A Process for the Design and Manufacture of Propellers for Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to develop a process for the design and manufacture of mission-and aircraft-specific propellers for small unmanned aerial vehicles.This objective was met by creating a computer program to design a propeller that meets userdefined aircraft performance requirements within the limitations of the motor, material, and manufacturing methods.The use of additive manufacturing (3D printing) in making flightworthy propellers was explored through material testing and by manufacturing trials.By testing the propellers in simulated flight conditions, it was found that the propellers generated nearly the expected design thrust, but a series of manufacturing and instrumentation issues prevented a complete evaluation of their performance.Testing was sufficient to demonstrate the feasibility of flightworthy propellers produced through additive manufacturing.Future work for the further development of the design program was also outlined.Stephan Bilijan and David Raude -for their assistance during material and wind tunnel testing.I'd also like to thank Nagui Mikhail for his advice and for allowing me access to the Department of Electronics' resources throughout the development of the instrumentation.Throughout my undergrad and graduate studies I've been grateful for Alex Proctor, Kevin Sangster and Ian Lloy for allowing me to work in the department machine shop and patiently helping me produce what I've designed.My experiences in the machine shop influenced everything I designed for my thesis and am grateful for the opportunities I had to learn from you.I'd like to thank all of my friends for their support throughout the course of this project.There are a few people I'd like to recognize in particular for their help on key aspects of this work.Hristo Valtchanov's advice on layout of my thesis led to a drastically better final product than I could have hoped for had I done it my way.I'd like to thank John Polansky for his advice and support but in particular helping me polish my defense presentation and selecting the appropriate firearms and ammunition for the ballistic pendulum test.I'm grateful for Ryan Anderson for showing me some of the sheet metal fabrication practices he learned while working in the aviation industry and for the great discussions on aircraft and mechanical design we had, especially back in undergrad when I was starting to develop my mechanical design skills.I'd like to thank Jonathan Wiebe for his help on manufacturing the test rig -luckily for me even after he'd
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".