Enhanced Modeling of Aircraft Taxiway Noise, Volume 2: Aircraft Taxi Noise Database and Development Process (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Web-Only Document 9: Aircraft Taxi Noise Database and Development Process Airport Cooperative Research Program Juliet Page Chris Hobbs Wyle Laboratories, Inc. Arlington, VA And Phil Gliebe Consultant Waynesville, OH Contractor’s Final Report for ACRP Project 02-27 Submitted January 2013 ACRP Volume 2 Enhanced Modeling of Aircraft Taxiway Noise

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It was conducted through the Airport Cooperative Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, Transit Development Corporation, or AOC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

iv CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ........................................................................................... vi AUTHOR’S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................... viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Project Goals and Overview ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. Technical Approach ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2.1. Report Contents .............................................................................................. 1-2 CHAPTER 2 Taxi Database INM/AEDT Integration Assumptions .................................... 2-1 2.1. Reference Speed ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2. Lateral and Longitudinal Directivity ........................................................................ 2-1 2.3. Taxi Spectral Class ................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4. Ground Effect ........................................................................................................... 2-3 CHAPTER 3 Data Sources ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1. Measured Taxi Noise Data ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. Taxi Operational Data .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.3 ANOPP First Principles Modeling Data .................................................................. 3-5 CHAPTER 4 Hybrid Methods for Estimating Turbofan (Jet) Aircraft Taxi Noise Levels........................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1. Attempts to Utilize INM Flight NPD Data .............................................................. 4-1 4.2. Correlation of ANOPP Data and Empirical Data ..................................................... 4-5 4.3. Methods for Taxi NPD Database Creation ............................................................... 4-9 4.4. Uncertainty of the NPD Creation Process .............................................................. 4-10 CHAPTER 5 INM/AEDT Commercial Turbofan (Jet) Fleet ............................................... 5-1 CHAPTER 6 Propeller Aircraft Taxi NPD Curve Generation Using Empirical Data ...... 6-1 6.1. Propeller Taxi NPD Procedure ................................................................................. 6-1 6.2. Prop Spectral Class Assignment ............................................................................... 6-1 6.3. Empirical Datasets .................................................................................................... 6-1 6.4. Taxi Thrust – Weight Relationship .......................................................................... 6-2 6.5. NPD Curve Development Using AAM .................................................................... 6-3 6.6. Empirical Thrust-Noise Relationship ....................................................................... 6-4 6.7. Spectral Class Data ................................................................................................... 6-9 6.8. INM Propeller Database and Substitution Assignments ........................................ 6-11 6.9. INM Propeller NPD Summary ............................................................................... 6-12

v CHAPTER 7 Composite Directivity Patterns for Taxiing Aircraft ..................................... 7-1 7.1. Turbofan (Jet) Aircraft ............................................................................................. 7-1 7.2. Turboprop Aircraft ................................................................................................... 7-4 7.3. Directivity Uncertainty Assessment ......................................................................... 7-6 CHAPTER 8 Summary ............................................................................................................ 8-1 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................R-1 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX A Madrid Data Processing Technique .......................................................... A-2 A.1. Comparison of Measured Taxi Noise Data ............................................................. A-2 APPENDIX B Wyle 2010 B777 IAD Taxi Noise Measurements and Data Processing ............................................................................................B-1 APPENDIX C ANOPP Sensitivity, Trade and Taxi Operation Studies ..........................C-1 C.1. Comparison of ANOPP Taxi Predictions with Measured Data ...............................C-1 C.2. EDS ANOPP Flight Datasets and Generalized Suppression Tables .......................C-4 C.3. Suppression Data Input for ANOPP Flight Noise Computation .............................C-4 C.4. ANOPP Individual Aircraft Taxi Noise Regression Coefficients ...........................C-6 C.5. Empirically Derived Taxi Noise Values and Assumed Thrust ................................C-7 APPENDIX D Ground Vortex Ingestion ........................................................................... D-1 D.1. Narrow Band Analysis of Taxiing Aircraft Noise Data to Identify Ground Vortex Ingestion ................................................................................................................ D-1 D.2. Interpretation of Taxi Condition Inflow Distortion Effects .................................... D-5 D.3. ANOPP Inflow Distortion Model ........................................................................... D-6 APPENDIX E Taxi Noise versus Thrust Comparison Plots ............................................. E-1 APPENDIX F Taxi Noise INM/AEDT Dataset .................................................................. F-1

vi LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Aircraft lateral directivity from Boeker et al. (2009) .............................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Aircraft longitudinal directivity from Boeker et al. (2009) .................................... 2-2 Figure 3-1 Comparison of B737 measurement noise directivity data ...................................... 3-2 Figure 4-1 Taxi noise vs. thrust comparison, B737-800 for 16 knots at 200 ft. distance ......... 4-2 Figure 4-2 Taxi noise vs. thrust comparison, B737-800 for 16 knots at 1000 ft. distance ....... 4-3 Figure 4-3 Taxi noise vs. thrust comparison, B747-400 for 16 knots at 200 ft. distance ......... 4-3 Figure 4-4 Taxi noise vs. thrust comparison, B747-400 for 16 knots at 1000 ft. distance ....... 4-4 Figure 4-5 Taxi thrust and weight correlation .......................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-6 Taxi thrust and weight correlation .......................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-7 ANOPP predicted Taxi noise SEL trend lines – 400 ft. distance ........................... 4-7 Figure 4-8 ANOPP predicted Taxi noise SEL trend lines – 1000 ft. distance ......................... 4-7 Figure 4-9 ANOPP predicted Taxi noise SEL trend lines – 4000 ft. distance ......................... 4-8 Figure 4-10 Comparison of Method III with empirical data, 1000 ft. – SEL (dBA)................ 4-11 Figure 4-11 Comparison of Method III with empirical data, 1000 ft. – Lmax (dBA) ............. 4-12 Figure 4-12 Comparison of Method III with empirical data, 1000 ft. – EPNL (dB)................ 4-12 Figure 4-13 Comparison of Method III with empirical data, 1000 ft. – PNLTmax (dB) ......... 4-13 Figure 6-1 Max takeoff weight vs. Taxi thrust/1000 (lb) for INM Commercial Jet and Prop aircraft. Trend line was developed based on INM Commercial Jets as reported in Chapter 4 .......................................................................................... 6-2 Figure 6-2 A-weighted maximum level versus distance for taxiing aircraft ............................ 6-3 Figure 6-3 A-weighted SEL versus distance for taxiing aircraft. ............................................. 6-4 Figure 6-4 EPNL versus distance for taxiing aircraft ............................................................... 6-4 Figure 6-5 Taxi noise metric vs. thrust parameter for 400 ft. distance, all props (PropNPDs_rev7.xlsm) ............................................................................................... 6-5 Figure 6-6 Taxi noise metrics vs. thrust parameter for 1000 ft. distance, all props (PropNPDs_rev7.xlsm) ............................................................................................... 6-5 Figure 6-7 Taxi noise metrics vs. thrust parameter for 4000 ft. distance, all props (PropNPDs_rev7.xlsm) ............................................................................................... 6-6 Figure 6-8 Taxi noise metrics vs. thrust parameter for 10,000 ft. distance, all props (PropNPDs_rev7.xlsm) ............................................................................................... 6-6 Figure 6-9 Taxi noise metrics vs. thrust parameter for 16,000 ft. distance, all props (PropNPDs_rev7.xlsm) ............................................................................................... 6-7 Figure 6-10 Taxi noise metrics vs. thrust parameter for 25,000 ft. distance, all props (PropNPDs_rev7.xlsm) ............................................................................................... 6-7 Figure 6-11 Metric and thrust correlation parameter slopes, all props (PropNPDs_rev7.xlsm) ................... 6-8 Figure 6-12 Metric and thrust correlation parameter y-intercepts, all props (PropNPDs_rev7.xlsm) .......... 6-8 Figure 6-13 Linear fit standard deviation sigma for props (PropNPDs_rev7.xlsm) ..................................... 6-9 Figure 6-14 Linear fit goodness of fit “R2” for noise vs. thrust for turboprops (PropNPDs_rev7.xlsm) ...... 6-9 Figure 6-15 Spectra of taxiing aircraft at time of A-weighted maximum level 1000’ away corrected to 70 dB at 1 kHz............................................................... 6-10

vii Figure 6-16 Taxi spectrum of ATR-72-500 plotted with the INM spectral classes used for it .............................................................................................................. 6-11 Figure 7-1 Taxi directivity of A319 normalized to 90 degrees ................................................ 7-2 Figure 7-2 Comparison of arithmetic averaging of fleet-weighted levels (dB Ave) and energy averaging of fleet-weight levels (Energy) ............................................ 7-3 Figure 7-3 Directivities of US Fleet jets with curve fits of their weighted average ................. 7-4 Figure 7-4 Directivities of NOISEFILE Turboprops compared with the curve fit of the US fleet-weighted average ....................................................... 7-5 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Available Noise Data for Aircraft Taxi Operations ................................................ 3-1 Table 3-2 Comparison of SEL Levels ..................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-3 FDR Data Engine Operating Parameters from Page et al. (2009b) ........................ 3-4 Table 4-1 Taxi Noise Regressions Coefficients for Turbofan Aircraft ................................... 4-9 Table 4-2 Taxi Noise Uncertainty: Method III Compared with Empirical Data ................... 4-11 Table 4-3 Taxi Noise Confidence Levels: Method III Compared with Empirical Data ....... 4-11 Table 5-1 Chosen Taxi NPD Development Method for INM/AEDT Aircraft ....................... 5-1 Table 6-1 Empirical Datasets for Prop Aircraft used for Prop Thrust-Noise Sensitivity........ 6-2 Table 6-2 INM Prop Aircraft and NPD / Spectral Class Development Notes (PropNPDs_rev6c.xlsm) .......................................................................... 6-12 Table 7-1 Table from Boeker (2010) – Modeling Directivity Behind the Start of Takeoff Roll ............................................................................................................ 7-1 Table 7-2 Fleet Mix Used as Weightings for Taxi Directivity................................................ 7-2 Table 7-3 Fleet Mix Used as Weightings for Taxiing Turboprops ......................................... 7-5 Table 7-4 Taxi Jet Aircraft Directivity Uncertainty ................................................................ 7-6 Table 7-5 Angle Averaged Taxi Jet Aircraft Directivity Uncertainty ..................................... 7-7

viii AUTHOR'S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Principal Investigator expresses her gratitude to Georgia Tech for providing calibrated flight noise ANOPP datasets, to Casey Burley, Jeff Berton and John Rawls at NASA for their invaluable assistance pushing the boundaries of ANOPP and last but certainly not least to her Wyle colleagues for their hours of dedication to this research. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this paper are those of the researchers. They are not necessarily those of the TRB, the National Research Council, the FAA, the AOC, or the U.S. Government.