Innovation

Paper

Design and Analysis of a Low Cost Unmanned Airship for Flood Relief
Sattwik Suman Das, Shashank S, Tanveer Ali, Pankaj Priyadarshi Indian Institute of Space science and Technology, Trivandrum, India

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 paper 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 re-ballast the airship after the payload drop, a novel method that uses flood water is proposed. The envelope fineness ratio is optimised using ANSYS Fluent CFD for least drag and the optimal speed has derived for quick response and maximum fuel efficiency. A scaled prototype of this airship has been built and flight tested. Operational cost analysis of using airships as a mode of relief and aid distribution is also carried out. NOMENCLATURE n Number of helium chambers Dh Hull Drag Da Airship Drag Volumetric Drag coefficient = CDV D/qV2/3 PTr Pr v air He Total power required Power required Velocity Density of air Density of helium

L L Vc

Buoyant lift Change in lift Chamber volume Initial temperature

T a Wc MFAA r(x)

Temperature difference Acceleration Bare weight of cylindrical tubing Maximum bending moment Envelope radius at an axial distance, x

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

INTRODUCTION Floods are a major natural disaster in India that occurs 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]. Flood relief, which is currently distributed through boats and helicopters of the Indian Navy, Air Force and the National/State Disaster Management Agencies faces problems of timely deployment and cost. Helicopters being actively engaged in human rescue limit their availability for relief distribution on a large scale. 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 proposed. REQUIREMENTS Payload estimation Payload estimation is the most critical factor in the design of Autonomous Low-Cost Flood Relief Airship, 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 [3] on past floods in India were also referred while creating the list. Table 1: Food materials airdropped using 3 helicopters in 40 sorties [4] Sl. No Material Quantity (kg) 1 2 3 4
th

In addition to the food items mentioned in the table 1, 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 [5], 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. [6] In the 2008 Kosi floods, one or two Type 4 towns are completely cut-off and transportation by traditional routes is impossible to achieve [7]. 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. 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 [2]. Hence, the range is calculated as the distance from base to 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 [8]. As the flood-prone area is too large for a detailed analysis, two case studies are presented here. Figure 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
2

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

49620 16540 8270 8270

9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

distance to the farthest district headquarter is measured and is found to be 120 km.

demographic, buildings are assumed to be lower than 50 m (15 storeys).

Figure 1: Map showing flood zones in Bihar

[4]

A similar analysis was carried out for the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka floods of 2009 and the results are summarised in table 2. These 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. Operating Altitude From the composite map shown in figure 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

Figure 2: Composite Map showing elevation and flood prone areas (marked in orange) [9] 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 [10]. 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. Thus, the requirements for airship were fixed as: Payload: 2 tonnes Range: 500 km Altitude: 600 m Time for one sortie: 8 hours the

State Bihar Andhra Pradesh

th

Table 2: Summary of results Centre Farthest Affected District HQ Muzzafarpur Rajahmundry Bettiah Vizianagaram

Distance (km) 120 170

3

9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

ENVELOPE For this airship, a novel double envelope design [11] is employed to enhance safety and reliability. This design has an inner envelope of hydrogen and an outer enclosure containing helium. This ensures 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 ignition. The helium enclosure is further divided into a number of chambers to increase the reliability. During the design exercise, a constraint on the amount of Helium in the outer chambers could not be arrived at and this led us to an idea inspired by bubble wrap. 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. 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. 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. This configuration will reduce the amount of helium being used, thus making the operation of the airship more costeffective. 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. The large number of helium chambers (bubbles) around hydrogen increases the reliability of the whole system. If any bubble
9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012
th

gets punctured, it has a very small impact on the whole system.

Figure 3: Cross section of proposed envelope with bubble wrap A disadvantage in using the bubblewrap 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. A detailed study on this concept is required. Reliability factor An airship failure is defined when the envelope is punctured in enough places to cause a catastrophic loss in lift.

Thus it is clear that as the number of chambers increases the reliability factor goes up. In the case of the bubble wrap envelope, the reliability factor is very high due to the large number of bubbles. Centre of buoyancy change Suppose the inner envelope develops a leak into one of the n helium chambers. Helium and hydrogen mix together and the ratio of the gases in the mixture will be in proportion to the initial volume. Thus, it will be a 1:n ratio of helium to hydrogen. This mixture will shift the centre of buoyancy thus causing stability problems. It is clear that an increase in the number of chambers will bring the shift to
4

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

manageable levels. The bubble wrap concept of the envelope helps in overcoming this problem. 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. Fuel 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. This is shown in Table 3. Diesel is chosen as the fuel due to its low cost and wide availability.

From the drag estimation of the hull, for a fineness ratio of 4.5, we have Assuming an average speed of 20 m/s, we get 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, even one engine would suffice, but in order to provide redundancy and as the weight penalty is not very significant, a two engine configuration is chosen. In addition to this, the two engine configuration provides less complex low speed yaw control. Estimated power required per engine, Considering the cost and the power required, the Wilksch Airmotives WAM-120 is selected [12]. The WAM-120 is a 3 cylinder, 2-stroke, compression ignition, liquid cooled engine of inverted configuration with pressure fed lubrication and integral sump. Weightage 4 5 2 4 3
5

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 the engines are in a nascent stage, the certified ones are a handful in number. In order to select an engine, we need an estimate for the power required from the engine. Table 3: Comparison of fuel options Fuel Aviation Petrol Diesel Jet Gasoline Fuel Parameters Availability of fuel at 1 4 5 2 base station Cost of fuel 3 1 5 2 Engine Options 4 1 2 3 Safety 3 2 4 3 Energy Content 3 3 4 3 Total Score 48 40 77 45
9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012
th

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

Hydrogen fuel cell Dorrington [13] gives the comparison of Hydrogen fuel cells currently available in the market. For the ALFRA-1, the average power required is around 50 kW. Therefore, 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 the lifting gas. The only drawback is storage of Hydrogen on board in cylinders in large quantities, as portable Hydrogen storage technologies are still under development [14]. One option is to take hydrogen from the inner envelope and use it as a fuel for the on board fuel cell which needs to 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. 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. The concept of lifting gas heating was first proposed by Burgess in his book Airship Design [15]. With the materials available then, he calculated the rate of heat loss and concluded that such a system would be impractical unless the convective heat loss can be reduced. In 1987, Ray Maurice [16] 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
9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012
th

material. The insulation material thickness is decided by the thermal conductivity required to provide a heat loss rate which exactly compensates the reduction in weight due to the fuel consumed. The chamber volume is expandable as it is not completely filled. This is required to accommodate the expansion in gas volume due to heating. 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. The lift is calculated as, ( Using ideal gas (

) law, ) we get

The typical specific fuel consumption of a diesel engine is 30 kg/hr [1] 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. 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.
6

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

Hence, the heating of helium for this kind of an airship is not a viable option. 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 re-ballast, the helium is pumped back into the chamber providing lift and thus enabling ascent. Assuming that the maximum [17] descent rate of 7 m/s is achieved at the ground, we get

Hence, the weight factor makes this system unsuitable for application in an airship unless composite materials become affordable. RE-BALLAST 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.

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, 361.13 N. Thus, Volume of Helium that needs to be compressed, . In terms of weight, this turns out to be 6.23 kg. If the storage of helium is done in long cylindrical tubes, then the minimum weight of the tubing can be estimated [18] as follows: ( ) The bare weight of the cylindrical tubing assuming a density of 1800 kg/m3 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 around 100 kg. For compressing 6.23 kg of helium, a bare weight of 100 kg is required to be carried around, which is undesirable.
9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012
th

Figure 4: Airship maneuver during payload drop For ALFRA-1, a unique method of taking in flood water to compensate for the payload drop is proposed. An inflatable
7

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

buoy is attached to the bottom of the payload containers, to enable them to float as well as to provide floatation to the airship while taking in water. 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. The net weight carried by the buoy = the weight of the airship + the weight of the water in the tanks (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. The standard freight containers are typically made of weathering steel, to withstand the high density cargo. However, in our case wooden containers can also be used. The advantages of using wooden containers are their low cost and their disposable nature. The wooden containers can be shaped in the form of a boat thus, doing away with the usage of buoys. The boat-shaped containers also enable the relief materials to be towed aiding distribution. FLOW STUDIES The airship hull is known to create the maximum drag in an airship [18]. 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. 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.
9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012
th

Domain independence is verified by increasing the computational domain from 3l to 5l where l is the characteristic length of the airship.

Figure 5: Axisymmetric structured grid around the upper half of N.P.L shape The CFD simulations were carried out for typical cruise conditions at 600 m altitude: 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.

Figure 6: Pressure distribution on the upper surface of the envelope Due to the turbulent nature of the flow, k- turbulence model is used coupled with enhanced wall function. As we are
8

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

Figure 7: Volumetric Drag Coefficient (Empirical and Simulated) for different fineness ratios

Figure 8: Speed optimization exercise

9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012
th

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

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 solved to find the drag for each fineness ratio. The simulation and the empirical results are plotted in Figure 7 From Figure 7, 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 SPEED OPTIMIZATION The cruise velocity of the airship is required to be optimized to minimize fuel consumption for the defined mission. The fuel consumption depends on the power required to overcome drag and on the time of flight. The time of flight is inversely proportional to the speed whereas the power required for a given engine can be computed based on the drag and is shown in Figure 8. The power available from the engine [12] constrains the maximum velocity. Also the power recommended for economy cruise specified by the manufacturer is indicated in Figure 8. The response time constraint limits the minimum operational velocity of the airship. Thus it can be seen that the airship can fly between 50 to 93.6 kmph.

the recommended power for economy cruise, the optimum cruise velocity is fixed to be 77 kmph. 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) are studied. CHEN Wu-jun et. al. [19] have provided generalized equations for the computation of the loads due to buoyancy and gravity. From the computations, we obtain, Location of center of gravity = 0.0029m and Location of center of buoyancy = 4.426m, measured from the point of maximum diameter towards the nose As the various structural components are added, the weight of these would result in a static bending moment on the envelope [19]. The airship design criteria (ADC) of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) [20] provides an overall formula for the dynamic analysis check of the airships flight envelope including the effect of the structural and the aerodynamic components. FAA maximum bending moment formula is proposed as: [ ( )] ( )

Figure 9: Required fuel weight vs speed Fuel weight has also been estimated and it is seen from Figure 9 that it increases monotonically with speed. Hence, based on
9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012
th

where, d= the maximum diameter of hull (m) u= gust velocity (m/s) v= airship equivalent speed (m/s) Ve= total envelope volume (m3).
10

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

If l/d = 4, the maximum bending moment formula can be further simplified 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 [19] ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ( )| ( ) ( )] | ( ) ( )( ( ) )

The bending moment on the envelope for different values of L/D is shown in figure 10. It is observed that as L/D ratio increases the bending moment also increases. This data when used along with the aerodynamic data (obtained from flow studies) provide the optimum L/D as 4.5.

f2 and f3 are the hoop and longitudinal stress for unit thickness on the envelope respectively. These were computed and their axial distribution over the envelope is shown in figure 11. Figure 10: 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 [18] ( )
9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012
th

From Figure 11, it can be seen that the maximum value of longitudinal stress (for unit thickness) =1.49KN/m and the maximum value of hoop stress (for unit thickness) =2.96KN/m

Figure 11: Distribution of longitudinal and hoops stress on the envelope

11

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

Figure 12: Scale model in flight Hence, the selected envelope material thickness must be designed to withstand the Hoop stress. SCALE MODEL A 1:18 scale model of the floodrelief airship has been built and is being flight tested. The scale model which exhibits flight at low speeds, did not require control surfaces and hence, yaw control was achieved by differential rotation while pitch control was achieved by thrust vectoring. Limited flight tests were attempted where the primary goal was to establish adequate control in the presence of wind. Figure 12 shows the scale model in flight OPERATIONAL COST The operational cost includes mainly the cost of fuel and leaking of He from the external chambers. Cost of H2 leakage is neglected. For ALFRA-1, the lifting gas is proposed to be compressed back into cylinders after the operation of the airship has been completed. This will result in a partial loss of lifting gas, which is approximated to be about 10% of the helium used. This turns out to be 100 m3 of helium. The cost of helium used in the calculations is Rs.650 per m3. Two helicopters Eurocopter EC 145 and MBB/Kawasaki BK 117, which are widely used for flood relief distribution have been compared with ALFRA-1 in terms of operational cost.
12

9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012

th

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

Table 4: Operational cost comparison ALFRA-1 Total amount of fuel consumed for 500 km Cost of fuel consumed per sortie Lifting gas operational cost per sortie Pilot Cost per sortie Total Operational Cost per sortie 406 litres of diesel Rs.16,240 Rs.6,500 N/A (Autonomous) Rs. 22,740 Eurocopter EC 145 647 litres of jet fuel [21] Rs. 41,990 N/A Rs. 3,000 Rs. 44,990 MBB/Kawasaki BK 117 605 litres of jet fuel [22] Rs. 39,264 N/A Rs. 3,000 Rs. 42,264

It is assumed that the mission involves the completion of 10 sorties and the operational cost per sortie is calculated. From table 4, it is clear that the airship is a much cheaper alternative to the usage of helicopters. Although the initial cost of procurement may be higher, the significant savings in the operational costs clearly show that airships are a low cost viable alternative to helicopters in flood relief distribution. CONCLUSION The preliminary design exercise for a flood relief airship has been carried out. The lifting gas heating concept for buoyancy control was rejected due to its impracticality and the compressed lifting gas storage was rejected based on the weight factor. Diesel engine has been selected for this airship due to the low cost of diesel. An innovative method of re-ballast using flood water has been described. The optimum fineness ratio of 4.5 is ascertained from the results of the CFD simulations and stress analysis carried out. Most economical speed to fly has been decided to be 77 kmph based on the constraints. The operational cost analysis proves that airships are 50% cheaper than helicopters for carrying out flood relief missions. Thus, from this, it is concluded
th

that airships are a very feasible mode of flood relief distribution and the inherent low cost will aid its large scale deployment. 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 Dr. Chandan Ghosh, Professor and Head (Geohazards), National Institute of Disaster Management and Mr. Amalraj M, Assistant Professor, Institute of Land and Disaster Management. 3. MSF webpage (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.o rg/news/article.cfm?id=3064) [Online, Accessed 2/4/2012] 4. UNDP website (http://www.undp.org) [Online, Accessed 29/4/2012] 5. Belur Math website (http://www.belurmath.org/news_arc hives/2012/01/21/flood-relief/) [Online, Accessed 2/4/2012] 6. Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India website (http://urbanindia.nic.in/)[Online, Accessed 3/4/2012] 7. Prakash, A., Distribution Network Designs in Relief Chain Management: Governments response to Kosi Floods 2008,
13

9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012

Paper

Sattwik Suman Das et. al.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19.

9 International Airship Convention, Ashford, 2012

th

Jamsetji Tata Centre for Disaster Management, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, 2011 Bapalu Venkata, G., Sinha, R., GIS in Flood Hazard Mapping: A case study of Kosi River Basin, GIS Development, 2010 Data for map from Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org) [Online, accessed 3/4/2012] Bajaj Electricals webpage (http://www.bajajelectricals.com/tran smission-line-towers.aspx) [Online, Accessed 4/4/2012] Priyadarshi, P., Gupta, N., A multichamber, multi-gas configuration for robust and high performance nonrigid airship, Proceedings of the 8th International Airship Convention, Bedford, 2010 Wilksch Airmotive Ltd. (http://www.wilksch.net) [Online, accessed 3/4/2012] Dorrington, G.E., Performance of Battery powered airships, Proceedings of the I MECH E Part G Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 221, No. 1. (2007), pp. 91-104 Mori, D., Hirose, K., Recent challenges of hydrogen storage technologies for fuel cell vehicles, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol.34, Issue 10, (May 2009), pp. 45694574 Burgess, C.P., Airship Design, University Press of the Pacific, 2004 Rapert, R.M., A heat transfer model for a heated helium airship, Naval postgraduate school, March 1987 Transport Airship Requirements, FAA, March 2000 Khoury, G.A., Gillet, J.D., Airship Technology, 1st edition, Cambridge Aerospace Series, 1999 Wu-Jun Chen, Wei-Wei Xiao, Bernd Krplin, Andreas Kunze, Structural Performance Evaluation Procedure for Large Flexible Airship of HALE

Stratospheric Platform Conception, Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Science), Vol.12, No.2 (2007), pp. 293-300 20. Airship Design Criteria, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA-P8110-2,1987 21. Eurocopter EC145 Technical Data, (http://www.eurocopter.ca/product/e c145/#url=Characteristics) [Online, accessed 3/4/2012] 22. Lambert, Mark (1993). Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1993-94. Coulsdon, UK: Jane's Data Division, pp. 159-160

14