Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Optimal 4-D Aircraft Trajectories in a Contrail-sensitive Environment

  • Published:
Networks and Spatial Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aircraft induced contrails present an important source and a growing concern for climate change in aviation. This paper develops a methodology to determine optimal flight trajectories that minimize the total flying cost in a dynamic, contrail-sensitive environment. The total flying costs consist of costs due to fuel burn, crew, passenger travel time, CO2 emission, and contrail formation. By constructing a multi-layer hexagonal grid structure to represent the airspace, we formulate the single aircraft trajectory optimization problem as a binary integer program that allows for flight altitude and heading adjustment, and contrail information update. Various cost factors are quantified, in particular the one corresponding to aviation-generated contrails, using the Global Warming Potential concept. Computational analyses show that optimal trajectories depend critically upon the time horizon choice for calculating the CO2 climate impact. Shifting flights to periods with low contrail effect is not justified, given the limited benefit but potentially large passenger schedule delay cost increase. The analyses are further extended to determining the optimal trajectories for multiple flights using a successive optimization procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Ng et al. (2011) use GWP to unify the effect of CO2, H2O, and NOx emissions, but not contrail formation. Independent of our study, Sridhar et al. (2012) employ average GTP to assess the climate impact of contrails and CO2 in air traffic operations.

  2. Nonetheless, the maximum altitude of 33000 feet can certainly be relaxed by considering higher flight levels.

  3. The vertical separation distance is just a modeling parameter and can be configured with any other value. While 1000 f. is often used as the actual separation distance in civil aviation, here we choose 1500 f. mainly to reduce the network size and save computational time.

  4. We thank one of the reviewers for pointing this out.

  5. While the BADA fuel consumption model is the commonly used tool for estimating aircraft specific fuel burn, it is also known that the BADA fuel consumption model works well in cruise, but performs less accurately in climbing and descent (Abramson and Ali 2012).

  6. In contrast to a recent study (George O’Neill et al. 2012) which includes a total operating cost factor. we believe that other cost components than fuel and crew, such as materials and capital, are not sensitive to flight travel time, therefore not considered in the cost function.

  7. In George O’Neill et al. (2012), the social cost of contrails considered ranges between $0.10 to $1.65 per nautical mile of contrail formed.

  8. A given node in the grid network is identified as a PCFA node as long as it falls into the PCFA region specified in sub-section 3.2. The overlapped PCFA region is shown by nodes with both circles and crosses.

  9. The IDs of such flights are: 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 42.

  10. The minimum separation requirement of 2 min is equal to 120 s, or 12 deca-seconds.

References

  • Abramson M, Ali K (2012) Integrating the Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) in CTAS trajectory synthesizer. NASA Web. http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/publications/2012/ NASA-TM-2012-216051.pdf. Accessed April 28 2013

  • Adler T, Falzarano CS, Spitz G (2005) Modeling service trade-offs in air itinerary choices. Transp Res Rec 1915:20–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Air BP (2000) Handbook of products. BP Web. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/aviation/air_bp/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/a/air_bp_products_handbook_04004_1.pdf. Accessed April 28 2013

  • Albrecht T (2009) The influence of anticipating train driving on the dispatching process in railway conflict situations. Netw Spat Econ 9:85–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleman H (1953) The formation of exhaust condensation trails by jet aircraft. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 34:14–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball M, Hoffman R, Odoni A, Rifkin R (1999) The static stochastic ground holding problem with aggregate demands. Technical research report: NEXTOR T.R. 99–1

  • Barnier N, Allignol C (2009) 4D-trajectory deconfliction through departure time adjustment. ATM Seminar Web. http://www.atmseminar.org/seminarContent/seminar8/papers/p_143_ NSTFO.pdf. Accessed April 30 2013

  • Barnier N, Allignol C (2011) Combining flight level allocation with ground holding to optimize 4D-deconfliction. ATM Seminar Web. http://www.atmseminar.org/seminarContent/seminar9/ papers/157-Barnier-Final-Paper-4-5-11.pdf. Accessed April 30 2013

  • Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2010) Occupational employment and wages. BLS Economics News Release Web. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.htm. Accessed October 19 2011

  • Cai X, Sha D, Wong CK (2001) Time-varying minimum cost flow problems. Eur J Oper Res 131:352–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell SE, Neogi NA, Bragg MB (2008) An optimal strategy for persistent contrail avoidance. University of Illinois Web. www.ae.illinois.edu/icing/papers/08/AIAA-2008-6515-726.pdf. Accessed October 1 2012

  • Chabini I, Abou-Zeid M (2003) The minimum cost flow problem in capacitated dynamic networks. In: Proceedings of the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-002433.pdf. Accessed April 24 2012

  • Chen NY, Sridhar B, Li J, Ng H (2012) Evaluation of contrail reduction strategies based on aircraft flight distances. NASA Web. http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/ publications/2012/AIAA-2012-4816.pdf. Accessed May 2 2013

  • D’Ariano A, Pranzo M (2009) An Advanced real-time train dispatching system for minimizing the propagation of delays in a dispatching area under severe disturbances. Netw Spat Econ 9:63–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delta (2003) B737-800 Aircraft Operations Manual (AOM). Delta Virtual Airlines Web. http://www.deltava.org/library/B737%20Manual.pdf. Accessed March 25 2013

  • Escuín D, Millán C, Larrodé E (2012) Modelization of time-dependent urban freight problems by using a multiple number of distribution centers. Netw Spat Econ 12:321–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fichter C, Marquart S, Sausen R, Lee DS (2005) The impact of cruise altitude on contrails and related radiative forcing. Meteorol Z 14:563–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forster P, Stuber N (2007) The impact of diurnal variations of air traffic on contrail radiative forcing. Atmos Chem Phys 7:3153–3162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forster P, Shine K, Stuber N (2006) It is premature to include non-CO2 effects of aviation in emission trading schemes. Atmos Environ 40:1117–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen T, Godal O, Sausen R, Shine K, Skodvin T (2003) Metrics of climate change: assessing radiative forcing and emission indices. Clim Chang 8:267–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuglestvedt JS, Shine KP, Berntsen T, Cook J, Lee DS, Stenke A, Skeie RB, Velders GJM, Waitz IA (2010) Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: metrics. Atmos Environ 44:4648–4677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George O’Neill M, Dumont JM, Hansman RJ (2012) Use of hyperspace trade analyses to evaluate environmental and performance tradeoffs for cruise and approach operations. In: Proceedings of the 12th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference and the 14th AIAA/ISSM

  • Gierens K, Schumann U, Helten M, Smit H, Marenco A (1999) A distribution law for relative humidity in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere derived from three years of MOZAIC measurements. Ann Geophys 17:1218–1226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstone M, Kopits E, Wolverton A (2011) Estimating the social cost of carbon for use in US federal rulemakings: a summary and interpretation. National Bureau of Economic Research Web. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16913.pdf. Accessed November 21 2011

  • International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2011) Jet fuel price monitor. IATA Economics Web. http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/act-global.aspx. Accessed October 7 2011

  • International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2012) Act global. ICAO Web. http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/act-global.aspx. Accessed 26 January 2012

  • Li K, Gao Z, Mao B, Cao C (2011) Optimizing train network routing using deterministic search. Netw Spat Econ 11:193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannstein H, Schumann U (2005) Aircraft induced contrail cirrus over Europe. Meteorologische Z 14:549–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Meerkotter R, Schumann U, Doelling DR, Minnis P, Nakajima T, Tsushima Y (1999) Radiative forcing by contrails. Ann Geophys 17:1080–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnis P, Schumann U, Doelling D, Gierens K, Fahey D (1999) Global distribution of contrail radiative forcing. Geophys Res Lett 26:1853–1856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee A, Hansen M (2007) A dynamic stochastic model for the single airport ground holding problem. Transp Sci 41:444–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng H, Sridhar B, Grabbe S, Chen N (2011) Cross-polar aircraft trajectory optimization and the potential climate impact. NASA Web. http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/publications/2011/DASC2011_Ng.pdf. Accessed May 2 2013

  • Penner JE, Lister DH, Griggs DJ, Dokken DJ, McFarland M (ed) (1999) Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Camb University Press, New York

  • Royal Commission on Environmental Protection (RCEP) (2002) The environmental effects of civil aircraft in flight: special report. Aviation Environment Federation Web. http://www.aef.org.uk/uploads/RCEP_Env__Effects_of_Aircraft__in__Flight_1.pdf. Accessed April 27 2012

  • Sausen R, Gierens K, Ponater M, Schumann U (1998) A diagnostic study of the global distribution of contrails part I: present day climate. Theor Appl Climat 61:127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt E (1941) Die entstehung von eisnebel aus den auspuffgasen von flugmotoren. Schriften der Dtsch Akad fur Luftfahrtforsch 14:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumann U (2005) Formation, properties and climatic effects of contrails. Comptes Rendus Phys 6:549–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sridhar B, Chen NY, Ng H, Linke F (2011) Design of aircraft trajectories based on trade-offs between emission sources. ATM Seminar Web. http://www.atmseminar.org/seminarContent/seminar9/papers/20-Sridhar-Final-Paper-4-14-11.pdf. Accessed October 10 2012

  • Sridhar B, Ng H, Chen NY (2012) Integration of linear dynamic emission and climate models with air traffic simulations. NASA Web. http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/publications/2012/AIAA-2012-4756.pdf. Accessed May 2 2013

  • Stordal G, Myhre F (2001) On the tradeoff of the solar and thermal infrared radiative impact of contrails. Geogr Res Lett 28:3119–3122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuber N, Forster P, Radel G, Shine K (2006) The importance of the diurnal and annual cycle of air traffic for contrail radiative forcing. Nat 7095:864–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) (2011) The value of travel time savings: departmental guidance for conducting economic evaluations. Revision 2. DOT Web. http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/vot_guidance_092811c.pdf. Accessed Feb 23 2012

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2012) Voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases program (voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases program fuel carbon dioxide emission coefficients). EIA Web. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html. Accessed Dec 17 2011

  • Williams V, Noland RB (2005) Variability of contrail formation conditions and the implications for policies to reduce the climate impacts of aviation. Transp Res Part D 10:269–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams V, Noland RB, Toumi R (2002) Reducing the climate change impacts of aviation by restricting cruise altitudes. Transp Res Part D 7:451–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams V, Noland RB, Toumi R (2003) Air transport cruise altitude restrictions to minimize contrail formation. Clim Pol 3:207–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams V, Noland RB, Majumdar A, Toumi R, Ochieng W, Molloy J (2007) Reducing environmental impacts of aviation with innovative air traffic management technologies. The Aeronautical J 111:741–749

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was sponsored by the NASA Ames Research Center through a grant to the National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research (NEXTOR). The enthusiastic support from Drs. Banavar Sridhar, Tasos Nikoleris, Neil Chen, and Hok Ng, for this research is gratefully acknowledged. Gratitude extends to Abhinav Golas for his help in optimizing the code in MATLAB. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 5th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation, in Berkeley, U.S.A. We would like to thank the two anonymous referees and Dr. Wai Yuan Szeto, the guest editor for the Special Issue, for very helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bo Zou.

Appendices

Appendix A: Algorithm to solve for the optimal trajectory for a single flight

o :

origin node

q :

destination node

d :

flight departure time from o

A :

set of links

N :

set of nodes

T :

maximum allowed time (6000 deca-seconds)

C :

candidate set storing node-time pairs

λ(i,t):

cost for the minimum cost path from o to q through the node-time pair (i, t)

π(i,t):

cost for the minimum cost path found so far from node o and arriving at node i at time t

m(q):

minimum cost to reach node q from o

\( \widehat{e}(i) \) :

approximate cost (lower bound) to destination node q from any node i

c i,j (t i ):

unit travel cost ($/sec) on link (i,j) when the aircraft leaves node i at time t i for node j

h i,j :

travel time (in deca-second) on link (i,j)

\( {\tilde{c}}_{i,j}\left({t}_i\right) \) :

link travel cost when the aircraft leaves node i at time t i for node j, equal to c i,j (t i )h i,j

p(j,t j ):

set of node–time pairs, indicating the best way to reach node j at time t j from a connected node

x i,j (t):

binary variable indicating whether the flight leaves node i at time t for node j.

1.1 Algorithm

  1. Step 1

    Compute a lower bound of travel cost from any node in the network to the destination:

    1. a.

      Calculate link travel cost \( {\tilde{c}}_{i,j}\left({t}_i\right)={c}_{i,j}\left({t}_i\right){h}_{i,j},\forall \left(i,j\right)\in A\forall {t}_i\in \Big\{1,2,\dots, \) T-h i,j };

    2. b.

      Define a static network where \( {\widehat{c}}_{i,j}=\underset{t}{ \min }{\widehat{c}}_{i,j}(t) \);

    3. c.

      Determine \( \widehat{e}(i),\forall i\in N/\left\{q\right\} \) on the static network using Dijkstra’s shortest-path algorithm.

  2. Step 2

    Initialization:

    1. a.

      λ(i,t) = , π(i,t) = , ∀ (i,t) ∈ N × {1,2, …,T};

    2. b.

      x i,j (t) = 0, ∀ (i,j) ∈ A, t ∈ T;

    3. c.

      t o = d, \( \lambda \left(o,d\right)=\widehat{e}(o) \), π(o,d) = 0, m(q) = , C = {(o,d)};

  3. Step 3

    Select a node-time pair with minimum label λ(i,t i ):

    1. a.

      \( \left(i,{t}_i\right)= \arg \underset{\left(j,{t}_j\right)\in C}{ \min}\lambda \left(j,{t}_j\right) \);

    2. b.

      Update C: C = C\{(i,t i )}.

  4. Step 4

    Stopping criterion:

    If i = q, then Stop. Otherwise, go to Step 5.

  5. Step 5

    Explore forward route:

    For j ∈ {(i,j) ∈ A and j ≠ o}

    1. a.

      Update time: t j  = t i  + h i,j (t i );

    2. b.

      If t j  ≤ T and \( \left(\pi \left(i,{t}_i\right)+{\tilde{c}}_{i,j}\left({t}_i\right)<\pi \left(j,{t}_j\right)\right) \) and \( \left(\pi \left(i,{t}_i\right)+{\tilde{c}}_{i,j}\left({t}_i\right)+\widehat{e}(j)<m(q)\right) \)

      1. i.

        Update minimum cost to j from o at t j : \( \pi \left(j,{t}_j\right)=\pi \left(i,{t}_i\right)+{\tilde{c}}_{i,j}\left({t}_i\right) \);

      2. ii.

        Update minimum cost from o to q through node-time pair (j,t j ): \( \lambda \left(j,{t}_j\right)=\pi \left(j,{t}_j\right)+\widehat{e}(j) \);

      3. iii.

        Record the node-time pair connection: p(j,t j ) = (i,t i );

      4. iv.

        Augment candidate set C: if (j,t j ) ∉ C then C = C ∪ {(j,t j )};

      5. v.

        If j = q, update the minimum cost from o to q: m(q) = π(j,t j ).

  6. Step 6

    Check if the candidate set is empty:

    If C=∅,

Stop. Trace out the optimal trajectory starting from p(q,t q ), and update x i,j (t).

Otherwise, go to Step 3.

Appendix B

Table 6 Scheduled flights among the five airports (JFK, DTW, STL, ORD, IAD) between 5 and 9 pm on May 24, 2007

Appendix C: Algorithm to solve for the optimal trajectory for multiple flights

f :

flight index after sorting by scheduled departure time

o f :

origin node for flight f

d f :

scheduled departure time for flight f

a f :

actual arrival time at the final destination for flight f (in deca-seconds)

x l i,j (t):

binary variable indicating whether flight l leaves node i at time t for node j.

3.1 Algorithm

  1. Step 1

    Initialization: sort the N flights by their scheduled departure time, such that d f < d f + 1 (f = 1, 2, …, N − 1).

  2. Step 2

    Determine the optimal trajectory for the first flight (f = 1) by solving the program (1)–(5) in Section 4.

  3. Step 3

    Determine the optimal trajectories of the subsequent flights:

    1. a.

      Update f: f = f + 1;

    2. b.

      Update the cost matrix by imposing the minimum separation requirement constraint and allowing ground delays:

      1. i.

        Two-minute minimum separation constraints:

        If x l i,j (t) = 1, ∀ t ∈ (1,2,..,a l) and l ∈ (1, 2,.., f − 1), then

        \( {\tilde{c}}_{k,i}\left(t+s\right)=\infty, \forall \left(k,i\right)\in A,i\in N/\left\{{o}_f\right\},s\in \left\{-12,-11,\dots, 11,12\right\} \) Footnote 10;

      2. ii.

        Allowing ground delays by adding a virtual node o v f which is connected to the departure airport node o f , such that \( {\tilde{c}}_{o_f,{o}_f^v}(t)={\tilde{c}}_{o_f^v,{o}_f}(t)=\frac{1}{3}{c}_{cruise}^{24000}{h}_{o_f,{o}_f^v} \), ∀ t ∈ {0, 1, 2…, T}, where c 24000 cruise denotes the aircraft unit cost ($/sec, excluding cost due to contrails) during cruise at 24,000 ft, and \( {h}_{o_f,{o}_f^v}=10\ \sec \). Augment N and A: N = {N,o v f }; A = {A, (o f ,o v f ), (o v f ,o f )}.

      3. c.

        Determine the optimal trajectory for flight f by solving the program (1)-(5) in Section 4 with updated cost matrix information and augmented node and link space from b;

      4. d.

        Termination check: if f = N, then stop; otherwise go to step a.

Appendix D

Table 7 Total travel cost, time, time spent in PCFA and on the ground for each flight under various scenarios (no PCFA, contrail cost multiplier equals 1, 5, and 10)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zou, B., Buxi, G.S. & Hansen, M. Optimal 4-D Aircraft Trajectories in a Contrail-sensitive Environment. Netw Spat Econ 16, 415–446 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-013-9210-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-013-9210-x

Keywords

Navigation