Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5140/JASS.2022.39.4.159

Analysis of the Tsyganenko Magnetic Field Model Accuracy during Geomagnetic Storm Times Using the GOES Data  

Song, Seok-Min (Department of Astronomy and Space Science, Chungnam National University)
Min, Kyungguk (Department of Astronomy and Space Science, Chungnam National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences / v.39, no.4, 2022 , pp. 159-167 More about this Journal
Abstract
Because of the small number of spacecraft available in the Earth's magnetosphere at any given time, it is not possible to obtain direct measurements of the fundamental quantities, such as the magnetic field and plasma density, with a spatial coverage necessary for studying, global magnetospheric phenomena. In such cases, empirical as well as physics-based models are proven to be extremely valuable. This requires not only having high fidelity and high accuracy models, but also knowing the weakness and strength of such models. In this study, we assess the accuracy of the widely used Tsyganenko magnetic field models, T96, T01, and T04, by comparing the calculated magnetic field with the ones measured in-situ by the GOES satellites during geomagnetically disturbed times. We first set the baseline accuracy of the models from a data-model comparison during the intervals of geomagnetically quiet times. During quiet times, we find that all three models exhibit a systematic error of about 10% in the magnetic field magnitude, while the error in the field vector direction is on average less than 1%. We then assess the model accuracy by a data-model comparison during twelve geomagnetic storm events. We find that the errors in both the magnitude and the direction are well maintained at the quiet-time level throughout the storm phase, except during the main phase of the storms in which the largest error can reach 15% on average, and exceed well over 70% in the worst case. Interestingly, the largest error occurs not at the Dst minimum but 2-3 hours before the minimum. Finally, the T96 model has consistently underperformed compared to the other models, likely due to the lack of computation for the effects of ring current. However, the T96 and T01 models are accurate enough for most of the time except for highly disturbed periods.
Keywords
Tsyganenko magnetic field model; storm time model accuracy; geomagnetic storm;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Tsyganenko NA, Sitnov MI, Modeling the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere during strong geomagnetic storms, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 110, A03208 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010798   DOI
2 Gold T, Motions in the magnetosphere of the Earth, J. Geophys. Res. 64, 1219-1224 (1959). https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ064i009p01219   DOI
3 Lakhina GS, Alex S, Tsurutani BT, Gonzalez WD, Research on historical records of geomagnetic storms, Proc. Int. Astron. Union 2004, 3-15 (2004). http://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921305000074   DOI
4 Moon GH, Variation of magnetic field (By, Bz) polarity and statistical analysis of solar wind parameters during the magnetic storm period, J. Astron. Space Sci. 28, 123-132 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5140/JASS.2011.28.2.123   DOI
5 Papitashvili NE, King JH, A draft high resolution OMNI data set, Proceedings of the 2006 AGU Fall Meetings, San Francisco, CA, 10-15 Dec 2006.
6 Park W, Lee J, Yi Y, Ssessanga N, Oh S, Storm sudden commencements without interplanetary shocks, J. Astron. Space Sci. 32, 181-187 (2015). https://doi.org/10.5140/JASS.2015.32.3.181   DOI
7 Tsyganenko NA, Modeling the Earth's magnetospheric magnetic field confined within a realistic magnetopause, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 100, 5599-5612 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1029/94JA03193   DOI
8 Lee DY, Hwang JA, Min KW, Lee ES, Cho KS, et al., A statistical study of magnetic storm recovery phase: preliminary results, J. Astron. Space Sci. 18, 27-32 (2001).
9 Park JS, Kim KH, Lee DH, Lee ES, Jin H, Geosynchronous magnetic field response to solar wind dynamic pressure, J. Astron. Space Sci. 28, 27-36 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5140/JASS.2011.28.1.027   DOI
10 Tsyganenko NA, Modeling the inner magnetosphere: the asymmetric ring current and Region 2 Birkeland currents revisited, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 105, 27739-27754 (2000a). https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JA000138   DOI
11 Tsyganenko NA, A model of the near magnetosphere with a dawn-dusk asymmetry 2. Parameterization and fitting to observations, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 107, SMP 10-11-SMP 10-17 (2002b). https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000220   DOI
12 Tsyganenko NA, Sitnov MI, Magnetospheric configurations from a high-resolution data-based magnetic field model, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 112, A06225 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JA012260   DOI
13 Tsyganenko NA, Solar wind control of the tail lobe magnetic field as deduced from Geotail, AMPTE/IRM, and ISEE 2 data, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 105, 5517-5528 (2000b). https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA000375   DOI
14 Tsyganenko NA, A model of the near magnetosphere with a dawn-dusk asymmetry 1. Mathematical structure, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 107, SMP 12-11-SMP 12-15 (2002a). https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000219   DOI
15 Tsyganenko NA, Singer HJ, Kasper JC, Storm-time distortion of the inner magnetosphere: how severe can it get?, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 108, 1209 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009808   DOI