Geophysical Center RAS
Moscow, Russian Federation
Geophysical Center RAS
Space Research Institute
Moscow, Russian Federation
Apatity, Russian Federation
If we consider the auroral oval as an indicator of the electrojet position, the information about the position of its equatorial boundary allows us to predict the latitudes at which the most intense geomagnetic variations can be observed. These variations are the source of geomagnetically induced currents (GICs), which pose a threat to the stable operation of electric power systems. The Starkov-93 (S93) model, Auroral Precipitation Model (APM), and OVATION Prime (OP) model are widely used to estimate the possible minimum latitude of the oval. However, the databases with the aid of which these models were built did not contain rare extreme magnetic storms (|Dst|>400 nT). As a source of information on auroral latitudes during extreme storms, we employ the statistical model of the minimum latitude of the equatorial boundary of discrete auroras L2025, which is based on observational evidence. Extrapolation of the dependences of the oval’s equatorial boundary latitude on the storm intensity obtained by the S93 model and APM during extreme storms (|Dst|>400 nT) diverge from the predictions of the L2025 model. In the new version of APM (APM_GEO), the limitations to the magnetic activity level in the AL and Dst indices were removed, which makes it possible to estimate the location of the precipitation boundary during super substorms and extreme storms. To compare the OP model with APM_GEO, we have examined the dynamics of the auroral oval during the May 10–11, 2024 magnetic storm and have constructed maps of the position of the oval equatorial boundaries for different storm phases for the territory of the Russian Federation. As revealed from the comparison with APM_GEO, the OP model driven by interplanetary medium parameters significantly underestimates latiudinal shift of the oval. Since intense substorms during storms lead to a significant equatorial shift of the oval boundary, all large energy grids of the be affected by GICs not only during extreme, but also during strong magnetic storms in the presence of intense substorms against their background.
space weather, magnetic storms, geomagnetically induced currents, auroral oval
1. Apatenkov S.V., Pilipenko V.A., Gordeev E.I., et al. Auroral omega bands are a significant cause of large geomagnetically induced currents. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2020, vol. 47, e2019GL086677. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086677.
2. Baker D.N., Balstad R., Bodeau J.M., et al. Severe space weather events — Understanding societal and economic impacts. The National Academy Press, Washington, 2008. https://doi.org/10.17226/12507.
3. Blake S.P., Pulkkinen A., Schuck P.W., et al. Estimating maximum extent of auroral equatorward boundary using historical and simulated surface magnetic field data. J. Geophys. Res. 2021, vol. 126, iss. 2, e2020JA028284. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028284.
4. Boroyev R.N., Vasiliev M.S., Baishev D.G. The relationship between geomagnetic indices and the interplanetary medium parameters in magnetic storm main phases during CIR and ICME events. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2020, vol. 204, 105290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2020.105290.
5. Boteler D.H. Geomagnetic hazards to conducting networks. Natural Hazards. 2003, vol. 28, iss. 2, pp. 537–561. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022902713136.
6. Caraballo R., Gonzalez-Esparza J.A., Pacheco C.R., et al. The impact of geomagnetically induced currents (GIC) on the Mexican power grid: Numerical modeling and observations from the 10 May 2024 geomagnetic storm. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2025, vol. 52, iss. 4, e2024GL112749. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL112749.
7. Carbary J.F., Sotirelis T., Newell P.T., Meng C.-I. Auroral boundary correlations between UVI and DMSP. J. Geophys. Res. 2003, vol. 108, iss. A1, pp. SIA2-1–SIA2-7.https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009378.
8. Chisham G., Burrell A.G., Thomas E.G., Chen Y.-J. Ionospheric boundaries derived from auroral images. J. Geophys. Res. 2022, vol. 127, iss. 7, e2022JA030622. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA03062.
9. Despirak I., Setsko P., Lubchich A., et al. Geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) during strong geomagnetic storm on 10–12 May 2024. Adv. Space Res. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2025.06.081.
10. Dimmock A.P., Rosenqvist L., Hall J.-O., et al. The GIC and geomagnetic response over Fennoscandia to the 7–8 September 2017 geomagnetic storm. Space Weather. 2019, vol. 17, iss. 7, pp. 989–1010. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018SW002132.
11. Edemskiy I.K., Yasyukevich Yu.V. Auroral oval boundary dynamics on the nature of geomagnetic storm. Remote Sens. 2022, vol. 14, 5486. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14215486.
12. Effects of Space Weather on Technology Infrastructure. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, 343 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2754-0.
13. Engebretson M.J., Steinmetz E.S., Posch J.L., et al. Nighttime magnetic perturbation events observed in Arctic Canada: 2. Multiple-instrument observations. J. Geophys. Res. 2019, vol. 124, pp. 7459–7476. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA026797.
14. Evdokimova M.A., Petrukovich A.A. Estimation of westward auroral electrojet current with magnetometer chain data. Ann. Geophys. 2020, vol. 38, pp. 109–121. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-109-2020.
15. Feldstein Ya.I. Some issues of the morphology of auroras and magnetic disturbances at high latitudes. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 1963, vol. 3, iss. 2, pp. 227–239. (In Russian).
16. Feldstein Y.I., Gromova L.I., Grafe A., et al. Dynamics of the auroral electrojets and their mapping to the magnetosphere. Radiation Measurements. 1999, vol. 30, iss. 5, pp. 579–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4487(99)00219-X.
17. Gary J.B., Zanetti L.J., Anderson B.J., et al. Identification of auroral oval boundaries from in situ magnetic field measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 1998, vol. 103, iss. A3, pp. 4187–4197. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA02395.
18. Gonzalez W.D., Echer E., Tsurutani B.T., et al. Interplanetary origin of intense, superintensive and extreme geomagnetic storms. Space Sci. Rev. 2011, vol. 158, iss. 1, pp. 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-010-9715-2.
19. Gvishiani A.D., Lukyanova R.Yu. Estimating the influence of geomagnetic disturbances on the trajectory of the directional drilling of deep wells in the Arctic region. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth. 2018, vol. 54, iss. 4, pp. 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1069351318040055.
20. Hapgood M.A. Prepare for the coming space weather storm. Nature. 2012, vol. 484, pp. 311–313. https://doi.org/10.1038/484311.
21. Hiyadutuje A., Bilitza D., Ojebisi T., et al. Assessment of the performance of the IRI’s auroral oval boundary model as applied to the Mother’s Day G5 storm during 10–13 May 2024. Adv. Space Res. 2025, vol. 76, iss. 12, pp. 7241–7250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2025.04.003.
22. Johnsen M.G. Real-time determination and monitoring of the auroral electrojet boundaries. J. Space Weather Space Climate. 2013, vol. 3, A28. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2013050.
23. Kataoka R., Ngwira C. Extreme geomagnetically induced currents. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science. 2016, vol. 3, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-016-0101-x.
24. Khorosheva O.V. Spatio-temporal distribution of polar auroras and their relationship with high-latitude geomagnetic disturbances. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 1961, vol. 1, iss. 5, pp. 695–701. (In Russian).
25. Khorosheva O.V. Magnetospheric disturbances and the associated dynamics of ionospheric electrojets, polar auroras and plasmapause. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 1987, vol. 27, iss. 5, pp. 804–811. (In Russian).
26. Kostarev D.V., Pilipenko V.A., Kozyreva O.V. Geomagnetic monitoring to mitigate risk to pipelines from space weather. Science & Technologies: Oil and Oil Products Pipeline Transportation. 2023, vol. 13, iss. 1, pp. 38–49. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.28999/2541-9595-2023-13-1-38-49.
27. Kozyreva O.V., Pilipenko V.A., Engebretson M.J., et al. Correspondence between the ULF wave power distribution and auroral oval. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2016, vol. 2, iss. 2, pp. 46–65. https://doi.org/10.12737/20999.
28. Kozyreva O., Pilipenko V., Belakhovsky V., Sakharov Ya. Ground geomagnetic field and GIC response to March 17, 2015, storm. Earth, Planets and Space. 2018, vol. 70, 157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0933-2.
29. Love J.J. Extreme-event magnetic storm probabilities derived from rank statistics of historical Dst intensities for solar cycles 14–24. Space Weather. 2021, vol. 19, iss. 4, e2020SW002579. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020SW002579.
30. Love J.J. Mann I.R., Qvick T., Mursula K. What is the lowest latitude of discrete aurorae during superstorms? Space Weather. 2025, vol. 23, e2024SW004286. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024SW004286.
31. Machol J.L., Green J.C., Redmon R.J., et al. Evaluation of OVATION prime as a forecast model for visible aurorae. Space Weather. 2012, vol. 10, S03005. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000746.
32. Mazur V.A., Shukhman I.G. On the derivation of Dessler—Parker—Sckopke relation. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2015. vol. 1, iss. 2, pp. 80–84. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.12737/7495.
33. Myagkova I.M., Ryazantseva M.O., Antonova E.E., Marjin B.V. Enhancements of fluxes of precipitating energetic electrons on the boundary of the outer radiation belt of the Earth and position of the auroral oval boundaries. Space Res. 2010, vol. 48, pp. 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0010952510020061.
34. Newell P.T., Sotirelis T., Liou K., et al. A nearly universal solar wind‐magnetosphere coupling function inferred from 10 magnetospheric state variables. J. Geophys. Res. 2007, vol. 112, A01206. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA012015.
35. Newell P.T., Sotirelis T., Wing S. Diffuse, monoenergetic, and broadband aurora: The global precipitation budget. J. Geophys. Res. 2009, vol. 114, A09207. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014326.
36. Newell P.T., Sotirelis T., Wing S. Seasonal variations in diffuse, monoenergetic, and broadband aurora. J. Geophys. Res. 2010, vol. 115, A03216. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014805.
37. Newell P.T., Liou K., Zhang Y., et al. OVATION Prime-2013: Extension of auroral precipitation model to higher disturbance levels. Space Weather. 2014, vol. 12, pp. 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014SW001056.
38. Pallocchia G., Amata E., Consolini G., et al. Geomagnetic Dst index forecast based on IMF data only. Ann. Geophys. 2006, vol. 24, pp. 989–999. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-24-989-2006.
39. Pilipenko V., Yagova N., Romanova N., Allen J. Statistical relationships between the satellite anomalies at geostationary orbits and high-energy particles. Adv. Space Res. 2006, vol. 37, iss. 6, pp. 1192–1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2005.03.152.
40. Pilipenko V.A. Impact of space weather on ground-based technological systems. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2021, vol. 7, iss. 3, pp. 68–104. https://doi.org/10.12737/stp-73202106.
41. Pilipenko V.A., Chernikov A.A., Soloviev A.A., et al. Influence of space weather on the reliability of the transport system functioning at high latitudes. Russian Journal of Earth Sciences. 2023a, vol. 23, no. 2, ES2008. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.2205//2023ES000824.
42. Pilipenko V.A., Gvishiani A.D., Soloviev A.A., Rosenberg I.N. Space weather and railways. Earth and the Universe. 2023b, iss. 6, pp. 22–34. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.7868/S0044394823060026.
43. Pilipenko V.A., Kozyreva O.V., Belakhovsky V.B., et al. What should we know to predict geomagnetically induced currents in power transmission lines? Russian Journal of Earth Sciences. 2024, vol. 24, ES6006. https://doi.org/10.2205/2024es000954.
44. Pulkkinen A., Bernabeu E., Eichner J., et al. Generation of 100-year geomagnetically induced current scenarios. Space Weather, 2012, vol. 10, iss. 4, S04003. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000750.
45. Shepherd S.G. Altitude‐adjusted corrected geomagnetic coordinates: Definition and functional approximations. J. Geophys. Res. 2014, vol. 119, pp. 7501–7521. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020264.
46. Sotirelis T., Newell P.T. Boundary-oriented electron precipitation model. J. Geophys. Res. 2000, vol. 105, iss. A8, pp. 18655–18673. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA000269.
47. Spogli L., Alberti T., Bagiacchi P., et al. The effects of the May 2024 Mother’s Day superstorm over the Mediterranean sector: from data to public communication. Ann. Geophys. 2024, vol. 67, iss. 2, PA218. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-9117.
48. Starkov G.V. Planetary morphology of auroras. Magnetospheric-Ionospheric Physics. Brief Handbook. St. Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 1993, pp. 85–90. (In Russian).
49. Starkov G.V. Mathematical description of the auroral oval boundaries. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 1994, vol. 34, iss. 3, pp. 80–86. (In Russian).
50. Tverskaya L.V. Diagnostics of the magnetosphere based on the outer belt relativistic electrons and penetration of solar protons: A review. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 2011, vol. 51, iss. 1, pp. 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793211010142.
51. Vorobjev V.G., Yagodkina O.I. Effect of magnetic activity on the global distribution of auroral precipitation zone. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 2005, vol. 45, iss. 4, pp. 438–444. (In Russian).
52. Vorobjev V.G., Yagodkina O.I. Auroral precipitation dynamics during strong magnetic storms. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 2007, vol. 47, iss. 2, pp. 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793207020065.
53. Vorobjev V.G., Yagodkina O.I., Katkalov Y. Auroral precipitation model and its applications to ionospheric and magnetospheric studies. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2013, vol. 102, pp. 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2013.05.007.
54. Vorobjev V.G., Sakharov Ya.A., Yagodkina O.I., et al. Geomagnetically induced currents and their relationship with locations of westward electrojet and auroral precipitation boundaries. Transactions of the Kola Science Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2018, vol. 5, iss. 4, pp. 16–28. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25702/KSC.2307-5252.2018.9.5.16-28.
55. Vorobev A.V., Pilipenko V.A., Krasnoperov R.I., et al. Short-term forecast of the auroral oval position on the basis of the “virtual globe” technology. Russian J. Earth Science. 2020a, vol. 20, ES6001. https://doi.org/10.2205/2020ES000721.
56. Vorobev A.V., Pilipenko V.A., Reshetnikov A.G., et al. Web-oriented visualization of auroral oval geophysical parameters. Scientific Visualization. 2020b, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 108–118. https://doi.org/10.26583/sv.12.3.10.
57. Vorobjev V.G., Yagodkina O.I., Melnik M.N., Mingalev O.V. Planetary distribution of characteristics of electron and ion precipitation depending on the levels of magnetic activity. Interactive model APM_GEO. Physics of Auroral Phenomena. Proc. XLVI Annual Seminar. Apatity, 2023, pp. 127–136. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.51981/2588-0039.2023.46.028.
58. Vorobiev V.G., Yagodkina O.I., Antonova E.E. Nightside auroral precipitations under extreme levels of geomagnetic activity. Physics of Auroral Phenomena. Proc. XLVIII Annual Seminar. Apatity, 2025, pp. 54–58. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.51981/2588-0039.2025.48.012.
59. Walker S.J., Laundal K.M., Reistad J.P., et al. A comparison of auroral oval proxies with the boundaries of the auroral electrojets. Space Weather. 2024, vol. 22, iss. 4, e2023SW003689. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003689.
60. Woodroffe J.R., Morley S.K., Jordanova V.K., et al. The latitudinal variation of geoelectromagnetic disturbances during large (Dst≤–100 nT) geomagnetic storms. Space Weather. 2016, vol. 14, iss. 9, pp. 668–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016SW001376.
61. Xiong C., Lühr H., Wang H., Johnsen M.G. Determining the boundaries of the auroral oval from CHAMP field-aligned current signatures — Part 1. Ann. Geophys. 2014, vol. 32, iss. 6, pp. 609–622. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-32-609-2014.
62. Yagodkina O.I., Despirak I.V., Vorobjev V.G. Spatial distribution of auroral precipitation during storms caused by magnetic clouds. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2012, vol. 77, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.06.009.
63. Yasyukevich Yu.V., Edemskiy I.K., Perevalova N.P., Polyakova A.S. Response of the Ionosphere to Helio- and Geophysical Disturbances According to GPS Data. Irkutsk, Irkutsk State University Publ., 2013. 259 p. (In Russian).
64. Zou Y., Dowell C., Ferdousi B., et al. Auroral drivers of large dB/dt during geomagnetic storms. Space Weather. 2022, vol. 20, iss. 11, e2022SW003121. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003121.
65. Zverev V.L., Feldshtein Ya.I., Vorobjev V.G. Auroral glow to the equator from the polar auroral oval. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 2012, vol. 52, iss. 1, pp. 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793212010173.
66. URL: http://apm.pgia.ru/data (accessed December 12, 2025).
67. URL: https://pgia.ru/data/spaceweather/ (accessed December 12, 2025).
68. URL: https://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/cgm.html (accessed December 12, 2025).
69. URL: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/aurora-30-minute-forecast (accessed December 12, 2025).
