PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION, WHICH IS PROPRIETARY TO THE RETROFIT CONSORTIUM. NEITHER THIS DOCUMENT NOR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL BE USED, DUPLICATED OR COMMUNICATED BY ANY MEANS TO ANY THIRD PARTY, IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE RETROFIT CONSORTIUM THIS RESTRICTION LEGEND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR OBLITERATED ON OR FROM THIS DOCUMENT D4.1 – Report on proposed future retrofit programs WP / Task N°: D4.1 Lead Contractor (deliverable responsible): FS Due date of deliverable: 31/03/2011. Actual submission date: 04/11/2011. Report Period: 6 month □ 12 month □ 18 month □ Period covered: from: Month 2 to: Month 7 Grant Agreement number: 265867 Project acronym: RETROFIT Project title: Reduced Emissions of Transport aircraft Operations by Fleetwise Implementation of new Technology Funding Scheme: Support Action Start date of the project: 01/11/2010 Duration: 16 months Project coordinator name, title and organisation: M. Knegt, Fokker Services Tel: +31 252 627211 Fax: E-mail: [email protected]Project website address:
24
Embed
D4.1 – Report on proposed future retrofit · PDF fileproprietary rights statement this document contains information, which is proprietary to the retrofit consortium. neither this
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION, WHICH IS PROPRIETARY TO THE RETROFIT CONSORTIUM. NEITHER THIS
DOCUMENT NOR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL BE USED, DUPLICATED OR COMMUNICATED BY ANY MEANS
TO ANY THIRD PARTY, IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE RETROFIT
CONSORTIUM THIS RESTRICTION LEGEND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR OBLITERATED ON OR FROM THIS DOCUMENT
D4.1 – Report on proposed future retrofit programs
WP / Task N°: D4.1
Lead Contractor (deliverable responsible): FS
Due date of deliverable: 31/03/2011.
Actual submission date: 04/11/2011.
Report Period: 6 month □ 12 month □ 18 month □
Period covered: from: Month 2 to: Month 7
Grant Agreement number: 265867
Project acronym: RETROFIT
Project title: Reduced Emissions of Transport aircraft Operations by Fleetwise Implementation of new Technology
Funding Scheme: Support Action
Start date of the project: 01/11/2010 Duration: 16 months
Project coordinator name, title and organisation: M. Knegt, Fokker Services
The RETROFIT project analyses the possibilities and attractiveness of retrofitting new technical solutions into the large existing fleet of commercial airliners. A new generation of airliners is only at the horizon. Existing aircraft still have a long life to serve, whereas the operational environment is changing. Airlines are confronted with emission trading limits, new noise regulations, increasing fuel prices, new safety and security demands, new ATM environment where older aircraft cannot comply with the new ATM standards, and passenger expectations of enjoying the highest levels of comfort possible.
The project first addresses the reference group requirements and also the consortium member’s interests by investigating current and future technology options to retrofit existing aircraft. Next, it addresses the need to perform additional research to make retrofits attractive as well as the question if specific research activities should be integrated in the EC framework programs. It also makes a cost-benefit analysis based on existing airline fleets and potential applications of new technical solutions.
1.2 Background
The European aeronautical industries and their supply chains, the research centres, and the universities are continuously developing, integrating and validating new technologies and processes in order to ensure industrial competitiveness in answering the needs of its customers and of the European society.
Aeronautical research and technology development has been stimulated for many years by the European Commission through Framework Programmes. The Transport Programme in the 6th and 7th Framework funds a large number of projects addressing the need for more environmentally friendly, passenger friendly, and cost effective air transport, involving both small and targeted (i.e., level 1) projects and integrated (i.e., level 2) projects. In addition, the public-private joint technology initiatives Clean Sky and SESAR have started. There are also numerous national programmes in the member states also stimulating the development of aeronautical technologies and processes.
The fleet-wise application of the new technologies and processes through retrofits would enable societal and economic benefits earlier and on a much larger scale, since a large portion of the future transport fleet will be aircraft that are in service today.
The project, and in particular work package 4, refines the opportunities for retrofitting that existing and new technologies offer as in the “initial long list”. The inventory includes input from literature investigation, research knowledge, as well as inputs from experts in several technology areas.
The wishes and input of all of the consortium members have been sought to give a balanced impression of the available technology. This combined with a realistic knowledge of certification requirements involving new technology and the risks involved has resulted in a close scrutiny by the members.
In keeping with the Co-operation document ECGA no 265867 all of the initial aspects listed in the scope have been incorporated in the initial long list, these possible technologies have been thoroughly scrutinised to produce this proposal for future retrofit programs.
One of the main drivers is the observation that airframes with high remaining cycles are retired due to outdated engines, instruments or cabins. To extend the useful lives of these airframes is ultimately the goal of this project. Bearing that in mind it is also expected that current practices and their drivers as represented by existing re-engining projects and winglet programmes will be considered a key element of this study and addressed accordingly.
1.3 Purpose of this document
This document contains the results of the assessment and profiles the systems selected for further cost benefit analysis.
The scope of the analysis of is to identify technically and economically viable technologies for retrofits. This is in accordance with the WP3 objectives and the task 4.1 description (‘In order to direct the inventory towards retrofit applicability the inventory will include an assessment of the potential for application in retrofit’). The prime purpose is to bring the application of technologies in retrofits to a cost-benefit analysis, to allow an assessment for the possible industry consortia participants and the estimated impact thereof.
1.4 About this document
By using the guidelines of the European commission the following areas were identified as being important to the seventh framework programme:
• Environmental performance;
• Cost-effectiveness of the aircraft;
• Operational improvements;
• Passenger and Crew well being (safety, comfort).
The following aspects were further identified by the consortium partners and the stakeholders during the initial retrofit orientation as being important to airlines and aircraft owners:
• Emission trading limits;
• New noise rules;
• Increasing fuel prices;
• New safety and security demands;
• New ATM environment where older aircraft cannot comply with new ATM standards;
• Passenger expectations to enjoy the highest level of comfort as possible.
To provide a matrix of technologies that could be considered for RETROFIT it was decided to group these in the following technology areas (cf. [Retrofit-D25]):
• Re-engining: engine replacement and modifications to reduce emissions and noise, and to improve fuel and cost efficiency;
• Alternative fuels: to reduce emissions (e.g., reduce net CO2 emissions and reduce SO2 emissions due to reduction or elimination of sulphur contents of current aviation fuel), costs and dependence on fossil fuels;
• Aerodynamics: reduction of drag and noise;
• Cabin: improvements of passenger comfort and crew workspace / environment during flight (cabin, cockpit), e.g., thermal, noise, ride comfort, global / local solutions, design;
• Structures: New / Replacement of components and/or parts (benefits per performance, weight, maintenance, costs), Structural Health Monitoring technologies and solutions (sensing networks, software, optimisation) - not integrated to main avionics;
• Avionics: New systems to improve flight efficiency in current and future ATM environments;
• Equipment: to improve flight efficiency, to manage energy, to reduce weight;
• Security & Safety technology: to improve on-board security and safety of aircraft and passengers;
• Other: Out of the box approaches, technology for passenger efficiency, life cycle costs.
1.5 Intended readership
This report is targeted towards the project consortium only. It may be used for the EC as background information for the identified retrofit needs.
2 Consortium Partners Selection from retrofit long list
2.1 Selection as received from consortium partners
The consortium decided to allow each organisation to provide a list of retrofit technologies that were considered of interest to them as potential retrofit solutions.
To try to ensure that the goals of RETROFIT are achievable it was decided to promote technology with TRL levels of 6 and above to produce realistic solutions. All other technology that requires further investigation or development has been highlighted in report D2.2 of RETROFIT.
The chosen technologies are presented in this report in terms of the following categories:
- Technology;
- Economic benefit;
- Environmental benefit;
- Costs/technical risks;
- Result/comment.
To give a summary of the consortium members proposed technologies all of the proposals have been included even the ones requiring RTD and included in recommendations to D2.5 of RETROFIT.
The consortium members delivered their specific selections; this is shown by the keyword for each partner in the category technology. After version 0.1 the lead contractor of D4.2 proposed a number of technologies to be used as the cost-benefit choices. Within the consortium consensus was reached regarding the proposals and these are to be found in para. 3.1 of this report. The following list gives an indication of the interests and areas of expertise of the consortium members:
CC3: Alternative fuels / Use of synthetic fuel (GTL, CTL) or bio-fuel as "drop in" jet fuel in existing engines, without modifications.
Benefits are: increase of engine
performance, flying longer distances
due to energy “content”, reduces CO,
NOx emissions.
Reduction of pollutive
emissions.
RTD needed into reduction of required system modifications; certification and testing with respect to short-term and long-term effects; scaling up and cost-effective production;
Optimisation of fuel control system; monitoring for maintenance.
Once certified (ASTM std. group), can
be used as "drop in" fuel without
modifications.
(Details in corresponding entry in the long list and in D2.2 section 3.2.)
Bio-fuels in particular considered potentially
attractive at the workshop.
CO1: IATA and ATAG are promoting the second generation of bio-fuels, several tests are underway and it is now just a question of time before bio-fuels will be formally approved. First generation bio-fuels deplete the land resources and contribute to the “greenhouse effects”. Bio-fuels such as palm oil, tallow and rapeseed critically need land normally used for forestry or food production which impairs their actual sustainability.
At this moment in time with the fossil
fuel prices so much lower than bio-
fuel the economic benefit is not
apparent.
Some first generation bio-
fuel properties actually
create more pollutants than
fossil fuel due to their
chemical composition.
Second generation bio-fuels
however do not have these
properties and will result in a
major reduction of CO2 and
NOX.
High cost of production at this time mean
that there is considerable financial risk
for airlines at this time. Biological -
Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK)
is being cleared for certification by the
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) which has already
confirmed that there are no more
technical issues for certification.
Self sustainability of bio-fuel production methods
using the second generation of production
commodities of Algae, Jatropha and Cametina is
widely expected around 2020. At that time the
yield should be approximately 1% of the total fuel
There are systems available for almost the complete
Airbus and Boeing range of aircraft. Costs are
relatively low. The technology is mature and tested.
ROI could be positive. Systems are relatively simple to
install and situate.
These are some of the benefits:
No frozen emergency exits or frozen
emergency slides, no water or ice in
insulation blankets, reduced change rate
and sustained performance. No fungus
or bacteria build up. Less corrosion /
electrical problems. No "rain in plane" or
wet seats / carpets. No brown or fogging
windows. Boeing, 787 first model to be
designed using zonal dryers with
moisture control.
CC4: Cabin Operation, Functioning, Safety
Network and CMS (hard-lined or wireless).
Increased-Full aircraft cabin monitoring, management, control primarily for maintaining-improving i. travel environment offering vs. holistic and power usage rationalization, ii. Cabin safety (fire-smoke safety, air quality- contaminants, articles integrity-see Boeing recent introduced-retrofit RFID network solution),
iii. Cabin security (visual, audio, etc).
One integrated network vs. separate stand-alone networks (current) provides common base (reduced development time and costs), scalability, and reduced V&V requirements for multiple systems applications-services introduction.
Increased aircraft reliability.
Increased aircraft functionalities-services and safety (either for operator and/or passenger).
Increased pro-active maintenance capability and scheduling.
Reduction in weight (% of reduction depending on data and power transmission technique(s) employed).
Technical risks in so far as sub-components and systems are near negligible. Advances in technologies and robustness for sensing, actuation articles already achieved and available on market. Costs in so far as these components are concerned vary from low-cost bulk produced to medium-price interchangeable.
Technical risk in so far as network(s) configuration, i.e., in the form of integrated multi-functional networks for reduction in size and complexity are near negligible. This is addressed by “Other” category solutions with respect to advancements in ICT design tools (trade-off design), middleware for on-board sensory, actuation processing and control, and network maintenance management.
Technical risks exist in so far as specific power and data transmission mode is concerned. Technical risks are lower for integrated hard-wired solutions (POD, DOP, etc); however risks are higher with respect to wireless transmission solutions – mainly due to potential interference and certification issues.
CC3: Structures / Exchange of secondary structures
by composite parts for weight reduction.
Improving basic efficiency of
flight, reduction of weight and
fuel burn.
Reduction of airport
noise and pollutive
emissions.
Costs required for integration and
validation of new parts (RTD and/or
engineering).
High costs for Engine cowling made
from composites (with micro
perforations).
(Details in long list entry ‘Exchange of secondary structures by composite parts for weight reduction’ as well as other entries concerning such replacements, such as: ‘Engine cowling made from composites (with micro perforations)’;
‘Composite fan casing’; ‘High lift devices’; ‘Use of composite interior [panels] with natural fibres and micro perforations’; ‘Replace / improve landing gear (& components)’.
Especially recommended for fatigue-sensitive parts. For aluminium sheets Glare is an alternative.
CC5: Exchange of secondary structures by
composite parts for weight reduction: new interior,
carbon floor panels, composite fairings.
Payload/range improvement.
Small fuel burn gain (0.05%
per 100 kg structure
exchanged on100 seater).
Probably zero (Including
premature recycling
effects).
Low technical risks, cost effectiveness
strongly dependent on particular item
and aircraft.
Could be cost effective with sufficiently large scale
replacement programme.
CO1: Exchange of secondary structures by
composite parts for weight reduction: there have
been tremendous improvements in durable
lightweight composite and it is expected to improve
further in the coming years.
At this time the application of
advanced composites is a
limited design feature of
newer aircraft as composites
are expensive to design and
produce.
Difficult to quantify as the
applications are not self
evident at this time.
Low technical risk. Application of
composite in areas of the aircraft that
are only accessible during C or D
checks is a limiting factor.
The development and implementation of the use of
these technologies is only on a limited scale at this
moment, the idea of major contemporary application
is relatively immature.
CO1: In-flight or on ground Advanced Health
Monitoring Systems (AHMS) measure the relative
“safety” of systems and also measure the structural
safety of the airframe. In the future AHMS will be
central to maintenance planning for aircraft and the
optimizing of the required maintenance.
Specialist monitoring with the
ability to dictate optimum
performance and efficiency
has the ability to reduce
emissions and optimize
maintenance efforts.
Optimizing emissions
and planned
maintenance will reduce
the effect on the
environment.
High cost and high technical risk as the
systems are not mature and need more
research. In individual systems there are
dedicated units that monitor systems or
groups of like systems, not able to direct
aircraft maintenance requirements.
New Aircraft are incorporating the latest innovations
with regards to advanced systems. Unfortunately
older aircraft are often not equipped to incorporate
CC5: Taxi by internal power "Wheeltug" (powering nose wheel
with an electric motor).
Taxi fuel reduction. Increased weight of
the system may lead to cruise fuel burn
penalties.
Reduced Emissions during
taxi (low throttle settings =
high VOC).
Probably low risk. Promising, system would be relatively
common for different aircraft reducing
NRC.
CO1: Taxi by internal power is being developed by Wheeltug, Meisser-Bugatti, Honeywell-Safran and Taxibot. Three different approaches are being explored; one system centred on the nose wheel bogey, others on the main gear bogey and a third where a tug is controlled by the pilot of the aircraft. All of the systems enable forward and reverse motion.
CO1: The Shear Thickening Fluid (STF) bag, developed for single aisle aircraft; named the Fly-Bag, is designed to be filled with passenger luggage and then placed in the hold. Then, if there were a bomb in the luggage somewhere - and it exploded during the flight - the resulting blast would be absorbed by the bag, preventing damage to the plane.
There is no obvious direct return on
investment, how-ever all damage
containment preventing injury and or
loss of life is beyond fiscal boundaries.
Passenger safety is increased
by this technology and it will
be used to combat levels of
explosives that are not
normally detectable by
standard sensors.
Certification of the Fly-Bag is expected to take one to two years. Cost would depend on a range of variables, including the structure of the plane. Hardened luggage containers (HULD) have been developed, but are heavier and more costly than conventional equivalents.
STFs are unusual in that they increase in viscosity in response to impact. In general, STFs are colloidal systems that are dispersions of hard particles in a liquid. Under normal circumstances, the particles repel each other slightly. But under sudden impact, the extra energy in the system overwhelms these repulsive forces, causing the particles to clump together.
CC4: Automatic Fire-Suppression System (FSS). The system is designed to improve safety during international flights overwater. One such system uses infrared thermal sensors to detect heat and upon discovering heat, pierces the carrying container with a foam injection nozzle and fills the container with foam restricting the fire, providing containment and finally extinguishes the fire.
Negative effect on performance by
installation of detection system and
foam injector apparatus. Crew and
cargo safety is increased. How-ever all
damage containment preventing injury
and or loss of life is beyond fiscal
boundaries.
The foam used in the system
is an argon-based
biodegradable and non
corrosive. Resulting in a
status-quo on the
environmental side.
The technology risk is minimal as the system is already certified. With this proprietary system the costs revolve around the intellectual property rights, the down time and the estimated 700 man hours per aircraft.
The system certification covers the classes: A - paper or lumber,
B - flammable fluids including gasoline or kerosene.
D - Combustible metals that burn at extremely high temperatures.
CC4: Lightweight surveillance system that enables crew members to monitor cockpit access, cabin and cargo areas.
Minimum weight penalty while
improving aircraft safety.
No benefit. As the technology used is based around software the need for extra hardware is negated. An ECB, cabin terminal or other portable device can be used.
This application is part of Lufthansa Technik’s “NICE” cabin management and entertainment suite. All segments are modular and the system structure is mature having been initially certified in 2003.
The results from the assessment are not at all surprising as the most mature technology is highlighted. Technology is indicated by the need to reduce engine emissions whether CO2, NOx or noise. The next step in this project is the “Report on Cost – Benefit Analyses” which will result in a ”Report on Industrial Consequences” from the proposals for Cost –Benefit Analysis.
With regards to proposed technologies covered by retrofit one of the main drivers is the current practice represented by re-engining projects and winglet / sharklets programmes as noted in the objectives of project RETROFIT.
While alternative fuel (bio-fuel) is a definite future technology and is being promoted by the European Commission parallel to the retrofit program, it falls outside of the project objectives to define and investigate different options to upgrade existing aircraft to be environmentally friendly and passenger friendly.
The proposed replacement of third world old aircraft with modern aircraft is excluded from the retrofit program as the benefit is secondary. The support and assistance of third world countries could possibly be provided as a form of development aid or an initiative from the European Investment Bank, also it has been suggested that the employment in European MRO companies could receive a major boost by being part of consortia preparing and performing the work to make the aircraft conform to the service standard.
3.1 Proposals for Cost – Benefit Analysis
To choose the three retrofit candidate cost-benefit technologies a proposal was made by the lead contractor and agreed upon by the members of the consortium. All of the technologies were considered including but not exclusively the following:
- Replace whole engines with new ones;
- Combustor / high pressure system performance and durability upgrade;
- Alternate fuels, not considered retrofit by consortium;
- Nacelle serrated trailing edges;
- Active or passive suction laminar flow;
- Winglets / Sharklets for Boeing 737, Airbus A320;
- Riblets in paint surface and other drag reducing coatings;
- Zonal dryers;
- Exchange of secondary structures by composite parts for weight reduction;
- Cabin Operation, Functioning, Safety Network and CMS (hard lined or wireless);
- In-flight or on ground Advanced Health Monitoring Systems (AHMS);
- FDM monitoring & improvement: Advanced flight data analysis;
- The Shear Thickening Fluid (STF) luggage Fly-bag;
- Automatic Fire-Suppression System (FSS);
- Lightweight surveillance system for cockpit access, cabin or cargo surveillance;
- Aircraft exchange.
3.2 The three chosen proposals
The agreed proposals to be given a cost-benefit analysis by the lead contractor of D4.2 are:
- Avionics for SESAR compatibility.
Reasoning: If only new aircraft would be suitable for the future SESAR ATM concept the full benefit will only be reaped when much of the current fleet in Europe would be replaced. This could take 10 years or more. With retrofitting the benefits for the community will be available much earlier. The cost-benefit analysis should indicate under what conditions retrofitting of existing aircraft would be cost effective, and how the EU could stimulate retrofitting if the direct benefits for candidate aircraft would not be sufficient.
- New high bypass ratio engines to existing A320 aircraft.
Reasoning: the A320 is one of the most numerous narrow body aircraft, burning a large fraction of the air transport fuel. The A320 NEO will be developed to use the latest state of the art Pratt & Whitney and GE engines. Assuming Airbus involvement a relatively low threshold retrofit programme can be envisaged, where these engines are retrofitted to a significant percentage of the fleet of A320 aircraft. This promises a fuel saving of between 10 to 15% per flight, which will have a large economic and environmental benefit. This tradeoff study aims also to indicate how the EU can stimulate such a programme
- Taxying by internal power.
Reasoning: although the actual gain per aircraft movement will be relatively small, the accumulated benefits can be significant for the European and global air transport industry. This particular study is interesting because it involves benefits for the operators, benefits for the airports and benefits for the community as a whole. The challenge will be to find a modus to let every party that profits help pay for the investments.