Delay and Queue Size Analysis of TDMA with General Traffic

K. Khan and H. Peyravi

Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Kent State University
Kent, Ohio 44242

Abstract
In TDMA (time division multiple access), stations transmit their messages on a shared communication channel using their dedicated time slots. All the previous delay analyses of TDMA have been based on the assumption that either the interarrival times of the traffic is exponential or the
message lengths are geometrically distributed. This paper
presents a generalized model in which the above assumptions are relaxed. This model allows us to compute the exact
performance characteristics in closed forms for the mean
and the variance of the queue size and the message delay
for the TDMA. The model is used to define and compare
five bursty traffic distributions. These distributions are used
to study their effects on the buffer size and the end-to-end
delay for the Mars Regional Network.

1. Introduction
TDMA (time division multiple access) with its variations have been widely used in various network architectures including time slot interchange switches, multiplexing, multiple-access, polling, fixed assignment and demand
assignment multiple access (MAC) protocols. These architectures have been implemented for transmission of digital
information over wired or wireless communication channels. TDMA schemes belong to the contention-free MAC
protocols. MAC protocols can be classified into fixed assignment, demand assignment (reservation), random access, hybrid of random access and adaptive protocols. Fixed
assignment protocols that are based on TDMA schemes are
easy to implement with deterministic control and deterministic channel utilization. A survey and classification of the
MAC protocols are presented in [7].
In TDMA, the time axis is equally divided into successive frames, each consisting of a fixed number of indexed
slots. In the basic TDMA scheme, each station has exactly
0 This

work has been partially supported by NASA, grant NAG3-1810

one slot in every frame. The stations are synchronized so

that each station knows exactly when to transmit. Each station generates messages in random fashion and each message carries a random number of packets. Packets are of
fixed length and each fits exactly into one slot. Since the
assigned slots are disjoint, the statistical behavior of one
station is assumed to be independent of the behavior of the
other stations.
The average queue size and the average message delay
performance of the TDMA for packet switched networks
have been analyzed by several researchers. Chu and Konheim [2], Kobayashi and Konheim [4], Lam [5], and Rubin [10] have derived the generating function of the queue
length for the TDMA. Moraes and Rubin [3] have analyzed
a TDMA scheme in which the packets generated by each
user are transmitted according to a priority rule. The queue
size and message delay have been analyzed by Rubin and
Zhang [11, 12] for a circuit switched TDMA scheme.
The G/Geom/m model of Rubin and Zhang [11] shows
how one can allow non-Poisson traffic to be modeled mathematically. They give a closed form expression for the generating function of the limiting queue size and the limiting delay. The model assumes that the message lengths are
geometrically distributed. This key assumption allows one
to use the traditional embedded Markov chain approach to
find a closed form solution. When one tries to generalize
this approach by relaxing the assumption of geometrically
distributed message lengths, the model loses the Markovian
property of the process.
Figure 1 illustrates an example of a message length
distribution that cannot be modeled by a geometric distribution. The first hump corresponds to small but frequent(query/response) messages and the second hump represents large messages including file transfers. This shows
that although the G/Geom/m model can accommodate arbitrary interarrival distribution, it does not accommodate nongeometrically distributed message lengths.
In this paper, we use a G/D/1 queuing model [13],
to study the delay versus throughput performance of the
TDMA protocol. We model arbitrary arrival of the mes-

700

Fixedsize message length

Geometric message length

Message length, x

Figure 1. An example of a message length

distribution.

Normalized delay in slots

Density, f(x)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0.2

sages where the message lengths could have an arbitrary

distribution that could be used to reflect the burstiness of
the traffic.

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Throughput, S

Figure 2. Comparison of throughput versus

delays for exponential interarrivals.

2. Traffic Descriptors
The traffic arriving to a multiaccess channel consists of
two distributions: one describes the interarrival process of
messages, and the other describes the message lengths. All
known mathematical analyses are based on the assumption
that either the interarrival component of the traffic is a Poisson process or that the message length component of the
traffic is geometrically distributed. The assumption of exponential interarrivals provides analytical simplicity. As we
will see in Section 4, the average delay becomes sensitive to
the message length distribution as the throughput increases.
Figure 2 shows the throughput versus delay performance of
a network of four stations and two orbiting satellites which
was simulated for the Mars Regional Network [8].
This figure illustrates the effect of the message lengths on
the delay when two distributions, with the same mean, are
used to generate messages. The solid line indicates the
delay when all messages are of fixed length of ten packets. The dashed line indicates the delay when the message lengths are geometrically distributed with a mean of
ten packets. In both cases, the interarrival distribution was
chosen to be exponential. We also observed the same behivior when the interarrival distribution was chosen to be
geometric.
To complicate the matter, the average message length
alone does not provide sufficient information about the message sizes. Two or more parameters may be required to realistically model actual message lengths. Since the geometric
distribution is completely characterized by one parameter, it
may be a poor candidate to reflect a realistic message length
distribution.
The main weakness of the Poisson process model
(M/G/1) is that the process is completely characterized by

one parameter, namely the arrival rate. This considerably

limits the choice of the traffic distributions that one can use
to adequately model the arrival process when the memoryless property is weakened. The embedded Markovian property of the process fails to hold if one tries to relax the underlying Poisson process assumption.
The sensitivity of the protocol to the actual traffic and
its model can be measured by the difference between the
actual expected delay and the expected delay predicted by
the model. More precisely, let Da (S ) denote the actual expected delay as a function of the throughput, S , for a specified traffic process. Similarly, let Dm (S ) be the limiting
expected delay when the traffic process is modeled by a
particular method. Then the difference, Da (S ) , Dm (S );
measures the discrepancy as a function of the throughput.
This discrepancy can be attributed to two main sources: (1)
the protocol, and (2) the model that is used to represent the
actual traffic. Therefore, this discrepancy can be used to
measure the sensitivity of the protocol as we model the traffic by different methods. The magnitude and the sign of the
discrepancy describe the effects of different models on the
delay characteristics of the protocol. As Figure 2 illustrates,
if the traffic model uses only the average message lengths
then the discrepancy could be substantial especially at high
throughput values.

3. TDMA with General Traffic

There are basically two mathematical approaches in
modeling the performance of the TDMA protocols. The
first approach [9] uses the properties of a Poisson process
and the second approach of Rubin and Zhang [11] intro-

duced a new model known as the G/Geom/m. Both approaches lead to a closed form solution for the generating
function of the limiting queue size. Using the limiting generating function, one can compute the expected queue size
and, furthermore, deduce the expected delay behavior of the
protocol. In this section we describe how the G/D/1 model
can be used to study the performance of the TDMA protocol
with an arbitrary traffic.
The main idea behind the G/D/1 approach is as follows.
The arrival process is taken to be any renewal process so that
the interarrival times will be independent and identically
distributed (iid) random variables. The messages arrive at
the renewal times. We assume that the message lengths are
independent and identically distributed according to any realistic probability distribution.
Let B represent the packet size in bits, and let C represent the channel speed in bits per second, then the packet
transmission time is Ts = B=C: We assume that the duration of each slot is exactly the same as the transmission
time of one packet. The delay that a packet suffers has three
components:





Access delay: This is the time between its arrival and

the end of the frame time during which it arrives. This
is simply because we will be measuring the queue size
only at the end of each frame.
Propagation delay ( ): The time it takes for a bit to
reach its destination excluding access time and queuing delay. This delay is known in advance.
Queuing delay: This is the amount of time the packet
must wait in the queue so that the packets that arrived
before it are transmitted.

that the generating function of the limiting queue size [13],

, )(z , 1) :
G(z ) = g(z )(1z ,
g(z )
This gives that the expected limiting queue size is

G0 (1) = g

00 (1) + 2(1 , )
2(1

, )

Similarly, one can show that the limiting variance of the

queue size is

L2

=
=

G00 (1) + G0 (1) , ((G0 (1))2

00
00 2
000
000
(18g (1) + 3(g (1)) + 4g (1) , 2(2g (1) +
00
2
00
15g (1) , 6) , 12 (3 , g (1)) +
3
2
12 (3 , ))=(12(1 , ) ):
(1)

In the next section different models are presented using this

approach.

4. Bursty Traffic Models

In most network applications the traffic is inherently
bursty and requires special traffic models. However, there
is no commonly accepted definition for the burstiness of the
traffic [1]. The traffic burstiness can be identified by intermittent arrival of a large number of packets in a short
duration. In this section we present five models with various types of traffic to study their effect on the delay of the
TDMA protocol. As we will see later, different message
length distributions cause various degrees of delay in the
performance of the TDMA protocol.

4.1. Model 1: Poisson Traffic

When packets arrive uniformly during each frame time, the
average access delay will be half of the frame time, MTs =2;
where M is the number of slots per frame. Throughout this
paper, the access delay is taken to be MTs =2. The tolal
delay is

s +W +T ;
D = MT
q
s
2

where Wq is the queuing delay. Therefore, we only need to

evaluate the queuing delay for the G=D=1 model.
In order to analyze different traffic models for the basic
TDMA protocol, consider a queuing system in which arrivals form a renewal process, while the service time being
deterministic. Denote the generating function of the number of packet arrivals in a frame time (Tf = MTs ) by g (z ).
Let the expected number of packet arrivals in the frame time
be denoted by . That is,  = g 0 (1). Let Yn be the queue
size of a particular station, and let Nn be the number of
packets that arrive during the n-th frame time. Therefore,
g(z ) = E (z Nn ). The G/D/1 model of queuing theory gives

The Poisson traffic model (M/G/1, see [9]) can be described as a special case of the above G/D/1 model when the
service time is deterministic and the arriving traffic forms a
Poisson process. In this case, the station under consideration generates independent and identically distributed (iid)
Poisson random variables with parameter Ts , where Ts is
the duration of the slot. In other words, the arrival times
of the packets form a Poisson process with rate . Hence,
the random variable Nn representing the number of packets
arriving during the n-th frame time (frame consisting of M
slots) is

Nn = Z1 + Z2 +


+ ZM ;
That is,

Zi iid
 Poisson(Ts ):

Nn  Poisson(Tf ):
In this case  = E (Nn ) = Tf and
g00 (1) = E (Nn (Nn , 1)) = (Tf )2 :

Given X = 1, the random variable

metric distribution. So, we have

Hence,

G0 (1) = g

00 (1) + 2(1 , )
2(1

, )

(2 , ) :
2(1 , )

The expected queue size, without the current packet in

transmission, is;
2
Lq = G0 (1) ,  = 2(1, ) :

By Little's formula [6], the queuing delay is Wq

The total expected packet delay is therefore,

L


D1 = 21 MTs + MTs 2(1 , ) + Ts :

b1
The normalized delay, D

D1 =Ts , is

M
Db 1 = 12 M + 2(1MS
, S ) + 1 = 2(1 , S ) + 1;
where the throughput S = , is the fraction of time the
server is busy. To compute the limiting variance of the
queue size, we have g (z ) = e,Tf (1,z) and Tf = . Differentiating three times; g 0 (1) = , g 00 (1) = 2 , g 000 (1) =
3 , and using equation (1), we get the limiting variance of
the queue size;
18 + 102 , 3 )
12 = (12 , 12(1
:
, )2

4.2. Model 2: Geometric Messages

In this model, the two components of the traffic are as
follows. A Bernoulli random variable X  B (1;  ) indicates an arrival or lack of arrival of a message during a slot
time. An independent positive integer valued random variable Y describes the length of the message when it arrives.
For instance, if the messages are geometrically distributed,
we can use Y  Geometic( ), i.e,

P (Y

k) = (1 , )k,1 ;

k = 1; 2;


:

Hence, we see that the number of packets that arrive during

one slot is XY . Since, the service time consists of M such
slots, the arrival random variable Nn of the G/D/1 system is
the sum of such independent random variables. That is,

Nn =

M
X
i=1

Xi Yi ;

Xi iid
 B (1; ):

The expected number of arrivals during the service time is

 = g0 (1) = E (Nn ) = ME (XY ) = ME (XE (Y jX )).

has the above geo-

 = g0 (1) = M
:
Similarly, we get

g00 (1) = 
=

 
2

,1
1

 , M :

(2)

Hence, in this case the limiting queue size is

M f2(1 , ) + (M , 1) g + 2(1 , )

G0 (1) = 2
:
2(1 , )
This shows that when  is close to zero, i.e., very low message arrival probability, then the expected limiting queue
size is small. However, as  reaches close to its upper allowed max of =M , the limiting expected queue goes towards infinity. The average queue size, Lq is

