LEDS-Level track · step 1 of 4. This model is a single constraint carrying interrupts.
At a glance
| Experiment | Single Run |
| Duration | 90 days |
| System efficiency | 53.2% |
| Production | 6.89M bottles · ~68,900 pallets |
| Output unit | bottles |
What this model is
LEDS track, line-level rollup — one Constraint at 100 bottles/min, same plant data as the Constraint-Level version, but interrupts are itemized into 36 named failure modes instead of rolled up into 5 per-machine Weibulls. Throughput answer is the same (~53% OEE, ~6.9M bottles) — rolling up or drilling down doesn't change the prediction at the line level. What changes is where you'd invest: the Constraint-Level rollup's five aggregated interrupts each contributed ~19% of downtime (averaging hides drivers). Here, Capper_Upper Plow Area alone is 20%. Same prediction, actionable diagnosis.
The line
| Node | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Buffer 0 | Buffer | ∞ supply |
| Bottling Line | Constraint | 100 bottles/min · LEDS interrupts |
| Buffer 1 | Buffer | ∞ capacity |
Same topology as the Constraint-Level 1-Constraint model · one Constraint with all 36 LEDS failure modes (drill-down) · OEE 53.2% · 6.89M bottles · dominant failure: Capper_Upper Plow Area (20%)
Experiments this model carries
- Interrupt Loss/Gain — ranks failure modes by the production they cost — see Interrupt Loss/Gain Results
Questions it answers
- Ask what the dominant failure mode is.
The same topology on the other track
One Constraint, Five Interrupts runs this structure against constraint-level interrupt data. It reports 53.4% efficiency against 53.2% 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 1 Constraint 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.