C/N/S (Communications Navigation Surveillance) detailed ... · o Optical visibility o Radio...

N° tot. pag. = 49

- Mod. PRO/018/MI Rev 7 -

Rev. 1.0

N°doc.: RT/2016/104

Config.: IDSAU/LORD HOWE EMC-PRCS-OUT-RT

TECHNICAL REPORT

C/N/S (Communications Navigation Surveillance) detailed impact

analysis of two wind turbines near Lord Howe Island Airport

Roma, 19/07/2016

Annexes nr 0

IDS Ingegneria Dei Sistemi S.p.A. Rev. 1.0

Config.: IDSAU/LORD HOWE EMC-PRCS-OUT-RT N doc.: RT/2016/104

C/N/S (Communications Navigation Surveillance) detailed impact analysis of two wind turbines

near Lord Howe Island Airport

2/49

The information contained in this document should be used only

for the scope of the contract for which this document is prepared.

KEYWORDS: AIRPORT, NAVAIDS, DME, ADS-B, VHF, COMMUNICATIONS

NAVIGATION SURVEILLANCE, WIND TURBINE

SUMMARY: This technical report concerns the detailed analysis of the following

C/N/S systems:

DME

ADS-B

VHF

that are installed at the Lord Howe Island Airport (ICAO code

YLHI). The goal of this EMC study is to evaluate the impact of the two

wind turbines that are near LHI airport.

The EM simulation campaign has the scope to evaluate if the presence

of the new wind turbines may affect line of sight, coverage and

precision (distance measuring error for DME for example) of the

equipment listed below:

DME facility

o Optical visibility

o Radio coverage

o Slant range error

ADS-B facility


o Radio coverage

VHF facility


o Radio coverage

This EMC study has been conducted in accordance with the regulations

provided in [ND1]

This technical report is the output document that closes Phase one of

the project described in [AD1] with reference to the contract [AD2] .

CONCLUSIONS Conclusions are reported in section 3 in extended form.

Document Evolution

Revision Date Reason of change

Rev. 1.0 19/07/2016 First Edition

Document Change Record (Log)

RNC Reference Modification Description





3/49



CONTENTS

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 7

1.2 Application Field .................................................................................................................. 7

1.3 Reference ............................................................................................................................... 7

1.3.1 Applicable documents ............................................................................................................... 7

1.3.2 Regulations ................................................................................................................................ 7

1.4 Acronyms, Definitions and Templates ................................................................................ 7

1.4.1 Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. 7

1.4.2 Definition .................................................................................................................................. 8

2. Modelling Description ................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 CNS systems modelling ........................................................................................................ 9

2.2 Terrain model ..................................................................................................................... 13

2.3 Wind Turbines .................................................................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Wind Turbine description ........................................................................................................ 13

2.4 Site Model ........................................................................................................................... 15

2.5 DME system analysis ......................................................................................................... 17

2.5.1 DME Optical Visibility analysis ............................................................................................. 20

2.5.2 DME Coverage analysis .......................................................................................................... 21

2.5.3 Slant range error analysis ........................................................................................................ 26

2.6 ADS-B system analysis ....................................................................................................... 39

2.6.1 ADS-B Optical Visibility analysis .......................................................................................... 39

2.6.2 ADS-B Coverage analysis ....................................................................................................... 39

2.7 VHF system analysis .......................................................................................................... 44

2.7.1 VHF equipment Optical Visibility .......................................................................................... 44

2.7.2 VHF Coverage analysis ........................................................................................................... 44

3. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 49

FIGURES INDEX

FIG. 2.1 – LORD HOWE ISLAND AEROPHOTOGRAMMETRY ........................................................... 11

FIG. 2.2 – LORD HOWE ISLAND: DETAILS OF LHI AIRPORT ........................................................... 12

FIG. 2.3 – DIGITAL TERRAIN MODEL OF LORD HOWE ISLAND (RESOLUTION OF 1 METERS)13

FIG. 2.4 – WIND TURBINE VERGNET DESIGN ..................................................................................... 14

FIG. 2.5 – SITE OBSTACLES ON DTM MAP .......................................................................................... 15

