Geophysical applications of magnetic sensors
in smartphones
Nathan Campbell1, Estella Atekwana2, Adam J. Mathews3, and Ahmed Ismail1
https://doi.org/10.1190/tle39050312.1
Downloaded 06/26/20 to 165.225.34.131. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Abstract
More than 5 billion people have access to mobile phones
globally. These devices, many of which are smartphones with
multiple integrated sensors (e.g., global positioning system receiver,
camera, etc.), provide a myriad of opportunities to support scientific
investigation by researchers and citizens alike. Many smartphones
even contain geophysical sensor technology that can be deployed
for geophysical data acquisition. However, there is limited research
on the ability of these sensors to acquire scientifically useful
geophysical data. In this study, we evaluate the efficacy of a
magnetic field sensor in a smartphone to address this knowledge
gap. Using a free application called AndroSensor, a preliminary
experiment was conducted to map buried pipes at a test site and
to test the efficacy of the AK09911C magnetic field sensor inside
a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 (Android OS) smartphone. In addition,
data were acquired over the test site using the commercially
available Geometrics G858 Cesium vapor magnetometer for
comparison. Results showed that the smartphone was able to
identify all three buried pipes and compared favorably with the
Geometrics G858. For the primary experiment, a walking survey
was conducted over a landfill in order to compare the smartphone
with the G858 Cesium vapor magnetometer. Results showed little
variation between the G858 Cesium vapor magnetometer and
smartphone magnetic field sensors when within the boundaries
of the landfill. This proof-of-concept study suggests that smart-
phones with geophysical sensors potentially provide a more afford-
able approach to the acquisition of geophysical data, especially at
academic institutions with limited access to expensive commer-
cially available geophysical instrumentation.
Introduction
More than 5 billion people have access to mobile phones globally.
An increasing proportion having access to smartphones with capa-
bilities such as a camera, microphone, global positioning system
(GPS), data storage, and networked data transfer (Ferster and
Coops, 2013). As sensor technology in smartphones develops, there
is little research in its application for the acquisition of scientifically
useful data. Standard smartphone sensors with the potential for
geophysical applications include the accelerometer, magnetometer,
red-green-blue digital camera, and barometer. Although many free
applications such as AndroSensor (Fiv Asim, 2015) can be down-
loaded to view and record the information from these sensors, to
the best of our knowledge, only two published articles feature
smartphone magnetometers to characterize the subsurface.
1
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. E-mail: nathanocampbell@gmail.com; ahmed.ismail@okstate.edu.
2
University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA. E-mail: atekwana@udel.edu.
3
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA. E-mail: adam.mathews@wmich.edu.
312 The Leading Edge May 2020 Special Section: Near-surface imaging and modeling
Ndiaye and Diagne (2014) utilize data from an iPhone 4S
magnetic sensor with the sensor monitor application to delineate
the geometry and depth of a basaltic vein. Data were gathered on
foot, and the results were compared with preexisting aeromagnetic
data of the area.
Suksmono et al. (2017) present a magnetic subsurface imag-
ing system through an Android smartphone application. In their
article, a paper clip, cutter head, nut, and coin are placed on a
Styrofoam board, with another board placed on top of the objects.
Scanning the area with a smartphone, the application reconstructs
the magnetic field distribution and displays the result as a grid,
successfully imaging the objects underneath.
While both articles provide information on how smartphone
magnetometers can be used, neither include a proof-of-concept
section as it pertains to geophysical surveying. Additionally,
there is no direct comparison of the smartphone magnetometer
data with a professional-grade magnetometer. The smartphone
is becoming more apt for the collection of geophysical data,
yet there is a lack of published research in the field on smart-
phone geophysics.
Our objective was to test the efficacy of a smartphone mag-
netometer for geophysical investigations. A proof-of-concept
survey was conducted to compare the smartphone with an industry-
standard magnetometer. A case study was then developed to test
the smartphone’s response over a landfill.
