Journal of Geodesy

, Volume 80, Issue 8–11, pp 487–495 | Cite as

Total Electron Content Variations Observed by a DORIS Station During the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake

Original Article

Abstract

For about 40 years, ionospheric variations [including total electron content (TEC)] have been observed from time to time during large earthquakes. The TEC is the integrated electron density between a ground beacon and a satellite. It is a by-product of the International DORIS Service (IDS), which is also used for precise orbit determination of altimetric satellites. This paper reports the study of TEC variations observed by the DORIS station Cibinong, Indonesia (CICB, latitude: 6.48°S; longitude: 106.85°E) at the time of the Sumatra–Andaman earthquake (magnitude 9.2), which occurred on December 26, 2004. Numerous and intense aftershocks followed for several months after the main shock. An analysis was done to compare the variation of the TEC intensity observed by several satellites with the occurrence of these earthquakes. For comparison, the same study was also performed for another earthquake occurred very close to CICB but at a very different time. The main result is that the DORIS data show a TEC perturbation during night time close to the epicenter prior to the main Sumatra–Andaman earthquake event.

Keywords

Ionosphere Total electron content (TEC) DORIS Earthquake Sumatra–Andaman 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Calais E, Minster JB (1995) GPS detection of ionospheric TEC perturbations following the January 17, 1994, Northridge Earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 22:1045–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cress GO, Brady BT, Rowell GA (1987) Sources of electromagnetic radiation from fracture of rock samples in the laboratory. Geophys Res Lett 14:331–335Google Scholar
  3. Davies K, Baker DM (1965) Ionospheric effects observed around the time of the Alaskan earthquake of March 28 1964. J Geophys Res 70:2251–2253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dobrovolsky IR, Zubkov SI, Myachkin VI (1979) Estimation of the size of earthquake preparation zones. Pageoph 117:1025–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ducic V, Artru J, Lognonne P (2003) Ionospheric remote sensing of the Denali Earthquake Rayleigh surface waves. Geophys Res Lett 30(18):1951, doi 10.1029/2003GL017812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fleury R, Foucher F, Lassudrie-Duchesne P (1991) Global TEC measurement capabilities of the DORIS system. Adv Space Res 11(10):51–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hayakawa M, Molchanov OA, Biagi P, Vallianatos F (eds) (2004) Seismo electromagnetics and related phenomena. Special Issue of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 29(4–9)Google Scholar
  8. Lay T, Kanamori, Ammon CJ, Nettles M, Ward SN, Aster RC, Beck SL, Bilek SL, Brudzinski MR, Butler R, DeShon HR, Ekstrom G, Satake K, Sipkin S (2005) The great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake of 26 December 2004. Science 308(5725):1127–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leonard RS, Barnes Jr RA (1965) Observations of ionospheric disturbances following the Alaska earthquake. J Geophys Res 70:1250–1253Google Scholar
  10. Li F, Parrot M (2006) Study of the TEC data obtained from the DORIS stations in relation with the seismic activity. Ann Geophys (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Liu JY, Chen YI, Pulinets SA, Tsai YB, Chuo YJ (2000) Seismo-ionospheric signatures prior to M≥ 6.0 Taiwan earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 27:3113–3116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu JY, Chuo YJ, Pulinets SA, Tsai HF, Zeng XP (2002) A study on the TEC perturbations prior to the Rei-Li, Chi-Chi and Cgia-Yi earthquakes. In: Hayakawa M, Molchanov OA (eds) Seismo electromagnetics (lithosphere-atmosphere-ionosphere coupling). Terrapub, Tokyo, pp 297–301Google Scholar
  13. Liu JY, Chuo YJ, Shan SJ, Tsai YB, Chen YI, Pulinets SA, Yu SB (2004) Pre-earthquake ionospheric anomalies registered by continuous GPS TEC measurements. Ann Geophys 22:1585–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meloni A, Spichak VV, Uyeda S (eds) (2004) Magnetic, electric and electromagnetic methods in seismology and volcanology. Ann Geophys 47(1)Google Scholar
  15. Molchanov OA, Hayakawa M, Miyaki K (2001) VLF/LF sounding of the lower ionosphere to study the role of atmospheric oscillations in the lithosphere-ionosphere coupling. Adv Polar Upper Atmos Res 15:146–158Google Scholar
  16. Ogawa T, Oike K, Miura T (1985) Electromagnetic radiations from rocks. J Geophys Res 90:6245Google Scholar
  17. Parrot M (2002) The micro-satellite DEMETER. J Geodynamics 33:535–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pulinets SA (2004) Ionospheric precursors of earthquakes; recent advances in theory and practical applications, terrestrial, atmospheric and oceanic sciences 15(3):413–435Google Scholar
  19. Pulinets SA, Boyarchuk KA (2004) Ionospheric precursors of earthquakes. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Pulinets SA, Liu JY, Safronova IA (2004) Interpretation of a statistical analysis of variations in the foF2 critical frequency before earthquakes based on data from Chung-Li ionospheric station (Taiwan). Geomagnet Aeronomy 44(1):102–106Google Scholar
  21. Shvets AV, Hayakawa M, Maekawa S (2004) Results of subionospheric radio LF monitoring prior to the Tokachi (M=8, Hokkaido, 25 September 2003) earthquake. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:647–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sorokin VM, Chmyrev VM (1999) Modification of the ionosphere by seismic related electric field in atmospheric and ionospheric electromagnetic phenomena associated with earthquakes. In: Hayakawa M (ed) Terrapub, Tokyo, pp 805–809Google Scholar
  23. Sorokin VM, Yaschenko AK (2000) Electric field disturbance in the Earth-Ionosphere layer. Adv Space Res 26(8):1219–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sorokin VM, Chmyrev VM, Yaschenko AK (2005a) Theoretical model of DC electric field formation in the ionosphere stimulated by seismic activity. J Atmos Solar-Terrestr Phys 67:1259–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sorokin VM, Yaschenko AK, Chmyrev VM, Hayakawa M (2005b) DC electric field amplification in the mid-latitude ionosphere over seismically active faults. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:661–666Google Scholar
  26. Tavernier G, Granier JP, Jayles C, Sengenes P, Rozo F (2003) The current evolutions of the DORIS system. Adv Space Res 31(8):1947–1952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tavernier G, Fagard H, Feissel-Vernier M, Lemoine F, Noll C, Ries J, Soudarin L, Willis P (2005) The International DORIS Service (IDS). Advances in Space Research 36(3):333–341, DOI:10.1016/j.asr.2005.03.102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tsai YB, Liu JY (eds) (2004) Special issue on Earthquake precursors of terrestrial, atmospheric and oceanic sciences, 15(3)Google Scholar
  29. Vigny C, Simons WJF, Abu S, Bamphenyu R, Satirapod C, Choosakul N, Subary C, Socquet A, Omar K, Abidin HZ, Ambrosius BAC (2005) Insight into the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake from GPS measurements in Southeast Asia. Nature 436(7048):201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Willis P, Haines B, Berthias JP, Sengenes P, le Mouël JL (2004) Behavior of the DORIS/Jason oscillator over the South Atlantic Anomaly. C R Geoscience 336(9):839–846, DOI:10.1016/j.crte.2004/01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l’EnvironnementCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueOrléans Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations