Observations of Geomagnetic Induced Currents in Northwestern Russia: Case Studies

Despirak, I. V.; Сецко, П. В.; Sakharov, Ya. A.; Lyubchich, A. A.; Selivanov, V. N.; Valev, Dimitar

doi:10.1134/s0016793222060032

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We contend that the high‐latitude vortices, low‐latitude substorm indicators, and the sub‐auroral G1‐G4 disturbance in the Mäntsälä pipeline were latitude‐spanning effects of a series of mesoscale flow injections or impingements. Minor timing differences can be attributed to the difference in overhead currents, ground and material conductivity, system configurations, and the north‐south orientation of the powerline (Despirak et al., 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From 15:56 to 16:04 UT on the Mäntsälä pipeline, the minimum‐to‐peak GIC variation was 22 A; in the same interval, there was a 70 A variation at Vykhodnoi power station in the Kola Peninsula. Figure 8c displays the currents for 16:04 UT (G1b) and shows an intense poleward current channel over the north end of the pipeline and the Kola peninsula, where strong ground magnetic fluctuations were observed (Belakhovsky et al., 2019; Despirak et al., 2022). The narrow current channel, bracketed by up‐down FACs (Figure 8c) and a poleward displacement of the R1‐FAC (Figure 6d) are consistent with the description of auroral streamer development during arrival of plasma flow bursts (e.g., Hubert et al., 2007; Zou et al., 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These spikes were attributed to large-amplitude magnetic pulses that appeared to be part of a nightside substorm current wedge (SCW). Despirak et al (2022) also studied disturbances on the Karelian-Kola power transmission line for the same date, finding that GICs corresponded to the appearance of successive substorm intensifications.…”

Section: Research Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despirak et al. (2022) also studied disturbances on the Karelian‐Kola power transmission line for the same date, finding that GICs corresponded to the appearance of successive substorm intensifications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What Drove the GICs >10 A During the 17 March 2013 Event at Mäntsälä? A Novel Framework for Distinguishing the Magnetospheric Sources

Waghule,

Knipp,

Gannon

et al. 2024

Space Weather

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We combine wavelet analysis and data fusion to investigate geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) on the Mäntsälä pipeline and the associated horizontal geomagnetic field, BH, variations during the late main phase of the 17 March 2013 geomagnetic storm. The wavelet analysis decomposes the GIC and BH signals at increasing “scales” to show distinct multi‐minute spectral features around the GIC spikes. Four GIC spikes >10 A occurred while the pipeline was in the dusk sector—the first sine‐wave‐like spike at ∼16 UT was “compound.” It was followed by three “self‐similar” spikes 2 hr later. The contemporaneous multi‐resolution observations from ground‐(magnetometer, SuperMAG, SuperDARN), and space‐based (AMPERE, Two Wide‐Angle Imaging Neutral‐atom Spectrometers) platforms capture multi‐scale activity to reveal two magnetospheric modes causing the spikes. The GIC at ∼16 UT occurred in two parts with the negative spike associated with a transient sub‐auroral eastward electrojet that closed a developing partial ring current loop, whereas the positive spike developed with the arrival of the associated mesoscale flow‐channel in the auroral zone. The three spikes between 18 and 19 UT were due to bursty bulk flows (BBFs). We attribute all spikes to flow‐channel injections (substorms) of varying scales. We use previously published MHD simulations of the event to substantiate our conclusions, given the dearth of timely in‐situ satellite observations. Our results show that multi‐scale magnetosphere‐ionosphere activity that drives GICs can be understood using multi‐resolution analysis. This new framework of combining wavelet analysis with multi‐platform observations opens a research avenue for GIC investigations and other space weather impacts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%