sensors

Article
Lightweight Thermal Compensation Technique for MEMS
Capacitive Accelerometer Oriented to Quasi-Static
Measurements
Javier Martínez 1, * , David Asiain 1 and José Ramón Beltrán 2

1 Department of Electronic Engineering, Escuela Universitaria Politécnica de la Almunia, C/Mayor 5,

La Almunia de Doña Godina, 50100 Zaragoza, Spain; dasiain@unizar.es
2 Department of Electronic Engineering and Communications, Universidad de Zaragoza, C/María de Luna 1,
50018 Zaragoza, Spain; jrbelbla@unizar.es
* Correspondence: jmartinezlahoz@unizar.es

Abstract: The application of MEMS capacitive accelerometers is limited by its thermal dependence,
and each accelerometer must be individually calibrated to improve its performance. In this work,
a light calibration method based on theoretical studies is proposed to obtain two characteristic
parameters of the sensor’s operation: the temperature drift of bias and the temperature drift of
scale factor. This method requires less data to obtain the characteristic parameters, allowing a faster
calibration. Furthermore, using an equation with fewer parameters reduces the computational cost of
compensation. After studying six accelerometers, model LIS3DSH, their characteristic parameters are
obtained in a temperature range between 15 ◦ C and 55 ◦ C. It is observed that the Temperature Drift
of Bias (TDB) is the parameter with the greatest influence on thermal drift, reaching 1.3 mg/◦ C. The



Temperature Drift of Scale Factor (TDSF) is always negative and ranges between 0 and −400 ppm/◦ C.


With these parameters, the thermal drifts are compensated in tests with 20 ◦ C of thermal variation.
Citation: Martínez, J.; Asiaín, D.;
An average improvement of 47% was observed. In the axes where the thermal drift was greater than
Beltran, J.R. Lightweight Thermal
1 mg/◦ C, the improvement was greater than 80%. Other sensor behaviors have also been analyzed,
Compensation Technique for MEMS
such as temporal drift (up to 1 mg/h for three hours) and self-heating (2–3 ◦ C in the first hours with
Capacitive Accelerometer Oriented to
the corresponding drift). Thermal compensation has been found to reduce the effect of the latter in
Quasi-Static Measurements. Sensors
2021, 21, 3117. https://doi.org/
the first hours after power-up of the sensor by 43%.
10.3390/s21093117
Keywords: MEMS; accelerometer; thermal drift; thermal compensation; tilt measurements
Academic Editor: Gamani Karunasiri

Received: 8 March 2021

Accepted: 27 April 2021 1. Introduction
Published: 30 April 2021 Micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) [1] have multiple advantages over tradi-
tional technology. Their small size, low cost, and low power consumption have promoted
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral their use in smartphones. And the expansion of smartphones and tablets has contributed
with regard to jurisdictional claims in greatly to the improvement of MEMS technology and sensors. The MEMS accelerometer
published maps and institutional affil-
of smartphones can be used in multiple applications, such as user transportation means
iations.
detection [2], pedestrian recognition [3], or structural integrity monitoring [4].
Outside the smart-phone field, accelerometers are widely used in monitoring applica-
tions. They have been applied to railway infrastructure [5], geotechnical monitoring [6],
geostructural safety [7], surface failure of slopes [8], bridge structural monitoring [9], and
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. even tree property measurements [10].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. However, one major disadvantage of MEMS capacitive accelerometers is their tem-
This article is an open access article perature dependence. This effect, although small compared to some other technologies,
distributed under the terms and
reduces the viability of MEMS accelerometers in medium to high precision applications
conditions of the Creative Commons
where thermal variations are expected. Thermal stresses can temporarily or permanently
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
alter the behavior of the units [11]. These alterations are not deterministic; different units of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
the same model exposed to the same processes exhibit different thermal sensitivities [12].
4.0/).

Sensors 2021, 21, 3117. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21093117 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 2 of 23

Multiple ways have been proposed to improve the thermal behavior of MEMS ac-
celerometers. Some studies propose alternative design techniques of the internal struc-
tures [13–17]. Other studies reduce the thermal drift by compensating its effects on the
resonant circuits [18], implementing sub-circuits [19], implementing application specific in-
tegrated circuit [20], taking advantage of the capacitor parasitic resistance [21], or isolating
them in a micro oven-control system with controlled temperature [22]. These techniques
are used to improve the technology capabilities, but, to improve the performance of an
accelerometer in application, other techniques are required.
Some software techniques have been proposed to obtain thermal compensation pa-
rameters for the accelerometers [23,24]. These techniques are based on a polynomial
equation in which the parameters are obtained with regression methods. To ensure the
accuracy of the parameters, the tests must be performed for each working temperature
and inclination. Alternative methods consists of using neural networks to predict and
compensate the thermal behavior [25]. In both methods, the calibration process for each
DUT (Device Under Test) is time consuming and hard to compute, increasing with each
degree of the polynomial model or with each neuron added. Generally, external hardware
and software must be used to achieve calibration. This can increase significantly the cost,
as the calibration must be performed individually.
Many modern MEMS accelerometers and IMUs integrate a temperature sensor. Some
of the more advance series, like the ADIS series by Analog Devices, also include the
compensation techniques and are individually factory calibrated. This greatly improves its
performance, but also the cost.
The objective of this paper is to research a lightweight and fast method to achieve the
thermal characterization and compensation of MEMS accelerometers, and test its perfor-
mance. This work proposes a straightforward model according to theoretical analysis of
MEMS capacitive accelerometers [26]. The proposed model contains only two characteris-
tic parameters for every axis. Both parameters are directly related to the accelerometers
thermal behavior: the Temperature Drift of Bias (TDB) and the Temperature Drift of Scale
Factor (TDSF). This method does not require a polynomial regression, reducing the amount
of data and time required to obtain the compensation parameters.

2. The MEMS Accelerometer

2.1. Working Principle
Capacitive accelerometers rely on a change in electrical capacitance in response to
acceleration. They utilize the properties of opposed plate capacitors. One plate of each
capacitor is fixed, and the other is attached to a seismic mass between springs [27]. Multiple
pairs of capacitors are used with the same seismic mass, as shown in Figure 1. Any external
acceleration displaces the seismic mass, modifying the distance between the capacitors
plates, and, therefore, their capacitance. The difference between the values of opposing
capacitors varies proportionally to the applied acceleration. Both capacitances can be
measured with voltage pulses [11].
The micromechanical structure is made of silicon. Silicon is a temperature-sensitive
material and its physical characteristics vary greatly with temperature. Specific structural
designs can reduce this temperature dependence [17]. Two single-axis structures can
be arranged perpendicular to each other on the same plane creating a biaxial MEMS
accelerometer. To allow for the third sensitive axis, another sensing technique has to be
used. There are multiple ways to allow this perpendicular axis sensitivity, for example, the
torsional springs technique [27]. This way a triaxial accelerometer can be fabricated in one
plane. However, this third axis usually suffers from lower sensitivity, higher thermal drifts
and, in general, worse performance.
MEMS capacitive accelerometers are very sensitive to soldering processes. Thermal
stresses and dilatations can induce permanent mechanical stresses in the interior of the
MEMS. Externally, uneven cooling of the solder tin can also induce mechanical stresses.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 3 of 23

Both of these effects permanently affect the Zero-g level of the sensor. Therefore, it is
necessary to calibrate the devices after the soldering process.

Figure 1. Working principle of a capacitive accelerometer.

2.2. Triaxial Accelerometer Calibration

The design of a triaxial accelerometer consists of three orthogonally arranged single
axis sensors. Manufacturing inaccuracies cause misalignment between the sensitive axes
and the accelerometers body. Furthermore, the sensitive axes are not orthogonal and cross
sensitivities appear. Compensating for these effects is especially important to achieve
reliable tilt measurements. It is also necessary to calibrate the individual sensitivity and
bias for each axis. The output of a triaxial accelerometer can be represented as Equation (1).
         
