See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222595885

On the global behaviour of the day-to-day MUF

variation

Article in Advances in Space Research January 2004

DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2003.05.005

CITATIONS READS

27 31

3 authors, including:

D. N. Fotiadis Stamatis.S. Kouris

EETT - Hellenic Telecommunications and P Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
21 PUBLICATIONS 257 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 597 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: D. N. Fotiadis
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 18 August 2016
 Advances in Space Research 33 (2004) 893901
www.elsevier.com/locate/asr

On the global behaviour of the day-to-day MUF variation

D.N. Fotiadis *, G.M. Baziakos, S.S. Kouris
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece
Received 10 April 2002; received in revised form 12 December 2002; accepted 30 May 2003

Abstract

Using data from more than a hundred ionospheric stations spread worldwide, day-to-day variations with location and time of the
conventional maximum usable frequency (MUF) decile values are investigated. New bounds of day-to-day MUF variability are
calculated and compared with reference gures currently used by radio users. An hourly-daily validation process shows a clear
improvement of spatial bias and model accuracy. A signicant dependence on longitude is revealed that might be introduced into
future specications.
2003 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ionosphere; Day-to-day variability; MUF

1. Introduction bands and range of solar activity, are provided to users.

Accurate, quantitative short- and long-term estimates
of the variability of ionospheric characteristics are es-
sential to support the operation and design of terrestrial
point-to-point links (Hanbaba, 1998). The maximum
usable frequency (MUF) is important for radio-users in
order to achieve better frequency management. The
variability of the propagation factor M(3000)F2 is sig-
nicantly less than that of the critical frequency of the
F2-layer, fo F2 (Rush et al., 1974; Kouris and Fotiadis,
2002), and to a rst order the variability of MUF is
independent of the propagation distance (Bradley et al.,
1999). In applications one denes the MUF as the
product of fo F2*M(3000)F2.
Recommendation P.533 of the International Tele-
communication Union (ITU-R, 1997) gave estimates of
the diurnal MUF variability by specifying reference
values-using anchor parameters to the monthly median
value- in 4 h (midpath) local time (LT) steps. The 9/10
and 1/10 quantile factors, known also as decile factors,
tabulated for dierent seasons, geographical latitude
*
Corresponding author. Present address: National Telecommunica-
tions and Post Commission (EETT), Spectrum Division, 60 Kisias
Avenue, Marousi, 15125 Athens, Greece, Tel.: +30-210-615-1009; fax:
+30-210-610-5049.
E-mail address: dfot@eett.gr (D.N. Fotiadis).
ITU-R is based upon Davis and Groome (1964) results,
which are product of an analysis of fo F2 measurements
in the American longitudinal sector. Recently, Kouris
et al. (2000) recalculated the MUF decile factors for the
European COST 251 area (Hanbaba, 1999), concluding
to more narrow frequency windows and a dierent lat-
itudinal strip pattern.
The purpose of the present work is to widen the scope
with respect to dierent longitudinal sectors and hemi-
spheres. Determination of adequate latitudinal strips in
three longitudinal sectors is attempted and the new decile
factors are critically compared with those of ITU-R.
2. Data and method analysis
Hourly daily values fo F2 and of the propagation
factor M(3000)F2 are used to determine the corre-
sponding conventional MUF values according to the
equation
MUF3000F2 fo F2
M3000F2 1
for more than a hundred ionospheric stations distrib-
uted in the North and South hemisphere over the pe-
riod 19641996. The fact that our investigation relies
on data obtained in three solar cycles should rule out

0273-1177/$30 2003 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2003.05.005
894 D.N. Fotiadis et al. / Advances in Space Research 33 (2004) 893901

Table 1
List of stations and period of MUF data considered in this analysis
Station Geographic IGRF Corrected Dip () Modip () Period of data
Latitude () Longitude () Geomagnetic Latitude ()

Nicosia NIC 35.1 33.2 28.5 50.8 44.4 8796

El Arenosillo ARE 37.1 353.2 30.5 52.2 45.6 82, 83, 9396
Gibilmana GIB 37.6 14 30.4 52.8 46.0 7694
Lisbonnea LIS 38.7 350.7 33.1 54.3 47.0 8792
Tortosa TOR 40.8 0.5 34.8 56.4 48.5 6487, 9195
Rome ROM 41.8 12.5 35.7 57.6 49.4 7694, 96
Beograd/Grockaa GRO 44.8 20.5 39.4 61.1 51.7 8593
Poitiersa POI 46.6 0.3 42.3 62.3 52.7 6494
Bekescsaba BEK 46.7 21.2 41.6 62.9 53.0 6478, 8289
Rostov ROS 47.2 39.7 42.3 64.3 53.7 6480, 9196
Freiburga FRE 48.1 7.6 43.6 63.7 53.7 6474
Lannion LAN 48.8 356.6 45.4 64.3 54.1 6494
Kieva KIE 50.5 30.5 45.8 66.5 55.5 6492
Slough SLO 51.5 359.4 48.4 66.5 55.8 6795
St. Peter-ording STP 54.3 8.6 50.8 68.6 57.5 8392
Juliusruh JUL 54.6 13.4 50.8 68.9 57.7 6495
Kaliningrad KAL 54.7 20.6 50.6 69.2 57.8 6494
Moscow MOS 55.5 37.3 51 70.4 58.5 6496
Gorkya GOR 56.1 44.3 51.5 71.2 59.0 6489
Sverdlovsk SVE 56.4 58.6 51.6 72.2 59.5 6495
South Uist SOU 57.4 352.7 56 71.0 59.3 8590
Uppsala UPP 59.8 17.6 56.3 72.4 60.7 6496
Leningrad LEN 60 30.7 55.9 72.9 60.9 6496
Arkhangelsk ARK 64.4 40.5 60 75.8 63.6 6993
Lyckselea LYC 64.7 18.8 61.3 75.2 63.5 6496
Sodankyla SOD 67.4 26.6 63.6 76.8 65.2 6489
Kiruna KIR 67.8 20.4 64.4 76.8 65.4 6486, 9196
Loparskayaa LOP 68 33 63.9 77.3 65.6 6477, 8184, 9196
Djibouti DJI 11.5 42.8 1.7 6.9 6.9 6481
Ouagadougou QUA 12.4 35.8 3.1 7.6 7.7 6676, 7886, 88, 89
Dakar DAK 14.8 341.6 2.9 16.1 16.0 6489
Johannesburg JOH )26.1 28.1 )35.6 )62.0 )48.8 64, 6791
Grahamstown GRW )33.3 26.5 )41.2 )64.2 )50.8 7476, 7884, 8696
Capetown CAP )34.1 18.3 )41.2 )64.7 )51.1 64, 6776, 8388
Syowa Base SYO )69 39.6 )66.4 )66.7 )62.8 66, 6879
Singapore SIN 1.3 103.8 )7.7 )17.6 )17.1 6471
Kodaikanal KOD 10.2 77.5 1.6 3.7 3.8 6480, 85, 86
Manila MAN 14.6 121.1 6.2 14.2 14.1 6494
Ahmedabada ARM 23 72.6 16.3 32.8 30.8 6473
Taipei TAI 25 121.5 17.5 34.9 32.6 6496
Okinawaa OKI 26.3 127.8 18.8 36.6 34.0 6488
Delhi DEL 28.6 77.2 22.2 42.5 38.4 6473, 7681
Yamagawa YAM 31.2 130.6 23.8 43.9 39.7 6488
Kokubunjia KOK 35.7 139.5 28.2 48.8 43.4 6490
Ashkhabada ASH 37.9 58.3 32.6 55.8 47.6 6486, 8995
Akita AKI 39.7 140.1 32.3 53.5 46.8 6489
Tashkent TAS 41.3 69.6 36.1 59.9 50.3 6494, 96
Alma Ataa ALM 43.2 76.9 37.9 62.0 51.7 6488
Wakkanai WAK 45.4 141.7 38.1 59.4 51.1 6488
Khabarovska KHA 48.5 135.1 41.5 63.5 53.7 6483, 8793
Karaganda KAR 49.8 73.1 44.8 68.1 56.0 6488
Irkutsk IRK 52.5 104 46.8 71.0 57.8 6490
Novosibirisk NVO 54.6 83.2 49.5 72.5 59.0 6973, 7596
Tomska TOM 56.5 84.9 51.4 74.1 60.1 6490, 9296
Magadan MAG 60 151 53.2 71.2 60.4 6896
Podkamennaya POD 61.6 90 56.3 77.8 63.1 6890, 9395
Yakutsk YAK 62 129.6 55.5 75.6 62.6 6491
Provideniya Bay PRO 64.4 186.6 60.3 73.9 63.0 6470, 7983
Wellena WEL 66.6 190.2 63 75.8 64.5 8994
Norilsk NRI 69.4 88.1 63.8 82.0 67.5 6888
Tiksibaya TIK 71.6 128.9 65.2 82.0 68.6 6471, 87
 D.N. Fotiadis et al. / Advances in Space Research 33 (2004) 893901 895

Table 1 (continued)
Station Geographic IGRF Corrected Dip () Modip () Period of data
Latitude () Longitude () Geomagnetic Latitude ()

Dikson DIK 73.5 80.4 67.7 83.3 69.9 8296

Vanimo VAN )2.7 141.3 )11.4 )22.5 )21.5 64, 65, 6793
Darwina DAR )12.4 130.9 )22.2 )40.8 )35.8 8388, 9094
Townsville TOW )19.3 146.7 )28.7 )49.1 )41.4 6495
La Reuniona LAR )21.1 55.9 )30.9 )54.2 )44.4 8289
Brisbane BRI )27.5 152.9 )36.8 )58.1 )47.1 6486
Norfolk NOR )29 168 )35.9 )56.8 )46.7 6494
Mundaringa MUN )32 116.2 )44.5 )66.7 )51.7 6494
Salisbury SLB )34.7 136.8 )46.4 )67.4 )52.4 71, 8388
Canberra CAN )35.3 149 )45.8 )66.4 )52.1 6491, 93, 94
Hobart HOB )42.9 147.2 )54.2 )73.0 )56.1 6596
Christchurch CHR )43.6 172.8 )50.3 )69.0 )54.8 64-70
Kerguellena KER )49.4 70.3 )58.4 )68.6 )56.0 6584, 87, 88
Campbell Island CLL )52.5 169.2 )60.2 )76.0 )59.5 7085
Macquarie Islanda MAC )54.5 159 )64.4 )79.2 )61.1 8492
Casey CAS )66.3 110.5 )80.7 )82.3 )66.2 6474, 90, 91
Mawson MAW )67.6 62.9 )70.5 )70.1 )63.2 6487, 9193
Davisa DAV )68.6 77.9 )74.8 )73.6 )64.8 8588, 90, 91, 93
Scott Base SCO )77.9 166.8 )79.9 )82.0 )72.3 7083
Maui MAU 20.8 203.5 21.3 38.5 34.8 6494
Cape Cennedya CNN 28.4 279.4 40.4 60.2 48.2 6466, 8890
Whitesands WHI 32.3 253.5 40.9 60.4 48.9 6472, 7679
Point Arguello PNT 34.6 239.4 40.5 59.8 49.0 7274, 7796
Wallops Islanda WAL 37.8 284.5 49.5 68.0 53.2 6787, 9196
Boulder BOU 40 254.7 49.1 67.6 53.4 6496
Ottawa OTT 45.4 284.1 56.9 73.6 56.9 6493
Argentia NFa ARG 47.3 306 55.2 70.4 56.2 8791, 92, 93
St. Johns STJ 47.6 307.3 55.2 70.3 56.2 6677
Winnipega WIN 49.8 265.6 60.7 76.8 59.1 6676
Goosebay GOO 53.3 299.2 62.6 75.8 59.7 8796
Churchilla CHU 58.8 265.8 69.5 82.5 63.4 66-74
Narssarssuaq NAR 61.2 314.6 67.2 77.1 62.7 6974
College COL 64.9 212.2 65 77.1 64.2 6467, 88, 89, 91, 94
Godhavn GOD 69.3 306.5 76.6 82.0 67.4 7074
Resolute Bay RES 74.7 265.1 83.8 89.0 71.7 6491
Thule THU 77.5 290.8 86.1 86.2 72.8 6466, 7174
Huancayo HUA )12 284.7 1.4 1.9 1.9 6487
Tahiti TAH )17.7 210.7 )16.3 )30.8 )28.9 7189
Rarotongaa RAR )21.2 200.2 )21.5 )38.8 )35.1 7179
Concepcion CON )36.6 287 )22.5 )36.4 )35.3 6479
Port Stanley POR )51.7 302.2 )37.3 )49.2 )47.5 6492
South Georgiaa STG )54.3 334.6 )45.3 )56.9 )52.4 7178
Argentine Is. ARI )65.2 295.7 )49.8 )59.2 )57.9 6492
Halley Bay HAL )75.5 333.4 )61.5 )65.4 )66.3 6480
The geomagnetic latitude is calculated by the International Geomagnetic Reference Field for the year 1986 for a 300 km height. Dip inclination
angle and Modip (Rawer, 1963) calculated for 1980.
a
Stations not used in the cluster analysis, but kept out for model validation.

particularities of individual solar cycles and allow to
detect long-term trends of geomagnetic control (Mik-
hailov and Marin, 2000). Detailed information about
used stations including code name, location, modied
magnetic dip, corrected magnetic latitude (CML) after
the IGRF model (Campbell, 1997), arbitrarily for the
year 1986 and a 300 km height, is contained in Table 1.
(This information can be downloaded from the fol-
lowing web site: http://genesis.ee.auth.gr/kouris/english/
pgstudents/DNF_les/stationlist_table1.doc). In Table 2,
stations are identied by the code names as specied in
Table 1. Three longitudinal sections are considered: Eu-
rope/Africa (330E50E), Asia/Australia (50E180E)
and America (180E330E). Data from European sta-
tions were extracted from the COST 251 cd-rom, whereas
all other measurements were retrieved from the SPIDR
Webserver of the NGDC, Boulder, CO, USA.
The ratio of each hourly daily MUF value to its cor-
responding monthly median is calculated for each day
and month, for all years and stations, then the upper and
896 D.N. Fotiadis et al. / Advances in Space Research 33 (2004) 893901

Table 2 blanks with interpolated data was strictly avoided. As a

Numbering of latitudinal strips ( ug : geodetic-latitude, um : CML) with consequence, it was dicult to gure out the physical
comparable MUF decile values obtained by Ward cluster analysis,
four longitudinal sectors
bounds of day-today MUF variability in regions with

small amount of data and poor spatial distribution of
ug um Stations Latitude
strip no.
ionospheric stations e.g., Africa.
Once geodetic-latitude strips were formulated in each
60n70 57n65 ARK, KIR, SOD 4
50n60 45.5n5 SLO, JUL, MOS, 5
longitudinal sector and hemisphere, we determined, for
UPP, LEN each LT and month, the statistical distribution of the
40n50 34n45.5 TOR, ROM, BEK, 6 upper and lower decile factors of all stations within each
ROS, LAN strip, for the three levels of solar activity given by ITU-
35n40 28n34 NIC, GIB 7 R separately. The most probable upper and lower decile
>70 >64 DIK 3
60n70 54n64 YAK, NRI, PRO 4
value was deduced from the peak of the distribution. A
50n60 45n54 IRK, NVO, MAG 5 most probable value is preferable to an arithmetic mean
40n50 34n45 WAK, KAR, TAS 6 since it is not inuenced by aberrant values. Note that
30n40 22.5n34 YAM, AKI 7 we have left out 31 stations, marked with asterisk in
20n30 12n22.5 TAI, DEL 8 Table 1, that are later used for testing procedure.
0n20 )10n12 KOD, MAN 9
0n)10 )10n)20 VAN 10
Finally the hourly upper and lower deciles are tabu-
)10n)20 )20n)30 TOW 11 lated in four local-time hour bins and seasons following
)20n)30 )30n)42 BRI,NOR 12 the same standards with ITU-R to make comparison
)30n)40 )42n)50 SLB,CAN 13 easier. Control stations, not included in the analysis are
)40n)50 )50n)60 HOB,CHR 14 used to compare with ITU-R. They were preferentially
)50n)60 )60n70 CLL 15
<)60 <)70 MAW, CAS, SCO 16
taken from regions where many ionospheric stations
>75 >85 THU 1 exist, as evenly distributed as feasible. This step allows
65n75 73n85 RES 2 spatial control of discrepancies between modeled data
55n65 64n73 NAR, COL 3 and measurements. In the validation process hourly
45n55 54n64 OTT,STJ,GOO 4 daily dierences between observed values and modeled
35n45 45n54 BOU 5
25n35 34n45 WHI, PNT 6
(by ITU-R/our model) decile factors are determined.
15n25 22n34 MAU 8 Then, the mean error (ME), as indicator of the overall
0n15 12n22 bias, and the root mean square error (RMSE), as mea-
0n)15 )3n12 HUA 9 sure of the accuracy, are calculated.
)15n)25 )3n)12 TAH 10
)25n)35 )12n)22
)35n)45 )22n)35 CON 12
)45n)55 )35n)46 FOR 13 3. Results and validation
)55n)65 )46n)50
)65n)75 )50n)60 ARI 14 Table 2 presents the outcome of the Ward cluster
<)75 <)60 HAL 15 analysis applied to hourly monthly decile values of
Stations abbreviated (details in Table 1). MUF. Both geographical strips and the corresponding
CML coordinates are reported for each latitudinal strip
lower decile factors per hour and month are derived. Any of each longitudinal sector. Stations are placed accord-
grouping according to the ITU-R standards of the decile ing to their geodetic-latitude strip. The latitudinal strip
factors is avoided at the rst stage of analysis and all bounds have been selected to be integers of 5 geodetic-
comparisons between corresponding decile values of latitude bands. Note that most strips have a width of 10
dierent stations are made on an hourly monthly basis. from mid-latitudes and polewards, but there can be
The Ward Cluster analysis method, known also as strips of 15 or more, around the equatorial zone. The
incremental sum of squares (Seber, 1984) or minimum latitudinal strip pattern is dierent in dierent sectors,
variance clustering method, is applied between the whereas the corresponding CML coordinates frame
corresponding hourly monthly decile values of the sta- seems to present more analogies in each hemisphere and
tions so as to determine, in each sector and hemisphere, thus allow us to make comparisons between latitude
an optimum geodetic-latitude strip pattern. Using this strips of dierent sectors. Therefore, a latitude strip
method we ensure that the changes between dierent number is designated in each strip according to its CML
groups (clusters) of stations are minimized compared to (Table 2). However, CML for Tahiti and Maui stations
the within-group variability (Bradley et al., 1999). is not representative, because they lie at geographic
Comparisons between stations are considered statisti- longitudes about 210 where magnetic eld line cong-
cally safe only when more than 81=2 years of common- uration is much dierent to that of the continental
in-time hourly monthly decile factors are available, i.e., American zone. In any case, northsouth symmetry in
about 50 000 comparisons. Furthermore, lling-up strip pattern formulation is generally not found.
 D.N. Fotiadis et al. / Advances in Space Research 33 (2004) 893901 897

Fig. 1. Diurnal variations (abscissa) of upper and lower MUF decile factors (ordinate) for latitudinal strips (panel number) in three seasons (col-
umns). Full line: American data, heavy dashed line: European data, dashed line: Asian/Australian data. (a) Low solar activity range (R12 < 50), (b)
Medium solar activity range (50 6 R12 6 100), (c) High solar activity range (R12 > 100).
898 D.N. Fotiadis et al. / Advances in Space Research 33 (2004) 893901

Fig. 1 (continued )
D.N. Fotiadis et al. / Advances in Space Research 33 (2004) 893901 899

Fig. 1 (continued )
900 D.N. Fotiadis et al. / Advances in Space Research 33 (2004) 893901

be smaller than the corresponding decile values of the

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of the R{ME} (top) and RMSE, (bottom)
between observed hourly daily values and modeled deciles (by ITUR/
our model). Control stations are not used in the modeling.
Following the procedure described above, new ref-
erence decile MUF values for every longitude sector and
hemisphere are produced. Fig. 1(a)(c) show these for
low, medium and high solar activity and dierent lati-
tude zones, season and LT. It can be seen that upper
decile values in latitude strips 1 and 16 (Table 2), tend to
neighbouring lower latitudes, especially at the 0206 LT
window. The summer MUF decile factors are barely
aected by solar activity level, nearly at all latitudes, and
they present a smooth variation all 24 h at midlatitudes.
Looking for a potential eect of longitude, the 24 h
average root mean square error (rmse) was calculated in
each strip between corresponding calculated decile val-
ues of dierent longitude sectors; that is, the rmse was
rst calculated at each 4 h LT window, for each pair of
dierent sector deciles, and then an overall 24 h average
was produced. Table 3 reports these results for dierent
seasons, solar activity epochs and latitude strips, sepa-
rately for the upper and lower decile. A strong longitude
eect appears for the upper decile in all seasons, hence
not in summer, and in all seasons at equatorial latitudes
(strip No. 9). With the lower deciles we found no lon-
gitude eect, except for CMLs greater than 70, where
some limitations in night measurements exist. The im-
portant overall longitude eect and the mismatch be-
tween geodetic-latitude and CML of some stations
described above might be raised by the use of the
modied dip latitude (Rawer, 1963), which has been
successfully used in CCIR maps.
In view of operational applicability of our new MUF
decile values we adopted the ITU-R (1997) standards for
tabulation of data in time, including 4 h LT windows,
grouping months to seasons and three solar activity

Table 3
Average root mean square error values among corresponding calculated MUF decile values in each latitudinal strip and dierent longitude sectors
Latitudinal R12 < 50 50 6 R12 6 100 R12 < 100
strip no.
WN SM EQ WN SM EQ WN SM EQ
3 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.12 0.02 0.06 0.14 0.05 0.11
4 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.05
5 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.05
6 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02
7 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.04
8 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.03 0.05
9 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.02
10 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.01
12 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.07 0.02 0.09
13 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.05
14 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.06
15 0.17 0.04 0.08 0.22 0.02 0.10 0.24 0.07 0.06

3 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.04

4 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.03
5 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.04
6 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05
7 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.02
8 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04
9 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02
10 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04
12 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.05
13 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.06
14 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.05
15 0.15 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.06
Upper panel for upper deciles; lower for lower decile values.
 D.N. Fotiadis et al. / Advances in Space Research 33 (2004) 893901
ranges. These standards are not here investigated. In
order to test the reliability of our results, the overall
mean error (R{ME}) and the root mean square error
(RMSE) between hourly daily MUF values and deciles
(by ITU-R/our model), were calculated for the control
stations. Fig. 2 shows the spatial distribution of these
indicators. It can be seen that there is an overall cor-
rection of the order of 34% with our model in most
regions, except for America wherefrom ITU-R obtained
its basic data (Davis and Groome, 1964). Furthermore,
there is a clear dierence in the trend of the total mean
error in the Asian sector where ITU error constantly
increases with latitude, from mid-latitude polewards.
The overall correction arises only from the fact that
longitudinal dierences and north-south asymmetries
are apparently not taken into account in ITU-R (1997),
which may be in turn more operationally convenient; the
correction seems important at certain regions, beyond
scaling errors.
4. Conclusions
The calculation of day-to-day MUF decile factors on
a global scale shows that the new gures at specic lon-
gitude sectors are more accurate than those of ITU-R,
currently used by the international radio community.
However, this improvement is achieved by determining
optimum latitude strip sizes in space only, not in time.
Thus, our model is not a viable replacement for the ex-
isting ITU-R reference values at its present formulation.
Acknowledgements
D.N.F. would like to thank Dr. W.H. Campbell for
his extensive discussion and argumentation on geo-
901
magnetic coordinate calculations. Special thanks to Dr.
R.O. Conkright for providing data from the NGDC
database at Boulder, Co. The authors are mostly
grateful to Professor Karl Rawer for his suggestions in
revising, improving the initial material and his encour-
agement to forward this work to publication.
References
Bradley, P., Kutiev, I., Muhtarov, P. Day-to-day variability of the
basic MUF, in: Hanbaba, R., de la Morena, B. (Eds.), COST 251/
Workshop on Procedures and Testing of the Models for Iono-
spheric Telecommunications Application. Universidad de Huelva,
El Arenosillo, Spain, pp. 133156, 1999.
Campbell, W.H. Introduction to Geomagnetic Fields. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997.
Davis, R.M., Groome, N.L. Variations of the 3000 km MUF in time
and space. Nat. Bur. Stds. Tech. Report 8498. US Government
Printing Oce, Washington, DC, 1964.
Hanbaba, R. COST-251 nal report. Space Research Centre, Warsaw,
Poland, Hanbaba, pp. 146147, 1999.
Hanbaba, R. Performance prediction methods of HF radio systems.
Annali di Geosica 41 (56), 715742, 1998.
ITU-R. HF propagation prediction method, Recommendation P.533,
International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, 1997.
Kouris, S.S., Fotiadis, D.N. Ionospheric variability: a comparative
statistical study. Adv. Space Res. 29 (6), 977985, 2002.
Kouris, S.S., Fotiadis, D.N., Hanbaba, R. On the day-to-day variation
of the MUF over Europe. Phys. Chem. Earth (C) 25 (4), 319325,
2000.
Mikhailov, A.V., Marin, D. Geomagnetic control of fo F2 long-term
trends. Annales Geophysicae 18 (6), 653665, 2000.
Rawer, K. Propagation of Decameter Waves (HF Band), in: Land-
mark, B. (Ed.), Meteorological and Astronomical Inuences on
Radio Wave Propagation. Academic Press, New York, pp. 221
250, 1963.
Rush, C.M., Miller, D., Gibbs, J. The relative daily variability of fo F2
and hm F2 and their implications for HF radio propagation. Radio
Sci. 2, 749756, 1974.
Seber, G.A.F. Multivariate Observations. Wiley, New York, 1984.