Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-7sgmh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-25T07:53:17.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Capacity assessment of vertiports with a scheduling algorithm considering quality of service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2025

J. Li ,
H. Zhang Open the ORCID record for H. Zhang [Opens in a new window] ,
J. Yi ,
C. Deng  and
J. Zhou
J. Li
Affiliation:
College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China
H. Zhang*
Affiliation:
College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China
J. Yi
Affiliation:
College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China
C. Deng
Affiliation:
College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China
J. Zhou
Affiliation:
College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China
*
Corresponding author: H. Zhang; Email: honghaizhang@nuaa.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Urban air mobility (UAM) utilising novel transportation tools is gradually being recognised as a significant means to alleviate ground transportation pressures, vertiports which serve as pivotal nodes in UAM require efficient methods for assessing its operational capacity to develop an appropriate operational strategy and help to design vertiport ground infrastructure scientifically. This study proposes a multi-dimensional assessment method for the capacity of vertiports considering throughput and quality of service based on genetic algorithm (CEGA). The method comprehensively considers constraints such as unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) safety separation, battery endurance, number of landing vertipads and UAV speed. The experimental results indicate that the vertiport with the scheduling algorithm proposed by this study has a larger capacity and experiences fewer delay than the vertiport with first-come-first-served (FCFS) algorithm when the vertiport has the same limited number of vertipads. Different proportions of UAVs significantly affect the quality of service and the degree of operation delays. The weights of vertiport throughput and customer satisfaction are the parameters that represent the importance of throughput and customer satisfaction in the objective function of the capacity assessment model. When the weights of throughput and customer satisfaction are set to 0.8 and 0.2 respectively, the performance of this optimisation model is optimal. This study provides a novel solution for capacity assessment and operation scheduling of vertiports, laying the foundation for improving the efficiency of UAM operations.

