1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \shorttitle{planet formation in turbulent disks}
4:
5: \shortauthors{Ida et al.}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{Accretion and destruction of planetesimals in turbulent disks}
10:
11: \author{Shigeru Ida}
12: \affil{Tokyo Institute of Technology,
13: Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan}
14: \email{ida@geo.titech.ac.jp}
15:
16: \and
17:
18: \author{Tristan Guillot, Alessandro Morbidelli}
19: \affil{Observatoire de la C\^{o}te d'Azur,
20: CNRS UMR 6202, BP 4229, 06304 Nice Cedex 4, France}
21: \email{guillot@oca.eu, morby@oca.eu}
22:
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: We study the conditions for collisions between planetesimals to be
26: accretional or disruptive in turbulent disks, through analytical
27: arguments based on fluid dynamical simulations and orbital
28: integrations. In turbulent disks, the velocity dispersion of
29: planetesimals is pumped up by random gravitational perturbations from
30: density fluctuations of the disk gas. When the velocity dispersion is
31: larger than the planetesimals' surface escape velocity, collisions
32: between planetesimals do not result in accretion, and may even lead to
33: their destruction. In disks with a surface density equal to that of
34: the ``minimum mass solar nebula'' and with nominal MRI turbulence, we
35: find that accretion proceeds only for planetesimals with sizes above
36: $\sim 300$\,km at 1AU and $\sim 1000$\,km at 5AU. We find that
37: accretion is facilitated in disks with smaller masses. However, at
38: 5AU and for nominal turbulence strength,
39: km-sized planetesimals are in a highly erosive regime
40: even for a disk mass as small as a
41: fraction of the mass of Jupiter. The existence of
42: giant planets implies that either turbulence
43: was weaker than calculated by standard MRI models
44: or some mechanism was capable of producing Ceres-mass planetesimals
45: in very short timescales.
46: In any case, our results show that in the presence of
47: turbulence planetesimal accretion is most difficult in massive
48: disks and at large orbital distances.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \keywords{solar system: formation --- planets and satellites: formation
52: --- accretion, accretion disks --- turbulence}
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55:
56: It is often considered that the evolution of protoplanetary disks and
57: the consequent accretion of gas by the central protostar are driven by
58: turbulent viscosity due to a Magneto-Rotational-Instability (MRI)
59: \citep[e.g.,][]{bal91}. \citet{lau04} and \citet{nel04} carried out
60: fluid dynamical simulations of MRI and found that the random torques
61: due to the turbulent density fluctuations give rise to a random walk
62: in semimajor axes of planetesimals. \citet{ric03} pointed out through
63: model calculations that the random walk expands the effective feeding
64: zone of protoplanets, and may lead to rapid formation of large cores
65: for gas giants. Through a Fokker-Planck treatment, \citet{johnson06}
66: also pointed out the importance of the random walk in planet accretion.
67: Adopting the semi-analytical formula for the random torque
68: derived by \citet{lau04}, \citet{ogi07} performed
69: N-body simulations for the late stages of terrestrial planet
70: accretion with a disk significantly depleted in gas, starting from
71: Mars-mass protoplanets.
72: They found that the MRI
73: turbulence indeed helps to reduce the number of
74: accreted terrestrial planets which is otherwise too large compared to
75: our Solar System.
76:
77: However, \citet{nel05} found through direct integrations of
78: the orbits of protoplanets in a MRI turbulent disk that orbital
79: eccentricities are also excited.
80: \citet{britsch08} also found a similar feature
81: in a self-gravitating disk.
82: While the random walk itself is favorable to
83: the growth of protoplanets by avoiding isolation, the
84: excitation of their eccentricities, which had been neglected in
85: \citet{ric03} and \citet{johnson06},
86: is a threat for planetesimal accretion processes
87: because of increased collision velocity.
88: Unfortunately, \citet{nel05}'s orbital integrations were
89: limited to 100--150 Keplerian times
90: and neglected collision processes, so that it is not possible to
91: conclude from that work whether planetesimals should grow or be eroded
92: in the presence of turbulence.
93:
94: In the present article, we explore by which paths planetesimals may
95: have grown to planet-sized bodies in turbulent disks.
96: Because the level of density fluctuations due to the MRI turbulence is
97: not well determined, we choose to study the qualitative effects
98: of the turbulence on the accretion of planetesimals and
99: their dependence on the key parameters of the problem, in particular
100: the progressive removal of the gas disk.
101: In \S 2, we summarize the conditions for the accretion and destruction
102: of planetesimals in terms of their orbital eccentricities.
103: In \S 3, we analytically derive the equilibrium eccentricity
104: for which the excitation due to turbulence is balanced
105: by damping due to tidal interactions with the disk gas,
106: aerodynamic gas drag, and collisions.
107: Comparing the equilibrium eccentricities with critical
108: eccentricities for accretion and destruction,
109: we derive critical physical radii and masses of
110: planetesimals for accretion or destruction.
111: The results are applied to viscously evolving disks (\S 4).
112: We then discuss possible solutions for the problem of the formation of
113: planetesimals and planets (\S 5).
114:
115:
116: \section{Accretion and destruction conditions}
117:
118: We summarize the accretion and destruction conditions below. From
119: energy conservation, the collision velocity ($v_{\rm coll}$) between
120: two planetesimals (labeled 1 and 2) satisfies
121: \begin{equation}
122: E = \frac{1}{2}v_{\rm coll}^2 - \frac{G(M_1 + M_2)}{R_1 + R_2}
123: = \frac{1}{2}v_{\rm rel}^2,
124: \end{equation}
125: where $M_j$ and $R_j$ are the mass and physical radius of a
126: planetesimal $j$ ($j=1,2$), and $v_{\rm rel}$ is their relative
127: velocity when they are apart from each other. When the velocity
128: dispersion of planetesimals $v_{\rm disp}$ is larger than the Hill
129: velocity that is given by $(M/3M_{\ast})^{1/3} v_{\rm K}$, where
130: $M_{\ast}$ is the mass of the host star and $v_{\rm K}$ is
131: the Keplerian velocity, $v_{\rm rel}$ is
132: approximated by $v_{\rm disp}$ \citep[e.g.,][]{IN89,I90}. The total
133: energy then becomes:
134: \begin{equation}
135: 2E = v_{\rm coll}^2 - v_{\rm esc}^2 \simeq v_{\rm disp}^2,
136: \end{equation}
137: where $v_{\rm esc}$ is the (two-body) surface escape velocity
138: defined by
139: \begin{equation}
140: v_{\rm esc} = \sqrt{ \frac{2G(M_1 + M_2)}{R_1 + R_2} }.
141: \end{equation}
142:
143: Collisional dissipation decreases the energy by some fraction of
144: $v_{\rm coll}^2/2$.
145: If $v_{\rm disp} \ll v_{\rm esc}$, the
146: collisional dissipation results in $E < 0$ after collision.
147: On the other hand, $E$ is likely to be still positive
148: after a collision with $v_{\rm disp} \gg v_{\rm esc}$.
149: Thus, for moderate dissipation,
150: the condition for an accretional collision is
151: $v_{\rm disp} < v_{\rm esc}$ \citep[e.g.,][]{ohtsuki93}.
152: Since the orbital eccentricity $e \simeq v_{\rm disp}/v_{\rm K}$,
153: a collision should result in accretion for
154: $e < e_{\rm acc}$, where
155: \begin{equation}
156: \begin{array}{lll}
157: e_{\rm acc} & \simeq \frac{v_{\rm esc}}{v_{\rm K}}
158: & \simeq 0.28 \left(\frac{M}{M_{\oplus}}\right)^{1/3}
159: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{1/6}
160: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{1/2} \\
161: & &
162: \simeq 0.036
163: \left(\frac{R}{10^3{\rm km}}\right)
164: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{1/2}
165: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{1/2}.
166: \end{array}
167: \label{eq:e_acc}
168: \end{equation}
169: In the above relation, $\rho_{\rm p}$ is the bulk density of
170: the planetesimals and
171: $M \sim M_j$ (for simplicity, $M_1 \sim M_2$ is assumed).
172: The physical radius $R$ is given by
173: \begin{equation}
174: R=7.8 \times 10^8 (M/M_{\oplus})^{1/3} (\rho_{\rm p}/3{\rm gcm}^{-3})^{-1/3}
175: {\rm cm}.
176: \end{equation}
177:
178: A collision results in destruction if the collision velocity
179: is such that the
180: specific kinetic energy of a collision ($v_{\rm col}^2/2$) exceeds
181: \begin{equation}
182: Q_{\rm D} \simeq
183: \left[ Q_0
184: \left(\frac{R}{1{\rm cm}}\right)^{a} +
185: 3 B \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)
186: \left(\frac{R}{1{\rm cm}}\right)^{b} \right] {\rm erg/g},
187: \label{eq:Q_D}
188: \end{equation}
189: where $Q_0$ is the material strength,
190: $B \simeq 0.3$--2.1, $a \simeq -0.4$, and $b \simeq 1.3$
191: \citep{Benz_Asphaug99}.
192: For basalt rocks or water ice,
193: $Q_0 \simeq 10^7$--$10^8$ \citep{Benz_Asphaug99}, but it can take
194: a significantly smaller value for loose aggregates.
195: \footnote{For porous materials, $Q_0$ is rather higher (W. Benz,
196: private communication).}
197:
198: We adopt $Q_0 = 3 \times 10^7$ as a nominal value.
199: Self-gravity (the second term in the r.h.s.) dominates the material
200: strength when $R \ga 100$ m.
201: In this regime, adopting $B \sim 1$,
202: a collision results in destruction for
203: $e > e_{\rm dis}$, where
204: \begin{equation}
205: \begin{array}{ll}
206: e_{\rm dis} \simeq \frac{\sqrt{2 Q_{\rm D}}}{v_{\rm K}}
207: & \simeq 0.50 \left(\frac{M}{M_{\oplus}}\right)^{0.22}
208: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{0.28}
209: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{1/2} \\
210: & \simeq 0.13 \left(\frac{R}{10^3{\rm km}}\right)^{0.65}
211: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{0.5}
212: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{1/2}.
213: \end{array}
214: \label{eq:e_D}
215: \end{equation}
216:
217: \section{Equilibrium eccentricities}
218:
219: We first derive the equilibrium eccentricities of
220: planetesimals at which the excitation by the MRI turbulence is
221: balanced by damping due to drag and/or collisions.
222: Comparing the
223: estimated eccentricities with $e_{\rm acc}$ and $e_{\rm dis}$,
224: we then evaluate the outcome of
225: collisions between planetesimals as a function of planetesimal size,
226: turbulent strength, and surface density of disk gas.
227:
228: For an easy interpretation, we provide in this section analytical
229: relations based on a model in which the gas and
230: solid components of disk surface density are scaled with the
231: multiplicative factors $f_g$ and $f_d$:
232: \begin{equation}
233: \Sigma_{g} = 2400 f_g \left(\frac{r}{1\mathrm{AU}}\right)^{-3/2} \,\mathrm{g\, cm}^{-2},
234: \label{eq:Sigma_g}
235: \end{equation}
236: and
237: \begin{equation}
238: \Sigma_{d} = 10 f_d \eta_{\rm ice} \left(\frac{r}{1\mathrm{AU}}\right)^{-3/2} \,\mathrm{g\, cm}^{-2},
239: \label{eq:Sigma_d}
240: \end{equation}
241: where $\eta_{\rm ice} \simeq 3$--4
242: is an enhancement factor of $\Sigma_d$ due to ice condensation.
243: If $f_g=f_d=1$, $\Sigma_{g}$ and $\Sigma_d$ are
244: 1.4 times those of the minimum mass solar nebula model \citep{hayashi81}.
245:
246: In this section, we also use the disk temperature distribution
247: obtained in the optically thin limit \citep{hayashi81},
248: \begin{equation}
249: T \simeq 280
250: \left(\frac{r}{1\, {\rm AU}}\right)^{-1/2}
251: \left(\frac{L_*}{L_{\odot}} \right)^{1/4}
252: \; {\rm K},
253: \label{eq:T_opt_thin_disk}
254: \end{equation}
255: where $L_*$ and $L_{\odot}$ are the stellar and solar luminosities,
256: respectively. The corresponding sound velocity is
257: \begin{equation}
258: c_s = 1.1 \times 10^5 \left( \frac{r}{1\,{\rm AU}} \right)^{-1/4}
259: \left(\frac{L_*}{L_{\odot}} \right)^{1/8}
260: \; {\rm cm/s}.
261: \label{eq:sound_velocity_hayashi}
262: \end{equation}
263: Since the disk scale height is given by $h = \sqrt{2}c_s/\Omega_{\rm K}$
264: (assuming that $T$ is vertically uniform in the disk),
265: eqs.~(\ref{eq:Sigma_g}) and (\ref{eq:sound_velocity_hayashi})
266: yield the disk gas density at the midplane as
267: \begin{equation}
268: \rho_g = \frac{\Sigma_g}{\sqrt{\pi}h}
269: = 2 \times 10^{-9} f_g
270: \left( \frac{r}{1\, {\rm AU}} \right)^{-11/4}
271: \; {\rm gcm}^{-3}.
272: \label{eq:rho_midplane}
273: \end{equation}
274:
275:
276: \subsection{Excitation}
277:
278: The orbital eccentricities of planetesimals are pumped up both by the
279: random gravitational perturbations from density fluctuations of disk
280: gas, as well as by mutual gravitational scattering among
281: planetesimals. Assuming planetesimals have equal masses, their
282: orbital eccentricities should be excited to at most $\sim e_{\rm acc}$
283: by the mutual scattering \citep[e.g.,][]{Safronov69}.
284: As will be shown below, the value of
285: this excentricity is smaller than that due to the turbulent
286: excitation, except for very large planetesimals ($\sim 10^3$\,km or
287: larger), and/or in the case of significantly depleted gas disks.
288: For simplicity, in this work we choose to neglect the possibility that mutual
289: scattering dominates over turbulent excitation. It is therefore important to
290: note that our results may be slightly optimistic when concerning the
291: possibility of accretion of massive planetesimals.
292:
293: The orbital eccentricities that result from the turbulent density
294: fluctuations in the disk are provided by \citet{ogi07} on the basis of
295: orbital integrations with empirical formula by \citet{lau04}, as
296: \begin{equation}
297: e \sim 0.1 \gamma
298: \left(\frac{\Sigma_g}{\Sigma_{g,1}}\right)
299: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{2}
300: \left(\frac{t}{T_{\rm K}}\right)^{1/2}
301: =
302: 0.1 f_g \gamma
303: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{-1/4}
304: \left(\frac{t}{1{\rm year}}\right)^{1/2},
305: \label{eq:e_random}
306: \end{equation}
307: where $\Sigma_{g,1}$ is $\Sigma_{g}$ at 1AU with $f_g = 1$
308: (eq.~[\ref{eq:Sigma_g}]) and
309: $\gamma$ is a non-dimensional parameter to express
310: the disk turbulence.
311: \footnote{Although \citet{ogi07} suggested that eq.~(\ref{eq:e_random})
312: may be enhanced by a factor 10 by the inclusion of $m=1$ modes, the $m=1$
313: modes actually enhance only the amplitude of random walk in
314: semimajor axis ($\Delta a$) but not the eccentricity.
315: Since higher $m$ modes fluctuate over shorter timescales,
316: they tend to cancel out on the orbital period of a planetesimal.
317: For these modes, $\Delta a/a$, which is due to time variation
318: of the potential, is much smaller than $\Delta e$, because the
319: latter is also excited by the non-axisymmetric structure.
320: The inclusion of slowly varying $m=1$ modes enhances
321: $\Delta a/a$ up to the order of $\sim e$.
322: On the other hand, the definition of $\Gamma$ in eqs.~(5) and
323: (34) of \citet{ogi07} should be multiplied by $\pi$. We use
324: eq.~(\ref{eq:e_random}) for the eccentricity excitation, which is
325: consistent with an orbital calculation including $m=1$ modes
326: (figure~\ref{fig:e_evol}).}
327: Although \citet{ogi07} showed the results only at $\sim 1$AU,
328: we here added a dependence on $r$ using scaling arguments
329: (see the Appendix).
330: Orbital integration for other $r$ show a consistent dependence.
331: Note that $\Delta a/a \sim e$, where
332: $\Delta a$ is the amplitude of random walk in semimajor axis. Since
333: $e \ll 1$, the radial distance $r$ and semimajor axis $a$ are
334: identified here.
335:
336: From the simulation results by \citet{lau04}, the value of $\gamma$ may
337: be $\sim (1/3) (\delta \rho/\rho) \sim 10^{-3}$--$10^{-2}$ for MRI
338: turbulence.
339: In this paper, we use $\gamma = 10^{-3}$ as a fiducial value.
340: Interestingly, with a quite
341: different approach, \citet{johnson06} derived a similar formula
342: for $\Delta a/a$ with the same dependences on $r$, $\Sigma_g$ and $t$.
343: If $e \simeq \Delta a/a$, their formula is consistent with ours.
344: They suggested that $\gamma \sim \alpha$
345: or $\alpha^{1/2} h/a$ where $h$ is disk scale height
346: and $\alpha$ is the parameter for the alpha prescription
347: for turbulent viscosity \citep{alpha}.
348: For $\alpha = 10^{-3}$--$10^{-2}$,
349: their estimate is also similar to our fiducial value.
350:
351: The top panels in fig.~\ref{fig:e_evol}
352: show the results of an orbital integration
353: with 4-th order Hermite scheme for
354: the evolution of $e$ and $\Delta a/a$
355: with turbulent perturbations but without any damping.
356: Five independent runs with different random number seeds
357: for the generation of turbulent density fluctuations
358: \citep{ogi07} are plotted in each panel.
359: The initial $e$ and $i$ are $10^{-6}$.
360: For $f_g = 1$, $\gamma = 0.01$, and $r=1$AU, as used
361: in fig.~\ref{fig:e_evol},
362: eq.~(\ref{eq:e_random}) is reduced to
363: $e \sim 10^{-3}(t/1{\rm year})^{1/2}$.
364: To highlight the effect of turbulence, we used
365: a larger value of $\gamma$ than the fiducial value.
366: The evolution of the root mean squares of the five runs
367: in fig.~\ref{fig:e_evol} agrees with eq.~(\ref{eq:e_random})
368: within a factor of $\sim 2$.
369: From eq.~(\ref{eq:e_random}), the excitation timescale is
370: \begin{equation}
371: \tau_{\rm exc} = \frac{e}{de/dt}
372: \simeq 2 \times 10^{2}
373: \gamma^{-2} e^2
374: \left(\frac{\Sigma_g}{\Sigma_{g,1}}\right)^{-2}
375: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{-4} T_{\rm K}
376: = 2 \times 10^{2} f_g^{-2} \gamma^{-2} e^2
377: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{1/2} \; {\rm years}.
378: \label{eq:t_exc}
379: \end{equation}
380:
381:
382:
383: \subsection{Damping}
384:
385: The eccentricity damping processes are
386: i) tidal interaction with disk gas, ii) aerodynamical gas drag,
387: and iii) inelastic collisions.
388: The tidal damping timescale (i) is derived by \citet{tan04} as
389: \begin{equation}
390: \tau_{\rm tidal} \simeq
391: 1.3
392: \left(\frac{M}{M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}
393: \left(\frac{\Sigma_{g} r^2}{M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}
394: \left(\frac{c_s}{v_{\rm K}}\right)^{4}
395: \Omega_{\rm K}^{-1}
396: \simeq
397: 3 \times 10^{2} f_g^{-1}
398: \left(\frac{M}{M_{\oplus}}\right)^{-1}
399: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^2 \; {\rm years}.
400: \label{eq:t_tidal}
401: \end{equation}
402: The gas drag damping timescale (ii) is derived by \citet{Adachi76} as
403: \begin{equation}
404: \tau_{\rm drag} \simeq
405: \frac{M v_{\rm disp}}{\pi R^2 \rho_g v_{\rm disp}^2}
406: \simeq
407: 2 \times 10^{4} f_g^{-1} e^{-1}
408: \left(\frac{M}{M_{\oplus}}\right)^{1/3}
409: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{2/3}
410: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{13/4} \; {\rm years}.
411: \label{eq:t_drag}
412: \end{equation}
413:
414: For simplicity, we evaluate the damping timescale due to inelastic
415: collision as the mean collision time of planetesimals, assuming that
416: all the planetesimals have the same mass $M$. Since in the size
417: distribution caused by collision cascade, collisions with
418: comparable-sized bodies and those with smaller ones
419: contribute similarly, the neglection of the size
420: distribution may not be too problematic.
421: Since we look for the conditions in
422: which collisions are non-accretional, we consider the case with
423: $v_{\rm disp} > v_{\rm esc}$. Assuming that the gravitational
424: focusing factor $[1 + (v_{\rm esc}/v_{\rm disp})^2] \sim 1$, the
425: collision damping timescale is
426: \begin{equation}
427: \tau_{\rm coll} \simeq
428: \frac{1}{n \pi R^2 v_{\rm disp}}
429: \simeq
430: 2 \times 10^{7} f_d^{-1} \eta_{\rm ice}^{-1}
431: \left(\frac{M}{M_{\oplus}}\right)^{1/3}
432: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{2/3}
433: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{3} {\rm years},
434: \label{eq:t_coll}
435: \end{equation}
436: where $n$ is the spatial number density of planetesimals.
437: Note that $n \sim (\Sigma_d/M)/(v_{\rm disp}/ \Omega_{\rm K})$.
438:
439:
440: \subsection{Equilibrium eccentricity}
441:
442: We now equate eq.~(\ref{eq:t_exc}) with
443: eqs.~(\ref{eq:t_tidal}), (\ref{eq:t_drag}), and (\ref{eq:t_coll}),
444: respectively,
445: to obtain an equilibrium eccentricity for each damping process.
446: For simplicity and to a good approximation, the actual equilibrium
447: eccentricity can be approximated as the minimum of the three
448: equilibrium eccentricities.
449: From eqs.~(\ref{eq:t_exc}) and (\ref{eq:t_tidal}),
450: \begin{equation}
451: \begin{array}{ll}
452: e_{\rm tidal} & \simeq
453: 1.2 f_g^{1/2} \gamma
454: \left(\frac{M}{M_{\oplus}}\right)^{-1/2}
455: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{3/4} \\
456: & \simeq
457: 24 f_g^{1/2} \gamma
458: \left(\frac{R}{10^3{\rm km}}\right)^{-3/2}
459: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{-1/2}
460: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{3/4}.
461: \end{array}
462: \label{eq:e_tidal}
463: \end{equation}
464: With eq.~(\ref{eq:t_drag}),
465: \begin{equation}
466: \begin{array}{ll}
467: e_{\rm drag} & \simeq
468: 4.6 f_g^{1/3} \gamma^{2/3}
469: \left(\frac{M}{M_{\oplus}}\right)^{1/9}
470: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{2/9}
471: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{11/12} \\
472: & \simeq
473: 0.23 f_g^{1/3} \gamma^{2/3}
474: \left(\frac{R}{1{\rm km}}\right)^{1/3}
475: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{1/3}
476: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{11/12}.
477: \end{array}
478: \label{eq:e_drag}
479: \end{equation}
480: For $f_g = 1$, $\gamma = 0.01$, and $r=1$AU,
481: eq.~(\ref{eq:e_drag}) predicts that
482: $e_{\rm drag} \simeq 0.045$ for $M/M_{\oplus}=10^{-6}$
483: and $e_{\rm drag} \simeq 0.01$ for $M/M_{\oplus}=10^{-12}$.
484: An orbital integration in the middle and bottom panels in
485: fig.~\ref{fig:e_evol} shows that the results agree with the
486: analytical estimate within a factor $\sim 1.5$.
487: With eq.~(\ref{eq:t_coll}),
488: \begin{equation}
489: \begin{array}{ll}
490: e_{\rm coll} & \simeq
491: 3.2 \times 10^2 f_g (f_d \eta_{\rm ice})^{-1/2} \gamma
492: \left(\frac{M}{M_{\oplus}}\right)^{1/6}
493: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{1/3}
494: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{5/4} \\
495: & \simeq
496: 3.6 f_g (f_d \eta_{\rm ice})^{-1/2} \gamma
497: \left(\frac{R}{1{\rm km}}\right)^{1/2}
498: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{5/6}
499: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{5/4}.
500: \end{array}
501: \label{eq:e_coll}
502: \end{equation}
503:
504: In figure \ref{fig:e_eq}, the equilibrium eccentricity, $e_{\rm eq} =
505: {\rm min}(e_{\rm tidal}, e_{\rm drag}, e_{\rm coll})$, is plotted
506: with solid lines as a function of the planetesimal radius $R$,
507: the corresponding planetesimal mass being $M = 2.1 \times 10^{-3}
508: (R/10^3{\rm km})^3 (\rho_{\rm p}/3 {\rm gcm}^{-3}) M_{\oplus}$,
509: Note again that the effect of mutual planetesimal
510: scattering is neglected. For bodies with more than Lunar to Mars
511: masses, tidal damping is dominant. This yields a
512: decrease in the equilibrium eccentricity with
513: increasing planetesimal radius for $R \ga 100$km.
514: For smaller mass bodies, gas drag damping dominates tidal damping
515: and the equilibrium eccentricity increases with increasing $R$.
516: For the smallest planetesimal sizes (the regions with the slightly steeper
517: positive gradient), collision damping is dominant, but with a
518: significant contribution of gas drag damping.
519:
520: The limiting mass and radius at which $e_{\rm drag}$
521: (eq.~[\ref{eq:e_drag}]) and $e_{\rm acc}$ (eq.~[\ref{eq:e_acc}]) cross
522: are
523: \begin{equation}
524: \begin{array}{l}
525: M_{\rm acc} \simeq
526: 3.0 \times 10^{-4} f_g^{3/2}
527: \left(\frac{\gamma}{10^{-3}}\right)^{3}
528: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{-1/4}
529: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{9/8} M_{\oplus},
530: \label{eq:m_acc}
531: \\
532: R_{\rm acc} \simeq
533: 5.2 \times 10^2 f_g^{1/2}
534: \left(\frac{\gamma}{10^{-3}}\right)
535: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{-5/12}
536: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{3/8} {\rm km}.
537: \label{eq:r_acc}
538: \end{array}
539: \end{equation}
540: The accretion of planetesimals is possible for
541: $M > M_{\rm acc}$ ($R > R_{\rm acc}$).
542: In the top panel of fig.~\ref{fig:e_eq}
543: ($\gamma = 10^{-3}$ and $f_g = 1$),
544: planetesimal accretion proceeds in a range of
545: $R$'s in which the solid line ($e_{\rm eq}$) is
546: located below the dashed line ($e_{\rm acc}$), that is,
547: only if a body is larger than Ceres.
548: Such large planetesimals can be formed
549: by a different mechanism than pairwise accretion
550: such as self-gravitational instability
551: in turbulent eddies \citep[e.g.,][]{Johansen07}.
552: When the disk gas is removed, accretion becomes
553: possible for smaller planetesimals
554: (the 2nd panel of fig.~\ref{fig:e_eq}).
555: On the other hand, if turbulence is stronger
556: ($\gamma \sim 10^{-2}$), planetesimal accretion requires
557: more than 1000 km-sized bodies.
558: This appears to be an insurmountable
559: barrier to accretion, even for depleted gaseous disks ($f_g \sim
560: 0.1$), as shown in the the 3rd panel of fig.~\ref{fig:e_eq}.
561: Finally, at large orbital radii, planetesimal accretion is
562: even more difficult (the bottom panel).
563:
564: Another critical mass (radius) is the point
565: at which $e_{\rm drag}$ (eq.~[\ref{eq:e_drag}]) and
566: $e_{\rm dis}$ in the gravity regime (eq.~[\ref{eq:e_D}]) cross,
567: \begin{equation}
568: \begin{array}{l}
569: M_{\rm dis} \simeq
570: 6 \times 10^{-11} f_g^{3.3}
571: \left(\frac{\gamma}{10^{-3}}\right)^{6.7}
572: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{-0.6}
573: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{4.2} M_{\oplus},
574: \label{eq:m_D}
575: \\
576: R_{\rm dis} \simeq
577: 3 f_g^{1.1}
578: \left(\frac{\gamma}{10^{-3}}\right)^{2.2}
579: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{-0.53}
580: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{1.4} {\rm km}.
581: \label{eq:r_D}
582: \end{array}
583: \end{equation}
584: Planetesimals with $M < M_{\rm dis}$ ($R < R_{\rm dis}$)
585: are disrupted by collisions
586: down to the sizes for which material strength is dominant
587: (see below).
588: For $\gamma \sim 10^{-3}$ and $f_g \sim 1$
589: (the top panel of fig.~\ref{fig:e_eq}),
590: planetesimals with sizes larger than several km radius survive
591: but without growing, while smaller planetesimals
592: are disrupted.
593:
594: When a planetesimal is smaller than $\sim 100$ m in size,
595: it is bounded by material strength rather than
596: self-gravity.
597: In the regime of material strength,
598: $Q_{\rm D} \sim Q_0 (R/1{\rm cm})^{-0.4}$.
599: The body is not disrupted if
600: $\sqrt{2Q_{\rm D}}/v_{\rm K} > e_{\rm drag}$, which
601: is equivalent to
602: \begin{equation}
603: \begin{array}{l}
604: M \la M_{\rm mat} \simeq 0.8 \times 10^{-17} f_g^{-1.9}
605: \left(\frac{\gamma}{10^{-3}}\right)^{-3.7}
606: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{-0.9}
607: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{2.8} M_{\oplus},
608: \label{eq:m_D2} \\
609: R \la R_{\rm mat} \simeq 16 f_g^{-0.62}
610: \left(\frac{\gamma}{10^{-3}}\right)^{-1.25}
611: \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{3{\rm gcm}^{-3}}\right)^{-0.62}
612: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{2.8} {\rm m}.
613: \label{eq:r_D2}
614: \end{array}
615: \end{equation}
616: Since in this regime, collision damping is slightly stronger than
617: gas drag, actual values of $M_{\rm mat}$ and $R_{\rm mat}$ are determined by
618: $\sqrt{2Q_{\rm D}}/v_{\rm K} > e_{\rm coll}$, so
619: they are slightly larger than the above estimate (see fig.~\ref{fig:e_eq}).
620: When $\tau_{\rm drag} \Omega_{\rm K} \la 1$,
621: the planetesimals' motions are coupled
622: to that of the gas. The collision velocity then cannot be expressed
623: in terms of orbital eccentricity. This limiting size is however
624: much smaller than $R_{\rm mat}$.
625: The collision cascade would hence stop at
626: $M \sim M_{\rm mat}$ ($R \sim R_{\rm mat})$.
627: Regions for which the dotted lines ($e_{\rm dis}$) in
628: fig.~\ref{fig:e_eq} have negative gradients correspond to the material strength regime.
629: In the depleted disk case, $e_{\rm dis}$ is always larger than
630: $e_{\rm eq}$, so that the disruptive regions do not exist
631: (see the 2nd panel of fig.~\ref{fig:e_eq}).
632: Note that $R_{\rm mat} \propto Q_0^{0.94}$.
633: If the planetesimals are loose aggregates so that
634: $Q_0 < 3 \times 10^7$ (the value
635: for basalt rocks or water ice), the limiting size $R_{\rm mat}$ is smaller.
636:
637:
638: \section{Accretion/destruction of planetesimals in an evolving disk}
639:
640: We now put these various critical physical radii in the context of the
641: evolution of the protoplanetary disk. In order to investigate the
642: effect of departures from power-law relations of the surface density
643: and temperature profiles in real disks, we also present in this section
644: results obtained from a 1D disk model that includes an
645: $\alpha$-viscosity and photoevaporation \citep[see][]{Guillot06,Hueso05}.
646: The parameters used in the model presented
647: here are a turbulent viscosity $\alpha=0.01$ and an evaporation
648: parameter $T_{\rm atm}=100\,$K (the temperature of the
649: evaporation part of the outer disk).
650: Another choice of the parameters would affect
651: the results only marginally.
652:
653: In the numerical calculation in this section,
654: we evaluate the equilibrium eccentricities $e_{\rm eq}$ as a
655: function of planetesimal radius by solving the following relation:
656: \begin{equation}
657: \tau_{\rm exc}^{-1}=\tau_{\rm tidal}^{-1}
658: +\tau_{\rm drag}^{-1}+\tau_{\rm coll}^{-1},
659: \end{equation}
660: where the different timescales are given by eqs.~(\ref{eq:t_exc}) to
661: (\ref{eq:t_coll}).
662: The survival physical radius for accretion $R_{\rm acc}$ is then found,
663: for each orbital radius in the protoplanetary
664: disk and for each timestep, by solving the equation,
665: \begin{equation}
666: e_{\rm eq}(R_{\rm acc})=e_{\rm acc}(R_{\rm acc}),
667: \end{equation}
668: where $e_{\rm acc}$ is given by eq.~(\ref{eq:e_acc}).
669: When the mean kinetic energy
670: is larger than the strength of a planetesimal, the
671: a collision is highly erosive.
672: We then obtain the range $R < R_{\rm dis}$ corresponding to
673: the highly erosive collisions by solving the equation,
674: \begin{equation}
675: e_{\rm eq}(R_{\rm dis}) = {\sqrt{2Q_{\rm D}(R_{\rm dis})}\over v_{\rm K}},
676: \end{equation}
677: where $Q_{\rm D}$ is given by eq.~(\ref{eq:Q_D}).
678:
679: Figures~\ref{fig:accrete_gam1d-2} to \ref{fig:accrete_gam1d-4} show
680: our results for three values of the turbulent excitation parameter,
681: $\gamma=10^{-2}$, $10^{-3}$ (our fiducial value), and $10^{-4}$. Each
682: figure shows, for three orbital distances, 1, 5 and 30\,AU, the
683: planetesimal physical radii corresponding to
684: accretive and erosive regions are
685: plotted as a function of the total mass remaining in the disk.
686: Since the disk mass decreases with time as a result of viscous
687: evolution and photoevaporation, a decrease in disk mass
688: corresponds to evolution in time.
689: As shown in the previous section, planetesimal accretion
690: becomes easier as the disk becomes less massive simply because the
691: turbulent excitation, directly proportional to the
692: local surface density of the gas, becomes weaker.
693: However, after some point, the disk becomes too light to provide a
694: sufficient amount of gas to form Jupiter-mass gas giants.
695:
696: The figures also show as thin black lines the values obtained for a
697: disk that follows the slope in surface density versus orbital distance
698: defined for the MMSN (eq.~\ref{eq:Sigma_g})
699: as a function of a disk mass.
700: The disk mass in this model is given by
701: $3.4 \times 10^{-2} f_g (r_{\rm edge}/100{\rm AU})^{1/2} M_{\odot}$,
702: where $r_{\rm edge}$ is the outer edge radius of the disk.
703: Although the original MMSN model by \citet{hayashi81} used
704: $r_{\rm edge} = 35$ AU,
705: we here adopt $r_{\rm edge} = 1000$ AU
706: (for comparison, our fiducial alpha disk model with $T_{\rm atm}=100$\,K
707: extends up to a maximum of 350\,AU).
708:
709: These are found to be in excellent agreement with the analytical
710: expressions
711: derived in the previous section, with small differences arising from
712: the simplifications inherent to the analytical approach.
713: Larger differences are found between the power-law disk and the
714: $\alpha$-disk models mostly because of the difference in slopes
715: ($d\ln\Sigma/d\ln r=-3/2$ for the former, $\sim -1$ for the
716: $\alpha$-disk) which implies that a given disk mass does not
717: correspond to the same surface density with two models,
718: the difference being larger
719: at smaller orbital distances.
720: However, the qualitative features of accretive and erosive
721: regions are similar to each other.
722: It should be noted that the models also
723: differ in their temperature profiles, but this is found to be less
724: important.
725:
726:
727: In the highly turbulent regime presented in
728: fig.~\ref{fig:accrete_gam1d-2}, a self-sustained regime of accretion
729: becomes possible only when planetesimals have become very
730: large/massive, with sizes generally well over 100km. This case also
731: yields a sustained area of high erosion where
732: the average kinetic energies of
733: planetesimals are above their internal energies. It is
734: difficult to imagine how planetary cores can form in this context
735: especially if they have to grow large enough to form giant planets.
736:
737: With smaller perturbations from the turbulent disk
738: (fig.~\ref{fig:accrete}), planetesimals have more possibilities to
739: accrete: with time, as the disk mass decreases,
740: the inner disk rapidly moves out of the highly
741: erosive regime, while erosion still remains important at large orbital
742: distances.
743: With a turbulence strength parameter $\gamma=10^{-4}$, corresponding to
744: a very weak turbulence (fig.~\ref{fig:accrete_gam1d-4}), the presence
745: of a highly erosive regime centered around $\sim 300$m planetesimals
746: is limited only to the outer regions ($\ga 30$ AU),
747: and the zone rapidly shrinks
748: as the circumstellar gaseous disk disappears.
749:
750: In order to put these findings into context, we also show the mass of
751: the disk when Jupiter is believed to have started accreting its
752: gaseous envelope. These values are calculated by assuming that the
753: planet growth has been limited mostly by viscous diffusion in the disk,
754: with the protoplanet capturing between 10\% and 70\% of the mass flux
755: at its orbital distance in the disk evolution model
756: by \citet{Hueso05} \citep[for details, see][]{Guillot06}.
757: If giant planets have to form,
758: at some time
759: corresponding to the disk mass interval defined by the hashed areas in
760: figs.~\ref{fig:accrete_gam1d-2} to \ref{fig:accrete_gam1d-4},
761: protoplanetary cores must be already large enough
762: to start accreting the
763: surrounding hydrogen and helium gas.
764:
765: We can now define three important disk masses, and their corresponding
766: disk ages (with the caution that ages are inherently model-dependent
767: and are provided here for illustrative purposes only, on the basis of
768: our particular model of $\alpha$-disk evolution with
769: photoevaporation):
770: \begin{enumerate}
771: \item The maximum mass of the disk, following the collapse of the
772: molecular cloud. This mass can vary quite significantly from one disk
773: formation/evolution model to another.
774: For the particular model shown here, it is
775: of the order of $0.25\,\rm M_\odot$, for an age of 0.6\,Myrs.
776: \item The disk mass necessary for Jupiter to grow to its present mass
777: if it captures 10\% of the mass flux at its orbital distance. For
778: realistic disk models, this depends weakly on parameters such as
779: $\alpha$ and the disk evaporation rate. In our case, it corresponds
780: to $M_{\rm disk}=0.035\,\rm M_\odot$ and an age of 1.95\,Myrs.
781: \item The disk mass necessary for Jupiter to grow to its present mass
782: if it captures 70\% of the mass flux at its orbital distance. For
783: our model, $M_{\rm disk}=0.0054\,\rm M_\odot$ (about 5 times the
784: mass of Jupiter) and an age of 2.85\,Myrs.
785: \end{enumerate}
786:
787:
788: Table~\ref{tab:radii} provides the values of the physical
789: radii that define the
790: accretive regime and the highly erosive (disruptive) regime of
791: figs.~\ref{fig:accrete_gam1d-2} to \ref{fig:accrete_gam1d-4}, namely
792: $R_{\rm acc}$ and $R_{\rm dis}$. In our
793: Solar System, the existence of Jupiter implies that either turbulence
794: was low, the planet grew from a protoplanetary core formed in the
795: inner solar system, or a mechanism was able to lead to
796: the rapid formation of embryos larger than 240 km in radius
797: at 5 AU (17 km in
798: the low-turbulence case, 1080 km in the high-turbulence case)
799: by the time when the
800: disk mass had decreased to $5\times 10^{-3}\,\rm M_\odot$. In the last
801: case, it appears that a mechanism such as the standard gravitational
802: instability \citep[e.g.,][]{Safronov69,GW73} would not work
803: because of the turbulence, but formation of relatively large
804: protoplanets in eddies or
805: vortexes \citep[e.g.,][]{Johansen07,Barge95} is a promising possibility.
806:
807:
808: \section{Conclusion and discussion}
809:
810: We have investigated the critical physical radii for collisions between
811: planetesimals to be accretional ($R > R_{\rm acc}$)
812: or disruptive ($R < R_{\rm dis}$) in turbulent disks,
813: as functions of turbulent strength
814: ($\gamma \sim O(\Delta \rho/\rho)$),
815: disk gas surface density, and orbital radius.
816: The results presented here highlight
817: the fact that MRI turbulence poses a great
818: problem for the growth of planetesimals: generally, only those with
819: sizes larger than a few hundred km are in a clearly
820: accretive regime for a nominal value of $\gamma \sim 10^{-3}$.
821: The others generally collide with velocities greater than their own surface
822: escape velocities.
823: For some of them, more severely in the
824: kilometer-size regime, collisions are likely to be disruptive.
825: The problem is greater when the disk is still massive and at
826: large orbital distances.
827: Also, if turbulence is stronger than $\gamma \sim 10^{-2}$,
828: planetesimal accretion becomes extremely difficult.
829:
830: However, the rate of occurrence of
831: extrasolar giant planets around solar-type stars is inferred to be as
832: large as $\sim 20$\% \citep{Cumming08}, and depends steeply on
833: the metallicity of the host star \citep{Fischer05,santos04}. This
834: strongly suggests that the majority of extrasolar giant planets were
835: formed by core accretion followed by gas accretion onto the cores
836: \citep{IL05}.
837: Thus, planetesimals should commonly grow to planetary masses
838: before the disappearance of gas in protoplanetary disks.
839:
840: The possibilities to overcome the barrier are in
841: principle as follows (their likelihood is commented below):
842: \begin{enumerate}
843: \item Large $M$:
844: Large planetesimals with sizes of 100 to 1000\,km are
845: formed directly in turbulent environment by a mechanism
846: other than collisional coagulation, jumping over the erosive
847: regime for physical radii.
848:
849: \item Small $\Sigma_g$: Planetesimals start their accretion to
850: planet-size only after the disk surface density of gas has declined
851: to sufficiently small values.
852:
853: \item Small $\gamma$: Planetesimals form in MRI-inactive regions
854: (``dead zones'') of protoplanetary disks.
