Content uploaded by Gil Felix Greco
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gil Felix Greco on Oct 31, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
PROCEEDINGS of the
24th International Congress on Acoustics
October 24 to 28, 2022 in Gyeongju, Korea
Assessing the environmental noise of next-generation regional jet
aircraft concepts in a generic airport scenario
Gil FELIX GRECO
1
; Felix WIENKE
2
; Lothar BERTSCH2; Tobias P. RING1; Sabine C. LANGER1
1 Institute for Acoustics (InA), Technische Universität Braunschweig, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
2 Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, German Aerospace Center (DLR), 37073 Göttingen, Germany
ABSTRACT
Within the scope of the Coordinated Research Center (CRC) 880, concepts of regional aircraft were designed
to perform short takeoff and landing (STOL) operations with low fuel consumption and low noise emissions.
These characteristics were achieved through the use of active high-lift systems combined with propulsion
systems especially tailored for this purpose. In this contribution, the impact promoted by two different CRC
880 regional aircraft concepts equipped with ultra high-bypass ratio (UHBR) turbofan jet engines is
investigated with respect to environmental noise. For this purpose, aircraft noise simulations are conducted
using the software sonAIR, where air traffic scenarios around a generic medium-size airport are investigated.
The integration of novel aircraft concepts into the scenarios is made possible by the DLR’s in-house tools
FlipNA and PANAM, which are capable of providing realistic predictions of the flight performance and noise
emissions of the CRC 880 aircraft during departure and approach procedures. In total, two air traffic scenarios
including the CRC 880 aircraft are evaluated with respect to a reference scenario based on the German
legislation defining noise protection zones around airports as assessment criteria.
Keywords: Environmental noise, Airport noise, Aircraft noise
1. INTRODUCTION
The fundamentals of active high-lift systems (HLS) were extensively investigated within the scope
of the CRC 880 [1]. The main motivation behind the development of active HLS lie s in the fact that
such devices make aircraft capable of performing STOL operations, especially if combined with
propulsion systems specifically designed for this purpose. With the ability to operate on short runways,
regional airports can be integrated into flight connections thereby enhancing flight route networks.
Moreover, the aircraft designs developed within the CRC 880 have been conceptualized with a focus
on the reduction of fuel consumption and noise levels compared to current regional aircraft in order
to contribute to a sustainable growth of the air traffic.
The main goal of this study is to assess the impact of two next-generation regional jet aircraft
concepts developed within the CRC 880 with respect to environmental noise. The selected aircraft
incorporate some of the technologies investigated in the CRC 880 such as UHBR turbofan engines
and active HLS. Their individual potential for noise reduction was previously addressed in the works
of Blinstrub et al. [2–4]. This study aims to extend the previous investigations by analyzing the impact
of the selected CRC 880 aircraft on environmental noise when introduced into a generic yet realistic
air traffic scenario, as experienced around a typical medium-size airport.
For this purpose, three air traffic scenarios are considered in this study: a reference scenario and
two additional scenarios including the CRC 880 vehicles . The environmental noise is assessed based
on the German legislation defining noise protection zones around airports. The selected CRC 880
aircraft for this study are presented in Section 2 while the methodology used to perform the aircraft
noise simulations and the proposed air traffic scenarios are described in Section 3. Finally, the results
are presented in Section 4 while the conclusions of this study are provided in Section 5.
1
g.felix-greco@tu-braunschweig.de, t.ring@tu-braunschweig.de, s.langer@tu-braunschweig.de
2
Felix.Wienke@dlr.de, Lothar.Bertsch@dlr.de
2. THE CRC 880 AIRCRAFT CONCEPTS
Several aircraft concepts were developed within the scope of the CRC 880 [1], including aircraft
with turbofan and turboprop propulsion systems. All aircraft concepts were designed using the
Preliminary Aircraft Design and Optimization (PrADO) tool [5], with the following requirements:
2000 km range with maximum payload (100 PAX and 2.2 t freight) , and a cruise Mach number of 0.78
for the jet aircraft. For this study, three vehicles were selected, namely the KON1, KON1v3, and the
REF3 aircraft (see Figure 1). Although a brief description of the aforementioned aircraft is provided
hereafter, the reader is referred to the work of Blinstrub et al. [4] for a comprehensive description.
