Parallel Delivery Capacity Calculator
How much can parallel routes deliver when they share a downstream limit?
Worked example
A relief coordinator can check whether multiple civilian delivery routes can meet demand without double-counting a common receiving limit. Treat the output as a throughput ceiling.
One fictional route can carry 60 crates per day and a second can carry 50. They share a receiving limit of 80 crates per day. With demand of 100 crates, the modeled ceiling leaves 20 crates unmet.
Try it yourself
In the routes table, find the row from Staging to Receiving. Change its capacity from 80 to 90 crates per day and choose Calculate locally. The delivery ceiling rises to 90 and unmet demand falls to 10 crates per day.
An unknown result means the available inputs do not support a value. Check the calculator’s Warnings tab for what is missing or uncertain.
- Network throughput ceiling 80 crates per day
- Possible delivery at stated demand 80 crates per day
- Demand above possible delivery 20 crates per day
Import local JSON or CSV
Files stay in this browser. Maximum 1 MiB. JSON imports are recalculated. CSV supports flat observation tables, with column types taken from the displayed fixture. Empty cells become null.
Compare the arrangements
Keep physical resources and evaluation conditions equal. With identical inputs, all three approaches produce identical arithmetic. The comparison refuses material differences in declared conditions; it does not verify those declarations.
Privacy: comparison inputs may contain sensitive notes or operational details. Storage is off by default. Do not enter personal records or sensitive infrastructure details. Reproduction exports include supplied inputs and notes, including raw small-cell inputs suppressed from CORE-009 result tables. Suppression of displayed results does not make a reproduction export safe to publish.
Executive brief and reproducible export
Review for personal, confidential or sensitive material before saving or sharing. No automatic submission occurs.
Read the generated brief
Method, inputs and limits
Calculate the throughput ceiling across directed parallel delivery routes with shared downstream capacity. Method version 0.2.0. Choose real shipping routes, account for travel time or split priorities among multiple commodities or destinations.
| Input | Unit / type | Required interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| nodes — Abstract locations | labels / number | Two to forty distinct labels. Use aggregate or fictional locations. |
| originNode — Starting location | label / number | One declared location. |
| destinationNode — Receiving location | label / number | A different declared location. |
| demand — Quantity requested | whole units per period / number | Same period and commodity as all route capacities. |
| routes — Directed route capacities | whole units per period / number | Each row has from, to, and capacity. If a row supplies unit, it must match the common unit, including its time period. A shared limit must appear once as a common route. |
Visible mathematics / decision rules
Increase feasible flow along a shortest path with spare capacity until no such path remains.
Possible delivery = min(total flow ceiling, declared demand).
What this result cannot establish
- A one-period, one-commodity, single-origin and single-destination model. Include a common edge for every shared capacity constraint.
- The route table shows one allocation at the throughput ceiling. The demand-limited result may use less.
What would falsify the assumptions?
- Check conservation at intermediate nodes, route capacities, and the capacity of the reported limiting cut.
- Assumptions fail if the supplied definitions, units, period, scope or source records are wrong or incomplete.
- An independent source audit or replication may contradict an input or the recorded dependency.
- This method creates no resources. Physical conservation is checked in the inventory and transfer ledgers; descriptive graphs and checklists are not resource-flow models.
- The same equations and review checklist can be reproduced with a spreadsheet or structured human-only process.
- This is deterministic arithmetic, a descriptive comparison or a structured governance check, not a fitted causal effect or forecast. Fictional inputs remain an exercise.
- Equal or worse measured errors, net review effort, disclosure burden or fallback under MAR would show no added benefit or added risk; no improvement is assumed.
Reproducible fictional fixture and independently calculated expectations
This fixture is synthetic. It does not describe a country, government, company or event.
{
"observations": {
"unit": "crates per day",
"origin": "synthetic",
"sources": [
{
"id": "SYN-022",
"kind": "synthetic",
"label": "Fictional planning exercise",
"url": null
}
],
"nodes": [
"Depot",
"Route A",
"Route B",
"Staging",
"Receiving"
],
"originNode": "Depot",
"destinationNode": "Receiving",
"demand": 100,
"routes": [
{
"from": "Depot",
"to": "Route A",
"capacity": 60
},
{
"from": "Depot",
"to": "Route B",
"capacity": 50
},
{
"from": "Route A",
"to": "Staging",
"capacity": 60
},
{
"from": "Route B",
"to": "Staging",
"capacity": 50
},
{
"from": "Staging",
"to": "Receiving",
"capacity": 80
}
]
},
"parameters": {}
}Expected checks
{
"capacityCeiling": 80,
"possibleDelivery": 80,
"unmet": 20
}Download input fixtureAuthoritative background references
- OECD: OECD Supply Chain Resilience Review: Navigating Risks — Supply continuity and shared dependency context for the fictional planning exercises. Reviewed 2026-11-11. Reference, not endorsement or validation.
These sources inform definitions or review practices. They do not validate this implementation or endorse MAR.