Jun 18, 2026
Passive Magnetic Mapping of Submerged Cables: A Systematic Review
- Francisco Pinto1,
- Pedro Guedes2,
- Benedita Malheiro2
- 1ISEP, Polytechnic of Porto;
- 2ISEP, Polytechnic of Porto & INESC TEC
- Passive Magnetic Mapping of Submerged Cables
Protocol Citation: Francisco Pinto, Pedro Guedes, Benedita Malheiro 2026. Passive Magnetic Mapping of Submerged Cables: A Systematic Review. protocols.io https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.14egnp82zv5d/v1
License: This is an open access protocol distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Protocol status: Working
We use this protocol and it's working
Created: June 16, 2026
Last Modified: June 18, 2026
Protocol Integer ID: 319227
Keywords: cable, communication cable, power cable, magnetometry, magnetic anomaly, magnetic detection, magnetic field, magnetic mapping, magnetometer, depth, detection, location, mapping, orientation, tracking, position, underwater, submarine, submerged, subsea, undersea, passive magnetic mapping of submerged cable, systematic review submerged cable, passive magnetic mapping, submerged cable, reliable underwater inspection, vector magnetometer, regarding unpowered communication cable, unpowered communication cable, promising approach for power cable, sensing technology, power cable, current state of pmm research, sensing approach, critical infrastructure for global communication, global communication, sensor type, pmm research
Disclaimer
The authors have nothing to disclose.
Abstract
Submerged cables are critical infrastructure for global communications and energy transmission. Passive magnetic mapping (PMM) offers a promising non-contact alternative for spatial characterisation, though the existing literature is methodologically fragmented. This review aims to synthesise the current state of PMM research, identifying sensing technologies, signal processing, modelling methods, and existing research gaps. Peer-reviewed journal and conference papers published in English between 2016 and 2026, focused specifically on PMM for submerged cables. Bibliographic searches were conducted in IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science, with the final search performed on 19 May 2026. Studies were evaluated using an 11-point quality checklist (minimum score of 7.0 for inclusion). Reporting bias was assessed qualitatively based on the completeness of sensor and platform specifications. A PRISMA-guided structured narrative and descriptive synthesis was applied using frequency counts of coded variables across dimensions such as modelling approach, sensor type, and acquisition strategy. Twenty studies were included. Power cables dominate the corpus (19/20), with Biot–Savart or line-current formulations (15/20) and vector magnetometers (15/20) being the most prevalent modelling and sensing approaches, respectively. The field suffers from a lack of public benchmark datasets (only one identified), inconsistent performance metrics, and limited evidence regarding unpowered communication cables. PMM is a technically promising approach for power cables, but requires methodological standardisation and improved disturbance compensation for autonomous platforms to support reliable underwater inspection.
PICOC
Population: power cable, communication cable
Intervention: passive magnetometry, passive magnetic sensing, magnetic anomaly detection, underwater magnetic field measurement, magnetic mapping, magnetometer-based cable detection, spatial magnetic field
Comparison: recent versus traditional passive magnetic cable mapping methods
Outcome: spatial characterisation, cable Position estimation, depth estimation, directional inference, detection accuracy, estimation error, tracking, mapping
Context: submarine, submerged, underwater, subsea, undersea
Research Questions
1. What passive magnetic mapping approaches have been proposed for submerged cables in underwater environments?
2. Which magnetic sensors and data‑acquisition strategies are used for passive underwater magnetic mapping of submerged cables?
3. Which signal processing, modelling, and inversion techniques are applied to infer the spatial geometry
of submerged cables from passive magnetic data?
4. What metrics and evaluation protocols are used to assess the accuracy and robustness of passive magnetic cable mapping?
5. Which synthetic or experimental datasets are available for benchmarking passive magnetic mapping of submerged cables?
6. What technical limitations and open research directions are identified for passive
magnetic mapping of submerged cables?
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
Relevant to the review topic
Peer-reviewed work
English Studies
Full text available
Studies published between 2016-2026
Exclusion Criteria:
Unrelated topic
Non-peer reviewed work
Non-English studies
Closed access
Prior to 2016
Quality Assessment
1. Is the operational environment explicitly defined as a submerged, subsea, or underwater context?
2. Is the specific type of target cable (e.g., HVAC, HVDC, telecommunication, umbilical) specified along with its structural or operational parameters (e.g., current load, armoring material, multi-core layout)?
3. Is the magnetic mapping approach explicitly confirmed to be passive (utilizing the cable's intrinsic
magnetic signature or operating current) rather than active electromagnetic induction?
4. Are the magnetic sensor architectures thoroughly described, including critical specifications (e.g.,
sensor type, sensitivity, noise floor, axes configuration, sampling rate)?
5. Is the physical data acquisition setup fully detailed, including the deployment platform (e.g., AUV,
ROV, Towed Fish), survey trajectory, altitude above seabed, and georeferencing framework?
6. Are the mathematical forward models (e.g., Biot-Savart line-current, discrete dipole arrays) and inverse
optimization frameworks clearly formulated?
7. Does the study explicitly model or algorithmically compensate for environmental noise or host-platform magnetic interference (e.g., thruster noise, Tolles-Lawson calibration)?
8. Is the proposed methodology validated through an acceptable progression of testing (Simulation,
Laboratory/Tank testing, or Field/Sea trials)?
9. Are precise quantitative performance metrics reported to assess localization accuracy (e.g., 3D position
RMSE, depth-of-burial error, heading deviation, or SNR thresholds)?
10. Are the synthetic or experimental datasets described, shared, or structured clearly enough to allow
independent benchmarking?
11. Does the study critically analyze its own engineering limitations, physical failure modes (e.g., field cancellation effects, blind depth limits), and explicitly outline open research directions?
Scoring criteria were defined as follows: 0 indicating no compliance, 0.5 indicating partial compliance, and 1 indicating full compliance.
Search Query and Databases
Default
"communications cable" OR "power cable" OR cable) AND ("underwater" OR "submarine" OR "submerged" OR "subsea" OR "undersea") AND ("magnetometry" OR "magnetic anomaly" OR "magnetic detection" OR "magnetic field" OR "magnetic mapping" OR "magnetometer") AND ("position" OR "orientation" OR "depth" OR "detection" OR "location" OR "mapping" OR "tracking")
IEEE Xplore
"All Metadata":cable) AND ("All Metadata":"underwater" OR "All Metadata":"submarine" OR "All Metadata":"submerged" OR "All Metadata":"subsea" OR "All Metadata":"undersea") AND ("All Metadata":magnet*) AND ("All Metadata":"position" OR "All Metadata":"orientation" OR "All Metadata":"depth" OR "All Metadata":"detection" OR "All Metadata":"location" OR "All Metadata":"mapping" OR "All Metadata":"tracking")
ScienceDirect
(cable) AND ("underwater" OR "submarine") AND (magnetic OR magnetometer) AND (location OR mapping OR position OR orientation)
SCOPUS
TITLE-ABS-KEY ((cable) AND ("underwater" OR "submarine" OR "submerged" OR "subsea" OR ") AND ("magnetometry" OR "magnetic anomaly" OR "magnetic detection" OR "magnetic field" OR "magnetic mapping" OR "magnetometer") AND ("position" OR "orientation" OR "depth" OR "detection" OR "location" OR "mapping" OR "tracking")) AND PUBYEAR > 2015 AND PUBYEAR < 2027
Web of Science
TS=((cable) AND ("underwater" OR "submarine" OR "submerged" OR "subsea" OR "undersea") AND ("magnetometry" OR "magnetic anomaly" OR "magnetic detection" OR "magnetic field" OR "magnetic mapping" OR "magnetometer") AND ("position" OR "orientation" OR "depth" OR "detection" OR "location" OR "mapping" OR "tracking"))
Screening Process
- The PRISMA 2020 methodology was followed for systematic selection and using the framework Parsifal.
- Articles were filtered using keyword queries, then screened manually for topical relevance.
- Duplicates, non-relevant, and retracted records were excluded.
- The final selection is illustrated bellow.
PRISMA Flow diagram