1: % l-aa.dem
2: % L-AA vers. 3.0, LaTeX style file for Astronomy & Astrophysics
3: % Demo file
4: % (c) Springer-Verlag HD
5: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6: %\documentclass[referee]{aa}
7: \documentclass{aa}
8: \usepackage{graphics}
9: \usepackage{psfig}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \thesaurus{11.03.1; % galaxies: clusters: general
14: 12.04.1; % cosmology: dark matter
15: 14.25.2} % X-rays: galaxies
16:
17: \title{Reconstruction of radial temperature profiles of galaxy clusters}
18:
19:
20: \author{Yan-Jie Xue and Xiang-Ping Wu}
21:
22: \offprints{Y.-J. Xue}
23: \mail{wxp@class1.bao.ac.cn}
24:
25: \institute{Beijing Astronomical Observatory and
26: National Astronomical Observatories,
27: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100012, China}
28:
29:
30: \date{Received 28 June, 2000; accepted 27 July, 2000}
31:
32: \titlerunning{Temperature Profiles of Clusters}
33: \maketitle
34:
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: In this {\sl Letter} we present the radial temperature profiles of
38: three X-ray clusters (A119, A2255 and A2256)
39: reconstructed from a combination of the X-ray
40: surface brightness measurements and the universal density profile
41: as the underlying dark matter distribution. Our algorithm is based
42: on the hydrostatic equilibrium for intracluster gas and the
43: universality of the total baryon fraction within the virial radius.
44: The scaled temperature profiles of these three clusters appear to be
45: remarkably similar in shape, reflecting the
46: underlying structural regularity, although they are inconsistent with
47: either isothermality or a significant decline with increasing
48: radius. Nevertheless, we find a good agreement between our derived
49: temperature profiles and the recent analysis of 11 clusters observed
50: with BeppoSAX (Irwin \& Bregman 2000), which provides a useful clue to
51: resolving the temperature profile discrepancy raised recently in
52: literature. A comparison of our derived temperature
53: profiles with future spatially-resolved spectral measurements
54: may constitute a critical test for the standard model of
55: structure formation and the conventional scenario for dynamical
56: properties of clusters.
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \keywords{cosmology: dark matter --- galaxies: clusters: general ---
60: X-rays: galaxies}
61:
62: %
63: % 14.Sep.'90: Demo-Vs.
64: %________________________________________________________________
65:
66:
67: \section{Introduction}
68:
69: The lack of robust constraints on the radial temperature profiles of hot gas
70: contained within galaxy clusters
71: is probably the major uncertainty in the present
72: determination of dynamical properties of clusters, which hinders
73: clusters from acting as an ideal laboratory of testing theories of
74: formation and evolution of structures in the universe including
75: a direct estimate of the cosmic mass density parameter $\Omega_{\rm{M}}$
76: by combining the baryon fraction measurement and the Big Bang
77: Nucleosynthesis. Indeed, previous studies have arrived at
78: conflicting results regarding the radial temperature gradients in
79: clusters. By analyzing 30 clusters observed with ASCA,
80: Markevitch et al. (1998) claimed a significant temperature
81: decline with radius quantified by a polytropic index
82: of $1.2$-$1.3$ on the average. However, subsequent studies have soon
83: raised doubt about the ubiquity and steepness of these temperature decline:
84: Irwin, Bregman \& Evrard (1999) carried out an analysis of the
85: color profiles of the same clusters used by Markevitch et al. (1998)
86: but found an essentially flat temperature profile.
87: Applying the spectral-imaging deconvolution method to
88: a large sample of 106 ASCA clusters, White (2000) has showed that
89: 90 percent of the temperature profiles are actually consistent
90: with isothermality. Further argument against the nonisothermality
91: of intracluster gas has been put forward recently by Irwin \& Bregman (2000),
92: who reported the detection of a flat and even increasing temperature
93: profile out to $\sim30\%$ of the viral radius for a sample of
94: 11 clusters observed with BeppoSAX.
95:
96:
97: Theoretically, it deserves an investigation into the possibility
98: of deriving the radial temperature profiles of intracluster gas
99: from the well-motivated physical mechanisms, incorporated with
100: the X-ray imaging observations. This may provide a valuable clue to
101: resolving the above temperature profile discrepancy. There are
102: two well-established facts on which we can rely today:
103: (1)The gravitational potential of a cluster is dominated by the
104: dark matter distribution which can be described by the so-called universal
105: density profile, as suggested by a number of high-resolution simulations
106: (Navarro, Frenk \& White 1995 and hereafter NFW),
107: although the innermost slope is still under debate.
108: (2)The azimuthally-averaged X-ray surface brightness of a cluster
109: is reliably measurable out to several or even $\sim10$ times as large
110: as the X-ray core radius,
111: for which a good approximation is provided by the conventional $\beta$ model
112: (Cavaliere \& Fusco-Femiano 1976). These two facts, along with
113: the hydrostatic equilibrium hypothesis and a reasonable choice of the boundary
114: conditions, permit a unique determination of
115: the gas temperature profile (Wu \& Chiueh 2000). On the other hand,
116: a comparison of the theoretically expected temperature profile
117: with the result from the X-ray spectroscopic measurement constitutes
118: a critical test for the validity of the NFW profile and
119: the hydrostatic equilibrium in clusters.
120:
121:
122: In this {\sl Letter}, we will attempt for the first time
123: to derive the temperature profiles of 3 well-defined clusters with good X-ray
124: imaging observations extending to relatively large radii, based on
125: the method developed by Wu \& Chiueh (2000).
126: Our derived temperature profiles will be compared with
127: the recent results of 11 clusters observed with BeppoSAX
128: (Irwin \& Bregman 2000). We will examine the possible similarity in the
129: gas temperature profiles as a result of the underlying structural regularity
130: (e.g. Neumann \& Arnaud 1999). The implication of our results
131: for the reported temperature profile discrepancy will be discussed.
132: Throughout the {\sl Letter} we assume $H_0=50$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and a
133: flat cosmological model with $\Omega_{\rm{M}}=0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$.
134:
135:
136:
137: \section{Theoretical expectations}
138:
139:
140: We briefly summarize the mathematical treatment of
141: the intracluster gas tracing the underlying dark matter distribution
142: of clusters. First, if the X-ray surface brightness profile
143: of a cluster can be well approximated by the conventional $\beta$ model
144: (Cavaliere \& Fusco-Femiano 1976)
145: %1
146: \begin{equation}
147: S_{\rm{x}}(r)=S_0\left(1+\frac{r^2}{r_{\rm{c}}^2}\right)^{-3\beta+1/2},
148: \end{equation}
149: this would indicate (Cowie, Henriksen \& Mushotzky 1987),
150: %2
151: \begin{equation}
152: n_{\rm{e}}(r)T^{1/4}(r)=n_{\rm{e}0}T_0^{1/4}
153: \left(1+\frac{r^2}{r_{\rm{c}}^2}\right)^{-3\beta/2}
154: \end{equation}
155: for an optically-thin, thermal bremsstrahlung emission, where
156: $n_{\rm{e}}$ and $T$ are the electron number density and temperature,
157: respectively. The central electron number
158: density $n_{\rm{e}0}$, temperature $T_0$ and X-ray surface brightness $S_0$
159: are connected by
160: %3
161: \begin{equation}
162: n_{\rm{e}0}^2=\frac{4\pi^{1/2}}{\alpha(T_0)\mu_{\rm{e}} g}
163: \frac{\Gamma(3\beta)}{\Gamma(3\beta-1/2)}
164: \frac{S_0(1+z)^4}{r_{\rm{c}}},
165: \end{equation}
166: where $\alpha(T_0)=(2^4e^6/3m_{\rm{e}}\hbar c^2)(2\pi kT_0/3m_{\rm{e}}c^2)^
167: {1/2}$,
168: $\mu_{\rm{e}}=2/(1+X)$ with $X$ being the primordial hydrogen mass fraction,
169: $g\approx1.2$ is the average Gaunt factor, and $z$ is the cluster redshift.
