550/9-74-013
NOISE MEASUREMENT OF
CONCORDE 02
APPROACH AND TAKEOFF AT
DALLAS - FT. WORTH AND
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS
AUGUST 1974
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
Document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22151.
-------
550/9-74-013
NOISE MEASUREMENT OF CONCORDE 02
APPROACH AND TAKEOFF AT DALLAS-FT. WORTH
AND DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS
By Carole S. Tanner
August 1974
Prepared
for the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
under
Contract 68-01-1599
This report has been approved for general availability. The contents
of this report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein, and do
not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EPA. This report
does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions to
the total effort made by the following people:
Dr. Paul D. Schomer
Environmental Engineering Group
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research
Laboratory (CERL)
Champaign, Illinois
Mr. William Sperry
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. John Waters
Waters Science Associates
Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Ed Sellman
Environmental Quality
Federal Aviation Administration
Washington, D.C.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Page
BACKGROUND 1
CONCORDE 02 OPERATIONS 3
COMMUNITY NOISE MEASUREMENTS 5
DATA ANALYSIS 35
SUMMARY 47
REFERENCES 49
APPENDIX A A-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Aircraft Performance - Flight 78 ...
Aircraft Performance - Flight 79 ...
Aircraft Performance - Flight 80 ...
Dulles International Airport Measurement
Sites
Aircraft Performance - Flight 80 ...
Aircraft Performance - Flight 81 .. .
PNLT Time History
Takeoff Spectrum
Approach Spectrum
A-Level Versus Slant Range Takeoff .
EPNL Versus Slant Range Takeoff . . .
A-Level Versus Slant Range Approach .
EPNL Versus Slant Range Approach . .
Average Takeoff Profile - Concorde 02 .
i
10
16
20
25
27
30
35
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Concorde Description 3
2 Concorde 02 Dallas Flights 4
3 Noise Measurement Operations .... 5
4 Weather Data - Dallas-Ft. Worth ... 6
5 Geometrical Relationships - Dallas -
Ft. Worth 9
6 Weather Data - Dulles 24
7 Concorde Approach Noise Measurement
Geometry - Flight 80 24
8 Concorde Takeoff Noise Measurement
Geometry - Flight 81 33
9 Comparison of Various Noise Measures . 37
10 Concorde 02 Noise Levels Measured
Under FAR 36 Conditions 44
11 Takeoff Noise Comparison 46
12 Approach Noise Comparison 46
vn
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol
A-Level
B-Level
C-Level
C(K)
CPA
CPNL
d
D
D-Level
EPNL
EQL (Leq)
N2
OASPL
PNL
PNLTM
SENEL
SR
Definition Unit
A-weighted sound level - as specified in ANSI AdB
SI.4
B-weighted sound level - as specified in ANSI BdB
SI.4
C-weighted sound level - as specified in ANSI CdB
SI.4
Tone correction - as defined by FAR Part 36 dB
Closest point of approach of airplane to -
microphone
Composite perceived noise level - the perceived PNdB
noise level computed from the highest levels
reached in each of the one-third octave bands,
irrespective of time
Duration time - as defined by FAR Part 36 seconds
Duration correction - as defined by FAR Part 36 dB
D- (or N-) weighted sound level - as specified DdB
in SAE ARP 1080
Effective perceived noise level - as defined by EPNdB
FAR Part 36
Equivalent noise level for single event flyby AdB
High pressure rotor speed - a measure of Percent
engine performance
Overall sound pressure level dB
Perceived noise level - as defined by FAR Part 36 PNdB
Maximum tone corrected perceived noise level - PNdB
as defined by FAR Part 36
Single event noise exposure level - as specified AdB/sec
in California Noise Standards
Shortest distance from microphone to flight path feet
(slant range at CPA)
Vlll
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS, Contd
Symbol
x
X
y
y
Y
a
o
a
Definition Unit
Rectangular coordinates for point on flight track feet
or for microphone station
Shortest distance from microphone to flight feet
track (Horizontal projection of microphone to
flight track)
Rectangular coordinate axis whose origin is the -
approach or takeoff runway threshold.
Rectangular coordinates for point on flight track feet
or for microphone station
Distance along flight track (which may be curved) feet
from axes origin to microphone projection
Rectangular coordinate axis whose origin is the -
approach or takeoff runway threshold - coincident
with runway centerline and takeoff brake release
is assumed to occur at the origin
Rectangular coordinate for point on flight path feet
(vertical projection of point on flight path to
ground)
Shortest distance from microphone projection feet
on flight track to flight path
Rectangular coordinate axis whose origin is the -
approach or takeoff runway threshold
Aircraft takeoff (climb) angle degrees
Angle of elevation from microphone to CPA for degrees
takeoff
Aircraft approach (glide) angle degrees
Angle of elevation from microphone to CPA for degrees
approach
Aircraft flight heading degrees
IX
-------
UNITS
Aircraft physical characteristics and operational performance are
controlled by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's) which are expressed
in English units. Therefore, for ease in correlation with the FAR's, much
of the data in this report has been expressed in English units. The conver-
sion factors between English and Metric Units are as follows:
Force (F) (F-L-T-System)
0.4536 kilograms/pound
Length (L)
2.540 centimeters/inch
0.3048 meters/foot
1. 853 kilometers /nautical mile
1. 609 kilometers/statute mile
Velocity (LT ' * )
1.853 (kilometers/hour)/knot
Temperature
°Celsius = (5/9) ("Fahrenheit - 32)
-------
BACKGROUND
During the month of September 1973, the British Aircraft Corporation
and Aerospatiale conducted a world tour of the Concorde Supersonic aircraft.
During this flight schedule the Concorde made two stops in the continental
United States for purposes of ground and flight demonstrations. On 21-23
September 1973 the Concorde performed a number of approaches and take-
offs at the new Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport. On 23 September
1973, the Concorde landed at Dulles International Airport and departed from
same on 26 September 1973 for a non-stop trip to Paris, France.
Based upon the requirements of the Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public
Law 92-574) that EPA shall submit to the FAA proposed regulations to provide
such control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom as EPA deter-
mines is necessary to protect the public health and welfare, the EPA under-
took the task of acquiring as much community noise data as was practical.
This effort is associated with the EPA's effort to estimate the noise effects
in airport communities resulting from the landing, approach, and takeoff of
the Concorde and similar versions of a civil supersonic type aircraft.
To that end the EPA pursued the following actions:
1. Through an inter-agency agreement with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, recordings of noise levels at 25 sites in the
communities surrounding the new Dalles-Ft. Worth International
Airport were made during Concorde ground and flight operations in
the period 21-23 September 1973.
2. Under contractual agreement to Hydrospace-Challenger, Inc. and
the Environmental Defense Fund, recordings of noise levels at ten
sites in the communities surrounding Dulles International Airport
were made during the Concorde approach and takeoff operations on
23 and 26 September, respectively.
-------
3. EPA acquired, by in-house staff, hand-held meter readings at nine
sites in the vicinity of Dulles International Airport during Concorde
approach and takeoff operations on 23 and 26 September, respectively.
This report contains a comprehensive review and analysis of all available
data as well as setting forth the specific circumstances of the measurements
and the factors affecting aircraft operations. It was prepared by Hydrospace-
Challenger Inc. (HCI), San Diego, Ca., under Contract 68-01-1599.
-------
CONCORDE 02 OPERATIONS
The aircraft used during the tour was Concorde 02, one of the two
prototype vehicles. The basic details of the Concorde given in Table 1 were
obtained from Reference 1.
Table 1. Concorde Description
WING SPAN 84 FT 0 IN. (25.60 M)
LENGTH OVERALL 203 FT 11-1/2 IN (62 17 M)
MAX TAKEOFF WEIGHT 385. 000 LB (174. 640 KG)
MAX LANDING WEIGHT 240. 000 LB (108, 860 KG)
ENGINES OLYMPUS 593 AXIAL FLOW JET
NO. OF ENGINES 4
MAX POWER @ S.L. 38, 050 LB THRUST
NOISE SUPPRESSORS RETRACTABLE SPADE SILENCERS
(2 IN EACH NOZZLE)
It should be noted that the nozzle area control schedule of Concorde 02
for the Dulles and Dallas flights was set to give a lower nozzle area than the
production aircraft will have. The production nozzle area will result in
noise levels about 1.5 PNdB quieter.
Operations of the Concorde 02 include a number of takeoffs, flybys, and
approaches as detailed in Table 2.
Standard operating procedures and configurations were normally used
during all flights. There were several exceptions. Firstly, the prototype
aircraft did not have an automatic control system installed to aid in noise
abatement power cutback operations. The normal noise abatement proce-
dure involves climbing at full throttle to 750-ft altitude, at which point two
engines are throttled back out of reheat. One second later, reheat power
on the other two engines is cut. Two seconds after that, slow throttling is
initiated to reach cutback power after 5 seconds. Thus, a total power
-------
Table 2. Concorde 02 Dallas Flights
FLIGHT NO
76
77
78
79
80
80
81
DATE
9-20-73
9-21-73
9-21-73
9-22-73
9-23-73
9-23-73
9-26-73
AIRPORT
DALLAS- FT.
DALLAS- FT
DALLAS- FT
DALLAS- FT.
DALLAS- FT
DULLES
DULLES
WORTH
WORTH
WORTH
WORTH
WORTH
OPERATION
APPROACH AND FLYBYS
TAKEOFF/APPROACH AND
TAKEOFF/APPROACH
TAKEOFF /APPROACH AND
TAKEOFF
APPROACH
TAKEOFF
FLYBYS
FLYBYS
reducing period of 8 seconds is scheduled. Secondly, the nozzle area control
schedule for Flight 80 was set to give a lower nozzle area than the produc-
tion aircraft. The production nozzle area will give noise levels about 1.5
PNdB quieter (Reference 2).
Due to the absence of automatic controls and the heavy pilot workload
during Flight 81, the actual procedure consumed 22 seconds, thereby
reducing the amount of noise abatement achieved.
-------
COMMUNITY NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Measurements were made at 25 sites in the community surrounding the
Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport. The sites are depicted upon the
map given in Figure 1. Measurements were made by the U.S. Army Con-
struction Engineering Research Laboratory. A total of seven tests were
recorded. A description of each test and site used is given in Table 3.
Table 3. Noise Measurement Operations
TEST NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
FLT NO.
77
77
78
78
79
79
80
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE
CONCORDE
CONCORDE
CONCORDE
CONCORDE
TAKEOFF
APPROACH
TAKEOFF
APPROACH
OTHER AIRCRAFT AND AMBIENT*
CONCORDE
CONCORDE
TAKEOFF/APPROACH
TAKEOFF AND LEVEL PASSES
1,
7,
1,
7.
1.
1.
17
2.
8,
2A
8.
3.
3.
SITES
3
9
. 4,
. 10,
USED
5, 6
11.
, 3. 4A. 5,
9
7
7
. 18,
, 10,
. 14.
. 14,
19,
11,
15.
ISA
12
6
13
16
. 16
20. 21,
22
•NOISE DATA NOT PROCESSED.
