Fire Apparatus Reflective Directional

Device

IntroductionNumerous times a year, Firefighters, EMT’s, and Paramedics are injured or killed on the roadway while on the scene of an emergency, whether it be a car accident, or an unknown medical emergency. Most of this is caused by drivers who are not paying attention to the road, but rather to the emergency scene instead. This causes further accidents, and injures emergency personnel on the scene who are no longer able to assist on the scene. Many precautions are in place that prevent such accidents yet they still happen, things like brightly colored apparatus, bright flashing lights, and people out in front directing traffic all help to reduce the likelihood of a first responder being injured on the accident scene, yet it still happens. An overarching solution that could save lives is the use of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to position the apparatus into a blocking position, that puts the unit directly in between the oncoming traffic and first responders that are working, as well as taking individuals out from in front of the apparatus. A solution is needed to increase the use of SOPs within fire departments, as well as take people that are in front of the apparatus out of harm’s way.

Problem StatementThere needs to be a solution that allows

emergency personnel on scene to remain out of harm’s way while still being able to work in an effective manner that does not hinder their performance. Many emergency personnel such as EMT’s, Firefighters, and Law enforcement are struck by vehicles on emergency scenes due to low visibility conditions. Some precautionary measures such as high visibility reflective vests and emergency lights increase the visibility of personnel in low light conditions; however they have little effect in foggy or smoky conditions where headlights do not reflect efficiently off of the reflective material.

Previous Patents

Design Research• As part of the design selection process, I

researched many possible solutions, and based off of ones I had previously researched, determined a few plausible ideas.

• I ran these through the design selection matrix• I also collected data based on a survey

Possible Solutions

Survey QuestionsHow often have you passed the scene of a car accident or medical emergency on a road? (Circle one)1 2 3 4 5NeverSeldom Occasionally Often Very Often Have you ever witnessed another accident caused near a roadside emergency by onlookers who are not paying attention to the roadway? (Circle one)YesNo

If you have passed by a roadside emergency, were you aware of where you needed to move and was it done effectively? (Please explain; if not applicable, N/A)    If you have passed by a roadside emergency, did you ever feel other lives (first responders, bystanders, and victims) were put in danger due to hazardous drivers, road conditions, or lack of organization? (Please explain; if not applicable, N/A)   Do you believe current safety precautions on scene of roadside emergencies are sufficient to keep first responders, bystanders, and victims safe? (Please explain; if not applicable, N/A)

Survey Results• Based on my survey of first responders in Charles County, 98% of people surveyed signified they

were a first responder (I believe the single no response may have been a result of a “fat thumb conundrum”). Also, 98% of respondents stated they worked on scene of a roadside emergency “Occasionally”, “Often”, or “Very often.”

• Based on my survey of first responders in the Charles County area, more than 2/3 of respondents stated that they have felt unsafe while on scene of roadside emergencies. This is extremely significant in determining whether or not procedures and protocols are being followed to keep first responders safe. Ideally, if Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) were perfect, every responder would feel safe, and be able to perform their duty without fear of injury from other motorists. Furthermore, 60% of respondents felt that other drivers at some point may have been unable to see them while on scene of an emergency; this also contributes to the comfort level of emergency personnel while working roadside emergencies.

• As a final note, over half of respondents (64%) stated that they believed safety precautions in place are sufficient to keep first responders safe on scene of roadside emergencies. With this, I concluded that the problem may not lie within visibility of first responders, but rather the lack of use of SOP that could save lives. An anonymous responder stated in the comments that, “Safety precautions should include SOP and enforcement of apparatus placement for barrier protection. Rather than be offensive with safety (vests, flares, etc), let's get our fail safe defenses working first.” This response made me think that rather than encouraging individual safety procedures, a more unified approach to crew safety is necessary. There needs to be a way to prevent the injury of first responders on scene of roadside emergencies by using the benefits of SOP and blocking apparatus that are not used enough. By designing a product that could direct traffic without putting personnel at risk, while at the same time encouraging the use of SOPs, the safety of crews would be much greater.

Design Selection Matrix

Initial Design

Material and Cost analysis

Name Quantity Description Location Cost Subtotal1A Buck Puck Constant Current LED Driver (3021-D-E-1000) 1 LED Controller ledsupply.com $13.73 $13.73Cree XTE - Indus Star (Cool White) 1 Strobe Light ledsupply.com $4.00 $4.00LM555 Timer (8 Pin DIP) 1 Timer relay Radio Shack $1.99 $1.998 Pin Retention Contact 1 Connects Timer relay to other components Radio Shack $0.99 $0.99NPR47M16 - CAP-47UF 16V Radial Capacitor 1 Capacitor that builds charge to flash LED Radio Shack $0.52 $0.52NTE QW127-10 - 1/4W 270 Ohm Flameproof Resistor 2 Electircal resistor to impede electrical current Radio Shack $1.44 $2.8824 Ga Electrical Wiring (Color Red, Green, Black) 50 ft Each Connect all electrical components Home Donation $0.006A 125V, 3A 250V SPDT Switch 1 Control Power to Strobe light (On/Off) Radio Shack $3.49 $3.4912V Battery Source (Drill Battery) 1 Power Source for prototype Home Donation $0.001/2 in. x 2 ft. x 4 ft. Sanded Plywood Project Panel 1 Presentation Stand for light assembly and switch Home Depot $14.95 $14.95Silicone I 9.8-oz. Clear Window and Door Caulk 1 Finishing and Waterproofing strobe Assembly Home Depot $5.21 $5.213D Printer plastic (Unknown type or amount) - Constructing Strobe Housing Classroom * *

Strobe Subtotal $47.76

Name Quantity Description Location Cost Subtotal1 in. x 2 in. x 8 ft. Pressure-Treated Board 6 Support Structure of Reflective Panel Home Depot $1.97 $11.821/2" x 1/8" Neodynium Magnet Discs (Qty: 10) 4 Attach reflective panel to fire apparatus Amazon.com $5.86 $23.44200 Yds Heavy Duty 100% Polyester Thread 1 Separate support structure, hold together refelctive sheath fabric.com $4.58 $4.583M Reflective Material (8910 Silver Fabric & 8987 Lime-Yellow Fabric) Reflective Panel Sheathing 3M * *

RP subtotal $39.84SubTotal $87.30

Calculated from Items bought in store (Home Depot) Tax $1.92Items bought on-line (ledsupply.com, Radio Shack, etc…) Shipping $12.48

TOTAL $101.70

Name Purpose LocationTable Saw Cut wood supports for Reflective device ClassroomBand Saw Cut wood presentation board ClassroomSewing machine Assemble reflective device HomeNeedle/ sewing supplies Assemble reflective device HomeHot Glue gun Assemble presentation board Home

Strobe Component

Material and Cost Analysis

Reflective Panel Component

Tools Needed

Final device

TestingTest 1 (Vertical surface strength test)1) This testing procedure will measure the y-axis Force exerted on the reflective device that is required to remove it from the vertical surface, therefore it will be Quantitative.2) This test will measure the vertical (downward) force that is required to remove the reflective device from its vertical position, so it will be measured in Newton’s.3) This level of testing will require a medium to high level of accuracy, however exact results will not be necessary, since the test is intended to determine how much force the device can take before it begins to slide down the apparatus wall. In these occasions we will not be concerned with the exact force being exerted on the device, but rather if we are nearing the threshold for which it will begin to fall.4) The force we exert on it must be able to withstand natural downward pulling forces such as snow and rain accumulating on the device. I will determine this by saturating a sample of the fabric in water, and finding the maximum amount of weight it is capable of holding. This weight will then be proportional to the size of the device, which I can use to judge the minimum threshold.5) This will be repeatable because we will be able to hang weights slowly onto the bottom of the device until it fails, then remove the weights, replace the device, and continue repeating the procedure.6) The test will be in a controlled area using standard safety precautions to prevent injury from falling objects (protective toe boots). Testing will also be conducted below eye level, therefore all of the falls will occur below any dangerous threshold.7) I predict the test will run smoothly, and the data collected will be consistent, therefore we will be able to draw an accurate conclusion.8) I anticipate the “breaking point” may be difficult to determine, because as the weight is added, the device will begin to lose its hold, but possibly not all at once. It may take several more weights for the device to fail altogether, so I will need to decide at what point the device has failed.

