Parametrization of coronal heating: spatial distribution and observable consequences

TL;DR

This study compares different coronal heating mechanisms in a 3D MHD model, revealing distinct spatial distributions and observable signatures that could help differentiate these mechanisms through solar observations.

Contribution

It introduces a method to compare AC and DC heating parametrizations in a 3D solar corona model, highlighting their different spatial and emission characteristics.

Findings

DC mechanisms concentrate heating at the footpoints more than AC.

AC heating results in higher coronal temperatures and extended transition regions.

Differences in emission distribution can help observationally distinguish heating mechanisms.

Abstract

We investigate the difference in the spatial distribution of the energy input for parametrizations of different mechanisms to heat the corona of the Sun and possible impacts on the coronal emission. We use a 3D MHD model of a solar active region as a reference and compare the Ohmic-type heating in this model to parametrizations for alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC) heating models, in particular, we use Alfven wave and MHD turbulence heating. We extract the quantities needed for these two parametrizations from the reference model and investigate the spatial distribution of the heat input in all three cases, globally and along individual field lines. To study differences in the resulting coronal emission we employ 1D loop models with a prescribed heat input based on the heating rate we extracted along a bundle of field lines. On average, all heating implementations show a roughly drop of the heating rate with height. This also holds for individual field lines. While all mechanism show a concentration of the energy input towards the low parts of the atmosphere, for individual field lines the concentration towards the footpoints is much stronger for the DC mechanisms than for the Alfven wave AC case. In contrast, the AC model gives a stronger concentration of the emission towards the footpoints. This is because the more homogeneous distribution of the energy input leads to higher coronal temperatures and a more extended transition region. The significant difference in the concentration of the heat input towards the foot points for the AC and DC mechanisms, and the pointed difference in the spatial distribution of the coronal emission for these cases shows that the two mechanisms should be discriminable by observations. Before drawing final conclusions, these parametrizations should be implemented in new 3D models in a more self-consistent way.