2013 Third International Conference on Intelligent System Design and Engineering Applications
Rules-based Study of Conflicts Detection and Resolution in Ramps
Gao Wei, Zhang Jia, Wang Taobo
College of Air Traffic Management, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin, 300300, China
jzhang_yjs10@cauc.edu.cn
Abstract—The fast growth of flights has made the gate
resources more scare, thus making taxiing in ramps more
complicated, even leading serious flights delays sometimes. In
order to reduce the conflicts in apron area, the optimization of
ground operations becomes necessary. Based on the detailed
analysis of the operation rules, an useful knowledge base (KB)
is summarized and the KB knowledge base (KB) model is
proposed. Then taking the XiaMen airlines aprons and the
actual flights schedules at XiaMen GaoQi International
Airport as an simulation example and realizing the KB model
on a Java-Mysql platform, the comparison of simulation
results and the actual operations data indicates that the
modeling method for the ground operations is feasible and
efficient. So the simulation results can provide the immediate
operation method and help relieve the workload of apron
controllers. Meanwhile, it can be a relevance to other forecasts
of ground operation or gates assignment.
Keywords-Gate Assignment; Conflicts detection and resolute;
Ground operation; Knowledge Base
I. INTRODUCTION
Due to civil aviation in China keeps fast growing, in
order to meet the increasing requirements for gates,
nowadays, domestic airports always ease the pressure by
expanding the aprons capacity and assigning gates more
reasonably. However, it often makes taxiing in apron very
complex and leads some ground delays, even follows by
large scale flights delays. Thus, we should pay more
attention to taxiing and taxiing conflicts in apron area. To
achieve conflicts detection and resolution, many researchers
have attempted various methods[1-2]. For example, Hu
Minghua studies the optimization of steady flights
schedule[3]. But this model lacks adaptability of dynamic
operation. Stephen Atkins builds a model on dynamic
schedules [4]. But it does not explore taxiing in apron.
Additionally, most models are put forward, by establishing a
simple dot-line structure of ground network, based on Graph
Theory and Mixed Integer Programming. Excluding taxiing
rules in real airport operations, so results on the basis of
network is unreliable.
Knowledge base is a feature set of fact, rule and concept,
or an organization storing and managing knowledge by
describing variable methods[5]. Its knowledge differs from
data or programs, and it is operation rules of the intelligent
system and practical experience of experts. We first analyze
typical types of taxiing and taxiing rules in apron, and build
data base of ground network. Next we describe rules
reasoning process by Knowledge base models. Then we
978-0-7695-4923-1/12 $26.00 © 2012 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/ISDEA.2012.292
establish a module structure of system, and complete the
realization and effect validation of the model.
II. ANALYSIS OF TAXIING IN RAMPS
Network in ramps is a path set of aircrafts taxiing. In this
paper, we define an aircraft is a particle-centered protection
G = ( N , E ) is physical ground network and
zone, as well as
N = {ni i = 1,", k}
is a node set of G. N consists of three
C = {ci i = 1,", l}
subsets, or apron starting point , general
A = {ai i = 1,", t} B = {bi i = 1,", g}
node ,gate .
E = {ei = (n p , nq ) i = 1," m; n p , nq ∈ N } is ei , or a
directed line segment from n p to nq . Apart from creating
topological relations between nodes and line segments, we
should store relationship between the adjacent point,
including angle and point attribute, into database, to
accurately describe the state of aircraft.
An arrival flight will taxi from the main taxiway to the
apron area, then enter the scheduled gate normally or hold
at the end of main taxiway when conflicts occur. Similarly,
a departure flight will push and taxi to main taxiway, or will
hold in the gate under conflicts.
On the summary of all analysis above, conflicts in
apron area are classified as follows.
(1) Conflicts between adjacent pushes.
(2) Conflicts between push of departure flight and
taxiing of arrival flight.
(3) Conflicts between taxiing, including butt and cross.
In this paper, we resolve conflicts by reasonable
holdings. An arrival flight may hold in apron exit or apron
taxiway, and a departure flight will hold after its push. The
typical state of flights will be illuminated later on.
According to feedback of real operation, with similar
aircrafts, we set the priority of state, or entering gate>push-
back>arrival>ready-to-taxiing>ready-to-push. Actually the
conflict detection and resolution is related to pushing time,
heading, gate, etc. Here we will analyze these factors and
establish rules base to detect and resolve conflicts.
III. DESIGN OF KNOWLEDGE BASE
Knowledge Base includes Fact Base and Rule Base.
Normally polyadic predicates are presentation for the base.
To meet practical needs, the fact base will consist of
basic flight information, such as flight number (FLT No.),
1238
the departure or arrival state, the scheduled gate, etc.
Furthermore, to be approach to the real situation, we put
simple reasoning into the base design, for instance, whether
two gates are adjacent. Thus we declare the following
composite fields.
AParam= AParam(X,Y,Z,A,B,C,T,L,P)
Predicate AParam represents featured information of
every flight, which consists of nine parameters. In real
operations, some parameters will need no assignment. Tab.
1 shows definitions of parameters in AParam.
Tab1. Definition of AParam formula
Parameter Style Implication
X string Flight number (FLT No.).
Y char Identification (A/D).
Z enum 0 The flight is ready to push in its
gate.
1 The flight is pushing.
2 The flight has completed pushing
and is ready to taxi.
3 The flight is taxiing.
4 The flight is holding in apron
taxiway.
5 The flight is entering the gate.
A Node A set consists of position and name of
nodes of ground network.
B Gate A set consists of position and name of
nodes of gate network.
C Spot A set consists of position and name of
nodes of apron exits network.
T int[ ] Departure and arrival time of flight.
L int Minimum separation between aircrafts
determined by its types.
P Node[ ] Taxiing instruction.
Node is an object-oriented type, which is inherited by
Gate and Spot. P is an array of Node.
Then we use the predicates above to define fact rules
as follows.
F1: Maneuver(X1,X2,z1,z2). At moment T, aircraft X1
maneuvers in z1, and aircraft X2 maneuvers in z2. In the
system, conflict resolutions of aircraft mainly are
represented by F1.
F2: DistToGate(X,B). At moment T, it represents
distance from aircraft X to gate B.
F3: DistToSpot(X,C). At moment T, it represents
distance from aircraft X to apron exit C.
F4: IsNear(X1,X2). When gate X1 and gate X2 is
adjacent, F4 is true, conversely it is false.
F5: GateDist (X1,X2). It represents distance from the
gate occupied by aircraft X1 to the gate occupied by aircraft
X2.
F6: Time(X1,X2,A1,A2). It represents occupied time
aircraft X1 in Node A1 plus occupied time aircraft X2 in
Node A2.
F7: SpotIsSame(X1,X2). When aircraft X1 and aircraft
X2 come in and go out from the same node, F7 is true,
conversely it is false. To be universal, in the design, we use
fact to judge the coherence of pushing headings, which are
restricted by runway, terrain, etc.
F8: IsConflict(X1,X2). When conflict between aircraft
1239
X1 and aircraft X2 emerges, F8 will give the corresponding
action modes to aircrafts.
F9: State(Z1,Z2). Z1 and Z2 represent states of two
aircrafts at the same moment.
On the behalf of on-scene commanders, the main
problems are listed.
1) Whether two departure aircrafts will develop a push
conflict.
2) When one of two departure aircrafts is pushing or
has completed pushing, whether the other can push or not.
3) When one of two departure aircrafts has started to
taxi, whether the other can push or not.
4) One of two departure aircrafts has started to taxi,
and the other is pushing.
5) One arrival aircraft has entered the apron, and the
other departure aircraft does not push.
6) One arrival aircraft has entered the apron, and the
other departure aircraft is pushing or has completed the
process.
7) One arrival aircraft is ready to enter the apron, and
the other departure aircraft has started taxiing.
8) Two arrival aircrafts enter the ramp from different
apron spots.
Next we describe the eight processes respectively.
R1: State(0, 0) ∧ SpotIsSame( X 1, X 2) ∧ IsNear ( X 1,
X 2) ∧ DistToSpot ( X 1, C1) ∧ DistToSpot ( X 2, C 2)
∧Time( X 1, X 2, A1, A2) → IsConflict ( X 1, X 2) →
( Maneuver ( X 1, X 2, 0,1) ∨ Maneuver ( X 1, X 2,1, 0))
We will compare pushing time and distance of the two
departure aircrafts, and judge whether conflicts will occur.
The strategy to resolve conflicts is to direct that one aircraft
holds and the other starts to push. The specific calculation
of conflicts is conducted as the equations below.
NN
toutX 1 + Δt pb + 1 2 = toutX 2 + Δt pb (1)
Vt
N1 N 2
toutX 1 − toutX 2 − <ε (2)
Vt
toutX 1 is the push moment. Δt pb is the required time of
push. N1 N 2 is the distance of two aircraft nodes. Vt is the
taxiing speed in ramps. ε is the minimum separation
requirement. We use equation (1) to calculate the ultimate
conflict and its result is used as the judgment of equation (2).
Similarly, we can describe other calculation mechanism.
R 2 : ( State(0,1) ∨ State(0, 2)) ∧ SpotIsSame( X 1, X 2)
∧ IsNear ( X 1, X 2) ∧ DistToSpot ( X 1, C1) ∧ DistToSpot
( X 2, C 2) ∧ Time( X 1, X 2, A1, A2) → IsConflict ( X 1, X 2)
→ ( Maneuver ( X 1, X 2, 0, 2) ∨ Maneuver ( X 1, X 2, 0, 2)
The difference between R2 and R1 is that the priority
of R2 is higher than R1 and in R2 some aircrafts are pushing.
R3 : State(0, 3) ∧ SpotIsSame( X 1, X 2) ∧ GateDist
( X 1, X 2) ∧ DistToSpot ( X 1, C1) ∧ DistToSpot ( X 2
, C 2) ∧ Time ( X 1, X 2, A1, A2) → IsConflict ( X 1, X 2)
→ Maneuver ( X 1, X 2, 0,3)
R3 represents one aircraft is taxiing in apron taxiway
and the other aircraft is ready to push. By the position of
exit and gate, and time, we judge whether the conflict of
two aircrafts will emerge. If it is true, the aircraft in apron
will stop and the taxiing aircraft keeps taxiing.
R 4 : State (1, 3) ∧ SpotIsSame ( X 1, X 2) ∧ GateDist
( X 1, X 2) ∧ DistToSpot ( X 1, C1) ∧ DistToSpot
( X 2, C 2) ∧ Time ( X 1, X 2, A1, A 2) → IsConflict
( X 1, X 2) → Maneuver ( X 1, X 2, 2, 4)
R4 represents the pushing aircraft will keep pushing
when it meets a taxiing aircraft, correspondingly, the latter
one stops.
R 5 : State (0, 3) ∧ SpotIsSame ( X 1, X 2) ∧
DistToSpot ( X 1, C 1) ∧ DistTo Gate( X 2, B 2)
∧ Time ( X 1, X 2, A1, A 2) →
IsConflict ( X 1, X 2) → Maneuver ( X 1, X 2, 0, 5)
R5 represents departure aircrafts will clear to push till
arrival aircrafts have entered gates.
R 6 : State(1,3) ∧ SpotIsSame( X 1, X 2) ∧ DistToSpot
( X 1, C1) ∧ DistToGate( X 2, G 2) ∧ Time( X 1, X 2, A1,
A2) → IsConflict ( X 1, X 2) → Maneuver ( X 1, X 2, 2, 4)
R6 represents the arrival aircraft must stop taxiing
when there is an aircraft being pushing.
R 7 : State (3, 3) ∧ SpotIsSame( X 1, X 2) ∧ DistToSpot
( X 1, C1) ∧ DistToGate( X 2, B 2) ∧ Time( X 1, X 2, A1, A
2) → IsConflict ( X 1, X 2) → Maneuver ( X 1, X 2, 3, 4)
R7 represents arrival aircrafts will enter aprons when 
departure aircrafts taxi out. Figure 1. Flow chart of the system operation
R 8 : State (3, 3) ∧ SpotIsSame ( X 1, X 2) ∧ DistTo
Gate( X 1䯸 B1) ∧ DistTo Gate( X 2䯸 B 2) ∧ Time In this paper, we set an example, Xiamen International
( X 1, X 2, A1, A 2) → IsConflict ( X 1, X 2) → ( Man Airport, to simulate the system feasibility. The northeast part
-euver ( X 1, X 2, 5, 4) ∨ Maneuver ( X 1, X 2, 4, 5)) of the airport is exclusive aprons of Xiamen Airlines, to
R8 represents aircrafts that arrive from different apron simplify the simulation, so we study Gate 61-69 relying on
spots, and we direct the one stops and the other enters its bridges. According to the airport details, we know Gate 62-
gate. 69 can dock B757 and B737, while Gate 61 can only park
B737. Fig.3 is a dot-line structure that abstracts the apron
IV. REALIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE BASE SYSTEM sketch. There are A5 and A6, two exits, represented by A
Here we use Java+Mysql development environment to and B.
complete the system realization. The Knowledge Base
system consists of three components.
1) Fact Base. We build a flight information database
according to operation rules, and build a flight performance
database containing speed (minimum, average, maximum),
geometrical shape(length, wheelbase, wingspan), etc.
2) Knowledge Base. We create several pieces of
JavaBean code to match various rules, analyze data in Fact
Base and then generate resolution strategy.
3) Interactive Interface. It includes interface for flight
feature information input and interface for conflict resolution
results output. The flow chart of the whole process is shown
in the figure 1. 
Figure 2. Dot-line structure of aprons

We set an example of two aircrafts pushes to introduce

deployment tools. The figure 3 shows the interface for flight
feature information input. Due to dynamics of moments of
aircrafts entering aprons, when inputting information, we
design an acquiring time button. The figure 4 and 5 show
the interface for conflict resolution results export.

1240
 how to build a solving knowledge base to resolve physical
conflicts between two aircrafts, and then generate a rule
scheme. Finally we simulate the system in Java+Mysql
development environment. Thus it can be seen whether the
results of deployment is reasonable or not.The system uses
interfaces to make the apron information intuitive and make
air traffic controllers’ directions more convenient.
Meanwhile, it uses rules base to simplify the modeling.
Furthermore, we will add appropriate gate optimization
strategy to the system, so as to improve the ground direction
efficiency.
REFERENCES
[1] Sang Hyun, Kim Eric Feron, John-Paul Clarke. Assigning Gates by
Resolving Physical Conflicts, AIAA 5648,2009
[2] Yu Cheng, Solving Push-Out Conflicts in Apron Taxiway of Airports
by a Network-Based Simulation, Computers ind .Engng Vol
34,No.2,pp:351-369,1998
[3] Hu Minhuang, Yu Zhi, Xiao Guorong. Deploying Model of City
Guide Signs Based on the Intersection Functions. Journal of Traffic
and Transportation Engineering,2006,6(4):96-100. (in Chinese)
 [4] Stephen Atkins, Christopher Briton. Implication of Variability in
Figure 3. Interface for flight feature information input Airport Surface Operations on 4-D Trajectory Planning, AIAA8960,
2008.
[5] Goodchild M F. Geographic Information Systems and Disaggregate
Transportation Modeling. Geographical Systems,1998

Figure 4. Conflict-free interface

Figure 5. Conflict interface

V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper, through comprehensive analysis of factors
that have influence on flight operations in ramps, studied on

1241