2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.06.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Total electron content anomalies associated with earthquakes occurred during 1998–2019

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The monitoring of solar activity and geomagnetic storms is very important in earthquake precursory study to distinguish the earthquake induced anomaly from geomagnetic storm. There are several reports about the association of TEC anomalies with geomagnetic storms (e.g., Shah et al, 2020a;Shah et al, 2020b;Shah et al, 2020c;Tariq et al, 2020). We observed ionospheric anomaly at Iqqe and Antc stations on December 21, 2016 (4 days before main shock) against Kp>3 geomagnetic storm and anomalous TEC value at Sant station occurred on December 18, 2016 (Figure 3c).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…The monitoring of solar activity and geomagnetic storms is very important in earthquake precursory study to distinguish the earthquake induced anomaly from geomagnetic storm. There are several reports about the association of TEC anomalies with geomagnetic storms (e.g., Shah et al, 2020a;Shah et al, 2020b;Shah et al, 2020c;Tariq et al, 2020). We observed ionospheric anomaly at Iqqe and Antc stations on December 21, 2016 (4 days before main shock) against Kp>3 geomagnetic storm and anomalous TEC value at Sant station occurred on December 18, 2016 (Figure 3c).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…The range error in GPS signal is proportional to the integral of electron density (TEC) along the ray path. The TEC taken from the ground-based Sukkur station of GPS can be explained as TEC is measured in units' of 10 16 electrons meter per square area, where 1 TEC unit (TECU) = 10 16 el/m² (Shah et al, 2020a;Shah et al, 2020b;Shah et al, 2020c).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here f1 and f2 are carrier phase frequencies of GNSS, P and L are the pseudo-range and carrier phase observation of delay path of GNSS signal, λ is the wavelength of GNSS signal, N is the ambiguity of GNSS signal, b is the instrumental biases, d is the differential code bias, €is the random residual along the ray path. R is the Earth's radius, H is the height of the top layer of the ionosphere in atmospheric altitude, and Z is the satellite elevation angle for pierce point (Shah et al 2020a).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are several studies on ionospheric and atmospheric anomalies associated with different EQs by utilizing ground and satellite measurements (Afraimovich et al, 2010;Davidenko & Pulinets, 2019;Hayakawa & Molchanov, 2002;Kiyani et al, 2020;Ouzounov et al, 2007;Shah et al, 2019a, b). Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)-based EQ anomalies provide more information by analyzing different delays (e.g., ionosphere and troposphere) earlier to EQ and subsequently to the event within the preparation zone (Marchetti et al, 2020;Shah & Jin, 2015;Shah et al, 2020a;Tariq et al, 2019). Similarly, atmospheric anomalies are also reported in different studies above the epicenter and associated fault lineaments consequent to the emanation of huge energy during the EQ preparation period (Dey et al, 2004;Gorny et al, 2020;Jiao et al, 2018; Abstract Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)based Earthquake (EQ) anomalies in the ionosphere and troposphere provide explicit evidences to study the coupling between seismic events, atmosphere, and ionosphere in epicentral breeding regions consequent to the EQ day in the preparation period.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%