OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66

DOI 10.1007/s12597-016-0270-9

APPLICATION ARTICLE

Analysis of priority multi-server retrial queueing

inventory systems with MAP arrivals and exponential
services

Fong-Fan Wang1 • Amita Bhagat2 • Tsan-Ming Chang1

Accepted: 30 May 2016 / Published online: 16 June 2016

 Operational Research Society of India 2016

Abstract In this paper we analyze priority multi-server retrial inventory queues

with Markovian arrival process generated by a single or dual sources and expo-
nential service times where both queueing and orbit spaces are assumed finite. We
derive Markov models assuming homogenous service rates for two customer classes
with different service priorities. The generalized stochastic Petri net (GSPN) models
for non-identical service rates scenario has been employed. We show the equiva-
lence between the two methods when service rates are identical. The GSPN models
are then used to investigate the impact of parameter change, including service
heterogeneity on some performance measures of interest. Finally we solve a state-
dependent service rate optimization problem to demonstrate the applicability of the
proposed GSPN models.

Keywords Priority multi-server retrial inventory-queue  Non-identical service 

MAP  GSPN  State-dependent service rate

1 Introduction

In this paper we investigate multi-server retrial inventory queues with Markovian

arrival process (MAP) and exponential service times. The queueing and orbit spaces
are assumed to be finite for two customer classes. We investigate an inventory
service system with positive service time where one unit of inventory is removed
from the shelf and is served if both the server and the inventory are available on the
epoch of customer arrival. Customer leaves the system and the on-shelf inventory is

& Fong-Fan Wang

frank@hust.edu.tw
1
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Hsiuping University of Science and
Technology, Taichung, Taiwan
2
Department of Applied Sciences, NCU University, Gurgaon, India

123
OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66 45

reduced by one unit on the epoch of service completion. Related literature of this
line includes Berman and Kim [1], Krishnamoorthy and Jose [2], and Krish-
namoorthy et al. [3]. The inventory systems with positive service time attended by
two or more priority classes of customers were first proposed in Zhao and Lian [4].
They analysed such systems with two classes of customers under a single server and
Poisson arrival assumption. Wang [5] extend it to a MAP scenario under the
framework of retrial inventory queue. Other papers investigating multi-server retrial
queues are referred to Artalejo et al. [6], Chakravarthy et al. [7], Kim et al. [8]
among others.
MAP is a generalized stochastic process of which the definitions and properties
may be found in He [9] and Lucantoni et al. [10] etc. For details of MAP, BMAP
(batch MAP) etc., another good reference is Chakravarthy [11]. MAP includes
Poisson, Markov modulated Poisson process (MMPP), phase (PH) renewal process
etc. There are two research lines associated with the modeling of MAP for two
demand classes. One uses a single MAP to model arriving source for different
classes of customers. Sivakumar and Arivarignan [12], Chakravarthy and Dudin
[13] and Wang [5] worked on single MAP to model arriving customers. The other
line uses two independent MAP as arrival sources for respective demand classes.
Choi and Chang [14] investigated a retrial group of finite capacity and geometric
loss with two classes of MAP arrivals and customer impatience. However, the
queueing space for primary customers is infinite. We extend Choi and Chang’s
model by adding inventory with positive service time issue, but without customer
impatience. Further, we assume both queueing and orbit spaces are finite. The retrial
queueing models with two classes of customers often assume identical services to
facilitate their derivation like Choi and Chang [14] and Falin and Templeton [15].
As surveyed by Gharbi et al. [16], the authors cannot find any mathematical model
for retrial systems with several classes of customers and heterogeneous services.
However, different priority groups may be allocated different service rates under
different scenarios. For example, customers with lower priority may be allocated
lower service rate than customers with higher priority. On the other hand, it is also
possible that customers with lower priority may be allocated higher service rate such
that customers with higher priority may be allocated more servicing time for more
exquisite service. Thus it motivates us to develop analytical models capable of
handling non-identical services for different priority customers. Specifically we
extend [5] to allow for non-identical service and allow the MAP input to come from
dual sources. Due to the simultaneous requirements of the service resources in terms
of servers and inventories the mathematical model is dynamic in nature which needs
careful modeling. Handling different classes of customers with non-identical
services further aggravates the modeling difficulty when one tries to use a
mathematical approach. In this paper the concurrency property of generalized
stochastic Petri net (GSPN) is employed for handling non-identical services.
Stochastic Petri net (SPN) is often used to model stochastic manufacturing
systems and queueing systems. Being able to handle concurrency and synchro-
nization among other functionalities makes SPN a powerful analytic tool for
complex stochastic systems. For example Gharbi et al. [16] used colored
generalized SPN (CGSPN) to study heterogeneous retrial systems. Viswanadham

123
46 OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66

and Narahari [17] used GSPN to analyze deadlock problem and suggested
prevention scheme in a stochastic manufacturing system. German et al. [18] showed
how to use GSPN to model a MMPP. In addition, SPN can handle non-Markovian
processing times which usually require involved mathematical techniques such as
supplementary variable or semi-Markov model to handle such problems.
The objective of this study is two-fold. Firstly, we propose alternative models for
the studied problem including mathematical models for identical services with both
single source and dual source scenarios and GSPN models for non-identical services
with both single source and dual source scenarios. Some technical formulation such
as Kronecker sum for mathematical models is referred to Neuts [19]. We exhibit the
equivalence between the proposed alternative models when services are identical for
both scenarios and thus validate the use of GSPN models for non-identical cases.
Secondly we employ the GSPN models to investigate the impact of system
parameters, including service heterogeneity on several performance measures (PMs)
of interest and tackle a state-dependent service rate optimization problem to
demonstrate the possible applications of the proposed GSPN models. The queueing
models with state dependent service rates can also be found in Gross et al. [20].
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, assumptions and
notations are presented. We then develop respective mathematical models with
different MAP inputs and derive the PMs of interest in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4, the
corresponding GSPN models concerning non-identical services with different MAP
arrivals have been developed and PMs of interest under the GSPN framework have
been proposed. Section 4.1 lists our numerical results of performance comparison
between mathematical models and GSPN models and performance analysis when
system parameters are perturbed. Section 5 demonstrates an optimization problem
of determining the optimal threshold for different state-dependent service protocols.
Finally, conclusion is drawn in Sect. 6.

2 Problem description

Customer arrives in the system following MAP. Type 1 customer has higher priority
than type 2 customer. Both types of customers need random service times following
respective exponential distributions which may have different means. When there
are enough resources, which mean at least one server and one inventory are
simultaneously available, an arriving customer of either type 1 or type 2 is taken for
service immediately. When resources are not available type 1 customers will enter
the waiting line or get lost in case waiting line is full. Similarly, when resources are
not available type 2 customers may retry the service later, i.e. enter into a so-called
‘‘orbit’’ or get lost when the orbit buffer is full.
Definition 1 MAP
In the single MAP case, demand arrives according to a MAP with one single
Markov modulated arrival stream. The generator of MAP is composed of D ¼
D0 þ D1 þ D2 where D0 represents the underlying single Markov transition matrix
which governs the transition between states and the jump process of customer

123
OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66 47

arrival at each state. D1 and D2 represent the arrival matrices of respective demand
classes under certain states. The probability
R x distribution may be represented as (He
[9] and Lucantoni et al. [10]) Ri ð xÞ ¼ 0 eD0 x dxDi ; i ¼ 1; 2:
From the definition D  Di ¼ D0 þ D3i ; i ¼ 1; 2: When there is only one
state with two input streams D ¼ D0 þ D1 þ D2 ¼ 0: The fundamental arrival rate
of type 1 and type 2 customers can be derived as follows. First we solve the
following simultaneous equations:
pD ¼ 0; pe ¼ 1;
where p is the stationary probability vector of D: Then fundamental arrival rates of
type 1 and type 2 customers, denoted as k1 and k2 respectively can be calculated as
k1 ¼ pD1 e and k2 ¼ pD2 e
respectively. For more details, refer Sivakumar and Arivarignan [12].
ð1Þ ð2Þ ð1Þ ð2Þ
In the dual MAP case, Dð1Þ ¼ D0 þ D1 ; Dð2Þ ¼ D0 þ D2 where D0 and D0
represent the underlying two Markov transition matrices which govern the
transitions between states and the jump process of customer arrival at each state
for customer type 1 and customer type 2 respectively. For more details, refer Choi
and Chang [14].
Definition 2 Kronecker product and Kronecker sum
A  B; Kronecker product of two matrices A and B with sizes m  n and p  q
respectively is defined as follows.
2 3
a1;1 B a1;2 B    a1;n B
6 a2;1 B a2;2 B    a2;n B 7
6 7
6 .. .. .. .. 7:
4 . . . . 5
am;1 B am;2 B    am;n B
A  B representing Kronecker sum of two square matrices A and B with sizes m 
m and n  n respectively is defined as follows.
A  B ¼ A  In þ Im  B:
More details can be found in Neuts [19] (p. 53) and Choi and Chang [14].
Notations
i The inventory level at an arbitrary time
j The orbiting level at any arbitrary time
k The occupancy level (including number in service and number waiting) at any
arbitrary time
l The phase of the arriving process at any arbitrary time
S The initial inventory size
s The reorder inventory level
c The number of servers
K The size of the occupancy space, assume K C c

123
48 OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66

M The orbit size

N The dimension size of a MAP
e Column vector of all ones of appropriate order
I Identity matrix of appropriate order
Other notation not listed above will be introduced at due places.
Assumptions: The basic assumptions underlying the model are as follows:

1. The positive service time is exponentially distributed with respective param-

eters u1 and u2 where u1 and u2 are service rates for type 1 and type 2 customers
respectively. For mathematical models u1 ¼ u2 ¼ u is assumed. The scheduling
rule of the service in the waiting buffer is first come, first served.
2. The customer in the orbit retry exponentially with retrial rate jh; where j denotes
the current number of customers in the orbit.
3. When the stock level drops to s, an order for replenish will be placed to the
outside supplier. The delivery lead time is exponentially distributed with
parameter c: Assume the order quantity, Q = S - s, is above the reorder level,
i.e., at most one order is outstanding.

Fig. 1 An M/M/c/K retrial inventory-queueing system with two demand classes

123
OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66 49

4. The replenishment lead time, the customer inter-arrival time, the service time
and the inter-retrial time are mutually independent.

Note that although it is a finite capacity system, the finite capacity with regard to
occupancy level, K is not related to S, the maximum inventory level. The scenario is
illustrated in Fig. 1.

3 Mathematical models for identical service scenario

We derive respective mathematical models with different MAP inputs. We first

derive one single MAP case followed by two independent MAP case. Denote I(t),
M(t),W(t) and L(t) as the inventory level, the orbit level, the occupancy number and
the arriving phase respectively at time t. We let XðtÞ ¼
fðI ðtÞ; M ðtÞ; W ðtÞ; LðtÞÞjt  0g describe the joint-state of the Markov process at
time t on the state space fði; j; k; lÞjS  i  0; M  j  0; K  k  0; N  l  1g.

3.1 Single MAP

The infinitesimal generator governing the underlying stochastic process is as

follows.
0 1
A01 A2
B C
B A10 A11 A2 C
B C
B A20 A21 A2 C
B C
B .. .. .. C
B C
B . . . C
B C
B As0 As1 A2 C
B C
B C
B Asþ1;0 Asþ1;1 C
B C
P¼B .. .. C:
B . . C
B C
B C
B AQ0 AQ1 C
B C
B AQþ1;0 AQþ1;1 C
B C
B C
B .. .. C
B . . C
B C
B C
@ AS1;0 AS1;1 A
AS0 AS1
ð1Þ
A2 represents that the inventory move up Q levels due to replenishments while
Ai0 ; 1  i  S represents that the inventory and size of waiting line move down one
level due to service completion. Ai1 ; 0  i  S represent queue size moving up one
level (if it is not full) due to type 1 customer arrival or type 2 customer arrival when
there are available resources or a successful retrial of a type 2 customer. The orbit
size moves up one level because of the arrival of type 2 customers who find
unavailable server and inventory to fulfill the service request (if the orbit is not full).
Ai0 ; 1  i  S; Ai1 ; 0  i  S and A2 are square matrices of order ðM þ 1ÞðK þ 1ÞN:
Note in Fig. 1 the available resource can be expressed as minði; cÞ. When occupancy

123
50 OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66

level is less than available resource, that is k\minði; cÞ, there is (are) extra
resource(s) for an arriving customer of type 2 to take service immediately. Other-
wise he enters into orbit if the orbit is not full. The available service capacity is
minði; kÞu if k\c; otherwise it is minði; cÞu: We derive all the sub-matrices as
follows.
0 1
0 Bi
1BB Bi C
C
Ai;0 ¼ .. B .. C;
. @ . A
M Bi
where
8
< minði; kÞuI; 1  k\c; w ¼ k  1;
Bi ðk; wÞ ¼ minði; cÞuI; c  k  K; w ¼ k  1;
:
0; otherwise:
0 1
0 G
1B G C
A2 ¼ .. B .. C;
. @ . A
M G
where

cI; 0  k  K; w ¼ k;
Gðk; wÞ ¼
0; otherwise:
0 1
0 Y0i Zi
1B X1i Y1i Zi C
B C
2B X2i Y2i Zi C
B C
Ai1 ¼ B
.. .. .. .. C; ð2Þ
B
. . . . C
B C
M  1@ XM1
i YM1
i Zi A
M XMi YM
i

where Xij ; Yij and Zi has order ðK þ 1ÞN  ðK þ 1ÞN. There are two cases for Xij
formulation.
Case 1 0  i  c; 1  j  M

123
OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66 51

2 012  i  1i  cc þ 1  K  1K 3

0 0 jhI
1 6 0 jhI 7
6 7
2 6 0 jhI 7
.. 6 .. .. 7
6 7
. 6 . . 7
6 7
i1 6 0 jhI 7
6 7
Xij ¼ i 6 0 0 7:
.. 6 .. .. 7
. 6 7
6 . . 7
c 6 7
6 0 0 7
cþ1 6 7
6 0 0 7
.. 6 .. .. 7
. 6 . . 7
6 7
K1 4 0 05
K 0

Case 2 c\i  S; 1  j  M

2 012    c  1cc þ 1  K  1K 3

0 0 jhI
1 6 0 jhI 7
6 7
2 6 0 jhI 7
6 7
.. 6 .. .. 7
. 6 . . 7
6 7
Xij ¼ c1 6 0 jhI 7:
6 7
c 6 0 0 7
6 7
cþ1 6 0 0 7
6 7
.. 6 .. .. 7
. 6 . . 7
6 7
K1 4 0 05
K 0

The formulations are similar for Yij , YM i , Zi : As we can see all are sparse
matrices. Therefore we express the sub-matrices in alternative way as follows.
Denote Xij ðk; wÞ as the element of the k-th row and the w-th column of matrix Xij .
Then

jhI; 1  i  S; 1  j  M; k\minði; cÞ; w ¼ k þ 1;
Xij ðk; wÞ ¼
0; otherwise:
Similarly,
  
~ j  diag Bi þ Gdi  s þ X j e ;
Yij ¼ Y 0  i  S; 0  j  M;
i i

where

123
52 OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66

8
>
> D0 ; 0  i  S; 0  j\M; 0  k\K; w ¼ k;
>
> D0 þ D1 ; 0  i  S; 0  j\M; k ¼ K; w ¼ k;
>
>
>
> D1 þ D2 ;
>
> 0  i  S; 0  j  M; 0  k\minði; cÞ; w ¼ k þ 1;
<
~ j D1 ; 0  i  S; 0  j  M; minði; cÞ  k\K; w ¼ k þ 1;
Yi ðk; wÞ ¼
>
> D 0; 0  i  S; j ¼ M; 0  k\minði; cÞ; w ¼ k;
>
>
>
> D 0 þ D2 ; 0  i  S; j ¼ M; minði; cÞ  k\K; w ¼ k;
>
>
>
> D; 0  i  S; j ¼ M; k ¼ K; w ¼ k;
:
0; otherwise,

1; if y is true;
dy ¼
0; if y is false:

D2 ; minði; cÞ  k  K; w ¼ k;
Zi ðk; wÞ ¼
0; otherwise:

3.1.1 Iterative solution method

The stationary probability vector of the infinitesimal generator can be obtained

easily by iterative procedure as stated below.
 Denote the stationary  probability
vector of (1) by xi ; 0  i  S where xi ¼ xi001 ; . . .; xijkn ; . . .; xiMKN . The balance
equations are given by
xi Ai;0 þ xi1 Ai1;1 ¼ 0; 1  i  Q;
ð3Þ
xi Ai;0 þ xi1 Ai1;1 þ xiQ1 A2 ¼ 0; Q þ 1  i  S;
and the boundary condition
xS AS;1 þ xs A2 ¼ 0; ð4Þ
with the normalization equation
X
S
xi e ¼ 1: ð5Þ
i¼0

Let
H0 ¼ I;
we iteratively solve xi in (3) as
xi ¼ x0 Hi ; 0  i  S; ð6Þ
with

Hi ¼ Hi1 Ai1;1 A1

i;0 ; for 1  i  Q;

and

123
OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66 53

 
Hi ¼  Hi1 Ai1;1 þ HiQ1 A2 A1
i;0 ; for Q þ 1  i  S:

Now from (4) and (5) x0 can be solved by the following simultaneous equations:
 
x0 HS AS;1 þ Hs A2 ¼ 0;

X
S
x0 Hi e ¼ 1:
i¼0

From (6) all the other probabilities can be solved.

3.2 Two independent MAP

The infinitesimal generator and the logic is the same as (1). All sub-matrices are
ð1Þ
square matrices of order ðM þ 1ÞðK þ 1ÞN 0 : Here N 0 is the dimension size of D0 
ð2Þ
D0 : All sub-matrices and element matrices definitions are the same as in Sect. 3.1
except the following element matrix definitions [cf. Equation (2)]:
8
> ð1Þ ð2Þ
>
> D0  D0 ; 0  i  S; 0  j\M; 0  k\K; w ¼ k;
>
> ð2Þ
>
> Dð1Þ  D0 ; 0  i  S; 0  j\M; k ¼ K; w ¼ k
>
>
>
> D1  D2 ; 0  i  S; 0  j  M; 0  k\minði; cÞ; w ¼ k þ 1;
>
<
j
~ ðk; wÞ ¼ D 1  l n2 ; 0  i  S; 0  j  M; minði; cÞ  k\K; w ¼ k þ 1;
Y i ð1Þ ð2Þ
>
> D  D ; 0  i  S; j ¼ M; 0  k\minði; cÞ; w ¼ k;
> 0ð1Þ
> 0
>
> ð2 Þ
D0  D ; 0  i  S; j ¼ M; minði; cÞ  k\K; w ¼ k;
>
>
>
> ð1Þ
>
> D  Dð2Þ ; 0  i  S; j ¼ M; k ¼ K; w ¼ k;
:
0; otherwise:

In1  D2 ; minði; cÞ  k  K; w ¼ k;
Zi ðk; wÞ ¼
0; otherwise:

Using the same iterative solution as stated above for single MAP case all the
probabilities can be solved.

3.3 Performance measures for mathematical models

In this section we derive PMs of interest. First we define

 
xði; j; kÞ ¼ xijk1 ; . . .; xijkn ; . . .; xijkN :

A. Average inventory level: Let L denote the average inventory level. Then we
have

123
54 OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66

X
S
L¼ ixi e:
i¼1

B. Expected number of waiting customers: Let X1 be the expected number of

customers waiting in the buffer (not including service place). Since we have to
consider simultaneous availability of both inventory and server we have
S X
X M X
K
X1 ¼ maxðk  minði; cÞ; 0Þxði; j; kÞ:
i¼0 j¼0 k¼1

C. Expected number of customers in the orbit: Let X2 be the expected number of

customers in the orbit, then we have
M X
X S X
K
X2 ¼ jxði; j; kÞ:
j¼1 i¼0 k¼0

D. Expected number of busy servers: Let U be the expected number of busy

servers in the system, then we have
!
XS X M Xc1 X
K
U¼ minði; kÞxði; j; kÞ þ minði; cÞxði; j; kÞ :
i¼1 j¼0 k¼1 k¼c

E. Loss probability of type 1 (2) customers: Let P1 (P2 ) be the loss probability of
type 1 (2) customers in the system. The event of losing type 1 customers
happens when queue is full. The event of losing type 2 customers happens when
orbit is full and there is no available resource to serve on the epoch of type 2
customers’ arrivals. Therefore
S X
X M
P1 ¼ xði; j; K Þ;
i¼0 j¼0

X
S X
K
P2 ¼ xði; M; kÞ:
i¼0 k¼minði;cÞ

4 GSPN models for non-identical service scenario

A Petri net (PN) is a 5-tuple (P0 , T, I, O, M 0 ) where the meanings of the parameters
are P0 : set of places; T: set of transitions; I: customer arcs, O: output arcs; and finally
M 0 : initial marking (the vector representing the number of tokens in each place). A
transition is fired if it is enabled. The enabled condition can be activated through a
pre-set enabling function or when the required token number in the respective
customer places is accumulated or when both are required. A SPN is a stochastic PN

123
OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66 55

that has stochastic firing time. A GSPN model is a generalized SPN where the firing
time is assumed to be either stochastic or instantaneous. The automatic solution
generation for GSPN includes extended reachability chart (ERG), followed by
corresponding continuous time Markov chain (CTMC). From the infinitesimal
generator of the CTMC, we may obtain steady-state probabilities and performances
of interest by numeric algorithms embedded in available tools. In this work we use
TimeNET for implementing the study. TimeNET uses successive over relaxation
(SOR) and sparse Gaussian elimination for the steady state solution [18].

4.1 Poisson arrival

Since Poisson is a special case of MAP and is very popular in stochastic modeling.
We first propose the GSPN model with Poisson arrival. Figure 2 shows the priority
retrial inventory queue with Poisson input. Table 1 shows interpretation of places
and transitions for such case. Weights for T1 and T2 are set as k1/k and k2/k
respectively where k = k1 ? k2. Enabling function of T3 is set as
#P4 ? #P6 ? #P7 \ K where #Px denotes the number of tokens at place x. To
avoid conflict we set priority for T3 and T4 to be 2 and 1 respectively. We set
enabling function of T5 to be #P10 [ #P6 ? #P7. To enable the type 2 customer
processing we set enabling function #P10 [ #P6 ? #P7 and #P8 \ M for T7 and
T9 respectively. To maintain the respective servicing priority for respective
customer type as well as for their proper processing we set the priority for T5, T7
and T9 to be 4, 3 and 2 respectively. Note T6 and T8 may be different, which
facilitate the study of non-identical services. Next we show the modeling idea with
MAP input based on MMPP proposed by [18].

Fig. 2 The proposed GSPN model with Poisson input

123
56 OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66

Table 1 Interpretation of places and transitions for Poisson input

Places Description Transitions Description

P0 Customer ready to arrive T0 Customer arriving

P1 Customer arrived T1 Probability of type 1 customer
P2 Type 1 customer choice T2 Probability of type 2 customer
P3 Type 2 customer choice T3 Type 1 customer entering queue
P4 Type 1 customer wait in queue T4 Type 1 customer lost
P5 Server ready for service T5 Type 1 customer enters service
P6 Type 1 customer in service T6 Serving type 1 customer
P7 Type 2 customer in service T7 Type 2 customer enters service
P8 Type 2 customer wait in orbit T8 Serving type 2 customer
P9 Inventory depletes by 1 T9 Type 2 customer enters orbit
P10 Replenishment order arrived T10 Type 2 customer retrying

Fig. 3 The proposed GSPN model with single MAP input

4.2 Single MAP case

Define
     
r1 d120 d d121 d d122
D0 ¼ ; D1 ¼ 111 ; D2 ¼ 112 :
d210 r2 d211 d221 d212 d222

Figure 3 shows the complete GSPN with one single MAP input. Table 2 shows
partial interpretation of places and transitions with regard to arrival for one single
MAP input. In T2 we set the delay as IF #P0 = 1: 1=ðr1  d120 Þ ELSE
1=ðr2  d210 Þ: The weight setting for T3, T5, T6 and T9 is set as
d121 =ðr1  d120 Þ; d111 =ðr1  d120 Þ; d112 =ðr1  d120 Þ; d122 =ðr1  d120 Þ respectively,

123
OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66 57

Table 2 Interpretation of places and transitions for single MAP input

Places Description Transitions Description

P0 System in state 1 T0 System transit to state 2

P1 System in state 2 T1 System transit to state 1 service
P2 Customer ready to arrive T2 Customer arriving processed
P3 Customer arrived T3–T10 MAP (see the explanation below)

corresponding to different arrival type and state change for state 1. Analogously the
weight setting for T4, T7, T8 and T10 is set as
d211 =ðr2  d210 Þ; d221 =ðr2  d210 Þ; d222 =ðr2  d210 Þ; d212 =ðr2  d210 Þ respectively,
corresponding to different arrival type and state change for state 2. In T5 and T6
we set enabling function as #P0 = 1 respectively. Similarly, #P1 = 1 is set as
enabling function for T7 and T8 respectively.

4.3 Dual MAP case

Now we propose the GSPN model with dual sources of MAP input, denoted as
MAP1, 2. Figure 4 shows the proposed GSPN model. Table 3 shows partial
interpretation of places and transitions with regards to dual MAP input. The weight
setting for immediate transitions with regard to MAP1 and MAP2 arrivals for Fig. 4
can be derived analogously as in single MAP case, which is omitted here.

Fig. 4 The proposed GSPN model with dual MAP input

123
58 OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66

Table 3 Interpretation of places and transitions for dual MAP input

Places Description Transitions Description

P0 System in state 1 of MAP1 T0 System transit to state 2 for MAP1

P1 System in state 2 of MAP1 T1 System transit to state 1 for MAP1
P2 Type 1 customer ready to arrive T2 Type 1 customer arriving
P3 Type 1 customer arrived T3–T6 MAP1
P10 System in state 1 of MAP2 T12 System transit to state 2 for MAP2
P11 System in state 2 of MAP2 T13 System transit to state 1 for MAP2
P12 Type 2 customer ready to arrive T14 Type 2 customer arriving
P13 Type 2 customer arrived T15–T18 MAP2

4.4 Performance measures for GSPN models

We take Poisson input in Fig. 2 as an example. The similar PM derivation applies

for different MAP inputs. In the following P{•}; refers to probability, E{•}; is
denoted as expectation.

A. Average inventory level: Let L denote the average inventory level. Then we
have
L ¼ Ef#P11g;

B. Expected number of waiting customers: Let X1 be the expected number of

customers waiting in the buffer (not including service place). Since we have to
consider simultaneous availability of both inventory and server we have
X1 ¼ Ef#P4g;

C. Expected number of customers in the orbit: Let X2 be the expected number of

customers in the orbit, then we have
X2 ¼ Ef#P8g;

D. Expected number of busy servers. Let U be the expected number of busy servers
in the system, then we have
U ¼ Ef#P6 þ #P7g;

E. Probability of lost customers of type 1: Let P1 be the probability of the loss of

type 1 customers in the system. The event of losing type 1 customers happens
when queue is full. Therefore
P1 ¼ Pf#P4 þ #P6 þ #P7 ¼ Kg;

F. Probability of lost customers of type 2: Let P2 be the probability of the loss of

type 2 customers in the system. The event of losing type 2 customers happens

123
OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66 59

when orbit is full and there is no available resource to serve on the epoch of
type 2 customer’ arrivals. Therefore
P1 ¼ Pf#P8 ¼ M ANDð#P5 ¼ 0 OR #P11 ¼ #P6 þ #P7Þg;
where AND and OR is referred as logical AND and logical OR:

5 Performance analysis

In this section we use numerical examples to compare the proposed GSPN models
with the results obtained from mathematical models for identical service rates
followed by impact analysis under system parameter perturbation. The same
parameter settings is utilized throughout this section. The parameter settings of the
numerical examples are:
Poisson input: k1 ¼ 2:88; k2 ¼ 2:72; M ¼ K ¼ c ¼ 5; s ¼ 2; S ¼ 6; u1 ¼ u2 ¼ 1; c
¼ h ¼ 10:

MAP input: M ¼ K ¼ c ¼ 10; s ¼ 4; S ¼ 12; u1 ¼ u2 ¼ 1; c ¼ h ¼ 10;

     
9:6 1:6 2:4 0:8 3:2 1:6
D0 ¼ ; D1 ¼ ; D2 ¼ ;
1:2 17:2 3:2 6:4 1:6 4:8

MAP1; 2 input: M ¼ K ¼ c ¼ 10; s ¼ 4; S ¼ 12; u1 ¼ u2 ¼ 1; c ¼ h ¼ 10;

     
ð1Þ 4:8 1:6 2:4 0:8 ð2Þ 5:2 0:4
D0 ¼ ; D1 ¼ ; D0 ¼ ;
 0:4 10  3:2 6:4 1:4 7:8
3:2 1:6
D2 ¼ :
1:6 4:8

Note under the above setting, MAP and MAP1, 2 have the same arrival rates for
both customer types with k1 = 5.76, k2 = 5.44.

Table 4 Validity of GSPN models under identical service case

Poisson customer MAP customer MAP1,2 customer

Markov GSPN Markov GSPN Markov GSPN

L 4.03123564 4.03123564 7.46684884 7.46684884 7.46723152 7.46723107

X1 0.51534105 0.51534105 1.53033845 1.53033843 1.52044001 1.52043978
X2 2.80732030 2.80732028 7.58761400 7.58761392 7.55247247 7.55251384
U 3.63740691 3.63740691 7.12116310 7.12116310 7.12068583 7.12068717
P1 0.45939610 0.45939610 0.37065978 0.37065978 0.37031817 0.37031840
P2 0.23512216 0.23512216 0.34202211 0.34202210 0.33748013 0.33748539

123
60 OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66

5.1 Validity of GSPN models

Validations of the proposed GSPN models need to be conducted first before they
can be used for analytical purpose. They include the following steps provided by
TimeNET: state space estimate, traps, siphons and structure check. P-invariant,
T-invariant and Extended Conflict Set (ECS) are included in structure check. We
use iterative solution method in TimeNET to obtain the results as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 shows validity of GSPN models compared with the proposed Markov
models under identical service case. From the table we can see the results of both
methods are almost the same. They are very close with precision ranging between
the fourth and the sixth decimal place. This fact validates to use GSPN models for
further investigation. The Markov model is coded and solved using MATLAB 6.

5.2 Impact of system parameter perturbation

Choi and Chang [14] investigated the arrival rate of type 2 customers on system
performance and concluded the mean virtual waiting time and the mean size of
retrial group are both affected more by k1 than by k2. Here we want to investigate
impact of change of various factors like arrival rate, service rate of type 2 customers
on system performance. Define the arrival ratio, k2/k1 as arrival rate of type 2
customer to that of type 1 customer. We vary k2/k1 by 1:10, 1:1, and 10:1. Define
the service ratio, u2/u1 as service rate of type 2 customer to that of type 1 customer.
We vary the servicing time of type 2 customer by 10, 1.0, and 0.1, leading to u2/u1
being 1/10, 1/1, and 10/1. Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 show the results of
the parameter perturbation on PMs while other parameter settings remain fixed.
Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 report the Poisson case and Figs. 11, 12 and 13 report
MAP.
It is clear from the figures displayed that for Poisson input only inventory level
increases while all other PMs decrease when inter-arrival time increases. From
Fig. 4a more efficient replenishment will certainly contribute to high inventory.
However the PMs are influenced by complicated interaction between replenishing

Fig. 5 a Mean inventory level (u2 = u1 = 1), b Mean inventory level (k2/k1 = 1/1)

123
OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66 61

Fig. 6 a Mean queue size (u2 = u1 = 1), b mean queue size (k2/k1 = 1/1)

Fig. 7 a Mean orbit size (u2 = u1 = 1), b mean orbit size (k2/k1 = 1/1)

Fig. 8 a Mean busy server (u2 = u1 = 1), b mean busy server (k2/k1 = 1/1)

rate, arrival ratio and service ratio. For example in Fig. 5b it is hard to reason that
inventory level is the lowest when type 2 customer service is less efficient than type
1 customer. This result is further identified when input is MAP. Also PMs seem to
be insensitive to single or dual MAP input.

123
62 OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66

Fig. 9 a Probability of type 1 loss (u2 = u1 = 1), b probability of type 1 loss (k2/k1 = 1/1)

Fig. 10 a Probability of type 2 loss (u2 = u1 = 1), b probability of type 2 loss (k2/k1 = 1/1)

Fig. 11 a Mean inventory level (k1 = 5.76, k2 = 5.44), b mean busy server (k1 = 5.76, k2 = 5.44)

123
OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66 63

Fig. 12 a Mean queue size (k1 = 5.76, k2 = 5.44), b mean orbit size (k1 = 5.76, k2 = 5.44)

Fig. 13 a Probability of type 1 loss (k1 = 5.76, k2 = 5.44), b probability of type 2 loss (k1 = 5.76,
k2 = 5.44)

6 Optimization

Our proposed models can provide useful information for system designers to
forecast and manage their resources. For example they may use different servicing
rates to meet uncertain demand for different customer groups. In this section, we
demonstrate how to determine the optimal threshold k~ for respective buffers such
that the total operating cost is minimized. Assuming that state-dependent service
protocol is used for respective service channels such that low service rate u~ is
changed to high service rate u~1 whenever the number of customers in service
exceeds k~ in respective service channel to lessen the congestion effect. We use
number of customers in service as our decision variable in stead of using number in
system as in Gross et al. [20]. Because it is meaningless to maintain a high service
rate with a high waiting number when many servers are idle waiting for inventory
replenishment. We use the following state-dependent servicing rate, uni when ni
customers are in service channel i; i ¼ 1; 2. Note service channel i serves customer
type i; i ¼ 1; 2:

123
64 OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66


u~; if 1  ni \k; ~
un i ¼ ~
u~1 ; if k  ni :

Suppose the following policies are used: Policy I: dynamic changing service rates
in channel 1 with rate of channel 2 being fixed at u~; Policy II: dynamic changing
service rates in channel 2 with rate of channel 1 being fixed at u~; Policy III: dynamic
changing service rates in both channels. Let c1 ; c2 be the operating costs per unit
customer per unit time for low service rate and high service rate respectively and let
c3 ; c4 be the waiting costs for staying in queue or orbit per unit customer per unit
time respectively. Let TCi ðkÞ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3 be the total operating and waiting cost
under respective policies, which are functions of threshold k. ~ Then we have
~ fc;Sg fc;Sg
  X
k1 X
min X
min
TC1 k~ ¼ c1 n1 pn1 þ c2 n1 pn1 þ c1 n2 pn2 þ c3 X1 þ c4 X2 ;
n1 ¼1 n1 ¼k~ n2 ¼1
~ fc;Sg fc;Sg
  X
k1 X
min X
min
TC2 k~ ¼ c1 n2 pn2 þ c2 n2 pn2 þ c1 n1 pn1 þ c3 X1 þ c4 X2 ;
n2 ¼1 n2 ¼k~ n1 ¼1
~ fc;Sg ~ fc;Sg
  X
k1 X
min X
k1 X
min
TC3 k~ ¼ c1 n1 pn1 þ c2 n1 pn1 þ c1 n2 pn2 þ c2 n2 pn2 þ c3 X1 þ c4 X2 :
n1 ¼1 n1 ¼k~ n2 ¼1 n2 ¼k~

ð7Þ

Assume u~ ¼ 1; u~1 ¼ 10: We use the GSPN model with MAP input as an
illustrative example. The other parameter settings for MAP input remain the same as
in Sect. 4.1. In (7), minfc; Sg ¼ minf10; 12g ¼ 10: By plugging IF #P8 \ k: ~ 1.0
~
ELSE 0.1 in T14 and IF #P11 \ k: 1.0 ELSE 0.1 in T17 of Fig. 3 we change the
original model with static service state to a dynamic state-dependent servicing
model using policy III. The other policies can be implemented by plugging either of
the above delay function and leave the other delay to be default value (1.0). We use
the following cost structure: c1 ¼ c3 ¼ c4 ¼ 1; c2 ¼ 2: The threshold optimization
results are shown in Table 5 with bold letters showing the optimal cost. Without

Table 5 Optimization of the

KTUDOR Policy I Policy II Policy III
threshold such that the operating
cost is minimized
2 14.298 13.444 8.172
3 15.832 15.052 8.718
4 17.064 16.647 16.582
5 17.999 17.784 16.972
6 18.784 18.391 16.477
7 19.118 18.582 16.286
8 19.144 18.591 16.219
9 19.009 18.568 16.146
10 18.797 18.553 16.060

123
OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66 65

dynamic operating strategy, the total cost is 16.239. From Table 5 we can see k~  3
for policy I and policy II and k~  3 or k~  8 for policy III can effectively reduce the
cost compared to static policy. The ranking of TC is: policy I [ policy II [ policy
III under different k~ with policy III being the lowest at k~ = 2. It shows up to nearly
50 % [(16.239 - 8.172)/16.239] saving if simultaneous state-dependent servicing
rule (policy III) is adopted. This example indicates the dynamic servicing strategy
may effectively decrease mean queue and mean orbit levels, which may offset the
extra spending in cost with high service rate.

7 Conclusion

In this paper we propose the mathematical models for priority multi-server retrial
queueing inventory systems with identical service time distributions where
queueing and orbit spaces are assumed finite under one MAP input or dual MAP
input. We also propose GSPN models to handle non-identical services. From the
validity test, the proposed GSPN models can act as representatives for mathematical
models when service rates are identical. With GSPN models the more flexible
evaluation can be conducted to unveil the impact of service heterogeneity. We
observe that the performance may be very different if service rates are not identical.
Therefore an analytical model such as the proposed GSPN model capable of
handling service heterogeneity is of value. We find that the performance is
insensitive to different MAP input generations. Finally, an optimization problem to
determine the optimal threshold for state-dependent servicing protocol is solved to
demonstrate the applicability of the proposed GSPN models. Since deterministic or
general distribution for servicing delay may describe a more realistic queueing
system, thus future studies on such line of non-Markovian problems may be
interesting.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the referees for their comments and suggestions that
led the paper into the current form.

References
1. Berman, O., Kim, E.: Stochastic models for inventory management at service facilities. Stoch.
Models 15, 695–718 (1999)
2. Krishnamoorthy, A., Jose, K.P.: Comparison of inventory systems with service, positive lead-time,
loss, and retrial of customers. J. Appl. Math. Stoch. Anal. 2007, 37848 (2007). doi:10.1155/2007/
37848
3. Krishnamoorthy, A., Narayanan, V.C., Deepak, T.G., Vineetha, P.: Control policies for inventory
with service time. Stoch. Anal. Appl. 24, 889–899 (2006)
4. Zhao, N., Lian, Z.: A queueing-inventory system with two classes of customers. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
129, 225–231 (2011)
5. Wang, F.-F.: Approximation and optimization of a multi-server impatient retrial inventory-queueing
system with two demand classes. Qual. Technol. Quant. Manag. 12(3), 267–290 (2015)
6. Artalejo, J.R., Orlovsky, D.S., Dudin, A.N.: Multi-server retrial model with variable number of active
servers. Comput. Ind. Eng. 48, 273–288 (2005)

123
66 OPSEARCH (2017) 54:44–66

7. Chakravarthy, S.R., Krishnamoorthy, A., Joshua, V.C.: Analysis of a multi-server retrial queue with
search of customers from the orbit. Perform. Eval. 63, 776–798 (2006)
8. Kim, C.S., Klimenok, V., Mushko, V., Dudin, A.: The BMAP/PH/N retrial queueing system oper-
ating in Markovian random environment. Comput. Oper. Res. 37, 1228–1237 (2010)
9. He, Q.M.: Queues with marked customers. Adv. Appl. Probab. 28, 567–587 (1996)
10. Lucantoni, D.M., Meier-Hellstern, K.S., Neuts, M.F.: A single server queue with server vacations and
a class of non-renewal arrival processes. Adv. Appl. Probab. 22, 676–705 (1990)
11. Chakravarthy, S.R.: The batch Markovian arrival process: a review and future work. In: Krish-
namoorthy, A., et al. (eds.) Advances in Probability and Stochastic processes, pp. 21–49.
Notable Publications, Inc., New Jersey (2001)
12. Sivakumar, B., Arivarignan, G.: A modified lost sales inventory system with two types of customers.
Qual. Technol. Quant. Manag. 5, 339–349 (2008)
13. Chakravarthy, S.R., Dudin, A.: Analysis of a retrial queuing model with MAP arrivals and two types
of customers. Math. Comput. Model. 37, 343–363 (2003)
14. Choi, B.D., Chang, Y.: MAP1, MAP2/M/c retrial queue with the retrial group of finite capacity and
geometric loss. Math. Comput. Model. 30, 99–113 (1999)
15. Falin, G.I., Templeton, J.G.C.: Retrial Queues. Chapman and Hall, London (1997)
16. Gharbi, N., Dutheillet, C., Ioualalen, M.: Colored stochastic Petri nets for modelling and analysis of
multiclass retrial systems. Math. Comput. Model. 49, 1436–1448 (2009)
17. Viswanadham, N., Narahari, Y.: Stochastic modelling of flexible manufacturing systems. Math.
Comput. Model. 16, 15–34 (1992)
18. German, R., Kelling, C., Zimmermann, A., Hommel, G.: TimeNET: a toolkit for evaluating non-
Markovian stochastic Petri nets. Perform. Eval. 24, 69–87 (1995)
19. Neuts, M.F.: Matrix-Geometric Solutions in Stochastic Models. Dover Publications, New York
(1994)
20. Gross, D., Shortie, J.F., Thompson, J.M., Harris, C.M.: Fundamentals of Queueing Theory. Wiley,
New York (2008)

123