Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

ISSN: 0002-2470 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm16

Reducing Air Pollutant Emissions at Airports by

Controlling Aircraft Ground Operations

C. Gary Gelinas & Henry S. L. Fan

To cite this article: C. Gary Gelinas & Henry S. L. Fan (1979) Reducing Air Pollutant Emissions at
Airports by Controlling Aircraft Ground Operations, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
29:2, 125-128, DOI: 10.1080/00022470.1979.10470766

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1979.10470766

Published online: 13 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 77

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm16

Download by: [Concordia University Libraries] Date: 19 September 2017, At: 09:41
 Reducing Air Pollutant Emissions at Airports
by Controlling Aircraft Ground Operations

C. Gary Gelinas
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
Santa Monica, California

Henry S. L. Fan
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co.
San Francisco, California
Downloaded by [Concordia University Libraries] at 09:41 19 September 2017

Potential reductions in air pollutant emissions were determined for
four strategies to control aircraft ground operations at two case study
airports, Los Angeles and San Francisco International Airports. Safety,
cost, and fuel savings associated with strategy implementation were
examined.
Two strategies, aircraft towing and shutdown of one engine during
taxi operations, provided significant emission reductions. However,
there are a number of safety problems associated with aircraft towing.
The shutdown of one engine while taxiing was found to be the most
viable strategy because of substantial emission reductions, cost
benefits resulting from fuel savings, and no apparent safety prob-
lems.
The runway and terminal configurations of LAX and SFO
are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. LAX has two pairs
of parallel independent runways: the north runways (24L-6R
and 24R-6L); and the south runways (25L-7R and 25R-7L);
SFO has two pairs of intersecting runways: 28L-10R and
28R-10L; and 1L-19R and 1R-19L. At LAX, predominant
runway use is arrival and departure to the west on runways
24L/R and 25L/R. This occurs about 98% of the time. At
SFO, runways 28L/R and 1L/R are used for arrivals and de-
partures about 67% of the time, while runways 28L/R are used
for both arrivals and departures approximately 25% of the
time.
Aircraft operations were developed according to arrivals and
departures between each terminal and runway. At LAX, air-

Table I. Distribution of average day operations by aircraft

The Clean Air Act Amendments directed the Environmental type.
Protection Agency to set standards which would limit the Number of aircraft operations1*
amount of air pollutants emitted from aircraft engines.1 This
Aircraft
directive has been the major focus of attention on controlling typea LAX SFO
emissions from aircraft. However, recently the California Air
Resources Board funded a study to evaluate potential strat- Commercial-Passenger
egies to reduce aircraft emissions by controlling ground op- B-747 54 34
DC-10 108 38
erations.2 50
L-1011 24
This paper presents the methodology and findings of that B-707 118 86
study. The primary objectives were: (1) to determine emission DC-8 46 46
reductions which could be achieved by potential strategies; B-727 368 282
and (2) to evaluate the viability of each strategy by examining B-737 78 90
associated safety problems, cost, and fuel savings. Two major DC-9 56 48
airports in California, Los Angeles International Airport Commuter Prop 204 92
(LAX) and San Francisco International Airport (SFO), were Commercial-Cargo0
considered as case study airports. B-747 36 20
DC-10 36 20
Aircraft Operations General Aviation
Business Jet 118 10
Aircraft operations considered in the study included com- Prop 173 134
mercial-passenger, commercial-cargo, and general aviation. a
Table I shows the distribution of current average day opera- B indicates Boeing Company; DC indicates Douglas Aircraft Com-
pany; L indicates Lockheed Aircraft Company.
tions by aircraft type at LAX and SFO. The Boeing 727 op- b
One operation equals one aircraft movement, either an arrival or
erations account for most of the total operations (25 to 30%). departure.
The types of aircraft operational modes included departure c
Estimates only.
(idle, taxi, takeoff) and arrival (idle, taxi, and landing). The
approach and climb-out modes were not considered. Copyright 1979-Air Pollution Control Association

February 1979 Volume 29, No. 2 125


craft weighing more than 325,000 lb are currently prohibited
from using runways 25L/R which cross over the Sepulveda
Boulevard tunnel. Therefore, most "heavy" aircraft origi-
nating from the south terminals must taxi longer distances for
takeoffs and landings on the north runways.
SEPULVEDA BLVD TUNNEL.
Figure 1. Runway and terminal configuration at Los Angeles Interna-
Downloaded by [Concordia University Libraries] at 09:41 19 September 2017
tional Airport.
Baseline Aircraft Emissions and Fuel Use
Both emissions and fuel use were estimated for each mode
of operation and each type of aircraft for an average day of the
year. Three pollutants were considered in this paper: carbon
monoxide (CO); total hydrocarbons (THC); and oxides of
nitrogen (NO*). The following information was used to esti-
mate modal emissions and fuel use: number of engines for each
aircraft type; number of daily operations for each aircraft type;
time spent in each operational mode; and emission and fuel
use factors for each mode and aircraft type.
Taxi times between the terminal and runways were devel-
oped for a typical aircraft arriving and departing during an
average day. These times were estimated for each terminal
using measured travel distances and average taxi speed and
then weighted by number of operations to determine the av-
erage time. Idle times were estimated from delay/demand/
capacity relationships.3 The amount of time spent in pushing
back from the gate during departure was added to the de-
parture idle time.
Data on daily aircraft operations were obtained from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control
tower records at LAX and SFO. Modal emission and fuel use
factors were obtained from a recently published EPA technical
report on aircraft emission factors.4
Figure 3 shows the estimated average day aircraft emissions
and fuel use for the baseline case (without strategies). The
most significant percentage contribution of CO and THC
emissions results from the idle and taxi modes. For NO*, the
takeoff mode has the largest contribution. Fuel use appears
highest during takeoff, as would be expected. Also, departure
idle fuel use appears to be higher than arrival idle fuel use.
This is due to the longer delay time when aircraft are waiting
to takeoff.
Strategy Evaluation
A number of strategies were evaluated as potential measures
for reducing aircraft emissions. However, this paper presents
only four of those strategies. They are: tow aircraft between
runways and terminal gates; shutdown one engine during taxi
operations; control the time of departure; and assign aircraft
to those runways which minimize the taxi distance between
the gate and runway. The first two strategies have been ana-
lyzed in previous work.5
The shutdown of one engine during taxi and the control of
departure time are currently being implemented on a limited
126
basis. The FAA has recommended that when clear of the
runway after landing or when delayed, turbojet aircraft should
shut down one engine when conditions are judged appropriate
by the pilot.6
In evaluating the strategy to tow aircraft at LAX, both ar-
rival and departure aircraft were considered. Taxi routes were
identified for towing, since it was assumed that towing would
not be implemented over short distances. At SFO, only de-
partures were considered since arrivals turn off the runway
a short distance from the terminal gates. Also, it was assumed
that conventional tractors (currently in service) would be used
for towing. These emissions and fuel use from the tow tractors
were subtracted from the aircraft reductions to determine the
actual savings.
The strategy to shut down one engine was assumed to apply
to all commercial-passenger and cargo aircraft. In order to
attain the same taxi speed that is normally accomplished with
all engines operating, these aircraft must operate their re-
maining engines at a higher power setting. Changes in power
settings affect the engine emission rate. Data for the JT3D
engine (type used by B-727) were used to adjust aircraft
emission rates and to obtain new emission and fuel use factors
for each aircraft type. These new factors and the exclusion of
one engine were used to estimate new idle and taxi emissions
and fuel use.
The strategy to control departure time would reduce delay
during the peak departure period by minimizing the time
aircraft spend idling in a queue. Various techniques, such as,
gate holds and sequencing aircraft departures were considered
CONTROL TOWER SAN FRANSISCO
INTERNATIONAL
TERMINALS
Figure 2. Runway and terminal configuration at San Francisco
International Airport.
as possible control methods. Emissions and fuel use were es-
timated for the peak departure periods. It was estimated that
this strategy would reduce delay and associated emissions
during this period by about one-half.
The assignment of departing aircraft to runways would not
be applicable to SFO, due to the location of the runways rel-
ative to the terminal. For this strategy to be effective at LAX,
the strengthening of the Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel would
be required. Under existing conditions, takeoff and landing
on the south runways are restricted to aircraft weighing less
than 325,000 lb. This strategy would change the distribution
(number and type) of aircraft on both the north and south
runways at LAX. The emissions and fuel use resulting from
this new distribution of operations were compared to the
baseline case to determine the savings.
No apparent safety problems or adverse cost impacts would
be associated with the shutdown of one engine and the control
of departure time. Although no apparent safety problems
would result from the assignment of runways, the high cost
of the south runway reconstruction would result in adverse
cost impact. However, a portion of the construction cost would
be offset by a savings in fuel cost.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
 I-AX 15-
SFO LAX SFO
6.9
TK 6.3

LD
5.2
0-
5-
TX TK

TIMI
4- z
TX
• z1
3.4 LU fn uj
TX oc ZM01

ROL DIEPARTU

NWAYS
LD UJHZD
3-
5-
1: • UJ|^

ROL C
ZD

AIRCR
AIRCR

DOWN
DOWN
2- TX CC

LINE

LINE
ID z
1 0 LU
5|5 i— CD
CO
1- CO CO
ID o aC J CO <
1— l• z CO
<
ID CD «t CO °|coHS
f)..
n_
DEP ARR DEP ARR

LAX SFO 15-

Downloaded by [Concordia University Libraries] at 09:41 19 September 2017

£ 10-
to 4-
o
co 3.1
co 3_
LD
LU

u 2-
i— TX M-D
TX
1- ID ID
ID ID
0
DEP ARR DEP ARR

LAX SFO
15-

5- 4.6

4-

3- 2.6
TK
2- 1.6
IK
1- LD 0.8
TX^ TXV
n - ILW ID-C:
DEP ARR DEP ARR

90-
LAX SFO
81.3
150- LAX
75- SFO

125-
§ 60-
TK 53.8
ID 45.4 100-
° 45- LU
LU
CO LD TK
75-
LU s z
i
_. 30- z u 1—
CD 1—
23.9 z co or
TX LU cc QC
Z3

15- TX TX LO 50- u.
LU
O 1
Z3
z
ZD
gig ^_
Q_
LU
TX CJ z a CC
ID ID
LU ac
25- z o
a o z z o
ID 10 cc
0- h— i— ac
CO
o =) z CO CO
DEP ARR DEP. ARR CD
ztz
CO
o CO
CD i—Hco
o
I— CJ CJ
Figure 3. Baseline average day aircraft emission and fuel use O_
estimates for departure and arrival modes. Where, TK = takeoff; Figure 4. Summary of estimated emission reductions and fuel
TX = taxi; ID = idle; LD = landing. savings for each strategy.

February 1979 Volume 29, No. 2 127


A number of safety problems are associated with aircraft
towing. Examples of these problems are: unreliability of the
nose gear under continual stress of long-distance towing; in-
ability to start engines under adverse wind conditions; and
inadequate space near the runways for coupling and un-
coupling aircraft to tow tractors.
Total cost required to implement the towing of aircraft was
not estimated. However, the resulting savings in annual fuel
cost from towing were estimated to be about $5 million for
LAX and $2 million for SFO.
Summary and Conclusions
Figure 4 presents a summary of the emission reductions and
fuel savings estimated for each strategy. Reductions and
savings for each strategy should be considered separately and
should not be combined or added.
Two strategies, aircraft towing and shutdown of one engine,
Downloaded by [Concordia University Libraries] at 09:41 19 September 2017
provided the most significant emission reductions (about 25
to 50% for CO and THC). However, the engine shutdown
strategy could cause a slight increase in NOX emissions. The
strategy to assign runways provided a reduction of approxi-
mately 15% in CO and THC emissions at LAX. None of the
strategies reduced NO* emissions more than 5%. The strategy
to control departure time did not provide a substantial re-
duction, since it affected emissions only during a small portion
of the day.
Although aircraft towing would have a number of associated
safety problems, it provided a significant savings in fuel (about
20 to 30%). Assignment of runways at LAX could provide some
fuel savings (about 10%), but the cost required for construction
would be substantial.
The strategy to shut down one engine while taxiing was
found to be the most viable of the four strategies. It provides
significant emission reductions with cost benefits resulting
from a fuel savings and had no apparent safety problems.
Updated Model Assessment of Pollution
at Major U.S. Airports
Robert J. Yamartino and Donald M. Rote
Argonne National Laboratory
The air quality impact of aircraft at and around Los Angeles Interna-
tional Airport (LAX) is simulated for hours of peak aircraft operation
and "worst case" pollutant dispersion conditions. An updated version
of the Argonne Airport Vicinity Air Pollution (AVAP) model is used
in the simulation; model refinements reflect new theoretical formu-
lations and data from field programs at LAX, O'Hare, and John F.
Kennedy International Airports. Maximum carbon monoxide con-
centrations at LAX are found to be low relative to the NAAQS. Rela-
tively high, widespread hydrocarbon levels indicate that aircraft
emissions may aggravate oxidant problems near the airport. Con-
centrations of oxides of nitrogen are high enough relative to proposed
standards to warrant further study. Similar modeling is underway for
the O'Hare and JFK airports.
128
The findings presented in this paper for LAX and SFO
could be generalized to other major airports with similar
runway and terminal configurations, number of aircraft op-
erations, and types of aircraft.
Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper was sponsored by the
California Air Resources Board (ARB). The authors wish to
thank the following participants: Jack Paskind of the ARB,
Dr. Steve Hockaday of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., and
Robert Baxter of AeroVironment, Inc.
References
1. "Clean Air Act Amendments," U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-95,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, August
1977.
2. G. Gelinas, "Evaluation of Emission Control Strategies for Airfield
Operations at Los Angeles and San Francisco International Air-
ports," AeroVironment, Inc., Pasadena, CA, August 1978.
3. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular AC
150/5060-4, Washington, DC, April 1977.
4. R. Pace, "Technical Support Report on Aircraft Emission Factors,"
Unpublished, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Mobile Source Air Pollution Control, Ann Arbor, MI, March
1977. .
5. R. Cirillo, J. Tachanz, and J. Canaioni, "An Evaluation of Strate-
gies for Airport Air Pollution Control," Argonne National Labo-
ratory, Report No. EPA-450/3-75-052, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1975.
6. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular AC 91-41,
Washington, DC, March 1974.
Mr. Gelinas is Manager of Program Development, Pacific
Environmental Services, Inc., 1930 14th Street, Santa Moni-
ca, CA 90404. Mr. Gelinas performed the work discussed in
this paper while employed with AeroVironment, Inc., Pasa-
dena, CA 91107. Dr. Fan is a Senior Consultant for Peat,
Marwick, Mitchell and Co., P.O. Box 8007, San Francisco,
C A 94128.
During the past ten years, a number of agencies and groups
concerned with the air quality impact of major airports have
undertaken air pollution monitoring programs as well as
theoretical studies based on the use of atmospheric dispersion
algorithms. Lorang1 recently provided an extensive review and
assessment of these efforts while Smith2 has summarized the
characteristics of, and approximations used in, the major air
quality models used in the studies. Smith observes that the
"Argonne Airport Vicinity Air Pollution Model (AVAP)3 is
the most sophisticated code yet developed for predicting the
impact of all sources at commercial airports." Nevertheless,
the AVAP code contains a number of assumptions and ap-
proximations that may require revision as new information
Copyright 1979-Air Pollution Control Association
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association