1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: %\usepackage{figcaps}
4: %\usepackage{balance}
5: %\usepackage{aastex_plus}
6: \newcommand{\x}{\ensuremath{\times}}
7: \newcommand{\arc}{\ensuremath{^{\prime\prime}}}
8: \newcommand{\none}{\ensuremath{^{-1}}}
9: \shorttitle{Steady Heating Model for Active Region Core}
10: \shortauthors{Winebarger, Warren \& Falconer}
11: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{1.0}
12:
13: %\figcapsoff
14:
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
19: %% --- title page
20: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
21:
22: \title{Modeling X-ray Loops and EUV "Moss" in an Active Region Core}
23:
24: \author{Amy R. Winebarger}
25: \affil{Alabama A\&M University, 4900 Meridian Street, P.O. Box 1268, Normal, AL 35762; winebarger@physics.aamu.edu}
26: \author{Harry P. Warren}
27: \affil{Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375; hwarren@nrl.navy.mil}
28: \author{David A. Falconer}
29: \affil{Marshall Space Flight Center, SD50, Space Science Department,
30: Huntsville Al 35812; david.falconer@msfc.nasa.gov}
31:
32: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
33: %% --- Abstract
34: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37:
38: The Soft X-ray intensity of loops in active region cores and corresponding footpoint, or moss, intensity observed
39: in the EUV remain steady for several hours of observation. The steadiness of the emission
40: has prompted many to suggest that the heating in these loops must also be steady, though
41: no direct comparison between the observed X-ray and EUV intensities and the steady heating solutions of the hydrodynamic
42: equations has yet been made. In this paper, we perform these simulations and
43: simultaneously model the X-Ray and EUV moss intensities in one active region core with steady uniform
44: heating. To perform this task, we introduce a new technique to constrain the model parameters
45: using the measured EUV footpoint intensity to infer a heating rate.
46: Using an ensemble of loop structures derived from magnetic field extrapolation of photospheric field,
47: we associate each field line with a EUV moss intensity, then
48: determine the steady uniform heating rate on that field line that reproduces the observed EUV intensity within 5\% for a
49: specific cross sectional area, or filling factor.
50: We then calculate the total X-ray filter intensities from all loops in the ensemble and compare this to the
51: observed X-ray intensities. We complete this task iteratively to determine the filling factor that returns the
52: best match to the observed X-ray intensities.
53: We find that a filling factor of 8\% and loops that expand with height provides the best
54: agreement with the intensity in two X-ray filters, though the simulated
55: SXT Al12 intensity is 147\% the observed intensity and the
56: SXT AlMg intensity is 80\% the observed intensity.
57: From this solution, we determine the required heating rate
58: scales as ${\bar{B}}^{0.29} L^{-0.95}$. Finally we discuss the future potential of this type of modeling, such as
59: the ability to use density measurements to fully constrain filling factor, and its
60: shortcomings, such as
61: the requirement to use potential field extrapolations to approximate the coronal field.
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \keywords{Sun: corona}
65:
66: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
67: %% --- Introduction
68: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
69:
70: \section{Introduction}
71:
72: Determining the timescale of the heating in the solar corona is an important clue to the coronal
73: heating mechanism. One strong argument for time independent (steady) heating is the steady emission of observed X-ray
74: loops in the cores of active regions (e.g., \citealt{yoshida1996}). The footpoints of these X-ray loops
75: form the reticulated pattern in EUV images typically called ``moss'' (e.g., \citealt{berger1999,fletcher1999}.)
76: Though the intensity of the moss can vary significantly on short time and spatial scales, it
77: is believed that most of the variation comes from spicular material that is embedded
78: within the moss that can obscure and absorb the moss emission (\citealt{depontieu1999}). The moss
79: intensity averaged over small regions is constant for many hours of observations (\citealt{antiochos2003}),
80: further corroborating the hypothesis that the heating in these core regions is steady.
81:
82: Due to the abundance of loops in the core region, individual loop properties cannot be extracted
83: making it difficult to compare these regions directly with steady heating solutions of the hydrodynamic
84: equations. Instead, average values for the moss intensities have been compared to the
85: expected intensity for the footpoints of ``typical'' hot loops. For instance, \cite{martens2000} found that typical moss
86: intensities matched expected intensities for the footpoints of multi-million degree loops when a 10\% filling
87: factor was included. Such a filling factor is widely accepted for hot X-ray loops (e.g., \citealt{porter1995}).
88:
89: Because individual loop properties cannot be extracted, an active region core must be modeled as an
90: ensemble of loops.
91: There have been several recent attempts to forward model the entire solar corona (\citealt{schrijver2004}),
92: active regions (\citealt{lundquist2006, warren2006, warren2006b}), or bright points
93: (\citealt{brooks2007}) using ensembles of loops that each
94: satisfy the one-dimensional hydrodynamic equations.
95: In these attempts, the volumetric heating rate, $E$, was assumed to be a function of average
96: magnetic field strength, $\bar{B}$, and loop length, $L$, i.e., $ E = E_0 \bar{B}^\alpha/L^\beta$, where different values of $E_0$,
97: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ were considered.
98: The formalism for the heating equations was suggested by
99: \cite{mandrini2000} who determined that different heating mechanisms would release energy
100: as a function of the loop length and average magnetic field strength along a loop.
101: In the previous ensemble studies, it was found that the X-ray intensity could be well matched
102: by the simulations $\alpha = \beta = 1$ . The EUV intensity, however, was poorly matched in
103: the case of the whole corona (\citealt{schrijver2004}) and active regions (\citealt{warren2006}).
104: (Note that \cite{schrijver2004} considered the heat flux through the base
105: of the loop, $F$, as a function of the magnetic field at the base, $B_0$, instead of the
106: volumetric heating rate i.e., $F \sim B_0^\alpha/L^\beta$. Because $E = F/L$ and
107: $\bar{B} \sim B_0/L$, Schrijver's reults are consistent with the other studies
108: for $\alpha = 1$.)
109:
110: These previous analyses attempted to match the distribution of the total intensity of the entire
111: Sun or in an active region. They included in their comparisons the long EUV loops
112: that are not in hydrostatic equilibrium (e.g., \citealt{lenz1999}) and are believed to be evolving
113: (see \citealt{winebarger2003, warren2003}). When \cite{warren2006} compared just the simulated moss intensities to
114: the observed moss intensities, they found approximate agreement for heating rate scaling as $\bar{B}/L$ and
115: with loops expanding with height.
116:
117: In this analysis, we compare, for the first time, both the EUV moss and X-ray intensities
118: to the solutions of one-dimensional hydrodynamic equations for steady uniform heating.
119: We use a new approach to simultaneously match the EUV moss intensity
120: of an active region core and the total X-ray intensity in two filters. We make no a priori assumption
121: about the relationship between the heating rate and the magnetic field strength and loop length.
122: Instead we use the moss intensity at the loop footpoint to find the best heating magnitude for each individual
123: loop. This approach is based on the determination that the
124: moss intensity observed in a narrow-band EUV filter is linearly proportional to the loop
125: pressure multiplied by a filling factor if the heating in the loop is steady and uniform (\citealt{martens2000}).
126: The pressure combined with the loop length (determined from magnetic field extrapolation)
127: defines explicitly the heating rate and apex temperature for the loop
128: (\citealt{rosner1978,serio1981}).
129:
130: In this paper, we analyze EUV and X-ray emission of Active Region 9107 over 12 hours
131: on 31 May 2000. This active region has a core region that is bright in X-ray images with
132: large patches of moss that are unobscured by overlying loops in EUV images. We find that the
133: intensity in the region varies little over the 12 hours of observation.
134: We determine the loop geometry using potential field extrapolations of photospheric
135: field measurements. We select the loop footpoints using the moss intensity as a proxy.
136: We populate the loops by assuming a filling factor, then using the observed EUV intensities at
137: one footpoint to constrain the heating rate.
138: We then compare the total intensity in the X-ray filters to the observed intensities.
139: We complete this process iteratively for different filling factors until the simulated X-ray intensities
140: well match the observed X-ray intensities. We have completed this process for two different assumptions of the
141: cross sectional area of the loop. First
142: we force the cross sectional area of the loop to remain constant as supported by loop observations (\citealt{klimchuk2000});
143: second, we allow the cross sectional area of the loop to expand with height as $B(s)^{-1}$.
144: We find no satisfactory solution can be obtained for loops with constant cross sectional area. For loops
145: that expand with height, a filling factor of 8\% was found to produce acceptable agreement between
146: the observed and simulated X-ray intensities in both filters. From this set of solutions, we
147: determine that the heating scales like $\bar{B}^{0.29}/L^{0.95}$. Finally we discuss future implications
148: of this method of simultaneous modeling.
149:
150:
151: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
152: %% --- DATA AND ANALYSIS
153: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
154:
155: \begin{figure}[t!]
156: \centerline{
157: \includegraphics{f1.eps}}
158: \caption{{\it Top row:} TRACE 171\,\AA, and SXT AlMg images of the active region. {\it Bottom row:}
159: Co-aligned MDI magnetogram and field lines determined from potential field extrapolations.
160: \label{fig:multipanel}}
161: \end{figure}
162:
163: \begin{figure}[t!]
164: \centerline{
165: \includegraphics{f2.eps}}
166: \caption{Top: The evolution of the TRACE 171 intensity summed over the boxes shown in Figure 1 as a function of time. Bottom:
167: The evolution of SXT AlMg and Al12 intensity summed over the entire active region. In all images, the solid line shows the average
168: intensity, the dashed lines show the average $\pm$ one standard deviation. The SXT data points represented with an asterisk were
169: not considered in the average.
170: \label{fig:time}}
171: \end{figure}
172:
173: \section{Data Analysis}
174:
175: The goals of this study were to simultaneously model an Active Region core
176: observed in both the Soft X-ray Telescope (SXT) (\citealt{tsuneta1991}) flown
177: on the {\it Yohkoh} satellite and
178: the {\it Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE)}
179: (\citealt{handy1999, schrijver1999}). To find an adequate active region, the
180: available data bases were browsed for long term, simultaneous observations
181: of a relatively simple, non-flaring active region with an unobscured moss region
182: observable in the EUV. We selected Active Region 9017
183: observed for several hours with both instruments on 2000 May 31.
184: We use the {\it TRACE} 171\,\AA\ filter which is sensitive to the Fe~IX/X lines formed at $\sim 1$\,MK
185: and the SXT Al, Mg, Mn, C ``sandwich'' filter (AlMg) and the thick Al (Al12) filter in this study.
186: The active region is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:multipanel}.
187:
188: \subsection{Temporal Evolution}
189:
190: The evolution of the TRACE
191: intensities averaged over the two regions of moss shown on the
192: TRACE 171 image in Figure~\ref{fig:multipanel} are shown on the top two panels of
193: Figure~\ref{fig:time}. The average intensity in the left hand box is 14.0$\pm$ 0.6 DN~s$^{-1}$~pix$^{-1}$ and
194: in the right hand box is 9.9 $\pm$ 0.9 DN~s$^{-1}$~pix$^{-1}$. The errors given are one standard
195: deviations in the mean values and are less than 10\% of the average values in both cases meaning the
196: intensity in these moss regions remain relatively constant over the 12.5 hours of observation.
197:
198: The evolutions of the total intensity summed over the active region observed with the SXT AlMg and
199: Al12 filters are shown in the bottom two panels of Figure~\ref{fig:time}.
200: The active region brightens significantly in both filters between 7:30 and 9:00 UT due to the evolution of two
201: loops which have previously been studied (\citealt{winebarger2005}). Excluding this time frame from consideration,
202: the average of the total intensity was calculated and is shown as a solid line. In the AlMg filter, the
203: average intensity is 2.2 $\pm 0.2 \times 10^{6}$ DN~s$^{-1}$ and 4.7 $\pm 1.0 \times 10^{4}$ DN~s$^{-1}$ in the
204: AlMg and Al12 filters, respectively. The standard deviation in the mean value of the AlMg intensity
205: is less than 10\%, while the standard deviation in the Al12 intensity is 20\%.
206:
207: Excluding the time frame of the evolving loops, this active region core remains relatively steady for 12.5+ hours
208: of observation. For the remainder of the paper, we use
209: the {\it TRACE} 171\AA\ image taken at 13:09:33 UT to be representative of the moss intensity
210: and the average SXT AlMg and SXT Al12 intensities for comparison.
211:
212: %\begin{figure}[t!]
213: %$\centerline{
214: %\resizebox{9cm}{!}{\includegraphics{mossregions.eps}}}
215: %\caption{
216: %\label{fig:mossregions}}
217: %\end{figure}
218:
219:
220: \subsection{Determining Loop Geometry}
221:
222: Because it is difficult to extract information about individual loops from the observations, we use
223: potential field extrapolations of the co-aligned photospheric field measurements to approximate the loop geometry.
224: We use photospheric field measurements from the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI, \citealt{scherrer1995}) to estimate
225: the coronal field.
226: The MDI magnetogram used in this study was taken at 12:48:00 UT and is shown in the second row of Figure~\ref{fig:multipanel}.
227: We also examined a vector magnetograph from the Marshall
228: Space Flight Center Vector Magnetograph (MSFCVM, \citealt{hagyard1982}) taken
229: at 16:09 UT. From the vector magnetograph, we determined that the active region was well approximated as potential.
230:
231: To select the footpoints of the loops, we use the moss region of the TRACE 171 image as a proxy. We first
232: select all pixels within the moss regions.
233: %, shown as contours in Figure \ref{fig:mossregions}.
234: These regions
235: were identified visually. We use the center of the TRACE pixels within these regions as the starting points to
236: trace the field lines. If we use all the TRACE pixels in these regions as starting points, we would have over
237: 30,000 field lines. To reduce the number to a more manageable amount,
238: we bin the TRACE images to a resolution of 1.5\arc; the result being one field line for each 9 TRACE high
239: resolution pixels or a total of about 3,000 field lines.
240: %We show in the discussion section how this simplification effects the results.
241: We trace the field lines from a height of 2.5\,Mm above the solar surface which is the approximately the measured
242: height of the moss above the limb (\citealt{martens2000}). Starting at this height also circumvents the problem of having
243: locally closing field lines that never reach coronal heights (\citealt{warren2006}).
244: After tracing all the field lines, we compare the terminating footpoints and remove any field lines that are duplicates.
245: A few representative field lines are shown Figure~\ref{fig:multipanel}.
246: Note that several of the calculated field lines terminate in the negative polarity sunspot where there is
247: no moss or SXT emission. This region is highlighted
248: with a circle in Figure~\ref{fig:multipanel}.
249:
250: \section{Modeling the Loops}
251:
252: Before describing the details of the modeling portion of this research, it is useful to
253: consider the implications of the applicable scaling laws.
254: \cite{martens2000} determined that the intensity in the {\it TRACE} 171\AA\ filter was linearly proportional
255: to the base pressure in the loop times a filling factor, i.e.,
256: \begin{equation}
257: p_0 f = 0.050 I_{171}
258: \end{equation}
259: where $p_0$ is the base pressure in dyne cm$^{-2}$, $f$ is the volumetric filling factor, and
260: $I_{171}$ is the TRACE 171 intensity in DN s$^{-1}$ pixel$^{-1}$. If we consider only a single TRACE pixel,
261: the filling factor in the above equation would then be related to the cross sectional
262: area of the loop. A filling factor of unity would imply that the cross sectional area of the loop was at least
263: equal to the TRACE pixel area. A filling factor of less than 1 would imply that the cross sectional area of the
264: loop was a fraction of the TRACE pixel size.
265:
266: The above relationship can then be combined with the RTVS scaling laws for uniform heating
267: (\citealt{rosner1978,serio1981}) , i.e.,
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: T_{max} \sim 1.4 \times 10^3 (p_0 L)^\frac{1}{3} \exp[0.04L/s_p] \\
270: E_H \sim 9.8 \times 10^4 p_0^\frac{7}{6} L^{-\frac{5}{6}} \exp[-0.5L/s_p]
271: \end{eqnarray}
272: where $T_{max}$ is the maximum temperature in the loop in Kelvin, $L$ is the half length
273: of the loop in cm, $E_H$ is the volumetric heating rate of the loop in ergs cm$^{-3}$ s$^{-1}$,
274: and $s_p$ is the gravitational scale height (generally 47 Mm/MK).
275: These scaling laws were derived using a simplified radiative loss function and assuming
276: the loop semi-circular and perpendicular to the solar surface.
277:
278: For a single loop, if the moss intensity and loop length were known, the only free parameter in the
279: above set of equations is the filling factor. Hence, if other constraining measurements, such as X-ray intensities
280: were also available, it would be possible to calculate the solutions for various filling factors and determine
281: which filling factor satisfactorily reproduced the X-ray intensities. If no filling factor could be
282: found to return the X-ray intensities, we would conclude that the loop could not be modeled with steady, uniform
283: heating.
284:
285: This is exactly the test we wish to perform in this study, but
286: instead of a single loop, we consider an ensemble of such loops. We follow the same process outlined above
287: of using the moss intensity to constrain the heating rate on each individual loop for a given filling factor and we further
288: assume that all loops in the bundle have the same filling factor. Instead of using the scaling
289: laws given above, however, we solve the steady-state hydrodynamic equations that include the geometry for each loop.
290: For each filling factor, we solve the equations for all the loops in the bundle, then calculate the total X-ray intensity of
291: all the loops and compare this value to the observed X-ray intensity in both SXT filters.
292: We complete this process twice, first assuming all loops in the bundle have a constant cross sectional area
293: and then assuming that each loop expands proportional to the inverse of its field strength.
294:
295: For each field line and filling factor, we use the relationships suggested by \cite{martens2000} and
296: \cite{rosner1978} to get a first approximation for the heating rate in the loop. Because these previous works depended
297: on some simplifications and approximations to solve the one dimensional hydrodynamic equations,
298: the heating rate found is only a rough guess to the heating rate
299: required to match the observed EUV intensities.
300: Using this guess, we then compute the solution to the hydrodynamic equations using a numerical code
301: created by Aad van Ballegooijen (\citealt{hussain2002, schrijver2005}). This code allows for the
302: loop geometry and area expansion to be included in the solution. (Note that we use the radiative loss function calculated
303: by \cite{brooks2006}; all instrument response functions were calculated using the same atomic data and are fully
304: consistent with the radiative loss function and one another.) After computing the solution, we fold the density and temperature
305: through the {\it TRACE} 171 filter response function, compute the simulated moss intensity, and compare
306: the simulated moss intensity to the observed moss intensity associated with that
307: fieldline. If the simulated moss intensity is too low, we increase the heating rate; if the simulated moss intensity
308: is too high, we decrease the heating. We complete this procedure iteratively until the
309: simulated moss intensity is within 5\% of the observed moss intensity. The result is the uniform heating
310: rate and resulting density and temperature on the field line that reproduces the moss intensity associated with the footpoint.
311: After the best hydrodynamic solution for each field line has been computed, we then
312: calculate the resulting SXT AlMg and Al12 by convolving the density and temperature with the
313: SXT filter response functions.
314: We sum the SXT filter intensities from all the loops in the ensemble then compare it with the observed AlMg and Al12
315: intensities.
316:
317: \section{Results}
318:
319: Figure~\ref{fig:int_rat} shows ratio of the simulated SXT filter intensities to the observed filter
320: intensities as a function of filling factor for the two different geometry assumptions.
321: The plot on the left assumes the loops in the ensemble have constant cross sections, while the plot on the right assumes the
322: area of each loop expands proportional to $B(s)^{-1}$.
323: The AlMg filter ratio is shown as the
324: solid line with crosses and the Al12 ratio is shown as the dashed line with asterisks.
325: When the curve equals 1, the simulated intensity matches the observed intensity at that filling factor.
326: Horizontal lines show twice the standard deviation implied by the AlMg observations (solid) and Al12 observations
327: (dashed). For a positive result to be found, the Al12 curve must be within the dashed horizontal lines at the
328: same filling factor as the AlMg curve is within the solid horizontal lines.
329: For the constant cross-section case, no filling factor returns a solution that is within two standard deviations
330: of the observed intensities at the same filling factor. For the expanding area geometry, a filling factor of 8\% estimated
331: the AlMg intensity at 2 standard deviations less than the observed intensity (80\% of the observed value) and a Al12 filter
332: intensity at 2.3 standard deviations above the observed intensity (147\% of the observed value). This is the best match
333: between the simulations and observations.
334:
335: \begin{figure*}[t!]
336: \centerline{
337: \resizebox{18cm}{!}{\includegraphics{f3.eps}}}
338: \caption{The ratio between the simulated X-ray intensity and observed X-ray intensity is shown above for the SXT AlMg filter
339: (solid line with crosses) and the SXT Al12 filter (dashed line with asterisks). The plot on the left shows the results
340: for the constant cross-section case, the plot on the right shows the results for the expanding area case. The horizontal
341: lines represent two standard deviations in the AlMg intensity (solid) and Al12 intensity (dashed). The best fit to the
342: X-ray intensities is a filling factor of 8\% in the expanding area case.
343: \label{fig:int_rat}}
344: \end{figure*}
345:
346: \begin{figure}[t!]
347: \centerline{
348: \includegraphics{f4.eps}}
349: \caption{Left: The observed TRACE 171 and SXT AlMg images. Right: The simulated TRACE 171 and SXT AlMg images for the
350: best fit case. The images are displayed linearly and scaled identically.
351: \label{fig:comparison}}
352: \end{figure}
353:
354: \begin{figure*}[t!]
355: \centerline{
356: \resizebox{18cm}{!}{\includegraphics{f5.eps}}}
357: \caption{A comparison of the simulated and observed TRACE 171 intensities (left) and SXT AlMg intensities (right)
358: along a single horizontal cut.
359: \label{fig:lc}}
360: \end{figure*}
361:
362: Figure~\ref{fig:comparison} shows the observed {\it TRACE} 171 and SXT AlMg images as well as the simulated images
363: for the case that provides the best fit.
364: The images are displayed linearly with identical scaling. In all images, a circle is drawn that highlights a region
365: where the simulated and observed morphology differ. In the observations in this region, there are bright extended EUV loop legs,
366: but no moss. There is also little SXT emission in this region. All the simulated images have both moss and SXT emission in the
367: region. Additionally, there are several bright dots in the simulated EUV image that are not present in the
368: observation. These represent footpoint emission from a field line that originates in a moss region, but does
369: not terminate in a moss region region.
370: In Figure~\ref{fig:lc}, we show the intensity along a horizontal cut across both the TRACE 171 images and the SXT AlMg images.
371: The two arrows in Figure~\ref{fig:comparison} indicate the vertical position of the cut.
372: The SXT intensities are comparable
373: shapes, though the simulated intensity is less than the observed intensity and shifted to the right.
374:
375:
376:
377: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
378: %% --- DISCUSSION
379: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
380:
381: \section{Discussion}
382:
383: \begin{figure*}[t!]
384: \centerline{
385: \resizebox{18cm}{!}{\includegraphics{f6.eps}}}
386: \caption{The best heating rate for each field line as a function
387: of the base magnetic field strength (top left), average
388: magnetic field strength (top right), and loop length (bottom
389: left). The heating rate calculated from the fit parameters
390: is also shown as a function of the best heating rate (bottom right).
391: \label{fig:ebl}}
392: \end{figure*}
393:
394: In this paper, we have used a new technique to infer the steady heating rate from
395: the EUV moss intensities to test whether the loops in active region cores agree with the solutions
396: of the hydrodynamic equations for steady, uniform heating.
397: We have simulated the core of Active Region 9017 using steady uniform heating
398: along potential field lines to match within 5\% the TRACE 171\,\AA\ moss intensities at
399: the footpoint. We find the best match between the simulated and observed SXT AlMg and Al12 intensities
400: occurs at a filling factor of 8\% for loops that expand with height proportional to $B(s)^{-1}$.
401:
402: Our intention with this research was to test whether the steady EUV moss and X-ray core
403: emission could self-consistently agree with ensembles of steadily heated loops.
404: These results demonstrate that the intensities in these regions can, at best, be matched to steadily uniformly
405: heated loops within approximately two standard deviations in both SXT filters. This disparity is acceptable
406: considering the systematic errors associated with this study, such as assuming the geometry of the
407: field was well represented by the potential field and that all loops in the ensemble had the same
408: filling factor or cross sectional area. Better agreement may have been possible if we had allowed
409: the heating to be non-uniform, but we did not examine this possibility.
410:
411: Density measurements at the footpoints of the active region core loops would allow for the filling factor to be
412: measured at each of the loop footpoints. Knowing the filling factor, moss intensity, and loop length would fully constrain the
413: steady uniform heating equations and provide a true test of the steady heating model. This density measurement is now possible
414: with the EIS instrument on Hinode (\citealt{warren2007}).
415:
416:
417: Unlike previous studies of ensembles of loops which heated the loops based on an assumed heating rate proportional to
418: $\bar{B}^\alpha/L^\beta$, we have calculated the heating rate along each individual field line
419: based solely on the observed moss intensity and assumed filling factor.
420: We can now characterize the resulting relationships between the
421: calculated heating rate and other characteristics of the region, such as loop length and field strength.
422: Figure~\ref{fig:ebl} shows the correlation between the calculated heating rate and base field strength,
423: average field strength along the loop, and loop length. Using a regression technique, we find that
424: the volumetric heating rate is best described by
425: $E = 0.051 (\bar{B}/B_0)^{0.29 \pm 0.03} (L/L_0)^{-0.95 \pm 0.01}$. This calculated heating rate is shown as a function of the
426: real heating rate in the bottom right of Figure~\ref{fig:ebl}.
427: In the above equations, $\bar{B}$ is the average magnetic field strength along the loop in Gauss, and $L$ is
428: the loop length in Mm and $B_0$ and $L_0$ are chosen to be 76 Gauss and 29 Mm respectively
429: to be comparable to previous work (\citealt{warren2006}).
430: The correlation coefficient is
431: 0.71 between the log of average field strength and the log of the heating rate and -.94 between the log of the
432: loop length and log of the heating rate. There is no correlation between the heating rate and footpoint field
433: strength (correlation coefficient = -0.047).
434:
435: The inverse relationship between the heating rate and loop length matches the results of the other forward
436: modeling studies (\citealt{schrijver2004,warren2006}). However, the previous studies determined the best scaling
437: with the average magnetic field strength was for $1.0$, where we find a scaling of $0.3$. This discrepancy is most
438: likely due to our strict matching of the TRACE moss intensity, where previous studies focused on matching the SXT
439: intensity and only did a rough comparison with the observed and simulated moss intensity.
440:
441: In this study, we used potential field extrapolations to approximate the loop geometry and the
442: moss regions themselves to select the footpoints of the heated field lines. However,
443: the resulting morphological
444: comparison of the observed images with the simulated images show some discrepancy.
445: Specifically, several field lines terminate in the negative polarity sunspot where there is no SXT or TRACE moss
446: emission observed; this is shown with the circle in Figures~\ref{fig:multipanel} and \ref{fig:comparison}.
447: Instead, there are several extended loop legs seen in the EUV. This could be an indication that the
448: connectivity of the field was not correct; however
449: the connectivity was not improved when using the vector field data or when considering linear force free
450: field extrapolations for different force free parameters.
451: Another option is that those loops are heated asymmetrically causing moss on one side of the loop
452: and extended EUV emission on the other side of the loop. Most coronal heating theories rely on photospheric
453: motions as a driving force. Because photospheric motions are suppressed in sunspot
454: regions, asymmetric heating along loops with one footpoint in a sunspot is a strong possibility.
455: We did not consider asymmetric or non-uniform heating in this study. In the future, it may be possible
456: to consider the EUV emission at both footpoints to fully limit the asymmetry of the heating function.
457:
458: \cite{martens2000} derived the relationship between the base pressure, $p_0$, filling
459: factor, $f$, and TRACE 171 moss intensity, $I_{moss}$, i.e., $p_0 f = 0.050 I_{moss}$
460: using a simple radiative loss function and an analytical approximation to the hydrostatic
461: equations. We derive this equation using the most recent radiative loss function (\citealt{brooks2006}).
462: We find the relationship $p_0 f = 0.026 I_{moss}$
463: best represents the simulations.
464:
465:
466:
467: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
468: %% --- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
469: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
470:
471: \acknowledgments
472: ARW was supported by a NASA Sun-Earth Connection Guest Investigator grant
473: and NSF Career grant.
474:
475: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
476: %% --- REFERENCES
477: %% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
478:
479: \begin{thebibliography}{}
480:
481: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Antiochos} et~al.}{{Antiochos}
482: et~al.}{2003}]{antiochos2003}
483: {Antiochos}, S.~K., {Karpen}, J.~T., {DeLuca}, E.~E., {Golub}, L., \&
484: {Hamilton}, P. 2003, \apj, 590, in press
485:
486: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Berger} et~al.}{{Berger}
487: et~al.}{1999}]{berger1999}
488: {Berger}, T.~E., {De Pontieu}, B., {Fletcher}, L., {Schrijver}, C.~J.,
489: {Tarbell}, T.~D., \& {Title}, A.~M. 1999, \solphys, 190, 409
490:
491: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Brooks} \& {Warren}}{{Brooks} \&
492: {Warren}}{2006}]{brooks2006}
493: {Brooks}, D.~H., \& {Warren}, H.~P. 2006, \apjs, 164, 202
494:
495: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Brooks} \& {Warren}}{{Brooks} \&
496: {Warren}}{2007}]{brooks2007}
497: {Brooks}, D.~H., \& {Warren}, H.~P. 2007, \apj, submitted
498:
499: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{De Pontieu} et~al.}{{De Pontieu}
500: et~al.}{1999}]{depontieu1999}
501: {De Pontieu}, B., {Berger}, T.~E., {Schrijver}, C.~J., \& {Title}, A.~M. 1999,
502: \solphys, 190, 419
503:
504: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fletcher} \& {de Pontieu}}{{Fletcher} \& {de
505: Pontieu}}{1999}]{fletcher1999}
506: {Fletcher}, L., \& {de Pontieu}, B. 1999, \apjl, 520, L135
507:
508: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hagyard} et~al.}{{Hagyard}
509: et~al.}{1982}]{hagyard1982}
510: {Hagyard}, M.~J., {Cumings}, N.~P., {West}, E.~A., \& {Smith}, J.~E. 1982,
511: \solphys, 80, 33
512:
513: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Handy} et~al.}{{Handy}
514: et~al.}{1999}]{handy1999}
515: {Handy}, B.~N., et~al. 1999, \solphys, 187, 229
516:
517: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hussain} \& {van Ballegooijen}}{{Hussain} \&
518: {van Ballegooijen}}{2002}]{hussain2002}
519: {Hussain}, G. A.~J., \& {van Ballegooijen}, A. 2002, \apj, in preparation
520:
521: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Klimchuk}}{{Klimchuk}}{2000}]{klimchuk2000}
522: {Klimchuk}, J.~A. 2000, \solphys, 193, 53
523:
524: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lenz} et~al.}{{Lenz} et~al.}{1999}]{lenz1999}
525: {Lenz}, D.~D., {Deluca}, E.~E., {Golub}, L., {Rosner}, R., \& {Bookbinder},
526: J.~A. 1999, \apjl, 517, L155
527:
528: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lundquist}}{{Lundquist}}{2006}]{lundquist200%
529: 6}
530: {Lundquist}, L.~L. 2006, AAS Solar Physics Division Meeting, 37, 17.03
531:
532: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Mandrini}, {D{\' e}moulin}, \&
533: {Klimchuk}}{{Mandrini} et~al.}{2000}]{mandrini2000}
534: {Mandrini}, C.~H., {D{\' e}moulin}, P., \& {Klimchuk}, J.~A. 2000, \apj, 530,
535: 999
536:
537: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Martens}, {Kankelborg}, \&
538: {Berger}}{{Martens} et~al.}{2000}]{martens2000}
539: {Martens}, P.~C.~H., {Kankelborg}, C.~C., \& {Berger}, T.~E. 2000, \apj, 537,
540: 471
541:
542: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Porter} \& {Klimchuk}}{{Porter} \&
543: {Klimchuk}}{1995}]{porter1995}
544: {Porter}, L.~J., \& {Klimchuk}, J.~A. 1995, \apj, 454, 499
545:
546: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Rosner}, {Tucker}, \& {Vaiana}}{{Rosner}
547: et~al.}{1978}]{rosner1978}
548: {Rosner}, R., {Tucker}, W.~H., \& {Vaiana}, G.~S. 1978, \apj, 220, 643
549:
550: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Scherrer} et~al.}{{Scherrer}
551: et~al.}{1995}]{scherrer1995}
552: {Scherrer}, P.~H., et~al. 1995, \solphys, 162, 129
553:
554: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Schrijver} et~al.}{{Schrijver}
555: et~al.}{2004}]{schrijver2004}
556: {Schrijver}, C.~J., {Sandman}, A.~W., {Aschwanden}, M.~J., \& {DeRosa}, M.~L.
557: 2004, \apj, 615, 512
558:
559: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Schrijver} et~al.}{{Schrijver}
560: et~al.}{1999}]{schrijver1999}
561: {Schrijver}, C.~J., et~al. 1999, \solphys, 187, 261
562:
563: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Schrijver} \& {van Ballegooijen}}{{Schrijver}
564: \& {van Ballegooijen}}{2005}]{schrijver2005}
565: {Schrijver}, C.~J., \& {van Ballegooijen}, A.~A. 2005, \apj, 630, 552
566:
567: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Serio} et~al.}{{Serio}
568: et~al.}{1981}]{serio1981}
569: {Serio}, S., {Peres}, G., {Vaiana}, G.~S., {Golub}, L., \& {Rosner}, R. 1981,
570: \apj, 243, 288
571:
572: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tsuneta} et~al.}{{Tsuneta}
573: et~al.}{1991}]{tsuneta1991}
574: {Tsuneta}, S., et~al. 1991, \solphys, 136, 37
575:
576: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Warren} \& {Winebarger}}{{Warren} \&
577: {Winebarger}}{2006a}]{warren2006}
578: {Warren}, H.~P., \& {Winebarger}, A.~R. 2006a, \apj, 645, 711
579:
580: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Warren} \& {Winebarger}}{{Warren} \&
581: {Winebarger}}{2006b}]{warren2006b}
582: {Warren}, H.~P., \& {Winebarger}, A.~R. 2006b, \apj, submitted
583:
584: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Warren}, {Winebarger}, \& {Mariska}}{{Warren}
585: et~al.}{2003}]{warren2003}
586: {Warren}, H.~P., {Winebarger}, A.~R., \& {Mariska}, J.~T. 2003, \apj, 593,
587: 1174
588:
589: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Warren}, {Winebarger}, {Mariska}, {Doschek}, \& {Hara}}{{Warren}
590: et~al.}{2007}]{warren2007}
591: {Warren}, H.~P., {Winebarger}, A.~R., {Mariska}, J.~T., {Doschek}, G.~A., \& {Hara}, H. 2007, \apj, in press
592:
593: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Winebarger} \& {Warren}}{{Winebarger} \&
594: {Warren}}{2005}]{winebarger2005}
595: {Winebarger}, A.~R., \& {Warren}, H.~P. 2005, \apj, 626, 543
596:
597: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Winebarger}, {Warren}, \&
598: {Mariska}}{{Winebarger} et~al.}{2003}]{winebarger2003}
599: {Winebarger}, A.~R., {Warren}, H.~P., \& {Mariska}, J.~T. 2003, \apj, 587, 439
600:
601: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Yoshida} \& {Tsuneta}}{{Yoshida} \&
602: {Tsuneta}}{1996}]{yoshida1996}
603: {Yoshida}, T., \& {Tsuneta}, S. 1996, \apj, 459, 342
604:
605: \end{thebibliography}
606:
607:
608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
609: %% %%
610: %% Figure Captions %%
611: %% %%
612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
613:
614:
615: \end{document}
616: