Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence

EEnvironmental nvironmental DDesign esign SSpacepace

Dr. Michelle R. Kirby

Breaking Barriers: Airing Out a Sound Aviation EnvironmentMarch 4-7, 2007

2

EDS Development Team

Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction

An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence

This work was funded by the FAA under Grant Nos:05-C-NE-GIT, Amendment Nos. 001 and 003

03-C-NE-MIT, Amendment Nos. 011, 015, 018, 022, and 025

The Environmental Design Space project is managed by Joseph DiPardo

3

Outline

• Genesis of EDS

• FAA tool suite and EDS functionality

• Potential Stakeholder requirements

• Meeting Stakeholder expectations

• Initial EDS capability demonstrator

• Next steps

• Summary

4

Genesis of EDS*

• Study initiated by Air Transport Association (Airlines) and AerospaceIndustries Association (Manufacturers)– To support environmental regulatory discussions– Provide guidance for certification standards process

• Define an “Environmental Design Space” that:– quantifies Engine/Airplane design trade-offs in a manner that is

technically feasible… in terms of Performance, Noise, Emissions ….

• Defines an Environmental Engine / Airplane System based oncurrent and future technology sets

• Questions:– What does an “Environmental Design Space (EDS)” look like for current

and future aircraft/engine systems?– What are the tradeoffs in terms of performance, noise, and emissions for

technically feasible aircraft/engine systems?

* Source: 2003: “Environmental Tradeoffs in Commercial Aircraft Design: AIA EDS FeasibilityTest and Lessons Learned” Dave Halstead, GEAE

5

Min NOx

Min Noise Min FB

Base Engine

Lines of ConstFan PR, ~Noise

Lines ofConst OPR

Cum Marg ~ 22 dBLow FPR

Cum Marg ~ 14 dBHigh FPR

Low O

PR

High O

PR

FB/NOx/Noise Carpet Plot - Certified Product

Cum Margin to Stage 3

“Environmental Tradeoffs in Commercial Aircraft Design; AIA EDS Feasibility Test and Lessons Learned”

Dave Halstead, GE Aircraft Engines, January 12, 2004

6

Min FB

Min Noise(min FPR)

Min NOx

*Cum Marg to Stage 3

Low OPR

High O

PR

Cum Marg ~24 dBHigh FPR

Cum Marg ~ 30 dBLow FPR

FB/NOx/Noise Carpet Plot - 2010 Product

“Environmental Tradeoffs in Commercial Aircraft Design; AIA EDS Feasibility Test and Lessons Learned”

Dave Halstead, GE Aircraft Engines, January 12, 2004

7

Summary and Lessons Learned*

• Quantifying environmental impact is a complex, multi-disciplinary,systems-based problem

• Significant environmental trades do occur…– Best Noise solution is not best NOx solution is not best CO2 (ie, fuel

burn) solution

• An integrated approach is key to attaining balancedenvironmental regulatory strategy– Noise vs. CO2 vs. NOx (and other emissions)– Local vs. national vs. global impact– Implications to costs and benefits to achieve a balanced solution

* Source: 2003: “Environmental Tradeoffs in Commercial Aircraft Design: AIA EDS FeasibilityTest and Lessons Learned” Dave Halstead, GEAE

The FAA took the initiative to pursue the development of a

tool set to address these needs

8

FAA/AEE Tool Suite

AEDT

EDS

AVIATION ECONOMICS

MODEL

NOISE IMPACTS

LOCAL AIR QUALITY

IMPACTS

CLIMATE IMPACTS

COSTS AND BENEFITS

Fares

DEMAND

(Consumers)

SUPPLY

(Carriers)

Operations

New

Aircraft

Schedule

& Fleet

Emissions

Noise

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

ESTIMATION

Monetized

Benefits

Collected

Costs

Emissions

Noise & Emissions

Policy and

Scenarios

Emissions

and Noise

Inventories

APMT APMT

APMT

9

What must EDS be able to do?

• Be capable of analyzing environmental and performance effects of:– New Technologies– New Aircraft both replacement and new system types

• Methods and assumptions must be non-proprietary and datagenerated must be accessible to the international community toincrease transparency

• Enable the exploration of trade-offs and interdependenciesamongst and between technology, economics and environmentalimpacts at the aircraft level

• Sufficient flexibility to be employed in a parametric mode to explorepotential variations within an aircraft class

• Serve as a mechanism for collecting, incorporating and quantifyinglong-term technology impact assessments. This will be aninherently expert-driven process drawing on industry advice

• Inputs, outputs and execution times must be compatible with AEDTand APMT needs

10

EDS Potential Stakeholder Requirements

EDS

CAEP

PolicyScenarios

FAA

RegulatoryInsight

NASAImprovedModules

Airports

Noise &EmissionsConstraints

Operators

VehicleRequirements

ManufacturersDesign Rulesand Validity

NextGen

FutureDemand

Each stakeholder places different requirements on EDS

11

EDS Potential Stakeholder Support

EDS

CAEP

Replacementvehicles

FAA

RegulatoryInsight

NASAFidelity

Requirements

Airports

Local Impacts

Operators

VehicleCapabilities

ManufacturersVehicle

Trade-offs

NextGen

NewConcepts

EDS can potentially support multiple users

12

How can we meet the expectations?

• Functionality of EDS must be accessible to both U.S. andinternational partners

• EDS results must be open to the community and basedon public domain information

– No proprietary data or assumptions– No empirical corrections of trends

• To ensure the results from EDS are satisfying thecustomer base at an acceptable level of accuracy a twoprong approach was pursed:

– Assessment of EDS capabilities– Industry collaboration

13

Assessment Plan Focus

Engage industry through collaborative assessments to

address these objectives

• Assessment is critical for ensuring that the final EDSresults are reasonable for the various stakeholders

• Achieving international confidence of EDS relies on athorough documented assessment of the tools,architecture, assumptions

• To address “How accurate is accurate?”, we must:– Define what assessment metrics are appropriate for EDS– Determine uncertainties associated with EDS tools– Determine the appropriate level of fidelity– Identify process to engage broader community in assessment

efforts– Identify appropriate process to communicate assessment

outcomes to the broader community

14

Industry Collaboration Focus

• Participate in collaborative assessment projects in which EDS-derivedresults will be compared to those obtained by industry collaborators who willuse proprietary analysis tools

• Participation includes the following activities:– Back-to-back comparisons between proprietary tools and EDS for specific

engine/airframe combinations– Determination of sources differences between the EDS capabilities and industry-

proprietary methods– Identify EDS elements that need higher fidelity analysis capabilities

• Current interactions with industry:– General Electric– Pratt & Whitney– Boeing

• Key objectives:– Define appropriate design rules for different engine/airframe combinations– Validating trade-spaces and trends of NOx vs. Noise vs. CO2

• An Industry Review Group has been formed that will interact with EDS tovet trade spaces for applicability to CAEP and NextGen

15

Initial EDS Capability Demonstrators

• EDS supported two capability demonstrators inconjunction with the other FAA tools (AEDT, APMT),which included:– Fuel Price Increase

• With and without EDS aircraft technology– NOx Emissions Certification Stringency

• With and without EDS aircraft technology

• Prototype connectivity based on:– Aircraft and engine trade spaces with current technology levels– Same vehicles used for both scenarios as potential replacement

vehicles

16

300 Passenger Class ReferenceVehicle

• Airframe: Boeing 777-200ER

• Engine: GE 90-94B

http://www.boeing.com/

http://www.geae.com/

http://www.boeing.com/

http://www.snecma.com

17

EDS Trade Spaces

2

32

3

Trade space aboutincremental changesfrom current technology(e.g., winglets or newcombustor)

Trade space for futuretechnologies

Three different trade spaces for agiven airframe/enginearchitecture type within a vehicleclass may be investigated:

Better NOXBetter Fuel

Better NOXWorse Fuel

Worse NOXBetter Fuel

Worse NOXWorse Fuel

% LTO NOx

% F

uel

Bu

rn

1

1 Trade space aboutcurrent technology

18

Fuel vs. NOx vs. Cumulative NoiseMargin

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

Fuel Use (kg/Seat)

NO

x E

mis

sio

ns (

kg

/S

eat)

B777 Series

New EDS Aircraft Better Noise

EDS Base 94k

New EDS Aircraft Worse Noise

Worse NOx

Worse Fuel

Better NOx

Worse FuelBetter NOx

Better Fuel

Worse NOx

Better Fuel

Preliminary Results Only--Do not cite

19

Results: Impacts of EDS Aircraft on FleetSelection

• Results Relative to the Baseline

• Fuel Price Increase:– 100% increase ie from Baseline level of fuel cost of USD 0.5 per kg to

USD 1.0 per kg

• NOx Certification Stringency:– 20% reduction from CAEP4 standard for new purchases

• Illustrated for B777 seat class (300-400 seat) aircraft

20

Preliminary Results

Preliminary Results Only--Do not cite

21

Preliminary Results

Preliminary Results Only--Do not cite

22

Change in Fuel Use from the Baseline for B777 Size Class Aircraft

(300-400 seats)

-14.0%

-12.0%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

Change in Total Fuel Use Change in Fuel Use Per Seat Hour

No EDS - 100% FT

EDS - 100% FT

EDS - NOx

EDS: B777 Class Outputs

Preliminary Results Only--Do not cite

23

Next Steps

• Increase engagement of international community

• Continue EDS development based on:– Assessment results– Industry collaboration

• Continue trade space generation to encompassadditional seat classes to support the other FAA tools forCAEP policy sample problems

• Establish stronger linkage with NextGen

24

Summary

• FAA has made a commitment to use EDS– to inform decision-making for the CAEP meeting in 2010– to help establish trades among noise and emissions impacts in

order to better quantify and manage the impacts associated withNextGen operations

• We are:– Not building aircraft– Not giving “the” answer– Are providing insight to the trade-offs that exist between NOx vs.

Noise vs. CO2– Actively engaging industry and international partners through this

development

EDS will allow for more effective assessment and communication

of environmental effects, interrelationships, and economic

consequences in support of CAEP and NextGen