Towards Understanding Galaxy Clusters and Their Constituents: Projection E ects on Velocity Dispersion, X-Ray Emission, Mass Estimates,

Gas Fraction and Substructure

Renyue Cen1;2 cen@astro.princeton.edu Received ; accepted

University Observatory, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 2 Department of Astronomy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195

1 Princeton

{2{

ABSTRACT
We study the projection e ects on various observables of clusters of galaxies at zero redshift, including cluster richness, velocity dispersion, temperature, X-ray luminosity, three total mass estimates (velocity based, temperature based and gravitational lensing derived), gas mass estimate and substructure, utilizing a simulation of a realistic cosmological model (a cold dark matter model with the following parameters: H0 = 65km/s/Mpc, 0 = 0:4, 0 = 0:6, 8 = 0:79). Some combinations of the various quantites are also examined in detail. It is shown that projection e ects are important for some quantities but insigni cant for others. In particular, it is shown that, on average, the gas to total mass ratio in clusters appears 30-40% higher than the global ratio due to projection, and the observed broad distribution of gas to total mass ratio is adequately accounted for by projection e ects, alleviating the need to invoke other physical processes. The lensing deduced mass is, on average, 20-30% higher than the velocity or temperature based mass, while a signi cant high end tail of the ratio of the former to the latter ( 2:0) exists. It seems that projection e ects can account for the existing observations of clusters with lensing, dynamically and temperature based masses. Projection in ates substructure measurements in galaxy maps, but a ects X-ray maps somewhat less, if appropriate measures of substructure are chosen. Given that most clusters ( 90%) in the simulated cosmological model do not contain signi cant intrinsic substructure without projection e ects, whereas about half of clusters would have been \observed" to have statistically signi cant substructure as measured by the Dressler-Shectman statistic, a fraction consistent with that for real observed clusters, it seems to indicate that most of the substructure observed in real clusters of galaxies may be due to projection e ects (if this particular cosmological model reasonably

{3{ represents the real universe). Finally, we note that much care is required to properly interpret complex structures in galaxy and X-ray maps of clusters of galaxies, which often display illusory con gurations due to projections.
Subject headings: Cosmology: large-scale structure of Universe { cosmology: theory { numerical method

{4{

1. Introduction
One of the most striking features in galaxy redshift surveys is the large-scale lamentary and pancake distributions of galaxies extending up to hundreds of megaparsecs (Geller & Huchra 1989). Satellite X-ray telescopes similarly tell us that hot di use gas with temperatures above one million degrees may also ll regions of intra-cluster space larger than the isolated regions in the centers of great clusters (Soltan et al. 1996). Numerical simulations of large-scale structure growth under the gravitational instability picture show general agreement with such observations, reproducing large-scale structures such as the \Great Wall" (Park 1990; Cen & Ostriker 1993), and X-ray clusters of galaxies with extended wings (Kang et al. 1994; Bryan et al. 1994; Cen & Ostriker 1994). It follows, then, that clusters of galaxies, which typically inhabit the intersections of laments and pancakes, should display quite di erent properties when viewed at di erent angles. Speci cally, a cluster of galaxies, when viewed edge-on in a sheet-like structure, is likely to contain much more external structures projected onto the sky (even when redshift information is available, due to complex motions of the structure) than when viewed face-on, causing confusions of, for example, identifying genuine cluster member galaxies or real intracluster gas, substructure, depth of the potential well, etc. It has long been suggested that systems such as the Abell galaxy clusters (Abell 1958), which are identi ed as large enhancements in the surface number density of galaxies on the sky, are substantially contaminated (Lucey 1983; Frenk et al. 1990). X-ray observations of clusters of galaxies by satellite telescopes such as ROSAT (Trumper 1990) or ASCA (Tanaka et al. 1994) with rather limited spectroscopic capabilities may have also confused foreground or background X-ray luminous objects with the intrinsic structures physically associated with clusters themselves. Hernquist, Katz, & Weinberg (1995) were the rst to suggest that many (and perhaps

{5{ most) of Hickson compact groups are not real physically bound systems, rather they are projected con gurations along long laments. In this paper we, in a similar spirit, show the e ects of projection on galaxy clusters, utilizing large-scale numerical a simulation of a realistic cosmological model, which ts most observations. We aim to examine the projection e ects on several properties of clusters of galaxies observed both by galaxies as well as by their X-ray gas. An important distinction between the galaxies observed optically (and in other bands) and gas observed in X-ray is made: we approach the projection e ects on galaxies assuming that each galaxy (above a certain magnitude limit) is measured accurately both in the sky plane and in redshift (velocity space), whereas X-ray observations of clusters of galaxies have lower spectroscopic resolution thus allowing more objects to be projected along the line of sight. The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we give a brief description of the simulation emphasizing the large size of the simulation, and detailed description of a method to generate arti cial galaxy cluster catalogs and their X-ray maps. Results are presented in x3, where we rst present qualitative pictures, then statistical analyses covering each of the ve topics in each subsection. In x3.2.1 we describe the projection e ects on galaxy cluster richness. In x3.2.2 the projection e ects on X-ray luminosity are presented. In x3.2.3 the projection e ects on velocity dispersion and various mass estimates are discussed. In x3.2.4 we examine projection e ects on gas-to-total mass ratio. In x3.2.5 we examine how projection e ects a ect the interpretation of substructure. Discussion and conclusions are given in x4.

2. Generating Mock Catalogs and Maps 2.1. N-body Simulation

A P3M simulation run on a GRAPE board based Sun Sparc 10 workstation is used (Brieu, Summers & Ostriker 1995). We simulate a cold dark matter universe with the

{6{ following parameters (Summers, Ostriker, & Cen 1996): H0 = 65h?1Mpc, 0 = 0:4, 0 = 0:6, 8 = 0:79. The model is normalized to the rst year COBE (Kofman, Gnedin, & Bahcall 1993) (with a slight tilt of the spectral index, n 0:95, and a gravity wave contribution of 25%). The box size is 128h?1Mpc with 2563 cells, 1283 particles and a Plummer softening length of 0.05 cell, giving a true spatial resolution ( 2:5 Plummer softening lengths) of 65h?1kpc and a mass resolution of 1:1 1011h?1 M . The power spectrum transfer function is computed using the method described in Cen, Gnedin, & Ostriker (1993). Gaussian initial conditions are used. The simulation starts at z = 40 and the simulation box at z = 0 is used for the analysis below.

2.2. Selecting Clusters of Galaxies

Particles in the simulation box are projected along each of the three orthogonal axes. Then, high concentrations of particles in the projected, two-dimensional distributions within circles of radius 1h?1Mpc are selected and rank ordered. The top 50 densest two dimensional clusters (in fact they are columns of depth 128h?1Mpc) along each of the three projections (total of 150 clusters) are selected for further examinations. So far, we have selected 2-d clusters ignoring any redshift information of a particle, a procedure similar to what Abell uses to select clusters. Each column has a area of size 6 6h?2Mpc2 centered on the 2-d center of the projected column, a size large enough to allow possible o set of the 2-d center of the column to the 2-d center of the main cluster in the column, when analyzed below. For each particle contained in these columns the following information is registered: sky plane position (x; y), line-of-sight distance r relative to the midplane of each column, radial velocity vr , mass density (obtained using SPH smoothing kernel with 64 neighbor particles; Katz and Stadel 1996, private communication) and local velocity dispersion (obtained in similar way as for ).

{7{ Next, we nd the line-of-sight position of the largest cluster in each column, and place it at a distance of 100h?1Mpc from us. The line-of-sight positions of all the particles in the column are then re-arranged to center on the main cluster in the column (given that the simulation box is periodic). The sky plane position of the center of the main cluster is calculated and the column is re-centered on the 2-d center of the cluster (rather than that of the whole column). In order to make direct comparisons with observations, we generate mock galaxy catalogs by assigning each particle with a luminosity drawn randomly from a standard Schechter luminosity function (Schechter 1976), i.e., N-body points are unbiased. We take the values of = 0:0275, = ?1:1, M = ?19:2, obtained by averaging over the CfA redshift survey (Marzke, Huchra, & Geller 1994) and the southern sky redshift survey (SSRS2; Da Costa et al. 1994). When we examine the properties of clusters of galaxies in such a mock catalog, only galaxies with apparent magnitude of 18.0 or less in each cluster (at a distance of 100h?1Mpc) are included for analysis, mimicing the spectroscopic apparent magnitude limit of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (Gunn & Knapp 1993; Gunn & Weinberg 1995). But the median redshift will be 3 times higher. Note that placement of the clusters at 100h?1Mpc is merely for the convinience of illustration and explanation. Furthermore, for each cluster we apply the pessimistic 3 clipping scheme (Yahil & Vidal 1977) to remove outliers. Here we brie y describe the 3 clipping method. Galaxies are rank ordered in velocity space along the line of sight centered on the cluster, then the most distant galaxy from the cluster center in redshift (velocity) space within a projected radius Rproj is removed, if it is more distant than 3 from the cluster center, where is the velocity dispersion of the cluster excluding that galaxy. This procedure is repeated until no galaxy can be removed. The remaining galaxies are then to be \observed" and analysed. Of course, we wish to see the projection e ects, so the \true" members of each cluster are

{8{ identi ed, in 3-dimensional real space, with those belonging to the cluster when a DENMAX grouping scheme (Bertschinger & Gelb 1991) is used, with a Gaussian smoothing of radius 250h?1kpc. Comparisons between the two cases enable us to see the projections e ects.

2.3. Generating Cluster X-ray Maps

Since each particle has a well de ned local density and velocity dispersion, we can, in a crude fashion, generate X-ray emission for each particle, assuming that gas follows dark matter and gas temperature is equal to velocity dispersion squared (that is, = 1; see Edge & Stewart 1991; Lubin & Bahcall 1993). A global gas density of b = 0:0355 is used, consistent with light element nucleosynthesis (Walker et al. 1991). Both line emission and bremsstrahlung emission are included (Cen et al. 1994; a code based on the work of Raymond & Smith 1977), assuming 1) a metallicity of 0:35 in solar units, as observed in the great clusters (Edge & Stewart 1991; Arnaud et al. 1992,1994) and, 2) the gas being in ionization equilibrium and optically thin. X-ray maps are generated in two di erent bands: 0:4 ? 2:4keV and 2:0 ? 10:0keV, with the former matching the ROSAT harder band and the latter mimicing the Einstein and ASCA bands. Emissivity-weighted temperature maps are also generated. A pixel size of 50 50h?2kpc2 is used and nal maps are smoothed with a Gaussian window of a radius 100h?1kpc. In order to show the projection e ects two kinds of X-ray maps are generated: 1) X-ray maps due to gas in the clusters alone and, 2) X-ray maps including foreground and background objects within a line-of-sight distance from each cluster of 60h?1Mpc, corresponding approximately to the spectroscopic resolution of ROSAT ( E=E 0:4).

{9{

3. Results 3.1. Pictures | Qualitative Results

Before turning to quantitative analyses, let us rst visually examine the galaxy clusters and their X-ray maps. Not to mislead the reader due to subjective selection criteria, only 10 randomly selected clusters are shown. These clusters are selected among the top 50 clusters identi ed along the x-axis projection. However, one human ltering (by eye) is applied to ensure that no more than one very similar con guration is shown. The 10 clusters are shown in Figures (1) to (10). Each of Figures (1-10) consists of 14 panels which we now describe. Panel (1) shows the projected distribution of galaxies in the cluster, as it would be observed, after applying the pessimistic 3 clipping method (Yahil & Vidal 1977), whereas panel (2) shows the \true" member galaxies of the cluster (see x2.3). Three symbols are used in panel (1): solid dots for \true" member galaxies which is also used in panel (2) where only \true" members are shown], open circles for background galaxies, and stars for foreground galaxies. Panel (3) shows the X-ray surface brightness in the band 0.4-2.4keV due to emission from all sources with line-of-sight distances less than 64h?1Mpc from the cluster center, as would approximately be observed by ROSAT, while panel (4) shows \true" X-ray surface brightness of the cluster due to the hot intracluster gas in the cluster only (i.e., excluding all possible foreground and background sources). The contour levels in panels (3,4) are 109;10;11;:::erg/cm2/sec. Panels (5) and (6) show the corresponding (emissivity-weighted) temperature maps for panel (3) and (4), respectively, with contour levels of 107:00;7:25;7:50;7:75;:::Kelvin. Panels (7) and (8) show the galaxies in real space and in velocity space, respectively. Panels (9) and (10) show the background and foreground galaxies extending from 25h?1Mpc to 60h?1Mpc from the cluster center in velocity space, respectively, which are intended to show distant structures a ecting X-ray maps. Panel (11) shows the galaxy density distribution in velocity space for \true" members

{ 10 { (solid histogram) and projected members (dotted histogram), and panel (12) shows the corresponding distributions in real space. Panel (13) shows the line-of-sight velocity as a function of the radial position for each galaxy relative to the center of the cluster the symbols have the same meanings as in panel (1)], and panel (14) shows the line-of-sight real space position as a function of the radial position for each galaxy. Clearly, a variety of projection patterns exist. A few general points are worth noting. First, we note that, cleanly or fairly cleanly separated structures in real space seen in panel (7) denoted as \true" member galaxies (solid dots), background (open circles) and foreground (stars) galaxies are, in almost all cases, completely mixed in velocity space (panel 8). Two distinct physical processes interplay here. First, the internal velocity dispersion in the cluster disperses galaxies along the line-of-sight, producing the familiar feature known as a \ nger-of-god". Second, the relative infall motions of foreground/background galaxies or groups (clusters) of galaxies, convolved with the dispersion e ect due to their own internal velocity dispersions, move these unassociated components into (or very close to) the velocity domain spanned by the cluster galaxies, often completely disguising the real space relative displacements (see panel 11). More massive clusters have larger velocity dispersions and larger infall velocities (at xed radii), resulting in larger surrounding regions being e ected. Second, the projected components change the velocity distributions of observed clusters in complicated ways. The intrinsic velocity distribution of a cluster, which itself is often non-Gaussian (even if one corrects for the 3 clipping e ect), can be broadened or narrowed, when acted upon by projection. Two simple examples shall elaborate this point. Let us take cluster #1 (Figure 1), the original velocity distribution (solid histogram in panel 11) is narrowed, simply because the two infalling structures, which have their own internal velocity dispersions lower than that of the main cluster, happen to have infall velocities that approximately cancel Hubble expansion from the main cluster. The net result is that

{ 11 { the total (observed) velocity distribution is narrower than the original one. An opposite example is cluster #10, where the infall motion of a rather distant infalling structure at 13h?1Mpc brings it (dotted histogram in panel 11) to the edge of the intrinsic velocity distribution of the cluster (solid histogram in panel 11), making the total velocity distribution broader than that of either of the two structures. Finally, while the substructures in galaxy distributions are often not easily recognizable by eye due to the small number of galaxies involved, X-ray maps are more revealing in this respect. However, it requires extra care to correctly interpret the substructure seen in X-ray maps. It is true that X-ray maps are much more capable of identifying substructures, but many of these substructures are projected ones, which have little or nothing to do the cluster. A few concrete examples will prove to be illuminating here. In cluster #1 (Figure 1), the apparent binary core structure panel (3) of Figure 1], which is seen only as a single core structure in panel (4) of Figure 1, is due to the projection of the background structure at a distance of 2 ? 5h?1Mpc from the main cluster open circles in panel (7), also panels (1) and (8)]. In this case, one may also be able to locate the corresponding structures in the galaxy map panel (1)]. Note that the core binary components are separated by about 0:5h?1Mpc only in projection. A naive interpretation of the existence of such a binary structure would imply that the main cluster is young, unrelaxed and undergoing a major merger. Such an explanation is obviously incorrect in this case; it is true that other structures are in the process of merging onto the main cluster, but they are at much larger distances than 0:5h?1Mpc. Let us take cluster # 3 as another example (Figure 3). In this case an originally smooth single structure (panel 4) has additional 7 substructures seen in the projected X-ray map (panel 3), scattered in regions about 1 ? 2h?1 Mpc from the cluster center in projection, due to various background/foreground objects at distances ranging from 2h?1Mpc to 20h?1Mpc. Clusters # 5,6 are similar to cluster # 3 in this respect. Finally, we examine cluster # 9. Here, a background structure at a distance 5h?1Mpc

{ 12 { away (panel 7) from the main cluster appears to be in the process merging onto the cluster core from lower-left at a projected distance of about 1h?1Mpc. This illusory appearance, again, could be dangerously misleading. What we have learned here is that projection e ects on X-ray maps are complex and easily misleading if careless attempts are made to interpret them. Furthermore, in order to correctly model such projection e ects, large-scale hydrodynamic simulations with box size of at least 100h?1Mpc (both to model the gravitational tidal eld and to capture the local cluster environment properly, noting that clustering properties in a simulation are only trustworthy up to the scale about a quarter of the box size) are required. In the pioneering work by Richstone, Loeb and Turner (1992), and Evrard and co-workers (Evrard et al. 1993; Mohr et al. 1995), attempts are made to make connections between cosmology and substructure/morphology. It will be very fruitful to continue this line of investigation using both improved theoretical modelling with larger hydrodynamic simulations and improved observations with higher spectroscopic resolution (reducing contamination due to objects at larger distances from the clusters).

3.2. Statistical Analysis | Quantitative Results

Now we turn to a statistical analysis of a sample of 150 clusters, identi ed along the three faces of the simulation box (see x2.2). We divide the clusters into two sets according to the observed velocity dispersion within the indicated radius Rproj ; we denote the set with proj > 600km/s (after 3 clipping) as \clusters" and the set with 300km/s< proj < 600km/s as \groups", where proj is the velocity dispersion of a cluster as it would be observed. Rproj is the projected cluster-centric radius within which anaylses of various quantities are performed. Three choices of Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc are used to examine the various projection e ects, in order to understand the dependence on the

{ 13 { cluster-centric distance.
3.2.1. Projection E ect on Cluster Galaxy Membership

Figure 11 shows the cumulative probability distribution of the ratio of observed number of galaxies to the true number of galaxies which are bound to the cluster (see x2.3), nproj =nclust, for \clusters" and \groups" (de ned above) at three di erent projection radii, Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. The median values of the distributions for the \clusters" and \groups" are comparable, and (nproj =nclust)median (1:10; 1:20; 1:60) at Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc, respectively, i.e., on average, the richness of each cluster is overestimated by about (10%; 20%; 60%) within the three chosen radii. Only (2%; 2%; 20%) clusters have nproj =nclust > 2:0 at Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. If one corrects for mean background density of galaxies, the small overestimate in richnes will be further reduced. It appears that the richness of a cluster is not signi cantly contaminated. Usually, \groups" have higher probabilities of being contaminated than \clusters" at large nproj =nclust. For example, the richnesses of only 5% of clusters are overestimated by 50% or more, whereas those of 13% of groups are overestimated by 50% or more at Rproj = 1h?1Mpc. Part of the reason is that clusters are intrinsically richer, so the relative contamination is smaller, although the absolute amount of contamination is larger on average for clusters than for groups.

{ 14 {
3.2.2. Projection E ect on Cluster X-ray Luminosity

Figure 12 shows the cumulative probability distribution of the ratio of observed X-ray luminosity to the true cluster X-ray luminosity due to the hot gas in the cluster, Lx;proj =Lx;clust, in the 0.4-2.4keV band for \clusters" and \groups" at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. We see an overestimate of the true X-ray luminosities by (3%, 10%, 25%) at the three radii (the e ects for the \groups" and \clusters" are comparable at the same radius), which should be compared with a (10%, 20%, 60%) e ect for galaxy number contamination (Figure 11). The fact that X-ray emission is a much stronger function of density and temperature (ex 2 T 1=2 exp?hv=kT ) than the optical counterpart, as normally considered to be one of the advantages of X-ray observations of clusters of galaxies against background/foreground contaminations, is indeed borne out from this analysis. This is especially clear noting the fact that X-ray contamination is assumed to be subject to a ( 3 times) longer projection baseline, re ecting the lower spectroscopic capabilities of X-ray telescopes compared to their optical counterparts. We summarize that the projection e ects on X-ray luminosity of a cluster is small, at radii ( 1:0h?1Mpc) typically used in X-ray observations. Finally, we comment that projection e ect is smaller at the harder X-ray band 2.0-10.0 keV than in the 0.5-2.4keV band. The results are not shown here. In general, the projection e ect on X-ray luminosity of a cluster increases with radius, as expected.
3.2.3. Projection E ect on Velocity Dispersion and Mass Estimates

We now examine how projection e ects alter velocity dispersions and various mass estimates for the cluster. We calculate the true cluster mass (calculated by counting all the particles within the indicated 3-d radius), and three observational mass estimates: a

{ 15 { virial mass estimate, an X-ray hydrostatic mass estimate, and gravitational lensing mass estimate. The results are primarily summarized in various ratios. Figure 13 shows the cumulative probability distribution of the ratio of the observed 1-d velocity dispersion to the true 1-d velocity dispersion calculated by considering the true cluster members only, proj = clust, for \clusters" and \groups" at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. We see that, on average, the projection e ect is to cause overestimate of the true velocity dispersion by (5%, 9%, 27%) for clusters, and (2%, 4%, 10%) for groups within the three radii. It appears that the velocity dispersions of clusters are only slightly overestimated due to projection. Figure 14 shows the cumulative probability distribution of the ratio of derived cluster mass assuming isothermal velocity dispersion (using the average observed velocity dispersion 2 (< Rproj )Rproj =G) to the true mass within the within the indicated Rproj : MV T 2 proj indicated radius, MV T =Mclust, for \clusters" and \groups" at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Figure 15 shows MV T =Mclust as a function of Mclust for clusters (solid dots) and groups (open circles). Examination of Figures (14,15) reveals several interesting points. First, the projection e ect on mass estimates di ers strongly between Rproj = 1 and 2h?1Mpc. The median value of MV T =Mclust is (1.10,1.07,1.59) for \clusters" and (0.75,0.78,1.02) for \groups" at Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc, respectively. Second, in general, the isothermal mass estimates of groups at Rproj 1h?1Mpc (typically used in observations) underestimate the true masses by about 25%, on average, with the 2 lower and upper limits being (0.50,1.20) (noting the non-normal distribution), and there is no correlation between MV T =Mclust and Mclust for groups. Third, cluster masses are, on average, overestimated by about 10% at Rproj 1:0h?1Mpc using the isothermal model, with the 2 lower and upper limits being (0.60,1.90) (a much broader distribution than that of the groups). A

{ 16 { large radius such as Rproj = 2:0h?1Mpc causes fairly large overestimates (with a very broad distribution) of the true cluster masses, therefore is not a suitable choice (perhaps more sophisticated models taking into account of the detailed distribution of the velocity dispersion may remedy this defect). However, we note that the tail of high MV T =Mclust for \clusters" is caused by clusters which have intrinsically lower masses but are severely contaminated in velocity space. These clusters are categorized as \clusters" precisely because of their in ated observed velocity dispersions. Finally, we point out that for the most massive clusters (M (< 1:0h?1Mpc) 3 1014 h?1 M ), the situation is di erent from that for the entire cluster set. At Rproj = 1:0h?1Mpc, the most massive clusters' masses are underestimated by about 20-30% on average by the isothermal model. Perhaps by coincidence, the isothermal model gives, on average, correct estimates for the masses of the most massive clusters at Rproj = 2:0h?1Mpc. An extrapolation based on Figure 15 indicates that clusters more massive than those contained in the simulation box would perhaps su er from mild underestimates of their true masses by the isothermal model by about 10-30% at Rproj = 1:0 ? 1:5h?1Mpc. Figure 16 shows MV T =Mclust as a function of nproj =nclust for clusters (solid dots) and groups (open circles). While the groups (open circles) show no correlation between the two plotted quantities, there is a clear positive correlation for the clusters. This helps verify the explanation (given above) that masses of some less massive clusters are greatly overestimated, due to large amount of projection contamination in velocity. We now switch gears to investigate the X-ray determination of cluster masses. Figure 17 shows the cumulative probability distribution of Mxray =Mclust, where Mxray is the mass derived from X-ray observation of the luminosity-weighted temperature (within the indicated radius) of a cluster, assuming that the cluster is in isothermal hydrostatic equilibrium. Figure 18 shows Mxray =Mclust as a function of Mclust. We see that X-ray

{ 17 { mass estimates are relatively larger for groups than for clusters, a trend opposite to what is found in Figure 14 for galaxy velocity dispersion derived mass estimates, due to the fact that some of the intrinsically less massive but velocity-in ated (due to projection) clusters do not have in ated temperatures. At Rproj = 0:5h?1Mpc, X-ray derived masses underestimate, on average, the true masses by about 12% for both clusters and groups. At Rproj = 1:0h?1Mpc, X-ray derived masses underestimate the true masses by about 15% and 8% for clusters and groups, respectively. But they overestimate the true masses by about 3% and 14% for clusters and groups, respectively, at Rproj = 2h?1Mpc. Comparing with Figures 14,15 it appears that X-ray mass determinations are relatively more stable and have smaller dispersions. Noticeably, several solid dots on the upper left corner in the panels (a,b,c) of Figure 15 have moved down in Figure 18. Finally, we add that for the most massive clusters (M (< 1:0h?1)Mpc 3 1014h?1 M ) in the simulation the X-ray derived masses are comparable to those derived using the galaxy velocity dispersions, with both fairly stably underestimating the true masses by about 10-30%; this observation is echoed by the fact that real observed clusters also show such an agreement between the two masses derived by the two methods (Bahcall & Cen 1993). This nding, in conjunction with the nding by Evrard, Metzler, & Navarro (1995) that the X-ray temperature determined mass agrees with remarkably well with true the cluster mass (not treating the projection e ects but with accurate computed temperature distribution using real hydrodynamic simulations), tells us that cluster masses determined by X-ray temperatures are probably fairly accurate. Next, we examine the gravitational lensing mass estimates. Figure 19 shows the cumulative probability of Mlensing =MV Tc, where Mlensing is the total mass including all the matter within a line-of-sight distance of 60h?1Mpc from the cluster within the indicated projection radius Rproj , minus the mean background mass inside such a volume, and MV Tc is the virial (isothermal) mass estimate using cluster velocity dispersion, corrected to its

{ 18 { 2-d projected value (using the individual 3-d density pro le of each cluster outside the indicated radius Rproj ; i.e., MV Tc includes mass outside Rproj along the line-of-sight). In real observations, lensing mass estimate would probably be subject to even longer projection distance than used here. Mlensing is the mass that a correct analysis of lensing observations should derive, assuming that the additive quantity due the ambiguity in the mass surface density near the edge of an observed galaxy sample in the methods of weak lensing mass reconstruction (Tyson, Valdes, & Wenk 1990; Miralda-Escude 1991; Kaiser & Squires 1993) can be properly calibrated. Figure 20 shows Mlensing =MV Tc as a function of Mclust. The rst noticeable feature in the gravitational lensing mass to virial mass ratio is that groups are severely contaminated, causing a large scatter in Mlensing =MV Tc (Figure 20) and a consequently much broader distrbution of Mlensing =MV Tc in Figure 19. Secondly, Mlensing =MV Tc for the most massive clusters (M (< 1:0h?1Mpc) 3 1014h?1 M ) is 1:3 at Rproj = 1:0h?1Mpc and 1:2 at Rproj = 2:0h?1Mpc. It is also interesting to compare the lensing derived mass to X-ray temperature derived mass. Figure 21 shows the cumulative probability of Mlensing =Mxrayc, where Mxrayc is the X-ray derived mass within the 2-d projected radius Rproj . Figure 22 shows Mlensing =Mxrayc as a function of Mclust. Figures 21,22 are similar to Figures 19,20, although Mlensing =Mxrayc has a slightly tighter distribution than that of Mlensing =MV Tc for the most massive clusters (M (< 1:0h?1Mpc) 3 1014h?1 M ), and at Rproj = 1:0h?1Mpc, the derived values of Mlensing =Mxrayc for the most massive clusters are fairly consistent with of Mlensing =MV Tc; the median value about 1.30 has a surprisingly small dispersion of about 0.2. A solid statistical comparison of the results shown in Figures (19,20,21,22) with observations would require more careful analysis of the theoretical models in two major ways as well as larger homegeneous observational samples. First, large-scale hydrodynamic simulations properly computing gasdynamic e ects are needed. What we have done here

{ 19 { is approximate, especially for the temperature of a cluster, which, in general, needs not to be equal to the dark matter temperature (square of its velocity dispersion). Second, one should employ the exact same methods used to derive lensing, virial and X-ray masses observationally to analyse simulations, utilizing real density, velocity and temperature distributions rather than assuming isothermal (hydrostatic) distributions, if necessary, as well as taking into account other observational uncertainties (e.g., edge e ect in the weak lensing mass reconstruction). Nevertheless, some crude comparisons between the simulations and existing observations may be instructive. Observations of the Abell cluster A1689 seem to show that the lensing derived mass is much lower than that using the galaxy velocity dispersion data ( proj = 2355km=s) within a radius of 1:0h?1Mpc (Tyson & Fischer 1995), while our simulation indicates that the lensing derived mass is usually larger than the dynamically derived mass. So the situation is intriguing. It implies that perhaps the velocity dispersion of A1689 is severely contaminated and in ated. There is some evidence that this may indeed be the case for A1689 (Teague et al. 1990). The hint is that there are several components about 10,000-15,000km/s away from the cluster center (last panel of Figure 5 of Teague et al. 1990), which are, of course, not included in the velocity dispersion estimate. It seems plausible that some other more nearby structures may have merged into the main cluster's velocity structure and happen to constitute the tails of the total observed cluster velocity distribution. Probably a more reliable measure of the potential well is provided by the X-ray observation (Yamashita 1994), kTx = (7:6 0:5)keV, which, in the case of = 1, translates into a 1-d velocity dispersion of 854km/s, 2.8 times smaller than the derived galaxy velocity dispersion, and in better agreement with lensing observations. Another example is Abell cluster A2218 at redshift z=0.175, which has a gravitational weak lensing derived mass of (3:9 0:7) 1014h?1 M within 400h?1kpc radius (Squires

{ 20 { et al. 1996), and an X-ray temperature derived mass (assuming in hydrostatic equilibrium) (2:6 1:6) 1014h?1 M . The ratio Mlensing =Mxrayc 1:5 1:2. Within the observational uncertainties the two mass estimates formally agree with one another. On the other hand, Mlensing =Mxrayc 1:5 can be easily reconciled by the projection e ects. Analysis of the relatively poor cluster MS 1224+20 at redshift z=0.325 by Carlberg, Yee, & Ellingson (1994) results in a Mlensing =MV Tc ratio of 2:5 1:1. This same cluster is also analysed by Fahlman et al. (1994) using the Kaiser-Squires (1993) algorithm, yielding a value of 3.0 for Mlensing =MV Tc, consistent with the result of Carlberg et al. (1994). From Figure 20 we note that it is not uncommon to have poor clusters to exhibit large Mlensing =MV Tc ratio; a value 2.5 is well within the scatter. It should be noted that clusters out of dynamical equilibrium do not necessarily give larger virial mass estimates. Another Abell galaxy cluster, A2390 at redshift z=0.23, is analysed by Squires et al. (1996), showing that the lensing derived mass is higher than that derived from velocity dispersion by a factor of 1:6 at a radius of Rproj 0:7h?1Mpc (taking the rightmost point in Figure 3 of Squires et al. 1996 and comparing it to the dashed curve at 260 arcseconds). Smail et al. (1995) analysed two clusters Cl 1455+22 at redshift z=0.26 and Cl 0016+16 at redshift z=0.55, nding that the lensing deduced masses are in good agreement with those derived using other methods. To summarize, the observed clusters, which have both lensing derived mass and either virial mass or X-ray mass, in general, show Mlensing =MV Tc;xrayc > 1:0, except for A1689. It seems that projection e ects on the various quantities involved can well account for these numbers at the present time given the large statistical uncertainties in all three quantities. Furthermore, a modest (20%) amount of velocity bias of galaxies over dark matter would raise the computed ratio of the lensing to dispersion based mass in the simulation by a

{ 21 { factor of 1.4. Similar temperature bias has the same e ect. However, if the relatively large values of Mlensing =MV Tc;xrayc 3:0 survive with future improved observations of lower uncertainties, we will be perhaps forced to re-examine our understanding of the physical and dynamical processes in the clusters of galaxies (e.g., Loeb & Mao 1994; Miralda-Escude & Babul 1995). Finally, we would like to note that it is anticipated that the projection e ects will become progressively more severe at higher redshift because 1) structures in the past tend to be more lamentary and sheet-like (i.e., less knoty), and 2) observations become more di cult at higher redshift.
3.2.4. Gas to Total Mass Ratio in Clusters

We now study the issue of gas-to-total mass ratio in clusters of galaxies, a topic of major cosmological importance, because it places an important constraint on = b , recently emphasized by White et al. (1993). Figure 23 shows the di erential probability distribution of the gas-to-total mass ratio Mgas =Mtot , in units of b = tot , for \clusters" (thick curve) and \groups" (thin curve) at a radius Rproj = 1:0h?1Mpc, where Mtot = Mxray . In taking into account the projection e ects we argue that the true intrinsic ratio (which is assumed unity in units of the global ratio) will be modi ed by the change in the derived gas mass (from X-ray luminosity) and in the total mass estimate as: Mgas =Mtot = (Lproj =Lclust)1=2 ]=(Mxray =Mclust) (see Figure 12 for the distribution of Lproj =Lclust and Figures 17,18 for the distribution of Mxray =Mclust). A more sophisticated treatment by de-projecting the surface brightness distribution to obtain the gas mass is not attempted here due to the rather approximate treatment of the X-ray maps. Figure 24 shows Mgas =Mtot as a function of Mclust.

{ 22 { On average, clusters and groups have a value of Mgas =Mtot larger than the global ratio by 30-40%. This helps but is not quite su cient to reconcile the standard nucleosynthesis value of b = 0:0125h?2 (Walker et al. 1991) and = 1 with the observed gas-to-mass ratio value in clusters of galaxies, 0:05h?3=2 (Lubin et al. 1996), for any reasonable h. For example, if we take a generous 40% increase due to projection e ects, an h = 0:7, = 1 model would have on average the gas-to-total mass ratio of 0:036 in clusters, still more than a factor of 2 smaller than 0:085, the value observed in real clusters for the given h. However, the observed broad distribution (Figure 4 of Forman & Jones 1994) of Mgas=Mtot seems to be adequately accounted for by the projection e ects without invoking other processes such as gas being driven out of the clusters due to supervovae explosion energy deposited in the cluster gas, or gas being more segregated in clusters than dark matter by some unknown processes. Furthermore, groups tend to occupy more of the lower end of the distribution, again as indicated by observations (Forman & Jones 1994). Finally, the null correlation between Mgas =Mtot and Mclust (or velocity dispersion) as shown in Figure 24 is also consistent with observations, hinting that any segregational process between gas and dark matter which depends on the mass or potential depth of a cluster does not play a signi cant role.
3.2.5. Projection E ect on Substructure

Lastly, the projection e ects on substructure in clusters of galaxies are examined. We don't attempt to examine all proposed substructure measures (for a complete list of substructure measures see Pinkney et al. 1996). We pick two proposed measures for galaxy maps and propose one for X-ray maps, beginning with an analysis of the velocity distribution, parameterized by the kurtosis, \Kurt". Figure 25 shows the distribution of the di erence between two kurtoses: Kurtclust is the

{ 23 { intrinsic kurtosis of the cluster velocity distribution without any projection contamination, Kurtproj is the kurtosis of the cluster velocity eld including projected foreground and background structures. Figure 26 plots Kurtproj against Kurtclust. Three points are interesting. First, the intrinsic kurtosis distribution itself is rather broad, i.e., many groups or clusters do not possess Gaussian velocity distribution even without projection contamination. Second, projection e ects change the intrinsic kurtosis of a cluster or a group rather randomly at large projection radius of Rproj = 2:0h?1 Mpc; at smaller projection radii, there is a clear correlation between Kurtproj and Kurtclust, albeit with some dispersion, as con rmed by the relatively small scatters in panels (a,b) of Figure 26 and the peaky distribution at Kurt = 0 in Figure 25. Finally, given the rather broad distribution of Kurtclust seen in Figure 26, it seems that kurtosis of the velocity eld may not serve as a good measure of substructure in a cluster. Another statistic, designed to measure substructures which are localized in both spatial and velocity spaces, is the Dressler-Shectman statistic (Dressler & Shectman 1988): =
2 i
N X i; i=1

(1)
i

where N is the total number of galaxies in the cluster, and = (11= 2) (vlocal ? v)2 + (

for each galaxy is de ned as: )2]; (2)

local ?

where v and are the mean velocity and global velocity dispersion of the cluster; vlocal and local are the local mean velocity and local velocity dispersion for 10 nearest neighbors around a galaxy. Following Dressler & Shectman (1988), 1,000 Monte Carlo models are run to calibrate the statistic for each cluster. Each Monte Carlo model is made by randomly shu ing the velocities among the cluster galaxies. Then, we de ne P (> ) as the fraction of total number of Monte Carlo models of the cluster that have 0 s larger than the true value of the cluster. P (> ) 1:0 means that the cluster contains no substructure, while P (> ) 0:0 indicates that the cluster contains statistically signi cant substructure.

{ 24 { Figure 27a shows the probability distribution of P (> ) for the \true" cluster without projected external structures, at three projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. The probability is normalized such that the sum of all the bins is unity. Figure 27b shows the corresponding probability distribution of P (> ) for the actual observed cluster including projected galaxies. The projection e ect is striking. We see that only (4%,0%), (7%,1%), (10%, 0%) of (clusters,groups) have intrinsically, statistically signi cant (Pclust < 0:1) substructures when only the true members are analyzed, at Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc, respectively. In sharp contrast, (63%,45%), (57%,47%) and (83%,68%) of (clusters,groups) at Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc, respectively, are found to show statistically signi cant substructures, when the clusters are actually \observed". The large fraction of \observed" clusters of galaxies having signi cant substructure in this cosmological model is in accord with that derived from real observed clusters of galaxies (Dressler & Shectman 1988). Geller & Beers (1982) use a di erent technique to study the substructure in clusters and reached the same conclusion about the fraction of observed clusters with substructure. The trend of more substructure with larger projection radii is consistent with that found by West, Oemler, & Dekel (1988) and West & Bothun (1990). Having found agreement between observed clusters and simulated clusters analyzed in the same way, the fact that true clusters contain much less substructure, implies that the large amount of substructure in most of real observed clusters of galaxies is perhaps due to projection e ects. We now turn to the X-ray maps to examine the projection e ects on substructure see Forman & Jones (1994) for an excellent review of the current status of observations on the subject of substructure in X-ray clusters]. Here a new simple de nition is used to measure substructure in X-ray maps as follows. We nd all the local maxima in an X-ray surface brightness map, and de ne the luminosity of each local maximum as the sum of luminosities of all the pixels \associated" with the local maximum. \Associated" pixels are found by propagating each pixel along the gradient of the surface brightness until it reaches a local

{ 25 { maximum (where the gradient is zero). Figure 28a shows the distribution of N (Lsub > 0:1Lmain ), the number of substructures each having a luminosity larger than 10% of that of the main (central) cluster structure, for clusters at three projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. X-ray maps in the band 0.4-2.4keV are used here. Two curves are shown for the clusters at each projection radius: the thin curve is generated from the true cluster X-ray maps due to intrinsic cluster hot gas only; the thick curve is for the corresponding maps including projected structures. Figure 28b shows the equivalent distribution for groups. Figures 29a,b are similar to Figures 28a,b, but requiring the substructures having luminosities larger than 1% (instead of 10%) of that of the main structure. Inspection of Figures 28,29 reveals that the projection e ect on the substructure of X-ray maps is insigni cant at small radius Rproj = 0:5h?1Mpc. But the e ect becomes larger at larger radii: about 2% to 20% of clusters, which originally do not have substructures with luminosities larger than 10% to 1% of that of the main structure, are contaminated to show substructure at Rproj = 1:0h?1Mpc; the corresponding numbers are elevated to about 20% to 50% at Rproj = 2:0h?1Mpc. Furthmore, we note that all the cases of having more than two substructures at Rproj 2h?1Mpc with Lsub > 0:1Lmain are due to projection, and all the cases of having more than three substructures at Rproj 2h?1Mpc with Lsub > 0:01Lmain are due to projection. Inter-comparison between Figure 27 and Figures 28,29 indicates that di erent measures of substructures in galaxy maps and X-ray maps may yield quite di erent results. In general, only a small fraction, 10-20% of clusters for projection radii Rproj = 0:5 ? 2:0h?1Mpc shows intrinsic substructure, as indicated by both the Dressler-Shectman statistic and the X-ray surface brightness local maximum measure with Lsub > 0:1Lmain . The observed large fraction of clusters showing substructures in galaxy maps is caused by projection. X-ray maps are somewhat more immune to projection, if one demands a su ciently large

{ 26 {

Lsub (Lsub 0:1Lmain , for example). However, large Rproj 2:0h?1Mpc and/or lower Lsub (Lsub 0:01Lmain , for example) are unlikely to be very useful, if one's goal is to understand the intrinsic substructuring properties of a cluster. Needless to say, all the substructures contain useful information about the cluster and its surroundings. Precise comparisons between observations and models would require applying same measures to both observations and simulations, which appropriately include large-scale structures.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Utilizing large-scale N-body simulations to investigate the projection e ects on various observables, we nd that projection alters many observables in di erent ways to varying degrees, and in general projection e ects increase with cluster-centric radius. Even with precise information of the positions of galaxies in three dimensional space (sky plane position plus radial velocity) quantities constructed from observed positions and velocities of galaxies in clusters are a ected by projection of background and foreground structures, due to complex motions in and around clusters. Given that X-ray telescopes have relatively lower capabilities of yielding accurate radial information, we show that X-ray maps are also seriously contaminated, but partially balanced by the fact that X-ray emission is a stronger function of local density and temperature than the optical counterpart. We will rst summarize the results in six points and then conclude with discussions of the limit of the present work and of prospects of signi cant improvement in the future. 1) The number of galaxies in a cluster is, on average, increased by 10% and 20% at Rproj = (0:5; 1:0)h?1Mpc, respectively, due to projection. The contamination of X-ray cluster luminosity is much smaller, being 3% and 10% at the two radii. We conclude that the richness or X-ray luminosity of a cluser is not signi cantly a ected by projection.

{ 27 { 2) For the most massive clusters (M (< 1h?1 Mpc) 3 1014h?1 M ) found in the simulations we nd that virial mass estimate (assuming isothermal distribution), on average, underestimates the true mass by about 20-30%, which is in agreement with the mass derived from X-ray temperature. However, we note that the dispersion is somewhat smaller for the X-ray mass estimate than for the velocity mass estimate. It seems that cluster X-ray temperature measurements probably provide the most promise means to determine galaxy cluster masses. 3) For the richest clusters (which are probably also more likely to show strongest lensing and other e ects thus more likely to be observed), we show that the ratio of lensing deduced mass to velocity derived mass (or X-ray temperature derived mass) is 1.2-1.3 with a small dispersion 0:2. But it is noted that large ratios (2 to 4) are not very uncommon, primarily created in situations where superposition of a cluster with another (or more) cluster(s) along the line of sight. A signature of such an event might be either an unusually rich cluster in terms of its galaxy number relative to its velocity dispersion or temperature, and/or high gas to total mass ratio, and/or relatively high Sunyaev-Zeldovich e ect. It seems that the existing disparity of the ratio of lensing mass to dynamically derived mass or temperature derived mass in real observed clusters can be accounted for by projection e ects. It is common to have ratios of 2 to 3 for poor clusters. It is, however, very unlikely that the lensing mass should be smaller than the velocity or temperature derived mass by a factor of two. 4) The gas to total mass ratio in clusters is, on average, 30-40% higher than the global ratio due to projection e ects of both quantities involved, with a broad distribution. This modest amount of boost narrows the gap but is not quite su cient to reconcile the standard nucleosynthesis value of b = 0:0125h?2 (Walker et al. 1991) and = 1 with the observed gas-to-mass ratio value in clusters of galaxies, 0:05h?3=2, for any reasonable h. However,

{ 28 { the observed broad distribution of the gas to total mass ratio in real galaxy clusters is adequately explained by the projection e ects. 5) We show that substructures in clusters are signi cantly a ected by projection. In this particular cosmological model, only about 10% of clusters show instrinsic substructure, as measured by the Dressler-Shectman statistic, at Rproj = 1:0h?1Mpc. But this number is increased to about 50% when these clusters are \observed" including projection e ects, as real clusters are. X-ray clusters show a similar fraction of clusters with substructure, if one de nes substructure as local X-ray surface brightness maximum whose luminosity exceeds 10% of that of the main structure in the cluster, at Rproj = 1:0h?1Mpc. In contrast to galaxy maps, X-ray maps are much more immune to projection in terms of substructure measurements. It seems to indicate that X-ray maps provide a better tool to measure the intrinsic substucture in clusters. However, measuring the substructure in X-ray maps out to a large radius such as Rproj 2:0h?1 becomes meaningless because projection e ects dominate over the intrinsic substructures. If this particular cosmological model represents the real universe, the agreement between observed substructure in real clusters and that in our simulated clusters subject to projection e ects seems to indicate that most of the substructures observed in cluster galaxies are due to projection e ects. 6) In many cases, galaxy maps and X-ray maps can be easily mis-interpreted because projection of background or foreground structures may create some illusory situations. Infall motions of other structures (which are often non yet bound or not in the process of immediately merging onto the cluster) towards the main cluster, render it very di cult or sometimes impossible to separate them from the intrinsic cluster members. For example, in cluster #1 (Figure 1), the apparent binary core structure (panel 3), is due to the projection of the background structure at a distance of 2 ? 5h?1Mpc from the main cluster along the line of sight, but appearing as a substructure merging onto the cluster at a projected

{ 29 { distance of 0:5h?1Mpc. A naive interpretation of the existence of such a binary structure would imply that the main cluster is young, unrelaxed and undergoing a major merger, which is obviously incorrect in this case. We note that it is likely that the projection e ects discussed here might quite strongly depend on the speci cs of a particular cosmological model. It may be expected that for a cluster with a given mass, the projection e ects may be in the following order from strong to weak: = 1 model, + = 1 model, open < 1 model, at z=0, presumably dictated by the combination of the strength of the velocity eld in the vicinity of a cluster and the growth history of large-scale structures. The dependence on the shape of the power spectrum is likely to be relatively weak for properties concerning galaxies in the clusters, although X-ray properties of clusters would still be much more sensitive to the large-scale power in a model until X-ray telescopes' spectroscopic capabilities are substantially better. On the other hand, it is expected that projection e ects at high redshift will be much more severe, simply because the relative overdensities of the clusters decreases with redshift. This problem is exacerbated by substantially higher di culties concerning high redshift observations. We will conclude the paper with some cautionary remarks concerning the present work as well as some encouraging words regarding the future prospects. The present study employs an N-body only simulation, so many of the properties, especially the X-ray properties, should be taken as crude treatments. Also, galaxies are picked randomly from dark matter particles, although we suspect that the velocity estimate, mass estimate should not strongly depend on it. Hydrodynamic simulations, which incorporate detailed atomic physics with gasdynamics and gravity (Cen & Ostriker 1992, 1993a,b; Katz, Hernquist & Weinberg 1992; Babul & Katz 1993; Navarro, Frenk & White 1994; Summers, Davis, & Evrard 1995; Steinmetz & Muller 1995; Gnedin 1995; Katz, Weinberg, & Hernquist 1996),

{ 30 { should provide us with better tools to study the e ects highlighted here. One additional essential requirement for such simulations is a large simulation box (L > 100h?1Mpc) and simultaneously su cient resolution ( l < 50h?1kpc) in order both to capture the large-scale structure and to simulate the constituents of clusters, dictated by galaxy size and cluster gas core size. Combining the fast increasing power of computers and the rapidly maturing hydrodynamic cosmological simulation techniques with the next generation of galaxy redshift survey such as the Sloan Digitial Sky Survey and X-ray observations by the next generation of X-ray telescopes such as AXAF having both better spatial and spectroscopic resolutions, we should see a leap forward in our understanding of clusters of galaxies and their building blocks. The work is supported in part by grants NAG5-2759, AST91-08103 and ASC93-18185. The author thanks F.J. Summers for use of his P3 M simulation for the present study. Discussions with N.A. Bahcall, G. Lake, B. Margon, J.P. Ostriker and M.A. Strauss are very stimulating and gratefully acknowledged. The author would like to thank G. Lake and University of Washington for the warm hospitality, and nancial support from the NASA HPCC/ESS Program during a visit when this work was initiated.

{ 31 {

REFERENCES
Abell, G.O. 1958, ApJS, 3, 211 Arnaud, M., Rothen ug, R., Boulade, O., Vigroux, L., & Vangioni-Flam, E. 1992, A& A, 254, 49 Arnaud, K., Mushotzky, R.F., Ezawa, H., Fukazawa, Y., et al. 1994, ApJ, 436, 67 Bahcall, N.A., & Cen, R. 1993, Astrophys. Lett., 407, L49 Babul, A., & Katz, N. 1993, ApJ, 406, L51 Bertschinger, E., & Gelb, J.M. 1991, Comp. Phys., 5, 164 Brieu, P., Summers, F.J., & Ostriker, J.P. 1995, ApJ, 453, 566 Carlberg, R.G., Yee, H.K., & Ellingson, E. 1994, ApJ, 437, 63 Cen, R., Gnedin, N.Y., & Ostriker, J.P, 1993, ApJ, 417, 387 Cen, R., & Ostriker, J.P. 1992, ApJ, 399, L113 Cen, R., & Ostriker, J.P 1993a, ApJ, 417, 404 Cen, R., & Ostriker, J.P 1993b, ApJ, 417, 415 Cen, R., & Ostriker, J.P. 1994, ApJ, 429, 4 Da Costa et al. 1994, ApJ, 424, L1 Dressler, A., & Shectman, S.A. 1988, AJ, 95, 985 Edge, A.C., & Stewart, G.C. 1991, MNRAS, 252, 428 Evrard, A.E., Mohr, J., Fabricant, D.G., & Geller, M.J. 1993, ApJ, 419, 9

{ 32 { Evrard, A.E., Metzler, C.A., & Navarro, J.F. 1996, preprint, astro-ph/9510058 Forman, W, & Jones, C. 1994, in \Cosmological Aspects of X-ray Clusters of Galaxies", ed. W.C. Seitter, p39 Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., Efstathiou, G., & Davis, M. 1990, ApJ, 351, 10 Geller, M.J, & Huchra, J.P. 1989, Science, 246, 897 Geller, M.J, & Beers, T.C. 1982, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 94, 421 Gnedin, N.Y. 1995, ApJS, 97, 231 Gunn, J. E., & Knapp, G. 1993, in Sky Surveys, edited by B. T. Soifer, Astronomical Society of the Paci c Conference Series # 43, p. 267 Gunn, J. E., & Weinberg, D. H. 1995, in Wide-Field Spectroscopy and the Distant Universe ed. S. J. Maddox and A. Aragon-Salamanca (Singapore: World Scienti c), in press Hernquist, L., Katz, N., & Weinberg, D.H. 1995, ApJ, 442, 57 Kaiser, N., & Squires, G. 1993, ApJ, 404, 441 Kang, H., Cen, R., Ostriker, J.P., & Ryu, D. 1994, ApJ428, 1 Katz, N., Hernquist, L., & Weinberg, D.H. 1992, ApJ, 399, L109 Katz, N., Weinberg, D.H., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJS, 105, 19 Kofman, L.A., Gnedin, N.Y., & Bahcall, N.A. 1993, ApJ, 413, 1 Loeb, A., & Mao, S. 1994, ApJ, 435, 109 Lubin, L.M., & Bahcall, N.A. 1993, ApJ, 415, L17 Lubin, L.M., Cen, R., Bahcall, N.A., & Ostriker, J.P. 1996, ApJ, 460, 10

{ 33 { Lucey, J.R. 1983, MNRAS, 204, 33 Marzke, R.O., Huchra, J.P., & Geller, M.J. 1994, ApJ, 428, 43 Miralda-Escude, J. 1991, ApJ, 370, 1 Miralda-Escude, J., & Babul, A. 1995, ApJ, 449, 18 Mohr, J., Evrard, A.E., Fabricant, D.G., & Geller, M.J. 1995, ApJ, 447, 8 Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M 1994, MNRAS, 267, L1 Park, C. 1990, MNRAS, 242, 59p Pinkney, J., Roettiger, K., Burns, J.O., & Bird, C.M. 1996, ApJS, 104, 1 Raymond, J.C., & Smith, B.W. 1977, ApJS, 35, 419 Richstone, D., Loeb, A., & Turner, E.L. 1992, ApJ, 393, 477 Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297 Soltan, A.M., Hasinger, G., Egger, R., Snowden, S., Trumper, J. 1996, A& A, 305, 17 Squires, G., Kaiser, N., Babul, A., Fahlman, G., Woods, D., Neumann, D.M., & Bohringer, H. 1996, ApJ, 461, 572 Steinmetz, M., & Muller, E. 1995, 276, 549 Summers, F.J., Ostriker, J.P., & Cen, R. 1996, in preparation Summers, F.J., Davis, M., & Evrard, A.E. 1995, ApJ, 454, 1 Tanaka, Y., Inoue, H., Holt, S.S. 1994, PASJ, 46, L37 Teague, P.F., Carter, D., & Gray, P.M. 1990, ApJS, 72, 715

{ 34 { Trumper, J. 1990, Sterne und Weltraum, 29, 222 Tyson, J.A., Valdes, F., & Wenk, R.A. 1990, ApJ, 349, L1 Tyson, J.A., & Fischer, P. 1995, ApJ, 446, L55 Walker, T.P., Steigman, G., Schramm, D.N., Olive, K.A., & Kang, H.S., 1990, ApJ, 376, 51 West, M.J., Oemler, A., Jr., & Dekel, A. 1988, ApJ, 327, 1 West, M.J., & Bothun, G.D. 1990, ApJ, 350, 36 White, S.D.M, Navarro, J., Evrard, A.E., & Frenk, C.S. 1993, Nature, 366, 429 Yahil, A., & Vidal, N. 1977, ApJ, 214, 347 Yamashita, K. 1994, in the Proceedings of the Rencontres de Moriond Conference on \Clusters of Galaxies", ed. F. Durret et al.

ATEX macros v4.0. This manuscript was prepared with the AAS L

{ 35 {

Figure Captions
Fig. 1.| shows detailed structure of cluster #1. Panel 1: the projected distribution of galaxies in the cluster. Panel 2: the \true" member galaxies of the cluster. Three symbols are used: solid dots for \true" member galaxies open circles for background galaxies, and stars for foreground galaxies. Panel 3: the X-ray surface brightness in the band 0.4-2.4keV due to emission from all sources with line-of-sight distances less than 64h?1Mpc from the cluster center. Panel 4: \true" X-ray surface brightness of the cluster due to the hot intracluster gas in the cluster only (i.e., excluding all possible foreground and background sources). The contour levels in panels (3,4) are 109;10;11;:::erg/cm2/sec. Panels 5,6: the corresponding (emissivity-weighted) temperature maps for panel (3) and (4), respectively, with contour levels of 107:00;7:25;7:50;7:75;:::Kelvin. Panels 7,8: the galaxies in real space and in velocity space, respectively. Panels 9,10: the background and foreground galaxies extending from 25h?1Mpc to 60h?1Mpc from the cluster center, respectively. Panel 11: galaxy density distribution in velocity space for \true" members (solid histogram) and projected members (dotted histogram). Panel 12: the corresponding distributions in real space. Panel 13: the line-of-sight velocity as a function of the radial position for each galaxy the symbols have the same meanings as in panel (1)]. Panel 14: the line-of-sight real space position as a function of the radial position for each galaxy. Fig. 2.| shows detailed structure of cluster #2. See caption of Figure 1 for detailed descriptions. Fig. 3.| shows detailed structure of cluster #3. See caption of Figure 1 for detailed descriptions. Fig. 4.| shows detailed structure of cluster #4. See caption of Figure 1 for detailed

{ 36 { descriptions. Fig. 5.| shows detailed structure of cluster #5. See caption of Figure 1 for detailed descriptions. Fig. 6.| shows detailed structure of cluster #6. See caption of Figure 1 for detailed descriptions. Fig. 7.| shows detailed structure of cluster #7. See caption of Figure 1 for detailed descriptions. Fig. 8.| shows detailed structure of cluster #8. See caption of Figure 1 for detailed descriptions. Fig. 9.| shows detailed structure of cluster #9. See caption of Figure 1 for detailed descriptions. Fig. 10.| shows detailed structure of cluster #10. See caption of Figure 1 for detailed descriptions. Fig. 11.| shows the cumulative probability distribution of the ratio of observed number of galaxies to the true number of galaxies which are bound to the cluster (see x2.3), nproj =nclust, for \clusters" and \groups" (de ned above) at three di erent projection radii, Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 12.| shows the cumulative probability distribution of the ratio of observed Xray luminosity to the true cluster X-ray luminosity due to the hot gas in the cluster, Lx;proj =Lx;clust, in the 0.4-2.4keV band for \clusters" and \groups" at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 13.| shows the cumulative probability distribution of the ratio of the observed 1-d

{ 37 { velocity dispersion to the true 1-d velocity dispersion calculated by considering the true cluster members only, proj = clust, for \clusters" and \groups" at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 14.| shows the cumulative probability distribution of the ratio of derived cluster mass assuming isothermal velocity dispersion (using the average observed velocity dispersion within the indicated Rproj ) to the true mass within the indicated radius, MV T =Mclust, for \clusters" and \groups" at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 15.| shows MV T =Mclust as a function of Mclust for clusters (solid dots) and groups (open circles) at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 16.| shows MV T =Mclust as a function of nproj =nclust for clusters (solid dots) and groups (open circles) at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 17.| shows the cumulative probability distribution of Mxray =Mclust, where Mxray is the mass derived from X-ray observation of the luminosity-weighted temperature of a cluster, assuming that the cluster is in isothermal hydrostatic equilibrium. Fig. 18.| shows Mxray =Mclust as a function of Mclust for clusters (solid dots) and groups (open circles) at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 19.| shows the cumulative probability of Mlensing =MV Tc, where Mlensing is mass which gravitational lensing method should derive, and MV Tc is the virial (isothermal) mass estimate using galaxy velocity dispersion, corrected to its 2-d projected value (using the individual 3-d density pro le of each cluster outside the indicated radius Rproj ), for clusters and groups at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 20.| shows Mlensing =MV Tc as a function Mclust for clusters (solid dots) and groups

{ 38 { (open circles) at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 21.| shows the cumulative probability of Mlensing =Mxrayc, where Mlensing is mass which gravitational lensing method should derive, and Mxrayc is the X-ray derived mass within the 2-d projected radius Rproj . Fig. 22.| shows Mlensing =Mxrayc as a function Mclust for clusters (solid dots) and groups (open circles) at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 23.| shows the di erential probability distribution of the gas-to-total mass ratio Mgas =Mtot in units of the global mean ratio, for \clusters" (thick curve) and \groups" (thin curve) at a radius Rproj = 1:0h?1Mpc. Fig. 24.| shows Mgas=Mtot as a function of Mclust for clusters (solid dots) and groups (open circles) at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 25.| shows the distribution of the di erence between two kurtosises: Kurtclust is the intrinsic kurtosis of the cluster velocity distribution without any contamination, Kurtproj is the kurtosis of the projected cluster velocity eld. Fig. 26.| plots Kurtproj against Kurtclust for clusters (solid dots) and groups (open circles) at three di erent projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Fig. 27.| Figure 27a shows the probability distribution of P (> ) for the \true" cluster without projected external structures, at three projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc, where is the Dressler-Shectman's (1988) substructure measure. The probability is normalized such that the sum of all the bins is unity. Figure 27b shows the corresponding probability distribution of P (> ) for the actual observed cluster including projected members. Fig. 28.| Figure 28a shows the distribution of N (Lsub > 0:1Lmain ), the number of

{ 39 { substructures each having a luminosity larger than 10% of that of the main cluster structure, for clusters at three projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. X-ray maps in the band 0.4-2.4keV are used here. Two curves are shown for the clusters at each projection radius: the thin curve is generated from the true cluster X-ray maps due to intrinsic cluster hot gas only; the thick curve is for the corresponding maps including projected structures. Figure 28b shows the equivalent distribution for groups. Fig. 29.| Figure 29a shows the distribution of N (Lsub > 0:01Lmain ), the number of substructures each having a luminosity larger than 1% (instead of 10% in Figure 28) of that of the main cluster structure, for clusters at three projection radii Rproj = (0:5; 1:0; 2:0)h?1Mpc. Two curves are shown for the clusters at each projection radius: the thin curve is generated from the true cluster X-ray maps due to intrinsic cluster hot gas only; the thick curve is for the corresponding maps including projected structures. Figure 29b shows the equivalent distribution for groups.