You are on page 1of 19

# Computing the DEM out of MHD Simulations and Comparing It with Observations

Roberto Lionello1 Jon A. Linker1 Zoran Miki´ 1 c Yung Mok2

1

2

2010 Shine Workshop, Santa Fe, NM – p.

NM – p.Introduction • • We show how to compute differential emission measure. Emission in EUV and X ray bands calculated from our simulations has been compared with observations. Santa Fe. radiative losses. or DEM. . We present comparisons with Whole Sun Month and with the July 2010 eclipse. and coronal heating terms in the energy equation and has been used extensively to model realistic conﬁgurations of the corona and active regions. • • • 2010 Shine Workshop. out of the temperature and density distributions obtained from 3D MHD simulations of the solar corona. Our 3D MHD algorithm has thermal conduction. Now we can also compare the DEM from the model with that obtained from observations.

−T ∇ · v − mp (∇ · q + ne np Q(T ) − Hch ). . Santa Fe. ˆˆ −κ0 T 5/2 bb · ∇T αne kT v if R⊙ ≤ r 10R⊙ if r 10R⊙ .The Thermodynamic MHD Model ∇×A ∂A ∂t ∂ρ + ∇·(ρv) ∂t ∂T + v · ∇T ∂t = = = = B. 2010 Shine Workshop. c2 η v×B− ∇ × B. NM – p. 2kρ 1 γ−1 ρ ∂v + v·∇v ∂t γ q = = = ∇×B×B − ∇p − ∇pw + ρg + ∇ · (νρ∇v). 4π 0. 4π 5/3.

which we neglected in this investigation. NM – p. • • fi (T. synthetic images can be created and compared with the observations. The fi (T. ne (h)) dh e [DN/s] . 2010 Shine Workshop. geometry.Synthetic Emission Images • • Given ne and T from the thermodynamic MHD model. integrated along the line of sight w. ne ) is a function that takes into account of atomic physics. and the properties of both the instrument and the ﬁlters. . Santa Fe. The ﬂux of solar photons registered by an instrument in a given conﬁguration i is given by w D= 0 n2 (h)fi (T (h). ne )s have weak dependency on ne .

EIT and SXT Response Functions 1000 EIT 171 Å EIT 195 Å EIT 284 Å SXT AlMg DN/s/pixel for EM=1e26 cm −5 100 10 1 0. . NM – p.01 10000 100000 1e+06 Temperature in K 1e+07 1e+08 2010 Shine Workshop.1 0. Santa Fe.

we have ∞ I= 0 A(X)G(T )DEM(T ) dT where A(X) is the abundance of the element in respect to hydrogen and G(T ) is the contribution that depends on T for the lines from allowed transitions. e • • • Important constraint for theoretical model of observed plasmas.Differential Emission Measure • • The DEM is related to the electron density and to the temperature gradient of a plasma and is tied to the distribution of plasma with temperature. Santa Fe. For an optically thin emission line. The DEM can be used to calculate emission of the Sun in EUV and X-rays and radiative losses from plasmas in the solar atmosphere. Along the line of site. . 2010 Shine Workshop. the DEM is deﬁned as: ∞ w DEM(T ) dT = 0 0 n2 (h) dh. • DEM(T ) can be derived from a set of lines using inversion techniques. NM – p.

We select an interval in temperature and divide it into bins of width ∆Ti centered around Ti . Santa Fe. NM – p. We are spared the complicated inversion techniques. For each bin Ti we calculate: 1 DEM(Ti ) = ∆Ti n2 (hj )∆hj e j Ti +∆Ti /2 gj (T ) dT Ti −∆Ti /2 • Possible expressions for the distribution function gj (assuming that T (hj+1/2 ) > T (hj−1/2 )): gj (T ) gj (T ) = = δ(T − T (hj )). .Calculating DEM from MHD Simulations • • • • From our MHD simulations we obtain the plasma density and temperature everywhere in the computational domain.  1  T (hj+1/2 ) − T (hj−1/2 )  0 T (hj−1/2 ) < T < T (hj+1/2 ) elsewhere 2010 Shine Workshop.

2008). using different heating models and comparing with observations (Lionello et al. Santa Fe. Differential Emission Measure for the Elephant Trunk’s coronal hole was calculated by Del Zanna and Bromage (1996) using SOHO/CDS.. We also investigated the structure of the global corona.Application to the 1st Whole Sun Month Campaign • • • • The sun was studied in detail during the ﬁrst Whole Sun Month campaign (August 8 to September 10. . 1996). 2005. With our thermodynamic model we studied Active Region 7986 (Mok et al. NM – p.. 2010 Shine Workshop. 2009).

Emission of the Global Corona During WSM Observations Exponential Schrijver et al. 195. . Rows show emission in the EIT 171. NM – p. each remaining column shows the computed emission. Composite EIT 171 Å Log10 of DN/s/pixel 10 −1 10 10 3 EIT 195 Å Log10 of DN/s/pixel 10 −1 10 10 3 EIT 284 Å Log10 of DN/s/pixel 10 −2 1 10 2 SXT AlMg Log10 of DN/s/pixel 10 −1 10 10 3 The ﬁrst column shows the observed emission. Santa Fe. and 284 Å band and in 2010 Shine Workshop. the SXT AlMg conﬁguration.

NM – p.Elephant’s Trunk DEM from Del Zanna and Bromage (1996) 2010 Shine Workshop. Santa Fe. 1 .

Elephant’s Trunk DEM in MHD Simulation 30 28 log DEM [cm K ] 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 4 4.5 -1 -5 Active Region Coronal Hole Quiet Sun Flare Flare Ext.5 log T [K] 7 7. Santa Fe.5 5 5. 1 example values. . NM – p.5 8 Calculated from the simulation of Lionello et al. Prominence Simulation 6 6. (2009) and compared with CHIANTI 2010 Shine Workshop.

5 8 -1 Schrijver et al.5 7 7.5 8 -1 -5 Active Region Coronal Hole Quiet Sun Flare Flare Ext.5 log T [K] 7 7.5 5 5. Prominence Simulation Active Region Coronal Hole Quiet Sun Flare Flare Ext.5 6 log T [K] 6. Heating (B/L) 30 28 log DEM [cm K ] 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 4 4. Santa Fe. 1 . Prominence Simulation -5 Active Region Coronal Hole Quiet Sun Flare Flare Ext.5 6 log T [K] 6. 2010 Shine Workshop. (2009). Prominence Simulation Calculated from the simulations of Lionello et al.5 5 5.Quiet Sun DEM in MHD Simulation Composite Heating 30 28 log DEM [cm K ] 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 4 4.5 8 -1 -5 Exponential Heating 30 28 log DEM [cm K ] 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 4 4. where three different heating models are used. and compared with CHIANTI example values.5 6 6.5 5 5.5 7 7. NM – p.

5 6 log T [K] 6.5 5 5. Prominence Simulation -5 Active Region Coronal Hole Quiet Sun Flare Flare Ext. 1 . Heating (B/L) 30 28 log DEM [cm K ] 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 4 4.5 8 -1 -5 Exponential Heating 30 28 log DEM [cm K ] 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 4 4.5 7 7.5 7 7. 2010 Shine Workshop.5 6 log T [K] 6.5 log T [K] 7 7.5 5 5. where three different heating models are used.5 8 -1 -5 Active Region Coronal Hole Quiet Sun Flare Flare Ext.5 5 5.and compared with CHIANTI example values. NM – p. Prominence Simulation Calculated from the simulations of Lionello et al.Active Region DEM in MHD Simulation Composite Heating 30 28 log DEM [cm K ] 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 4 4. Prominence Simulation Active Region Coronal Hole Quiet Sun Flare Flare Ext.5 6 6.5 8 -1 Schrijver et al. Santa Fe. (2009).

5 8 Calculated from a high-resolution simulation (∼ 661 km) and compared with CHIANTI 2010 Shine Workshop.Active Region DEM from High-Resolution Simulation 30 28 log DEM [cm K ] 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 4 4. 1 example values.5 -1 -5 Active Region Coronal Hole Quiet Sun Flare Flare Ext. Santa Fe. Prominence Simulation 6 6. NM – p. .5 log T [K] 7 7.5 5 5.

• Polarization brightness⇒ Magnetic ﬁeld lines and contours of Br from MDI ⇐ 2010 Shine Workshop. we have made an MHD computation to predict how the solar corona would look like during this eclipse. NM – p. We have also calculated the DEM distribution for the Sun during the eclipse. 1 . Santa Fe.Structure of the Solar Corona During the July 11. measured up to July 3. Before the eclipse. using the MDI magnetograph aboard the SOHO spacecraft. a total eclipse of the Sun was visible in the southern hemisphere. We have used photospheric magnetic ﬁeld data for Carrington rotation 2097 and 2098. July 11. 2010. 2010 Total Solar Eclipse • • • On Sunday. 2010.

1 . NM – p.Coronal Emission During the Eclipse EIT 171 Å EIT 195 Å EIT 284 Å XRT Ti-poly 2010 Shine Workshop. Santa Fe.

1 .DEM from MHD Model of 2010 Eclipse 2010 Shine Workshop. Santa Fe. NM – p.

5 8 -1 -5 Quiet Sun 30 28 log DEM [cm K ] 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 4 4. NM – p.5 7 7. Santa Fe.DEM from MHD Model of 2010 Eclipse: Line Plots Coronal Hole 30 28 log DEM [cm K ] 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 4 4.5 5 5.5 log T [K] 7 7.5 8 -1 -5 Active Region Coronal Hole Quiet Sun Flare Flare Ext. Prominence Simulation Active Region Coronal Hole Quiet Sun Flare Flare Ext.5 8 -1 Active Region 30 28 log DEM [cm K ] 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 4 4.5 6 log T [K] 6. Prominence Simulation -5 Active Region Coronal Hole Quiet Sun Flare Flare Ext. 2010 Shine Workshop. Prominence Simulation Comparison of DEM from the 2010 Eclipse MHD model and the CHIANTI example values.5 7 7.5 6 log T [K] 6.5 5 5.5 5 5. 1 .5 6 6.

Active region model DEM agrees better with CHIANTI ﬂare DEM than with active region DEM.: we aim to model only coronal emission).B. New eclipse simulation seems to be in better general agreement with CHIANTI examples. 1 . A problem related to the extension of the averaging region? We are grateful to NASA Living with a Star Program for supporting this work. Heating models tend to have too much DEM at lower temperatures (N. Comparisons with observations may help in evaluating the realism of coronal heating models. NM – p. 2010 Shine Workshop. Santa Fe. The DEM from our simulations can be compared with observation and the standard values provided by CHIANTI.Conclusions • • • • • • We have designed a tool to calculate the DEM out of the density and temperature data produced by our MHD simulations.