Structure and Dynamics of Inner

Magnetosphere
and Their Effects on Radiation Belt
Electrons

APL

Chia-Lin Huang

Boston University, MA, USA

CISM Seminar, March 24th, 2008

Special thanks: Harlan Spence, Mary Hudson, John Lyon, Jeff Hughes, Howard Singer, Scot Elkington, and many more

Goals of my Research
To understand the physics describing the structure and
dynamics of field configurations in the inner
magnetosphere
To assess the performance of global magnetospheric
models under various conditions
To quantify the response of global magnetic and electric
fields to solar wind variations, and ultimately their effects
on radial transport of radiation belt electrons.

Motivation: Radiation Belts

Discovery of Van Allen radiation
belts Explorer 1, 1958
Trapped protons & electrons,
spatial distribution (2-7 RE),
energy (~MeV)

outer belt slot region inner belt

J. Goldstein

Dynamical Radiation Belt

Electrons
Why study radiation
belt electrons?
Because they are
physically interesting

Radiation damage to
spacecraft and human
activity in space

Green [2002]

Goal: describe and

predict how radiation
belts evolves in time at
a given point in space

Solar Wind and Magnetosphere

Ring Current

Average picture of solar wind and magnetosphere (magnetic field,

regions, inner mag. plasmas)

Variations of Psw, IMF Bz causes magnetospheric dynamics

5

Magnetic Storms

Most intense solar

wind-magnetosphere
coupling

IMF Bz southward,
strong electric field in
the tail

Formation of ring
current and its effect to
field configurations

Dst measures ring current development

Storm sudden commencement (SSC),

main phase, and recovery phase
Duration: days

Magnetospheric Pulsations
Ultra-low-frequency (ULF) MHD waves
Frequency and time scale: 2-7 mHz, 1-10 minutes
Field fluctuation magnitude

First observed in 19th century

Waves standing along the magnetic field lines connect to
ionospheres [Dungey, 1954]
Morphology and generation mechanisms are not fully
understood

Global Magnetospheric Models

Provide global B and E fields needed for radiation belt study

Data-based: Tsyganenko models

Parameterized, quansi-static state of average magnetic field
configurations

Physics-based: Global MHD code

Self-consistent, time dependent, realistic magnetosphere

Global MHD simulation

Importance and applications, validation of the global models

Empirical model

Tsyganenko model

LFM MHD code

8

Charged Particle Motion in

Magnetosphere
Gyro, bounce and drift motions
Gyro ~millisecond, bounce ~ 0.1-1 second, drift ~1-10 minutes

Adiabatic invariants and L-shell

B
J p|| ds
BdS
To change particle energy, must violate one or more invariants
Sudden changes of field configurations
Small but periodic variation of field configurations

Why is it so Hard? What Would

Help?
Proposed physical processes
Acceleration: large- and small-scale recirculations, heating by
Whistler waves, radial diffusion by ULF waves, cusp source,
substorm injection, sudden impulse of solar wind pressure and
etc.
Loss: pitch angle diffusion, Coulomb collision, and
Magnetopause shadowing.
Transport

Difficulties to differentiate the mechanisms:

Lack of Measurements
Lack of an accurate magnetic and electric field model
Converting particle flux to distribution function is tricky
Need better understanding of wave-particle interactions
Computational resource
10

The Rest of the Talk

Magnetospheric field dynamics: data & models
Large-scale: Magnetic storms
Small-scale: ULF wave fields

Effects of field dynamics on radiation belt

electrons
Create wave field simulations
Quantify electron radial transport in the wave fields

11

Lyon-Fedder-Mobbary Code Lyon et al.

[2004]

Uses the ideal MHD equations to model the interaction

between the solar wind, magnetosphere, and ionosphere
Simulation domain and grid
2D electrostatic ionosphere
Solar wind inputs

LFM grid in equatorial plane

Field configurations and

wave field validations by
comparing w/ GOES data

12

Data/Model Case Study

24-26 September 1998 major storm event (Dst minimum -213 nT)
LFM inputs: solar wind and IMF data
Geosynchronous orbit

Compare LFM and GOES B-field

at GEO orbit
Sep98 event: solar wind data and Dst

13

Statistical Data/Model
Comparisons
9 magnetic storms; 2month non-storm
interval

Field residual B = BMHD BGOES

LFM field lines are

consistently understretched, especially
during storm-time, on
the nightside
Predict reasonable
non-storm time field

Improvements of LFM
Increase grid
resolution
Add ring current

14

Statistical comparison of
Tsyganenko models and GOES
data
52 major magnetic storm from 1996 to 2004
TS05 has the best performance in all local time and storm levels
Field residual B = BGOES BTmodel

T96

T02

TS05

Under-estimate

Perfect prediction

Over-estimate

15

Consequence of field model

errors

Inaccurate B-field model could alter the results of related studies

Example: radial profiles of phase space density of radiation belt electrons

Discrepancies between Tsyganenko models using same inputs

Model field lines traced from GOES-8s position (left)
Pitch angles at GOES-8s position and at magnetic equator (right)

~15% error
between T96
and TS05

16

ULF Waves in
Magnetosphere

NASA

Wave sources: shear flow, variation in the solar wind pressure, IMF Bz, and
instability etc.

Previous studies: integrated wave power, wave occurrence

Next, calculate wave power as function of frequency using GOES data;

wave field prediction of LFM and T model.

17

Power Spectral Density (PSD)

Calculate PSD using 3hour GOES B-field data

Procedures:
1.

Take out sudden field

change

2.

De-trend w/
polynomial fit

3.

De-spike w/ 3 standard
deviations

4.

High pass filter (0.5

mHz)

5.

FFT to obtain PSD

[nT2/Hz]

18

GOES B-field PSDs in FAC

Noon

9 years of GOES data (G-8, G-9 and G-10

satellites)
Field-aligned coordinates
Separate into 3-hour intervals (8 local time sectors)
Calculate PSDs

Midnight

Median PSD in each frequency bin

Compressional

Azimuthal

Dawn

Dusk

Radial

19

PSDB [nT2/Hz]

Sorting GOES Bb PSD by SW Vx

20

Bz southward

PSDB [nT2/Hz]

Bz northward

Sorting GOES Bb PSD by IMF Bz

21

ULF Waves in LFM code

Direct comparisons of ULF waves during Feb-Apr 1996 in fieldaligned coord.

GOES data

Bb
compressional
Bn
radial

PSDB [nT2/Hz]

LFM output

B
azimuthal

Local Time

Much
better than
expected!

22

Dst and Kp effects on ULF wave

power
High Dst interval

Low Dst interval

Dst -40 nT

Dst > -40 nT

ULF wave power

has higher
dependence on Kp
than Dst

Even though LFM

does not
reproduce perfect
ring current, it
predicts
reasonable field
perturbations

High Kp interval
Kp 4

Low Kp interval
Kp < 4

23

TS05 model

LFM code

GOES data

ULF wave prediction of Tsyganenko

model

Underestimates
the wave power
at
geosynchronous
orbit

Field fluctuations
are results of an
external driver

Lack of the
internal physical
processes

24

Summary of Model
Performance

Use LFMs wave fields during non-storm time to study ULF

wave effects on radiation belt electrons
Such conditions exist during high speed solar wind
streams intervals.

25

ULF Wave Effects on RB

Electrons
Strong correlation between ULF wave power and radiation
belt electron flux [Rostoker et al., 1998]
Drift resonant theory [Hudson et al., 1999 and Elkington et al., 1999]
ULF waves can effectively accelerate relativistic electrons

Elkington et al. [2003]

Rostoker et al. [1998]

Quantitative description of wave-particle interaction

26

Particle Diffusion in
Magnetosphere
Diffusion theory: time
evolution of a distribution
of particles whose
trajectories are disturbed
by innumerable small,
random changes.
Pitch angle diffusion (loss):
violate 1st or 2nd invariant
Radial diffusion (transport
and acceleration): violate
3rd invariant

f

1 2

D
L f
LL 2

t L
L L

(Radial diffusion equation)

, where DLL

L2
2

day
1

(Radial diffusion coefficient)

27

Radial Diffusion Coefficient,

DLL
Large deviations in previous
studies
Possible shortcomings

Experimental (solid) and

theoretical (dashed) DLL values

Walt [1994]

Over simplified theoretical

assumptions
Lack of accurate magnetic field
model and wave field map
Insufficient measurement

M. Walts suggestion: follow RB

particles in realistic
magnetospheric configurations

28

When Does LFM Predict Waves

Well?
GOES and LFM PSDs
sorted by solar wind
Vx bins
LFM does better during
moderate activities
Create ULF wave
activities by driving
the LFM code with
synthetic solar wind
pressure input

O
29

Solar Wind Pressure

Variation

Histograms of solar wind dynamic

pressure from 9 years of Wind data for
Vx = 400, 500, and 600 km/s bins

Make time-series pressure variations

proportional to solar wind Vx
30

Synthetic Solar Wind Pressure

(Vx)

LFM inputs:
Constant Vx; variation in number density.
Northward IMF Bz (+2 nT), to isolate pressure driven waves.

Idealized LFM Vx simulations using high time and spatial resolutions

31

Idealized Vx Simulations

LFM Vx runs

GOES data

Vx = 400

Vx = 500

Vx=600

GOES statistical
study (9 years
data) as function
of Vx (mostly
northward IMF)

Drive LFM to
produce real ULF
waves with solar
wind dynamic
pressure variations
as function of Vx
(purely
northward IMF)

32

E Wave Power Spatial

Distributions
6 mHz

Wave power

PSDE ( f ) df

[(mV / m) 2 ]

0.5 mHz

Wave power increases as Vx (Pd variations) increases

Wave amplitude is higher at larger radial distance (wave source)

33

Radiation Belt Simulations

Test particle code [Elkington et al., 2004]

Satisfy 1st adiabatic invariant

Guiding center approximation
90o pitch angle electron
Push particles using LFM magnetic and electric
fields

Simulate particles in
LFM Vx = 400 and 600 km/s runs

Particle initial conditions

Fixed = 1800 MeV/G

Radial: 4 to 8 RE
1o azimuthal direction
~15000 particles /run

34

Rate of Electron Radial Transport

(DLL)
2 k0
Convert particle location to L* [Roederer, 1970]
L*
RE
L2

DLL
Calculate our radial diffusion coefficient, DLL(Vx)
2

DLL
increases
with Vx

DLL increases with L

35

Compare DLL Values I

The major differences

between previous
studies and this work

B ~10 nT

Amplitude of wave field

IMF Bz
Magnetic field model
Particle energy
Calculating method
Theoretical assumption

Differences make it
impossible for a fair
comparison

B ~2 nT

B ~1 nT

Highlight: Selesnick et al.

[1997]

36

Compare DLL Values II

DLL ~ dB2

[Schulz and Lanzerotti, 1974]

After scaling for wave power

Compare to Selesnick et al.
[1997] again
Match well with Vx=600 km/s
interval (L-dependent)
Average Vx of Selesnick et al.
[2007] and IMF Bz effect

This suggests that radial

diffusion is well-simulated, can
differentiate from other physical
processes
DLL(Vx, Bz, Pdyn, Kp etc.)
37

Summary
TS05 best predicts GEO magnetic fields in all conditions
LFM has good predictions of quiet time fields, but not for
storm time
ULF wave structures and amplitudes at GEO sorted by
selected parameters
ULF wave field predictions: LFM is very good, but not TS05
Radial diffusion coefficient derived from MHD/Particle code

38

Conclusions and Achievements

Most comprehensive, independent study of state-of-the-art
empirical magnetic field models
Most quantitative investigation of global MHD simulations in
the inner magnetosphere
Most comprehensive observational ULF wave fields at
geosynchronous orbit dedicated to outer zone electron
study
First exploration on ULF wave field performance of global
magnetospheric models
First DLL calculation by following relativistic electrons in
realistic, self-consistent field configurations and wave fields
of an MHD code
39