FIG. 2.6 – SITE MODEL WITH TWO WIND TURBINES ........................................................................ 16

FIG. 2.7 – DETAILS OF WIND TURBINES 3D MODEL ......................................................................... 17

FIG. 2.8 – CAD VIEW OF DME ARRIVAL PROCEDURES .................................................................... 18





4/49



FIG. 2.9 – LHI DME ARRIVAL PROCEDURES ....................................................................................... 19

FIG. 2.10 – DME OPTICAL VISIBILITY WITH WIND TURBINES ....................................................... 20

FIG. 2.11 – DME ANTENNA PATTERN (AZIMUTH AND ELEVATION) ............................................ 21

FIG. 2.12 – DME RADIO COVERAGE AT 1580FT WITH WTS (RIGHT SIDE) AND WITHOUT WTS

(LEFT SIDE). RED SHAPE REPRESENTS THE AREAS IN WHICH THE POWER DENSITY IS

HIGHER THAN THE REFERENCE VALUE OF -89 DBW/ M2 ..................................................... 22

FIG. 2.13 – DME RADIO COVERAGE AT 1680 FT WITH WTS (RIGHT SIDE) AND WITHOUT WTS



























FIG. 2.22 – PROCEDURE SLANT RANGE ERROR: RADIAL 054- ABARB TO LHI ARRIVAL

PROCEDURE ..................................................................................................................................... 27

FIG. 2.23 – PROCEDURE SLANT RANGE ERROR: RADIAL 113- CHEWY TO LHI ARRIVAL

PROCEDURE ..................................................................................................................................... 28

FIG. 2.24 – PROCEDURE SLANT RANGE ERROR: SECTOR B - RADIAL 205 .................................. 29

FIG. 2.25 – PROCEDURE SLANT RANGE ERROR: SECTOR B - RADIAL 269 .................................. 30

FIG. 2.26 – PROCEDURE SLANT RANGE ERROR: SECTOR A - RADIAL 026 .................................. 31

FIG. 2.27 – PROCEDURE SLANT RANGE ERROR: SECTOR A - RADIAL 088 .................................. 32

FIG. 2.28 – RADIAL 113 (CHEWY TO LHI ARRIVAL PROCEDURE): COMPARISON BETWEEN

SLANT RANGE ERROR WITH (RED LINE) AND WITHOUT (BLACK LINE) WT

CONTRIBUTION ............................................................................................................................... 33

FIG. 2.29 – RADIAL 054 (ABARB TO LHI ARRIVAL PROCEDURE): COMPARISON BETWEEN

SLANT RANGE ERROR WITH (RED LINE) AND WITHOUT (BLACK LINE) WT

CONTRIBUTION ............................................................................................................................... 34

FIG. 2.30 – RADIAL 205 (SECTOR B): COMPARISON BETWEEN SLANT RANGE ERROR WITH

(RED LINE) AND WITHOUT (BLACK LINE) WT CONTRIBUTION .......................................... 35





5/49



FIG. 2.31 – RADIAL 269 (SECTOR B): COMPARISON BETWEEN SLANT RANGE ERROR WITH


FIG. 2.32 – RADIAL 026 (SECTOR A): COMPARISON BETWEEN SLANT RANGE ERROR WITH


FIG. 2.33 – RADIAL 088 (SECTOR A): COMPARISON BETWEEN SLANT RANGE ERROR WITH


FIG. 2.34 – ADS-B OPTICAL VISIBILITY WITH WIND TURBINES .................................................... 39

FIG. 2.35 – ADS-B RADIO COVERAGE AT 1580FT WITH WTS (RIGHT SIDE) AND WITHOUT WTS

(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 40


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 40

FIG. 2.37 – ADS-B RADIO COVERAGE AT 1800 FT WITH WTS (RIGHT SIDE) AND WITHOUT

WTS (LEFT SIDE) ............................................................................................................................. 40


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 41


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 41


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 41


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 42


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 42

FIG. 2.43 – ADS-B RADIO COVERAGE AT 10000FT WITH WTS (RIGHT SIDE) AND WITHOUT

WTS (LEFT SIDE) ............................................................................................................................. 42

FIG. 2.44 – ADS-B RADIO COVERAGE AT 15000FT WITH WTS (RIGHT SIDE) AND WITHOUT

WTS (LEFT SIDE) ............................................................................................................................. 43

