Guide To Aeromagnetic Specifications and Contracts

Teskey, D J; Barlow, R; Hood, P J; Lefebvre, D.; Paterson, N; Reford, M; Watson, David O.

doi:10.4095/131845

Cited by 18 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The heading error can be compensated. Airborne standards specify that the maximum heading error should be 2.0 nT after compensation (Teskey ; Coyle et al . ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another commonly used metric is the fourth difference which estimates the level of high‐frequency noise in airborne magnetic data (Teskey ):

fourth difference = - \frac{((), T_{- 2} - 4 T_{- 1} + 6 T_{0} - 4 T_{+ 1} + T_{+ 2})}{16},

where T x is the x th TMI measurement in time centred around the value T 0 . The industry accepted level for the fourth difference is less than 0.1 nT peak‐to‐peak when applied to 10 Hz data.…”

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conventionally, the quality of a calibration is measured using a Figure‐of‐Merit (FOM). Typical contracts require this FOM, for ±5° pitch, ±10° roll and ±5° yaw manoeuvres, to be less than 1.5 nT for fixed‐wing manned aircraft and less than 2.0 nT for helicopters (Teskey ; Coyle et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Real‐time compensation of magnetic data acquired by a single‐rotor unmanned aircraft system

Tuck

Samson

Polowick

et al. 2019

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two methods for low‐altitude calibration of a single‐rotor unmanned aircraft system using a real‐time compensator are tested: (1) a stationary calibration where the unmanned aircraft system executes manoeuvres while hovering in order to minimize ambient field changes due to the local geology; and (2) an adapted box calibration flown in four orthogonal directions. Both methods use two compensator‐specific limits derived from established methods for manned airborne calibration: the lowest frequency used by the compensator for the calibration algorithm and the maximum variation of the ambient magnetic intensity experienced by the unmanned aircraft system during calibration. Prior to flying, the unmanned aircraft system was magnetically characterized using the heading error and fourth difference. Magnetic interference was mitigated by extending the magnetometer‐unmanned aircraft system separation distance to 1.7 m, shielding, and demagnetization. The stationary calibration yielded an improvement ratio of 8.595 and a standard deviation of the compensated total magnetic intensity of 0.075 nT (estimated Figure‐of‐Merit of 3.8 nT). The box calibration also yielded an improvement ratio of 3.989 and a standard deviation of the compensated total magnetic intensity of 0.083 nT (estimated Figure‐of‐Merit of 4.2 nT). The stationary and box calibration solutions were robust with low cross‐correlation indexes (1.090 and 1.048, respectively) when applied to a non‐native data set.

show abstract

“…The heading error can be compensated. Airborne standards specify that the maximum heading error should be 2.0 nT after compensation (Teskey ; Coyle et al . ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another commonly used metric is the fourth difference which estimates the level of high‐frequency noise in airborne magnetic data (Teskey ):

fourth difference = - \frac{((), T_{- 2} - 4 T_{- 1} + 6 T_{0} - 4 T_{+ 1} + T_{+ 2})}{16},

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Real‐time compensation of magnetic data acquired by a single‐rotor unmanned aircraft system

Tuck

Samson

Polowick

et al. 2019

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One standard deviation from the mean is equal to ± 0.014 nT. The noise level range is approximately ± 0.05 nT; this is within the industry accepted noise level of ± 0.1 nT (Teskey et al, 1991;Coyle et al, 2014).…”

Section: Uas Data Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…To determine the noise levels on the survey data, the fourth difference was calculated (Teskey et al, 1991;Coyle et al, 2014). Figure 4 shows the fourth difference noise levels for the magnetic data from all the traverse and tie lines (6453 data points included in the analysis).…”

Section: Uas Data Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental aeromagnetic survey using an unmanned air system

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, Stratus Aeronautics is developing an unmanned aircraft system (UAS), called the Venturer, for aeromagnetic surveying. On 2 October 2013, in southern Alberta, Canada, an experimental survey of the UAS was conducted. Approximately 13 km of preprogrammed survey lines, along with calibration maneuvers, were flown, providing 45 minutes worth of data collection. The UAS was stable in flight and only required operator intervention for takeoff and landing. There was a + 2 m offset from the nominal altitude of 150 m, with variations of approximately ± 1.4 m. Deviations from a straight flight path were approximately ± 0.9 m along traverse lines and ± 25 m along tie-lines, the latter being affected mainly by crosswind. The noise envelope for the magnetic data acquired during the survey was approximately ± 0.05 nT, allowing a high-quality total-magneticintensity map to be created.

show abstract

Robotic magnetic mapping with the Kapvik planetary micro-rover

Hay

Samson

Ellery

2017

International Journal of Astrobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geomagnetic data gathering by micro-rovers is gaining momentum both for future planetary exploration missions and for terrestrial applications in extreme environments. This paper presents research into the integration of a planetary micro-rover with a potassium total-field magnetometer. The 40 kg Kapvik micro-rover is an ideal platform due to an aluminium construction and a rocker-bogie mobility system, which provides good manoeuvrability and terrainability. A light-weight GSMP 35U (uninhabited aerial vehicle) magnetometer, comprised of a 0.65 kg sensor and 0.63 kg electronics module, was mounted to the chassis via a custom 1.21 m composite boom. The boom dimensions were optimized to be an effective compromise between noise mitigation and mechanical practicality. An analysis using the fourth difference method was performed estimating the magnetic noise envelope at ±0.03 nT at 10 Hz sampling frequency from the integrated systems during robotic operations. A robotic magnetic survey captured the total magnetic intensity along three parallel 40 m long lines and a perpendicular 15 m long tie line over the course of 3.75 h. The total magnetic intensity data were corrected for diurnal variations, levelled by linear interpolation of tie-line intersection points, corrected for a regional gradient, and then interpolated using Delaunay triangulation to lead a residual magnetic intensity map. This map exhibited an anomalous linear feature corresponding to a magnetic dipole 650 nT in amplitude. This feature coincides with a storm sewer buried approximately 2 m in the subsurface. This work provides benchmark methodologies and data to guide future integration of magnetometers on board planetary micro-rovers.

show abstract

Guide To Aeromagnetic Specifications and Contracts

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Real‐time compensation of magnetic data acquired by a single‐rotor unmanned aircraft system

Real‐time compensation of magnetic data acquired by a single‐rotor unmanned aircraft system

Experimental aeromagnetic survey using an unmanned air system

Robotic magnetic mapping with the Kapvik planetary micro-rover

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About