arXiv:1901.03851v1 [astro-ph.CO] 12 Jan 2019 lseso aaisaetelretbudsrcue nthe in structures bound the largest in and the Universe, are galaxies of Clusters INTRODUCTION 1 n eprtr rpi bevdi h ete typically ( centre, time temperature the virial Hubble in the the observed of one-third is than reaching drop shorter temperature much a are and systems cooling-tim central these The for centrall profile. a brightness of surface evidence clear peaked show telescopes X-ray with forma- aged cluster during place took sub- that dynamical of tion. processes the degree on and The information state clusters. provides galaxy therefore in structure the common substructur of be consequently Simulations should that com- merge. show of scenario occasionally halos hierarchical also However, structures. mass smaller parable of mergers the © cetd21 eebr1.Rcie 08Dcme 7 nori in 17; December 2018 Received 19. December 2018 Accepted MNRAS ⋆ hsclpoete fteXrygsa dynamical a clusters as galaxy gas for X-ray diagnosis the of properties Physical 3 2 1 .F Lagan´a, F. T. A,Uiesdd rziod u,RaGl˜oBeo 6,C 868, Galv˜ao Bueno, Rua Sul, do Cruzeiro Universidade NAT, -al [email protected] E-mail: bevtoi oVlno nvriaeFdrld i eJa de Rio do Federal Universidade Valongo, Observat´orio do obneUieste NS M 05 ntttd’Astrophy Institut 7095, UMR Universit´e, CNRS, Sorbonne 09TeAuthors The 2019 ag rcino aaycutr hthv enim- been have that clusters galaxy of fraction large A 000 , 1 – 24 21)Pern eray21 oplduigMRSL MNRAS using Compiled 2019 February 7 Preprint (2019) Λ D oe hyaefre through formed are they model CDM 1 ⋆ .Durret F. lsescnb eibyasse hog h Dmp rsne h presented maps 2D words: the Key through assessed complex selection The reliably the estimates. be therefore mass can affect and clusters may clusters, criteria these complex galaxy reproduc to a of to according simplistic dynamics with alth too and Thus, mergers, are preserved. ture recent diagnoses remains most that of dist characterization, cool-core appear signs CC c a that clear studied with maps but well show spectral geometry show 16 one However, criteria but four cool-core. least in clusters a at of have by signs o not CC clear most do as show and most elongated, perturbation, and are of maps, clusters signs disturbed little The extract with cool-cores agree. be relaxed the kT, can are symmetric in spectra systems spherically which structures are the from resolving clusters regions when and small that maps in shows data 2D syste the building the divide of we of objective state dynamical the the With literature. ( correlating the metallicity of sp from and aim the diagnoses (S) the of entropy with view (P), date extended to pressure and (kT), detailed most temperature the of provide we maps, tral ABSTRACT eaaye XMM- analysed We 2 n .A .Lopes A. A. P. and eesne al. et Peterson aais lses eea aais lses nrcutrmed intracluster clusters: galaxies: – general clusters: galaxies: es es y er,Ldiad er nˆno4,Rod aer,R,2008 RJ, Janeiro, de Rio Antˆonio 43, Pedro do Ladeira neiro, Newton iu ePrs 8i dAao -51 ai,France. Paris, F-75014 Arago, Bd 98bis Paris, de sique ia om21 oebr29. November 2018 form ginal P05600 ˜oPuoS,Brazil S˜ao Paulo-SP, EP:01506-000, aaee o o esitcutr ihhg ult data, quality high with clusters redshift low for parameter asdpsto ( deposition mass ( clusters hereafter) 2001 (CC, cool-core as lses hyfudta h oln ie( time cooling NCC the and that CC found segregate they determin- To separate clusters, clusters. of unambiguously disturbed could aim from that the relaxed property with physical a criteria ing cool-core 16 compared ( clusters cooling-flow as 2003 h ubetm (e.g., time Hubble the iaosaetpclybsdo eta eprtr drop temperature central a on i (e.g., based These properties typically accessible. core easily are more dicators on clas are based X-rays, centres cluster clus- In generally because diverge. hereafter) are occasionally (NCC, attempts can core sification results non-cool and and ters, propo CC been have separate criteria to cooling of variety a since cluster, PCdt o 3glx lses hog Dspec- 2D Through clusters. galaxy 53 for data EPIC rca sethr sapoe ento facool-core a of definition proper a is here aspect crucial A ). ; un ta.2008 al. et Burns ihii ta.2005 al. et Vikhlinin 3 hne l 2007 al. et Chen ,acnrlcoigtm hre than shorter time cooling central a ), ae ta.2005 al. et Bauer ain1994 Fabian .Teesses ogknown long systems, These ). ). )o aayclusters galaxy of Z) ,aenwrfre to referred now are ), uhvr sflfor useful very ough C)aepreserved, are (CC) usne al. et Hudson eato nte2D the in teraction oed Pizzolato & Molendi ere. tutr fgalaxy of structure h vrl struc- overall the e frlxdsystems relaxed of re.Alo these of All urbed. osxcool-core six to m ta distribution atial ,o significant a or ), h Ccriteria CC the f A utr classified lusters d u analysis Our ed. T t E cool tutr and structure tl l v3.0 file style X ,SadZ, and S P, stebest the is ) ium -9,Brazil 0-090, ( 2010 sed n- ) - 2 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes and that cuspiness is the best parameter for high redshift with six important CC diagnoses considered in Lopes et al. clusters. Although these different cooling estimators con- (2018). We highlight that the maps reveal the detailed and sider the cool-core phenomenon as a bimodal feature (CC complex structure of galaxy clusters that can be missed in or NCC), several works have distinguished three regimes of CC diagnoses tools. cooling (e.g., Bauer et al. 2005; Leccardi et al. 2010), with A large number of simulations are necessary to account an intermediate category suggesting a transition from NCC for the variety of properties observed in this large sample, to CC systems. and this will be the topic of a future paper (Machado et al. Angulo et al. (2012) showed that cosmological conclu- in preparation). We are also performing a detailed analysis sions based on galaxy cluster surveys depend on the wave- of the dynamical properties of a subsample of these clusters length used for cluster selection. This issue has been ad- with a large number of galaxy redshifts available (Biviano dressed in the last few years with the availability of clus- et al. in preparation). ter samples selected through the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 we by the Planck satellite. The signal of thermal SZ (SZ, present the sample and data reduction and the method to Sunyaev & Zeldovich 1972) effect depends on the Compton- construct the 2D maps. In Section 3 we show our results, and y parameter which is proportional to the electron pressure we discuss them in Section 4. Finally, we conclude on our (Pe ∝ ne kT), while in X-ray selected samples, the surface findings in Section 5. We present notes on individual clus- brightness depends quadratically on the electron number ters in Appendix A. In this work, we assume a flat ΛCDM −1 −1 density (ne). Hence, the fraction of CCs in X-ray samples is Universe with ΩM = 0.3, and H0 = 71 km s Mpc . All likely overestimated. Due to this difference on the gas den- errors are given at the 1σ level. sity, there is currently a debate on whether the two exper- iments are detecting the same population of clusters, since X-ray surveys are more prone to detect centrally peaked galaxy clusters. Indeed, it has been shown that X-ray flux 2 THE DATA limited samples have larger fractions of CC clusters in com- 2.1 Sample and data Reduction parison to Planck samples (e.g., Rossetti et al. 2016). This result was interpreted as the CC bias affecting X-ray selec- This work is based on a sample of clusters studied in tion (Eckert et al. 2011). Lopes et al. (2018), limited to z ≤ 0.11, with publicly avail- For galaxy clusters to be used as cosmological probes, able XMM-Newton data. Lopes et al. (2018) used SZ and they must be dynamically relaxed, since non-gravitational X-ray samples presented in Andrade-Santos et al. (2017) processes can result in the under or overestimation of the with optical data available. Out of 72 clusters analysed in mass. The comparison of core properties with morpholog- Lopes et al. (2018), 55 systems had XMM-Newton data in ical properties shows that more disturbed systems tend to the archive, but the exposure times for two of them were have less well defined cores (Buote & Tsai 1996; Bauer et al. not sufficient to produce 2D maps. Thus, we ended-up with 2005). Thus, there have been attempts to correlate dynami- 53 clusters for which we studied the global spatial distri- cal properties with simple CC diagnoses as those mentioned bution of the temperature, metal abundance, entropy and before. pressure through 2D spectral maps. The full list of clusters Recently, Lopes et al. (2018) combined optical and X- under study is given in Tab. 1 and the redshift histogram of ray measurements, and showed that the offset between the the sample is shown in Fig. 1. We highlight that there are brightest cluster galaxy (hereafter BCG) and the X-ray cen- secondary subclusters, that we kept separately in Tab. 1 as troid or the magnitude gap between the first and the sec- done in Lopes et al. (2018), but most of the times they are ond BCGs are good and simple measures to assess cluster in the same X-ray observation as the main cluster and are dynamical states. Another way to separate relaxed from dis- shown together with the main cluster in some of the Figs. turbed systems is through the degree of substructures. The 1-10. presence of substructures is a clear sign of incomplete relax- Data reduction was done with SAS version 16.1.0 (July ation in a cluster, and X-ray observations of substructures 2017) and calibration files updated to 2017 July. Background in galaxy clusters are imprints of the recent and ongoing for- flares were identified and rejected by applying a 1.8σ clip- mation process (Jones & Forman 1999; Jeltema et al. 2005; ping method to the count rate histogram of the the light Lagan´aet al. 2010; Andrade-Santos et al. 2012). However, curves in the energy range of [1−10] keV. Point sources were estimates of cluster substructures vary from ∼20% up to detected by visual inspection, confirmed in the High Energy ∼80% depending on the methods employed for substructure Catalogue 2XMMi Source, and excluded from our analysis. detection (e.g., Kolokotronis et al. 2001). To take into account each detector background contri- Although very useful for CC characterisation, the cri- bution, we obtained a background spectrum in an outer an- teria adopted in the literature (e.g., Andrade-Santos et al. nulus of the observation in the [10-12] keV energy band. A 2017; Hudson et al. 2010) account for the overall structure corresponding background spectrum was also extracted from of galaxy clusters in a too simplistic way. Aiming at a full the blank sky background file by Read & Ponman (2003) spectral analysis, we show for the first time 2D maps of and then rescaled to obtain a normalisation parameter that the spatial distribution of temperature (kT), pseudo-entropy will be used in the spectral fits. (S), pseudo-pressure (P) and metallicity (Z) for a large sam- The spectral analysis was performed in the [0.7- ple of 53 galaxy clusters. These clusters belong to SZ and 7.0] keV energy band and we also excluded the [1.2- X-ray samples and have been used as cosmological tools. 1.9] keV band to avoid any influence from Al and Si Our aim is to obtain a clear dependence of these maps with lines. For the spectral fits, the spectra were grouped the cluster dynamical state, and to correlate these properties to have at least 15 counts per spectral bin and we

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 2D maps for galaxy clusters 3

3 RESULTS Besides possible deviations from symmetry, 2D maps can reveal complex structures. The temperature maps are com- monly used in studies of galaxy clusters and groups since they trace the recent dynamical history of the system. The entropy map for a system in equilibrium should be symmetrical around the centre and exhibit increasing values towards the outskirts of the cluster. Low-entropy gas can be displaced from the centre either due to instabilities like cold- fronts (e.g., Markevitch & Vikhlinin 2007) or to gas strip- ping (Finoguenov et al. 2004). Areas of high entropy gas are produced by local heating, most likely AGNs. The pressure structure of the ICM is sensitive to the combined action of gravitational and non-gravitational physical processes affecting galaxy clusters.The ICM pres- sure distribution is directly connected to the cluster po- tential well, and thus to the cluster total mass. Pres- sure fluctuations trace departure from local equilibrium, such as that produced by shocks (Markevitch et al. 2002; Simionescu et al. 2009) and pressure waves (Fabian et al. Figure 1. Redshift histogram of the sample analysed in this work. 2003; Schuecker et al. 2004). In the upper part of the panel we show the densogram of clusters To date, X-ray and SZ observations of galaxy clusters, (values are represented by a fixed-size pixel-width column of a in line with the results from numerical simulations (e.g., colour from a colour map. The darker the color, the higher the Piffaretti & Valdarnini 2008), suggest that the ICM radial number of clusters in that bin). pressure profiles follow a nearly universal shape within R500 (Arnaud et al. 2010). used XSPEC v12.10.0 for fitting. In this study the The distribution of heavy elements in the ICM pro- MEKAL XSPEC thermal spectral model (Kaastra & Mewe vides important information on the relevance of mergers, 1993) is used to model the emission of an optically- AGN outbursts and ram-pressure stripping. In recent years thin plasma, and WABS (Balucinska-Church & McCammon it has been possible to derive metallicity profiles for a num- 1992; Morrison & McCammon 1983) to model photoelec- ber of clusters and those profiles correlate with the CC sta- tric absorption. We fixed the redshift and the Galac- tus. It has been found that CC systems display a centrally tic absorption values (see Tab. 1), letting all other pa- peaked metallicity distribution, while NCC clusters are char- rameters (e.g. temperature, metallicity and normalization) acterised by a nearly flat distribution (De Grandi & Molendi vary. Abundances were measured assuming the ratios from 2001; Leccardi et al. 2010). Asplund et al. (2009). We use four diagnoses from Andrade-Santos et al. (2017) to identify CC clusters: (i) the concentration param- eter in the (0.15-1.0)r500 range (CSB), (ii) the ratio of the 2.2 2D Spectral Maps integrated projected emissivity profile within 40 kpc to that within 400 kpc (i. e., the concentration parameter in the 40- We have derived 2D temperature (kT), metallicity (Z), 400 kpc range, CSB4), (iii) the cuspiness of the gas density pseudo-entropy (S ∝ kT/I1/3, where I is the Intensity in net profile (δ), and (iv) the central gas density (ncore). We also counts/arcsec2) and pseudo-pressure (P ∝ kT × I1/2) maps include two more criteria from Lopes et al. (2018): (v) the for these 53 clusters. This was achieved by dividing the data magnitude gap between the first and second BCG (∆m ), into small regions from which spectra can be extracted. The 12 and (vi) the BCG offset to the X-ray centre. 2D maps were made in a grid, where each pixel is 512 × 512 Adopting the values presented in Lopes et al. (2018), XMM-Newton EPIC physical pixels. In each pixel we set a we consider as CC, as shown in Tab. 2, the systems with: minimum count number of 1500 (after background subtrac- tion, corresponding to a S/N of almost 40), necessary for ob- (i) CSB > 0.26 taining a spectral fit. If we do not reach the minimum count (ii) CSB4 > 0.055 number in a pixel, we try a square region of 3 × 3 pixels; and (iii) δ > 0.46 −3 −3 if we still do not have the minimum number of counts, we try (iv) ncore > 8 × 10 cm a 5 × 5 pixel region. If we still do not have enough counts, (v) ∆m12 > 1.0 the pixel is ignored and we proceed to the next neighbouring (vi) offset < 0.01 R500 pixel. This is done for all the pixels in the grid. When we have enough counts, the spectra of the three EPIC instru- By visual inspection of our 2D maps, we classify the ments (MOS1, MOS2 and pn) are then simultaneously fitted clusters in relaxed versus disturbed systems to correlate this as described above, and the best temperature and metallic- classification with the different methods used to separate ity values are attributed to the central pixel. This procedure clusters in CC or NCC systems. We defined a relaxed cluster (already described in Durret et al. 2010, 2011; Lagan´aet al. as having round or elliptical isophotes, little or no sloshing or 2015) allows us to perform a reliable spectral analysis in each cold fronts, and no signs of a recent merger. We thus divided spectral bin, in order to derive kT, Z, S and P maps. our sample in four different groups, as shown in Tab. 2

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 4 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes

A2734 (z=0.0613) A119 (z=0.0555) EXO0422 (z=0.0392) A85 (z=0.0555) A496 (z=0.0326) -28.740 -13.100 -8.480 -9.150 -1.120 -28.800 -13.200 -1.200 -8.560 -9.300 -28.860 -1.280 -13.300 -28.920 -8.640 -1.360 -9.450 -13.400

2.970 2.915 2.860 2.805 2.750 2.695 10.600 10.500 10.400 10.300 14.210 14.140 14.070 14.000 13.930 66.560 66.480 66.400 68.520 68.400 68.280

A3395 (z=0.0514) / bA3395 (z=0.0505) A754 (z=0.0543) S0540 (z=0.0365) A3376 (z=0.0461) A3391 (z=0.0554) -40.740 -39.800 -53.600 -9.600 -54.400 -39.900 -40.800 -53.680 -54.500 -9.700 -40.000 -40.860 -53.760 -54.600 -40.100 -40.920 -9.800 137.400 137.300 137.200 85.120 85.040 84.960 90.720 90.600 90.480 90.360 96.720 96.600 96.480 96.980 96.850 96.720 96.590

A3528 (z=0.0539) A1367 (z=0.0.0216) ZwCl1215 (z=0.0768) G269 (z=0.0124) USGCS152 (z=0.0154) 19.920 -12.720 -27.360 -28.990 3.760 19.840 -12.780 3.680 -27.480 -29.120 -12.840 19.760 3.600 -12.900 19.680 -27.600 -29.250 3.520 -12.960 159.320 159.180 159.040 162.720 162.660 162.600 162.540 162.480 176.300 176.200 176.100 184.500 184.400 184.300 193.730 193.600 193.470 19.600

A3532 (z=0.0558) Coma (z=0.0232) A1644 (z=0.0471) A1650 (z=0.0842) A1651 (z=0.0848) -4.080 -30.240 -17.200 28.120 -1.680 -4.140 -30.300 -17.300 -1.750 -4.200 -30.360 27.935 -17.400 -1.820 -4.260 -30.420 -17.500 27.750 -1.890 -4.320 194.450 194.340 194.230 -30.480 194.460 194.400 194.340 194.280 194.220 194.760 194.700 194.640 194.580 194.945 194.890 194.835 194.780 194.725 195.100 194.930 194.760

A3558 (z=0.0475) A3560 (z=0.0489) A3562 (z=0.0558) A1775 (z=0.0754) 26.500 A3571 (z=0.0393) -32.700 -31.570 26.450 -33.040 -31.400 -32.800 26.400 -31.640 -31.500 -33.120 26.350 -32.900 -31.710 26.300 -31.600 -33.000 -33.200 -31.780

202.180 202.050 201.920 203.200 203.100 203.000 203.500 203.400 203.300 205.587 205.530 205.473 205.416 205.359 207.000 206.850 206.700

A1795 (z=0.0269) 3.600 A2061 (z=0.0773) MKW8 (z=0.0269) A2029 (z=0.0774) A2052 (z=0.0349) 30.800 7.150 5.880 26.720 3.550 7.100 30.720 3.500 26.640 7.050 5.760 3.450 30.640 7.000 26.560 6.950 3.400 26.480 30.560 6.900 5.640 3.350 230.500 230.430 230.360 230.290 230.220 207.400 207.300 207.200 207.100 220.250 220.200 220.150 220.100 220.050 227.800 227.700 229.275 229.200 229.125 229.050

Figure 2. X-ray images of the cluster sample in the same order as in Tab. 1. The white dashed boxes represent the regions used to construct the 2D maps.

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 2D maps for galaxy clusters 5

Table 1. Description of the cluster sample. The columns list the cluster name, the Planck name where the prefix PLCKESZ is omitted for simplicity, RA, DEC, redshift, XMM-Newton observation identification, exposure time, and Galactic absorption. We note that secondary subclusters (startng with a “b”) are kept separately as done in Lopes et al. (2018).

Cluster PlanckName RA DEC z ObsID texp nH (J2000) (J2000) (s) (1020cm−3)

A2734 2.84036 -28.85404 0.0613 0675470801 17519 1.39 A85 G115.16-72.09 10.45996 -9.30265 0.0555 0723802101 101400 2.78 A119 G125.58-64.14 14.06754 -1.24972 0.0441 0505211001 13916 3.54 EXO0422 66.46318 -8.55954 0.0392 0300210401 40507 7.86 A496 G209.56-36.49 68.40797 -13.26168 0.0326 0506260401 78919 3.78 S0540 85.02782 -40.83657 0.0365 0149420101 18217 3.16 A3376 G246.52-26.05 90.42327 -39.98886 0.0461 0151900101 47206 4.82 A3391 96.58534 -53.69329 0.0554 0505210401 27915 5.65 A3395 G263.20-25.21 96.70078 -54.54923 0.0514 0400010301 29910 6.70 bA3395 96.90003 -54.44629 0.0505 0400010301 29910 6.70 A754 137.33525 -9.68431 0.0543 0556200501 92270 4.84 G269.51+26.42 159.17049 -27.52653 0.0124 0206230101 68554 4.90 USGCS152 162.60879 -12.84501 0.0154 0146510301 40921 3.87 A1367 G234.59+73.01 176.18399 19.70444 0.0216 0061740101 33208 1.77 ZwCl1215 G282.49+65.17 184.42165 3.65612 0.0768 0300211401 29215 1.72 A3528n G303.75+33.65 193.59252 -29.01299 0.0539 0030140101 17205 6.38 A3528s 193.66960 -29.22793 0.0539 0030140101 17205 6.38 A1644n 194.45546 -17.27307 0.0471 0010420201 22808 4.17 A1644s 194.29821 -17.40932 0.0471 0010420201 22808 4.17 A3532 194.34180 -30.36371 0.0558 0030140301 16895 6.43 A1650 G306.68+61.06 194.67264 -1.76207 0.0842 0093200101 43103 1.35 A1651 G306.80+58.60 194.84308 -4.19592 0.0848 0203020101 26646 1.52 Coma G057.33+88.01 194.94856 27.95189 0.0232 0300530301 31015 0.85 A3558 G311.99+30.71 201.98677 -31.49551 0.0475 0107260101 44615 4.05 bA3558 202.44904 -31.60724 0.0490 0651590201 26917 4.05 A3560 203.11565 -33.14266 0.0489 0205450201 45522 4.27 A3562 203.39470 -31.67291 0.0489 0105261301 47166 3.76 A1775 205.45360 26.37219 0.0754 0108460101 33021 1.04 A3571 G316.34+28.54 206.86713 -32.86611 0.0393 0086950201 33642 4.25 A1795 G033.78+77.16 207.21963 26.59200 0.0629 0097820101 66559 1.19 MKW8 220.16445 3.47031 0.0269 0300210701 23610 2.40 A2029 G006.47+50.54 227.73382 5.74455 0.0774 0551780301 46815 3.25 A2052 229.18537 7.02162 0.0349 0401520501 22356 2.70 A2061 230.30289 30.63350 0.0773 0721740101 50000 1.69 MKW3s 230.46593 7.70879 0.0448 0723801501 119600 A2065 G042.82+56.61 230.62280 27.70521 0.0735 0202080201 34110 3.03 A2063 230.77138 8.60957 0.0344 0550360101 28615 2.66 A2142 G044.22+48.68 239.58792 27.22996 0.0894 0674560201 59440 3.78 A2147 240.55862 15.97118 0.0365 0505210601 11911 3.39 A2151 241.14913 17.72143 0.0349 0147210101 29946 3.34 AWM4 241.23602 23.93268 0.0320 0093060401 21125 5.14 G049.33+44.38 245.12627 29.89331 0.0964 0692930901 11917 2.58 A2199 G062.92+43.70 247.15930 39.55093 0.0306 0723801101 57000 0.89 A2244 G056.81+36.31 255.67738 34.06060 0.1004 0740900101 28000 1.88 A2249 G057.61+34.94 257.44080 34.45566 0.0838 0827010501 27000 2.21 A2255 G093.91+34.90 258.18160 64.06303 0.0799 0112260801 21051 2.50 NGC6338 258.84579 57.41119 0.0290 0792790101 13600 2.23 bNGC6338 258.84653 57.43462 0.0291 0792790101 13600 2.23 A2572 349.30335 18.70286 0.0392 0762950201 26000 4.03 A2597 351.33235 -12.12388 0.0831 0723801701 113170 2.48 A2626 354.12631 21.14673 0.0558 0148310101 41364 5.50 A4038 356.92869 -28.14290 0.0298 0723800801 67000 4.25 A4059 359.25423 -34.75899 0.0494 0723800901 98093 1.21

• CC-relaxed: systems where at least four out of six criteria characterize the system as CC, but with spectral criteria classify the cluster as CC and which appear relaxed maps appearing disturbed; in our 2D map inspection; • NCC-relaxed: systems classified as NCC by at least three of the six criteria and which appear relaxed in our 2D • CC-disturbed: systems where at least four out of six map inspection;

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 6 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes

MKW3s (z=0.0448) A2065 (z=0.0735) A2063 (z=0.0344) A2147 (z=0.0365) A2142 (z=0.0894) 27.360 8.730 16.080 7.800 27.810 27.320 16.020 27.280 8.633 27.240 27.720 15.960 7.680 27.200 15.900 27.160 8.536 27.630 27.120 15.840 7.560

230.600 230.500 230.400 230.700 230.600 230.500 230.850 230.760 230.670 239.700 239.650 239.600 239.550 239.500 239.450 240.675 240.600 240.525 240.450

AWM4 (z=0.0320) G049.33+44.38 (z=0.0964) 17.825 A2151 (z=0.0349) A2244 (z=0.1004) 24.050 A2199 (z=0.0306) 17.802 34.155 29.960 17.779 24.000 39.675 34.100 17.756 23.950 17.733 29.890 39.560 34.045 17.710 23.900 17.687 33.990 39.445 17.664 23.850 29.820 33.935 17.641 241.228 241.182 241.136 241.090 241.320 241.260 241.200 241.140 245.200 245.130 245.060 247.375 247.250 247.125 247.000 255.800 255.750 255.700 255.650 255.600 255.550 23.800 A2249 (z=0.0838) A2255 (z=0.0799) NGC6338 (z=0.0290) A2572 (z=0.0392) A2597 (z=0.0831) -12.000 18.810 64.200 57.510 34.539 -12.050 18.765 64.140 -12.100 57.420 64.080 18.720 34.452 -12.150 64.020 18.675 -12.200 57.330 63.960 34.365 18.630

257.520 257.440 257.360 -12.250 258.480 258.320 258.160 258.000 257.840259.060 258.990 258.920 258.850 258.780 258.710 258.640 349.400 349.350 349.300 349.250 349.200 351.440 351.400 351.360 351.320 351.280 351.240

A4038 (z=0.0298) A4059 (z=0.0494) A2626 (z=0.0558) -28.000 21.252 -34.640 -28.080 -34.720 21.175 -28.160 -34.800 21.098 -28.240 -34.880 21.021

354.225 354.150 354.075 354.000 357.100 357.000 356.900 356.800 359.440 359.360 359.280 359.200 359.120 359.040 -28.320

Figure 2 (Cont.). X-ray images of the cluster sample in the same order as in Tab. 1. The white dashed boxes represent the regions used to construct the 2D maps.

