Quantitative evaluation of passenger terminal orientation

When passenger terminal layout is being decided, one of the important aspects to consider is how the passenger orients himself during his visit to the terminal and his movements through it, i.e. terminal orientation. Among other things, this terminal characteristic results from visibility, or the visual connectivity between elements and spaces. The paper proposes an amendment and modification to the known method for the quantitative evaluation of terminal orientation which uses an oriented network to describe the connectivity of elements (terminal orientation). The amendment and modification of the method consists of proposing that during evaluation only visual connections that have functional meaning should be considered, rather than all visual connections. A further modification is the introduction of different weights for different connections. The example presented in the paper considers an airport terminal building.     

上海市重大市政项目社会稳定风险评估概述及方法探究

重点建设项目的社会稳定风险分析和评估(简称稳评)是上海近年新开展的一项工作,通过对该项工作的主要目的、原则及过程进行研讨,利用开创性的社会学研究方法,将工程客观影响特点及相关特性调查有机结合,经归纳分析,预测项目可能产生的社会稳定风险.众多重大市政项目的稳评实践结果表明,所采用的方法可靠,评估结论准确可信,能为今后其他项目的分析和评估工作提供指导与参考,发挥稳评从源头上避免和减少因工程建设引发社会矛盾的积极作用.     

Apron capacity at hub airports—the impact of wave‐system structure

At hub airports, dominant airlines/alliance coordinate their flights in time with the aim of increasing the number (and quality) of connections, thus producing a wave‐system in traffic schedules. This paper addresses the impact of concentrating aircraft into waves on airport apron capacity. Existing models for apron capacity estimation are based on the number of stands, stand occupancy time, and demand structure, differing between representative groups of aircraft served at an airport. Criteria for aircraft grouping are aircraft type and/or airline and/or type of service (domestic, international, etc.). Modified deterministic analytical models proposed in this paper also take into account the wave‐system parameters, as well as runway capacity. They include the impact of these parameters on the number of flights in wave, stand occupancy time, and consequently apron capacity. Numerical examples illustrate the difference between apron capacity for an origin–destination airport and a hub airport, under the same conditions; utilization of the theoretical apron capacity at a hub airport, given the wave‐system structure; and utilization of the apron capacity at a hub airport when point‐to‐point traffic is allowed to use idle stands. Furthermore, the influence of different assignment strategies for aircraft stands in the case of hub airports is also discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.