\beta_b$ = 0
353: \citep{pan05,kb04c,kb05,kbod08}.
354:
355: To compute velocity evolution, we include collisional damping from
356: inelastic collisions, gas drag, and gravitational interactions. Our
357: equations for the evolution of the velocity dispersion are
358: \begin{equation}
359: \frac{dh_{ik}^2}{dt} =
360: \frac{dh_{in,ik}^2}{dt} + \frac{dh_{gd,ik}^2}{dt} + \frac{dh_{lr,ik}^2}{dt} +
361: \frac{dh_{sr,ik}^2}{dt}
362: \label{eq:dhdt}
363: \end{equation}
364: for the horizontal component
365: and
366: \begin{equation}
367: \frac{dv_{ik}^2}{dt} =
368: \frac{dv_{in,ik}^2}{dt} + \frac{dv_{gd,ik}^2}{dt} + \frac{dv_{sr,ik}^2}{dt}
369: \label{eq:dvdt}
370: \end{equation}
371: for the vertical component, where the subscripts refer to the
372: contributions from collisional damping (`in'), gas drag (`gd'),
373: and long-range (`lr') and short-range (`sr') gravitational
374: interactions.
375:
376: For collisional damping, we adopt
377: \begin{equation}
378: \frac{dh_{in,ik}^2}{dt} = \sum_{j=0}^{j=N} \sum_{l=0}^{l=l_{max}} \frac{C_{in}}{2}~(m_{jl} h_{jl}^2 - m_{ik} h_{ik}^2 - (m_{ik} + m_{jl}) h_{ik}^2)~I_e(\beta_{ijkl})
379: \label{eq:dhdtin}
380: \end{equation}
381: and
382: \begin{equation}
383: \frac{dv_{in,ik}^2}{dt} = \sum_{j=0}^{j=N} \sum_{l=0}^{l=l_{max}} \frac{C_{in}}{\beta_{ijkl}^2}~(m_{jl}
384: v_{jl}^2 - m_{ik} v_{ik}^2 - (m_{ik} + m_{jl}) v_{ik}^2)~I_i(\beta_{ijkl})
385: \label{eq:dvdtin}
386: \end{equation}
387: where $C_{in} = \alpha_{coll} ~ f_{ijkl} ~ \epsilon_{ijkl} ~ \rho_{jl} ~
388: V_{ijkl} ~ F_{g,ijkl} ~ (r_{ik} + r_{jl})^2$,
389: $\beta_{ijkl}^2 = (i_{ik}^2 + i_{jl}^2)/(e_{ik}^2 + e_{jl}^2)$,
390: and $\rho_{jl}$ is the volume density of planetesimals with mass
391: $m_{jl}$ in annulus $j$ \citep{oht92,wet93}.
392: In the second summation, $l_{max} = k$ when $i = j$; $l_{max}$ = $M$
393: when $i \neq j$ \citep[see also][1999]{kl98}. We add a term,
394: $f_{ijkl}$, to treat the overlap between adjacent zones; $f_{ijkl}$
395: = 1 when $i = j$ and $f_{ijkl} \leq 1$ when $i \neq$ j \citep{kb01}.
396: The integrals $I_e$ and $I_i$ are elliptic integrals described in
397: previous publications \citep{wet93,ste00,oht02}.
398:
399: For velocity damping from gas drag, we follow \citet{wet93} and write
400: \begin{equation}
401: \frac{dh_{gd,ik}}{dt} = -\beta_{ik}~ \frac{\pi C_D}{2m_{ik}} \rho_{gas} V_{gas}^2 r_{ik}^2 ,
402: \label{eq:dhdtgd}
403: \end{equation}
404: and
405: \begin{equation}
406: \frac{dv_{gd,ik}}{dt} = -(1 - \beta_{ik}) ~ \frac{\pi C_D}{2m_{ik}} \rho_{gas} V_{gas}^2 r_{ik}^2 ,
407: \label{eq:dvdtgd}
408: \end{equation}
409: where $C_D$ = 0.5 is the drag coefficient,
410: $\beta_{ik} = h_{ik} / (h_{ik}^2 + v_{ik}^2)^{1/2}$,
411: $\rho_{gas}$ is the gas density,
412: $\eta$ is the relative gas velocity, and
413: $V_{gas} = (V_{ik} (V_{ik} + \eta))^{1/2}$
414: is the mean relative velocity of the gas
415: \citep[see][]{ada76,wei77b,wet93}.
416:
417: For gravitational interactions, we compute long-range stirring from
418: distant oligarchs \citep{wei89} and short-range stirring from the
419: swarm \citep{oht02}. The long-range stirring only has a horizontal
420: component,
421: \begin{equation}
422: \frac{dh_{lr,ik}^2}{dt} = \sum_{j=1}^{j=N} \sum_{l=1}^{l=M} C_{lr,e} ~ x_{ijkl} ~ \frac{G^2 \rho_{jl} M_{jl}}{\langle \Omega_{ij} \rangle} \left ( \frac{{\rm tan^{-1}}(H_{ijkl}/D_{min})}{D_{min}} - \frac{{\rm tan^{-1}}(H_{ijkl}/D_{max})}{D_{max}} \right )
423: \label{eq:dhdtlr-cont}
424: \end{equation}
425:
426: \noindent
427: for continuum objects and
428: \begin{equation}
429: \frac{dh_{lr,ik}^2}{dt} = \sum_{j=1}^{j=N} \sum_{l=1}^{l=M} \frac{G^2}{\pi \Omega a} \left ( \frac{C_{lr,e}^{\prime} m_{jl}^2}{(\delta a^2 + 0.5 H_{jl}^2)^2} \right)
430: \label{eq:dhdtlr-oli}
431: \end{equation}
432: for individual oligarchs,
433: where $x_{ijkl}$ is the fraction of objects with mass $m_{ik}$ in annulus $i$
434: that approach no closer than 2.4 $R_H$ of the objects with mass $m_l$ in
435: annulus $j$,
436: $D_{min} = {\rm max} (2.4 R_H, 1.6(h_{ik}^2 + h_{jl}^2)^{1/2})$,
437: $D_{max} = 0.5 ~ {\rm max} (w_{ik}, w_{jl})$,
438: $\delta a$ = $ | a_i - a_j | $, $C_{lr,e}$ = 23.5, and
439: $C_{lr,e}^{\prime}$ = 5.9 \citep[see also][]{kb01}.
440:
441: For short-range gravitational interactions, the stirring depends on
442: the ratio of the relative collision velocity to the mutual Hill
443: velocity,
444: \begin{equation}
445: v_H \approx \langle \Omega_{ij} \rangle ~ \langle a_{ij} \rangle ~ [(m_{ik} + m_{jl})/3 M_{\star}]^{1/3} ~ .
446: \label{eq:vhill}
447: \end{equation}
448: In the high velocity regime, the collision
449: velocity exceeds the Hill velocity. Statistical solutions to the
450: Fokker-Planck equation then yield accurate estimates for the stirring
451: rates \citep[e.g.,][]{hor85,wet93,ste00,kb01}. At low velocities,
452: $n$-body calculations provide good estimates. We follow \citet{oht02}
453: and write the stirring as the sum of rates in the two regimes:
454: \begin{equation}
455: \frac{dh_{sr,ik}^2}{dt} = \frac{dh_{high,ik}^2}{dt} ~ + ~ \frac{dh_{low,ik}^2}{dt}
456: \label{eq:dhdtsr}
457: \end{equation}
458: and
459: \begin{equation}
460: \frac{dv_{sr,ik}^2}{dt} = \frac{dv_{high,ik}^2}{dt} ~ + ~ \frac{dv_{low,ik}^2}{dt} ~ ,
461: \label{eq:dvdtsr}
462: \end{equation}
463: where the subscripts `high' and `low' indicate the velocity regime
464: \citep[e.g., Eq. (25) of][]{oht02}.
465:
466: In the high velocity regime, the stirring is \citep[e.g.][]{ste00,kb01}
467: \begin{equation}
468: \frac{dh_{high,ik}^2}{dt} = \sum_{j=1}^{j=N} \sum_{l=1}^{l=M} f_{ijkl} ~ C_{high} ~ ( (h_{ik}^2 + h_{jl}^2)~m_{jl} ~ J_e(\beta_{ijkl}) + 1.4 ~ (m_{jl}h_{jl}^2 - m_{ik}h_{ik}^2)~H_e(\beta_{ijkl}) )
469: \label{eq:dhdthsr}
470: \end{equation}
471: and
472: \begin{equation}
473: \frac{dv_{high,ik}^2}{dt} = \sum_{j=1}^{j=N} \sum_{l=1}^{l=M} f_{ijkl} ~ \frac{C_{high}}{\beta_{ijkl}^2}~((v_{ik}^2 + v_{jl}^2)~m_{jl}~J_z(\beta_{ijkl}) + 1.4 ~ (m_{jl}v_{jl}^2 - m_{ik}v_{ik}^2)~H_z(\beta_{ijkl})) ~ ,
474: \label{eq:dvdthsr}
475: \end{equation}
476: where
477: $f_{ijkl}$ the fraction of objects with mass $m_{ik}$ in annulus $i$ that approach
478: within 2.4 $R_H$ of the objects with mass $m_{jl}$ in annulus $j$ and $C_{high}$
479: = 0.28 $A_{\Lambda} ~ G^2 ~ \rho_{jl} / ((h_{ik}^2 + h_{jl}^2)^{3/2})$. In the
480: expression for $C_{high}$, $A_{\Lambda}$ = ln $( \Lambda^2 + 1)$ and
481: \begin{equation}
482: \Lambda = \left ( \frac{0.19 ~ (h_{ik}^2 + h_{jl}^2 ~ + ~ 1.25 ~ (v_{ik}^2 + v_{jl}^2)) ~ (v_{ik}^2 + v_{jl}^2)^{1/2}}{v_H^3} \right )^2 ~ .
483: \label{eq:lambda}
484: \end{equation}
485: The functions $H_e$, $H_z$, $J_e$, and $J_z$ are definite integrals
486: defined in Stewart \& Ida (2000).
487:
488: In the low velocity regime, the evolution equations are \citep{oht02}:
489: \begin{equation}
490: \frac{dh_{low,ik}^2}{dt} = \sum_{j=1}^{j=N} \sum_{l=1}^{l=M} f_{ijkl} ~ C_{low} ~ ( m_{jl} ~ \chi_1 ~ + ~ (m_{jl} h_{jl}^2 ~ - ~ m_{ik} h_{ik}^2) ~ \chi_3 )
491: \label{eq:dhdtlsr}
492: \end{equation}
493: and
494: \begin{equation}
495: \frac{dv_{low,ik}^2}{dt} = \sum_{j=1}^{j=N} \sum_{l=1}^{l=M} f_{ijkl} ~ C_{low} ~ ( m_{jl} ~ \chi_2 ~ + ~ (m_{jl} h_{jl}^2 - m_{ik} h_{ik}^2) ~ \chi_4 )
496: \label{eq:dvdtlsr}
497: \end{equation}
498: where the $\chi$'s are simple functions of the Hill radius
499: \begin{equation}
500: r_{H,ijkl} = a [(2 ~ (m_{ik} + m_{jl}))/3 M_{\star}]^{1/3} ~ .
501: \label{eq:rhill}
502: \end{equation}
503: and the normalized eccentricity and inclination
504: \citep[][see also Ida 1990; Ida \& Makino 1992]{oht02}.
505: For the low velocity limit of the horizontal velocity
506: \begin{equation}
507: \chi_1 = 73 ~ C_1 ~ r_{H,ijkl}^4
508: \label{eq:chi1}
509: \end{equation}
510: and
511: \begin{equation}
512: \chi_2 = C_2 ~ (4 ~ \tilde{i}_{ij}^2 + 0.2 ~ \tilde{e}_{ij}^2 ~ (\tilde{e}_{ij}^2 \tilde{i}_{ij}^2)^{1/2}) ~ r_{H,ijkl}^4 ~ .
513: \label{eq:chi2}
514: \end{equation}
515: For the low velocity limit of the vertical velocity
516: \begin{equation}
517: \chi_3 = 10 ~ C_3 ~ \tilde{e}_{ij}^2 ~ r_{H,ijkl}^4 / (h_{ik}^2 + h_{jl}^2)
518: \label{eq:chi3}
519: \end{equation}
520: and
521: \begin{equation}
522: \chi_4 = 10 ~ C_3 ~ \tilde{i}_{ij}^2 ~ r_{H,ijkl}^4 / (h_{ik}^2 + h_{jl}^2) ~ .
523: \label{eq:chi4}
524: \end{equation}
525: Here, $C_{low} = 0.625 ~ \langle a_{ij} \rangle ~ \rho_{jl} ~ H_{ijkl} ~ V_{K,i}^3 / (m_{ik} + m_{jl})^2$,
526: $\tilde{e}_{ij}^2 = (e_{ik}^2 + e_{jl}^2) / r_{H,ijkl}^2$, and
527: $\tilde{i}_{ij}^2 = (i_{ik}^2 + i_{jl}^2) / r_{H,ijkl}^2$.
528: The constants $C_1$, $C_2$, and $C_3$ are identical to
529: those in Eq. (26) of \citet{oht02}.
530:
531: Several tests indicate that these expressions provide an accurate
532: treatment of velocity evolution for planetesimals in the high and
533: low velocity regimes.
534: Figs. 5--7 of \citet{oht02} show comparisons with results from $n$-body
535: simulations \citep[see also][]{ida90,ida92}. Our simulations confirm
536: this analysis. \citet{wei97} and \citet{kb01} compare variants of
537: this formalism with other $n$-body calculations. \citet{gol04}
538: demonstrate that our numerical results agree with analytic estimates.
539:
540: To follow the evolution of the most massive objects more accurately, our
541: code includes an $n$-body algorithm. When objects have masses exceeding
542: a `promotion mass' $m_{pro}$, we promote them into an $n$-body code that
543: directly solves their orbits. The $n$-body code incorporates algorithms
544: to allow collisions among $n$-bodies and interactions between $n$-bodies
545: and coagulation particles. \citet{bk06} describe this code in detail.
546: Because dynamical interactions among large oligarchs are rare and occur
547: at late stages in the evolution, we set $m_{pro} = 10^{26}$ g. We
548: describe several test calculations with smaller $m_{pro}$ in \S3.3.
549:
550: To treat the time evolution of the gas volume density $\rho_{gas}$, we
551: use a simple nebular model with gas surface density
552: $\Sigma_{gas}(a,t) = \Sigma_{gas,0} a^{-3/2} e^{-t/t_{gas}}$,
553: gas-to-solids ratio $\Sigma_{gas,0}(a) / \Sigma (a)$ = 100 -- where
554: $\Sigma$ is the surface density of solids, and scale height
555: $H_{gas}(a) = H_{gas,0} (a/a_0)^{1.125}$ \citep{kh87}. To approximate gas
556: removal on a timescale $t_{gas}$, the gas density declines exponentially
557: with time. We set $t_{gas}$ = 10~Myr. During the early stages of
558: calculations at 30--150~AU, velocity damping is important for particles
559: with $r \lesssim$ 100 m. However, particle losses from gas drag are small,
560: $\sim$ 1\% or less of the initial mass. By the time viscous stirring
561: dominates the velocity evolution of small objects, the gas disk has
562: dispersed. Inward drift and velocity damping are then negligible
563: \citep[see also][]{wet93}.
564:
565: The initial conditions for these calculations are appropriate for a disk
566: with an age of $\lesssim$ 1--2~Myr \citep[e.g.][]{dul05,nom06,cie07,gar07}.
567: We consider systems of $N$ annuli in disks with $a_i$ = 30--150~AU
568: and $\delta a_i/a_i$ = 0.025. The disk is composed of small
569: planetesimals with radii of $\sim$ 1--1000 m and an initial mass
570: distribution $n_i(m_{ik})$ in each annulus. The mass ratio between
571: adjacent bins is $\delta = m_{ik+1}/m_{ik}$ = 1.4--2. At the start
572: of the calculations, each bin has the same total mass, eccentricity
573: $e_0 = 1-3~\times~10^{-4}$, and inclination $i_0 = e_0/2$. We assume
574: a power law variation of the initial surface density of solid material
575: with semimajor axis,
576: \begin{equation}
577: \Sigma_i = \Sigma_0(M_{\star}) ~ x_m ~ (a_i/a_0)^{-3/2} ~ ,
578: \label{eq:sigma}
579: \end{equation}
580: where $x_m$ is a scaling factor. For a 1 $M_{\odot}$ central star,
581: models with $\Sigma_0 \approx$ 0.1--0.2 g cm$^{-2}$ at $a_0$ = 30~AU
582: have a mass in icy solids comparable to the minimum mass solar nebula
583: \citep[MMSN hereafter;][]{wei77a,hay81}. Consistent with observations of
584: disks surrounding pre-main sequence stars \citep[e.g.,][]{nat2000,sch2006},
585: we scale the reference surface density with the stellar mass,
586: $\Sigma_0 (M_{\star})$ = 0.18 $(M_{\star} / M_{\odot}$) g cm$^{-2}$.
587:
588: Table 1 lists the ranges in $M_{\star}$ and $x_m$ we consider. The table
589: also lists the main sequence lifetime, $t_{ms}$, defined as the time to
590: reach core hydrogen exhaustion in the $X$ = 0.71, $Y$ = 0.27, and $Z$ =
591: 0.02 stellar evolution models of \citet{dem04}, where $X$ is the initial
592: mass fraction of hydrogen, $Y$ is the mass fraction of helium, and $Z$
593: is the metallicity. For most of our calculations,
594: the number of annuli in the disk is $N$ = 64. To check these results,
595: we also calculated models for disks with $N$ = 32 around 1 $M_{\odot}$
596: stars. Because the growth of planets has large stochastic variations,
597: we repeated the calculations 5--12 times for each set of starting
598: conditions, $M_{\star}$, $N$, $x_m$, and $Q_b$. Table 1 lists
599: the number of calculations for each ($M_{\star}$, $x_m$) pair.
600:
601: Our calculations follow the time evolution of the mass and velocity
602: distributions of objects with a range of radii, $r_{ik} = r_{min}$
603: to $r_{ik} = r_{max}$. The upper limit $r_{max}$ is always larger
604: than the largest object in each annulus. To save computer time in
605: our main calculation, we do not consider small objects which do not
606: affect significantly the dynamics and growth of larger objects,
607: $r_{min}$ = 100 cm.
608: Erosive collisions produce objects with $r_{ik}$ $< r_{min}$ which
609: are `lost' to the model grid. Lost objects are more likely to be
610: ground down into smaller objects than to collide with larger objects
611: in the grid \citep[see][2004a]{kb02a}.
612:
613: To estimate the amount of dusty debris produced by planet formation,
614: we perform a second calculation. Each main calculation yields
615: $\dot{M}_i (t)$, the amount of mass lost to the grid per annulus
616: per timestep, and $H_{i0}(t)$, the scale height of the smallest
617: particle ($r = r_{min}$) in each annulus of the coagulation grid.
618: Objects with sizes smaller than $r_{min}$ contain a small fraction
619: of the mass in each annulus; thus, the scale height for objects with
620: $r < r_{min}$ is $H_{i0}(t)$ \citep{gol04}. The total amount of mass
621: lost from the planetesimal grid in each timestep is
622: $\dot{M}(t) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \dot{M}_i (t)$. The debris has a known size
623: distribution, $n^{\prime}_{ij} = n^{\prime}_{i0} r_i^{-\beta}$, where
624: $\beta$ is a constant \citep[see][and references therein]{st97,kl99}.
625: The normalization constant $n_{i0}^{\prime}$
626: depends only on $\beta$ and $\dot{M} (t)$, which we derive at each
627: timestep in the main calculation. To evolve the dust distribution
628: in time, we use a simple collision algorithm that includes
629: Poynting-Robertson drag and radiation pressure\footnote{Because the
630: collisional cascade begins after the gas disk dissipates, we ignore
631: gas drag.}. The optical depth $\tau$ of the dust follows from
632: integrals over the size distribution in each annulus. The optical
633: depth and a radiative transfer solution then yield the luminosity
634: and radial surface brightness of the dust as a function of time.
635: \citet{kb04a} describe this calculation in more detail.
636:
637: Throughout the text, we use simple scaling relations to show how our
638: results depend on initial conditions and the properties of the grid.
639: For each set of calculations (Table 1), we derive median results for
640: the size distribution, the size of the largest object as a function of
641: $a$ and $t$, and other physical variables. Substituting the inter-quartile
642: range for the dispersion, we then perform least-squares fits to relate
643: these median results to input parameters (e.g., $x_m$) and the properties
644: of the grid (e.g., $a$). For parameters where analytic theory predicts
645: a relation (e.g., the growth time as a function of $a$), we derive the
646: best-fitting coefficient, test whether different fitting functions provide
647: better fits to our results, and keep the result that minimizes $\chi^2$
648: per degree of freedom. When analytic theory provides no guidance, we
649: derive fitting functions that yield the sensitivity of our results to
650: all important physical variables. Thus, our fits test some aspects of
651: analytic theory and guide other aspects.
652:
653: \section{PLANET FORMATION CALCULATIONS}
654:
655: \subsection{Icy Planet Formation in Disks around 1 $M_{\odot}$ Stars}
656:
657: We begin with a discussion of planet formation in disks at 30--150~AU
658: around a 1 $M_{\odot}$ star. For most disks around low mass stars, the
659: timescale for planet formation is shorter than the main sequence lifetime.
660: Thus, the growth of planetesimals into planets and the outcome of the
661: collisional cascade depend more on the physics of solid objects than on
662: stellar physics. Here, we review the stages in planet growth and describe
663: the outcome of the collisional cascade. For a suite of calculations of
664: planet formation in disks of different masses, we derive basic relations
665: for the growth time and the maximum planet mass as a function of initial
666: disk mass. We also show how the dust production rate and the mass in small
667: objects depend on initial disk mass and time.
668:
669: The next section compares these results with calculations for
670: 1.5--3~$M_{\odot}$ stars. For disks around more massive stars, the
671: planet formation timescale is comparable to the main sequence lifetime.
672: Thus, the central star evolves off the main sequence before planet
673: formation and the collisional cascade reach a natural end-state.
674: During post-main sequence evolution, the star brightens considerably
675: \citep[e.g.,][]{dem04} and develops a powerful stellar wind
676: \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{kna85},
677: melting icy objects in the inner disk and ejecting small grains
678: throughout the disk. Thus, we halt our calculations when the star
679: evolves off the main sequence. Here, we show how the physics of
680: main sequence stars changes the results derived for planet formation
681: around 1~\msun\ stars.
682:
683: \subsubsection{Growth of Large Objects}
684:
685: The formation of icy planets in the outer regions of a quiescent
686: planetesimal disk has three distinct stages \citep{kl99,kb04a}.
687: Planetesimals with $r \lesssim$ 1~km grow slowly. As they grow,
688: dynamical friction damps $e$ for the largest objects; dynamical
689: friction and viscous stirring raise $e$ for the smallest objects
690: \citep[e.g.,][]{gre84,wet93,gol04}. After $\sim$ 0.1--1 Myr,
691: gravitational focusing enhances the collision cross-sections by
692: factors of 10--100. Slow, orderly growth ends. Runaway growth begins.
693: At the inner edge of the disk, the largest objects take $\sim$ 3~Myr
694: to grow to $\sim$ 100~km and $\sim$ 30~Myr to grow to $\sim$ 1000~km.
695: Throughout runaway growth, the gas disk dissipates. Thus, velocity
696: damping by gas drag ceases; dynamical friction and viscous stirring
697: increase $e$ for the smallest objects. Stirring reduces gravitational
698: focusing factors, slowing the growth of the largest objects relative to
699: one another and relative to leftover planetesimals \citep{ida93,wet93}.
700: Runaway growth ends; oligarchic growth begins \citep{kok98,raf03,cha06,naga07}.
701: After 30--100 Myr, the largest objects -- oligarchs -- grow slowly
702: and contain an ever increasing fraction of the remaining mass in the
703: disk.
704:
705: During the transition from runaway to oligarchic growth, collisions
706: start to produce copious amount of dust. Once oligarchs reach sizes
707: $\sim$ 500~km, collisions between 1--10~km objects produce debris
708: instead of mergers \citep[][and references therein]{kbod08}. Once
709: fragmentation begins, continued stirring leads to a collisional
710: cascade, where leftover planetesimals are ground to dust. For dust
711: grains with sizes $\gtrsim$ 10 $\mu$m,
712: the collision time is much shorter than the time to remove particles
713: by gas drag \citep{ada76} or by Poynting-Robertson drag \citep{bur79}.
714: Thus, the cascade proceeds to particle sizes $\lesssim$ 1--10 $\mu$m,
715: where radiation pressure removes material on the dynamical time scale
716: \citep{bur79}. Because runaway growth leaves most of the mass in 1--10~km
717: objects, the collisional cascade effectively removes a significant
718: fraction of the solid material in the disk.
719:
720: Fig. \ref{fig:sd1} shows the time evolution of the eccentricity and the
721: mass distributions for objects in the innermost 8 annuli of a disk with
722: initial mass distribution similar to the MMSN. To minimize stochastic
723: variations, these plots show median results for 15 calculations.
724: During slow growth and the early stages of runaway growth, dynamical
725: friction damps $e$ for the largest objects and raises $e$ for the
726: smallest objects (Fig. \ref{fig:sd1}; right panel, 10 Myr). The
727: mass distribution develops a pronounced shoulder from 10~km to
728: $\sim$ 300--500~km. As the evolution proceeds, growth concentrates
729: more mass in the largest objects; stirring excites the orbits of the
730: smallest objects. After 100 Myr, the collisional cascade removes mass
731: efficiently from the smallest objects but leaves the mass distribution
732: of the largest objects unchanged. By $\sim$ 5--10 Gyr, almost all of
733: the small objects have been removed.
734:
735: In these calculations,
736: the rate of planet formation is very sensitive to semimajor axis
737: (Fig. \ref{fig:radevol1}). For collisional processes, the growth time
738: in the disk is $t \propto P / \Sigma$, where $P$ is the orbital period
739: \citep[see the Appendix; also][]{lis87,kl98,gol04}. For $P \propto a^{3/2}$ and
740: $\Sigma \propto x_m a^{-3/2}$ (Eq. (\ref{eq:sigma})), the growth
741: time is $t \propto a^3 x_m^{-1}$. Thus, although
742: it takes only $\sim$ 10 Myr for the largest planets to reach radii of
743: 300--600~km at 30~AU, the largest objects at $a \gtrsim$ 100~AU still
744: have $r \sim$ 3--5~km. By 100 Myr, 100~km objects form at 75--80~AU.
745: After 1 Gyr, 100~km objects form beyond 125~AU. By the end of the
746: calculation at 10 Gyr, 1000~km objects form throughout the disk.
747:
748: The formation rate also depends on the initial disk mass (Fig.
749: \ref{fig:radevol2}). For an expected growth time $t \propto a^3 x_m^{-1}$,
750: planets grow faster in more massive disks. At 100~AU, planets with
751: $r \sim$ 2000~km form in a massive disk ($x_m$ = 3) within 1 Gyr.
752: In a low mass disk with $x_m \sim$ 1/3, the largest planet at 100~AU
753: grows to $r \sim$ 300~km in 1 Gyr and $r \sim$ 2000~km in 10 Gyr.
754: For all simulations of disks around 1 $M_{\odot}$ stars, the median
755: timescale for the formation of the first 1000~km object is
756: \begin{equation}
757: t_{1000} \approx 475 ~ x_m^{-1.15} ~ \left ( \frac{a}{\rm 80~AU} \right )^3 ~ {\rm Myr} ~ .
758: \label{eq:t1000}
759: \end{equation}
760: This relation fits our results for the median growth time to $\approx$
761: 5\% for $a$ = 30--150~AU and for $x_m$ = 1/3 to 3. For each initial disk
762: mass, the inter-quartile range for the formation time is $\sim$ 20\%.
763: Thus, there is a modest range of outcomes for identical starting conditions.
764:
765: In equation \ref{eq:t1000}, there is a small difference between the result
766: expected from simple theory ($t \propto x_m^{-1}$) and the result derived
767: in our calculations ($t \propto x_m^{-1.15}$). We show in the Appendix how
768: gas drag during runaway and oligarchic growth can modify the simple theory
769: and explain the result of our calculations.
770:
771: Although the timescale to produce the first 1000~km object is a strong
772: function of initial disk mass and semimajor axis, the evolution at late
773: times is less sensitive to the starting conditions. To derive a simple
774: relation for the median size $r_{max}$ of the largest object as a function
775: of initial disk mass and semimajor axis, we adopt a simple function
776: \begin{equation}
777: r_{max}(a) = r_0 ~ e^{-(a_i / a_0)^{\alpha_r}}
778: \label{eq:rmax}
779: \end{equation}
780: and use an amoeba algorithm \citep{pre92} to derive the fitting parameters
781: $a_0$, $r_0$, and $\alpha_r$ as a function of time. For stellar ages
782: 1 Gyr $\lesssim t_{\star} \lesssim$ 10 Gyr, the ensemble of calculations
783: yields
784: \begin{equation}
785: r_0 \approx 1650 ~ x_m^{0.2} \left ( \frac{t}{\rm 3~Gyr} \right )^{0.06} ~ {\rm~km}
786: \label{eq:r0}
787: \end{equation}
788: for the radius of the largest object,
789: \begin{equation}
790: a_0 \approx 190 ~ x_m^{0.1} \left ( \frac{t}{\rm 3~Gyr} \right )^{0.1} ~ {\rm~AU}
791: \label{eq:a0}
792: \end{equation}
793: for the scale length, and $\alpha_r \approx$ 5--6 for the exponent. These
794: relations match our results to $\pm$5\%. The uncertainties are $\pm$3\%
795: in the coefficients and $\pm$5\% in the exponents.
796:
797: These calculations produce relatively low mass icy planets with radii
798: $\sim$ 50\% larger than the radius of Pluto \citep[][2007]{you94,ell03}.
799: Although these objects form relatively rapidly in the inner disk, they
800: grow very slowly at late times. Between 1--10~Gyr, most large object grow
801: by $\sim$ 10--20\% in radius ($\sim$ 50\% in mass). Because the size
802: of the largest object depends weakly on the initial disk mass, nearly
803: all disks form Pluto-mass planets. These objects stir leftover
804: planetesimals effectively; thus, nearly all disks develop a collisional
805: cascade.
806:
807: Despite the general formation of Pluto-mass planets in any disk, the lowest
808: mass disks ($x_m \lesssim$ 1/3) form Plutos inefficiently. The scale length,
809: $a_0 \gtrsim$ 150~AU, derived from our calculations exceeds the outer
810: radius of the disk. Thus, planet formation does not proceed to completion
811: at large $a$ for the lowest mass disks. In these systems, the largest icy
812: planets at $a \approx$ 125--150~AU are factors of 3--10 smaller than $r_0$.
813: The large exponent, $\alpha_r \sim$ 5--6, derived in our fits implies a
814: rapid transition -- $\sim$ 10--20~AU -- between disk regions where
815: the largest objects are planets with $r_{max}$ $\approx r_0$ and where
816: the largest objects have $r_{max} \lesssim$ 300--500~km.
817:
818: In our calculations, the collisional cascade limits the size of the largest
819: objects. Once a few objects have radii $\gtrsim$ 1000~km, they stir up leftover
820: planetesimals to the disruption velocity. When the collisional cascade
821: begins, the timescale for 1~km planetesimals to collide and fragment
822: into smaller objects is shorter than the timescale for oligarchs to
823: accrete leftover planetesimals. Thus, the growth of the largest objects
824: stalls at $\sim$ 1000--2000~km ($\sim$ 0.01--0.02 $M_{\oplus}$).
825: Occasionally, runaway and oligarchic growth produce a very large object
826: with $r \sim$ 5000~km ($\sim$ 0.1 $M_{\oplus}$), but these objects form
827: in only $\sim$ 5--10\% of the simulations. These objects form at random
828: semimajor axes and tend to form in more massive disks.
829:
830: The large radial variation in the formation time produces dramatic differences
831: in the mass distribution as a function of semimajor axis (Fig. \ref{fig:sd2}).
832: In the inner disk, rapid growth leads to many objects with $r \gtrsim$
833: 1000~km (Table \ref{tab:rad1000.1}). With many large objects stirring
834: the leftover planetesimals in the inner disk, the collisional cascade
835: removes most of the mass in small objects (Fig. \ref{fig:sd2}, left panel).
836: In the outer disk, slow growth results in a handful of Pluto-mass
837: objects. A few large objects cannot stir leftover planetesimals
838: efficiently. Thus, the collisional cascade is weak and leaves a
839: substantial amount of mass in 1--10~km planetesimals
840: (Fig. \ref{fig:sd2}, right panel).
841:
842: The growth of objects as a function of semimajor axis and time is not
843: sensitive to the size of the model grid (Fig. \ref{fig:radevol3}).
844: For two sets of calculations with 32 annuli (cyan and magenta points),
845: the median radius of the largest object in each annulus is nearly
846: identical to results for calculations with 64 annuli (black points).
847: The results for Eqs.
848: (\ref{eq:t1000}--\ref{eq:frac100}) are also independent of the grid.
849: In principle, long-range stirring from planets at small $a$ can
850: influence runaway growth of objects at large $a$. Our results suggest
851: that icy planet formation at large semimajor axes is not influenced by
852: the formation of small icy planets at small semimajor axes.
853:
854: To conclude this discussion of the formation of large objects in a
855: planetesimal disk, we quote several simple relations for the amount
856: of solid material in small and large objects as a function of initial
857: disk mass and semimajor axis for the ensemble of calculations around
858: a 1 \msun\ star. At 3--10 Gyr, the median fraction of solids remaining
859: in the disk is
860: \begin{equation}
861: f_s \approx 0.3 \left ( \frac{a}{\rm 100~AU} \right ) \left ( \frac{1}{x_m} \right )^{1/4} ~ .
862: \label{eq:frac10gy}
863: \end{equation}
864: For a MMSN with $x_m$ = 1, the amount of mass remaining in the disk
865: at 3--10~Gyr ranges from 9\% of the initial mass at 30~AU to roughly 50\%
866: of the initial mass at 150~AU. Thus, the inner disk is substantially
867: depleted, while the outer disk contains a significant fraction of its
868: initial mass.
869:
870: For each $x_m$, the median fraction of the initial disk mass in 1000~km
871: and larger objects is
872: \begin{equation}
873: \label{eq:frac1000}
874: f_{1000} = 0.035 \left ( \frac{\rm 30~AU}{a} \right ) ~.
875: \end{equation}
876: The median fraction of the mass in 100~km and larger objects is roughly
877: 50\% larger,
878: \begin{equation}
879: \label{eq:frac100}
880: f_{100} = 0.06 \left ( \frac{\rm 30~AU}{a} \right ) ~.
881: \end{equation}
882: For the ensemble of calculations, the typical inter-quartile range is
883: $\sim$ 0.1 for $f_s$ and $\sim$ 20\% for $f_{100}$ and $f_{1000}$.
884: Thus, the mass distributions in our calculations are top-heavy, with
885: more mass in 1000+~km objects than in 100--1000~km objects.
886:
887: These relations demonstrate that planet formation at 30--150~AU is very
888: inefficient. For all disk radii in this range, only $\sim$ 6\% or less
889: of the initial population of 1~km objects is incorporated into large
890: objects with radii exceeding 100~km. In the inner disk (30--50~AU), the
891: collisional cascade is very efficient at removing leftover 1--10~km
892: objects. Thus, at 3--10~Gyr, the large objects contain most of the mass
893: in the inner disk. In the outer disk (100--150~AU), the collisional
894: cascade does not have enough time to remove leftover planetesimals.
895: Thus, small objects with radii of 1--10~km contain most of the remaining
896: mass at 100--150~AU.
897:
898: \subsubsection{Evolution of Dust}
899:
900: At all semimajor axes, the collisional cascade converts a large fraction
901: of the initial mass in solids into small dust grains. Because oligarchs
902: and leftover planetesimals are unobservable with current techniques,
903: dust emission provides the sole observational diagnostic of the growth
904: of icy planets at 30--150 AU around other stars. Here, we describe the
905: evolution of these small particles and demonstrate that the collisional
906: cascade is observable.
907:
908: Two physical processes set the visibility of dust grains in a debris
909: disk. Once significant fragmentation begins, collisions gradually grind
910: the fragments to dust. When dust grains are small enough, radiative
911: processes remove them from the disk. For disks at 30--150~AU, radiation
912: pressure dominates mass loss for $t \lesssim$ 1--3 Gyr and removes 65\%
913: to 70\% of the total mass loss. Poynting-Robertson drag removes material
914: at late times and is responsible for 30\% to 35\% of the total mass loss.
915: Because the gas density is negligible once the collisional cascade begins,
916: gas drag is unimportant.
917:
918: To describe our results, we divide dusty debris into
919: `large grains' with 1 mm $\lesssim r \lesssim$ 1 m,
920: `small grains' with 1 $\mu$m $\lesssim r \lesssim$ 1 mm,
921: and `very small grains' with $r \lesssim$ 1 $\mu$m.
922: Collisions dominate the evolution of large grains at all times.
923: For $t \lesssim$ 1--3 Gyr, collisions dominate the
924: evolution of small grains; Poynting-Robertson drag
925: then removes grains with radii of 1--100 $\mu$m on Gyr
926: timescales. Radiation pressure removes very small
927: grains on the local dynamical timescale. Thus,
928: radiation pressure produces a `wind' of very small grains
929: in the disk midplane.
930:
931: Fig. \ref{fig:dust1} shows the time evolution of the dust production rate
932: for very small grains as a function of initial disk mass. At the start
933: of each calculation, dynamical friction and collisions damp orbital
934: eccentricities. Thus, collisions produce less and less debris; the
935: dust production rate declines with time. As oligarchs reach radii of
936: $\sim$ 500~km, they stir leftover planetesimals along their orbits.
937: Dust production increases. Because oligarchs continue to grow, they
938: stir leftover planetesimals to larger and larger velocities. Collision
939: energies rapidly exceed the critical disruption energy; the dust production
940: rate increases dramatically (Eq. \ref{eq:mej}--\ref{eq:Qd}). When oligarchs
941: start to reach their maximum radii in the inner disk (Eq. (\ref{eq:rmax})),
942: the dust production rate peaks. As oligarchs grow at larger and larger
943: disk radii, the dust production rate slowly declines.
944:
945: Although the outer disk contains more mass, the global dust production rate
946: declines with time for two reasons. Large oligarchs form at late times
947: in the outer disk (Fig. \ref{fig:radevol1}), but the smaller disk surface
948: density and the longer orbital periods lead to smaller collision rates.
949: Smaller collision rates yield smaller dust production rates. Initially,
950: collisions dominate Poynting-Robertson drag; thus, radiation pressure
951: ejects the smallest grains on the local orbital timescale
952: \citep[e.g.,][]{kri00,wya05}. The dust production rate then declines
953: roughly as $t^{-1}$. At late times, the collision rates decline.
954: Poynting-Robertson drag then removes larger grains from the disk, which
955: reduces the population of very small grains from erosive collisions.
956: The dust production rate then declines with evolution time as $t^{-2}$
957: \citep[see also][]{dom03,kb04a,kb05,wya05,wya07a,wya07b}.
958:
959: The time evolution of the collision rate in the disk yields a simple
960: relation between the maximum dust production rate $\dot{M}_{max}$
961: and the initial disk mass. For the complete set of calculations,
962: \begin{equation}
963: \dot{M}_{max} \approx 6.5 \times 10^{20} ~ x_m^2 ~ {\rm g~yr^{-1}} ~ .
964: \label{eq:mdot1}
965: \end{equation}
966: For a MMSN with $x_m$ = 1, the maximum rate is $\sim$ 0.1 $M_{\oplus}$
967: every million years. The collision rate scales with the square of the
968: number density of objects; thus, the dust production rate grows as the
969: square of the initial disk mass (e.g., $\dot{M}_{max} \propto x_m^2$).
970:
971: The timescale for the peak in dust production is shorter than the
972: timescale for the production of 1000~km objects in the disk,
973: \begin{equation}
974: t_{\dot{M}_{max}} \approx 14 ~ x_m^{-1} ~ {\rm Myr} ~ .
975: \label{eq:tmdot1}
976: \end{equation}
977: This time corresponds roughly to the time of peak stirring of
978: leftover planetesimals by oligarchs growing in the inner disk,
979: starting the collisional cascade. Oligarchs form faster in more
980: massive disks; thus, the dust production rate peaks earlier
981: in more massive disks.
982:
983: Fig. \ref{fig:dust2} shows the time evolution of the mass in small grains
984: for disks with a range of initial masses. Initially, the dust production
985: rates are small (Fig. \ref{fig:dust1}) and the dust mass increases slowly
986: with time. Once large oligarchs form in the inner disk, the dust production
987: rate -- and thus the mass in small grains -- grows rapidly. For all disks,
988: it takes $\sim$ 5--10~Myr for the mass in small grains to grow from $10^{-6}$
989: $M_{\oplus}$ (which is unobservable with current techology) to $\sim$
990: $1-10 \times 10^{-4}$ $M_{\oplus}$ (which is observable). After this rapid
991: rise, oligarchs form at larger and larger disk radii, leading to enhanced
992: dust production farther and farther out in the disk. The dust mass then
993: rises slowly with time. Once oligarchs form at the outer edge of the disk,
994: the collisional cascade removes more and more solid material throughout
995: the disk. The dust mass then begins to decline.
996:
997: The maximum mass in small grains scales with the initial disk mass,
998: \begin{equation}
999: M_{max,small} \approx 0.013 ~ x_m ~ M_{\oplus} ~ .
1000: \label{eq:msmall}
1001: \end{equation}
1002: Because the derived size distributions are dominated by collisional
1003: processes, the maximum mass in large grains is roughly 40 times
1004: larger \citep[e.g.,][]{doh69,wil94,kb04c,kri06},
1005: \begin{equation}
1006: M_{max,large} \approx 0.5 ~ x_m ~ M_{\oplus} ~ .
1007: \label{eq:mlarge}
1008: \end{equation}
1009: In both cases, the larger collision rate in more massive disks
1010: leads to more dust. Although these dust masses are significant,
1011: they are small compared to the mass in objects with $r \gtrsim$
1012: 100~km. The typical mass in large grains is $\lesssim$ 10\% of
1013: the mass in 100~km and larger objects. The mass in small grains
1014: is $\lesssim$ 0.25\% of the mass in the largest objects.
1015:
1016: The timescale to reach the maximum dust mass is a function of
1017: the particle size. For the small grains,
1018: \begin{equation}
1019: t_{max,small} \approx 270 ~ x_m^{-1/2} ~ {\rm Myr} ~ .
1020: \label{eq:tdustsm}
1021: \end{equation}
1022: For the large grains,
1023: \begin{equation}
1024: t_{max,large} \approx 600 ~ x_m^{-1/2} ~ {\rm Myr} ~ .
1025: \label{eq:tdustlg}
1026: \end{equation}
1027:
1028: Several features of the collisional cascade set these timescales. Early
1029: in the evolution, the collision timescale for all particle sizes is
1030: smaller than the timescale for Poynting-Robertson drag. Thus, the cascade
1031: erodes small particles until radiation pressure ejects them. As planet
1032: formation propagates out through the disk, collisions produce more and
1033: more small grains. Because the mass in grains is set by a balance between
1034: the collision time, which scales as $x_m^{-1}$ and the local dynamical
1035: time, which scales as $x_m^{-1/2}$, the timescale to reach the maximum
1036: grain mass is proportional to $x_m^{-1/2}$. As the collision rate declines,
1037: Poynting-Robertson drag starts to remove mass from the disk. This drag
1038: removes smaller particles from the disk more effectively than it removes
1039: large particles. Thus, the mass in small grains peaks before the mass in
1040: larger grains.
1041:
1042: These results suggest that the mass in collisional debris is large,
1043: roughly a lunar mass in 0.001--1 mm grains, throughout the lifetime
1044: of a 1 $M_{\odot}$ star. Although the Solar System has much less dust
1045: \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{lan02,nes06}, these large disk
1046: masses are comparable to the mass in dust grains detected in many
1047: debris disks around other stars \citep[e.g.,][]{bei06,tri08,mor08}.
1048: Because our dust production rates are observable, the large range in
1049: dust masses as a function of initial disk mass and time implies a
1050: correspondingly large range in the observable properties of debris
1051: disks, such as the disk luminosity and the IR excess, at fixed
1052: stellar age. Because the dust production rate declines with time,
1053: we expect the disk luminosity and IR excesses to decline with
1054: time. We derive detailed predictions for this evolution in \S4
1055: and compare these results with observations in \S5.
1056:
1057: \subsection{Icy Planet Formation in 1.5--3 $M_{\odot}$ Stars}
1058:
1059: Stellar evolution is an important feature of icy planet formation
1060: at 30--150 AU. Because the main sequence lifetime
1061: \citep[$t_{ms} \propto M_{\star}^{-n}$, with $n \approx$ 3--3.5;
1062: e.g.,][]{ibe67,dem04} is more sensitive to stellar mass than the
1063: timescale to produce large icy planets
1064: ($t \propto M_{\star}^{-3/2}$; see below), massive stars evolve off
1065: the main sequence before oligarchic growth and the collisional cascade
1066: remove solid material in the outer disk. After a 1--3~\msun\ star
1067: evolves off the main sequence, it becomes more luminous (as a red giant)
1068: and hotter (as a post-AGB star). During this evolution, icy planetesimals
1069: and planets melt, decreasing collision rates and changing the outcome of
1070: the collisional cascade\footnote{We assume that melting is accompanied
1071: by a loss of volatiles and an increase in the mass density of leftover
1072: planetesimals.}. Short main sequence lifetimes of massive stars thus
1073: lead to clear differences in the amount of solid material in large and
1074: small objects in the outer disk.
1075:
1076: The stellar mass also affects the outcome of icy planet formation. The
1077: timescale for planet formation scales with orbital period and the surface
1078: density, $t \propto P/\Sigma$ (see the Appendix). For a disk with
1079: $\Sigma = \Sigma_0 ~ x_m ~ a^{-3/2}$ (Eq. (\ref{eq:sigma})) and fixed
1080: $\Sigma_0 ~ x_m$, the formation time is $t \propto a^3 ~ M_{\star}^{-1/2}$.
1081: Thus, at fixed $a$ in disks with identical surface density distributions,
1082: planets form faster around more massive stars. However, disk masses
1083: in the youngest stars scale with stellar mass \citep[e.g.,
1084: $M_d \propto M_{\star}$;][]{nat2000,sch2006}. Thus, $\Sigma_0$ scales with
1085: stellar mass, $\Sigma_0 \propto M_d \propto M_{\star}$. Combining these
1086: relations leads to a formation time $t \propto a^3 ~ M_{\star}^{-3/2}$.
1087: Thus, at fixed $a$ in typical disks, icy planets form $\sim$ 5 times
1088: faster around 3 \msun\ stars than around 1 \msun\ stars.
1089:
1090: To illustrate how stellar mass and evolution affect planet formation,
1091: we begin with the growth of large objects at 40~AU and at 100~AU (Fig.
1092: \ref{fig:rad}). For disks with identical initial surface density
1093: distributions, planets at the same $a$ in disks around 3 \msun\ stars
1094: grow $\sim$ 1.7 times faster than planets around 1 \msun\ stars. Fig.
1095: \ref{fig:rad} also shows the clear scaling of growth time with semimajor
1096: axis, $t \propto a^3$ for a disk with $\Sigma \propto a^{-3/2}$. The
1097: simple scaling of the growth time with disk mass and orbital period
1098: in our calculations leads to a general relation for the median timescale
1099: for the formation of the first 1000~km object in disks at 30--150~AU,
1100: \begin{equation}
1101: t_{1000} \approx 145 ~ x_m^{-1.15} ~ \left ( \frac{a}{\rm 80~AU} \right )^3 ~ \left ( \frac{2~M_{\odot}}{M_{\star}} \right )^{3/2} {\rm Myr} ~ .
1102: \label{eq:t1000allm}
1103: \end{equation}
1104: For 1--3 \msun\ stars, this relation fits our results for the median growth
1105: time to $\approx$ 7\% for $a$ = 30--150~AU and for $x_m$ = 1/3 to 3. For
1106: all initial disk masses, the inter-quartile range for the formation time
1107: is $\sim$ 20\%. Thus, there is a modest range of outcomes for identical
1108: starting conditions around 1--3 \msun\ stars.
1109:
1110: Aside from the extra factor of $x_m^{-0.15}$, this relation follows the
1111: prediction of $t \propto x_m^{-1} M_{\star}^{-3/2} a^3$ from standard
1112: coagulation theory. As outlined in the Appendix, velocity damping from
1113: gas drag can speed up planet formation in more massive disks.
1114:
1115: Fig. \ref{fig:radevol4} further shows how the growth time varies with
1116: $a$ and $M_{\star}$ for constant $x_m$. At 100 Myr, icy planets are
1117: close to their maximum sizes at 30--50~AU in the inner disk. At large
1118: disk radii ($a \sim$ 100--150~AU), planet formation is clearly faster
1119: around more massive stars. For all stars with $M_{\star}$ = 1--3 \msun,
1120: the $r_{max}(a)$ relations have a similar morphology, consisting of a
1121: plateau at $r_{max} \approx$ 1000--2000~km and a steep decline of
1122: $r_{max}$ with increasing $a$. As in \S3.1.1, we fit our results to
1123: a simple relation between $r_{max}$, $a$, and time (Eq. (\ref{eq:rmax})).
1124: For all of our calculations, we derive an exponent $\alpha_r \approx$
1125: 5--6 and a characteristic maximum radius
1126: \begin{equation}
1127: r_0 \approx 1750 ~ x_m^b \left( \frac{M_{\star}}{2~M_{\odot}} \right)^{0.09} \left ( \frac{3t}{t_{ms}} \right )^{0.06} ~ {\rm~km}
1128: \label{eq:r0allm}
1129: \end{equation}
1130: with the exponent $b = 0.22 + 0.033~M_{\star}/M_{\odot}$. The disk
1131: scale length is
1132: \begin{equation}
1133: a_0 \approx 190 ~ x_m^{0.1} \left ( \frac{3 t}{t_{ms}} \right )^{0.1} ~ {\rm~AU}
1134: \label{eq:a0allm}
1135: \end{equation}
1136: These results are valid for late times, $t \approx$ 0.1--1 $t_{ms}$.
1137:
1138: Eq. (\ref{eq:r0allm}) shows that the maximum sizes of icy planets at 30--150~AU
1139: are relatively insensitive to initial disk mass, stellar mass, or time. For
1140: disks with identical $x_m$ around 1--3 \msun\ stars, the largest icy planets
1141: around 3 \msun\ stars are only $\sim$ 10\%--20\% larger than the largest icy
1142: planets around solar-type stars. This range is comparable to the range in
1143: maximum sizes for planets formed in identical disks around stars of identical
1144: mass (\S3.1.1). Disks with a factor of 10 range in $x_m$ yield planets with
1145: a 20\%--30\% range in radii (a factor of $\sim$ 2 in mass). Thus, our
1146: calculations predict that the largest icy planets at 30--150~AU around
1147: 1--3 \msun\ stars have masses comparable to Pluto and other large Kuiper
1148: belt objects in the Solar System beyond the orbit of Neptune.
1149:
1150: Although the maximum sizes of planets are fairly independent of initial
1151: conditions, the number of Pluto-mass objects $n_P$ is sensitive to disk mass
1152: and stellar mass (Table \ref{tab:rad1000.2}). In the inner disk (30--60~AU),
1153: $n_P$ scales roughly with initial disk mass and stellar mass. In the outer
1154: disk (100--150~AU), the formation timescale for icy planets is comparable
1155: to the main sequence lifetime. Thus, $n_P$ scales with initial disk mass
1156: and stellar mass only for the most massive disks. In lower mass disks,
1157: stars evolve off the main sequence before disks can produce large numbers
1158: of Pluto-mass objects.
1159:
1160: Cumulative mass distributions provide another useful comparison of
1161: icy planet formation as a function of disk mass and stellar mass.
1162: For disks with identical initial surface density distributions at $a$
1163: = 30--37~AU, the shape of the mass distribution is fairly independent
1164: of stellar mass at 100 Myr (Fig. \ref{fig:sd3}; left panel). Because
1165: large icy planets form first in disks around more massive stars, disks
1166: of fixed age around 3 \msun\ stars have more mass in larger planets
1167: and are more collisionally depleted than disks around 1 \msun\ stars.
1168:
1169: For calculations in scaled MMSN (Fig. \ref{fig:sd3}; right panel),
1170: growth is a stronger function of stellar mass. As predicted by the
1171: simple scaling relations, disks around 3 \msun\ stars have $\sim$
1172: 5 times more mass in large objects than 1 \msun\ stars. More mass
1173: in large objects produces more stirring, enhancing mass loss in the
1174: collisional cascade. Despite large difference in initial disk mass,
1175: the mass distributions of disks around 1--3 \msun\ stars are very
1176: similar for $r <$ 1~km at similar times.
1177:
1178: Although planet formation proceeds faster with increasing stellar
1179: mass, stellar evolution halts the collisional cascade and the growth
1180: of planets in more massive stars (Fig. \ref{fig:sd4}). Planets reach
1181: their maximum radii in the inner disks for all 1--3~\msun\ stars;
1182: however, the timescale for the collisional cascade to run to
1183: completion is long compared to the main sequence lifetimes of
1184: 2--3~\msun\ stars. Thus, the collisional cascade removes a larger
1185: fraction of material from the inner disks around 1~\msun\ stars
1186: than from the inner disks of 2--3~\msun\ stars (Fig. \ref{fig:sd4};
1187: left panel). In the outer disk, the growth time for 1000~km planets
1188: is large compared to the main sequence lifetime for 2--3 \msun\ stars.
1189: Thus, planets do not reach their maximum radii of $\sim$ 1000--2000~km
1190: in the outer disks of 2--3 \msun\ stars (Fig. \ref{fig:sd4}; right panel)
1191:
1192: To conclude our comparison of icy planet formation around stars of
1193: different masses, we consider the long-term evolution of all solids
1194: in the disk. For $t = 0.3-1.0~t_{ms}$, the median fraction of solids
1195: remaining in the disk is
1196: \begin{equation}
1197: f_s \approx 0.38 \left ( \frac{a}{\rm 100~AU} \right )^{1.25} \left ( \frac{1}{x_m} \right )^{1/4} ~ .
1198: \label{eq:frac10gyallm}
1199: \end{equation}
1200: for the ensemble of calculations for 1.5 \msun\ stars and
1201: \begin{equation}
1202: f_s \approx 0.6 \left ( \frac{a}{\rm 100~AU} \right )^{1.6} \left ( \frac{1}{x_m} \right )^{1/3} ~ .
1203: \label{eq:fracendallm}
1204: \end{equation}
1205: for calculations for 2--3 \msun\ stars. At 30--50~AU, all stars lose
1206: roughly the same fraction of mass from the disk. At larger disk radii, more
1207: massive stars evolve off the main sequence before the collisional cascade
1208: removes most of the leftover 1--10~km planetesimals. Thus, icy planet
1209: formation around lower mass stars converts a larger fraction of the
1210: initial solid mass into dusty debris.
1211:
1212: Although planet formation around massive stars converts a smaller
1213: fraction of the initial mass into dusty debris, icy planet formation is
1214: equally efficient at producing massive objects around all 1--3 \msun\ stars.
1215: For all disks in our calculations, the median fraction of the initial
1216: disk mass in 1000~km and larger objects is
1217: \begin{equation}
1218: \label{eq:frac1000allm}
1219: f_{1000} = 0.035 \left ( \frac{\rm 30~AU}{a} \right ) ~.
1220: \end{equation}
1221: The median fraction of the mass in 100~km and larger objects is
1222: $\sim$ 50\% larger,
1223: \begin{equation}
1224: \label{eq:frac100allm}
1225: f_{100} = 0.06 \left ( \frac{\rm 30~AU}{a} \right ) ~.
1226: \end{equation}
1227: Mass distributions for icy planets are top heavy for all 1--3 \msun\ stars.
1228: As for calculations around 1 \msun\ stars, the typical inter-quartile
1229: ranges are $\sim$ 0.1 for $f_s$ and $\sim$ 20\% for $f_{100}$ and
1230: $f_{1000}$. Thus, identical starting conditions lead to a modest
1231: range of outcomes.
1232:
1233: \subsubsection{Evolution of Dust}
1234:
1235: The evolution of dusty debris in disks around 1.5--3 \msun\ stars
1236: generally follows the evolution for 1 \msun\ stars. As oligarchs
1237: form, stirring leads to a collisional cascade that converts 10~km
1238: and smaller objects into small dust grains. Because planets form
1239: more rapidly around more massive stars, disks around massive stars
1240: produce dust sooner than disks around lower mass stars. In our
1241: calculations, the disk mass scales with the stellar mass. Thus,
1242: disks around massive stars also produce more dust than disks around
1243: lower mass stars. However, massive stars do not live as long as
1244: lower mass stars, preventing the collisional cascade from removing
1245: all of the small objects from the disk (Fig. \ref{fig:sd3}). Over
1246: the lifetime of the star, disks around lower mass stars form more
1247: dust than disks around more massive stars.
1248:
1249: To illustrate these points, Fig. \ref{fig:dust3} shows the time
1250: evolution of the dust production rate for a scaled MMSN ($x_m$ = 1)
1251: around 1 \msun, 2 \msun, and 3 \msun\ stars. During runaway growth,
1252: destructive collisions are rare; thus, the dust production rate
1253: declines with time. As runaway growth ends, there are three distinct
1254: phases in dust production: (i) an exponential rise when runaway
1255: objects start to stir leftover planetesimals in the inner disk,
1256: (ii) a long plateau as oligarchs form farther and farther out
1257: in the disk, and (iii) a long decline in dust production as the
1258: collisional cascade depletes the disk of 1--10~km objects.
1259:
1260: Because planets grow more rapidly around more massive stars, the
1261: exponential growth in dust production occurs first around more
1262: massive stars. The timescale for the onset of dust production
1263: also scales inversely with disk mass; thus, more massive disks
1264: produce dust faster than low mass disks.
1265:
1266: When runaway growth ends and oligarchic growth begins, the dust
1267: production rate reaches a clear plateau (Fig. \ref{fig:dust3}).
1268: We define the onset of the plateau phase as the time of maximum
1269: dust production\footnote{Because there are small fluctuations
1270: in the dust production rate during the plateau phase, we define
1271: the maximum dust production as the time when the derivative
1272: $d \dot{M}(t)/dt$ first changes sign.}. For our calculations,
1273: there is a simple relation between the timescale of maximum
1274: dust production and the masses of the disk and central star,
1275: \begin{equation}
1276: t_{\dot{M}_{max}} \approx 5 ~ x_m^{-1} ~ \left ( \frac{2~M_{\odot}}{M_{\star}} \right )^{1.5} {\rm Myr} ~ .
1277: \label{eq:tmdot1allm}
1278: \end{equation}
1279: At this time, our simulations yield a simple relation between the maximum
1280: dust production rate and the masses of the disk and the central star,
1281: \begin{equation}
1282: \dot{M}_{max} \approx 3.5 \times 10^{21} ~ x_m^2 ~ \left ( \frac{M_{\star}}{2~M_{\odot}} \right )^{2.5} ~ {\rm g~yr^{-1}} ~ .
