Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1093/mnras/stx1418
Advance Access publication 2017 June 26
Viktor Radovic
Department of Astronomy, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Belgrade, Studentski trg 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Accepted 2017 June 6. Received 2017 May 27; in original form 2017 April 9
ABSTRACT
Determining the age of an asteroid family is important as it gives us a better understanding
of the dynamics, formation and collisional evolution of a family. So far, a few methods for
determining the age of a family have been developed. The most accurate one is probably the
backward integration method (BIM) that works very well for young families. In this paper, we
try to study its characteristics and limitations in more detail using a fictional asteroid family.
The analysis is performed with two numerical packages: ORBFIT and MERCURY. We studied the
clustering of the secular angles and and obtained linear relationship between the depth of
the clustering and the age of the family. Our results suggest that the BIM could be successfully
applied only to families not older than 18 Myr.
Key words: minor planets, asteroids: general.
where q is the relative distance in a heliocentric coordinate system, predictor which performs most of the propagation. The predictor
k denotes the Gaussian gravitational constant, m0 is the mass of has a constant step-size h and uses only one evaluation of the right-
the central body, m1 is the mass of the body, is a scalar distance hand side of the equations of motion for each step. The step h is
between bodies and P is the perturbing function. Analytical and chosen so that the truncation error is minimized (Milani & Nobili
numerical methods are a possible ways of solving the equations of 1988). Output from ORBIT9 may include information about close
motion. As it is not possible to solve the N-body problem using ana- encounters, and besides gravitational influences, it is possible to
lytical approach (except for some special cases), numerical method include the Yarkovsky drift.
are usually used. The ORBFIT has additional programs for determination of the or-
With a numerical integrator, it is possible to follow the system bits of Solar system bodies and could compute their positions on
development by calculating its evolution step by step. Due to the the celestial sphere. Also, ORBFIT has tools for the computation of
development in computer science, especially in CPU processing Lyapunov exponents and proper elements (analytic and synthetic).
power, numerical integrations have become very popular and are
widely used for solving N-body problems. Large-scale numerical
experiments are possible today, and various numerical algorithms 2.2 MERCURY
have been developed (see e.g. Eggl & Dvorak 2010).
The MERCURY package (Chambers & Migliorini 1997) includes
Numerical algorithms are often divided in two groups: explicit
different algorithms, and it is written using the FORTRAN 77 pro-
and implicit methods. The explicit methods calculate the state of
gramming language. The MERCURY package is publicly available
a system at a later time from the state of the system at the current
at https://github.com/4xxi/mercury. MERCURY has the follow-
time, while implicit methods find a solution by solving an equation
ing N-body algorithms: second-order mixed-variable symplec-
involving both the current state of the system and the later one.
tic integrator, general BulirshStoer integrator, conservative
Hence, if s(n) is the current state of the system at time t = nh, the
BulirshStoer, Everharts RA15 (RADAU) algorithm and Hybrid
next state at later time s(n + 1) is calculated as
symplectic/BulirshStoer integrator.
(i) for the explicit as s(n + 1) = s(n) + hF(s(n)), For the purpose of our analysis, we chose the explicit Hybrid
(ii) for the implicit as s(n + 1) = s(n) + hF(s(n + 1)), symplectic integrator (Chambers 1999) that could compute close
encounters. Symplectic integrators (for complete theory of sym-
where F is a known function and h is a chosen time-step. The
plectic integrators, see e.g. Sanz-Serna 1991; Yoshida 1993) do not
main advantage of the explicit methods is that they are very easy to
have a long-term build-up of energy error, and they are significantly
program, because at each time-step one calculation is performed.
faster with problems in which most of the mass is contained in a
Implicit methods are much more difficult as they can involve many
single body. The idea behind symplectic integrators is to split the
iterations per time-step. However, explicit methods have a tendency
Hamiltonian (H) of a system into pieces, each of which can be
to be unstable, and require very small time-steps, while the implicit
solved on its own. Symplectic integrator use a fixed time-step that
are stable and could use larger time-steps.
makes calculating close encounter difficult due to the necessity of
In this work, two numerical integrators from ORBFIT and MERCURY
changing the step size. One of the possible solutions is to use a
packages are used. In the following subsections, we briefly present
smaller step size or to split the perturbing terms, and to set a differ-
the characteristics of the chosen integrators, and also the properties
ent step size for each term (SYMBA integrator; Duncan, Levison &
of the packages ORBFIT and MERCURY.
Lee 1998). Chambers (1999) described an alternative solution a
hybrid integrator that has symplectic and non-symplectic compo-
2.1 ORBFIT nents. That alternative solution keeps the best properties of both
symplectic and non-symplectic integrators.
The ORBFIT is a free software written in FORTRAN 95, which can be
downloaded at http://adams.dm.unipi.it/orbfit. ORBFIT allows one to
compute the orbits of asteroids and to numerically simulate those
3 M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D DATA
orbits, as well. The implemented numerical integrator for the pur-
pose of long-term numerical integrations is ORBIT9 (Milani & To study the limitations of the BIM, first a fictional family is going
Nobili 1988). ORBIT9 uses a symplectic single-step method (im- to be created based on the Veritas asteroid family. In this respect,
plicit RungeKutta Gauss) as a starter, and an explicit multi-step all adopted values of the fictitious family are the same as of Veritas.
4 V. Radovic
Figure 1. Distribution of the test particles in the ae (top panel) and ai Figure 2. Dynamical structure of the test particles. LCEs are multiplied by
(bottom panel) planes. The equivelocity ellipses are obtained using Gauss the factor of 106 . The LCEs are inversely proportional to Lyapunov time
equations. (Tlyap ). The green crosses represent stable particles (Tlyap 105 yr), while
the black circles represent unstable ones, which are not considered in the
further analysis with BIM.
drift included. Without Yarkovsky, the integrations are performed Hybrid symplectic integrator from the MERCURY package as HSM.
Limitations of backward integration method 5
Table 2. For each point in time after the family formation, determined ages are shown using the clustering of secular angles and . Results
are shown for each numerical integrator (Orb9 and HSM). m and m are the minimum values of and , respectively.
5JS2SA) and nearby 2:1 MMR with Jupiter. As this region For every backward integration, the average of differences in node
is highly chaotic, it is possible to use the method of the chaotic longitude ( ) and longitude of perihelion ( ) is calculated
chronology as well as BIM in order to obtain the age of a family. For using the following equations:
instance, Nesvorny et al. (2003) and Carruba et al. (2017) used BIM
1
n
on stable particles of the Veritas family and obtained its age (8.3
= (i j ), (5)
0.5 Myr and 8.23+0.37
0.31 , respectively), while Tsiganis et al. (2007) and n i=1
Novakovic et al. (2010) calculated the age with chaotic chronology j =i+1
(8.7 1.2 Myr). Both results are in very good agreement; hence,
1
n
both methods could be applied to obtain the age of a family in this = (i j ), (6)
region. But, it should be noted that BIM can only be applied to n i=1
j =i+1
the stable asteroids, while chaotic chronology is applicable to the
unstable ones. where n is the total number of values of and . To compare the
As the application of BIM is limited only to the objects on stable difference between integrators, osculating elements are used. But
orbits, therefore only particles with Tlyap 105 yr are considered. in the case where Yarkovsky drift is included, mean elements are
Of the 500 test particles, 291 particles have requested Lyapunov used, as they could significantly improve the obtained results.
time. From these differences, conjunctions of and are determined
Forward integrations give us time evolution of orbital elements as well as their maximum depth (m and m ). To determine the age
for each test particle, and these data are used to test the limits of of the family, we have used quadratic function to fit the peaks where
BIM. Backward integrations are performed from different points in clustering is the most prominent. Obtained results when Yarkovsky
time after the formation of a family, starting from 2 Myr with the drift is not included are given in Table 2.
step of 2 Myr, until it finally reaches 20 Myr. As output from each From these results (Table 2), it is easily seen that the clustering
integration, osculating elements are obtained. To determine mean of is not as deep as that of for both integrators. This differ-
elements,2 we used a digital filter that allows us removal of the ence could be explained by the fact that the gradient of dg/da at
signal with periods up to 300 yr3 (Carpino, Milani & Nobili 1987; 3.153.18 au is considerably large due to nearby 2/1 MMR with
Knezevic & Milani 2000). Jupiter (Nesvorny et al. 2003). The ages of the simulated family are
For each backward integration, we tried to determine the clus- determined with large precision for each point in time using both
tering time of secular angles and , from which the age of the integrators (the largest deviation from nominal age is 50129 yr).
family is obtained. For the backward integration, Yarkovsky drift For example, plots for the backward integrations performed
was not used because the exact drift speed for the individual object 10 Myr after the family was formed can be seen in Fig. 3. For
is not known in the case of real families. Clone-based approach Orb9 integrator, maximum depths of and are 13. 06 and 46. 57,
could be used for the families whose Yarkovsky drift is not known, respectively, while their values for HSM are 39. 39 and 62. 53. In
but it is beyond the scope of this work. both cases, value of m is significantly larger than the value of m .
Also, the clustering of both secular angles is deeper for Orb9 than
4 A N A LY S I S A N D R E S U LT S for the HSM integrator. The determined ages are very precise in
both cases, with the maximum deviation being 10 000 yr, which is
In order to test the limits of the BIM, we integrated the orbits of almost negligible.
a test family (see Section 3) 20 Myr forward in time using both Since we have the results obtained by using both integrators,
integrators (Orb9 and HSM). Then, from defined points in time, the it gives us an opportunity to compare them. For each integrator,
backward integration was performed with each integrator. the error is calculated as the difference between the determined
age and the expected one. Obtained results are given in Table 3.
2 Mean elements are elements freed from the short periodic perturbations. The largest difference between these integrators is 50 000 years
3 It is possible to obtain better result with filtering method developed by for the backward integration up to 18 Myr in the past. Hence, both
Carruba (2010), which allows removal of frequencies with period smaller integrators have a good accuracy in determining the age of the
than 105 yr. family.
6 V. Radovic
Figure 3. The average differences in the mean longitude of ascending node ( ), longitude of perihelion ( ) and DCF between and .
The results are shown for backward integrations performed 10 Myr after the family formation using both integrators (Orb9 and HSM). The most prominent
clustering is visible at 10 Myr.
Table 3. Differences between the age estimates and the true age of the family between the Orb9 and HSM
integrators. Columns are as follows: #1 time after the family formation; #2 and #3 deviation from the nominal
age and the age determined using clustering of with Orb9 and HSM, respectively; #4 difference between error
with for each integrator; #5 and #6 deviation from the nominal age and the age determined using clustering
of with Orb9 and HSM, respectively; #7 difference between error with for each integrator.
In order to determine the limits of BIM for Orb9, the linear the age is given with linear relationship ax + b, with coefficients
dependence between the age of the family and maximum depth a = 1.695, b = 2.079, while the coefficients for m are a = 2.994,
of secular angles m and m is going to be found. Their lin- b = 12.823. A similar idea is performed for HSM integrator (Fig. 5).
ear dependence is shown in Fig. 4. Correlation between m and Linear coefficient for m are a = 3.071, b = 0.465 and for m are
Limitations of backward integration method 7
Table 4. Determined ages where the highest
correlation between and exists
for both integrators (Orb9 and HSM). Corre-
lation between them is calculated using DCF.
2 1.999 1.999
4 3.998 3.997
6 5.999 5.996
8 7.998 7.996
10 9.997 9.995
12 11.997 11.991
14 13.996 14.001
16 15.998 16.003
18 17.995 18.070
20 19.995 19.993
1 (ai a)(bj b)
DCFij = , (7)
n a b
Figure 5. Linear dependence between the maximum depth of clustering of In order to test the more realistic case, our following simulation
secular angles m (top panel) and m (bottom panel) and integration time. is performed with Yarkovsky effect included in the model. In the
Results are obtained using HSM integrator from MERCURY package. forward integration, Yarkovsky effect is included, but it is excluded
in the backward integrations because it is generally unknown.
8 V. Radovic
Carruba et al. 2017). The inability to find convergence of is
mainly due to presence of the nearby 2:1 resonance with Jupiter as
well as encounters with (1) Ceres and (10) Hygiea. Carruba et al.
(2017) managed to minimize the dispersion of and to obtain its
clustering by choosing an appropriate 2 variable (see equation 5
in their work).
For other families, we calculated lower values for the minimum
of clustering of secular angles and that could be explained as be-
ing a consequence of different locations and dynamics between our
test family and considered families. In addition to dynamical influ-
ences, close encounters with massive asteroids could significantly
increase the convergence of secular angles.4 And finally, as we used
larger number of family members it could explain difference in re-
sults. As an example, the minimum clustering of m for P/2006
VW139 is 24.2 from our model, while Novakovic et al. (2012a)
obtained 32 .
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this work, we presented the following results:
(i) We performed forward integration in order to simulate the
evolution of fictional family in time. Forward integrations are per-
formed using two different integrators: Orbit9 from ORBFIT and Hy-
brid symplectic integrator from MERCURY package (integrations are
performed without the Yarkovsky drift). Additional forward inte-
gration with Orbit9 is performed with the Yarkovsky drift included
Figure 6. Linear dependence between the maximum depth of clustering in order to simulate more realistic situation in the main belt.
of secular angles m (top panel) and m (bottom panel) and integration (ii) The backward integrations are applied to our fictional family
time. Results are obtained using Orb9 integrator where Yarkovsky drift was but with different points in time from the family creation. With
included in forward integrations. this approach, we managed to determine the depth of clustering of
secular angles and . We used these clustering to obtain the age
The same procedure for the age determination is applied as in the of the family and to find a correlation between these depth and the
case without the Yarkovsky effect included. The linear dependence age. To test the significance of clustering between and , DCF
between the obtained ages and angles m and m is given in Fig. 6. is used.
Linear coefficients for fitting between m and integration time are
a = 4.914, b = 12.261 and for m are a = 10.706, b = 23.778. The main result of this work is finding the upper limit in applying
From these results, conjunction of longitude of perihelion starts the BIM. Based on our results, if Yarkovsky drift is included we
at minimum value of 40 , for integration time of 2 Myr and goes could find significant clustering of secular angle for the families
above 80 just 6 Myr after the family formation. Above this value, not older than 18 Myr. The clustering of is harder to distinguish,
it is almost impossible to reliably distinguish its clustering. For m , but DCF can be used to confirm its statistical significance. Our
the situation is better, and clustering goes to 80 at 20 Myr after the results are consistent with the results concerning other families
family formation. DCF of this data has a significant correlation for where BIM was applied. Both HSM and Orb9 integrator showed
each time span, and can be used to show statistical significance of good accuracy, but Orb9 has a deeper clustering of secular angles
the clustering. But, we have to note that the values of DCF are a than HSM integrator.
