Research Article Multi-objective optimization of aircraft landing within predetermined Ss N time window Qingjun Xia'® - Zhijian Ye! . Zhaoyue Zhang’ -Tingting Lu! Received 1 September 2021 / Accepted: 11 May 2022 Published online: 18 June 2022 ©The Authors) 2022 OPEN Abstract This study presents a multi-objective optimization model to solve aircraft landing problem within a predetermined time window. Minimizing total fuel cost, minimizing total delays, maximizing throughput, and maximizing fairness are con- sidered to construct the multi-objective optimization model. According to the different weights of objectives, the first come-first-serve and simulated annealing are used to solve the multi-objective optimization problem. The algorithms’ feasibility is analysed and a suggestion about how to get satisfactory solutions for all stakeholders is given through the expert evaluation method, The results show that the simulated annealing can get better solution than the first-come- first-serve when the number of flights exceeds 10. Article Highlights ‘© Amulti-objective optimization model for aircraft land- © To balance the benefit of different stakeholders, the ing within a predetermined time window is proposed. __expert evaluation method is applied to select the best ‘+ The first come first serve (FCFS) approach and simu- result. lated annealing approach are applied to solve multi- objective optimization of aircraft landing problem. Keywords Aircraft landing problem (ALP) Simulated annealing (SA) First come first serve (FCFS) 1 Introduction Generally, the main task of the ALP is to decide the pre- determined landing time for each flight and satisfy the With the rapid growth of airport traffic, runway capacity separation criteria among the landing flights (2) is no longer enough for flights to land at the estimated __As an optimization model, the research of ALP mainly time of arrival (ETA) [1]. The aircraft landing problem focuses on the following aspects: (ALP) becomes a task that must be solved for an airport. Zhijan Ye, Zhaoyue Zhang, and Tinting Lu have contributed equally to this work Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material avalable at https: /doloro/10.1007/s42452-022- 5071-3, 7 Qingjun Xa, qxlacicauc edu.cn;Zhijlan Ye, 2iyecauc edu.cn; Zhaoyue Zhang, [email protected];Tingting Lu, ttlu@cauceducn | "college of Air Trafic Management, Cv Aviation University of China, Tanjin 300200, China Da, suropedscences (202218198 psd r/ta.t00rssz452-022-080713 SN Applied SciencesResearch Article SN Applied Sciences (2022) 4.198 Lhttps//doiora/10.1007/542452-022-05071-3 (1) minimizing the total penalty; (2) minimizing the total delays or total fuel cost; and (3) maximizing the runway throughput. Abhishek Awasthi et al(2013) thought the objective of ALP was to optimize landing sequences and landing times forall the aircraft, and presented a polynomial algorithm to reduce the total penalty for given feasible landing sequence for the single runway [3]. Bennell JA, et al. (2017) adopted dynamic programing algorithm to solve the on-line ALP and the total penalty was took account of optimization objective [4]. Alain Faye (2015) [5], Sabar etal. [6] also solved the ALP by minimizing the total penalty forthe single runway. Sale- hipour A. et al. (2013) dealt with this problem by allocating aircraft to land on the available runvvays to minimize the total delay [7], Farhadi et al.(6] minimized the total fuel consump- tion by minimizing the deviation of aircraft's starttimes from their respective ready-times. Veresnikov etal. [9] developed a dynamic programming algorithm to minimize the total delay of aircraft landings. Wei-dong et al 10] applied ant colony algorithm in fight landing scheduling problem to maximize runway throughput. Livang etal. (2018) developed a optimiza- tion algorithm based teaching-leaming for runway schedul- ing under constrained position shifting to maximize runway throughput [1]. The above documents only selected one target from total penalty total delay, total fuel consumption, cor runway throughput to solve the ALP.n reality, air transporta- tion involves some stakeholders such as air traffic controllers, airports airlines and passengers. Different stakeholders care about different goals, for example, reducing delay isthe con- cemoof passengers and airlines, ensuring safety the concem ofall stakeholders, maximizing runway throughputtisthe con- cem ofairports,and reducing fuel consumption isthe concern ofairines. Therefore, the ALP model needsto optimize multiple conflicting objectives simuitaneousty and the ALP becomes a complex multi-objective optimization of aircraft landing prob- lem (MOOALP).\We explicitly consider the following objectives and constrains for solving ALP. ‘+ Tocensure the safety, the scheduled landing time must meet the separation requirements. + To take full advantage of airspace and runway resources, al aircraft must land as soon as possible, Minimize the total delay time of terminal arrivals. ‘+ To minimize the total fuel cost, the aircraft uses the most economical speed to land. ‘+ Scheduled landing time should be generated before the arranged flights enter the terminal. ‘+ Flight can be delayed by waiting at holding position, regulating speed, or making maneuvers. If there are n flights, the solution space has n! combi- nations. In order to meet the requirements of the control task, an approximate or global optimal solution must be SN Applied Sciences found as soon as possible. The simulated annealing can meet the request of control task because it accepts the oor solution with a certain probability so as to jump out of the local optimal solution and obtain the approximate or global optimal solution. The remaining part ofthis paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we describe the problem and model of MOOALP. In Sect. 3, based on FCFS service rules, the ALP is solved by SA. In Sect. 4, taking an airport as an example, we analyze the test results of FCFS and the SA. The discussion and con- clusion are raised in Sect. 5 and 6, respectively. 2 MOOALP model 2.1 Problem description Flights enter the terminal area from different routes and prepare for landing according to the instrument approach procedure. The initial points of instrument approach pro- cedures are called the approach point, such as p001-p011 in Fig, 1. The approach points form the outer ring. The opti- mization algorithm of aircraft landing problem must be terminated when the flights arrival inner ring. The flights lying between the outer ring and inner ring need to be extracted from radar and be scheduled the landing time. In order to guarantee the safety, ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) stipulates the time-based wake turbulence separation minima for arriving aircraft on the same runway. The time separation for three wake turbulence categories (LIGHT, MEDIUM, and HEAVY) is shown below [12] Fig. 1 The spatiotemporal model of airport terminal areaSN Applied Sciences _(2022) 4:198 https//doLora/10.1007/42452-022-05071-3 Research Article ‘¢ MEDIUM aircraft behind HEAVY aircraft—2 min; © LIGHT aircraft behind a HEAVY or MEDIUM air- craft—3 min; For the other situations, each airport has its own time separation stipulates, for instance, in our experiment ait- port is 1.5 min. 2.2 Multi-objective optimization model In this work, four objectives are considered to build the MOOALP Minimize the aircraft total fuel cost resulting from the start-time deviation the ready-time. min Y) [gx max(o, Ti xi) +h x max(0,xi-Ti)]_ (1) fe where P is the number of aircraft; Tis the preferred land- ing time for aircraft i; x;is the scheduled landing time for aircraft ig is the penalty cost (20) per unit of time before the preferred landing time T, for aircraft i;h is the penalty cost (20) per unit of time after preferred landing time T, for aircraft i Minimize the total delays win Maximize throughput by minimizing the makespan, 1P{maxi0.x, = 7) @ f, = min{max(x, i = 1, 4 PD) @ Maximize faimess by minimizing the variance of delay. f, = minlstadev’] @ : : (\ a wr) 6) Because these four