Compare three candidate arrangements of six process stations. Colored material carriers follow rectilinear paths, while a load-distance calculation measures the effect of layout, spacing and demand mix.
• A 3D laboratory scene with: A · receiving dock; B · cutting saw; C · drill press; D · assembly bench; E · inspection portal; F · shipping dock. • Controls: Candidate arrangement; Station pitch (2-6 m); Flow multiplier (1-4); Transport speed (10-40 m/min); Swap receiving A with shipping F. • Live readouts: Weighted travel; Transport workload; Mean trip distance; Trips per hour; Best of three candidate costs; Cost above best candidate. • Guided experiments: Compare compact cell; Swap endpoints; Double throughput.
• Flows/hour: A→B 40, B→C 30, C→D 20, D→E 20, E→F 40, F→A 5, A→D 15 • Distance uses Manhattan routes at selected station pitch • Load-distance=Σ flow_ij × distance_ij • Transport workload=load-distance/(speed×60) • Best means the minimum among the three listed candidates, with the same swap setting.
A discrete candidate comparison with unobstructed rectilinear aisles. The animation illustrates route direction at a slowed speed; it does not schedule actual vehicles. No collision avoidance, congestion, machine processing times or exhaustive global layout optimization. Transport workload is summed carrier time, not elapsed production time.
No, it compares three candidates. All possible station arrangements are not searched.
No. Speed affects workload, not path length or flow count.
The weighted path total changes according to which stations are adjacent.
A discrete candidate comparison with unobstructed rectilinear aisles. The animation illustrates route direction at a slowed speed; it does not schedule actual vehicles. No collision avoidance, congestion, machine processing times or exhaustive global layout optimization. Transport workload is summed carrier time, not elapsed production time.