ZANENGA, LEONELLO AND BOTTASSO: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ROTORCRAFT FIRE FIGHTING FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

Feasibility Study of Rotorcraft Fire Fighting for

High-Rise Buildings
Erminio Zanenga, Domenico Leonello and Carlo L. Bottasso

AbstractFire risk in high-rise buildings is of special concern

to the fire community, since it is crucial but still technically
extremely challenging to significantly improve the current fire
fighting capabilities when a calamity happens above the seven
storey limit. In fact, at the moment there is a lack of effective
means for fire fighting in this rare but potentially deadly and
costly accidents.
To address this problem, in this work we provide a preliminary
exploration of a new concept for fire suppression: the use of
rotorcraft vehicles for aerial fire fighting in high-rise buildings.
If available, such system could effectively support fire fighting
efforts conducted with conventional means; moreover, it could
provide for one of the very few alternatives to classic systems in
certain critical cases such as post-earthquake fires.
At first, we analyze the operative context with the help of a
few reference realistic scenarios which allow for the estimation of
some key physical parameters. Next, we evaluate two alternative
fire extinguishing technologies, and we identify in the water
impulse cannon the solution which seems to be the most effective
and compatible with the use on-board a rotorcraft for the scopes
considered in this work. The analysis leads us to the identification
of a target vehicle as a possible candidate platform for the
development of a fire fighting helicopter. Finally, we propose a
preliminary design of the fire fighting kit, and we evaluate the
handling qualities of the vehicle during operations with reference
to the ADS-33 normative.
Index TermsFire fighting; Aircraft design; Rotorcraft vehicles; Flight mechanics.

I. I NTRODUCTION AND M OTIVATION

IRE risk in High-Rise Buildings (HRBs)1 has always
been of special concern to the fire community, since fire
calamities for such structures can imply losses of human lives
and significant costs [Hall 2005], [NFPA 2002]. Typically,
safety from the hazards of fires is sought through Structural
Fire Protection (SFP), a three-pronged approach based on the
following sub-systems:
Active Fire Protection (AFP), i.e. the detection and suppression of fires, both by manual and automated means.
Passive Fire Protection (PFP), i.e. the use of all those
design practices which are intended to limit in space

Paper submitted to the Journal of Aerospace Engineering, under review.

Erminio Zanenga: M.Sc. student, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale,
Politecnico di Milano, Via La Masa 34, 20156 Milano, Italy. Presently: Ph.D.
candidate, Rolls-Royce UTC, Department of Propulsion and Power, School
of Engineering, Cranfield University, Beds MK43 0AL, UK.
Domenico Leonello: Ph.D. candidate, Dipartimento di Ingegneria
Aerospaziale, Politecnico di Milano, Via La Masa 34, 20156 Milano, Italy.
Carlo L. Bottasso: Associate Professor, Dipartimento di Ingegneria
Aerospaziale, Politecnico di Milano, Via La Masa 34, 20156 Milano, Italy.
1 Reference [NFPA 101 2006] defines a HRB as a building taller than 75
feet (23 meters), measured from the lowest level accessible by fire department
standard equipment (typically, seven storeys) to the highest occupiable floor.

and/or time the spread of fire, thus enabling fire fighting

and evacuation.
Fire Protection Education (FPE), i.e. all those practices aimed at ensuring that building owners, occupants
and emergency personnel have all information, including
emergency plans, for maximizing safety in the event of
fire.
When failure in one or more of these subsystems occurs
in non high-rise buildings, there is still a chance to prevent
disasters thanks to their redundancy. However, when such a
failure occurs affecting the highest storeys of tall buildings,
this redundancy decreases dramatically. A significant case
could be the failure of AFP systems such as sprinklers, or
the reduction of PFP characteristics [Hall 2005], for example
caused by structural damages to the edifice in the case of fires
following major earthquakes.
The improvement of safety in HRBs is being actively sought
by advancing the three components mentioned above, namely
AFP, PFP and FPE. However, it is clear that one of the major
hurdles in active fire fighting in the case of tall buildings
is the vary basic problem of reaching the highest floors. In
fact, ground equipment is inherently limited due to size and
readiness considerations. Even the intervention of firemen
from inside the building encounters major obstacles which
limits its effectiveness and safety, due to the necessity of
carrying heavy fire fighting equipment to the affected floors
and the simultaneous need to evacuate the building occupants.
An alternative way to gain access to the highest storeys is by
air. In fact, aerial fire fighting consists in using flying vehicles
to suppress fires by releasing extinguishing agents on the fire
zones. Aerial fire fighting has been used with success in certain
scenarios, mostly concerned with forestry fires. However, it
appears that the possible use of aerial fire fighting in HRB
fires has not yet been thoroughly investigated.
HRB fire fighting requires a complex aerial intervention,
capable of delivering an adequate quantity of suppression
agents in the fire affected areas of the building with sufficient
accuracy and for a sufficiently long interval of time; this goal
should be met while simultaneously satisfying a number of
constraints, including the overall safety of the procedures,
the ability to operate in urban environments, the need to
arrive with sufficient rapidity on target, and the limitation of
the complexity and costs of the systems. Among the flying
machines, rotorcraft vehicles seem to be the most appropriate
ones for this applications for their ability to hover and their
maneuverability.
In this work, we develop a feasibility study on the use
of rotorcraft vehicles for HRB fire fighting, a concept here

ZANENGA, LEONELLO AND BOTTASSO: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ROTORCRAFT FIRE FIGHTING FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

termed Rotorcraft fire fighting for High-rise buildings (RfH).