Testing (cont.)Test 2 (Horizontal Strength test)1) This testing procedure will be quantitative, because we must measure the force required to remove the magnetic segment from the wall.2) We will measure the force required to pull the top magnetic segment off of the apparatus side wall in a horizontal direction. This will mimic the amount of force a person would have to exert when removing the device.3) This test does not need to be extremely accurate, however it should represent how easy or difficult the device is to remove. It must be general enough to judge the level of difficulty, but accurate enough to know how much force on average is required to remove the device.4) There is very little need for an acceptable margin of error, because the necessity is that every person that may need to use it has the ability to do it. Therefore as long as the magnets do not hold onto the apparatus wall too tightly, the device will have no issues being removed.5) This will be repeatable because after we collect a set of results, we will simply be able to remove the weights pulling downward, then replace the device onto the side wall to continue testing.6) The test will be in a controlled area using standard safety precautions to prevent injury from falling objects (protective toe boots). Testing will also be conducted below eye level, therefore all of the falls will occur below any dangerous threshold.7) I believe we will achieve fairly accurate and usable results regarding this test that will be useful in determining the threshold of who will and who will not be able to remove the device from that apparatus. I also believe the results will show how easily it can be removed without too much exertion from anybody who may need to use it.8) I anticipate the weight system and connection system may be difficult to set up, due to the height of the device on the wall. This will require a system most likely using pulleys to control the amount of weight we will be adding onto the device. We will also have to determine how to connect the testing apparatus, and the device together.

Testing (cont)Test 3 (Drop Test)1) This testing procedure will be quantitative to measure how easily the device can take damage after a fall. This is necessary to determine how long this tool might be serviceable in its field.2) In this test, we will drop the device from a small variation of heights (no more than 10 feet high) to determine the number of damaged components. After each test we will count the number of broken or damaged pieces such as rips, tears, broken wood, or loose magnets, etc…3) Low level of accuracy is needed when conducting this test, because of the fact that we will simply be counting how many damaged components there are, there are no formal units such as Newton’s or kilograms.4) I would like to keep the number of damaged parts below an average of 1 per drop, which means less than 1 component of the device will fail after each drop (eg. 20 drops, 14 broken parts).5) This will be repeatable because the device will not need to be functional to perform the test, it simply needs to be completed. We will be able to pick the device up after each drop and try again to see how consistent and strong it is.6) The test will be in a controlled area using standard safety precautions to prevent injury from falling objects (protective toe boots). Testing will also be conducted below eye level, therefore all of the falls will occur below any dangerous threshold.7) I predict the results will show favorably that the device is extremely resilient and able to take many damaging falls before it becomes unusable. I also hope that it shows where weak points in the design are located, so that they may be better fixed for later versions and models.8) I anticipate that making each drop perfectly consistent may be a challenge because of my own personal equipment constraints. For example I won’t be able to conduct testing in a perfectly controlled environment, with testing equipment specifically designated for the sole purpose of testing my project. I have to use what I have, and what I can obtain.

Testing (cont)Test 4 (Strength under extreme conditions)1) This final testing will be recorded using qualitative methods because there is no way to measure the conditions we will inflict on the device.2) We will specifically be analyzing the components that are broken, those that no longer work, those that are detrimental to its function, as well as whether or not the device is still working and functional.3) I would like to be as accurate as possible when describing and categorizing damage accumulated by the device so that I am better able to identify weak spots and points of failure within the device. There are no quantitative results to be measured, so most of the result I will analyze will be in the form of brief descriptions of damage accrued by the device.4) Because it is qualitative, the only margin of error we are concerned about is whether or not the device fails completely. At that point we would render it unusable (it no longer can support itself upright, or is unable to serve its purpose).5) The test procedure will be repeatable until it is completely destroyed if it is unable to finish all trials. This will allow us to see the progression of the damage to the device from start to finish, and until it fails completely.6) The test will be in a controlled area using standard safety precautions to prevent injury from falling objects (protective toe boots, eye protection, head protection, ear protection). Testing will also be conducted below eye level, therefore all of the falls will occur below any dangerous threshold.7) I predict the test will show how capable the device is of taking damage. Regardless of whether or not it fails completely, all data I collect from this test will be beneficial in finding any and all failure points of the device.8) I anticipate that the device can and likely will fail, causing testing to be over. I hope I will be able to finish as many tests as possible before this point to assess it from many different perspectives rather than just a small handful of only a few tests.

Matlab Data interpretations

Testing AnalysisAfter numerous tests, I determined the ability of the device to hold and sustain weight was well enough to handle adverse conditions such as snow and rain (i.e. the mass it could support was greater than the mass of water it could absorb, based on surface area, approx. half of the weight it supported in the tests). However it did not do so well in the durability tests, in most part due to the magnets breaking apart from the wood due to the poor adhesion from the smooth surface of the magnets. I also noticed a few spots of the “rip-stop” nylon that tore open particularly at the location where magnets were positioned, however the seams and joints held well with the stitching. I also noticed in the final test of general durability, when high wind and water pressure were applied, the fabric frayed quite a bit on the edges. Despite the wear and tear, the device is still able to function on its own, however just barely.

The vertical strength test was to determine the strength and performance of the device when faced with a vertical force pulling the object down such as snow, wind, or rain. The device held a significant amount of weight consistently enough to be sufficient in holding up the device under such circumstances. The horizontal strength test was to determine the force required to remove the device from a magnetic surface, and I found it was rather easy to remove the device with light force, yet strong enough to withstand other miscellaneous forces that may be able to pry it from its position.

Conclusion• This device is capable of increasing the implementation of SOPs and making safer

conditions on the scene of roadside emergencies. After researching the problem, solutions, analyzing the costs, then planning and building the device, I came across many problems that caused me to change my design, starting off initially with a strobe light design, then developing that into a combined system with a reflective device, finally to a standalone reflective device. Building the device was relatively seamless, however it did require some trial and error with the sewing machine, as well as different techniques to determine the best way to assemble each component. After assembly of the final prototype, I continued to test the device varying between strength and durability tests. I found the device was consistent in the strength tests, however could have done much better than it had in the durability tests. The device in general had many positive characteristics that held up sufficiently and consistently in testing, such as the stitching and the 3M reflective material. Both of these components held up flawlessly, and did not compromise the integrity of the device in testing, and proved it could hold up while operational. The intent of this device is to increase the use of and implementation of SOPs that are already in place, to improve the safety of firefighters and first responders on the scene of a roadside emergency. Similar to the use of wheel chocks and safety vests, this additional preventative measure is aimed to prevent accidents from happening, before they happen, rather than assisting in fixing them after they have happened. The reflective directional device directs traffic in the desired area while simultaneously allowing the driver to position the apparatus in such a way to be defensible to the emergency personnel on scene, and allow them to work in a safe environment.

Additional Information

Websitewww.engineeringfinalcotner.weebly.com

Product Specifications Pt. 1

• General Descriptiono Prototype Architecture Description

• Fire Apparatus Light Alerting Systemo Similar construction to traffic light strobe alert

lightso Approx. 6-8” light bulb that strobes every 1-2

secondso 2 or 4 lights positioned across the apparatuso Consists of 3 parts

• Light bulb• Leads• Control board

o Controlled by switch in cabin

• Reflective Assisted Directional Deviceo Rectangular device composed of silver and yellow

reflective material• Angled to form arrow like directional pattern

o Cloth-like material segmented into rows that allow it to be rolled up

o Magnets sewn into fabric on ends to stick on apparatus walls

o Rolls to store, quickly unrolls directly onto surface to allow quick deployment

o Encourages use of SOP’s to allow safer defensive mechanisms to protect first responders, even if device is not put into use

• 1 Introductiono Purpose

• Applied to fire apparatus and/or ambulances• Direct traffic around roadside emergencies• Provide a safe environment for First Responders to operate

withino Scope

• • Protect Emergency Personnel through• o Encouraging use of Standard Operating

Procedures• o Make emergency apparatus highly visible• Reduce national death rates of First Responders• Raise awareness of First Responder Dangers

o Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

• First Responder- Any person that responds to an emergency, this includes Fire, EMS, and Law enforcement personnel

• Apparatus- Emergency vehicle that includes Ambulances, and Fire Engines

• Roadside Emergency- Any emergency that interferes or has the potential to interfere with the flow of traffic, or in the vicinity of a road that poses the threat of collisionsnear emergency personnel.

• Directional Device- A board that utilizes lights or reflective material to direct traffic in a desired direction or location.

o Overview

• This document contains all of the technical specifications and information regarding the construction, implementation, and use of the Fire Apparatus Light Alerting System and Reflective Assisted Directional Device (FALASRADD). This includes the construction and use of reflective directional devices, as well as the implementation and design of strobe lights to alert drivers to the location of emergency personnel. The designs and dimensions of both components will also be described in detail in this document.

Product Specifications Pt. 2

• Specific Requirementso Functional Requirements

• Consistent power supply and switch inputo Set and go switcho No need for user inputo Set switch to desired output

• Feedback lighto Provides feedback to confirm proper operation of lightso Located directly above designated light switch toggle (One for each, L & R)o Performance Requirements

• Power Inputo Constant source of light outputo Constant feedback systemo Requires power from either battery or generator

• Generator while in operation, battery when seldom used while generator is off

• Hardware Constructiono Light bulb lifetime

• Approx. lifetime of light bulb depending on type and manufacture• Should last at least 100,000 operational hours

o Processor Waterproofing• Prevent water damage to inner controls and hardware• Maintain operation in rain, sleet, snow, and stormy conditions

o Assumptions and Constraints

• RADD device can only occupy metal surfaceo Adheres through magnetismo Must be flat and unobstructed

• RADD will typically be located on compartment doors and cabin doors

o Hinge cabinets only, not rolling cabinet doors

• Power supply is always availableo Light will not function otherwiseo Does not fully eliminate purpose of system, due to encouraging SOP’s and use of RADD

deviceo Non-Functional Requirements

• Weatherproofingo Ability of all components to perform in harsh weathero Strobe lights to maintain clarity and intensity

• Electronics waterproofing

• Magnetismo Must remain strong and binding to surface for hundreds of useso Easily interchangeable after multiple uses to increase strength

o Prototype Functional Description

• Fire Apparatus Light Alerting Systemo Strobes every 1-2 secondso Intended to alert drivers of potential hazardso Prevent possible distractions and “rubber necking”o Pay attention to the road obstacles rather than the emergency being dealt witho Controlled in the cabin, flashes on desired side only (side facing the road, L or R)

• Reflective Assisted Directional Deviceo Can be positioned on either side of the apparatus, and applied by rolling onto flat

surface using magnetso Arrow direction can be reversed by flipping upside downo Position in the direction traffic should goo Reflects vehicular headlights and produces high visibility directional boardo Encourages use of blocking apparatus and well-designed scene management and

operation while protecting first responders who remain in the safety zoneo External Interfaces

• Hardware Interfaces

• Connectivity of Strobe light to cabin controls and battery power/ generator power

• Interfaces with a toggle switch in cockpit formatted (Left OFF Right)

o Center is off, toggle left for power to left side lights, vice versa

• Software preloaded onto microchips at factory, manipulate through USB or other data transfer methods

• Power comes from wires run to battery and/or generator• Software Interfaces

• Preloaded prior to useo Simple switch operation to limit confusion and extra steps on emergency scene

• User Interfaces

• Interface through toggle switch in the cabin, no external controls to reduce hazards while on scene

• Use by authorized personnel only• Manipulated by the driver that positions the blocking

apparatuso Encourages use of SOP’s along with FALASRADD to facilitate safer environment

