Comparison between IRI-2012, IRI-2016 models and F2 peak parameters in two stations of the EIA in Vietnam during different solar activity periods

• Published in: Advances in space research 2021-09, Vol.68 (5), p.2076-2092
• Main Authors: Pham Thi Thu, Hong, Amory Mazaudier, Christine, Le Huy, Minh, Nguyen Thanh, Dung, Luu Viet, Hung, Luong Thi, Ngoc, Hozumi, Kornyanat, Le Truong, Thanh
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Astrophysics; equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA); foF2; hmF2; Ionogram; IRI model; Sciences of the Universe; Solar activity; Solar and Stellar Astrophysics
• ISSN: 0273-1177; 1879-1948
• DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2020.07.017

This paper presents observations of the F2-layer critical frequency (foF2) and height (hmF2) obtained at Phu Thuy (21.03°N, 105.95°E) and Bac Lieu (9.28°N, 105.73°E) observatories in Vietnam. The data have been examined for all seasons, during high and low solar activities, and compared with the foF2 and hmF2 of the International Reference Ionosphere model (IRI-2012, IRI-2016 two options: AMTB, SHU). Phu Thuy observatory is located at the Northern Crest of the EIA and Bac Lieu in the trough of the EIA, therefore the foF2 values at Phu Thuy are higher than at Bac Lieu. The results show that the IRI-2012 model estimates well the observed foF2 at both stations during high and low solar activities. During high solar activity, models estimate well the calculated hmF2 in summer for both stations. At Phu Thuy in equinoxes AMTB reproduces the night peak better than IRI-2012 and SHU, but higher and later about 2–3 h, in winter the performance of AMTB is worst. At Bac Lieu, the IRI-2016 options reproduce the night peak and underestimates it, but IRI-2012 does not do it. The pre-noon peaks are underestimated by all the models, except IRI-2012 which overestimates the hmF2 pre-noon peaks at Bac Lieu. At Phu Thuy the pre-noon hmF2 peak is higher than the post-dusk one. At Bac Lieu the post-dusk peak is higher except in summer. During low solar activity, the IRI models estimate relatively well the shape of the calculated hmF2 at both stations. The IRI-2012 models explained better the observed foF2 (deviation of 2.5%) during solstices than during equinoxes (14.2%) for high solar activity. The IRI-2012 model explained better the observed foF2 in spring (7.8%) than in autumn (19.9%), matched better the calculated hmF2 in solstice (5.4%) than during equinoxes (11.8%). The performance of AMTB is worst at both stations for both the high and low solar activity periods except in autumn at Bac Lieu for the low solar year. IRI-2012 is best at the stations for both high and low solar activity periods, except in summer for the high solar activiy year when SHU is the best at Phu Thuy. These results can be used to improve the future IRI model.