Lq = G0 (1) ,  =

2(

, 1) +  , M
:
2(1 , )

By Little's formula, the average delay in the queue is

MTs
Wq = Ts Lq =

, 1) +  , M
:
2(1 , )
1

2(

The total expected packet delay is therefore,

D2 = 21 MTs +

MTs

, 1) +  , M
2(1 , )
1

2(

o
+

Ts :

Dividing D2 by Ts to normalize the delay and using S

we have,
+ SM , S
Db 2 = 12 M + 2M , 2 M
+ 1:
2 (1 , S )

,

(3)

The throughput versus delay characteristics of this model is

shown in Figure 3.
To find the limiting variance of the queue size in the
above traffic model, we use the fact that

g(z ) =

,  , z (1 ,  , ) M :
1 , z (1 , )

Its third derivative evaluated at 1 is equal to

1
3
62 (M , 1)( , 1)
1
2
g000 (1) =  (M ,M1)(2 M , 2) +
+6( ,1) :
M

Therefore,  = E (Nn ) = Tf = . Similarly,

Transmission delay in slots

500
400

,1
1

 :

Hence, the average queue size is

300

g00 (1)

Lq = 2(1 , ) =

200
100

, 1) + 
:
2(1 , )
1

2(

Therefore, by Little's formula we get

0
1
0.5
0

10

Message Size (packets)

Using g 000 (1) and equation (2), in the limiting variance formula of equation (1),

f(6M (M + 1) , 2 (M , 4)(M + 1) ,
 (M + 5)(M + 1))g + 12M (2 , ) 1 ,
2

D3 = 2 MTs +

Db 3 = 12 M +

M (M + (M + 2) , 2 (M + 1)) =
,


2
2
12M (1 , ) :
1

Nn =

j =0

K1;j +

j =0

K2;j +


+

ZM
X
j =0

KM;j ;

Zi iid
 Poisson(Ts );
iid
where Ki;j  Geometric( ) which are independent of Zi
and Ki;0 = 0. This is a particular case of the compound

Poisson process. Now,

g(z )

=
=

,Tf (1 , E (z K1 1 ))
exp f, (1 , z )=(1 , z (1 , ))g :
exp

g000 (1) =  2 + 6

In this model, during each slot time packets are generated by iid Poisson random variables with parameter Ts ,
where Ts is the duration of the slot. That is, arrival times
of messages form a Poisson process with rate . This is a
generalization of Model 1 since messages constitute a random number of packets. For the comparison purposes we
will assume that the message lengths are geometrically distributed. Hence, the random variable Nn , representing the
number of packets arriving during the n-th service time, is

Z2
X

MTs

, 1) + 
2(1 , )
1

2(

Ts :

, 1) + S
2(1 , S )
1

2(

+1

where the throughput S = . In order to evaluate the limiting variance of the queue size we use equation (5) and

4.3. Model 3: Compound Poisson

Z1
X

, 1) + 
:
2(1 , )
1
2(

Dividing D3 by Ts to normalize the delay, we have,

12

MTs

When = 1 (i.e., the message length is one packet), the

above formula reduces to that of Model 1, as it should.
The total expected packet delay is therefore,

Figure 3. Throughput vs delay characteristics, M=6.

Wq =  Lq =

Throughput

22

 

f
g00 (1) = T
2 (2(1 , ) + Tf ) = 

600

(4)

,1
1


+6

2 )

,1
1

in equation (1) to get

32 =

12(2

, ) , 6 2+2 , 2 + 22 6,

12(1

, )

,

4.4. Model 4. Fixed Size Messages

Once again, as in model 2, we assume that messages arrive according to X  B (1;  ) which gives the chance of
a message arriving during a slot time. However, now we
fix the message length to ` packets. We can combine both
of these random variables into one by saying that message
length during any slot is a random variable Y = `X , where
X  B (1; ). Since, our service time consists of M such
slots, our arrival random variable Nn of the G/D/1 system
is the sum of such independent random variables. That is,

Nn = `

M
X
i=1

Xi ;

Xi iid
 B (1; );

(5)

This gives that Nn = `B (M;  ). So, the expected number

of arrivals during the service time is  = g 0 (1) = `M , and


g00 (1) =  ` + (MM, 1)  , 1 :

