Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T17:54:49.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A framework for optimising flight efficiency of a crossing waypoint by balancing flight conflict frequency and flight-level usage benefits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2023

D. Sui Open the ORCID record for D. Sui [Opens in a new window]  and
K. Liu Open the ORCID record for K. Liu [Opens in a new window]
D. Sui
Affiliation:
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing, China
K. Liu*
Affiliation:
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing, China Anhui Civil Aviation Airport Group, Hefei, China
*
Corresponding author: K. Liu; Email: liukechen@nuaa.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the increase of air transportation, some crossing waypoints (CWPs) are becoming bottlenecks in the operation of air traffic networks. This paper presents a CWP operation optimisation framework based on a two-stage optimisation method. First, we considered the interests of airlines and air traffic controllers and established a flight-level dynamic allocation model for the CWP to minimise the flight-level deviation and the number of flight conflicts. A multi-objective, self-adaptive differential evolution-local search hybrid algorithm was used to solve the model in a parallel computing manner. Subsequently, a flight conflict resolution algorithm based on the Monte-Carlo tree search was designed for flight conflicts that existed after the optimisation. Finally, based on real operation data, four experimental scenarios were constructed, and the air traffic operation simulation system was used for experimental validation. For daily traffic and 1.2 times peak traffic scenarios, the average flight-level deviation reduction rates after optimisation were 53% and 39%, and the successful flight conflict resolution rates reached 89% and 75%, respectively. The experimental results showed that this optimisation framework can effectively balance the number of flight conflicts with the efficiency of flight-level usage and directly improve the capacity of the CWP, which can be used as a reference for air traffic control auxiliary decision support systems.

Keywords

air traffic managementcross waypoint optimizationflight conflict resolutionflight level optimization
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 128 , Issue 1320 , February 2024 , pp. 245 - 272
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Eurocontrol. All-Causes Delay and Cancellations to Air Transport in Europe-2019, 2020.Google Scholar
DOT. 2019 Traffic Data for U.S. Airlines and Foreign Airlines, 2020.Google Scholar
CAAC. 2019 Civil Aviation Industry Development Statistics Bulletin, 2020.Google Scholar
Air Traffic Management Bureau, CAAC. 2019 Civil Airspace Development Report, 2020.Google Scholar
Terrab, M. and Odoni, A.R.O. Strategic flow management for air traffic control, Oper. Res., 1993, 41, (1), pp 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnier, N. and Allignol, C. 4D-trajectory deconfliction through departure time adjustment, Proc. ATM, Vol. 9, 2009.Google Scholar
Cafieri, S. and Durand, N. Aircraft deconfliction with speed regulation: new models from mixed-integer optimization, J. Global Optim., 2013, 58, (4), pp 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianazza, D. and Durand, N. Separating air traffic flows by allocating 3D-trajectories, The 23rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37576), Vol. 1, 2004.Google Scholar
Barnier, N. and Brisset, P. Graph coloring for air traffic flow management, Ann. Oper. Res., 2004, 130, (1), pp 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allignol, C., Barnier, N. and Gondran, A. Optimized flight-level allocation at the continental scale, 5th International Conference for Research in Air Transportation (ICRAT), 2012.Google Scholar
Gimenez-Guzman, J.M., Martłnez-Moraian, A., Reyes-Bardales, R.D., Orden, D. and Marsa-Maestre, I. Flight-level assignment using graph coloring, Appl. Sci., 2020, 10, (18), pp 6157–6172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaimatanan, S., Delahaye, D. and Mongeau, M. A hybrid metaheuristic optimization algorithm for strategic planning of 4D aircraft trajectories at the continental scale, IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag., 2014, 9, (4), pp 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaimatanan, S., Delahaye, D. and Mongeau, M. Aircraft 4D Trajectories Planning Under Uncertainties, 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancila, R.I. and Botez, R.M. New flight trajectory optimisation method using genetic algorithms, Aeronaut. J., 2021, 125, (1286), pp 618–671.10.1017/aer.2020.138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidosavljevic, A., Delahaye, D. and Tosic, V. Homotopy route generation model for robust trajectory planning, Air Traffic Manag. Syst. II, 2017, pp 69–88.Google Scholar
Hentzen, D., Kamgarpour, M., Soler, M. and Gonzalez-Arribas, D. On maximizing safety in stochastic aircraft trajectory planning with uncertain thunderstorm development, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2018, 79, pp 543–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treleaven, K. and Mao, Z. Conflict resolution and traffic complexity of multiple intersecting flows of aircraft, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 2008, 9, (4), pp 633–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecen, R.K. and Cetek, C. Conflict-free en-route operations with horizontal resolution manoeuvers using a heuristic algorithm, Aeronaut. J., 2020, 124, (1275), pp 767–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, J., Tang, X., Hong, W., Chen, P. and Li, T. Real-time optimization of short-term flight profiles to control time of arrival, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 84, 2019, pp 1164–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasini, A., Notry, P. and Delahaye, D. Direct route optimization for air traffic management improvement, 2018 IEEE/AIAA 37th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuno, Y., Tsuchiya, T. and Matayoshi, N. Near-optimal control for aircraft conflict resolution in the presence of uncertainty, J. Guid. Cont. Dynam., 2016, 39, (2), pp 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuno, Y., Tsuchiya, T. and Wei, J. Stochastic optimal control for aircraft conflict resolution under wind uncertainty, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2015, 43, pp 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xinmin, T., Ping, C. and Bo, L. Optimal air route flight conflict resolution based on receding horizon control, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2016, 50, pp 77–87.Google Scholar
Wensheng, L. Aircraft trajectory optimization for collision avoidance using stochastic optimal control, Asian J. Cont., 2019, 21, (5), pp 2308–2320.Google Scholar
Cafieri, S. and Durand, N. Aircraft deconfliction with speed regulation: New models from mixed-integer optimization, J. Global Optim., 2014, 58, (4), pp 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cafieri, S. and Rey, D. Maximizing the number of conflict-free aircraft using mixed-integer nonlinear programming, Comput. Oper. Res., 2017, 80, pp 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cafieri, S. and Omheni, R. Mixed-integer nonlinear programming for aircraft conflict avoidance by sequentially applying velocity and heading angle changes, Euro. J. Oper. Res., 2017, 260, (1), pp 283–290.10.1016/j.ejor.2016.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junling, C. and Ning, Z. Mixed integer nonlinear programming for aircraft conflict avoidance by applying velocity and altitude changes, Arab. J. Sci. Eng., 2019, 44, (10), pp 8893–8903.Google Scholar
Alonso-Ayuso, A., Escudero, L.F. and Martn-Campo, F.J. Multiobjective optimization for aircraft conflict resolution. A metaheuristic approach, Euro. J. Oper. Res., 2016, 248, (2), pp 691–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omer, J. A space-discretized mixed-integer linear model for air-conflict resolution with speed and heading maneuvers, Comput. Oper. Res., 2015, 58, pp 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecen, R.K. and Cetek, C. Conflict-free en-route operations with horizontal resolution manoeuvers using a heuristic algorithm, Aeronaut. J., 2020, 124, (1275), pp 767–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, Y., Choi, B. and Oh, G. Nonlinear conflict resolution and flow management using particle swarm optimization, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 2017, 18, (12), pp 3378–3387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecen, R.K., Sarac, T. and Cetek, C. Meta-heuristic algorithm for aircraft pre-tactical conflict resolution with altitude and heading angle change maneuvers, Top, 2021, 29, (3), pp 629–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, Y., Ni, Y. and Ping, L. Aircraft conflict resolution method based on ADS-B and genetic algorithm, Sixth International Symposium on Computational Intelligence & Design. IEEE Computer Society, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emami, H. and Derakhshan, F. Multi-agent based solution for free flight conflict detection and resolution using particle swarm optimization algorithm. Upb Sci. Bull., 2014, 76, (3).Google Scholar
Dong, S. and Kai, Z. A tactical conflict detection and resolution method for en route conflicts in trajectory-based operations. J. Adv. Transport., 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilimoria, K. A geometric optimization approach to aircraft conflict resolution, 18th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowek, G., Munoz, C. and Geser, A. Tactical Conflict Detection and Resolution in a 3-D Airspace, Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering, Hampton VA, 2001.Google Scholar
Carreno, V.A. Evaluation of a pair-wise conflict detection and resolution algorithm in a multiple aircraft scenario (No. NAS 1.15: 211963), 2002.Google Scholar
Durand, N., Guleria, Y. and Tran, P. A machine learning framework for predicting ATC conflict resolution strategies for conformal automation, 11th SESAR Innovation Days, 2021.Google Scholar
Kim, K., Deshmukh, R. and Hwang, I. Development of data-driven conflict resolution generator for en-route airspace, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2021, 114, (1275), pp 106744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooijen, S., Ellerbroek, J. and Borst, C. Toward individual-sensitive automation for air traffic control using convolutional neural networks, J. Air Transport., 2020, 28, (3), pp 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., Wang, Z. and Wang, J. Deep reinforcement learning based conflict detection and resolution in air traffic control, IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2019, 13, (6), pp 1041–1047.Google Scholar
Pham, D.T. Reinforcement Learning for Two-Aircraft Conflict Resolution in the Presence of Uncertainty, 2019 IEEE-RIVF International Conference on Computing and Communication Technologies (RIVF), IEEE, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tusar, T. and Filipic, B. Differential evolution versus genetic algorithms in multiobjective optimization, International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, 2007.Google Scholar
Ponsich, A. and Coello Coello, C.A. A hybrid differential evolutiontabu search algorithm for the solution of job-shop scheduling problems, Appl. Soft Comput., 13, (1), 2013, pp 462–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X. and Gao, L. An effective hybrid genetic algorithm and tabu search for flexible job shop scheduling problem, Int. J. Prod. Econom., 174, 2016, pp 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukkonen, S., Kalyanmoy, D. and Bateman, H. Improved pruning of non-dominated solutions based on crowding distance for bi-objective optimization problems, IEEE Congr. Evol. Comput., 2006.Google Scholar
Foster, J.G., DeArmon, J.S. and Bateman, H. An analysis of flight time at lower-than-optimal cruise altitude, 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar