Click

Here

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, A10104, doi:10.1029/2007JA012311, 2007

for

Full
Article

From Rankine-Hugoniot relation fitting procedure:

Tangential discontinuity or intermediate/slow
shock?
H. Q. Feng,1 C. C. Lin,2 J. K. Chao,2 D. J. Wu,1 L. H. Lyu,2 and L.-C. Lee2
Received 29 January 2007; revised 15 July 2007; accepted 2 August 2007; published 12 October 2007.

[1] To identify an observed intermediate/slow shock, it is important to fit the measured

magnetic fields and plasma on both sides using Rankine-Hugoniot (R-H) relations. It is
not reliable to determine an intermediate/slow shock only by the shock properties and
fitting procedure based on one spacecraft observation, though previous reported
intermediate/slow shocks are confirmed in such a way. We investigated two shock-like
discontinuities, which satisfy the R-H relations well. One meets the criterions of slow
shocks and was reported as a slow shock, and another has all the characters of intermediate
shock based on one spacecraft observation. However, both discontinuities also meet the
requirements of tangential discontinuities and were confirmed as tangential discontinuities
on large-scale perspective by using multi-spacecraft observations. We suggest that
intermediate/slow shocks should be identified as carefully as possible and had better be
determined by multi-spacecraft.
Citation: Feng, H. Q., C. C. Lin, J. K. Chao, D. J. Wu, L. H. Lyu, and L.-C. Lee (2007), From Rankine-Hugoniot relation fitting
procedure: Tangential discontinuity or intermediate/slow shock?, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A10104, doi:10.1029/2007JA012311.

1. Introduction
[2] The MHD Rankine-Hugoniot (R-H) conditions allow
four types of magnetic directional discontinuities (DDs):
contact discontinuity (CD), tangential discontinuity (TD),
rotational discontinuity (RD) and shocks. Shocks and TDs
are commonly observed in interplanetary solar wind.
[3] TDs can be considered to be boundaries between
distinct flows of plasma. There is no mass flow or magnetic
component normal to the discontinuity and conservation of
total plasma (thermal and magnetic) pressure on both sides
is required, that is to say, flows simply move with the
discontinuity surface. A number of statistical studies of TDs
have been carried out [e.g., Burlaga et al., 1977; Tsurutani
and Smith, 1979; Behannon et al., 1981]. These investigations include the ratios of RD to TD and their macroscopic
properties such as thickness and magnetic field rotation
angle. Lepping and Behannon [1986] gave a ratio of TDs to
RDs greater than unity and Soding et al. [2001] found that
the ratio of RDs to TDs varied by 5 to 10% depending on
the algorithm used to identify and select the discontinuities.
Using a reliable triangulation method, Knetter et al. [2004]
found that there is no clearly identified RD at all, and earlier
statistical population of the RD category is simply a result
of inaccurate normal estimates.
[4] The R-H relations have six shock solutions: the fast
and slow shocks and four intermediate shocks (ISs). The
fast shocks are observed frequently in the interplanetary
1
2

Purple Mountain Observatory, CAS, Nanjing, China.

Institute of Space Science, NCU, Chungli, Taiwan.

Copyright 2007 by the American Geophysical Union.

0148-0227/07/2007JA012311$09.00

space. The reported slow shocks (SSs) are relatively rare,

and only a small number of SSs have been observed in
interplanetary space [Chao and Olbert, 1970; Burlaga and
Chao, 1971; Richter et al., 1985; Whang et al., 1996, 1998;
Ho et al., 1998; Zuo et al., 2006]. However, in the
geomagnetic tail, slow shocks are observed more often
[e.g., Feldman et al., 1984, 1985, 1987; Smith et al.,
1984; Cattell et al., 1992; Saito et al., 1995; Ho et al.,
1994, 1996; Seon et al., 1995, 1996; Hoshino et al., 2000;
Eriksson et al., 2004]. Observations of ISs are very rare;
only one case has been reported by Chao et al. [1993].
[5] For an MHD shock, the coplanarity theorem requires
the magnetic field vectors B1 and B2 in the upstream and
downstream regions and shock normal ns to be in the same
coplanar plane. So, we define an orthogonal shock frame of
reference as shown in Figure 1, let s denote the unit vector
normal to the coplanar plane(viz. s ? ns), then define: t =
ns  s. Therefore the t  s plane is just the shock front, thus
both the up- and downstream magnetic fields are in the ns 
t plane. On the other hand, the up- and downstream
magnetic fields of a TD also lie on the same plane, which
is defined as TD front (plane), because a TD has no normal
magnetic field. Therefore the t  ns plane defined above is
just the TD front (plane), and the TD normal (nTD) is in the
direction of s.
[6] According to the R-H relations, a TD requires only
two conditions: (1) the velocities and magnetic fields are all
tangential to the TD front (plane), and (2) total pressures on
both sides are balanced. For an IS or a SS, in the shock
frame of reference, the up- and downstream plasma flows
also lie on the t  ns plane. It also meets the first
requirement of a TD. In addition, for an IS or a SS, the
magnetic pressure may decrease and the plasma thermal

A10104

1 of 12

A10104

FENG ET AL.: TD OR INTERMEDIATE/SLOW SHOCK?

A10104

on a large-scale perspective by use of multi-spacecraft

observations.

2. The 18 September 1997 Slow Shock-Like TD

Figure 1. Shock frame of reference (orthogonal coordinate system), where shock normal is in the ns direction,
magnetic fields are in the ns  t plane and the shock front in
the s  t plane. As a TD, the normal is the unit vector s and
the ns  t plane is the TD surface.
pressure increases across the shock front. The total pressure
could be close to balance for some shock conditions, which
meets the second condition required by a TD. Therefore
using only the R-H relations based on one spacecraft
observation to determine a TD and IS/SS likely causes
ambiguities; one can mis-interpret a TD as IS (or SS) and
vice versa. So far, to the best of our knowledge, all the
reported IS/SSs were identified in such a way and using one
satellite only.
[7] The ambiguity can be fixed by using multi-spacecraft
observations. Suppose that two spacecraft observed the
same DD at a different location and at a different time,
the time difference Dt can be expressed as [e.g., Russell et
al., 1983]
Dt DR  n=Vdd :

The method can be extended to three or more spacecraft

observations [Schwartz, 1998]. Here DR is the vector
displacement of the two spacecraft and Vdd is the
propagation speed of the DD in the rest frame of reference.
n and Vdd are calculated from the local property of the DD.
Their values depend on the model used in the calculation.
As mentioned above, for the same DD, the values calculated
by an IS/SS model are very different from that calculated by
a TD model. Therefore the estimated Dt should be very
different between these two models. However, one can
easily have an observed Dt if two spacecraft data are used.
[8] In this paper we demonstrate the ambiguities by use
of two shock-like DDs. One is a SS-like DD reported as a
SS in a recent work by Zuo et al. [2006], and another meets
all the requirement for ISs. However, both DDs satisfy
criterions of TD entirely. We identify the two events as TDs

2.1. Modeling as a Slow Shock

[9] This shock-like discontinuity was observed at about
0255:15 on 18 September 1997 by Wind located at (83.51,
13.58, 1.45) RE in GSE coordinate system. Figure 2
shows the observed values of the parameters as functions of
time for this event. The magnetic field data obtained from
Magnetic Field Investigation (MFI) magnetometer and the
proton data obtained from the 3-Dimension Plasma (3DP)
analyzer are all shown in the GSE coordinate. The data have
a time resolution of 3 s. As investigated by Zuo et al.
[2006], this discontinuity has typical SS characters: (1) the
density increases across the discontinuity, while the magnitude of magnetic field decreases; (2) the observed parameters all satisfy the R-H relations; (3) The upstream normal
bulk velocity in the shock frame of reference is larger than
local slow magnetoacoustic speed and smaller than local
normal Alfven speed, and the downstream velocity is
smaller than the local slow magnetoacoustic speed. They
used a coplanarity method and a self-consistent method to
determine the shock normal (ns) and the other two axes of
the shock coordinate system (Listed in Table 1). The selfconsistent method utilizes the entire R-H relations and a
minimization technique to determine the shock normal. The
detailed descriptions can be found in the work of Zuo et al.
[2006]. The angle between the estimated shock normals
using the two methods is only 7. In addition, the predicted
R-H solutions based on the shock normal determined by a
self-consistent method are in better agreement with the
observations, so they considered the self-consistent method
more accurate. Table 1 lists the up- and downstream
magnetic fields, plasma velocities, and densities on both
sides. The estimated shock speed Vsh is also given in Table 1.
[10] In addition, this discontinuity is likely a 18 20 s long
solar wind reconnection exhaust transition according to the
criteria first reported by Gosling et al. [2005a]. A number of
recent reports have outlined this subject further [e.g., Gosling
et al., 2005b; Davis et al., 2006; Huttunen et al., 2006;
Gosling et al., 2006; Phan et al., 2006; Gosling et al., 2007].
The region between two dotted vertical lines (See Figure 2)
has the characteristic features of a reconnection exhaust.
Namely it has higher proton density, higher proton temperature, weaker magnetic field strength, and intermediate field
orientation as compared with the surrounding solar wind. The
changes in V and B are anticorrelated in the leading portion
and correlated in the trailing portion of the event as expected.
2.2. Modeling as a Tangential Discontinuity
[11] As mentioned above, from the MHD consideration,
the observed discontinuity may also satisfy the criteria for a
TD, since, in the frame of a discontinuity, there is no normal
mass flow, and since the total plasma (thermal and magnetic)
pressures are balanced on both sides. As in our analysis, the
estimated TD normal nTD(=(B1  B2)/jB1  B2j) is (0.43,
0.88, 0.17), where the values of B1 and B2 are from Table 1.
This normal is just in the s axis of the shock coordinates
obtained by Zuo et al. [2006] (see Table 1). The dot product
of nTD and the difference between the downstream and

2 of 12

A10104

FENG ET AL.: TD OR INTERMEDIATE/SLOW SHOCK?

A10104

Figure 2. The interplanetary magnetic field and plasma data measured by the Wind spacecraft in GSE
coordinate system on 18 September 1997. The region between two dotted vertical lines is likely a
reconnection exhaust transition.
upstream velocities (V2  V1) is only 0.66 km/s, which
indicates that there is nearly no mass flow through the
discontinuity. In addition, Table 2 shows the thermal, magnetic, and total pressures on both sides. The difference in the
total pressures is only 3 percent of the total pressures in the
upstream region. By including the systematic error and
sampling errors, one can consider that the total plasma
pressures are conserved across the discontinuity. Therefore
from these two conditions the local parameters of this
discontinuity satisfy the TD requirements.
2.3. Identify the Discontinuity as TD With ThreeSpacecraft Observations
[12] This discontinuity was also observed at 0221:01 UT
by ACE located at (193.31, 24.78, 20.78) RE. Figure 3
shows the corresponding magnetic field profiles measured
by ACE and Wind. Here the dotted lines are for ACE, for
which the time sequences were shifted by 34.2 min. As seen
in Figure 3, the two sets of the profiles are very close to
each other, while there are only a few differences seen in the
detail structures. Therefore it can be confirmed that ACE
observed the same discontinuity as Wind.
[13] SS and TD models are used respectively to verify the
time difference (Dt) between the two spacecraft. From the
SS model, Dts = DR  ns/Vsh, where ns and Vsh are from
Table 1, and DR = (109.80, 11.23, 22.23)RE is the
vector displacement between the Wind and ACE spacecraft.

The calculated time is 13.5 min, which is very different

from the observed time difference (34.2 min). On the other
hand, from the TD model, DtTD = DR  nTD /VTD, where
VTD is the TD propagation speed in the rest frame of
reference. Since TD is a non-propagating discontinuity with
respect to the solar wind, its speed (in the normal direction)
in the rest frame can be estimated by VTD = nTD  V1, where
V1 is the upstream flow velocity in the rest frame. The
estimated value of VTD is 160.22 km/s. The estimated DtTD
is 35.6 min, which is very close to the observed time
difference. Note that since there is no mass flux across the
transition, using V1 and V2 to calculate VTD almost makes
Table 1. The Observed Parameters of the 18 September 1997 SSLike Discontinuity, and Shock Speed Vsh, the Shock Normal ns and
Other Two Axes of the Shock Coordinate System (From Zuo et al.
[2006])
Parameter

Value

B1, nT
B2
N1, N2, cm3
V1, km/s
V2
ns
s
t
Vsh, km/s

(3.1, 0.02, 7.9)

(3.4, 2.3, 3.3)
22.1, 32.7
(341, 11, 23)
(356, 5, 20)
(0.44, 0.38, 0.81)
(0.43, 0.88, 0.17)
(0.79, 0.28, 0.55)
205

3 of 12

FENG ET AL.: TD OR INTERMEDIATE/SLOW SHOCK?

A10104

Table 2. The Pressures on Both Sides of the 18 September 1997

Discontinuity
Upstream
Thermal pressure, Pa
Magnetic pressure
Total pressure

11

4.00  10
2.87  1011
6.87  1011

Downstream
5.98  1011
1.10  1011
7.08  1011

no difference here (nTD  V2 = 160.88 km/s). With the value

calculated from V2, the estimated DtTD is 35.5 min.
According to the above results, we conclude that this
discontinuity should be interpreted as a TD and not as a
SS. This interpretation is based on a large-scale perspective
due to the selection of up and downstream intervals.
[14] Assuming that (1) a DD surface can be approximated
by a plane thin sheet (1-D structure) and that (2) the speed
of the DD is constant in time and space, Knetter et al.
[2004] used four Cluster spacecraft to determine the discontinuity normal, namely via triangulation. Four spacecraft
can give three independent equations associated with the
propagation time and one equation that requires unity of the
shock normal vector. They are
Dti DR1i  n=Vn ; i 2 to 4;

jnj 1:

A10104

Here Vn is the propagation speed of the DD in the rest frame

of reference, and DR1i represents the vector displacement
between the Cluster 1 and Cluster i spacecraft. In addition,
Dti represents the time difference between Cluster 1 and
Cluster i spacecraft. With these four equations, n and Vn can
be found. The method requires no magnetic field and
plasma data and can be more accurate.
[15] Note that there is a limitation in this method. If the
four spacecraft are coplanar, the method of using timing
cannot find the DD normal vector and its propagation
velocity. As pointed out by Schwartz [1998] (pages 257
and 309), if the four spacecraft are coplanar, the determinant
of the matrix of DR in Equation (2) is zero. The three linear
equations reduce to two. Therefore we cannot find the full set
of unknowns (n/Vn). For example, if four spacecraft are on
the plane perpendicular to the Z axis, one can not get nz /Vn
from the linear algebraic system in Equation (2).
[16] Burlaga and Ness [1969] and Horbury et al. [2001]
use the method similar to that of Knetter et al. [2004]. They
apply only three spacecraft observations. With this method
they have only two independent equations for propagation
time. In order to have a close system, they assume that the
DD moves with the plasma bulk velocity measured at one of
the spacecraft. Under such assumption, their method is
applicable only for TDs. Any DDs propagating with respect
to the solar wind frame of reference cannot be studied by
their method.

Figure 3. The magnetic fields measured by the Wind and ACE in GSE coordinate system, where the
dotted lines are for ACE, and the ACE time sequences were shifted by 34.2 m.
4 of 12

FENG ET AL.: TD OR INTERMEDIATE/SLOW SHOCK?

A10104

A10104

Figure 4. The magnetic fields measured by the Wind and Geotail in GSE coordinate system, where the
dotted lines are for Geotail, and its time sequences were shifted by 17.2 m.

[17] We examined all the solar wind data observed by

other spacecraft, which are near the Earth, and found that
the DD discussed in this section was also observed by the
Geotail spacecraft at 0312:27 UT and at (24.85, 11.57,
1.52) RE (GSE). Figure 4 shows the corresponding
magnetic field profiles measured by Geotail and Wind.
Here the dotted lines are for Geotail, for which the time
sequences were shifted by 17.2 min. Therefore a total of
three spacecraft are available. In general, the measured
magnetic fields have smaller uncertainty than that of velocities. We use the equation: n  B1 = n  B2 (from r  B = 0)
to replace one of the Equation (2) used by Knetter et al.
[2004]. The equation n  (B2  B1) = 0 is a more reliable one
for any type of one dimensional DDs than the Equation (2).
In addition, the systematic errors in magnetic field measurements are likely to be eliminated. This equation uses only
the measured magnetic fields on both sides of the DD.
Therefore we have
DtWG DRWG  n=Vn ;

DtWA DRWA  n=Vn ;

n  B1 n  B2

jnj 1:

where DRWG (DtWG) represents the vector displacement

(time difference) between the Wind and Geotail spacecraft,
DRWA (DtWA) represents the vector displacement (time
difference) between the Wind and ACE spacecraft. Here the
measured magnetic fields are from the data of Wind. One
can obtain the solutions of n and Vn from these four
expressions. As the result, we obtain that n = (0.42, 0.89,
0.15), which is very close to nTD (0.43, 0.88, 0.17), and
we obtain Vn = 164.99 km/s, which is also consistent with
VTD (160.22 km/s). It, again, confirms that this event is a
TD. On the other hand, this derived normal and propagating
speed do not agree with the slow shock solution. For a detail
comparison of the results of the SS and TD models with the
above derived normal and speed, we summarize the
parameters in Table 3.
[18] In Equations (4) (7), the magnetic fields are included
to replace one of the equations in four spacecraft method
(Equation (2)). With Equations (4) (6) we obtain a linear
algebraic system as follows.

5 of 12

DRWGx
@ DRWAx
DBx

DRWGy
DRWAy
DBy

10 1 0
1
DRWGz
mx
DtWG
DRWAz A@ my A @ DtWA A
DBz
mz
0

FENG ET AL.: TD OR INTERMEDIATE/SLOW SHOCK?

A10104

A10104

Table 3. The Comparison of the Results From the SS and TD Models

Parameter

SS Model

TD Model

Equations (4) (7)

Normal n
VSS, km/s
VTD, km/s
Dt(ACE to Wind)

(0.58, 0.36, 0.73)

205

(0.43, 0.88, 0.17)

(0.42, 0.89, 0.15)

160.2 (162.9)a
35.6 m (35.5 m)a

165.0

13.5 m

Observation

34.2 m

The value in the parentheses is calculated from the downstream flow velocity.

where DB
(B2  B1) and m
n/Vn. With the solution
of m, we can calculate the value of Vn as follows (via
Equation (7)).

1=2
Vn m2x m2y m2z

[19] For this system, if DB, DRWG, and DRWA are not on
the same plane, one can obtain all three components of m.
Therefore although the three spacecraft are always coplanar,
in the present case DB, DRWG, and DRWA are not on the
same plane. As obtained from computation, the determinant
of the matrix in Equation (8) is non zero. Here we
emphasize that the calculation of Equations (4) (6) is
independent of the type of DD. The normal and the
propagation speed derived in our calculation should correspond to the actual type it belongs to.
[20] There is another way to understand the capability of
Equations (4) (7). The magnetic field conservation
Equation (6) allows only two normals - the SS normal
(ns) and the TD normal (nTD) as demonstrated in Figure 5.
For the TD normal B1  nTD = B2  nTD = 0, while for the SS
the normal magnetic field to the DD is a constant value.
With these two normals and one of the Equations (4) and
(5), one can find their corresponding propagating speeds,
Vns and VnTD. The other one of Equations (4) or (5) can be
used to determine which set, the SS or the TD, is the correct
solution. For the present case, we found that only the values
for the TD can satisfy Equations (4) (7) well in comparison
with the values for the SS.
[21] For this case, we have checked the frozen in condition of the DD by the quantities of V1  nTD (= 160.2 km/s),
V2  nTD (= 160.9 km/s), where V1 and V2 are the up- and
downstream flow velocities in the spacecraft (rest) frame of
reference. The result shows that they are close to the propagation speed of the DD calculated from the Equations (4)
(7) (Vn = 165 km/s in the rest frame). This means that the
DD is a non-propagating discontinuity with respect to the
solar wind plasma. In other words, V2-V1, B1 and B2 are
almost parallel to the DD plane. If we use the slow shock
model, the calculated DD propagation speed is 205 km/s in
the rest frame which is very different from Vn = 165 km/s.
In addition, we found that the total pressures across the
plane are close to one another. Therefore the obtained DD is
more likely a TD.
[22] On the other hand, we also compare our calculated
normal with the local derived normals using the R-H
relations, which correspond to either a shock or a TD.
The normal obtained from Equations (4) (7) is (0.42,
0.89, 0.15), while the normal obtained from (B1  B2)/
jB1  B2j is (0.43, 0.88, 0.17). They are close to one
another. However, the normal obtained from the slow shock

solution of Zuo et al. [2006] is (0.79, 0.28, 0.55),

which is perpendicular to the normal obtained from (B1 
B2)/jB1  B2j. From the above result, one should also
consider this DD as a TD than a SS.
[23] We have also checked the TD normals (B1  B2)/
jB1  B2j using the data from the other two spacecraft
(ACE and Geotail). The normal calculated from the ACE
magnetic field data is (0.47, 0.87, 0.18). This normal is
2.3 off from the normal calculated from the Wind
magnetic filed data. The normal calculated from the Geotail
magnetic field data is (0.52, 0.83, 0.21). This normal is
6.7 off from the normal calculated from the Wind
magnetic filed data. The normals are close to one another.
This shows that the discontinuity is stable during the period
between ACE and Geotail. The using of the multiple
spacecraft timing method in this paper should be appropriate.

3. The 8 October 2001 Intermediate Shock-Like TD

3.1. Modeling as an Intermediate Shock
[24] This shock-like discontinuity was observed by Wind
at RW = (37.20, 59.72, 4.91) RE in GSE coordinate system
at 0117:30 UT on 8 October 2001. Figure 6 shows the
magnetic field and plasma data of this event. It is well
known that shock fitting is very important for investigation
of interplanetary shocks. One main problem related to shock
fitting is to search for an accurate shock frame of reference.

Figure 5. The r  B = 0 allows only two normals - the SS

normal (ns) and the TD normal (nTD) for the system of
Equations (4) (7). For the TD normal B1  nTD = B2  nTD =
0, while for the SS the normal magnetic field to the DD is a
constant value. In this sketch the relationship of the normals
of the slow shock and the TD is demonstrated. The unit
vectors nTD, ns, and t are orthogonal. Here, ns is determined
by the coplanarity theorem [Zuo et al., 2006], and nTD is
obtained by nTD = (B1  B2)/jB1  B2j.

6 of 12

A10104

FENG ET AL.: TD OR INTERMEDIATE/SLOW SHOCK?

A10104

Figure 6. The interplanetary magnetic field and plasma data measured by the Wind spacecraft in GSE
coordinate system on October 8, 2001 and the best fitting valves of upstream and downstream regions
(dotted lines).
Such as the coplanarity theory and Minimum Variance
Analysis (MVA) are frequently used to analyze interplanetary shocks. Here we use a new shock fitting procedure
proposed recently by Lin et al. [2006]. They use a whole set
of the R-H relations and modified R-H relations. The modified R-H relations include terms for equivalent heat flow
and momentum flux possibly due to waves/turbulences,
energetic particles, and/or other unknown causes [e.g., Chao
and Goldstein, 1972; Davison and Krall, 1977; Yoon and
Lui, 2006]. Lin et al. [2006] separated their procedure under
two conditions. One is called Method A, which utilizes the
classical R-H relations. Another one is called Method B and
utilizes the modified R-H relations. With this, a best fit
solution that satisfies the R-H relations within the limitation
of the data error is obtained. For more details of the
procedure please refer to Lin et al. [2006].
[25] The second column of Table 4 lists the observed data
means and the corresponding parameters directly calculated
from the data means of the observed magnetic fields and
plasma. The derived parameters are the shock normal vector
ns, other two axes of the shock coordinate system t and s,
the plasma beta (b), the normal Alfven-Mach number (MAN =
Vn/VAn), the fast-mode Mach number (MF = Vn/Vf), the
slow-mode Mach number (MSL = Vn/Vsl) in the upstream/
downstream region, the ratio of downstream to upstream

magnetic field intensities (m = B2/B1), the ratio of upstream

to downstream plasma densities (y = N1/N2), the ratio of
downstream to upstream tangential magnetic fields (u = Bt2/
Bt1), the angle, qBN = cos1(B1  ns/B1), between the shock
normal and the upstream magnetic field (also called the
shock normal angle). In the above expression, VAn is the
Alfven speed based on magnetic field component normal to
shock front (VAn = Bn/(m0r)1/2), Vn is the component of the
bulk velocity to the shock front and measured in the shock
frame of reference, and Vf and Vsl are the speeds of the fastand slow-mode magnetosonic waves in the direction of the
shock normal, respectively. We applied both methods to this
discontinuity. The third and fourth columns of Table 4
respectively list the fitting results form Method A and B
as well as corresponding parameters calculated from these
best fit values. From Table 4 one can find that both methods
give very similar results. Figure 6 also shows the best fit
values (Method A) of upstream and downstream regions as
dots. As can be seen in Table 4 and Figure 6, the best fit
values are in very good agreement with the observed values.
According to the MHD theory of shocks, an IS has the
following properties. (1) The normal Alfven-Mach number
(MA) is greater than unity in the preshock state and less than
unity in the postshock state. (2) The tangential components
of both the preshock and postshock magnetic fields on the

7 of 12

FENG ET AL.: TD OR INTERMEDIATE/SLOW SHOCK?

A10104

A10104

Table 4. The Observed and Best Fitting Parameters of 8 October 2001 IS-like Discontinuity
Parameter

Observed Valuesa

Best Fit Values (Method A)

Best Fit Values (Method B)

B1, nT
B2
N1, N2, cm3
W(V2  V1)(km/s)
b 1, b 2
ns
S
T
MAN1, MAN2
MF1, MF2
MSL1, MSL2
y
m
u
qBN

(3.49, 3.38, 0.24)

(0.89, 0.38, 4.14)
14.16, 15.64
(14.9, 17.5, 16.5)
2.46, 3.35
(0.583, 0.355, 0.731)
(0.687, 0.695, 0.212)
(0.433, 0.626, 0.649)
1.021, 0.971
0.510, 0.490
1.262, 1.079
0.905
0.874
0.732
45.50

(3.49, 3.39, 0.24)

(0.89, 0.37, 4.14)
14.46, 15.49
(15.4, 21.7, 21.1)
2.44, 3.59
(0.582, 0.357, 0.731)
(0.689, 0.694, 0.210)
(0.432, 0.625, 0.650)
1.013, 0.979
0.455, 0.442
1.178, 1.056
0.933
0.873
0.730
45.48

(3.48, 3.37, 0.24)

(0.88, 0.36, 4.14)
14.19, 15.68
(15.8, 21.9, 20.7)
2.45, 3.36
(0.582, 0.358, 0.731)
(0.688, 0.695, 0.208)
(0.434, 0.624, 0.650)
1.021, 0.971
0.514, 0.494
1.266, 1.081
0.905
0.875
0.734
45.38

The SD of B1 is (0.17, 0.19, 0.17), the SD of B2 is (0.12, 0.20, 0.10), the SD of N1 and N2 are 0.34 and 0.36, the SD of W is (1.51, 1.70, 2.47), where SD
is the sample standard deviation.

shock front have opposite signs. (3) The plasma number

density increases from the upstream region to the downstream region. (4) Of the four types of intermediate shock,
the 2 ! 4 type has a larger density jump across the shock
front than the 1 ! 3, the 1 ! 4, and the 2 ! 3 types [Chao
et al., 1993]. Figure 7 also shows the magnetic field data in
the shock coordinate system. From Figure 7, it can be seen
that the tangential magnetic field Bt changes sign across the
shock front, and Bn approximately keeps constant, and Bs
component is approximately zero. Combining the shock
parameters listed in Table 4, it is clear that this discontinuity

satisfies the criteria for an IS. In addition, the fast-mode

Mach number is less than unity, and both the slow-mode
Mach number in the upstream and downstream regions are
greater than unity. Thus the discontinuity has all the
properties of the 2 ! 3 type IS. So it is very likely that
one will interpret this DD as an IS on the basis of one
spacecraft observation.
3.2. A TD From Two-Spacecraft Observations
[26] Table 5 lists the thermal, magnetic and total pressures
of up- and downstream sides of this discontinuity. As can be

Figure 7. The observed Wind magnetic fields on October 8, 2001 in the shock coordinate system.
8 of 12

FENG ET AL.: TD OR INTERMEDIATE/SLOW SHOCK?

A10104

Table 5. The Pressures on Both Sides of the 8 October 2001

Discontinuity
Upstream
Thermal pressure, Pa
Magnetic pressure
Total pressure

11

2.32  10
9.42  1012
3.26  1011

Downstream
2.41  1011
7.19  1012
3.13  1011

seen, the total pressures on the two sides are almost

equivalent. In addition, the scalar product of the TD normal
nTD (nTD = (B1  B2)/jB1  B2j = (0.689, 0.694,
0.210)) and W (observed velocity difference) is very
small (1.58 km/s). Therefore V2  V1, B1 and B2 are
almost parallel to the plane of the discontinuity. One may
consider that the pressures are in balance and there is no
flow cross the discontinuity. Thus this discontinuity satisfies
the TD requirements entirely.
[27 ] This discontinuity was also observed at about
0102:50 UT by Geotail located at RG = (29.91, 7.11,
4.13)RE, and only the two spacecraft are available for this
discontinuity. Figure 8 gives the overlapping magnetic field
data observed by Wind and Geotail. Here the dotted lines
are for the Geotail and its time sequences were shifted by
14.6 min. It can be seen in Figure 8 that the two sets of
curves are consistent. They are the same discontinuity
structure.

A10104

[28] We now calculate the time differences on the basis of

IS and TD models and compare them to the real time
difference (14.6 min) between Wind and Geotail observations. We first apply an IS model. Figure 9 shows the sketch
of positions of the two spacecraft (asterisk), the shock
normal vector (ns), and the vector displacement (DR =
RG  RW). It can be seen that the dot product of the shock
normal ns(0.58, 0.36, 0.73) and the vector displacement
DR is positive. This means that Wind should have observed
the TD earlier than Geotail. However, the Geotail spacecraft observed this TD earlier than Wind. On the other
hand, we apply the TD model to this event, then nTD  DR < 0.
The causality is reasonable. In addition, the estimated time
difference, Dt, is 13.9 min, which agrees with the observed
time difference (14.6 min) well. Here, Dt = (DR  nTD)/VTD,
where VTD is calculated from V1  nTD or V2  nTD. According
to the above results, we consider that this DD should be a TD
than an IS.
[29] In the present case, we do not identify the DD using
two-spacecraft timing method alone, but we check whether
the derived solution from the R-H relations is consistent
with the arrival time from spacecraft Wind to Geotail. Under
the IS assumption, we obtain a normal ns from the local
parameters using the R-H fitting method of Lin et al. [2006].
With this IS normal (ns), we found that (RG  RW)  ns > 0,
which demonstrates that Wind should observe the DD
before Geotail. However, in fact Geotail observes the event

Figure 8. The magnetic fields measured by the Wind and Geotail in GSE coordinate system, where the
dotted lines are for Geotail, and the Geotail time sequences were shifted by 14.6 m.
9 of 12

A10104

FENG ET AL.: TD OR INTERMEDIATE/SLOW SHOCK?

A10104

Figure 9. The sketch of shock normal and spacecraft locations: (a) take this discontinuity as an
intermediate shock; (b) take this discontinuity as a tangential discontinuity.
first. Therefore the causality is wrong. Under the TD
assumption, the normal nTD is also derived from the local
parameters (nTD = (B1  B2)/jB1  B2j) which is perpendicular to the IS normal (ns). When taking nTD, we obtain
(V2  V1)  nTD = 1.58 km/s, which is very small. It is
shown that with the TD model the DD does not propagate
with respect to the solar wind. On the other hand, with the
TD normal (nTD), we found both the causality and the time
delay are consistent with reality. With these evidences, we
conclude that the DD should be a TD rather than an IS.
Therefore the method used in the present case is first to
derive the normals and propagating speeds from the local
parameters and then to check the timing from the two
spacecraft observations.

4. Discussion and Summary

[30] In the past more than thirty years, there are a large
number of investigations for intermediate/slow shocks.
Previously, it was argued that on the evolutionary conditions ISs could not exist. [e.g., Kantrowitz and Petschek,
1966]. Numerical simulations [e.g., Wu, 1987, 1988; Wu
and Hada, 1991] showed that ISs are admissible. In
addition, Wu and Kennel [1992a, 1992b] have shown that
an MHD system that is almost hyperbolic but not strictly
hyperbolic in nature may lead to the formation of ISs. Chao
et al. [1993] reported an IS observed in 1980 when Voyager
1 was approximately at 9 AU from the Sun. To our
knowledge, this event is the one and only case identified
as an IS. For SSs, there are relatively more reported cases in
interplanetary space and in the geomagnetic tail. However,
all the reported intermediate and slow shocks were identified using one satellite only. As mentioned in Section 1,
both TDs and intermediate/slow shocks satisfy the R-H
relations. It is difficult to distinguish intermediate/slow
shocks with TDs using only one satellite due to their weak
shock strength.
[31] In order to demonstrate the ambiguity, we analyzed
two shock-like DDs. One is on 18 September 1997, which
meets all the requirement for SSs including the R-H
relations. Zuo et al. [2006] et al. reported this event as a

SS. Another one is on 8 October 2001. The measured solar

wind magnetic fields and plasma on both sides of the DD
satisfy the R-H relations. This DD also meets all the
criterions of the 2 ! 3 types IS. On the other hand, both
these two DDs meet the requirements of TDs. Because more
than one satellite are available for investigating the two
DDs, we estimated the time different between the
corresponding spacecraft using Dts = DR  n/Vdd. If
the DD on 18 September 1997 is considered as a SS, the
estimated time difference (13.5 min) between Wind and
ACE deviated greatly from the observed value (34.2 min).
In the same way, if the DD on 8 October 2001 is considered
as an IS, the estimated time difference is negative. So, it is
unreasonable to consider them as shocks. On the contrary,
considering the two DDs as TDs, one can find that the
estimated time differences agree with observed time differences well. In addition, the DD on 18 September 1997 was
observed by three spacecraft. We use a novel method, which
is independent of the type of the DD, to determine the DDs
normal vector. With the observed time differences, vector
displacements between corresponding spacecraft and magnetic fields measured by Wind, the determined DD normal
vector is n (0.42, 0.89, 0.15). The normal vector is
consistent with nTD (0.43, 0.88, 0.17). In addition, we
also checked the normals using magnetic data from the three
spacecraft and found that the calculated normals are all
consistent. So the discontinuity is stable during its propagation form one spacecraft to another, and the multiple
spacecraft timing method should be appropriate. Thus both
discontinuities should be interpreted as TDs rather than
shocks on large-scale perspective. Based on the abovementioned two events, we speculate that some of the
reported intermediate/slow shocks may possibly be TDs.
Therefore we suggest that intermediate/slow shocks should
be identified as carefully as possible and had better be
determined by multi-spacecraft observation, whenever possible. However, if one determines the normal of a DD using
four-spacecraft method, it should be noted that the method
fails if the spacecraft are nearly coplanar [Schwartz, 1998].
[32] In addition, the selection criteria and duration for the
upstream and downstream periods are related to DD types.

10 of 12

A10104

FENG ET AL.: TD OR INTERMEDIATE/SLOW SHOCK?

In general, one tries to select relatively stable and long time

intervals on the two sides of the discontinuity to minimize
the effect of the waves but without major changes in the
field on the two sides. Since all four type of DDs need to
satisfy the R-H relations, here we select the intervals by trial
and error to get the best average observed parameters, which
fit the R-H relations well.
[33] It is a well-known fact that the Earths magnetopause
is most often considered as a TD, while small-scale observations at the magnetopause often reveal rotational discontinuities (RDs) and reconnection events that open up the
TD. In the same way, there may be another possibility for
the two DDs. Namely the TDs are large-scale equilibrium
plane configurations, and a local IS/SS is formed somewhere within the plane; the local IS/SS is a sub-structure
existing in the bigger TD structure. It is an interesting
problem for further study and is not the subject of this
paper. We propose to discuss this problem in another paper.
[34] Acknowledgments. This work was supported by National
Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under grant Nos. 10425312,
10373026, 10603014, and 40574065 and by National Key Basic Research
Special Funds (NKBRSF) under grant 2006CB806302 and KJCX2-YWT04, and it is also supported by National Science Council (NSC) (Taiwan)
under grants NSC 95-2111-M-008-035, NSC 95-2111-M-008-037, and
NSC 95-2811-M-008-034 to National Central University. The authors thank
NASA/GSFC for the use of the key parameters from WIND, Geotail, and
ACE obtained via the CDA Web page.
[35] Zuyin Pu thanks You-Qiu Hu and another reviewer for their
assistance in evaluating this paper.

References
Behannon, K. W., F. M. Neubauer, and H. Barnstorf (1981), Fine-scale
characteristics of interplanetary sector boundaries, J. Geophys. Res., 86,
3273 3287.
Burlaga, L. F., and J. K. Chao (1971), Reverse and forward slow shocks in
the solar wind, J. Geophys. Res., 76(A11), 7516 7521.
Burlaga, L. F., and N. F. Ness (1969), Tangential discontinuities in the solar
wind, Sol. Phys., 9, 467 477.
Burlaga, L. F., J. F. Lemaire, and J. M. Turner (1977), Interplanetary current
sheets at 1 AU, J. Geophys. Res., 82, 3191 3200.
Cattell, C. A., C. W. Carlson, W. Baumjohann, and H. Luhr (1992), The
MHD structure of the plasmasheet boundary. I - Tangential momentum
balance and consistency with slow mode shocks, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
19(20), 2083 2086.
Chao, J. K., and S. Olbert (1970), Observation of slow shocks in interplanetary space, J. Geophys. Res., 75, 6394 6397.
Chao, J. K., and B. Goldstein (1972), Modification of the Rankine-Hugoniot
relations for shocks in space, J. Geophys. Res., 77, 5455.
Chao, J. K., L. H. Lyu, and B. H. Wu (1993), Observations of an intermediate shock in interplanetary space, J. Geophys. Res., 98(A10),
17,433 17,450.
Davis, M. S., T. D. Phan, J. T. Gosling, and R. M. Skoug (2006), Detection
of oppositely directed reconnection jets in a solar wind current sheet,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L19102, doi:10.1029/2006GL026735.
Davison, R. C., and N. A. Krall (1977), Anomalous transport in hightemperature plasmas with applications to solenoidal fusion system, Nucl.
Fusion., 17, 1313 1372.
Eriksson, S., M. ieroset, D. N. Baker, C. Mouikis, A. Vaivads, M. W.
Dunlop, H. Re`me, R. E. Ergun, and A. Balogh (2004), Walen and slowmode shock analyses in the near-Earth magnetotail in connection with a
substorm onset on 27 August 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 109, A10212,
doi:10.1029/2004JA010534.
Feldman, W. C., R. L. Tokar, J. Birn, E. W. Hones Jr., S. J. Bame, and C. T.
Russell (1987), Structure of a slow mode shock observed in the plasma
sheet boundary layer, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 83 93.
Feldman, W. C., D. N. Bsker, S. J. Bame, J. Birn, E. W. Hones Jr., R. L.
Tokar, and S. J. Schwartz (1984), Power dissipation at slow-mode shocks
in the distant geomagnetic tail, Geophys. Res. Lett., 11, 1058 1061.
Feldman, W. C., D. N. Bsker, S. J. Bame, J. Birn, J. T. Gosling, E. W.
Hones Jr., and S. J. Schwartz (1985), Slow-mode shocks - A semipermanent feature of the distant geomagnetic tail, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 233
240.

A10104

Gosling, J. T., R. M. Skoug, D. J. McComas, and C. W. Smith (2005a),

Direct evidence for magnetic reconnection in the solar wind near 1 AU,
J. Geophys. Res., 110, A01107, doi:10.1029/2004JA010809.
Gosling, J. T., R. M. Skoug, D. K. Haggerty, and D. J. McComas (2005b),
Absence of energetic particle effects associated with magnetic reconnection exhausts in the solar wind, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L14113,
doi:10.1029/2005GL023357.
Gosling, J. T., S. Eriksson, R. M. Skoug, D. J. McComas, and R. J. Forsyth
(2006), Petschek-type reconnection exhausts in the solar wind well
beyond 1 AU: Ulysses, Astrophys. J., 644, 613.
Gosling, J. T., S. Eriksson, T. D. Phan, D. E. Larson, R. M. Skoug, and D. J.
McComas (2007), Direct evidence for prolonged magnetic reconnection
at a continuous x-line within the heliospheric current sheet, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 34, L06102, doi:10.1029/2006GL029033.
Ho, C. M., B. T. Tsurutani, E. J. Smith, and W. C. Feldman (1994), A
detailed examination of a X-line region in the distant tail: ISEE-3
observations of jet flow and Bz reversals and a pair of slow shocks,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 21(25), 3031 3034.
Ho, C. M., B. T. Tsurutani, E. J. Smith, and W. C. Feldman (1996), Properties of slow-mode shocks in the distant (>200 RE) geomagnetic tail,
J. Geophys. Res., 101, 15,277 15,286.
Ho, C. M., et al. (1998), A pair of forward and reverse slow-mode shocks
detected by Ulysses at 5 AU, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25(14), 2613 2616.
Horbury, T. S., D. Burgess, and M. Franz (2001), Three spacecraft observations of solar wind discontinuities, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 677 680.
Hoshino, M., T. Mukai, I. Shinohara, Y. Saito, and S. Kokubun (2000),
Slow shock downstream structure in the magnetotail, J. Geophys. Res.,
105(A1), 337 347.
Huttunen, K. E., S. D. Bale, T. D. Phan, M. Davis, and J. T. Gosling (2006),
High frequency plasma waves associated with solar wind reconnection
exhausts: Wind/waves observations, 2006AGUFMSH31A0371H.
Kantrowitz, A., and H. E. Petschek (1966), MHD characters and shock
waves, in Plasma Physics in Theory and Application, edited by W. B.
Kunkel, pp. 148, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Knetter, T., F. M. Neubauer, T. Horbury, and A. Balogh (2004), Four-point
discontinuity observations using Cluster magnetic field data: A statistical
survey, J. Geophys. Res., 109, A06102, doi:10.1029/2003JA010099.
Lepping, R. P., and K. W. Behannon (1986), Magnetic field directional
discontinuities: Characteristics between 0.46 and 1.0 AU, J. Geophys.
Res., 91, 8725 8741.
Lin, C. C., J. K. Chao, L. C. Lee, L. H. Lyu, and D. J. Wu (2006), A new
shock fitting procedure for the MHD Rankine-Hugoniot relations for the
case of small He2+ slippage, J. Geophys. Res., 111, A09104, doi:10.1029/
2005JA011449.
Phan, T. D., et al. (2006), A magnetic x-line extending more than 390 Earth
radii in the solar wind, Nature, 439, 175.
Richter, A. K., H. Rosenbauer, F. M. Neubauer, and N. G. Ptitsyna (1985),
Solar wind observations associated with a slow forward shock wave at
0.31 AU, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 7581 7586.
Russell, C. T., M. M. Mellot, E. J. Smith, and J. H. King (1983), Multiple
spacecraft observations of interplanetary shocks: Four spacecraft determination of shock normals, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 4739 4748.
Saito, Y., T. Mukai, T. Terasawa, A. Nishida, S. Machida, M. Hirahara,
K. Maezawa, S. Kokubun, and T. Yamamoto (1995), Slow-mode shocks
in the magnetotail, J. Geophys. Res., 100(A12), 23,567 23,582.
Schwartz, S. J. (1998), Shock and Discontinuity Normals,. Mach Numbers
and Related Parameters, in Analysis. methods for multi-spacecraft data,
edited by G. Paschmann and P. W. Daly, ISSI-SR-001, Bern, 249 270.
Seon, J., L. A. Frank, W. R. Paterson, J. D. Scudder, F. V. Coroniti,
S. Kokubun, and T. Yamamoto (1995), Observations of a slow-mode
shock at the lobe-plasma sheet boundary in Earths distant magnetotail,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 22(21), 2981 2984.
Seon, J., L. A. Frank, W. R. Paterson, J. D. Scudder, F. V. Coroniti,
S. Kokubun, and T. Yamamoto (1996), Observations of slow-mode
shocks in Earths distant magnetotail with the Geotail spacecraft, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 27,383 27,398.
Smith, E. J., J. A. Slavin, B. T. Tsurutani, W. C. Feldman, and S. J. Bame
(1984), Slow mode shocks in the Earths magnetotail: ISEE-3, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 11, 1054 1057.
Soding, A., F. M. Neubauer, B. T. Tsurutani, N. F. Ness, and R. P. Lepping
(2001), Radial and latitudinal dependencies of discontinuities in the solar
wind between 0.3 and 19 AU and 80 and +10, Ann. Geophys., 19(7),
681 686.
Tsurutani, B. T., and E. F. Smith (1979), Interplanetary discontinuities Temporal variations and the radial gradient from 1 to 8.5 AU, J. Geophys.
Res., 84, 2773 2787.
Whang, Y. C., J. Zhou, R. P. Lepping, and K. W. Ogilvie (1996), Interplanetary slow shock observed from Wind, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23,
1239 1242.

11 of 12

A10104

FENG ET AL.: TD OR INTERMEDIATE/SLOW SHOCK?

Whang, Y. C., D. Larson, R. P. Lin, R. P. Lepping, and A. Szabo (1998),

Plasma and magnetic field structure of a slow shock: Wind observations
in interplanetary space, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25(14), 2625 2628.
Wu, C. C. (1987), On MHD intermediate shocks, Geophys. Res. Lett., 14,
668 671.
Wu, C. C. (1988), The MHD intermediate shock interaction with an intermediate wave - Are intermediate shocks physical?, J. Geophys. Res., 93,
987 990.
Wu, C. C., and T. Hada (1991), Formation of intermediate shocks in both
two-fluid and hybrid models, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 3768 3778.
Wu, C. C., and C. F. Kennel (1992a), Structure and evolution of timedependent intermediate shocks, Phys. Rev. Lett., 68, 56 59.

A10104

Wu, C. C., and C. F. Kennel (1992b), Evolution of small-amplitude intermediate shocks in a dissipative system, J. Plasma Phys., 47, 85 109.
Yoon, P. H., and T. Y. Lui (2006), Quasi-linear theory of anomalous resistivity, J. Geophys. Res., 111, A02203, doi:10.1029/2005JA011482.
Zuo, P. B., F. S. Wei, and X. S. Feng (2006), Observations of an interplanetary slow shock associated with magnetic cloud boundary layer, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L15107, doi:10.1029/2006GL026419.


J. K. Chao, L.-C. Lee, C. C. Lin, and L. H. Lyu, Institute of Space

Science, NCU, Chungli, 32001, Taiwan.
H. Q. Feng and D. J. Wu, Purple Mountain Observatory, CAS, Nanjing
210008, China. (fenghq9921@163.com)

12 of 12