Investigation of total electron content variability due to seismic and geomagnetic disturbances in the ionosphere

buir.contributor.authorArıkan, Orhan
buir.contributor.orcidArıkan, Orhan|0000-0002-3698-8888
dc.citation.epage12en_US
dc.citation.issueNumber5en_US
dc.citation.spage1en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber45en_US
dc.contributor.authorKaratay S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorArikan, F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorArıkan, Orhanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-08T09:56:04Z
dc.date.available2016-02-08T09:56:04Z
dc.date.issued2010-10-20en_US
dc.departmentDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineeringen_US
dc.description.abstractVariations in solar, geomagnetic, and seismic activity can cause deviations in the ionospheric plasma that can be detected as disturbances in both natural and man-made signals. Total electron content (TEC) is an efficient means for investigating the structure of the ionosphere by making use of GPS receivers. In this study, TEC data obtained for eight GPS stations are compared with each other using the cross-correlation coefficient (CC), symmetric Kullback-Leibler distance (KLD), and L2 norm (L2N) for quiet days of the ionosphere, during severe geomagnetic storms and strong earthquakes. It is observed that only KLD and L2N can differentiate the seismic activity from the geomagnetic disturbance and quiet ionosphere if the stations are in a radius of 340 km. When TEC for each station is compared with an average quiet day TEC for all periods using CC, KLD, and L2N, it is observed that, again, only KLD and L2N can distinguish the approaching seismicity for stations that are within 150 km radius to the epicenter. When the TEC of consecutive days for each station and for all periods are compared, it is observed that CC, KLD, and L2N methods are all successful in distinguishing the geomagnetic disturbances. Using sliding-window statistical analysis, moving averages of daily TEC with estimated variance bounds are also obtained for all stations and for all days of interest. When these bounds are compared with each other for all periods, it is observed that CC, KLD, and L2N are successful tools for detecting ionospheric disturbances.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1029/2009RS004313en_US
dc.identifier.issn0048-6604
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/22140
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishingen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009RS004313en_US
dc.source.titleRadio Scienceen_US
dc.subjectCross-correlation coefficienten_US
dc.subjectEstimated varianceen_US
dc.subjectGeomagnetic disturbanceen_US
dc.subjectGeomagnetic stormen_US
dc.subjectGPS receiversen_US
dc.subjectIonospheric disturbanceen_US
dc.subjectIonospheric plasmasen_US
dc.subjectKullback-Leibler distanceen_US
dc.subjectL2-normen_US
dc.subjectMoving averagesen_US
dc.subjectSeismic activityen_US
dc.subjectSliding-windowen_US
dc.subjectStatistical analysisen_US
dc.subjectTotal electron contenten_US
dc.subjectEarthquakesen_US
dc.subjectGlobal positioning systemen_US
dc.subjectIonosphereen_US
dc.subjectIonospheric measurementen_US
dc.subjectGeomagnetismen_US
dc.titleInvestigation of total electron content variability due to seismic and geomagnetic disturbances in the ionosphereen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Investigation of total electron content variability due to seismic and geomagnetic disturbances in the ionosphere.pdf
Size:
619.74 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Full Printable Version