FORUM-AE INPUT TO ACARE WG3 July 2015 · FORUM‐AE mid‐term synthesis (D4.14) 4 Document Information Project Number FP7 ‐ 605506 Acronym FORUM‐AE Full Title Forum on Aviation

FORUM‐AE

FORUMonAviationandEmissions

FP7CoordinationAction–GA605506‐www.forum‐ae.eu

Partners:SN,AI,DLR,DLH,ECATS,FZAG,IFPEN,MMU,NLR,ON,RR,RRD,SENASA,ECTL,JRC,TM

FORUM‐AEMID‐TERMSYNTHESIS

D4.14

Issuedon31stJuly2015

FORUM‐AE mid‐term synthesis (D4.14)

2


3

Forum-AE Coordination & Support Action

FP7 – 605506

D4.14 FORUM-AE Mid-Term Synthesis

Main authors: Snecma

With contributions from FORUM‐AE partners

Project title: Forum on Aviation and Emissions

Deliverable nature: Report

Dissemination level: (Confidentiality)

PU

Start date of the project 1st July 2013

Duration 48 months

Contractual delivery date: 1/09/2014

Actual delivery date: 31/07/2015

Status: Final version

Contractual: Yes

Version: 2.0

Total number of pages: 57

Work-Package WP4 – Coordination & Dissemination

Leader of WP: SN & ECATS

Lead Beneficiary of deliverable:

SN

Comments: This document is a consolidated synthesis of project results since 1/07/13

Keywords: Environmental impacts from Aviation Emissions, Air Quality Impact Assessment, Climate Change Impact Assessment, Contrails & contrail cirrus, Aircraft/Engine Mitigation Technology, CROR, Lean Combustion, Alternative Fuels expected benefits, CO2 regulation, Particles regulation, NOx regulation, Progress towards ACARE Goals, Research Priorities


4

Document Information

Project

Number

FP7 ‐ 605506 Acronym FORUM‐AE

Full Title Forum on Aviation and Emissions

Project URL www.forum‐ae.eu

EU Project Officer Christiane Bruynooghe

Deliverable Number D4.14 Title FORUM‐AE Mid‐Term Synthesis

Work Package Number WP4 Title Coordination & Dissemination

Date of Delivery Contractual M25 Actual M25

Status Final

Nature1 R

Dissemination level2 PU

Author (Partner) Olivier Penanhoat (Snecma)

Contributor (Partner)

Paul Brok (NLR), Sigrun Matthes (DLR), Xavier Vancassel (Onera), Paul

Madden (RR), Bethan Owen (MMU), Victoria Mosso (Senasa), Klaus

Gierens (DLR), Emanuel Fleuti (Zurich Airport), Rachel Burbidge

(Eurocontrol), Rainer Von Wrede (Airbus), Fabrice le Berr (IFPEN), Thomas

Doerr (Rolls‐Royce Deutschland), Robin Deransy (Eurocontrol), Laura

Lonza (JRC), Christophe Viguier (Turbomeca), Peter Wiesen (ECATS), Gerd

Saueressig (Lufthansa), Olivier Husse (Airbus)

All project’s consortium, external focal points, workshops participants

Contributor (Invites)

Responsible Author (Partner leader of deliverable)

Name Olivier Penanhoat E‐mail [email protected]

Partner Snecma/SAFRAN Phone +33 1 60 59 89 64

Version Log

Issue Date Version Author Change

13/07/2015 Draft 1.0 Olivier Penanhoat

22/07/2015 Draft 2.0 ‐

30/07/2015 Draft 3.0 ‐

31/07/2015 Final 1.0 ‐

1 R=Report, P=Prototype, D=Demonstrator, O=Other 2 PU=Public, PP=Restricted to other programme participants (including the EC), RE=Restricted to a group specified by the

Consortium (including the EC), CO=Confidential, only for members of the Consortium (including the EC)


5

CONTENT

FORUM‐AE ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Document Information ............................................................................................................................ 4

0 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 7

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 15

2 Changing boundary conditions ...................................................................................................... 16

3 State of the Art – Future Trends – Priorities ................................................................................. 17

3.1 Environmental Impact of Aircraft Emissions ............................................................................. 17

3.1.0 Recall of ACARE goal relevant to environmental impact from aircraft emissions ........ 17

3.1.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 17

3.1.2 Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 23

3.2 Mitigation Solutions .................................................................................................................. 29

3.2.0 Recall of ACARE technological goals in terms of CO2 and non‐CO2 emissions ............ 29

3.2.1 CO2 Technological Mitigation Solutions (Aircraft & Engine) ......................................... 31

3.2.2 Non‐CO2 Technological Mitigation Solutions (Engine Combustion Chamber) ............. 35

3.2.3 Alternative Fuels Mitigation Solution ............................................................................ 38

3.3 Regulations issues ..................................................................................................................... 41

3.3.0 Recall of ACARE goal relevant to regulation ................................................................. 41

3.3.1 Non volatile particles (nvPM) and future CAEP standard ............................................. 41

3.3.2 CO2 and future CAEP standard...................................................................................... 44

3.3.3 Market Based Measures ................................................................................................ 46

4 Assessment of progress towards ACARE goals ............................................................................. 49

5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 51

Appendix 1) General information on FORUM‐AE ................................................................................. 53

A.1.1 Consortium .................................................................................................................... 53

A.1.2 Project’s organisation .................................................................................................... 53

Appendix 2) Workshops and Monitoring .............................................................................................. 54

A.2.1 Workshops realised since beginning ............................................................................. 54

A.2.2 Monitored projects ....................................................................................................... 54

Appendix 3) Emissions Mitigation Solutions – Enablers ..................................................................... 56


6


7

0 ExecutiveSummary

The European project FORUM‐AE [FORUM on Aviation and Emissions (& Environment)] is a technical

and scientific forum addressing all the issues associated to the aviation environmental concerns

linked to emissions: impacts, technical solutions and regulation. It supports the appropriate

European research and innovation by giving it the necessary awareness and visibility.

Series of focused workshops aim at better understanding impacts, at identifying the potential

technical and technological solutions, their expected benefits and maturity and at addressing

regulation technical issues. FORUM‐AE monitors also and assesses the European research and

innovation in the field of aviation environmental issues linked to emissions by compiling relevant

information from all existing EU projects and main national ones, and making assessment against the

ACARE environmental goals.

Main results obtained from the first 2 years activity (1/01/2013 – 30/06/2015) were synthesized in

the document and deserve consideration. Considering some “boundary conditions” changes, we

summarise hereafter the state of the art, provide an up‐dated assessment of progress towards

ACARE goals and before all we list our main recommendations (focused on research priorities).

Changing Boundary conditions

FORUM‐AE puts important emphasis on ACARE environmental goals related to aircraft emissions, but

sufficient openness is necessary. New topics may emerge, which were not initially shaped.

This is the case for instance of: ultra fine particles (higher Air Quality concerns at European airports,

perspective of a future nvPM international standard), cruise NOx emissions to be distinguished from

LTO NOx, cruise emissions influence on air quality, drop‐in kerosene (fossil or renewable)

composition optimisation, fuel sulphur content, contrail avoidance strategy, possible CO2 or non‐

CO2 trade‐offs with noise environmental constraint, comparison between other transport modes

(particles, CO2), introduction of a new aircraft CO2 metric from future CAEP standard...

Clearly, FORUM‐AE should be able to identify these emerging or connected themes and provide

deeper insight on them.

State of the art and future trends

The scope of FORUM‐AE being very large (from impact assessment, through mitigation solutions, to

regulation issues), appropriate details should be found in the forum‐ae mid‐term synthesis full

document; gaps identified from current state of the art are reflected indeed in the list of

recommendations.

Impact assessment: a good landscape of air quality issues at airports was established, and status on

climate change impact shows the progress, supported in particular by the completed REACT4C

project, since IPCC special report on aviation in 1999 and the Lee & al 2010 paper3.

3 Atmospheric Environment 44 (2010)


8

Better knowledge was achieved on non‐CO2 direct and indirect impact but there remain clearly open

questions to be addressed.

Mitigation solutions at aircraft/engine/ATM level: Current and future technological developments to

achieve the challenging ACARE 2050 CO2 goal are essential to mitigate substantially the increase of

aviation CO2, with realistic traffic growth assumption. A large part of the effort of the last decade

was supported within Clean Sky, and within other European projects like LEMCOTEC, ENOVAL and E‐

BREAK. Most promising solutions appear to be laminar wing, and ultra high by‐pass ratio engines

like Open Rotor (medium term) and distributed propulsion (longer term as explored in DISPURSAL

project). New and light materials (e.g. composites for fan blade) should also provide benefits. It is

unclear what is projected on new aircraft architectures before 2050 but AHEAD project illustrates a

radical aircraft configuration change.

Global aviation CO2 forecast with ACARE assumption (assumptions: ACARE 2050 is achieved in 2050 and fully introduced in the 2050 fleet ; there is a continuous improvement of

average efficiency from now to 2050 ; ICAO 37th assembly average traffic growth of 4.6% is taken)

Non‐CO2 emissions reduction relies on future low emission combustor technologies, which are

developed in a big cluster of dedicated projects, and partly in LEMCOTEC and in SAGE ITD inside

Clean‐Sky. Focus was until recently on NOx, but the new concern on particles involves that future

combustor technology should jointly satisfy ambitious NOx and nvPM objectives. The strategy which

is generally adopted for Turbofans is the lean combustion although implementing lean combustion

becomes more complicated for smaller size and/or smaller OPR engine combustors. Good progress

was realised in European R&T projects, but additional work is necessary to achieve TRL6 maturity for

the various categories of engines.

Mitigation solution from alternative fuels: environmental benefits from drop‐in fuels were

considered not only in terms of CO2, assuming positive LCA budget, but also in their ability to reduce

particles. Fuel composition optimization for environmental impact mitigation and better engine

compatibility appears as an important topic which is not properly covered today.

Regulation (CO2, NOx, Particles): a first CO2 international standard and a first particles international

standard4 should be delivered beginning of 2016, whereas last severisation of the existing NOx

standard was done in 2010 with application in 2014. These standards are naturally incentives

justifying the development of environmentally friendly aircraft/engine solutions. Market Based

Measures, currently discussed at ICAO level, may become also a CO2 mitigation incentive.