little above zero, and that DCF has a large fluctuations in this case. The BIM is the most accurate method for asteroid family age
From these results, we could conclude that with the Yarkovsky determination, but from other papers and from our simulations it
effect included, m reaches 70 around 18 Myr, while is always is evident that BIM is only useful for very young families. Other
above this value, except for the integration time less than 4 Myr. limitation of BIM is that its application is limited to dynamically
Therefore, significant clustering could be found for an integration stable bodies. Using BIM to the families in the chaotic regions
time up to 18 Myr for m . Due to the problems with distinguish- could increase the dispersion of secular angles, especially . Close
ing clustering of m , DCF can be used to confirm its statistical encounters can significantly influence the convergence of the lon-
significance. gitude of perihelion as it was shown in various cases. For the Karin
As our fictional family corresponds to the location of the Veritas cluster, close encounters increased its dispersion by 4 (Carruba
family, it is interesting to compare the obtained limits to the results et al. 2016), but in the case of Veritas family convergence of is
obtained for Veritas family by other authors. The age of the Veritas completely destroyed (Carruba et al. 2017).
family is around 8.3 Myr, hence we should expect to find the fol-
lowing minima of clustering: m = 28.5 , m > 80 . In Table 1,
we see that our results match the results obtained by other authors. 4 Carruba et al. (2016) discussed the influence of close encounters with
The difference between the clustering of is around 3 , while the Ceres for the convergence of secular angels of the Karin cluster. They
clustering of cannot be distinguished, which was also suggested found that close encounters can increase the dispersion of the angles by
in the papers concerning the Veritas family (Nesvorny et al. 2003; approximately 4 .
Limitations of backward integration method 9
From our results, sufficiently significant clustering of secular Knezevic Z., Pavlovic R., 2002, Earth Moon Planets, 88, 155
angles could be reliably determined for the integration time up Milani A., Knezevic Z., 1990, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 49, 347
to 18 Myr. By using Yarkovsky clones and accounting for close Milani A., Nobili A. M., 1988, Celest. Mech., 43, 1
encounters with massive asteroids in the backward integrations, it Milani A., Cellino A., Knezevic Z., Novakovic B., Spoto F., Paolicchi P.,
2014, Icarus, 239, 46
is probably possible to achieve better results.
Milani A., Knezevic Z., Spoto F., Cellino A., Novakovic B., Tsirvoulis G.,
Other integrators were not used in this work, and neither were
2017, Icarus, 288, 240
other possible locations within the main belt, except the one which Nesvorny D., Bottke W. F., 2004, Icarus, 170, 324
corresponds to the location of the Veritas family. If different lo- Nesvorny D., Vokrouhlicky D., 2006, AJ, 132, 1950
cations were used, that could lead to different dynamics of a test Nesvorny D., Bottke W. F., Jr, Dones L., Levison H. F., 2002, Nature, 417,
family, and it may give slightly different results. For the future work, 720
it should be interesting to test how different location within the main Nesvorny D., Bottke W. F., Levison H. F., Dones L., 2003, ApJ, 591, 486
belt affect the determined limits of BIM. Nesvorny D., Jedicke R., Whiteley R. J., Ivezic Z., 2005, Icarus, 173, 132
Nesvorny D., Vokrouhlicky D., Bottke W. F., 2006, Science, 312, 1490
Nesvorny D., Bottke W. F., Vokrouhlicky D., Sykes M., Lien D. J.,
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S Stansberry J., 2008, ApJ, 679, L143
Nesvorny D., Broz M., Carruba V., 2015, in Michel P., DeMeo F.E., Bottke
I would like to thank Prof. Valerio Carruba, the referee, for his
W.F., eds, Asteroids IV. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, p. 297
valuable comments and suggestions, which significantly improved Novakovic B., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1477
this manuscript. Also, I am grateful to Bojan Novakovic for valuable Novakovic B., Tsiganis K., Knezevic Z., 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1263
help during the work on this paper. Novakovic B., Cellino A., Knezevic Z., 2011, Icarus, 216, 69
Novakovic B., Hsieh H. H., Cellino A., 2012a, MNRAS, 424, 1432
Novakovic B., DellOro A., Cellino A., Knezevic Z., 2012b, MNRAS, 425,
REFERENCES 338
Bottke W. F., Vokrouhlicky D., Nesvorny D., 2007, Nature, 449, 48 Novakovic B., Hsieh H. H., Cellino A., Micheli M., Pedani M., 2014, Icarus,
Bottke W. F. et al., 2015, Icarus, 247, 191 231, 300
Bowell E., Hapke B., Domingue D., Lumme K., Peltoniemi J., Harris A. Radovic V., Novakovic B., Carruba V., Marceta D., 2017, MNRAS,
W., 1989, in Binzel R. P., Gehrels T., Matthews M. S., eds, Asteroids II. 470, 576
Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, p. 524 Rosaev A., Plavalova E., 2017, Icarus, 282, 326
Carpino M., Milani A., Nobili A. M., 1987, A&A, 181, 182 Sanz-Serna J. M., 1991, Acta Num., 243
Carruba V., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 580 Spoto F., Milani A., Knezevic Z., 2015, Icarus, 257, 275
Carruba V., Nesvorny D., 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1332 Tsiganis K., Knezevic Z., Varvoglis H., 2007, Icarus, 186, 484
Carruba V., Domingos R. C., Nesvorny D., Roig F., Huaman M. E., Souami Vokrouhlicky D., Nesvorny D., 2011, AJ, 142, 26
D., 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2075 Vokrouhlicky D., Milani A., Chesley S. R., 2000a, Icarus, 148, 118
Carruba V., Nesvorny D., Aljbaae S., Huaman M. E., 2015, MNRAS, 451, Vokrouhlicky D., Farinella P., Bottke W. F., 2000b, Icarus, 148, 147
244 Vokrouhlicky D., Broz M., Morbidelli A., Bottke W. F., Nesvorny D.,
Carruba V., Nesvorny D., Aljbaae S., Domingos R. C., Huaman M., 2016, Lazzaro D., Rivkin A. S., 2006a, Icarus, 182, 92
MNRAS, 458, 3731 Vokrouhlicky D., Broz M., Bottke W. F., Nesvorny D., Morbidelli A., 2006b,
Carruba V., Nesvorny D., Vokrouhlicky D., 2016, AJ, 151, 164 Icarus, 182, 118
Carruba V., Vokrouhlicky D., Nesvorny D., 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4400 Vokrouhlicky D. et al., 2009, A&A, 507, 495
Cellino A., Michel P., Tanga P., Zappala V., Paolicchi P., DellOro A., 1999, Vokrouhlicky D., Bottke W. F., Chesley S. R., Scheeres D. J., Statler T. S.,
Icarus, 141, 79 2015, in Michel P., DeMeo F. E., Bottke W. F., eds, Asteroids IV. Univ.
Chambers J. E., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 793 Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, p. 509
Chambers J. E., Migliorini F., 1997, DPS meeting #29, 27.06 Vokrouhlicky D. et al., 2017, A&A, 598, A91
DeMeo F. E., Carry B., 2013, Icarus, 226, 723 Yoshida H., 1993, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 56, 27
Duncan M. J., Levison H. F., Lee M. H., 1998, AJ, 116, 2067 Zappala V., Farinella P., Knezevic Z., Paolicchi P., 1984, Icarus, 59, 261
Edelson R. A., Krolik J. H., 1988, ApJ, 333, 646 Zappala V., Cellino A., Farinella P., Knezevic Z., 1990, AJ, 100, 2030
Eggl S., Dvorak R., 2010, in Souchay J., Dvorak R., eds, Lecture Notes in
Physics, Vol. 790, Dynamics of Small Solar system Bodies and Exo-
planets. Springer, Berlin, p. 431
Farinella P., Vokrouhlicky D., 1999, Science, 283, 1507
Knezevic Z., Milani A., 2000, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 78, 17 This paper has been typeset from a TEX/LATEX file prepared by the author.