1283: \label{eq:mdot1allm}
1284: \end{equation}
1285:
1286: Each of these scaling laws has a simple physical origin. The maximum
1287: dust production rate, $\dot{M}_{max}$, depends on the collision rate,
1288: the square of the disk mass divided by the orbital period. Thus,
1289: $\dot{M}_{max}$ $\propto \Sigma^2 / P$ $\propto \Sigma^2 M_{\star}^{1/2}$.
1290: For disks where the surface density scales with stellar mass
1291: (Eq. (\ref{eq:sigma})), $\Sigma \propto x_m M_{\star}$. Thus,
1292: $\dot{M}_{max}$ $\propto x_m^2 M_{\star}^{5/2}$. The timescale to
1293: reach this rate is the orbital period divided by the disk mass.
1294: Thus, $t_{\dot{M}_{max}}$ $\propto \Sigma^{-1} M_{\star}^{-1/2}$
1295: $\propto x_m^{-1} M_{\star}^{-3/2}$.
1296:
1297: Once oligarchs form in the outer disk, the dust production rate declines
1298: rapidly. Stellar evolution sets the duration of this decline. In massive
1299: stars, the short main sequence lifetime halts the evolution before the
1300: collisional cascade depletes the disk of 1--10~km objects. Thus, the
1301: dust production rate declines by roughly an order of magnitude before
1302: the central star evolves off the main sequence. For lower mass stars,
1303: the long main sequence lifetime allows the collisional cascade to
1304: remove some material in the outer disk. Thus, the dust production
1305: rate declines by $\sim$ two orders of magnitude before the central
1306: star evolves into a red giant. We show in \S4 how the long-term
1307: evolution of the dust production rate as a function of stellar mass
1308: produces observable differences in the IR excesses of massive and
1309: low mass stars.
1310:
1311: Despite the large differences in dust production rates, there are
1312: smaller variations in the amount of dust as a function of disk mass
1313: and stellar mass. Fig. \ref{fig:dust4} shows the time evolution of the
1314: median mass in small grains for scaled MMSN around 1--3 \msun\ stars.
1315: Once the exponential rise in dust production begins, the dust masses
1316: rapidly evolve to similar configurations with $\sim 10^{26}$ g in
1317: small grains. For our set of calculations, the maximum mass in small
1318: grains is
1319: \begin{equation}
1320: M_{max,small} \approx 0.026 ~ x_m ~ \left ( \frac{M_{\star}}{2~M_{\odot}} \right ) M_{\oplus} ~ .
1321: \label{eq:msmallallm}
1322: \end{equation}
1323: The coefficient in this equation, $0.026 M_{\oplus}$, is roughly twice the
1324: mass of the Moon. The maximum mass in large particles is
1325: \begin{equation}
1326: M_{max,large} \approx 1.0 ~ x_m ~ \left ( \frac{M_{\star}}{2~M_{\odot}} \right ) M_{\oplus} ~ .
1327: \label{eq:mlargeallm}
1328: \end{equation}
1329:
1330: The timescale to reach the maximum dust mass is a function of the particle
1331: size. For the small grains,
1332: \begin{equation}
1333: t_{max,small} \approx 135 ~ x_m^{-1/2} ~ \left ( \frac{M_{\star}}{2~M_{\odot}} \right )^{-1} {\rm Myr} ~ .
1334: \label{eq:tdustsmallm}
1335: \end{equation}
1336: For the large grains,
1337: \begin{equation}
1338: t_{max,large} \approx 300 ~ x_m^{-1/2} ~ \left ( \frac{M_{\star}}{2~M_{\odot}} \right )^{-1} {\rm Myr} ~ .
1339: \label{eq:tdustlgallm}
1340: \end{equation}
1341: As described in \S3.1.2, the collision rate, the dynamical timescale,
1342: and Poynting-Robertson drag combine to produce the shorter timescale
1343: for smaller dust grains.
1344:
1345: \subsection{Limitations of the Calculations}
1346:
1347: In previous papers, we have described limitations to multiannulus
1348: \citep[][2002a, 2004b, 2005, 2006]{bk06,kb01} and single annulus
1349: \citep[][1999]{kl98} coagulation calculations. Here, we review
1350: how several of these limitations affect results for the simulations
1351: described above.
1352:
1353: As long as the statistical assumptions underlying the formalism are
1354: met, coagulation calculations provide a reasonable representation of
1355: real collision evolution
1356: \citep{wet80,gre84,dav85,bar91,spa91,lis93,wet93,st97,wei97,kl98,ina01}.
1357: For calculations at 30--150~AU around 1--3~\msun\ stars, the spacing
1358: of mass bins in an annulus and the spacing of annuli in the disk limit
1359: the accuracy of the results. Our standard mass spacing, $\delta = 2$,
1360: lengthens the evolution time by 10\% to 20\% relative to more accurate
1361: calculations with $\delta \lesssim$ 1.4 \citep[see][and references
1362: therein]{kl98}. The radial resolution, $\Delta a_i/a_i$ = 0.025, also
1363: lengthens the evolution time. Compared to calculations described in
1364: \citet{kb04b}, improvements in our treatment of interactions among
1365: particles in neighboring annuli reduce lags by a factor of two,
1366: from $\sim$ 20\% to $\sim$ 10\%. Combining the lags for mass
1367: spacing and radial resolution, our evolution timescales are $\sim$
1368: 20\% to 30\% longer than the actual evolution times. This lag is
1369: comparable to the dispersion in timescales derived from multiple
1370: calculations with identical starting conditions. Thus, improvements
1371: in resolution are unlikely to alter our results significantly.
1372:
1373: \subsubsection{Dynamical interactions}
1374:
1375: The coagulation algorithm begins to break down when (i) a few large objects
1376: contain most of mass in the grid and (ii) the gravity of these objects
1377: dominates the stirring. For $r \lesssim$ 500--1000~km, the largest
1378: objects contain a small fraction of the mass in an annulus; individual
1379: dynamical interactions are much smaller than the Fokker-Planck stirring
1380: rates. Thus, kinetic theory yields good estimates for collisions and
1381: stirring among small objects. As objects grow beyond $\sim$ 1000~km,
1382: however, both assumptions of our statistical approach begin to fail:
1383: (i) the collisional cascade removes leftover planetesimals, increasing
1384: the fraction of mass in the largest objects and (ii) individual
1385: interactions among the largest objects in an annulus can deflect large
1386: objects into neighboring annuli, raising collision and stirring rates
1387: significantly. With $\sim$ 100--1000 Pluto-mass objects at 30--150~AU
1388: (see Tables \ref{tab:rad1000.1}--\ref{tab:rad1000.2}), interactions among
1389: the largest objects could play a significant role in the late-time
1390: evolution of our models.
1391:
1392: Dynamical interactions among an ensemble of Pluto-mass planets occur
1393: when the radial spacing is $\Delta a \sim 2 \sqrt{3} r_H$, where $r_H$
1394: is the Hill radius in Eq. (\ref{eq:rhill}). For planets with mass
1395: $M_p \sim 6 \times 10^{24}$ g and $M_{\star}$ = 1 \msun, $r_H$ =
1396: 0.001 $a$. Thus, dynamical interactions among the largest objects
1397: are inevitable when $n_P \approx$ 50--100 in a region with a radial
1398: extent $\Delta a / a \approx$ 0.2 \citep{gol04,kb06}. Many of our
1399: calculations yield such large numbers of Pluto-mass objects.
1400:
1401: To save computer time, we did not calculate the typical long-term evolution
1402: of hundreds of Plutos using our hybrid evolution code \citep{bk06}.
1403: However, we can infer the outcome from scaling the results of
1404: calculations for the formation of the Earth at 1~AU
1405: \citep[e.g.,][]{cha01,bk06,kb06}. At 0.4--2~AU, dynamical evolution of
1406: 100--200 lunar mass objects produces several Earth-mass planets in
1407: 10--30~Myr. The spacing of lunar mass objects in these calculations
1408: is $\sim$ 70\% of the critical spacing $\Delta a \sim 2 \sqrt{3} r_H$,
1409: similar to the spacing of Pluto-mass objects at late times in our
1410: calculations at 30--150~AU. Scaling the evolution times by the ratio
1411: of orbital periods suggests that 100--200 Pluto mass objects collide
1412: to form planets with masses $\sim$ 0.1 \mearth\ on 1--3 Gyr timescales
1413: \citep[see also][]{lev01,gol04}.
1414:
1415: This analysis suggests that dynamical interactions between large numbers
1416: of Plutos at 30--150~AU are interesting only for low mass stars. For
1417: 2--3 \msun\ stars, the main sequence lifetimes are shorter than the time
1418: needed for Plutos to interact, to collide, and to grow into Mars-mass
1419: planets. For lower mass stars, several test calculations with our hybrid
1420: code confirm that ensembles of 100--200 Plutos can grow into several
1421: Mars-mass planets on timescales of 2--5 Gyr\footnote{For $a \gtrsim$ 75~AU,
1422: the escape velocity of Mars-mass planets exceeds the orbital velocity.
1423: Although dynamical interactions among Mars-mass objects can produce
1424: ejections in these circumstances \citep{gol04}, damping by leftover
1425: planetesimals limits ejections in our simulations.}. Although this evolution
1426: leads to some extra stirring of leftover low mass planetesimals, there
1427: are only small changes in the dust production rate and the total mass
1428: in small grains. Thus, dynamical interactions among Plutos have little
1429: impact on our general results.
1430:
1431: \subsubsection{Fragmentation parameters}
1432:
1433: Fragmentation is another uncertainty in our calculations. We treat
1434: destructive collisions with an energy-scaling algorithm that uses
1435: (i) the ratio of the center of mass collision energy $Q_c$ to the critical
1436: disruption energy $Q_d^*$ and (ii) a simple power-law size distribution
1437: to apportion ejected material into lower mass bins. Although the
1438: energy-scaling algorithm yields a reasonable treatment of collisions
1439: in coagulation calculations, the disruption energy $Q_d^*$ sets the
1440: strength of the collisional cascade. Large $Q_d^*$ leads to a weak
1441: cascade with little debris; small $Q_d^*$ allows a strong cascade
1442: with significant debris. Because $Q_d^*$ and the size distribution
1443: of the ejecta set the amount of material in small grains, we now
1444: discuss how our choices for these input parameters affect our results.
1445:
1446: Detailed comparisons of various approaches suggest that the size
1447: distribution of the ejected mass has little impact on our results. For
1448: the large collision rates in our calculations, all methods for dividing
1449: ejected mass among lower mass bins -- including dividing the ejected
1450: mass equally among 2--3 lower mass bins -- leads to a power-law mass
1451: distribution with a characteristic slope of $dn/dm \approx -0.8$
1452: \citep{doh69,wil94}. Thus, the adopted mass distribution for the ejecta
1453: is relatively unimportant.
1454:
1455: \citet{kb05} and \citet{kbod08} describe how the form of $Q_d^*$ in Eq.
1456: (\ref{eq:Qd}) impacts collisional evolution of icy objects at 30--150~AU.
1457: Here, we divide $Q_d^*$ into a bulk component (the first term of Eq.
1458: (\ref{eq:Qd})) and a gravity component (the second term of Eq. (\ref{eq:Qd})).
1459: Gravity provides nearly all of the binding energy for large objects with
1460: $r \gtrsim$ 10~km; the bulk component of $Q_d^*$ provides most of the
1461: binding energy for small objects with $r \lesssim$ 1--10~km. For icy
1462: objects with maximum sizes $r_{max} \sim$ 2000~km, stirring never leads to
1463: orbital motions large enough to disrupt objects with $r \gtrsim$ 10--20~km.
1464: Thus, our choices for the gravity component of $Q_d^*$ have little impact
1465: on our results. Although both components of the bulk strength -- $Q_b$
1466: and $\beta_b$ -- contribute to $Q_d^*$, quoted uncertainties in $\beta_b$
1467: derived from theoretical simulations lead to unimportant variations in
1468: $Q_d^*$ as a function of $r$. Thus, we concentrate on $Q_b$.
1469:
1470: To quantify the impact of $Q_b$ on our results, we first consider the
1471: evolution of the dust production rate and the amount of material in
1472: large and small grains. During runaway growth, the dust production
1473: rates for models with $Q_b \le 10^4$ erg g$^{-1}$ are 10\%--20\%
1474: larger than dust production rates for models with $Q_b \ge 10^5$
1475: erg g$^{-1}$. At the same time, the total mass in large and small grains
1476: is $\sim$ 10 times larger for models with small $Q_b$ than for models
1477: with large $Q_b$. In both cases, models with the smallest initial disk
1478: mass have the largest differences as a function of $Q_b$. During
1479: oligarchic growth, these differences disappear. For models with
1480: $Q_b = 1 - 10^6$ erg g$^{-1}$, the dispersion in dust production rates
1481: near the time of maximum dust production is $\sim$ 5\% or less for all
1482: disks around 1--3 \msun\ stars. Although the dispersion in the total mass
1483: in large and small grains is a factor of $\sim$ 3 during the early
1484: stages of oligarchic growth, the dispersion in dust masses declines
1485: to 10\% or less at late times when the dust masses reach their
1486: maximum values \citep{kb04b}.
1487:
1488: The time variation in dust production rate and total dust mass as a
1489: function of $Q_b$ has a simple physical origin \citep[see also][]{kbod08}.
1490: During runaway and oligarchic growth, the collision energies of small
1491: objects scale with the mass of the largest objects in the grid
1492: \citep[see also][]{gol04}. Thus, small objects have larger and larger
1493: collision energies $Q_c$ at later and later evolution times. Because
1494: this feature of the evolution depends only on gravitational stirring,
1495: it is independent of $Q_b$. Throughout the evolution, the mass ejected
1496: in a collision scales with $Q_c / Q_b$ (Eq. (\ref{eq:mej})). Thus,
1497: calculations with small $Q_b$ eject more material at early times
1498: compared to models with large $Q_b$, leading to a large dispersion
1499: in the dust production rate and total dust masses early in the evolution.
1500: At late times, all calculations produce objects with $r_{max} \approx$
1501: 1500--2000~km. These large objects stir all leftover small planetesimals
1502: to large random velocities, where the collision energies $Q_c \gg Q_d^*$
1503: for all $Q_b$. All collisions then lead to copious mass loss, which
1504: eliminates the dispersion in dust production rates and total dust
1505: masses at late times \citep[see also][]{kb04b}.
1506:
1507: In addition to the small late-time dispersion in dust production rates
1508: and total dust masses, our results yield negligible differences in the
1509: late-time fractions of mass in large objects ($r \gtrsim$ 100~km) as
1510: a function of $Q_b$. The median radius of the largest object and the
1511: median number of Pluto mass objects are also independent of $Q_b$.
1512: Thus, our analysis suggests that the fragmentation parameters have a
1513: small impact on observable quantities. For low mass disks at $t \lesssim$
1514: 10~Myr, destructive collisions between planetesimals with small $Q_b$
1515: produce more dust than objects with large $Q_b$. Although these
1516: differences are probably large enough to be observable, they disappear
1517: at late times when planets reach their maximum sizes.
1518:
1519: \subsubsection{Treatment of small particles}
1520:
1521: Our algorithm for deriving the evolution of small particles with
1522: $r_{min} \lesssim$ 1~m is a final uncertainty in our calculations. To follow
1523: the evolution of sizes and orbits for large objects in a reasonable amount
1524: of computer time, we do not calculate the evolution of small particles
1525: directly. Instead, we use the known production rate of small particles
1526: from the detailed calculation $\dot{M}(t)$, an adopted power-law size
1527: distribution, and a simple collision algorithm to evolve the small
1528: particle size distribution with time.
1529:
1530: Because we include radiation pressure and Poynting-Robertson drag in this
1531: simple treatment of collisional evolution, our predicted size distributions
1532: consist of three distinct pieces. For particle sizes where the collisional
1533: timescale is shorter than the timescale for Poynting-Robertson drag,
1534: $n \propto r^{-0.8}$. For very small sizes where radiation pressure ejects
1535: grains, we adopt $n \propto r^{-0.8}$ for grains in a constant velocity
1536: outflowing wind (see the Appendix). For intermediate sizes,
1537: Poynting-Robertson drag can remove grains faster than collisions replenish
1538: them. Thus, the particle number $n \rightarrow$ 0. To conserve mass,
1539: we solve a continuity equation to derive the number density of grains
1540: dominated by Poynting-Robertson drag.
1541:
1542: Although our solution for the evolution of small particles is efficient,
1543: it does not consider how fluctuations in the collision and fragmentation
1544: rates might modify the size distribution. \citet{cam94} note that
1545: size-dependent fluctuations can produce wavy size distributions for
1546: 0.1--10 mm particles. In their simulations of the $\beta$ Pic disk,
1547: \citet{the03} derive steady-state size distributions with substantial
1548: deficits of 0.1--10 mm particles compared to a standard $n \propto r^{-0.8}$
1549: power-law \citep[see also][]{kri06,the07,loh08}. If these deficits are
1550: typical, then our algorithm seriously overestimates the mass in small
1551: dust grains and thus the infrared fluxes of debris disks.
1552:
1553: To check for this possibility, we computed several models with a simple
1554: version of our multiannulus coagulation code. In these tests, we
1555: extracted a complete disk model near the peak of the collisional cascade,
1556: extended the lower end of the size distribution from $r_{min}$ = 1~m to
1557: 1~$\mu$m using a power law $n \propto r^{-\alpha}$, and continued the
1558: calculation for $\sim$ 100~Myr with collisions and Poynting-Robertson
1559: drag but without our Fokker-Planck velocity evolution. To estimate the
1560: range of errors in our simple algorithm, we varied the power law exponent
1561: for the size distribution, $\alpha \approx$ 0.6--1, the power law exponent
1562: for the fragmentation law, $\beta_b \approx$ -0.5--0, and the magnitude of
1563: the bulk strength $Q_b$ = 1--$10^5$ erg g$^{-1}$. For a range of disk
1564: masses around a 2 \msun\ star, this approach provides a straightforward
1565: estimate for the accuracy of our results for small particles.
1566:
1567: These tests confirm that the simple collision algorithm yields results
1568: reasonably close to more detailed coagulation calculations. For models
1569: with $\beta_b \approx$ 0, $Q_b \gtrsim$ $10^3$ erg g$^{-1}$, and
1570: $\alpha \approx$ 0.6--1, the derived size distributions are within
1571: $\sim$ 20\% of those predicted by the simple model for all particles
1572: with $r \approx$ 0.01--100 mm. Although calculations with
1573: $Q_b \lesssim 10^2$ erg g$^{-1}$ yield larger deviations from the
1574: simple model, these are small compared to those quoted by \citet{the07}.
1575: Because particles with small $\beta_b$ are harder to fragment,
1576: calculations with $\beta_b \lesssim -0.25$ tend to produce smaller
1577: departures for a power law size distribution than those with
1578: $\beta_b \gtrsim -0.25$.
1579:
1580: Several features of our calculations combine to minimize wavy size
1581: distributions for small particles in disks at 30--150 AU. Because
1582: icy planet formation is inefficient, the collisional cascade begins
1583: when most of the initial disk mass is in 1--10 km planetesimals.
1584: Fragmentation of the leftovers leads to a very large production
1585: rate of 1~m and smaller objects. Continued fragmentation of these
1586: objects tends to wash out wavy size distributions produced by a
1587: low mass cutoff \citep{cam94,the03}. In our Fokker-Planck treatment
1588: of velocity evolution, leftover planetesimals are also in dynamical
1589: equilibrium with larger protoplanets that are `safe' from fragmentation.
1590: Thus, the dust production rate from the collisional cascade is
1591: well-matched to the dynamical state of the system and tends to
1592: sustain a power-law size distribution for the smallest objects.
1593:
1594: \subsection{Highlights of Icy Planet Formation Around 1--3 \msun\ Stars}
1595:
1596: Starting with a disk of 1~km planetesimals, icy planet formation at
1597: 30--150~AU follows the same path for all 1--3 \msun\ stars. This
1598: evolution has six main features.
1599:
1600: \begin{itemize}
1601:
1602: \item It takes 5--30 Myr for runaway growth to produce an ensemble
1603: of oligarchs with radii of 500--1000 km. Throughout runaway growth,
1604: oligarchs stir up the orbits of leftover planetesimals. Collisions
1605: between leftover planetesimals produce more and more debris.
1606:
1607: \item From $\sim$ 10 Myr to the main sequence turnoff, planets slowly
1608: grow to a characteristic radius. For a broad range of input parameters,
1609: the maximum size of an icy planet is $\sim$ 1750~km at 30--150 AU.
1610: Because the timescale for planet formation at 100--150 AU is
1611: similar to the main sequence lifetime of a 1--3 \msun\ star, the
1612: inner disk contains more 1500--2000~km planets than the outer disk.
1613:
1614: \item As planets grow slowly, a collisional cascade grinds leftover
1615: planetesimals to dust. Early on, radiation pressure ejects the
1616: smallest grains in an outflowing wind. Later, Poynting-Robertson
1617: drag also removes larger grains from the disk. In our calculations,
1618: radiation pressure removes roughly twice as much mass from the
1619: disk as Poynting-Robertson drag. The timescale for the collisional
1620: cascade to remove leftover planetesimals is close to the main sequence
1621: lifetime of the central star. Thus, the cascade removes more material
1622: from the inner disk than from the outer disk.
1623:
1624: \item Icy planet formation is inefficient. In our calculations,
1625: icy planets with radii exceeding 1000~km contain $\lesssim$ 3--4\%
1626: of the initial mass in solid material. Objects with radii $\sim$
1627: 100--1000~km contain $\sim$ 2--3\% of the initial mass. Because
1628: short stellar lifetimes limit the growth of planets in the outer
1629: disk, the mass in large objects declines linearly with increasing
1630: distance from the central star. Thus, the inner region of the disk
1631: contains many more Pluto-mass objects than the outer region.
1632:
1633: \item The dust produced by the collisional cascade is observable.
1634: For disks around 1--3 \msun\ stars, the maximum mass in small dust
1635: grains with radii of 1~$\mu$m to 1~mm is $\sim$ 1--2 lunar masses.
1636: This mass is comparable to the masses derived for the most luminous
1637: debris disks around A-type and G-type stars. The time evolution of
1638: the dust production rate and the mass in small dust grains suggest
1639: the dust luminosity declines with time.
1640:
1641: \item Dusty debris is a signature of the formation of a planetary
1642: system. This debris is present throughout the lifetime of the
1643: central star.
1644:
1645: \end{itemize}
1646:
1647: \section{DEBRIS DISK EVOLUTION}
1648:
1649: To convert our derived size distributions into observable quantities,
1650: we perform a radiative transfer calculation. For each evolution time
1651: $t$, we derive the luminosity $L_{\star}$ and effective temperature
1652: $T_{\star}$ of the central star from the $Y^2$ stellar evolution models
1653: \citep{dem04}. We then compute the optical depth $\tau (a)$ of each
1654: annulus in our model grid. The optical depth allows us to derive the
1655: fraction of the stellar luminosity $L_{\star}$ absorbed by each annulus.
1656: For each grain size in each annulus, we derive an equilibrium grain
1657: temperature $T(r,a)$ and an emitted spectrum. Summing the emitted
1658: spectra over $r$ and $a$ yields the predicted spectral energy
1659: distribution (SED) and the total dust luminosity $L_d$ as a function
1660: of time. The Appendix describes this calculation in more detail
1661: \citep[see also][]{kb04b}.
1662:
1663: In our calculation of observable quantities, the most important input
1664: parameters are the smallest stable grain size $r_2$ (also known as the
1665: `blowout' radius; see Backman \& Paresce 1993) and the slope $q$ of the
1666: emissivity law for small grains. Although several estimates for the
1667: minimum grain size suggest $r_2 \approx 0.5-2 M_{\star}^3$~$\mu$m
1668: for 1--3 \msun\ stars \citep[e.g.][]{bur79,art88,bac93,kim02}, the
1669: coefficient and the scaling relation are sensitive to the composition,
1670: internal structure, and radiative properties of the grains. Because
1671: observations allow few tests of this relation, we adopt $r_2$ = 1~$\mu$m
1672: for all stars. If more luminous stars have larger $r_2$, our calculations
1673: overestimate the optical depth in small grains. Thus, we overestimate
1674: the mid-IR and submm excesses. For the emissivity, submm data suggest
1675: $q \approx$ 0.6--1 from a handful of debris disks \citep{naj05,wil06}.
1676: To provide some balance for our likely underestimate of $r_2$, we adopt
1677: $q$ = 1. Grains with smaller $q$ emit more efficiently at longer
1678: wavelengths; our models then underestimate mid-IR and submm excesses.
1679:
1680: To describe the evolution of observable quantities with time, we focus on
1681: the dust luminosity $L_d$ and the excesses at IR and submm wavelengths.
1682: The fractional dust luminosity $L_d / L_{\star}$ provides a clear measure
1683: of the relative luminosity of the debris disk. For excesses at specific
1684: wavelengths, we quote the total emission of the disk and the central
1685: star relative to the emission from the stellar photosphere,
1686: $F_{\lambda} / F_{\lambda,0}$. With this definition, disks that produce
1687: no excess have $F_{\lambda} / F_{\lambda,0}$ = 1; disks where the excess
1688: emission is comparable to the emission from the central star have
1689: $F_{\lambda} / F_{\lambda,0}$ = 2.
1690:
1691: We begin this section with a discussion of excess emission for
1692: 1 \msun\ stars. After discussing results for 1.5--3 \msun\ stars, we
1693: conclude this section with a brief summary. To facilitate comparisons of
1694: our results with observations, Tables \ref{tab:mod-1p0}--\ref{tab:mod-3p0}
1695: list results for the fractional dust luminosity and excesses at
1696: 24--850~$\mu$m. The paper version lists the first five lines of results for
1697: $x_m$ = 1/3, 1, and 3. The electronic version includes all results for
1698: these $x_m$.
1699:
1700: \subsection{Evolution for 1 \msun\ stars}
1701:
1702: Fig. \ref{fig:ldust-1} shows the evolution of the fractional dust
1703: luminosity $L_d/L_{\star}$ for disks surrounding a 1 \msun\ star.
1704: Early in the evolution, collisions produce mergers instead of debris.
1705: For an ensemble of growing planetesimals, the surface area per unit
1706: mass (and hence the opacity) decreases with time. Thus, $L_d/L_{\star}$
1707: declines with time. Less massive disks have smaller dust masses and
1708: smaller dust luminosities. As oligarchic growth begins, the dust
1709: luminosity rises rapidly and reaches a peak
1710: $L_d/L_{\star} \approx 2 \times 10^{-3}$ in 30--100~Myr. More massive
1711: disks reach larger peak luminosities earlier than less massive disks.
1712: At late times, all disks converge to the same dust luminosity,
1713: $L_d/L_{\star} \approx 10^{-4}$ at $\sim$ 10 Gyr.
1714:
1715: Despite their small fractional dust luminosities, these disks produce
1716: large excesses at 70~$\mu$m (Fig. \ref{fig:f70x850-1}; left panel).
1717: For massive disks with $x_m$ = 2--3, the 70~$\mu$m excess rises from
1718: $F_{70}/F_{70,0}$
1719: $\sim$ 2--3 at 3~Myr to $F_{70}/F_{70,0}$ $\sim$ 30--50 at 30~Myr.
1720: Lower mass disks with $x_m$ = 1/3 to 1/2 produce smaller peak excesses
1721: at later times, $F_{70}/F_{70,0}$ $\sim$ 10 at $\sim$ 100~Myr. For all
1722: disk masses, the 70~$\mu$m excess is close to its maximum value for
1723: a short period when planet formation peaks in the inner disk. The
1724: excess then declines with time. The rapid decline leads to modest
1725: excesses at late times, $F_{70}/F_{70,0}$ $\sim$ 3--5 at $\sim$ 1 Gyr
1726: and $F_{70}/F_{70,0}$ $\sim$ 2 at $\sim$ 3--10 Gyr.
1727:
1728: The large excesses at 70~$\mu$m are a simple consequence of blackbody
1729: radiation from small grains at 30--50 AU around a solar-type star.
1730: With typical temperatures $\sim$ 40--60~K, these grains emit most of
1731: their radiation at $\sim$ 50--70~$\mu$m. The peak flux from a blackbody
1732: grain at temperature T is $F_{\lambda,max} \propto T^5$ \citep{all76}.
1733: Setting the total disk luminosity $L_d \propto T^4$ yields
1734: $F_{\lambda,max} \propto L_d T$. At this wavelength, the stellar flux
1735: follows a Rayleigh-Jeans law, $F_{\lambda} \propto T_{\star} \lambda^{-4}$.
1736: Combining these relations and including a correction factor for
1737: inefficient radiation from small grains yields a simple relation for the
1738: 70~$\mu$m flux from the disk and central star,
1739: \begin{equation}
1740: F_{70}/F_{70,0} \approx 1 + 10 \left ( \frac{L_d/L_{\star}}{10^{-3}} \right ) ~ .
1741: \end{equation}
1742: For the luminosities in Fig. \ref{fig:ldust-1}, this relation accounts
1743: for the 70~$\mu$m excesses in Fig. \ref{fig:f70x850-1} at all times.
1744:
1745: At longer wavelengths, the disks in our calculations achieve larger peak
1746: excesses and stay close to the peak excess for longer periods of time
1747: (Fig. \ref{fig:f70x850-1}; right panel).
1748: Disks reach their peak excesses at 850~$\mu$m on timescales similar to
1749: those at 70~$\mu$m, $\sim$ 30~Myr for disks with $x_m$ = 2--3 and
1750: $\sim$ 100~Myr for disks with $x_m$ = 1/3. The fractional excesses at
1751: 850~$\mu$m are a factor of $\sim$ 2 larger than the excesses at 70~$\mu$m.
1752: Because the emitting region evolves more slowly, these disks are
1753: luminous for $\sim$ 1 Gyr and then decline with time. Despite the
1754: rapid decline, the excesses are significant at late times, with
1755: $F_{850}/F_{850,0}$ $\sim$ 3--10 at $\sim$ 3--10 Gyr.
1756:
1757: The time variation of IR excess also depends on the outer radius of the
1758: disk. For solar mass stars, grains at 30--50~AU in the inner disk produce
1759: most of the flux at 50--100~$\mu$m. Thus, disks with outer radii of
1760: 70~AU and 150~AU produce similar 70~$\mu$m excesses for $t \lesssim$
1761: 30~Myr (Fig. \ref{fig:f70x850-2}; left panel). Once the smaller disk
1762: reaches peak
1763: emission, the 70~$\mu$m excess begins a dramatic decline. The larger
1764: disk maintains the peak excess for $\sim$ 30~Myr and then declines
1765: more slowly with time. For $t \gtrsim$ 100~Myr, the smaller disk is
1766: a factor of 2--3 fainter at 70~$\mu$m than the larger disk.
1767:
1768: The evolution of disks with different sizes is more dramatic at
1769: 850~$\mu$m (Fig. \ref{fig:f70x850-2}; right panel). For typical
1770: grain temperatures $\sim$ 20--60 K, long wavelength emission from
1771: the disk follows the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of a set of blackbodies.
1772: The radiation from each disk annulus is then $\propto a^2T$. Because
1773: the outer disk produces more long wavelength
1774: emission than the inner disk, the 850~$\mu$m excess scales with the outer
1775: disk radius. For $t \gtrsim$ 1 Gyr, we derive $F_{850}/F_{850,0} \propto$
1776: $a_{out}^n$, where $a_{out}$ is the outer radius of the disk and
1777: $n \approx$ 3--4. Thus, doubling the outer disk radius increases the
1778: predicted 850~$\mu$m excess by a factor of $\sim$ 10 at late times.
1779:
1780: \subsection{Evolution for 1.5-3 \msun\ stars}
1781:
1782: Several factors change the evolution of the dust luminosity and the IR/submm
1783: excesses in stars more massive than 1 \msun. More massive stars are hotter;
1784: for the Y$^2$ stellar evolution isochrones $T_{\star} \propto M_{\star}$
1785: \citep{dem04}. Thus, grains in the inner disks around massive stars are
1786: warmer, emit more short wavelength radiation, and produce bluer colors than
1787: disks around less massive stars. More massive stars also evolve faster,
1788: $t_{ms} \propto M_{\star}^{-3}$. Because the evolutionary timescales for
1789: solids in the disk are much less sensitive to stellar mass,
1790: $t \propto M_{\star}^{-1}$, massive stars have more dust at the end
1791: of their main sequence lifetime than low mass stars
1792: (e.g., Fig. \ref{fig:dust4}). Thus, these systems have relatively large
1793: IR excesses when their central stars evolve off the main sequence.
1794:
1795: To compare the evolution of dust emission in debris disks around
1796: 1--3~\msun\ stars, we begin with the evolution of the dust luminosity
1797: (Fig. \ref{fig:ldust-2}). Planets grow faster around more massive stars;
1798: thus, the dust luminosity rises earlier for more massive stars. Once
1799: the collisional cascade begins, the timescale to reach the peak
1800: luminosity depends only on the initial disk mass and the stellar mass,
1801: \begin{equation}
1802: t_{d,max} \approx 25~x_m^{-2/3}~\left ( \frac{2 ~ M_{\odot}}{M_{\star}} \right ) {\rm Myr} .
1803: \label{eq:tlmax}
1804: \end{equation}
1805: This timescale is similar to the timescale required to produce the
1806: first Pluto-mass object in the inner disk (Eq. (\ref{eq:t1000allm})).
1807: The peak luminosity depends only on the initial disk mass
1808: \begin{equation}
1809: L_{d,max}/L_{\star} \approx 2 \times 10^{-3} x_m ~ .
1810: \label{eq:ldisk}
1811: \end{equation}
1812: The luminosity remains close to the peak for $\sim$ 10--30~Myr and
1813: then declines with time.
1814:
1815: Stellar evolution has a clear impact on the evolution of the dust luminosity.
1816: For 1 \msun\ stars, the dust luminosity declines by a factor of $\sim$ 20
1817: before the star evolves off the main sequence (Fig. \ref{fig:ldust-1}).
1818: For 3 \msun\ stars, the typical decline in $L_d/L_{\star}$ is only a
1819: factor of $\sim$ 4. Because debris disks have roughly the same peak
1820: luminosities, an ensemble of debris disks around middle-aged low mass
1821: stars should be systematically less luminous than disks around
1822: middle-aged high mass stars.
1823:
1824: Stellar physics also produces dramatic differences in the behavior
1825: of the 24~$\mu$m excess with stellar mass (Fig. \ref{fig:f24-850};
1826: lower left panel).
1827: At 30--50~AU, the grain temperatures range from $\sim$ 40--60~K
1828: for 1 \msun\ stars to $\sim$ 80--120~K for 3 \msun\ stars. For these
1829: temperatures, radiation at 24~$\mu$m is on the Wien side of the
1830: blackbody peak and thus varies exponentially with temperature. Our
1831: calculations for 1 \msun\ stars produce very little 24~$\mu$m radiation
1832: from material at 30--150 AU. However, the peak 24~$\mu$m excesses reach
1833: $F_{24}/F_{24,0} \sim$ 20 for disks around 3 \msun\ stars. For all
1834: 1--3 \msun\ stars, our results yield
1835: \begin{equation}
1836: {\rm log}~F_{24,max}/F_{24,0} \approx 0.74~(M_{\star} - 1 M_{\odot}) + 0.27~(M_{\star}/M_{\odot})~{\rm log}~x_m ~ .
1837: \label{eq:f24}
1838: \end{equation}
1839: This maximum flux occurs at roughly the same time as the peak dust luminosity.
1840:
1841: At longer wavelengths, the excesses are less sensitive to stellar mass.
1842: Radiation at 70~$\mu$m is at the blackbody peak for grains in the inner
1843: disk. Thus, the inner disk produces most of the 70~$\mu$m excess. The
1844: peak excess is then independent of the stellar luminosity and depends
1845: only on the total disk mass (Fig. \ref{fig:f24-850}; upper left panel),
1846: \begin{equation}
1847: F_{70,max}/F_{70,0} \approx 55~x_m^{0.90} \left ( \frac{M_{\star}}{2~M_{\odot}}\right ) ~ .
1848: \label{eq:f70}
1849: \end{equation}
1850: For grains at 30--150~AU, radiation at longer wavelengths is on the
1851: Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the blackbody. Thus, observations at 160--850~$\mu$m
1852: probe material throughout the disk. At 160~$\mu$m, extra emission from
1853: hotter grains in disks around more massive stars is balanced by more flux
1854: from the hotter central star. Thus, the excess is independent of stellar
1855: mass and depends only on $x_m$ (Fig. \ref{fig:f24-850}; upper right panel),
1856: \begin{equation}
1857: F_{160,max}/F_{160,0} \approx 65~x_m^{0.90} ~ .
1858: \label{eq:f160}
1859: \end{equation}
1860: At 850~$\mu$m, grains in disks around 1 \msun\ stars are closer to their
1861: blackbody peaks than grains in disks around more massive stars. Thus,
1862: the 850~$\mu$m excesses are larger for 1 \msun\ stars
1863: (Fig. \ref{fig:f24-850}; lower right panel),
1864: \begin{equation}
1865: F_{850,max}/F_{850,0} \approx \left \{
1866: \begin{array}{l l}
1867: 40~x_m^{0.9} & ~~~~~M_{\star} = 1~M_{\odot} \\
1868: \\
1869: 25~x_m^{0.9} & ~~~~~M_{\star} = 1.5-3.0~M_{\odot} \\
1870: \end{array}
1871: \right \}
1872: \label{eq:f850}
1873: \end{equation}
1874: At 70--850~$\mu$m, the time of peak excess is similar to the maximum
1875: in the dust luminosity. Thus, all excesses at 24--850~$\mu$m peak at
1876: $\sim$ 20--30~Myr for 1--3 \msun\ stars.
1877:
1878: Following the peak in the excess at 20--30~Myr, the relative disk
1879: luminosity and the excesses at 24--850~$\mu$m decrease monotonically
1880: with time. For this evolution, simple debris disk models predict a
1881: power law decline, $L_d/L_{\star} \propto t^{-n}$ with $n \approx$
1882: 1--2 \citep[e.g.][]{dom03,wya07a,wya07b}. To compare our results
1883: for $t \gtrsim t_{d,max}$ with these predictions, we adopt
1884: \begin{equation}
1885: f_d \equiv L_d/L_{\star} \propto t^{-n_d}
1886: \end{equation}
1887: and
1888: \begin{equation}
1889: f_{\lambda} \equiv F_{\lambda}/F_{\lambda,0} \propto t^{-n_{\lambda}}
1890: \end{equation}
1891: and derive the power law exponents $n_d = d~{\rm log}~f_d/d~{\rm log}~t$
1892: and $n_{\lambda} = d~{\rm log}~f_{\lambda}/d~{\rm log}~t$ from all of
1893: our calculations as a function of disk mass, stellar mass, and time.
1894:
1895: Throughout the evolution of all our debris disk models, $n_d$ changes
1896: continuously with time. For $t \gtrsim t_{d,max}$, collisions and
1897: radiation pressure dominate the removal of small grains. As collision
1898: rates slowly decline with time, the exponent increases slowly from
1899: $n_d \approx$ 0 to $n_d \approx$ 1. When the central star approaches
1900: the end of its main sequence lifetime, Poynting-Robertson drag starts
1901: to dominate collisions. The disk luminosity then decreases rapidly;
1902: $n_d$ increases from $\sim$ 1 to $\sim$ 2. Because most systems are
1903: collisionally-dominated, our calculations yield a typical
1904: $n_d \approx$ 0.6--0.8.
1905:
1906: For $\lambda \approx$ 24--850~$\mu$m, the exponents $n_{\lambda}$
1907: follow the evolution of $n_d$. Because collision rates are larger
1908: in the warmer, inner disk than in the colder outer disk, $n_{\lambda}$
1909: increases slowly with $\lambda$. Thus, the typical $n_{24} \approx$
1910: 0.6--0.8 is smaller than the typical $n_{850} \approx$ 0.8--1.0.
1911:
1912: The exponents $n_d$ and $n_{\lambda}$ are somewhat sensitive to the
1913: disk mass and the stellar mass. At fixed stellar mass, more massive disks
1914: evolve faster. Thus, $n_d$ changes faster for more massive disks and
1915: is larger at the main sequence turnoff. For fixed disk mass, lower
1916: mass stars live longer and have more time to reach the Poynting-Robertson
1917: drag-dominated regime. Our results suggest a 0.1--0.2 range in $n_d$ and
1918: $n_{\lambda}$ for a factor of 10 range in $x_m$ and a factor of 3 range
1919: in stellar mass.
1920:
1921: In addition to excesses at specific wavelengths, the evolution of color
1922: excesses yield interesting trends with stellar mass and time. Because
1923: the 24~$\mu$m excess is sensitive to stellar mass, the [24]--[70] color
1924: cleanly distinguishes debris disks around stars of different masses (Fig.
1925: \ref{fig:color1}). For 2--3 \msun\ stars, \2470\ rises rapidly to
1926: \2470\ $\approx$ 1--2 at $\sim$ 1~Myr and then rises slowly throughout
1927: the main sequence lifetime of the central star. For 1--1.5 \msun\ stars,
1928: the color rises later, reaches \2470\ $\approx$ 3--4 at 30--100~Myr, and
1929: then declines slowly.
1930:
1931: For disks at 30--150~AU, the variation of \2470\ with $M_{\star}$
1932: depends solely on the properties of the central star. Because more
1933: massive stars are hotter, their disks are warmer. Warmer disks
1934: produce bluer colors. Thus, the peak \2470\ scales with $M_{\star}$.
1935:
1936: The mass-dependent color evolution of debris disks at 30--150 AU
1937: suggests that color-color diagrams can discriminate masses of the
1938: central star.
1939: In Fig. \ref{fig:cc-1}, color-color tracks for scaled MMSN around
1940: 1.5~\msun\ stars are clearly distinct from tracks for scaled MMSN
1941: around 2~\msun\ and 3~\msun\ stars. In Fig. \ref{fig:cc-2}, tracks
1942: for a range of disks around 2~\msun\ stars define a triangle-shaped
1943: locus distinct from the tracks for 1.5~\msun\ and 3~\msun\ stars.
1944:
1945: To establish a triangular debris disk locus for each stellar mass,
1946: we define two vectors. Adopting a vertex, x$_0$,y$_0$, the upper
1947: boundary of the locus is a vector connecting the vertex with an
1948: upper point, x$_u$,y$_u$. The lower boundary is a second vector
1949: connecting the vertex with a lower point, x$_l$,y$_l$.
1950: Table \ref{tab:cc-loci} lists our results for the vertex and the
1951: upper/lower points as a function of stellar mass. For each stellar
1952: mass, colors for debris disks at 30--150~AU lie within the area
1953: defined by the two vectors. More massive disks produce redder
1954: colors. Within each locus, the initial disk mass scales with
1955: distance from the vertex.
1956:
1957: When dust inside $\sim$ 30~AU produces a small IR excess, this color-color
1958: diagram provides a useful discriminant of stellar mass. For disks at
1959: 30--150 AU around 1--3 \msun\ stars, the typical [5.8]--[8] color is
1960: small, with [5.8]--[8] $\lesssim$ 0.1 at all times. Predicted colors
1961: for terrestrial debris disks are much larger. For 3 \msun\ (1.5 \msun)
1962: stars, we predict maximum colors [5.8]--[8] $\sim$ 0.5--1 (0.2--0.5)
1963: \citep[e.g.,][2005]{kb04a}. Thus, mid-IR color-color diagrams are
1964: useful diagnostics of the outer disk for [5.8]--[8] $\lesssim$ 0.1.
1965:
1966: \subsection{Summary}
1967:
1968: Planet formation and stellar evolution combine to produce several robust
1969: trends in the time evolution of the dust luminosity and IR/submm excesses
1970: from debris disks around 1--3 \msun\ stars.
1971:
1972: For scaled MMSN, the maximum dust luminosity is
1973: $L_{d,max} \sim 2 \times 10^{-3}$. For an ensemble of debris disks,
1974: the range in the peak dust luminosity scales with the initial mass of
1975: solid material in the disk. The dust luminosity reaches this peak at
1976: roughly the time when the first Pluto-mass objects form at 30--50~AU.
1977: Following this peak, the luminosity declines as $t^{-n_d}$ with
1978: $n_d \approx$ 0.6--0.8. Because lower mass stars have longer main
1979: sequence lifetimes, debris disks around lower mass stars reach smaller
1980: fractional dust luminosities at late times.
1981:
1982: The IR/submm excesses from debris disks at 30--150~AU are sensitive to
1983: the mass of the central star. At 24~$\mu$m, disks around more massive
1984: stars produce larger excesses; disks around stars with $M_{\star} \lesssim$
1985: 1~\msun\ produce negligible excesses at 24~$\mu$m. At 70~$\mu$m, the
1986: excess is a simple function of the total dust luminosity,
1987: $F_{70}/F_{70,0} \approx$ 1 + $10^4 L_d/L_{\star}$. At 850~$\mu$m, debris
1988: disks around 1 \msun\ stars produce larger peak excesses than disks around
1989: more massive stars. At late times, however, the typical 850~$\mu$m excess
1990: is fairly independent of stellar mass, with $F_{850}/F_{850,0} \approx$
1991: 3--5 for stars with ages $t \sim t_{ms}$.
1992:
1993: Among stars with different masses, mid-IR colors provide a sensitive
1994: discriminant of debris disk evolution when the [5.8]--[8] color is
1995: small (Fig. \ref{fig:color1}--\ref{fig:cc-2}).
1996: For 2--3 \msun\ stars, [24]--[70] slowly becomes redder with the age
1997: of the central star; for 1--1.5 \msun\ stars, [24]--[70] rises more
1998: rapidly, remains at peak color for 300~Myr to 1 Gyr, and then declines
1999: rapidly with time. For all stars, [8]--[24] and [24]--[70] correlate
2000: with stellar mass. Debris disks around 2--3 \msun\ (1--2 \msun) stars
2001: have redder (bluer) [8]--[24] colors and bluer (redder) [24]--[70] colors.
2002: Thus, an [8]--[24] {\it vs} [24]--[70] color-color diagram provides a
2003: way to analyze debris disks around stars with different masses (Table
2004: \ref{tab:cc-loci}).
2005:
2006: \section{APPLICATIONS}
2007:
2008: To test whether our predictions provide a reasonable match to observations,
2009: we now consider several applications of our models to real systems. For
2010: these calculations, the broad trends in the evolution of IR excesses and
2011: colors are sensitive to the physics of planet formation and the collisional
2012: cascade. Thus, our main goal is to compare our results with observed trends
2013: of excesses and colors for large samples of main sequence stars observed
2014: with the {\it IRAS}, {\it ISO}, and {\it Spitzer} satellites. In addition
2015: to long-term trends, the absolute level of the excesses depends on $r_2$
2016: and $q$. Thus, our second goal is to learn whether our assumptions yield
2017: mid-IR and submm excesses similar to those observed.
2018:
2019: We begin with an analysis of {\it Spitzer} data for the prototypical
2020: debris disk, Vega. After demonstrating that our models can explain
2021: the mid-IR fluxes and morphology of {\it Spitzer} images for this system,
2022: we show that our predictions provide a good match to observations of
2023: mid-IR excesses for a sample of A-type stars \citep{rie05,su06} and
2024: a sample of solar-type stars \citep{bei06,hil08}.
2025:
2026: \subsection{The Vega Disk}
2027:
2028: Observations of Vega with {\it IRAS} first revealed a large excess of
2029: emission above the A-type photosphere for wavelengths exceeding
2030: 12~$\mu$m \citep{aum84}. The best-fitting single temperature blackbody
2031: to the {\it IRAS} data yields a temperature of $\sim$ 85 K, a fractional
2032: luminosity of $\sim 2.5 \times 10^{-5}$ relative to the central star,
2033: and a radius of $\sim$ 150--200~AU for the emitting material. Because
2034: the lifetime for small grains at 150--200~AU is much shorter than the
2035: age of Vega, \citet{aum84} concluded that the grains have sizes larger
2036: than 1~mm. Thus, Vega provided the first direct evidence for grain
2037: growth outside the Solar System.
2038:
2039: Since the \citet{aum84} discovery, Vega has become the prototypical
2040: debris disk \citep[e.g.,][]{bac93,art97,lag00}. The debris consists of a
2041: bright torus with small-scale clumps at 80--1000~AU from the central star
2042: \citep{hol98,wil02,wliu04,su05} and a smaller disk of debris at $\sim$
2043: 1~AU from the central star \citep{abs06}. Dust in the small disk is
2044: hot ($\sim$ 1500~K), luminous ($L_d/L_{\star}$ $\sim 5 \times 10^{-4}$),
2045: and mostly confined to a narrow ring with a diameter of $\sim$ 0.5--1~AU
2046: \citep{abs06}. This dust might be a result of collisions between larger
2047: objects at 1~AU or grains lost from icy comets at 80--100~AU in the
2048: outer disk.
2049:
2050: Recently, \citet{su05} analyzed high quality {\it Spitzer} images at
2051: 24, 70, and 160~$\mu$m. Their results demonstrate that the large-scale
2052: debris consists of a bright ring at 80--200~AU and a smooth `halo' that
2053: extends to $\sim$ 1000~AU at 160 $\mu$m. The halo has an $a^{-2}$ radial
2054: density profile, consistent with a wind of small grains ejected by radiation
2055: pressure. Fits to the radial surface brightness profiles and the spectral
2056: energy distribution suggest the grains in the wind have sizes of
2057: 1--50~$\mu$m and a total mass of
2058: $M_{d,1-50} \sim 3 \times 10^{-3}$~\mearth. The grains in the bright ring
2059: are larger, with typical sizes of $\sim$ 240~$\mu$m, and have a total mass
2060: of $M_{d,240} \sim 2 \times 10^{-3}$~\mearth\ \citep[see also][]{mar06}.
2061: For an adopted residence
2062: time of $\sim 10^3$~yr in the wind, the mass in small grains implies
2063: that larger grains in the ring produce smaller dust particles at a rate
2064: of $\sim 10^{15}$~g~s$^{-1}$.
2065:
2066: %To explain mass and structure of the debris in Vega, \citet{su05}
2067: %develop a phenomenological model. They adopt a $10^3$ yr residence
2068: %time for dust at 1000 AU and estimate a dust production rate of
2069: %$\sim 10^{15}$ g s$^{-1}$ from the inferred mass in small grains.
2070: %Over the main sequence lifetime of the system, this
2071: %rate implies a total ejected mass of $\sim 10^{30}$--$10^{31}$ g,
2072: %comparable to the likely initial mass of dust and gas in the Vega
2073: %protoplanetary disk. Assuming that the ejected mass also represents
2074: %a small fraction of the mass in large objects orbiting Vega, they
2075: %infer that steady state dust production implies an implausibly
2076: %large reservoir of solid material in the initial disk. Thus, they
2077: %conclude that the dusty wind of Vega is not the result of a
2078: %`steady-state' collisional cascade acting over the main sequence
2079: %lifetime of the central A-type star. Instead, they suggest that a
2080: %relatively recent catastrophic collision between two large objects
2081: %produced the wind of small dust grains observed in Vega.
2082:
2083: To check whether our model predictions can match the MIPS data for Vega,
2084: we make a simple comparison with median results from several calculations.
2085: In addition to the observed fluxes at 24, 70, 160, and 850 $\mu$m
2086: \citep{su05}, we adopt published values for the age \citep[200~Myr;][]{su06},
2087: luminosity \citep[37~\lsun;][]{auf06}, and mass \citep[2.3~\msun;][]{auf06}
2088: of the central star. \citet{su05} separate the observed fluxes into
2089: contributions from the debris disk and the central star. The first
2090: row of Table \ref{tab:Vega} lists these results, along with their
2091: derived values for the mass in 1--50~$\mu$m dust grains and the dust
2092: production rate. The rest of Table \ref{tab:Vega} lists predictions
2093: for four of our debris disk models around 2--2.5~\msun\ stars.
2094:
2095: The comparison in Table \ref{tab:Vega} suggests a reasonable match to
2096: the data. Predictions for the total mass in 1--50~$\mu$m dust grains
2097: and the fluxes at 160~$\mu$m and at 850~$\mu$m bracket the observed
2098: values. Our models also predict a bright ring in the 70--160~$\mu$m
2099: dust emission at 80--130 AU, close to the observed position of the
2100: bright ring inferred from Spitzer images \citep[85--200~AU;][]{su05}. The
2101: mass of 0.1--1~mm particles in this ring, $\sim 3-5 \times 10^{-3}$~\mearth,
2102: also agrees with the mass in 240~$\mu$m grains derived from the
2103: Spitzer data. However, our models overpredict the fluxes at 24~$\mu$m
2104: and at 70~$\mu$m by a factor of 2--10 and underpredict the dust
2105: production rate by a similar factor.
2106:
2107: To understand possible origins for the mismatches between the data and
2108: the models, we consider the evolution of small grains in our calculations.
2109: When the collisional cascade starts removing material from the disk, the
2110: most destructive collisions involve grains with comparable masses. These
2111: collisions gradually erode the parent objects and produce modest amounts
2112: of debris in smaller particles. Because (i) the collision timescale is
2113: much shorter than the timescale for Poynting-Robertson drag and (ii) the
2114: ratio of the radiation force to the gravitational force is
2115: $\beta_{rad} \equiv F_{rad}/F_{grav} \propto r^{-1}$, erosion continues
2116: until particles reach a size $r_2$ where $\beta_{rad} \gtrsim$ 0.5--1
2117: \citep{bur79}. Particles with $r \lesssim r_2$ are ejected. For simplicity,
2118: we assume $r_2 \approx$ 1~$\mu$m for all of our calculations.
2119:
2120: In this picture for the collisional cascade, the \citet{su05} results
2121: provide a simple solution for the overprediction of the 24--70~$\mu$m
2122: fluxes in our calculations. If grains with $r_2 \gg$ 1~$\mu$m are in
2123: the wind, our `Vega models' underestimate the mass in the wind and
2124: overestimate the mass left behind in the disk. More mass at larger
2125: distances from the central star lowers the optical depth in the inner
2126: disk, reducing the predicted fluxes at short wavelengths. Thus, increasing
2127: our adopted $r_2$ for Vega models should provide a better match between
2128: observed and predicted fluxes at 24~$\mu$m and at 70~$\mu$m. For an adopted
2129: $L_{\star}$ = 60 \lsun, \citet{bac93} estimated $r_2$ = 14 $\mu$m. Scaling
2130: this result for our adopted $L_{\star}$ = 37 \lsun, $r_2 \approx$ 8.5 $\mu$m.
2131: Several test calculations with $r_2 =$ 10~$\mu$m yield predicted 24~$\mu$m
2132: and 70~$\mu$m fluxes close to the observed values.
2133:
2134: Reconciling the estimated dust production rate with our predictions requires
2135: a more rigorous analysis of dust production and ejection in the Vega debris
2136: disk. To derive the dust production rate, \citet{su05} assume that (i) the
2137: 240~$\mu$m grains in the bright ring are bound, with $\beta_{rad} \sim$ 0
2138: and residence times $\gg 10^3$ yr, and (ii) the 1--50 $\mu$m grains in the
2139: wind are unbound, with $\beta_{rad} \ge$ 1 and residence times $\sim 10^3$ yr.
2140: If the collisional cascade proceeds as a gradual erosion of larger objects
2141: into smaller objects, however, we expect a more gradual transition from
2142: grains with $\beta_{rad} \sim$ 0 to grains with $\beta_{rad} \sim$ 1
2143: \citep[see also][]{bur79,art88}. Allowing the residence time to change
2144: gradually from the bound 240~$\mu$m grains to the unbound 1~$\mu$m grains
2145: provides a way to lower the apparent dust production rate and to resolve
2146: the mismatch between our models and the observations.
2147:
2148: To provide an alternate estimate for the residence time of grains in the Vega
2149: disk, we consider the collision times in the ring and the wind. We adopt the
2150: dust masses derived from the Spitzer images ($M_{d,1-50}$ and $M_{d,240}$) and
2151: a typical particle size $\langle r \rangle$. For a ring at $a \sim$ 150~AU
2152: with a width
2153: $\Delta a \sim$ 50~AU, the collision time for a single grain is
2154: \begin{equation}
2155: t_c \sim 10^2~P~\left ( \frac{\langle r \rangle}{10~\mu{\rm m}} \right ) ~ ,
2156: \end{equation}
2157: where $P$ is the local orbital period in yr \citep{lis87,wet93,kl98}.
2158: Collision times in the wind are similar. For $P \sim 10^3$ yr at 150 AU,
2159: the collision times range from $\sim$ $10^4$~yr for 1~$\mu$m grains to
2160: $2-3 \times 10^6$~yr for 240~$\mu$m grains.
2161:
2162: If we assume that the residence times are comparable to the collision times,
2163: we can construct a self-consistent picture for the collisional cascade in the
2164: Vega disk. Collisions in the bright ring gradually erode 200--300 $\mu$m grains
2165: until they reach sizes $\lesssim$ 100~$\mu$m, when they become incorporated
2166: into the wind. Collisions in the wind gradually erode the smaller grains until
2167: they reach sizes $\sim$ 1~$\mu$m, when they are ejected rapidly from the system.
2168:
2169: As long as the 200--300 $\mu$m grains are replenished from a reservoir of larger
2170: grains, this cascade can remain in a quasi-steady state over the main sequence
2171: lifetime of Vega. The required mass for the reservoir of larger objects is
2172: $\sim$ 100--1000 times the current mass in 240~$\mu$m grains, $\sim$
2173: 1--5~\mearth. This mass is small compared to the initial mass of solid
2174: material in a torus at 80--200 AU in a scaled MMSN, $\sim$
2175: 50--100~\mearth\ (Eq. (\ref{eq:sigma})). Because the optical depth of
2176: this reservoir is small, it produces a small IR excess compared to the
2177: emission from smaller grains.
2178:
2179: This picture relies on two features of the collisional cascade. We need an
2180: approximate equivalence in mass between the large grains in the ring and
2181: the small grains in the wind. The \cite{su05} mass estimates support this
2182: feature. We also need a gradual change in grain lifetime from the
2183: $\sim 10^6$~yr collision timescale of the large grains to the $10^3-10^4$~yr
2184: dynamical lifetime of the smallest grains. Otherwise, collisions in the
2185: broad torus cannot occur fast enough to maintain the current smooth structure
2186: of the wind for timescales longer than $\sim 10^3-10^4$ yr. Current
2187: theoretical analyses support this idea \citep{bur79,art88,tak01,gri07}.
2188: Numerical simulations of a collisional cascade with a careful treatment
2189: of the interactions between the radiation field and the small grains
2190: could test this proposal in detail \citep[e.g.,][]{gri07}.
2191:
2192: We conclude that our calculations provide a reasonable match to observations
2193: of Vega. If we adopt $r_2 \sim$ 10~$\mu$m, the data are consistent with a
2194: standard collisional cascade within a broad torus at 80--200 AU. The cascade
2195: feeds an outflowing wind of small grains with sizes 1--50~$\mu$m. If the grain
2196: lifetime changes smoothly from $\sim 10^6$ yr for large grains to $\sim$
2197: $10^3-10^4$ yr for small grains, the cascade can maintain the wind
2198: indefinitely.
2199:
2200: \subsection{Debris Disks Around A-type Stars}
2201:
2202: Since the discovery of the Vega debris disk, {\it IRAS}, {\it ISO}, and
2203: {\it Spitzer} observations have revealed debris around dozens of nearby
2204: A-type stars \citep{bac93,lag00,rie05,su06}. Like Vega, several of these disks
2205: are resolved and thus provide important information on the radial structure
2206: of the dusty disk \citep[e.g.,][]{smi84,sta04,kal05,mey07,su08}. Although
2207: most A-type stars with debris disks are unresolved, the sample is large
2208: enough to probe the time evolution of debris around 1.5--3 \msun\ stars.