855: \end{enumerate}
856:
857: Concerning point 1,
858: the first-born planetesimals with sizes larger than $R_{\rm acc}$ may be formed
859: rapidly by an efficient capture of $\sim$meter-size boulders in
860: vortexes \citep{Johansen07}. Such large planetesimals may be
861: consistent with the size distribution of asteroids (Morbidelli et
862: al. 2008).
863: Even if the first-born planetesimals are not as large, a small
864: fraction of them could continue to grow larger than
865: $R_{\rm acc}$ by accreting smaller bodies, because
866: accretion is not completely cut off as soon as
867: $v_{\rm disp} \ga v_{\rm esc}$
868: (there is always a small possibility for accretion) and the large
869: planetesimals would not be disrupted by smaller ones. This
870: possibility, however, must be examined by a more detailed growth model
871: taking into account the effect of fragmentation and the size distribution of
872: planetesimals, which we neglected in this paper.
873:
874: Concerning point 2,
875: we have shown that planetesimals are most fragile at early times, in
876: massive disks, and at large orbital distances. We therefore suggest
877: that the growth towards planet sizes may be delayed due to MRI
878: turbulence, and then proceed from inside out: planetesimals should
879: start accretion first close to the star, then progressively at larger
880: orbital distances, as the gas surface density declines. The
881: possibility to delay planet formation while keeping non-migrating
882: km-size planetesimals is noteworthy because it would help planetary
883: systems resisting to type-I migration: they would grow in a gas disk
884: that is less dense, and for which migration timescales may be
885: considerably increased. \citet{IL08}, \citet{Alibert05}, and
886: \citet{Kominami06} showed that type-I migration must be
887: lowered by one to two orders of magnitude from
888: the linear calculation \citep{Tanaka02} to provide an explanation
889: for the existence of a population of giant planets in agreement with
890: observations. This ``late formation'' scenario is
891: consistent with the noble gas enrichment in Jupiter
892: \citep{Guillot06}.
893: However, in order to form gas giants,
894: core accretion and gas
895: accretion onto the cores must proceed fast enough to capture
896: Jupiter-mass amount of gas from the decaying gas disk.
897: Once the size of the largest planetesimals exceeds $\sim 1000$km,
898: their eccentricities are damped by tidal drag and dynamical friction
899: from small bodies.
900: Most of the other small bodies
901: may be ground into sizes smaller than 1\,km and their eccentricities
902: could be kept very small by gas drag and collision damping. This
903: could facilitate the runaway accretion of cores to become large enough
904: ($\ga 10 M_{\oplus}$) for the onset of runaway gas accretion. This
905: issue also has to be addressed by a detailed planetesimal growth model
906: taking into account a size distribution.
907: The likelihood of relatively rapid gas accretion without long ``phase 2''
908: is discussed by \citet{Shiraishi}.
909: If planetesimal sizes are relatively small,
910: gas drag damping opens up a gap in the planetesimal disk
911: around the orbit of a core and truncates planetesimal accretion
912: onto the core. The truncation of heating due to planetesimal
913: bombardment enables the core to efficiently accrete disk gas.
914:
915: Concerning point 3,
916: the MRI inactive region (``dead zones'') may exist in inner disk
917: regions in which the surface density is large enough to prevent cosmic and
918: X rays from penetrating the disk \citep{gammie96,sano00}. The
919: preservation of a dead zone can also contribute to stall type-I
920: migration by converting it to type-II migration \citep{Matsumura07}
921: or by creating a local region with a positive radial gradient of disk
922: pressure near the ice line \citep{IL08b}. However, dead zones can be
923: eliminated by turbulent mixing/overshoot
924: \citep{Varniere06,Turner07,Ilgner08}, a self-sustaining mechanism
925: \citep{Inutsuka05}, and dust growth \citep{sano00}. The last effect
926: comes form the fact that small dust grains are the most efficient
927: agents for charge recombination.
928: According to grain growth, the ionization of the disk and
929: its coupling with the magnetic field become stronger to activate
930: MRI turbulence.
931: We remark that if MRI turbulence is
932: activated, collisions are disruptive and they re-produces small grains
933: to decrease the ionization degree.
934: This self-regulation process might maintain a marginally dead state
935: and keep producing small dust grains. This might be related with
936: relative chronological age difference ($\sim 2$Myr) between chondrules
937: and CAIs \citep[e.g.,][]{Kita05}. Whether dead zones exist or not is
938: one of the biggest issues in evolution of protoplanetary disks and
939: planet formation. A more detailed analysis of planetesimal accretion in
940: turbulent disks could impose a constraint on this issue.
941:
942: At large orbital distances (10's of AU), the existence of a highly
943: erosive regime that lasts until late in the evolution of the
944: protoplanetary disk is an important feature of this scenario.
945: It shows that the entire mass of solids is highly reprocessed by
946: collisions, in qualitative agreement with the paucity of presolar
947: grains (intact remnants from the molecular cloud core) found in
948: meteorites.
949: It also prevents the growth of large
950: planetesimals and helps to maintain a large population of small grains
951: in the disks. This is in qualitative agreement with observations that do
952: not indicate a significant depletion of micron-sized grains with time,
953: contrary to what would be predicted in the absence of turbulence
954: \citep{Dullemond05,Tanaka05}.
955:
956: In conclusion, the existence of MRI turbulence may be a threat to
957: planetesimal accretion. Given the uncertainties related to these explanations,
958: we cannot provide a definitive scenario for the formation of
959: protoplanetary cores. However, it offers several promising hints to
960: explain important features of planet formation as constrained by
961: today's observations of protoplanetary disks, exoplanets and
962: meteoritic samples in the Solar System.
963:
964:
965: \acknowledgments
966:
967: This research was supported by the Sakura program
968: between Japan and France, and by the CNRS
969: interdisciplinary program {\it ``Origine des plan\`etes et de la
970: Vie''} through a grant to T.G. and A.M.
971:
972:
973:
974: \section*{Appendix}
975:
976: Here we derive the $r$-dependence in eq.~(\ref{eq:e_random}).
977: If the equation of motion is scaled by a reference radius $r_1$
978: and $T_{\rm K1}$ where $T_{\rm K1}$ is a Keplerian period at $r_1$,
979: the only remaining non-dimensional parameter in the equations is
980: \begin{equation}
981: \gamma \Gamma(r_1) = \gamma \frac{64 \Sigma_g r^2}{\pi M_{\odot}}|_{r_1}
982: \end{equation}
983: (see eqs.~[4], [5], [6] in \citet{ogi07}).
984: Consider the equation of motion scaled by $r_1$ and $T_{\rm K1}$
985: and that scaled by $r_2$ and $T_{\rm K2}$.
986: If $\gamma$ is the same and $\Gamma(r_1)=\Gamma(r_2)$,
987: these two scaled-equations of motion are identical and
988: evolution of eccentricity, which is a non-dimensional quantity,
989: must be identical in terms of the scaled time.
990: Note that the magnitude of excited $e$ should
991: be proportional to $\gamma \Gamma$.
992: Since
993: \begin{equation}
994: \Gamma(r) = \frac{\Sigma_g(r)}{\Sigma_g(r_1)}
995: \left(\frac{r}{r_1}\right)^2 \Gamma(r_1),
996: \label{eq:Gamma_r}
997: \end{equation}
998: and Ogihara et al.'s eq.~(34) derived for
999: $r = 1$AU is proportional to $\gamma \Gamma(1{\rm AU})$,
1000: the formula for arbitrary $r$ is given by
1001: replacing a year by $T_{\rm K}(r)$ and
1002: $\gamma$ by $\gamma (\Gamma(r)/\Gamma(1{\rm AU}))$ in their
1003: equation. As a result,
1004: \begin{equation}
1005: e \sim 0.1 \gamma
1006: \left(\frac{\Sigma_g}{\Sigma_{g,1}}\right)
1007: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{2}
1008: \left(\frac{t}{T_{\rm K}}\right)^{1/2},
1009: \end{equation}
1010: where $\Sigma_{g,1}$ is $\Sigma_{g}$ at 1AU with $f_g = 1$
1011: (eq.~[\ref{eq:Sigma_g}]) and the numerical factor was
1012: corrected as explained in the footnote in \S 3.1.
1013: Assuming the simple power-law model defined by eq.~(7),
1014: \begin{equation}
1015: e \sim 0.1 f_g \gamma
1016: \left(\frac{r}{1{\rm AU}}\right)^{-1/4}
1017: \left(\frac{t}{1{\rm year}}\right)^{1/2}.
1018: \end{equation}
1019:
1020: \clearpage
1021:
1022: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1023:
1024: \bibitem[Adachi et al.(1976)]{Adachi76}
1025: Adachi, I., Nakazawa, K., \& Hayashi, C. 1976, PASJ, 29, 163
1026:
1027: \bibitem[Alibert et al.(2005)]{Alibert05}
1028: Alibert, Y., Mousis, O., Mordasini, C. \& Benz, W.
1029: 2005, \apjl, 626, 57
1030:
1031: \bibitem[Balbus \& Hawley(1991)]{bal91}
1032: Balbus, S. A., \& Hawley, J. F. 1991,
1033: \apj, 376, 214
1034:
1035: \bibitem[Barge \& Someria(1995)]{Barge95}
1036: Barge \& Someria, 1995, \aa, 295, 1
1037:
1038: \bibitem[Benz \& Asphaug(1999)]{Benz_Asphaug99}
1039: Benz, W. \& Asphaug, E. 1999, Icarus, 142, 5
1040:
1041: \bibitem[Britsch et al.(2008)]{britsch08}
1042: Britsch, M., Clarke, C. J. \& Lodato, G. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1067
1043:
1044: \bibitem[Cumming et al.(2008)]{Cumming08}
1045: Cumming, A. Marcy, G.W. Butler, R.P. Fischer, D.A. Vogt, S.S. \& Wright,
1046: J.T. 2008, in preparation.
1047:
1048: \bibitem[Daisaka et al.(2006)]{Kominami06}
1049: Daisaka, K. J., Tanaka, H. \& Ida, S. 2006, Icarus, 185, 492
1050:
1051: \bibitem[Dullemond \& Dominik(2005)]{Dullemond05}
1052: Dullemond, C. P. \& Dominik, C. 2005,
1053: A\&A, 434, 971
1054:
1055: \bibitem[Fischer \& Valenti(2005)]{Fischer05}
1056: Fischer, D. A. \& Valenti, J. A. 2005.
1057: \apj, 622, 1102
1058:
1059: \bibitem[Gammie(1996)]{gammie96}
1060: Gammie, C. F., 1996,
1061: Layered accretion in T Tauri disks, \apj, 457, 355
1062:
1063: \bibitem[Goldreich \& Ward(1973)]{GW73}
1064: Goldreich, P. \& Ward, W. 1973,
1065: \apj,
1066:
1067: \bibitem[Guillot \& Hueso(2006)]{Guillot06}
1068: Guillot, T. \& Hueso, R. 2006,
1069: MNRAS, 367, L47
1070:
1071: \bibitem[Hayashi(1981)]{hayashi81}
1072: Hayashi, C., 1981,
1073: Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl, 70, 35
1074:
1075: \bibitem[Hueso \& Guillot(2005)]{Hueso05}
1076: Hueso, R. \& Guillot, T. 2005,
1077: A\&A, 442, 703
1078:
1079: \bibitem[Ida(1990)]{I90}
1080: Ida, S. 1990, Icarus, 88, 129
1081:
1082: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin(2005)]{IL05}
1083: Ida, S. \& Lin, D. N. C. 2005,
1084: \apj, 626, 1045
1085:
1086: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin(2008a)]{IL08}
1087: ------. 2008,
1088: \apj, 673, 487
1089:
1090: \bibitem[Ida \& Lin(2008b)]{IL08b}
1091: ------. 2008, \apj, in press
1092:
1093: \bibitem[Ida \& Makino(1993)]{IM93}
1094: Ida, S. \& Makino, J. 1993,
1095: Icarus, 106, 210
1096:
1097: \bibitem[Ida \& Nakazawa(1989)]{IN89}
1098: Ida, S. \& Nakazawa, K. 1989,
1099: \aa, 224, 303
1100:
1101: \bibitem[Ilgner \& Nelson(2008)]{Ilgner08}
1102: Ilgner, M., Nelson, R.~P., 2008,
1103: astro-ph:0802.4409
1104:
1105: \bibitem[Inaba \& Ikoma(2003)]{Inaba03}
1106: Inaba, S. \& Ikoma, M.
1107: \aa, 410, 711
1108:
1109: \bibitem[Inutsuk \& Sann(2005)]{Inutsuka05}
1110: Inutsuka, S. \& Sano, T.
1111: \aa, 410, 711
1112:
1113: \bibitem[Johansen et al.(2007)]{Johansen07}
1114: Johansen, A., Oishi, J. S., Low, M. M., Klahr, H.,
1115: Thomas, H. \& Youdin, A. 2007.
1116: Nature, 448, 1022
1117:
1118: \bibitem[Kita et al.(2005)]{Kita05}
1119: Kita, N. T. et al. 2005,
1120: in Chondrites \& the protoplanetary disk,
1121: ASP conf. series 341, pp. 558-587
1122:
1123: \bibitem[Johnson et al.(2006)]{johnson06}
1124: Johnson, E. T., Goodman, J. \& Menou, K. 2006,
1125: \apj, 647, 1413
1126:
1127: \bibitem[Laughlin et al.(2004)]{lau04}
1128: Laughlin, G., Steinacker, A., \& Adams, F. C. 2004,
1129: \apj, 608, 489
1130:
1131: \bibitem[Matsumura et al.(2007)]{Matsumura07}
1132: Matsumura, S., Pudritz, R. E. \& Thommes, E. W. 2007,
1133: \apj, 660, 1609
1134:
1135: \bibitem[Nelson(2005)]{nel05} Nelson, R. P., 2005,
1136: \aap, 443, 1067
1137:
1138: \bibitem[Nelson \& Papaloizou(2004)]{nel04}
1139: Nelson, R. P., \& Papaloizou, J. C. B., 2004,
1140: \mnras, 350, 849
1141:
1142: \bibitem[Ohtsuki (1993)]{ohtsuki93}
1143: Ohtsuki, K. 1993, Icarus, 106, 228
1144:
1145: \bibitem[Ogihara et al.(2007)]{ogi07}
1146: Ogihara, M., Ida, S. \& Morbidelli, A. 2007,
1147: Icarus, 188, 522
1148:
1149: \bibitem[Rice \& Armitage(2003)]{ric03} Rice, W. K. M., Armitage, P J., 2003,
1150: \apj, 598, 55
1151:
1152: \bibitem[Safronov(1969)]{Safronov69}
1153: Safronov, V. 1969,
1154: Evolution of thr Protoplanetary Cloud and Formation of
1155: the Earth and Planets (Moscow: Nauka Press)
1156:
1157: \bibitem[Santos et al. (2004)]{santos04} Santos, N., Israelian, G., \&
1158: Mayor, M., 2004, \aa, 415, 1153
1159:
1160: \bibitem[Sano et al.(2000)]{sano00} Sano, T., Miyama, S. M., Umebayashi, T., \& Nakano, T., 2000,
1161: \apj, 543, 486
1162:
1163: \bibitem[Shakura \& Sunyaev(1973)]{alpha}
1164: Shakura, N. I. \& Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A\&A, 24, 337
1165:
1166: \bibitem[Shiraishi \& Ida(2008)]{Shiraishi}
1167: Shiraishi, M. \& Ida, S. 2008,
1168: \apj, in press.
