Pure Appl. Geophys.

175 (2018), 3145–3158

Ó 2017 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1736-2 Pure and Applied Geophysics

Aeromagnetic Surveying with a Rotary-Wing Unmanned Aircraft System: A Case Study

from a Zinc Deposit in Nash Creek, New Brunswick, Canada
MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM,1 CLAIRE SAMSON,1 ALAN WOOD,2 and IAN COOK2

Abstract—Unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) have been under Furthermore, UASs are also capable of flying at very
rapid development for applications in the mineral exploration
industry, mainly for aeromagnetic surveying. They provide
low altitudes (some as low as 2 m AGL) and at much
improved detection of smaller, deeper and weaker magnetic targets. slower flight speeds, giving them the ability to
A traditional system flying an altitude of 100 m above ground level acquire higher resolution data, spatially and
(AGL) can detect a spherical ore body with a radius of * 16 m
temporally.
and a magnetic susceptibility of 10-4 buried at a depth of 40 m.
A UAS flying at an altitude of 50 or 2 m AGL would require the The geophysical magnetic method is extensively
radius to be 11 or 5 m, respectively. A demonstration survey was used to map several different mineral deposits, such
performed using the SkyLance rotary-wing UAS instrumented with as: volcanic massive sulphides; mafic and ultra-
a cesium vapour magnetometer in Nash Creek, New Brunswick,
Canada. The UAS flew over a zinc deposit featuring three magnetic mafics; porphyry copper and molybdenum; magmatic
anomalies. It acquired repeatable data that compared well with bodies; and skarns (Dentith and Mudge 2014). Cur-
upward continuation maps of ground magnetic data. Dykes or rently, magnetic surveying with UASs is gaining
faults that are dipping eastward at 25° and are approximately 1.5 m
wide fit the observed response of the three anomalies captured on
momentum in the mineral exploration industry. There
the UAS magnetic data. is a demand for cost-effective, high-resolution, small-
size surveys to be flown at lower altitudes than by
Key words: Unmanned aircraft systems, Magnetics, Airborne
traditional methods. UASs represent an opportunity
surveying, Mineral exploration.
to conduct such surveys. Presently, there are various
UASs under development for aeromagnetic survey-
ing. Initially many of these systems were fixed-wing
UASs such as the GeoRanger (Fugro/CGG—now
1. Introduction
retired), which was flown for several missions (An-
derson and Pita 2005); the GeoSurv II (Sander
Over the past decade there has been rapid devel-
Geophysics and Carleton University) (Caron et al.
opment of unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) as well
2011, 2014; Samson et al. 2010); and the AeroVision
as of their payloads (Pajares 2015). UASs are
(Abitibi Geophysics and GEM Systems) (Dion-
becoming a desirable alternative or a complementary
Ortega 2015). Recently, rotary-wing UASs have
approach for remote sensing since they allow for high
become increasingly popular, including: the Scout
versatility and flexibility in comparison to traditional
B1-100 UAV helicopter (Aeroscout) (Eck and
airborne and satellite systems. UAS surveys require
Imbach 2011); the UAV-MAG (Pioneer Aerial Sur-
smaller team sizes than their traditional counterparts
veys Ltd.) (Burns 2017; Parvar 2016); and the
and remove many risks for the pilots, such as low
AirBIRD (GEM Systems) (Gordon 2016). Stratus
altitude flying and operator fatigue (Kroll 2013).
Aeronautics has also developed two UASs for aero-
magnetic surveying; the fixed-wing Venturer UAS
and the SkyLance rotary-wing UAS (Wood et al.
1
2016; Cunningham 2016).
Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University,
Ottawa, ON, Canada. E-mail: Michael.Cunningham@carleton.ca
This paper presents theoretical and field survey
2
Stratus Aeronautics, #123, 3191 Thunderbird Crescent, results that aim to assess the capabilities of UASs
Burnaby, BC V5A 3G1, Canada.
3146 M. Cunningham et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

compared to traditional magnetic surveying systems

and methods, specifically for mineral exploration
purposes. Firstly, forward modelling is used to
determine the detection capabilities of UASs in
general. Secondly, comparisons between a ground
magnetic survey and an aeromagnetic survey per-
formed by the SkyLance UAS over a zinc deposit in
Nash Creek, New Brunswick, Canada, are presented.

2. Theory

Three magnetic survey platforms were considered

for the theoretical analysis (Table 1). The Cessna
Grand Caravan was selected to represent a traditional
fixed-wing survey platform. The Venturer UAS
(Wood et al. 2016; Cunningham 2016) and the Sky-
Lance UAS (Fig. 1) were selected to represent a
fixed-wing UAS and a rotary-wing UAS,
respectively.
The objective of the theoretical analysis is to
determine the minimum detection limits and the
spatial resolution of each system. The detection limits
encompass the minimum detectable size and mag-
netic susceptibility of a body, and the maximum
depth below ground level that the body can still be
detectable by each system. The spatial resolution is
the minimum separation between two magnetic
bodies for which each body can be detected indi-
vidually within the resultant signal (Elkins and
Hammer 1938). Two bodies that have a large enough
Figure 1
The SkyLance rotary-wing UAS mounted with cesium vapour
magnetometer at the end of a boom
separation will create two distinct peaks in the mag-
netic data. As the bodies are brought closer, the
signals from each body will progressively blend
together. For this analysis, the following parameters
were considered: (1) the design parameters of each
system; (2) mathematical models of spherical mag-
netic ore bodies; (3) a realistic noise level; and (4)
realistic spatial sampling intervals.
2.1. Magnetic Model
The magnetic spherical anomaly was selected for
this analysis due to the simplicity of the derivation
and calculations compared to that of other geological
features (i.e. thin sheets, cylinders). Derived from

Table 1
Specification of the three aeromagnetic survey systems

System Cessna Grand Caravan Venturer UAS SkyLance UAS

Length 12.67 m 2.74 1.0 m

Wingspan 19.03 m 4.95 1.0 m
Crew size 2 ? people 2 people 2 people
Mass Approx. 3995 kg Approx. 55 kg (with fuel) Approx. 20 kg
Mass of payload Variable 8.28 kg 5 kg
Endurance 9–10 h at 200 km/h 9–10 h at 100 km/h 30 min at 35 km/h
Max. flight speed 343 km/h 120 km/h 37 km/h
Sensors Four geometrics cesium vapour Two geometrics G-823A cesium vapour Geometrics G-823A cesium vapour
magnetometers magnetometer magnetometer
Flight speed (km/h) 200 100 32
Spatial sampling 5.6 2.8 0.9
interval (m)
Spatial sampling intervals have been calculated for a 10-Hz sampling frequency
Vol. 175, (2018) Aeromagnetic Surveying with a Rotary-Wing Unmanned Aircraft System 3147

Telford et al. (1976), a three-dimensional magnetic Aeromagnetic noise was characterized using data
model was built. The magnetic anomaly induced by from a test flight of the Venturer UAS performed on
the Earth’s magnetic field is described in three October 2, 2013 (Wood et al. 2016) to provide a
Cartesian components: Bx , By , and Bz : realistic scenario. The fourth difference levels of the
   Venturer were within industry standards
4pR3 kD
Bx ¼ H0 sinðbÞ 2x2  y2  z2 of ± 0.05 nT (Coyle et al. 2014). Through the use
3ðx2 þ y2 þ z2 Þ5=2 of long wavelength filters, regional and geological
 H0 cosðbÞ3xy þ Z0 3xz; ð1Þ effects were filtered out so that only noise from wing
flexing remained. The filtered data follow a normal
4pR3 kD
By ¼ ½H0 sinðbÞ3xy  H0 cosðbÞ distribution centred at 0 nT and with a standard
3ðx2 þ y2 þ z2 Þ5=2 deviation of 0.059 nT. For analyses to follow,
 2  
 x þ 2y2  z2 þ Z0 3xz ; ð2Þ random noise following this distribution was added
to synthetic data. The spatial sampling intervals for
and
the three survey systems of interest are also provided
4pR3 kD in Table 1. Small anomalies will go undetected if the
Bz ¼ ½H0 sinðbÞ3xz  H0 cosðbÞ3yz
3ðx2 þ y2 þ z2 Þ5=2 spatial sampling interval is too coarse.
  The Chi-squared (v2) goodness-of-fit (GOF) test
þ Z0 x2  y2 þ 2z2 : ð3Þ
was employed to determine whether an anomaly
Variables H0 and Z0 are the horizontal and could be successfully detected. This statistical testing
vertical components of the external Earth’s magnetic does not rely on the selection of arbitrary criteria such
field, respectively, b is the declination of the Earth’s as requiring a fixed number of points above the noise
magnetic field, k is the magnetic susceptibility of the level for a successful detection. Anomalous data
body, R is the body radius, and x, y, and z are the points do not need to be detected consecutively,
spatial coordinates of the location in space where the which makes the approach robust even in the
magnetic field is being calculated. The x and y presence of noise. Furthermore, statistical testing
coordinates represent the horizontal position of the provides a quantitative metric indicating how likely
location of interest, and the z coordinate represents the anomaly will be successfully detected.
vertical position. In this case, the vertical position is The observed signal is a combination of the total
the sum of the flight altitude of the survey system magnetic intensity (TMI) from a spherical body plus
under consideration and the limiting depth of the randomly generated noise. The expected signal is
spherical body. D is the demagnetization effect simply the noise-free TMI from the spherical body.
(Eq. 4), which results in a reduction of the magnetic The number of degrees of freedom is equal to the
field depending on the shape of the magnetic body. N number of data points in the signal. The required
varies depending on the shape of the body under significance level has been set to 0.01. This value was
consideration. No demagnetization occurs for a rod- selected to reduce the possibility of a type 1 statistical
like body with magnetization along the long-axis and error; the rejection of a result that should be accepted
with a small cross-section compared to its length. A (Peck and Devore 2012).
maximum demagnetization occurs for a thin sheet
that is magnetized in a direction normal to its surface.
2.2. Minimum Detection Limits
For a spherical body, N = 4p/3 and
1 Repeated tests (100 per set of parameters) were
D¼ where ð0  N  4pÞ: ð4Þ performed to determine the likelihood that the
1 þ Nk
observed signal was detected. Magnetic susceptibility
The resultant total magnetic field is shown in varied between 10-5 and 104, the radius between 0
Eq. 5, and 30 m, and the limiting depth between 0 and
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 100 m. A cumulative distribution was computed and
Bmodel ¼ B2x þ B2y þ B2z : ð5Þ
a detection success rate was imposed.
3148 M. Cunningham et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 2
Surface plots of the minimum detection limits for a spherical body with a 90% success rate for each survey system with respect to the
magnetic susceptibility, body radius, and limiting depth. Blue—100 m flight altitude; red—50 m flight altitude; and green—2 m flight altitude

Figure 2 shows surfaces representing the mini-
mum values for each body parameter for which the
corresponding magnetic anomaly will be
detectable with a success rate of 90%. For large
body radii and/or small limiting depths, the magnetic
susceptibility can be as low as approximately 10-5
and the body will be considered detectable. As the
radius decreases and/or the limiting depth increases,
magnetic susceptibility must increase for a successful
detection.
Profile plots are shown in Fig. 3 where the effects
of varying two body parameters, while the third
parameter is kept constant, for both 50 and 90%
success rates. In the top plot, the source body is set to
have a limiting depth of 20 m and the relationship
between the body radius and magnetic susceptibility
is shown. In order to continue to successfully detect
the body as its radius decreases, the magnetic
susceptibility must increase rapidly. The middle plot
compares the limiting depth and magnetic suscepti-
bility for a body with a radius set to 10 m. As limiting
depth increases, the magnetic susceptibility also
needs to increase for a successful detection. Lastly,
the bottom plot presents the relationship between the
limiting depth and radius of the spherical body when
the magnetic susceptibility is held constant at 10-4. A
linear relationship between the limiting depth and
radius is observed. As the limiting depth increases,
the radius of the body must also increase for the body
to be detectable.
Vol. 175, (2018) Aeromagnetic Surveying with a Rotary-Wing Unmanned Aircraft System 3149