X0 SX 0 0 A XX AYX A ZX X bX
 Y0  =  0 SY 0  ·  A XY AYY A ZY  ·  Y  +  bY , (1)
Z0 0 0 SZ A XZ AYZ A ZZ Z bZ

where X0 , Y0 , and Z0 are the accelerometer measurements; X, Y, and Z are the ideal
accelerations on the orthogonal axis; SX , SY , and SZ are the scale factor of the accelerometer
axes; bX , bY , and bZ are the bias of the axes; and A XX , AYX , A ZX , A XY , AYY , A ZY , A XZ ,
AYZ , and A ZZ are the transformation parameters that relate the orientation of the sensitive
axes to the orthogonal axes of the body [28].
Multiple algorithms can be used to obtain the calibration parameters [29,30]. A simple
method consists of using the six positions where an axis is perpendicular to the earth plane.
After obtaining all the data, the factors are obtained with the least square method.
Temperature affects each sensitive axis individually, so they must be analyzed sep-
arately, without mutually affecting each other due to mechanical calibration. Once the
thermal drift is compensated, the misalignment, bias and sensitivity calibration will be
performed to obtain reliable measurements of inclination.

2.3. Tilt Measurement Techniques for Accelerometers

Measurement of tilt using accelerometers takes advantage of the constant gravity
vector. Each axis measurement (gx , gy , and gz ) represents the projection of the gravity
vector on that axis (see Figure 2) [31]. With them, it is possible to determine the Euler pitch,
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 4 of 23

α, and roll, β, angles. Depending on the number of axes and mathematical formula used to
compute the angles, the measurement range, sensor sensitivity, and alignment dependence
may change [32].

Figure 2. Axes accelerations and Euler angles.

With three orthogonal accelerations, it is possible to compute the Euler angles in

different ways. The performance of some of them is greatly affected by the orientation
of the sensor [32]. The sensitivity of tilt measurements drops down to zero near ±90◦ .
Therefore, to obtain the best performance in the maximum range, all three axes have to be
taken into account.
The two Euler angles α and β can also be computed if only the acceleration in two
axes is available. However, if one of the axis used is close to ±1 g, the accuracy will be
reduced. Therefore, the best solution would be to mount both sensitive axes parallel to the
ground. This allows the use of Equations (2) and (3) to obtain the Euler angles [33].
gx
α = arcsin , (2)
g
gy
β = arcsin . (3)
g
These equations could be used assuming that g is exactly 1000 mg, or computing it as
the geometric sum of gx , gy , and gz .

2.4. Thermal Behavior

Capacitive MEMS accelerometers are sensitive to temperature variations. These
variations are produced by both external and internal phenomena; for example, internal
electronics produce heat due to ohmic loss. Temperature changes affect the internal
structure in multiple ways: changes in the Young’s modulus, thermal deformations and
thermally induced stresses [34]. Thermal drifts are linked to variations in the stiffness of
the beams and springs of the structure, caused by manufacturing imperfections [35].
Other effects, such as imperfections in the soldering process or the different coefficients
of thermal expansion between the glass substrate and the silicon structure, can also induce
mechanical stresses when subjected to temperature variations.
In working conditions, the thermal behavior of the MEMS accelerometer is character-
ized by the Temperature Drift of Bias and the Temperature Drift of Scale Factor [17,26,36].
TDB is expressed in mg/◦ C, it can greatly affect the output value depending on the temper-
ature, and it is directly proportional to the beam stiffness differences. Since manufacturing
imperfections are random, so are the sign and value of the TDB. This randomness requires
a specific thermal calibration for each DUT to ensure the best performance.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 5 of 23

The TDSF generates a change in the sensitivity of the sensor as a function of tempera-
ture. This generates a drift proportional to both the temperature and the raw acceleration
of the axis. The TDSF value is expressed in ppm/◦ C and is always negative [26], which
implies that the sensitivity of the sensor always decreases when the temperature increases.
The data provided by manufacturers shows a similar behavior. In Reference [11],
typical “Sensitivity change versus temperature” (TDSF) and “Zero-g level change versus
temperature” (TDB) data are provided. By using a reference temperature TR , which the
manufacturer sets at 25 ◦ C, the output value of a MEMS accelerometer, X, can be expressed
as the real value, X0 , plus the bias error and the scale factor error, as shown in Equation (4),
where T represents the DUTs’ temperature.

X ( T ) = X0 + ( T − TR )( TDB + TDSF · X0 ). (4)

Thermal Compensation
To ensure the best possible performance of the accelerometer, the thermal drift has to be
compensated. The most common method is to fit a linear polynomial to the MEMS behavior.
Niu et al. [24] proposed a third order polynomial equation (Equation (5)) to achieve the
calibration. This equation does not take into account the change in sensitivity with the
temperature, since the raw acceleration is not present in the equation. All the parameters of
the polynomial models correspond to different orders of TDB. The dispersion between the
A1 parameter of the three axes in both studied accelerometers agrees with the randomness
of sign and value previously described. The result of this equation is not the compensated
value, but the thermal induced error (E) according to the temperature (T). It has to be
added, or subtracted, to the measurements to get the compensated acceleration value.

E ( T ) = A0 + A1 · T + A2 · T 2 + A3 · T 3 . (5)

To account for variations in the sensors sensitivity, the raw acceleration has to be
included in the thermal compensation technique. This results in a compensation surface
with more parameters. Ruzza et al. [23] proposed a second order surface (defined by
Equation (6)) to obtain the thermal induced error (E) from the raw acceleration (X) and
temperature (T).

E( T, X ) = p00 + p10 T + p01 X + p20 T 2 + p11 T · X + p02 X 2 . (6)

They generate different surfaces for cooling and heating cycles. This can compensate
for the possible hysteresis of the system, but increases the complexity of the technique,
since two surfaces are used for each axis, and the temperature gradient must be taken
into account before compensation. The two surfaces are not coincident, and it can lead to
sudden changes in the output value.
Each coefficient in Equation (6) can be related with a specific characteristic of the
system, and compared with the theoretical Equation (4):
• p00 = Bias in LSBs at 0 ◦ C.
• p10 = Data variation proportional to temperature in LSBs/◦ C. Same as TDB.
• p01 = Sensibility of the acceleration in LSBs. Same as SX in Equation (1).
• p20 = Second order TDB. It does not have much effect, since it is three orders lower
than p10 .
• p11 = Sensitivity change because of temperature. Same as TDSF.
• p02 = Second order non-linearity sensibility in LSBs. Typical order of 10−8 .
This technique can lead directly to the compensated acceleration value, X0 . For that to
happen, p01 must be close to 1, adding the raw acceleration to the output value.
Ruzza et al. also detected that the thermal drifts in a small population of sensors is
random [12]. In all these studies, the Z axis shows a different behavior compared to the X
and Y axes. This may be due to the different sensitive axis design mentioned in Section 2.1.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 6 of 23

The randomness and magnitude of the thermal drifts requires an individual calibration
for each accelerometer. This process can be expensive and time consuming, as each
accelerometer has to be analyzed at all temperatures and inclinations, and then the model
parameters have to be extracted.
We propose a fast compensation technique based on Equation (4). By using the two
most relevant parameters (TDB and TDSF), the computational cost and time required
for each DUT can be reduced. Each parameter, if not properly adjusted, can lead to
errors. Therefore, fewer compensation parameters can mean a more robust compensation
technique, as there are fewer potential sources of error.
This thermal compensation does not have to give the exact acceleration measurement;
the objective is to obtain a value that does not depend on temperature. After this, a
mechanical calibration is carried out that allows us to obtain reliable measurements of
acceleration and inclination.

3. Methodology
To study the characterization of a MEMS capacitive accelerometer according to
Equation (4), it is necessary to analyze its response to temperature variations in multiple
orientations. This data can be used to obtain the TDB and TDSF parameters for each DUT
and compensate for its thermal drifts. Six accelerometers will be studied simultaneously;
in this way, the dispersion between DUTs can be perceived.

3.1. The Accelerometer—Device under Test

For this paper, we will use the LIS3DSHTR MEMS accelerometer manufactured by
STMicroelectronics [11]. This accelerometer has been chosen for being a low cost model of
a company with significant importance in the inertial MEMS market. In addition, its small
size and low energy consumption favor its use in IoT systems or in portable devices.
The LIS3DSH is a capacitive three-axis linear accelerometer that has dynamically
selectable full scales of ±2 g, ±4 g, ±6 g, ±8 g, and ±16 g. This device also comes with one
embedded temperature sensor with an 8 bit resolution. It is factory calibrated to give an
output of 1 LSB per ◦ C.
Communication with the LIS3DSH can be done through I2C and SPI serial interfaces.
Other typical characteristics of this MEMS accelerometer are shown in Table 1.
Some of these characteristics, such as bias and TDB, can vary depending on multiple
factors (PCB mounting, thermal stresses, mechanical stresses). Therefore, the manufacturer
does not guarantee typical specifications.

Table 1. Typical characteristics of the LIS3DSHTR MEMS accelerometer in the ±2 g range configura-
tion (FS bit set to 000).

Parameter Typical Value

Resolution 16 bits
Sensitivity 0.06 mg
Output data rate 3.125 Hz to 1.6 kHz
Sensitivity change vs temperature (TDSF) 0.01%/◦ C
Typical zero-g level offset accuracy ±40 mg
Zero-g level change vs. temperature (TDB) ±0.5 mg/◦ C
√
Acceleration noise density (Data Rate = 100 Hz) 150 µg/ Hz

This accelerometer has a built-in self-test. This allows the user to unbalance the
internal capacitive bridge and simulate an acceleration. In the Z axis, this simulated force
is four times bigger than on the X and Y axes. This is an indication that the Z axis has
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 7 of 23

four times lower sensitivity and requires more amplification. It is probably caused by the
different mechanical design of the sensitive axis.
In many tilt measurement applications, and especially in monitoring applications,
acceleration is not expected to experience rapid variations. Consequently, the accelerometer
sampling rate and the antialiasing filter frequency can be set to low values. The working
range will not exceed 1g, allowing to achieve a better resolution. The configuration loaded
into the DUTs is shown in Table 2. All other configuration registers are not modified.

Table 2. Configuration of the studied units.

Register Value (HEX) Details

CTRL_REG4 (20 h) 17 ODR: 3.125 Hz. All axes active
CTRL_REG5 (24 h) C0 Antialiasing: 50 Hz. FS: ±2 g. No self-test. 4-wire SPI

3.2. Hardware—TestBench
All the DUTs will be studied simultaneously to ensure that the temperature stresses
are similar across all of them. In this way, the results become easier to compare. All the
DUTs are in contact with the same metal plate. The temperature of this plate is changed
using four Peltier modules distributed throughout the area. The modules allow to generate
stable temperatures from 10 ◦ C to 65 ◦ C. Lower temperatures could be reached, but water
might condensate on the pcbs. Temperatures above 65 ◦ C are not recommended to avoid
system degradation. Power is delivered to the Peltier modules through an H-Bridge for
a better temperature control. The H-Bridge is controlled with an Arduino Nano Board,
which has a temperature sensor on the metal plate for a close loop control (see Figure 3).

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Testbench used to induce the temperature variations during the tests. (a) Peltier modules with the metal plate and
the heat exchanger. (b) Working diagram.

Each DUT includes one LIS3DSH capacitive MEMS Accelerometer and a SAMD21G18
MCU. Five of the DUTs are attached to an identical printed circuit board and have been
produced with the same industrial soldering processes, undergoing the same thermal
and mechanical stresses (see Figure 4b). The last DUT will be the control DUT, which
has not undergone any industrial soldering process. The pads of the control DUT have
been carefully soldered to minimize the thermal stress on the package (see Figure 4a).
Soldering wire with a melting point of 179 ◦ C and a soldering station with temperature
control has been used. The DUTs’ temperature was always controlled to ensure that the
internal structures suffered no thermal stresses.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 8 of 23

(a) Control DUT (b) Industrial soldered DUTs (#1 to #5)

Figure 4. DUTs used during tests.

3.3. Tests Conditions

Before starting the tests with temperature variations, the DUTs are studied in a fixed
position and at room temperature for 20 h. This is used to get a cool start and a reference
behavior. Some characteristics, such as signal noise, self-heating, or temporary drifts, can
be analyzed. The main tests, which will be used for TDB and TDSF, are performed only
after the accelerations are stable and no temporary drifts are detected.
The main tests are carried out in six different orientations, shown in Figure 5. It is
not necessary for the orientations to be set very precisely, as the actual acceleration value
used to subsequently calculate the TDSF will be taken during each test as the acceleration
at 25 ◦ C. The TDB only depends on variations, so it is not affected by the actual value of
acceleration. These are the minimum number of tests that provide information about the
full application range (±1 g) for all three axes.
The temperature profiles during the tests follow the Soak method [24]. This method is
based on generating stable temperatures during the tests. Three different temperatures are
used during each test. The fast temperature variations can help analyze the response time
of the sensor and other effects, such as hysteresis [37]. The time spent in each temperature
step must ensure that the entire transient response has been mitigated, and it is set at
two hours for each step. Therefore, a full cycle will take eight hours to complete. Three
uninterrupted cycles will be logged for each orientation, with a total duration of 24 h for
each orientation.
The tests require only three temperature points to allow characterization. This allows
the tests to be performed without specialized equipment, such as Peltier modules or
thermal chambers. Only one heat source and one cooling source are required. These test
conditions are chosen to allow thermal calibration without expensive equipment.
After the six main tests are completed, a verification test is performed. In this case, the
temperature profile is triangular with a period of 12 h and an amplitude of 20 ◦ C (from
25 ◦ C to 45 ◦ C). This test is carried out to simulate thermal variations closer to working
conditions and to test the compensation performance. It is carried out for three days
without interruption.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 9 of 23

Figure 5. Orientations during the six calibration tests.

3.4. Signal Processing

The DUTs data are captured at 3.125 Hz, containing information about capture time,
X axis raw acceleration (in LSBs), Y axis raw acceleration (in LSBs), Z axis raw acceleration
(in LSBs), and temperature (in ◦ C). The temperature is sampled with the LIS3DSH inte-
grated temperature sensor. For a better comprehension of the results and comparison with
other works, the acceleration is transformed to be expressed in mg.
The captured data has a large white noise component. Therefore, an exponential
filter is used to reduce it (Equation (7)). This filter is chosen over others because of its
low computing load. This allows it to be implemented in applications in low cost MCUs
or CPUs. Since the data are quasi-static the filtering factor, α, can be set at a low value,
increasing the response time. The filtering factor is set at 0.05; therefore, the response time
of the filter is 43 samples, equivalent to 13.76 s at 3.125 Hz. Its effect on the signal can be
appreciated in Figure 6.
y n = (1 − α ) y n −1 + α · x n . (7)

(a) Response to a unitary step input (b) Effect on an acceleration signal

Figure 6. Exponential filter behavior.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 10 of 23

4. Results
The graphical representation of the captured data shows many characteristics that
need to be further analyzed, such as noise, temperature drifts, temporary drifts, and self-
heating. All DUTs, including the control DUT, exhibit similar behavior and characteristics,
but to different extents.

4.1. Thermal Drift

It is clear that the temperature changes induce large variations in the measured
acceleration (see Figure 7). If this effect is left uncompensated, it can lead to large errors.
The first test shows that it can be higher than 1 mg/◦ C. This means that thermal variations
of 10 ◦ C can cause more error than temporary drift or noise, so it is a characteristic that
must be compensated for to improve the performance of the sensors. This is especially
important in long-term tilt measurement applications, as the temperature changes can lead
to errors that can not be compensated for with standard filters.

(a) DUT #1, X axis (b) Control DUT, X axis

Figure 7. Simultaneous temperature (in red) and acceleration (in blue) variations during the tests.

The temperature variations induce immediate acceleration variations, there are no

significant delays or response time between both variations. Furthermore, the drifts seem
to be proportional to the thermal variations, and no significant hysteresis effect appears.

4.2. Self-Heating
During the first moments of the start-up test, the temperatures of all DUTs rise (see
Figure 8). This effect is caused by the heat produced in both the external and internal
electronic circuits, due to ohmic losses. The temperature increase is up to 2 ◦ C in the
control DUT and between 2.5 ◦ C and 3.5 ◦ C in the PCBs (Printed Circuit Boards) on which
the DUTs have been placed. This difference is caused by two factors: more heat produced
in the PCB DUTs due to the nearby electronics (MCU and power supply), and better heat
dissipation of the control DUT, as it is attached directly to a metal plate rather than soldered
to a printed circuit board.
The thermal increase is concentrated in the first two or three hours after cool start.
After that point, the temperature rises less than 1◦ C in ten hours. After the ten-hour mark,
the temperature can be considered stable. (The temperature falling at the end of the test is
caused by the cooler room temperature during the night.)
This initial thermal variation will cause a thermal drift that could be compensated
for to improve the system performance during the first hours. Drift produced by this self-
heating should be similar to the thermal drift produced by a similar variation in external
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 11 of 23

temperature. Therefore, thermal compensation should also reduce the drift caused by this
initial self-heating.

(a) First 5 h of the cool start test. (b) First 20 h of the cool start test.
Figure 8. Temperature variation during the cool start test.

4.3. Temporal Drift

During the constant temperature test, the acceleration values of the axes do not remain
stable (see Figure 9). The drift during the first hours of the test can be caused by the
self-heating effect. However, the remaining drifts after the first hours can not be attributed
to thermal drifts because the temperature does not change significantly.

(a) X axes (b) Y Axes (c) Z Axes

Figure 9. Acceleration value of the DUTs during the cool start test.

DUTs #2, #4, and #5 modify their behavior in the Z axis between the fifth and tenth
hour of the test. This variation does not appear in DUTS #1 or #3. In general, this adds
another unreliability factor to the Z axis of the sensor. This effect is also present, although
much lower, in the X axis in the same DUTs. The DUTs average and worst temporary drifts
for multiple time segments are shown in Table 3.
This drift is unique for each axis and DUT, although they have similar behaviors. The
drift is very high in the first two hours of the test, up to 3 mg/h. As self-heating becomes
less dominant, the drift progressively reduces, and the average drift after the first ten hours
is around 0.13 mg/h.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 12 of 23

Table 3. Temporal drifts magnitude for each axis (mg/h).

X Y Z
Time Avg. Worst C.U. Avg. Worst C.U. Avg. Worst C.U.
0–1 h 1.24 3.43 2.31 1.68 2.21 4.79 1.18 2.75 3.58
1–3 h 0.39 1.15 0.35 0.42 0.89 0.83 0.46 1.13 0.63
3–5 h 0.20 0.55 0.06 0.23 0.48 0.12 0.28 0.81 0.12
5–10 h 0.24 0.34 0.01 0.16 0.33 0.10 0.40 0.58 0.24
10–20 h 0.10 0.25 0.07 0.13 0.21 0.02 0.16 0.33 0.10

The control DUT has a high drift in the first hour, significantly higher than the average
drift. After three hours, this drift is considerably reduced, becoming lower than 0.1 mg/h
after ten hours. This may be due to the better thermal conductivity of the control DUT.
The maximum difference error caused by the drift in 20 h is up to 11 mg for the X axis,
9 mg for the Y axis, and 12 mg for the Z axis. The average total drift is between 2 mg and
6 mg for all the DUTs and axes.

4.4. System Noise

Even after the filtering process, there is a significant level of noise in all DUTs. This
noise makes it difficult to analyze the DUTs’ behavior in short times or with little tempera-
ture variations. All the data transmissions are digital; therefore, the noise is generated in
the accelerometers internal electronics. This noise could be affected by the accelerometer
configuration; however, the slowest sample rate—which is the one in use—should be the
least noisy. This noise can only be reduced with more restrictive software filters. To analyze
the noise levels of the DUTs, the tenth hour of the cool start test is chosen, since it has low
drifts (see Table 4).

Table 4. Noise for each DUT and axis during the 10th hour of the cool start test (mg).

X Y Z
DUT Standard Max Standard Max Standard Max
Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation
1 0.221 1.704 0.201 1.305 0.297 2.031
2 0.227 1.619 0.196 1.357 0.245 1.802
3 0.193 1.333 0.170 1.245 0.242 1.736
4 0.232 1.699 0.187 1.292 0.247 1.859
5 0.176 1.240 0.160 0.980 0.267 1.592
Control 0.224 1.678 0.216 1.445 0.261 1.699

In all six DUTs, the Z axis has a higher noise than the other two axe, typically 1.8 mg
against 1.6 mg on the X axis and 1.3 mg on the Y axis. All the DUTs have a maximum noise
between 0.95 mg and 2.05 mg.

5. Analysis
Theoretically the temperature dependent phenomena (Sections 4.1 and 6.2) can be
compensated, or at least reduced, by knowing the characteristic parameters TDB and
TDSF from Equation (4). To obtain these parameters the most common solution is to use
all the available data and fit a polynomial equation with the least squares method. This
can be performed by computers with specialized software, but not by low-cost MCUs or
CPUs. All sensors and axes must be calibrated individually; therefore, an easier algorithm
should be used. By selecting only the relevant data according to the temperature profile,
the computing cost can be drastically reduced.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 13 of 23

The reference temperature, TR , is the one in which the sensor is considered to have no
drift and the value read, X, is the actual value X0 (see Equation (8)). According to the man-
ufacturer, the sensors are calibrated at 25 ◦ C, so this is taken as the reference temperature.

X ( TR ) = X0 + ( TR − TR )( TDB + TDSF · X0 ) ⇒ X ( TR ) = X0 . (8)

When the test is performed in a stable position, it is correct to assume that X0 in each
axis is constant. Therefore, the sensitivity component of the thermal drift (TDSF · X0 ) is
also constant. This means that, for each static position, the thermal drift of the sensor is
directly proportional to the temperature. A unique thermal drift parameter, TDX0 , can be
obtained for any specific orientation tested (see Equation (9)).

X0 = const ⇒ TDSF · X0 + TDB = const = TDX0 . (9)

And:
X − X0 ∆X
X = X0 + ( T − TR ) · TDX0 ⇒ TDX0 = ⇒ TDX0 = . (10)
T − TR ∆T

The thermal drift parameter specific to one orientation, TDX0 , can be obtained as
the ratio between the data variation and the temperature variation 10. These variations
are always proportional, since X0 does not change, and allow any combination of two
accelerations and their two respective temperatures to be used to compute TDX0 .

X1 − X2
TDX0 = . (11)
T1 − T2

For each temperature step of each test, one TDX0 is computed using Equation (11) (see
Figure 10), this will reduce the computing load compared to using all the data points. Each
temperature step will result in one value of TDX0 . Finally, all the obtained values for the
same axis and test are averaged.

Figure 10. Values extracted for the TDX0 computing for one step.

If the temperature variations between the steps were too low, the acceleration varia-
tions would also be low, and Equation (11) would approximate to 0/0. The noise of both
signals would lead to incorrect data that does not represent the sensors behavior. In our
case, all the temperature variations exceed 10 ◦ C and are considered reliable.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 14 of 23

Temperature Drift of Bias and Temperature Drift of Scale Factor

Once the six TDX0 for each axis and DUT are known, they can be used to compute
TDB and TDSF. The points can be represented as a straight line, where TDB is the bias,
and TDSF is the slope (see Figure 11). Both parameters can be obtained with a linear
regression. It is also possible to compute the TDB as the average of the TDX0 when X0 is
approximately 0 mg and TDSF as the slope between the TDX0 at ±1000 mg. This could
lead to even lower computational costs.

Figure 11. TDB and TDSF computing from the TDX0 values (DUT #1, Z axis).

The TDB sign and values appears to be random, with values up to 1.3 mg/◦ C. DUT
#1 has the largest temperature drifts, with 1.3 mg/◦ C in two axes. DUTs #2 to #5 show
lower temperature drifts, with typical values around 0.4 mg/◦ C. The control DUT also
shows large temperature drifts, up to 1 mg/◦ C. All computed TDSF are negative in sign
but random in value. The Z axes do not show greater temperature drifts compared to the
X axes. The Y axis has lower drifts than the others. The parameters obtained for each axis
are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Computed temperature drifts parameters for each axis and DUT.

T DB (mg/◦ C) T DSF (ppm/◦ C)

DUT X Y Z X Y Z
1 1.26 0.76 −1.32 −118 −44 −34
2 0.09 0.31 0.12 −42 −103 −188
3 0.3 −0.22 −0.3 −107 −188 −104
4 −0.44 0.19 −0.61 −128 −277 −60
5 0.39 −0.08 −0.72 −398 −65 −169
Control −1.18 −0.21 −0.81 −134 −46 −226

6. Compensation
Once the accelerometers thermal behavior is characterized, it is possible to compensate
for thermal drift. The thermal behavior formula (Equation (4)) can be rearranged to obtain
the real acceleration from the raw acceleration and the temperature (see Equation (12)).

X − ∆T · TDB
X0 = . (12)
1 + ∆T · TDSF
Data compensation adds noise to the signals by combining acceleration and tempera-
ture noise. An exponential filter with α = 0.001—response time on the order of 10 min—is
applied to reduce all the noise and better appreciate the effect of compensation, as shown
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 15 of 23

in Figure 12. This can be done in tilt measurement applications, where response time is not
a concern.

(a) X axis (b) Y axis (c) Z axis

Figure 12. Filtered accelerations of DUT #1 before (in blue) and after (in red) compensation in the verification test.

6.1. Thermal Drift

To show the effect of compensation, the verification test will be analyzed before and
after compensation. Thermal drift causes variations in the acceleration value; therefore, the
compensated data should show lower variations in its value. To quantify the improvement
due to compensation, the standard deviation and the maximum error will be used as
indicators. These parameters show the data immunity to temperature variations and,
therefore, the performance of the compensation technique. The verification test (explained
in Section 3.3) is chosen as it has slower temperature variations than the calibration tests,
closer to those expected in application. In addition, it has not been used to compute the
TDB and TDSF values. The maximum temperature difference during this test was 20 ◦ C;
therefore, all the subsequent results are conditioned by this parameter.
The standard deviation, σ, is a measure of the variation or dispersion of a data set.
A smaller standard deviation indicates that the values tend to be close to the mean. In
our case, it implies that temperature variations do not affect the acceleration value, that is,
thermal drift is reduced. Standard deviation for all DUTs is shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Standard deviation of the samples during the verification test (mg).

X Y Z
DUT Uncomp. Comp. Impr. Uncomp. Comp. Impr. Uncomp. Comp. Impr.
1 4.66 0.77 83.48% 2.99 1.91 36.12% 4.49 0.63 85.97%
2 0.92 1.04 −13.04% 1.56 0.34 78.21% 0.72 0.77 −6.94%
3 2.49 1.26 49.40% 2.08 1.51 27.40% 2.52 1.28 49.21%
4 1.54 0.44 71.43% 1.78 1.61 9.55% 2.38 1.08 54.62%
5 2.28 0.63 73.68% 0.84 0.77 8.33% 3.47 1.95 39.77%
Control 5.51 0.69 87.48% 1.96 1.88 4.08% 3.21 0.68 78.82%
Avg. 2.90 0.80 72.41% 1.87 1.34 28.46% 2.80 1.09 61.11%

The X axes have, when uncompensated, the biggest σ of all three. They have an
average value of 2.90 mg and two of the DUTs (including the control DUT) are over 4 mg.
After compensating, they become much more stable, with an average σ of 0.80 mg, 72%
lower. DUT #2 slightly deteriorates its performance, although it stays at 1.04 mg.
The Y axes show less improvement than the X axes, σ goes from 1.87 mg to 1.34 mg.
This represents a 28% improvement. The lower improvement can be related to the al-
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 16 of 23

ready lower σ when uncompensated. None of the DUTs deteriorated their behavior
after compensation.
The uncompensated Z axes show a similar drift to the X axes, with an average σ of
2.80 mg. After compensation, it decreases to an average of 1.09 mg, 61% lower. All DUTs,
except #2, had an uncompensated σ over 2 mg; no compensated data exceeds that value.
Overall, no compensated axis exceeds 2 mg of deviation, and half of them are below 1 mg
of σ.
All improvement percentages are computed as the difference between compensated
and uncompensated, and divided by the uncompensated value.
The maximum deviation can be obtained as the difference between the higher and
the lower values and is related to the maximum expected error. These data are shown in
Table 7.

Table 7. Maximum deviation of the DUTs during the verification test (mg).

X Y Z
DUT Uncomp. Comp. Impr. Uncomp. Comp. Impr. Uncomp. Comp. Impr.
1 17.63 4.63 73.74% 18.51 13.81 25.39% 18.44 4.26 76.90%
2 5.41 6.31 −16.64% 6.08 1.92 68.42% 4.07 3.78 7.13%
3 11.07 6.26 43.45% 11.28 8.41 25.44% 11.21 6.25 44.25%
4 7.12 3.41 52.11% 11.10 10.66 3.96% 10.19 4.77 53.19%
5 9.44 3.48 63.14% 4.96 4.68 5.65% 13.27 7.47 43.71%
Control 23.74 4.45 81.26% 10.79 10.39 3.71% 13.06 3.47 73.43%
Avg. 12.40 4.76 61.64% 10.45 8.31 20.49% 11.71 5.00 57.29%

In this case, the improvement is slightly lower than that of the standard deviation This
can be related to the fact that the maximum error only takes into account the two worst
values, while the standard deviation takes into account all the data.
Similar to the standard deviation, the X axis shows the largest average improvement,
61%. The Z axis also shows a great improvement, greater than 50%. The Y axis shows an
average improvement of 20%. In all three cases, the average uncompensated maximum
deviation was over 10 mg. Compensation reduces this value in the X and Z axes to below
5 mg, and to 8.3 mg in the Y axis.
The best improvement is on the X axis of the control DUT, with an 81% improvement.
The only axis that does not reduce its maximum error is the X of DUT #2.

6.2. Self-Heating Drift

In some cases, the initial drift caused by the self-heating can also be reduced with this
method (see Figure 13). This self-heating drift is most dominant in the first three hours
after a cool start, as shown in Section 6.2. The drift during the first 30 min after start is still
high in many units and it is not advisable to rely on these measurements.
To determine the compensation performance in the self-heating effect, the average
drift between 30 min and three h after the test start is measured in Table 8.
All three axes of the six DUTs reduce their self-heating drift, except for the X axis
of the second DUT. That deteriorated drift gets increased to 0.112 mg/h, which is still a
low value compared to the others. This deterioration is due to the fact that, in this DUT,
thermal drift and temporal drift act in opposite directions, compensating for each other.
When self-heating drift is compensated for, the temporal drift remains, and the end result
is a drift greater than the original.
The average drift in the X axes is reduced from 0.62 mg/h to 0.281 mg/h, a 54%
improvement. In Y, it gets reduced from 0.689 mg/h to 0.512 mg/h, a 25% improvement.
And, in the Z axes, it goes from 0.828 mg/h to 0.426 mg/h, a 48% improvement.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 17 of 23

(a) Z axis, DUT #3 (b) Y axis, DUT #4

Figure 13. Cool start drifts before and after compensation.

Table 8. Average acceleration drift between 30 min and 3 h after cool start (mg/h).

