design of a flight planning system to reduce persistent ......harris tanveer, david gauntlett,...
Post on 25-Jun-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
As Distance Traveled in ISSR Decreases, RFContrails Decreases,
and RFExcessCO2Increases
As ISSR Avoidance Increases, Cost Increases and Total RF
Decreases per Flight Path
05E-121E-11
1.5E-112E-11
2.5E-113E-11
3.5E-114E-11
4.5E-11
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Tota
l Rad
iati
ve F
orc
ing
(W/m
^2)
ISSR Avoidance Percentage
Total RF (CO2 + Contrails Decreases with ISSR Avoidance)
Long Medium Short
Average Total RF vs. Average Cost per Flight Path
Contrails Cause Net Warming Effects When Summed Across All
Alights and All Conditions
RFContrails+ContrailInducedCirrus ≈ RFCO2 To reduce RF from contrails, ISSR can be avoided by strategic
flight planning
Avoiding ISSR may cause
increase in:• Excess distance flown
• Excess fuel consumption
• RF from excess CO2 emissions
• RF from contrail formation
Recommendations & Future Work
Design of a Flight Planning System to Reduce Persistent
Contrail Formation to Reduce Greenhouse Effects
Harris Tanveer, David Gauntlett, Jhonnattan Diaz, Po-Cheng Yeh
Context
Projected Growth in Air Travel Requires Attention to Climate
Impacts
Method of Analysis
Results
Problem & Need for ISSR Avoidance
• through
–
• around
–
Diaz, Gauntlett, Tanveer, Yeh
52
8.11 ! ! ! Emission Model
The following mathematical model will be utilized to calculate ! ! ! emissions for a
particular flight path:
! ! ! !! " #$$#%&= ! ∗ ! ,
! is the fuel consumed, c is a chemical constant (C02 produced by stoichiometric
combustion of known amount of fuel. ! = !3.175!! " !! ! !
! " !! " #$ ).
8.12 Contrail Model
In order to determine if persistent contrails will be formed, the following formula will be
used [3]:
! " #= ! " #6.0612! ! " .! " #! /(! " #.! " ! ! )
6.1162! ! ! .! " " ! /(! " #.! " ! ! )
RHi or relative humidity with respect to ice is a measure which allows the team to
determine if and when contrails will form. A value of over 100% means that persistent contrail
formation is considered favorable. The value RHw is relative humidity with respect to water, and
is obtained from the RAP data [3].
In order to estimate the contrail emission from the exhaust, the Schumann (2002) Ice
Water Content to ! ! ! will be used:
!" # ! ! ! ! = ! ! ! !! ! !100
−1
where ! ! is the density of air, ! ! is the saturation mixing ratio with respect to ice at the ambient
temperature, and ! ! ! is the percentage of relative humidity with respect to ice.
Diaz, Gauntlett, Tanveer, Yeh
52
8.11 ! ! ! Emission Model
The following mathematical model will be utilized to calculate ! ! ! emissions for a
particular flight path:
! ! ! !! " #$$#%&= ! ∗ ! ,
! is the fuel consumed, c is a chemical constant (C02 produced by stoichiometric
combustion of known amount of fuel. ! = !3.175!! " !! ! !
! " !! " #$ ).
8.12 Contrail Model
In order to determine if persistent contrails will be formed, the following formula will be
used [3]:
! " #= ! " #6.0612! ! " .! " #! /(! " #.! " ! ! )
6.1162! ! ! .! " " ! /(! " #.! " ! ! )
RHi or relative humidity with respect to ice is a measure which allows the team to
determine if and when contrails will form. A value of over 100% means that persistent contrail
formation is considered favorable. The value RHw is relative humidity with respect to water, and
is obtained from the RAP data [3].
In order to estimate the contrail emission from the exhaust, the Schumann (2002) Ice
Water Content to ! ! ! will be used:
!" # ! ! ! ! = ! ! ! !! ! !100
− 1
where ! ! is the density of air, ! ! is the saturation mixing ratio with respect to ice at the ambient
temperature, and ! ! ! is the percentage of relative humidity with respect to ice.
• •
•
Source: Form 41 and 298C, U.S. DOT 2005: 641 Tg/yr CO2 by Aviation Industry
• 4.2 million passengers/year
increase from 2013 to 2033
• 54.85% projected increase
in passengers from 2013 to
2033
Radiative Forcing (RF) -
energy/area 𝑊
𝑚2 difference
between incoming shortwave
radiation and outgoing longwave
radiation
Contrails + Induced
Cirrus RF ≈ 30
mW/m^2
Red: Travel Through ISSR
Blue: ISSR Avoidance
Contrail Induced cirrus
clouds may increase
Total Aviation RF by
41% (0.055 Wm-2 to
0.078 Wm-2)
Treat ISSR as “bad weather” areas to
maneuver around
Simulation Facts:
•Output: 54,000 flight
combinations
•Simulation uses 3-D
modified A* routing
algorithm
Tradeoff per Flight Path Between RFContrails and RFExcessCO2is
Based on CO2’s Contribution to Global CO2 Emissions and
Global RF
Independent Variables Outputs
Avoidance Aggression
Flight Length AtmosphericConfigurations
• Fuel Burn• CO2 emissions• Radiative Forcing (Contrails
and CO2)• Flight Distance• Flight Duration• %Distance in ISSR
No Avoidance
Short
45 days of weather from NOAA’s RUC
Database
Medium
Long
PartialAvoidance
Short
Medium
Long
CompleteAvoidance
Short
Medium
Long
Flight Length:
•Short: < 500 nm
•Medium: 500 – 1000 nm
•Long: > 1,000 nm
Long: 18.5% decrease from 0% to 100% Avoidance
Medium: 18.4% decrease from 0% to 100% Avoidance
Short: 18.1% decrease from 0% to 100% Avoidance
01E-122E-123E-124E-125E-126E-127E-128E-129E-12
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Rad
iati
ve F
orc
ing
(W/m
^2)
ISSR Avoidance Percentage
Radiative Forcing vs. ISSR Avoidance Percentage
Avg RF Excess CO2 (L) Avg RF Contrails (L)
RF Contrails
< RF ExcessCO2RF Contrails > RF ExcessCO2
At 99% Avoidance- Benefits of avoiding ISSR are outweighed by RFExcessCO2
for Long Flights
100
50
0
1.81.51.20.90.60.30.0
100
50
0
1.81.51.20.90.60.30.0
100
50
0
% DistISSR_Long, No Avoidance
% of Distance in ISSR
Pe
rce
nt
% DistISSR_Long, Complete
% DistISSR_Medium, No Avoidance % DistISSR_Medium, Complete
% DistISSR_Short, No Avoidance % DistISSR_Short, Complete
Histograms of % of Distance in ISSR by Avoidance Type
97% decrease in Average % of Distance in
ISSR
95% decrease in Average % of Distance in
ISSR
76% decrease in Average % of Distance in
ISSR
Long
Flights
Short
Flights
Medium
Flights
A
B
X
Y ZISSR
Origin
Destination
0
5E-12
1E-11
1.5E-11
2E-11
2.5E-11
3E-11
3.5E-11
4E-11
4.5E-11
$- $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 $250.00
Ave
rage
To
tal R
F (W
/m^2
)
Average Cost (Fuel Cost in $)
Alternatives ComparisonNo Avoidance, Long
Partial Avoidance, Long
Complete Avoidance, Long
No Avoidance, Medium
Partial Avoidance, Medium
Complete Avoidance, Medium
No Avoidance, Short
Partial Avoidance, Short
Complete Avoidance, Short
Short Flights
Medium Flights
Long Flights
9 Alternatives with different Avoidance Aggressiveness and
Flight Lengths with 45 atmospheric combinations
% Decrease in Average Total RF (No Avoidance to
Complete Avoidance)
% Increase in Average Cost (No Avoidance to
Complete Avoidance)
Long Flight 18.49% 0.94%
Medium Flight 18.35% 1.33%
Short Flight 18.07% 4.14%
$-
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fue
l Co
st (
$)
ISSR Avoidance Percentage
Fuel Cost vs ISSR Avoidance
Long Medium Short
Long: 0.94% increase from 0% to 100% Avoidance
Medium: 1.33% increase from 0% to 100% Avoidance
Short: 4.14% increase from 0% to 100% Avoidance
Recommendation:
Pilot testing should be
conducted at 99% ISSR
Avoidance for Long, Medium,
and Short distance flights
Future Work:
• Who should pay for increased fuel and crew costs as distance increases?
• How is passenger comfort impacted from ISSR avoidance
• How can ISSR avoidance be combined with wind optimal flight paths
Systems Engineering & Operations Research, George Mason University
𝐅𝐮𝐞𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 = 𝜂 × Thr × 𝐶𝑓𝑐𝑟
𝐂𝐎𝟐 𝐄𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 = 𝑓 ∗ 3.175
𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐈𝐜𝐞
𝑅𝐻𝑖 =6.0612𝑒18.102𝑇/(249.52+𝑇)
6.1162𝑒22.577𝑇/(273.78+𝑇)
𝑹𝑭𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒔 𝒕 = 𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠 𝑅𝐹𝐿𝑊+𝑆𝑊 𝑡,𝑠 𝑊 𝑡,𝑠 𝑑𝑠
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ
𝑹𝑭𝑬𝒙𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝑪𝑶𝟐 =𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐶𝑂2
641 𝑇𝑔 𝐶𝑂230
𝑚𝑊
𝑚2
top related