Journal of Geodesy

, Volume 91, Issue 3, pp 269–277 | Cite as

Impact of ambient temperature on spring-based relative gravimeter measurements

Original Article


In this paper, we investigate the impact of ambient temperature changes on the gravity reading of spring-based relative gravimeters. Controlled heating experiments using two Scintrex CG5 gravimeters allowed us to determine a linear correlation (R \(^{2}>\) 0.9) between ambient temperature and gravity variations. The relation is stable and constant for the two CG5 we used: −5 nm/s\(^{2}/^\circ \)C. A linear relation is also seen between gravity and residual sensor temperature variations (R \(^{2}>\) 0.75), but contrary to ambient temperature, this relation is neither constant over time nor similar between the two instruments. The linear correction of ambient temperature on the controlled heating time series reduced the standard deviation at least by a factor of 2, to less than 10 nm/s\(^{2}\). The laboratory results allowed for reprocessing the data gathered on a field survey that originally aimed to characterize local hydrological heterogeneities on a karstic area. The correction of two years of monthly CG5 measurements from ambient temperature variations halved the standard deviation (from 62 to 32 nm/s\(^{2}\)) and led us to a better hydrological interpretation. Although the origin of this effect is uncertain, we suggest that an imperfect control of the sensor temperature may be involved, as well as a change of the properties of an electronic component.


Gravimetry Spring-based gravimeter Temperature effect Accuracy Gravity residuals 



The two Scintrex CG5 gravimeters were provided by the CNRS-INSU national facility RESIF-GMOB. The hydrological study presented in part 3 is part of a project funded by OSU OREME (under administrative supervision of the Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers, CNRS-INSU), the SNO H\(+\) (CNRS-INSU) and the HydroKarst G\(^{\mathrm {2}}\) project of the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). We also thank three reviewers for their constructive comments.


  1. Berthet T, Hetényi G, Cattin R, Sapkota SN, Champollion C, Kandel T, Bonnin M (2013) Lateral uniformity of India Plate strength over central and eastern Nepal. Geophys J Int ggt357Google Scholar
  2. Bonvalot S, Diament M, Gabalda G (1998) Continuous gravity recording with Scintrex CG-3M meters: a promising tool for monitoring active zones. Geophys J Int 135(2):470–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley CC, Ali MY, Shawky I, Levannier A, Dawoud MA (2007) Microgravity investigation of an aquifer storage and recovery site in Abu Dhabi. First Break 25(11)Google Scholar
  4. Budetta G, Carbone D (1997) Potential application of the Scintrex CG-3M gravimeter for monitoring volcanic activity: results of field trials on Mt. Etna, Sicily. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 76(3):199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christiansen L, Lund S, Andersen OB, Binning PJ, Rosbjerg D, Bauer-Gottwein P (2011) Measuring gravity change caused by water storage variations: performance assessment under controlled conditions. J Hydrol 402(1):60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dehant V, Defraigne P, Wahr JM (1999) Tides for a convective Earth. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 104(B1):1035–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flury J, Peters T, Schmeer M, Timmen L, Wilmes H, Falk R (2007) Precision gravimetry in the new Zugspitze gravity meter calibration system. Harita Dergisi 401–406Google Scholar
  8. Gettings P, Chapman DS, Allis R (2008) Techniques, analysis, and noise in a Salt Lake Valley 4D gravity experiment. Geophysics 73(6):WA71–WA82Google Scholar
  9. Hector B, Séguis L, Hinderer J, Cohard JM, Wubda M, Descloitres M, Boy JP (2015) Water storage changes as a marker for base flow generation processes in a tropical humid basement catchment (Benin): Insights from hybrid gravimetry. Water Resour Res 51(10):8331–8361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacob T, Bayer R, Chery J, Le Moigne N (2010) Timelapse microgravity surveys reveal water storage heterogeneity of a karst aquifer. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 115(B6)Google Scholar
  11. Lederer M (2009) Accuracy of the relative gravity measurement. Acta Geodyn Geomater 6(3):155Google Scholar
  12. Limited Scintrex (2006) CG-5 scintrex autograv system operation manual. Scintrex Limited, Concord, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  13. Longman IM (1959) Formulas for computing the tidal accelerations due to the moon and the sun. J Geophys Res 64(12):2351–2355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lyard F, Lefevre F, Letellier T, Francis O (2006) Modelling the global ocean tides: modern insights from FES2004. Ocean Dyn 56(5–6):394–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merlet S, Kopaev A, Diament M, Geneves G, Landragin A, Dos Santos FP (2008) Micro-gravity investigations for the LNE watt balance project. Metrologia 45(3):265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meurers B (2012) Superconducting gravimeter calibration by colocated gravity observations: results from GWR C025. Int J GeophysGoogle Scholar
  17. Pánisová J, Pašteka R (2009) The use of microgravity technique in archaeology: a case study from the St. Nicolas Church in Pukanec, Slovakia. Contrib Geophys Geodesy 39(3):237–254Google Scholar
  18. Pringle JK, Styles P, Howell CP, Branston MW, Furner R, Toon SM (2012) Long-term time-lapse microgravity and geotechnical monitoring of relict salt mines, Marston, Cheshire, UK. Geophysics 77(6):B287–B294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reudink R, Klees R, Francis O, Kusche J, Schlesinger R, Shabanloui A, Timmen L (2014) High tilt susceptibility of the Scintrex CG-5 relative gravimeters. J Geod 88(6):617–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Camp M, Vauterin P (2005) Tsoft: graphical and interactive software for the analysis of time series and Earth tides. Comput Geosci 31(5):631–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yushkin VD (2011) Operating experience with CG5 gravimeters. Measure Tech 54(5):486–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Géosciences Montpellier, CNRSUniversité Montpellier, UAMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations