Numerical Validation and Comparison of Three Solar Wind Heating Methods by the SIP-CESE MHD Model
YANG Li-Ping1,2**, FENG Xue-Shang1, XIANG Chang-Qing1, JIANG Chao-Wei1,2
1SIGMA Weather Group, State Key Laboratory for Space Weather, Center for Space Science and Applied Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190 2 College of Earth Sciences, Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049
Numerical Validation and Comparison of Three Solar Wind Heating Methods by the SIP-CESE MHD Model
YANG Li-Ping1,2**, FENG Xue-Shang1, XIANG Chang-Qing1, JIANG Chao-Wei1,2
1SIGMA Weather Group, State Key Laboratory for Space Weather, Center for Space Science and Applied Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190 2 College of Earth Sciences, Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049
摘要We conduct simulations using the three-dimensional (3D) solar-interplanetary conservation element/solution element (SIP-CESE) magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) model and magnetogram data from a Carrington rotation (CR) 1897 to compare the three commonly used heating methods, i.e. the Wentzel–Kramers–Brillouin (WKB) Alfvén wave heating method, the turbulence heating method and the volumetric heating method. Our results show that all three heating models can basically reproduce the bimodal structure of the solar wind observed near the solar minimum. The results also demonstrate that the major acceleration interval terminates about 4RS for the turbulence heating method and 10RS for both the WKB Alfvén wave heating method and the volumetric heating method. The turbulence heating and the volumetric heating methods can capture the observed changing trends by the WIND satellite, while the WKB Alfvén wave heating method does not.
Abstract：We conduct simulations using the three-dimensional (3D) solar-interplanetary conservation element/solution element (SIP-CESE) magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) model and magnetogram data from a Carrington rotation (CR) 1897 to compare the three commonly used heating methods, i.e. the Wentzel–Kramers–Brillouin (WKB) Alfvén wave heating method, the turbulence heating method and the volumetric heating method. Our results show that all three heating models can basically reproduce the bimodal structure of the solar wind observed near the solar minimum. The results also demonstrate that the major acceleration interval terminates about 4RS for the turbulence heating method and 10RS for both the WKB Alfvén wave heating method and the volumetric heating method. The turbulence heating and the volumetric heating methods can capture the observed changing trends by the WIND satellite, while the WKB Alfvén wave heating method does not.
YANG Li-Ping;**;FENG Xue-Shang;XIANG Chang-Qing;JIANG Chao-Wei;
. Numerical Validation and Comparison of Three Solar Wind Heating Methods by the SIP-CESE MHD Model[J]. 中国物理快报, 2011, 28(3): 39601-039601.
YANG Li-Ping, **, FENG Xue-Shang, XIANG Chang-Qing, JIANG Chao-Wei,
. Numerical Validation and Comparison of Three Solar Wind Heating Methods by the SIP-CESE MHD Model. Chin. Phys. Lett., 2011, 28(3): 39601-039601.
[1] Hassler D M, Rottman G J, Shoub E C and Holzer T E 1990 Astrophys. J. 348 77
[2] Cohen O et al 2007 Astrophys. J. 654 L163
[3] Withbroe G L 1988 Astrophys. J. 325 442
[4] Groth C P T et al 2000 J. Geophys. Res. 105 25053
[5] Feng X S et al 2010 Astrophys. J. 723 300
[6] Usmanov A V, Goldstein M L, Besser B P and Fritzer J M 2000 J. Geophys. Res. 105 (A6) 12675
[7] Hu Y Q, Habbal S R, Chen Y and Li X 2003 J. Geophys. Res. 108 (A10) 1377
[8] Li B, Habbal S R, Li X and Mountford C 2005 J. Geophys. Res. 110 (A12) 112
[9] Roussev I I et al 2003 Astrophys. J. 595 57
[10] Hollweg J V 1986 J. Geophys. Res. 91 (A4) 4111
[11] Cohen O et al 2008 J. Geophys. Res. 113 (A0) 3104
[12] Wang A H, Wu S T, Suess S T and Poletto G 1998 J. Geophys. Res. 103 (A2) 1913
[13] Feng X S, Zhou Y F and Wu S T 2007 Astrophys. J. 655 1110
[14] Linker J A et al 1999 J. Geophys. Res. 104 (A5) 9809
[15] Suess S T, Wang A H and Wu S T 1996 J. Geophys. Res. 101 (A9) 957
[16] Sheeley Jr N R et al 1997 Astrophys. J. 484 472
[17] Leer E and Holzer T E 1980 J. Geophys. Res. 85 (A9) 4681
[18] Neugebauer M 1999 Rev. Geophys. 37(1) 107
[19] Wei F, Feng X, Cai H and Zhou Q 2003 J. Geophys. Res. 108 (A6) 1238
[20] Cranmer S R 2010 Astrophys. J. 710 676
2011, Vol. 28 