•  

Matlab Script%Caleb Cotner%Senior Project test results vStrength = [1700,1900,1850,1900,1875,1900,1925,2000,2000,1950,2000,1850,1650,1700,1725,1775,1700,1750,1650,1750,1700,1700,1650,1600,1650,1750,1700,1850,1900,1950,1950,1700,1750,1850,1750,1775,1800,1950,1800,1850];avgvStrength = mean(vStrength);vdeviation = std(vStrength);disp(avgvStrength)% 1.8044e+03disp(vdeviation)% 113.4945simv = avgvStrength + vdeviation.*randn(1,1000);hist(simv)xlabel('Mass in Grams');ylabel('# of occurances');title('Vertical Strength test data'); hStrength = [375,375,400,400,400,350,350,375,350,400,350,400,400,425,400,425,375,350,375,350,375,400,400,400,400,375,400,375,375,375,350,375,375,375,350,350,400,400,400,350];avghStrength = mean(hStrength);hdeviation = std(hStrength);disp(avghStrength)% 380.6250disp(hdeviation)% 22.2799simh = avghStrength + hdeviation.*randn(1,1000);figure; hist(simh);xlabel('Mass in Grams');ylabel('# of occurances');title('Horizontal Strength test data'); dropTest = [11,12,13,19,20,23,24,27,30,33,39,39,41,41,41,42,43,44,44,45,45,45,48,48,49,50,50,51,51,51];trialNumber = (1:1:30);figure; line(trialNumber,dropTest);xlabel('Number of trials');ylabel('Total of broken components');title('Drop test data');

Schedule

ID Outline Number Name Description Duration Start Finish1 1 Practice Construction Practice stitchwork, soldering, hot gluing, etc… 1 Class 2/3/2015 2/3/20152 1.1 Stitchwork Practice sewing seams for reflective device 30 mins 2/3/2015 2/3/20153 1.2 Soldering Practice soldering on scrap materials and old electronic boards 30 mins 2/3/2015 2/3/20154 1.3 Hot Glue Practice hot glueing wood and other materials for presentation 20 mins 2/3/2015 2/3/20155 2 Reflective Device Assemble Reflective Device Components 14 Classes6 2.1 Wooden Dowels Measure and cut wooden dowels 80 mins 2/6/2015 2/6/20157 2.2 Magnets Mark location for magnets and hot glue to wooden dowels 80 mins 2/10/2015 2/10/20158 2.3 Reflective Panel Outline Measure and cut fabric version of reflective panel, mark angles 40 mins 2/12/2015 2/12/20159 2.4 Reflective Panel Transfer Transfer outline panel onto reflective material, measure and cut 40 mins 2/12/2015 2/12/2015

10 2.5 Strip Stitching Stitch silver reflective tape to marked areas (Detail intensive) 400 mins 2/19/2015 3/4/201511 2.6 Join Front and Back Join both panels and stitch together all seems (Detail intensive) 260 mins 3/10/2015 3/16/201512 2.7 Assemble components Assemble all parts, and stitch end connections (allow time for error) 120 mins 3/18/2015 3/20/201513 2.8 Trim Trim and stitch all loose ends until clean look is achieved 120 mins 3/26/2015 3/26/201514 3 Test Build 1 Class15 3.1 Test construction quality Test for any weak points, loose ends, weak stitches, etc… 20 mins 3/26/2015 3/26/201516 3.2 Test functionality Ensure components store properly, as well as adhere properly 20 mins 3/26/2015 3/26/2015

Caleb Cotner's Schedule

Works CitedAustin, Stephen, and John Brenner. "Protecting Emergency Responders on the Highways." Ed. Howard S. Cohen. (1999): n. pag. FEMA. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. <http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/cvvfa.pdf>.International Association of Firefighters. "Best Practices for Emergency Vehicle and Roadway Operations and Emergency Operations in the Emergency Services." (2010): n. pag. Iaff.com. Department of Homeland Security, United States Fire Administration, Internation Association of Fire Firghters. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. <http://www.iaff.org/hs/EVSP/Best%20Practices.pdf>.McFall, Mark F. "Traffic Hazards to Fire Fighters While Working Along Roadways." Center for Disease Control (2001): n. pag. June 2001. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.Near Miss. "Poor Lighting Puts FF at Risk on Roadway." Www.nationalnearmiss.org. National Near Miss, 28 Feb. 2009. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalnearmiss.org%2FBrowse- Reports%2F09-0000220-3971>.Near Miss. "Poor Visibility on Crash Scene." Www.nationalnearmiss.org. National Near Miss, 5 June 2010. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nationalnearmiss.org/Browse-Reports/10-0000808- 4142>.Thiel, Adam K. "On-scene Roadside Safety Is Everyone's Job." FireRescue1.com. N.p., 28 Aug. 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. <http://www.firerescue1.com/firefighter-safety/articles/1508548-On- scene-roadside-safety-is-everyones-job/>.

Questions?