NivaarExam PrepOfficial exam papers ↗

16-Civ-B10 Traffic Engineering · May 2018

Question 6 of 7: Single-channel queueing at a store cashier

Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)

Notes on this paper

Paper format. National Examinations, May 2018 — 16-Civ-B10 Traffic Engineering, 3-hour duration, OPEN BOOK (any non-communicating calculator permitted). Seven questions, all of equal value (20 marks each); the paper requires five solutions and marks only the first five as they appear in the answer book. Because the set is a study resource, all seven questions are solved here. The paper's own Note 1 invites a clear statement of any assumptions made and Note 2 permits any required-but-not-given data to be assumed; every assumption used below is stated explicitly where it is introduced. Page 4 reproduces the AASHTO 2001 metric stopping-sight-distance table, which Question 5 is built around.

Reference texts.



Question 6 — Single-channel queueing at a store cashier (a) to (e), 4 marks each — 20 marks

Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.

Given.

QuantitySymbolValue
Arrival rate$\lambda$5 per 10 min = 0.5 /min = 30 /h
Mean service rate$\mu$6 per 10 min = 0.6 /min = 36 /h
Number of service channels$N$1 (a single cashier)
Traffic intensity$\rho=\lambda/\mu$5/6 = 0.8333
Queue model—M/M/1: Poisson arrivals, exponential service, FIFO, unlimited queue

Find. (a) the probability the cashier is idle; (b) the mean number of customers waiting; (c) the mean number in line; (d) the mean waiting time and the mean service time; (e) the probability that the trigger for opening a second cashier is met.

Approach. Confirm stability, then apply the standard M/M/1 results. Sub-parts (b) and (c) are read as the queue and the system respectively, following the order in which these papers set out the single-channel results.

M/M/1: Poisson arrivals, exponential service, one cashier, FIFO arrivals lambda = 0.5/min waiting line, L_q = 4.17 cashier served mu = 0.6/min busy 83.3 per cent of the time in system L = 5.00 W = 10.00 min, W_q = 8.33 min State probabilities P(n) = (1 − rho)·rho^n 0 0.167 1 0.139 2 0.116 3 0.096 4 0.080 5 0.067 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 n = number of customers in the system n ≥ 4: second cashier opens, probability 0.482
Figure 6.1 — The single-channel queue and its state-probability distribution. Because the intensity is 5/6, the distribution decays slowly and states with four or more customers carry 48 per cent of the probability mass, which is the trigger for the second cashier in part (e).
  1. Confirm the queue is stable before applying any formula. The traffic intensity is
    $$\rho=\frac{\lambda}{\mu}=\frac{5/10}{6/10}=\frac{5}{6}=0.8333$$
    Since $\rho<1$ the system reaches steady state and the M/M/1 results below are valid. At 0.833 the cashier is heavily loaded, which is why the queue lengths that follow are large for what sounds like a modest arrival rate — the classic non-linear behaviour of a single server near saturation.
  2. Part (a) — probability the cashier is free. The cashier is free exactly when the system is empty, and the probability of the zero state is
    $$P_0=1-\rho=1-\frac{5}{6}=\frac{1}{6}=\boxed{0.167}$$
    So the cashier is idle 16.7 per cent of the time and busy 83.3 per cent of the time — the utilisation, which for a single server equals $\rho$ directly.
  3. Part (b) — average number waiting to be processed. The mean queue length, counting only customers waiting and excluding the one at the till, is
    $$L_q=\frac{\rho^{2}}{1-\rho}=\frac{\left(5/6\right)^{2}}{1/6}=\frac{0.69444}{0.16667}=\boxed{4.17\ \text{customers}}$$
  4. Part (c) — average number of customers in line. Counting the customer being served as part of the line gives the mean number in the system,
    $$L=\frac{\rho}{1-\rho}=\frac{5/6}{1/6}=\boxed{5.00\ \text{customers}}$$
    The relation between the two answers is a useful check: $L-L_q=\rho=0.833$, which is exactly the expected number in service, since the single server is busy a fraction $\rho$ of the time. Parts (b) and (c) therefore differ by less than one customer and any answer separating them by more has an arithmetic error.
  5. Part (d) — average wait and average service time. The mean time spent waiting follows from Little's law applied to the queue,
    $$W_q=\frac{L_q}{\lambda}=\frac{4.1667}{0.5}=\boxed{8.33\ \text{min}}$$
    and the mean time actually being processed is the reciprocal of the service rate,
    $$\frac{1}{\mu}=\frac{1}{0.6}=\boxed{1.67\ \text{min}}$$
    Little's law closes the calculation: the total time in the system is $W=W_q+1/\mu=8.33+1.67=10.0$ min, and independently $W=L/\lambda=5.00/0.5=10.0$ min. The two agreeing confirms every preceding value at once. The engineering point is stark — a customer spends 100 s being served and 8.3 min waiting, so 83 per cent of the visit is queueing.
  6. Part (e) — probability that the second cashier opens. The trigger is that the line is longer than three customers, so the second cashier opens whenever the system holds four or more. For M/M/1 the tail probability has the geometric closed form
    $$P\left(n\ge k\right)=\rho^{k}$$
    so with $k=4$,
    $$P\left(n\ge4\right)=\left(\frac{5}{6}\right)^{4}=\frac{625}{1296}=\boxed{0.482}$$
    Summing the individual state probabilities $(1-\rho)\rho^{n}$ from $n=4$ upwards gives the same 0.4823, which is the check on the tail formula. The second cashier is therefore needed almost half the time — a direct consequence of the 0.833 intensity, and a strong argument that the store is under-staffed at one till rather than occasionally busy.

Check: two readings of "the line is longer than 3", declared under the paper's Note 1. The phrase can be read as more than three customers in the system, giving $P(n\ge4)=\rho^{4}=0.482$, or as more than three waiting, which requires five in the system and gives $P(n\ge5)=\rho^{5}=0.402$. The first reading is adopted and boxed, because "the line of customers" naturally includes the person at the till and because the paper's own parts (b) and (c) use the same loose sense of "line". The alternative is 0.402, and the management conclusion — that a second till is needed a large fraction of the time — is identical under either reading. Note also that part (e) describes a policy that would make the real system a state-dependent two-server queue; the probability asked for is correctly evaluated on the single-server distribution, because it is the M/M/1 behaviour that triggers the change.

Results.

PartQuantityValue
—Traffic intensity $\rho=\lambda/\mu$0.833 (stable, $\rho<1$)
(a)Probability the cashier is free, $P_0$0.167 (idle 16.7 per cent of the time)
(b)Average number waiting to be processed, $L_q$4.17 customers
(c)Average number in line (in the system), $L$5.00 customers
(d)Average wait before service, $W_q$8.33 min
(d)Average time being processed, $1/\mu$1.67 min
(d)Total time in the system, $W$ (check)10.0 min, from both $W_q+1/\mu$ and $L/\lambda$
(e)Probability a second cashier is opened, $P(n\ge4)$0.482 (alternative reading $P(n\ge5)=0.402$)