终端区空域规划运行评价指标体系

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1001-506X.2020.04.16

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to reasonably allocate control resources and ensure the safe and efficient operation of the terminal area, quantitative analysis of the airspace planning and operation efficiency of the terminal area is used to master its operation and development situation. Firstly, an evaluation index system is established for terminal area airspace planning and operation based on eight key performance areas. Then, the state classification evaluation method is used to construct a comprehensive evaluation function, and the extensional analytic hierarchy process based on random forest algorithm is used to analyze and calculate the index weights. The purpose of comprehensively considering the indexes, strengthening the quantitative degree of indexes, and reducing the subjectivity of the research process is achieved. Finally, taking Guangzhou terminal area and Wuhan approach as examples, the eight key performance indexes are analyzed in detail. The Monte Carlo simulation is used to verify the reliability of the index calculation results, improve the recognition degree of the indexes, and verify the accuracy of the system evaluation results.

Key words: terminal area, index system, weight of index, operational efficiency

CLC Number:

O232

Yong TIAN, Mengyuan SUN, Lili WAN. Evaluation index system of airspace planning and operation in terminal area[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 42(4): 851-862.

Figures/Tables 33

Table 1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Table 16

Fig.13

Fig.14

Fig.15

Fig.16

Fig.17

References 35

1	International Civil Aviation Organization. Global air traffic management operational concept[R]. Montreal: ICAO, 2005.
2	Eurocontrol Performance Review Unit. ATM airport performance (ATMAP) framework, measuring airport airside and nearby airspace performance (version1)[R]. Brussels: Eurocotrol, 2009.
3	SESAR consortium. SESAR master plan (the European ATM master plan)[R]. Brussels: SESAR Definition Phase Project, European Commission and Euro Control, 2008.
4	Federal Aviation Administration. FAA modernization and reform act of 2012: section 214[R]. Washington: Federal Aviation Administration, 2012.
5	ROZEN N. Performance-based air traffic management: evaluation of en route benefits[C]//Proc.of the 7th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference, 2012: 1-18.
6	LINTNER T M, SMITH S D, SUMURTHWAITE S, et al. The aerospace performance factor: utilization of the analytical hierarchy process to develop a balanced performance and safety indicator of national airspace system for the federal aviation administration[C]//Proc.of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process, 2009: 1556-8296.
7	ZHANG J P, ZHANG P, LI Z, et al. A sector capacity assessment method based on airspace utilization efficiency[C]//Proc.of the International Conference on Control Engineering and Artificial Intelligence, 2018: 12-14.
8	SIDIROPOULOS S , MAJUMDAR A , HAN K . A framework for the optimization of terminal airspace operations in multi-airport systems[J]. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 2018, 110, 160- 187. doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2018.02.010
9	HOSSAIN M M , ALAM S , DELAHAYE D . An evolutionary computational framework for capacity-safety trade-off in an air transportation network[J]. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2019, 32 (4): 999- 1010.
10	CHEN J T, YOUSEFI A, KRISHNA S, et al. Weather avoidance optimal routing for extended terminal airspace in support of dynamic airspace configuration[C]//Proc.of the 35th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2012: 301-316.
11	MARINA S , DANIEL D , CATHERINE M , et al. Dynamic airspace configuration by genetic algorithm[J]. Journal of Traffic & Transportation Engineering, 2017, 4 (3): 300314.
12	STAVROS S , HAN K , ARNAB M , et al. Robust identification of air traffic flow patterns in Metroplex terminal areas under demand uncertainty[J]. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2017, 75, 212- 227. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2016.12.011
13	PRANDINI M , PIRODDI L , PUECHMOREL S , et al. Toward air traffic complexity assessment in new generation air traffic management systems[J]. IEEE Trans.on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2011, 12 (3): 809- 818. doi: 10.1109/TITS.2011.2113175
14	CLARKE J P , REN L , MCCLAIN E , et al. Evaluating concepts for operations in metroplex terminal area airspace[J]. Journal of Aircraft, 2012, 49 (3): 758- 773. doi: 10.2514/1.C031227
15	ZHAO W , ALAM S , ABBASS H A . Evaluating ground-air network vulnerabilities in an integrated terminal maneuvering area using co-evolutionary computational red teaming[J]. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2013, 29, 32- 54. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2012.12.003
16	WANG H , WEN R , ZHAO Y . Analysis of topological characteristics in air traffic situation networks[J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2015, 229 (13): 2497- 2505. doi: 10.1177/0954410015578482
17	张洪海, 胡勇, 杨磊, 等. 多机场终端区微观交通流建模与仿真分析[J]. 西南交通大学学报, 2015, 50 (2): 368- 374. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2015.02.025
	ZHANG H H , HU Y , YANG L , et al. Modeling and simulation analysis of microscopic traffic flow in multi-airport terminal area[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiao Tong University, 2015, 50 (2): 368- 374. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.2015.02.025
18	LI M Z , RYERSON M S . A data-driven approach to modeling high-density terminal areas: a scenario analysis of the new Beijing, China airspace[J]. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2017, 30 (2): 538- 553. doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2016.12.030
19	WANG H , XU X , ZHAO Y . Empirical analysis of aircraft clusters in air traffic situation networks[J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2017, 231 (9): 1718- 1731. doi: 10.1177/0954410016660870
20	RODREGUEZ D A , ADENSO D B , GONZALEZ T P L . Improving aircraft approach operations taking into account noise and fuel consumption[J]. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2019, 77, 46- 56. doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.03.004
21	TIAN Y , WAN L L , YE B J . Optimization of terminal airspace operation with environmental considerations[J]. Transportation Research Part D, 2019, 63, 872- 889.
22	KIM B , LI L H , CLARKE J P . Runway assignments that minimize terminal airspace and airport surface emissions[J]. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 2014, 37 (3): 789- 798. doi: 10.2514/1.61829
23	XIN B , XUE X D , XU J , et al. Aviation's emissions and contribution to the air quality in China[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2019, 201, 121- 131. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.01.005
24	熊婷.终端区空域规划运行评价指标体系研究[D].南京:南京航空航天大学, 2019.
	XIONG T. Research on evaluation index system of airspace planning and operation in terminal area[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2019.
25	MA J . Generalised grey target decision method for mixed attributes with index weights containing uncertain numbers[J]. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 2018, 34 (1): 12- 18.
26	ZHU J , WANG E , SUN W . Application of Monte Carlo AHP in ranking coastal tourism environmental carrying capacity factors[J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 2019, 24 (7): 644- 657. doi: 10.1080/10941665.2019.1611610
27	UTKIN L V , KONSTANTINOV A V , CHUKANOV V S , et al. A weighted random survival forest[J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2019, 177, 136- 144. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2019.04.015
28	蔡林霖.随机森林的模型选择及其并行化方法[D].哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学, 2012.
	CAI L L. Model selection of random forest and its parallelization method[D]. Harbin: Harbin Institute of Technology, 2012.
29	徐少成, 李东喜. 基于随机森林的加权特征选择算法[J]. 统计与决策, 2018, 34 (18): 25- 28.
	XU S C , LI D X . Weighted feature selection algorithm based on random forest[J]. Statistics and Decision, 2018, 34 (18): 25- 28.
30	ZHOU Q , ZHOU H , LI T . Cost-sensitive feature selection using random forest: Selecting low-cost subsets of informative features[J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2016, 95, 1- 11. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2015.11.010
31	SHUVAJIT B , SRIKANTA M . Applications of machine learning for facies and fracture prediction using Bayesian network theory and random forest: case studies from the appalachian basin, USA[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2019, 170, 1005- 1017.
32	彭健庭.重庆市电子商务企业评价指标体系构建及应用[D].重庆:重庆师范大学, 2016.
	PENG J T. Construction and application of evaluation index system of Chongqing e-commerce enterprises[D]. Chongqing: Chongqing Normal University, 2016.
33	KAMPEN K J . Reflections on and test of the metrological properties of summated rating, Likert and other scales based on sums of ordinal variables[J]. Measurement, 2019, 137, 428- 434. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.01.083
34	RAMOS A . Automatic differentiation for error analysis of Monte Carlo data[J]. Computer Physics Communications, 2018, 238, 19- 35.
35	鲁帅, 宋戈, 杨一佳. 基于改进蒙特卡洛模拟的耕地生态安全时空特征研究-以齐齐哈尔市为例[J]. 东北师大学报(自然科学版), 2019, 51 (4): 137- 145.
	LU S , SONG G , YANG Y J . On the spatio-temporal characteristics of farmland ecological security for improving Monte Carlo simulation: a case study of Qiqihar city[J]. Journal of Northeast Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 2019, 51 (4): 137- 145.

准则层	指标
安全P₁	容流告警次数P₁₂,落地航空器五边最后间隔余度P₁₂,航迹对潜在冲突告警时间P₁₃,冲突次数P₁₄,超过监视告警参数的统计时长P₁₅, 5/5~10 n mile内航空器对数量P₁₆,潜在冲突最接近距离P₁₇;
效率P₂	进场飞行效率P₂₁,航班放行正常率P₂₂,非直线系数P₂₃;
延误P₃	飞行程序管制适用性P₃₁,高峰小时延误P₃₂,进场航班延误架次比P₃₃,全天平均延误P₃₄,延误成本P₃₅,进场航班平均延误时间P₃₆;
容量P₄	单机场终端区跑道容量利用率P₄₁,终端区边界点容量P₄₂,机场离场容量P₄₃,终端区容量饱和度P₄₄,机场进离场容量P₄₅,终端区小时高峰值P₄₆,机场进场容量P₄₇,扇区容量饱和度P₄₈;
环境P₅	噪声等级P₅₁,燃油消耗P₅₂,污染物排放P₅₄;
可预测性P₆	恶劣天气影响占比P₆₁,延误变化率P₆₂,终端区实际流量与计划流量之比P₆₃;
灵活性P₇	航空器连续爬升/下降性能P₇₁,特殊空域航班使用时长占比P₇₂;
空域结构P₈	终端区进出点数量P₈₆,终端区边界小角度交叉角数量P₈₄,双向航路占比P₈₁,边界交叉点到终端区边界的距离P₈₃,飞行可用高度层数量P₈₂,不同类型不同角度的交叉点数量P₈₅

区域	P₁₁	P₁₂	P₁₃	P₁₄	P₁₅	P₁₆	P₁₇	P₂₁	P₂₂	P₂₃
1	0.500 0	0.333 3	0.153 8	0.000 0	0.813 8	0.109 9	0.856 2	0.083 5	0.266 7	0.300 0
2	0.000 0	0.241 7	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.062 5	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.597 8	0.350 6	0.309 4
区域	P₃₁	P₃₂	P₃₃	P₃₄	P₃₅	P₃₆	P₄₁	P₄₂	P₄₃	P₄₄
1	0.628 6	0.431 8	0.330 7	0.403 8	0.178 4	0.025 5	0.430 6	0.266 7	0.300 0	0.100 0
2	0.753 4	0.009 8	0.032 0	0.239 2	0.114 4	0.004 1	0.791 9	0.350 6	0.309 4	0.707 8
区域	P₄₅	P₄₆	P₄₇	P₄₈	P₅₁	P₅₂	P₅₃	P₆₁	P₆₂	P₆₃
1	0.300 0	0.5000	0.300 0	0.083 2	0.549 0	0.423 1	0.613 9	0.000 0	0.407 3	0.075 9
2	0.342 8	0.625 0	0.376 2	0.888 8	0.468 8	0.139 3	0.243 3	0.043 2	0.028 9	0.004 5
区域	P₇₁	P₇₂	P₈₁	P₈₂	P₈₃	P₈₄	P₈₅	P₈₆
1	0.566 7	0.000 0	0.190 5	0.413 2	0.207 7	0.000 0	0.223 3	0.473 5
2	0.642 4	1.000 0	0.406 3	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.201 1	0.325 0

区间	[0.116~0.128)	[0.128~0.140)	[0.140~0.152)	[0.152~0.164)	[0.164~0.176)	[0.176~0.188]
等级	1	2	3	4	5	6

样本	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
综合评价值	0.141	0.136	0.138	0.188	0.131	0.116	0.167	0.132	0.120
等级	3	2	2	6	2	1	5	2	1
样本	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
综合评价值	0.140	0.128	0.135	0.140	0.140	0.140	0.141	0.141	0.120
等级	3	2	2	3	3	3	3	3	1
样本	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27
综合评价值	0.163	0.150	0.138	0.176	0.126	0.135	0.137	0.132	0.133
等级	4	3	2	6	1	2	2	2	2
样本	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
综合评价值	0.127	0.171	0.165	0.120	0.139	0.139	0.156	0.126	0.154
等级	1	5	5	1	2	2	4	1	4
样本	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45
综合评价值	0.158	0.141	0.124	0.127	0.147	0.138	0.141	0.138	0.138
等级	4	3	1	1	3	2	3	2	2
样本	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
综合评价值	0.168	0.138	0.156	0.147	0.128	0.173	0.121	0.173	0.134
等级	5	2	4	3	2	5	1	5	2
样本	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63
综合评价值	0.142	0.159	0.123	0.148	0.123	0.141	0.162	0.128	0.177
等级	3	4	1	3	1	3	4	2	6
样本	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
综合评价值	0.126	0.134	0.142	0.127	0.147	0.151	0.147	0.143	0.155
等级	1	2	3	1	3	3	3	3	4
样本	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81
综合评价值	0.121	0.155	0.126	0.142	0.156	0.151	0.153	0.147	0.183
等级	1	4	1	3	4	3	4	3	6
样本	82	83	84	85	86
综合评价值	0.176	0.139	0.124	0.134	0.138
等级	6	2	1	2	2

指标	P₁₁	P₁₂	P₁₃	P₁₄	P₁₅	P₁₆	P₁₇	P₂₁	P₂₂	P₂₃
权重	0.022 1	0.029 4	0.024 7	0.026 9	0.039 9	0.026 7	0.052 8	0.004 9	0.022 4	0.027 1
指标	P₃₁	P₃₂	P₃₃	P₃₄	P₃₅	P₃₆	P₄₁	P₄₂	P₄₃	P₄₄
权重	0.036 9	0.024 5	0.008 5	0.027 9	0.018 7	0.012 7	0.032 1	0.044 0	0.014 1	0.041 0
指标	P₄₅	P₄₆	P₄₇	P₄₈	P₅₁	P₅₂	P₅₃	P₆₁	P₆₂	P₆₃
权重	0.013 8	0.016 6	0.014 7	0.019 9	0.033 0	0.035 9	0.011 4	0.035 3	0.018 4	0.036 6
指标	P₇₁	P₇₂	P₈₁	P₈₂	P₈₃	P₈₄	P₈₅	P₈₆
权重	0.048 3	0.032 2	0.032 4	0.015 3	0.023 4	0.026 4	0.022 4	0.027 0

Evaluation index system of airspace planning and operation in terminal area

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 33

References 35

Related Articles 12

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

安全指标	数值1	评价结果1	数值2	评价结果2
冲突次数	0.000 0	优	0.000 0	优
超过监视告警参数的统计时长	0.813 8	中	0.062 5	优
航迹对潜在冲突告警时间	0.153 8	良	0.000 0	优
容流告警次数	0.500 0	良	0.000 0	优
落地航空器五边最后间隔余度	0.333 3	良	0.241 7	良
0-5-10海里内航空器对数量	0.109 9	良	0.000 0	优
潜在冲突最接近距离	0.856 2	中	0.000 0	优

效率指标	数值1	评价结果1	数值2	评价结果2
进场飞行效率	0.083 5	优	0.597 8	中
航班放行正常率	0.204 3	良	0.292 9	良
非直线系数	0.181 1	良	0.131 4	良

容量指标	数值1	评价结果1	数值2	评价结果2
单机场终端区跑道容量利用率	0.430 6	良	0.791 9	中
机场离场容量	0.300 0	良	0.309 4	良
终端区小时高峰值	0.500 0	良	0.625 0	中
机场进离场容量	0.300 0	良	0.342 8	良
扇区容量饱和度	0.083 2	优	0.888 8	中
机场进场容量	0.300 0	良	0.376 2	良
终端区边界点容量	0.266 7	良	0.350 6	良
终端区容量饱和度	0.100 0	良	0.707 8	中

可预测性指标	数值1	评价结果1	数值2	评价结果2
终端区实际流量与计划流量之比	0.075 9	优	0.004 5	优
延误变化率	0.407 3	良	0.028 9	优
恶劣天气影响占比	0.000 0	优	0.043 2	优

灵活性指标	数值1	评价结果1	数值2	评价结果2
航空器连续爬升/ 下降性能	0.566 7	中	0.642 4	中
特殊空域航班使用时长占比	0.000 0	优	1.000 0	差

空域结构指标	数值1	评价结果1	数值2	评价结果2
双向航路占比	0.190 5	良	0.406 3	良
飞行可用高度层数量	0.413 2	良	0.000 0	优
终端区边界小角度交叉角数量	0.000 0	优	0.000 0	优
交叉点到最近扇区边界的距离	0.207 7	良	0.000 0	优
不同类型不同角度的交叉点数量	0.223 3	良	0.201 1	良
终端区进出点数量	0.473 5	良	0.325 0	良

准则层指标	数值1	评价结果1	数值2	评价结果2
安全	0.40	良	0.04	优
效率	0.16	良	0.35	良
延误	0.34	良	0.28	良
容量	0.41	良	0.56	中
环境	0.53	中	0.39	良
灵活性	0.25	良	0.84	中
可预测性	0.15	良	0.03	优
空域结构	0.26	良	0.16	良

准则层	指标	均值	标准差
P₁	P₁₁	3.840 0	0.059 8
	P₁₂	4.040 0	0.075 6
	P₁₃	4.000 0	0.014 5
	P₁₄	4.040 0	0.014 3
	P₁₅	3.800 0	0.059 8
	P₁₆	4.200 0	0.030 8
	P₁₇	3.800 0	0.043 2
P₂	P₂₁	4.520 0	0.013 2
	P₂₂	3.960 0	0.017 4
	P₂₃	4.080 0	0.018 5
P₃	P₃₁	3.920 0	0.023 8
	P₃₂	3.920 0	0.048 3
	P₃₃	3.960 0	0.141 9
	P₃₄	3.840 0	0.054 2
	P₃₅	3.920 0	0.094 4
	P₃₆	4.080 0	0.090 7
P₄	P₄₁	3.800 0	0.035 5
	P₄₂	4.000 0	0.027 6
	P₄₃	3.760 0	0.039 8
	P₄₄	4.360 0	0.022 4
	P₄₅	3.840 0	0.030 0
	P₄₆	4.120 0	0.013 8
	P₄₇	3.720 0	0.043 8
	P₄₈	4.400 0	0.023 5
P₅	P₅₁	3.760 0	0.100 0
	P₅₂	3.920 0	0.024 9
	P₅₃	3.720 0	0.025 3
P₆	P₆₁	3.640 0	0.030 3
	P₆₂	3.800 0	0.030 6
	P₆₃	4.320 0	0.024 8
P₇	P₇₁	3.880 0	0.052 3
P₇	P₇₂	3.920 0	0.038 1
P₈	P₈₁	4.120 0	0.059 4
	P₈₂	4.200 0	0.011 1
	P₈₃	4.200 0	0.035 2
	P₈₄	4.120 0	0.033 2
	P₈₅	4.040 0	0.057 3
	P₈₆	4.160 0	0.031 2

[1]	Zhihai YAO, Jianping LIU, Jianping WANG, Wei LI, Bo REN. Evaluation index system of ground-based TT&C resource scheduling [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 42(8): 1751-1758.
[2]	Liangliang HAO, Jinsheng ZHANG, Ting LI, Xiaoyu MA. Design of evaluation system for missile simulation training [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 42(4): 843-850.
[3]	WANG Shuangchuan, HU Qiwei, LI Feng, WANG Qiang, RAN Qiaoran, MA Yunfei. Overview on effectiveness evaluation of equipment maintenance support [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 41(10): 2271-2278.
[4]	LI Linlin, LU Yunfei, ZHANG Zhuang, HE He. Effectiveness evaluation of command and control system based on cloud model [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2018, 40(4): 815-822.
[5]	LI Linlin, LU Yunfei, ZHANG Zhuang, HE He. System construction and modeling of command and control system index based on information superiority [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2018, 40(3): 577-582.
[6]	MU Lingxia, LI Ping, LI Leyao, WANG Xinmin, XIE Rong. Onboard trajectory planning algorithm for terminal area energy management phase of a RLV [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2017, 39(3): 591-598.
[7]	GAO Wei, ZHANG Qing-pu, DUN Xiao-biao, ZHAO Tian. Comprehensive assessment of advanced military aerospace technologies based on improved EAHP and dynamic weighting [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 38(1): 102-109.
[8]	FAN Yang-tao, WANG Min-le, WEN Miao-miao, CHEN Da-lei. Analysis of ballistic missile penetration effectiveness based on FA-AHP [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2015, 37(4): 845-850.
[9]	LI Yin-feng， HU Ming-hua， XIE Hua， PENG Ying. Terminal area utilization rate evaluation based on extension multi-level state classification [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2013, 35(12): 2533-2539.
[10]	WAN Kai-fang， GAO Xiao-guang， LIU Yu. Optimal power partitioning for cooperative electronic jamming based on Lanchester with variable efficiency factors [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2011, 33(7): 1544-1547.
[11]	ZHANG Yi， JIANG Qing-shan. Effectiveness evaluation of earlywarning aircraft based on hierarchy TOPSIS [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2011, 33(5): 1051-.
[12]	ZHANG Jun, HUANG Yi-ming, Yang Yi-dong. Research on 3-D guidance trajectory propagation of terminal area energy management for RLVs [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2010, 32(8): 1727-1731.

阈值	(r^***)²	(r^**)²	(r^*)²
结果	0.810 0	0.250 0	0.010 0