Sensor
Two magnetic sensors were used in this study: the industry-
standard Cesium vapor G858 MagMapper by Geometrics and
the AK09911C magnetic field sensor inside a Samsung Galaxy
Note 4 smartphone. The G858 magnetometer pumps ionized
light into a chamber of Cesium vapor. Once the ionized light
is turned off, the Cesium atoms gain an electron and release
energy in the form of light. The intensity of light released is
proportional to the strength of the total magnetic field
(Geometrics, 2001). The magnetic field sensor inside the smart-
phone is a Hall effect sensor with a measurement range of
±4,900,000 nT. Its dimensions are 1.2 × 1.2 × 0.5 mm (Asahi
Kasei, 2014). A direct current is passed through a thin metal
strip that becomes positively charged on one side and negatively
charged on the other, producing a Hall voltage. The voltage
difference between both sides of the strip is measured to deter-
mine the strength of the magnetic field in one direction. Table 1
shows attributes for the two sensors.
 Table 1. Comparison of the magnetic field sensors in the smartphone and G858 according to sensitivity in
nanotesla and nanotesla per least significant bit, price, and maneuverability.
Unit Sensitivity
Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Phone 600 nT/LSB
G858 magnetometer 0.01 nT
Downloaded 06/26/20 to 165.225.34.131. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 1. A cross section and plan view of the proof-of-concept study area and a physical map of Oklahoma.
Walking survey lines are represented by dotted lines with arrows. Pipes 1, 2, and 3 are displayed to show depth and
orientation. Modified from geology.com (n.d.).
Proof of concept
A controlled survey was designed to show that a smartphone
can detect buried pipes. The site was located in a field west of
Stillwater, Oklahoma. When digging, the observed soil consisted
of unconsolidated sands and clay for the first 15 cm and mostly
clay below that. The broader area consisted of floodplain sediments
and mudstones (Heran et al., 2003).
Three steel pipes separated 10 m apart were buried at different
orientations and depths. The pipes were 7.5 cm in diameter and
varied from 55 to 65 cm in length. Pipe 1, as seen in Figure 1,
was buried vertically, with the top of the pipe reaching a depth
of 0.25 m. Pipe 2 was oriented east and west and buried at 0.5 m
depth. Pipe 3, facing north and south, was the deepest and shortest
at 0.75 m depth. Wooden stakes marked the beginning and end
of each line. The smartphone was set to collect data at a frequency
of 20 Hz, while the G858 was set at 2 Hz. The smartphone was
changed to airplane mode to reduce noise from updates, messages,
or background applications.
With the G858 0.3 m above the ground, 30 lines with 1 m
spacing were surveyed in the north and south directions. The
same process was repeated using the AndroSensor application
on the smartphone. At the end of each line, recording of the
G858 was stopped and then restarted at the beginning of the
next line. Because the smartphone recording was not able to
be stopped remotely, at the beginning and end of each line, the
aluminum rod holding the phone was lightly shook by the
operator in order to activate the accelerometers. Routine mea-
surements outside of the study area were taken using the G858
in order to correct both data sets for diurnal changes in the
magnetic field.
Special Section: Near-surface imaging and modeling
The smartphone data were noisier
compared to the G858. As such, the data
were transferred to MATLAB for appli-
Price Maneuverability
cation of the redundant lifting scheme
US$350 High filter (Aghayan et al., 2017). The filter
US$30,000 Low combines a Wiener filter for noise reduc-
tion and a Laplacian of Gaussian filter
for smoothing. Additionally, a zeroing
scale filter was used as a high-pass filter
to correct for heading error. In Oasis
montaj, the data were corrected to show
the total magnetic intensity (TMI) by
removing the International Geomagnetic
Reference Field (IGRF) and applying
an analytic signal (AS). The data were
then gridded using the minimum cur-
vature method and upward continued
30 cm to separate the anomaly from the
surrounding sources.
The G858 data were downloaded
using MagMapper software, then trans-
ferred to Excel for examination of 2D
profiles. The data were then transferred
to Oasis montaj, and the process
described earlier for the smartphone
was repeated for the G858.
Results and discussion
The smartphone was able to identify all three pipes in the
proof-of-concept study. Although, pipe 3 would have been difficult
to distinguish from the surrounding noise had its location not
been previously known. Figure 2a shows the magnetic anomaly
map before applying upward continuation and AS filters. Values
of the TMI in Figure 2a range from −547 to 361 nT.
