MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977528371 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13546

Characterization and compensation of magnetic interference resulting from unmanned aircraft systems

2019· dissertation· en· W2977528371 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsServomechanismInterference (communication)Rotor (electric)Compensation (psychology)MagnetometerEngineeringAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceElectrical engineeringAerospace engineeringControl theory (sociology)Magnetic fieldPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are a viable platform for aeromagnetic surveys but the interference generated during flight can greatly impact data quality. In this thesis, the problem of interference reduction was approached from two directions: mapping to identify sources and manoeuvre compensation.Problematic interference sources were identified using magnetic intensity mappings of the UAS. For these mappings to be accurate, the UAS must have: (1) the motors engaged, (2) the flight surface servos powered and in a steady-state position, and (3) the electrical systems drawing a constant current. The strongest sources were the servos and the motor system with the largest field attributed to the direct current battery cables between the motor batteries and the electronic speed controller. Reduction methods recommended included the twisting of direct current cables, demagnetisation of steel components, and increasing the distance between the servos and the intended magnetometer installation point.To improve mapping quality, a magnetic scanner was designed and built to compare the magnetic intensity mappings and profiles of four different types of electric-powered UAS; a single-motor fixed-wing, a single-rotor helicopter, a quad-rotor helicopter and a hexa-rotor helicopter UAS. These UAS were found to have: (1) similar interference signatures under rotation, (2) interference levels dependent on the electrical current drawn by the motor(s), (3) a mixture of interference types composed of both material magnetisation and electrical current.The removal of interference produced by a 35 kg gasoline-powered UAS was demonstrated using a real-time compensator. The UAS was prepared with interference reduction techniques that reduced the heading error and 4th difference to acceptable levels. Two novel low-altitude calibration methods, named a "stationary" and "box" calibration, were tested in three geographic locations with different magnetic gradients. The best calibration using each method yielded an improvement ratio of 8.595 and 3.989, respectively and a standard deviation of the compensated total magnetic intensity of 0.075 and 0.083 nT, respectively. A best estimated Figure-of-Merit of 3.8 nT was calculated; the lowest value reported for a rotary-wing UAS to date. The stationary calibration was robust and compensated non-native flight data with a cross-correlation index of 1.073.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207