Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A0-A092 455 PEAT MARWICK MITCHELL AND CO SAN FRANCISCO CALIF F/S 1/5TASK FORCE DELAY STUDY. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTERNATI--ETC(U)JUN 80 DOT-FA77WA-3961
UNCLASSIFIED NL
3
IIII.'
I'll".l
_____________________________ ('j~) Technical '.eport Documentation Page
I ReotN.2. Go *-ni~n Dkcces,, o .Rc~n Catalog No.
Soo' ~ n AgNc Home
-n A A 94
4. itl Prgam Manaeme n Stff ATFrt-atT ashingone D.C.y 20591Jue98
~ feWilliam B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Aipr. Theorin OraniayisCd
was oduted byteAlat ipotIpoemn okigGop hc a
the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ S ailnseevngAlntadthfeerlAiainAminstriationRpr o
caseofmn delniay Naned thes poenia delay redutio benfit ofrcommndeAta i rpr mprovements hfot Wsprtin Gofuhpipr mroeetPorm
FAA e io nal Plnnn Staffto StateIme nt rato rn o
East Point, Docuent320 1availabe o othdero publicAiSpnringelCcy throug the NatonarTchncaAirraf Deayen InformationrServicF ,experimal Desain Srigfildsirgniai216Ai Poriel Siagmulato Model T- 4 'rgAenyCd
omT F r 700.7 contain Repprtcion docmetiod for thee i led anaysi
DATA PACKAGE NO. IAIRPORT IMPROVEMENT
TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIES
................. I ... .liii..... ....... .. .
... .. ..... ........ ~p ep re for........
DEPARTMENT.. OF TRANPORTTIO.. E..RA. AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
.............. under contract......... ....... .A ...A .3961
Peat MarickMitcell Co. ~ ~ ~ ~ PI 1978..........
PEAT MA RICK. MITCHELL & CO.P. 0. BOX 8007
*SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SAN FRANCISCO, CAVFORNIA 94128
gTelephone: (415) 347-9521
April 14, 1978!
Mr. Ray Fowler, AEM-100Federal Aviation Administration800 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20591
Re: Input Data for Atlanta Simulation Model Calibrationand Annual Delay Baseline Experiment
Dear Ray:
Enclosed are some data materials for use during the secondTask Force meeting on April 20, 1978:
0 • Attachment A contains the preliminarycalibration data package. Additionaldata are required from NAFEC and theTask Force to complete this package.
0 Attachment B contains the preliminaryannual delay baseline data package.
These attachments contain information that should be reviewed,revised, and approved by the Atlanta Task Force prior to usein model runs.
Sincerely,
Stephen-L. M. HockadayManager S- n
Accessionfl'orSLMH/nbe -NT'IS &i
tTIC T.Enclosure U,1annotr-cc d
Jucc: Mr. J. R. Dupree (ALG-312)
Mr. B. Drotts (ASO-4) (w/encl)
Di ,t r ~u1t I cr!01
I Iu
- -II -P 'VI
Attachment A
PRELIMINARY CALIBRATION DATA PACKAGE
i
i
WILLIAM B HARTSFIELD
ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
I
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
III4Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.j San Francisco, California
April 14, 1978
INPUT DATA
A. LOGISTICS
1. Title: Atlanta International Airport AirfieldSimulation model Calibration Run
2. Random Number Seeds: 2017, 3069, 4235, 5873, 6981,7137, 8099, 9355, 0123, 1985.
3. Start and Finish Times: 1430 to 1700.
4. Print Options: Detailed run for one random number seed.I Summary run for ten random number seeds.
5. Airline Names: Name Code
Air Freight AFAir Taxi ATBraniff BDelta DLEastern EANorthwest NWPiedmont PISouthern soTrans World TW
United UA
6. Processing Options: First run to check model input.Other runs in COMPUTE mode.
7. Truncation Limits: + 3 standard deviations.
B. Time Switch: Not applicable.
B. AIRFIELD PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
9. Airfield Network: See Figure 1.
10. Number of Runways: 3.
11. Runway Identification: 26, 27L and 27R.
12. Departure Runway End Links: 180, 238.
13. Runway Crossing Links: 191, 187, 202, 230, 353, 185,354, 313, 347.
14. Exit Taxiway Location: To be based on existing airfieldconfiguration and only those exitsused during field data collectionfor calibration.
115. Holding Areas: Holding for (a) EA at north end of Runway 15,and (b) DL on taxiways P and R as appropriate.
I 16. Airline Gates: See Figure 2.
17. General Aviation Basing Areas: Two areas, one to west ofterminal area and one toeast of terminal area.
IC. ATC PROCEDURES
18. Aircraft Separations: These values are based on capacitymodel data--may be revised as a
1 result of reduced field data.Arrival-Arrival Separation (n.m.) - All cases except
1. VFRas noted.
Trail Aircraft ClassIA B C D
Lead A 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.59Aircraft B 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.5
Class C 2.9 3.7 3.1 3.1
2.IRD 4.1 5.1 4.7 4.1
Trail Aircraft ClassA B C D
Lead A 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.5Aircraft B 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.5
Class C 4.5 4.5 3.3 3.3D 6.5 6.5 5.5 4.5
4
22. Vectoring Delays:
* This input allocates delays among vectoring and holding.Model input values will be used that hold arrival air-craft if delays to arrival aircraft exceed 10 minutes.
23. Departure Runway Queue Control:
Aircraft are assigned departure runways to precludeI airspace crossovers, not to balance departure queues.
g24. Gate Hold Control:Aircraft are held at gates when departure queue atrunway is 10 or more, except when gate holds would
I cause gate congestion.
25. Departure Airspace Constraints:
Aircraft are not held at gates due to departure airspaceconstraints.
I26. Inter-Arrival Gap:With this runway use, arrival aircraft are delayed inI the arrival airspace when departure delays exceed10 minutes.
I27. Runway Crossing Delay Control:Arrival and departure runway operations are only inter-rupted for a taxiing aircraft to cross an active runway
* when the taxiing aircraft is delayed by 10 minutes ormore.
D. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
28. Exit Taxiway Utilization:
Exit Utilization (percent)A/C
Class GG F C
IRunway A 10026 B 75 25
C 100D 100
!
IExit Utilization (percent)
9 A/CClass Y X W U
Runway A 10026L B 100
C 65 35
D 20 80
29. Arrival Runway Occupancy Times:
Runway Occupancy Time (seconds)A/C
Class GG F C
Runway A 4826 B 41 50
C 60D 60
A/CClass Y X W U
Runway A 3726L B 48
c 45 65D 45 65
I 30. Touch & Go Occupancy Times:
Aircraft Runway Occupancy Time (seconds)Class Mean Standard Deviation
A 22 3I B 23 3
C 27 4D 27 4
I 31. Departure Runway Occupancy Times:
Aircraft Runway Occupancy Time (seconds)Class Mean Standard Deviation
A 23 3B 26 3C 37 4D 37 4
f32. Taxi Speeds: To be based on reduced field data.
I
Departure-Departure Separations (seconds)
1. WE R
Trail Aircraft ClassIA B C D
Lead A 25 30 40 50Aircraft B 30 40 45 50
Class C 45 45 60 60D 120 120 120 90
12. FTrail Aircraft Class
A B C D
Lead A 60 60 60 60Aircraft B 60 60 60 60
Class C 60 60 60 60D 120 120 120 90
19. Route Data: See Figure 3.
j20. Two-Way Path Data:Two-way taxiways are located as follows:
I1. Taxiway A.
2. Taxiway B between Taxiways V and P.
3. Taxiway F.
21. Common Approach Paths:
Arrival Aircraft Length of CommongRunway Class Approach Path_
26 A 3.0B 3.0IC. 5.0D 5.0
27L A 3.0B 3.0C 5.0
eD 5.0
33. Approach Speeds:
Aircraft Approach Speed (knots)Class Mean Standard Deviation
I A 95 10B 120 10C 130 10D 140 10
34. Gate Service Times: To be supplied by Task Force.
35. Airspace Travel Times: To be based on reduced fielddata.
36. Runway Crossing Times: To be based on reduced fielddata.
37. Lateness Distribution: To be supplied by Task Force.
38. Demand: To be based on reduced field data.
II
IIeII
OUTPUT DATA
A. FLOW RATES: To be based on reduced field data.
B. DELAYS: To be based on reduced field data.
C. TRAVEL TIMES: To be based on reduced field data.
t
I
I
!
lw_ 0
AIR:FIELD NET-WOR;K
WILLIAIV M. H^FARTFIELD ATrLANTA INTrE-F
,,, N
0>
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
- --- - - - - - - - - - - r*-.
LO NETWORK
"LANTA^ INTrERNATrIO:NAL AkIRPOCRT Figure 1
-- ,
COO
-7
I-.3
'0'
<---7
4) C-,C"
o Airlne7at0
C4e-7C4-
(-4
-4f -4
CO-
C.Figure 2
Figure: 2A
L
I..
b0 0
1 04
SL
9 CLtFigure 3a
Arrivals 26
Source: NAFEC
- I-Z
o -;
.- e(
eitr 3bDea0ue 26,
Sotlrc: NAri
V.12.4 .-Z)S.
44
-4
E-4
iCi
II
Figure 3c
Arrivals 27L
Source: NAFEC
Si0
04C4
E-4
0 0
ee
Al
Figure 3d
I Departures 27R
g Source: NAFEC
Attachment B
PRELIMINARY ANNUAL DELAY BASELINEDATA PACKAGE
WILLIAM B HARTSFIELD
I ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
I
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
IIII
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.I San Francisco, California
i April 14, 1978
I- .-. ,-.-.
1. Annual Demand: 516,558 (1977)
2. Group Specification:
3 day groups : High, Average, Low12 week groups 12 months, January through December3 weather groups: VFR, IFRI, IFR2
2 runway uses : Arrivals DeparturesRunway Runway
1. 8, 9R 8, 9L
2. 26, 27L 26, 27R
3. Weekly Traffic:
Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of annualin one week 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.90 1.98 1.95 1.95 1.96 1.98
4. Number of Weeks in Each Group:
Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number ofweeks 4.43 4.00 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43
5. Daily Traffic:
Day Group 1 2 3
% of weeklyin one day 15.0 14.0 13.5
6. Number of Days in Each Group:
Day Group 1 2 3
Number of Days 3 2 2
7. Weather Group Demand Factors:
VFR: 1.00IFRi: 1.00IFR2: 0.90
S. Weather Occurrences:
Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
VFR 82 97 84 93 93 100 93 87 84 92 72 86IFRI 15 3 16 7 7 0 7 13 16 8 22 11IFR2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3
9. Hourly Runway Capacity:
Hourly CapacityRunway Use VFR IFRI IFR2
1 139 114 682 138 114 -
10. Runway Use Occurrences*:
Percent OccurrenceRunway Use VFR IFRI IFR2
1 30.2 8.0 0.82 57.8 3.0 0.2
1i. Hourly Traffic:
% daily % daily % daily % dailya Hour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic
00-01 2.8 06-07 2.4 12-13 6.0 18-19 6.401-02 2.3 07-08 1.4 13-14 4.5 19-20 7.002-03 0.4 08-09 2.4 14-15 4.9 20-21 5.003-04 0.5 09-10 5.1 15-16 7.3 21-22 5.204-05 1.0 10-11 6.0 16-17 6.5 22-23 3.405-06 2.0 11-12 6.6 17-18 6.3 23-24 4.6
12. Demand Profile Factor: 30%
13. Runway Use Demand Factor:
All runway uses accommodate air carrier and generalaviation demand (Demand factor = 1.0).
14. Aircraft Mix: 1% Class A13% Class B73% Class C13% Class D
* PMM&Co. estimates based on 1977 PMS records.
15. Percent Arrivals:
Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals
00-01 49 06-07 10 12-13 38 18-19 4101-02 15 07-08 29 13-14 59 19-20 6102-03 36 08-09 61 14-15 70 20-21 4403-04 42 09-10 69 15-16 55 21-22 4404-05 66 10-11 44 16-17 46 22-23 4905-06 73 11-12 58 17-18 60 23-24 67
16. User-Specified Title: ATL ANNUAL BASELINE
I
I
I
II
I
I
DATA PACKAGE NO. 2AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT
TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIES
................................
. , ......
.......................... 4.
..........1111111.
.. . ........... . . . . . . .
4.l.V ... .. . . . . .. .
prepared for
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
under contract
a. DOT FA77WA -3961
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.JULY 1978
PEAT. MARWICK, MITCHELL & CO.P. o.BOX 8007
SAN PR&NCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SAN P"NCISCO, CATIFORNIA 94128
Telephone: (415) 347-9521
July 7, 1978
Mr. Ray Fowler, AEM-100Federal Aviation Administration800 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20591
Re: Atlanta Data Package No. 2
Dear Ray:
Enclosed are some data materials for use during the fourthTask Force meeting on July 12, 1978:
" Attachment A contains the results of theconstruction experiments. It should bepointed out to all concerned that theseresults are both preliminary, because theyhave not been reviewed or accepted by theAtlanta Task Force, and approximate,because they are derived from simplified"handbook type" analysis techniques andnot from airfield simulation model runs.
* Attachment B contains the results of thefour runway capacity experiments. Again,it should be pointed out that these re-sults are preliminary and approximate.
" Attachment C contains the input data for theremaining Stage 1 experiments. This infor-mation should be reviewed, revised, andapproved by the Atlanta Task Force beforeit is used in model runs.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. M. HcckadayManager
SLMH/nbeEnclosure
cc: Mr. J. R. Dupree (ALG-312)Mr. B. Drotts (ASO-4) (w/encl)
ATTACHMENT A
RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION EXPERIMENTS
William B. HartsfieldAtlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
July 1978
RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION EXPERIMENTS
A manual analysis was performed to estimate the effects ofthe 36-hour closure of Runway 8/26 planned for later in thesummer. The objectives of this analysis were to:
" Obtain order-of-magnitude estimatesof the severity of delays that canbe expected
* Identify the benefits of partialoperation of Runway 8/26 for generalaviation (propeller) aircraft
* Determine the best time of day tostart the 36-hour closure
Figure A-i shows the three alternative runway-use configurationsthat were considered. The left panel in Figure A-1 shows abaseline configuration with Runway 8/26 open. The middle panelshows two parallel runways plus propeller operations onRunway 8/26. In this case, propeller aircraft are assumed toland on one side of the construction area and to depart onthe other side. The right panel in Figure A-1 shows the useof two parallel runways only.
Also shown in Figure A-i are estimates of hourly runway capacitiesassuming 50 percent arrivals. Note that using Runway 8/26 forpropeller aircraft (middle panel) yields a capacity increaseof about 15 to 30 aircraft per hour.
The reason for the range of capacities associated with the"two parallels only" case is that, when both of these runwaysare used for arrivals, there are two alternative ATC procedures,shown as Procedures 1 and 2 in Figure A-2.
In Procedure 1, large (L) aircraft are flown on a courseparallel to, but slightly ahead of, heavy (H) aircraft on theadjacent approach path. In Procedure 2, however, this L-Hstagger is not allowed; instead, wake-vortex separations areprovided behind the heavy aircraft. In other words, Proce-dure 2 treats the situation as a single channel.
Capacity estimates associated with the alternative runway-useconfigurations for the construction closure period are givenin Table A-1 for various arrival percentages. It should beemphasized that these capacity estimates are only approximate,9 having been obtained using manual "handbook" methods.
A graphical comparison of these capacity figures as a functionof arrival percentage is presented in Figure A-3. CurvesC and D in Figure A-3 depict the capacity differences betweenATC Procedures 1 and 2; Curve B shows the benefits of usingthe stub ends of Runway 8/26 for propeller aircraft.
A comparison was also made of these capacities against totalhourly demand (arrivals and departures) by time of day.This comparison is shown in Figure A-4 where the various50-percent-arrival capacities were superimposed on the pro-file of hourly weekday demand.
Figure A-4 was the basis for a deterministic queueing analysisof delays and queue lengths that can be expected during theconstruction period. This analysis was performed using acumulative plot of total hourly demand at Atlanta InternationalArport and superimposing on that graph two alternative hourlyrunway capacities: (1) the Procedure 2 hourly capacity of85 aircraft per hour, and (2) the minimum expected capacity of66 aircraft per hour. It was assumed that delays associatedwith higher capacites, e.g., 99 aircraft per hour, are rela-tively small and stochastically generated, and not very sensitiveto the start time of the closure period. From the resultingcomposite graph, one can measure (or compute):
0 Total delay in aircraft hours
* Maximum and average delay
0 maximum and average queue length
0 Length of congested period
0 Number of aircraft delayed
Results of the deterministic~ queueing analyses are summarizedin Table A-2 for various starting times of the 36-hour con-struction closure.
Deterministic queueing methods provide reasonable estimatesin cases where these are periods of significant length, sayseveral hours, during which the arrival rate is greater thanthe service rate. In such circumstances, the deterministicaspects of the queue formation overshadow the effects ofstochastic fluctuations that occur in the arrival and servicerates. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, it isthought that the deterministic queueing approach used hereinI is a reasonable one for obtaining estimates of the delay impactsof the Runway 8/26 closure and sensitivities to the startingtime.
From the queueing and delay estimates, and other graphicalsolutions, we constructed an approximate graphical relation-ship between peak hourly delays and hourly runway capacityfor Atlanta (see Figure A-5). This graph is probably mostaccurate for smaller values of capacity, say less than90 aircraft per hour. Again, these capacity/delay estimatesare only approximate; no high degree of precision is claimedfor them.
I
.jz0cc-j
.j
ca.
u
IL cca <> i o
4.. CL V- Z
O0 aUU 1 . z4 U U oa.l 0 D
"4 (.1w >- >00 z
o04 0) Zo M L
Z CC,< LU
2~ Au
0U U
0x1
Figure A-2
ALTERNATIVE ATC PROCEDURES
PROCEDURE 1
LL
A) LARGE AIRCRAFT
L L
H H
8) LARGE AND HEAVY
L L
PROCEDURE 2
L L
A) LARGE AIRCRAFT
L L
H
B) LARGE ANDHEAVY AIRCRAFT
I9 L
o0 0(0V
o 0VcoL
< 0 w L
-J-
> 0(
< 0Lt
C.,
z a
~E-4 CV0
ad 04
Z to04 0~ 0W
U) E-4 it
u0 0.M-(
0 E-4
4 E--
LL..
>*Z Z.0D(10 OC)
Z cn 0 0 -
co CL< L
Figure A-3
ATLANTA TASK FORCE DELAY STUDYCONSTRUCTION EXPERIMENTCAPACITY ESTIMATES
BASELINE
-- TWO PARALLELS PLUSPROPS ON 8/26
- - TWO PARALLELS ONLY
WITh PROCEDURE 1
.,_ -- = TWO PARALLELS ONLY150
WITH PROCEDURE 2
139010= MINIMUM CAPACITY
z
10"'130
a..-' . .
0 1140
0 10 20 3o 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
igure A-4 (1)
%ARRIVALS 24 3116 44 80 77 5 28 72 60 34 63 34 57 53 6348 50 31 61 27 63 32 71
190VARIATION OF HOURLY DEMAND
1O
170
160.
150WEEKDAY DAILY DEMAND - 1580 OPERATIONS
140
130
120
110 TOTAL DEMAND
100
z'U
2 802DEPARTURE DEMAND
c 70
50
40
30
20ARIVAL
10
0
0 1 2 34 5 6 7 a 1011 12 13 14 15 19 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24HOURS
200-
190. Figu*. A-4 (2)
COMPARISON OF DEMAND WITHCAPACITY DURING CONSTRUCTION
180,
170-
180
150,
140 -13
130-
1114
110"
t" go-"90
B.
UOR
-66-
60-
50.
40
30
20
10.
0
01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 $ 10 11 12 13 14215 017 101920 2122 2324
HOURS
44 4-4
4.
I O'oO "0 M. 00
U~~41
Q) CU 0 0 L~r-n o
Clq~~ q)
00 C
>4 4) -4S
> - r-0 (Nu .)N -
'.0 - 4cI~ - 4U .A 0 j
4)4.
r 0 4 0
00 C.4). c
E-4 E-4 -4
U))'U ~ oU0
C
Figure A-5
ATLANTA CONSTRUCTION EXPERIMENTSVARIATION OF RUNWAY DELAYS WITH CAPACITY
S
5 •
4
SPEAKHOURRUNWAY 3
9 DELAYS(HOURS)
2
I N ,."I I ,
0 . I , ,,I , t' ,*, '
060 70 80 90 100 110 120
HOURLY RUNWAY CAPACITY
9 (AIRCRAFT PER HOUR)
ATTACHMENT B
FOUR-RUNWAY CAPACITY EXPERIMENTS(Numbers 7 through 11 of Technical Plan)
William B. HartsfieldAtlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
San Francisco, California
July 1978
FOUR-RUNWAY CAPACITY EXPERIMENTS
The PMM&Co. runway capacity model (RCM) was applied toevaluate alternative ways of operating a four-runway con-figuration (Runways 8/26 and Runways 9/27) at Atlanta Inter-national Airport. Four 4-runway cases were analyzed, asshown in Figure B-I. Table B-l contains hourly runwaycapacities for each case as a function of the percentage ofarrivals.
The first three cases correspond to Stage I Experiments 7,9, and 10 of Table 111-2 of the Atlanta Technical Plan. Froma capacity point of view, Experiments 7 and 8 are the same,although there are differences in the airfield operations ofExperiments 7 and 8 (mainly differences in taxiways crossingrunways). Similarly, Case 3 applies, from a capacity stand-point, to both Experiments 10 and 11 of the Technical Plan.Case 2, however, applies only to Experiment 9.
One additional experiment, not called for in the TechnicalPlan, is provided as Case 4 of Figure B-1 and Table B-l.This is the all-operations-on-all-runways configuration thatmight apply for very short, peak-directional time intervals.All of these experiments are for the pre-1985 demand andATC system scenario under VFRI weather with the 8L/26R near-term improvements.
!
Figure B-i
ATLANTA FOUR RUNWAY EXPERIMENTS
1 2
818 R '- p p
9L ----- 4Ci:)
3 4
> ARRIVAL
S DEPARTURE
( HOURLY RUNWAY CAPACITYAT 50 PERCENT ARRIVALS
cc co
ou 5 Le 0
o CD 0 Co
coC
.j O N C
4 C M C 0 0
0 CD CD cc
zU 0 wCcw
(3 1 0rM
0!
,- 9
C 1'* "- 8CD L
I-.
S U 0 o N" cico cc
XA . 9- NCL- 0 -
m z0
.0
U.'
u0
4 __ llttTIU
-a i
(a 0) m c
<~ ccgo"
0L r A - 0 I
cC
0- 0 ..j 0
4J 0
w3
U).ln
• 4= o
co
ATTACHMENT C
DATA FOR REMAINING STAGE I EXPERIMENTS
William B. HartsfieldAtlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
July 12, 1978
ATLANTA STAGE I EXPERIMENTS
At the third Atlanta Task Force meeting on June 14, 1978, anumber of changes were made to the list of Atlanta DelayExperiments that was contained in Table 111-2 of the January1978 Technical Plan. Attachment B of this data packagecovered Experiments 7 through 11 of the original list. Theremaining Stage I experiments, as modified at Atlanta TaskForce Meeting No. 3, are the subject of this attachment.More precisely, input data for the following Stage I Experi-ments are presented herein:
Seq. Experiment* Arrival Departureno- no. Model runways runways Weather Demand Coements
1 1 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFRI Pre-19852 2 ASM B, 9R 8, 9L IFRI Pre-19853 1A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFRI 1978 baseline4 2A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1978 baseline5 3 ASM 9R 8, 9L IFR2 Pre-19856 5 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRl Pre-1985 2.0 n.m.
stagger7 6 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI Pre-1985 1.5 n.m.
staggerB 12 ASM n.a. n.a. n.a. 1978 Only one
in Stage I
*Refers to Original Technical Plan. No. contained in the Minutes of AtlantaAirport Improvement Study, Task Force Meeting No. 3, June 14, 1978.
All other aspects of the Stage I Experiments, e.g., ATCSystem Scenarios and Near-Term Improvements, are as specifiedin Table 111-2 of the Technical Plan.
Input data for each of the foregoing list of experiments arepresenced in the remainder of this attachment.
INPUT DATA FOR EXPERIMENT NO. 1
A. LOGISTICS
1.Title: Atlanta International Airport AirfieldSimulation Model: Stage I Experiments
2. Random Number Seeds: 2017, 3069, 4235, 5873, 6981,7137, 8099, 9355, 0123, 1985.
3. Start and Finish Times: 0830 to 2100 EDT.
4. Print Options: Summary run for ten random number seeds.
5. Airline Names: Name Code
Air Freight A-FAir Taxi ATBraniff BNDelta DLEastern EANorthwest NWPiedmont PISouthern soTrans World TW
IUnited UA
6. Processing Options: First run to check model input.Other runs in COMPUTE mode.
7. Truncation Limits: + 3 standard deviations.
8. Time Switch: Not applicable.
B. AIRFIELD PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
9. Airfield Network: See Figure C-1.
10. Number of Runways: 3.
11. Runway identification: 8, 9L, 9R.
12. DepartureRunway End Links: 194, 300.
V13. Runway Crossing Links: 188, 192, 195, 203, 310, 313.
14. Exit Taxiway Location:
Distance fromRunway Taxiway Link Threshold (feet)
8 E 186 4,8908 F 185 5,7608 V 184 6,6508 G 182 7,5308 H 181 9,2508 K 180 10,0109R X 345 4,6809R Y 347 6,5809R M 351 9,000
15. Holding Areas: Holding for (a) EA at north end of Runway 15,and (b) DL on taxiways P and R as appropriate.
16. Airline Gates: See Figure C-2.
17. General Aviation Basing Areas: Two areas, one to west ofterminal area and one toeast of terminal area(see Figure C-1).
C. ATC PROCEDURES
18. Aircraft Separations: These values are based onReport No. FAA-EM-78-8.
Arrival-Arrival Separation (n.m.) - All cases exceptas noted.
VFR
Trail Aircraft ClassA B C D
Lead A 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9Aircraft B 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
Class C 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.9D 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.7
Departure-Departure Separations (seconds)
VFR - Near Term
Trail Aircraft ClassA B C D
Lead A 35 35 45 50Aircraft B 30 35 45 50Class C 50 50 60 60
D 120 120 120 120
19. Route Data: See Figure C-3.
20. Two-Way Path Data:
Two-way taxiways are located as follows:
1. Taxiway V.
21. Common Approach Paths:
Arrival Aircraft Length of CommonRunway Class Approach Path
8 A 3.0B 3.0C 5.0D 5.0
9R A 3.0B 3.0C 5.0D 5.0
22. Vectoring Delays:
This input allocates delays among vectoring and holding.Model input values will be used that hold arrival air-craft if delays to arrival aircraft exceed 10 minutes.
23. Departure Runway Queue Control:
Aircraft are assigned departure runways to precludeairspace crossovers, not to balance departure queues.
24. Gate Hold Control:
Aircraft are held at gates when departure queue atrunway is 10 or more, except when gate holds wouldcause gate congestion.
25. Departure Airspace Constraints:
Aircraft are not held at gates due to departure airspaceconstraints.
26. Inter-Arrival Gap:
With this runway use, arrival aircraft are delayed ine the arrival airspace when departure delays exceed10 minutes.
27. Runway Crossing Delay Control:
Arrival and departure runway operations are only inter-rupted for a taxiing aircraft to cross an active runwaywhen the taxiing aircraft is delayed by 4 minutes ormore.
D. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
28. Exit Taxiway Utilization:
Exit Utilization (percent)A/CClass C D E F V G H K
Runway8 A 70 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
B 60 20 10 0 10 0 0 0C 0 4 28 24 36 7 0 0D 0 0 0 0 40 60 0 0
Exit Utilization (percent)A/C
Class X Y M
Runway A 100 0 09R B 100 0 0
C 13 83 4D 0 100 0
29. Arrival Runway Occupancy Times:
Runway Occupancy Time (second)A/CClass C D E F V G H K
Runway A 40 45 - - - -
8 B 35 40 50 - - -
C - 35 45 50 60 - - -D . . . . 60 65 - -
A/CClass X Y M
Runway A 45 - -
9R B 50 - -C 40 60 65D - 60 -
30. Touch & Go Occupancy Times:
Aircraft Runway Occupancy Time (seconds)Class Mean Standard Deviation
A 22 3B 23 3C 27 4D 27 4
31. Departure Runway Occupancy Times:
Aircraft Runway Occupancy Time (seconds)Class Mean Standard Deviation
A 34 3B 34 3C 39 4D 39 4
32. Taxi Speeds: To be based on reduced field data.
33. Approach Speeds:
Aircraft Approach Speed (knots)Class Mean Standard Deviation
A 95 10B 120 10C 130 10D 140 10
34. Gate Service Times: To be based on reduced field data.
35. Airspace Travel Times: To be based on reduced fielddata.
36. Runway Crossing Times: 20 seconds.
37. Lateness Distribution: See Table 1.
38. Demand: To be based on reduced field data.
DATA PACKAGE NO. 3AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT
TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIES
...... ......... ......... .*li.i.111 ........................I. .......... ... .....
..........I... pre are.fo....... DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ......
FEDRALAV.T.O.AD.NITRAIO%ude contract.
... DO FA77WA -3961...
I Pat MrwikMichel C......... SETE BE 1978.......
.. ..I. ... .... .... ..
IPEAT. M[ARWICK. MITCHELL & CO.
P. O.BOX 8007
SAN FRANCISCO INTEENATIONAL. AIRPORT
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFOUNIA 94128
Telephone: (415) 347-9521
September 13, 1978
Mr. Ray Fowler, AEM-100Federal Aviation Administration800 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20591
Re: Atlanta Data Package No. 3
Dear Ray:
Enclosed is data package No. 3 for William B. HartsfieldAtlanta International Airport. The package contains theresults of the Stage 1 delay experiments (Attachment A)ad an input data package for Stage 2 experiments(Attachment B).
These data should be reviewed by the Atlanta Task Forceduring the 15th September 1978 Task Force meeting.
Sincerely, /., ., /
-'e
Stephen L. M. HockadayManager
SLMH/sqEnclosure
cc: Mr. J. R. Dupree (ALG-312)Mr. B. Drotts (ASO-4) (w/encl)
!!
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIESAtlanta International Airport
Data Package No. 3
Table of Contents
Page
Attachment A - RESULTS OF STAGE 1 EXPERIMENTS DELAY IExperiment 1A.....................4Experiment 2A.....................7Experiment 1......................11Experiment 2......................14Experiment 3......................19Experiment 5......................22Experiment 6.....................26Experiment 12.....................30
Attachment B - DATA FOR STAGE 2 EXPERIMENTS ......... 37Experiment 28.....................40Experiment 22.....................42Experiment 17.....................44Experiment 18.....................51Experiment 19.....................53Experiment 20.....................60Experiment 21.....................62Experiment 16.....................65Experiment 14.....................69Experiment 15.....................70Experiment 13.....................71Experiment 27.....................72Experiment 25.....................76Experiment 26.....................77Experiment 24.....................78Experiment 23.....................79
Attachment C - COMMON INPUT DATA ............. 80
eI
Attachment A
RESULTS OF STAGE 1 DELAY EXPERIMENTS
William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
September 1978
2
Table A-I
ATLANTA TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIESLIST OF STAGE 1 EXPERIMENTS
ANDINDEX TO RESULTS
Demand/Experiment Runways ImprovementNo. Model Arrivals Departures Weather ATC Page
1A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFR1 1978 4
2A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFR. 1978 7
1 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFRI 1982 11
2 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1982 14
3 ASM 9R 8, 9L IFR2 1982 19
5 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFR 1982-2 n.m. 22
stagger
6 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1982-1.5 n.m. 26
stagger
12 ADM n.a. n.a. n.a. 1978 30
I
04 1
4 C
'-4
E-4 0:'-2 '*
VIM 0-.
r-4 m OD a4-o C N4l -
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a aI1 > N r ~ N (
I o~z '9 .
< <0 j ~ N -~ - ~9- cr4 a
4
EXPERIMENT NO. lA
Objective:
To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in VFRl weather forthe following runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment 2A has same demand and network but in IFRl weather.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 8:00 to 22:00 (14 hours) with 1-hour output summaries.
Results:
Figure (1A) A shows that the total aircraft flow rates varyfrom 33 to 129 aircraft per hour over the 13-hour run. Thepeak hour is from 11:00 to 12:00 hours and contains 70 arrivalaircraft and 59 departure aircraft.
Figure (1A) B shows the pattern of average delays to air-craft and that the peak-hour average delay to arrivals was14.2 minutes while the peak-hour average delay to departureswas 12.1 minutes.
Figure (lA) C shows the pattern of average delays to aircraftusing the taxiways, i.e., taxi-in delay and taxi-out delays,which had peak-hour average values of 0.5 minutes and0.6 minutes, respectively.
FIGURE (LA)A-AVERAGE RUNTfWAY FLOW RATES
160 i I
140_I I I, J
100 I I i --° I ji 'Ii\\,I'.'. 80 r
60. '--'
40 /! ,,I
20 • , tI , ii I ! tiiI __ ___-___
09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Bei nn Ing
FIGURE (lA)S-AVERACE RUNWAY DELAYS
30 ,
__ _ _ _ I I
0:J, I
0
I I Arrivals
3 I I I I js
• I I
./7
12 13 14 is 16 17 is 19 Z I
.wi1z aegtnning
FZGMR (1A)C-AVERAGE " %=RAY DELAYS6, i i I , I
3
~~ - ~ I i I J.....I.........A.1...i.....L...[......
A 23 i i i i I ' 'i j i [ ' i " '
L v ,L.Ltll.i l_ __ , ! I I i-l,
-7. 1 j 1 I -Ar iv1 1 _ _ _ _ 1 j j8 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Roiji Beglnz2±nMUGRE D-AVERACE TrAXIWAY TRAVEL M=~
30 ! 1J' -.... . t
-. II I i, [Ii .J i LLJ. .. . I ________t,!
S I I ! i I I j t j I ______o r i i L ' I * 1 * ] __'___'_
'ijI ': II I I _____
-' I' i1 iji1. I I iiT I
6
2
3 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginninq
II
7
EXPERIMENT NO. 2A
Objective:
To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in IFRl weather for
the following runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment 1A has same demand and network but in VFRl weather.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 8:00 to 22:00 (14 hours) with 15-minute summaries.
Results:
Figure (2A) A shows that total aircraft flows vary from 32to 113 aircraft per hour over the 13-hour simulation run.The peak hour is from 12:00 to 13:00 hours and contained53 arrivals and 60 departures.
Figure (2A) B shows that average delays to aircraft usingthe runways are as high as 33.0 minutes per aircraft. Peakhour average delays are 33.0 minutes for arrivals and25.8 minutes for departures.
Figure (2A) C shows that the peak-period average delays toaircraft using the taxiways are 1.3 minutes for taxi-inand 1.1 minutes for taxi-out.
Figures (2A) E and (2A) F show variation of runway flowrates and delays by 15-minute period. Note that the peak15-minute total flow rate is 31 aircraft per hour, whichis 27 percent of the corresponding peak-hour total flowrate. The peak 15-minute average delays are 42.9 minutesfor arrvials and 34.2 minutes for departures.t
I
I
!
FIGURE (2A) A--AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES
-T I _ _J _ _ f i I160 L I 1 ____
140 -- , LU. II I
L°I./ ! !I .I i _\ _ / I IT iq '120 IIItIIii !
o i I I 1 i t8 9 10 1i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
mouzDgqnnln~g
_______ _ I I. I i I I ! i I30 ... . . . . . , ,. .
I ,'
s~ 9i 10 11 12 13 14 i s 16: 17 i s 19 20 , 21i
, i' i ! /! I !, ! I I ,, ' 1 A i 7 I
Ho /ii~in
t.. ____._____.i___ I .X r f f i.
/ : ; \, ,- \' ! , I '
30
4 , 1
20
0
8 i ole
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginn.±nq
ntGM (2A)C-AVAE.G VAXNAY DEMAY1S9
0_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a j IIIJI
9L 0 11 1 3 1 L15 1I6 17 is 19 20 21
10
E- __I I I_____
a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2
Hour Beqinnizig
FIGURE (2A)E-AVERAGE R.UNWAY FtCW RATES 10
40
,__ _,_, I ,i ,_ ,,
-1 ____ t I _____ ! / -____
, ,_ , _ - J ./ il i*II! f i
20 HllTT3K
jr1i I Ll I I jI I t ii i15A-ivj1 1 t-' 11 J1 1 1 1 1 N 1 r
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
15-Minute Period Beginning
Frim (2A) F-AV'RAGE ROwAy )ErAYS
- I ''I~I,,:i. [I i i , J i .._]_i I fli I I, " '
UI 1 ' '1t4 11 t } t '
20 II _
1 6 .,l
___,_ i __.____t..# ,-'__
810 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2115-Minute Period Beqinning
I
EXPERIMENT NO. 1
objective:
To obtain delay estimates in VFRl weather with the newMidfield Terminal, 1982 demand, and near-term ATC separationsfor the following runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment can be viewed in comparisonwith Experiment No. 1A which was for the old terminal and1978 demand and ATC separations in VFRl weather.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 8:00 to 22:00 with 1-hour output summaries.
Results:
Figure (1A) A shows that the total aircraft flow rates varyfrom 33 to 136 aircraft per hour over the 13-hour run. Thepeak hour is from 19:00 to 20:00 hours and contains 77arrival aircraft and 59 departure aircraft.
Figure (1A) B shows the pattern of average delays to aircraftand that the peak-hour average delay to arrivals was11.6 minutes while the peak-hour average delay to departureswas 12.0 minutes.
Figure (1A) C shows the pattern of average delays to aircraftusing the taxiways, i.e., taxi-in delay and taxi-out delays,which had peak-hour average values of 0.3 minutes and1.9 minutes, respectively.
?IGUt I A-AVEAMG RMIWAY FLOW RATZS 12
160 - .- - - - - - - - - - .
1 4 0 '..
/ , "k ," i , I N I rNIi I I'.k I, ,t I, ! f II\ I f I I I _I
20 -j--- _ __ __ i ii
o , I i 1 1 A I [ ,I I .
0
1 1
40 7 f ____ ij IA IJ I\ ITh J I 1L A11
20 ~.~r 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Boeinaing
?IGIM- IB-AVMANG RMfMYA( 0EAUS
.. .. I ' !! -
° i " I ! ..
30 , ,i _ z'n z , _-
--- 77
. L 10 r1 1 1 i, 15 II T 1 18Dpart ui0eu
10 II_ _ _ 1...
4_~Arrivals)
3 9 la10 132 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 120 21
HourZ DBq9znq
FlGtRE I C--AVERAGE TAXWAY )E:AYS 13
1 Il r J i t r I i ____________
l i iIi , 1 ~I [Ii I I
.........I. li i I F i lF ,." " _ _ L-*b;r , , r-______
' ! 1 t ) I 1 ) \ J.)lIi
- -i - I ___ i . . -i - -~i
I ! i IF I I ji ! I !i
I I TAA! J 9I !ti l l u ll -, i
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 IS 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
FIGURE ID-AV"ERAGE TAXr4AY TRAVEL TTLES
- 20I -I I I L I I II I*1II .L.i...L. 'i J t i !! iIIIKKKV
20 ... !lI~I jI[ I Il
! ; ![!! JtilI!.! t
Ilo t iI Ji I 1117!? I !t______! II. , , I
6 -i I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J I _ _ _ _ _ _
I . ! i ' i I
o 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 :1Hour Beqi~r ing
t
14
EXPERIMENT NO. 2
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates in IFRI weather with the MidfieldTerminal, 1982 demand, and near-term ATC separations for thefollowing runway-use configuration:
Arrival R-nways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment can be compared toExperiment No. 2A to examine differences due to the newdemand, ATC separations, and terminal building compared totoday's IRFI conditions. It can also be compared toExperiment No. 1 to examine differences between 1982 VFRIand IFRI.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 6:00 to 22:00 with 15-minute output summaries.
Results:
Figure (2A) A shows that total aircraft flows vary from 32to 128 aircraft per hour over the 13-hour simulation run.The peak hour is from 11:00 to 12:00 hours and contained60 arrivals and 68 departures.
Figure (2A) B shows that average delays to aircraft usingthe runways are as high as 38.3 minutes per aircraft. Peakhour average delays are 38.3 minutes for arrivals and37.8 minutes for departures.
Figure (2A) C shows that the peak-period average delays toaircraft using the taxiways are 0.2 minutes for taxi-inand 1.3 minutes for taxi-out.
15
Figures (2A) E and (2A) F show variation of runway flowrates and delays by 15-minute period. Note that the peak15-minute total flow rate is 31 aircraft per hour, whichis 27 percent of the corresponding peak-hour total flowrate. The peak 15-minute average delays are 61.7 minutesfor arrvials and 35.4 minutes for departures.
2 A--A;TPAC; RlN4AY F~W R.AT E
140_ _
120
100
S60 TiTi 7 I I
20
a 9 10 11 12 i3 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21
!arBagining
I JFIUR 29--AVERAGE RUNWiAY DELAYS I
301
/~ JI
4 1
Hou Beginning
?tR 2 C-AVEPAGE -AXL--,TY ZELAYS 17
20
8o i . 12 -.3 14 15 1Z1:1 9 0 2Hour 3eqinnincg
FIGURE 2 E-AVEAGE R0W~FLCW RATES1
40--_-
______ ______ iT ta1'
.4 30
25 I II_r __ ij ria j __
2.0
LS__ _
30
3 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 183 1-9 20 2 1
15-Miuiute Period Boqinning
19
EXPERIMENT NO. 3
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates in IFR2 weather with the 1982 demand,Midfield Terminal, and near-term ATC separations for thefollowing runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment can be compared to the resultsof Experiment No. 2 to examine differences between 1982 IFRland IFR2.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 8:00 to 22:00 with 1-hour output summaries.
Results:
Figure (lA) A shows that the total aircraft flow rates varyfrom 27 to 84 aircraft per hour over the 13-hour run. Thepeak hour is from 10:00 to 11:00 hours and contains 31arrival aircraft and 53 departure aircraft.
Figure (lA) B shows the pattern of average delays to aircraftand that the peak-hour average delay to arrivals was260.3 minutes while the peak-hour average delay to departureswas 7.1 minutes.
Figure (lA) C shows the pattern of average delays to aircraftusing the taxiways, i.e., taxi-in delay and taxi-out delays,which had peak-hour average values of 0.1 minutes and4.8 minutes, respectively.
The foregoing very high arrival delays are due to an extendedperiod during which there is an excess of demand over capacity.In practice, IFR2 weather rarely occurs for 14 hours straight.In any event, delays of 260 minutes are unrealistic as can-cellations and diversions would occur long before delaysbecame that great.
FnsunE 3 A--AV-r.AGE RU1,AY FLOW RATES 20
140 1....i....1.!...h1..1II . I io ! I . i I I I I __
_- too -b.-----"-- I L i[__,10 - -- I60 A I£rI7 II
To/oi i I . II J -I I ii ?_J__.[.JLK -- J _--, ' ' _ 4 ,,.J.. -
.- ......--- _.......JILfh ......._J . L.....40 V I.-..-
J i i i J I I i I I II tLLL .I ..L __20 4iit
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginning
I _ FIGVzE 3 B--XVERAGS RUNAY DELAYS
30 ! 1 1 ,4 1 11 1___ I II[i i !
° I / i iI i I I __ i. _ _ _ _ _ _I
20 I I IL iiIIII. . ..... I I! I IjFI _ _ 111!'!. , i I I I I I t II . I _ __ .
'itII I [ti 1i t I I ~iT I
6 , , - _ __ __ I __ __
4
8 9 10 11 12 1- 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
F'I~GE 3C-AVERAGE T XrAY DELAYS 21
_____ ____ ________
3
I H Beginnn I::] i ii tj ;i!" I - I 1 J1 - I ',
IFG 3i4 t D * LDPzftEL 2TRAVL MES" t I i i I} I i I
i I I [ i' i ' I / i , .. 'S . I .I h z ivia' s -
30-
3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21'our Beginning
FtGURE 3 fl-AVERAGE TAI'A TAVEL S
o ) I I I I I ,,SI i _____________
I I i I I I ________
__} i li i i ______
o __ _ _ _ _ _ '
__I,___________ _ I I I I
___________________,___________r_____
Hour 8.qinninq
22
EXPERIMENT NO. 5
objective:
To obtain delay estimates in IFRi weather associated with2.0 nautical mile staggered arrival-arrival separationsproposed for use when simultaneous, independent arrivalscannot be accommodated on the following runway-useconfiguration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment, in particular arrival flowrates and delays, can be compared with the results ofExperiment No. 2.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 8:00 to 13:00 with 15-minute output summaries.
Results:
Figure 5E shows the pattern, by 15-minute time interval,of the average flow rates. The peak 15-minute, averageflow rate occur in the interval 10:45 to 11:00 which containsa total of 25 aircraft of which 12 are arrivals. Thiscompares to the Experiment No. 2 peak flow of 31 aircraftof which 16 are arrivals.
Figure 5F shows the pattern of average runway delays by15-minute period. The peak average arrival delay on thatfigure is 87.2 minutes per aircraft and occurs in theinterval 12:30 to 12:45. The corresponding peak averagearrival delay for simultaneous operations on 8 and 9R (fromExperiment No. 2) is 61.7 minutes per aircraft. The compari-son for departure delays is a peak average delay of12.3 minutes for this experiment versus 35.4 minutes fromExperiment No. 2.
23
Figures 5C shows average taxiway delays for this experiment,by 15-minute interval, for the 5-hour period simulated.
I
I
I
I
1
FIGURE 5 C--AVERAGE TAXrAY DELAYS 24
a __ _ 9__0 1 1 i 4 i 1 i 17 i 19 20 21
2 .. ih i i , i I T ]1 1 i iir I ...... ].....I I I-!! "
I..... L L 1 ! t I I I __ I4)I ' t l ti t l t i-
I I I/ ~ l j _ _ ! ii t i ! I I I ! I 1 ;i " i I .!_ _
9 ! 1 1 2 1 61 17 18 2.9 20 1
15-Mut Period Bginning
FIGURE 5 D-AVERAGE TAXIWAY TRAVEL =T'S
- - . - . - i i. - ,- r ,; t 1 - - -
l iI T! _____li 1
I , iI I { I_i i ii ! ! 1 i~
li t I I L' _____I ! i I
0
, II I 1 1 I II
S20-
8 ?; ii i l ii t
S ; I I I I1i [ i
8 9 2.0 2.i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21oux Beqir~nin
?IGL " 5E--AVRAGE ?nU .-WAY F:CW RA'ES 25
40
30
'o i t iL i I I~ -i i l ! l I
I ,, 1 1 . II .Lti .) Iq--:' I "i I; i ---.- I i { , ; ! '
s6 is _\_____'
i.i l ! .- I i KI I . ! '__ __ _ i I I _ _ _ .IV
S10 t / I ! I i t I I ._____________ ISI' i I L.. ! . I......L j . I2...1....L.....,>... ........ I 21I
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
15-Minute Period Beginning
FIGURE 5F--AVERAGC MnlWAy DELAYS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I , : I i I i i i20 -9 I LLL
S ! I F f f i i! i __ _ _ _ ________ I I I ,
A z r 1, a 1,, , I I Ii ! ! ! ! i i I I .I _ _ _ _ _
_______ I J
1 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 -9 20 21
1!-Minute Period Beginning
__ -- ___ I ____
I 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
26
EXPERIMENT NO. 6
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates in IFRi weather associated with1.5 nautical mile staggered arrival-arrival separationsproposed for use when simultaneous, independent arrivalscannot be accommodated on the following runway-useconfiguration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment, in particular arrival flowrates and delays, can be compared with the results ofExperiment No. 2.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 8:00 to 13:00 with 15-minute output summaries.
Results:
Figure 6E shows the pattern, by 15-minute time interval,of the average flow rates. The peak 15-minute, averageflow rate occur in the interval 10:30 to 18:45 which con-tains a total of 27 aircraft of which 13 are arrivals.This compares to the Experiment No. 2 peak flow of 31aircraft of which 16 are arrivals.
Figure 6F shows the pattern of average runway delays by15-minute period. The peak average arrival delay on thatfigure is 64.7 minutes per aircraft and occurs in theinterval 12:30 to 12:45. The corresponding peak averagearrival delay for simultaneous operations on 8 and 9R (fromExperiment No. 2) is 61.7 minutes per aircraft. The com-parison for departure delays is a peak average delay of22.0 minutes for this experiment versus 35.4 minutes fromExperiment No. 2.
27
Figures 6C shows average taxiway delays for this experiment,by 15-minute interval, for the 5-hour period simulated.
FIG2RE 6 E--AV--AGZ RUNWAY FLCW RATES 28
40I ___ __ I I:
35 ____ __ _ , I [ . I,
30 i _ _ _ _
I;' I +/ __ ___r__
- io___ _________'_"
-. ! ,1 p + t [ I , I'~~~,~ ,____+~ l~ lf iS' ArrivaI J , I
8O 91 0u 2 1315-%Luta Period Beginning
FIGUM 6 i--UGz RUNWAY DEMA-.S
I I________ Ar illII ! _ __ _
4' '/I
ai / __ ,__
•I I I! ,
____. __ _,_ ____ ,__ ' I
9 10 11 12 1
15-Minute Period Beginni.ng
F~Z 6 C-AVIU.AGZ -XA,y :MAYS 29
i Z 1 L 1.2 14 is .16 17 ia i9 213 21
Four BegIingh
?t~ 6 O-AVEAG7Z -A-V 7SAVC -.-M=
* . : i4 7 .3 zI
Hour Beqit-.nq
30
EXPERIMENT NO. 12
Objective:
To determine average annual delays to aircraft in 1978.
Related Comparison Experiments:
None in Stage 1.
Results:
With the annual demand of 534,586 operations for the periodJuly 1977 through June 1978, average annual delays wereestimated to be 3.92 minutes per aircraft. Seventy-ninepercent of the delays were less than or equal to two minutes.
On the average day of the peak month, peak hour averagedelays are as high as 9.0 minutes (during IFRi weather condi-tions) . For the most frequent weather condition (VFR1weather), average peak hour delays were 6.7 minutes.
(See attached ADM output and list of inputs.)
A AIFF, PFT STL0Y CCNEITIC0PCATL t?3 ASELINE
AT LEAST -IESS THAN OCCL'PFENCE
0. 0 T
.1 TO .
.4 7 0 .5 202. 70T .6 L
.6 TO .7.0
.7 70 1.0 2.2
0 TO i. .I.0 T1 7-.7.
.1. 1 TO .62
P1INLl TE5. PERCENTL H "7r'd OCCL PRENCE
0. 0 TO .500
7o 0 .0
.. TO 1.f~ Z'
0 T 0 4.,
4.0L TO 5.0L
f.~5 tl 3
t 1 7.
L).
AVRPE PEAK HCUR F.A ORPEAK MCNTH.. RYO. DtRY
PEAK HOUR NlUMBER OF NUML OF.;LmliAy kIE37TER? PEzCV17 Pv' GE DELAI~ EAMR~RATE' CVERLOPD
V57-CUtP OCUR PENCE (MINUTES.) HOURS HOURS
-0- . 0 076a.; 2
2589.2 6.7 0 0
2.2 a.; 2
-: JNLP7L L -Er9"i6 HCURS
= J92 MIPIUTESA/tZRCFPT7
-71
-,. r r Lu
-7. C, 7if"LCC
4
L44
-4, -O~L Cjz cC. ~'
34
(Revised)
INPUT DATA - EXPERIMENT NO. 12
Annual Delay Model
1. Annual Demand: 534,586 (last 6 months of 1977 and
first 6 months of 1973).
2. Group Specification:
3 day groups High, Average, Low12 week groups : 12 months, January through December3 weather groups: VFR, IFRl, IFR2
2 runway uses Arrivals DeparturesRunway Runway
1. 8, 9R 8, 9L
2. 26, 27L 26, 27R
3. Weekly Traffic 1977:
Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of annual4n one week 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.90 1.98 1.95 1.95 1.96 1.98
4. Number of Weeks in Each Group:
Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number ofweeks 4.43 4.00 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43
5. Daily Traffic (1977):
Day Group 1 2 3
% of weeklyin one day 15.0 14.0 13.5
6. Number of Days in Each Group:
Day Group 1 2 3
Number of Days 3 2 2
7. Weather Group Demand Factors:
VFR: 1.00IFRl: 1.00IFR2: 0.90
3. Weather Ccureces:
Wee", ut . 2 3 4 5 -
"FR 32 97 34 93 91 2 -2iFRi 15 is1 7 7 7 2 22 "
3FR2 3
9. Houri> Punwa- Capacity:
Hourly Capacity
Runway Use VFR IFRI FR2
1 132 i0 68
2 132 ii0 6
10. Runwa'i Use IOccurrences*:
Percent OccurrenceRunway Use 7R :FRI FR2
1 30.2 8.0 0.8
2 57. 3.0 0.2
L1. Hourl; Traffic (1978)
% d.ily % daily % daily % dailyuou taffc ou f ic : u traf =
.....r traff- Hoir raffi Hour traffic Hour .....
3.1 06-7 2.9 12-13 6.1 13-19 6.4I-.6 7-0 1.3 13-14 4.3 19-20 6.3
2-03 0.2 33-09 3.2 14-15 4.9 20-21 5.333-04 0.3 19-13 6.7 1I-16 6.3 21-22 4.234-35 .6 10-11 6.7 16-17 6.3 22-23 3.2
-2 11-12 6.3 17-13 6.4 23-24 5.2
12. Demand Profile Factor: 30%
. .rnway Use Demand Factor:
All runway uses accommodate air carrier and generala,7iation demand (Demand factor = 1.0).
14. Aircraft Mix: 1% Class A13% Class B71% Class C15% Class D
PM.;Co. estirmates based on 1977 PMS records.
36
15. Percent Arrivals (1978):
Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrival.
00-01 24 06-07 5 12-13 34 18-19 3101-02 31 07-08 28 13-14 57 19-2' 6102-03 16 08-09 72 14-15 53 20-21 2703-04 44 09-10 69 15-16 63 21-22 63
04-05 80 10-11 34 16-17 46 22-23 3205-06 77 11-12 63 17-18 59 23-24 78
16. User-S2ecified Title: ATL ANNUAL BASELINE
~37
I
Attachment B
DATA FOR STAGE 2 EXPERIMENTS
William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
!!
I Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
September 1978
I1
~~38
4- -1- Z z 4
.- 4-4.4-4 0 -. -
I c LIT: Lc f% -4
) -4 ~ 4 -4 * *
(1)0 E 0 0 00 4
0 coJ cc -4- (' -4 C) ' 4
00 0004-
4 1.441 0~- -40 0 0 0 4:
'-4-4wc. N 1 .4-r N t - Crd oo oo * * oc 0 c o > 1
z )J-J C a a d r
~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0
4J(~-- -40 -4f-f 'd-0 0C
4) ol
4 rrlf f C20 0 0fu z
a4: . .x
MJ .4 4 -'a) C
4-m r4 -q -1 c- I-o , *i jo Go 0 c(7) ON C; C' --4
z -41)
z C4 rX z z
0 E-4
E-- Ix 4 4-
< C) z 7" ~Ez~ E- E l
C -1
< -4
-4 C0 1 4C 4 co4 C4 m 61O
-4 -
.~~~ OEO- C2
0 0ao o7 0 -4 4 C
i C4 - - - 0
~x :3 a) - ~z
00 -4-~ Z Z LWE-~ ~I~ C Cl Ca)
Cl Cl zH - - 0
40
EXPERIMENT NO. 28
objective:
To obtain 1978 delay estimates assuming that there are twodeparture tracks per runway, i.e., no environmental constraints,for the following runway use in IFR1 weather:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comnarison Experiments:
Results of this experiment can be compared to the results ofExperiment No. 2A of Stage 1 to evaluate benefits of relievingsingle departure track constraint.
Data Changes:
Unconstrained departure-departure separations are used in thisexperiment instead of the constrained values of Stage 1Experiment No. 2A.
(See attached change sheet.)
r ~ start sr4d !izsh, t.~s
iprcessinq
7 Tr'UnC~tiOfl 11~
z.Alr:fiald Pnvg:a : aracter'.stics
N2. e 0 zway s~:a~o
.2 wa ecare :..fia ed i:.
l2 Rx~a c caslm U
.33oldis~q areas
:7-erneraj avatio-I --asir.q azeas
- .; zca!-: seoar3%1=5 'Urnccnstrairned e./e.etrai73
Z~~: 2 60 -2z e way 7..euQ '
-- scc 4:enot :Irt2
:7 R=a7 :r~ss,.nq del.ay cnt~
:3 Xr~a.:n a ~cancy :t.a
azJ7 :-;away :zcc-.an c? .j l
s.szeeds
4 ate 3er-,~:e .. e
-1 A:rsacd -Iave. t.es
A ;eAnd
42
EXPERIMENT NO. 22
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for the case where there are no gateholds in 1982 at Midfield with near-term ATC separations andthe following runway use in IFRI weather:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays associated with anassumed gate-hGld procedure where aircraft are held at thegates when the length of departure queue reaches 10 aircraft.
Data Changes:
Input data item No. 24, "Gate Hold Limits" will be changedfrom the current value of 10 to an arbitrarily large number,say 999.
(See attached change sheet.)
I
* L4az nun-a seeds
4 ?rL:. oz:--s
2 rzcessL~q ?la%
-.. eza:-.L-a =-=-day azd .in<3
20 n azeas
:7 zee3 v:~. as;.:. azeaa
7ct:.r1.q old.ys
- :ar z cn~d' 'n -an ,7
a. 3 r -- Lr e -.
- z~:'-s.~-o -~wy Czupancry t;:e
- e dr Zd4V q f*.Z-flCV tLXS
7AI3ec
* Z. i-n&C
EXEPR:,s:ENT 17 I
Object ive:
To obtain delay7 estimates for 1982 demand, near-e ter. AC,,Mi-dfi*eld, and -he fourth ru;nway, 3L/26R, where the "inboard ,runways are ued for arrivals with the follswino runa _SeIn F , weather:
Arriv al Runways Departure Runways
8R, 9L 3:, 9R,
Related Comoarison- Ex;Deriments:
E:xneriment 'To. 18 estimates the delav for the same casebuwith- arrivals on the "ou-tboard" runways. Experiment No. 20also has arrivals on the "outboard" runways, but in 1937.Ex eriment No. 2 is the corresponding 3-runway case.
TData Changes and Needs:
" Runway assignments in the schedule.
" ATC nrocedures for deoartures cro-ssi~r. thearriv:al runways.
(See attached dat-a inp3ut sheets.)
. T-4tle: Atlanta Iterna, :ora or AriE mUl:1atir 10- del- 1: 3ae2 x -~
2. Pandorr. NurherSeeds: 2017, 1069, 42'5, 5772, ;59I,7137, 2,093, 92, 3: 227 1335
-.Sart an~d Fini sh Tie:0330 to 213C E-T in 3-ho-ursaunma rie s.
4. ri nt s t o ns: 1-hour summaries 5cjr te-n rando -umer
. A~rlin4r.e N;amres:
Ai Freight AF
Air Taxi AT
Delta DT
Eastern zNorthwest vPiedmont piSouthern soIrans WorldT'Jnited UACeneral Az'iattio.-
P* rocecsing rOctions: First r'ur to check mode npt.Ot he r run s i n CG-,MPU'' TF mnodeP.
7. Tr--nc a ti4o n Liits: 3 standard" devia cions.
-.-Tie S':witch: Not anoclicahle.
7. --=-I3L P:IYSICAL CIIAACTEPSTIcCS
. ried et--wo-,rk: Se e Ficruire C-5
I0 ;,n h Er o f 7--;nw av s 4.
AD-A092 455 PEAT MARWICK MITCHELL AND CO SAN FRANCISCO CALIF F/6 1/5TASK FORCE DELAY STUDY. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTERNATI--ETC(U)JUN 80 DOT-FA77WA-3961
UNCLASSIFIED NL
2-
I.IIII IllI 11111
~IlhIhh
46
12. Departure Runway End Links: 340, 378.
13. Runway Crossing Links: 299, 300, 374, 448, 451.
14. Exit Taxiway Location:
Taxiway DistanceRuwy Link Threshold (Feet)
9L 331 4,6509L 333 6,6008R 371 9,3008R 372 6,4508R 373 4,8758R 443 6,6958R 447 4,5008R 449 4,050
15. Holding Areas: Holding for (a) EA at north end ofRunway 15, link 141, and (b) DL ontaxiways P and R as appropriate.
16. Airline Gates: See Figure C-6.
17. General Aviation Basing Areas: Two areas, one to westof terminal area and oneto east of terminal area(see Figure C-5).
C. ATC PROCEDURES
18. Aircraft Separations: These values are based onReport No. FAA-EM-78-8A.
Arrival-Arrival Separation (n.m.)
IFR Near-Term:
Trail Aircraft ClassA B C D
Lead A 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.0Aircraft B 3.7 2.9 3.9 4.0
Class C 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.0D 4.7 4.9 3.9 4.0
47
Departure-Departure Separations (Seconds)
IFR Near-Term:
Trail Aircraft ClassA B C D
Lead A 60 60 60 60Aircraft B 60 60 60 60
Class C 60 60 60 60D 120 120 120 90
Departure-Arrival Separation (n.m.)
IFR Todays:
Trail Aircraft ClassA B C D
Lead A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Aircraft B 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Class C 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0D 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival-Departure Separations (Seconds)
Arrival runway occupancy times.
19. Route Data: (Under development)
20. Two-Way Path Data: 285-552441-131
Two-way taxiways are located as follows:131-441
172 575 440 130
21. Common Approach Paths:
Arrival Aircraft Length of CommonRunway Class Approach Path
8R A 4.0B 4.0C 5.0D 5.0
9L A 4.0B 4.0C 5.0D 5.0
48
22. Vectoring Delays:
This input allocates delays among vectoring and holding.Model input values will be used that hold arrival air-craft if delays to arrival aircraft exceed 10 minutes.
23. Departure Runway Queue Control:
Aircraft are assigned departure runways to precludeairspace corssovers, not to balance departure queues.
24. Gate Hold Control:
Aircraft are held at gates when departure queue at run-way is 10 or more, except when gate holds would causegate congestion.
25. Departure Airspace Constraints:
Aircraft are not held at gates due to departure airspaceconstraints.
26. Inter-Arrival Gap:
With this runway use, arrival aircraft are delayed inthe arrival airspace when departure delays exceed10 minutes.
27. Runway Crossing Delay Control:
Arrival and departure runway operations are only inter-rupted for a taxiing aircraft to cross an active runwaywhen the taxiing aircraft is delayed by 4 minutes ormore.
D. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
28. Exit Taxiway Utilization:
Exit Utilization (Percent)A/C
Class 449 447 373 372 443 371
RunwayB8R A 100 0 0 0 0 0B 98 2 0 0 0 0C 8 15 14 73 0 0D 0 1 8 89 2 1
49
Exit Utilization(Percent)
A/CClass 345 346
Runway 9L A 100 0B 100 0C 50 50D 16 82
29. Arrival Runway Occupancy Times:
Runway Occupancy Time (Second)A/CClass 449 447 373 372 443 371
Runway 8R A 50 - . . .B 47 51 - -
C 38 42 47 60 - -D - 42 47 60 63 65
A/CClass 345 346
Runway 9L A - -B - -
C 40 59D 40 59
30. Touch & Go Occupancy Times:
Runway Occupancy TimeAircraft (Seconds)
Class Mean Standard Deviation
A 22 3B 23 3C 27 4D 27 4
31. Departure Runway Occupancy Times:
Runway Occupancy TimeAircraft (Seconds)
Class Mean Standard Deviation
A 34 3B 34 3C 39 4D 39 4
50
32. Taxi Speeds: To be based on coded network andcalibration.
33. Approach Speeds:
Aircraft Approach Speed (Knots)Class Mean Standard Deviation
A 95 10B 120 10C 130 10D 140 10
34. Gate Service Times: See Table C-1.
35. Airspace Travel Times: To be based on reduced fielddata.
36. Runway Crossway Times: 20 seconds.
37. Lateness Distribution: See Table C-2.
38. Demand: Computer printout available - copy providedto Task Force Chairman.
I!I
51
EXPERIMENT NO. 18
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1982 demand, near-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the fourth runway, 8L/26R, wherethe "outboard" runways are used for arrivals with the
1 following runway use in IFRI weather:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
I 8L, 9R 8R, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 17 estimates the delay for the same case butwith arrivals, on the "inboard" runways. Experiment No. 20is for "outboard" case but with 1987 demand and ATC scenario.Experiment No. 2 is the corresponding 3-runway case.
Data Changes and Needs:
0 • Runway assignments for schedule
0 ATC procedures for arrivals crossing theI departure runways
(See attached change sheet.)
I
1
I
Experiment Number: 18 ( Input changes from experiment number 17) 52
SIMULATION MODEL INPUT DESCRIPTION OF INPUT CHANGE
a. Lgaistics
I Title
2 Random number seeds
3 Start and finish times
4 Print options
S Airline names
6 Processing options
7 Truncation limits
I Time switch
b. Airfield Phvsical Characteristics
9 Airfield network
10 Number of runways
11 Runway identification
12 Departure runway end links 8R & 9L instead of 8L & 9R
13 Runway crossing links Arrivals cross departure runways
14 Exit taxiway location on 8L and 9R
13 Holding areas
16 Airline gates
17 General aviation basing areas
C. ATC Procedures
18 Aircraft separations
19 Route data Exits on 8L & 9R; departure on 8R & 9L
20 Two-way path data for new routing
21 Comn approach paths
22 Vectorinq delays
23 Departure runway queue control
24 Gate hold control
25 Departure airspace constraints
26 Zeparture queue
27 Runway crossing delay control
d. Aircraft oerational characteristics
25 Exit taxiway utilisation For 8L & 9R exits
29 Arrival runway occupancy times For 8L & 9R30 Touc.n-and-go ruway occupancy timsm
31 2epartuue runway occupancy times For 8R & 9L
32 Taxi speeds Same by link
33 Approach speeds I34 Gate serv.ce times
33 Airspace travel times May differ slightly
36 Runvay crossin smee For arrivals across departure runways37 Lateness distribution
38 emand I
53
EXPERIMENT NO. 19
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, intermediate-term ATC, Midfield Terminal, and the following runway usein IFRl weather:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 20 has the same 1987 demand and ATCbut with the fourth runway 8L/26R and arrivals on the "out-board" runways.
Data Changes and Needs:
0 1987 schedule and assignments (fix, gate,and runway)
(See attached data input summary.)
54
INPUT DATA FOR EXPERIMENT NO. 19
A. LOGISTICS
1. Title: Atlanta International Airport AirfieldSimulation Model: Stage 2 Experiments
2. Random Number Seeds: 2017, 3069, 4235, 5873, 6981,7137, 8099, 9355, 0123, 1985.
3. Start and Finish Times: 0830 to 2130 EDT by 1-hoursummaries.
4. Print Options: Summaries for ten random number seeds.
5. Airline Names:
Name Code
Air Freight AFAir Taxi ATBraniff BNDelta DLEastern EANorthwest NWPiedmont PISouthern soTrans World TWUnited UAGeneral Aviation GA
6. Processing Options: First run to check model input.Other runs in COMPUTE mode.
7. Truncation Limits: + 3 standard deviations.
8. Time Switch: Not applicable.
B. AIRFIELD PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
9. Airfield Network: See Figure C-3.
10. Number of Runways: 3.
11. Runway Identification: 8, 9L, 9R.
12. Departure Runway End Links: 340, 378
13. Runway Crossing Links: 299, 300, 374, 448, 451.
14. Exit Taxiway Location:
Taxiway DistanceRunway Link Threshold (Feet)
9L 331 4,6509L 333 6,6008R 371 9,3008R 372 6,4508R 373 4,8758R 443 6,6958R 447 4,5008R 449 4,050
15. Holding Areas: Holding for (a) EA at north end ofRunway 15, and (b) DL on taxiways Pand R as appropriate.
16. Airline Gates: See Figure C-6.
17. General Aviation Basing Areas: Two areas, one to westof terminal area and oneto east of terminal area(see Figure C-1).
C. ATC PROCEDURES
18. Aircraft Separations: These values are based onReport No. FAA-EM-78-8A.
Arrival-Arrival Separation (n.m.)
IFR Intermediate-Term:
Trail Aircraft ClassA B C D
Lead A 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7Aircraft B 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7
Class C 3.0 3.1 2.7 2.7D 3.5 3.6 3.2 2.7
56
Departure-Departure Separations (Seconds)
IFR Interimate-Term:
Trail Aircraft ClassA B C D
Lead A 60 60 60 60Aircraft B 60 60 60 60
Class C 60 60 60 60D 90 90 90 90
Departure-Arrival Separation (n.m.):
Assume half-way down to current VFR levels:
Trail Aircraft ClassA B C D
Lead A 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7Aircraft B 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7
Class C 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.8D 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.8
Arrival-Departure Separations (Seconds)
Arrival runway occupancy times.
19. Route Data: See Figure C-4.
20. Two-Way Path Data:
Two-way taxiways are located as follows:
285-552441-131131-441172 575 440 130
21. Common Approach Paths:
Arrival Aircraft Length of CommonRunway Class Approach Path
8 A 4.0B 4.0C 5.0D 5.0
9R A 4.0B 4.0C 5.0 ID 5.0
p
57
22. Vectoring Delays:
This input allocates delays among vectoring and holding.Model input values will be used that hold arrival air-craft if delays to arrival aircraft exceed 10 minutes.
23. Departure Runway Queue Control:
Aircraft are assigned departure runways to precludeairspace corssovers, not to balance departure queues.
24. Gate Hold Control:
Aircraft are held at gates when departure queue at run-way is 10 or more, except when gate holds would causegate congestion.
25. Departure Airspace Constraints:
Aircraft are not held at gates due to departure airspaceconstraints.
26. Inter-Arrival Gap:
With this runway use, arrival aircraft are delayed inthe arrival airspace when departire delays exceed10 minutes.
27. Runway Crossing Delay Control:
Arrival and departure runway operations are only inter-rupted for a taxiing aircraft to cross an active runwaywhen the taxiing aircraft is delayed by 4 minutes ormore.
D. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
28. Exit Taxiway Utilization:
Exit Utilization (Percent)A/CClass 449 447 373 372 443 371
Runway 8 A 100 0 0 0 0 0B 98 2 0 0 0 0C 8 15 14 73 0 0D 0 1 8 89 2 1
58
Exit Utilization(Percent)
A/CClass 331 333
Runway 9R A 100 0
B 100 0
C 50 50D 16 84
29. Arrival Runway Occupancy Times:
Runway Occupancy Time (Second)A/C
Class 449 447 373 372 443 371
Runway 8 A - - -
B 47 51 - - -
C 38 42 47 60 63 -D - 42 47 60 63 65
A/CClass 331 333
Runway 9R A - -B - -C 40 59D 40 59
30. Touch & Go Occupancy Times:
Runway Occupancy TimeAircraft (Seconds)
Class Mean Standard Deviation
A 22 3B 23 3C 27 4D 27 4
31. Departure Runway Occupancy Times:
Runway Occupancy TimeAircraft (Seconds)
Class Mean Standard Deviation
A 34 3B 34 3C 39 4D 39 4
II
U 59
32. Taxi Speeds: To be based on coded network andcalibration.
33. Approach Speeds:
Aircraft Approach Speed (Knots)-Class Mean Standard Deviation
A 95 10B 120 10C 130 10D 140 10
34. Gate Service Times: See Table C-1.
35. Airspace Travel Times: To be based on reduced fielddata.
36. Runway Crossway Times: 20 seconds.
37. Lateness Distribution: See Table C-2.
38. Demand: Computer printout available - copy will beprovided to Task Force Chairman along withresults of Stage 2 runs.
60
EXPERIMENT NO. 20
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, intermediate-termATC, Midfield Terminal, the fourth runway 8L/26R, and thefollowing runway use in IFRI weather:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8L, 9R 8R, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 18 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 19 has the same 1987 demand and ATC,but without the fourth runway.
Data Changes and Needs:
o 1987 schedule and assignments (fourthrunway)
(See attached change sheet.)
dlI
Experiment Number: 20 ( Input changes from experiment number 19) 61
SIMULATION MODEL INPUT DESCRIPTION OF INPUT CHANGE
a. Loaistics
9 I Title
2 Random number seeds
3 Sta.xt and finish times
4 Print options
5 Aixline names
S6 Processing options
7 Tr uncation limits
I Tim& switch
S b. Air-field Physical charac-teristics
9 Airfield ne-dork
10 Number of runways Fourth runway 8L!26R11 Runway identification 8L/26R12 Departure runway end links
L3 Runway crossing links For arrivals on 8L
14 Exit taxiway location For 8L
15 Holding areas
16 Airline gates
17. General aviation basing areas
c. ATC Procedures
18 Aircraft separations
19 Route data For 8L exits
20 Two-way path data From 8L
21 coZnmon approach paths
22 Vectoring delays
23 Ceparte. mnway queue control For 8L-8R
24 Gate hold control
25 Zepar.*re aizspace constraints
26 Ceparvuze queue
27 Runway crossing delay control
A d. Aircraft Oorational c=aracteristics
23 Exit taxiway utl41zatiGn For 8L
29 Arrival runway occupancy times For 8L
30 Touch-and-go runway occupancy times
3: epaarture runway occupancy times
32 Taxi speeds
33 Approachi speeds
34 Gate service t'nea
35 Airspace travel times For 8L
36 Runway crossing ti.mes For arrivals on 8L37 Lateness dis r bution
33 Zemand
62
EXPERIMENT NO. 21
Objective:
To be defined by Task Force. IRelated Comparison Experiments:
To be defined by Task Force. I
Data Changes and Needs:
To be defined by Task Force.
Experiment Number: 21 ( Input changes from experiment number 63
SIMULATION MODEL INPUT DESCRIPTION OF INPUT CHANGE
a. Loaistics
I Title
2 Random number seeds
3 Sta&-. and Oimish tea
4 Pri.nt options
5 Airline names
6 Processinq options
7 Truncation limits
I Time switch
b. Airfield PhysicaL Characteristics
9 ALif ield neork
0 lIumber of runways11 Runway identLfication
12" Departure runway and links
13 Runway crossing liks
14 Exit taxiway location
15 Holding areas
16 Airline gates
17 General aviation basing areas
c. ATC Procedures
18 Aircraft separations
19 Route data20 Two-way path data
21 Cozoon approach paths
22 Vectoring delays
23 Ceparzure runway queue cont-ol
24 Gate hold control
25 3eparture airspace constraints
26 :epartuxe queue
27 Runway crossing delay control
d. Aircraft aeratianal Caracteristics
22 Exit :axz.way utilization
29 Arrival runway occupancy times
30 Touch-and-qo runway occupancy times
31 Departure runway occupancy times
32 Tax.% speeds33 Approach spoeeds
34 Gate Sel"tiCe t.,1esl
"33 Aizgpaee travel times
36 Runway crossing t*es"
37 Lateness distJrlbuton
3 8 Zomand
64
Table B-3
LIST OF STAGE 2 ANNUAL DELAY MODEL (ADM) EXPERIMENTSAND INDEX TO INPUT DATA
Sequence Stage 2 ATC No. of
No. Experiment No. Demand System Terminal Runways Page
1 16 1982 Today Old 3 65
2 14 1982 192 Old 3 69
3 15 1982 Today New 3 70
4 13 1982 1982 New 3 71
5 27 1987 Today Old 3 72
6 25 1987 --01987 V Old 3 76
7 26 1987 Today New 4 77
8 24 1987 -p 1987/ New 4 78
9 23 -1987 V*Z-7 New 6 mo. -3 796 mo. - 4
65
EXPERIMENT NO. 16
Objective:
To obtain estimates of average annual delays and distributionof delays to aircraft assuming 1982 demand, today's ATCsystem, the old terminal, and three runways.
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 14 is same but with near-term ATC.Experiment No. 15 is the same but with new terminal.Experiment No. 13 is same but with both near-term ATC andnew terminal.
(See attached input data summary.)
66
INPUT DATA - EXPERIMENT NO. 16
Annual Delay Model
1. Annual Demand: 620,000 (1982)
2. Group Specification:
3 day groups : High, Average, Low12 week groups : 12 months, January through December3 weather groups: VFR, IFRI, IFR2
2 runway uses Arrivals DeparturesL t Runway Runway
.--- c7 8, 9R 8, 9L2. 26, 27L 26, 27R
3. Weekly Traffic 1977 (Same distributior assumed for 1982):*
Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of annual .87 '-
in one week 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.90 1.98 1.95 1.95 1.96 1.98
4. Number of Weeks in Each Group:
Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of
weeks 4.43 4.00 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43
5. Daily Traffic (1977):
Day Group 1 2 3
% of weekly inone day 15.0 14.0 13.5
6. Number of Days in Each Group:
Day Group 1 2 3
Number of Days 3 2 2
7. Weather Group Demand Factors:
VFR: 1.00IFRl: 1.00IFR2: 0.90
*Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. estimates based on 1977 PMS
records and Atlanta ATC Tower Counts.
67
8. Weather Occurrences:
Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
VFR 82 97 84 93 93 100 93 87 84 92 72 86IFRI 15 3 16 7 7 0 7 13 16 8 22 11IFR2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3
9. Hourly Runway Capacity:
Hourly CapacityRunway Use VFR IFRI IFR2
1 (under development)2
10. Runway Use Occurrences*:
Percent OccurrenceRunway Use VFR IFRI IFR2
1 30.2 fo 8.0 sS* 0.8 "2 57.8. 3.0 tC 0.2 -s
11. Hourly Traffic (1979):
% daily % daily % daily % dailyHour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic
00-01 3.1 06-07 2.9 12-13 6.11° 18-19 6.401-02 1.6 07-08 1.0 13-14 4.3 19-20 6.302-03 0.2 08-09 3.2fc, 14-15 4.9; 20-21 5.303-04 0.3 09-10 6.7" 115-16 6.3 21-22 4.2-'04-05 0.6 10-11 6.7i -16-17 6.8 22-23 3.205-06 2.0 11-12 6.3 17-18 6.4 23-24 5.2
12. Demand Profile Factor: 30%
13. Runway Use Demand Factor:
All runway uses accommodate air carrier and generalaviation demand (Demand factor = 1.0).
14. Aircraft Mix: 1% Class A13% Class B75% Class C11% Class D
* PMM&Co. estimates based on 1977 PMS records. Assumed same
for 1982.
68
15. Percent Arrivals (1978):
Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals
00-01 24 06-07 5 12-13 34 18-19 3101-02 31 07-08 28 13-14 57 19-20 6102-03 16 08-09 7-2 14-15 53 20-21 2703-04 44 09-10 69 15-16 63 21-22 6304-05 80 10-11 34 16-17 46 22-23 3205-06 77 11-12 63 17-18 59 23-24 78
16. User-Specified Title: ATL ANNUAL DELAY NO. 16.
iI
II
69
EXPERIMENT NO. 14
Objective:
To obtain estimates of average annual delays and distribu-tions of delays to aircraft for 1982 demand, near-term ATCsystem, and the old terminal.
Related Comparison Experiments:
See Table B-3 and Experiment No. 16.
Data Changes From Experiment No. 16:
0 Capacities for near-term separations
70
EXPERIMENT NO. 1.5
Objective:
To obtain estimates of average annual delays and distribu-tions of delays to aircraft for 1982 demand, today's ATCsystem, and the new terminal building.
Related Comparison Experiments:
See Table B-3 and Experiment No. 16.
Data Changes From Experiment No. 16:
* New capacities and demand-delay relationshipsassociated with new terminal area location
71
EXPERIMENT NO. 13
Objective:
To obtain estimates of average annual delays and distribu-tions of delays to aircraft for 1982 demand, near-term ATCsystem, and the new terminal building.
Related Comparison Experiments:
See Table B-3 and Experiment No. 16.
Data Changes From Experiment No. 16:
" Capacities for near-term ATC separations
" Capacities and demand-delay relationshipsassociated with new terminal area location
72
EXPERIMENT NO. 27
Objective:
To obtain estimates of average annual delays and distribu-tions of delays to aircraft for the 1987 demand imposed ontoday's ATC system, terminal building, and 3 runways.
Related Comparison Experiments:
(See Table C-3.) Experiments 25, 26, 24, and 23 have samedemand, but they have different ATC, terminal, or numberof runways.
(See attached input data summary.)
73
INPUT DATA - EXPERIMENT NO. 27
Annual Delay Model
1. Annual Demand: 690,000 (1987)*
f2. Group Specification:
3 day groups : High, Average, Low12 week groups : 12 months, January through December3 weather groups: VFR, IFRI, IFR2
2 runway uses : Arrivals DeparturesRunway Runway
1. 8, 9R 8, 9L2. 26, 27L 26, 27R
3. Weekly Traffic 1977 (assumed unchanged):
Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of annualin one week 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.90 1.98 1.95 1.95 1.96 1.98
4. Number of Weeks in Each Group:
Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number ofweeks 4.43 4.00 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43
5. Daily Traffic (1977):
Day Group 1 2 3
% of weeklyin one day 15.0 14.0 13.5
6. Number of Days in Each Group:
Day Group 1 2 3
Number of Days 3 2 2
7. Weather Group Demand Factors:
VFR: 1.00IFRl: 1.00IFR2: 0.90
I*PMM&CO. estimate based on ATA and FAA forecasts.I
74
8. Weather Occurrences:
Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
VFR 82 97 84 93 93 100 93 87 84 92 72 86IFRI 15 3 16 7 7 0 7 13 16 8 22 11IFR2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3
9. Hourly Runway Capacity (Today's ATC System):
Hourly CapacityRunway Use VFR IFRI IFR2
1 Under development2
10. Runway Use Occurrences*:
Percent OccurrenceRunway Use VFR IFRI IFR2
1 30.2 8.0 0.82 57.8 3.0 0.2
11. Hourly Traffic (1978):
% daily % daily % daily % dailyHour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic
00-01 3.1 06-07 2.9 12-13 -6-.-l 18-19 -6.401-02 1.6 07-08 1.0 13-14 .,4-3 19-20 6.302-03 0.2 08-09 .33--.2,. 14-15 K4-9 20-21 -;5.3 03-04 0.3 09-10 7r6 ,7 15-16 6-.- 3 21-22 -: 4.204-05 0.6 10-11 6.7 16-17 , 8 22-23 3.205-06 2.0 11-12 -6.3 17-18 '6-4 23-24 5.2
12. Demand Profile Factor: 30%
13. Runway Use Demand Factor:
All runway uses accommodate air carrier and generalaviation demand (Demand factor = 1.0).
14. Aircraft Mix: 1% Class A13% Class B69% Class C17% Class D
e* PMM&Co. estimates based on 1977 PMS records.
!
II
75
15. Percent Arrivals (1978):
Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals
00-01 24 06-07 5 12-13 34 18-19 3101-02 31 07-08 28 13-14 57 19-20 6102-03 16 08-09 72 14-15 53 20-21 2703-04 44 09-10 69 15-16 63 21-22 6304-05 80 10-11 34 16-17 46 22-23 3205-06 77 11-12 63 17-18 59 23-24 78
16. User-Specified Title: ATL ANNUAL INIMPROVED DELAY FOR 1987.
76
EXPERIMENT NO. 25
Objective:
To obtain estimates of average annual delays and the distribu-tion of delays to aircraft for 1987 demand, Intermediate-TermATC system, the old terminal, and 3 runways.
Related Comparison Experiments:
See Table B-3 and Experiment No. 27.
Data Changes From Experiment No. 27:
0 Capacities for Intermediatq-Term ATC system
I
I!
77
EXPERIMENT NO. 26
Objective:
To obtain estimates of average annual delays and the distribu-tion of delays to aircraft for 1987 demand, today's ATC system,the new terminal, and 4 runways.
Related Comparison Experiments:
See Table B-3 and Experiment No. 27.
Data Changes From Experiment No. 27:
0 Capacities and demand-delay relationships for4 runways and the new terminal location
78
EXPERIMENT NO. 24
Objective:
To obtain estimates of average annual delays and the distribu-tion of delays to aircraft for 1987 demand, intermediate-termATC system, the new terminal, and 4 runways.
Related Comparison Experiments:
See Table B-3 and Experiment No. 27.
Data Changes From Experiment No. 27:
a Capacities for -t -meiate-term separations,4 runways, and the new terminal location
* Demand-delay relationships for the newterminal location
I
I
i i n I I I " -
*79
EXPERIMENT NO. 23
Objective:
To obtain estimates of average annual delays and the distribu-tion of delays to aircraft for 19&7-demand, iintiemediate-termATC system, new terminal, 3 runways for 6 months and 4 runwaysfor 6 months.
Related Comparison Experiments:
See Table B-3 and Experiment No. 27.
Data Changes From Experiment No. 27:
" Capacities for intermediate-term separations,3 and 4 runways, and the new terminal location
" Demand-delay relationships for the new terminallocation
* Decision on which 6 months or on how to changeseasonal distributions, etc.
80
Attachment C
COMMON INPUT DATA:
* Airfield Networks
* Taxiway Flows
* Lateness Distribution
* Gate Service Time Distribution
William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
September 1978
81
Table C-i
ARRIVAL AIRCRAFT LATENESS DISTRIBUTION(Average deviation from schedule, excluding
delays due to destination airport)
CumulativeAmount of Time Late or Early Probability
Less than 15 min. early 0.00Less than 0.1 min. early 0.02Less than 0.1 min. late 0.65Less than 5 min. late 0.78Less than 10 min. late 0.85Less than 15 min. late 0.90Less than 30 min. late 0.95Less than 45 min. late 0.98Less than 60 min. late 0.99Less than 65 min. late 1.00
Source: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., analysis ofdata provided by Atlanta Task Force.
82
Table C-2
I GATE SERVICE TIME DISTRIBUTIONAtlanta Task Force Delay Studies
Histogram Points(Times are in minutes)
Aircraft Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5Class Time Prob.* Time Prob. Time Prob. Time Prob. Time Prob.
A 10 0.40 15 0.40 20 0.10 25 0.10
B 15 0.40 20 0.07 25 0.09 30 0.04 35 0.40
C 25 0.47 30 0.13 50 0.40
D 25 0.07 30 0.04 35 0.40 38 0.09 55 0.40
*These probabilities add up to 1.0 across the rows.
Source: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., analysis of data provided byAtlanta Task Force.
/ 0
Ilk
-7 ~i
-AIFIELE3 NE=TWQ:FRKWlLLIpj E3. H /\mRTSFIE-LE3 ATL/\NTA INTEFRNP-IC
83
-
0
- 0S
- T-
N
FC
I.1
:)rRK Figure C-1
ArRFI :LD NE"T'WORK F'OR 1978,*R
* ,ci' Jn n n I I
84
922
ft
-E-4
U3
I -0
0 40
4-9 4
-0 4
-o -~r-9ZE O ^F!-L- NE-WC 4
WILLIAAA- 13 kr004^ N rF;N,-
85i
4/* /
B
6
0 vi4,.
F-. -4. 4......~.,.:
-@
o~
I.
9
N
-4
I.
.- --.
-*0-* r'J
B
(7
- (',J
ETWQF~K
Pigure C-3
AI~pIpT~D NETWORK FO~ 1982
INT r~I~NATIGNAL A 1 ~ ~ D~T
S LMULATTQ~ RUNS
*86
I IN
0
-- 4 1
I E-4
1k ..
. i ,- i l'-;-k
t /', " -
I I Y.
-"IT " \o ' .
• .:4. _ ." C.
' 'E'' (i2-' " " ,, 0 i
/ i ! i i' : , ..
- -
,.. .. .1, I
I I./
*. " r- ,.yt 1 , ,/ I <:"
......................... .. I , ............. '
; ~ *.<:.' ,[ !-" ,
-"I.i r , . . , . . . . . ,_..
9 " ": ! ': " : ' " 4 -- ,.I i' ... ',
- '/ " iI t_ ' . .. ' "': ' ' : ![ -I -:- . '
-~ / N>) /9
7'..*<#~ ,
.~ II.. -
~ .4(n V 4 0 j 4'
- - I- . __ . ~---w -
- ,* -0 - -
I- -
to' 4 ..I-,
I-. -. -. -'p '.. "414 ~42' - -to' 0
FUTURE AIRFIELD NETWDRK
WILLIAIVI 13. HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTERNA
87
/. 7
N
9
II
-/0
Figure C-5
C3RK AIRFIELD NETWORK FOR STAGE 2
SIMULATION RUNS FOR 1987 AND
TERNATIC)NAL AIRPDRT FOUR RUNWAYS
88
C- (n QI V
4
L* I L
L* LDVJ 1 Li W. r. d)
E-1 0-72 -
-4 I I
.7 a) 0
<4- z -L LL w~s .LJ w L)
1CN A, jr-
- 89
Cr .
00
-7
00
4-3 en I
o SF) M C 0
-~C-4
-V7
CC'4
4)4
"CZ-)
(n Fig re C -
Airlie Gats focc Old ermi na
Sorc:4A
I DATA PACKAGE NO. 4I AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT
TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIES. .. ......
d..........
....................... X. .............. .. .... .. ...1. ... . .......lii111
.. ...
XI.......... .. .. .
.. ....I. ............ : ....... ... .......IN prpae ...... r.
DEPARTMENT..x OFT A S O T TOFEDRA.AIAIO.AMIISRAIO
... under. .o..a.......... O T ...... A.-3961I PeatMarwick.Mitchel .&.Co
1.. OCTOBER 1978..
PEAT. MARWICK, MITCHELL & CO.P. 0. BOX 8007
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128
Telephone: (415) 347-9521
October 24, 1978
Mr. Ray Fowler, AEM-100Federal Aviation Administration800 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20591
Re: Atlanta Data Package No. 4
Dear Ray:
Enclosed is Data Package No. 4 for William B. HartsfieldAtlanta International Airport. The package contains theresults of the Stage-2 delay simulations (Attachment B)and results of four, revised Stage-l delay simulations(Attachment A).
These data should be reviewed by the Atlanta Task Forceduring the 25 October 1978 Task Force meeting.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. M. HockadayManager
SLMH/nbeEnclosure
cc: Mr. J. R. Dupree, ALG-132Mr. B. Drotts, ASO-4 (w/encl)
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIESAtlanta International Airport
Data Package No. 4
Table of Contents
Page
Attachment A - RESULTS OF REVISED STAGE-i DELAYSIMULATION ................... 1
Experiment 1A. ........................ 3Experiment 2A. ...................... 6Experiment 1 ....................... 9Experiment 2.......................12
Attachment B - DATA FOR STAGE-2 DELAY SIMULATIONS. ...... 15Experiment 28 ....................... 18Experiment 22 ....................... 21Experiment 17 ....................... 24Experiment 18 ....................... 27tExperiment 19 ....................... 30Experiment 20 ........................... 33Experiment 21.................. ...... 36
Attachment C - APPENDICES...................39
Summary of Stage-i and Stage-2 Simulation Results.......40
Airfield Networks.......................41
Attachment A
RESULTS OF STAGE-1 DELAY SIMULATIONS(Revised Experiments 1A, 2A, 1, and 2)
i
William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
October 1978
II
2
Table A-I
ATLANTA TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIESINDEX TO REVISED RESULTS
STAGE 1 EXPERIMENTS
Demand/Experiment Runways Improvement
No. Model Arrivals Departures Weather ATC Page
1A ASM B, 9R 8, 9L VFR1 1978 3
2A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1978 6
1 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFR1 1982 9
2 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1982 12
I
I I II-
3
EXPERIMENT NO. 1A
Objective:
To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in VFRl weather forthe following runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment 2A has same demand and network but in IFRl weather.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 0800 to 2200 hours with 1-hour summaries.
Anticipated Results:
Lower delays than in Experiment 2A.
Summary Comparison: (See Figures 1A, B, C, D)
Operation Performance This ExperimentTyeMeasure* Daily* Peak*
Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 49.6 70Arrival Air Delay (min) 7.2 11.4Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.3Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 1.3Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 47.4 70DTeparture R/W Delay (min) 7.2 11.3Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 0.6Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.3Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.1
*These are all average values, either over the entire simulationperiod (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-mmn period (Peak).
FIGURE (1A) A AVERAGE R=4AY FLOW RATES
i6 , [ I, I, , J _ _ _ I i L Ii _______ __________r, I I _ _ _I i140 -
120
acta80
2o i I I
6 7 0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hou/r Beginning
FIGtJRE (IA) B AVERAGE RUNWAY DELAYS
3 O I . . . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Ai
60
F' ;iv' la
40 i I / 1
z 20__ _
. ... : - - - - . . . I i "
10
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
FIUR (1A B AVEAG RUWA DELAYS
5
FIGURE (1A) C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS
- 1]f I __ __ __
..i.L..9 -- r [FI2 ,rILo I
6o 7 8 i 9 10 ' 11' 12 1 4 15 1 7 I 1 9 20 2> 20
I /I 1 _*prruure~ IIII
6 7 8 9 10 i 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginning
FIGURE (IA) D AVERAGE TAXI WAY TRAVEL TIMES
___ __- i / [\ ,fIi[C -oiI K n,, I ! fl ii
_______ ,4 ! 1 I I I
6 -7 _______ . . ... .- -t ~I
___'____ i ! I I \I I'i I ~ ..-!! * i i T ,.
6 7___ HI * _2j7 ! 15V 17 1 9 2
Hour Beginning
6
EXPERIMENT NO. 2A
Objective:
To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in IFRl weather forthe following runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment 1A has same demand and network but in VFRI weather.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 0800 to 1300 hours with 1-hour summaries.
Anticipated Results:
Higher delays than in Experiment 1A.
Summary Comparison: (See Figures 2A, B, C, D)
Operation Performance This ExperimentTyeMeasure* Daily* Peak*
Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 47.8 54Arrival Air Delay (min) 23.5 42.8Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 5.9Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (win) 2.5Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 41.4 58Departure R/W Delay (win) 13.6 23.8Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 4.5Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Departure Gate Delay (win) 42.1
*These are all average values, either over the entire simulationperiod (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).
7
FIGURE (2A) A AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES
35I I_ _ I
40 ' _ r -/---- - ,=~*** i; -
30
I I- 420'' ~ .----------S4 15- ---- _ _
1 h ArI
10 t j I ,,i v i
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 Minute Period Beginning
FIGURPE (2A) B AVERAGE RUNWAY DELAYS
30 , - - ' '
2 i I_
6 4 I I 1 1 1"-It . . ; \ I - _ t - -
,- o i! Tt "l , '/,~II V IZ L
7 8 9 10 0i 12 13 14
15-Minute Period Beginning8 Dq ar i ! !
FIGURE (2A) C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS
3 Al Izzpux -
_ I
0
6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
FIGURE (2A) D AVERAGE TAXI WAY TRAVEL TIMES
I
30 1~ 1- 1~'
>20 L- ~ i~ W z
114
o - -
0
o t~ i i it 1.i
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
(IUE(AD AVRG AIAYTAE IE
0 I !.i i i ! I I \/ N a s
> 0 1
6 7 al 9 0 1 1 3 1 1l6 1 18[ 9 20 2Hou Beginnin
9
EXPERIMENT NO. 1
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates in VFRl weather with the newMidfield Terminal, 1982 demand, and near-term ATC separationsfor the following runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment can be compared withExperiment No. 1A, which was for the old terminal and1978 demand and ATC separations in VFRI weather.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 0800 to 2200 hours with 1-hour summaries
Summary Comparison: (See Figures 1A, B, C, D)
Operation Performance This Experiment Experiment No. IAType Measure* D Peak* Daily* Peak*
Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 53.0 76 49.6 70Arrival Air Delay (min) 6.1 10.9 7.2 11.4Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.0 0.3Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.1 1.3Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 51.0 77 47.4 70Departure R/W Delay (min) 6.6 8.0 7.2 11.3Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 1.0 0.6Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.0 0.3Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.3 2.1
*These are all average values, either over the entire simulation
period (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).
10
FIGURE 1A AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES
160 i -r-; I140
-I4 Tt- ,,,
i /I,/ i.. ,I- ,, ,1"0201260 7 81 Hou/ e g ,ivng20 I /N, )-ii
I° ,I _ i_ * J l
6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
FIGURE 1B AVERAGE RU.NWAY DELAYS
I -I t. ,T K i, 1A, r -TE;izal, 1
2o ii,~ ,I i/ !_ ! . ,
06 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
11
FIGURE IC AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS
i s _ I
/I I 1 \ 17-- '
.1 I i j
r val
I I I ti ! 2 [ eartres _ _'
i _ _ I I I i -:~l\ I __ if -- l ii
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
FIGURE iD AVERAGE TAXIWAY TRAVEL TIMES
- - .1. ---- ----
I " I
-- -.- . . ...- - -
> 20 1\- -- - -- - -i-- i- U!e.
l~~iii -- !! !S10-- - --
6 t I iv I 141
-
F0 I ', - ---- I 'i
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
II
12
EXPERIMENT NO. 2
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates in IFRI weather with the MidfieldTerminal, 1982 demand, and near-term ATC separations for thefollowing runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment can be compared toExperiment No. 2A to examine differences due to the newdemand, ATC separations, and terminal building compared totoday's IFRl conditions. It can also be compared toExperiment No. 1 to examine differences between 1982 VFRland IFRI.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 0800 to 2200 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Summary Comparison: (See Figures 2A, B, C, D)
Operation Performance This Experiment ExPeriment No. 2AType Measure* Daily* Peak* Daily* Peak*
Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 56.4 62 47.2 54Arrival Air Delay (min) 17.7 32.5 23.5 42.8Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.2 5.9Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.7 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 2.5Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 49.2 62 41.4 58Departure R/W Delay (min) 12.6 19.4 13.6 23.8Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 5.5 4.5Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.0 0.2Departure Gate Delay (min) 141.4 42.1
*These are all average values, either over the entire simulation
q period (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).
13
FIGURE 2A AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES
40 - _ - - f i ltLL H j !U, i l I ! , 1 _l i
30
nI I 125
" I __ I
' 20 - - -10 [1
"08 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 Minute Period Beginning
FiGURE 2B AVERAGE RUNWAY DELAYS
.A.J II/II
30 '
i ! 15-
0 20
10791121I V i
-. -- -- ~rri__... .c 20 -1- - :
/° " a~iirqI IIN_-
6 I ..-V - 1- - -... i.... -
7 8 10 11 12 13 14
15-Minute Period Beginning
14
FIGURE 2C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS
2 ___
II - -7 -K ii1__1
6 i0 11 12 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
FIGURE 2D AVERAGE TAXIWAY TRAVEL TIMES
____ lit ' -1~~ i -H -30 i,
o ! // i attur~s-4 I
:> 20 ~ ~- L
-1o,: - I lsI
I, I' 1 ,I I t -10
0 1 1~ 1' ! .Il 1 ! .6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
15
Attachment B
RESULTS OF STAGE-2 DELAY SIMULATIONS
I
William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
I
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
October 1978
0' 16
- M~ to.
4.3 4
*r 10J~q 4jw' ---* a. -; 4 -41-4 ".J Q9'- eu* -- 4 Q) :J -4 C
0 z (n IT r w a0 E
> Un l co 0 X
m ' $.4 ON clm x I I OD-4 -A to M >I) -4 .- 4 %Dk z I I I a x
".3ji 40 -0'~c 0000+ )43W :1z- a, z coco . . xN a. Z . C 4
N* C1N r- C J tl- r- N - rl- ~
0J a,~ CC0Ca)0 ( 0 0
E-) W~4- 1.4-4 - -
V) u 00E- E- E
:Q x co
0' u
U))
E- >4
z 44 1.4 I1O CiCl>l2 (IC)
4- oa a ) aE-4 (1 C: (7
9z 81 at OC40 C~l0
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ C W. x-a o ,~'j cc
17
4)01 c -4 v r, 0 n k(a' r-4 C'j CN N en m
4.1Ln Ln
0) ' L LA Ln Ln co co w co co 0)
. C) 0) C) r-4 -> J 1-4 -4 -4 -4 1 1
0 ) I I 1 I 4.) 4-)w l .1 w ) w ) 0) Ei) (n)
0) - '4 '-4 -4 -4 04 0-
.a -4b
-4 $4 4 5. 0o 0
I(a m 44 r -
0~~~0 w ) ( 0)M
rnr o 0C N r- 0- d*-
-4 Q) 4 -4 -4 N4 rN
010 >4 4J0
N4 alA ~ -
UZZZ4~~cf 4. la ~
EXPERIMENT NO. 28
Objective:
To obtain 1978 delay estimates assuming that there are twodeparture tracks on Runway 9L, i.e., no environmental con-straints on 9L, for the following runway use in IFRl weather:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Results of this experiment can be compared to the results ofExperiment No. 2A of Stage 1 to evaluate benefits of relievingsingle departure track constraint.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 1300 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Anticiated Results:
Lower departure delays than in Experiment 2A.
Summary Comparison: (See Figures 28A, B, C, D)
Cperation Performance This Experi-ment Exmeriment No. 2AType Measure* Daily* Peak* Daily* Peak*
Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 47.6 54 47.8 54Arrival Air Delay (min) 23.9 42.7 23.5 42.8Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 7.4 5.9Arrival PW Crossing Delay (min) 0.2 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 2.4 2.5Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 40.4 56 41.4 58Departure R/W Delay (min) 13.3 22.3 13.6 23.8Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 8.5 4.5Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2 0.2Departure Gate Delay (min) 36.7 42.1
*These are all average values, either over the entire simulation
period (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).
19
FIGURE 28A AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES
3 5ii T i
30 I ii I '
25
I 4 .1....
20
1l" JAr tl, I/ I f . i
7a 9 10 11 2 13 14
15 Minute Perio Beginning
FIGURE 28B AVE.RAGE. RUNWAY DELAYS
30 I I __ _ T_
4j~C. iF,/
1 04 9 I i 11: 1 / -vr i V,7ia iii9 10 11 12 13 14
15 Minute Period Beginning-
I I
iI -!/! 1 /4 1 I _
! !____!! 1i i I I __ _2 i i i li i 1 K .If Dplrtue V
10 ii 131
15-Minute Period Beginnin.
20
FIGURE 28C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS
3 T F I __HiIAI
I II ! ICa 2
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20] 21Hour Beginning
1 1 1FIGUR 28D AVERAGE TAXWAY TRAVEL TIMES
I l ]
1 D pir IW
-[
1 7 ! I , I Arv
i 0 [.. .. .[..i~ .I...I ........
8~ ~~~~~~A ! /,I!!,ltd
4 l U,11-4 1t i 11 1 t 1 F! -IF!~7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
FIUE2 VRG AIWYTAE IMES m•
21
EXPERIMENT No. 22
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for the case where there are no gateholds in 1982 at Midfield Terminal with near-term ATC separa-tions and the following runway use in IFRl weather:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays associated with anassumed gate-hold procedure where aircraft are held at thegates when the length of departure queue reaches 10 aircraft.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 1300 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Anticipated Results:
Reduced arrival and departure gate delays compared toExperiment 2.
Summary Comparison: (See Figures 22A, B, C, D)
Operation Performance This Experiment Experiment No. 2TyeMeasure* Dal* Peak* aiy Peak*
Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 56.5 62 56.4 62Arrival Air Delay (min) 18.0 43.8 17.7 32.5Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.02 0.2Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2 0.7Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 46.2 60 49.2 62Departure R/W Delay (min) 14.5 31.8 12.6 19.4Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 0.5 5.5Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.0 0.0Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 141.4
*These are all average values, either over the entire simulationperiod (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-mmn period (Peak).
22
FIGURE 22A AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES
40 Ii ! I40-------------I- I-- T--\ / J -
' / -------- tiI ...4
S30 -- iIiiV74S25---
20 --
-4
10 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - --. - f--
9 10 i 12 13 14
15 Minute Period Beginning
FIGURE 22 B AVERAGE RUNWAY DELAYS
30 I. I
13,mI 9I _11 12 1
20u- er- inning
SI i I -i
8 - }- _ ./ I / (.~r:, e _
!6 -. __ Li.. Dp tru
-.- --- -- _ _ T ' " I i r!80 '
78 9 10 1i 12 13 14
15-Minute Period Beginning
23
FIGURE 22 C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS
IE l~'H
a 2
Hour Beginning
FIGURE 22D AVERAGE TAXIWAY TRAVEL TIMES
30 I-f
------- T---
o- _I DNa~ e I I
10- I
___ - ---
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginning
I
24
EXPERIMENT NO. 17
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1982 demand, near-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the fourth runway, 8L/26R, where the"inboard" runways are used for arrivals in IFRI weather.
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8R, 9L 8L, 9R
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 18 estimates the delay for the same case butwith arrivals on the "outboard" runways. Experiment No. 20also has arrivals on the "outboard" runways, but in 1987.Experiment No. 2 is the corresponding 3-runway case.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 1300 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Summary Comparison: (See Figures 17A, B, C, D)
Operation Performance This ExperimentType Measure* Daily* Peak*
Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 57.5 62.0Arrival Air Delay (min) 16.7 39.8Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 8.0Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.4Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 53.0 70.0Departure R/W Delay (min) 8.0 18.7Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 1.8Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.5
*These are all average values, either over the entire simulation
period (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).
I
25
FIGURE 17A AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES
-1 ~ ~ I -1 7~ - - - - - -
35 --
30 -r---f A
.4 25 --
m 20 _ .-- - - - - - -
14 20- -F ;I IN-
A I - I10 1_.
5 [_
01---- --" lt0
7 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 Minute Period Beginning
FIGURE 17B AVERAGE RUNWAY DELAYS
30 A I
I I rT I _ 1-
A I I II
I I m I I I i -1 1
0 -J x
10 14FaSMnt Pei BegiTin
6 F!A
26
FIGURE 17C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS
,.__f_______ _ _________ ______ ____
zztz i ! i - i
t2
-- ---- -- -- ------ i0D' ]
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
FIGURE 17D AVERAGE TAXIWAY TRAVEL TIMES
30 i
"--- -- -.._______-
Iii. J I
1 i0 i 1, I _ _ji~2 Zii 1 ----- -~ __
10 ]I-
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginning
i
27
EXPERIMENT NO. 18
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1982 demand, near-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the fourth runway, 8L/26R, wherethe "outboard" runways are used for arrivals with thefollowing runway use in IFRI weather.
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8L, 9R 8R, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 17 estimates the delay for the same case butwith arrivals, on the "inboard" runways. Experiment No. 20is for "outboard" case but with 1987 demand and ATC scenario.Experiment No. 2 is the corresponding 3-runway case.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 1300 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Summary Comparison: (See Figures 18A, B, C, D)
Operation Performance This Experiment Experiment No. 17Type Measure* Daily* Peak* Daily* Peak*
Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 56.8 62.0 57.5 62.0Arrival Air Delay (min) 17.5 40.1 16.7 39.8Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.2 8.0Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.5 0.4Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0
Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 56.0 81.0 53.0 70.0Departure R/W Delay (min) 4.8 10.4 8.0 18.7Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 0.6 1.8
Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.0 0.0Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.4 2.5
!*These are all average values, either over the entire simulation
period (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).
I
28
FIGURE 18A AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES
40 1tz:~ 1 1h 1 zI 7C,
.I I F
U, ° , r I[ i ),
Is- /" IlLn 25
20 vTK~Sf - ArriVals
4,4, ! il, __ .. .-o 11 r'i, 2' LiI z
10- - -]I I I fI ft.fI I_____ - - 1 II I~
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 Minute Period Beginning
FIGURE 18B AVERAGE R=;WAY DELAYS
! I I __ it[
Jii~ziL~i _ _ .~v ___
-4
10 - , _
4 I I A ! I i-
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15-Minute Period Beginning
29
FIGURE 18C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS
i iI i I il T
4jio t
0 -"I- P4"! I _ _A1 ! 1 1 __ _ _ ''i i
tz Ii K:I ____i EEEF±i K
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
FIGURE 18D AVERAGE TAXIWAY TRAVEL TLMES
............ L...... I ] I I 'I I I
S , LI [ 11II..L... - I~i ! I ___
-.4 1 1 F i , 1 I I I IE-~
> 20 Tr-t-r
o l i I I I/ )e I 'ttr s i !!
a 4- -I- _ - | n -
LI T-
________ vailsl
6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
30
EXPERIMENT NO. 19
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the following runway use in IFRIweather.
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 20 has the same 1987 demand and ATCbut with the fourth runway 8L/26R and arrivals on the "out-board" runways.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 2200 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Anticipated Results:
Lower flow rates and greater runway delays than in Experi-ment 20.
Summary Comparison: (See Figures 19A, B, C, D)
Operation Performance This ExperimentType Measure* Daily* Peak*
Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 68.4 79.0Arrival Air Delay (min) 16.5 29.3Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 4.3
Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 41.2 56.0Departure R/W Delay (min) 19.9 46.7
jDeparture Taxi-Out Delay (min) 28.9Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.0Departure Gate Delay (min) 61.9
*These are all average values, either over the entire simulation
period (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).
Ii I
31
FIGURE 19A AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES
40 I
3530 ' ' -Total
", I _______I I i ','l,,,,
30i ,,--I_,-___
K' .iL* -
i 1 1 '
Ui ' Ii, , l ii i f 'i
e15
07 a 9 10 11 12 13 14
1.5 Minute Period Beginning
FIGURE 19B AVERAGE RMNWAY DELAYS
30 --I i _ _ '' I I -/____ i
II I/t I i I/l_/____, _
10J Deparureo-
i i ! it__--_\ _
20
4 - I t i- li -,
H K2 :- ' -, ---i --I I, I I I, t i i i , i
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415-Minute Period Beginning
32
FIGURE 19C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS
Ii I li ll I I I I I I I
0 (,', I ___I___4_L
6 7 !8 9 0 ll 12 13 14 15 1 17 18 19 20 2
Four Beg innin
.5.
Deopa tures i I I _____
> 20K~__
:10_ _
>,iI ' I I 1 1 :i ! . L iI
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour Beginning
FI UR 1 D AVRA E AX WA TR VE T1-TSSI __ I ' __ .1..... J I
S I I 1] I !
9_ I ii 1 1 14 1_6 1 8 1 0 2
20 Dep t re I I __ i
I I I I I , i I
0 h u _ea t r sI'ii
- I, !' I i'1 i I I * *,
_ _ _ _ _ _ __. ! I [ I I i
1 0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginninq
EX?ERiME'T N.';.2
ih3e:tive :
:o obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-term ATe,Midfield Terminal, the fourth runway, 3L/26?, and the folow-inj runway use in !FR1 weather.
Arrival Runways Departure R.unways
8L, 9R 8R, 9L
Related Comparison Exneriments:
Experiment No. 18 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 19 has the same 1987 demand and ATC,tut without the fourth runway.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
Oa3% to 2200 hours with 15-minute surmmaries.
Antijciated Results:
greater flow rates and lower delays than in ExperrMen_ 19.
S="Lary Comarison: (See Figures 20A, B, C, D)
e erfcrman;e This Experiment Eperiment No. i9-Measure * Daily* peak* Dall'y* Peak*
Arri ;' F1w Pate (a/c r.er .r. 6 . 2 19.0 6R.4 79. -Arr.ial Air Delay (rain) 13.4 2P.5 1. 5 29.2Arri'va. Taxi-In Delay (min) -. 2 4. 3Arrival P/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.3 0.2Arrial ate Delay (min) 1.3 0.0Depart;re w ?ate 1a/c ner -r.) ;1.3 37.0 41.2 56.0
r /. Delay (min 7.7 2I. 19.9 46.7Dezarture xi-('t Delay (mir, 2.- 23.7
aear tre :/ r%;ing Delay (min) . . -
art'.e ate Delay (rin) i. 31.3
'he;a I--r all average ;alei, either over the entire ;crulation5 -. d $ail/, or czer te peak houwir )r 2-nun ,eri:d (Peak).
F: sunE 2 0A RUNA~ ZWAY FL-CW PA7ES
/VI\
40 V
35
30 Total
25
-J' ,
A riva.. "
10
a 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
15 Minute Period Beginning
FIGURE 20B AVEPAGE RLM WAY DELAYS
30
Arrivals
6 eparjuresj
4 1' JA
7 31 1: 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 2215-Minute ?eriod Beginning
FIGURE 20C AVEPAGE TA.XWAY :ELAYc
_________ DpartureS
Aztriva1 sl6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
H~our Beginning
2TU? 20:D AVERAGE TAXI WAY TPAVEL TI.XS
II
Srtepartires_20
!3 1, V A
-Arrivals4
2
I -'
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21'four Beginning
II
EXPERIMENT NO. 21
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-tern ATC,Midfield Terminal, the fourth runway, 8L/26R, and the folow-ing runway use in VTRI weather.
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8L, 9R 8R, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 20 has the same conditions but in IFRIweather.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 2200 hours with 1-hour summaries.
Anticipated Results:
Higher flow rates and lower delays than in Experiment 20.
Summary Comparison: (See Figures 21A, B, C, D)
Cperation Performance This ExrerimentTye Measure* Daily* Peak*
Arrivai Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 69.6 82.0Arrival Air Delay (min) 10.0 20.4Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.iArrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.4Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 62.2 106.0Departure R/W Delay (min) 1.9 3.5Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 0.7Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.0Departure -ate Delay (min) 0.1
*These are all average values, either over the entire simulation
period 'daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).
I
IJE21lA AIIERAGE KX4hTAY FL--rw ?A=-S
Tot al
102
Z -Arrivals A
40
20
8 79 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
"ocur 3eginnIing
F:OtTRE 21lB AliEPAGE RU'WAY !DE.AYS
2
20AIAtiv l 7 a 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 1 0 Z
/~Hu \ ___________
22
FIG E 2 !C AVEIRAGE TAXIWfJAY TELS
30
' I
,_ __ _ ! , eatues If _ A -
3i rl F7
6 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginninq
FTGtTRE 21iD AVL. AGE TAXIWAY TRAV"EL TIMES
*J' I
- Ij i L F
> 20-
4. . - 4 , , , -
2 _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ I I 'pI
• I'e rtFe , I I
.£ /" ?k: Hou B eq!innin r g
29
Attachment C
APPENDICES
* Suinmary of Stage-i and Stage-2Simulation Results
" Airfield Networks
William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
October 1978
I
I
- - -.40
-u -, oI-
>4>K
oN q IQ loL
31'o~ ~ : IQ
In
~'. -o
z m Q w Lz.
a- a
* A* ) 0*3S
* * C
USx 0 S
0 - SS
C gee * S* . a * a 0 0 - a a -s* aa
* a a * a ~ a
* * 0
* 0* S
* S* - S
0 0
* 0
0 0S
S *
* 0
* 0
S S
0 0
S * -*0 * ** a a a*~. * 0* **o a a a *~i a*.
75 a a a a a a a* a a *a * * 0 a a *a ~a *a a *a-a a a a a a a a
* S S0 0
50 a a a -
a a a0
AIRFmELD NETWQRK
WILLIAIVI E3. I-IJXR1-~FIELD ATLANTA INT NAT
41
(%) B
KI
6
01
*
SS
* ***~*~* . . 9 . *. *.
I 0 * 0S
0 -V
I
* N
B
* 0
* 0
* S
* 0
* 0
* 0 *~ *~0** *'.~*
* 0 0 *
* 0 0 0 *
U 0 0
* *~
TWIDRK
A INTLF~NAJrI4ZJNAL AIRF~c3RT
2 /
3 -~~-1 ) .3 SS 0S
'I
S S SS I
S S S*.t * ~ * **5 ~ ) 3 5 ~ 2 ~
~ * S S * 2 2
.4., 5 ~**~ * 5 5, 5 5 3
. * S *)5 ** ~*S* 0 ~ S IS 5~* S
S
S
S* S . . S 3* 5 0
S. *S
S
SSS S 595 0 055 5 #55 5 - *~ S S S S -S
* S S S S S ****'* ~ S
-- 5 5 5 ~5 . S. *
* 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 .~*. .*. ***.~. .. S* S S S S
S* 0 5 9
EUTLJRE AIRF1F~LQ NF~TWc~F~
WILLIAIVI 8. HAF~T55FIELD ATLANTA INTE-sRr
33
SS
I
'~ 03 0 2 3 2 9
*~0 2
:3*S **
*e~*
0
IS 3 2 0 2 5
* S
S
S
N* 0
S
S
*S
* *~*-* 0
3 :3 :3 0 * *.*
:3, :3 0 5
* ***. ~* S S
S S
9 0~O
LD i~JE~TYi~ ~
NTA IN (U ~Ir~NA-rIQNAL AIF~~cjr~r
- I)
*I
I1 :
i) • . S
i "0 • •0
* *. -4TJIR - ) Ekt:l;L _ r, j -%)
W I !_ A M 1_:J . -1 1: I -_:$ - I _ . f)- &-2 I < 2/ N -/ . : *
* "
., nl I I I l I I I I I I II
I/ ) )
)I )
~
3
- 3
3 2
) J ; G 3 9 4
= 3 3 3 3 3 2 ~ : ) * ~ 4
3 - b
9
S
* N* * 9
00
00
S - ------ -0
2 9
) 2 ~ * * p .p * * *
) , I
p ,~ 0 * *
0 9 9 00
) I
LCJ ~ F'wV(J~K
AD-A092 455 PEAT MARWICK MITCHELL AND CO SAN FRANCISCO CALIF F/S 1/5 TASK FORCE DELAY STUDY. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTERNATI--ETC(UljUN B0 DOT-FATTWA-3961
UNCLASSIFIED NL
I II.IIIIIII 'Elii
MEM III
DATA PACKAGE NO. 5AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT
TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIES
I ...*....................* . .
.j...... .. *.. *.. *.*... *.... ... . .... .. . . . . . .
..... ....... .... .
-~~~~~~... .....:.......:::...::
*~~.. . ..........................
. .. .. .
.. .... prepared .f.r -- -----DEPARTMENT ---- OFTRNSORATO
FEDERALAVIATIO.ADMINITRATIO~. under.contr.c
DOT.....A-396
.. .Pe. Marw.ck M ..tche.. & ........ ... E.... ..... 7 3
B
I PEAT, IMARWVICK. MITCHELL & CO.
P.O.BOX 8007
*SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128
i Telephone: (415) 347-9521
December 11, 1978
I
Mr. Ray Fowler, AEM-100
Federal Aviation Administration800 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20591
Re: Atlanta Data Package No. 5
Dear Ray:
Enclosed is Data Package No. 5 for William B. HartsfieldAtlanta International Airport. The package contains revisedresults of certain Stage 1 and Stage 2 experiments andresults of the annual delay model runs. Furthermore, thepresentation of all of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 results hasbeen improved by showing results for the peak-demand hourand for the morning peak 3-hour period, which contains boththe arrival peak hour and the departure peak hour.
These results should be reviewed by the Atlanta Task Forceduring the December 13, 1978, Task Force meeting.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. HockadayManager
SLMH/nbeEnclosure
cc: Mr. J. R. Dupree, ALG-132Mr. B. Drotts, ASO-4 (w/enci)
II
S AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIESAtlanta International Airport
Data Package No. 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Attachment A - RESULTS OF STAGE-i DELAYSIMUL ATIOS ONS . .. .. .. ........ 1
gExperimentIA . ............ . . . . . . . 3IExperiment 2A................... 4
Experiment1................... 5Experiment2.......................6IExperiment 3 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 7Experiment 5................... 9Experiment 6............ .. .. .. .. 10
Attachment B - RESULTS OF STAGE-2 DELAY SIMULATIONS . 11Experiment 28 ...................... 13Experiment 22................... 14Experiment 17 .................... 15Experiment 18................... 16Experiment 19 .................... 17Experiment 20............ . . ... .. .. .. .. 18Experiment 21 .................... 19
IAttachment C - RESULTS OF ANNUAL DELAY EXPERIMENTS . . 20Experiment 12 .. ....... .. ..... . . . 22Experiment 13 .................... 25Experiment 14 .................... 28Experiment 15 .................... 31Experiment 16 .................... 34Experiment 24 .................... 37Experiment 25 .................... 40Experiment 26 .................... 43Experiment 27. ............. ... .. 46
Experiment 23 .................... 49
Attachment A
RESULTS OF STAGE-1 DELAY SIMULATIONS
I
i
i
William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport
1 Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
I
9
III
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
*December 1978
II
2
Table A-I
ATLANTA TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIES.. INDEX TO REVISED RESULTS
STAGE 1 EXPERIMENTS
Demand/
Experiment Runways ImprovementNo. Model Arrivals Departures Weather ATC Page
1A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFRI 1978 3
2A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1978 4
1 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFRl 1982 5
2 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1982 6
3 ASM 9R 8, 9L IFR2 1982 7
5 ASM 8, 9R 8, 91, IFRI 1982- 92 n.m. stagger
6 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1982- 101.5 n.m. stagger
III
I
!I
3
EXPERIMENT NO. lA
Objective:I
To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in VFRI weather forthe following runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment 2A has same demand and network but in IFRl weather.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 0800 to 2200 hours with 1-hour summaries.
IAnticipated Results:gLower delays than in Experiment 2A.
Results:
RThis
Experiment
Operation 0900-1200Type Performance Measure Averaaea Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 9.2 6.2Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.2 0.4Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.8 0..Departure Runway Delay (min) 8.0 7.6Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.4 0.5Departure Gate Delay (min) 1.3 2.1
I a. Average over the period 0900-1200 hours.b. For peak demand hour, 1000-1100 hours.g c. Includes runway crossing delay.
I
II
4
EXPERIMENT NO. 2A
Objective:
To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in IFRl weather forthe following runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment 1A has same demand and network but in VFRl weather.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 0800 to 1300 hours with 1-hour summaries.
Anticipated Results:
Higher delays than in Experiment IA.
Results:
This Experiment
Operation 0900-1200Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 23.8 29.1Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.7 0.6Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.6 0.1Departure Runway Delay (min) 9.9 8.8Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.8 0.5Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.2 1.6
!a. Average over the period 0900-1200 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1000-1100 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
6
I
I
5
EXPERIMENT NO. 1
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates in VFRl weather with the newMidfield Terminal, 1982 demand, and near-term ATC separationsfor the following runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment can be compared withExperiment No. 1A, which was for the old terminal and1978 demand and ATC separations in VFR1 weather.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 0800 to 2200 hours with 1-hour summaries..
Summary Comparison:
This Experiment Experiment No. 1AOperation 1000-1300 0900-1200
Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Average Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 10.1 11.9 9.2 6.2Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1Departure Runway Delay (min) 9.9 15.2 8.0 7.6Departre Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.2 0.4 1.3 2.1
a. Average cver the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
I
II
6
EXPERIMENT NO. 2
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates in IFRI weather with the MidfieldTerminal, 1982 demand, and near-term ATC separations for thefollowing runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment can be compared toExperiment No. 2A to examine differences due to the newdemand, ATC separations, and terminal building compared totoday's IFRl conditions. It can also be compared toExperiment No. 1 to examine differences between 1982 VFR1and IFRI.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 0800 to 2200 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Summary Comparison:
This Experiment Experiment No. 2A
Operation 1000-1300 0900-1200Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Average Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 25.5 19.3 23.8 29.1Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.6Arrival Gate Delay (miin) 0.02 0.0 0.6 0.1Departure Runway Delay (min) 10.2 14.1 9.9 8.8Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.5Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.6 2.2 2.2 1.6
a. Average over the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
I . i Ii
7
EXPERIMENT NO. 3
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates in IFR2 weather with the 1982 demand,Midfield Terminal, and near-term ATC separations for thefollowing runway-use configuration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment can be compared to the resultsof Experiment No. 2 to examine differences between 1982 IFRland IFR2.
Length and Level of Detailed of Simulation Run:
From 0300 to 2200 with 1-hour output summaries.
Results: (See attached figure for graphical corroborationof delay results)
This Experiment
Operation 1000-1300Type Performance Measure Averacea Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 60+ 60+Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.1 0.1Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0Departure Runway Delay (min) 0.5 0.3Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.2 0.1Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0
a. Average over the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
!
I
ATLANTA TASK FC=-.Z fZ.LAY ST'0:Y
Ex;erirent -40. 3
120C ;eterminis:'- ':euir.o Aalsts
1982 Dema.d, IF.Z Weather
D2 Case No. 7
but with near-term ATC and----
iS¢0fleet -, x
I-PL Demand -
500-
z/
I. C
Ma i800 - lay s-i/: o.
4:00 ~-.-- M2 Capacity (t:date of Case ;o. 7)
L''D
HU OIi l 2/
HOUSOF -
tS
3 m 3 3 -
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 i
EXPERIMENT NO. 5
Objective
To obtain delay estimates in IFRI weather associated with2.0 nautical mile staggered arrival-arrival separationsproposed for use when simultaneous, independent arrivalscannot be accommodated on the following runway-useconfiguration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, OL
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment, in particular arrival flowrates and delays, can be compared with the results ofExperiment No. 2.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 0800 to 1300 with 15-minute output summaries.
Results:
This Exoeriment Exoeriment No. 2Operation 1000-1300 1000-1300
Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Averagea Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 60+ 60+ 25.5 19.3Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)C 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0Departure Runway Delay (min) 4.8 6.7 10.2 14.1Departure Taxi-Cut Delay (min)c 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.2
a. Average over the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.
c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
10
EXPERIMENT NO. 6
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates in IFRI weather associated with1.5 nautical mile staggered arrival-arrival separationsproposed for use when simultaneous, independent arrivalscannot be accommodated on the following runway-useconfiguration:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
The results of this experiment, in particular arrival flowrates and delays, can be compared with the results ofExperiments No. 2 and No. 5.
tLength and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
From 0800 to 1300 with 15-minute output summaries.
gResults:This Experiment Experiment No. 5
Operation 1000-1300 1000-1300Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Averagea Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 43.5 36.1 60+ 60+Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Departure Runway Delay (min) 12.1 19.4 4.8 6.7Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Departure Gate Delay (min) 1.6 1.2 0.0 0.0
Ia. Average over the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.
c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
I
11
Attachment B
RESULTS OF STAGE-2 DELAY SIMULATIONS
I
William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
IPeat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
December 1978
II
12
m 11 Ln t- N o 02-1' 1- -4 H -4 14 -
Ln LAp 0 02 02 m2 w' a9 . 14 cn (n ON ON H
> 4.J 1-4 14 1- H I
x. ".4 02 02 02 0 )a4 1 a4 a4 a44 a4i 0
rILO
a) w Q) 0 0 m$
z 02 N CN C") I-
02ON 0 0) cm 02 10
H 4 H
0 t02
u z z 4 41
0 H H W. 1
4 4 0
t-a 4 U4 )4
E-4~O~-4~
Z zE-4 E 02l
z IN a' a'a
4 oo OD O2co c
02~~( Nn N 2 a -4U
C444
Xv 0 a)
.4. 0% 4-4a. )0 :1
0100z r-4 C J) 0 - 1 UI4 N C - 4 A N C )9 r
I_
13
EXPERIMENT NO. 28
Objective
To obtain 1978 delay estimates assuming that there are twodeparture tracks on Runway 9L, i.e., no environmental con-straints on 9L, for the following runway use in IFRI weather:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Results of this experiment can be compared to the results ofExperiment No. 2A of Stage 1 to evaluate benefits of relievingsingle departure track constraint.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 1300 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Anticipated Results:
Lower departure delays than in Experiment 2A.
Summary Comparison:
This ExPeriment Experiment No. 2AOperation 0900-1200 0900-1200
Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Average Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 23.6 28.6 23.8 29.1Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.1Departure Runway Delay (min) 8.9 7.7 9.9 8.8Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.5Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.1 1.3 2.2 1.6
a. Average over the period 0900-1200 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1000-1100 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
14
EXPERIMENT NO. 22
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for the case where there are no gate-holds in 1982 at Midfield Terminal with near-term ATC separa-tions and the following runway use in IFRI weather:
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays associated with anassumed gatehold procedure where aircraft are held at thegates when the length of departure queue reaches 10 aircraft.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 1300 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Anticipated Results:
Reduced departure gate delays compared to Experiment 2.
Summary Comparison:
This Experiment Experiment No. 2Operation 1000-1300 1000-1300
Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Averagea Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 25.5 19.4 25.5 19.3Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.02 0.0 0.02 0.0Departure Runway Delay (min) 9.5 14.1 10.2 14.1Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.2
a. Average over the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
15
EXPERIMENT NO. 17
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1982 demand, near-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the fourth runway, SL-26R, where the"inboard" runways are used for arrivals in IFRI weather.
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8R, 9L 8L, 9R
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 18 estimates the delay for the same case butwith arrivals on the "outboard" runways. Experiment No. 20also has arrivals on the "outboard" runways, but in 1987.Experiment No. 2 is the corresponding 3-runway case.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 1300 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Summary Comparison:
This ExperimentOperation 1000-1300
Te Performance Measure Averagea Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 30.6 22.7Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.3 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0Arrival Taxi-In Time (min) 6.5 6.3Departure Runway Delay (min) 1.2 1.1Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.6 0.4Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0Departure Taxi-Out Time (min) 6.5 6.9
a. Average over the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.I'
I . . I I I
16
EXPERIMENT NO. 18
IO Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1982 demand, near-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the fourth runway, 8L-26R, wherethe "outboard" runways are used for arrivals with thefollowing runway use in IFRl weather.
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8L, 9R 8R, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 17 estimates the delay for the same case butwith arrivals, on the "inboard" runways. Experiment No. 20is for "outboard" case but with 1987 demand and ATC scenario.Experiment No. 2 is the corresponding 3-runway case.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
g0800 to 1300 hours with 15-minute summaries.
i Summary Comparison:
This Experiment Experiment No. 17Operation 1000-1300 1000-1300Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Averagea Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 30.4 23.0 30.6 22.7Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Arrival Taxi-In Time (min) 6.1 5.94 6.5 6.3Departure Runway Delay (min) 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.1Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Departure Taxi-Out Time (min) 5.6 6.5 6.5 6.9
a. Average over the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
iII
17
EXPERIMENTr NO. 19
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the following runway use in IFRlweather.
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8, 9R 8, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 20 has the same 1987 demand and ATCbut with the fourth runway, 8L-26R, and arrivals on the "out-board" runways.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 2200 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Anticipated Results:
Lower flow rates and greater runway delays than in Experi-ment No. 20.
Summary Comparison:
5 This ExperimentOperation 0900-1200
Type Performance Measure Average a Peak b
Arrival Runway Delay (min) c20.3 24.3Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.2 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.03 0.02IDeparture Runway Delay (min) 12.4 12.0Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.6 0.6gDeparture Gate Delay (min) 1.1 0.6
a. Average over the period 0900-1200 hours.I b. For the peak-demand hour, 1000-1100 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
18
EXPERIMENT NO. 20
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, the fourth runway, 8L-26R, and the follow-ing runway use in IFRI weather.
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8L, 9R 8R, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 18 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 19 has the same 1987 demand and ATC,but without the fourth runway.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 2200 hours with 15-minute summaries.
Anticipated Results:
Greater flow rates and lower delays than in Experiment 19.
Summary Comparison:
This Experiment Experiment No. 19Operation 0900-1200 0900-1200
Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Average a Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) 15.2 23.3 20.3 24.3Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.2 0.2 0.03 0.02Departure Runway Delay (min) 2.2 3.3 12.4 12.0Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.6
Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.6
a. Average over the period 0900-1200 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1000-1100 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
I i-
19
EXPERIMENT NO. 21
Objective:
To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, the fourth runway, 8L-26R, and the follow-ing runway use in VFR1 weather.
Arrival Runways Departure Runways
8L, 9R 8R, 9L
Related Comparison Experiments:
Experiment No. 20 has the same conditions but in IFRlweather.
Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:
0800 to 2200 hours with 1-hour summaries.
* Anticipated Results:
Higher flow rates and lower delays than in Experiment 20.
Summary Comparison:
This ExperimentOperation 0900-1200
TyePerformance measure Average a Peakb
Arrival Runway Delay (min) c12.0 19.9Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.2 0.3Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.2 0.6IDeparture Runway Delay (min) c1.4 2.9Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 0.3 0.6Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0
a. Average over the period 0900-1200 hours.I.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1000-1100 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.
20
Attachment C
RESULTS OF ANNUAL DELAY EXPERIMENTS
I William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
Ig
III
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
December 1978
II
21
Table C-1
LIST OF ANNUAL DELAY MODEL (ADM) EXPERIMENTSAND INDEX TO RESULTS
Sequence Experiment No. ofNo. No. Demand ATC System Terminal Runways Page
1 12 1978 Today Old 3 22
2 16 1982 Today Old 3 25
3 14 1982 Near-Term Old 3 28
4 15 1982 Today New 3 31
5 13 1982 Near-Term New 3 34
6 27 1987 Today Old 3 37
7 25 1987 Far-Term Old 3 40
8 26 1987 Today New 4 43
1 9 24 1987 Far-Term New 4 46
10 23 1982 Near-Term New 6 mo. - 3 496mo. - 2
I!
!
!
I
I
Attachment D
SUMMARIES OF EXPERIMENT RESULTS
William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport
Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies
4
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California
December 1978
I
I
22
.. . . .~ .
. . . . . .
23
I
I
--- " -'o-!...-
77- i -.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
1I
24
-- -- - 4
CC-
-. Z .
U - -. *n . -
. . . .x .~ . ?-' -
C C
: ++1[ 25
i
'C- i' t ~ 2 - r~
I -I.'.4
1 2 _ +-. c
:I" 7: - - 7
I " - > ? ' ..
i
..
II
U I I I
26
.i . . ,
C-
- C-- -
It. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
qC-
927
I-K-K
- r. -K
~N ~ -
-KI -K
-KK
I- --K -K
-- - -
- .*-
~:3-K-K
* -K
.-- -. 'i~l -~-K- I
- C~ ~,J t~
* - ~ -~
-x -
*x _ _
* -.~ -----
~ *- .9C"
-~5: - -' - -' -- C"
i -K
-K
-.- -
-~
i28
II
iI-
g -
29
I
9
I
'r -r Li !,L
+i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +
. . . . . . ... . . ... ........... . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . .
II
30
-. 'J cN.
Ci,
F- . -.-
-V .-
- 1* 4 -,- - -
231
I444K4AA
44
4
k 4
.c c ;c. . . . . .4
At4 -'
4C< ~ -K ~ ~-. ~ _-
It 4 C-
4 4 Lt-
4 i-. 4
32
F-zzI, C l 1 r - -IlC 7I c L n L)L= I * , c nzLI - C - Cr - - 4C
In-T c,-4- -.L; C I4c r C
CC
IN C,
'n 'D C C, a
33
4C
4c
-K
-x-K-K
-x
4c
tf.K
n-K
C.-. C:
-x-
4c
* -K
-Y
I
34!
4
Z :c
. .~ . . . ...
.e .- . . . . ..-
--
12|
35
*
t
* - - .-. ,. '- .4.-- ~4. r. - - - r-. - - -
- - - ~'-'r~ -. ~.r9 :---.................................................................................................................
-~ - C -
- - -I -
I - -
U- - - -. -- z - - -~
I K ------------------------- - -- - .~ - - - -. ~- -
...............................
t -. -
-z - ~ ~ - -
I
II
II
- -- - - -fl --
- I -
-r
-.
I
I
I
I 37
I
I
III
II C -
*- .*. .**
e -~ -~-~-~
* ~ ~
* -*- --
I - -. * E-~~-~-~ -PV -
U -
z -
I* - -
I - - - -* ., * * - * - e~*r-~~ r' - r t~L.
g ~ -
- - - ~ C-c-i -~-'
I -
II
1 38
Ia
II
I
,JoclCNrCt~N.'eJr~. - -
-- JrJ-,-2.~-rrrrrC :zc zr~"-~-~-~> ,~<t~,ZZ -
I'i3 z~-.--....................................
- ~ :.:.-.;4~..
- ~ ~
I*
II
- - .2 - - .
39
I rL.
C~ L' '
cI
40
.~ .j .~ .-
- --Pt
.. -. . .-.._
' - x ; -X c-.---
4 - - .- , -" "
- 'j
-:C-
-- 4
-" - -,I I
41
7 Lfr<L .7 - 'j,':f:-Z
c c-
I,, en en -*, r' e Lr , C C.Z C C C
g42
Ia
aII *- V
I -.
I
F-' J~
-t ~ -
.- , - V
- ----.- ~zL -
- - - C-' -P. -,
* ,"- -~
- - .,- I
. -- - -. , -PU U
- - -~t*.. .-
C~J~N LI
-* - -, -~
I
I~- - - - - -
| 43
*
"'" " --- _
-
I -. -
I'' I • • • •
44
e
I
I
I-. .. z. . .. -. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. L~
I -,
I "- CC-,- - - -
n4C iC
g7.1
45
-, - - - - '-I -~ ~
- r-.-~ -e - - -
* -. - .- C-
.4. - - -- -
- ~- -
- . . -- - A ~-:-~.4-.z. :.~ -
-
-c.-- ... a -~
.4.
- _ C-
I - ..-- 4.
.. " j ... -......................
.4. -'
4:
4- - - -~J 4.* - -
- -- ..- -.
4.
- - .- :-. 4:
4:
4:
1
I
46
I L-~~~ ... .. .~ - .-. . . . -. .
-X
. -. . .. ..
-- -------------------------
-x -
-t'.
,I I
47
|- -
I • .
I
I
I
I
48
*' 4c
e" el
-A
- .. :-
49
~ N. N. -
t B
S U= '-.
,- - - N. = - N~ f
.. - -
* ~N.
oIII
I
I
t 50
77f
-e Z' z'-'-~
-now
51
-'; 2 -- ¢J -
S-3- -- .
"- - - .. -C C 4 - '.1:- C
- - -- - ....
4: . <
I .
L-" - 4: 77>.
-. .-- 4z Z~J
Telephone: (415) 347-9521
August 6, 1979
Ir. Michael J. PowderlyChief, Atlanta Toweri artsfield International AirportP. 0. Box 20722Atlanta, Georgia 30320
Re: Discussion Outline, July 23, 1979
Dear Mikez
The attached contains changes to pages 3 and 8 of the July 23,1979, discussion outline. These changes reflect the effect ofthe West Operation at Atlanta which is unaffected by the pro-posed single departure route to the East.
The numbers now reflect that there is a higher percentage ofIFR weather when the East Operation is used (22% instead of12%) but the East Operation is used only 40% of the year.
If you have any questions on this, please let me know.
Sincerely,
W. J. Dunlay, Jr,Senior Consultant
WJD/nlmEnclosure
bcc: TFD Corresp.TFD Proj ATLS. L. M. Hockaday(w/o encl)
ww
o
- x00 o
ul - - 0-< c - 1=0 (==o LU (c- w-: - H UH CLwCL
w C:)
< 0 <c-L w LU=
_j C~ w w 0 wu- >- <~~
WLL3: < LLw LLW L4W
cl) U ) w -J
< CD)
L'I,
- HGO.
co
to)
-iLr - - - 00LLJ 4 : C4 N 00 10 -
cz
0c LULUs
- 0 LCL Cl
<~ F-
-y 0 n- wu <<U m- >< a_ a-
W 0- -= 0I co N r1 L) ) C 0 0.~m C/l) 00 rq- r
CC)Ll 0 LL- '-x .
.- 5 0 ix
LL !he LLL
< -- 1 00 -= -C:) 0 -
- LU CN C:) < ICI-~ C:) 3-- -- -- 1-0XV) Z) X~ F-~xHF I ~w
-L 0-3 r-, L- U <J < U% : )
H a x xL
< cr crI cc F-H0 0 IX I)9- : - - < L
0 0CL) 0 <. <U LU L U U LIx a: a: ck:CD CL CL CL
- ~ ~ 0 LU C "C " u ' C U
IX'C~ w > w m CC >I--J :m L > > > > > >< X: w:cC: Nc ::LU~
t~l, Lr% r--4 -4
t~li r-l rlrrLO C
F- C-
I-L
C:- C7 '-i 0 r-.. r4 . C: 0 C C:)
-j L/) L.-4 '--I Lt C -7
< I-
IF- - 0<ciC)- - <-
F-WLLJ w L
C)0 r-f LU
F- 1 00 <<wJ LU 0 C7) -- --I~ => Lr C=O) CD CD --J C=) Lfl '
C/ > - CD
-LJo- n- 00 cl 9
U)lfl LL
_-r 00
I -4 -- Lj v-4 CD - LCl0- c CD C7) 0: x- F- X -V) u- --z- r--, - W 0C:- C71 IL a. X I -H D LUI
-0 w I-C .4i L L2L LUJ
-CC <. d< <~ >--00> > > cc0 0- 1.- - P- - -I w < LUJ
ix- cl i.. <r- CL C .0. C0- LU: cU LU LUCl -- MC cwcc u wCD CD .0 ZL LU LU < LU LU LU
(.40 CD cm CD C D C- L < d< LU < < LU
LU < L LUI LU w LU LU Lr-Jo > > > > > >=2 w LU ~c -:c -:1W
3c - (
LL
wu M) LO CDWcr .zLC LO -- 4 -~ CN LL
_-j %
L -ZI 0
F-L
F- z w< ,w U LL) >-Z 0y) 00 C
a: < - - 0WU Q >< j 1 C4 Q0 r-. w:-D LUJ w C
< >- =woF- < -
< wL w
F-:r -L
uL L L e< F
w / w ixF-< (x CL F-WCC -r
C- ~C C- r
-40 - -4 0 0)
C). - *1F F- OL
<4 <4Ix4
WU w <
(D (DX<< < =) Wr
WU W - C/) C-> > 0%1v
C F-.
Ne- CN4rI-
~N 44L
U- C-
lc: 0IL
< LILZ WLU >-L C=
JI 9=1 fr-< 00 WL
F- C.,, _
-
<N WOJ< CL-
z j -
Im LX
L 5 <J F-
0: Cl) w
-cr LUW w
.. J w J-L ix.oU o
- -i
aU LU
:CcW
LU LU EnC .> > 40:c
-l LL.
H< Li~LLI
--
C)L/) ML ) - -
CL F- a : u 0< 0 0D
-a Z0 tnC HaIL _ U
LU _-: -ri 0-4 Ui CD Hi -: UULL
- - .- I 0.L CL - ~ L< n <) C:) 0 ~ ~
< LLJ H- (D Hix - m CD LL U-. LU
I-- :D _j % : x: <C C)'- C/) Q' 0 LJ HwO
H- U L 10 -- LL- a-<JU >- :5= t
_j .4 Lm U). >- 0-- 3 < - O-
w~L 00 0 HOCu -j>- -J -mw a I <C < 0<
i IL LUJ LU HCN 'C U
IL. V-C LLWtjCz : 0 DU) (n _.j 0~ ucX H-f=. C CH
ClU - 0
H C) C:)
'C <0 0%-LU u100 -j J
I- 3: <CC ~ 4C)
cLC. -w oL oIL F-- HZ H H -
C0k 04l < LU CZW OWJ czw C: W C)
C=~ ~ - -Ucc LWH
Nd)E <LU
C., 0 <
h2one: (413) 347-9-'1
?zrh11, 1930
Ta~ rorce Chairm'an~j~ra1Aviation Ac'.hIinitratior
-.utlur 2Con
zJ1 Caaci'-y 7xhibIt for AtI anta Task Force .2erort
Limcloso, is a .AI-otostat arm one cony of th-e edii cit!,-ourlr-y runl~zy ca;.AcitiC±3. I0te that part or all a- t!'
tle w~c~thichj is on ;-Cc-an te reT-o':od a r~1'~
.iz]~ ffi-otcotat should serve as a rorro&'uciblh co7y f 'r tIL-;a:iorce reor.t.
If -- u have any' j-uetions about thao exh-ibit '-,1oasc cill-
Sin cf-,r c y
.- r. J. C. ( man
bcc: S. L. M. HockadayAtlanta TFD Project
Do NC. .: AR Ti AM..P- ME NTS C.44
:Oc 200 7
1 75 ,\\
212 13: 131 2,
IZ - 24 23 120 - 24 !I':28
10, 71 I0 102- Ao -" 70 10 1711_
\ x~4-. ~ 1
S - --
I 7,
50
525
'0711 1982 1917 1 74 9112 1987
YEAR YEAR
o .FR C.RcC,- 0 30 50. 70% A,,.IWZ '~ 7(;#
WITH NEAR TERM IMPROVFMENTS ANDWITH FUTURE ATC SCENARIO ONLY FUTURE ATC SCENARIO
;25 220S
22S -
755
200
I 4, \ I75 175
50 so -
!3
3172 25
.12 -- \ 2 :
FAR YEAR
HOURLY RUNWAY CAPACITIES AT30%, 50%,70% ARRIVALS
Atlanta International Airport
pm'm & Co. J,,ne 1979
.. .. *. i