Design of an Unmanned Flood Relief Airship and Flight Testing of its 1:18 Scale Model

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Technology in Aerospace Engineering

by

SATTWIK SUMAN DAS (SC08B108) SHASHANK S. (SC08B098) TANVEER ALI (SC08B003)

Department of Aerospace Engineering Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology Thiruvananthapuram May 2012

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that this project report entitled Design of an Unmanned Flood Relief Airship and Flight Testing of its 1:18 Scale Model submitted to Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, is a bonafide record of work done by SATTWIK SUMAN DAS, SHASHANK S. and TANVEER ALI under my supervision from 7/01/2012 to 2/05/2012.

Shri Pankaj Priyadarshi Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, IIST, Thiruvananthapuram

Countersigned by Dr. K. Kurien Issac Head of Department, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, IIST, Thiruvananthapuram

Place Date

Declaration by Authors
This is to declare that this report has been written by us. No part of the report is plagiarized from other sources. All information included from other sources have been duly acknowledged. We aver that if any part of the report is found to be plagiarized, we are shall take full responsibility for it.

Sattwik Suman Das SC08B108

Shashank S. SC08B098

Tanveer Ali SC08B003

Place Date

Acknowledgement
The authors of this report wish to thank all the people who have contributed to this project. We would like to begin by thanking our project guide, Prof. Pankaj Priyadarshi whose continuous support and ideas have been of great help. We would also like to thank the National Balloon Facility, TIFR Hyderabad, particularly Prof. Devendra Ojha, Mr. B. Suneel Kumar and Mr. Sakram Korra for their help in fabricating the envelope for the scale model and the hospitality extended during our stay. Special thanks to Rahul Raj R., Lab tutor, Flight mechanics lab, IIST for his continued support and immense help in fabrication of the scale model. The project would not be completed in time without his help. We express our thanks to the Purchase department, IIST for processing our purchase orders in time, the Transport department, IIST particularly Mr. Krishnakumar for entertaining our repeated vehicle requests to the city and the manufacturing workshop, IIST. Our thanks also go to the faculty of NIDM and ILDM who have responded to our emails and given us valuable information on flood relief. Lastly, thanks to our friends and family for continued support throughout the project.

Abstract
Floods are a major natural disaster in third world countries, affecting millions of people over the last few years. Current flood relief distribution methods are either slow (boats) or scarce (helicopters are engaged in human rescue). This project discusses the design of an unmanned, low cost, dual-gas, multi-chamber airship that can carry a relief payload of 2 tonnes to flood affected areas per trip. The inside chamber of the airship contains hydrogen whereas the outside chambers contain helium. The advantages of this configuration are low cost, higher lifting capacity and enhanced safety and reliability due to multiple chambers. For the airships propulsion system, diesel engines and fuel cells have been considered. Descent and ascent of the airship by compressing on-board helium is explored along with pre-heating helium in one chamber to compensate for increased buoyancy as fuel is consumed. To reballast the airship after the payload drop, a novel method that uses flood water is proposed. The envelope fineness ratio is optimised using ANSYS FluentTM CFD for least drag and the speed has been established for quick response and maximum fuel efficiency. Stress analysis of the airship envelope with loading is also carried out for the optimized speed and shape. A scaled prototype of this airship has been built and flight tested.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract .................................................................................................................ii 1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 1 2. Requirements capture ..................................................................................... 2

2.1 Payload estimation ................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Range ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Altitude .................................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Speed Constraint ................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Mission Profile ...................................................................................................... 7

3. Conceptual configuration and layout .............................................................. 8

3.1 Envelope ................................................................................................................ 8
3.1.1 Shape selection .......................................................................................................... 8 3.1.2 Envelope configuration: .......................................................................................... 10 3.1.3 Envelope material selection: .................................................................................... 11 3.1.4 Inner envelope: ........................................................................................................ 12 3.1.5 Static discharges: ..................................................................................................... 13 3.1.6 Bubble wrap ............................................................................................................. 13 3.1.7 Probability of failure ................................................................................................ 14 3.1.8 Center of buoyancy change ..................................................................................... 15

3.2 Gondola ............................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Empennage Layout.............................................................................................. 16 3.4 Systems ............................................................................................................... 16

3.4.1 Lifting Gas Heating ................................................................................................. 17 3.4.2 Compressed Helium Storage ................................................................................... 19 3.4.3 Lifting Gas Venting ................................................................................................. 20 3.4.4 Recommendation ..................................................................................................... 20 3.4.5 Avionics ................................................................................................................... 20 3.4.6 Reballast .................................................................................................................. 21

4. Preliminary Design ....................................................................................... 24

4.1 First Weight Estimation ...................................................................................... 24 4.2 Empennage design .............................................................................................. 25
Page | 1

4.3 Preliminary weight estimation ............................................................................ 25

4.3.1 Envelope fabric ........................................................................................................ 25 4.3.2 Air lines ................................................................................................................... 26 4.3.3 Catenary ................................................................................................................... 26 4.3.4 Patches and Reinforcements .................................................................................... 26 4.3.5 Nose Reinforcements ............................................................................................... 26 4.3.6 Tail Structure ........................................................................................................... 26 4.3.7 Gondola ................................................................................................................... 26

4.4 Propulsion ........................................................................................................... 28

4.4.1 Fuel .......................................................................................................................... 28 4.4.2 Engine ...................................................................................................................... 29 4.4.4 Speed Optimization ................................................................................................. 32

5. Flow Studies ................................................................................................. 35 6. Stress Analysis .............................................................................................. 38 7. Building indoor airship envelopes ................................................................ 42
7.1 Shape of the envelope ......................................................................................... 42 7.2 Materials used ..................................................................................................... 42 7.3 Fabrication ........................................................................................................... 42

8. Preliminary design of the ALFRA-1 scale model ........................................ 45

8.1 Weight Estimation ............................................................................................... 45 8.2 Envelope .............................................................................................................. 45 8.3 Lifting Gas .......................................................................................................... 47 8.4 Propulsion system ............................................................................................... 47 8.5 Gondola ............................................................................................................... 50 8.6 Empennage design .............................................................................................. 51 8.7 Free Body Diagram of Airship ............................................................................ 52

9. Fabrication of the scale model ...................................................................... 55

9.1 Envelope .............................................................................................................. 55 9.2 Heat sealing machines ......................................................................................... 55 9.3 Stabilizers ............................................................................................................ 58 9.4 Gondola ............................................................................................................... 60 9.5 Revised weight estimation .................................................................................. 61
Page | 2

10.

Flight Testing of Scale Model ................................................................... 62

10.1 Flight Test ......................................................................................................... 62 10.2 Flight parameters ............................................................................................... 63

10.2.1 Turn Rate: .............................................................................................................. 63 10.2.2 Speed: .................................................................................................................... 63 10.2.3 Rate of climb : ..................................................................................................... 64

11.

Recommendations ..................................................................................... 66

Appendix 1 .......................................................................................................... 67 Appendix 2 .......................................................................................................... 68 Appendix 3 .......................................................................................................... 69 Appendix 4 .......................................................................................................... 74 References ........................................................................................................... 77

Page | 3

1. Introduction
Floods have been the only major natural disaster in India that has occurred with an unfailing regularity. Logistics is one of the most important factors in humanitarian aid operations, as logistics efforts account for 80% of disaster relief [1]. Currently, flood relief is distributed through boats and helicopters of the Indian Navy, Air Force and the National/State Disaster Management Authority. Even though these responses are effective, they face problems of timely deployment and cost. Also, helicopters are actively engaged in human rescue and hence relief distribution using helicopters on a large scale is not possible. Aircrafts, which are the next logical choice for transport by air, suffer from the drawbacks of accurate payload drop and hovering ability. Thus, airship as a mode of relief and aid distribution during floods is investigated. This report gives the results of the design exercise of an autonomous low cost airship; Autonomous Low cost Flood Relief Airship-ALFRA-1 to airdrop relief materials during severe floods when access by other means of transport is not available or restricted. The present B.Tech project was carried out in six phases. Phase I: The team dealt with requirements capture, configuration of the airship and weight estimation. Phase II: The preliminary design of the airship was done and several sub system options were debated. Several innovative concepts were thought of and their feasibility was explored. Phase III: It dealt with CFD simulation and trade-off studies. Final parameters of the airship were fixed and cost analysis was worked out. Phase IV: Hands on experience in building small airship models was gained. This was necessary for fabricating the scale model of the airship. Phase V: The design parameters were scaled down and the scale model of ALFRA-1 was built. Phase VI: The scale model was flight tested and various flight parameters were recorded.

Page | 1

2. Requirements capture
The requirements of the autonomous airship, ALFRA-1, in terms of range, payload mass, speed, altitude etc. have been arrived at, based on the public domain data available on the floods in India over the last ten years.

2.1 Payload estimation

Payload estimation is the most critical factor in the design of ALFRA-1 as it has a direct implication on the size of the airship. For identifying the relief materials generally distributed in India, experts from Institute of Land and Disaster Management, Kerala and National Institute of Disaster Management, New Delhi were contacted and a list of relief materials was prepared based on the above inputs [2]. Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) reports floods in India were also referred while creating the list.
Table 2.1: Food materials airdropped using 3 helicopters in 40 sorties [26] (Source: UNDP Situation report, Bihar floods 2008)
[3]

on past

Sl. No 1 2 3 4

Material Chura (Flattened rice) Sattu (Ground cereal) Salt Gurr (Jaggery)

Quantity (kg) 49620 16540 8270 8270

In addition to the food items mentioned in the above table, MSF also states that plastic sheeting, oral rehydration solutions, water purifying tablets, bleaching powder and buckets are also provided. According to the Ramakrishna Missions relief division [4], 1 ton of relief articles are given for every 1000 families. Assuming each family to have four members, a conservative estimate, considering rural India, it means 1 ton of relief is suitable for 4000 people. In case of a flood, the most severely affected people are marooned in the small villages. In India, small villages are the Type 4 towns with population of around 8000. [5] In the 2008 Kosi floods, one or two Type 4 towns are completely cut-off and transportation by traditional

Page | 2

routes is impossible to achieve

[6]

. So, the relief material required for one Tier 4 town comes

to 2 tons and the same is fixed as the payload of the ALFRA-1.

2.2 Range
The airship base of operation should be able to cover the entire flood region and should also be at a higher elevation. It should be big enough to have adequate relief stock in place. According to experts from the Institute of Land and Disaster Management (ILDM) consulted for this project, the District HQ is the key centre for relief operations which are spearheaded by the District Magistrate farthest district HQ. It is seen from the historical data that 40 million square hectares or 1/8th the geographical area of India is flood-prone [7]. As the flood-prone area is too large for a detailed analysis, two case studies are presented here. Figure 2.1 shows flood zones in Bihar. It is primarily based on the Kosi floods of 2008. From the figure it is clear that, if two bases were selected at Muzzafarpur (Population: 3,50,000) and Purnia (Population: 2,80,000), the flood zones in the entire state can be covered. Aerial distance to the farthest district headquarter is measured and is found to be 120 km.
[2]

. Hence, the range is calculated as the distance from base to

Figure 2.1: Map showing flood zones in Bihar [26] (Source: UNDP Situation report, Bihar floods 2008)

Page | 3

Figure 2.2: Bihar district map with airship stations and range [27]

A similar analysis was carried out for the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka floods of 2009 and the results are summarised in the below map.

Figure 2.3: Andhra Pradesh map [28] with airship stations and range

Page | 4

Kurnool and Rajahmundry are chosen as the centres and the airships can be stationed there. Both these towns have population above 2,00,000. The aerial distance to the farthest district headquarter was 170 km (Rajahmundry centre to Vizianagram). The results are summarised in table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Summary of results

State

Centre

Farthest Affected District HQ

Distance (km)

Bihar Andhra Pradesh

Muzzafarpur Rajahmundry

Bettiah Vizianagaram

120 170

The above two case studies are for two of the largest floods that India has seen in its recent past in terms of inundated area and people affected. Thus, it was inferred that for any other state in India, as the inundated area has been historically smaller, two bases are sufficient to carry out the relief operations and the total maximum distance to be travelled is 340 km. Taking a margin on this value, the range is fixed at 500km.

2.3 Altitude
From the composite map given in Appendix 2, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and almost all the other flood prone states are plain and do not have any mountains. From the map, the maximum elevation is obtained as 500m above sea level. So, it is assumed that the terrain will be flat and given the rural demographic, buildings are assumed to be lower than 50 m (15 storeys). Hence the only structure with significant height is the transmission line towers that are common across the Indian landscape irrespective of the state. The most commonly used towers are made by Bajaj Electricals and are 42 metres tall [8]. Cell phone towers are of lesser height than these towers. Taking the above heights of transmission lines and buildings, the cruise altitude is fixed at 600m.

Page | 5

Figure 2.4: Scene from flooded north Bihar (Source: Wikipedia)

2.4 Speed Constraint

The disaster management experts communicated that the relief should reach the affected people within 24 hours. The flood inundation map is critical for the decision maker to manage relief operations better. According to NRSC Hyderabad
[9]

, Rapid flood damage

assessment is carried out by integrating the satellite derived flood inundation layer with the district database such as village boundaries, transport network, land use/land cover etc. District-wise flood inundated area statistics, crop area submerged, villages marooned, road and rail network submerged etc. are estimated. All this information is generated within 5 hours after satellite data acquisition. At this point, officials will take the decision whether the airship needs to be deployed or not. It is assumed that 12 hours are required from the first information of flood to the final decision regarding deployment of airship. A conservative estimate of six hours is made for time taken to fill the airship and pack the relief materials into the container. 8 hours are assumed to be required to fix the drop points and get a team at the affected area ready to receive it. This leaves 4 hours for the airship to reach the affected area. The farthest distance, according to Table 2.2, is 170 km. Approximating it to 200 km, the airship needs to cover this distance in under 4 hours. So, the speed required comes to 50kmph.

Page | 6

Figure 2.5: Estimated emergency response times in case of flood

2.5 Mission Profile

The mission profile is shown in Figure 2.6. The airship, which is moored, is loaded with the relief payload after the lifting gas has been filled. The engines are started and a sloping ascent towards the cruising height begins. As the cruising height is reached, the thrust is vectored in the forward direction. The airship cruises to the drop point. It descends once it has reached the drop point. The reballast operation takes place and the payload is dropped. The airship flies back to base.

Figure 2.6: ALFRA-1 mission profile

Page | 7

3. Conceptual configuration and layout

3.1 Envelope
3.1.1 Shape selection Envelope is the lifting gas container in the airship, the huge balloon which generates all the buoyant lift to keep the airship in air. There are three disciplines that directly influence airship envelope design. They are aerodynamics, structures and weight and balance. There are broadly three different shapes that are mostly widely used, or have been optimized for optimal performance, and they are: NPL shape GNVR shape Multidisciplinary optimized shape from IIT, Bombay[10]

NPL shape, with an ellipse at the fore and a parabola at the aft*, was designed by the National Physical Laboratory in England. The GNVR shape was better optimized for aerodynamics and structural loading. It is shown in the diagram below. A study conducted at IIT Bombay[10] improved the GNVR shape by dividing the contour between the ellipse at the fore end and the parabola at the aft end into larger number of segments, introducing splines and carrying out an optimization for aerodynamics, structures and manufacturability.

Figure 3.1: The NPL shape

This shape has been reproduced wrongly in [12] with an ellipse instead of a parabola. This was pointed out to the author and he has acknowledged it [24]

Page | 8

Equation of the ellipse: Equation of the parabola:

Figure 3.2: The GNVR shape [10] The airship hull is known to create the maximum drag in an airship. This is owing to its large surface area, which increases the skin friction drag and also the large frontal area it projects, which increases the pressure drag. The National Physical Laboratorys shape is chosen as the airship envelope shape due to the possibility of optimization of fineness ratio (length to diameter ratio) for this shape. The airship fineness ratio is a variable parameter for the volume and hence, CFD simulation is performed using ANSYS FluentTM to optimize for the least drag. The estimated maximum take-off weight represents the maximum buoyant lift required for the airship to stay afloat. As the lifting capacity of different gases such as hydrogen and helium are already known, the weight is indicative of the volume of envelope required to generate the required lift. Using the above equations, the volume for the body of revolution was calculated and for a particular choice of fineness ratio the dimensions of the envelope was obtained.

Page | 9

A detailed study on the material to be used for envelope fabrication was also done. Generally a three layered fabric is used for making the envelope to cater the weatherability, gas retention and load carrying needs. The details about the same are discussed in the following chapters. For our airship, a novel design of the envelope
[11]

was employed to enhance safety and

reliability. A double envelope design with the inner envelope carrying hydrogen and the outer envelope carrying helium was designed. The helium chamber was further divided into a number of chambers to increase the reliability. This ensured that any leakage in the hydrogen envelope results in interaction of hydrogen with helium and not air and hence eliminating a chance of any accidental hydrogen combustion.

Figure 3.3: Double envelope configuration [11] 3.1.2 Envelope configuration: As proposed by [11], the multi chamber configuration ensures increased safety of the setup. The inner chamber is unlikely to get damaged due to the layer of Helium surrounding it. Even if the inner chamber leaks, it will only mix with helium, an inert gas. Multiple Helium chambers outside ensure that even if one chamber develops a leak, the overall shape of the airship will be maintained.

Page | 10

Figure 3.4: Double envelope configuration proposed by [11] 3.1.3 Envelope material selection: According to [12], materials ideal for non rigid airship envelopes have the properties: 1) High Strength to weight ratio 2) Resistance to environmental degradation and low permeability 3) High tear resistance to give damage tolerance 4) Low creep and easy to join For the ALFRA-1, cost and ease of maintanence were important factors apart from the ones listed above that went into deciding the envelope material. An existing envelope material is used due to simplicity and maturity of technology. Generally, airship materials consist of three layers, an environmental protection layer, a load bearing layer and a gas retention layer. Table3.1: Comparison of envelope material characteristics Airship Type Volume (m3) Envelope material ZPG 3W Non Rigid 42500 2 neoprene coated polyester fabric Goodyear GZ 20 Non Rigid 5380 ply 2 ply Skyship 600 Non Rigid 7600 neoprene Single polyester Polyether polyurethane coated Zeppelin NT Semi Rigid 8425 ply Polyester fabric grade coated TedlarTM with and

coated fabric

polyester Polyurethane gas

fabric with Saran for on inner surface retention

Page | 11

Material

Breaking 2.8

1.45

1.85

1.425

strength (kN/50mm) Material (g/m2) weight 560 370 380 250

Finally, Polyester fabric coated with TedlarTM for weatherability and Polyurethane as the gas retention layer was chosen as the ALFRA 1 envelope material. This material has already been tested on the Zeppelin NT with good results.The primary factor that influenced the choice of this material was the low material weight (250 g/sqm). TedlarTM (Polyvinylfluoride film) marketed by Dupont has been proven to be resistant to a wide range of acids, alkalis and solvents at ambient temperatures.[12]

Figure 3.5: Cross section of the envelope material 3.1.4 Inner envelope: The only criteria important for the inner envelope is Hydrogen permeability. As it is not exposed to the atmosphere, there is no need for the weathering protection layer. Similarly, it is not necessary to have a woven load bearing layer. Polyurethame is selected as the material for the inner envelope due to its durability and proven gas retention capability.

Page | 12

3.1.5 Static discharges: Friction during flight between the atmosphere and the outer material creates a lot of static electricity. As the envelope and the stabilisers are not conducting surfaces, a large number of static dischargers are required to be fixed on them. 3.1.6 Bubble wrap As there is no constraint on the amount of Helium in the outer chambers, an idea inspired by bubble wrap is discussed below. Bubble wrap is the trademarked name for a packing material consisting of two plastic sheets laminated together in a way that traps air bubbles in small, uniform pockets. This plastic sheet assembly is used as a flexible cushion to protect fragile objects during storage or shipping. Cushioning laminate is primarily made of plastic film or a thin sheet formed from resins such as polyethylene and polypropylene. These resins are widely used because they perform well and are relatively inexpensive. They can be cast into strong, flexible films, which have the ability to hold air without leaking.

Figure 3.6: Bubble-wrap manufacturing (Source: Madehow.com) In earlier discussions it was seen how no constraint can be put on the size of the inner hydrogen envelope. The more the hydrogen used the better it is in terms of lift generated as well as cost (hydrogen is inexpensive). The weight penalty for a large inner envelope is more

Page | 13

than compensated for by the increase of lift. So, the possibility of helium filled bubble-wrap to be used in place of the outer helium envelope was explored. Polyethylene has good gas retention properties and is widely used to make sounding balloons. Manufacturing bubble-wraps in a helium environment will trap helium in the bubbles. Two of these sheets can be further laminated, with the blistered sides facing each other, suitably offset such that the bubbles get closely packed. This laminate can be then be used as the hydrogen retention layer in the three layered envelope fabric.

Figure 3.7: Cross section of proposed envelope with bubble wrap This configuration of the airship envelope material has several advantages. This will reduce the amount of helium being used, thus making the operation of the airship more cost effective. The arrangement ensures that there is a layer of helium around the hydrogen and thus no single leakage will lead to direct mixing of hydrogen and air. There being a large number of helium chambers (bubbles) around hydrogen, it increases the reliability of the whole system. If any bubble gets punctured, it has a very small impact on the whole system. A disadvantage in using the bubble-wrap based material is that the helium can diffuse out gradually from the bubbles. If this happens, it will be impossible to refill the bubbles. Thus either the whole material has to be changed or the layer of bubble wrap has to be replaced. 3.1.7 Probability of failure Let the probability of an airship envelope becoming punctured be x Then, for a six chamber envelope, the probability of a puncture in one envelope = 1/6 x The probability of failure due to hydrogen chamber puncture in the already punctured helium chamber = 1/36 x

Page | 14

Therefore,

Thus it is clear that as the number of chambers increases the reliability factor goes up. In case we use the bubble wrap method, the reliability factor increases many times.

3.1.8 Center of buoyancy change Suppose the inner envelope has a volume of 4000 m3 and develops a leak into one of the six helium chambers. Each helium chamber has a volume of 666 m3. The mixing of the two gases takes place until the concentrations are equal. The ratio of the gases in the mixture will be in proportion to the intital volume. Thus, it will be a 1:6 ratio of helium to hydrogen. This mixture will shift the center of buoyancy and hence, may cause stability problems. An increase in the number of chambers will bring the shift to manageable levels. In case the bubble wrap idea is implemented, there will be no such problem.

3.2 Gondola
The gondola houses the propulsion system, the fuel tanks and the avionics bay. In the preliminary design phase, different possible propulsion layouts for the airship were explored. 1. Two propellers for forward motion and one propeller to give a vertical thrust, each propeller powered by independent engines: The advantage was that the vertical and horizontal components of thrust could be independently controlled and would make the control system simpler. 2. Two propellers with thrust vectoring (for pitch up and pitch down): The advantage here is there was no extra engine as in the previous case making it lighter as well as minimizing the fuel consumption. The drawback is the control is not discrete and the angular variation needs to be finely controlled by the control system, which tends to make it complicated. Yawing in both the above cases was to be achieved by control surfaces present on the tail. However at low speeds, particularly during mooring or payload drop, the velocity of the airship would be too low for control surfaces to be effective. So, in those cases, differential thrust was to be used to give yawing moment. Page | 15

The second configuration with thrust vectoring was chosen as it can allow weight saving and is fairly simple to implement The payload comprises of 2 ton of relief material for distribution in flood affected areas. For carrying the payload, a 2 ton container was required. This container requires to be housed in the gondola. The avionics system comprises of a navigation, guidance and control module and is primarily GPS based. The fuel system in ALFRA consists of two fuel tanks-located aft and fore of the main engine. A fuel pump is installed for c.g control.

3.3 Empennage Layout

There are three different empennage designs that could be used as shown in the diagram below. The three fin configuration had the advantage of lower structural load on the empennage. However, the four-fin plus configuration was chosen as it keeps the yaw and roll controls independent and thus would be convenient in terms of the control system design

Figure 3.8: Empennage configurations

3.4 Systems
Systems form an integral part of every vehicle. They are the physical means of achieving a designed function [12]. Some of the major systems in an airship are covered in this section. Page | 16

3.4.1 Lifting Gas Heating Buoyancy control during flight is one of the prime challenges faced by airship designers. The prime change in buoyancy is due to the consumption of fuel. Many methods to control buoyancy have been proposed and tested out on airships. They are listed below.

Table3.2: Methods for buoyancy control in airships Sl. No. 1 2 Using Dynamic Lift Requires a hybrid airship design Method Comments

Reducing buoyancy by Helium is too expensive to vent out and venting out venting lifting gas hydrogen is a safety concern

Changing the density of Explored here lifting gas by heating or cooling

4 5

Use of thrust vectoring Water exhaust extraction

Additional fuel needs to be carried

from Bulky and heavy apparatus leading to weight penalty. Not suitable for airships of this class.

The concept of lifting gas heating was first proposed by Burgess in his book Airship Design
[13]

. With the materials available then, he calculated the rate of heat loss and
[14]

concluded that such a system would be impractical unless the convective heat loss can be reduced. In 1987, Ray Maurice proposed a simple heat transfer model for heated helium

airships in which he concluded that a 30% increase in gross lift could be achieved by utilizing the engine exhaust for heating helium. For ALFRA-1, the following buoyancy control model was explored: 1) One of the chambers of the airship is insulated with a layer of insulation material. The insulation material thickness is decided by the thermal conductivity required to Page | 17

provide a heat loss rate which exactly compensates the reduction in weight due to the fuel consumed. 2) Electric heating elements driven from the generators attached to the engines are affixed to the helium chamber. 3) Just before take-off, the airship is made heavier than air and heating elements increase the temperature of helium in the chamber to make the airship lighter than air. 4) As the airship cruises, fuel weight decreases which increases net buoyancy. But, the lifting gas also cools down and hence, decreases buoyancy leading to a state of neutral buoyancy. Finer control is achieved through the auxiliary fans.

Calculations:

Using ideal gas law, we get

From [1], the typical specific fuel consumption of a diesel engine is 30 kg/hr. For an airship of 8000 m3, assuming that one helium chamber volume is 700 m3, the required temperature that the helium should be heated for a three-hour flight is calculated to be 471.4 K. Energy required to heat helium,

This is an extremely high temperature and the high specific heat of helium (5188 J/kgK) makes the necessary energy required to heat it impractical to supply. Increasing the chamber volume on the other hand will bring down the temperature, but will increase the effective cost of the airship. Hence, the heating of helium for this kind of an airship is not a viable option.

Page | 18

3.4.2 Compressed Helium Storage For the descent stage, the helium inside a chamber is compressed into a storage tank in the gondola, thereby decreasing lift. After the payload drop and reballast, the helium is pumped back into the chamber providing lift and thus enabling ascent.
Calculations:

Acceleration, TAR[15] specifies the maximum descent rate of 7 m/s. Assuming that this descent rate is achieved at the ground, we get

Applying force balance in the z-direction, we get

As the helium is being compressed and stored on-board, the mass is conserved and thus, the weight remains the same. Using the first estimate of mass, Reduction in lift should be, The lifting capacity of helium is 10.32 N/m3. Thus, Volume of Helium that needs to be compressed, In terms of weight, this turns out to be 33.82 kg. . 1960 N.

Page | 19

If the storage of helium is done in long cylindrical tubes, then the minimum weight of the tubing, irrespective of its dimensions or pressure ratio, is given approximately by [12]

Where

The bare weight of the cylindrical tubing assuming a density of 1800 kg/m 3 and working tensile strength of 3x108 N/m2 would thus be,

The weight of the compressor system and the required piping would bring the total weight of the system to well over 300 kg. The weight factor makes this system undesirable for application in the airship unless composite materials become affordable. 3.4.3 Lifting Gas Venting The idea of venting lifting gas has been used in airships such as the R-101, Hindenberg etc. Helium, if vented, becomes expensive to replenish. The option of venting hydrogen is not without safety concerns, mostly due to ignition by a lightning strike. 3.4.4 Recommendation Considering the various buoyant control options available in sections 3.4.1 to 3.4.3, the method of thrust vectoring is recommended, mainly due to its simplicity in implementation and the extensive use in airships of similar class. 3.4.5 Avionics From a safety point of view, airship regulations

[16]

forbid the presence of humans in an

airship which uses hydrogen as its lifting gas. To conform to these regulations, ALFRA is made unmanned. It is capable of delivering the relief payload to the location using only the GPS co-ordinates as its input. This requires a sophisticated navigation, guidance and control system. A detailed discussion of this system is out of the scope of this project. Page | 20

CS Jin

[17]

has created an autonomous GPS navigation module for an indoor airship with

variable line of propulsion. An improvement of this model which accounts for wind compensation is applied to ALFRA-1.
Clock Navigation Module Guidance Module Engines and actuators

Control Module

GPS and Attitude Sensors

Target GPS Coordinates

Figure3.9: Block diagram of the algorithm In order to reduce the power consumption of the processor inside the airship, the less intensive implicit guidance algorithm is used. Apart from this system, ALFRA-1 avionics also contains a pressure detection system in each chamber. In the event of a leak in one chamber, the pressure drop is detected and auxiliary power is increased to counter it without the interference of the NGC system. This is required because of the use of implicit guidance algorithm, which fails if the airship strays too far from the pre-determined flight path. 3.4.6 Reballast The payload drop problem is a unique problem to airships, which has in a way hindered the large scale use of airships for cargo transportation. The problem is stated as after the payload has been dropped, the airships net buoyancy becomes very high and the return flight cannot be carried out. There is no fool-proof method currently available for this problem. Proposed methods involve compressing lifting gas, thrust vectoring etc. But, the economics of using such a system for compensating a weight difference of 2 tons is questionable. A system of pumps and pipes was carried for pumping in flood water weighing 2 ton into water tanks carried on board. The payload was going to be dropped in flood water and thus it was essential to ensure that it does not sink but stays afloat till the relief workers in the area

Page | 21

reach it and collect it for distribution. For this purpose an inflatable buoy was attached to the payload containers. The detailed manoeuvre of payload drop is explained below Airship approaches the region where payload can be dropped. Descents towards the surface Buoy attached to payload containers inflated Pipes deployed and pumps started to fill the tanks Payload is dropped Airship takes off and returns to base

As the buoy is designed to carry the weight of the containers, i.e., 2 ton, it can carry the weight of the airship when it is being filled with water. This is because, the payload being still attached to the airship,

The net weight carried by the buoy = the weight of the airship + the weight of the water in the tanks (that would be a maximum of 2 ton) - the lift generated by the envelope (which equals to the weight of the airship). So, effectively, the buoy has to carry a maximum weight of 2 tons and not more.

Page | 22

Figure 3.10: Figure detailing airship manoeuvres A standard two ton freight container was considered for an approximate size and weight estimation of the payload bay. The average dimensions for a container with a load carrying capacity of 2 ton would be around 2m x2.5mx 1.5m and weighed around 550kg. These containers are typically made of weathering steel, to withstand the high density cargo. However, in our case wooden containers can also be considered. Similar study for standard water tanks available in market showed that a 2000litre capacity of water tank would weigh close to120 kg.

Page | 23

4. Preliminary Design
4.1 First Weight Estimation
Statistical weight estimation was done in order to have an estimate of the maximum take-off weight for the given payload. Statistical data was collected for various non-rigid airships and a graph was plotted between the payload weight and the take-off weight for these airships. This graph gave us a value of the maximum take-off weight for our airship to start with. The table below shows the values of the payload and take-off weight for airships in the class of the ALFRA-1.
Table 4.1: Comparison of airships in the ALFRA-1 class

Sl. No 1 2 3 4

Name Zepellin NT Skyship 600 ZPG 3W ABC spectator A

Payload 1900 13 people= 1 tonne 26 people= 2 tonne lightship 1026

MTOW 8040 7100 10150 3808

Volume (semi rigid airship) 6667 cubic meters 42475 cubic meters

ABC spectator B

lightship 1546

4394

6 7

WDL-1B Augur MD 900

1180 3950

5100 8630

Page | 24

Figure4.1: 2nd order polynomial fit of MTOW vs. Payload weight

From the above graph it was seen that an airship designed to carry a payload weight of 2000 Kg would have a maximum take-off weight of approximately 8808 Kg.

4.2 Empennage design

Owing to the length of the airship hull, the boundary layer is thick at the stern. A formula for the thickness of boundary layer at any section of the envelope, given by [12] S=0.02 x for x<xm S=0.02 x (d/dx) for x>xm

Where, d is the maximum body diameter occurring at x=xm and s is the boundary layer thickness. A conservative value of fin dimension was obtained here so that the weight of the tail structure could be estimated. The fin length was taken as four times the length of the boundary layer and was computed at 1.12m.

4.3 Preliminary weight estimation

4.3.1 Envelope fabric The fabric weight is the surface area of the fabric multiplied by the surface density of the material used. The surface area of the envelope for the lifting the earlier estimated maximum take-off weight was calculated by integration of the equation of the profile of the envelope. The net area density of the material with allowances for seam and patches should be in the

Page | 25

range of 0.35-0.52kg/m2. According to the table given in [12], for the calculated volume, the surface density of the material was obtained to be 0.35kg/m2. The net volume of the envelope required to carry the maximum weight estimate of 8808 kg is 8350m3. From this value of and the dimensions of the envelope were computed and then integration was carried out to obtain the surface area of the envelope, which turns out to be 2432.7m3. The weight of the envelope fabric=surface density of envelope material x surface area of the envelope=852Kg. 4.3.2 Air lines The air lines were to be provided to allow filling inner chambers as well as the outer helium envelopes. The weight of the airlines was estimated to be 3% of the fabric weight [1] and was computed to 30kg. 4.3.3 Catenary Catenary screens are provided to suspend the Gondola. As the ALFRA had a twin envelope design and the catenary screens provided would have complexity in design, the catenary weight was estimated towards the higher side. The computed value of catenary is 15% of envelope fabric weight=128Kg. 4.3.4 Patches and Reinforcements From the empirical formula given in [12], the weight of the patches and reinforcements were estimated to be 5% of envelope fabric weight= 43Kg. 4.3.5 Nose Reinforcements Nose reinforcements include the nose cone, mooring probe etc. fixed at the nose of the envelope. The allowance that is to be given for nose reinforcements, according to [12] is computed as 180Kg. 4.3.6 Tail Structure According to [12] a survey over a period of two decades gave a structural weight density for fins=6Kg/m2. This was including control surfaces. So for the four fins the weight of the weight was estimated=781Kg. 4.3.7 Gondola The gondola had several components like the container for holding the payload, the water tanks, the engines, the fuel tanks, the transmission system, the propellers and ducts, the fuel Page | 26

tanks and the structural framework or a chassis to which all things were mounted. The weight of the containers and water tank were based on the weight of the standard freight containers and water tanks available in the market. The engine, transmission and fuel weight were estimated using empirical formulas given in [12]. The values of all these components have been tabulated in table 4.2. Table 4.2: Estimated weight distribution Component Envelope fabric Catenary Airlines Patches reinforcements Nose reinforcements Suspension Tail structure Container Water tank Engine Fuel Transmission Propellers and ducts Pipes and pumps Structural frame Lifting gas Payload TOTAL Weight (Kg) 851.5 128 30 43 180 170 781 550 120 450 650 100 200 20 300 1450 2000 8024

Page | 27

17% 10%

18% envelope gondola payload

12%

18% 25%

lifting gas tail structure propulsion

Figure 4.2: Estimated weight distribution

4.4 Propulsion
The propulsion system consists of three components viz. the fuel, engine and the propulsor. The range of airship operation varies from using 20% of engine power at hovering to 80% of engine power at full speed. Thus, gas turbine engines which are economical to operate at close to 90% cannot be used for airships. 4.4.1 Fuel Considering that gas turbines are not used, the options for the fuel are aviation gasoline, mogas (petrol), diesel and kerosene (jet fuel). Aviation gasoline: This is the most widely used fuel for piston driven aircraft engine. Many ultralights and general aviation aircraft have engines which use this fuel. The main drawback of this fuel is its skeptical availability in the near future as the reserves are running out. The fuel is also expensive in most parts of the world. Petrol: This is the automotive form of aviation gasoline, which is used on certain aircrafts. It has the advantage of being easily available and being relatively cheaper compared to avgas. The FAA does not issue certification for aircrafts which use this fuel and take passengers for hire. Page | 28

Diesel: It is the most widely available fuel, which also has the added advantage of being cheap. It has high energy content. The airships of the previous era have flown with diesel as the fuel. Jet Fuel: Its availability is restricted to airports and the cost per litre is slightly lower when compared to petrol. This fuel is highly inflammable and has a lower energy content than diesel. In order to choose the type of fuel, a comparison was done with weightages given to the various desirable parameters of the fuel. The weightages were given on a scale of 1-5 and the scoring was done on a similar scale with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. The total score was calculated and the fuel decided based on this. Table 4.3: Comparison of fuel options. Fuel Parameters Aviation Gasoline 4 5 Petrol Diesel Jet Fuel 2 4 Weightage

Availability of fuel at 1 base station Cost of fuel Engine Options Safety Energy Content Total Score 3 4 3 3 48

1 1 2 3 40

5 2 4 4 77

2 3 3 3 45

5 2 4 3

Diesel is chosen as the fuel due to its low cost and wide availability. 4.4.2 Engine The aero-diesels, after the advent of gas turbines were phased out. There has been revived interest in them due to the possible scarcity of avgas in the future. As they are being developed, the certified engines are a handful in number. In order to select an engine, we need an estimate for the power required from the engine. From the drag estimation of the hull (see chapter 5), for a fineness ratio of 4.5, we have

Assuming an average speed of 20 m/s, we get Page | 29

But, this is only the drag of the hull. From historical data [12], the drag of the hull is known to be 50% of the drag of the entire airship. Hence, drag of the airship,

Total power required to just overcome this drag,

Let efficiency of the engine system be 85%. Then, total power required becomes,

As the power required is low, the option is available to use either one engine or two engines. To provide redundancy and because the weight penalty was not very significant, the two engine configuration was chosen. In addition to this, the two engine configuration provides less complex low speed yaw control. Estimated power required per engine, Engine options available: DeltaHawks DH160V4, Wilksch Airmotives WAM-120 and Thielerts Centurion 2.0 are the available aero-diesel engines in this class. Table4.4: Comparison of available engines. Name Max. Power Best SFC Weight Economy Power Certified? Price in USD DH160V4 160 hp 21.22 kg/hr 148.3 kg 84 hp non-certified 29500 WAM-120 120 hp 13 kg/hr 127.2 kg 67 hp In process 23700 Centurion 2.0 135 hp 15.34 kg/hr 134 kg 97 hp certified 59575 Page | 30

Considering the cost and the power required, the Wilksch Airmotives WAM-120 is selected. The WAM-120 is a 3 cylinder, 2-stroke, compression ignition, liquid cooled engine of inverted configuration with pressure fed lubrication and integral sump. Performance Table4.5: Performance parameters of the WAM-120 Power Torque Engine rpm Specific Fuel

Consumption Max 5 min 90kW (120bhp) 312Nm 275Nm 249Nm 2750 2575 2300 300gm/kW hr 275gm/kW hr 260gm/kW hr

Max. continuous 75kw (100bhp) Economy Cruise 50kW (67bhp)

Figure4.3: The WAM-120 engine on display (Source: Geocities) For the propulsor, a ducted fan is proposed to be used as it is more efficient than a normal propeller[12].

4.4.3 Fuel weight

The engine, while running at its economical speed, consumes fuel at the rate of 13 kg/hr. Using this estimate, and the duration of the total mission as 9 hours, this gives a fuel weight of 117 kg.

Page | 31

Table4.6: Margins taken for estimating fuel weight Margin 30% 15% 2% For Hovering, Landing and take-off Emergency Unusable fuel Assumption These operations are fuel-intensive Regulations recommend this margin Fuel trapped in pipes and tanks

Applying all margins, the total fuel to be carried is 172 kg. Using density of diesel as 0.832 kg/l, Volume of diesel required,

4.4.4 Speed Optimization The cruise velocity of the airship required to be optimized for the response time and specific fuel consumption. The power required was calculated for different velocities from the drag data and plotted. The power available from the engine was plotted to obtain the maximum velocity and the economy velocity. The response time constraint was added to the graph.

Figure4.4: Speed optimization exercise

Page | 32

The maximum achievable velocity of the airship is 93.6 kmph. The most economical velocity to fly at is 77 kmph. Thus, the range of velocities the airship can fly are from 50 kmph to 93.6 kmph. A conservative velocity of around 60 kmph is chosen as the cruise velocity. This is lower than the economical speed, but due to thrust vectoring for fuel compensation, the load on the engine is expected to be equivalent to the economical power.

4.4.5 Hydrogen fuel cell

Table4.7: Comparison of Hydrogen fuel cells[22]
Fuel Cell Manufacturer Fuel Type Max. Output Power (kW) Mass (kg) Nexa Ballard Hydrogen PEM 1.2 13 Mark 902 Ballard Hydrogen PEM 8.5 96 Xcellis HY 205 Ballard Hydrogen PEM 205 2170 US STS Shuttle UTC Hydrogen KOH 12 116 PC-29 IFC/UTC Methanol PEM 50 141

Table 4.7 shows the comparison of Hydrogen fuel cells currently available in the market. For the ALFRA-1, the power required is around 50 kW. Multiple PC-29 fuel cells can be used to power the motors. The main advantage of a fuel cell is that the loss of fuel weight during flight is negligible and can easily be compensated by venting out a little lifting gas. The only drawback is storage of Hydrogen on board in cylinders in large quantities, as Hydrogen storage technologies that are portable are not developed enough. [23] One option is to take hydrogen from the inner envelope and use it as a fuel for the on board fuel cell which can be explored further. This has the potential to solve the inflight buoyancy control problem. The main drawback of fuel cells is the prohibitive cost currently. In the future, if the world has a Hydrogen economy, the cost of fuel cells is bound to come down given the widespread use. So, it is concluded that Hydrogen remains a viable option for propelling the ALFRA-1 in the future.

Page | 33

Figure 4.5: 3D model of the proposed ALFRA-1 (rendered using Solidworks)

Page | 34

5. Flow Studies
The airship hull is known to create the maximum drag in an airship.
[12]

This is owing to its

large surface area, which increases the skin friction drag and also the large frontal area it projects, which increases the pressure drag. The National Physical Laboratorys shape is chosen as the airship envelope shape due to the possibility of optimization of fineness ratio for this shape. The airship fineness ratio is a variable parameter for the volume and hence, CFD simulation is performed using ANSYS FluentTM to optimize for the least drag. The Fluent code is validated by using [19]. The results are found in Appendix 4 For the estimated volume, six N.P.L shapes of fineness ratios ranging from 2.5 to 5.0 are generated. An axisymmetric structured grid is built around the upper half of the N.P.L shape.

Figure 5.1: Axisymmetric structured grid around the upper half of N.P.L shape

Page | 35

Domain independence is verified by increasing the computational domain from 3l to 5l. The boundary conditions provided are as follows for 600 m altitude cruise conditions: Flight speed: 20 m/s Pressure Far field: 0.998 bar Static Temperature: 298 K The Reynolds number for the flow is,

2.89 x 107.

Due to the turbulent nature of the flow, k- turbulence model is used coupled with enhanced wall function. As we are interested in the drag, the pressure is iterated using the body force weighted scheme to provide accurate results in the least computation time. The flow field is thus solved to find the drag for each fineness ratio.

Figure 5.2: Pressure distribution on the upper surface of the envelope

Page | 36

From the drag obtained, the volumetric drag coefficient,

, is calculated.

In addition to this, the drag coefficient is calculated from the empirical formula [12] { ( ) ( ) ( ) }

The simulation and the empirical results are plotted in Figure 5.3

Figure 5.3: Volumetric Drag Coefficient (Empirical and Simulated) for different fineness ratios

The empirically calculated drag is lesser than the drag obtained from simulation results. This offset can be attributed to the low Reynolds number used to formulate the empirical relation. From Figure 5.3, it is clear that the drag reaches a minimum at a fineness ratio of 4.5. As the minimum is a flat one, any fineness ratio from 4.5 to 5 can be selected.

Page | 37

6. Stress Analysis
It is crucial to identify the location of the Centre of Buoyancy (C.B.) and Centre of Gravity (C.G.) for the airship envelope. The envelope carrying the lifting gas is not only subjected to buoyant lift but is also loaded under its own weight. Thus, the axial distribution of weight for the envelope or the linear gravity density and the buoyant lift distribution over the envelope (axial) were studied. The linear gravity density, qe is given by [18]

where, e= surface density of the envelope material; r(x)= the radius of envelope varying with the longitudinal x-axis of the airship.

Secondly, the basic load applied on the envelope is buoyancy dependent on the displaced volume of envelope and the unit buoyancy, the difference between the ambient atmosphere density and the lift gas density. The linear unit net buoyancy can be calculated from the theoretical envelope profile [18]

Where, n is the unit net buoyancy at specific altitude. The loads due to buoyancy and gravity were plotted and are shown in figure 7.1.

From the graph, we obtain, Location of center of gravity = 0.0029m Location of center of buoyancy = 4.426m

It is seen that the C.B. lies ahead of C.G. which was likely to result in a nose up pitching moment for the airship. Different structural components like the gondola, stabilizers, propulsion systems etc. require to be configured and positioned in order to balance this.

As these structural components are added, the weight of these would result in a static bending moment about the C.G. When there is a certain angle of attack for the airship, due to thrust imbalance or improper load distribution, etc. the aerodynamic loading of the envelope would also result in a dynamic bending moment about the C.G. which is dependent on the angle of attack [18]. Page | 38

Figure6.1: Loads due to buoyancy and gravity applied on the envelope The airship design criteria (ADC) of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides an overall formula for the dynamic analysis check of the airships flight envelope including the dynamic effect of the structural component and the aerodynamic effect. FAA maximum bending moment formula is proposed as: [ ( ) ]

where, d= the maximum diameter of hull (m ) ; u= gust velocity (m/s); v= airship equivalent speed (m/s); Ve= total envelope volume (m3). The above equation is applicable for 4<l/d < 6. For l/d < 4, assume that l/d = 4. If l/d = 4, the maximum bending moment formula can be further simplified as

First, the bending moment on the envelope for different values of L/D was computed and plotted. It was observed that as L/D ratio increases the bending moment also increases. This data was used along with the aerodynamic data (obtained from flow studies) and an optimization was

Page | 39

carried out to find out the optimum L/D for the airship. The optimum L/D was found to be 4.5.

Figure6.2: Variation of bending moment on envelope with L/D ratio for a given lifting capacity The load capacity of the envelope hull of an airship is limited by the tendency to wrinkle under high bending moment. To calculate the pressure required for maintenance of envelope rigidity in flight, the maximum applied bending moment, the sum of static and dynamic bending moments acting the hull must be established. The lift gas static head effect (pressure gradient from bottom to top) must also be taken into account. (This comes into picture prominently when the airship goes into a high angle of attack orientation, during mooring or while flight).

The required minimum pressure for rigidity to withstand the related bending moment can be calculated as,

Where, rc = max(r(x)); The longitudinal and hoop forces of airship with radius, r(x) under internal pressure p can be written as a function of the radii of curvature in hoop direction H and in longitudinal direction L.

Page | 40


[ ]

f2 and f3 are the loads on the envelope due to the longitudinal and hoops stress. These were computed and their axial distribution over the envelope was plotted.

Figure6.3: distribution of loads due to longitudinal and hoops stress on the envelope Now the maximum value of longitudinal tension=1.49KN/m. The maximum value of hoops tension=2.96KN/m So the selected envelope material must have a allowable shear strength greater than the maximum hoops tension.

Page | 41

7. Building indoor airship envelopes

Before building the scale model of the ALFRA-1, some hands on experience in building airship envelopes was required to understand the challenges. To achieve this objective, small indoor airship models were made.

7.1 Shape of the envelope

Envelope design for other projects was based principally on mathematical shape modelling, drag estimations and aesthetics. The same NPL shape as mentioned in the preliminary configuration chapter was decided to be used in this models and the volume of the envelope was arbitrarily fixed at 5 litres considering ease of manufacture.

Figure 7.1: The NPL Shape

7.2 Materials used

Materials used for airship envelopes are based on helium retention capability of the material, lower stiffness to aide easier manufacturing etc. The National University of Singapore[21] and the Rowan University used polyurethane sheets. The University of Adelaide[20] and The Zurich University used Mylar, i.e., BoPET (Biaxially-oriented Polyethylene Terephthalate).

7.3 Fabrication
Mylar (50 microns) was the only workable material we were successful in obtaining and was used to make small prototypes of the actual model. The aim here was to test different glues and try to understand how the gores can be joined to get gastight envelopes.

Page | 42

The first envelope made was a four petal sphere, which was almost impossible to join owing to the low number of petals and stiffness of the material at hand. An attempt to use the cellotape-heat sealing process also proved to be unsuccessful. Some experts were consulted online and they suggested that we make a gore tool and increase the number of petals. The gore tool is basically a support cut to the profile shape on which the gores are kept and glued together.

Figure 7.2: Gore joining tool diagrams (Source: Alan Sherwood via rcgroups.com/forums) The gore tool, as shown above was manufactured using a wooden plank. The top surface was smoothened using a strip of balsa wood. A layer of foam double sided tape was pasted on the top of the balsa sheet and a removable cello tape layer was pasted on top of that.

Figure 7.3: Manufacturing the gore tool from wood The second envelope was made with 12 gores using the gore tool. Fevi-Bond, a popular rubber based adhesive was used and a closed ellipsoid was successfully made. However, the

Page | 43

glue began to crystallize and became stiff after a few days and there were visible holes at the seams.

Figure 7.4: Joining the mylar gores on the gore tool A third envelope was then made using thin double sided tape. It had six gores. Cello tape was used to seal the seams so that small leakages at creases could be prevented. A valve from an inflatable toy was used and the balloon was inflated using compressed air. However leakages were found at the sections where the valve was joined with the envelope. Thus, it was concluded that the double sided tape and cello tape did give an airtight envelope and it was the way the valve was joined that was faulty. UHU power glue, an adhesive tested and recommended for joining Mylar on various forums on the internet was procured. The next envelope that was made used a combination of double sided tape and UHU power glue and gave reasonable gas tightness. Although these models did not fly and were not capable of lifting more than 5 grams, they provided the much needed knowledge, which aided in addressing the problems that cropped up during the fabrication of the scale model of ALFRA-1.

Page | 44

8. Preliminary design of the ALFRA-1 scale model

8.1 Weight Estimation
Airship components that had been purchased were weighed and the rest were estimated. The table below shows the weights of the components and the quantity that will be used in the airship. Weights of components from serial number 10 to 13 (in bold below) are estimated while the rest are weighed on a digital scale. Table8.1: Estimated weights Sl. No. Component Brushless Motors ESC LiPo Battery Receiver Servo Board Battery Ultrasonic Sensor Camera + Battery Tow Line Stabilizers Velcro Gondola Quantity Total Weight (g)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 N/A 1 Total

122 40 45 09 35 50 35 40 125 100 100 100 300 1.1 Kg

8.2 Envelope
The design of the envelope was kept similar to the one of ALFRA-1. It has an inner hydrogen chamber surrounded by a multi-chamber outer envelope containing helium. From the weight estimation carried out earlier it is clear that the amount of disposable lift required out of the envelope is 1100gm.

Page | 45

A MATLAB code (refer appendix 3) was developed to iterate and compute the dimensions and coordinates of the envelope with enough volume to generate the required lift. For this, the material density and thickness of the material were used as specified by National Balloon Facility. The statistical analysis carried out in the literature survey (refer appendix 1) had shown that the length to diameter ratio of airships show a reducing trend with time. In earlier days, before WWII, large airships with length to width ration of 6 or more were built. But recent airships are small with a length to width ratio of around three. This is because materials are now available which can withstand the stresses at such low length to diameter ratios. The University of Adelaide went for a length to width ratio of 3.7 and the National University of Singapore went with a value of 2.266.

As the airship was fabricated as a scaled prototype of the bigger ALFRA-1, the length to diameter ratio for both airships was to be kept same. However the optimization of length to diameter ratio for minimum drag and structural loading was not completed by the time the preliminary design for the prototype began and thus a fineness ratio of 3, which is on a slightly higher side to what was obtained from the statistical analysis, was chosen.

The outer envelope dimensions were obtained in this way but for the inner envelope the volume of hydrogen to be carried was required to be known. Several different criteria were studied to see if there can be some constraint over the volume of hydrogen. Increasing the size of inner envelope (which means increasing the percentage volume of hydrogen) meant more lift and lesser cost. There was however a weight penalty as the overall weight increased owing to an increased size of the inner envelope. But it was seen that the increase in lift far outweighed the increase in overall weight. Moreover, the only purpose of using helium or having a helium envelope over the hydrogen is to prevent the interaction of hydrogen and air in case of leakage in the hydrogen envelope. This would be catered even by a thin layer of helium used as a jacket over the hydrogen envelope. As no condition could be imposed to constraint the size of the hydrogen envelope, the inner envelope was chosen such that it aides the manufacturing as well as makes it more visually distinct and demonstrates the two envelope design better.

Page | 46

Table8.2: Envelope dimensions Length(m) Outer envelope Inner envelope 3.86 3 Diameter (m) 1.28 1

8.3 Lifting Gas

The envelope was designed to hold hydrogen in the inner chamber and helium in the outer chamber. The lifting capacity of both gases are tabulated below Table8.3: Comparison of lifting gas properties Gas Density (Kg/m3) Hydrogen Helium 0.089 0.178 Lifting capacity (Kg of Lift per m3 of gas) 1.191 1.102

The above values show that hydrogen has a higher lifting capacity than helium by 7.56%. Although hydrogen being inexpensive, it can be dangerous as it forms an inflammable mixture with oxygen when allowed to mix with air. Helium on the other hand has a slightly lower lifting capacity and is expensive. However its an inert gas and comes with the advantage of being safe, particularly for indoor handling conditions. Considering safety policies in the campus, it was decided to use helium in both the outer and inner envelopes for the flight tests.

8.4 Propulsion system

All the small airships studied during the literature survey used electric motors to drive the propellers/ ducted fans. Lithium Polymer batteries are lightweight, small and efficient and hence are ideal for use in an airships. Thus, a few parameters of flight were fixed so that power estimation could be made for choosing the motors for the propulsion system. The maximum take-off weight of the airship is approximately 3 kg. The cruise velocity was selected as 1m/s and the time required for Page | 47

attaining the cruise velocity was taken to be 10 sec all of which are in accordance with the historical data was obtained from the literature survey. The drag at cruise is calculated by using a CDV for the entire airship of 0.06[11]. Table8.4: Scale model parameters Parameter Weight Cruise velocity Time to reach the cruise velocity Drag at cruise Max thrust required Value 3kg 1m/s 10sec 0.07 N 60gms

The maximum thrust required is calculated for the condition of hover and take-off. As two engines are being used the thrust required from each engine should be equal to 30gms which is half the total thrust estimated using historical data. A thrust rig was designed in order to test the thrust produced by the motor for different propeller speeds (in terms of percentage of maximum thrust applied). The construction of the set-up is shown in the schematic diagram below.

Figure8.1: Schematic and picture of the thrust measurement rig built in the lab The rig has two arms of equal length joined perpendicular to one another (AB and BC in the figure). The motor and the propeller were mounted to AB as shown and the end C is rested on a digital weighing balance. The motor was connected to the battery through an ESC (Electronic Speed Controller) and the transmitter-receiver set was attached. The thrust was gradually increased and the weighing machine readings were taken at different thrust settings

Page | 48

(position of the control stick). T is the thrust generated by the engine and N is the reaction by the weighing machine. Applying moment balance about B:

The data was tabulated and the analysis showed at what percentage of maximum thrust the motors needed to be run Table8.5: Results obtained from the thrust measurement rig % of full thrust applied 0 16.67 33.34 50 66.67 83.34 100 Thrust measured (grams) 0 35 107 176 265 350 485

Figure8.2: Operating point of the motors for cruise

Page | 49

Thrust required from a single motor is 30gms. As the motor was capable of producing thrust as high as 485grams which is larger compared to our zone of operation, it was decided to have the maximum thrust set at 60grams for each motor (which is twice the designed thrust as calculated above). A graph was plotted for the tabulated data using a soothing-spline to fit the data. This showed that the maximum thrust setting for each motor is 25%.

8.5 Gondola
The components contained in the Gondola are: Payload (camera) Engine (motors + propellers) Electronic Speed Control Battery Receiver Servo for thrust vectoring

The frame of the Gondola was made of Balsa wood to have a minimum weight. The two motors were mounted to their respective fire-walls that was connected to a plate (made of balsa and ply) hinged to the under-side of the gondola body. This assembly was connected to a servo that would rotate it about the hinge, thus allowing thrust vectoring for climb and descent. The gondola was designed such that there is enough clearance between the rotating propellers and the envelope. This governed the height of the gondola. The size of the gondola was kept small enough to reduce the net weight but sufficiently large enough to house all the components. A trapezium shape instead of a regular rectangle was adopted because having a larger area at top meant that when suspended the load of the gondola is distributed over a larger area of the envelope.

Page | 50

Figure8.3: Gondola drawings side and front views

8.6 Empennage design

Stabilizers have a very small frontal area compared to their longitudinal area. The larger longitudinal area produces more resistance to motion in the yaw, roll and pitch planes. Stabilizers are needed on the tail of the envelope to add stability to the airship. The airships small weight, relative to its surface area, means that it was susceptible to the effects of air currents. A four-stabilizer, plus configuration was chosen for the airship replicating the tail design for the flood relief airship. However, the stabilizers were not to be provided with any control surfaces because at the low speeds of airship operation, the effectiveness of the control surface would be very less. The fins are fabricated as a balsa wood frame covered with foil paper. Table8.6: Comparison of empennages of indoor airships[20] Airship Envelope Longitudinal Profile Area (m2) Airship Solutions 4m3 Airship Solutions 11m3 NUS Airship 0.55m3 Average 3.32 6.88 1.01 3.74 Stabiliser Longitudinal Area (m2) 0.18 0.34 0.03 0.18 18.84 20.48 33.50 24 Area Ratio

Page | 51

The literature survey revealed that, the University of Adelaide[20] had conducted a survey on small airships (mostly indoor) and had studied the ratio of longitudinal profile area to the stabilizer longitudinal area. The above data was used to compute the stabilizer area. The envelope longitudinal profile area=4.25m2. Average area ratio from the above mentioned study=24 So, stabilizer longitudinal area=0.175m2. The dimensions of the stabilizers were selected in proportion to that for the flood relief airship. The front taper angle was chosen as 370, a value derived from historical data. Figure8.5: Stabilizer dimensions

8.7 Free Body Diagram of Airship

The centre of gravity and centre of buoyancy for the envelope can be obtained using the distribution of gravity and buoyancy load on the envelope. Centre of gravity is 10.56 cm behind the centre point (point of maximum diameter) of the envelope and the centre of buoyancy is 9.9 cm behind the centre point. For the envelope alone, the net buoyant force acts on the centre of buoyancy and the weight acts on the centre of gravity, thus resulting in a pitch up moment. The fins and the gondola are installed on to the envelope with proper positioning so that trim condition is attained. The line of thrust is below the centre of gravity of the system due to which a net pitch up moment tends to be created when the engines produced thrust. A force analysis was carried out in order to find the proper positioning of the different components of the airship.

Page | 52

Figure8.6: Forces acting on the airship The above figure shows the forces acting on the airship. G=centre of gravity for the envelope where the weight of the envelope acts. B=centre of buoyancy where the net lift force acts F= the position of the fins and the weight of the fins act here T= position of the Gondola. The thrust from the engines and the gondola weight act here The position of the Gondola was fixed in the y-direction due to its design dimensions. Our aim here was to find the position of the gondola axially so that trim could be achieved. Table 8.7: Position and forces on different components component Envelope Position C.G.= -10.56cm C.B.= -9.9cm Fins Gondola C.G= -126cm C.G.: Forces Weight at C.G.= 2064gm Buoyancy at C.B = 3145gm Weight = 75gm Weight = 800gm

Position along y-axis=65 cm from axis Thrust (adjustable) of envelope position along x-axis= to be obtained Page | 53

So, applying moment balance about the z-axis: the position of the Gondola in axial direction =3.675cm ahead of the centre point (for zero angle of attack at no thrust condition). However, due to the thrust applied, a net pitch up moment will develop. A study was carried to find out what should be the position of the gondola such that for a given thrust value the airship will be in trim condition. The graph shown below was plotted between the position of the Gondola and thrust required. So, for a maximum thrust required of 60gm as estimated earlier, the position of the gondola was fixed at 8cm ahead of the centre. This ensured that at cruise the flight path angle was zero and thus minimum aerodynamic loading.

Figure 8.7: thrust required vs axial position of gondola ahead of centre

Page | 54

9. Fabrication of the scale model

9.1 Envelope
The coordinates of the gores for the outer and inner envelopes were obtained using the MATLAB code and so were the coordinates of the chamber walls. A solid works model was then built to verify the coordinates and visualize the envelope. Once the coordinates were frozen, the fabrication process started.

Figure 9.1: Gore profiles of the inner and outer envelope

The fabrication of the envelope was undertaken at the National Balloon Facility, TIFR, Hyderabad. Tables extending more than 180m in length, heat sealing machines for gores, hand-held heat sealing machines for sealing more intricate seams, tapes and powders for use with polyethylene and gore cutting machine for larger gores were some of the facilities available there.

9.2 Heat sealing machines

Different kinds of heat sealing machines were used at NBF. The main heat sealing machine (depicted in figure 9.1). was used to seal long seams with lesser curvature. It had two heating elements and two cooling elements in succession and rollers were present at both ends to facilitate the positioning and movement of the seam between the elements. The feed rate could be adjusted in order to vary the time of heating so that different thickness of material could be handled.

Page | 55

Figure 9.2: Main Heat sealing machine Figure 9.2 shows the hand-held heat sealing machine which was similar to a hand held clothes iron. It had a narrow heating element that had to be pressed on to the seam that was supposed to be sealed. The other hand held machine was similar in structure to a soldering iron with a roller at its tip. It was used for sealing seams with high curvature particularly those encountered during sealing of the nose, tail and filling tubes.

Figure 9.3: Hand held heat sealing machines The fabrication began by marking the coordinates of the gores and the walls on polyethylene sheet of desired thickness. As the outer envelope required good weathering, load carrying and gas retention properties, it was fabricated using 75 micron thick sheets. For the inner envelope where gas retention was the only major concern, 38 microns thick polyethylene was used. A sealing width of 2cm was added to the designed coordinates and the marking was done. This excess was provided for sealing. After marking, the gores and the walls were cut out.

Page | 56

However the work came to a halt when the gores and the chamber walls were to be sealed. Sealing is straightforward when the contours of the sheets which are being sealed are same. The procedure involves overlapping the sheets and sealing over the seam width provided. But in this case as the sealing was supposed to be carried out over a 3D curve (the curved envelope surface sealed to the straight chamber walls which are perpendicular to the envelope), the sealing was not easy and pinches were needed to be introduced at the seams and then sealed. Introduction of pinches to the outer envelope however meant that the shape of the envelope was not maintained and this can lead to increase in drag and a loss in terms of aesthetics. A solution to the problem was to first use a sheet larger than the designed wall, cut to the profile of the outer envelope at one end. So this end could be sealed to the outer envelope first without pinches appearing on the outer envelope. Implementing this idea, the inner envelope was placed over extra outer envelope gores and the shape cut out making sure the wall width was maintained. After the outer envelope gore was sealed to this, the inner gores were sealed at the other end, introducing pinches near the nose section where the curvature was high.

Figure 9.4: The outer envelope and a close look at the seam In the preliminary design phase, design was to have three chambers in the helium envelope. But, due to the difficulties faced in manufacturing and the shortage of time, it was decided to go ahead with a two-chamber outer envelope configuration during the fabrication stage. This ensured simplicity of sealing at nose and tail and sealing the walls at the junctions near the ends. For filling gas into the chambers, filling tubes had to be attached. Filling tubes were first fabricated using thin strips of polyethylene cut to a specific profile and sealed in the form of a tube. These were then hand sealed to the chambers. The filling tube for the inner hydrogen Page | 57

chamber was passes through the filling tubes of one of the outer chambers. This was to facilitate the inner chamber to be filled first allowing the inner filling tube to be closed (tying with rope) and then the outer chambers filled one after the other. After the sealing of the gores was done, the nose and the tail portions were sealed. This was done by using a circular sheet for the nose sealed to the open end using the hand-held heat sealing device. The tail sealing, due its lower curvature was straight-forward. After the sealing was complete the air tightness and the retention of the original design shape was to be tested. This was carried out using compressed air. The envelope was found to be airtight. Next, patches were fixed on to the envelope using pressure tapes. The pressure tapes are designed to carry large loads and are adhesive to polyethylene. Specified lengths were cut out and used to distribute the loads over a large area. The purpose of these patches was for tying ropes that would be used for holding the fins in position, suspending the gondola and for tying the handling ropes. After the entire process was complete, the first test was done using hydrogen as the lifting gas. Though originally designed to carry a weight of 1100gm with helium as the lifting gas, the envelope was neutrally buoyant only when a weight of 900gm was suspended. This reduction in lift was later attributed to the impurity of the hydrogen used.

9.3 Stabilizers
The stabilizer dimensions were already known from the preliminary design phase. In order to reduce the weight it was decided that a frame would be made out of balsa wood and then foil paper would be pasted and pressed (using iron box) to make the fins. The frame was made out of 25mm wide pieces of the specific lengths. They were joined using cyanoacrylate based glue. The bottom piece was wider so that there was sufficient room to put the tapes while fixing the fins on to the surface of the envelope.

Page | 58

Figure 9.5: Fin frame dimensions in mm and photograph Foil paper was used to form the skin of the fins by pasting it over the frame of the fins using Fevi-bondTM. The fins were arrested in their position by using thin nylon ropes. On the envelope small tubes were attached using pressure tapes that formed a load patch. A load patch is a certain arrangement of pasting tapes that can carry large loads and is generally used for suspending the gondola or tethering ropes. A small attachment was provided on the fin so that the ropes can be passed and the fin can be tethered. According to the preliminary design, the plan was to have a plus configuration for the stabilizers so that there is simplicity in control. However, when the load patches were fixed on to the envelope, there was an error in the positioning of the nose-end load patches. However, as the fins were designed simply to give stability in pitch and roll and were not designed to have any control surface. This helped us to change the design and opt for a cross configuration of stabilizers so that no modifications needed to be made that would have further delayed the fabrication.

Figure 9.6: Front view schematic of the scale model Page | 59

The net weight of all the fins along with the ropes used to tether them was measured as 90gms which is close to our initial estimate of 100gms.

9.4 Gondola
The gondola was fabricated using balsa wood. The frame of the casing was made from 6mm balsa sheet. The design was made such that it reduced the overall weight and still imparted enough strength to take the loads. The tilting mechanism was made using a laminated sheet of balsa and plywood, so that it could carry the load of the motors and propellers fixed to it and would be rigid enough for the components to be screwed on to it. The firewall instead of being suspended from this arm was incorporated in the same. A stainless steel door hinge was used to connect this piece with the main casing of the gondola. The motors were mounted to the extreme ends of the arm and the servo was fixed so as to attain free movement about the hinge axis and have the maximum possible throw. The whole structure was then covered with foil paper using fevi-bond on all sides except the back, so as to have access to the components in case some modifications were desired. The finished gondola is shown in Figure 9.7.

Figure9.7: Fabricated gondola photographs The weight of the Gondola without its components was measured as 105gms, which is 195gms less than our preliminary estimate. This reduction in weight was deliberately introduced by use of balsa wood and using a light weight casing (designed as a balsa wood frame covered with foil paper) so that the increase in weight of the envelope could be compensated for to some extent.

Page | 60

9.5 Revised weight estimation

After the fabrication of the gondola and the fins was carried out, the weights of all components were taken again to have a final weight estimate. The measured values are given in the table 9.1. Table 9.1: Comparison of estimated and final weights of components used in flight Sl. No. Component Brushless Motors ESC LiPo Battery Receiver Servo Camera + Battery Propellers + collets Stabilizers Gondola Velcro Tow line Quantity Estimated weight(g) Final Weight (g)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 2 2 1 1 1 2 4 1 N/A 1 Total

122 40 45 09 35 125 N/A 100 300 100 100 1100 838

70 46 183 09 35 105 33 100 257 N/A N/A

Page | 61

10.Flight Testing of Scale Model

10.1 Flight Test
Two flight tests were conducted using the scale model. The first was to test the stability as well as the handling characteristics of the airship. Since, an airship was never flown by anyone in the team, a practice run was required to obtain experience in flying an airship. In the first flight test, the yaw control was found to be ineffective. This was attributed to the small moment arm offered by the motor in the yaw direction. It was concluded that the moment arm had to be increased before the next flight test. The airship was also subjected to wind loads and was found to be stable in roll, pitch and yaw. The moment arm was increased from 185mm to 305 mm before the second flight test. The second flight test of a duration of 87 minutes demonstrated better controllability and thus, a total untethered flight was made possible.

Figure 10.1: Scale model in flight

Page | 62

10.2 Flight parameters

10.2.1 Turn Rate: The turn rate was calculated by measuring the time taken to turn 180 starting from a static position. The turn rate was achieved by giving full thrust to outer engine and switching off the inner engine. Three readings were taken and the average is presented in the table 10.1.

Table 10.1: Turn rates for different directions Direction Clockwise Counter-clockwise Time Taken (seconds) 15 18 Turn Rate (deg/sec) 12 10

The turn rate was observed to be different for the two different directions because the maximum thrust obtained from the two motors were different due to separate batteries being used to power the two separate motors. 10.2.2 Speed: The speed data obtained from the GPS device was collected and plotted to find the maximum speed obtained during the test flight. The maximum speed, as shown in figure 10.2, was found to be 16.7km/h (4.64 m/s). Due to the lack of available open space to carry out the flight test, the tests could only be carried out at a maximum throttle of 50%. The throttle had to be cut regularly and full throttle could not be given for a sufficient period of time. So, the maximum speed that the airship can attain is expected to be a higher value.

Page | 63

Figure10.2: GPS speed data 10.2.3 Rate of climb : The GPS altitude data for the segment of test was collected and plotted as shown in the altitude vs. time graph (figure 10.3). The values of maximum and minimum altitude attained by the airship during the flight test were obtained from the data. Table 10.2: Maximum and minimum altitude attained Maximum altitude Minimum altitude 122m (above MSL) 91m (above MSL)

Page | 64

Figure10.3: GPS altitude data The climb rate was calculated by bringing the airship to the lowest altitude possible and then providing an upward thrust. The altitude difference and time difference is obtained from GPS data (Figure 10.3). The slope gives the ROC as 0.32 m/s. This ROC was obtained at 50% of maximum thrust.

Page | 65

11.Recommendations
Preliminary design of the ALFRA-1 is complete. A scale model of the ALFRA-1, the first airship to be built and the flight tested in IIST, has demonstrated the proof of concept.

Future scope: The scope of future work to be done in this project is large. Some of the recommendations are listed below: 1) The detailed design of ALFRAs subsystems needs be carried out. 2) The scale model can be modified for use as a payload carrier for many experiments at IIST, which require a flying platform. 3) Autonomy can be implemented in the scale model to check the effectiveness of control algorithms. 4) A larger scale model can be fabricated and flight tested. 5) A complete aerodynamic analysis, including wind tunnel testing, if possible can be carried out. 6) A detailed 6 DOF analysis needs to be carried out to verify the adequacy of the control effectiveness.

Page | 66

Appendix 1
The length to width ratio of airships shows a reducing trend with time. In earlier days, before WWII, large airships with length to width ration of 6 or more were built. But recent airships are small with a length to width ratio of around three. The University of Adelaide went for a length to width ratio of 3.7 and the National University of Singapore went with a value of 2.266.

Figure A1.1: Length to weight ratio of airships with We< 1 tonne [20] The variation of the Thrust to weight ratio of airship is over a wide range, i.e., within 0.1 and 0.7. A study done by the University of Adelaide regarding the Thrust to weight ratio of small airships shows that the values are close to 0.3. The main reason behind such huge variations is that different values of thrust to weight ratio cater to different purposes the airships are designed in the first place. An airship designed to cruise at a high velocity will have a large Thrust to weight ratio than designed to Hover.

Over the years, however the empty weight to take-off weight ratio of the airships has stayed at a relatively constant value of 0.6.

Page | 67

Appendix 2

Figure A2.1: Orange areas show the flood prone areas in India. The legend gives the elevation of those areas. (Composite map created using data from Wikipedia.)

Page | 68

Appendix 3
Code to generate envelope shape, volume and weight of the envelope:
th=75*10^(-6);%thickness of envelope material and payload weight can be changed here dena=1290; denhe=178.6; denh=89; ld=3;% ab=ld*2/2.414; vol=weight_payload/1000; formula %iteration to get the final value of weight and volume for j=1:1:100 b=((vol/(4.46389*ab))^(1/3)); a=ab*b; i=1; X=0; Y=0; for x1=-sqrt(2)*a:0.001:0 X(i)=x1; Y(i)=(b-b*x1^2/(2*a^2)); wt_env(i)=-2*pi*Y(i)*0.92*70; lift_env(i)=(dena-denhe)*pi*Y(i)^2; i=i+1; end for x=0.001:0.001:a X(i)=x; Y(i)=sqrt(b^2-b^2*x^2/a^2); wt_env(i)=-2*pi*Y(i)*0.92*70; lift_env(i)=(dena-denhe)*pi*Y(i)^2; i=i+1; end [X Y]; %envelope contour length=2.414*a; surface_area=pi*b*(b+(a^2/sqrt(a^2-b^2))*asin(sqrt(a^2-b^2)/a))+ 1.481*a*b*(1+3.0144*sqrt(1+0.493*b^2/a^2)); %surface area of the envelope weight_env=2*surface_area*th*0.92; %weight of envelope %initial volume of envelope based on empirical %density of air %density of helium %density of hydrogen

weight_payload=1100;

Page | 69

weight_gross=weight_payload+weight_env+vol*178.6; vol_new=weight_gross*10^(-3)*9.81/10.35; if (abs(vol-vol_new)<0.001) break else vol=vol_new; end end

weight_helium=vol_new*178.6; cg=0; cb=0; for j=2:1:numel(X) %computing position of C.G. and C.B. cg=cg+X(j)*(-1)*wt_env(j)*0.001/(weight_env); cb=cb+X(j)*lift_env(j)*0.001/((dena-denhe)*vol); end

Code to generate gore contour:

a=1.6; i=1; X=0; Y=0; for x1=-sqrt(2)*a:0.05:0 X(i)=x1; Y(i)=b*(1-x1^2/2/a^2); i=i+1; end for x=0.01:0.05:a X(i)=x; Y(i)=sqrt(b^2-b^2*x^2/a^2); i=i+1; end [X Y]; arc_len1=quad(@(t)coordbig_parabola(t,a,b),-sqrt(2)*a,0); arc_len2=quad(@(t)coordsmall(t,a,b),0,a); no=12; %no. of petals clear i j %1.24 %0.5 b=0.64;

Page | 70

for j=1:length(X) if X(j)<=0 m(j)=quad(@(t)coordbig_parabola(t,a,b),-sqrt(2)*a,X(j)); %petal x-coordinate n(j)=pi*Y(j)/no; %petal y-coordinate else m(j)=quad(@(t)coordsmall(t,a,b),0,X(j))+arc_len1; n(j)=pi*Y(j)/no; end end plot(m,n) daspect([1 1 1]) %set data aspect ratio to 1:1:1

function f=coordbig_parabola(t,a1,b1) f=sqrt(1+b1.^2.*t.^4/a1.^4); function f=coordsmall(t,a1,b1) f=sqrt(1+(b1.^2./a1.^2).*(t.^2./(a1.^2-t.^2)));

Code for shape, volume, weight estimation and stress analysis of the ALFRA-1: weight_payload=2000000; dena=1290; %density of air denhe=178.6; denh=89; ld=4.5;
%density of helium

%density of hydrogen

%fineness ratio %initial volume of envelope

ab=ld*2/2.414; vol=weight_payload/1000; for j=1:1:100 b=((vol/(4.46389*ab))^(1/3)); a=ab*b; i=1; X=0; Y=0; for x1=-sqrt(2)*a:1:0 X(i)=x1; Page | 71 %iteration to get the final value of weight and volume

Y(i)=(b-b*x1^2/(2*a^2)); wt_env(i)=-2*pi*Y(i)*0.35; lift_env(i)=(dena-denhe)*pi*Y(i)^2; i=i+1; end for x=0.1:0.1:a X(i)=x; Y(i)=sqrt(b^2-b^2*x^2/a^2); wt_env(i)=-2*pi*Y(i)*0.35; lift_env(i)=(dena-denhe)*pi*Y(i)^2; i=i+1; end [X Y]; length=2.414*a; surface_area=pi*b*(b+(a^2/sqrt(a^2-b^2))*asin(sqrt(a^2b^2)/a))+ 1.481*a*b*(1+3.0144*sqrt(1+0.493*b^2/a^2)); weight_env=2*surface_area*0.35; weight_suspension=21000*vol/1000; weight_nose_reinforcements=21000*vol/1000; weight_subsystems=2390000; % weight of subsystems include th e following %weight_container=550000; %weight_watertank=120000; %weight_pumps_pipes=20000; %weight_transmission=100000; %weight_props=200000; %weight_fuel=650000; %weight_engines=450000; %weight_structuralframe=300000; longitudinal_profile_area=pi*a*b/2+4*sqrt(2)*a*b/3; weight_fin=4*longitudinal_profile_area/24*6000;

Page | 72

%weight of fin estimated from empirical formula weight_gross=1.2*(weight_payload+weight_env+weight_fin+weight_ subsystems+weight_suspension+weight_nose_reinforcements+vol*17 8.6); vol_new=weight_gross*10^(-3)*9.81/10.35; if (abs(vol-vol_new)<0.001) break else vol=vol_new; end end weight_helium=vol_new*178.6; Mfaa=(0.0292*dena*20*20*vol*length^0.25)/1000; plot(X,wt_env);hold on;plot(X,lift_env); del_p=2*Mfaa/pi/(max(Y))^3; x_cg=0; x_cb=0; for t=1:1:numel(X) x_cg=x_cg+X(t)*1*wt_env(t)*0.1/(weight_env+weight_helium); x_cb=x_cb+X(t)*lift_env(t)*0.1/((dena-denhe)*vol); if X(t)<=0 Y1(t)=-1*b*X(t)/a^2; Y2(t)=-1*b/a^2; phiH(t)=Y(t)*sqrt(1+(Y1(t))^2); phiL(t)=Y(t)*abs(((1+(Y1(t))^2)^(3/2))/Y2(t)); fH(t)=del_p*phiH(t)*(1-phiH(t)/2/phiL(t)); fL(t)=del_p*phiH(t)/2; else Y1(t)=-1*b*X(t)/(a^2)/sqrt(1-(X(t))^2/a^2); Y2(t)=(b^2/(a^2-(X(t))^2))*((X(t)/b^2)-sqrt(1(X(t))^2/a^2)/b); phiH(t)=Y(t)*sqrt(1+(Y1(t))^2); Page | 73

phiL(t)=Y(t)*abs(((1+(Y1(t))^2)^(3/2))/Y2(t)); fH(t)=del_p*phiH(t)*(1-phiH(t)/2/phiL(t)); fL(t)=del_p*phiH(t)/2; end end

Page | 74

Appendix 4
Using a 6:1 prolate spheroid
[19]

, the CFD code for axisymmetric bodies has been validated.

The solver used was ANSYS FluentTM. The flow conditions are as given below. Speed: 12 m/s Nominal Unit Reynolds number: 8 x 105 m-1

Figure 6.1: Model and the measuring probe

Page | 75

Figure 6.2: Pressure coefficient and skin friction coefficient vs. non dimensional length

The inaccuracies in the skin friction coefficient are due to measurement inaccuracies as it is difficult to get measurements near the tail of the body [19].

Page | 76

References
1. Turnick, P.A., Tsunami aftermath: how to make good logistics better, Logistics Today, Vol. 46, No 4, p.12. 2. Personal communication with Chandan Ghosh, Profesor and Head (Geohaards), National Institute of Disaster Management and Amalraj M, Assistant Professor, Institute of Land and Disaster Management. 3. MSF webpage (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/article.cfm?id=3064) [Online, Accessed 2/4/2012] 4. Belur Math website (http://www.belurmath.org/news_archives/2012/01/21/flood-relief/) [Online, Accessed 2/4/2012] 5. Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India website (http://urbanindia.nic.in/)[Online, Accessed 3/4/2012] 6. Prakash, A., Distribution Network Designs in Relief Chain Management: Governments response to Kosi Floods 2008, Jamsetji Tata Centre for Disaster Management, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, 2011 7. Bapalu Venkata, G., Sinha, R., GIS in Flood Hazard Mapping: A case study of Kosi River Basin, GIS Developemt, 2010 8. Bajaj Electricals webpage (http://www.bajajelectricals.com/transmission-line-towers.aspx) [Online, Accessed 4/4/2012] 9. NRSC website (http://www.dsc.nrsc.gov.in/DSC/Flood/DamageAssessment.jsp) [Online, Accessed 29/4/2012] 10. Kanikdale, K.S., Marathe, A.S., Pant, R.S., Multidisciplinary optimization of airship envelope shape, AIAA 11. Priyadarshi, P., Gupta, N., A multi-chamber, multi-gas configuration for robust and high performance non-rigid airship, Proceedings of the 8th International Airship Convention, Bedford, 2010 12. Khoury, G.A., Gillet, J.D., Airship Technology, 1st edition, Cambridge Aerospace Series, 1999 Page | 77

13. Burgess, C.P., Airship Design, University Press of the Pacific, 2004 14. Rapert, R.M., A heat transfer model for a heated helium airship, Naval postgraduate school, March 1987. 15. Transport Airship Requirements, FAA, March 2000 16. Pant, R.S., Gawale, A.C., A critical review of global regulations for certification and operation of airships, IIT Bombay 17. Jin, C.S., GPS System Design and Control Modelling, National University of Singapore 18. Krob, B., Kunz, A., Structural Performance Evaluation Procedure for Large Flexible Airship of HALE Stratospheric Platform Conception 19. Patel, V.C., Nakayama, A., Damian, R., Measurements in the thick axisymmetric turbulent boundary layer and the near tail of a low-drag body of revolution 20. Michael, N., Ravenscroft, L., and Bartel, N., Design and build a small airship, University of Adelaide, 2007-2008 21. Kay Boon, N.G., Mini Airship Patrol Craft, National University of Singapore, 20032004 22. Dorrington, G.E., Performance of Battery powered airships, Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Part G, Journal of Aerospace engineering 23. Mori, D., Hirose, K., Recent challenges of hydrogen storage technologies for fuel cell vehicles, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2009 24. Personal communication with Prof. G.A. Khoury, author of Airship Technology 25. Discussion with Prof. Pankaj Priyadarshi 26. UNDP website (http://www.undp.org) [Online, Accessed 29/4/2012] 27. Bihar schools website (http://www.biharschools.co.in) [Online, Accessed 29/4/2012] 28. Demograph website (http://www.demographie.net) [Online, Accessed 29/4/2012]

Page | 78