The starting point of the present analysis is the assessment
and classification of the RfH operative context. Next, we
verify the applicability and compatibility of some recent fire
extinguishing technologies with existing rotorcraft vehicles;
the idea of using already available flying platforms aims at
reducing costs and easing certification. Next, we identify in
the Agusta-Bell AB412 a possible candidate platform and,
for this vehicle, we define the engage procedures, sketch the
design of a kit containing the fire suppression equipment, and
analyze the handling qualities during fire fighting. Finally, the
paper terminates by stating some preliminary conclusions and
outlining possible future activities.
II. T HE R F H O PERATIVE C ONTEXT
In order to quantitatively evaluate the applicability of extinguishing technologies to RfH, it is necessary to define a
set of operative scenarios and of parameters describing the
high-rise fire context. In this work, we consider the following
parameters:
Flashover time: tf [min]. After a fire ignition, tf is the
time at which a flashover occurs, i.e. when one observes:
A sudden, rapid rise in ambient temperature to and
past 550C.
A change from the fire being a localized or two
dimensional phenomenon (such as a single burning
object or a fire moving up a wall) to a three dimensional one.
A marked propensity of the fire to spread from the
compartment of origin.
Clearly, the flashover time is a critical parameter affecting
the response time and readiness of fire fighting equipment. In fact, time is a crucial factor in arresting fire
growth and preventing major fires: an increase of the
average time for first attendance results in a disproportionate increase of danger and damage [Wilson 1962].
The attendance time is a combination of a turn-out
time and a travel time, the turn-out time being the time
between the receipt of a fire call and the departure of the
first RfH from the air-station. To account for this delay
effect, in this preliminary study we set the condition that
a provisional suppression system kit should be installed
within five minutes from the emergency call.
Fire descriptive parameters:
Fire energy release. For building fires, the energy release Q assumes values of the order of
102 104 kW [Karlsson and Quintiere 1999]. Furthermore, a heated building room acts as a cavity
radiator with openings (i.e. broken windows), which
can be approximated as a black body radiating to
the surrounding ambient with an emissivity  = 1,
giving a thermal radiation


4
IF = Te4 Tamb
,
(1)
where Te is the maximum temperature inside the
fire enclosure in degrees centigrade (which can be
determined from standards such as ISO834), and

= 5.67 108 J/(m2 K4 ) is the Stefan-Boltzmann

constant.
Fire zone geometric characteristics. The geometry
of a fire scenario is primarily described by the
enclosure surface, Ae [m2 ], and the ventilation rate,
vr [m3 /s]. The latter term strongly depends upon the
air-handling systems and/or the number and typology of openings. Other related parameters are the
enclosure height he [m] (assuming standard values
in most buildings) and the enclosure total volume
Ve [m3 ].

External safety distances. It is necessary to consider

both the distance from the burning building, SD, and
the one from the existing surrounding edifices in the
neighborhood of the burning one, ED. Both SD and ED
can be defined by taking into account the facade design
and its external visible dangers, external spread of smoke
and flames, fire radiation and urban habitat of the fire
scenario, i.e. the possible presence of other buildings or
obstacles in the close proximity of the harmed one.

Fig. 1: Safety distances during fire fighting

More precisely, and with reference to Fig. 1, the external
safety distance from the burning building, SD, can be
computed as


SD = max (SDf + SDs + RF ), SDr ,
(2)
where SDf [m] is the extension of external visible
dangers from the facade (e.g. balconies), SDs [m] is the
external spread of smoke and flames, and SDr [m] the
fire radiation distance. The latter term can be estimated
by assuming (with overestimated approximation) that the
radiation IE emitted outside a compartment opening is
approximatively equal to the radiant energy flux IF of
Eq. (1), i.e.:
IE IF .
(3)
Assuming again as a worst case that the rotorcraft is
in thermal equilibrium with the external ambient and
it is behaving as a black-body (i.e. a perfect radiation
absorber), the intensity of received radiation IR on the

ZANENGA, LEONELLO AND BOTTASSO: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ROTORCRAFT FIRE FIGHTING FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

TABLE I: Parameters of reference scenarios

rotorcraft can be approximated as

IR = e,r IE ,

(4)

where e,r = e,r (SDr ), 0 e,r 1, is the view

factor, which is a function of the distance SDr between
emitter and receiver and their geometrical characteristics.
Given the view factor and the maximum admissible intensity of received radiation IR , one can readily compute
the distance SDr .
In view of the above parameters, reference operative scenarios can be defined by considering real accidents involving HRBs. We consider apartment and office buildings because they are the most frequently affected by fire accidents [Hall 2005], [NFPA 2002]. More specifically, in the
present work we consider the following:
The Hawthorne House (Chicago, USA), a 39 storey
building with basement; on January 24, 1969, a fire
originated in the living room of an apartment located at
the 36th floor, probably by a cigarette that had been left
in a couch or chair, killing four residents.
The Motomachi apartment complex (Hiroshima, Japan), a
20 storey building; in the afternoon of October 28, 1996,
a fire which started in an apartment unit on the 9th floor
developed to the 20th floor through the balconies in 30
minutes, resulting in the total burning of 16 apartment
units and partial fire damage to 11 apartment units.
The Pirelli skyscraper (Milan, Italy), which, with its
127 meters of height, is the most famous Italian highrise office building; on April 18, 2002, a private aircraft
crashed into the 26th floor, causing three deaths. In this
case the fatalities were not due to the post-crash fire, but
rather to the energy of impact.
The choice of these accidents was based on their differences
in danger or damage situations, fire ignition type, year of
fire event and geographic location. Dealing with real fire
accidents allows one to determine more realistic values of
the fire descriptive parameters, and to consider the potential
effectiveness of a RfH system.
These
three
different
cases
were
analyzed
in [Zanenga 2007], and their main descriptive parameters are
reported in Table I. Notice that the SDr term is not reported
in the table because RfH characteristics are not yet defined
at this point in the analysis. Regarding the Hawthorne House
parameters, the value of vr is estimated considering external
strong winds to account for uncertainties. Values of SDf , IF
and SDs were doubled because of the geometry of the fire
room, and they are estimated for both the East and North
windows. For the Motomachi building, vr is not available
because the fire developed mostly on the balcony. In the
Pirelli scenario, the term vr is not significant because the fire
developed in a widely damaged area comparable to an open
space, caused by the impact of the aircraft.
III. E VALUATION OF F IRE E XTINGUISHING
T ECHNOLOGIES FOR R F H I NSTALLATIONS
With the help of the reference data of Table I, it is possible
to evaluate different alternative suppression technologies, considering the storage on-board the rotorcraft of the suppression

