FAA Short Course Prelim

8/3/2019 FAA Short Course Prelim

1/51

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research 1

Analysis of Air Transportation Systems

The Aircraft and the System

Dr. Antonio A. Trani

Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Falls Church, Virginia

Jan. 9-11, 2008


2/51


Material Presented in this Section

The aircraft and the airport

Aircraft classifications

Aircraft characteristics and their relation to airportplanning

New large capacity aircraft (NLA) impacts


3/51


Purpose of the Discussion

Introduces the reader to various types of aircraft and theirclassifications

Importance of aircraft classifications in airportengineering design

Discussion on possible impacts of Very Large CapacityAircraft (VLCA, NLA, etc.)

Preliminary issues on geometric design (apron standards)and terminal design


4/51


Relevance of Aircraft Characteristics

Aircraft classifications are useful in airport engineeringwork (including terminal gate sizing, apron and taxiwayplanning, etc.) and in air traffic analyses

Most of the airport design standards are intimatelyrelated to aircraft size (i.e., wingspan, aircraft length,

aircraft wheelbase, aircraft seating capacity, etc.)

Airport fleet compositions vary over time and thus isimperative that we learn how to forecast expectedvehicle sizes over long periods of time

The Next Generation transportation system will cater to amore diverse pool of aircraft


5/51


Aircraft Classifications

Aircraft are generally classified according to threeimportant criteria in airport engineering:

Geometric design characteristics (Aerodrome code inICAO parlance)

Air Traffic Control operational characteristics (approachspeed criteria)

Wake vortex generation characteristics

Other relevant classifications are related to the type of

operation (short, medium, long-haul; wide, narrow-body,and commuter, etc.)


6/51


Geometric Design Classification (ICAO)

ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code Used in Airport Geometric Design

Design Group Wingspan (m)

Outer Main

Landing Gear

Width (m)

Example Aircraft

A < 15 < 4.5 All single engine aircraft, Some

business jets

B 15 to < 24 4.5 to < 6 Commuter aircraft, large busi-ness jets

(EMB-120, Saab 2000, Saab

340, etc.)

C 24 to < 36 6 to < 9 Medium-range transports

(B727, B737, MD-80, A320)

D 36 to < 52 9 to < 14 Heavy transports

(B757, B767, A300)E 52 to < 65 9 to < 14 Heavy transport aircraft

(Boeing 747, A340, B777)

F >= 65 > 14 A380, Antonov 225


7/51


Geometric Design Classification (FAA in US)

FAA Aircraft Design Group Classification Used in Airport Geometric Design

Design Group Wingspan (ft) Example Aircraft

I < 49 Cessna 152-210, Beechcraft A36

II 49 - 78 Saab 2000, EMB-120, Saab 340, Canadair

RJ-100

III 79 - 117 Boeing 737, MD-80, Airbus A-320

IV 118 - 170 Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Airbus A-300

V 171 - 213 Boeing 747, Boeing 777, MD-11, Airbus A-

340

VI 214 - 262 A380, Antonov 225


8/51


ATC Operational Classification (US)

Airport Terminal Area Procedures Aircraft Classification (FAA Scheme)

GroupApproach Speed

(knots)a

a. At maximum landing mass.

Example Aircraftb

b. See FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 for a complete listing of aircraft TERP groups and speeds

A < 91 All single engine aircraft, Beechcraft

Baron 58,

B 91-120 Business jets and commuter aircraft

(Beech 1900, Saab 2000, Saab 340,Embraer 120, Canadair RJ, etc.)

C 121-140 Medium and Short Range Transports

(Boeing 727, B737, MD-80, A320,

F100, B757, etc.)

D 141-165 Heavy transports

(Boeing 747, A340, B777, DC-10,

A300)

E > 166 BAC Concorde and military aircraft


9/51


Wake Vortex Aircraft Classification

Final Approach Aircraft Wake Vortex Classification

GroupTakeoff Gross

Weight (lb)Example Aircraft

Small < 41,000 All single engine aircraft, light twins,

most business jets and commuter air-

craft

Large 41,000-255,000 Large turboprop commuters, short and

medium range transport aircraft (MD-

80, B737, B727, A320, F100, etc.)

Heavy > 255,000 Boeing 757a, Boeing 747, Douglas

DC-10, MD-11, Airbus A-300, A-340,

a. For purposes of terminal airspace separation procedures, the Boeing 757 is classifed by FAA in a category by

itself. However, when considering the Boeing 757 separation criteria (close to the Heavy category) and considering

the percent of Boeing 757 in the U.S. feet, the four categories does provide very similar results for most airport

capacity analyes.

A380 1,234,000 Airbus A380 (pending reductions)


10/51


IATA Aircraft Classification

Used in the forecast of aircraft movements at an airportbased on the IATA forecast methodology.

IATA Aircraft Size Classification Scheme.

Category Number of Seats Example Aircraft

0 < 50 Embraer 120, Saab 340

1 50-124 Fokker 100, Boeing 717

2 125-179 Boeing B727-200, Airbus A321

3 180-249 Boeing 767-200, Airbus A300-600

4 250-349 Airbus A340-300, Boeing 777-200

5 350-499 Boeing 747-400

6 > 500 Boeing 747-400 high density seating


11/51


Aircraft Classification According to their Intended

Use

A more general aircraft classification based on the aircraft

use

General aviation aircraft (GA)

Corporate aircraft (CA)

Commuter aircraft (COM) Transport aircraft (TA)

Short-range

Medium-range

Long-range


12/51


General Aviation (GA)

Typically these aircraft can have one (single engine) or

two engines (twin engine). Their maximum gross weight

usually is always below 14,000 lb.

Single-Engine GA Twin-Engine GA

Cessna 172 (Skyhawk)

Beechcraft 58TC (Baron)

Beechcraft A36 (Bonanza)Cessna 421C (Golden Eagle)


13/51


Corporate Aircraft (CA)

Typically these aircraft can have one or two turboprop

driven or jet engines (sometimes three). Maximum gross

mass is up to 40,910 kg (90,000 lb)

Raytheon-Beechcraft

Cessna Citation II

Gulfstream G-V

King Air B300


14/51


Commuter Aircraft (COM)

Usually twin engine aircraft with a few exceptions such as

the DeHavilland DHC-7 which has four engines. Their

maximum gross mass is below 31,818 kg (70,000 lb)

Fairchild Swearinger Metro 23

Bombardier DHC-8

Saab 340B

Embraer 145


15/51


Short-Range Transports (SR-TA)

Certified under FAR/JAR 25. Their maximum gross mass

usually is below 68,182 kg (150,000 lb).

Fokker F100

Airbus A-320

Boeing 737-300

McDonnell-Douglas MD 82


16/51


Medium-Range Transports (MR-TA)

These are transport aircraft employed to fly routes of less

than 3,000 nm (typical).Their maximum gross mass

usually is usually below 159,090 kg (350,000 lb)

Boeing B727-200

Boeing 757-200

Airbus A300-600R


17/51


Long-Range Transports (LR-TA)

These are transport aircraft employed to fly routes of less

than 3,000 nm (typical).Their maximum gross mass

usually is above 159,090 kg (350,000 lb)

Airbus A340-200

Boeing 777-200

Boeing 747-400


18/51


Future Aircraft Issues

The fleet composition at many airports is changing

rapidly and airport terminals will have to adapt

Surge of commuter aircraft use for point-to-pointservices

Possible introduction of Very Large Capacity Aircraft(VLCA)


19/51


VLCA Aircraft Discussion

Large capacity aircraft requirements

Discussion of future high-capacity airport requirements

Airside infrastructure impacts

Airside capacity impacts

Landside impacts

Pavement design considerations

Noise considerations

Systems approach


20/51


VLCA Design Trade-off Methodology

Aircraft designed purely on aerodynamic principleswould be costly to the airport operator yet have lowDOC

Aircraft heavily constrained by current airport designstandards might not be very efficient to operate

Adaptations of aircraft to fit airports can be costly

Some impact on aerodynamic performance Weight considerations (i.e., landing gear design)

A balance should be achieved


21/51


VLCA Impact Framework (I)

Aircraft Design Module

Takeoff Weight Requirement

Mission Profile Definition

Aircraft Wake Vortex Model

Airport Geometric Design

Runway and Taxiway Geometric

Gate Compatibility Modeling

Airside Capacity Analysis

Capacity AnalysisRunway , Taxiway and Gate

Aircraft Separation Standards

Aircraft Separation Analysis

Airport Landside Capacity

Landside Simulations

Terminal Design Modeling

Aircraft Wingspan

Landing Gear Configuration

VLCA Physical Dimensions

Range, Speed, Payload

Takeoff Roll, Gate Comp.

Pavement Design Analysis

Flexible and Rigid PavementsStrut Configurations

Wheel Track, Wheel Length

Landing Gear Configurations

Aircraft Length

Passenger Demand Flows

New Geometric Design Criteria

Modeling

New Capacity Figures of Merit

New Terminal Design Guidelines

Identify Areas of FurtherResearch


22/51


VLCA Impact Methodology (II)Airport Landside Capacity

Landside Simulations

Terminal Design Modeling

Landing Gear ConfigurationPavement Design AnalysisFlexible and Rigid PavementsStrut Configurations

Wheel Track, Wheel Length

Landing Gear Configurations

Passenger Demand Flows

Landing Gear Configuration

VLCA Noise Model

Noise Modeling of VLCALanding AnalysisTakeoff Analysis

Thrust and EPNL/SEL

VLCA Economic Impact

Community ImpactsUser Cost Impacts

New Terminal Design Guidelines

Identify Areas of FurtherResearch

Operations (Ldn contours)

Comparison with Current Limits

Trade-off Model


23/51


VLCA Specifications (Typical)

Parameter Boeing 747-500X VLCA (A380)

Range (km) 13,000 13,000

Runway Length (m) 3,000 3,000

Payload (kN) 800 1,200

Passengers 500 630-650

Max.TOW (kN) 4,200 5,400

Wingspan (m) 75 80-85

Length (m) 74-76 76-85


24/51


VLCA Schematic

VLCA aircraft will have wingspans around 15-25%larger than current transports

78 .57 m81.5 m.

12 o

Four 315 kN Turbofan Engines

AR = 9.5S = 700 m

2

Payload = 650 passengersDesign Range = 13,000 km.MTOW = 5,400 kN

9-11o

81-87 m


25/51


VLCA Schematic (II)

Structural weight penalties of folding wings are likely tobe unacceptable to most airlines

The empennage height could be a problem for existinghangars at some airport facilities

75.67 m

Boein g 7 47-400VLCA

24.87 m

14 o


26/51


Airbus A380 - First in a Family of VLCA

Source: Airbus


27/51


28/51


VLCA Design Trade-off Studies

Future VLCA would weight 5,400 kN for a 13,000 km

design range mission

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

A

ircraftMaximum

TakeoffWeight(kN)

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000

Design Range (Nautical Miles and Kilometers)

AR =10.0

AR = 9.5

AR = 9.0

VLCA Wing Aspect Ratio

B747-400

MTOW

5,400 KN

(9,260) (10,186) (11,112) (12,038) (12,965) (13,890) (14,816)


29/51


VLCA Design Trade-off Studies (II)

It is possible that aircraft designers in the near future willexceed the FAA design group VI limits

65

70

75

80

85

90

VLCAAircraftWin

gspan(Meters)

AR =10.0

AR = 9.5

AR =9.0

VLCA Wing Aspect Ratio

81.5

Group VI Limit

FAA Design

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000(9,260) (10,186) (11,112) (12,038) (12,965) (13,890) (14,816)

Design Range (Nautical Miles and Kilometers)


30/51


VLCA Impacts on Airside Infrastructure

Increase taxiway dimensional standards for design groupVI to avoid possible foreign object damage to VLCAengines (increase taxiway and shoulder widths to 35 m

and 15 m, respectively)

61 m 31 m

VLCA on DG VI Runway VLCA on DG VI Taxiway


31/51


Runway-Taxiway Separation Criteria

Increase the minimum runway to taxiway separationcriteria to 228 m (750 ft.). This should increase the use ofhigh-speed exits

230 m

183 m


32/51


HS Runway Exits for VLCA

Larger transition radii (due to large aircraft yaw inertia)

Linear taper turnoff width from 61 m to 40 m (metricstations 250 to 650)

0

25

50

75

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

VLCA Aircraft

Boeing 747-200

Boeing 727-200

Downrange Distance (m)

LateralDistance(m)

HS Exit35 m/s design speed


33/51


VLCA Taxiway Fillet Radius Requirements

The fillet radius design standards for design group VIshould suffice for VLCA aircraft

25.00

26.00

27.00

28.00

29.00

30.00

31.00

27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00

Distance from Main Undercarriage to Cockpit (m.)

Uw = 16.5

Uw = 15.0

Uw = 13.5

Undercarriage Width (m.)

VLCA Design Region

MinimumFilletRadius(m)

FAA Design Group VI

Distance from Main Undercarriage to Cockpit (m)


34/51


Taxiway Length of Fillet Requirements

VLCA length offillet requirements will probably besatisfied using current geometric design criteria

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00

Distance from Main Undercarriage to Cockpit (m.)

Uw = 16.5

Uw = 15.0

Uw = 13.5

Undercarriage Width (m.)

Distance from Main Undercarriage to Cockpit (m)

Fille

tLength(m)

VLCA Design Region

FAA Design Group VI


35/51


Impacts to Aircraft Separation

Critical to estimate safe aircraft separation criteria

Induced rolling acceleration principle ( quotient)

Tangential speed matching method Derived formulation (using quotient principle)

is the separation distance between aircraft i and j in km

, , and are regression constants found to be6.1000, 0.00378, -0.24593 and 0.44145, respectively

and are 4.7000 and 0.00172 and have been derivedusing empirical roll control flight simulation data

ij

Max L1

L2

W

i

+ K1

K+

2

W

i

, K3

W

j

{ }K4

+

=

ij

K1 K2 K3 K4

L1 L2


36/51


Aircraft Separation Analysis

Recommended in-trail separation criteria forapproaching aircraft using the quotient criteriaP

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

24.0

AircraftSepa

ration(km.)

0.0 750.0 1500.0 2250.0 3000.0 3750.0 4500.0 5250.0

Leading Aircraft Weight (kN)

VLCA

Heavy (747)

Large (B757)

Medium (DC9)

Small (Learjet 23)


37/51


Wake Vortex Tangential Speed Estimation

Predicted tangential speeds of wake vortex usingRobinson and Larson semi-empirical vortex model

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9

Lateral Distance from Center of Fuselage (m.)

TangentialS

peed(m/s)

Lockheed C5A (2,060 KN)

Clean aircraftSpeed = 160 knotsSea Level ISA

VLCA (4,400 KN)

Vortex Cores

14 km behind aircraft


38/51


Aircraft Separation Analysis (cont.)

In-trail separation criteria for approaching aircraftusing the tangential speed matching method

VLCA Design Range (Nautical Miles and Kilometers)

5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000(10,186) (11,112) (12,038) (13,000) (13,890) (14,816)

8

10

12

14

16

MiminumIn

-trailSeparation(km

)

3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500

Maximum Takeoff Weight (kN)

Heavy

Medium

Small

Trailing Aircraft

MTOW < 267 kN

267 KN < MTOW < 1,336 kN

MTOW > 1,336 kN

IMC Conditions


39/51


Runway Saturation Capacity Impacts

Small to moderate saturation capacity changes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 25 50 75 100

Departure Saturation Capacity (aircraft/hr)

20%

10%

0%

Percent VLCA

(aircraft/hr)

Independent Parallel Approaches

IMC Weather ConditionsParallel Runway Configuratio


40/51


Airport Terminal Impacts (Landside)

VLCA will certainly impact the way passengers are

processed at the terminal in various areas:

Gate interface (dual-level boarding gates)

Service areas (ticket counters, security counters,immigration cheking areas, corridors, etc.)

Apron area parking requirements


41/51


Airport Landside Effects

Use of simulation models to estimate landside LOS

count

Immigration

a

Heavy Acft Gate

eavy Acft Gate

Heavy Acft Gate

Heavy Acft Gate

Heavy Acft Gate

VLCA Deplaning Model

#Exit

33

CustomsCUSTOMSBaggage Claim

b?

a

select

cCirculation

#Exit

0

Arriving Aircraft Gates

Entrance to

Landside

facilities

ransfer

Passengers are

eperated hereTransfer

Passengers Count

Passengers exiting

from the Terminal

F

L W0

ReadMe

Terminal

490 m.

5 VLCA Aircraft (or 7 Boeing 747-400)


42/51


Sample Landside Simulation Results

Analysis using the Airport Terminal Simulation Model

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 30 60 90 120 150

Time (minutes)

5 VLCA at 85% Load

7 Boeing 747-400 at 85% Load

TotalNo.

Passengersat

ImmigrationCounters

Normal service times (=1.0 and =0.25 minutes)30 immigration counters


43/51


Airport Gate Interface Challenges

VLCA aircraft could employ dual-level boarding gates toprovide acceptable enplanement performance

75.67 m

Boeing 747- 400VLCA

24.87 m

14o

TerminalDual-level Boarding Gates

75.67 m

Boeing 747- 400VLCA

24.87 m

14o

TerminalDual-level Boarding Gates


44/51


Noise Impacts

High by-pass ratio turbofan engines with maximumtakeoff thrust of 315-350 kN will be necessary to powerVLCA aircraft

The engine size will probably be determined by takeoffrun and engine-out climb requirements

VLCA Thrust Rating (kN)

50

75

100

125

100.00 1000.00

311.76

246.98

229.31

174.35

115.43

103.20

44.55

10000.00

Slant Distance m

315.60

SoundExposureLevel(dBA)

Slant Range (m)


45/51


DNL Takeoff Contours

Larger engines coupled with smaller initial climb ratecapability (compared to twin and three-engine aircraft)could result in expanded noise contours at most airports

0 2000 4000 6000

Scale in meters

Ldn = 55 Prof iles

VLCA Profile

MD-11(GE) Prof ile

8000 10000

Runway


46/51


Pavement Design Impacts

Multiple triple-in-tandem landing gear configurationsare likely to be used for VLCA applications

1 10

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

B747-400

VLCA

B727-200

DC9-50

2 4 6 8 20 30 40

Subgrade Strength, CBR

Quadruple + Triple-in-Tandem

Landing Gear

Configuration

PavementTh

ickness(cm)

CBR Value


47/51


Systems Engineering Model

Aircraft Life Cycle IOC

Annual IOC

Aircraft Life Cycle DOC

Annual DOC

Average Utilization

Fuel Oil Costs

Average Utilization

Crew Expenses

Maintenance Cost

Depreciation Cost

Insurance CostAnnual Fuel Consumption

Fuel Unit CostFlight Operations Cost

~

Fleet Purchases

Fleet Size

Fleet Additions Fleet Retirement

Property and Equipment Cost

Servicing Flight OPS

Administration & Sales Cost Depreciation Ground Equipment


48/51


Sample Application of the Model

Desired Range in Km.

and (n.m.)

Aspect Ratio

Cruise Mach Number

VLCA Capacity (pass.)

MTOW kN (lbs)

Wingspan (m.)

10,186

(5,500)

9.5

0.85

650

3,830 (860,000)

70

12,965

(7,000)

9.5

0.85

650

5,385 (1,210,000)

82

13,890

(7,500)

9.5

0.85

650

6,100 (1,370,000)

87

Airfield Pavement Section

Improvement0 0 0

Noise Mitigation 5,000,000 7,872,000 10,000,000

Runway Improvement 19,250,000 19,250,000 24,319,277

Taxiway Improvement 13,663,234 13,663,237 15,413,237

90 Degree Exit Improv. 276,343 384,694 386,622

Runway Blast Pad Area

Improvement1,200,000 1,200,000 1,589,673

Terminal Apron Area Improve-ment

0 77,685 113,207

Land Acquisition Cost 63,869 229,328 297,101


49/51


Airfield Geometric Infrastruc-

ture Improvement Cost 39,017,641 48,299,715 59,736,701

Terminal Curb Frontage

Improvement Cost45,900 45,900 45,900

Parking Garage Improvement

Cost2,653,750 2,653,750 2,653,750

Landside Improvement Cost 2,699,650 2,699,650 2,699,650

International Terminal Infra-

structure Improvement Cost77,523,165 77,523,165 77,523,165

Total Airport Infrastructure

Improvement Cost124,240,456 136,394,530 149,959,516

Desired Range in Km.

and (n.m.)

Aspect RatioCruise Mach Number

VLCA Capacity (pass.)

MTOW kN (lbs)

Wingspan (m.)

10,186

(5,500)

9.50.85

650

3,830 (860,000)

70

12,965

(7,000)

9.50.85

650

5,385 (1,210,000)

82

13,890

(7,500)

9.50.85

650

6,100 (1,370,000)

87

S


50/51


Summary

An integrated life-cycle approach is needed toestimate the impacts of VLCA aircraft

High-capacity aircraft operating at high-capacity

airports will require some changes to currentdesign standards

Some of the design standards for airside

infrastructure should be revised to plan ahead forstrategic VLCA aircraft

The effect ofreduced airside capacity will notyield reduced passenger demand flow rates at

airport terminals

Hi h it i t ld b fit f l


51/51


High capacity airports could benefit from lowerfl

ight frequencies resulting from VLCA operationsif the passenger demand flows are the same

Documents

FAA Short Course Prelim