• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
1
e-zine edition 41
AVIATION SIMULATION
Support of the Determination of the Declared Capacity by the Useof Airside Simulation for RunwayCapacity Analysis
This contribution shows that the identification of the declared capacity can be supported through the methodology of capacity analysis according to Gilbo and the application ofairside simulation. However this practice can only be regarded as assistance to thecoordination committee, since only runway system capacities are taken into account. Ashas been mentioned earlier the declared capacity depends on further factors.
Introduction
Air transportation in the 21st century is increasingly subjectto capacity constraints. This is particularly true for airports, in
terms that trafc demand exceeds the airport capacity.To avoid an overload and any related delays, European airportsdene the maximum number of air movements within a scheduleseason that can be handled at any one airport. This gure is knownas declared capacity which is the basis for the slot allocation process [Kö07]. The classication of the declared capacitygenerally describes a one-hour value regarding the possibledepartures and arrivals. Additionally 30-minute or 10-minutevalues can be classied, if capacity constraints require this.Usually the declared capacity is composed of three elements:maximum number of total movements (departures and ar-
Ó
rivals
maximum number of arrivals and
Ó
maximum number of departures
Ó
which are possible within the respective period of time. Thedenition of the declared capacity is the responsibility of thecoordination committee of the individual airport.
Problem
The classication of the seasonal capacity supply as described bythe declared capacity goes down to the decision of the membersof the coordination committee. The decision is based on theexperiences and estimations regarding the airport capacity of theindividual stakeholders (airport authorities, air trafc control,
airlines).
The airport capacity depends on several individual componentsof the airport such as the runway system, the apron and theterminal buildings. Furthermore political and legislative issuesmay inuence an airport’s capacity. However most of the timesthe runway system capacity constitutes the critical factor of airport capacity [EC04].The problem regarding the classication of the declared capacityis the danger of suboptimal capacity usage. This may lead tothe unwanted situation of under-usage of valuable existinginfrastructure at airports with excess demand. Any overload isto be avoided on the other hand since this leads to delays and
irregularities.
The employment of capacity analysis and airside simulationmight be a means to support the work of the coordinationcommittee in this regard. Until today however there are noregimentations about the standardised employment of capacityanalysis and simulation in order to calculate the runway capacityregarding the classication of the declared capacity.
Capacity Analysis by Means of Airside Simulation
This paper aims to show exemplarily how the classication of the declared capacity can be supported by capacity analysis.Central to the capacity analysis will be the application of airside
simulation.
By: Stefan Theiss
 
The basis for the capacity analysis is the methodology of empirical capacity appraisal. Gilbo [Gi93] presents an approachin this regard incorporating a diagram which displays all actualmovements on a runway system within a certain period of time.In this diagram a scatter plot represents all monitored trafcmovements with reference to the ratio of departures and arrivals.By embracing the scatter plot an envelope can be generatedas shown in gure 1. This envelope describes the maximumthroughput capacity of the runway system in reference to thenumber of departures and arrivals per time unit (for example:
hour, 15/20 minutes).
However the empirically obtained number of trafc movementsis insufcient to utilize this methodology in order to calculatethe declared capacity thus the available capacity for the nextair trafc schedule. Instead airside simulation is applied in thecontext of this paper.The idea is to implement a range of scenarios with various ratiosof departures and arrivals as well as different trafc demandsin the simulation. A simulation implying an adequately long period of time as well as a constant trafc demand can generatea constant trafc ow. The results of the individual simulationruns can then be transfused into a Gilbo diagram.Another fault of the standard application of the Gilbo methodlies in the missing recognition of any quality criteria in order toassess the trafc ow. However the quality of the operation of ights has a signicant impact on classication of the declaredcapacity. A common criterion to assess the quality regarding therunway system capacity is the average delay per aircraft. Basedon a survey by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) the practical hourly capacity (PHCAP) is, as described by Odoniand de Neufville [ON03], the value at which the average delay per aircraft is four minutes. The relation between trafc ow anddelay is illustrated exemplarily in Figure 2.The application of airside simulation on the ground of thecapacity analysis allows a exible increase of trafc demand undthus the design of a ow-delay-diagram. This diagram shows both the maximum throughput capacity as well as the point inwhich departing and arriving aircraft have an average delay of four minutes. The maximum throughput capacity correspondswith the pole which the graph approaches.To simplify the implementation of different scenarios and therelated complexity of the simulation, the display of differentratios of departures and arrivals is carried out gradually, for example in 10% steps as shown in gure 3.The simulation of the different individual proportions of departures and arrivals is conducted through several simulationruns. The trafc demand is increased with each simulation run.The simulating continues until the stop-criterion is reachedwhich could be an average delay per aircraft of more than four minutes. In that case the PHCAP is classied for the individualratios of departures and arrivals.In transferring the results to the Gilbo diagram and connectingthe individual data points the envelope can be redesigned whichnow incorporates the given quality criterion. Additionally duringthe simulation runs the trafc demand can be increased to the point where no further trafc ow can be achieved. At this pointthe maximum throughput capacity is reached which can bedisplayed in the Gilbo diagram as well.
