Revista Mexicana de Astronomía y Astrofísica ISSN: 0185-1101 [email protected] Instituto de Astronomía México

Vasconcelos, M. J.; Cerqueira, A. H.; Raga, A. C.; Amorim, R. R. PHOTOEVAPORATION OF A BINARY PROPLYD SYSTEM Revista Mexicana de Astronomía y Astrofísica, vol. 46, núm. 1, abril, 2010, pp. 79-87 Instituto de Astronomía Distrito Federal, México

Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=57115510008

How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative © Copyright 2010: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México w,ec ODl e 94 ’el&Wn 1996; Wong 2005). & al. O’Dell et 1994; Wen Smith shad- & tails, (O’Dell microjets, etc. ows, shocks, stationary emission cusps, like line proplyds features, observational so-called of wealth These a show systems. (YSO) stel- young object from lar photoevaporated being is mate- which to rial correspond which regions also emission and compact silhouette, re- in nebula) disks Orion circumstellar several (the veal M42 in cluster Trapezium the aps S˜ Campos, Ilh´ Aut´ eit eiaad Astronom´ de Mexicana Revista u,Bha Brazil. Bahia, eus, 3 2 1 nm eM´ de onoma bevtoso h trfrainrgo around region formation star the of Observations nttt ainld eqia saii,S˜ Espaciais, Pesquisas de Nacional Instituto nttt eCeca ulae,UiesddNacional Universidad Nucleares, Ciencias de Instituto AODE,Uiesdd sauld at Cruz, Santa de Estadual Universidade LATO-DCET, oPuo Brazil. Paulo, ao HTEAOAINO IAYPOLDSYSTEM PROPLYD BINARY A OF PHOTOEVAPORATION rpy hl eaiet h msino h oiainfot,i etragreement better Words: in LV1.Key fronts, proplyd ionization binary the the of of H observations emission the the the with increases to parameters relative of shell choice proplyd suitable a with model ( tions eaaino h iaysse srltvl ag ( large relatively is show H system models both binary dominated the in far- of FUV shell account separation interproplyd study models. into We defined dominated take well source. EUV simulations a stellar and The a dominated from FUV region. radiation both EUV) II and H (FUV an extreme-ultraviolet and inside system disk cretion eo ced o a bevcoe e rpy iai LV1. binario proplyd del observaciones las con acuerdo mejor emisi´ o n elecci´ c´ una una con desarrolla se no AU), o ao:mdlsdmndsprl radiaci´ la por dominados modelos casos: dos radiaci´ la acreci´ de discos end at nmpsd esddcm eemisi´ ( de grande relativamente como es densidad binaria de la mapas en tanto definida oiao o aradiaci´ la por dominados xc,Mexico. exico, .INTRODUCTION 1. nd H de on .J Vasconcelos, J. M. epeet3 ueia iuain fpooeaoaino iayac- binary a of photo-evaporation of simulations numerical 3D present We rsnao iuains3 el fotoevaporaci´ la de 3D simulaciones Presentamos  0 U,teitrrpy hl olne eeos eso hta EUV an that show We develops. longer no shell interproplyd the AU), 200 nurvoealjn xrm FVyEV euaetel.Estudiamos estrella. una de EUV) y (FUV extrema y lejana utravioleta on Irgos—sas icmtla atr—sas asls stars: — loss mass stars: — matter circumstellar stars: — regions II H r-ansequence pre-main eevd20 etme 1 cetd20 oebr16 November 2009 accepted 21; September 2009 Received α nd par´ de on nrmnaarset aemisi´ la a respecto incrementada ndnr euaregi´ una de dentro on ayAstrof´ y ıa 1 mto dcaateeuac´ una tiene adecuada ametros nFVmeta n c´ una muestran FUV on .H Cerqueira, H. A. saaitrpold otao u nmdl EUV modelo un que Mostramos inter-proplyd. ascara ısica oJos´ ao , edos 46 ABSTRACT ∼ RESUMEN 98 (2010) 79–87 , nftinzd.Lssmlcoe consideran simulaciones Las fotoionizada. on 0 U.Pr eaainsmnrs( menores separaciones Para AU). 000 2 1 α .C Raga, C. A. h rsneo rseti rn fteproplyd, the of front in crescent a reproduce of presence to analyt- the able Previous were that models region) numerical association. II and OB flux H ical the expanding photon the from the (or come both wind with the and interacts which photo-evaporated a wind, generates surface disk Es- star the YSO. at high-mass field mass low external a an around disk of accretion an flux be- with interaction UV the the is tween features proplyd observed the reod,Hne,&Atu 2001). Garc´ Arthur 2000; & Yorke Henney, & St¨ micro- Arredondo, Richling 1998; of 1999; Bally Hollenbach production & & sta- the Hollenbach, the (Johnstone, and at jets front emission the shock tail, tionary shaped tear-drop like the proplyds, in observed features main the of some radiation ultraviolet the of incidence the sentially, msinaddniymp,we the when maps, density and emission nFVyprl U.Lsmodelos Los EUV. la por y FUV on h ai rcs htepan tlatpr of part least at explains that process basic The nd o rne eionizaci´ de frentes los de on saaitrpoldqeest´ que inter-proplyd ascara ∼ nH on 0 U.Frsalrsepara- smaller For AU). 000 2 saaitrpoldcnuna con inter-proplyd ascara nd nsseabnrode binario sistema un de on 2 α andR.R.Amorim unol separaci´ la cuando α msino h inter- the of emission n en on, 3 abien  nde on 200 orzer ıa- 79 © Copyright 2010: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México noacuttedffs aito edi uuepa- future a in field per. radiation diffuse three- the present account into properly to taking plan proplyds, of We impor- calculations dimensional (see 2000). an proplyds Yorke play of & side to Richling non-illuminated the known in diffuse is role the tant which of treatment field, the radiation neglected have emphasize should we proplyd we that addition, 1 LV In the 2002). in Henney (see found geometry the is unshielded for problem relevant the This receive field. which radiation of ionizing/dissociating “side both two of disks, case side” the by radiation. consider the we ionizing shields paper present impinging clumps the In the neutral from two clump the other of case one the to which Lim models in Also, their restricted 2003). (2003) Mellema Mellema & & radiation Lim ionizing by the considered (only photodissociat- was field the radiation & include FUV Lim we ing, by and considered 2003), clumps Mellema spherical op- the (as to structures posed photo- disk-like the flattened, consider we of evaporation work: previous authors. with the differences these to main respect by two have presented models our ones similar However, the a have to simulations resolution Our ion- field. interaction impinging radiation an 3D izing and the clumps spherical studied two who between (2003), Mellema & photo- supersonic mildly collide. two winds the evaporated where shell, plyd eut n in and results 0VSOCLSE AL. ET VASCONCELOS 80 r bet opt h H the we compute which to from able simulations interproplyd are 3D present called we Here interaction, shell. the structure shock from the of resulting formation the this on, for and model interaction Later analytical an presented flows. (2002) Henney photoevaporated two the between tr sdi h iuain In simulation. the in param- physical used the eters and setup numerical the present l rpy,teewsa msinrgo,srn in strong region, emission an H was there sin- proplyd, each radio gle for observed and fronts besides ionization optical that individual suggested Gra- the analyzed then by and who LV1 addressed of (2002) observations first al. was et in problem (168–326) ham proplyd This LV1 forming the proplyds Orion. for like of system, obtained pair binary results a a the problem: present interesting We fields an radiation EUV included. the and are FUV the both which proplyds, in of simulation numerical three-dimensional α h ae sognzda olw.In follows. as organized is paper The Lim of work the to similar are simulations Our nti ae,w rsn h rtrpr fafully a of report first the present we paper, this In n [O and III hc eut rmteinteraction the from results which ]

,teconclusions. the 4, α msino h interpro- the of emission

epeetour present we 3

2we D ag rm70Kt 5 ,acrigt the to according K, 950 C to of the fraction K inside ionization 750 from temperatures range the PDR that found we evolves, idotwt h Yguaz´ the Gonz´ with out ried rcin and fraction, olnah18;Jhsoee l 98,a h dis- & the (Tielens at K 1998), 000 al. 1 heated et of be Johnstone order must 1985; the Hollenbach proplyd of a temperature of con- a the to PDR to the lead that Nebula are Orion clusion that the fluxes in FUV found the typically on considerations that note eaueo h D slmtdb btntfie to) fixed not (but by limited is 10 PDR the of perature iuu nevli eprtr,rnigfo 0K 10 from con- 10 a ranging gas. have to temperature, may neutral we in that the interval (1) and the tinuous equation ionized from is clear the which is both It 1994), for Lazareff here dynamical & case the (Lefloch than scale equilib- smaller much thermal time is the scale if time justified rium is prescription This atureofanH norsmltos eslete o H for them solve species. we atomic/ionic simulations, for our equations In rate of system a the splitting employing tor equations gas-dynamic Yguaz´ the The grid. adaptive binary ftenurlgas, neutral the of ac fL1(from LV1 of tance D temperature, PDR oe eprtr a fteform: im- the have of we law equation, temperature (2000). energy a Yorke posed an solving & of Richling ion- Instead following carbon a region, as ization PDR) (hereafter region dissociated al. therein). et references Cerqueira and 2006b, (see for flows employed astrophysical extensively simulating been has species, chemical n C and qain() echose We (1). equation osa h ya iiso H of limits Lyman pho- the for at equations tons transfer radiative integrates code con- the in mentioned discussed we be as clusions. will nebula, differences Orion The ex- those in before. with PDRs compared in when low pected too are which K, ueia xeiet ihdffrn ausof values different with experiments numerical where T 3 .TENMRCLMTO N THE AND METHOD NUMERICAL THE 2. h Dnmrclsmltoshv encar- been have simulations numerical 3D The ntepeetwr,w ra h photo- the treat we work, present the In oehrwt h adnmceutos the equations, gasdynamic the with Together =( .W att niiaeta,a h system the as that, anticipate to want We K. 4 lz Villagr´ & alez, II .I olw rmti qainta h tem- the that equation this from follows It K. T T 1 hscd,ta a loicroaeother incorporate also can that code, This . 1 − 000Ki h hrceitctemper- characteristic the is K 000 10 = T ceeo a er(92 oehrwith together (1982) Leer van of scheme 2 ) x II × IUAE MODELS SIMULATED CII x region, HII stecro oiainfraction. ionization carbon the is x T θ an-Mu˜ + 1 HII 3 T r ) ehv are out carried have We C). Ori 0Ki h temperature the is K 10 = II 2 T T stehdoe ionization hydrogen the is × - oe(aa Navarro- (Raga, code u-a lo ti otwieto worthwhile is it Also, . 2 2 i 00 sn 5-level a using 2000) niz x 0 and K 800 = 0 ,i typical a is K, 000 1 = CII I + n C and - oeintegrates code u-a T 3 × (1 I .Thetrans- − I ,H x T u vec- flux CII 2 400 = II ) T , ,C 2 (1) in I © Copyright 2010: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (13.4,6.7,6.7) then are and HI limits of respectively. Lyman rates CI, photoionization CI The the and calculate (2006a). to HI used simula- al. the present et at Cerqueira the intensity by in described par- using is The are tions characteristics we short (1998). which al. the method et of Raga Mellema implementation by and e.g., ticular (1997) detail, This in al. described pho- et extinction. been the appropriate has and the method cell with the source), between nearby in ton at (lying intensities points is cell the grid given propagating a at by characteris- intensity com- computed the “short the which the in of with method, the cells tics” done of the is star of grid central all putational the to (i.e., region) source photoionized point a from fer enmn level. refinement direction radiative ( the ionizing/dissociating field the along of dimension propagation longer of the with M3, l )ad(3.3,1.6,1.6) and 1) ble ta.20a.Tesuc isa itneof distance a at lies source The 2006a). 20 lo- al. (Cerqueira source domain et point computational a the as outside it cated modeled We radiation. EUV simula- the of all 512 resolutions, combination 6.5 have this and of tions With and sizes M3. M1, domain and and of M2 M0 models (along models for AU for AU 26.0 axes) of three resolution the maximum a with grid U(oe 3 rmtepoldbnr system binary proplyd choose the We from centroid. M3) (model AU ae nteasmtosthat them assumptions calculated the who on based (2000), Yorke & Richling from S pcrltp star. type spectral lcbd with blackbody f1 of FUV . 6 h opttoa o a iesosof dimensions has box computational The netra trgnrtsteflxso U and FUV of fluxes the generates star external An . × 47 x 10 =1 drcin.W s -ee,bnr adaptive binary 5-level, a use We -direction). × 3 10 U(oesM,M n 2 n 2 and M2) and M1 M0, (models AU . 78 5 × L × 10 × T 10 hc srpeettv fa O6-7 an of representative is which , 3 eff 256 49 Ui oesM n 1(e Ta- (see M1 and M0 models in AU 850Kadhsaluminosity a has and K 500 38 = b a s × itnefo h oret h etro aso h rpy system. proplyd the of mass of center the to source the from Distance itnebtentecne fec proplyd. each of center the between Distance − S × Model 1 EUV 300 03 1 . 1.78 1.78 1.78 0 7.2 7.2 7.2 214 214 7.2 30/30 000 30/30 2 000 2 0.01 104/130 0.1 104/130 M3 0.1 M2 0.1 M1 M0 5 onsa h nrgrid finer the at points 256 hs auswr taken were values These . 10 3 Ui oesM and M2 models in AU =7 θ 1 p)(U A)( (AU) (AU) (pc) D . r aitsa a as radiates C Ori 2 a × 10 48 R IUAE MODELS SIMULATED IAYPOLD81 PROPLYD BINARY A s D − . 1 1 × and 10 AL 1 TABLE 3 D b rvttoa oeta ftelwms,cnrlstar. central mass, low the of potential gravitational o h ikclm est,Σ=3 = Σ density, column disk the for ihtecoe ufc este eoti theo- obtain 0.097 of we masses densities disk the surface retical simulations chosen our the in With include not do we as count al 1). Table tn thickness stant iegi)i l iuain.W sueapwrlaw power a assume We adap- simulations. the all resolved of in is resolution grid) maximum it tive the that (at so cells chosen 5 is with disks the of thickness is n 0.05 and dius, forfietgi eouin hc is which resolution, length cell grid the finest than our smaller are of internal them the respec- of for radius, Both disk AU AU) tively. 10 (100 and external and AU AU) 0.001 (0.01 of thickness order a the provides of 1999), ratio Terquem the follows & that (Papaloizou height scale a with the with that, use fact to the had to we due that thickness note constant should We a King, Frank, 1992). Raine 1998; disk & Hartmann standard 1981; isothermal (Pringle an from model expected as tion, et (Johnstone axis disk the from outwards measured ol euti niodntl ogcomputational long inordinately time. an in result would aiso 3 U 0.087 AU, 130 of radius and oe ol o efail.Frisac,adisk a instance, For feasible. be disk realistic not more would a model resolution, numerical adopted distribu- density vertical Gaussian a and 1998), al. aetosnso rdcls(in cells grid should of we thousands wind), have the and between flows interaction the photoevaporated the the inside as features (such in morphological box Moreover, computational the time. keep cells in have to slowly which very order converge M3, AU, and 6 M2 of models numer- fact, difficult In it the found ically. treat we to However, resolution properly. the disk improve could we course, cm − × ahpoldi oee sads,wt con- a with disk, a as modeled is proplyd Each h yaiso h ikaenttknit ac- into taken not are disk the of dynamics The 2 10 H S ,where EUV 48 130 = s − 1 )( R . Ufrmdl 2adM.The M3. and M2 models for AU 3 ie nc,i h yidia radius cylindrical the is cm, in given , H M × =32 10 S o h 0A ikrdu (see radius disk AU 30 the for FUV 49 . Ufrmdl 0adM1 and M0 models for AU 8 s M − 1 ) M o h 0 Uds ra- disk AU 104 the for o h ikwt a with disk the for x . 47 , y × and  10 H/R 6A.Of AU. 26 23 z R )which − ∼ 3 / 0 2 . 1 g © Copyright 2010: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México iue1,i hc ehv w ik ihradius with disks two have we which in 1a, Figure and the of ( setup radius initial IF the the of of Definitions view (b) Schematic (a) simulations. 1. Fig. AL. ET VASCONCELOS 82 eso h ik swl steds xsle nthe in lies axes disk the as well as x disks the of ness it ( width ik/rpysi f200A o oesM n M1 the and of M0 models center for the AU and 000 between 2 of distance radia- is The disks/proplyds ionizing/dissociating impinging field. par- are tive the disks two to the of allel axes disk the Furthermore, h opttoa oan ln the along domain, computational the ihauiom oie eimo est 0 cm 500 density filled of is medium disks ionized the uniform, outside a region with the models, the all In n oaneeytmse nadrcinprle othe (posi- tive to field parallel radiative direction ionizing/dissociating a impinging in timestep every domain h te ad h a rsueo u modeled our of pressure on that, ram stress the to wind, like hand, would other we the 1998), al. et (Bally idwt velocity a with wind A t osntrpeetthe represent not does ity iino V,wihis which LV1, of sition siae agn rm50k s km 500 from ranging estimates htepce o h idfrom wind the for expected that ein hr h a rsueo h trwind star O the of pressure ram the where regions drcin h tla Vsuc slctdoutside located is source UV stellar The -direction. w h nta eu ftesmltosi hw in shown is simulations the of setup initial The 0 cm 500 =  x R drcin.Atog 0k s km 50 a Although -direction). ρv 2 0 Ufrmdl 2adM seTbe1). Table (see M3 and M2 models for AU 200 W n thicknesses and w 2 IF n Fhl it ( width half IF and )  2 − , 7 3 × sijce notecomputational the into injected is 10 − v 8 ≈ w H y cm dyn 2 =50kms θ 1 . 2 1 = × r id hc has which wind, C Ori HW H 10 − θ 2 − − 2 1 IF 1 = 9 scmaal to comparable is r ttepo- the at C Ori − ). o15 ms km 1650 to y cm dyn 1 H − n density a and 1 h thick- The . x idveloc- wind -direction. − R 2 IF .The ,IF ), − R − 3 1 1 . r hw ihalgrtmcsae hc sgvn(ng (in given is disks) which two scale, the logarithmic cm of a axes with the shown containing are plane stratifica- density the The (in details). tions for 1 Table (see radiation H middle; yr, oanhsapyia ieo (13.3 of size physical a has domain plane the with coincide axes disks the that assuming sight H the integrating by i.2 eprleouin( evolution Temporal 2. Fig. sgnrlyascae ihte[O the which with position, shock associated bow) generally photo-evaporated (or is wind the the of define pressure flow ram the matches neato ewe h w ht-vprtdflows, photo-evaporated ambient two the the between interaction along travels which shock, wind a yr 000 1 (top), yr in 200 1) stages: Table evolutionary see different flux, radiation FUV the no has (which H and (left) fication computed the of parameters the models. summarizes Ta- 1 text. ble the throughout used definitions length plyd structure. observed the than star the the to for closer value estimated ram the the θ 1998, than simulations greater al. our in is et Since pressure (Bally 3). Figure proplyds their Orion see many in served ftesy,aesono oaihi cl.Tesaeis scale The H scale. maximum logarithmic the a by on normalized shown are sky), the of os h nepoldsel hc sarsl fthe of result a photo-evaporated is which the shell, interproplyd encounters the flows, it until medium (bottom). yr 400 2 and (center) α r id h hc qiiru oiinwl be will position equilibrium shock the wind, C Ori − iue2sosteeouino h est strati- density the of evolution the shows 2 Figure pro- some show we 1b) (Figure 1 Figure in Also, hr r he tutrssronigtedisks: the surrounding structures three are There msinmp rgt o oe 0 ihn FUV no with M0, model for (right) maps emission 3 xz ytetplf a.Teitniymp (computed maps intensity The bar. left top the by ) pae h he npht orsodto correspond snapshots three The -plane. t 0 r otm fdniy(et and (left) density of bottom) yr, 400 2 = α .RESULTS 3. α msincecetaoglnsof lines along coefficient emission msin(ih)frmdlM0 model for (right) emission t α 0 r top; yr, 200 = nest.Tedisplayed The intensity. × 6.6) III × ]+H 10 3 α AU. t r ob- arc 000 1 = © Copyright 2010: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México h oie flow. ionized the Δ unit, cell one h mign idadtepooeaoae flows. photo-evaporated between the balance and pressure panel wind ram bottom impinging the the to the due in 2 shown Figure then of position and the disks, at compu- binary the stopped the the of time, towards left this domain the until tational from that travelled fact has shock the wind to refers in case, stationary, be- this Approximately proplyds asym- configuration. two an metric the adopting stationary, surrounding approximately comes shock bow the pro- to starts shell”. “interproplyd panel) so-called center-right the 2; duce Figure H in the (see map flows photo-evaporated interaction two photo- The the the between proplyds. with the interact from to flows evaporated starts wind computa- the panels), the of system. left binary the the towards from wind domain travel the tional to to due front starts shock two interactjust the to and the other, start each photo-evaporate flows with photo-evaporated to The begins disks. field EUV Orion. the in tails proplyd real low the too to are compared that these when since densities