FIG. 2.45 – VHF OPTICAL VISIBILITY WITH WIND TURBINES ........................................................ 44

FIG. 2.46 – VHF RADIO COVERAGE AT 1580FT WITH WTS (RIGHT SIDE) AND WITHOUT WTS

(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 45


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 45

FIG. 2.48 – VHF RADIO COVERAGE AT 1800 FT WITH WTS (RIGHT SIDE) AND WITHOUT WTS

(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 45


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 46


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 46


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 46


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 47


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 47


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 47


(LEFT SIDE) ...................................................................................................................................... 48





6/49



TABLES INDEX

TAB. 2.1 – DME SYSTEM AT LORD HOWE ISLAND AIRFIELD .......................................................... 9

TAB. 2.2 – ADS-B SYSTEM AT LORD HOWE ISLAND AIRFIELD ....................................................... 9

TAB. 2.3 – VHF SYSTEM AT LORD HOWE ISLAND AIRFIELD ......................................................... 10

TAB. 2.4 – RWY 10 THR AT LORD HOWE ISLAND AIRFIELD .......................................................... 10

TAB. 2.5 – RWY 28 THR AT LORD HOWE ISLAND AIRFIELD .......................................................... 10

TAB. 2.6 – ARP AT LORD HOWE ISLAND AIRFIELD .......................................................................... 10

TAB. 2.7 – ELEVATION AND POSITION OF THE TWO WT CLOSE TO LHI AIRPORT ................... 13

TAB. 2.8 – ALTITUDE VALUES FOR YLHI PUBLISHED FLIGHT PROCEDURES ........................... 22





7/49



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of the EMC study reported in this technical document is the detailed evaluation of

the impact of two (2) wind turbines in the surroundings of the Lord Howe Island Airport (ICAO

code YLHI). In particular, it is requested the evaluation of their multipath effects against the

following navaids: DME, ADS-B, VHF equipment that are installed at the Lord Howe Island

Airport, in Australia.

The activity has been performed by using simulation tools available in the IDS ElectroMagnetic

Airport Control and Survey (EMACS) software suite.

1.2 Application Field

The application field of this study is evaluate the impact of two (2) wind turbines in the

surroundings of the Lord Howe Island Airport (ICAO code YLHI) against the following navaids:

DME, ADS-B, VHF equipment.

1.3 Reference

The applicable versions of the following documents are the ones officially released at the time of

the emission of the present document.

1.3.1 Applicable documents

[AD1] IDS Technical proposal PT/2015/071 “Impact analysis of two wind turbines near

the LORD HOWE ISLAND AIRPORT”

[AD2] P.O. POW001076 from IDS Australasia dated 21st of March 2016

1.3.2 Regulations

[ND1] ICAO Annex 10 – Aeronautical Telecommunications Vol. I Radio Navigations

Aids.

1.4 Acronyms, Definitions and Templates

1.4.1 Acronyms

2D Two Dimensional

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast

AGL Above Ground Level

AHD Australian Height Datum

AMSL Above Mean Sea Level

ARP Airport Reference Point

C/N/S Communications Navigation Surveillance





8/49



CL Center Line

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DME Distance Measurement Equipment

DTM Digital terrain Model

EMACS ElectroMagnetic Airport Control and Survey

EMC ElectroMagnetic Compatibility

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

IDS Ingegneria Dei Sistemi

LHI Lord Howe Island

LOS Line Of Sight

NA Not Available

NM Nautical Miles

PO Physical Optics

RWY Runway

THR Threshold

VHF Very High Frequency

WT Wind Turbine

1.4.2 Definition

EMACS

ElectroMagnetic Airport Control and Survey is a set of validated

electromagnetic 3D modelling and simulation tools capable of

investigating ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) issues and

ElectroMagnetic Interference (EMI) problems in airport and air

navigation site scenarios. The modelling functionality (including

terrain models, obstacles, interfering systems, ground and airborne

navaid equipment characteristics) allows an expert user to model the

real propagation phenomena taking place within a complex EM airport

scenario where signals from a variety of equipment (e.g. VOR, DME,

ILS, ATC Radar, GPS systems, etc.) interfere with artificial or natural

obstructions.

Elevation (altitude) AMSL distance measurement

FPDAM three-dimensional CAD tool (part of the AIRNAS ® system) that

provides an interactive environment for Aeronautical Flight

Procedures design, Air Space management and Air Navigation,

including the new GPS based concepts.

Height AGL distance measurement





9/49



2. MODELLING DESCRIPTION

2.1 CNS systems modelling

This section details the target data regarding the C/N/S systems that have been modelled in this

EMC study, and the main aerodrome reference points.

In particular:

Tab. 2.1 reports the relevant data regarding the DME system

Tab. 2.2 reports the relevant data regarding the ADS-B system

Tab. 2.3 reports the relevant data regarding the VHF system

Tab. 2.4 reports the position of RWY 10 THR

Tab. 2.5 reports the position of RWY 28 THR

Tab. 2.6 reports the position of ARP

Fig. 2.1 and Fig. 2.2 show an aerophotogrammetry of Lord Howe Island with the indication of

the positions of the C/N/S systems.

Latitude and Longitude (WGS84): 31° 31’ 44.3649” S, 159° 04’ 21.2957” E

Elevation (AHD71/ terrain surveyed at ground

level) [m]:

34.76

Equipment model: Indra LDB-102

Frequency [MHz]: 1148

Radiated Power [kW]: 1.2

Tab. 2.1 – DME system at Lord Howe Island airfield



level) [m]:

34.76

ADS-B height (AGL) [m]: 20.5

ADS-B height of phase centre [m]: 15

Type: Kathrein 880 10002 antenna

Frequency [MHz]: 1090

On board radiated power [W] 250

Tab. 2.2 – ADS-B system at Lord Howe Island airfield





10/49





level) [m]:

34.76

Frequency [MHz]: 124.25

Radiated Power [W]: 50

Tab. 2.3 – VHF system at Lord Howe Island airfield

Latitude and Longitude (WGS84) 31° 32’ 12.26’’ S, 159° 04’ 18.15’’E

Tab. 2.4 – RWY 10 THR at Lord Howe Island airfield

Latitude and Longitude (WGS84) 31° 32’ 24.12’’S, 159° 04’ 48.74’’ E

Tab. 2.5 – RWY 28 THR at Lord Howe Island airfield

Latitude and Longitude (WGS84) 31° 32’ 18’’S, 159° 04’ 38’’ E

Tab. 2.6 – ARP at Lord Howe Island airfield





11/49



Fig. 2.1 – Lord Howe Island aerophotogrammetry

In Fig. 2.2, it is reported the positioning of Wind Turbines and equipment, in particular:

DME and ADS-B equipment: white marker

VHF equipment: green marker

Wind Turbines: red markers





12/49



Fig. 2.2 – Lord Howe Island: details of LHI airport





13/49



2.2 Terrain model

The simulations have been conducted using a digital terrain model with resolution of 1m. The

terrain characteristics of Lord Howe Island have been reported in Fig. 2.3.

Fig. 2.3 – Digital Terrain Model of Lord Howe Island (resolution of 1 meters)

2.3 Wind Turbines

The complete site model used for the detailed analysis includes terrain and wind turbines. To

assess the impact of the two wind turbines against C/N/S, LHI site model has been modelled and

taken into account for the numerical analysis.

2.3.1 Wind Turbine description

The wind turbine model (Vergnet) with dimensions and geometrical characteristics is shown in

Fig. 2.4.

These wind turbines are composed by two blades with a height of 71m (233ft) AGL (at the

blade tip). The turbine model has a 55m tower and 32m diameter blade. The top of WTG1 is

at 132m AHD71 and WTG2 is at 141m AHD71.

WTG ID Elevation (AHD71) [m] Latitude and Longitude (WGS84)

WTG_1 132 31° 32’ 24.12’’S, 159° 04’ 48.74’’ E

WTG_2 141 31° 32’ 24.12’’S, 159° 04’ 48.74’’ E

Tab. 2.7 – Elevation and position of the two WT close to LHI airport





14/49



Fig. 2.4 – Wind Turbine Vergnet design





15/49



2.4 Site Model

In Fig. 2.5 the digital terrain model used for the simulations has been shown. The position of the

2 wind turbines respect to the DME antenna position has been reported in Fig. 2.6. In the same

picture, it is possible to see that the output is a triangular surface model (including terrain and

wind turbines).

