MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112982658 · doi:10.4271/01-13-02-0020

Particle Swarm Optimization with Required Time of Arrival Constraint for Aircraft Trajectory

2020· article· en· W3112982658 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro Murrieta-Mendoza, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez, Hugo Ruiz, Sonya Kessaci

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Aerospace · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationTrajectoryTrajectory optimizationArrival timeConstraint (computer-aided design)Computer scienceAerospace engineeringTime of arrivalMathematical optimizationAeronauticsEngineeringMathematicsPhysicsAlgorithmTransport engineeringTelecommunicationsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global warming has motivated the aeronautical industry to develop new technologies that will reduce polluting emissions. A direct way to achieve this goal is to reduce fuel consumption. Reference trajectory optimization contributes to this goal by guiding aircraft to zones where meteorological conditions are favorable to execute their required missions and thereby to reduce flight costs. In this article, the reference trajectory was optimized in terms of geographical position, altitude, and speed, by taking into account a Required Time of Arrival (RTA) constraint and weather conditions. The algorithm assumes that there is no traffic and that the aircraft can fly anywhere in the search space. The search space was modeled in the form of a unidirectional weighted graph, fuel burn was computed using a numerical model, and the weather forecast was taken into account. The methodology utilized in this article to determine the most economical combinations of parameters that delivered the optimal trajectory was inspired by the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm. Results showed that the algorithm provided acceptable solutions under traffic management constraints. It was observed that the developed algorithm was able to save up to 9.1% (6,800 kg) of fuel burn when there was no RTA constraint for flight trajectories and up to 1.8% (600 kg) of fuel against real, as-flown trajectories with an RTA constraint of ±30 seconds. Because of the nature of the PSO Algorithm, the local best trajectories are extracted and provided as a Trajectory Option Set (TOS), which is similar in cost as the optimal trajectory.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of AerospaceSame topicAerospace Engineering and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207