Keywords

urban air mobilityvertiportcapacity assessmentgenetic algorithm
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 129 , Issue 1337 , July 2025 , pp. 1791 - 1809
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Jain, V., Malviya, B. and Arya, S. An overview of electronic commerce (e-Commerce), J. Contemp. Issues Bus. Govern., 2021, 27, (3), pp 665–670.Google Scholar
Sorbelli, F.B., Corò, F., Das, S.K., Palazzetti, L. and Pinotti, C.M. On the scheduling of conflictual deliveries in a last-mile delivery scenario with truck-carried drones, Pervasive Mobile Comput., 2022, 87, p 101700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DJI. (2024-02-23). DJI FlyCart 30. Retrieved from https://www.dji.com/flycart-30/specs Google Scholar
EHANG. UAM System White Paper, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.ehang.com/cn/news/606.html Google Scholar
Zeng, Y., Duan, Q., Chen, X., Peng, D., Mao, Y. and Yang, K. UAVData: A dataset for unmanned aerial vehicle detection, Soft Computing, 2021, 25, pp 5385–5393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, B.J., Guo, Y., Atadero, R. and van de Lindt, J.W. Streamlined bridge inspection system utilizing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and machine learning, Measurement, 2020, 164, p 108048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gun, T. 3WWDZ-21 USER MANUAL, 2021. Retrieved from http://static.topxgun.com/3WWDZ-21 Google Scholar
DJI. (2022-11-15). DJI T20 Retrieved from https://www.dji.com/cn/t20 Google Scholar
Preis, L. Quick sizing, throughput estimating and layout planning for VTOL aerodromes–a methodology for vertiport design, Paper Presented at the AIAA Aviation 2021 Forum, 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopardekar, P.H. Unmanned aerial system (UAS) traffic management (UTM): Enabling low-altitude airspace and UAS operations, 2014. Retrieved from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20140013436 Google Scholar
Ackerman, K.A. and Gregory, I.M. Trajectory generation for noise-constrained autonomous flight operations, Paper Presented at the AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zou, Y., Zhang, H., Zhong, G., Liu, H., Feng, D. and Safety, S. Collision probability estimation for small unmanned aircraft systems, Reliab. Eng., 2021, 213, p 107619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Zhang, H., Yi, J. and Liu, H. A bi-level planning approach of logistics unmanned aerial vehicle route network, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2023, 141, p 108572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straubinger, A., Rothfeld, R., Shamiyeh, M., Büchter, K.-D., Kaiser, J. and Plötner, K.O. An overview of current research and developments in urban air mobility–Setting the scene for UAM introduction, J. Air Transp. Manag., 2020, 87, p 101852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Administration, F.A. Heliport Design, 2023. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentnumber/150_5390-2 Google Scholar
Organization, I.C.A. Heliport Manual (Doc 9261), 2021. Retrieved from https://store.icao.int/en/heliport-manual-doc-9261 Google Scholar
Agency, E. U. A. S. (2022-3-24). Prototype Technical Design Specifications for Vertiports. Retrieved from https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/general-publications/prototype-technical-design-specifications-vertiports Google Scholar
Uber. UberAir Vehicle Requirements and Missions. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/uber-static Google Scholar
Schweiger, K., Knabe, F. and Korn, B. An exemplary definition of a vertidrome’s airside concept of operations, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2022, 125, p 107144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimjha, M. and Trani, A. Urban air mobility: Factors affecting vertiport capacity, Paper Presented at the 2021 Integrated Communications Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H. Multi-runway Airport Capacity Research, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2013. Google Scholar
Vascik, P.D. and Hansman, R.J. Development of vertiport capacity envelopes and analysis of their sensitivity to topological and operational factors, Paper Presented at the AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Z. Research on Airspace Capacity Assessment and Forecast. (Doctor). Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Available from Cnki, 2016. Google Scholar
Bowen, E. and Pearcey, T. Delays in the flow of air traffic, Aeronauti. J., 1948, 52, (448), pp 251–258.Google Scholar
Blumstein, A. The landing capacity of a runway, Operations Research, 1959, 7, (6), pp 752–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X., Yu, H., Cao, K., Zhou, J., Wei, T. and Hu, S. Uncertainty-aware flight scheduling for airport throughput and flight delay optimization, IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electron. Syst., 2019, 56, (2), pp 853–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callantine, T.J. and Palmer, E.A. Fast-time simulation studies of terminal-area spacing and merging concepts, Paper Presented at the Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2003. DASC’03. The 22nd, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montoto, F. and Suarez, N. Estimation of airport capacity through the determination of the tower controller time load, Paper Presented at the 4th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, 2001.Google Scholar
Tian, Y., Yang, S., Wan, L. and Yang, Y. Research on the method of sector dynamic capacity evaluation, Syst. Eng.-Theory Pract., 2014, 34, (8), pp 2163–2169.Google Scholar
Liu, L. Terminal airspace capacity evaluation model under weather condition from perspective of a controller, Int. J. Aerospace Eng., 2018, 2018.1, p 4728648.Google Scholar
Long, D., Stouffer-Coston, V., Kostiuk, P., Kula, R. and Yackovetsky, R. Integrating LMINET with TAAM and SIMMOD: A feasibility study. No. NASA/CR-2001-210875, 2001. Retrieved from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20010060386 Google Scholar
Chao, W., Xinyue, Z. and Xiaohao, X. Simulation study on airfield system capacity analysis using SIMMOD, Paper Presented at the 2008 International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertino, J., Boyajian, E. and Johnson, N. 21st century, fast-time airport and airspace modeling analysis with Simmod, Managing Skies, 2011, 9, (3), pp 21–23.Google Scholar
Tien, S.-L., Taylor, C., Vargo, E. and Wanke, C. Using ensemble weather forecasts for predicting airport arrival capacity, J. Air Transp., 2018, 26, (3), pp 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirmohammadsadeghi, N., Hu, J. and Trani, A. Enhancements to the runway capacity simulation model using the asde-x data for estimating airports throughput under various wake separation systems, Paper Presented at the AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan, L., Peng, Q., Tian, Y., Gao, L. and Ye, B., Airport capacity evaluation based on air traffic activities big data, EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Networking, 2020, 2020, (1), pp 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, B. and Hwang, H.-Y. Design criteria and accommodating capacity analysis of vertiports for urban air mobility and its application at gimpo airport in Korea, Appl. Sci., 2022, 12, (12), p 6077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinbekman, I.C., Mitici, M. and Wei, P. Rolling-horizon electric vertical takeoff and landing arrival scheduling for on-demand urban air mobility, J. Aerospace Inf. Syst., 2020, 17, (3), pp 150–159.Google Scholar
Guerreiro, N.M., Hagen, G.E., Maddalon, J.M. and Butler, R.W. Capacity and throughput of urban air mobility vertiports with a first-come, first-served vertiport scheduling algorithm, Paper Presented at the AIAA Aviation 2020 Forum, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatesh, N., Payan, A.P., Justin, C.Y., Kee, E. and Mavris, D. Optimal siting of sub-urban air mobility (sUAM) ground architectures using network flow formulation, Paper Presented at the AIAA AVIATION 2020 FORUM, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, J. and Wei, P. An efficient algorithm for self-organized terminal arrival in urban air mobility, Paper Presented at the AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, L.E., Jones, J.C., Bryan, A. and Weinert, A.J. Demand and capacity modeling for advanced air mobility, Paper Presented at the AIAA AVIATION 2021 FORUM, 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhenglei, C., Xiaolei, C., Chaojia, L., Bin, S., Hao, G., Jiajia, Z. and Jihui, X. Runway capacity evaluation based on multi-agent modeling and Monte Carlo simulation, J. Traffic Transp. Eng., 2023, 23, (06), pp 244–256. doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2023.06.016 Google Scholar
Brown, E.C. and Sumichrast, R.T. Evaluating performance advantages of grouping genetic algorithms, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 2005, 18, (1), pp 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar