{"title":"算法生成扇形的比较","authors":"S. Zelinski","doi":"10.2514/ATCQ.18.3.279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses a comparison of several algo- rithm generated airspace boundary designs, known as sectoriza- tions. Three algorithms are chosen that approach the airspace sectorization problem in different ways and produce radically dif- ferent looking sectorizations due to the disparity in their methods. Simulations of air traffic using each of the sectorizations is com- pleted and their resulting demand, capacity, complexity, and delay metrics are compared. Results identify strengths and weaknesses of each sectorization algorithm.","PeriodicalId":221205,"journal":{"name":"Air traffic control quarterly","volume":"38 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Algorithm Generated Sectorizations\",\"authors\":\"S. Zelinski\",\"doi\":\"10.2514/ATCQ.18.3.279\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper discusses a comparison of several algo- rithm generated airspace boundary designs, known as sectoriza- tions. Three algorithms are chosen that approach the airspace sectorization problem in different ways and produce radically dif- ferent looking sectorizations due to the disparity in their methods. Simulations of air traffic using each of the sectorizations is com- pleted and their resulting demand, capacity, complexity, and delay metrics are compared. Results identify strengths and weaknesses of each sectorization algorithm.\",\"PeriodicalId\":221205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Air traffic control quarterly\",\"volume\":\"38 5\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Air traffic control quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2514/ATCQ.18.3.279\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Air traffic control quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2514/ATCQ.18.3.279","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Comparison of Algorithm Generated Sectorizations
This paper discusses a comparison of several algo- rithm generated airspace boundary designs, known as sectoriza- tions. Three algorithms are chosen that approach the airspace sectorization problem in different ways and produce radically dif- ferent looking sectorizations due to the disparity in their methods. Simulations of air traffic using each of the sectorizations is com- pleted and their resulting demand, capacity, complexity, and delay metrics are compared. Results identify strengths and weaknesses of each sectorization algorithm.