Energies: A Mathematical Model For The Analysis of Jet Engine Fuel Consumption During Aircraft Cruise

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 13

energies

Article
A Mathematical Model for the Analysis of Jet Engine Fuel
Consumption during Aircraft Cruise
Francisco Velásquez-SanMartín * , Xabier Insausti , Marta Zárraga-Rodríguez and Jesús Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez

Department of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, Tecnun, University of Navarra, Manuel Lardizábal 13,
20018 Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain; xinsausti@tecnun.es (X.I.); mzarraga@tecnun.es (M.Z.-R.);
jgutierrez@tecnun.es (J.G.-G.)
* Correspondence: fjvelasquez@tecnun.es; Tel.: +34-94-3219877

Abstract: In this paper we propose a mathematical model for the fuel consumption analysis during
aircraft cruise. A closed-form formula that expresses the aircraft’s weight variation over time,
and hence, the fuel flow rate, is obtained as a result. Furthermore, a closed-form expression of the
aircraft’s main performance parameters is also obtained. We compare the values of such parameters
computed by using the Piano-X software and computed by using our mathematical model. Simulation
results confirm that our mathematical model provides results very close to reality. Finally, the closed-
form formula of the fuel flow rate provided by our model is used to improve the calculation of the
carbon dioxide emissions for four example routes, which, unlike here, are usually obtained under
the assumption of a constant value of the fuel flow rate.

 Keywords: fuel flow rate; fuel consumption; pollutant emissions




Citation: Velásquez-SanMartín, F.;


Insausti, X.; Zárraga-Rodríguez, M.;
Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, J. A 1. Introduction
Mathematical Model for the Analysis Flight dynamics is a discipline that studies the performance of an aircraft flying.
of Jet Engine Fuel Consumption Among other topics, it studies the influence of aerodynamic, propulsive and gravitational
during Aircraft Cruise. Energies 2021,
forces on an aircraft. One of its main purposes is to provide mathematical models of the
14, 3649. https://doi.org/10.3390/en
aircraft’s state variables as a function of time during the different flight phases, with appli-
14123649
cations such as fuel consumption analysis.
Fuel consumption has been a critical issue of aircraft design and performance since
Academic Editor: Andrzej Teodorczyk
the early days of modern aviation. Flight planning is concerned with the estimation of
the trip fuel required for a certain mission profile and the fulfillment of the standards
Received: 17 May 2021
Accepted: 16 June 2021
established by safety and regulatory agencies (EASA, FAA, ICAO, etc.), along with the
Published: 18 June 2021
requirements of Air Traffic Control (ATC) in order to guarantee the optimal and safest
route to the destination airport. The mission profile is defined for a specific distance and
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
payload, and the fuel required for each of the mission’s segments is usually estimated
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
through iterative computational procedures which depend on the aircraft’s take-off weight,
published maps and institutional affil- performance characteristics and atmospheric conditions ([1], pp. 411–419). Common
iations. methods for the fuel economy analysis of an aircraft include the study of parameters
such as fuel burn and fuel efficiency per seat, both of them determined by the interior
configuration of the aircraft and the trip distance. As an example, the Boeing 767-300ER has
an average fuel burn of 5.51 kg/km and a fuel efficiency of 2.56 L/100 km per passenger
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
for a trip distance of 3000 nautical miles (nmi) and a 269-passenger configuration [2].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
In general terms, the usefulness of such parameters relies in their effectiveness on
This article is an open access article
estimating fuel costs for a certain aircraft type and route. These estimations serve as indices
distributed under the terms and that reflect if fuel saving strategies are being implemented successfully. Since modern air
conditions of the Creative Commons transport has been, and remains, a continuously growing industry, it has brought with
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// it a great concern about fuel combustion emissions and climate change. Consequently,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the safety and regulatory agencies have developed strict standards regarding this matter,
4.0/). encouraging airlines around the globe to improve their fuel saving strategies and, hence,

Energies 2021, 14, 3649. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14123649 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies


Energies 2021, 14, 3649 2 of 13

search for more efficient ways to mitigate atmospheric pollution. As of 2019, jet fuel
combustion in the aviation industry amounted to 915 million tons of CO2 , corresponding to
a 2% of all human-induced CO2 emissions and a 12% of the general transport emissions [3].
Airlines are continuously faced with the need of finding an equilibrium point between
their operational costs associated to the fuel saving strategies and the developing climate
policies. Engine manufacturers give special aid in this matter, since they seek to design
and adapt more fuel-efficient engines, helping airlines reduce both operational costs and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Several known software modules and manuals are widely used in the field for aircraft
preliminary design, stability and control and mission performance analysis (PIANO, AC-
SYNT, FLOPS, DATCOM, BADA, ESDU) [4] (pp. 9–10). Regarding mission performance
analysis, this software is based either on the numerical resolution of the differential equa-
tions of motion or on the application of energy balance methods for each flight phase. Since
early stages, the refinement of such software has enabled very accurate simulations of
aircraft performance. In addition, previous studies have been carried out with the objective
of analyzing the aircraft’s fuel consumption during the different flight phases by means of
energy balance methods [5,6] (pp. 11–15), or statistical models [7–13]. Other recent studies
such as [14–16] propose some frameworks in which aircraft performance models (which
are based on some of the abovementioned softwares), fleet data sets and route data sets
are integrated into unique tools where statistical techniques such as regression analysis
are applied in order to estimate fuel consumption and emissions during the different
flight phases and at a global scale. In addition, aircraft emission inventories have been
developed throughout the years based on historical fuel burn data [17–19] or on other
methodologies [20] and enhanced by a more accurate estimation of the pollutant emission
indices [21].
However, the numerical solution of the differential equations of motion, energy
balance methods and statistical models, although being very reliable, do not provide
a complete understanding of the performance of the physical system described by the
differential equations of motion. Obtaining closed-form (non-numerical) solutions of the
differential equations of motion is very difficult in general. However, such a closed-form
solution would instead enable a complete understanding of the system since it allows
identifying the critical variables of the model and how they influence the system. Closed-
form formulae not only provide the possibility of applying analytical (ideal) optimization
techniques but also the knowledge of the fundamental limits of such optimization problem,
that is, what is possible to achieve and what is not.
The focus of this study is the fuel consumption of a jet engine aircraft during the
cruising flight phase. This phase is the dominant flight phase both in duration and in
fuel consumption.
Specifically, in this paper, a closed-form formula for the aircraft’s weight as a func-
tion of time during the cruising flight phase is presented. To obtain such formula, the
equations of motion for this flight phase are considered along with the fuel consumption
relationship. The formula obtained in this paper is a closed-form solution of a certain
differential equation.
The resolution of this problem opens a wide range of possible applications such as:
• Calculation of pollutant emissions (carbon dioxide (CO2 ), hydrocarbons (HC),
nitrogen oxides (NOx ) and similar) by means of the aircraft’s fuel flow rate closed-form
formula and validated emissions indices.
• Knowing the fuel fraction that has been invested during the cruising flight phase and
the aircraft’s weight at any moment in time.
• Knowing the closed-form formula of the relationship between the aircraft’s weight
and the engine’s fuel consumption.
• Performance analysis with different types of jet fuel.
• Optimal aircraft selection for a certain route in terms of fuel consumption.
• Optimal engine selection for a certain aircraft type and route in terms of fuel consumption.
Energies 2021, 14, 3649 3 of 13

In this paper, we focus on the first application, that is, we calculate the pollutant
emissions by means of the closed-form formula of the aircraft’s fuel flow rate. Such
emissions, unlike here, are usually obtained under the assumption of a constant value of
the fuel flow rate.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 states the problem. Section 3
presents the closed-form formulae for both the aircraft’s weight as a function of time and
the aircraft’s fuel flow rate. Section 4 compares the values of the aircraft’s main performance
parameters provided by our mathematical model and by the Piano-X software. Section 5
is dedicated to the application of the mathematical model for the calculation of carbon
dioxide (CO2 ) emissions for four example routes. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper,
giving some insight on future work.

2. Problem Statement
The physical system under consideration resembles that of a modern jet engine aircraft
during the cruising flight phase. We seek to address the analysis of fuel consumption for
such physical system. To that end, we combine the fuel consumption relationship along
with the equations of motion and the aerodynamic expressions of lift, drag and drag polar
of the aircraft during the cruising flight phase. These equations can be considered under
the following flight configurations, as stated by [4] (pp. 342–343):
(a) Constant altitude and Mach number.
(b) Constant altitude and lift coefficient.
(c) Constant Mach number and lift coefficient.
In this paper, we propose the mathematical model for flight configuration (a), that is,
cruise at constant altitude and Mach number.
The following assumptions are made in order to obtain the mathematical model:
(1) The aircraft is considered a variable-mass system: fuel is being consumed along time
and weight varies consequently.
(2) Fuel consumption is only considered for the aircraft’s engines and under ideal condi-
tions, i.e., engines consume equal fuel quantity and their degradation effects are not
taken into account.
(3) Static atmosphere and ideal gas conditions enable thermodynamic parameters such
as pressure, temperature and air density to be expressed only as a function of altitude.
(4) Regarding aircraft flight mechanics:
• The aircraft is considered as a physical system that follows a rectilinear trajectory
contained in a horizontal plane, meaning that its velocity vector remains constant
both in magnitude and direction.
• A vertical mass symmetry plane exists along the longitudinal axis and all
the interacting forces are contained in the same plane, including the aircraft’s
velocity vector.
• Wind effects are not taken into account.
(5) Regarding the aircraft performance parameters:
• The thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) is considered a constant parame-
ter [22], since the flight configuration studied implies constant altitude and Mach
number, and the parabolic drag polar approach is employed.
As it will be shown later in Section 4, despite the assumptions made, the results
provided by our mathematical model turn out to be very close to the results given by
the Piano-X software. Since the Piano-X software results are proven to be close to reality,
we will conclude that our mathematical model also provides results close to reality.

Equations for the Mathematical Model


The aircraft’s total weight W (t) is presented as a sum of a fixed and a time-varying
term, as established by [23] (p. 406):
Energies 2021, 14, 3649 4 of 13

W (t) = W0 + W f (t), (1)

where the fixed term W0 includes, in the general case, the operating empty and payload
weights. The time-varying term W f (t) refers to the fuel weight, which is the fuel mass
m f (t) multiplied by the gravitational acceleration g, i.e., W f (t) = m f (t) g.
Fuel mass variation, also known as fuel flow rate, is described by the fuel consumption
relationship for a jet engine aircraft [24] (p. 29):

dm f
= − c j F ( t ), (2)
dt
being dm f /dt the fuel flow rate, c j the thrust specific fuel consumption and F (t) the
aircraft’s thrust. Hence, a direct relationship can be obtained between Equations (1) and (2),
taking the time derivative of (1)

dW dm f
= g = −c j F (t) g. (3)
dt dt
The objective of this study is to determine whether it is possible to integrate, and thereby
find a closed-form solution of Equation (3), under the constraints established by the equa-
tions of motion of the cruising flight phase.
It is known from [25] (pp. 178–180) that the equations of motion for the flight configu-
ration considered can be reduced to the following expressions

W (t) = L(t) (4)

F (t) = D (t) (5)


where the aerodynamic forces, lift (L(t)) and drag (D (t)), are defined by

L(t) = qAc L (t) (6)

D (t) = qAc D (t) (7)


being q the dynamic pressure defined as q = (1/2)ρv2 , in which ρ is the density of air
and v the aircraft’s true airspeed. The total wing area A is a known geometric parameter,
c L (t) is the lift coefficient and the drag coefficient c D (t) is defined through the parabolic
drag polar
c D (t) = c D,0 + kc L (t)2 (8)
where c D,0 > 0 is the zero-lift drag coefficient and k > 0 is the induced drag factor.
The latter is a function of the Oswald efficiency factor e and the aircraft’s aspect ratio AR,
i.e., k = 1/(π ARe), and the aspect ratio is defined as the squared term of the aircraft’s
wingspan b2 divided by A.

3. Closed-Form Solution of the Fuel Consumption for the Cruising Flight Phase
In the following section we derive the closed-form expression of the aircraft’s weight
as a function of time with t ∈ [0, tcr ], where t = 0 and t = tcr are the initial and final time
instants of the cruising flight phase, respectively.
From (5) and (7) we have
F (t) = qAc D (t).
By combining (4), (6) and (8) we obtain
 2
W (t)
c D (t) = c D,0 + k , (9)
qA
Energies 2021, 14, 3649 5 of 13

and hence
k
F (t) = qAc D,0 + (W (t))2 . (10)
qA
Equation (10) expresses the aircraft’s thrust as a function of weight. Therefore, the fol-
lowing differential equation is obtained from (3)
 
dW k
= −c j g qAc D,0 + 2
(W (t)) = k1 + k2 (W (t))2 (11)
dt qA

where k1 , k2 are constant parameters defined as


k
k1 = −c j gqAc D,0 k2 = −c j g . (12)
qA

Observe that, k1 6= 0 and k2 /k1 > 0 .


Integrating (11) leads to

W 0 (t)dt
Z Z
= k1 dt
1 + (k2 /k1 )(W (t))2

whose solution is given by


s s !
k1 k2
arctan W (t) = k1 t + C (13)
k2 k1

where C is an arbitrary constant.


Reordering terms
s ! s
k2 k2
arctan W (t) = k1 t + C0 . (14)
k1 k1

Since W (0) is the initial cruise weight,


s !
0 k2
C = arctan W (0) , (15)
k1

we obtain the implicit formula


s ! s ! s
k2 k2 k2
arctan W (t) − arctan W (0) = k1 t. (16)
k1 k1 k1

Applying the rule of a tangent of a sum (see, e.g., [26] (p. 59)), Equation (16) can be
written as
√ s !
k2 /k1 (W (t) − W (0)) k2
= tan k1 t , (17)
1 + (k2 /k1 )W (t)W (0) k1

or equivalently,
s s !! s s !
k2 k k2 k2 k2
W (t) − 2 W (0) tan k1 t = W (0) + tan k1 t . (18)
k1 k1 k1 k1 k1

Let s s
k2 W (0) k
β = W (0) = . (19)
k1 qA c D,0
Energies 2021, 14, 3649 6 of 13

Combining Equations (12), (18) and (19) yields the explicit formula
p 
1 − (1/β) tan c j g c D,0 kt
W ( t ) = W (0) p  . (20)
1 + β tan c j g c D,0 kt

Equation (20) provides the sought closed-form expression of the aircraft’s weight as a
function of time.
From (2) and (10) we obtain
 s !2  2 !
dm f

W ( t ) k W ( t )
= −c j qAc D,0 1 +  = −c j qAc D,0 1 + β . (21)
dt qA c D,0 W (0)

Substituting (20) in (21) brings

(1 + β2 )(1 + tan2 (c j g c D,0 kt))


p
dm f
= −c j qAc D,0 p . (22)
dt (1 + β tan (c j g c D,0 kt))2

Equation (22) represents the closed-form formula of the aircraft’s fuel flow rate,
which enables further optimization and sensibility analyses in order to evaluate the de-
pendence on aerodynamic and engine parameters, with the objective of reaching a more
efficient aircraft performance. Note that the negative sign means that fuel is consumed in
t ∈ [0, tcr ].

4. Example Case: Validation and Discussion


The objective of this section is the validation of our mathematical model for the jet
engine aircraft performance during the cruising flight phase. We compare the values of the
aircraft main performance parameters computed by using Piano-X Aircraft Emissions and
Performance software [27] and our mathematical model. One of the Piano-X’s freely available
database aircraft models is used. An example route is taken for the aforementioned aircraft
model from FlightRadar24 [28], where the chosen route has a range of 2145 nautical miles
(nmi) and a cruise altitude (hcr ) of 10,668 meters (m), i.e., flight level 350 (FL350).
Table 1 presents a summary of the parameters for the considered example flight.
In Appendix A, we provide further details on the particular configuration used in Piano-X,

Table 1. Table of input data.

Aircraft Model Range (nmi) Mcr (-) hcr (FL) W0 (N) tcr (s) m f (0) (kg)
B767-300ER 2145 0.8 350 1,045,232 15,325 22,227
Mcr is the cruise Mach number, defined as vcr /acr , being vcr the aircraft’s true airspeed at cruise and acr the speed
of sound at the cruising altitude.

Table 2 presents the values of the aircraft’s main performance parameters when they
are computed using Piano-X or using our mathematical model. These parameters are the
aircraft’s weight (W (t)), lift coefficient (c L (t)), drag coefficient (c D (t)), lift-to-drag ratio
(E(t)), thrust (F (t)), fuel flow rate (dm f /dt) and specific air range (SAR(t)), where,

L(t) vcr
E(t) = , SAR(t) = .
D (t) dm f /dt
Necessary data from the Boeing 767-300ER was retrieved from [29,30].
Energies 2021, 14, 3649 7 of 13

Table 2. Performance parameters computed by using Piano-X and our mathematical model.

t (s) Performance Parameter Mathematical Model Piano-X Relative Difference


W (t) · 106 (N) 1.26049 1.26049 0%
c L (t) (-) 0.4164 0.418 0.3659%
c D (t) (-) 0.02135 0.02221 3.84%
t=0 E(t) (-) 19.5 18.82 3.62%
F (t) (N) 64,634 67,208 3.83%
dm f /dt (kg/s) 1.12 1.15 3.07%
SAR(t) (nmi/kg) 0.1143 0.1108 3.15%
W (t) · 106 (N) 1.23495 1.23410 0.07%
c L (t) (-) 0.408 0.409 0.23%
c D (t) (-) 0.02105 0.02191 3.88%
t = 2349 E(t) (-) 19.37 18.67 3.78%
F (t) (N) 63,734 66,324 3.9%
dm f /dt (kg/s) 1.10 1.14 3.28%
SAR(t) (nmi/kg) 0.1159 0.1121 3.4%
W (t) · 106 (N) 1.20947 1.20771 0.14%
c L (t) (-) 0.3996 0.4 0.0965%
c D (t) (-) 0.02076 0.02163 3.98%
t = 4725 E(t) (-) 19.24 18.51 3.95%
F (t) (N) 62,854 65,477 4%
dm f /dt (kg/s) 1.09 1.13 3.51%
SAR(t) (nmi/kg) 0.1175 0.1134 3.65%
W (t) · 106 (N) 1.16715 1.16372 0.3%
c L (t) (-) 0.3856 0.3860 0.0953%
c D (t) (-) 0.0203 0.02119 4.2%
t = 8744 E(t) (-) 18.9 18.2 4.38%
F (t) (N) 61,433 64,143 4.2%
dm f /dt (kg/s) 1.06 1.10 3.97%
SAR(t) (nmi/kg) 0.1202 0.1154 4.14%
W (t) · 106 (N) 1.13345 1.12854 0.43%
c L (t) (-) 0.3745 0.3740 0.13%
c D (t) (-) 0.01993 0.02086 4.43%
t = 12,011 E(t) (-) 18.78 17.93 4.76%
F (t) (N) 60,338 63,142 4.4%
dm f /dt (kg/s) 1.04 1.09 4.36%
SAR(t) (nmi/kg) 0.1224 0.1170 4.57%
W (t) · 106 (N) 1.09988 1.09335 0.6%
c L (t) (-) 0.3634 0.362 0.38%
c D (t) (-) 0.01958 0.02055 4.7%
t = 15,325 E(t) (-) 18.55 17.64 5.18%
F (t) (N) 59,279 62,191 4.68%
dm f /dt (kg/s) 1.02 1.08 4.79%
SAR(t) (nmi/kg) 0.1246 0.11867 5.02%

