Presented to:

By:

Date:

Federal Aviation

Administration

Federal Aviation

Administration

Aircraft Technology 

Modeling 

and Assessment 

Projects

REDAC E&E Subcommittee

Arthur Orton

8/30/2016
Federal Aviation

Administration

High Level Objectives

• Model aircraft 

technologies 

at a physicsbased level

• Assess 

technology 

combinations

• Identify fleetwide benefits

Subsystem 

Technology 

Impacts

Technology 

Effects on 

Vehicle

Fleet Level 

Implications

+

+

Single-Aisle

Regional Jet

Large Twin-Aisle

Assess the potential of aircraft technologies to meet our 

aviation environmental goals 

Twin-Aisle

Very Large Aircraft

2
Federal Aviation

Administration

Projects Supporting This Objective

PARTNER Project 36 – CLEEN I Tech Assessment

• Effort with GT to model the CLEEN I technologies and assess their 

benefits

• Funded 2010-2014

• Completed vehicle and fleet level assessment of majority of the 

CLEEN I technologies. 

• Public final report released February 2016.

PARTNER Project 43 – Analysis of Mission Specification Changes

• Effort with GT, MIT, Stanford to assess fuel burn reductions resulting 

from changes in future aircraft design from mission specification 

changes

• Funded 2011-2013

3
Federal Aviation

Administration

Projects Supporting This Objective (Contd.)

ASCENT Project 10 – Broad Assessment of Scenarios

• Effort with GT, Purdue, and Stanford to examine a broad set of future 

aircraft technology scenarios and technology’s ability to meet our goals 

for fuel burn, emissions, and noise from aviation

• Gather expert opinion on assumptions that drive demand, fleet 

evolution, and technology

• Funded August 2014 through May 2017

• Used as a vehicle to complete CLEEN I technology modeling and 

provide final update to assessment

ASCENT Project 37 – CLEEN II System Level Assessment

• Effort with GT to model the funded CLEEN II technologies and assess 

their benefits

• Initiated 8/2015

4
Federal Aviation

Administration

PARTNER 36 – CLEEN I Assessment

• Georgia Tech exchanged proprietary data with CLEEN 

companies to accurately represent their technologies at the 

subsystem and vehicle level

• Vehicle-level assessments of technologies as applied across size 

classes (kept limited rights)

• Fleet-level assessments of the CLEEN technologies benefits, as 

well as complementary likely N+1 and N+2 technologies 

• Technology vehicles informed NextGen Goals Analysis and 

Climate Action Plan report

• Public final report released February 2016

• Final update to results conducted under ASCENT 10 – final 

CLEEN technologies captured and fleet-level noise assessment 

added – SHOWN HERE

PARTNER 36

CLEEN I

PARTNER 43

Mission Spec. Changes

ASCENT 10

Broad Assessment

ASCENT 37

CLEEN II

5
Federal Aviation

Administration

Technology Scenario Definitions

• Before defining specific technology packages FAA & GT jointly developed four 

scenarios

• Each scenario subdivided into N+1 and N+2 vehicles/technologies

• Vehicles phased into fleet using retirement and deployment schedule assumptions 

Scenario Description

Fixed Technology 

(Reference)

Continue to replace retired aircraft with best-in-class 

current in-production; use current in-production through 

2050 for new aircraft

Evolutionary ‘Normal’ technology evolution

Conservative inclusion of CLEEN technologies in N+1

Aggressive Represents higher rate of technology development

Includes all CLEEN Techs in N+1

Aggressive w/o 

CLEEN

Identical to aggressive with all CLEEN technologies

removed – (Can be compared to Aggressive to identify 

CLEEN impact)

PARTNER 36

CLEEN I

PARTNER 43

Mission Spec. Changes

ASCENT 10

Broad Assessment

ASCENT 37

CLEEN II

6
Federal Aviation

Administration

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Fleet Fuel Burn Normalized to 2006

Year

Fixed Technology

EV

AG-C

AG

Fleet Fuel Burn Results

Technology vehicles informed 

Goals Analysis and thereby the 

Climate Action Plan report

PARTNER 36

CLEEN I

PARTNER 43

Mission Spec. Changes

ASCENT 10

Broad Assessment

ASCENT 37

CLEEN II

7

Aggressive

Aggressive w/o 

CLEEN

Evolutionary

CLEEN-funded 

technologies 

cumulatively 

save 24 billion 

gallons by 2050. 

-22%

-26%

-30%

Reductions 

relative to fixed 

technology

-7%

-10%

Reductions 

relative to fixed 

technology
Federal Aviation

Administration

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Fixed Technology

AG

AG-C

EV

Fleet LTO NOx Results

NOx difference driven by CLEEN NOx 

reduction technologies

Held near 2020 levels with CLEEN tech

PARTNER 36

CLEEN I

PARTNER 43

Mission Spec. Changes

ASCENT 10

Broad Assessment

ASCENT 37

CLEEN II

8

Aggressive

Aggressive w/o 

CLEEN

Evolutionary
Federal Aviation

Administration

Technology insertion 

scenarios reduced contour 

area below 2010 in spite of 

nearly 2x increase in 

operations

PARTNER 36

CLEEN I

PARTNER 43

Mission Spec. Changes

ASCENT 10

Broad Assessment

ASCENT 37

CLEEN II

9 Nautical Miles (nmi)

Nautical Miles (nmi)

Fixed Technology

2010

Evolutionary

Aggressive

Aggressive w/o CLEEN

Fleet Noise Results - 2050 65 DNL Contour
Federal Aviation

Administration

PARTNER 43 – Mission Specification Changes

Motivation: Potential exists for fuel burn reductions resulting from changes in future aircraft design with different mission 

specifications

Objectives: Evaluate the potential of this approach to reduce fuel burn and 

aviation’s environmental impact

• Quantify the system-level impacts of mission specification changes in 

future aircraft including:

• Range / Payload capabilities

• Cruise speed / altitude

• Wing span

• Understand impact on airline operations / economics

• System-level cost / benefit analyses

• Impact on infrastructure, NAS operations, and relationship with NextGen

ConOps

PARTNER 36

CLEEN I

PARTNER 43

Mission Spec. Changes

ASCENT 10

Broad Assessment

ASCENT 37

CLEEN II

10
Federal Aviation

Administration

PARTNER 43 Conclusions

• Reduced cruise Mach # has the potential to reduce fuel burn for all 

aircraft classes (5%-10%)

• Reduced design range has significant fuel burn reduction effect (5-10%+) in the longer range aircraft but it is not very effective in 

shorter range (RJ, SA) vehicles

• Span increases are ineffective for SA, LTA, VLA, and provide only 

modest improvements for STA and RJ. Significant improvements 

(>10%) from span increases require unconventional configurations.

• Combinations of Mach, range, and span can further increase 

benefits.

PARTNER 36

CLEEN I

PARTNER 43

Mission Spec. Changes

ASCENT 10

Broad Assessment

ASCENT 37

CLEEN II

11
Federal Aviation

Administration

ASCENT 10 Overview

Objective: Define range of scenarios that bound the demand for future aviation 

activity and assess the effects of different fleet composition and aircraft 

technology on fuel burn, emissions, and noise from aviation

• Evaluate broad set of future scenarios out to 2050, showing potential 

benefits of technology on fuel burn, emissions, and noise

• Provide modeling and assessment mechanism for aircraft technology

• Support NextGen Goals Analysis, other analyses

Approach:

1. Develop a set of harmonized fleet assumptions for use in future fleet 

assessments; 

– Workshops/consensus building among academia, government, industry

2. Model advanced aircraft technologies and advanced vehicles expected to 

enter the fleet through 2050; while

– Leveraging, heavily previous modeling work in CLEEN, NASA programs – and 

filling gaps as necessary for scenarios developed in (1)

3. Perform vehicle and fleet level assessments based on input from the FAA 

and the results of (1) and (2).

Studies are performed by each university team using in-house expertise and 

tools in complementary areas. 

12

PARTNER 36

CLEEN I

PARTNER 43

Mission Spec. Changes

ASCENT 10

Broad Assessment

ASCENT 37

CLEEN II
Federal Aviation

Administration

Workshop Approach

• Fleet Workshop 1 – May 14, 2015

– Goal: Determine what defines a world view or scenario 

– Feedback on descriptors (variables, ranges, and importance)

– Bring forward initial worldviews for comment

• Fleet Workshop 2 – August 27, 2015

– Goal: Gather information to select specific worldviews/scenarios of interest

– Feedback on technology insertion opportunities and their timing, aircraft life, production 

rates

– Feedback on proposed worldviews and scenarios

• Technology Workshop(s) 1 – June 10-11, 2015

– Goal: Identify technology maturation and availability for a broad range of technology 

areas (e.g. wing design, engine core noise)

– Feedback on examples of 1st/2nd/3rd generation technologies

– Provide specific examples of technologies for feedback

• Technology Workshop 2 – February 16, 2016

– Goal: Consensus on technology evolution scenarios

– Feedback on specific technology impacts and maturation rates

Participants thus far: The U.S. Air Force, Airports Council International – North America, 

Booz Allen Hamilton, Boeing, Department of Transportation Volpe Center, Embraer, FAA 

Office of Environment and Energy, FAA Office of Aviation Policy & Plans, General Electric, 

Georgia Tech, Honeywell, Lufthansa, Mitre, NASA, Pratt & Whitney, Purdue, Rolls-Royce, 

Stanford, Textron Aviation and Virginia Tech.

13

PARTNER 36

CLEEN I

PARTNER 43

Mission Spec. Changes

ASCENT 10

Broad Assessment

ASCENT 37

CLEEN II
Federal Aviation

Administration

Accomplishments and Next Steps

• Have used workshop feedback to generate key scenarios and their 

assumptions

– Obtained input on factors that drive demand, fleet evolution

– Established technology assumptions in many individual technical domains

– Mapped these areas together into cohesive future scenarios

• Scenarios include:

– Current trends in demand and fleet evolution, with deltas provided by technology 

development

– Environmental bounding scenarios – driving parameters at limits

– High demand scenarios – delta effects of technologies

– Low demand scenarios – delta effects of technologies

– Noise limiting scenarios (hypothetical)

• Will share scenarios and supporting assumptions publicly for 

leveraging in other government, industry, or academic analyses

• Beginning analysis of scenarios with our team’s tools:

– Vehicles: EDS, SUAVE

– Fleet: GREAT, FLEET

• Planned to complete analysis and reporting by May 2017

14

PARTNER 36

CLEEN I

PARTNER 43

Mission Spec. Changes

ASCENT 10

Broad Assessment

ASCENT 37

CLEEN II
Federal Aviation

Administration

ASCENT 37 – CLEEN II Assessment 

Following similar model to PARTNER 36: 

– Exchange of proprietary data with CLEEN II companies to accurately 

represent their technologies at the subsystem and vehicle level

– Vehicle and fleet-level assessment of CLEEN II and other 

complementary technologies impacts to fuel burn, emissions, and noise

– Will leverage ASCENT 10 scenario development for demand, fleet 

evolution assumptions

– More involvement by FAA with in-house use of tools. Divide and conquer 

modeling with GT to cover 8 companies. 

Progress:

– Georgia Tech has established necessary NDAs with companies for data 

exchange

– Conducted initial modeling discussions with each CLEEN II company, 

planning types of data to be exchanged, availability, timeline

– Results are being used to map out the next 4 years of effort

15

PARTNER 36

CLEEN I

PARTNER 43

Mission Spec. Changes

ASCENT 10

Broad Assessment

ASCENT 37

CLEEN II
Federal Aviation

Administration

Summary

• Technology assessment efforts are well coordinated 

and linked

• ASCENT 10’s scenarios will inform CLEEN II 

assessment, Goals Analysis and Climate Action Plan

• Work is developing and improving analytical tools

• Analyses are advancing our understanding of how 

technologies reduce noise, fuel burn, emissions and 

their impacts

• Work is helping us understand the potential of aircraft 

technologies to meet our aviation environmental goals 

16