Fire Drone Final Report

1
Preliminary Research Findings into the Design of
a Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle for Use in
Urban High-Rise and Skyscraper Interior
Fire Rescue Reconnaissance
Sean Keppler
In Association with Prof. Fumiaki Takahashi
12/16/2014
EMAE 398 Senior Project

2
1. Abstract
Three fire protection fabrics’ ability to protect a small unmanned aerial vehicle
against the heat of a flame are tested and compared with each other and with the results
of applying no protections. The fabric AFLPN 1500 proved the most effective at blocking
heat transfer under both the static and dynamic testing regimes. The Firezed Heavy Duty
fabric was the second most effective, and the AS2400 fabric was the least effective. Other
recommendations for other aspects of the drone design are also made.

3
2. Table of Contents
Title Page …………………………………………………………………………….... 1
1. Abstract …………………………………………………………………………….. 2
2. Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………... 3
3. List of Figures …………………………………………………………………….. 4
4. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………. 5
5. Methods, DesignMethodology…………………………………………………….. 8
5.1 Experimental Apparatus and Procedures ……………………………… 8
5.2 Equations, Theoretical Framework, and Modeling Considerations ….. 13
6. Results ……………………………………………………………………………… 14
6.1 Data …………………………………………………………………… 14
6.2 Graphs and Figures Which Present Key Findings …………………..... 15
7. Discussion ………………………………………………………………………….. 19
8. Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………... 22
9. Appendices ………………………………………………………………………… 26
9.1 Appendix I ……………………………………………………………........ 26
Charcoal, Ambient air, Penny and Circuit Board Thermocouple Temperatures
9.2 Appendix II ………………………………………………………………... 30
Penny and Circuit Board Thermocouple Temperatures
9.3 Appendix III ………………………………………………………………. 34
Heat Fluxes
10. References ………………………………………………………………………... 38

4
3. List of Figures
Figures 4.1, 4.2,4.3: AFLPN 1500, AS2400, Firezed Heavy Duty fabrics ………….. 6
Figure 5.1: Image of Most of the Experimental Testing Set Up ………………………. 10
Figure 5.2: Close Up of Experimental Drone Model ………………………………….. 11
Table 6.1.1: Presentation of Maximum and Average Heat Fluxes for the Tests ……… 15
Figures 6.2.1 – 6.2.7: Graphs of the Temperatures Recorded by the Penny and Circuit
Board Thermocouples for All the Tests ……………………………………………. 15-18
Figure 8.1: RC Car Quad-copter Hybrid ……………………………………................ 24
Figures 9.1.1-9.1.7: Appendix I …………………………………………………… 26-29
Figures 9.2.1-9.2.7: Appendix II……..…………………………………………….. 30-33
Figure 9.3.1-9.3.7: Appendix III…………………………………………………… 34-37
Heat Fluxes

5
4. Introduction
The purpose of this project is to do preliminary research into the design of a small
unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, for use in emergency fire reconnaissance missions in
the upper floors of high rise buildings and skyscrapers. In particular the primary area of
study was to find and test candidates of available fire and heat proofing materials, namely
fabrics, to see if it was feasible to protect the drone for foreseeably useful amounts of
time while being exposed to building fires, or if more involved research and development
are needed in this area.
This project really began as an ENGL 398 Professional Communication for Engineers
project in the spring of 2013. The idea for a fire reconnaissance drone was born from
trying to apply aviation to novel applications, and was inspired by a rash of wild fires
occurring that year. During that course a small literature review was conducted into
several aspects of the design that Prof. Quinn, of the Case Western Reserve Biologically
Inspired Robots laboratory, brought attention to after being consulted [1]. There was
found to be a near total deficit of material covering how to fireproof such a drone and so
this research project was created to help advance this subject.
After contacting Prof. Fumiaki Takahashi, a Case Western Reserve University
research professor who has done previous with fire blankets to protect buildings, three
fire fabrics were selected as test candidates for this study based on Prof. Takahashi’s
recommendations and the fabrics relative availability. The first fabric is called AFLPN
1500. It is an aramid-carbonized acrylic blend with a nonwoven aramid outer layer and a
woven fiberglass core with an aluminized coating [2]. It was expected to allow the lowest

6
heat flux of the three fabrics according to Prof. Takahashi. The next fabric was Firezed
Heavy duty, or SW-HD according to [2], is a woven aluminized fiberglass fabric and was
expected to provide the second best protection of the three candidate fabrics [2]. The
third selected fabric is AS2400. This is a woven 96% amorphous silica fabric that though
has the highest continuous operating temperature of the three candidate fabrics was
expected to provide the least protection to the test model [2].
Fig.4.1 AFLPN 1500 Fig. 4.2 AS2400
Fig. 4.3 Firezed Heavy Duty
The drone would be deployed and fly up to the floor of interest of a burning
building, break a window to gain entry into the building, and survey the area for
survivors, fires, and any other items of interest long before a firefighter would otherwise
be able to reach the area. This would hopefully improve response times and survival rates
over current operations. Some side objectives of this study are to address four concerns

7
brought up by Prof. Takahashi [3] over the operation of such a proposed drone in a real
environment.
a. Propeller downwash fanning flames
b. Injury if the drones propeller blades were to hit people
c. Disruption from the propeller downwash of the safe “crawl space” under
the trapped smoke that can be used by survivors to escape
d. Getting to areas blocked by closed doors
These are discussed in section 8 of this paper.

8
5. Methods, DesignMethodology
5.1 Experimental Apparatus and Procedures
A commercially available RC “toy” helicopter, a Syma S033g, was purchased and
modified into the primary component of the testing apparatus [4]. The other major
components were a National Instruments NI 9211 thermocouple input module, a Laptop
computer, one T-type thermocouple with a penny attached to its end with thermal
cement, three K-type thermocouples, and a charcoal grill.
A penny was weighed before being attached to a thermocouple to facilitate
calculating the heat flux through the test fabric. The penny was then attached to the T-
type thermocouple with thermal contact cement. The T-type thermocouple was attached
the helicopter with the penny hanging down exposed near the middle of the underside of
the helicopter. One thin wired K-type thermocouple was wound into a spiral and
positioned in such a way that it was near the circuit board to measure the temperature
near the circuit board without touching the any other metal objects inside the helicopter.
The temperature of the circuit board was of interest in order to identify at what
temperature the circuits failed. Based on the lowest plastic melting temperature obtained
from [5] (250°C ) if either the circuit board or the “penny” reached 200°C the current
experiment would be cut short in an attempt to make the sure the rig would survive long
enough to complete all the tests. Also a thick wired K-type was used to measure the
charcoal temperature and the third K-type thermocouple was connected to the NI
9211input module on only a short unprotected cord to measure ambient air temperature.
The RC “toy” helicopter was modified to accept the penny and circuit board
thermocouples. The helicopter was also then attached to an assemblage of metal

9
extensions, which was in turn mounted to the top of a camera tripod. The assemblage and
tripod were secure enough to remain stable against the weight of the helicopter and the
forces of the helicopters propellers and the outside wind. The assemblage also allowed
for the helicopter to be placed over and taken away from the fire just by swinging the
beam arm.
The cables connecting the charcoal, penny, and circuit board thermocouples to the NI
9211 input module were wrapped in aluminum foil in an attempt to protect them from the
heat of the grill [6]. The ambient air temperature K-type thermocouple was left free near
the NI 9211. The NI 9211 was attached on the assemblage beam on the far side from the
helicopter, and was connected to a laptop with the appropriate Labview software
installed. The laptop was place on a conveniently placed picnic table to keep it off the
ground. The entire set up was taken and assembled outside into to the test configuration.
The experiments were conducted outside do only due to the lack of safe available
facilities for conducting an experiment with a flame of this size inside a closed structure.

10
Figure 5.1 Image of Most of the Experiment Testing Set Up
The Grill was set up with a mixed collection of a charcoal that was lit on fire with the
aid of lighter fluid and allowed to reach “cooking” temperature as indicated by a color
change of the charcoal from “black” to “white” [6]. The helicopter stand was positioned
so that the helicopter could be easily hung directly over and swung completely away from
the flame. One test regime was conducted with the Helicopter much higher above the
flames than the rest. These results were thrown out after it was realized that gap wasn’t
allowing the helicopter to be heated as energetically as desired for the test. The tripod
was then lowered to a position where the bottom of the test sample of fabric on the

11
helicopter was 9.5 to 10 inches above the bottommost charcoals. The lip of the grill
prevented closer contact.
The test samples where attached to the helicopter’s metal landing struts with metal
binder clips in and arch where the top of the arch of the fabric pressed up against the
penny, which laid mostly flat on the fabrics as seen here.
Figure 5.2 Close Up of Experiment Drone Model
For the testing regimes, for each fabric one test was conducted with the propellers off,
these tests are labeled as “static”, and one test was conducted with the rotor blades on,
though not at full power, these are labeled “dynamic” in the graphs. This was to examine
the effects of the down draft the drone might have on the heating regime of the building
fires. The static and dynamic tests were done in a short time apart with the same fabric
remaining mounted. The static tests were conducted before the dynamic tests. One final
test with no protective fabric was to be conducted until 5 minutes had passed, steady state

12
had been achieved, or if catastrophic structural failure of the helicopter had occurred with
the rotors turned on. All the tests started after the helicopter had been placed into position
and the charcoal thermocouple had been placed into the charcoals, as well when the
rotors had been turned on for the dynamic tests. Two cameramen, one shooting video and
one taking static photographs were present during the tests. The fabric tests continued
until either 5 minutes had elapsed without failure, a somewhat arbitrary survival time
expected for use in the field, 200 °C was reached by the penny or circuit board
thermocouple to prevent mantling[ plastic temp], or until it was deemed that steady state
had been reached. The data was recorded through the NI 9211 into the laptop and each
test was saved in Microsoft Excel format. The photographs and video were reviewed for
pertinent information after the tests were complete and the Excel spreadsheets were
compiled into separate documents for the three fabrics and the “No Cloth” test. Heat
fluxes for each time step were calculated and, after excluding starting and ending effects
on the data with some aid from the videos, maximum and average heat fluxes were
determined the static, dynamic, and until failure tests. Results of this analysis and other
anecdotes from the testing and research for this project were then reviewed as to their
effect on the future design of the fire recon drone. Credit for most of this procedure goes
to [3] and [6]

13
5.2 Equations, Theoretical Framework, and Modeling Considerations
The equation used to find the heat flux for each time step was:
Eq. 5.1 Heat Flux =
𝑀∗𝐶𝑝∗
𝑑𝑇
𝑑𝑡
𝐴𝑠
Where M is mass of the penny, Cp is copper’s specific heat 0.39 kj/kg K [7], dT/dt is the
change in temperature per change in time, and As is the surface area of the penny as
determined by the diameter of a penny, ~19mm, 0.75-in, and the area of a circle πr2. This
assumes that the heat comes from only one side of the penny attached to thermocouple
[3]. This was not strictly the case in these experiments, especially with the AS2400 as it
kept sagging down and thus completely exposing the penny. This is likely the reason that
a particularly odd result was gathered from that cloth, along with an unexpected
interruption in the final “No Cloth” test, as well as inconsistencies in the charcoal flame
that will be discussed in the next section.

14
6. Results
6.1 Data
During the No Cloth test, the helicopters rotor blades were to run until failure. They
seemed to have failed at 30 seconds into the test, but as later examination would show the
battery seemed to have just run out of power at that time, or at least it no longer had
enough power to run the rotor blades since the LED lights on the sides still operated
throughout the test. Also it seems that, after testing all the flight controls after the test on
a recharged battery, the helicopter suffered no noticeable failures or even cosmetic
damage during the 5 minute No Cloth test and would seemly still fly if reassembled
correctly. All fabrics either protected the helicopter for 5 minutes, or allowed them to
reach a non-destructive steady state temperature in both static and dynamic testing
regimes.
It is also noted that the AS2400 fabric seems to loose rigidity when heated, as it was
no long able to maintain and arch shape in the test rig after being placed over the fire,
though it held the arch shape when not placed over the fire. An attempt to fix this with
high temperature tape was made but to no avail. The ambient air temperature throughout
the tests was around 3°C

15
The following table gives the maximum and average heat fluxes for all the tests.
Table 6.1.1
Heat Fluxes For the “No Cloth” test and the Static and Dynamic Tests
Kw/m2 Maximum Average
No Cloth After shut off 5.18 0.68
Before shut off 7.95 2.29
AFLPN 1500 Static 1.87 0.32
AFLPN 1500 Dynamic 0.64 0.05
Firezed Static 3.07 0.59
Firezed Dynamic 1.55 0.06
AS2400 Static 3.29 0.75
AS2400 Dynamic 2.12 0.41
6.2 Graphs and Figures which Present the key findings
The following charts show the penny and circuit board thermocouple temperatures for all
the tests with temperature on the y-axis, in degrees Celsius, compared to time on the x-
axis, in seconds.
Fig. 6.2.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1
21
41
61
81
101
121
141
161
181
201
221
241
261
281
301
321
°C
Time (s)
No Cloth
Circuit Board
Penny

16
Fig. 6.2.2
Fig. 6.2.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1
14
27
40
53
66
79
92
105
118
131
144
157
170
183
196
209
°C
Time (s)
AFLPN 1500 Static
Circuit Board
Penny
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1
13
25
37
49
61
73
85
97
109
121
133
145
157
169
181
193
°C
Time (s)
AFLPN 1500 Dynamic
Circuit Board
Penny

17
Fig. 6.2.4
Fig. 6.2.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
31
61
91
121
151
181
211
241
271
301
331
361
391
421
451
°C
Time (s)
FirezedHeavy Duty Static
Circuit Board
Penny
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1
13
25
37
49
61
73
85
97
109
121
133
145
157
169
181
193
°C
Time (s)
FirezedHeavy Duty Dynamic
Circuit Board
Penny

18
Fig. 6.2.6
Fig. 6.2.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1
15
29
43
57
71
85
99
113
127
141
155
169
183
197
211
225
°C
Time (s)
AS2400 Static
Circuit Board
Penny
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1
23
45
67
89
111
133
155
177
199
221
243
265
287
309
331
353
°C
Time (s)
AS2400 Dynamic
Circuit Board
Penny

19
7. Discussion
There is substantial noise and uncontrolled and even unrecorded variables in these
results. However this is not due to error in the measurement. According to [8] the
accuracy of the recording ability of the NI 9211with T-type and K-type thermocouples
are both less than or equal to 0.7°C, so the results for the three K-types and the 3 T-types
should only have error bars of +- 0.7°C. Since most of the recorded values vary over tens
or hundreds of degrees Celsius, this should have little effect on the temperature
recordings and heat flux calculations.
While there is significant noise and uncontrolled variables the final analysis shows
that the relative values of the average heat fluxes through each fabric agree with what
was expected by Prof. Fumiaki through his previous work with these three fabrics. The
results are shown in Table 6.1. The fabric AFLPN 1500 provides the greatest resistance
to heat flow in both the static and dynamic testing regimes. The Firezed Heavy Duty
fabric follows second and the AS2400 appears to be the least effective of the three test
samples.
As the RC helicopter still functioned after the battery was recharged, and hence
failure did not occur, the stock helicopter proved surprisingly robust against heat damage
without any extra protection. Now due to the shut off of the propeller blades half way
through the test the average heat flux values for the No Cloth test are hard to compare to
the others but with the results divided into before shutdown being equated with dynamic
results and after shutdown results being equated with static results the following can be
said. The AS2400 fabric, though its maximum heat fluxes are far less than those of the
No-Cloth results for both the static and dynamic tests, the average static heat flux to the

20
penny was actually slight higher than without any cloth after the rotor shut-off. Though
environmental effects such as the wind, the sagging of the sample completely exposing
the penny to the surrounding air, and the inconsistent temperatures and amounts of the
charcoals between the two tests (see figures 9.1.1 and 9.1.6) could explain this result, it
would seem the AS2400 is an unsatisfactory choice for protective fabric for the planned
unmanned aerial vehicle.
Curious results include, as demonstrated in Fig. 6.2.4 that the Maximum temperature
of the penny when protected by Firezed Heavy Duty fabric in the static test was higher,
~85°C, than the maximum temperature of the AS2400 hundred fabric, ~50°C in Fig.
6.2.6, even though the Firezed fabric had lower heat fluxes than the AS2400. While this
could again be the result of the wind interfering, the differing intensities of the fire seems
more likely as the temperature readings off the charcoal thermocouple for the Firezed
static tests were generally 100°C above those of the AS2400 static test. Comparing Fig.
6.2.4 with 6.2.6 shows that the rate the penny heated up was slower than it was with the
AS2400, even though the temperature the penny reached with the Firezed was higher.
Another noteworthy consideration is that the AS2400 also seems to loose rigidity when
heated, though how much this would affect the fabrics performance on a real drone is
debatable.
Finally the AFLPN 1500 fabric is clearly offering the most protection of the three test
samples. The Firezed heavy duty fabric, though not the lowest preforming, allowed the
internal components to reach much higher temperatures than the AFLPN 1500 fabric did
in static, about 40°C, and slightly higher temperatures, by about 15°C, in the dynamic
tests. Again though for the static tests the Firezed had flame temperatures around 100°C

21
hotter than the AFLPN 1500 fabric static test, though the dynamic flame temperatures for
the two fabrics were more similar, with the Firezed flame even being slightly cooler for
most of the dynamic test( see Figures 9.1.3 and 9.1.5).
At this point AFLPN 1500 is recommended to be used in the design of the planned
drone. However do to the differences between this testing and the expected working
environment (the maximum temperature for instance of an office fire is approximately
1260°C[office fire temp] and the highest flame temperatures reached in these was around
960°Cs), and due to the number of uncontrolled variables, including the cold blowing
outside air, it is recommended that these test be repeated under more controlled
conditions, preferably inside a closed environment and a with a more controllable flame
source. This is particularly true if the cost of the fabric becomes of particular interest,
though pricing information on the AFLPN 1500 and Firezed Heavy Duty fabrics is
unavailable at this time.

22
8. Conclusions
In conclusion, of the tested fabric samples, the fabric most likely to be able to protect
the planned unmanned aerial vehicle for at least 5 minutes inside a burning building is the
AFLPN 1500 fabric. The Firezed Heavy duty fabric was the second most protective,
having nearly twice the heat flux as the AFLPN 1500 in the static regime and nearly one
and half times the heat flux in the dynamic. The AS2400 fabric had an average heat flux
an order of magnitude higher than the other two fabrics in the dynamic test and actually
seems to have had and a higher heat flux in the static regime than having no protection at
all. This is however is a dramatic showcase that there was substantial noise and a number
of unfavorable and or uncontrollable variables in these results. That is why it is
recommended, that given the resources, that these test be repeated, most importantly with
an enclosed environment instead of being outside and with a more finely controllable and
powerful heat source. However based on the dynamic testing results, AS2400 is not
recommended for use in protecting the drone.
As stated earlier, some side objectives of this study are to address four concerns
brought up by Prof. Takahashi [3] over the operation of such a proposed drone in a real
environment. They are repeated here for convenience.
a. Propeller downwash fanning flames
b. Injury if the drones propeller blades were to hit people
c. Disruption from the propeller downwash of the safe “crawl space” under
the trapped smoke that can be used by survivors to escape
d. Getting to areas blocked by closed doors

23
For item a, as shown by the difference in flame temperatures between the static
and dynamic tests in appendix I, the downwash can increase flame temperature
significantly, particularly in Fig. 9.1.6 and Fig. 9.1.7. Given the very nature of a propeller
driven aircraft the downwash cannot be eliminated. So what needs to still be determined
is if constricting the downwash to a small area under the drone or if spreading the
downwash out over a large area is the least destructive.
For item b, this problem can be easily solved with a wire spherical or disk cage
around the propellers that is made of a material that endure the heat. According to [9]
steel (melting point 1425 - 1540°C) or aluminum (melting point 660°C) wires should be
able to withstand the maximum temperatures given in [10] (1260°C) for office fires for
the given amount of time of around 5 minutes. The propellers of the drone may well also
be made of aluminum, steel or even single crystal super alloy [11] though aluminum
should be able to suffice. This especially so if the drone is considered disposable after
one use like many pieces of firefighting equipment such as firemen’s protective clothing
[6]. Creating the metal blades for experiments using outsourced 3d printing could be
surprising affordable [12].
For item c, the quad-copter configuration shown in [13] and in figure 10.1 allows
for the quad-copter to also be a “RC car” of sorts. If this design can be obtained for the
planned drone, the drone would simply drop down into the safe zone and roll like a car
until an obstruction is encountered where it would then fly over the obstruction and then
land on the other side and continue to roll again. This configuration also allows easy
mounting of the protective spherical cages around the blades and ample space for other
attachments on the top and bottom of the drone, making it particularly appealing from a

24
design standpoint. Patent information would need to be obtained about this design first
however before it’s key features could be used in the future design of the fire
reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle.
Fig. 8.1 RC Car/ Quad-copter
For item d, not much can be done with opening closed doors with the drone, short of
attaching some sort of robotic arm to the aircraft, without changing the proposed mission
structure. One other mission structure that could get around this problem is by having a
larger unmanned aerial vehicle carry a unmanned ground vehicle up to the intended floor,
brake open the window, and insert the robot into the building. The robot would then be
able to open doors with a robotic arm and would survey the area while only being able to
roll around the ground. This mission architecture would likely significantly increase
mission complexity and cost, especially if the drone only has a warranty for one use like
firemen’s fire suits do [6]. Also, based on comments from [3], Lithium polymer batteries
should not be used for the drone do to an explosion danger when they are heated. Nickel
metal-hydride batteries might serve as a more safe alternative power source [3].
Lastly, for future testing, it is recommended by [6] that a test involving a skilled RC
helicopter pilot attempting to fly a RC helicopter and a RC quad-copter down a hallway
with fans pointing in different directions be conducted. This experiment would be an

25
attempt to simulate the convective currents and turbulences of the confined space of the
interior of a skyscraper or high rise fire that the planned drone would have to fly through
for its search operations. This test would be to help determine if a helicopter style drone
is controllable in this environment, or if a 4 bladed quad-copter with automatic
compensating software is the preferable configuration for the future unmanned aerial
vehicle.

26
9. Appendices
9.1 Appendix I
Fig. 9.1.1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1
16
31
46
61
76
91
106
121
136
151
166
181
196
211
226
241
256
271
286
301
316
331
°C
Time (s)
No Cloth Tempertures
Ambient Air Charcoal Circuit Board Penny

27
Fig. 9.1.2
Fig. 9.1.3
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
°C
Time (s)
AFLPN 1500 Static Temperatures
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1
10
19
28
37
46
55
64
73
82
91
100
109
118
127
136
145
154
163
172
181
190
199
°C
Time (s)
AFLPN 1500 Dynamic Temperatures

28
Fig. 9.1.4
Fig. 9.1.5
0
200
400
600
800
1000 1
22
43
64
85
106
127
148
169
190
211
232
253
274
295
316
337
358
379
400
421
442
463
°C
Time (s)
Temperatures
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1
10
19
28
37
46
55
64
73
82
91
100
109
118
127
136
145
154
163
172
181
190
199
°C
Time (s)
Temperatures

29
Fig. 9.1.6
Fig. 9.1.7
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
°C
Time (s)
AS2400 Static Temperature
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1
18
35
52
69
86
103
120
137
154
171
188
205
222
239
256
273
290
307
324
341
358
AxisTitle
Time (s)
AS2400 Dynamic Temperature

30
9.2 Appendix II
Fig. 9.2.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
1
16
31
46
61
76
91
106
121
136
151
166
181
196
211
226
241
256
271
286
301
316
331
°C
Time (s)
No Cloth
Circuit Board Penny

31
Fig. 9.2.2
Fig. 9.2.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
°C
Time (s)
AFLPN 1500 Static
Circuit Board Penny
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1
10
19
28
37
46
55
64
73
82
91
100
109
118
127
136
145
154
163
172
181
190
199
°C
Time (s)
AFLPN 1500 Dynamic
Circuit Board Penny

32
Fig. 9.2.4
Fig. 9.2.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
1
21
41
61
81
101
121
141
161
181
201
221
241
261
281
301
321
341
361
381
401
421
441
461
°C
Time (s)
Circuit Board Penny
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1
10
19
28
37
46
55
64
73
82
91
100
109
118
127
136
145
154
163
172
181
190
199
°C
Time (s)
Circuit Board Penny

33
Fig. 9.2.6
Fig. 9.2.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
°C
Time (s)
AS2400 Static
Circuit Board Penny
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1
17
33
49
65
81
97
113
129
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
369
°C
Time (s)
AS2400 Dynamic
Circuit Board Penny

34
9.3 Appendix III
Heat Fluxes
Fig. 9.3.1
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
1
21
41
61
81
101
121
141
161
181
201
221
241
261
281
301
321
Kw/
m^2
Time (s)
No Cloth Heat Flux
Heat Flux

35
Fig. 9.3.2
Fig. 9.3.3
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1
14
27
40
53
66
79
92
105
118
131
144
157
170
183
196
209
Kw/
m^2
Time (s)
AFLPN 1500 Static
Heat Flux
Heat Flux
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
13
25
37
49
61
73
85
97
109
121
133
145
157
169
181
193
Kw/
m^2
Time (s)
AFLPN 1500 Dynamic
Heat Flux
Heat Flux

36
Fig. 9.3.4
Fig. 9.3.5
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
1
29
57
85
113
141
169
197
225
253
281
309
337
365
393
421
449
Kw/
m^2
Time (s)
FirezedHeavy Duty Static Heat Flux
Heat Flux
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1
13
25
37
49
61
73
85
97
109
121
133
145
157
169
181
193
Kw/
m^2
Time (s)
Heat Flux
Heat Flux

37
Fig. 9.3.6
Fig. 9.3.7
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
1
15
29
43
57
71
85
99
113
127
141
155
169
183
197
211
225
Kw/
m^2
Time (s)
AS2400 Static Heat Flux
Heat Flux
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1
23
45
67
89
111
133
155
177
199
221
243
265
287
309
331
353
Kjw/
m^2
Time (s)
AS2400 Dynamic Heat Flux
Heat Flux

38
10. References
[1]R. Quinn, Private Communication, Spring 2013
-Areas needed for study for an urban skyscraper and high-rise fire recon drone
[2] F. Takahashi,A. Abbottl, T.M. Murray, et al “Thermal response characteristics of fire
blanket materials,” Fire Matter, 2013, Wiley Online Library, DOI:10.1002/fam.2202
- Information on the fabrics studied
[3] F. Takahashi, Numerous Private Communications, Sept.-Dec. 2014
- Numerous contribution including project format, testing procedures, test fabric
recommendations, and heat flux calculations, and warnings of the explosiveness
of Lithium polymer batteries.
[4] Syma. (2014, Nov. 6th). Syma S033G 3.5 Channel 700mm Large RC Helicopter
Ready to Fly. Colors May Vary in Yellow or Red. [Webpage, online shopping listing].
Available: http://www.amazon.com/Syma-S033G-Channel-Helicopter-
Colors/dp/B005OHLAG2/ref=pd_sim_sbs_t_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0V9VMG3A90QT1R
YVF0S7
- The chosen helicopter to make the test rig
[5] Machinist-Materials. (2014, Nov. 24th) Plastics Comparison Table [Technical
reference page]. Available: http://machinist-materials.com/comparison_ table_ for
plastics.html
- For plastic melting temperatures, stop tests at 200 °C.
[6] M. Johnston, Private Communication, Nov.-Dec. 2014
- Accuracy of thermocouple data records
- For Idea Stability Study
[7] Engineering Toolbox. (2014, Dec. 13th) Metals - Specific Heats [Technical reference
page]. Available:http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-metals-d_152.html
- Specific heat of copper equaling 0.092 Kcal Kg°C or 0.39 Kj/Kg°K

39
[8] National Instruments. (2014, Dec. 14th) NI 9211 [Product page]. Available :
http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/208787
- NI 9211 Accuracy with T and K type thermocouples in Data sheet under
temperature measurement accuracy; T < 0.7°C, K < 0.7°C.
[9] Engineering Tool Box. (2014, Oct. 9th) Metals - Melting Temperatures [Technical
reference page]. Available:http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-
metals-d_860.html
- Aluminum, stainless steel and titanium melting temperatures
[10] V. Babrauskas. (2014) Temperatures in Flames and Fires [Webpage]. Available:
http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html
- Office fires only reach 1260°C
[11] P. Barnhart, Private Communication, Sept. 2014
-For temperatures and times expected metals, nickel super alloy even, can be used
for the propellers.
[12] J. Bradshaw, Private Communication,
- Shapeways 3d printers can be used to cost-effectively create test blades
[13] B. Coxworth.(2013, May 24th) Together at Last – a RC car and a quadcopter
[Online article]. Available at http://www.gizmag.com/b-rc-quadcopter-car/27655/
- RC car/ quad-copter hybrid concept
With Special Thanks to
Michael Johnston, Jiyuan Kang, Wei Shang
Makoto Endo, and Erik Stalcup

Fire Drone Final Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Fire Drone Final Report

Similar to Fire Drone Final Report (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Fire Drone Final Report