Journal of Geodesy

, Volume 85, Issue 12, pp 965–974 | Cite as

A new global TEC model for estimating transionospheric radio wave propagation errors

  • N. JakowskiEmail author
  • M. M. Hoque
  • C. Mayer
Original Article


Space-based navigation and radar systems operating at single frequencies of <10 GHz require ionospheric corrections of the signal delay or range error. Because this ionospheric propagation error is proportional to the total electron content of the ionosphere along the ray path, a user friendly TEC model covering global scale and all levels of solar activity should be helpful in various applications. Since such a model is not available yet, we present an empirical model approach that allows determining global TEC very easily. Although the number of model coefficients and parameters is rather small, the model describes main ionospheric features with good quality. Presented is the empirical approach describing dependencies on local time, geographic/geomagnetic location and solar irradiance and activity. The non-linear approach needs only 12 coefficients and a few empirically fixed parameters for describing the broad spectrum of TEC variation at all levels of solar activity. The model approach is applied on high-quality global TEC data derived by the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE) at the University of Berne over more than half a solar cycle (1998–2007). The model fits to these input data with a negative bias of 0.3 TECU and a RMS deviation of 7.5 TECU. As other empirical models too, the proposed Global Neustrelitz TEC Model NTCM-GLis climatological, i.e. the model describes the average behaviour under quiet geomagnetic conditions. During severe space weather events the actual TEC data may deviate from the model values considerably by more than 100%. A preliminary comparison with independent data sets as TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data reveals similar results for NeQuick and NTCM-GL with RMS deviations in the order of 5 and 11 TECU (1 TECU = 1016 electrons/m2) for low and high-solar activity conditions, respectively. The more extended data base of ionosphere information that accumulates in the coming years will help in further improving the set of coefficients of the model.


Ionosphere Total electron content Empirical model GNSS 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aster RC, Borchers B, Thurber CH (2005) Nonlinear regression. In: Dmowska R, Holton J, Rossby HT (eds) Parameter estimation and inverse problems. Elsevier, USA, ISBN:0-12-065604-3Google Scholar
  2. Batista IS, de Souza JR, Abdu MA, de Paula ER (1994) Total electron content at low latitudes and its comparison with the IRI90. Adv. Space Res. 14: 87–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bent RB, Llewllyn SK, Schmid PE (1972) Ionospheric refraction corrections in satellite tracking. Space Res 12: 1186–1194Google Scholar
  4. Bilitza D (2001) International reference ionosphere 2000. Radio Sci 36: 261–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown LD, Daniell JE, Fox MW Jr, Klobuchar JA, Doherty P (1991) Evaluation of six ionospheric models as predictors of total electron content. Radio Sci 26: 1007–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coisson P, Radicella SM, Leitinger R, Nava B (2006) Topside electron density in IRI and NeQuick: features and limitations. Adv Space Res 37: 937–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hochegger G, Nava B, Radicella SM, Leitinger R (2000) A family of ionospheric models for different uses, physics and chemistry of the earth. Part C: solar. Terrestrial Planet Sci 25(4): 307–310Google Scholar
  8. Hugentobler U, Schaer S, Springer T, Beutler G, Bock H, Dach R, Ineichen D, Mervart1 L, Rothacher M, Wild U, Wiget A, Brockmann E, Weber G, Habrich H, Boucher C (2000) CODE IGS Analysis Center Technical Report 2000Google Scholar
  9. ICD-GPS-200 (1993) Revision C, Navstar GPS Space Segment/Navigation User Interfaces. 10 October 1993Google Scholar
  10. Jakowski N, Paasch E (1984) Report on the observations of the total electron content of the ionosphere in Neustrelitz/GDR from 1976 to 1980. Ann Geophys 2: 501–504Google Scholar
  11. Jakowski N (1996) TEC monitoring by using satellite positioning systems. In: Kohl H, Ruester R, Schlegel K (eds) Modern ionospheric science. EGS, Katlenburg-Lindau, ProduServ GmbH Verlagsservice, Berlin, pp 371–390Google Scholar
  12. Jakowski N, Sardon E, Schlueter S (1998) GPS-based TEC observations in comparison with IRI95 and the European TEC model NTCM2. Adv Space Res 22: 803–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jakowski N, Stankov SM, Klaehn D (2005) Operational space weather service for GNSS precise positioning. Ann Geophys 23: 3071–3079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jakowski N, Mayer C, Missling KD, Becker C, Borries C, Daedelow H, Dubey S, Noack T, Tegler M, Wilken V (2008) Space weather application center ionosphere—new capabilities for GNSS users. In: Proceedings of the fifth European space weather week, 17–21 November 2008, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  15. Klobuchar J (1987) Ionospheric time-delay algorithm for single frequency GPS users. In: IEEE transactions on aerospace and electronic systems, AES-23, pp 325–332Google Scholar
  16. Leitinger R, Zhang ML, Radicella SM (2005) An improved bottomside for the ionospheric electron density model NeQuick. Ann Geophys 48(3): 525–534Google Scholar
  17. Mazella AJ Jr, Holland EA, Andreasen AM, Andreasen CC, Rao GS, Bishop J (2002) Autonomous estimation of plasmasphere content using GPS measurements. Radio Sci 37: 1092–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nava B, Coisson P, Radicella SM (2008) A new version of the NeQuick ionosphere electron density model. JASTP 1856-1862Google Scholar
  19. Radicella SM, Leitinger R (2001) The evolution of the DGR approach to model electron density profiles. Adv Space Res 27: 35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sardon E, Rius A, Zarraoa N (1994) Estimation of the receiver differential biases and the ionospheric total electron content from global positioning system observations. Radio Sci 29: 577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schaer S, Beutler G, Rothacher M (1998) Mapping and predicting the ionosphere. In: Dow JM, Kouba J, Springer T (eds) Proceedings of the 1998 IGS analysis center workshop, Darmstadt, February 9–11, 1998, pp 307–318, ESA/ESOC, Darmstadt, 1998Google Scholar
  22. Seber GAF, Wild CJ (1989) Unconstrained optimization. In: Nonlinear regression. Wiley, New Jersey, ISBN:0-471-47135-6Google Scholar
  23. Space Weather Application Center Ionosphere (SWACI).

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Communications and NavigationGerman Aerospace CenterNeustrelitzGermany

Personalised recommendations