On Understanding the Nature of Collisions of Coronal Mass Ejections Observed by Stereo

Mishra, Wageesh; Wang, Yuming; Srivastava, Nandita

doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/99

Cited by 24 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 74 publications

(122 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We made several independent mass measurements for this event and found that the values are within 20% of the measured ones. Further, the role of the uncertainty in the mass estimation has been studied to understand the variation in the coefficient of restitution which has been found to be negligible in deciding the nature of the collision (Shen et al, 2012;Mishra, Wang, and Srivastava, 2016). This is expected as our approach constrains the momentum conservation while modifying the observed post-collision speeds .…”

Section: Momentum Energy Exchange and Nature Of The Collisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We constructed the time-elongation maps, conventionally called J-maps, (Sheeley et al, 2008;Davies et al, 2009) using the running difference images of HI-1 and HI-2. The details of the procedure to construct the J-maps and to derive the distance from the measured elongation angles have been described in Mishra, Srivastava, and Chakrabarty (2015); Mishra, Wang, and Srivastava (2016). These J-maps reveal the kinematic evolution of these CMEs and are shown in Figure 3.…”

Section: D Reconstruction Of Interacting Cmes In Hi Fovmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on these observations of interacting CMEs, some of the crucial questions have been aptly addressed as to whether the nature of interaction is elastic, inelastic, or super-elastic? (Lugaz et al, 2012;Shen et al, 2012;Mishra, Srivastava, and Chakrabarty, 2015;Mishra, Wang, and Srivastava, 2016). Further, using in situ observations, it may also be possible to answer the question, under what conditions, interacting CMEs lead to a merged or a separate structure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interplanetary and Geomagnetic Consequences of Interacting CMEs of 13 – 14 June 2012

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report on the kinematics of two interacting CMEs observed on 13 and 14 June 2012. Both CMEs originated from the same active region NOAA 11504. After their launches which were separated by several hours, they were observed to interact at a distance of 100 R from the Sun. The interaction led to a moderate geomagnetic storm at the Earth with D st index of approximately, -86 nT. The kinematics of the two CMEs is estimated using data from the Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation (SECCHI) onboard the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO). Assuming a head-on collision scenario, we find that the collision is inelastic in nature. Further, the signatures of their interaction are examined using the in situ observations obtained by Wind and the Advance Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft. It is also found that this interaction event led to the strongest sudden storm commencement (SSC) (≈ 150 nT) of the present Solar Cycle 24. The SSC was of long duration, approximately 20 hours. The role of interacting CMEs in enhancing the geoeffectiveness is examined.

show abstract

Section: Momentum Energy Exchange and Nature Of The Collisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: D Reconstruction Of Interacting Cmes In Hi Fovmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interplanetary and Geomagnetic Consequences of Interacting CMEs of 13 – 14 June 2012

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

“…their speeds and propagation directions, and hence influence the effects they have on space weather. The current knowledge about the nature of the CME collision, which we discuss in Section 2, may be used to predict their post-collision kinematics and hence their arrival time (Mishra, Wang, and Srivastava, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Statistical comparison of the ICME's geoeffectiveness of different types and different solar phases from 1995 to 2014

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The geoeffectiveness of interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) is an important issue in space weather research and forecasting. Based on the ICME catalog that we recently established and the Dst indices from the World Data Center, we study and compare the geoeffectiveness of ICMEs of different in situ signatures and different solar phases from 1995 to 2014. According to different in situ signatures, all ICMEs are divided into three types: isolated ICMEs (I‐ICMEs), multiple ICMEs (M‐ICMEs), and shock‐embedded ICMEs (S‐ICMEs), resulting in a total of 363 group events. The main findings of this work are as follows: (1) Fifty‐eight percent of ICMEs caused geomagnetic storms with Dstmin≤−30 nT. Further, large fraction (87%) of intense geomagnetic storms are caused by ICME groups and their sheath regions. (2) Numbers of ICME groups and the probabilities of ICME groups in causing geomagnetic storms varied in pace with the solar cycle. Meanwhile, the ICME groups and the probabilities of them in causing geomagnetic storms in Solar Cycle 24 are much lower than those in Solar Cycle 23. (3) The maximum value of the intensity of the magnetic field (B), south component of the magnetic field (Bs), and dawn‐dusk electric field vBs are well correlated with the intensity of the magnetic storms. (4) Shock‐embedded ICMEs have a high probability in causing geomagnetic storms, especially intense geomagnetic storms. (5) The compression of shock on the south component of magnetic field is an important factor to enhance the geoeffectiveness of S‐ICMEs structures.

show abstract

On Understanding the Nature of Collisions of Coronal Mass Ejections Observed by Stereo

Cited by 24 publications

References 74 publications

Interplanetary and Geomagnetic Consequences of Interacting CMEs of 13 – 14 June 2012

Interplanetary and Geomagnetic Consequences of Interacting CMEs of 13 – 14 June 2012

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

Statistical comparison of the ICME's geoeffectiveness of different types and different solar phases from 1995 to 2014

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About