1 / 50

debris disc modelling

debris disc modelling. Philippe Thébault Paris Observatory/Stockholm Observatory. Disc modelling: going from there…. …to there…. …and there. Outline. I . Observational data: the need for modelling II . Size and spatial distributions of debris discs III . Collisional avalanches

talli
Télécharger la présentation

debris disc modelling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. debris disc modelling Philippe Thébault Paris Observatory/Stockholm Observatory

  2. Disc modelling: going from there….

  3. …to there…

  4. …and there

  5. Outline • I. Observational data: the need for modelling • II. Size and spatial distributions of debris discs • III. Collisional avalanches • IV. Outer edges of debris discs • V. Vertical structure of debris discs (work in progress)

  6. what is a debris disc? • it is not a protoplanetary disc • Lagrange et al.(2000): • Mdisc<<0.01 M* • Ldisc/L*<<1 • Dust and gas dynamics decoupled (Mgas<10Mdust) • Dust lifetime < System’s age (« debris ») • debris discs are made from collisionally eroding leftovers from the planet-formation process

  7. relative timescales: collisions are the dominant process! Example: β-Pic (Artymowicz, 1997)

  8. protoplanetary discs around YSOs Young (<107yrs) and massive (~100M) discs, with Mgas/Mdust~100

  9. « protoplanetary » discs Debris discs Greaves (2005)

  10. Discoveries of debris discs, the IR trilogy: IRAS/ISO/Spitzer IRAS (ESA, 1983): all sky survey. Resolution~0.5’-2’. First IR-excess detection: Vega (“vega-type” stars). ~170 IR-excess detections => ~15% of stars with debris discs ISO (ESA, 1996): pointed telescope. Resolution~1.5”-90”. 22 new detections. ~17% of stars with discs. Spectral type dependancy: A:40%, F:9%, G:19%, K:8%. Spitzer (NASA, 2003): pointed telescope, currently operating. Resolution~1”-10”. Truckload of new results coming out.

  11. Imaging of debris discs: visible/near IR b-Pictoris (1984)

  12. 0.5µm 0.5µm 1-2µm 10-20µm 850µm β-Pictoris: multi wavelength imaging

  13. the debris disc zoo

  14. and some more…

  15. Circumstellar disc observations: wavelength vs radius probed Circumstellar discs have been studied at all wavelengths from optical to cm Different wavelengths probe different locations in the disc; e.g., thermal emission from an optically thin disc, assuming black body grains: Tdust = 278.3 L*0.25/r0.5 peak = 2898m/T = 10.4r0.5/L*0.25 rprobed = 0.012L*0.5 AU NIR=0.1AU, MIR=1AU, FIR=30AU, SUB=1000AU (though smaller as not observed at peak)

  16. What do we se? DUST (<1cm) • Total flux = photometry • One wavelength shows disk is there • Two wavelengths determines dust temperature • Model fitting with multiple wavelengths (Spectral Energy Distribution) • Composition = spectroscopy • Can be used like multiple photometry • Also detects gas and compositional features • Structure = imaging • Give radial structure directly and detects asymmetries • But rare as high resolution and stellar suppression required Scattered light: UV, visible,near-IR Thermal emission:mid-IR,far-IR,mm

  17. Deriving dust masses: sub-mm/mm photometry • Sub-mm/mm observations are the best way of deriving dust mass: • unaffected by uncertainties in Tdust • discs are optically thin so most of the mass is seen • larger grains contain most of the mass • little contribution to flux from stellar photosphere • The basic equation is: • Mdust = Fd2/[B(T)] • where d is distance,  = 1.5Q/(D)  0(0/) is the mass opacity and a value of 0=0.17m2/kg is often used for 0=850m with =1

  18. what we see • Dust ~ [µm,mm] • Gas (sometimes) what we’d like to know about • pebbles, rocks, planetesimals, asteroids, comets.… • Planets

  19. Numerical Modelling, why? • Observations only give partial (size, radial location) and model dependent information SED • Most of the mass (r>1cm) remains undetectable SB profile

  20. Numerical Modelling, what for? • What are discs made of? • Size Distribution • Total mass • “hidden” bigger parent bodies (>1cm) • Long term evolution, lifetime AND OR • What is going on? • Explain the Observed Spatial Structures • Presence of Planets?

  21. II. Collisional Evolution models • Derive accurate size & spatial distributions for the whole visible grain populations • Characterize the invisible population of eroding parent bodies • Understand what is going on: dynamical state, mass loss rate, presence of transitory events, etc….

  22. Size Distributions derived from observations are model dependent… (Li & Greenberg 1998)

  23. what we see ...and restricted to a narrow size range collisional cascade ~radiation pressure cutoff unseen parent bodies size distribution ??? ~observational limit

  24. ? doing it the lazy way: the drr3.5dr distribution Theoretical collisional-equilibrium law dN r-3.5dr What we don’t see What we see

  25. many reasons why the dNr3.5dr distribution just doesn’t work • assumes infinite size distribution • wrong: rmin due to radiation pressure rmaxbecause finite mass • assumes scale-independent collisional processes • wrong: response to impacts varies with size (strength regime for small targets, grav.regime for big ones) • neglects the specific dynamics of small grains • wrong: radiation places high-β on eccentric orbits

  26. Size Distribution/Evolution:Statistical “Particle in a box” Models • Principle • Dust grains distributed in Size Bins (and possibly spatial/velocity bins) • “Collision” rates between all size-bins • Each bini-binj interaction produces a distribution of binl<max(i,j) fragments • Approximations/Simplifications • No (or poor) dynamical Evolution • Poor spatial resolution

  27. statistical collisional evolution code • « Particle in a box » Principle • divide the population in size bins • evolution Equ.: • Collision Outcome prescription (lab.experiments)

  28. a5 a4 da a3 a2 a1 a(1), e(1) High e orbits of grains close to the RPR limit multi-annulus collisional code (Thebault&Augereau, 2007) • takes into account • Collisions (fragmentation, cratering, re-accretion) • simplified dynamics • Radiation pressure effects • Extended Disc: 10-120AU • Size range: 1μm – 50km (!)

  29. evolution of an extended debris disc size distribution evolution (Thebault&Augerau, 2007)

  30. (2) overabundance due to the lack of smaller potential impacotrs (1) Lack of grains< RPR (3) Depletion due to the overabundance in (2) (4) Overdensity due to lack of (3), etc… cutoff size RPR the ”wavy” size distribution

  31. collision rates the ”magical” tcol=(Ωτ)-1formula can also be *very* wrong

  32. why should we care? / Main Conclusions • Wavyness is a robust feature • Overdensity of ~2rcutoff grains • Depletion of 10rcut<r<50rcut grains • Optical depth dominated by a narrow range rcut<r<2rcut • visible dust radial distribution ≠ parent bodies distribution • (flatter) (steeper by a factor ~a) Be careful when reconstructing ”asteroid belts”

  33. Main Conclusions (2) • this has consequences on data anlysis from Spitzer/Herschel...

  34. III. Collisional avalanches Grigorieva, Thebault&Artymowicz 2007 Could clumpy or spiral structures be explained by transient violent collisional events?

  35. collisional avalanches: combined statistical and dynamical code Collisionnal cascade after large planetesimal/cometary breakup

  36. collisional avalanches: face-on spiral structures

  37. collisional avalanches: two-side asymetries

  38. IV. Outer edges of debris discs: how sharp is sharp?

  39. Outer edges: ”natural” collisional evolution of a narrow ring left to itself a-3.5 slope (Thébault & Wu, 2008)

  40. processes at play • Collisions in the ”birth ring” produce high-β grains on high-e orbits • Steady state: 0.2<β<0.4 grains dominate in the aring<a<4rring region

  41. the ”universal” a-3.5profile low mass disc high mass disc

  42. ”extreme” case with SB profile steeper than a-3.5 dynamically ”cold” system: e=2i < 0.01 main problem: how likely is it? high-β grains production is unefficient (low v among parent bodies) while high-β grains destruction is still very efficient (high v among small grains) => Depletion of β>0.1 grains

  43. fitting a ”razor-sharp” edge: HR4796

  44. in short ”natural” outer edge profile ”natural” if highly anisotropic scattering ”natural” only if e<0.01...otherwise, need for ”something” else to act

  45. V. Vertical structure of debris discs (work in progress) • Very few discs are resolved in z • the H/a ratio is our only reliable information on the disc’s dynamical state... if equipartition: H/a ~ 2<i>~<e> ~ <dV>/VKep ex: H/a=0.1 => <dV>~ 450m/s => Vesc(RBIG) ~ 450m/s => RBIG~500km • ...or is it? => Radiation Pressure on small grains!

  46. a numerical experiment Q: how do mutual collisions redistribute orbital elements for a population of grains affected by Radiation Pressure? • ”bouncing balls” code • ~20000 test particles • Size distribution: dnrdr • Size range: 0.04<β<0.4 • Inelastic collisions Thébault & Brahic (1995)

  47. thickening of an initially thin disc

  48. equilibrium profile

  49. Disc thickness

  50. Future work?

More Related