engenharia civil - ulisboa · pablo gauna 2 acknowledgments to my parents, they have been the most...

Noise contour calculation from measured data

Runway 03/21 Lisbon Airport

Pablo Gauna Medrano

Dissertação para obtenção do Grau de Mestre em

Engenharia Civil

Júri

Presidente: Prof. Doutor Antunes Ferreira

Orientador: Prof.ª Doutora Rosário Macário

Vogais: Prof. Doutor Vasco Reis

Fevereiro 2012


1

Pablo Gauna

2

Acknowledgments

To my parents, they have been the most important power source during all my studies,

especially during this thesis that signifies its finalization. Also my brothers Javi and Manu are

responsible of this achievement as they always relied on my possibilities and pushed me on to

continue. The help of the family is essential to archive the goals you propose yourself.

I´d like to thank especially to the professor Rosario Macario the opportunity given to me of doing

this thesis with her orientation. Also thanks to Vasco Reis, that attendend and helped me

carefully when Rosario was not available. Special thanks to Joana Riveiro, she has been a very

important help in the last part of my work. Cannot forget Rui Garcia from the laboratory and

Lourdes Farrusco from secretary when giving thanks to the personal of the IST.

These months in Lisbon supposed a big change to adapt to a new language and writing this

thesis in English has been a big challenge for me. Even this, coming to Lisbon has been an

incredible experience and I´ve had a great time here. Thanks to Ona for those pre-dinner beers,

to Javi for those coffees in the afternoon, to Ana for the surf mornings and to Bruno cause you

taught me so much. Special thanks to Maria that received me the best way possible when I

arrived. There are much more great people that I met in this city, thanks to all of them, you

made me always enjoy the time here.

This thesis supposes the finalization of my studies so I cannot forget the people that stayed with

me the previous years in Madrid. Jon, Ordas, Rafa, Diego, Jorge, Franpe, Kike, Miki, Alex,

Marcos, Raquel, Patricias, Nacho, Rodrigo, German, Joseba... and many others that made me

spend the best years in my life.

Thank you


3

Pablo Gauna

4

Resumo

O ruído é nos dias de hoje o problema ambiental mais importante ao redor dos aeroportos.

Como o transporte aéreo esta a crescer continuamente, o numero de aviões sobrevoando as

cidades também esta a crescer e o problema de ruído não vai diminuir nos próximos anos. O

aeroporto de Lisboa é um exemplo excelente deste problema por estar localizado dentro da

cidade e porque as rotas operativas sobrevoam áreas muito populosas.

Atualmente para avaliar o impacto de ruído a ferramenta mais usada são os mapas do ruído

produzidos à volta dos aeroportos. Estes são calculados com base em relatórios de vôo

conjugados com elementos fornecidos pelos fabricantes de aviões.

Esta dissertação propõe um método para obter os mapas de ruído a partir da sua medição em

vez de usar os dados dos fabricantes de aviões. Não são precisas medições nas 24 horas do

dia porque são definidas as “horas típicas”, horas medias que dependem dos tipos dos aviões

e das partes do dia.

Para estudo futuro apresentamos uma proposta de redução de ruído do autor (Multiple

thresholds), baseada na definição de dois limiares (thresholds) para a pista 03, um para os

aviões tipo D e E e outro para os aviões tipo C ou menores. Salienta-se que o estudo proposto

é apenas valido para a manobra de aterragem.

Palavras-chave: Ruido, Mapas de ruido, Aeroporto de Lisboa, “Multiple threshold”


5

Pablo Gauna

6

Abstract

Noise is nowadays the most important environmental affection in the airport surroundings. As

the air transport is growing continuously, the number of planes overflying the cities is also

increasing and the noise problem doesn´t seem to decrease in the next years. Lisbon airport is

an exceptional example of this problem as it is located into the city and its operational routes

pass over very populated areas.

To measure the noise impact nowadays the most used tool are the noise contours over a map

around the airport. Those noise contours are calculated from flight reports and data from the

aircraft manufacturers.

This dissertation tries to propose a method to obtain the noise contours for the runway 03/21

from Lisbon airport from measures instead of the data given by the different aircraft

manufacturers. Not 24 hour measures are needed to obtain the noise contours with this method

due to the definition of the “typical hours”, average hours depending on the aircraft type and the

part of the day.

As part of future study a proposal from the author (Multiple threshold), of defining two thresholds

in the 03 runway, one for D and E type planes and the other one for C or lower type planes, is

described as an idea for decrease the noise levels in the approximation maneuver to that

runway.

Keywords: Noise, Noise contour, Lisbon Airport, Multiple threshold


7

Pablo Gauna

8

Index

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 12

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 14

1.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 15

1.2 The problem of noise ................................................................................................... 15

1.3 Method ......................................................................................................................... 16

1.4 Structure ...................................................................................................................... 17

2. Noise contour calculation .................................................................................................... 18

2.1 Computational contours .............................................................................................. 18

2.1.1 Overall guidance ...................................................................................................... 18

2.1.2 General specifications ............................................................................................. 20

2.1.3 General methodology for contour calculation .......................................................... 25

2.1.4 Software for contour calculation .............................................................................. 25

2.2 Noise contour from measured data ............................................................................. 26

2.2.1 Taxi noise measure ................................................................................................. 26

2.2.2 Noise contour using GPS ........................................................................................ 27

3. Noise ................................................................................................................................... 30

3.1 Noise characteristics ................................................................................................... 30

3.1.1 Intensity ................................................................................................................... 30

3.1.2 Frequency and A weighted ...................................................................................... 32

3.2 Noise indicators ........................................................................................................... 33

3.2.1 LAeq (Equivalent Continuous Sound level) ............................................................. 33

3.2.2 SEL/LAE (Sound Exposure Level) .......................................................................... 34

3.2.3 Indicators Lden & CNEL .......................................................................................... 35

3.2.4 EPNL ....................................................................................................................... 36

3.3 Airplane noise sources ................................................................................................ 37

3.3.1 Engine noise ............................................................................................................ 38

3.3.2 Airframe noise ......................................................................................................... 39

3.3.3 Jet planes noise certification ................................................................................... 39

4. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 44


9

4.1 Equipement ................................................................................................................. 45

4.2 Measure technique and measuring points selection ................................................... 45

4.3 Method requirements/considerations .......................................................................... 47

4.3.1 Airplane categories selection .................................................................................. 47

4.3.2 Typical hour calculation and landing and taking-off percents ................................. 48

4.3.3 Each point noise level calculation ........................................................................... 50

5. Contour calculation for Lisbon Airport ................................................................................. 54

5.1 Lisbon Airport .............................................................................................................. 54

5.1.1 Actions related with noise (Source: NAV Portugal, [35]) ......................................... 55

5.1.2 Operations in runway 03-21 .................................................................................... 57

5.1.3 Lisbon Noise contours ............................................................................................. 58

5.2 Contour calculation ...................................................................................................... 60

5.2.1 Lday calculation ....................................................................................................... 60

5.2.2 Lnight calculation ..................................................................................................... 66

5.2.3 Levening calculation ................................................................................................ 69

5.2.4 Lden ......................................................................................................................... 70

5.3 Contour plot ................................................................................................................. 72

6. Conclusions & proposal for future study.............................................................................. 74

6.1 “Multiple threshold” noise reduction proposal for further study ................................... 74

6.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 76

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 78

Pablo Gauna

10

Figure index

Figure 1.1 Areas under road, aviation and rail infrastructure in the EU 11

Figure 2.1 Segmentation technique diagram 15

Figure 2.2 Flight path segments 17

Figure 2.3 Take-off start roll noise contour 19

Figure 2.4 Noise mapping procedures using measured noise and GPS data 22

Figure 3.1 A-Weighted frequency distribution 26

Figure 3.2 SEL representation 28

Figure 3.3 Airplane noise sources 31

Figure 3.4 Turbofan engine 32

Figure 3.5 Take-off and land noise sources 33

Figure 3.6 Chapter 4 Max accumulative noise level (Side-line + flyover + approach) 37

Figure 3.7 Chapter 4 Max accumulative noise level (Side-line + Flyover) 37

Figure 4.1 Noisemeter “Bluesolo 01dB Metravib” 39

Figure 4.2 Measure points placement 41

Figure 4.3 Method squeme 45

Figure 5.1. Lisbon airport runway distribution 47

Figure 5.2 SID for runway 21 50

Figure 5.3 Instrument approach chart for runway 03 51

Figure 5.4 Lden contour for the area of study 52

Figure 5.5 Contour calculation 53

Figure 5.6 Lday landing surface without central approximation 54

Figure 5.7 Approximation for central values, landing Lday 55

Figure 5.8 Lday landing surface with central approximation 56

Figure 5.9 Lday taking-off surface 56

Figure 5.10 Engine noise directivity for full throttle (red line) and 21.6% throttle (blue line) 57

Figure 5.11 Lday noise surface 59

Figure 5.12 Lnight landing surface with central approximation 60

Figure 5.13 Lday taking-off surface 61

Figure 5.14 Lnight noise surface 62

Figure 5.15 Lden noise surface 64

Figure 5.16 Lden measured noise contour 67

Figure 6.1 Possible two differentlanding flight tracks 69


11

Figure 6.2 Possible displaced threshold 70

Figure 6.3 Comparative between noise under selective threshold 70

Figure 6.4 Comparison in the longitudinal axis of the ANA´s and measured noise contours 71

Table index

Table 3.1 Noise intensity levels 27

Table 3.2 Maximum noise levels chapter 2 36

Table 3.3 Maximum noise levels chapter 3 37

Table 4.1 Measure points placement 43

Table 4.2 Airplane categories characteristics 43

Table 4.3 Airport movements for 2009 45

Table 4.4 Airport annual movements depending on the part of the day 45

Table 4.5 Airport annual movements and percents depending on aircraft type 45

Table 4.6 Typical hours´ calculation 45

Table 4.7 Measures for taking-off operation, point 2 47

Table 5.1 Lday noise values for taking-off and landing 55

Table 5.2 Central point values for landing Lday 56

Table 5.3 New points´ values for Lday 57

Table 5.4 Lday noise values summary 60

Table 5.5 Lday final levels 60

Table 5.6 Lnight noise values for taking-off and landing 61

Table 5.7 New points´ values for Lnight 62

Table 5.8 Lnight noise values summary 63

Table 5.9 Lnight final values 64

Table 5.10 Levening noise values summary 65

Table 5.11 Lden noise values summary 66

Table 5.12 New points´ values for Lden 67

Pablo Gauna

12

Acronyms

ANA Aeroportos de Portugal

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

INM Integrated Noise Model

ANCON Aircraft Noise Contour Model

CEE Economic European Union/ Comunidad Economica Europea

MTOW Maximum Take-Off Weight

ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

BAA British Airport Authority

BAC British Aircraft Corporation

Tu Tupolev

NPD Noise Power Distance data

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

CAA Civil Aviation Authority

DETR Department of Environment, Transports and the Region

EU European Union

APU Auxiliar Power Unit

GPU Ground Power unit

TWY Taxi-way

RWY Runway

THR Threshold

ILS Instrumental Landing system

LMT Lisbon Meridian Time

SID Standard Instrumental Departure

AIP Aeronautical Information Publication

NDB Non-Directional Beacon

VFR Visual Flight Rules

FAP Final Approach Point

TAP Transportes Aéreos Portugueses, S.A.

Swiss Swiss International Air Lines AG


13

Luft Deutsche Lufthansa

EASY Easy Jej Airline Company Limited

AE Air Europa Líneas Aéreas, S.A.U.

KLM Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V.

SATA SATA International

Conti Continental Airlines

AF Air France

Ib Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España, S.A.

German Germanwings

Brit British Airways

Lingus Aer Lingus Group Plc

Brussels Brussels Airlines

Pablo Gauna

14

1. Introduction

Acoustic contamination is nowadays an inherent phenomenon to every urban area, and

constitutes an ambient factor of singular impact over the life quality of their inhabitants. In a

great number of instances, aircraft noise simply merges into the urban din, a cacophony of

buses, trucks, motorcycles, automobiles and construction noise. However, in locations closer to

airports and aircraft flight tracks, aircraft noise becomes more of a concern (source: FAA, 1985

[1]). Terrain transport is made by a “lineal” network, it means that for moving from A to B it is

needed a linear infrastructure between both points so the affection of noise produced by this

way of transport will extend along that entire infrastructure. Air transport is developed as a “point

to point” network, in this case it is not necessary an infrastructure along all the way from A to B

so the noise problem is concentrated in the surroundings of these points (the airports). As it is

shown in the figure below, the aviation infrastructure is the smallest in comparison with the rail

and road infrastructure, but comparing the sound levels normally produced by trains, roads and

airplanes, the one from air transport is the higher. Even the global affection of the aviation is

much smaller than the other ways of transport, airports are located in areas with high population

so the problem is local but important as aircraft noise is the one with the higher levels of

acoustic energy.

Figure 1.1 Areas under road, aviation and rail infrastructure in the EU (Source: A.Benito, 2009

[2])


15

There are interdependencies between the emissions of local air pollutants and carbon dioxide

(CO2) from aircraft engines, which affect aircraft noise management strategies. Most of the

technological advances in aircraft design in the last twenty years have led to both a reduction in

noise and CO2 emissions but in some cases have resulted in an increase in emissions of local

air pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The challenge for the aviation industry is to

address these three issues simultaneously. Operational controls also need to be balanced. For

example, the adoption of a reduced thrust setting for an aircraft during take-off, can reduce NOx

emissions by up to 30 per cent or more in some cases compared to a full thrust setting. Many

airlines already employ „reduced thrust‟ as their standard operating procedure. Whilst this is

beneficial in the immediate vicinity of the airport, there can be a small increase in the noise

experienced by those further away from the airport under the departure flight path as the aircraft

decreases its angle of ascent (Source: Heathrow, 2010 [3]).

1.1 Objectives

Adapting the recommendations given by ICAO, ECAC, SAE1 and other works about

constructing noise contours, this document tries to achieve a method to calculate noise

contours around airports from measures made in the street. To test the availability of the

method, a study will be done for the runway 03/21 from Lisbon airport in its west side.

1.2 The problem of noise

Normally the airports inside a city were built many years ago on the outskirts. As the years

passed, the airport got into the city becoming a problem of noise. Aircraft operating today are

much quieter than they were 40, 30 or even 20 years ago and these will be replaced by even

quieter aircraft in the future. But even though each individual aircraft is quieter, there are more

planes flying now. This means that although the average level of noise is lower than before, the

frequency of aircraft movements and hence noise events has increased (Ref. [3]).

The problem of noise force the airports and air authorities to introduce operational restrictions or

taxes to the most noisiness airplanes and to reduce the operation of the airports in determined

parts of the day. Trying to coordinate all these policies from the different airports, ICAO

developed the “Balance Approach” in 2004 (Source: Doc 9829, AN/451) [7] and revised it in

2007. This document tries to address aircraft noise problems at individual airports in an

environmentally responsible way and to achieve the maximum environmental benefit most cost-

effectively.

As an example of the reduction in the affection of the noise, in the last 20 years at Heathrow,

the number of people who live within the 57dBA contour has fallen considerably as older aircraft

1 “Circ.205 ICAO”[4], “Doc.29 ECAC”[5], “SAE-AIR-1845 [6]”

Pablo Gauna

16

are replaced by newer quieter models. In 1980, there were 2,000,000 people living in the 57dBA

noise contour around Heathrow. By 2006, this had fallen to around 252,000 people. This is

despite a rapid growth in the number of operations from around 273,000 flights a year in 1980 to

477,000 flights in 2006 (Ref. [3]).

One of the first steps when analyzing the noise problem around an airport is to create a noise

contour map to have a clear idea of the impact over the different parts of the city of the noise

produced by the airplanes. Nowadays these noise contours are calculated by computer

programs such as INM or ANCON from previous flight reports, section (2.1.4).

Monitoring the noise with different measure stations is a common technique to control the sound

levels around airports with noise problems. In Schiphol airport in the Nederland there are 34

monitoring stations obtaining data continuously and storing it for further statistic work. It is

possible to see the lectures of the monitoring points in real time by the internet (Source:

Shiphol, 2011 [8]). Also the airport of Seattle-Tacoma has 25 stations to measure and it is also

able to see in real time the measured noise levels (Source: Seattle-Tacoma, 2011 [9]). Those

stations are not used to calculate the contours, they are used to check that the noise levels are

not changing from the ones predicted on the contour.

Noise related airport charges are levied by national governments, local governments or the

airport authority at airports experiencing problems to recover the costs applied to the alleviation

or prevention of noise impacts on the surrounding community. According to ICAO Doc. 9829 [7],

this application should follow the principles on such charges developed by ICAO Charges for

airports and Air Navigation Services (Doc.9082 [10]). Generally the guidance provides the

following principles related to charges:

Noise related charges should be levied only at airports experiencing noise problems

and should be designed to recover no more than the costs applied to their alleviation or

prevention.

Any noise related charges should be associated with the landing fee, and should take

into account the noise certification provisions of Annex 16 to the Convention

Noise related charges should be non-discriminatory between users and should not be

established at such levels as to be prohibitively high for the operation of certain aircraft.

1.3 Method

For the purpose of the document, the steps given will be the following:

Typical hour definition: Described in section (4.3.2), the typical hours will show the

amount and type of planes needed to be measured in each point

Measure points selection: The amount and the criteria used to select the points around

the affected zone is described in section (4.2).


17

Measure: The needed measures are made in each point

Lden calculation: With the appropriate formulation the Lden noise indicator is

calculated from the previous measures

Contour plot: Noise contour is plotted over a map of the affected zone

1.4 Structure

This document is divided into six chapter:

Chapter 1: There is a little introduction to the noise problem around airports. The objectives and

method for the work are summarized.

Chapter 2: General specifications to calculate noise contours around airports are exposed and

some works made about calculating the contours from measured data are shown to obtain

useful information for the purpose of this study.

Chapter 3: Presents the noise indexes useful for this work and the noise problem in the source,

the planes.

Chapter 4: The methodology of the calculation process is described.

Chapter 5: Includes a little description of the Lisbon airport and the runway maneuvers in

concern to this work. The calculus are made in detail to obtain the noise contours and plot them

over a map of the affected zone.

Chapter 6: Shows the results analysis and a proposal for a future work to reduce the noise

affection.

Pablo Gauna

18

2. Noise contour calculation

Airport operations generally include different types of aeroplanes, various flight procedures and

a range of operational weights (Ref [6]). Because of the large quantity of aeroplane-specific

data and airport operational procedures, noise contours are needed to be calculated by

computers. Those calculations are usually repeated at each of a series of points around the

airport and then interpolations are made to trace outlines of equal noise index values (noise

contours) which are then used for study purposes (Ref [5]).

The number of aeroplane movements to be included in a study and the operational details for

each, are matters for selection. Clearly, a set of calculated noise contours is valid only for the

traffic assumptions on which it is based. At all airports, the pattern of operations vary from day

to day, depending on the weather, scheduling and many external factors. Generally the noise

index for which the contours are calculated is defined in terms of long-term average daily

values, typically over a period of some months (Ref [5]).

Here is going to be exposed a summary of the recommendations given by ICAO, ECAC and

SAE in their respective documents2 for calculating noise contours.

2.1 Computational contours

2.1.1 Overall guidance

From the respective data on noise and performance, the aeroplanes are grouped and

representative data are selected. The calculation grid is arranged over the affected zone and

the calculations of noise levels at the grid points, for the individual aeroplane movements and

the chosen noise descriptor, proceed according to the specifications given in section (2.1.2).

The noise levels at each grid point are summed or combined according to the formulation of the

chosen noise scale or index. Finally, interpolations are made between noise index values at the

grid points, to locate the contours.

2 “Circ.205 ICAO”[4], “Doc.29 ECAC”[5], “SAE-AIR-1845 [6]”


19

For an airport to produce a set of noise contours, it will be required at least the following

information:

The aeroplane types which operate from the airport

Noise and performance data for each of the aeroplane types concerned

The routes followed by arriving and departing aeroplanes including dispersion across

nominal ground tracks

The number of movements per aeroplane type on each route within the period chosen

for the calculation including (depending on the actual index chosen) the time of day for

each movement

The operational data and flight procedures relating to each route(including aeroplane

masses, power settings, speeds and configuration during different flight segments)

Airport data (including average meteorological conditions, number and alignment of

runways)

In a number of detailed respects, the computation procedures remain at the discretion of the

user, since they may be specific to the airport or there might be constraints due to

computational capability. Such detailed aspects include the following:

The optimum number of aeroplane groups to be selected.

The formulation for combining noise levels from individual aeroplane movements

according to the chosen noise index.

The method of interpolation to be used between grid points, to locate the noise

contours.

All the calculations are based on the assumption that the aeroplane is following a straight flight

track with constant speed, constant height and constant power settings. These assumptions do

not correspond to the real maneuvers, so to have a complete reproduction of the overfly, the

flight track must be divided into segments to apply previous assumptions, this technique is

called segmentation. The flight path is divided into segments each of which fulfils the

requirements for using the noise data format (straight flight path, constant speed, and power

setting). The sound exposure level is calculated for each segment and corrected for the finite

length of the segment before the contributions from all segments are added. The use of

segmentation solves many of the computational problems, but the costs for high degree of

segmentation are increased computer time.

Pablo Gauna

20

Figure 2.1 Segmentation technique diagram

Other technique is the simulation. In this technique the instantaneous sound pressure level is

calculated at small time intervals as a function of time during a take-off or landing, and the

sound exposure level or maximum level is determined from the time history. The advantage of

the simulation is that it provides even better results than the segmentation, the disadvantage is

a substantial increase in computation time. Actually the simulation can be considered as

segmentation with a big number of very little segments.

2.1.2 General specifications

Aircraft grouping

As many types of aircraft are normally operating at an aerodrome, the amount of computations

would be tremendous if each individual aircraft type was included in a noise study. For some

aircraft, noise data are not available, i.e. old planes or small not commercial ones so introducing

those into a group is a good technique to take care of them. Big care should be taken when

composing the groups in order to keep the reliability of the study.

Grouping different aircraft types is made to identify certain characteristic parameters in order to

use a limited amount of specific aircraft noise and performance data for the calculation of noise

contours around the airport. When defining aircraft groups, is necessary to take care of

characteristic parameters related to the noise emission and performance of aircraft.


21

In Doc. 29 of the ECAC (Ref [5]) the proposed grouping depends on the following noise related

and flight performance parameters:

Type of aircraft propulsion (jet ,fan or turbo-prop)

Number of engines (1, 2, 3 or 4)

By-pass ratio for fan engines

MTOW (Maximum Take Off Weight)

Noise certification (Annex16 ICAO)

For the BAA in its method “ANCON” (Source: OLLERHEAD, 1992 [11]), the aircrafts are divided

into 29 noise/performance categories. Some of the categories only include one airplane as i.e.

Boeing 757 or Airbus 310, but others include more than one because of their similar noise

characteristics i.e. BAC 1-11/ Tu-134.

Calculation grid

Noise contours are obtained by interpolation of discrete values of the noise index at the

intersection points of a regular observation grid centered on the airport. The quality of the

noise contours will depend on the choice of the grid spacing, especially in such zones where

sharp changes occur so it is needed a closer grid, but this increases the computation time.

These close grids shouldn‟t be used in areas with small noise level changes in order to optimize

the computer capacities.

Performance data

Noise-Power-Distance data (NPD)

The NPD data for specific aircraft (i.e. for particular airframe/engine combinations) is the basic

information about the produced noise by a plane depending on the aerodynamic characteristics,

thrust power and distance to the receptor. They are derived by the aircraft manufacturers,

usually as part of their noise certification flight test programs, together with information

describing the aircraft lift and drag characteristics and engine thrust characteristics. The data

are presented supposing an overfly with a speed of 160 Knots.

Flight path segmentation

Aeroplane flight profiles are required in order to allow the determination of slant distances from

the observation points to the flight paths. The variations of engine thrust, or other noise-related

thrust parameter and aeroplane speed along the flight path are also required in each segment.

The slant distances and thrusts are then used for entry into and interpolation of the noise-

power-distance data.

Pablo Gauna

22

For purposes of noise contour computations, take-off and approach flight paths are assumed to

be represented by a series of straight-line segments, as illustrated in below.

Figure 2.2 Flight path segments (Source: ECAC, 1997)

Noise from individual aeroplane movement

For a movement on an arrival or departure route, aeroplane positional information and corrected

engine thrusts are computed throughout the various flight operational segments. From a

selected point (co-ordinates x,y ) on the grid arranged on the ground around the airport, the

shortest distance to the flight path is calculated and the noise data (L) are interpolated for the

distance (d) and the thrust ( ). Corrections are applied for extra attenuation of sound during

propagation lateral to the direction of aeroplane for directivity behind the start of take-off

ground roll and for aeroplane speed ( ) and changes in the duration of the highest noise

levels where an aeroplane makes a turn in its flight path ). The calculation is expressed in

mathematical symbols as follows:

where ( ) is evaluated only behind the start of take-off ground roll, being zero everywhere else.

Duration correction

The NPD are presented for a constant speed of 160 Knots, to take account of the difference

from the real speed of the plane, the correction should be made according to the following

formula:

where Vref is the reference airspeed (160 Knots), V is the ground speed of the relevant flight

segment and is the duration correction.


23

Lateral attenuation for calm wind conditions

Procedures for determining lateral attenuation for calm wind conditions (i.e., no wind), for an

average aeroplane, are given in SAE-AIR-1751 and Doc.29 ECAC [5]. This is the procedure

normally applied.

The adjustment consists of three equations which apply in the following cases :

when the aeroplane is on the ground

o for

for

where is the overground lateral attenuation in decibels as a function of the

horizontal lateral distance in meters.

when the aeroplane is airborne and the lateral (or sideline) distance is greater than

914m (3000 ft)

o for

0 for

where is in decibels and elevation angle

, is in degrees.

when the aeroplane is airborne and the lateral distance is less than 914 m.

o

Noise during take-off and landing roll ( )

Modeling of the noise at ground positions near the airport runway during the take-off roll

requires several modifications of the basic noise-power-distance data. The modifications result

from the fact that the aeroplane is on the ground accelerating from essentially zero velocity to its

initial climb speed, whereas the basic data (used for the noise in flight) are representative of

overfly operations at constant airspeed.

The recommended formulation for this calculation is described in detail in Doc. 29, ECAC,

chapter 8 [5]. As it will be necessary later in section (5.1.3), the typical form introduced to the

noise contour by the start take-off roll maneuver is presented in figure below.

Pablo Gauna

24

Figure 2.3 Take-off start roll noise contour (Source: ECAC, 1997)

Where the equivalent take-off-roll is the distance where this type of noise is relevant.

Corrections for track geometry ( )

Flight tracks are not always straight, they include turns as well. For the SEL noise descriptor, it

will in general not be sufficient to take into account only the contribution from the closest

segment, assuming a straight flypass. Close to a track such a simplification would normally be

satisfactory. However, in some sectors within the computation grid, significant errors would

occur. For instance the estimated SEL would be too low inside a turn, whereas it would be too

high outside the turn. So if the computation point is located on the outer of a turn a (negative)

correction is given but if the point is on the inside a (positive) correction is added.

The method to obtain those corrections is described in detail in Doc.29, ECAC Chapter 11 [5].

Summation of noise levels

The Sound Exposure Level is summed in each point according to the equation (3.4) from

section (3.2.2):

where

is the sound exposure level from the aircraft operation out of N,

W is the weighting factor depending on the time-of-day and in some countries time-of-week,

T is the reference time for LAeq in seconds. If the reference time is one day (24 hours), T is 86

400 sec.


25

2.1.3 General methodology for contour calculation

To calculate the contours it is necessary to recover all the information required from the airport

operation and the aircraft manufacturers (2.1.1). The calculation grid and the aircraft grouping

are arranged, the SEL level for each plane is calculated from the performance data (2.1.2)

applying all the corrections exposed before for an individual movement (2.1.2). With the formula

(2.3) the LAeq levels are obtained in each point for all the operations for each hour. For the

Lden indicator calculation the formulation used is the one exposed on section (3.2.3). Once all

the noise levels are calculated in all the points of the grid, the contour is obtained interpolating

those values.

2.1.4 Software for contour calculation

There are a number of noise contour calculation softwares in use around the world today. Most

of them use common methodologies for noise prediction following the recommendations given

in sections (2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3). The FAA‟s Integrated Noise Model (INM) is well known amongst

noise modeling specialists. Countries that use INM include Australia, Belgium, Greece, Hong

Kong , Spain and USA. Other countries use variants of INM, for example, Denmark and Finland

use DANSIM, their own model, with the INM database. The latest version of INM includes 170

aircraft types in its database (Source: JOPSON, I; CAA [12]).

INM

The Integrated Noise Model (INM) is a computer model that evaluates aircraft noise impacts in

the vicinity of airports. It is developed based on the algorithm and framework from SAE AIR

1845 standard, which used Noise-Power-Distance (NPD) data to estimate noise accounting for

specific operation mode, thrust setting, and source-receiver geometry, acoustic directivity and

other environmental factors(Ref [1]). It was developed by the FAA and nowadays is one of the

most used programs to calculate noise contours around the airports (Source: C. Asensio, 2006

[13]).

The development of the INM has its justification on three points:

Nowadays all the transportation project requires a detailed environmental study

The only way to convey information to communities around an airport is to compute

potential noise levels before constructing the facility

Noise prediction is a tedious process for real airport as there are too many aircraft and

tracks that need to be analyzed in determining the noise at a point on the ground

The information required by the program is the airport configuration, approach and departure

profiles, flight tracks, fight operations, acoustic parameters, terrain elevation and population

points and gives as an output the noise contours and the population living within a given noise

metric.

Pablo Gauna

26

It is subject to the inaccuracies implicit in the model as well as those caused by erroneous or

precise input data. Regarding the latter, the existing errors and/or uncertainties, may be

amplified in the output results, to a greater or lower extent, in some cases offering unreliable

predictions predictions (Source: J. Clemente, 2004 [14]).

It has been revealed that the model has a greater sensitivity to factors that modify the flight

path, and a lower sensitivity to the other parameters. Thus, an error greater than 10% in the

variable “gross weight” offers an additional error of between 3 and 7 dB. However,

parameters such as the ID of the flaps hardly modify the results obtained for the least

favourable case by 1 dB (Ref [14]).

2.2 Noise contour from measured data

2.2.1 Taxi noise measure

Take off, landing or pass by operations can be modeled by INM, but it does not consider

aircrafts taxiing, which, in some cases, can be important to accurately evaluate and reduce

airports’ noise assessment. Aircraft taxiing noise emission can be predicted using other

prediction tools based on standards that describe sound attenuation during propagation

outdoors. But these tools require data inputs that are not known: directivity and sound power

levels emitted by aircraft during taxiing (Ref [13]).

For this purpose, measure time histories were used for the calculations of directivity and sound

power indexes (Source: C. Asensio, 2009 [15]). Studying the noise from measured data in this

case is forced by the fact that there is not information given by the aircraft manufacturers of the

noise emitted by the airplanes during the taxi maneuver.

The main steps given by C. Asensio in the document “Estimation of directivity and sound power

levels emitted by aircrafts during taxiing, for outdoor noise prediction purpose” (Ref [13]) are the

following:

A measurement surface grid must be defined to envelope the noise source.

The grid is used to locate microphone positions.

Linear averaged third octave band spectra must be measured for all microphone

locations.

Averaged surface sound pressure levels can be calculated.

Third octave bands sound power levels are obtained and can be A-weighted to obtain

overall levels.

In general, this method is adaptable to the purpose of this work, the idea of defining a grid,

measure, calculate the noise levels and plot the contour fits to the objectives previously

exposed. Some differences must be mentioned. For this study, the representation of the third


27

octave band spectra is not necessary because the objective is to measure and represent overall

noise energy, without stopping on analizing it in different spectra band. Another difference will

be the amount of microphones, that in this work it will be only one microphone and not a

number of them as they have in the commented document. This means that they can measure

in several points at the same time while we have to go point by point.

2.2.2 Noise contour using GPS

While estimates of noise emissions and calculation of attenuation during propagation may

contain inaccuracy, comparing with sample noise mapping using measured data should be

required to confirm the validity of the assumptions used in the estimates. Moreover, in

monitoring and assessing the noise effects of existing noise sources, overall noise mapping

based on measurements may be preferred if we can do it accurately, effectively and

economically (Source: Dae Seung Cho, 2006 [16]).

The methodology used by Dae Seung Cho in the document “Noise mapping using measured

noise and GPS data” [16] follow the next squeme

Figure 2.4 Noise mapping procedures using measured noise and GPS data (Source: Dae

Seung Cho, 2006)

The system consists of a sound level meter, a GPS receiver, a database program to manage

the measured data, and a program to produce the noise map including a model of the area. All

the components of the system have their own interface functions to transfer one or more

measured data with minimal human interface. The system allows noise mapping for any

quantities of sound pressure levels measured at user-defined irregular locations by importing all

Pablo Gauna

28

the concurrently measured items from the sound level meter and producing noise contour maps

through triangulating the measured points and interpolating the results (Ref [16]).

This method is applied, as a test, to calculate the noise in the area of the Pusan national

university. They measure in 735 different points to calculate the contours by triangulating the

results. The noise they are measuring is continuous so they measure once in each point and

with the triangulation calculate the contour. In the case of this study, the airplane noise is not

continuous and each noise event doesn‟t have the same energy, so it is not possible to

measure only once in each point of measure.

An advantage of measured noise contours is that once the contour is calculated, if necessary

more information can be added to a specific area just making more measures and adding the

information to the previous ones. In case of computational contours, it is necessary to repeat all

tha calculus again.


29

Pablo Gauna

30

3. Noise

Noise is generally defined as a disgusting sound, this definition has implicit a subjective

classification of the sound (Source: Standfeld & Matherson, 2003 [17]). The sound signal can

contain different characteristics but is only classified as noise when is related, directly or

indirectly, whit physiological or psychological adverse effects to the human body or is perceived

as a negative appreciation (such as useless, intrusive or disgusting) (Source: Coelho & Ferreira

2009 [18]).

The sound is produced by mechanical vibrations in an elastic material and transmitted by the air

to the human ear. The main characteristics used to describe a noise/sound are the intensity

(sound pressure level), the distribution of its energy in the audible frequency range (spectral

content) and its temporal behavior (statistic description). The combination of the different

characteristics of the sound, the intensity, the frequency spectrum and the temporal duration

(the human audition is on alert all the time, also when sleeping) of the signal sound makes its

description a really complex work (Ref [18]).

Suffering high noise levels during long periods of time has negative effect over the behavior and

health of the population. There are many different effects and sources of noise and individuals

experience each of them to varying degrees. The effects can include general distraction,

speech interference and sleep disturbance. Sometimes these effects can lead to annoyance

and possibly more overt reactions, like complaints. Research into the potential health effects of

noise is still unclear. Nevertheless the possibility that severe annoyance might induce stress

cannot be ignored (Ref [3]).

3.1 Noise characteristics

3.1.1 Intensity

The interval of sound intensities that the human ear is sensitive to is really wide. The intensity

depends on the square of the amplitude of the oscillations, or the difference between the

maximum and the minimum pressure that the sound wave can reach. The variation of the sound

pressure in the audible range is between 20 μPa and 20 Pa. The value of the 20 μPa is the

weakest sound that a person with all his audible skills is capable to hear, so it is known as the


31

“audible limit”. The pressure of 20 Pa is so high that causes pain, this is the reason why it is

called the “pain limit”. Because of this wide range of sound amplitude values, the intensity is

represented in a logarithmic scale “Decibel” represented in the following formula and called the

sound pressure level:

Where:

Lp – Sound pressure level

P – Measured pressure

Pref – Reference pressure (20 μPa)

This expression determines a level or difference of intensity between two pressures (The one

wanted to be measured and the Pref= 20 μPa). The origin (0 dB) corresponds to the “audible

limit”. Below this value it is the real silence, but in the world we live the experimentation of the

real silence is really difficult, that‟s why the big majority of the people won´t reach to know the

real meaning of silence. Sounds above 130 dB produce dolorous sensations. Higher and

prolonged values can reach to destroy the eardrum.

Table 3.1 Noise intensity levels (Source: Jordà Puig, 1997 [19])

Description Level (dB) Intensity relation

Space rocket launch 190

Reactor Take-Off 150

Pain boundary 130

Big concert 120

Street with heavy traffic 70

Normal conversation 60

House in the city 40

Empty church 30

Audition boundary 0 1

Pablo Gauna

32

3.1.2 Frequency and A weighted

The frequency interval that a healthy ear is sensitive to is called “audible audio-frequency

spectrum”. Normally it takes from about 20 Hz to 16000 Hz. This interval can change between

persons and is affected by the age so old people lose the perception of the higher frequencies

(Source: ANA, 2007 [20]).

When a plane pass over a point is possible to appreciate the difference between tones when

the plane is approximating, that high tones are heard and when the plane is going away that the

tones are lower. This is due to the different noise emissions produced by the different parts of

the engine. The fan normally produces higher tones so it is easy to hear them when the plane is

seen from the front part but they are difficult to be heard from the back part because they are

covered by the jet noise, which normally has a stronger effect with no defined tones. The

contributions to the noise frequencies from the different parts of the engine are described in

section (3.3.1).

The human ear doesn‟t perceive all the frequencies the same well, it has a better sensitivity to

the middle range ones, where the human voice is expressed, and the high and low frequencies

are worse perceived. So as to reproduce this differences on perception, and give more

importance to the middle frequency sounds from the high and low values, it is used a weighted

called (A) to the sound measures (Ref [1]). This weighted is represented in the next figure:

Figure 3.1 A-Weighted frequency distribution (Source: MAXIM, 2005 [21])


33

For example, if we have an intensity of 80 dB in 100 Hz the adjusted intensity will be 60.9

dB(A), but for the same intensity in the frequency of 2000 Hz the perception will be of 81.2

dB(A).

3.2 Noise indicators

The appear of the first reactor engines on the 50´s supposed a big increase on the air traffic

volume and the necessity of measuring the impact of this traffic on the populations near the

airports. These new engines were very noisy so the first indicators evaluate the effects of only

one overfly. Technological advantages permit on the 70´s a big reduction of the noise produced

by the reactors so the noise problem changed from each single event to consider all the airport

operations. Because of the higher number of events and the lower noise levels reached in each

event, the air traffic noise started to take continuous characteristics getting into the global noise

problem (Ref [18]). Noise indicators try to evaluate the noise produced by any activity (road

traffic, industry, air traffic…) with common standards so as to unify the criteria in noise concern.

At the beginnings nearly each country had each indicator, but because of the international face

of the air transport, it forced to unify the methods and the indicators. Some of those previous

indicators are the NEF (Noise Exposure Forecast) from the USA, the NNI (Noise and Number

Index) from England, I (Isopsophic) from France, B (total noise band) from Holland and Q

(perturbation index) from Germany (Ref [18]).

Below are exposed the LAeq, and the SEL/LAE because they will be necessary to calculate the

Lden. The EPNL is mentioned due to its use in jet airplane noise certification exposed on

section (3.2.4).

3.2.1 LAeq (Equivalent Continuous Sound level)

The Equivalent Continuous Sound level is the most common used indicator in ambient acoustic

because is representative of the relevant characteristics of the ambient sound (in audible

perception terms), is relevant for all the possible situations (noise types), and for its easy

implementation with a non-difficult calculus behind. As it is so common, it also allows an

efficient communication between legislators, technicians and general public (Ref [18]). It is well

known that the magnitude of LAeq correlates well with the effects of noise on any kind of human

activity (Source: Zaporozhetz, 1998 [22]).

Defined in the “Norma Portuguesa NP-1730” as the constant sound pressure level that

integrated in the considered time interval (T) presents the same sound energy that the signal in

analysis variant in time:

Where LAp in dB (A) is the sound pressure level whit the “A” adjustment.

Pablo Gauna

34

LAeq combines the sound energy, the duration and the total number of acoustic events in a

determined time interval. The concept of this indicator is referred to a average of energy, that is,

an integration of the energy quantified in a determined time interval, so it´s essential to refer that

time interval in which it is calculated. Measurement time can be, for example, one hour (LAeq,1h),

eight hours (LAeq,8h) twenty four hours (LAeq,24h) (Ref [18]).

3.2.2 SEL/LAE (Sound Exposure Level)

The Sound Exposure Level is defined as the constant noise level during one second that

contains the same acoustic energy in “A” weighted than the original sound in a determined time

interval (Ref [18]).

Where t2 –t1 is the interval of the noise event and t0 is the reference time (one second),p is the measured

pressure and p0 is the reference pressure (20 μPa).

Figure 3.2 SEL representation (Source: Stansted Airport, 2006)

This indicator characterizes the energy of a single noise event, for example, the flyover of a

plane. It is possible to calculate the equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq) for a total period

(T) with (A) adjustment from the SEL of each acoustic event in that period. The sound exposure

level for each event is weighted for the time-of-day and in some countries time-of-week in

accordance with the national method. The summation is defined in the Doc. 29 of the ECAC

(Ref. [5]) as follows


35

where

is the sound exposure level from the aircraft operation out of N,

W is the weighting factor depending on the time-of-day and in some countries time-of-week,

T is the reference time for LAeq in seconds. If the reference time is one day (24 hours), T is 86

400 sec.

3.2.3 Indicators Lden & CNEL

So as to take a longer in time vision indicator of the impact produced by aeronautical noise in

the population, appeared the “compound indicators”. Those indicators have their base on the

“simple indicators” like LAeq but combined with different penalties in the different parts of the

day. These penalties are applied in the parts of the day in which the people are normally in their

houses or rooms so their sensibility to the noise is higher (or the tolerance in relation to the

noise sources is smaller) (Ref [18]).

Lden

One of those indicators is the Lden, this is a 24h noise indicator based on the LAeq but with a

penalty of 10 dB in night time. Originally used to evaluate the impact of the air traffic is widely

used in the USA ad EU (Ref [18]). The penalty of the sound levels during night time tries to

reflex the bigger disturb that is produced by the noise in the humans during their sleep time.

This indicator is defined from two “sub-indicators” Lday based on the LAeq,1h in the period from

05:00 to 21:00, and Lnight based also on the LAeq but with a penalty of 10 dB in the period

from 21:00 to 05:00. The result is the following formula:

Where:

Lden: The indicator that represents the noise level during all the day

Lday: LAeq,1h for hours between 05:00 and 21:00

Lnight: LAeq,1h for hours between 21:00 and 05:00

Nowadays this indicator includes the Levening “sub-indicator” as it is explained in the CNEL

below, and the resulting formula is the following:

Pablo Gauna

36

Where:



Le: LAeq,1h for hours between 20:00 and 23:00


CNEL

Other “compound indicator” is the CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) used to evaluate

the noise around the neighborhoods in the state of California. This indicator includes a new

“sub-indicator” Levening between the periods of Lday ad Lnight. Levening based also on the

LAeq but with a penalty of 5 dB is considered from 19:00 to 22:00 (in the USA). So the other

two “sub-indicators” (Lady and Lnight) have the following application periods, Lday form 7:00 to

19:00 (no penalty) and Lnight from 22:00 to 7:00 (10 dB penalty) (Ref. [18]). The result is:

Where:

CNEL: The indicator that represents the noise level during all the day in the state of California


Leve: LAeq,1h for hours between 19:00 and 22:00


3.2.4 EPNL

The EPNL (Effective Perceived Noise Level) in units of EPNdB, is a single number evaluator of

the subjective effects of aircraft noise on the human beings. EPNL shall consist of

instantaneous PNL (Perceived Noise Level) corrected for spectral irregularities (the correction,

called “tone correction factor”, is made for the maximum tone at each increment of time) and for

duration. The calculation procedure for the EPNL for each half second as it is exposed on the

Annex 16 Vol.1 of ICAO [16] consists on the following five steps:

The 24 one-third octave bands of sound pressure level are converted to perceive

noisiness by means of a noy table. The noy values are combined and then converted to

instantaneous perceived noise levels, PNL(k).

A tone correction factor, C(k), is calculated for each spectrum to account for the

subjective response to the presence of spectral irregularities

The tone correction factor is added to the perceive noise level to obtain tone corrected

perceive noise levels, PNLT(k), at each one-half second increment of time.


37

The instantaneous values of tone corrected perceived noise level are derived and the

maximum value, PNLTM, is determined

A duration correction factor, D, is computed by integration under the curve of tone

corrected perceived noise level versus time

Effective perceived noise level, EPNL, is determined by the following expression:

The calculus of the PNL is complex due to the necessity of using tables or frequency spectrums

on thirds octaves (Annex16 ICAO Vol.1 [16]). The EPNL is used nowadays in aircraft noise

certification because of its good correlation with the tonal components but is not so widely used

for noise contours.

3.3 Airplane noise sources

Noise is created by aircraft approaching or taking off from airports and by taxiing aircraft and

engine testing within the airport perimeter. Airframe noise results when air passes over the

aircraft‟s body (the fuselage) and its wings. This causes friction and turbulence, which makes

noise. The amount of noise created varies according to the way the plane is flown, even for

identical aircraft. Aircraft land with their flaps extended, this creates more friction (and produces

more noise) than a plane with its flaps up. Engine noise is created by the sound from the

moving parts of the engine and also by the sound of the air being expelled at high speed once it

has passed through the engine. Most of the engine noise comes from the exhaust or jet behind

the engine as it mixes with the air around it, although fan noise from the front of the engine can

also be audible on the ground. Aircraft manufactured today are much quieter than they were 40,

30 or even 20 years ago and these will be replaced by even quieter aircraft in the future. But

even though each individual aircraft is quieter, there are more planes flying now. This means

that although the average level of noise is lower than before, the frequency of aircraft

movements and hence noise events has increased (Ref [3]).

Figure 3.3 Airplane noise sources (Source: Airliners.com, 2012)

Pablo Gauna

38

3.3.1 Engine noise

Engine description

Nowadays the most used engine is the turbofan. This engine is composed by a turbojet with a

front fan that improves the performances in thrust, fuel consumption and noise reduction from

the original turbojet. On the front part there is low pressure ratio compressor (fan) followed by a

high pressure ratio compressor, a combustion chamber, a turbine and an exhaust nozzle. This

kind of engines are called “continuous combustion engines”. There are two different flows inside

the engine, one part of the air is only compressed by the fan and expanded in a nozzle, and the

other part is compressed also by the fan, taken inside the compressor burned in the combustion

chamber and expanded in the nozzle.

Figure 3.4 Turbofan engine (Source: bloodhoundssc.com (2012))

Jet noise

The jet noise is linked to the intense exhaustion of the burnt gases at high temperature that

come from the combustion chamber. Downstream of the aeroplane wings, the jet generates

strong turbulence as it enters a still area (relatively to the jet speed).

The main characteristics of this noise are the following:

the generation area is located rear of the engines, at a distance equivalent to a few

nozzle diameters

the noise directivity is strong, heading for the back of the aircraft

the noise generated does not contain remarkable tones, and its frequency band is quite

wide.

Fan noise

The noise produced by the fan results of the superimposition of a wide-band noise (as for the

jet) and noise with harmonics.


39

The wide band noise is due to the boundary layer developing on the fan blades, and

more generally to the airflow around them.

The harmonics are originating in the intrinsic cycling character of the fan motion

(spinning motion). The most remarkable frequency is the fundamental, the value of

which is the number of blades times the fan rotation speed. The harmonics are

multiples of this fundamental.

When the engine rating is high (during takeoff for instance), the airflow around the fan

blades transitions to supersonic and these multiple pure tones are at the origin of the

so-called “buzz saw noise”.

Compressor noise

It is of the same kind than the fan noise, but the harmonics are less emergent due to interaction

phenomena.

3.3.2 Airframe noise

The airframe noise would be the noise produced by the aircraft, if all engines were made

inoperative. It is generated by the airflow surrounding the moving plane. The main sources are

the discontinuities of the aircraft structure, such as high-lift devices (flaps-slats), landing gear

wheels (when extended).

It was empirically determined that the noise emissions are dependent on the sixth power of the

aircraft‟s true airspeed. This noise produced from aerodynamic phenomena is most sensitive

during approach, when engine power is the lowest.

The following sketches illustrate the share between engine parts and airframe regarding

Figure 3.5 Take-off and land noise sources (A. Benito, 2009, Ref [2])

3.3.3 Jet planes noise certification

As part of the “type certification” of each plane model, the noise produced when operating is

part of concern according to the Annex 16 Volume 1 from ICAO [25] .The certification is given

according to noise level limits that the plane can produce when taking-off, landing and overflying

Pablo Gauna

40

the airport. There are three chapters (from 2 to 4) with different noise limits depending on the

year of the application for certificate of airworthiness for the prototype that was accepted. The

noise evaluation measure shall be the effective perceived noise level in EPNdB summarized the

calculus in section (3.2.4). Nowadays the majority of the planes operating in Lisbon airport are

under chapter 3 or chapter 4. In Europe Chapter 2 planes can not operate since 2002 as it is

exposed on the 2002/30/CEE [27].

ICAO annex 16 volume 1 chapter 2

This ICAO Chapter 2 is applicable to aircraft for which the application for certificate of

airworthiness for the prototype was accepted before 6 October 1977. As a consequence, all

relevant aircraft are nicknamed “Chapter 2”.

Noise measurement points

The points to measure the noise are the following:

Lateral noise measurement point

o The point on a line parallel to and 650 m from the runway center line, or

extended runway centerline, where the noise level is a maximum during take-

off.

Flyover noise measurement point

o The point on the extended centerline of the runway and at a distance of 6.5 km

from the start of roll.

Approach noise measurement point

o The point on the ground, on the extended center line of the runway, 120 m (395

ft) vertically below the 3° descent path originating from a point 300 m beyond

the threshold. On level ground this corresponds to a position 2 000 m from the

threshold.

Máximum noise levels

The maximum noise levels of those aeroplanes covered by Annex 16 Volume 1 Chapter 2, shall

not exceed the following:

Table 3.2 Maximum noise levels chapter 2(Source: Airbus, 2003)

MTOW (Kg) 0-34000 35000-272000 above

Max. Lateral noise

level (EPNdB)

102

91.83+6.64log(MTOM)

108

Max. Flyover noise

level

(EPNdB)

102

91.83+6.64log(MTOM)

108

Max. Approach

noise level

(EPNdB)

93

67.56+16.61log(MTOW)

108


41



airworthiness for the prototype was accepted on or after 6 October 1977 and before 1 January

2006. As a consequence, all relevant aircraft are nicknamed “Chapter 3”. This is the case of

most commercial airplanes.


The points to measure the noise are the following:

Lateral full-power reference noise measurement point

o The point on a line parallel to and 450 m from the runway centerline, where the

noise level is a maximum during take-off.

Flyover reference noise measurement point

o The point on the extended centerline of the runway and at a distance of 6.5 km

from the start of roll.

Approach reference noise measurement point

o The point on the ground, on the extended centerline of the runway 2 000 m

from the threshold. On level ground this corresponds to a position 120 m (394

ft) vertically below the 3° descent path originating from a point 300 m beyond

the threshold.

Maximum noise levels

Table 3.3 Maximum noise levels chapter 3 (Source: Airbus, 2003)

MTOW (Kg) 0-35000 35000-… above

Max. Lateral noise

level (EPNdB)

94

…400000

80.87+8.51log(MTOM)

103

Max. Flyover noise

level

2engines

3engines

4engines

(EPNdB)

89

89

89

…385000

66.65+13.29log(MTOW)

66.65+13.29log(MTOW)

71.65+13.29log(MTOW)

101

104

106

Max. Approach

noise level

(EPNdB)

98

…280000

86.7.75log(MTOW)

105

Pablo Gauna

42

Trade-offs

o If the maximum noise levels are exceeded at one or two measurement points:

The sum of excesses shall not be greater than 3 EPNdB

Any excess at any single point shall not be greater than 2 EPNdB

Any excesses shall be offset by reductions at the other point or points



airworthiness for the prototype was accepted on or after 1 January 2006. As a consequence, all

relevant aircraft will be nicknamed “Chapter 4”.


The points to measure are the same as the ones in Chapter 3

Maximum noise levels

The maximum permitted noise levels are defined in ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1 Chapter 3, and

shall not be exceeded at any of the measurement points.

• The sum of the differences at all three measurement points between the maximum

noise levels and the maximum permitted noise levels specified in Chapter 3 shall not be less

than 10 EPNdB.

• The sum of the differences at any two measurement points between the maximum

noise levels and the corresponding maximum permitted noise shall not be less than 2 EPNdB.


43

Chapter 4 versus chapter 3 limits

The following figures show the difference between chapter 3 and chapter 4 limits

Figure 3.6 Chapter 4 Max accumulative noise level (Side-line + flyover + approach) (Source:

Airbus, 2003)

Figure 3.7 Chapter 4 Max accumulative noise level (Side-line + Flyover) (Source: Airbus, 2003)

Pablo Gauna

44

4. Methodology

The purpose of the study is tocreate a method to create noise contours from measures in the

street. As it has been exposed before in chapter 2, the calculus of the noise contours is based

on the noise levels produced by each plane in each point of a grid so as to sum all the values

and interpolate the contours. In the study the contribution of each plane to each grid point is

going to be measured instead of taking that information from the NPD (Noise Power-distance

Data) as it is made in the different softwares. Another difference will be the amount of

information processed, as in the computational way it is possible to take into account all the

planes operating in the airport in a large period, in this study, which is more “manual”, the

number of measured planes is 489. To have a good representation with those 489 planes of

what happens in the airport in a large period of time, a “typical hour” is calculated from the flight

reports and the calculus are made supposing that all the hours are that “typical hour” one. Once

the noise levels are determined in each measured point, and the background noise is removed,

they are introduced in the Matlab program to make the interpolation and to obtain the contours.

The indicator that‟s going to be calculated is the Lden, this indicator represents the noise level

during all the day and it is obtained from the Lday, Levening and Lnight with the following

formula also given in section (3.2.3):

Where:

Lden: Noise indicator that represents the noise level during all the day





45

Lday, Levening and Lnoite are the LAeq indicators for the day, the evening and the night

periods. The LAeq is calculated from the SEL of several events as it was explained in section

(3.2.2).

Where:

LAeq: Equivalent Continuous Sound Level

SEL,j: Sound Explosure Level from each single event

N: Number of events in one hour

To complete strictly the (4.1) equation it would be necessary to measure in each point for 24

hours. Supposing that this is not possible, it is proposed another method so as to have a good

representation of the contours. This method is based on designing a “typical hour” in Lisbon

airport operations from the flight reports and suppose that all the hours in each period (day,

evening and night) have the same noise energy.

4.1 Equipement

The equipment used to measure the noise is a noisemeter “BLUESOLO 01dB Metravib”. This

equipment is able to measure the sound level in weighting (A) and the SEL directly in the

screen, so it is no necessary to use any cable or auxiliary equipment to obtain the data

necessary for the study. The equipment is correctly checked and calibrated by the metrology

department of the Metravib Company

Figure 4.1 Noisemeter “Bluesolo 01dB Metravib” (Source: 01db-metravib.com)

4.2 Measure technique and measuring points selection

To make a correct measure for each acoustic event is convenient to take care of some aspects

when selecting the points to measure or when placing the equipment respect from the plane

path. The noisemeter is hold by the hand separating it from the ground to avoid the reflection of

the sound and is also separated from the body to avoid the absorption or refraction of the sound

waves that the body could make. During the measure the equipment is pointing to the nearest

point of the flight path without moving it during all the event (plane flyover).

The place to make the measure must have a clear view of the plane when this is overflying the

city, trying not to have near buildings or trees. It is also important to remark that the flight paths

are different in height when taking-off and landing so, some buildings or trees that are not a

Pablo Gauna

46

problem during taking-off can be a problem during landing maneuver. The other issue to take

care of is the background noise that must be as low as possible because a high level of noise

around the measure point increases the energy measured in the event invalidating it. In a city it

is common to have high levels of noise in the streets, especially near the big roads. The points

selected are normally in open spaces without one of these big roads near it.

The points selected must also give a complete representation of the noise contour of the

runway 03-21 over the area affected between the airport and the “25 de Abril” bridge. The noise

over the bridge is not something to take care off due to two reasons, one is because the bridge

produces a much bigger amount of noise in its vicinity than the planes overflying it and the

second reason is because the planes in that point are not close enough to the ground to make

an important noise.

Near the runway the variation of the noise levels is more important that near the bridge, this can

be seen in the noise contour published by ANA(annex I). As the grid spacing used in the

calculation programs is different depending on the variation of the noise levels, section (2.1.2),

when looking for points to measure, it is important to have more points in the proximities of the

airport to take into account the stronger variation that suffer the contour.

The noise contour is supposed to be symmetric to the longitudinal axis of the runway. This is

true when calculating it with a computer because the calculus is made over a flat and horizontal

plane (in case of Lisbon airport this plane is located at a height of 114m). But due to the

different elevation of the real area the sound energy that reach to the ground will be less if the

measure is made in a low point than if it is made in a high point. It means that if the terrain is not

symmetric to the longitudinal axis of the runway the noise measures shouldn´t be symmetric.In

case of this sturdy, the measures made in points non-located on the axis will be considered

twice, once in its place and another symmetric to the longitudinal axis of the runway so the

obtained contour will be symmetric.

All the distances will be in meters, referred to the threshold, using the prolongation of the

runway 03-21 as the X axis, the Z axis perpendicular to the ground pointing to the sky and the Y

axis on the horizontal plane pointing to the south-west.

With all these considerations, the selected points are shown in the figure below.


47

Figure 4.2 Measure points placement (Source: Google maps)

Table 4.1 Measure points placement

4.3 Method requirements/considerations

4.3.1 Airplane categories selection

For calculation softwares, aircraft grouping suppose a simplification on the data they use to

characterize each plane as they are grouped and supposed that all the planes in that group

have the same noise-power characteristics. As for this study that is not an available reason, the

aim of aircraft grouping will be the creation of the “typical hours.

The groups considered are the ones used in airport design defined by ICAO in Annex 14 [28].

Below are shown the different categories considering ICAO requirements (main gear wheel

span and wing span) and visual differences between categories used in the study to classify the

airplanes in the moment they are measured. These visual differences are taken from the “airport

plannings” of the main companies operating in Lisbon such as Boeing, Airbus and Embraer [29]

[30] [31].

Point 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

X (m) 1500 812.5 2400 1800 2475 3250 6537.5 5075 5550 4000 600 575

Y (m) -475 -137.5 0 -62.5 -400 0 0 0 -240 587 300 0

Pablo Gauna

48

Table 4.2 Airplane categories characteristics(Source: ICAO, 2004)

Type Main gear wheel

span

(m)

Wing span

(m)

Number of wheels

in each leg of the

main gear

Number of

engines

A 4.5 15 Variable

Variable

Variable

Variable B 6 24

C 9 36 2 2

D 9 52 4 2

E 14 65 6 2-4

F 16 80 4-6 4

The most similar type of planes are the C and D categories because they have two engines

under the wing but they have different number of wheels in the main gear so the problem is

solved. The only E category plane landing in Lisbon airport is the Airbus 340 which is easily

recognizable due to the four engines it has. There are no F category planes operating and the A

and B types will be mixed in an AB category. Because of the different noise level made by the

planes with engines in the tail these are going to create a new category for this study which will

be G category.

4.3.2 Typical hour calculation and landing and taking-off percents

Typical hours

Assuming that it is unviable to measure each hour of the day in each selected point for take-off

and landing operations, the “typical hour” tries to reproduce an average operations hour to refer

the calculus to it. There is going to be three different “typical hours”, one for the day period

(07:00 to 20:00), the other one for the evening period (20:00 to 23:00) and the third one for the

night period (23:00 to 07:00). Those periods are defined in the Decreto-Lei n. 146/2006 [32].

Those hours are calculated from the annual statistics report published by ANA (annex III) for the

latest year available, 2009 (Ref [33]). The amount of planes in an average hour is calculated

dividing all the operations in the year by the hours that the airport is in operation. For each plane

type the percent of operations over the total is calculated and the planes in the typical hour are

assigned according to those percents. The calculus are made below.


49

Table 4.3 Airport movements for 2009 (Source: ANA, 2009)

ANA Statistics 2009

Annual Movements 136287

Day Movements 107910

Evening movements 18704

Night Movements 9673

Table 4.4 Airport annual movements depending on the part of the day (Source: ANA, 2009)

Movements Hours/year Planes/Hour

Day 107910 4745 22

Evening 18704 1095 17

Night 9673 2920 3

Table 4.5 Airport annual movements and percents depending on aircraft type (Source: ANA,

2009)

ANA Statistic 2009

G type movements 14992 11%

C type movements 91760 67.32%

D type movements 9825 7.209%

Rest movements 19710 14.46%

It is important to remark that “movement” is considered one take-off or one landing so for the

purpose of this study, that considers only one of the two maneuvers each time, the movements

are the half, 11 for day period each hour, 8 for evening period and 1.6 for night hours. The

numbers of planes for each group are the following.

Table 4.6 Typical hours´ calculation

Percentage over

total “Typical hour day”

“Typical hour

evening”

“Typical hour

night”

C type 67.32% 8 6 2

G type 11% 2 1 0

D type 7.2% 1 1 0

The three types of aircraft involved in the typical hours are the ones with bigger percents above

the overall number of planes. Those three types represent the 85% of the total, so if the typical

hour was compose only with their percents the results would be below the ones expected. To

Pablo Gauna

50

solve this problem one more C type plane is added to the “typical hour day” as it is the most

common in the airport.

Runway use percents for landing and taking-off

According to the “Plano de expansão de aeroporto de Lisboa” [34], in the year 2006 the runway

03 was used the 69,8% of the hours and the runway 21 was used the 30,2%. For the zone of

the study the use of the 03 means landing and the 21 taking-off. Those percents are necessary

to calculate the noise in each point as it is shown in the next point.

4.3.3 Each point noise level calculation

Between the days of 14 November, 2011and the 18 January, 2012 it was made a total of 489

measurements in 25 sessions. In each session at least 20 planes were measured, if there were

enough events to complete the “typical hour” in those 20 no more measures were made, if not

there were made as much measures as necessary. All the reports are exposed in Annex II.

In each point there is one session for landing and another one for taking-off so there will be a

LAeq value for each of the two operations. The planes selected to configure the LAeq are the

ones described in the “typical hour” depending if the calculus is for Lday, Leve or Lnight. The

values for taking-off and landing will be weighted according to the annual percent of taking-offs

and landings (69.8% landing, 30.2% taking-off) to obtain the final noise level in each point. In

the next scheme is represented the process.


51

Figure 4.3 Method squeme

Here is an example from the POINT 2 on taking-off operation measured on 09 December, 2011.

For each plane the SEL is measured and stored in the noisemeter, the hour and the aircraft

type are noted in the moment of the measure. Later the aircraft data is contrasted with the flight

reports to ensure that the measure corresponds to the correct plane flyover.

The data obtained is the following.

Table 4.7 Measures for taking-off operation, point 2

TIME COMPANY TYPE SEL (dB(A))

14:38 TAP C 96,7

14:42 TAP G 91,8

14:46 Swiss C 98,4

14:54 Luft C 101

14:57 TAP C 97,6

15:01 TAP C 98,3

15:06 TAP C 96,9

Pablo Gauna

52

15:09 TAP G 91,5

15:15 EASY C 98,1

15:20 TAP C 97,6

15:22 Priv AB 92,4

15:24 TAP C 95,5

15:26 TAP C 97,3

15:28 EASY C 97

15:34 TAP G 90,8

15:36 TAP C 101

15:41 TAP C 97,3

15:44 TAP C 97

15:49 TAP C 95,5

15:57 AE C 97,3

16:06 TAP C 94,7

16:08 KLM C 100,5

16:12 TAP C 95,6

16:17 SATA D 99,4

In this case instead of the 20 planes measured typically there are 24, this is because there

weren´t any D type before the 24th measure. In case of having more values than the necessary,

as here, to compound the “typical hour” the values used are chosen random, in this case the

values in red are the ones necessary for the “day typical hour”. These values are introduced in

the equation (4.2) to obtain the result 72.74 dB(A). This noise level corresponds to the Lday for

take-off in the point 2. To obtain the Lnight in this same point it is only necessary to change the

measures selected before for the ones according to the “night typical hour” and introduce them,

in the equation (6.2) to get the result 68.44 dB(A). In case of Leve the result is 71.9 dB(A). The

rest of the calculus to reach to the Lden indicator value are detailed in sections (5.2.1; 5.2.2;

5.2.4).


53

Pablo Gauna

54

5. Contour calculation for Lisbon Airport

In this section, the noise contour is going to be calculated according to the method explained in

the previous section. The Lday indicator calculus is explained in detail, in the calculus of the

Lnight there are some parts not so detailed and the Leve calculus is just a summary of the

results as it is the same procedure as the two previous ones. Finally the Lden is obtained and

plotted. The area in concern of this work is the part of the runway 03/21 from Lisbon airport

between it and the bridge “25 de Abril”. A little exposition of the airport, runway operations and

noise related actions is made in first instance.

5.1 Lisbon Airport

Lisbon airport is located in Portela de Sacavém, 7 km Northwest to the city centre. In

topographic terms the airport implantation area is relatively plain, placing in a height of

approximately 114 meters from the sea level. It has two runways, the 03/21 (3082X45) and the

17/35 (2304X45). Due to its integration in the urban media, all its surroundings are

characterized by a high population density, even higher in the East and the South. The

Northeast surroundings are areas with some industrial use, normally there are warehouses or

small industries.

Figure 5.1. Lisbon airport runway distribution (Source: Google maps)

In the prolongation of the runway 03-21 (the one in study) is remarkable to say that there are

two hospitals (Julio Mateos and Santa Maria) and the “cidade universitaria”, places that

shouldn´t be affected in that way by the noise from the airport as it is recommended in the


55

“Decreto-Lei n. 146/2006” [32] in which specifies the application of noise studies and action

plans specially to “… places with habitational uses, schools, hospitals or similar…”.

Traffic in Lisbon airport is mainly composed of turbofan engine planes over chapter 3 of the

ICAO annex16 Vol.1 [25], increasing day by day the number of chapter 4 ones (Source: ANA,

2012). It is important to remember that chapter 2 planes cannot operate in the EU from 2002

[Ref 27]. The most used plane is the A320 and its family, a medium range plane, indicating that

the most important traffic is from the EU. There are also an important number of long range

planes with routes that connect, in the most of the cases, with the old Portuguese colonies

(Brazil, Angola…).

Lisbon, as an airport inside a city, has an important noise affection to the surrounding

populations. The planes passing over the city increases the noise levels that the people living in

certain areas have to suffer. There are other noise affections in a city, the most important ones

are streets and roads, but if apart from those appears also the aeronautical noise it could

become unacceptable. This is why Lisbon has a wide action program to study the problems and

to mitigate the noise impact where possible. Some of the actions carried out are exposed below.

5.1.1 Actions related with noise (Source: NAV Portugal, [35])

The monitoring of the noise in Lisbon airport has the following actions:

o Installation of a Noise Monitoring system, composed of 7 permanent stations,

distributed strategically around the airport (Pirescoxe, Alcântara, Camarate,

Cidade Universitária, Campolide, Alto de São João, Aeroporto) and 1 mobile

measuring unit to recover acoustic data to complete the recovered information

from the permanet stations, to reach areas where these ones doesn´t reach, or

to be used in punctual complain situations.

o Noise contours from the airport

o Semestral reports of noise monitoring (referred to summer and winter, IATA

periods)

Operating restrictions applied in Lisbon airport:

o Night traffic is restricted between 00:00 and 06:00 hours

o The maximum number of movements permitted during that period in a week

cannot exceed 91 movements

o At any case, the total number of movements per daily night period cannot

exceed :

Pablo Gauna

56

APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) use restrictions

o Use of APU on aircraft stands shall be limited as much as possible. Ground

power system is available on the aprons except “80”, “70” and “14” [38].

o Ground power unit (GPU) is not allowed on aircraft stands at aprons “10”, “11”

and “12” except when ground power system is out of service [38].

Engine test available only in specific places

o Engine test runs in the open air may only take place:

On TWY "U2"

RWY 17, between the THR and ILS critical area.

o Test runs are allowed only from 0600 to 2200 LMT on the condition that a

previous authorization was obtained from the airport air side operations.

Local flights (training, test…) with successive taking-off and landings, are only permitted

between 08:00 and 22:00

“Noise abatement” procedures applied to airplanes in approach procedures [37]

“Noise abatement” procedures applied to airplanes in taking-off procedures (SID´s

Standard Instrumental Departure)[36]

NAV Portugal adopt, if is possible, the following complementary restrictions:

o Preferential use of the 03 Runway for take-off (North direction), if wind direction

and intensity permits

o Authorization to approaches with an angle not inferior to

o Flat approaches flown with relatively high engine thrust at low altitude and great

distance from the airport are prohibited.

o Always the conditions permit, the airplanes in visual approach to the 03 or 35

runways, from the south, must make the descend to final approach altitude over

the river, until the airplane is aligned to the runway

o Always the conditions permit, the airplanes in visual approach the 21 runway,

coming from the south, must make the descend to final approach altitude over

the river and must maintain over the water the maximum time possible until the

plane is aligned to the runway

o New equipment acquisition, taking in concern the respect to the noise

emissions

o Prohibition, from April 2002, of operation to Chapter 2 airplanes (92/14/CEE

[27]), with the objective of the reduction of the noise in the source

o Construction of two fast exit taxiways to the 03 runway and one more to the 21,

permitting a reduction on the use of the reverse thrust and attenuating noise

impact

o Realization of studies about “Noise abatement” flight procedures, with the

objective of improving the ones now applying


57

o Installation of jet bridges with electric feeding system (400 Hz) and air

conditioning to the airplanes so as to abandon the use of the APU (Auxiliary

Power Unit). It also benefits the air quality in the surroundings

5.1.2 Operations in runway 03-21

The zone under the study of this document is located between the airport and the bridge “25 de

Abril” under the flight track of the runway 03-21. When a runway is in use, the direction of the

landings and taking-offs depends on the wind direction and speed. As it is a benefit for the

operations near ground to have front wind, the 03 runway is used when the wind is coming from

the north east (for landing and for taking-off) and the 21 is used when the wind blows from the

southwest. The preferential use of this runway with calm wind conditions is the use of the 03 as

it was exposed before in section (4.3.2). The planes will pass over the place of the study when

taking-off using the 21 and when landing on 03.

The procedures of approach, land and take-off are rigorously described in the AIP (Aeronautical

Information Publication) of Portugal. Here is exposed a little summary of the procedures.

Take-off (21)

The take off over runway 21 is described in the SID (Standard Instrument Departure Chart, Ref

[36]) as an ascend from the runway to the NDB of Caparica to change, after that, the direction

depending on the route of the flight. It can be said that when measuring, the majority of the

planes didn´t reach to that point to start turning to their convenient heading, instead of that, they

used to turn above the bridge. This can occur if the flight control gives permission.

Figure5.2 SID for runway 21(Source: AIP Portugal, 2011)

Pablo Gauna

58

Land (03)

The landing over 03 runway is described on the Instrument Approach Chart (Ref [37]) for IFR

(instrumental Flight Rules). There is also the possibility of landing using VFR (Visual Flight

Rules) but normally all the commercial planes use the ILS (Instrumental Landing System) that

follows the flight path shown in the chart.

The flight path extends from the FAP (Final Approach Point, at 8.2 NM from the threshold) to

the threshold of the runway with of inclination. This indicates that all the measure zone is

under the same flight path for every plane, not as when taking-off that the climb rate depends

on the performance of each one.

Figure 5.3 Instrument approach chart for runway 03(Source: AIP Portugal,2011)

5.1.3 Lisbon Noise contours

The noise contours from Lisbon airport were made with the INM (Integrated Noise Model)

version 6.2 software based on the SAE-AIR-1845 [6] method of calculation, but also compatible

with the ECAC Doc.29 [5] and ICAO Circ.205 [4]. Noise indicators are the ones required by the

Regulamento geral do ruido, exposed in the Decreto-Lei nº.9 of January 17th 2007 [39] Lden

and Lnoite.

The contours expose the Lden and Lnoite (Lnight) levels from 45 to 80 dB(A) with color lines

each 5 dB(A) so as to have an easy idea of the different impact of the noise over the

represented area. The green circles are the position of the permanent measuring stations


59

placed by the airport authority. (There are seven, but in the image below only 4 are seen, for

locating all of them see annex I).

Figure 5.4 Lden contour for the area of study(Source: ANA,2007)

Taking a look at the noise contour it is possible to deduce that it is made by a computational

method. This is easily seen in the threshold of the runway 35 (1 red) that a low noise point is

located. This fact is impossible to measure because on a landing or taking-off as the plane is

getting closer, the noise is continuously increasing until it passes over or touches the ground.

This could happen if the terrain was not flat, but the place where this irregularity is located is on

the first part of the runway that is a plain surface. Next to that point is also possible to see some

irregularities (2 red) on the contours that enforce the fact that they are calculated by a computer.

It is easy to observe that the majority of the operations occur on the runway 03/21 due to the

small noise levels shown on the prolongation of the runway 17/35 in comparison with the ones

on the other runway prolongation. The previously exposed irregularities (2 red) may are caused

because of a low number of planes that are taken into account when calculating the contours

due to the low traffic levels.

The zone marked with (3 red) is produced by the start of the take-off roll. If taking only in

concern the landing operation in runway 03 and taking-off in runway 21 (case of study), the

contours shouldn‟t be so wide in the lateral parts of the threshold. Those forms are previously

1

3

2

Pablo Gauna

60

exposed on section (2.1.2). As in this study the contribution of the start of the take-off roll is not

going to be in analyzed, the resulting contours of the measures won´t have those forms besides

the threshold.

5.2 Contour calculation

The steps for this section will be:

Figure 5.5 Contour calculation process

5.2.1 Lday calculation

To calculate the Lday contour it is necessary to have the Lday calculated in each point the way

it is shown before in section (4.3.3). Once this value is calculated at all the points, they are

introduced in the Matlab program to obtain the noise surface with a linear interpolant.

The Lday for each point are the following.

Table 5.1 Lday noise values for taking-off and landing

*Measures in dB(A)

Point 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Landing 58.17 65.68 67.71 65.08 57.7 64.95 61.04 64.334 59.68 55.05 61.509 73.9

Taking-Off 67.46 72.74 66.68 68.146 67.38 65.81 62.5 63.23

70.79 71.89


61

Lday Landing noise surface

The Lday surface for Landing generated from the points above by the Matlab program is the

following.

Figure 5.6 Lday landing surface without central approximation

Taking a look at the landing surface seems to be correct as the higher value is next to the

threshold and it decreases as the distance is higher. There is a low level zone around 2000m

from the threshold that brakes with the trend of the central points curve. This irregularity is

produced by the interpolation made by the program. To solve that kind of irregularities some

approximations are made in the prolongation of the axis of the runway.

The Matlab program is used again to make an interpolation between the four points in the

centre line of the surface. The points are the following:

Table 5.2 Central point values for landing Lday

Point X (m) Lday (dB(A))

3 2400 67.71

7 3250 64.95

8 6537 61.04

9 5075 64.334

13 575 73.9

Pablo Gauna

62

Figure 5.7 Approximation for central values, landing Lday

This is the curve of the prolongation of the runway axis calculated from the four measured

points in the center line. The approximation given by the Matlab is the following.

Where:

Lday: Equivalent continuous sound level for one hour in day period (07:00-20:00)

x: Distance from the threshold

This equation is used to obtain more results in some points around the irregular zone (around

2000m from the threshold) and near the threshold. The new points are the following.

Table 5.3 New points´ values for Lday

Point X (m) Lday (dB(A))

1* 200 76.41

2* 800 72.72

3* 1800 68.61

4* 1900 68.31

As it is possible to see all the points are in the nearest zone to the runway, as it was said before

in that zone the changes in the noise levels are stronger that in the further zones. The necessity

of more points in those zones is another reason to make this approximation.

The resulting surface with the approximations is the following. This surface is going to be

considered the final one for Lday landing.


63

Figure 5.8 Lday landing surface with central approximation

Lday Taking-off noise surface

The Lday surface for taking-off is calculated from the points in table 5.1 using the same

technique as in the landing surface. The taking-off surface is the following.

Figure 5.9 Lday taking-off surface

Taking a look at the taking-off surface is relevant that in the prolongation of the axis of the

runway the noise values are lower than in the outer parts. It was supposed in first instance that

could be a measurement error so some measures were repeated (Annex II, Point 4) with no

important changes from the values measured in the previous session in that same point. The

Pablo Gauna

64

lower levels in the center line can be due to the directivity of the sound on the source as it is

exposed in the “Airport planning” of the A321.

Figure 5.10 Engine noise directivity for full throttle (red line) and 21.6% throttle (blue

line)(Source: Airbus, 2011)

The points with a higher level of noise emissions are on the lateral parts of the plane, in the

center the noise is less important than besides the plane. This fact makes the take-off surface to

have the form previously exposed. It doesn´t occur when landing because, as it is possible to

see in the figure, when the engines are not at full throttle (blue line) the noise is stronger on the

front part in comparison with the sides of the plane. During the landing maneuver, as it was said

before, section (3.3.2), the airframe noise is as important as the engine noise, so the noise

surface takes the expected form shown before.

In this case is not necessary an approximation as the values in the center line have no

irregularities.

Lday noise surface

To configure the Lday surface from the previously calculated ones, it is necessary to know the

percentages of landing and taking-off of the runway over a significant period of time. In this case

that period is going to be one year. From section (4.3.2), the percent of taking-offs is 30.2% and

for landings is 69.8% for the area of study.

In each point the previously exposed noise levels (without the approximations) the values are

weighted with the percentages using


65

Where:

Lday: Equivalent continuous sound level for one hour in day period (07:00-20:00)

LdayT_O: Lday value for take off maneuver. Table 5.1

LdayL: Lday value for land maneuver. Table 5.1

resulting the following levels.

Table 5.4 Lday noise values summary

Point Lday Land Lday Take-off Lday

1 58.17 67.46 63.3

2 65.68 72.74 69.16

3 67.71 66.68 67.42

4 65.08 68.146 66.25

5 57.7 67.38 63.14

7 64.95 65.81 65.22

8 61.04 62.5 61.53

9 64.334 63.23 64.03

12 61.509 70.79 66.63

13 73.9 71.89 73.38

These values are obtained from measures in the street where there is always a background

noise that is needed to be removed to obtain the noise contour produced by the overflying

planes. Even some care was taken when choosing the measuring points to avoid high levels of

background noise, it was inevitable to have during the day hours a noise level around 60 dB(A)

surrounding the measuring points. To take this noise out from the measure the following formula

is used:

Where:

Lday: The Lday value without background noise

Ldaym: The Lday value with background noise (from table 5.4)

Bkgr: Background noise level, 60 dB(A)

The Lday values without background noise are the following:

Table 5.5 Lday final levels

Point 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 12 13

Lday 60.57 68.6 66.55 65.07 60.26 63.67 56.27 61.84 65.57 73.18

Pablo Gauna

66

The surface generated with these points is the following.

Figure 5.11 Lday noise surface

5.2.2 Lnight calculation

To calculate the Lnight contour it is necessary to obtain the Lnight indicator in each point the

way shown in (4.3.3). Once those values are obtained they are introduced in the Matlab

program to calculate the noise surface with a linear interpolant. This is the same process as

with the Lday.

The Lnight for each point are the following.

Table 5.6 Lnight noise values for taking-off and landing

Lnight landing surface

As happens in the Lday landing surface it is necessary an approximation around the 2000m

from the threshold due to the program interpolation. The way to solve this problem is the same

Point 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Landing 52.49 58.15 60.67 59.7 51.08 58.79 53.22 56.86 53.16 48.87 54.6 66.5

Taking-Off 63.82 68.44 58.05 59.34 59.17 57.54 54.86 56.14

64.33 63.3


67

as in (5.2.1), introduce more points from an approximation of the central curve of the surface.

The approximation in this case is the following.

Where:

Lnight:: Equivalent continuous sound level for one hour in night period (23:00-07:00)


The new introduced points are

Table 5.7 New points´ values for Lnight

Point X (m) Lnight (dB(A))

1* 200 68.58

2* 800 65.44

3* 1800 61.85

4* 1900 61.58

With these new points in the central curve the Lnight surface for landing is the following.

Figure 5.12 Lnight landing surface with central approximation

Lnight taking-off noise surface

The Lnight surface for taking-off is calculated from the points in table 5.6 using the same

technique as in the landing surface. The taking-off surface is the following.

Pablo Gauna

68

Figure 5.13 Lday taking-off surface

As it happens in the Lday taking-off surface, the central line values are lower than the ones

besides it. The reason is the same as the one exposed before in section (5.2.1).

Lnight noise surface

With the points calculated for taking-off and landing and with the percentages from section

(4.3.2), the Lnight value for each point is calculated according to the following equation.

Where:

Lnight: Equivalent continuous sound level for one hour in night period (23:00-07:00)

LnightT_O: Lnight value for take off maneuver. Table 5.6

LnightL: Lnight value for land maneuver. Table 5.6

Table 5.8 Lnight noise values summary

Point Lnight Land Lnight Take-off Lnight

1 52.49 63.82 59.30

2 58.15 68.44 64.09

3 60.67 58.05 60.03

4 59.7 59.34 59.59


69

5 51.08 59.17 55.30

7 58.79 57.54 58.44

8 53.22 54.86 53.78

9 56.86 56.14 56.65

12 54.6 64.33 60.08

13 66.5 63.3 65.75

In this case the background noise is lower as in the night there is less activity in the streets. It is

normally around 53dB(A). Using the formula (5.4) in the same way as in section (5.2.1) the

results are the following:

Table 5.9 Lnight final values

Point 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 12 13

Lnight 58.14 63.73 59.072 58.52 51.44 56.99 45.96 54.2 59.13 65.51

The representation of the above values with a linear interpolant is the following.

Figure 5.14 Lnight noise surface

5.2.3 Levening calculation

For the Levening case no surfaces are going to be interpolated as they are a transition between

day and night noise levels, but not a representative contour of noise affection. The values in

each point are calculated from the “evening typical hour” the same way as the Lday and Lnight.

In this case the background noise is considered 57 dB(A).The results are the following.

Pablo Gauna

70

Table 5.10 Levening noise values summary

Point Levening Land Levening Take-off Levening Levening without

background noise

1 57.27 66.54 62.38 60.908

2 64.5 71.9 68.22 67.08

3 66.08 67.01 66.38 65.85

4 64.31 67.46 65.52 64.86

5 56.74 66.26 62.05 60.43

7 63.65 65.06 64.12 63.19

8 59.85 61.34 60.35 57.66

9 63.34 62.16 63.01 61.76

12 59.75 69.61 65.33 64.65

13 72.65 71.244 72.27 72.14

5.2.4 Lden

The Lden is the indicator that shows the global noise impact along the 24 hrs of the day. It

depends on the Lday, Levening and on the Lnight according to the formula (4.1).

Where:





The Lden is going to be calculated in each point from the previously calculated Lday, Leve and

Lnight values. With the assumption that all the hours in each period are the “typical hour”, the

equation (5.7) changes to the following.

Where:


Lday: LAeq,1h for “Typical hour day”

Leve: LAeq,1h for “Typical hour evening”

Lnight: LAeq,1h for “Typical hour night”


71

Using this equation in each point the results are the following.

Table 5.11 Lden noise values summary

Points Lday Lnight Leve Lden

1 60,57 58,14 60,91 66,98

2 68,61 63,74 67,88 74,04

3 66,56 59,07 65,85 71,93

4 65,08 58,52 64,86 70,88

5 60,27 51,44 60,43 66,35

7 63,68 56,99 63,19 69,25

8 56,27 45,96 57,67 63,41

9 61,84 54,21 61,77 67,74

12 65,58 59,14 64,65 70,79

13 73,18 65,52 72,14 78,28

The Lden noise surface is the following.

Figure 5.15 Lden noise surface

The approximation used in the previous figure and the introduced points, calculated in the same

way as in section (5.2.1), are the following.

Pablo Gauna

72

Where:

Lden: Lden noise indicator


Table 5.12 New points´ values for Lden

Point X (m) Lden (dB(A))

1* 200 80.56

2* 800 77.31

3* 1800 73.57

4* 1900 73.29

5.3 Contour plot

All the previously calculated surfaces have to be presented over a map of the zone affected to

show the real impact of the overflying planes. For this purpose, and with the help of the

AutoCAD program, the surfaces are presented over a map of the city of Libon. The results are

the following noise contours.

Figure 5.16 Lden measured noise contour


73

Pablo Gauna

74

6. Conclusions & proposal for future study

6.1 “Multiple threshold” noise reduction proposal for further study

As it was shown in section (4.3.2) the majority of the time the area of study is affected by planes

in landing maneuver. This maneuver follows a straight line that starts on the threshold with 3º of

inclination until the FAP (5.1.2), all the planes over the same line.

Smaller planes need shorter distances for taking-off and for landing. The actual runways are

designed for the bigger plane able to operate into them, so for the smaller planes the runway is

bigger than the length they need.

A “multiple thresholds” technique is proposed as a measure to separate from the ground as

much as possible the planes that don‟t need the whole runway to operate by creating another

threshold only usable by those “little” planes. The proposed displacement for the case in study

is of 1200 m.

Figure 6.1 Possible two different landing flight tracks

Taking a look at the traffic in Lisbon, the bigger C type plane (that represents the 67.32% of the

whole traffic) is the A321 which needs a distance about 2000 meters for landing in the worst of

the cases according to its airport planning [29]. Supposing that the rest of the C and the G type

planes, as they are smaller, they can land in that distance, about the 68.32% of the traffic would

be into this measure, leaving the A340 and the D type planes operating with the actual runway

length. Placing the “secondary” threshold at 1200 meters from the actual, the “short” runway

would be of 2605 meters, even bigger than the runway 17/35 (2304 meters) in which C type

planes operate.


75

Figure 6.2 Possible displaced threshold (Source: Google maps)

The displacement of 1200m means that planes overfly 62.8 meters higher the city so a

reduction of noise should be produced over the populated areas in study in this document. The

new noise contour is the same calculated before but displaced a distance near to 1200m (the D

and E type planes continue making the same noise as before).

Figure 6.3 Comparative between noise under selective threshold

Some technical difficulties must be studied to check the availability of this measure. There

should be different lights for both operations of the runway (shot and long), and the ILS has to

be studied in deep so as to know if it is possible to have two different Glide Paths with one

Localizer. Also the controllers and pilots must learn to operate with two thresholds in the same

runway.

Pablo Gauna

76

6.2 Conclusions

The objective of this work was to achieve a method to calculate and plot noise contours around

airports from measures in the street instead calculating them with specific software using data

from the aiport and aircraft manufacturers. For this, it has been used the recommendations from

ICAO, ECAC and SAE for computing contour calculation and some works for measuring

contour calculation.

The proposed method doesn‟t need many measures in each point, it is developed to avoid the

need to measure 24 hours in each calculation point. To analyze the noise for all the day using

the measures made in one part of it, “typical hours” were defined from statistics from the airport

to compound average hours in operation depending on the aircraft type and part of the day.

Using this information, measures were made and according to the appropriate formulation, the

noise levels using the same noise indicators as ANA did in 2006 (Lden) were calculated.

To test the availability of the method a study of the runway 03/21 from Lisbon airport in its west

side was made. There was made 489 measures of overflying planes, more or less 50% of

landing aircrafts and 50% of taking-off ones. The results show a difference between 3-5 dB(A)

higher than the contours published by ANA in 2006 as it is shown in the figure below.

Figure 6.4 Comparison in the longitudinal axis of the ANA´s and measured noise contours

The calculus plane for the INM software, used by ANA, was placed at 114m above the sea level

and all the measures were made under that height. As the measures were made further to the

planes, the sound levels should be lower than the ones calculated by ANA. The study takes

care of the background noise, the different aircraft type, the different periods of the day. This

result shows that more noise is reaching to the city nowadays then the levels predicted by ANA.


77

The problem of noise in Lisbon is not in near or easy solution. The fact of being in the middle of

the city obliges the planes to flyover it and disturb the people living or working there. As it was

shown in section (5.1.1) there is a big list of noise measures implemented to reduce that

affection to the surrounding areas of the airport.

The proposal of selective thresholds shows a reduction between four to one dB(A) in the noise

affection to the city. The implementation of this technique is not complex because there is not

new technology involved and the landing procedures stay nearly the same. The difficulty is to

develop it and teach the personal how to work in that new procedure situation.

Pablo Gauna

78

Bibliography

[1] FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, (1985); “Aviation noise effects”, March 1985.

ADA-154319

[2] BENITO, A. “Impacto ambiental del transporte aereo, Tipos de impactos ambientales”,

2009

[3] HEATHROW AIPORT (2009); “Environmental noise directive, Noise action plan 2010-

2015”, November 2009

[4] ICAO, Intenational Civil Aviation Organization, (1987); “Recommended Method for

Computing Contours around Airports”; Circ. 205-AN/1/25; 11 March 1987

[5] ECAC, European Civil Aviation Conference, (2007); “Report on standard method of

computing noise contours around civil airports”, Doc.29, 2nd

Edition, July 1997

[6] SAE, Society of Automobile Engineers, (1986); “Procedure for the Calculation of

Airplane Noise in the Vicinity of the Airports”, SAE_AIR_1845; March, 1986

[7] ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization, (2008); “Guidance on the Balanced

Approach to aircraft noise management”, Doc.9829; AN/451; Second Edition; 2008

[8] SCHIPHOL AIRPORT:

http://www.schiphol.nl/SchipholGroup/CorporateResponsibility/EnvironmentAndNoise/N

oiseAndDisturbanceReduction.htm (15 December, 2011)

[9] SEATTLE-TACOMA AIRPORT: http://www32.webtrak-lochard.com/WebTrack/sea (15

December, 2011)

[10] ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization, (2009); “Politicas de la OACI sobre

derechos aeroportuarios y por servicios de navegacion aerrea”, Doc. 9082, Octava

Edicion, 2009

[11] OLLERHEAD, J. B. “The CAA Aircraft Noise Contour Model: ANCON Version1”; DORA

report 9120, November 1992

[12] JOPSON, I; DR. RHODES, D; HAVELOCK, P; “Aircraft Noise model validation- How

accurate do we need to be?”; CAA Environmental Research and Consultancy

Department, Kingsway, London

[13] ASENSIO, C; PAVON, I; RUIZ, M; PAGAN, R; RECUERDO, M; “Estimation of

directivity and sound Power levels emitted by aircrafts during taxiing, for outdoor noise

prediction purpose”; Applied Acoustics, Volume 68, Issue 10, Octover 2007, 1263-1279

http://www.schiphol.nl/SchipholGroup/CorporateResponsibility/EnvironmentAndNoise/NoiseAndDisturbanceReduction.htm

http://www.schiphol.nl/SchipholGroup/CorporateResponsibility/EnvironmentAndNoise/NoiseAndDisturbanceReduction.htm

http://www32.webtrak-lochard.com/WebTrack/sea%20(15


79

[14] CLEMENTE, J; GAJA, E; CLEMENTE, G; REIG, A; “Sensitivity of the FAA Integrated

Noise Model to input parameters”; Applied Acoustics, Volume 66, Issue 3, March 2005,

263-276

[15] ASENSIO, C; PAVON, I; RUIZ, M; PAGAN, R; RECUERDO, M; “Aircrafts´ taxi noise.

Sound power level and directivity frequency band results”; Applied Acoustics, Volume

70, Issue 7, July 2009, 986-1008

[16] DAESEUNG CHO; JIN HYEONG KIM; DOUGLAS MANVELL; Noise mapping using

measured noise and GPS data”; Applied Acoustics, Volume 68, Issue 9, September

2007, 1054-1061

[17] STANSFELD, S.A, MATHERSON, M.P; “Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on

health”; British Medical Bulletin 2003; 68; 243-257

[18] COELHO, J.L.B, FERREIRA A.J; “Critérios para análise de relações exposição-impacte

do ruído de infra-estruturas de transporte”; Grupo de acústica e controlo do ruído do

Centro de Análise e Processamento de Sinais (CAPS); December 2009

[19] PUIG, S.J; “Audio digital y MIDI, Guias Monograficas”; Anaya Multimedia, Madrid 1997

[20] ANA,Aeroportos de Portugal; “Aeroporto de Lisboa, Mapa de ruido, Resumo não

técnico”; Março 2007

[21] MAXIM Integrated products; “Quantitative Analysis Yields Objective Measurement for

Audio Amplifier Click and Pop”; Application note 3687; November 29, 2005

[22] ZAPOROZHETS, O.I; TOKAREV, V. I; “Aircraft noise modeling for environmental

assessment around airports”; Applied Acoustics, Volume 55, Issue 2, Octover 1998, 99-

127

[23] OLLERHEAD, J. B. “The CAA Aircraft Noise Contour Model: ANCON Version1”; DORA

report 9120, November 1992

[24] STANSTED AIRPORT (2006); “ANCON Version 2 Model Overview”; Appendix A5; April

2006

[25] ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization (2008); “Environmental protection;

Volume 1; Aircraft noise” Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,

Fifth Edition, July 2008

[26] AIRBUS INDUSTRIES (2003); “Getting grips with aircraft noise” Flight Operations

Support & Line Assistance; Blagnac, France; December 2003

[27] EUROPEAN UNION. Directiva 2002/30/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo

sobre el establecimiento de normas y procedimientos para la introducción de

restricciones operatives relacionadas con el ruido en los aeropuertos comunitarios.

March, 26th 2002

[28] ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization (2004); “Aerodromes desing and

aerodromes operation”; Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,

Fourth Edition, July 2004

[29] AIRBUS INDUSTRIES. Airplane characteristics for Airport Planning for A318, A319,

A320, A321, A330, A300, A310, A340

Pablo Gauna

80

[30] BOEING CO. Airplane characteristics for Airport Planning for B737, B767, B757, B777,

MD80,MD90.

[31] EMBRAER. Airplane characteristics for Airport Planning for E134, E140, E145, E170,

E190, E195.

[32] Decreto-Lei n. 146/2006. Ministério do ambiente, do ordenamento do territorio e do

desenvolvimento regional. 31 July, 2006

[33] ANA, Aeroportos de Portugal (2010); Relatorio anual de estadísticas de tráfego 2009

[34] ANA, Aeroportos de Portugal (2006); Plano de expansão de aeroporto de Lisboa.

November 2006

[35] NAV Portugal (2004), “Noise abatement procedure”; E.P.E. AIC A 012-2004,. July

2004.

[36] AIP Portugal (2011). Standard departure chart- instrument for runway 21. June 2011

[37] AIP Portuga (2011)l. Instrument Approach Chart for runway 03. March 2011

[38] AIP Portugal (2011). Aircraft parking/ Docking chart. June 2011

[39] MINISTÉRIO DO AMBIENTE, DO ORDENAMENTO DO TERRITÓRIO E DO

DESENVOLVIMENTO REGIONAL. Decreto-Lei n.º 9/2007. January 2007


81

Annex I

ANA´s Noise contours

Pablo Gauna

82


83

Pablo Gauna

84


85

Annex II

Measures

Pablo Gauna

86

Point 1

Take off (14/11/2011) Land (15/11/2011)

TIME COMPANY TYPE SEL TIME COMPANY TYPE SEL

1015 TAAG D 93,8 1445 TAP C 83,3

1020 TAP340 E 97 1448 AF C 84,9

1025 TAP C 95,9 1452 KLM C 83,8

1042 TAP MD G 92,7 1458 TAP C 83,7

1049 TAP D 95,4 1502 TAP C 82,7

1055 AF C 91,5 1505 AE C 84,8

1059 Conti D 92,4 1522 TAP C 82,7

1137 - Priv 83,5 1546 TAP 340 84,7

1139 - G 90,7 1550 TAP C 85,2

1202 TAP C 90,9 1603 Luft C 83,2

1220 Luft C 93,8 1909 TAP C 82,2

1226 White D 91,7 1611 TAP C 82

1229 Luft C 90,6 1614 TAP G 78,1

1231 Swiss C 96,8 1638 TAP C 84,3

1247 TAP C 91,8 1645 EASY C 83

1305 TAP C 93 1647 TAP D 84,4

1307 TAP C 91,8 1728 AF C 82,6

1312 - Priv 92 1731 EASY C 82,6

1319 Ib C 91,8 1329 GermanW C 90,5 1335 TAP MD G 87 1347 AF G 83,1 1354 SATA D 96,3


87

Point 2

Take off (09/12/2011) Land (15/11/2011)


1438 TAP C 96,7 1134 Luft C 91,2

1442 TAP G 91,8 1150 TAP C 92,3

1446 Swiss C 98,4 1203 TAP D 94,7

1454 Luft C 101 1207 EASY C 90,2

1457 TAP C 97,6 1211 Blanco C 90,1

1501 TAP C 98,3 1214 SATA C 90,5

1506 TAP C 96,9 1216 TAP G 85

1509 TAP G 91,5 1220 TAP G 85,2

1515 EASY C 98,1 1236 TAP G 85,7

1520 TAP C 97,6 1240 Brusels C 92,4

1522 Priv AB 92,4 1243 TAP G 86,2

1524 TAP C 95,5 1247 Ib C 91,1

1526 TAP C 97,3 1252 AF reg C 85,8

1528 EASY C 97 1259 Luft C 91,1

1534 TAP G 90,8 1300 TAP G 85,4

1536 TAP C 101 1304 TAP C 88,9

1541 TAP C 97,3 1315 Swiss C 91,4

1544 TAP C 97 1319 EASY C 91,6

1549 TAP C 95,5 1321 TAP C 91

1557 AE C 97,3 1322 TAP G 86,3

1606 TAP C 94,7 1326 TAP C 90,4

1608 KLM C 100,5 1329 TAP C 91

1612 TAP C 95,6 1331 Euroatlantic D 94,6

1617 SATA D 99,4 1335 TAP C 91,7

1344 TAP C 90,4

Pablo Gauna

88

Point 3

Take off (13/12/2011) Land (16/11/2011)(18/01/2012)


1032 ??? D 93,4 1421 ??? C 89,5

1043 TAP D 95,4 1422 Atlantic C 91,5

1057 TAP 340 99,7 1424 ?? C 93,3

1103 AF C 88 1431 TAP C 91,3

1120 Brit C 90,4 1435 TAP C 91,3

1125 TAP G 93,4 1444 TAP C 91,1

1133 ??? C 90 1446 KLM C 93,7

1136 EASY C 89,7 1509 TAP C 90

1139 TAP C 90,8 1513 TAP C 90,9

1145 TAP C 88,9 1516 TAP C 91,9

1158 EASY C 90,2 1519 AE C 90,9

1227 Swiss C 91,3 1529 TAP C 91,4

1231 TAP C 90,7 1532 TAP G 87,2

1240 TAP C 90,6 1537 AF C 92,6

1248 SATA D 94,8 1540 AUSTRI C 92

1251 ??? C 89,7 1548 TAP C 90,7

1302 TAP D 95,1 1551 TAP C 92,8

1557 TAP C 91,3

1559 TAP C 92,2

1602 Luft C 91,9

1606 Privado AB 85,9

1609 TAP C 92,6

(18/01/2012)

1021 TAP C 92,3

1032 TAP G 93,7

1038 TAP D 93,9

1048 TAP 340 93,9

1051 EASY C 91,6

1057 TAP C 91,9

1102 Swiss C 92,7

1105 TAP D 95,8

1110 Luft C 91,9

1129 TAP C 92,4

1134 SATA D 96,3


89

Point 4

Take off (12/12/2011) (18/01/2012) Land (17/11/2011)


1453 TAP C 90,6 1552 Luft C 91,1

1457 Luft C 92,3 1554 Ib C 91,5

1500 TAP C 88,7 1556 TAP C 90,8

1503 EASY C 91,5 1601 TAP C 88,5

1508 TAP G 88 1644 EASY C 89,5

1510 TAP C 91,8 1701 TAP C 91,2

1512 TAP C 92,1 1714 EASY C 90,9

1514 TAP C 92,6 1721 TAP C 89,9

1517 TAP C 92 1731 AF C 90,1

1526 TAP C 89,7 1739 TAP D 93,2

1533 TAP C 93,3 1741 EASY C 89,4

1539 TAP G 86,7 1750 TAP G 84,7

1557 TAP D 94,2 1753 STAR C 91,8

1600 ???? C 92 1756 TAP C 90

1604 TAP D 99,2 1759 Privado B 88,3

1611 TAP C 91,2 1801 TAP C 89

1613 ???? C 93,6 1804 TAP C 92,9

1615 TAP D 96,6 1806 Brit C 90

1619 TAP C 91 1809 Blanco C 91,5

1621 TAP C 90,9 1814 EASY C 91,1

(18/01/2012)

1816 EASY C 90

1416 TAP C 93 1820 TAP G 86,7

1421 TAP G 93,4 1824 Lingus C 91,3

1429 TAP G 86,6 1831 TAP C 90,5

1430 TAP C 91,4 1436 TAP C 91,7 1440 Luft C 92,3 1444 TAP C 90,5 1450 TAP C 90,3 1500 TAP C 93,2 1503 ??? C 91,6

*The measure repeated on take-off maneuver the 18th of January was made with the intention of

checking if the non expected contour for take of came from a wrong measure. The results are

similar to the ones measured the 12th of December, so it wasn´t a problem in the measure.

Pablo Gauna

90

Point 5

Take off (18/12/2011) Land (18/11/2011)


1227 Luft C 91,2 1037 STAR D 85,2

1231 Swiss C 92,1 1045 TAP C 82,1

1244 TAP C 93,6 1050 TAP C 82,5

1247 Luft C 89,5 1100 EASY C 82,4

1250 TAP D 95,6 1102 EASY C 82,5

1259 ???? C 93 1105 TAP D 85,1

1302 SATA D 96 1107 TAP G 79,3

1307 TAP G 92,6 1114 TAP D 88,7

1310 Ib C 91,2 1117 TAP C 83,6

1313 ??? C 92,2 1128 Luft C 84,6

1319 Brusels C 94,4 1134 TAP D 86,5

1321 TAP G 84,4 1137 Luft C 83,6

1324 ??? C 91,4 1140 TAP C 83,1

1345 TAP 340 96,1 1142 Swiss C 85

1350 TAP C 92,5 1151 TAP G 78,6

1352 TAP C 93,6 1154 TAP 340 84,3

1355 EASY C 91,1 1157 TAP G 79,1

1200 TAP C 83,2

1203 Brusels C 84,2

1205 Ib C 81,4


91

Point 7

Take off (16/12/2011) Land (21/11/2011)


1342 TAP D 92,4 1410 TAP C 89,4

1345 Priv AB 86,3 1411 TAP C 89,6

1358 TAP G 95,5 1419 STAR D 92,7

1410 TAP C 89,3 1424 TAP C 90,7

1416 German C 88 1427 Priv AB 85,1

1420 TAP C 89,4 1429 TAP C 90,9

1425 ??? C 90,7 1431 TAP C 88,2

1437 TAP C 88,5 1445 TAP C 91,2

1441 TAP G 83,7 1450 TAP C 91

1444 AF G 82,8 1452 TAP G 85,1

1453 TAP C 89,4 1455 STAR C 89

1455 Luft C 91,2 1507 TAP C 87,9

1504 Swiss C 87,7 1530 TAP C 88,4

1507 TAP C 90,7 1538 AE C 90,2

1517 TAP C 88,3 1543 AirBerlin C 91,5

1522 Easy C 87,2 1545 ??? C 89,3

1526 TAP C 88,7 1549 AE C 90,1

1529 TAP C 89,6 1551 TAP C 88,8

1531 TAP C 90,2 1555 TAP C 88,4

1540 EASY C 89,2 1558 Luft C 89,4

1601 KLM C 92,2

1604 TAP 340 90,9

Pablo Gauna

92

Point 8

Take off (15/12/2011) Land (23/11/2011)


1148 TAP G 86,6 1120 Luft C 88,3

1202 TAP C 88,5 1129 SATA D 90

1208 TAP C 87,8 1131 TAP C 87,9

1212 EASY C 86,6 1139 Ib C 86,3

1230 Swiss C 88,1 1156 TAP D 91,9

1235 Luft C 87,4 1200 TAP C 87,3

1242 TAP C 87,4 1202 TAP G 84,6

1248 TAP D 92,5 1206 Brussels C 86,4

1251 TAP 340 94 1210 TAP D 92

1256 TAP C 86,2 1213 TAP C 87,1

1313 TAP G 79,7 1216 German C 84,9

1315 TAP C 81,5 1221 Easy C 86,5

1317 Brussels C 84,8 1224 TAP G 83,9

1340 German C 85,1 1238 TAP G 82

1348 EASY C 86,4 1249 TAP C 88,5

1350 TAP C 87 1300 TAP G 84,3

1355 TAP G 79,5 1309 TAP C 86,6

1413 TAP G 86,1 1315 TAP C 85,7

1419 EASY C 87,5 1317 TAP G 81,3

1424 TAP C 86 1321 TAP C 87,4

1324 TAP C 86,8

1327 TAP C 85,6

1339 Luft C 86,7

1348 TAP C 85,3

1352 TAP D 88,4

1354 TAP C 87,2

1356 TAP C 87


93

Point 9

Take off (15/12/2011) Land (23/11/2011)


1508 TAP C 86,8 1155 Luft C 88,7

1510 TAP G 85,1 1203 Brussels C 90,3

1513 TAP C 88,7 1206 TAP G 86,3

1519 TAP C 89,7 1209 TAP C 89,3

1523 ??? C 87,4 1228 Easy C 89,4

1536 TAP G 82,3 1231 TAP G 87,4

1548 KLM C 89,6 1246 Swiss C 89,8

1558 KLM C 87,6 1248 ?¿? G 84,2

1600 TAP C 88,5 1252 German C 88,2

1607 TAP C 86,4 1255 Luft C 91,6

1609 TAP D 91,6 1301 TAP C 88,3

1616 TAP D 88,1 1308 TAP C 90,3

1618 TAP D 91,6 1313 TAP C 89,7

1626 ??? C 86,6 1315 TAP C 88,9

1627 TAP C 86,4 1323 ?¿? D 94,1

1633 TAP C 88,7 1329 TAP C 89,9

1650 TAP G 88,1 1332 TAP C 89,5

1652 TAP D 91,1 1335 TAP C 90,7

1654 TAP D 92,9 1339 TAP C 90,3

1701 TAP D 91,6 1342 TAP G 85,1

1704 ??? C 88 1345 TAP G 84,8

1349 TAP C 90,7

Pablo Gauna

94

Point 10 Point 11

Land (25/11/2011) Land (25/11/2011)

TIME COMPANY TYPE SEL

1433 TAP C 84,8

1436 TAP C 88,5

1451 TAP C 85,4

1455 TAP G 79,9

1459 TAP C 83,9

1507 TAP C 86

1520 TAP G 80,4

1524 AE C 85,2

1527 TAP C 84,6

1529 AF C 86,6

1532 TAP C 83,5

1537 AirBerlin C 89

1553 TAP C 85,5

1558 TAP C 85,4

1600 TAP C 85,4

1607 Agroar C 86,3

1615 TAP D 81,5

1623 Luft C 84,3

1651 Ib C 86

1716 SATA D 87,6

TIME COMPANY TYPE SEL

1802 Brit C 79,2

1814 AerLingus C 80,9

1819 TAP 340 82,1

1822 Easy C 80,8

1826 TAP C 80,9

1828 TAP C 81,9

1831 Easy C 80,9

1833 TAP G 77,1

1836 TAP C 82,1

1839 ¿?¿ C 80,5

1842 TAP C 81,6

1845 TAP C 80,7

1848 TAP G 75,9

1852 TAP C 81

1855 Easy C 81,1

1857 Easy C 81,8

1901 TAP C 81,2

1903 AE C 82

1918 ¿?¿ D 82,3

1946 TAP G 76,5


95

Point 12

Take off (12/12/2011) Land (19/12/2011)


1230 Luft C 92,5 1127 Luft C 86,7

1233 Swiss C 98,5 1129 Swiss C 88,4

1235 TAP C 94,3 1132 TAP C 84,5

1238 Priv AB 85,3 1136 TAP D 89,5

1246 IB C 93,8 1147 SATA C 86

1249 SATA D 100,7 1206 TAP C 84,4

1254 EASY C 94,1 1208 Swiss C 89,3

1302 Priv AB 84,7 1216 TAP G 79,5

1305 TAP C 92,7 1224 Brus C 86,9

1311 TAP C 94,5 1229 EASY C 85,4

1317 TAP G 87,4 1236 German C 84,3

1319 GermanW C 93,8 1249 TAP C 85,5

1323 ??? C 98,8 1306 TAP C 84,4

1340 EASY C 92,1 1310 AF G 78,9

1345 TAP C 95,7 1314 TAP G 81,8

1348 SATA D 98 1320 TAP C 86,5

1351 AF C 87,3 1334 TAP G 80,3

1353 TAP C 94,5 1345 TAP G 82,2

1400 TAP C 94 1347 TAP C 84,2

1402 TAP C 93,7 1350 TAP G 80,5

1352 TAP D 87,4

1356 TAP C 84,9

Pablo Gauna

96

Point 13

Take off (12/12/2011) Land (19/12/2011)

TIME COMPANY TYOE SEL TIME COMPANY TYPE SEL

1558 TAP C 96,3 1029 TAP C 96,8

1603 TAP D 102,8 1033 Priv AB 96,5

1606 TAP C 96,7 1044 TAP C 98,8

1608 KLM C 94,8 1046 TAP C 97,4

1610 TAP C 92,9 1051 TAP G 93,9

1611 TAP G 92 1054 EASY C 98

1618 AE C 95,3 1056 TAP D 99,7

1620 TAP C 93,6 1059 TAP D 100,5

1621 ??? C 94,3 1114 ??? C 100,7

1630 TAP C 94 1121 Luft C 99,3

1639 TAP D 101 1126 TAP C 97,7

1644 TAP D 101 1129 EASY C 99

1649 TAP C 93,7 1132 TAP D 102,1

1653 IB C 91 1136 TAP D 102,4

1655 TAP D 100,6 1140 Luft C 98

1657 TAP D 101,1 1142 TAP D 100,9

1659 Luft C 97,6 1144 SATA C 98,3

1720 TAP G 95,2 1146 IB C 99,7

1730 EASY C 95,8 1149 TAP C 99,3

1735 EASY C 97,8 1159 TAP G 92,7

1744 TAP G 88,5


97

Annex III

2009 ANA Statistics

Pablo Gauna

98


99

engenharia civil - ulisboa · pablo gauna 2 acknowledgments to my parents, they have been the most...

Documents