Fire descriptive parameters

External safety distances

Hawthorne House
Response time t > tf = 0 min
Facade design
Energy release
1500 Q 3500 kW
SDf = 1 or 2 m
IF = 25 or 50 kW/m2
External spread
SDs = 0 or 1 m
Geometry of enclosure
Ae = 38 m2
Urban habitat
EDh = 0
vr > 1.5 m3 /s
Motomachi
Response time t tf = 20 min
Energy release
Facade design
SDf = 2 m
Q = 2200 kW
IF = 25 kW/m2
External spread
Geometry of enclosure
SDs = 2 m
Urban habitat
Ae = 15 m2
EDh = 1 m
vr = n.a.
Response time t > tf = 20 min
Energy release
Facade design
Q = 3300 kW
SDf = 2 m
IF = 50 kW/m2
External spread
Geometry of enclosure
SDs = 3 m
Ae = 42 m2
Urban habitat
vr = n.a.
EDh = 2 m
Pirelli
Response time t tf min
Energy release
Facade design
SDf = 1 m
1700 Q 2300 kW
15 IF 30 kW/m2
External spread
Geometry of enclosure
SDs = 1 m
Ae = 42 m2
Urban habitat
vr = n.a.
EDh = 0

agents and their discharge in the fire room. In this work,

we evaluated the water impulse and the chemical release
technologies.
The water impulse technology consists of a water cannon
which is able to discharge a considerable amount of suppressing agent in a few milliseconds at a very high speed.
Air resistance acting on the water shots breaks the water
droplets down and reduces the normal mean droplet size: this
way, one obtains a very large cooling surface for a given
amount of water, which is capable of reducing the temperature
in confined rooms within seconds. The introduction in fire
fighting of impulse technology has increased the water usage
efficiency. In fact, the smaller the size of the water droplets,
the greater their absorption capacity is; similarly, the higher
the droplet speed, the greater the amount of water that is able
to reach the base of the fire. This highly efficient use of water
creates one of the greatest advantages of impulse technology:
the system does not need a constant water supply. Only a
relatively small amount of water has to be moved to the site
of the fire for an effective initial attack. This clearly represents

ZANENGA, LEONELLO AND BOTTASSO: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ROTORCRAFT FIRE FIGHTING FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

an important aspect for RfH applications, because it eases the

problems of storage and discharge of water by reducing the
necessary payload.
The chemical release technology is based on self-generated
aerosols which propel through a solid chemical element; the
resulting reaction absorbs heat, yielding a low temperature
discharge and uniform distribution of the aerosol within the
target area. The suppressing gas is composed by particles of
small size, which ensure a three-dimensional distribution and
long suspension time. The chemical agent is contained within
special self-propulsive grenades fired by apposite cannons.
On the basis of the extinguishing characteristics of these
two technologies, the required amounts of suppressing agent
and their extinguishing power were evaluated for the given
reference operative scenarios [Zanenga 2007]. This analysis
shows that, at present, the impulse technology is probably the
most interesting one for RfH applications.
On the other hand, the chemical release technology seems
to present several possible limitations: first of all, the firing
of grenades calls for a complete evacuation of the structure
prior to the discharge of the aerosol generators; furthermore,
in the latter case the quantity of aerosol needed in a fire room
does not depend only on the energy of the fire source but
also, due to aerodynamic dispersion effects, on the ventilation
rate, which grows as the percentage of openings with respect
to the total area of enclosure increases. In fact, the area of
unclosable openings should not exceed 1% of the total area of
the protected enclosure [Pyrogen 2000], a requirement which
is often not respected during high-rise building fires. For the
representative cases considered in this work, the high values of
ventilation rate raise issues on the practical applicability of this
technology. For example, in the Pirelli scenario the unclosed
openings due to the impact of the aircraft were so big that this
suppressing method could not have been employed. The same
considerations hold true for the Motomachi scenario, where the
fire developed primarily outside of the building, spreading on
the facade through the balconies. The only scenario of interest
could be the Hawthorne House fire. Although the 1% enclosure
requirement is not respected even in this case, fire suppression
with a chemical release technology could possibly have been
achieved if a rapid and continuous discharge of agent could
have been assured, although the high values of vr would have
decreased the efficacy of the approach.
For the reasons noted above, we restrict our attention to the
sole case of the water impulse fire fighting technology in the
rest of this work.
IV. T HE R F H C LASSIFICATION
Both piloted and unmanned rotorcraft vehicles can in principle be considered as possible candidates for performing
high-rise fire fighting missions. However, the current state of
development of unmanned enabling technologies would seem
to be, although extremely promising for the future, still not
yet mature enough to be proposed for the rapid development
and deployment on the field of practical RfH solutions. On the
other hand, piloted rotorcraft vehicles are currently being used
for several complex military and civil applications, including,

among many others, surveillance, search and rescue, transportation and forestry fire fighting. Whilst in recent years some
initial attempts have been made to convert civil and forestry
fire fighting helicopters into machines for high-rise building
fires [Brooks et al. 2002], [IFEX 2007], at the moment a
coherent classification of the different ways a rotorcraft could
be employed for RfH missions is still lacking. For this reason,
in this section we propose one such classification, along with
an analysis of the compatibility of existing rotorcraft vehicles
with the RfH concept. Although the proposed classification
is also applicable to unmanned vehicles, for the reasons noted
above we will restrict the current discussion to the sole human
piloted case.
A generic suppression system mounted on-board an RfH
machine may be categorized in terms of :

Fire engage typology: aspects of the suppression system

related to the way the rotorcraft engages the high-rise
building fire.
On-board installation of the system: how the fire suppression system is housed on the rotorcraft and interfaced
with it.
Tracking and shooting usage: how the suppression system
is used in order to fight the fire.

Concerning the first point, there are two practical ways a

rotorcraft can engage a high-rise building fire: using a frontal
engage, labeled in the following F, or using a lateral engage,
labeled L. A sketch of frontal and lateral engage strategies
is given in Fig. 1. The frontal attack allows for the pilot to
relatively easily aim and track the extinguishing agent shots
towards the fire zone. This is not the case for a lateral attack,
since the pilot would have a typically highly degraded vision
of the fire zone. On the other hand, the lateral attack can
facilitate an escape maneuver, while the frontal engage is
critical since the fire building obstructs the escape path. The
frontal attack is typical of forestry fire fighting interventions,
together with the vertical engage, where extinguishing agents
are released just above the fire zone with bucket systems or
from tanks installed under the fuselage. This tactic is nor
practical nor effective for high-rise building; furthermore, the
discharge of large quantities of agents over a building harmed
by fire can cause the collapse of the damaged structure without
extinguishing the flames.
The second point above classifies the vehicle depending
on the way the suppression system is installed on-board the
rotorcraft; here we will use the label E for external boarding,
P for partially external and internal boarding, and I for
internal boarding. Further considerations could be made on
the opportunity of a permanent or provisional installation. A
permanent system could mean that a machine is exclusively
dedicated to RfH missions. While this might be conceivable
for small low cost vehicles, in general it would seem more
prudent to support multi-role services, and hence to consider
provisional or partially provisional suppression systems, i.e.
systems that could be installed on-board in case of an HRB
fire emergency. Clearly, this choice poses a further design
constraint: the provisional system should be installed quickly
enough to ensure a rapid intervention on the fire scene. Indica-

ZANENGA, LEONELLO AND BOTTASSO: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ROTORCRAFT FIRE FIGHTING FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

tively, the installation time should not exceed five minutes.

The third point focuses on the way the tracking and/or
shooting device of the suppression system is managed; here
we use the label M for manual tracking and shooting, and A
for automatic tracking and shooting. In the former case, there
is a separation of duties for crew members: the pilot (and
possibly the copilot) concentrate their attention and efforts
exclusively on the governing and monitoring of the vehicle,
while at least one additional crew member is responsible
for the tracking and shooting procedures. This simplifies the
system, but poses requirements on the size and payload of
the hosting vehicle. In the latter case, the flying crew also
manages the fire fighting equipment, with the help of suitable
artificial intelligence systems to lower the associated increased
work-load.

Fig. 2: RfH suppression system categories and their interconnections

Having defined the different categories, it is now possible
to group them conveniently into various classes which portray
the main characteristics of RfH flying machines, as shown
schematically in Fig. 2. The proposed analysis leads to the
following six RfH classes:
Class 1: FEA (Frontal attack, External system, Automatic
track and shoot);
Class 2: LEA (Lateral attack, External system, Automatic
track and shoot);
Class 3: LPA (Lateral attack, Partially external system,
Automatic track and shoot);
Class 4: LPM (Lateral attack, Partially external system,
Manual track and shoot);
Class 5: LIA (Lateral attack, Internal system, Automatic
track and shoot);
Class 6: LIM (Lateral attack, Internal system, Manual
track and shoot).
In the following, the RfH version of an existing helicopter
XXX will be named XXX-RfH.n, where n is one of the
classes named above. Among these classes, a few have been
already considered. For example, IFEX has designed and
implemented a FEA system based on the AS350B, i.e. an
AS350B-RfH.1 helicopter according to the naming convention
used in this work; similar efforts by the same company have
been directed towards the realization of a Kaman K1200RfH.1 and a Bell B212-RfH.1 [IFEX 2007]. Furthermore,
Pyrogen-METALSTORM has studied a class 2 (LEA) helicopter [Brooks et al. 2002].