The measurement equipment consisted of Type 1 ANSI 81.4(1971) sound
level meters and Nagra tape recorders. In some cases data were recorded
on two-channel recorders using different gain settings to enhance the dynamic
range of available data. Meteorological data were obtained at each site during
the tests and a compilation of weather data for the Dallas-Ft. Worth measure-
ments are given in Table 4. The equipment was calibrated using B&K piston-
phone signals before and after each recording.
The performance of the aircraft during these operations was recorded
using on-board instrumentation. (See Reference 2.) The relationships
between the measurement locations and flight paths are given in Table 5.
The aircraft performance and flight profiles of the Dallas-Ft. Worth
flight numbers 78, 79, and 80 are given in Figures 2,3, and 4.
5
-------
Table 4. Weather Data - Dallas-Ft. Worth
TEST FLIGHT SITE
NO. NO. DATE NO.
1 77 9-21-73 1
2
3
4
5
6
2 77 9-21-73 7
8
9
10
11
12
3 78 9-21-73 1
2A
3
4A
5
6
4 78 9-21-73 7
8
9
10
11
13
5 - 9-22-73 1
3
7
14
15
16
6 79 9-22-73 1
3
7
14
ISA
16
7 80 9-23-73 17
18
19
20
21
22
WIND SPEED
(MPH)
8
6
0-3
2-5
5
9
7
7-15
10
5-8
8
12
10
0-10
5-7
3-10
9
7
8
10-15
10-15
7-10
9
7
10
-
3-8
8-10
5-10
7
10
2-3
3-8
8-10
6
3
3
5
-
5-10
6
0-2
WIND DIRECTION
FROM
TRUE NORTH
180
180
180
180
128
165
180
180
180
180
220
172
180
180
180
180
162
166
180
180
180
180
175
146
180
-
180
220
164
168
180
180
180
220
120
110
148
180
-
150
180
145
TEMP
(f)
77
-
77
77
77
77
87
86
-
85
84
86
90
-
91
89
89
91
95
94
-
92
92
97
89
-
87
-
85
89
95
89
90
-
90
89
85
89
-
83
82
82
RELATIVE
HUMIDITY
(%)
67
73
70
71
71
72
73
-
72
71
73
70
-
71
69
67
70
64
63
-
68
68
58
69
.
67
.
69
71
73
72
67
-
67
66
71
-
-
72
66
72
Performance data for Flight 77 are not available. Data include altitude
above ground, percent N2, ground speed, and aircraft heading plotted versus
flight track distance and, in addition, aircraft flight track versus coordinate
system.
Measurements were made at 15 sites in the community surrounding the
Dulles International Airport on 23 September 1973 during approach and at 17
6
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Table 5. Geometrical Relationships - Dallas-Ft. Worth
©
©
MICROPHONE STATION
SOURCE
CERL
78 T.O.
CERL
78 APP
CERL
79 T.O.
CERL
79 APP
CERL
80 T.O.
NO.
1
*2A
3
4A
•5
6
7
8
*9
10
•11
13
1
3
•14
•ISA
*7
16
17
18
19
20
21
•22
COORDINATES
X
(KFT)
0
13.320
0.320
3.200
31.240
1.340
0.380
2.680
13.440
-2.640
26.340
-1.900
6.500
6.820
8.500
14.480
6.880
5.700
-1.500
-1.380
0.140
0.100
64.200
-6.800
y
(KFT)
17.247
19.027
28.927
19.310
28.810
53.090
5.660
12.300
13.520
17.840
18.920
36.600
17.247
28.927
11.640
11.000
5.660
21.420
53.590
28.970
16.990
5.720
16.450
16.850
(KFT)
0
13. 320
0.320
3.200
31. 240
1.340
0.380
2.680
13.440
-2. 640
26. 340
-1.900
No Data -
No Data -
14. 600
20. 380
6.880
4.100
No Data -
-4. 320
0.860
No Data -
5.420
7.800
y
(KFT)
17. 247
19. 027
28. 927
19. 310
28. 810
53. 090
5.660
12. 300
13. 520
17. 840
18. 920
36. 600
13. 200
12.500
5.660
21.800
30. 800
16. 990
16.450
16. 850
(KFT)
1.440
1.600
2.080
1.630
2.070
No Data-
0.210
0.660
0.740
0.980
1.050
2.170
1.490
1.400
0.210
1.380
3.600
1.260
1.170
1.220
0 OR a
(DEC)
6.5
5.3
3.0
3.0
5.3
2.1
3.9
3.7
3.2
3.7
0
0
0
2.4
4.1
0
9.2
9.2
9.2
z
©x COS©
(KFT)
1.430
1.593
2.077
1.628
2.061
0.210
0.658
0.738
0.978
1.048
2.170
1.490
1.400
0.209
1.376
3.600
1.243
1.155
1.204
SR
[®2 +
2 !/2
(KFT)
14. 300
13. 414
2.101
3.590
31. 307
0.434
2.759
13. 460
2.815
26.360
2.884
14. 675
20. 428
6.883
4.324
5.623
1.511
5.541
7.892
O OR a
TAN"1
(DEC)
90.0
6.8
81.2
26.9
3.8
No Data
28.9
13.8
3 1
20.3
2.3
48.8
No Data
No Data
5 8
3.9
1.7
18.6
No Data
39.8
55.3
No Data
12.0
8.8
•oOR a<10°
-------
4000
3000
P
Lu
o
> 2000
§
u
G
fc
H
** 1000
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
\
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
a. Takeoff
Figure 2. Aircraft Performance - Flight 78
10
-------
300r
200
Q
u
ui
a.
to
a
3
§
100
0 10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
t£ 4UU
LU
Q
V
•3-
O
2
Q
<
£ 100
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
a. Takeoff, Contd
Figure 2. Aircraft Performance - Flight 78, Contd
11
-------
3000
2000
6
LU
1
tu
Q
ID
1000
500
FLIGHT DIRECTION
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
100
90
80
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK y (FT x 1000)
50
b. Approach
Figure 2. Aircraft Performance - Flight 78, Contd
12
-------
O zuu
UJ
Q_
-3-
0
Q
X 100
50
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
300
P
ui
O
I
o
200
100
0 10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
b. Approach, Contd
Figure 2. Aircraft Performance - Flight 78, Contd
13
-------
x a
if
i x °
OE-
-5
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
50
40
o
o
° 30
X
Id
H
<
I 20
O
u
10
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
c. Takeoff Flight Track
Figure 2. Aircraft Performance - Flight 78, Contd
14
-------
COORDINATE, X
(FT x 1000)
moo
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
50
40
O
O
2 30
U
H
S-
O
O
u
10
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
d. Approach Flight Track
Figure 2. Aircraft Performance - Flight 78, Contd
15
-------
120
2000
P FLIGHT DIRECTION
Q
1
OS
O
U)
i
QJ
Q
I
1000
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y
(FT x 1000)
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK
(FT x 1000)
300
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y
(FT x 1000)
300
O
tu
D
O
200
100
10
20
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK y
(FT x 1000)
a. Takeoff
Figure 3. Aircraft Performance - Flight 79
16
-------
p
Lt,
D
i
ui
i
u
Q
H
2000
1000
100
0 10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
90
80
0 10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK y (FT x 1000)
Q
ui
u
CL
in
1
Bt
o
300
200
100
0 10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
300
O
u
Q
O
u
£
200
100
0 10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
b. Approach
Figure 3. Aircraft Performance - Flight 79, Contd
-------
20
20
o
o
o
10
H
Z
5
g
8
10
20
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y
(FT x 1000)
o
o
o
u.
UJ
H
o:
8
10
10
20
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y
(FT x 1000)
10
o
o
o
H
Cu
v^
X
8
u
10
0 5 10 15 20
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
c. Takeoff Flight Track
Figure 3. Aircraft Performance - Flight 79, Contd
18
-------
10
In
0
0 10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
o
o
o
X
fc
8
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK y (FT x 1000)
o
o
o
H
u.
LU
H
I
O
_^
/
0 5 10 15 20 2
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
d. Approach Flight Track
Figure 3. Aircraft Performance - Flight 79, Contd
19
-------
3000
G
5 2000
OS
o
ui
O
co
U)
§ 1000
H
H
I
FLIGHT DIRECTION
10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
40
120
100
CM
z
60
0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
a. Takeoff
Figure 4. Aircraft Performance - Flight 80
20
-------
300
a.
in
Q
i
u
200
100
10
20
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y
(FT x 1000)
300
G
us
a
. 200
z
5
100
10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
40
a. Takeoff, Contd
Figure 4. Aircraft Performance - Flight 80, Contd
21
-------
-10
40
30
o
o
o
rH
X
H
20
s
O
O
U
10
10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK y (FT x 1000)
40
0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
b. Takeoff Flight Track
Figure 4. Aircraft Performance - Flight 80, Contd
22
-------
sites on 26 September 1973 during takeoff. The measurements points are
depicted on the map in Figure 5.
The Dulles measurements were performed by four groups: 1) Hydrospace-
Challenger, Inc. (HCI), 2) Environmental Defense Fund (EOF), 3) EPA Office
of Noise Abatement and Control, and 4) the FAA Environmental Quality Office.
There were a variety of instruments used.
Seven HCI systems consisted of B&K 1/2-inch and General Radio 1-inch
microphones and preamplifiers, B&K 141 portable noise systems, and Uher
4200 tape recorders. The eighth HCI system was a B&K 2204 sound level
meter with Nagra tape recorder.
The EDF equipment consisted of B&K 2209 sound level meters and
Nagra tape recorders. EPA-ONAC equipment included both Type 1 and
Type 2 General Radio sound level meters. The FAA equipment was a Type 1
sound level meter.
Calibrations of each set of equipment varied with the users standard
operating procedures. For those groups performing magnetic tape record-
ings, the calibration procedures included an electrical frequency response
check at the center frequency of each one-third octave band from 50 Hz to
10,000 Hz and a single-tone sound level calibration.
In addition to the noise data, some temperature and humidity readings
were made. These data, in addition to tower weather data, are given in
Table 6. Again, the performance of the aircraft was recorded using on-
board instrumentation. The performance data was supplied by Reference 3.
The approach was essentially straight in on an approximate 3-degree
glide slope. See Figure 6 for performance data. The relationship between
the approach measurement locations and the flight path yield the data given
in Table 7.
The takeoff from Dulles was straight out with a right turn initiated at
about 3.9 n.mi. from brake release. See Figure 7 for details. The rela-
tionship between the measurement locations and the flight path yield the data
23
-------
Table 6. Weather Data - Dulles
TEST
APPROACH
FLIGHT 80
TAKEOFF
FLIGHT 81
WIND SPEED
DATE SITE (MPH)
9-23-73 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TOWER 6. 0
9-26-73 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
TOWER 5. 0
WIND DIRECTION TEMP
(DEC FROM TRUE NORTH) (T)
80
83
83
80
84
76
82
320 81
61
61
60
63
60
60
60
61
120 61
RELATIVE
HUMIDITY
72
62
62
72
66
89
63
55
89
94
91
86
94
94
89
91
84
Table 7. Concorde Approach Noise Measurement Geometry - Flight 80
(T)f2)(l^(7)f?)(T)(T)(T)rr) (10) (n)
MICROPHONE STATION
SOURCE
EPA
HCI
EPA
ONAC
EOF
FAA
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
15
7
8
9
1
2*
1
2
COORDINATES
X
(KFT)
8.16
-5.66
0.60
-2.26
2.60
0.30
-0.34
0
-5.02
-4.75
5.54
0.50
1.80
0
0
y
(KFT)
17.60
22.64
34.54
55.84
41.06
22.12
15.52
10.30
30.62
13.20
15.05
7.20
-5.90
12.16
24.32
X
(KFT)
8.16
-5.66
0.60
-2.26
2.60
0.30
-0.34
0
-5.02
-4.75
5.54
0.50
1.80
0
0
y
(KFT)
17 60
22.64
34.54
55.84
41.06
22.12
15.52
10.30
30.62
13.20
15.05
7.20
-5.90
12.16
24.32
z
(KFT)
0.88
1.15
1.96
2.90
2.50
1.10
0.81
0.53
1.67
0.72
0.80
0.38
0
0.67
1.24
a
(DEC)
1.5
3.6
4.5
0
2.3
3.5
2.0
2.8
4.3
2.5
2.2
2.8
0
2.7
3.8
z
cos(|)
(KFT)
0.88
1.15
1.95
2.90
2.50
1.10
0.81
0.53
1.66
0.72
0.80
0.38
0
0.67
1.24
SR
(KFT)
8.21
5.78
2.04
3.84
3.61
1.14
0.88
0 53
5.29
4 80
5.60
0.63
1.80
0.67
1.24
6
TAN"1
(DEC)
6.16
11.49
72.90
52.07
43.88
74.74
67.23
90.00
18.30
8.62
8.22
37 23
0
90.00
90.00
THRUST REV.
24
-------
^THfc ¥v jlrnikH nsi^^^kn^P
DIGITALLY
-------
3000
o:
O
u
5
OQ
U]
Q
H
_j
2000
1000
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
60
90
€
C-]
80
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
60
a. Approach
Figure 6. Aircraft Performance - Flight 80
27
-------
300
Q
UJ
UJ
CL
V)
£
s
H
a
Q
200
100
10 20 30
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
40
10
O
3
&
as
10 20 30 40 50
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK y (FT x 1000)
a. Approach, Contd
Figure 6. Aircraft Performance - Flight 80, Contd
28
-------
COORDINATE, X
(FT x 1000)
J\ O C
60
50
40
o
o
o
i-H
X
It,
. 30
U
20
10
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
10 20 30 40 50
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
b. Approach Flight Track
Figure 6. Aircraft Performance - Flight 80, Contd
60
60
29
-------
2000
Q
Z
o
> 1000
8
UJ
Q
3
H
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
110
100
90
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
a. Takeoff
Figure 7. Aircraft Performance - Flight 81
30
-------
300
D
u
u
0.
s
s
200
100
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK y (FT x 1000)
50
100
2
5
LU
I
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
50
a. Takeoff, Contd
Figure 7. Aircraft Performance - Flight 81, Contd
31
-------
o
o
H
u.
8
U
10
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, y (FT x 1000)
40
30
o
o
o
X
H
bu
Q
s
8
20
10
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK, 7 (FT x 1000)
50
b. Takeoff Flight Track
Figure 7. Aircraft Performance - Flight 81, Contd
32
-------
given in Table 8. During takeoff, a noise abatement procedure was used.
This consisted of power throttling only since no spades (Table 1) were used.
The throttling occurred as shown in Figure 7. Thus, during takeoff the power
settings change, hence the noise over any one site can be significantly different.
Likewise, the location of some sites resulted in elevation angles below 10
degrees. This introduces additional ground absorption effects.
Table 8. Concorde Takeoff Noise Measurement Geometry - Flight 81
(D (2) (s) (?) (s) (e) Ch (?) (?) (10) (11)
MICROPHONE STATION
SOURCE
EPA
HCI
EPA
ONAC
EDF
FAA
NO.
8
9
10° -
11«
12
13*
14"
16
1
2
3
4"
5
6
3"
4
3«
COORDINATES
X
(KFT)
0.88
-0.38
-6.88
1.00
9.14
11.56
9.88
0
0
6.34
1.85
4.75
-3.96
-3.70
-2.10
0
-2.10
y
(KFT)
32.24
38.46
38.96
48.36
39.00
24.88
14.66
22.60
26.28
27.08
19.68
16.25
22.80
27.34
10.00
21.50
10.00
X
(KFT)
-2.5
-8.0
-12.6
-16.3
-4.7
9.4
9.9
0
-0.3
5.0
1.8
4 8
4.0
-4.2
-2.1
0
-2.1
y
(KFT)
30.7
32.7
30.0
37.5
31.9
38.4
14.7
22 6
26.1
32 0
19.7
16.3
22.8
26.1
10 0
21 5
10.0
z
(KFT)
1.78
1.56
1.83
1.38
1.65
1.39
0.55
1.35
1.61
1.64
1.05
0.77
1 35
1 61
0 15
1.22
0.15
a
(DEC)
-3.0
-6.5
0
-0.2
-5 9
0 4
5 5
6 1
3.3
-6.0
4.5
6 2
6.0
3.3
3.1
5.5
3.1
z
©x
COS®
(KFT)
1.78
1.55
1.83
1.38
1 64
1 39
0 55
1.34
1.61
1 63
1 05
0 77
1 34
1.61
0.15
1 21
0.15
SR
1/2
(KFT)
3.91
8.15
12.73
16.36
4.98
9 50
9 92
1 34
1.64
5 26
2 08
4 86
4 22
4.50
2 11
1 21
2 11
a
TAN'1
(DEC)
35 5
11 0
8 3
4 8
19 2
8 4
3 2
90 0
79.4
18 1
30.3
9 1
18 5
21 0
4.1
90.0
4 1
•a < 10°
•• A/Boi<10°
33
-------
DATA ANALYSIS
All magnetic tape data obtained at Dallas-Ft Worth and that recorded by
HCI and EDF at Dulles were processed to yield a variety of noise measures.
Processing was performed by HCI at its San Diego Division using equipment
meeting FAR 36 requirements. The EPA-ONAC data taken at Dulles was
not recorded on magnetic tape.
The procedure used was to read into the computer the half-second spec-
tra acquired during data processing and compute the various measures. The
A, B, C, and D weighted levels and the PNL are the maximum values ob-
tained, not necessarily associated with the time of PNLTM. The results
are given in Table 9. Those values marked with an asterisk are ambient
noise limited in the high frequencies.
In addition, a typical plot of the PNLT time histories for an approach
and takeoff are given in Figure 8 for the Dulles data. The spectra corre-
sponding to the time of PNLTM are given in Figures 9 and 10.
120
£V >-J
LU 2
O. D-
M
E5
I™
8s
110 -
130
100
OL, CL
120
110
100
•r--r i
SITE 16.
25
TIME (SEC)
a. Approach b. Takeoff
Figure 8. PNLT Time History
35
50
-------
In order to obtain an understanding of the potential community noise
generated by supersonic aircraft, it is necessary to generate a curve of
noise versus distance and then a curve illustrating aircraft flight profile.
These types of data, especially that of noise versus distance are best ob-
tained during engineering tests where aircraft performance, and other test
parameters, are accurately measured and where it is possible to perform a
repeated series of tests. The minimum number of tests provided for certi-
fication as per FAR Part 36 are six data points at any one measurement
location and the engineering values must be within ±1.5 dB with a confidence
of 90 percent. It was not possible to conduct the measurements of the
Concorde 02 aircraft according to the requirements of FAR Part 36 or
Annex 16. However, the data obtained at Dallas-Ft. Worth and Dulles can
be used to obtain a qualitative idea of community impact.
The method used was to plot the data points both in terms of EPNL and
A-level as a function of slant range at the closest point of approach (CPA).
Next, the data points were tagged to denote any significant factors that would
affect acoustical performance. These factors included engine power condi-
tion and viewing angle. The resultant curves are shown in Figures 11 and 12
for the takeoff and Figures 13 and 14 for the approach. A theoretical noise level
versus slant range curve based on extrapolations of spectra measured at Dulles
and reported in Reference 4 is superimposed on each figure. See Appendix A
for details. The starting point for the curve is a point representing the levels
of Concorde noise for the particular airplane shown relative to the FAR 36
measurement conditions. These values were determined as shown in Table,10.
Due to the limited quantity of data it is necessary to assign an error
envelope to Figures 12 through 15. The value of ±5 dB was based on several
factors. First, it is known from Reference 2 that a -1.5 dB difference is
due to nozzle area difference between the prototype and production aircraft.
Next, the fact that full utilization of noise abatement was not made can lead
to further reductions in noise at greater slant ranges. The absence of the
spades will account for another negative correction.
36
-------
^THfc ¥v jlrnikH nsi^^^kn^P
DIGITALLY
-------
110
100
90
80
O
d
a
70
LJJ
i
a. 60
50
40
SITE 8 —
SITE 9 • • •'
SITE 10 —
SITE 11
SITE 12--
SITE 13
30
\
\
\
\ \
\ \ \\'
\ ^/\
I
50 100 315 1000 3150
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz)
V
10000
Figure 9. Takeoff Spectrum
39
-------
100
90
80
g
o
o
o
w
05 70
UJ
s
S
uj
5!
LU
Q
60
8 50
40
30
SITE 2 — •
SITE 4
SITE 5 _ _
SITE 6
SITE 7 _
I
50 100 315 1000 3150
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz)
10000
Figure 10. Approach Spectrum
40
-------
120
110
Ul
>
u
_1
LU
(Si
co
CO
u
£
Q
Z
=1
O
co
s
H
100
CERL - DALLAS
SOLID SYMBOLS 5 OR a LESS THAN 8 DEC
400
1000
10000
20000
SLANT RANGE (FT)
Figure 11. A-Level Versus Slant Range Takeoff
41
-------
130
AFTERBURNER
FAR 36 (TABLE 10)
O HCI
O EOF
CERL - DALLAS
AMBIENT LIMITED—7
SOLID SYMBOLS a OR a LESS THAN 8 DEC
400
1000
10000
20000
SLANT RANGE (FT)
Figure 12. EPNL Versus Slant Range Takeoff
42
-------
120
110
LU
UJ
_J
LU
Oi
UJ
Of.
Q.
C
z
100
O 90
Q
'-Lj
'O
i
<
a
80
70
60
*
\
^fc
\
k
\
X
>
TH
* SEE 11
O HCI
D EPA
OEDF
& FAA
k CERL
[>
X
X
RUS'
h
&
X
' RE
V
v
VE\
\BLE 10
DULLco
- DALLAS
c
Vt
s,
•SA
*
V
-
L-
X
O \
\_ V
Xv^
^/ N
SOLID SYMBOLS 6 OR a LESS THAN 8 DEC
^
AMBIEN
\J
\tf
\
T NOIS
N
•<*
k
\
N
ELIV
^
* >
\
^
ITEI
^
\
\
a
\
?
\
\
k
\
\
V
N
_
\
i
^
200
1000
SLANT RANGE (FT)
10000
Figure 13. A-Level Versus Slant Range Approach
43
-------
120
110
T3
0.
LU
U
O
G
u
UJ
U
Q.
LU
U
LlJ
li.
LL.
100
90
80
70
,200
IT SEE TABLE 10
O HCI \
.. } DULLES
O EOF J
N CERL - DALLAS
AMBIENT NOISE LIMITED
THRUST
REVERSAL
SOLID SYMBOLS O OR a LESS THAN 8 DEC
N
O
\
\
\
1000
SLANT RANGE (FT)
Figure 14. EPNL Versus Slant Range Approach
J L
10000
Table 10. Concorde 02 Noise Levels Measured Under FAR 36 Conditions
FAR 36 MEASUREMENTS^
STATION
SIDELINE
TAKEOFF*
APPROACH
DISTANCE
(N.M.)
0.35
3.50
1.00
(FT)
2,130
21.300
6,080
LEVEL
(EPNdB)
114.2
115.4
114. 5"
HT
(FT)
-
1200
310
ASSUMPTION
CORR
(dB)
-11.0
-9 0
-6.5
LEVEL
(dBA)
103.2
106.4
108.CT
• THRUST CUTBACK TO 4-DEG CLIMB ANGLE.
" ADD 1. 5 DB TO DULLES OPERATIONS BECAUSE NOZZLE AREA
WAS SMALLER THAN SCHEDULED FOR PRODUCTION.
'CONDUCTED BY CONCORDE DEVELOPERS.
44
-------
Data supplied in Reference 4 shows at the most a data spread of ±2 dB
for PNLand a data spread of ±1.5dB for duration correction. This yields an
immediate variability of ±3.5 dB. It is reasonable to expect that an addi-
tional ±1.5 dB exists within the data measured.
Such a variation of data makes the calculation of noise contours at this
point extremely risky. However, some comparisons can be made with other
aircraft at specific points on the ground. Using measured noise and flight
profile data from Reference 5 and that of Figures 12 and 15 of this report,
the EPNL at points 3, 5, and 7 miles from brake release for the Concorde,
707, 727, and DC-9 are compared in Table 11. The T5 profile of Refer-
ence 5 is for a maximum gross weight takeoff, as were the Concorde
measured data.
4000
10 20 30 40
DISTANCE ALONG FLIGHT TRACK (FT x 1000)
Figure 15. Average Takeoff Profile - Concorde 02
45
-------
Table 11. Takeoff Noise Comparison
(Estimated Values)
PROFILE
FIGURE 15
T5
T5
T5
AIRCRAFT
CONCORDE
707-320B
727
DC-9
3 N.
ALT
1200
800
950
1400
MI.
EPNL
125*
113
108
105
5 N.
ALT
2100
1200
1800
2900
MI.
EPNL
112
108
102
96
7 N.
ALT
2500
2200
3200
4300
MI.
EPNL
111.5
98.0
96.0
92 0
Table 12. Approach Noise
Comparison
(Measured EPNL Values)
* Afterburner (115.4 EPNdB without afterburner)
For the approach case there are
actual data recorded immediately
before and after the Concorde 02
approach at Dulles. The results
are compared in Table 12 at loca-
tions 2.6 -3.6 n.mi. from threshold.
It should be noted that it is assumed that all aircraft are following the
3-degree glide slope. Based on the data given in Tables 11 and 12, it
appears that the approach noise of the Concorde is somewhat higher than
that for present day commercial aircraft. The takeoff noise is, for locations
close to an airport, considerably higher than present aircraft.
AIRCRAFT
707
707
CONCORDE
707
727
SITE 7
2.6 N. MI.
111.8
118.5
113.2
113 1
110.2
SITE 6
3 6 N MI
107 0
110.5
111.4
106.0
101.8
46
-------
SUMMARY
The numerous data points measured at Dallas-Ft. Worth and Dulles
International Airports and plotted as a function of level versus distance show
a scatter sometimes exceeding ±5 EPNdB. This scatter is the result of
noise measurements made under non-controlled test and operating conditions.
During these operations it was not always possible for the pilot to execute the
scheduled noise abatement procedure.
Direct comparisons of Concorde and 707 approach noise were possible
at Dulles. These few measurements indicate the Concorde noise levels rela-
tive to the 707 levels to be less, in general, at 2.6 n.mi. and greater at 3.6
n.mi. from threshold.
All of the measurements have been presented in terms of a variety of
noise evaluation measures. When computing correction factors from these
data the reader is cautioned to refer to the operating conditions of the air-
craft to avoid misinterpretation.
In conclusion, it would appear that when measured data are compared
with the theoretical curves there is no reason to believe that the noise levels
(Table 11), measured under FAR 36 or Annex 16 conditions, claimed by the
Concorde developers will not be achievable.
47
-------
REFERENCES
1. Janes, "All the World's Aircraft," 1972.
2. Acoustic Memo 131, Acoustics Office, British Aircraft Corporation,
Ltd., Weybridge Surry, England, 11 October 1973.
3. W. C. Sperry, Information Brief on Concorde Noise and Flight Data,
Environmental Protection Agency, 15 January 1974.
4. Data presented at Concorde Noise Working Session, attended by
representatives of France, United Kingdom, and United States, 23-24
October 1973.
5. Carole S. Tanner, "Measurement and Analysis of Noise from Four
Aircraft During Approach and Departure Operations (727, KC-135,
707-320B, and DC-9), FAA-RD-71-84, September 1971.
6. "Standard Values of Absorption as a Function of Temperature and
Humidity for Use in Evaluating Aircraft Flyover Noise/' Society of
Automotive Engineers, ARP 866, April 1970 (proposed).
49
-------
APPENDIX A
The method used to derive the theoretical curves of EPNL and A-level
versus slant range which are displayed in Figures 11 through 14 are herein
described.
The basic starting point for arriving at the theoretical curves consisted
of using the measured data obtained during the tests at Dulles. The spec-
trum at PNLT maximum was chosen for selected measurements sites and
that data extrapolated to various ranges. The extrapolation consisted of the
inverse square law correction and atmospheric absorption correction for a
standard day temperature and relative humidity as per SAE 866 (Reference 6)
The perceived noise level and A-level for each extrapolated spectrum was
then computed.
Assuming that the tone corrections for every site would decrease and
since the measured tone corrections were on the order of 1.0 dB no tone cor-
rections were made on the extrapolated data.
A duration correction was calculated for the difference in distance using
the equation:
(SRactual)
4Dextrapolated = -101og10 (SRextrapolated)
The extrapolated EPNL was computed using the following equation:
EPNLextrap = EPNLactual + PNLextrap - PNLactual + *&
Separate plots of A-level and EPNL versus slant range were made for the
takeoff and approach operations. See Figures A-l through A-4. These plots
show a lack of data points at the closer slant ranges. This is especially true
for the takeoff operations.
A-l
-------
In order to provide additional data points to define the curve shape,
spectra contained in Reference 4 were extracted and subjected to the same
computations. These points are also depicted in Figures A-l through A-4.
The next step was to fit a least squares curve through the data points.
The resultant curve adjusted to pass through the FAR Part 36 noise level at
each operational condition is that shown in Figures 11 through 14,
respectively. These curves were developed on a semi-empirical basis; that
is, measured data extrapolated by standard prediction techniques. Therefore,
they should be more accurate than the theoretical curves shown in Reference
3 which did not have the benefit of test results in their development.
A-2
-------
120
110
_J
u
0!
V)
100
Q
UJ
H
O
O HCI SITE 8
D HCI SITE 12
A HCI SITE 16 (REHEAT)
TOULOUSE (REFERENCE 4)
FAR 36 (TABLE 10)
SOLID SYMBOLS ARE EXTRAPOLATED DATA
70
200
1000
SLANT RANGE (FT)
10000
Figure A-l. A-Level Extrapolations for Takeoff
A-3
-------
130
120
a.
u
UI
UJ
I
8
110
u 100
a.
ui
UJ
u.
u.
LU
ADJUSTED CURVE
LEAST SQUARES
CURVE FIT
O HCI SITE 8
HCI SITE 12
HCI SITE 16 (REHEAT)
TOULOUSE (REFERENCE 4)
FAR 36 (TABLE 10)
SOLID SYMBOLS ARE EXTRAPOLATED DATA
80
400
1000
10000
20000
SLANT RANGE (FT)
Figure A-2. EPNL Extrapolations for Takeoff
A-4
-------
120.
LEAST SQUARES FIT
O HCI SITE 4
Q HCI SITE 5
HCI SITE 6
HCI SITE 7
TOULOUSE (REFERENCE 4)
FAR PART 36 (TABLE 10)
SOLID SYMBOLS ARE EXTRAPOLATED DATA
200
1000
SLANT RANGE (FT)
10000
Figure A-3. A-Level Extrapolations for Approach
A-5
-------
120
110
£•
I
Ou
UJ
UJ
in
O
c
us
U
I
100
O HCI SITE 4
D HCI SITE 5
HCI SITE 6
HCI SITE 7
TOULOUSE (REFERENCE 4)
FAR 36 (TABLE 10)
SOLID SYMBOLS ARE EXTRAPOLATED DATA
200
1000
SLANT RANGE (FT)
10000
Figure A-4. EPNL Extrapolations for Approach
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1974-624-655/833 3-1
A-6
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Noise Measurement of Concorde 02 Approach and Takeoff at Dalles-
Ft. Worth and Dulles International Airports
5' Report Date
August 1974
6.
7. Author(s)
Carole S.
Tanner
8- Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Hydrospace-Challenger, Inc.
1360 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92106
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-01-1599
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC)
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final Report
14.
IS. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts Noise measurements were made of the Concorde 02 aircraft during operations at
Dallas-Ft. Worth and Dulles International Airports in September 1973. Data were
acquired at 25 sites surrounding Dallas and 15 sites surrounding Dulles. The results
are reported in terms of various noise evaluation measures (A-level, Effective Perceived
Noise Level, etc.) and correlated with respect to distance and aircraft/engine operating
parameters. Included are representative one-third octave band spectra for takeoff and
approach operations at Dulles.
A prediction procedure is presented based upon data measured at various dis--
tances extrapolated to larger distances by standard methods. The results of the semi-
empirical predictions indicate that there is no reason to believe that the noise levels
measured and reported by the Concorde developers cannot be achieved with the use of
noise abatement procedures. However, noise abatement takeoff procedures were not fully
utilized at Dulles and, as a result, the measured noise levels exceed the values claimed
hy
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Aircraft noise
Aircraft Performance
Approach Noise
Community Noise
Concorde
Dallas-Fort Worth Airport
Dulles International Airport
Noise Measurement
Noise Measures
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Supersonic Transport
Takeoff Noise
17e. COSATI Fie Id/Group
18. Availability Statement
Limited supply available at ONAC, Arlington, VA.
20460 Available at NTIS
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21- No. of Pages
22. Price
FORM NTIS-33 (1O-7O)
USCOMM-DC 40329-P71
------- |