Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. 11, No.

4, 2011 383

Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival general bulk

service queueing system with modified M-vacation
policy and variant arrival rate

M. Balasubramanian* and R. Arumuganathan

Department of Mathematics and Computer Applications,
PSG College of Technology,
Coimbatore 641 004, Tamil Nadu, India
E-mail: bala_in_2003@yahoo.com
E-mail: ran_psgtech@yahoo.co.in
*Corresponding author

Abstract: In this paper, a MX/G (a, b)/1 queueing system with modified
M-vacation policy and variant arrival rate is considered. After a service
completion, if the number of waiting customers is less than a, then the server
avails of multiple vacations till the queue length reaches a or consecutively
avail of M number of vacations, whichever occurs first. After completing the
Mth vacation, if the queue length is still less than a then the server remains in
the system till it reaches a. The server starts the service only if the queue length
[ t a, with a batch of min ( [ , b) customers, where b t a. It is considered that
the arrival rate is dependent on the state of the server. The steady state queue
size distribution at an arbitrary time is obtained. The expected queue length,
waiting time, length of busy and idle periods are derived. Numerical illustration
is also presented.

Keywords: bulk queue; multiple vacations; busy period; M-vacation policy;

steady state solution.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Balasubramanian, M. and

Arumuganathan, R. (2011) ‘Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival general bulk
service queueing system with modified M-vacation policy and variant arrival
rate’, Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.383–407.

Biographical notes: M. Balasubramanian is a Selection Grade Lecturer in the

Department of Mathematics and Computer Applications at PSG College of
Technology, Coimbatore, India. He has received his MPhil in Mathematics
from Bharathidasan University, Trichy, India. He is pursuing PhD from
Bharathiar University, Coimbatore. His fields of interest include queueing
theory and optimisation techniques.

R. Arumuganathan is a Professor in the Department of Mathematics and

Computer Applications at PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India. He
has received his PhD in Queueing Theory from Bharathiar University,
Coimbatore, India. His fields of interest include queueing theory, reliability
theory and wavelet transforms. He has publications in international journals
like Computers and Operations Research, Applied Mathematical Modeling,
Asia Pacific Journal of Operational Research and Int. J. Information and
Management Sciences. He has given invited talks in several international
conferences.

Copyright © 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

384 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

1 Introduction

Queueing systems with vacations have been attracted by many researchers, because it
deals with effective utilisation server’s idle time for secondary jobs. Such queueing
system has wide range of applications in many real-life situations such as production line
system, inventory systems, digital communications and computer network.
Ke and Chu (2006) studied the operating characteristics of bulk arrival single service
queueing system under a modified vacation policy in which the server takes at most J
vacations repeatedly until at least one customer is found, but the arrival rate does not
depend on the state of the server. Ke (2007b) studied the operating characteristics of an
MX/G/1 system with a variant vacation policy and balking but he has not considered bulk
service. Choudhury and Paul (2006) discussed a single server Poisson arrival queue with
two phases of heterogeneous service along with a Bernoulli vacation schedule, but the
arrival rate is independent of the state of server. Arumuganathan et al. (2008) studied a
non-Markovian bulk queueing system with N-policy and different types of vacations, in
which they obtained the probability generating function (PGF) of number of customers
in the queue at an arbitrary time epoch and other measures as well, but arrival rate was
independent of state of the server. Chang and Choi (2005) did a performance analysis of a
finite-buffer discrete-time queue with bulk arrival, bulk service and multiple vacations,
but the number of vacations was not restricted.
Zhang (2006) considered a single server M/G/1 queueing system under restricted
server vacations of two types and a threshold policy. Choudhury (2008) obtained queue
size distribution of a bulk arrival single service queue with a random setup time and with
a Bernoulli vacation schedule under a restricted admissibility policy. Ke (2007a) has
analysed batch arrival queues under vacation policies with server breakdowns and
startup/close down times. This paper is general in nature considering bulk arrival, bulk
service, restricted number of vacations and arrival rate depends on the server’s state.
Motivation for the present model comes from a practical situation that exists in the
environment of a theme park situated in a metropolitan city. The theme park contains so
many counters for recreation and entertainment. Total fee is collected at the entry point
itself. On exchange of token, people select arbitrarily any of the counters for recreation
on their own choice, e.g. the giant wheel. The giant wheel will be operated only when the
required number of customers have been accumulated in the queue. When the number of
customers waiting in the queue is less than the required value, the machine will not be
operated and the operator will be allotted for some secondary job associated with the
giant wheel, such as lubricating the moving parts, tightening the small nuts, cleaning
the seats, etc. But, he will be doing this work only for a finite number of times. If the
queue length reaches the required value, say [, then a batch of min ([b) customers will
be taken for the trip. When the giant wheel is in operation, many people may like to
utilise it and in such cases, the arrival rate will be high. If it is not in operation or when
the operator is on vacation, people normally go for some other entertainment. In such
cases, the arrival rate will be low. This practical situation exactly fits into our model.
The structure of this paper is organised as follows: literature survey is presented
in Section 2. The mathematical development of the steady state equations is dealt in
Section 3. In Section 4, the queue size distribution is developed. Expressions for the
expected length of busy periods and idle period are derived in Sections 5 and 6,
respectively. Expected queue length for this queueing system is discussed in Section 7.
 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 385

Expression for mean waiting time is discussed in Section 8. Cost model, numerical
illustration and conclusions are presented in Sections 9–11, respectively.

2 Literature survey
For a comprehensive analysis of server vacations models, one can refer to Doshi (1986).
A batch arrival queue with a vacation time under single vacation policy was discussed by
Choudhury (2002b). Frans (1999) discussed the interdeparture time distribution of each
class of customers in an ¦ M ix / Gi /1 queue with setup time and multiple vacations.
Choudhury (2002a) discussed an M/G/1 queue with two different vacation times under
multiple vacation policy. Jeyakumar and Arumuganathan (2008) have discussed steady
state analysis of an MX/G/1 queue with two service modes and multiple vacations, in
which they obtained the PGF of the queue size and some performance measures. Takagi
(1991) studied a M/G/1/N queue with server vacations and exhaustive service. Li and Zhu
(1997) investigated a single arrival, single service finite queue with generalised vacations
and exhaustive service where arrival rates depend on the number of customers in the
system. The varieties and extensions of batch arrival queueing systems with vacations
were developed by several researchers such as Lee et al. (1994), Ke and Chang
(2009), etc.
Pinsky and Conway (1996) developed a new mean-value type of algorithm for
analysing multi-facility blocking models with state-dependent arrival rates. Guan et al.
(2006) developed a new approach for constraining queueing delay in a buffer to a
specified level as the arrival rate changes with time.
Parthasarathy and Sudhesh (2010) have discussed a state-dependent queue alternating
between arrivals and services, in which they obtained time-dependent system size
probabilities and the duration of the busy period in a closed form. Wang et al. (2007)
discussed an MX/M/1 queue with multiple vacations and server breakdowns. Li et al.
(2002) studied the behaviour of a personal communication services (PCS) network, in
which the calls’ arrival process may depend on the number of calls in the target cells. All
the above models are considered either single service or vacations.
Wang et al. (2007) have analysed a single unreliable server in an MX/M/1 queueing
system with multiple vacations. Ke (2007a,b) discussed the operating characteristics of
an MX/G/1 queueing system under vacation policies with startup/closedown times, where
the vacation time, the startup time and the closedown time are generally distributed.
Choudhury and Madan (2007) have considered a batch arrival but single service
Bernoulli vacation queue, with a random setup time under restricted admissibility policy.
Sikdar et al. (2008) have considered the analysis of a finite buffer general input queue
with batch arrival and exponential multiple vacations. Sikdar and Gupta (2008) have
discussed on the batch arrival, batch service queue, but finite buffer under server’s
vacation MX/GY/1/N queue. Haghighi et al. (2008) have analysed a single arrival, single
service M/G/1 queueing system and obtained various performance measures.
Guo and Zipkin (2007) have discussed the comparison of queues with different levels
of delay information. Jain and Upadhyaya (2010) considered with the modified Bernoulli
vacation schedule for the unreliable server batch arrival queueing system with essential
and multi-optional services under N-policy.
In many practical situations, one can observe that the arrival occurs in bulk and
service is also done in bulk. As the service process is in batches, it is very much realistic
that the service will not be rendered for less number of customers. In such cases, the
386 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

