**2.1 Emission model**

Aircrafts are a special source of air pollution due to some features.

an aircraft engine may change within a wide range [11].

*point of jet lift-off from the ground due to buoyancy effect, m.*

*Environmental Impact of Aviation and Sustainable Solutions*

sometimes even more [11].

**Figure 4.**

dispersion calculation.

**96**

parameters of the considered source.

**First of all**, aircrafts are a moving (on the ground and in flight) pollution source with varying emission factors during landing and takeoff (LTO) as well as ground operation (engine start after maintenance and run-ups to check the correct operation of the flight system). At the airport, engine operation may change from idle to maximum thrust. Accordingly, temperature, exhaust gas velocity, and emissions of

*Jet structure for jet transport model. ΔhA, XA are the height and longitudinal coordinate of jet axis rise due to buoyancy effect, m; hEN is the height of engine installation, m; RB is the radius of jet expansion, m; X1 is the longitudinal coordinate of first contact point of jet with ground, m; and X2 is the longitudinal coordinate of a*

**Second**, the most important feature is the presence of a jet of exhaust gases, which can transport pollutants over rather large distances because of high exhaust velocities and temperatures (**Figure 4**). Such a distance is determined by the engine power setting and installation parameters, mode of airplane movement, and meteorological parameters. The results of jet model calculations show that depending on initial data, the jet plumes from aircraft engines range from 20 to 1000 m and

So, to evaluate the aircraft contribution in Local Air Quality assessment of the airports accurately, it is important to take in mind few features of the aircraft during their landing-takeoff cycle (LTO), which define emission and dispersion

**2. Modeling of air pollution produced by aircraft engine emissions**

and Lagrangian approaches for dispersion calculations [12].

[15]. It consists of the following basic components:

Modeling of airport air pollution includes two parts: emission inventory and

ICAO Doc 9889 [12] recommends few tools for air quality analysis—to model emission inventory from every character groups of the spatially distributed sources as well as atmospheric concentrations resulting from emission dispersion: EDMS is based on Gaussian plume model (AERMOD) [13], LASPORT is based on Lagrangian particle model (LASAT) [14], and ALAQS–AV provides to use both Gaussian

A complex model Pollution and Emission Calculation (PolEmiCa) for assessment of air pollution and emission inventory analysis, produced within the airport boundaries, has been developed at National Aviation University (Kyiv, Ukraine)

The emission inventory of aircraft emissions are usually calculated on the basis of certificated emission indexes, which are provided by the engine manufacturers and reported in the database of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) [16].

The emission indices rely on well-defined measurement procedure and conditions during aircraft engine certification. Under real circumstances, however, these conditions may vary and deviations from the certificated emission indices may occur due to the impact factors such as


So, the analysis of several measurement campaigns for idling aircraft at different European airports (London-Heathrow in 1999 and 2000, Frankfurt/Main in 2000, Vienna in 2001, and Zurich in 2003) [7] concludes that the largest difference between emission indices' measurement data and the ICAO data for CO for the RB211-524D4 engine was caused due to quite long life expectancy of B747-236 (aging aircraft and engines) (**Figure 5**). The oldest aircraft with an emission index of 52.9 g/kg was 25 years old; the other two were built in 1987 and 1983. Mean values

#### **Figure 5.**

*Comparison measured EICO by FTIR emission and absorption spectrometry during measurement campaign for idling aircraft at the European airports.*

*KEIi* <sup>¼</sup> *EIit EIiISA*

For emission factor (in g/s or kg/hour), the recalculation into actual meteoro-

In **Table 1,** the correction coefficients for NOx emission factor KQnox and for

Current calculation method, realized in software PolEmiCa, also implemented

There are different types of engines installed on civilian aircraft currently: turbojet (TJE), turbofan (TFE), turboprop (TPE), and piston (PE). The process of contaminant transport by engine jet is described by the theory of turbulent jets [20]. The restrictions on the use of this theory are satisfied completely in the current task [21]: efflux from a jet engine is a very complex fast flow of hot gas, it is nonuniform, turbulent, and has various velocity scales and chemical reactions; the gas flow in jet is usually isobaric process, the pressure in the jet flow is equal to the atmospheric pressure, which is corresponding to the nature of incompressible flow; the Mach number of jet flow at outlet nozzle of the engine does not exceed 1; and the Reynolds

flow is quite moderate. For majority of the calculations, the simplifying preconditions were formulated and used: radial velocity profile has a self-preserving pattern; mechanisms of boundary layer formation near ground surface are not taken into account in this calculation; the external borders of a jet represent linear dependencies;

**Temperature, °C** �**20** �**10 0 + 10 + 20** Factor KQnox 0,74 0,81 0,88 0,96 1,0 Factor KQco 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,04 1,0

**Techniques CO HC NOx PM** Previous 307,000.1 104,200. 16,700.0 3400.0 ICAO LTO 282,754.6 97,139.2 18,621.1 2859.4 Actual LTO for considered airport 185,055.1 59,556.4 16,869.1 2207.3 Actual LTO for considered airport + temperature factor 190,246.1 61,254.1 15,984.1 2207.3

*Average values of aircraft engine emission factor recalculation into actual ambient temperature.*

*TISA* <sup>1</sup>*=*<sup>2</sup>

*KQi* <sup>¼</sup> *KEIi* � *Tt*

products of incomplete fuel combustion KQco for average parameters of the

the recommendations of ICAO Doc9889 [12] for emission factor assessment,

The efficiency of the temperature (seasonal) factor account for pollution inventory produced by aircraft in airport area is shown in **Table 2** by matching the outcomes of calculation from previous and new calculation techniques [19].

including the recommendations for aircraft engine emission.

logical conditions are determined under the formula:

engines while in operation are adduced.

*Modeling of Air Pollution at Airports*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84172*

number for the flow is rather large U0D0/ν > 105

the structure of shear layer is similar to free jet [11].

**2.2 Jet transport model**

**Table 1.**

**Table 2.**

**99**

*Calculated aircraft engine pollution, kg.*

(1)

(2)

, and the initial turbulence in the jet

**Figure 6.**

*Comparison EICO determined for CFM-5Bx engines with ICAO values for idling aircraft at European airports.*

#### **Figure 7.**

*Dependences of EE index EI [gemission/kgfuel], factor Q [g/s] for NOx, and temperature behind the compressor Tc for D-36 engine from ambient temperature.*

of the measured emission indices for three engine types (CFM56-5B1, CFM-5B4/2P, and CFM56-5B3/P) are nearly identical although the ICAO data of the CFM56-5B family differ by a factor of 2 (**Figure 6)** [7].

The dependences of engine thermodynamic parameters and EE index for NOx (assessed in g/kgfuel) and factor Q (assessed in g/sec) for the aircraft engine D-36 (installed on Yakovlev-42 and on Antonov-74, -148, and -158 aircrafts) are shown in **Figure 7** as the functions from ambient temperature ТА (basic engine control law for D-36 provides the constant value of compressor pressure ratio π∑\* in a broad range of ambient temperatures). Values of an emission index ЕINOx vary up to 50% in relation to value at International standard atmosphere conditions inside the range of ambient temperatures between 30 and + 30°C [17, 18].

A gradient of change of the factor *Q*NOx at *T*<sup>A</sup> < *T*ALIM is also large enough (with *Т*<sup>A</sup> growth, a factor *Q*NOx monotonically increases). In case of change of engine automatic control mode at *T*<sup>A</sup> > *T*ALIM, the propellant consumption drops with the growth of temperature; therefore, monotonic character for *Q*NOx dependence disappears and at *T*<sup>A</sup> > 30° C, the factor *Q*NOx decreases [17, 18].

So, under operating conditions, engine emission characteristics are subject to changes as a result of influence of the meteorological factors.

Based on the obtained research outcomes of aircraft engine emission derivation, due to meteorological factor influences, the model was developed to recalculate the emission indices for ISA conditions *EI*iISA into actual meteorological conditions *EI*it [17, 18]:

*Modeling of Air Pollution at Airports DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84172*

$$K\_{Eli} = \frac{EI\_{\text{if}}}{EI\_{iISA}} \tag{1}$$

For emission factor (in g/s or kg/hour), the recalculation into actual meteorological conditions are determined under the formula:

$$K\_{Qi} = K\_{El\_i} \cdot \left(\frac{T\_t}{T\_{ISA}}\right)^{1/2} \tag{2}$$

In **Table 1,** the correction coefficients for NOx emission factor KQnox and for products of incomplete fuel combustion KQco for average parameters of the engines while in operation are adduced.

Current calculation method, realized in software PolEmiCa, also implemented the recommendations of ICAO Doc9889 [12] for emission factor assessment, including the recommendations for aircraft engine emission.

The efficiency of the temperature (seasonal) factor account for pollution inventory produced by aircraft in airport area is shown in **Table 2** by matching the outcomes of calculation from previous and new calculation techniques [19].

#### **2.2 Jet transport model**

There are different types of engines installed on civilian aircraft currently: turbojet (TJE), turbofan (TFE), turboprop (TPE), and piston (PE). The process of contaminant transport by engine jet is described by the theory of turbulent jets [20]. The restrictions on the use of this theory are satisfied completely in the current task [21]: efflux from a jet engine is a very complex fast flow of hot gas, it is nonuniform, turbulent, and has various velocity scales and chemical reactions; the gas flow in jet is usually isobaric process, the pressure in the jet flow is equal to the atmospheric pressure, which is corresponding to the nature of incompressible flow; the Mach number of jet flow at outlet nozzle of the engine does not exceed 1; and the Reynolds number for the flow is rather large U0D0/ν > 105 , and the initial turbulence in the jet flow is quite moderate. For majority of the calculations, the simplifying preconditions were formulated and used: radial velocity profile has a self-preserving pattern; mechanisms of boundary layer formation near ground surface are not taken into account in this calculation; the external borders of a jet represent linear dependencies; the structure of shear layer is similar to free jet [11].


#### **Table 1.**

of the measured emission indices for three engine types (CFM56-5B1, CFM-5B4/2P, and CFM56-5B3/P) are nearly identical although the ICAO data of the CFM56-5B

*Dependences of EE index EI [gemission/kgfuel], factor Q [g/s] for NOx, and temperature behind the compressor Tc*

*Comparison EICO determined for CFM-5Bx engines with ICAO values for idling aircraft at European airports.*

*Environmental Impact of Aviation and Sustainable Solutions*

The dependences of engine thermodynamic parameters and EE index for NOx (assessed in g/kgfuel) and factor Q (assessed in g/sec) for the aircraft engine D-36 (installed on Yakovlev-42 and on Antonov-74, -148, and -158 aircrafts) are shown in **Figure 7** as the functions from ambient temperature ТА (basic engine control law for D-36 provides the constant value of compressor pressure ratio π∑\* in a broad range of ambient temperatures). Values of an emission index ЕINOx vary up to 50% in relation to value at International standard atmosphere conditions inside the range

A gradient of change of the factor *Q*NOx at *T*<sup>A</sup> < *T*ALIM is also large enough (with

C, the factor *Q*NOx decreases [17, 18]. So, under operating conditions, engine emission characteristics are subject to

Based on the obtained research outcomes of aircraft engine emission derivation, due to meteorological factor influences, the model was developed to recalculate the emission indices for ISA conditions *EI*iISA into actual meteorological conditions *EI*it [17, 18]:

*Т*<sup>A</sup> growth, a factor *Q*NOx monotonically increases). In case of change of engine automatic control mode at *T*<sup>A</sup> > *T*ALIM, the propellant consumption drops with the growth of temperature; therefore, monotonic character for *Q*NOx dependence dis-

family differ by a factor of 2 (**Figure 6)** [7].

*for D-36 engine from ambient temperature.*

appears and at *T*<sup>A</sup> > 30°

**98**

**Figure 6.**

**Figure 7.**

of ambient temperatures between 30 and + 30°C [17, 18].

changes as a result of influence of the meteorological factors.

*Average values of aircraft engine emission factor recalculation into actual ambient temperature.*


#### **Table 2.**

*Calculated aircraft engine pollution, kg.*

The conditions of jet outflow define the type of its physical model and appropriate algorithm of its parameters calculation. The choice of the model depends on the direction of the jet at exhaust nozzle relative to the direction of the wind and/or airplane motion and from the speeds of the jet, airplane, and wind. The initial parameters for jet calculations are: slipstream flow parameter m = UH/U0, where U0 is the velocity of the jet at engine nozzle, m�s �<sup>1</sup> and UH is the speed of an external air flow, m�s �1 ; UH = UW + UPL, where UW is the wind speed, m�s �<sup>1</sup> and UPL is the airplane speed, m�s �1 ; Nen – number of the engines in operation, angle between vectors of wind and jet speeds ψ, grad. For ground stages of LTO cycle in airport area, the slipstream parameter m < < 1; therefore, in most cases, it is possible to take advantage of semiempirical modeling of the nonisothermal-free jets.

Turbulent-free jet can be divided into three stages: initial (potential core), transitive (flow development region), and developed (fully developed flow) [20]. Their boundaries along the length of jet axis *S* and their expansion *R* (on considered sites) are defined by the formulas [11, 20, 22]:

#### • **for an initial stage**:

$$
\overline{\mathbf{S}}\_{\text{IN}} = (\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}.\mathbf{5} - \mathbf{3}.\mathbf{5} \times \mathbf{Q}\_{T}) \times (\mathbf{1} + \mathbf{2}.\mathbf{5} \times \mathbf{m}); \overline{R}\_{\text{IN}} = \mathbf{0}.\mathbf{27} \times \overline{\mathbf{S}}\_{\text{IN}}\tag{3}
$$

• **for a transitive stage**:

$$
\overline{\mathbf{S}}\_T = \mathbf{1.5} \times \overline{\mathbf{S}}\_{IN}; \overline{R}\_T = \mathbf{1.5} \times \overline{R}\_{IN} \tag{4}
$$

where *XA* ¼ *XA =R*<sup>0</sup> , *X*<sup>A</sup> is the longitudinal coordinate of jet axis curved by buoy-

2 *A*

The concentration is changed along the length of jet in dependence with its type. Taking into account that flow parameter *m* in jet is rather small, the concentration *C*

where C0 is the concentration at the exhaust nozzle of the engine, <sup>μ</sup>g�m�<sup>3</sup>

KC = 9.5 for the free jet, KC = 6.5—for an opposite jet; and KE takes into account influence of a reflecting surface on straightline characteristics of a jet: ĥEN < 20

Considered version of complex model PolEmiCa is based on a semiempirical model of turbulent jets and not taking into account ground surface impact on jet

dimensional model of exhaust gases jet from aircraft engine near the ground is an

A three-dimensional model of a jet was generated in Fluent 6.3 by using large Eddy simulation (LES) method to reveal the unsteady ground vortices and turbulence characteristics of fluid flow, to investigate transient parameters of hot gases in

The jet from aircraft engine exhaust near ground surface is corresponding to a wall jet if an aircraft is moving on this surface. Numerical simulation of wall jets was performed in Fluent 6.3 for engine NK-8-2 U of the aircraft Tupolev-154 for differ-

For the considered task, a computational domain was built to simplify the problem and optimize the mesh distribution where it is needed mostly (i.e., near the

The zone of ground vortices formation—between ground surface and aircraft engine exhaust nozzle—is characterized by structured mesh with higher resolution, with an aim to investigate the ground vortices generation processes and basic mechanisms of boundary layer formation, ground surface impact on fluid flow mechanics, and particularly Coanda effect occurrence. Zone of engine nozzle exhaust is discretized using a very fine structured mesh to capture the jet develop-

For considered task, the boundary conditions were specified to the boundaries of

; T0 = 343 K) revealed some differences in

LES provides an approach inside which large eddies are explicitly resolved in time-dependent simulation using low-pass-filtered Navier-Stokes equations [25]. Smagorinsky's subgrid model was set to model the smaller eddies (fluctuation component of instantaneous velocity of modeling fluid flow) that are not resolved in the LES. All the calculations were made with a second-order discretization. Comparison of results from numerical simulations of free and wall jets for

Axial velocity profiles based on Fluent 6.3 results show (**Figure 10**) a substantial difference between the wall and free jet. First, the decay rate is 40–50% higher for

�1

structure and its behavior [11]. It was argued that development of three-

� <sup>1</sup> � *<sup>Z</sup>*

� �1*=*<sup>2</sup>

� 1*=*0*:*078 � *Ar*<sup>0</sup>

0*:*23668 � *X* � �1*:*<sup>5</sup> " #1*:*<sup>5</sup> *:* (9)

*,* (10)

;

ancy effect, m (**Figure 1**) and can be calculated by the following formula:

� �1*=*<sup>2</sup>

*XA* ¼ 1 þ 0*:*156 � *Ar*<sup>0</sup> � *S*

*Modeling of Air Pollution at Airports*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84172*

of the contaminant on a surface (*X, Z*) is defined as [20, 22]:

*<sup>C</sup>* <sup>¼</sup> <sup>2</sup> � *<sup>C</sup>*<sup>0</sup> � *KC* � *KE Q*1*=*<sup>2</sup> *<sup>T</sup>* � *X*

KE = 1–0.025hEN, at ĥEN ≥ 20, KE = 1, where ĥ = h/R0.

important research topic for airport LAQ [24–26].

engine exhaust and ground surface) (**Figure 8**).

ment pattern and its vortices structure [24, 25].

engine idle operation (U0 = 50 m�s

their structures and properties.

**101**

the computational domain of jet flow field (**Figure 9**).

jet and their dispersion.

ent operational conditions.

• **for the fully developed stage**:

$$\overline{\mathbf{S}}\_{B} = \mathbf{1} \mathbf{2}.4 \times \mathbf{Q}\_{T}^{-1/2} \times (\mathbf{1} - \boldsymbol{\sigma})/\boldsymbol{m} + \overline{\mathbf{S}}\_{T};\\\overline{\mathbf{R}}\_{B} = \mathbf{2}.728 \times \left(\mathbf{Q}\_{T}\boldsymbol{m}\right)^{-1/2} + \overline{\mathbf{R}}\_{T} \tag{5}$$

where *<sup>S</sup>* <sup>¼</sup> *<sup>S</sup> <sup>R</sup> <sup>=</sup>* <sup>0</sup> and *<sup>R</sup>* <sup>¼</sup> *<sup>R</sup> Ro <sup>=</sup>* ; *R0* is the radius of engine exhaust nozzle; *<sup>m</sup>* is the slipstream flow parameter; and *QT = T0/TA*, where *T0* and *TA* are the temperature of the jet and atmosphere, K. Parameter *QT* for modern engines changes within the limits of 1.15–2 for the operational settings of engine power.

The stage of a jet, which is defined by boundary *S*<sup>B</sup> (6), determines a point (*X*E, *Y*E, *Z*E) on a jet axis, where centerline flow speed *Um* and the wind speed *UW* become equal. From this point, it is assumed that atmospheric turbulence and wind play a dominant role in the plume behavior and its further dispersion, while the jet parameters influence is not already sufficient at this stage of plume development.

At point (*X*E, *Y*E, *Z*E), a jet center-line due to buoyancy effect takes height of plume rise (it is equal to effective height of source *H* in (1) and (2)) [11, 20, 22]:

$$Z\_E = h\_{EN} + \Delta h\_{A\bullet} \tag{6}$$

where *h*EN is a height of engine installation (of their axis above a ground surface), m and Δ*hA* is a height of jet rise, m.

For an estimation of the buoyancy characteristics, the Archimedes number is introduced:

$$Ar\_0 = {}^{2 \times g \times R\_0 \times (Q\_T - 1)} \langle {}\_{U\_0^2}, \tag{7}$$

The height of the jet is given by the empirical relationship [23]:

$$
\Delta h\_A = 0.013 \times Ar\_0 \times \overline{X}\_A^3 \times R\_0,\tag{8}
$$

#### *Modeling of Air Pollution at Airports DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84172*

The conditions of jet outflow define the type of its physical model and appropriate algorithm of its parameters calculation. The choice of the model depends on the direction of the jet at exhaust nozzle relative to the direction of the wind and/or airplane motion and from the speeds of the jet, airplane, and wind. The initial parameters for jet calculations are: slipstream flow parameter m = UH/U0, where U0

; UH = UW + UPL, where UW is the wind speed, m�s

vectors of wind and jet speeds ψ, grad. For ground stages of LTO cycle in airport area, the slipstream parameter m < < 1; therefore, in most cases, it is possible to

Turbulent-free jet can be divided into three stages: initial (potential core), tran-

*SIN* ¼ 11*:*5 � 3*:*5 � *QT* ð Þ � ð Þ 1 þ 2*:*5 � *m* ; *RIN* ¼ 0*:*27 � *SIN* (3)

*ST* ¼ 1*:*5 � *SIN*; *RT* ¼ 1*:*5 � *RIN* (4)

*ZE* ¼ *hEN* þ Δ*hA,* (6)

*;* (7)

*<sup>A</sup>* � *R*0*,* (8)

*=U*2 0

*<sup>T</sup>* � ð Þ <sup>1</sup> � *<sup>m</sup> <sup>=</sup><sup>m</sup>* <sup>þ</sup> *ST*; *RB* <sup>¼</sup> <sup>2</sup>*:*<sup>728</sup> � ð Þ *QTm* �1*=*<sup>2</sup> <sup>þ</sup> *RT* (5)

where *<sup>S</sup>* <sup>¼</sup> *<sup>S</sup> <sup>R</sup> <sup>=</sup>* <sup>0</sup> and *<sup>R</sup>* <sup>¼</sup> *<sup>R</sup> Ro <sup>=</sup>* ; *R0* is the radius of engine exhaust nozzle; *<sup>m</sup>* is the slipstream flow parameter; and *QT = T0/TA*, where *T0* and *TA* are the temperature of the jet and atmosphere, K. Parameter *QT* for modern engines changes within the

The stage of a jet, which is defined by boundary *S*<sup>B</sup> (6), determines a point (*X*E, *Y*E, *Z*E) on a jet axis, where centerline flow speed *Um* and the wind speed *UW* become equal. From this point, it is assumed that atmospheric turbulence and wind play a dominant role in the plume behavior and its further dispersion, while the jet parameters influence is not already sufficient at this stage of plume development. At point (*X*E, *Y*E, *Z*E), a jet center-line due to buoyancy effect takes height of plume rise (it is equal to effective height of source *H* in (1) and (2)) [11, 20, 22]:

where *h*EN is a height of engine installation (of their axis above a ground

*Ar*<sup>0</sup> ¼ <sup>2</sup>�*g*�*R*0�ð*QT*�1<sup>Þ</sup>

<sup>Δ</sup>*hA* <sup>¼</sup> <sup>0</sup>*:*<sup>013</sup> � *Ar*<sup>0</sup> � *<sup>X</sup>*<sup>3</sup>

The height of the jet is given by the empirical relationship [23]:

For an estimation of the buoyancy characteristics, the Archimedes number is

limits of 1.15–2 for the operational settings of engine power.

take advantage of semiempirical modeling of the nonisothermal-free jets.

sitive (flow development region), and developed (fully developed flow) [20]. Their boundaries along the length of jet axis *S* and their expansion *R* (on considered

; Nen – number of the engines in operation, angle between

�<sup>1</sup> and UH is the speed of an external

�<sup>1</sup> and UPL is the

is the velocity of the jet at engine nozzle, m�s

*Environmental Impact of Aviation and Sustainable Solutions*

sites) are defined by the formulas [11, 20, 22]:

�1

air flow, m�s

airplane speed, m�s

�1

• **for an initial stage**:

• **for a transitive stage**:

*SB* <sup>¼</sup> <sup>12</sup>*:*<sup>4</sup> � *<sup>Q</sup>*�1*=*<sup>2</sup>

• **for the fully developed stage**:

surface), m and Δ*hA* is a height of jet rise, m.

introduced:

**100**

where *XA* ¼ *XA =R*<sup>0</sup> , *X*<sup>A</sup> is the longitudinal coordinate of jet axis curved by buoyancy effect, m (**Figure 1**) and can be calculated by the following formula:

$$\overline{X}\_A = \left\{ \left( \mathbf{1} + \mathbf{0.156} \times Ar\_0 \times \overline{S}\_A^2 \right)^{1/2} - \mathbf{1} / \mathbf{0.078} \times Ar\_0 \right\}^{1/2}.\tag{9}$$

The concentration is changed along the length of jet in dependence with its type. Taking into account that flow parameter *m* in jet is rather small, the concentration *C* of the contaminant on a surface (*X, Z*) is defined as [20, 22]:

$$\mathbf{C} = \frac{2 \times \mathbf{C}\_0 \times \mathbf{K}\_C \times \mathbf{K}\_E}{\mathbf{Q}\_T^{1/2} \times \mathbf{X}} \times \left[ \mathbf{1} - \left( \frac{\mathbf{Z}}{0.23668 \times \mathbf{X}} \right)^{1.5} \right]^{1.5},\tag{10}$$

where C0 is the concentration at the exhaust nozzle of the engine, <sup>μ</sup>g�m�<sup>3</sup> ; KC = 9.5 for the free jet, KC = 6.5—for an opposite jet; and KE takes into account influence of a reflecting surface on straightline characteristics of a jet: ĥEN < 20 KE = 1–0.025hEN, at ĥEN ≥ 20, KE = 1, where ĥ = h/R0.

Considered version of complex model PolEmiCa is based on a semiempirical model of turbulent jets and not taking into account ground surface impact on jet structure and its behavior [11]. It was argued that development of threedimensional model of exhaust gases jet from aircraft engine near the ground is an important research topic for airport LAQ [24–26].

A three-dimensional model of a jet was generated in Fluent 6.3 by using large Eddy simulation (LES) method to reveal the unsteady ground vortices and turbulence characteristics of fluid flow, to investigate transient parameters of hot gases in jet and their dispersion.

The jet from aircraft engine exhaust near ground surface is corresponding to a wall jet if an aircraft is moving on this surface. Numerical simulation of wall jets was performed in Fluent 6.3 for engine NK-8-2 U of the aircraft Tupolev-154 for different operational conditions.

For the considered task, a computational domain was built to simplify the problem and optimize the mesh distribution where it is needed mostly (i.e., near the engine exhaust and ground surface) (**Figure 8**).

The zone of ground vortices formation—between ground surface and aircraft engine exhaust nozzle—is characterized by structured mesh with higher resolution, with an aim to investigate the ground vortices generation processes and basic mechanisms of boundary layer formation, ground surface impact on fluid flow mechanics, and particularly Coanda effect occurrence. Zone of engine nozzle exhaust is discretized using a very fine structured mesh to capture the jet development pattern and its vortices structure [24, 25].

For considered task, the boundary conditions were specified to the boundaries of the computational domain of jet flow field (**Figure 9**).

LES provides an approach inside which large eddies are explicitly resolved in time-dependent simulation using low-pass-filtered Navier-Stokes equations [25]. Smagorinsky's subgrid model was set to model the smaller eddies (fluctuation component of instantaneous velocity of modeling fluid flow) that are not resolved in the LES. All the calculations were made with a second-order discretization.

Comparison of results from numerical simulations of free and wall jets for engine idle operation (U0 = 50 m�s �1 ; T0 = 343 K) revealed some differences in their structures and properties.

Axial velocity profiles based on Fluent 6.3 results show (**Figure 10**) a substantial difference between the wall and free jet. First, the decay rate is 40–50% higher for

**Figure 8.**

*Geometry model and computational mesh visualization in vertical plane.*

The ground surface sufficiently impacts on jet's structure and behavior. Numerical simulations of wall jet by Fluent 6.3 defined a decrease of buoyancy effect of height rise, which is 3–5 times less (**Figure 13a**) and an increase of longitudinal

Comparison of the calculated parameters of the jet (height and longitudinal coordinate of jet axis arise due to buoyancy effect, length of the jet penetration) by Fluent 6.3 and semiempirical model for aircraft engine jets implemented in complex model PolEmiCa proves the found trend of the jet behavior. Thus, the including the ground impact on the jet structure and its behavior by Fluent 6.3, provides longitudinal coordinate increase and height reduction of buoyancy effect.

The basic model equation for definition of instantaneous concentration *C* at any moment *t* in point (*x,y,z*) from a moving source from a single exhaust event with preliminary transport by jet on distance *XA* and rise on total altitude *H* (**Figure 4**)

" #

� *<sup>y</sup>*‐*y*<sup>0</sup> ð Þ<sup>2</sup> 2*σ*<sup>2</sup>

*<sup>y</sup>*<sup>0</sup> þ 2*Kyt*

*<sup>z</sup>*<sup>0</sup> <sup>þ</sup> <sup>2</sup>*Kzt* � �<sup>1</sup>*=*<sup>2</sup>

*<sup>y</sup>*<sup>0</sup> þ 4*Kyt*

<sup>þ</sup> *exp* � *<sup>z</sup>* <sup>þ</sup> *<sup>z</sup>* ð Þ <sup>0</sup> <sup>þ</sup> *<sup>H</sup>* <sup>2</sup> 2*σ*<sup>2</sup>

*<sup>z</sup>*<sup>0</sup> þ 4*Kzt*

9 >>>>= (11)

>>>>;

" #

coordinate of jet penetration by 30%, (**Figure 13b**).

*Maximum velocity decay along the axis of the free and wall jets.*

*Modeling of Air Pollution at Airports*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84172*

and dilution of contaminants by jet (σ*0*) has a form [11, 19]:

*Q exp* � *<sup>x</sup>*‐*x*<sup>0</sup> ð Þ<sup>2</sup> 2*σ*<sup>2</sup>

8 *π*<sup>3</sup> *σ*<sup>2</sup>

�

8 >>>><

>>>>:

*<sup>x</sup>*<sup>0</sup> þ 4*Kxt*

n o h i <sup>1</sup>*=*<sup>2</sup>

*<sup>z</sup>*<sup>0</sup> þ 4*Kzt*

*σ*2

*<sup>x</sup>*<sup>0</sup> <sup>þ</sup> <sup>2</sup>*Kxt* � � *<sup>σ</sup>*<sup>2</sup>

" #

*exp* � *<sup>z</sup>*‐*z*<sup>0</sup> ð Þ ‐*<sup>H</sup>* <sup>2</sup> 2*σ*<sup>2</sup>

**2.3 Dispersion model**

**Figure 10.**

*C x*ð Þ¼ *; y; z; t*

**103**

**Figure 9.** *Boundary conditions for CFD simulations of exhaust gases of jet from aircraft engine near ground.*

free jet than for the wall jet. In the case of wall jet, the maximum velocity is high and equal to 50% of initial velocity at a distance of 90 diameters of the jet penetration, whereas the free jet is relatively slow and equal only to 10% of the velocity at exhaust nozzle of the engine, **Figure 10**. Second, the wall jet penetrates deeper (SBwall ≈ 150 m) than the free jet (SBfree ≈ 100 m) (**Figure 11**). As shown in **Figure 12,** jet arises over the ground surface due to buoyancy effect much faster (longitudinal coordinate, XA = 65 m) and higher for free jet (height of plume rise, ΔhA = 17.8 m), than in case of wall jet (XA = 135 m, ΔhA = 14 m).

The same differences in the structure and properties of free and wall jets were revealed for different operational conditions (U0 = 100 ms 1 ; T0 = 343 ÷ 673 K).

**Figure 10.** *Maximum velocity decay along the axis of the free and wall jets.*

The ground surface sufficiently impacts on jet's structure and behavior. Numerical simulations of wall jet by Fluent 6.3 defined a decrease of buoyancy effect of height rise, which is 3–5 times less (**Figure 13a**) and an increase of longitudinal coordinate of jet penetration by 30%, (**Figure 13b**).

Comparison of the calculated parameters of the jet (height and longitudinal coordinate of jet axis arise due to buoyancy effect, length of the jet penetration) by Fluent 6.3 and semiempirical model for aircraft engine jets implemented in complex model PolEmiCa proves the found trend of the jet behavior. Thus, the including the ground impact on the jet structure and its behavior by Fluent 6.3, provides longitudinal coordinate increase and height reduction of buoyancy effect.

#### **2.3 Dispersion model**

The basic model equation for definition of instantaneous concentration *C* at any moment *t* in point (*x,y,z*) from a moving source from a single exhaust event with preliminary transport by jet on distance *XA* and rise on total altitude *H* (**Figure 4**) and dilution of contaminants by jet (σ*0*) has a form [11, 19]:

$$C(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}, \mathbf{z}, t) = \frac{Q \exp\left[ -\frac{(\mathbf{x} \cdot \mathbf{x}')^2}{2\sigma\_{x0}^2 + 4K\_x t} - \frac{(\mathbf{y} \cdot \mathbf{y}')^2}{2\sigma\_{y0}^2 + 4K\_y t} \right]}{\left\{ 8\pi^3 \left[ \sigma\_{x0}^2 + 2K\_x t \right] \left[ \sigma\_{y0}^2 + 2K\_y t \right] \right\}^{1/2}} \tag{11}$$

$$\times \left\{ \frac{\exp\left[ -\frac{(\mathbf{z} \cdot \mathbf{z}' \cdot \mathbf{H})^2}{2\sigma\_{x0}^2 + 4K\_x t} \right] + \exp\left[ -\frac{(\mathbf{z} + \mathbf{z}' + \mathbf{H})^2}{2\sigma\_{x0}^2 + 4K\_x t} \right]}{\left[ \sigma\_{x0}^2 + 2K\_x t \right]^{1/2}} \right\}$$

free jet than for the wall jet. In the case of wall jet, the maximum velocity is high and equal to 50% of initial velocity at a distance of 90 diameters of the jet penetration, whereas the free jet is relatively slow and equal only to 10% of the velocity at exhaust nozzle of the engine, **Figure 10**. Second, the wall jet penetrates deeper (SBwall ≈ 150 m) than the free jet (SBfree ≈ 100 m) (**Figure 11**). As shown in **Figure 12,** jet arises over the ground surface due to buoyancy effect much faster (longitudinal coordinate, XA = 65 m) and higher for free jet (height of plume rise, ΔhA = 17.8 m), than in case of

*Boundary conditions for CFD simulations of exhaust gases of jet from aircraft engine near ground.*

The same differences in the structure and properties of free and wall jets were

1

; T0 = 343 ÷ 673 K).

revealed for different operational conditions (U0 = 100 ms

*Geometry model and computational mesh visualization in vertical plane.*

*Environmental Impact of Aviation and Sustainable Solutions*

wall jet (XA = 135 m, ΔhA = 14 m).

**Figure 9.**

**102**

**Figure 8.**

*x*<sup>0</sup> ¼ *x*<sup>0</sup> þ *uPLt*

*y*<sup>0</sup> ¼ *y*<sup>0</sup> þ *vPLt*

*<sup>z</sup>*´ <sup>¼</sup> *<sup>z</sup>*<sup>0</sup> <sup>þ</sup> *wPLt*

�1

; and *uw* is the wind speed, m�s

*Buoyancy effect of free and wall jets: longitudinal and vertical coordinates of jet axis.*

*Comparison of buoyancy effect parameters calculated by Fluent 6.3 and complex model PolEmiCa:*

components of source speed, m�s

*Modeling of Air Pollution at Airports*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84172*

�2

acceleration, m�s

**Figure 12.**

**Figure 13.**

**105**

*longitudinal coordinate (a) and height of jet rise (b).*

<sup>0</sup> þ 0*:*5*aPLt*

02 *;*

> 0'2 *:*

<sup>0</sup> þ 0*:*5*bPLt*

<sup>0</sup> þ 0*:*5*cPLt*

where *x0, y0, z0* are initial coordinates of the source, m; *uPL, vPL, wPL* are vector

<sup>0</sup><sup>2</sup> <sup>þ</sup> *uw <sup>t</sup>* <sup>þ</sup> *<sup>t</sup>* <sup>0</sup> ð Þ*;*

> �1 .

; *aPL, bPL, cPL* are vector components of source

(12)

**Figure 11.** *Mean velocity contours for (a) free jet and (b) wall jet in streamwise direction after 10 s.*

where *KX, KY, KZ* are the diffusion factors (m<sup>2</sup> s 1 ) for atmosphere turbulence along three axes, axis *OX* is directed along wind direction. Aircraft is considered as a moving emission source, thus current coordinates (*x', y', z'*) of the emission source in movement during time *t'* are defined as:

*Modeling of Air Pollution at Airports DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84172*

$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf{x'} &= \mathbf{x}\_0 + \mathbf{u}\_{PL}t' + \mathbf{0.5a\_{PL}}t'^2 + \mathbf{u}\_w(t+t');\\ \mathbf{y'} &= \mathbf{y}\_0 + \mathbf{v}\_{PL}t' + \mathbf{0.5b\_{PL}}t'^2;\\ \mathbf{z'} &= \mathbf{z}\_0 + \mathbf{w}\_{PL}t' + \mathbf{0.5c\_{PL}}t'^2. \end{aligned} \tag{12}$$

where *x0, y0, z0* are initial coordinates of the source, m; *uPL, vPL, wPL* are vector components of source speed, m�s �1 ; *aPL, bPL, cPL* are vector components of source acceleration, m�s �2 ; and *uw* is the wind speed, m�s �1 .

**Figure 12.** *Buoyancy effect of free and wall jets: longitudinal and vertical coordinates of jet axis.*

**Figure 13.**

*Comparison of buoyancy effect parameters calculated by Fluent 6.3 and complex model PolEmiCa: longitudinal coordinate (a) and height of jet rise (b).*

where *KX, KY, KZ* are the diffusion factors (m<sup>2</sup>

*Environmental Impact of Aviation and Sustainable Solutions*

*Mean velocity contours for (a) free jet and (b) wall jet in streamwise direction after 10 s.*

in movement during time *t'* are defined as:

**Figure 11.**

**104**

s 1

along three axes, axis *OX* is directed along wind direction. Aircraft is considered as a moving emission source, thus current coordinates (*x', y', z'*) of the emission source

) for atmosphere turbulence

According to considered formula (11), a dispersion model integrates engine emission model and jet transport model via including the following parameters:

*Q—*emission rate is provided by engine emission model and includes influence operational and meteorological conditions [17–19].

*H—*height of buoyancy effect and horizontal σ<sup>2</sup> x, σ<sup>2</sup> <sup>y</sup> and vertical σ<sup>2</sup> <sup>z</sup> dispersion are provided by *jet transport model* [24–26].

In other words, engine emission model and jet transport model provide input data to calculate concentration values by the dispersion model.

The development of three-dimensional model of wall jet by using CFD tool (Fluent 6.3) allows to include the ground impact on basic parameters of the exhaust gases jet (i.e., plume buoyancy effect, length, and dispersion characteristics) for further dispersion modeling (11). It may be concluded that using the CFD tool allows us to improve the PolEmiCa model by taking into account the impact of ground surface on the jet structure and its behavior. So, it means that the improvement is achieved with input parameters for further dispersion calculation.

## **3. Measurement of air pollution produced by aircraft engine emissions**

The verification of the PolEmiCa model with measurement data was done initiatively for trials made in airports of Athens (Greece, 2007) [27] and Boryspil (Ukraine, 2012) [28]. In both cases, the comparisons were quite good, showing appropriate correspondence of the model to subject of assessment.

because impact of jet basic parameters (buoyancy effect and dispersion characteristics) on concentration distribution was estimated by complex model PolEmiCa (**Table 3** and **Figure 14**). Comparison between measurements and the PolEmiCa/ Fluent 6.3 model is significantly better (by 20%), because lateral wind and ground impact on jet parameters (height of buoyancy effect, jet length penetration, and

*Comparison of measured and modeled averaged concentrations of NOx (for a period of 1 min) under takeoff*

The better agreement was obtained between the calculated and measured instantaneous concentration (averaged for 3 s) in aircraft engine jet under real operation conditions (aircraft accelerating on the runway and takeoff) at Boryspil

As shown from **Table 4** and **Figure 15**, the modeling results for each engine are in good agreement with the results of measurements by the AC3 2 M system due to taking into account the jet- and plume regime during experimental investigation at Boryspil airport. Also, using CFD code (Fluent 6.3) allows to improve results by 30% (coefficient of correlation, r = 0.76) by taking into account lateral wind and

**ELAN AC3 2 M PolEmiCa CFD**

**Peak 1 Peak 1 Background 3 м 6 м 1**

BAE147 LY LF507-1H 38 35 1,70 22,067 33,9 35,1 70,46 48,9 202,3 A321 CFM56-5B3/P 39 39 0,72 44,00 54,2 90,85 182,90 184,2 371,2 B735 CFM-563C1 40 45 0,77 94,095 76,57 60,03 120,91 35,3 71,10 B735 CFM56-3B1 45 41 1,74 29,20 23,4 42,34 85,30 33,7 67,76

*Comparison measured (AC3 2 M, ELAN) and calculated concentration (averaged for 3 s) of NOx produced*

**(Fluent 6.3)**

**All engines**

**engine**

**NOx NOx NOx NOx NOx NOx NOx NOx NOx**

**PolEmiCa**

**All engines**

**1 engine**

plume dispersions) were included in the model.

*by aircraft engine emissions at accelerating stage on the runway.*

*conditions (maximum operation mode of aircraft engine).*

*Modeling of Air Pollution at Airports*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84172*

ground impact on jet parameters.

**engine**

**Aircraft Aircraft**

airport.

**Table 4.**

**107**

**Figure 14.**

Comparison between calculated and measured NOx concentrations (averaged for 1 min) in aircraft engine plume under real operation conditions (aircraft accelerating on the runway during takeoff stage of flight) at Athens airport is shown in **Table 3** and **Figure 14**.

Besides, results were defined for the cases with and without jets from the engines to show that with jets, they are more equal (by 17%) to measured data,


#### **Table 3.**

*Measurement results by TE42C-TL96 system and calculation results by PolEmiCa model of NOx concentration in plume from aircraft engine emission for maximum operation mode.*

#### **Figure 14.**

According to considered formula (11), a dispersion model integrates engine emission model and jet transport model via including the following parameters: *Q—*emission rate is provided by engine emission model and includes influence

In other words, engine emission model and jet transport model provide input

The development of three-dimensional model of wall jet by using CFD tool (Fluent 6.3) allows to include the ground impact on basic parameters of the exhaust gases jet (i.e., plume buoyancy effect, length, and dispersion characteristics) for further dispersion modeling (11). It may be concluded that using the CFD tool allows us to improve the PolEmiCa model by taking into account the impact of ground surface on the jet structure and its behavior. So, it means that the improve-

**3. Measurement of air pollution produced by aircraft engine emissions**

The verification of the PolEmiCa model with measurement data was done initiatively for trials made in airports of Athens (Greece, 2007) [27] and Boryspil (Ukraine, 2012) [28]. In both cases, the comparisons were quite good, showing

Comparison between calculated and measured NOx concentrations (averaged for 1 min) in aircraft engine plume under real operation conditions (aircraft accelerating on the runway during takeoff stage of flight) at Athens airport is shown in

Besides, results were defined for the cases with and without jets from the engines to show that with jets, they are more equal (by 17%) to measured data,

**№ Aircraft Engine Calculated concentration Measured concentration**

1 B737-3YO CFM56-3C1 27,43 30,01 31,8 3,2 2 B737-3Q8 CFM56-3B2 30,7 33,50 28,0 2,8 3 В737-45S CFM56-3B2 29,76 27,95 23,6 2,4 4 B737-4Q8 CFM56-3B2 31,28 34,93 56,9 5,7 5 A-310 CF6-80C2A8 88,86 122,12 86,1 8,6 6 A-319 CFM56-5B5 29,85 32,27 26,9 2,7 7 B747–230 CF6-50E2 163,63 205,37 82,5 8,2 8 A-321-211 CFM56-5B-3 81,78 89,74 43,3 4,3 9 A320–214 CFM56-5B-4 49,99 52,29 16,4 1,6 10 B737-33A CFM56-3B1 25,5 27,95 11,5 1,1

*Measurement results by TE42C-TL96 system and calculation results by PolEmiCa model of NOx concentration*

*in plume from aircraft engine emission for maximum operation mode.*

**NOx (delta), μg/m<sup>3</sup> NOx (delta), μg/m3 With jet Without jet Value Error**

ment is achieved with input parameters for further dispersion calculation.

appropriate correspondence of the model to subject of assessment.

x, σ<sup>2</sup>

<sup>y</sup> and vertical σ<sup>2</sup>

<sup>z</sup> dispersion

operational and meteorological conditions [17–19]. *H—*height of buoyancy effect and horizontal σ<sup>2</sup>

*Environmental Impact of Aviation and Sustainable Solutions*

data to calculate concentration values by the dispersion model.

are provided by *jet transport model* [24–26].

**Table 3** and **Figure 14**.

**Table 3.**

**106**

*Comparison of measured and modeled averaged concentrations of NOx (for a period of 1 min) under takeoff conditions (maximum operation mode of aircraft engine).*

because impact of jet basic parameters (buoyancy effect and dispersion characteristics) on concentration distribution was estimated by complex model PolEmiCa (**Table 3** and **Figure 14**). Comparison between measurements and the PolEmiCa/ Fluent 6.3 model is significantly better (by 20%), because lateral wind and ground impact on jet parameters (height of buoyancy effect, jet length penetration, and plume dispersions) were included in the model.

The better agreement was obtained between the calculated and measured instantaneous concentration (averaged for 3 s) in aircraft engine jet under real operation conditions (aircraft accelerating on the runway and takeoff) at Boryspil airport.

As shown from **Table 4** and **Figure 15**, the modeling results for each engine are in good agreement with the results of measurements by the AC3 2 M system due to taking into account the jet- and plume regime during experimental investigation at Boryspil airport. Also, using CFD code (Fluent 6.3) allows to improve results by 30% (coefficient of correlation, r = 0.76) by taking into account lateral wind and ground impact on jet parameters.


#### **Table 4.**

*Comparison measured (AC3 2 M, ELAN) and calculated concentration (averaged for 3 s) of NOx produced by aircraft engine emissions at accelerating stage on the runway.*

**References**

978-92-9210-197-8

**40**(28):5424-5434

532-538

pdf

2005]

**109**

[1] EEA. 2016. European Aviation Environmental Report. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/ transport/files/european-aviationenvironmental-report-2016-72dpi.pdf [Accessed: 29 January 2016]. ISBN:

*Modeling of Air Pollution at Airports*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84172*

[8] Herndon S, Jayne J, Lobo P. Commercial aircraft engine emissions characterization of in-use aircraft at

international airport. Environmental Science & Technology. 2008;**42**(6):

[9] Fraport Environmental Statement (2014). Including the Environmental Program, until 2017. Fraport AG; 2015.

[10] Umweltbericht. Umwelterklärung 2008 mit Umweltprogramm bis 2011 für den Standort Flughafen Frankfurt Main.

[12] ICAO Doc9889. AirportAirQuality. 1st ed. INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION 999 University Street, Montréal, Quebec,

[13] Emissions and Dispersion Modelling System (EDMS). Reference Manual. FAA-AEE-01-01. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, D.C.:

[14] Janicke Consulting. LASPORT version 1.3 Reference Book; 2005. 93 p

[15] Zaporozhets O. 2015. PolEmiCa Local Air Quality Model Evaluation/O. In: Zaporozhets K. Synylo. АВІА2015: XII міжнародна наук.-техн. конф., 2015: збірник матеріалів—К., С.29.12–29.

[16] ICAO data Bank of Aircraft Engine Emissions. Montreal: ICAO. Doc. 9646-

Fraport AG; 2008. pp. 100-104

[11] Zaporozhets O, Synylo K. PolEmiCa—tool for air pollution and aircraft engine emission assessment in airport. In: The Proceedings of the Second World Congress "Aviation in the XXI-st Century"; Ukraine: Кyiv; 2005.

Hartsfielde Jackson Atlanta

1877-1883

pp. 24-30

pp. 4.22-4.29

Canada; 2011. 200 p

CSSI, Inc; 2002

15. (19)

AN/943; 1995. 152 p

[2] Carslaw D, Beevers S, Ropkins K, Bell M. Detecting and quantifying aircraft and other on-airport contributions to ambient nitrogen oxides in the vicinity

[3] Peace H, Maughan J, Owen B, Raper D. Identifying the contribution of different airport related sources to local urban air quality. Environmental Modelling and Software. 2006;**21**(4):

[4] Jung K, Artigas F, Shin J. Personal, indoor, and outdoor exposure to VOCs in the immediate vicinity of a local airport. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2011;**173**(1):555-567

[5] Nicholas Rand. Heathrow Air Quality Strategy, 2011–2020. Available from: https://www.heathrow.com/file\_source/ Company/Static/PDF/Communityande nvironment/air-quality-strategy\_LHR.

[6] Celikel A, Duchene N, Fleuti E, Fuller I, Hofman P, Moore T, and Silue M. Airport local air quality studies: Zurich Airport Emissions Inventory Using Three Methodologies. 2004. Available from: https://www.euroc ontrol.int/eec/public/standard\_page/ DOC\_Conf\_2005\_007.html [cited: July

[7] Schäfer K, Jahn C, Sturm P, Lecher B,

Bacher M. Aircraft emission measurements by remote sensing methodologies at airports. Atmospheric Environment. Elsevier; 2003;**37**:5261-5271

of a large international airport. Atmospheric Environment. 2006;

**Figure 15.**

*Comparison of the PolEmiCa and PolEmiCa/CFD model results with the measured NOx concentration at different heights for selected aircraft engines under maximum operation mode.*

#### **4. Conclusions**

Analysis of inventory emission results at the major European and Ukrainian airports highlighted that aircrafts (during approach, landing, taxi, takeoff and initial climb of the aircraft, engine run-ups, etc.) are the dominant source of air pollution in most cases under consideration. The aircraft is a special source of air pollution. Thus, the method for LAQ assessment of the airports has to take in mind few features of the aircraft during their landing-takeoff cycle (LTO), which defines emission and dispersion parameters of the considered source.

CFD numerical simulations of aircraft engine exhaust jet near to ground surface show that structures, properties, and fluid mechanics of jets are influenced by the ground surfaces, providing longer penetration, less rise, and appropriate dispersion parameters of the jets, and accordingly little bit higher concentrations of air pollution. So, using results obtained from CFD simulations (Fluent 6.3) of aircraft engine jet dynamics allow us to improve LAQ modeling systems (improved version of PolEmiCa).

Comparison of measured and modeled NOx concentrations in the plumes from aircraft engines was significantly improved (by 20%—at Athens and by 30%—at Boryspil airports) by taking into account lateral wind and ground impact on jet parameters (height of buoyancy effect, jet length penetration, and plume dispersions).

## **Author details**

Oleksandr Zaporozhets and Kateryna Synylo\* National Aviation University, Kyiv, Ukraine

\*Address all correspondence to: synyka@gmail.com

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Modeling of Air Pollution at Airports DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84172*
