Analysis

In the present work, IGS data is analysed to retrieve total electron content (TEC) at the five
stations: NVSK (northern hemisphere, geomagnetic lat. ), LHAZ (EIA, geomagnetic lat.),
GUAO (mid-lat. ), PBRI (low-lat. ), and COCO (southern hemisphere ) during a deep solar
minimum (2009) and a solar maximum (2012). The IGS data is also compared with model
TEC data; here IRI 2012 is considered, for the same locations and time and difference
between them is analysed. As TEC exhibits diurnal, monthly and seasonal behaviour, analysis
has also been made on that basis.

Diurnal variation of TEC

(a) VTEC on 17-01-2009 (b) VTEC on 08-01-2012

Fig. 3.1 Variation of TEC on (a) 17 Jan 2009 and (b) 8 Jan 2012 at five different stations
COCO, PBRI, LHAZ, GUAO, NVSK

Fig. 3.1 shows the typical diurnal variation of TEC from five different stations. The variation
shows typical TEC characteristics. TEC is minimum at predawn and continue to increase
with sunrise. TEC is maximum near 8 UT (8 ); the time when converted to local time,
shows the maximum is attained at local noon time. This is followed by a non-uniform
decrease to a minimum during night-time. As the sun rises, the ionization also increases
which causes more concentration of electron near the F2 peak at the ionosphere. Since TEC is
directly related with maximum electron density, it starts to increase and reaches the peak
value at the local noon time. During daytime, as the temperature increases the loss rate also
increases. When the loss rate overcomes the production rate, then TEC gradually starts to
drop.

It also evident from the two graphs that the amount of TEC at EIA station in the low-latitude
is maximum, whereas in the high latitude it is minimum. The EIAlow-latitude station in
southern hemisphere (COCO) attains the maximum TEC value than the northern hemisphere
low-latitude stations. This variation in low latitude and near the equator is due to the
equatorial ionization anomaly [46-48]. If we consider specifically Fig. 3.1(b), which is for a
solar maximum, it is seen that the diurnal variation of TEC in high-latitude northern
hemisphere station (NVSK) is comparable with the mid and low latitude stations (GUAO and
LHAZ respectively). Overall, TEC should decrease progressively from the low-latitudes to
the high-latitudes [49,50] with some phenomena on the local area. Generally, the effect in low
latitudes in the northern hemisphere is stronger than that in low latitudes in the southern
hemisphere. In this point, there arises a controversy between the data used in this work and
the previously done researches. Further investigation is required for this behavioural shift as
observed in the present work.

Monthly variation of TEC

The contour plots () depicts the mean monthly behaviour of TEC for a deep solar minimum
year (2009) and solar maximum (2012) over the five stations chosen.

Firstly, the analysis is done for the deep solar minimum year 2009. Consider the station For
the COCO. Station Tthe IGS data shows that TEC is maximum during Nov-Dec, followed by
Mar and then Oct. TEC is least in Jul. If we consider the IRI 2012 model, CCIR coefficient, it
shows maximum TEC is in Jan, approximately same in Mar. Feb shows slightly lower TEC
compared to Mar, and least is in Aug. Gradual decrease in the maximum TEC value is
observed from Apr to Aug and then increase till Dec. Considering the URSI coefficient, it is
evident that TEC is maximum in Mar, which follows a gradual decrease till Aug, and then
slowly rise till Dec.
The next station we take is LHAZ. The IGS data gives maximum TEC in the month of May
and then a decrease till Jul and then rise till Sept, and then again, a fall till Dec which
accounts the least TEC. There is also a rising pattern seen from Jan to May. Considering now
the IRI 2012 CCIR coefficient, it is evident maximum is in Oct, and minimum in Jan. From
Apr to Dec, the variation in the maximum TEC value is in a very small range. Now analysing
the plot for URSI coefficient, highest TEC value is observed in May and the lowest in Jan.
the gradient in peaks from Jul to Sep is minor.

Next consider the station GUAO. The highest TEC is observed in May as per the IGS data.
The least is in Jan. The TEC peak values show increase from Jan till May and then decreasing
till Jul and again increasing till Sep and gradually decreasing till Dec. The IRI 2012 CCIR
coefficient shows the highest TEC in Oct and the least in Jan. But, the URSI coefficient plot
shows TEC is peak in May and least in Jan. The peak value in Apr is comparable to that with
May.

Lastly, consider the station NVSK. The IGS data shows the peak TEC value in Oct and the
least value in Jan. the mean TEC maxima shows increase from Jan to May and the fall till
Jun-Aug (the peaks are comparable) and then increase till Oct and fall till Dec. The model
coefficient CCIR plot shows Nov-Dec with maximum TEC value and the minimum in Jul-
Aug. May to Sep TEC peak values have slight variations. The URSI coefficient plot reflects
maximum TEC in Nov-Dec and minimum in Jan-Feb.

At a glance, it can be said TEC attains maximum during equinox (Mar,Apr, Sep,Oct) and is
minimum during winter (Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb). The variation from this as seen with some
stations are mainly due to seasonal anomalies and might be other local phenomena.

Now we consider for the solar maximum year 2012.At first, we analyse the IGS data obtained
from COCO. The plot reflects the TEC maximum in Oct-Nov and minimum in Aug. Equinox
has comparatively higher TEC value than winter and summer months have the least.
Considering the model, CCIR plot reflects the highest TEC in Mar-Apr and the least in Aug-
Sep. the URSI plot also shows maximum in Mar-Apr and least in Aug-Sep.

Next, we analyse the IGS station data of PBRI. Maximum TEC is observed in Sep-Oct and
minimum in Jun-Jul. Mar-Apr has higher peak TEC values than winter and summer months.
The model CCIR plot shows maximum in Apr and minimum in Aug. The TEC values for Apr
to Jun are comparable. The Nov-Dec TEC peaks are too comparable with Apr-May peaks.
The URSI plot shows maximum in Apr-May and minimum in Jul-Sep. The Nov-Dec peak
values are comparable with Jul-Sep peaks here.

Now we consider the station LHAZ. The IGS data shows peak in Sep and the minimum in
Dec. There is also a local minimum in Jun. The IRI 2012 CCIR coefficient plot shows TEC
peaks in May and attains minimum in Jan. The similar result is seen in URSI coefficient plot.
Jun to Oct TEC peak values are comparable.

Next the analysis of GUAO IGS station data plot depicts the TEC maximum in Oct and
minimum in Dec. Local minimum is also seen in Jul. The IRI 2012 model coefficient CCIR
plot depicts the maximum in Apr and minima in Jul-Aug. There is a gradual variation in the
peak values from Jul to Dec. The URSI coefficient plot reflects the maximum in Apr and
minima in Aug-Sep.

Lastly, the monthly analysis is done for the IGS station NVSK. According to the IGS data
plot the global maximum of mean TEC is for the month of Oct and the minimum in Jun. Oct
sees a sharp increase in TEC value and it drops abruptly in Nov. The change in monthly TEC
is sharp. The model coefficient, CCIR plot shows the maxima in Apr-May and minima in
Aug-Sep. The URSI plot shows the highest TEC during Mar-Apr and minimum during Aug-
Sep.

Overall, from the above analysis, it can be said that TEC is maximum during equinox and
minimum during winter. March equinox shows higher TEC than the September equinox.
Also, the low-latitude depicts higher TEC than the mid and high latitude. The diurnal
variation from these contour plots also shows TEC maxima during noon time and minimum
during night-time and predawn. Some station IGS data shows deviation, and the IRI 2012
model also underestimates or overestimates the data, which need further investigation.

Seasonal analysis
The seasonal variation of TEC can be influenced by the variation [bhuiya borah 2007]. To
examine the seasonal variations, the IGS data and the modelled TEC data are grouped into
three seasons: winter (Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb), summer (May, Jun, Jul, Aug) and equinox (Mar,
Apr, Sep, Oct). Fig. show the seasonal mean TEC data with the IRI 2012 data for 2009 and
2012 for all the stations. At first analysis of 2009 seasons is done. For the station COCO,
2009 summer plot shows flat diurnal maximum in IGS data, reaching the peak at ~ 6 UT.
Whereas the IRI 2012 model overestimates from 1 UT 12 UT and then the IGS and model
data are comparable. The GUAO station plot shows comparable TEC observed and model
data, with slight positive difference in the peak values of IRI model. In the LHAZ summer
plot there is a flat diurnal maximum in the IGS curve but the model peak is higher and the
overestimation is continued till ~11 UT. From there, the IGS data values are higher than the
model till 18 UT and then the model and in-situ measurements are comparable. The NVSK
station summer plot shows nominal variation of IGS data with the model and the diurnal
variation is flat throughout. During summer, maximum TEC is observed in the low-latitudes.

Consider now the winter 2009 variations. The low latitude does not show any winter
anomaly. For the station COCO, IRI 2012 data overestimates till ~7 UT, then the IGS data are
slightly higher till ~10 UT. Next the model overestimates the observed data till the last hour.
In case of GUAO, the model again give higher TEC values from the first hour till 16 UT,
after which the measured data and the model data are similar. Likewise, there model data and
IGs data difference till 12 UT; the model peak value is higher and slightly shifted toward left
than the IGS data. The model and in-situ data are similar for NVSK with slightly higher peak
value depicted by the model.

At last considering the equinox for the year 2009, it is evident from the plot that NVSK data
and the model data are nearly similar and LHAZ shows slightly increased CCIR coefficient
data than the URSI and IGS data till 16 UT and then model and measured values are same. In
case of data obtained from COCO, it is seen that the model underestimates the measured data
till 10-12 UT and then there slightly higher measured TEC for some time and then the TEC
gets comparable with the model. The model shows peak TEC at ~7UT but the in-situ
measurement shows at 10 UT. In case of LHAZ, the variation in measured and model data is
seen from 3 UT till 11 UT after which the model underestimates the measured till 15 UT and
afterwards both the data set become similar.
Here it is seen that winter TEC is highest for COCO, whereas for other stations equinox TEC
is the highest. The model always gives overestimation of peak mean TEC for the station
LHAZ.

Now consider 2012 seasons. Starting with summer, for COCO, the model throughout
overestimates the TEC values. The peak is at around 7-8 UT for both the model and GPS
data. In the last two hours, the model shows sudden increase in TEC, which need some
investigation. There is diurnal flatness in the GUAO and NVSK IGS data curves. In case of
GUAO the model overestimates the IGS data throughout, except at 14-15 UT where both sets
show same TEC. Similar is for LHAZ, where both the data sets are same only during 14-15
UT. In case of NVSK the model and the measured TEC are same in the first hour and then
model data is more than the observed till 14-17 UT, where both are same and then again
model data is higher till the last hour where all are same. In case of PBRI, CCIR and IGS data
are same till 4 UT, after which IGS data has greater value than the CCIR till 13 UT. After this
CCIR TEC values are more than that of measured. The URSI coefficient throughout
underestimates the observed TEC. The diurnal maximum is observed around 6-8 UT for all
stations. The maximum TEC is observed in low latitude.

Next consider the winter season. In case of COCO, the model gives higher TEC till around 7-
8 UT, after which it underestimates till 16 UT. Then the TEC are comparable for both sets. In
the last two hours, the model value is higher than that of measured, and there is sharp
increase. In case of GUAO and LHAZ, the model throughout overestimates and for NVSK,
the model and the measured TEC are same in the final four hours. There is sharp peak in
NVSK and in GUAO plots. In case of PBRI, the model value is same to IGS data till 4 UT
and then the IGS TEC values are higher than the model. The URSI coefficient severely
underestimates from 2 UT till the end. The CCIR coefficient overestimates TEC from 12 UT
till the end. The diurnal maximum for all stations are observed in the range of 6-8 UT, except
for COCO which shows maximum TEC is observed at 10 UT. Again, for winter also low
latitude shows higher TEC.

Lastly, analysing IGS data and IRI 2012 TEC data it is observed that difference in the model
and measured TEC are very less for COCO, LHAZ, GUAO and NVSK. The model and in-
situ data for NVSK is very much similar, with slight increase of model TEC from 17 UT to
24 UT.in case GUAO and LHAZ, model underestimates the measured TEC till 8 UT and 6
UT respectively, after which for GUAO TEC is nearly same till 14 UT and then the model
shows higher TEC. In case of LHAZ, underestimation is from 14 UT till the end. Now PBRI
the model underestimates till ~14 UT after which the CCIR coefficient overestimates the
TEC while URSI throughout underestimates. From all these plots, it is evident equinox TEC
is highest and observed in low latitude as seen previously. The maximum is shifted to around
10 UT for COCO and PBRI, while for others it is in same 6-8 UT range.

Fig. () shows the difference in IRI model TEC as compared to GPS TEC (dTEC = IRI TEC
GPS TEC). From all the dTEC plots, it is seen that the difference in model TEC and
measured TEC is lesser for the deep solar minimum year 2009 than that in solar maximum
year 2012. For GUAO and NVSK dTEC is least. During summer, the maximum difference is
seen in low latitude stations during the daytime. The high latitude station shows the least
difference. During winter 2009, the model overestimates TEC in daytime and underestimates
after the diurnal maximum for IGS station COCO. For LHAZ, the model overestimates
highest during diurnal maximum. The model also slightly overestimates TEC from the
GUAO measured data. During equinox, for COCO there is overestimation of model data
from the measured till 9 UT. GUAO and NVSK depicts the least difference. Overestimation
of model is also seen for LHAZ; maximum difference happens to be around 6 UT. The model
always underestimates for PBRI in 2012, with slight overestimation URSI coefficient from
14-23 UT. NVSK shows the least difference again in 2012 TEC measurement. Maximum
overestimation is seen for low latitude stations during summer. LHAZ and GUAO dTEC
plots show throughout overestimated TEC by the model during winter. The model also
overestimates for NVSK, but the difference is comparatively small. The CCIR coefficient
throughout underestimates PBRI IGS data derived TEC while the URSI coefficient
overestimates from 13 UT.

Discussion:
To evaluate the diurnal, monthly and seasonal performance of the IRI-2012 model, the hourly
mean variation of VTEC estimated from GPS and the IRI-2012 model during typical quiet
days the solar minimum and maximum years 2009 and 2012. From the above results it can be
noted that there is a level of discrepancy between the IRI model and the IGS stations data.
This discrepancy depends on various factors like local time, season, latitude and strength of
solar activity.

The seasonal variation of TEC is controlled by thermospheric neutral compositions (Bagiya

et al. 2009). In the day time, the equator is hotter than the poles; therefore meridional wind
flows from equator towards the pole. Changes in the neutral composition and O/N2 ratio
increases due to the flow of meridional wind at equatorial and low latitude stations. This
increase is maximum in equinox. N2 dissociation is the major process which removes
ambient electrons at F2 layer. Hence, the increase in O/N2 ratio (N2 decreases, i.e. loss
decreases) will result in higher electron density (TEC). As a result the seasonal maximum are
coming in equinox period for all stations. In the present analysis some stations are not
showing the maximum TEC values in the equinox seasons. The scenario needs further
investigation.

An underestimation in IRI-TEC is expected because it does not include plasmasphere TEC.

Since the percentage contribution by the plasmasphere to GPS-TEC is much larger during the
nighttime hour than the daytime hour (Yizengaw et al. 2008). Therefore, the IRI model is
expected to underestimate the GPS-TEC significantly during the nighttime than the daytime.
In the present study, the IRI TEC from the two coefficient options URSI and CCIR show an
underestimation from the observed GPS-TEC during the day time at the low latitude station
PBR for summer, equinox and winter period in solar maximum2012. For other stations there
are overestimations of TEC by IRI model in comparison to IGS TEC. These types of
discrepancies (underestimation/overestimation) in the IRI model are quite consistent with the
earlier studies (Coisson et al. 2008; Aggarwal 2011; Venkatesh et al. 2011).

The largest discrepancy (overestimation) in the IRI-2012 model TEC with the coefficient
options URSI and CCIR has been observed during the daytime hour in EIA and low-latitude
regions (COCO, PBRI, and LHAZ). One possible cause for the daytime discrepancy in the
IRI-2012 model may be the daytime ionospheric expansion, and as a result, a larger slab
thickness is covered at around noon time as compared to other times (Kenpankho et al. 2011).
This expansion is larger at low latitudes as compared to mid latitudes. At the equatorial
regions, the steepest gradients, sharp peaks and deep valleys, and density crests occur due to
the fountain effect on both sides of the equator (Bilitza and Reinisch 2008). The occurrence
of a noticeable trough supplemented by a maximum TEC value in the pre-noon and the
afternoon local time at the equatorial region is referred to as a noon bite-out, which is a
characteristic feature at an equatorial station that falls in the trough of the EIA (Appleton
1946; Martyn 1955; Rastogi 1959). In the present study the noon bite out phenomenon is
easily noticeable for the station PBRI for all the seasons. Furthermore, the pre-noon peak in
the diurnal variation at the equatorial latitudes is influenced by the horizontal winds in
addition to production and loss processes, while the afternoon peak is determined by the
vertical E B drifts and diffusion along the magnetic field lines (Martyn (1955) and Rao
1966). Since the noon bite out is active only for a short period, therefore, it could not entirely
explain the discrepancy in the IRI model as observed for the longer period in this study. This
suggests that the daytime discrepancy in the IRI model, observed for a longer period in this
study, is governed by some other mechanisms also.

The TEC from IRI model is not directly estimated from the measured TEC database, but the
TEC calculation is conducted from foF2. The height profile of electron density is calculated
based on the foF2, stepby-step. The density profile is then integrated along the vertical line to
obtain TEC. In this process, topside electron density may not be satisfactorily modeled, i.e.,
the thickness is too small for IRI topside density profile. The other possibility for the
overestimation by the IRI model as observed during all time is the inaccurate prediction of
foF2 by the IRI model [Blitza et al. 2012]. The IRI bias during these times also could be due
to overestimation of foF2 by the CCIR coefficients.

For LHAZ and COCO stations, the rate of morning rise and afternoon decay in observed TEC
is higher in the equinox season. This type of sharp gradient is absent in the IRI TEC for this
season. In case of mid latitude station GUAO, during equinox, IRI TEC overestimates the
observed TEC in the pre-noon and pre-afternoon time. During noon time period, IRI TEC is
underestimating the observed TEC. During high solar activity period this type of observation
has also found by Mosert et al.[2007] for a mid latitude station. The computed discrepancy in
the IRI-TEC (DTEC) as compared to GPS-TEC is significantly large at low latitude and EIA
stations particularly in the daytime hours, while it reduces to extremely small value as one
move towards the higher latitudes from low latitude.
Conclusions:

The present analysis shows that the TEC with from IRI model overestimates the observed
GPS TEC in low latitude regions in most of the times. During high solar activity period of
cycle 24, the IRI TEC underestimates the observed TEC during noon time and overestimates
during night time but during the minimum period it underestimates the observed TEC during
day time and overestimates during night time. So we can conclude from the above mentioned
discussions that the matching between the IRI TEC and observed TEC is totally dependent on
the local time, location and phase of the solar cycle. The largest deviations in model and
observed TEC may be occurring as a result of poor estimation of foF2 and NmF2 from the
coefficients of IRI model. These results might be useful for the model improvement and the
model error representation of the data assimilation. The error in IRI model TEC with respect
to ground based GPS measurements at low latitude regions is found to be higher than mid-
latitude during all the seasons.

Future scope of the work:

The accuracy of the IRI model TEC depends on the NmF2, the hmF2, and the topside shape
parameters estimated by the respective topside models (Bilitza et al. 2012 and reference there
in). The difference in the NmF2 and hmF2 model occurs due to the different indices used in
describing the solar activity impacts. For example, foF2/NmF2 model in the IRI uses an
ionosphere effective solar index (IG12) which is based on the ground-based ionosonde
measurements. However, the IRI hmF2 model depends on the data of Sunspot number
(Rz12). Recently, Bilitza et al. (2012) have compared these two indices during the last six
solar cycles from 1958 to 2012 and reported that the relative difference between these two
indices (Rz12-IG12)/Rz12 turns out to be a factor of 4 higher during the recent solar
minimum than during the previous minimum. In this regard, the present study can also be
extended with the NmF2, the hmF2 data, which can provide proper light on the causes of this
type of discrepancies of in-situ and model data.