Table Of ContentEco-Efficient Aircraft by Operations
Teresa Margarida Vasconcelos Esteves Guégués
Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in
Aerospace Engineering
Supervisor: Prof. João Manuel Melo de Sousa
Examination Committee
Chairperson: Prof. Filipe Szolnoky Ramos Pinto Cunha
Supervisor: Prof. João Manuel Melo de Sousa
Member of the Committee: Prof. Pedro da Graça Tavares Serrão
September 2014
ii
Resumo
Ocrescimentoexponencialdosectordaaviaçãojuntamentecomoaumentodoaquecimentodasuper-
fície terrestre e da poluição da atmosfera, induzem a novos desenvolvimentos na área de Operações
da aviação. Estes desenvolvimentos estão associados quer a uma redução do combustível quer das
emissõesproduzidas, ao mesmotempoqueo factordesegurança éacrescido. Temcomoobjectivo a
presente tese analisar rotas de voo optimizadas relativas a dois novos conceitos de operações, CDO
eFRA.Paralelamente,temcomoobjectivotambémprovarareduçãodocombustívelusado,dasemis-
sões poluentes e do ruído percebido. Para a calcular a quantidade de emissões poluentes produzidas
é utilizado o método AMEIII. Para medir o ruído produzido no CDO é apresentado, testado e validado
um modelo. Os resultados obtidos mostram uma diminuição quer nas emissões poluentes quer no
ruído. É feita uma investigação sobre o impacto da variação que alguns parâmetros atmosféricos têm
naquantidadetotaldeemissõespoluentesproduzidas. Paraalémdisso,étambémanalisadooimpacto
ambientaleoscustosdirectosdecombustívelcomaimplementaçãodasnovasoperações. Estasoper-
açõesrepresentamumamelhorianautilizaçãodoespaçoaéreo,enquantoasegurançadasoperações
éaumentadasignificativamenteeasemissõessãoreduzidas.
Palavras-chave:
emissõespoluentes,ruído,operações,impactoambiental.
iii
iv
Abstract
TheincessantgrowthinAviationalongwiththeincreaseofthewarminginEarth’ssurfaceandtheatmo-
spheric pollution, leads to new developments in the field of operations practices. These developments
represent a reduction in the fuel consumption and in the aircraft emissions, while improving the safety
parameter. Thethesishasforobjectivetoanalysetheoptimizedflighttrajectoriesoftwonewoperations
concepts, CDO and FRA, in order to prove a reduction in the fuel consumption and aircraft pollutant
emissionsaswellastheperceivedaircraftnoise. Tocalculatethequantityofaircraftpollutantemissions
produced in such operations, AMEIII methodology is used. To measure the aircraft noise produced in
CDO procedure, a proposal method is presented, tested and validated. The results obtained show a
diminutionin thepollutantemissionsand thenoise. Aninvestigationin howthechangein atmospheric
parameters affects the total amount of the pollutant emissions is carried out. In addition to this, the
environmental impact and the cost savings with the implementation of these operations are analysed
in accordance to the annual flight movements. The new operations practices show an enhancement in
optimizedairspaceusage,whilesafetyissignificantlyenlargedandtheaviationemissionsarereduced.
Keywords:
pollutantemissions,noise,operations,environmentalimpact.
v
vi
Contents
Resumo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
ListofTables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
ListofFigures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii
ListofAbbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
ListofSymbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi
ListofSymbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 ObjectivesandContributionoftheThesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 StructureofthepresentWork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 TheoreticalBackground 4
2.1 AircraftEngineEmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1 FormationofAircraftEngineEmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2 ImpactofAircraftEngineEmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3 CertificationandRegulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3.1 LTOcycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 AircraftNoise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
vii
2.2.1 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2 NoiseMetrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.3 MeasurementoftheAircraftNoise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.3.1 Frequency-DependentNoiseScales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.4 CertificationandRegulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 StrategiestoreduceAviationEmissionsbyOperations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.1 EvolutionofNavigationSystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.2 ContinuousDescentOperation-CDO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.2.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.2.2 CDODesignOptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.2.3 DescentNavigationInstrumentRules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3.2.4 ImplementationandRestrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.2.5 FutureTrendsinOperations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.3 FreeRouteAirspace-FRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.3.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.3.2 ApplicabilityofFreeRouteAirspaceOperations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3.3.3 ImplementationandFutureaims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.3.4 AIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3 EmissionsEstimationMethods 34
3.1 TheCO,HC,NO CalculationMethod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
x
3.1.1 TheAdvancedEmissionModelIII-AEMIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.1.2 SimplificationsandInputdata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2 TheNoiseCalculationMethod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2.1 ProposedMethodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4 ConstructionoftheFlightProfiles 42
viii
4.1 AircraftClasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 DescentProfiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.3 En-routeProfiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5 ResultsandEvaluation 52
5.1 ResultsfromCO-HC-NO MethodfortheDescentProfiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
x
5.1.1 ResultswithISAatmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.1.2 AnalysiswithchangeinISA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.2 NoiseresultsforDescentProfiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3 ResultsforEn-RouteProfiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6 EnvironmentalImpactandCostAnalysis 69
6.1 CDOImpactInvestigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.2 FRAImpactInvestigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.3 Costanalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7 Conclusion 75
7.1 ContinousDescentOperations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.2 FreeRouteAirspace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.3 OutlookandFurtherinvestigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Bibliography 77
Appendix 79
A ListofConversionUnits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
B ISATemperatureandPressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
C STARdocumentsofthePortugueseCDOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
D PerformanceParametersofthesegmentsoftheDescentProfiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
ix
E NoiseatmosphericAbsorptionmodels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
F PercentDifferenceinEIforchangeinISAtemperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
G PercentdifferenceofNO EIforISAtemperaturedeviationsforotherrelativehumiditycases 95
x
H ANA2011annualreport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
x
Description:2.3 Strategies to reduce Aviation Emissions by Operations . Combustion process in aircraft engine (left) and typical proportions of aircraft emissions.