170: The total mass in gas within $r$ is simply
171: %4
172: \begin{equation}
173: M_{\rm{gas}}(r)=4\pi\mu_{\rm{e}} m_p n_{\rm{e}0} \int
174: \left(\frac{T_0}{T}\right)^{1/4}
175: \left(1+\frac{r^2}{r_{\rm{c}}^2}\right)^{-3\beta/2} r^2 dr.
176: \end{equation}
177: Secondly, if the intracluster gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium with the
178: underlying dark matter distribution, we have
179: %5
180: \begin{equation}
181: \frac{GM_{\rm{DM}}(r)}{r^2}=
182: -\frac{1}{\mu m_{\rm{p}} n_{\rm{e}}} \frac{d(n_{\rm{e}}kT)}{dr}.
183: \end{equation}
184: where $\mu=0.585$ is the average molecular weight. For NFW profile
185: %6
186: \begin{equation}
187: M_{\rm{DM}}(r)=4\pi\rho_{\rm{s}} r_{\rm{s}}^3\left
188: [\ln\left(1+\frac{r}{r_{\rm{s}}}\right)-
189: \frac{r}{r+r_{\rm{s}}}\right].
190: \end{equation}
191: Here we have neglected the self-gravity of the gas. Using the normalized
192: gas temperature $\tilde{T}(r)\equiv T(r)/T_0$ and
193: the volume-averaged baryon fraction $f_{\rm{b}}(r)\equiv
194: M_{\rm{gas}}(r)/M_{\rm{DM}}(r)$
195: as the two variables, we obtain the following two first-order
196: differential equations
197: %7,8
198: \begin{eqnarray}
199: \frac{d\tilde{T}}{dx}=\frac{4\beta x \tilde{T}}{x^2+a^2}-
200: \frac{4\alpha_0}{3x^2}\left[\ln(1+x)-\frac{x}{1+x}\right];\\
201: \frac{df_{\rm{b}}}{dx}=\frac{b\tilde{T}^{-1/4}
202: (1+x^2/a^2)^{-3\beta/2}x^2
203: -f_{\rm{b}} x/(1+x)^2}
204: {\ln(1+x)-x/(1+x)},
205: \end{eqnarray}
206: where $x=r/r_{\rm{s}}$, $a=r_{\rm{c}}/r_{\rm{s}}$, $b=\mu_{\rm{e}}
207: n_{\rm{e}0}m_{\rm{p}}/\rho_{\rm{s}}$ and
208: $\alpha_0=4\pi G \mu m_{\rm{p}} \rho_{\rm{s}} r_{\rm{s}}^2/kT_0$.
209: The first equation
210: can be straightforwardly solved with $\tilde{T}(0)=1$:
211: %9
212: \begin{equation}
213: \tilde{T}(x)=\left(1+\frac{x^2}{a^2}\right)^{2\beta}
214: \left[1-\frac{4\alpha_0}{3}\int_0^x
215: \frac{\ln(1+x)-x/(1+x)}{x^2(1+x^2/a^2)^{2\beta}}dx\right].
216: \end{equation}
217: In order to solve the second equation and determine the free parameters
218: $a$, $b$ and $\alpha_0$, we use the following boundary conditions
219: %10,11
220: \begin{eqnarray}
221: f_{\rm{b}}(r_{\rm vir})=f_{\rm{b,BBN}};\\
222: \frac{df_{\rm{b}}}{dx} \left|_{x=r_{\rm{vir}}/r_{\rm{s}}}=0. \right.
