GPS Solutions

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 219–228 | Cite as

Automated GPS processing for global total electron content data

Original Article

Abstract

A software package known as MIT Automated Processing of GPS (MAPGPS) has been developed to automate the processing of GPS data into global total electron density (TEC) maps. The goal of the MAPGPS software is to produce reliable TEC data automatically, although not yet in real time. Observations are used from all available GPS receivers during all geomagnetic conditions where data has been successfully collected. In this paper, the architecture of the MAPGPS software is described. Particular attention is given to the algorithms used to estimate the individual receiver biases. One of the largest sources of error in estimating TEC from GPS data is the determination of these unknown receiver biases. The MAPGPS approach to solving the receiver bias problem uses three different methods: minimum scalloping, least squares, and zero-TEC. These methods are described in detail, along with their relative performance characteristics. A brief comparison of the JPL and MAPGPS receiver biases is presented, and a possible remaining error source in the receiver bias estimation is discussed. Finally, the Madrigal database, which allows Web access to the MAPGPS TEC data and maps, is described.

References

  1. Blewitt G (1990) An automatic editing algorithm for GPS data. Geophys Res Lett 17(3):199–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coster A, Skone S, Taylor B, Colerico M (2006) Analysis of mid-latitude space weather events and their user impacts. In: Proceedings of ION NTM 2006. Monterey, CA, pp 1028–1035Google Scholar
  3. Coster AJ, Niell AE, Solheim FS, Mendes VB, Toor PC, Buchmann KP, Upham CA (1996) Measurements of precipitable water vapor by GPS, radiosondes, and a microwave water vapor radiometer. In: Proceedings of ION GPS-96, Kansas City, MO, 17–20 September 1996, pp 625–634Google Scholar
  4. Coster AJ, Foster JC, Erickson PJ, Rich FJ (2001) Regional GPS mapping of storm enhanced density during the 15–16 July 2000 geomagnetic storm. In: Proceedings of ION GPS 2001, 11–14 September 2001, Salt Lake City, Utah, pp 2531–2539Google Scholar
  5. Feltens J, Schaer S (1998) IGS products for the ionosphere, In: Proceedings of IGS 1998 analysis center workshop, ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany, February 9–11, pp 225–232Google Scholar
  6. Foster JC, Erickson PJ, Coster AJ, Goldstein J, Rich FJ (2002) Ionospheric signatures of plasmaspheric tails. Geophys Res Lett 29(13). DOI 10.1029/2002GL015067Google Scholar
  7. Foster JC, Coster AJ, Erickson PJ, Rich FJ, Sandel BR (2004), Stormtime observations of the flux of plasmaspheric ions to the dayside cusp/magnetopause. Geophys Res Lett 31. DOI 1029/2004GL020082Google Scholar
  8. Foster JC, Coster AJ, Erickson PJ, Rideout W, Rich FJ, Immel TJ, Sandel BR (2005a) Redistribution of the stormtime ionosphere and the formation of a plasmaspheric bulge, Inner magnetosphere interactions: new perspectives from imaging. Geophys Monograph Ser 159. DOI 10.1029/159GM21Google Scholar
  9. Foster JC, Coster AJ, Erickson PJ, Holt JM, Lind FD, Rideout W, McCready M, van Eyken A, Barnes RJ, Greenwald RA, Rich FJ (2005b), Multiradar observations of the polar tongue of ionization, J Geophys Res 110. DOI 10.1029/2004JA010928Google Scholar
  10. Fuller-Rowell T (2005) USTEC: a new product from the space environment center characterizing the ionospheric total electron content. GPS Solutions 9(3):236–239. DOI 10.1007/s10291-005-0005-5Google Scholar
  11. Gaposchkin EM, Coster AJ (1993) GPS L1–L2 bias determination, Technical Report 971, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 12 January 1993Google Scholar
  12. Hernandez-Pajares M, Juan JM, Sanz J (1999) New approaches in global ionospheric determination using ground GPS data. J Atmos Sol Terr Phy 61:1237–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jursa A (ed) (1985) Handbook of geophysics and the space environment, Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, U.S. Air ForceGoogle Scholar
