Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byDevin Boatwright Modified about 1 year ago

1
The Structure of Magnetic Clouds in the Inner Heliosphere: An Approach Through Grad-Shafranov Reconstruction Qiang Hu, Charlie J. Farrugia, V. Osherovich, Christian Möstl, Jiong Qiu and Bengt U. Ö. Sonnerup ILWS Workshop 2011

2
2 Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) (Moore et al. 2007) Simultaneous multi-point in-situ measurements of an Interplanetary CME (ICME) structure (Adapted from STEREO/IMPACT website, )

3
3 in-situ spacecraft data Cylindrical flux-rope model fit (Burlaga, 1995; Lepping et al., 1990, etc.) Modeling of Interplanetary CME

4
4 x: projected s/c path - V HT Grad-Shafranov Reconstruction method: derive the axis orientation (z) and the cross section of locally 2 ½ D structure from in-situ single spacecraft measurements (e.g., Hu and Sonnerup 2002). Main features: - 2 ½ D - self-consistent - non-force free - flux rope boundary definition - multispacecraft actual result:

5
5 Output: 1.Field configuration 2.Spatial config. 3.Electric Current. 4.Plasma pressure p(A). 5.Magnetic Flux ： - axial (toroidal) flux t = B z x y - poloidal flux p =|A b - A m |*L 6.Relative Helicity: K rel =2L A’· B t dxdy A’=B z z ^ GS Reconstruction of ICME Flux Ropes ( 1D 2D) Ab Ab AmAm ACE Halloween event (Hu et al. 2005)

6
6 Relative magnetic helicity ( Webb et al ): B z (x,y) r Kr/AU: 3.5 x Wb 2 Kr/AU ( Hu and Dasgupta, 2005 ): 3.4 x Wb 2

7
7 poloidal or azimuthal magnetic flux P : the amount of twist along the field lines The helical structure, in-situ formed flux rope, results from magnetic reconnection. toroidal or axial magnetic flux t Longcope et al (2007) ribbons poloidal flux P reconnection flux r reconnection 3D view: one scenario of flux rope formation (Gosling et al. 1995) (Moore et al. 2007) Credit: ESA reconnection

8
8 Comparison of CME and ICME fluxes ( independently measured for 9 events ; Qiu et al., 2007 ): - flare-associated CMEs and flux-rope ICMEs with one-to-one correspondence; - reasonable flux-rope solutions satisfying diagnostic measures; - an effective length L=1 AU (uncertainty range AU). GS method Leamon et al. 04 Lynch et al. 05 P ~ r

9
Recent modeling and comparison of flux-rope flux and helicity contents (Kazachenko et al. 2011)

10
GS Reconstruction of Locally Toroidal Structure (Freidberg 1987) Z R O A torus of arbitrary cross section

11
s/c Sun O’ O Z’Z’ R r t (r, t) plane projection r’r’ Rs/c path O (O’) Z’Z’. (R, ) plane projection (R, , Z) axes (Z: rotation axis; : torus axis): Search grid on (r,t) plane Boundary of the torus

12
(Farrugia et al. 2011) Sun Wind ST-AST-B

13
Acknowledgement: Dr. J. Luhmann of UCB/SSL, and Dr. Antoinette Galvin of the University of New Hampshire, and NASA CDAWeb.

14
Effect of Te (2007/01/13 00:00: /01/17 00:00:00 DOY ) ~12 ~0.24

15
The GS reconstruction map for the case w/o (left window) and w/ (right) Te contribution, respectively

16
The corresponding Pt(A)=p+B z /2 0 fitting 2

17
Event 2005/10/30 00:00: /11/02 00:00:00 DOY ~4 ~1

18
The GS reconstruction map for the case w/o (left window) and w/ (right) Te contribution, respectively

19
The corresponding Pt(A) fitting

20
Concluding Remarks Quantitative CME-ICME comparison provides essential insight into the underlying mechanism(s) Also provides validation of data analysis methods/results Torus-shaped geometry provides an alternative view of MC flux rope; will complement the existing analysis The effect of Te is limited to contribution to the plasma and pressure; it is the gradient of pressure that matters

21
… Fully 3D? zr R Sun GS equation: (R. H. Weening, 2000) A torus of arbitrary cross section?

Similar presentations

© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google