Intelligent logistics park and storage decision-making method and system

Abstract

The invention provides an intelligent logistics park and storage decision-making method and system, and relates to the technical field of logistics warehousing, and the method comprises the steps: monitoring the position of a transportation mechanism in real time, taking the transportation mechanism as a conflict node when detecting that a plurality of transportation mechanisms share the same goods shelf node, and determining an execution priority based on a time margin; according to the method, the time margin is calculated, the extra waiting time cost and the diversion decision time cost are calculated respectively, finally, the execution sequence and strategy are dynamically decided according to the comparison result of the time margin and the time cost, collaborative scheduling and global optimization at conflicting nodes are achieved, and the logistics efficiency and order delivery timeliness are improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of logistics and warehousing technology, specifically to a smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making method and system. Background Technology

[0002] As a crucial component of the modern logistics system, smart logistics parks utilize automated transportation mechanisms and intelligent warehouse management systems to achieve efficient storage and circulation of goods. During the operation of smart logistics parks and warehousing systems, multiple automated transportation devices typically need to collaboratively perform handling tasks within a limited space, easily leading to conflicts such as path intersections and node contention. Existing scheduling methods are mostly based on static path planning or fixed priority rules, lacking the ability to dynamically perceive and respond to real-time operational status.

[0003] In existing technologies, route planning and conflict resolution for transportation agencies mainly rely on static route allocation or simple priority rules. For example, some solutions use fixed priority or first-come-first-served strategies to handle conflicts between transportation agencies at the same node, or reserve time intervals during route planning to reduce the occurrence of conflicts. Some existing technologies use centralized scheduling systems for unified management, but they often ignore the real-time status and task urgency of transportation agencies during dynamic operations.

[0004] Therefore, existing solutions are prone to problems such as long waiting times for transportation agencies and reduced resource utilization when multiple transportation agencies work together due to improper handling of conflict nodes. This is especially true in scenarios with dense transportation tasks and frequent route intersections. Simple priority or static scheduling is difficult to balance transportation efficiency and task timeliness, which can easily lead to low overall operational efficiency and affect the level of intelligence and efficiency of park logistics operations.

[0005] The information disclosed in the background section is only intended to enhance the understanding of the background of this disclosure, and therefore may include information that does not constitute prior art known to those skilled in the art. Summary of the Invention

[0006] The purpose of this invention is to provide a smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making method and system to solve the problems mentioned in the background art.

[0007] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solution: A smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making method, the specific steps of which include: Step 1: Determine the planned driving scheme for each transportation unit in the warehouse, and monitor the real-time location of all transportation units in the warehouse. When it is detected that two or more transportation units share a shelf node at the same time, proceed to Step 2. The planned driving scheme includes the planned driving route, the planned completion time, and the latest completion time. Step 2: Treat the shared shelf nodes as conflict nodes, calculate the time margin based on the transportation agency's planned completion time and latest completion time, and determine the execution priority based on the time margin; Step 3: Calculate the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node as the additional waiting time cost for other transportation agencies at the conflict node; Step 4: Determine the optimal switching rack node for the transportation organization, and determine the corrected travel route based on the optimal switching rack node. Calculate the time increment for the transportation organization to execute the corrected travel route compared to the planned travel route, as the time cost of the detour decision. The optimal switching rack node satisfies the following: 1) When the transportation organization executes the corrected travel route, the time interval from skipping to re-arriving at the conflict node is not less than the additional waiting time cost; 2) The sum of the travel path distances from the optimal switching rack node and the next rack node to the conflict node is the shortest. Step 5: Based on the additional waiting time cost, diversion decision time cost, and time margin of each transportation agency, determine the execution priority and execution decision of the transportation agencies at the conflict node.

[0008] Furthermore, the transportation agency refers to the automated or semi-automated equipment performing handling tasks in the warehouse. The planned travel path consists of a starting point, shelf nodes, aisles, and an end point. It represents a complete path from the starting point to the shelf where all target goods are located, in a pre-planned order, for handling, and finally to the end point.