 ASA-Tool
To look at the problem mentioned above the Department of Airport and Air Transportation at the RWTH Aachen Universityuses the commercial simulation software SimmodPlus of theATAC Corporation Company [Si04]. Simmod is a discreteevent simulation which algorithms are based on research by theFAA. The programme’s user-interface however is inadequatefor controlling the simulation runs and the assessment of the
results. Therefore an improvement is necessary. An applicable
instrument in this context is the Airside Simulation Analysis(ASA) Tool which especially supports the capacity analysis of runway systems.
2
Figure 1 Gilbo-Diagram (empiric)Figure 2 Flow-Delay DiagramFigure 3 Gilbo-Diagram (simulation)
 
The ASA-Tool is a development of the Department of Airportand Air Transportation at the RWTH Aachen University. TheObjective in creating this tool was the ability to control Simmodespecially on the subject of capacity analysis of runway systems.The following ideas were paramount in the development, becausethey are required for the use of the ASA-Tool:
Ó
the generation of trafc demand (table of ights
Ó
freely denable attributes (uniform-, poisson distributed)
Ó
(multiple-) simulation and incrementing trafc demand
Ó
 processing of the simulation results to be used for the runwaycapacity analysis (relevant parameter: ow, demand, delay…
etc)
Ó
graphical/tabular presentation of the results
With the help of these functions scenarios in the simulation areto be implemented, which make a exible default for the trafcdemand possible, for example the number of movements and the portion of the aircraft categories. Besides the ASA-Tool readsautomatically the arrival- and departure-routes out of the modelof the airport from simmod. The distribution of the trafc on theroutes can be specied by the user as well.The ASA-Tool accesses the simmod simulation engine directly.The simulation- and analysis parameter are controlled directly by ASA.Referring to the problem above the trafc demand is distributedequally over a simulation period. The programme recognisesany adjustments set by the user as to the distribution of thetrafc demand meaning different routes or aircraft categories areconsidered for example.A exible setting of the trafc demand allows calculatingdifferent scenarios in the simulation.An adequate number of iterations ensure that ASA meetsthe stochastic effects as dened in simmod like wake vortex
separation.
The multiple-simulation is a function of the ASA-Tool which
is especially of importance for the capacity analysis. This is a
simulation of certain trafc scenarios with a xed ratio of departuresand arrivals as well as aircraft categories (heavy, medium, light) but with variable trafc demand. The ASA-Tool shows the resultas a ow-delay-diagram (Figure 4). The diagram illustrates theaverage delays per aircraft in reference to a certain trafc demand.The Diagram shows the average delay for departures (green),arrivals (blue) and for the total
movements (red).
Example of application
The application of airside simulation and the ASA-Tool beforethe background of capacity analysis will be demonstrated inthe following. The basis for this will be an idealized simmod-model of Dusseldorf Airport. Different alternatives for theclassication of the declared capacity can then be discussed onthe ground of the simulation results. Since the focus of this paper lies on the evaluation of runway system capacity the followingsimplication concerning the airport model have been made:
Ó
one direction of operation on the runway (no switchingduring simulation run)
Ó
maximum departure-queue length, respectively arrival
 prioritisation
Ó
one-way taxi strategy
Ó
single gate (indenite capacity)Afterwards various simulation runs with different proportions of departures and arrivals have been executed. The procedure wasas described in chapter 3. The percentages ranged from 100%departures and 0% arrivals to 0% departures and 100% arrivals,with the proportion changing by 10% steps between the runs.Besides the capacity which induces an average delay of four minutes per aircraft the maximum throughput capacity has beendetermined as well. In gures 5 and 6 the four-minute-capacityis represented by the red curves and the blue curves represent themaximum throughput capacity.The next step would be the deduction of the declared capacity on
the basis of the simulation results. An easy approach is to employ
straight lines in the Gilbo diagram to nd the declared capacity.Correspondingly to the three elements of the declared capacity(total capacity, maximum number of departures and maximumnumber of arrivals), three straight lines are set in the diagram. Theone straight line that determines the number of total movementsis the tangent at the point of a 50/50 proportion of departures and
arrivals or at the same time the orthogonal line to the bisector 
subtending at 50%/50%. The straight lines corresponding tothe maximum numbers of departures respectively arrivals lieorthographic to the x and y axes. There are two ways concerning
the positioning of the straight lines.
3
Figure 4 Screenshot ASA-Tool (Flow-Demand-Diagram)Figure 5 Scenario 1
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...