objectives sometimes may conflict with each other, the importance of these goals must be weighed according to the actual situation. In the rush hour, aircraft are expected to land as soon as possible, so the third objective will have greater weight. During petiods of low traffic, the alrcraft are expected to land in the most economical way, so the first objective will have greater weight. The MOOALP mathematical madel can be represented as follows: = mintanh, tify +h + wala) o ” FUP, B12 oP, FY ® 8y€ (01h = 1.2e0P = LP FAY ° AS HS 22 P (10) Xj 2x) +S/Olly — 6) = L2P, = 2, A#/ (MN) where, wyrepresents the weight of fy kK=1,2:3.4,5)5) 5 the decision variable if aircraft lands before 5, = 16)= 1, otherwise 6)= 0; is the earliest landing time for aircraft {Lis the latest landing time for aircraft: 5; is the minimum time separation between aircraft iand aircraft The objective function (6) minimizes the sum of four ‘objectives for optimizing MOOALP. Constrain (7) ensures the sum of these weights is one. Constrains (8-9) define the landing sequence. It means that fight / must land before flight or fight must land before fight Constraint (10) ensures that each fight is scheduled in its time win- dow. The time window is bounded by the earliest landing time and the latest landing time. Constrain (11) means that the landing time must satisfy the minimum time separation. 3 Algorithm of MOOALP model 3.1 FCFS algorithm 3.1.1 FCFS service rules FCFS is a kind of service rule. It means that the flight is arranged to land according to their estimated arriving time to the runway threshold. The first coming flight will be arranged tothe frst landing {13-15}. 3.1.2 Scheduled landing time with FCFS rules Let array X = [x(A,),x(A,),--.x(A,)]tepresents the sched- uled landing time of each flight, T(A,) be the estimated landing time of flight A, Sy. be the safety separation between 4,, and A, The scheduled landing time x(4) is calculated as follows: SN Applied SciencesResearch Article SN Applied Sciences (2022) 4.198 Lhttps//doiora/10.1007/542452-022-05071-3 x(Ay) = TAY) (Ag) = max|T(AY), Oy) + S4,4,)] (A) = max{TIA), A.-1) + Se.) (12) x(A,) = maxl TIA, (Ay) +54, Ay] 3.2 Simulated annealing for MOOALP ‘The FCFS rules cannot get the global optimal solution because the MOOALP belongs to combinatorial optimi- zation. In 1983, S, Kirkpatrick et al. proposed simulated annealing from the annealing process in metallurgy to solve ‘combinatorial optimization problems. When the tempera- ture rises the atoms become disordered and their internal energy increases. During the temperature dropping, the atoms can reach an equilibrium state at every temperature, At the low-temperature state, the atoms reach the ground state and the internal eneray decreases to a minimum, According to the Metropolis criterion, the probability that atoms approach equilibrium at temperature Tis exp(-Aé/ (k7)), where, Eis the internal energy at temperature T, AE is the variation of internal eneray, kis Boltzmann's constant [16]. When SA is used to solve combinatorial optimization problems, the internal energy E and temperature Tcorre- spond to the objective function value and control param- eter, respectively. The pseudo-code of SA is as follows: Initialise Generate initial solution Xo Compute objective function value Fy Set 50(1000.98”) number % Set iteration time L=30 Repeat %Create a new solution% Generate perturbation solution X" % Xois the result of FCFS % % F0 can be computed by formula (6) % % the initial temperature is relation with aircraft X+AY Yludge whether X’ is a feasible solution’ IF earliest timesscheduled landing timeslatest time X"is a feasible solution ELSE X" isn'ta feasible solution WHILE X' isn'ta feasible solution Generate perturbation solution X'=X+AX UNTIL X' is a feasible solution AF =F(X)- FX) IF AF <0 Accept the new solution X' SE Generate random threshold r& [0,1] IF r>exp(AF /T) Accept the new solution X" Decrease temperature T UNTIL TimeLimit or reach the iteration number L SN Applied SciencesSN Applied Sciences __(2022) 4:198 | nttps//doi.org/10.1007/s42452-022-05071-3 Research Article Table 1. The information of 11 fights between the outer ting and nner ting Data number Earliest time (6) 1389 1360 1338 2036 m2 1434 1308 1413 1408 1051 1615 Estimated Latesttime (6) Aircrafttypes Flight number landing time (20-LMH) a 1520 3320 1 ccaasay 1491 3291 3 ccr7577 1469 3269 1 cscess4 2167 3967 3 csn3i31 1263 3063 2 cessi89 1565 3365 2 cR7990 1435 3235 3 ccaso2 1544 aaa 3 oxn8229 1615 3415 3 cscasey mez 2982 2 csniaze 1746 3546 3 csn3esa ia L L L L L i Tine OELTssLT att Fi ey iain ty Fig.2. The arrival sequence and the scheduled landing instant of FCFS 4 Experiments and results ‘The two methods of FCFS and SA are provided to solve MOOALP In Fig. 1, there are 11 flights between the outer ring and inner ring. The information of 11 flights is shown inTable 1.The objective function includes four sub-objec- tives and their weights combinations represent different stakeholder's interest. To incorporate the different stake- holder's interest, we set 13 weight combinations. 4.1 Results of FCFS The simulation results of FCFS are unrelated to objective func- tion, and the simulation results are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 2. SN Applied Sciences 1 SPRNGERNATUREResearch Article SN Applied Sciences (2022) 4:198 Lhttps//dotorg/10.1007/542452-022-05071-3 Table? Results of test ofFCES GGrdingorder Detanumber Scheduled Oelaytime(s) Eailesttne(@) Estimated Latestime() Avaaht Fightnumber landing landing time category Time) 6) 621 Ui 1 10 182 ° 1051 1182 2982 2 cswia2e 2 5 1263 ° 32 1263 3053 2 cessie9 3 7 135 o 1308 135 323 2 ccaaen 4 2 37 1360 1491 2291 2 ccRas77 5 8 1599 5s 1413 1544 aaa 3 cxnez29 6 9 168185, 1494 1615 aais 3 cscasey 7 " 170637 1615 1746 3546 3 cSN3654 8 6 12267 1s 1565 3365 2 cca590 9 3 ws2 423 1338 1409 3269 1 cscases 10 1 oe) 1389 1520 3320 1 cenasa7 n 4 ne 7 2036 2167 3967 3 csnaiat Table3 Using FCF to calculate performance indicators when the weight take the following value Test Weights Totaldely Totalfuel —Makespan Maximum of Variance of delay time iy) cost (x) delay ou) be) fxd 1 1339 11373 2184 468 31488 2 1246 10458 2167 502 31.666 3 1239 9373 2084 368 21488 4 1934 12838 a aia 23855 5 1525 10675 2184 405 25344 6 1927 13.489 mn 43 24224 7 1525 10675 2194 405 25.388 8 1525 10675 2184 405 25.344 9 1432 10024 7184 386 24316 10 a2 10024 2184 386 24316 n a2 10024 2184 386 24816 2 17 13.409 22 433 24224 13 wi=08m2=005w3=005wi=0.1 1525 10675 2194 405 25,388 ‘The symbols“o" and “** represent ELT (Estimated Land- ingTime) and SLT (Scheduled Landing Time), respectively. The line segment represents the landing interval from the earliest time to the latest time. The rightmost column shows the information of data number, flight number, delay time, and aircraft category. The scheduled landing instant, for example (12:48:12), equals the program start time adding the scheduled landing time in Table 2. The scheduled landing instant of CSN1428 can be calculated as flowing: 12: 28: 30 + 19m : 42811825 = 12: 48: 12 SN Applied Sciences When the weights take the following values, the total delay time, total fuel cost, makespan, maximum of delay, and variance of delay of FCFS are presented in Table 3. 4.2 Results of SA The simulation results of SA are related to weight of objec- tive function, and the simulation results of SA of test! are shown in Fig. 3 and Table 4, The manifestations of simula- tion results of test 2-13 are similar with test 1.SN Applied Sciences _(2022) 4:198 | nttps//doi.org/10.1007/542452-022-05071-3 Research Article rs owes 7 eswnnaans 0+ esa 4429) esnes4 393 L 1 | ‘onLrsstr nan Fi hey iil py Fig.3. The arial sequence and the scheduled landing instant of SA, Table Results oftestt by SA Landing order Data number Scheduled Delay time (s) Earliest time(s) Estimated Latesttime () Aircraft types Flight number landing time landing time (.2.-LMH) 8 ‘3 1 10 1052, = 130 1051 1182 2982 2 csniazs 2 5 133 = 130 12 1263 3063 2 cessie9 a 7 1305 = 130 1308 1435 3235 3 cago 4 1 1405 =15 1389 1520 3320 1 ccaasa7 5 2 1545 54 1360 1491 3291 3 ccr7s77 6 2 1621 152 1338, 1469 3260 1 cscaaes 7 8 1817 ms 1413 1548 aaa 3 cxAe229 8 6 1886 321 1434 1565 3365 2 ccR7990 ° ° 2017 402 1484 1615 aa15 3 cscasey 10 n 2099 353 1615 1746 3506 3 csn3es4 " 4 2181 4 2036 2167 3967 3 sn3i31 The meaning of symbol and the computing method of 4.3 Test analysis scheduled landing instant are same with the Fig. 2. When the weights take the following values, the total In Tables 3 and 5, different weight combination represents delay time, total fuel cost, makespan, maximum of delay, different stakeholder's interest. For example, the optimi- and variance of delay of SA are presented in Table 5. zation goal of Test 1 is minimizing total fuel cost and it SN Applied Sciences 1 SPN ERNATUREResearch Article SN Applied Sciences (2022) 4.198 Lhttps//doiora/10.1007/542452-022-05071-3 Table 5 Using $A to calculate the performance indicators when the weights take the following value Test Weights Total delay time Totalfuel cost Make-span Maximum Variance of delay ct) on) ) ofdelay (3,4) 64) 1 wi=tw2=0m3=004=0 300 10440 2081 416 24,568 2 wiz0w2=1w3=04=0 1240 10.408, 2179 496 31,068, a 204 21204 2155 635 54986, 4 398 11287 2081 283 23,855 5 1240 sir 2158) 360 23,855 6 1339 11323 2158 379 24224 7 1339 9700 2167 369 23,855, 8 120 10.172 2158) 360 23,855, ° ‘800 9880 ane 320 23,855, 10 1339 9909 2167 369 23,855, " 1240 or 2138 360 23,855 2 1333, 9823 2158) 379 24224 B 393 10247 2081 283 23,855, Tables Investigation results of ciferent stakeholders parameters Controle wjtotaldelaytime 3 wtotalfuelcost 4 nsmakespan 1 ngmaximum of delay 2 5 variance of delay Table7 the normalized results ofable 5 SN Applied Sciences irports Tea Rifles Passengers is the concer of airlines. Those weight combinations belong to the Pareto front problem. The expert evalua- tion method is used to select the satisfactory solutions for all stakeholders. ‘We did an investigation and asked air traffic controllers, airport authorities, airline representatives, and the passen- gers to rank the five parameters. Ifthe stakeholders think that the parameter is most important, the weight of the parameters setto 1.In the subdominant place, the weight Totalfuelcost Makespanz,Z,) Maximum of delay Varance Total delay time (22) = 1628 0312 1.882 ~1432 0.299 0502 0502 0299 = 0600 0502 0299 0.490 =1432 (42) (e212) of delay (2, 2) 0201 — 1648 0324 0276 ~ 0195 0793 1245 0542 3.248 0453 2559 3.226 0.055 ~ 1943 1.01 0358 ~ 0604 0538 0.276 ~0358 0.238 0538 0072 ~0315 0833 0793 0.180 ~0358 0.286 0522 0276 -0358 -0379 0595 0708 -0358 -0370 0793 0.180 0.358 ~ 0413 0538 0.276 ~ 0358 0397 sae 0072 -0315, = 0262 168 1401 -0358SN Applied Sciences __(2022) 4:198 | nttps//doi.org/10.1007/s42452-022-05071-3 Research Article Table 8 Comprehensive scores of different stakeholders Fig.4. Therunning time of FCFS and SA, Fig.5. The total delay time of FCFS and A ae » 2 pe Po : = Ss ° Flight number _ ES Total delay time(s) BS 5 2 6 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Flight number SN Applied Sciences 1 SPRNGERNATUREResearch Article SN Applied Sciences __ (2022) 4:198, Lhttps//doiora/10.1007/542452-022-05071-3 Fig.6 The total fuel cost of FCFS ands Tota fue owt) coe eee 5 6 7 8 9 10 M1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Flight aumber Fig.7_Themakespan of FCFS 5000 anda a ‘4000 = 3500 ¥ 3000 $ 2500 2000 1500 3000 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Flight number Fig.8 The maximum delay of 11600 FcFSandsA 8 Maximum of delay(S) 82838 200 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Flight number SN Applied SciencesSN Applied Sciences _(2022) 4:198 Fig.9. The objective function Value of FCFS and SA Boks ive function value es Object 100 of the parameter is set to 2, and so on. The results of the investigation are shown in Table 6. ‘To make the data have the same measurement scale, MOOALP results are normalized according to the follow- ing formula: mj - Ey) Dy (yj - XP (0-1). (13) where, xis the original value of parameter /in test ¥, is the average value of parameter mis the test time: zis. the normalized value of x, x). The normalized results of Table 5 are shown in Table 7. The formula for comprehensive evaluation of test by the ith stakeholder is as follows. Rhy Mar Phay Haste Hart 2ay arty * Hs: aa) where yy is the ith stakeholder’s comprehensive score about test j = 1,2,.13),/(/=1, 2, 3, oF 4) respectively represents air traffic controllers, airports, airlines, and passengers. Comprehensive scores of different stakeholders are shown in Table 8. InTable &, the sums of the comprehensive scores about different stakeholders are presented in the last column. To all interested stakeholders, the smaller the sum is, the more acceptable the test result will be. Test 13 of the SA has the smallest values. In theory, the weights of test 13 are the most reasonable. 4.4 Comparison about FCFS and SA From Tables 3 and 5, we can see that performance indica- tors of SA are better than FCFS except test 3.It means that FCFS algorithm can be selected to solve ALP when airport capacity maximization is only considered. | nttps//doi.org/10.1007/542452-022-05071-3 Research Article —ros 1 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Flight number Using the weight of test 13 as the objective function isthe first choice for multi-objective optimization. When the weights take values of test13, the performance of FCFS and SA is compared from the computing time, the total delay time, the total fuel cost, the makespan, the maxl- mum delay and the objective function value. The compari- son results re shown in the Figs. 4,56, 7,8, and 9. From the Fig 4, itis clear that the operation speed of FCFS is faster than that of SA. The running time of SA is much less than that ofthe aircraft fying to the inner ring, 50 the running time of SA can meet the control require- ments. The total delay time, total fuel cost, maximum of delay and objective function value of FCFS algorithm exceed those of SA algorithm (Figs.5, 6, 7,8, and 9), but the total delay time of SA and FCFSis are litle difference when the number of fights is less than 10 sorties (Fig. 5).SA has an obvious advantage only when there are more flights 5 Conclusion In this paper we discussed the aircraft landing problem and constructed the multi-objective optimization model from minimizing total fuel cost, minimizing total delays, maximizing throughput, and maximizing fairness to solve ALP. The optimization model fully considers the interests, of air traffic controllers, airports, airlines and passengers. According to the different weights of objectives, the first-come-first-serve and simulated annealing are used to solve the multi-objective optimization problem. The different weight combination represents different stake- holder's interest. Those weight combinations belong to the Pareto front problem. The expert evaluation method is used to select the satisfactory solutions forall stakehold- ers. Although we can always get the optimal weights for SN Applied SciencesResearch Article SN Applied Sciences (2022) 4.198 Lhttps//doiora/10.1007/542452-022-05071-3 specific examples according to the expert's comprehen- sive score, these parameters are still manual settings. How to.get different weights according to different ariva trafic flow by computer programs automatically s the further research ‘Author contributions: GX contributed tothe conception of the study 2y performed the experiment; 22 contributed significantly to analy- ‘is and manuscript preparation; TL helped perform the analysis with constructive discussions Funding This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (31220164002), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and CAUC special fund Under Grant XJ2021000701, and the National Key Research and Development rogram of China (2020¥F81 600101) ‘Availablity of data and materials Al data generated or analysed dur- ing this study are included inthis published article. Code availabilty The algorithm in this paper is eallzed by MATLAB, and the code is availabe, Declarations Conflict of interest We declare that we have no financial and per- sonal relationships with ether people or organizations that can in- appropriately influence our work, thete Is no professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and fr company that could be construed as influencing the position pre- sented in, or the review ofthe manuscript entitled "Multi-objective Optimization of Aircraft Landing within Predetermined Time Win- dow’ Ethical approval This article doesnot violate any ethics. Consent to participate All authors consent to participate Consent for publication All authors consent to for publication. Open Access This article licensed under a Creative Commons At bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original authors) and the Source, provide alink othe Creative Commons licence, and inate if changes were made. The images or other third party materalin this article are included in the article's Creative Commonslicence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material f materials not Included in the articles Creative Commons licence and your intended Use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted Use, you wll need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy ofthis licence, visit http/creativecommons. orgiicenses/by/4.0/. SN Applied Sciences References 1. Veresnikow GS, Egorov NA, Kulida EL, Lebedev VG (2019) Meth- (ds fo saving ofthe aircraft landing problem. I Approximate solution methods. Autom Remote Control 80(8:1502-1518 2. Lieder A riskotn D,Stollet2R (2015) A dynamic programming approach forthe aircraft landing problem with aircraft classes. Eur JOper Res 243(1):61-69, 3. Awasthi A, Kramer, Lassig J 2013) Atcraftlanding problem: an efficient algorithm fora given landing sequence In: 2013 IEEE 16th International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, pp 20-27 4. Bennell A, Mesgarpour M, Potts CN (2017) Dynamic scheduling of aircraft landings. Eur J Oper Res 258(1)315-327 5. Faye A (2015) Solving the aircraft landing problem with time dlscretiztion approach. Eur J Oper Res 242(3):1028-1038 6. Sabar NA Kendall G (2015) An iterate local search with multiple perturbation operators and time varying perturbation strength for the aircraft landing problem. Omega 56:88-98 7. Salehipour A, Modarres M Moslem L (2013) An efficient hybrid ‘meta-heuristic for aircraft landing problem. Comput Oper Res 401):207-213 8. FarhadiF,Ghoniem A, Salem M (2014) Runway capacity man: agement—an empirical study with application to Doha interna- ‘tional Airport. Transport Res Part E 6853-63 9. Veresnikov GS, Egorov NA, Kulda EL, Lebedev VG (2019) Meth- ‘ods for salving of the alrraft landing problem. exact solution ‘methods, Autom Remote Control 80:1317-1334 10. Wei-Dong MA, Wen-luan ¥, Bo X (2016) Research on applica- tion of ant colony algorithm based on displacement con- straints in fight landing scheduling problem. J Ind Eng Manag 301/191-1968 11. Liang, Nie Dang-min, Wen Xiang-xi, Gao Yang-yang,“Arival aircraft optimal sequencing based on teaching-leaming-based ‘optimization algorithm with Immunity’, 2018 international Conference on Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Qingdao, China, 2018, pp. 1-5. 12, ICAO Doc 4444, Procedures for AirNavigation Services -AirTraf- fic Management, 16th Edition. 13, Benedikt G, Johannes D, Patrick Tugba A Florian & (2018) Non- linear model predictive contol for optimal arcaft sequencing. In-315t Congress ofthe Intemational Council of the Aeronauti- «al Sciences, Belo Horizonte, Brazil 14, Vadlamani Set al (2014) A novel heuristic approach for solving aircraft landing problem with single eunway.\EEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 12(0):144-148, 15, Lieder A, Stolle (2016) Scheduling aircraft take-offs and land ings on interdependent and heterogeneous runways. So¢ Sci Electron Publ 28(4):167—188 16, Kirkpatrick S, Glatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simu lated annealing. Science 220(4598)671-680 Publishers Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional clsimsin published maps and insttutiona affiliations.