{"title":"Analysis of the Tsyganenko Magnetic Field Model Accuracy during Geomagnetic Storm\n Times Using the GOES Data","authors":"Seok-Min Song, K. Min","doi":"10.5140/jass.2022.39.4.159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Because of the small number of spacecraft available in the Earth’s magnetosphere\n at any given time, it is not possible to obtain direct measurements of the fundamental\n quantities, such as the magnetic field and plasma density, with a spatial coverage\n necessary for studying, global magnetospheric phenomena. In such cases, empirical as\n well as physics-based models are proven to be extremely valuable. This requires not only\n having high fidelity and high accuracy models, but also knowing the weakness and\n strength of such models. In this study, we assess the accuracy of the widely used\n Tsyganenko magnetic field models, T96, T01, and T04, by comparing the calculated\n magnetic field with the ones measured in-situ by the GOES satellites during\n geomagnetically disturbed times. We first set the baseline accuracy of the models from a\n data-model comparison during the intervals of geomagnetically quiet times. During quiet\n times, we find that all three models exhibit a systematic error of about 10% in the\n magnetic field magnitude, while the error in the field vector direction is on average\n less than 1%. We then assess the model accuracy by a data-model comparison during twelve\n geomagnetic storm events. We find that the errors in both the magnitude and the\n direction are well maintained at the quiet-time level throughout the storm phase, except\n during the main phase of the storms in which the largest error can reach 15% on average,\n and exceed well over 70% in the worst case. Interestingly, the largest error occurs not\n at the Dst minimum but 2–3 hours before the minimum. Finally, the T96 model has\n consistently underperformed compared to the other models, likely due to the lack of\n computation for the effects of ring current. However, the T96 and T01 models are\n accurate enough for most of the time except for highly disturbed periods.","PeriodicalId":44366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5140/jass.2022.39.4.159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍:
JASS aims for the promotion of global awareness and understanding of space science and related applications. Unlike other journals that focus either on space science or on space technologies, it intends to bridge the two communities of space science and technologies, by providing opportunities to exchange ideas and viewpoints in a single journal. Topics suitable for publication in JASS include researches in the following fields: space astronomy, solar physics, magnetospheric and ionospheric physics, cosmic ray, space weather, and planetary sciences; space instrumentation, satellite dynamics, geodesy, spacecraft control, and spacecraft navigation. However, the topics covered by JASS are not restricted to those mentioned above as the journal also encourages submission of research results in all other branches related to space science and technologies. Even though JASS was established on the heritage and achievements of the Korean space science community, it is now open to the worldwide community, while maintaining a high standard as a leading international journal. Hence, it solicits papers from the international community with a vision of global collaboration in the fields of space science and technologies.