Journal of Geodesy

, Volume 90, Issue 8, pp 741–755 | Cite as

A new computerized ionosphere tomography model using the mapping function and an application to the study of seismic-ionosphere disturbance

  • Jian Kong
  • Yibin Yao
  • Lei Liu
  • Changzhi Zhai
  • Zemin Wang
Original Article
  • 385 Downloads

Abstract

A new algorithm for ionosphere tomography using the mapping function is proposed in this paper. First, the new solution splits the integration process into four layers along the observation ray, and then, the single-layer model (SLM) is applied to each integration part using a mapping function. Next, the model parameters are estimated layer by layer with the Kalman filtering method by introducing the scale factor (SF) \(\gamma \) to solve the ill-posed problem. Finally, the inversed images of different layers are combined into the final CIT image. We utilized simulated data from 23 IGS GPS stations around Europe to verify the estimation accuracy of the new algorithm; the results show that the new CIT model has better accuracy than the SLM in dense data areas and the CIT residuals are more closely grouped. The stability of the new algorithm is discussed by analyzing model accuracy under different error levels (the max errors are 5TECU, 10TECU, 15TECU, respectively). In addition, the key preset parameter, SF\(\gamma \), which is given by the International Reference Ionosphere model (IRI2012). The experiment is designed to test the sensitivity of the new algorithm to SF variations. The results show that the IRI2012 is capable of providing initial SF values. Also in this paper, the seismic-ionosphere disturbance (SID) of the 2011 Japan earthquake is studied using the new CIT algorithm. Combined with the TEC time sequence of Sat.15, we find that the SID occurrence time and reaction area are highly related to the main shock time and epicenter. According to CIT images, there is a clear vertical electron density upward movement (from the 150-km layer to the 450-km layer) during this SID event; however, the peak value areas in the different layers were different, which means that the horizontal movement velocity is not consistent among the layers. The potential physical triggering mechanism is also discussed in this paper. Compared with the SLM, the RMS of the new CIT model is improved by 16.78%, while the CIT model could provide the three-dimensional variation in the ionosphere.

Keywords

Mapping function Computerized ionosphere tomography  Kalman filtering Seismic-ionosphere disturbance TEC variation sequence Electric field effect 

References

  1. Alizadeh MM, Schuh H, Schmidt M (2015) Ray tracing technique for global 3-D modeling of ionospheric electron density using GNSS measurements. Radio Sci 50:539–553Google Scholar
  2. Avinash CK, Malcolm S (1988) Principles of computerized tomographic imaging, pp 275–296Google Scholar
  3. Bhuyan K, Singh SB, Bhuyuan PK (2002) Tomographic reconstruction of the ionosphere using generalized singular value decomposition. Curr Sci 83(9):1117–1120Google Scholar
  4. Bilitza D, McKinnell LA, Reinisch B, Fuller-Rowell T (2011) The international reference ionosphere (IRI) today and in the future. J Geod 85:909–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bilitza D, Brown SA, Wang MY, Souza JR, Roddy PA (2012) Measurements and IRI model predictions during the recent solar minimum. J Atmos Solar-Terr Phys 86:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyarchuk KA, Lomonosov AM, Pulinets SA (1997) Electrode effect as an earthquake precursor. BRAS Phys Suppl Phys Vib 61(3):175–179Google Scholar
  7. Brunini C, Meza A, Azpilicueta F, Zele MAV, Gende M, Alejandro D (2004) A new ionosphere monitoring technology based on GPS. Astrophysics and space science, pp 415–429Google Scholar
  8. Cervone G, Maekawa S, Singh RP, Hayakawa M, Kafatos M, Shvets A (2006) Surface latent heat flux and nighttime LF anomalies prior to the Mw = 8.3 Tokachi-Oki earthquake. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 6:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dautermann T, Calais E, Haase J, Garrison J (2007) Investigation of ionospheric electron content variations before earthquakes in southern California, 2003–2004. J Geophys Res 112:B02106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies K, Baker D (1965) Ionospheric effects observed around the time of the Alaskan earthquake of March 28. J Geophys Res 70(9):2251–2253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gao Y, Liu ZZ (2002) Precise ionosphere modeling using regional GPS network data. J Glob Position Syst 1(1):18–24Google Scholar
  12. Hajj GA, Ibañez-Meier R, Kursinski ER, Romans LJ (1994) Imaging the ionosphere with the global positioning system, edited, pp 174–187Google Scholar
  13. Hansen AJ (1998) Real-time ionospheric tomography using terrestrial GPS sensors. Proc Inst Nav GPS 98:717–727Google Scholar
  14. Hao YQ, Xiao Z, Zhang DH (2013) Teleseismic magnetic effects (TMDs) of 2011 Tohoku earthquake. J Geophys Res Space Phys 118(6):3914–3923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heki K, Enomoto Y (2013) Preseismicionospheric electron enhancements revisited. J Geophys Res Space Phys 118:6618–6626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hernandez-Pajares M, Juan JM, Sanz J (1999) New approaches in global ionospheric determination using ground GPS data. J Atmos Solar-Terr Phys 61(16):1237–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hernández-Pajares M, Juan JM, Sanz J, García-Fernández M (2005) Towards a more realistic ionospheric mapping function. XXVIII URSI General Assembly, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  18. Hernández-Pajares M. et al. (2010) Section 9.4 Ionospheric model for radio techniques of chapter 9, Models for atmospheric propagation delays of IERS conventions 2010. In: Petit G, Luzum B (eds) IERS Technical Note No. 36. Verlag des Bundesamts fur Kartographie und Geodasie, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  19. Howe BM, Runciman K, Secan JA (1998) Tomography of the ionosphere: four-dimensional simulations. Radio Sci 33(1):109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jin SG, Jin R, Li JH (2014) Pattern and evolution of seismo-ionospheric disturbances following the 2011 Tohoku earthquakes from GPS observations. J Geophys Res Space Phys 119(9):7914–7927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jin SG, Occhipinti G, Jin R (2015) GNSS ionospheric seismology: recent observation evidences and characteristics. Earth-Sci Rev 147:54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kon S, Nishihashi M, Hattori K (2011) Ionospheric anomalies possibly associated with M\(\ge \)6.0 earthquakes in the Japan area during 1998–2010: Case studies and statistical study. J Asian Earth Sci 41(4–5):410–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuo CL, Lee LC, Huba JD (2014) An improved coupling model for thelithosphere–atmosphere–ionosphere system. J Geophys Res Space Phys 119:3189–3205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leonard RS, Barnes RA (1965) Observation of ionospheric disturbances following the Alaska earthquake. J Geophys Res 70:1250–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Limberger M, Liang W, Schmidt M, Dettmering D, Hugentobler U (2013) Regional representation of F2 Chapman parameters based on electron density profiles. Ann Geophys 31(12):2215–2227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu JY, Chen YI, Chuo YJ, Chen CS (2006) A statistical investigation of pre earthquake ionospheric anomaly. J Geophys Res 111(A5):1–5Google Scholar
  27. Liu JY, Tsai HF, Lin CH, Kamogawa M, Chen YI, Huang BS, Yu SB, Yeh YH (2010) Coseismicionospheric disturbances triggered by the Chi-Chi earthquake. J Geophys Res 115(A8):1–12Google Scholar
  28. Maruyama T, Tsugawa T, Kato H, Saito A, Otsuka Y, Nishioka M (2011) Ionospheric multiple stratifications and irregularities induced by the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake. Earth Planets Space 63:869–873Google Scholar
  29. Nesterov IA, Kunitsyn VE (2011) GNSS radio tomography of the ionosphere: the problem with essentially incomplete data. Adv Space Res 47(10):1789–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oyama KI, Kakinami Y, Liu JY, Kamogawa M, Kodama T (2008) Reduction of electron temperature in lowlatitude ionosphere at 600 km before and after large earthquakes. J Geophys Res 113:A11317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pryse SE, Kersley L (1992) A preliminary experimental test of ionospheric tomography. J Atmos Terr Phys 54(7–8):1007–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pulinets SA, Boyarchuk KA, Hegai VV, Kim VP, Lomonosov AM (2000) Quasielectrostatic model of atmosphere–thermosphere–ionosphere coupling. Adv Space Res 26(8):1209–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pulinets S, Boyarchuk K (2004) Ionospheric precursors of earthquakes. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. Rius A, Ruffini G, Cucurull L (1997) Improving the vertical resolution of ionospheric tomography with GPS occultations. Geophys Res Lett 24(18):2291–2294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saroso S, Liu JY, Hattori K, Chen CH (2008) Ionospheric GPS TEC anomalies and M \(\ge \) 5.9 earthquakes in Indonesia during 1993–2002. Terr Atmos Ocean Sci 19(5):481–488Google Scholar
  36. Schmidt M, Bilitza D, Shum CK, Zeilhofer C (2008) Regional 4-D modeling of the ionospheric electron density. Adv Space Res 42(4):782–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stolle C, Schluter S, Jacobi C, Jakowski N (2003) 3-Dimensional ionospheric electron density reconstruction based on GPS measurements. Integr Space Geod Syst Satell Dyn 31(8):1965–1970Google Scholar
  38. Wen D, Wang Y, Norman R (2012) A new two-step algorithm for ionospheric tomography solution. GPS Solut 16(1):89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yao YB, Chen P, Zhang S, Chen JJ, Yan F, Peng WF (2010) Analysis of pre-earthquake ionospheric anomalies before the global M = 7.0+ earthquakes in 2010. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12(3):575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yao YB, Kong J, Tang J (2015) A new ionosphere tomography algorithm with two-grids virtual observations constraints and 3D velocity profile [J]. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 53(5):2373–2383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yavuz E, Ar\(\imath \)kan F, Arikan O (2005) A hybrid reconstruction algorithm for computerized ionospheric tomography. In: Proceedings of RAST-2005. Recent advances in space research, HarbiyeAskeriMuze, HavaHarbOkulu, Istanbul, pp 782–787Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jian Kong
    • 1
  • Yibin Yao
    • 2
  • Lei Liu
    • 2
  • Changzhi Zhai
    • 2
  • Zemin Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Chinese Antarctic Center of Surveying and MappingWuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.School of Geodesy and GeomaticsWuhan UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations