Leinhardt Protoplanets

Forming Protoplanets from Planetesimals:
The collisional evolution of planetary building blocks

Zo Malka Leinhardt
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge
Department of Physics, University of Bristol
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010

Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Outline
The Context
a. Observational Constraints - extrasolar planets, the solar system
b. Planet Formation Story - Once upon a time there was a cloud of gas ...
c. The Unknowns - planetesimal formation mechanism, initial conditions
Planetesimal Collisions
a. Catastrophic Disruption Threshold - accretion or erosion?
b. Velocity Dependent Collisional Response
c. In Future - scaling laws
One Collisional Event in Detail (Haumea Family)
a. Analytic determination of collisional regime
b. Numerical confirmation
Discussion
a. What does this all mean for planet formation?

Observational Constraints: Exoplanets

464 planets outside our Solar
System (29/06/10)
Diverse: 68 hot Jupiters, 21
Super-Earths, 45 multiple
systems, 69 around low mass
stars (K & M), 4 around pulsars
No exoplanet systems similar to
the Solar System (yet)
Data from exoplanet catalog (http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php)

Planet formation is common: 5%

of Sun-like stars have a Jupitermass planet (Marcy & Butler,
2000), 30% have a super-Earth
(Lovis et al. 2009)
3
Observational Constraints: Exoplanets

464 planets outside our Solar
System (29/06/10)
Diverse: 68 hot Jupiters, 21
Super-Earths, 45 multiple
systems, 69 around low mass
stars (K & M), 4 around pulsars
The Solar System
Data from exoplanet catalog (http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php)

No exoplanet systems similar to

the Solar System (yet)
Planet formation is common: 5%
of Sun-like stars have a Jupitermass planet (Marcy & Butler,
2000), 30% have a super-Earth
(Lovis et al. 2009)
3
The Problem
Observations provide snapshots of early and late stages but cannot
trace full history of planet formation
Young Disk around HD142527
Multi-planet System
Fukagawa et al. 2006
C. Marois et al. 2008
No existing complete numerical model of planet formation that can

connect early and late stages due to numerical limitations and
incomplete physical models
Idealized Story: Planetesimal Theory

Planetesimal theory described by isolated phases - influence from the
previous phase by its end state only
Planetesimal
Formation

Planetesimal to
Protoplanet
Protoplanet to
Planet (or core)

Planetesimal
Formation

Planetesimal to
Protoplanet
Protoplanet to
Planet (or core)
Planetesimal Formation: Hypotheses

Coagulation: growth accretion dominated collisions of dust
pro: consistent with meteorites
con: typical velocity dispersion is too fast (Blum & Wurm 2008)
slow - meter-size will spiral into sun before decoupling from gas
(Weidenschilling 1977)
weak - km-sized very fragile could be ground down by collisions

(Leinhardt & Stewart 2009, Stewart & Leinhardt 2009)
Gravitational Instability: collapse of dust layer (Goldreich & Ward 1973)

pro: fast - avoids intermediate sizes
con: turbulence heats up the dust layer reducing the density
solutions: turbulence at small scales (Cuzzi et al 2008)
turbulence + streaming instability (Johansen et al 2007)


Planetesimal
Formation

Planetesimal to
Protoplanet
Protoplanet to
Planet (or core)

Planetesimal
Formation
Planetesimal to
Protoplanet
Protoplanet to
Planet (or core)
Isolation of phases is a simplification - phases should interact & overlap

Multiple Generations: the Solar System

Planetesimal formation occurs
over long timescale
(Hf/W chronology, Kleine 2009):
differentiated planetesimals (iron
meteorites) formed quickly after
CAI + 1 Myr, ordinary chondrites
(undifferentiated planetesimal)
formed at least 1 Myr later.
Chondrites formed slowly:
Calcium aluminium rich
inclusions (CAIs) oldest solar
system material (4.56 Gyr),
chondrules younger > 1 Myr find
both in the same meteorite
X-ray cross section of meteorite PCA 91082,

chondrules in red (Mg), CAIs in blue (Al),
Image from Krot Univ. of Hawaii
8
Planetesimal Evolution
Planetesimal composition:
changes with time and
distance from sun - initially
porous planetesimals compact
(& melt) into solid
planetesimals. Solid
planetesimal may be disrupted
into rubble piles.
Impact speed: increases from
subsonic to supersonic as
solar system evolves
QD*: will change during planet
formation
Leinhardt et al. 2008

9
Planetesimal Evolution
Planetesimal composition:
changes with time and
distance from sun - initially
porous planetesimals compact
(& melt) into solid
planetesimals. Solid
planetesimal may be disrupted
into rubble piles.
Impact speed: increases from
subsonic to supersonic as
solar system evolves
QD*: will change during planet
formation

9
Numerical Method for Subsonic Collisions

Modelled with N-body code
pkdgrav
Target and projectile are
gravitational aggregates, similar
mass & = 0.5 - 3.0 g/cm3
Rubble-pile particles cannot
fracture, only gravity and
collisions (no cohesion)
Inelastic collisions between
particles governed by n = 0.2 0.8
10
Numerical Method for Subsonic Collisions

Modelled with N-body code
pkdgrav
Target and projectile are
gravitational aggregates, similar
mass & = 0.5 - 3.0 g/cm3
Rubble-pile particles cannot
fracture, only gravity and
collisions (no cohesion)
Inelastic collisions between
particles governed by n = 0.2 0.8
10
Numerical Method for Supersonic Collisions

Hybrid shock hydro (CTH) to N-body
gravity (pkdgrav) to model
gravitational re-accumulation
1A
1s 1B
20s 1C
60s
2A
1s
20s
60s
Impacts into non-porous basalt

targets with material strength (weak
- strong)
50 km
2C
109
107
3A
Impact speed kms/s, target radius =

1 - 50 km, mass of target much
larger than mass of projectile
2B
60s 3B
110s 3C
0.44h 4B
4.44h 4C
50 km
1A160s
50 km
4A
139h
Leinhardt & Stewart, 2009

11
First Order Collision Outcomes: Example QD*
Q (erg/g)
Projectile Kinetic
Energy / Target Mass
Q*DD(erg/g)
10
Impact speeds of 3 - 5 km/s
10
109
108
Strength Regime:
dominated by
tensile strength
0.100
Gravity Regime:
dominated by
gravitational
binding energy
106
104
10.00
1.000
107
105
VI (km/s)
Solid Basalt (3 km/s, 5 km/s, 45o) [BA99]

Solid Ice (3 km/s, 45o) [BA99]
0.010
0.001
Filled: solid target
Catastrophic Disrpution Threshold (QD*):

Projectile Kinetic Energy/Target Mass needed to
permanently remove 50% of the target mass
102
103
104
105
Target Radius (cm)
106
107
Open: porous target

#: porosity in %vol
108
Target Radius (cm)

12
Collision Outcome: Velocity dependent QRD*

10-5
Modeling results:
Strong Rock (Basalt) (3 km/s, 45o) [BA99]
Weak Rock (1 km/s; 90o) [LS08]
Rubble Piles (Mp<<Mtarg)
Rubble Piles (Mp=Mtarg)
Rubble Piles (Mp=1.5Mtarg)
gy
tion
106
1 km/s
Weak aggregates (Eq. 2)
10 m/ s
105
0.100
ene
r
9/(32) 23
qs RC1
Vi
3 23
+qg RC1
Vi
0.010
ng
1.000
ind
i
QRD
VI (km/s)
10.00
al b
10
103
10
<e>=0.01
vita
Q*RD (erg/g)
108
10-3
0.001
Lab data:
Gra
10
RC1 (km)
10-1
Basalt
Porous glass
<e>=0.001
104
100
102
104
106
108
RC1, Spherical Radius for Combined Mass at 1 g cm-3 (cm)
Stewart & Leinhardt, 2009
13
Collision Outcome: Universal Law for Mlr

2.5
2.0
Mp = Mtarg slope = -1.45 (0.06)
Mlr / Mtarg
Mass of the largest remnant is correlated with energy of impact

Mp < Mtarg slope = -0.47 (0.05)
1.5
(universal
law)
Mp > Mtarg slope = -2.32 (0.22)
1.0
Universal
law is effectively independent of mass ratio and impact angle
0.5
when normalising by Mtot and Q*RD
0.0
0.0
0.5
Mlr / (Mp+Mtarg)
1.0
1.0
Q / Q*D
1.5
2.0
B
Shapes = mass
ratios
slope
= -0.5 (0.05) Head-on
20o
45o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5

1.0
QR / Q*RD
1.5
2.0
14

2.5
2.0
Mp = Mtarg slope = -1.45 (0.06)
Mlr / Mtarg

Mp < Mtarg slope = -0.47 (0.05)
1.5
(universal
law)
Mp > Mtarg slope = -2.32 (0.22)
1.0
Universal
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
Mlr / (Mp+Mtarg)
1.0
1.0
Q / Q*D
1.5
2.0
B
Shapes = mass
ratios
slope
= -0.5 (0.05) Head-on
20o
45o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5

1.0
QR / Q*RD
1.5
2.0
14

2.5
2.0
Mp = Mtarg slope = -1.45 (0.06)
Mlr / Mtarg

Mp < Mtarg slope = -0.47 (0.05)
1.5
(universal
law)
Mp > Mtarg slope = -2.32 (0.22)
1.0
Universal
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
Mlr / (Mp+Mtarg)
1.0
0.6
0.2
1.5
2.0
B
Shapes = mass
ratios
slope
= -0.5 (0.05) Head-on
20o
45o
0.8
0.4
1.0
Q / Q*D
Mlr /Mtot = 0.5(QR /QRD
0.0
0.0
1) + 0.5
0.5

1.0
QR / Q*RD
1.5
2.0
14
Size Distribution
103
=1
b=0
Cumulative N (>D)
100
b = 0.35
b = 0.70
b = 0.90
Super-catastrophic (Mlr ~10%)

Catastrophic (Mlr ~ 25%)
10
Catastrophic (Mlr ~ 75%)
1
103
Merging (Mlr ~ 90%)

= 0.25
100
Cumulative size distribution for various

impact speeds, impact parameters,
and mass ratios
10
1
103
= 0.025
100
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
Diameter (km)

10
Slope of fragment tail (~ -3.5) is

independent of mass ratio and impact
parameter
15
Summary of Collision Outcome Model (to date)

Q*RD varies by orders of magnitude during formation of solar system (Benz & Asphaug
99; Benz 00; Leinhardt & Stewart 2009; Stewart & Leinhardt 2009)
Small gravity dominated bodies are weaker than previously assumed because of
efficient energy coupling during low-speed collision events
New variables define universal law for Mlr/Mtot vs QR/Q*RD that is relatively independent
of impact parameter and mass ratio
Size distribution of collisional tail independent of mass ratio and impact parameter
(cumulative power-law index -3.5 differential -4.5)
Leinhardt & Stewart (in prep) equations to fully characterise collision outcome as a
function of mass ratio and impact parameter where relevant: universal law,
catastrophic disruption curve, <v>, size distribution, transition to graze and run regime
16
A dark red spot on KBO Haumea
back to homepa
Haumea & Minions

Large & elongated @ 43 AU:
Radii ~1000 x 750 x 500 km
A dark, red spot on KBO Haumea

Haumea, a
large, fastspinning
KBO
The Kuiper
belt object
known as
Homogeneous surface & neutral colour
Haumea is
very
interesting
because of its
Fast spin period ~ 4 hr
large size and
very fast
rotation.
Given its
large size,
2 satellites + 8 family members
Figure 1 Lightcurve of KBO Haumea Lacerda
in two broadbands,
blue 2008
B and
et al.
about 2000
red R. The regular, quasi-sinusoidal shape of the lightcurve, together with
(first family in the KB but many in km
the
in asteroid
thebelt)
rapid rotation (period P=3.9 hr) are strong indication that this object is
diameter, and
elongated like a rugby ball. Two other important pieces of information
Hiiaka
if not rotating,
are the different heights (and depths) of the 2 peaks (and the 2 troughs),
Haumea
and the misalignment of the red and blue data points between the phases
should be
Mass of Haumea satellites + family nearly
~ 0.01 MH 2.7 and 3.9 hr, approximately.
spherical like
the Earth or
the Moon.
Haumea
is
Family velocity dispersion low ~ 150Thism/s
because its
(Refs: Rabinowitz 2006, Ragozzine self-gravity
& Brown 2007 & 2009,
would
Schaller & Brown 2007 & 2008)
Namaka
compress it
equally in all
Figure 2 Three simple models
for the Haumea
All these 17
directions and
Brown
et al.spot.
2006
reproduce the lightcurve data well (see Fig. 3). Although color is not
so force it
shown, the darker the spot the redder it is.
into
a
giant
Slow Collision?
Velocity dispersion of family members is small in comparison to escape speed
from Haumea, Vdisp < Vesc from Haumea (900 m/s)
Asteroid families have velocity dispersions ~ escape speed from largest
remnant Mlr ~ 0.5 MTarg
Vi = Vesc
BOOM!
M/2
Vesc = 0.7 Vesc
18
What about the Spin?

1
Impact Parameter, b
Assume all L of projectile and target goes

into Haumea
Analytic prediction of impact parameters
Bulk Density [g cm-3]

1.5
2.0
2.5
2.0 Vi = 1.25 Vesc
L
k
V
b=
Lcrit 2f () Vesc
(Canup 2005)
0.0
0.0
MP/MTot
0.5
Parameter space to attain required spin is

narrow

19
Numerical Method
Numerically difficult problem - family members much smaller than Haumea
(requiring high resolution), collision is slow (requiring long integration time),
large amount of energy in impact (need equations of state)
Refine parameter space: Low resolution numerical simulations (using a gravity
code only) over a range of parameter space to locate best match to Haumea
A few high resolution hybrid simulations (using two numerical methods) of the
most promising scenarios to find the best match to entire family

20
Graze and Merge

Mproj = Mtarg
R = 650 km
Vi = 900 m/s
b = 0.6
Ice mantle over rock core
(bulk density 2 g/cm3)
Gadget + pkdgrav
(hydrocode with EOS for
ice & rock + N-body
gravity code)
21
Graze and Merge Cont.
Icy mantles blue, rocky cores grey
Little mass loss on first impact
Cores merge quickly on second impact
Mass loss of mantle due to fission largest remnant is initially spinning

above critical spin rate
Satellites and family members released

close to escape speed

22
Results of Graze and Merge: Size Distribution
Match mass, spin, and elongation

of Haumea and mass largest
family members
Observed family is incomplete
Cumulative N(>M)/Total N
Mass of observed family

members derived assuming
albedo of 0.7 and bulk density of
1.0
0.1
Namaka
Hiiaka
Haumea
0.01
0.0001
0.01
Fragment Mass/Total Mass
1
23
Results of Graze and Merge: Velocity

Dispersion
1
0
0.2
V (km s-1)
0.4
0.6
35 stable satellites after 2000

spin orbits of largest remnant
0.8
1.0
(Mass of Fragments > V)/Mlr

Cumulative N(> M)/Total N
Observed family
incomplete x10
0.8
0.6
0.1
0.04
0.4
Namaka
0.02
Hiiaka
0.2
Haumea
0.01
0
(Mass of Fragments > V)/Mfrag
0.06
0.01 0.80.1 1.0 1

0 0.0001
0.2 0.001
0.4
0.6
Fragment
Mass
V/VMass/Total
esc_lr
Family mass small (.07 Mlr)

Satellites and family made of
mantle material (.8 MF)
Satellites have low velocity
dispersion (Vinf < 0.5 Vesc)
24
When and Where?

If the collision scenario presented here is correct Haumea + family are old but
not that old - the family could only have formed at the end Kuiper Belt
excitation/sculpting event
Dynamically hard to have the impact that is numerically the best fit --- still
trying to figure out how to do it. Need two massive bodies for graze and merge
collision modelled in this paper - not possible in recent past. Not clear that it is
ever possible.
Haumea is currently in classical belt but that could be the result of the impact:
the impact could have occurred in scattered disk and the result ended up in
classical belt (Levison et al. 2008) this collision is very slow though ...

25
What does this all mean for planet formation?

km-size range is weak: 1) km size needs to be avoided; 2) protected; or 3) the
1 km planetesimals do get ground down but a few are spared and grow fast by
accreting the debris of those that were not so lucky (Paardekooper & Leinhardt
2010)
Phases must overlap and interact our theoretical model is still too simple - in
order to connect directly with observations our models of planetesimal
evolution must become more realistic
The Haumea collisional family is an extreme example of a collisional family in
the Kuiper Belt there must be more in the Kuiper Belt when found would
constrain the collisional and dynamical evolution of the outer solar system

26

Leinhardt Protoplanets

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Leinhardt Protoplanets

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Forming Protoplanets from Planetesimals:

The collisional evolution of planetary building blocks

Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010

Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010

Observational Constraints: Exoplanets

Data from exoplanet catalog (http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php)

Planet formation is common: 5%

Observational Constraints: Exoplanets

Data from exoplanet catalog (http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php)

No exoplanet systems similar to

Fukagawa et al. 2006

C. Marois et al. 2008

No existing complete numerical model of planet formation that can

Idealized Story: Planetesimal Theory

Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010

Idealized Story: Planetesimal Theory

Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010

Planetesimal Formation: Hypotheses

weak - km-sized very fragile could be ground down by collisions

Gravitational Instability: collapse of dust layer (Goldreich & Ward 1973)

Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010

Idealized Story: Planetesimal Theory

Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010

Idealized Story: Planetesimal Theory

Isolation of phases is a simplification - phases should interact & overlap

Multiple Generations: the Solar System

X-ray cross section of meteorite PCA 91082,

Leinhardt et al. 2008

Leinhardt et al. 2008

Numerical Method for Subsonic Collisions

Numerical Method for Subsonic Collisions

Numerical Method for Supersonic Collisions

Impacts into non-porous basalt

Impact speed kms/s, target radius =

Leinhardt & Stewart, 2009

First Order Collision Outcomes: Example QD*

Impact speeds of 3 - 5 km/s

Solid Basalt (3 km/s, 5 km/s, 45o) [BA99]

Filled: solid target

Catastrophic Disrpution Threshold (QD*):

Open: porous target

Target Radius (cm)

Collision Outcome: Velocity dependent QRD*

Stewart & Leinhardt, 2009

Collision Outcome: Universal Law for Mlr

Mp = Mtarg slope = -1.45 (0.06)

Mass of the largest remnant is correlated with energy of impact

Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010

Collision Outcome: Universal Law for Mlr

Mp = Mtarg slope = -1.45 (0.06)

Mass of the largest remnant is correlated with energy of impact

Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010

Collision Outcome: Universal Law for Mlr

Mp = Mtarg slope = -1.45 (0.06)

Mass of the largest remnant is correlated with energy of impact

Mlr /Mtot = 0.5(QR /QRD

Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010

Super-catastrophic (Mlr ~10%)

Catastrophic (Mlr ~ 75%)

Merging (Mlr ~ 90%)

Cumulative size distribution for various

Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010

Slope of fragment tail (~ -3.5) is