Constraint-Level track · step 2 of 4. This model is five machines in series.
At a glance
| Experiment | Single Run |
| Duration | 90 days |
| System efficiency | 54.7% |
| Production | 7.09M bottles · ~70,900 pallets |
| Output unit | bottles |
What this model is
The same line as the 1-Constraint model, split into five per-machine Constraints (Filler → Capper → Labeler → Case Packer → Palletizer) with one Interrupt each — machine-level detail kept. The throughput answer lines up with the 1-Constraint rollup (both land at ~54% OEE and ~7M bottles): that's the point — close-coupled Constraints roll up cleanly into the line-level view. The difference shows up in 36% blocked-or-starved time — stages waiting on each other, which the 1-Constraint rollup can't show because there's only one node.
The line
| Node | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Bulk Storage | Buffer | ∞ supply |
| Filler | Constraint | 100/min · 1 interrupt |
| Capper | Constraint | 100/min · 1 interrupt |
| Labeler | Constraint | 100/min · 1 interrupt |
| Case Packer | Constraint | 100/min · 1 interrupt |
| Palletizer | Constraint | 100/min · 1 interrupt |
| Warehouse | Buffer | ∞ capacity |
Five serial Constraints · one interrupt each · OEE 54.7% · bottleneck: Case Packer · 7.09M bottles · 36% blocked-or-starved
Questions it answers
- Ask where the bottleneck is, or how this compares to the 1-Constraint view.
The same topology on the other track
Five Constraints in Series — LEDS Interrupts runs this structure against LEDS-level interrupt data. It reports 54.0% efficiency against 54.7% here — the throughput prediction barely moves. What changes is what the model can tell you about the cause.
Open it
This model ships with ReliaSim and runs in the browser sandbox — no install required. Open 5 Constraints in the sandbox.
Every figure on this page is the published result for the model as it ships. Open it and re-run to reproduce.