4 This first particles standard is indeed a “transition” standard before

~2%

~5.5%

~2.5%

~1.8%


9

Assessment against ACARE Goals

A new assessment5 was performed against ACARE CO2 and NOx goals and is summarized in the

following table. Although, there is no ACARE objective related to ultrafine particles, this is now a key

environmental and regulatory concern, which requires appropriate mitigation solutions (combustor

technology and fuel composition).

FORUM‐AE assessment against ACARE emissions goals

Recommendations

Recommendations & needs (Air Quality)

I. There is a need for harmonisation of measurements of ultrafine particle (UFP) concentrations in

ambient air, as well as the need for more UFP measurements – both at sources and on the

airport. These activities should also involve the issue of source apportionment. Moreover, the

need exists to define appropriate (technology as well as air quality) standards, limitations or any

other criteria linked to ultrafine particles.

Status & Identified Gaps in Airports Inventory

Red: improvements still required; Yellow: in‐progress or less required; Green: knowledge is good

Emission [in grams] = Emission Factor [in g/s or g/km] x Activity [in s or km distance covered]

5 This new assessment up-dates the last one done in 2012 by OPTI project


10

II. Airport emission inventory and air quality modelling improvements are required, which will

make models more accurately predict concentrations. As illustrated in previous table there is

still a lot of room for improvement in airport emission inventory making, and that further

consolidation is needed in knowledge of relevant airport emissions sources and their activity

(performance), emission factor and calculation algorithm. Linked to both inventory making and

air quality modelling, there is the need for further development and validation of performance

based emissions modelling, and the need for harmonisation in this area.

III. There is a general need for more harmonised data and validated datasets, including better data

availability in the public domain6.

IV. Combination of airport and regional air quality modelling is relevant but complex and requires

involvement of several parties and the exchange of a substantial amount of information.

Nonetheless, coupling of the local‐scale and meso‐scale modelling will improve modelling

results and is therefore of mutual benefit. Moreover, linked to the global scale, the

understanding and quantification of aircraft cruise emissions impact on air quality at regional

and local scales should be further improved.

Recommendations & needs (Climate Change)

I. Studies show how results (estimates) vary with and depend on different emission inventories

and so sensitivity analysis to emissions inventories are recommended.

Aviation NOx in 2006 (left) and resulting Ozone perturbation (right)

II. Clear documentation of assumptions in future scenarios and sensitivity studies on such

assumptions are also fully relevant for gaining understanding of the impact of the

assumptions.

III. Metric is still an open key issue. Quantitative estimates should be provided for a set of typical

metrics (e.g. radiative forcing, average temperature response, global warming potential...) to

demonstrate sensitivity of results on choice of metric. Then, there is a need of careful

selection of calculation methods and metrics, appropriate to the question to be answered.

6 A European modelling strategy was recently issued and adopted up to the ECAC Directors General level per Dec. 2013


11

IV. Sources of uncertainties must still be analysed; and there is a need to develop means for

robust decisions under uncertainty.

V. Climate‐optimised flight routing must be further developed, ideally considering the

individual weather situation. Using climate cost functions, measuring with the appropriate

metric the effect of an unit of a given species emitted locally on the climate warming, may be

an efficient approach for flight routing optimisation.

VI. Better correlation between contrail/contrail cirrus properties and particle emissions is

required both for prediction accuracy and for mitigation strategy.

Recommendations & needs (CO2 mitigation technology)

I. ACARE 2050 very challenging CO2 reduction objective would permit to mitigate substantially

the increase of aviation CO2, with realistic traffic growth assumption. Therefore, it is

essential to pursue a tremendous effort at the aircraft level, the engine level and the ATM &

flight operation level in order to progress towards this ambitious goal.

II. Aircraft/Engine panel of technologies (an exhaustive list would be very long and one can

refer to SRIA‐Vol.2 enablers table and to FORUM‐AE relevant workshops proceedings) must

be further and continuously improved or newly introduced both for evolutionary aircraft or

engine applications and longer term disruptive applications.

III. Unconventional configurations like aircrafts equipped with CROR concept or UHBPR

concepts, must be further developed. Their mitigation potential, complemented with laminar

wing benefit, must be maximised and their maturity must be pushed over TRL5, recognizing

there is still some gap towards ACARE 2020 CO2 goal.

URANS CROR calculation (left) & Laminar wing test bed (right)

IV. More radically unconventional solutions, like distributed propulsion aircrafts…, should be

also considered for much longer term and at lower TRL (up to TRL3‐4).


12

Recommendations & needs (non‐CO2 mitigation technology)

Consensus appears that particles (nvPM) reduction must be also achieved, in addition to NOx. This

induces critical R&T on:

I. The combustor technology itself in order to ensure both NOx & nvPM ambitious low levels:

enhanced lean combustion in general (achieving TRL6 maturity & extending its application to

smaller size and/or smaller OPR engine combustors), and focus on more specific aspects

which may be beneficial to particles reduction (improved atomisation…)

Lean combustion technology: Snecma calculation (left), Rolls‐Royce solution (right)

II. The modeling of emissions, which for particles emissions is far from being predictable today,

because of the physical complexity of particles formation (gaseous precursors formation,

particles nucleation & oxidation…), and the modeling of combustion related operability

aspects

III. The experimental analysis, which is absolutely necessary to support modeling development

or to assess technology. This assumes advanced measurements (in particular intrusive and

non intrusive measurements of particles in the combustion chamber) and appropriate test

capability (from multi‐sector tests to full annular tests, with ability to achieve high pressure

levels)

Recommendations & needs (Mitigation from Alternative Fuels)

I. Harmonisation is needed to converge on a common and technically satisfactory CO2 LCA

methodology in order to assess alternative jet fuel production pathways.

II. The aromatic content of future jet fuels (fossil or renewable) should be minimized as much as

possible in order to reduce particles emission. Reduction of sulphur content may be also

beneficial.

III. There is a need to develop predictive tools to model the fuel interaction with the aircraft fuel

system or with the engine. This will permit fuel composition optimisation to improve fuel

compatibility and it will help reducing ASTM certification costs.


13

As there is currently nothing on‐going except at the national levels, most EC effort being put on the

production pathways, a dedicated European program supporting these topics (composition

optimization, modelling tools) is strongly needed. It would accelerate the ability to specify fuel

composition or predict fuel/engine interactions.

Recommendations & needs (Regulation on CO2, Particles, NOx)

I. On CO2, further developments of European modelling capabilities should be pursued and

there is some agreement on the idea of a future technology review to support the CAEP

technology goal setting process associated to the standard‐setting process.

II. Concerning NOx regulation, as there exists a well established standard for which the last

stringency was agreed in 2010 for application in 2014, appropriate monitoring work is

justified.

III. Further work is required to support the future nvPM standard, in particular to populate an

aero‐engine nvPM database for in‐production engines (turbofans>26.7KN,

turbofans<26.7KN, turboprops, turboshafts, and APUs), and to provide the information

needed for a certification requirement (fuel specifications, corrections, and analysis

procedures etc.).

IV. Research organisations and engine manufacturers need to work together with airports to

help update their PM models, and to help them find good measurement techniques to

identify different PM sources at the airport.


14


15

1 Introduction

The European project FORUM‐AE [FORUM on Aviation and Emissions (& Environment)] is a technical

and scientific forum addressing all the issues associated to the aviation environmental concerns

linked to emissions: impacts, technical solutions and regulation. It supports the appropriate

European research and innovation by giving it the necessary awareness and visibility.

Series of focused workshops aim at better understanding impacts, at identifying the potential

technical and technological solutions, their expected benefits and maturity and at addressing

regulation technical issues. FORUM‐AE monitors also and assesses the European research and

innovation in the field of aviation environmental issues linked to emissions by compiling relevant

information from all existing EU projects and main national ones, and making assessment against the

ACARE environmental goals.

The FORUM‐AE project achieves its mid‐term and the present document gathers the main results

from the typical project’s activity. Most of them are conclusions from workshops (§3), consolidated

and agreed after sufficient iterations between partners and potentially enriched with outside

sources, inputs from monitored projects, complementary analysis by some of the partners. The

project delivers also an assessment of the progress towards ACARE pollutant emissions goals (§4),

up‐dating the previous OPTI assessment.

General information on the project, its principles and its organisation are recalled in appendix.

This material is a deliverable of the project to EC and is proposed as a support to ACARE WG3

analysis.


16

2 Changingboundaryconditions

FORUM‐AE project voluntarily addresses together environmental impact of aircraft pollutant

emissions, mitigation technological solutions and regulation technical subjects, because it is obvious

that these three aspects are linked. Better environmental impact knowledge should determine

where to focus technologically and accurate knowledge of the technology is necessary to evaluate

precisely environmental impacts. Appropriate regulation requires also a good knowledge both of

environmental impacts and of the technology, and the regulation is an incentive for new

technological/technical solutions.

FORUM‐AE puts important emphasis on ACARE environmental goals related to aircraft emissions, but

sufficient openness is necessary. New topics may emerge, which were not initially shaped. This is the

case for instance of: ultra fine particles (higher Air Quality concerns at European airports, perspective

of a future nvPM international standard), cruise NOx emissions to be distinguished from LTO NOx,

cruise emissions influence on air quality, drop‐in kerosene (fossil or renewable) composition

optimisation, fuel sulphur content, contrail avoidance strategy, possible CO2 or non‐CO2 trade‐offs

with noise environmental constraint, comparison between other transport modes (particles, CO2),

introduction of a new aircraft CO2 metric from future CAEP standard... Clearly, FORUM‐AE should be

able to identify these emerging or connected themes and provide deeper insight on them.

When considering technological solutions at aircraft, engine or ATM level, the full spectrum of

solutions, evolutionary/revolutionary ones, high/low maturity ones should be ideally investigated.

Being aware of the very challenging CO2 or NOx ACARE goals, this is a prerequisite. Combining

different kind of true solutions and maturing the promising ones will be certainly mandatory.

However revolutionary concepts do not mean any original idea, and revolution may be found also in

the details, less obviously. An ambition of FORUM‐AE is therefore to review as much as possible and

with sufficient rationality, a large panel of solutions, some of them already investigated in more

prospective European projects.


