LSM9DS0 Accelerometer noise

[Erich Neumann]

Posted on January 17, 2017 at 19:16

Hi.

I am using the LSM9DS0, and have observed a lot of noise on the z-Axis of the Accelerometer Data. The attached picture is a plot showing the noise while operating at 100Hz in the +-2g range. Is this a normal level of noise for this device, or am I doing something wrong, or is the device defective?

kind regards.

Erich Neumann

#lsm9ds0 #accelerometer #noise

[Oliver Beirne]

Posted on January 17, 2017 at 23:00

Hi

neumann.erich

I have moved your thread to the 

https://community.st.com/community/mems-sensors-community/mems-sensors-forum?sr=search&ampsearchId=7c0ad53c-0ba8-464a-8ec1-0ec9a544bd8e&ampsearchIndex=1

where someone should be able to assist you.

Thanks

Oli

[Miroslav BATEK]

Posted on January 18, 2017 at 10:57

Hello Erich,

can you please share the values in text form or attach an excel file, so I can check it.

[Erich Neumann]

Posted on January 18, 2017 at 11:20

Hello Miroslav,

sure, no problem. here is the values in text form:

0,9606323242

0,9723510742

0,9658203125

0,9698486328

0,9688110352

0,9644775391

0,9722900391

0,9704589844

0,9642944336

0,9791259766

0,9736328125

0,9665527344

0,9619140625

0,9720458984

0,9658203125

0,9647216797

0,9718017578

0,9605102539

0,9632568359

0,9747314453

0,9681396484

0,9627685547

0,9709472656

0,9575195313

0,9515380859

0,9769287109

0,967956543

0,9680175781

0,9744262695

0,9681396484

0,9664916992

0,971496582

0,9672851563

0,9697265625

0,9570922852

0,973449707

0,9660644531

0,9713134766

0,9621582031

0,9642944336

0,9688110352

0,9682617188

0,9688110352

0,9709472656

0,9696044922

0,9600830078

0,9566040039

0,9677734375

0,97265625

0,9761962891

0,9678955078

0,9717407227

0,9627685547

0,9721069336

0,9733276367

0,9577026367

0,9709472656

0,9569091797

0,9683227539

0,9697875977

0,9760131836

0,9555664063

0,9730224609

0,9582519531

0,9653930664

0,9691162109

0,9626464844

0,9694824219

0,9642944336

0,9615478516

0,9675292969

0,96875

0,9627075195

0,9727172852

0,9649658203

0,9642333984

0,9641113281

0,9597167969

0,9580078125

0,9566040039

0,9693603516

0,9730224609

0,9674682617

0,963684082

0,9678955078

0,9581298828

0,9624633789

0,9723510742

0,9647216797

0,9611816406

0,9743041992

0,9681396484

0,9609985352

0,9708251953

0,9694213867

[Nejc Okorn]

Posted on January 22, 2017 at 13:41

Hi

oliverbeirne

‌,

Batek.Miroslav

‌,

I have the same issue as Erich, in fact I can confirm, that some of the devices using this sensor does not have any noise or should I say there is expected noise and the other devices have the same noise as presented by Erich. Ihave tried 10 different sensors and at least every second device has this noise issue.

Pictures from the one without the noise and the one with noise below.

Unfortunately we discovered this issue right before the release date of the device, because we were only testing it on one device...

I hope someone will be able to help us, because we really do not want to switch the sensor before the release.

Best regards,

Nejc

[Miroslav BATEK]

Posted on January 24, 2017 at 11:43

Hello Erich, Nejc,

I received information that the typical accelerometer noise density is 150 ug/sqrt(Hz) 

@FS=2g and ODR=100Hz.

Your values seems to be much higher.

Here are a few hints:

• Check power supply and blocking capacitor, noisy Vdd has affect to the output values

• Read data only if DRDY interrupt is trigerred, do not poll status register for new data

• Please check there are really no surrounding vibration when you measure the noise in still state

[Nejc Okorn]

Posted on January 24, 2017 at 18:35

Hello

‌

thanks for the replay.

I have to say that we already did everything we could for first and last suggestion you made to get the clearest input voltage as possible and I was measuring the input voltage myself, but could not see any noise.

There is no vibration and the screen shotsI provided in previous post were taken at the same time and the devices were on the same surface.

I don't see why the second suggestion would be any different? But Iwill try this and will report back.

Thanks,

Nejc

EDIT:

The results are the same, but I did get a lot better results using +/- 2G scale option.

Anyway the results on +/- 2G are still not as good as on +/- 8G measuring outcome onthe device that works fine(picture from the previous post with good results)

________________

Attachments :

Screenshot from 2017-01-25 17-47-33.png : https://st--c.eu10.content.force.com/sfc/dist/version/download/?oid=00Db0000000YtG6&ids=0680X000006Hyut&d=%2Fa%2F0X0000000bEf%2FPNYc3VDpBHujylJjkxsieUj2jTZ7ierM0qX6hB9VpFo&asPdf=false