• NCC-disturbed: systems classified as NCC by at least in Ramella et al. (2007). The pressure map of A2052 shows three of the six criteria and showing clear signs of perturba- a high pressure feature in its centre, very similar to the one tion in the maps. presented in Blanton et al. (2011), that may be a shock re- gion due to the central AGN. We highlight that in about 70% of the local CC population the BCG is radio loud, showing non-thermal radio-jets ejected by the central AGN, which is 4 DISCUSSION critical to understand the physics of the central region due to perturbation. The very central region shows clear signs of Based on the six criteria to classify a system as CC, and perturbation, but its overall dynamics are relaxed. on our 2D maps, we discuss our results in this Section, and CC-disturbed analyse the dynamical states of the clusters. We give specific There are 16 clusters. The maps of CC- details for each of the 53 systems in Appendix A. these clusters are shown in Figs. 6, 7, and 8. These disturbed There are 17 CC-relaxed systems, for which the 2D clusters are very representative of the details ∼ maps are shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5. Four of them (G269, that 2D maps can reveal. They represent 30% of the sam- A3571, A2151, and A2572, ), although classified as CC, don’t ple, were characterised as cool-core, and indeed they have a show a cool centre in the kT map. For many of these clus- cooler centre, but when analysing their global distribution, ters, the cool centre shows a deviation from sphericity. In the 2D maps show that they have a very complex structure fact, there are only five clusters that show almost spheri- for clusters thought to be globally relaxed, in line with re- cal CC: A2734, A3528, A2052, A2626, and A4059. However, cent numerical simulations from IllustrisTNG (Barnes et al. looking at their P maps, A2734 and A2052 show signs of 2018). interaction. A2734 shows some elongation that is reported We classify these systems as “disturbed”, and the per-

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 2D maps for galaxy clusters 7

Table 2. Classification of each cluster in CC or NCC according to four diagnoses from Andrade-Santos et al. (2017), two from Lopes et al. (2018), and in relaxed or disturbed according to our 2D map analysis

. Columns list the cluster name, CSB, CSB4, δ, ncore, ∆m12, the BCG offset to the X-ray centre (see text), and the dynamical state

Cluster CSB CSB4 δ ncore ∆m12 Offset 2D maps CC - relaxed

A2734 CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed EXO0422 CC CC CC CC CC relaxed S0540 CC CC CC CC CC relaxed G269.51+26.42 CC CC CC CC relaxed A3528n CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed A3528s CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed A1650 CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed A3571 CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed A1795 CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed A2052 CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed A2063 CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed A2151 CC CC CC CC CC relaxed A2244 CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed A2572 CC CC CC CC relaxed A2597 CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed A2626 CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed A4059 CC CC CC CC CC CC relaxed

CC - disturbed

A85 CC CC CC CC CC CC disturbed A496 CC CC CC CC CC CC disturbed USGCS152 CC CC CC CC CC CC disturbed A1644n CC CC CC CC CC disturbed A1644s CC CC CC CC CC disturbed A1651 CC CC CC CC disturbed A3558 CC CC CC CC CC CC disturbed A3562 CC CC CC CC disturbed A1775 CC CC CC CC CC CC disturbed according to the 2D maps. A2029 CC CC CC CC CC CC disturbed A2142 CC CC CC CC disturbed AWM4 CC CC CC CC CC CC disturbed A2199 CC CC CC CC CC disturbed NGC6338 CC CC CC CC CC disturbed bNGC6338 CC CC CC CC CC disturbed A4038 CC CC CC CC CC disturbed

NCC - relaxed

Coma CC relaxed A3532 CC relaxed bA3558 CC CC CC relaxed MKW8 CC CC CC relaxed

NCC - disturbed

A119 disturbed A3376 disturbed A3391 CC disturbed A3395 CC CC disturbed bA3395 CC CC disturbed A754 CC CC CC disturbed A1367 CC disturbed ZwCl1215 CC CC disturbed A3560 disturbed A2061 disturbed MKW3s CC CC CC disturbed A2065 CC disturbed A2147 disturbed G049.33+44.38 CC disturbed A2249 CC disturbed A2255 disturbed

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 8 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes

5.8 3

A2734 - kT A2734 - S 11 A2734 - Z 0.8 5.6 A2734 - P 2.8

5.4 2.7 10 0.7 -28.800 -28.800 -28.800 -28.800 5.2 2.5

9 0.6 5 2.3

4.8 2.2 8 0.5 -28.860 -28.860 -28.860 -28.860 4.6 2 7 0.4 4.3 1.9

4.1 1.7 6 0.3 -28.920 -28.920 -28.920 -28.920 3.9 1.5 5 2.915 2.860 2.805 2.750 2.915 2.860 2.805 2.750 2.915 2.860 2.805 2.750 2.915 2.860 2.805 2.750 0.2 4.23.7 7.21.4 7.9 1.1 EXO_0422 - kT EXO_0422 - P EXO_0422 - S EXO_0422 - Z 4 6.5 7.2 1 -8.480 -8.480 -8.480 -8.480 3.8 5.9 6.5 0.9 3.6 5.2 5.8 0.8 3.4 4.5 5.1 0.7 -8.560 -8.560 -8.560 -8.560 3.2 3.9 4.4 0.6 3 3.2 3.7 0.5 2.8 2.6 3 0.4 -8.640 -8.640 -8.640 2.6 1.9 2.2 -8.640 0.3 2.5 1.3 1.5 66.560 66.480 66.400 66.560 66.480 66.400 66.560 66.480 66.400 66.560 66.480 66.400 0.2 2.33.1 0.611.8 0.845.9 S0540 - kT 3 S0540 - P 1.7 S0540 - S 5.5 S0540 - Z 1.3

2.9 1.6 5.1 1.2

1.1 -40.800 -40.800 -40.800 -40.800 2.8 1.5 4.7

2.7 1.4 4.3 1

2.6 1.3 3.9 0.9

2.5 1.2 3.5 0.8 -40.860 -40.860 -40.860 -40.860

2.4 1.1 3.2 0.7

2.3 1 2.8 0.6

0.5 2.2 0.9 2.4 -40.920 -40.920 -40.920 -40.920 85.120 85.040 84.960 85.120 85.040 84.960 85.120 85.040 84.960 85.120 85.040 84.960 0.4 2.1 0.8 2 4 G269 - kT G269 - P G269 - S 7.5 G269 - Z 4.5 1.2

-27.360 3.8 -27.360 -27.360 7 -27.360 4 3.6 6.5 1 6 3.4 3.5

5.5 0.8 -27.480 -27.480 3.2 -27.480 3 -27.480 5 3 2.5 4.5 0.6 2.8 2 4 -27.600 -27.600 2.6 -27.600 -27.600 3.5 0.4 1.5 2.4 3

1 2.5 0.2 159.320 159.180 159.040 2.2 159.320 159.180 159.040 159.320 159.180 159.040 159.320 159.180 159.040

A3528 - kT A3528 - P 4 A3528 - S A3528 - Z 10 1.6

-28.990 5 -28.990 -28.990 -28.990 3.5 9 1.4

8 1.2 4.5 3

7 1 -29.120 -29.120 -29.120 -29.120 4 2.5 6 0.8

5 2 0.6 3.5 4 -29.250 -29.250 -29.250 -29.250 0.4 1.5 3 3 193.730 193.600 193.470 193.730 193.600 193.470 193.730 193.600 193.470 193.730 193.600 193.470 0.2

Figure 3. CC and relaxed systems. From left to right: temperature, pseudo-pressure, pseudo-entropy, and metallicity maps for A2734, EXO0422, S0540, G269.51+26.42, and A3528 (A3528n and A3528s). turbation is related to merger events and not to AGN feed- shown results of an intense merging activity in the past, back. All of them except A2029 are undergoing a merger, revealing that this cluster is not relaxed, even in the central are double systems, or have an infalling group. For example, region. A496 has a sloshing spiral arm (Ghizzardi et al. 2014; A85 is not spherically symmetric, and Durret et al. (2005) Lagan´aet al. 2010; Roediger et al. 2012), indicating a minor through temperature and metallicity maps, had already merger. The temperature and entropy maps of A1775 also

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 2D maps for galaxy clusters 9

1 12 12 A1650 - kT 6.5 A1650 - P A1650 - S A1650 - Z 0.9 11 11 -1.680 -1.680 -1.680 -1.680 10 0.8 10 6 9 0.7 9 8 0.6 5.5 8 -1.750 -1.750 -1.750 -1.750 7 7 0.5 6 5 6 0.4 5 -1.820 -1.820 -1.820 5 -1.820 0.3 4 4.5 4 0.2 3

2 3 0.1 194.760 194.700 194.640 194.580 4 194.760 194.700 194.640 194.580 194.760 194.700 194.640 194.580 194.760 194.700 194.640 194.580 14 18 A3571 - P A3571 - S 0.8 A3571 - kT 9 A3571 - Z -32.700 -32.700 -32.700 -32.700 16 8.5 12 0.7

14 8 0.6 10 -32.800 -32.800 -32.800 -32.800 7.5 12 0.5 7 8 10 0.4 6.5 -32.900 -32.900 -32.900 -32.900 6 8 0.3 6

5.5 4 6 0.2 -33.000 -33.000 -33.000 -33.000 5 4 0.1 207.000 206.850 206.700 207.000 206.850 206.700 2 207.000 206.850 206.700 207.000 206.850 206.700 4.5

A1795 - kT A1795 - P 14 A1795 - S A1975 - Z 0.9

26.720 10 26.720 26.720 26.720 20 0.8 12 9 0.7 26.640 26.640 26.640 10 26.640 8 15 0.6

7 8 0.5 26.560 26.560 26.560 10 26.560 0.4 6 6

0.3 5 4 5 26.480 26.480 26.480 26.480 0.2

4 2 207.300 207.200 207.100 207.300 207.200 207.100 207.300 207.200 207.100 207.300 207.200 207.100 0.1

20 4 A2052 - S A2052 - Z 1.6 A2052 - kT 10 A2052 - P 18 7.100 7.100 3.8 7.100 7.100 9 1.4 3.6 16 8 3.4 14 7.050 7.050 7.050 7.050 1.2 7 3.2 12

3 6 10 1 7.000 7.000 7.000 2.8 7.000 5 8 2.6 0.8 4 6 2.4 6.950 6.950 6.950 4 6.950 0.6 3 2.2

2 2 2 229.275 229.200 229.125 229.275 229.200 229.125 229.275 229.200 229.125 229.275 229.200 229.125 0.4 0.9 A2063 - kT 5 5.5 A2063 - P A2063 - S 10 A2063 - Z 0.8 8.730 8.730 8.730 8.730 4.5 9 5 0.7 4 8 0.6 4.5 3.5 7 8.640 8.633 8.633 8.633 0.5

3 6 4 0.4

2.5 5 0.3 8.550 3.5 8.536 8.536 2 4 8.536 0.2

1.5 3 3 0.1 230.850 230.760 230.670 230.850 230.760 230.670 230.850 230.760 230.670 230.850 230.760 230.670 8.460

Figure 4. CC and relaxed systems. From left to right: temperature, pseudo-pressure, pseudo-entropy, and metallicity maps for A1650, A3571, A1795, A2052, and A2063. show a cold front as the one reported for A496. A1644 is a initiated the core gas sloshing in the main cluster about double cluster, with a main cluster (A1644s) and a smaller 700 Myr ago. These 16 systems in our sample show clear and colder one (A1644n) to the north-east (Johnson et al. signs of recent mergers, with complex structure and geom- 2010). From the comparison with hydrodynamical simula- etry but with a CC preserved. We give specific details for tions, these authors suggest that the northern subcluster each of them, reporting merger events in Appendix A.

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 10 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes

2.35 A2151 - kT A2151 - P A2151 - S 4.7 A2151 - Z 1.05 17.756 17.756 17.756 17.756

2.3 0.85 4.6 1 4.5 2.25 0.8 4.4 0.95 2.2 17.733 17.733 17.733 17.733 4.3

2.15 0.75 0.9 4.2

4.1 2.1 0.85 0.7 17.710 17.710 17.710 4 17.710 2.05 0.8 3.9 0.65 2 241.182 241.159 241.136 241.182 241.159 241.136 241.182 241.159 241.136 3.8 241.182 241.159 241.136 0.75

7.5 A2244 - kT A2244 - P A2244 - S 25 A2244 - Z 9 0.6

7 8

34.100 20 0.5 34.100 6.5 34.100 34.100 7 0.4 6 6 15

0.3 34.045 34.045 34.045 5.5 34.045 5 10

5 4 0.2

4.5 3 5 33.990 33.990 33.990 0.1 33.990 2 255.750 255.700 255.650 255.600 4 255.750 255.700 255.650 255.600 255.750 255.700 255.650 255.600 255.750 255.700 255.650 255.600

3.6 A2572 - kT A2572 - P 2 A2572 - S A2572 - Z 1.3 6.5 18.765 3.5 18.765 18.765 18.765 1.2 3.4 1.8 6 1.1 3.3 1 3.2 1.6 18.720 18.720 18.720 5.5 18.720 0.9 3.1 1.4 3 0.8 5 2.9 0.7 1.2 18.675 18.675 2.8 18.675 18.675 0.6 4.5 2.7 0.5 1 349.350 349.300 349.250 2.6 349.350 349.300 349.250 349.350 349.300 349.250 349.350 349.300 349.250 4 0.4

A2597 - kT 5.5 A2597 - P A2597 - S 11 A2597 - Z 1.2 10

-12.050 -12.050 -12.050 10 -12.050 9 5 9 1 8 8 -12.100 -12.100 -12.100 -12.100 4.5 7 0.8 7

6 6 4 0.6 5 5 -12.150 -12.150 -12.150 -12.150

4 4 0.4 3.5 3 3 -12.200 -12.200 -12.200 -12.200 2 2 0.2 3 351.400 351.360 351.320 351.280 351.400 351.360 351.320 351.280 351.400 351.360 351.320 351.280 351.400 351.360 351.320 351.280 1 1 4.3 5.7 8.4 A2626- kT A2626 - P A2626 - S A2626 - Z 0.8 4.1 5.2 7.7 21.252 21.252 21.252 21.252

3.9 4.7 7 0.7

3.7 4.2 6.2 0.6 3.5 3.7 5.5 21.175 21.175 21.175 21.175

3.3 3.3 4.8 0.5

3.1 2.8 4.1 0.4 21.098 21.098 21.098 2.9 21.098 2.3 3.3

0.3 2.7 1.8 2.6

2.6 1.3 1.9 0.2 354.225 354.150 354.075 354.000 354.225 354.150 354.075 354.000 354.225 354.150 354.075 354.000 354.225 354.150 354.075 354.000 2.4 0.82 1.2 10 A4059 - kT A4059 - P A4059 - S 1.1 5 9 9 1 -34.640 -34.640 -34.640 -34.640 8 8 4.5 0.9

7 7 0.8 -34.720 -34.720 -34.720 -34.720 4 6 6 0.7 0.6 5 5 3.5 0.5 -34.800 -34.800 -34.800 -34.800 4 4 0.4 3 3 3 0.3

2 0.2 -34.880 -34.880 -34.880 -34.880 2.5 2 0.1 359.360 359.280 359.200 359.120 359.360 359.280 359.200 359.120 1 359.360 359.280 359.200 359.120 359.360 359.280 359.200 359.120

Figure 5. CC and relaxed systems. From left to right: temperature, pseudo-pressure, pseudo-entropy, and metallicity maps for A2151, A2244, A2572, A2597, A2626, and A4059.

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 2D maps for galaxy clusters 11

20 11 20 1.1 A85 - kT A85 - P A85 - S A85 - Z 18 18 1 -9.150 10 -9.150 -9.150 -9.150 16 16 0.9 9 14 14 0.8 8 12 0.7 12 -9.300 -9.300 -9.300 -9.300 10 7 0.6 10

8 0.5 6 8

6 0.4 5 6 4 -9.450 -9.450 -9.450 -9.450 0.3 4 4 2 0.2 10.600 10.500 10.400 10.300 10.600 10.500 10.400 10.300 2 10.600 10.500 10.400 10.300 10.600 10.500 10.400 10.300

14 1.4 A496 - kT A496 - P A496 - S 20 A496 - Z 10

18 -13.100 -13.100 12 -13.100 -13.100 1.2 9 16

8 10 1 14 -13.200 -13.200 7 -13.200 -13.200 12 8 0.8

6 10

6 0.6 8 -13.300 -13.300 5 -13.300 -13.300

6 0.4 4 4

4 3 0.2 -13.400 -13.400 -13.400 2 -13.400 2 68.520 68.400 68.280 2 68.520 68.400 68.280 68.520 68.400 68.280 68.520 68.400 68.280

1.8 0.88 1.1 USGCS152 - kT USGCS152 - P USGCS152 - S USGCS152 - Z 0.8

0.86 1 1.6 0.75 0.84 -12.780 -12.780 0.9 -12.780 -12.780 0.7 1.4 0.82 0.65 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.78 -12.840 -12.840 -12.840 -12.840 0.55

0.76 0.6 1 0.5

0.74 0.5 0.45 0.8 0.72 0.4 -12.900 -12.900 -12.900 0.4 -12.900 0.7 0.35 0.6 0.3 0.68 162.660 162.600 162.540 162.660 162.600 162.540 162.660 162.600 162.540 162.660 162.600 162.540 0.3

A1644 - kT A1644 - P A1644 - Z 1.1 A1644 - Z 1.1 5.5 2.4 -17.200 -17.200 -17.200 1 -17.200 1 5 2.2 0.9 0.9 4.5 2 -17.250 0.8 0.8 1.8 -17.300 -17.300 -17.300 4 -17.300 0.7 0.7 1.6 3.5 0.6 -17.350 0.6 1.4 3 0.5 0.5 -17.400 -17.400 -17.400 1.2 -17.400 2.5 0.4 0.4 1 -17.450 2 0.3 0.3 0.8 -17.500 -17.500 -17.500 1.5 0.2 -17.500 0.2 194.450 194.340 194.230 194.450 194.340 194.230 0.6 194.450 194.340 194.230 194.450 194.340 194.230 -17.550 6.5 16 A1651 - kT 8.5 A1651 - P A1651 - S A1651 - Z 0.7 6 8 14 -4.140 -4.140 -4.140 -4.140 5.5 0.6 7.5 5 12 0.5 7 4.5 -4.200 -4.200 -4.200 -4.200 4 6.5 10 0.4 3.5 6 3 8 0.3 -4.260 -4.260 -4.260 -4.260 5.5 2.5 0.2 6 5 2 194.890 194.835 194.780 194.890 194.835 194.780 194.890 194.835 194.780 194.890 194.835 194.780

Figure 6. CC and disturbed systems. From left to right: temperature, pseudo-pressure, pseudo-entropy, and metallicity map for A85, A496, USGC S152, A1644 (A1644n and A1644s in the same map), and A1651.

This illustrates well the power of 2D X-ray maps to un- the merger) by comparing these maps with hydrodynami- derstand in depth the dynamical state of clusters, that can cal numerical simulations. However, to explain well the dy- be missed in CC diagnosis tools. For merging clusters, it namical history of a cluster, it is necessary to make specific is possible to go one step further and derive the physical simulations for each object, which is very time-consuming. characteristics of the cluster merger (Mach number, age of This was done for several clusters by Machado & Lima Neto

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 12 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes

1 6.5 10 10 A3558 - kT A3558 - P A3559 - S A3558 - Z 0.9 9 9 6 0.8 8 8 5.5 -31.400 -31.400 -31.400 -31.400 0.7 7 7 5 0.6 6 6

4.5 -31.500 -31.500 -31.500 -31.500 0.5 5 5

0.4 4 4 4

0.3 3 3 -31.600 -31.600 -31.600 -31.600 3.5 0.2 2 2 3 0.1 202.180 202.050 201.920 202.180 202.050 201.920 1 202.180 202.050 201.920 1 202.180 202.050 201.920

5.5 0.8 A3562 - kT A3562 - P A3562 - S 12 A3562 - Z

6 5 11 0.7 -31.570 -31.570 -31.570 -31.570

4.5 10 5.5 0.6

4 9 -31.640 -31.640 -31.640 -31.640 5 0.5 3.5 8

0.4 4.5 3 7 -31.710 -31.710 -31.710 -31.710 2.5 6 0.3 4 5 2 0.2 -31.780 -31.780 -31.780 -31.780 3.5 1.5 4 0.1 203.500 203.400 203.300 203.500 203.400 203.300 203.500 203.400 203.300 203.500 203.400 203.300 1 3 4.5 1.2 A1775 - Z A1775 - kT A1775 - P A1775 - S 8 26.450 26.450 26.450 26.450 4.5 4 1.1

1 3.5 7 4 0.9 26.400 26.400 26.400 26.400 3 6 0.8

3.5 0.7 2.5 5

26.350 26.350 26.350 26.350 0.6 2 3 0.5 4 1.5 0.4 26.300 26.300 26.300 26.300 2.5 0.3 205.530 205.473 205.416 205.530 205.473 205.416 1 205.530 205.473 205.416 3 205.530 205.473 205.416

25 A2029 - kT 16 A2029 - P A2029 - S A2029 - Z 1.8

5.880 5.880 5.880 30 5.880 1.6 14 20 25 1.4

12 1.2 20 15 1 5.760 5.760 5.760 5.760 10 15 0.8 10

8 10 0.6

0.4 5 6 5 5.640 5.640 5.640 5.640 227.800 227.700 227.800 227.700 227.800 227.700 227.800 227.700 0.2

20 A2142 - kT 8.5 A2142 - P A2142 - S 11 A2142 - Z 0.65 18 10 0.6

27.280 8 27.280 16 27.280 27.280 9 0.55 14 0.5 7.5 8 12 27.240 27.240 27.240 7 27.240 0.45

7 10 6 0.4

8 5 0.35 6.5 27.200 27.200 27.200 27.200 0.3 6 4

0.25 6 4 3 0.2 239.640 239.600 239.560 239.520 239.640 239.600 239.560 239.520 239.640 239.600 239.560 239.520 2 239.640 239.600 239.560 239.520 2

Figure 7. CC and disturbed systems. From left to right: temperature, pseudo-pressure, pseudo-entropy, and metallicity map for A3558 (A3558 and bA3558 in the same map), A3562, A1775, A2029, and A2142.

(2013, 2015). In a few other cases (see for example the dis- the variety of properties observed in this large sample. This cussion on A85 in the Appendix) there happen to exist simu- will be the topic of a future paper (Machado et al. in prepa- lations that resemble our maps and allow us to interpret the ration). A detailed analysis of the dynamical properties of cluster merging history. However, a much larger number of a subsample of these clusters with a large number of galaxy simulations than presently available is needed to account for

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 2D maps for galaxy clusters 13

6.5 AWM4 - P AWM4 - S AWM4 - Z 0.8 AWM4 - kT 2.2 3.1 24.000 24.000 24.000 6 24.000 0.75

3 2 0.7 5.5 0.65 2.9 1.8 5 0.6 23.950 23.950 2.8 23.950 23.950 1.6 0.55 4.5 2.7 0.5 1.4 4 2.6 0.45 23.900 23.900 1.2 23.900 23.900 0.4 2.5 3.5 0.35 1 2.4 3 0.3 241.260 241.200 241.260 241.200 241.260 241.200 241.260 241.200

10 A2199 - kT A2199 - P 14 A2199 - S A2199 - Z 5 1.2 9 12 39.675 39.675 39.675 39.675 8 1 4.5 10 7 0.8 6 39.560 39.560 39.560 39.560 8 4 5 0.6 6 4 3.5 0.4 39.445 39.445 39.445 39.445 4 3

2 0.2 2 247.375 247.250 247.125 247.000 3 247.375 247.250 247.125 247.000 247.375 247.250 247.125 247.000 247.375 247.250 247.125 247.000 1

3.5 3 6 NGC6338 - kT NGC6338 - P NGC6338 - S NGC6338 - Z 1 5.5 57.510 57.510 57.510 57.510 0.9 2.5 3 5

4.5 0.8

2 4 0.7 2.5 57.420 57.420 57.420 57.420 3.5 0.6

3 1.5 0.5 2 2.5 0.4 2 57.330 57.330 57.330 1 57.330 0.3 1.5 1.5 0.2 259.060 258.990 258.920 258.850 258.780 258.710 258.640 259.060 258.990 258.920 258.850 258.780 258.710 258.640 259.060 258.990 258.920 258.850 258.780 258.710 258.640 1 259.060 258.990 258.920 258.850 258.780 258.710 258.640 0.5 4.4 A4038 - kT A4038 - P 8 A4038 - Z A4038 - S 0.9 4.2 8 -28.000 -28.000 -28.000 -28.000 7 0.8 4 7

3.8 0.7 6 6 -28.080 -28.080 -28.080 -28.080 3.6 0.6 5 5 3.4 0.5 4 -28.160 -28.160 -28.160 -28.160 3.2 4 0.4

3 3 3 0.3 -28.240 -28.240 -28.240 -28.240 2.8 2 0.2 2 2.6 1 0.1 357.100 357.000 356.900 356.800 357.100 357.000 356.900 356.800 357.100 357.000 356.900 356.800 357.100 357.000 356.900 356.800 -28.320 -28.320 -28.320 -28.320 2.4 1

Figure 8. CC and disturbed systems. From left to right: temperature, pseudo-pressure, pseudo-entropy, and metallicity map for AWM4, A2199, NGC6336 (NGC6338 and bNGC6338), and A4038. redshifts available is also under development (Biviano et al. A2147 and A2255). All of these clusters are merging sys- in preparation). tems and our maps clearly confirm that these clusters are There are only four NCC-relaxed clusters: Coma disturbed and have undergone or are presently undergoing (G057.33+88.01), A3532, bA3558 and MKW8, shown in one or several merging events. However, for the other nine Fig. 9. They were classified as non cool-core systems but clusters, at least one of the criteria give a misleading clas- their maps don’t show any special feature indicating strong sification, and for two of them (A754 and MKW3), three signs of perturbation. For two of them (A3532 and bA3558) criteria (half of the six diagnoses considered in this work) the observations were not deep enough to produce extended wrongly classify them as CC. maps, so we cannot draw firm conclusions on these clusters. There are 16 systems classified as NCC-disturbed, that are presented in the last part of Tab. 2. We show 2D maps for these clusters in Figs. 10, 11, and 12. They are 5 CONCLUSIONS irregular in shape, elongated, and show clear signs of inter- In this section we summarize our findings. action. For seven out of these 16 clusters, at least five criteria • With the aim of comparing the overall dynamical and classify them as NCC (A119, A3376, A3560, A2061, A2065, core properties of a sample of 53 galaxy clusters, the clus-

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 14 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes

14 0.7 Coma - kT Coma - P 11 Coma - S Coma - Z 8 10 12 28.120 28.120 28.120 0.6 28.120 9 7 10 8 0.5

6 7 8 0.4 6 27.935 27.935 27.935 27.935 5 5 6 0.3 4 4 4 3 0.2

3 2 27.750 27.750 27.750 27.750 2 0.1 195.100 194.930 194.760 195.120 195.000 194.880 194.760 1 195.100 194.930 194.760 195.100 194.930 194.760

2.5 A3532 - kT 6 A3532 - P A3532 - S 12 A3532 - Z 0.9 2.4 5.8 11.5

-30.300 -30.300 2.3 -30.300 -30.300 0.8 5.6 11 2.2 5.4 10.5 2.1 0.7 5.2 10 -30.360 -30.360 -30.360 2 -30.360 5 0.6 1.9 9.5 4.8 1.8 9 0.5 4.6 1.7 -30.420 -30.420 -30.420 8.5 -30.420 4.4 1.6 0.4

194.400 194.340 194.280 194.400 194.340 194.280 194.400 194.340 194.280 8 194.400 194.340 194.280 4.2 1.5 4.1 1.72 8.3 1

4 1.66 bA3558 - S 8 bA3558 - Z 0.95 bA3558 - kT bA3558 - P 3.9 1.6 7.6 0.9 -31.545 -31.545 -31.545 -31.545 3.8 1.54 7.3 0.85

3.7 1.48 7 0.8

3.6 1.43 6.7 0.75 -31.590 -31.590 -31.590 -31.590 3.5 1.37 6.3 0.7

3.4 1.31 6 0.65

3.2 1.25 5.7 0.6 -31.635 -31.635 -31.635 -31.635 3.1 1.19 5.4 0.55 202.480 202.425 202.370 202.480 202.425 202.370 202.480 202.425 202.370 202.480 202.425 202.370 3 1.13 5 0.5 2.2 MKW8 - kT MKW8 - P MKW8 - S MKW8- Z 1 3.6 7 2 0.9 3.4 6.5 1.8 0.8 3.500 3.2 3.500 3.500 6 3.500 1.6 5.5 0.7 3

1.4 5 0.6 2.8

1.2 4.5 0.5 3.450 3.450 3.450 2.6 3.450

4 0.4 2.4 1

3.5 2.2 0.8 0.3

3 0.2 3.400 3.400 3.400 2 0.6 3.400 220.200 220.150 220.100 220.200 220.150 220.100 220.200 220.150 220.100 2.5 220.200 220.150 220.100 1.8 0.1

Figure 9. NCC and relaxed systems. From left to right: temperature, pseudo-pressure, pseudo-entropy, and metallicity map for Coma, A3532, bA3558, and MKW8. ter dynamical state was investigated via ICM temperature, A2255, NGC6338) with shock fronts clearly visible in the sky pressure, entropy and metallicity maps; plane that will be addressed in future numerical simulations • We compared six simple CC diagnoses with the results with a well defined merger geometry; derived from our 2D maps, showing that, although very use- • ICM entropy and pressure maps are of great interest ful for large samples and for CC characterisation, these diag- because they reveal ICM global properties and record the noses are somewhat too simplistic to account for the overall thermal history of clusters. They are therefore useful quan- cluster dynamics; tities for studying the effects of feedback on the cluster en- • We highlight that 2D maps reveal the detailed and com- vironment. plex structure of galaxy clusters that can be missed by CC diagnoses and may affect cluster mass estimates. That is clearly seen in the 16 CC-disturbed systems we discuss in Sect. 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • An X-ray analysis provides a unique possibility to mea- We thank the referee for his/her comments on the sure in detail the ICM showing complex structures; manuscript. T. F. L. acknowledges financial support • 2D maps reveal some merging galaxy clusters (A2061, from FAPESP and CNPq through grants 2018/02626-8

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 2D maps for galaxy clusters 15

14 A119 - kT A119 - P A119 - S 28 A119 - Z 2

-1.120 -1.120 7 -1.120 -1.120 13 26 1.8

24 12 1.6 6 22 -1.200 -1.200 -1.200 11 -1.200 1.4 20 10 5 1.2 18 1 9 -1.280 -1.280 -1.280 16 -1.280 4 0.8 8 14 0.6 12 7 3 -1.360 -1.360 -1.360 -1.360 10 0.4 6 14.140 14.070 14.000 13.930 14.140 14.070 14.000 13.930 14.140 14.070 14.000 13.930 14.140 14.070 14.000 13.930 0.2 2 8 1 8.5 A3376 - kT 4.4 A3376 - P 2 A3376 - S A3376 - Z 0.9 4.2 8 0.8 1.8 4 7.5 -39.900 -39.900 -39.900 -39.900 0.7 3.8 1.6 7 0.6 3.6 1.4 6.5 3.4 0.5 -40.000 -40.000 -40.000 -40.000 6 3.2 0.4 1.2 3 5.5 0.3 2.8 1 5 0.2 2.6 -40.100 -40.100 -40.100 -40.100 0.8 4.5 0.1 90.600 90.480 90.360 2.4 90.600 90.480 90.360 90.600 90.480 90.360 90.600 90.480 90.360

5.5 A3391 - kT 7.5 A3391 - P A3391 - S 13 A3391 - Z 1.2 5 7

-53.600 -53.600 -53.600 12 -53.600 4.5 1 6.5 11 4 0.8 6 3.5 10 -53.680 -53.680 -53.680 -53.680

5.5 0.6 3 9

5 2.5 8 0.4 -53.760 -53.760 -53.760 -53.760 2 4.5 7 0.2 1.5 96.720 96.600 96.480 4 96.720 96.600 96.480 96.720 96.600 96.480 96.720 96.600 96.480 6 4 7 1 A3395 - kT A3395 - P A3395 - S 14 A3395 - Z

6.5 0.9 3.5 13 -54.400 -54.400 -54.400 -54.400 0.8 6 12

3 0.7 5.5 11

0.6 5 10 -54.500 -54.500 -54.500 -54.500 2.5 0.5 9 4.5 0.4 2 8 4 0.3 -54.600 -54.600 -54.600 -54.600 7 3.5 1.5 0.2 6 96.980 96.850 96.720 96.590 3 96.980 96.850 96.720 96.590 96.980 96.850 96.720 96.590 96.980 96.850 96.720 96.590 0.1 8 A754 - kT 12 A754 - P A754 - S A754 - Z 1

25 0.9 11 7

-9.600 -9.600 -9.600 -9.600 0.8

10 6 20 0.7

9 0.6 5 15 0.5 -9.700 -9.700 -9.700 8 -9.700 4 0.4 7 10 0.3 3

6 0.2 5 -9.800 -9.800 -9.800 2 -9.800 0.1 137.400 137.300 137.200 137.400 137.300 137.200 137.400 137.300 137.200 137.400 137.300 137.200 5

Figure 10. NCC and disturbed systems. From left to right: temperature, pseudo-pressure, pseudo-entropy, and metallicity maps for A119, A3376, A3391, A3395 (A3395 and bA3395 in the same map), and A754. and 303278/2015-3, respectively. F.D. acknowledges con- stant support from CNES. PAAL thanks the support of CNPq, grant 308969/2014-6; and CAPES, process number 88881.120856/2016-01.

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 16 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes

1.8 0.9 A1367 - S A1367 - Z A1367 - kT A1367 - P 8

1.7 0.8 7.5 4

19.840 19.840 1.6 19.840 19.840 7 0.7

1.5 6.5 0.6 3.5 1.4 6 0.5 19.760 19.760 19.760 19.760 1.3 5.5 3 0.4 1.2 5 0.3 1.1 4.5 19.680 19.680 19.680 19.680 2.5 0.2 1 4 176.300 176.200 176.100 176.300 176.200 176.100 176.300 176.200 176.100 176.300 176.200 176.100 0.1 0.9 3.5 8 1 ZwCl1215 - kT ZwCl1215 - P 7 18 ZwCl1215 - Z ZwCl1215 - S 0.9

3.760 7.5 3.760 3.760 3.760 16 6 0.8

7 14 0.7 5 3.680 3.680 3.680 3.680 0.6 6.5 12 0.5 4 10 6 0.4 3.600 3.600 3.600 3.600 8 0.3 5.5 3 6 0.2 3.520 3.520 3.520 5 3.520 2 0.1 184.500 184.400 184.300 184.500 184.400 184.300 184.500 184.400 184.300 4 184.500 184.400 184.300

A3560 - kT A3560 - P A3560 - S 11 A3560 - Z 0.8 5.5 2.4

10 0.7 -33.040 -33.040 -33.040 -33.040 2.2 5 9 0.6 2 8 4.5 0.5 -33.120 -33.120 -33.120 -33.120 1.8 7 0.4 4 1.6 6 0.3 -33.200 -33.200 -33.200 -33.200 1.4 3.5 5 0.2 203.200 203.100 203.000 203.200 203.100 203.000 1.2 203.200 203.100 203.000 203.200 203.100 203.000 4 6 13 0.8 A2061 - kT A2061 - P A2061 - S A2061 - Z 12 5.5 3.5 0.7

30.720 30.720 11 30.720

30.720 0.6 5 3 10

9 0.5 4.5 2.5 30.640 30.640 8 30.640 0.4

30.640 4 7 2 0.3 3.5 6

1.5 5 0.2 30.560 30.560 30.560 3 30.560 4 0.1 230.480 230.400 230.320 230.240 230.430 230.360 230.290 230.220 1 230.430 230.360 230.290 230.220 230.430 230.360 230.290 230.220 2.5 3

1.1 MKW3s - kT 12 MKW3s - S MKW3s - P MKW3s - Z 4 6 1

10 0.9 7.800 7.800 7.800 7.800 3.5 5 0.8

8 0.7 3 4 0.6 6 7.680 7.680 7.680 7.680 0.5 3 2.5 0.4 4 2 0.3 2 0.2 2 7.560 7.560 7.560 1 7.560 0.1 230.600 230.500 230.400 1.5 230.600 230.500 230.400 230.600 230.500 230.400 230.600 230.500 230.400

Figure 11. NCC and disturbed systems. From left to right: temperature, pseudo-pressure, pseudo-entropy, and metallicity maps for G234, ZwCl1215, A3560, A2061, and MKW3s.

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 2D maps for galaxy clusters 17

7 A2065 - kT A2065 - P A2065 - S 25 A2065 - Z 0.9 10 6 0.8 27.810 27.810 27.810 27.810 9 20 0.7 5 8 0.6

15 4 0.5 27.720 27.720 27.720 7 27.720 0.4

6 3 10 0.3

5 2 0.2 27.630 27.630 27.630 27.630 5 4 0.1 230.700 230.600 230.500 230.700 230.600 230.500 1 230.700 230.600 230.500 230.700 230.600 230.500 7 1.1 A2147 - kT A2147 - P 2.5 A2147 - S A2147 - Z 1 13 6.5 2.4

2.3 0.9 16.020 16.020 16.020 12 16.020 6 2.2 0.8

2.1 11 0.7 5.5 2 10 0.6 15.960 15.960 15.960 15.960 1.9 5 0.5 1.8 9

4.5 1.7 0.4 8 15.900 15.900 15.900 1.6 15.900 0.3 4 1.5 7 240.600 240.525 240.600 240.525 240.600 240.525 240.600 240.525 0.2 6.8 1 12 6.6 4 G049 - S G049 - Z G049 - kT G049 - P 0.9

6.3 11 29.960 29.960 29.960 29.960 3.5 0.8 6 10 0.7 5.8 3 0.6 5.5 9 29.890 29.890 29.890 29.890 0.5 5.2 2.5

5 8 0.4 2 4.7 0.3 29.820 29.820 29.820 29.820 7 4.4 1.5 0.2 245.200 245.130 245.060 245.200 245.130 245.060 245.200 245.130 245.060 245.200 245.130 245.060 4.2

3.4 11.5 A2249 - kT A2249 - P A2249 - P A2249 - Z 0.8 6.5 3.2 11 34.539 34.539 34.539 34.539 0.7 3 6 10.5

2.8 0.6 10 5.5 2.6 9.5 0.5 34.452 34.452 34.452 2.4 34.452 5 9 2.2 0.4

2 8.5 4.5 0.3 1.8 8 34.365 34.365 34.365 34.365 4 1.6 7.5 0.2 257.520 257.440 257.360 257.520 257.440 257.360 257.520 257.440 257.360 257.520 257.440 257.360 1.4

A2255 - kT 8.5 A2255 - P 3.4 A2255 - S A2255 - Z 0.9 16

64.110 64.110 3.2 64.110 64.110 0.8 8 15 3 0.7 7.5 64.080 64.080 64.080 64.080 14 2.8 0.6 7 2.6 13 64.050 64.050 64.050 64.050 0.5 6.5 2.4 12 0.4 6 2.2 64.020 64.020 64.020 64.020 11 0.3 2 5.5 258.320 258.240 258.160 258.080 258.320 258.240 258.160 258.080 258.320 258.240 258.160 258.080 10 258.320 258.240 258.160 258.080

Figure 12. NCC and disturbed systems. From left to right: temperature, pseudo-pressure, pseudo-entropy, and metallicity maps for A2065, A2147, G049.33+44.38, A2249, and A2255.

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 18 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes

REFERENCES Fukazawa Y., Makishima K., Ohashi T., 2004, PASJ, 56, 965 Gastaldello F., Ettori S., Molendi S., Bardelli S., Venturi T., Akamatsu H., Hoshino A., Ishisaki Y., Ohashi T., Sato K., Takei Zucca E., 2003, A&A, 411, 21 Y., Ota N., 2011, PASJ, 63, S1019 Ghizzardi S., De Grandi S., Molendi S., 2014, A&A, 570, A117 Akamatsu H., et al., 2017, A&A, 600, A100 Giovannini G., Bonafede A., Feretti L., Govoni F., Murgia M., Alvarez G. E., Randall S. W., Bourdin H., Jones C., Holley- Ferrari F., Monti G., 2009, A&A, 507, 1257 Bockelmann K., 2018, ApJ, 858, 44 Gonzalez A. H., Zabludoff A. I., Zaritsky D., Dalcanton J. J., Andrade-Santos F., Lima Neto G. B., Lagan´aT. F., 2012, ApJ, 2000, ApJ, 536, 561 746, 139 Gu L., et al., 2009, ApJ, 700, 1161 Andrade-Santos F., et al., 2017, ApJ, 843, 76 Hofmann F., Sanders J. S., Nandra K., Clerc N., Gaspari M., Angulo R. E., Springel V., White S. D. M., Jenkins A., Baugh 2016, A&A, 585, A130 C. M., Frenk C. S., 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2046 Huang Z., Sarazin C. L., 1998, ApJ, 496, 728 Arnaud M., et al., 2001, A&A, 365, L67 Hudson D. S., Mittal R., Reiprich T. H., Nulsen P. E. J., Ander- Arnaud M., Pratt G. W., Piffaretti R., B¨ohringer H., Croston nach H., Sarazin C. L., 2010, A&A, 513, A37 J. H., Pointecouteau E., 2010, A&A, 517, A92 Ignesti A., Gitti M., Brunetti G., O’Sullivan E., Sarazin C., Wong Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, ARA&A, K., 2018, A&A, 610, A89 47, 481 Inoue S., Hayashida K., Ueda S., Nagino R., Tsunemi H., Koyama Bagchi J., Durret F., Neto G. B. L., Paul S., 2006, Science, K., 2016, PASJ, 68, S23 314, 791 Jeltema T. E., Canizares C. R., Bautz M. W., Buote D. A., 2005, Balucinska-Church M., McCammon D., 1992, ApJ, 400, 699 ApJ, 624, 606 Bardelli S., Venturi T., Zucca E., De Grandi S., Ettori S., Molendi Johnson R. E., Markevitch M., Wegner G. A., Jones C., Forman S., 2002, A&A, 396, 65 W. R., 2010, ApJ, 710, 1776 Barnes D. J., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1809 Jones C., Forman W., 1999, ApJ, 511, 65 Bauer F. E., Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., Allen S. W., Johnstone Kaastra J. S., Mewe R., 1993, A&AS, 97, 443 R. M., 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1481 Kale R., Dwarakanath K. S., 2012, ApJ, 744, 46 Blanton E. L., Randall S. W., Clarke T. E., Sarazin C. L., Mc- Kolokotronis V., Basilakos S., Plionis M., Georgantopoulos I., Namara B. R., Douglass E. M., McDonald M., 2011, ApJ, 2001, MNRAS, 320, 49 737, 99 Lagan´aT. F., Andrade-Santos F., Lima Neto G. B., 2010, A&A, B¨ohringer H., et al., 2000, ApJS, 129, 435 511, A15 Bourdin H., Sauvageot J.-L., Slezak E., Bijaoui A., Teyssier R., Lagan´aT. F., Lovisari L., Martins L., Lanfranchi G. A., Capelato 2004, A&A, 414, 429 H. V., Schellenberger G., 2015, A&A, 573, A66 Buote D. A., Tsai J. C., 1996, ApJ, 458, 27 Lakhchaura K., Singh K. P., Saikia D. J., Hunstead R. W., 2011, Burns J. O., Roettiger K., Ledlow M., Klypin A., 1994, ApJ, ApJ, 743, 78 427, L87 Lakhchaura K., Singh K. P., Saikia D. J., Hunstead R. W., 2013, Burns J. O., Hallman E. J., Gantner B., Motl P. M., Norman ApJ, 767, 91 M. L., 2008, ApJ, 675, 1125 Leccardi A., Rossetti M., Molendi S., 2010, A&A, 510, A82 Canizares C. R., Stewart G. C., Fabian A. C., 1983, ApJ, 272, 449 Lee G.-H., Hwang H. S., Lee M. G., Ko J., Sohn J., Shim H., Chatzikos M., Sarazin C. L., Kempner J. C., 2006, ApJ, 643, 751 Diaferio A., 2015, ApJ, 800, 80 Chen Y., Reiprich T. H., B¨ohringer H., Ikebe Y., Zhang Y.-Y., Lopes P. A. A., Trevisan M., Lagan´aT. F., Durret F., Ribeiro 2007, A&A, 466, 805 A. L. B., Rembold S. B., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5473 Cortese L., Gavazzi G., Boselli A., Iglesias-Paramo J., Carrasco Macario G., Markevitch M., Giacintucci S., Brunetti G., Venturi L., 2004, A&A, 425, 429 T., Murray S. S., 2011, ApJ, 728, 82 De Grandi S., Molendi S., 2001, ApJ, 551, 153 Machado R. E. G., Lima Neto G. B., 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3249 Donnelly R. H., Forman W., Jones C., Quintana H., Ramirez A., Machado R. E. G., Lima Neto G. B., 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2915 Churazov E., Gilfanov M., 2001, ApJ, 562, 254 Marini F., et al., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 1219 Durret F., Lima Neto G. B., Forman W., Churazov E., 2003, Markevitch M., Vikhlinin A., 2007, Phys. Rep., 443, 1 A&A, 403, L29 Markevitch M., Forman W. R., Sarazin C. L., Vikhlinin A., 1998, Durret F., Lima Neto G. B., Forman W., 2005, A&A, 432, 809 ApJ, 503, 77 Durret F., Lagan´a T. F., Adami C., Bertin E., 2010, A&A, Markevitch M., et al., 2000, ApJ, 541, 542 517, A94 Markevitch M., Gonzalez A. H., David L., Vikhlinin A., Murray Durret F., Lagan´aT. F., Haider M., 2011, A&A, 529, A38 S., Forman W., Jones C., Tucker W., 2002, ApJ, 567, L27 Durret F., Perrot C., Lima Neto G. B., Adami C., Bertin E., Matsushita K., 2011, A&A, 527, A134 Bagchi J., 2013, A&A, 560, A78 Mauduit J.-C., Mamon G. A., 2007, A&A, 475, 169 Ebeling H., Mendes de Oliveira C., White D. A., 1995, MNRAS, McNamara B. R., et al., 2001, ApJ, 562, L149 277, 1006 Mernier F., et al., 2017, A&A, 603, A80 Eckert D., Molendi S., Paltani S., 2011, A&A, 526, A79 Mitsuishi I., et al., 2012, PASJ, 64, 18 Eckert D., et al., 2017, A&A, 605, A25 Molendi S., Pizzolato F., 2001, ApJ, 560, 194 Ehlert S., McDonald M., David L. P., Miller E. D., Bautz M. W., Morris R. G., Fabian A. C., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 585 2015, ApJ, 799, 174 Morrison R., McCammon D., 1983, ApJ, 270, 119 Elkholy T. Y., Bautz M. W., Canizares C. R., 2015, ApJ, 805, 3 Neumann D. M., et al., 2001, A&A, 365, L74 Fabian A. C., 1994, ARA&A, 32, 277 Nevalainen J., Markevitch M., Forman W., 2000, ApJ, 536, 73 Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., Allen S. W., Crawford C. S., Iwasawa Nulsen P. E. J., et al., 2013, ApJ, 775, 117 K., Johnstone R. M., Schmidt R. W., Taylor G. B., 2003, O’Sullivan E., Vrtilek J. M., Harris D. E., Ponman T. J., 2007, MNRAS, 344, L43 ApJ, 658, 299 Finoguenov A., Pietsch W., Aschenbach B., Miniati F., 2004, O’Sullivan E., Giacintucci S., David L. P., Vrtilek J. M., Ray- A&A, 415, 415 chaudhury S., 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1833 Frank K. A., Peterson J. R., Andersson K., Fabian A. C., Sanders Oh S., et al., 2016, ApJ, 832, 69 J. S., 2013, ApJ, 764, 46 Oh S., et al., 2018, ApJS, 237, 14

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 2D maps for galaxy clusters 19

Owers M. S., Nulsen P. E. J., Couch W. J., 2011, ApJ, 741, 122 easy the comparison with the 2D maps, and for the Planck Owers M. S., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1824 names the prefix PLCKESZ is omitted. Pandge M. B., Vagshette N. D., David L. P., Patil M. K., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 808 (i) CC-relaxed systems Parekh V., van der Heyden K., Ferrari C., Angus G., Holwerda B., 2015, A&A, 575, A127 • Abell 2734: Based on the optical images of the Peres C. B., Fabian A. C., Edge A. C., Allen S. W., Johnstone WINGS survey, Ramella et al. (2007) give a map of iso- R. M., White D. A., 1998, MNRAS, 298, 416 density contours of A2734 showing a strong elongation in Peterson J. R., Kahn S. M., Paerels F. B. S., Kaastra J. S., the east-west direction with possibly two separate struc- Tamura T., Bleeker J. A. M., Ferrigno C., Jernigan J. G., tures, the BCG being in the east structure. They also 2003, ApJ, 590, 207 Piffaretti R., Valdarnini R., 2008, A&A, 491, 71 indicate the presence of a double substructure south of Planck Collaboration et al., 2011, A&A, 536, A8 the main cluster. Our maps only cover a relatively small Planck Collaboration et al., 2013, A&A, 550, A134 part of the Ramella et al. (2007) map, but our pressure Quintana H., de Souza R., 1993, A&AS, 101, 475 map suggests that this cluster is perturbed in its centre. Ramella M., et al., 2007, A&A, 470, 39 The maps are spherically symmetric and they don’t point Read A. M., Ponman T. J., 2003, A&A, 409, 395 to an unrelaxed global structure. Roediger E., Lovisari L., Dupke R., Ghizzardi S., Bruggen¨ M., • EXO 0422-086: This cluster was reported in the Kraft R. P., Machacek M. E., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3632 literature among large samples and we can highlight the Roettiger K., Stone J. M., Mushotzky R. F., 1998, ApJ, 493, 62 abundance profile reported by Mernier et al. (2017) that Rossetti M., Ghizzardi S., Molendi S., Finoguenov A., 2007, A&A, shows central values about 1Z⊙ decreasing to almost 463, 839 0.3Z around 0.6 R , in agreement with our 2D metal- Rossetti M., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4515 ⊙ 500 Sakelliou I., Ponman T. J., 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1409 licity map. Sanderson A. J. R., Ponman T. J., 2010, MNRAS, 402, 65 • Abell S0540: Sun et al. (2009) include this cluster Santos J. S., Tozzi P., Rosati P., B¨ohringer H., 2010, A&A, (also called the ESO 306-G 017 group) in their sample 521, A64 of 43 groups observed with Chandra and classify it as a + . Schenck D. E., Datta A., Burns J. O., Skillman S., 2014, AJ, T = . 0 12 fossil group. They give a temperature of 500 2 37−0.14, a 148, 23 M = . +2.1 13 S = mass of 500 10 3−1.3 × 10 M⊙, and an entropy 500 Schuecker P., Finoguenov A., Miniati F., B¨ohringer H., Briel +203 U. G., 2004, A&A, 426, 387 915−192. From its mass, this object is therefore closer to Simionescu A., Roediger E., Nulsen P. E. J., Bruggen¨ M., Forman a cluster than to a group, but according to Wong et al. W. R., B¨ohringer H., Werner N., Finoguenov A., 2009, A&A, (2016) it is a dynamically old relaxed fossil group. Our 495, 721 temperature and entropy maps show a displacement of the Slee O. B., Roy A. L., 1998, MNRAS, 297, L86 cluster center towards the north while the metallicity map Sun M., Murray S. S., 2002, ApJ, 576, 708 clearly exhibits a bimodal distribution with the western Sun M., Voit G. M., Donahue M., Jones C., Forman W., Vikhlinin side having higher values. A., 2009, ApJ, 693, 1142 • G269.51+26.42: This cluster is also known as the Sunyaev R. A., Zeldovich Y. B., 1972, Comments on Astrophysics Hydra Cluster, and was previously classified as a non and Space Physics, 4, 173 CC system (Sanderson & Ponman 2010). The X-ray mea- Takahashi S., Yamashita K., 2003, PASJ, 55, 1105 Tanaka N., Furuzawa A., Miyoshi S. J., Tamura T., Takata T., surements listed in Andrade-Santos et al. (2017) and in 2010, PASJ, 62, 743 Lopes et al. (2018) indicate it is a CC cluster. On the Tchernin C., et al., 2016, A&A, 595, A42 contrary, some optical tests point to a disturbed cluster, Tittley E. R., Henriksen M., 2001, ApJ, 563, 673 although the BCG offset to the X-ray centre does not Tremblay G. R., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1042 (Lopes et al. 2018). Our maps indeed suggest that this is Venturi T., Bardelli S., Zagaria M., Prandoni I., Morganti R., a relaxed cluster but without a evident cool-core. 2002, A&A, 385, 39 • Abell 3528 (G303.75+33.65): This is a system Vikhlinin A., Markevitch M., Murray S. S., Jones C., Forman W., of two interacting clusters Abell 3528N and Abell 3528S Van Speybroeck L., 2005, ApJ, 628, 655 separated by 0.9 Mpc (Gastaldello et al. 2003). Based on Wong K.-W., Sarazin C. L., Blanton E. L., Reiprich T. H., 2008, XMM-Newton data, these authors describe both subclus- ApJ, 682, 155 ters as relaxed. However, our temperature map shows that Wong K.-W., Irwin J. A., Wik D. R., Sun M., Sarazin C. L., Fujita Y., Reiprich T. H., 2016, ApJ, 829, 49 A3528N looks relaxed, with a cool core, but A3528S does Yu H., Diaferio A., Agulli I., Aguerri J. A. L., Tozzi P., 2016, not, since its cool zone is displaced relatively to the cluster ApJ, 831, 156 centre and the temperature is hotter in the east and west Zhang L., Yuan Q., Yang Q., Zhang S., Li F., Zhou X., Jiang Z., parts of the cluster, indicating that at least one merger 2011, PASJ, 63, 585 must have taken place. Our temperature and metallicity Zhu Z., et al., 2016, ApJ, 816, 54 maps are in global agreement with the coarser ones of Gastaldello et al. (2003), who suggest that the two sub- clusters are moving along the NW/SE and NE/SW direc- tions respectively, the merger having had its closest en- counter 1–2 Gyrs ago with an impact parameter of ∼ 5rs. APPENDIX A: NOTES ON INDIVIDUAL • Abell 1650 (G306.68+61.06): According to CLUSTERS Takahashi & Yamashita (2003), this cluster presents a We give here specific details on the clusters studied in this non-uniform distribution of temperature and abundance, work. They are presented in the same order as in Tab. 2, to based on the analysis of XMM-Newton data, which goes in

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 20 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes

line with our result. However, all maps present a roundish are only few papers in the literature concerning the X-ray shape. These authors also found cool regions with tem- emission of this cluster. perature around 4.0 keV distributed in the outer parts of • Abell 2244 (G056.81+36.31): This cluster is con- the cluster, which is exactly what we see in the 2D tem- sidered by Parekh et al. (2015) as relaxed, and only small perature map. scale temperature substructures have been detected in the • Abell 3571 (G316.34+28.54): Lopes et al. (2018) central regions of A2244 by Gu et al. (2009), based on classify this cluster as relaxed for all except one optical Chandra data. In Table 2, we classify A2244 as a CC- substructure test, and it is also classified as relaxed by relaxed cluster, since its overall spherical shape is pre- all the X-ray indicators. In the literature, this system is served. usually classified as relaxed (Quintana & de Souza 1993; • Abell 2572: The core of A2572 is found to be dou- Nevalainen et al. 2000), but an exception is found in the ble, consisting of two X-ray peaks of similar intensity sep- work of Venturi et al. (2002), suggesting (from radio data) arated by about 3 arcmim. The ICM between the two X- that it is the final stage of a merger event. Our temper- ray peaks appears undisturbed (Ebeling et al. 1995). In ature map does not indicate the presence of a cool core, addition to that, according to these authors, A2572 and and our metallicity map is quite patchy. HCG94 are falling toward each other at a velocity of about 1000 km s−1 but no clear signs of dynamical interaction • Abell 1795 (G033.78+77.16): All optical sub- are discernible in the ROSAT X-ray data of A2572. Our structure classifications (except for the Lee 3D test) from 2D maps don’t show strong signs of perturbation. The kT Lopes et al. (2018) indicate this is a relaxed system. The map has presents a small range in temperature (from 2.8 same is true according to the four X-ray CC indicators to 3.6 keV), and the Z map shows a central elongation of from that work and from the temperature map we show higher metallicity. here. This system has also been previously classified as a • Abell 2597: This is a CC cluster, but CC, but having a very active central region (Ehlert et al. McNamara et al. (2001) analysed the central 100 kpc 2015), with the presence of low temperature ICM gas, of this cluster and found an irregular X-ray emission sometimes coincident with Hα filaments. (their Fig. 1) very similar to the structure seen in our • Abell 2052: Blanton et al. (2011) analysed a Chan- kT map. Morris & Fabian (2005) showed that EPIC dra observation of this cluster, revealing detailed struc- fits to the central region are consistent with a cooling ture in the inner part, including bubbles evacuated by flow of around 100 solar masses per year. The Chandra radio lobes of the active galactic nucleus (AGN), com- observations reveal a central (< 30 kpc) X-ray cavity pressed bubble rims, filaments, and two concentric shock that is not detected in XMM-Newton data due to the regions. Their 2D maps are very similar to those pre- PSF (Tremblay et al. 2012). These authors also present sented here. Machado & Lima Neto (2015) made simula- evidence that in spite of the presence of a central AGN tions that could reproduce the sloshing feature of this clus- there is a residual cooling-flow. ter by two regimes: the first scenario has a close encounter • Abell 2626: This cool-core cluster has been well and corresponds to a recent event (0.8 Gyr since pericen- studied due to the presence of a radio source in its cen- tric passage), while the second scenario has a larger im- tre. Wong et al. (2008) presented a detailed X-ray analysis pact parameter and is older (almost 2.6 Gyr since pericen- (XMM-Newton and Chandra) focused on the X-ray and tric passage). In this second case, the simulation predicts radio interactions. The cD galaxy IC 5338 has two nu- that the perturbing subcluster should be located approxi- clei and one of them has an associated hard X-ray point mately 2 Mpc from the centre of the major cluster, where source. Ignesti et al. (2018) reported a complex system the authors were able to identify an optical counterpart of four symmetric radio arcs without known correlations at the same redshift. Besides the inner part of the pres- with the thermal X-ray emission. These symmetric radio sure map that shows instabilities probably related to the arcs together with the presence of two optical cores could AGN, this cluster doesn’t show strong signs of mergers. be created by pairs of precessing radio jets powered by • Abell 2063: According to dual AGNs inside the dominant galaxy. We see a clear Planck Collaboration et al. (2011), this cluster forms a metallicity excess in the centre of this cluster in the 2D pair with MKW3s but the SZ signal between the two map. clusters is not significantly detected. Though Frank et al. • Abell 4059: Huang & Sarazin (1998) presented a (2013) classify it as relaxed, Parekh et al. (2015) consider ROSAT HRI and PSPC X-ray analysis, characterising that this is a non-relaxed cluster. We classify A2063 this galaxy cluster as a compact cD type. The central cD as a CC-relaxed cluster, but our maps show that it is galaxy hosts the strong radio source PKS 2354-35. In our not fully relaxed. The flat temperature profile and the kT, P and S maps we do not see any perturbation pro- monotonously decreasing metallicity profile found by duced by this galaxy. However, in the Z map, we clearly Matsushita (2011) are not in contradiction with our see a central enhancement in metal abundance that could maps. be related to the central galaxy. • Abell 2151: This cluster is much smaller and cooler (ii) CC-disturbed than the other ones, and our mean temperature agrees with that of Fukazawa et al. (2004), who give kT=2.14 ± • Abell 85 (G115.16-72.09): This cluster has been 0.10 keV, based on ASCA data. On the other hand, these known for many years to have a cool core, several subtruc- authors find a very low metallicity of Z=(0.14 ± 0.06)Z⊙, tures (Durret et al. 2005), and an extended filament de- while we find an abundance that is in average ∼ 0.9 solar. tected in X-rays (Durret et al. 2003). This filament was in- All our maps suggest that this is a relaxed cluster. There terpreted as due to groups falling on to the cluster, the gas

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 2D maps for galaxy clusters 21

7 in the impact region being hotter. The comparison of the temperature map computed from XMM-Newton data by 6.4 Durret et al. (2005) (see their Fig. 3) with that obtained A1644 - kT (1000cts) from totally independent hydrodynamical numerical simu- lations by Bourdin et al. (2004) (see their Fig. 9) suggests 5.8 -17.200 that an older merger coming from the northwest has also hit the cluster. Temperature maps have also been obtained 5.2 by Tanaka et al. (2010) and Schenck et al. (2014). The S and SW subclusters described by Schenck et al. (2014) are 4.6

spatially coincident with regions of low temperatures in -17.300 our kT map. The dynamical analysis by Yu et al. (2016) 4 shows several groups passing through the cluster core that have disturbed the ICM, one group being associated with 3.4

a secondary peak of X-ray emission. -17.400 • Abell 496 (G209.56-36.49): This cluster is known 2.8 to be an overall relaxed cluster (Peres et al. 1998) with a cool core, though the comparison of its X-ray slosh- 2.2 ing cold fronts with hydrodynamical simulations by Roediger et al. (2012) suggest that a minor merger with -17.500 1.6 13 an approximate mass of 4×10 M⊙ has crossed the cluster 194.450 194.340 194.230 194.120 from the south-west to the north-east, passing the pericen- 0.99 tre distance 0.6–0.8 Gyr ago. Our metallicity and entropy Figure A1. temperature map for A1644 using a minimum count maps agree well with those of Ghizzardi et al. (2014) and of A1644 to show the shock between the systems. with the interpretation by Roediger et al. (2012). • USGC S152: O’Sullivan et al. (2007) studied this cluster that they call the NGC 3411 group, which is also of the profile consistent with relatively little evolution in identified in NED as the NGC 3402 group. Based on sev- the past 5 Gyr (Gonzalez et al. 2000). However our X-ray eral high resolution temperature maps obtained with both maps, in particular the temperature and metallicity maps, XMM-Newton and Chandra data, these authors find a rather seem to suggest that at least one (possibly several) typical abundance distribution, but a clearly atypical tem- merger(s) has taken place. perature distribution, with a hot inner core surrounded by • Abell 3558 (G311.99+3071): Rossetti et al. a cool shell of gas, making them conclude that the X-ray (2007) made a detailed analysis of A3558 based on gas is not in hydrodynamical equilibrium. They discuss Chandra and XMM-Newton data and showed that its two possible scenarios to account for this cold halo: ei- cool core has survived a merger. However, we hardly ther the center of a cooling region has been reheated by detect any cooler gas in the center. As stressed by an AGN outburst, or the cool shell is the product of a Ramella et al. (2007), this cluster is elongated in the merger. Our temperature map fully agrees with theirs, southeast-northwest direction. According to Frank et al. and our metallicity map is clearly in favour of the second (2013) and Parekh et al. (2015), A3558 is unrelaxed, and scenario: a merger in the northeast-southwest direction is linked by hot gas (2 keV) to A3556 (Mitsuishi et al. 2012). the only explanation to the higher metallicity observed Our maps roughly agree with the temperature and Fe along this direction. abundance profiles calculated by Matsushita (2011), and • Abell 1644: This is a double cluster, with a main strongly suggest that at least one merger has taken place. cluster (A1644s) and a smaller and colder one (A1644n) • Abell 3562: As A3558, this cluster is also a mem- to the north-east (Johnson et al. 2010). Surprisingly, these ber of the Shapley supercluster. According to Frank et al. authors give almost similar masses for both clusters, (2013) and Parekh et al. (2015), it is unrelaxed, as also though their intensity map clearly shows the presence of suggested by its radio halo (Giovannini et al. 2009). a main cluster and of a much smaller one, as also seen Matsushita (2011) classifies it as a non-cD cluster with in our maps. Their contours and temperature maps agree a large deviation from symmetry and a rather large Fe with ours and show that the main cluster itself seems dou- abundance of ∼ 1.5 solar, as for A3558, but we do not ble, or at least appears strongly perturbed by a merger. measure such a high abundance in either of the two clus- From the comparison with hydrodynamical simulations, ters. Matsushita (2011) also finds that A3562 has a flat Johnson et al. (2010) suggest that the northern subclus- temperature profile and a uniformly decreasing metallicity ter initiated the core gas sloshing in the main cluster about profile, in contradiction with our maps. 700 Myr ago. We produced the temperature map assum- • Abell 1775: According to Lopes et al. (2018), this ing a minimum count number of 1000 counts (see Fig. A1) cluster is classified as relaxed. However, our temperature and we can see the shock between these two systems. map clearly shows an extremely sharp cold front (sloshing • Abell 1651 (G306.80+58.60): An almost isother- arm), particularly visible in the entropy map. At optical mal profile around ∼ 5 keV was found in this cluster based wavelengths, Zhang et al. (2011) studied this cluster in on ASCA data (Markevitch et al. 1998), but our temper- 15 bands (SDSS + BATC), and the galaxy redshift his- ature map suggests that there is a hotter eastern region, togram suggests a bimodal structure composed by a poor with kT ∼ 8.0 keV. A study of the diffuse optical light subcluster at lower redshift, located 14 arcmin southeast around the BCG of Abell 1651 suggested a color and shape of the main concentration. This is confirmed by the lumi-

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 22 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes

nosity function analysis of the galaxies belonging to each temperature and density are those expected for an overall subcluster. Probably these two clusters have merged and relaxed system. produced the spiral sloshing arm seen in the 2D maps. • NGC6338: This is a double cluster. There are X-ray • Abell 2029 (G006.47+50.54): This system is clas- cavities in the central 6 kpc detected through the analy- sified as disturbed by the Dressler & Shectman (DS or sis of Chandra data (Pandge et al. 2012). In addition to ∆) and Anderson-Darling (AD) statistics in Lopes et al. these cavities, these authors detected a set of X-ray bright (2018), but is classified as relaxed according to the mag- filaments which are spatially coincident with the Hα fila- nitude gap and to the offset between the BCG and X-ray ments over an extent of 15 kpc. The orientations of these centroid. In that paper all four X-ray measurements indi- filaments (NW-SE) are spatially coincident with the hot- cate this is a CC cluster. This is in agreement with previ- ter regions in the kT maps and with the higher entropy ous studies, such as Santos et al. (2010) and Hudson et al. values in the S map. (2010), who classify it as a strong cool core system. On • Abell 4038: In the work of Lopes et al. (2018) this the contrary, from our current analysis we consider it as cluster is considered as disturbed by all optical tests, ex- disturbed, with a cool centre, but very asymmetric. cept the Lee 3D and ∆m12. Though it is considered as • Abell 2142 (G044.22+48.68): This cluster was cool-core by the four X-ray substructure parameters used one of the first to show a cold front (Markevitch et al. here, our temperature map does not point to a CC cluster. 2000), a phenomenon interpreted as due to a merger by The unrelaxed nature of this cluster also agrees with the Owers et al. (2011), based on galaxy redshifts. Though fact that the central part of the cluster shows the presence A2142 is considered as relaxed by Frank et al. (2013), of two bright galaxies, and that a radio relic is reported Tchernin et al. (2016) have shown that this cluster by Slee & Roy (1998) and Kale & Dwarakanath (2012). has rather bumpy temperature, metallicity, and en- (iii) NCC-relaxed tropy profiles, while the pressure profile is quite smooth. Akamatsu et al. (2011) obtained a temperature profile up • Coma Cluster (G057.33+88.01): Coma is one to a large distance of 30 arcmin from the cluster center of the most well studied clusters, known for having two towards the northwest, showing a steady decrease of the bright galaxies at its center. In Lopes et al. (2018) we de- 14 temperature consistent with our temperature map. All rived a mass estimate of 14.6 × 10 M⊙ and classifed it as these results overall agree with our maps, but illustrate non-relaxed with all substructure tests (in the optical and again the fact that profiles do not allow to derive the full X-rays), except for the ncore measurement. However, we physical properties of the X-ray gas, for which 2D maps find no indication of perturbation from the maps derived are necessary. The temperature and metallicity maps of here. Our temperature map is fully consistent (in shape A2142 clearly show that at least one merger has occurred and absolute values) with the monotonously decreasing along the southeast to northwest direction. We can note temperature profile obtained by Matsushita (2011) (based that another merger is presently occurring, with a group on XMM-Newton data), that show no cool core. It also falling on to A2142 (Eckert et al. 2017). agrees with the much coarser temperature map obtained • AWM4: This is a poor cluster, for which by Arnaud et al. (2001). Our metallicity is also fully con- Fukazawa et al. (2004) give kT=3.56 ± 0.07 keV and sistent with the monotonously decreasing metallicity pro- Z=(0.47 ± 0.09)Z⊙, based on ASCA data. O’Sullivan et al. file of Matsushita (2011). The fact that we see no trace of (2011) computed high spatial resolution temperature and the influence of the infall of the NGC 4839 group into the density maps of AWM4, based on Chandra data, revealing main cluster (Neumann et al. 2001) strongly suggests that a high degree of structure. They concluded that it is un- this group is only approaching Coma for the first time. If likely that large scale sloshing occurs in AWM4. However, this group had already crossed the cluster, as it had been at larger scale, though our entropy and pressure maps suggested long ago by Burns et al. (1994), this should had suggest that the cluster is relaxed, our temperature and left an imprint in the temperature and metallicity maps. metallicity maps imply that at least one merging event • Abell 3532: This cluster forms a possibly bound has taken place, probably originating from the southwest, pair with Abell 3530, and both clusters belong to the to explain the fact that in this zone the gas is hotter and Abell 3528 complex of the Shapley Supercluster (SSC), more metal-rich. We can note that our mean metallicity as presented by Lakhchaura et al. (2013) in their de- roughly agrees with that of Fukazawa et al. (2004), but tailed introduction. Both are non cool core clusters our temperature is notably lower. (Chen et al. 2007). The radio continuum emission from • Abell 2199 (G062.92+43.70): According to galaxies in the SSC core seems to indicate that the Lee et al. (2015) and references therein, A2199 is at the Abell 3532/3530 pair of clusters is approaching for the first centre of a supercluster. Deep Chandra observations by time (Mauduit & Mamon 2007). The Abell 3532/3530 Nulsen et al. (2013) have revealed evidence for a minor pair of clusters was observed and analysed in detail in X- merger ∼ 400 Myr ago. However, also based on Chan- rays with Chandra and XMM-Newton (Lakhchaura et al. dra data, Hofmann et al. (2016) suggest that A2199 is an 2013). Their pressure and entropy maps agree with ours overall relaxed cluster (a result also found by Frank et al. and confirm that the cluster is not at all relaxed. (2013) and Parekh et al. (2015)) with a cool core and • bA3558: the observation was not deep enough to AGN feedback structures at its centre. These authors find produce extended maps, so we cannot draw firm conclu- a large scale asymmetry in the temperature distribution sions on this cluster. between the north and the south, which is also clearly vis- • MKW8: This cluster is classified as relaxed accord- ible in our temperature map. Otherwise, Hofmann et al. ing to all optical substructure tests in Lopes et al. (2018), (2016) find that the perturbations in entropy, pressure, but only CSB4 (out of the four X-ray metrics) indicates

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 2D maps for galaxy clusters 23

this is a CC cluster. From our current maps we also clas- and is undergoing a recent major merger that has been sify it as disturbed. Hudson et al. (2010) and Eckert et al. quantified by several studies. First, the comparison with (2011) also classify it as a NCC system, corroborating hydrodynamic simulations (Roettiger et al. 1998) has sug- the discrepancy between the optical and X-ray classifica- gested a recent (< 0.3 Gyr) off-axis merger between two tions. We have also noticed that its nearby companion subclusters of mass ratio 2.1:1. Then, the presence of a (bMKW8) aligns in projection with two background clus- third subcluster was suggested (Markevitch et al. 2002) ters, WHL J143821.9+034013 and Abell 1942, and it is and a “shock-SE” region was identified by a temperature not clear if the X-ray emission could be associated with jump at the southeast part of the cluster coinciding with those background systems. a radio relic (Macario et al. 2011). • Abell 1367 (G234.59+73.01): In agreement with (iv) NCC-disturbed Hudson et al. (2010) and references therein, this is a very • Abell 119 (G125.58-64.14): Oh et al. (2016) well-studied merging cluster, observed for a long time showed that A119 is a dynamically young cluster with in X-rays (Sun & Murray 2002) as well as optical wave- unrelaxed groups within the virial radius implying a dis- lengths, where evidence was found for an infalling star- turbed morphology. This was confirmed by Owers et al. burst group (Cortese et al. 2004). In view of the asym- (2017), based on a large number of galaxy redshifts from metry of this cluster, particularly well seen in our maps, the SAMI cluster redshift survey. They found that A119 radial profiles such as those of Matsushita (2011) are ob- has a small substructure associated with a bright galaxy viously not well adapted, since they average values of about 1 Mpc to the north-east of the cluster centre. Our the temperature and metallicity in regions where these maps clearly confirm that this cluster is disturbed and has quantities are quite different. Our X-ray maps indeed undergone or is presently undergoing one or several merg- appear rather disturbed, with mean temperature and ing events. In X-rays, Elkholy et al. (2015) showed that metallicity values agreeing with those previously derived the entropy profile slightly increases outwards, in agree- by Fukazawa et al. (2004) and Hudson et al. (2010), but ment with our entropy map. On the other hand, they find slightly larger than the temperature given by Frank et al. that the metallicity profile of A119 decreases by a factor (2013). + 2 − 3 between 0.15R500 and R500, a result which is not • ZwCl12151 0400 (G282.49+65.17): This cluster consistent with our metallicity map. was not studied individually and was only reported in the • Abell 3376 (G246.52-26.05): The bullet shape literature among large samples. Our maps clearly show of this cluster suggests it has undergone a recent colli- that it is a disturbed NCC cluster. sion (Durret et al. 2013). The temperature and metallic- • Abell 3560: This is a rich cluster at the south- ity maps obtained by Bagchi et al. (2006) show patches ern periphery of the A3558 complex, a chain of interact- of hotter gas and a higher metallicity in the south- ing clusters in the central part of the Shapley superclus- east half of the cluster. Hydrodynamical simulations by ter. Based on a ROSAT-PSPC map, Bardelli et al. (2002) Machado & Lima Neto (2013) computed to match the X- found that its surface brightness distribution is described ray properties suggest a collision of two clusters with mass by two components, indicating that this cluster is expe- ratio between 1:6 and 1:8, the subcluster having a gas den- riencing a merger event. They also mentioned that the sity four times that of the main cluster. The merger seems main component, corresponding to the cluster, has an to correspond to a small impact parameter (< 150 kpc), elongation towards the A3558 complex, which is located with a collision axis inclined by ∼ 40◦ with respect to the northwest of A3560. This is also what we found in the plane of the sky, and having taken place 0.5 Gyr ago, with 2D maps presented in this work. From VLA radio data a large Mach number of ∼ 4. Bardelli et al. (2002) found a peculiar bright extended ra- • Abell 3391: This cluster is classified as relaxed dio source (J1332-3308). by all except one optical indicator (magnitude gap) in • Abell 2061: This cluster forms a pair with A2067. Lopes et al. (2018), as there are two bright galaxies near Based on BeppoSAX data, Marini et al. (2004) obtained the center of the system. However, all four X-ray param- temperature maps for three clusters in the Corona Bo- eters, point to a NCC object, and our temperature map realis supercluster: A2061, A2067, and A2124. Their im- indicates that this is the case. It has also been suggested age shows that A2061 is elongated towards A2067, with a that there is a filamentary structure linking Abell 3391 “plume” pointing towards the second cluster, but no other and Abell 3395, with the ESO-161-IG006 group between clear sign of interaction. We also detect an elongation to- the two clusters (Tittley & Henriksen 2001; Alvarez et al. wards A2067. Marini et al. (2004) find an overall decreas- 2018). ing temperature profile, with a hotter region (10.7 keV) • Abell 3395 (G263.20-25.21): This cluster is an in the 2-4 arcmin bin northwest of the cluster center. This example of a double system, close to bA3395 (bG2263.20- agrees with our temperature map, where the hottest gas 25.21), previously classified as a merging system is in the northwest zone. Marini et al. (2004) suggest a (Lakhchaura et al. 2011). According to Donnelly et al. scenario where a group is falling into A2061 and forms a (2001) the system appears to be nearly at first core pas- shock in the cluster. However, the sketch of the merger sage. Lopes et al. (2018) found that the BCG of the sec- that they give in their Fig. 17 does not seem consistent ond cluster is coincident with the X-ray centroid. As in with our temperature map. Planck Collaboration et al. Donnelly et al. (2001) we found evidence that the gas be- (2013) confirmed that no filament is detected between tween the two systems is heated. A2061 and A2067. • Abell 754: This cluster has been studied at vari- • MKW3s: According to Planck Collaboration et al. ous wavelengths (Inoue et al. 2016, and references therein) (2013), this cluster forms a pair with A2063 but the SZ

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019) 24 Lagan´a, Durret & Lopes

signal between the two clusters is not significantly de- tected. There is a dominant central galaxy at the center of MKW3s, namely NGC 5920. Our kT map shows that the central temperature is higher than the overall tempera- ture, in contradiction with previous studies that reported MKW3s as a cooling-flow system (Canizares et al. 1983). • Abell 2065 (G042.82+56.61): Chatzikos et al. (2006) presented the Chandra analysis of this merging cluster, with cool gas displaced from the more luminous southern cD galaxy. They argue that A2065 is an unequal mass merger in which the more massive southern cluster has driven a shock into the ICM of the infalling northern cluster, which has disrupted the cool core of the latter. The spatial distribution of the temperature presented in Fig. 12 is very similar to their Fig. 6(a), showing a cold front with temperatures around 5-6 keV and a shock front with temperatures reaching 10 keV. • Abell 2147: This cluster forms a close pair with A2152 which is about 40 arcmin away (Planck Collaboration et al. 2011). It is classified as disturbed by Frank et al. (2013), and this is obviously the case, as seen in our maps, which are all very inho- mogeneous and suggest that several mergers must have taken place. • G049.33+44.38: This cluster is part of the NORAS survey (Northern ROSAT All-Sky Survey B¨ohringer et al. 2000) but very little is known on it in X-rays. Our maps show that this cluster is obviously disturbed. • Abell 2249 (PLCKESZ G057.61+34.94): The temperature profile presented in Zhu et al. (2016) based on Chandra data suggests a central temperature of 8.0 keV, reaching its maximum of almost 10 keV around 1000 kpc. Our temperature map does not show such high values, since kT ranges from ∼ 4.0 keV up to 7.0 keV. Using the KASI-Yonsei Deep Imaging Survey of Clusters (KYDISC), Oh et al. (2018) found more than 400 spec- troscopic members, and the redshift histogram is well fit by a gaussian distribution, showing no evidence of merg- ing. What calls our attention is the higher temperature “ring” in the center, which is associated with AGNs, al- though we found no indication for this in the literature. Lopes et al. (2018) also classify the velocity distribution as normal (according to the Anderson-Darling statistics), but the cluster is considered as disturbed in 3D, according to the Dressler & Shectman (DS or ∆) test. • Abell 2255 (G093.91+34.90): This is a merging cluster and our kT and S maps show two regions of lower temperature and entropy while the pressure map shows a region of shock between the systems. Using 140 ks Suzaku X-ray data, Akamatsu et al. (2017) analysed this merging system almost out to the virial radius (1.9 Mpc), con- firming that the temperature drops from 6 keV around the cluster centre to 3 keV at the outskirts. In a previous XMM-Newton data analysis, Sakelliou & Ponman (2006) reported an asymmetric temperature distribution that has been assembled recently by the merging of smaller sub- units that have collided some 0.1-0.2 Gyrs ago.

This paper has been typeset from a TEX/LATEX file prepared by the author.

MNRAS 000, 1–24 (2019)