Preliminary Research Findings into the Design of a Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle for Use in

Urban High-Rise and Skyscraper InteriorFire Rescue Reconnaissance

Sean KepplerIn Association with Prof. Fumiaki Takahashi

12/16/2014EMAE 398 Senior Project

1

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.

2

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, Design Methodology…………………………………………………….. 85.1 Experimental Apparatus and Procedures ……………………………… 85.2 Equations, Theoretical Framework, and Modeling Considerations ….. 13

6. Results ……………………………………………………………………………… 146.1 Data …………………………………………………………………… 146.2 Graphs and Figures Which Present Key Findings …………………..... 15

7. Discussion ………………………………………………………………………….. 19

8. Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………... 22

9. Appendices ………………………………………………………………………… 269.1 Appendix I ……………………………………………………………........ 26Charcoal, Ambient air, Penny and Circuit Board Thermocouple Temperatures9.2 Appendix II ………………………………………………………………... 30Penny and Circuit Board Thermocouple Temperatures9.3 Appendix III ………………………………………………………………. 34Heat Fluxes

10. References ………………………………………………………………………... 38

3

3. List of Figures Figures 4.1, 4.2,4.3: AFLPN 1500, AS2400, Firezed Heavy Duty fabrics ………….. 6Figure 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 …………………………………………………… 26-29Charcoal, Ambient air, Penny and Circuit Board Thermocouple Temperatures

Figures 9.2.1-9.2.7: Appendix II……..…………………………………………….. 30-33Penny and Circuit Board Thermocouple Temperatures

Figure 9.3.1-9.3.7: Appendix III…………………………………………………… 34-37Heat Fluxes

4

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

5

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

6

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.

7

5. Methods, Design Methodology

5.1 Experimental Apparatus and ProceduresA 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

8

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.

9

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

10

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

11

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]

12

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∗dTdtAs

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.

13

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

14

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 TestsKw/m2 Maximum AverageNo Cloth After shut off 5.18 0.68 Before shut off 7.95 2.29AFLPN 1500 Static 1.87 0.32AFLPN 1500 Dynamic 0.64 0.05Firezed Static 3.07 0.59Firezed Dynamic 1.55 0.06AS2400 Static 3.29 0.75AS2400 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

15

1 19 37 55 73 91 1091271451631811992172352532712893073250

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

No Cloth

Circuit BoardPenny

Time (s)

°C

Fig. 6.2.2

1 13 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 1091211331451571691811932052170

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

AFLPN 1500 Static

Circuit BoardPenny

Time (s)

°C

Fig. 6.2.3

16

1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89 1001111221331441551661771881990

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

AFLPN 1500 Dynamic

Circuit BoardPenny

Time (s)

°C

Fig. 6.2.4

1 27 53 79 1051311571832092352612873133393653914174434690

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Firezed Heavy Duty Static

Circuit BoardPenny

Time (s)

°C

Fig. 6.2.5

17

1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89 1001111221331441551661771881990

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Firezed Heavy Duty Dynamic

Circuit BoardPenny

Time (s)

°C

Fig. 6.2.6

1 13 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 1091211331451571691811932052170

10

20

30

40

50

60

AS2400 Static

Circuit BoardPenny

Time (s)

°C

Fig. 6.2.7

18

1 21 41 61 81 1011211411611812012212412612813013213413610

10

20

30

40

50

60

AS2400 Dynamic

Circuit BoardPenny

Time (s)

°C

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

19

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

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

20

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

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

21

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.

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

22

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

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

23

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

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

24

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

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.

25

9. Appendices

9.1 Appendix I Charcoal, Ambient air, Penny and Circuit Board Thermocouple Temperatures

Fig. 9.1.1

1 16 31 46 61 76 91 106 121 136 151 166 181 196 211 226 241 256 271 286 301 316 3310

100200300400500600700800900

No Cloth Tempertures

Ambient Air Charcoal Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

26

Fig. 9.1.2

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 191 201 2110

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

AFLPN 1500 Static Temperatures

Ambient Air Charcoal Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

27

Fig. 9.1.3

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163 172 181 190 1990

100200300400500600700800900

AFLPN 1500 Dynamic Temperatures

Ambient Air Charcoal Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

Fig. 9.1.4

1 21 41 61 81 1011211411611812012212412612813013213413613814014214414610

100200300400500600700800900

1000

Firezed Heavy Duty Static Temperatures

Ambient Air Charcoal Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

28

Fig. 9.1.5

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163 172 181 190 1990

100200300400500600700800900

1000

Firezed Heavy Duty Dynamic Temperatures

Ambient Air Charcoal Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

Fig. 9.1.6

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101111121131 141 151161171 181 191201 2112210

100200300400500600700800

AS2400 Static Temperature

Ambient Air Charcoal Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

29

Fig. 9.1.7

1 17 33 49 65 81 97 1131291451611771932092252412572732893053213373533690

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

AS2400 Dynamic Temperature

Ambient Air Charcoal Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

Axis

Title

9.2 Appendix IIPenny and Circuit Board Thermocouple Temperatures

Fig. 9.2.1

1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 1131271411551691831972112252392532672812953093233370

102030405060708090

No Cloth

Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

30

Fig. 9.2.2

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 10010911812713614515416317218119019920821705

101520253035404550

AFLPN 1500 Static

Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

31

Fig. 9.2.3

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163 172 181 190 1990

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

AFLPN 1500 Dynamic

Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

Fig. 9.2.4

1 21 41 61 81 1011211411611812012212412612813013213413613814014214414610

102030405060708090

100

Firezed Heavy Duty Static

Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

32

Fig. 9.2.5

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163 172 181 190 1990

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Firezed Heavy Duty Dynamic

Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

Fig. 9.2.6

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 191 201 211 2210

10

20

30

40

50

60

AS2400 Static

Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

33

Fig. 9.2.7

1 17 33 49 65 81 97 113 129 145 161 177 193 209 225 241 257 273 289 305 321 337 353 3690

10

20

30

40

50

60

AS2400 Dynamic

Circuit Board Penny

Time (s)

°C

9.3 Appendix IIIHeat Fluxes

Fig. 9.3.1

1 19 37 55 73 91 109127145163181199217235253271289307325

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

No Cloth Heat Flux

Heat Flux

Time (s)

Kw/

m^2

34

Fig. 9.3.2

1 13 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 109121133145157169181193205217

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

AFLPN 1500 StaticHeat Flux

Heat Flux

Time (s)

Kw/

m^2

35

Fig. 9.3.3

1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89 100111122133144155166177188199

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

AFLPN 1500 Dynamic Heat Flux

Heat Flux

Time (s)

Kw/

m^2

Fig. 9.3.4

1 26 51 76 101126151176201226251276301326351376401426451

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Firezed Heavy Duty Static Heat Flux

Heat Flux

Time (s)

Kw /

m^2

36

Fig. 9.3.5

1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89 100111122133144155166177188199

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Firezed Heavy Duty Dynamic Heat Flux

Heat Flux

Time (s)

Kw /

m^2

Fig. 9.3.6

1 13 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 109 121 133145157 169181 193205217

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

AS2400 Static Heat Flux

Heat Flux

Time (s)

Kw/

m^2

37

Fig. 9.3.7

1 21 41 61 81 101121141161181201221241261281301321341361

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

AS2400 Dynamic Heat Flux

Heat Flux

Time (s)

Kjw

/m

^2

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=0V9VMG3A90QT1RYVF0S7

38

- 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

[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

39

[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 toMichael Johnston, Jiyuan Kang, Wei Shang

Makoto Endo, and Erik Stalcup

40