IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transe/v48y2012i1p34-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal route decision with a geometric ground-airborne hybrid model under weather uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Yoon, Yoonjin
  • Hansen, Mark
  • Ball, Michael O.

Abstract

Adverse weather is the dominant cause of delays in the National Airspace System (NAS). Since the future weather condition is only predictable with a certain degree of accuracy, managing traffic in the weather-affected airspace is a challenging task. In this paper, we propose a geometric model to generate an optimal combination of ground delay and route choice to hedge against weather risk. The geometric recourse model (GRM) is a strategic Probabilistic Air Traffic Management (PATM) model that generates optimal route choice, incorporating route hedging and en-route recourse to respond to weather change: hedged routes are routes other than the nominal or the detour one, and recourse occurs when the weather restricted airspace becomes flyable and aircraft are re-routed to fly direct to the destination. Among several variations of the GRM, we focus on the hybrid Dual Recourse Model (DRM), which allows ground delay as well as route hedging and recourses, when the weather clearance time follows a uniform distribution. The formulation of the hybrid DRM involves two decision variables – ground delay and route choice – and four parameters: storm location, storm size, maximum storm duration time, and ground-airborne cost ratio. The objective function has two components: expected total ground delay cost and expected total airborne cost. We propose a solution algorithm that guarantees to find the global optimum of the hybrid-DRM. Based on the numerical analysis, we find that ground-holding is effective only when combined with the nominal route. Otherwise, it is optimal to fly on the route determined by the DRM without ground delay. We also find the formula of the threshold ground-airborne cost ratio, which we call the Critical Cost Ratio (CCR), that determines the efficacy of ground delay: the higher the CCR, the more effective the strategies involving ground delay. We conclude that both ground delay and route hedging should be considered together to produce the best ATM decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Yoon, Yoonjin & Hansen, Mark & Ball, Michael O., 2012. "Optimal route decision with a geometric ground-airborne hybrid model under weather uncertainty," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 34-49.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transe:v:48:y:2012:i:1:p:34-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tre.2011.05.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554511000640
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tre.2011.05.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dimitris Bertsimas & Sarah Stock Patterson, 2000. "The Traffic Flow Management Rerouting Problem in Air Traffic Control: A Dynamic Network Flow Approach," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 239-255, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas W. M. Vossen & Michael O. Ball, 2006. "Slot Trading Opportunities in Collaborative Ground Delay Programs," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 29-43, February.
    2. Hanif D. Sherali & J. Cole Smith & Antonio A. Trani, 2002. "An Airspace Planning Model for Selecting Flight-plans Under Workload, Safety, and Equity Considerations," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 378-397, November.
    3. Murça, Mayara Condé Rocha, 2018. "Collaborative air traffic flow management: Incorporating airline preferences in rerouting decisions," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 97-107.
    4. Dixit, Aasheesh & Jakhar, Suresh Kumar, 2021. "Airport capacity management: A review and bibliometric analysis," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. Mukherjee, Avijit, 2004. "Dynamic Stochastic Optimization Models for Air Traffic Flow Management," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt2vk8w6nc, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    6. Lehouillier, Thibault & Omer, Jérémy & Soumis, François & Desaulniers, Guy, 2017. "Two decomposition algorithms for solving a minimum weight maximum clique model for the air conflict resolution problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(3), pages 696-712.
    7. Andrea D'Ariano & Francesco Corman & Dario Pacciarelli & Marco Pranzo, 2008. "Reordering and Local Rerouting Strategies to Manage Train Traffic in Real Time," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 405-419, November.
    8. Diao, Xudong & Chen, Chun-Hsien, 2018. "A sequence model for air traffic flow management rerouting problem," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-30.
    9. Martin Durbin & Karla Hoffman, 2008. "OR PRACTICE---The Dance of the Thirty-Ton Trucks: Dispatching and Scheduling in a Dynamic Environment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 3-19, February.
    10. Lorenzo Castelli & Paola Pellegrini & Raffaele Pesenti, 2012. "Airport slot allocation in Europe: economic efficiency and fairness," International Journal of Revenue Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(1/2), pages 28-44.
    11. Guglielmo Lulli & Amedeo Odoni, 2007. "The European Air Traffic Flow Management Problem," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 431-443, November.
    12. Bolić, Tatjana & Castelli, Lorenzo & Corolli, Luca & Rigonat, Desirée, 2017. "Reducing ATFM delays through strategic flight planning," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 42-59.
    13. Agustı´n, A. & Alonso-Ayuso, A. & Escudero, L.F. & Pizarro, C., 2012. "On air traffic flow management with rerouting. Part I: Deterministic case," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 156-166.
    14. Zhe Liang & Wanpracha Art Chaovalitwongse & Elsayed A. Elsayed, 2014. "Sequence Assignment Model for the Flight Conflict Resolution Problem," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(3), pages 334-350, August.
    15. Dimitris Bertsimas & Shubham Gupta, 2016. "Fairness and Collaboration in Network Air Traffic Flow Management: An Optimization Approach," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(1), pages 57-76, February.
    16. Bolić, Tatjana & Castelli, Lorenzo & Corolli, Luca & Scaini, Giovanni, 2021. "Flexibility in strategic flight planning," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    17. Wang, Y.F. & Li, K.P. & Xu, X.M. & Zhang, Y.R., 2014. "Transport energy consumption and saving in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 641-655.
    18. Dimitris Bertsimas & Guglielmo Lulli & Amedeo Odoni, 2011. "An Integer Optimization Approach to Large-Scale Air Traffic Flow Management," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 211-227, February.
    19. Agustı´n, A. & Alonso-Ayuso, A. & Escudero, L.F. & Pizarro, C., 2012. "On air traffic flow management with rerouting. Part II: Stochastic case," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 167-177.
    20. Balázs Kotnyek & Octavio Richetta, 2006. "Equitable Models for the Stochastic Ground-Holding Problem Under Collaborative Decision Making," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(2), pages 133-146, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transe:v:48:y:2012:i:1:p:34-49. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600244/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.