Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “negotiation models”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2

Challenges in applying model-based systems engineering: human-centered design perspective

Systems engineering is, by its nature, human-centered. It is about tradeoffs and negotiations by systems engineers among different disciplines and systems to ensure the resulting system of systems can achieve the mission objectives successfully. Applying MBSE means enabling system engineers to use MBSE processes, methods, and tools to perform such work. This requires not only tools and infrastructure that support MBSE but also cultural change in how system engineers approach their work. Although the cultural change is listed as one of the challenges for MBSE infusion to address, its details and how to address them are not often discussed in the literature and the community. We used Human-Centered Design framework to articulate a core set of related challenges and the implications to tool and infrastructure developments. We will discuss the details of the HCD framework applied and discuss the core challenges using an electrical system engineering to harness engineering workflow as a case study.

Jimenez, Alejandro↗

Automating Mid- and Long-Range Scheduling for NASA's Deep Space Network

NASA has recently deployed a new mid-range scheduling system for the antennas of the Deep Space Network (DSN), called Service Scheduling Software, or S(sup 3). This system is architected as a modern web application containing a central scheduling database integrated with a collaborative environment, exploiting the same technologies as social web applications but applied to a space operations context. This is highly relevant to the DSN domain since the network schedule of operations is developed in a peer-to-peer negotiation process among all users who utilize the DSN (representing 37 projects including international partners and ground-based science and calibration users). The initial implementation of S(sup 3) is complete and the system has been operational since July 2011. S(sup 3) has been used for negotiating schedules since April 2011, including the baseline schedules for three launching missions in late 2011. S(sup 3) supports a distributed scheduling model, in which changes can potentially be made by multiple users based on multiple schedule "workspaces" or versions of the schedule. This has led to several challenges in the design of the scheduling database, and of a change proposal workflow that allows users to concur with or to reject proposed schedule changes, and then counter-propose with alternative or additional suggested changes. This paper describes some key aspects of the S(sup 3) system and lessons learned from its operational deployment to date, focusing on the challenges of multi-user collaborative scheduling in a practical and mission-critical setting. We will also describe the ongoing project to extend S(sup 3) to encompass long-range planning, downtime analysis, and forecasting, as the next step in developing a single integrated DSN scheduling tool suite to cover all time ranges.

scheduling↗

HDU Pressurized Excursion Module (PEM) Prototype Systems Integration

The Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) project team constructed an analog prototype lunar surface laboratory called the Pressurized Excursion Module (PEM). The prototype unit subsystems were integrated in a short amount of time, utilizing a skunk-works approach that brought together over 20 habitation-related technologies from a variety of NASA centers. This paper describes the system integration strategies and lessons learned, that allowed the PEM to be brought from paper design to working field prototype using a multi-center team. The system integration process included establishment of design standards, negotiation of interfaces between subsystems, and scheduling fit checks and installation activities. A major tool used in integration was a coordinated effort to accurately model all the subsystems using CAD, so that conflicts were identified before physical components came together. Some of the major conclusions showed that up-front modularity that emerged as an artifact of construction, such as the eight 45 degree "pie slices" making up the module whose steel rib edges defined structural mounting and loading points, dictated much of the configurational interfaces between the major subsystems and workstations. Therefore, 'one of the lessons learned included the need to use modularity as a tool for organization in advance, and to work harder to prevent non-critical aspects of the platform from dictating the modularity that may eventually inform the fight system.

Gill, Tracy R.↗

Accuracy analysis of TDRSS demand forecasts

This paper reviews Space Network (SN) demand forecasting experience over the past 16 years and describes methods used in the forecasts. The paper focuses on the Single Access (SA) service, the most sought-after resource in the Space Network. Of the ten years of actual demand data available, only the last five years (1989 to 1993) were considered predictive due to the extensive impact of the Challenger accident of 1986. NASA's Space Network provides tracking and communications services to user spacecraft such as the Shuttle and the Hubble Space Telescope. Forecasting the customer requirements is essential to planning network resources and to establishing service commitments to future customers. The lead time to procure Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS's) requires demand forecasts ten years in the future a planning horizon beyond the funding commitments for missions to be supported. The long range forecasts are shown to have had a bias toward underestimation in the 1991 -1992 period. The trend of underestimation can be expected to be replaced by overestimation for a number of years starting with 1998. At that time demand from new missions slated for launch will be larger than the demand from ongoing missions, making the potential for delay the dominant factor. If the new missions appear as scheduled, the forecasts are likely to be moderately underestimated. The SN commitment to meet the negotiated customer's requirements calls for conservatism in the forecasting. Modification of the forecasting procedure to account for a delay bias is, therefore, not advised. Fine tuning the mission model to more accurately reflect the current actual demand is recommended as it may marginally improve the first year forecasting.

Stern, Daniel C.↗

Strategic Deconfliction Performance: Results and Analysis from the NASA UTM Technical Capability Level 4 Demonstration

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) refers to the service-based, cooperative approach to the management of small UAS in the National Airspace System that is safe, scalable, and fair. UTM provides the means to manage the airspace in a complementary manner that does not burden the current air traffic control workforce or infrastructure but allows the Air Navigation Service Provider to maintain its regulatory and operational authority of the airspace. A key feature of UTM is the ability to provide operators the means to strategically deconflict operations from others in the airspace through the digital exchange of information via supporting services. Through this approach, the four-dimensional operation volumes that encompass the intent of operators in a given area are discoverable and can be used for airspace awareness as well as planning conflict free operations that account for and avoid other operations. In certain cases, it is also possible to negotiate volume intersections for shared airspace use without the need to re-plan. In the NASA UTM concept, strategic deconfliction is the first layer of three in the overall conflict management model. The three layers of the conflict management model, which follow the International Civil Aviation Organization’s scheme [ICAO 2005] are: strategic conflict management, separate provision, and collision avoidance. In UTM, the strategic layer mostly occurs prior to departure, but is applicable to en route operations with sufficient planning horizon. The initial requirements for a strategic deconfliction capability within UTM are defined in a NASA publication [Rios 2018]. Within the concept and implementation of service-provided strategic deconfliction is the notion of priority. It is understood that there are instances in which an operation requires a priority designation within the UTM system and special handling accordingly to provide situation awareness and facilitate appropriate responses from other airspace users. Examples of situations requiring priority designation include: when an operator declares an emergency due to problems with the vehicle or its immediate surroundings; operations that are in support of certain organizations (e.g., public safety and first responders); or special missions that also require priority use of airspace (e.g., emergency medical deliveries). UAS Volume Reservations (UVRs) also relate to the topic of priority in the sense that the airspace that the volume encompasses has a different status or classification in which unassociated operations must vacate if inside, or avoid if outside, through strategic deconfliction with the volume. Operations that are specially permitted to access the UVR area are typically assigned priority status given the nature of their mission and their associated credentials. The ability to perform strategic deconfliction, handle certain operations with a priority distinction, and establish UVRs that are communicated throughout the UTM system, is predicated on an architecture that has been established through an evolutionary process in response to close collaboration with stakeholders from government and industry. Another important and influential aspect of these capabilities and architecture is the live, distributed flight tests that have been conducted across the Technical Capability Levels (TCLs) that culminated with a set of complex tests performed as part of TCL4 [Rios 2020]. The TCL4 flight test involved two FAA-designated UAS test sites building teams to collaborate with NASA’s UTM Project on the execution of several detailed, small UAS scenarios in urban environments.

conflict management↗

Preserving the Pyramid of STI Using Buckets

The product of research projects is information. Through the life cycle of a project, information comes from many sources and takes many forms. Traditionally, this body of information is summarized in a formal publication, typically a journal article. While formal publications enjoy the benefits of peer review and technical editing, they are also often compromises in media format and length. As such, we consider a formal publication to represent an abstract to a larger body of work: a pyramid of scientific and technical information (STI). While this abstract may be sufficient for some applications, an in-depth use or analysis is likely to require the supporting layers from the pyramid. We have developed buckets to preserve this pyramid of STI. Buckets provide an archive- and protocol-independent container construct in which all related information objects can be logically grouped together, archived, and manipulated as a single object. Furthermore, buckets are active archival objects and can communicate with each other, people, or arbitrary network services. Buckets are an implementation of the Smart Object, Dumb Archive (SODA) DL model. In SODA, data objects are more important than the archives that hold them. Much of the functionality traditionally associated with archives is pushed down into the objects, such as enforcing terms and conditions, negotiating display, and content maintenance. In this paper, we discuss the motivation, design, and implication of bucket use in DLs with respect to grey literature.

Nelson, Michael L.↗

SODA: Smart Objects, Dumb Archives

We present the Smart Object, Dumb Archive (SODA) model for digital libraries (DLs). The SODA model transfers functionality traditionally associated with archives to the archived objects themselves. We are exploiting this shift of responsibility to facilitate other DL goals, such as interoperability, object intelligence and mobility, and heterogeneity. Objects in a SODA DL negotiate presentation of content and handle their own terms and conditions. In this paper we present implementations of our smart objects, buckets, and our dumb archive (DA). We discuss the status of buckets and DA and how they are used in a variety of DL projects.

Nelson, Michael L.↗

A Module Language for Typing by Contracts

Assume-guarantee reasoning is a popular and expressive paradigm for modular and compositional specification of programs. It is becoming a fundamental concept in some computer-aided design tools for embedded system design. In this paper, we elaborate foundations for contract-based embedded system design by proposing a general-purpose module language based on a Boolean algebra allowing to define contracts. In this framework, contracts are used to negotiate the correctness of assumptions made on the definition of a component at the point where it is used and provides guarantees to its environment. We illustrate this presentation with the specification of a simplified 4-stroke engine model.

Glouche, Yann↗

Site comparison for optical visibility statistics in southern California

Negotiations are under way to locate an atmospheric visibility monitoring (AVM) observatory at Mount Lemmon, just north of Tucson, Arizona. Two more observatories will be located in the southwestern U.S. The observatories are being employed to improve a weather model for deep-space-to-ground optical communications. This article explains the factors considered in choosing a location and recommends Table Mountain Observatory as the location for another AVM facility.

Cowles, K.↗

Simulation study to evaluate a constant-groundspeed approach method in moderate and severe wind shears

The use of a constant-groundspeed procedure for flying final approaches in moderate and severe wind shear environments was investigated. Performance was compared to results of simulated constant-airspeed approaches in identical wind profiles. The simulation model was a medium twin-jet transport equipped with an autothrottle for maintaining constant groundspeed or constant airspeed. For both moderate and severe wind shears, the constant-groundspeed approach method was shown to provide a way to more safely negotiate the shears while also providing predictable and acceptable touchdown performance. Results showed airspeeds on final approach to be considerably higher using the constant-groundspeed method, which supplied the additional stall margin needed when tail-wind shears were encountered. Throttle movements were noticeably reduced in all wind profiles when constant-groundspeed approaches were flown. Touchdown conditions were practically identical for both approach methods in moderate wind shear.

Kelley, W. W.↗

A Mathematical Model and Algorithm for Routing Air Traffic Under Weather Uncertainty

A central challenge in managing today's commercial en route air traffic is the task of routing the aircraft in the presence of adverse weather. Such weather can make regions of the airspace unusable, so all affected flights must be re-routed. Today this task is carried out by conference and negotiation between human air traffic controllers (ATC) responsible for the involved sectors of the airspace. One can argue that, in so doing, ATC try to solve an optimization problem without giving it a precise quantitative formulation. Such a formulation gives the mathematical machinery for constructing and verifying algorithms that are aimed at solving the problem. This paper contributes one such formulation and a corresponding algorithm. The algorithm addresses weather uncertainty and has closed form, which allows transparent analysis of correctness, realism, and computational costs.

uncertainty↗

Zero to Integration in Eight Months, the Dawn Ground Data System Engineering Challange

The Dawn Project has presented the Ground Data System (GDS) with technical challenges driven by cost and schedule constraints commonly associated with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery Projects. The Dawn mission consists of a new and exciting Deep Space partnership among: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), responsible for project management and flight operations; Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC), spacecraft builder and responsible for flight system test and integration; and the University of California, at Los Angeles (UCLA), responsible for science planning and operations. As a cost-capped mission, one of Dawn s implementation strategies is to leverage from both flight and ground heritage. OSC's ground data system is used for flight system test and integration as part of the flight heritage strategy. Mission operations, however, are to be conducted with JPL s ground system. The system engineering challenge of dealing with two heterogeneous ground systems emerged immediately. During the first technical interchange meeting between the JPL s GDS Team and OSC's Flight Software Team, August 2003, the need to integrate the ground system with the flight software was brought to the table. This need was driven by the project s commitment to enable instrument engineering model integration in a spacecraft simulator environment, for both demonstration and risk mitigation purposes, by April 2004. This paper will describe the system engineering approach that was undertaken by JPL's GDS Team in order to meet the technical challenge within a non-negotiable eight-month schedule. Key to the success was adherence to an overall systems engineering process and fundamental systems engineering practices: decomposition of the project request into manageable requirements; definition of a structured yet flexible development process; integration of multiple ground disciplines and experts into a focused team effort; in-process risk management; and aggregation of the intermediate products to an integrated final product. In addition, this paper will highlight the role of lessons learned from the integration experience. The lessons learned from an early GDS deployment have served as the foundation for the design and implementation of the Dawn Ground Data System.

systems engineering↗

Zero to Integration in Eight Months, the Dawn Ground Data System Engineering Challenge

The Dawn Project has presented the Ground Data System (GDS) with technical challenges driven by cost and schedule constraints commonly associated with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery Projects. The Dawn mission consists of a new and exciting Deep Space partnership among: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), manages the project and is responsible for flight operation; Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC), is the spacecraft builder and is responsible for flight system test and integration; and the University of California, at Los Angeles (UCLA), is responsible for science planning and operations. As a cost-capped mission, one of Dawn's implementation strategies is to leverage from both flight and ground heritage. OSC's ground data system is used for flight system test and integration as part of the flight heritage strategy. Mission operations, however, are to be conducted with JPL's ground system. The system engineering challenge of dealing with two heterogeneous ground systems emerged immediately. During the first technical interchange meeting between the JPL's GDS Team and OSC's Flight Software Team, August 2003, the need to integrate the ground system with the flight software was brought to the table. This need was driven by the project's commitment to enable instrument engineering model integration in a spacecraft simulator environment, for both demonstration and risk mitigation purposes, by April 2004. This paper will describe the system engineering approach that was undertaken by JPL's GDS Team in order to meet the technical challenge within a non-negotiable eight-month schedule. Key to the success was adherence to fundamental systems engineering practices: decomposition of the project request into manageable requirements; integration of multiple ground disciplines and experts into a focused team effort; definition of a structured yet flexible development process; definition of an in-process risk reduction plan; and aggregation of the intermediate products to an integrated final product. In addition, this paper will highlight the role of lessons learned from the integration experience. The lessons learned from an early GDS deployment have served as the foundation for the design and implementation of the Dawn Ground Data System.

Ground Data System (GDS)↗

Concept of Operations for Management by Trajectory

This document describes Management by Trajectory (MBT), a concept for future air traffic management (ATM) in which every flight operates in accordance with a four-dimensional trajectory (4DT) that is negotiated between the airspace user and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to respect the airspace user's goals while complying with National Airspace System (NAS) constraints. In the present-day NAS, the ATM system attempts to predict the trajectory for each flight based on the approved flight plan and scheduled or controlled departure time. However, once the aircraft starts to move, controllers tactically manage the aircraft to implement traffic management restrictions, separate otherwise conflicting aircraft, and address arising NAS constraints. Tactical controller actions are not directly communicated to the automation systems or other stakeholders. Furthermore, the initial trajectory prediction does not anticipate these disruptions or how they will impact the flight. Consequently, and compounded by gaps in required data and models, trajectory predictions are less accurate than possible, which affects Traffic Flow Management (TFM) performance. A cornerstone of the MBT concept is that all air vehicles have, at all times, an assigned 4DT from their current state to their destination. These assigned trajectories consist of trajectory constraints and descriptions. Pilots and air traffic controllers, with the aid of automation, operate the aircraft to comply with the assigned trajectory, unless first negotiating a revision. Equipped aircraft have substantial responsibility for complying with the assigned trajectory without controller intervention. To maximize the operational flexibility available to the airspace user, the assigned trajectory only imposes trajectory constraints as required to achieve the ATM goals of NAS constraint compliance and aircraft separation. Trajectory descriptions are added to the assigned trajectory to ensure sufficient predictability. To further improve trajectory prediction accuracy, airspace users supplement the assigned trajectory by broadcasting intent information and updating it as necessary. Air vehicle intent is a more detailed description of the airspace user's plan for how the flight will fly the assigned trajectory. Air vehicle intent can change freely, without negotiation, as long as it remains in compliance with the assigned trajectory. Aircraft assigned trajectories, air vehicle intent, and predicted trajectories are shared, creating a common view among stakeholders. A NAS Constraint Service gathers and publishes information about all known NAS constraints, enabling airspace users to be informed participants in trajectory negotiation. Trajectory constraints in the assigned trajectory are mapped to NAS constraints to facilitate identifying which aircraft are affected when NAS constraints change. To support efficient trajectory negotiation, all aircraft provide current information about air vehicle capabilities. Assigned trajectories are constructed to satisfy all known NAS constraints, improving trajectory stability and predictability. Uncertainty and disruptions are handled by modifying the assigned trajectory as far in advance as possible. By proactively negotiating changes to the assigned trajectory, rather than relying on controller-selected tactical actions such as vectors to resolve traffic conflicts or implement miles-in-trail restrictions, MBT keeps aircraft on closed trajectories that are fully known to all stakeholders. Since reactive air traffic control actions cannot be predicted in advance, the downstream trajectory cannot be accurately predicted until they happen. Reliable trajectory predictions allow the system to identify needed modifications to trajectories further in advance, where they can be negotiated and communicated as amendments (i.e., additional or altered trajectory constraints) to the assigned trajectory. Decision Support Tools (DSTs) aid controllers in rapidly defining and communicating closed trajectories to the aircraft and support all stakeholders in trajectory negotiation. Anticipated MBT benefit mechanisms include more accurate trajectory predictions, improved ATM performance and robustness to off-nominal conditions, increased flexibility and operational efficiency, reduced impediments to emerging classes of airspace users accessing NAS resources, reduced environmental impacts, and enhanced safety.

ConOps↗

Multiple Hub Network Choice in the Liberalized European Market

A key question that so far has received relatively little attention in the germane literature is that of the changes at various airports as a result of the EU liberalization policies. That is, presently, most major European airports still benefit from the so-called home-carrier phenomenon where the country's publicly or semi-publicly owned carrier uses the country's main airport as its gateway hub and, consequently, the home-carrier is also the principal user of this airport (in terms of proportion of total aircraft movements, number of passengers transported, connections, slots ownership, etc.). The country's main airport has substantially benefited from these monopoly conditions of airline captivity, strongly determined by the bilateral system of international air transport regulation. Therefore, European major airports were used to operate in essentially different markets, compared to the increasingly competitive markets of their home based carriers. This partly explains relative stability of transport volumes and financial results of European major airports compared to the relatively volatile financial results of most European national airlines. However, the liberalization of European aviation is likely to change this situation. Market access is open now to all community carriers, i.e. carriers with majority ownership and effective control in the hands of EU citizens. Ticket prices are free, governments can only intervene in case of dumping or excessive pricing. A community airline can choose its seat in any of the 15 member states. Licensing procedures are harmonized between member states. In the last few months community carriers have had unrestricted route access within the EU. Most probably this development will be extended to countries inside and outside Europe. Last year the European Commission got the mandate to start negotiations with 10 other European countries. In the meantime the EC has also started negotiations with the USA on so-called soft rights. In the meantime, open skies agreements have been concluded between the USA and most of the EU member states to facilitate strategic alliances between airlines of the states involved. As a result of this on-going liberalization the model of the single 'national' carrier using the national home base as its single hub for the designated third, fourth and sixth freedom operations will stepwise disappear. Within the EU the concept of the national carrier has already been replaced by that of the community carrier. State ownership in more and more European carriers is reduced. On the longer run mergers or even bankruptcy will further undermine the "single national carrier - single national hub" model in Europe. In the meantime, strategic alliances between national carriers in Europe will already reduce the airlines' loyalty to a single airport. Profit maximization and accountability to share holders will supersede the loyalty of these newly emerging alliances, probably looking for the opportunities of a multiple hub network to adequately cover the whole European market. As a consequence, some European airports might see a substantial decline in arriving, departing and transfer traffic, thus in revenues and financial solvency, as well as in their connection to other inter-continental and intra-European destinations. At the same time, other airports might realize a significant increase in traffic as they will be sought after by the profit maximizing airlines as their major gateway hubs. Which will be the losing airports and which will be the winning ones? Can airports anticipate the actions of airlines in deregulated markets and utilize policies which will improve their relative position? If so, what should be these anticipatory policies? These questions become the more urgent, since an increasing number of major European airports will be privatized in the near future. Although increasing airport congestion in Europe will also be reflected in a growing demand pressure for airport slots, this is not a guarantee for a stable transport volume growth of individual airports. The more volatile the market is, the more vulnerable privatized airports become. Therefore, the main issue of this study is the analysis of the opportunities of major European airports to become a central hub as a result of the network choices made by the new European airlines in a completely liberalized market. In a previous study (Berechman and de Wit, 1996), we already explored the potential of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol of becoming the major West-European hub, once European aviation markets are deregulated. A major hindrance of that study was the use of a single hub-and-spoke network. For example that model could not analyze the viability of different combinations of European hubs within a multiple hub network of alternative airline alliances. In this study, we have formulated the model of a multi-hub network where two West-European airports are used for inter-continental and intra-European travel to enable a more realistic analysis of hub choice. Like the previous one also this multi-hub model is primarily used to assess the potential ability of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol for becoming a major West-European hub. Thus, in particular, the policy tests focus on this airport in a double hub network.

Berechman, Joseph↗

Demand Response in Residential Energy Code: Technical Brief

As buildings account for over 75% of U.S. electricity use, effectively managing their loads can greatly facilitate the transition towards a clean, reliable grid. Grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) combine efficiency and demand flexibility with smart technologies and communication to provide occupant comfort and productivity while serving the grid as a distributed energy resource (DER). In turn, GEBs can play a key role in ensuring access to an affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern U.S. electric power system. Their national adoption could provide $\$$100-200 billion in U.S. electric power system cost savings over the next two decades. The associated reduction in CO 2 emissions is estimated at 6% per year by 2030 (DOE 2021). Building codes represent standard design practice in the construction industry and continually evolve to include advanced technologies and innovative practices. Historically, national model energy codes establish minimum efficiency requirements for new construction (ICC 2020). Expanding codes to support GEB capabilities is a pivotal step towards realizing demand flexibility in support of a clean grid by addressing capabilities to improve interoperability between smart building systems, the grid, and renewable energy resources. Realizing GEBs requires buildings with automated demand response (DR) capabilities that enable standardized communication with or control of, subject to explicit consumer consent, energy smart appliances or home energy management systems. This is achieved through direct or indirect (i.e., via an aggregator) communication between appliances and the electric grid. Energy codes can also support DR communication standardization and advance the deployment of building-integrated DERs such as energy storage, generation, and electric vehicles (EVs). Incorporating automated DR capabilities in energy codes provides many benefits to the consumers. Specifically, it aligns building electric load demand with intermittent renewable energy source availability, decreases peak load on the electric grid, allows buildings to respond to utility price signals, supports electrical network reliability and market growth of products and processes aligned with clean economic growth. The incorporation of DR into the model residential energy codes was considered for both the 2021 and 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) code development cycles. The approved DR measures in the 2021 cycle were removed in response to appeals (ICC 2020). Updated language was presented for consideration again for the 2024 IECC, where it was negotiated and again approved, and again removed in response to appeals (ICC 2024). This resulted in many sections, including sections on demand responsive controls, being moved to the credits options or an appendix as a voluntary application. This technical brief updates the proposed DR components such that they can be considered by states and local governments for direct incorporation into their codes, as well as for future IECC energy code development. The proposal refinements are intended to support consistency in approach and provide a degree of certainty for building owners, designers, contractors, manufacturers, and building and fire safety professionals. The scope of this technical brief includes three strategies for DR in residential buildings: 1) smart thermostats with demand-responsive control, 2) electric water heating incorporating demand-responsive controls and communication and 3) grid Integrated solar and energy storage systems.

2021 IECC↗

Initial Validation of a Simulation System for Studying Interoperability in Future Air Traffic Management Systems

Future air traffic management systems will need to accommodate large numbers of increasingly diverse air vehicles with different operating paradigms. To support this trend, they will digitally share copious amounts of information via a common communication architecture. Operators will deploy programs that create and negotiate flight plans via the architecture’s communication protocols. These programs will autonomously make decisions that must be arbitrated by the architecture and robust to uncertainty. To study interoperability in air traffic management, a new airspace simulation system was composed by integrating a legacy airspace simulation, an air traffic control model, and a new research communication architecture. It was used to evaluate air traffic management concepts by adapting it to handle congested arrival traffic at Newark Liberty International Airport and executing simulations. Results demonstrated the ability of the simulation system to model in detail strategic traffic flow management, predeparture flight planning, and air traffic control working in concert. Subsequent studies can use the simulation system to study interoperability, autonomy, digital communication, and uncertainty in future air traffic management systems.

aircraft scheduling,traffic flow management,autono↗

Initial Validation of a Simulation System for Studying Interoperability in Future Air Traffic Management Systems

Future air traffic management systems will need to accommodate large numbers of increasingly diverse air vehicles with different operating paradigms. To support this trend, they will digitally share copious amounts of information via a common communication architecture. Operators will deploy programs that create and negotiate flight plans via the architecture’s communication protocols. These programs will autonomously make decisions that must be arbitrated by the architecture and robust to uncertainty. To study interoperability in air traffic management, a new airspace simulation system was composed by integrating a legacy airspace simulation, an air traffic control model, and a new research communication architecture. It was used to evaluate air traffic management concepts by adapting it to handle congested arrival traffic at Newark Liberty International Airport and executing simulations. Results demonstrated the ability of the simulation system to model in detail strategic traffic flow management, predeparture flight planning, and air traffic control working in concert. Subsequent studies can use the simulation system to study interoperability, autonomy, digital communication, and uncertainty in future air traffic management systems.

air traffic control↗