Geodetic Remote Sensing of Ionosphere in Relation to Space Weather and Seismic Activity in B&H

  • Randa NatrasEmail author
  • Medzida Mulic
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 149)


Total electron content (TEC), along GNSS signal’s path in the ionosphere, is spatially and temporally highly variable. In addition, sudden disturbances in the ionosphere may occur on the global, regional or local level from external sources, such as space weather and seismic activity. Results of TEC investigation for mid-latitude ionosphere over B&H (Bosnia and Herzegovina) during seismic activity of medium intensity (4 < M < 5 Richter) and severe geomagnetic storm (St. Patrick’s Day in 2015) are presented. Analyses of relevant parameters such as solar wind, interplanetary magnetic field and geomagnetic activity are performed. Different analyses of TEC variations are carried out. Lower and upper bounds (LB and UB) are determined by 15-day running TEC median prior the day of consideration ± 2*standard deviation. TEC values which exceeded LB and UB are marked as anomalies. TECQUIET is calculated as mean TEC for five quietest days in a month regarding geomagnetic conditions to observe TEC residuals due to enhanced geomagnetic activity. Direct comparison of TEC values at different stations is also conducted. TEC deviations were in better agreement concerning GNSS stations located close to the epicentre. Both positive and negative anomalies were registered 2 weeks before the earthquake, with higher deviations during 7 days before, at stations located inside the earthquake preparation zone. The potential causes of these anomalies are discussed. Analysis of TEC response to the strongest geomagnetic storm in solar cycle 24 shows TEC deviations from 50% to even 150% compared to TECQUIET, where “positive ionospheric storm” is observed in the main phase and “negative ionospheric storm” in the recovery phase of the geomagnetic storm.


Earthquake Geomagnetic storm Ionosphere Lithosphere-ionosphere coupling Space weather Total electron content (TEC) 



Bosnia and Herzegovina


Bosnia and Herzegovina Positioning Service


Coronal mass ejection


EUREF Permanent Network




Global Navigation Satellite System


Geomagnetic storm


Lower bound


Solar cycle


Space weather


Total electron content


TEC units


Upper bound


Vertical total electron content



Authors are sincerely grateful to International Association of Geodesy (IAG) for providing travel grant to the first author to deliver oral presentation at IAG-IASPEI Assembly 2017 in Kobe, Japan. Authors also thank International Center of Theoretical Physics Abdus Salam in Trieste and Dr. Luigi Ciraolo for the TEC calibration programme. Many thanks to institutions and organizations, which kindly provided their data: German Research Centre for Geosciences; NASA OmniWeb; World Data Center for Geomagnetism at Kyoto University Japan; EUREF Permanent Network; Geodetic Administration of Federation Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Authors are grateful to reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.


  1. Afraimovich EL, Astafieva EI, Gokhberg MB, Lapshin VM, Permyakova VE, Steblov GM, Shalimov SL (2004) Variations of the total electron content in the ionosphere from GPS data recorded during the Hector Mine earthquake of October 16, 1999, California. Russ J Earth Sci 6(5):339–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Astafyeva E, Zakharenkova I, Forster M (2015) Ionospheric response to the 2015 St. Patrick’s day storm: a global multi-instrumental overview. J Geophys Res Space Phys 120:9023–9037. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman S, Bartels J (1940) Geomagnetism, vol 1, chapter IX. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Ciraolo L, Azpilicueta F, Brunini C, Meza A, Radicella SM (2007) Calibration error on experimental slant total electron contents (TEC) determined with GPS. J Geod 81(2):111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dobrovolsky IR, Zubkov SI, Myachkin VI (1979) Estimation of the size of earthquake preparation zones. Pure Appl Geophys 117:1025–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gonzalez WD, Joselyn JA, Kamide Y, Kroehl HW, Rostoker G, Tsurutani BT, Vasyliunas VM (1994) What is a geomagnetic storm? J Geophys Res 99:5771–5792. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gousheva M, Danov D, Hristov P, Matova M (2008) Quasi-static electric fields phenomena in the ionosphere associated with pre- and post earthquake effects. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8(1):101–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gulyaeva T, Arikan F (2016) Statistical discrimination of global post-seismic ionosphere effects under geomagnetic quiet and storm conditions. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 8:509–524. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horozovic D, Natras R, Mulic M (2018) Impact of geomagnetic storms and ionospheric disturbances on mid-latitude station’s coordinates using static and kinematic PPP; Poster: European Geosciences Union, General Assembly 2018 (EGU 2018), Vienna; 2018-04-09 - 2018-04-13. In: EGU general assembly 2018, Geophysical research abstracts, vol 20 . ISSN: 1029-7006, p 9009Google Scholar
  10. Jacobsen KS, Andalsvik YL (2016) Overview of the 2015 St. Partick’s day storm and its consequences for RTK and PPP positioning in Norway. J Space Weather Space Clim 6.
  11. Liu JY, Chen YI, Chuo YJ, Chen CS (2006) A statistical investigation of preearthquake ionospheric anomaly. J Geophys Res 111:A05304. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu JY, Chen YI, Chen CH, Liu CY, Chen CY, Nishihashi M, Li JZ, Xia YQ, Oyama KI, Hattori K, Lin CH (2009) Seismoionospheric GPS total electron content anomalies observed before the 12 May 2008 Mw7.9 Wenchuan earthquake. J Geophys Res 114(A4).
  13. Mulic M, Natras R (2018) Ionosphere TEC variations over Bosnia and Herzegovina using GNSS data. In: Cefalo R, Zieliński J, Barbarella M (eds) New advanced GNSS and 3D spatial techniques. Lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography. Springer, Cham, pp 271–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Natras R, Magnet N, Boisits J, Weber R (2018) GNSS-based regional ionosphere modeling over Bosnia and Herzegovina, Poster: European Geosciences Union, General Assembly 2018 (EGU 2018), Vienna; 09.04.2018 - 13.04.2018. In: EGU general assembly 2018, Geophysical research abstracts, vol 20 . ISSN: 1029-7006, p 661Google Scholar
  15. Nava B, Rodríguez-Zuluaga J, Alazo-Cuartas K, Kashcheyev A, Migoya-Orué Y, Radicella SM, Amory-Mazaudier C, Fleury R (2016) Middle- and low-latitude ionosphere response to 2015 St. Patrick’s day geomagnetic storm. J Geophys Res Space Phys 121:3421–3438. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pulinets S, Boyarchuk K (2004) Ionospheric precursors of earthquakes. Springer, Berlin, p 315Google Scholar
  17. Pulinets S, Ouzounov D (2011) Lithosphere-atmosphere-ionosphere coupling (LAIC) model: an unified concept for earthquake precursors validation. J Asian Earth Sci 41(4–5):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schaer S (1999) Mapping and predicting the Earth’s ionosphere using the Global Positioning System. PhD thesis, Bern University, BernGoogle Scholar
  19. Sugiura M (1964) Hourly values of equatorial Dst for IGY. In: Annals of the international geophysical year, vol 35. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 945–948Google Scholar
  20. Sugiura M, Chapman S (1960) The average morphology of geomagnetic storm with sudden commencement. Abandl Akad Wiss Gottingen Math Phys K1(4):1Google Scholar
  21. US National Space Weather Strategy, Product of National Science and Technology Council, Space weather operations, research and mitigation (SWORM) task force, USA, 2015Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geodesy, Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversity of SarajevoSarajevoBosnia and Herzegovina

Personalised recommendations