4.1 Article

Comparison and application of wind retrieval algorithms for small unmanned aerial systems

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/gi-2-177-2013

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Oklahoma (OU) Advanced Radar Research Center (ARRC)
  2. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL)
  3. Directorate For Geosciences
  4. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [1016153] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, there has been an increase in use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) as platforms for conducting fundamental and applied research in the lower atmosphere due to their relatively low cost and ability to collect samples with high spatial and temporal resolution. Concurrent with this development comes the need for accurate instrumentation and measurement methods suitable for small meteorological UASs. Moreover, the instrumentation to be integrated into such platforms must be small and lightweight. Whereas thermodynamic variables can be easily measured using well-aspirated sensors onboard, it is much more challenging to accurately measure the wind with a UAS. Several algorithms have been developed that incorporate GPS observations as a means of estimating the horizontal wind vector, with each algorithm exhibiting its own particular strengths and weaknesses. In the present study, the performance of three such GPS-based wind-retrieval algorithms has been investigated and compared with wind estimates from rawinsonde and sodar observations. Each of the algorithms considered agreed well with the wind measurements from sounding and sodar data. Through the integration of UAS-retrieved profiles of thermodynamic and kinematic parameters, one can investigate the static and dynamic stability of the atmosphere and relate them to the state of the boundary layer across a variety of times and locations, which might be difficult to access using conventional instrumentation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据