Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) aims at structuring traffic in order to reduce congestion in airspace. Congestion being linked to aircraft located at the same position at the same time, ATFM organizes traffic in the spatial dimension (e.g. route network) and in the time dimension (e.g. sequencing and merging of aircraft flows taking off or landing at airports).
The objective of this paper is to develop a methodology that allows the traffic to self-organize in the time and space dimensions when demand is high. This structure disappears when the demand diminishes. In order to reach this goal, a multi-agent system has been developed, in which aircraft cooperate to structure traffic. Multi-agent systems have several advantages, including a good resilience when confronted with disruptive events.
In this system, three algorithms have been implemented, aiming at reducing traffic complexity in three different ways. The first algorithm allows aircraft agents flying on a route network to regulate speed in order to reduce the number of conflicts, a conflict occurring when two aircraft do not respect separation norms. The second algorithm allows aircraft to solve conflicts when the traffic is not structured by a route network. The third algorithm creates temporary local route networks allowing to structure traffic.
The three algorithms implemented in this multi-agent system allow to decrease overall traffic complexity, which becomes easier to manage by air traffic controllers. This algorithm was applied on realistic examples and was able to structure traffic in a resilient way.
AvertyP., JohanssonB., WiseJ. and CapsieC., Could erasmus speed adjustments be identifiable by air traffic controllers? In Proceedings of the VII USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D seminar, Barcelona, 2007.
3.
BalboF. and PinsonS., An agent oriented approach to transportation regulation support systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop in Agent in Traffic and Transport (2008), 225–242.
4.
BoniniD., DupréC. and GrangerG., How erasmus can support an increase in capacity in 2020, In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computing, Communications and Control Technologies: CCCT, 2009.
5.
CaninoJ.M., GarcíaJ., MolinaJ.M. and PortasJ.B., A Multi-Agent Approach for Designing Next Generation of Air Traffic Systems, INTECH Open Access Publisher, 2012.
6.
CaperaD., GleizesM.-P. and GlizeP., Self-organizing agents for mechanical design. In Engineering Self-Organising Systems, pp. 169–185. Springer, 2004.
7.
ChaloulosG., CrückE. and LygerosJ., A simulation based study of subliminal control for air traffic management, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies18(6) (2010), 963–974.
8.
ChipalkattyR., TwuP., RahmaniA.R. and EgerstedtM., Merging and spacing of heterogeneous aircraft in support of NextGen, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics35(5) (2012), 1637–1646.
9.
DelahayeD., DurandN., AlliotJ.-M. and SchoenauerM., Genetic algorithms for Air Traffic Control systems. In IFORS 1996, 14th Triennal Conference of the International Federation of Operational Research Sociaties, Vancouver, Canada, 1996.
10.
DelahayeD. and PuechmorelS., Air traffic complexity: Towards intrinsic metrics, In Proceedings of the third USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R & D Seminar, 2000.
11.
DelgadoL. and PratsX., Fuel consumption assessment for speed variation concepts during the cruise phase, In Proceedings of the Conference on Air Traffic Management (ATM) Economics, 2009.
12.
DorigoM., BirattariM. and StutzleT., Ant colony optimization, Computational Intelligence Magazine, IEEE1(4) (2006), 28–39.
European Commission. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 of 22 november 2011 laying down requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance for the single european sky, Official Jourrnal of the European Union (2011).
16.
Federal Aviation Administration, 14 CFR Part 91: Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS–B) Out Performance Requirements To Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service; Final Rule, 2010.
17.
Federal Aviation Administration, Aeronautical Information Manual, Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures, 2014.
18.
FeighK.M., PritchettA.R., ShahA., KalaverS., JadhavA., HollD., BeaR. and GilgurA., Analyzing air traffic management systems using agent-based modeling and simulation, 2005.
19.
FerberJ., Multi-agent systems: An introduction to distributed artificial intelligence, volume 1. Addison-Wesley Reading, 1999.
20.
GarielM., SrivastavaA. and FeronE., Trajectory clustering and an application to airspace monitoring, Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on12(4) (2011), 1511–1524.
21.
GreenS.M., En route spacing tool: Efficient conflict-free spacing to flowrestricted airspace, In ATM2000 3rd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Napolo, 2000.
22.
HilburnB., Cognitive complexity in air traffic control: A literature review, EEC Note4(04) (2004).
23.
HoekstraJ. and van GentR. and RuigrokR., Designing for Safety: The ‘Free Flight’ Air Traffic Management concept, Journal of Reliability Engineering & System Safety75(2) (2002), 215–232.
24.
International Civil Aviation Organization, Procedures for Air Navigation Services. Air Traffic Management. Number 4444-ATM/501. Fifteenth edition, 2007.
25.
International Civil Aviation Organization, Global Air Transport Outlook to 2030 and Trends to 2040. ICAO circular, 2013.
26.
International Civil Aviation Organization, Global Operational Data Link Document (GOLD), 2013.
27.
IsaacsonD., SadovskiA. and DavisD., Tactical scheduling for precision air traffic operations: Past research and current problems, Journal of Aerospace Information Systems11(4) (2014), 234–257.
28.
KucharJ. and YangL., A review of conflict detection and resolution modeling methods, Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on1(4) (2000), 179–189.
29.
MarzuoliA., HurterC. and FéronÉ., Data visualization techniques for airspace flow modeling In CIDU 2012, Conference on Intelligent Data Understanding, pp. 79–86, Boulder, United States, 2012.
30.
PritchettA., LeeS., VermaS. and JadhavA., Examining air transportation safety issues through agent-based simulation incorporating human performance models. In Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2002. Proceedings. The 21st, volume 2, pages 7A5–1–7A5–13 vol.2, 2002.
31.
PuechmorelS. and NicolF., Entropy minimizing curves with application to automated flight path design, 2015.
32.
PuechmorelS. and NicolF., Entropy minimizing curves with application to flight path design and clustering. working paper or preprint, 2016.
33.
RiegerC., MooreK. and BaldwinT., Resilient control systems: A multiagent dynamic systems perspective, In Electro/Information Technology (EIT), 2013 IEEE International Conference on (2013), 1–16.
34.
RodionovaO., SbihiM., DelahayeD. and MongeauM., North atlantic aircraft trajectory optimization, Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 15(5) (2014), 2202–2212.
35.
SalaünE., GarielM., VelaA. and FeronE., Aircraft Proximity Maps Based on Data-Driven Flow Modeling, ArXiv e-prints, 2011.
VilliersJ., Automatisation du contrôle de la circulation aérienne: “ERASMUS„, une voie conviviale pour franchir le mur de la capacité. Etudes & documents - I.T.A. ITA, 2004.
38.
WollkindS., ValasekJ. and IoergerT.R., Automated conflict resolution for air traffic management using cooperative multiagent negotiation, In AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference (2004), 1–11.
39.
YangL.C. and KucharJ.K., Prototype conflict alerting system for free flight, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics20(4) (1997), 768–773.
40.
YooJ. and DevasiaS., Decoupled conflict resolution procedures for nonperpendicular air traffic intersections with different speeds, In Decision and Control (CDC), 2013 IEEE 52nd Annual Conference on (2013), 275–280.
