# Application of a parallel hybrid 𝑁–body SCF code

## 1. Introduction

The stellar dynamics of galactic nuclei are in the focus of astronomical interest. Observations show that many if not all galactic centres harbor supermassive black holes. Their mass determination, however, relies on stationary modelling, which does not provide a self-consistent picture of the evolution of galactic nuclei.

Another point of interest is the behavior of binary black holes within a dense central stellar cluster. To what extend does star gas or dynamical friction influence the results? These applications need a high precision collisional code, which can handle a great number of particles (Quinlan & Hernquist 1997).

The $`N^2`$ dependency of computational time restricts high precision direct $`N`$–body calculations to a comparatively small number of particles. In contrast, codes which calculate the mean potential of particle distribution do not have this problem but are not sufficient to treat the dynamics of central stellar clusters. Since many stellar systems show a clear core halo structure, one can profit from the advantages of both approaches in a hybrid code. The concepts of such a hybrid scheme and its results are described here.

## 2. Merging of *NBODY6++* with *SCF*

The primary $`N`$–body integrator for collisional systems like globular clusters is an Aarseth *NBODYx* code (Aarseth 1993). The most complex one, *NBODY6++*, is highly efficient on serial computers. This code has been ported to parallel computers (Spurzem & Baumgart 1997) where it can show its advantages compared to $`N^2`$ codes running on special purpose computers. Nearly all parts of the code, like the ones for binary or chain treatment, can run in parallel as long as the problem size is large enough.

To embed *NBODY6++* in a living, nearly spherical halo, we choose the *SCF* method by Clutton–Brock (1973) and Hernquist & Ostriker (1992). The parametrised $`\alpha `$–law basis functions published by Zhao (1996), which are used in this code instead, provide a much higher flexibility. The Hermite integration scheme in *NBODY6++* needs the input of the forces $`𝐚_i`$ and force derivatives $`\dot{𝐚}_i`$. Unlike in other mean field methods, these can be added to SCF analytically.

The angular momentum of the particles is the criterion to distribute the work over both codes. Particles with a low angular momentum are more reactive to their neighbors and therefore given to *NBODY6++*. In a Plummer potential, this criterion assigns all spatially central particles to direct integrator.

The *SCF* method relies on an analytically given distribution function for density and for potential. Thus, a cut off potential is very hard to handle. This problem can be solved by calculating the the forces of the whole particle set using *SCF*. *NBODY6++* and *SCF* re–calculate the forces in the subset below the critical angular momentum. In this process the direct code takes the difference force of the two field method runs as an external potential. The time steps of the field method are usually longer than the ones of *NBODY6++*.

## 3. Testing

One important test of the code is the benchmarking. The table below shows the computation time in seconds for 40 SCF time steps for various numbers of processing elements. About half the number of particles were below the critical angular momentum.

| $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 16384 | 22.3 | 12.4 | 8.3 | 7.8 | 10.2 |
| 32768 | 71.8 | 38.5 | 24.9 | 19.6 | 34.1 |
| 65536 | 266.4 | 147.8 | 81.2 | 64.5 | 59.7 |

One realization of a Plummer model was evolved by the hybrid code and a HARP version of *NBODY6++* for several crossing times in order to check the difference in relaxation effects. In the field method part of the hybrid code one observes less relaxation than what the direct method finds. Introducing Spitzer relaxation to *SCF*, however, might be a way to tackle this problem.

### Acknowledgments.

I like to thank my co–workers R. Spurzem and S. Sigurdsson who started this project, S. Aarseth, D. Heggie, W. Sweatman and G. Hensler for fruitful help and discussion. This project is funded by *Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft* (DFG) project Sp 345/9-1. Technical help and computer resources are provided by *HLRS* in Stuttgart, *HLRZ* in Jülich, *EPCC* in Edinburgh, *ZIB* in Berlin, University of Heidelberg and University of Kiel.

## References

Aarseth, S. J. 1993, in: Galactic Dynamics and N-Body Simulations, *Lecture Notes in Physics*, G. Contopoulos, N. K. Spyrou, and L. Vlahos, Thessaloniki, 1993, 365

Clutton-Brock, M. 1973, Ap&SS, 23, 55

Hernquist, L., Ostriker, J. P. 1992, ApJ, 386, 375

Quinlan, G. D., Hernquist, L. 1997, NewA, 2, 533

Spurzem, R., Baumgart, H. 1997, MNRASin preparation (see also ARI-Preprint No. 68, http: // www.ari.uni-heidelberg.de / publikationen / preprints / index.htm)

Zhao, H. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 488