Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2425
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2425
06 Jan 2025
 | 06 Jan 2025
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).

Characterizing Thermodynamic Observations from Unshielded Multirotor Drone Sensors

Sean W. Freeman, Jennie Bukowski, Leah D. Grant, Peter J. Marinescu, J. Minnie Park, Stacey M. Hitchcock, Christine A. Neumaier, and Susan C. van den Heever

Abstract. Multirotor drones (also known as small Uncrewed Aerial Systems [sUAS] or small Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles [sUAV]) are being increasingly used in atmospheric research to make measurements of the lower atmosphere, and their use is poised to increase in the future. New opportunities are now emerging for drone atmospheric sensing around smaller instrument footprints and lower sensor weights, such as ride-along applications and drone swarms, which necessitate characterizing the performance of unshielded sensors mounted to drones. In this work, we characterize the accuracy of thermodynamic measurements, specifically temperature and water vapor mixing ratio, based on the sensor position onboard multirotor drones. To assess the influence of the drone mechanics on the measurements, ninety-eight drone flights with eight distinct thermodynamic sensor positions were performed next to an instrumented flux tower and a tethersonde carrying identical sensors, where the tower and tethersonde measurements are assumed as truth. The flights were at least nine minutes in length, and nine of the flights were conducted at night. At the best position, absolute daytime temperature errors were between -0.83 K and +0.61 K at the 95 % confidence interval, while nighttime temperature errors were smaller, ranging from -0.28 K and +0.48 K. Water vapor mixing ratio errors are within -0.22 g kg-1 and +0.66 g kg-1. We conclude that measurements in field campaigns are more accurate when sensors are placed away from the main body of the drone and are sufficiently aspirated, such as a position near, but not directly under, a spinning propeller.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Sean W. Freeman, Jennie Bukowski, Leah D. Grant, Peter J. Marinescu, J. Minnie Park, Stacey M. Hitchcock, Christine A. Neumaier, and Susan C. van den Heever

Status: open (until 12 Feb 2025)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Sean W. Freeman, Jennie Bukowski, Leah D. Grant, Peter J. Marinescu, J. Minnie Park, Stacey M. Hitchcock, Christine A. Neumaier, and Susan C. van den Heever
Sean W. Freeman, Jennie Bukowski, Leah D. Grant, Peter J. Marinescu, J. Minnie Park, Stacey M. Hitchcock, Christine A. Neumaier, and Susan C. van den Heever

Viewed

Total article views: 24 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
20 3 1 24 0 0
  • HTML: 20
  • PDF: 3
  • XML: 1
  • Total: 24
  • BibTeX: 0
  • EndNote: 0
Views and downloads (calculated since 06 Jan 2025)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 06 Jan 2025)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 24 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 24 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 07 Jan 2025
Download
Short summary
In this work, we tested different placements of a temperature and humidity sensor onboard a drone to understand what the relative errors are. Understanding these errors is critical as we want to collect more meteorological data from non-specialized platforms, such as drone swarms and drone package delivery.