1169:
1170: \bibitem[Tanaka et al.(2002)]{Tanaka02}
1171: Tanaka, H., Takeuchi, T. \& Ward, W. R., 2002,
1172: \apj, 565, 1257
1173:
1174: \bibitem[Tanaka et al.(2005)]{Tanaka05}
1175: Tanaka, H., Himeno, Y. \& Ida, S. 2005, \apj, 625, 414
1176:
1177: \bibitem[Tanaka \& Ward(2004)]{tan04} Tanaka, H., \& Ward, W. R., 2004,
1178: \apj, 602, 388
1179:
1180: \bibitem[Turner et al.(2007)]{Turner07}
1181: Turner, N. J., Sano, T. and Dziourkevitch, N., 2007,
1182: \apj, 659, 729
1183:
1184: \bibitem[Varni{\`e}re \& Tagger(2006)]{Varniere06}
1185: Varni{\`e}re, P. \& Tagger, M., 2007,
1186: \apj, 446, L13
1187:
1188:
1189:
1190: \end{thebibliography}
1191:
1192: \clearpage
1193: %Radii Accretion/destruction (in km)
1194: \begin{table}
1195: \caption{
1196: Limits of the accretive regime ($R > R_{\rm acc}$)
1197: and the highly erosive (disruptive)
1198: regime $R < R_{\rm dis}$, as a function of orbital distance and disk mass.}
1199: \begin{tabular}{r|cc|cc|cc} \hline
1200:
1201: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{1 AU} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{5 AU} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{30 AU} \\
1202: \cline{2-3} \cline{4-5} \cline{6-7}
1203: $M_{\rm disk}$ & $R_{\rm acc}$ & $R_{\rm dis}$ & $R_{\rm acc}$ & $R_{\rm dis}$ & $R_{\rm acc}$ & $R_{\rm dis}$ \\
1204: $\rm [M_\odot]$ & [km] & [km] & [km] & [km] & [km] & [km] \\
1205: \hline
1206: \multicolumn{7}{l}{Fiducial case: $\gamma= 10^{-3}$; $\rho_{\rm p}=3\,{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$; $Q_0=3\times 10^7$; $B=1.0$}\\ \hline
1207: 0.25 & 280. & $[1.14-0.061]$ & 1280. & $[82.-0.00047]$ & 1680. & $[1000.-0.00047]$ \\
1208: 0.035 & 86. & $--$ & 440. & $[5.3-0.026]$ & 850. & $[200.-0.0024]$ \\
1209: 0.0054 & 46. & $--$ & 240. & $[1.05-0.057]$ & 590. & $[37.-0.0069]$ \\
1210: \hline
1211: \multicolumn{7}{l}{Low turbulence case: $\gamma= 10^{-4}$; $\rho_{\rm p}=3\,{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$; $Q_0=3\times 10^7$; $B=1.0$}\\ \hline
1212: 0.25 & 16. & $--$ & 150. & $[0.30-0.0099]$ & 590. & $[22.-0.0099]$ \\
1213: 0.035 & 3.9 & $--$ & 36. & $--$ & 220. & $[1.07-0.053]$ \\
1214: 0.0054 & 1.7 & $--$ & 17. & $--$ & 103. & $--$ \\
1215: \hline
1216: \multicolumn{7}{l}{High turbulence case: $\gamma= 10^{-2}$; $\rho_{\rm p}=3\,{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$; $Q_0=3\times 10^7$; $B=1.0$}\\ \hline
1217: 0.25 & 2540. & $[300.-0.0026]$ & 3920. & $[2770.-2\times 10^{-5}]$ & 4250. & $[3220.-2\times 10^{-5}]$\\
1218: 0.035 & 870. & $[26.-0.0090]$ & 1590. & $[710.-0.0012]$ & 2180. & $[1460.-0.00012]$ \\
1219: 0.0054 & 510. & $[7.4-0.018]$ & 1080. & $[230.-0.0025]$ & 1580. & $[970.-0.00033]$\\
1220: \hline
1221: \multicolumn{7}{l}{High material resistance: $\gamma= 10^{-3}$; $\rho_{\rm p}=3\,{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$; $Q_0=10^8$; $B=2.0$}\\ \hline
1222: 0.25 & 280. & $[0.26-0.15]$ & 1280. & $[27.-0.0013]$ & 1680. & $[700.-0.0013]$ \\
1223: 0.035 & 86. & $--$ & 440. & $[1.6-0.068]$ & 850. & $[66.-0.0068]$ \\
1224: 0.0054 & 46. & $--$ & 240. & $[0.27-0.15]$ & 590. & $[12.-0.019]$\\
1225: \hline
1226: \multicolumn{7}{l}{Low material resistance:$\gamma= 10^{-3}$; $\rho_{\rm p}=3\,{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$; $Q_0=10^7$; $B=0.3$}\\ \hline
1227: 0.25 & 280. & $[11.-0.026]$ & 1280. & $[550.-0.00018]$ & 1680. & $[1440.-0.00018]$ \\
1228: 0.035 & 86. & $[0.56-0.087]$ & 440. & $[41.-0.011]$ & 850. & $[590.-0.00097]$ \\
1229: 0.0054 & 46. & $--$ & 240. & $[9.2-0.024]$ & 590. & $[240.-0.0028]$
1230: \end{tabular}
1231: \label{tab:radii}
1232: \end{table}
1233:
1234: \clearpage
1235:
1236: \begin{figure}
1237: \epsscale{0.8}
1238: \plotone{f1}
1239: \caption{Evolution of the eccentricity (left panels) and of the
1240: semimajor axis (right panels) as a function of time,
1241: for different planetesimal masses
1242: (top to bottom).
1243: A single planetesimal is integrated in a turbulent disk and
1244: 5 independent runs
1245: with different random number seeds
1246: for the generation of turbulent density fluctuations are shown in each panel.
1247: {\it Top panels\/}:
1248: We consider no tidal and gas drag.
1249: {\it Middle panels\/}: Results
1250: including gas drag for planetesimals of
1251: $M=10^{-6}M_{\oplus}$.
1252: {\it Bottom panels\/}: Results
1253: for planetesimals of $M=10^{-12}M_{\oplus}$. In all cases, we
1254: assume an initial orbital distance of 1AU, $f_g=1$ and
1255: $\gamma=0.01$.}
1256: \label{fig:e_evol}
1257: \end{figure}
1258:
1259: \clearpage
1260:
1261: \begin{figure}
1262: \epsscale{0.8}
1263: \plotone{f2}
1264: \caption{Equilibrium eccentricities ($e_{\rm eq}$)
1265: as a function of the physical radius $R$ of planetesimals
1266: (solid lines).
1267: The values of $e_{\rm eq}$ is determined by the minimum of
1268: individual equilibrium eccentricities, $e_{\rm tidal}, e_{\rm drag}$,
1269: and $e_{\rm coll}$.
1270: The critical values for accretion and destruction,
1271: $e_{\rm acc}$ and $e_{\rm dis}$, are also plotted by
1272: dashed and dotted lines, respectively.
1273: At $r=1$AU, the bulk density $\rho_{\rm p} = 3 {\rm gcm}^{-3}$ is assumed,
1274: while $\rho_{\rm p} = 1 {\rm gcm}^{-3}$ at 5 AU.
1275: The mass of the planetesimals is given by
1276: $M = 2.1 \times 10^{-3} (R/10^3{\rm km})^3
1277: (\rho_{\rm p}/3 {\rm gcm}^{-3}) M_{\oplus}$.
1278: }
1279: \label{fig:e_eq}
1280: \end{figure}
1281:
1282: \clearpage
1283:
1284: \begin{figure}
1285: \epsscale{0.7}
1286: \plotone{f3}
1287: \caption{
1288: Evolution of characteristic physical radii of planetesimals
1289: as a function of disk mass,
1290: at several orbital distances in the disk: 1AU (top), 5AU (middle)
1291: and 30AU (bottom).
1292: The solid and dot-dashed curves correspond to the boundary radius
1293: for accretion regime ($R_{\rm acc}$) and to that of the highly erosive
1294: regime ($R_{\rm dis}$).
1295: Two disk models have been used: a
1296: simple power-law model with $d\ln \Sigma_g/d\ln r = -3/2$
1297: (eq.~[\ref{eq:Sigma_g}])
1298: with an outer cut-off radius of 1000AU
1299: (thin lines), and an alpha-disk
1300: model with $\alpha=0.01$ and $T_{\rm atm}=100\,$K
1301: \citep[see][]{Guillot06} (thick lines). The hashed region corresponds to
1302: the range of disk mass (equivalently, the range of time if
1303: disk evolution is given)
1304: during which Jupiter must start accreting hydrogen/helium gas
1305: (assuming it grabs between 10\% and 70\% of the disk mass
1306: flux at its orbital
1307: distance). In the simulations, MRI turbulence is supposed to be
1308: high, with $\gamma=10^{-2}$. We also choose $Q_0=3\times 10^7$
1309: and $B=1$ (see eq.~[\ref{eq:Q_D}]). }
1310: \label{fig:accrete_gam1d-2}
1311: \end{figure}
1312:
1313: \clearpage
1314:
1315: \begin{figure}
1316: \epsscale{0.7}
1317: \plotone{f4}
1318: \caption{Evolution of characteristic physical radii
1319: $R_{\rm acc}$ and $R_{\rm dis}$
1320: of planetesimals as a function of disk
1321: mass. The parameters and labels are the same as
1322: those in fig.~\ref{fig:accrete_gam1d-2} but for a medium
1323: turbulence case ($\gamma=10^{-3}$) (our fiducial case).}
1324: \label{fig:accrete}
1325: \end{figure}
1326:
1327: \begin{figure}
1328: \epsscale{0.7}
1329: \plotone{f5}
1330: \caption{Evolution of characteristic physical radii
1331: $R_{\rm acc}$ and $R_{\rm dis}$
1332: of planetesimals as a function of disk
1333: mass. The parameters and labels are the same as
1334: those in fig.~\ref{fig:accrete_gam1d-2} but for a weak
1335: turbulence case ($\gamma=10^{-4}$).}
1336: \label{fig:accrete_gam1d-4}
1337: \end{figure}
1338:
1339: \end{document}
1340:
1341:
1342:
1343:
1344:
1345: