AIRPORT NOISE MODELLING FOR STRATEGIC

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF AVIATION

Antonio J. Torija*, Rod H. Self and Ian H. Flindell

ISVR, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, SO17 1BJ Southampton, UK

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail:

[email protected]

Tel.: +44 (0)23 8059 2276

1
Abstract

As projected by different agencies the aviation market will experience a significant increase in

air traffic demand over the next decades, driven by the large demand of the Asia-Pacific region.

To overcome the further deterioration of the quality of life of communities living around

airports, the various aviation stakeholders are required to explore scenarios with different

technology options, flight procedures, and fleet replacement strategies. Of course, the

assessment of aviation scenarios must be addressed in a more integrated manner than hitherto,

where noise, air quality and carbon release are considered. For such purpose, simplified airport

noise models are required to overcome the important input data requirements and computation

complexity of detailed airport noise models, and also to ensure compatibility against other

environmental and economic models. This paper analyses the applicability and discusses the

unavoidable limitations and advantages of existing simplified airport noise models within the

context of multi-disciplinary strategic environmental impact assessment of aviation.

Simplified airport noise models satisfying the above requirements and developed to be coupled

with technology evaluators, e.g. Rapid Aviation Noise Evaluator (RANE) model [Torija et al.,

2017], can inform policy decisions about which future technology platforms would be likely

to be the most environmental efficient when considered holistically. Based on the specific

conditions tested, the straight-out trajectory assumption and the use of generic aircraft types

seems valid approximations for computing aviation noise outputs.

Keywords: Environmental noise; Environmental impacts; Air pollution; Aviation noise; Noise

modelling.

2
1. Introduction

To ensure the sustainability of the aviation sector, appropriate actions are required to

mitigate community noise and air quality problems around airports, and to reduce fuel

consumption. With the substantial increase in air traffic demand as forecast by several agencies

[1-3], aviation industry is investing a significant effort in the development of ongoing research

programs for enhancing fuel-burn efficiency, and reducing the mission of air pollutant and

noise. Along this line, the Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe

(ACARE) and NASA have put forward fuel-burn and missions reduction goals for aircraft

entering into service in the long-term: Flightpath 2050 [4] and N + 3 [5] programs respectively.

The assessment of the noise impact of future scenarios requires fleet-level studies where

variables such as air traffic demand, fleet composition, technology options, and rate of

penetration of novel aircraft are considered. Also, diverse flight procedures for minimising

aircraft noise around airports will need to be assessed [6]. In these future scenarios, although

there is an agreement that a considerable increase in air traffic will take place, the projections

of different agencies differ significantly [1-3]; also, a large number of novel aircraft concepts

under development or projected to be developed can be found in literature [7]. Therefore, the

fleet-level prediction of noise for future scenarios is a highly combinatorial and

computationally expensive problem, so that detailed airport noise models such as the FAA’s

Integrated Noise Model (INM) [8] or the UK Civil Aircraft Noise Contour Model (ANCON)

[9] are not always practical at a fidelity-level required in preliminary strategic planning and

decision making procedures [10]. For this reason, a number of simplified airport noise models

for fleet-level studies have been developed. Although, each of these models compute noise

outputs using a different approach, all of them are rapidly computable and have a simple

formulation [11].

3
 On the other hand, the decision on technology investment for minimizing

environmental externalities of aviation requires an integrated and multi-disciplinary strategic

environmental assessment. For this purpose, as proposed in this paper, airport noise models

need to be incorporated in integrated tools [12] (Fig. 1), ensuring compatibility against input

and output requirements in other environmental and economic models [13].

Fig. 1. Structure of an integrated model for assessing aviation environmental impact (modified

from [12]).

This paper analyses the applicability of a number of simplified airport noise models

within the context of strategic aviation environmental impact assessment, discussing their

limitations and advantages. Moreover, this paper examines and discusses the validity of two

common assumptions in most of the simplified airport noise models reviewed: (i) straight-in –

straight-out trajectory and (ii) generic vehicle used as representative of an aircraft category.

2. Review of simplified airport noise models

4
 This section overviews some of the simplified airport noise models more often cited in

the literature, describing their approach for computing noise outputs.

Powell [14] derived the analytical basis for relationship between noise contour areas

and noise levels at certification measurement points.

Fig. 2. Typical departure noise contour and geometric relationships to noise certification points

(modified from [14]).

In Fig. 2, the sound-level at all points on the contour (outer line) is equal to a given

value , and the sound-levels at the flyover () and sideline () certification points are

 and  respectively. For deriving this analytical basis:

(i) The power and acoustic output at the aircraft is assumed constant.

(ii) The sound-level is inversely proportional to distance assuming spherical spreading.

Thus,

5
      (1)

     (2)

   
(iii)    and   

(iv) The noise contour area is proportional to the product of the length and width

parameters of the noise contour ( and  in Fig. 2), and therefore,

 
 



      (3)


This section overviews some of the simplified airport noise models more often cited in

the literature, describing their approach for computing noise outputs.

Dikshit and Crossley [8] developed a noise model that approximates INM-predicted

area within the 65 dB Day-Night level (DNL) contour. Based on a set of INM noise

experiments at a limited set of system airports, the noise model estimated the 65 (dBA) DNL

contour area as a linear function of the number of aircraft operations (differentiating between

passenger and cargo aircraft). The model uses the Noise Energy Equivalent (NEE) computed
 
as  from the published certification sound-levels at the flyover, sideline and approach

certification points. The noise model also accounts for the effect of different Maximum

Takeoff Weights (MTOW) on the takeoff sound-levels. This model was used to develop the

noise module for a fleet-level evaluation of environmental impact of new aircraft [15].

The FAA’s Area Equivalent Method (AEM) “is a mathematical procedure that provides

an estimated noise contour area of a specific airport given the types of aircraft and the number

of operations for each aircraft” [16]. Based on the concept of “equivalent operations” [10], the
6
airport 65 dBA DNL contour area is estimated for an equivalent number of operations of a

reference aircraft [17]. The change in contour area is then determined by a scaling parameter

relative to a change in number of operations [16]. AEM is used as a screening procedure to

determine whether a detailed study (conducted with any detailed airport noise model, such as

INM) is required.

Bernardo et al. [17] developed a noise model, called Airport Noise Grid Integration

Method (ANGIM), where (single-event) aircraft departure and approach sound exposure levels

(SEL) grids are pre-calculated assuming straight ground tracks and standard-day sea level

atmosphere. Once the schedule of operations is defined, an airport-level SEL grid is computed

as logarithmic additions of the SEL grids of all the events occurring during that flight schedule.

For cases with multiple runways, the runway-level SEL grids are manipulated (rotated,

translated and interpolated), and then summed to yield an airport-level SEL grid. Noise contour

areas are then calculated from airport-level grids. This model was validated against INM, and

also used for assessing fleet-level noise impacts of projected technology improvements [10].

Li et al. [18] developed a noise model for preliminary aircraft noise-reduction route

design, named AIRNOISE. Although this model computes noise outputs using the same

approach as detailed airport noise models [19] (SAE-AIR-1845), does not consider components

related to terrain and atmosphere adjustments, thus reducing computation time.

Finally, Torija et al. [13] introduced an airport noise model named Rapid Aviation

Noise Evaluator (RANE). Unlike grid-point based airport noise models which calculate noise

contours from airport-level noise grids on the basis of logarithmic additions of all the events in

a given flight schedule, RANE uses a more computationally efficient algorithm for calculating

noise contour areas. On the basis of cylindrical (noise) surfaces formed around the flightpath

and with a given “energy-equivalent” Noise Power Distance curve –NPD- (referred as Noise

7
Radius, !
[20]), a given noise contour is calculated as the intersection of each cylindrical

surface with the ground (Fig. 3 top). Using sound-level integration at source, this “energy-

equivalent” NPD is computed for the combination of all the aircraft operations in a given

flightpath. Although the aircraft was assumed to represent a moving isotropic noise source,

which is a reasonable assumption for current aircraft, the analytical method underlying RANE

allows the extension to an anisotropic noise source by replacing cylinders with some other

shape of noise surface around the flightpath.

8
Fig. 3. (top) Definition of inclination angle ("#), segment length ($%), segment start (%&') and

end (%&() points, and the noise radius ( !%

) for each nth flightpath segment; (bottom)

Definition of the limits of integration in Eq. (4). (modified from [13]).

The area of a given noise contour is composed of contributions due to each of the

various segments of the flightpath. Once the !

and ) parameters are obtained for each

segment in the flightpath, and assuming that all aircraft operations are straight-in and straight-

out and aligned with the runway axis, the noise contour area contributed by each flightpath

segment is computed as:

 
 ./* )

 
- % +,%
!% ./*
!%

*%&'&+,%  !% -  ./* )% ./* )%
(4)
%&'

9
 In Eq. (4), represents the waypoints defining the start and end of each nth flightpath

segment (see Fig. 3 bottom). The first and second terms in Eq. (4) define the outer and inner

parts, respectively, of the (cylindrical) noise surface around each nth flightpath segment once

projected on the ground.

To compute the noise contour area contributed by each nth flightpath segment, and then

compute the total noise contour area, the extension of the nth segment is assumed to intersect

the ground horizontal plane (0 ) at the same origin (see Fig. 3 bottom). Thus, the limits of

integration in Eq. (4) are defined as

1* -  $345* )3
2 
%&' 45* )%
(5)

%&( %&' $% (6)

!%
Finally, if 6% ./* )%
7 %&(, the noise contour is not ended and +,% %&(, while if 6%

8 %&(, the noise contour is ended and +,% 6% (for further details see [13]).

This model was used for estimating and projecting aviation noise impact for future

scenarios in the UK, where various air traffic demand projections and technology options were

evaluated [21].

3. Simplified airport noise models for strategic environmental assessment of aviation

3.1. Certification noise based method and RANE vs. INM

The performance of two methods frequently implemented for computing aviation noise

outputs is discussed and compared to INM. These two methods are RANE [13], and the

10
analytical method based on noise levels at certification measurement points [14], referred

hereinafter as “Certification Noise Based Method” (both methods described above).

Sound Exposure Level (dBA)

115 450 50%

Noise Contour Area (km2)

400
105 40%
350

Difference (%)
30%
95 300

250 20%
85
200 10%
75 150
0%
100
65 -10%
50

55 0 -20%
0 10000 (ft)
Distance 20000 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99

Noise Contour - SEL (dBA)

40000 lb (ANP) 50000 lb (ANP)
60000 lb (ANP) 80000 lb (ANP)
ANP Database Spherical Spreading
40000 lb (spherical) 50000 lb (spherical)
60000 lb (spherical) 80000 lb (spherical) Difference (%)

Fig. 4. (left) Noise Power Distance (NPD) curves of aircraft Airbus A380-841 for departure

operations, as published in the Aircraft Noise and Performance (ANP) database (solid lines)

and derived by extrapolation accounting for only spherical spreading (dotted lines); (right)

Noise contour areas (departure) for Airbus A380-841 using NPD published in ANP database,

and NPD derived by extrapolation accounting for only spherical spreading.

The certification noise based method for computing noise contour areas assumes only

spherical propagation of the sound emitted by the aircraft. Therefore, this method does not

account for factors such as atmospheric attenuation, Doppler effect, directivity and installation

effects, and frequency spectra of the individual noise sources at the aircraft. The NPD

published in the Aircraft Noise and Performance (ANP) database, which are used by detailed

11
airport noise models (e.g. INM), are eminently empirical, and of course all the above factors

are included in their derivation. Figure 4 (left) shows the NPD published in ANP database for

the aircraft Airbus A380-841 (solid lines), and NPD derived by extrapolation only accounting

for spherical wave spreading (dotted lines). For the derivation of this set of NPD, a given NPD

standard distance (i.e. 1000 ft) is used as a reference point, and then the sound-level (dBA) at

the remaining NPD standard distances is calculated using an extrapolation process accounting

for only spherical wave spreading, but not for other factors such as atmospheric absorption,

sound emission angles, and effective duration (all factors used for the computation of NPD

published in ANP database [19]). As observed in Fig. 4 (left), regardless the power setting, the

sound-level (SEL) decays with distance more rapidly for the case of empirical NPD (ANP

database) than for the case of NPD derived only accounting for spherical propagation. This

result might be explained by atmospheric absorption effects significantly reducing the high-

frequency sound-levels at large distances [19] (this reduction of high-frequency sound-levels

is magnified for A-weighted sound-levels, i.e. SEL in dBA). These atmospheric effects are

either directly or indirectly accounted for in [19] for the obtaining of NPD published in ANP

(depending on the procedure used for NPD computation). For the conditions evaluated in this

paper (see above), an overestimation of up to 5 dB in SEL (at a distance of 25000 ft) is observed

in NPD only accounting for spherical spreading.

Moreover, as stated by Powell [14], the certification noise based method assumes

constant power along the flightpath, and consequently constant aircraft noise output. Of

course, this is not true in daily aircraft departure operations, where at a given distance from the

start-of-roll point the power is drastically reduced (power cut-back) in order to preserve engine

performance margin and save engine maintenance costs, but also to reduce aircraft emissions

and noise. Both sets of NPD (published in ANP database, and derived by extrapolation only

accounting for spherical spreading) were implemented for computing noise contour areas for

12
the aircraft A380-841, from 60 dBA- to 99 dBA-SEL (Fig. 4 (right)). For noise contours close

to the runway (72 dBA- to 99 dBA-SEL) the areas within the contour estimated with NPD only

accounting for spherical spreading are within an interval of -15% – +10% as compared to

empirical NPD. Differences of 0.6 and 0.8 dB are also observed for sideline and flyover

certification points respectively, when implementing both sets of NPD. However, as observed

in Fig. 4 (right) when further away from the runway significant differences take place (up to

40 % for 60 dBA-SEL noise contour). These differences in noise contour areas for the noise

contours calculated (Fig. 4 (right)) are consistent with the differences in NPD shown in Fig. 4

(left).

A typical use of simplified airport noise models is the estimation of noise impact

(usually addressed by calculating noise contour areas) of future aviation scenarios, when

different air traffic demands and technology options are evaluated [10,13,21]. An example of

the performance of the certification noise based method for computing changes in noise contour

areas is shown in Fig. 5. This figure shows the change in 57 dBA-LAeq,16h contour area

calculated with the certification noise based method, and with INM for a relative number of

aircraft movements (F).1 The aircraft used for these calculation is the Boeing 747-8, with F =

1 to 5 (noise contour area with F = 1 set at the same value for all methods). As observed in

Fig. 5, and in line with the above results, the certification noise based method significantly

overestimates (as compared to INM) the change in noise contour area when the relative number

of movements increases (about 40% overestimation with F = 5).

1From a baseline scenario with an arbitrary number of aircraft movements (e.g. 100 Landing and Take-off
movements –LTOs), referred as F = 1, the number of aircraft movements is increased by a factor of x compared
to that baseline scenario, up to 5 times the baseline number of aircraft movements, i.e. F = 5.

13
 57 dBA - LAeq,16h Noise Contour Area (km2 50 50%

45

Error as compared to INM (%)

40%
40

35
30%
30

25 20%

20
10%
15

10
0%
5

0 -10%
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Relative Number of Movements, F

INM Cert. Noise Method RANE

error Cert. Noise Method (%) error RANE (%)

Fig. 5. Change in 57 dBA-LAeq,16h contour area calculated with INM, RANE and the

Certification Noise based Method for a relative number of aircraft movements (F = 1 to 5).

Also shown the error as compared to INM.

The performance of RANE for estimating changes in noise contour areas with a varying

number of movements is also shown in Fig. 5. For the specific case shown in Fig. 5, when the

relative number of operations is increased, RANE estimates the change in noise contour area

with no differences compared to INM exceeding ±2%. In RANE, the NPD database published

in ANP is used for computing an “energy-equivalent” or Noise Radius, !

on which is based

the calculation of noise contour areas (as described above). The analytical method used in

RANE requires also the operational profiles of all the aircraft flying along a given flightpath,

so an “average” trajectory for the whole fleet can be calculated. This data, in the form of an

“equivalent” inclination angle common for the whole aircraft fleet ()) is used in equation (4)

14
for the calculation of noise contour areas. Therefore, any change in the operational procedures

of the aircraft fleet is considered by RANE when computing noise contour areas (see [13] for

a detailed description).

80
LAeq,16h calculated with INM

70

60

50

40
40 50 60 70 80
LAeq,16h calculated with RANE

Fig. 6. Scatter diagram of LAeq,16h calculated using INM and RANE for a fleet composed of 4

aircraft (CRJ-900, 737-800, A330 and 747-400) with 50 movements each (reprinted from [13]).

If there is no change in the spatial distribution of flight tracks, the changes in noise

contour with, for instance, changes in aircraft movements are at first order independent from

changes in shape, and consequently only changes in noise contour area take place. This

assumption was validated [13] by calculating LAeq,16h values in a grid of 250 × 250 m using

INM and RANE, for an aircraft fleet composed of 4 aircraft (Regional Jet: CRJ-900, Single

Aisle: Boeing 737-800, Twin Aisle – 2 engines: Airbus A330, and Twin Aisle – 4 engines:

Boeing 747-400) with 50 movements each (Fig. 6 ). As shown in Fig. 6 a correlation coefficient

15
of 0.99 was found for this specific scenario. This validation demonstrates the capability of

RANE for estimating the change in noise contour areas with variations in the aircraft fleet (i.e.

changes in air traffic movements, fleet composition, and introduction of new aircraft).

3.2. Discussion on advantages and limitations of simplified airport noise models

The simplified airport noise models are devised to provide a tool for the rapid

assessment of aviation noise impact for a number of scenarios, and also for performing

parametric studies where ‘optimal’ solutions for minimizing noise impact are explored. If

reduced input data requirements (as compared to detailed airport noise models) and

compatibility with other emissions and economic models are ensured, the simplified noise

models will support a much more integrated and multi-disciplinary strategic environmental

assessment of aviation scenarios.

The implementation of certification noise based methods [11,14,15] allows an easy and

straightforward estimation of noise outputs, using a reduced input data. However, the

applicability of these methods is usually misinterpreted. As stated by Powell [14], these

methods assume constant power setting (and therefore constant noise output) along the

flightpath, and a spherical propagation of the sound emitted by the aircraft to the ground. This

assumption is not valid for real-life aircraft operations, where climbing conditions, flap

settings, airspeed, and consequently power setting (i.e. power cut-back) significantly varies

along the flightpath. Also, the sound propagation from the aircraft is a complex process where

different phenomena such as atmospheric attenuation, directivity and installation effects, and

Doppler effect plays an important role (see Fig. 4 (left)). For all these reasons, the sound-levels

measured at the certifications points, defining what could be called a “certification noise

contour”, should not be extrapolated for estimating other noise contours (especially those more

16
distant from the runway). When this extrapolation is carried out significant deviations, from

detailed airport noise models (INM), are observed in the estimation of noise contour areas (Fig.

4 (right) and Fig. 5).

On the other hand, Dikshit and Crossley [11] state that the impact of new technology

can be investigated by adjusting the certification noise levels. This statement might not be true

for all conditions. The noise contour of a given aircraft is defined by the noise emitted at source

but also by the operational profile. For instance, we could have a novel aircraft which is

substantially quieter but has a significantly worse operational profile (as compared to a current

aircraft), requiring more thrust and with worse climbing performance (i.e. this aircraft is

assumed to be significantly heavier). In this specific case, as compared to a current aircraft,

the noise measured at the certification points might be similar, but important reductions in the

noise contour area might be observed. The certification noise based methods can be therefore

useful for estimating the overall change in noise energy emitted by an aircraft fleet with the

introduction of novel technologies, but should not be used for quantifying changes in noise

contour areas.

Bernardo et al. [17] developed a simplified model based on the pre-calculation and

logarithmic addition of single-event aircraft grids for computing airport-level noise grids, from

which both noise contours and noise contour areas can be calculated. This model is able to

compute noise contours for complex runway scenarios. However, multi-disciplinary strategic

environmental assessment studies, such as the strategic evaluation of the environmental impact

of different aircraft technologies are usually addressed at a national or regional level, and not

at an airport specific level. Also, at early stages in the decision process these studies do not

require contour shape information, and benefits in terms of noise impact might be simply

approximated by changes in noise contour areas. The RANE model (stage 1 version) was

developed to accomplish with such purposes, i.e. computing noise outputs to support an

17
integrated and multi-disciplinary strategic environmental assessment of aviation [13]. Unlike

other models which use the equivalency assumption [10,16,17] (i.e. a new aircraft is defined

in terms of its equivalent operations of the current baseline aircraft), RANE was developed to

be coupled with technology evaluators (e.g. [22,23]), which will provide NPD records for novel

aircraft concepts. Because, among others, the different frequency spectra, directivity

characteristics, and operational behavior of novel aircraft as compared to current types, the

RANE’s approach seems more adequate to address policy decisions about which future

technology platforms would ensure a better environmental performance.

4. Validation of assumptions of simplified airport noise models

This section examines and discusses the validity of two common simplifications

assumed in most of the simplified airport noise models reviewed, i.e. the straight-out trajectory

and the use of generic aircraft as representative of each aircraft category.

4.1. Straight-out vs. turning flightpath

The validity of the straight-out trajectory assumption was evaluated using a set of

experimental conditions: (i) the average number of air traffic movements in Gatwick airport in

2015 by aircraft type [24] was distributed between two flight tracks: a straight-out flightpath,

and a turning flightpath; (ii) the percentage of air traffic movements in the turning flightpath

was varied from 0 to 100 %, in 25% steps; (iii) four turning angles in the turning flightpath

were considered, i.e. 45, 90, 135 and 180 degrees; (iv) only departure operations were

considered. INM was used for computing both noise contours and noise contour areas (55, 60

and 65 dBA-DNL) for each experimental condition as described.

18
Table 1

Change in noise contour area (as compared to a straight-out flightpath with 100% of the

movements) when varying the percentage of movements in the turning flightpath and the

turning angle.

Straight-out flightpath Turning flightpath (% Turning 55 dBA- 60 dBA- 65 dBA-

(% movements) movements) angle (deg) DNL DNL DNL
45 -6% -5% 0%
75% 25% 90 -8% -6% 0%
135 -7% -6% 0%
180 -6% -5% 0%
45 -8% -7% 0%
50% 50% 90 -10% -8% 0%
135 -10% -7% 0%
180 -7% -7% 1%
45 -6% -5% 0%
25% 75% 90 -8% -5% 1%
135 -8% -4% 1%
180 -4% -3% 1%
45 0% 0% 1%
0% 100% 90 0% 0% 1%
135 0% 2% 1%
180 6% 4% 2%

Table 1 shows the change in noise contour area when varying the percentage of

movements in the turning flightpath and the turning angle, as compared to a straight-out

flightpath with 100% of the movements. As shown in Table 1, for these specific experimental

conditions, the error (in noise contour area estimation) made with the straightened-out

trajectory assumption reaches an absolute maximum value of 10%, 8% and 2% for the 55, 60

and 65 dBA-DNL respectively. These results suggest that the straight-out trajectory

assumption allows a good approximation when computing noise contour areas, even under

extreme conditions of spatial distribution of flight movements.

Fig. 7 shows the 55 (top left), 60 (top right) and 65 (bottom) dBA-DNL noise contour

when varying the turning angle from 0 to 180 degrees; in this case, 50 % of the aircraft flew

19
along the straight-out flightpath and the other 50 % along the turning flightpath. Unlike for the

estimation of noise contour areas, the assumption of straight-out trajectories can lead to

significant errors when computing noise contours, i.e. for calculating the spatial distribution of

sound-levels. This is particularly evident for low DNL noise contours (Fig. 7, top left and

right), which might be used as thresholds for community noise annoyance.

55 dBA-DNL
8
Lateral Displacement (km)

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

-2

-4 Start-of-Roll Distance (km)

100% - 0% 50% - 50% (45 deg)

50% - 50% (90 deg) 50% - 50% (135 deg)
50% - 50% (180 deg)

20
 60 dBA-DNL
8

Lateral Displacement (km)

6

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

-2

-4 Start-of-Roll Distance (km)

100% - 0% 50% - 50% (45 deg)

50% - 50% (90 deg) 50% - 50% (135 deg)
50% - 50% (180 deg)

65 dBA-DNL
8
Lateral Displacement (km)

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

-2

-4 Start-of-Roll Distance (km)

100% - 0% 50% - 50% (45 deg)

50% - 50% (90 deg) 50% - 50% (135 deg)
50% - 50% (180 deg)

Fig. 7. Noise contours (55 dBA-DNL – top, 60 dBA-DNL – middle, and 65 dBA-DNL –

bottom) varying the turning angle with 50% movements in both the straight-out flightpath and

the turning flightpath. The noise contour for 100% movements in the straight-out flightpath

(black line), and the flight tracks (dotted lines) are shown as reference.

21
 As indicated above, within the context of strategic assessment of aviation scenarios,

simplified airport noise models are usually used for calculating changes in noise contour areas

with changes in some input parameters, e.g. air traffic movements. Table 2 shows that changes

in noise contour areas when doubling the number of movements can be calculated assuming a

straight-out trajectory with an absolute maximum error of 13%, 3% and 3% for the 55, 60 and

65 dBA-DNL noise contours respectively. For these calculations the straight-out trajectory

(with 100% aircraft movements) was compared to a 180 degrees turning trajectory with 50%

and 100% of aircraft movements.

Table 2

Delta noise contour area when doubling the number of movements. In brackets it is shown the

error of assuming a straight-out flightpath as compared to the other two conditions tested.

Condition Straight-out Turning flightpath Turning 55 dBA- 60 dBA- 65 dBA-

flightpath (% (% movements) angle (deg) DNL DNL DNL
movements)
0 100% 0% n.a. 1.51 1.72 1.77
(1: -13 / (1: +3 / (1: +3 /
2: +8%) 2: + 1%) 2: -2%)
1 50% 50% 180 1.75 1.66 1.72
2 0% 100% 180 1.40 1.70 1.80

Although not all the potential conditions in terms of operational volumes, fleet mixes

and spatial distribution of aircraft movements were tested, this section examined some highly

representative, and also extreme, conditions. In any case, and based on the specific conditions

tested (e.g. London Gatwick aircraft fleet and movements), the results above presented

22
demonstrate that the straight-out trajectory is a valid approximation for computing noise

contour areas, and changes in noise contour areas.

4.2. Sound intensity of departure vs. approach operations

The average number of air traffic movements, by aircraft type, in Heathrow airport in

2015 [25] was used for computing the 55, 60 and 65 dBA-DNL noise contours. Both departure

and approach operations were considered. All approach operations flew along a straight-out

flightpath. For the case of departure operations, 60 % flew along a straight-out flightpath, and

the remaining 40 % flew along a 180 degrees turning flightpath.

