Ionospheric variations over Chinese EIA region using fo F 2 and comparison with IRI-2016 model

Rao, S. S.; Chakraborty, Monti; Pandey, R.

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2018.04.009

Cited by 23 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13.49 • N). In this study, Rao et al [7] found that the IRI-2016 underestimated the foF2 in winter and equinoxes, and overestimated the foF2 in summer. However, the IRI-2016 almost underestimated foF2 values in the whole year of 2016 at Pu'er station in our study.…”

Section: Magnetically Disturbed Periodsupporting

confidence: 43%

“…However, neither of the IRI-2016 values with both the CCIR and URSI can represent the corresponding changes, as shown in Figure 4. Recently, Rao et al [7] carried out a comparative study between the IRI-2016 with ionospheric observations over another Chinese EIA station (Guangzhou, Geog. Lat.…”

Section: Magnetically Disturbed Periodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The foF2 and hmF2 of the ionosphere can be calculated by the IRI with appropriate inputs. Therefore, many studies [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] carried out the comparison between them to test the performance of the IRI, which will help to improve the accuracy of the IRI in future work. Among those studies, Rao et al [7] summarized comparative studies of observations and the IRI model from different sectors of the globe.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ionospheric Behavior of foF2 over Chinese EIA Region and Its Comparison with IRI-2016

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ionograms, which were recorded by the ionosonde located at Pu’er station (PUR, 22.7°N, 101.05°E, Dip Latitude 12.9°N) in the Southwest of China in the year of 2016, were used to study the ionospheric behavior of the ordinary critical frequency of the F2 layer (foF2) in the region of the northern equatorial ionization anomaly. To verify the performance of the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) over the Southwest of China, a comparative study of the observed foF2 and the latest version of the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI-2016) was carried out. We found that the foF2 in equinox months is greater than summer and winter. Moreover, a higher frequency of the observed bite-out of foF2 in January and April than other months and the IRI-2016 cannot represent the bite-out of foF2 in diurnal variations. Compared to the observations at Pu’er Station, the IRI-2016 underestimated foF2 for most time of the year. The IRI with the International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) option overestimated foF2 is higher than that with the International Union of Radio Science (URSI) option. Furthermore, the normalized root mean square error of foF2 from the IRI-2016 with the CCIR option is less than that with the URSI.

show abstract

Section: Magnetically Disturbed Periodsupporting

confidence: 43%

Section: Magnetically Disturbed Periodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ionospheric Behavior of foF2 over Chinese EIA Region and Its Comparison with IRI-2016

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies, such as (Ameen et al, 2018;Bilitza et al, 2017;Lemma et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2019;Rao et al, 2018) to name just a few, used the latest IRI-2016 model for comparisons with ionosonde results. It has been observed that the general performance of IRI-2016 has been improved compared to previous IRI models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of IRI‐2016 F2 Layer Model Parameters with Ionosonde Measurements

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) is the international standard ionospheric climatic model. Since the original formation of the international task force in 1970s, the IRI model has been continuously improved by ingesting developments in research in ionosphere. The most current version, namely, IRI‐2016, is offered with International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) and International Union of Radio Science (URSI) model choices with “STORM” option for the F2 layer critical plasma frequency (foF2) and BSE‐1979, AMTB‐2013, and SHU‐2015 options for maximum ionization height, hmF2. Since these two parameters are the determining values for the other model outputs, the evaluation of the options offered by IRI‐2016 is critical for various applications. In this study, all foF2 and hmF2 model options offered online at http://irimodel.org are computed for winter and summer solstice and equinox seasons of 2011 and 2015 at the locations of all available ionosondes and for all measurement intervals. The ionosondes are grouped into northern and southern midlatitude, northern and southern high‐latitude and equatorial regions. Individual, regional and global model output foF2 and hmF2 values are compared with those of ionosondes in both root‐mean‐square (RMS) and normalized RMS (NRMS) senses. For foF2, “STORM ON” can be used any time and in any region. Equatorial and high‐latitude regions have larger RMS values due to the sparse ionosondes. In northern midlatitude and high‐latitude regions URSI, in all other regions CCIR is the better option. For hmF2, SHU‐2015 and BSE‐1979 options provide a better fit for all regions, seasons, and years.

show abstract

“…Different researchers have assessed the variability of vertical total electron content (VTEC) and performance of the models over different regions at different solar activities. The performance of the IRI model has been assessed over different equatorial and low-latitude regions in the globe at different solar activities (e.g., Asmare et al, 2014;Mengistu et al, 2018;Perna et al, 2018;Rao et al, 2018;Sharma et al, 2017;Tariku, 2015Tariku, , 2019. For example, Asmare et al (2014) and Tariku, (2015) showed that the IRI 2012 model generally tend to overestimate the VTEC variations over African equatorial anomaly regions at different solar activity phases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Performance of the IRI 2016, IRI‐Plas 2017, and NeQuick 2 Models During Different Solar Activity (2013–2018) Years Over South American Sector

Tariku

2020

Radio Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study mainly focuses on the prediction of the variability of the vertical total electron content (VTEC) and validation of the new versions of the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI 2016), IRI extended to the plasmasphere (IRI‐Plas 2017), and NeQuick 2 models over the equatorial anomaly region during 2013–2018. The Global Positioning System (GPS)‐derived VTEC data inferred from the South American equatorial region during the relatively high (2013–2014), descending (2015–2016), and low (2017–2018) solar activity years have been considered as measurements to validate the models. The modeled (IRI 2016, IRI‐Plas 2017, and NeQuick 2) VTEC values are generally larger than the GPS‐derived VTEC values, with the highest overestimation being illustrated by the IRI‐Plas 2017 model. Small underestimations are also observed in employing the IRI 2016 and NeQuick 2 models, especially when the solar activity increases. The highest root‐mean‐square Deviations (RMSDs) reaching up to 10 TEC units (TECU) is observed in some hours while using the IRI‐Plas 2017 model during the high solar activity years. RMSDs less than 5 TECU are also observed on most of the hours while utilizing the model during all solar activity years. However, RMSD values less than 2 TECU (while using the NeQuick 2 model) and less than 1 TECU (while using the IRI 2016 model) are seen on most of the hours during 2013–2018. This shows that the performance of the IRI 2016 and NeQuick 2 is better than the IRI‐Plas 2017 with the IRI 2016 model consistently revealing the best in all solar activity years.

show abstract

Ionospheric variations over Chinese EIA region using fo F 2 and comparison with IRI-2016 model

Cited by 23 publications

References 49 publications

Ionospheric Behavior of foF2 over Chinese EIA Region and Its Comparison with IRI-2016

Ionospheric Behavior of foF2 over Chinese EIA Region and Its Comparison with IRI-2016

Comparison of IRI‐2016 F2 Layer Model Parameters with Ionosonde Measurements

Comparison of Performance of the IRI 2016, IRI‐Plas 2017, and NeQuick 2 Models During Different Solar Activity (2013–2018) Years Over South American Sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About