Exploring Aircraft Design for

Earthquake Relief

By Jesus A. Caez
 In this report we will exam an approach to create an aircraft design to aide in earthquake relief.
We will take a look at the current aircrafts available that assist in disaster relief and exam the challenges
they encountered while preforming their functions. We will then focus on creating a design that will
address the challenges these aircrafts encounter. Additionally, new technology has allowed for
enhancements in some areas of disaster relief and we will assessment if incorporating some of these
technologies in our design would be beneficial.

While deliberating a design approach we will make decisions about out design that will have
benefits and draw backs. We will discuss these tradeoffs and how these decisions should be address
according to the engineering design process. We will also take a look at the subsystems that make up
the entire aircraft design. Subsystems like cargo space, wing shape and others. Finally, will we test and
evaluate elements of our aircraft to ensure they meet the goals we sent out on the onset of our
proposal.

The purpose of the aircraft is to provide search and rescue aid, medical transport, supplies and
general relief for those affected by an earthquake. Passage of first responders, medical supplies, and
foodstuff supplies needs to be considered in this design. I have included three different variations of
aircraft that meet these needs.

One of my primary stakeholders for this design which are also the users will be the pilots and
staff of rescue crew, because of this I will need to get their input on what they would want and need in a
design solution. The payors for this design will be the organization or governments that purchase this
design for disaster relief; the payers may wish to restrict aspects of the design to meet other needs. I will
need to be informed of these restrictions if I am to be able to deliver a solution that will respond to their
needs in addition to being financially responsible. Another stakeholder for this project will be those
rescued by the aircraft. As most of the victims of these events will not have experience with being
rescued, I think it best to rely on the disaster relief crew as subject matter experts to build toward the
needs of this stakeholder. Earthquakes are significant events and those involved need to be addressed
as quickly as possible, knowing this the design will have to deal with this sense of urgency. Also,
earthquakes take place all over the world. Consequently, I will need to have a good understanding of the
types of environments that the design will potentially encounter to equip the aircraft for most potential
situations. Some environments many include large cities, suburbs, villages, country sides etc.
Understanding potential scenarios in which our design will operate will allow us to create the greatest
advantages to my customers. The advantages of being able to supply immediate air support after a
major natural disaster are numerous. Most importantly of which is survival rate for those affected.
Other benefits include decreased economics impact and societal responsibility. Today's solutions are not
efficient enough to provide adequate speed and impact of relief on a large scale. By making progress in
this area, I will be able to increase the number of victims that will potentially be saved by rescue aircraft.
My design will be focused on earthquake disaster zone relief. The hot zones of earthquake affected
areas are riddled with challenges that need to be overcome. Many victims of earthquakes need to be
rescued. There are potentially significant amounts of people in one location that will need to be
evacuated. Some of the victims may be malnourished, dehydrated, or injured when help arrives.
Therefore, this aircraft needs to come to the affected site with a crew of first-responders, it should have
enough cargo space to house enough equipment to create a base of operations. This design will also
need to address these hurdles to be an efficient solution to this relief effort. The current issue with
earthquake disaster relief is that they are very reactive. Efforts are made many hours after the event has
taken place as it takes many resources and time to coordinate. Aircraft are especially late to these
efforts and are primarily used to deliver supplies long after some earthquake have transpired. Better
equipped and focused use of these aircraft may be used to benefit better.

I hope to significantly improve upon current designs for earthquake relief aircraft but just to meet the
current requirements for aircraft of this type my design will have to include the following.

1. Structure

The ability to carry a crew more than 30.

Aircraft must be able to transport at least five patients in the prone position safely.

Able to carry a payload of 15 tons or more.

An organizational structure that would allow the quick retrieval of a large variety of
equipment.

2. Equipment

Victim location sensors

Medical equipment transport

Cold holding for medicine

Emergency shelter

3. Logistics

Must be able to travel at an airspeed approximately as fast as current rescue aircraft.

Must be able to travel into and out of affected site without the need to refuel

Must be able to land and takeoff in a distance equivalent to or less than current rescue
aircraft.

I will focus on the following five criteria to improve as advancements in these areas will make the most
significant impact in improving current design.

Victim location: The stakeholders that are in need of the most help are those that we have yet
to discover because they have been impacted so harshly by the earthquake. Those lost in rubble or
under debris need to be found as soon as possible before they dehydrate or worse yet succumb to their
injuries. This criterion will be measured against the abilities of current rescue aircraft in this category.
 Emergency Shelter is necessary for human survival. Providing a shelter will create a place of
stability and relief in a now unstable and harsh environment. This will be measured by the number of
stakeholders that can be housed in the shelter.

Payload Increase payload means additional medical equipment, larger crews, additional
supplies and the potential to house and transport more victims. The increased payload is easily
measured against other aircraft maximum payload.

Organizational structure Due to the large variety of equipment, from medical equipment to
hydraulic jacks everything will need to be organized to remain efficient onsite. There will need to be a
way to organize these supplies and them readily available to whichever stakeholder needs them. This
can be measured in number of variety or supply weight.

Patient transport If it becomes necessary to transport patients to a nearby medical facility the
amount of room and crew available to transport patients will make a significant difference. A patients
health may deteriorate if they have to wait on site for the next trip to get medical attention because
they didnt fit on the plane. A metric will be created that take into account available cargo space and
available medical staff. Below is a preliminary estimate of my AHP Chart. I am sure as this project and
new discoveries are made it will be adjusted to more accurately fit the current state of the project. Even
in its current state the AHP Chart provides some great insight to what seems to be the more valued
aspects in a disaster relief design.

There are many aspects to disaster crisis, and we wanted to offer a variety of design solutions.
Below you will see outlined the process we used to decide on a final design and how we narrowed are
scope based off of our customers feedback.

Search and Rescue Plane:

The major benefit of this type of aircraft is its ability to search through rubble and debris to find trapped
victims. Made for search and rescue missions, this design is configured with a modified lightweight
fuselage that allows for maximum maneuverability and increased endurance. This modified fuselage also
has additional thermal imaging sensors built into the hull allowing for increased visibility to rescuers
when searching for survivors. In addition, this configuration allows the aircraft to land in extremely
reduced runways, adding to its flexibility. This aircraft is a bit smaller than the other designs, with a tail
section of 30 and cockpit length of 15, making it comparable to that of a C-27J Spartan.

Item List:

Passenger (18) Weight x 200lb height 6ft

 EEG Monitors (2), weight x 220lbs width 2ft, depth 32.5in, height, 45.25in, $4975 ea.

Plane seat (16), 80lb, 1.5ft wide, 2ft long, 4ft tall, $320ea

Thermal Imaging Camera (4), 10lb, 1ft x 1ft, $2,500

Rescue Basket (1), 40lb, 2ft x 4ft x 4ft, $1,500

Cable Pully System (1), 1000lb, 4ft x 4ft x 1ft, $5,000

Emergency Preparedness Kit (12), 10lbs., 1fot by 1.5ft tall, $100

First Aid Kit (12), 3lbs., 1ft x 1ft, $24

Rescue Blanket (2), pack of 12, 1.5lbs., 1ft x 1ft, 10

Portable Emergency Oxygen mask & tank (6), 5lbs., 6in x 1 foot tall, $130

Evacuation stretcher (2), 5lbs., 6ft x 2ft, $42

Defibrillator Portable (2), 2ft x 1ft x 1ft, 8lbs., $700

Portable Universal Medical Stabilizer Pod (2), 400lbs., 3ft x 6ft x 4ft, $20,000

Deciding between the possible combinations of elements that make up our design for this rescue plane.
Was founded on our customer needs. The design that lined up with the criteria the best was our Rescue
Aircraft design. This aircraft was by far the most versatile of those combinations tested. Having the
ability to save was the heaviest weighed criterion, so this pushed this design to the top. While all of
our aircrafts were designed for the purpose for rescue this particular aircraft design more closely
matched the need to pull victims from disaster sites directly out of rubble and debris in disaster sites.
Even though this design has its drawbacks and in some categories, is outperformed, it still comes out on
top due to the value the customer has placed on the rescue equipment criterion. Patient Transport is
also very heavily weighted, and the Rescue Aircraft scored the lowest on this aspect of the design. Its
score was brought down significantly, but still higher than average marks in other criteria allowing it to
come out on top. After much consideration, I chose the design that I believe my customers would value
the most, the Rescue Aircraft. I would not find this important in a disaster, I prefer the Medical
Transport. This goes to show how useful the Decision Matrix tool is, as it has superseded that bias.

In regards to some of the subsystems that were designed to prove the feasibility of this aircraft wing
shape and structure was very important. I have done a lot of research to define the different variables to
allow us to move forward with a wing shape. Below you will see the documented findings.

When designing the wing shape for our aircraft, its very important to understand how the shape of the
wing will affect the performance of our aircraft. When designing the shape of the wing we can change
things like Chord (the width of the wing from front to back), Span (The length of the wing from end to
end), Camber (the arch and shape under the wing), and Angle of Attack (the angle from the ground the
wing tilts). All of these different elements affect different outputs of our aircraft. For instance, if we
need to design a wing with a limited span to be more maneuverable in tighter spaces. Increasing the lift
to drag ratio will make our aircraft less efficient by increasing the lift needed to take off or climb when
needed. We need to find a way to compensate for this change, which is why knowing the constraints of
our wing shape. As well as the aspects that affect it, along with the consequences of making changes to
the shape will help us design a better aircraft for our needs.

We set out to test how Chord Length, Camber, and Angle of Attack would affect the performance of our
aircraft. We wanted to show that if we restricted one of these variables, we would be able to
compensate by changing another element of the wing or at least document its effect so we could use a
different aspect of the design to offset it.

The three input variables we identified Chord, Camber, and Angle of Attack have significantly affected
outputs or dependent variables when altered. We will show how these variables transformed the
outputs of Lift to Drag Ratio, Lift Coefficient, and Drag Coefficient respectively.

To do this, we used a highly advanced software simulator that allowed us to input variables and
mathematically simulated the resulted output. The simulator will reduce the cost of research and
development significantly as it reduces the number of real-world objects we would need to model in the
development of our final product. We then documented these trials to create an accurate model of how
our wings will behave with the corresponding input.

Id first like to show you the experiment we did for Chord Length. For this experiment, we had fixed
variables of Span, Camber, and Angle of Attack. The fixed variables allowed us to baseline the lift to drag
ratio and ensure that none of our other variables would inadvertently affect the value and give us false
positives.

Figure .1
LIFT TO DRAG RATION
LIFT TO DRAGE AS A RATIO X/100

80

60

40
y = 101.92x-0.926
20
R = 0.9998
0
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1
CHORD LENGTH IN METERS

As you can see for the chart (Figure .1), all things being
Figure .2
equal as we increase Chord Length we decrease the Lift
to Drag Ratio. Chord Length makes our aircraft less
efficient at producing lift, which is a very good thing to
know when finalizing our wing design. Also indicated in
the graph, we can see this is a relationship defined by a
power of x, with an R-squared value of .9998 because
of this we know this is a near perfect equation to CHORD LENGTH OF 1.5 METERS WITH
represent the values of our model. RESULTING OUTPUTS (LD) INDICATES THE LIFT
OF DRAG RATIO, (CL) INDICATES LIFT
We test the Chord Length for a value of 1.5 meters all
COEFFICIENT AND (LD) INDICATES LIFT
the way to 3 meters in increments .1 meter, which took
COEFFICIENT
our values of Lift to Drag from a ratio of 69.82/100 to Figure .3
36.75/100. To the right (Figure .1 and .2), are the two
extremes we push the design in this aspect along with
all of the fixed input values and variable output values.

CHORD LENGTH OF 3 METERS

Next, Id like you to see the experiment we did for Camber. For this experiment, we had fixed variables
of Span, Chord, and Angle of Attack. The fixed variables allowed us to baseline the Lift Coefficient and
ensure that none of our other variables would inadvertently affect the value and give us false positives.
 Figure .4
CAMBER TO LIFT COEFFICIENT
1
LIFT COEFFICIENT

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
y = 6.2832x
CAMBER OF WING + 0.2193

As you can see for the chart (Figure .4), all things being
Figure .5
equal as we increase the Camber Value we also
increase the Lift Coefficient and the efficiency of our
aircraft when it comes to producing lift. The increase of
the Camber Value results in a very powerful bit of
information that we can leverage when making the final
design of our wing shape. Also indicated in the graph,
we can see this is a relationship defined by a polynomial
function, with an R-squared value of 1.0, because of this
value we know this is a perfect equation to represent
the values of our model.

We test the Camber form a value of 0.0 all the way to CAMBER VALUE OF 0.0 METERS WITH
0.1 meters in increments .01. Increasing the Camber RESULTING OUTPUTS (LD) INDICATES THE LIFT
took our values of Lift Coefficient from 0.21932 to OF DRAG RATIO, (CL) INDICATES LIFT
0.84764 respectively. To the right (Figure .5 and .6), are COEFFICIENT AND (LD) INDICATES LIFT
the two extremes we push the design in this aspect COEFFICIENT
along with all of the fixed input values and variable Figure .6
output values.

Lastly, Id like you to see the experiment we did for

Angle of Attack. For this experiment, we had fixed
variables of Span, Chord, and Camber. These fixed
variables allowed us to baseline the lift to Drag
Coefficient and ensure that none of our other variables
would inadvertently affect the value and give us false
positives.
CAMBER VALUE 0.1 METERS

Figure .7
ANGLE OF ATTACK TO DRAG COEFFICIENT
0.3
DRAG COEFFICIENT

0.2
y = 0.0008x2 + 0.0009x + 0.0017
0.1
R = 1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

ANGLE OF ATTACK IN DEGREES

As you can see for the chart (Figure .7), all things being
Figure .8
equal as we increase the Angle of Attack we also
increase the Drag Coefficient. The increased Angle of
Attack increased the amount of air resistance we will
encounter when flying our aircraft. This value indicates
to us what amount of thrust we will need to
compensate. The results give us a very powerful bit of
information that we can leverage when choosing
engines for our aircraft. Also indicated in the graph, we
can see this is a relationship defined by a quadratic
function, with an R-squared value of 1.0, because of ANGLE OF ATTACK VALUE OF 0.0 DEGREES
this value we know this is a perfect equation to WITH RESULTING OUTPUTS (LD) INDICATES
represent the values of our model. THE LIFT OF DRAG RATIO, (CL) INDICATES LIFT
COEFFICIENT AND (LD) INDICATES LIFT
We tested the Angle of Attack form a value of 0.0 COEFFICIENT
degrees all the way to 15 degrees in increments 1 degree. Increasing Angle of Attack took our values of
Lift Coefficient from 0.12566 to 1.77060 respectively.
To the right (Figure .8 and .9), are the two extremes we Figure .9
push the design in this aspect along with all of the fixed
input values and variable output values.

Mr. Spark, thank you for your time in this matter. I look
forward to showing you what my team and I come up
with for this disaster relief aircraft design. Have a great
rest of your day.

Now lets take a look at the wing struture, specificly the ANGLE OF ATTACK VALUE 15 OF DEGREES
wing spar. The spar supports and provides stengh for
the wing. The spar is a fundamental element of the wing which transfer lift and drag to the rest of the
aircraft. The challenge is to ensure that the spar fits inside the aircrafts wing all the while supporting the
weight of the aircraft and its cargo. In addition we must take into account the deformation of the wing
under external forces and while under load, this was a very challenging task indeed.

I was able to use an advanced wing simulator and a software program that mathematically modeled the
difference between the varying wing designs. The spar design used the data sets resulting from the
experiments with the wing shape. This data allowed for the able to predict the weight of our aircraft
using the known variable we settled upon in the origial specs of the aircraft. Having this known weight
allowed us to predict the forces we would be experiencing on our wings.

We have a lot of options for spar structure, there is the geometry of the spar, its material and even the
placement inside the wing. Our simulator was able to account for all of these and predict the defection
of our wing in terms of both displacement and the wingtip angle. The simulator was even able to tell us
if the forces were too much and whether the spar would breakdown under the forces it would
experience.
Understand that we have made many changes from the initial onset of this design. From changing the
size of the aircraft to better fit its use to the type of cargo it carried and the passenger capacity. Because
of these changes we have come to the conclusion that we will need wings to support the weight of our
current craft that will provide a significant amount of lift and thrust. One of the major features of this
aircraft is the rescue crane attached to the tail. There is a strong possibility that this crane will have to
lift an unexpected amount of force, therefore we will need lift capacity well beyond that of a full cargo
load.With all of these factors in mind I split my team into three groups and had they each come up with
designs that I tested to find the best fit for our craft. I ensured that each team have different element of
camber, chord to thickness ratio, chord length and span. The table below shows what each team used
for our simulator and experiments.

The hard goals for our spar design are as follows:

The spar must be strong enough to withstand at least one and a half time the full takeoff weight
of the aircraft, (1035kN). This is to accommodate the crane.
The wing must supply a lift to drag ratio above .75, allow for the takeoff on a reduce runway.
The Length of the wing should not exceed 10 meters to allow for increased mobility in rescue
situations.
The wing must deflect more than 30 degrees at the tip.
The spar must fit inside the wing.

Design A (Lift Design):

The benefits of this design was the amount of lift produce. This was important to our design as it
allowed our aircraft to takeoff from a small runway. For this design a rectangular spar was used this was
due to the low profile of the wing. This was the only shape that provided enough strengh and still fit into
the shape. The findings reinforced by the simulator show just how much lift this team was able to
achieve with their design, this makes sense as this was the focus for this team.

Figures .1-4

was the focus for this team.

 Figure .5
(Lift Design) Deflection Amount to Span
Taking a
5
deeper dive

DEFLECTION AMOUNT IN METTERS

4 y = 0.0008x3 + 3E-05x2 - 0.0002x + 0.0003
look at the R = 1
3
results of the
2
simulator in 1
Figures 1-4 0
we see that 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
the Lift Wing SPAN IN METERS
suppled a lift
to drag ratio Max Load 1240kN Expected Load 690kN Poly. (Expected Load 690kN)
of 1.26 this
an amazing ratio and easily exceeds the set goal of .75. The spar for this shape met the needs set forth
to withstand the force of one and a half max payload weight. Using the simulator the team was able to
estimate the max force the spar could withstand 1241kilo Newtons.

The above chart in Figure .5 shows the wing design scaled out over its maximum span. Even thought a
length of 10 meters was chosen due to the need to have a compact aircraft for emergency rescue it is
good to know the limitations of this wing design as unforseen forces may push it to its limit. The blue is
an indicator of the wing spar under maximum load we could ever place on it and the orange is the fully
loaded cargo weight of the aircraft.

Design B (Strong Design):

The benefits of this design was the amount of force this design could withstand. As expressed earlier the
aircraft has an emergency crane attached to it. Therefore it would greatly benefit from the ability to
increase the cap of the load we could place on it. This design team was mainly focused on this aspect
when conducting experiments.

For this design a circular shaped spar was used this was due to the strenth this paticular shaped offered
a steel core was also used as it seemed to profided the maximum amout of stenght for this design. A
spar of this shape fit easily with this wing. The findings reinforced by the Figures .6-9
simulator show just how strong
this spar is and how much support it was able to provide.
 (Strong Design) Deflection Amount to Span
Figure .10
1.5
DEFLECTION AMOUNT IN METTERS

y = 4E-05x3 + 0.0002x2 - 0.0004x - 0.0014

1 R = 1

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-0.5
SPAN IN METERS

Expected Load 690kN Max Load 6044kN Poly. (Expected Load 690kN)

Examining the output of this design from Figures 6-9, we see a suppled lift to drag ratio of 0.79. This
was above our intended goal of 0.75. The strength of this design was evident as it easily met the goal of
one and a half max payload weight. Using the simulator the team was able to estimate the max force
the spar could withstand 6045kilo Newtons. This is reduculus as it is ten time the estimated max payload
weight.

The above chart in Figure .10 shows the wing design scaled out over its maximum span. Even thought a
length of 10 meters was chosen due to the need to have a compact aircraft for emergency rescue it is
good to know the limitations of this wing design as unforseen forces may push it to its limit. The blue is
an indicator of the wing spar under maximum load we could ever place on it and the orange is the fully
loaded cargo weight of the aircraft.

Design C (Compact Design):

Having an aircraft whose main use it to directly rescue victims means it may need to fit into tight areas.
With this in mind team C opted to create a spar that was both strong to support the weight the crane
may experience but also opted to balance that with a significantly reduced span. The thought behind the
reduced span was to increase the maneuverability of the craft through areas with a large amount of
debris.

For this design agaom a circular shaped spar was used this was due to the strenth it provided. A steel
core was also here. As it provided the maximum amout of stenght for the shape. A spar of this shape
just fit into the wing. The simulator shows in Figures .11-14 the profile of the wing but what it doesnt
show is the exceptional thing about the design, the span.

Figures .11-14
 Figure .15
(Short Design) Deflection Amount to Span
4
DEFLECTION AMOUNT IN METTERS

y = 0.0009x3 + 3E-05x2 - 0.0002x + 7E-05

3
R = 1
2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SPAN IN METERS

Expected Load 690kN Max Load 1511kN Poly. (Expected Load 690kN)

The truly remarkable thing about this paticular design is the length of the wing span coming in at just
five meters, it is just half the size of the other two designs. This allows the aircraft to be more again and
manuvable when searching for victoms. However there is a trade off with strenght when doing this. You
will be able to see if it was worth it when we reach the decision matrix. This design suppled a lift to drag
ratio of 0.8134 this was above our intended goal of 0.75. The design also did well in regards to strength
able to easily meet the goal of one and a half max payload weight. Using the simulator the team was
able to estimate the max force the spar could withstand at 1512 kilo Newtons.

The above chart in Figure .15 shows the wing design scaled out over its maximum span. Even thought a
Figure .16
length of five meters was chosen by this team to make the aircraft more manuvarlbe for emergency
rescue. It is good to know the limitations of this wing design as unforseen forces may push it to its limit.
The blue is an indicator of the wing spar under maximum load we could ever place on it and the orange
is the fully loaded cargo weight of the aircraft.

Lift to Volume
Spars Drag Span(m) Max kN Weight(N/m^3) m^3 Material Cost
Lift Wing 1.27 10 1241 31212.00 0.41 Steel $ 1,170.96
Strong Wing 0.79 10 6045 54074.62 0.71 Steel $ 2,028.68
Compact Wing 0.81 5 1512 13518.65 0.18 Steel $ 507.17
Each design opted for different design variables. This resulted in different volumes, weights, cost and
shapes. The above Figure .16 , is a quick reference for the different aspects of these designs and show
their major strenths and weaknesses in relation to eachohter. We also introcue in the chart the variable
of cost which will be used as part of our decision matrix.

Even with this three vastly different spar designs I the decision matrix tool is still a need to finialized our
choice as it will reveal the design that fits best the over arching goal of our aircraft.

SPAR AHP Cost Weight Volume TOTAL WEIGHT Figure .17

Cost 1.00 0.13 0.13 1.25 0.07
Weight 8.00 1.00 7.00 16.00 0.86
Volume 0.14 0.17 1.00 1.31 0.07
TOTAL 9.14 1.29 8.13 18.56 1.00

The AHP Figure .17 shows a large bias toward weight. This make a lot of sense for a few reasons. First
and formost weight plays a major factor when choosing creating an aircraft. The heavier the aircraft
itself weights the less cargo it can carry and the more thrust needed to propell the aircraft and in turn
the more fuel needed to create thurst which in turn reduces the endurance of the aircraft. You can see
why weight is so important. Another reason that that weight holds a lot of value is due to the low cost of
all of the material used to create the aircrafts. Normaly cost would play a major factor in determining
the wing spar. But with a little over two thousand dollars for the maxium cost of a spar which in
comparison to the cost of an aircraft is negligabile, cost carried very little weight in the wing spar choice.

SPAR DM Lift Wing Strong Wing Compact Wing Figure .18

Criteria Weight Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score
Cost 0.07 5 0.35 5 0.35 5 0.35
Weight 0.86 3 2.58 2 1.72 4 3.44
Volume 0.07 4 0.28 4 0.28 5 0.35
Total 3.21 2.35 4.14
The results of the decision matrix in Figure .18, are very clear when it comes to the variables of cost,
weight and volume. The volume of the compact wing spar is less then half of that of the other designs
and because they all use the same material the weight is also less then half. Consiquently the compact
wing spar is much more cost effective due to the amount of material used for these small wings. All the
wings created satisfy the goals of the overall aircraft design but from the results of this decision matrix
the compact wing design is the best choice.

Another important area of this aircraft design was creating the functionality of one of our automated
subsystems. As this is a rescue aircraft, the subsystem element focused on was finding victims. This is a
much-needed addition to the aircraft as it would be useless to have a rescue aircraft in the field that
could not locate victims to rescue. Although there are more traditional means of finding victims, i.e.,
spotting with binoculars, this new method is much more efficient and will allow the aircraft to save
many more victims.

As you may remember from the original aircraft design outline, four heat sensors were built into the hull
of the aircraft. We will be using these sensors to locate potential victims. Ideally how the system would
work is that one of these sensors would locate a heat source that may be a victim and then notify a
member of the crew. The system would then ask the crew member to verify that this is indeed a
potential victim, this step would reduce the number of false positives made by the automated part of
the system. If the crew member then indicates that yes this is defiantly a possibility. The system will
then set off an alarm to notify everyone on the aircraft to prepare for a rescue.

This design has the potential to be useful in almost all situations but has one weak aspect. As we are
using heat sensors, if the area we are searching for victims has an unusually high temperature the
environment may mask the heat signature of the victims for whom we are searching. This would more
or less blind our sensors. At this point, we would have to resort to the more traditional way of spotting
victims. This scenario is highly unlikely, but it is good to keep in mind when designing this subsystem.
Another thing to also note is that although this subsystem is mostly automated the point at which the
process requests confirmation from a user is highly important as it will greatly decrease incorrect
readings.

For this subsystem we will be using two inputs sensors, this would be the heat sensor itself and the
buttons to confirm or deny the validity of the heat signature. The outputs of this subsystem include an
LCD readout to display the prompt to the user and the lights and alarm that sound when we find victims.
Below I will use several diagrams to explain
my subsystem in detail using these
diagrams will help you get a better intuition
of the entire subsystem.

In the Use Case diagram (Figure 1) you can

get an idea of those elements that will
interact with the subsystem. From our
rescuer to the maintenance crew who will
fix the system we have tried and accounted
for any scenario. You can see that the
rescuer will have the most interaction with
the system as the design of our system is
focused on this user. It is also important
that we consider the harsh environment
the system will encounter while out in the
field. You can see we listed the victim of
the disaster on the diagram while it may
not be important to the victim how we find
them it is important that we find them.

Below in Figure 2, you see the Sequence

Diagram of the subsystem. This diagram
shows the two potential relays of the
subsystem process. You can see that the
heat sensor sends a signal when a heat
signature is detected. Our software
program will then determine if the heat
signature is of the correct size to be a
human or whatever we specify for the
system. Once the system meets this
criterion, the software will notify the user
via an LCD of the finding. The system will
then hold at this point and wait for
feedback from the user. The user has one
of two options at this point, and this is why
we have to sequences on the diagram.
Once is if the user selects that yes this is, in
fact, a valid signature or no this is not. If
the user answers in the negative, then the
system will go back to looking for heat
signatures. If, however the user's answers
in the positive then the system will set off
an alarm to notify the rest of the crew of
the findings.

Another of the automated subsystems for

the disaster relief aircraft we tested was
the victim rescue crane. The crane is a much-needed addition to the aircraft as it allows the rescuer to
pull victims directly into the aircraft for dangerous locations in the field. Although there are more
traditional means of picking up victims, this method allows the crew of the craft to say out of harm's
way and allow them to save victims where an aircraft couldnt normally land. To positon the crane out of
the way of other funciong systems the cranes suspended off of the back end of the aircraft, pictured
below (Figure A.).

Our subsystem circuit will be

using two inputs sensors, on
is the potentiometer that as
stated above controls the Figure A.
speed of the motor that will
pull or let out the rescue
cable the other input is the
slide switch that will
determine the direction of
the motor consequently
withered the cable moves up
or down. The system has
three outputs one being the
motor itself and the others being the LED indicators that let the users know which direction the cable is
moving.
Below in Figure 1., you will see a proof of concept version of this crane lift subsystem. I was able to find
a schematic for a circuit that allowed a motor to go forward and reverse on bc-robotics.com. I then built
off of this to modify this circuit to include two led lights that indicate the direction the crane is pulling.
The importance of this is that it allows the user to identify if the crane is letting the cable out or pulling
cable up. One
of the more Figure 1.
complicated
components is
the H-Bridge
which was
integral to the
design as it is
used to
reverse the
direction of
the DC motor.

The circuit
went through
several iterations to make efficient use of the H-bridge. Before the use of the analog potentiometer,
buttons were used to bring the cable up and down. The design I settled on was with the potentiometer
as it allowed the user to control speed as well as direction.

Figure 2. The code our software team was able to create to run this crane circuit. Again, much of the
code was inspired by bc-robotics.com, but several blocks had to be modified and created to allow the
use of the newly installed led indicators.

Figure 2.
Summerizing,this design was started to give new and innovative tools to those tasked with rescuing
victims from an earthquake disaster zone. The aircraft needed to address the needs of those victims
trapped in the zone. We have made several modifications and changes over the course of the design
process. The original design was much larger and held much more cargo. You can see in Figure E and F,
the size difference between the starting design and the final. Once the decision matrix was done, and
the value of the ability to rescue victims directly became apparent. The focus became more about
maneuverability and tools to remove victims and less about supplies and cargo. With the addition of the
rescue crane and the victim sensor system I was able to address these needs.

Figure E and F comparing size, Figure.1 40m, Figure.2, 24m

The subsystem of the rescue crane contributes directly to the ability to rescue victims from the disaster
relief zone. The ability to drop rescuers to normally unreachable terrain increase the potential victims
we can rescue significantly. In the same vein, the multiple heat sensors combined with the victim
location software has exponentially enhanced our ability to find victims.

Another remarkable thing about this particular design is the length of the wingspan coming in at just five
meters. Five meters is half the size of the other two wing designs we tested. As stated above this allows
the aircraft to be more agile and maneuverable when searching for victims. However, there is a trade-
off with strength when doing this. You can also see in Figure.3 that we used a solid round spar to
support the wings. We chose to use Steel for the spar as it provided the greatest support for the large
hover engines. This design supplied a lift to drag ratio of 0.8134 this was above our intended goal of
0.75. Although the design was not the strongest, it still did well in testing, as it was able to easily meet
the goal of one and a half max payload weight. Using the simulator the team was able to estimate the
max force the spar could withstand at
1512 kiloNewtons. Figure 4.
In Figure.3 you can see the wing shape in
the CAD rendering is an exact
representation of that created in the
simulator. Also, Figure 4. shows the hover
engines that are used to increase the
maneuverability of this design and allows
the entire aircraft to be more flexible
then it comes to the potential locations the aircraft can reach and work though.

In Figure.5, you can see an

orthographic design layout of the
craft, take special note of the
placement of the rotating hover
engines and rescue crane built into
the craft that sets this craft apart
from other rescue craft.

Many hard choices were made to

reach the final design, and
compromises were made to achinve
the results that most closely meet the
costomers needs. There where some
big tradeoff when these decision
were made. decided to reduce the
size of the craft. One is the inability to
carry large amounts of supplies into the disaster. The cargo spaced was reduced by approximately half
when we did this. Although this may seem like a major drawback, we think it was worth it as it
completely changed the function of the craft to rescue specific. Another tradeoff we had to make with
the craft was endurance of the craft. Have the capability to hover requires large and powerful engines
although this greatly increased flexibility and maneuverability it is very fuel inefficient. Returning for fuel
means having to go back to base more often and less time out in the field. Again I believe this is well
worth the compromise as there are other ways to keep fuel in the field. These tradeoffs are all part of
the design process and the decisions made strengthen the design.

I feel very confidnet about this design and would change very little having addtion time and resources.
However given additional subject matter experts perspective on the design I would welcome feedback
and make adjustments as needed.

As I have worked my way through the design process, I have learned so much. From the first act of
formally defining the problem to the last act of proposing my final design. The process itself taught me
so much. I know once I have cycled the design process a few times I will have encountered various
aspects of my design and will know every strength and weakness of it. This forces me to take a critical
look at what your customer values out of a solution. After you have chosen a design based on customer
input and defined metrics you can move on to improving and finalizing. Part of this takes place naturally
through the process. You design will evolve and become better with each iteration. For instance, Once I
created a CAD model of the design during the prototyping phase, I noticed that the aircrafts shape
conflicted with the line of site with the heat sensors. I adjusted to shape of the hull to accomidate this.
Little changes like this throughout the design process will make your final design that much better and
will give you the experience to be a better engineer. There are many great lessons to be learned while
developing but I think the most important lesson I have learned so far is to listen to the customer. It is
only then that you can understand what they value and what they need. Otherwise you will just be
designing for yourself.
Appendices:

I was able to include all relevent images and documentations into the body of this document.

Sources:

Website that discusses the importance of shelter during natural disasters.

https://www.mahaffeyusa.com/blog/why-rapid-response-is-so-important-for-disaster-reliefrecovery-
emergency-shelter

Video showing the capabilities of modern airships

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b-qBoFku_o

Article discussing the crash of rescue aircraft during aftershocks of an earthquake.

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-asia-nepal-earthquake-what-you-need-to-know- 20150427-
htmlstory.html

Article discussing the need for aircraft to rescue hard to reach victims.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150508-nepal-earthquake-helicopter-himalayaaid/

Document intended to give general guidance of integrating aircraft into disaster relief planning.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/ac00-59.pdf