3
Lateral Displacement (km)

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-1

-2
error (%):
-3
55 dBA-DNL = 4%
-4 60 dBA-DNL = 5%
65 dBA-DNL = 6%
-5

-6
Start-of-Roll Distance (km)

Whole Aircraft Fleet (55 dBA-DNL) Reference Aircraft Type (55 dBA-DNL)
Whole Aircraft Fleet (60 dBA-DNL) Reference Aircraft Type (60 dBA-DNL)
Whole Aircraft Fleet (65 dBA-DNL) Reference Aircraft Type (65 dBA-DNL)

Fig. 8. 55, 60 and 65 dBA-DNL noise contours using the whole aircraft fleet in Heathrow (solid

lines), and using only a representative aircraft for each aircraft category (dotted lines). The

flight tracks (black dotted lines) are shown as reference.

23
 For validating the assumption of using generic aircraft as representative of each aircraft

type, when calculating noise contour and noise contour areas, the different aircraft composing

the aircraft fleet of Heathrow airport in 2015 were classified into 9 aircraft categories according

to Sustainable Aviation [26]. Then, a representative aircraft for each category, i.e. aircraft with

the highest number of movements, was selected:

• Small Regional Jets: CRJ-701

• Large Regional Jets: Embraer 190

• Small Single Aisle: A319-131

• Medium Single Aisle: A320-232

• Large Single Aisle: A321-232

• Small Twin Aisle: 787-8 Dreamliner

• Medium Twin Aisle: 767-300

• Large Twin Aisle: 777-300

• Very Large: 747-400

All the flight movements within each aircraft category were assigned to the

corresponding representative aircraft, and then, the noise contour and noise contour areas were

calculated as described above.

As shown in Fig. 8, the noise contours calculated for the whole aircraft fleet in

Heathrow (with 50 aircraft types) were accurately replicated using only the 9 representative

aircraft above indicated. The error in the computation of noise contour areas using this

approximation was found negligible in comparison with the total noise contour area, in the

range 4% (55 dBA-DNL) to 6% (65 dBA-DNL).

24
 On the other hand, this approximation was found valid for the calculation of changes in

noise contour areas with variations in air traffic movements. For instance, the error made with

this approximation for the calculation of changes in noise contour areas when doubling the

number of movements was about 1%.

Although the results above presented demonstrate the validity of this simplification to

calculate noise contours and noise contour areas, for the specific conditions tested in this work,

further work will be required for defining generic aircraft types considering other aircraft

emissions, and establishing representative stage lengths.

5. Conclusions

Within the framework of multi-disciplinary strategic environmental impact assessment

of aviation, this paper analyses the applicability and discusses the unavoidable limitations and

advantages of some of the simplified airport noise models more often cited in the literature.

This paper demonstrates that the implementation of methods based on certification noise values

leads to significant deviations in the estimation of noise contour areas (especially those more

distant from the runway), as compared to detailed airport noise models (such as INM). For

strategic environmental assessment of aviation, simplified airport noise models based on

certification values should not be used for estimating changes in noise contour areas, but their

implementation should be restricted to the quantification of overall changes in the noise energy

emitted by aviation under specific circumstances (e.g. fleet composition, air traffic demand,

etc.). For strategic environmental assessment studies, usually addressed at a national or

regional level, noise contour shape information is not required, and benefits or disbenefits in

terms of noise impact might be simply approximated by changes in noise contour areas. For

this purpose, simplified airport noise models developed to be coupled with technology

25
evaluators, such as RANE model, are useful tools for informing policy decisions about which

future technology platforms would ensure a better environmental performance.

On the other hand, for the specific conditions tested in this work, the straight-out

trajectory assumption is found as a valid approximation for the computation of both noise

contour areas and changes in noise contour areas. However, important errors are observed

when this simplification is used for computing noise contours, especially for noise contours

usually used as threshold for community noise annoyance (i.e. 55 and 60 dBA-DNL noise

contours).

Based on the results presented in this paper, the reduction of the aircraft fleet to a

number of generic or representative aircraft types seems to be a valid approximation for

computing noise outputs around airports. With this simplification both noise contours and

noise contour areas are computed with minimum uncertainly. These results are based on a set

of specific conditions, and of course, further work will be required for defining generic aircraft

types to be used in multi-disciplinary strategic environmental assessment of aviation.

Acknowledgements

This work was partly supported by the Engineering and Physical Science Research

Council (grant number EP/M026868/1), and by Innovate UK (Grant No. TSB/113086).

26
References

[1] Department for Transport. UK aviation forecast, Technical report, London, UK; 2013.

[2] Eurocontrol. Challenges of growth, Task 7: European air traffic in 2050, Technical

report, Brussels, Belgium; 2013.

[3] Airbus. Global market forecast: Mapping demand 2016 / 2035, Technical report,

Blagnac, France; 2016.

[4] European Commission. Flightpath 2050: Europe’s vision for aviation, Technical report,

Luxembourg; 2011

[5] Collier, F.S. NASA aeronautics environmentally responsible aviation project, Oral

presentation at the 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Nashville, USA; 2012.

[6] Khardi, S., Abdallah, L. Optimization approaches of aircraft flight path reducing noise:

Comparison of modeling methods. Appl Acoust 2012;73:291-301.

[7] Graham, W.R., Hall, C.A., Vera Morales, M. The potential of future aircraft technology

for noise and pollutant emissions reduction. Transp Policy 2014;34:36-51.

[8] Federal Aviation Administration. Integrated Noise Model (INM) [version 7.0],

Technical manual, Rept. FAA-AEE-08-01, Washington, D.C., USA; 2008.

[9] Ollerhead, B.J., Rhodes, D.P., Viinikainen, M.S., Monkman, D.J., Woodley, A.C. The

UK civil aircraft noise contour model ANCON: Improvements in version 2, Rep. 9842,

Environmental Research and Consultancy Department, UK Civil Aviation Authority,

London, UK; 1999.

[10] Bernardo, J.E., Kirby, M.R., Mavris, D. Probabilistic assessment of fleet-level noise

impacts of projected technology improvements, J. Air Transp Manage 2016;57:26-42.

27
[11] Dikshit, P.N., Crossley, W.A. Airport noise model suitable for fleet-level studies. In

Proceedings of the 9th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations

Conference (ATIO), South Carolina, USA; 2009.

[12] Dray, L., Krammer, P., Doyme, K., Wang, B., Al Zayat, K., O’Sullivan, A., Schafer,

A. AIM2015: Validation and initial results from an open-source aviation systems

model. In Proceedings of the 21st Air Transport Research Society Conference (ATRS),

Antwerp, Belgium; 2017.

[13] Torija, A.J., Self, R.H., Flindell, I.H. A model for the rapid assessment of the impact of

aviation noise near airports. J Acoust Soc Am 2017;141:981-995.

[14] Powell, C.A. Relationship between aircraft noise contour area and noise levels at

certification points. Technical report, NASA/TM-2003-212649, Virginia, USA; 2003.

[15] Tetzloff, I.J., Crossley, W.A. Measuring systemwide impacts of new aircraft on the

environment. J Aircraft 2014;51:1483-1489.

[16] “AEM V. 7.0—User’s Manual,” Federal Aviation Administration, Office of

Environment and Energy, Washington, D.C., Oct. 2012,

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/models/aem_

model/media/AEM_70c_UsersGuide.pdf.

[17] Bernardo, J.E., Kirby, M.R., Mavris, D. Development of a rapid fleet-level noise

computation, J. Aircraft 2015;52:721-733.

[18] Li, J., Chen, N., Ng, H.K., Sridhar, B. Simple tool for aircraft noise-reduction route

design. In Proceedings of the 15th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and

Operations Conference (ATIO), Dallas, USA; 2015.

28
[19] Society of Automotive Engineers. Procedure for the calculation of airplane noise in the

vicinity of airports. Technical report, AIR-1845A; 2012.

[20] Zaporoshets, O.I., Tokarev, V.I. Aircraft noise modelling for environmental assessment

around airports. Appl Acoust 1998;55(2):99-127.

[21] Torija, A.J., Self, R.H., Flindell, I.H. Evolution of noise metrics in future aviation

scenarios in the UK. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Sound and

Vibration (ICSV), Athens, Greece; 2016.

[22] Synodinos, A., Self, R., Torija, A., Flindell, I. A new method for estimating community

noise changes due to aircraft technology variations. In Proceedings of the 23rd

International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV), Athens, Greece; 2016.

[23] Synodinos, A.P., Self, R.H., Torija, A.J. Framework for predicting Noise-Power-

Distance curves for novel aircraft designs. J. Aircraft 2017, accessed September 19,

2017, doi: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.C034466.

[24] Lee, J., Cebrian, G., Edmonds, L., Patel, J., Rhodes, D. Noise exposure contours for

Gatwick airport 2015. Technical report, ERCD 1602, London, UK; 2017.

[25] Lee, J., Cebrian, G., Edmonds, L., Patel, J., Rhodes, D. Noise exposure contours for

Heathrow airport 2015. Technical report, ERCD 1601, London, UK; 2017.

[26] Sustainable Aviation. The SA noise road-map: A blueprint for managing noise from

aviation sources to 2050. Technical Report, London, UK; 2013.

29