A Comprehensive Development Plan for a Multimodal Noise and Emissions Model (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 47-73
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 47... ...
B-1 APPENDIX B MODEL DESIGN EVALUATION As dictated by the RFP, the recommendation for the multimodal model design should consider "costs associated with development and application of the resulting model versus expected benefits, as well as technical feasibility; capability to support demographic, transportation, and economic analysis of alternative scenarios and mitigation strategies; acceptability to regulatory agencies; and flexibility to meet changing needs." This was accomplished through a structured evaluation process to support the choices on how to proceed from the current models and development projects to the end state of multimodal model design.
|
From page 48... ...
B-2 TABLE B-1 The Modified Pugh Matrix Evaluation Criteria Concepts Weight Datum A A1 A2 A3 R 4 W1 1 S S11 S12 S13 R 14 W2 2 S S21 S22 S23 R 24 W3 3 S S31 S32 S33 R 34 W4 4 S S41 S42 S43 R 44 W5 5 S S51 S52 S53 Performance Score (P) 54 P P1 P2 P3 Evaluation Criteria 4 Weight C 1 S S1 S2 S3 Cost Score (C)
|
From page 49... ...
B-3 ● Technical feasibility (practicality of the design and access to needed resources and expertise) ; ● Acceptability to the regulating agencies; ● International credibility (i.e., compliance with international technical standards and recommended practices)
|
From page 50... ...
B-4 TABLE B-3 Meaning of the 7 Evaluation Criteria (concluded) Evaluation Criteria What does it entail?
|
From page 51... ...
B-5 The respondents were not asked to rank the attributes (criteria) , but it is possible to glean from their responses enough information to make an initial judgment on how to weight each attribute.
|
From page 52... ...
B-6 TABLE B-6 Proposed Multimodal Noise and Emissions Model Design Cost Scoring Scheme Relative Cost Implications Rating Much higher than reference concept (Datum) 5 Higher than reference concept (Datum)
|
From page 53... ...
B-7 TABLE B-8 Compiled Value Score Sheet for Multimodal Noise and Emissions Model Designs Value Scores Panel/Team Member Datum A A1 A2 A3 Evaluator1 4 1.00 Evaluator2 1.00 Evaluator3 1.00 … 1.00 EvaluatorXX 1.00 Median Interquartile Range (IQR) Nonparametric statistics, median and IQR, were used because there was insufficient information to conclude that the members' scores conform to a known probability distribution, such as normal distribution.
|
From page 54... ...
B-8 B.2.2. Build on AEDT (Alternative #1)
|
From page 55... ...
B-9 B.3. Benefits and Drawbacks To assist the evaluators in the first round, preliminary assessments of each of the design alternatives were prepared.
|
From page 56... ...
B-10 TABLE B-9 Preliminary Assessment of the Model Design Alternatives Evaluation Criteria Datum Building to Simulation Alternative #1 Build on AEDT Alternative #2 Build on Existing Simulation Models Alternative #3 Federal Adoption of Commercial Software Alternative #4 Build on EC IMAGINE Project Agency Acceptance + FICAN supports simulation + Agency acceptance test for each build + Multimodal capability available with first build (1 year) + Expansion on FAA's AEDT.
|
From page 57... ...
B-11 TABLE B-9 Preliminary Assessment of the Model Design Alternatives (continued) Evaluation Criteria Datum Building to Simulation Alternative #1 Build on AEDT Alternative #2 Build on Existing Simulation Models Alternative #3 Federal Adoption of Commercial Software Alternative #4 Build on EC IMAGINE Project Analytical Proficiency +FICAN: simulation is better + Screening tools for secondary sources + End state can calculate any metric - Computationally complex +Air quality, noise and cost analysis already integrated.
|
From page 58... ...
B-12 TABLE B-9 Preliminary Assessment of the Model Design Alternatives (concluded) Evaluation Criteria Datum Building to Simulation Alternative #1 Build on AEDT Alternative #2 Build on Existing Simulation Models Alternative #3 Federal Adoption of Commercial Software Alternative #4 Build on EC IMAGINE Project Cost Implications + Draws from ongoing model development projects Incremental, increased funding tied to priority needs - Large, complex, and data intensive end state - Requires specialized expertise to use + Small additional costs on top of AEDT funding + Draws from ongoing simulation projects + Development efficiencies through use of professional software developers - Substantial new funding - Development time and cost - Lack of development by most U.S.
|
From page 59... ...
B-13 TABLE B-10 Median Values from Round 1 Evaluation Datum #1 #2 #3 #4 Agency Acceptance 0.30 3.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 Technical Feasibility 0.20 3.00 3.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 Analytical Proficiency 0.20 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Scalability 0.15 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.50 3.50 Responsiveness 0.10 3.00 2.50 3.00 2.00 3.00 International Credibility 0.05 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.78 2.73 2.55 2.63 3.00 2.00 3.50 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.31 0.77 0.63 0.71Value Score (V = P/C) Alternative Concepts Performance Evaluation Criteria (R)
|
From page 60... ...
B-14 Figure B-1. Round 1 performance and cost rating statistics.
|
From page 61... ...
B-15 TABLE B-11 Pro Statements from the Preliminary Assessments (Shaded cells identify alternatives that received the highest median rating in Round 1) Evaluation Criteria Datum Building to Simulation Alternative #1 Build on AEDT Alternative #2 Build on Existing Simulation Models Alternative #3 Federal Adoption of Commercial Software Alternative #4 Build on EC IMAGINE Project Agency Acceptance + FICAN supports simulation + Agency acceptance test for each build + Multimodal capability available with first build (1 year)
|
From page 62... ...
B-16 TABLE B-11 Pro Statements from the Preliminary Assessments (Shaded cells identify alternatives that received the highest median rating in Round 1) (concluded)
|
From page 63... ...
B-17 TABLE B-12 Con Statements from the Preliminary Assessments (Shaded cells identify alternatives that received the lowest median rating, less than 3, in Round 1) Evaluation Criteria Datum Building to Simulation Alternative #1 Build on AEDT Alternative #2 Build on Existing Simulation Models Alternative #3 Federal Adoption of Commercial Software Alternative #4 Build on EC IMAGINE Project Agency Acceptance - DoD moving away from integration to simulation modeling.
|
From page 64... ...
B-18 TABLE B-12 Con Statements from the Preliminary Assessments (Shaded cells identify alternatives that received the lowest median rating, less than 3, in Round 1) (concluded)
|
From page 65... ...
B-19 Table B-11 compiles all the pro statements concerning the various designs. These statements have been taken from the preliminary assessments of designs for the Round 1 evaluations.
|
From page 66... ...
B-20 TABLE B-13 Design Elements that Maximize the Most Desirable Attributes and Minimize the Least Desirable Attributes Evaluation Criteria Most Desirable Attributes Least Desirable Attributes Design Elements Agency Acceptance Datum received the highest rating. The preliminary assessment suggests these positive factors: • Agency acceptance test for each build • Multimodal capability available with first build (1 year)
|
From page 67... ...
B-21 TABLE B-13 Design Elements that Maximize the Most Desirable Attributes and Minimize the Least Desirable Attributes (continued) Evaluation Criteria Most Desirable Attributes Least Desirable Attributes Design Elements Responsiveness The 3 simulation-based concepts (Datum, Alternative #2, and Alternative#4)
|
From page 68... ...
B-22 TABLE B-13 Design Elements that Maximize the Most Desirable Attributes and Minimize the Least Desirable Attributes (concluded) Evaluation Criteria Most Desirable Attributes Least Desirable Attributes Design Elements Cost Implications Alternative #1 received the best rating (lowest cost implications)
|
From page 69... ...
B-23 B.6. Results of the Round 2 Evaluation In the second round, the members of the project team evaluated the winner of Round 1 (Alternative #1 – Build on AEDT)
|
From page 70... ...
B-24 ● Adapt from other research, such as, EC IMAGINE; and ● Learn from applications and users' experiences. Rather than initiating a single, large-scale effort to design and develop the end state, the design incorporates a build sequence toward the end state in a series of steps, each step providing an improvement to some facet of the overall model.
|
From page 71... ...
B-25 of a time-history of the one-third octave band spectrum produced by each source operation. When combined with numbers of operations of the different sources, the simulation model would use common algorithms and: ● Calculate any noise metric for any transportation source; ● Propagate sound over any terrain, surface, barrier, structural effects (urban canyon reverberation, etc.)
|
From page 72... ...
B-26 promulgated and accepted by EPA for air quality and the noise model is accepted on an international basis. Implementation for the other modes of transportation could be done with the accepted modeling processes as well, again reducing the time requirements since these models have been previously accepted by other agencies.
|
From page 73... ...
B-27 ● Proper inclusion of meteorological effects, terrain, and other heterogeneous scenarios. ● Sufficient detail in the output will provide thorough understanding of any scenario.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.