arrival rate will be varying with respect to the state of the server, whether the server is on
or not. This motivates the authors of this paper to develop the proposed queueing model
modified vacation policy and variant arrival rate.

3 Model development

This paper analyses a steady state analysis of a bulk arrival general bulk service queueing
system with modified vacation and variant arrival rate. In this paper, a MX/G (a, b)/1
queueing system with modified M-vacation policy and variant arrival rate is considered.
After a service completion, if the number of customers waiting in the queue is less than a
threshold value a, the server avails a vacation of random length. After a vacation, if the
queue length is less than a, then the server avails another vacation, etc. until he finally
finds at least a customers waiting in the queue or he completes M number of vacations,
consecutively. After completing the Mth vacation, if the queue length is still less than a,
the server remains in the system till the queue length reaches a (this period is known as
dormant period). At a vacation completion epoch or a service completion epoch or during
the dormant period, if the queue length [ is at least a, the server serves a batch of min
( [ , b) customers, where b t a. It is more realistic that the arrival rate may not be constant
all the time. Addressing this, it is considered that the arrival rate is dependent on the state
of the server. That is, the arrival rate is O when the server is busy and the arrival rate is O0
(O0 < O) when the server is on vacation or in the dormant period. The steady state queue
size distribution at an arbitrary time is obtained. Performance measures such as the
expected queue length, expected length of busy and idle periods are derived. Expected
waiting time in the queue is also obtained. Numerical illustration is also presented for a
managerial decision making (Figure 1).
For the proposed model, the PGF of the number of customers in the queue at an
arbitrary time epoch is obtained using supplementary variable technique. Expressions for
expected queue length, expected length of idle period, expected length of busy period and
expected waiting times are derived. A cost model of the queueing system is discussed.
Numerical solution for particular values of the parameters is presented.

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the queueing model, Q: queue length

 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 387

3.1 Notations
To study the system behaviour, it is customary to find the state probabilities at an
arbitrary time epoch. To develop the mathematical model, the following notations can be
used. Let X be the group size random variable of the arrival, O be the Poisson arrival rate
when the server is busy and O0 be the Poisson arrival rate when the server is on vacation
or in dormant period, gk be the probability that k customers arrive in a batch and X(z) be
its PGF. Let S(˜) and V(˜) be the cumulative distributions of the service time and vacation
time, respectively. Let s(x) and v(x) be the probability density functions of service time
and vacation time, respectively. S0(t) denotes the remaining service time of a batch at an
arbitrary time t and V0(t) denotes the remaining vacation time of a server at an arbitrary
time t. Let S (T ) and V (T ) denote the Laplace–Stieltjes transforms of S and V,
respectively. Ns(t) and Nq(t) are the number of customers under service and number of
customers in the queue, respectively.
The different states of the server at time t are defined as follows:
Y (t ) 0, if the server is busy with bulk service
1, if the server is on vacation
2, if the server is on dormant period
and define Z(t) = j, if the server is on jth vacation starting from the idle period.
To obtain system equations, the following probabilities are defined.
1 Pij ( x, t )dt P{Ns (t ) i, Nq (t ) j, x  S 0 (t )  x  dt , Y (t ) 0}, a d i d b, j t 0 is the joint
probability that at time t, the server is busy and rendering service, the queue size is j,
the number of customers under the service is i and the remaining service time of a
batch is x.
2 Q jn ( x, t )dt P{N q (t ) j, x  V 0 (t )  x  dt , Y (t ) 1, Z (t ) j}, n t 0, 1 d j d M is the
joint probability at time t, the server is on the jth vacation starting from the idle
period and the remaining vacation time is x.
3 Tn (t )dt P{N q (t ) n, Y (t ) 2}, 0 d n d a  1 is the probability at time t, the queue
size is n and the server is on dormant period.

3.2 Steady state system size equations

To find important measures like expected length of queue, idle and busy period, one need
the PGF of the number of customers at an arbitrary time. To obtain the PGF, we derive
the balance equations in this section.
b
Pi 0 ( x  't , t  't ) Pi 0 ( x, t )(1  O 't )  ¦P mi (0, t ) s ( x ) 't
m a
M a 1
 ¦ Qli (0, t ) s ( x) 't  O ¦ T (t ) g
n i  n s ( x ) 't , adidb
l 1 n 0

The above equation explains possible cases for the probability that there are i customers
under service and 0 customers in the queue when the remaining service time is x  't at
time t  't .
388 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

In a similar way, the following equations are obtained

j
Pij ( x  't , t  't ) Pij ( x, t )(1  O't )  O ¦P ij  k ( x, t ) g k 't , a d i d b  1, j t 1
k 1

b
Pbj ( x  't , t  't ) Pbj ( x, t )(1  O't )  ¦P
m a
mb  j (0, t ) s ( x)'t

M a 1
 ¦Q
l 1
lb  j (0, t ) s ( x ) 't  ¦ T (t )O g
n 0
n b  j  n s ( x ) 't

j
 ¦P
k 1
b , j  k ( x, t )O g k 't , j t1

T0 (t  't ) T0 (t ) 1  O0 't   QM 0 (0, t )'t

n
Tn (t  't ) Tn (t ) 1  O0 't   QMn (0, t )'t  ¦T
k 1
n  k (t )O0 g k 't , 1 d n d a 1

b
Ql 0 ( x  't , t  't ) Ql 0 ( x, t ) 1  O0 't   ¦P
m a
m 0 (0, t )v ( x)'t

b
Qln ( x  't , t  't ) Qln ( x, t ) 1  O0 't   ¦P
m a
mn (0, t )v ( x)'t

n
 ¦Q
k 1
ln  k ( x, t )O0 g k 't , 1 d n d a 1

n
Qln ( x  't , t  't ) Qln ( x, t ) 1  O0 't   ¦Q
k 1
ln  k ( x, t )O0 g k 't , nta

Q j 0 ( x  't , t  ' t ) Q j 0 ( x, t ) 1  O0 't   Q j 10 (0, t )v( x)'t , 2 d j d M

Q jn ( x  't , t  't ) Q jn ( x, t ) 1  O0 't   Q j 1n (0, t )v( x)'t

n
 ¦Q
k 1
jn  k ( x, t )O0 g k 't , 1 d n d a  1, 2 d j d M

n
Q jn ( x  't , t  't ) Q jn ( x, t ) 1  O0 't   ¦Q
k 1
jn  k ( x, t )O0 g k 't , n t a, 2 d j d M
 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 389

4 Queue size distribution

In this section, the PGF of the queue size at an arbitrary epoch is derived. The PGF will
be further useful in deriving the important measures. First, like expected queue size
and cost expression. The steady state difference differential equations are developed and
taking Laplace–Stieltjes transforms to these equations and using the method of Lee et al.
(1994), we derive the PGF with some algebra are derived.
b M a 1
d

dx
Pi 0 ( x)  O Pi 0 ( x)  ¦
m a
Pmi (0) s ( x)  ¦l 1
Qli (0) s ( x)  O ¦T g
n 0
n i  n s ( x ),
(1)
adidb
j
d

dx
Pij ( x) O Pij ( x)  O ¦P
k 1
ij  k ( x ) g k , a d i d b  1, j t 1 (2)

b M
d

dx
Pbj ( x)  O Pbj ( x)  ¦
m a
Pmb  j (0) s( x)  ¦Q
l 1
lb  j (0) s ( x )

j
(3)
a 1
 ¦T Og
n 0
n b  j  n s( x)  ¦P
k 1
bj  k ( x ) O g k , j t1

0 O0T0  QM 0 (0) (4)

n
0 O0Tn  QMn (0)  ¦T
k 1
n  k O0 g k , 1 d n d a 1 (5)

b
d

dx
Ql 0 ( x ) O0 Ql 0 ( x )  ¦P
m a
m0 (0)v ( x ) (6)

b n
d

dx
Qln ( x) O0 Qln ( x)  ¦
m a
Pmn (0)v( x)  ¦Q
k l
ln  k ( x )O0 g k , 1 d n d a 1 (7)

n
d

dx
Qln ( x) O0 Qln ( x)  ¦Q
k 1
ln  k ( x )O0 g k , nta (8)

d
 Q j 0 ( x) O0 Q j 0 ( x)  Q j 10 (0)v( x), 2 d j d M (9)
dx
n
d

dx
Q jn ( x)  O0Q jn ( x)  Q j ln (0)v ( x)  ¦Q jn  k ( x ) O 0 g k , 1 d n d a  1,
(10)
k 1
2d jd M
n
d

dx
Q jn ( x) O0 Q jn ( x )  ¦Q k 1
jn  k ( x )O0 g k , n t a, 2 d j d M (11)
390 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

The Laplace–Stieltjes transforms of Pij(x) and Qjn(x) are defined as

f f
Pin (T ) ³ eT x Pin ( x)dx and Q jn (T ) ³ eT x Q jn ( x)dx, a d i d b, n t 0
0 0

Taking Laplace–Stieltjes transforms on both sides of Equations (1)–(11), we get

ª b M a 1 º

T Pi 0 (T )  Pi 0 (0) O Pi 0 (T )  «
«¬
¦m a
Pmi (0)  ¦l 1
Qli (0)  O ¦T g
n 0
n i  n » S (T ),
»¼ (12)
adidb
j
T Pij (T )  Pij (0) O Pij (T )  O ¦ P
k 1
ij  k (T ) g k , a d i d b  1, j t 1 (13)

ª b M a 1 º
T Pbj (T )  Pbj (0) O Pbj (T )  «
¬«
¦m a
Pmb  j (0)  ¦
l 1
Qlb  j (0)  ¦T Og
n 0
n b j  n »
¼»
(14)
j
S (T )  O ¦ P
k 1
bj  k (T ) g k , j t1

b
T Q l 0 (T )  Ql 0 (0) O0 Ql 0 (T )  ¦P 
m 0 (0)V (T ) (15)
m a

b n
T Qln (T )  Qln (0) O0Q ln (T )  ¦P 
mn (0)V (T )  O0 ¦ Q ln  k (T ) g k , 1 d n d a  1 (16)
m a k 1

j
T Qln (T )  Qln (0) O0 Qln (T )  O0 ¦ Q ln  k (T ) g k , nta (17)
k 1

T Q j 0 (T )  Q j 0 (0) O0 Q j 0 (T )  Q j 10 (0)V (T ), 2 d j d M (18)

n
T Q jn (T )  Q jn (0) O0 Q jn (T )  Q j 1n (0)V (T )  O 0 ¦ Q jn  k (T ) g k ,
k 1
(19)
2 d j d M , 1 d n d a 1
n
T Q jn (T )  Q jn (0) O0 Q jn (T )  O0 ¦ Q jn  k (T ) g k , 2 d j d M, n t a (20)
k 1

Let the PGF of the following at an arbitrary time epoch be denoted by

f f
Pi ( z , T ) ¦ Pin (T ) z n and Pi ( z , 0) ¦ P (0) z in
n
, adidb
n 0 n 0
 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 391

f f
Q j ( z , T ) ¦ Q jn (T ) z n and Q j ( z , 0) ¦Q jn (0) z
n
, 1d j d M
n 0 n 0

a 1
n
T ( z) ¦T z
n 0
n (21)

Multiplying (15) by z0, (16) by zn (1 < n < a  1) and (17) by zn (n > a), summing up from
n = 0 to f and using (21), we get
a 1 b
n
T  O0  O0 X ( z )  Q l ( z,T ) Ql ( z , 0)  V (T ) ¦¦ P mn (0) z (22)
n 0m a

Multiplying (18) by z0, (19) by zn (1 < n < a  1) and (20) by zn (n > a), taking the
summation from n = 0 to f and using (21), we get
a 1
n
T  O0  O0 X ( z )  Q j ( z,T ) Q j ( z , 0)  V (T ) ¦Q j 1n (0) z , 2d jdM (23)
n 0

Multiplying (12) by z0 and (13) by zj (j > 1), summing up from j = 0 to f and using (21),
we get

ª b M a 1 º
(T  O  O X ( z )) Pi ( z, T ) Pi ( z, 0)  S (T ) «
¦ Pmi (0)  ¦ Qli (0)  O ¦T g n in » ,
«¬ m a »¼ (24)
l 1 n 0

a d i d b 1
Multiplying (12) by z0 and (14) by zj (j > 1), taking the summation from j = 0 to f and
using (21), we get

­ª b § b 1 ·º
°
z b (T  O  O X ( z )) Pb ( z, T ) z b Pb ( z, 0)  S (T ) ® « ¨ Pm ( z, 0) 
¦ Pmj (0) z j ¸ »
¦
°¯ «¬ m a ¨© j 0
¸»
¹¼
ªM § b 1 ·º
¦
 « ¨ Ql ( z , 0)  Qlj (0) z j ¸ »
¦ (25)
«l 1¨ j 0
¸»
¬ © ¹¼
ª a 1 b  m 1 º ½°
 O «T ( z ) X ( z )  Tm z m¦ g j z j »¾
¦
«¬ m 0 j 1 »¼ °
¿
By substituting T = O0  O0 X(z) in Equations (22) and (23), we get
a 1 b
n
Ql ( z , 0) V  O0  O0 X ( z )  ¦¦ P mn (0) z (26)
n 0m a

a 1
n
Q j ( z , 0) V  O0  O0 X ( z )  ¦Q j 1n (0) z 2d jdM (27)
n 0
392 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

By substituting T = O  O X(z) in Equations (24) and (25), we get

ª b M a 1 º
Pi ( z , 0) S (O  O X ( z )) « ¦
Pmi (0)  ¦ Qli (0)  O ¦T g n i n » , a d i d b 1 (28)
¬« m a l 1 n 0 ¼»
­ ª b 1 b b 1 º
°
 
z b  S (O  O X ( z )) Pb ( z , 0) S (O  O X ( z )) ® « ¦
Pm ( z , 0)  Pmj (0) z j »
¦¦
°¯ «¬ m a m a j 0
»
¼
ªM § b 1 ·º
¦
 « ¨ Ql ( z , 0)  Qlj (0) z j ¸ »
¦ (29)
« l 1 ¨© j 0
¸¹ »
¬ ¼
ª a 1 b  m 1 º ½°
m
 Ȝ T ( z) X ( z) 
« Tm z ¦ g j z j »¾
¦
« m 0 j 1
»°
¬ ¼¿
From Equation (29), we have
S (O  O X ( z )) f ( z )
Pb ( z , 0) (30)

z b  S (O  O X ( z )) 
where f(z) is
b 1 b b 1 M § b 1 ·
f ( z) ¦ Pm ( z , 0)  ¦¦ Pmj (0) z j  ¦ ¨ Ql ( z , 0)  ¦ Qlj (0) z j ¸
m a m a j 0 l
¨
1© j 0
¸¹
(31)
ª a 1 b  m 1 º
+Ȝ «T (z )X (z )  Tm z m
¦ gjz j» ¦
« m 0 j 1
»
¬ ¼
Substituting the expressions for Pm(z, 0), (a d m d b  1) from (28) and Ql(z, 0), 1 d l d M
from (26) and (27) in f(z),
­° ª b 1 § b M a 1 ·º
f ( z) S (O  O X ( z )) ® « ¨ ¦¦ Pmi (0)  ¦ Qli (0)  O ¦ Tn gi  n ¸ »
¯° «¬ i a © m a l 1 n 0 ¹ »¼
b b 1
j
 ¦¦P
m a j 0
mj (0) z

a 1 § b M ·
 V  O0  O 0 X ( z ) ¦¦ ¨ Pmn (0)z n + ¦ Q jn (0)z n ¸
¨
n =0 © m=a j=1
¸¹
M b 1 ª a 1 b  m 1 º
n
 ¦¦ Q jn (0) z + Ȝ «T (z )X (z )  Tm z m¦ gjz j»¦
j 1n 0
« m 0 j 1
»
¬ ¼
From Equations (22) and (26), we get
a 1 b n

Ql ( z , T )
ª¬V  O0  O0 X ( z )   V (T ) º¼
n 0 ¦ ¦ P (0) z
m a mn
(32)
T  O 0  O 0 ( z) 
X
 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 393

Similarly, from Equations (23) and (27), we get

a 1 M
ª¬V  O 0  O 0 X ( z )  V (T ) º¼ ¦ ¦ Q j  l , n (0) z n
n 0 j 1
Q j ( z , T ) , 2d jdM (33)
T  O0  O 0 X ( z )
Equations (24) and (28) give us
b M a 1
ª¬ S (O  O X ( z ))  S (T )º¼ § ¦ P (0)  ¦ Q ji (0)  O ¦ T g ·
© m a mi j 1 n 0 n i n ¹
Pi ( z , T ) , (34)
(T  O  O X ( z ))
a  i  b 1

Equations (25) and (30) give us

[ S (O  O X ( z ))  S (T )] f ( z )
Pb ( z , T )
 
z b  S (O  O X ( z )) (T  O  O X ( z ))
(35)
Let P(z) be the PGF of the queue size at an arbitrary time epoch. Then,
b1 M
P( z ) ¦
m a
Pm ( z ,0)  Pb ( z ,0)  ¦ Q ( z,0)  T ( z)
j 1
j (36)

Using Equations (32)–(35) with T = 0 in P(z), we get

b 1 b M a 1
ª¬ S (O  O X ( z ))  1º¼ ¦ §© ¦ i a
P (0) 
m a mi ¦ j 1
Q ji (0)  ¦ T g
n 0 n i n ¹
·
P( z )
(  O  O X ( z ))

ª¬ S (O  O X ( z ))  1 º¼ f ( z )

z b

 S (O  O X ( z )) (  O  O X ( z )) (37)
a 1 b n


ª¬V  O0  O0 X ( z )   1º¼
n 0 ¦ ¦ P (0) z
m a mn
  O0  O0 X ( z )
a 1 M
ª¬V  O0  O0 X ( z )   1º¼ ¦ ¦ Q j n zn
n 0 j 1
  T ( z)
  O0  O0 X ( z ) 
Let
b M
pi ¦
m a
Pmi (0), qi ¦ Q (0)
l 1
li and ci pi  qi (38)

Simplifying Equation (37) by using (38), we have

b 1
[( S (O  O X ( z )))  1]   O 0  O0 X ( z ) ¦z b
 z m cm
m a
a 1
 ^ 
 V  O0  O0 X ( z )  1 ( S (O  O X ( z ))  1)   O0  O0 X ( z )  z b  S (O  O X ( z ))   O  O X ( z )  `¦ cz
n 0 n
n

b 1 a 1

P( z )
 
 OT ( z )   O0  O0 X ( z )  X ( z )  1 z b  1  ( S (O  O X ( z ))  1)   O0  O0 X ( z )  i a ¦ z
i a
b
¦
 zi O T g
m 0 m i m (39)
 b
(  O  O X ( z ))   O 0  O0 X ( z ) z  S (O  O X ( z )) 
394 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

Using P(1) = 1, the steady state condition is derived as U O E ( X ) E (S ) / b .

4.1 Particular case

When the number of vacations become infinite, then M = f and Equation (39) reduces
to the following form
b 1
[( S ( O  O X ( z )))  1]   O0  O 0 X ( z ) ¦ z m a
b

 z m cm
a 1

 V  O 0  O 0 X ( z )   1  ^   
S (O  O X ( z ))  1   O 0  O 0 X ( z )   z b  S (O  O X ( z ))   O  O X ( z )  `¦ n 0 n
c zn (39a)
P( z )

(  O  O X ( z ))   O 0  O 0 X ( z )  z b  S ( O  O X ( z )) 
Equation (39a) gives the PGF of queue length distribution of an MX/G(a, b)/1 queueing
system with state-dependent arrivals and multiple vacations. The result exactly coincides
with the queue length distribution of Arumuganathan and Ramaswami (2005).
The probabilities qi, and Ti (i = 0, 1, 2, 3, }, a  1) are expressed in terms of p0, p1,
p2, …, pa1 in the following theorems.
Theorem 1:
n
qn ¦K
i 0
n  i pi , n 0,1, 2,3, , a  1 (40)

n
where K n (D n  ¦ D i K n i ) / (1  D 0 ) , n = 1, 2, 3, …, a  1 with K 0 D 0 / 1  D 0 , and Įi are
i 1

the probabilities that i customers arrive during vacation time.

Proof:
Using Equations (26) and (27), we get
M ª a 1 a 1 º
¦ Ql ( z , 0) V  O0  O0 X ( z ) « pn z n  qn z n »
¦ ¦
l 1 ¬« n 0 n 0 ¼»
f ª a 1 a 1 º
¦ qn z n V  O0  O0 X ( z ) « pn z n  ¦ qn z n » ¦
n 0 ¬« n 0 n 0 ¼»
(41)
§ f n
· ª a 1 n
a 1 º
¨ ¦D n z ¸ « pn z ¦ qn z n » ¦
©n 0 ¹ ¬« n 0 n 0 ¼»
a 1 § n · n f § a 1 ·
¦¦ ¨ an i ( pi  qi ¸ z 
) ¨ ( pi  qi )D n  i ¸ z n
¦¦
n 0© i 0 ¹ n a© i 0 ¹

Equating the coefficients of zn, n = 0, 1, 2, }, a  1 on both sides of Equation (41),

we get
n
qn ¦K p
i 0
i n i

Hence the theorem.

 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 395

The constants T0, T1, T2, …, Ta1 are expressed in terms of p0, p1, p2, …, pa1 in the
following two theorems.
Theorem 2:
a 1 n D k ...D kn
n
T ( z) ¦T z ¦ n
1
(42)
n 0 j 0 ¦k i 1

where I ( j ) is the coefficient of zj in QM(z, 0) given by

j j  km j  k2 j

I ( j) ¦D ¦ D
km 0
km
k m 1 0
km 1  ¦D
k1 0
k1 p j  ki  k2 ¦D
D p
j 0

k1 km n j

¦ ki j

Proof:
From Equations (4) and (5), we have
O0T0 QM 0 (0)
n
O0Tn QMn (0) ¦T
k 1
n  k O0 g k 1 d n d a 1

Put n = 1 in Equation (5)

O0T1 QM 1 (0)  O0T0 g1 QM 1 (0)  QM 0 (0) g1
Put n = 2 in Equation (5)
O0T2 QM 2 (0)  ¦T 2 k O0 g k

QM 2 (0)  QM 1 (0) g1  QM 0 (0) g12  g 2  

Put n = 3 in Equation (5)
3
O0T3 QM 3 (0)  ¦T k 1
3 k O0 g k

QM 3 (0)  QM 2 (0) g1  QM 1 (0) g12  g 2  QM 0 (0) g13  g1 g 2  g1 g 2  g3   

4
O0T4 QM 4 (0)  ¦T
k 1
4 k O0 g k

QM 4 (0)  QM 3 (0) g1  QM 2 (0) g12  g 2 ^ `


 QM 1 (0) g13  2 g1 g 2  g3 
 QM 0 (0)  g 4
1  3 g12 g 2  2 g1 g3  g 22  g 4 
By induction, we get
n
O0Tn ¦I j 0
Mj (0) ¦ i i –i
k n j
gi1 gi1  gik
1 2 k
396 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

a 1 a 1 § n ·
1
T ( z) ¦ Tn z n ¦ ¨© ¦ Q Mj (0) ¦ – gi1 gi2  gik ¸ z n
n 0
O0 n 0 j 0 k i1  i2  ik n j ¹

From Equations (26) and (27)

a 1 b
n
Ql ( z , 0) V  O0  O0 X ( z ) ¦¦ p
n 0m a
mn (0) z

a 1
n
Q j ( z , 0) V  O0  O0 X ( z ) ¦Q
n 0
( j 1) n (0) z 2d jdM

f f a 1
Q2 ( z ,0) ¦ Q2 n z n ¦ Dn zn ¦Q lk (0) z
k

n 0 n 0 k 0
f a 1

¦D z ¦  Coefficient of z
n 0
n
n

k 0
k
in Ql ( z ,0) z k 
f a 1 § f a 1 ·
¦ Dn zn ¦ ¨ Coefficient of z k in D i z i ¦ ¦ p j z j ¸z k
n 0 k
¨
0© i 0 j 0
¸
¹
f a 1 § k · k
n
¦D z ¦ ¨¨© ¦D p
n 0
n
k 0 l 0
l k l ¸z
¸
¹
D 02 p0  ^D 0 >D 0 p1  D1 p0 @  D1D 0 p0 ` z
 ^D 2D 0 p0  D1 >D 0 p1  D1 p0 @  >D 0 p2  D1 p1  D 2 p0 @D 0 ` z 2 
n § nk ·
Cofficient of z n in Q2 ( z ,0) ¦ ¨¨ ¦D n k  jD j ¸ pk
k 0© j 0
¸
¹
By generalising this, we get
j j  km j  k2
Coefficient of z n in QM ( z ,0) ¦ D km ¦ D km1  ¦D k1 p j  k1  k2
km 0 km1 0 k1 0
n

¦D
j 0
D p k1 km n j

¦ ki j

Theorem 3:
b 1 a 1 a 1

¦z
i a
b
 zi ¦ T
m 0
m gi  m ¦ Q ( n, z ) p
n 0
l n (43)

where
b 1 a 1
Q1 (n, z ) ¦
u a
zb  zu ¦ Q ( n, u ) K
j n
2 j n
 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 397

and
a 1 n
Q2 (n, u ) ¦I g
j 0
j u n j

Proof:
a 1 a 1 § n ·
¦
n 0
Tn gu  n ¦ ¨¨© ¦ I q
m 0 j 0
j n j ¸
¸¹
gu  n

a 1 § a 1 n ·
¦ ¦
m
¨
¨
0© j 0
I j g u  n  j ¸ qn
¸¹
a 1

¦ Q (n, u)q
m 0
2 n

where
a 1 n
Q2 (n, u ) ¦Ig
j 0
j u n j

Substituting qn from (40) and following the similar steps as in previous theorem, we have
b 1 a 1 a 1

¦ z
i=a
b
 zi ¦ T
m=0
m gi m = ¦ Q (n, z) p
n=0
l n

Hence the theorem.

Since the constants qi and Ti are expressed in terms of pi(i = 0, 1, 2, …, a  1). Now,
Equation (39) gives that the PGF of the queue size with b unknowns, namely p0, p1,
p2, …, pa1, ca, ca+1, …, cb1. To find these constants, Rouche’s theorem of complex
variables is used. By Rouche’s theorem, it follows that z b  S (O  O X (z )) has b  1 zeros
inside and one on the unit circle |z| = 1. Since P(z) is analytic within and on the unit
circle, the numerator must vanish at these points, which gives b equations with b
unknowns. These equations can be solved by any suitable numerical technique. Thus
Equation (39) gives the PGF of the number of customers in the queue at an arbitrary time.

5 Performance measures

Some useful performance measures of the proposed model are derived and given below.

5.1 Expected length of busy period

In this section, expected length of busy period which is useful to find the overall cost of
the system is derived. Using a conditional expectation concept, the expected length of
busy period is derived as follows:
398 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

Let B be the random variable for ‘busy period’. Define another random variable J as
J 0, if the server finds less than a customers in the queue after first service
1, if the server finds at least a customers in the queue after a first service

Now, the expected length of busy period E(B) is

E ( B) = E  B/J 0 P  J 0  E  B/J 1 P  J 1
= E  B/J 0 P  J 0   E  B  E  S  P  J 1
= E  B/J 0 P  J 0   E  B  E  S  1  P  J 0 

where E(S) is expected service time.

Solving for E(B), we obtain
E (S ) E(S )
E ( B) a 1
(44)
P( J 0)
¦ i 0
pi

5.2 Expected length of idle period

Expected idle period is the mean time gap between the vacation initiation epoch and
service initiative epoch including dormant period, if any.
Let I be random variable ‘idle period’. The expected length of idle period E(I) is
given by E(I) = E(I1) + E(I2), where I1 is the random variable ‘idle period generated by
dormant period’ and I2 is the random variable ‘idle period is due to j(1 < j < M)
vacations’.
To find E(I1), let Sj, j = 0, 1, 2, …, a  1 be the probability of the system state visits j
during an dormant period.
Let
Ij 1, if the system states becomes j during idle period
0, otherwise

Let P(Ij = 1) = Sj, j = 0, 1, 2, 3, …, a  1.

Define
S 1j as the probability that there are j customers in the queue at service completion
epoch.
Conditioning on the queue size at service completion epoch, for service completion
epoch, we have,
j
S 1j D j  ¦D PIc
k 0
k j k 1,  j 0,1, 2,3, , a  1 (45)

where P ª¬ I cj 1º¼ is the probability that the system state becomes j when the server is in
idle period and Dj = pj is the probability that j customers are in the queue at service
completion epoch. P  I cj j  is obtained as:
 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 399

Let P ª¬ Icj 1º¼ ) j , where )0 = 1 and ) j ¦ kj 11 g k ) j  k j = 1, 2, 3, …, Sj (j = 0, 1, 2, …,

a1) can be computed using Dj (=pj).
Since the expected staying time in a state during an idle period is 1/O0, the expected
length of dormant period is obtained as
a 1
1
E  I1 
O0 ¦S
j 0
j (46)

Let I2 be the random variable for idle period generated by j (1 d j d M) vacations and
define another random variable J as
U 0, if the server finds at least a customers in the queue after jth vacation
1, otherwise
M
E  I 2  = E V  ¦ jP(U = 0)
j=1
(47)

To find P(U = 0), we do some algebra using Equations (26) and (21), then
M f a 1
Q( z , 0) ¦¦ Q jn (0)z n V (O  O X ( z )) ¦ p z n
n
 qn z n 
j 1n 0 n 0

§ f · a 1

¨
©n 0
¦Dn zn ¸
¹
¦ p z n
n
 qn z n 
n 0

Equating the coefficients of zn (n = 0, 1, 2, 3, …, a  1) on both sides, we get

a 1 n

¦¦D  p
n 0i 0
i n i  qn i 

Also
M a 1
P (U 0) 1  ¦¦ Q
j=1 n=0
jn (0)

(48)
a 1 n
1 ¦¦ D  p
n 0 i 0
i n i  qn  i 

Substituting P(U = 0) in (47), E(I2) is obtained as

M ª a 1 n º
E  I2  E (V ) ¦
j 1
j «1 ¦¦
«¬ n 0 i 0
D i  pni  qni  »
»¼
(49)

By using (46) and (49), we obtain the expected idle period as

a 1 M ª a 1 n º
1
E(I )
O0 ¦
j 0
S j  E (V ) ¦ j 1
j «1 
«¬ n 0 i 0
¦¦
D i  pni  qni  »
»¼
(50)
400 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

5.3 Expected queue length

The expected queue length E(Q) (i.e. average number of customers waiting in the queue)
at an arbitrary time epoch is obtained by differentiating P(z) at z = 1 and is given by
f
E (Q) = ¦ n=0
npn = Pc(1) . From Equation (39), using L’Hospital rules and evaluating

lim z o1 dP ( z ) / dz , we get
b 1 a 1 a 1 a 1 a 1
¦
f1
m a
(b(b  1)  m( m  1)) cm  f 2 ¦ m a
(b  m ) cm  f 3 ¦ ¦
n 0 n
c  f4
n 0
ncn  f5 ¦ n 0 n
T
a 1 b 1 a 1 b 1 a 1
f ¦ nTn  f7 ¦ (b  i ) ¦ Tm gi  m  f ¦ (b(b  1)  i (i  1))¦ Tm gi  m
E (Q )
6
n 0 i a m 0
8
i a m 0 (51)
2
2  OO 0 E ( X )(b  S1 ) 

The functions f1, f2, f3, f4, f5 and f6 are given by

f1 ( X, S ) = T1S1
f 2 ( X , S ) = bO S3  O0 S12 X 2
f 3 ( X , S ,V ) ^OO0V1 X1T3  T2bV1  O S1 X1V2
 S1V1 X 1P1  S1V1 X 2 P2  O X 13 P3
 ObX 2V1 ª¬ 2  S1  1   b  O0 X 1  º¼
O b(b  1)V1 X 1  S1  1  2O S1V1  b  S1 `

f 4 ( X , S ,V ) 2TV1  S11  S1  b 

f5 ( X , S ) OO0b2 X12  S1  1  OO0bX1 X 2 S1  bOO0 X12 S3

f6 ( X , S ) 2bTX 1O0
f 7 ( X , S ) bS1  X 1  2 X 2   S1 X 2  2 E ( S ) X1  S1   S3  bX1  2 X 2   S1 X1b 2
f8 ( X , S ) S1 X1  b  S1 

where
X1 E ( X ), S1 O X 1E ( S ), S11 O0 E ( S ) X 1 ,
S2 O X 2 E ( S )  O 2 X 12 E S 2 , S3    
O 2 X 12 E S 2 ,

X2 X cc(1), V1 O0 X 1E (V ), V2 O0 X 2 E (V )  O02 X12 E V 2 ,  

T O X1  b  S1  , T1 O0 X 1  b  S1  ,
T2 O ª¬ X 1  b  b  1 – S2   X 2  b  S1 º¼ ,
T3 bX 2  b(b  1) X 1 ,
P1  
O 2 E S 2 X1  2OO0  O 2 S1 X 1  OO0 X 2 ,
P2 3O0  1  O S1  O ,
P3  
E V 2  O0 S1  bO   OV1E S 2 1  O 2 X 1 ,   
P4 O0O X 13  S1 (b  1)
 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 401

5.4 Expected waiting time

It is obtained by using the Little’s formula
E (Q )
E (W ) (52)
O E( X )
where E(Q) is the expected queue length as in (51).

6 Cost model

Cost analysis is a most important phenomena in any production system at every stage.
Cost involves startup cost, operating cost, holding cost and reward cost (if any). It is quite
natural that the management of the system desires to minimise the total average cost.
Therefore, in this section, the total average cost of the queueing system with following
assumptions are derived.
Cs is the startup cost per cycle
Ch is the holding cost per customer per unit time
Co is the operating cost per unit time
Cr is the reward due to vacation per unit time.
The length of cycle is the sum of the idle period and busy period. Now, the expected
length of cycle, E(Tc), is obtained by using (44) and (50).
a1 M ª a1 n º
ETC  1/ O0 ¦ ¦
S j  E(V) j «1 ¦¦ Di  pni  pni  »  E(B) (53)
j 0 j 1 «¬ n 0i 0 »¼

Thus the average total cost per unit time is obtained as

Total average cost Startup cost per cycle
 Holding cost of number of customers in the queue
 Operating cost u U
– Reward per unit time due to vacation

Total average cost Cs  Cr ª¬ E  I1   E  I3 º¼  E 1T   Ch E (Q)  Co U (54)

c

where ȡ = Ȝ E(X)E(S)/b and E(I1), E(I2), E(Tc) and E(Q) are given in (46), (49), (53) and
(51), respectively.

7 Numerical example

In this section, a numerical model is presented to illustrate, how effectively one can use
the result obtained to optimise the cost.
402 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

Considering the real-life situation given in Section 1, the giant wheel will be operated
only when the required number of customers are available to start a service. If it is
operated with less number of customers, then operating cost will be high, where as, if the
operator keeps on waiting for full capacity, the customers may switch to some other
recreation point. Hence, there must be some threshold value a between 2 and b which
will optimise the cost. By linear search method, the optimum threshold value is obtained
numerically.
A numerical model is analysed with the following assumptions:
1 service time distribution is k-Erlang with k = 2 and service rate is μ
2 batch arrival size distribution is geometric with mean = 2
3 vacation time is exponential with parameter Į = 5
4 the arrival rate is Ȝ = 2 when the giant wheel is in operation
5 the arrival rate is Ȝ0 = 1 when the operator of the giant wheel is allotted for secondary
job (idle)
6 maximum capacity of the giant wheel is b = 30.
Since k = 2 and b = 30, z b  S (O  O X ( z )) will become a polynomial of degree 32 and it
will have 29 roots inside, 2 roots outside and 1 on the unit circle z 1 . The zeros of the
function z b  S (O  O X ( z )) and the simultaneous equations are solved by using
MATLAB.
The expected queue length E(Q), expected length of idle period E(I), expected length
of busy period E(B) and total average cost for various values of a, when the maximum
capacity of giant wheel is fixed as 30.
From Table 1 and Figure 2, it is clear that the management has to fix the threshold
value as 15, when the number of vacations (M) is restricted to 1.
From Table 2 and Figure 3, it is clear that the management has to fix the threshold
value as 11, when the number of vacations (M) is restricted to 3.
Table 1 Total average cost vs. threshold value ‘a’ for M = 1

A E(Q) E(B) E(I) ATC

2 1.2879 2.1318 1.4289 2.0268
3 1.4045 2.4588 1.3290 1.9362
4 1.5067 2.7880 1.2867 1.8600
5 1.6075 3.1374 1.2606 1.7945
6 1.7086 3.5084 1.2405 1.7393
7 1.8098 3.8977 1.2235 1.6935
8 1.9107 4.3016 1.2090 1.6564
9 2.0113 4.7165 1.1964 1.6269
10 2.1114 5.1398 1.1854 1.6041
11 2.2113 5.5692 1.1758 1.5870
12 2.3110 6.0030 1.1673 1.5748
13 2.4106 6.4401 1.1599 1.5667
 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 403

Table 1 Total average cost vs. threshold value ‘a’ for M = 1 (continued)

A E(Q) E(B) E(I) ATC

14 2.5101 6.8795 1.1533 1.5622
15 2.6096 7.3205 1.1474 1.5608
16 2.7091 7.7626 1.1421 1.5620
17 2.8087 8.2055 1.1374 1.5655
18 2.9084 8.6489 1.1331 1.5710
19 3.0081 9.0926 1.1292 1.5782
20 3.1080 9.5364 1.1255 1.5870
21 3.2080 9.9802 1.1219 1.5971
22 3.3082 10.4236 1.1183 1.6084
23 3.4089 10.8663 1.1143 1.6210
24 3.5103 11.3072 1.1092 1.6346
25 3.6132 11.7447 1.1016 1.6496
26 3.7189 12.1753 1.0888 1.6661
27 3.8301 12.5919 1.0654 1.6849
28 3.9524 12.9808 1.0203 1.7075
29 4.0967 13.3142 0.9310 1.7372
30 4.2861 13.5364 0.7498 1.7804

Figure 2 Total average cost vs. threshold value ‘a’ for M = 1 (see online version for colours)

Total Average Cost Vs Threshold value 'a' for M=1

2.5

2
Total AverageCost

1.5

0.5

0
11

14

17

20

23

26

29
2

a
404 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

Table 2 Total average cost vs. threshold value ‘a’ for M = 3

A E(Q) E(B) E(I) ATC

2 1.5244 3.3519 2.6610 1.5386
3 1.6572 3.6871 2.6065 1.5231
4 1.7552 3.9657 2.6156 1.5109
5 1.8496 4.2654 2.6341 1.4985
6 1.9437 4.5915 2.6531 1.4868
7 2.0373 4.9386 2.6710 1.4767
8 2.1299 5.3013 2.6874 1.4689
9 2.2214 5.6752 2.7025 1.4633
10 2.3118 6.0573 2.7162 1.4600
11 2.4013 6.4452 2.7286 1.4589
12 2.4901 6.8372 2.7399 1.4597
13 2.5781 7.2321 2.7502 1.4624
14 2.6657 7.6290 2.7595 1.4666
15 2.7528 8.0273 2.7680 1.4723
16 2.8396 8.4266 2.7757 1.4792
17 2.9261 8.8265 2.7828 1.4873
18 3.0124 9.2268 2.7893 1.4964
19 3.0986 9.6274 2.7952 1.5065
20 3.1847 10.0280 2.8006 1.5173
21 3.2707 10.4286 2.8053 1.5289
22 3.3569 10.8288 2.8094 1.5413
23 3.4435 11.2283 2.8123 1.5544
24 3.5308 11.6263 2.8133 1.5682
25 3.6199 12.0211 2.8110 1.5831
26 3.7124 12.4097 2.8021 1.5993
27 3.8118 12.7857 2.7803 1.6179
28 3.9248 13.1367 2.7327 1.6406
29 4.0652 13.4375 2.6326 1.6711
30 4.2611 13.6380 2.4238 1.7172
 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 405

Figure 3 Total average cost vs. threshold value ‘a’ for M = 3 (see online version for colours)

Total Average Cost Vs Threshold value 'a' for M=3

1.75

1.7

1.65
Total Average Cost

1.6

1.55

1.5

1.45

1.4

1.35

1.3
11

14

17

20

23

26

29
2

8 Conclusion

An MX/G(a, b)/1 queue with modified vacation and state-dependent arrival rate has been
studied. The PGF of the queue size is obtained using supplementary variable technique.
Cost analysis has been made for various threshold value and found that the proposed
model is more effective due to the following reasons:
1 the total average cost is minimised for a particular threshold value
2 the theoretical development of the model is justified with the numerical results which
are consistent with the fact that the total average decreases when the server goes for
variant vacation policies.
In the direction of future work, the system size distribution may be obtained and a
discrete time model may also be attempted. Many researchers have done vacation models
with various control policies. But this model is more general in the manner of effective
utilisation of idle periods restricting number of vacations as finite and considering state-
dependent arrival.

Acknowledgements

The authors would be grateful to thank the referees and the editor for their insightful
comments and suggestions, which helped in bringing this paper to its present form.
406 M. Balasubramanian and R. Arumuganathan

References
Arumuganathan, R., Judeth Malliga, T. and Rathinasamy, A. (2008) ‘Steady state analysis of non-
Markovian bulk queueing system with N-policy and different types of vacations’, Int. J.
Modern Mathematics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.47–66.
Arumuganathan, R. and Ramaswami, K.S. (2005) ‘Analysis of a bulk queue with state dependent
arrivals and multiple vacations’, Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 36,
No. 6, pp.301–317.
Chang, S.H. and Choi, D.H. (2005) ‘Performance analysis of a finite buffer discrete time queue
with bulk arrival, bulk service and vacations’, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 32,
No. 9, pp.2213–2234.
Choudhury, G. (2002a) ‘Some aspects of M/G/1 queue with two different vacation times under
multiple vacation policy’, Stochastic Analysis and Applications, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp.901–909.
Choudhury, G. (2002b) ‘A batch arrival queue with a vacation time under single vacation policy’,
Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 29, No. 14, pp.1941–1955.
Choudhury, G. (2008) ‘A note on the MX/G/1 queue with a random set-up time under a restricted
admissibility policy with a Bernoulli vacation schedule’, Statistical Methodology, Vol. 5,
No. 1, pp.21–29.
Choudhury, G. and Madan, K.C. (2007) ‘A batch arrival Bernoulli vacation queue with a random
setup time under restricted admissibility policy’, Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp.81–97.
Choudhury, G. and Paul, M. (2006) ‘A two phases queueing system with Bernoulli vacation
schedule under multiple vacation policy’, Statistical Methodology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.174–185.
Doshi, B.T. (1986) ‘Queuing systems with vacations of survey’, Queuing Systems, Vol. 1,
pp.29–66.
Frans, J.M. (1999) ‘The inter departure time distribution for each class in the ¦ M i[ X ] / Gi / 1
queue with set-up times and repeated server vacations’, Performance Evaluation, Vol. 38,
Nos. 3–4, pp.219–214.
Guan, L., Woodward, M.E. and Awan, I.U. (2006) ‘Control of queueing delay in a buffer with
time-varying arrival rate’, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, Vol. 72, No. 7,
pp.1238–1248.
Guo, P. and Zipkin, P. (2007) ‘Analysis and comparison of queues with different levels of delay
information’, Management Science, Vol. 53, No. 6, pp.962–970.
Haghighi, A.M., Mishev, D.P. and Chukova, S.S. (2008) ‘A single-server Poisson queueing system
with delayed-service’, Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.363–383.
Jain, M. and Upadhyaya, S. (2010) ‘Optimal repairable MX/G/1 queue with multi-optional services
and Bernoulli vacation’, Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.109–132.
Jeyakumar, S. and Arumuganathan, R. (2008) ‘Steady state analysis of a MX/G/1 queue with two
service modes and multiple vacations’, Int. J. Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 3,
No. 6, pp.692–710.
Ke, J-C. (2007a) ‘Batch arrival queues under vacation policies with server breakdowns and
startup/close down times’, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp.1282–1292.
Ke, J-C. (2007b) ‘Operating characteristic analysis on the M[X]/G/1 system with variant vacation
policy and balking’, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp.1321–1337.
Ke, J-C. (2008) ‘An M[X]/G/1 system with startup server and J additional options for service’,
Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp.443–458.
Ke, J-C. and Chang, F-M. (2009) ‘M[X]/(G1, G2)/1 retrial queue under Bernoulli vacation schedules
and general repeated attempts and starting failures’, Applied Mathematical Modeling, Vol. 33,
No. 7, pp.3186–3196.
Ke, J-C. and Chu, Y-K. (2006) ‘A modified vacation model M[X]/G/1 system’, Applied Stochastic
Models in Business and Industry, Vol. 22, pp.1–16.
 Steady state analysis of a bulk arrival 407

Lee, H.W., Lee, S.S. and Chae, K.C. (1994) ‘Operating characteristics of the M[X]/G/1 queue with
N-policy’, Queueing Systems, Vol. 15, pp.387–399.
Li, H. and Zhu, Y. (1997) ‘M(n)/G/1/N queues with generalized vacations’, Computers and
Operations Research, Vol. 24, pp.301–316.
Li, W., Makki, K. and Pissinou, N. (2002) ‘Performance analysis of a PCS network with state
dependent calls arrival processes and impatient calls’, Computer Communications, Vol. 25,
pp.507–515.
Parthasarathy, P.R. and Sudhesh, R. (2010) ‘A state-dependent queue alternating between arrivals
and service’, Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.16–30.
Pinsky, E. and Conway, A.E. (1996) ‘Mean-value analysis of multi-facility blocking models with
state-dependent arrivals’, Performance Evaluation, Vol. 24, pp.303–309.
Sikdar, K. and Gupta, U.C. (2008) ‘On the batch arrival batch service queue with finite buffer
under server’s vacation MX/GY/1/N queue’, Computers and Mathematics with Applications,
Vol. 56, No. 1, pp.2861–2873.
Sikdar, K., Gupta, U.C. and Sharma, R.K. (2008) ‘The analysis of a finite-buffer general input
queue with batch arrival and exponential multiple vacations’, Int. J. Operational Research,
Vol. 3, Nos. 1/2, pp.219–234.
Takagi, H. (1991) Queueing Analysis: Foundation of Performance Evaluation, Vol. 1, Vacation
and Priority Systems, Part 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Wang, K-H., Chan, M-C. and Ke, J-C. (2007) ‘Maximum entropy analysis of the M[X]/M/1
queueing systems with multiple vacations and server breakdowns’, Computers and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 52, pp.192–202.
Zhang, Z.G. (2006) ‘On the convexity of the two-threshold policy for an M/G/1 queue with
vacations’, Operations Research Letters, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.473–476.