Airport Gate Assignment Considering Ground Movement
Abstract
Airports all over the world are becoming busier and many of them are facing capacity problems. The actual airport capacity strongly depends on the efficiency of the resource utilisation. Although simultaneously handling all of the problems may result in more effective resource utilisation, historically different types of airport resources have been handled independently. Despite introducing new support systems the historical separation has often remained. This may increase congestion, which has a negative impact on both the passengers’ comfort and the environment. This paper focuses on modelling the gate allocation problem taking into consideration possible conflicts at taxiways around gates. Introducing the taxiway information in the early stage of the allocation planning is a step forward in integration of the two airport operations. Various configurations of the model have been tested using a real data set to evaluate how the new anti-conflict and novel towing constraints influence the final allocation.
Keywords
Airport Gate Assignment Mathematical Modelling Mixed Integer ProgrammingPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Airport Collaborative Decision Making, http://www.euro-cdm.org/
- 2.Bolat, A.: Procedures for providing robust gate assignments for arriving aircraft. European Journal of Operational Research 120(1), 63–80 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 3.Burke, E.K., Kendall, G.: Multi-Objective Optimization. In: Search Methodologies, pp. 273–316. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
- 4.Cheng, Y.: Solving push-out conflicts in apron taxiways of airports by a network-based simulation. Computers & Industrial Engineering 34(2), 351–369 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Diepen, G., van den Akker, J.M., Hoogeveen, J.A.: Integrated Gate and Bus Assignment at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. In: Ahuja, R.K., Möhring, R.H., Zaroliagis, C.D. (eds.) Robust and Online Large-Scale Optimization. LNCS, vol. 5868, pp. 338–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Ding, H., Lim, A., Rodrigues, B., Zhu, Y.: Aircraft and gate scheduling optimization at airports. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2004)Google Scholar
- 7.Ding, H., Lim, A., Rodrigues, B., Zhu, Y.: The over-constrained airport gate assignment problem. Computers & Operations Research 32, 1867–1880 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 8.Dorndorf, U., Drexl, A., Nikulin, Y., Pesch, E.: Flight gate scheduling: State-of-the-art and recent developments. Omega 35, 326–334 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Dorndorf, U., Jaehn, F., Pesch, E.: Modelling robust flight-gate scheduling as a clique partitioning problem. Transportation Science 42(3), 292–301 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Haghani, A., Chen, M.C.: Optimizing gate assignments at airport terminals. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 32(6), 437–454 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Kim, S., Feron, E., Clarke, J.: Assigning gates by resolving physical conflicts. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference (2009)Google Scholar
- 12.Kumar, P., Bierlaire, M.: Multi-objective airport gate assignment problem. In: Proceedings of the Swiss Transport Research Conference (2011)Google Scholar
- 13.Ravizza, S., Atkin, J.A.D., Burke, E.K.: A more realistic approach for airport ground movement optimisation with stand holding. Journal of Scheduling (2013), doi:10.1007/s10951-013-0323-3Google Scholar
- 14.Ravizza, S., Chen, J., Atkin, J.A.D., Burke, E.K., Stewart, P.: The trade-off between taxi time and fuel consumption in airport ground movement. Public Transport (2013), doi:10.1007/s12469-013-0060-1Google Scholar
- 15.Xu, J., Bailey, G.: The airport gate assignment problem: Mathematical model and a tabu search algorithm. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 30–32 (2001)Google Scholar
- 16.Yan, S., Huo, C.M.: Optimization of multiple objective gate assignments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 35(5), 413–432 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar