Problem A: Managing The Zambezi River
The Kariba Dam on the Zambezi River is one of the larger dams in Africa. Its
construction was controversial, and a 2015 report by the Institute of Risk Management
of South Africa included a warning that the dam is in dire need of maintenance. A
number of options are available to the Zambezi River Authority (ZRA) that might
address the situation. Three options in particular are of interest to ZRA:
(Option 1) Repairing the existing Kariba Dam,
(Option 2) Rebuilding the existing Kariba Dam, or
(Option 3) Removing the Kariba Dam and replacing it with a series of ten to
twenty smaller dams along the Zambezi River.
There are two main requirements for this problem:
Requirement 1 ZRA management requires a brief assessment of the three
options listed, with sufficient detail to provide an overview of potential costs and
benefits associated with each option. This requirement should not exceed two
pages in length, and must be provided in addition to your main report.
Requirement 2 Provide a detailed analysis of Option (3) - removing the Kariba
Dam and replacing it with a series of ten to twenty smaller dams along the
Zambezi river. This new system of dams should have the same overall water
management capabilities as the existing Kariba Dam while providing the same or
greater levels of protection and water management options for Lake Kariba that
are in place with the existing dam. Your analysis must support a recommendation
as to the number and placement of the new dams along the Zambezi River.
In your report for Requirement 2, you should include a strategy for modulating the water
flow through your new multiple dam system that provides a reasonable balance
between safety and costs. In addition to addressing known or predicted normal water
cycles, your strategy should provide guidance to the ZRA managers that explains and
justifies the actions that should be taken to properly handle emergency water flow
situations (i.e. flooding and/or prolonged low water conditions). Your strategy should
provide specific guidance for extreme water flows ranging from maximum expected
discharges to minimum expected discharges. Finally, your recommended strategy
should include information addressing any restrictions regarding the locations and
lengths of time that different areas of the Zambezi River should be exposed to the most
detrimental effects of the extreme conditions.
Your MCM submission should consist of three elements: a standard 1 page MCM
Summary Sheet, a 1-2 page brief assessment report (Requirement 1), and your main
MCM solution (Requirement 2) not to exceed 20 pages for a maximum submission of
23 pages. Note: Any appendices or reference pages you include will not count towards
the 23 page limit.
Problem B: Merge After Toll
Multi-lane divided limited-access ramp
to collect tolls from motorists. A ramp toll is a collection mechanism at an
entrance or exit ramp to the highway and these do not concern us here. A barrier
toll is a row of tollbooths placed across the highway, perpendicular to the
direction of traffic flow. There are usually (always) more tollbooths than there are
incoming lanes of traffic (see former 2005 MCM Problem B). So when exiting the
tollbooth egress lanes to the smaller number of regular travel lanes. A toll plaza
is the area of the highway needed to facilitate the barrier toll, consisting of the
fan-out area before the barrier toll, the toll barrier itself, and the fan-in area after
the toll barrier. For example, a three-lane highway (one direction) may use 8
tollbooths in a barrier toll. After paying toll, the vehicles continue on their journey
on a highway having the same number of lanes as had entered the toll plaza
(three, in this example).
Consider a toll highway having L lanes of travel in each direction and a barrier toll
containing B tollbooths (B > L) in each direction. Determine the shape, size, and
merging pattern of the area following the toll barrier in which vehicles fan in from
B tollbooth egress lanes down to L lanes of traffic. Important considerations to
incorporate in your model include accident prevention, throughput (number of
vehicles per hour passing the point where the end of the plaza joins the L
outgoing traffic lanes), and cost (land and road construction are expensive). In
particular, this problem does not ask for merely a performance analysis of any
particular toll plaza design that may already be implemented. The point is to
determine if there are better solutions (shape, size, and merging pattern) than
any in common use.
Determine the performance of your solution in light and heavy traffic. How does
your solution change as more autonomous (self-driving) vehicles are added to
the traffic mix? How is your solution affected by the proportions of conventional
(human-staffed) tollbooths, exact-change (automated) tollbooths, and electronic
toll collection booths (such as electronic toll collection via a transponder in the
vehicle)?
Your MCM submission should consist of a 1 page Summary Sheet, a 1-2 page
letter to the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, and your solution (not to exceed 20
pages) for a maximum of 23 pages. Note: The appendix and references do not
count toward the 23 page limit.
Traffic capacity is limited in many regions of the United States due to the number of lanes of roads.
For example, in the Greater Seattle area drivers experience long delays during peak traffic hours
because the volume of traffic exceeds the designed capacity of the road networks. This is particularly
pronounced on Interstates 5, 90, and 405, as well as State Route 520, the roads of particular interest
for this problem.
Self-driving, cooperating cars have been proposed as a solution to increase capacity of highways
without increasing number of lanes or roads. The behavior of these cars interacting with the existing
traffic flow and each other is not well understood at this point.
The Governor of the state of Washington has asked for analysis of the effects of allowing self-driving,
cooperating cars on the roads listed above in Thurston, Pierce, King, and Snohomish counties. (See
the provided map and Excel spreadsheet). In particular, how do the effects change as the
percentage of self-driving cars increases from 10% to 50% to 90%? Do equilibria exist? Is there a
tipping point where performance changes markedly? Under what conditions, if any, should lanes be
dedicated to these cars? Does your analysis of your model suggest any other policy changes?
Your answer should include a model of the effects on traffic flow of the number of lanes, peak and/or
average traffic volume, and percentage of vehicles using self-driving, cooperating systems. Your
model should address cooperation between self-driving cars as well as the interaction between self-
driving and non-self-driving vehicles. Your model should then be applied to the data for the roads of
nterest, provided in the attached Excel spreadsheet.
Your MCM submission should consist of a 1 page Summary Sheet, a 1-2 page letter to the
appendix and references do not count toward the 23 page limit.
Some useful background information: On average, 8% of the daily traffic volume occurs during peak travel hours. The nominal speed limit for all these roads is 60 miles per hour. Mileposts are numbered from south to north, and west to east. Lane widths are the standard 12 feet. Highway 90 is classified as a state route until it intersects Interstate 5. In case of any conflict between the data provided in this problem and any other source, use the
data provided in this problem.
Definitions:
milepost: A marker on the road that measures distance in miles from either the start of the route or a
state boundary.
average daily traffic: The average number of cars per day driving on the road.
interstate: A limited access highway, part of a national system.
state route: A state highway that may or may not be limited access.
route ID: The number of the highway.
increasing direction: Northbound for N-S roads, Eastbound for E-W roads.
decreasing direction: Southbound for N-S roads, Westbound for E-W roads.
Problem D: Optimizing the Passenger Throughput at an Airport Security
Checkpoint
Following the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001, airport security has
been significantly enhanced throughout the world. Airports have security checkpoints,
where passengers and their baggage are screened for explosives and other dangerous
items. The goals of these security measures are to prevent passengers from hijacking or
destroying aircraft and to keep all passengers safe during their travel. However, airlines
have a vested interest in maintaining a positive flying experience for passengers by
minimizing the time they spend waiting in line at a security checkpoint and waiting for
their flight. Therefore, there is a tension between desires to maximize security while
minimizing inconvenience to passengers.
During 2016, the U.S. Transportation Security Agency (TSA) came under sharp criticism Following
this public attention, the TSA invested in several modifications to their checkpoint
equipment and procedures and increased staffing in the more highly congested airports.
While these modifications were somewhat successful in reducing waiting times, it is
unclear how much cost the TSA incurred to implement the new measures and increase
staffing. here have also been incidents of
unexplained and unpredicted long lines at other airports, including airports that normally
have short wait times. This high variance in checkpoint lines can be extremely costly to
passengers as they decide between arriving unnecessarily early or potentially missing
their scheduled flight. Numerous news articles, including [1,2,3,4,5], describe some of
the issues associated with airport security checkpoints.
Your Internal Control Management (ICM) team has been contracted by the TSA to
review airport security checkpoints and staffing to identify potential bottlenecks that
disrupt passenger throughput. They are especially interested in creative solutions that
both increase checkpoint throughput and reduce variance in wait time, all while
maintaining the same standards of safety and security.
The current process for a US airport security checkpoint is displayed in Figure 1. Zone A:
o Passengers randomly arrive at the checkpoint and wait in a queue until a
security officer can inspect their identification and boarding documents.
Zone B:
o The passengers then move to a subsequent queue for an open screening
line; depending on the anticipated activity level at the airport, more or less
lines may be open.
o Once the passengers reach the front of this queue, they prepare all of
their belongings for X-ray screening. Passengers must remove shoes,
belts, jackets, metal objects, electronics, and containers with liquids,
placing them in a bin to be X-rayed separately; laptops and some medical
equipment also need to be removed from their bags and placed in a
separate bin.
All of their belongings, including the bins containing the aforementioned
items, are moved by conveyor belt through an X-ray machine, where
some items are flagged for additional search or screening by a security
officer (Zone D).
Meanwhile the passengers process through either a millimeter wave
scanner or metal detector.
Passengers that fail this step receive a pat-down inspection by a security
officer (Zone D).
C:
The passengers then proceed to the conveyor belt on the other side of
the X-ray scanner to collect their belongings and depart the checkpoint
area.
Approximately 45% of passengers enroll in a program called Pre-Check for trusted
travelers. These passengers pay $85 to receive a background check and enjoy a
separate screening process for five years. There is often one Pre-Check lane open for
every three regular lanes, despite the fact that more passengers use the Pre-Check
process. Pre-Check passengers and their bags go through the same screening process
with a few modifications designed to expedite screening. Pre-Check passengers must
still remove metal and electronic items for scanning as well as any liquids, but are not
required to remove shoes, belts, or light jackets; they also do not need to remove their
computers from their bags.
Data has been collected about how passengers proceed through each step of the
security screening process. Click here to view the Excel data.
Problem E: Sustainable Cities Needed!
Background:
Many communities are implementing smart growth initiatives in an effort to consider
long range, sustainable planning goals.
city become a more economically prosperous, socially equitable, and environmentally
[2] Smart growth focuses on building cities that embrace the Economically prosperous, socially Equitable, and Environmentally
Sustainable. This task is more important than ever because the world is rapidly
urbanizing.
urban this will result in a projected 2.5 billion people being added to the urban
[3]
population. Consequently, urban planning has become increasingly important and
necessary to ensure that people have access to equitable and sustainable homes,
resources and jobs.
Problem F: Migration to Mars: Utopian Workforce of the 2100 Urban Society
The international agency, Laboratory of Interstellar Financial & Exploration Policy
(LIFE), has recently (in this year of 2095) completed a series of short-term planned
living experiments on our neighbor planet, Mars. New technologies, including
personalized artificial augmentations units, will soon enable humans to inhabit
manufactured cities on Mars by 2100. The first wave of migration, called Population
Zero, will include 10,000 people.
The LIFE agency launched project UTOPIA: 2100, with the goal of creating an optimal
workforce for the 22nd century to give all people the greatest quality of life with a vision
of sustainability for the next 100 years. Over the last 20 years, several planned
communities have been designed and built across Earth that tested several planned
living conditions. These communities are driven by egalitarian principles in economics,
government, workforce, and justice systems.
IP卡
狗仔卡
发表于 2017-1-20 05:50
转播
淘帖
分享
收藏
支持
反对
微信
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
抢沙发
显身卡
发表于 2017-1-20 06:16
