A Methodology for Environmental and Energy Assessment of Operational Improvements Presented at: Eleventh USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2015 ) 23-26 June 2015, Lisbon, Portugal Presented by: Dr. Akshay Belle Co-authors: Dominic McConnachie, Dr. Philippe Bonnefoy Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, VA, USA. Disclaimer: This work was sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Environment and Energy. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FAA.
Agenda + Introduction + of + Results + Conclusions + Next Steps
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Introduction Carbon Neutral Growth Aspirational climate goal in US - Carbon neutral growth, starting in 2020, relative to the 2005 emissions level. Given the current growth forecast, emissions reducing measures will be required to meet the carbon neutral growth target CO2 emissions from Jet fuel burn (Source: TAF forecast) Forecast Carbon Neutral Growth Target Year
Introduction Solution set for achieving the desired level of improvement Climate Goal Solution Set Energy and Environmental Improvements Airframe and engine improvements Operational Improvements Alternative Fuels Market Based Measure Improved scientific understanding, modeling and analysis
Introduction Operational Improvements have the highest potential for delivering E&E benefits in the near term + Operational Improvements include development and integration of advanced operational procedures and infrastructure to foster airspace system operational capabilities that will function more efficiently and contribute to mitigating environmental impacts and improving energy efficiency. + Operational Improvements have the highest potential for delivering E&E benefits in the near term Higher Technology Readiness Level (TRL). Faster time constant of implementation. + Focus of this research: Operational Improvements that can potentially improve terminal airspace operations and can affect noise exposure in areas surrounding the airport.
Introduction Need for Environmental Modeling + Previous research/studies have primarily focused on feasibility of implementation of Operational Improvements. + There is a need to develop a methodology to assess the E&E benefits and tradeoffs of Operational Improvements. Improved operational performance vs. air quality emission and noise exposure. + Use of tools like Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Bypass costly flight trials or Human-in-the-Loop simulation (HITL)
Introduction Aviation Environmental Design Tool + AEDT is a software system developed by FAA that can model aircraft performance to produce fuel burn, emissions and noise metrics. + Used by the U.S. government to assess the interdependencies between aircraftrelated fuel burn, noise and emissions at airports. + Data input format XML file used to define airports, scenarios, cases, flights, tracks, and operations. + Can model both noise and emissions. + Can model standard and user-defined aircraft and flight profiles. + Website: https://aedt.faa.gov/
Introduction Generic Approach to Model Operational Improvements Climate Goal Solution Set AEDT Energy and Environment Benefits and Tradeoff Airframe and engine improvements Operational Improvements Pre-implementation. Baseline scenario Average Annual Day Alternative Fuels ± Market Based Measure Improved scientific understanding, modeling and analysis Post-implementations. Modified scenario Average Annual Day
Agenda + Introduction + of + Results + Conclusions + Next Steps
Introduction Enhanced Visual Approach (EVA) + EVA is an operational improvement (OI) that can allow visual approaches in marginal meteorological conditions. Weather Minima Meteorological Conditions Visual Marginal Instrument at least 5 statute below VMC but below 3 statute Visibility miles better than IMC miles below VMC but Ceiling at least 3,000 ft. better than IMC below 1,000 ft. + Enabled by Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS) capability. Flights appear to trombone more in the downwind leg during marginal condition compared to visual conditions. EVA is expected to improve the operational performance of terminal airspace by allowing visual approaches during marginal conditions
Introduction Framework + Assumption: With EVA aircraft can consistently perform visual approaches during marginal conditions The trajectories of arrival flows to a given runway during marginal conditions would be similar to the present day visual approaches. + The baseline scenario (preimplementation) Represent average annual day for present day operations at an airport. + The modified scenario (postimplementation) Represent average annual day if EVA- CAVS is introduced. Constructed by replacing instrument approach trajectories in the baseline scenario corresponding to periods of marginal condition with visual approach trajectories.
Introduction Data Sources + Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) : Provides detailed data on flights to and from the ASPM airports (currently 77) and all flights by the ASPM carriers (currently 22), including flights by those carriers to international and domestic non-aspm airports. Includes airport weather, runway configuration, and arrival and departure rates. In this analysis ASPM data is used to analyze airport runway configuration, meteorological conditions and estimate the count of arrivals corresponding to the meteorological conditions. + The Performance Data and Reporting System (PDARS). Includes flight plan and radar track data collected from Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs), the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) and the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) facilities. In this analysis PDARS is used to construct the average annual day scenarios which are input into AEDT to estimate E&E benefits and tradeoffs
LAS PHX HNL DEN SLC MCO TPA BWI DCA IAD PHL FLL JFK STL BOS CLT MIA EWR MEM LGA DFW ATL IAH CVG SFO ORD MSP PIT MDW DTW LAX PDX CLE SEA SAN Percentage marginal conditions Introduction Selection of candidate airports + Hypothesis: The potential benefits of is proportional to the total annual duration of marginal condition occurrence at the airports. Airports that have higher annual occurrence of marginal conditions are expected to have higher benefits. + DEN, BOS and LAX represent the 10th, 50th and 90th percentile airports in terms of annual duration of marginal conditions occurrence 30 Percentage Marginal Condition at OEP 35 airports 25 20 15 10 90 th percentile 50 th percentile 5 10 th percentile 0 OEP 35 Airports
35L;35R 34R;35L;35R 34L;35L;35R 07;35L;35R 16L;34R;35L;35R 34R;35L;35R 26;34R;35L;35R 07;16R;17R;26;35L;35R 16L;16R;35L;35R 16L;16R 16L;16R;34R;35R 07;16R;17R 07;35L;35R 07;16L;16R;17R 26;35L;35R 16L;16R;17R;26 16L;35L;35R 16L;16R;17R Percentage Number of arrivals per year Introduction Airport Runway - DEN + At DEN 2.6% (7.5K flights) of arrivals are affected by marginal condition on average annually. + Runways with final approach from the south (i.e. runways 34R, 35L, 35R) are predominantly used during marginal conditions. Runway Configuration and Flight Count Distribution for arrivals DEN Runway Layout 25 20 15 10 5 0 Rwy Usage % # of Arrivals 2.6% (7.5K flights) 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 N IMC MVMC VMC Meteorological Conditions and Arrival Runway Configurations
15R 04R;33L 22L 04R 04R;15R 22L;33L 33L 22L 22L;27 04L;04R 15R 04R 27 27;32 33L 04L;04R 22L;27 Percentage Number of arrivals per year Introduction Airport Runway - BOS + At BOS 10% (16K flights) of arrivals are affected by marginal condition on average annually. + Runways with final approach from the northeast and southwest (i.e. runways 22L, 27 and 4L, 4R) are predominantly used during marginal conditions. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Runway Configuration and Flight Count Distribution for arrivals 60,000 Rwy Usage % 50,000 # of Arrivals 40,000 10% (16K flights) 30,000 20,000 10,000 BOS Runway Layout N 0 0 IMC MVMC VMC Meteorological Conditions and Arrival Runway Configuration
06L;07R 24L;25L 24R;25L 06L;07R 24L;24R;25L 24R;25L 24R;25L;25R 06L;07R 24L;24R;25R 24L;24R;25L 24R;25L Percentage Number of arrivals per year Introduction Airport Runway - LAX + At LAX 16% (45K flights) of arrivals are affected by marginal condition on average annually. + Runways with final approach from the northeast (i.e. runways 24R and 25L) are predominantly used during marginal conditions. Runway Configuration and Flight Count Distribution for arrivals 80 70 60 50 40 Rwy Usage % # of Arrivals 16% (45K flights) 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 LAX Runway Layout N 30 20 10 100,000 50,000 0 0 IMC MVMC VMC Meteorological Conditions and Arrival Runway Configuration
Introduction Pre/Post Scenario Development + Select representative days at the airport Based on runway configuration and meteorological conditions + Aggregate PDARS data for the representative days. 10,000 flight tracks for BOS 20,000 flight tracks for DEN and LAX. + Construct Baseline scenario (Average annual day) Sample size 2500 flights + Construct modified scenario Substitute all marginal condition arrival tracks in the baseline scenario (i.e., instrument approaches) with an equal of number visual conditions arrival tracks (i.e., visual approaches) from the aggregate population. + Truncate flight tracks Track limited to within 40 nautical miles (NM) or 75 kilometers (km) of the airport. + Estimate AEDT scaling factor to normalize operations. Scaling factor = average number of arrivals per day/2,500.
Agenda + Introduction + of + Results + Conclusions + Next Steps
Introduction Operational, Energy and Emission Benefits/Tradeoffs per flight + On average, visual approaches are 16.2 km, 3.6 km, and 6.6 km shorter than instrument approaches during marginal conditions at DEN, BOS and LAX, respectively. + In terms of fuel burn, the corresponding savings are 8.1 kg, 16.2kg, and 19.2 kg at DEN, BOS and LAX, respectively. + In terms of CO 2, the corresponding savings are 25.5 kg, 51kg, and 61 kg at DEN, BOS and LAX, respectively. BENEFITS PER FLIGHT OF PERFORMING VISUAL APPROACHES IN MARGINAL CONDITIONS Total Annual Arrivals Affected Operational Performance Energy Climate Air Quality Emissions Airport % Flights Affected Distance (km) Duration (min) Fuel (kg) CO2(kg) CO(kg) PM NOx(kg) SOx(kg) 2.5(kg) DEN 2.7 7K 16.2 2.8 8.1 25.5 0.3 0.045 0.010 0.026 BOS 9.8 15K 3.6 1.1 16.2 51.0 4.4 0.174 0.021 0.014 LAX 16.3 45K 6.6 0.5 19.2 60.7 0.8-0.008 0.025 0.015
Introduction Operational, Energy and Emission Benefits/Tradeoffs Annualized + Annual benefits of at DEN, BOS, LAX: 0.4%, 0.3% and 1.2% improvement in terms of operational performance (track distance) 0.1%, 0.6% and 1.1% potential reduction in terms of fuel burn and CO 2 annually. Except for NOx at LAX there is reduction in other emissions too. + Reduction in trombones in the downwind leg of the final approach from use of can reduce noise exposure TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS FROM PERFORMING VISUAL APPROACHES IN MARGINAL CONDITIONS Airport Operational Performance Energy Climate Air Quality Emissions Noise - Population Exposure DNL Noise Level (db) Distance (km) Duration (min) Fuel (kg) CO2(kg) CO(kg) NOx(kg) SOx(kg) PM 2.5(kg) 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 DEN 121K 20K 60K 190K 2K 337 78 197 383 12 No Change BOS 56K 17K 252K 796K 68K 3K 326 219-36K -13K -15K -3K -1.3K No Change LAX 297K 22K 867K 2,737K 34K -346 1,121 683-97K -13K -25K -7K -8K -2K No Change PERCENTAGE IMPROVEMENT FROM PERFORMING VISUAL APPROACHES IN MARGINAL CONDITIONS Operational Performance Energy Climate Air Quality Emissions Noise - Population Exposure DNL Noise Level (db) Airport Distance (km) Duration (min) Fuel (kg) CO2(kg) CO(kg) NOx(kg) SOx(kg) PM 2.5(kg) 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 DEN 0.4% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% 2.8% 0.3% No Change BOS 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 5.2% 0.9% 0.6% 0.9% -11.6% -9.2% -27.1% -37.8% -77.1% No Change LAX 1.2% 0.6% 1.1% 1.1% 4.3% -0.1% 1.1% 1.5% -4.9% -1.2% -4.7% -2.7% -9.4% -4.8% No Change
Fuel savings per flight in kg Introduction Relationship between marginal condition and fuel savings per flight + Fuel saving estimates from this analysis for DEN, BOS and LAX airports are used to determine the relationship between percentage marginal condition and fuel savings per flight. + A linear function is used to estimate the fuel savings per flight based on the annual percentage occurrence of marginal conditions 25 20 LAX 15 BOS 10 5 DEN y = 0.824x + 6.5754 R² = 0.9485 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Percentage of time in Marginal Condition
LAS PHX HNL SLC TPA DEN MCO FLL STL BWI CVG DCA IAD PIT MEM MIA PHL JFK BOS LGA EWR MDW CLE PDX CLT IAH SFO MSP DFW DTW SAN ATL SEA LAX ORD Total Annual Fuel Saving in kg Percentage Marginal Conditions Introduction NAS-wide Energy Savings + has the potential for reducing fuel consumption in the terminal airspace (i.e., within 75 km of the airport) by 10.9 million kg annually for arrivals at major airports in the U.S. + At $3/gallon this amounts to $10.7 million in annual savings 1.E+06 1.E+06 Total Fuel Marginal Condition 35 30 8.E+05 6.E+05 25 20 15 4.E+05 10 2.E+05 5 0.E+00 0 OEP 35 U.S. airports
Agenda + Introduction + of + Results + Conclusions + Next Steps
Introduction Conclusions + can have benefits across energy, emissions and noise. can result in on average 0.4%, 0.3% and 1.2% improvement annually in terms of operational performance (distance) at DEN, BOS and LAX, respectively. This corresponds to 0.1%, 0.6% and 1.1% reduction in terms of fuel and CO2. The reduction in trombones in the downwind leg of the final approach from use of can reduce noise exposure as well. + The paper demonstrates the use of AEDT in performing: pre/post (i.e., pre-implementation and post implementation) analysis to evaluate E&E benefits and tradeoffs of OIs OIs that can potentially improve terminal airspace operations and can affect noise exposure in areas surrounding the airport. + Limitation The results and analysis presented in this paper are limited to and do not capture the vast portfolio of OIs that are comprised in the NextGen.
Agenda + Introduction + of + Results + Conclusions + Next Steps
Introduction Estimate Fuel burn and CO 2 reduction potential + Generate distributions of operational performance based on actual radar based track data. + Perform parametric analysis to estimate CO 2 mitigation potential at various levels of operational performance. Analyze flights at various performance level percentile (i.e., 10th, 50th and 90th percentile) to estimate the lower, mean and upper bound for flight performance. Identify factors that influence level of operational performance. Estimate lower bound of NAS-wide operational performance + Scope NAS wide runway to runway operations. Regional airport level flow analysis.
Questions & Comments Point of Contact: Dominic McConnachie Office: (617) 428 4440 Mobile: (617) 938 7466 McConnachie_Dominic@bah.com Akshay Belle, PhD Office: (571) 346 5968 Mobile: (703) 622 7441 belle_akshay@bah.com Philippe A. Bonnefoy, PhD Office: (617) 428 4437 Mobile: (617) 513 9211 bonnefoy_philippe@bah.com Acknowledgments: The authors thank Mr. Christopher Dorbian for his guidance.