Premium
Bursty bulk flows at different magnetospheric activity levels: Dependence on IMF conditions
Author(s) -
Zhang L. Q.,
Baumjohann W.,
Wang C.,
Dai L.,
Tang B. B
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: space physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2169-9402
pISSN - 2169-9380
DOI - 10.1002/2016ja022397
Subject(s) - substorm , physics , interplanetary magnetic field , geophysics , flux (metallurgy) , solar wind , interplanetary spaceflight , phase (matter) , quiet , magnetosphere , astrophysics , magnetic field , astronomy , materials science , quantum mechanics , metallurgy
Based on concurrent observations of the ACE and Geotail satellites from 1998 to 2005, we statistically analyzed and compared the earthward bursty bulk flows (BBFs) with local positive B z under different interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) conditions. Four different magnetospheric activity levels (MALs), including quiet times and substorm growth/expansion/recovery phases, are considered. The properties of the BBFs, including their ion temperature ( T ), V x component, x component of the energy flux density ( Q x ), and the solar wind dawn‐dusk electric field E y (observed at ~1 AU), are analyzed. Main observations include the following: (1) BBF tends to have less penetration distance for northward IMF (NW‐IMF) than for southward IMF (SW‐IMF). Inward of 15 R E the BBFs for SW‐IMF are dominant. Few BBFs for NW‐IMF occur within 15 R E . (2) The occurrence probabilities of the BBFs at each MAL depend highly on the orientations of the IMF. During quiet times, the BBFs for NW‐IMF are dominant. Reversely, during the growth and expansion phases of a substorm, the BBFs for SW‐IMF are dominant. (3) The strengths of the BBF have significant evolution with substorm development. For SW‐IMF condition, the strengths of the BBFs are the lowest for quiet times. The strength of the BBFs tends to increase during the growth phase and reaches to the strongest value during the expansion phase, then, decays during the recovery phase. For NW‐IMF condition, the strengths of the BBFs evolve with the substorm development in a similar way as for SW‐IMF condition. (4) For SW‐IMF, the solar wind E y evolves with the substorm development in a similar way to the strength of the BBFs. However, no clear evolution is found for NW‐IMF. (5) The strengths of the BBF Q x and solar wind E y are closely related. Both tend to be stronger for growth phase than for quite time, reach the strongest for expansion phase, then decay for recovery phase. It appears that to trigger a substorm, the strength of the BBFs should achieve energy thresholds with values different for NW‐IMF and SW‐IMF.