| |
| | |
|
An observation from 2434 samples is given table below.
Mean headway observed was 3.5 seconds and the standard deviation 2.6 seconds.
Fit a Person Type III Distribution.
Table 1:
Observed headway distribution
 |
 |
 |
| 0.0 |
1.0 |
0.012 |
| 1.0 |
2.0 |
0.178 |
| 2.0 |
3.0 |
0.316 |
| 3.0 |
4.0 |
0.218 |
| 4.0 |
5.0 |
0.108 |
| 5.0 |
6.0 |
0.055 |
| 6.0 |
7.0 |
0.033 |
| 7.0 |
8.0 |
0.022 |
| 8.0 |
9.0 |
0.013 |
| 9.0 |
 |
0.045 |
| Total |
|
1.00 |
Given that mean headway ( ) is 3.5 and the standard deviation ( ) is 2.6.
Assuming the expected minimum headway ( ) is 0.5, can be computed as
and flow rate term as
Now, since which is between 1 and 2, can be obtained
directly from the gamma table as
.
Here, the probability density function for this example can be expressed as
The given headway range and the observed probability is given in column (2),
(3) and (4).
The observed frequency ( ) for the first interval (0 to 1) can be
computed as the product of observed proportion and the number of
observations ( ).
That is,
as shown
in column (5).
The probability density function value for the lower limit of the first interval (h=0) is shown in column (6) and computed as:
Note that since
is negative and
is a fraction,
the above expression cannot be evaluated and hence approximated to zero
(corresponding to t=0.5).
Similarly, the probability density function value for the lower limit of the
second interval (h=1) is shown in column 6 and computed as:
Now, for the first interval, the probability for headway between 0 and 1 is
computed by equation as
and is given in column (7).
Now the computed frequency is
and is given in column (8).
This procedure is repeated for all the subsequent items.
It may be noted that probability of headway 9 is computed by
1-probability of headway less than 9
The comparison of the three distribution for the above data is plotted in Figure 1.
Table 2:
Solution using Pearson Type III distribution
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| (1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
(7) |
(8) |
| 1 |
0 |
1 |
0.012 |
29.2 |
0.000 |
0.132 |
321.2 |
| 2 |
1 |
2 |
0.178 |
433.3 |
0.264 |
0.238 |
580.1 |
| 3 |
2 |
3 |
0.316 |
769.1 |
0.213 |
0.185 |
449.5 |
| 4 |
3 |
4 |
0.218 |
530.6 |
0.157 |
0.134 |
327.3 |
| 5 |
4 |
5 |
0.108 |
262.9 |
0.112 |
0.096 |
233.4 |
| 6 |
5 |
6 |
0.055 |
133.9 |
0.079 |
0.068 |
164.6 |
| 7 |
6 |
7 |
0.033 |
80.3 |
0.056 |
0.047 |
115.3 |
| 8 |
7 |
8 |
0.022 |
53.6 |
0.039 |
0.033 |
80.4 |
| 9 |
8 |
9 |
0.013 |
31.6 |
0.027 |
0.023 |
55.9 |
| 10 |
9 |
|
0.045 |
109.5 |
0.019 |
0.044 |
106.4 |
| |
Total |
|
1.0 |
2434 |
|
1.0 |
2434 |
Figure 1:
Comparison of distributions
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|