17

3 StateoftheArt–FutureTrends–Priorities

Thefollowingcontent(§3.1,§3.2,§3.3)isessentiallybasedontheresultswhichwereobtainedduring dedicated workshops and following iterations. It reflects consensus view from theFORUM‐AEconsortium.

3.1 EnvironmentalImpactofAircraftEmissions

3.1.0 RecallofACAREgoalrelevanttoenvironmentalimpactfromaircraftemissionsACARE 20507 defines the following qualitative objective relevant to environmental impact ofaircraft emissions: “Europe is at the forefront of atmospheric research and takes the lead informulating a prioritised environmental action plan and establishes global environmentalstandards.”

3.1.1 AirQuality

General and fundamentals

Fromascientificandahealthpointofview–andsubsequentpolicyinterest,monitoringand

control – the most important pollutants to focus on are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), regionalozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM); currently PM10, PM2.5 and ultrafine particles(UFPs).Additionalemissionspeciesofinterestarehazardousairpollutants(HAPs).

AirPollutioninGeneral[Source: European Environmental Agency]

Ultrafine particles (UFPs) are and will continue to be food for further discussion andconsideration. Concerning airports8, this especially concerns UFP emissions on the apronarea (airside) where ramp workers are exposed. The identification of such particles andtacklingof their sources remain issuesof importanceand further investigation.Moreover,

7 Flight path 2050: “Europe’s Vision for Aviation” (2011) 8 In addition to FORUM-AE AQ WS exchanged material, see also ACI 2012 special report on UFP


18

appropriatetechnologyandairqualitystandards,limitationsoranyothercriterialinkedtoultrafineparticlesarestilllackingandneedtobedefined.

Airpollutionaroundairports(landside)mostlycomesfromothersources thantheairport

itself.IncaseslikeforinstanceLondonHeathrowairportandZürichairport,themainsourceconcernsroadtraffic.Measuredandmonitoredconcentrationsareinexcessoflimitvalues.Itishardorevenimpossible(beyondthecontrolofanairportoperator)togetbelowlimitvalues.Politicallyand legally it is thenalsoverydifficult to furtherdevelopandexpandanairport(likebuildinganextrarunway).FormanyotherEuropeanairports,therearehardlyanyairqualitycomplianceissues.Nonetheless,thismaychangewhileabsoluteandrelativesharesofaircraftemissionsareincreasingcomparedtoothersources.

Airpollutionaroundairport:NOxconcentrationsmodelling[source:Lasport]

Currentexperienceisthatthenumberofcomplaintsonodoursaroundanairportisnotthathigh.Nonetheless,odourmaybecomemoreofanissueforthepublicwith aviation steadilygrowing in the future. The odour issue might be directly linked to an increase of smellyemissions,andor indirectlytotheperception(i.e.,annoyanceandorfear)ofpeopleintheneighbourhoodofanairport.NB: Smell andodour issues arenotnew.Linked to aviationkerosene, various compoundsmight be the cause of odour complaints such as some unburnt or partially burnthydrocarbon(HC)compoundsandtheonescontainingsmallamountsofsulphur.Thelatterislinkedtothesulphurcontentinaviationfuel(withanuppersulphurlimitof0.3%bymassasspecifiedbyregulationdecadesagoprimarilytoprotecttheturbinesection).Sulphurinfuelatlowpowerconditionsmaybeemittedintinyppb(partsperbillion)quantitieswithinmercaptans(i.e.thesulphuranaloguesofalcohols).Thehumannoseisthatsensitiveitcansmellppb levelsofcertainpollutantssuchas these.Odourcouldbeoneof thereasons forcutting sulphur levels in the future (i.e., the turbine section is fine at any level 0.3% andbelow).

In order to improve awareness and transparency towards the public, it is important to

publisharelevantamountofinformationinrelationtoaviationandairquality.Whereverofaddedvalue,thisshouldincludescientificresultstranslatedintopublic‐friendlyinformation.Moreover, easy access to the information through, for instance, internet is recommended,and for transparency reasons real‐time data provision wherever relevant, feasible andunambiguous.


19

The need for standardisation and harmonisation of measurement and models is fullyrecognised. In this respect, JRC isofferingopportunities for collaborationwithFORUM‐AEconsortiummembers; inparticular, JRC isbothwillingandhappy toshare itsexpertise inmeasuring and modelling (similar to standardisation and harmonisation activities in theframeofAQUILAandFAIRMODE)aswellasinIntegratedAssessmentModelling.

Airqualitymeasurementandmonitoring

ManyEuropeanairportscarryoutmeasurementsandalreadyhaveimplementednetworksto monitor concentration levels, and to assess whether actual concentration values staybelowairqualitylimitvalues.Nevertheless, interestingnewtechniquesandmethodologiesformeasuring andmonitoring air quality are emerging, for instance (networks of)micro‐sensors, which are worth considering in addition to or to replace (parts of) existingtechniques.

AirQualitymonitoringatHeathrowairport[Source: www.snaq.org]

Harmonisation ofmeasurements of ultrafine particle (UFP) concentrations in ambient airshould be considered. This involves the definition of best practice guidance in the design,configuration, deployment andoperationalmanagement ofmeasurements andmonitoringnetworks.Theeffectof temperatureandother ambient conditionson theoutcomeofUFPconcentrationmeasurementsshouldbefurtherinvestigated.Allthiswillimprovethequalityandcomparabilityofresults.Inparticular,thisconcernisaddressedinJRC’sAQUILAproject.

Thereisanoverallneedfortransparentandcomprehensivesetsofdata,preferablypublicly

andreal‐timeavailable.Overthenext10years,wemayseetheimplementationofreal‐timedistributeddatafrom,e.g.,networksofmicro‐monitors.Attachedtoallthis,thereshouldbeanindicatororsomekindofotherinformationaboutthequalitylevelofthedataset.

Moreconcentrationmeasurementsanddataarerequiredforfurthervalidationofairqualitymodelling. Conversely, more air quality modelling is needed to support measurement ofconcentrations and the apportionment to sources. Monitoring networks only return totalconcentrationatrespectivereceptorlocations.Aregionalmodel, includingallsourcesoveranarea,cangivesourcediscriminationatanydesiredreceptorlocationinthestudyarea.


20

Airportemissionsandairqualitymodelling

Airportemissioninventoriesneedtobeimprovedwithafocusonthemostrelevantsourcesandtheiridentification.Systemdefinition(i.e.,purpose,perimeter,pollutants,andemissionsourcesselected)isacrucialelementanddefinesthecomplexityandrequiredinformationfortheinventorycalculation.Eachassumptionhastobecarefullychosenandjustified.Majorgapsarestillinthedomainofemissionindicesandsourceactivitylinkedtoaircraftengine,APU and airframe (i.e. brakes and tyres) and in the complexity of calculation algorithms.Emissions indices – both in mass and number – of ultrafine particles (UFP; part of non‐volatileparticulatematter,nvPM)arecurrentlyabigunknownformostsources.

The essential role of air qualitymodelling in attributing the shares of the various source

categorieshasalreadybeenemphasisedinthelastbulletoftheprevioussection.Moreover,addressedinthesamebulletisthatfurthervalidationofairqualitymodellingisnecessaryand that sets of (measured) data are critical in this respect. More data should be madepublicly available. This fits well with the (policy) aim for a more open and harmonisedsysteminEurope.

Modellingresultswillneverthelessdependon theairport consideredandwillbedifferent

for each specific case study; therefore, air quality models need to remain or becomeadaptabletobespecificineachcasestudy.

Besides characteristics of the airport (e.g., buildings and taxi‐/runway layout) and of the

emissionsources(mainlyemissionindicesandactivity),theoutcomeofdispersionstronglydependsondaytimeandseasonalparametersandthealtitudeatwhichemissionsaretakingplace.

Combination of airport and regional air quality modelling is relevant but complex and

requires involvement of several parties and the exchange of a substantial amount ofinformation.Nonetheless,couplingofthelocal‐scaleandmeso‐scalemodellingwillimprovemodellingresultsandisthereforeofmutualbenefit.

Topicsforfurtherandfutureconsideration:

Topics for further and future consideration concern, firstly, mitigation options for reducedairportemissionsandimprovedairquality,whicharesuggestedfor furtherconsiderationandassessmentintheFORUM‐AEworkpackagenumber2(WP2onTechnicalMitigationSolutions).And secondly, open issues are listedwhichmainly involve topical gaps in science& researchwhich were identified during the workshop; this concerns a non‐exhaustive list but isnonetheless recommended for further consideration, for instance, in one or more dedicatedresearchprojects(proposals).

Airportsmitigationoptions

Green building & constructions, which might involve all kinds of techniques and otheroptions to reduce airport emissions and its air quality impact linked to the airport


21

infrastructure (complex of buildings, energy system, platform, taxi‐ and runways) duringphasesofdesign,development,construction,dailyoperation,demolitionandrecycling.

E‐port approach: electrification of ground support equipment (GSE; tugs, tractors, ground

power units, etc. on aircraft stands) and airside traffic (service vehicles and machinery;sweepers,trucks,buses,etc.ontheairsideroads).

Reduced APU and main engine use; reconsider taxi‐in/‐out policies and procedures,

company policies, main engine start‐up procedures, and the options and availability ofgroundenergyforthesupplyofelectricity(viafixedelectricgroundpower,FEGP,units)andpre‐conditionedair(PCAunits)foraircraftontheaircraftstands.

Reductionofsulphurcontent inaviation fuels; inorder toreducethenumberof (sulphur)

particlesemittedbutalsotoavoidassociatedsmellandodourissues.

Recommendations&needs

I. There is a need for harmonisation of measurements of ultrafine particle (UFP)concentrations in ambient air, aswell as theneed formoreUFPmeasurements–bothatsourcesandontheairport(for instance,byusingnewtechniquessuchasmicro‐sensors).Theseactivitiesshouldalsoinvolvetheissueofsourceapportionment.Moreover,theneedexiststodefineappropriate(technologyaswellasairquality)standards,limitationsoranyothercriterialinkedtoultrafineparticles.NB:ThisisinlinewithoneofthekeystatementsfromtheFORUM‐AEconclusionslinkedtofine particles (nvPM): “We need towork togetherwith airports to help update their PMmodels, and to help them find good measurement techniques to identify different PMsourcesattheairport.”

II. Airport emission inventory and air quality modelling improvements are required, which

will make models more accurately predict concentrations, and the model results bettermatch with measured concentrations. Concerning airport emission inventoryimprovements, the following table illustrateswellwhere improvements are still required(redcolouredcells),whichonesarein‐progressorlessrequired(inyellow),andwheretheknowledgeisgood(green).It shows that there is still a lot of room for improvement in airport emission inventorymaking,andthatfurtherconsolidationisneededinknowledgeofrelevantairportemissionssources and their activity (performance), emission factor and calculation algorithm.9Linked to both inventorymaking and air qualitymodelling, there is the need for furtherdevelopment and validation (with measured data) of performance based emissionsmodelling,andtheneedforharmonisationinthisarea(optionalbenchmarkstudy).Finally,linkedtodispersionandairqualitymodelling,thereisthespecificneedforastandardisedtreatmentofaircraftengineexhaustdynamics.

9 General calculation approach: Emission [in grams] = Emission Factor [in grams per second or per kilometre] x Activity [in seconds or kilometres distance covered]


22

Status&IdentifiedGapsinAirportsInventory

III. Thereisageneralneedformoreharmoniseddataandvalidateddatasets,includingbetterdataavailability in thepublicdomain.AEuropeanmodellingstrategywasrecently issuedandadopteduptotheECACDirectorsGeneral levelperDecember2013.Itwillbefurtherelaborated inthenextperiodof time,with inthemeantimeacall fortender linkedtotheHorizon2020workprogramme in2014.The strategyaims to improve access to (public)data. Improved access to models is however still subject of discussion, with modellersconcerned about their complex tools being available and used by non‐experts aswell astheirpotentiallossofuniquebusiness.Acommonplatformopenforanytooltoconnectto,isthereforepreferred.Againwithreferencetolocalairqualityassessmentdata,thereisaneed for additional databases including background concentration data and populationdata, aswell as emission indices of particulatematter (PM) andhazardous air pollutants(HAPs).

IV. Linkedtotheodourissue:Itwouldbeinterestingfromascientificpointofviewtolookfortype of species like mercaptans (and probably thioketones) in the neighbourhood of anairport. The smelly components leaving the aero‐engine at lowpowerorwhen refuellingaregenerallythemercaptans(i.e.thesulphuranaloguesofalcohols).Onecansmelltheseatthepartperbillion(ppb)level;nonetheless,itwillbefarfromeasymeasuringsuchspeciesatppblevel.

V. Combinedlocal‐/meso‐/global‐scalemodellingandassessment:Combinationofairportand

regionalairqualitymodellingisrelevantbutcomplexandrequiresinvolvementofseveralpartiesandtheexchangeofasubstantialamountof information.Nonetheless,couplingofthelocal‐scaleandmeso‐scalemodellingwillimprovemodellingresultsandisthereforeofmutualbenefit.Moreover,linkedtotheglobalscale,theunderstandingandquantificationofaircraftcruiseemissionsimpactonairqualityatregionalandlocalscalesshouldbefurtherimproved.This topicwasonlypartlyaddressed in thecurrentworkshopand is thereforerecommendedtobereconsideredinmoredepthinaworkshoponenvironmentalimpacts.

In conclusion, the large number of suggested topics for further and future considerationwillprovideenoughfoodfortighteningcollaborationopportunitiesbetweenstakeholdersaswellasforproposalsfornew(European)RTDprojects.


23

3.1.2 ClimateChange

GeneralStatus:

Commonlynon‐CO2climateimpactsofaviationaresaidtobepotentiallyofthesameorderofmagnitude asCO2 climate impacts. Taking a closer look atabsolutevalues in termsofradiativeforcing(RF),estimatesstillshowabroadrange,whichcorrespondstomidtolowlevelofscientificunderstanding(LOSU)asdescribedbyIPCC(Leeetal.,2009)andsincethenhasnotbeenreducedsubstantially.

However, for developing mitigation options, it is crucial to provide robust relativeestimates,whencomparingamitigationsolutionwiththereferencecase. Thismeansthatmitigationsolutionshavetodemonstratethatoveralltheyreduceclimateimpactundersuchuncertaintyconditions.

Amongst non‐CO2 impacts, in particular of NOx emissions and of contrail/contrail cirrus,recent studies, which further investigated the issue testing for robust relative estimates,were presented during the FORUM‐AEworkshops. Some results from a set ofmodellingstudiesareshownbelow,wheretrade‐offeffectsofalternativeroutingmitigationscenariosareinvestigated.Mainpurposeistoemphasizesensitivitiesofnon‐CO2impactsandtogiveindicationsforrobustbehaviour.

Amulti‐model studyperformedwithin theEuropeanproject REACT4Cquantifies aviationNOx impactonO3 and the impact of simplifiedmitigation scenariosof flying lower andhigher by 2000 ft (Sovdeetal.2014),. Specifically, anmean absolute estimate of radiativeforcingassociatedwithNOxemissionsfromaviationof5.2(0.8‐8.0)mW/m2iscalculatedbya set of five chemistry transportmodels, taking into account short‐term ozone formation,long‐term cooling due to reduced methane concentrations, and induced long‐term ozoneperturbationassociatedwithmethanechange(Sovdeetal.,2014).

Figure:AviationNOx2006(left)andOzoneperturbation(right)

Inordertoinvestigateoperationalmitigationstrategiesbyalternativerouting,twooptionsfor simplified mitigation strategies of “flying lower” and “flying higher” by 2000 ft weresimilarlyevaluatedasrelativevaluesinREACT4C.ChangesinatmosphericconcentrationsofozoneO3(seeFigure)andmethane,leadtoacorrespondingreductioninradiativeforcingof‐1.7(‐2.6to‐0.8)mW/m2andincreaseof1.8(0.7to3.0)mW/m2,respectively.


24

Mitigationscenarios:effectonO3offlightlower(left)orhigher(right)comparedtothebase

Mitigationscenarios:climateimpactofnitrogenoxideemissionswhenflyinglowerorhigher

Providing absolute and relative estimates for other non‐CO2 impacts, i.e. contrail andcontrail‐cirrus,soot,sulfateandwatervapour,asdoneinREACT4C(FP7)forthesimplifiedmitigationstudiesindicateasimilarbehaviourwhenconsideringasetofnon‐CO2impacts(Limetal.,Matthesetal.,TAC‐4).Recentresultsfromthesesensitivitystudiesindicatethat“flying higher” reduces CO2 impact, but increases a set of non‐CO2 impacts, while “flyinglower” increases CO2 but reduces a set of non‐CO2 impacts (see figure below; Lim et al.,Matthes etal.,TAC‐4,underpreparation). As such results are based on a small number ofmodelsimulations,thevaluesprovidedcanonlybeseenasanindicationonsensitivity,anddo not represent a comprehensive assessment. No uncertainty range is indicated here.However, comparing individual estimates (indicated by symbols) demonstrates robustbehaviourofinvestigatednon‐CO2effects.

React4C study: CO2/non‐CO2 trade‐off when flying higher (left) or lower (right). Ranges indicating no uncertainty level but only range of results from individual model calculations.

Operationalmeasuresmaybehighlyrelevanttomitigateclimateimpactasnon‐CO2climateeffectsvarywithspaceandtime,asillustratedforNOxemissionsandcontrails.Adequatemeansfordescribingspatialandtemporaldependenceareclimate‐costfunctions.Aone‐daycasestudyshowsthatclimateoptimalroutingcanachievelargereductions(upto60%)forwestboundflightsfromEuropetoUSA(Greweetal.,2014;TAC‐4:Frömmingetal.,Greweetal.,Matthesetal.)


25

Meteorogical spatial variation: geopotential heights (left) & wind velocity (right)

Spatial distributions: Contrail cirrus (left) and total NOx (right)

Concerning contrails & contrail cirrus, IPCC2013 states: “… for year 2011, the combinedcontrailandcontrail‐cirrusERFfromaviationisassessedtobe0.05[0.02to0.15]Wm–2(lowconfidence).”

Anurgent need to rise confidence levels or to reduceuncertainties regarding the contrail(andcontrail cirrus) inducedclimate impact isoftenstated.Therefore it isneeded to spotthe sources of the uncertainties. Contrail formation itself is a process that is completelyunderthermodynamiccontrol,andtheformationcriterion(theso‐calledSchmidt‐Applemancriterion) is a consequence of fundamental conservation laws from physics: mass,momentum, and energy conservation. Whether a contrail is persistent or not is clearlydeterminedbytheambientrelativehumidity(icesuper‐saturationornot).Sofar,therearenouncertaintiesatall.

Uncertainties arise from modelling imperfections (for instance prediction of super‐saturation inaweathermodel,representationofcontrailandcirrusmicrophysics in large‐scale models), from uncertain initial conditions (e.g. soot emission index, fuel flow rate,actual aircraft weight, actual meteorological conditions, etc.). These uncertainties canprincipallybereducedinacase‐by‐casemode.Buttheycannotbereducedtozero,becauseamodel is still a model, i.e. a reduced image of nature. The price one has to pay for thereductionofnaturalcomplexityisuncertainties.

Thelargestsourceofuncertaintyis,however,thesheernaturalvariabilitywhichisevidenttoeverybodywhokeepsaneyeonthecontrail‐coveredsky.Thesevariableconditionsallowcontrails that have optical thicknesses ranging from invisible to very bright, lifetimes

Low

Jet stream


26

rangingfromafewminutesorevenlesstomanyhours,widthsrangingfromabout100m(similartothewingspan)tomanykilometres,andindividualradiativeforcingsrangingfromastrongcoolingeffect(mainlyinthetwilighthoursandoveradarkbackground,e.g.oceanwater) to a strong warming effect (in particular at night and over otherwise cirrus freebackground).Thesevariableconditionsareofnaturalorigin,andtheresultinguncertaintycannotbereduced.Thisisratherastatisticalproblem.

Contrails&contrailcirrus:formation,persistency,radiativeforcing…that’sthequestions(PhotographscourtesyofKostasEleftheratos)

In the light of this conclusion thequestionarises, how the climate impactof contrails canbestbemitigatedknowingthatcontrailscanhaveverydifferentindividualclimateforcings,fromalargewarmingtoalargecoolingeffect.

Another point which raised from FORUM‐AE workshop discussion and which was morerecentlystressedattheICAO/CAEP/ISG(ImpactScienceGroup)workshop10,issensitivitytothemetricchoice,whichisfundamentalwhencomparingCO2/non‐CO2effects.Mostoften,radiativeforcinghasbeenuseduptonowbutRFmaynotberelevanttomeasurelongtermeffects. Appropriatemetric remains therefore an open issue, in particular for operationalmitigation.

Recommendations&needs:I. Studies show how results (estimates) vary with and depend on different emission

inventoriesandsosensitivityanalysistoemissionsinventoriesarerecommended.

II. Cleardocumentationofassumptions in future scenariosand sensitivity studies onsuchassumptionsarealsofullyrelevantforgainingunderstandingoftheimpactoftheassumptions.

III. Metric isstillanopenkey issue.Quantitativeestimatesshouldbeprovided forasetoftypical metrics (e.g. radiative forcing, average temperature response, and globalwarming potential...) to demonstrate sensitivity of results on choice of metric. Then,thereisaneedofcarefulselectionofcalculationmethodsandmetrics,appropriatetothequestiontobeanswered.

10 Washington, February 2015


27

IV. Sourcesofuncertaintiesmuststillbeanalysed;andthereisaneedtodevelopmeansforrobustdecisionsunderuncertainty.

V. Climate‐optimised flight routingmust be further developed, ideally considering theindividual weather situation. Using climate cost functions, measuring with theappropriatemetrictheeffectofanunitofagivenspeciesemittedlocallyontheclimatewarming,maybeanefficientapproachforflightroutingoptimisation.

VI. Better correlation between contrail/contrail cirrus properties and particleemissionsisrequiredbothforpredictionaccuracyandformitigationstrategy.

In order to address most of these questions and recommendations, a REACT4C follow‐upEuropeanprojectwouldbehelpful.


28


29

3.2 MitigationSolutions

3.2.0 RecallofACAREtechnologicalgoalsintermsofCO2andnon‐CO2emissionsAt thetechnological level,veryambitious goalstargeted in2020andinthe longer2050termhavebeenfixedbyACARE11,focusedonCO2andNOxemissions.Someclarificationexercisewascarried out in order to define more concrete and precise objectives from the high levelobjectives,andthefollowingtable(basedonSRIAAppendix)recallstheseobjectivesexpressedeitherathighlevelorindetailedform.Itisimportanttorecallthattheseobjectivesshouldbeachieved through aircraft technology, engine & combustor technology, ATM & flightoptimisation.

ACAREenvironmentalgoalsforaircraftemissions(seeSRIAVol.1,Appendix)

This is FORUM‐AE’s reference when assessing European progress towards ACARE emissions(CO2&NOx)goals.

OneshouldalsonotethatNOxemissionsareconsideredeitheratlocallevelwhenaddressingairqualityconcernoratglobalscalewhenaddressingclimatechange.StillreferringtoSRIAVol.1,Appendix,thetimingassumptiontoprogresstowardstheCO2&NOxgoalsisthefollowing:

11 Vision 2020 (2001) & associated Strategic Research Agenda –SRA (2002) and Flightpath 2050 (2011) & associated Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda – SRIA (2012)


30

ACARECO2&NOxgoalscalendar(usingCAEP6marginforNOx)

Previous quantified objectives do not consider the potential environmental benefits ofalternativefuelsbutACAREhassetthefollowingqualitativeobjective:

“Europe isestablishedasa centreofexcellenceon sustainablealternative fuels, includingthoseforaviation,basedonastrongEuropeanenergypolicy.“

Concerningnon‐CO2emissions,otherthanNOxandhavingpotentialimpacteitheronairqualityoronclimate change, there is lessemphasis inACAREand there isnoquantitativemitigationgoal.However,theyarenotexcludedfromFORUM‐AEscope.


31

3.2.1 CO2TechnologicalMitigationSolutions(Aircraft&Engine)

CO2 global emissions are expected to keep rising over the next decades. Fuel burnreductionsachievedbyaircraft/enginetechnologyandoperationswillnotcompensate theeffect of air traffic increase. The current global air traffic CO2 emissions are currentlyestimated at about 2% regarding overall anthropogenic emissions Although thiscontributionremainsweak,airtrafficisinconstantincreaseandquiteinsensitivetoexternalconditions.

Airtrafficgrowthforecast(ICAO,Airbus2013)

Worldannualtraffic(ICAO,Airbus2013)

AirtrafficCO2sharewillkeepincreasingunlessadaptedmeasuresaretaken.ACARE2050ambitiousobjectiveswouldpermittomitigatetheincreaseofaviationpartinanthropogenicCO2. If ACARE technology goalswere not achieved, if technology improvementswere notintroduced in the fleet early enough, and if global anthropogenicCO2wasnot growing asmuchasassumed,shareofaviationcouldbeabove5%in2050.


32

GlobalaviationCO2forecast

(assumptions: ACARE 2050 is achieved in 2050 and fully introduced in the 2050 fleet ; there is a continuous improvement of

average efficiency from now to 2050 ; ICAO 37th assembly average traffic growth of 4.6% is taken)

Large efforts on aircraft/engine technologies to minimize fuel burn are undertaken inparticularwithinCLEANSKY,morepreciselyintheSFWAITDforaircrafttechnologyandinSAGE ITD for engine technology, but alsowithinotherEuropeanprojects likeLEMCOTEC,ENOVALandE‐BREAK.Mostpromisingsolutionsappeartobelaminarwing,andultra high by‐pass ratio engines likeOpenRotor(mediumterm)anddistributedpropulsion(longertermasexploredinDISPURSALproject).Newandlightmaterials(forinstancecompositesforfanblade) should also provide benefits. It is unclear what is projected on new aircraftarchitectures before 2050 but AHEAD project illustrates a radical aircraft configurationchange.

URANScalculationofCROR(left);LaminarWing(right)

AssessmentoftheprogresstowardsACARE2020CO2goalisuneasy,inparticularbecauseboth targetedCO2 levelsandTRLmaturitymustbeextrapolated in2020.Thisexercise ismainlydoneinsidetheCLEAN‐SKYTechnologyEvaluator(CS‐TE).ComparisonatamissionlevelisdoneofthefuelburnachievedwithexpectedTRL6CLEAN‐SKYtechnologyin2020to

~2%

~5.5%

~2.5%

~1.8%


33

a well defined reference technology in 2000. The calculation is performed for variouscategories of aircrafts and/or propulsion systems. Similar exercisewas also presented byDLR, for CROR and GTF concepts on medium range aircraft; reductions equal or a littlehigher than ‐17% (GTF) and than ‐27% (CROR) were estimated. Assessment was alsoperformed jointlybyLEMCOTEC/E‐BREAK/ENOVALFP7 level2projects, as illustratedonthefigure.Onecanobservesomereasonablescatteringofresultsformediumrangeaircraftsbetween all these evaluations. Considering all these assessments, ‐38% CO2 seemsachievable in 2020 at a level between TRL5 & 6 (combining ~‐33% reduction fromaircraft/engineand‐7%reductionfromATM).

CO2emissionreductionfromCLEAN‐SKYTEfordifferentconcepts(expectedatTRL6in2020)

CO2emissionsreductionfromLEMCOTEC/E‐BREAK/ENOVALassessment

Eco‐Designisanimportantparttoimproverecyclabilityandsustainabledevelopment.Thelargest contribution inCO2emissions estimatedbyLCAanalysis remains fromoperations(fuelburn).

Clean Sky concept aircraft CO2

High Sweep bizjet aircraft, HSBJ 2020 ‐19%

Regional Turboprop aircraft, TP90 2020 ‐30%

Regional Geared Turbofan aircraft, GTF130 2020 ‐21%

Short‐Medium Range aircraft (CROR engine), APL2 2020 ‐34%

Long Range aircraft (Advanced Turbofan), APL3 2020 ‐18%

Twin Engine Heavy rotorcraft, TEH 2020 ‐22%


34

Otherresultsandremarks

– Global CO2 is generally estimated from aircraft theoretical emissions but it actuallydependsonhowtheairlineactuallyoperates.

– Emissionsdonotprovidetheactualatmosphericimpact

– OpenRotorconceptshavestilltoaddressemissioncertificationsissues.

– Open Rotor requires close cooperation between airframe and enginemanufacturers asintegrationofsuchtypeofengineisanimportantchallenge.

– Conceptualpropulsionsystemsmaybeinvestigatedoptionsinthelongterm.Theycouldbehybridcombustionengines,usingLNG.

– The choice of technical solutions may also be oriented by cost efficiency. But, andrecognisingitisakeyissuetobebalancedwithenvironmentalbenefits,ithasbeendecidedthatcostwasbeyondthescopeofthemeetingandthattechnologywastheonlycriteriontobediscussed.

Recommendations&needs:I. ACARE 2050 very challenging CO2 reduction objective would permit to mitigate

substantially the increase of aviation CO2, with realistic traffic growth assumption.Therefore, it isessential topursuea tremendouseffortat theaircraft level, theenginelevelandtheATM&flightoperation level inorder toprogress towardsthisambitiousgoal.

II. Aircraft/Enginepaneloftechnologies(anexhaustivelistwouldbeverylongandonecanrefertoSRIA‐Vol.2enablerstable12andtoFORUM‐AErelevantworkshopsproceedings)mustbe furtherandcontinuously improvedornewly introducedbothforevolutionaryaircraftorengineapplicationsandlongertermdisruptiveapplications.

III. Unconventional configurations like aircrafts equipped with CROR concept or UHBPRconcepts,mustbefurtherdeveloped.TheirmitigationpotentialmustbemaximisedandtheirmaturitymustbepushedoverTRL5, recognizing there is still somegap towardsACARE2020CO2goal.

IV. Moreradicallyunconventionalsolutionslikedistributedpropulsionaircrafts…,shouldbealsoconsideredformuchlongertermandatlowerTRL(uptoTRL3‐4).

12 See appendix A3


35

3.2.2 Non‐CO2TechnologicalMitigationSolutions(EngineCombustionChamber)

Newconcernonparticles

Because of the raising concern on fine particles, in particular on non volatile particles(nvPM), linked to Air Quality or Climate Change and the perspective of the futureinternationalnvPMstandard,EuropeanenginemanufacturersagreethatfuturecombustortechnologyshouldalsoreducenvPM,inadditiontotheexistingNOxreductionobjective.ThetopicofparticleswasweaklystressedinACARE2050goalsandknowledgeisprobablystillinsufficienttodefinequantifiedtarget,butitisclearthatsolutionstoreducethemshouldbeinvestigatedanddeveloped.

Technologicalstatus

Abigclusterofdedicatedprojects,amongthemLEMCOTECandalsospecificworkinSAGEITD inside Clean‐Sky, support important research on future low emission combustortechnologies

ClusterofEuropeanRTDprojectsaroundcombustortechnology

FocuswasuntilrecentlyonNOxreduction,forthewholerangeofengines(small/large,low/highOPR),knowingkeypoint isoftentoguarantyalloperability issuesfortheproposedsolutions.However,thenewconcernonparticlesinvolvesthatfuturecombustortechnologyshouldjointlysatisfyambitiousNOxandnvPMobjectives.

ThestrategywhichisgenerallyadoptedforTurbofansabove26.7kNapplicationsistheleancombustionalthoughimplementingleancombustionbecomesmorecomplicatedforsmallersizeand/orsmallerOPRenginecombustors.

Results(observedrecentlybyRolls‐RoyceinSAGE,andbySnecmainTLC)revealthatleancombustiontargetinglowNOxseemsalsobeneficialtolowlevelofnvPM.


36

The progress realised in European R&T projects for 2 decades, including the currentLemcotec project, will demonstrate ~TRL5maturity, with a reduction range of [‐55% ; ‐65%]fromCAEP6forthevariousEuropeanenginemanufacturers,in2015.

Such assessment requires however some care as itmay depend in particular on the OPRassumption,andontheengineperformance(intermsofsfc)assumption.

LEMCOTECtechnologies:NOxassessment

Modeling(physical&numerical)inadditiontoExperimentalsimulation,isakeytoolforthedesign and optimisation of future low emission (NOx, particles, CO/UHC) combustortechnologies, and various European projects (most recent ones: KIAI, TECC, IMPACT‐AE,FIRST)onthesubjectformanyyearshavepermittedsignificantprogress.

ExperimentalsootinvestigationatDLR

RANS (andURANS)with high quality 2‐phase turbulent combustionmodelswith detailedkinetics,areneededbutLESappearsnowasanecessarytooltoprovidebetteraccuracyorevenpredictnon‐stationaryphenomenapoorlypredictedbyconventionalapproach.

Recommendations&needs:

Consensusappears thatparticles (nvPM)reductionmustbealsoachieved, inaddition toNOx.ThisinducescriticalR&Ton:

I. The combustor technology itself in order to ensure both NOx & nvPM ambitious lowlevels: enhanced leancombustion ingeneral (achievingTRL6maturity&extending its


37

applicationtosmallersizeand/orsmallerOPRenginecombustors),andfocusonmorespecificaspectswhichmaybebeneficialtoparticlesreduction(improvedatomisation…)Leancombustiontechnology:Snecmacalculation(left),Rolls‐Roycesolution(right)

II. Themodelingof emissions,which forparticlesemissions is far frombeingpredictable

today, becauseof thephysical complexity of particles formation (gaseousprecursorsformation,particlesnucleation&oxidation…),and themodelingof combustionrelatedoperabilityaspects

III. The experimental analysis, which is absolutely necessary to support modeling

development or to assess technology. This assumes advanced measurements (inparticular intrusive and non intrusive measurements of particles in the combustionchamber) andappropriate test capability (frommulti‐sector tests to full annular tests,withabilitytoachievehighpressurelevels)


38

3.2.3 AlternativeFuelsMitigationSolution

Currently, alternative fuels for aviation arouse often big environmental expectations and arepushed at European level or at global level (ICAO). At European level, CORE‐JetFuel13coordinationactionisfullydedicatedtothissubject.Mostoften,thefocusisontheirproductionanddeployment (topicwell coveredbyCORE‐JetFuel),but itappears fundamental toevaluatereasonably what environmental benefits can be achieved and how. This mitigation potentialaspect is theconcernofFORUM‐AE,andthemainstatementsandrecommendationsaregivenhereafter.

Statusandconcerns:

Harmonisation isneeded toconvergeonacommonand technicallysatisfactory CO2LCAmethodologyinordertoassessalternativejetfuelproductionpathways,andcheckforinstanceinEuropethattheymeettheREDrequirement.ItisalsoanecessarysteptobeabletoestimatewithrealismtheairtransportCO2reductionpotentialofalternativerenewablejet fuels in 2050. The following figure highlights in particular how the total volume ofnecessaryalternativefuelsinthefuturevarieswithanaverageCO2LCAbudgetassumptionwhichwilldependbothontheLCAmethodologyandtheactualperformanceofthevariouspathways.Currently,someharmonizationworkiscarriedoutbyAFTF14.

CO2extrapolationtill2050;whatisachievablefromAlternativeFuels?

Variousexperimentalresultsshowthatreducingthearomaticcontent in jet fuel inducesasignificant reductionof nonvolatileparticles.This trend is confirmedbyphysical analysisand modelling. Therefore, from the environmental point of view, either considering airquality or climate change, it is recommended tominimize asmuch as possible thearomaticcontentoffuturejetfuels.Althoughlessmaterialwaspresentedonthetopicof

13 As FORUM-AE, CORE-JetFuel is not performing Research & Innovation but aims at providing a “landscape” on R&I. Production and deployment are more concretely demonstrated by projects like ITAKA or Biorefly 14 AFTF = ICAO Alternative Fuel Task Force


39

sulphurcontent,itisbelievedalsothatreducingjetfuelsulphurcontentisenvironmentallybeneficial,asitshouldreducevolatileparticles.IllustrationonaCFM56turbofanoffueleffectonnonvolatileparticles(AAFEXII)

Optimisationof future jet fuelscompositionhasbecomeanemergingtopic. It is truebothforfuturerenewabledrop‐injetfuelsandforfossiljet‐A1evolution.Thisoptimizationcould permit to minimize particles and possibly other pollutant emissions. Although lessobvious, it couldalsopotentiallypermit to improve the fuel compatibilitywith the engineandtheaircraftfuelsystemorevenimproveengineperformances.

Kineticmodelsofvariousfuelstopredictcombustion&emissions(Polimi)

Improvementofthemodellingoffuelinteractionwiththeengine,anddevelopmentofpredictivetoolsisnecessary.Itcouldbeappliedtovariousfuel/engineorfuel/fuelsysteminteractions like material compatibility, viscosity effects, thermal stability, etc. Therefore,modellingabilityisaprerequisitetopermitthefueloptimizationandinadditionitwillhelp,accelerateandreducethecostofASTMcertificationprocess.

biodiesel (POLIMI)

biodiesel (LLNL)

Biodiesel + NOx + soot (POLIMI)

Lumping


40

Existingmodelsforviscosityofpureproducts(IFPEN)

MonodisperseSprayEvaporationModeling:Isopropanol(DLR)

Recommendations&needs:I. HarmonisationisneededtoconvergeonacommonandtechnicallysatisfactoryCO2LCA

methodologyinordertoassessalternativejetfuelproductionpathways

II. The aromatic content of future jet fuels (fossil or renewable) should beminimized asmuchaspossiblein order to reduce particles emission.Reductionofsulphurcontentmaybealsobeneficial.

III. Thereisaneedtodeveloppredictivetoolstomodelthefuelinteractionwiththeaircraftfuel system or with the engine. This will permit fuel composition optimisation toimprovefuelcompatibilityanditwillhelpreducingASTMcertificationcosts.

Asthereiscurrentlynothingon‐goingexceptatthenationallevels,mostECeffortbeingputonthe production pathways, a dedicated European program supporting these topics(compositionoptimization,modellingtools)isstronglyneeded.SuchaEuropeanprogramwould complete existing national initiatives and would accelerate the ability to specify fuelcompositionorpredictfuel/engineinteractions.


41

3.3 Regulationsissues

3.3.0 RecallofACAREgoalrelevanttoregulation

ACARE 2050 defines the following qualitative objective relevant to regulation of aircraftemissions:“Europeisattheforefrontofatmosphericresearchandtakestheleadinformulatingaprioritisedenvironmentalactionplanandestablishesglobalenvironmentalstandards.”

3.3.1 Nonvolatileparticles(nvPM)andfutureCAEPstandard

ContextandGeneralstatus

Ultrafine(submicrometric)particlesfromaircraftengineshasbecomeamajorenvironmentalconcernbothforAirQualityandforClimateChange,andafirstinternationalstandardapplyingon turbofan and turbojet engines (>26/7kN) should be defined by ICAO/CAEP in 2016. Thisstandard will require the measurement of non volatile particles (nvPM) mass and numberconcentrations,attheengineexit.Thefirststandard,called“transitionstandard”,willimposealimitonlyonthemassconcentration,tobeequivalenttotheexistingSmokeNumberstandard.Asecondstandard,morerelevanttoairquality,isalreadyenvisaged,andshouldbe“DP/F00”type(totalmassornumberofparticles/engine take‐off thrust), similarly togaseouspollutants likeNOx.

In order to support the development of these standards, engine manufacturers have alreadyinitiatedimportantcampaignsbehindengines.Averysignificantworkhasbeenalsocarriedoutin Europe andNorthAmerica bymeasurement specialists, to develop a “compliant” samplingandmeasurementsystemwhichwillberequiredforthefuturecertification.Keystatements:

NewfuelandemissionsstandardsforroadtraffichavereducedPMemissionsforthissector.nvPMisimportanthealthconcernandmeasurementsandstandardsarerequiredtohelptoreducetheconcernfromalltransportationsources.

The differences and reasons between vehicle measurement protocols and the proposedaviationenginemeasurementprotocolsareunderstoodbutshouldbefullydocumentedasthestandardsettingprocessforaviationmovesforward.

Through the Swiss A‐PRIDE programme, the SAMPLE programme and the MERMOSEprogrammeEuropehas provided a large amount of information to help produce the finalmeasurement protocols. nvPM emissions testing funding needsmaintaining by States, theEC, and other funding agencies to help thework towardsproducing a first aviationnvPMstandard.


42

MERMOSEcampaign(June2013;Villaroche/France):MovingsingleholeprobebehindSaM146engine/Microscopyofparticleagglomerateandofaprimaryparticle

SAMPLEIIIcampaign(August2013;Zurich/Swiss):EUmobilesystemdeployedbyCardiffUniv.(left)andinter‐comparisonsonCFM56with2othercompliantsystems(right)

A‐PRIDE4&5Campaigns(Zurich/Swiss):CFM56‐5BhangedintheSR‐Technicstestbench/massEmissionsindex/numberemissionindex


43

Recommendations&needs:

I. Furtherworkisrequiredto:‐(i)producea finalAerospaceRecommendedPracticeforaero‐engine testing (ii) populate an aero‐engine nvPM database for in‐productionengines(turbofans>26.7KN,turbofans<26.7KN,turboprops,turboshafts,andAPUs),and(iii)tofinalisealltheinformationneededforafinalnvPMcertificationrequirement(fuelspecifications,corrections,andanalysisproceduresetc.).

II. Researchorganisationsandenginemanufacturersneed towork togetherwithairportstohelpupdatetheirPMmodels,andtohelpthemfindgoodmeasurementtechniquestoidentifydifferentPMsourcesattheairport.


44

3.3.2 CO2andfutureCAEPstandard

Status:

AnewglobalCO2standardapplyingtoturbofan/turbojetaircraftswithanMTOMabove5700kgandturbopropaircraftswithanMTOMabove8618kgiscurrentlydevelopedbyICAOandshouldbe recommended by its Environmental Committee (CAEP) beginning of 2016 and furtherapproved by the ICAOGeneral Assembly later in 2016. Itwould apply to aircraft designs, forwhichapplicationtoTypeCertificationisreceivedbytheAirworthinessAuthoritiesatorafter1January2020. Inparallel, ICAOalsoconsidersanapplicabilitytoalreadytypecertifiedaircraft(post 2023 new in‐production aircraft), with less stringent standard, and a regulatoryproductioncut‐off(incaseofnoncompliance)Modalitieswerestillunderdiscussionatthetimeofthisreport.TheICAOGlobalCO2standardisconsideredtobeoneofthepolicymeasuresthatStatescouldusetoreducetheglobalCO2emissionsfrominternationalcivilaviation.

Acertificationstandardconsistsin:

‐Acertificationmetricsystem

‐Associatedcertificationprocedures,includingmeansofcompliance(MoC)

‐Aregulatorylevel

Afirstimportantstepwasthedefinitionofametricsystem.Thiswasachievedin2013andthismetricispubliclyavailable15.

AgreedCO2standardmetricsystemMTOM=MaximumTake‐OffMass;SAR=SpecificAirRange(=distance/kgfuel);RGF=geometryfactor

The workshop aimed essentially at disseminating information to participants and insideFORUM‐AEconsortium,consideringthatsuchaninformationisusefulforinterestedpeoplewhoarenotinvolvedintheprocess.However,asCAEPdiscussionsinordertodefineregulationlimit(maximum metric value against MTOM) and applicability options are still on‐going, theinformationprovidedduringtheworkshopwillremainconfidentialuntilafterthe10thmeetingoftheCAEP,beginningof2015.

15 http://www.icao.int/Meetings/Green/Documents/day%201pdf/session%203/3-Dickson.pdf


45

Mainstatementsfromtheworkshop:

• EuropeanStatesandstakeholders,andEuropeanCommissionacceptedtheCO2certificationmetricsystematCAEP9,thiswasfurtherpublishedasanICAOCircular337.

• TheCO2standardmetricsystemisatechnologycomparisonmetricandnotanoperationalmetric.

• Europe has demonstrated good modelling capability having a full suite of modellingcapabilitiesbroadlyequivalenttotheUScapability.

– FurtherdevelopmentsofEuropeanmodellingcapabilitiesshouldbepursued

• There are different stakeholder perspectives of where the final CO2 standard stringencylevelsshouldbefornewTypesandin‐production.

– TheNewTypestringencyneedstobeambitiousandwithintheboundsoftechnicalfeasibility,economicreasonableness.

• The meeting agreed it is important that ICAO contracting States agree on a Global CO2standardin2016subjecttofuturetechnicaldevelopments.

• Themeeting also reviewed the tools the ICAO environmental committee has at hand andidentified, inaddition to the standard‐settingprocess, the technologygoal settingprocess.While some Independent Experts, on behalf of ICAO contracting States, did perform atechnologyreviewonthefuelburnmatterin2010,themeetingagreedtopromotetheneedfor further technology review in the next work programmes (beyond 2016). This wasrecognizedasan importantstepof theICAOprocess leadingtorobustandeffective futurepolicymeasuresonCO2emissions.


46

3.3.3 MarketBasedMeasures

Market‐basedmeasures(MBMs)areacomplementaryapproachtothereductionofaviationCO2emissions with operational and technological improvements. ICAO recognises that theaspirational goal of 2%per year annual fuel efficiency improvement is unlikely todeliver thelevel of reduction necessary to stabilize and then reduce aviation’s absolute emissionscontributiontoclimatechange,andthatmoreambitiousgoalswouldneedtobeconsideredtodeliver a sustainable path for aviation. Therefore as part of a comprehensiveapproach,consistingofworkontechnologyandstandardsandonoperationalmeasures,ICAOisnowworkingtoagreeaglobalmarket‐basedmeasurestoreduceemissionsfrominternationalaviation.

The FORUM‐AE Market‐based Measures workshop provided an opportunity for aviationenvironment experts not directly involved in the process to discuss some of the associatedissuesandchallenges,andthuspromotedchallengingquestionsandfruitfuldiscussions.

The deadline to agree a technical proposal for a GMBM is 2016 and for that reason theinformationprovidedduringtheworkshopwillbekeptconfidentialuntilthismilestone.

Howeverthefollowinggeneralstatementscouldbeformulated.TheopinionsreflectedherearebasedonthebestknowledgeavailableoftheworkongoingonGMBMatthattime(Q22015).

Mainstatementsfromtheworkshop:

• TheproposedGlobalMBMispartof theICAOBasketofMeasuresandshouldcomplementotherCO2reductionactivities.

• TheobjectiveoftheGMBMistoattainCNG202016.

• It’s recognised that a lot of technicalworkhas been completedbut there remains a lot ofworktocompletethedefinitionofthefirstglobalaviationmarketbasedmeasure.

• Thepreferenceisforaglobaloffsettingscheme.

• EuropewillcontinuetohelpICAOdeliverwhatitpromised.

• Europeneeds tomaintainmodelling capability in thisarea,andwork together tobestusetheavailableresources.

• InordertoaddressSCRC(SpecialCircumstancesandRespectiveCapabilities)concerns:

– DifferentiationbyRoute (basedonState to State) is currentlyunder considerationbutdesigningthedetailstosatisfyallpartiesiscomplexandchallenging.

– There is general agreement that anydifferentiation should limitmarketdistortion.Routebasedapproach isapromisingsolutionandanalysisof thisapproachshouldbeprioritised.

16 Carbon Neutral Growth starting from 2020


47

– Phase‐inofdevelopingStatesispossible.

– However, all Operators should participatewith aminimum ofMRV from the starteveniftheyaregoingtobeexempt.

• RobustyetsimpleMonitoringReportingandVerificationisneeded.

• Considerationofsimplifiedproceduresforsmalloperatorsshouldbemade

• The globalMBMmust have high environmental integrity including no double counting ofemissionsunits.

• Needtoidentifythelegal instrumentsandstartplanningthelegislativeprocesspreferablyassoonaspossible

– Europe should raise the need for a legal framework for the GMBM with theappropriatelegalbodyofICAO.

– RequiresagreementonGovernanceofthescheme.

– ImplementationandRegulationwillneedtobedoneatNational/Regionallevel.

• Timescalesarechallenging:

– Accordingtothestrawmanoutline,ICAOhastoimplementMRVfromthebeginningofJanuary2018,withtheoverallglobalschemecommencingin2020.

– Progress in UNFCCC on Differentiated Responsibilities is important at COP21 inDecember 2015 in Paris to aid progress in ICAO. UNFCCC decisions about futurecarbonmechanismsmayinfluencetheavailabilityofemissionsunitsforaviation.

– SomeelementsoftheGMBMschemedonotnecessarilyneedtobefullydefinedbythe ICAO Assembly in 2016. For example, Sustainable Alternative Fuel should beincludedintheGMBMinordertosendapositivemessagetofuelproducersbutthedesignoftheschemeshouldnotbeheldupbythealternativefueldiscussion.

Thereforeatimelineofactivitiestobeperformedfromnowupuntil2020shouldbedevelopedbyICAOinconsultationwithEAGandGMTF.


48


49

4 AssessmentofprogresstowardsACAREgoals

An assessment is made hereafter of each of the ACARE 2050 environmental goals (from SRIA

executive summary), relevant to emissions:

QualitativeGoal: “Europe isat the forefrontofatmospheric researchand takes the lead informulating a prioritised environmental action plan and establishes global environmentalstandards.”

Statusprovided in3.1and3.3clearlydemonstrateamajorcontributionofEuropeboth inatmosphericresearch(bothforairqualityandclimatechange)andindevelopingtechnicallyappropriate standards. Completed European scientific project REACT4C in particular,permittedsignificantprogressinunderstandingbetterimpactofaviationonclimate.

QuantitativeGoalsonCO2&NOx(see3.2.0):

Theprogressachievedtoday,bothinmaturityandinreductionofCO2orNOxisthefruitofalarge variety of projects (CLEAN‐SKY, LEMCOTEC/ENOVAL/E‐BREAK, high number ofsmallerprojects).TheanalysiscarriedoutbyFORUM‐AEleadstothefollowingassessment,which up‐dates the previous one fromOPTI project. TheNOx LTO assessment assumes afollow‐up of LEMCOTEC combined with further activities in CLEAN‐SKY, which would benecessarytoachieveTRL6forthevariousenginecategories.

FORUM‐AE2015assessmentofprogresstowardsACARE2020&2050goals

From this assessment, we try to estimate which percentage of the final goal is alreadyachieved (at TRL6), is expected with on‐going projects (at TRL6), or is not yet covered(remaining gap to achieve the goal at TRL6), in the sameway it was done in OPTI. Thisexerciseisverydelicatebecauseitmixesanestimationbothintermsofexpectedreduction


50

andintermsofmaturityanditoversimplifiesthesituation(thestatusmaydifferfromoneengine category to another one, from one manufacturer to another one). Nevertheless,consideringall thenecessaryreserve, thecurrentsituation issummarised in the followingpicture;sinceOPTI2012assessment,weconsidersomeprogressonCO2,andasmalloneonNOxmainlyintermsofmaturation.

FORUM‐AE2015simplifiedassessmentofprogresstowardsACARE2020goal

QuantitativeGoal:“Aircraftmovementsareemission‐freewhentaxiing”

Thisgoalmayrelyonelectric taxiing(with fullygreenelectricity). Noreviewofpotentialsolutionswas carried up to now by the project but this is foreseen in the second half ofFORUM‐AE.

Qualitative Goal: “Europe is established as a centre of excellence on sustainablealternativefuels,includingthoseforaviation,basedonastrongEuropeanenergypolicy.“

Distinguishing between up‐stream side (production) and down‐stream side (enginecompatibility), concrete projects are currently relatively modest. ITAKA is the main up‐streamproject, andpermitted to gain concrete experience in producingdrop‐in fuel fromCamelina. Concerning down‐stream project, there is currently no European project today,andsomeprioritieswereidentifiedinFORUM‐AE.


51

5 Conclusions

Based on various dedicated workshops organised since mid 2013, completed with parallel work and

monitoring of some major European projects, FORUM‐AE has provided a robust status on main

issues linked to aviation pollutant emissions and a list of strategic recommendations and of future

research priorities. These results concern environmental impact, mitigation solutions and regulation

issues. The detailed list of recommendations is available in the core of this document and slightly

synthesised in the executive summary. An up‐dated assessment against ACARE (CO2 & NOx) goals

since OPTI assessment in 2012 is also provided.


52


53

Appendix1) GeneralinformationonFORUM‐AE

A.1.1Consortium

The consortium is constituted of 13 partners, and 3 associated partners.

A.1.2 Project’sorganisation

The current project’s organisation is the following:

EC Scientific Officer: Christiane Bruynooghe ; DG Research & Innovation

(formerly Marco Brusati)

Partners Participant Organisation Name Shortname

Country

1 (CO) Snecma SN FR2 Airbus SAS AI FR3 Deutsches Zentrum für Luft und Raumfahrt e.V. DLR DE4 Deutsche Lufthansa AG DLH DE5 ECATS ECATS BE6 Flughafen Zurich AG FZAG CH7 IFP Energies nouvelles IFPEN FR8 Manchester Metropolitan University MMU UK9 Stichting Nationaal Lucht - En Ruimtevaart laboratorium NLR NL10 Office National d’Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales ON FR11 Rolls Royce Group plc RR UK12 Rolls Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG RRD DE13 SENASA SENASA ES14 Eurocontrol (associated) ECTL FR15 Joint Research Center (associated) JRC BE16 Turbomeca (associated) TM FR


54

Appendix2) WorkshopsandMonitoring

A.2.1Workshopsrealisedsincebeginning

The following table provides the status of workshops conducted during the [M1‐M18] period:

Workshops Date Location Hosting partner

Kick‐off Workshop Sept, 19th&20th 2013 Brussels EC

Air Quality Workshop January, 9th 2014 Manchester, United Kingdom MMU

non volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) January, 10th 2014 Manchester, United Kingdom MMU

Climate Change April, 2nd & 3rd 2014 Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany DLR

CO2 and Fuel Burn Technology July, 1st 2014 Paris, France Snecma

non‐CO2 Technology Workshop July, 2nd 2014 Paris, France Snecma

Alternative Fuels Workshop October, 21st 2014 Madrid, Spain SENASA

Basket of Measures / MBM May, 19th 2015 Toulouse, France Airbus

Basket of Measures / CO2 standard May, 20th 2015 Toulouse, France Airbus This shows a dense number of workshops, each of them having supported essential technical

exchange inside the consortium and with invited experts, and having provided key conclusions

(status and future priorities).

A.2.2MonitoredprojectsThe RTD programs relevant to FORUM‐AE projects are provided in the following table.

PROJECT T0 STATUS Coordinator TITLE TYPE

REACT4C 2010 Recently

completed DLR*

Reducing Emissions from Aviation by Changing Trajectories for the Benefit of Climate Impacts

ECATS 2005 Foundation ECATS* Environmental Compatible Air Transport System => Foundation Impacts

MOZAIC 1994 On-going RC Jülich Measurement of Ozone, Water Vapor, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxide by Airbus In-Service Aircraft Impacts

IAGOS 2008 On-going RC Jülich In service Aircraft for a Global Observing System Impacts

IAGOS ERI 2009 On-going RC Jülich In service Aircraft for a Global Observing System / European Research Infrastructure Impacts

CARIBIC 2004 On-going MPI

Chemie, Mainz

Civil aircraft for the regular investigation of the atmosphere based on an instrument container Impacts

QUANTIFY 2005 Completed DLR* Quantifying the Climate Impact of Global and European Transport Systems Impacts

CleanSky - SFWA 2008 On-going AI* SMART Fixed Wing Aircraft Aircraft

CleanSky - GRA 2008 On-going Alenia The Green Regional Aircraft Aircraft

CleanSky - GRC 2008 On-going Eurocopter Green Rotorcraft Aircraft

NACRE 2005 Completed AI* New Aircraft Concepts Research Aircraft

AHEAD 2011 On-going TU Delft Advanced Hybrid Engines for Aircraft Development Aircraft

DISPURSAL 2013 On-going Bauhaus Distributed Propulsion and Ultra-high By-pass Rotor Study at Aircraft Level Aircraft

CleanSky - SAGE 2008 On-going RR*&SN* Sustainable And Green Engine Engine

DREAM 2008 Completed RR* valiDation of Radical Engine Architecture systeMs Engine & Fuel

NEWAC 2006 Completed MTU NEW Aero engine Core concepts Engine HP


55

VITAL 2005 Completed SN* Environmentally Friendly Aero-Engine Engine BP

LEMCOTEC 2011 On-going RRD* Low Emissions Core-Engine Technologies Engine HP

ENOVAL 2013 On-going MTU The Engine mOdule Validators Engine BP

KIAI 2009 Recently

completed SN* Knowledge for Ignition, Acoustics and Instabilities Combustor

FIRST 2010 On-going RR* Fuel injection research Combustor

FACTOR 2010 On-going SN* Turbine combustor interaction Combustor

IMPACT-AE 2011 On-going RRD* Design methodologies Combustor

TECC-AE 2008 Recently

completed SN* Technology Enhancements for Clean Combustion Combustor

INTELLECT D.M. 2003 Completed RRD* Integrated Lean Low-Emission Combustor Design Methodology Combustor

TIMECOP-AE 2006 Completed TM* Toward Innovative Methods for Combustion Prediction in Aero-engines Combustor

TLC 2005 Completed SN* Towards Lean Combustion Combustor

LOPOCOTEP 2000 Completed SN* LOw POllutant COmbustor TEchnology Project Combustor

ALFA-BIRD 2008 Completed Eu-Vri Alternative Fuels and Biofuels for Aircraft Development Fuel

SWAFEA 2009 Completed Onera Sustainable Way for Alternative Fuels and Energy in Aviation Fuel

burnFAIR 2010 On-going LH* Searching for a viable kerosene replacement Fuel

ITAKA 2012 On-going SEN* Initiative Towars sustAinable Kerosene for Aviation Fuel

SESAR 2007 On-going JU Single European Sky ATM Research Operations

CleanSky - SGO 2008 On-going Thales System for Green Operation Operations

AIRE 2009 On-going SJU-FAA Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions Operations

ERAT 2007 Completed To70 Environmental Responsible Air Transport Operations

CS-EcoDesign 2008 On-going DA&FHF Eco-Design (co-leaded by Dassault & Fraunhofer) Recyclability

CleanSky - TE 2008 On-going Thales Technology Evaluator Assessment

AERONET III 2003 Completed DLR* Aircraft Emissions and Reduction Technologies Network & monitoring

ELECT-AE 2005 Completed RRD* European Low Emission Combustion Technology in Aero Engines

Network & monitoring

OPTI 2010 Completed ASD Observation Platform Technological and Institutional monitoring

X-NOISE EV 2010 On-going SN* Aviation Noise Research Network and Coordination Network & monitoring for NOISE

OPTICS 2013 On-going EurocontrolObservation Platform for Technical and Institutional consolidation of Safety research

Network for Safety

CATER 2013 On-going SESM Coordinating Air transport Time Efficiency Research

Network time efficiency

COREJet-fuel 2013 On-going FNR Coordinating research and innovation of jet and other sustainable aviation fuel

Network & monitoring for Fuel

Team-Play 2010 Completed DLR* Tool Suite for Environmental and Economic Aviation Modelling for Policy Analysis Regulation

NEPAIR 2003 Completed Qinetiq Development of the technical basis for a New Emissions Parameter covering the whole AIRcraft operation Regulation

GreenAir 2009 On-going EADS

Generation of Hydrogen by Kerosene Reforming via Efficient and Low-Emission New Alternative, Innovative, Refined Technologies for Aircraft Application Other

* projects whose coordinators are partners of FORUM-AE

.


56

Appendix3)EmissionsMitigationSolutions–Enablers

A detailed table of enablers with associated capacities and some tentative time development target

was provided in SRIA Vol.2. The 5 enablers are recalled hereafter.

Enabler 1: Air Vehicles Overall Design

Enabler 2: Air Vehicles Systems Technology


57

Enabler 3: Propulsion System

Enabler 4: Transverse Technologies

Enabler 5: Sustainable Air Vehicle