SYSEN 5200 Project Report

Spring 2016

GroupMember:
Joseph Kujawa

[jdk277]

Imran Khan

[iak26]

Stephen Lee

[sjl345]

Bob(Kunhe) Chen

[kc853]

Cornell University

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Table of Content
ExecutiveSummary
1.AirTrafficControl
Section1.1ProblemDescription
1.1.1STATESANDEVENTS
1.1.2SIMULATIONMODEL
Section1.2ResultDiscussion
Section1.3CaseComparison
Case110%ReducedMeanandSDLandingTime
Case210%ReducedMeanandSDRecircleTime
Case310%ReducedMeanandSDQueueSeparationDistance
SUMMARY
2.ReliabilityAnalysis
2.1ProblemDescription
2.2AnalysisandResults
2.3Summary
3.CargoOperations
3.1OptimizationModel
3.1.1Background
3.1.2SystemDescription
3.1.3OptimizationObjective
3.1.4SystemModel
3.2Simulation
3.2.1Optimization
3.2.2Solver
3.3Analysis
1/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

3.3.1Results
3.3.2SystemAnalysis
4.Conclusion
AppendixA
AppendixB
AppendixC
AppendixD
AppendixE

2/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Executive Summary
This reportfocussesonsomeofthe challengesintheairtransportationandtheaircraftindustry,
providesadetailedanalysisofthesechallenges,andproposessolutionsandrecommendations.
Section 1 talks about air traffic control, focussing more on the landing queue system. Owingto
the safety measures of maintaining a certain separation distance in the queue, there are
challenges that the aircraft industry faces in terms of avoiding flight delays and better
management of air traffic. A discrete event simulation (DES) model is used and it is found that
the average queue length is between 2.48 and 3.13.Thisprovidesroomforimprovementsince
itisdesirabletohaveshorterqueuelengths.Amoredetailedanalysis foundthatabout17.4%to
23% of the time, the queue is clogged, which is defined as more than 5 planes in the queue.
This is far from ideal because a clogged queue means flight delays and bad customer ratings.
Moreover, the total number of planes in a system for a given system requirement is
approximately 14 planes, which is again is far from ideal. The average number of planes in
recircles are also high. Thus, there is significant challenge in terms of reducing queue length,
reducing clogged queue time, number of planes in the system, number of planes in recircles,
andavarietyofadditionalissues.
Followingastaticanalysis,thereportdiscussestheimpactofadecrease inmeanandspreadof
landing times by 10%, which may be because of relaxation of stringent safety rules. It is found
that all the statistics improve to a great extent because of such a small change. Hence, it
becomes only advisable to research further on whether this 10% can be incorporated without
compromising on safety standards. Another static analysis wasconductedtoassesstheimpact
of a decrease in recircle distance by 10%. This analysis does not show a significant
improvement in the overall air traffic control system and hence can be reduced in priority. The
third static analysis was conducted to determine the impact of the change in plane separation
withadecrease of10%.Thisresultsina dramaticimprovementtotheamountoftimethequeue
is clogged. Hence, this change should definitely be considered by the managementwithahigh
priority. We believe that the first and the third change are highly feasible and should be
implemented following final safety tests. These recommendations can help to ensure effective
airtrafficcontrol.

3/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Section 2 focuses on the reliability analysis in the same setup of aircraft industry. Emotionally
driven customers give a lotofimportancetosafety. Itiscriticaltounderstandtherisksandhow
those risks interact with one anotherandaffectthesystemasawhole. Theoveralllikelihoodof
an accident is extremely small however with increasing air traffic, this probability grows in
likelihood and becomes even more important to the industry. Giving pilots a new dynamic
control system, which will limit their response time in the event of an inflight separation
violation, has the potential to reduce thisoverallrisk.Thus,moreerrorscanbeabsorbed bythe
system. Section 1 discussed that the inflight separation distance can be reduced for effective
air traffic control. However, if inflight separation distance is reduced, then the new dynamic
controlsystemhasademeritbecauseitactuallyresultsinmoreaccidents.Pilotsthinkthatthere
is more room for error with this system, when analysis proves that it is not the case. The
benefits from the new dynamic control system are more than offset by thenegativesofaltering
the inflight separation distance. It is recommended that these two options be considered in
disjunctioninordertomaintainhighsafetystandardsandfromthereliabilitypointofview.
Section 3 deviates from air traffic control and focusses on the cargo operations that takeplace
in an airport network. We built an optimization model to ensure smooth and costeffective
management of cargo operations. There are often carrier capacities at each given airport, and
there is cost associated with transporting cargoes from one airport to the other. Having an
optimization model which minimizes costfortheaircraftcompanyisalwaysdesirablebecauseit
would mean more profit and insights intoimprovingmanagement.Theanalysisdoneshowsthe
complexity of such a problem, which can be seen from thefacttheExcelfailstogiveafeasible
solution. With regards to thecurrentsystem,theconclusionis thatthecurrentcarriercapacityis
insufficient to achieve global optimum in a week. This is because of sudden peak influx of
cargoes at the airports which can be handledforonlyashortperiodoftime.Nothavingenough
carriers increases the cost by 17%. In addition to purchase more carrier. The recommendation
is that weekly demand distribution be smoothened by keeping some extra cargos on the
weekends. If total carrier capacity is increased by 16%, global optimum can be achieved. It is
also recommended that the management charge the cargosnotonlyonthedistancebutonthe
origindestinationpairaswell.

4/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

1. Air Traffic Control

Section 1.1 Problem Description
The landing queue at an airport is one of the most heavily controlled portions of the aircraft
industry, due to the dense distribution of planes within it. Each plane emits vortices behind it
which turn into a turbulent wake, which is a very dangerous phenomenon for a plane following
too closely. Additionally, if a following aircraftfollowsa landingplanetoocloselythentheleader
will not have evacuated the landing zone by thetimethefollowerhasarrived.Thus,regulations
have been placed on separation distance to ensure adequate safety in the queue and landing
zone. The following is a study detailing the current regulations indetail,andcomparingthemto
anewsetofpotentialregulationsconsistingofalowerseparationmeanwithatighterspread.
The following is a short summary of the landing queue system. First, a plane arrives at the
initial contact point, where the aircraft first contacts an air traffic controller. The plane then
proceeds to a landing queue, ensures a separation distance based on the current safety
regulations, and then flies through thequeueuntil itreachesathresholdpoint. Atthispoint,the
plane either circles back to the beginning of the queue if the landing zone is blocked, or the
planeproceedstothelandingzoneandlands.
The Plane Queueing Problem is modeled using Discrete Event Simulation through the time of
two days, 172800 seconds, in each repetition. This approach isenabled using afew crucialbut
reasonable assumptions. We first assume thatno weatheroremergencysituationsarise,which
could alter the necessary length between planes in queue or time taken at each stage. Thus,
the airport is considered to constantly be in a normal state of operation. In addition, pilot
behavior is assumed to be uniform, and every pilot adheres to a single distribution for each
phase of the Queueing problem. The airportisassumedtobeemptyatthebeginningtime(t=0)
of the simulation. The total simulation time is large enough that any bias effect on output
statistics due to this assumption should not be significant. Within the simulation, a plane in the
landingphaseisconsideredtobeinthesystem,butnotinthequeue.Likewise,aplanethathas
found the landing zone blocked and is circling backtothebeginningofthequeueisconsidered
in the system, but not in the queue. Finally, event times may never be negative so if the

5/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

simulation determines a negative interarrival time, it will simply continue finding random
numbersuntilitsettlesonanonnegativenumber.

1.1.1 STATES AND EVENTS

As mentioned previously, this queueing problem will be modeled as a Discrete Event
Simulation. As withanyDES, statesandvariablesmustbetrackedateachtime step.Withinthe
simulation the number of planes in the queue,thenumberofplanes inthesystem,thestatusof
the landing zone (blocked or unblocked), and the Type of each plane in the system are states
tracked. In addition, the simulation also contains a statistic variable that is one when5ormore
planes are in the queue andzerootherwise.Amoredetaileddescriptionofstatestrackedinthe
DESsystemcanbeseeninAppendixA.

1.1.2 SIMULATION MODEL

In this DES, each point in the queueing problem previously described will be modeled as an
event. As there arefourmajor pointsofchangeinthesystem,therearefourmajorevents.Inan
initial contact event, a new queueing event is generated. If the arrival is new to the system (it
does not have a type yet), then the number of planes in system isincreased,atypeofplaneis
generated, and a new initial contact event is created. In a queueing event, the number in the
queue is increased by one, the type of plane is added to a queue vector (which is used to
determine separation distances), and if the number in the queue is 5 or higher a tracking
variable is set to 1 this is used to track proportion of time with a long queue. If there is only
one plane in the queue, set a threshold event at 40 seconds from now. Otherwise, the
separation between planes in the queue is set based on the type of plane that just arrivedand
the one next in the queue vector. A threshold event is set up at that separation time plus the
event time for the next plane in the queue vector. In a threshold event the number ofplanesin
the queue decreases by one, and the long queue tracking variable is updated. If the landing
zone is blocked then the plane circles back, and a new initial contact event is generated.Ifthe
landingzoneisopenthenalandedeventisgeneratedandtheblockedLZvariableissetto one.
In bothcasestheplaneiseliminatedfromthequeuevectorandallother entries aremovedupa
spot. In a landed event the number of planes in the system is reduced by one and the LZ

6/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

blocked variable is set to zero. A more detailedpseudocodeofthisDESsystemcanbeseenin

AppendixB,andthecommentedMatlabcodeitselfcanbeseeninAppendixC.

Section 1.2 Result Discussion

The following result discussion provides confidence intervals for every statistic talked about.
After the confidence interval has been stated, further conversation will simply use the mean
value if needed in order to shorten the discussion. Allconfidenceintervalswerebasedupon75
repetitions of the DES over a time span of 2 days, and are 98% confidence intervals
corresponding to a z score of 2.325. The function used to generate the confidence intervals is
providedinAppendixD.
Intuition tells us that the length of the queue is a convenient way to quantitatively track the
performance of this system. A long queue indicates that there are too many planes in the
system and thus significant time is being wasted, likely during recircles. The 98% confidence
interval for average queue length is [2.48, 3.13]. This average queue length is completely
reasonable, but it shows plenty of room for improvement. A large queue contributes toalarge
proportion of time that the landing zone is blocked, which leads to a high amount of recircling
and thus a large queue. Some of the largest factors in potentially decreasing the length of the
queue are the landing time distribution, the arrival rate of airplanes, the recircle time of an
aircraft, and shorter queue separation distance as discussed in the project description. The
arrival rate of airplanes is likely fixed, and cannot be changed here thus no analysis will be
done. We expect the queue length to decrease with decreasing landing time, as the landing
zone will be open more often and thus recircles will decrease, leading to fewer entries to the
queue. The effect of reduced recircle time is more interesting, as a shorter recircle means
downtime will be spent more often in the queue, but also means that therewillbemorechecks
on the landing zone to see whether a plane can land or not, decreasing the total number of
planes in the system. The change to separation distance is expected to decrease the average
planes in the queue, as it results in more checks on the landing zone with no increase in
number of planes entering the queue. The results of these three changes are discussed in
Section1.3below.

7/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

While the average length of the queue is important, a clogged queue is a significant time sink
and safety problem. We define a clogged queue as a queue with five or more planes in it.The
proportion of time that the queue is clogged is [17.4%, 23%], which is higher than ideal. We
expecttoseethesamechangesinthisaswedowithaveragequeuelength.
The total number of planes in the system for the given system specifications is [13.39,14.19].
This number is far from ideal, and along with the proportion of time with five or more planes in
the queue are the two statistics that we wish to decrease. Decreasing the average number of
planes in the system would allow for an easier workload for air traffic controllers, and could
potentially lead to fewer controllers, saving the airport money. With our averages of number of
planes in queue and number of planes in system there are approximately 11 planes either
travelling to the queue, landing, or recircling to the beginning of the queue. Trimmingdownthe
recircle time would have the greatest effect in decreasing this number, and we expect both
decreasing queue separation and decreased landing time to resultinsmallerdecreasestototal
planesinsystem.
Other significant statistics tracked are the percentage of time that the landing zone is blocked,
theaveragetimethatoneplanespendsinqueue,theaveragetimethatoneplanespendsinthe
system, and the average number of recircles by a plane. We expect the average time spent in
queue and system to trend the same way as the average length of queue or numberofplanes
in system. We would like to have a low percent of time that the landing zone is blocked, such
that planes arriving at the threshold point have the opportunity to land more frequently. This
percentage is a driver to the number of planes in the queue and proportion of time that the
queue is clogged. The other major driver to reducing number of planes in the queue is the
average numberofrecirclesbyaplane.Implementingchangesthataffectthese drivers allowus
to reduce the number of planes in the queue and system. All confidence intervals for these
statistics can be found in
Figure 1.1 below. A larger,clearerversioncanbefoundin
Appendix
E
.

8/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Figure1.1FinalResultsfromDES.Alargerversionisattachedintheappendix.

Section 1.3 Case Comparison

***Note thatallConfidenceIntervalsareshownabovein
Figure1.1
.Approximatemeansareused below
forconciseness.

Case 1 10% Reduced Mean and SD Landing Time

In this case, we assume that either technology advances, airport policies, or less stringent
safety standards allow for the mean and spread of landing times to decrease by 10%. This
represents a decrease from 120s to 108s, which is not an unreasonable assumption. This
change leads to a decreased average planes in queue of around 1.2, which is over a 50%
improvement on the previous value. The reason for thisdecreaseisthatthepercentageoftime
that the landing zone is blocked is decreased from 65% to 59%. This allows planes at the
threshold point to proceed to the landing phase more frequently, leading to fewer planesinthe
system and thus planes in the queue. Following from that, the averagetimespentinthequeue
for a single plane decreases by half and theproportionoftimewithacloggedqueuedecreases
to 2%, which is a much more reasonable value than the original case. The average timespent
in the system by a plane also decreases significantly,duetoadecreasein boththepercentage
of time thatthelandingzoneisblockedandtheaveragenumberofrecirclesperplane.Withthis
change, planes recircle on average .72 times, whereas with the old standards planes had to
recircle nearly .93 times on average. Because planes that recircle have a wait time of 750s on
average and then reenter the queue (leading to more queue congestion), decreasing the
average number of recircles is a major driver to decreasing time in system foreachplane.The

9/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

team strongly recommends that this case be considered for further research due to the
disproportionateimprovementinallmajorstatisticsforsuchasmallimprovement.

Case 2 10% Reduced Mean and SD Recircle Time

For this case we assume that pilots increase their recircle speed or the recircle distance is
decreased, such that average (andstandarddeviationof)traveltime isdecreasedby10%.This
corresponds to a decrease inmeanrecircletimeof 75s,whichseemsabit highbutanalysis will
continue to observe effects, and if this change is useful perhaps a smaller change could be
implemented for slightly reduced improvements. Upon implementing this change, we expected
that shorter recircle times would result in more checks of the landing queue at the threshold
point, and thus decrease time in the system. While time in the system does decrease, it only
decreases by approximately the change in recircle time in this case, about 80s. There is a
corresponding decrease in the average number of planes in the system at any given time, but
once again the change is very small, on the order of half a plane. Interestingly, we do not
observe the expected change in either average recircles per plane or percent of time that the
landing zone is blocked. The expected changes arelikelyoffsetbythemandatoryseparation of
planes in the queue currentlyinstitutedanincreasedarrivalratetothesystemisnotimportant
if the plane has to wait until the leading plane has adequate separation anyways.Thus,unless
there is some reason that a small decrease in average planes in the system or time in the
system is needed, wewouldnotrecommendthischange.Theonlyimprovementsaresmalland
proportional to the percentage improvement, and even the 10% improvement used seems
betterthanisrealisticallymanageable.

Case 3 10% Reduced Mean and SD Queue Separation Distance

This change is the change discussed in the project description, and corresponds to a reduced
required separation between planes in the queue and a tighter adherence to that separation.
The 10% decrease here corresponds to a mean change of anywhere from 6 to 13 seconds
depending on plane type, which is definitely reasonable. As expected, the average number of
planes in the queue decreases to 1.6, significantly better than the original value of 2.7 and
correspondingly, the average time spent in queue decreases dramatically by around 40%.This
improvement comes from the fact that planes move through the queue quicker and thus
10/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

proceed to either landing or recircling fasterthanintheoriginalcase.Thefactthatthisdoesnot

represent systemlevel improvement is reinforced by the unchanged proportion of time that the
landing zone is blocked and an increased average number of recircles for a single plane.
Becauseofhowmuchofatimesinkrecirclesare,decreasingthetotalnumberofrecirclestaken
would be the best way to decrease total time spent in system. While this may not be the best
method to decrease total system time, it does result in slight system time improvements of
approximately 2 minutes. In addition, the decreased average length of the queue leads to a
significantly improved proportion of time that the queue is clogged, now only around 6%. If the
airport is happy with slightly improved system level improvements and significant queue level
improvements, then this method is ideal. The changes have assumedly already been
researched from a safety and feasibility perspective, and allowing the pilots to follow a leader
quickerwouldbeapopularchange.Thus,theteamrecommendsinstitutingthischange.

SUMMARY
The current regulations for queue separation are lackluster and lead to long wait times both in
the system and in the queue itself. In addition, the highaveragenumberofplanesinthequeue
and highproportionoftimethat thequeueiscloggedarefartoohighandcanleadtodangerous
situations. The suggested change to mandatory queue separation distance is a good change
that has been proven to be feasible and safe, and would allow for significantly decreased
average length of queue,butdoesnothaveasignificanteffectontimespentinthesystem. The
team suggests a different change, one wherein the landing time is decreased. This leads to
significant changes in both queuetimeandsystemtime,andisbetteracrosstheboardthanthe
same change applied to queue separation time. However, because the team came up withthe
change recently, we do not know whether or not this change is possible potential safety,
technology, or logisticissuescouldexist.Therefore,theteamrecommendsthatfurtherresearch
be done into potential improvements to landing timeandspreadwhilethesafer,provenchange
to queue separation requirements are put into place immediately. While this queue separation
change does nothavethesamelevelorscope ofimprovementsasthelandingtimechange,we
knowitisbothsafeandpossible.

11/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

2. Reliability Analysis
2.1 Problem Description
As new technologies develop and standard operating procedures change, the primary thing all
organizations focus on is safety. This is especially true in the emotionally stressful and
customer driven market of air travel. There are several factors that can affect safety and the
publicsopinionastothemostreliableairportsandairlines. Thesefactorsrangeanywherefrom
weather delays, congestion backups, and most importantly serious accidents. In this section,
we will analyze the potential benefits associated with a new technology, as well astheexisting
risks that exists within the landing sequence for arriving aircraft. Our analysis will provide an
assessment of the overall reliability of the system with regards to risk of incident and a
recommendationastotheimplantationofanewdynamicspeedcontrolsystem.
One of the biggest issues facing arriving aircraft and the corresponding air traffic controllers is
inflight separation. Thegoalofanysuccessfulairtrafficcontrolleristomaximizethenumberof
aircraft that can flow through the airport in a given day. This willleadtomoreairlinesproviding
more flights in and out of the airport, which will correlate to more profit for the airport and
ultimately its employees. However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) places specific
restrictions when it comes to the space that can exist between arriving aircraft because of the
increased likelihood for incidents as a result of what is known as wake vortex. Depending on
the size and payload of the leading aircraft, a wake vortex of varying significance is created.
Theseveritycanbeseenbelow.

Table2.1:Probabilitiesofvortexcreatingdangeroussituation.
These probabilities serve as a rough estimate for the likelihood an accident taking place
however, they are not the only factor to consider when developing a method for approximating
the likelihood of an accident taking place. In order to accomplish that task, we developed a

12/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

cause and effect diagram to assess, model, and generate an approximate solution for the
likelihoodofanaccidenttakingplace.

2.2 Analysis and Results

We started off the process by defining the scope of an accident for this problem. Initially we
defined an accident as theunintendedcollisionbetweentwoaircraft ontherunway. Thismodel
required that several assumptions be made that state an accident is the result of a violation of
the inflight separation distance,this violationgoingundetectedbythe airtrafficcontrolunit,and
the previous plane still on the runway causing a simultaneous runway occupation. All ofthese
factors had to occur in order for an accident to take place. In terms of probability, we are
looking for the joint probability that these events take place. The equation we solved can be
seenbelow:

P (accident) = P (violation) * P (AT CUerror) * P (simultaneousoccupation)

This equation seems simple however, these probabilities needed to be derived based on the
information provided after a series of air traffic studies conducted by the FAA. The table of
initialprobabilitiescanbeseenbelow:

Table2.2:Summaryofviolations.

13/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

After careful analysis, we determined that several of thegivenprobabilitiesserveasconditional

probabilities. These probabilities are all in the terms of the probability of a violation occurring
giventheoccurrenceofanisolatedevent. Understandingthispropertyallows forthecalculation
fortheprobabilityforaviolationoccurringgiventhefollowingformula:
P (violation) = P (violationgivenmisIDofaircraft) * P (misidofaircraft) + P (violationgivenlandingretry) * P (landingretry)
+ P (violationgivenfailuretocommunicate) * P (failuretocommunicate)

This equation takes into account all the given information that could result in a violation
occurring. As you can see from the above table, all of these individual probabilities are
relatively small. This is due to the significant innovations made in aircraft and airtrafficcontrol
safety procedures over recent years. These innovations lead us to the conclusion that the

P (violation) = 1.43E 5 .Thisprovidesuswiththefirstaspectofouroverallequation.

P (accident) = 1.43E 5 * P (AT CUerror) * P (simultaneousoccupation)
The second component of thisequationissignificantlyeasytocalculateasthe probabilityof the
air traffic control unit failing to detect the inflight separation distance violation is given as
1.95E3.Thisgivesusthesecondcomponentofourguidingequation.

P (accident) = 1.43E 5 * 1.95E 3 * P (simultaneousoccupation)

The last component of the guidingequationrequiredcarefulanalysisofthesituationsthatcould
result in a simultaneous occupation of the runway. We first definedasimultaneousoccupation
as an instance where the lead aircraft is unable to vacatethe runwayforany reason. Wewere
provided the given probabilities for issues that could affect the ability of an aircraft. These
probabilitiescanbeseenbelow

14/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Table2.3:Simultaneousoccupancy
After analysis of the situation, we made the assumption that similar to the probability of an
accident, multiple events had to occur for a simultaneous occupation to occur. However, this
situation is significantly different. For an accident to occur, several event have to happen in
sequence, which leads us to calculate the joint probability for that event as the product of the
probabilities of the contributing events. Simultaneous occupation is theresultof anyoneofthe
given probabilities occurring, which leads us to calculate this as the sum of the individual
probabilitiesofthecontributingevents.Thisconceptprovideduswiththefollowingequation:

P (simultaneousoccupation) = P (equipmentfailure) + P (congestion)

+ P (unabletoexecutegoaround) + P (medicalemergency)
This equation provides us with P (simultaneousoccupation) = 2.38E 3 . This completes our
guidingequation,whichprovidestheoverallprobabilityforanaccidentas:

P (accident) = 1.43E 5 * 1.95E 3 * 2.38E 3

P (accident) = 6.62E 11
Initially, this number seems extremely small, but let usthinkaboutwhatthisnumberrepresents
and put it into context. The National Safety Council estimates that an individual hasa1.02E4
chance of serious injuries as a result of an airline accident. This probability increases
significantly when the accident is a known event.

Using flight data from the National

Transportation and Safety Board from 19822009, therewere2924aircraftfatalitiesoutof5454

individuals involved inanaircraftaccident. Thisdataprovidesanestimateoftheprobabilityofa
fatality given anaccidentas54%. Itisincumbent ontheFAAandthe airtrafficcontrollertolimit
theprobabilityofanaccidentasmuchaspossible.
Additionally, when the probability of an accident is considered with theoverallnumberofflights
that operate daily, monthly, and yearly out of a particular airport this number again becomes
more and more relevant. For example, for the scope of this analysis we assumed that there
would be an average of 5000 aircraft landing at any particular airport hourly. We additionally
assumed that this would remain constant for at least 15 hours of every day. Using these
15/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

numbers the following table shows the correlation with the number of flights and the
correspondingprobabilityofanaccidentoccurring.

Table2.4:Flightstatistics.

2.3 Summary
As the above table highlights, the likelihood of an accident increases as the number of flights
increases, resulting in a higher probabilityof anaccidentandseriousinjuryoccurring. TheFAA
and air traffic controllers are making every necessary attempt toimprovehowaccidentscanbe
avoided,includingtestingnewdynamicspeedcontrolsystem.
The new dynamic speed control system will give pilots morecontrolandlimittheresponsetime
requiredtoexecuteagoaroundandreattemptthelandingprocedureifaviolationoccurs. What
this means for the pilots and air trafficcontrollersisthatthattheynowhave moreroomforerror
in terms of preventing a simultaneous occupation. However, this new technology does have
some negatives associated with it. Even though thepilotnowhasmore control overhisspeed,
the probability that a go around cannot be initiated increases if reductions to the safe inflight
separationdistancearemade.Ananalysisofthesetradeoffscanbeseeninthetablebelow.

Table2.5:Newtechnologyanalysis.
This analysis highlights that although there may be a perceived benefit for the new system,
altering the safe inflight separation distance negates any potential benefits and will actually
16/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

increase the probability of an accident slightly. This new technology hopes to accomplish two
major objectives increased safety and allow more aircraft to move through the airport.
Unfortunately, you cannot have one without making concessions in aspects of the other. It is
our recommendation that thenewtechnologybeconsidered,butthattherecommendedinflight
separationdistanceremainunchanged.

3. Cargo Operations
3.1 Optimization Model
3.1.1 Background
An express package carrier transports cargos between three airports (A, B and C). The
interairport transportation cost and demand are fixed over aweeklycycle.Thecarrierwillincur
a fixed amount of cost per weight to reposition itself, regardless of the amount of cargo it
carries, as long as itsmaximumcapacityisnotexceeded.Therepositioningcostissummarized
infigure3.1.
At the beginning of each day, the airport management can decide how many carriers fly from
origin i to destination j, as well as how muchcargothe carriershavewiththemintheflight.The
amount of cargo on board must not exceed thecarryingcapacity,whichislimitedbyhowmany
carriersstayatsourceionthedaybefore.

Figure3.1:Fixedcostforinterairporttransportationofthecarrier.The
costisperkiloton(1,000tons),measuredcarryingcapacity.

17/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Everyday, there are cargos arriving at each airport waitingtobetransported.Managementmay

choose not to movethecargoswhentheyarrive, butrathertopostponethetransportationwhen
theyseefit.Thereis,however,adailycostassociatedwithholdingthecargosontheground.
Because the transportation cost and demand are known to the management beforehand, it is
reasonable to assume that an optimal weekly cycle exists. Furthermore, to simplify the model,
we assume that we have enough carriers and cargos to treat their transported quantities as
continuous. Secondly, flight time between every origindestination pair is no morethanasingle
day in other words, planes that arriveondaytcanbeimmediatelydeployedonday t+1.Lastly,
thecarriersmustreturntotheirstartattheendofeachweektocompletetheweeklycycle.

3.1.2 System Description

The threeairport system will start on Sunday night with fixed amount of carriers distributed to
eachone.Theneverydaystartinginthemorning,
1. Cargoswillarriveateachairport.
2. Carriers leaveoriginifordestinationj.Thecarrierswillhavecargoswiththem(underthe
limit). The amount of carriers is predetermined and has to be fewer than what stays in
theairportithenightbefore.
3. In the afternoon, the carriers will arrive at destination j and get recharged. Cargos that
haventbeenmovedwillincurchargesbasedontheirweight.
4. Atnight,thecarriersarechargedandreadytorepeattilltheendoftheweek(Friday).
Overtheweekend,thecarriersmustredistributethemselvessothatthesystemwillbethesame
asitstartedonthelastSunday.
The three assumptions we made to simplify the system make the model deterministic, lagfree
and periodic. The three properties make it suitable for us to optimize the weekly cycle using
linearprogramming.

3.1.3 Optimization Objective

To achieve an optimal cycle, we first specify the objective. For the airport management, the
objective is to minimize theoverallcostthroughouteachweek.Thereare threeparts ofthecost
involvedinthissystem:
18/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Thetransportationcostfromoriginitodestinationj.

Theholdingcostforcargosthatarenotmovedonthesamedayofarrival.

Thepenaltycosttorepositioncarriersattheendofeachweek.

Theoptimizationobjectiveistominimizethetotalcostbythethreeparts.

3.1.4 System Model

Todescribethesystemmoreanalytically,wefirstdefinesomestateandcontrolvariables:

uijt is the transportation of cargoondaytfromairportitoairportj,where1t5and i,j

arein{A,B,C}.

vijt isthetransportationofemptycarrierondaytfromairportitoairportj.

xijt is the cargo at the end of day t from airport i to airport j. In this case, 0 t 5.
Everyday,newcargo bijt arrivesatairportibeforetheshipment.

yit isthecarriercapacityattheendofdaytatairporti.

cij isthecosttotransportcarriersfromairportitoairportj.

d isholdingcost.

Theobjectiveasdescribedaboveis1
5

t=1 i,j

ij

min ( cij(uijt + vijt ) + d xijt )

A more involved discussion is needed to write out the constraints, but we sketch out the
motivation and results, while leaving the derivation details in the Appendix for review. The
followingconstraintsareconsidered:

On each day, the total cargo carried from airport i to airport j must not exceed the total
cargo:

uijt xt1
+ bijt
ij

On each day, the total carrier leaving airport i must not exceed the total carriers
available:

Theterminalcostisimplicitlyincludedusingconstraints.

19/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

(uijt + vijt ) yt1

i
j

Thestatevariableschangeaccordingtothetransportation:
t+1
xt+1
= xijt + bt+1
ij uij
ij

yt+1
= yit (ut+1
+ vt+1
) + (ut+1
+ ut+1
)
i
ij
ij
ji
ji

Thetotalcapacityofcarriersinthesystemis120kilotons:

yk0 = 120
k

Tocompletetheweeklycycle,thefollowingperiodicconditionisenforced:

xij0 = xij5 = 0
y0i = y5i
By recognizing that the state variables can be condensedintoanexpressionthatisdetermined
by their initial conditions ( xij0 and y0i ),
we can simplify the constraints and write the system as
linearprogrammingproblem:

t
t
t
min ( cij(uij + vij) d uij )

ij =1
t=1 i,j
5

Subjectto

=1

=1

uij bij

t1

=1 j

(uijt + vijt ) [(uji + vji ) (uij + vij )] y0i

5

=1

=1

uij = bij

=1 j

[(uji + vji ) (uij + vij )] = 0

3

uijt , vijt 0 , y0i = 120

i=1

Despitethecomplexform,thisisinmatrixform:

min cT x

Subjectto
20/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Ax b
x 0

3.2 Simulation
3.2.1 Optimization
Given this model discussed in section 3.1.4, we can use the data given by figure 3.1andtable
3.2tocomputetheoptimalweeklycycle.

Table3.2:Amountofcargos(inkilotons)betweeneach
origindestinationpaironeachdayoftheweek.
The results will tell us how to best manage the transportation on each day in a weeklycycle.It
shouldalsogiveustheglobalminimumofthetotalcost.

3.2.2 Solver
In the actual implementation of solver, the periodic condition is relaxed toguaranteeasolution.
5

=1 j

In other words, [(uji + vji ) (uij + vij )] = 0 nolongerholds.Thisismainlybecausethesystem

is incapable of satisfying the cargo transportation requirement and the periodic condition at the
same time,whichwewilllaterexplainin moredetails.Initsplace,apenaltytermisaddedtothe
objective so that the solver will still try to get as close to the periodic condition as possible. In
reality, the penalty term is equivalent to moving thecarriersovertheweekendsothatthesame
carrierconfigurationwillbeavailableonSunday.

21/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

In addition to solving the given problem, we can alsousethesolverforvarious parametersand

gaininsightsintothesystemproperties.

Figure3.3:AscreenshotoftheExcelsolverforouroptimizationmodel.
Thecontrolvariablesarehighlightedontheleft.Thetotalcostconsistsof
holdingcost,transportationcostandthepenalty.TheExcelsolveris
assignedtominimizethetotalcostunderconstraints,usingGRG
Nonlinearsolver.

3.3 Analysis
3.3.1 Results
There is no feasible solution from our solver. In this case, the solver is limited by the total
number of carriers available andcannotgetaglobalminimum.This,however,doesnotindicate
that a better weekly schedule does not exist. The solver gives us a schedule that costs
3528.5=0+3254.2+274.3(hold,transport,penalty)tooperatecontinuously.
Theschedulefulfillssomeoftherequirementswewantfromthesystem:

22/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

All the cargos are transported at latest on Friday. In this case, no cargo is stored. This
makes sense because holding is more expensive than transporting anywhere. If the
systemhasanycarriers,itwillsendthecargoonthesameday.

The carriers configuration is restored over the weekend for arepeatingstartonMonday

morning.

However, it does not have enough carriers to sendoutfromairportC.Inthisparticularsolution,

itneeds19morecarriersfromairportC.
We can observe that in this system, a large number of cargos go into airport B from airport A
and C throughout the week, whereas a significantlysmallernumbercomesout.Thiscreatesan
imbalanceinthesystemthatthemanagementmustaddressbymovingemptycarriers.
We traced the infeasibility to its root. On Thursday, there is a huge increase in the amount of
cargo from A to B (40 kton) and the system must use the carriers in airport A to move them.
However, on Friday, there is another peak showing up that the airport cannot handle, since
there are not enough carriers in airport A. Evenwhenthemanagementtriestomovetheempty
cargoonThursday,itwillnotbeabletofindenoughcarriersinthesystem.

Figure3.4:TwopeaksshowuponThursdayandFriday.Thesystemis
incapableofhandlingthetwodemandsintime.

23/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Toseeitmoreclearly,weincreasedthecapacityto140andthesystemachievesitsminimum
costat3480.0=0+3276.6+203.4.Thisvalueremainsaconstantaswefurtherincreasethe
capacity.And140isroughlytheminimumrequirementforthesystemtocompletetheweekly
cycle.
Sinceweknowtheproblemexistsbecauseoftheunevendistributionofcargogoingtoairport
B,wecantrytorelaxthesituationbyhavingthecargosstayingovertheweekend.Wepayfor
threedaystorageinexchangeforamoreevendistributionofthecargotransportationdemand.
Wekept10cargosfromairportAtoBand10cargosfromairportCtoB.Theminimumcostis
4080=600+3395.3+84.7.Notethatthiscostis3480+600,anditisonly600(holdingcost)more
thantheminimumcostwhenthereareenoughcarriers.

Figure3.5:Optimizationsolverresultsfromhavingcargosstayingatthe
airportovertheweekend.Thestrategyallowsustohaveamoreevenly
distributedcargotransportdemandandthereforehavinganoptimal
weeklycycleatlowcarriercapacity.Wereferourreadertotheattached
excelfileforfurtherinspectionoftheaboveresults.

24/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

3.3.2 System Analysis
The system has an optimal weekly cycle when there are enough carriers to address the cargo
transportation demand. When the total carrier in the system is low, however, an shock peak in
thecargoarrivalwillmakesuchoptimalscheduleinfeasible.
The prominent effect of the shock peak is majorly a consequence of the uneven demand
distribution. More specifically, the demand is poorly distributed both spatially andtemporally.In
space, cargos keep going into airport B without coming out, thus creating a vacuum in both A
and C. To counterbalancethiseffect,managementhastomovetheemptycarriers outofairport
B with a significant cost. The situation will be exacerbated if there are more cargos trying to
going into the airport C, because thissystemdoesnothaveenough carriersinittoaddressthis
spatial asymmetry. On the other hand, if there are more cargos coming out of airport C, the
managementcouldmovetheminsteadofemptycarrier,whichwillbringinmoreprofit.
In addition, there is the shock peak in time during a weekly cycle. As discussed in 3.3.1, the
system is incapable of handling the peaks and therefore must take measures to protect itself
against it. One solution we cameupwithistohavecargosstayat theairportovertheweekend,
thuscreatingamoresmoothdistributionintime.

3.3.3 Managerial Recommendation

The current system suffers from an insufficiency in the total carrier capacity. This flaw is
revealed when a sudden peak influx of cargos arriving at the airports. The system can handle
such peak for one day, but not over a longer period of time.Asaresult,theairporthastohave
cargos staying over the weekend and pay a premium for the storage. Itisa 17%increasefrom
theoptimalcostwhenthereareenoughcarriers.
We recommend that the management actively seek opportunities to bring in new carriers into
the system. The situation can be improved when there are more carriers, and with a total
number of 140, the system will be able to handle the weekly demandandachieveitsoptimum.
However, before purchasing the carrier, we recommend the management keep certain amount
ofcargosattheairportsovertheweekendtosmoothentheweeklydemanddistribution.

25/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Lastly, we recommend the management charge the cargo deliver based on origindestination
pair instead of on distance alone. The goal is to create a price differential that can motivate
consumptionandmitigatethespatialimbalancewediscussedin3.3.2.

4. Conclusion
We conclude that the air traffic control and cargo operation management are two of the most
important and complex challenges faced by the aircraft industry. There are multiple issues in
terms of queue clogging, delay in landing higher number of planes in recircles and in the
system,limitstocarriercapacity.
Increased flights delay and compromise on safety standards result in loss in customersforany
airline because of customerdissatisfactionand discontentment.Thus,itis necessaryforairlines
to make an effort, invest in research and development to come up with plausible solutions,
make the variableslessstringentwhereveritispossible,andatthesametimeensurefullsafety
especiallysothattheydontlosecustomers.
It is also profitable for the industry to reduce cost wherever it can. Cost reduction in cargo
operations is possible if it is managed effectively.Thus,timeshouldbespentondevisingbetter
management of cargooperationsandincreasingcargocapacitiessothatoperationsdonotface
anyproblemsandcostisalsominimized.

26/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Appendix A

27/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

28/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Appendix B

29/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Appendix C
NOTE: This is fully commentedMatlabcodeoftheDES.TheactualMatlab
filewillbesubmitteddigitally.
function[Outputs]=PlaneQueue()
%%RunsaDiscreteEventSimulationforPart1ofProject
%Initializeourtracking(state)variables.Becausewestartatsomevery
%earlytimewheretheairportisempty,allofthesetrackingvariables
%willbezero.NOTEIcouldrunforashortamountoftimewithout
%trackingstatsvariables,thenstartaftersometime.Liketheinitial
%transientproblem.
B=0N=0S=0F=0RCCount=0
%Storetheinitialcontactandtimetoqueuestats
ICMu=180ICSD=60
QMu=600QSD=150
%Storethetimefromenteringqueuetothresholdpointinmatrices.Itis
%thesameformatasTable1intheprojectdocumentation.
%WillfindvalueofmufromThreshMU(PlaneType2,PlaneType1)becausethe
%leadplane(1)determinesthecolumnofthematrix,thefollowingplane(2)
%determinestherowofthematrix.
ThreshMu=[64,64,64108,86,64130,130,64]
ThreshSD=[30,30,3040,40,3050,50,30]

%%Case3ReducedQueueSeparationCommentoutfororiginalrecipe
%ThreshMu=ThreshMu.*.9ThreshSD=ThreshSD.*.9

30/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

%Thiswillbeusedtofindplanetypeusedasacdf.SoifU[0,1]less
%than.33,heavy.Iflessthan.79butbiggerthan.33,large.Else,small.
ThreshP=[.33,.79,1]
%Storethetimefromthresholdpointtolandingongroundandtimefrom
%thresholdpointtoinitialcontactpoint(recircletime)
LandMu=120LandSD=30

%%Case1ReducedLandingTimes.Commentoutfororiginalrecipe
%LandMu=LandMu*.9LandSD=LandSD*.9

CircleMu=750CircleSD=150

%%Case2ReducedRecircleTimes.Commentoutfororiginalrecipe
%CircleMu=CircleMu*.9CircleSD=CircleSD*.9

%Initializetheoutputvectorofourdiscretetimessteppedto
TimeOut=0
%Nowwecreateaninterarrivaltimeforaninitialcontactevent,which
%willbethefirsteventcalledsincetheairportisemptyattime0
%Rememberthatweonlyacceptinitialcontactinterarrivaltimesofgreater
%thanzero.Thiscodedoesthat.
ICtime=0
whileICtime<=0
ICtime=normrnd(ICMu,ICSD)
end
%Nowwegenerateaplanetypeusingourfunctionwaybelowhere.This

31/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

%planetypeisthenincludedinourinitialcontacteventlist.Thethird
%valueineachinitialcontacteventinthelistisabinary0or1.A0
%meansthatthisisanewplanetothesystem,anda1meansthatthisisa
%recircledplane.ThesearetreateddifferentlyintheICeventbelow.
[Type]=PlaneType(ThreshP)
IC(:,1)=[ICtime,Type,0]'
%Initializeallstatisticsandstatevariableshereaszerothisincludes
%theQueue,Threshold,Landedeventlists,thecurrenttime,thequeue
%variableusedtotrackplanetypes,thenumberinandoutofthesystem,
%andthetotaltimeLZblockedandfullqueue,theintegralofnumberin
%systemovertime,andintegralofnumberinqueueovertime
%Inaddition,theendingtimeissetup(E)
Q=[]T=[]L=[]E=86400*2t=0
Queue=[]NumOut=0NumIn=0
IntB=0IntS=0IntQ=0IntF=0
%%%Nowwebeginthesimulation.Herewego.Werunthesimulationuntilthe
%%%currenttimehassurpassedthetotalruntime
whilet<E
%Herewefindtheshortesteventineachofthefoureventlists.The
%functioncalledreturnstheshortesttimevalueandtheindexofthat
%valuewithinthegiveneventlist.Ifthereisnoeventinthelist
%thenwereturnsomenonsensevaluelargerthanEsothatnoeventfrom
%thatlistwillbeused
[Qs,Qi]=Shortest(Q,E)
[Ts,Ti]=Shortest(T,E)
[Ls,Li]=Shortest(L,E)

32/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

[ICs,ICi]=Shortest(IC,E)
%Thiswilltelluswhicheventissoonestanindexreturnedof1is
%anICevent,index2isQueueevent,3isThreshholdevent,4is
%Landedevent.Basically,thepreviousfoureventsfoundthesoonest
%eventineachindividualeventlist,andthiscallofthefunction
%findsthesoonesteventtotalthesoonestofthesoonest.
[Newt,NewEv]=Shortest([ICs,Qs,Ts,Ls],E)
%HerewemakesurethatifalleventsoccurafterE,noeventissimulated.
ifNewt>E
NewEv=0
Newt=E
end
%calculationsofstatisticsvariables.ItfollowsthenormalDESmethod
%ofaddingthetimestepmultipliedbythegivenstatisticvariable
IntB=IntB+((Newtt)*B)
IntQ=IntQ+((Newtt)*N)
IntS=IntS+((Newtt)*S)
IntF=IntF+((Newtt)*F)
%Nowweupdatethecurrenttimevariabletothecurrenteventtime.
t=Newt
%ThisistheInitialContactEvent
ifNewEv==1
%Thischeckswhetherornottheplaneisnewinthesystemanew
%ICeventhasitsthirdindexas0,arecircleplanehasitsthird
%indexof1.
ifIC(3,ICi)==0

33/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

%Anewplaneincreasesthenumberofplanesinthesystemand
%numberofplanesintothesystembyone
S=S+1
NumIn=NumIn+1
%GeneratenewInitialContactEvent.Sameprocedureasthe
%firstICeventgeneratedabovetofindinterarrivaltimeand
%planetype
ICtime=0
whileICtime<=0
ICtime=normrnd(ICMu,ICSD)
end
[Type]=PlaneType(ThreshP)
%NowweaddthenewICeventtotheICeventlist.Forsome
%reasonthecodescrewsupeverysooftenwithoutthisif
%statement.Thus,wesaythatiftheICeventlistisempty,we
%createitbrandnewratherthanappendingthecurrentlistto
%it.
iflength(IC)>0
IC=[IC,[(Newt+ICtime)Type0]]
else
IC=[Newt+ICtimeType0]
end
end

%GeneratenewQueueingeventthisoccursinboththenewplane
%andrecircledplanecase

34/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Qtime=0
whileQtime<=0
Qtime=normrnd(QMu,QSD)
end
%Samemethodasbefore,eithercreatethequeueeventlistor
%appendtheneweventtothepreviouslyestablishedeventlist.
iflength(Q)>0
Q=[Q,[(Newt+Qtime)IC(2,ICi)]]
else
Q=[(Newt+Qtime)IC(2,ICi)]
end
%NowwecleartheICeventthatwejustranthrough.This
%eliminatedthateventandmovesallothersuptheeventlist.
IC(:,ICi)=[]
end
%NowcomestheQueueingEvent
ifNewEv==2
%Thenumberinthesystemincreasesbyone,andthequeuevariable
%updates.Thequeuevariablecontainsthetimeofeachqueueevent
%andthetypeofeachplane.Thiswillbeusedtofindthe
%separationtimesforeachplaneinthequeue.
N=N+1
Queue(:,N)=Q(:,Qi)
%Ifthenumberofplanesinthequeueisone,thenthetimetothe
%endofthequeueis40seconds.Weusethattimesteptosetup
%thethresholdeventforthisplane.

35/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

ifN==1
iflength(T)>0
T=[T,[(t+40)Q(2,Qi)]]
else
T=[(t+40)Q(2,Qi)]
end
else
%Thisisthehardpart.Weneedtocomparetwotypesofplanes
%clashinginthequeuetoseewhattheseparationdistancefor
%thresholdeventis.

%Wesavethetypeofeachplaneinthequeuetobecompared
%here.Type1isfortheleader,Type2isthefollower
Type1=Queue(2,N1)Type2=Queue(2,N)
%WegetthemuandsigmafromTable1intheproject
%documentationusingtheplanetypessavedabove
SepMu=ThreshMu(Type2,Type1)
SepSD=ThreshSD(Type2,Type1)
%Thetimestatswefoundaretheseparationdistancesoon
%averagethefollowershouldarriveatthethresholdatagiven
%mufromthetimetheleaderarrivedatthethreshold.Thus,we
%savetheleadersarrivaltimehere.
LeadArriveTime=T(1,N1)
%ThisgivesusaseparationtimebasedonTable1.
Sept=0
whileSept<=0

36/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Sept=normrnd(SepMu,SepSD)
end
%Herewesetupthenewthresholdeventfortheplanethatjust
%arrivedinthequeue.
iflength(T)>0
T=[T,[(LeadArriveTime+Sept)Q(2,Qi)]]
else
T=[(LeadArriveTime+Sept)Q(2,Qi)]
end
end
%Ifthequeueis5planesorlonger,thenwetriggeratracking
%variable.Thisisusedtotracktheproportionoftimethatwe
%havealongqueue.
ifN>=5
F=1
end
%Becausetheeventhasbeencompleted,wedeleteitfromthe
%eventlist.
Q(:,Qi)=[]
end
%Nowcomesthethresholdevent
ifNewEv==3
%Thereisonelessplaneinthequeue(itwilleitherproceedto
%landingorrecircle)
N=N1
%WhentheLZiscurrentlyblocked,werecircletothebeginning

37/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

ifB==1
%Herewegenerateaninterarrivaltimeforarecircle.
RCtime=0
whileRCtime<=0
RCtime=normrnd(CircleMu,CircleSD)
end
%Wesetupaninitialcontacteventatthetimeofthe
%recircle,withathirdvalueof1.Thisindicatesthatitis
%notanewarrivaltothesystem,butarecircleplanewhichis
%treateddifferentlyintheICeventsectionofthecode.
iflength(IC)>0
IC=[IC,[Newt+RCtimeT(2,Ti)1]]
else
IC=[Newt+RCtimeT(2,Ti)1]
end
%Weaddonetothecounterofnumberofrecircles
RCCount=RCCount+1
%WhentheLZiscurrentlyopen,weproceedtoland
else
%Herewegeneratealandingtime,anduseittosetupalanded
%event.AtthattimeiswhentheLZisdeclaredclear.
Ltime=0
whileLtime<=0
Ltime=normrnd(LandMu,LandSD)
end
%Settinguplandedevent,sameasalways

38/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

iflength(L)>0
L=[L,[Newt+LtimeT(2,Ti)]]
else
L=[Newt+LtimeT(2,Ti)]
end
%NowtheLZisblocked,asaplaneislanding...soblocked
%trackingvariableissettoone.
B=1
end
%Eitherway,theplanehasleftthequeue,sowedeleteitfromthe
%queuevariable.
Queue(:,1)=[]
%werecheckifthequeueislongandupdatethetrackingvariable
%ifthathaschanged.
ifN<5
F=0
end
%Theeventiscomplete,soweeliminatethiseventfromtheevent
%list.
T(:,Ti)=[]
end
%Finally,theLandedEvent
ifNewEv==4
%Thereisonelessplaneinthesystemnow,sodecreasethat
%variable.
S=S1

39/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

%TheLZisnolongerblocked,sochangethetrackingvariable.
B=0
%Aplanehasleftthesystem,sothenumberofplanesthroughthe
%systemincreasesbyone.
NumOut=NumOut+1
%Thiseventiscomplete,deleteitfromtheeventlist.
L(:,Li)=[]
end
%Weupdatethetimeoutput,whichjusttellsusallofthetimesthat
%theDESsteppedto.Wasusedfortestingandtroubleshooting.
TimeOut=[TimeOut,t]

end
%%Doallendingcalculationshere,simulationisover
%Thisistheaveragelengthofthequeue
AvgQueue=IntQ/E
%Thisistheaveragenumberofplanesinthesystem
AvgSystem=IntS/E
%Thisistheproportionoftimethatthequeuehas5ormoreplanesinit
PercentMoreFive=IntF/E
%ThisisthepercentoftimethattheLZisblocked
PercentBlocked=IntB/E
%Thisistheaveragetimespentinthequeuebyasingleplane
TimeInQ=IntQ/NumIn
%Thisistheaveragetimespentinthesystembyasingleplane
TimeInS=IntS/NumIn

40/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

%Thisistheaveragenumberofrecirclesperplane
RCAvg=RCCount/NumIn
%Thisisthetotalnumberofplanesthroughthesystem
NumOut
%Thisisthetotalnumberofplanesintothesystem
NumIn
%Nowwecompilealloutputsintoasinglevectorforeasierdatahandling
%inotherprograms.
Outputs=[AvgQueue,AvgSystem,PercentMoreFive,PercentBlocked,TimeInQ,TimeInS,RCAvg,N
umOut,NumIn]
end

function[t]=PlaneType(p)
%%Thisfunctiontakesintheprobabilitylistofaplanebeingagiventype
%%(heavy,large,small)andgeneratesaplanetypefortheincomingplane.

%Thisgeneratesauniformrandomvariablefrom0to1.
type=rand
%Ifthatgeneratedrvislessthantheprobabilityofbeingtype1,this
%planeistype1.Else,ifitislessthantheprobabilityofbeingtype2,
%it'stype2.Else,itistypethree.

%NOTE:Rememberthatweuseacdfprobabilitylisthere,soifthe
%percentagesaresay303040,thenanrvbetween.3and.6istype2and
%between.6and1istype3.
iftype<p(1)
t=1
41/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

elseiftype<p(2)
t=2
else
t=3
end
end

function[S2,Ind]=Shortest(I,E)
%%Thisfunctionfindstheshortesttimeandindexofthattimeofoneof
%%oureventlists.Isthelengthofthatevenlistis0,thenweoutputan
%%eventtimeoffartherthantheendofoursimulationsonoeventfrom
%%thislistcanbechosen.
iflength(I)>0
[S2,Ind]=min(I(1,:))
else
%Somenonsenselargenumbersoitwillneverbethesoonestevent,
%becauseaneventdoesn'texisthere
S2=E+100
Ind=0
end

end

42/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Appendix D
NOTE: This is fully commented Matlab code used to generateConfidence
IntervalswithDESinputs.TheactualMatlabfilewillbesubmitteddigitally.
function[CILow,CIHigh]=QueueReps()
%%ThisfunctionrunsNrepetitionswithZscoreZinordertocreate
%%ConfidenceIntervalsofalloftheimportantDESstatistics.Allformulas
%%usedarethesameasalwaysinthiscourse.
N=75
Z=2.325
AvgQ=zeros(1,N)AvgS=zeros(1,N)PM5=zeros(1,N)
PBL=zeros(1,N)TimeNQ=zeros(1,N)TimeNS=zeros(1,N)
RCAvg=zeros(1,N)NumOut=zeros(1,N)NumIn=zeros(1,N)

fori=1:N
[Out]=PlaneQueue()
AvgQ(i)=Out(1)AvgS(i)=Out(2)PM5(i)=Out(3)
PBL(i)=Out(4)TimeNQ(i)=Out(5)TimeNS(i)=Out(6)
RCAvg(i)=Out(7)NumOut(i)=Out(8)NumIn(i)=Out(9)
end
Mu=mean([AvgQ',AvgS',PM5',PBL',TimeNQ',TimeNS',RCAvg',NumOut',NumIn'])
SD=std([AvgQ',AvgS',PM5',PBL',TimeNQ',TimeNS',RCAvg',NumOut',NumIn'])
CILow=Mu(Z.*((SD)./(N^.5)))
CIHigh=Mu+(Z.*((SD)./(N^.5)))
end

43/45

SYSEN 5200, Spring 2016

Appendix E

44/45