(6)

= 1 + (` , 1)T , where T  B (1; p). Since, our service time consists of M such slots, the arrival random variable Nn of the G/D/1 system is the sum of such independent
random variables. That is,

Nn =

Hence, in this case the limiting queue size is

n

G0 (1)

 `+

M ,1)  , 1
M

2(1

, )

 , )

+ 2 (1

 ` + (MM,1)  , 1
0
:
Lq = G (1) ,  =
2(1 , )

2 :
g00 (1) = 2 + (`p +`p1 , p) (` , 1) , M

, )

By Little's formula, the average delay in the queue is

o

`p (` , 1) , 
MTs  + (`p+1
,p)
M
Wq =
:
2(1 , )

(7)

M ` + (MM,1) S , 1
b
+ 1;
D4 = 2 M +
2(1 , S )
where the throughput S = . In order to evaluate the limit1

ing variance of the queue size we use equation (6) and



2(1

(9)

Therefore, the normalized delay is,

3 1 , M3 + M2 2
+(` , 1)(` , 2);

`p (` , 1) , 
2 + (`p+1
,p)
M:
Lq = G0 (1) ,  =
n

Therefore, the normalized delay is,

(8)

MTs ` + (MM,1)  , 1
T
s
:
Wq = ` Lq =
2(1 , )

g000 (1)

Xi iid
 B (1; );

Hence, in this case the limiting queue size is

Hence, by Little's formula, the average delay in the

queue is
n

i=1

Xi Yi ;

So, the expected number of arrivals during the service time

is  = g 0 (1) = (1 , p + p`)M . And

The average queue size, Lq , without counting the unit being

in service, is
n

M
X

2 (` , 1)

+3


1

, M1

M (` , 1)(1 , `p1+1,p,p ) + (MM,1) S

1
b
D4 = 2 M +
+ 1;
2(1 , S )
where the throughput S = . The throughput versus delay characteristics of this model is shown in Figure 4 as a
function of p with ` = 10. Figure 5 shows the delay as a
function of ` when p = 0:4.

4.5. Model 5: Bimodal Messages

We now investigate a possible scenario for the bimodal
message length distribution. Intuitively, it seems that the bimodal message length distribution may cause the TDMA to
perform worse than the predicted delay obtained by a Poisson or a binomial/geometric models of the earlier examples.
Once again, as in model 2, we assume that messages arrive according to X  B (1;  ) which gives the chance of
a message arriving during a slot time. However, now we
make the messages to be very small (one packet long) or
very large (for the sake of simplicity, take constant length
`) with respective probabilities 1 , p and p. Therefore,
the message length during any slot is a random variable

Transmission delay in slots

300

in equation (1). The limiting variance of the queue size can

now be obtained the same way as in the previous models.

250
200
150
100
50
0
1
0.5
p

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Throughput

Figure 4. Throughput vs delay characteristics, M=6 and ` = 10.

That is,

g (1) , g (1)
Lq [modeli ] , Lq [modelj ] = i 2 , 2j ;

Transmission delay in slots

300

00

250

where gi (z ) is the generating function of the number of

packets arriving during the frame time in the i-th model.
00
These gi (1) can be calculated as

200
150
100
50
0
1
0.5
0

10

Message Size (packets)

Throughput

Figure 5. Throughput vs delay characteristics, M=6 and p = 0:4.

In order to evaluate the limiting variance of the queue

size we use equation (8) and

g000 (1)

00

2
p`(` , 1)(M , 1)
3 1 , M3 + M2 2 + 3 (1
, p + p`)M
p`(` , 1)(` , 2) ;
+
1 , p + p`

in equation (1). The limiting variance of the queue size

can now be obtained the same way as in the previous models.

5. Analytical Comparisons
Burstiness of the arrival traffic adversely effects the behavior of almost all communication protocols. There are
several definitions which attempt to quantify the burstiness
of traffic. Among these include the coefficient of variation
of the interarrival times of the packets, the square of the
coefficient of variation etc. [1]. However, there is no commonly accepted definition for the burstiness of the traffic.
Instead of defining the burstiness of the traffic, one should
ask the question which aspect of the traffic distribution adversely effects the delay of the TDMA protocol. Identifying such factor(s) allow us to accurately predict the performance of the protocol. To do this, we provide some comparisons of the delay Wq as a function of the throughput S .
Since Wq = Tf Lq = and  will be kept the same for different traffic distributions, it suffices to compare Lq for various
traffic distributions, where

Lq = g00 (1)=(2 , 2):

Model
1
2
3
4
5

g00 (1)
2



2 + 2 1, 1 , M
2 + 2 1 , 1
2
2 + (` , 1) , M
`p , 2
2 + (` , 1) `p+1
,p M
2

In order to compare the performance of the TDMA protocol for various traffic distributions, we assume that the
average number of packets arriving during a frame time is
the same. As Table 5 indicates, for almost all traffic scenarios studied here, the classical Poisson process assumption
on the arrival of packets (Model 1) will underestimate the
delay performance of the TDMA protocol. By making
small in models 2 and 3, or making ` large in models 4 and
5, we can make g 00 (1) arbitrary large without effecting the
average traffic, . This clearly shows that the TDMA protocol can perform poorly at any average traffic arrival rate
when large size messages are allowed.
The above approach indicates that the average number
of packets arriving during a frame time is an important parameter of the traffic. However, alone this parameter fails to
capture the `burstiness' of the traffic. For predicting the average performance of the TDMA protocol, one needs both,
the first factorial moment (g 0 (1) =  = S ) as well as the
second factorial moment (g 00 (1)) of the number of packets
that arrive during a frame time. Figure 6 illustrates the effect
of g 00 (1) on the delay performance of the TDMA protocols.
Besides the average performance of the TDMA protocol,
it is important to quantify the extreme behavior of the queue
size. For this purpose one needs to evaluate the standard
deviation and then provide confidence interval bands around
the average performance line. Instead of focusing on the
delay, we equivalently focus on the queue size since it is
algebraically a bit easier to manipulate.
The standard deviation of the models studied in this paper are compared in Figure 7. Equation (1) shows that the
variance is effected by g 00 (1) as well as g 000 (1). The magnitude of the effect of these two factorial moments is illustrated in Figure 7. Note that the usual Poisson process
model (Model 1) may fail to predict the standard deviation

time. Their combined effect is non-linear, however. Hence,

we may conclude that the accurate prediction of the performance of the TDMA protocol requires knowing the first
three moments of the distribution of the number of packets
arriving during a frame time.

500

Model 1
Model 2, =0.1
Model 3, =0.1
Model 4, l=10
Model 5, p=0.1, l=10

450

400

Normalized Delay

350

300

6. Simulation Results

250

200

150

100

50

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Throughput

Figure 6. Throughput vs delay characteristics

for all models, M=6.

The buffer size requirement for a station in a multiaccess

environment is an important issue that requires preplanning.
In order to study the effect of the traffic on the maximum
and average buffer size, we simulated the multiple access
channel of the proposed Mars regional network.
The proposed Mars Regional Network [7, 8] has six
nodes in which communications take place over a multiple
access channel. The network consists of two orbiting satellites and four surface stations. The topology of the network
is described in [8] and the traffic rates are given in Table 1.
The traffic generated by these stations are neither symmetric
nor uniform.

of the queue size when the arriving traffic cannot be described by a Poisson process.
Source
Rate

Standard deviations of the queue size

50

Model 1
Model 2, =0.7
Model 3, =0.7
Model 4, l=10
Model 5, p=0.1, l=10

45
40

No. of packets

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
0.5
Throughput

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 7. Standard deviation for all models,

M=6.
We see that the adverse effect on the expected performance of the TDMA protocol is essentially due to g 00 (1),
the second factorial moment of the number of packets arriving during a frame time. The larger this amount the more
the expected delay and vice-versa. On the other hand, the
variability of the performance of the TDMA protocol is effected by not only g 00 (1) but also g 000 (1), the third factorial
moment of the number of packets arriving during a frame

Table 1. Traffic Matrix (Mbps)

1
2
3
4
5
0.116 90.0 166.3 106.3 4.1

6
0.116

The simulation was performed based on three parameters: 1) the number of stations, the round trip propagation
delay between two Martian surface stations (0.113 sec), and
the channel speed (400 Mbps). Other parameters have been
calculated accordingly to obtain the maximum utilization.
The arrival process for each station were taken to be geometric with geometrically distributed message lengths. The
average message lengths were assumed to be 1, 5, and 10
packets per message.
The delay versus throughput as well as the buffer performance were measured for different traffic loads. Figure
8 illustrates the average delay of the six stations for the
TDMA protocol. It clearly shows that the larger average
message length has adverse effect on the overall network
performance. This agrees with the analytical results of the
previous sections.
The analytical models of the earlier sections provide
closed form expressions for the average queue size, the average delay, and the standard deviation of the queue size.
However, they fail to predict the maximum buffer size required to accommodate certain traffic loads. Figure 9 illustrates the simulation results for the average and maximum
buffer sizes using different message lengths. Once again,
we see that the message length distribution has a significant
effect on the maximum buffer size.

Normalized Delay in slots, D

10

10

10

Burst=1
Burst=5
Burst=10
0

10
0.18

0.2

0.22

0.24

0.26
0.28
Througput, S

0.3

0.32

0.34

approach shows that the main parameter that effects the average delay of the TDMA protocol is the second factorial
moment of the number of packets arriving during a frame
time. The variance of the queue size, on the other hand, is
effected by the second as well as the third factorial moments
of the number of packets arriving during a frame time. By
estimating these parameters, and using the expressions provided in sections 3 and 4, we may accurately predict the performance of the TDMA protocol for general traffic. Since
the Poisson process can be completely characterized by a
single parameter, it lacks the ability to accurately represent the arrival traffic. The simulation results indicate that
bursty traffic has similar effects on the maximum buffer size
needed to accommodate the traffic.

0.36

References
Figure 8. Throughput vs delay performance
with TDMA.

800

Buffer Size (Mb)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25

10

0.2
Throughput S

0.15

5
1
Burst

Figure 9. Maximum and average buffer performance with TDMA.

7. Conclusions
In this paper, we described how the G/D/1 model of
queuing theory may be used to study the effect of arbitrary
traffic on the performance of the TDMA protocol. The approach is simple and provides closed form expressions for
the average queue size, the average delay as well as the standard deviation of the queue size.
We also provided five different traffic distributions to
study their effect on the delay and the queue size. For almost all cases, the usual Poisson process model underestimates the queue size as well as the delay. Furthermore, our

[1] J. J. Bae and T. Suda. Survey of traffic control schemes

and protocols in ATM networks. Proceedings of the IEEE,
79(2):170189, Feb. 1991.
[2] W. Chum and A. G. Konheim. On the analysis and modeling of a class computer communications systems. IEEE
Transactions on Communications, 20:645660, 1972.
[3] L. F. M. de Moraes and I. Rubin. Message delays for a
TDMA scheme under a nonpreemptive priority discipline.
IEEE Transactions on Communications, 32:583588, May
1984.
[4] H. Kobayashi and A. G. Konheim. Queuing models for computer communications system analysis. IEEE Transactions
on Communications, 25:228, 1977.
[5] S. S. Lam. Delay analysis of a time division multiple access
(TDMA) channel. IEEE Transactions on Communications,
25:14891494, 1977.
[6] J. D. Little. A proof for the queuing formula L
W .
Operations Research, 9:383387, 1961.
[7] H. Peyravi. Multiple Access Control Protocols for the Mars
Regional Network: A Survey and Assessments. Technical
Report, Kent State University, Sept. 1995.
[8] H. Peyravi. Performance Evaluation of Multiple Access Protocols for Mars Regional Network. Technical Report, Kent
State University, May 1997.
[9] R. Rom and M. Sidi. Multiple Access Protocols: performance and analysis. Springer-Verlang, New York, 1990.
[10] I. Rubin. Message delays in FDMA and TDMA communication channels. IEEE Transactions on Communications,
27:769777, 1979.
[11] I. Rubin and Z. Zhang. Message delay and queue-size analysis for circuit-switched TDMA systems. IEEE Transactions
on Communications, 39:905914, June 1991.
[12] I. Rubin and Z. Zhang. Message delay analysis for TDMA
schemes using contiguous-slot assignments. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 40:730737, Apr. 1992.
[13] L. Takacs. Introduction to the Theory of Queues. Oxford
University Press, New York, 1962.