Magnetospheric field and current distributions during the substorm recovery phase

Abstract

We have studied 11 substorm recovery phase events in which magnetic field and energetic particle data were available near the midnight sector from the GEOS 2 satellite. Comparison with the Tsyganenko magnetic field model shows that, after the expansion phase, BZ is large and decreases gradually toward the model value during the recovery phase, whereas deviations of BX and BY relative to the model values are small after the effects of the substorm current wedge have disappeared. We have modeled this sequence by using temporally evolving current systems implemented as additions to the Tsyganenko model. The tail current sheet thickness and the cross‐tail current intensity at different radial distances were varied using six free parameters in the model. The parameters were evaluated using a least squares fit for each of the 11 events separately. The results suggest that at the beginning of the recovery phase the current sheet was relatively thick close to the inner edge of the plasma sheet. Model fittings produced two different field configurations. In seven events the cross‐tail current was weak, and the field configuration was highly dipolar. In four events the near‐Earth current was weak, but stronger currents remained in the midtail region. In these latter events the field configuration at the beginning of the recovery phase included a region where BZ was negative. This negative BZ and the associated near‐Earth neutral line disappeared later as the current system developed toward the quiet time configuration. The magnetic field configuration, current distributions, and particle drift paths during the substorm recovery phase are examined and compared with those prevailing during the substorm growth phase.

Hybrid Input Algorithm: An event‐oriented magnetospheric model

“…One way was to select rare events with good constellations of magnetospheric spacecraft and, in addition, to use magnetic measurements obtained during an extended time period (using data obtained during times when the configuration remained steady, e.g., during steady convection (SMC) event, or by approximating the temporal variations by linear change of model parameters during the substorm growth phase). This was the approach used previously in the modeling of the substorm growth phase [Pulkkinen et al, , 1994a] of the substorm recovery phase [Pulkkinen et al, 1994b] and of the SMC event [$ergeev et al, 1994]. Unfortunately, good spacecraft constellations (with at least three to four spacecraft favorably distributed across the transition region) are very rare, and the suggestion of linear changes during any particular event is difficult to evaluate and justify.…”

Mapping between the ionospheric and the tail electric fields in a time‐dependent Earth's magnetosphere

“…We used the magnetic field model introduced by Pulkkinen et al [1994], the HM model in an analytic form given by Rich and Maynard [1989], and a model distribution for parallel potentials motivated by the study by Lyons [1981].…”

Determination of Polar Cap Boundary for the Substorm Event of 8 March 2008

“…During the expansion phase the magnetosphere releases stored energy through a variety of processes. In recovery phase these die away and the magnetosphere becomes quiet [15]. Therefore, the magnetospheric substorm is closely related to the energy store and release in the solar wind-magnetosphere coupling.…”