Journal of Geodesy (2021) 95:116

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-021-01572-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Performance assessment of the relative gravimeter Scintrex CG-6

O. Francis1

Received: 26 April 2021 / Accepted: 21 September 2021 / Published online: 8 October 2021
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The new-generation relative gravimeter Scintrex CG6 is put on the test bench: Its performance is compared to its predecessor,
the Scintrex-CG5. A CG5 Scintrex and a CG6 Scintrex were both submitted to the same rigorous tests, which have been
developed in recent years to highlight some defects of the CG5. The results show that the CG6 always performs better than
the CG5. For instance, the instrumental drift is 5 times smaller for the CG6 than for the CG5. In the tidal bands, the noise
level of the CG6 is 3 times lower than of the one of the CG5. We confirmed the tilt susceptibility of the CG5 and found that
the CG6 is barely affected by long duration tilts before taking measurements. Unlike the CG5, the CG6 measurements are
not influenced by external temperature variations. Overall, the CG6 provides more precise and stable gravity measurements
compared to the CG5.

Keywords Spring gravimeter · Scintrex CG5 and CG6 · Susceptibility to tilt · Sensitivity to temperature · Hysteresis ·
Precision

1 Introduction gravity tides either to improve the tidal predictions or to val-

Spring relative gravimeters are the most widely used grav-
ity meters (van Camp et al. 2017). They are less costly
than absolute gravimeter (AG). They are also lighter, more
transportable and offer a faster data collection than with
absolute gravimeters. However, they are relative meters, less
precise and stable than an AG. There is still a need for
extensive gravity surveys that would benefit from combining
the maneuverability of relative gravimeters and the preci-
sion of AG. Improved performance of relative gravimeters
makes it possible to speed up data collection (decreasing
the operational costs). Improving the quality of the measure-
ments enlarges the possibilities in gravity exploration and
scientific applications. For instance, vertical gravity gradi-
ent (VGG) measurements would benefit from a gravimeter
that is not subject to tilt susceptibility. The measurements
would be faster and more precise. The VGG is needed in
the equation of motion to extract the g-value from a free
fall object. More importantly, the VGG is used to trans-
fer the g-value from the top position of the test object
to the floor level. Today, there is still a need to measure
B O. Francis
olivier.francis@uni.lu
1 Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of
Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
idate Earth and oceanic tidal models. As we will see, the
Scintrex CG6 noise in the tidal bands is three time lower
than for the Scintrex CG5. The CG6 offers a reasonable
alternative when one cannot afford the cost and the main-
tenance of a superconducting gravimeter. The main issues
raised about the CG5 (spring relaxation, tilt and external
temperature susceptibility) were solved. These undesirable
effects are not perceptible anymore: They are controlled
within 20 nm s−2 , which corresponds to the specified pre-
cision by the manufacturer. At this stage, it is extremely
difficult to predict the impact of the improvements in field
works. More experiences and comparison studies will tell
us.
In October 2016, Scintrex Ltd. introduced the new-
generation CG-6 Autograv™ survey gravity meter. It is
smaller (32% height reduction), lighter (35% weight reduc-
tion) and presumably less susceptible to environmental
conditions than its predecessor the CG5. Both CGs are made
with a quartz spring. The worldwide measurement range
is 8000 mGals with a resolution of 0.0001 mGal. It can
operate at temperature range between − 40 and + 45 °C.
The CG6 offers a better interface between the meter and
the operator. It has a direct access to the raw 10 Hz data
through a USB connection. A tablet can remotely control
the gravimeter through a wireless connection. The Lynx LG
Land Gravity software provided with the gravimeter allows

123
116 Page 2 of 14
Fig. 1 Superconducting gravimeter OSG-CT40 (in the back), Scintrex
CG5-008 (in the front) and Scintrex CG6-003 (manipulated by the oper-
ator) in the Walferdange Underground Laboratory for Geodynamics.
The size reduction of the CG6 compared to the CG5 is clearly visible
performing live and post-processing including data map-
ping.
In this paper, we present the results of tests conducted to
compare the performance of the CG5 and the CG6 gravity
meters. These tests took place in the Walferdange Under-
ground Laboratory for Geodynamics (WULG) in Luxem-
bourg where the superconducting gravimeter OSG-CT040
is operating continuously since 2002 (Fig. 1). The OSG-
CT40 being more precise and practically drift-free (about
10 nm s−2 /year) serves as a benchmark (Lampitelli and Fran-
cis 2009).
Four tests were conducted. First, the power spectral den-
sity (PSD) was estimated by selecting 6 days of observations
with low noise and no disturbances due to earthquakes.
The PSD is an excellent tool to estimate the noise at high
frequencies. Secondly, tidal analyses of one month of simul-
taneous observations of the CG6-003, the CG5-008 and the
OSG-CT040 meters allow us to estimate the precision of
the different gravimeters in the tidal bands (diurnal, semi-
diurnal and ter-diurnal). Simultaneously, we compared their
drift rates.
Studies (Reudink et al., 2014 and 2017) have shown that
the CG5 gravity values are subject to large offsets, followed
by a relaxation, both function of the duration and of the tilt
magnitude prior measurements. Another recent study (Fores
et al., 2017) showed a significant correlation between grav-
ity readings of the CG5 and external temperature variations.
Therefore, the third and fourth tests consist of submitting
both the CG5 and the CG6 to the same tilt susceptibility
tests as well as to the same external temperature variations.
The results of the previous studies concerning the CG5 are
confirmed, and the CG6 results are presented and discussed.
123
O. Francis
2 Technical description of the Scintrex
gravimeters
This section is devoted to a technical description of the Scin-
trex gravimeters. It will be useful for the interpretation of the
results of the tests. Both the CG5 and the CG6 share the same
design principle (see manuals Scintrex CG-5 2012 and CG-
6 Autograv 2019): A suspended mass moves up and down
when gravity decreases and increases. The complete sensor
system (mass, spring and frame) is built in one fused piece
of quartz. The mass position is detected by a capacitive dis-
placement transducer, which is also used to keep the mass at
a null position. A feedback voltage is automatically applied
on the capacitor plates producing a restoring force. This volt-
age is converted using the appropriate calibration factor into
gravity change.
Due to the quartz spring not being magnetic, the gravity
meter readings are not affected by magnetic field variations
(for magnetic field variations less than 10 times the Earth’s
magnetic field, i.e., ± 0.5 mT). Another advantage of the
quartz gravimeter is that no clamping of the spring is neces-
sary while moving the gravimeter.
Highly precise gravity measurements require protecting
the sensor from ambient temperature and atmospheric pres-
sure changes. This is done by sealing the sensor in a two-stage
temperature stabilized airtight chamber. The active temper-
ature system controls the inside temperature at ± 0.5 mK.
Moreover, a temperature sensor is attached on the main spring
of the sensor itself. A simple admittance factor between the
temperature and the length change of the spring is determined
by the manufacturer. It is precise enough to apply real-time
corrections. This part is critical as the typical value for the
admittance is − 0.0013 m s−2 /K, giving rise to extremely
large corrections.
The Scintrex is equipped with tilt sensors to manually
adjust the vertical position of the gravity sensor. During the
measurements, tilt measurements also provide real-time cor-
rection for tilts over a range of ± 200 arc seconds.
When tilting the gravimeter from its vertical position, the
length of the spring shortens. For the CG5s, once put back re-
leveled, the spring does not necessarily recover to the original
length depending on the angle and the duration of the tilting
(Reudink et al., 2014). This effect can occur due to the elastic
hysteresis of the quartz spring, also called the stress relax-
ation effect (Scintrex CG-5 2012). After a period of time, the
spring will return to its original length. The gravity data will
display an exponential decrease or increase in gravity with
a decay time in relation to the time and magnitude of the
tilting. The manufacturer recommends always keeping the
gravimeter level, when possible, even during transportation.
A significant drift of hundreds of nm s−2 /hour affects
the gravity sensor. The inconvenience is attenuated by its
Performance assessment of the relative gravimeter Scintrex CG-6 Page 3 of 14 116

linear behavior over a few hours. It can be estimated by re-

measuring base stations every few hours.

3 High-frequency noise spectrum

For this test, we selected 6 days of quiet data undisturbed

by earthquakes. The equipment was installed in the WULG
where the environmental noise is close to the lowest level
noise model (Peterson, 1993). The results will mainly reflect
the actual instrumental noise. The raw data are corrected for
tides, atmospheric pressure effects and low degree polyno-
mials to eliminate the instrumental drift and environmental
noise. The power spectral densities (PSD) are then calculated
day-by-day and then averaged (Fig. 2). The CG6-003 noise
level is definitively lower than the CG5-008’s at all periods, Fig. 2 Noise power spectral density (PSD) of the superconducting
and both overlap around 1 min. With the CG6-003, we have gravimeter OSG-CT040 (blue), Scintrex CG5-008 (red) and Scintrex
CG6-003 (green), measured in 2017 in the Walferdange Underground
access to 10 Hz raw data. We can calculate the PSD at very Laboratory for Geodynamics (Luxembourg). It shows the variation of
short periods (up to a few seconds) and compare it with the gravity meters noises as function of the period and compared to the
OSG-CT040. As expected, the OSG-CT040 is better at all USGS (Peterson 1993) low-noise model (NLNM) and USGS high-noise
periods. Except that the micro-seismic noise (between 5 and model (NHNM) with respect to vertical ground acceleration. The plot-
ted PSD for each gravimeter is the result of the average of 6 PSDs
15 s) is recorded without attenuation by the CG6-003. Most computed with 1 day of observations
of the micro-seismic signal is clearly missing in the OSG-
CT040 data as it passed through an analogical low-pass filter.
The peak around 200 s in the SG is caused by the excitation
of a normal mode of the levitating sphere (Imanishi, 2009).
Maybe the most interesting information is that the noise lev-
els of the CG5-008 and the CG6-003 at period lower than
120 s are almost identical. The improvements of a CG6 com-
pared to a CG5 are related to a reduction of the instrumental
noise at long periods.

4 Earth tides analysis and instrumental drift

In order to compare the performance in the tidal bands, we

collected one month of continuous and simultaneous obser-
vations with the CG5-008, CG6-003 and the OSG-CT040
(Hinderer et al., 2007) in the WULG. The raw hourly data
are displayed in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 One month of hourly observations of the Scintrex CG5-008
(red), Scintrex CG6-003 (green) and the superconducting gravimeter
OSG-CT040 (blue) in the Walferdange Underground Laboratory of
Geodynamics (22-01-2017 to 23-02-2017). The continuous lines on
the Scintrex curves are the adjusted linear drifts

4.1 Instrumental drift

No instrumental drift can be detected in the OSG-CT040
observations (as previously mentioned, its drift is around
0.001 nm s−2 /h) (Van Camp and Francis, 2007). We observe
quasi-linear drifts for both the CG5-008 and the CG6-003.
The instrumental drift rate of the CG6-003 is 4.5 times
smaller than the one of the CG5-008 and is negative: −
13.79 ± 0.08 nm s−2 /h versus 63.27 + − /0.08 nm s−2 /h. The
positive drift rate of the CG5-008 is explained by the con-
stant elongation of the quartz spring over time. The opposite
behavior of the CG6 drift might be a sign that the improve-
ment in the sensor design counteracts the spring elongation.
The CG5-008 is 17 years old. When not used in the
field, it is measuring in the WULG. By compiling data over
the past decades, we obtained a long-term time series with
gaps corresponding to the field campaigns. The instrumental
drift (Fig. 4a) is estimated by removing the tides prediction
from the raw data. Any long-term geophysical signals (i.e.,
polar motion effect and slow gravity changes) still present in
the residuals have an insignificant contribution (maximum

123
116 Page 4 of 14 O. Francis

Fig. 4 A. Instrumental drift of

the CG5-008 from different
occupations in the WULG; B.
derivative of the instrumental
drift of the CG5-008. The actual
observations are in read. The
blue curve in a is the fitted
second degree polynomials and
the one in b its derivative

100 nm s−2 in WULG) and can be ignored. After each cam-
paign, the gravimeter was not always located exactly on the
same pier. Sometimes the gravimeter power was turned off
for transportation. These explain the apparent offsets in the
instrumental drift between different occupations. The evo-
lution of the drift rate (Fig. 4b) is a slow linear decrease
dropping from 140 nm s−2 /h at the beginning to 80 nm s−2 /h
17 years later.
Based on the CG5-008 drift behavior, we extrapolate that
the CG6-003 instrumental drift will not increase with time
and could even drop to a few tens of nm s−2 /h after a few
years. Since that first drift estimate, we have four addi-
tional years of CG6-003 observations at the reference site
in WULG. The rate of the drift significantly decreases over
the years. At present, it is about 25 nm s−2 /day. In theory,
it means that we do not need to reoccupy base stations to
estimate the instrumental drift during gravity surveys. How-
ever, it is a good practice to always measure a few times
some reference stations to monitor the drift behavior with
time (Fig. 5a and b). We might need less reference stations
saving a lot of time and increasing the number of measured
stations per hour.
Such a decrease in the instrumental drift of a quartz-spring
gravimeter is a noticeable technical achievement. What has

123
Performance assessment of the relative gravimeter Scintrex CG-6 Page 5 of 14 116

Fig. 5 A. Instrumental drift

a and drift rate b of the
CG6-003 from different
occupations in the WULG. The
actual observations are in green.
The blue curve is in a the fitted
second degree polynomials and
the one in b its derivative

been discovered by the manufacturer? Presently, we have no 4.2 Tidal analysis

answer. It is a well-preserved secret hidden deep inside the
inaccessible heart of the gravimeter.
When installing in a station mode, the CG5-008 tripod
takes a few days to adjust to the ambient temperature. The
tripod of the CG6-003 is lighter (40%) and stronger than the
CG5-008’s one. We found that the CG6-003 tripod is far less
sensitive to room-temperature variations. There is no need to
readjust the tilts after a few days as it is generally the case
with the CG5-008.
The power spectral density, estimated over one month
(Fig. 6), shows that the CG6 noise is in between the CG5
and the OSG. The CG6 is even able to recover the ter-diurnal
tidal waves that are overwhelmed by the CG5 instrumental
noise.
The results of the Earth Tides analyses using the Eterna
(version 3.21) software (Wenzel, 1996) are presented in
Table 1 and displayed in Fig. 7 to facilitate the interpreta-
tion. The results of the three gravimeters agree pretty well
for the four dominant waves. As expected, the disagreements

123
 116

123
Page 6 of 14

Table 1 Tidal parameters estimated using one month of observations of the OSG-CT40, Scintrex CG6-003 and Scintrex CG5-008 (from 18–04-2009 to 01–12-2012) in the Walferdange Underground
Laboratory for Geodynamics
Frequency OSG-CT40 SCINTREX CG6-003 SCINTREX CG5-008

Wave Start/cpd End/cpd Amplitude/nm/s2 Delta Std Dev Phase Std Delta Std Dev Phase Std Delta Std Dev Phase Std
Factor Lead/degree dev/degree Factor Lead/degree dev/degree Factor Lead/degree dev/degree

Q1 0,721,500 0,906,315 67,2 1,14,444 0,00,090 -0,1995 0,0501 1,15,623 0,00,539 -0,5729 0,3062 1,14,695 0,01,895 1,1563 1,0765
O1 0,921,941 0,940,487 352,0 1,14,814 0,00,014 0,0441 0,0081 1,15,032 0,00,087 -0,0526 0,0487 1,13,629 0,00,306 -0,1241 0,1712
M1 0,958,085 0,974,188 27,5 1,13,932 0,00,312 -0,3832 0,1740 1,11,824 0,0187 1,6441 1,044 1,05,171 0,06,582 0,5923 3,6744
K1 0,989,049 1,011,099 490,2 1,13,696 0,00,009 0,3406 0,0051 1,13,822 0,00,051 0,2256 0,0308 1,1419 0,00,181 0,6369 0,1082
J1 1,013,689 1,044,800 27,9 1,15,554 0,00,195 -0,5906 0,1131 1,1786 0,01,173 -1,2662 0,6795 1,2593 0,04,123 3,2445 2,3883
OO1 1,064,841 1,216,397 15,5 1,17,164 0,00,617 1,0054 0,3382 1,09,586 0,03,705 4,2567 2,0315 1,12,229 0,13,034 -5,1715 7,1496
2N2 1,719,381 1,872,142 11,0 1,14,558 0,00,561 3,5504 0,3229 1,2588 0,0274 5,1052 1,576 0,68,476 0,14,524 22,1814 8,3452
N2 1,888,387 1,906,462 70,6 1,17,088 0,00,049 2,8671 0,0282 1,18,618 0,0024 2,5064 0,1376 1,14,204 0,01,273 4,0385 0,7291
M2 1,923,766 1,942,754 373,8 1,18,719 0,00,008 2,3601 0,0046 1,18,718 0,00,039 2,2096 0,0226 1,18,573 0,00,209 2,6477 0,1196
L2 1,958,233 1,976,926 11,3 1,26,679 0,00,664 2,0854 0,3795 1,2758 0,03,239 -0,7722 1,8522 0,87,871 0,17,147 27,5515 9,8142
S2 1,991,787 2,182,843 174,8 1,19,338 0,00,017 0,6316 0,0106 1,19,304 0,00,084 0,3991 0,0518 1,18,621 0,00,446 0,9113 0,2749
M3 2,753,244 3,081,254 4,3 1,06,418 0,00,642 0,4408 0,3677 1,05,616 0,04,066 -0,082 2,3292 1,19,516 0,12,579 -7,7916 7,2062
The main tidal constituents are highlighted in bold
O. Francis
Performance assessment of the relative gravimeter Scintrex CG-6
Fig. 6 Comparison between the power spectral density of the Scintrex
CG5-008, Scintrex CG6-003 and the OSG-CT040 calculated from one
month of simultaneous recordings in the Walferdange Underground
Laboratory for Geodynamics
Fig. 7 Comparison of the estimated tidal parameters over one month of
continuous recordings of the OSG-CT40 (blue), CG6-003 (green) and
CG5-008 (red). The waves are ordered according to the amplitude of
the waves from the biggest to the lowest
tend to increase when the amplitude of the waves decreases.
In Fig. 7, we arrange the tidal parameters according to the
amplitude of the tidal constituents. The results are equiva-
lent for K1 , M2 and S2 . For the other waves, the error bars do
not overlap among the gravimeters. However, the CG6-003
results are always closer to the OSG-CT40. Once the wave
amplitude is lower than 30 nm s−2 , the CG5 estimated tidal
parameters differ significantly from the estimates of the two
others. For the three smallest waves (L2 , 2N2 , M3 ), the CG5-
008 values are unreliable. The M3 tidal parameters from the
OSG-CT40 and the CG6-006 match perfectly.
Overall, the estimated tidal parameters are in better agree-
ment for both amplitude and phase between the CG6-003 and
the OSG-CT040 than with the CC5-008. In the diurnal band,
the ratios between the OSG-CT40 and the Scintrex uncertain-
ties in the diurnal band for M2 and S2 are 6.5 and 20 for the
Page 7 of 14 116
CG6-003 and the CG5-008, respectively. In the semi-diurnal
waves, we found 4.9 times and 5.3, respectively. Overall, the
phases of the tidal waves are in better agreement between the
OSG-CT04 and the CG6-003. The noise level of the CG6-
003 at low frequency has dropped by a factor 3 compared to
the CG5-008.
The CG6-003 provides better tidal estimates in all the
tidal bands. The most impressive results are obtained in the
ter-diurnal band. The new Scintrex gained in stability when
compared to its predecessor.
5 Tilt susceptibility
Field practices end tests have shown that the gravity readings
of a Scintrex CG5 are affected if the meter is not leveled
before collecting data. The gravity values display an offset,
followed by a relaxation. This is a well-known issue already
mentioned in early versions of the Scintrex manual (2009).
To mitigate the effects of the tilt due to transportation, the
manufacturer advises when starting measurements at a new
site first to adjust the verticality of the gravity meter and then
to wait a few minutes before taking the first measurements.
The delay period should be the same for each new station.
The rationale being that even if the spring is still relaxing
one must try to catch the readings in the same “zone” of the
relaxation curve.
Studies (Reudink et al, 2014 and Klees et al., 2017) based
on several Scintrex CG5 gravity meters revealed for the first
time the extent of these undesired effects. A few CG5s were
tested following the same protocol: The gravity meter was
tilted according to different angles for shorter and longer
periods. The results are similar for all the CG5s, new ones as
well for old ones (up to 20 years old). A clear correlation is
established between the duration of the tilting and the magni-
tude of the offset as well as of the recovery time. This latter is
the time necessary for the readings to come back to within a
few tenth of nm s−2 of the initial value of the readings before
tilting the gravity meter.
The CG6-003 in tandem with the CG5-008 was subjected
to the same tests as described in Klees et al. (2017). The grav-
ity meter is maintained at a constant tilt angle of 8 degrees for
a range of durations. In Table 2, we compare the amplitudes
of the offset and the durations of the relaxation as a function
of the tilt angle for both gravimeters. The results of the CG5-
008 are similar to those of previous studies. The problem for
the CG5 is very alarming: For a duration as short as 1 min,
the offset reaches − 125 nm s−2 . In order to come back to the
initial readings within ± 20 nm s−2 , it takes an half hour. For
the extreme case of a tilt duration of 1.5 h, the offset and the
recovery time are − 1040 nm s−2 and 17.4 h, respectively.
The offsets are always negative. There is a linear relation-
ship between the duration of the tilts and the magnitude of
123
116 Page 8 of 14
Table 2 Initial offsets in nm s−2
Tilt duration/min Scintrex CG5-008
and the time elapsed (recovery
time) before the reading comes Initial
back within ± 20 nm s−2 of the offset/nm.s−2
readings before tilting for
different durations but for the 1 − 125
same angle of 8° 5 − 386
10 − 415
30 − 671
60 − 810
90 − 1034
the offsets as well as the recovery times. On the contrary for
the CG6-003, the gravity readings are far less affected by the
tilt. There is still an initial offset, which can reach up to −
120 nm s−2 maximum, 10 times smaller than the CG5. For
the CG6, the recovery time is extremely fast: less than 2 min
for tilt duration less than 0.5 h. For the longest tilt duration,
the offset reaches only − 50 nm s−2 , but it takes 2.7 h to
come back within 20 nm s−2 of the initial value.
Without formal proof, it seems that more than likely the
same fix is at the origin of the diminution of the rate of the
instrumental drift and of the tilt susceptibility of the CG6
(Fig. 8).
6 Effect of external temperature variations
on gravity measurements
“Spring gravimeters are thermometers” (personnel com-
munication, Tim Niebauer). When the outside temperature
changes, the differential thermal dilatation of the feet of the
base tilts the gravimeter. The gravity readings will always
be lower than the actual values. As the reaction time of the
feet is less than a few minutes, the effect is instantaneous.
The effect on the gravity readings is thus in phase with the
outside temperature variations.
The internal temperature of the gravimeter is also affected.
A variation in temperature changes the stiffness of the spring
leading to a change in the calibration factor. There is a delay
between the variations of the outside and of the inside tem-
perature. It is due to the thermal inertia of the body of the
gravimeter that is well insulated and continuously heated.
The gravimeter is equipped with two tiltmeters that are
used to implement a software correction. For this correction,
we need to know the local gravity values. In most cases,
it is not known. We use an average value of g inducing a
maximum error of 20 nm s−2 (Scintrex Manual 2012). To
compensate the internal temperature effect on gravity, a ther-
mistor measures the temperature on the spring. The effect on
the gravity readings is a linear function of the temperature
and can be corrected by a simple admittance factor.
123
O. Francis
Scintrex CG6-003
Recovery Initial Recovery
time/hour offset/nm.s−2 time/hour
0.28 − 120 0.017
0.90 − 74 0.033
1.03 − 119 0.017
3.28 None
12.15 − 30 0.78
17.37 − 51 2.72
The CG5 gravity readings are sensitive to external tem-
perature variations. The effect is typically 2 nm/s2 /degree
Celsius (value found in the first CG-5 commercial brochure,
2002). Recently, Fores et al. (2017) submitted two CG5s to
external temperature variations. They found a high correla-
tion (95%) between the gravity readings and the ambient
temperature, which is measured somewhere between the
external casing and the insulated part of the CG5. The
CG6 is not equipped with an ambient thermometer. After
determining an admittance factor with values similar to the
manufacturer specification, Fores et al. (2017) were able to
improve the results of field measurements.
We performed a similar experiment by placing the CG5-
008 and the CG6-003 side-by-side with a resistor in a
well-insulated enclosure. The power supply of the resistor
was turned on and off every 6 h. We recorded 10 cycles in
total (Fig. 9). The external temperature varied from 20 to
48 degrees Celsius. During the first cycle, we adjusted the
resistor power to not overheat the gravimeters causing a dent
in the curves. For the last 2 cycles, we also reduced the power
delivered in the resistor to vary the signal amplitude. During
the test, we recorded the external temperature, the so-called
ambient temperature inside the CG5-008 (the temperature
inside the housing) and the temperatures inside the CG5-008
and the CG6-003.
First, we will look at the influence of the external tempera-
ture on the different parameters recorded by the gravimeters:
ambient temperature for the CG5 only, the internal temper-
atures of both the CG5 and the CG6 and the variations of
the X and Y tilts. Then, we will investigate the effects on the
gravity readings.
6.1 Effects of the variations of the external
temperature on ambient and internal
temperatures
As displayed in Fig. 9, the ambient temperature is correlated
but not perfectly with the external temperature. Indeed, the
ambient temperature sensor is susceptible to heat irradiated
by the thermally controlled shell around the gravity sensor.
Performance assessment of the relative gravimeter Scintrex CG-6
Fig. 8 Readings of the Scintrex
CG5-008 (in red) and Scintrex
CG6-003 (in green) before and
after tilting. The tilt duration
varies between 1 to 90 min. The
tilt angle for all experiments is
8°. The black lines indicate
the ± 20 nm s−2 range around
the averaged values before the
tilt
This explains why the ambient temperature is always higher
than the external temperature and the shape is slightly differ-
ent. The decrease in the ambient temperature is slower than
in the external temperature due to the thermal inertia of the
gravimeter sustained by the heat of the sensor cavity.
The admittance factor between the ambient and exter-
nal temperature is estimated by calculating the correlation
between both signals. We found that the T amb  0.80 × T ext .
We obtained the best correlation of 0.9948 for a time delay of
about 20 min. A zoom of the dent in the first cycle reveals that
the ambient temperature reacts within 3–4 min to external
temperature variations. However, we also observe a delay of
8 min between the minima of the external temperature (black
line) and the ambient temperature (blue line) (Fig. 10). The
discrepancy between the correlation result and the maxima
Page 9 of 14 116
events of 12 min is due to the distortion of the ambient tem-
perature curve when compared to the curve of the external
temperature.
Deeper inside the gravity meters, the internal tempera-
ture (in the sensor enclosure) also reacts to variations of
the external temperature (Fig. 11a and b). First, we discov-
ered that the raw internal temperature data of the CG5 come
out with the wrong sign. This was not detected by Fores
et al. (2017) who found an anti-correlation between external
and internal temperature. This cannot be correct. Indeed, the
internal temperature cannot decrease if the external temper-
ature increases. One cannot argue that the active temperature
control overacts, simply because it never triggers: The tem-
perature control is activated only if the internal temperature
variations go past the limits of ± 0.5 mK. During our tests, the
123
116 Page 10 of 14 O. Francis

Fig. 9 Variations of the external

and ambient temperature of the
CG5-008

Fig. 10 Comparison between the

external temperature, ambient
temperature in the CG5-008 and
the internal temperature of the
CG5-008 and CG6-003. The
vertical lines indicate the time of
the minimum values of the
external temperature (black), the
ambient (blue) and internal (red)
of temperatures of the Scintrex
CG5-008 and the internal
temperature of the Scintrex
CG6-003 (green)

internal temperatures never exceeded these limits. Another
physical justification is that the quartz spring becomes stiffer
with temperature elevation. If we used the raw internal tem-
perature data (with the wrong sign) and multiply it by the
CG5-008 admittance factor of − 1460 nm s−2 /mK, we end
up with a gravity correction with the wrong sign.
The internal temperature of the CG5-008 and the CG6-
003 is affected 14 min after the variations of the external
temperature. In addition, the delays between the external tem-
peratures and the internal temperatures minima are 17 min
and 18 min for the CG5-008 and the CG6-003, respectively.
Moreover, the maximum temperature change for a variation
of 28 degree Celsius of the external temperature is 0.03 mK
for the CG6-003 and 0.08 mK for the CG5-008, almost three
times bigger. We may be tempted to jump to the conclusion
that the CG6 has a better insulation. We will see below that
if we consider the whole experiment, the CG6 is in fact more
affected. It means that the relationship between the external
and the internal temperature is frequency dependent. In that
case, a simple admittance factor to predict the change of the
internal temperature and then of the gravity readings is not
sufficient. This explains why the manufacturer chooses to use
the internal temperature instead of the external temperature
as a proxy for the correction.
From internal temperature plots (Fig. 11c and d), it is
apparent that: 1. both curves are drifting in opposite direc-
tion; 2. the amplitude range is larger for the CG6-003 than
for the CG5-008; 3. the resolution and precision of the ther-
mal probe of the CG6-003 outperform the CG5-008’s one.
We estimated that the resolution of the CG6-003 temperature
probe is 0.001 mK, a factor 10 better than the probe of the
CG5-008 (0.01 mK).

123
Performance assessment of the relative gravimeter Scintrex CG-6 Page 11 of 14 116

Fig. 11 Variations of the

different parameters and
corrections of the CG5-008 and
CG6-003 when exposed to
external temperature variations
(b): a ambient temperature only
measured by the CG5-008,
c and d sensor temperature,
e and f tilts variations, g and
h and temperature and tilts
corrections, and finally the
gravity readings i and j after
applying all the corrections for
both the CG-008 and CG6-003

123
116 Page 12 of 14
After removing a second degree polynomials from the
temperature data, admittance factor and phase shift between
the external and internal temperature are estimated by cor-
relational method with Tsoft (Van Camp and Vauterin,
2005). For the CG6-003, we obtain an admittance factor of
0.0101 mK/degree Celsius with a time delay of 40.6 min and a
correlation of 0.99. For the CG5-008, we obtained correlation
of 0.94 with an admittance factor 0.0060 mK/degree Celsius
and a time delay of only 6.7 min. From the comparison of
the admittance factors, we could jump to the conclusion that
the CG6 is more sensitive to external temperature variations.
However, this is in contradiction with the time delay which
is 6.5 times smaller for the CG5-008. It might indicate a
better insulation of the CG6. In fact, we have to consider
these results with caution: The value of the admittance fac-
tors depends on the calibrations of the thermo-resistors and
on its exact location on the sensor which both may vary from
one instrument to the other and, also the time delay results
are very sensitive to the shape of the different curves.
6.2 Effects of the variations of the external
temperature on the tilts
External temperature variations of about 25 degrees Celsius
induce tilt change of a few tens of arcsecond. This is enough
to affect the gravity reading up to 150 nm s−2 (Fig. 11i and
j).
The CG6-003 tilts are slightly more affected and more
noisy (Fig. e and f). It looks like the CG5-008 tilt signals are
low-pass filtered. The tilts reaction to the external tempera-
ture variations is quasi-instantaneous. The tilt corrections for
both gravimeters are of the same magnitude but of opposite
sign.
The correlogram between the external temperature and
the tilts corrections gives an admittance factor of 1.71 arc-
sec/degree Celsius, a time delay of 9.3 min with a correlation
of 0.98 for the CG5-008 and − 1.99 arcsec/degrees Celsius,
8.7 min delay with a correlation of 0.87 for the CG6-006. The
corrections for both gravimeters are anti-correlated although
the tilts and the Y-tilt in particular are highly correlated. This
is because the CG5-008 initial tilts at the start of the exper-
iment are close to zero: Any tilt caused by the temperature
variation will induce a positive correction. While the CG6-
003 initial tilts were about − 10 and 25 arsec, the position of
the heater with respect to the feet of the base made that the
increase in the external temperature resulted in improving the
verticality of the CG6-003. The corresponding tilt correction
will increase instead of decreasing like for the CG5-008.
123
O. Francis
6.3 Correlation between the external temperature
and gravity measurements
The internal temperature variations will affect the stiffness
of the quartz spring and modify the calibration factor. The
gravity readings will be modified accordingly giving false
values. The error is a linear function of the internal temper-
ature. A precise correction is calculated by multiplying the
internal temperature by a constant provided by the manu-
facturer. During the test, the magnitude of these corrections
varied in the range of ± 200 nm s−2 and is 3 times bigger
than the tilts correction. The precision depends on the reso-
lution of the temperature sensors, which is 0.001 mK for the
CG6-003, 10 times better than for the CG5-008.
Although the gravity readings are corrected for inter-
nal temperature and tilt variations, they still show a signal
correlated with the external temperature, especially for the
CG5-008. We also notice that for the CG5-008, the amplitude
of the two first cycles is bigger than for the rest of the experi-
ment. The RMS of the gravity is 35.4 nm s−2 and 18.5 nm s−2
for the CG5-008 and the CG6-003, respectively.
We estimated the admittance factor, delay and correlation
between the external temperature and the gravity readings.
For the CG5-008, we obtained a correlation of 0.67 with an
admittance factor of 2.5 nm s−2 /degree Celsius (very close to
the manufacturer specifications) and phase delay of 147 min.
For the CG6-003, we found a correlation of − 0.39, with an
admittance factor of − 0.74 nm s−2 /degrees Celsius and a
delay of 13 min. The main features are that: a. both signals are
correlated for the CG5-008 and anti-correlated for the CG6-
003; (b) the correlation coefficient is almost twice larger for
the CG5-008; (c) its admittance coefficient is 4 times bigger.
The CG5-008 is clearly more affected by the variation of
the external temperature than the CG6-003. Additional, an
additional correction based on the obtained admittance factor
will have more impact on the CG5-008 based on its highest
correlation coefficient.
Our results are qualitatively the same as in Fores et al.
(2017). They found a higher correlation coefficient of 0.95,
an admittance factor twice bigger of 5 nm s−2 /degree Cel-
sius and almost no phase lag (only 15 min on one of the
two Scintrex they tested). It is important to remember that
the admittance here is the admittance between the external
temperature and the gravity readings already corrected for
the internal temperature change. As the external and internal
temperatures vary almost in phase, if the signal after correc-
tion is still in phase with the temperatures, it means that the
admittance factor needs some adjustment. That is the case in
Fores et al. (2017). In our case because the residuals are not
in phase, it means that we cannot improve the temperature
correction by a simple adjustment of the admittance factor
and we need to take a phase shift into account. This is not
an option for online correction. To explain the differences,
Performance assessment of the relative gravimeter Scintrex CG-6
we can evoke the difference in the experimental setups in
terms of test duration (2 and 5 days), temperature cycle (2
and 6 h) and date of the manufacturing of the gravimeters.
The most important conclusion is that the gravity readings
of a CG5 can still be improved in a post-processing using an
admittance factor with or without a phase shift depending on
the gravimeter.
For the CG6-003, the correlation coefficient is negative
that can be interpreted as over-correction. However, the
admittance factor is so small that the CG6-003 is almost
external temperature influence-free. The small residuals
could be also attributed to the tilt correction that has an uncer-
tainty of 10 nm s−2 (Scintrex Manual, 2002).
Finally, we were able to remove almost all the temperature
effects in the gravity residuals using a linear coefficient along
a time lag. For the CG5-008, the root mean square (rms)
dropped from 36 to 26 nm s−2 . We could not achieve results
as good as Fores et al. (2017) who reduced the rms from 39
to 11 nm s−2 . For the CG6-003, the rms went from 18.5 to
17.0 nm s−2 . As expected from the correlation coefficient,
the improvement can only be marginal for the CG6-003.
Overall, for the CG6-003, we could not establish any
clear correlation between external temperature variations and
gravity readings. We can conclude that CG6-003 is not sensi-
tive to external temperature effect. More precisely, if there is
an effect, it is not detectable as its amplitude is less than the
specified precision of the gravimeter. Finally, the best behav-
ior of the CG6 is attributed to a better temperature correction
due to the use of a better thermo-resistor with a resolution
10 times better than for the CG5. In addition, the tempera-
ture correction is applied every second for the CG6 instead
of every minute for the CG5.
In conclusion, CG6 operators do not have to be care-
ful about external temperature changes. In contrast to the
CG5s, there is no effect on the gravity readings and no
post-processing required to improve the data. However, we
strongly advise CG6 operators to perform similar tests with
their own gravity meter.
7 Conclusion
Although the CG6 is smaller and lighter than the CG5, it
does not affect its performance. On the contrary, the tripod
is even less temperature sensitive. Despite the CG6 housing
unit being reduced in size by almost a factor 2, its insula-
tion performed well. The results of extensive tests prove that
the issues of the CG5s have been either fixed or drastically
reduced. The CG6 signal-to-noise ratio is higher for all fre-
quencies (by a factor 3 in the tidal bands). Its instrumental
drift for the CG5 is 5 times smaller.
The tilt susceptibility of the CG6 is almost nonexistent.
The magnitude of the effect is reduced to a level that it can
Page 13 of 14 116
be ignored. In addition, the recovery time is extremely short.
Concerning the external temperature effects on gravity read-
ings, we could not establish a clear correlation or any effects
that need some additional corrections. It means that the CG6s
meet all the manufacturer specifications in conditions similar
to real-world environmental conditions.
In conclusion, the manufacturer succeeded to downsize
the gravimeter while improving its performance. All our tests
suggest that a modification of the design solves the tilt sus-
ceptibility and may be the same fix to reduce the drift rate.
The long-term stability has been improved by implementing
a more precise thermo-resistor on the sensor increasing the
precision of the temperature correction. Our investigation is
based on two specific gravimeters. Past studies demonstrated
that CG5s show consistent behavior and we can extrapolate
that it will be the same for the CG6s. Finally, our results can
serve as benchmarks for CG6 operators who wish to verify
the performance of their gravity meters.
Acknowledgements I am grateful to Ing. Gilbert Klein and Ing. Marc
Seil of the University of Luxembourg for the support they provided
during the experiments. I also thank my daughter Sophie Francis for
editing the draft of the paper. I wish to express my gratitude to the
three reviewers and the associate editor for excellent and constructive
suggestions.
Author contributions O.F. designed and performed the experiments.
He did the interpretation of the results and wrote the paper.
Data availability The data used in this paper can be obtained from the
author (olivier.francis@uni.lu).
References
Fores B, Champollion C, Moigne NL et al (2017) Impact of ambient
temperature on spring-based relative gravimeter measurements. J
Geod 91:269–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-016-0961-2
Hinderer J, Crossley D, Warburton RJ (2007) 3.04 - gravimetric methods
– superconducting gravity meters, editor(s): gerald schubert, trea-
tise on geophysics. Elsevier, pp 65–122, ISBN 9780444527486.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044452748-6.00172-3
Imanishi Y (2009) High-frequency parasitic modes of superconducting
gravimeters. J Geod 83:455–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-
008-0253-6
Klees R, Reudink RHC, Flikweert PLM (2017) Tilt susceptibility of the
scintrex CG-5 autograv gravity meter revisited. In: Vergos G, Pail
R, Barzaghi R (eds) International symposium on gravity, geoid and
height systems 2016. International association of geodesy sym-
posia, vol 148. Springer, Cham. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/134
5_2017_4
Klees R, Reudink RHC, Flikweert PLM (2019) Tilt susceptibility of
the scintrex CG-5 autograv gravity meter revisited. In: Vergos GS
et al. (eds) Proceedings international symposium on gravity, geoid
and height systems 2016, International Association of Geodesy,
vol 48. Springer, New York, pp 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/
1345_2017_4
Lampitelli C, Francis O (2009) Hydrological effects on gravity and cor-
relations between gravitational variations and level of the Alzette
123
116 Page 14 of 14
River at the station of Walferdange, Luxembourg. J Geodyn.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2009.08.003
Scintrex Ltd (2021) CG-5 scintrex autograv system operation manual,
part 1 # 867700 revision 8., Scintrex Limited, Concord
Scintrex Ltd (2019) CG-6 oeprations manuels RevC, https://scintrexltd.
com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CG-6-Operations-Manual-
RevC.pdf/
Peterson JR (1993) Observations and modeling of seismic back-
ground noise. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr93322. USGS Publica-
tions Warehouse, http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr93322
Reudink RHC, Klees R, Francis O, Kusche J, Schlesinger R, Shabanloui
A, Sneeuw N, Timmen L (2014) High tilt susceptibility of the
Scintrex CG-5 relative gravimeters. J Geodesy 2014(March):1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-014-0705-0
123
O. Francis
Van Camp M, Francis O (2007) Is the instrumental drift of supercon-
ducting gravimeters a linear or exponential function of time? J
Geod 81:337–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-006-0110-4
Van Camp M, Vauterin P (2005) Tsoft: graphical and interactive soft-
ware for the analysis of time series and Earth tides. Comput Geosci
31(5):631–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2004.11.015
Van Camp M, Viron O, Watlet A, Meurers B, Francis O, Caudron C
(2017) Geophysics from terrestrial time-variable gravity measure-
ments. Rev Geophys 55(4):938–992. https://doi.org/10.1002/201
7RG000566
Wenzel HG (1996) The nanogal software: earth tide data processing
package ETERNA 3.30. Bull Inf Marées Terr 124:9425–9439