Cited by 325Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations

Simulations of minor mergers - I. General properties of thick discs

Open access
Villalobos, Álvaro, Helmi, Amina·2008·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We present simulations of the formation of thick discs via the accretion of two-component satellites onto a pre-existing thin disc. Our goal is to establish the detailed characteristics of the thick discs obtained in this way, as well as their dependence on the initial orbital and internal properties of the accreted objects. We find that mergers with 10–20 per cent mass of the host lead to the formation of thick discs whose characteristics are similar, both in morphology as in kinematics, to those observed. Despite the relatively large mass ratios, the host discs are not fully destroyed by the infalling satellites: a remaining kinematically cold and thin component containing ∼15–25 per cent of the mass can be identified, which is embedded in a hotter and thicker disc. This may for example, explain the existence of a very old thin disc stars in the Milky Way. The final scaleheights of the discs depend both on the initial inclination and properties of the merger, but the fraction of satellite stellar particles at ∼4 scaleheights directly measures the mass ratio between the satellite and host galaxy. Our thick discs typically show boxy isophotes at very low surface brightness levels (>6 mag below their peak value). Kinematically, the velocity ellipsoids of the simulated thick discs are similar to that of the Galactic thick disc at the solar radius. The trend of with radius is found to be a very good discriminant of the initial inclination of the accreted satellite. In the Milky Way, the possible existence of a vertical gradient in the rotational velocity of the thick disc as well as the observed value of at the solar vicinity appear to favour the formation of the thick disc by a merger with either low or intermediate orbital inclination.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13979.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Comparison of Gaia kinematics with simulations suggests that the Gaia-Enceladus merger was counter-rotating and that its initial inclination was approximately 30°.

    “a coarse comparison of the Gaia kinematical data with existing simulations of the merger of a disk galaxy with a massive disky satellite (Villalobos & Helmi 2008, 2009), as shown in Figure 8, suggests that the merger was counter-rotating because the mean rotational motion of associated halo stars in the solar vicinity is (slightly) retrograde”

    From Streams, Substructures, and the Early History of the Milky Way (2020) · cites this paper as Villalobos & Helmi 2008

  • In the simulations of Villalobos & Helmi (2008), a thin disklike component remains 15-25% intact after the merger is completed.

    “the simulations ofVillalobos & Helmi (2008) show that a thin disklike component remains 15-25% intact after the merger is completed.”

    From Streams, Substructures, and the Early History of the Milky Way (2020) · cites this paper as Villalobos & Helmi (2008)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Villalobos, Á., & Helmi, A.
Affiliations
University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Villalobos, Álvaro
  • Helmi, Amina
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2008-12-21
Volume
391
Issue
4
Pages
1806-1827
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2100032934
Cited by
325
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 31
FWCI
10.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Keywords
minor mergers, satellite accretion, disk kinematics, velocity ellipsoid, orbital inclination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review