Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth

, Volume 54, Issue 1, pp 52–65 | Cite as

Characteristics of the variability of a geomagnetic field for studying the impact of the magnetic storms and substorms on electrical energy systems

  • V. B. Belakhovsky
  • V. A. Pilipenko
  • Ya. A. Sakharov
  • V. N. Selivanov


There are numerous models of geomagnetically induced currents in which the role of the main sources is allotted to the variations in the intensity of the auroral electrojet inducing the currents flowing along the latitude. Based on this it is believed that magnetic disturbances mainly threaten technological systems that are elongated in the longitudinal (W–E) direction. In this work, we make an attempt to employ new characteristics to describe the variability of the geomagnetic field during the geomagnetic storm of March 17, 2013. These characteristics, calculated from the data of the IMAGE magnetometer network stations, are compared to the records of the induced currents in the power lines on the Kola Peninsula and in Karelia. The vector technique revealed a considerably lower variability of the horizontal component of the geomagnetic field compared to its derivative. Quantitative estimates of the variability supported the fact that the variations of the field occur on a commensurate scale both in magnitude and direction. These results cannot be accounted for by the simple model of the extended ionospheric current and demonstrate the importance of allowing for small-scale current structures (with the spatial scales of a few hundred km) in the calculations of the geomagnetically induced currents. Our analysis shows that the geomagnetically induced currents are not only hazardous for the technological objects oriented in the longitudinal (W–E) direction but also for those elongated meridionally.


geomagnetically induced currents electric power systems geomagnetic variations ionospheric currents 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Apatenkov, S.V., Sergeev, V.A., Pirjola, R., and Viljanen, A., Evaluation of the geometry of ionospheric current systems related to rapid geomagnetic variations, Ann. Geophys., 2004, vol. 22, pp. 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boteler, D.H., Pirjola, R.J., and Nevanlinna, H., The effects of geomagnetic disturbances on electrical systems at the earth’s surface, Adv. Space Res., 1998, vol. 22, pp. 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Du, J., Wang, C., Zhang, X.X., Shevyrev, N.N., and Zastenker, G.N., Magnetic field fluctuations in solar wind, foreshock and magnetosheath: cluster data analysis, Chin. J. Space Sci., 2005, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 368–373.Google Scholar
  4. Efimov, B., Sakharov, Ya., and Selivanov, V., Geomagnitnye shtormy: Issledovanie vozdeistvii na energosistemu Karelii i Kol’skogo poluostrova, Nov. Elektrotekh., 2013, no. 2, p. 80.Google Scholar
  5. Erinmez, I.A., Kappenman, J.G., and Radasky, W.A., Management of the geomagnetically induced current risks on the national grid company’s electric power transmission system, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys., 2002, vol. 64, pp. 743–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forbes, K.F. and St. Cyr, O.C., Space weather and the electricity market, Space Weather, 2004, vol. 2, p. S10003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Friis-Christensen, E., McHenry, M.A., Clauer, C.R., and Vennerstroem, S., Ionospheric traveling convection vortices observed near the polar cleft: a triggered response to sudden changes in the solar wind, Geophys. Rev. Lett., 1988, vol. 15, pp.235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gummow, R.A. and Eng, P., Gic effects on pipeline corrosion and corrosion-control systems, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys., 2002, vol. 64, p. 1755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kappenman, J.G., An overview of the impulsive geomagnetic field disturbances and power grid impacts associated with the violent sun-earth connection events of 29–31 October 2003 and a comparative evaluation with other contemporary storms, Space Weather, 2005, vol. 3, p. S08C01.Google Scholar
  10. Kelly, G.S., Viljanen A., Beggan C., Thomson A.W.P., and Ruffenach A., Understanding GIC in the UK and French high voltage transmission systems during severe magnetic storms, Space Weather, 2017, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lanzerotti, L.J., Space weather effects on technologies, in Space Weather, AGU Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 125, Song, P., Singer, H.J., and Siscoe, G.L., Eds., Washington: AGU, 2001, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
  12. Pilipenko, V., Shalimov, S., Fedorov, E., Engebretson, M., and Hughes, W., Coupling between field-aligned current impulses and Pi1 noise bursts, J. Geophys. Res., 1999, vol. 104, pp. 17419–17430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pirjola, R., Kauristie, K., Lappalainen, H., Viljanen, A., and Pulkkinen, A., Space weather risk, Space Weather, 2005, vol. 3, p. S02A02.Google Scholar
  14. Pulkkinen, A., Pirjola, R., Boteler, D., Viljanen, A., and Yegorov, I., Modeling of space weather effects on pipelines, J. Appl. Geophys., 2001, vol. 48, p. 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pulkkinen, A.A., Bernabeu, E., Eichner, J., Beggan, C., and Thomson, A.W.P., Generation of 100-year geomagnetically induced current scenarios, Space Weather, 2012, vol. 10, p. S04003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Püthe, C. and Kuvshinov, A., Towards quantitative assessment of the hazard from space weather. Global 3-D modellings of the electric field induced by a realistic geomagnetic storm, Earth Planets Space, 2013, vol. 65, p. 1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sakharov, Ya.A., Danilin, A.N., and Ostafiychuk, R.M., Registration of GIC in power systems of the Kola Peninsula, Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Electromagnetic Compatibility and Electromagnetic Ecology, St.-Petersburg, June 26–29, 2007, St. Petersburg, 2007, pp. 291–293.Google Scholar
  18. Sakharov, Ya.A., Danilin, A.N., Ostafiychuk, R.M., Katkalov, Yu.V., and Kudryashova, N.V., Geomagnetically induced currents in the power systems of the kola peninsula at solar minimum, Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Electromagnetic Compatibility and Electromagnetic Ecology, St. Petersburg, 2009, pp. 237–238.Google Scholar
  19. Viljanen, A., The relation between geomagnetic variations and their time derivatives and implications for estimation of induction risks, Geophys. Rev. Lett., 1997, vol. 24, pp. 631–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Viljanen, A., Nevanlinna, H., Pajunpaa, K., and Pulkkinen, A., Time derivative of the geomagnetic field as an activity indicator, Ann. Geophys., 2001, vol. 19, pp. 1107–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Viljanen, A., Pulkkinen, A., Amm, O., Pirjola, R., Korja, T., BEAR Working Group, Fast computation of the geoelectric field using the method of elementary current systems and planar Earth models, Ann. Geophys., 2004, vol. 22, pp. 101–113.Google Scholar
  22. Viljanen, A., European project to improve models of geomagnetically induced currents, Space Weather, 2011, vol. 9, p. S07007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Viljanen, A. and Tanskanen, E., Climatology of rapid geomagnetic variations at high latitudes over two solar cycles, Ann. Geophys., 2011, vol. 29, pp. 1783–1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weigel, R.S., Klimas, A.J., and Vassiliadis, D., Solar wind coupling to and predictability of ground magnetic fields and their time derivatives, J. Geophys. Res., 2003, vol. 108, p. 1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wintoft, P., Wik, M., Lundstedt, H., and Eliasson, L., Predictions of local ground geomagnetic field fluctuations during the 7–10 November 2004 events studied with solar wind driven models, Ann. Geophys., 2005, vol. 23, pp. 3095–3101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. B. Belakhovsky
    • 1
  • V. A. Pilipenko
    • 2
  • Ya. A. Sakharov
    • 1
  • V. N. Selivanov
    • 3
  1. 1.Polar Geophysical InstituteRussian Academy of SciencesApatityRussia
  2. 2.Geophysical CenterRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Center of Physical and Technical Problems of the Northern Energetics, Kola Science CenterRussian Academy of SciencesApatityRussia

Personalised recommendations