The KON1 represents the technology in the year of 2010 in the class of 100-seaters and is adopted
in this study as the reference aircraft. It is equipped with a conventional HLS comprised of slats and
Fowler flaps, and two turbofan engines with a bypass ratio of 5. The KON1 aircraft has a required
takeoff roll distance of 1618 m, and its maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) and maximum landing weight
(MLW) are 44736 kg and 42128 kg, respectively.
The KON1v3 is a variant of the KON1 aircraft, which is equipped with two UHBR geared turbofan
engines with a bypass ratio of 17. Thus, the KON1v3 represents the expected propulsion technology
for the year of 2030. Even though the larger UHBR engines of the KON1v3 introduces an increase of
mass with respect to the KON1, this is compensated by a 25% reduction of specific fuel consumption
and a 15% reduction of the required takeoff roll distance [4]. The KON1v3 aircraft has a MTOM and
MLW of 42705 kg and 40763 kg, respectively.
The REF3 aircraft is equipped with the same UHBR geared engines of the KON1v3, but has an
engine over the wing (EOW) design thus avoiding jet-flap interaction effects and promoting the
shielding of the fan noise by design. However, th e EOW topology leads to an increased drag due to
the requirement of large pylon structures, which are necessary in order to sustain the engines and also
to accommodate the landing gears. The REF3 aircraft is equipped with an active HLS comprised of
coanda flaps at the trailing edge and flexible droop noses at the leading edge. The active HLS noise
is described in an approximate manner due to the lack of appropriate and sufficient models [2–4]. The
effect of such an active HLS combined with the UHBR geared engines is a reduction of the required
takeoff roll distance by about 43% with respect to the KON1 aircraft [4]. The REF3 aircraft has a
MTOM and MLW of 46200 kg and 43921 kg, respectively.
(a) KON1v3. (b) REF3.
Figure 1 – CRC 880 regional aircraft concepts considered in this study.
3. TOOLS AND METHODOLOGY
The present study employs the simulation process introduced by Delfs et al. [6] and Zellmann et
al. [7] to include existing and novel air craft types in environmental noise studies of large air traffic
scenarios. The simulation process used in this study is summarized in Figure 2.
In a general sense, the noise assessment framework is based on two main simulation tools: 1) the
DLR’s in-house Parametric Aircraft Noise Analysis Module (PANAM) [8], and 2) the aircraft noise
simulation software sonAIR [9]. Within this contribution, PANAM is used to predict the noise
emissions of novel aircraft concepts under operational conditions. This is done using a comprehensive
framework which includes: a) the aircraft design, using the PrADO tool [5]; and b) the calculation of
the engine noise shielding using the SHADOW tool [10]. Based on the inputs provided by the PrADO
and SHADOW tools, PANAM predicts the noise emission of the relevant noise sources onboard of an
operational aircraft, i.e. engine and airframe noise components, using a set of semi-empirical models
[8]. Moreover, the operational conditions of the CRC 880 aircraft along prescribed flight trajectories
are calculated using the DLR’s FlipNA tool [3]. The noise emission predictions and flight profile
calculations of the CRC 880 aircraft considered in this study are based on this framework, which is
addressed in details by Ref. [2–4].
The noise emission predictions of the CRC 880 aircraft provided by PANAM are further processed
for use within the sonAIR software environment, where aircraft noise simulations of different air
traffic scenarios are conducted. The conversion procedure of aircraft noise emission models from
PANAM to sonAIR is addressed in details by Ref. [11]. The scenarios consider a generic yet realistic
airport configuration, where the air traffic is composed of a prescribed number of novel and existing
aircraft movements per flight route. In the following sections, more details are provided for each of
these aspects.
Figure 2 – Air traffic scenario assessment: overall simulation process used in this study to
perform aircraft noise simulations including novel and existent aircraft types.
3.1 Airport setup
The airport configuration considered in this study is presented in Figure 3. It resembles a typical
medium-size airport composed of two parallel runways positioned km apart. The longer runway
(09L/27R) has a total usable length of km while the shorter runway (09R/27L) has a usable
length of km. Both runways have a width of 45.11 m. The terrain topography around the airport
is configured with a constant height of 50 m above mean sea level. The terrain cover is modelled as a
homogenous grass surface, with a flow resistivity of 200 .
Instead of considering individual flightpaths for each flight movement, the air traffic is modelled
through a set of idealized flight routes, composed of four straight arrival routes (TA00 to TA03), four
straight departure routes (TD00 to TD03) and four curved departure routes (TD04 to TD07). In order
to model a realistic spatial dispersion of aircraft movements around a particular route, each approach
and departure route is composed of a backbone track and four sub-tracks. For the creation and noise
simulation of the sub-tracks, sonAIR implements the procedure described by the ECAC Doc. 29 [12].
Figure 3 – Airport setup including the runway layout and the configuration of flight routes.
3.2 Number of movements and aircraft fleet mix
In order to replicate a typical medium-size airport, this study is based on data concerning the air
traffic at the Hannover Airport (IATA code: HAJ), Germany. First, an approximate total number of
movements (commercial and non -commercial flights) for the six months of the year of 2019 with the
largest number of flight movements (from May to October) was obtained from Ref. [13]. The number
of movements was further divided into day- and night-time periods based on the air traffic statistics
provided by Ref. [14]. A representative aircraft fleet mix was determined from the database provided
by Olive et al. [15] by extracting the number of flight movements per aircraft type occurring at the
airport along this timeframe . Finally, the obtained aircraft fleet mix was adapted in order to include
the CRC 880 aircraft, which now represents all aircraft types with similar propulsion system, takeoff
weight, and max. number of passengers. The air traffic used in this study is presented in Figure 4.
(a) (b)
Figure 4 – Air traffic data considered in this study: (a) total number of flight movements per
month and time-period of the day, and (b) percentage number of flight movements per aircraft type
with respect to the total number of flight movements.
3.3 Aircraft noise emission models and flight profiles
In order to describe all the aircraft types considered in this study (see Section 3.2), noise emission
models from three different origins are used. For existing aircraft types, noise emission models from
the sonAIR [16,17] and the SANC-DB [18] databases are used. The reduced sonAIR emission models
used in this study do not account explicitly for the aerodynamic configuration of the aircraft while the
SANC-DB models describes the aircraft noise emissions based on the flight-phase. For the CRC 880
aircraft considered in this study (see Section 2), the noise emissions are predicted using the DLR’s
framework [2–4,8]. The aircraft types used in this study and their respective noise emission models
are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 – Aircraft types and corresponding noise emission models used in this study.
#
Aircraft
Engine
Emission model
Origin
1
A319
V2522-5A
A32X_V2500
sonAIR
55.2
83.9
2
A320
CFM56-5A
A32X_CFM56-5A
sonAIR
54.2
91.3
3
A321
V2530-5A
A32X_V2500
sonAIR
53
89
4
ATR42
PW127
AT43_SANCDB
SANC-DB
–
–
5
B738
CFM56-7B
B73X_CFM56-7B
sonAIR
55.3
93.1
6
C550
PW530A
C550_SANCDB
SANC-DB
–
–
7
KON1
tf (BPR=5)
CRC_880_KON1
PANAM
Calculated
for each
flight segment
8
KON1v3
gtf (BPR=17)
CRC_880_KON1v3
PANAM
9
REF3
gtf (BPR=17)
CRC_880_REF3
PANAM
In sonAIR, the flight profile provides information about the aircraft operational parameters along
the flight trajectory. The required parameters are: cumulative distance from the runway, altitude above
ground level (AGL), true airspeed, air density and Mach number at the flight altitude, and fan
rotational speed N1. In addition, the aerodynamic configuration of the aircraft (i.e. flaps and landing
gear handle) is required for the CRC 880 aircraft because their noise emission models consider it
explicitly.
For existing aircraft, data concerning the altitude and velocity profiles was obtained from the
Aircraft Noise and Performance Database (ANP) [19]. The ANP database provides standard approach
profiles based on the MLW of each aircraft type, while different options are available for departure in
order to account for the variability of aircraft takeoff weights. In this study, departure flight profiles
following the ICAO-B procedure and considering the maximum takeoff weight of each aircraft type
are used. Mean N1 values, i.e. constant values over the entire flight path, were obtained from the work
of Zellmann [20]. The mean N1 values used for each aircraft type during the approach, , and
the departure, , procedures are provided in Table 1. The International Standard Atmosphere
(ISA) [21] is used to model the atmospheric variables (air density and sound speed) as a function of
the aircraft’s altitude.
