INDE3103

SYSTEM SIMULATION
REPORT
Subway Model

MERT ASLAN 216IE2074

BEGÜM ASLAN 217IE2124
FARUK CAN İÇSEV 216IE2100
RABİA SILA AYDIN 217IE2371L
 CONTENTS TABLE
1) INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3
2) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM ........................................................................... 3
3) SOLUTION APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM .......................................................... 3
4) DATA COLLECTING ..................................................................................................... 4
5) INPUT ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATION .................................................................. 5
6) CONCEPTUAL MODEL ................................................................................................ 6
7) ARENA MODEL .............................................................................................................. 7
8) MODULES ........................................................................................................................ 8
8.1 Create Module............................................................................................................................... 8
8.2 Process Module ............................................................................................................................. 8
8.3 Decide Module:............................................................................................................................. 9
8.4 Dispose Module .......................................................................................................................... 11
9) RUN SET-UP .................................................................................................................. 11
10)VALIDATION .................................................................................................................. 12
11) SUMMARY OF THE MODEL RESULT .................................................................. 14
11.1 ENTITY .................................................................................................................................... 14
11.2 PROCESS ................................................................................................................................. 15
11.3 QUEUE ..................................................................................................................................... 17
11.4 RESOURCE .............................................................................................................................. 18
12) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN .......................................................... 18
13) COST OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM .......................................................................... 21
14) ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................................................. 21
15) CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 22
16) RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 22

2
 1) INTRODUCTION

Doctor's Associates Inc. Subway is an American franchise chain, founded in 1965 by Fred DeLuca
and Peter Buck, serving the fast food industry.

Subway's objective all over the world is to offer a wide range of tasty, quick and healthy meals. It's
really important that their menu offers a wide range of healthier food choices for a healthier lifestyle.
Food safety and food quality are of paramount importance to them.

We observed that the processes at Subway have queues and we decided that it is a appropriate
example for queueing models that it why we chose subway for our simulation. We aimed to reduce
waiting time in queue so we tried to find subway’s optimum employee and machine numbers for
maximum efficiency.

2) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

One of the problems we observed in the subway is the insufficient number of employees. We
observed that two employees could not keep up with more than one process. Therefore, we noticed
that queue can occur in every process. Accordingly, we observed that when customers saw the queue,
they may left the system.

The other problem is can be insufficient number of heater machines in the system. Because of that
there is one heater machine in the system, customers' waiting time increases and employee
productivity decreases. As a solution, we thought that increasing the number of employees will
increase customer satisfaction and system efficiency and we recommended increasing the number of
machines.

3) SOLUTION APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM

We had to create an Arena model to solve this problem and offer suggestions. For this, we have done
model conceptualization data collection, model translation, verification, validation, data analysis,
documentation and reporting.

First of all, we imagined the design of model of Subway. Then we collected data of customer arrival
times, waiting times, and service times for each process.

We observed that there are some differences between the imagined model design and the model
design in the actual system and we shaped our model according to actual system. Then for the
verification step, we analyzed the collected data on the input analyzer and validated the p values.

3
Then we created our Arena model. For the validation step, we compared the average waiting times in
the Report to the average waiting times we held and validated whether they were in the confidence
interval. We have done data analysis according to the report of Arena model. Finally, we have stated
all our steps in our report.

4) DATA COLLECTING

We collected data for 6 days and each days one hour. These data as below ;
Customer arrival time, order process time, heater process time, selection of material process time,
Arrival Time To Cashiers Queue, Payment Process Time
For instance, our data for the first day of the simulation;

Custo Arrival Order Entry Exit Extra Arrival Payment Exit

mer Time To Start Time To Time Metarial Time To Process
Order Time The From Selection Cashiers Start
Queue Heater Heater Time Queue Time
DAY
1
c1 12:02:49 12:04:12 12:05:21 12:05:59 12:06:38 12:06:56 12:06:58 12:07:21
c2 12:04:32 12:05:08 12:06:26 12:07:08 12:07:16 12:07:37 12:07:48 12:08:46
c3 12:10:06 12:10:10 12:10:50 12:11:10 12:11:18 12:12:54 12:13:04 12:14:16
c4 12:10:06 12:11:19 12:12:34 12:13:40 12:14:15 12:16:10 12:16:24 12:18:18
c5 12:10:27 12:12:09 12:12:34 12:13:40 12:15:01 12:15:37 12:18:21 12:18:47
c6 12:10:38 12:13:05 12:15:38 12:16:48 12:17:02 12:17:34 12:18:53 12:19:21
c7 12:10:39 12:15:16 12:16:34 12:17:48 12:17:52 12:18:29 12:19:26 12:20:31
c8 12:19:21 12:19:22 12:20:34 12:21:03 12:21:05 12:21:20 12:21:32 12:22:59
c9 12:19:25 12:20:44 12:21:41 12:22:07 12:22:40 12:23:08 12:23:11 12:24:23
c10 12:20:25 12:21:16 12:22:33 12:23:19 12:23:52 12:24:32 12:24:34 12:26:13
c11 12:20:25 12:22:09 12:22:33 12:23:19 12:24:28 12:24:57 12:26:17 12:26:37
c12 12:21:32 12:24:33 12:25:59 12:26:42 12:26:55 12:27:41 12:28:15 12:28:53
c13 12:21:32 12:25:06 12:25:59 12:26:42 12:27:50 12:28:11 12:28:56 12:29:50
c14 12:27:49 12:28:09 12:29:31 12:30:01 12:30:07 12:31:08 12:31:28 12:32:18
c15 12:27:49 12:28:32 12:29:31 12:30:01 12:31:03 12:31:26 12:32:21 12:32:46
c16 12:30:30 12:30:51 12:32:26 12:33:12 12:33:28 12:33:47 12:34:29 12:35:40
c17 12:30:31 12:31:26 12:32:26 12:33:12 12:33:48 12:34:25 12:35:42 12:35:52
c18 12:31:16 12:32:34 12:33:32 12:34:03 12:34:30 12:34:50 12:35:59 12:36:36
c19 12:36:52 12:36:52 12:37:48 12:38:36 12:38:46 12:39:03 12:39:05 12:39:49
c20 12:36:52 12:37:17 12:37:48 12:38:36 12:39:04 12:39:13 12:39:51 12:40:11
c27 12:59:08 13:00:33 13:02:42 13:03:34 13:05:07 13:05:57 13:06:50 13:07:14
c28 12:59:08 13:00:53 13:02:42 13:03:34 13:05:58 13:06:36 13:07:16 13:08:05

4
 5) INPUT ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATION

We observed whether the distributions were verified by fitting the process and interarrival times of the
data we collected in a program of the arena called input analyzer.

We opened the data that we saved to text files in the input analyzer. Thus, we observed distributions
for each process and examined p-values for chi square and kolmogorow tests for each process. So we
verified the data.

The distributions we have obtained in the input analyzer for each process are given below.

Graph1.1 Interarrivals Distribution On Input Analyzer

Graph 1.2 Order Distribution On Input Analyzer

5
 Graph 1.3 Selection of Ingredient Distribution On Input Analyzer

Graph 1.4 Payment Distribution On Input Analyzer

Firstly when we fit the data distribution is erlang distributiion came out when we first fit the payment
process. Thenwe changed from erlang distribution to weible distrubiton because p value is grather
then first distribution’s p value.

6) CONCEPTUAL MODEL

After entering the system, customers enter the order queue. Then the type of bread, its length and
which menu to choose is determined. Sandwiches are then prepared to enter the heater. Depending on
the menu and bread length, the sandwiches are processed in the heater for a constant time.

6
Simultaneous customers' sandwiches can be placed in the heater at the same time if the menu
selections are the same. Therefore, order process timings are long. After the sandwiches leave the
heater according to their arrival times, the customers start the material selection process. After the
material selection process, customers enter the cashier queue. Then the payment process starts and the
customer leaves the system.

Model.1 Design of Subway Model

7) ARENA MODEL

Model.2 Subway Model on Arena

7
 8) MODULES

8.1 Create Module

The create module generates a stream of arrivals of Arena entities. For example, entities of our arena
model are customers.

We put the distribution parameters of interarrivals time of customers in the Create Module.

8.2 Process Module

The process modüle processes (services) Arena entities.

We put the distribution parameters of services time of order, payment and selection of ingredient in
the Process Module.

8
8.3 Decide Module:
The decide modüle is used by entities to make branching decisions, based on chance or the
truth/falsity of prescribed conditions.

On the other hand , we used decide module for heater process time. We used the Decide module to
indicate that the heater was operated at a fixed time for each menu and bread length. Hence, we create

9
a decison module we entered in this module by finding the percentage values for each fixed time.
When we calculate the percentages we follow these steps;

For instance, 15 cm meat menu stays in the heater for 35 sc. We calculated that these times
correspond to what percentages of the data we collacted, and we repeated these steps for each bread
length and type of food.

We need to enter 7 values for 8 processes because the last value must be connected to “Else”.

Type of Menu Percentages

Chicken15 2,808988764
Chicken30 40,4494382
Meat15 12,92134831
Meat30 29,7752809
Tuna15 9,550561798
Tuna30 1,685393258
Turkey 1,685393258
Vegetable 1,123595506

We filled the inside of each heater process with constant values as we did for meat15 above.

10
8.4 Dispose Module
The dispose module implements an entity that enter it are simply discarded.

9) RUN SET-UP

First of all, we took the number of replication as 3 randomly and we calculated replication length as;

We collected data for a total of 6 days, average one hour per day. Hence, we use time unit as second
in our simulation model, we took unit as second in runsetup part.

1 hourx60 minutesx60 seconds= 3600 seconds/day

3600x6=21600 sc/total

Consequently, replication length is 21600 seconds.

Subway is open for 16 hours a day so we took hours per day in run setup part as 16 hours.

11
 We can find the report results from here.

10)VALIDATION

After we run the model we have some waiting time in queue.

Using the average and half with values in the report section of the arena, we found confidence
intervals for each process.

For example, 42.9702+ 14.32 = 57.2902 is upper limit

42.9702 - 14.32 = 28.6502 is lower limit for Chicken15 process.
Then, confidence Interval is 28.6502<x<57.2902.

12
 Confidence Intervals Processes Data Averages
28.6502<X<57.2902 Chicken15 57
23.4726<X<61.4326 Chicken30 112.917
41.7218<X<53.3018 Meat15 105.652
23.4322<X<59.3522 Meat30 109.434
30.6009<X<44.8209 Order 97.89326
1.3699<X<49.2699 Payment 47.904
31.049<X<55.989 Selection of Ingredients 46.561
38.7527<X<51.2927 Tuna15 58.687
-12.7001<X<68.8199 Tuna30 90.667
-69.772<X<179.708 Turkey 301.333
-26.4336<X<54.7364 Vegetable 124.5

We calculated the average of waiting in queue times for the given processes. We checked whether the
mean values in the data were within the confidence interval. We have observed that Chicken15,
payment and selection of ingredients processes are valid. We used third standard deviation(s)
calculations. We determined the process with the largest standard deviation and used that value in our
calculations. We took standard deviation for the selection process.

12.47= S/√

S=5.019 (for R=3)

Then, we used this equation to calculate the actual number of replication;

We took Ɛ=10.

R≥( ) =4.66

So , number of replication must be at least 5.

S/√
Replication
5 2.78( )=6.23
√

6.23 <10 So, we must take the number of replication 5.

Then we run the arena model with using number of replication as 5.

13
 11) SUMMARY OF THE MODEL RESULT

11.1 ENTITY

14
As it is seen, the total time spent in the system is 311.09 sc. While the average number of customers
entering the system is 187, the number of customers leaving the system is 181. This may be due to
customers leaving the system outside the simulation period.

11.2 PROCESS

15
16
11.3 QUEUE

As shown above, average waitin time and half width values for each process are shown as arena
output. We calculated confidence interval using these average terms. So,we have done validation
using these calculations.

17
11.4 RESOURCE

Since there were two employees in total in Subway, whoever was available for each process was
working in that process.Therefore, we showed a single source in the model and set the capacity to
two. In the above resourse output, we can observe the utilization of this resource instantly.

12) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN

Since we think that increasing the capacity can improve the system, we increased the number of
employees from 2 to 3 by selecting resoursce from the Basic Process section.

To compare model one and two, we took the differences of the average waiting times of both
processes.

18
 Model 2 Queue Results

Processes Average Waiting Average Waiting Time ϴ1- ϴ2

Time ϴ1 ϴ2
Chicken15 36.3395 6.9424 29.3971
Chicken30 39.1698 8.2600 30.9098
Meat15 50.3656 8.3623 42.0033
Meat30 39.5037 11.0554 28.4483
Order 35.0633 7.6325 27.4278
Payment 39.6527 9.2928 30.3599
Selection of 42.4007 10.3333 32.0674
Ingredients
Tuna15 38.2279 11.6447 26.5832
Tuna30 39.6084 17.7529 21.8555
Turkey 39.7120 2.8640 36.8475
Vegetable 41.7078 0.5768 41.1310

Average waiting time for 2 model and their differences above. All results are positive and this is show
that our alternative system is succesful. When we increased the number of our employees to 3, our
utilization rate increased. Because the process times in the system decreased so that the system's idle
time increased.

For Model 1 ( 5 rep. With 2 employee) we calculated confidence interval to find and then we
repeated for Model2.( 5 rep. With 3 employee).

19
For Model 1 selection process ;

Confidence Intervals Processes Data Averages

33.4607 <X< 51.3407 Selection of Ingredient 46.561

33.4607 <x< 51.3407 our calculating average waiting time for selection of ingredient is 46.561. So,
we used its halfwidth value(8.94) to calculate as 7.190.

For Model 2 Selection process ;

Confidence Intervals Processes Data Averages

6.1133 <x< 14. 5533 Selection of Ingredient 46.561

6.1133 <x< 14. 5533 this interval’s halfwidth value is 4.22. Altough, data average is not on the this
interval and other process intervals we used selection process interval’s halfwidth value to calculate
as = 3.394.

For Model 1 7.190 and for Model2 = 3.394

Then we calculated degrees of freedom for unequal variance.

We useed this formula for degrees of freedom calculation.

( ) ( )
( )/ ( )+( ) = 5.69 → 6

Then, we found v=6.

Confidence Interval For ϴ1- ϴ2;

For selection process we calculated the confidence interval;

20
 42.4007-10.3333± (3.55)= 23.3699< ϴ1- ϴ2 <40.7649 for ϴ1- ϴ2 = 32.0674

So , there is not a significant difference.

And as it is seen above, in alternative system our number in and number out values more close to each
other than model 1.

13) COST OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM

When we add the system one more employee to improve the our model , the cost of system can
increase at least up to the minimum wage.

14) ASSUMPTIONS

Due to the lack of data and some time errors, we did not collect the order exit time,for example, the
distribution of the order was not suitable at first and we made assumptions to correct this problem.
Since many customers' orders were placed in the heater at the same time, it was difficult to observe
the actual order process time of each customer. Therefore, in cases where the queue is formed, we
have combined the time differences between the order start of the customers and used them. In this
way, the distribution was valid on the input analyzer. In Subway, heater times varied between fixed
values according to bread length and menu type. However, we have included in the heater constant
times the time it takes for the employee to remove orders from the heater. When we fit these data, we
see that the distributions are not suitable, so we decided to use the decide module. And we rounded
off all heater times to existing fixed times. We set these new heater times as constant values by
preparing separate processes for each menu.

21
 15) CONCLUSION

Consequently, we observed long queue and wait times in order and other processes at the Subway in
our school, so we thought that the subway was appropriate for our project. In this report, we took
some steps to improve the queuing systems like Subway and we created a simulation in the arena.
First of all, we designed the system, then collected the data and created our arena model using this
data. We observed the distribution of the data we collected through the input analyzer and transferred
the results to our model. We have interpreted our model according to the outputs of the arena and
made inferences and recommendations for this.

16) RECOMMENDATIONS

Consequently, our first advice for the model to work better may be to keep the data smoother as we
mentioned in the assumptions, so that we get more realistic distributions and our simulation model
gives a more efficient result. Secondly, it was difficult for two employees on the subway to catch up
with each process. So there was a queue in every process. In order to reduce the length of these
queues and process teams, we have increased the number of alternastive employees to 3. In the
ordering and selection processes of the first two employees, the 3rd employee may also work at the
cash register. In this way, other employees prepare orders faster. As a third recommendation, we can
increase the number of heaters from one to two. Because the system has many queues, the prepared
sandwiches were waiting to enter the heater, so increasing the number of heaters increases the speed
of the system.

17) REFERENCES
https://www.subway.com/tr-TR
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5331/fd12a37dbc8df828b32f69eb06b81bcb384b.pdf

22