2209: We now consider whether our calculations can explain this evolution.
2210:
2211: To compare our model predictions with observations, we examine data for
2212: nearby A-type stars from \citet{rie05} and \citet{su06}. \citet{rie05}
2213: combined 24--25~$\mu$m data from {\it IRAS} and {\it ISO} with new 24~$\mu$m
2214: photometry from {\it Spitzer} to investigate the decay of planetary debris
2215: disks around 266 A-type stars. \citet{su06} analyze a sample of $\sim$ 160
2216: A-type stars with high quality 24 $\mu$m and/or 70 $\mu$m data acquired with
2217: MIPS on {\it Spitzer}. The combined sample has 319 (160) stars with 24~$\mu$m
2218: (70~$\mu$m) observations, spectral types B7--A6, and ages 5--850~Myr.
2219: From the \citet{kh95} table of stellar effective temperatures and spectral
2220: types and the \citet{dem04} stellar evolution tracks,
2221: $\sim$ 75\% ($\sim$ 85\%) of the stars in the \citet{rie05} \citep{su06}
2222: sample have masses of 1.7--2.5 \msun. Thus, we compare these data with
2223: our results for debris disk evolution around 2~\msun\ stars.
2224:
2225: The observed 24--70~$\mu$m excesses of A-type stars show a clear trend
2226: with the age of the star (Fig. \ref{fig:su1}--\ref{fig:su2}). Although
2227: the statistics are poor, the data suggest a rise in the 24 $\mu$m excess
2228: at 5--10~Myr. The larger sample of young stars with 70~$\mu$m excesses
2229: provides better evidence for this rise. At both wavelengths, the excess
2230: has a broad peak for stars with ages of 10--30~Myr. At later times, the
2231: excess declines with time as $t^{-n}$ with $n \approx$ 0.5--1
2232: \citep[see also][]{dec03,gre03,rie05,rhe07a}.
2233:
2234: To improve the statistics for 24 $\mu$m excesses around younger stars,
2235: \citet{cur08a} added {\it Spitzer} data for many young clusters to the
2236: \citet{rie05} sample. This expanded set of data provides unambiguous
2237: evidence for a rise in the typical 24~$\mu$m excess at stellar ages of
2238: 5--10~Myr and a robust peak in the excess at stellar ages of 10--15~Myr.
2239: As in Fig. \ref{fig:su1}, the 24~$\mu$m excesses for this larger sample
2240: of A-type stars decline with age from $\sim$ 20~Myr to 1 Gyr.
2241:
2242: In addition to the long-term time evolution of mid-IR excess, the data
2243: also indicate a large range in the 24--70~$\mu$m excess at fixed stellar
2244: age \citep{rie05,car06,su06,cur08a}. Although younger stars are more likely
2245: to have mid-IR excesses than older stars, there are many stars without
2246: excesses at every age. For ages $\lesssim$ 200~Myr, stars are equally
2247: likely to have any excess between zero and the maximum excess at that
2248: age. As stars age, they are less likely to have an excess close to the
2249: maximum excess at that age. Thus, the dispersion in the excess declines
2250: with time.
2251:
2252: Our calculations provide a good match to the time evolution of the
2253: amplitude of the 24--70~$\mu$m excesses. At both wavelengths, the
2254: models explain the rise in the amplitude at 5--10~Myr, the maximum
2255: at 10--20~Myr, and the slope of the power-law decline at late times.
2256: For models with $x_m$ = 1--3, the predicted excesses also agree with
2257: the maximum observed excesses. Although there are a few stars with
2258: excesses larger than the model predictions, more than 99\% of the
2259: A stars in this sample have excesses within the range predicted in
2260: our calculations.
2261:
2262: Our calculations also provide a natural explanation for a large range in
2263: the observed 24--70~$\mu$m excesses at fixed stellar age. At 70~$\mu$m,
2264: the maximum excess is roughly proportional to the initial disk mass (Eq.
2265: (\ref{eq:f70})). Thus, a factor of ten range in initial disk masses yields
2266: nearly a factor of ten range in the maximum excess at 70~$\mu$m. For
2267: stars with ages 10--300~Myr, the {\it Spitzer} observations suggest a
2268: factor of $\sim$ 100 range in the 70~$\mu$m excess. If this range is
2269: set by the initial disk mass, our models suggest initial disk masses
2270: with $x_m$ = 0.03--3.
2271:
2272: Variations in the initial disk radius can also produce a range in
2273: 24--70~$\mu$m excesses at fixed stellar age (e.g., Fig.
2274: \ref{fig:f70x850-2}). For 2 \msun\ stars
2275: with ages $\sim$ 400--800~Myr, our results suggest that a factor of
2276: three variation in the outer disk radius (e.g., 50--150 AU) yields
2277: a factor of two (five) variation in the amplitude of the 24 $\mu$m
2278: (70 $\mu$m) excess. Although the observed range in the amplitude of
2279: the 24 $\mu$m excess for older A stars agrees with this prediction,
2280: the range at 70 $\mu$m is much larger. Thus, variations in the initial
2281: disk radius can explain some of the observed range of excesses at
2282: 24--70 $\mu$m.
2283:
2284: Observations of the youngest stars support a large range in initial
2285: disk masses and disk radii. Submillimeter observations of dusty
2286: disks in the nearby Ophiuchus and Taurus-Auriga star-forming regions
2287: indicate a 2--3 ($\sim$ 1) order of magnitude range in the masses (radii)
2288: of disks surrounding young stars with typical ages of $\sim$ 1~Myr
2289: \citep[e.g.,][2007a,b]{ost95,mot01,and05}. Our models with $x_m$
2290: = 3 have disk masses a little smaller than the maximum dust masses
2291: derived from the submillimeter surveys. Thus, the submillimeter data
2292: imply disks with initial masses $0.01 \lesssim x_m \lesssim$ 5 and
2293: initial disk radii 50 AU $\lesssim a_{out} \lesssim$ 1000 AU. Disks
2294: with this range of initial masses and outer radii can produce the
2295: range of 24--70~$\mu$m excesses observed around nearby A-type stars.
2296:
2297: Variations in the initial surface density distribution can also lead to a
2298: range in the 24--70~$\mu$m excess. In our calculations, we adopted a
2299: `standard' surface density relation with $\Sigma \propto a^{-3/2}$.
2300: Compared to this model, disks with shallower (steeper) surface density
2301: distributions have relatively more (less) mass at large semimajor axes.
2302: The outer disk has cooler grains than the inner disk; thus, disks
2303: with shallower (steeper) surface density distributions should produce
2304: more (less) flux at longer wavelengths than our standard models.
2305: Because the relative fluxes at 24~$\mu$m and at 70~$\mu$m provide
2306: a measure of the relative disk masses at different semimajor axes,
2307: color indices provide a natural measure of the gradient of the surface
2308: density distribution.
2309:
2310: Fig. \ref{fig:su3} compares the predicted color evolution for disks
2311: around 2~\msun\ stars with data from \citet{su06}. Although current
2312: observations do not probe the evolution well at 1--10~Myr, disks
2313: have a large color range, [24]--[70] $\sim$ 1--3, for stars with
2314: ages $\sim$ 10~Myr. For older stars, the data suggest a slow rise
2315: in the maximum color from [24]--[70] $\sim$ 3 at 10~Myr to [24]--[70]
2316: $\sim$ 3.5 at $\sim$ 100~Myr. After $\sim$ 300~Myr, the maximum color
2317: declines. For all stars older than $\sim$ 100~Myr, the range in color
2318: is $\sim$ 3--4 mag.
2319:
2320: Our models match the observed color evolution. At all ages, the
2321: predicted colors for calculations with $x_m$ = 3 provide a clear
2322: upper envelope to the observed colors. The predicted colors also
2323: explain the slow rise in the maximum observed color for stars with
2324: ages of 10--100~Myr. To explain the full range in observed colors
2325: for 100~Myr to 1 Gyr old stars, we require disks with initial masses
2326: $x_m \approx$ 0.01--3. This range is similar to the range required
2327: for the time evolution of the 24~$\mu$m and 70~$\mu$m excesses.
2328:
2329: The good match to the color observations suggests that the typical
2330: initial surface density distribution is reasonably close to our
2331: adopted $\Sigma \propto a^{-3/2}$. For disks with shallower gradients,
2332: we expect redder colors at later times. A few stars lie above our
2333: model predictions; however, most stars have bluer colors than models
2334: with $x_m$ = 3. Thus, few disks in these samples require shallower surface
2335: density distributions. Disks with steeper surface density distributions
2336: can produce stars with blue colors, [24]--[70] $\sim$ 1, at late times.
2337: A large sample of A-type stars with [70]--[160] colors and spatially
2338: resolved observations of the radial dust distributions of these stars
2339: would provide a constraint on the initial surface density gradient.
2340:
2341: Despite our success in matching these observations, other physical
2342: processes may be needed to explain the full diversity of debris disk
2343: properties for A stars with similar ages and luminosities. In their
2344: analysis of the large debris disk surrounding $\gamma$ Oph,
2345: \citet{su08} examine a dozen main sequence stars with A0--A3 spectral
2346: types, ages of 150--400~Myr, and fractional disk luminosities
2347: $L_d / L_{\star} \approx$ $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-4}$ \citep[see also][]{su06}.
2348: Although all of these stars have dust with $T \approx$ 50--100 K,
2349: Fomalhaut has a bright torus of dust with weak or negligible emission
2350: from a wind of small grains, Vega has a bright torus with a luminous
2351: wind of small grains, and $\gamma$ Oph has an extended disk
2352: ($a_{out} \approx$ 500 AU) of dust apparently bound to the star. Some
2353: A0--A3 stars have warm inner disks with dust temperatures $\sim$ 100~K
2354: to $\gtrsim$ 200~K; other A stars have no obvious warm dust emission.
2355: \citet{su08} conclude that collisional cascades in disks with a range
2356: of masses and other processes, such as the formation of giant planets
2357: or recent catastrophic collisions, combine to produce the wide range
2358: of observed properties in this sample.
2359:
2360: In principle, our models can explain some of this diversity. The
2361: \citet{su08} sample contains A stars with a factor of five range in
2362: $L_{\star}$. Thus, these stars probably have a factor of five range
2363: in the blowout radius $r_2$ \citep[see also \S5.1;][]{art88,bac93}.
2364: If the protostellar disks around these stars had properties similar
2365: to those observed in Taurus-Auriga \citep[][2007a]{and05}, they
2366: probably had a factor of ten range in initial disk mass, a factor
2367: of three range in initial disk radius, and a 50\% range in the slope
2368: of the initial surface density distribution. Coupled with a similar
2369: dispersion in initial conditions for the terrestrial zones of these
2370: stars \citep{kb05}, our results suggest that this range in initial
2371: conditions can produce a broad diversity of debris disks. We have
2372: started a suite of calculations to address this issue. Larger samples
2373: of A stars with resolved disks will provide crucial tests of these
2374: calculations.
2375:
2376: Other aspects of planet formation are also important. If the cores
2377: of gas giant planets form before their parent stars reach the main
2378: sequence, we expect gas giants at 20--30 AU around 2--3 \msun\ stars
2379: \citep[e.g.,][]{kenn08}. Gas giants rapidly remove debris in the inner
2380: disk and impose structure in the debris beyond 30 AU
2381: \citep[e.g.,][]{wil02,mor05}. Because gas giants are common around
2382: evolved A stars \citep{john07}, gas giants probably play a significant
2383: role in the evolution of debris disks around A stars.
2384:
2385: Catastrophic collisions may also produce diversity among A star
2386: debris disks \citep[e.g.,][]{wya02,su05}. Although debris from
2387: complete disruption of colliding planetesimals is unobservable in
2388: our simulations \citep[see also][]{kb05}, dynamical events similar
2389: to those that produced the Late Heavy Bombardment in the Solar
2390: System probably are visible \citep[e.g.,][]{gom05}. Testing this
2391: idea requires numerical calculations that link the dynamics of
2392: massive planets with the collisional evolution of smaller objects
2393: \citep[e.g.,][]{cha03,kb06}.
2394:
2395: We conclude that our debris disk models can explain the overall time
2396: evolution of the IR excesses and IR colors of A-type main sequence
2397: stars at 24~$\mu$m and at 70~$\mu$m. Our calculations for disks
2398: with $x_m$ = 1/3 to 3 around 2~\msun\ stars fit the overall level of
2399: the excesses and the trends with stellar age. Explaining the full range
2400: of observed IR excesses and IR colors requires a set of disks with
2401: $x_m$ = 0.01--3, as suggested from observations of disks around the
2402: youngest stars. Matching other properties of these stars -- including
2403: the relative amount of emission from a warm inner disk, an outflowing
2404: wind of small grains, and a large outer disk -- requires calculations
2405: that include a broader range of initial disk radii and gas giant and
2406: terrestrial planet formation at $a_i <$ 30 AU
2407: \citep[e.g.,][]{kb05,naga07,kenn08,ida08,kre08}.
2408:
2409: \subsection{Debris Disks Around Solar-type Stars}
2410:
2411: Although most of the debris disks discovered with {\it IRAS} and {\it ISO}
2412: have A-type central stars, a few have F-type or G-type central stars
2413: with masses of 1--1.5 \msun\ \citep{bac93,lag00,dec03,son05,rhe07a}. More
2414: recent {\it Spitzer} observations reveal debris disks around many
2415: solar-type stars \citep{bry06,bei06,mey06,tri08,hil08}. Although
2416: several {\it Spitzer} programs concentrate on older solar-type stars
2417: as preparation for detailed planet searches, the range of ages is
2418: large enough to provide an initial test of our predictions.
2419:
2420: To compare our model predictions with observations, we consider data for
2421: nearby solar-type stars from \citet{bei06} and \citet{hil08}. \citet{bei06}
2422: observed $\sim$ 80 solar-type stars at 24~$\mu$m and at 70~$\mu$m using
2423: MIPS on {\it Spitzer}. \citet{hil08} analyze $\sim$ 30 stars with 70 $\mu$m
2424: excesses out of a sample of 328 stars from the {\it Spitzer} Legacy Science
2425: Program, ``Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems'' \citep{mey06}.
2426: After eliminating K-type and M-type stars from the \citet{bei06} study,
2427: the two programs contain $\sim$ 80 stars with ages of $\sim$ 10~Myr to
2428: $\sim$ 10 Gyr. Most of these stars have masses of 0.8--1.5 \msun. Thus,
2429: we compare these data with our results for debris disk evolution around
2430: 1 \msun\ stars.
2431:
2432: The observed 70--160~$\mu$m excesses of solar-type stars show trends similar
2433: to those observed in the evolution of A-type stars at 24--70~$\mu$m
2434: (Fig. \ref{fig:g1}--\ref{fig:g2}). Although the statistics for solar-type
2435: stars are poor for the youngest stars, the data suggest a rise in the
2436: 70--160~$\mu$m excess at 10--100~Myr. The maximum in the 70 $\mu$m excess
2437: is comparable in magnitude but a factor of $\sim$ 10 later in time than
2438: the maximum 70~$\mu$m excess for A-type stars. At 70~$\mu$m and at
2439: 160~$\mu$m, the excess follows a roughly power-law decline with time
2440: for older stars. Solar-type stars also have a large range in excess at
2441: all ages, with $F_{70}/F_{70,0} \approx$ 1--300 at 100~Myr and
2442: $F_{70}/F_{70,0} \approx$ 1--30 at 1--3~Gyr. For stars with similar
2443: ages, the range in the 70~$\mu$m excess is larger for solar-type stars
2444: than for A-type stars.
2445:
2446: Our models match the observed trends for the IR excesses of solar-type
2447: stars. At 70~$\mu$m, 65\%--75\% of the observations lie within model
2448: predictions; at 160~$\mu$m, more than half of the observations are
2449: within model predictions. For a range of initial disk masses
2450: ($x_m \approx$ 0.01--3) and outer radii ($a_{out} \approx$ 70--150 AU),
2451: we predict a large range of excesses at all ages, as observed. These
2452: model also explain the larger 70 $\mu$m excesses observed for solar-type
2453: stars relative to A-type stars, the apparent maximum in the 70--160~$\mu$m
2454: excess at 30--100~Myr, and the general power-law decline in the excess
2455: flux for the oldest stars.
2456:
2457: Despite this general success, however, the models underpredict the
2458: largest observed excesses. At 70~$\mu$m, the brightest disks are a
2459: factor of 5--10 brighter than disks with $x_m$ = 3. At 160~$\mu$m,
2460: the brightest systems are 3--5 times brighter than our most luminous
2461: disks. Although the sample of 160~$\mu$m sources is small, our models
2462: underpredict the largest observed fluxes at all ages.
2463:
2464: Changing two assumptions in our models yields a better match to the
2465: observed fluxes at 70--160~$\mu$m. For realistic grain properties,
2466: \citet{bur79} show that radiation pressure from the Sun cannot eject
2467: small grains from the Solar System. Reducing the minimum stable grain
2468: size from $r_2$ = 1~$\mu$m to $r_2$ = 0.1~$\mu$m increases our
2469: predicted 70~$\mu$m (160~$\mu$m) fluxes by a factor of 2--3 (1.5--2).
2470: Submm observations of several debris disks imply $q \approx$ 0.6--1
2471: for the slope of the radiative emissivity. If we adopt $q = 0.7$
2472: instead of $q = 1$, our predicted 70--160~$\mu$m fluxes increase
2473: by factors of 2--4. Combining these two modifications increase our
2474: predicted fluxes by a factor of $\sim$ 5--10 at both wavelengths.
2475:
2476: Several observations could check whether these modifications of
2477: our standard model are reasonable.
2478: By analogy with the {\it Spitzer} Vega data, detection of an outflowing
2479: wind of small grains in a debris disk around a solar-type star provides
2480: a clean measurement of $r_2$ and a better constraint on our predicted IR
2481: excesses. Measurements of $q$ for larger samples of debris disks allows
2482: a better assessment of our assumptions for the grain emissivity.
2483:
2484: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
2485:
2486: Our calculations provide a robust picture for the formation of planets
2487: and debris disks from a disk of icy planetesimals and set the context
2488: for the evolution of dusty debris in a dynamic system of planets.
2489: The results of this study provide a framework for interpreting
2490: existing observations of debris disks around 1--3 \msun\ stars and
2491: suggest new observational tests of this picture.
2492:
2493: We describe a suite of numerical calculations of planets growing
2494: from ensembles of icy planetesimals at 30--150~AU in disks around
2495: 1--3~\msun\ stars. Using our hybrid multiannulus coagulation code,
2496: we solve for the evolution of sizes and orbits of objects with
2497: radii of $\sim$ 1~m to $\gtrsim$ 1000~km over the main sequence
2498: lifetime of the central star. These results allow us to constrain
2499: the growth of planets as a function of disk mass, stellar mass, and
2500: semimajor axis.
2501:
2502: Debris disk formation is coincident with the formation of a planetary
2503: system. All calculations of icy planet formation at 30--150~AU lead
2504: to a collisional cascade which produces copious amounts of dust on
2505: timescales of 5--30 Myr. This dust is observable throughout the
2506: lifetime of the central star. Because we consider a broad range of
2507: input parameters, we derive the time evolution of (i) dust produced
2508: in the collisional cascade and (ii) the IR and submm emission from
2509: this dust as a function of disk mass, stellar mass, and time.
2510:
2511: We divide the rest of this section into
2512: (i) theoretical considerations,
2513: (ii) observable consequences, and
2514: (iii) observational tests.
2515: The theoretical considerations build on the highlights of icy planet
2516: formation in \S3.4. Observable consequences of the calculations
2517: follow from the discussion in \S4. The observational tests of
2518: the models are described in \S5.
2519:
2520: \subsection{Theoretical Considerations}
2521:
2522: \begin{itemize}
2523:
2524: \item Icy planet formation at 30--150 AU is self-limiting. Starting with
2525: a swarm of $\lesssim$ 1 km planetesimals, runaway growth produces a set
2526: of 100--500 km protoplanets. As the protoplanets grow, they stir up
2527: leftover planetesimals along their orbits. When the leftovers reach high
2528: $e$, collisions produce debris instead of mergers. Because protoplanets
2529: cannot accrete leftovers rapidly, a cascade of destructive collisions
2530: grinds the leftovers to dust. Poynting-Robertson drag and radiation
2531: pressure then remove the dust from the disk.
2532:
2533: \item The maximum sizes of icy planets at 30--150 AU are remarkably
2534: independent of initial disk mass, stellar mass, and stellar age.
2535: For disks with $x_m$ = 1/3 to 3 around 1--3 \msun\ stars with ages
2536: $t = 0.1 - 1 t_{ms}$, the typical planet has $r_{max} \sim$ 1750~km
2537: and $m_{max} \sim 0.005$~\mearth. These objects contain $\lesssim$
2538: 3\%--4\% of the initial disk mass. Although
2539: this result is also independent of the fragmentation parameters, the
2540: finite main sequence lifetimes of 1--3 \msun\ stars limits the formation
2541: of many large planets in the outer disk. Thus, the inner disk produces
2542: many more Pluto-mass planets than the outer disk (Tables \ref{tab:rad1000.1}
2543: and \ref{tab:rad1000.2}).
2544:
2545: \item For stars close to the main sequence turnoff, stellar lifetimes and
2546: the collisional cascade limit the mass in solid objects at 30--150~AU.
2547: In the inner disk, the collisional cascade removes most of the leftover
2548: planetesimals before the central star evolves off the main sequence.
2549: Thus, the typical mass in small objects is $\sim$ 10\% of the initial
2550: mass at 30--40~AU. In the outer disk, smaller collision rates produce
2551: a slower cascade. Thus, the central star evolves off the main sequence
2552: with $\sim$ 50\% of the initial mass remaining in 1--10~km planetesimals
2553: at 125--150~AU.
2554:
2555: \item The collisional cascade produces copious amounts of dust. Dust
2556: begins to form during the transition from runaway to oligarchic growth
2557: ($t$ = 5--10~Myr), peaks when the first objects reach their maximum sizes
2558: ($t$ = 10--30~Myr), and then slowly declines $t \gtrsim$ 30--50~Myr).
2559: The peak mass in 0.001--1~mm (0.001--1~m) particles is $\sim$ 1--2 lunar
2560: masses ($\sim$ 1~\mearth). Disks with initial masses $x_m$ = 1/3 to 3
2561: reach these peak masses when the age of the star is $\sim$ 10\% to 20\%
2562: of its main sequence lifetime. Because the timescale to form dust
2563: is short ($\sim$ 10--20~Myr), stars are surrounded by large disks
2564: of debris at 30--150~AU throughout their main sequence lifetimes.
2565:
2566: \item Radiative processes remove large amounts of mass from debris disks.
2567: Radiation pressure produces a radial wind of small particles containing
2568: $\sim$ 60\% to 70\% of the mass removed from the disk. Poynting-Robertson
2569: drag pulls the rest of the lost mass into the inner disk. Because radiation
2570: pressure is more important than Poynting-Robertson drag when collision rates
2571: are large, we expect more wind (inner disk) emission earlier (later) in
2572: the evolution.
2573:
2574: \end{itemize}
2575:
2576: \subsection{Observable Consequences}
2577:
2578: We derive clear observational consequences of the collisional cascade.
2579:
2580: \begin{itemize}
2581:
2582: \item The dusty debris from the collisional cascade is directly
2583: observable. For disks around 1--3~\msun\ stars, the maximum fractional
2584: dust luminosity of $L_d / L_{\star} \sim 2 \times 10^{-3}$ is comparable
2585: to the maximum dust luminosities of known debris disks
2586: \citep{bac93,rie05,su06,rhe07a}. The dust temperature at the inner edge of
2587: a 30--150~AU disk scales with the temperature of the central star;
2588: thus, the predicted 24~$\mu$m excess is very sensitive to the stellar
2589: mass. At 70~$\mu$m, the predicted excesses scale roughly linearly
2590: with disk mass and stellar mass. The predicted 160--850~$\mu$m excesses
2591: depend on the disk mass but are nearly independent of the stellar mass.
2592:
2593: \item For systems with little or no emission from terrestrial dust
2594: ([5.8]--[8] $\lesssim$ 0.1), mid-IR color-color diagrams clearly
2595: distinguish debris disks around stars of different masses. In a
2596: [8]--[24] {\it vs} [24]--[70] diagram, 2--3 \msun\ (1--2 \msun)
2597: stars have red (blue) [8]--[24] and blue (red) [24]--[70]
2598: (Fig \ref{fig:cc-1}). In both cases, the color scales with the
2599: initial disk mass (Fig \ref{fig:cc-2}). Optical colors and spectra
2600: generally provide good estimates for stellar mass; thus, these
2601: diagrams provide good tests of our model predictions.
2602:
2603: \end{itemize}
2604:
2605: \subsection{Observational Tests}
2606:
2607: We compare our predictions with observations of A-type stars and
2608: solar-type stars.
2609:
2610: \begin{itemize}
2611:
2612: \item For A-type stars, our calculations are the first to explain the
2613: observed rise and fall of debris disk fluxes at 24~$\mu$m
2614: \citep[Fig. \ref{fig:su1};][]{cur08a,cur08b}. In our picture, the rise
2615: in debris disk emission corresponds to the transition from runaway
2616: growth -- when mergers of small planetesimals produce larger
2617: protoplanets -- to oligarchic growth -- when the collisional cascade
2618: begins to grind leftover planetesimals into dust. When oligarchs in
2619: the inner disk are close to their maximum sizes of $\sim$ 1750~km,
2620: the collisional cascade produces a maximum in debris disk emission.
2621: For a wide range of initial conditions, this maximum occurs at 10--20~Myr.
2622: As the collisional cascade moves out through the disk, smaller collision
2623: rates produce less dust which emits at lower temperatures. Thus, the
2624: 24~$\mu$m excess falls with time. The predicted rate of decline,
2625: $t^{-n}$ with $n \approx$ 0.6--0.8, is close to the observed rate
2626: \citep[$n \approx$ 0.5--1;][]{gre03,rie05,rhe07a}.
2627:
2628: \item At longer wavelengths, the maximum excess is larger and lasts
2629: longer than at 24~$\mu$m. Predicted mid-IR colors also increase
2630: slowly with time. Although larger samples of A-type stars with 8~$\mu$m
2631: photometry would provide a better test of our models, current data
2632: for the 70~$\mu$m excess and the evolution of the [24]--[70] color
2633: agree with our predictions (Fig. \ref{fig:su2}--\ref{fig:su3}). For
2634: 2--3 \msun\ stars near the main-sequence turnoff, our calculations
2635: also yield a clear maximum in the 850~$\mu$m flux. Large surveys, such
2636: as the proposed JCMT Legacy Survey \citep{mat07} and submm observations
2637: with ALMA, Herschel and SOFIA, can test this prediction.
2638:
2639: \item For solar-type stars, our models match observations of most sources.
2640: The predicted evolution of the 70--160~$\mu$m excesses follows the
2641: observed rise at 10--100~Myr, the peak at $\sim$ 30--100~Myr, and
2642: the decline at $\gtrsim$ 300~Myr. Although $\sim$ 70\% (55\%) of
2643: observed debris disks have fluxes that lie within model predictions,
2644: our models underpredict fluxes for the brightest sources by a factor of
2645: 5--10. Fluxes for models with $r_2 \approx$ 0.1~$\mu$m and $q \lesssim$
2646: 0.7 provide better matches to these observations. To guide our choices
2647: for $r_2$ and $q$, we require spatially resolved images and submm
2648: fluxes for these objects.
2649:
2650: \item For 1--3 \msun\ stars with ages $\sim$ 0.1--1 Gyr, current data
2651: suggest that solar-type stars have a larger range of far-IR excesses
2652: than A-type stars. In our models, faster debris disk evolution around
2653: A-type stars produces a smaller dispersion in far-IR excesses and
2654: colors for stars with ages of 100 Myr to 1 Gyr. Larger samples of
2655: debris disks can test this prediction in more detail.
2656:
2657: \item We also consider observations of Vega, the prototypical debris disk.
2658: If we adopt models with a blowout radius $r_2$ = 10~$\mu$m, we can
2659: match observations
2660: with a standard collisional cascade within a broad torus at 80--200~AU.
2661: If the torus contains $\sim$ 1--5 \mearth\ in large objects with
2662: $r \gtrsim$ 1 cm, the cascade can generate (i) the observed ensemble
2663: of grains with $r \sim$ 200--300~$\mu$m within the torus and (ii) an
2664: outflowing wind of small grains with $r \sim$ 1--50~$\mu$m.
2665:
2666: This conclusion differs from \citet{su06}, who postulate a recent
2667: catastrophic collision between two large objects as the source of
2668: the dusty Vega wind. Although the complete destruction of two large
2669: icy objects can produce a massive outflowing wind, our results
2670: suggest that the dusty wind is short-lived and cannot be rapidly
2671: replenished by the observed population of larger objects. We show
2672: that a steady-state collisional cascade can explain the {\it Spitzer}
2673: data \citep[see also][]{kb05}. If our interpretation is correct,
2674: sensitive observations at 1--10 mm should detect our proposed
2675: reservoir of larger objects.
2676:
2677: \end{itemize}
2678:
2679: Matching other observations of debris disks requires more realism in our
2680: planet formation calculations. Adding binary companions and giant planets
2681: provides ways to modify the evolution of the collisional cascade and
2682: to impose structure on rings and tori \citep[e.g.][]{wil02,mor05,qui06}.
2683: Extending the coagulation calculations to smaller sizes allows studies
2684: of the formation of winds and other large structures. Although these
2685: calculations have been prohibitively expensive in computing time, rapid
2686: advances in computing technology will make these additions possible in
2687: the next few years.
