Date post: | 01-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | keaton-ross |
View: | 18 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Capacity and delays at Newark Airport,
theoretical and experimental approaches
Thomas Morisset
Objectives
• Review and apply essential notions studied in class:– Theoretical capacity– Actual capacity (based on maximum throughput)– Delay estimates based on queuing theory– Actual delays
• Compare and understand the differences between theory and reality.
Newark Airport
• 443,000 movements• 36 million passengers• 13th busiest airport in the United States• 22 minutes mean arrival delay, congested• EWR-JFK-LGA metroplex: – 1,276,000 movements– 110,000,000 passengers– busiest multi-airport system in the world
figures for 2007
Experimental approach to capacity [1]
26.7 mov per 15 min
Experimental approach to capacity [2]
24 mov per 15 min
Experimental approach to capacity [3]
22 mov per 15 min
27262524232221201918171615141312111098765432100.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
VFRIFR
movements realized per 15-minute intervals
freq
uenc
y in
200
7 98%
per
centi
le
Experimental approach to capacity [4]
22 mov per 15 min
• Capacity varies depending on runway configuration, weather conditions:
Experimental approach to capacity [5]
Utilization 3rd runway % time % movts mov/15min (98 %ile)
With 11/29 36.6% 39.0% 23
Without 11/29 62.8% 60.4% 21
Weather condition % time % movts mov/15min (98 %ile)
VFR 83.4% 84.3% 22
IFR 16.6% 15.7% 21
• Run the MACAD* capacity simulation program• Treat the simple case of 2 close parallel
runways (4R|4L or 22L|22R)• Data needed:– aircraft mix: ASPM– IFR separation standards: FAA AC’s– VFR separation estimates**– approaching speeds, runway occupancy times
Theoretical approach to capacity
* Odoni, Stamatopoulos ** Trani
• Run the MACAD* capacity simulation program• Treat the simple case of 2 close parallel
runways (4R|4L or 22L|22R)• Data needed:– aircraft mix: computed from ASPM– IFR separation standards: FAA AC’s– VFR separation estimates**– approaching speeds, runway occupancy times
Theoretical approach to capacity
* Odoni, Stamatopoulos ** Trani
RESULTS:
- IFR theoretical capacity: 18 movements per 15 minutes
- VFR theoretical capacity: 20 movements per 15 minutes
Theoretical capacities are slightly lower than capacities yielded by theoretical approaches
Method / Sourcearrivals+departures in 15
minutes capacity
98th percentile 22
Pareto envelope (>100 obs) 22
Scheduled demand 23
FAA benchmark report 21-23
Macad Model (VFR) 20
All capacities
Experimental approach to delays [1]
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 220
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Arrival delay at EWR in 2007
hourly delayAverage
Hours of the day
min
utes
Experimental approach to delays [2]
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1800.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
EWR arrival VFR 2007
arrival delays (1-minute intervals)
freq
uenc
y
Experimental approach to delays [3]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
arrival delay departure delay +taxi out delay schedule Actual
hours
num
ber o
f mov
emen
ts
min
utes
Experimental approach to delays [4]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Runway configurations
Rest
29, 4R / 4L
11, 4R / 4L
4R / 4L
11, 22L / 22R
22L / 22R, 29
22L / 22R
Experimental approach to delays [5]
Performance of different runway configurations during peak hour (4pm – 8pm)
Runway configuration All 22L | 22R 11, 22L | 22R 4R | 4L 4R, 11 |
4L4R, 29 |
4L
Frequency 100% 30.5% 27.8% 14.4% 13.9% 8.0%
Arrival delay 31.2 43.9 14.5 48.0 18.4 25.4
Departure delay 27.1 35.1 16.8 37.5 20.0 23.4
+ Taxi out delay 20.8 17.7 20.6 19.9 28.2 23.2
• Run a queuing model program: DELAYS*• For different levels of capacity• For a particular day of demand (Feb 4 2007), NOT average demand
Theoretical approach to delays
* Odoni, Kivestu
Conclusions
• Capacity:– theoretical and experimental approach within 15% of each
other, a good match– can assist with the choice of runway configuration,
comparing airports, etc.• Delays:– theoretical estimates much lower than reality– delays cannot be explained by the limited capacity of 1
single airport– must consider the entire network of airport to include
delay propagation