| Literature DB >> 35677412 |
Pablo Flores Peña1,2, Ahmed Refaat Ragab1,3,2, Marco A Luna4,2, Mohammad Sadeq Ale Isaac4,2, Pascual Campoy4.
Abstract
Forest fires are among the most dangerous accidents, as they lead to the repercussions of climate change by reducing oxygen levels and increasing carbon dioxide levels. These risks led to the attention of many institutions worldwide, most notably the European Union and the European Parliament, which led to the emergence of many directives and regulations aimed at controlling the phenomenon of forest fires in Europe, such as the (E.U.) 2019/570. Among the proposed solutions, the usage of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is considered to operate alongside existing aircraft and helicopters through extinguishing forest fires. Scientific researches in this regard have shown the high effectiveness use of UAVs. Still, some defects and shortcomings appeared during practical experiments represented in the limited operating time and low payload. As UAVs are used for firefighting forest fires, they must be characterized by the heavy payload for the extinguishing fluids, long time for flight endurance during the mission, the ability to high maneuver, and work as a decision-making system. In this paper, a new UAV platform for forest firefighting is represented named WILD HOPPER. WILD HOPPER is a 600-liter platform designed for forest firefighting. This payload capacity overcomes typical limitations of electrically powered drones that cannot be used for anything more than fire monitoring, as they do not have sufficient lifting power. The enhanced capabilities of the WILD HOPPER allow it to complement existing aerial means and overcome their main limitations, especially the need to cover night operations. This allows reducing the duration of the wildfires heavily by allowing continuous aerial support to the extinguishing activities once the conventional aerial means (hydroplanes and helicopters) are set back to the base at night. On the other hand, WILD HOPPER has significant powerful advantages due to the accuracy of the release, derived from multirotor platform dynamic capabilities.Entities:
Keywords: Firefighting; Forest fire; UAV; WILD HOPPER
Year: 2022 PMID: 35677412 PMCID: PMC9168621 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Drone Hopper Platforms. a) AGRO-HOPPER. b) URBAN-HOPPER.
Figure 2Wildfire problems. a) Footage of Pedrógão Grande, Portugal. b) Fire occurrence map [3, 20].
Figure 3WILD HOPPER operation during attacking wildfires. a) Operation. b) Wildfire attack.
A comparison between WILD HOPPER and other competing solutions.
Figure 4A comparison between an increasing number of WILD HOPPER platforms and current aerial means regarding price per area covered is depicted.
Drone Hopper technological roadmap vs. the different technological bricks.
Figure 5Schematic diagram of WILDHOPPER operations.
Figure 6A primary WILDHOPPER control schema.
Figure 7Basic WILDHOPPER control schema.
Figure 102D results of controlling the WILD-HOPPER on a sine wave to compare the drone state and reference values, (a) Comparison of reference and state variables toward x-axis versus the time in a period of 43 s; (b) Comparison of reference and state attitude variables for the roll angle versus the time in a period of 43 s; (c) Comparison of reference and state variables toward y-axis versus the time in a period of 43 s; (d) Comparison of reference and state attitude variables for the pitch angle versus the time in a period of 43 s; (e) Comparison of reference and state variables toward z-axis versus time in a period of 43 s; (f) Comparison of reference and state attitude variables for the yaw angle versus the time in a period of 43 s.
Figure 113D result of the higher-loop controller on a sine wave compares the drone state and reference values.
Figure 12Flightpath using Drone-Hopper Mission Planning application.