Constraint-Level track · step 4 of 4. This model is the converter topology with three inline buffers added.
At a glance
| Experiment | Multi Run |
| Duration | 90 days |
| System efficiency | 54.1% |
| Production | 70,113 pallets |
| Output unit | pallets |
What this model is
This model adds three inline Buffers between the last three stages. Inline buffers decouple short interrupts from downstream starvation — but system OEE is still 54.1%, same as the no-buffer version. Why? Because the bottleneck is the Filler's own interrupt, not downstream starvation. Buffers can't help there.
The line
| Node | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Bulk Storage | Buffer | ∞ supply |
| Filler | Converter | 100/min |
| Capper | Constraint | 100/min · 1 interrupt |
| Buffer 1 | Buffer | inline |
| Labeler | Constraint | 100/min · 1 interrupt |
| Buffer 2 | Buffer | inline |
| Case Packer | Converter | 10/min |
| Buffer 3 | Buffer | inline |
| Palletizer | Converter | 1/min |
| Warehouse | Buffer | ∞ capacity |
Converter-model topology plus three inline buffers (b3/b4/b5) · OEE 54.1% (unchanged — buffers can't fix a bottleneck at the source) · 70,113 pallets
Experiments this model carries
- Buffer Tradeoff — sweeps buffer capacity and plots efficiency against it — see Buffer Trade-off Results
- Interrupt Loss/Gain — ranks failure modes by the production they cost — see Interrupt Loss/Gain Results
Questions it answers
- Ask about when buffers do help, and when they don't.
The same topology on the other track
Buffer Options — LEDS runs this structure against LEDS-level interrupt data. It reports 54.3% efficiency against 54.1% 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 + Buffer Options 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.