Homework 9

Question 12.1
Describe a situation or problem from your job, everyday life, current events, etc., for which a
design of experiments approach would be appropriate.
Answer:
In the aerospace industry, a Design of Experiments (DOE) approach could be applied to
optimize the materials used in aircraft wing construction. Engineers might test various
combinations of material type (e.g., aluminum, carbon fiber, titanium), thickness (e.g., 2mm,
3mm, 4mm), and surface treatment (e.g., anodizing, coating, untreated) to determine which
configuration provides the best balance of strength, weight, and durability. By systematically
testing different combinations, engineers can identify the optimal material configuration that
enhances performance while reducing costs, ensuring the aircraft is both lightweight and
structurally sound for safety and efficiency.
Question 12.2

Answer
To determine the value of 10 different yes/no features to the market value of a house (large yard,
solar roof, etc.), a real estate agent plans to survey 50 potential buyers, showing a fictitious house
with different combinations of features. To reduce the survey size, the agent wants to show just
16 fictitious houses.

Output:
Question 13.1
For each of the following distributions, give an example of data that you would expect to follow
this distribution (besides the examples already discussed in class).
a. Binomial b. Geometric c. Poisson d. Exponential e. Weibull

Answer :
a. Binomial Distribution

Example: The number of defective items in a batch of 50 products. Each item has a fixed
probability of being defective, and you're counting how many defects occur.

b. Geometric Distribution

Example: The number of rolls of a die until you get a 6. Each roll is independent, and you're
counting the number of attempts until the first success (rolling a 6).

c. Poisson Distribution

Example: The number of phones calls a customer service center receives in one hour. Calls come
in randomly but at a constant average rate.
d. Exponential Distribution

Example: The time between arrivals of buses at a bus stop. The time between buses is random,
but on average, buses arrive at a constant rate.

e. Weibull Distribution

Example: The time until a lightbulb burns out after being installed. The failure rate can vary
depending on factors like quality, and the Weibull distribution models this variability.

Question 13.2
In this problem you, can simulate a simplified airport security system at a busy airport.
Passengers arrive according to a Poisson distribution with λ1 = 5 per minute (i.e., mean
interarrival rate 1 = 0.2 minutes) to the ID/boarding-pass check queue, where there are several
servers who each have exponential service time with mean rate 2 = 0.75 minutes. [Hint: model
them as one block that has more than one resource.]After that, the passengers are assigned to the
shortest of the several personal-check queues, where they go through the personal scanner (time
is uniformly distributed between 0.5 minutes and 1 minute).Use the Arena software (PC users) or
Python with SimPy (PC or Mac users) to build a simulation of the system, and then vary the
number of ID/boarding-pass checkers and personal-check queues to determine how many are
needed to keep average wait times below 15 minutes. [If you’re using SimPy, or if you
have access to a non-student version of Arena, you can use λ1 = 50 to simulate a busier airport.]

Answer:

I used Arena software to simulate and optimize an airport security screening process. Passengers
arrived at a rate of 5 per minute, following a Poisson distribution, and first lined up for ID and
boarding pass verification. This verification process had an average service time of 0.75 minutes
per passenger, following an exponential distribution. After completing this step, passengers were
directed to the shortest available security checkpoint queue to minimize congestion and improve
efficiency. To determine the best setup, I tested both different numbers of ID checkers and
personal check queues. Through this analysis, I found that having 4 ID/boarding-pass
checkers and 4 personal-check queues was the optimal configuration to keep average wait
times under 15 minutes. I am describing the step by step process below :
 Figure : Final Simulation Flow

Entry of Passenger:

Passengers enter the airport following a Poisson distribution with an arrival rate of 5 per minute,
resulting in an interarrival time of 0.2 minutes. In Arena, these arrivals can be simulated using a
Create block from the Basic Process panel to generate entities representing passengers.

ID or Boarding Pass:
After arriving at the airport, passengers line up to have their boarding passes checked by multiple
staff members. Each checker takes an average of 0.75 minutes to verify each passenger, with the
time following an exponential distribution. In Arena, this step is modeled using a Process block.
To set the number of boarding pass checkers, we use the Resource spreadsheet, where the
capacity defines how many checkers are available.

Deciding the shortest personal check queue :

After the boarding pass check, passengers choose the personal check queue with the shortest
queue. In Arena, this is modeled using a Decide block with IF ELSE conditions.
Going to different personal check queue :

After the decision block, the passenger goes to a personal check queue or scanner . The scanning
time is randomly between 0.5 and 1 minute. In Arena, this is set up using a Process block with
one scanner per line and a Uniform delay. The Seize Delay Release action ensures that only one
passenger can use the scanner at a time.
Dispose :

After completing the process, passengers leave for their flights. In Arena, this is done using a
Dispose block, which removes passengers from the system and tracks exits.

Report :

Summary :

Average Wait Time : 0.06272 hr or 3.7632 minutes

Maximum Wait Time : 0.2256 hr or 13.654 minutes (less than 15 minutes)

Number of Id/ Boarding pass checkers : 4

Number of personal Check queue :4