text:
# Searching for cluster substructure using APM and ROSAT data.

## 1 Introduction

Galaxy clusters occupy a special position in the hierarchy of cosmic structure in many respects. Being the largest physical laboratories in the universe, they appear to be ideal tools for studying large-scale structure, testing theories of structure formation and extracting invaluable cosmological information, especially regarding the Hubble parameter and the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ (cf. B$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$hringer 1995; West, Jones & Forman 1995; Buote 1998; Schindler 1999).

One of the most significant properties of galaxy clusters is the relation between their dynamical state and the underlying cosmology. In an open universe, clustering effectively freezes at high redshifts ($`z\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^11`$) and clusters today should be more relaxed with weak or no indications of substructure. Instead, in a critical density model, such systems continue to form even today and should appear to be dynamically active. Even, in a small but well-controlled (from any kind of selection or other biases) cluster sample, the percentage and morphologies of disordered and perturbed objects could lead to constraints on the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameters, especially if combined with N-body/gasdynamic numerical simulations spanning different dark matter (DM) scenarios (cf. Richstone, Loeb & Turner 1992 hereafter RLT92; Evrard et al. 1993; Lacey & Cole 1993).

The above pioneering works were the first to set some limits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ using the rate of cluster formation for various cosmologies and led the way to a plethora of research works towards this direction (see Figure 2 of RLT92). Since then, a large number of relevant analyses have been devoted to this study and an accordingly varying and large number of optical and X–ray cluster compilations have been utilised to this aim. All the methods employed in each case are quite different and all the related studies find an appreciable percentage of dynamically active galaxy clusters (see Forman & Jones 1990; B$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$hringer 1995; West 1995; Thomas et al. 1998 for good reviews of the subject). However, these studies do disagree on the precise number of clusters exhibiting significant dynamical activity, which varies between 30% and 80% of the total number of clusters studied, and which seems also to depend on the techniques employed in each analysis.

We quote only some of the most recent studies together with the sample used and the preference of the method given in each case. Geller & Beers (1982) analysed the iso-intensity contour maps of 65 optical clusters maps. Forman et al. (1981) studied 4 Einstein clusters. Dressler & Shectman (1988) studied velocity dispersion diagnostics for 15 optical clusters. Rhee, van Haarlem & Katgert (1991) and Solanes, Salvador-Sole & Gonzalez-Casado (1999) utilised 107 and 67 ENACS clusters respectively and a variety of 2D and 3D statistical tests to quantify the significance of substructure. Similarly, Dutta (1995), Crone, Evrard & Richstone (1996 hereafter CER96), Pinkney et al. (1996), Thomas et al. (1998 hereafter T98) and Jones & Forman (1999 hereafter JF99; 208 ROSAT X–ray clusters) proposed a variety of substructure tests depending on the level of information available (1D, 2D, 3D) and applied these to different N-body cluster data using several DM models. CER96 and T98 have explicitly argued that variations in the cluster center-of-mass as a function of distance or density (overdensity) threshold is one of the best possible substructure measures (see also West & Bothun 1990). The latter has previously been adopted by Mohr, Fabricant & Geller (1993; 5 X–ray clusters), Mohr et al. (1995; 65 Einstein clusters) and Rizza et al. (1998; 11 ROSAT HRI distant clusters). Evrard et al. (1993) and Mohr et al. (1993; 1995) were the first to make extensive use of the surface-brightness moments of the X–ray cluster distribution (eg. center-of-mass shifts). Gomez et al. (1997; 9 Abell clusters) have also employed the same methods and claimed that variations in the cluster ellipticity and orientation as a function of distance from the cluster center (isophotal twisting) should be considered as one of the prime substructure diagnostics. Bird (1994) in her sample of 25 Abell cluster has utilised galaxy peculiar velocities to locate and identify subclumps in the galaxy distribution. Kriessler & Beers (1997; 56 Abell and other clusters) have searched for cluster substructure signatures using the innovative KMM algorithm on the surface-density galaxy maps and quantified their findings using N-body simulations. Furthermore, Buote & Tsai (1995; 1996 hereafter BT95; BT96) and Valdarnini, Ghizzardi & Bonometto (1999) used the 2D gravitational potential moments (power ratio method) to characterise the dynamical state of clusters. Serna & Gerbal (1996; 2 Abell clusters) have developed the so-called hierarchical method to define and identify substructure in Abell clusters, while Slezak et al. (1994; 11 X–ray clusters) and Lazzati et al. (1998; 2 X–ray clusters) have adopted wavelet transform techniques in similar attempts.

As it is evident from all the above there is neither agreement on the methods utilised nor on the exact frequency of perturbed clusters. It seems that identifying significant dynamical activity within galaxy clusters, in close relation to the underlying cosmology and the density parameter, still remains an open issue. Not only do we need a large, statistically complete, cluster sample but an objective and reliable definition of what substructure is, upon which our study should be based.

The large majority of the analyses carried out so far, have made use of either optical (Abell) or X–ray (ROSAT, Einstein) cluster data. However, Mohr et al. (1993) and Rizza et al. (1998) have investigated cluster substructure using in a complementary fashion optical and X–ray data. In the present work, we extend this approach using a sample of 22 galaxy clusters for which we have data both in the optical and the X–ray part of the spectrum (APM and ROSAT respectively). Our sample size is twice as large as that of Rizza et al. (1998) and more than four times larger than that of Mohr et al. (1993). The advantage of using X–ray data is that the X–ray emission is proportional to the square of the gas density (rather than just density in the optical) and emanates mostly from the central cluster region, a fact which minimises projection effects (cf. Sarazin 1988; Schindler 1998). The advantage of using optical data is the shear size of the available cluster catalogues and thus the statistical significance of the emanating results. Subsequently, we are not only interested in comparing optical to X–ray cluster data regarding the various substructure tools, but to calculate and calibrate different biases using the superior X–ray data with which we could measure and test easily similar substructure diagnostics in a large, solely optical dataset as well. Therefore it is of great importance to address the following two questions, which we attempt to do in our present study:

* Is substructure in the optical also corroborated by the X–ray observations and in what percentage?
* What is the confirmed percentage of systems depicting significant indications of internal activity?

To this aim we compare optical to X–ray morphological cluster parameters (position angles, ellipticities, centroid shifts and group statistics) in an attempt to classify objects according to their dynamical state and we compute the relative frequency of substructure.

We proceed by presenting the optical and X–ray datasets in section 2. In section 3, we describe our methods of analysis, in section 4 we present a comparison of the optical and X–ray cluster images while in section 5 we present the results of our substructure analysis. Finally, we draw our conclusions in section 6. Also, there is an extensive appendix at the end of this paper, where morphological and dynamical information for each individual cluster can be found as well as a comparison with other similar works on the common clusters.

## 2 The data

The present dataset follows from a double cross-correlation between very rich ACO (Abell, Corwin & Olowin 1989) clusters ($`\mathrm{R}`$1,2,3) with the APM cluster catalogue (Dalton et al. 1997 and references therein) and the X–ray (0.1 - 2.4) keV ROSAT pointed observations archive. The first correlation results in 329 common optical galaxy clusters (ACO/APM) in the southern sky ($`b40^{},\delta 17^{}`$), while the second correlation results in 27 common clusters. Due to problematic regions of the APM catalogue, low signal to noise X–ray observations, contamination by known foreground or background objects and even double entries we exclude 5 clusters (A4038, A122, A3264, A3049 and A2462) reducing our cluster sample to 22 systems.

Furthermore, the ROSAT (Tr$`\ddot{\mathrm{u}}`$mper 1983) data we have used come from both the PSPC (Positional Sensitive Proportional Counter; Pfefferman & Briel 1986), and the HRI (High Resolution Imager) detectors, both operating in the (0.1 - 2.4) keV band. The HRI has an excellent spatial resolution (FWHM$``$ 5 arcsec) but no spectral resolution. The PSPC has an energy resolution of 0.5 keV at 1 keV but poorer spatial resolution (30 arcsec FWHM) compared to HRI. We note that the PSPC is quite efficient in detecting extended emission, in contrast with the HRI which has a lower sensitivity due to its higher background.

The cluster redshifts of our sample span the range $`0.04<\text{ }z<\text{ }0.13`$ with $`z0.074`$ and median $`0.069`$. For the needs of our analysis we transform cluster redshifts to cluster distances using the well-known angular-diameter distance formula with $`q_{}=0.5`$ (ie., critical density universe) as:

$$r=\frac{2c}{H_{}}(1+z)^{1/2}[1(1+z)^{1/2}],$$
(1)
with $`H_{}=100h`$ km $`s^1`$ Mpc<sup>-1</sup>. In Table 1 we give all the relevant details for the present cluster sample.

## 3 The methodology

In this section we provide an account of the techniques used to define the cluster morphological parameters as well as the substructure measures. We first present how to $`\mathrm{𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠}`$ the cluster images and reduce the noise from point-like sources.

### 3.1 Processing the cluster images

Our X–ray cluster images are retrieved from the ROSAT pointed observations archive and we have used the image processing package XIMAGE, which is designed to display and reduce the available data. Each X–ray image is embedded in a $`512\times 512`$ grid, each cell of which has a size of 15 arcseconds. We subtract all known point-like sources around the clusters (cf. West 1995; JF99) and replace them with the average background counts. In doing so, we have mostly encountered radio point-like sources (see Appendix for details).

Our optical data consist of all APM galaxies that fall within a radius of $`1.8h^1`$ Mpc from each optical APM cluster center. We then transform the galaxy and X–ray grid-cell angular coordinates into physical units, centering the X–ray data on the optical cluster centers. In order to construct a common comparison base, we create a continuous density field for both optical and X–ray data by using a Gaussian Kernel and the same smoothing length ($`R_{\mathrm{sm}}`$). To this end we utilise a $`N\times N`$ grid, where the typical size of each grid cell is $`0.065h^1`$ Mpc. In order to take into account the reduction of the number of galaxy cluster members as a function of distance (due to the APM magnitude limit), and thus the corresponding increase of discreteness effects, we have investigated, using Monte-Carlo cluster simulations, the necessary increase in size of $`N`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{sm}}`$, as a function of distance, in order to minimise such effects and optimize the performance of our procedure (for details see Basilakos, Plionis & Maddox 2000; hereafter BPM).

### 3.2 Cluster Shape Parameters

We compute the optical and X–ray cluster shape parameters utilising the method of moments of inertia (cf. Carter & Metcalfe 1980; Plionis, Barrow & Frenk 1991; BPM). We can then write the moments as follows:

$$I_{11}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _\mathrm{i}(r_\mathrm{i}^2x_\mathrm{i}^2)$$
(2)
$$I_{22}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _\mathrm{i}(r_\mathrm{i}^2y_\mathrm{i}^2)$$
(3)
$$I_{12}=I_{21}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _\mathrm{i}x_\mathrm{i}y_\mathrm{i},$$
(4)
where $`\rho _\mathrm{i}`$ is the cell density, $`x_\mathrm{i}`$, $`y_\mathrm{i}`$ are the Cartesian coordinates of the grid cells and $`r_\mathrm{i}=\sqrt{x_\mathrm{i}^2+y_\mathrm{i}^2}`$. If we now diagonalise the inertia tensor $`det(I_{\mathrm{ij}}\lambda ^2M_2)=0`$ ($`M_2`$ being the $`2\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ unit matrix), we can obtain the eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$, from which the ellipticity of each object can be estimated as $`ϵ=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\lambda _2/\lambda _1`$, with $`\lambda _1>\lambda _2`$. The eigenvectors, corresponding to these eigenvalues, provide us with the cluster orientations. The major axis orientation with respect to the North, in the anticlockwise direction, is the so-called cluster position angle ($`\theta `$ hereafter).

The shape parameters are estimated using all cells that have densities above three thresholds. These are defined as the average density of all cells that fall within a chosen radius. The three radii used are $`r_\rho =0.3,0.45`$ and $`0.6h^1`$ Mpc. The choice of such a step size is not arbitrary, however. We have tested the robustness of our procedure using different step sizes, ranging from $`0.1h^1`$ Mpc to $`0.3h^1`$ Mpc to find that the former is too small, since it will only locate the highest density peaks in the galaxy or hot gas distribution, while the latter is somewhat too large since it typically registers very low density fluctuations, comparable to the background level of the cluster image. The above spatially defined procedure overcomes the difficulty of determining the density thresholds in the two intrinsically different (optical and X–ray) density distribution.

Note that for each cluster we find the highest cluster density-peak $`(x_\mathrm{p},y_\mathrm{p})`$ within a radius of $`0.5h^1`$ Mpc around the original APM cluster center. We then redefine the cluster center as being $`(x_\mathrm{p},y_\mathrm{p})`$ and estimate all shape parameters around this new coordinate center. Typically, this coincides with the registered APM cluster center.

We can get an idea of the regions of the clusters sampled by our procedure by inspecting Figure 1 where we plot the resulting major axis of the fitted ellipses in each distribution and for the three density thresholds. It is evident that the regions sampled in the X-ray images are more centrally concentrated, as expected.

### 3.3 Substructure Measures

#### 3.3.1 Ellipticity

It is expected that the existence of significant substructure affects the shape of the cluster in the direction of producing large ellipticities (McMillan et al. 1989; Davis & Mushotzky 1993; West et al. 1995; Gomez et al. 1997). Although this appears to be a robust prediction, a small $`ϵ`$ does not always endorse the lack of substructure. The reasons being that (a) small scale structure could develop symmetrically around the cluster core, and (b) a possible merger could happen along the line of sight. In both cases a small ellipticity would be measured.

#### 3.3.2 Cluster centroid shift

Evrard et al. (1993) and Mohr et al. (1993) have suggested as an indicator of cluster substructure the shift of the center-of-mass position as a function of density threshold above which it is estimated (see also CER96; T98). Following their suggestion, we define as centroid-shift ($`sc`$) the distance between the cluster center-of-mass, $`(x_\mathrm{o},y_\mathrm{o})`$, where $`x_\mathrm{o}=x_\mathrm{i}\rho _\mathrm{i}/\rho _\mathrm{i}`$, $`y_\mathrm{o}=y_\mathrm{i}\rho _\mathrm{i}/\rho _\mathrm{i}`$ and the highest cluster density-peak, ie.,

$$sc=\sqrt{(x_\mathrm{o}x_\mathrm{p})^2+(x_\mathrm{o}x_\mathrm{p})^2}.$$
(5)
Notice here, that while the cluster center-of-mass changes as a function of density threshold ($`\rho _\mathrm{t}`$), above which we define the cluster shape parameters, the position $`(x_\mathrm{p},y_\mathrm{p})`$ remains unchanged. A large value of $`sc`$ may therefore furnish a first clear indication of substructure.

In order to quantify the significance of such centroid variations to the presence of background contamination and random density fluctuations, we carry out, in a fashion similar to BPM, a series of Monte Carlo cluster simulations in which we have, by construction, no substructure. For each cluster we produce a series of simulated clusters having the same number of observed galaxies as well as a random distribution of background galaxies, determined by the distance of the cluster and the APM selection function. Furthermore, the simulated galaxy distribution follows a King-like profile:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)\left[1+\left(\frac{r}{r_\mathrm{c}}\right)^2\right]^\alpha ,$$
(6)
where $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ is the core radius, $`\alpha =(3\beta 1)/2`$ and $`\beta `$ being the ratio of the specific energy in the galaxies to the specific thermal energy in the gas. We use the weighted, by the sample size, mean of most recent $`r_c`$ and $`\alpha `$ determinations (cf. Girardi et al. 1995; 1998), i.e., $`r_\mathrm{c}=0.085h^1`$ Mpc and $`\alpha =0.7`$. We do test the robustness of our results for a plausible range of these parameters. In general we find that the significance of the $`sc`$ measure decreases as $`r_c`$ increases. This is to be expected since using a large value of $`r_c`$, for the same number of core galaxies, will increase the random density fluctuations and thus the $`sc`$ measure. Naturally, we expect our simulated clusters to generate small $`sc`$’s and in any case insignificant shifts. Therefore, for each optical cluster in our sample we perform 1000 such simulations and we derive $`sc_{\mathrm{sim}}`$ as a function of the same thresholds, $`\rho _\mathrm{t}`$, as in the real cluster case. Then, within a search radius of $`0.75h^1`$ Mpc from the simulated highest cluster peak, we calculate the quantity:

$$\sigma =\frac{sc_\mathrm{o}sc_{\mathrm{sim}}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{sim}}},$$
(7)
in order to measure the significance of real centroid shifts as compared to those of relaxed, mock objects. Note that $`sc_\mathrm{o}`$ is the average, over the three density thresholds, centroid shift for the real cluster.

#### 3.3.3 Subgroup classes

We also utilise a friend-of-friends algorithm to categorise the observed substructure (see also section 3.2 of Rhee et al. 1991 for details). We join all cells having common boundaries that fall above each density threshold. We therefore create and register all subgroups as a function of $`\rho _\mathrm{t}`$ and rank substructure events according to the following 3 categories (see BPM and Plionis et al. 2000 in preparation):

(1) No substructure: Clusters with only one group at all density thresholds (regular, spherical systems). Systems with two unequal subgroups, where the second is much smaller than the first ($`mincir10\%`$) also fall in this level.

(2) Weak or moderate substructure: Objects with one clump at the first $`\rho _\mathrm{t}`$ and multiple clumps at the next two levels (second or third threshold), where the second in size group is greater than 10% and $``$$`<`$ 25% of the total cluster size (see also RLT92).

(3) Strong substructure: Like in (2) but now the second in size subgroup is $``$$`>`$ 25% of the total cluster size. Complex systems with multiple condensations at all density thresholds are naturally included in this category. Finally, a cluster with two large clumps (bimodal) at the highest density level, of which one is $`>40\%`$ of the other, fall in this category as well.

Note that in order to be consistent with the scale within which APM clusters are reliably identified and constructed (Dalton et al. 1997), we have used a radius of $`0.75h^1`$ Mpc as our maximum searching radius within which we search for subgroup statistics. We have also carried out the same analysis by increasing the radius to $`1h^1`$ Mpc but results do not change appreciably.

## 4 Comparison of Optical & X–ray Cluster Images

We investigate here the compatibility between the X–ray and optical cluster data by visually inspecting their smoothed density distributions as well as by correlating their respective shape parameters (ellipticity and position angles). The aim of our procedure is to evaluate how well the optical APM data trace the cluster potential and therefore how reliable the optical data can be in deriving the structural and dynamical parameters of clusters. This is of paramount importance since large cluster samples exist mostly in the optical and their analysis can provide important constraints in theories of galaxy formation.

A similar comparsion of optical and X-ray cluster data has been performed by Miller, Melott & Nichol (2000), and they found that optical total cluster luminosity is directly proportional to the total X-ray luminosity for several orders of magnitude in mass and luminosity (from poor groups to rich clusters). These results point in the direction that data from both parts of the spectrum can uniquely characterise the dynamical state of a cluster.

### 4.1 Isodensity maps

We plot in Figure 2 the smooth APM galaxy distribution as greyscale maps and the X–ray data as isophote contour maps. The three X–ray contours correspond to the density thresholds defined in section 3.2. As expected, clusters in the X–ray appear to be more concentrated around the central potential wells, thus having rounder contours than their optical counterparts. Instead, optical data depict more distinct structure (in the form of groups of galaxies) around the core, although this could in some cases, be due to projection effects. A careful comparison with the X–ray maps shows that a few of the clusters in the optical may suffer from such problems, although in some cases galaxy groups, visible only in the optical, may be weak X–ray emitters and hence absent from the X–ray images. Nevertheless, the majority of our clusters seem to have a nice agreement in both parts of the spectrum. In 17 out of 22 systems, the gross features (double and secondary components, elliptical structures, multimodal objects and single, relaxed configurations) of the mass distribution are apparent in both images. This is an indication that galaxies and groups of galaxies do trace the hot gas distribution in most of the cases ($`80\%`$). In only five systems (A2717, A3112, A3897, A3093, A3921), we observe significant apparent substructure in the optical which is (almost) undetectable in the X–rays.

In some of the 17 clusters, with relatively good optical and X–ray image correspondence, there is evidence of recent merger events. Zabludoff & Zaritsky (1995) and Baier et al. (1996) suggest that a substantial spatial difference between the optical and the X–ray peak positions together with the X–ray peak being distorted in an orthogonal direction with respect to the line connecting the two main optical cluster clumps, signify two undeniable collision vestiges. The reason is that gas, unlike galaxies and DM, is collisional. This has been born out also from simulations (Evrard 1990; Roettiger et al 1993) which have shown that during the collision of two groups, the gas is stripped and remains in dis-equilibrium for $`1h^1`$ Gyr afterwards. Therefore, the criterion of a spatial displacement between the optical and X–ray peak positions seems to be particularly sensitive to the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$, since it overcomes the known uncertainty of the cluster relaxation time which hampers the cosmological interpretation of the existence of cluster substructure. Such indications, with varying strength, are apparent in A3128, A2804, A3223 and A500 where the corresponding differences between optical and X–ray cluster peaks ($`dp`$) are of order $`0.42h^1`$ Mpc, $`0.58h^1`$ Mpc, $`0.62h^1`$ Mpc and $`0.3h^1`$ Mpc respectively. The argument of orthogonality suits best A3128 as is further evident from the large misalignment angles at all $`\rho _\mathrm{t}`$’s between the optical and the X–ray mass distributions.

### 4.2 Position angles

As a first quantitative test of the compatibility between the X–ray and optical images we correlate in Figure 3 their respective cluster major axis orientations. It is evident that there is a good correlation, with coefficient $`0.8`$ and probability of no correlation $`𝒫10^5`$. No cluster has $`\delta \theta >\text{ }60^{}`$, while the mean misalignment angle between the cluster optical and X–ray defined position angles is $`\delta \theta <\text{ }28^{}\pm 18^{}`$. Excluding the five clusters that we have identified as having discordant optical and X–ray morphological features we find a similar correlation coefficient but with a slightly lower significance ($`𝒫10^4`$) which is mostly due to the reduction of the sample.

Davis & Mushotzky (1993) have argued that considerable variations of cluster orientations as a function of distance from the cluster center could be considered as evidence of merger events. If, however, subgroups dominantly develop along the filamentary structure in which the cluster is embedded then variations in the cluster position angle could be negligible and thus significant subclumping can escape detection (see West 1995; West et al. 1995). In Figure 4 we examine possible variations in cluster orientations as a function of $`\rho _\mathrm{t}`$ and thus as a function of distance from the cluster center. For each cluster we connect the position angles estimated at the three density thresholds, and thus at three different distances from the cluster center. It is evident that only a few clusters exhibit evidence for such an effect in their X-ray images, which however should be attributed to their weak position angle determination (due to their extremely small ellipticity).

### 4.3 Ellipticities

We calculate cluster ellipticities in both data sets as a function of $`\rho _\mathrm{t}`$. The cluster $`ϵ`$’s defined in X–rays are generally slightly smaller than their optical counterparts, corresponding to more spherical configurations (especially for single-component clusters). This is expected when the inter-cluster gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium and the dark matter is distributed like galaxies. However, in the case where we have evidence of recent merger events (A3128, A2804, A3223) we observe that the X-ray ellipticity is typically larger than the corresponding optical. Due to these conflicting trends the correlation between optical and X-ray ellitpicities is rather weak as can be seen in Figure 5. Excluding the five systems with discordant optical and X–ray morphologies (A2717, A3112, A3897, A3093, A3921) and A3128, in which due to a recent merger there is strong differentiation of its X-ray and optical morphology, we find a correlation coefficient of $`0.7`$ with the probability of zero correlation being $`𝒫3\times 10^3`$.

Another characteristic is that for most clusters (17/22) their optical $`ϵ`$ is a weakly decreasing function of cluster-centric distance, as can be seen in Figure 6, which should be attributed mostly to the effect of background galaxies projected in the area covered by the cluster. In the X-ray images such an effect is evident only in 9 clusters, most of which however are those having large ellipticity. Visual inspection of these clusters show that the effect is not artifiscial and should be attributed to bimodality at the highest threshold or to the existance of significant substructure located in the central parts of the clusters (cf. A3128, A3223, A2933 etc).

For A2717, A3112, A3897 and A3921 their large $`ϵ_\mathrm{o}`$ does not correspond to a similarly large $`ϵ_\mathrm{x}`$, supporting the view that these clusters may suffer from optical projection effects that have altered their true 2D structure (see also section 4.1).

A particularly interesting example is the noisy and apparently highly unrelaxed A3144 cluster. However, its relatively small value of $`ϵ`$ could be possibly attributed to the development of small-scale structures symmetrically around the cluster core or to the existance of significant noise.

## 5  Substructure Results

We present in this part the results of all the substructure tests that we have applied to the optical and X-ray cluster data. The results are tabulated in Table 2, together with the cluster shape parameters, discussed in the previous section.

### 5.1 Centroid shifts

We calculate $`sc`$, ie., the difference between the position of the weighted cluster center and the highest density peak as a function of $`\rho _\mathrm{t}`$ within a radius of $`0.75h^1`$ Mpc (equation 5). In Figure 7 we correlate the optical and X–ray estimated centroid shifts. We observe a very good correlation between the relative cluster centroid variations for the 17 clusters that have concordant morphological features in both optical and X–rays data (correlation coefficient $`0.8`$ and $`𝒫3\times 10^4`$). As expected the significance of the optical $`sc`$ (equation 7) is well correlated with the value of the optical and X-ray $`sc`$ ($`R0.9`$ and $`0.8`$, respectively).

These results indicate that the $`sc`$ measure and its significance is a useful tool to characterize the degree of cluster substructure using optical or X-ray data.

Most of the five clusters that are suspect of being affected by projection effects in the optical (A2717, A3112, A3921) have a large $`sc`$ value (only in the optical) and correspondingly high significance indication of subclustering. This fact further suggests that these clusters suffer from projection effects. The cases of A3897 and A3093 are somewhat different, as it is evident from Figure 2. Although there is evidence of projection effects it appears that substructure emerges in a symmetric fashion around the optical cluster core. Such an effect is more pronounced in the optical than in the X–ray images, thus producing as expected a small $`sc`$ value.

### 5.2 Subgroup statistics

Using the categories defined in section 3.3.3 and also a maximum search radius of $`0.75h^1`$ Mpc, we obtain 6 clusters falling into the first category of relaxed objects, 6 clusters in the category of systems displaying partial (weak) substructure and 10 clusters belonging to the third case within which clusters exhibit obvious and concrete indications of subclumping events. Note that 4 clusters of the strong substructure case are the ones affected by projections (A3093, A3112, A3897, A3921). In the last column of Table 2 we show the index corresponding to each cluster subgroup index.

The results of this analysis are in good broad agreement with the other substructure measures ($`ϵ`$’s and $`sc`$’s), with differences only in a few cases. The vast majority of clusters (19 out of 22) show that their subgroup index does agree, at least qualitatively, with the moments analysis that we have applied in this work (section 3). Nevertheless, in 3 cases (A3266, A3301, A2384) results imply discrepancies between our percolation-like algorithm and the method of moments. On checking the parameter space of both techniques, we have found that while the latter stays firm, the former is extremely sensitive to slight alterations regarding the geometric definition of our classes (section 3.3.3).

In the line of the above arguments, we suggest that it is wise to use these results on an advisory level and not as definite.

### 5.3 Comparison of different substructure test

In Figure 8 we correlate ellipticities and $`sc`$’s for all 22 clusters of our sample. The upper panel corresponds to the optical and the lower to the X–ray data. It is evident that the two substructure measures are correlated in both sets of data. The correlation coefficients are $`0.8`$ and $`0.5`$ for the X–ray and optical data respectively with probability of zero correlation being $`𝒫10^4`$ for the X–ray and $`𝒫0.05`$ for the optical data respectively.

Furthermore, cross-correlating, in figure 9, the optical $`sc`$’s and X–ray ellipticities we also find a significant correlation with $`𝒫<\text{ }10^4`$ and $`R0.82`$ if we exclude the clusters with discordant morphologies. We find that the line of best fit is given by:

$$ϵ_\mathrm{x}2.55(\pm 0.47)sc_\mathrm{o}+0.07(\pm 0.06),$$

from which we can deduce the shape of the ICM region emitting X-rays, directly from optical cluster data.

These results imply that the flattening of clusters, as evident in X–rays as well as in the optical, is a result of their dynamical activity and not due to initial conditions; for example even high-peaks of an underlying Gaussian random field are aspherical, although less so than lower density peaks (cf. Bardeen et al. 1986).

### 5.4 Main Results

From the total of 22 clusters, at least in 8 cases we observe strong substructure signatures, verified by all available methods and data (A2804, A2933, A3128, A3144, A3223, A3266, A514, A2384). Of the remaining population we have confirmed, using all our substructure indications, that 9 clusters (A2734, A2811, A133, A3111, A500, A3158, A3301, A2580, A4059) show no or weak substructure activity in both parts of the spectrum (although there is some evidence of a recent merger event in A500). We have also found that 5 clusters (A2717, A3112, A3921, A3093, A3897) appear distinctly bimodal (or even multimodal) although their X–ray contour maps are almost relaxed, which we attribute to projection effects in the optical. From these, A2717, A3112 and A3093 seem to be single-component (relaxed) clusters (based on their X-ray images), while A3921 and A3897 shows clear indications of elliptical systems. Therefore we find that $`>\text{ }45\%`$ of clusters exhibit significant evidence of substructure, which is in good general accordance with most substructure analysis results (see references in Introduction).

Note that out of our 22 clusters, 11 (50%) have been examined for substructure signals elsewhere in the literature (A2717, A133, A3158, A3128, A3266, A500, A514, A2384, A3897, A3921, A4059). We find that our results are in general good qualitative and quantitative agreement with those of other studies (see Appendix). Although, mostly different methods have been employed in these studies (wavelet transform analysis, isophotal maps, power ratios, kinematical and velocity dispersion estimators), we do not detect any serious disparities regarding the dynamical and shape parameters for these X–ray clusters that we have in common. For example we find our position angles always within $`10^{}`$ of the other determinations.

### 5.5 Morphological and dynamical classification

We can now proceed in classifying the present sample according to a scheme that is close to the one developed by JF99 (see also Forman & Jones 1990; Jones & Forman 1992; Forman & Jones 1994 and Girardi et al. 1997 hereafter G97). Just to be consistent with the largest and most complete of the above analyses (JF99), we will restrict ourselves only to the X–ray cluster images, which we regard as more reliable in terms of the current assessment (see Table 3).

Clusters with no or marginal evidence of subclumping events are dubbed as single, relaxed objects and given the symbol U, featuring unimodality. In this category we count 12 X–ray clusters. Looking at the strong substructure cases, we have 3 bimodal (B) objects (A2804, A2933 and A3128) out of which the first two show their respective optical doubles, while optical A3128 appears to be somewhat closer to a complex system. We characterise complex or multimodal (M) systems that display more than two clumps in their contour maps. Typical such examples are A3144, A3223 and A514, also authenticated by inspection in the optical. Objects showing apparent deviations from singularity also having large $`ϵ`$’s, without depicting obvious small-scale structures, are flagged as elliptical (A3266, A2384 and A3921). The latter three clusters, in absence of any other substructure characteristic, are tagged as E’s. Finally, A3897 is tagged as P, characteristic of a large central region (primary component) associated with a small secondary structure (left of the X–ray image), visible in both data. Note here, that its optical counterpart would have been flagged as complex, since it shows two extra small-scale clumps at the top and right of the contour plot (see Figure 2).

## 6 Concluding remarks

We have investigated a sample of 22 galaxy clusters using optical (APM) and X–ray (ROSAT) data with the aim of addressing two questions: (a) Do optical and X–ray data reveal the same cluster morphological features ? (b) What is the percentage of relaxed and dynamically active clusters ?

Our cluster sample has flown from a cross-correlation between the APM, ACO and ROSAT pointed observations data and has a depth distribution with $`z<\text{ }0.13`$. We have examined our cluster sample utilising several cluster-morphology diagnostics such as isodensity maps, orientations, ellipticities, centroid variations and subgroup statistics. Looking at the isodensity contour maps, the cluster orientations and ellipticities, we observe a remarkable 1-to-1 correspondence between X–ray and optical data in $`80\%`$ of our sample, regarding the gross cluster characteristics (prime structures, elongations, multimodality, collision signatures). We quantify this by correlating the optical and X–ray cluster ellipticities and orientations and find high and statistically significant correlations. In an attempt to quantify the compatibility of the different substructure measures, that we have used, we correlate $`ϵ`$’s and $`sc`$’s, in the optical and in the X–ray separately and we also cross-correlate them to find significant and strong correlations. This implies that indeed the flattening of clusters is due to their dynamical activity.

From our substructure analysis we find that $`10`$ out of 22 systems ($`45\%`$) display strong substructure indications visible in both parts of the spectrum. We also find that 5 clusters ($`22\%`$) show clear disparities between the optical and X–ray maps, with apparent substructure in the optical not corroborated by the available X–ray data. This is most possibly due to optical projection effects. Our results on the frequency of disordered clusters do concur with most of the relevant studies published to-date.

On the understanding that our catalogue is rather inadequate for drawing significant cosmological conclusions, we would prefer to be cautious when it comes to such a precarious task. Nevertheless, we observe that our present analysis is compatible with that of RLT92 (see their Figure 2) regarding the cluster substructure frequency, setting a rather frail lower limit on the density parameter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}`$; see also West 1995; West et al. 1995). Furthermore, the relatively large fraction (4/22) of recent mergers that we have identified is again indicative of a high-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ Universe (see discussion of Zabludoff & Zaritsky 1995).

In the near future we plan to apply the methodology of this work to $`900`$ APM galaxy clusters, in order to investigate in more detail the issue of cluster substructure.

## Acknowledgements

Both S. Basilakos and V. Kolokotronis acknowledge financial support from the Greek State Fellowship Foundation. M. Plionis acknowledges the hospitality of the Astrophysics Group of Imperial College, were this work was completed. This research work has made use of NASA Extragalactic Database (NED). The cluster data have been obtained through LEDAS online service, provided by the University of Leicester.

## Appendix A Details on individual clusters

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟕𝟏𝟕}`$: Obvious similarity of the primary cluster peak ($`0.4h^1`$ Mpc) but disparity on the secondary structure which is only distinct in the optical image. Suspect of being affected by projection effects. Eight X–ray and radio sources have been removed due to their point-like nature (see also Slezak et al. 1994; Mohr et al. 1995; BT96; G97).

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟕𝟑𝟒}`$: Apparently good correspondence between the two images. Two radio point-like sources (center and upper left) have been subtracted from the X–ray image.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟖𝟎𝟒}`$: Highly elongated cluster with large and significant $`sc`$’s in both images. Collision signature visible since the primary optical cluster structure seems to be displaced with respect to its X–ray analogue by $`0.58h^1`$Mpc. Two radio point-like sources have been excised from the X–ray image.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟖𝟏𝟏}`$: A relaxed single-component system corroborated by both data, typical of a unimodal configuration. No sources have been removed here.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟏𝟑𝟑}`$: Probably a confirmed unimodal cluster by all substructure measures (Mohr et al. 1995; BT96) showing small values of ellipticities and $`sc`$’s. Optical and X–ray $`\theta `$’s differ by more than $`64^{}`$. One projected X–ray source at $`z0.235`$ has been subtracted (EXO 0059.8-2218).

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟗𝟑𝟑}`$: This is the archetype of a bimodal cluster as computed by both data. Highly significant $`sc`$’s, large ellipticities ($`0.5`$) and similar $`\theta `$’s granting excellent 1-to-1 correspondence. One point-like source has been removed from the upper right of the X–ray image.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟎𝟗𝟑}`$: Four point-like sources have been excised from the X–ray data (center bottom and left). This system has mediocre ellipticities and non-significant centroid shifts. It also yields a $`\delta \theta 54^{}`$. Suspect of being affected by projection effects.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟏𝟏𝟏}`$: Partial substructure activity present at vary low density thresholds. If taken at face value, system would have been flagged as complex. Isodensity contour plots are very similar, whereas its respective $`\delta \theta `$ is more than $`45^{}`$. Like the previous one and in the absence of any distinct activity, it is regarded as a relaxed object. Five point-like sources have been removed from the X–ray cluster map.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟏𝟏𝟐}`$: No sources were subtracted here. This is the archetype of image disparity. Obvious bimodality in the optical (a $`5.2\sigma `$ $`sc`$ event) corresponds to definite unimodality in the X–rays. Excluded from the cross-correlation statistical analysis (together with A2717, A3897, A3921 and A3093) as being suspect of optical projections.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟏𝟐𝟖}`$: One radio point-like source (PMN: JO331-S242) has been removed (lower right of X–ray map). Dissimilar cluster orientations and ellipticities are typical of a collision event between the prime cluster structures. Despite that, it exhibits highly significant $`sc`$’s ($`3\sigma `$) in both data. In the G97 analysis this cluster is dubbed as a unimodal object on a scale of $`1h^1`$ Mpc. Notice that the latter study is based on an entirely different approach than the one developed here.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟏𝟒𝟒}`$: This is a typical complex system. Multiple peaks associated with marginally significant $`sc`$’s and medium $`ϵ`$’s due to symmetrically developed structures around the central cluster potential wells. No sources have been excluded here.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟏𝟓𝟖}`$: A single-component cluster, well-aligned and also showing small values of ellipticities and insignificant $`sc`$’s (Slezak et al. 1994; Mohr et al. 1995; BT96; G97). The optical $`sc0.14h^1`$Mpc is only a $`2\sigma `$ substructure event. No sources have been removed.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟐𝟐𝟑}`$: Typical complex system displaying large $`ϵ0.5`$ and the largest $`sc0.38h^1`$Mpc out of the whole sample. Optical peak appears to be largely displaced with respect to the X–ray one ($`dp0.62h^1`$Mpc), a fact that signifies a collision vestige. Four radio point-like sources have been subtracted from the X–ray map (upper left, right and lower left).

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟐𝟔𝟔}`$: We have classified this cluster as elliptical in the absence of other distinct features. Optical and X-ray images are well-aligned. No sources excised (see also Mohr et al. 1993; 1995; BT96; G97; de Grandi & Molendi 1999).

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟓𝟎𝟎}`$: Good correspondence between optical and X–ray isodensity maps. It shows weak substructure which is rather insignificant. However, there are indications of a possible recent merger (displacement of optical and X-ray peaks by $`dp0.3h^1`$Mpc). No sources have been removed from the X–ray map. Similar studies (Mohr et al. 1995; BT96) show evidence of a unimodal cluster at least within $`0.5h^1`$Mpc in all substructure properties.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟓𝟏𝟒}`$: Another classical multimodal system with distinct density peaks in both maps. Large ellipticities are followed by analogously large and statistically significant $`sc`$’s ($`5\sigma `$). Two X–ray and two radio point-like sources have been omitted here. This is the complex archetype in most of the published works up till now (see also West et al. 1995; BT96; Bliton et al. 1998; JF99).

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟑𝟎𝟏}`$: Two point-like sources have been subtracted from the left of the X–ray map. Definitely unimodal in the X–ray but slightly elongated and multimodal in the optical, although with an insignificant $`sc`$. Relatively good 1-to-1 correspondence of the contour maps.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟑𝟖𝟒}`$: This is the archetype of an elliptical cluster. A high quality HRI image ($`t_{\mathrm{exp}}>`$7 hrs) which exhibits large $`sc`$’s and $`ϵ`$’s in both images. However, the $`sc`$ values are marginally significant. No sources have been removed in this case (see also McMillan et al. 1989; West et al. 1995).

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟖𝟗𝟕}`$: An object with distinct substructure in both data, typical of the category P (see X–ray map). Notwithstanding that, it seems multimodal in the optical. The optical $`sc`$ is non-significant but it is apparent that it is somehow underestimated due to symmetric and equally-sized structures developing around the central core. The same reasoning fully explains the low $`ϵ_\mathrm{o}`$. Suspect of being affected by projection effects. Three point-like sources have been excised at the lower left of the X–ray image (see also Gomez et al. 1997).

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟑𝟗𝟐𝟏}`$: A definitely optically complex object which is seemingly unimodal in the X–rays. There are, however, traces of elongation in the X–ray contour plot, only at the lower $`\rho _\mathrm{t}`$. This extension appears to be in the exact direction of the secondary optical structure which is not visible in the X–ray map. As a result, both data maps seem to be well-aligned and we have therefore classified A3921 as an elliptical object but we have also considered it as being affected by projection effects in the optical. Three point-like sources (center and lower left) have been removed from the X–ray cluster (see also Mohr et al. 1995; BT96).

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟐𝟓𝟖𝟎}`$: Within $`0.5h^1`$ Mpc of the highest cluster peak, this cluster seems relaxed and unimodal in both images. There is some substructure evidence by means of the optical $`sc`$ (non-significant) and ellipticity, while it appears slightly misaligned ($`\delta \theta 47^{}`$ ). No sources have been subtracted from this system.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝟒𝟎𝟓𝟗}`$: This is another typical unimodal system. A low $`sc`$ object which displays remarkable accordance in the isodensity maps and a $`\delta \theta 27^{}`$. No sources have been removed from this one. Definitely dubbed as a single-component cluster also by other analyses (cf. Slezak et al. 1994; Mohr et al. 1995; BT96; G97).


format: text

text:
# The HI shell G132.6–0.7–25.3: A Supernova Remnant or an Old Wind-Blown Bubble?

## 1 Introduction

Hot, massive stars have a major impact on the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM), not only at the end of their life when they become supernovae but also throughout their more stable phases of evolution via their strong stellar wind. The winds of O-type stars can inject as much energy into the ISM throughout their main sequence life as in their final explosion, and therefore should have an equally great impact on the structures in the ISM and its energization.

Typically, wind-blown shells have been found by looking at the environments of stars known to have strong stellar winds, e.g. O stars and Wolf-Rayet stars (e.g. Benaglia & Cappa 1999, Marston 1997, Miller & Chu 1993, Dubner et al. 1990), but a neutral shell may continue to exist after the central star has evolved off the main sequence and has lost the power to ionize the shell. Supernova remnants (SNRs) are thought to be visible in the radio continuum for only a few to several tens of thousands of years (Braun et al. 1989, Frail et al. 1994). As this is considerably less than the duration of their life before they merge with the ambient ISM ($`>1`$ Myr), there should be many SNRs consisting of neutral gas shells. Large scale, low resolution surveys have revealed the presence of HI supershells (e.g. Heiles 1984), most likely created by stellar clusters and associations, but could not bring to light the smaller but likely numerous neutral shells created by single stars which are an important part of the Galaxy’s zoology.

The Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (CGPS; Higgs 1999 and Taylor 1999) offers the first opportunity to study a large collection of HI shells, as opposed to supershells, to determine their dynamics and how they relate to and impact on the surrounding ISM. A few such objects were serendipitously discovered in the pilot project (Normandeau et al. 1997; hereafter NTD97). One of these, G132.6–0.7–25.3, will be presented in detail here as an illustrative case study of this class of objects. It is a striking feature within the HI data cube, developing over several spectral channels, at velocities generally associated with interarm gas.

The following section briefly outlines the observations and processing of the data. Section 3 provides a description of the structure at several wavelengths. In §4, the possible location of the shell is discussed. The next section considers the stars present in this vicinity as possible energy sources for a wind-blown bubble. In §6, all these elements are brought together for analysis and conjecture. A summary and conclusions are given in §7.

## 2 The data: observations and processing

Radio continuum data at 408 MHz and 1420 MHz as well as 21 cm spectral line data were obtained at the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory (DRAO) as part the CGPS pilot project. The pilot project covered an 8°$`\times `$ 6° area of the sky, encompassing all of the W3/W4/W5/HB3 Galactic complex. Observations were carried out in June, July, November and December of 1993. Details of observations and data reduction are given in NTD97 except for the 1420 MHz continuum polarisation data which are treated by Gray et al. (1999). Table 1 summarizes the observational parameters for the DRAO data.

The CGPS also comprises other data sets which have been reprojected and regridded to match the DRAO images. Among them is the FCRAO CO Survey of the Outer Galaxy which is described by Heyer et al. (1998).

## 3 Description

### 3.1 The HI structure

In the HI images at velocities of approximately –25  km s$`^1`$there is a well-defined ring of enhanced emission, presumably a shell of atomic hydrogen. This shell is centred at $`(l,b)=(132.62\mathrm{°},0.72\mathrm{°})`$ and will henceforth be referred to as G132.6–0.7–25.3. Figure The HI shell G132.6–0.7–25.3: A Supernova Remnant or an Old Wind-Blown Bubble? presents a subsection of the HI mosaics for the relevant velocity interval.

For a complete expanding shell, the varying line-of-sight component of the expansion velocity from projected centre to rim will result in the constant velocity images in a data cube showing a progression from a small filled ellipse (the receding cap), through annuli of progressively larger radii, then decreasing radii back to a small filled ellipse (the approaching cap). G132.6–0.7–25.3 appears to develop from a cap at $`v=15.37\text{ km s}^1`$ to a complete ring at –25.27  km s$`^1`$. As velocities become more negative it does not progress back to a cap.

At maximum extent G132.6–0.7–25.3 is approximately elliptical. The major axis, which is perpendicular to the Galactic plane, measures 110.4 arcmin and the minor axis is 95.2 arcmin; this is equivalent to 71 pc by 61 pc for a distance of 2.2 kpc (but see §4 for a discussion of possible distances). There is a hint that the structure is slightly ovoid, being wider nearer to the plane. For the half of the shell from $`15.37\text{ km s}^1`$ to $``$25.27  km s$`^1`$, the total flux above the background level is $`390\pm 10\mathrm{Jy}`$.

Within the shell at velocities where it is at full extent there is a HI filament. At –25.27  km s$`^1`$it diagonally traverses most of the shell. At more negative velocities, it persists along with a section of the western edge of the shell, forming a U-shaped structure. It is centred on ($`132.3\mathrm{°}`$, $`0.8\mathrm{°}`$).

### 3.2 Counterparts at other frequencies

#### 3.2.1 Radio continuum

Figure The HI shell G132.6–0.7–25.3: A Supernova Remnant or an Old Wind-Blown Bubble? shows the corresponding area from mosaics of the radio continuum emission at 408 MHz and 1420 MHz. There is no corresponding ring structure in the radio continuum at either frequency.

Figure The HI shell G132.6–0.7–25.3: A Supernova Remnant or an Old Wind-Blown Bubble? shows images of polarized radio emission from the region of the shell. The emission is displayed in two equivalent forms: Stokes Q and U images, and polarized intensity and polarization angle. Highly structured emission is seen within G132.6–0.7–25.3. Outside of the ring, to the northeast and northwest the polarised intensity vanishes.

Gray et al. (1999) discuss the observations of the polarised emission from this region. Polarized structures on arcminute to degree scales are shown to arise from line-of-sight variations in Faraday rotation of the diffuse Galactic synchrotron radiation field. The Faraday screen of varying magentic field strength and ionized gas density is located primarily in the diffuse interstellar medium of the Perseus arm. The emergent radiation exhibits angular structure in the polarisation angle of the polarised component. The area to the north of G132.6–0.7–25.3 is depolarized due to the high electron density (and thus Rotation Measure) in the ionized halo of the W3/W4 HII region complex (Gray et al. 1999). The appearance of polarised structures along lines of sight within the ring suggests that the bubble is isolated from the depolarising effects of W3/W4, perhaps because of the surrounding protective shell of neutral gas at the rim.

It is noteworthy that the polarised emission shows structures that are elongated in the northeast-southwest direction and coincident with the HI filament that crosses the centre of the bubble (see Figures 1 and 6). This similarity suggests either a diffuse electron component mixed in with the HI filament or that magnetic fields play a role in the structure of this low-density environment.

#### 3.2.2 Infrared

The IRAS infrared data have been searched for dust counterparts to the atomic hydrogen structure. The 60 $`\mu `$m and 100 $`\mu `$m images of this area are shown in Figure The HI shell G132.6–0.7–25.3: A Supernova Remnant or an Old Wind-Blown Bubble?. Within the shell, in projection, there is a clumpy plateau of infrared emission at 60 microns and 100 microns which falls off rapidly at the HI boundary.

#### 3.2.3 Molecular

Within the velocity interval and region of the shell there are no extended molecular gas structures present in the FCRAO CO Survey of the Outer Galaxy. There are relatively compact sources projected onto the eastern rim of the shell at ($`133.19\mathrm{°}`$, $`0.34\mathrm{°}`$) and ($`133.23\mathrm{°}`$, $`0.62\mathrm{°}`$) at velocities of approximately –25.2  km s$`^1`$. There is also a compact molecular cloud in the lower rim of the shell at ($`132.47\mathrm{°}`$, $`1.37\mathrm{°}`$, –28.5  km s$`^1`$). The velocities suggest that these are not merely along the line-of-sight towards the rim but are in fact within it.

### 3.3 Summary of morphology

It can always be argued that any “object” seen in HI images is but a chance superposition of unrelated regions of emission however in this case the accumulated evidence is reassuring. The gradual progression from cap to full extent in the HI images, the fall-off of infrared emission outside the shell (except to the northeast), and the signature in the polarisation images, particularly in the polarised intensity, of a clear difference between inside and outside the shell all combine to show that G132.6–0.7–25.3 is indeed a single, coherent structure.

## 4 Distance

Assigning a distance or even a relative position along the line-of-sight to G132.6–0.7–25.3 is not an easy task. Different possibilities emerge depending on the observational facts considered and the assumptions made.

From the average velocity-longitude plot in Fig. The HI shell G132.6–0.7–25.3: A Supernova Remnant or an Old Wind-Blown Bubble? (top panel) the shell’s velocity would place it in the interarm region if each of the main bands of emission is identified with an arm. However the HI distribution varies significantly over the latitude range covered by the pilot project. Judging from the velocity-longitude plot for $`b=1.0\mathrm{°}`$, the shell would be at the outer edge of the Local HI . As for kinematic distances, the shell is completely developed at $`25.27\text{ km s}^1`$. Assuming a flat rotation curve with $`A=14\text{ km s}^1\mathrm{kpc}^1`$ and R0 = 8.5 kpc, one finds dkin = 1.7 kpc (Burton 1988). Using the best fit rotation curve from Fich et al. (1989), one finds 2.0 kpc.

As was mentioned in the previous section, G132.6–0.7–25.3 develops from a cap to full extent over a range of velocities but does not progress back to a cap, i.e. only half a shell is seen. The missing second half implies that it must be on a density gradient along the line-of-sight. The location of G132.6–0.7–25.3 on the edge of a spiral arm could account for the absence of the second half: it would have expanded more freely in this direction and would have fragmented and dispersed into the less dense medium. In this context, if the shell is now static, the missing second half indicates that the shell is on the outer edge of the Local arm. However, if the shell is expanding, then the less negative velocities correspond to material which is moving away from us, and the suggestion is then that G132.6–0.7–25.3 is on the near side of the Perseus arm. Alternately, the missing second half of the shell could be indicative of the expansion in that direction having been forestalled when it encountered a region of higher density. If this is the case then the shell would either be near the edge of the Local arm, the higher density of which would have halted the expansion in that direction, or just past the high-density shocked region of the Perseus arm. A cap would not be visible in this scenario because the material in the second half of the shell would be indistinguishable from the “wall” of higher density material which prevented its expansion.

There is absorption associated with the W3 HII out to $`50\text{ km s}^1`$ (see e.g. Normandeau 1999), approximately twice the velocity of the shell at full extent. If both the shell and the absorbing gas at –50  km s$`^1`$are following the rotation curve of the Galaxy then W3 is further away and therefore G132.6–0.7–25.3 is at a distance of substantially less than 2.2 kpc, the distance adopted here for W3. If, on the other hand, the gas producing the absorption at –50  km s$`^1`$is the shocked gas prescribed by the Two-Armed Spiral Shock model (TASS; Roberts 1972) then the shell is slightly further than W3, assuming that it is following the rotation of the Galaxy along with the gas at the position of W3 at these velocities. In the TASS model, the high density gas in the Perseus arm has been accelerated from its standard rotation curve velocity of approximately –20  km s$`^1`$, and gas at –25  km s$`^1`$or so would be undisturbed gas that is located a little farther than the shocked gas; the presence of emission rather than absorption at –25  km s$`^1`$in the spectrum towards W3 supports this idea (Normandeau 1999).

At the velocity where the shell is most clearly seen there is also interaction between the western edge of the W5 HII region and the HI , and there is HI apparently associated with HB3 from –25.27  km s$`^1`$to –28.00  km s$`^1`$and perhaps at –30.21  km s$`^1`$(see NTD97). If this apparently interacting HI and the HI forming the shell is all at the distance of W5 and HB3 then G132.6–0.7–25.3 would be at $``$2.2 kpc.

Table 2 summarizes this rather confusing state of affairs. In what follows, all quantities shall be given with their dependance on distance expressely stated and with the value for a distance of 2.2 kpc in brackets. This value is preferred for a combination of reasons. Kinematic distances have shown themselves to be unreliable towards the Perseus arm (eliminating entries I and II of the table), tied to the fact that the standard rotation curve does not apply because of observed streaming motions (eliminating entry IV, as well as VI and IX both of which implicitely assume that all the HI is following the rotation curve, that decreasing velocity corresponds to increasing distance). The TASS model is a more promising description of the behaviour of gas towards these longitudes, favoring entry V (slightly more than 2.2 kpc) which places G132.6–0.7–25.3 slightly past the main ridge of the Perseus arm (entry XI). This is also in accord with the inference that it is at the same distance as W5 and HB3 (entry III).

## 5 Stars

There are no visible, catalogued, energetic main-sequence stars within the shell at present (according to the Simbad data base). This is not surprising; if there were energetic stars present, there should be an inner shell of ionized gas visible in the Stokes I images. Figure The HI shell G132.6–0.7–25.3: A Supernova Remnant or an Old Wind-Blown Bubble? shows the positions of the 74 catalogued O and B stars in the vicinity (in projection) of G132.6–0.7–25.3 with reference to the shell at full extent. The area searched using the Simbad data base was the one displayed in the figure. The concentration of stars in the lower left-hand corner of the plot is the open cluster Stock 2 which is at 303 pc (Mermillod 1999). A cautionary note should be sounded: if G132.6–0.7–25.3 is behind the main ridge of the Perseus arm as argued above, then some stars may have been lost to obscuration. However, at these longitudes the plane is at higher latitudes, near $`b=1\mathrm{°}`$, and most of the observed dust emission seems to be associated with the shell rather than being in the foreground.

The most promising candidate for energy source of the shell if it is wind-blown is BD+60 447. This B1 Ia star is almost exactly at the centre of the shell in projection, and according to Humphreys (1970) it is at a distance of 1.55 kpc, determined spectro-photometrically from previously published data, which distance is not inconsistent with the various estimates for G132.6–0.7–25.3. No uncertainty was quoted by Humphreys and there was no radial velocity listed. While on the main sequence BD+60 447 was most probably a late O star, which means that it would have had sufficiently strong stellar winds to blow a bubble even though, in its present state, it is no longer capable of maintaining the growth of the shell or its ionization.

Other stars within the shell in projection include main sequence B9 and B7 stars, and four unclassified B stars. While these do not provide stellar winds, if they are inside the shell they may be contributing to the expansion of G132.6–0.7–25.3 through radiation pressure as discussed by Elmegreen & Chiang (1982). These authors contend that once a shell has grown sufficiently that it includes many field stars, their radiation pressure will cause the shell’s expansion to accelerate.

Based on the evolutionary tracks by Maeder (1990) and using the luminosity and effective temperature given by Lang (1991) for a B1 I star, it would appear that BD+60 447 had a mass between 20 M and 25 M while on the main sequence. According to Table 3 of Howarth & Prinja (1989; hereafter HP89) this implies that it was an O9.5 V or an O9.0 V star. As a lower limit for the energy that could have been input by stellar winds during its hydrogen burning phase, consider an O9.5 V star. Based on the empirical relations derived by HP89, such a star would have a mass-loss rate of $`10^{7.36}`$ Myr-1 and a terminal wind velocity of 2000  km s$`^1`$, giving a stellar wind luminosity of $`6\times 10^{34}`$ erg s-1. From Stothers (1972), the main sequence lifetime of such a star would be 11.2 Myr and therefore, the total kinetic energy output would be $`2\times 10^{49}`$ erg.

## 6 Analysis and conjecture

It will be assumed that the shell is expanding. This is the most likely scenario in view of the varying morphology seen in the HI images. It is unlikely that there exists, in the ISM, a long enough, stationary cylinder or funnel to account for the aspect of the HI in the different channels.

### 6.1 Kinetic energy of G132.6–0.7–25.3

From its integrated flux, from which a twisted plane background was subtracted, the average column density for the well-defined first half of the shell is $`2.7\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. This implies an HI mass of $`1.8d_{\mathrm{kpc}}^2\times 10^3\text{M}\text{}`$ \[$`9\times 10^3\text{M}\text{}`$\]. This is in agreement with Heiles (1984)’s statistical observation that the mass swept up by a shell is very approximately $`8.5R_{\mathrm{sh}}^2\text{M}\text{}`$, where $`R_{sh}`$ is in parsecs, which in this case would predict $`\mathrm{M}1.9d_{\mathrm{kpc}}^2\times 10^3\text{M}\text{}`$ \[$`9\times 10^3\text{M}\text{}`$\].

Assuming that the cap of the shell is seen at a velocity of $`15.37\text{ km s}^1`$ and that it has reached full extent at $`25.27\text{ km s}^1`$, an expansion velocity of approximately 9.9  km s$`^1`$is found. This is barely larger than the turbulent velocity standardly assumed for the ISM, implying that the shell should soon begin to dissipate into the ambient gas, though the low density of the latter, as evidenced in the image of the shell at full extent, will cause the process to be slower than in denser surroundings. For a complete shell — one with twice the mass of the fore half — to expand with this velocity would require the injection of $`2d_{\mathrm{kpc}}^2\times 10^{48}`$ erg \[$`10^{49}`$ erg\]. Note that this is the same order of magnitude as the stellar wind kinetic energy of BD+60 447 during its main sequence life. Also, it is low though not unreasonable for a supernova remnant, especially considering that it would have lost energy by now; $`5d_{\mathrm{kpc}}^2\times 10^{49}`$ erg \[$`2\times 10^{50}`$ erg\] may have been lost to recombination if all the HI currently associated with G132.6–0.7–25.3 was previously part of an ionized shell.

### 6.2 Age and expansion velocity

If the winds from BD+60 447 created and sustained the shell, then G132.6–0.7–25.3 would be approximately the same age as the star. Given that fusion stages past hydrogen burning are estimated to last 0.1 times as long as the main sequence (Meynet et al. 1994), the age of the bubble cannot be much greater than the main sequence lifetime of BD+60 447. This was earlier estimated to be 11.2 Myr based on the assumption that it was of type O9.5 when on the main sequence. It should be noted that the shell’s low expansion velocity and the current evolutionary phase of the central star are in accord with the fact that, in the standard model for wind-blown bubbles (Weaver et al. 1977), the time to dissipation into the ISM is approximately equal to the main sequence lifetime of the source of the wind.

The shell should at present be in the momentum driven bubble phase, but the transition to this phase would only have been a recent event and therefore it would be best to consider the previous phase, a bubble with a radiative outer shock. According to the standard model, for a bubble with a radiative outer shock the radius varies as

$$R_2(t)=28\left(\frac{L_{36}}{n_0}\right)^{1/5}t_6^{3/5}\mathrm{pc},$$
(1)
where $`L_{36}`$ is the wind luminosity in units of $`10^{36}`$ erg s-1 and the time is given in units of $`10^6\mathrm{yr}`$.

By taking the derivative of the above equation and using the radius and age estimates, one can calculate an expansion velocity for the shell. A velocity of $`0.7d_{\mathrm{kpc}}`$  km s$`^1`$\[1.6  km s$`^1`$\] is predicted and the shell would only have slowed down further as it continued into the momentum driven bubble phase, barring other energy inputs. Not only is this significantly less than the observed value but it is also less than the turbulent velocity of the ISM and so the shell should have dissipated. This shell has too high an expansion velocity for its radius and assumed age if it is wind-blown.

The kinematic age of the bubble ($`R_{\mathrm{sh}}/v_{\mathrm{exp}}`$), for a constant expansion velocity of 9.9  km s$`^1`$, is $`1.4d_{\mathrm{kpc}}`$ Myr \[3.1 Myr\]. This should be an upper limit to the age of the bubble, unrelated to wind-blown models, as long as there has been no acceleration. The age estimated from main sequence lifetime of the assumed stellar wind source is much greater than the kinematic age stated above. BD+60 447 may have been of a somewhat earlier type when on the main sequence, perhaps as early as an O8, but this does not solve the problem because the age estimate would still be too high, slightly greater than 7.1 Myr (Stothers et al. 1972) which would require an uncertainty of over 100% on the kinematic age in order for there to be agreement. This is unlikely considering that there is little uncertainty in the radius, and as for the expansion velocity, the smooth variation of the morphology from channel to channel argues against the estimate of 9.9  km s$`^1`$being significantly off.

This age disagreement indicates that the stellar winds from this star on its own cannot be responsible for the present state of G132.6–0.7–25.3. If G132.6–0.7–25.3 has been mainly formed by BD+60 447’s wind, some other factor must have caused it to accelerate. Expansion into a density gradient and consequent acceleration (see next section), may explain the discrepancy between the observed velocity and that predicted for expansion into a uniform medium. Another possible contributing factor is the radiation pressure from ordinary stars now within the shell, as mentioned in §5.

For the SNR hypothesis, there is no candidate energy source and therefore no presumed age for the G132.6–0.7–25.3. Thus the kinematic age and the expansion velocity do not pose a problem if the shell is a SNR rather than a stellar wind bubble.

### 6.3 Shape of the shell and scale height

As stated in §3.1, G132.6–0.7–25.3 is elongated in the direction perpendicular to the Galactic plane, slightly wider at the base. This type of shape is expected for a bubble evolving in a density gradient. The minor axis is 95.2 arcmin (61 pc for 2.2 kpc). Since any model of bubble evolution in a stratified atmosphere (e.g. Kompaneets 1960, Tomisaka & Ikeuchi 1986, Mac Low & McCray 1988) predicts near spherical evolution at early times, and significant elongation only when the radius exceeds the scale height (enabling the bubble to sense the ambient stratification), the observed elongation of this shell implies $`H<b/2=13.8d_{\mathrm{kpc}}`$ pc \[30.5 pc\].

This extremely small value for the scale height is reminiscent of the low value of H (25 pc) found by Basu et al. (1999) for the nearby (in projection at least) W4 superbubble, and of the scale height (22 pc) used by Shelton et al. (1999) when modelling W44. A more precise value for the scale height can be found by fitting the analytic Kompaneets (1960) solution to the shell. The Kompaneets solution consists of an analytic expression for the bubble shape at various stages of evolution in an exponential atmosphere. The observed ratio of major to minor axis can be matched to a Kompaneets model at particular stage of evolution, yielding the ratio of the current radius to the ambient scale height. Details of the Kompaneets solution and this technique for determining the scale height can be found in Basu et al. (1999). For G132.6–0.7–25.3, we find that the best fit Kompaneets model has a semi-minor axis $`1.76H`$. This yields $`H=7.9d_{\mathrm{kpc}}`$ pc \[17.3 pc\]. The general point is that the scale height must be 30 pc or less in this environment, if the elongation is due to a density gradient.

This value is, of course, valid for the ISM local to G132.6–0.7–25.3, just as the values relating to studies of W44 and the W4 superbubble were applicable to the environment of these objects. They do not invalidate the much greater values ($`>`$ 100 pc) found for the global, Galactic scale height, though this is perhaps an indication that the global scale height is determined by very different processes than those that govern the equilibrium of gas on smaller scales.

### 6.4 Within the shell

As was noted in the description of the HI emission, there is an HI “U” within the shell. A partial shell within a shell as it were. In the crook of this “U” there is a compact radio continuum source which is positionally coincident with an IRAS compact source having the colours of an HII region (see Hughes & MacLoed 1989 for colour selection criteria), namely IRAS-02044+6031. The infrared colours, the radio continuum spectral index of +0.55 and the morphological indication of HI surrounding the compact source combine to suggest that this an HII region within a layer of dissociated gas, located on the periphery of the shell.

Though originally thought to be a planetary nebula (Acker et al. 1983), this identification of IRAS-02044+6031 has since been found to be in error (Sabbadin 1986, Acker et al. 1986, Zijlstra et al 1990). No maser emission has been detected despite several searches (6.7 GHz methanol by MacLoed et al. 1998, 5 cm OH lines by Baudry et al. 1997, H2O maser lines by Codella et al. 1996 and by Brand et al. 1994), indicating that either the geometry is simply inappropriate for maser detection or that the region has evolved sufficiently that there is no longer maser activity. Considering the possibility that the HI $`U`$ is related dissociated gas, the latter explanation is not unreasonable. However, it should be noted that the velocity interval sampled by the maser searches did not always cover velocities as high as for the HI discussed here.

There is no indication of a bright star which could account for the ionized gas. In fact on the POSS images, coincident with the IRAS source, there is a compact region of increased extinction. This suggests that this is a young HII region. Perhaps its formation was triggered by the expansion of the G132.6–0.7–25.3 shell. It should be noted however that Wouterloot & Brand (1989) associate this IRAS source with CO emission at –55.7  km s$`^1`$which would be unlikely to be related to the HI seen at –25.27  km s$`^1`$, and the geometry of the region of CO emission at –55  km s$`^1`$is also not suggestive of an association with the HI .

To summarize, in the context of the larger shell described in this paper, this small U-shaped structure is proposed to be HI formed by the stars within a compact HII region through dissociation. The HII region itself was perhaps formed when the expansion of G132.6–0.7–25.3 compressed gas in its periphery sufficiently to induce star formation. The U would then be second generation HI gas related to G132.6–0.7–25.3.

## 7 Summary and conclusions

An HI shell has been found near the very active W3/4 HII region complex. The lack of a radio continuum counterpart has been interpreted as indicative of the advanced age of the shell, be it a wind-blown shell or a SNR. If it is a wind-blown shell then the most likely powering source is the B1 supergiant BD+60 447. This is based on the position of the star (at the centre in projection and at a reasonable distance) and its spectral type (strong enough stellar winds while on the main sequence to blow a bubble, no longer capable of maintaining the ionization of the shell which is in accord with the lack of a continuum counterpart). The age of the star and the kinematic age of the shell are however discrepant, the former being greater than the latter. This could point to the shell being a member of the observed class of “high velocity” shells (Oey 1996), which have somehow been reaccelerated, but it could also be taken to indicate that the shell was not created by BD+60 447 (and there are no other catalogued stars present which could have blown the shell through stellar winds) but is in fact a SNR. Based on the available data, it is not possible to distinguish between the two possibilities.

Regardless of the origin of the G132.6–0.7–25.3, if the elongation of the shell is due to the density gradient of its surroundings, the Kompaneets model can be used to determine the scale height of the ambient ISM. In this case, the aspect ratio of the shell indicates that the local scale height is 17.3 pc for a distance of 2.2 kpc. While surprisingly low, analysis of other regions have also pointed to small scale heights (W4 by Basu et al. 1999; W44 by Shelton et al. 1999).

At the edge of the shell, there is a smaller U-shaped HI structure curving around a compact radio continuum and infrared source. The thermal spectral index of the compact source and its infrared colours imply that it is an HII region and the HI then corresponds to an encircling photodissociation region. However, the FCRAO outer Galaxy Survey shows no indication of a coincident molecular cloud at similar velocities. It has been hypothesized that this HII region could be the result of star formation triggered by the expansion of G132.6–0.7–25.3. Compact 12CO clouds at other locations along the shell’s perimeter could also be triggered or enhanced condensations.

The data from the CGPS are likely to be rife with such structures as their identification requires arcminute resolution coupled with coverage of wide angular scales. With an analysis of this sort carried out for each shell, our picture of the star-ISM feedback mechanisms will be more complete.

M.N. thanks Brad Wallace for useful input, as well as James Graham and Carl Heiles for comments on drafts of this paper. The Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory’s synthesis telescope is operated by the National Research Council of Canada as a national facility. The Canadian Galactic Plane Survey is a Canadian project with international partners, and is supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. This research made extensive use of the Simbad database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, and of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Astrophysics Science Information and Abstract Service.