MEMS vs. Geophones

Key differences between MEMS accelerometers and geophones in seismic and vibration sensing applications

Inzwa’s Geotechnical Construction Site Monitoring Solution

Independent, third-party lab vibration monitoring testing compared the MEMS-based accelerometer used by the Inzwa Veva III vibration sensor to a solenoid geophone-based vibration sensor against the ISEE standard.

The geophone-based device performed as the manufacturer advertised and as any field practitioner would expect, and was consistent with the manufacturer’s calibration report. Both sensing technologies performed within specifications in the middle part of the range. What’s glaring, however, is the superior performance of the MEMS technology at both the lower and upper ranges of the scale:

Low Range: At 1.5Hz, the geophone-based sensor had approximately 2dB lower response than the MEMS sensor. At 1Hz, that performance gap grew to approximately 8dB – 60% lower than the MEMS sensor.
Upper Range: At frequency levels above 125 Hz, performance differences as high as 24% were recorded between the different technologies, with the MEMS sensor providing more accurate readings. Also note that beyond the ISEE’s upper limit of 250Hz, the MEMS technology continued to perform better than the geophone-based sensor.

MEMS-based accelerometers not only perform well within the ISEE standard, they also provide superior performance for vibration monitoring at frequencies below 2Hz and above 125Hz.

MEMS vs. Geophones

Inzwa’s Geotechnical Construction Site Monitoring Solution

Usefull Links

Quick Links

Contact Details