Magnetic Field Configuration Models and Reconstruction Methods for Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections

Al-Haddad, Nada; Nieves‐Chinchilla, Teresa; Savani, N. P.; Möstl, Christian; Marubashi, K.; Hidalgo, M. A.; Roussev, I. I.; Poedts, Stefaan; Farrugia, C. J.

doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0244-5

Cited by 85 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 79 publications

(107 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In conclusion, the large dispersion of λ and i angles between different MC lists is consistent with the results of Al‐Haddad et al [] who tested the results of a larger variety of methods but on a more limited sample of MCs. This large dispersion, both for the MC axis and shock normal directions, does not allow the comparison of these directions for individual MCs (as attempted by Feng et al []).…”

Section: Samples Of Observed Mcs and Shocks And Definition Of The Shasupporting

confidence: 90%

Comparing generic models for interplanetary shocks and magnetic clouds axis configurations at 1 AU

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) are the manifestation of solar transient eruptions, which can significantly modify the plasma and magnetic conditions in the heliosphere. They are often preceded by a shock, and a magnetic flux rope is detected in situ in a third to half of them. The main aim of this study is to obtain the best quantitative shape for the flux rope axis and for the shock surface from in situ data obtained during spacecraft crossings of these structures. We first compare the orientation of the flux rope axes and shock normals obtained from independent data analyses of the same events, observed in situ at 1 AU from the Sun. Then we carry out an original statistical analysis of axes/shock normals by deriving the statistical distributions of their orientations. We fit the observed distributions using the distributions derived from several synthetic models describing these shapes. We show that the distributions of axis/shock orientations are very sensitive to their respective shape. One classical model, used to analyze interplanetary imager data, is incompatible with the in situ data. Two other models are introduced, for which the results for axis and shock normals lead to very similar shapes; the fact that the data for MCs and shocks are independent strengthens this result. The model which best fits all the data sets has an ellipsoidal shape with similar aspect ratio values for all the data sets. These derived shapes for the flux rope axis and shock surface have several potential applications. First, these shapes can be used to construct a consistent ICME model. Second, these generic shapes can be used to develop a quantitative model to analyze imager data, as well as constraining the output of numerical simulations of ICMEs. Finally, they will have implications for space weather forecasting, in particular, for forecasting the time arrival of ICMEs at the Earth.

show abstract

Section: Samples Of Observed Mcs and Shocks And Definition Of The Shasupporting

confidence: 90%

Comparing generic models for interplanetary shocks and magnetic clouds axis configurations at 1 AU

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The view is approximately from ecliptic south with the Sun on the right-hand side of the picture. The Grad-Shafranov reconstruction technique has been shown to work best for magnetic clouds and magnetic cloudlike ejecta (as compared with less regular ejecta, see Al-Haddad et al 2012 for details), and this shows once again that the in situ measurements indicate a relatively typical flux rope-type ejecta, except for the higher plasma temperature. The axial field strength is found to be 13.5 nT, which is typical for a magnetic cloud or magnetic cloud-like ejecta at solar minimum.…”

Section: Overview Of the In Situ Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 83%

The Deflection of the Two Interacting Coronal Mass Ejections of 2010 May 23-24 as Revealed by Combined in Situ Measurements and Heliospheric Imaging

Lugaz

Farrugia

Davies

et al. 2012

ApJ

Self Cite

159

189

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2010 May 23-24, Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) observed the launch of two successive coronal mass ejections (CMEs), which were subsequently tracked by the SECCHI suite on board STEREO. Using the COR2 coronagraphs and the heliospheric imagers (HIs), the initial direction of both CMEs is determined to be slightly west of the Sun-Earth line. We derive the CME kinematics, including the evolution of the CME expansion until 0.4 AU. We find that, during the interaction, the second CME decelerates from a speed above 500 km s −1 to 380 km s −1 , the speed of the leading edge of the first CME. STEREO observes a complex structure composed of two different bright tracks in HI2-A but only one bright track in HI2-B. In situ measurements from Wind show an "isolated" interplanetary CME, with the geometry of a flux rope preceded by a shock. Measurements in the sheath are consistent with draping around the transient. By combining remote-sensing and in situ measurements, we determine that this event shows a clear instance of deflection of two CMEs after their collision, and we estimate the deflection of the first CME to be about 10• toward the Sun-Earth line. The arrival time, arrival speed, and radius at Earth of the first CME are best predicted from remote-sensing observations taken before the collision of the CMEs. Due to the over-expansion of the CME after the collision, there are few, if any, signs of interaction in in situ measurements. This study illustrates that complex interactions during the Sun-to-Earth propagation may not be revealed by in situ measurements alone.

