Quantitative Assessment Of Technology Impact On Aviation .
Quantitative Assessment of Technology Impacton Aviation Fuel EfficiencyPeter Nolte, Arno Apffelstaedt and Volker Gollnick†German Aerospace Center (DLR), Hamburg, 21079, GermanyThomas Rötger,‡International Air Transport Association (IATA), Geneva, 1215, SwitzerlandIn the effort to implement the IATA four-pillar strategy for emissions reduction andin view of achieving the aviation industry’s high-level goals for carbon emissions reduction, IATA launched its “Technology Roadmap for Environmentally Sustainable Aviation”(TERESA) initiative bringing together manufacturers, scientists, government agencies, infrastructure service providers and airlines. Under this initiative the German AerospaceCenter (DLR) and the Aerospace System Design Laboratory (ASDL) of Georgia Tech conducted the screening, description, selection, modeling and assessment of appropriate technologies. The application of the technologies into reference aircraft on their particularmission was modeled. The results of this modeling were subsequently fed into a world fleetforecast model, which takes into account an updated calendar of future aircraft entry intoservice. Thus the model accounts for the effects of CO2 reduction potential via technologyintroduction on world fleet ANASAAdvisory Council for Aeronautic Research in EuropeAviation Carbon ModelAir Transportation SystemAircraft System Design LaboratoryGerman Aerospace CenterDesign of ExperimentsGerman Patent and Trademark OfficeFeed Stock Readiness LevelInternational Air Transport AssociationNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationI.NTRSPrADORSETERESATIESTRLUTENASA Technical Report ServerPreliminary Aircraft Design Optimisation ProgramResponse Surface EquationTechnology Roadmap for EnvironmentallySustainable AviationTechnology, Identification, Evaluation and ScreeningTechnology Readiness LevelUnified Trade-Off EnvironmentIntroductionIn summer 2009 the aviation industry, represented by its stakeholder organisations ACI, CANSO, IATAand ICCAIA announced a commitment to a set of high-level emissions reduction goals: a cap on aviation CO2emissions from 2020 (carbon-neutral growth), an average improvement in fuel efficiency of 1.5% per year from2009 to 2020, and a reduction in CO2 emissions of 50% by 2050, relative to 2005 levels.1 This announcementsucceeds IATA’s 2007 vision of a carbon emission-free aviation and its 2008 four-pillar strategy (technology,operations, infrastructure and economic measures)1 and is also in line with the world-wide demand for a moreenvironmentally friendly aviation industry.a The achievement of these ambitious goals is strongly correlatedwith the development and implementation of new technologies by aircraft and systems manufacturers. Theultimate propagation of these technology impacts to the environment (e.g. a better fuel efficiency and ResearchEngineer, Institute of Air Transportation Systems, Blohmstrasse 18.of Institute, Institute of Air Transportation Systems, Blohmstrasse 18.‡ Assistant Director, Aviation Environment - Technology, 33 Route de l’Aéroport.† Heada The aeronautical community is researching fuel burn reduction capabilities under a wide range of programs. Other entitiesworking on the topic are ICAO/CAEAP, Greener by Design, and FAA’s Partner Consortium, just to name a few.1 of 19Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2012
thus lower carbon emissions) will come from the airlines and their fleet operations. There is an underlyingchallenge to select the appropriate technologies as they are driven by uncertain factors such as their currentdevelopment progress, risk, benefits and R&D costs. To assist the airlines in this endeavor, IATA has createdthe Technology Roadmap for Environmentally Sustainable Aviation (TERESA) initiative that provides anoverview of green technologies and their impacts at aircraft level. This paper starts with the objectives ofthe TERESA initiative. Then it gives a survey of the different steps conducted, the current status of theinitiative and a recommendation for the way ahead.II.Previous Work - TERESA Phase I and IICurrently the TERESA program includes 3 phases, as illustrated in Figure 1. The first phase, conductedin 2008, consisted of two main activities: [1.] surveying a large set of aerospace technologies that couldreduce the impact of aviation on the environment, and [2.] creating a high level trade-off environment. Thetrade-off environment enables a comparative view about the technologies and their environmental impactthrough implementation on the aircraft. It is based on qualitative assessments from a representative group ofsubject matter experts who related the surveyed technologies to IATA’s goals.b The results of the work fromthis phase were used to create a strategic roadmap which was published as the IATA Technology RoadmapReport.2TERESAPhase 1Phase 2Phase 3Subject MatterExpert EnvironmentPhysics – BasedEnvironmentModel Impact onWorldfleet(2008)(2009 - 2010)(2011)Figure 1. The TERESA-PhasesThe second phase of the program, carried out in 2009-2010, focused on a robust subset of the technologiesdefined in Phase 1. The robust technology set was found repeatedly utilizing a representative expert panelwhich evaluated the technologies’ robustness against different future scenarios. The translation of qualitative into quantitative values was achieved describing the technology application within reference aircraft astest cases on their respective missions. From here technology factors could be derived. Subsequently thetechnologies could be modeled in a physics-based environment (e.g. technology X will reduce the referenceaircraft wing weight by 10%). The results of this quantitative modeling were then compared against thequalitative outcome from the previous workshops, see Figure 4 and Figure 5.Based on the outcome of the TERESA Phases 1 and 2, the global technology impacts are modeled withinPhase 3. More precisely the combined results of the previous computations are used to estimate the fuel burnreduction and consequentially the CO2 -reduction potential of a technology introducion on world fleet level.In the following the approaches taken under each phase of the program will be described more thoroughly.A.Subject matter experts technology assessment process - Phase IThe subject matter experts qualitative technology assessment is based on ASDL’s Strategic Prioritization andPlanning (SP2) process.3 The SP2 process provides a structured, traceable, and transparent approach usingb TheIATA goals were formulated as: improve fuel efficiency, reduce green house gases, improve local air quality, reducecommunity noise, increase capacity/reduce delays, and increase operation efficiency (no fuel)2 of 19Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2012
a hierarchical decomposition from the top level IATA goals into aircraft attributes (e.g. airframe weight,wing weight). These attributes are then mapped to the different technology alternatives. The process can betailored to any desired level of detail to enhance the decision-making process for investment strategies, riskmitigation, system integration and so forth. The resulting decision making tool enables the analysis of “whatif” scenarios to be played through a dynamic and interactive environment. The hierarchical decompositionenables two types of scenario analysis: [1.] top-down and [2.] bottom-up. The top-down scenarios consist ofchanging the relative importance of different goals, e.g. CO2 emissions vs. noise, and analyzing which aircraftattributes are becoming more important. This will result in a prioritized list of technology alternatives. Thebottom-up scenarios imply selecting specific technology alternatives which would emphasize the importanceof a sub-set of aircraft attributes and consequently highlight how well the technologies could meet the IATAgoals. The results of the SP2 process were used to create the Technology Roadmap published by IATA inJune 2009,2 and it was used as the foundation for the quantitative technology assessment process.B.Quantitative technology assessment process - Phase IIThe identification of robuts technologies was conducted at the IATA workshop in Hamburg, Germany, inOctober 2009.5 The workshop objectives were as follows:1. Down-select the number of technologies from the roadmap document to a manageable set that couldbe modelled in the physics-based environment,2. Identify technology factors for the modelling activity (e.g. weight reduction) and3. Estimate ranges of variability for the technology factors.A list of technology factors is summarized in Table 1 for the airframe technologies and in Table 2 for theengine technologies. A technology factor is a mathematical description used to model the technology impactwithin the physics-based environment.Table 2. Technology Factors EngineTable 1. Technology Factors AirframeAirframe wing weight fuselage weight empennage weight hydraulics weight electrical weight cabin weight APU water weight L/D induced drag friction dragmin%-30-30-10-1000-40-100-100-20-25max% 20 10 100 20000 2500Engine SFC engine weight sizemin%-20-200max% 10 10 10The quantitative technology assessment is based on ASDL’s Technology Identification, Evaluation andSelection (TIES) process.6 This process uses the results from the qualitative assessment coupled withthe four ACARE4 scenarios as inputs. The ACARE scenarios represent potential future socio-politicalreference points giving the framework conditions under which development of new aircraft takes place andselection of new technology is made. Typically, a subset of technologies will emerge as being “robust”to multiple scenarios and can thus be identified as attractive to airlines and manufacturers for their costbenefit attributes. For each robust technology an operational context is identified as well as a quantitativefactor, referred to as a technology factor, in order to model the technology within a design environment.Examples of technology factors include weight reduction of specific aircraft components (e.g. wing weight),and performance characteristics such as induced, and friction drag coefficients. For this study the technologyimpacts were modeled using the Preliminary Aircraft Design and Optimization (PrADO)7 program, whichfacilitates the identification of primary and secondary impacts of the technology implementation.3 of 19Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2012
1.Physics-Based Trade-Off EnvironmentThe Physics-Based Trade-Off environment includes six steps, illustrated in Figure 2.Figure 2. Physics-Based Trade-Off Environment1. The first step defines the baseline vehicles and representative baseline mission; this provides environmental references using mature technologies integrated into state-of-the-art-aircraft as of 2005.2. The second step identifies specific technologies to be modeled; considering the amount of resourcesrequired to model the technologies (“Technology Factors and Ranges”).3. The third step models the reference vehicles and integrated technologies within PrADO (“Design ofExperiments, Response Surface Equation”).4. The fourth step explores the technology space to detect the greatest environmental impact (“InteractivePrediction Profiler”) (optional: furthermore an individual visualization of the technology).5. The fifth step synthesizes the modeling and visualization within a unique trade - off environment hereinreferred as Unified Trade - Off Environment (UTE).6. Within the sixth step the technology impacts are assessed considering an introduction into the worldfleet under different time horizons.Technology modelling using PrADOPreprocessingRequirements- design requirements(transportation task)- parametric aircraftdescriptionGeometryAerodynamicsAnalysis modes- single design- parametric study- optimizationFlight PhysicsStructureGlobal Massesdata transferTake-Off & LandingStability & ControlPostprocessingnoconverged?yes- performance data- DOC- A/C geometry- A/C mass breakdownConstraintsDOCFigure 3. The PrADO Process Chain4 of 19Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2012DMS– data base management systemPropulsionLanding Geardesign modulesThe impact of each identified technology is evaluated using PrADO (Preliminary Aircraft Design andOptimization), which was developed by the Instituteof Aircraft Design and Lightweight Structures at theBraunschweig University of Technology. It was selected for the technology analysis as it incorporatesphysical models for most of the design disciplines,namely: aerodynamics, structural sizing and flightperformance.In contrast to fast preliminary aircraft designtools, which are based on historical regressions,PrADO may take several hours for a single designevaluation to converge, due to the use of computationally rather intensive physical models. Thus, tocompensate for the long calculation times, PrADOis integrated into DLR’s cluster-framework HYdRA,which enables the computation of multiple designtrades at once.8 Novel technologies, which are notiteration loop2.
yet modeled in the program, can be accounted for by the use of technology factors, which represent theirimpact on specific aircraft parameters (e.g. component weight). For each selected technology its minimumand maximum impact on the aircrafts mass and aerodynamic properties were estimated by the workshopparticipants, see Table 1 for the airframe and Table 2 for the engine, from which a space filling design ofexperiments was created for HYdRA. The quantitative results of the simulation (see Figure 5) are comparedwith the qualitative prediction (see Figure 4) by the subject matter experts, and used to revise the IATATechnology Roadmap.A single PrADO analysis is executed as followsc : From the input file the basic design requirements aredistributed into the disciplinary data bases by the DMS and the iterative aircraft design process commencesby estimating the aircraft’s mass properties as starting point using handbook methods.The parametric, geometric input data is read and the aerodynamic surface, the structural design andinterior layout of all aircraft components are calculated. The determination of the geometric properties isdivided into several modules, one for each aircraft component, e.g. fuselage or wing. The aerodynamicsmodule determines the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft for different flight and load cases. For thispaper the lifting line code LIFTING LINE9 was used. With a thermodynamic cycle simulation for turbo-fanengines the propulsion module determines the engine characteristic and gives a weight and geometry estimation. The landing gear module, the load classification number (LCN), the load factor and the landing gearweight are determined by handbook methods. Subsequently the results of the aerodynamics and propulsionmodules are used in the flight physics module for the prediction of the aircraft’s flight performance and laterin modules that determine the stability and control properties as well as the take-off and landing capabilities.The structural mass of fuselage and wing is computed by an analytical beam model coupled with aerodynamic loads from LIFTING LINE for several defined load cases. Together with operational items, airframeservices and equipment the resulting structural masses compose the operational empty weight (OEW). Inaddition the global airframe masses, e.g. MTOW, MLW are computed.In the end of the analysis run the direct operation costs are determined. Furthermore it is checkedwhether the aircraft violates any design constraint.C.Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative ResultsThe results obtained with the technology modelling described above were compared with the earlier qualitative assessment. For this purpose the same timeline scenariod as in the qualitative assessment was reproducedin the technology model, as shown in the following Figure 4 and Figure 5 the fuel reduction potential peraircrafte is given in percent compared to the 2005 baseline aircraft.fQualitative AssessmentRetrofitModificationsBefore 2020After 2020Baseline 20050%0%‐10%‐10%(%) CO2 Reduction(%) CO2 ReductionBaseline 2005Quantitative Assessment‐20%‐30%ModificationsBefore 2020After 2020‐20%‐30%‐40%‐40%‐50%‐50%Figure 4. Results of the qualitative assessmentRetrofitFigure 5. Results of the quantitative assessmentIt should be noted that in the meantime both major airframe manufacturers have announced a shift oftheir new single-aisle programmes beyond 2020, which made the practical meaning of this scenario obsolete.c ThePrADO process chain is depicted in the Appendix in Figure 3five different timelines are: Baseline 2005, Retrofit, Modifications, Before 2020 and After 2020e expressed through the inherent CO reduction potential2f A more thorough description of the qualitative to quantitative assessment and its comparison can be found in the paperAIAA 2011-696811d The5 of 19Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2012
This exercise should therefore be considered purely for purposes of comparing the qualitative and the quantitative assessment. An assessment of the currently valid timeline of new aircraft programmes will be foundin Chapter III and Chapter IV.A comparison of the qualitative results from TERESA Phase 1 depicted in Figure 4 with the quantitativeresults calculated under TERESA Phase 2 visualized in Figure 5 show a great deal of similarity. This isespecially true for the first three time phases, which can be explained by the ability of the subject matterexperts to forecast technology impact in the near term relatively accurate. The natural uncertainty inherentin the qualitative analysis is visualized applying a fade-in and a fade-out of every bar in Figure 4. However,in general the qualitative analysis overestimates the quantitative results slightly, see Table 3. The mainreason for this difference can be linked to a more precise accounting of integration effects and the limitednumber of selected technologies for the quantitative assessment. Only 24 technologies, identified as mostpromising and robust against the different ACARE scenarios were considered within the quantitative analysiscompared to the 74 technologies identified in total under the 2008 qualitative IATA workshop. In additiontechnology modeling only comprised technologies from the fields aircraft and engine. The effects of a succesfulATM improvement through FAAs Nextgen or Eurocontrols Nextgen could not be quantitatively modeled.Furthermore pioneering designs like the open rotor, the blended wing body, and the like, were not modelled.Therefore a smaller technology basket considered leads to a reduced possible CO2 -reduction potential.Table 3. Minimum and maximum gains through technology introductionBaselineRetrofitModificationBefore 2020After 2020III.QualitativeMinMax0%-1,5%-7%-13%-7%-18%-20% -35%-25% -50%QuantitativeMinMax0%-1,5%-5,9%-9,5%-8,5% -20,4%-23%-29,4%-27,1% -39,8%World Fleet modeling - Phase IIIFor Phase III of the TERESA project, DLR has developed a methodology dubbed F-FWD (read:’fast-forward’) to assess the impact of new aircraft carrying TERESA-identified technology on global CO2 emissions of airline traffic. We describe the approach and important findings in the following paragraphs.The basic F-FWD metholodogy is depicted in Figure 6. It consists of two seperate working blocks. First,on a bottom-up basis, we project the development of the world fleet of commercial passenger aircraft (fleetforecast: steps 1-4). Second, to each aircraft model in the forecast, we assign fuel consumption and performance information (steps 5-6). Global CO2 emissions and traffic are then calculated by aggregating thesingle aircraft estimates. The results can be used to forecast the development of fuel and CO2 efficiencyunder the influence of new technology.A.Working Block 1 - Fleet ForecastThe TERESA-Phase III fleet forecast is a bottom-up forecast based on year-to-year dynamics. The first stepis to identify toda
on Aviation Fuel E ciency . International Air Transport Association (IATA), Geneva, 1215, Switzerland . IATA launched its \Technology Roadmap for Environmentally Sustainable Avia-tion"(TERESA .
Quantitative Aptitude – Clocks and Calendars – Formulas E-book Monthly Current Affairs Capsules Quantitative Aptitude – Clocks and Calendars – Formulas Introduction to Quantitative Aptitude: Quantitative Aptitude is an important section in the employment-related competitive exams in India. Quantitative Aptitude Section is one of the key sections in recruitment exams in India including .
Morningstar Quantitative Ratings for Stocks Morningstar Quantitative Ratings for stocks, or "quantitative star ratings," are assigned based on the combination of the Quantitative Valuation of the company dictated by our model, the current market price, the margin of safety determined by the Quantitative Uncertainty Score, the market capital, and
EPHIA European Policy Health Impact Assessment EU European Union ExIA Extended impact assessment HIA Health impact assessment HiAP Health in All Policies IA Impact assessment IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment IDB Inter-American Development Bank IFC International Finance Corporation
1.2 Social impact assessment as part of environmental impact assessment 7 1.3 Principles to guide social impact assessment and potential benefits 10 2 Community engagement for social impact assessment 11 2.1 Engagement objectives for social impact assessment 12 2.2 Who to engage 13 2.3 How to engage 13
Wikipedia Definition: Risk assessment is a step in a risk management procedure. Risk assessment is the determination of quantitative or qualitative value of risk related to a concrete situation and a recognized threat (also called hazard). Quantitative risk assessment requires calculations of two components of risk (R):, the magnitude of the .
1.2 Importance of Spending Time on Design 9 Chapter 2 Technology Assessment Scope and Design 11 2.1 Sound Technology Assessment Design 11 2.2 Stages and Considerations for Technology Assessment Design 12 2.2.1 GAO Technology Assessment Design Examples 18 Chapter 3 Approaches to Select Technology Assessment Design and Implementation Challenges .
of “risk” itself and even phrases such as quantitative risk assessment, quantitative risk evaluation, quantitative risk analysis, quantitative risk mitigation, also can be considered as subcategories for the phrase of “management”. Therefore, using a phrase of “QRM” alone can justify these scattered impressions.
assessment. In addition, several other educational assessment terms are defined: diagnostic assessment, curriculum-embedded assessment, universal screening assessment, and progress-monitoring assessment. I. FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT . The FAST SCASS definition of formative assessment developed in 2006 is “Formative assessment is a process used
