Interplanetary particle transport simulation for warning system for aviation exposure to solar energetic particles
© Kubo et al. 2015
Received: 18 September 2014
Accepted: 2 June 2015
Published: 29 July 2015
Solar energetic particles (SEPs) are one of the extreme space weather phenomena. A huge SEP event increases the radiation dose received by aircrews, who should be warned of such events as early as possible. We developed a warning system for aviation exposure to SEPs. This article describes one component of the system, which calculates the temporal evolution of the SEP intensity and the spectrum immediately outside the terrestrial magnetosphere.
To achieve this, we performed numerical simulations of SEP transport in interplanetary space, in which interplanetary SEP transport is described by the focused transport equation. We developed a new simulation code to solve the equation using a set of stochastic differential equations. In the code, the focused transport equation is expressed in a magnetic field line coordinate system, which is a non-orthogonal curvilinear coordinate system. An inverse Gaussian distribution is employed as the injection profile of SEPs at an inner boundary located near the Sun. We applied the simulation to observed SEP events as a validation test.
The results show that our simulation can closely reproduce observational data for the temporal evolution of particle intensity. By employing the code, we developed the WArning System for AVIation Exposure to Solar energetic particles (WASAVIES).
Space radiation poses a serious threat to several human activities, such as high radiation doses for astronauts, adverse effects on aircrew health, artificial satellite malfunctions, and the disruption of high-frequency radio wave communications in high-latitude regions. Predicting the space radiation environment to reduce the risk of radiation hazards is one of the most important goals of space weather research.
Space radiation is primarily composed of energetic protons and electrons. Radiation doses from the protons are harmful for astronauts and aircrews, whereas the electrons predominantly affect artificial satellites. Energetic protons originate from galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and solar energetic particles (SEPs). The spectrum and intensity of GCRs, and hence their radiation doses, are almost constant over time scales of much less than the 11-year solar cycle. On the other hand, SEPs occur sporadically and their intensity suddenly increases by multiple orders of magnitude within days. Such sudden increases in SEP intensity present a major radiation hazard to astronauts, adversely affecting the success of space missions (Hu et al. 2009). While low-energy SEPs cannot penetrate a spacecraft or extravehicular activity suits, high-energy SEPs, the energies of which exceed several tens of MeV, penetrate these materials (Kronenberg and Cucinotta 2012; Reames 2013). Therefore, predicting high-energy SEP events is the first priority in ensuring the safety of astronauts and the success of space missions. For an excellent review on the space radiation environment, refer to Vainio et al. (2009).
Despite the lack of understanding of the SEP mechanism, many researchers have attempted to predict the occurrence of SEP. However, a physics-based definitive prediction remains difficult because SEP occurrence is related to various physical processes yet to be fully clarified, such as solar flares, coronal mass ejections, coronal and interplanetary shock waves, and particle acceleration and transport mechanisms. Therefore, previous studies on predicting the occurrence of SEP have adopted statistical, empirical, or probabilistic approaches (e.g., Balch 2008; Garcia 2004a, 2004b; Kahler et al. 2007; Kubo and Akioka 2004; Kuwabara et al. 2006; Laurenza et al. 2009; Núñez 2011; Posner 2007).
On the other hand, Reames (2004) stated that, “In the author’s opinion, reliable predictions of the onset and fluence of an SEP event prior to its occurrence are not likely in our lifetime. However, after an event onset, it should be possible to model the CME, the shock, and the acceleration and transport of particles sufficiently well to predict the peak intensity at shock passage and the event fluence”. Some researchers have focused on simulating the temporal evolution of SEP intensity, and numerous simulation studies of particle acceleration and transport in interplanetary space have been published (e.g., Lario et al. 1998; Rice et al. 2003; Sokolov et al. 2004; Verkhoglyadova et al. 2009; Zank et al. 2000). However, the aim of most of these studies was not to predict the SEP intensity profile. To the best of our knowledge, the only operational prediction model that incorporates the physical mechanism of SEPs was developed by Aran et al. (2006), who predicted the SEP intensity profile from numerical simulations of interplanetary shock propagation and energetic particle transport. Their model is specific to low-energy SEP intensity profiles, the energy of which is less than several tens of MeV.
A ground level enhancement (GLE), which is one of the extreme space weather phenomena, is induced by extremely energetic SEPs having energies greater than 450 MeV (approximately 1 GV in rigidity for protons) (Shea and Smart 2012). Energetic SEPs can produce secondary particles such as neutrons, muons, neutrinos, and gamma rays through nuclear reactions in the terrestrial atmosphere. All such secondary particles induce a marked increase in the radiation dose rate at aviation altitudes. This means that effort should be made to alert aircrews to the presence of extremely energetic SEPs so that they can take necessary action to reduce the radiation dose rate they are exposed to. Recently, Kataoka et al. (2014) developed the WArning System for AVIation Exposure to Solar energetic particles (WASAVIES). The system aims to warn aircrews of high dose levels and to simulate GLEs by forward modeling from SEP transport to an air shower in the terrestrial atmosphere (Sato et al. 2014).
This article describes a newly developed numerical simulation code to calculate SEP transport in interplanetary space for the WASAVIES system. The next section describes the SEP transport equation and a coordinate system to express the equation, along with its solution method. Then, the results of test calculations are described. Subsequently, comparisons of calculations with observational data are presented, which are followed by a discussion section. The final section presents a summary.
Numerical simulation of solar energetic particle transport
SEPs are believed to be accelerated within three regions: the reconnection region in solar flares, coronal shock waves, and interplanetary shock waves. According to Caprioli and Spitkovsky (2014), the exponential cutoff energy of an ion energy spectrum produced by diffusive shock acceleration, which roughly represents the maximum energy achievable, is proportional to the background magnetic field intensity. Thus, the majority of energetic SEPs cannot be accelerated by interplanetary shock waves, for which the background magnetic field is weak. This means that they tend to be accelerated near the Sun (by solar flares and/or coronal shocks) and then transported to the Earth along interplanetary magnetic fields. Therefore, energetic SEP events will be reproduced by solving the SEP transport equation from the Sun to the Earth if an accelerated energetic SEP time profile near the Sun is assumed. In this section, we describe the numerical simulation of SEP transport through interplanetary space.
Focused transport equation
As the scattering mean free path of interplanetary SEP transport is roughly comparable to the distance between the Sun and the Earth, SEPs are not isotropically distributed in interplanetary space, particularly in the initial phase of SEP events. Therefore, interplanetary SEP transport cannot be modeled using Parker’s transport equation, which assumes an isotropic particle distribution. Instead, the SEP transport equation must explicitly incorporate changes in pitch angle.
where B is the magnetic field intensity. The first term in the square brackets on the right-hand side of Eq. 3 describes the adiabatic focusing effect. In this set of equations, the particle position and momentum are measured in the co-rotating frame of the Sun and the solar wind frame, respectively.
where α is the ratio of Ω to V r , r, θ, and φ are, respectively, the radial distance, polar angle, and phase angle in spherical coordinates, e r and e φ are unit vectors denoting the radial and phase angle directions, respectively, and B e is the radial component of the magnetic field at a specific distance r e .
which is assumed to be constant across the entire interplanetary space (Bieber et al. 1994).
The magnetic field line coordinate system is identical to the spherical coordinate system when the solar rotation vanishes, i.e., when α=0.
Equation 14 can easily be solved because of the spatial one-dimensionality along a magnetic field line.
Method used to solve the focused transport equation
The focused transport equation described above is solved by solving a set of stochastic differential equations that is mathematically equivalent to the Fokker–Planck equation (Kloeden and Platen 1999; Øksendal 1999; Zhang 1999). Stochastic differential equations are increasingly used to model phenomena such as SEP transport (e.g., Dröge et al. 2010; Qin et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2009), cosmic-ray transport in the heliosphere (e.g., Pei et al. 2010; Strauss et al. 2013), cosmic-ray transport in the galaxy and interstellar media (e.g., Effenberger et al. 2012; Farahat et al. 2008), and particle acceleration in shock waves (e.g., Zuo et al. 2011).
To numerically solve this set of stochastic differential equations, the motion of pseudo particles can be tracked by considering numerous stochastic processes using a Monte Carlo method. In accordance with Eq. 21, random variables are generated for each step of numerical integration by a pseudo random number generator. Pseudo particles are numerically traced backward in time over a specified duration. When a particle comes in contact with an inner or outer boundary of the calculation domain, calculations for that particular particle are terminated. The inner and outer boundaries are set at heliocentric radial distances of 0.05 and 80 AU, respectively.
where the brackets <⋯ > denote the expectation value and τ 0 is the backward time at which the pseudo particle comes in contact with the inner boundary. f 0 denotes the inner boundary condition, which expresses the SEP injection profile near the Sun. The expectation value f(s,p,μ,t) describes the phase space density at time t of the focused transport equation, which is the final solution.
and it is normalized to unity over the integral with ranges p min<p<∞, 0<μ<1, and 0<t<∞. At the time of injection, the pitch angle is uniformly distributed between 0 and π/2, and the momentum spectrum is a power law with index −γ. The time profile is expressed as an inverse Gaussian distribution with mean m and standard deviation σ. Although most of the studies on interplanetary SEP transport (e.g., Dröge 2000; Qin et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2009) use the so-called Reid-Axford profile (Reid 1964) as the injection time profile, we employ the inverse Gaussian distribution as the injection time profile for the following reason. The inverse Gaussian distribution is related to the diffusion process as d X=λ d t+δ d w, where X, t, and dw denote the state variable, time, and Wiener process, respectively, λ is the average rate of change of the state variable, and δ 2 denotes the diffusion coefficient. The first and second terms on the right-hand side of the equation are called the drift and diffusion terms, respectively. The time t at which X first attains state X f , starting from X=X 0 at t=0, has an inverse Gaussian distribution. In physical terms, if energetic particles are injected impulsively at a specific position in the lower corona and move outward at a constant drift rate accompanied by diffusion, the particles that escape at a specific distance in the upper corona have an inverse Gaussian distribution in time. Therefore, we adopt the inverse Gaussian distribution as the particle injection time profile.
Because the pseudo particles integrated backward in time from the Earth to the Sun are pulled toward the outer boundary by pitch angle focusing, most pseudo particles cannot return to the Sun. To allow particles to return to the Sun, a method proposed by (Qin et al. 2006) is used, in which the focused transport equation is rewritten to suppress pitch angle focusing. The expectation value is then calculated as the weighted average of the stochastic processes in accordance with the rewritten equation. The weights are calculated while the stochastic processes are generated. Mathematically, the solutions obtained using this method are identical to those of the original transport equation.
Comparison with observations
In this section, we compare observational data with the results of our numerical simulation. The data we used are differential intensities obtained at 1-min intervals with the GOES P6 and P7 channels, whose energies are 165 and 433 MeV (580 and 1000 MV, respectively, in rigidity for protons). Because the GOES satellites are located inside the terrestrial magnetosphere, the observed SEP intensities may have been affected by the magnetosphere. However, this effect will be small at the high particle energies of the P6 and P7 channel data. To reduce the effect of the longitudinal difference between the two GOES satellites on the SEP intensities, the data collected from GOES 13 and 15 are averaged. Noise is eliminated by calculating the running average of data points.
The method of comparison is quite simple; the results of the numerical simulations are fitted to the observed data using a selected radial mean free path. Data are fitted using a nonlinear least squares method and the square error is minimized using the simplex method (Nelder and Mead 1965). The mean m and standard deviation σ of the inverse Gaussian injection profile are adjusted to match the simulated intensity of the observed SEP event. Because the results are insensitive to the momentum spectrum index γ, it is fixed at 5.
Events used for comparison
For reproducing extreme events, we selected events with intensities for SEPs having energy greater than 100 MeV observed by the GOES satellite reaching 1 PFU. Nine such events have been observed since 2012. By checking SDO/AIA 94-Å images, it was found that four of the nine events occurred in the eastern hemisphere or near the central meridian region of the Sun (longitude less than W30), and we discarded these four events. One of the remaining events had missing data for both GOES 13 and 15. Therefore, four events remained: those on 27 January 2012, 13 March 2012, 17 May 2012, and 6 January 2014. We compared the four events with the results of numerical simulations.
Event on 27 January 2012
Event on 13 March 2012
Event on 17 May 2012
Event on 6 January 2014
The comparisons shown in this section indicate that the inverse Gaussian time profile can be reasonable for the SEP injection profile near the Sun.
We used the inverse Gaussian distribution as the SEP injection profile in the solar corona in this study. As already mentioned, however, the Reid-Axford profile is often used for the injection profile. The time dependence of the exponential functions included in both the inverse Gaussian and Reid-Axford profiles is the same, and the only difference between them is the time dependence outside the exponential function. While the Reid-Axford profile has t −1 time dependence, the inverse Gaussian profile has t −1.5 time dependence. This difference is ascribed to the different physical mechanisms considered for the two profiles. While the Reid-Axford profile is derived on the basis of lateral diffusion in the solar corona, the inverse Gaussian is based on vertical drift accompanied by diffusion in the solar corona. In reality, accelerated particles can drift and diffuse anisotropically in three dimensions, and the degrees of drifting and diffusion along each direction depend on the coronal magnetic field configuration, therefore, the injection model that is more suitable depends on the event.
Because the simulation is spatially one-dimensional, perpendicular diffusion and gradient-curvature drift are not included, and particles only move along magnetic field lines. This means that particle acceleration sites must be connected to observation sites via magnetic field lines, which may limit the applicability of the method to well-connected events. All events analyzed in the previous section were accompanied by solar flares in the western hemisphere of the Sun, suggesting that these events were well-connected. On the other hand, according to Gopalswamy et al. (2013), the event on 27 January 2012 was not well-connected because of the large latitudinal separation (∼40°) between the CME location and the ecliptic plane, although this event occurred in the western hemisphere of the Sun. This is why the initial phase of the event is slightly slow rising. As already mentioned, the event on 6 January 2014 occurred at the far western side of the Sun, implying that this event was also not well-connected. Therefore, our simulation sometimes works well by choosing a slow-rising injection time profile even though the SEP events are not well-connected, as long as the accompanying flare/CME occurs in the western hemisphere of the Sun.
Our model may not reproduce events with a plateau around the intensity peak, such as the event on 29 September 1989, which occurred behind the western limb. This is because these events often include interplanetary-shock-accelerated SEPs, while our model only deals with SEPs accelerated near the Sun (at a solar flare and/or in the solar corona). As an interplanetary shock will seldom accelerate SEPs up to several tens of MeV (although an extremely strong interplanetary shock can achieve this), most high-energy SEPs, such as those observed by the GOES P6 and P7 channels, are accelerated near the Sun, and the intensity time profiles observed by the GOES P6 and P7 channels do not show a plateau. Actually, while the GOES P1–P5 channel data for the 29th of September 1989 event showed plateau profiles, the P6 and P7 channels showed decay profiles rather than plateau profiles. As this study focused on high-energy SEPs, such as those observed by the GOES P6 and P7 channels, our model will work well even for the event on 29 September 1989. From 1997 to 2014, 29 events in the western hemisphere (longitude greater than W30) with intensities of SEPs with energy greater than 100 MeV reaching 1 PFU were observed by the GOES satellite. By visually checking the GOES P6 and P7 channel data for the 29 events, we concluded that 23 of the 29 events can be fitted using our model (almost 80 % of the western hemisphere events).
As mentioned in the previous section, our simulation can closely reproduce GOES P7 channel data. The energy of the P7 channel is just the energy that produces an extreme event such as a GLE. Therefore, our simulation is expected to be useful for reproducing and/or predicting GLEs and radiation doses for astronauts and aircrews.
We developed a numerical simulation code to calculate SEP intensity profiles as one component of a recently developed warning system for aviation exposure to SEPs. The code solves a spatially one-dimensional focused transport equation recast as a set of stochastic differential equations. An inverse Gaussian distribution was employed instead of the conventionally used profile for the injection time profile of SEPs near the Sun. The code provides the temporal profile of the differential intensity of an SEP event. To validate the code, the simulation results obtained using the code were fitted to observational data for four SEP events on 27 January 2012, 13 March 2012, 17 May 2012, and 6 January 2014 that were recorded by the GOES P6 and P7 channels, the square error of the fitting was minimized using the simplex method. The model predicted all the event profiles with satisfactory accuracy, indicating that the inverse Gaussian distribution can be used as the SEP injection profile instead of the well-known injection profile. By successfully reproducing SEP events, this code is expected to be applied to develop the WASAVIES warning system for aviation exposure to solar energetic particles.
Availability and requirements
This code is not currently available to the public.
1 In a mathematically precise description, the partial differential operators with respect to spatial coordinates should be written as covariant differential operators, and covariant and contravariant vectors should be distinctively written in a curvilinear coordinate system. However, these differences in description are not distinguished in this article.
2 A small correction is required for the parallel mean free path defined by Eq. 7 in the case of focused transport (Danos et al. 2013, references therein). However, Eq. (7) is used as the relation between the pitch angle scattering coefficient and the parallel mean free path in SEP transport simulations in this article.
The authors would like to acknowledge the National Geophysical Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for the use of GOES energetic particle data. We would also like to thank the anonymous referees for their useful comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.
- Aran, A, Sanahuja B, Lario D (2006) SOLPENCO: a solar particle engineering code. Adv Space Res 37: 1240.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Balch, CC (2008) Updated verification of the Space Weather Prediction Center’s solar energetic particle prediction model. Space Weather 6: S01001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Beeck, J, Wibberenz G (1986) Pitch angle distributions of solar energetic particles and the local scattering properties of the interplanetary medium. Astrophys J 311: 437.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bieber, JW, Matthaeus WH, Smith CW, Wanner W, Kallenrode M-B, Wibberentz G (1994) Proton and electron mean free paths: the Palmer consensus revisited. Astrophys J 420: 294.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Caprioli, D, Spitkovsky A (2014) Simulation of ion acceleration at non-relativistic shocks: III) particle diffusion. Astrophys J 794: 47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Danos, RJ, Fiege JD, Shalchi A (2013) Numerical analysis of the Fokker-Planck equation with adiabatic focusing: isotropic pitch-angle scattering. Astrophys J 772: 35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dröge, W (2000) The rigidity dependence of solar particle scattering mean free paths. Astrophys J 537: 1073.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dröge, W, Kartavykh YY, Klecker B, Kovaltsov GA (2010) Anisotropic three-dimensional focused transport of solar energetic particles in the inner heliosphere. Astrophys J 709: 912.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Effenberger, F, Fichtner H, Scherer K, Büsching I (2012) Anisotropic diffusion of galactic cosmic ray protons and their steady-state azimuthal distribution. Astron Astrophys 547: A120.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Farahat, A, Zhang M, Rassoul H, Connel JJ (2008) Cosmic ray transport and production in the galaxy: a stochastic propagation simulation approach. Astrophys J 681: 1334.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Garcia, H A (2004a) Forecasting methods for occurrence and magnitude of proton storms with solar soft X-rays. Space Weather 2: S02002.Google Scholar
- Garcia, HA (2004b) Forecasting methods for occurrence and magnitude of proton storms with solar hard X-rays. Space Weather 2: S06003.Google Scholar
- Gopalswamy, N, Xie H, Akiyama S, Yashiro S, Usoskin IG, Davila JM (2013) The first ground level enhancement event of solar cycle 24: direct observation of shock formation and particle release heights. Astrophys J 765: L30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- He, H-Q, Qin G, Zhang M (2011) Propagation of solar energetic particles in three-dimensional interplanetary magnetic fields: in view of characteristics of sources. Astrophys J 734: 74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hu, S, Kim M-HY, McClellan GE, Cucinotta FA (2009) Modeling the acute health effects of astronauts from exposure to large solar particle events. Health Phys 96: 465.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Isenberg, PA (1997) A hemispherical model of anisotropic interstellar pickup ions. J Geophys Res 102: 4719.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jokipii, JR (1966) Cosmic-ray propagation. I. Charged particles in a random magnetic field. Astrophys J 146: 480.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kahler, SW, Cliver EW, Ling AG (2007) Validating the proton prediction system (PPS). J Atmos Sol Terr Phys 69: 43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kataoka, R, Sato T, Kubo Y, Shiota D, Kuwabara T, Yashiro S, Yasuda H (2014) Radiation dose forecast of WASAVIES during ground level enhancement. Space Weather 12: 380. doi:10.1002/2014SW001053.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kloeden, PE, Platen E (1999) Numerical solutions of stochastic differential equations. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
- Kopp, A, Büsching I, Strauss RD, Potgieter MS (2012) A stochastic differential equation code for multidimensional Fokker-Planck type problems. Comp Phys Comm 183: 530.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kronenberg, A, Cucinotta FA (2012) Space radiation protection issues. Health Phys 103: 556.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kubo, Y, Akioka M (2004) Existence of thresholds in proton flares and application to solar energetic particle alerts. Space Weather 2: S01002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kuwabara, T, Bieber JW, Clem J, Evenson P, Pyle R (2006) Development of a ground level enhancement alarm system based upon neutron monitors. Space Weather 4: S10001.Google Scholar
- Lario, D, Sanahuja B, Heras AM (1998) Energetic particle events: efficiency of interplanetary shocks as 50 keV < E < 100 MeV proton accelerators. Astrophys J 509: 415.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Laurenza, M, Cliver EW, Hewitt J, Storini M, Ling AG, Balch CC, Kaiser ML (2009) A technique for short-term warning of solar energetic particle events based on flare location, flare size, and evidence of particle escape. Space Weather 4: S04008.Google Scholar
- Nelder, JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comp J 7: 308.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Núñez, M (2011) Predicting solar energetic proton events (E > 10 MeV). Space Weather 9: S07003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Øksendal, BK (1999) Stochastic Differential equations: an introduction with applications. Springer, Tokyo.Google Scholar
- Pei, C, Bieber JW, Burger RA, Clem J (2010) A general time-dependent stochastic method for solving Parker’s transport equation in spherical coordinates. J Geophys Res 115: A12107.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Posner, A (2007) Up to 1-hour forecasting of radiation hazards from solar energetic ion events with relativistic electrons. Space Weather 5: S05001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Qin, G, Zhang M, Dwyer JR (2006) Effect of adiabatic cooling on the fitted parallel mean free path of solar energetic particles. J Geophys Res 111: A08101.Google Scholar
- Qin, G, Wang Y, Zhang M, Dalla S (2013) Transport of solar energetic particles accelerated by ICME shocks: reproducing the reservoir phenomenon. Astrophys J 766: 74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Reames, D V (2004) Solar energetic particle variations. Adv Space Res 34: 381.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Reames, D V (2013) The two sources of solar energetic particles. Space Sci Rev 175: 53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Reid, GC (1964) A diffusive model for initial phase of a solar proton event. J Geophys Res 69: 2659.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rice, WKM, Zank GP, Li G (2003) Particle acceleration and coronal mass ejection driven shocks: shocks of arbitrary strength. J Geophys Res 108: 1369.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ruffolo, D (1995) Effect of adiabatic deceleration on the focused transport of solar cosmic rays. Astrophys J 442: 861.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sato, T, Kataoka R, Yasuda H, Yashiro S, Kuwabara T, Shiota D, Kubo Y (2014) Air shower simulation for WASAVIES: warning system for aviation exposure to solar energetic particles. Radiat Prot Dosim. doi:10.1093/rpd/nct332.
- Shea, MA, Smart DF (2012) Space weather and the ground-level solar proton events of the 23rd solar cycle. Space Sci Rev 171: 161.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sokolov, IV, Roussev II, Gombosi TI, Lee MA, Kóta J, Forbes TG, Manchester WB, Sakai JI (2004) A new field line advection model for solar particle acceleration. Astrophys J 616: L171.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Strauss, RD, Potgieter MS, Ferreira SES, Fichtner H, Scherer K (2013) Cosmic ray modulation beyond the heliopause: a hybrid modeling approach. Astrophys J 765: L18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vainio, R, Desorgher L, Heynderickx D, Storini M, Flückiger E, Horne RB, Kovaltsov GA, Kudela K, Laurenza M, McKenna-Lawlor S, Rothkaehl H, Usoskin IG (2009) Dynamics of the Earth’s particle radiation environment. Space Sci Rev 147: 187.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Verkhoglyadova, OP, Li G, Zank GP, Hu Q, Mewaldt RA (2009) Using the path code for modeling gradual SEP events in the inner heliosphere. Astrophys J 693: 894.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zank, GP, Rice WKM, Wu CC (2000) Particle acceleration and coronal mass ejection driven shocks: a theoretical model. J Geophys Res 105: 25079.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhang, M (1999) A Markov stochastic process theory of cosmic-ray modulation. Astrophys J 513: 409.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhang, M, Qin G, Rassoul H (2009) Propagation of solar energetic particles in three-dimensional interplanetary magnetic fields. Astrophys J 692: 109.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zuo, P, Zhang M, Gamayunov K, Rassoul H, Luo Z (2011) Energy spectrum of energetic particles accelerated by shock waves: from focused transport to diffusive acceleration. Astrophys J 738: 168.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.