show abstract

“…This region is an example of a clean magnetic structure passing the spacecraft and is characterized by strong magnetic field strength, a smooth rotation of the magnetic field vector, which is shown in Geocentric Solar Ecliptic (GSE) coordinates, and low proton temperature. Such observations are usually interpreted as a magnetic flux rope, extending tube-like from the Sun with a helical magnetic field geometry (e.g., Al-Haddad et al 2013;Janvier et al 2013). We do not discuss magnetic cloud geometry further in this paper, but, for completeness, in this case the field rotates from solar east (B Y > 0) to south of the ecliptic (B Z < 0) to solar west (B Y < 0).…”

Section: In Situ Solar Wind Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Often, a shock is followed by a sheath region in front of a magnetic driver, which is either an irregular structure or a large-scale magnetic flux rope (e.g., Burlaga et al 1981;Bothmer & Schwenn 1998;Lynch et al 2003;Leitner et al 2007;Möstl et al 2009a;Richardson & Cane 2010;Isavnin et al 2013;Al-Haddad et al 2013). We call the interval including all of these signatures an "interplanetary CME" or "ICME."…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting Speeds, Directions and Arrival Times of 22 Coronal Mass Ejections From the Sun to 1 Au

Möstl

Amla

Hall

et al. 2014

ApJ

Self Cite

171

214

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forecasting the in situ properties of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) from remote images is expected to strongly enhance predictions of space weather and is of general interest for studying the interaction of CMEs with planetary environments. We study the feasibility of using a single heliospheric imager (HI) instrument, imaging the solar wind density from the Sun to 1 AU, for connecting remote images to in situ observations of CMEs. We compare the predictions of speed and arrival time for 22 CMEs (in 2008CMEs (in -2012 to the corresponding interplanetary coronal mass ejection (ICME) parameters at in situ observatories (STEREO PLASTIC/IMPACT, Wind SWE/MFI). The list consists of front-and backsided, slow and fast CMEs (up to 2700 km s −1 ). We track the CMEs to 34.9 ± 7.1 deg elongation from the Sun with J maps constructed using the SATPLOT tool, resulting in prediction lead times of −26.4 ± 15.3 hr. The geometrical models we use assume different CME front shapes (fixed-Φ, harmonic mean, self-similar expansion) and constant CME speed and direction. We find no significant superiority in the predictive capability of any of the three methods. The absolute difference between predicted and observed ICME arrival times is 8.1 ± 6.3 hr (rms value of 10.9 hr). Speeds are consistent to within 284 ± 288 km s −1 . Empirical corrections to the predictions enhance their performance for the arrival times to 6.1 ± 5.0 hr (rms value of 7.9 hr), and for the speeds to 53 ± 50 km s −1 . These results are important for Solar Orbiter and a space weather mission positioned away from the Sun-Earth line.

show abstract

Magnetic Field Configuration Models and Reconstruction Methods for Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections

Cited by 85 publications

References 79 publications

Comparing generic models for interplanetary shocks and magnetic clouds axis configurations at 1 AU

Comparing generic models for interplanetary shocks and magnetic clouds axis configurations at 1 AU

The Deflection of the Two Interacting Coronal Mass Ejections of 2010 May 23-24 as Revealed by Combined in Situ Measurements and Heliospheric Imaging

Connecting Speeds, Directions and Arrival Times of 22 Coronal Mass Ejections From the Sun to 1 Au

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About