the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 29 Mar 2023
Verification and Calibration of a Commercial Anisotropic Magnetoresistive Magnetometer by Multivariate Non-linear Regression
Abstract. Commercially available anisotropic magnetoresistive (AMR) magnetometers exhibit order 1 nano-Tesla (nT) sensitivity in small size, weight, and power (SWaP) packages. However, AMR magnetometer accuracy is diminished by properties such as static offsets, gain uncertainty, cross-axis coupling, and temperature effects. This work presents a measurement of the magnitude of these effects for a Honeywell HMC1053 magnetometer and evaluates a method for calibrating the observed effects by multivariate non-linear regression using a 27 parameter measurement equation.
The presented calibration method has reduced the vector norm of the root mean square error from 4.3 µT to 0.072 µT for the data acquired in this experiment. This calibration method has been developed for use on the AERO-VISTA CubeSat missions, but the methods and results may be applicable to other resource constrained magnetometers whose accuracies are limited by the offset, gain, off-axis, and thermal effects similar to the HMC1053 AMR magnetometer.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1241 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1241 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-588', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Apr 2023
This paper describes a calibration effort for a COTs magnetometer to be used on a pair of CubeSats and develops a functional calibration fit for gain and off-set as a function of temperature among other analysis. The study provides good additional testing on a magnetometer that has been used and potentially will be used by many others.
My main comments are regarding using more recent references, reproducibility of tests (on multiple chips and on the same chip), and other suggestions for the authors to consider. My comments are included in the attached pdf of the manuscript. Regards...Mark Moldwin
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nicholas Belsten, 02 Jun 2023
We thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and questions on the manuscript. Some of these comments suggested the use of more recent references in the background section and we have changed the references to further reading accordingly. Many comments ask questions that indicated a need for further explanation within the text. We have responded to each of the reviewer’s comments within the attached PDF and have also updated the manuscript to preemptively address these questions for future readers by including more details and discussion.
In particular, the reviewer posed insightful questions regarding the repeatability and stability of the calibration coefficients. Some of these questions are now addressed with more detailed explanations of the testing conditions; including that the system was power cycled during data acquisition, and that the duration of data collection was of the same order as the time between calibration operations and science operations on orbit—both on the order of a few hours. The remainder of these questions are addressed in a new subsubsection within “Future work” titled “Calibration variation”. This new subsubsection discusses how AERO-VISTA may evaluate effects such as long-term drift and inter-unit variability on orbit and also describes why such measurements are not needed for ground-based validation of the AERO-VISTA magnetometer hardware and associated calibration method prior to flight of the AERO-VISTA mission.
Based on the reviewer’s suggestions, we have inserted two new figures which provide annotated pictures of the measurement device and testing setup.
We finally thank the reviewer for their detailed reading which caught several typos and awkward wordings which have all been fixed in the new manuscript version.
All of the reviewer's comments are addressed in the attached supplement PDF as replies to comments.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nicholas Belsten, 02 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-588', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-588/egusphere-2023-588-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nicholas Belsten, 02 Jun 2023
We thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and questions on the manuscript. Thanks to the reviewer, the new version of the manuscript is much improved, particularly in references to previous works and in discussion of the limitations of our available calibration data.
In our references to work by Archer et al. and the other attitude independent calibration papers we more carefully alert the reader to the important differences between the attitude independent methods and our method which requires external attitude knowledge. We have provided a new paragraph explaining the AERO-VISTA magnetic sensor concept of operations to make this distinction clearer. We have significantly increased the explanation of our proposed calibration model to aid readers.
We agree with the reviewer’s comments which discuss the various limitations of our data collection methods. In the new version of the manuscript we more clearly explain that the intended scope of the work is a verification of hardware and calibration methodology and not the derivation of calibration parameters which will be used on orbit. The new version of the manuscript discusses the intended scope earlier in the motivation section and collects the limitations together into a new subsection (3.2 in the new version). In the discussion section we describe why, despite these limitations, the successful fitting of the x-axis of the magnetometer indicates that the pairing of instrument and model meets RMS error requirements and why the x-axis results are generalizable to the y- and z-axes.
Each of the reviewers comments are addressed individually in the attached supplementary pdf.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nicholas Belsten, 02 Jun 2023
-
AC3: 'Difference file for egusphere-2023-588', Nicholas Belsten, 02 Jun 2023
We have attached a difference file for the changes in the manuscript before and after incorporating feedback and commentary from the reviewers. We hope that this aids in the review of the changes to the work. It is not intedned to substitute for the revised manuscript.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-588', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Apr 2023
This paper describes a calibration effort for a COTs magnetometer to be used on a pair of CubeSats and develops a functional calibration fit for gain and off-set as a function of temperature among other analysis. The study provides good additional testing on a magnetometer that has been used and potentially will be used by many others.
My main comments are regarding using more recent references, reproducibility of tests (on multiple chips and on the same chip), and other suggestions for the authors to consider. My comments are included in the attached pdf of the manuscript. Regards...Mark Moldwin
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nicholas Belsten, 02 Jun 2023
We thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and questions on the manuscript. Some of these comments suggested the use of more recent references in the background section and we have changed the references to further reading accordingly. Many comments ask questions that indicated a need for further explanation within the text. We have responded to each of the reviewer’s comments within the attached PDF and have also updated the manuscript to preemptively address these questions for future readers by including more details and discussion.
In particular, the reviewer posed insightful questions regarding the repeatability and stability of the calibration coefficients. Some of these questions are now addressed with more detailed explanations of the testing conditions; including that the system was power cycled during data acquisition, and that the duration of data collection was of the same order as the time between calibration operations and science operations on orbit—both on the order of a few hours. The remainder of these questions are addressed in a new subsubsection within “Future work” titled “Calibration variation”. This new subsubsection discusses how AERO-VISTA may evaluate effects such as long-term drift and inter-unit variability on orbit and also describes why such measurements are not needed for ground-based validation of the AERO-VISTA magnetometer hardware and associated calibration method prior to flight of the AERO-VISTA mission.
Based on the reviewer’s suggestions, we have inserted two new figures which provide annotated pictures of the measurement device and testing setup.
We finally thank the reviewer for their detailed reading which caught several typos and awkward wordings which have all been fixed in the new manuscript version.
All of the reviewer's comments are addressed in the attached supplement PDF as replies to comments.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nicholas Belsten, 02 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-588', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-588/egusphere-2023-588-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nicholas Belsten, 02 Jun 2023
We thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and questions on the manuscript. Thanks to the reviewer, the new version of the manuscript is much improved, particularly in references to previous works and in discussion of the limitations of our available calibration data.
In our references to work by Archer et al. and the other attitude independent calibration papers we more carefully alert the reader to the important differences between the attitude independent methods and our method which requires external attitude knowledge. We have provided a new paragraph explaining the AERO-VISTA magnetic sensor concept of operations to make this distinction clearer. We have significantly increased the explanation of our proposed calibration model to aid readers.
We agree with the reviewer’s comments which discuss the various limitations of our data collection methods. In the new version of the manuscript we more clearly explain that the intended scope of the work is a verification of hardware and calibration methodology and not the derivation of calibration parameters which will be used on orbit. The new version of the manuscript discusses the intended scope earlier in the motivation section and collects the limitations together into a new subsection (3.2 in the new version). In the discussion section we describe why, despite these limitations, the successful fitting of the x-axis of the magnetometer indicates that the pairing of instrument and model meets RMS error requirements and why the x-axis results are generalizable to the y- and z-axes.
Each of the reviewers comments are addressed individually in the attached supplementary pdf.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nicholas Belsten, 02 Jun 2023
-
AC3: 'Difference file for egusphere-2023-588', Nicholas Belsten, 02 Jun 2023
We have attached a difference file for the changes in the manuscript before and after incorporating feedback and commentary from the reviewers. We hope that this aids in the review of the changes to the work. It is not intedned to substitute for the revised manuscript.
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 245 | 74 | 23 | 342 | 8 | 8 |
- HTML: 245
- PDF: 74
- XML: 23
- Total: 342
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 144 | 42 |
| Germany | 2 | 51 | 15 |
| China | 3 | 31 | 9 |
| Ireland | 4 | 17 | 5 |
| France | 5 | 13 | 3 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 144
Mary Knapp
Rebecca Masterson
Cadence Payne
Kristen Ammons
Frank D. Lind
Kerri Cahoy
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1241 KB) - Metadata XML