The evolution of the magnetic field and plasma quantities inside a coronal mass ejection (CME) with distance are known from statistical studies using data from 1 au monitors, planetary missions, Helios, and Ulysses. This does not cover the innermost heliosphere, below 0.29 au, where no data are yet publicly available. Here, we describe the evolution of the properties of simulated CMEs in the inner heliosphere using two different initiation mechanisms. We compare the radial evolution of these properties with that found from statistical studies based on observations in the inner heliosphere by Helios and MESSENGER. We find that the evolution of the radial size and magnetic field strength is nearly indistinguishable for twisted flux rope from that of writhed CMEs. The evolution of these properties is also consistent with past studies, primarily with recent statistical studies using in situ measurements and with studies using remote observations of CMEs.

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are the main drivers of geomagnetic disturbances, but the effects of their interaction with Earth's magnetic field depend on their magnetic configuration and orientation. Fitting and reconstruction techniques have been developed to determine the important geometrical and physical CME properties. In many instances, there is disagreement between such different methods but also between fitting from in situ measurements and reconstruction based on remote imaging. Here, we compare three methods based on different assumptions for measurements of thirteen CMEs by the Wind spacecraft from 1997 to 2015. These CMEs are selected from the interplanetary coronal mass ejections catalog on https://wind.nasa.gov/ICMEindex.php due to their simplicity in terms of 1) small expansion speed throughout the CME and 2) little asymmetry in the magnetic field profile. This makes these thirteen events ideal candidates to compare codes that do not include expansion nor distortion. We find that, for these simple events, the codes are in relatively good agreement in terms of the CME axis orientation for six out of the 13 events. Using the Grad-Shafranov technique, we can determine the shape of the cross-section, which is assumed to be circular for the other two models, a force-free fitting and a circular-cylindrical non-force-free fitting. Five of the events are found to have a clear circular cross-section, even when this is not a pre-condition of the reconstruction. We make an initial attempt at evaluating the adequacy of the different assumptions for these simple CMEs. The conclusion of this work strongly suggests that attempts at reconciling in situ and remote-sensing views of CMEs must take in consideration the compatibility of the different models with specific CME structures to better reproduce flux ropes.

This study aims to provide a reference to different magnetic field models and reconstruction methods for interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs). In order to understand the differences in the outputs of those models and codes, we analyze 59 events from the Coordinated Data Analysis Workshop (CDAW) list, using four different magnetic field models and reconstruction techniques; force-free fitting (Goldstein,1983,Burlaga,1988,Lepping et al.,1990), magnetostatic reconstruction using a numerical solution to the Grad-Shafranov equation (Hu and Sonnerup, 2001), fitting to a self-similarly expanding cylindrical configuration (Marubashi and Lepping, 2007) and elliptical, non-force free fitting (Hidalgo,2003). The resulting parameters of the reconstructions for the 59 events are compared statistically, as well as in selected case studies. The ability of a method to fit or reconstruct an event is found to vary greatly: the Grad-Shafranov reconstruction is successful for most magnetic clouds (MCs) but for less than 10% of the non-MC ICMEs; the other three methods provide a successful fit for more than 65% of all events. The differences between the reconstruction and fitting methods are discussed, and suggestions are proposed as to how to reduce them. We find that the magnitude of the axial field is relatively consistent across models but not the orientation of the axis of the ejecta. We also find that there are a few cases for which different signs of the magnetic helicity are found for the same event when we do not fix the boundaries, illustrating that this simplest of parameters is not necessarily always well constrained by fitting and reconstruction models. Finally, we look at three unique cases in depth to provide a comprehensive idea of the different aspects of how the fitting and reconstruction codes work.