The dipolar nature of the pipes is depicted in Figure 2a. For
example, pipe 1 has a magnetic high directly above it, with mag-
netic lows bordering it to the north and south. In Figure 2b, the
dipolar nature of the pipes is removed using AS, while noise and
edge effects are reduced using upward continuation.
Instead of displaying a circular pattern as in Figure 3b, the
anomalies in Figure 2b are elongated in the north/south directions.
This effect could be due to a combination of the north/south
direction of the survey lines and the low sensitivity of the smart-
phone sensor. The smartphone was unable to significantly detect
the anomalies outside a 1 m radius. The result was a large magnetic
response in the line that passed directly over the pipe and a much
smaller response in the two lines directly bordering the pipe on
each side. Additionally, when applying AS, the dipolar anomalies
oriented north and south appear as an elongated feature.
Figure 3 depicts the same pipes before and after processing,
but this time with the G858 as the sensor. Values of the TMI in
Figure 3a range from −136 to 38 nT. Figure 3b shows the pipes
after application of AS and upward continuation of 30 cm. Pipe 3
is buried the deepest and has the smallest magnetic response. An
additional dipolar feature is observed 4 m southwest of pipe 2 in
Figure 3a. Because the study area was cleared of all metal objects
May 2020 The Leading Edge 313
 on the surface, it is assumed that the
unknown object was a buried piece
of metal.
The dipolar nature of the pipes is
also clearly seen in Figure 3a. For
example, pipe 3 has a magnetic high at
Downloaded 06/26/20 to 165.225.34.131. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

the southern end of the pipe and a mag-

netic low at the northern end. This is
typical for an induced field in the north-
ern hemisphere when an anomaly is
oriented in the north/south direction.
All three pipes in Figure 3b are
clearly displayed as circular anomalies.
The pipes are magnetized from the
inducing magnetic field of the earth and
behave similar to a bar magnet: one side
of the pipe is positive, and one is negative.
Magnetic field lines pass through the
inside of the pipe, exit one end, and travel
in a circular pattern to the other end.
The smartphone was unable to
locate the smaller unknown dipolar
anomaly found in Figure 3a. It also
produced more noise in the data and
exaggerated the magnetic response to
pipe 1. One reason for the added noise
could be the phone’s sensitivity to move- Figure 2. Magnetic anomaly maps from the Android smartphone magnetometer. (a) TMI data. (b) AS map with
ment. Footsteps across the survey line 30 cm upward continuation.
vibrated the phone at the end of the
aluminum rod. Also, automatic internal
processes within the phone required
current to flow from the battery and
created added magnetic interference.
Because the frequency of acquisi-
tion was 20 Hz for the Android and
2 Hz for the G858, Figures 2 and 3 are
not as direct a comparison as possible.
As acquisition rates increase, the accu-
racy of the magnetic sensors decreases.
This introduced more noise for the
Android and an inability to compare
the sensor data quantitatively. Since
the goal for the proof-of-concept study
was to see if the smartphone could
image the pipes, this a negligible source
of error. The following case study
involves more rigor when comparing
the Android and G858 and can be
referred to for quantitative analysis.
It is important to note the ease with
which the survey was conducted with
the smartphone. The smartphone does
not require a harness, external battery
pack, separate processing unit, warm-
up time, cables, or data transfer soft- Figure 3. Magnetic anomaly maps from the G858 magnetometer. (a) TMI data. (b) Data AS map after application of
ware. It is lightweight, easily portable, 30 cm upward continuation filter.

314 The Leading Edge May 2020 Special Section: Near-surface imaging and modeling
 and much less expensive than the G858. The AndroSensor
application required little battery power, allowing the phone to
record data for several hours without needing to be charged. On
the contrary, the smartphone data involved more processing
time to achieve the desired results.
The G858 is better at sensing subsurface magnetic targets.
Downloaded 06/26/20 to 165.225.34.131. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
This is to be expected as the sensitivity rating of the smartphone
is much less than the G858. The significance of the smartphone
results is that it was still able to image the pipes. Future work
involving the reduction of noise and elongation effects would
be beneficial.
Case study
The Stillwater landfill is an active municipal solid waste
landfill. At the end of 2014, the facility was estimated to have
accepted total waste of 3.25 million megagrams since 1968
(Chen, 2016). It spans an area of 800 × 400 m, with the southern
half as the active section and the northern half as the completely
buried section. Internally, it is made up of eight rectangular cells
Figure 4. A digital elevation model of the landfill survey area at 30 m resolution
created in ArcMap using data downloaded from the Shuttle Radar Topography
Mission (OpenTopography, n.d.). Walking profiles are shown in black. Line 1 went
from north to south and line 2 from west to east. The star indicates the unmanned
aerial vehicle staging area for takeoff and landing.
Special Section: Near-surface imaging and modeling
that are lined with plastic and 0.6 m of sand. It rises 30 m high,
and its depth extends 9 m below the surrounding ground level.
See Figure 4 for details.
A walking survey was performed at the landfill in order to
compare the G858 and Android magnetometers. The first
profile (line 1) began at the northern extent of the landfill,
went south directly over the peak, and ended outside of the
landfill to the southeast. The second profile (line 2) began at
the western side and headed east directly over the peak and
past the landfill on the road. Because the smartphone was in
airplane mode to avoid magnetic interference from messages
or updates, a Bad Elf brand GPS receiver was carried during
the survey.
The G858 sensor was mounted on the front of an aluminum
rod, while the smartphone was strapped face down with Velcro
to the back on a PVC pipe extension. The aluminum rod with
PVC extension measured approximately 2.5 m in length. The
shoulder strap was adjusted to let the sensors hover approximately
0.3 m above the ground. The frequency of acquisition was set at
2 Hz for both sensors.
The data sets were combined and graphed in Excel. To correct
for heading error in line 1, the smartphone data set was adjusted
vertically by uniformly adding 1200 nT. The same correction
was applied to line 2, except 1000 nT was added. These values
were determined by averaging the noise from the smartphone
when outside the landfill (Figures 5 and 6) and subtracting that
number from the G858 reading at the same location. The data
from both lines were corrected to show the TMI by removing
the IGRF.
Visual analysis shows that when on foot, the smartphone
performed remarkably well in imaging magnetic anomalies over
the landfill. Noise from the smartphone ranging from ±500 nT
dominates the end of the survey, where the G858 values flatten
out. These points, located approximately 550 m for Figure 5 and
375 m for Figure 6, mark the end of the landfill and a transition
into land without buried material below. Figure 7 provides a closer
look at line 1 between 250 and 400 m. This segment, starting at
the topographical high and moving southeast, contains the largest
anomalies on the line. When subjected to an intense magnetic
anomaly like a landfill, the smartphone sensor can reproduce the
results of the G858, but once outside the boundary, magnetic
noise from the phone overwhelms the data.
Quantitative analysis was used to determine how well the
Android performed compared to the G858. A scatter plot of the
two data sets (Figure 8) and the root-mean-square deviation
(RMSD) were calculated in Excel. RMSD is a measure of how
observations match a model. In this case, the observations would
be the Android, and the G858 would be the model. Line 1 had
1345 values and an RMSD of 480. Line 2 contained 1151 values
with an RMSD of 654. As seen in Figure 8, a strong linear trend
shows that the Android and G858 data were comparable over
the landfill.
There are a few possible sources of error in this survey.
Additional heading error can be seen throughout Figures 5 and 6,
where the smartphone signal is consistently above or below the
G858 signal. Since the landfill had many obstacles such as berms
May 2020 The Leading Edge 315
 and gas vents, the direction was not always north/south or east/
west. Turns were required to avoid these places and created small
frequency heading errors throughout. One place this can clearly
be seen is in Figure 7 at 420 m, where the average reading from
the smartphone jumps up 1000 nT. This is due to a turn in the
road, where the line was walked from an eastbound direction
Downloaded 06/26/20 to 165.225.34.131. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
in less-developed countries have a smartphone that can be used
for geophysical education. Smartphones are easy to use and most
people already own one.
Data and materials availability
Data associated with this research are available and can be

to a northbound direction. Additionally, the aluminum rod was obtained by contacting the corresponding author.
not always aligned perpendicular to the walking direction.
Therefore, the G858 was sampling a spot on the landfill that Corresponding author: nathanocampbell@gmail.com
was at times up to 0.5 m either left or
right of the smartphone. This only
occurred in places that were very steep.
Also, sensor height became difficult to
control on the more challenging sec-
tions of the landfill.

Conclusion
The smartphone was able to detect
short steel pipes buried up to 0.75 m.
When compared to the G858, results
for the smartphone as an underground
pipe detector are mixed. The pipes were
delineated from the surrounding envi-
Figure 5. Line 1 from the walking survey of the landfill comparing the G858 with the smartphone. It begins at the
ronment, but because it was a magneti- northern extent of the landfill and continues south and southeast. Arrows indicate limits of the landfill. IGRF was
cally quiet area, noise dominated the removed to show TMI.
smartphone sensor outside of a 1 m
radius of the pipes.
When performing a walking survey
over a strong magnetic anomaly such
as a landfill, the smartphone magne-
tometer collects data that are compa-
rable to the G858 magnetometer. In
magnetically quiet conditions, where
there is little magnetic material to
influence the sensor, noise from other
components of the phone dominate the
signal, and the relatively low sensitivity
of the sensor becomes apparent.
Anomalies less than 600 nT in strength Figure 6. Line 2 from the walking survey of the landfill comparing the G858 with the smartphone. It begins
are likely to be lost in the noise unless at the western extent of the landfill and extends eastward. Arrows mark the limits of the landfill. IGRF was
the sensor is above a large magnetic removed to show TMI.
anomaly such as a landfill.
Technology enhances our under-
standing of the world. As sensors con-
tinue to shrink in size, require less power
to operate, and diminish in cost, it is
important to consider the advantages
and disadvantages of gaining portability
while losing sensitivity. Smartphones
can image anomalies in the subsurface
such as pipes, landfills, and dikes. They
also perform well enough to act as a
presurvey device before considering
investing money in a professional mag-
netic survey. Additionally, most students Figure 7. Segment of line 1 comparing the G858 and smartphone from 250 to 400 m. IGRF was removed to show TMI.

316 The Leading Edge May 2020 Special Section: Near-surface imaging and modeling
Downloaded 06/26/20 to 165.225.34.131. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 8. Scatter plot for line 1 of the Android and G858 data over the landfill. The dotted line
and equation represent the linear line of regression.

References
Aghayan, A., P. Jaiswal, and E. Atekwana, 2017, Potential field data processing using
the redundant lifting scheme: 89th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded
Abstracts, 1797–1802, https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2017-17792006.1.
Asahi Kasei, 2014, AK09911 3-axis electronic compass: Asahi Kasei Manual.
Chen, M., 2016, Evaluation of Title V permit renewal application no. 2014-1556-
TVR: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division.
Ferster, C. J., and N. C. Coops, 2013, A review of earth observation using mobile
personal communication devices: Computers & Geosciences, 51, 339–349, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.09.009.
Fiv Asim, 2015, AndroSensor, http://www.fivasim.com/androsensor.html, accessed
24 March 2020.
Geology.com, n.d., Oklahoma physical map, https://geology.com/topographic-
physical-map/oklahoma.shtml, accessed 26 March 2018.
Geometrics, 2001, G-858 MagMapper: Geometrics Manual.
Heran, W. D., G. N. Green, and D. B. Stoeser, 2003, A digital geologic map database
for the state of Oklahoma: United States Department of the Interior.
Ndiaye, M., and A. Diagne, 2014, Geomagnetic investigation method using iPhone
integrated magnetic sensor: International Journal of Geosciences, 5, 1–4, https://
doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2014.51001.
OpenTopography, n.d., https://opentopography.org.
Suksmono, A. B., D. Danudirdjo, A. D. Setiawan, and D. Rahmawati, 2017, Magnetic
subsurface imaging systems in a smartphone based on the built-in magnetometer:
IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 53, no. 11, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TMAG.2017.2697001.

Special Section: Near-surface imaging and modeling May 2020 The Leading Edge 317