It is interesting to note that at time instant tcr = 15,325 s of the cruising flight phase,
that is, after 4 h and 15 min, the greatest relative difference values amid the performance
parameters are between 4.7% and 5.02%. From this, one can conclude that, despite the
assumptions made to obtain our mathematical model, its results are very close to the results
provided by the Piano-X software. Since the Piano-X software results are proven to be close
to reality, we conclude that our mathematical model also provides results close to reality.
Energies 2021, 14, 3649 8 of 13

In fact, considering the assumptions made in Section 2, it can be intuited that the dif-
ference between the values provided by our mathematical model and the values provided
by Piano-X values arise from two main sources:
(a) We have assumed the thrust specific fuel consumption to be constant, but it actually
varies simultaneously with the aircraft’s thrust.
(b) For the drag polar presented in Equation (8), we only included the zero-lift drag coef-
ficient and the induced drag coefficient. Other phenomena such as the compressibility
and trim effects need to be considered.
Figure 1 shows the evolution of the relative difference over the cruising time for the
performance parameters considered in Table 2. It can be noticed that, although having an
initial relative difference at t = 0 s, the increase of this relative difference for the analyzed
parameters from t = 0 s to tcr = 15,325 s is relatively small. For the drag coefficient (c D (t)),
this increase corresponds to 0.84%, for the lift-to-drag coefficient (E(t)) the increase is of
1.56%; the aircraft’s thrust (F (t)) has a 0.85% increase, followed by a 1.71% from the fuel
flow rate (dm f /dt) and finally, the specific air range (SAR(t)) presents the highest increase
with a 1.87%. Note that the aircraft’s weight (W (t)) and the lift coefficient (c L (t)) were not
included in Figure 1 due to their low relative difference.

Figure 1. The increasing trend of the relative difference can be observed for all the analyzed perfor-
mance parameters, especially for the fuel flow rate and specific air range.

The estimation of the fuel consumed during the total cruising time is presented in
Figure 2. It is important to observe how the relative difference between both values
increases from t = 0 s until tcr = 15,325 s, reaching its maximum value at the latter. The
result given by Piano-X at t = tcr is 17,115 kg, whereas the result given by our mathematical
model at t = tcr is 16,435 kg. This means that the maximum relative difference in the fuel
consumption calculation is 3.8%.
We conclude that our mathematical model turns out to be not only a useful tool for the
fuel consumption calculation but also a comprehensive tool for the performance analysis
of a jet engine aircraft during the cruising flight phase.
Energies 2021, 14, 3649 9 of 13

Figure 2. The time evolution of the fuel mass consumed (m f (0) − m f (t)) is presented for both the
mathematical model and the Piano-X results.

5. Application: Pollutant Emissions Calculation


In this section we use our mathematical model to obtain a closed-form expression
for the amount of pollutant emissions of an aircraft during cruising time. Knowing the
emitted pollutants during the cruising flight phase, along with its associated cost index,
would enable the estimation of the Green Direct Operating Cost (GDOC), as proposed
by [31]. Observe that in [31], unlike here, the calculation of the GDOC is based on a constant
value of the fuel flow rate. Considering such parameter as a fixed value entails a loss of
accuracy in the calculation of the pollutant mass emitted. Hence, we propose a closed-form
expression, based on Equations (1) and (20), that provides a more accurate value of the
pollutant mass emitted. This closed-form expression is as follows,
Z tcr  dm f h i
pi = EIi −
dt = EIi m f (0) − m f (tcr )
0 dt
p !
W (0) 1 − (1/β) tan(c j g c D,0 ktcr )
= EIi 1− p ,
g 1 + β tan(c j g c D,0 ktcr )

where pi is the total emitted pollutant mass, EIi the emission index and i the chemical
component analyzed.
The closed-form expression given in Equation (22) of the fuel flow rate for an aircraft
during the cruising flight phase also provides the closed-form formula for the engine fuel
flow rate proposed in [32] (p. 5). Hence, it would help tools like the Boeing Fuel Flow
Method2 (BFFM2) in addressing the estimation of emissions indices for pollutants such as
nitrogen oxides (NOx ) and carbon monoxide (CO) at different cruising altitudes.
We next present an example where the emissions calculation procedure takes place as
follows: in the first place, we observe four example routes for the selected aircraft model in
the FlightRadar24 platform in order to obtain the range and the number of cruise segments
for each route. The information collected from each of the cruise segments are the cruising
altitude (hcr ) and its respective time duration (tcr ). The latter information is taken as input
data, along with the emission index for CO2 , which is of 3159 [31]. The emission index has
units of grams of pollutant per kilograms of fuel burned, i.e., g/kg.
Energies 2021, 14, 3649 10 of 13

The example route data and the total CO2 emissions results are presented in Table 3,
where the following parameters appear: route designation, number of cruise segments
(ncr ), cruise altitude for each segment (hcr ), cruise time duration for each segment (tcr ),
the total fuel consumed (m f (0) − m f (tcr )) and the respective pollutant mass emissions (pi ).
We assume that for each of the cruise segments, the aircraft has a constant Mach number
of 0.8 and the thrust specific fuel consumption is calculated with the formula proposed
by [33] (p. 75). For the example routes with more than one cruise segment, i.e., ncr ≥ 2,
the fuel consumed during the stepped cruise phase, that is, the transition from one cruise
flight level to another, is neglected. We also assume that 11% of the total fuel load has been
consumed during the taxi-out, take-off and climbing phases.

Table 3. Carbon dioxide emissions for four example routes.

Route ncr hcr tcr (s) m f (0) − m f (tcr ) (kg) pCO2 (kg)
A 1 FL350 11,280 12,566 39,696
FL310 3000 3632 11,473
B 2
FL370 9600 10,220 32,285
FL360 2040 2435 7692
C 3 FL370 9180 10,444 32,992
FL390 8160 8620 27,230
FL340 3240 4063 12,835
FL360 3540 4272 13,495
D 4
FL370 9540 10,914 34,477
FL390 6660 7073 22,343

6. Conclusions and Future Work


From the mathematical model of flight configuration (a) presented in Section 2, the
aircraft’s weight is expressed as a function of time by means of a closed-form formula.
Consequently, a closed-form formula for the aircraft’s fuel flow rate is obtained. The latter
represents a formula based on elementary functions in which critical performance and
design parameters appear. Such parameters are the thrust specific fuel consumption (c j ),
zero-lift drag coefficient (c D,0 ), induced drag factor (k), dynamic pressure (q) and the wing
area (A).
It is interesting to observe that, besides the dependency of the fuel flow rate on
performance and design parameters, the same closed-form formula exhibits a dependency
on the aircraft’s weight. Meaning that a same aircraft type, flying the same route, may not
have the same cruise fuel consumption, since the latter depends on how much payload
and fuel weight the aircraft has prior to take-off and how much fuel is burned in the flight
phases prior to the cruising flight phase, i.e., taxi-out, take-off and climbing.
In order to validate our mathematical model, an example route was chosen. The cal-
culation during the cruising flight phase of the aircraft’s weight (W (t)), the lift (c L (t))
and drag (c D (t)) coefficients, lift-to-drag ratio (E(t)), aircraft’s thrust (F (t)), fuel flow rate
(dm f /dt), specific air range (SAR(t)) and total fuel consumed (m f (0) − m f (t)) are com-
puted with our model and are contrasted with the results provided by the Piano-X software.
The relative difference obtained for all of the above performance parameters is very low.
Since the Piano-X software results are proven to be close to reality, we conclude that our
mathematical model also provides results close to reality.
As an application, our closed-form formula was used to obtain a closed-form ex-
pression for the pollutant emissions during the cruising flight phase. Our closed-form
formula is of great aid as an estimation of pollutant emissions since it can provide an
accurate prediction just by knowing the aircraft’s initial weight, its performance and design
parameters and the cruise flight segments.
Energies 2021, 14, 3649 11 of 13

Finally, further research will be focused on developing a mathematical model for


the aircraft’s fuel consumption during cruise in flight configuration (b), that is, constant
altitude and constant lift coefficient. Other flight phases such as take-off and climbing will
also be addressed in order to obtain a closed-form formula of the aircraft’s weight variation
over time for the analysis of the fuel consumption and the aircraft performance.

Author Contributions: F.V.-S. and X.I. conceived the research question. F.V.-S. performed the simu-
lations. F.V.-S., X.I., M.Z.-R., and J.G.-G. wrote the paper. All authors have read and approved the
final manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported in part by the Basque Government through the CODISAVA2
project (KK-2020/00044).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations and parameters are used in this paper:

EASA European Union Aviation Safety Agency


FAA Federal Aviation Administration
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
ATC Air Traffic Control
ACSYNT Aircraft Synthesis
FLOPS Flight Optimization System
DATCOM Stability and Control Data Compendium of the United States Air Force (USAF)
BADA Base of Aircraft Data
ESDU Engineering Sciences Data Unit
PIANO Project Interactive Analysis and Optimization
TSFC Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption
GDOC Green Direct Operating Cost
t time, s
W aircraft’s weight, N
mf fuel mass, kg
g gravity’s acceleration, m/s2
dm f
dt fuel flow rate, kg/s
cj thrust specific fuel consumption, (kg/s)/N
F thrust, N
L lift, N
D drag, N
q dynamic pressure (1/2)ρv2 , Pa
A wing area, m2
ρ air density, kg/m3
v true airspeed, m/s
cD drag coefficient, dimensionless
cL lift coefficient, dimensionless
c D,0 zero-lift drag coefficient, dimensionless
b aircraft wingspan, m
AR aspect ratio, b2 /A
e Oswald efficiency factor, dimensionless
k induced drag factor, 1/(π ARe)
k1 constant, N/s
k2 constant, 1/(N · s)
Energies 2021, 14, 3649 12 of 13

β constant, dimensionless
h altitude, m
a speed of sound, m/s
M Mach number, v/a
E lift-to-drag ratio, L/D
SAR specific air range, nmi/kg
p total emitted pollutant mass, kg
EI emission index, dimensionless
mOE operating empty mass, kg
m PY payload mass, kg
Subscripts
cr cruise

Appendix A. Piano-X Configuration


The data observed in FlightRadar24 is transferred to the Piano-X software. For the
Speed and Flight Levels adjustment, a fixed Cruise Mach (Mcr ) of 0.8 is selected and given
as input, and for the Available Flight Levels the cruising altitude (hcr ) is fixed at 350, that is,
in flight level notation. The remaining adjustments (Basic Design Weights, Reserves and
Allowances, etc.) stay in their default values. As for the desired results, in the Detailed Flight
Profile output, the fixed range and payload program was selected. The fixed range is the
corresponding one for the route being analyzed and a representative payload value of
13,552 kilograms (kg) is taken. Note that the sum of the operating empty (mOE ) and pay-
load (m PY ) masses multiplied by the gravitational acceleration (g), that is, (mOE + m PY ) g,
represents the constant term W0 in Equation (1). In our case, the operating empty mass
value is of mOE = 93,032 kg.
The Point Performance output results are also of interest, where fixed values of Mach
number, altitude and weight are required in order to obtain the aircraft’s performance
parameters at a given instant of time.

References
1. Young, T.M. Performance of the Jet Transport Airplane; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018.
2. The Boeing Company. Boeing 767 Performance Summary. 2006. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20150415224410
/http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/startup/pdf/767_perf.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2020).
3. Air Transport Action Group (ATAG). Facts & Figures. 2019. Available online: https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html
(accessed on 15 September 2020).
4. Filippone, A. Advanced Aircraft Flight Performance; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
5. Saarlas, M. Aircraft Performance; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007.
6. Collins, B.P. Estimation of Aircraft Fuel Consumption. J. Aircr. 1982, 19, 969–975. [CrossRef]
7. Baumann, S.; Klingauf, U. Modeling of aircraft fuel consumption using machine learning algorithms. CEAS Aeronaut. J. 2019, 11,
277–287. [CrossRef]
8. Baklacioglu, T. Fuel flow-rate modelling of transport aircraft for the climb flight using genetic algorithms. Aeronaut. J. 2015, 119,
173–183. [CrossRef]
9. Baklacioglu, T. Predicting the fuel flow rate of commercial aircraft via multilayer perceptron, radial basis function and ANFIS
artificial neural networks. Aeronaut. J. 2021, 125, 453–471. [CrossRef]
10. Chati, Y.S.; Balakrishnan, H. Statistical modeling of aircraft engine fuel flow rate. In Proceedings of the 30th Congress of the
International Council of the Aeronautical Science, Daejeon, Korea, 25–30 September 2016. Available online: http://www.icas.
org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2016/data/papers/2016_0619_paper.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2020).
11. Zhang, M.; Huang, Q.; Liu, S.; Zhang, Y. Fuel Consumption Model of the Climbing Phase of Departure Aircraft Based on Flight
Data Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4362. [CrossRef]
12. Turgut, E.T.; Cavcar, M.; Usanmaz, O.; Canarslanlar, A.O.; Dogeroglu, T.; Armutlu, K.; Yay, O.D. Fuel flow analysis for the cruise
phase of commercial aircraft on domestic routes. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2014, 37, 1–9. [CrossRef]
13. Trani, A.; Wing-Ho, F.; Schilling, G.; Baik, H.; Seshadri, A. A neural network model to estimate aircraft fuel consump-
tion. In Proceedings of the AIAA 4th Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations (ATIO) Forum, Chicago, IL, USA,
20–22 September 2004; p. 6401. [CrossRef]
14. Wasiuk, D.K.; Lowenberg, M.H.; Shallcross, D.E. An aircraft performance model implementation for the estimation of global and
regional commercial aviation fuel burn and emissions. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2015, 35, 142–159. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 3649 13 of 13

15. Yanto, J.; Liem, R.P. Aircraft fuel burn performance study: A data-enhanced modeling approach. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ.
2018, 65, 574–595. [CrossRef]
16. Seymour, K.; Held, M.; Georges, G.; Boulouchos, K. Fuel Estimation in Air Transportation: Modeling global fuel consumption for
commercial aviation. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2020, 88, 102528. [CrossRef]
17. Baughcum, S.L.; Henderson, S.C.; Tritz, T.G. Scheduled Civil Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1976 and 1984: Database
Development and Analysis. 1996. Available online: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960035824/downloads/19960035824.
pdf (accessed on 17 March 2021).
18. Baughcum, S.L.; Tritz, T.G.; Henderson, S.C.; Pickett, D.C. Scheduled Civil Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1992: Database
Development and Analysis. 1996. Available online: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960038445/downloads/19960038445.
pdf (accessed on 17 March 2021).
19. Sutkus, D.J., Jr.; Baughcum, S.L.; DuBois, D.P. Scheduled Civil Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1999: Database Development and
Analysis. 2001. Available online: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20020012699/downloads/20020012699.pdf (accessed on
17 March 2021).
20. Wasiuk, D.K.; Khan, M.A.H.; Shallcross, D.E.; Lowenberg, M.H. A Commercial Aircraft Fuel Burn and Emissions Inventory for
2005–2011. Atmosphere 2016, 7, 78. [CrossRef]
21. Turgut, E.T.; Usanmaz, O. An assessment of cruise NOx emissions of short-haul commercial flights. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 171,
191–204. [CrossRef]
22. Bensel, A. Characteristics of the Specific Fuel Consumption for Jet Engines. 2018. Available online: https://www.fzt.haw-
hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/arbeiten/TextBensel.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2020). [CrossRef]
23. Sforza, P.M. Commercial Airplane Design Principles; Butterworth-Heinemann (Elsevier): Waltham, MA, USA, 2014.
24. Lee, T.-W. Aerospace Propulsion; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2014.
25. Sadraey, M.H. Aircraft Performance: An Engineering Approach; CRC Press Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017.
26. Gradshteyn, I.S.; Ryzhik, I.M. In Table of Integrals, Series, and Products; Jeffrey, A., Zwillinger, D., Eds.; Academic Press Elsevier:
Burlington, MA, USA, 2007.
27. Piano-X. Lissys Ltd. Available online: https://www.lissys.uk/ (accessed on 15 September 2020).
28. Flightradar24. Available online: https://www.flightradar24.com/ (accessed on 8 February 2021).
29. The Boeing Company. Boeing 767 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning. 2005; p. 12. Available online: http://www.
boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/767.pdf (accessed on 7 October 2020).
30. Jenkinson, L.; Simpkin, P.; Rhodes, D. Civil Jet Aircraft Design; Butterworth-Heinemann (Elsevier): Waltham, MA, USA, 1999.
Available online: https://booksite.elsevier.com/9780340741528/appendices/default.htm
31. Tian, Y.; Wan, L.; Ye, B.; Xing, D. Cruise Flight Performance Optimization for Minimizing Green Direct Operating Cost.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3899. [CrossRef]
32. DuBois, D.; Paynter, G. Fuel Flow Method2 for Estimating Aircraft Emissions. SAE Trans. J. Aerosp. 2006, 115, 1–14. [CrossRef]
33. Howe, D. Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis; Professional Engineering Publishing: London, UK, 2000.

You might also like