1 / 67

Cluster investigations on the self-reformation of perpendicular Earth’s bow shock

Cluster investigations on the self-reformation of perpendicular Earth’s bow shock. C. Mazelle 1 , B. Lembège 2 , A. Morgenthaler 3 , K. Meziane 4 , J.-L. Rauch 5 , J.-G. Trotignon 5 , E.A. Lucek 6 , I. Dandouras 1.

wenda
Download Presentation

Cluster investigations on the self-reformation of perpendicular Earth’s bow shock

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Cluster investigations on the self-reformation of perpendicular Earth’s bow shock C. Mazelle1, B. Lembège2, A. Morgenthaler3, K. Meziane4, J.-L. Rauch5, J.-G. Trotignon5, E.A. Lucek6, I. Dandouras1 1CESR, UPS - CNRS, 9 Avenue du Colonel Roche, Toulouse, 31400, France (christian.mazelle@cesr.fr), 2 LATMOS / IPSL , CNRS UVSQ, Velizy, France, 3LATT, Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées, Univ. of Toulouse, France 4Physics Department, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada, 5LPCE, CNRS, 3A, Avenue de la recherche scientifique,France 6Space & Atmospheric Physics Group, Imperial College London, UK. Cluster 17th workshop, Uppsala, Sweden, May 12-15 2009

  2. Outline Aim: Experimental evidence of shock front nonstationarity from determination of characteristic sub-scaleswith multi-satellite observations • previous (pre-Cluster) experimental determinations of scales. • Multi-spacecraft analysis from Cluster. Cases studies. Methodology and cautions. • Statistical analysis of Cluster results. • Comparison with PIC numerical simulations results. • Comparison with previous experimental results. • perspective: Cross-scale mission, Heliospheric shock.

  3. Physical characteristics of supercritical quasi-perpendicular shock Above a critical value of MA, dispersion is not sufficient to balance steepening as well as "resistive" dissipation: other ("viscous") dissipation process by reflected ions mandatory  characteristics substructures: reflected gyrating ion Ramp Foot Overshoot

  4. Non stationarity of supercritical quasi-perpendicular shock PIC Numerical simulations: 1D: Biskamp and Welter, 1972; Lembège and Dawson, 1987; Hada et al., 2004; Schöler and Matsukyo, 2004; …. 2D: Lembège and Savoini, 1992; Lembège et al., 2003 … Terrestrial shock geometry • PIC simul.: Shock non stationary -> Cyclic "shock front self-reformation". • Different proposed mechanisms of non stationarity • signatures : variation of the characteristic structures (foot, ramp, overshoot). Bn= 90° [Lembège et al., 2003] B 2D PIC MA= 5 Time mp/me=400 Earth B Q- (45° - 90°) n Normalized distance

  5. Numerical simulations of supercritical quasi-perpendicular shock PIC Numerical simulations: 1D: Biskamp and Welter, 1972; Lembège and Dawson, 1987; Hada et al., 2004; Schöler and Matsukyo, 2004; …. 2D: Lembège and Savoini, 1992; Lembège et al., 2003 … Terrestrial shock geometry • PIC simul.: Shock non stationary -> Cyclic "shock front self-reformation". • Different proposed mechanisms of non stationarity • signatures : variation of the characteristic structures (foot, ramp, overshoot). Bn= 90° [Lembège et al., 2003] B 2D PIC Overshoot Foot Time Cluster Earth B Q- (45° - 90°) Ramp n c/ωpi Normalized distance

  6. Outline Aim: Experimental evidence of shock front nonstationarity from determination of characteristic sub-scales with multi-satellite observations • previous (pre-Cluster) experimental determinations of scales. • Multi-spacecraft analysis from Cluster. Cases studies. Methodology and cautions. • Statistical analysis of Cluster results. • Comparison with PIC numerical simulations results. • Comparison with previous experimental results. • perspective: Cross-scale missions, Heliospheric shock.

  7. Ramp thickness: some previous ISEE results ISEE: thicknesses of the laminar (low b) shocks : 0.4 – 4.5 c/ωpi [Russell et al., 1982] ion inertial length scale Supercritical shocks: ramp thickness typically of ~ c/ωpi [Russell and Greenstadt, 1979; Scudder, 1986] (a) (b) [Newbury and Russell, GRL, 1996] very thin shock (b) (a)

  8. Previous study from Cluster data (1) first examples of some aspects of shock nonstationarity (or at least variability) were presented by Horbury et al. [2001]: High time resolution is mandatory to reveal the different sub-structures of the shock even for a 'nearly' perpendicular shock Differ. signat. of shock crossing shock front variability: what responsible process?

  9. Outline Aim: Experimental evidence of shock front nonstationarity from determination of characteristic sub-scaleswith multi-satellite observations • previous (pre-Cluster) experimental determinations of scales • Multi-spacecraft analysis from Cluster. Cases studies. Methodology and cautions. • Statistical analysis of Cluster results. • Comparison with PIC numerical simulations results. • Comparison with previous experimental results. • perspective: Cross-scale missions, Heliospheric shock.

  10. Example of analysed shock crossing from Cluster B (nT) 5 Hz data

  11. Methodology use of high time resolution data Downstream asymptotic value ramp • Determination of the limits of the structures in time series for each satel. data • Determine the 'apparent' space width (along each sat. traj.)-> compar. between the 4 s/c. • Determine the normal velocity of the shock in s/c frame (Vshock, Vs/c, angle n - s/c traj.) • Main goal: to determine the real spatial width of the structures (ramp, foot, overshoot) • Careful error determination 1st overshoot B (nT) foot 22 to 64 Hz data upstream value Time (hrs.) along the normal

  12. Methodology use of high time resolution data Downstream asymptotic value ramp • Determination of the limits of the structures in time series for each satel. data • For the ramp: look for the 'steeper' slope (time linear fitting) -> defines the 'reference satellite' • Determine the 'apparent' space width (along each sat. traj.)-> compar. between the 4 s/c. • Determine the normal velocity of the shock in s/c frame (Vshock, Vs/c, angle n - s/c traj.) • Main goal: to determine the real spatial width of the structures (ramp, foot, overshoot) • Careful error determination 1st overshoot B (nT) foot 22 to 64 Hz data upstream value Time (hrs.) along the normal

  13. Methodology use of high time resolution data Downstream asymptotic value ramp • Determination of the limits of the structures in time series for each satel. data • For the ramp: look for the 'steeper' slope (time linear fitting) -> defines the 'reference satellite' • Determine the 'apparent' width (along each sat. traj.)-> compar. between the 4 s/c. • Determine the normal velocity of the shock in s/c frame (Vshock, Vs/c, angle n - s/c traj.) • Main goal: to determine the real spatial width of the structures (ramp, foot, overshoot) • Careful error determination 1st overshoot B (nT) foot 22 to 64 Hz data upstream value Time (hrs.) along the normal

  14. Methodology use of high time resolution data Downstream asymptotic value Timing method: gives shock normal n and velocity V in s/c frame ramp • Determination of the limits of the structures in time series for each satel. data • For the ramp: look for the 'steeper' slope (time linear fitting) : defines the 'reference satellite' • Determine the 'apparent' width (along each sat. traj.)-> compar. between the 4 s/c. • Determine the normal velocity of the shock in s/c frame (Vshock, Vs/c, angle n - s/c traj.) • Main goal: to determine the real spatial width of the structures (ramp, foot, overshoot) • Careful error determination 1st overshoot V n B (nT) foot 22 to 64 Hz data For ech pair of satellites i and j : upstream value Time (hrs.) along the normal

  15. Methodology use of high time resolution data Downstream asymptotic value overshoot ramp ramp • Determination of the limits of the structures in time series for each satel. data • For the ramp: look for the 'steeper' slope (time linear fitting) : defines the 'reference satellite' • Determine the 'apparent' width (along each sat. traj.)-> compar. between the 4 s/c. • Determine the normal velocity of the shock in s/c frame (Vshock, Vs/c, angle n - s/c traj.) • Main goal: to determine the real spatial width of the structures (ramp, foot, overshoot) • Careful error determination 1st overshoot B (nT) B (nT) foot 22 to 64 Hz data foot -1 0 1 upstream value Time (hrs.) c/ωpi along the normal

  16. Validity criteria for the method (1) Key points: • Criterion 1: careful determination of the Bn - determination of the 'mean' normal seen by the 4-spacecraft set (timing correlation analysis). - check the conservation of normal magnetic field component Bn. - check the mean upstream magnetic field vector seen by each satellite: -> estimate of B0 for the tetrahedron and associated error. • Criterion 2: careful conversion of temporal scales (time series of the shock crossings) to real spatial scales - take into account the shock velocity in each s/c frame - relative orientations of the s/c trajectories w.r.t. the shock normal: determination of the width along the normal. A long 'temporal' scale can lead to 'real' narrow ramp width … !

  17. Validity criteria for the method (2) • Criterion 3: careful determination of the upstream parameters solar wind ion density and temperature caution: not reliable when Cluster CIS in magnetospheric mode. Use of ACE data and Cluster/WHISPER (plasma frequency) data. caution: He++/H+ ratio (to avoid ~20 % error in mass density) -> determination of Alfvèn velocity -> MA -> determination of bi

  18. Four spacecraft measurements of the quasi-perpendicular terrestrial bow shock: [Horbury et al., JGR, 2002] clean, sharp shock 5 vectors/s complex, disturbed shock shock with probable acceleration

  19. Four spacecraft measurements of the quasi-perpendicular terrestrial bow shock: [Horbury et al., JGR, 2002] clean, sharp shock 5 vectors/s complex, disturbed shock shock with probable acceleration

  20. Characteristics of the sample From 455 shocks: 24 shocks with all validated criteria Number of occurence Bn MA i majority below 0.1 majority above 84°

  21. Typical shock crossing Bn= 89° ± 2° MA=4.1 i=0.05 C4 C4 C3 C3 Lramp= 5 c/pe n X’ (km) Z’ (km) C1 C1 C2 C4 C2 C2 Sequence of crossings order Y’ (km) Y’ (km) S/c positions in (x,n) plane and perpendicular to n |B| C1 at ref. time (ramp middle of ref. sat. 4) . Very thin ramp: some electron inertial lengths . Variablilty of ion foot, ramp and overshoot thicknesses • evidence of shock non-stationarity and self-reformation C3 c/ωpi

  22. Outline Aim: Experimental evidence of shock front nonstationarity from determination of characteristic sub-scaleswith multi-satellite observations • previous (pre-Cluster) experimental determinations of scales. • Multi-spacecraft analysis from Cluster. Cases studies. Methodology and cautions. • Statistical analysis of Cluster results. • Comparison with PIC numerical simulations results. • Comparison with previous experimental results. • perspective: Cross-scale missions, Heliospheric shock.

  23. Statistical results (24 shocks = 96 crossings): ramps (1) Thinnest ramp for each shock Lramp in

  24. Statistical results (24 shocks = 96 crossings): ramps (1) Thinnest ramp for each shock • Ramps of the order of a few c/ωpe, for a large range of Bn  electron scale rather than ion electron dynamics important Lramp in

  25. Statistical results (24 shocks = 96 crossings): ramps (1) Thinnest ramp for each shock • Ramps of the order of a few c/ωpe, for a large range of Bn  electron scale rather than ion electron dynamics important • Change of regime around 85-87°  dispersive effects? Tend to broaden the ramp? ? ? Lramp in critical angle between ‘oblique’ and ‘ perpendicular’ shock for lowand Mf ~1cr= 87°(e.g. Balikhin et al., 1995)

  26. Statistical results (24 shocks = 96 crossings): ramps (2) all ramps ion inertial length Larger probability to cross a thin ramp (<< c/ωpi) !

  27. Statistical results (24 shocks = 96 crossings): ramps (3) all ramps Lramp in Lramp in no simple trend trend: thickest ramps decrease with MA only thin ramps close to 90° really perpendicular shocks?

  28. Outline Aim: Experimental evidence of shock front nonstationarity from determination of characteristic sub-scales with multi-satellite observations • previous (pre-Cluster) experimental determinations of scales. • Multi-spacecraft analysis from Cluster. Cases studies. Methodology and cautions. • Statistical analysis of Cluster results. • Comparison with PIC numerical simulations results. • Comparison with previous experimental results. • perspective: Cross-scale missions, Heliospheric shock.

  29. Comparison with 2D PIC simulations mp/me=400

  30. Comparison with 2D PIC simulations: ramps mp/me=400

  31. Statistical Results: ion foots (1) • Foot thickness < Larmor radius as expected • Mainly low values Number of occurence Lfoot in  Ci,upstream

  32. Ion foots: comparison with 2D PIC simulations mp/me=400 Acceleration of the growth of the ion foot both in amplitude and thickness during one self-reformation cycle higher probability to cross an ion foot with a small thickness? seems qualitatively consistent with observations needs more quantitative investigation

  33. Statistical Results: ion foots (2) Comparison of largest observed value with 'stationary' theoretical value [Schwartz et al., 1983] : d = 0.648 Ci,upstream for Bn = 90° and Vn =0°  another signature of shock cyclic self-reformation Red : stationary theoretical values Blue : largest observed values Lfoot in  Ci,upstream Shock number where reflected ion turn-around distance [Woods, 1969]

  34. Statistical results (24 shocks = 96 crossings): overshoot Number of occurence 3 Lovershoot in c/ωpiupstream Majority between 1 and 3 c/ωpi as e.g. in Mellott and Livesey [1987] but also large variability due to self-reformation of the shock

  35. Outline Aim: Experimental evidence of shock front nonstationarity from determination of characteristic sub-scales with multi-satellite observations • previous (pre-Cluster) experimental determinations of scales. • Multi-spacecraft analysis from Cluster. Cases studies. Methodology and cautions. • Statistical analysis of Cluster results. • Comparison with PIC numerical simulations results. • Comparison with previous experimental results. • perspective: Cross-scale missions, Heliospheric shock.

  36. Previous study from Cluster data (2) [Bale et al., PRL, 2003] macroscopic density transition scale Shock scale: convective downstream gyroradius 5 Hz data ion inertial length Fit of the density profile by an analytical shape (hyberbolic tangent) No separation between ramp and foot Typical shock size: ion scales "This technique captures only the largest transition scale at the shock"[Bale et al., 2003] Here, different approach sub-structures taken into account

  37. Statistical results (24 shocks = 96 crossings) Is the shock front thickness simply dependent on Mach Number? Comparaison with results from Bale et al. (2003)

  38. Statistical results (24 shocks = 96 crossings) Is the shock front thickness simply dependent on Mach Number? Comparaison with results from Bale et al. (2003) • result seems to depend on the sample used. • no simple dependence Lramp+footin c /ωpi Signature of non stationarity Magnetosonic Mach number

  39. Statistical results (24 shocks = 96 crossings) Is the shock front thickness simply dependent on Mach Number? Comparaison with results from Bale et al. (2003) • result seems to depend on the sample used. • no simple dependence Lramp+footin c /ωpi Signature of non stationarity Magnetosonic Mach number

  40. Previous study from Cluster data (3) [Lobzin et al., GRL, 2007] one case study: highly supercritical Q-perp shock Variability of the shock front with embeded nonlinear whistler wave trains and "bursty" quasi-periodic production of reflected ions proposed as experimental evidence of non stationarity and self-reformation as described in Krasnoselskikh et al. [2002] Bn= 81° MA=10 i=0.6 Here, different approach accumulation of case studies (statistics)

  41. Other shock sub-structures: Electric field spikes (1) [Walker et al., 2004]

  42. Other shock sub-structures: Electric field spikes (2) Histogram of the scale sizes for the spike-like enhancements [Walker et al., 2004] E-field spikes c/ωpi

  43. Other shock sub-structures: Electric field spikes (2) Histogram of the scale sizes for the spike-like enhancements [Walker et al., 2004] E-field spikes magnetic ramps c/ωpi c/ωpi Similar distribution to that for magnetic ramps with smaller values

  44. Other shock sub-structures: Electric field spike (3) Dependence of scale size on Bn [Walker et al., 2004] E-field spikes

  45. Other shock sub-structures: Electric field spike (3) Dependence of scale size on Bn magnetic ramps [Walker et al., 2004] E-field spikes Lramp in Similar trend for only low values close to 90°

  46. Other shock sub-structures: Electric field spike (4) Dependence of scale size on upstream Mach number [Walker et al., 2004] E-field spikes

  47. Other shock sub-structures: Electric field spike (4) Dependence of scale size on upstream Mach number [Walker et al., 2004] magnetic ramps E-field spikes Similar trend: upper limit tend to decrease with increasing Mach Number

  48. Ramp sub-structure Magnetic ramps often reveal sub-structure : nature? 22 Hz data Time (hrs.)

  49. Ramp sub-structure Magnetic ramps often reveal sub-structure : nature? signature due to electric field short scale structure? 22 Hz data Time (hrs.) Need further investigation but electric field data not always available

  50. Outline Aim: Experimental evidence of shock front nonstationarity from determination of characteristic sub-scales with multi-satellite observations • previous (pre-Cluster) experimental determinations of scales. • Multi-spacecraft analysis from Cluster. Cases studies. Methodology and cautions. • Statistical analysis of Cluster results. • Comparison with PIC numerical simulations results. • Comparison with previous experimental results. • perspective: Cross-scale missions, Heliospheric shock.

More Related