The distances between the DME equipment and the two WTs is following:

Distance between DME and WT1: 223 m

Distance between DME and WT2: 308 m

Fig. 2.5 – Site obstacles on DTM map

For this assessment the two WTs have been oriented with their faces in front of the DME

equipment position, in order to represent worst case condition (maximum energy

reflected/diffracted). The WT blades are at 35° respect to the horizontal plane.

In Fig. 2.8, a detail of WT Vergnet 3D model has been reported.





16/49



Fig. 2.6 – Site model with two Wind Turbines





17/49



Fig. 2.7 – Details of wind turbines 3D model

2.5 DME system analysis

This section reports the simulation output for LHI DME equipment installed at the Lord Howe

Island airfield. The operational domain of the LHI DME has been derived from Published flight

procedures (see the Air services website).

As shown in Fig. 2.9, LHI DME slant range error has been calculated for the following analysis

domains (operational radials and sectors):

Sector A: from 026° to 088°

Sector B: from 205° to 269°

CHEWY to LHI: radial 113°

ABARB to LHI: radial 054°

Each single DME arrival procedure is characterized by three parts:

1. From 25 NM to 11.2 NM – Altitude: 4100 ft

2. From 11.2 NM 3.3 NM – Slope: 3°

3. From 3.3 NM to 0 NM – Altitude: 1580 ft

In Fig. 2.8 a CAD view of Lord Howe Island scenario has been shown, taking into account flight

procedure radials and position of Wind Turbines.





18/49



Fig. 2.8 – CAD view of DME arrival procedures





19/49



Fig. 2.9 – LHI DME arrival procedures





20/49



2.5.1 DME Optical Visibility analysis

The visibility analysis has the goal to evaluate DME LOS (Line Of Sight) so the minimum

altitude that guarantees optical visibility between the on board receiver and the DME equipment.

The visibility analysis takes into account both the terrain and the artificial obstacles (wind

turbines). The analysis has been conducted inside DME operational range.

In particular, with reference to the flight procedures, it can be stated that:

In Fig. 2.10, DME optical visibility has been shown.

As reported in Fig. 2.10, color map shows reduction of optical visibility in East sector

caused by WT presence, but there is no impact on the flight procedure sectors.

Fig. 2.10 – DME optical visibility with wind turbines

WT effects





21/49



2.5.2 DME Coverage analysis

The coverage analysis investigates the radio coverage of the radiated EM signal in terms of

electric field and operational range. This analysis is executed at the operational frequencies of the

equipment under study and considers reflection and diffraction phenomena due to the site (terrain

and obstacles).

The criterion adopted in the coverage analysis is to verify whether the radiated EM field strength

meets the radio coverage requirements (minimum EM field strength) that are reported in [ND1].

EM field strength equal to -89dBW/m2 is required for satisfactory operation usage (see

requirement 3.5.4.1.5.2)

For this analysis, DME antenna pattern (elevation) is reported in Fig. 2.11. The azimuth antenna

pattern is omnidirectional.

Fig. 2.11 – DME antenna pattern (azimuth and elevation)

The goal of coverage analysis is to verify that also considering wind turbines, coverage is still

provided inside DME operational volume.

From Fig. 2.12 to Fig. 2.17 radio coverage of the DME is shown (considering masking effects

coming from the wind turbines) at increasing altitudes, from 1580ft to 15000ft (Tab. 2.8). In

each figure, the colored area denotes the 2D region in which, at that given altitude, the radiated

EM field strength is higher than -89dBW/m2.

With reference to the operational flight procedures altitudes:

DME coverage is reported with and without wind turbines.

it is observed how wind turbines provide masking effect anyway outside procedure

sectors (A and B).

no impact of WT is observed on flight procedure sectors (A and B)





22/49



Altitude values

(ft)

1580

1680

1800

2440

3400

4100

5000

7500

10000

15000

Tab. 2.8 – Altitude values for YLHI published flight procedures

Fig. 2.12 – DME radio coverage at 1580ft with WTs (right side) and without WTs (left side).

