Compensating for accelerometer values

  • Thread starter Thread starter turban2k
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Accelerometer
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the mathematical approach to de-rotate accelerometer readings to compensate for the normal force due to gravity, particularly when the device is tilted. It clarifies that accelerometers do not directly measure gravity but rather the normal force acting on them, which results in non-zero X and Y readings when tilted. The user seeks guidance on using quaternions for this de-rotation process but is unsure how to apply them effectively. A reference to the IEEE standard for accelerometers is provided, although the user cannot access the full article due to membership restrictions. Understanding the distinction between normal force and gravitational force is crucial for accurate compensation in accelerometer readings.
turban2k
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
This is my first post, so forgive me if I'm in the wrong place!

I know this topic has come up before, but I haven't seen quite what I need. I am basically looking for the math behind de-rotating the 3-D vectors (x,y,z) that I read out of an accelerometer, in order to compensate for gravity.

So I'll try to use an example. I have an accelerometer mounted on a surface, but it may be slightly tilted on the X axis (roll) and slightly tilted on the Y-axis (pitch). I'm assuming X axis points forward/back. Due to these slight rotations, I will have gravity components in the X and Y readings from the accelerometer.

So at steady state, I read out a relatively constant vector v1 = (x,y,z), where z is close to 1, but not quite since x and y are non-zero.

Given that vector v1, how do I de-rotate future readings (v2,v3 etc..) to compensate for this?? I have read lots of quaternions lately, and can sort of use them... but I can only use them to do a straight rotation about the X-axis let's say. I'm not sure how I can apply them for this example..

Any helps much appreciated!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
A nitpick first: You do not have gravity components in any of the readings from the accelerometer. Accelerometers (in fact, no device at all) can directly sense the acceleration due to gravity.

Think about it this way: An accelerometer stationary on the surface of the Earth gives a reading of about 9.8 meters/second2 upward. That stationary accelerometer has two forces acting on it: A downward gravitation force and an upward normal force (the force that keeps the accelerometer from sinking into the table). You accelerometer is measuring the normal force but not the gravitational force. Bottom line: Because of misalignments, what you have are normal force components in the X and Y readings from the accelerometer.

That said, take a look at IEEE standard IEEE Std 1293-1998, "IEEE standard specification format guide and test procedure for linear, single-axis, nongyroscopic accelerometers". Link: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/standardstoc.jsp?isnumber=16982 .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D H said:
A nitpick first: You do not have gravity components in any of the readings from the accelerometer. Accelerometers (in fact, no device at all) can directly sense the acceleration due to gravity.

Think about it this way: An accelerometer stationary on the surface of the Earth gives a reading of about 9.8 meters/second2 upward. That stationary accelerometer has two forces acting on it: A downward gravitation force and an upward normal force (the force that keeps the accelerometer from sinking into the table). You accelerometer is measuring the normal force but not the gravitational force. Bottom line: Because of misalignments, what you have are normal force components in the X and Y readings from the accelerometer.

That said, take a look at IEEE standard IEEE Std 1293-1998, "IEEE standard specification format guide and test procedure for linear, single-axis, nongyroscopic accelerometers". Link: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/standardstoc.jsp?isnumber=16982 .

Yes, that's true.. I was assuming that when I said compensating for gravity, people would know it's the normal force. But you are correct.. what I need is to remove the normal component of gravity from X and Y.

Unfortunately, I Am not an IEEE member so I cannot view the full article :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'I need a concave mirror with a focal length length of 150 feet'
I need to cut down a 3 year old dead tree from top down so tree causes no damage with small pieces falling. I need a mirror with a focal length of 150 ft. 12" diameter to 36" diameter will work good but I can't think of any easy way to build it. Nothing like this for sale on Ebay. I have a 30" Fresnel lens that I use to burn stumps it works great. Tree service wants $2000.
Hi all, i have some questions about the tesla turbine: is a tesla turbine more efficient than a steam engine or a stirling engine ? about the discs of the tesla turbine warping because of the high speed rotations; does running the engine on a lower speed solve that or will the discs warp anyway after time ? what is the difference in efficiency between the tesla turbine running at high speed and running it at a lower speed ( as fast as possible but low enough to not warp de discs) and: i...
Back
Top