arXiv:1710.05755v2 [physics.space-ph] 14 Oct 2018 MNRAS uigteitrcino ag-cl antcclouds. magnetic large-scale of interaction the during © ⋆ ZZZ form original in YYY; Received XXX. Accepted h first The oei xrm pc ete n geo-effectiveness and key are weather their They space for ( extreme physics heliosphere. space in the in role into plasma importance paramount corona magnetized of dis- massive solar frequent and the are energy from huge (CMEs) of ejections charge mass Coronal The INTRODUCTION 1 1 crje ice2010 Siscoe & Schrijver nlN Raghav, N. Anil nvriyDprmn fPyis nvriyo ubi Vi Mumbai, of University Physics, of Department University -al [email protected] E-mail: 07TeAuthors The 2017 000 , 1 – 8 21)Pern 6Otbr21 oplduigMRSL MNRAS using Compiled 2018 October 16 Preprint (2017) insitu ; oln 1993 Gosling 1 ⋆ n niaKule, Ankita and n egdmlil antccod pera the as geo-effectiven appear clouds and multiple magnetic evolution the multiple merged dynamic of and interaction their The affects weather. space (CM space planetary ejections the mass of coronal driver as mental such cloud magnetic large-scale The ABSTRACT lus–mre neatn ein antcreconnection magnetic – regions interacting merged – clouds possib words: are clouds Key magnetic th large-scale in of also interactions but where interactions medium CME-magnetosphere in stu only present not The implications collisions. clouds exchang magnetic energy large-scale possible during the anisms are conclud reconnection We magnetic clouds. and CMEs/magnetic waves multiple of presence region the interacting confirm the to in used Wal´en is The relation CMEs. multiple of th after unambig region interacting present the we Alfv´en in Here, torsional waves sunward clouds. magnetic multiple CME of j the merging is for CME- of ble process of energy reconnection magnetic studies thermal Moreover, energy. case and kinetic The magnetic the the literature. that the suggest in events found pos been major has the no evidence of However, interaction. one the be during mechanism to change/dissipation speculated are Alfv´en waves The CMEs. bevto ftrinlAlfv´en waves torsional of observation ; anne l 2013 al. et Cannon lve MD ae M-M neato utpemagnetic Multiple – interaction CME-CME – waves Alfv´en (MHD) e.g. 1 yngr,Snarz() ubi409,India Mumbai-400098, (E), Santacruz dyanagari, ; fCE mte rmteSndrn oa aiu and maximum solar during Sun the from emitted CMEs of ubce ihrsn2006 Richardson & Zurbuchen 2012 heliosphere Howard & the Webb in morpholog- CMEs the of e.g. on evolution mod- kinematic focused various and are of ical studies help The the efforts. eling with data ground- observational and space based of because significantly improved CMEs 2001 Low ( ida ta.1999 al. et Lindsay .I atfwdcds h nesadn of understanding the decades, few last In ). ; insitu ua ta.2017 al. et Lugaz ; tCre l 2000 al. et Cyr St intr fteinteracting the of signature .B osdrn h number the considering By ). ue-lsi collision super-elastic e sie ob responsi- be to ustified /ispto mech- e/dissipation uhobservational such s.Tecomplex The ess. ; yhssignificant has dy s stefunda- the is Es) le. scnetdinto converted is A age l 2016 al. et Wang inter- in -CMEs oseiec of evidence uous il nryex- energy sible T fAlfv´en waves of E M collision CME tl l v3.0 file style X htAlfv´en that e ; interstellar e hn2011 Chen ; ; 2 Anil Raghav & Ankita Kule variations in their respective speeds, the interaction between waves (Jacques 1977). Despite this fact, the MHD waves multiple CMEs in the heliosphere is expected to be more fre- are not commonly observed within the magnetic clouds of quent. The collision of multiple CMEs highly affect their dy- various sizes in the solar wind. Gosling et al. (2010) re- namic evolution properties and contribute to enhanced geo- ported the first observation of torsional Alfv´en wave em- effectiveness e.g. (Wang et al. 2005; Lugaz et al. 2005, 2012; bedded in the magnetic cloud. The Alfv´en wave fluctua- Xiong et al. 2007; Temmer et al. 2012; Shen et al. 2011, tions in the solar wind is a common observable feature 2012; Wang et al. 2002; Farrugia & Berdichevsky 2004). To e.g. (Yang et al. 2016; Marubashi et al. 2010; Zhang et al. predict space weather effects near the Earth, an accurate 2014). The Alfv´enic fluctuations are observed in the re- estimation of arrival time of CMEs at the Earth is cru- gion where fast and slow solar wind streams interact e.g. cial (Mishra & Srivastava 2014). Besides this, the study of (Tsurutani et al. 1995; Lepping et al. 1997). Observations CME-CME and CME-solar wind interactions provide unique also suggest the presence of the Alfv´en waves during inter- observational evidences to understand energy dissipation face of magnetic cloud and solar wind stream (Lepping et al. of large-scale magnetic clouds in interstellar medium and 1997; Behannon et al. 1991). Here, we present the first ob- authenticate the physical processes predicted theoretically. servation of Alfv´en waves embedded in multi-cloud, complex Therefore, interaction of multiple CMEs needs to be exam- interacting region caused by interaction of multiple CMEs. ined in detail. The various results obtained from studies have justified CME-CME collision as an in-elastic/elastic collision 2 METHODS AND OBSERVATIONS or super-elastic collision e.g. (Lugaz et al. 2012; Shen et al. 2012; Mishra et al. 2017; Shen et al. 2016; Lugaz et al. The multiple-CMEs collision event under study has been 2017). The magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) numerical sim- studied in the past; by focusing on (i) their interaction cor- ulations have striven to understand the physical mechanism responding to different position angles (Temmer et al. 2014) involved in CME-CME interaction, CME-CME driven shock (ii) their geometrical properties and the coefficient of restitu- interactions and their consequences e.g. (Shen et al. 2016; tion for the head-on collision scenario (Mishra & Srivastava Niembro et al. 2015; Jin et al. 2016; Wu et al. 2016). 2014). Mariˇci´c et al. (2014) studied heliospheric and in The interaction of multiple CMEs and/or their interac- situ observations of the same event to understand the cor- tion with any other large-scale magnetic solar wind struc- responding Forbush decrease phenomenon (Mariˇci´cet al. tures can modify their structural configuration. The first 2014; Raghav et al. 2017, 2014). It was inferred that there possibility of CME-CME interaction was reported by ana- was a combination of three CMEs instead of two CMEs. lyzing insitu observations of CMEs by the Pioneer 9 space- Those three CMEs ejected on 13th (here onward designated craft (Intriligator 1976). Burlaga et al. (1987) showed that as CME1), 14th (CME2) and 15th (CME3) February 2011 compound streams are formed due to CME-CME inter- interacted on their way and appeared as a single complex in- action using insitu observations of the twin Helios space- terplanetary disturbance at 1 AU in the WIND satellite data craft. Burlaga et al. (2002) inferred that a set of successive on 18/20 February 2011 (Mariˇci´cet al. 2014; Vrˇsnak & Zicˇ halo CMEs, merged en route from the Sun to the Earth 2007). and formed complex ejecta in which the identity of indi- The in situ observations of the highly complex vidual CMEs was lost (Burlaga et al. 2001). Furthermore, structure is illustrated in Figure 1 consisting of several CME-CME interactions led to the magnetic reconnection different regions, which have been marked by numbering between flux ropes of CMEs and appeared as multiple mag- on the top with different color shades. The first (reddish- netic clouds in insitu observations e.g. (Wang et al. 2002, yellow shade) region shows clear sharp discontinuity in 2003; Mariˇci´cet al. 2014; Farrugia & Berdichevsky 2004). all plasma and magnetic field data, which is interpreted This mechanism is also known to lead to solar energetic par- as an onset of shock. In general, the presence of the ticle (SEP) events (Gopalswamy et al. 2002). shock should be confirmed with Rankine-Hugoniot rela- It is expected that in the interaction of large-scale tion. The CfA Interplanetary Shock Database available at magnetic structures, the transfer of momentum and energy https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/shocks/wi_data/00530/wi_00530.html takes place in the form of magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) validates the observations. The shock-front is followed by

MNRAS 000, 1–8 (2017) 3

Figure 1. Wind observation of complex CME-CME interaction event crossed on 18-20 February 2011 ( time cadence of 92 sec). The top panel shows total interplanetary field strength IMF ( B ) and total solar wind V . The 2nd , 3r d and 4th panel from top show IMF | | ( ) components Bz, By, Bx and solar wind components Vz, Vy, Vx respectively. The fifth panel shows IMF orientation Φ, Θ . The sixth ( ) ( ) ( ) panel shows plasma proton density and temperature and bottom panel show plasma beta and plasma thermal pressure. All observations are in GSE coordinate system. The sub-regions of the complex event are presented as a number given at the top and different color shades for better understanding of in situ data.

high plasma density, temperature and thermal pressure; wiched between two sharp discontinuities. The demonstrated large magnetic field fluctuations and enhanced magnetic variations in the magnetic field and plasma parameters indi- field strength which is manifested as shock sheath region cate the presence of the magnetic re-connection-outflow ex- (Richardson & Cane 2011). In the region 2 (cyan shade), haust (Gosling et al. 2005a,b; Xu et al. 2011) between two the elevated magnetic field strength, a decrease in plasma CME magnetic clouds (Wang et al. 2003; Lugaz et al. 2017). temperature and thermal pressure, very low plasma beta (β) The detailed justification for this ad-hoc hypothesis is pre- and gradual decrease in solar wind speed is observed which sented in Mariˇci´cet al. (2014) based on similar investigation is ascribed to a magnetic cloud like-structure (Burlaga et al. of in-situ data. Region 4 and 5 (pink and green shade) show 1982; Zurbuchen & Richardson 2006). However, due to the increase in solar wind speed, lower proton density, gradual interaction with 2nd CME, the clear signature of the decrease in magnetic field strength. The plasma beta is de- magnetic field rotation is not evident. creasing in regions 4 whereas gradually increasing in region 5. The magnetic field rotation is observed at the beginning Region 3 (purple shade) shows a sharp drop in the mag- of the region 5, but it is not evident during the complete netic field strength, increase in plasma parameters such as regions of 4 and 5. These observations suggest the highly plasma temperature, plasma beta (β), thermal pressure and complex interplanetary region. turbulent nature of solar wind speed. This region is sand-

MNRAS 000, 1–8 (2017) 4 Anil Raghav & Ankita Kule

Region 6 (pink shade) shows a sudden increase in region 4 and region 6 of the event shown in Figure 1. The magnetic field strength and solar wind speed with steep linear equation and correlation coefficient are shown in each drop in plasma temperature and proton density, which ap- panel. The correlation coefficients for x, y, and z compo- pears like a shock or a magnetic cloud front boundary af- nents are 0.82 (0.76), 0.91 (0.94), and 0.94 (0.93), while the

ter sheath region. Furthermore, Bz shows almost no rota- slopes are 0.57 (0.94), 0.64 (1), and 0.78 (1), respectively for

tion, By shows partial rotation. The Θ angle is more or region 6 (4); The observed values of correlation coefficients less constant whereas Φ varies by about 45 degrees. This and slopes are consistent with reported studies of Alfv´en manifested that the region 6 is indeed a magnetic cloud or waves (Lepping et al. 1997; Yang et al. 2016). The correla- magnetic cloud-like structure, but one with relatively small tion and regression analysis of both the regions (shown in

rotation. It is listed in the Lepping MC list available at Figure 2 ) suggest strong positive correlation between ∆VAx

https://wind.gsfc.nasa.gov/mfi/mag_cloud_S1.html . & ∆Vx, ∆VAy & ∆Vy, ∆VAz & ∆Vz. This indicates sunward The regions 4 and 6 (pink shade) show peculiar and pointing torsional Alfv´en waves are embedded within both distinct feature in which similar temporal variations are ob- these regions (Gosling et al. 2010; Marubashi et al. 2010; served in the respective magnetic field and velocity com- Zhang et al. 2014). ponents. The observations indicate the presence of possi- ble magneto-hydrodynamic plasma oscillations i.e. torsional 3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Alfv´en waves. Typically, two analysis methods are used to confirm the presence of Alfv´en waves in solar wind/magnetic The heliospheric remote imaging analysis concluded that clouds. In the first method, one can find Hoffman-Teller multiple CMEs interacted in interplanetary space before ar-

(HT) frame velocity VHT using the measured values of riving at 1 AU (position of Wind satellite) (Mishra et al. ( ) B and V. The strong correlation between components of 2017; Mariˇci´cet al. 2014; Temmer et al. 2014). The obser-

V VHT and Alfv´en velocity confirms the presence of Alfv´en vation manifests that CME1 and CME2 are boosted by ( − ) waves (Gosling et al. 2010). However, here we used another CME3 due to its excess speed. The Drag based model sug- obvious characteristic for identifying Alfv´en waves. The well- gests region 2 as MC of CME1, combined regions 4 and 5 as correlated changes in magnetic field B and plasma velocity MC of CME2 and region 6 as MC of CME3 from Figure 1 V which is described by the Wal´en relation (Wal´en 1944; (Mariˇci´cet al. 2014). The identification of region 3 as mag- Hudson 1971) as netic re-connection-outflow exhaust (Gosling et al. 2005a,b; B Xu et al. 2011; Mariˇci´cet al. 2014) indicates that the mag- VA = A (1) ± √µ0 ρ netic reconnection mechanism is a major interacting mech- where A is the anisotropy parameter, B is magnetic field anism between CME1 and CME2. The middle CME2 MC vector and ρ is proton mass density. In the solar wind, the (regions 4 & 5) is sandwiched between leading, slower CME1 influence of the thermal anisotropy is often not important and fast, following CME3. Therefore, it is highly compressed and can be ignored, thus we usually take A = 1 (Yang et al. and overheated. 2016). The fluctuations ∆B in B are obtained by subtracting The recent work by Mishra et al. (2017) considered an average value of B from each measured values. Therefore, oblique collision scenario of two CMEs for the same stud- the fluctuations in Alfv´en velocity is ied event using the heliospheric remote imaging techniques. ∆B The CME1 and CME2 merged together by magnetic re- ∆VA = (2) √µ0 ρ connection and become visible as first CME after collision Furthermore, the fluctuations of proton flow velocity and CME3 appeared as second CME in heliospheric imaging ∆V are calculated by subtracting averaged proton flow ve- data. Mishra et al. (2017) estimated the coefficient of resti- locity from measured values. Figure 2 shows the compari- tution (e) as 1.65. The collision leads to an increase in the

son of x, y and z components of ∆VA and ∆V, respectively. momentum of first CME by 68% and a decrease of 43% in Figure 3 shows the linear regression relation between the the second CME, in comparison to their values before the fluctuations of Alfv´en velocity vector components and the collision. Thus, the collision results in an increase of 7.33% in fluctuations of proton flow velocity vector components for the total kinetic energy of the CMEs and was interpreted as

MNRAS 000, 1–8 (2017) 5

Figure 2. Right 3 panels (region 4) and left 3 panels (region 6) illustrate relative fluctuation of Alfv´en velocity vector ∆VA (blue lines) and that of proton flow velocity vector ∆V (red lines). ( time cadence of 92 sec)

Figure 3. The linear relation between ∆VA and ∆V for region 4 (left) and region 6 (right) for the event shown in Figure 1. The scattered blue circles are observations from Wind satellite with time cadence of 92 sec. The R is the correlation coefficient. The equation in each panel suggest the straight-line fit relation between respective components of ∆VA and ∆V.

MNRAS 000, 1–8 (2017) 6 Anil Raghav & Ankita Kule super-elastic by nature (Mishra et al. 2017). Moreover, they is the possible energy dissipation mechanisms during large- also indicate 18 hrs of collision time, after which there is a scale magnetic cloud collisions. separation of the two CMEs (Mishra et al. 2017). The 18 hrs The energy exchange mechanism in CME and plan- of collision time indicates the large-scale plasmoid collision is etary magnetosphere interactions is one of the intriguing not as simple as solid body collision. Therefore, we hypothe- problems in space-physics or space-weather studies. Each size that the leading edge of CME3 is continuously exerting a planetary magnetosphere is considered as one type of plas- force on the trailing edge of CME2. The high distortion with moid in the heliosphere, with a particular orientation of compression and heating of magnetic cloud of CME2 (region magnetic field. It is clearly noticeable that the slow-fast 5 of Figure 1) is evident in insitu observation. Thus, mag- solar wind stream interaction, magnetic cloud-solar wind netic energy of the magnetic cloud of CME2 converts to the stream interaction and magnetic cloud-cloud interaction kinetic energy of the colliding system, which leads to CME- give rise to torsional Alfv´en waves in space plasma. In CME super-elastic collision (Shen et al. 2012; Mishra et al. a condition of opposite magnetic orientation of the plas- 2017). It can also cause a change in the force balance con- moids, the magnetic reconnection is the possible physical ditions of flux ropes. This induces magneto-hydrodynamic mechanism of their interaction e.g. geomagnetic storms. wave in which ions plasma oscillate in response to a restor- The fluctuating Bz fields comprising Alfven waves are ex- ing force provided by an effective tension on the magnetic pected to cause a type of auroral electro-jet activity called field lines. The presence of torsional Alfv´en waves in region High-Intensity, Long Duration, Continuous AE Activity 4 (front of CME2 magnetic cloud) and region 6 ( CME3 (HILDCAAs)(Tsurutani & Gonzalez 1987). Their presence magnetic cloud) suggests conclusive evidence of this possi- may contribute substantially to geo-effectiveness of mag- ble physical mechanism. It implies that the MHD waves are netic cloud-magnetosphere interaction (Zhang et al. 2014). the possible energy and momentum exchange/dissipation Therefore, the interaction of these Alfv´en waves with the mode during large-scale plasmoids interaction. The presence magnetic cloud and planetary magnetosphere should be in- of magnetic reconnection-outflow exhaust at the boundary vestigated further. of region 2 and 4 may have prohibited Alfv´en waves in region 2.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The dissipation rate of kinetic energy in clumpy, mag- netic, molecular clouds is estimated by Elmegreen (1985). We are thankful to WIND Spacecraft data providers Their results indicate that for pressure-equilibrium magnetic (wind.nasa.gov) for making interplanetary data available. field strengths, low-density clouds lose most of their kinetic We are also thankful to Department of Physics (Au- energy by Alfv´en wave radiation to the external medium. tonomous), University of Mumbai, for providing us facil- This implies that the presence of sunward torsional Alfv´en ities for fulfillment of this work. AR would also like to waves in the magnetic cloud of the CME3 causes decreases thank Wageesh Mishra for valuable discussion on CME- in kinetic energy. Hence, this lowers down the speed of mag- CME interaction. AR also thanks to Yuming Wang and netic cloud of CME3 which further leads to the separation Solar-TErrestrial Physics (STEP) group, USTC, china & of CMEs. SCOSTEP visiting Scholar program. AR is also thakful to

The Alfv´en waves are thought to pervade many astro- Gauri Datar. physical plasmas. They have been observed in the solar wind e.g. (Yang et al. 2016; Lepping et al. 1997; Tsurutani et al. 1995) and are expected to exist in the interstellar medium REFERENCES on many length scales and in many environments (Goldstein Behannon K., Burlaga L., Hewish A., 1991, Journal of Geophys- 1978). It is likely to be one of the major energy ex- ical Research: Space Physics, 96, 21213 change/dissipation mode in large-scale magnetic cloud col- Burlaga L., Klein L., Sheeley N., Michels D., Howard R., Koomen lisions (Elmegreen 1985; Jacques 1977). The present study M., Schwenn R., Rosenbauer H., 1982, Geophysical Research confirms this and demonstrates that torsional Alfv´en waves Letters, 9, 1317

MNRAS 000, 1–8 (2017) 7

Burlaga L., Behannon K., Klein L., 1987, Journal of Geophysical arXiv:1707.08299 Research: Space Physics, 92, 5725 Niembro T., Cant´oJ., Lara A., Gonz´alez R., 2015, The Astro- Burlaga L., Skoug R., Smith C., Webb D., Zurbuchen T., Reinard physical Journal, 811, 69 A., 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Raghav A., Bhaskar A., Lotekar A., Vichare G., Yadav V., 2014, 106, 20957 Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2014, 074 Burlaga L., Plunkett S., St Cyr O., 2002, Journal of Geophysical Raghav A., Shaikh Z., Bhaskar A., Datar G., Vichare G., 2017, Research: Space Physics, 107 Solar Physics, 292, 99 Cannon P., et al., 2013, Extreme space weather: impacts on en- Richardson I., Cane H., 2011, Solar Physics, 270, 609 gineered systems and infrastructure. Royal Academy of Engi- Schrijver C. J., Siscoe G. L., 2010, Heliophysics: Space Storms and neering Radiation: Causes and Effects. Cambridge University Press Chen P., 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1 Shen F., Feng X., Wang Y., Wu S., Song W., Guo J., Zhou Y., Elmegreen B. G., 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 299, 196 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116 Farrugia C., Berdichevsky D., 2004, in Annales Geophysicae. pp Shen C., et al., 2012, Nature Physics, 8, 923 3679–3698 Shen F., Wang Y., Shen C., Feng X., 2016, Scientific reports, 6, Goldstein M. L., 1978, The Astrophysical Journal, 219, 700 19576 Gopalswamy N., Yashiro S., Micha lek G., Kaiser M., Howard R., St Cyr O., et al., 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Reames D., Leske R., Von Rosenvinge T., 2002, The Astro- Physics, 105, 18169 physical Journal Letters, 572, L103 Gosling J. T., 1993, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Temmer M., et al., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 749, 57 98, 18937 Temmer M., Veronig A., Peinhart V., Vrˇsnak B., 2014, The As- Gosling J., Skoug R., McComas D., Smith C., 2005a, Geophysical trophysical Journal, 785, 85 research letters, 32 Tsurutani B. T., Gonzalez W. D., 1987, Planetary and Space Gosling J., Skoug R., McComas D., Smith C., 2005b, Journal of Science, 35, 405 Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110 Tsurutani B. T., Ho C. M., Arballo J. K., Goldstein B. E., Balogh Gosling J., Teh W.-L., Eriksson S., 2010, The Astrophysical Jour- A., 1995, Geophysical research letters, 22, 3397 nal Letters, 719, L36 Vrˇsnak B., Zicˇ T., 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 472, 937 Hudson P., 1971, Planetary and Space Science, 19, 1693 Wal´en C., 1944, Arkiv for Astronomi, 30, 1 Intriligator D. S., 1976, Space Science Reviews, 19, 629 Wang Y., Wang S., Ye P., 2002, Solar Physics, 211, 333 Jacques S., 1977, The Astrophysical Journal, 215, 942 Wang Y. M., Ye P. Z., Wang S., 2003, Journal of Geophysical Jin M., Schrijver C., Cheung M., DeRosa M., Nitta N., et al., Research: Space Physics, 108 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 16 Wang Y., Zheng H., Wang S., Ye P., 2005, Astronomy & Astro- Lepping R., et al., 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space physics, 434, 309 Physics, 102, 14049 Wang Y., Zhuang B., Hu Q., Liu R., Shen C., Chi Y., 2016, Jour- Lindsay G., Luhmann J., Russell C., Gosling J., 1999, Journal of nal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 9316 Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 104, 12515 Webb D. F., Howard T. A., 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, Low B., 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 9, 3 106, 25141 Wu C.-C., et al., 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Lugaz N., Manchester IV W., Gombosi T., 2005, The Astrophys- Physics, 121, 1839 ical Journal, 634, 651 Xiong M., Zheng H., Wu S., Wang Y., Wang S., 2007, Journal of Lugaz N., Farrugia C., Davies J., M¨ostl C., Davis C., Roussev I., Temmer M., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 68 Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 112 Lugaz N., Temmer M., Wang Y., Farrugia C. J., 2017, Solar Xu X., Wei F., Feng X., 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Physics, 292, 64 Space Physics, 116 Mariˇci´cD., et al., 2014, Solar physics, 289, 351 Yang L., Lee L., Chao J., Hsieh W., Luo Q., Li J., Shi J., Wu D., Marubashi K., Cho K.-S., Park Y.-D., 2010, in AIP Conference 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 178 Proceedings. pp 240–244 Zhang X.-Y., Moldwin M., Steinberg J., Skoug R., 2014, Journal Mishra W., Srivastava N., 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 3259 64 Zurbuchen T. H., Richardson I. G., 2006, Space Science Reviews, Mishra W., Wang Y., Srivastava N., Shen C., 2017, arXiv preprint 123, 31

MNRAS 000, 1–8 (2017) 8 Anil Raghav & Ankita Kule

This paper has been typeset from a TEX/LATEX file prepared by the author.

MNRAS 000, 1–8 (2017)