For the CRC 880 aircraft, the operational conditions and aerodynamic configuration of the aircraft
are modeled explicitly for each segment of the flightpath using the DLR’s FlipNA tool [3]. For this
study, the continuous descent approach procedure and the ICAO-B departure procedure are calculated
based on the full MTOM and MLW of each CRC 880 aircraft (see Section 2). The altitudes of the
flight profiles used in this study are presented in Figure 5. It should be noted that the fully simulated,
hence artificial, CRC 880 vehicles show comprehensive flight characteristics. For example, the
simulated departure altitude profiles are in good accordance with the measured profiles of the existing
aircraft. Differences can be directly attributed to the aircraft ’s individual flight performance as
predicted.
(a) Approach. (b) Departure.
Figure 5 – Altitude flight profiles considered in this study for different flight procedures.
3.4 Aircraft noise simulation and air traffic scenarios
The aircraft noise simulations are conducted using the ArcGIS-implemented version of the
software sonAIR [9,17]. The sonAIR simulation framework is formulated in 1/3 octave bands and
models the aircraft noise emissions and the sound propagation separately. The simulation procedure
in sonAIR is briefly described hereafter.
First, the input data concerning the airport environment (runway layout, ground topography and
land cover) is provided. The terrain and the land cover are included in the sonAIR simulations as a
Digital Terrain Model (DTM) and a land cover raster, respectively, with a spatial resolution of 25 m.
In this study, wind velocity is neglected and the atmospheric properties are kept constant with a
temperature of 20 °C, a n atmospheric pressure of 1 atm and a relative air humidity of 60%.
Then, flight trajectories are created for each aircraft type and flight procedure by merging the
ground tracks with the flight profiles. The ground track represents the flight trajectory as a series of
points projected in the horizontal ground plane. The flight profiles contains the information about the
aircraft operational conditions along the ground track. Later on, sound attenuations are computed
using the propagation model sonX [9] and each combination of aircraft type and route are simulated.
The noise contours are computed for each flight on a g rid of receiver positions with a spatial
resolution of 150 m at a height of 4 m above the ground. Based on the energetic superposition of the
noise contours obtained for each aircraft movement along a flight route, cumulative noise metrics are
computed in order to quantify the total noise from multiple aircraft movements occurring along a
given time period.
Based on the air traffic defined in Section 3.2, three scenarios are investigated in this study:
reference scenario: KON1 aircraft;
scenario 1: KON1v3 aircraft; and
scenario 2: REF3 aircraft.
Therefore, with the proposed s cenarios, we focus on evaluating the impact of the CRC 880 aircraft
in terms of environmental airport noise. For this purpose, it is assumed that the same aircraft fleet (see
Figure 4b) operates during the day- and night-time periods. Moreover, the number of movements per
aircraft type is equally distributed among the eight departure (TDXX) and four arrival (TAXX) routes
previously defined in Section 3.1. This assumption is the reason why the total number of movements
adopted in our study slightly differs from the official numbers provided by Ref. [13]. The number of
aircraft movements per aircraft type and flight route used for each scenario is presented in Table 2.
Table 2 – Number of flight movements per aircraft type, flight route, and time period of the day
used in each air traffic scenario investigated in this study.
Ref. scenario
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
#
Aircraft
TAXX
TDXX
TAXX
TDXX
TAXX
TDXX
Total per
scenario
1
A319
339
170
339
170
339
170
2716
Day
108
54
108
54
108
54
864
Night
2
A320
847
424
847
424
847
424
6780
Day
270
135
270
135
270
135
2160
Night
3
A321
424
212
424
212
424
212
3392
Day
135
68
135
68
135
68
1084
Night
4
ATR42
424
212
424
212
424
212
3392
Day
135
68
135
68
135
68
1084
Night
5
B738
593
297
593
297
593
297
4748
Day
189
95
189
95
189
95
1516
Night
6
C550
339
170
339
170
339
170
2716
Day
108
54
108
54
108
54
864
Night
7
KON1
1271
636
–
–
–
–
10172
Day
405
203
–
–
–
–
3244
Night
8
KON1v3
–
–
1271
636
–
–
10172
Day
–
–
405
203
–
–
3244
Night
9
REF3
–
–
–
–
1271
636
10172
Day
–
–
–
–
405
203
3244
Night
Total
16948
16968
16948
16968
16948
16968
33916
Day
5400
5416
5400
5416
5400
5416
10816
Night
3.5 Environmental noise assessment criteria
The German “Act for protection against aircraft noise” [22] is used as the basis for the noise
assessment in this study. This document establishes the criteria for the definition of noise protection
zones in the surroundings of airports. For existing commercial, civil airports with more than 25000
movements per year, the protection zones encompass the residential areas in which the A-weighted
equivalent sound pressure level, , caused by aircraft operations exceeds the following values :
day-time protection zone 1: dBA;
day-time protection zone 2: dBA; and
night-time protection zone: dBA.
The day-time interval ranges from 06 AM and 10 PM while the night-time interval starts at 10 PM
and ends at 06 AM. The assessment period is defined as the six months of the forecast year with the
largest number of flight movements.
4. RESULTS
Figure 6 presents a comparison between the results obtained for the reference scenario and scenario
1. In the reference scenario, the day protection zone 1 envelops only the runways and the airport
premises and does not reach any residential area, as shown in Figure 6a. However, the day protection
zone 2 extends about 500 m and 1 km from the larger and smaller runways’ thresholds, respectively,
thus affecting residents living in the vicinities of the airport. In addition, the night protection zone is
larger and potentially affects residents living as far as 2.5 km and 3 km from the larger and smaller
runways’ thresholds.
It is evident in Figure 6a and Figure 6b, that the noise reductions achieved by the KON1v3 aircraft
are mainly relevant for the night protection zone, whose isocontour area is reduced by . Since
the only difference between the reference scenario and the scenario 1 is the change from the KON1 to
the KON1v3 aircraft, it can be speculated that the introduction of regional aircraft concepts with
UHBR engines alone would achieve a small effect on the air traffic noise. This statement mainly holds
for an air traffic scenario with a similar share of aircraft types as the one adopted in this study.
However, it could be expected that an increase of the number of regional aircraft flight movements
with respect to larger medium-range aircraft would lead to a further area reduction of the noise
protection zones.
(a) (b)
Figure 6 – Comparison of noise protection zones between the reference scenario (solid lines) and
the scenario 1 (dashed lines): (a) absolute noise contour levels and (b) isocontour area reduction.
A comparison between the results obtained for the reference scenario and the scenario 2 is
presented in Figure 7. It is interesting to note that the combination of the EOW design and STOL
capabilities of the REF3 aircraft, which require s 43% less takeoff roll distance than the KON1
aircraft, leads to an isocontour area reduction of for the day protection zone 1. Even though
this protection zone does not affect any residential areas in this study, this finding is relevant because
it indicates that such an aircraft concept would potentially provide a substantial reduction of critical
noise levels at areas near the airport premises. This argument is further supported by the fact that the
isocontour area of the day protection zone 2, which is within the near range of the airport, is reduced
further by compared to scenario 1. In addition, the isocontour area reduction obtained in the
scenario 2 for the night protection zone is verified to be higher than for scenario 1, which
could also be attributed to the STOL capabilities of the REF3 aircraft. Table 3 summarizes the results
obtained in this study for all scenarios investigated.
(a) (b)
Figure 7 – Comparison of noise protection zones between the reference scenario (solid lines) and
the scenario 2 (dashed lines): (a) absolute noise contour levels and (b) isocontour area reduction.
Table 3 – Summary of results obtained for the different air traffic scenarios in terms of absolute
isocontour area size and relative percentage change with respect to the reference scenario.
Noise protection zone
Ref. scenario
Scenario 1
% change
Scenario 2
% change
Day 1 [km2]
1.35
1.27
-6.13
0.82
-39.53
Day 2 [km2]
5.31
5.00
-5.78
4.37
-17.73
Night [km2]
13.6
12.6
-10.57
11.28
-17.05
Finally, we investigate to which extent the isocontour area reductions achieved by the CRC 880
aircraft would hold for an increasing air traffic. For this purpose, we gradually increase the total
number of flight movements while keeping all the other air traffic parameters (see Section 3.2) and
assumptions (see Section 3.4) unchanged. Figure 8 presents the results obtained for the isocontour
area reductions of the different noise protection zones and scenarios as a function of the air traffic
growth. The relative percentage isocontour area reductions are computed with respect to the baseline
reference air traffic scenario.
(a) Scenario 1. (b) Scenario 2.
Figure 8 – Relative isocontour area reduction with respect to the reference scenario as a function
of the air traffic growth. Negative reduction values implies an increase of the isocontour areas.
The results reported in Figure 8 shows a clear trend towards the increase of the isocontour areas
as the air traffic increases for both scenarios and all noise protection zones. Moreover, a similar decay
rate of the day 2 and night protection zones’ isocontour area reduction as a function of the air traffic
growth is observed for both scenario 1 and scenario 2 while a steeper decay rate is observed for the
day 1 protection zone. Concerning the scenario 1, Figure 8a shows that the amount of air traffic growth
necessary to cancel out the reduction of the noise protection zones promoted by the KON1v3 aircraft
depends on the noise protection zone, being for the day 1 zone, for the day 2 zone
and for the night protection zone. This indicates that the introduction of regional aircraft
with UHBR engines for flight movements during the night -time would be beneficial if the air traffic
in a certain airport is expected to increase in the future. However, the variation of the isocontour area
reduction threshold is smaller between the different noise protection zones for the scenario 2 (see
Figure 8b), ranging from (night protection zone) to (day 2 protection zone). This
suggests that the introduction of the REF3 aircraft would be beneficial for reducing the area size of
all protection zones when the air traffic in a certain airport with a similar share of aircraft types.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the impact of two CRC 880 concepts of regional jet aircraft is investigated with
respect to environmental airport noise. For this purpose, a comprehensive simulation process is used,
which enables the assessment of air traffic scenarios around a generic medium-size airport including
novel and existing aircraft types. Moreover, the environmental airport noise is assessed based on the
definition of noise protection zones around airports, as defined by the German federal government.
In general, the results showed the potential of the CRC 880 aircraft for mitigating the air traffic
noise by promoting the reduction of the noise protection zones’ area. Thus, the CRC 880 aircraft are
expected to potentially contribute to decrease the exposure of citizens living in residential areas near
airfields to critical noise levels. In particular, both CRC 880 aircraft presented relevant potential for
reducing the area of the noise protection zone established for the night -time period. Moreover, it was
shown that this finding holds also for an increasing air traffic growth.
Furthermore, this study demonstrated that the REF3 aircraft has a more consistent and larger
potential for reducing the area of the noise protection zones than the KON1v3 aircraft. This is likely
due to the fan noise shielding promoted by the EOW design, and the STOL capabilities of the REF3
aircraft, which is able to takeoff at a considerably reduced runway roll distance than the KON1v3
aircraft. Thus, by flying higher at distances closer to the airport, the REF3 benefits areas near the
airport premises. Ultimately, it has to be mentioned that the CRC 880 vehicles have not been optimized
towards low-noise characteristics. Further adaptation of the vehicle designs and low -noise
performance would result in significantly larger overall noise reductions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the funding provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2163/1 –
Sustainable and Energy Efficient Aviation – Project-ID 390881007. We would like to thank Dr.
Christoph Zellmann and Dr. Beat Schäffer from Empa for the technical support concerning the sonAIR
emission models and the PANAM to sonAIR data conversion procedure. Furthermore, the internal
review and valuable feedback from Dr. Rainer Schmid (DLR) are highly appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. Radespiel R, Semaan R. Fundamentals of High Lift for Future Civil Aircraft: Contributions to the Final
Symposium of the Collaborative Research Center 880, December 17-18, 2019, Braunschweig, Germany,
Springer International Publishing; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52429-6
2. Blinstrub J, Bertsch L, Heinze W. Assessment of the Noise Immission along Approach and Departure
Flightpaths for Different SFB 880 Vehicle Concepts. 2018 AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-2818
3. Blinstrub J. Immission-Based Noise Reduction within Conceptual Aircraft Design. Doctoral thesis,
Technische Universität Braunschweig, 2019. https://doi.org/10.34912/fl8ght_n01s3
4. Blinstrub J, Bertsch L, Heinze W. Contribution to the Final Symposium of the Collaborative Research
Center 880: "CRC 880 Vehicle Concepts and Comparative Noise Assessment". In: Fundamentals of High
Lift for Future Civil Aircraft Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, 145.
Springer, Cham. pp. 405-426. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52429-6
5. Heinze W. Ein Beitrag zur quantitativen Analyse der technischen und wirtschaftlichen Auslegungsgrenzen
verschiedener Flugzeugkonzepte für den Transport großer Nutzlasten. Inst. für Flugzeugbau und
Leichtbau, Techn. Univ.; 1994.
6. Delfs J, Bertsch L, Zellmann C, Rossian L, Kian Far E, Ring T, et al. Aircraft Noise Assessment—From
Single Components to Large Scenarios. Energies, 11(2), 429, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11020429
7. Zellmann C, Bertsch L, Schwab O, Wolters F, Delfs J. Aircraft noise assessment of next-generation narrow-
body aircraft. In Proceedings of Internoise 2019. The 48th International Congress and Exhibition on Noise
Control Engineering, Institute for Noise Control Engineering, 2019.
8. Bertsch L. Noise Prediction within Conceptual Aircraft Design. Doctoral Thesis, Technische Universität
Braunschweig, 2013. https://doi.org/10.34912/n0is3-d3sign
9. Wunderli J, Zellmann C, Köpfli M, Habermacher M. sonAIR – a GIS-Integrated Spectral Aircraft Noise
Simulation Tool for Single Flight Prediction and Noise Mapping. Acta Acustica united with Acustica.
2018 May 1;104:440–51. https://doi.org/10.3813/AAA.919180
10. Lummer M. Maggi-Rubinowicz Diffraction Correction for Ray-Tracing Calculations of Engine Noise
Shielding. 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (29th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference). 2008.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-3050
11. Felix Greco G, Wienke F, Bertsch L, Zellmann C, Schäffer B, Ring TP, Langer SC. A comparative study
of semi-empirical noise emission models based on the PANAM and sonAIR aircraft noise simulation
tools. In Proceedings of Internoise 2022. The 51st International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control
Engineering, Institute for Noise Control Engineering, 2022.
12. European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC). Doc. 29: “Report on Standard Method of Computing Noise
Contours around Civil Airports”, Volume 2: Technical Guide. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. 2016 7.12. 2016.
13. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen. ADV monthly Traffic Report. Available at
https://www.adv.aero/service/downloadbibliothek/ - retrieved in 24.03.2022
14. Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Arbeit, Verkehr und Digitalisierung.
Fluglärmschutzbeauftragter für den Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen - Jahresberichte 2019. Available
at
https://www.mw.niedersachsen.de/startseite/themen/verkehr/luftverkehr/fluglaerm/fluglaermschutzbeauf
tragter/fluglaermschutzbeauftragter_den_flughafen_hannoverlangenhagen/fluglaermschutzbeauftragter-
fuer-den-flughafen-hannover-langenhagen-113947.html - retrieved in 24.03.2022
15. Olive X, Strohmeier M, Lübbe J. Crowdsourced air traffic data from The OpenSky Network 2020.
Zenodo; 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4893103
16. Zellmann C, Schäffer B, Wunderli J, Isermann U, Paschereit C. Aircraft Noise Emission Model
Accounting for Aircraft Flight Parameters. Journal of Aircraft. 2017 Aug 28;55.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034275
17. Jäger D, Zellmann C, Schlatter F, Wunderli JM. Validation of the sonAIR aircraft noise simulation model.
Noise Mapping. 2021 Jan 1;8(1):95–107. https://doi.org/10.1515/noise-2021-0007
18. Krebs W, Lobsiger E. SANC-DB, Swiss Aircraft Noise Calculation Database, Technische Dokumentation.
2012.
19. EUROCONTROL. The Aircraft Noise and Performance (ANP) Database : An international data resource
for aircraft noise modellers. Available at https://www.aircraftnoisemodel.org/home - retrieved in
24.03.2022
20. Zellmann C. Development of an aircraft noise emission model accounting for flight parameters. Doctoral
thesis, Technische Universität Berlin, 2018. https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-6712
21. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Manual of the ICAO Standard Atmosphere: Extented
to 80 kilometres, Volume 7488.
22. Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz. Gesetz zum Schutz gegen Fluglärm.
2007. Available at https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/flul_rmg/BJNR002820971.html - retrieved in
24.03.2022
