MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979801546 · doi:10.1139/juvs-2017-0005

Rotor blade optimization and flight testing of a small UAV rotorcraft

2019· article· en· W2979801546 on OpenAlex
Mark T. Kotwicz Herniczek, Dustin Jee, Brian Sanders, Dániel Feszty

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilChord (peer-to-peer)Blade element momentum theoryBlade element theoryRotor (electric)Blade (archaeology)Advance ratioAerospace engineeringStructural engineeringHelicopter rotorBlade pitchEngineeringMechanical engineeringComputer scienceTurbine bladeTurbine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rotor blade optimization with blade airfoil Reynolds numbers between 100 000 and 500 000 — characteristic of small single-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) — was performed for hover using blade element momentum theory (BEMT) and demonstrated via flight tests. BEMT was used to test various airfoil profiles and rotor blade shapes using airfoil data from 2D computational fluid dynamics simulations with Reynolds numbers representative of the blade elements. Selected blade designs were manufactured and flight tested on a Blade 600X single main-rotor UAV (671 mm blade radius) to validate the theoretical results. The parameters considered during the optimization process were the rotor frequency, radius, taper ratio, twist, chord length, airfoil profile, and blade number. The best of the improved blade designs increased the figure of merit, a measure of rotor efficiency, from 0.31 to 0.68 and reduced power consumption by 54%. Reducing the rotational frequency accounted for 45% of the improvement in power consumption, while the taper ratio and blade number accounted for 25% and 17%, respectively. The blade twist and airfoil profile only had a minor effect on the power consumption, contributing 7% and 6% to the improvement. The rotor diameter and root chord were kept identical to the original rotor and hence had no contribution. The presented results could serve as useful guidelines to single-rotor UAV manufacturers and operators for increasing endurance and payload capabilities.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.173 · 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