Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T01:10:44.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Metaheuristic data fitting methods to estimate Weibull parameters for wind speed data: a case study of Hasan Polatkan Airport

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2021

A. Kaba*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Eskişehir Technical University, 26555, Eskişehir, Turkey
A. E. Suzer
Affiliation:
Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Eskişehir Technical University, 26555, Eskişehir, Turkey
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flight delays may be decreased in a predictable way if the Weibull wind speed parameters of a runway, which are an important aspect of safety during the take-off and landing phases of aircraft, can be determined. One aim of this work is to determine the wind profile of Hasan Polatkan Airport (HPA) as a case study. Numerical methods for Weibull parameter determination perform better when the average wind speed estimation is the main objective. In this paper, a novel objective function that minimises the root-mean-square error by employing the cumulative distribution function is proposed based on the genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimisation. The results are compared with well-known numerical methods, such as maximum-likelihood estimation, the empirical method, the graphical method and the equivalent energy method, as well as the available objective function. Various statistical tests in the literature are applied, such as R2, Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE) and $\chi$2. In addition, the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and total elapsed time calculated using the algorithms are compared. According to the results of the statistical tests, the proposed methods outperform others, achieving scores as high as 0.9789 and 0.9996 for the R2 test, as low as 0.0058 and 0.0057 for the RMSE test, 0.0036 and 0.0045 for the MAE test and 3.53 × 10−5 and 3.50 × 10−5 for the $\chi$2 test. In addition, the determination of the wind speed characteristics at HPA show that low wind speed characteristics and regimes throughout the year offer safer take-off and landing schedules for target aircraft. The principle aim of this paper is to help establish the correct orientation of new runways at HPA and maximise the capacity of the airport by minimising flight delays, which represent a significant impediment to air traffic flow.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society.
Figure 0

Figure 1. The geographical location of the study site on the map (revised from Google Earth).

Figure 1

Table 1 Description of the meteorological station and wind speed data

Figure 2

Figure 2. The location of HPA at Wind Atlas(56).

Figure 3

Figure 3. The framework of the study with numerical and metaheuristic methods.

Figure 4

Table 2 Parameters of genetic algorithm

Figure 5

Algorithm 1. Genetic algorithm-based data fitting method

Figure 6

Table 3 Parameters of particle swarm optimisation

Figure 7

Algorithm 2. PSO algorithm-based data fitting method

Figure 8

Table 4 Monthly and yearly mean and standard deviation values of the measured wind speed of HPA

Figure 9

Table 5 Shape parameter (k) estimation of the yearly Weibull distributions

Figure 10

Table 6 Scale parameter (c) estimation of the yearly Weibull distributions

Figure 11

Table 7 Average wind speed estimations of the algorithms

Figure 12

Table 8 Total elapsed time of the algorithms

Figure 13

Figure 4. Comparison of the estimated parameters for the Weibull probability density function (2012).

Figure 14

Table 9 R2 results of the algorithms

Figure 15

Figure 5. Comparison of the estimated parameters for the Weibull probability density function (2013).

Figure 16

Table 10 RMSE results of the algorithms

Figure 17

Table 11 MAE results of the algorithms

Figure 18

Table 12 $\chi$2 results of the algorithms

Figure 19

Figure 6. Comparison of the estimated parameters for the Weibull probability density function (2014).

Figure 20

Figure 7. Comparison of the estimated parameters for the Weibull cumulative distribution function (2012).

Figure 21

Figure 8. Comparison of the estimated parameters for the Weibull cumulative distribution function (2013).

Figure 22

Figure 9. Comparison of the estimated parameters for the Weibull cumulative distribution function (2014).

Figure 23

Figure 10. Weibull probability density function errors of the estimated parameters (2012).

Figure 24

Figure 11. Weibull probability density function errors of the estimated parameters (2013).

Figure 25

Figure 12. Weibull probability density function errors of the estimated parameters (2014).

Figure 26

Figure 13. Weibull cumulative distribution function errors of the estimated parameters (2012)

Figure 27

Figure 14. Weibull cumulative distribution function errors of the estimated parameters (2013).

Figure 28

Figure 15. Weibull cumulative distribution function errors of the estimated parameters (2014).

Figure 29

Figure 16. Mean rank values of the implemented algorithms.

Figure 30

Table 13 Performance comparison of the algorithms

Figure 31

Table 14 Mean rank values of the implemented algorithms