Calibration of the Ørsted vector magnetometer

Olsen, Nils; Tøffner-Clausen, Lars; Sabaka, Terence J.; Brauer, Peter; Merayo, José M.G.; Jørgensen, John Leif; Léger, Jean‐Michel; Nielsen, Ole-Kenneth; Primdahl, F.; Risbo, T.

doi:10.1186/bf03352458

Cited by 118 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This technique is exploited by satellites because the vector reference field is not available. Nevertheless, instruments are orbiting around the Earth (Olsen et al, 2003). The different scalar measurements from the scalar instrument can therefore be compared to the scalar values computed from the vector instrument.…”

Section: Dourbes D0 Baseline 2013mentioning

confidence: 99%

In situ vector calibration of magnetic observatories

Gonsette

Rasson

Humbled

2017

Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The goal of magnetic observatories is to measure and provide a vector magnetic field in a geodetic coordinate system. For that purpose, instrument set-up and calibration are crucial. In particular, the scale factor and orientation of a vector magnetometer may affect the magnetic field measurement. Here, we highlight the baseline concept and demonstrate that it is essential for data quality control. We show how the baselines can highlight a possible calibration error. We also provide a calibration method based on high-frequency "absolute measurements". This method determines a transformation matrix for correcting variometer data suffering from scale factor and orientation errors. We finally present a practical case where recovered data have been successfully compared to those coming from a reference magnetometer.

show abstract

Section: Dourbes D0 Baseline 2013mentioning

confidence: 99%

In situ vector calibration of magnetic observatories

Gonsette

Rasson

Humbled

2017

Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…VFM measurements are calibrated using those from the ASM similarly as already done in other satellite missions for magnetic field mapping purposes and which carried equivalent instrumentation (Olsen et al 2003;Yin and Lühr 2011). According to the traditional in-flight vector calibration of VFM fluxgate instruments, the raw data of the vector magnetometer are processed by applying an error model which takes into account of scale factors and their dependence on time and temperature, offsets and nonorthogonal angles between the sensor elements.…”

Section: Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical analysis of geomagnetic field intensity differences between ASM and VFM instruments onboard Swarm constellation

Michelis

Tozzi

Consolini

2017

Earth Planets Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the very first measurements made by the magnetometers onboard Swarm satellites launched by European Space Agency (ESA) in late 2013, it emerged a discrepancy between scalar and vector measurements. An accurate analysis of this phenomenon brought to build an empirical model of the disturbance, highly correlated with the Sun incidence angle, and to correct vector data accordingly. The empirical model adopted by ESA results in a significant decrease in the amplitude of the disturbance affecting VFM measurements so greatly improving the vector magnetic data quality. This study is focused on the characterization of the difference between magnetic field intensity measured by the absolute scalar magnetometer (ASM) and that reconstructed using the vector field magnetometer (VFM) installed on Swarm constellation. Applying empirical mode decomposition method, we find the intrinsic mode functions (IMFs) associated with ASM-VFM total intensity differences obtained with data both uncorrected and corrected for the disturbance correlated with the Sun incidence angle. Surprisingly, no differences are found in the nature of the IMFs embedded in the analyzed signals, being these IMFs characterized by the same dominant periodicities before and after correction. The effect of correction manifests in the decrease in the energy associated with some IMFs contributing to corrected data. Some IMFs identified by analyzing the ASM-VFM intensity discrepancy are characterized by the same dominant periodicities of those obtained by analyzing the temperature fluctuations of the VFM electronic unit. Thus, the disturbance correlated with the Sun incidence angle could be still present in the corrected magnetic data. Furthermore, the ASM-VFM total intensity difference and the VFM electronic unit temperature display a maximal shared information with a time delay that depends on local time. Taken together, these findings may help to relate the features of the observed VFM-ASM total intensity difference to the physical characteristics of the real disturbance thus contributing to improve the empirical model proposed for the correction of data.

show abstract

“…Ørsted (Olsen et al 2003) was launched in February 1999 into an elliptical near-polar orbit with an inclination of 96.4°. Its current perigee and apogee are about 635 and 835 km, respectively, and its orbital period is about 99.5 min.…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

NOAA/NGDC candidate models for the 12th generation International Geomagnetic Reference Field

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) is a model of the geomagnetic main field and its secular variation, produced every 5 years from candidate models proposed by a number of international research institutions. For this 12th generation IGRF, three candidate models were solicited: a main field model for the 2010.0 epoch, a main field model for the 2015.0 epoch, and the predicted secular variation for the five-year period 2015 to 2020. The National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has produced three candidate models for consideration in IGRF-12. The 2010 main field candidate was produced from Challenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP) satellite data, while the 2015 main field and secular variation candidates were produced from Swarm and Ørsted satellite data. Careful data selection was performed to minimize the influence of magnetospheric and ionospheric fields. The secular variation predictions of our parent models, from which the candidate models were derived, have been validated against independent ground observatory data.

show abstract

Calibration of the Ørsted vector magnetometer

Cited by 118 publications

References 13 publications

In situ vector calibration of magnetic observatories

In situ vector calibration of magnetic observatories

Statistical analysis of geomagnetic field intensity differences between ASM and VFM instruments onboard Swarm constellation

NOAA/NGDC candidate models for the 12th generation International Geomagnetic Reference Field

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About