Relating Far‐Field Coseismic Ionospheric Disturbances to Geological Structures

Liu, Haitao; Zhang, Keke; Imtiaz, Nadia; Song, Quanbin; Zhang, Ying

doi:10.1029/2021ja029209

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for the relatively slow signal with an apparent The hodochrones depicted in Figure 2c-e represent the relationship of distance between the sub-ionospheric points (SIPs) and the epicenter versus time. During the 2014 M w 8.2 Iquique event (Figure 2c), the horizontal velocities of CIDs were about 2.5 km/s, 1.1 km/s, and 0.313 km/s, associated with the Rayleigh wave, acoustic gravity wave, and gravity wave, respectively [34][35][36][37]. As for the relatively slow signal with an apparent speed of 0.55 km/s, it may be related to the dispersive signature of the acoustic wave [38,39], with a decreasing trend in speed over time.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid Tsunami Potential Assessment Using GNSS Ionospheric Disturbance: Implications from Three Megathrusts

Chen

Chai

et al. 2022

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current tsunami early warning systems always issue alarms once large undersea earthquakes are detected, inevitably resulting in false warnings since there are no deterministic scaling relations between earthquake size and tsunami potential. In this paper, we assess tsunami potential by analyzing co-seismic ionospheric disturbances (CIDs). We examined CIDs of three megathrusts (the 2014 Mw 8.2 Iquique, the 2015 Mw 8.3 Illapel, and the recent 2021 Mw 8.2 Alaska events) as detected by Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) observations. We found that CIDs near the epicenter generated by the 2021 Mw 8.2 Alaska event were significantly weaker than those of the two Chilean events, despite having similar earthquake magnitudes. The propagation direction of CIDs from the Mw 8.2 Alaska earthquake further revealed ruptures toward the deeper seismogenic zone, implying less seafloor uplift and hazardous flooding. Our work sheds light on incorporating GNSS-based CIDs for more trustworthy tsunami warning systems.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid Tsunami Potential Assessment Using GNSS Ionospheric Disturbance: Implications from Three Megathrusts

Chen

Chai

et al. 2022

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rayleigh waves have also been observed in TEC data from large earthquakes such as the 2011 Tohoku earthquake [54] with magnitudes generally above M w = 7 [10]. TEC signatures of Rayleigh waves are also sensitive to average crustal and mantle structures as illustrated by observations above sedimentary basin [55] or above the the Indian subcontinent [56]. Yet, dispersion curves are challenging to extract in TEC data owing to the signals' low SNR at high frequencies.…”

Section: Subsurface Structure Inversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probing a planet from the subsurface to the atmosphere with infrasound data

Froment,

Brissaud,

Näsholm

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The analysis of infrasound waves has a significant potential for retrieving a range of geophysical parameters across various scales, such as atmospheric structures, characteristics of surface and buried sources, and seismic velocity structures. This potential was recently showcased in infrasound studies that illustrated the ability to retrieve Earth’s shallow velocities and Mars’ near-surface atmospheric winds from remote acoustic observations. Consequently, infrasound is becoming an essential component of planetary missions, providing insights into the interiors and atmospheres of other terrestrial planets in the solar system. However, utilizing infrasound data requires efficient forward wave simulation techniques and an accurate description of waveform sensitivity to source and medium parameters. Even under ideal conditions, many inverse problems associated with infrasound-based probing are inherently ill-posed, necessitating regularization or other approaches to ensure reliable results. In this contribution, we highlight recent seismo-acoustic research findings, addressing atmospheric probing at both smaller and global scales, as well as innovative methods to accelerate infrasonic wave propagation modeling.

show abstract

“…The CIDs in the far‐field following the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake were perpendicular to the direction of the fault rupture (NE‐SW) (Zhao & Hao, 2015). The far‐field CID following the 2015 M w 7.8 Nepal earthquake was detected by GPS‐TEC observation up to 3,000 km from the epicenter (H. Liu et al., 2021) as the acoustic gravity wave induced by Rayleigh surface wave propagated into the ionosphere and caused the electronic and plasma density oscillation (Sripathi et al., 2020). Also, after the 2011 M w 9.0 Tohoku Earthquake in Japan, significant ionospheric disturbance was investigated from nationwide GPS receiving networks and the disturbance was confirmed with three different propagation velocities, which attributed to three different generation sources (J. Y. Liu et al., 2011; Saito et al., 2011; Tsugawa et al., 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two‐Azimuth Co‐Seismic Ionospheric Disturbances Following the 2020 Jamaica Earthquake From GPS Observations

Chai

Jin

2021

JGR Space Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co‐seismic ionospheric disturbance (CID) may provide insights on understanding the coupled nature of earthquake–atmosphere geophysical processes. In this study, the CIDs following the Mw 7.7 Jamaica earthquake on January 28, 2020 are detected about 12 min after the main shock by the dual‐frequency Global Positioning System measurements. Significant CIDs at two azimuths are observed from satellite PRN03, 04 and 26 with spreading out at 3.54, 3.51 and 3.48 km/s respectively, which are close to the spreading speeds of Rayleigh waves recorded by the seismographs. The significant CID signals are found in south near‐field area and southwest far‐field area. Furthermore, CID characteristics are analyzed in terms of amplitude, elevation and azimuth angle, waveform, and frequency domain. Results show that CIDs are observed by PRN03, 04 and 26 at low elevation angles (<35°) in infrasonic wave frequency domain and the average negative amplitudes of CIDs observed by PRN26 are larger than −0.08 TECU, while the CID amplitudes observed by PRN03 and PRN04 are about −0.05 and −0.07 TECU, respectively. Moreover, the azimuthal asymmetry of CID amplitude in SW and SE azimuths and different initial polarities in disturbance signals are found and discussed from tectonic and nontectonic factors. The relations among CID, Rayleigh wave and focal mechanism are interpreted. The upward propagating secondary acoustic wave triggered by the seismic Rayleigh wave from earthquake is the main source of CIDs. These results confirm that strike‐slip earthquake can also generate pronounced co‐seismic ionospheric disturbances.

show abstract

Relating Far‐Field Coseismic Ionospheric Disturbances to Geological Structures

Cited by 6 publications

References 48 publications

Rapid Tsunami Potential Assessment Using GNSS Ionospheric Disturbance: Implications from Three Megathrusts

Rapid Tsunami Potential Assessment Using GNSS Ionospheric Disturbance: Implications from Three Megathrusts

Probing a planet from the subsurface to the atmosphere with infrasound data

Two‐Azimuth Co‐Seismic Ionospheric Disturbances Following the 2020 Jamaica Earthquake From GPS Observations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About