Red shape represents the areas in which the power density is higher than the reference

value of -89 dBW/ m2

WT effects





23/49



Fig. 2.13 – DME radio coverage at 1680 ft with WTs (right side) and without WTs (left

side). Red shape represents the areas in which the power density is higher than the

reference value of -89 dBW/ m2







WT effects

WT effects

WT effects





24/49












WT effects

WT effects

WT effects





25/49












WT effects

WT effects

WT effects





26/49



2.5.3 Slant range error analysis

This analysis numerically evaluate the DME distance position estimation and the possible

error due to reflection/diffractions from man-made obstacles and terrain. The main outputs

of these analyses will be:

the simulation of the slant range signal along the commissioning flight paths (course

line) according to ICAO requirements;

Identification of the DME signal in space out-of-tolerance areas within the volume

inside which the instrument flight procedures are expected to be designed.

The slant signal error analysis presented in this section uses the PO method to model the

diffraction phenomena of EM propagation, and considers the contributions due to both terrain

and wind turbines.

The simulated slant range error of the flight domains are presented as follows:

Fig. 2.22 refer to Slant range error estimated along Radial 054 (ABARB to LHI)

Fig. 2.23 refer to Slant range error estimated along Radial 113 (CHEWY to LHI)

Fig. 2.24 refer to Slant range error estimated along Radial 205 (Sector B)

Fig. 2.25 refer to Slant range error estimated along Radial 269 (Sector B)

Fig. 2.26 refer to Slant range error estimated along Radial 026 (Sector A)

Fig. 2.27 refer to Slant range error estimated along Radial 088 (Sector A)

From Fig. 2.28 to Fig. 2.33, the comparison between Slant Range error estimation is shown with

and without WT contributions (from 0 to 3.3 NM). Wind Turbines generate reflection

contributions between 0 – 0.5 NM for each analysed direction. As shown, WT reflection

contribution is within DME silence cone.





27/49



Fig. 2.22 – Procedure slant range error: Radial 054- ABARB to LHI arrival procedure





28/49



Fig. 2.23 – Procedure slant range error: Radial 113- CHEWY to LHI arrival procedure





29/49



Fig. 2.24 – Procedure slant range error: Sector B - Radial 205





30/49



Fig. 2.25 – Procedure slant range error: Sector B - Radial 269





31/49



Fig. 2.26 – Procedure slant range error: Sector A - Radial 026





32/49



Fig. 2.27 – Procedure slant range error: Sector A - Radial 088





33/49



Fig. 2.28 – Radial 113 (CHEWY to LHI arrival procedure): comparison between Slant

range error with (red line) and without (black line) WT contribution

DME Silence Cone





34/49



Fig. 2.29 – Radial 054 (ABARB to LHI arrival procedure): comparison between Slant range

error with (red line) and without (black line) WT contribution

DME Silence Cone





35/49



Fig. 2.30 – Radial 205 (Sector B): comparison between Slant range error with (red line) and

without (black line) WT contribution

DME Silence Cone





36/49



Fig. 2.31 – Radial 269 (Sector B): comparison between Slant range error with (red line) and


DME Silence Cone





37/49



Fig. 2.32 – Radial 026 (Sector A): comparison between Slant range error with (red line) and


DME Silence Cone





38/49



Fig. 2.33 – Radial 088 (Sector A): comparison between Slant range error with (red line)

and without (black line) WT contribution

DME Silence Cone





39/49



2.6 ADS-B system analysis

2.6.1 ADS-B Optical Visibility analysis

In this section, ADS-B optical visibility analysis has been performed taking into account

reflection/diffraction effects caused by wind turbines.

ADS-B optical visibility has been shown with reference to the flight procedures operative sectors.

In Fig. 2.34, color map shows reduction of optical visibility in East sector caused by WT

presence, but there is no impact on the flight procedure sectors.

Fig. 2.34 – ADS-B optical visibility with wind turbines

2.6.2 ADS-B Coverage analysis

ADS-B coverage performances are reported from Fig. 2.35 to Fig. 2.40. All pictures show ADS-

B coverage at several altitudes (see Tab. 2.8) with and without WT contributions.

At different altitudes, it is observed:

there are two orography limitation in North-West and South-East sides.

wind turbines provide masking effect anyway outside procedure sectors (A and B).

Anyway no impact of WT is observed on flight procedure sectors (A and B).

WT effects





40/49



Fig. 2.35 – ADS-B radio coverage at 1580ft with WTs (right side) and without WTs (left

side)


side)

Fig. 2.37 – ADS-B radio coverage at 1800 ft with WTs (right side) and without WTs (left

side)

WT effects

WT effects

WT effects





41/49




side)


side)


side)

WT effects

WT effects

WT effects





42/49




side)


side)


side)

WT effects

WT effects

WT effects





43/49




side)

WT effects





44/49



2.7 VHF system analysis

2.7.1 VHF equipment Optical Visibility

In Fig. 2.45 VHF optical visibility has been reported. The new WTs have no impact on the

optical visibility of the VHF equipment in the operational region (referring to the published

routes and flight procedures). In particular, good optical visibility is ensured for all flight

procedures sector.

Fig. 2.45 – VHF optical visibility with wind turbines

2.7.2 VHF Coverage analysis

VHF facility coverage performances are reported from Fig. 2.46 to Fig. 2.55. All pictures show

VHF equipment coverage at several altitudes (see Tab. 2.8) with and without WT contributions.

At different altitudes, it is observed:

there are two orography limitation in North-West and South-East sides.

wind turbines provide masking effect anyway outside procedure sectors (A and B).

no impact of WT is observed on flight procedure sectors (A and B).

WT effects





45/49



Fig. 2.46 – VHF radio coverage at 1580ft with WTs (right side) and without WTs (left side)


Fig. 2.48 – VHF radio coverage at 1800 ft with WTs (right side) and without WTs (left side)

WT effects

WT effects

WT effects





46/49






WT effects

WT effects

WT effects





47/49






WT effects

WT effects

WT effects





48/49




WT effects





49/49



3. CONCLUSIONS

This technical document achieves the EMC assessment regarding the impact of two wind turbines

close to the Lord Howe Island airport (ICAO code YLHI) against following C/N/S systems:

DME equipment

ADS-B equipment

VHF equipment

DME equipment:

o Optical visibility: reduction of optical visibility is shown in East sector caused by

WT presence, but there is no impact on the flight procedure and published routes

sectors (see Fig. 2.10).

o Radio coverage: radio coverage of the DME is achieved at several altitudes (from

1580ft to 15000ft) using Tx power of 1.2 KW. The coverage has been evaluated

according to requirement 3.5.4.1.5.2 [ND1]. Coverage shape represents the areas in

which the power density is higher than the reference value of -89 dBW/ m2. The

coverage analysis have been performed with and without Wind Turbine in order to

highlight masking effect due to both WT. Anyway no impact on DME coverage is

observed across flight procedure sectors.

o Slant Range Error analysis: from Fig. 2.28 to Fig. 2.33, the comparison between

Slant Range error estimation is shown with and without WT contributions (from 0 to

3.3 NM). Presence of Wind Turbines provide reflection contributions between 0 –

0.5 NM for each analysed direction, so inside the DME shadow cone.

ADS-B equipment

o Optical visibility: there is a masking effect on optical visibility caused by the wind

turbines. As DME coverage analysis, also for ADS-B there is no impact on the flight

procedure sectors and specific published routes.

o Radio coverage: radio coverage of the ADS-B is provided at several altitudes (from

1580ft to 15000ft). Masking effects can be observed for ADS-B coverage. The

entity of these contributions can be considered to have negligible impact for flight

procedure sectors.

VHF equipment

o Optical visibility: reduction of optical visibility is shown in East sector caused by

WT presence, but there is no impact on the flight procedure and published routes

sectors (see Fig. 2.45).

o Radio coverage: radio coverage of the VHF equipment is provided at several

altitudes (from 1580ft to 15000ft). No impact is observed across flight procedure

sectors and published routes. Anyway no radio coverage reduction is observed for

VHF facility.

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhquynh
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times

C/N/S (Communications Navigation Surveillance) detailed ... · o Optical visibility o Radio...

Documents