3rd AIAA Atmospheric Space Environments Conference AIAA 2011-3195

27 - 30 June 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii

Accuracy Estimation of Probabilistic Wake Vortex

Prediction Considering Weather Information Errors

Masahiko Sugiura1 and Naoki Matayoshi2

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Mitaka, Tokyo, 181-0015, Japan

Current wake vortex separation minima are a major impediment to increasing traffic
capacity since they require greater separations than radar separation minima. The concept
of dynamic wake vortex separation minima, which would allow reduced separations in
favorable meteorological conditions when wake durations on flight paths become shorter,
would allow an increase in capacity. This paper proposes a methodology that uses a
probabilistic wake vortex prediction model to probabilistically assure that wake vortex
encounter risks at reduced separations are equal or lower than the risks at current
separations.

I. Introduction conditions by using a probabilistic wake vortex

The demand for air travel continues to grow, and prediction model which considers more complicated
there is a strong demand to reduce aircraft wake decay and advection processes than crosswind
separations to increase traffic capacity. The wake advection. First, we introduce the DLR stochastic
vortex separation minima are a major impediment to two-phase (S2P) wake vortex prediction model 7-9
this since they require 4-6 nm separations, which are which is used in this paper. Second, we describe a
greater than radar separation minima of 2.5-3 nm method to control the hazard probability that wake
(table 1). However, these wake vortex separation vortex encounter risk at reduced separation exceeds
minima were established in the 1970s when the risk at current separations, and clarify the level of
knowledge of wake vortices was limited and might accuracy required for the prediction model for this
therefore be overly conservative, assuming the worst purpose. Finally, we present how to calculate the
case. During the past few decades, knowledge of required information about the prediction model
wake vortices has greatly increased thanks to accuracy.
advances in lidar measurement and CFD analysis
techniques 1, 2. Based on this, the concept of dynamic II. Probabilistic Wake Vortex Prediction
wake vortex separation minima, which would allow Model and Its Error Sources
reduced separations in favorable meteorological There are several parametric wake vortex
conditions when wake durations on flight paths prediction models such as D2P/P2P/S2P developed
become shorter, has been studied intensively 3-6. In by DLR7-9, DVM/PVM developed by UCL10, and the
this concept, the current wake vortex separation AVOSS model developed by NASA/NWRA11. These
minima are considered to be adequately safe, and the models output a wake vortex's circulation strength
wake vortex encounter risks at reduced separations
Table 1. ICAO wake vortex separation minima.
must be equal or lower than the risks at current
Leading Following Non-radar
separations. However, there are still only a limited Radar
aircraft aircraft Departure Arrival
number of the researches that discuss how to control
Heavy 4 nm 2 min. 2 min.
the encounter risk at reduced separations, apart from Heavy
several studies that mainly discuss wake vortex Medium 5 nm 2 min. 2 min.
(136ton)
advection due to crosswinds and so are applicable Light 6 nm 2 min. 3 min.
only to crosswind conditions 5, 6. Heavy
Medium
This paper discusses methods to probabilistically (7ton)
Medium
assure that wake vortex encounter risks at reduced Light 5 nm 3 min.
separations are equal or lower than the risks at all
Light
current separations in a wide range of meteorological categories
______________________________________________________
1
Researcher; Aviation Program Group; 6-13-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo, 181-0015, Japan; AIAA member.
2
Section Leader; Aviation Program Group; 6-13-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo, 181-0015, Japan; AIAA member.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
and position considering its generation, decay and
advection processes. The initial vortex strength
depends on aircraft parameters such as lift (weight)
and airspeed. Ambient atmospheric parameters such
as wind speed, turbulence and stratification govern
the decay and advection processes. The ground effect
is also modeled as a function of the wake vortex's
circulation strength, its height above the ground and
the time elapsed since its generation.
In our study, the S2P model is employed since it
is capable of providing a probabilistic distribution of
wake vortex circulation strength and vertical/lateral
position in real-time. Considering wake decay and
advection processes, the S2P model predicts the
uncertainty bounds and the upper and lower limits of
wake vortex parameters, and then applies prescribed
probability density distributions (PDDs) normalized Figure 1. Example of S2P calculation.
by the calculated uncertainty bounds to express wake Wake vortex generated by a heavy aircraft on approach
vortex random behaviors (Fig. 1). Since the to an airport. Measured values are normalized by the
uncertainty bounds account for wake vortex equation: , , , ,
deterministic behaviors influenced by flight where is a normalized value, is a measured
conditions and local meteorological conditions, the value, is a upper value, is a lower value.
PDDs are independent of these. We therefore require
only a single PDD for each wake vortex parameter.
However, we have to consider the following two
major PDD error sources:
1) The accuracy of the S2P input parameters: The
PDDs are derived from a wake vortex observation
database normalized by the S2Ps uncertainty bounds
calculated using the flight and meteorological
conditions (S2P input parameters) that prevailed
when the observations were conducted. Thus, the
accuracy of a PDD depends on the accuracies of its
S2P input parameters in the observation database.
This means that we have to modify the PDDs when
we use an S2P with input parameters having different
accuracies from those in the original observation
database. Figure 2. Definition of PDD's confidence interval.
2) The uncertainty of the PDD: The PDD has an
uncertainty since it is based on a finite number of Here, we show how to satisfy eq. (1) by using the
observations. The reliability of the PDD increases accuracy of the wake vortex prediction model
with the number of observations from which it is expressed by the confidence intervals of the S2Ps
derived. PDD. Let us assume that we have the lower limits of
the PDDs confidence interval (PDDL) which
III. Evaluation of Wake Vortex Encounter satisfies the requirement that the probability that
Risk Considering Wake Vortex Prediction true PDD is higher than PDDL for all ranges is
Accuracy 1-PL. In the same manner, we assume that we have
the upper limits of the PDDs confidence interval
Probabilistic assurance that the risk of wake
(PDDU) which satisfies the requirement that the
vortex encounter at reduced separation (PRdc) is equal
probability that true PDD is lower than PDDU for all
to or lower than the risk at current separation (PCur) is
ranges is 1-PU. (Fig. 2) If we use PDDL to
realized by controlling the hazard probability (PHzr)
calculate the wake vortex encounter risk at current
that the encounter risk at reduced separation exceeds
separation, the probability that the true risk PCur is
the risk at current separation (PRdc > PCur) to be equal
lower than the calculated risk (PCur_Cal) is PL. If we
to or lower than some threshold value (PThr).
use PDDU to calculate the encounter risk at reduced
PThr PHzr (1)
separation, the probability that the true risk PRdc is
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
higher than the calculated risk (PRdc_Cal) is PU.
Therefore, when we reduce wake vortex separation
up to the point at which the calculated risk at the
reduced separation becomes equal to that at current
separation (PRdc_Cal = PCur_Cal), the hazard probability
PHzr is expressed as shown in eq. (2).
1-PHzr (1-PL)(1-PU) > 1-PL-PU (2)
In fact, S2P predicts three wake vortex parameters:
circulation strength and lateral/vertical positions. We
therefore have to modify eq. (2) accordingly by
applying the above procedure to all three variables.
1-PHzr ((1-PL)(1-PU))3 > 1-3(PL+PU) (2a)
From eqs. (1) and (2a), we obtain the requirement for
PL and PU to control the hazard probability PHzr to be
equal to or lower than the threshold PThr
PThr/3 PL+PU (3)
As shown above, if we have the confidence
interval of the S2Ps PDD (PDDU, PDDL) defined by
the probabilities of PU and PL satisfying eq. (3), we
can satisfy eq. (1) by evaluating encounter risks using
PDDU and PDDL. In this method, we control the
hazard probability by underestimating the risk at
current separations and overestimating the risk at
reduced separations. The extent of underestimation
and overestimation is expressed as the ratio of
integrated values of PDDU and PDDL, and this ratio
can be used as a metric for the expected separation
reduction. A larger ratio yields a smaller reduction in
separation, since the calculated encounter risk at
reduced separation would reach the same level of risk
at current separation with a smaller reduction, and
vice versa.
IV. Quantification of Probabilistic Wake
Vortex Prediction Accuracy
In this section, we describe how to calculate the
confidence interval of an S2P PDD (PDDU, PDDL)
considering the accuracies of the S2P input
parameters.
A. Modification of S2Ps PDD Considering S2P
Input Parameters Accuracies
As explained previously, we have to modify an
S2Ps PDDs when we use an S2P with input
parameters having different accuracies from those in
the original observation database. Here, we assume
that the errors of the S2P input parameters follow a
normal distribution, and define that the standard
deviations of the input parameter errors in the
original database are Oi (i=1-N, where N is the
number of the input parameters). When we use an
S2P with input parameters whose error standard
deviations are Ui (i=1-N, Ui Oi), we can obtain
modified PDDs for these S2P input parameters by
modifying the observation database and recreating
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
the PDDs as follows.
Step 1: Add extra errors to the S2P input parameters
Xi (i=1-N) in the database such that they have the
same amount of error as the new input parameters:
XMi = Xi + RNDi (4)
where XMi (i=1-N) is a modified input parameter and
RNDi (i=1-N) is a random number according to the
standard normal distribution whose average is zero
and standard deviation is unity.
Step 2: Re-normalize the wake vortex observation
results in the original database using the new S2Ps
uncertainty bounds calculated by using the modified
S2P input parameters XMi.
Step 3: Reconstruct the PDDs from the re-normalized
database data.
Figure 3 shows an example of PDD modification
for wake vortex lateral position that changes the
standard deviation of the error of ambient crosswind
information from 1 m/s for the original PDD to 3 m/s
for the modified PDD. We simulated 3,000 wake
vortex observations at a Japanese airport using
realistic meteorological data produced by a
meso-scale weather forecasting model. Table 2
summarizes the Johnson SU probabilistic distribution
parameters used to simulate the original PDD shape.
The parameter values were determined by referring to
DLRs wake vortex observation results 9. We can see
that the modified PDD becomes broader than the
original according to the increases in the S2P input
errors. Please also note that we can modify a PDD
Table 2. Johnson SU probabilistic distribution
parameters used in simulation.
0.50
0.16
position (y, z)
0
1.60
0.50
0.65
circulation ()
0
3.26
Figure 3. Example of S2P PDD modification.
only for input parameters whose accuracies are worse
than the original ones (Ui Oi). This means that we
cannot improve the accuracy of the PDD even if we
use an S2P with more accurate input parameters than
the original ones.
B. Calculation of PDD Confidence Interval
Considering the Limitation of Observation
Number
The confidence interval of an S2Ps PDD (PDDU,
PDDL) can be quantified by evaluating the variance
of the PDDs obtained by repeating the process of
PDD construction. We can simulate this PDD
construction process as follows: 1) generate random
numbers according to a PDD created from the
observation database; 2) create simulated PDDs using
the generated random numbers which simulate
normalized observation results. Using these
simulated PDDs, we can calculate the confidence
interval of the PDD as follows. Here, we consider the
calculation of PDDU. PDDL can be calculated in the
same manner.
PDDU is defined as the upper envelope of a
simulated PDDi (i=1-NT), where NT is the number of
the simulated PDDs. To satisfy the requirement for
PDDU that the probability of true PDD is lower than
PDDU for all ranges is 1-PU, NT is given by the
following equation:
NTlog(1-PCF) / log(1-PU) (5)
where PCF is the confidence level.
Equation (5) is obtained by using the following
conditions: 1) The probability distribution of the
events PDD exceeds PDDU and PDD does not
exceed PDDU is binomial; and 2) The upper value of
the one-sided confidence interval of the probability of
a PDD exceeds PDDU event is PU with the
confidence level PCF when the number of PDD
exceeds PDDU events is zero under NT trials. We use
the normal distribution as an approximation to the
binomial distribution to derive eq. (5). Please refer to
refs.12 and 13 for further details.
Figure 4 shows an example of the confidence
interval calculation of an S2Ps PDD. We calculate
PDDU and PDDL for the PDDs shown in Fig. 3.
Values of PU=PL=10-3/6 and PCF = 0.99 are used. The
number of the simulated PDDs used for the
confidence interval calculation was NT = 27,629 for
these PU, PL and PCF values.
V. Conclusion
This paper presented a methodology that uses the
S2P probabilistic wake vortex prediction model
developed by DLR to probabilistically assure that the
risk of wake vortex encounter at reduced separation
is equal or lower than the risk at current separation.
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 4. Example of confidence interval calculation
of S2P PDD.
We proposed the following two methods.
1) A method of evaluating wake vortex encounter
risk: We proposed that the encounter risk at reduced
separation should be evaluated using the upper
confidence interval of an S2P PDD, and the risk at
current separation evaluated by using the lower
confidence interval. By doing this, we can control the
hazard probability that the encounter risk at reduced
separation exceeds the risk at current separation to be
equal to or lower than a threshold value.
2) A method of calculating an S2P PDD confidence
interval: First, a PDD modification method was
presented that enables the use of S2P with arbitrary
input parameter accuracies. Second, we presented a
method of calculating an S2P PDD confidence
interval as a one-sided confidence interval of the
binomial distribution. By combining these two
methods, an S2P PDD confidence interval can be
calculated with arbitrary input parameter accuracies.
Using the proposed methodology, we expect to
satisfy the safety requirements for dynamic wake
vortex separation reduction according to
meteorological conditions. However, the separation
reduction that can be expected from the proposed
methodology is still unknown. To quantify this, we
plan to conduct an airport terminal traffic simulation
applying reduced separations calculated by the
proposed methodology.
References
1
Gerz, T., Holzpfel, F. and Darracq, D., Aircraft
Wake Vortices: A Position Paper, Wakenet, 2001.
2
WakeNet2-Europe, Wake Vortex Research Needs for
Improved Wake Vortex Separation Ruling and Reduced
Wake Signatures, Final Report of the Thematic
Network WakeNet2-Europe, 6th Framework Program,
National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR-CR-2006-171,
Amsterdam, 2006.
3
Holzpfel, F., Gerz, T., Frech, M., Tafferner, A.,
Kopp, F., Smalikho, I., Rahm, S., Hahn, K.-U., and
Schwarz, C., The Wake Vortex Prediction and Monitoring
System WSVBS Part I: Design, 1st CEAS European Air
and Space Conference, Berlin, Germany, 2007.
4
Gerz, T., Holzpfel, F., Gerling, W., Scharnweber, A.,
Frech, M., Wiegele, A., Kober, K., Dengler, K. and Rahm,
S., The Wake Vortex Prediction and Monitoring System
WSVBS Part II: Performance and ATC Integration at
Frankfurt Airport, 1st CEAS European Air and Space
Conference, Berlin, Germany, 2007.
5
Lang, S., Wake Turbulence Mitigation for
Departures (WTMD) and Wake Turbulence Mitigation for
Arrivals (WTMA), Global wake conference, Brussels,
Belgium, 2009.
6 12
Treve, V., Crosswind dependent separations
(CROPS), Wakenet 3 Specific Workshop WV Concepts
& Capacity, London, UK, 2011.
7 13
Holzpfel, F., Probabilistic Two-Phase Wake Vortex
Decay and Transport Model, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 40,
No. 2, 2003.
8
Holzpfel, F., Probabilistic Two-Phase Aircraft
Wake-Vortex Model: Further Development and
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Assessment, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2006.
9
Holzpfel, F., Steen, M., Aircraft WakeVortex
Evolution in Ground Proximity: Analysis and
Parameterization, AIAA Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2007.
10
Jackson. W., Yaras M., Harvey J., Winckelmans G.,
Fournier G., and Belotserkovsky A., Wake Vortex
Prediction - An Overview, Phase 6 and Project Final
Report, Transport Canada and its Transportation
Development Center, TP 13629e.pdf, 2001,
www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/summary/13600/13629e.htm.
11
Robins, R. E., and Delisi, D. P., NWRA AVOSS
Wake Vortex Prediction Algorithm Version 3.1.1, NASA/
CR-2002-211746, 2002.
Shakarian, A., Application of Monte-Carlo
Techniques to the 757/767 Autoland Dispersion Analysis
by Simulation, AIAA Paper 83-2193, 1983.
Conover, W. J., Practical Nonparametric Statics,
3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1999, pp.
130-133.