International reference ionosphere — past, present, and future: II. Plasma temperatures, ion composition and ion drift

Bilitza, D.; Rawer, K.; Bossy, L.; Gulyaeva, T.L.

doi:10.1016/0273-1177(93)90241-3

Cited by 31 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effect on the electron profile is that at this altitude, the gradient (of the vertical distribution) generally increases sharply because of the different scale heights of the ingredient O + and H + ion profiles, and thus denoting the beginning of the plasmasphere. It is possible to obtain UTL values from empirical models [Bilitza et al, 1993;Kutiev et al, 1994].…”

Section: Mathematical Formulation: General Problem Definition and Ovementioning

confidence: 99%

A new method for reconstruction of the vertical electron density distribution in the upper ionosphere and plasmasphere

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Ground-based ionosphere sounding measurements alone are incapable of reliably modeling the topside electron density distribution above the F layer peak density height. Such information can be derived from Global Positioning System (GPS)-based total electron content (TEC) measurements. A novel technique is presented for retrieving the electron density height profile from three types of measurements: ionosonde ( f o F 2 , f o E, M 3000 F 2 , h m f 2 ), TEC (GPS-based), and O + -H + ion transition level. The method employs new formulae based on Chapman, sech-squared, and exponential ionosphere profilers to construct a system of equations, the solution of which system provides the unknown ion scale heights, sufficient to construct a unique electron density profile at the site of measurements. All formulae are based on the assumption of diffusive equilibrium with constant scale height for each ion species. The presented technique is most suitable for middle-and high-geomagnetic latitudes and possible applications include: development, evaluation, and improvement of theoretical and empirical ionospheric models, development of similar reconstruction methods utilizing low-earth-orbiting satellite measurements of TEC, operational reconstruction of the electron density on a real-time basis, etc.

show abstract

Section: Mathematical Formulation: General Problem Definition and Ovementioning

confidence: 99%

A new method for reconstruction of the vertical electron density distribution in the upper ionosphere and plasmasphere

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since its conception in 1970s, International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) is one of the most acclaimed climatic models of ionosphere. IRI was initiated as a joint task force of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) and the International Union of Radio Science (URSI; Bilitza et al, 1993aBilitza et al, , 1993bBilitza, 2001;Bilitza et al, 2011;Rawer et al, 1978). With the input of user-defined location, date and time, the IRI model provides In the literature, a large number of studies have compared the performance of IRI model parameters with the ionosonde foF2 and hmF2 which usually compare the IRI outputs with ionosonde data for a limited number of ionosonde stations or for a limited time duration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of IRI‐2016 F2 Layer Model Parameters with Ionosonde Measurements

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) is the international standard ionospheric climatic model. Since the original formation of the international task force in 1970s, the IRI model has been continuously improved by ingesting developments in research in ionosphere. The most current version, namely, IRI‐2016, is offered with International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) and International Union of Radio Science (URSI) model choices with “STORM” option for the F2 layer critical plasma frequency (foF2) and BSE‐1979, AMTB‐2013, and SHU‐2015 options for maximum ionization height, hmF2. Since these two parameters are the determining values for the other model outputs, the evaluation of the options offered by IRI‐2016 is critical for various applications. In this study, all foF2 and hmF2 model options offered online at http://irimodel.org are computed for winter and summer solstice and equinox seasons of 2011 and 2015 at the locations of all available ionosondes and for all measurement intervals. The ionosondes are grouped into northern and southern midlatitude, northern and southern high‐latitude and equatorial regions. Individual, regional and global model output foF2 and hmF2 values are compared with those of ionosondes in both root‐mean‐square (RMS) and normalized RMS (NRMS) senses. For foF2, “STORM ON” can be used any time and in any region. Equatorial and high‐latitude regions have larger RMS values due to the sparse ionosondes. In northern midlatitude and high‐latitude regions URSI, in all other regions CCIR is the better option. For hmF2, SHU‐2015 and BSE‐1979 options provide a better fit for all regions, seasons, and years.

show abstract

“…In order to simulate dual frequency GPS observations it is necessary to model the ionospheric delay and the transmitter and receiver IFBs. To make these realistic the IRI‐95 model, Bilitza et al [1993], was used to calculate the satellite‐to‐receiver differential delay and the biases were modeled using those calculated by CODE (http://www.aiub.unibe.ch/). IRI‐95 is an established climatological model of the ionosphere.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

GPS interfrequency biases and total electron content errors in ionospheric imaging over Europe

Dear

Mitchell

2006

Radio Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Measurements from the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites provide a valuable source of information about the ionosphere in the form of integrations of electron concentration. The slant total electron content (TEC) through the ionosphere can be estimated for specific satellite-to-ground paths using the two GPS frequencies and knowledge of the dispersive properties of the ionosphere. However, these TEC values are in error because of the interfrequency biases of the satellites and receivers. In order to assess the accuracy of TEC in the ionospheric images, the determination of interfrequency biases must be studied. This paper addresses the determination of the magnitudes of these biases for individual GPS satellites paired with GPS receivers in Europe using the ionospheric imaging tool Multi-instrument Data Analysis System (MIDAS). This is done so that the accuracy of the TEC in the ionospheric images can be assessed. A simulation study was undertaken to verify the approach, then experimental results were compared with independent values of the biases calculated by the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe. Experimental results reveal that changes in the biases can be related directly to documented changes in receiver hardware. They allow an estimate of the receiver biases and hence the error in TEC estimation using GPS data.Citation: Dear, R. M., and C. N. Mitchell (2006), GPS interfrequency biases and total electron content errors in ionospheric imaging over Europe, Radio Sci., 41, RS6007,

show abstract

International reference ionosphere — past, present, and future: II. Plasma temperatures, ion composition and ion drift

Cited by 31 publications

References 47 publications

A new method for reconstruction of the vertical electron density distribution in the upper ionosphere and plasmasphere

A new method for reconstruction of the vertical electron density distribution in the upper ionosphere and plasmasphere

Comparison of IRI‐2016 F2 Layer Model Parameters with Ionosonde Measurements

GPS interfrequency biases and total electron content errors in ionospheric imaging over Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About