field, However, have radiation structures diffuse tails. elongated the treated the not to have related we the behind is appears which that disks, structure elongated an and itntsraedniylw.Fo o obto,Σ=3 = Σ bottom, to top From laws. density surface distinct i.3 est lf)adnraie H normalized and (left) Density 3. Fig. 10 22 tltrsae ( stages later At ( times evolutionary later At (at Initially R − 3 / 2 gcm x − itne eemaue rmteds etr h oi uvsrpeettebs tt h aaof data the to fit best the represent curves solid The center. disk the from measured were Distances . t 2 0 r o aeso iue2), Figure of panels top yr, 200 = h onswr ae ln h ymtyai fpold1(e iue1 n r eaae by separated are and 1) Figure (see 1 proplyd of axis symmetry the along taken were points The . t 0 r otmpanel) bottom yr, 400 2 = t 0 r central yr, 000 1 = α nest rgt rfie safnto ftedsac o ikmdl with models disk for distance the of function a as profiles (right) intensity IAYPOLD83 PROPLYD BINARY A α . 47 × rEVdmntdflw(ontn ta.19)for 1998) the al. where et system models (Johnstone photoionized flow a shows EUV-dominated with flow or compatible photoevaporated the behavior Each of a presence the by proplyd. affected other not is proplyds the of nteOinpold.Teitrrpy hl glows shell interproplyd occurs H The that in proplyds. configuration Orion real the the in obtain represent we that not structures do tail the simulations, our in hratr F fec rpy (H proplyd each of IF) (hereafter, e oso hs nFgr ,w lto h left the on H plot normalized and we density 3, panels Figure right the in on this, and show to der hnteitrrpy hl msinb atr of factors by emission shell greater H is interproplyd emission the proplyd the than that corresponding find the we in regions, emission maximum the choose rmti on oteedo h u (at run the of end the to point this From oeta,det h bec fdffs aito field radiation diffuse of should absence the We the to with due 2. interaction that, note proplyd the to from due wind 1 photo-evaporated proplyd of tail the con- approximately time. are in and stant features shock signifi- bow morphological the a of its position in the change both not manner: cant does region interaction this h nest ftesel(H shell the of intensity the 10 α p h aeo h ht-vprtdflwfo each from flow photo-evaporated the of base The nte neetn etr stedsuto of disruption the is feature interesting Another 23 /H α u h H the but , R α − IPS 3 / 2 ≈ gcm 250. − α 2 S nest fteinzto front ionization the of intensity FUV fo oe 0 n 4 = Σ and M0) model (from htnflxi eo nor- In zero. is flux photon α IPS .I atclr fwe if particular, In ). α p sgetrthan greater is ) ≈ 0 yr), 000 5 . 63 × α © Copyright 2010: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México ufc est rfieo h ikgvni hscase this in given 4 = disk Σ the by of the by profile except density simulation surface identical an for profiles sity eut o oe 0(e al )at 1) table (see M0 model for results ae fti gr,w lttedsac ftepeak top the the of In distance the 4. plot we Figure figure, in this checked of be panel system the can as growing as stops How- IF evolves, time. the with of grows radius proplyd the each ever, of IF the of above. ture shown profile Σ the with disk the for a,idpneto h ikmse hc r equal are which masses 0 disk to the of independent cal, n otmpnl hwtedniyadH and density the show panels bottom and zdflw nodrt hwtebhvo fteden- the of ion- behavior the the H in show and IF to sity the order in of ac- flow, ahead into ized points take those procedures only Fitting count simulations). our s(Δ as andaogtepoldsmer xs( axis symmetry ob- proplyd were the points our along The in tained present the located. if from be star, distance would central of simulations, the function where a center, as disk 1a) Figure (see proplyd 1 for measured respectively, profiles, intensity fteinzdgsflso s(Δ as off falls gas ionized the of h omlzdH normalized The i.4 o ae:eouino h itneo h H the of distance the of evolution panel: Top 4. Fig. AL. ET VASCONCELOS 84 msinpa oteoiia iksrae( surface disk original the to peak emission rpys1(le ice)ad2(pndtinls.See triangles). (opened 2 details. and for text circles) (filled 1 proplyds nta eu ftemdl) otmpnl Fwidth IF panel: Bottom the for models). 1a the Figure ( (see of 2 setup proplyd initial opened from and data 1 are proplyd for triangles data the represent circles Filled r b omlzdb h ikrdu ( radius disk the by normalized 1b) ure W IF rmFgr ,i scerta h aiso curva- of radius the that clear is it 2, Figure From . e iue1)dvddb h ikrdu ( radius disk the by divided 1b) Figure see , 087 r ) − . 3 M 63 ecnsyta h rfie r identi- are profiles the that say can We . α × nest rfie.Tppnl hwthe show panels Top profiles. intensity o ik1o oe 0ad0 and M0 model of 1 disk for 10 22 α R nest al ffapproximately off falls intensity − 3 / 2 ent httedensity the that note We . r ) − 2 R o ohmodels. both for d o oe M0. model for ) t R 40yrs 2400 = IF x ,seeFig- α . ai in -axis 01 R inten- d )for M α sgvn(ngcm g which (in scale, logarithmic given density a is The with details). shown for are 1 stratifications Table (see radiation FUV and aepyia iea nFgr 2. the Figure has in domain as displayed size The by physical normalized peak. same scale the logarithmic of intensity a the with shown are maps n .Freape h est asi iue5 Figure in detached maps slightly material, density dense the of envelope example, an show For 2. and of left the on seen of (clearly the beginning show propagation the we from wind figure, system, the to previous the similar the EUV of evolution in otherwise the time As is and which FUV M0. but model the on both turned has fluxes which 1), Table fteH the of H middle; yr, i.5 eprleouin( evolution Temporal 5. Fig. h o ae)utli nonestetophoto- two shock. the bow stationary encounters a forms it and until winds evaporated panel) top the H and (left) sity (1998). al. et shown is Johnstone as This flows, by EUV-dominated length). for jump cell expected (the one is to what radius equivalent is ap- disk values reaches the the it in of until the value time that noted with the grows be proximately IF can It the AU of 130 1). and Table radius 1 (see proplyd 2 for proplyd AU for proplyd, 104 each to of equal radius are disk which initial the by divided are eeI ais( radius IF here eso h vlto fteI it ( width panel, IF bottom the the of evolution In the proplyds. show both we for time of tion r o rpy seFgr a.Both 1a). triangles Figure (see open the 2 the proplyd represent and for circles are 1 filled proplyd The for measurements 1b). Figure in fined α eea ieecscnb enbtenFgrs5 Figures between seen be can differences Several iue5sosteeouino h ipaeden- midplane the of evolution the shows 5 Figure msinmp rgt o oe 1 ihbt EUV both with M1, model for (right) maps emission α msint h nta iksrae called surface, disk initial the to emission t 0 r otm fdniy(et and (left) density of bottom) yr, 400 2 = R α − 3 IF msin(ih)frmdlM (see M1 model for (right) emission ytetplf a.Teintensity The bar. left top the by ) endi iue1)a func- a as 1b) Figure in defined , t 0 r top; yr, 200 = W R IF IF ,alsode- t and 000 1 = W IF © Copyright 2010: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México ih)frmdlM at M2 model H for the right) and (top-left) ification f24A n h ik aerdio 0A.We star AU. central 30 ( a of have mass low must radii very disks have of is small disks such disks the that two and note the AU of 214 center of the between distance the e ersn h aeo h V rpy.I the In proplyd. LV1 stellar the bet- of the to case from supposed the is AU) represent model (2000 This ter pc at M3). located 0.01 (model source but of AU) distance 200 of a (separation system plyd 6). Figure of panel right PDR top the the of envelope (see external the with coincides gion n orei ae obe to taken is source valid star. ing mass is low model a 1 the is Table believe star (see central we LV1 the Thus, for since AU work). 27 that about esti- in of (1998) smaller al. radius radii et a have Johnstone mate Moreover, should LV1 AU. 50 of pointed than disks (2002) the Henney mass that low out a 1998). is (Petr LV1 that system (Hillenbrand evidence not binary also is cluster is stars There Trapezium central 1997). the for value in mass uncommon low This AU. 28 iswti h D,adisH H its PDRs’ and the shell PDR, with seen interproplyd the be the that can within implies as lies overlap This they 6. AU, Figure 133 in to equal is between ter) the distance in projected also proplyds the is of As width the AU. half distance 137 its the to that than equal suppose can greater we 0.01% 2 1) distance (proplyd proplyd a same at the ioniza- both approximately is the Since to are AU. distances of source 85 their radius tion and of IF identical value The are same 1. disks the proplyd has for to 2 AU half respectively, proplyd 137 and equal, and radius are AU IF which 85 the 1a) of (Figure can measures as width the hemispherical, by not noted is be proplyd of each for PDRs. model thick IF two dominated The presents and FUV (1998) al. a et Johnstone to corresponds model neste ssmwa mle hni oe M0: model in H than of smaller H ratio somewhat the however, is the case, inter-intensities this an to In develops M1 corresponds shell. model proplyd M0, which model in surfaces, As PDRs. disk the from nti ae so h re fteds radius, disk the of order the of is case, this in htdsoitdflwfo h iksrae This radius, gravitational surface. the disk because the is from flow photodissociated a α p nFgr ,w hwtemdln est strat- density midplane the show we 6, Figure In ehv losmltdaohrcoebnr pro- binary close another simulated also have We ic h itnefo h rpyst h ioniz- the to proplyds the from distance the Since /H α IPS ≈ 80. M α R z msin h H The emission. drcin(rmcne ocen- to center (from -direction g < = t 0 er.I hsmodel, this In years. 200 = 0  GM . 3 0 c s 2 M . 1pc(2 α , α msinmp(top- map emission nodrt launch to order in ) msini mixed is emission × α 10 mtigre- emitting 4 U,this AU), IAYPOLD85 PROPLYD BINARY A R g (2)  α hwn httetoIsaesprtdb fila- a by separated are IFs two the that showing osrt o hsmdlvre rudama value mean a mass around (2 The varies approximately to model panel). and equal this (bottom panel) for (top rate rate Fig- mass loss loss construct disk mass we the disk M1, plot the we model where of 7, 1 ure disk Taking els. interproplyd the to due shell. is which structure, mentary H panel), the (bottom-right thinner, complex are more case is this map in emission regions PDR the As r e h etfrdtis h est stratifications density The details. for text the See yr. nti ae h hcns fbt Dsis PDRs both of thickness the at case, this M3 In model for den- (bottom-right) H midplane map the the and show (bottom-left) we stratification 6 sity Figure of part bottom r hw ihalgrtmcsae hc sgvn(ng (in given is which scale, logarithmic cm a with shown are ihalgrtmcsaenraie oteitniyof intensity the to H normalized maximum scale the logarithmic a with hsclsz f(652.4 of size physical cm with both M3, at and 1) Table see (top) (bottom; radiation M2 FUV and models H EUV and for (left) density (right) the of maps view closer A 6. Fig. hi nltclfrua eoti o oe M1 model for obtain we that formulae analytical their siae o V yJhsoee l 19)which 2 (1998) to al. value et equal the Johnstone is than by higher LV1 magnitude for of estimated order an is This N D − − , ehv acltdtems osrt formod- our of rate loss mass the calculated have We 21 3 2 M ytetplf a.Teitniymp r shown are maps intensity The bar. left top the by ) ˙ and stePRclm est nuiso 10 of units in density column PDR the is =2 v × 0 , . 3 24 10 α stePRflwvlct nuisof units in velocity flow PDR the is − × msin h ipae oanhsa has domain displayed The emission. 7 M 10 × − 652.4)AU. 7 yr M . 4 − ± 1 ,where yr 1 . − 4) 1 oee,using However, . × 10  t = − 0 years. 200 = 6 N α M α  D emission , emission 21 3AU. 13 t 200 = yr · v 0 − , 21 3 1 α . , © Copyright 2010: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 1.W lofidta h tno hc caused shock standoff the that find also and mod- We M0 the (models for separation M1). proplyd radiation of greater FUV with factor the els a account (by into increased take is region this anama au of value mean a tain i.7 o:Ds asfrpold1o oe 1 otm asls aefrds ftesm oe.Setx for text See model. same the of 1 disk for rate loss Mass Bottom: M1. model of 1 proplyd for mass Disk discussions. Top: 7. Fig. AL. ET VASCONCELOS 86 otems osrt xrsingvsavleequal value a gives 9 expression rate to loss mass the to ontn ta.(98 btlwrta h value the than lower in (but by analytically LV1 (1998) for estimated al. derived mass et disk Johnstone the than higher times rate. loss obtain mass we same models, the other approximately the For above. shown value oes efidta h eaieH relative the that simulated find four our We of out in- models. three so-called in the region pair, enhanced terproplyd of proplyd region the a between of emission appearance the confirm sion aito ed esuyteseicpolmo a of H the problem of specific Calculations EUV the system. an proplyd study binary and We FUV field. a radiation be- both by proplyds photo-evaporated of ing simulations numerical dimensional be using. can are masses we law the density in surface difference the to This due value. al’s et 3kms h ik fmdlM.Frte,w banadisk a obtain we with them, For 0 compatible approximately M3. more of mass model AU, of 50 disks than the disks less LV1’s than for greater are (2002) are which Henney model by this inferred in values disks the the of radii The h ikms bandi iue7i bu 3 about is 7 Figure in obtained mass disk The ehv rsne rtrslsfo three- from results first presented have We × .DSUSO N CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 4. − 10 1 nmauigteclm est,w ob- we density, column the measuring In . − 7 M yr − ∼ 1 hc ssmlrt h mean the to similar is which 4 . 04 ×

10 M ,eult 0 to equal 2, 21 lsrt Johnstone to closer , cm − 2 α hc applied which msinof emission ∼ . 087 )i we if 3) α M emis- ). nevrnetlwn f5 ms km 50 of wind environmental an h tla id(hc a ensmltdhr as here simulated been has (which wind and flows stellar photo-evaporated the the of interaction the by rpy hl H shell proplyd est f50cm 500 of density u h ai fteI H IF the of ratio temperature, with the decreases but radius IF the that show 0 and K 800 ieetlmtn eprtrsfrtePR( PDR the for temperatures limiting different 2002). al. et LV1 Graham of 1998; image al. HST the et with (Bally agreement in disks, two etrrpeet V,hssm ieecsfo the from differences some has LV1, represents better of distances see at ∼ to proplyds binary expect in dominated not shells would FUV interproplyd we ion- the Therefore, asymmetric front. in strongly ization a occur shows only not which does model, This H visible with sion. shell model dominated interproplyd EUV an observa- the presents that the find with we LV1, agreement of In tions M3). (model model acsfo h oiigsuc:2 source: ionizing the from tances of (separation system (1998). al. et Johnstone and in (1985) proplyds the of previous of Orion temperatures the PDR reinforce for the results estimates with These compared high too observations. are which values giving orsod oteFVdmntdmdl(model model dominated 2 and FUV M2), the to corresponds 0 ehv u w aitoso oe 1with M1 model of variations two run have We esol ihih htormdlM,which M3, model our that highlight should We ehv losmltdacoebnr proplyd binary close a simulated also have We . 1pcfrom ≈ × T 0 aeb iln Hollenbach & Tielens by made K 000 1 2 10 0 ,seeuto ) u results Our 1). equation see K, 400 = θ 3 α Orionis. U h aeo h U dominated EUV the of case the AU, − msin(H emission 3 sdsotdb h rsneof presence the by distorted is )  0 U tdffrn dis- different at AU) 200 α msint h inter- the to emission α P /H − × 1 α 10 IPS n particle a and 4 increases, ) U which AU, α emis- T 2 = © Copyright 2010: Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México aalR mrm nttt ainld eqia saii/C,A.dsAtoats 78 E 12227- CEP 1758, Astronautas, dos Av. Espaciais/MCT, Pesquisas de Nacional Instituto Amorim: R. Rafael arloIsiuinld aUiesddNacional Universidad la de Aut´ Institucional sarrollo tt htteEVM oe nacsteH the enhances model M3 EUV the that state Informaci´ AR (Universi- Aut´ DGAPA 635). Nacional the dad and support from Brazil- 609 support financial the acknowledges and (projects partial PROPP-UESC 471254/2008-8), thank also and for to 308635/2006-0 CNPq wish (projects agency AHC ian project thanks (PPP to support 7606/2006). like financial would partial MJV for FAPESB suggestions. and ments obser- the with re- might compared parameters, vations. predictions model better the in of sult tuning the well as which in radiation, as field, diffuse the radiation account the into take of should treatment the Improve- in values. ments observed prediction the the with makes compatible and more emission fronts, the ionization to the relative from shell interproplyd the of sion rycod Tecnolog´ “Macro- the de from proyecto and 61547, grant Conacyt the from 13 to equal is is value shell this interproplyd IF M3, 1a) the model Figure of our see peak - the 1 and proplyd our to (corresponding H H andspoiga angle an supposing tained eny(02 acltsi ob qa o150 to equal our be to between it angle calculates (2002) (the angle Henney sight The of AU. line x 214 the to to equal system is model our we h rpys hc nteHTH HST the in which be- proplyds, distance the projected tween The parameters. LV1 actual din .CruiaadMraJ acneo:Laborat´ Vasconcelos: J. Maria and Cerqueira H. Adriano Blye l 98 rhme l 02 seulto equal is 2002) al. et Graham 1998; ∼ al. et (Bally ljnr .Rg:Isiuod inisNcers nvria ainlAut´ Nacional Universidad Nucleares, Ciencias de Instituto Raga: C. Alejandro drcinadteosre)i o rcsl known. precisely not is observer) the and -direction α α 0 1,S˜ 010, hncmae ihteFVM oe,w can we model, M2 FUV the with compared When eakoldea nnmu eee o com- for referee anonymous an acknowledge We EC ooi Ilh´ Rodovia UESC, 053 41,M´ 04510, 70-543, nm eM´ de onoma mg,teeiso aebten1836SE’s 168-326 between rate emission the image, a fFgr rgtbto ae)wsob- was panel) bottom (right 6 Figure of map . 12A o 3 cdsac oOin in Orion) to distance pc 430 a for AU (172 4 oJos´ ao nyl Computaci´ la y on o aps S˜ Campos, dos e exico). nm eM´ de onoma xc,D . eio([email protected]). Mexico F., D. exico, a aal nvria ela de Universidad la para ıas u-tbn,k.1 Ilh´ 16 km. eus-Itabuna, i =90 n(Secretar´ on xc)gatIN108207, grant exico) oPuo rzl(rafael Brazil Paulo, ao ◦ .FromtheHST . 4. ad De- de ıa ∼ IAYPOLD87 PROPLYD BINARY A α i α 3 ◦ fthe of . image u,Bha E 56-0,Bai ht,[email protected]). (hoth, Brazil 45662-000, CEP Bahia, eus, .The .In 4. emis- rei rod Astrof´ de orio aa .C,Navarro-Gonz´ C., A. Raga, aa .C,NreaCep,A,Cant´ A., Noriega-Crespo, C., A. Raga, rnl,J .18,AAA 9 137 19, ARA&A, 1981, E. J. Richichi, Pringle, S., Beckwith, V., 823 Foresto, 521, Du ApJ, 1999, Coude C. M., Terquem, Petr, & B., C. 194 J. 436, Papaloizou, ApJ, 1994, Z. Wen, & R., C. O’Dell, iln,AGGM,&Hlebc,D 95 p,21 772 291, ApJ, 1985, D. Hollenbach, & A.G.G.M., Tielens, 2005, J. Walawender, St¨ & D., 258 Licht, 539, J., ApJ, Bally, 2000, N., W. H. Smith, Yorke, & S., Richling, 71 38, RevMexAA, 2002, J. W. Henney, Formation Star in Process Accretion 1998, L. Hartmann, O’Brien, T., S. Garrington, J., Meaburn, F., M. Graham, ’el .R,&Wn,K 96 J 1,846 111, AJ, 1996, K. Wong, & R., C. O’Dell, a er .18,IAERpr o 82-30 No. Report ICASE 1982, B. Leer, van 189 Cant´ 405, C., A&A, A. 2003, Raga, G. G., 231 Mellema, Mellema, 248, & ApJ, J., 1981, A. 559 G. Lim, 289, Pamraning, A&A, & 1994, C., B. Levermore, ApJ, Lazareff, 1998, & B., J. Lefloch, Bally, & D., Hollenbach, 1733 D., 113, AJ, Johnstone, 1997, A. L. Hillenbrand, Garc´ rn,J,Kn,A,&Rie .19,AceinPwrin Power Accretion 1992, D. Raine, & A., King, J., Frank, al,J,Steln,R . eie . ontn,D. Johnstone, & D., Devine, S., R. Sutherland, J., Bally, eqer,A . Vel´ H., A. Cerqueira, eqer,A . Cant´ H., A. Cerqueira, [email protected]). re,H,&Hlebc,D 99 p,55 669 515, ApJ, 1999, D. Hollenbach, & H., orzer, .20,RveA,3,67 36, RevMexAA, 2000, M. . cagra,M 98 p,50 825 500, ApJ, 1998, M. McCaughrean, & A., 335 331, J 2,382 129, AJ, 1997, P. Lundqvist, & 73 G., 33, Mellema, RevMexAA, D., Buren, van 570, ApJ, 2002, R. C. O’Dell, & 222 J., W. Henney, J., T. 830 561, ApJ, 2001, c,B,See,W,&NreaCep,A 98 A&A, 1998, A. Noriega-Crespo, & W., Steffen, B., ick, 9,758 499, 91 Press), Univ. Cambridge Cambridge: ed.; (1st 89 Press), srpyis(r d;Cmrde abig Univ. Cambridge Cambridge: 231 ed.; 448, (3rd A&A, Astrophysics 2006b, F. Colle, De & J., M. celos, .J 06,RveA,4,203 42, RevMexAA, 2006a, J. M. 98 J 1,293 116, AJ, 1998, aArdno . eny .J,&Atu,S J. S. Arthur, & J., W. Henney, F., ıa-Arredondo, sc Te´ ısica REFERENCES zuz .F,Rg,A . Vascon- C., A. Raga, F., P. azquez, nm eM´ de onoma ,J,Rg,A . Vasconcelos, & C., A. Raga, J., o, rc bevcoa,DCET- Observacional, e orica lz . Villagr´ & R., alez, ,J,Lnqit . Bal- P., Lundqvist, J., o, xc,Ad.Postal Apdo. exico, ,J,See,W., Steffen, J., o, an-Mu˜ niz,