Wind Tunnel Testing of RPAS in Representative Urban Flow Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes wind tunnel testing of small remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) to understand better the maximum wind speeds in which they can be safely operated. Urban flow fields can contain complex flow structures such as speed changes, direction changes, shear layers, turbulence and vorticity; all of these can impact the safety of urban RPAS operations. The work described in this paper is part of an ongoing effort to provide Canadian regulators with knowledge to guide safe RPAS operations in urban environments. In the wind tunnel, flow fields representative of urban flows were created using simple flow manipulators like bluff bodies and vanes. The flow manipulators and the resulting flow fields, in relation to representative urban flows, are described in this paper. Wind tunnel testing of a number of RPAS in these representative airflows was conducted to evaluate the sustained wind speed limit at which the vehicle could maintain a stable hover. These tests enabled a step in the understanding of the wind speed limit for various RPAS in different flows. The paper shows a clear impact of turbulence level on the maximum safe operating wind speed of RPAS.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".