  14. Komjathy A (1997) Global ionospheric total electron content mapping using the global positioning system. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering Technical Report No. 188, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, 248 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Komjathy A, Langley RB (1996) The effect of shell height on high precision ionospheric modelling using GPS. In: Proceedings of the international GPS service for geodynamics (IGS) workshop in Silver Spring, MD, 19–21 March 1996, pp 193–203Google Scholar
  16. Komjathy A, Sparks L, Wilson BD, Mannucci AJ (2005) Automated daily processing of more than 1,000 ground-based GPS receivers for studying intense ionospheric storms. Radio Sci 40, RS6006. DOI 10.1029/2005RS003279Google Scholar
  17. Lei J, Liu L, Wan W, Zhang S-R, Holt JM (2004) A statistical study of ionospheric profile parameters derived from Millstone Hill incoherent scatter radar measurements. Geophys Res Lett 31(14), L14804. DOI 10.1029/2004GL020578Google Scholar
  18. Lei J, Liu L, Wan W, Zhang S-R (2005) Variations of eletron density based on long-term incoherent scatter radar and ionosonde measurements over Millstone Hill. Radio Sci 40, RS2008. DOI 10.1029/2004RS003106Google Scholar
  19. Mannucci A, Wilson B, Edwards C (1993) A new method for monitoring the earth’s ionospheric total electron content using the GPS global network. In: Proceedings of ION GPS-93, the 6th international technical meeting of the satellite division of The Institute of Navigation, Salt Lake City, UT, 22–24 September 1993, pp 1323–1332Google Scholar
  20. Mannucci AJ, Wilson BD, Yuan DN, Ho CH, Lindqwister UJ, Runge TF (1998) A global mapping technique for GPS-derived ionospheric total electron content measurements. Radio Sci 33(3):565–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nicolls MJ, Kelly MC, Coster AJ, Gonzalez SA, Makela JJ (2004) Imaging the structure of a large-scale TID using ISR and TEC Data. Geophys Res Lett 31, L09812. DOI 10.1029/2004GC 019797Google Scholar
  22. Niell AE, Coster AJ, Solheim FS, Mendes VB, Toor PC, Langley RB, Upham CA (2001) Comparison of measurements of atmospheric wet delay by radiosonde, water vapor radiometer, GPS, and VLBI. J Atmos Ocean Tech 18:830–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Renfro B, Harris RB, Tolman BW, Gaussiran T, Munton D, Little J, Mach R, Nelsen S (2005) The open source GPS toolkit: a review of the first year. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS 2005, the 18th international technical meeting of the satellite division of The Institute of Navigation, Long Beach, CA, 13–16 September 2005, pp 543–551Google Scholar
  24. Sardon E, Rius A, Zarraoa N (1994) Estimation of the transmitter and receiver differential biases and the ionospheric total electron content from global positioning system observations. Radio Science 29(3):577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sica RJ, Richmond AD, Emery BA, Chakrabarti S, Wickwar VB (1988) The CEDAR data base. Eos Trans AGU 69(3):35Google Scholar
  26. Wilson BD, Yinger CH, Feess WA, Shank C (1999) New and improved—the broadcast interfrequency biases. GPS World 10(9):56–66Google Scholar
  27. Zhang S-R, Holt JM, Zalucha AM, Amory-Mazaudier C (2004) Mid-latitude ionospheric plasma temperature climatology and empirical model based on Saint Santin incoherent scatter radar data from 1966–1987. J Geophys Res 109, A11311. DOI 10.1029/2004JA010709Google Scholar
  28. Zhang S-R, Holt JM, van Eyken AP, McCready M, Amory-Mazaudier C, Fukao S, Sulzer M (2005) Ionospheric local model and climatology from long-term databases of multiple incoherent scatter radars. Geophys Res Lett 32, L20102. DOI 10.1029/2005GL023603Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MIT Haystack Observatory, Atmospheric SciencesWestfordUSA

Personalised recommendations