X Y Z
DUT Uncomp. Comp. Impr. Uncomp. Comp. Impr. Uncomp. Comp. Impr.
1 1.636 0.896 45.2% 1.220 0.760 37.7% −1.572 −0.804 48.9%
2 −0.088 −0.112 −27.3% 0.344 0.176 48.8% −0.044 −0.008 81.8%
3 0.280 0.100 64.3% −0.628 −0.520 17.2% −0.244 0.020 91.8%
4 −0.364 −0.108 70.3% 0.136 0.024 82.4% −1.344 −0.956 28.9%
5 0.652 0.420 35.6% −0.536 −0.476 11.2% −0.724 −0.132 81.8%
Control −0.716 0.052 92.7% −1.268 −1.116 12.0% −1.040 −0.636 38.8%
Avg. 0.623 0.281 54.8% 0.689 0.512 25.7% 0.828 0.426 48.6%

6.3. Improvement as Inclinometer

To measure the performance of the compensation in a tilt measurement application,
the Euler angles—pitch (Equation (2)) and roll (Equation (3))—are computed from both
the uncompensated and compensated data (see Figure 14). Before computing the Euler
angles, the six DUTs have been calibrated with a six-position static test [28] using a surface
plate and an orthogonal cube. This is used to compensate for bias, sensitivities, and
misalignments of each axis (Equation (1)), allowing for more reliable tilt measurements.
Figure 14 and Tables 9 and 10 show the result of the calculation of the Euler angles
before and after the thermal compensation during the verification test. As with acceleration,
both standard deviation and maximum error are used as compensation performance indicators.

Table 9. Euler angles standard deviation before and after compensation (degrees).

Pitch Roll
DUT Uncomp. Comp. Impr. Uncomp. Comp. Impr.
1 0.268 0.040 85.0% 0.164 0.091 42.2%
2 0.026 0.036 −36.9% 0.084 0.016 80.0%
3 0.119 0.058 50.7% 0.111 0.071 35.6%
4 0.085 0.019 77.6% 0.081 0.067 17.1%
5 0.104 0.027 73.7% 0.035 0.023 33.3%
Control 0.302 0.036 88.1% 0.076 0.085 −11.8%
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 18 of 23

Table 10. Euler angles max error deviation before and after compensation (degrees).

Pitch Roll
DUT Uncomp. Comp. Impr. Uncomp. Comp. Impr.
1 0.953 0.194 79.5% 0.824 0.529 35.7%
2 0.142 0.173 −21.9% 0.304 0.085 72.0%
3 0.507 0.274 45.9% 0.539 0.356 33.9%
4 0.330 0.110 66.6% 0.393 0.351 10.6%
5 0.405 0.140 65.4% 0.158 0.129 18.1%
Control 1.213 0.177 85.4% 0.381 0.465 −22.0%

(a) DUT #4, Pitch (b) DUT #2, Roll

Figure 14. Euler angles before and after calibration.

The average standard deviation without compensation is 0.151◦ for pitch and 0.092◦
for roll. The worst results before compensation are in the DUT #1 and the control DUT,
both in the pitch angle. After compensation, this deviation is reduced to 0.040◦ and 0.036◦
respectively (85% and 88% improvement). In general, the average standard deviation with
compensation is 0.036◦ for pitch (76% lower than uncompensated) and 0.059◦ for roll (36%
lower). The compensated deviation is never greater than 0.06◦ for pitch and 0.1◦ for roll,
bringing the results of the all DUTs closer together. Most of the DUTs with already low
standard deviation (lower than 0.1◦ ) do not show significant improvement, with two DUTs
showing a slight deterioration, although they stay lower than 0.1◦ .
The maximum detected deviation exhibits a similar behavior to the standard deviation,
with a maximum deviation detected in the pitch of the DUT #1 and the control DUT.
Average maximum deviation decreases from 0.592◦ to 0.178◦ in pitch (70% lower) and from
0.433◦ to 0.319◦ in roll (26.3% lower). The maximum error after compensation is never
greater than 0.3◦ for pitch and 0.6◦ for roll.

7. Discussion
7.1. Methods Comparison
The proposed method is considered similar to the surface calibration proposed by
Ruzza et al. The main difference between them methods is that, in that case, a generic
polynomial equation is used and the calibration parameters are adjusted without taking
into account their physical meaning. In our case, a formula derived from the theoretical
behavior of the sensor is used. This allows fewer compensation parameters to be used,
reducing the amount of information needed to obtain them.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 19 of 23

The advantage of using a generic polynomial fit is that it has a greater ability to
compensate for behaviors that have not been previously taken into account, as long as they
are not of a higher order than the polynomial equation.
The great advantage of the proposed method is the less amount of data necessary
to obtain the calibration parameters and a clear relationship of them with a physical
characteristic of the sensor. A lower computational cost also facilitates the recalibration of
systems even in application.
Since both methods are similar, the parameters of one can be obtained with respect to
the other by means of a regression. In Appendix A, the TDB and TDSF corresponding to
the calibration surfaces used in Reference [23] have been calculated. The maximum relative
error that is committed in each case when making the adjustment has also been calculated.
The surface parameters that cannot be adjusted with the proposed method are those
of the second order of both the TDB and TDSF (p20 and p02 ). This is the main cause of
the residuals when trying to match one method with the other. It can be seen that the
greater these parameters are, the greater the maximum error and RMSE are. When these
parameters are small, the residuals are reduced, allowing a good fit between both methods.
If the behavior of the TDB and TDSF is of the first order, the efficiency of both methods
is similar.

7.2. Application of the Thermal Calibration Algorithm

As with most calibration methods, using more data produces more reliable results,
as noise and other random errors are averaged. It is recommended to use at least six
calibration orientations and the full working range of the sensors for best results. It is
considered that a viable option would be to perform the thermal calibration simultaneously
with the mechanical calibration of the axes (bias, sensitivity, and cross-axis sensitivity).
In theory, with just two samples of TDX0 (in different orientations), the two calibration
parameters (TDB and TDSF) can be obtained. Furthermore, only two temperatures are
required in each orientation to obtain the corresponding TDX0 . Therefore, the fastest
theoretical method to obtain the complete thermal calibration of the accelerometer requires
only two orientations and two temperature variations (see Appendix B). The effectiveness of
this method has not been tested. Any noise or temporary effects could affect the calibration,
so it is recommended to use a greater number of points.
The performance of thermal compensation with this method is considered adequate.
Considerable improvements are achieved in cases where the thermal drift is higher. This
allows the operation of all units after calibration to be more uniform. This is because the
greater the thermal drift, the easier it is to isolate and characterize it. If the thermal drift is
very small, it mixes with the noise and cannot be compensated for. Therefore, effectively
reducing noise in the signal could improve the efficiency of compensation, at the cost of
increasing its complexity.

7.3. Typical Drifts

The TDB and TDSF data obtained in this work agree with the information provided
by the manufacturer and other works. According to the manufacturer, the typical value
of TDB is ±0.5 mg/◦ C, while the mean of the TDBs obtained in this work is 0.62 mg/◦ C.
The technical information does not provide any information on the expected range of
TDB, which in our case is ±1.3 mg/◦ C. The accelerometer tested by Ruzza et al. shows
higher values, with a mean value of −1.24 mg/◦ C and a maximum of −1.67 mg/◦ C (values
obtained by adjusting the methods in Appendix A).
In the case of TDSF, the mean values obtained are also close to the change in sensitivity
indicated by the manufacturer (100 ppm/◦ C). In our case, the average value obtained is
−160 ppm/◦ C with a maximum value of −398 ppm/◦ C. In the case of Ruzza et al., the
average value obtained is −113 ppm/◦ C with a maximum of −191 ppm/◦ C. All the values
obtained are negative, as indicated by theoretical studies. This means that the sensitivity
always decreases when the temperature increases.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 20 of 23

Furthermore, it can be observed that the drifts in the X axis are greater than in the Y
axis both in this work and in that of Ruzza et al. [12]. This difference is quite remarkable in
both studies, although the design of the two sensitive axes should be similar.
The control DUT has shown a similar level of thermal drift as the other units. This
suggests that most of the thermal drift is due to internal factors (changes in stiffness) rather
than factors related to the soldering process and possible surface tensions of the PCB.

7.4. Self-Heating
The initial drift has been reduced between 25% and 48%. Part of this drift is due to self-
heating and part is due to the temporal drift, which cannot be eliminated by this method.
This improvement can be especially relevant for IoT devices to minimize the energy
consumption. The self-heating drift compensation can lead to more reliable results after
the systems wake up. If the MCU requires less time to achieve the same results, the energy
consumption will be reduced accordingly.

7.5. Computing Time

The performance of the implementation of the proposed method can be compared
with other techniques that also rely on polynomial equations. The computing time of three
compensation algorithms in two different MCU are shown in Table 11.

Table 11. Computing time for the compensation methods in different MCUs.

MCU Proposed Method Second Order Surface Third Order Curve

ATmega328P 65.6 µs 117.6 µs 63.7 µs
ATSAMD21G18A 27.7 µs 49.1 µs 34.1 µs

In these low-cost MCUs, the time required for each method is on the order of tens
of microseconds. The proposed method and the third order curve take a similar time
to compute: 65.6 µs (Proposed Method) against 63.7 µs (Third Order Curve) in the AT-
mega328P and 27.7 µ against 34.1 µs in the SAMD21G18A. The second order surface takes
approximately 78% more time to compute compared to the proposed method. This could
be caused by the higher number of operations that have to be carried out.
In general, the proposed equation requires less computation time than high-degree
polynomials, making it more suitable for low cost, low power, or time critical applications.

8. Conclusions
The thermal characteristic parameters, Temperature Drift of Bias and Temperature
Drift of Scale Factor, are random in value and TDB also in sign, and can greatly affect
the MEMS measurements when the temperature changes. Therefore, individualized cal-
ibration is essential for applications with thermal variations. This behavior is shown
even before the soldering processes. According to the manufacturer, this process can also
affect the calibration; therefore, the individual calibration must be carried out after the
soldering process.
The proposed calibration method—relying on individual temperature drift coefficients
for specific orientations—has been effective, particularly in the axes with the greater thermal
drifts. This method has low computational and memory requirements, requiring small
amounts of data and generating only two compensation parameters for each axis. To
perform this calibration method only temperature variations, mechanical stability and one
temperature sensor, usually integrated with the inertial sensor, are needed. This can lead
to in-application calibration or recalibration.
The implementation of the calibration in a microcontroller unit is lightweight both in
memory and computing cost. It has also shown that there is little difference compared to
using a second-order surface, computationally more complex. The performance difference
between the two resides mainly in the second order of the TDB.
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 21 of 23

In this paper, six tests were performed with 40 ◦ C variations over six DUTs. With this
data, the accelerometers were characterized. Another test was performed with temperature
ramps of 20 ◦ C to try out the effects of the compensation. After compensating the DUTs
and computing the Euler angles, the average accuracy improvement was between 27% and
76%, depending on the angle and the method. In the DUTs with higher drifts, DUT #1 and
CU, the improvements where up to 88% in thermal stability.
This technique allows the use of low cost MEMS accelerometers as inclinometers with
a standard deviation lower than 0.1◦ (with 20 ◦ C thermal variations). The effect of the
self-heating drift is also compensated to some extent in the 20 min to 3 h segment after
cool start.

Author Contributions: D.A. and J.M. conceived the study; J.M. and D.A. designed the experiments;
J.M. performed the experiments; J.M. and D.A. analyzed the results; J.M. wrote the manuscript; J.R.B.
and D.A. reviewed and edited the manuscript; D.A. and J.R.B. supervised the project. All authors
have read and agreed on the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This work has been supported in part by the company TECNIVIAL, S.A and its
participation in the innovative public purchase tender approved by the Ministry of Development
of the Government of Spain whose objective is to “search for innovative solutions in relation to the
design and implementation of fog protection systems on the A-8 motorway between Mondoñedo
and A Xesta “(Ref: BOE-B-2015-20619). Finally, we appreciate the collaboration of the engineer Sergio
Sánchez Romanillos, head of the R&D department of TECNIVIAL.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

MEMS MicroElectroMechanical System

TDB Temperature Drift of Bias
TDSF Temperature Drift of Scale Factor
MCU Microcontroller Unit
DUT Device Under Test

Appendix A
The second-order surfaces have been generated throughout the full working range,
both in accelerations (±1 g) and in temperatures (−10 ◦ C to +70 ◦ C).

Table A1. Fit using the proposed formula of second-order calibration surfaces.

Second Order Surface Proposed Method Goodness of Fit Relative Maximum

p00 , p10 , p11 p01 , p20 , p02 T DB T DSF R2 RMSE Error
571.5 1.56 × 10−3
Case 1 −20.23 −0.104 −1.64 −70.7 0.9848 4.904 0.575%
−6.93 × 10−5 6.32 × 10−9
582.9 7.23 × 10−4
Case 2 −21.29 −7.898 × 10−2 −1.61 −70.5 0.9893 4.045 0.557%
−6.362 × 10−5 −7.354 × 10−8
354 5.747 × 10−3
Case 3 −13.96 −2.931 × 10−3 −0.86 −183.8 0.9990 0.663 0.135%
−1.915 × 10−4 −5.363 × 10−8
338.1 4.439 × 10−3
Case 4 −12.82 −3.299 × 10−2 −0.91 −154.4 0.9936 1.789 0.237%
−1.579 × 10−4 −1.455 × 10−8
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 22 of 23

Appendix B
Theoretically faster calibration method:
1. Place the accelerometer with a pitch and roll of approximately 35◦ . In this way, the
accelerations in the 3 axes are about 577 mg, achieving the maximum study range for
the three axes.
2. Generate a temperature of 25 ◦ C and record the acceleration measurements. This is
the X01 for each axis.
3. Generate a thermal variation, for example, 20 ◦ C.
4. Use these new accelerations to compute the TD1 with Equation (11) for each axis.
5. Without lowering the temperature, invert the accelerometer: pitch and roll angles at
approximately −35◦ .
6. Record acceleration.
7. Generate again the temperature of 25 ◦ C, these accelerations are X02 .
8. Use these accelerations to obtain the TD2 .
9. TDSF is calculated as the difference of TD1 and TD2 divided between the difference
of X01 and X02 (see Equation (A1)).
10. TDB is calculated as any TD minus the TDSF multiplied by the corresponding X0
(see Equation (A2)).
TD1 − TD2
TDSF = , (A1)
X 01 − X 02
TDB = TD1 − TDSF · X01 = TD2 − TDSF · X02 . (A2)
In this case, it is recommended to use Euler angles of 35◦ to maximize the accelerations
range in all three axes with only two orientations, although it is possible to perform this
technique with any two orientations. It is also important to use only the accelerometers
measurements for the calculation of TDB and TDSF, since misalignments between the sen-
sitive axes and the accelerometer body could cause deviations in the parameters obtained
if external references are used.

References
1. Shaeffer, D.K. MEMS inertial sensors: A tutorial overview. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2013, 51, 100–109. [CrossRef]
2. Wang, S.; Chen, C.; Ma, J. Accelerometer based transportation mode recognition on mobile phones. In Proceedings of the 2010
Asia-Pacific Conference on Wearable Computing Systems, Shenzhen, China, 17–18 April 2010; pp. 44–46.
3. Sugimori, D.; Iwamoto, T.; Matsumoto, M. A study about identification of pedestrian by using 3-axis accelerometer. In Proceedings
of the 2011 IEEE 17th International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications, Toyama,
Japan, 28–31 August 2011; Volume 2, pp. 134–137.
4. Feng, M.; Fukuda, Y.; Mizuta, M.; Ozer, E. Citizen sensors for SHM: Use of accelerometer data from smartphones. Sensors 2015,
15, 2980–2998. [CrossRef]
5. Milne, D.; Le Pen, L.; Watson, G.; Thompson, D.; Powrie, W.; Hayward, M.; Morley, S. Proving MEMS technologies for smarter
railway infrastructure. Procedia Eng. 2016, 143, 1077–1084. [CrossRef]
6. Li, C.; Fernnandez-Steeger, T.M.; Link, J.A.B.; May, M.; Azzam, R. Use of MEMS accelerometers/inclinometers as a geotechnical
monitoring method for ground subsidence. Acta Geodyn. Geomater. 2014, 11, 337–349. [CrossRef]
7. Huang, H.; Zhang, D.; Ayyub, B. An integrated risk sensing system for geo-structural safety. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2017,
9, 226–238. [CrossRef]
8. Uchimura, T.; Towhata, I.; Wang, L.; Nishie, S.; Yamaguchi, H.; Seko, I.; Qiao, J. Precaution and early warning of surface failure of
slopes using tilt sensors. Soils Found. 2015, 55, 1086–1099. [CrossRef]
9. Bedon, C.; Bergamo, E.; Izzi, M.; Noè, S. Prototyping and validation of MEMS accelerometers for structural health monitoring—
The case study of the Pietratagliata cable-stayed bridge. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2018, 7, 30. [CrossRef]
10. Van Emmerik, T.; Steele-Dunne, S.; Hut, R.; Gentine, P.; Guerin, M.; Oliveira, R.S.; Wagner, J.; Selker, J.; Van de Giesen, N.
Measuring tree properties and responses using low-cost accelerometers. Sensors 2017, 17, 1098. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. STMicroelectronics. LIS3DSH MEMS Digital Output Motion Sensor: Ultra-Low-Power High-Performance Three-Axis “Nano”
Accelerometer. 2017. Available online: https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/learn_tutorials/5/9/6/LIS3DH_AppNote_DocID_
18198rev1.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2021).
12. Ruzza, G.; Guerriero, L.; Revellino, P.; Guadagno, F.M. A Low-Cost Chamber Prototype for Automatic Thermal Analysis of
MEMS IMU Sensors in Tilt Measurements Perspective. Sensors 2019, 19, 2705. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2021, 21, 3117 23 of 23

13. He, L.; Xu, Y.P.; Qiu, A. Folded silicon resonant accelerometer with temperature compensation. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE
SENSORS, Vienna, Austria, 24–27 October 2004; pp. 512–515.
14. Tan, S.S.; Liu, C.Y.; Yeh, L.K.; Chiu, Y.H.; Lu, M.S.C.; Hsu, K.Y. Design of low-noise CMOS MEMS accelerometer with techniques
for thermal stability and stable DC biasing. In Proceedings of the IEEE Custom Integrated Circuits Conference 2010, San Jose, CA,
USA, 19–22 September 2010; pp. 1–4.
15. Dong, Y.; Zwahlen, P.; Nguyen, A.; Frosio, R.; Rudolf, F. Ultra-high precision MEMS accelerometer. In Proceedings of the 2011
16th International Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems Conference, Beijing, China, 5–9 June 2011; pp. 695–698.
16. Coultate, J.K.; Fox, C.H.; McWilliam, S.; Malvern, A.R. Application of optimal and robust design methods to a MEMS
accelerometer. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2008, 142, 88–96. [CrossRef]
17. He, J.; Zhou, W.; Yu, H.; He, X.; Peng, P. Structural designing of a MEMS capacitive accelerometer for low temperature coefficient
and high linearity. Sensors 2018, 18, 643. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Lee, J.; Rhim, J. Temperature compensation method for the resonant frequency of a differential vibrating accelerometer using
electrostatic stiffness control. J. Micromechan. Microeng. 2012, 22, 095016. [CrossRef]
19. Ko, H.; Cho, D.-i.D. Highly programmable temperature compensated readout circuit for capacitive microaccelerometer. Sens.
Actuators A Phys. 2010, 158, 72–83. [CrossRef]
20. Aggarwal, P.; Syed, Z.; Niu, X.; El-Sheimy, N. A standard testing and calibration procedure for low cost MEMS inertial sensors
and units. J. Navig. 2008, 61, 323. [CrossRef]
21. Liu, M.; Chi, B.; Liu, Y.; Dong, J. A closed-loop MEMS accelerometer with capacitive sensing interface ASIC. Int. J. Electron. 2013,
100, 21–35. [CrossRef]
22. Yang, D.; Woo, J.K.; Lee, S.; Mitchell, J.; Challoner, A.D.; Najafi, K. A micro oven-control system for inertial sensors. J. Microelec-
tromechan. Syst. 2017, 26, 507–518. [CrossRef]
23. Ruzza, G.; Guerriero, L.; Revellino, P.; Guadagno, F.M. Thermal compensation of low-cost MEMS accelerometers for tilt
measurements. Sensors 2018, 18, 2536. [CrossRef]
24. Niu, X.; Li, Y.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Q.; Ban, Y. Fast thermal calibration of low-grade inertial sensors and inertial measurement units.
Sensors 2013, 13, 12192–12217. [CrossRef]
25. Zhu, M.; Pang, L.; Xiao, Z.; Shen, C.; Cao, H.; Shi, Y.; Liu, J. Temperature Drift Compensation for High-G MEMS Accelerometer
Based on RBF NN Improved Method. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 695. [CrossRef]
26. He, J.; Xie, J.; He, X.; Du, L.; Zhou, W. Analytical study and compensation for temperature drifts of a bulk silicon MEMS capacitive
accelerometer. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2016, 239, 174–184. [CrossRef]
27. Briffa, A.; Gatt, E.; Micallef, J.; Grech, I.; Casha, O.; Darmanin, J.M. Area minimization of a three-axis separate mass capacitive
accelerometer using the ThELMA process. In Proceedings of the Eurocon 2013, Zagreb, Croatia, 1–4 July 2013; pp. 2094–2099.
28. Wei, R.; Tao, Z.; Hai-yun, Z.; Lei-gang, W.; Yong-jie, Z.; Meng-kai, L.; Hui-feng, L.; Jing-wei, S. A research on calibration of
low-precision MEMS inertial sensors. In Proceedings of the 2013 25th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), Guiyang,
China, 25–27 May 2013; pp. 3243–3247.
29. Frosio, I.; Pedersini, F.; Borghese, N.A. Autocalibration of triaxial MEMS accelerometers with automatic sensor model selection.
IEEE Sens. J. 2012, 12, 2100–2108. [CrossRef]
30. Sipos, M.; Paces, P.; Rohac, J.; Novacek, P. Analyses of triaxial accelerometer calibration algorithms. IEEE Sens. J. 2011,
12, 1157–1165. [CrossRef]
31. Qian, J.; Fang, B.; Yang, W.; Luan, X.; Nan, H. Accurate tilt sensing with linear model. IEEE Sens. J. 2011, 11, 2301–2309. [CrossRef]
32. Fisher, C.J. Using an Accelerometer for Inclination Sensing. AN-1057, Application Note, Analog Devices. 2010. Available online:
https://www.analog.com/en/app-notes/an-1057.html# (accessed on 3 March 2021).
33. Łuczak, S. Guidelines for tilt measurements realized by MEMS accelerometers. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2014, 15, 489–496.
[CrossRef]
34. Liu, G.; Yang, F.; Bao, X.; Jiang, T. Robust optimization of a MEMS accelerometer considering temperature variations. Sensors
2015, 15, 6342–6359. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Dai, G.; Li, M.; He, X.; Du, L.; Shao, B.; Su, W. Thermal drift analysis using a multiphysics model of bulk silicon MEMS capacitive
accelerometer. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2011, 172, 369–378. [CrossRef]
36. Li, H.; Zhai, Y.; Tao, Z.; Gui, Y.; Tan, X. Thermal drift investigation of an SOI-based MEMS capacitive sensor with an asymmetric
structure. Sensors 2019, 19, 3522. [CrossRef]
37. Pieniazek, J.; Ciecinski, P. Thermal hysteresis in inertial sensors. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 7th International Workshop on
Metrology for AeroSpace (MetroAeroSpace), Pisa, Italy, 22–24 June 2020; pp. 54–59.