Advertisement

Journal of Geodesy

, Volume 89, Issue 11, pp 1133–1144 | Cite as

Drift reduction in strapdown airborne gravimetry using a simple thermal correction

  • David BeckerEmail author
  • J. Emil Nielsen
  • Diogo Ayres-Sampaio
  • René Forsberg
  • Matthias Becker
  • Luísa Bastos
Original Article

Abstract

Previous work has shown, that strapdown airborne gravimeters can have a comparable or even superior performance in the higher frequency domain (resolution of few kilometres), compared to classical stable-platform air gravimeters using springs, such as the LaCoste and Romberg (LCR) S-gravimeter. However, the longer wavelengths (tens of kilometres and more) usually suffer from drifts of the accelerometers of the strapdown inertial measurement unit (IMU). In this paper, we analyse the drift characteristics of the QA2000 accelerometers, which are the most widely used navigation-grade IMU accelerometers. A large portion of these drifts is shown to come from thermal effects. A lab calibration procedure is used to derive a thermal correction, which is then applied to data from 18 out of 19 flights from an airborne gravity campaign carried out in Chile in October 2013. The IMU-derived gravity closure error can be reduced by 91 % on average, from 3.72 mGal/h to only 0.33 mGal/h (RMS), which is an excellent long-term performance for strapdown gravimetry. Also, the IMU results are compared to the LCR S-gravimeter, which is known to have an excellent long-term stability. Again, the thermal correction yields a significant reduction of errors, with IMU and LCR aerogravity results being consistent at the 2 mGal level.

Keywords

Airborne gravimetry Strapdown IMU QA2000 Thermal drift Thermal correction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The Chile aerogravity campaign was carried out by DTU Space in cooperation with the University of Bergen, Norway, Instituto Geográfico Militar, Chile, and the US National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Arne Gidskehaug, University of Bergen, participated in the field campaign, operating and maintaining the S-99 gravimeter. The authors would like to thank the reviewers and the associate editor for their critical remarks and suggestions, which have led to major improvements of the manuscript.

References

  1. Alberts BA (2009) Regional gravity field modeling using airborne gravity data. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology, DissGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres-Sampaio D, Deurloo R, Bos M, Magalhães A, Bastos L (2015) A comparison between three IMUs for strapdown airborne gravimetry. Surv Geophys 36(4):571–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhatt D, Aggarwal P, Bhattacharya P, Devabhaktuni V (2012) An enhanced MEMS error modeling approach based on Nu-support vector regression. Sensors 12(7):9448–9466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bos MS, Deurloo RA, Bastos L, Magalhães A (2011) A new local geoid for Madeira using airborne gravimetry. AGU fall meeting abstracts. vol 1. 2011Google Scholar
  5. Brown RG, Hwang P (1992) Introduction to random signals and applied Kalman filtering, vol 3. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Brozena JM (1992) The Greenland aerogeophysics project: airborne gravity, topographic and magnetic mapping of an entire continent. From Mars to Greenland charting gravity with space and airborne instruments. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruton AM (2000) Improving the accuracy and resolution of SINS/DGPS airborne gravimetry, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geomatics Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruton AM, Hammada Y, Ferguson S, Schwarz KP, Wei M, Halpenny J (2001) A comparison of inertial platform, damped 2-axis platform and strapdown airborne gravimetry. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on kinematic systems in geodesy, geomatics and navigation, Banff, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruton AM, Schwarz KP, Ferguson S, Kern M, Wei M (2002) Deriving acceleration from DGPS: toward higher resolution applications of airborne gravimetry. GPS Solut 5(3):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deurloo RA (2011) Development of a Kalman filter integrating system and measurement models for a low-cost strapdown airborne gravimetry system. Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  11. Forsberg R, Olesen AV (2010) Airborne gravity field determination. Sciences of geodesy-I. Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  12. Forsberg R, Olesen AV, Keller K, Møller M, Gidskehaug A, Solheim D (2001) Airborne gravity and geoid surveys in the Arctic and Baltic Seas. In: Proceedings of international symposium on kinematic systems in geodesy, geomatics and navigation (KIS-2001), BanffGoogle Scholar
  13. Gelb A (1974) Applied optimal estimation. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Glennie C, Schwarz KP (1999) A comparison and analysis of airborne gravimetry results from two strapdown inertial/DGPS systems. J Geod 73(6):311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glennie CL, Schwarz KP, Bruton AM, Forsberg R, Olesen AV, Keller K (2000) A comparison of stable platform and strapdown airborne gravity. J Geod 74(5):383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holt JW, Richter TG, Kempf SD, Morse DL, Blankenship DD (2006) Airborne gravity over Lake Vostok and adjacent highlands of East Antarctica. Geochem Geophys Geosyst, 7.11Google Scholar
  17. Honeywell International Inc., Q-Flex QA-2000 Accelerometer (Specification Sheet, 2004). www.honeywell.com
  18. Hwang C, Hsiao Y-S, Shih H-C (2006) Data reduction in scalar airborne gravimetry: theory, software and case study in Taiwan. Comput Geosci 32(10):1573–1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jekeli C (1994) Airborne vector gravimetry using precise, position-aided inertial measurement units. Bull Géod 69(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jekeli C (2011) Inertial navigation systems with geodetic applications. Walter de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  21. Jekeli C, Kwon JH (1999) Results of airborne vector (3-d) gravimetry. Geophys Res Lett 26(23):3533–3536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kennedy S, Hamilton J, Martell H (2006) Architecture and system performance of SPAN NovAtels GPS/INS solution. Proc IEEE/ION PLANS 2006:23–25Google Scholar
  23. Kwon JH, Jekeli C (2001) A new approach for airborne vector gravimetry using GPS/INS. J Geod 74(10):690–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moritz H (2000) Geodetic reference system 1980. J Geod 74(1):128–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nettleton LL, LaCoste L, Harrison JC (1960) Tests of an airborne gravity meter. Geophysics 25(1):181–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rauch HE, Striebel CT, Tung F (1965) Maximum likelihood estimates of linear dynamic systems. AIAA J 3(8):1445–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schwarz K-P, Li, Z (1997) An introduction to airborne gravimetry and its boundary value problems. Geodetic boundary value problems in view of the one centimeter geoid. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 312–358Google Scholar
  28. Schwarz KP, Colombo O, Hein G, Knickmeyer ET (1992) Requirements for airborne vector gravimetry. From Mars to Greenland: charting gravity with space and airborne instruments. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Titterton D, Weston JL (2004) Strapdown inertial navigation technology, vol 17. The Institution of Engineering and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  30. Tomé P (2002) Integration of inertial and satellite navigation systems for aircraft attitude determination. Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  31. Torge W, Müller J (2012) Geodesy. Walter de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  32. Wei M, Schwarz KP (1998) Flight test results from a strapdown airborne gravity system. J Geod 72(6):323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Becker
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Emil Nielsen
    • 2
  • Diogo Ayres-Sampaio
    • 3
    • 4
  • René Forsberg
    • 2
  • Matthias Becker
    • 1
  • Luísa Bastos
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Physical and Satellite GeodesyTechnische Universitaet DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Danish National Space InstituteTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.Astronomical Observatory, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of PortoVila Nova de GaiaPortugal
  4. 4.Department of Geosciences Environment and Spatial Planning, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations