Could the collision of CMEs in the heliosphere be super‒elastic? Validation through three‒dimensional simulations

Shen, Fang; Shen, Chenglong; Wang, Yuming; Feng, Xueshang; Xiang, Changqing

doi:10.1002/grl.50336

Cited by 54 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the collision was more likely to be superinelastic or a merging process. Shen et al (2013) applied a 3D MHD simulation to study the oblique collision process of two CMEs based on the observations of the November 2008 event and tried to understand the nature of the collision through the analysis of the energy transformation. Furthermore, Shen et al (2016) carried out a series of 3D numerical experiments to study the dependence of the nature of the collision on the CME speed and k-number, the ratio of the CME kinetic energy to the CME total energy.…”

Section: Simulating Cme-cme Collisions Using Numerical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The background solar wind was constructed based on the observed line-of-sight magnetic field for Carrington rotation 2076 (Shen et al, 2013(Shen et al, , 2016. Two high-density, -velocity, and -temperature magnetized plasma blobs were superimposed successively on a background solar wind medium (Chané et al, 2005;Shen et al, 2011).…”

Section: Simulating Cme-cme Collisions Using Numerical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two high-density, -velocity, and -temperature magnetized plasma blobs were superimposed successively on a background solar wind medium (Chané et al, 2005;Shen et al, 2011). Shen et al (2013) considered the propagation directions of the initial plasma blobs to be N6W28 and N16W08, which were consistent with the directions of the two interacting CMEs of 2 -8 November 2008. Shen et al (2016) set the two initial directions of the CMEs as N11W18, which was between the directions of the two CMEs in Shen et al (2013).…”

Section: Simulating Cme-cme Collisions Using Numerical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This largely stimulated the observational and numerical studies in this area (e.g. Gopalswamy et al, 2009;Xiong, Zheng, and Wang, 2009;Temmer et al, , 2014Shen et al, 2012a;Liu et al, , 2014Martínez-Oliveros et al, 2012;Webb et al, 2013;Shen et al, 2011Shen et al, , 2012bShen et al, , 2013Shen et al, , 2016Mishra and Srivastava, 2014;Mishra, Srivastava, and Chakrabarty, 2015;Mishra, Srivastava, and Singh, 2015;Mishra, Wang, and Srivastava, 2016;Shanmugaraju et al, 2014;Colaninno and Vourlidas, 2015). A comprehensive review about the interaction of successive CMEs and consequences in particle acceleration and geoeffectiveness by Lugaz et al (2017) can be found in the Topical Collection called Earth-affecting Solar Transients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While some studies have shown the possibility of a superelastic collision of CMEs (e.g. Shen et al, 2012aShen et al, , 2013Colaninno and Vourlidas, 2015), (perfectly) inelastic collisions (e.g. Lugaz et al, 2012;Maričić et al, 2014;Mishra, Srivastava, and Chakrabarty, 2015) and nearly elastic collisions (Mishra and Srivastava, 2014;Mishra, Srivastava, and Singh, 2015) were also reported.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

On the Collision Nature of Two Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observational and numerical studies have shown that the kinematic characteristics of two or more coronal mass ejections (CMEs) may change significantly after a CME collision. The collision of CMEs can have a different nature, i.e. inelastic, elastic, and superelastic processes, depending on their initial kinematic characteristics. In this article, we first review the existing definitions of collision types including Newton's classical definition, the energy definition, Poisson's definition, and Stronge's definition, of which the first two were used in the studies of CME-CME collisions. Then, we review the recent research progresses on the nature of CME-CME collisions with the focus on which CME kinematic properties affect the collision nature. It is shown that observational analysis and numerical simulations can both yield an inelastic, perfectly inelastic, merging-like collision, or a high possibility of a superelastic collision. Meanwhile, previous studies based on a 3D collision picture suggested that a low approaching speed of two CMEs is favorable for a superelastic nature. Since CMEs are an expanding magnetized plasma structure, the CME collision process is quite complex, and we discuss this complexity. Moreover, the models used in both Earth-affecting Solar Transients Guest Editors: Jie Zhang, Xochitl Blanco-Cano, Nariaki Nitta, and Nandita Srivastava observational and numerical studies contain many limitations. All of the previous studies on collisions have not shown the separation of two colliding CMEs after a collision. Therefore the collision between CMEs cannot be considered as an ideal process in the context of a classical Newtonian definition. In addition, many factors are not considered in either observational analysis or numerical studies, e.g. CME-driven shocks and magnetic reconnections. Owing to the complexity of the CME collision process, a more detailed and in-depth observational analysis and simulation work are needed to fully understand the CME collision process.

show abstract

Section: Simulating Cme-cme Collisions Using Numerical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Simulating Cme-cme Collisions Using Numerical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Simulating Cme-cme Collisions Using Numerical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On the Collision Nature of Two Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Deflected propagation of a coronal mass ejection from the corona to interplanetary space

Wang

Shen

et al. 2014

JGR Space Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among various factors affecting the space weather effects of a coronal mass ejection (CME), its propagation trajectory in the interplanetary space is an important one determining whether and when the CME will hit the Earth. Many direct observations have revealed that a CME may not propagate along a straight trajectory in the corona, but whether or not a CME also experiences a deflected propagation in the interplanetary space is a question, which has never been fully answered. Here by investigating the propagation process of an isolated CME from the corona to interplanetary space during 12-19 September 2008, we present solid evidence that the CME was deflected not only in the corona but also in the interplanetary space. The deflection angle in the interplanetary space is more than 20• toward the west, resulting a significant change in the probability the CME encounters the Earth. A further modeling and simulation-based analysis suggests that the cause of the deflection in the interplanetary space is the interaction between the CME and the solar wind, which is different from that happening in the corona.

show abstract

Analysis of a coronal mass ejection and corotating interaction region as they travel from the Sun passing Venus, Earth, Mars, and Saturn

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During June 2010 a good alignment in the solar system between Venus, STEREO‐B, Mars, and Saturn provided an excellent opportunity to study the propagation of a coronal mass ejection (CME) and closely occurring corotating interaction region (CIR) from the Sun to Saturn. The CME erupted from the Sun at 01:30 UT on 20 June 2010,with v≈ 600 km s−1, as observed by STEREO‐B, Solar Dynamics Observatory, and SOHO/Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph. It arrived at Venus over 2 days later, some 3.5 days after a CIR is also detected here. The CIR was also observed at STEREO‐B and Mars, prior to the arrival of the CME. The CME is not directed earthward, but the CIR is detected here less than 2 days after its arrival at Mars. Around a month later, a strong compression of the Saturn magnetosphere is observed by Cassini, consistent with the scenario that the CME and CIR have merged into a single solar transient. The arrival times of both the CME and the CIR at different locations were predicted using the ENLIL solar wind model. The arrival time of the CME at Venus, STEREO‐B, and Mars is predicted to within 20 h of its actual detection, but the predictions for the CIR showed greater differences from observations, all over 1.5 days early. More accurate predictions for the CIR were found by extrapolating the travel time between different locations using the arrival times and speeds detected by STEREO‐B and ACE. We discuss the implications of these results for understanding the propagation of solar transients.

show abstract

Could the collision of CMEs in the heliosphere be super‒elastic? Validation through three‒dimensional simulations

Cited by 54 publications

References 27 publications

On the Collision Nature of Two Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

On the Collision Nature of Two Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

Deflected propagation of a coronal mass ejection from the corona to interplanetary space

Analysis of a coronal mass ejection and corotating interaction region as they travel from the Sun passing Venus, Earth, Mars, and Saturn

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About