Existing rotorcraft vehicles can be grouped into different

categories depending on their usage, their dimensions, their
performance, their weight and other parameters. The JAR normative classifies rotorcraft vehicles on the basis of their maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) and number of passenger seats,
by dividing them into small rotorcraft (MTOW<3175 kg and
nine or less seats) and large rotorcraft (MTOW>3175 kg and
10 or more seats). The former vehicles fall under JAR 27 regulations, while the latter under JAR 29. As regards large rotorcrafts, within JAR 29 there is a further specification which considers vehicles heavier than 9072 kg. Moreover, according to
international regulations, all rotorcraft vehicles belong to one
of two different categories [Advisory Circular 29-2C 1999]:
Category A and Category B. With respect to transport category rotorcraft, a Category A vehicle indicates a multiengine rotorcraft designed with engine and system isolation
features, utilizing scheduled takeoff and landing operations
under a critical engine failure concept, which assure adequate
designated surface area and adequate performance capability
for continued safe flight in the event of an engine failure.
A Category B vehicle, on the other hand, indicates a singleengine or multi-engine rotorcraft which does not fully meet
all Category A standards. Therefore, Category B rotorcraft
vehicles have no guaranteed flying ability in the event of an
engine failure and unscheduled landing is assumed.
The above mentioned aspects of a rotorcraft vehicle should
be duly considered when analyzing their compatibility with
RfH applications. First of all, it seems reasonable to consider
only rotorcraft vehicles not heavier than 9072 kg, because of
dimensions and manoeuvrability concerns in urban districts
with a high density of tall buildings. Consequently, in the
following the term large rotorcraft will be used to indicate
a vehicle with an MTOW larger than 3175 kg and smaller
than 9072 kg. Furthermore, since RfH helicopters will operate
over urban areas, only Category A vehicles will be considered,
since they ensure higher safety levels in case of failures during
operations.
It appears for practical reasons that it would be difficult to
employ small rotorcrafts for developing LPA, LPM and LIM
class vehicles. Furthermore, most international authorities and
fire or forestry departments are currently using helicopters
for fire fighting activities in the large rotorcraft family. Remembering the constraint on agility and good manoeuvrability,
the handling qualities of an RfH helicopter have to be duly
considered, and will be addressed here according to the ADS33C normative [ADS 33C 1989].
In summary, the following points represent guidelines for
the remainder of this work on the development of the RfH
concept:
Rotorcraft type: helicopter;
Rotorcraft weight: 3175 kg<MTOW<9072 kg;
International certifications: FAR 29, JAR 29;
Category in urban activities: Category A;
Normative for handling qualities: ADS-33C;
Lowest admissible handling level: Level 2 and temporary Level 3.
Among several potential candidate helicopters for RfH

ZANENGA, LEONELLO AND BOTTASSO: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ROTORCRAFT FIRE FIGHTING FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

applications [Zanenga 2007], here we will consider for this

conceptual study the Bell 412 (or the Italian licensed AgustaBell AB412), or its previous models, such as the Bell 212
and all Bell Huey derivatives. Although this vehicle is not of
recent design, it appears to have desirable features: it is not
too large, which is important for urban applications, and it is
very sturdy and reliable, as witnessed by the fact that it is
one of the most widely used by public or private fire services
and by a large number of international authorities involved in
civil or military protection. For instance, the Italian national
fire service is employing the AB412 as a multi-role helicopter
in many different intervention scenarios, such as search and
rescue and fire fighting.
Having identified a candidate helicopter for this study, it is
now necessary to define its class. The frontal attack strategy
(RfH.1) should be excluded in favor of the lateral one (RfH.2
6) for the safety reasons noted previously in case of engine
failure, but also for evident considerations on external safety
distances, as depicted in Fig. 1.
Considering the results of the analysis of the previous
section, which has identified in the impulse extinguishing
technology the candidate fire suppression approach for this
study, one is lead to the exclusion of classes RfH.5-6, since
the internal installation option does not seem to be feasible
given the need to carry the necessary amount of water.
Furthermore, the use of automated track and shooting
systems, although certainly possible adopting military technologies, is definitively more complex and expensive than the
adoption of a manual approach. Notwithstanding its added
weight for the need to carry at least one additional crew
member, the manual approach seems to be feasible in the
present case, given the size and payload of the target vehicle.
Based on these considerations, we identify in the RfH.4
the most appropriate class for the present effort, and in the
following we will investigate the practical feasibility of an
AB412-RfH.4 version.
V. T HE AB412-R F H.4 H ELICOPTER
A. Definition of Engage Procedures
The typical AB412 crew for fire fighting missions is composed by three members: pilot, copilot and on-board technician. All crew members can communicate by the use of an
on-board communication system. Pilot and copilot operate in
the cockpit, while the technician operates in the main cabin.
Pilot and technician both operate on the right hand side of the
helicopter, which therefore will be the fire fighting side of the
vehicle. In the lateral approach, the copilot will have among its
tasks the monitoring of the urban habitat safety distances and
the survey of the vehicle parameters; the pilot will maneuver
the RfH and inspect the fire scenario with the help of the onboard technician, who will be in charge of fighting the fire
with the water cannon, and will give vocal instructions to the
pilot for the maintenance of the correct safety distances and
so as to achieve the best aim at the fire zone.
Having selected vehicle and configuration, it is now possible
to complete the evaluation of the safety distances, and in
particular of the RF and SDr terms of Eq. (2). Considering

the AB412, we have RF ' 6 m. For the SDr term, the

emitting surface of the building can be approximated as a
plane, while the receiving surface of the helicopter fuselage
can be approximated as a cylinder, for which view factors
e,r are readily available [Wielbelt and Ruo 1963]. In the
evaluation of these parameters, we have considered a cylinder
diameter of 2 m and a length of 7 m, which roughly correspond
to the AB412 sizes. The facade height l depends on the
scenario:
Hawthorne House: l ' 2 m.
Motomachi Apartments: l ' 3 m in the pre-flashover
period, up to l ' 18 m in the post-flashover period.
Pirelli Skyscraper: l ' 5 m.
Combining Eqs. (3) and (4), we get
e,r =

IR
,
IF

(5)

where IF was estimated for each reference scenario resulting

in 25 kW/m2 for the Hawthorne, 50 kW/m2 for the Motomachi
(considering only the post-flashover period), and 20 kW/m2 for
the Pirelli buildings. For this last case, the emitted radiation is
quite uncertain because of the great heat flux dispersion in the
surrounding ambient due to the heavy structural damage, so
the reported figure should be considered as a rough estimate.
Since the approach of the RfH helicopter has to be done
laterally with the crew directly exposed to the radiation, IR
is set to the value of 2 kW/m2 , corresponding to a strong
sunlight; consider that values larger than 5 kW/m2 have
been shown [Jagger and OSullivan 2004] to be dangerous
and possibly fatal. Knowing the value of e,r , one can estimate
the distance SDr which guarantees the exposure of the crew
to a safe level of radiation, which was found to be of 7 m
for the Hawthorne, 9 m for the Motomachi, and 5 m for the
Pirelli buildings2 .
Of course these values represent only rough approximations,
although they are useful to understand the order of magnitude
of these parameters. Considering all scenarios, the calculated
SD values given in Table II indicate that the total external
safety distances are compatible with the shot range of the
impulse technology; for example, the IFEX Dual Intruder
cannon has its useful maximum shot range between 40 m and
60 m [IFEX 2007], well above the necessary safety distances
previously estimated.
B. Configuration of the LPM System
The basic idea pursued in this work is to provide the AB412
helicopter with a water impulse suppression system composed
of two distinct main units, schematically depicted in Fig. 3:
Base-unit: engine with tank, compressor or compressed
air cylinders, tanks of water, auxiliary tanks for additives,
hydraulic pumps, etc.
Shot-unit: impulse cannon, supporting structure connecting the cannon with the floor of the helicopter, hosted
inside the main cabin.
2 Another aspect that should be considered is the time of exposition to the
heat flux. This duration might be decided by the on-board technician, being
the crew member which suffers from the most radiation, who would then
request to the pilot the temporary interruption of the fire engagement.

ZANENGA, LEONELLO AND BOTTASSO: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ROTORCRAFT FIRE FIGHTING FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

TABLE II: Safety distances for the reference scenarios

Scenario
Hawthorne (east)
Hawthorne (north)
Motomachi (pre-flash)
Motomachi (post-flash)
Pirelli

Safety distances (values in [m])

SDf SDs RF SDr SD
1
2
2
2
1

0
1
2
3
1

6
6
6
6
6

7
7
9
9
5

7
9
10
11
8

available water supply (pond, lake, sea). The air compressor

and the large high pressure air buffer system ensures a suitable
air supply to the water tanks and to the impulse cannons.
For additional versatility, the base-unit is provided with two
separate foam/additive injector reservoirs. Class A foams and
retardants could be typical additives for RfH applications. The
water supply is ensured by two identical water tanks integrated
into the base-unit. The system is pressurized by air cylinders
mounted on the base-unit frame. The air cylinders can be
charged while on the ground, or can be recharged while in
flight with apposite compressors installed in the back of the
base-unit frame. The complete system, similar to the existing
IFEX skid [IFEX 2007], should weight approximately 1300 kg
when filled with water. It can be mounted on the external
cargo hook, with supports on the airframe under the fuselage
of the rotorcraft. These mounting points are pre-loaded for
quick jettisoning by releasing the external cargo hook, while
a suitable connection system allows for the instantaneous
detachment of the cables connecting the base to the shot-unit.
C. Preliminary Design of the LPM Shot-Unit

Fig. 3: Shot-unit and base-unit ready for installation on-board

the vehicle

The base-unit is placed in a ventral position, centrally under

the fuselage, coupled to the existing external linkages of the
helicopter; the installation should consider the compatibility
with antennas, cargo hook and other under-fuselage items.
The shot-unit includes an impulse cannon, possibly characterized by a dual shooting barrel so as to reduce the elapsed
time between each water shot (while a barrel is discharging,
the other is recharging). This system has to be mounted so that
the on-board technician can manoeuvre it in a way similar to
what a gunner does when firing a machine-gun. The connection between the two main units is obtained with pressurized
tubes for water and compressed air, and possibly electrical
cables for the powering and control of the system; such elements can exit the main cabin directly through the open doors
of the helicopter, or can pass through a service trap-door on the
cabin floor. Even if the trap-door is not available as a standard
option on the civil version of the AB412, the vehicle is
predisposed for such a modification [Agusta-Westland 2007].
Although the trap-door solution is superior in terms of the
vehicle flight performance because of the lower drag it implies,
it might not be convenient for practical reasons since it would
require a longer installation time of the LPM system. With the
idea of developing a relatively simple, low cost, and rapidly
deployable system, we prefer here to consider the case where
tubes and cables pass through the (partially left) open door of
the helicopter.
The base-unit is provided with a snorkel system with dual
pump configuration for quick refilling when airborne from any

Fig. 4: Shot-unit and base-unit moved near the helicopter with

the aid of trolleys
To facilitate the rapid installation of the cannon (which may
weight about 160 kg, considering for example the IFEX Dual
Intruder cannon) the mounting system shown in Fig. 4 is used:
it consists of a special trolley base, on which the cannon is
hosted during ground operations, and a guide and locking
system which is permanently fixed on-board the vehicle. The
cannon is moved into the main cabin by sliding its base onto
the on-board rails; once in position, the cannon unit is locked
in place by a safety locking bar (see Fig. 5).
Once on-board, the manual extraction or retraction of the
cannon during flight is obtained by sliding it along the rails
using a ball-bearing screw-gear (Fig. 6), which reduces friction
and hence the necessary forces on the crank handle (Fig. 7).
To facilitate the manual spin of the crank, this is designed with
two arms of different lengths. The cardan joint is necessary

ZANENGA, LEONELLO AND BOTTASSO: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ROTORCRAFT FIRE FIGHTING FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

cannon are transmitted from the shot-unit to the structure of the

helicopter through apposite floor fittings. Although the number
and position of the floor fittings vary depending on the AB412
version, we were able to identify a suitable set of fittings
present in all versions of the AB412 [Agusta-Westland 2007],
so that a single rail and locking kit could be developed.

Fig. 5: The shot-unit being pushed on-board while the baseunit is secured under the fuselage

to pull up the crank, away from the fuselage floor of the

helicopter.

D. Recoil Calculation
In this section we first evaluate the recoil forces, and then
estimate their effects on the helicopter dynamic response, in
order to eventually determine the suitability of the handling
qualities of the vehicle during fire fighting operations.
A water impulse cannon basically consists of a power
chamber and a water barrel separated by a high performance
quick opening valve. The quick opening valve is a differential pressure element provided with an effective pneumatic
damping mechanism, which increases the performance of the
device. The damping mechanism is important to the function
and overall performance of the system, and allows for the
valve to stay fully open without bouncing. The power chamber
is pressurized with compressed air (up to 25 bar) and the
opening and closing time of the valve is quite short, of the
order of 20 milliseconds for the IFEX Dual Intruder. Within
this short period of time, the compressed air is discharged into
the water barrel and the water is forced out at high speed. The
outlet muzzle of the cannon is provided with a split rubber
diaphragm, and it is designed to achieve a water jet effect for
increased velocity and longer shots.
On the basis of this physical configuration of the system,
the recoil forces can be estimated as follows. The total impulse
Itot [Ns] produced by the shot is
Itot = Iair + Iwater ' Iwater ,

(6)

where the impulse due to air can be neglected and the impulse
due to water is
Iwater = mwater vwater .
(7)
Fig. 6: Cannon slide and base, with endless screw

The initial water speed was assumed to be vwater = 120 m/s,

while the water mass is given as
mwater = water Vwbc ,

(8)

water being the water density, and Vwbc = 12 l the single water
barrel capacity of the cannon. Finally, the mean recoil force
is computed as
Itot
,
(9)
Fm =
Timp

Fig. 7: Crank handle with cardan joint

A preliminary design of the complete rail and locking
system on-board the vehicle leads to an estimate of its weight
of about 80 kg [Zanenga 2007].
During shooting, the recoil forces and moments of the

where the impulse duration is Timp = 0.02 s.

Given azimuth and elevation of the cannon, one can readily
compute the recoil force components in the vehicle bodyattached reference frame. The body-attached components of
the cannon position vector with respect to the center of gravity
of the vehicle were estimated as dc = (0.85, 0.97, 0.25) m,
from which one readily obtains also the components of the
recoil moments transferred to the vehicle.
E. Handling Qualities Assessment During Fire Fighting
Controllability and handling qualities of the vehicle during fire fighting can be assessed using ADS-33 regula-

ZANENGA, LEONELLO AND BOTTASSO: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ROTORCRAFT FIRE FIGHTING FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

tions [ADS 33C 1989]. The analysis is conducted by first

defining all relevant mission task elements (MTEs); for the
present case, the only non-standard MTE corresponds to the
shooting phase, where the vehicle, initially in hover, responds
under the effects of the recoil forces. The part of the ADS-33
regarding transients following failures is the criterion which
best conforms to the RfH.4 case: in fact, the ADS-33 failure
concept is intended in a general sense, and it does not
specifically refer to the failure of a particular system such
as the engine or others, so that it can be readily applied also
in the present case.
The analysis was conducted using numerical simulations.
The simulation environment models the vehicle, the recoil
forces responsible for its perturbation, and the pilot. The rotorcraft flight mechanics model is based on three-dimensional
rigid body dynamics, where rotor forces and moments are
computed by combining actuator disk and blade element
theory, considering a uniform inflow [Prouty 1990]. The rotor
attitude is evaluated by means of quasi-steady flapping dynamics with a linear aerodynamic damping correction. Look-up
tables are used for the quasi-steady aerodynamic coefficients
of the vehicle lifting surfaces, and simple corrections for
compressibility effects and for the downwash angle at the tail
due to the main rotor are included in the model. Recoil forces
and moments are computed as described above.
The pilot is modeled by using a Kalman-based state observer for emulating the perceptory loop, delays for modeling the effects of the neuro-muscular system, and a Linear
Quadratic Regulator (LQR) to render the piloting skills.
Tests were executed for nine combinations of azimuth and
elevation of the cannon, as reported in Table III.
TABLE III: Shooting azimuth and elevation values

Fig. 8: Attitude and acceleration time histories for Case VIII

shooting sequence

providing simple visual or auditory cues to the pilot at each

shooting instant. The results obtained in this way show that
synchronized interaction between gunner shooting at fire and
pilot acting on the controls guarantees a Level 2 behavior of
the AB412-RfH.4 helicopter. For example, we report here the
results computed for case VIII in Fig. 9, which show that
all parameters never exceed their respective Level 2 limits.
Figure 10 gives the trajectory of the vehicle; notice that the
three axes in the figure are not equally scaled. As expected,
the recoil force pushes the helicopter away from the burning
edifice, although the displacement is of the order of three
meters and the helicopter remains in a suitable position for
the next shot.

Elevation
Azimuth

15 deg

0 deg

+15 deg

30 deg
0 deg
+30 deg

Case I
Case IV
Case VII

Case II
Case V
Case VIII

Case III
Case VI
Case IX

At first, the simulation was conducted by assuming a delay

of three seconds between the firing of the shot and the first
reaction of the pilot, i.e. the activation of the LQR controller.
The simulation results show that changes in cannon elevation
do not influence the handling qualities in a noticeable manner,
while changes in its azimuthal position cause the downgrading
of the helicopter handling qualities from Level 2 to Level
3. The vehicle response time histories in terms of attitude
and accelerations are reported in Fig. 8 for case VIII, which
resulted in the worst performance. Level 1-2 characteristics
are obtained for all parameters except for yaw, which for the
most critical cases reaches about 24 deg, implying a Level 3
behavior.
Next, the same simulations were conducted by assuming
a delay of one second between the firing of the water shot
and the pilot reaction. This could be obtained in practice by

Fig. 9: Attitude and acceleration time histories for Case VIII

shooting sequence with pilot-technician cooperation

VI. C ONCLUDING R EMARKS

In this work we have discussed the feasibility of using
rotorcraft vehicles for fire extinction in high-rise buildings. To

ZANENGA, LEONELLO AND BOTTASSO: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ROTORCRAFT FIRE FIGHTING FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

10

lowship of Flying Rotarians, and the IARD Foundation for

supporting his work through the Malinverno fellowship.
R EFERENCES

Fig. 10: Vehicle trajectory for Case II shooting sequence

(notice different scaling on the three axes)

address this problem, we have first given a general classification of this type of rotorcraft vehicles, which in our opinion
is a useful tool in itself for understanding the various possible
strategies of intervention in HRB fire fighting. Next, we have
selected the RfH.4 LPM category as the most promising one
for the practical development of a RfH vehicle, with relatively
low costs and minimum required modifications on an existing
vehicle. The target RfH configuration performs lateral attacks
for enhanced safety with respect to other proposed solutions,
uses a partially external system so as to host the necessary fire
fighting equipment without the need for performing structural
modification on the vehicle, and uses a manual track and
shoot approach for simplicity and cost reduction capitalizing
on the ability to host an extra crew member on-board. We have
identified in the AB412 a possible candidate helicopter which,
although not incorporating the latest design solutions, seems
to have the potential to allow for a successful implementation
of this concept.
Using available data on the performance of impulse extinguishing technology, the engage procedures for the proposed system were analyzed in three reference fire scenarios,
enabling a preliminary design and sizing of the suppression
system. This aspect of the study did not consider the effects
of atmospheric wind on the efficiency of the fire suppressing
system, nor the possible deviation of the water shot due to
the downwash of the main rotor; both aspects should be the
object of further future investigations, although a preliminary
estimate of the latter effect using simple models seems to
indicate that it is negligible. Finally, a numerical simulation
of the rotorcraft dynamics, including pilot-in-the-loop effects,
was conducted so as to evaluate the handling qualities of
the vehicle during fire fighting. Using ADS-33 criteria, the
AB412-RfH.4 handling qualities were estimated as Level 2
when a sufficiently rapid response of the pilot can be ensured,
for example by means of visual and/or auditory cues.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Erminio Zanenga gratefully acknowledges the Rotary Club
Milano Nord, the Italian section of the International Fel-

[NFPA 101 2006] Anonymous (2006). NFPA 101 life safety code, National
Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, USA.
[NFPA 2002] Anonymous (2002). Special data information packages on
high-rise fires, National Fire Protection Association, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
[Pyrogen 2000] Anonymous (2000). Industrial fixed aerosol fire suppression
system Design, operation and maintenance manual, Pyrogen (Australia) Pty. Ltd., July 2000.
[Advisory Circular 29-2C 1999] Anonymous (1999). Advisory circular 292C, certification of transport category rotorcraft, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation.
[ADS 33C 1989] Anonymous (1989). Aeronautical design standard (ADS)
33C Handling qualities for military helicopters, US Army AVSCOM.
[Agusta-Westland 2007] Agusta-Westland, private communication, January
2007.
[Brooks et al. 2002] Brooks, J., Berezovsky, J., and ODwyer, M. (2002).
Aerosol fire suppression for high-rise structural applications via aircraft
distribution using MetalStorm technologies. Proceedings of HOTWC2002, 12th Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque,
NM.
[Cooper and Harper 1969] Cooper, G.E., and Harper, R.P. (1969). The use
of pilot ratings in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities. NASA
TM D-5133.
[Hall 2005] Hall, J.R. (2005). High-rise building fires, National Fire Protection Association.
[IFEX 2007] IFEX Gmbh, Hansestrasse 18, D-27419, Sittensen, Germany,
http://www.ifex3000.de.
[Jagger and OSullivan 2004] Jagger, S., and OSullivan, S. (2004). Human
vulnerability to thermal radiation offshore. Health and Safety Laboratory, Harpur Hill, Buxton, Derbyshire.
[Karlsson and Quintiere 1999] Karlsson, B., and Quintiere, J.G. (1999). Enclosure fire dynamics, CRC Press Inc.
[Prouty 1990] Prouty, R.W. (1990). Helicopter performance, stability, and
control, R.E. Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar.
[Wielbelt and Ruo 1963] Wiebelt, J.A., and Ruo, S.Y. (1963). Radiantinterchange configuration factors for finite right circular cylinder to
rectangular plane. International Journal of Heat Mass Transfer, 6(2),
143146.
[Wilson 1962] Wilson, R. (1962). T-I-M-E!: the yardstick of fire control.
NFPA Firemen.
[Zanenga 2007] Zanenga, E.S. (2007). Study of feasibility on the use of
rotorcraft vehicles for fire extinction in high-rise buildings, M.Sc. Thesis,
Politecnico di Milano.