1 / 22

Simulating the Rise of Low Twist Flux Ropes

Simulating the Rise of Low Twist Flux Ropes in the Convection Zone Mark Linton (Naval Research Lab) James Leake (George Mason University). Observations of Solar Active Region Twist.

agalia
Download Presentation

Simulating the Rise of Low Twist Flux Ropes

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. Simulating the Rise of Low Twist Flux Ropes in the Convection ZoneMark Linton (Naval Research Lab) James Leake (George Mason University)

  2. Observations of Solar Active Region Twist These findings are consistent with what is produced by turbulence acting on rising convection zone flux tubes, with zero initial twist. Longcope, Fisher & Pevtsov (1998). Measurements of active regions twists: α =<Jz/Bz>~3x10-10θdeg /m, (z vertical). Average |α| < 10-8/m. Pevtsov, Canfield & Metcalf (1995), Longcope, Fisher & Pevtsov (1998).

  3. 2D: Untwisted Buoyant Flux Ropes Will Fragment During Rise Schüssler (1979) • Active region observations are consistent with the emergence of untwisted flux ropes. • 2D MHD simulations show that untwisted buoyant flux ropes quickly fragment and stop rising. • Question: What allows flux ropes to rise to surface and emerge with low or zero levels of twist? Longcope, Fisher & Arendt (1996)

  4. Does Viscosity Affect this Fragmentation? Lare2D simulation of rise and fragmentation of untwisted flux ropes, at different viscosities (greyscale of Baxial). ν0trise/R2= 3x10-3 as in Longcope et al. (1996). Convection zone viscosity ~10-9ν0. Decreasing the viscosity enhances fragmentation, so this does not help with maintaining coherency. 10ν0 ν0 ν0/10

  5. Maintaining Flux Rope Coherence with Twist Velocity of the tube apex (circles) and center (stars) versus time. • Conclusion: twist allows flux ropes to maintain their coherence when they rise through the convection zone. • Flux ropes reach a steady-state velocity (vrise) when their buoyancy balances the drag force. • For a twist of <α>~30x10-8/m, the flux tube resists breakup during its rise from -40Mm.Emonet & Moreno-Insertis (1998). Rise of twisted flux rope in 2D, 300x700 grid simulation (L-R symmetric).

  6. Buoyant Rise of Twisted Flux Ropes, Test Run With Lare2D Code Test of Emonet & Moreno-Insertis (1998) run with the Lare2D code at resolution of 600x700, with no left-right asymmetry assumed. Times shown are: [0, 1.4, 2.7, 4.1, 5.4, 6.8] t0. The results of Emonet & Moreno-Insertis are well reproduced.

  7. Flux Rope Evolution as a Function of Initial Twist Twist decreases in strength from left to right as <α>~[60, 30, 10, 0]x10-8/m (for z0=-40Mm). This results in decreasing coherence of flux ropes. At zero twist, flux rope entirely splits into two (Emonet & Moreno-Insertis 1998).

  8. Theory of twist limit for breakup • Predict coherence of tube if maximum twist Alfven speed is greater than the flux tube rise speed: vA,θ > vrise. (Emonet & Moreno-Insertis 1998) • For constant twist Bθ=qrBz, maximum vA,θ~ B0qR/ √ρ. • Terminal rise speed: drag balances buoyancy. • gδρ/ρ=CDvrise2/(2πR)~ vrise2/R, • vrise~ √(Rg δρ/ρ) ~ √(Rg/β) (for isothermal buoyancy, δρ/ρ ~ 1/β). • This gives qcr = αaxis/2 > 1/√(Hp R), where pressure scale height is Hp=p/(g ρ).

  9. Twist threshold for breakup at high η • 2D (Lare2D) simulations for resistivity η/vAaxisHp=3x10-4, • R=.6Mm, z0=-40Mm. • Critical twist for flux rope coherence of αaxis> 22x10-8/m. Agrees with Abbett et al. (2000) 3D simulations for the same flux rope and resistivity. αaxis= 22x10-8/m Tube breaks up. αaxis= 27x10-8/m Tube core remains intact.

  10. Twist threshold for breakup at η=0 Time: Time: • Lare2D simulations for zero explicit resistivity. • Now the critical twist for flux rope coherence is αaxis> 16x10-8/m. • Effect of resistivity: diffuses axial field, decreasing the magnetic pressure of the tube. Plasma pressure compresses tube, increasing the central density. This can even make tube negatively buoyant. • Conclusion: Keeping resistivity as low as possible (in line with solar values) is important for coherence. 12t0 11t0 8t0 8t0 4t0 4t0 αaxis= 16x10-8/m Tube splits. αaxis= 18x10-8/m Tube holds together.

  11. Effect of Curvature on Buoyant Flux Tubes Left panels:α=0. Right panels: α=12/z0 at axis. α=30x10-8/m for z0=-40Mm or α=6x10-8/m for z0=-200Mm . Buoyant rise of twisted flux ropes in 3D, with arched axes. Left panels: untwisted flux rope. Right panels: twisted flux rope. The untwisted flux rope breaks up, while the twisted flux rope keeps a coherent core, as for 2D results. Abbett, Fisher & Arendt (2000)

  12. Fragmentation of Flux Ropes Versus Curvature of Axis • Curvature decreases from SS1 to LL1, and L1 has no curvature. • The tubes split up increasingly rapidly as the curvature decreases. • Conclusion: 3D curvature effects play significant role in keeping flux ropes coherent. Abbett, Fisher & Arendt (2000). • Authors conclude that this is due to twisting up of tubes during breakup. • Could tension force also be playing a role? Flux ropes break up for these simulations, where αaxis = 15x10-8/m is smaller than the critical twist for this setup of αaxis> 24x10-8/m (if z0=-40Mm).

  13. Coherence of Flux Ropes at Zero Twist • Tubes maintain coherence of cross section for rise of at least on density scale height. • Concludes that added coherence is due to slow rise from initial neutral buoyancy, plus counter-rotation on each side of apex, which adds twist (similar to mechanism in Abbett et al 2000). Fan (2001) Formation of arched, buoyant flux tube due to undular instability in magnetic flux sheet at base of convection zone.

  14. Effect of Solar Rotation on Rising Tubes Cross sections of rising tubes with (left: LFLL) and without (right: SS0) effects of rotation, with zero twist (B0=27 kG). Untwisted flux rope rising under effects of solar rotation (B0=100 kG). Coriolis effect acting on rising flux ropes has significant effect on coherence, deflecting vortical flows which otherwise break up flux rope. This allows zero twist field to maintain through rise over tens of Mm. Abbett, Fisher & Fan (2001)

  15. Theory of twist limit for breakup Why does curvature in 3D decrease qcr or αcr, as found by Abbett et al (2001)? Hypothesis – downward tension force reduces vrise, therefore reducing the critical twist. Force balance is then: (gδρ-κB02/2)/ρ=CDvrise2/(2πR), where κ is the downward curvature of the tube axis. Twist limit should then scale as: αaxis ~ (..)*√(gδρ - κB02/2)/ρ Instead of ~(…)*√(gδρ/ρ). Coherence of tubes in rotating Sun may be partly due to this, also, as Coriolis effect slows down tube rise speed. Test this hypothesis in 2.5D by simulating tubes with smaller buoyancy δρ/ρ, e.g. p ~ ρ5/ ξ , so δρ/ρ ~ ξ/(5β). Try the following initial buoyancy states: ξ=5 isothermal, δρ/ρ ~ 1/β. ξ=3 isentropic, δρ/ρ ~ 3/(5β). ξ=1 low buoyancy, δρ/ρ ~ 1/(5β).

  16. Rise at twist limit for different buoyancies For p~ρ5/ ξ, buoyancy is: δρ/ρ ~ ξ/(5β). Prediction: vrise ~√(ξ) αcrit~√(ξ). Rise speed scales as predicted, though ξ =1 case rises slightly faster than expected. Twist limits: ξ=3 vs ξ=5 follows predicted scaling. ξ=1 limit is 25% larger than predicted. Time: 11t0/√(ξ/5) 8t0/√(ξ/5) 4t0/√(ξ/5) Isentropic: ξ=3 αaxis= 14x10-8/m Isothermal: ξ=5 αaxis= 18x10-8/m Low buoyancy: ξ=1 αaxis= 11x10-8/m

  17. Rise of 3D Tubes Through Convection Zone Untwisted flux ropes break up during rise, even with solar rotation. Coriolis effect alone does not keep tubes coherent here. Twisted flux ropes rise coherently. Jouve & Brun (2007) At high twist, most of tube rises, but twist effect generates wrong sign of tilt. At low twist (shown here) 45% of flux makes it to near surface with α~5x10-8. Fan (2009)

  18. Tests of Coherence over Long Rise Scales Cartesian domain, covering most of convection zon: z=-200Mm to -20Mm, x=+/-90Mm. Tube starts at z=-184Mm, with radius=2Mm B0=92kG, axial flux=1022Mx αaxial=6.6x10-8/m Large radius tube starting from base of convection zone can rise with lower twist, as α~ 1/√(RHp). Some breakup, but 40% of original axial flux makes it up to -50Mm, consistent with Fan (2009) 3D result.

  19. Lower Twist Limit for Deep Tubes • At αaxial=4.4x10-8/m, just 12% of original flux rises to -50Mm (not shown). • At αaxial=3.3x10-8/m (above), flux rope splits up entirely. • Limit may decrease further when add in low buoyancy, curvature and rotation effects (see Abbett et al, Jouve & Brun, Fan simulations). • However, convective flows, not addressed here, may increase minimum amount of twist required (see, eg, Abbett et al 2004 simulations).

  20. Twist effects on Emergence into Corona αaxis =360x10-8/m αaxis =240x10-8/m Height of top of tube at various twists αaxis, in units of 1.2x10-5/m. For αaxis < 120x10-8/m, the tube does not emerge. αaxis =120x10-8/m Next question: Even after flux rope makes it to surface, must still emerge into corona to be observed. Murray et al (2006) find that twist must be larger than αaxis =120x10-8/m for emergence. This is ~40x larger than the average twist of most active regions. How do such low twist regions emerge?

  21. Twist Trapped Below Surface in Emergence? Left: fieldlines from two projections for emerged, twisted flux rope. Below: α versus depth for recently emerged flux rope, in units of α0 = 667x10-8/m. Twist above surface has α ~ 67x10-8/m. • Simulation by Fan (2009) shows that significant portion of twist remains below surface when high twist tube emerges. • Twist at and above surface is ~10% of twist in in subsurface tube. • Twist in average, sub-surface tube could therefore be ~10-7/m rather than ~10-8/m observed at surface. • Archontis & Torok (2008) show emergence of tube with α0~ 60x10-8/m. Surface twist could therefore be ~ 6x10-8/m.

  22. Summary / Questions • Many simulations of flux ropes rising in convection zone have twists larger than that observed. Is this high level required? • The critical twist for coherence is largely determined by the rise speed: decreasing the initial buoyancy can decrease the critical twist required. • Does axial curvature slow down the flux rope rise sufficiently to keep rope coherent, or is it the added twisting of the arched legs (Abbett et al 2000)? • Problem less severe for large flux ropes, as the critical twist ~ 1/ √(HpR): • 2D isothermal 2Mm rope at base of convection zone needs αaxial ~ 5x10-8/m. • Curvature / Coriolis / low buoyancy slow down tube, giving lower necessary twist. But not without limit – convective flows will also destroy tubes, and these do not depend on tube speed. • Why are do flux ropes emerging through the photosphere need twists ~40x larger than those observed (Murray et al. 2006)? Can lower twist ropes emerge with less twist, given more time (Archontis & Torok 2008)? Or is most of this twist unobservable, as it is trapped below the photosphere (Fan 2009)?

More Related