223: \end{eqnarray}
224: Namely, we demand that the baryon fraction should
225: asymptotically match the universal value of $f_{\rm{b,BBN}}$
226: at the virial radius $r_{\rm{vir}}$ defined by
227: %12
228: \begin{equation}
229: M_{\rm{DM}}(r_{\rm{vir}})=\frac{4\pi}{3}r_{\rm{vir}}^3 \Delta_{\rm{c}}
230: \rho_{\rm{crit}},
231: \end{equation}
232: where $\Delta_{\rm{c}}$ represents the overdensity of
233: dark matter with respect to
234: the average background value $\rho_{\rm{crit}}$, for which we take
235: $\Delta_{\rm{c}}=178\Omega^{0.45}_{\rm{M}}(z)$ and
236: $\Omega_{\rm{M}}(z)=\Omega_{\rm{M}}(1+z)/\{1+z\Omega_{\rm{M}}+
237: [(1+z)^{-2}-1]\Omega_{\Lambda}\}$.
238: We now come to the free parameters involved in eqs.(8) and (9).
239: With the X-ray imaging observation, we can obtain the best-fit
240: values of $\beta$, $r_{\rm{c}}$ and $S_0$.
241: If, on the other hand, the X-ray spectroscopic measurement can set
242: a useful constraint on the central temperature $T_0$, we will be able to
243: derive the central electron density from eq.(3). As a result, there
244: are only two free parameters in the above equations: $\rho_{\rm{s}}$
245: (or equivalently $\delta_{\rm{c}}=\rho_{\rm{s}}/\rho_{\rm{crit}}$) and
246: $r_{\rm{s}}$. These two parameters can be
247: fixed during the numerical searches for the solution of eqs.(8) and (9)
248: using the boundary conditions eqs.(10) and (11).
249: This will allow us to work out simultaneously the radial profiles of gas
250: density and temperature, and fix
251: the dark matter (NFW) profile of the cluster characterized by
252: $\rho_{\rm{s}}$ and $r_{\rm{s}}$.
253:
254:
255: \section{Application to X-ray clusters}
256:
257: Since the reconstruction of gas temperature profile is sensitive
258: to the initial input of $S_{\rm{x}}$ especially the $\beta$ parameter,
259: whether or not we can reliably derive the temperature profile
260: depends critically on the goodness of the single $\beta$ model fit
261: to the X-ray surface brightness profile.
262: We thus restrict ourselves to the X-ray
263: flux-limited sample of 45 clusters published recently by
264: Mohr, Mathiesen \& Evrard (1999), in which there are sufficiently large
265: data points to set robust constraints on the $\beta$ model fit.
266: The inclusion of a cluster is based on the following two criteria:
267: (1)The X-ray surface brightness profile can be well fitted by
268: a single $\beta$ model with $0.8\leq \chi_{\rm{{\nu}}}^2\leq1.25$;
269: (2)The maximum extension ($r_{\rm{m}}$) of the X-ray observed surface
270: brightness profile should be large enough to guarantee
271: the validity of the $\beta$ model at the outermost regions of clusters. Here
272: we set $r_{\rm{m}}\geq1.5$ Mpc. Unfortunately, it turns out that
273: there are only three clusters which meet our criteria
274: (Table 1): A119, A2255 and A2256. In fact, our first criterion
275: implies that the effect of cooling flows in the central regions of clusters
276: should be negligibly small. This explains the fact that the three selected
277: clusters all have large core radii. Note that the presence of cooling flows
278: may lead to the failure of a single $\beta$ model fit to the X-ray
279: surface brightness profiles. In other words, our method cannot be applied to
280: the clusters with strong cooling flows. While the X-ray imaging data
281: of the clusters can be somewhat accurately acquired, the present X-ray spectral
282: measurements have yielded the emission-weighted temperatures rather than
283: the central values $T_0$ appearing in the $\alpha_0$ parameter.
284: Therefore, we have to use the emission-weighted temperature
285: as a first approximation of $T_0$. Alternatively, we adopt
286: the universal baryon fraction $f_{\rm{b,BBN}}=1/6$ to
287: reconcile our cosmological
288: model of $\Omega_{\rm{M}}=0.3$ (for $\Omega_{\rm{b}}=0.05$).
289:
290:
291:
292:
293: \begin{table}
294: \vskip 0.2truein
295: \scriptsize
296: \begin{center}
297: \caption{Cluster Sample}
298: \begin{tabular}{llll}
299: \hline
300: & & & \\
301: cluster & A119 & A2255 & A2256 \\
302: & & & \\
303: $z$ & 0.0438 & 0.0808 & 0.0581 \\
304: $T_0$ (keV) & 5.80 & 7.30 & 7.51 \\
305: $S_0^*$ & 1.18 & 1.68 & 4.41 \\
306: $\beta$ & 0.662 & 0.792 & 0.828 \\
307: $r_{\rm{c}}$ (Mpc) & 0.494 & 0.608 & 0.500 \\
308: $n_{\rm{e}0}$ ($10^{-3}$cm$^{-3}$) & $1.37 $ & 1.67 & 2.94 \\
309: $b$ & 4.15 & 3.48 & 3.31 \\
310: $\alpha_0$ & 17.80(12.30)$^+$ & 14.66(24.80)$^+$ & 13.15(13.21)$^+$\\
311: $\delta_{\rm{c}}$ & 130(490)$^+$ & 184(230)$^+$ & 345(1220)$^+$ \\
312: $r_{\rm{s}}$ (Mpc) & 5.77(2.59)$^+$ & 4.82(5.99)$^+$ & 3.43(2.03)$^+$\\
313: & & & \\
314: \hline
315: \end{tabular}
316: \end{center}
317:
318: \parbox{8.5in}{$^*$In units of $10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$
319: arcmin$^{-2}$ for energy band 0.5-2.0 keV;}
320: \parbox{8.5in}{$^+$The result for an isothermal gas distribution.}
321: \end{table}
322:
323:
324: Using the available X-ray data of the three clusters from Mohr et al. (1999),
325: we have performed numerical searches for the solutions of eqs.(8) and (9)
326: by iterations until the boundary conditions eqs.(10) and (11)
327: are satisfied. The resulting parameters $\alpha_0$,
328: $\delta_{\rm{c}}$ and $r_{\rm{s}}$ are summarized in Table 1, together with a
329: comparison with the corresponding values for an isothermal
330: gas distribution estimated in previous work (Wu \& Xue 2000).
331: Most importantly, such a procedure enables us to completely fix
332: the radial profiles of gas density,
333: temperature and baryon fraction for the three clusters.
334: Here we have no intention to illustrate the radial variations of
335: $n_{\rm{e}}(r)$ and $f_{\rm{b}}(r)$,
336: which essentially follow the theoretical expectations
337: (Wu \& Chiueh 2000). Rather, we display in Fig.1 the radial
338: profiles of the emission-weighted temperatures for
339: the three clusters constructed from our algorithm.
340: Surprisingly, none of the temperature profiles of these three clusters
341: are consistent with the conventional speculations, and a visual examination
342: of Fig.1 reveals that they are neither characterized by isothermality nor
343: represented simply by the polytropic equation of state.
344: Nevertheless, these temperature profiles indeed demonstrate a similar radial
345: variation, reflecting probably the underlying structural regularity.
346: Basically, the radial variation of the gas temperature resembles a
347: distorted `S' in shape:
348: There exist two turnover points roughly at $0.1r_{\rm{vir}}$
349: and $0.4r_{\rm{vir}}$, respectively, where $dT/dr=0$, which separate
350: the temperature curve $T(r)$ into three parts -- a decreasing $T(r)$
351: with radius inside the cluster core of $\sim0.1r_{\rm{vir}}$, following
352: a slightly increasing $T(r)$ until $\sim0.4r_{\rm{vir}}$,
353: and finally a moderately
354: decreasing $T(r)$ out to the virial radius. Overall, the absolute values of
355: the gas temperature do not demonstrate a dramatic change within
356: clusters.
357:
358: %\placefigure{fig1}
359: \begin{figure}
360: \psfig{figure=fig1.ps,width=88mm,bbllx=80pt,bblly=120pt,bburx=540pt,bbury=650pt,clip=,angle=270}
361: \caption{A comparison of the derived radial temperature profiles
362: of three clusters (A119, A2255 and A2256) with the results of 11
363: clusters observed with BeppoSAX (Irwin \& Bregman 2000).
364: The observed data are normalized by the mean temperature for each
365: cluster, while the derived temperature curves are scaled by $1.32T_0$
366: for comparison. The horizontal axis is in units of the virial radius. }
367: \label{fig1}
368: \end{figure}
369:
370: The azimuthally-averaged radial temperature profiles of 11 clusters
371: derived by Irwin \& Bregman (2000) from an analysis of the BeppoSAX data
372: are superimposed on Fig.1. It appears that our derived temperature profiles
373: are in good agreement with their observed ones over entire radius range.
374: In fact, the significant temperature discrepancy raised in different
375: X-ray spectral measurements occurs in the inner parts of clusters.
376: In the outer regions, it seems that many observations have provided
377: a moderately decreasing temperature profile,
378: which is essentially consistent with our theoretical predictions.
379: Alternatively, our result is also compatible with the gas temperature
380: distribution at large radii revealed by numerical simulations that
381: demonstrate a temperature
382: decline of $\sim30\%$ of the central value at the virial radius
383: (Frenk et al. 1999).
384:
385:
386: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
387:
388:
389: In the absence of the detailed information on the radial temperature
390: profiles of clusters from X-ray spectroscopic measurements, we have
391: made an attempt to derive the gas temperature profiles by combining
392: the X-ray surface brightness measurements and
393: the NFW profile as the underlying dark matter distribution of
394: clusters. This has become possible when the intracluster gas is required
395: to satisfy the hydrostatic equilibrium and the volume-averaged baryon
396: fraction within the viral radius is required to asymptotically match
397: the universal value. Consequently, we have obtained semi-analytically
398: the temperature profiles of three clusters selected carefully from
399: the ROSAT observed cluster sample.
400: These derived temperature profiles are consistent with
401: the new observations of 11 BeppoSAX clusters (Irwin \& Bregman 2000)
402: and other measurements made at large cluster radii
403: (e.g. Markevitch et al. 1998) as well as the result given by
404: numerical simulations (e.g. Frenk et al. 1999).
405:
406:
407:
408: Regardless of the small sample, the three clusters exhibit a
409: temperature profile similar in shape when the length scales are normalized to
410: their virial radii, perhaps indicative of the underlying structural
411: regularity.
412: The present study provides a helpful clue to resolving the temperature
413: profile discrepancy: It is very likely that the lack of the high-quality
414: data of the spatially resolved spectral observations
415: would yield an emission-weighted temperature roughly close to isothermality
416: within $\sim80\%$ of the virial radius, which does not exclude
417: the possibility that a slightly increasing
418: temperature profile may be marginally detectable in the range of
419: $0.1r_{\rm{vir}}<r<0.4r_{\rm{vir}}$. This explains the recent observations of
420: Irwin \& Bregman (2000) and other studies (e.g. Kikuchi et al. 1999;
421: White 2000; etc.). However, our model does not predict
422: the flat temperature profile toward the inner regions of clusters
423: as reported particularly by Markevitch et al. (1998), although
424: a moderately decreasing temperature
425: profile will ultimately take place in the outer clusters ($r>0.4r_{\rm{vir}}$).
426:
427:
428: A conclusive test for the universality of our derived temperature profiles
429: can be provided by future X-ray spectroscopic measurements. Indeed,
430: it will be useful to apply the present method to other
431: X-ray clusters with good X-ray surface brightness profiles
432: measured to large radii and high-quality data of the spatially-resolved
433: spectral observations at least within the central regions.
434: This may allow us to further justify our model and include the measurement
435: uncertainties which have been neglected in the present study.
436: The inconsistency of the predicted temperature profiles
437: with the X-ray spectroscopic results will challenge the prevailing
438: models of structure formations as well as the conventional scenario of
439: cluster dynamics such as the hydrostatic equilibrium.
440: Finally, we should point out that our proposed method to obtain
441: the temperature profiles of clusters can be
442: significantly contaminated by nongravitational heating
443: processes especially from the supernova-driven protogalactic winds.
444: Recall that the asymptotic tendency of the derived temperature
445: profiles at large radii depends sensitively on the $\beta$
446: parameter, while the energy injection of supernovae and active galaxies
447: into the intracluster gas will result in a shallower
448: X-ray surface brightness distribution (David et al. 1990; Ponman, Cannon \&
449: Navarro 1999; Llyod-Davies, Ponman \& Cannon 2000). Without
450: correction to this effect the theoretically predicted temperature profiles
451: may rise too rapidly at large radii.
452: Note that at large radii the NFW mass profile
453: diverges logarithmically with $r$, which differs significantly from
454: the variation of the gas mass profile (roughly $M_{\rm{gas}}\propto r$)
455: expected from the assumption of isothermality.
456: For a cluster with smaller $\beta$, $r_{\rm{c}}$ and $r_{\rm{s}}$,
457: an increasing temperature
458: profile near virial radius is thus required to maintain the
459: universality of the cluster baryon fraction.
460: Therefore, a robust, theoretical determination of
461: the temperature profiles of clusters should also allow
462: nongravitational heating processes to be included.
463:
464:
465:
466: \begin{acknowledgements}
467: We gratefully acknowledge Tzihong Chiueh for useful
468: discussion and comments, and an anonymous referee for valuable suggestions.
469: This work was supported by
470: the National Science Foundation of China, under Grant 19725311.
471: \end{acknowledgements}
472:
473:
474:
475: \begin{thebibliography}{}
476:
477: \bibitem{}Cavaliere A., Fusco-Femiano R., 1976, A\&A, 49, 137
478: \bibitem{}Cowie L. L., Henriksen M., Mushotzky R. F., 1987,
479: ApJ, 317, 593
480: \bibitem{}David L. P., Arnaud K. A., Forman W., Jones C.,
481: 1990, ApJ, 356, 32
482: \bibitem{}Frenk C. S., et al., 1999, ApJ, 525, 554
483: \bibitem{}Irwin J. A., Bregman J. N., 2000, ApJ, in press
484: \bibitem{}Irwin J. A., Bregman J. N., Evrard A. E., 1999,
485: ApJ, 519, 518
486: \bibitem{}Kikuchi K., et al., 1999, PASJ, 51, 301
487: \bibitem{}Lloyd-Davies E. J., Ponman T. J., Cannon D. B.,
488: 2000, MNRAS, in press
489: \bibitem{}Markevitch M., Vikhlinin A., Forman W. R.,
490: Sarazin C. L., 1998, ApJ, 527, 545
491: \bibitem{}Mohr J. J., Mathiesen B., Evrard A. E., 1999, ApJ,
492: 517, 627
493: \bibitem{}Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1995, MNRAS,
494: 275, 720 (NFW)
495: \bibitem{}Neumann D. M., Arnaud M., 1999, A\&A, 348, 711
496: \bibitem{}Ponman T. J., Cannon D. B., Navarro J. F., 1999,
497: Nature, 397, 135
498: \bibitem{}White D. A., 2000, MNRAS, 312, 663
499: \bibitem{}Wu X.-P., Chiueh T., 2000, ApJ, in press
500: \bibitem{}Wu X.-P, Xue, Y.-J., 2000, ApJ, 529, L5
501:
502: \end{thebibliography}
503:
504: \end{document}
505:
506:
507: