author: M. Battarbee [^1]; J. Guo ; S. Dalla ; R. Wimmer-Schweingruber ; B. Swalwell ; D. J. Lawrence
bibliography: combined.bib
date: Received 26th June 2017 / Accepted 25th January 2018
title: Multi-spacecraft observations and transport simulations of solar energetic particles for the May 17th 2012 event

The injection, propagation and arrival of solar energetic particles (SEPs) during eruptive solar events is an important and current research topic of heliospheric physics. During the largest solar events, particles may have energies up to a few GeVs and sometimes even trigger ground-level enhancements (GLEs) at Earth. These large SEP events are best investigated through multi-spacecraft observations. We study the first GLE-event of solar cycle 24, from 17th May 2012, using data from multiple spacecraft (SOHO, GOES, MSL, STEREO-A, STEREO-B and MESSENGER). These spacecraft are located throughout the inner heliosphere, at heliocentric distances between 0.34 and 1.5 astronomical units (au), covering nearly the whole range of heliospheric longitudes. We present and investigate sub-GeV proton time profiles for the event at several energy channels, obtained via different instruments aboard the above spacecraft. We investigate issues due to magnetic connectivity, and present results of three-dimensional SEP propagation simulations. We gather virtual time profiles and perform qualitative and quantitative comparisons with observations, assessing longitudinal injection and transport effects as well as peak intensities. We distinguish different time profile shapes for well-connected and weakly connected observers, and find our onset time analysis to agree with this distinction. At select observers, we identify an additional low-energy component of Energetic Storm Particles (ESPs). Using well-connected observers for normalisation, our simulations are able to accurately recreate both time profile shapes and peak intensities at multiple observer locations. This synergetic approach combining numerical modelling with multi-spacecraft observations is crucial for understanding the propagation of SEPs within the interplanetary magnetic field. Our novel analysis provides valuable proof of the ability to simulate SEP propagation throughout the inner heliosphere, at a wide range of longitudes. Accurate simulations of SEP transport allow for better constraints of injection regions at the Sun, and thus, better understanding of acceleration processes.

# Introduction

The Sun releases vast amounts of energy through its activity, which mostly follows a periodic 11-year cycle. These eruptions can accelerate protons, electrons and heavier ions to relativistic energies and release them into interplanetary space. These solar energetic particles (SEPs) are guided by the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), and in some cases result in intensive particle fluxes near the Earth. SEP events take place more frequently during solar maximum, and can affect atmospheric and space-related activities in many ways (see, e.g., and references therein), and as such, their investigation has been recognized as extremely important.

During extreme solar events, protons can be accelerated into the GeV range, and, when directed at the Earth, may lead to neutron monitors (NMs) detecting events at the Earth's surface. These ground-level enhancements (GLEs) are the most extreme of solar events, and thus are of special interest to the heliophysics community (see, e.g., and ). Our understanding of energetic solar events and specifically GLEs increased dramatically during solar cycle 23 due to advances in instrumentation and an abundance of events to observe. Solar cycle 24, being much quieter, has so far provided only two unambiguous GLEs, GLE71 on May 17th 2012 and GLE72 on September 10th 2017. Being able to observe this event from multiple vantage points within the inner heliosphere provides us with an exciting opportunity to increase our understanding the dynamics of strong solar events. In such an analysis, three-dimensional modelling of particle propagation is a crucial tool.

We present sub-GeV proton observations of GLE 71, focusing on comparative analysis between observations from multiple vantage points throughout the inner heliosphere to better understand the spatial extent of SEP intensities in strong SEP events. GeV-energy particles are thus excluded from our analysis due to observations at such energies being available only in the vicinity of the Earth. We present new observations from the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) and the MESSENGER Neutron Spectrometer (NS), together with energetic particle data from STEREO and near-Earth missions. We use a fully three-dimensional test particle model to simulate the transport of SEPs, originating from an acceleration region in the solar corona, generating virtual time profiles at various observer locations. The model includes, for the first time, the effects of a wavy Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) between two opposite polarities of the IMF. We compare intensity time profiles and peak intensities of data from both observations and simulations, at the different observer locations.

In section , we introduce the event along with previously published analysis. In section , we introduce the instruments used in our multi-spacecraft observations. We then present intensity time profiles and solar release times, and discuss magnetic connectivity and energetic storm particles (ESPs). In section , we describe our particle transport simulation method. We then proceed to present simulated intensity time profiles, and compare them and deduced peak intensities with observations. Finally, in section we present the conclusions of our work. In Appendix , we discuss calibration of our MESSENGER NS observations.

# The May 17th 2012 solar eruption

On May 17, 2012 at 01:25 UT, the NOAA active region 11476, located at in Earth view, produced a class M5.1 flare starting, peaking, and ending at 01:25, 01:47, and 02:14 UT, respectively . The type II radio burst indicating the shock formation was reported by to start as early as 01:32 UT using the dynamic spectra from Hiraiso, Culgoora and Learmonth observatories. Based on this, they also determined the coronal mass ejection (CME) driven shock formation height as 1.38 solar radii ($R_\odot$, from the centre of the Sun). The CME reached a peak speed of at 02:00 UT. They reasoned that although the May 17th flare is rather small for a GLE event, the associated CME was directed toward near-ecliptic latitudes, facilitating good connectivity between the most efficient particle acceleration regions of the shock front and the Earth. Despite the flare exhibiting relatively weak x-ray flux, suggested that both the flare and the CME had a role in particle acceleration. agreed with this, based on velocity dispersion analysis (VDA) of proton arrival.

further estimated, using NM data, that the solar particle release time was about 01:40, slightly later than the shock formation time of 01:32. reported the type III radio bursts which signified the release of relativistic electrons into open magnetic field lines starting at around 01:33 UT and ending at 01:44 UT. Using a simple time-shifting analysis, they derived the release of protons from the Sun at about 01:37 UT, slightly earlier but broadly agreeing with the onset time obtained by .

This event was later directly detected at Earth by several NMs[^2] with slightly different onset times (between 01:50 and 02:00), with the strongest signal detected at the South Pole where the rigidity cutoff is the lowest. Within the magnetosphere, proton energy spectra were measured by the PAMELA instrument as reported by , indicating that protons with energies of up to one GeV and helium of up to 100 MeV/nucleon were accelerated and transported to the vicinity of Earth. The GeV proton detection has also been corroborated later by using an inversion technique exploring the response functions of the Electron Proton Helium Instrument aboard the SOHO spacecraft. The event was also detected aboard the international space station . Analysis of NM and PAMELA observations, using comparisons of peak and integral intensities, can be found in . performed reverse modelling based on NM measurements of this event, finding evidence of anisotropic twin-stream SEP pitch-angle distributions.

Utilizing lower particle energies for release time analysis, compared Wind/3DP and particle fluxes with NM and solar disk observations, concluding that electrons at this event appear to be flare-accelerated, with proton acceleration happening mainly at the CME-driven shock. The ERNE/HED detector aboard SOHO detected a strong event, but suffered from data gaps during the event, which poses additional challenges to analysis.

During this event, the STEREO Ahead (STA) and STEREO Behind (STB) spacecraft were leading and trailing Earth by 114.8 and 117.6 degrees, respectively, both at a heliocentric distance of approximately . studied the and proton channels of this event using GOES and the high energy telescope (HET) on STB. For the channel, they obtained an enhancement rate (peak intensity/pre-event intensity) of at GOES and only 35.0 at STB. For the channel, they obtained an enhancement rate of at GOES and only 13.4 at STB. Unfortunately they did not determine the peak intensity of this event as measured by STA. This event has previously been included in a STEREO event catalogue , and multi-spacecraft observations of electrons have been analysed in . included STA and STB proton time profiles for a single energy range in a figure, displaying the longitudinal extent of the event.

The event was also observed by the MESSENGER (MES) spacecraft orbiting around Mercury which, at the time of the event, was at a heliocentric distance of . The longitudinal connectivity of MES was similar to that of STA, as shown in Figure . In this paper, we investigate the time-series of proton measurements from MES using its neutron spectrometer .

Beyond , this event was also observed by the Radiation Assessment Detector on board the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) on its way to Mars . We derive the proton intensities measured by RAD at different energy ranges and compare them with Earth-based observations and simulated particle intensities at the same location. We note that the RAD detector did not measure original proton intensities in space, but rather a mix of primary and secondary particles due to primaries experiencing nuclear and electromagnetic interactions as they traverse through the inhomogeneous flight-time shielding of the spacecraft. To retrieve the original particle flux outside the spacecraft is rather challenging and is beyond the scope of the current paper.

# Multi-spacecraft observations

The heliospheric locations of five different spacecraft whose measurements are employed in the current study are shown in Figure and also listed in Table . For this study, we estimated the average solar wind speed from measurements made by the CELIAS/MTOF Proton Monitor on the SOHO Spacecraft during Carrington rotation 2123. The average radial solar wind speed value was , which was rounded down to for the purposes of this research. Table also includes calculated Parker spiral lengths using this solar wind speed.

```latex
\begin{table*}{}
%\rotate {\color{red}{\textbf{[need to rotate it to fit into the page]}}}
\caption{Heliospheric location, Parker spiral length and onset time of the event seen at different spacecraft. The flare source region at the Sun is NOAA active region 11476 with coordinate of N11 W76 and the flare onset time is 01:25 on 17th May 2012.} \label{tab:heliospheric_ps}
\begin{tabular}{crrrr|r|r|r|r }     % 8 columns
 & HGI & HGI & distance   & Parker spiral & shortest & SEP & estimated SRT & Observed SEP  \\
  &  latitude       & longitude       & to the Sun & length        & travel time & onset time & (1 GeV p) & event type \\
\hline
STA & 7.3 \textdegree  & 275.4 \textdegree & 0.96 au & {1.11 au} & 631.4 s & 10.18 & 10:07 & slowly rising \\
MES & 2.1 \textdegree  & 290.9 \textdegree & 0.35 au & {0.36 au} & 204.8 s & 03:14 & 03:11 & slowly rising \\
Earth & -2.4 \textdegree & 160.7 \textdegree & 1.01 au & {1.18 au} & 671.2 s & 01:56 & 01:45 & rapidly rising\\
MSL & -7.3 \textdegree & 121.8 \textdegree & 1.46 au & {1.92 au} & 1092 s & 02:04 & 01:46  & rapidly rising\\
STB & -4.7 \textdegree & 42.7 \textdegree & 1.00 au & {1.16 au} & 659.8 s & 11:06  & 10:55 & slowly rising \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
```

In order to effectively analyse the heliospheric and temporal extent of the May 17th 2012 solar eruption, we assess proton time profiles from multiple instruments throughout the inner heliosphere. The energy-dependent time profiles of SEPs measured at five different heliospheric locations are shown in Figure .

For STA and STB, we analyse 1-minute resolution data from HET of the In situ Measurements of Particles and CME Transients (IMPACT) investigation aboard both STEREOs. The protons are measured between 13 and 100 MeV in 11 different energy channels. For our purpose of comparing the STEREO measurement to those at other locations, we combine the energy channels into four different bins: , , , and .

For MES data at Mercury, we use the neutron spectrometer which contains one borated plastic (BP) scintillator sandwiched between two Li glass (LG) scintillators. To account for the shielding of particles by the magnetosphere of Mercury and by the geometric shadowing of the planet itself, we selected only observations where the orbit altitude of MES is greater than . The energy thresholds for triggering each type of charged particle were simulated and derived using particle transport codes and are as follows: single coincidence, $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}15 MeV protons (or $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}1 MeV electrons); double coincidences, $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}45 MeV protons (or $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}10 MeV electrons); and triple coincidences, $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}125 MeV protons (or $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}30 MeV electrons). Since $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}10 MeV electrons are fairly rare in SEPs, we assume these channels measure mainly protons during the event. For the single-coincidence channel, contamination by many different sources such as electrons, gamma-rays and various charged particles is possible, and thus, care must be taken when drawing conclusions from the flux. We converted single, double, and triple coincidence counts into fluxes according to methods explained in detail in Appendix .

We solve the intensity profile for 15–45 MeV and 45–125 MeV protons in the following way: We subtract the $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}45 MeV flux from the $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}15 MeV flux, and the $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}125 MeV flux from the $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}45 MeV flux. These two fluxes, now bounded from both above and below in energy, are then divided with the energy bin widths, i.e., 30 and 80 MeV, resulting in intensities in units . The $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}125 MeV flux is not shown in Figure , as it shows little enhancement for this time period. We emphasize that the 15–45 MeV flux calibration is uncertain. The time profiles in Figure indeed show a very high intensity in the channel, likely due to non-proton background contamination.

Close to the Earth, we employed two separate detectors. , situated within the Earth's magnetosphere, provided us with , , and proton channels, with 32 second resolution. The SOHO/ERNE HED detector at L1 was used to construct energy channels with 1 minute time resolution, matching the GOES channels with energy ranges of , , and . GOES provided uninterrupted observations of the event, but the background levels were enhanced due to increased ambient particle densities in the magnetosphere. ERNE/HED, located outside the magnetosphere at the Lagrangian point L1, provided uncontaminated pre-event intensities, but with data gaps during the event. Additionally, the peak intensities observed by ERNE/HED are suspected to be incorrect due to non-linear saturation artefacts and particles propagating through the detector in the reverse direction.

At MSL, during the cruise phase, the RAD instrument provided radiation dose measurements with a high time resolution of 64 seconds, and particle spectra with a time resolution of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}32 minutes. The radiation dose measurements were used to determine the event onset time. The particle spectra are provided by a particle telescope consisting of silicon detectors and plastic scintillators, with a viewing angle of $\sim60\degree$ , and providing proton detections up to a stopping energy of 100 MeV. The original energy of the particle, $E$, is solved through analyzing $E$ versus $\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x$ correlations for each particle. Since RAD transmits the deposited energy in each triggered detector layer for almost all stopping protons, the particle identification is done in post-processing and is very accurate. Protons stopping inside RAD can thus be selected and their intensities have been obtained in four energy channels: , , , and . The particles detected by RAD are a combination of primaries and secondaries resulting from spallation and energy losses as particles travel through the flight-time spacecraft shielding. The shielding distribution around RAD is very complex: most of the solid angle was lightly shielded with a column density smaller than 10 g/cm$^2$, while the rest was broadly distributed over a range of depths up to about 100 g/cm$^2$ . Due to this shielding, deducing the exact incident energies of particles as they reach the spacecraft is a challenging process. We briefly discuss correcting for these effects in section .

Celestial mechanics dictate that a spacecraft on a Hohmann transfer to Mars remain magnetically well connected to Earth during most of its cruise phase . This connection is also shown in Figure . Due to this reason, the intensity profiles seen at Earth and MSL are expected to show similar time evolutions.

## First arrival of particles and solar release time

Intense energy release at the surface of the Sun or in the corona can accelerate SEPs to relativistic energies, allowing them to propagate rapidly along the Parker spiral to heliospheric observers. If the observer is magnetically well-connected to the acceleration site and particle transport is unhindered, the arrival time of first particles can be used to infer the travel distance, i.e., the Parker spiral length.

As each heliospheric location will see the first arrival of energetic protons at a different time, we have defined onset times separately for each spacecraft, listed in Table . In Figure , the green vertical lines mark the onset times of the highest-energy channel corresponding to the arrivals of fastest protons. For STA and MES observations, we also define onset times of possible ESP events in low-energy channels, marked by grey lines, as will be discussed in more detail later. For STA, we find two distinct jumps, which may both be due to an ESP event. These times were defined from the raw data through subjective analysis of rise over a background level.

The nominal Parker spirals connecting the spacecraft to the Sun are shown in Figure assuming an average solar wind speed of and their lengths have also been calculated and listed in Table . Given a Parker spiral length of for an observer at Earth, 1 GeV protons (with a speed of $\sim 2.6 \times 10^5$ km/s) propagating from the flare site without scattering would arrive after or 11 minutes. A particle onset time at Earth at 01:56 would indicate a solar release time (SRT) of about 01:45 UT for these protons, which is consistent with radio burst observations , considering the 8-min propagation time of radio signals from the Sun to the Earth. Table also lists the 1 GeV proton travel times and estimated associated SRTs, for each of the location considered, based on the calculated Parker spiral lengths. The observed MSL onset time is in good agreement with that at Earth and with the estimated proton release time, likely due to the good magnetic connection between the acceleration region and Earth/MSL. However, SRT values derived from MES, STA, and STB are very different from each other and hours later than the time of flare onset and shock formation. This indicates that these spacecraft were not magnetically well-connected to the solar acceleration site, and that particle transport to these locations was not due to propagation parallel to the magnetic field lines but was affected by drift motion, co-rotation, cross-field diffusion and turbulence effects.

## Magnetic connectivity

The multi-spacecraft observations available for the SEP event on May 17th 2012 provide an exemplary chance to investigate magnetic connectivity between the Sun and observation platforms at a wide variety of longitudes and radial distances. We model magnetic connectivity by assuming the IMF to follow a Parker spiral. We use a constant solar wind speed of for our modelling, based on the averaging described in Section .

In Figure , we plot the Carrington Rotation 2123 solar synoptic source surface map for $r=2.5\,R_\odot$, resulting from potential field modelling, provided by the Wilcox Solar Observatory. The model assumes a radial magnetic field at the solar surface and at $r=2.5\,R_\odot$. The plot shows the location of the flare on May 17th 2012 (indicated by a triangle) relative to the central meridian, along with estimated Parker spiral footpoints for the five observation platforms. As the plot shows, Earth (labelled 1) and MSL (2) are connected to regions on the Sun's surface very close to each other, with STA (3) and MES (5) connected to more western longitudes, close to each other. STB (4) is connected to more eastern longitudes.

Figure also includes, as a thick white solid curve, a depiction of a potential field model neutral line between hemispheres of outward and inward pointing magnetic field. A model of a simple parametrized wavy neutral line, based on a tilted dipole formulation, is fitted to this neutral line using a least squares distance fit method, as described in . This neutral line parametrisation is the $r=2.5\,R_\odot$ anchor point for our model wavy HCS, and the wavy HCS parameters are described in section . Finally, figure shows a rectangular region of width $180^\circ$, extending to latitudes $\pm 60^\circ$, which we use as a model injection region for SEPs. The width of the injection region was iterated upon, until an agreement between observations and simulations, for as many heliospheric observers as possible, was achieved.

As the solar wind flows outward and the solar surface rotates, magnetic structures at a given heliocentric distance are co-rotated westward. In Figure , this would be described by the potential field polarity map including the HCS moving to the right. We validate the synoptic source and Parker spiral model through simple radial magnetic field observations. MES and STA are in regions of inward-pointing magnetic field throughout the analysed time period, in agreement with the map. Up until the time of the flare, Earth is connected to outward-pointing field lines, after which a strong interplanetary CME (ICME) is detected and the field orientation flips. STB is initially connected to inward-pointing field lines, but from the 19th of May onward, the direction points inward, in agreement with the spacecraft crossing the HCS.

## Interplanetary shocks and energetic storm particles

In addition to SEPs accelerated close to the Sun during the initial, strong phase of the solar eruption, particle acceleration can happen throughout the inner heliosphere at propagating interplanetary (IP) shocks, driven by ICME fronts. Depending on the heliospheric location relative to the flare site and the ICME, different spacecraft see different properties of the event. The time profiles of *in-situ* measurements in Figure and estimated SRTs in Table suggest that the particle intensities at Earth and MSL (with estimated SRTs of 01:45 and 01:46) are dominated by coronally accelerated SEPs, but at MES and STA, there is an additional population of energetic storm particles (ESPs) accelerated by an IP shock. To identify and decouple the signal of particles accelerated at an IP shock from those accelerated early on in the corona, we turn to ICME and shock catalogues.

For MES, the circum-Mercurial orbital period of only 8 hours and related magnetospheric disturbances make identification of ICMEs challenging. were able to detect an ICME at MES, lasting from 12:09 until 15:38 on May 17th. The shock transit speed was identified as . ESPs usually peak at lower energies than coronally accelerated SEPs, and are found only in the vicinity of the IP shocks due to turbulent trapping. At MES shown in Figure , we notice a clear intensity peak, likely due to ESPs, starting around 12:10 marked by a grey line right after the arrival of the ICME.

A comprehensive catalogue of ICMEs, IP shocks, and streaming interactive regions (SIRs) for the STEREO spacecraft has been compiled by [^3]. A shock was detected at STA on May 18th at 12:43, followed by an ICME until 09:12 on May 19th. The deka-MeV proton channels at STA show major enhancements starting at about 15:25 on May 18th (marked by a grey line), which can be attributed to IP shock accelerated ESPs. A smaller enhancement is seen at 04:52, possibly due to a foreshock of ESPs escaping in front of the IP shock.

STB is reported to be within a SIR from 23:48 on May 18th until 16:35 on May 22nd, well after the weak increase in proton flux. Upon further inspection of relevant solar wind measurements at STB, the possibility of an IP shock passing the spacecraft on between the 18th and 19th of May cannot be ruled out, but the data are ambiguous. An alternative explanation for the particle enhancement at STB, which begins less than 12 hours after the flare, is for coronally accelerated particles to drift there along the HCS, which co-rotates over the position of STEREO-B. We include this HCS drift in our simulations and assess this possibility in section .

Many spacecraft are available for observing near-Earth transients. Both Wind and ACE databases report the Earth as within an ICME already from the 16th of May, being thus unrelated to the GLE 71 eruption. The Wind ICME list[^4] lists the ICME starting at May 16th 12:28, and ending at May 18th 02:11. ACE observations by [^5] list an ICME starting on May 16th 16:00, and ending at May 17th 22:00 UT. The only assertion of an actual shock is from the ACE list of disturbances and transients (see and )[^6], with a shock at May 17th 22:00, but it is registered only in magnetic field measurements. Thus, we find no suggestion that there should be a significant ESP signal at Earth.

At the location of MSL, neither magnetic nor plasma measurements are available to identify ICMEs and IP shocks. No ESP structures are present in the RAD data. However, as RAD measurements of low energy protons are affected by nonuniform shielding, we cannot rule out the possibility of an ICME associated shock passing at the location of MSL.

# Particle transport simulations

In order to model heliospheric transport of SEPs accelerated during the May 17th event, we simulated the propagation of $3\cdot10^6$ test particle protons, from the corona into interplanetary space, using the full-orbit propagation approach of and . This model naturally accounts for particle drifts and deceleration effects, and allows for the generation of virtual time profiles at many heliospheric observer locations. Our model was newly improved by the inclusion of a HCS, normalised to a thickness of at , as introduced in and as extended to non-planar geometries in . We present here the first results of three-dimensional forward modelling of SEP propagation, extending throughout the inner heliosphere, for this event. Because we focused on multi-spacecraft observations and the 3D spatial distribution of particle fluxes, we have not performed comparisons with 1D modelling efforts of large SEP events (see, e.g., )

We inject energetic particles into our transport simulation assuming acceleration to happen at a coronal shock-like structure. Acceleration efficiency across a coronal shock front is a complex question in its own right, with applications to the event in question presented in and . Their analysis of CME expansion suggests a CME width of 100 degrees in longitude with varying efficiency along the front. Using this width, our simulations had difficulty recreating proton time profiles at many heliospheric observer locations. Thus, we chose to assume additional spread of energetic particles in the corona during the early phase of the event. We iterated the width of the injection area, finding one of $180^\circ$ width in longitude, centered at the flare location, to provide the best results when attempting to recreate observed time profiles. This wide injection region is in agreement with a very wide coronal shock acting as the source of accelerated particles. Injection was performed between equatorial latitudes of $\pm 60^\circ$. The injection region is shown in Figure as a black rectangle.

In order to decouple injection and transport effects, we chose to model particle injection through a simplified case. Thus, we inject isotropic protons from the aforementioned region with a uniform source function at a heliospheric height of , at the estimated solar particle release time of 1:40 . As most acceleration of particles is assumed to take place at low heliospheric heights of up to a few $R_\odot$, an instantaneous injection is a fair approximation. Any ESPs accelerated by the interplanetary shock are not modelled. Protons were injected according to a power law of , distributed in the energy range . The chosen power law is close to the value derived by from in-situ observations using SOHO/EPHIN. As our focus was on multi-spacecraft observations and modelling over a large spatial extent, we did not model protons in the GeV energy range due to comparison data from GeV-range observations being available only in the vicinity of the Earth. Extending our injection power law higher, whilst maintaining adequate statistics, would have required computational resources beyond the scope of this project. The total simulation duration was set to 72 hours.

During transport, we modelled particle scattering using Poisson-distributed scattering intervals, with a mean scattering time in agreement with a mean free path of . Particles experience large-angle scattering in the solar wind frame for which we used a constant radial solar wind speed of throughout. The magnetic field was scaled to , consistent with observations. For the winding of the magnetic field, we assumed an average solar rotation rate of or 25.34 days per rotation.

In order to model particle detection at spacecraft, we gathered simulated particle crossings across virtual observer apertures at the locations of STA, MES, Earth, MSL, and STB. For each virtual observer, we used energy bins in agreement with those listed in section and time binning of 60 minutes. To increase statistics, simulated protons propagating outward from the Sun were gathered over a $10^\circ\times 10^\circ$ angular window at each observer location. As the orbital period of Mercury is only 88 days, we implemented longitudinal orbital motion of virtual observers around the Sun. Due to the large time bins used, we have not attempted to infer exact onset times from particle simulations, nor have we explicitly considered twin acceleration scenarios (see, e.g., and ).

For parametrization of the wavy current sheet, we used a least squares sum method to fit the distance of the $r=2.5\,R_\odot$ potential field neutral line to a wavy model neutral line, resulting in a dipole tilt angle of $\alpha_\mathrm{nl}=57^\circ$, a longitudinal offset of $\phi_\mathrm{nl}=101^\circ$, and an peak count multiplier of $n_\mathrm{nl}=2$. This source neutral line at $r=2.5\,R_\odot$, used as the anchor point of the current sheet, is depicted in Figure as a dashed black curve.

Figure shows the ecliptic distribution of accelerated protons, 10 hours after injection (11:40 UT), along with observer locations and Parker spiral connectivity assuming a solar wind speed of . Shaded contours show the scaled particle density in units $\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ between $-20$ and $+20$ degrees latitude. Of particular interest is the band of protons close to STB, which have experienced HCS drift.

As our simulations do not include a background intensity and provided counts in arbitrary units, the particle densities and intensities had to be calibrated using a normalisation multiplier. Due to good magnetic connectivity at Earth, we decided to use a near-Earth peak intensity as the reference intensity. For this normalisation, we used the GOES energy channel, as it had a clearly defined peak. Although the background levels at GOES were enhanced due to magnetospheric effects, we assume that the peak values were not affected significantly. Hereafter, for all time profile and peak intensity analysis, results from our simulations were multiplied by a single normalisation constant, which resulted in agreement between peak intensities deduced from the channels at Earth from both simulations and observations.

## Comparison with observations: time profiles

In this section, we compare the intensity time profiles of simulations and observations. Figure displays results of both observations and simulations, with intensity time profiles for selected energy bins at each location, actual observations on the top row and simulation results on the bottom row. For simulation time profiles, we include error bars calculating an estimate of uncertainty for the intensity using the square root of registered particle counts. Panels are ordered according to observer footpoint longitude, as shown in Figure . We first focus on the qualitative shape of the time profiles, proceeding from west to east (right to left) in observer footpoint longitude.

At STA, observations show a gradually increasing flux, and SRTs calculated from onset times in Table are many hours after the flare time. This suggests that the location of STA does not have good magnetic connectivity to the injection region at the start of the event. However, the numerical simulation is able to provide a proton time profile in agreement with observations, using the 01:40 UT release time. Protons fill the well-connected field lines with a population which isotropizes, and this population is then co-rotated over the STA position, becoming magnetically well-connected later in the simulation. STA observations in the lowest two energy bins show an additional feature, with bumps in intensity at approximately 04:52 and 15:25 on DOY 139. Both these bumps are designated with grey vertical lines in Figure . As described in section , an IP shock is detected at STA, and these enhancement at low energies can be explained as ESPs related to a passing IP shock. The first bump would indicate the arrival of an enhanced foreshock region, and the second bump would occur during the actual shock crossing. The simulated results do not show these bumps as ESP enhancements were not modelled by the SEP transport simulations.

At MES, the rapid increase in particle intensity of our simulations does not agree with the observed delayed particle flux. The simulated time profile shows a simple abrupt event due to an efficient connection to the injection region, although it does drop off fast as the observer is rotated westward around the Sun with a rapid 88 day orbital period. Observations seem to suggest that coronally accelerated particles were not propagated efficiently to MES, as the enhancement over background intensities is small and happens too late. Shielding effects due to Mercury or its magnetic field were accounted for by masking out measurements with altitudes below . Thus, if an abrupt coronally accelerated component had been present at the position of MES, we should have detected it. A delayed enhancement, possibly due to ESPs, has a good match with the reported ICME crossing at 12:09, preceded by a foot of particles accelerated at the IP shock. This enhancement appears stronger in the channel, which might indicate that the signal at MES is strongly influenced by particle drifts, as the magnitude of particle drifts scales with energy. Alternatively, the signal in the channel might be hidden behind a strong background contamination signal. We note again that ESPs were not modelled in our transport simulations. We also note that although we only show derived and energy channels in figures and , the single coincidence channel for detection did not show an abrupt rise, but rather a similar time profile as the shown derived energy channels. This also rules out single coincidence channel contamination as a source of discrepancy.

After discussing the observed and simulated time profiles at STA and MES, it is appropriate to recall the assumed magnetic connectivity to these observers based on Figures and . The magnetic connectivity footpoint of MES is eastward of the STA connectivity footpoint, i.e. closer to the flare location. Thus, assuming a Parker spiral IMF and a simplistic injection region surrounding the flare location, a strong particle signal at STA should suggest a strong signal also at MES. This is in agreement with our simulated results, but in clear disagreement with the observations.

One possible explanation for the discrepancies between observations and simulations is that the IMF shape may differ from that of a Parker spiral. We find that STA was in a fast solar wind stream prior to the event, and additionally a SIR was detected at STA on May 16th , with a maximum solar wind speed of , well above the value of used in our simulations. Thus, the IMF might have been primed by this stream, providing STA with a connected footpoint significantly east of the one used in our model. As we do not have solar wind speed measurements at Mercury, we cannot make similar educated guesses about the longitudinal position of the well-connected footpoint location for MES.

Another possible explanation is that smaller-scale effects of the IMF and particle propagation are taking place, invalidating the Parker spiral model. Recent research into field-line meandering (see, e.g., and ) and SEP cross-field propagation (see, e.g., and references therein) has investigated this problem. New missions going close to the Sun will provide key data to validate these theories. Recent research, shown in in panel (a) of Figure 6 in , suggests, however, that the early-time cross-field variance of a particle distribution is strongly dependent on radial distance. Thus, if we assume a narrowed injection region, during the early phase of the event, STA could be connected to the injection region through widely meandering field lines, whereas MES at a distance of only would remain outside this region.

At the location of Earth, we compare three GOES energy channel time profiles with observations. The highest energy channel at provides an excellent match between simulations and observations, suggesting acceleration was near-instantaneous in the corona, and that Earth was well-connected to the acceleration region. At the middle energy channel of , the agreement between simulations and observations is also good, although the observed time profile begins to decrease slightly more rapidly than the simulated one. This may be due to, e.g., differences in particle scattering rates early in the event. At the lowest energy channel of , agreement is moderately good, although the rate of intensity decay is slightly different for observations and the simulation. Additionally, an enhancement in observed intensity is found about halfway through DOY 138. Although databases of interplanetary shocks showed only weak indications of a shock passing at earth, an IP-shock related ESP event is still the most likely explanation for this feature.

At MSL, with a similar magnetic connection to Earth, time profiles agree moderately well with simulations. The observations at MSL seem to show similar intensities for all the different channels, resulting in a near-flat spectrum. The total intensities observed at the detector are more than an order of magnitude lower than the simulated intensities. However, as the general shape of the time profile agrees well with that of simulations, we suggest that transport and connectivity is not the primary cause of the disrepancy, but rather, that is due to the flight-time spacecraft shielding around MSL/RAD, causing particles to decelerate, fragment, or be deflected away. Modelling this effect in detail and performing inversion on the measured particle flux is rather challenging. We present preliminary corrections accounting for the energy loss of protons in section .

Although the footpoint of STB is separated from the flare region by almost 180 degrees, a weak enhancement in proton flux is seen both in observations and in simulation results. There was a SIR in the vicinity of STB in the time period following the event . Due to this and complicated solar wind observations, a weak ICME-driven shock cannot be ruled out. However, the most likely candidate for explaining the SEP flux enhancements at STB is coronally accelerated particles transported along the HCS. The successful simulation of this signal at STB is only possible through the results of our newly improved SEP transport simulation, supporting an IMF with two magnetic polarities separated by a wavy HCS. Particles propagate along the HCS, which is co-rotated over the position of STB (see Figure ). The difference in onset time and signal duration between simulations and observations can be explained by inaccuracies in the exact position and tilt of the HCS at the position of STB.

## Comparison with observations: peak intensities

In order to further assess longitudinal accuracy of our SEP transport simulations, we gathered peak intensities for both simulations and observations for each channel and plotted them according to estimated footpoint location (see also Figure ). The peak intensities for STB, MSL, GOES, MES, and STA are shown in Figure , along with peak intensities deduced from simulations. In determining observational peak intensities for STA and MES, we excluded time periods deemed to be enhanced by ESP effects. For STA, this exclusion began at on the , corresponding with the foreshock region of the IP shock. This foreshock region is visible especially in the channel, but somewhat also in the channel.

Comparing the and observed and simulated peak intensities at Earth results in a good match due to the energy channel being used for the normalisation of simulation results. However, observations at show smaller intensities than the respective simulation results. We discuss the effects of the injection spectrum on peak intensities at the end of this section.

At STB, simulated peak intensities exceed observed intensites by approximately one order of magnitude, but all channels show a similar intensity offset. All channels at STB show only a weak increase over background intensities, which is modelled well by the HCS-transported particles in the simulation. The highest two observed energy channels are somewhat lower than the simulated ones, suggesting an injection spectrum related effect, similar to what was seen at Earth.

At STA, after excluding all ESP-enhanced regions from observations, observed and simulated peak intensities show a similar order-of-magnitude difference as was noted at STB. Similar to STB, the observations in the two highest energy channels exhibit slightly weaker peak intensities, pointing to the injection spectrum as the culprit.

Neither the time profiles nor the peak fluxes of simulations and observations at MES agree with each other, which indicates that the true magnetic connectivity to MES is more complicated than the one used in our simulations. Based on our calibrations, we believe that instrumental effects cannot explain this discrepancy. The simulated injection region was set to a width of $180^\circ$ in order to provide a good time profile match at STA, however, CME modelling from observations produced shocks fronts of only $100^\circ$ width. A narrower injection region might prevent coronally accelerated particles from reaching MES, but would also result in a poor match for STA. The question of magnetic connectivity from the corona to STA and MES was explained in detail in section . If the CME were to transition to an ICME, and further from the Sun, expand in width, this could be seen as ESPs at MES, thus explaining the observations.

At MSL, the observed peak intensities are much lower than those of simulations, likely due to the in-flight shielding covering much of the detector. As a first step toward correcting particle fluxes at MSL/RAD, we performed calculations of the energy loss of protons traversing a model of the spacecraft shielding. Proton energy losses in matter are primarily due to ionization, which is characterized by the Bethe-Bloch equation, which was used in our calculations. We considered the distribution of aluminium equivalent shielding depth within RAD's viewing angle . Due to the involved complexity, we did not account for generation of secondary particles, which play a major role at low energies. Thus, we produced a corrected peak intensity only for the channel, shown in Figure as a black square. This value appears to be a better match with both simulation results and GOES observations, showing a similar relationship to the simulated channel as was seen for the GOES channel. Recreating original particle intensities at all channels of MSL/RAD will be the topic of future investigations.

In comparing peak intensities for observations and simulations, many things must be taken into account. At MSL, shielding weakens the observed intensity in a significant manner, which requires post-processing to correct for. Magnetic connectivity at MES provides contradicting time profiles and peak intensities. At STA and STB we are able to reproduce time profile shapes, but the peak intensities are over-estimated in our transport simulations. However, noting that our injection source was uniform in longitude, which is not a realistic estimate, but allows us to now draw conclusions from the peak intensity fits. At longitudes close to the flare location, injection was as simulated and normalised, but at longitudes far away from the flare, injection efficiency drops, apparently an order of magnitude. This would be unsurprising, considering our injection region was set at 180 degrees. Thus, we now have indication that a strong injection takes place at the observed shock front with a width of ca. 100 degrees, but early-time propagation effects spread particles to a region of up to 180 degrees with lesser intensity.

A general trend was that simulated and observed fluxes for low energy channels were in better agreement than those of higher energy channels. This suggests that our simulated injection power law of $\gamma=2$ was too hard, and the actual solar eruption had injected fewer high-energy particles than simulated. From our fitting, we can deduce that either a softer injection spectrum or a broken power law with weaker injection at high energies is likely to be closer to the truth.

Overall, the simulated peak intensities presented in Figure show that the 3-dimensional propagation simulations have great merit in increasing our understanding of large SEP events. By correctly accounting for particle drifts, we can simulate propagation of particles over a wide range of energies, and thus, make educated estimates regarding the injection power law at the Sun. The general good agreement between how peak intensities are grouped according to footpoint location suggests that both prompt (such as Earth and MSL) and delayed (such as STA) SEP fluences can be modelled, once a longitudinal injection efficiency dependence is found. For this purpose, work such as that done by and is very useful. The mismatch between observations and simulations at Mercury/MESSENGER shows that the inner heliosphere is a complicated environment and proper modelling of magnetic connectivity throughout it requires additional effort.

## Comparison with observations: pitch-angles

Observations of the pitch angle distribution of GeV-class particles for GLE 71 have shown an unusual twin-beam distribution (, ). In our model, we have used a simplified model of the scattering experienced by the SEPs, by considering only large angle scattering events. In figure we show the derived proton pitch-angle distribution at Earth for the early phase of the simulation. We gathered proton crossings across the sphere at the location of Earth, gathering crossings over a $10^\circ\times 10^\circ$ angular window and applied the same intensity scaling as for earlier plots. We also performed scaling to account for solid angle size for each bin. The results indicate that our model is capable of reproducing a twin-stream distribution without including additional magnetic structures such as loops associated with preceding CMEs. We note that some qualitative similarities with figure 6 of exist, but more detailed analysis would require refining our scattering model.

# Conclusions

We have presented extensive, detailed multi-spacecraft observations of proton intensities for the solar eruption of May 17th, 2012. We have shown the event to encompass a large portion of the inner heliosphere, extending to a wide range of longitudes, with a strong detection at Earth, MSL, and STA. We were able to analyse SEP transport and magnetic connectivity based on a new improved 3D test particle model.

Our SEP transport model solves the full-orbit 3D motion of test particle SEPs within heliospheric electric and magnetic fields. The model naturally accounts for co-rotation, particle drifts and deceleration effects (, , and ). Our new improved model includes, for the first time, effects due to a solar magnetic field of two different polarities, separated by a wavy HCS. We model proton injection with a shock-like structure near the Sun, and model interplanetary transport in accordance with a particle mean free path of $\lambda_\mathrm{mfp}=0.3\,\mathrm{au}$.

We present novel multi-spacecraft analysis of an SEP event, encompassing all heliolongitudes and radial distances ranging from to . We compare results from multiple spacecraft and particle detectors with virtual observers placed within a large-scale numerical simulation. We improve upon previous studies, usually focused on a single observation platform, with our analysis, providing good agreement between simulations and observations at multiple heliospheric locations.

We show that for GLE 71, observers magnetically connected to regions close to the flare location exhibit a rapid rise in proton intensity, followed by a prolonged fall-off. We report how STEREO-A observations are explained through a combination of co-rotation of an SEP-filled flux tube across the spacecraft in combination with an ESP event, and how STEREO-B observations can be explained through HCS drift of coronally accelerated protons.

For four out of five observer locations, we are able to find a good match in both the qualitative intensity time profiles and the quantitative peak intensities when comparing observations and numerical simulations, if we assume that injection efficiency weakens as a function of longitudinal distance from the flare location. Our results suggest modern modelling of large-scale solar eruptions has improved, and has benefited greatly from the opportunities provided by the two STEREO spacecraft, as well as other heliospheric and even planetary missions such as MESSENGER and MSL. SEP forecast tools such as those presented in should play an important role in furthering our understanding of solar activity.

Our study shows that magnetic connectivity to the injection region as well as the perpendicular propagation of particles in interplanetary space are important factors when assessing the risk of SEP events. Solar wind streams, interacting regions, and concurrent coronal mass ejections with associated magnetic structures alter the IMF and particle transport conditions, yet modern computation methods are capable of impressive modelling of SEP events. Further improvements in modelling of the background conditions for SEP simulations are required, with 3D magnetohydrodynamic models a likely candidate for future studies.

# MESSENGER flux calibration

As the MESSENGER NS instrument was not originally designed with SEP proton measurements in mind, calibration and validation of derived fluxes is necessary. Absolute flux profiles of protons for the MES $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}45 MeV and $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}125 MeV energy thresholds were determined using the modelled response and validated with measures of the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux. Following , the measured count rate, $C$, is related to the proton flux, $F_0$, (in units of protons sec$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$) using $C = GAF_0$, where $G$ is the geometry factor in sr, and $A=100\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ is the detector area. For the two highest energy ranges, the values for $G$ are $G_{\ge 125 \,\mathrm{MeV}} = 1.1 \,\mathrm{sr}$ and $G_{\ge 45 \,\mathrm{MeV}} = 4.25 \,\mathrm{sr}$ . For borated plastic singles, the geometry factor is approximately $G_\mathrm{singles}\approx 4\pi - 2G_{\ge 45 \,\mathrm{MeV}}$. However, the singles count rate likely contains a substantial fraction of contamination and non-proton background counts, such that its absolute calibration for energetic protons is highly uncertain. The measured count rates are converted to fluxes using the above relation with the appropriate geometry factors.

The derived fluxes for the $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}45 MeV and $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}125 MeV thresholds were validated based on a comparison with Earth-based neutron monitor counts that were converted to particle flux using the process given by . Specifically, neutron monitor counts from McMurdo were empirically converted to a solar modulation parameter, which is used as input to a GCR flux parameterization of and . The total GCR flux accounts for both protons and proton-equivalent alpha particles using the formulation given by . When the NS-measured fluxes are compared to the fluxes derived through the neutron monitor data, we find an average absolute agreement of \<10% for the $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}125 MeV flux and \<20% for the $\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}45 MeV flux, which validates the modelled response of . The flux rates for the time period of March 26th 2011 to April 30th 2015 are plotted in Figure .

The mean validation ratios of $1.07$ for triple coincidences, $1.15$ for double coincidence channel LG1 and $1.17$ for double coincidence channel LG2 were applied as correction coefficients to the extracted MES proton fluxes.

[^1]: Currently at the Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Finland

[^2]: <http://www.nmdb.eu>

[^3]: <http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/forms/stereo/stereo_level_3.html>

[^4]: <https://wind.nasa.gov/2012.php>

[^5]: <http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/level3/icmetable2.htm>

[^6]: <http://espg.sr.unh.edu/mag/ace/ACElists/obs_list.html>


author: R. de la Fuente Marcos; C. de la Fuente Marcos
date: Received 8 April 2009 / Accepted XX XXXXXXXX XXXX
title: Double or binary: on the multiplicity of open star clusters

Observations indicate that the fraction of potential binary star clusters in the Magellanic Clouds is about 10%. In contrast, it is widely accepted that the binary cluster frequency in the Galaxy disk is much lower. Here we investigate the multiplicity of clusters in the Milky Way disk to either confirm or disprove this dearth of binaries. We quantify the open cluster multiplicity using complete, volume-limited samples from WEBDA and NCOVOCC. At the Solar Circle, at least 12% of all open clusters appear to be experiencing some type of interaction with another cluster; i.e., are possible binaries. As in the Magellanic Clouds, the pair separation histogram hints at a bimodal distribution. Nearly 40% of identified pairs are probably primordial. Most of the remaining pairs could be undergoing some type of close encounter, perhaps as a result of orbital resonances. Confirming early theoretical predictions, the characteristic time scale for destruction of bound pairs in the disk is 200 Myr, or one galactic orbit. Our results show that the fraction of possible binary clusters in the Galactic disk is comparable to that in the Magellanic Clouds.

# Introduction

In a little known paper, Rozhavskii et al. (1976) claimed that the fraction of multiple systems among open clusters in the Milky Way was roughly 20%. This largely neglected result was obtained before any research was undertaken to assess the importance of cluster binarity in the Magellanic Clouds. The firsts of such studies (LMC, Bhatia & Hatzidimitriou 1988; SMC, Hatzidimitriou & Bhatia 1990) inferred that the fraction of star clusters in pairs was nearly 10%. Slightly higher values, 12%, were found by Pietrzyński & Udalski (2000). These results were later confirmed by a more rigorous, extensive work completed by Dieball et al. (2002). In contrast, and for the Galaxy, the only widely accepted double or binary cluster system is the $h + \chi$ Persei pair (NGC 869/NGC 884), although the actual physical separation between the pair members is $>$`<!-- -->`{=html}200 pc (see, e.g., de la Fuente Marcos & de la Fuente Marcos 2009). Nevertheless, Subramaniam et al. (1995) were able to identify a number of additional candidates, concluding that about 8% of open clusters may be actual binaries, challenging the traditional view. In spite of this result, it is still emphasized (see, e.g., Dieball & Grebel 1998; Bekki et al. 2004) that the number of cluster pairs in the Milky Way is small compared to that in the Clouds. This is usually interpreted as supporting evidence for the higher formation efficiency of bound stellar groups in the Clouds. In all these studies, projected, not three-dimensional, distances were used.

In reality, star clusters which have small angular separations are not necessarily physically associated. In most cases, they happen by chance to lie nearly along the same line of sight; they are merely 'optical doubles'. This is to be expected, as clusters are born in complexes (Efremov 1978) which are observed in projection, with some objects formed along shock fronts induced by supernovae. These complexes may also be inclined with respect to the galaxy disk (e.g. the Gould Belt) and this fact is customarily neglected in Magellanic Cloud studies. In this context and without information on three-dimensional separations, misidentification of large numbers of double clusters as binaries is, statistically speaking, highly likely. These preliminary considerations pose some obvious questions; if 3-D data are used, is there a real scarcity of binary clusters in our Galaxy with respect to the Magellanic Clouds? How similar are their binary cluster fractions? and their pair separation distributions? Here we attempt to provide statistically robust answers to these and other questions regarding the multiplicity of open clusters. This Letter is organized as follows: in Section 2, we discuss possible formation channels for binary/double clusters. In Section 3, we provide a quantitative analysis of the Galactic binary cluster frequency using samples of open clusters. Individual candidates are considered in Section 4. Results are discussed and conclusions summarized in Section 5.

# Double or binary: formation channels

Pairs, triplets or higher multiplicity star clusters may form as a result of a number of processes:

a\) Simultaneous formation. Open cluster binaries formed inside a star complex and out of the same molecular cloud are expected to share a common space velocity, but also have very similar ages and chemical composition. They may also be the final products of multiple mergers of smaller clusters. Coformation scenarios have been suggested by Fujimoto & Kumai (1997) and Bekki et al. (2004). Objects formed are genetic pairs and therefore true binaries if bound.

b\) Sequential formation. In this scenario, stellar winds or supernova shocks generated by one cluster induce the collapse of a nearby cloud, triggering the formation of a companion cluster (see, e.g., Brown et al. 1995; Goodwin 1997). A finite but relatively small age difference should be observed. Post-supernova metal contamination may produce different metallicity. If the companion is born out of the same cloudlet forming the originator cluster, common kinematics is expected; if the shocked cloud is unrelated, the kinematics may be different. Pairs formed may be binaries or not.

c\) Tidal capture. Open cluster binaries formed by tidal capture must share a common space velocity, but their ages and chemical composition are expected to be rather different. Details of the actual mechanism are discussed in, e.g., van den Bergh (1996). Even if they are true binaries, they are not primordial.

e\) Resonant trapping. Dehnen (1998) pointed out that orbital resonances may be responsible for most stellar moving groups present in the solar neighbourhood. This idea was further explored by De Simone et al. (2004), Quillen & Minchev (2005), Famaey et al. (2005) and Chakrabarty (2007) for the case of resonances induced by the Galactic bar and spiral structure. Extrapolating this scenario to entire clusters, we may have formation of double or multiple clusters as a result of resonances of the non-axisymmetric component of the Galactic potential. Cluster pairs must share a common kinematics with rather different ages and metallicities. However, they are not true binaries but pseudo-binaries, transient pairs or multiples. Tidal capture may operate within resonant trapping regions.

f\) Optical doubles: hyperbolic encounters. As in the stellar case, optical doubles are not physical binaries. Although they occupy a limited volume of space (following our criterion, see below, one sphere of radius 15 pc), they do not share common kinematics, but they may have similar ages and metallicities, especially if they are young and belong in the same star complex. Given their small separation, they may well be undergoing some type of close, even disruptive, gravitational encounter.

# Double or binary? the data and the evidence

In this section we describe the databases and the classification scheme used. The basic criterion used in our preliminary selection is purely dynamical: the pair physical (not projected) separation must be less than three times the average value of the tidal radius for clusters in the Milky Way disk (10 pc, Binney & Tremaine 2008). Following Innanen et al. (1972), for two clusters separated by a distance larger than three times the outer radius of each cluster, the amount of mutual disruption is negligible. On the other hand, general open cluster samples are biased against older clusters because they contain less luminous stars. If any reliable conclusions on the open cluster binary frequency have to be obtained, a complete sample must be used. Completeness of general open cluster samples has been customarily approached assuming uniform surface density in the solar neighborhood (Battinelli & Capuzzo-Dolcetta 1989, 1991). Piskunov et al. (2006) have concluded that, assuming uniform density, the completeness limit for clusters of any age could be 0.85 kpc. In the following, we consider this group of clusters, forming a volume limited sample, as the best sample.

*WEBDA.* The *Open Cluster Database* [^1] (WEBDA, Mermilliod & Paunzen 2003) is one of the most widely used open cluster databases. The latest update of WEBDA (April 2009, Paunzen & Mermilliod 2009) includes 1756 objects. The number of clusters with both age and distance in the database is 1051 (59.9%). Out of the resulting 551,775 pairs, the number of systems with separation $\leq$ 30 pc is 34 (see Table ). Therefore and for the general sample, the fraction of candidate clusters involved in some type of close range dynamical interaction is 6.2%. If we restrict the analysis to the best sample, 281 objects are included with 39,340 pairs. Out of this best sample, the number of pairs with separation $\leq$ 30 pc is 19 or 12.4%. Hence, and based only on spatial considerations (as in Magellanic Clouds studies), our best value for the fraction of multiple clusters in the Galactic disk is comparable to that in the Clouds. Most of these cluster pairs have proper motions in WEBDA, with a smaller number also having radial velocities. A very small percentage of open clusters in pairs have known metallicity.

*NCOVOCC.* The *New Catalogue of Optically Visible Open Clusters and Candidates* [^2] (NCOVOCC, Dias et al. 2002) is also widely used in open cluster studies. The February 2009 version (v2.10, Dias 2009) of NCOVOCC includes 1787 clusters and 982 of these (54.9%) have known distances and ages, generating 481,671 pairs. After performing the same type of analysis that we did on WEBDA data, we obtain the following values for the binary fractions: 5.3% and 11.4%. Now we have a total of 27 pairs with 14 in the best sample (see Table ).

The values obtained for the binary fraction of a sample of open clusters in the solar neighbourhood using WEBDA and NCOVOCC are statistically consistent and they include the effect of presumed triple systems. Our best value for the open cluster binary fraction in the solar neighbourhood (complete sample) and, therefore in the Galactic disk, is $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}12%. This value matches that of the Magellanic Clouds. If results from both databases are combined, the fraction of possible binary clusters is nearly 15%. The number of pairs common to WEBDA and NCOVOCC is 18 (ASCC 16 $\equiv$ Briceño 1 and ASCC 50 $\equiv$ Alessi 43) with an additional 3 clusters in common but assigned to different companions. Evidence for systems with a multiplicity higher than 2 is weak, with a few possible triple or even quadruple systems. The average distances between clusters in the best sample for WEBDA and NCOVOCC are 765.1$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}1.8 pc and 754$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}2 pc, respectively. Our list in Table has only two pairs (#2 & \#27) in common with Subramaniam et al. (1995); Table shares only 1 pair (#21).

The distribution of separations between open clusters in Table shows an apparent peak at 10 pc (see Fig. ). Similar peaks are observed for the LMC ($\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}6 pc) and the SMC ($\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}11 pc) but not in Subramaniam et al. (1995) for open clusters or in NCOVOCC data. In spite of the low number of cluster pairs, the peak seems to be statistically robust as it appears for both the general and best samples. On the other hand, the age of a given cluster pair or multiple system is the age of its youngest member. If we represent the age difference between clusters in a pair as a function of the age of the pair (see Fig. ), we observe that the vast majority, except three, of almost coeval pairs (age difference $<$`<!-- -->`{=html}80 Myr) are younger than 25 Myr. This implies that primordial pairs do not survive for long and is consistent with similar findings for the LMC and the SMC (Hatzidimitriou & Bhatia 1990). If the unusual pair \#31 is neglected, no primordial pairs older than 300 Myr exist in the disk, which is also consistent with theoretical expectations discussed in Innanen et al. (1972). Either way, the number of candidate binary clusters among young ones in the best sample is almost 7 times larger than for the general age group. An unexpected age gap is observed for the age range 25-70 Myr. This could be the result of orbit expansion (and subsequent pair destruction) due to mass loss, as observed in $N$-body simulations by Portegies Zwart & Rusli (2007), but also of early cluster disruption after gas expulsion (Hills 1980). If we further analyze the cluster pairs in these two clearly distinct age ranges ($\leq$`<!-- -->`{=html}25 Myr and $>$`<!-- -->`{=html}70 Myr), we observe some obvious trends (see Fig. ). The vast majority of primordial pairs appear to have separations in the range 20-30 pc. Most cluster pairs with separations $<$`<!-- -->`{=html}20 pc appear to be old and/or non-primordial and they may have formed by resonant trapping. Notable exceptions are pair \#3 (perhaps part of a primordial triple, see below), pair \#7 (a likely long-lived binary) and pair \#31 (another long-lived binary, if real). Older pairs appear to exhibit two disparate groupings: all pairs with separation $<$`<!-- -->`{=html}20 pc have age differences $<$`<!-- -->`{=html}400 Myr or two galactic rotations at the Solar Circle. Wider pairs show random age differences. This may well be a characteristic time scale for disruption of close transient pairs formed by resonant trapping.

# Candidates

In Tables and we compile a preliminary list of candidate binary open clusters from WEBDA (34 pairs) and NCOVOCC (27 pairs), respectively. In these tables, pairs are sorted in order of increasing heliocentric distance; the horizontal line separates clusters in the complete or best sample. Clusters in both databases appear in boldface.

i\) Binary open clusters. In order to classify a pair as binary we restrict the age difference to $\leq$ 50 Myr and having similar kinematics. In WEBDA, clear candidates are pairs \#6, \#7, \#18, \#30, and \#34. All of them have similar ages, radial velocity and proper motions. Pair \#7 (Loden 1171/Loden 1194) is interesting as the clusters appear to have been able to survive as a bound pair for more than one entire orbit around the Galactic centre. Additional possible binaries with not enough kinematic information are pairs \#19, \#27 and \#30. The unstudied pair Carraro 1/Loden 165 is rather peculiar as both objects have intermediate age. Assuming that they are real clusters, it is hard to understand how they have been able to survive as a pair for such a long period of time; they may well be a resonant pair or a close encounter. Another obvious primordial binary is the NCOVOCC pair \#24 (Bica 1/Bica 2), which is coeval, has similar proper motion and with a separation of only 3 pc.

ii\) Triple open clusters. The system NGC 1981/NGC 1976/Collinder 70 (#2 and \#3) appears to be a bona fide triple candidate using WEBDA data. These three clusters may constitute a hierarchical triple system with the inner pair being NGC 1981/NGC 1976 with Collinder 70 orbiting around them. NCOVOCC indicates that the triple may be NGC 1976/$\sigma$ Ori/Collinder 70 (#3 and \#4). If we consider both databases simultaneously, the system may well be a quadruple cluster. WEBDA pairs \#8/#9 and \#10/#12 cannot be primordial triples but perhaps transient pseudo-triples.

iii\) Tidal capture/resonant trapping. Using the available information, it is currently impossible to distinguish pairs formed by tidal capture from those resulting from resonant trapping. On the other hand, tidal capture via three-body encounters within resonant trapping regions is also a possibility and resonant trapping may be a first step towards tidal capture. WEBDA pairs to be included in this group are \#5, \#8, \#9, \#10 or \#12.

iv\) Hyperbolic encounters. In this group we include those pairs that are physically close but with disparate kinematics. Clear examples in WEBDA are pairs \#4, \#20, \#23 or \#32. Pair \#1 is regarded as controversial: the member objects may not be true clusters. The same concern applies to many other ASCC candidates.

# Discussion and conclusions

In this Letter, we have shown that binary open clusters appear to constitute a statistically significant sample and that the fraction of possible binary clusters in the Galactic disk is comparable to that in the Magellanic Clouds. The spatial proximity of two almost coeval open clusters, compared to the large distances which typically separate these objects, suggests that both objects were formed together. In star-forming complexes, one star cluster might capture another to form a bound state in the presence of a third body or of energy dissipation. This mechanism may also be at work within orbital resonances for non-coeval clusters. However, nearly 40% of candidate binary clusters that exist in the Milky Way may have been formed in a bound state. Only a small fraction of them, $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}17%, can survive as pairs for more than 25 Myr. Our data indicates that binary clusters appear to form both simultaneously and sequentially; multiple clusters form only sequentially. The bimodal nature of the distribution of separations suggests that two formation mechanisms are at work: coformation and resonant trapping.

How reliable are our present results? Unfortunately, they are affected by the inherent errors associated with the determination of open cluster parameters. The current status of the accuracy of open cluster data has been reviewed by Paunzen & Netopil (2006). There, they concluded that distances are rather well known because for about 80% of 395 of the best studied objects, the absolute error is $<$ 20%. For cluster ages, the situation is the opposite: only 11% of the best studied objects have errors $<$`<!-- -->`{=html}20% and 30% have absolute errors $>$ 50%. Accordingly, we may assume that our conclusions based on distances are probably quite robust but those based on ages may not be as reliable. However, they are probably more reliable than those obtained using Magellanic Clouds data. A Monte Carlo simulation of 100,000 artificial data sets using original WEBDA data altered by errors of 10%, 20%, and 30% in both distance and cluster centre determination gives average binary fractions of 10$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}2%, 9$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}2%, and 8$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}2%, respectively, where the error quoted is the standard deviation. The binary fraction decreases, as expected, but not dramatically. It is therefore statistically safe to conclude that the open cluster binary fraction is very likely at least 10%.

```latex
\begin{table*}
          \fontsize{8} {10pt}\selectfont
          \tabcolsep 0.10truecm
          \caption{List of candidate binary clusters (WEBDA)}
          \begin{tabular}{rccrrrrrrrrrrr}
           \hline
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{Pair \#}         &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{Cluster 1}       &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{Cluster 2}       &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\tau_1$}        &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\tau_2$}        &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Delta t$}      &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$S$}             &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$d$}             &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$V_{r}$ 1}       &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{pm RA 1}         &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{pm dec 1}        &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$V_{r}$ 2}       &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{pm RA 2}         &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{pm dec 2}        \\
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{}                &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{}                &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{}                &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(Myr)}           &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(Myr)}           &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(Myr)}           &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(pc)}            &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(pc)}            &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(km s$^{-1}$)}   &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mas yr$^{-1}$)} &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mas yr$^{-1}$)} &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(km s$^{-1}$)}   &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mas yr$^{-1}$)} &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mas yr$^{-1}$)} \\
           \hline
            1 & {\bf ASCC 100} & {\bf ASCC 101} & 102 & 331 & 229 & 23 & 350
              & -22.89 & 2.29 & -1.51 & - & 0.81 & 1.87 \\
            2 & {\bf Collinder 70} & NGC 1981 & 5 & 32 & 26 & 24 & 391
              & 19.49 & 0.36 & -0.68 & 27.94 & 1.01 & 1.14 \\
            3 & {\bf NGC 1976} & NGC 1981 & 13 & 32 & 19 & 7 & 400
              & - & 1.67 & -0.3 & 27.94 & 1.01 & 1.14 \\
            4 & {\bf ASCC 20} & ASCC 16 & 22 & 8 & 14 & 13 & 460
              & 17.62 & -0.09 & 0.51 & 0.75 & 0.75 & -0.18 \\
            5 & {\bf NGC 6405} & {\bf ASCC 90} & 94 & 646 & 551 & 26 & 500
              & 10.4 & -2.19 & -5.4 & - & -2.49 & -3.64 \\
            6 & {\bf ASCC 21} & {\bf ASCC 18} & 13 & 13 & 0 & 25 & 500
              & 19.9 & 0.52 & -0.62 & 13.39 & 0.89 & -0.02 \\
            7 & Loden 1171 & Loden 1194 & 282 & 339 & 57 & 14 & 500
              & - & -13.46 & -5.75 & - & -10.07 & -3.29 \\
            8 & {\bf Loden 46} & {\bf ASCC 34} & 1071 & 398 & 673 & 29 & 540
              & - & -14.11 & 2.98 & - & -2.36 & -1.87 \\
            9 & {\bf Loden 46} & {\bf NGC 3228} & 1071 & 85 & 986 & 30 & 544
              & - & -14.11 & 2.98& - & -15.64 & -0.05 \\
           10 & NGC 6469 & Ruprecht 139 & 229 & 1122 & 893 & 21 & 550
              & - & 3.04 & -1.2 & - & -1.1 & -2.19 \\
           11 & Johansson 1 & Alessi 8 & 199 & 83 & 116 & 29 & 575
              & - & - & - & - & -6.05 & -7.01 \\
           12 & Ruprecht 139 & Bochum 14 & 1122 & 10 & 1112 & 28 & 578
              & - & -1.1 & -2.19 & - & - & - \\
           13 & Loden 565 & ASCC 68 & 112 & 447 & 334 & 7 & 650
              & 10.1 & -3.14 & -0.96 & - & -4.81 & 3.71 \\
           14 & BH 91 & Ruprecht 89 & 162 & 955 & 793 & 23 & 740
              & - & -6.25 & 4.22 & - & -6.82 & 4.36 \\
           15 & {\bf ASCC 4} & {\bf NGC 189} & 219 & 10 & 209 & 22 & 752
              & -9.55 & 0.11 & -1.48 & - & - & - \\
           16 & NGC 1746 & NGC 1758 & 155 & 398 & 243 & 2 & 760
              & 2.0 & -1.87 & -3.07 & - & -1.44 & -3.5 \\
           17 & {\bf Basel 5} & {\bf NGC 6425} & 741 & 22 & 719 & 28 & 778
              & - & - & - & - & 3.11 & -2.79 \\
           18 & {\bf Collinder 197} & ASCC 50 & 13 & 30 & 17 & 20 & 838
              & 33.1 & -9.8 & 7.4 & 17.13 & -6.39 & 3.85 \\
           19 & {\bf NGC 6250} & {\bf Lynga 14} & 26 & 5 & 21 & 21 & 865
              & - & -0.19 & -3.3 & - & - & - \\
           \hline
           20 & Ruprech 91 & ESO 128-16 & 427 & 832 & 405 & 17 & 900
              & 7.3 & -11.1 & 3.11 & - & -2.57 & 6.1 \\
           21 & {\bf NGC 2447} & {\bf NGC 2448} & 387 & 15 & 372 & 15 & 1037
              & 21.7 & -4.85 & 4.47 & 15.0 & -3.8 & 4.69 \\
           22 & {\bf Ruprecht 172} & {\bf Biurakan 2} & 813 & 10 & 803 & 11 & 1106
              & - & -0.42 & -3.97 & - & -2.52 & -6.53 \\
           23 & {\bf NGC 6242} & {\bf Trumpler 24} & 41 & 8 & 32 & 25 & 1138
              & - & 0 & 1.65 & -4 & -0.87 & -1.27 \\
           24 & NGC 2302 & NGC 2306 & 70 & 708 & 638 & 22 & 1182
              & - & - & - & - & -0.98 & 1.91 \\
           25 & ASCC 6 & Stock 4 & 148 & 501 & 353 & 21 & 1200
              & -20.0 & -1.02 & -1.18 & - & 1.47 & 1.18 \\
           26 & {\bf NGC 6613} & {\bf NGC 6618} & 17 & 1 & 16 & 22 & 1296
              & -14.0 & -1.02 & -1.33 & - & 1.79 & -1.96 \\
           27 & {\bf Basel 8} & {\bf NGC 2251} & 126 & 267 & 141 & 7 & 1329
              & - & - & - & 24.7 & - & - \\
           28 & {\bf Markarian 38} & {\bf Collinder 469} & 8 & 63 & 55 & 22 & 1471
              & -18.0 & 0.07 & -2.2 & - & - & - \\
           29 & {\bf Trumpler 22} & NGC 5617 & 89 & 82 & 7 & 21 & 1516
              & - & - & - & - & -2.04 & -2.32 \\
           30 & NGC 6871 & Biurakan 1 & 9 & 18 & 9 & 27 & 1574
              & -7.7 & -2.89 & -5.65 & -8.48 & -3.51 & -6.24 \\
           31 & {\bf Carraro 1} & {\bf Loden 165} & 3020 & 3020 & 0 & 10 & 1900
              & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
           32 & NGC 659 & NGC 663 & 35 & 16 & 19 & 25 & 1938
              & - & -2.67 & 1.07 & -32.0 & -1.49 & -2.3 \\
           33 & Ruprecht 151 & NGC 2428 & 309 & 479 & 170 & 19 & 2100
              & - & -4.3 & 2.1 & - & -2.02 & 1.12 \\
           34 & {\bf NGC 3324} & {\bf NGC 3293} & 6 & 10 & 5 & 21 & 2327
              & - & -7.46 & 3.11 & -13.0 & -7.53 & 3.1 \\
           \hline
          \end{tabular}
          \begin{list}{}{}
            {\footnotesize
              \item[] $\tau_i$: cluster age in Myr ($i$ = 1, 2).
              \item[] $\Delta t = \tau_1 - \tau_2$: age difference in Myr.
              \item[] $S$: cluster pair spatial separation in pc.
              \item[] $d$: heliocentric distance to the closest member of the pair in pc.
              \item[] $V_{r} i$: average radial velocity in km s$^{-1}$.
              \item[] pm RA $i$: average proper motion in RA ($=\mu_{\alpha}\cos\delta$) mas yr$^{-1}$.
              \item[] pm dec $i$: average proper motion in Dec ($=\mu_{\delta}$) mas yr$^{-1}$.
            }
          \end{list}
          \label{binaries1}
         \end{table*}
```
```latex
\begin{table*}
          \fontsize{8} {10pt}\selectfont
          \tabcolsep 0.10truecm
          \caption{List of candidate binary clusters (NCOVOCC)}
          \begin{tabular}{rccrrrrrrrrrrr}
           \hline
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{Pair \#}         &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{Cluster 1}       &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{Cluster 2}       &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\tau_1$}        &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\tau_2$}        &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Delta t$}      &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$S$}             &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$d$}             &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$V_{r}$ 1}       &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{pm RA 1}         &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{pm dec 1}        &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{$V_{r}$ 2}       &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{pm RA 2}         &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{pm dec 2}        \\
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{}                &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{}                &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{}                &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(Myr)}           &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(Myr)}           &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(Myr)}           &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(pc)}            &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(pc)}            &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(km s$^{-1}$)}   &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mas yr$^{-1}$)} &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mas yr$^{-1}$)} &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(km s$^{-1}$)}   &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mas yr$^{-1}$)} &
           \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mas yr$^{-1}$)} \\
           \hline
            1 & Mamajek 1 & Feigelson 1 & 8 & 4 & 4 & 24 & 97
              & 16.1 & -30.0 & 27.8 & 13.0 & -39.5 & -1.0 \\
            2 & {\bf ASCC 100} & {\bf ASCC 101} & 102 & 331 & 229 & 23 & 350
              & -22.89 & 2.29 & -1.51 & -32.0 & 0.81 & 1.87 \\
            3 & {\bf Collinder 70} & $\sigma$ Ori & 9 & 13 & 3 & 17 & 387
              & 19.87 & 0.15 & -0.7 & 29.45 & 1.73 & 0.47 \\
            4 & $\sigma$ Ori & {\bf NGC 1976} & 13 & 13 & 0.00 & 26 & 399
              & 29.45 & 1.73 & 0.47 & 28.94 & 1.67 & -0.3 \\
            5 & {\bf ASCC 20} & {\bf Brice\~no 1} & 22 & 8 & 14 & 13 & 450
              & 22.97 & -0.09 & 0.51 & 0 & 0.75 & -0.18 \\
            6 & {\bf NGC 6405} & {\bf ASCC 90} & 94 & 646 & 551 & 26 & 487
              & -7.02 & -2.19 & -5.4 & - & -2.49 & -3.64 \\
            7 & {\bf ASCC 21} & {\bf ASCC 18} & 13 & 13 & 0 & 25 & 500
              & 19.77 & 0.52 & -0.62 & 24.4 & 0.89 & -0.02 \\
            8 & {\bf Loden 46} & {\bf NGC 3228} & 1071 & 85 & 986 & 29 & 540
              & - & -14.11 & 2.98 & -22.39 & -15.64 & -0.05 \\
            9 & {\bf Loden 46} & {\bf ASCC 59} & 1071 & 398 & 673 & 30 & 540
              & - & -14.11 & 2.98 & - & -4.99 & 3.65 \\
           10 & Johansson 1 & Alessi 8 & 199 & 141 & 58 & 29 & 570
              & - & -3.85 & -3.34 & - & -6.13 & -5.8 \\
           11 & {\bf ASCC 4} & {\bf NGC 189} & 219 & 10 & 209 & 22 & 750
              & -9.24 & 0.11 & -1.48 & - & - & - \\
           12 & {\bf Basel 5} & {\bf NGC 6425} & 741 & 22 & 719 & 28 & 766
              & - & 3.17 & 1.76 & -3.46 & -3.11 & -2.79 \\
           13 & {\bf Collinder 197} & {\bf Alessi 43} & 13 & 30 & 17 & 20 & 838
              & 33.1 & -9.8 & 7.4 & 17.13 & -6.39 & 3.85 \\
           14 & {\bf NGC 6250} & {\bf Lynga 14} & 26 & 5 & 21 & 21 & 865
              & -8.04 & -0.19 & -3.3 & - & -3.04 & -3.93 \\
           \hline
           15 & {\bf NGC 2447} & {\bf NGC 2448} & 387 & 15 & 372 & 15 & 1037
              & 22.08 & -4.85 & 4.47 & 15.0 & -3.8 & 4.69 \\
           16 & ESO 132-14 & NGC 5281 & 794 & 14 & 780 & 27 & 1100
              & - & - & - & -18.52 & -5.29 & -3.45 \\
           17 & {\bf Ruprecht 172} & {\bf Biurakan 2} & 813 & 10 & 803 & 11 & 1100
              & - & -1.27 & -3.13 & -22 & -2.31 & -3.78 \\
           18 & {\bf NGC 6242} & {\bf Trumpler 24} & 41 & 8 & 32 & 25 & 1131
              & - & 0.38 & -0.19 & -4 & -0.87 & -1.27 \\
           19 & NGC 6204 & Hogg 22 & 79 & 6 & 73 & 16 & 1200
              & 53 & 0.04 & -1.45 & -65.2 & -3.16 & -3.77 \\
           20 & {\bf NGC 6613} & {\bf NGC 6618} & 17 & 1 & 16 & 22 & 1296
              & -5.4 & -1.02 & -1.33 & -25.3 & 1.79 & -1.96 \\
           21 & {\bf Basel 8} & {\bf NGC 2251} & 126 & 267 & 141 & 7 & 1328
              & 11 & 0.43 & -2.13 & 25.33 & -0.24 & -2.6 \\
           22 & {\bf Markarian 38} & {\bf Collinder 469} & 8 & 63 & 55 & 22 & 1471
              & -3.2 & -1.76 & -2.12 & - & 0.17 & -1.19 \\
           23 & Pismis 19 & {\bf Trumpler 22} & 794 & 89 & 705 & 18 & 1500
              & - & - & - & - & -5.71 & -3.39 \\
           24 & Bica 1 & Bica 2 & 4 & 4 & 0 & 3 & 1800
              & - & -0.68 & -1.13 & - & -1.38 & -1.28 \\
           25 & {\bf Carraro 1} & {\bf Loden 165} & 3020 & 3020 & 0 & 10 & 1900
              & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
           26 & NGC 2421 & Czernik 31 & 79 & 178 & 98 & 8 & 2200
              & - & -4.26 & 4.89 & - & - & - \\
           27 & {\bf NGC 3324} & {\bf NGC 3293} & 6 & 10 & 5 & 21 & 2317
              & -8.5 & -7.46 & 3.11 & -12 & -7.53 & 3.1 \\
           \hline
          \end{tabular}
          \label{binaries2}
         \end{table*}
```

[^1]: http://www.univie.ac.at/webda/

[^2]: http://www.astro.iag.usp.br/$\sim$wilton/