Figure 3
Minimum detection limits for a spherical magnetic body. The top plot is for a limiting depth of 20 m and the middle plot is for body radius of
10 m. The detectable region is above the curves. The bottom plot is for a magnetic susceptibility of 10-4. The detectable region is right of the
curves. The solid and dashed lines represent 90 and 50% success rates, respectively
3150 M. Cunningham et al.
Figure 3 clearly shows the superior theoretical
detectability afforded by the low flight altitude of
UASs. Such altitudes are practically applicable only
for UASs as opposed to piloted aircrafts. A UAS
flying at an altitude of 50 m will detect a weakly
magnetic (10-4) ore body with a radius of 10 m
buried at a limiting depth of approximately 30 m.
A UAS flying at an altitude of 2 m will detect the
same body at a limiting depth of approximately 80 m.
The body will not be detected by the traditional fixed-
wing aircraft. Figure 3 also reveals that improve-
ments in detectability are almost the same when
lowering the flight altitude from to 100 to 50 m, and
from 50 to 2 m, due to the fact the TMI falls off as a
function of inverse distance cubed. In practice, flying
a middle-size UAS at an altitude slightly higher or
lower than its nominal flight altitude will have little
overall impact on detectability.
2.3. Spatial Resolution
In order to mathematically determine the spatial
resolution limit, the following conditions must be met
(Elkins and Hammer 1938):
1. Resolution is only considered for profiles that are
produced from two identical bodies, in this case,
two spherical bodies.
2. Each body can be represented by a symmetric
function, (s), where s is a horizontal coordinate
along the profile under consideration. The origin at
s = 0 corresponds to the axis of symmetry.
3. x is the horizontal coordinate along the profile. At
the point x = a (and x = - a), where is the location
of the centre of one of the bodies along the profile,
(x) is analytical. The origin, x = 0, is located
halfway between the two bodies.
The TMI is the sum of the contribution from each
sphere over all x:
Wð xÞ ¼ Uðx þ aÞ þ Uðx  aÞ: ð6Þ
To compute the spatial resolution limit, the
second derivative of the U(x) function needs to be
determined and set to equal zero and solving for
a when x = a. This provides half of the resolution
limit because each body will be offset from the origin
by an amount a. The total separation between each
Pure Appl. Geophys.
body is therefore equal to 2. At a separation smaller
than 2 it will not be possible to distinguish the
magnetic signature from the two bodies.
The relation between the spatial resolution limit,
limiting depth, and radius of two neighbouring bodies
for each flight altitude for the three survey systems of
interest is presented in Fig. 4. The magnetic suscep-
tibility does not affect the resolution limit so it is not
displayed. Figure 4 shows that as flight altitude
decreases, spatial resolution increases. For two bodies
with a depth of 40 m and radius of 10 m, the
minimum detectable separation between the two
bodies is 67.5 m for an altitude of 100 m AGL,
45.0 m for an altitude of 50 m AGL, and 22.5 m for
an altitude of 2 m AGL.
3. Study Site
In August and October, 2015, co-located ground
magnetic and aeromagnetic surveys were performed
just outside of Nash Creek, New Brunswick, Canada,
over known magnetic anomalies (Fig. 5). The Nash
Creek property, whose mineral rights are owned by
Slam Exploration Ltd., is located off the southern
coast of Chaleur Bay, New Brunswick, and south of
the Gaspé Peninsula, Québec. The property lies
between two northeast trending orogenic belts; the
Aroostook-Percé (north) highlands and the Miramichi
highlands (south) (Bongajum 2011). It is situated
approximately 50 km northwest of the Bathurst
Mining Camp which is located in the Miramichi
highlands.
The Bathurst Mining Camp features several
occurrences of volcanic massive sulphides deposited
within Cambro-Ordovician rocks. The Nash Creek
property, however, sits on younger rocks of Lower
Devonian age (Bongajum 2011). The rocks in Nash
Creek are composed of volcanic breccias, siltstones,
limestones, mafic flows, rhyolites, and tuffs where the
main source of mineralization is within the Dalhousie
group. Brown (2007) suggests that the mineralization
occurred within a failed rift system filled with shal-
low water. Volcanic and sedimentary rocks were
deposited in a half-graben where a fault boundary
allowed for the flow of hydrothermal fluid causing
sulphide mineral accumulation containing zinc, lead,
Vol. 175, (2018) Aeromagnetic Surveying with a Rotary-Wing Unmanned Aircraft System 3151

Figure 4
Comparison of the spatial resolution for different flight altitudes with respect to the limiting depth and radius of two neighbouring bodies

and silver. The property lies on the western edge of with three subparallel faults defining the small Nash
the Jacquet River Syncline and is bounded by the Creek graben (Fig. 5) (Walker 2010). Extensive
normal Black Point-Arleau Brook Fault to the west, exploration, primarily drilling, has been performed on
3152 M. Cunningham et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 5
Nash Creek, NB survey area. Left: general location maps where red star marks the survey site. Right: geological map modified after Walker
(2010). The red box outlines the ground magnetic survey area (the survey area is bound by latitudes of 47.880° and 47.889°, and by longitudes
of - 66.098° and - 66.112°. The white line represents the flight line of the SkyLance UAS. The purple star is the take-off and landing
location; and the blue star is the location of the magnetic base station. The westernmost blue dotted line is the trace of the Black Point-Arleau
Brook fault, and the other blue dotted lines are related secondary faults. The red dashed line is the axis of the Jacquet River Syncline

the Nash Creek property for approximately 60 years
(Ugalde et al. 2007).
The Nash Creek area is densely forested with a
few access roads for local residential use. Trees were
observed to reach up to 20 m AGL. Topography is
hilly, with elevations varying from 80 to 117 m
above sea level (ASL) over a lateral distance of
between 500 and 1000 m. A few areas feature small
cliffs.
4. Methods
4.1. Description of the Rotary-Wing UAS
The SkyLance UAS is a rotary-wing UAS (Fig. 1
and Table 1) currently being developed by Stratus
Aeronautics to perform high-resolution aeromagnetic
surveys for mineral exploration. The system has been
built to minimize the magnetic interference from the
UAS frame on the magnetometers. Four lithium
polymer batteries power the rotors as well as other
onboard avionics and the payload electronics. The
avionics components consist of an autopilot system
and a differential RTK GPS. The payload consists of
a fluxgate magnetometer mounted at the front of the
SkyLance UAS, used for aircraft attitude and navi-
gation, and a Geometrics G-823A cesium vapour
magnetometer, used to record aeromagnetic data. The
cesium vapour magnetometer has a sampling fre-
quency of 5 Hz. The differential RTK GPS unit
provides positioning accuracy of approximately 5 cm
in the horizontal plane and 3.6 cm in the vertical
plane. Corrections to the GPS unit were streamed via
a radio link to the onboard GPS antenna. The
SkyLance UAS also measures ASL altitude with a
barometric altimeter.
4.2. UAS Flights
The SkyLance UAS performed three test flights
on October 17, 2015, along the line shown in Fig. 5.
Time constraints and deteriorating weather conditions
limited the number of possible flights. On that day,
Vol. 175, (2018) Aeromagnetic Surveying with a Rotary-Wing Unmanned Aircraft System
the weather started out sunny in the morning and as
the day progressed the weather became overcast with
temperatures ranging between 0 and 7 °C, respec-
tively. Wind speeds were low (approximately
8–10 km/h); however, there were the occasional
wind gusts. Space Weather Canada reported quiet
solar activity for the sub-auroral zone where the
survey was located; minimal magnetic noise would
be due from solar activity. To ensure the SkyLance
flew safely over all trees, and to ensure visual line of
sight operations, the survey was flown at an average
flight altitude of 80 m AGL (170 m ASL).
Prior to the first flight, the system was allowed to
idle while recording, initially with the rotors off for
approximately 2 min and then with the rotors on and
the system hovering for another 2 min (Fig. 6). The
time at which the power to the rotors is initiated is
shown in blue. There is a drop in TMI of approxi-
mately 0.5 nT when the rotors are turned on. This
drop is believed to be related to the orientation of
rotors and to the direction of magnetic field they
produce, which results in a slight reduction of the
Earth’s magnetic field. Other than this small drop in
TMI, no effects on the TMI are observed due to the
use of the rotors. After the rotors are turned on, there
is a 0.3 nT increase in TMI over a 150-s period. This
may be caused by a combination of effects such as:
increased rotor rotation speeds; increased power
Figure 6
SkyLance UAS magnetic data during system power-up prior to surveying. Data are corrected for diurnal effects. Red—magnetic data prior to
the rotors being turned on; blue—rotor powering on; green—rotors on, system hovering
3153
output to the rotors; static magnetization of onboard
components; and/or motions of the UAS (i.e. ascend-
ing or vibrations).
Each of the three SkyLance UAS flights covered a
further distance than the previous along the flight line
shown in Fig. 5, providing repeated measurements.
Flight altitude was stable; the standard deviation of
the altitude is only ± 1 m along the flight lines. The
UAS attitude was also consistent, with approxi-
mately ± 5° variations in pitch, and ± 2° in roll,
which are primarily associated with wind gusts. The
average pitch is negative due to the flight mechanics;
a helicopter needs to point its nose down to fly
forwards.
The fourth difference was calculated for each of
the flights using raw data (Fig. 7). The maximum
variation is approximately ± 0.4 nT, with one stan-
dard deviation equal to ± 0.04 nT.
Due to wind gusts, the UAS would occasionally
oscillate causing a transient high-frequency noise in
the aeromagnetic data. This effect is shown in Figs. 8
and 9. This high-frequency noise was removed for
each flight via filtering the 0.6 Hz oscillation. As seen
in Fig. 10, after diurnal corrections and frequency
filtering, the TMI data show that high degree of
repeatability was achieved along the sections of the
line that were covered by each flight.
3154 M. Cunningham et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 7
SkyLance UAS fourth difference data. Blue—flight 1; red—flight 2; black—flight 3. The one standard deviation envelope (± 0.04 nT) is
indicated by green horizontal lines

4.3. Ground Survey it difficult to traverse and causing poor GPS signal
quality. GPS signal was lost at various points; in
The ground magnetic survey was executed over a
order to remedy this issue, the recorded magnetic data
3-day period, August 11–13, 2015. As seen on the
position was interpolated along the walking paths by
satellite image (Fig. 5), the property is heavily
assuming a constant walking velocity.
forested. There are many areas that contain dense
brush and tree canopy as well as steep slopes, making

Figure 8
Relating transient high-frequency noise in aeromagnetic data (top plot) with pitch (black) and roll (grey) oscillations (bottom plot). Time is
from beginning of flight line. Magnetic data is from flight 3
Vol. 175, (2018) Aeromagnetic Surveying with a Rotary-Wing Unmanned Aircraft System 3155

Figure 9
Zoomed in portion of Fig. 8 between 90s and 105s. Top plot—TMI with oscillations (black) and TMI with oscillations removed (blue).
Bottom plot—roll (grey) and pitch (black)

Figure 10
SkyLance UAS magnetic data in blue—flight 1; red—flight 2; and black—flight 3. Upward continued to 80 m AGL of the ground magnetic
survey in green. Response of the three magnetic targets modelled as thin sheets at 80 m AGL in magenta

5. Results and Discussion
The ground magnetic map, computed using min-
imum curvature interpolation, is shown in Fig. 11.
Borehole casings from previous exploration drilling
are scattered around the eastern survey area, which
produce a strong magnetic signature. Any recording
that fell within 15 m of a borehole was removed. The
map shows three north-trending oblong anomalies.
Which align with the Black Point-Arleau Brook fault
and the related secondary faults located immediately
to the east (Fig. 5).
Upward continuation of the ground magnetic data
to 80 m AGL is presented in Fig. 12 with data from
the third UAS flight overlaying it. A profile plot along
the flight line shows that the trends of the two data-
sets match very well (Fig. 10). There is, however, a
DC shift of approximately 20–50 nT in TMI between
the upward continued ground data and the aeromag-
netic data. This is possibly due to: (1) an effect from
3156 M. Cunningham et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 11
Ground magnetic map of the survey area exhibiting three prominent anomalies labelled 1, 2, and 3. The colour bar is limited to 53,000 and
55,000 nT instead of the maximum data range of 50,306 to 58,494 nT to improve visualization. Coordinate system: UTM. Zone: 19T

the upward continuation algorithm used; (2) differ-
ences in the TMI due to the time of year the surveys
were performed (August and October, 2015)—the
International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF)
has a – 15 nT shift from the ground magnetic survey
date to the aeromagnetic survey date; (3) static
magnetic sources on the UAS; (4) instrument drift on
the Overhauser magnetometer used to acquire the
ground magnetic survey data; and/or (5) DC shift in
magnetic readings between the two different mag-
netometers used.
The magnetic anomalies coincide with diabase
dykes observed in the field (Veglio, E. (2017). Per-
sonal communication. November 1, 2017) and
therefore were modelled as thin sheets. Figure 10
shows the magnetic response, calculated by forward
modelling, of three magnetic dykes with a thickness
of 1.5 m and a dip of at 20° to the east, separated by
approximately 150 m. The magnetic susceptibility
used for modelling was 2 9 10-1. The two eastern
dykes are estimated to be located deeper in the sub-
surface (limiting depth * 40 m) than the
westernmost dyke which outcrops and was observed
in the field. A 53,565 nT shift was applied to the
response to bring it to the same level as the ground
and aeromagnetic data. At ground level, the response
matches the ground magnetic data closely. As seen in
Fig. 10, the response also matches the trends of the
ground and aeromagnetic data well for an altitude of
80 m AGL.
6. Conclusions
Compared with traditional airborne survey sys-
tems, one of the main advantages of UASs is their
lower flight altitudes. Flying closer to the ground
allows recording a fainter signal; deeper, smaller, or
weakly magnetic bodies are being detected. The
estimates for minimum detection limits presented
Vol. 175, (2018) Aeromagnetic Surveying with a Rotary-Wing Unmanned Aircraft System 3157

Figure 12
Aeromagnetic survey data from flight 3 (in colour) overlaying the upward continued to 80 m AGL ground magnetic data in black and white.
Coordinate system: UTM. Zone: 19T

here were determined using test flight data from the
Venturer fixed-wing UAS. Detection capability is
likely to increase in the future when the design of
UAVs will improve, leading to further reduction in
noise levels. Another advantage of UASs is their
capability of flying at slower speeds than manned
aircraft which allows them to better delineate closely
spaced magnetic targets.
Before UAV surveys can become a viable alter-
native to ground surveys or manned aircraft surveys,
their potential must be assessed in a variety of ter-
rains and field conditions. The Nash Creek UAS
survey is a contribution towards that overarching
goal. Flying at an altitude of 80 m AGL, the Sky-
Lance rotary-wing UAS magnetic data successfully
captured three anomalies which had been previously
identified on the ground magnetic data. Modelling
concluded that the two easternmost anomalies were
from two separate bodies; however, this combination
of targets and flight parameters was approaching the
spatial resolution limit of the UAS. Stability during
flight is an area for improvement, with the objective
of attenuating the high-frequency pitch oscillations
occurring during wind gusts, which would allow the
UAS to fly closer to the ground, leading to an overall
increased detection capability.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr. Bernd Milkereit from the Department
of Earth Sciences at the University of Toronto for
facilitating access to the Nash Creek property as well
as lending us the use of his ground magnetic survey
equipment. We also thank Andrew Hay from Car-
leton University for assisting with the ground
magnetic survey data collection. This project was
partially funded through an ENGAGE grant from the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada (NSERC) to C. Samson.
REFERENCES
Anderson, D., & Pita, A. (2005). Geophysical surveying with
GeoRangerTM UAV (pp. 67–78). Reston: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc.
3158 M. Cunningham et al.
Bongajum, E. (2011). Investigating seismic wave scattering in
heterogeneous environments and implications for seismic imag-
ing. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Brown, D. (2007). Technical report on mineral resource estimate,
Nash Creek project, Restigouche County, New Brunswick
Canada
Burns, M. (2017). UAV-MAG—The leader in unmanned geo-
physics surveying. Retrieved August 03, 2017, from Pioneer
Aerial Surveys Ltd. http://pioneeraerialsurveys.com/Pioneer_
Aerial_Surveys_Promo_2017.pdf.
Caron, R., Samson, C., Straznicky, P., Ferguson, S., Archer, R., &
Sander, L. (2011). Magnetic and magneto-gradiometric survey-
ing using a simulated unmanned aircraft system. In 81st Annual
meeting of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (Vol. 30,
pp. 861–865). San Antonio, TX: SEG Expanded Abstracts.
Caron, R., Samson, C., Straznicky, P., Ferguson, S., & Sander, L.
(2014). Aeromagnetic surveying using a simulated unmanned
aircraft system. Geophysical Prospecting, 62, 352–363.
Coyle, M., Dumont, R., Kiss, F., & Miles, W. (2014). Geological
Survey of Canada aeromagnetic surveys: Design, quality assur-
ance, and data dissemination. Ottawa: Geological Survey of
Canada. https://doi.org/10.4095/295088.
Cunningham, M. (2016). Aeromagnetic surveying with unmanned
aircraft systems. M.Sc. Thesis. Department of Earth Sciences,
Carleton University
Dentith, M., & Mudge, S. T. (2014). Geophysics for the mineral
exploration geoscientist. Cambridge (UK): University Press.
Dion-Ortega, A. (2015, June). Abitibi Géophysique lance le tout
premier drone magnétométrique. Montreal, QC, Canada.
Retrieved November 09, 2015, from https://www.lesaffaires.
com/dossier/exploration-miniere/abitibi-geophysique-lance-le-
tout-premier-drone-magnetometrique/579253
Eck, C., & Imbach, B. (2011). Aerial magnetic sensing with an
UAV helicopter ISPRS. International Archives of the Pho-
togrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,
XXXVIII-1/C22, 81–85.
Elkins, T., & Hammer, S. (1938). The resolution of combined
effects, with applications to gravitational and magnetic data.
Geophysics. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1439512.
(Received March 27, 2017, revised November 20, 2017, accepted November 27, 2017, Published online December 5, 2017)
Pure Appl. Geophys.
Gordon, R., (2016). The development of magnetometer UAV plat-
forms for geoscience. GEM Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Retrieved August 03, 2017, from http://www.gemsys.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/GEM_UAV_for-Geoscience_EAGE_
SPAIN_sep_24_2016.pdf?lbisphpreq=1
Kroll, A. (2013). Evaluation of an unmanned aircraft for geo-
physical survey. In 23rd international geophysical conference
and expedition (pp. 1–4). Melbourne, Australia: ASEG Extended
Abstracts.
Pajares, G. (2015). Overview and current status of remote sensing
applications based on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Pho-
togrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 81, 281–329.
Parvar, K. (2016). Development and evaluation of unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) magnetometry systems. M.A.Sc. Thesis.
Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering,
Queens University.
Peck, R., & Devore, J. L. (2012). Statistics—The exploration &
analysis of data (7th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Samson, C., Straznicky, P., Laliberte, J., Caron, R., Ferguson, S., &
Archer, R. (2010). Designing and building an unmanned aircraft
system for aeromagnetic surveying. In 80th Annual meeting of
the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (Vol. 29,
pp. 1167–1171). Denver, CO: SEG Expanded Abstracts.
Telford, W., Geldart, L., Sheriff, R., & Keys, D. (1976). Applied
geophysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ugalde, H., L’Heureux, E., & Milkereit, B. (2007). An integrated
geophysical study for orebody delineation, Nash Creek, New
Brunswick. In Proceedings of exploration 07: Fifth decennial
international conference on mineral exploration (pp.
1055–1058).
Walker, J. A. (2010). Stratigraphy and lithogeochemistry of Early
Devonian volcano-sedimentary rocks hosting the Nash Creek Zn-
Pb-Ag Deposit, northern New Brunswick (pp. 52–97). Geological
Investigations in New Brunswick for 2009. New Brunswick
Department of Natural Resources; Lands Minerals and Petroleum
Division, Mineral Resource Report 2010-1
Wood, A., Cook, I., Doyle, B., Cunningham, M., & Samson, C.
(2016). Experimental aeromagnetic survey using an unmanned
air system. The Leading Edge, 35, 270–273. https://doi.org/10.
1190/tle35030270.1.