Traffic Theory

Traffic Engineering
• One billion+ terminals in voice network alone
– Plus data, video, fax, finance, etc.
• Imagine all users want service simultaneously…its not even nearly possible
(despite our common intuition)
– In practice, the actual amount of equipment provisioned is vastly less
than would support all users simultaneously
• And yet, by and large, we get the impression of phone and data networks
that work very well!
• How is this possible?
 Traffic theory !!
 Traffic Engineering – Trade-offs
• Design number of transmission paths, or radio channels?
– How many required normally?
– What if there is an overload?
• Design switching and routing mechanisms
– How do we route efficiently?
– E.g.
• High-usage trunk groups
• Overflow trunk groups
• Where should traffic flows be combined or kept separate?
• Design network topology
– Number and sizing of switching nodes and locations
– Number and sizing of transmission systems and locations
– Survivability
In telecommunication engineering, and in particular teletraffic engineering, the quality of voice
service is specified by two measures: the grade of service (GoS) and the quality of service
(QoS).

Grade of service is the probability of a call in a circuit group being blocked or delayed for
more than a specified interval, expressed as a vulgar fraction or decimal fraction. This is
always with reference to the busy hour when the traffic intensity is the greatest. Grade of
service may be viewed independently from the perspective of incoming versus outgoing calls,
and is not necessarily equal in each direction or between different source-destination pairs.

On the other hand, the quality of service which a single circuit is designed or conditioned to
provide, e.g. voice grade or program grade is called the quality of service. Quality criteria for
such circuits may include equalization for amplitude over a specified band of frequencies, or in
the case of digital data transported via analogue circuits, may include equalization for phase.
Criteria for mobile quality of service in cellular telephone circuits include the probability of
abnormal termination of the call.

To calculate the Grade of Service of a specified group of circuits or routes, Agner Krarup Erlang used a set
of assumptions that relied on the network losing calls when all circuits in a group were busy. These
assumptions are:
All traffic through the network is pure-chance traffic, i.e. all call arrivals and terminations are independent
random events
There is statistical equilibrium, i.e., the average number of calls does not change
Full availability of the network, i.e., every outlet from a switch is accessible from every inlet
Any call that encounters congestion is immediately lost.
From these assumptions Erlang developed the Erlang-B formula which describes the probability of
congestion in a circuit group. The probability of congestion gives the Grade of Service experienced.
 Characterization of Telephone
• 
Traffic
Calling Rate ( ) – also called arrival rate, or attempts rate, etc.
– Average number of calls initiated per unit time (e.g. attempts per
hour)
– Each call arrival is independent of other calls (we assume)
– Call attempt arrivals are random in time
– Until otherwise, we assume a “large” calling group or source pool

α
If receive  calls from a terminal in time T: γ
T

If receive  calls from m terminals in time T:

α α
γg  γ
T m T
Group calling rate Per terminal
calling rate
 Characterization of Telephone Traffic (2)
• Calling rate assumption:
– Number of calls in time T is
Poisson distributed: e    x
p( x)  x  0, 1, 2...
x!
– In our case   T

 Time between calls is “-ve exponentially” distributed:

f (t )    e  t 0t  1
mean 

Class Question: What do these observations about telephone traffic imply
about the nature of the traffic sources?
 -ve Exponential Holding Times
• Implies the “Memory-less” property
– Prob. a call last another minute is independent of how long the call has already
lasted! Call “forgets” that it has already survived to time T1

P T  T1  t T  T1   PT  t 
Proof:
P T  T1  t  T  T1 
P T  T1  t T  T1  
PT  T1 

P T  T1  t  e  (T1  t ) / h
  T1 / h
Recall: PT  T1  e
P(T  t )  e  t / h

e T1 / h  e t / h  e  t / h  P T  t 

e T1 / h
 Characterization of Telephone Traffic (3)
• Holding Time (h)
– Mean length of time a call lasts
– Probability of lasting time t or more is also –ve
exponential in nature:
P (T  t )  e  t / h t 0
P(T  t )  0 t0
– Real voice calls fits very closely to the negative exponential form above
– As non-voice “calls” begin to dominate, more and more calls have a
constant holding time characteristic
Departure Rate ():

1

h
Some Real Holding Time Data
 Traffic Volume (V)
 = # calls in time period T
V  h h = mean holding time
V = volume of calls in time period T

• In N. America this is historically usually expressed in terms of “ccs”:

– Hundred call seconds

“c” “c” “s”

– 1 ccs is volume of traffic equal to:

– one circuit busy for 100 seconds, or
– two circuits busy for 50 seconds, or
– 100 circuits busy for one second, etc.
 Traffic Intensity (A)
• Also called “traffic flow” or simply “traffic”.
 = # calls in time period T
 h  V h = mean holding time
A   h  
T  T T = time period of observations
 = calling rate
Recall: Recall: Recall:  = departure rate
 1
  V  h V = call volume
T h

Units:
– “ccs/hour”, or
– dimensionless (if h and T are in the same units of time)

“Erlang” unit
 The Erlang
• Dimensionless unit of traffic intensity
• Named after Danish mathematician A. K. Erlang (1878-
1929)
• Usually denoted by symbol E.
• 1 Erlang is equivalent to traffic intensity that keeps:
– one circuit busy 100% of the time, or
– two circuits busy 50% of the time, or
– four circuits busy 25% of the time, etc.
• 26 Erlangs is equivalent to traffic intensity that keeps :
– 26 circuits busy 100% of the time, or
– 52 circuits busy 50% of the time, or
– 104 circuits busy 25% of the time, etc.
 Class
• Could 4 E be produced as a traffic intensity by:
– 16 sources? (What is the utilization?)
– 4 sources (same)
– 1 source?

• What is special about the traffic intensity if it

pertains to one source or terminal only?
 Erlang (2)
• How does the Erlang unit correspond to ccs?
100 call  seconds
1 ccs hour   0.027E
1 hour × 60 min hr × 60 sec min
3600 call  seconds
36 ccs hour   1E
1 hour × 60 min hr × 60 sec min
Percentage of time a terminal is busy is equivalent to the traffic generated by that
terminal in Erlangs, or
Average number of circuits in a group busy at any time
Typical usages:
– residence phone -> 0.02 E
– business phone -> 0.15 E
– interoffice trunk -> 0.70 E
 Traffic Offered, Carried, and Lost
• Offered Traffic (T ) equivalent to Traffic Intensity (A)
O

– Takes into account all attempted calls, whether blocked or not,

and uses their expected holding times
• Also Carried Traffic (T ) and Lost Traffic (T )
C L

• Consider a group of 150 terminals, each with 10% utilization (or

in other words, 0.1 E per source) and dedicated service:

1 1 each terminal has an

outgoing trunk
(i.e. terminal:trunk ratio = 1:1)

150 150
TO = A = 150 x 0.10 E = 15.0 E
TC = 150 x 0.10 E = 15.0 E
TL = 0 E
 Traffic Offered, Carried, and Lost
• A=T =T +T
(2)
O C L Lost
Traffic Carried Traffic
Intensity Offered
Traffic
Traffic

TL = TO x Prob. Blocking (or congestion)

= P(B) x TO = P(B) x A

Circuit Utilization () - also called Circuit Efficiency

– proportion of time a circuit is busy, or
– average proportion of time each circuit in a group is busy

TC
 
# of Trunks
 Grade of Service (gos)
• In general, the term used for some traffic design objective
• Indicative of customer satisfaction
• In systems where blocked calls are cleared, usually use:

TL TL
gos    P( B )
TO TL + TC
Typical gos objectives:
– in busy hour, range from 0.2% to 5% for local calls, however
– generally no more that 1%
– long distance calls often slightly higher

In systems with queuing, gos often defined as the probability of delay exceeding a
specific length of time
 Grade of Service Related Terms
• Busy Hour
– One hour period during which traffic volume or call attempts is
the highest overall during any given time period
• Peak (or Daily) Busy Hour
– Busy hour for each day, usually varies from day to day
• Busy Season
– 3 months (not consecutive) with highest average daily busy hour
• High Day Busy Hour (HDBH)
– One hour period during busy season with the highest load
• Average Busy Season Busy Hour (ABSBH)
– One hour period with highest average daily busy hour during the
busy season
 Grade of Service Related Terms (2)
Average Busy Season Busy Hour (ABSBH)
– One hour period with highest average daily busy hour during the busy season
– For example, assume days shown below make up the busy season:

1-Apr 2-Apr 3-Apr 4-Apr 5-Apr 6-Apr 7-Apr 8-Apr 9-Apr 10-Apr 11-Apr 12-Apr 13-Apr 14-Apr 15-Apr 16-Apr 17-Apr 18-Apr 19-Apr 20-Apr 21-Apr Mean
00:00 to 01:00 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.5
01:00 to 02:00 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.3 1.7 1.4 1.9 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.5
02:00 to 03:00 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.4
03:00 to 04:00
04:00 to 05:00
ABSBH
1.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
2.3
1.4
2.2
1.7
2.0
1.1
1.7
1.5
2.3
1.6
1.6
1.1
2.2
1.9
1.5
1.0
2.1
1.0
1.6
1.4
2.3
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.7
1.1
2.5
1.4
1.6
1.9
2.0
Highest
1.4
1.7
1.2
1.5
1.1
2.3
1.4
1.9
05:00 to 06:00 2.2 2.3 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.0
06:00 to 07:00 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.3 1.6 2.4 2.2 1.5 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0
07:00 to 08:00 2.0 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.9 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.9 2.3 2.1 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.4
08:00 to 09:00 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.5 3.0
09:00 to 10:00 3.4 3.4 4.0 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.1 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.9 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.1 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.4 3.5
10:00 to 11:00 5.0 4.4 4.8 4.9 4.1 3.0 4.0 4.9 4.2 4.9 4.7 4.2 3.8 3.0 4.6 4.9 4.4 5.0 4.7 3.6 3.8 4.3
11:00 to 12:00 4.8 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.5 3.8 3.4 4.2 5.0 4.6 5.0 4.7 3.2 3.4 5.0 4.8 4.1 4.3 4.4 3.6 3.7 4.3
12:00 to 13:00 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.8 4.6 3.8 3.3 4.0 4.2 4.6 4.7 4.0 3.3 3.1 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.1 4.2 3.2 3.6 4.1
13:00 to 14:00 4.3 4.2 4.7 4.5 4.8 3.2 3.1 4.1 4.5 4.6 4.9 4.7 3.6 3.6 4.8 4.2 4.8 4.9 4.4 3.3 3.0 4.2
14:00 to 15:00 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.1 4.4 3.6 3.7 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.9 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.3 3.3 3.2 4.2
15:00 to 16:00 4.4 4.9 4.4 4.8 4.5 3.8 3.2 4.1 4.8 4.4 4.5 4.2 3.3 3.9 4.3 4.9 4.4 4.3 4.5 3.7 3.3 4.2
16:00 to 17:00 3.2 3.2 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.8 3.4 3.2 4.0 3.3 4.0 3.9 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.5
17:00 to 18:00 2.7 2.6 Note:
2.7 Red 2.9indicates
3.3 3.1 3.4 2.9 3.2 2.8 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.5 2.9 2.8 3.4 3.5 2.9 3.2 3.0
18:00 to 19:00 3.0 2.9 3.0daily2.7 2.9
busy hour 3.4 3.3 3.4 2.7 3.3 3.5 3.5 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.1
19:00 to 20:00 3.3 3.3 2.6 3.4 3.2 2.7 2.7 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.1 2.8 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.9 3.1
20:00 to 21:00 2.9 2.3 2.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.3 2.9 3.0 2.1 2.2 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6
21:00 to 22:00 2.1 1.6 2.3 1.6 2.2 2.1 2.4 1.9 1.6 2.1 2.4 1.7 1.8 2.4 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.2 1.6 2.0
22:00 to 23:00 1.5 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.6 2.3 2.5 2.4 1.7 2.1 1.8 2.0 2.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.3 1.7 2.4 1.8 2.0
23:00 to 00:00 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.1 1.9 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.5
Hourly Traffic Variations
Daily Traffic Variations
Seasonal Traffic Variations
Seasonal Traffic Variations (2)
 Typical Call Attempts Breakdown
• Calls Completed - 70.7%
• Called Party No Answer - 12.7%
• Called Party Busy - 10.1%
• Call Abandoned - 2.6%
• Dialing Error - 1.6%
• Number Changed or Disconnected - 0.4%
• Blockage or Failure - 1.9%
 3 Types of Blocking Models
• Blocked Calls Cleared (BCC)
– Blocked calls leave system and do not return
– Good approximation for calls in 1st choice trunk group
• Blocked Calls Held (BCH)
– Blocked calls remain in the system for the amount of time it
would have normally stayed for
– If a server frees up, the call picks up in the middle and continues
– Not a good model of real world behaviour (mathematical
approximation only)
– Tries to approximate call reattempt efforts
• Blocked Calls Wait (BCW)
– Blocked calls enter a queue until a server is available
– When a server becomes available, the call’s holding time begins
 Blocked Calls Cleared (BCC)
2 sources
10 minutes

Source #1
Offered Traffic
1 3
Total Traffic Offered:
Source #2 TO = 0.4 E + 0.3 E
Offered Traffic TO = 0.7 E
2 4

Only one server 1st call arrives and is served

2nd call arrives but

Traffic server already busy
Carried
1 2 3 4
2nd call is cleared

3rd call arrives and is served

Total Traffic Carried:
TC = 0.5 E 4th call arrives and is served
 Blocked Calls Held (BCH)
2 sources
10 minutes

Source #1
Offered Traffic
1 3
Total Traffic Offered:
Source #2 TO = 0.4 E + 0.3 E
Offered Traffic TO = 0.7 E
2 4

1st call arrives and is served

Only one server
2nd call arrives but server busy

Traffic
2nd call is held until server free
Carried
1 2 2 3 4
2nd call is served

3rd call arrives and is served

Total Traffic Carried:
TC = 0.6 E 4th call arrives and is served
 Blocked Calls Wait (BCW)
2 sources
10 minutes

Source #1
Offered Traffic
1 3
Total Traffic Offered:
Source #2 TO = 0.4 E + 0.3 E
Offered Traffic TO = 0.7 E
2 4

1st call arrives and is served

Only one server 2nd call arrives but server busy

2nd call waits until server free

Traffic
Carried 2nd call served
1 2 2 3 4
3rd call arrives, waits, and
is served
Total Traffic Carried:
4th call arrives, waits, and
TC = 0.7 E is served
 Blocking Probabilities
• System must be in a Steady State
– Also called state of statistical equilibrium
– Arrival Rate of new calls equals Departure Rate of
disconnecting calls
– Why?
• If calls arrive faster that they depart?
• If calls depart faster than they arrive?
 Binomial Distribution Model
• Assumptions:
– m sources
– A Erlangs of offered traffic
• per source: TO = A/m
• probability that a specific source is busy: P(B) = A/m
• Can use Binomial Distribution to give the probability that a certain number
(k) of those m sources is busy:
k mk k mk
 m  A   A   m!  A   A 
P (k )     1       1  
 k  m   m   k!(m  k )!  m   m 
 Binomial Distribution Model (2)
• What does it mean if we only have N servers (N<m)?
– We can have at most N busy sources at a time
– What about the probability of blocking?
• All N servers must be busy before we have blocking
P ( B )  P(k  N )  P(k  N )  P(k  N  1)  ...  P(k  m)
k m k
m m
  A   A  Remember:
     1  
k  N  k  m   m k mk
 m  A   A
P(k )     1  
 k  m   m
k mk
N 1
 m  A   A 
 1      1  
k  0  k  m   m
 Binomial Distribution Model (3)
• What does it mean if k>N?
– Impossible to have more sources busy than servers to serve them
– Doesn’t accurately represent reality
• In reality, P(k>N) = 0
– In this model, we still assign P(k>N) = A/m
– Acts as good model of real behaviour
• Some people call back, some don’t
• Which type of blocking model is the Binomial Distribution?
– Blocked Calls Held (BCH)
 Time Congestions vs. Call
Congestion
• Time Congestion
– Proportion of time a system is congested (all servers busy)
– Probability of blocking from point of view of servers
• Call Congestion
– Probability that an arriving call is blocked
– Probability of blocking from point of view of calls

• Why/How are they different ?

Time Congestion: Call Congestion:

P ( B )  P(k  N ) P ( B )  P(k  N )

Probability that all Probability that there are

servers are busy. more sources wanting service
than there are servers.
 Poisson Traffic Model
• Poisson approximates Binomial with large m and small A/m

e   k = Mean # of
P (k ) 
k! Busy Sources

Note: Poisson  lim ( Binomial )

m 

What is ?
– Mean number of busy sources
– =A

e  A Ak
 P(k ) 
k!
 Poisson Traffic Model (2)
• Now we can calculate probability of blocking:
P ( B )  P(k  N )  P( N )  P( N  1)  ...  P()
Remember:
 A k  k
e A A A
  e P(k ) 
e  A Ak
kN k! k  N k! k!

Ak  A
N 1
 1  e
k  0 k! Example:

P (7,10)
P( B)  P( N , A)
Poisson P(B) with 10 E
“P” = Poisson “A” = Offered Traffic offered to 7 servers
“N” = # Servers
 Traffic Tables
• Consider a 1% chance of blocking in a system with N=10 trunks
– How much offered traffic can the system handle?

Ak  A 9
Ak  A
0.01   e  1  e
k 10 k! k  0 k!

How do we calculate A?
– Very carefully, or
– Use traffic tables
 P(B)=P(N,A)
Traffic Tables (2)
N

A
 Traffic Tables (3)
P(N,A)=0.01

N=10

If system with N = 10 trunks

has P(B) = 0.01:
A=4.14 E

System can handle

Offered traffic (A) = 4.14 E
 Poisson Traffic Tables
P(N,A)=0.01

N=10

If system with N = 10 trunks

has P(B) = 0.01:
A=4.14 E

System can handle

Offered traffic (A) = 4.14 E
 Efficiency of Large Groups
• What if there are N = 100 trunks?
– Will they serve A = 10 x 4.14 E = 41.4 E with same P(B) = 1%?
– No!
– Traffic tables will show that A = 78.2 E!
• Why will 10 times trunks serve almost 20 times traffic?
– Called efficiency of large groups:
A 4.14
For N = 10, A = 4.14 E    41.4% efficiency
N 10
A 78.2
For N = 100, A = 78.2 E    78.2% efficiency
N 100

The larger the trunk group, the greater the efficiency

 TrafCalc Software
• What if we need to calculate P(N,A) and not in
traffic table?
– TrafCalc: Custom-designed software
• Calculates P(B) or A, or
• Creates custom traffic tables
 TrafCalc Software (2)
• How do we calculate P(32,20)?
 TrafCalc Software (3)
• How do we calculate A for which P(32,A) =
0.01?
 Erlang B Model
• More sophisticated model than Binomial or
Poisson
• Blocked Calls Cleared (BCC)
• Good for calls that can reroute to alternate
route if blocked
• No approximation for reattempts if alternate
route blocked too
• Derived using birth-death process
 Erlang B Birth-Death Process
• Consider infinitesimally small time t during which only one arrival or
departure (or none) may occur
• Let  be the arrival rate from an infinite pool or sources
• Let  = 1/h be the departure rate per call
Blockage
– Note: if k calls in system, departure rate is k
• Steady State Diagram:
    

0 1 2 …… N-1 N

 2 3 (N-1) N

Immediate Service
 Erlang B Birth-Death Process (2)
• Steady State (statistical equilibrium)
– Rate of arrival is the same as rate of departure
– Average rate a system enters a given state is equal to the average rate at which the
system leaves that state
Probability of moving
from state 1 to state 2? P1

    

P0 0 P1 1 P2 2 …… PN-1 N-1 PN N

 2 3 (N-1) N

Probability of moving
from state 2 to state 1? 2P2
 Erlang B Birth-Death Process (3)
    

P0 0 P1 1 2
…… N-1 N
P2 PN-1 PN

 2 3 (N-1) N

• Set up balance equations:


 P0   P1  P0   P1 P1  P0

 P1   P1  2 P2   P0  P1  2  P2 2
   P
P2  P1    0
2  P2   P2  3 P3   P1  P2  3 P3 2  2
3 P3   P3  4 P4   P2

3
   P
P3  P2    0
3  6
  Pk 1  k  Pk

( N  1)  PN 1   PN 1  N  PN   PN  2
   P
Pk    0
k

N  PN   PN 1  PN 1  N  PN    k!
 Erlang B Birth-Death Process (4)
Recall: k
Rule of Total Probability:   P
Pk    0
i 1    k!
N N
   P0 P0  i
 Pi  1     N
  1
i 0 i 0    i !   
i 0    i !
Recall:

k Ah 
Ak  1 
   k!
Pk  k ! N i i
N
  A1
  i 0 i !
i 0    i !
For blocking, must be in state k = N:

AN
P( B)  B( N , A)  PN  N ! N
Ai
“B” = Erlang B 
i 0 i !
“N” = # Servers
“A” = Offered Traffic
 Erlang B Traffic Table
B(N,A)=0.001

Example: In a BCC system with m=

sources, we can accept a 0.1% chance
of blocking in the nominal case of 40E B(N,A)=0.005
offered traffic. However, in the extreme
case of a 20% overload, we can accept
a 0.5% chance of blocking.
How many outgoing trunks do we
need?
N=59 A=40 E
Nominal design: 59 trunks
Overload design: 64 trunks A48 E

Requirement: 64 trunks
N=64
 Erlang B Model
Pb = Blocking Probability
 Example (Poisson Model) (2)
P(N,A)=0.01

N=32

A=20.3 E
 P(N,A) & B(N,A) - High Blocking
• We recognize that Poisson and Erlang B models are only approximations but which is better?
– Compare them using a 4-trunk group offered A=10E

Erlang B Poisson

B(4,10)  0.64666 P(4,10)  0.98966

TC  A  (1  P( B))  10  (1  0.64666) TC  A  (1  P( B ))  10  (1  0.98966)

TC  3.533E TC  0.103E
3.533 0.103
  0.88   0.026
4 4

How can 4 trunks handle 10E offered

traffic and be busy only 2.6% of the time?
 P(N,A) & B(N,A) - High Blocking (2)
• Obviously, the Poisson result is so far off that it is almost meaningless as an
approximation of the example.
– 4 servers offered enough traffic to keep 10 servers busy full time (10E) should
result in much higher utilization.
• Erlang B result is more believable.
– All 4 trunks are busy most of the time.
• What if we extend the exercise by increasing A?
– Erlang B result goes to 4E carried traffic
– Poisson result goes to 0E carried
• Illustrates the failure of the Poisson model as valid for situations with high blocking
– Poisson only good approximation when low blocking
– Use Erlang B if high blocking
 Engset Distribution Model
• BCC model with small number of sources (m > N)
 = mean departure rate per call
 = mean arrival rate of a single source
k = arrival rate if in the system is state k
Blockage
k = (m-k)

m (m-1) (m-2) [m-(N-2)] [m-(N-1)]

P0 0 P1 1 P2 2 …… PN-1 N-1 PN N

 2 3 (N-1) N

Immediate Service
 Engset Traffic Model (2)
• Balance equations give:


k
m! 1
Pk  P0   P0 
and i
   k !(m  k )!
N
  m
  
i 0   
 
i
k
therefore:     m but can show that:  A
 k 
Pk    i   m A
N
    m
   
i 0     i 
N
 A   m
   
 m A N
P ( B) P( k  N )  E ( m, N , A)  i
N
 A   m
“E” = Engset
 
i 0  m  A
 
i
 Engset Traffic Table M = 30 sources
# trunks (N)

Traffic offered (A)

P(B)=E(m,N,A) N=10

A=4.8 E

Example: 30 terminals each provide P(B)<0.01

0.16 Erlangs to a concentrator with a
goal of less than 1% blocking.
How many outgoing trunks do we
need?
A = 30 x 0.16 = 4.8 E Check m < 10 x N?
Requirement: N = 10 Trunks M=30 < 10 x 10 = 100
 Erlang C Distribution Model
• BCW model with infinite sources (m) and infinite queue length
 = arrival rate of new calls
 = mean departure rate per call Blockage

      

P0 0 P1 1 P2 2 …… PN N PQ1 Q1 PQ2 Q2 ……

 2 3 N N N N

Immediate Service
 Erlang C Distribution Model (2)
• Balance equations give:

1
Ak P0 Ak P0 P0 
Pk  , kN and Pk  k  N , k  N and AN  N  N 1 Ai
k! N N!  
N !  N  A  i 0 i !
But P(B) = P(kN):

k k k but can show that:

 
A P0  A P0 A N 
 A 
 A
k
N
P( B )  
N k  N N ! k 0
   N  P     
NA
k 0  N 
k N N  N  N N! N ! k 0  N 

AN N
AN N
P( B)  P0
N! N  A C ( N , A)  N N ! N  AN 1 i
A  N  A
  

“C” = Erlang C
N !  N  A  i 0 i !
 Erlang C Traffic Tables N=18

# trunks (N) P(B)=C(N,A)

Traffic offered (A)

A=7 E C(18,7)=0.0004

Example:
What is the probability of blocking in
an Erlang C system with 18 servers
offered 7 Erlangs of traffic?
 Delay in Erlang C
• Expected number of calls in the queue ? k
 
Ak AN 
 A
  (k  N ) Pk   (k  N ) k  N P0  Pk  k  
kN k N N N! N ! k 0  N 

P0 A N A N A  C ( N , A) h
   C ( N , A)
N! N  A N  A NA NA

Recall:

 
Mean #Calls Delayed h T
Mean Delay over All Calls =  C ( N , A)
Arrival Rate of Calls NA 
T

h
Mean Delay of Delayed Calls =
NA

Also: h
T
NA
P(delay  T )  C ( N , A)e
 Comparison of Traffic Models
Erlang C (BCW,  sources)
Poisson (BCH,  sources)
Erlang B (BCC,  sources)
Binomial (BCH, m sources)
Engset (BCC, m sources)
P(B)

Offered Traffic (A)

 Efficiency of Large Groups
• Already seen that for same P(B), increasing servers results in more
than proportional increase in traffic carried

example 1: P (10, 4.14)  0.01 and P(100, 78.2)  0.01

example 2: P (32, 20.3)  0.01 and P (33, 20.1)  0.005

example 3: B (8, 2.05)  0.001 and B (80,57.8)  0.001

What does this mean?

– If it’s possible to collect together several diverse sources, you can
provide better GoS at same cost, or
provide same GoS at cheaper cost
 Efficiency of Large Groups (2)
• Two trunk groups offered 5 Erlangs each, and B(N,A)=0.002
How many trunks total?
5E NN11=13
=?
From traffic tables, find B(13,5)  0.002

5E NN22=13
=? Ntotal = 13 + 13 = 26 trunks

Trunk efficiency?

TC 10(1  0.002)
   0.384
N 26

38.4% utilization
 Efficiency of Large Groups (3)
• One trunk group offered 10 Erlangs, and B(N,A)=0.002
How many trunks?

10 E N=20
N=? From traffic tables, find B(20,10)  0.002

N = 20 trunks

Trunk efficiency?

TC 10(1  0.002)
   0.499
N 20 49.9% utilization

For same GoS, we can save 6 trunks!

 Efficiency of Large Groups (4)

 B=0.1
A B=0.1

B=0.01 B=0.01

B=0.001 B=0.001

N N
 Sensitivity to Overload
• Consider 2 cases:
Case 1: N = 10 and B(N,A) = 0.01

B(10,4.5)  0.01, so can carry 4.5 E

What if 20% overload (5.4 E)? B(10,5.4)  0.03
3 times P(B) with 20% overload

Case 1: N = 30 and B(N,A) = 0.01

B(30,20.3)  0.01, so can carry 20.3 E

What if 20% overload (24.5 E)? B(30,24.5)  0.08
8 times P(B) with 20% overload!

“Trunk Group Splintering”

if high possibility of overloads, small groups may be better
 Incremental Traffic Carried by Nth Trunk
• If a trunk group is of size N-1, how much extra traffic can it carry if you
add one extra trunk?
– Before, can carry: TC1 = A x [1-(B(N-1,A)]
– After, can carry: TC2 = A x [1-(B(N,A)]

AN  TC 2  TC1  A 1  B( N , A)   1  B( N  1, A) 

 A  B( N  1, A)  B ( N , A) 
AN  ( N  A)  B( N , A)
What does this mean? for very low blocking

– Random Hunting: Increase in trunk group’s total carried traffic after

adding an Nth trunk
– Sequential Hunting: Actual traffic carried by the Nth trunk in the group
 Incremental Traffic Carried by Nth Trunk (3)

Fixed B(N,A)

AN

N
 Example
• Individual trunks are only economic if they can carry 0.4 E or more. A
trunk group of size N=10 is offered 6 E. Will all 10 trunks be
economical?

AN  A  B( N  1, A)  B( N , A) 

A10  6  B(9, 6)  B(10, 6) 

 6  0.07514  0.04314 

 0.192 E  0.4 E

 At least the 10th trunk is not economical