taxi-out time prediction for departures at clt using ... · taxi-out time prediction for departures...
TRANSCRIPT
Taxi-out Time Prediction
for Departures at Charlotte Airport
Using Machine Learning Techniques
Hanbong Lee
3rd Joint Workshop
for KAIA/KARI – NASA ATM Research Collaboration
NASA Ames Research Center
October 24-26, 2016
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170000660 2020-05-20T07:34:54+00:00Z
Outline
• Introduction: Aircraft taxi time prediction
• Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT)
• Taxi-out time data analysis
• Taxi time prediction using machine learning techniques
• Prediction performance evaluation
• Ongoing work for ATD-2
– Linear regression model with live data at CLT
2/24
Motivation
• Taxi-out time for departing aircraft
– Ground movement time from pushback to takeoff
– Depend on taxi route and surface congestion
• Aircraft taxi time prediction
– Increase takeoff time predictability
– Improve efficiency in airport surface operations
– Help controllers find better takeoff sequences to maximize runway throughput
• However, accurate prediction is difficult.
– Uncertainties in airport operations
– Operational complexity
3/24
Previous Research
• Queuing models for taxi-out time estimation
• Machine learning based approaches
– Linear regression models, Neural network model, Reinforcement learning algorithms, etc.
– Independently applied to limited data at several airports
• Taxi time prediction using machine learning methods and fast-time simulation (Lee, 2015)
– Used human-in-the-loop simulation data for CLT
– Possibly over-trained with limited datasets
4/24
Objectives
• Analyze actual taxi time data at Charlotte airport (CLT)
– Identify unique operational characteristics of CLT
– Determine key factors affecting taxi times
• Develop precise taxi time prediction modules
– Based on taxi-out time data analysis
– Using machine learning techniques
• Evaluate taxi time prediction performance
– Using actual surface surveillance data at CLT
– Comparison of prediction methods
• Apply the taxi time prediction module to live data and incorporate it with a tactical scheduler for ATD-2 project
5/24
Charlotte International Airport (CLT)
6/24
Hardstand
A
CB
D
E
18R
23
18L
18C
5
36L36C
36R
1
2
3
4 56
7
12
11
10
8
Ramp Area
Taxi-Out Time Data Analysis
• Taxi-out time data
– Used actual flight data at CLT in 2014
– Analyzed 246,083 departures after data filtering
• Taxi-out times categorized by
– Terminal concourse
– Spot
– Runway
– Departure fix
– Aircraft weight class
– Month
7/24
A6.1%
B16.7%
C19.8%
D6.1%
E44.6%
Unknown
6.7%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
A B C D E Unknown
−−− 2014 AverageStandard Deviation
8/24
Taxi Time by Terminal
Average taxi time seems insensitive to terminal concourse, except for concourse D used by international flights.
Departure distribution by terminal concourse
Average taxi-out time (in minutes) by terminal concourse
9/24
Taxi Time by Spot
S13.2%
S212.1%
S30.8%
S47.7%
S51.1%
S66.0%
S720.6%
S812.8%S10
4.5%
S110.5%
S1211.2%
Unknown
19.3%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Spots S10, S11 and S12 are assigned to flights from concourse D/E to runway 18L, leading to short taxi time.
Departure distribution by spot
Average taxi-out time (in minutes) by spot
−−− 2014 Average
close to hardstand close to runway 18L
10/24
Taxi Time by Runway
50.4%
18C25.5%
18L30.7%
18R0.0%
230.6%
36C23.7%
36L0.0%
36R19.0%
Unknown
0.0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45−−− 2014 Average
Taxi distance from terminal to runway affects taxi-out time directly.
Departure distribution by runway
Average taxi-out time (in minutes) by runway
close to terminal
South flow traffic
North flow traffic
far from terminal
11/24
Taxi Time by Departure Fix
MERIL20.0%
NALEY19.6%
BUCKL13.4%
BNA9.5%
BGRED9.1%
ZAVER4.2%
LILLS4.1%
TAY3.6%
GANTS3.4%
VXV2.8%
GIPPR1.9%
Others7.6%
Unknow
n
1.0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35−−− 2014 Average
Taxi times of top 3 fixes for miles-in-trail (MIT) constrained departures are similar to the whole year average.
Departure distribution by departure fix
Average taxi-out time (in minutes) by departure fix
top 3 fixes for MIT constraints use short taxi routes
12/24
Taxi Time by Weight Class
Heavy1.6%
Large93.4%
Small+2.5%
Small0.0%
Unknown
2.5%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Heavy Large Small Plus Small Unknown
−−− 2014 Average
Heavy aircraft have relatively longer taxi times, whereas small aircraft have shorter taxi times.
Departure distribution by weight class
Average taxi-out time (in minutes) by weight class
13/24
Taxi Time by Month
Jan8.2% Feb
7.0%Mar8.7%
Apr8.3%
May8.6%Jun
8.5%Jul
8.9%
Aug8.7%
Sep8.0%
Oct8.5%
Nov8.1%
Dec8.5%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
−−− 2014 Average
Average taxi times are insensitive to month, meaning no seasonal effect on taxi-out time.
Departure distribution by month
Average taxi-out time (in minutes) by month
• Separate data analysis using live data on 9/16-23/2016
• Average ramp taxi time as a function of congestion level in ramp area
Taxi Time by Congestion Level
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20Ave
rag
e r
am
p t
ax
i ti
me (
se
co
nd
s)
# departures in the ramp taxiing to the same runway
Runway 36R
Runway 36C
14/24
Taxi Time Prediction Methods
• Machine learning techniques tested
– Linear Regression (LR)
– Support Vector Machines (SVM)
– k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN)
– Random Forest (RF)
– Neural Networks (NN)
• Dead Reckoning (DR) method
– Baseline for comparison
– Based on unimpeded taxi times, defined as 10th percentile of taxi times having the same gate, spot, and runway
15/24
16/24
Features
• Terminal concourse and Gate
• Spot
• Runway
• Departure fix
• Weight class and Aircraft model
• Taxi distance
• Unimpeded taxi time
• Scheduled pushback time of day
• Number of departures and arrivals on the surface
17/24
Training and Test Datasets
Traffic flow
Weather Dataset Dates Data size Avg. Taxi time (min)
Std. Dev. (min)
Southflow traffic
Good weather
Training 6/1, 6/2, 6/4, 6/7, 6/15
3,361 17.11 6.65
Test 8/15 689 17.78 6.59
Rain Training 6/11, 6/12, 6/25, 7/9, 8/11
3,280 17.98 6.99
Test 8/12 644 17.68 6.51
Northflow traffic
Good weather
Training 6/6, 6/20, 8/25 2,134 19.32 6.13
Test 8/26 684 19.36 6.09
Rain Training 7/21, 8/1, 8/23 1,944 18.83 6.25
Test 8/24 621 19.31 6.32
• Two runway configurations: south flow and north flow
• Two weather conditions: good weather and heavy rain
18/24
Prediction Results – South Flow
Machine learning algorithms show better performance than Dead Reckoning (DR) method. Linear Regression (LR) and Random Forest (RF) are the best.
South-flow traffic, good weather South-flow traffic, heavy rain
Taxi Time Difference (Actual – Predicted) (in minutes) Taxi Time Difference (Actual – Predicted) (in minutes)
19/24
Prediction Results – North Flow
Linear Regression (LR) and Random Forest (RF) are still the best prediction methods for both traffic flow.
Taxi Time Difference (Actual – Predicted) (in minutes) Taxi Time Difference (Actual – Predicted) (in minutes)
North-flow traffic, good weather
North-flow traffic, heavy rain
Conclusions
• Analyzed the whole year taxi time data at CLT
– Found several factors affecting taxi-out time
– No seasonal effect on taxi time
• Applied various machine learning techniques to actual flight data at CLT for taxi-out time prediction
– Machine learning methods were better than Dead Reckoning method based on unimpeded taxi time.
– Linear Regression and Random Forest methods showed the best prediction performance.
– Considered various operational factors, but still needs to be improved.
20/24
21/24
Ongoing Work for ATD-2
• Apply a linear regression model to live data– Focus on ramp taxi time prediction
• Update taxi speed decision trees used in Tactical Scheduler– Current taxi speed decision trees based on historical flight
data and taxi route data• Two decision trees for estimating taxi-out times of
departures and taxi-in times of arrivals
• Taxi speed values both in AMA and Ramp in knots
• Branches by runway, spot, ramp area, and weight class
– Need to account for congestion on the surface• Count the number of aircraft moving on the surface when a
departure is ready to push back
• Formula
– xf: variables for flight f– yf: predicted ramp taxi time of flight f– Constant and Coefficients determined by training dataset
• Variables– Ramp taxi distance (from gate to spot)– Binary variables
• Ramp area, spot, runway, weight class, and EDCT– Scheduled off-block time– Congestion factors
• Number of departures in ramp area (by runway and ramp area)• Number of arrivals in ramp area (by ramp area)
– Departures in the previous 15 minutes• Number of flights going to the same runway, and their mean taxi time• Number of flights going to the same fix, and their mean taxi time
Linear Regression Model
y f =Const + Coeffi × xif
i=1
n
å
22/24
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Nu
mb
er
of
de
par
ture
s
Taxi-out time (minutes)
Actual Taxi Time Distribution
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
-15-13-11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Nu
mb
er
of
de
par
ture
s
(Predicted) – (Actual taxi time) (minutes)
Taxi Time Difference Distribution
• Live data from CLT
– North-flow traffic both in training dataset (9/16-22/2016) and test dataset (9/23/2016)
• Prediction accuracy
• Departures within ±5-min error window: 714 (89.8%)
• Departures within ±3-min error window: 549 (69.1%)
Linear Regression Result
(Pred.) - (Actual):Average: 0.37Std.Dev: 3.23Minimum: -14.45Maximum: 8.42Median : 1.06
Total flights: 795Average: 9.38Std.Dev: 3.62Minimum: 2.12Maximum: 23.57Median : 8.73
23/24
• AAL1832 from CLT to SAT (A319)– Taxi route: B8 S13 36C
• Default ramp distance from gate to spot: 370.5m
– Number of departures taxiing on surface: 6• Two aircraft from each Concourse B, C, and E to runway 36C
• Linear Regression model
– Predicted ramp taxi time: TaxiTLR = 0.2735*370.5 + 166.2 + 28.6 + 189.6 + 74.2
+ 9.9*2 + (-1.3) *2 + 4.6*2
= 586.3 seconds
• Actual ramp taxi time: 573 seconds (Difference: 13.3 seconds)
– Predicted taxi speed in ramp area: 370.5/(586.3 – 260) = 2.2 knots
Linear Regression Example
Variable Ramp Distance
B_EAST Spot 13 Runway 36C
Weight Class D
Dep# B to 36C
Dep# C to 36C
Dep# E to 36C
Coefficient
0.2735 166.2 28.6 189.6 74.2 9.9 -1.3 4.6
24/24