2688:
2689: Based on the results described here and in \citet{kb04b}, we conclude
2690: that debris disks are the inevitable outcome of icy planet formation
2691: in a disk of solid objects. The basic structures produced by this
2692: model -- broad tori and narrow rings of dust that propagate out
2693: through the disk \citep{kb04b} -- are consistent with observations
2694: \citep[e.g.][]{jay98,kal05,su06,fit07}. The model also explains the
2695: time evolution of mid-IR colors and fluxes for debris disks around
2696: A-type and solar-type stars.
2697:
2698: \acknowledgements
2699: We acknowledge a generous allotment, $\sim$ 1000 cpu days, of computer
2700: time on the 1024 cpu Dell Xeon cluster `cosmos' at the Jet Propulsion
2701: Laboratory through funding from the NASA Offices of Mission to Planet
2702: Earth, Aeronautics, and Space Science. We thank M. Werner for his strong
2703: support of this project. We also acknowledge use of $\sim$ 250 cpu days
2704: on the CfA cluster `hydra.' Advice and comments from T. Currie, M. Geller,
2705: G. Kennedy, M. Meyer, G. Rieke, K. Su, and an anonymous referee greatly
2706: improved our presentation. Portions of this project were supported by
2707: the {\it NASA } {\it Astrophysics Theory Program,} through grant
2708: NAG5-13278, the {\it NASA} {\it TPF Foundation Science Program,} through
2709: grant NNG06GH25G, and the {\it Spitzer Guest Observer Program,} through
2710: grant 20132.
2711:
2712: \appendix
2713:
2714: \section{APPENDIX}
2715:
2716: \subsection{Growth rates}
2717:
2718: In standard coagulation theory, protoplanets accrete material from
2719: a swarm of planetesimals at a rate \citep[e.g.,][]{saf69,lis87,wet93}
2720: \begin{equation}
2721: \dot{M} \propto \Sigma ~ \Omega ~ r^2 ~ \left [ 1 + (v_{esc}/v)^2 \right ] ~ ,
2722: \end{equation}
2723: where $r$ is the radius of a planetesimal,
2724: $\Omega$ is the angular frequency of material in the disk,
2725: $v$ is the random velocity of planetesimals, and $v_{esc}$ is
2726: the escape velocity of the protoplanet. The $1 + (v_{esc}/v)^2$
2727: term is the gravitational focusing factor.
2728:
2729: To derive the accretion time, we set $t = M / \dot{M}$ and substitute
2730: the orbital period for the angular frequency,
2731: \begin{equation}
2732: t \propto ( \rho ~ r ~ P / \Sigma) ~ \left [ 1 + (v_{esc}/v)^2 \right ]^{-1} ~ ,
2733: \end{equation}
2734: where $\rho$ is the mass density of a planetesimal. Throughout runaway
2735: growth and the early stages of oligarchic growth $v_{esc}/v \gg 1$.
2736: Because we are interested in the time to produce planets with the
2737: same $r$ and $\rho$ in disks with different $P$ and $\Sigma$, we
2738: eliminate $\rho$ and $r$. Thus, the growth time is roughly
2739: \begin{equation}
2740: t \propto (P / \Sigma) (v/v_{esc})^2 ~ .
2741: \end{equation}
2742: This equation sets the typical timescale for planet growth in a disk of
2743: planetesimals. If $\Sigma \sim \Sigma_0 x_m a^{-3/2}$ (Eq. (\ref{eq:sigma}))
2744: and $v/v_{esc}$ $\sim$ constant \citep[Fig. 1;][]{wet93,gol04},
2745: \begin{equation}
2746: t \propto a^3 x_m^{-1} \Sigma_0^{-1} ~ .
2747: \label{eq:tacc-app}
2748: \end{equation}
2749: This result is close to the $t \propto a^3 x_m^{-1.15} \Sigma_0^{-1}$
2750: derived for the formation of the first 1000~km object in our
2751: calculations (e.g., Eq. (\ref{eq:t1000allm})).
2752:
2753: To evaluate possible sources for the extra factor of $x_m^{-0.15}$ in our
2754: derived accretion times, we consider the random velocity $v$ of accreted
2755: planetesimals. Shorter growth times require smaller random velocities.
2756: Thus, we consider processes that damp planetesimal velocities. In our
2757: calculations, collisions and gas drag can reduce $v$; dynamical friction
2758: and viscous stirring increase $v$. At 30--150 AU, gas drag damps random
2759: velocities $\sim$ 10--20 times more rapidly than collisions \citep{gol04}.
2760: Thus, we ignore collisional damping and concentrate on gas drag.
2761:
2762: \citet{raf04} investigated the dynamics of small planetesimals and growing
2763: protoplanets in a gaseous nebula. For the early stages of oligarchic growth,
2764: the random velocity of planetesimals is
2765: \begin{equation}
2766: v/v_{esc} \propto \Sigma_{gas}^{-\gamma_1} ~ .
2767: \end{equation}
2768: Substituting this expression into Eq. (\ref{eq:tacc-app}) and adopting
2769: a constant gas-to-dust ratio, $\Sigma_{gas} \sim \Sigma$, we derive
2770: \begin{equation}
2771: t \propto a^3 x_m^{-\gamma2} \Sigma_0^{-1} ~ ,
2772: \label{eq:tacc-gd}
2773: \end{equation}
2774: with $\gamma_2 = 2\gamma_1 + 1$. For typical conditions in planetesimal
2775: disks, \citet{raf04} derived $\gamma_1 \approx$ 1/6 to 1/5. Thus,
2776: $\gamma_2 \approx$ $1.3$ to $1.4$, close to the exponent of $1.15$
2777: derived in our calculations.
2778:
2779: Our treatment of gas drag probably reduces the exponent of $x_m$ in Eq.
2780: (\ref{eq:tacc-gd}) from the predicted $1.3$--$1.4$ to $1.15$. In our
2781: simulations, we
2782: assume the gas density declines exponentially on a timescale $t_{gas}$
2783: = 10~Myr. With typical growth times of 20--40 Myr, the gas density is
2784: $\sim$ 1\% to 10\% of its initial value when the first 1000 km objects
2785: form in the inner disk. Thus, gas drag cannot reduce planetesimal
2786: random velocities as efficiently as predicted in Eq. \ref{eq:tacc-gd}.
2787: Reducing drag lowers the exponent. With gas depletion timescales
2788: $\sim$ 25\% to 50\% of the growth time, we expect an exponent of
2789: $\gamma_2 \approx$ $1.1$ to $1.2$, similar to the $\gamma_2 = 1.15$
2790: in our calculations.
2791:
2792: \subsection{Radiation from dust}
2793:
2794: In the Appendix of \citet{kb04a}, we briefly described our simple algorithm
2795: for the evolution of particles with sizes smaller than the smallest object
2796: -- $r \sim$ 1 m -- followed in the multiannulus coagulation code. This
2797: algorithm yields the optical depth in very small grains ejected from the
2798: system and the optical depth in larger grains evolving under the influence
2799: of collisions and Poynting-Robertson drag. The optical depth in both grain
2800: populations allows us to derive the time evolution of the disk luminosity
2801: and surface brightness in bolometric units. Here, we describe the derivation
2802: of grain temperature for these populations that yields the predicted time
2803: evolution of the broadband spectral energy distributions of debris disks.
2804:
2805: As in \citet{kb04a}, we divide objects with sizes smaller than $\sim$ 1 m
2806: into very small grains, small grains, and large grains. In each annulus
2807: $k$ of our calculation, radiation pressure ejects very small grains with
2808: radii between $r_1$ and $r_2$. If $\rho_g$ is the mass density of these
2809: grains and $\dot{M}_k$ is the production rate of very small grains in each
2810: annulus, the very small grains have an integrated optical depth
2811: \begin{equation}
2812: \tau_{s} = \frac{3 ( \sqrt{r_2/r_1} - 1 )}{8 \pi \rho_g r_2 ( 1 - \sqrt{r_1/r_2} ) } \sum_{i=1}^{N} ~ \left [ \sum_{k=1}^{i} \left ( \frac{\dot{M}_k}{v_{Kk} h_k } \right ) \left ( \frac{1}{a_{b,k}} - \frac{1}{a_{b,k+1}} \right ) \right ]~ ,
2813: \end{equation}
2814: where
2815: $a_{b,k}$ is the inner boundary of an annulus centered at $a_k$,
2816: $h_k$ is the vertical scale height in units of the semimajor axis,
2817: and $v_{K,k}$ is the orbital velocity in annulus $k$.
2818:
2819: For small ($r$ = $r_2$ to 1 mm) and large grains ($r$ = 1 mm to 1 m),
2820: we derive the optical depth $\tau_k$ in each annulus. To derive the
2821: radial surface brightness and total disk luminosity, we follow
2822: \citet{kh87} and derive the amount of stellar radiation absorbed
2823: by each annulus. We assume a spherical, limb-darkened star with radius
2824: $R_{\star}$, luminosity $L_{\star}$, and limb-darkening parameter
2825: $\epsilon_0$ = 0.6. For a point $P$ at the outer boundary of annulus
2826: $k$ with height $h_P$ above the disk midplane, rays from the star enter
2827: the annulus at a scale height $h_{in}$ above (below) the midplane. We
2828: compute the length $l$ of the path through the disk and derive the optical
2829: depth along this path as $\tau_p$ = ($l/\Delta a_k$)$\tau_k$, where
2830: $\Delta a_k$ is the width of the annulus. The radiation absorbed along
2831: this path is $e^{-\tau_p} I_0$, where $I_0$ is the flux incident on the
2832: boundary of the annulus. Numerical integrations over the stellar surface
2833: and the vertical extent of an annulus yield the amount of flux absorbed
2834: by each annulus, which we convert to relative surface brightness. A final
2835: numerical integration over the radial extent of the disk yields the ratio
2836: of the disk luminosity to the stellar luminosity, $L_d/L_\star$.
2837:
2838: To derive the spectral energy distribution of the disk, we make several
2839: assumptions. Consistent with observations of scattered light from resolved
2840: debris disks \citep{bac93,lag00},
2841: we adopt a single albedo $\omega$ = 0.25 for all grains. For all $\lambda$,
2842: the luminosity in scattered light is then $\omega L_d / L_{\star}$; the
2843: thermal luminosity emitted by all grains is $(1 - \omega) L_d / L_{\star}$.
2844: In each annulus $k$, we assume grains emit at a temperature $T_{i,k}$, where
2845: the index $i$ refers to discrete bins in grain size. To derive equilibrium
2846: temperatures for these grains, we assume the grains have an absorption
2847: efficiency $\epsilon_a \propto (\lambda / \lambda_0)^p$ and radiative
2848: efficiency $\epsilon_r \propto (\lambda / \lambda_0)^q$. For most grains
2849: in our calculations, the grain size is larger than the peak wavelength
2850: of radiation emitted by the central star. Thus, the grains efficiently
2851: absorb stellar photons and $p$ = 0. Large grains with $r \gg \lambda$ emit
2852: as blackbodies and have $q$ = 0. Smaller grains radiate less efficiently
2853: and have $q \approx$ 1.
2854:
2855: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2856:
2857: \bibitem[Absil et al. (2006)]{abs06} Absil, O., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 452, 237
2858:
2859: \bibitem[Adachi et al. (1976)]{ada76} Adachi, I., Hayashi, C., \& Nakazawa, K.
2860: 1976, Progress of Theoretical Physics 56, 1756
2861:
2862: \bibitem[Allen (1976)]{all76} Allen, C. W. 1976, {\it Astrophysical Quantities,}
2863: Athlone, London, p. 197
2864:
2865: \bibitem[Andrews \& Williams (2005)]{and05} Andrews, S.~M., \& Williams,
2866: J.~P.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 1134
2867:
2868: \bibitem[Andrews \& Williams (2007a)]{and07a} Andrews, S.~M., \& Williams, J.~P.\ 2007a, \apj, 659, 705
2869:
2870: \bibitem[Andrews \& Williams (2007b)]{and07b} Andrews, S.~M., \& Williams,
2871: J.~P.\ 2007b, \apj, 671, 1800
2872:
2873: \bibitem[Artymowicz (1988)]{art88} Artymowicz, P. 1988, \apj, 335, L79
2874:
2875: \bibitem[Artymowicz (1997)]{art97}Artymowicz, P. 1997, ARE\&PS, 25, 175
2876:
2877: \bibitem[Asphaug \& Benz (1996)]{asph96} Asphaug, E., \& Benz,
2878: W.\ 1996, Icarus, 121, 225
2879:
2880: \bibitem[Aufdenberg et al. (2006)]{auf06} Aufdenberg, J.~P., et al.\ 2006,
2881: \apj, 645, 664
2882:
2883: \bibitem[Augereau \& Beust (2006)]{aug06} Augereau, J.-C., \& Beust, H.\ 2006, \aap, 455, 987
2884:
2885: \bibitem[Augereau et al. (1999)]{au99} Augereau, J. C., Lagrange, A.-M.,
2886: Mouillet, D., Papaloizou, J. C. B., \& Grorod, P. A. 1999, A\&A, 348, 557
2887:
2888: \bibitem[Aumann et al. (1984)]{aum84} Aumann, H.~H., et al.\ 1984, \apjl,
2889: 278, L23
2890:
2891: \bibitem [Backman \& Paresce (1993)]{bac93} Backman, D. E., \& Paresce, F.
2892: 1993, in {\it Protostars and Planets III}, eds. E. H. Levy \& J. I. Lunine,
2893: Tucson, Univ of Arizona, p. 1253
2894:
2895: \bibitem[Barge \& Pellat (1991)]{bar91} Barge, P., \& Pellat, R. 1991,
2896: Icarus, 93, 270
2897:
2898: \bibitem[Beichman et al. (2005)]{bei05} Beichman, C.~A., et al.\ 2005,
2899: \apj, 626, 1061
2900:
2901: \bibitem[Beichman et al. (2006)]{bei06} Beichman, C.~A., et al.\ 2006,
2902: \apj, 652, 1674
2903:
2904: \bibitem[Benz \& Asphaug (1999)]{ben99} Benz, W., \& Asphaug, E. 1999,
2905: Icarus, 142, 5
2906:
2907: \bibitem[Brandeker et al. (2004)]{bra04} Brandeker, A., Liseau, R.,
2908: Olofsson, G., \& Fridlund, M.\ 2004, \aap, 413, 681
2909:
2910: \bibitem[Bromley \& Kenyon (2006)]{bk06} Bromley, B., \& Kenyon, S. J.
2911: 2006, \aj, 131, 2737
2912:
2913: \bibitem[Brownlee et al. (1997)]{bro97} Brownlee, D.~E., et al.\ 1997,
2914: Meteoritics \& Planetary Science, vol.~32, page A22, 32, 22
2915:
2916: \bibitem[Bryden et al. (2006)]{bry06} Bryden, G., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 1098
2917:
2918: \bibitem[Burns,~Lamy, \& Soter (1979)]{bur79} Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L.,
2919: \& Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1
2920:
2921: \bibitem[Campo Bagatin et al. (1994)]{cam94} Campo Bagatin, A.,
2922: Cellino, A., Davis, D.~R., Farinella, P., \& Paolicchi, P.\ 1994
2923:
2924: \bibitem[Carpenter et al. (2006)]{car06} Carpenter, J.~M., Mamajek, E.~E.,
2925: Hillenbrand, L.~A., \& Meyer, M.~R.\ 2006, \apjl, 651, L49
2926:
2927: \bibitem[Chambers (2001)]{cha01} Chambers, J. E. 2001, Icarus, 152, 205
2928:
2929: \bibitem[Chambers (2006)]{cha06} Chambers, J.\ 2006, Icarus, 180, 496
2930:
2931: \bibitem[Charnoz \& Morbidelli (2003)]{cha03} Charnoz, S., \& Morbidelli, A.\ 2003, Icarus, 166, 141
2932:
2933: \bibitem[Chen et al. (2005)]{che05} Chen, C.~H., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 634, 1372
2934:
2935: \bibitem[Chen et al. (2006)]{che06} Chen, C.~H., et al.\ 2006,
2936: \apjs, 166, 351
2937:
2938: \bibitem[Ciesla (2007)]{cie07} Ciesla, F.~J.\ 2007, \apjl, 654, L159
2939:
2940: \bibitem[Currie et al. (2007a)]{cur07a} Currie, T., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 599
2941:
2942: \bibitem[Currie et al. (2007b)]{cur07b} Currie, T., Kenyon, S.~J., Rieke, G.,
2943: Balog, Z., \& Bromley, B.~C.\ 2007, \apjl, 663, L105
2944:
2945: \bibitem[Currie et al. (2007c)]{cur07c} Currie, T., Kenyon, S.~J., Balog, Z.,
2946: Bragg, A., \& Tokarz, S.\ 2007, \apjl, 669, L33
2947:
2948: \bibitem[Currie et al. (2008a)]{cur08a} Currie, T., Kenyon, S.~J.,
2949: Balog, Z., Rieke, G., Bragg, A., \& Bromley, B.\ 2008, \apj, 672, 558
2950:
2951: \bibitem[Currie et al. (2008b)]{cur08b} Currie, T., Plavchan, P., \&
2952: Kenyon, S. J. 2008b, \apj, submitted
2953:
2954: \bibitem[Davis et al. (1985)]{dav85} Davis, D. R., Chapman, C. R.,
2955: Weidenschilling, S. J., \& Greenberg, R. 1985, Icarus, 62, 30
2956:
2957: \bibitem[Decin et al. (2003)]{dec03} Decin, G., Dominik, C.,
2958: Waters, L. B. F. M., \& Waelkens, C. 2003, ApJ, 598, 636
2959:
2960: \bibitem[Demarque et al. (2004)]{dem04} Demarque, P., Woo, J.-H.,
2961: Kim, Y.-C., \& Yi, S.~K.\ 2004, \apjs, 155, 667
2962:
2963: \bibitem[Dent et al. (2000)]{den00} Dent, W.~R.~F., Walker, H.~J.,
2964: Holland, W.~S., \& Greaves, J.~S.\ 2000, \mnras, 314, 702
2965:
2966: \bibitem[Dohnanyi (1969)]{doh69} Dohnanyi, J. W. 1969,
2967: J. Geophys. Res., 74, 2531
2968:
2969: \bibitem[Dominik \& Decin (2003)]{dom03} Dominik, C., \& Decin, G. 2003,
2970: ApJ, 598, 626
2971:
2972: \bibitem[Dullemond \& Dominik (2005)]{dul05} Dullemond, C.~P.,
2973: \& Dominik, C.\ 2005, \aap, 434, 971
2974:
2975: \bibitem[Durda \& Dermott (1997)]{dur97} Durda, D.~D., \& Dermott, S.~F.\ 1997, Icarus, 130, 140
2976:
2977: \bibitem[Elliot et al. (2003)]{ell03} Elliot, J.~L., Person,
2978: M.~J., \& Qu, S.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 1041
2979:
2980: \bibitem[Elliot et al. (2007)]{ell07} Elliot, J.~L., et al.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 1
2981:
2982: \bibitem[Fitzgerald et al. (2007)]{fit07} Fitzgerald, M.~P.,
2983: Kalas, P.~G., \& Graham, J.~R.\ 2007, \apj, 670, 557
2984:
2985: \bibitem[Garaud (2007)]{gar07} Garaud, P.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 2091
2986:
2987: \bibitem[Goldreich,~Lithwick, \& Sari (2004)]{gol04} Goldreich, P.,
2988: Lithwick, Y., \& Sari, R. 2004, ARA\&A, 42, 549
2989:
2990: \bibitem[Golimowski et al. (1993)]{gol93} Golimowski, D.~A.,
2991: Durrance, S.~T., \& Clampin, M.\ 1993, \apjl, 411, L41
2992:
2993: \bibitem[Gomes et al. (2005)]{gom05} Gomes, R., Levison, H.~F.,
2994: Tsiganis, K., \& Morbidelli, A.\ 2005, \nat, 435, 466
2995:
2996: \bibitem[Gorlova et al. (2007)]{gor07} Gorlova, N., Balog, Z., Rieke, G.~H.,
2997: Muzerolle, J., Su, K.~Y.~L., Ivanov, V.~D., \& Young, E.~T.\ 2007, \apj, 670, 516
2998:
2999: \bibitem[Gorlova et al. (2006)]{gor06} Gorlova, N., Rieke, G.~H.,
3000: Muzerolle, J., Stauffer, J.~R., Siegler, N., Young, E.~T., \&
3001: Stansberry, J.~H.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 1028
3002:
3003: \bibitem[Greaves et al. (1998)]{gre98} Greaves, J. S. et al. 1998,
3004: ApJ, 506, L133
3005:
3006: \bibitem[Greaves et al. (2000)]{gre00} Greaves J. S.,
3007: Mannings V. \& Holland, W. S. 2000b, Icarus, 143, 155
3008:
3009: \bibitem[Greaves \& Wyatt (2003)]{gre03} Greaves, J. S., \& Wyatt, M. C.
3010: 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1212
3011:
3012: \bibitem[Greenberg et al. (1984)]{gre84} Greenberg, R., Weidenschilling, S. J.,
3013: Chapman, C. R., \& Davis, D. R. 1984, Icarus, 59, 87
3014:
3015: \bibitem[Greenberg et al. (1991)]{gre91} Greenberg, R., Bottke, W.,
3016: Carusi, A., Valsecchi, G. B. 1991, Icarus, 94, 98
3017:
3018: \bibitem[Greenzweig \& Lissauer (1990)]{grz90}
3019: Greenzweig, Y., \& Lissauer, J. J. 1990, Icarus, 87, 40
3020:
3021: \bibitem[Greenzweig \& Lissauer (1992)]{grz92}
3022: Greenzweig, Y., \& Lissauer, J. J. 1992, Icarus, 100, 440
3023:
3024: \bibitem[Grigorieva et al. (2007)]{gri07} Grigorieva, A., Artymowicz, P.,
3025: \& Th{\'e}bault, P.\ 2007, \aap, 461, 537
3026:
3027: \bibitem[Gr{\"u}n et al. (1995)]{gru95} Gr{\"u}n, E., et al. 1995, \planss, 43, 971
3028:
3029: \bibitem[Habing et al. (2001)]{hab01} Habing, H. J., et al. 2001, A\&A, 365, 545
3030:
3031: \bibitem[Hahn et al. (2002)]{hah02} Hahn, J.~M., Zook, H.~A., Cooper, B.,
3032: \& Sunkara, B.\ 2002, Icarus, 158, 360
3033:
3034: \bibitem[Haisch,~Lada, \& Lada (2001)]{hai01} Haisch, K., Lada, E. A.,
3035: \& Lada, C. J. 2001, ApJ, 553, 153
3036:
3037: \bibitem[Hayashi (1981)]{hay81} Hayashi, C. 1981, Prog Theor Phys Suppl, 70, 35
3038:
3039: \bibitem[Hern{\'a}ndez et al. (2006)]{her06} Hern{\'a}ndez, J., Brice{\~n}o,
3040: C., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., Muzerolle, J., \& Quintero, A.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 472
3041:
3042: \bibitem[Hillenbrand et al. (2008)]{hil08} Hillenbrand, L.~A., et al.\ 2008,
3043: ArXiv e-prints, 801, arXiv:0801.0163
3044:
3045: \bibitem[Holland et al. (1998)]{hol98} Holland, W.~S., et al.\ 1998, \nat, 392, 788
3046:
3047: \bibitem[Holland et al. (2003)]{hol03} Holland, W. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 582, 1141
3048:
3049: \bibitem[Hornung et al. (1985)]{hor85} Hornung, P., Pellat, R., \& Barge, P. 1985, Icarus, 64, 295
3050:
3051: \bibitem[Iben (1967)]{ibe67} Iben, I. Jr, 1967, ARA\&A, 5, 571
3052:
3053: \bibitem[Ida (1990)]{ida90} Ida, S.\ 1990, Icarus, 88, 129
3054:
3055: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin (2008)]{ida08} Ida, S., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 2008,
3056: ArXiv e-prints, 802, arXiv:0802.1114
3057:
3058: \bibitem[Ida \& Makino (1992)]{ida92} Ida, S., \& Makino, J.\ 1992, Icarus, 96, 107
3059:
3060: \bibitem[Ida \& Makino (1993)]{ida93} Ida, S., \& Makino, J. 1993, Icarus, 106, 210
3061:
3062: \bibitem[Inaba et al. (2001)]{ina01} Inaba, S. H., Tanaka, H., Nakazawa, K.,
3063: Wetherill, G. W., \& Kokubo, E. 2001, Icarus, 149, 235
3064:
3065: \bibitem[Jayawardhana et al. (1998)]{jay98} Jayawardhana, R. et al. 1998,
3066: ApJ, 503, L79
3067:
3068: \bibitem[Johnson et al. (2007)]{john07} Johnson, J.~A., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 665, 785
3069:
3070: \bibitem[Kalas (1998)]{kal98} Kalas, P. 1998, Earth, Moon, \& Planets, 81, 27
3071:
3072: \bibitem[Kalas (2005)]{kal05} Kalas, P.\ 2005, \apjl, 635, L169
3073:
3074: \bibitem[Kalas et al. (2005)]{kal05b} Kalas, P., Graham, J.~R., \& Clampin, M.\
3075: 2005, \nat, 435, 1067
3076:
3077: \bibitem[Kalas et al. (2006)]{kal06} Kalas, P., Graham, J.~R., Clampin, M.~C.,
3078: \& Fitzgerald, M.~P.\ 2006, \apjl, 637, L57
3079:
3080: \bibitem[Kalas et al. (2004)]{kal04} Kalas, P., Liu, M.~C., \&
3081: Matthews, B.~C.\ 2004, Science, 303, 1990
3082:
3083: \bibitem[Kennedy \& Kenyon (2008)]{kenn08} Kennedy, G.~M., \& Kenyon, S.~J.\ 2008, \apj, 673, 502
3084:
3085: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley (2001)]{kb01} Kenyon, S. J., \& Bromley, B. C.
3086: 2001, AJ, 121, 538
3087:
3088: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley (2002a)]{kb02a} Kenyon, S. J., \& Bromley, B. C.
3089: 2002a, AJ, 123, 1757
3090:
3091: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley (2002b)]{kb02b} Kenyon, S. J., \& Bromley, B. C.
3092: 2002b, ApJ, 577, L35
3093:
3094: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley (2004a)]{kb04a} Kenyon, S. J., \& Bromley, B. C.,
3095: 2004a, AJ, 127, 513
3096:
3097: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley (2004b)]{kb04b} Kenyon, S. J., \& Bromley, B. C.,
3098: 2004b, ApJ, 602, L133
3099:
3100: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley (2004c)]{kb04c} Kenyon, S. J., \& Bromley, B. C.,
3101: 2004c, AJ, 128, 1916
3102:
3103: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley (2005)]{kb05} Kenyon, S.~J., \& Bromley, B.~C.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 269
3104:
3105: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley (2006)]{kb06} Kenyon, S.~J., \&
3106: Bromley, B.~C.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1837
3107:
3108: \bibitem[Kenyon et al. (2008)]{kbod08} Kenyon, S. J., Bromley, B. C., O'Brien,
3109: D. C., \& Davis, D. R. 2008, to appear in {\it The Solar System Beyond Neptune,}
3110: edited by A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. Cruikshank, \& A. Morbidelli, Tucson,
3111: Univ. of Arizona Press, in press
3112:
3113: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Hartmann (1987)]{kh87} Kenyon, S. J., \&
3114: Hartmann, L. 1987, ApJ, 323, 714
3115:
3116: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Hartmann (1995)]{kh95} Kenyon, S.~J., \& Hartmann, L. W.,
3117: 1995, ApJS, 101, 117
3118:
3119: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Luu (1998)]{kl98} Kenyon, S. J., \& Luu, J. X.
3120: 1998, AJ, 115, 2136
3121:
3122: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Luu (1999)]{kl99} Kenyon, S. J., \& Luu, J. X.
3123: 1999, AJ, 118, 1101
3124:
3125: \bibitem[Kenyon et al. (1999)]{ken99} Kenyon, S. J., Wood, K.,
3126: Whitney, B. A., \& Wolff, M. 1999, ApJ, 524, L119
3127:
3128: \bibitem[Kim et al. (2005)]{kim05} Kim, J.~S., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 632, 659
3129:
3130: \bibitem[Kimura et al. (2002)]{kim02} Kimura, H., Okamoto, H., \& Mukai,
3131: T.\ 2002, Icarus, 157, 349
3132:
3133: \bibitem[Knapp \& Morris (1985)]{kna85} Knapp, G.~R., \& Morris, M.\ 1985, \apj, 292, 640
3134:
3135: \bibitem[Kobayashi \& Ida (2001)]{kob01} Kobayashi, H., \& Ida, S. 2001,
3136: Icarus, 153, 416
3137:
3138: \bibitem[Koeberl (2003)]{koe03} Koeberl, C. 2003, EM\&P, 92, 79
3139:
3140: \bibitem[Koerner et al. (1998)]{koe98} Koerner, D. W., Ressler, M. E.,
3141: Werner, M. W., \& Backman, D. E. 1998, ApJ, 503, L83
3142:
3143: \bibitem[Koerner,~Sargent, \& Ostroff (2001)]{koe01} Koerner, D. W.,
3144: Sargent, A. I., \& Ostroff, N. A. 2001, ApJ, 560, L181
3145:
3146: \bibitem[Kokubo \& Ida (1998)]{kok98} Kokubo, E., \& Ida, S. 1998,
3147: Icarus, 131, 171
3148:
3149: \bibitem[Kretke et al. (2008)]{kre08} Kretke, K.~A., Lin, D.~N.~C.,
3150: Garaud, P., \& Turner, N.~J.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 806, arXiv:0806.1521
3151:
3152: \bibitem[Krivov et al. (2000)]{kri00} Krivov, A. V., Mann, I., \& Krivova,
3153: N. A. 2000, A\&A, 362, 1127
3154:
3155: \bibitem[Krivov et al. (2006)]{kri06} Krivov, A.~V.,
3156: L{\"o}hne, T., \& Srem{\v c}evi{\'c}, M.\ 2006, \aap, 455, 509
3157:
3158: \bibitem[Kuchner \& Holman (2003)]{kuc03} Kuchner, M. J., \& Holman, M. J.
3159: 2003, ApJ, 588, 1110
3160:
3161: \bibitem[Lada (1999)]{lad99} Lada, C. J. 1999, in
3162: {\it The Physics of Star Formation and Early Stellar Evolution,}
3163: edited by C. J. Lada and N. Kylafis, Dordrecht, Kluwer, p. 143
3164:
3165: \bibitem[Lagrange et al. (2000)]{lag00} Lagrange, A.-M., Backman, D.,
3166: \& Artymowicz, P. 2000, in Protostars \& Planets IV, eds. V. Mannings,
3167: A. P. Boss, \& S. S. Russell, Tucson, Univ. of Arizona, in press
3168:
3169: \bibitem[Landgraf et~al. (2002)]{lan02} Landgraf, M., Liou, J.-C., Zook, H.~A.,
3170: \& Gr{\"u}n, E. 2002, \aj, 123, 2857
3171:
3172: \bibitem[Larwood (1997)]{lar97} Larwood, J. D. 1997, MNRAS, 290, 490
3173:
3174: \bibitem[Larwood \& Kalas (2001)]{lar01} Larwood, J. D., \& Kalas, P. G.
3175: 2001, MNRAS, 323, 402
3176:
3177: \bibitem[Leinhardt et al. (2008)]{lein08} Leinhardt, Z.~M., Stewart, S.~T.,
3178: \& Schultz, P.~H.\ 2008, to appear in {\it The Solar System Beyond Neptune,}
3179: edited by A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. Cruikshank, \& A. Morbidelli, Tucson,
3180: Univ. of Arizona Press, in press (ArXiv e-prints, 705, arXiv:0705.3943)
3181:
3182: \bibitem[Levison \& Stewart (2001)]{lev01} Levison, H.~F., \&
3183: Stewart, G.~R.\ 2001, Icarus, 153, 224
3184:
3185: \bibitem[Lin \& Papaloizou (1979)]{lin79}Lin, D. N. C., \&
3186: Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1979, MNRAS, 186, 799
3187:
3188: \bibitem[Lissauer (1987)]{lis87} Lissauer, J. J. 1987, Icarus, 69, 249
3189:
3190: \bibitem[Lissauer \& Stewart (1993)]{lis93} Lissauer, J. J., \&
3191: Stewart, G. R. 1993, In {\it Protostars and Planets III,}
3192: edited by E. H. Levy and J. I. Lunine, U. of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1061
3193:
3194: \bibitem[Lisse et al. (2007a)]{lis07a} Lisse, C.~M., Beichman, C.~A.,
3195: Bryden, G., \& Wyatt, M.~C.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 584
3196:
3197: \bibitem[Lisse et al. (2007c)]{lis07c} Lisse, C.~M., Chen, C.~H.,
3198: Wyatt, M.~C., \& Morlok, A.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 710, arXiv:0710.0839
3199:
3200: \bibitem[Lisse et al. (2007b)]{lis07b} Lisse, C.~M., Kraemer, K.~E.,
3201: Nuth, J.~A., Li, A., \& Joswiak, D.\ 2007, Icarus, 191, 223
3202:
3203: \bibitem[Liu (2004)]{liu04a} Liu, M.~C.\ 2004, Science, 305, 1442
3204:
3205: \bibitem[Liu et al. (2004)]{liu04b} Liu, M.~C., Matthews,
3206: B.~C., Williams, J.~P., \& Kalas, P.~G.\ 2004, \apj, 608, 526
3207:
3208: \bibitem[Liu et al. (2004)]{wliu04} Liu, W.~M., et al.\ 2004,
3209: \apjl, 610, L125
3210:
3211: \bibitem[L{\"o}hne et al. (2008)]{loh08} L{\"o}hne, T., Krivov, A.~V.,
3212: \& Rodmann, J.\ 2008, \apj, 673, 1123
3213:
3214: \bibitem[Marsh et al. (2006)]{mar06} Marsh, K.~A., Dowell, C.~D.,
3215: Velusamy, T., Grogan, K., \& Beichman, C.~A.\ 2006, \apjl, 646, L77
3216:
3217: \bibitem[Matthews et al. (2007)]{mat07} Matthews, B.~C., et al.\ 2007, \pasp, 119, 842
3218:
3219: \bibitem[Melosh,~Vickery, \& Tonks (1993)]{mel93} Melosh, H. J.,
3220: Vockery, A. M., \& Tonks, W. B. 1993, in
3221: {\it Protostars and Planets III}, eds. E. H. Levy \& J. I. Lunine,
3222: Tucson, Univ of Arizona, p. 1339
3223:
3224: \bibitem[Meyer et al. (2007)]{mey07} Meyer, M.~R., Backman,
3225: D.~E., Weinberger, A.~J., \& Wyatt, M.~C.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 573
3226:
3227: \bibitem[Meyer et al. (2006)]{mey06} Meyer, M.~R., et al.\ 2006, \pasp, 118, 1690
3228: \bibitem[Meyer et al. (2008)]{mey08} Meyer, M.~R., et al.\ 2008,
3229: \apjl, 673, L181
3230:
3231: \bibitem[Mo{\'o}r et al. (2006)]{moor06} Mo{\'o}r, A., {\'A}brah{\'a}m, P.,
3232: Derekas, A., Kiss, C., Kiss, L.~L., Apai, D., Grady, C., \& Henning, T.\
3233: 2006, \apj, 644, 525
3234:
3235: \bibitem[Moro-Mart{\'{\i}}n \& Malhotra (2005)]{mor05}
3236: Moro-Mart{\'{\i}}n, A., \& Malhotra, R.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 1150
3237:
3238: \bibitem[Moro-Martin et al. (2007)]{mor08} Moro-Martin, A., Wyatt, M.~C.,
3239: Malhotra, R., \& Trilling, D.~E.\ 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,
3240: arXiv:astro-ph/0703383
3241:
3242: \bibitem[Motte \& Andr{\'e}(2001)]{mot01} Motte, F., \& Andr{\'e}, P.\
3243: 2001, \aap, 365, 440
3244:
3245: \bibitem[Mouillet et al. (1997)]{mou97} Mouillet, D., Larwood, J. D.,
3246: Papaloizou, J. C. B., \& Lagrange, A.-M. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 896
3247:
3248: \bibitem[Nagasawa et al. (2007)]{naga07} Nagasawa, M., Thommes,
3249: E.~W., Kenyon, S.~J., Bromley, B.~C., \& Lin, D.~N.~C.\ 2007, Protostars
3250: and Planets V, 639
3251:
3252: \bibitem[Najita \& Williams (2005)]{naj05} Najita, J., \& Williams, J.~P.\ 2005, \apj, 635, 625
3253:
3254: \bibitem[Natta et al. (2000)]{nat2000} Natta, A., Grinin, V., \&
3255: Mannings, V.\ 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, 559
3256:
3257: \bibitem[Nesvorn{\'y} et al. (2006)]{nes06} Nesvorn{\'y}, D.,
3258: Vokrouhlick{\'y}, D., Bottke, W.~F., \& Sykes, M.\ 2006, Icarus, 181, 107
3259:
3260: \bibitem[Nomura \& Nakagawa (2006)]{nom06} Nomura, H., \& Nakagawa, Y.\ 2006,
3261: \apj, 640, 1099
3262:
3263: \bibitem[Ohtsuki (1992)]{oht92} Ohtsuki, K. 1992, Icarus, 98, 20
3264:
3265: \bibitem[Ohtsuki,~Stewart, \& Ida (2002)]{oht02} Ohtsuki, K.,
3266: Stewart, G. R., \& Ida, S. 2002, Icarus, 155, 436
3267:
3268: \bibitem[Osterloh \& Beckwith (1995)]{ost95} Osterloh, M., \&
3269: Beckwith, S. V. W. 1995, ApJ, 439, 288
3270:
3271: \bibitem[Pan \& Sari (2005)]{pan05} Pan, M., \& Sari, R. 2005,
3272: Icarus, 173, 342
3273:
3274: \bibitem[Press et al. (1992)]{pre92} Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P.,
3275: Teukolsky, S. A., \& Vetterling, W. T. 1992, {\it Numerical Recipes,
3276: The Art of Scientific Computing,} Cambridge, Cambridge
3277:
3278: \bibitem[Quillen (2006)]{qui06} Quillen, A.~C.\ 2006, \mnras, 372, L14
3279:
3280: \bibitem[Quillen et al. (2007)]{qui07} Quillen, A.~C., Morbidelli, A.,
3281: \& Moore, A.\ 2007, \mnras, 380, 1642
3282:
3283: \bibitem[Rafikov (2003)]{raf03} Rafikov, R.~R.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 942
3284:
3285: \bibitem[Rafikov (2004)]{raf04} Rafikov, R.~R.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 1348
3286:
3287: \bibitem[Rhee et al. (2007a)]{rhe07a} Rhee, J.~H., Song, I., Zuckerman, B.,
3288: \& McElwain, M.\ 2007, \apj, 660, 1556
3289:
3290: \bibitem[Rhee et al. (2007b)]{rhe07b} Rhee, J.~H., Song, I., \&
3291: Zuckerman, B.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 711, arXiv:0711.2111
3292:
3293: \bibitem[Rieke et al. (2005)]{rie05} Rieke, G. H., Su, K. Y. L.,
3294: Stansberry, J. A., Trilling, D., Bryden, G., Muzerolle, J., White, B.,
3295: Gorlova, N., Young, E. T., Beichman, C. A., Stapelfeldt, K. R., \&
3296: hines, D. C. 2005, ApJ, 620, 1010
3297:
3298: \bibitem[Safronov (1969)]{saf69} Safronov, V. S. 1969, Evolution of
3299: the Protoplanetary Cloud and Formation of the Earth and Planets,
3300: Nauka, Moscow [Translation 1972, NASA TT F-677]
3301:
3302: \bibitem[Schneider et al. (1999)]{sch99} Schneider, G., et al.
3303: 1999, ApJ, 513, L127
3304:
3305: \bibitem[Scholz et al. (2006)]{sch2006} Scholz, A.,
3306: Jayawardhana, R., \& Wood, K.\ 2006, \apj, 645, 1498
3307:
3308: \bibitem[Sicilia-Aguilar et al. (2006)]{sic06}
3309: Sicilia-Aguilar, A., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 638, 897
3310:
3311: \bibitem[Siegler et al. (2007)]{sie07} Siegler, N., Muzerolle, J.,
3312: Young, E.~T., Rieke, G.~H., Mamajek, E.~E., Trilling, D.~E., Gorlova, N.,
3313: \& Su, K.~Y.~L.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 580
3314:
3315: \bibitem[Smith \& Terrile (1984)]{smi84}
3316: Smith, B. A., \& Terrile, R. J. 1984, Science, 226, 1421
3317:
3318: \bibitem[Song et al. (2005)]{son05} Song, I., Zuckerman, B.,
3319: Weinberger, A.~J., \& Becklin, E.~E.\ 2005, \nat, 436, 363
3320:
3321: \bibitem[Spaute et al. (1991)]{spa91} Spaute, D., Weidenschilling, S. J.,
3322: Davis, D. R., \& Marzari, F. 1991, Icarus, 92, 147
3323:
3324: \bibitem[Stapelfeldt et al. (2004)]{sta04} Stapelfeldt, K.~R., et al.\
3325: 2004, \apjs, 154, 458
3326:
3327: \bibitem[Stauffer et al. (2005)]{stau05} Stauffer, J.~R., et al.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 1834
3328:
3329: \bibitem[Stern \& Colwell (1997)]{st97} Stern, S. A., \&
3330: Colwell, J. E. 1997a, AJ, 114, 841
3331:
3332: \bibitem[Stewart \& Ida (2000)]{ste00} Stewart, G. R., \& Ida, S. 2000,
3333: Icarus, 143, 28
3334:
3335: \bibitem[Su et al. (2005)]{su05} Su, K.~Y.~L., et al.\ 2005,
3336: \apj, 628, 487
3337:
3338: \bibitem[Su et al. (2006)]{su06} Su, K.~Y.~L., et al.\ 2006,
3339: \apj, 653, 675
3340:
3341: \bibitem[Su et al. (2008)]{su08} Su, K.~Y.~L., Rieke, G.~H.,
3342: Stapelfeldt, K.~R., Smith, P.~S., Bryden, G., Chen, C.~H.,
3343: \& Trilling, D.~E.\ 2008, \apjl, 679, L125
3344:
3345: \bibitem[Swindle (1993)]{swi93} Swindle, T. D. 1993, in
3346: {\it Protostars and Planets III}, eds. E. H. Levy \& J. I. Lunine,
3347: Tucson, Univ of Arizona, p. 867
3348:
3349: \bibitem[Takeuchi \& Artymowicz (2001)]{tak01} Takeuchi, T., \&
3350: Artymowicz, P. 2001, ApJ, 557, 990
3351:
3352: \bibitem[Telesco et al. (1988)]{tel88} Telesco, C.~M., Decher, R., Becklin,
3353: E.~E., \& Wolstencroft, R.~D.\ 1988, \nat, 335, 51
3354:
3355: \bibitem[Telesco et al. (2000)]{tel00} Telesco, C.~M., et al.\
3356: 2000, \apj, 530, 329
3357:
3358: \bibitem[Th{\'e}bault \& Augereau (2007)]{the07} Th{\'e}bault,
3359: P., \& Augereau, J.-C.\ 2007, \aap, 472, 169
3360:
3361: \bibitem[Th\'ebault,~Augereau, \& Beust (2003)]{the03}
3362: Th\'ebault, P., Augereau, J. C., \& Beust, H. 2003, A\&A, 408, 775
3363:
3364: \bibitem[Trilling et al. (2007)]{tri07} Trilling, D.~E., et
3365: al.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 1289
3366:
3367: \bibitem[Trilling et al. (2008)]{tri08} Trilling, D.~E., et
3368: al.\ 2008, \apj, 674, 1086
3369:
3370: \bibitem[Wadhwa \& Russell (2000)]{wad00} Wadhwa, M., \& Russell, S. S.
3371: 2000, in {\it Protostars abd Planets IV}, eds. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss,
3372: \& S. S. Russell, Tucson, Univ. of Arizona, p. 995
3373:
3374: \bibitem[Weidenschilling (1977a)]{wei77a} Weidenschilling, S. J. 1977a,
3375: Astrophys Sp Sci, 51, 153
3376:
3377: \bibitem[Weidenschilling (1977b)]{wei77b} Weidenschilling, S. J. 1977b,
3378: MNRAS, 180, 57
3379:
3380: \bibitem[Weidenschilling (1989)]{wei89} Weidenschilling, S.~J.\ 1989, Icarus, 80, 179
3381:
3382: \bibitem[Weidenschilling et al. (1997)]{wei97} Weidenschilling, S. J.,
3383: Spaute, D., Davis, D. R., Marzari, F., \& Ohtsuki, K. 1997, Icarus, 128, 429
3384:
3385: \bibitem[Wetherill (1980)]{wet80} Wetherill, G. W. 1980, ARA\&A, 18, 77
3386:
3387: \bibitem[Wetherill \& Stewart (1993)]{wet93} Wetherill, G. W., \& Stewart,
3388: G. R. 1993, Icarus, 106, 190
3389:
3390: \bibitem[Williams \& Wetherill (1994)]{wil94} Williams, D. R., \&
3391: Wetherill, G. W. 1994, Icarus, 107, 117
3392:
3393: \bibitem[Williams \& Andrews (2006)]{wil06} Williams, J.~P., \&
3394: Andrews, S.~M.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 1480
3395:
3396: \bibitem[Wilner et al. (2002)]{wil02} Wilner, D. J., Holman, M. J.,
3397: Kuchner, M. J., \& Ho, P. T. P. 2002, ApJ, 569, 115
3398:
3399: \bibitem[Wolf \& Hillenbrand (2003)]{wol03} Wolf, S., \& Hillenbrand, L.~A.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 603
3400:
3401: \bibitem[Wood et al. (2002)]{woo02} Wood, K., Lada, C. J., Bjorkman, J. E.,
3402: Kenyon, S. J., Whitney, B., Wolff, M. J. 2002, ApJ, 567, 1183
3403:
3404: \bibitem[Wyatt (2003)]{wya03b} Wyatt, M. C. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1321
3405:
3406: \bibitem[Wyatt (2005)]{wya05} Wyatt, M.~C.\ 2005, \aap, 433, 1007
3407:
3408: \bibitem[Wyatt \& Dent (2002)]{wya02} Wyatt, M. C., \& Dent, W. R. F.
3409: 2002, MNRAS, 334, 589
3410:
3411: \bibitem[Wyatt,~Dent, \& Greaves (2003)]{wya03a} Wyatt, M. C., Dent, W. R. F.,
3412: \& Greaves, J. S. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 867
3413:
3414: \bibitem[Wyatt et al. (1999)]{wya99} Wyatt, M. C., Dermott, S. F.,
3415: Telesco, C. M., Fisher, R. S., Grogan, K., Holmes, E. K., \& Pi\~na, R. K.
3416: 1999, ApJ, 527, 918
3417:
3418: \bibitem[Wyatt et al. (2007a)]{wya07a} Wyatt, M.~C., Smith, R., Greaves, J.~S.,
3419: Beichman, C.~A., Bryden, G., \& Lisse, C.~M.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 569
3420:
3421: \bibitem[Wyatt et al. (2007b)]{wya07b} Wyatt, M.~C., Smith, R., Su, K.~Y.~L.,
3422: Rieke, G.~H., Greaves, J.~S., Beichman, C.~A., \& Bryden, G.\ 2007, \apj, 663, 365
3423:
3424: \bibitem[Yin et al. (2002)]{yin02} Yin, Q., Jacobsen, S. B., Yamashita, K.,
3425: Blichert-Toft, J., T\'elouk, P.; Albar\`ede, F. 2002, Nature, 418, 949
3426:
3427: \bibitem[Young \& Binzel (1994)]{you94} Young, E.~F., \&
3428: Binzel, R.~P.\ 1994, Icarus, 108, 219
3429:
3430: \bibitem[Zuckerman (2001)]{zuc01} Zuckerman, B. 2001, ARA\&A, 39, 549
3431:
3432: \end{thebibliography}
3433:
3434: \clearpage
3435:
3436: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
3437: \tablecolumns{7}
3438: \tablewidth{0pc}
3439: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3440: \tablenum{1}
3441: \tablecaption{Grid of Debris Disk Calculations\tablenotemark{a}}
3442: \tablehead{
3443: \colhead{} &
3444: \multicolumn{6}{c}{Stellar Mass in $M_{\odot}$}
3445: \\
3446: \colhead{$x_m$} &
3447: \colhead{~~1.0\tablenotemark{b}~~} &
3448: \colhead{~~1.0\tablenotemark{c}~~} &
3449: \colhead{~~1.5~~} &
3450: \colhead{~~2.0~~} &
3451: \colhead{~~2.5~~} &
3452: \colhead{~~3.0~~}
3453: }
3454: \startdata
3455: 0.33 & 41 & 19 & 15 & 20 & 18 & 18 \\
3456: 0.50 & 49 & 18 & 18 & 17 & 17 & 17 \\
3457: 1.00 & 49 & 15 & 22 & 17 & 15 & 15 \\
3458: 2.00 & 41 & 15 & 30 & 17 & 16 & 15 \\
3459: 3.00 & 45 & 18 & 12 & 22 & 15 & 21 \\
3460: \\
3461: $t_{ms}$\tablenotemark{d} & 10.00 & 10.00 & 2.90 & 1.22 & 0.65 & 0.39 \\
3462: \enddata
3463: %
3464: \tablenotetext{a}{Number of independent calculations for each
3465: combination of $M_{\star},x_m$}
3466: \tablenotetext{b}{32 annulus models at 30--70~AU and at 70--150~AU}
3467: \tablenotetext{c}{64 annulus models at 30--150~AU}
3468: \tablenotetext{d}{Main sequence lifetime in Gyr \cite{dem04}}
3469: \label{tab:modgrid}
3470: \end{deluxetable}
3471: \clearpage
3472:
3473: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
3474: \tablecolumns{9}
3475: \tablewidth{0pc}
3476: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3477: \tablenum{2}
3478: \tablecaption{Median number of Plutos at t = $t_{ms}$/3 for disks around 1 \msun\ stars}
3479: \tablehead{
3480: \colhead{$x_m$} &
3481: \colhead{30--37~AU} &
3482: \colhead{37--45~AU} &
3483: \colhead{45--55~AU} &
3484: \colhead{55--67~AU} &
3485: \colhead{67--82~AU} &
3486: \colhead{82--100~AU} &
3487: \colhead{100--123~AU} &
3488: \colhead{123--146~AU}
3489: }
3490: \startdata
3491: 0.33 & 40 & 44 & 33 & 32 & 19 & 12 & 3 & 1 \\
3492: 0.50 & 62 & 65 & 39 & 49 & 33 & 25 & 10 & 1 \\
3493: 1.00 & 111 & 110 & 73 & 73 & 47 & 55 & 26 & 5 \\
3494: 2.00 & 172 & 194 & 134 & 155 & 116 & 84 & 58 & 33 \\
3495: 3.00 & 165 & 260 & 172 & 251 & 137 & 109 & 85 & 44 \\
3496: \enddata
3497: \label{tab:rad1000.1}
3498: \end{deluxetable}
3499: \clearpage
3500:
3501: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
3502: \tablecolumns{9}
3503: \tablewidth{0pc}
3504: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3505: \tablenum{3}
3506: \tablecaption{Median number of Plutos at t = $t_{ms}$/3 for disks around 1.5--3 \msun\ stars}
3507: \tablehead{
3508: \colhead{$x_m$} &
3509: \colhead{30--37~AU} &
3510: \colhead{37--45~AU} &
3511: \colhead{45--55~AU} &
3512: \colhead{55--67~AU} &
3513: \colhead{67--82~AU} &
3514: \colhead{82--100~AU} &
3515: \colhead{100--123~AU} &
3516: \colhead{123--146~AU}
3517: }
3518: \startdata
3519: \cutinhead{1.5 \msun}
3520: 0.33 & 46 & 46 & 45 & 28 & 16 & 3 & 1 & 1 \\
3521: 0.50 & 69 & 85 & 68 & 48 & 53 & 25 & 2 & 1 \\
3522: 1.00 & 102 & 136 & 128 & 101 & 98 & 67 & 28 & 2 \\
3523: 2.00 & 158 & 243 & 240 & 261 & 211 & 123 & 169 & 47 \\
3524: 3.00 & 201 & 239 & 301 & 295 & 381 & 165 & 198 & 97 \\
3525: \cutinhead{2.0 \msun}
3526: 0.33 & 55 & 51 & 48 &30 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 3 \\
3527: 0.50 & 115 & 87 & 85 &51 & 20 & 10 & 1 & 2 \\
3528: 1.00 & 172 &187 &231 &123 & 82 & 50 & 1 & 3 \\
3529: 2.00 & 261 &230 &366 &236 &324 &204 & 77 & 5 \\
3530: 3.00 & 259 &262 &398 &264 &446 &295 &171 & 48 \\
3531: \cutinhead{2.5 \msun}
3532: 0.33 & 105 & 92 & 63 & 55 & 19 & 1 & 5 & 2 \\
3533: 0.50 & 152 &139 &123 &100 & 53 & 10 & 5 & 5 \\
3534: 1.00 & 164 &174 &234 &198 &125 & 90 & 7 & 6 \\
3535: 2.00 & 223 &230 &278 &243 &158 &108 & 10 & 8 \\
3536: 3.00 & 353 &434 &490 &495 &477 &615 &313 &157 \\
3537: \cutinhead{3.0 \msun}
3538: 0.33 & 133 &121 & 62 & 36 & 6 & 5 & 1 & 1 \\
3539: 0.50 & 127 &153 &129 &103 & 50 & 2 & 2 & 1 \\
3540: 1.00 & 199 &230 &239 &258 &171 & 66 & 6 & 5 \\
3541: 2.00 & 224 &353 &376 &392 &342 &265 &173 & 5 \\
3542: 3.00 & 428 &598 &479 &657 &570 &756 &578 &272 \\
3543: \enddata
3544: \label{tab:rad1000.2}
3545: \end{deluxetable}
3546: \clearpage
3547:
3548: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
3549: \tablecolumns{6}
3550: \tablewidth{0pc}
3551: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3552: \tablenum{4}
3553: \tablecaption{Predicted Excesses for Disks Around 1 \msun\ Stars\tablenotemark{a}}
3554: \tablehead{
3555: \colhead{log $t$ (yr)} &
3556: \colhead{log $L_d/L_{\star}$} &
3557: \colhead{log $F_{24}/F_{24,0}$} &
3558: \colhead{log $F_{70}/F_{70,0}$} &
3559: \colhead{log $F_{160}/F_{160,0}$} &
3560: \colhead{log $F_{850}/F_{850,0}$}
3561: }
3562: \startdata
3563: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 0.33}
3564: 5.05 & -4.57 & 0.000 & 0.053 & 0.145 & 0.090 \\
3565: 5.15 & -4.57 & 0.000 & 0.053 & 0.145 & 0.090 \\
3566: 5.25 & -4.63 & 0.000 & 0.047 & 0.131 & 0.082 \\
3567: 5.35 & -4.65 & 0.000 & 0.045 & 0.127 & 0.080 \\
3568: 5.45 & -4.67 & 0.000 & 0.043 & 0.123 & 0.077 \\
3569: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 1.0}
3570: 5.05 & -4.18 & 0.000 & 0.096 & 0.255 & 0.172 \\
3571: 5.15 & -4.18 & 0.000 & 0.096 & 0.255 & 0.172 \\
3572: 5.25 & -4.29 & 0.000 & 0.090 & 0.243 & 0.164 \\
3573: 5.35 & -4.31 & 0.000 & 0.088 & 0.238 & 0.161 \\
3574: 5.45 & -4.33 & 0.000 & 0.086 & 0.233 & 0.158 \\
3575: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 3.0}
3576: 5.05 & -4.02 & 0.000 & 0.162 & 0.464 & 0.357 \\
3577: 5.15 & -4.06 & 0.000 & 0.150 & 0.410 & 0.307 \\
3578: 5.25 & -4.10 & 0.000 & 0.138 & 0.355 & 0.257 \\
3579: 5.35 & -4.12 & 0.000 & 0.133 & 0.354 & 0.248 \\
3580: 5.45 & -4.14 & 0.000 & 0.127 & 0.332 & 0.238 \\
3581: \enddata
3582: \label{tab:mod-1p0}
3583: \tablenotetext{a}{The electronic version of this paper contains the
3584: complete version of this Table.}
3585: \end{deluxetable}
3586: \clearpage
3587:
3588: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
3589: \tablecolumns{6}
3590: \tablewidth{0pc}
3591: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3592: \tablenum{5}
3593: \tablecaption{Predicted Excesses for Disks Around 1.5 \msun\ Stars\tablenotemark{a}}
3594: \tablehead{
3595: \colhead{log $t$ (yr)} &
3596: \colhead{log $L_d/L_{\star}$} &
3597: \colhead{log $F_{24}/F_{24,0}$} &
3598: \colhead{log $F_{70}/F_{70,0}$} &
3599: \colhead{log $F_{160}/F_{160,0}$} &
3600: \colhead{log $F_{850}/F_{850,0}$}
3601: }
3602: \startdata
3603: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 0.33}
3604: 5.05 & -4.40 & 0.001 & 0.100 & 0.202 & 0.110 \\
3605: 5.15 & -4.45 & 0.001 & 0.090 & 0.184 & 0.099 \\
3606: 5.25 & -4.51 & 0.001 & 0.078 & 0.163 & 0.088 \\
3607: 5.35 & -4.52 & 0.001 & 0.074 & 0.157 & 0.085 \\
3608: 5.45 & -4.53 & 0.001 & 0.070 & 0.151 & 0.082 \\
3609: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 1.0}
3610: 5.05 & -4.01 & 0.001 & 0.162 & 0.321 & 0.188 \\
3611: 5.15 & -4.19 & 0.001 & 0.148 & 0.299 & 0.178 \\
3612: 5.25 & -4.22 & 0.001 & 0.140 & 0.287 & 0.170 \\
3613: 5.35 & -4.24 & 0.001 & 0.133 & 0.275 & 0.163 \\
3614: 5.45 & -4.24 & 0.001 & 0.128 & 0.266 & 0.157 \\
3615: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 3.0}
3616: 5.05 & -3.73 & 0.002 & 0.206 & 0.406 & 0.261 \\
3617: 5.15 & -4.01 & 0.002 & 0.199 & 0.394 & 0.251 \\
3618: 5.25 & -4.04 & 0.002 & 0.192 & 0.382 & 0.242 \\
3619: 5.35 & -4.05 & 0.002 & 0.181 & 0.361 & 0.227 \\
3620: 5.45 & -4.08 & 0.002 & 0.167 & 0.339 & 0.211 \\
3621: \enddata
3622: \label{tab:mod-1p5}
3623: \tablenotetext{a}{The electronic version of this paper contains the
3624: complete version of this Table.}
3625: \end{deluxetable}
3626:
3627: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
3628: \tablecolumns{6}
3629: \tablewidth{0pc}
3630: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3631: \tablenum{6}
3632: \tablecaption{Predicted Excesses for Disks Around 2.0 \msun\ Stars\tablenotemark{a}}
3633: \tablehead{
3634: \colhead{log $t$ (yr)} &
3635: \colhead{log $L_d/L_{\star}$} &
3636: \colhead{log $F_{24}/F_{24,0}$} &
3637: \colhead{log $F_{70}/F_{70,0}$} &
3638: \colhead{log $F_{160}/F_{160,0}$} &
3639: \colhead{log $F_{850}/F_{850,0}$}
3640: }
3641: \startdata
3642: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 0.33}
3643: 5.05 & -4.28 & 0.002 & 0.128 & 0.215 & 0.109 \\
3644: 5.15 & -4.34 & 0.002 & 0.118 & 0.201 & 0.102 \\
3645: 5.25 & -4.41 & 0.002 & 0.108 & 0.191 & 0.096 \\
3646: 5.35 & -4.43 & 0.002 & 0.103 & 0.183 & 0.092 \\
3647: 5.45 & -4.46 & 0.002 & 0.098 & 0.175 & 0.087 \\
3648: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 1.0}
3649: 5.05 & -3.89 & 0.003 & 0.195 & 0.334 & 0.185 \\
3650: 5.15 & -4.00 & 0.003 & 0.186 & 0.320 & 0.177 \\
3651: 5.25 & 4.11 & 0.003 & 0.177 & 0.309 & 0.170 \\
3652: 5.35 & -4.16 & 0.003 & 0.175 & 0.307 & 0.168 \\
3653: 5.45 & -4.18 & 0.003 & 0.161 & 0.286 & 0.156 \\
3654: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 3.0}
3655: 5.05 & -3.71 & 0.005 & 0.248 & 0.421 & 0.250 \\
3656: 5.15 & -3.98 & 0.005 & 0.239 & 0.409 & 0.240 \\
3657: 5.25 & -4.02 & 0.004 & 0.227 & 0.389 & 0.226 \\
3658: 5.35 & -4.02 & 0.004 & 0.207 & 0.358 & 0.205 \\
3659: 5.45 & -4.07 & 0.004 & 0.192 & 0.333 & 0.188 \\
3660: \enddata
3661: \label{tab:mod-2p0}
3662: \tablenotetext{a}{The electronic version of this paper contains the
3663: complete version of this Table.}
3664: \end{deluxetable}
3665:
3666: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
3667: \tablecolumns{6}
3668: \tablewidth{0pc}
3669: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3670: \tablenum{7}
3671: \tablecaption{Predicted Excesses for Disks Around 2.5 \msun\ Stars\tablenotemark{a}}
3672: \tablehead{
3673: \colhead{log $t$ (yr)} &
3674: \colhead{log $L_d/L_{\star}$} &
3675: \colhead{log $F_{24}/F_{24,0}$} &
3676: \colhead{log $F_{70}/F_{70,0}$} &
3677: \colhead{log $F_{160}/F_{160,0}$} &
3678: \colhead{log $F_{850}/F_{850,0}$}
3679: }
3680: \startdata
3681: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 0.33}
3682: 5.05 & -4.18 & 0.004 & 0.170 & 0.259 & 0.120 \\
3683: 5.15 & -4.22 & 0.004 & 0.153 & 0.233 & 0.108 \\
3684: 5.25 & -4.34 & 0.004 & 0.137 & 0.207 & 0.096 \\
3685: 5.35 & -4.36 & 0.004 & 0.130 & 0.197 & 0.093 \\
3686: 5.45 & -4.38 & 0.004 & 0.123 & 0.188 & 0.086 \\
3687: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 1.0}
3688: 5.05 & -3.97 & 0.008 & 0.237 & 0.352 & 0.181 \\
3689: 5.15 & -4.08 & 0.007 & 0.219 & 0.329 & 0.168 \\
3690: 5.25 & -4.09 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
3691: 5.35 & -4.14 & 0.006 & 0.201 & 0.306 & 0.154 \\
3692: 5.45 & -4.14 & 0.005 & 0.187 & 0.287 & 0.144 \\
3693: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 3.0}
3694: 5.05 & -3.83 & 0.010 & 0.285 & 0.424 & 0.230 \\
3695: 5.15 & -3.95 & 0.009 & 0.270 & 0.403 & 0.217 \\
3696: 5.25 & -3.98 & 0.009 & 0.258 & 0.387 & 0.206 \\
3697: 5.35 & -4.03 & 0.009 & 0.248 & 0.372 & 0.197 \\
3698: 5.45 & -3.48 & 0.087 & 0.749 & 0.887 & 0.558 \\
3699: \enddata
3700: \label{tab:mod-2p5}
3701: \tablenotetext{a}{The electronic version of this paper contains the
3702: complete version of this Table.}
3703: \end{deluxetable}
3704: \clearpage
3705:
3706: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
3707: \tablecolumns{6}
3708: \tablewidth{0pc}
3709: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3710: \tablenum{8}
3711: \tablecaption{Predicted Excesses for Disks Around 3.0 \msun\ Stars\tablenotemark{a}}
3712: \tablehead{
3713: \colhead{log $t$ (yr)} &
3714: \colhead{log $L_d/L_{\star}$} &
3715: \colhead{log $F_{24}/F_{24,0}$} &
3716: \colhead{log $F_{70}/F_{70,0}$} &
3717: \colhead{log $F_{160}/F_{160,0}$} &
3718: \colhead{log $F_{850}/F_{850,0}$}
3719: }
3720: \startdata
3721: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 0.33}
3722: 5.05 & -4.08 & 0.011 & 0.173 & 0.229 & 0.099 \\
3723: 5.15 & -4.11 & 0.010 & 0.164 & 0.213 & 0.091 \\
3724: 5.25 & -4.14 & 0.009 & 0.152 & 0.198 & 0.083 \\
3725: 5.35 & -4.16 & 0.008 & 0.140 & 0.183 & 0.076 \\
3726: 5.45 & -4.19 & 0.007 & 0.134 & 0.174 & 0.072 \\
3727: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 1.0}
3728: 5.05 & -3.96 & 0.015 & 0.254 & 0.326 & 0.150 \\
3729: 5.15 & -4.01 & 0.014 & 0.239 & 0.310 & 0.142 \\
3730: 5.25 & -4.04 & 0.013 & 0.227 & 0.297 & 0.135 \\
3731: 5.35 & -4.07 & 0.012 & 0.216 & 0.282 & 0.127 \\
3732: 5.45 & -4.10 & 0.011 & 0.204 & 0.269 & 0.120 \\
3733: \cutinhead{$x_m$ = 3.0}
3734: 5.05 & -3.83 & 0.020 & 0.318 & 0.410 & 0.199 \\
3735: 5.15 & -3.88 & 0.019 & 0.301 & 0.390 & 0.189 \\
3736: 5.25 & -3.92 & 0.030 & 0.321 & 0.389 & 0.187 \\
3737: 5.35 & -3.38 & 0.113 & 0.661 & 0.740 & 0.416 \\
3738: 5.45 & -3.01 & 0.226 & 0.934 & 0.987 & 0.592 \\
3739: \enddata
3740: \label{tab:mod-3p0}
3741: \tablenotetext{a}{The electronic version of this paper contains the
3742: complete version of this Table.}
3743: \end{deluxetable}
3744: \clearpage
3745:
3746: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
3747: \tablecolumns{4}
3748: \tablewidth{0pc}
3749: \tabletypesize{\normalsize}
3750: \tablenum{9}
3751: \tablecaption{Debris disk loci in color-color space}
3752: \tablehead{
3753: \colhead{$M_{\star}$ (\msun)} &
3754: \colhead{~~~~x$_0$,y$_0$~~~~} &
3755: \colhead{~~~~x$_u$,y$_u$~~~~} &
3756: \colhead{~~~~x$_l$,y$_l$~~~~}
3757: }
3758: \startdata
3759: 1.0 & 0.00,0.0 & 4.0,0.1 & 5.00,0.00 \\
3760: 1.5 & 1.50,0.0 & 4.0,1.5 & 4.50,0.25 \\
3761: 2.0 & 1.25,0.0 & 2.5,2.5 & 3.50,0.50 \\
3762: 2.5 & 1.00,0.0 & 2.0,4.0 & 3.00,1.00 \\
3763: 3.0 & 1.00,0.0 & 1.5,5.0 & 2.25,1.75 \\
3764: \enddata
3765: \label{tab:cc-loci}
3766: \end{deluxetable}
3767: \clearpage
3768:
3769: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccc}
3770: \tablecolumns{11}
3771: \tablewidth{0pc}
3772: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3773: \tablenum{10}
3774: \tablecaption{Vega Debris Disk Model\tablenotemark{a}}
3775: \tablehead{
3776: \colhead{Source} &
3777: \colhead{$F_{24,\star}$} &
3778: \colhead{$F_{70,\star}$} &
3779: \colhead{$F_{160,\star}$} &
3780: \colhead{$F_{850,\star}$} &
3781: \colhead{$F_{24,disk}$} &
3782: \colhead{$F_{70,disk}$} &
3783: \colhead{$F_{160,disk}$} &
3784: \colhead{$F_{850,disk}$} &
3785: \colhead{$M_{d,1-50}$} &
3786: \colhead{$\dot{M}$}
3787: }
3788: \startdata
3789: Vega & 7.2 & 0.8 & 0.16 & 0.006 & 1.5 & 7.0 & 4.0 & 0.091 & 3.0 & 30\tablenotemark{b} \\
3790: \\
3791: Model 1\tablenotemark{c} & 7.2 & 0.8 & 0.16 & 0.006 & 4.2 & 10.0 & 3.0 & 0.05 & 0.9 & 0.2 \\
3792: Model 2\tablenotemark{d} & 7.2 & 0.8 & 0.16 & 0.006 & 7.2 & 23.0 & 8.0 & 0.11 & 3.8 & 0.6 \\
3793: Model 3\tablenotemark{e} & 7.2 & 0.8 & 0.16 & 0.006 & 10.9 & 15.0 & 4.0 & 0.05 & 2.4 & 0.3 \\
3794: Model 4\tablenotemark{f} & 7.2 & 0.8 & 0.16 & 0.006 & 15.5 & 23.0 & 5.0 & 0.07 & 4.8 & 0.8 \\
3795: \enddata
3796: \tablenotetext{a}{Fluxes ($F$) are in units of Jy;
3797: dust mass in 1--50 $\mu$m particles ($M_{d,1-50}$)
3798: is in units of $10^{-3}$ \mearth; dust production
3799: rate ($\dot{M}$) is in units of $10^{21}$ g yr$^{-1}$.
3800: }
3801: \tablenotetext{b}{Dust production rate from \citet{su05}. Our analysis
3802: suggests a smaller dust production rate, $\dot{M} \gtrsim 0.3 \times 10^{21}$
3803: g yr$^{-1}$.}
3804: \tablenotetext{c}{Debris disk model with $M_{\star}$ = 2 \msun, $x_m$ = 1/3, $t$ = 200~Myr}
3805: \tablenotetext{d}{As in note (c) for $M_{\star}$ = 2 \msun, $x_m$ = 1, $t$ = 200~Myr}
3806: \tablenotetext{e}{As in note (c) for $M_{\star}$ = 2.5 \msun, $x_m$ = 1/2, $t$ = 200~Myr}
3807: \tablenotetext{f}{As in note (c) for $M_{\star}$ = 2.5 \msun, $x_m$ = 1, $t$ = 200~Myr}
3808: \label{tab:Vega}
3809: \end{deluxetable}
3810: \clearpage
3811:
3812: %\centerline{\bf FIGURE CAPTIONS}
3813: %\vskip 4ex
3814: %
3815: \begin{figure}
3816: \epsscale{1.1}
3817: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
3818: \figcaption[f1.eps]
3819: {
3820: Evolution of a multiannulus coagulation model with
3821: $\Sigma = 0.18 (a_i/{\rm 30~AU})^{-3/2}$~g~cm$^{-2}$
3822: at 30--37~AU around a 1 \msun\ star.
3823: {\it Left}: median cumulative mass distribution at times
3824: indicated in the legend.
3825: {\it Right}: median eccentricity distributions at
3826: $t$ = 0 (light solid line),
3827: $t$ = 10~Myr (filled circles),
3828: $t$ = 100~Myr (open boxes),
3829: $t$ = 1~Gyr (filled triangles), and
3830: $t$ = 10~Gyr (open diamonds).
3831: As large objects grow in the disk, they stir up
3832: the leftover planetesimals to $e \sim$ 0.1.
3833: Disruptive collisions then deplete the population
3834: of 0.1--10~km planetesimals, which limits the growth
3835: of the largest objects.
3836: \label{fig:sd1}
3837: }
3838: \end{figure}
3839: \clearpage
3840:
3841: \begin{figure}
3842: \includegraphics[width=6.5in]{f2.eps}
3843: \figcaption[f2.eps]
3844: {Evolution of the radius of the largest object in each annulus
3845: for a MMSN disk around a 1 $M_{\odot}$ star. The number to the
3846: right of each set of points indicates log $t$ in yr from the
3847: start of the calculation. Large objects with $r \sim$ 1000~km
3848: form at the inner edge of the disk in 10--100~Myr, in the middle
3849: of the disk in 0.3--1~Gyr, and at the edge of the disk in 10~Gyr.
3850: \label{fig:radevol1}}
3851: \end{figure}
3852:
3853: \begin{figure}
3854: \includegraphics[width=6.5in]{f3.eps}
3855: \figcaption[f3.eps]
3856: {Median radii of the largest objects at 1~Gyr for disks around a
3857: 1~$M_{\odot}$ star. The numbers to the right of each set of points
3858: indicate $x_m$, the disk mass in units of the MMSN. Planets form
3859: earlier in the inner portions of the most massive disks. Icy planet
3860: formation saturates at maximum radii $r \sim$ 1500 km.
3861: \label{fig:radevol2}}
3862: \end{figure}
3863:
3864: \clearpage
3865:
3866: \begin{figure}
3867: \epsscale{1.1}
3868: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps}
3869: \figcaption[f4.eps]
3870: {Median cumulative mass distributions at 1 Gyr for annuli at
3871: 30--37~AU (left panel) and at 123--146~AU (right panel) around a
3872: 1 \msun\ star. The legend indicates $x_m$, the initial disk mass in
3873: units of the scaled MMSN. In the inner disk, many large planets
3874: form and the collisional cascade removes nearly all of the
3875: material in objects with $r \lesssim$ 1--10~km. In the outer disk,
3876: few large planets form; collisions are inefficient at removing
3877: material in small objects.
3878: \label{fig:sd2}
3879: }
3880: \end{figure}
3881: \clearpage
3882:
3883: \begin{figure}
3884: \includegraphics[width=6.5in]{f5.eps}
3885: \figcaption[f5.eps]
3886: {Radius of the largest object in each annulus at 10~Myr and at 100~Myr
3887: for a MMSN disk around a 1 $M_{\odot}$ star. The black points indicate
3888: results for calculations with 64 annuli; the magenta and cyan points show
3889: results for calculations with 32 annuli. The good agreement between the
3890: 32 annulus and 64 annulus calculations shows that planet formation is
3891: not sensitive to the size of the grid.
3892: \label{fig:radevol3}}
3893: \end{figure}
3894:
3895: \begin{figure}
3896: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f6.eps}
3897: \figcaption[f6.eps]
3898: {Median production rate of 0.01--1 $\mu$m objects as a function of time
3899: for 30--150~AU disks around a 1 \msun\ central star. The legend indicates
3900: $x_m$, the initial disk mass in units of the scaled MMSN. As large
3901: objects grow during the early stages of the evolution, the dust
3902: production rate declines. Once large objects start to stir up
3903: the leftover planetesimals, debris production rises rapidly. After
3904: dust production peaks, the collision rate and dust production decline
3905: slowly with time. For all stars, more massive disks eject more
3906: material into a wind of small particles.
3907: \label{fig:dust1}}
3908: \end{figure}
3909:
3910: \begin{figure}
3911: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f7.eps}
3912: \figcaption[f7.eps]
3913: {Median mass in 0.001--1~mm objects as a function of time for
3914: 30--150~AU disks around a 1~\msun\ central star. The legend
3915: indicates $x_m$, the initial disk mass in units of the scaled MMSN.
3916: During runaway growth, the median dust mass is small and roughly
3917: constant in time. As planet formation propagates through the disk,
3918: the dust mass grows with time. Once planets form in the outer disk,
3919: collisions and Poynting-Robertson drag removes small grains from
3920: the disk.
3921: \label{fig:dust2}}
3922: \end{figure}
3923:
3924: \begin{figure}
3925: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f8.eps}
3926: \figcaption[f8.eps]
3927: {Time evolution of the radius of the largest object at 40~AU and
3928: at 100~AU for identical disks around 1~\msun\ (dot-dashed curves),
3929: 2~\msun\ (solid curves), and 3~\msun\ (triple dot-dashed curves)
3930: stars. Planets grow faster around more massive stars and in the
3931: inner disks of all stars.
3932: \label{fig:rad}}
3933: \end{figure}
3934:
3935: \clearpage
3936:
3937: \begin{figure}
3938: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f9.eps}
3939: \figcaption[f9.eps]
3940: {Median radius of the largest object at 100~Myr in each annulus for a
3941: scaled MMSN disk ($x_m$ = 1) around 1--3~$M_{\odot}$ stars. The number
3942: to the right of each set of points indicates the stellar mass in
3943: \msun. At all disk radii, large objects form faster around more
3944: massive stars. At 30--60~AU, planet formation saturates at radii
3945: $r \sim$ 1000--2000~km on relatively short timescales, $t \sim$
3946: 100~Myr (see also Eq. (\ref{eq:t1000allm})). At larger disk radii,
3947: planets form more slowly and do not reach the maximum radius unless
3948: the formation time is shorter than the main sequence lifetime.
3949: \label{fig:radevol4}}
3950: \end{figure}
3951:
3952:
3953: \begin{figure}
3954: \epsscale{1.1}
3955: \plottwo{f10a.eps}{f10b.eps}
3956: \figcaption[f10.eps]
3957: {Median cumulative mass distributions at 100~Myr for planet
3958: formation calculations at 30--37~AU around 1--3 \msun\ stars.
3959: {\it Left}: Results for models with
3960: $\Sigma = 0.18 ~ (a_i/{\rm 30~AU})^{-3/2}$ g cm$^{-2}$.
3961: The light solid line indicates the initial mass distribution.
3962: The dashed (1 \msun, $x_m$ = 1), dot-dashed (2 \msun, $x_m$ = 1/2),
3963: and heavy solid (3 \msun, $x_m$ = 1/3) lines show median
3964: results for the same initial conditions.
3965: {\it Right}: Results for models with a scaled surface density ($x_m$ = 1),
3966: $\Sigma = 0.18 ~ (a_i/{\rm 30~AU})^{-3/2}$ $(M_{\star} / M_{\odot})$ g cm$^{-2}$,
3967: and different stellar masses (1 \msun: dashed line, 2 \msun: dot-dashed
3968: line, and 3 \msun: heavy solid line).
3969: Although more massive planets form around more massive stars,
3970: the collisional cascade leads to a small dispersion in total
3971: disk mass at late times.
3972: \label{fig:sd3}}
3973: \end{figure}
3974:
3975: \clearpage
3976: \begin{figure}
3977: \epsscale{1.1}
3978: \plottwo{f11a.eps}{f11b.eps}
3979: \figcaption[f11.eps]
3980: {Median cumulative mass distributions at $t = t_{ms}$ for annuli
3981: at 30--37~AU (left panel) and at 123--146~AU (right panel) for identical
3982: disks ($\Sigma = 0.18 ~ (a_i/{\rm 30~AU})^{-3/2}$ g cm$^{-2}$)
3983: around 1--3 \msun\ stars. The legend indicates the stellar mass
3984: in \msun. In the inner disk, many large planets form and the
3985: collisional cascade removes a large fraction of the material in
3986: objects with $r \lesssim$ 1--10~km. In the outer disk, few large
3987: planets form; collisions are inefficient at removing material in
3988: small objects.
3989: \label{fig:sd4}}
3990: \end{figure}
3991: \clearpage
3992:
3993: \begin{figure}
3994: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f12.eps}
3995: \figcaption[f12.eps]
3996: {Median production rate of 0.01--1 $\mu$m objects at 30--150~AU
3997: as a function of time for scaled MMSN ($x_m$ = 1) around 1--3
3998: \msun\ central stars. The legend indicates the stellar mass
3999: in \msun. For scaled MMSN, disks around more massive stars
4000: eject much more material in very small grains at early times
4001: ($t \lesssim$ 10--100~Myr). In an ensemble of stars with a variety
4002: of disk masses, there is wide range of dust production rates.
4003: \label{fig:dust3}}
4004: \end{figure}
4005:
4006: \begin{figure}
4007: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f13.eps}
4008: \figcaption[f13.eps]
4009: {Median mass in 0.001--1 mm objects as a function of time for scaled
4010: MMSN ($x_m$ = 1) at 30--150~AU around 1--3 \msun\ central stars. The
4011: legend indicates the stellar mass in \msun.
4012: For $t \lesssim$ 1--3~Myr, icy planet formation produces little dust.
4013: At 10--100~Myr, the mass in small grains is $\sim$ 1 lunar mass for
4014: most disks. At late times, the mass in small grains slowly declines
4015: to currently undetectable levels.
4016: \label{fig:dust4}}
4017: \end{figure}
4018: \clearpage
4019:
4020: \begin{figure}
4021: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f14.eps}
4022: \figcaption[f14.eps]
4023: {Time evolution of the median $L_d/L_{\star}$ (dust luminosity
4024: relative to the luminosity of the central star) for disks
4025: surrounding a 1 $M_{\odot}$ star. The legend indicates
4026: the disk mass in units of the MMSN. More massive disks reach
4027: larger peak dust luminosities earlier than less massive disks.
4028: The typical peak dust luminosity is comparable to the dust
4029: luminosity of the most luminous debris disks associated with
4030: solar-type stars.
4031: \label{fig:ldust-1}}
4032: \end{figure}
4033:
4034: \begin{figure}
4035: \epsscale{1.1}
4036: \plottwo{f15a.eps}{f15b.eps}
4037: \figcaption[f15.eps]
4038: {As in Fig. \ref{fig:ldust-1} for the median 70 $\mu$m excess
4039: (left panel) and the median 850~$\mu$m excess (right panel).
4040: At both wavelengths, dust emission begins to increase at 5--10~Myr.
4041: Peak dust emission occurs at 30--100~Myr (70~$\mu$m) and
4042: 100--300~Myr (850~$\mu$m). When the central star evolves off the
4043: main sequence, the typical excess at 70~$\mu$m (850~$\mu$m) is
4044: $\sim$ 2--3 (3--10) times the flux from the central star.
4045: \label{fig:f70x850-1}}
4046: \end{figure}
4047: \clearpage
4048:
4049: \begin{figure}
4050: \epsscale{1.1}
4051: \plottwo{f16a.eps}{f16b.eps}
4052: \figcaption[f16.eps]
4053: {Variation of dust excess with disk size.
4054: {\it Left panel:} time evolution of the median 70 $\mu$m excess for
4055: MMSN disks with outer radii of 70~AU (dashed line) and 150~AU (solid line).
4056: At late times, smaller disks produce smaller IR excesses.
4057: {it Right panel:} as in the left panel for the median 850 $\mu$m excess.
4058: \label{fig:f70x850-2}}
4059: \end{figure}
4060: \clearpage
4061:
4062: \begin{figure}
4063: \epsscale{1.1}
4064: \plottwo{f17a.eps}{f17b.eps}
4065: \figcaption[f17.eps]
4066: {Time evolution of the median $L_d/L_{\star}$ for MMSN disks surrounding
4067: 2 $M_{\odot}$ stars (left panel) and 3 $M_{\odot}$ stars (right panel).
4068: The legend indicates the initial disk mass in units of the scaled MMSN.
4069: The typical maximum dust luminosity, $L_d/L_{\star} \sim 10^{-3}$ is
4070: comparable to the dust luminosity of the brightest debris
4071: disks around A-type stars.
4072: \label{fig:ldust-2}}
4073: \end{figure}
4074:
4075: \begin{figure}
4076: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f18.eps}
4077: \figcaption[f18.eps]
4078: {Time evolution of median IR excesses for MMSN disks around
4079: 1--3~$M_{\odot}$ stars. The legend in the lower left panel
4080: indicates the stellar mass in solar masses for each curve in
4081: all panels.
4082: {\it Lower left panel:} 24~$\mu$m excess.
4083: {\it Upper left panel:} 70~$\mu$m excess.
4084: {\it Upper right panel:} 160~$\mu$m excess.
4085: {\it Lower right panel:} 850~$\mu$m excess.
4086: At 24~$\mu$m, the peak excess increases dramatically with the
4087: temperature of the central star. Thus, hotter stars produce
4088: much larger 24 $\mu$m excesses. At longer wavelengths, the
4089: magnitude of the excess is correlated with the mass of the
4090: central star. Roughly independent of stellar mass, the magnitude
4091: of the excess at 24--850~$\mu$m peaks at 10--30~Myr as observed
4092: in debris disks around A-type stars \citep{cur08a}. At late times,
4093: the 160--850~$\mu$m excesses for all stars are $\sim$ 3--5 times
4094: the flux from the stellar photosphere.
4095: \label{fig:f24-850}}
4096: \end{figure}
4097:
4098: \begin{figure}
4099: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f19.eps}
4100: \figcaption[f19.eps]
4101: {Time evolution of the median [24]--[70] color as a function
4102: of time for 1.5 \msun\ (dashed line), 2.0 \msun\ (solid line),
4103: and 3.0 (triple dot-dashed line) \msun\ stars.
4104: Debris disks around lower mass stars have redder [24]--[70]
4105: colors than disks around more massive stars.
4106: For massive stars ($\gtrsim$ 2 \msun),
4107: the [24]--[70] color increases slowly throughout the
4108: main sequence lifetime and then declines just before
4109: central star evolves off the main sequence.
4110: For lower mass stars, the [24]--[70] color reaches a
4111: broad maximum at 300~Myr to 1 Gyr and then declines.
4112: \label{fig:color1}}
4113: \end{figure}
4114:
4115: \begin{figure}
4116: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f20.eps}
4117: \figcaption[f20.eps]
4118: {Evolution of debris disks with $x_m$ = 1 in color-color space.
4119: For icy planet formation at 30--150~AU, debris disks around massive
4120: stars are hotter than debris disks around less massive stars. Thus,
4121: debris disks around stars of different masses occupy specific regions
4122: of the [8]--[24] {\it vs} [24]--[70] color-color diagram.
4123: \label{fig:cc-1}}
4124: \end{figure}
4125:
4126: \begin{figure}
4127: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f21.eps}
4128: \figcaption[f21.eps]
4129: {As in Fig. \ref{fig:cc-1} for disks with different initial masses
4130: around 2 \msun\ stars. Boxes: $x_m$ = 1/3, filled circles: $x_m$ = 1,
4131: diamonds: $x_m$ = 3. Although more massive disks have redder
4132: [8]--[24] and [24]--[70], the shape of the color-color track is
4133: independent of mass. Thus, the color-color diagram isolates stars
4134: of different masses.
4135: \label{fig:cc-2}}
4136: \end{figure}
4137:
4138: \begin{figure}
4139: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f22.eps}
4140: \figcaption[f22.eps]
4141: {Observations of the 24~$\mu$m excess for nearby A-type stars
4142: with known ages \citep{rie05,su06}.
4143: The lines show the predicted evolution of the excess for
4144: debris disk models around 2 \msun\ stars
4145: (dot-dashed line: $x_m$ = 1/3; solid line: $x_m$ = 1,
4146: triple dot-dashed line: $x_m$ = 3).
4147: Observations for all but four stars (including one 8 Myr old
4148: star with log $F_{24}/F_{24,0} \approx$ 2) fall within loci
4149: defined by our debris disk calculations. Model predictions
4150: are also consistent with observational evidence for a peak in
4151: the 24~$\mu$m excess at 10--20~Myr \citep[see also][]{cur08a}.
4152: \label{fig:su1}}
4153: \end{figure}
4154:
4155: \begin{figure}
4156: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f23.eps}
4157: \figcaption[f23.eps]
4158: {As in Fig. \ref{fig:su1} for the 70 $\mu$m excess.
4159: Observations for all but 2--3 stars fall within the
4160: loci defined by the model tracks.
4161: Consistent with model predictions, the data suggest
4162: a peak in the 70~$\mu$m excess at 10--20~Myr.
4163: \label{fig:su2}}
4164: \end{figure}
4165:
4166: \begin{figure}
4167: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f24.eps}
4168: \figcaption[f24.eps]
4169: {Observations of the [24] - [70] color for nearby A-type
4170: stars with known ages \citep{su06}.
4171: The lines show the predicted evolution of the excess for
4172: debris disk models around 1.5 \msun\ stars
4173: (triple dot-dashed line: $x_m$ = 2) and for
4174: 2 \msun\ stars
4175: (dot-dashed line: $x_m$ = 1/3; solid line: $x_m$ = 1).
4176: Observations for all but 2--3 stars fall within the
4177: model predictions.
4178: \label{fig:su3}}
4179: \end{figure}
4180:
4181: \begin{figure}
4182: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f25.eps}
4183: \figcaption[f25.eps]
4184: {Observations of the 70 $\mu$m excess for nearby solar-type
4185: stars with known ages \citep{bei06,hil08}.
4186: The lines show the predicted evolution of the excess for
4187: debris disk models around 1 \msun\ stars
4188: (dot-dashed line: $x_m$ = 1/3; solid line: $x_m$ = 1,
4189: triple dot-dashed line: $x_m$ = 3).
4190: Most stars fall within the loci defined by the calculations,
4191: but many stars are 3--10 times brighter than model predictions.
4192: \label{fig:g1}}
4193: \end{figure}
4194:
4195: \begin{figure}
4196: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{f26.eps}
4197: \figcaption[f26.eps]
4198: {As in Fig. \ref{fig:g1} for the 160~$\mu$m excess.
4199: \label{fig:g2}}
4200: \end{figure}
4201:
4202: \end{document}
4203: