Paper detail

Dipolar versus multipolar dynamos: the influence of the background density stratification

Context: dynamo action in giant planets and rapidly rotating stars leads to a broad variety of magnetic field geometries including small scale multipolar and large scale dipole-dominated topologies. Previous dynamo models suggest that solutions become multipolar once inertia becomes influential. Being tailored for terrestrial planets, most of these models neglected the background density stratification. Aims: we investigate the influence of the density stratification on convection-driven dynamo models. Methods: three-dimensional nonlinear simulations of rapidly rotating spherical shells are employed using the anelastic approximation to incorporate density stratification. A systematic parametric study for various density stratifications and Rayleigh numbers allows to explore the dependence of the magnetic field topology on these parameters. Results: anelastic dynamo models tend to produce a broad range of magnetic field geometries that fall on two distinct branches with either strong dipole-dominated or weak multipolar fields. As long as inertia is weak, both branches can coexist but the dipolar branch vanishes once inertia becomes influential. The dipolar branch also vanishes for stronger density stratifications. The reason is the concentration of the convective columns in a narrow region close to the outer boundary equator, a configuration that favors non-axisymmetric solutions. In multipolar solutions, zonal flows can become significant and participate in the toroidal field generation. Parker dynamo waves may then play an important role close to onset of dynamo action leading to a cyclic magnetic field behavior. Conclusion: Our simulations also suggest that the fact that late M dwarfs have dipolar or multipolar magnetic fields can be explained in two ways. They may differ either by the relative influence of inertia or fall into the regime where both types of solutions coexist.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.