[0009] Furthermore, the principle for determining execution priority is as follows: The time interval between the planned completion time and the latest completion time of a transportation agency is called the time margin. Taking the reciprocal of the time margin gives the execution priority of the transportation agency.

[0010] Furthermore, the principle for calculating the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node is as follows: Obtain the total planned working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node and the time already worked by the transportation agency at the conflict node. Subtract the time already worked from the total planned working time to generate the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node. The remaining time is the additional waiting time cost of other transportation agencies at the conflict node.

[0011] Furthermore, the logic for performing work according to the modified travel route is as follows: after skipping the conflict node, the transportation agency continues to perform work according to the planned travel route until the work is completed at the optimal switching shelf node, then proceeds to the conflict node to perform work, and after the work is completed at the conflict node, proceeds to the next shelf node after the optimal switching shelf node and continues to perform work according to the planned travel route.

[0012] Furthermore, the principle behind generating the time cost of the rerouting decision is as follows: Obtain the travel path distances of the transportation agency from the optimal switching rack node to the conflict node, from the conflict node to the next rack node after the optimal switching rack node, and from the optimal switching rack node to the next rack node. Sum these distances to obtain the corrected travel path length of the transportation agency. The original travel path length of the transportation agency is the travel path distance from the optimal switching rack node to the next rack node. Divide the corrected travel path length by the average speed of the transportation agency to obtain the total time for executing the corrected travel path. Divide the original travel path length by the average speed of the transportation agency to obtain the total time for executing the original travel path. The difference between these two total times is the time increment for the transportation agency to execute the corrected travel path compared to the planned travel path, i.e., the time cost of the detour decision.

[0013] Furthermore, the principle underlying the determination of the execution priority and strategy of transportation agencies at conflict nodes is as follows: For each transport agency at the conflict node, check whether its additional waiting time cost and rerouting decision time cost are both within the time margin. If each transport agency has at least one time cost that is not greater than the time margin, then let the transport agency with higher execution priority continue working according to its planned route at the conflict node, and let the transport agency with lower execution priority choose to wait or rerouting based on the minimum of its two decision time costs. If the time cost of both decisions for each transportation agency is greater than the time margin, then the transportation agency with the higher execution priority shall execute first, and the transportation agency with the lower execution priority shall choose to wait or divert according to the minimum time cost of its two decisions. If the time cost of the high-priority transportation agency is greater than the time margin in both cases, then the high-priority transportation agency shall continue to work according to its planned route, and the low-priority transportation agency shall choose to wait or change course based on the minimum time cost of its two decisions. If the time costs of both decisions for a low-priority transport agency exceed the time margin, then the low-priority transport agency is allowed to continue operating along its planned route, while the high-priority transport agency is allowed to choose between waiting or rerouting based on the minimum time cost of its two decisions.

[0014] This invention also provides a smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making system, which is used to implement the above-mentioned smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making method, specifically including: The transportation initialization and monitoring module is used to determine the planned driving scheme of each transportation unit in the warehouse, monitor the real-time location of all transportation units in the warehouse, and execute the priority calculation module when it is detected that two or more transportation units share a shelf node at the same time. The planned driving scheme includes the planned driving route, the planned completion time, and the latest completion time. The priority calculation module is used to treat shared shelf nodes as conflict nodes, calculate the time margin based on the transportation agency's planned completion time and latest completion time, and determine the execution priority based on the time margin; The waiting cost calculation module is used to calculate the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node, as the additional waiting time cost of other transportation agencies at the conflict node; The detour cost calculation module is used to determine the optimal switching rack node for the transportation organization, and based on the optimal switching rack node, determine the corrected driving route. It calculates the time increment of the transportation organization executing the corrected driving route compared to the planned driving route, as the time cost of the detour decision. The optimal switching rack node satisfies the following: 1) When the transportation organization executes the corrected driving route, the time interval from skipping to re-arriving at the conflict node is not less than the additional waiting time cost; 2) The sum of the driving route distances from the optimal switching rack node and the next rack node to the conflict node is the shortest. The integrated decision-making module is used to determine the execution priority and execution decision of transportation agencies at conflict nodes based on the additional waiting time cost, diversion decision time cost and time margin of each transportation agency.

[0015] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are: This invention introduces dynamic prioritization decision-making based on time margin and waiting costs. When transportation agencies experience conflicts at the same shelf node, it comprehensively considers the planned completion time, latest completion time, and task urgency of each agency to rationally allocate execution priorities. This effectively reduces ineffective waiting caused by conflicts, improves the operational efficiency of transportation agencies, and dynamically calculates the time cost of detour decisions. This allows transportation agencies to flexibly adjust their work routes, reasonably avoid conflict nodes, and reduce waiting and detour costs in the overall handling process, thereby improving the resource utilization and scheduling level of the warehousing system. Furthermore, conflict decision-making is based on the premise that transportation agencies complete handling before the latest completion time, ensuring timely order delivery even in the event of a conflict. Attached Figure Description

[0016] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the method flow of an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the system modules in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0017] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this invention clearer, the invention will be further described in detail below with reference to specific embodiments.

[0018] It should be noted that, unless otherwise defined, the technical or scientific terms used in this invention should have the ordinary meaning understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention pertains. The terms "first," "second," and similar terms used in this invention do not indicate any order, quantity, or importance, but are merely used to distinguish different components. Terms such as "comprising" or "including" mean that the element or object preceding the word encompasses the elements or objects listed following the word and their equivalents, without excluding other elements or objects. Terms such as "connected" or "linked" are not limited to physical or mechanical connections, but can include electrical connections, whether direct or indirect. Terms such as "upper," "lower," "left," and "right" are used only to indicate relative positional relationships; when the absolute position of the described object changes, the relative positional relationship may also change accordingly.

[0019] Example: Please see Figure 1 The present invention provides a technical solution: A smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making method, the specific steps of which include: Step 1: Determine the planned driving scheme for each transportation unit in the warehouse, and monitor the real-time location of all transportation units in the warehouse. When it is detected that two or more transportation units share a shelf node at the same time, proceed to Step 2. The planned driving scheme includes the planned driving route, the planned completion time, and the latest completion time. In this embodiment, the transportation mechanism refers to automated or semi-automated equipment that performs handling tasks in the warehouse, including but not limited to automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and autonomous mobile robots (AMRs). The planned travel path consists of a starting point, shelf nodes, aisles, and an end point, representing a complete path from the starting point to the shelf where all target goods are located, in a pre-planned order for handling, and finally to the end point.

[0020] The planned completion time represents the estimated completion time of the loading and unloading task based on factors such as path length, equipment speed, and loading and unloading time. It includes the movement time of the transportation mechanism between each rack node and the time required to complete the loading and unloading task of each rack. The latest completion time indicates the latest time that the transportation agency must complete the loading and unloading tasks to ensure that the order can be delivered on time.

[0021] Step 2: Treat the shared shelf nodes as conflict nodes, calculate the time margin based on the transportation agency's planned completion time and latest completion time, and determine the execution priority based on the time margin; In this embodiment, the principle for determining the execution priority is as follows: The time interval between a transportation agency's planned completion time and its latest completion time is called the time margin. Taking the reciprocal of the time margin gives the transportation agency's execution priority. The formula for calculating the time margin is:

[0022] in, Indicates time margin, Indicates the latest completion time. Indicates the planned completion time; Time margin This indicates the amount of available time between the estimated completion date and the latest completion date, reflecting the transportation agency's time buffer capacity in completing the task. A larger time margin indicates greater flexibility in the agency's task completion time; even with delays, it's still possible to complete the task before the latest completion date, thus strengthening its ability to withstand delays. A smaller time margin indicates less time leeway between the planned and latest completion dates, making delays more likely to lead to task overtime and impact order delivery. When setting up the planned travel scheme, it's crucial to ensure... ; Time margin represents the time difference between the latest completion time and the planned completion time; it is a buffer value for time. A higher time margin indicates a larger buffer value and a wider range of time delays beyond the planned completion time. Therefore, the higher the time margin of a transportation agency, the lower its execution priority. The formula for calculating execution priority based on time margin is: ; in, This indicates the execution priority of the transportation agency.

[0023] Execution priority reflects the order in which transportation agencies execute tasks. Without considering other influencing factors, transportation agencies with lower time margins are more urgent and therefore have higher execution priorities. Execution priority is inversely proportional to time margin. When conflicts occur, tasks with lower execution priorities tend to adopt avoidance or waiting strategies because they have more time to buffer these delays without affecting the final delivery.

[0024] Step 3: Calculate the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node as the additional waiting time cost for other transportation agencies at the conflict node; In this embodiment, the principle for calculating the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node is as follows: Obtain the total planned working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node and the time already worked by the transportation agency at the conflict node. Subtract the time already worked from the total planned working time to generate the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node. The remaining time is the additional waiting time cost of other transportation agencies at the conflict node.

[0025] The formula for calculating the remaining working time is: ; in, Indicates the remaining working time. This indicates the total working time of the transportation agency at the conflict point. This indicates the time that the transportation agency had been working at the point of conflict when the conflict occurred. Conflict phenomena include two types: the first is that an existing transport agency is already occupying the conflict node, and subsequent transport agencies arriving at the conflict node must wait or make a detour decision; the second is that two transport agencies arrive at a new shelf node at the same time; remaining working time This reflects the remaining occupation time of the conflict node by the transportation agency that has occupied it. In the first case, the remaining working time is the total working time of the transportation agency occupying the conflict node minus the time already worked. In the second case, there is no time already worked, and the remaining working time is the total working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node.

[0026] The additional waiting time cost for other transportation agencies at the conflict point is... .

[0027] If other transportation agencies implement a waiting decision, they must wait for the current transportation agency to complete its work at the conflict node; otherwise, they cannot successfully use the node. This indicates the minimum time that the current transportation agency still needs to occupy the conflict node, which becomes the lower limit of the time cost for other transportation agencies to wait for a decision.

[0028] Step 4: Determine the optimal switching rack node for the transportation organization, and determine the corrected travel route based on the optimal switching rack node. Calculate the time increment for the transportation organization to execute the corrected travel route compared to the planned travel route, as the time cost of the detour decision. The optimal switching rack node satisfies the following: 1) When the transportation organization executes the corrected travel route, the time interval from skipping to re-arriving at the conflict node is not less than the additional waiting time cost; 2) The sum of the travel path distances from the optimal switching rack node and the next rack node to the conflict node is the shortest. In this embodiment, the logic of performing work according to the modified travel path is as follows: after the transportation agency skips the conflict node, it continues to perform work according to the planned travel path until the work is completed at the optimal switching shelf node, then proceeds to the conflict node to perform work, and after the work is completed at the conflict node, proceeds to the next shelf node after the optimal switching shelf node and continues to perform work according to the planned travel path.

[0029] The principle behind generating the time cost of a detour decision is as follows: Obtain the travel path distances of the transportation agency from the optimal switching rack node to the conflict node, from the conflict node to the next rack node after the optimal switching rack node, and from the optimal switching rack node to the next rack node. Sum these distances to obtain the corrected travel path length of the transportation agency. The original travel path length of the transportation agency is the travel path distance from the optimal switching rack node to the next rack node. Divide the corrected travel path length by the average speed of the transportation agency to obtain the total time for executing the corrected travel path. Divide the original travel path length by the average speed of the transportation agency to obtain the total time for executing the original travel path. The difference between these two total times is the time increment for the transportation agency to execute the corrected travel path compared to the planned travel path, i.e., the time cost of the detour decision.

[0030] The formula for calculating the time cost of a detour decision is: ; in, This indicates the time cost of the rerouting decision. This indicates the number of the optimal switching shelf node. This indicates the number of the next shelf node after the optimal shelf switching node in the planned travel path. Indicates the number of the conflicting node. This represents the optimal travel path distance from the switching shelf node to the conflict node. Indicates the conflict node to the shelf node. The distance of the driving route, Indicates the transition from the optimal switching shelf node to the shelf node. The distance of the driving route, This indicates the average speed of the transportation system.

[0031] A detour decision means that the transportation agency does not wait at the conflict node, but skips it and continues to perform the handling tasks at subsequent shelf nodes until a certain condition is met. Then, it returns to the conflict node from a subsequent node to complete the handling tasks there, and continues to perform the remaining tasks until completion. This reflects the time cost of choosing a "detour" strategy instead of a "wait" strategy when a path conflict occurs. The condition here is that the detour decision time must be no less than the waiting time; otherwise, waiting is still required when returning to the conflict node. The time cost incurred by the detour transportation agency mainly comes from the time spent traveling to and from the conflict node. This represents the distance from the optimal switching rack node to the conflict node, and then back from the conflict node to the next rack node after the optimal switching rack node; it is the corrected travel path length of the transportation mechanism. This represents the original distance from the optimal switching shelf node to the next node, i.e., the length of the original path traveled according to the planned route. This route was skipped during the detour decision, therefore the time spent executing the detour decision is... When executing the original driving route, this part takes up the following time. The time increment for a transportation agency to execute a revised route compared to the planned route is the difference between the time spent executing the rerouting decision and the time spent executing the original route. This is the time cost of the rerouting decision.

[0032] Step 5: Based on the additional waiting time cost, diversion decision time cost, and time margin of each transportation agency, determine the execution priority and execution decision of the transportation agencies at the conflict node.

[0033] In this embodiment, the principle upon which the execution priority and execution strategy of the transportation agency at the conflict node are determined is as follows: For each transport agency at the conflict node, check whether its additional waiting time cost and rerouting decision time cost are both within the time margin. If each transport agency has at least one time cost that is not greater than the time margin, then let the transport agency with higher execution priority continue working according to its planned route at the conflict node, and let the transport agency with lower execution priority choose to wait or rerouting based on the minimum of its two decision time costs. The additional waiting time cost and the time cost of rerouting decision-making are compared with the time margin of each transportation agency. A transportation agency's priority and its time margin together constitute the key constraints for evaluating the feasibility of its decision. Even if an agency has a high priority, the solution is not feasible if prioritizing its task causes the time costs of other transportation agencies to exceed their time margins.

[0034] If the time cost of both decisions by each transportation agency exceeds the time margin, then the transportation agency with the higher execution priority will be given priority, and the transportation agency with the lower execution priority will choose to wait or reroute based on the minimum time cost of its two decisions. In this case, the corresponding situation is that when a conflict occurs, either the waiting or rerouting strategy adopted by the transportation agency will result in a timeout. In this case, the work order is set according to the execution priority. If the time cost of the high-priority transportation agency is greater than the time margin in both cases, then the high-priority transportation agency shall continue to work according to its planned route, and the low-priority transportation agency shall choose to wait or change course based on the minimum time cost of its two decisions. If the time costs of both decisions for the low-priority transport agency exceed the time margin, then the low-priority transport agency is allowed to continue working according to its planned route, while the high-priority transport agency is allowed to choose to wait or reroute based on the minimum time cost of its two decisions. In both cases, it indicates that at the conflict node, there is a transportation agency that would experience a timeout due to taking a detour or waiting for a decision. In this case, the transportation task of this transportation agency should be executed first.

[0035] Please see Figure 2 The present invention also provides a smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making system, the system being used to implement the above-mentioned smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making method, specifically including: The transportation initialization and monitoring module is used to determine the planned driving scheme of each transportation unit in the warehouse, monitor the real-time location of all transportation units in the warehouse, and execute the priority calculation module when it is detected that two or more transportation units share a shelf node at the same time. The planned driving scheme includes the planned driving route, the planned completion time, and the latest completion time. The priority calculation module is used to treat shared shelf nodes as conflict nodes, calculate the time margin based on the transportation agency's planned completion time and latest completion time, and determine the execution priority based on the time margin; The waiting cost calculation module is used to calculate the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node, as the additional waiting time cost of other transportation agencies at the conflict node; The detour cost calculation module is used to determine the optimal switching rack node for the transportation organization, and based on the optimal switching rack node, determine the corrected driving route. It calculates the time increment of the transportation organization executing the corrected driving route compared to the planned driving route, as the time cost of the detour decision. The optimal switching rack node satisfies the following: 1) When the transportation organization executes the corrected driving route, the time interval from skipping to re-arriving at the conflict node is not less than the additional waiting time cost; 2) The sum of the driving route distances from the optimal switching rack node and the next rack node to the conflict node is the shortest. The integrated decision-making module is used to determine the execution priority and execution decision of transportation agencies at conflict nodes based on the additional waiting time cost, diversion decision time cost and time margin of each transportation agency.

[0036] The above formulas are all dimensionless calculations. The formulas are derived from software simulations based on a large amount of collected data to obtain the most recent real-world results. The preset parameters in the formulas are set by those skilled in the art according to the actual situation.

[0037] The above embodiments can be implemented, in whole or in part, by software, hardware, firmware, or any other combination thereof. When implemented in software, the above embodiments can be implemented, in whole or in part, as a computer program product. Those skilled in the art will recognize that the units and algorithm steps of the various examples described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented by electronic hardware, or a combination of computer software and electronic hardware. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution.

[0038] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the units can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs.

[0039] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any changes or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the scope of the technology disclosed in this application should be included within the scope of protection of this application.

Claims

1. A smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making method, characterized in that, The specific steps include: Step 1: Determine the planned driving scheme for each transportation unit in the warehouse, and monitor the real-time location of all transportation units in the warehouse. When two transportation units are detected sharing a shelf node at the same time, proceed to Step 2. The planned driving scheme includes the planned driving route, the planned completion time, and the latest completion time. Step 2: Treat the shared shelf nodes as conflict nodes, calculate the time margin based on the transportation agency's planned completion time and latest completion time, and determine the execution priority based on the time margin; Step 3: Calculate the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node, as the additional waiting time cost for other transportation agencies at the conflict node; Step 4: Determine the optimal switching rack node for the transportation organization, and determine the corrected travel route based on the optimal switching rack node. Calculate the time increment for the transportation organization to execute the corrected travel route compared to the planned travel route, as the time cost of the detour decision. The optimal switching rack node satisfies the following: 1) When the transportation organization executes the corrected travel route, the time interval from skipping to re-arriving at the conflict node is not less than the additional waiting time cost; 2) The sum of the travel path distances from the optimal switching rack node and the next rack node to the conflict node is the shortest. Step 5: Based on the additional waiting time cost, diversion decision time cost, and time margin of each transportation agency, determine the execution priority and execution decision of the transportation agency at the conflict node.

2. The smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making method according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step 1, the transportation mechanism refers to the automated or semi-automated equipment that performs handling tasks in the warehouse. The planned travel path consists of a starting point, shelf nodes, aisles, and an end point. It represents a complete path from the starting point to the shelf where all the target goods are located, in a pre-planned order, for handling, and finally to the end point.

3. The intelligent logistics park and warehousing decision-making method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The principle behind determining the execution priority in step 2 is as follows: The time interval between the planned completion time and the latest completion time of a transportation agency is called the time margin. Taking the reciprocal of the time margin gives the execution priority of the transportation agency.

4. The intelligent logistics park and warehousing decision-making method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The principle behind calculating the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node in step 3 is as follows: Obtain the total planned working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node and the time already worked by the transportation agency at the conflict node. Subtract the time already worked from the total planned working time to generate the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node. The remaining time is the additional waiting time cost of other transportation agencies at the conflict node.

5. The intelligent logistics park and warehousing decision-making method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The logic of performing work according to the corrected travel path in step 4 is as follows: after the transportation agency skips the conflict node, it continues to perform work according to the planned travel path until the work is completed at the optimal switching shelf node, then proceeds to the conflict node to perform work, and after the work is completed at the conflict node, proceeds to the next shelf node after the optimal switching shelf node and continues to perform work according to the planned travel path.

6. The intelligent logistics park and warehousing decision-making method according to claim 5, characterized in that: The principle behind generating the time cost of the rerouting decision in step 4 is as follows: Obtain the travel path distances of the transportation agency from the optimal switching rack node to the conflict node, from the conflict node to the next rack node after the optimal switching rack node, and from the optimal switching rack node to the next rack node. Sum these distances to obtain the corrected travel path length of the transportation agency. The original travel path length of the transportation agency is the travel path distance from the optimal switching rack node to the next rack node. Divide the corrected travel path length by the average speed of the transportation agency to obtain the total time for executing the corrected travel path. Divide the original travel path length by the average speed of the transportation agency to obtain the total time for executing the original travel path. The difference between these two total times is the time increment for the transportation agency to execute the corrected travel path compared to the planned travel path, i.e., the time cost of the detour decision.

7. The intelligent logistics park and warehousing decision-making method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The principle underlying the determination of the execution priority and strategy of the transportation agency at the conflict node in step 5 is as follows: For each transport agency at the conflict node, check whether its additional waiting time cost and rerouting decision time cost are both within the time margin. If each transport agency has at least one time cost that is not greater than the time margin, then let the transport agency with higher execution priority continue working according to its planned route at the conflict node, and let the transport agency with lower execution priority choose to wait or rerouting based on the minimum of its two decision time costs. If the time cost of both decisions for each transportation agency is greater than the time margin, then the transportation agency with the higher execution priority shall execute first, and the transportation agency with the lower execution priority shall choose to wait or divert according to the minimum time cost of its two decisions. If the time cost of the high-priority transportation agency is greater than the time margin in both cases, then the high-priority transportation agency shall continue to work according to its planned route, and the low-priority transportation agency shall choose to wait or change course based on the minimum time cost of its two decisions. If the time costs of both decisions for a low-priority transport agency exceed the time margin, then the low-priority transport agency is allowed to continue operating along its planned route, while the high-priority transport agency is allowed to choose between waiting or rerouting based on the minimum time cost of its two decisions.

8. A smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making system, characterized in that: The system is used to implement the smart logistics park and warehousing decision-making method according to any one of claims 1-7, specifically including: The transportation initialization and monitoring module is used to determine the planned driving scheme of each transportation unit in the warehouse, monitor the real-time location of all transportation units in the warehouse, and execute the priority calculation module when it is detected that two or more transportation units share a shelf node at the same time. The planned driving scheme includes the planned driving route, the planned completion time, and the latest completion time. The priority calculation module is used to treat shared shelf nodes as conflict nodes, calculate the time margin based on the transportation agency's planned completion time and latest completion time, and determine the execution priority based on the time margin; The waiting cost calculation module is used to calculate the remaining working time of the transportation agency at the conflict node, as the additional waiting time cost of other transportation agencies at the conflict node; The detour cost calculation module is used to determine the optimal switching rack node for the transportation organization, and based on the optimal switching rack node, determine the corrected driving route. It calculates the time increment of the transportation organization executing the corrected driving route compared to the planned driving route, as the time cost of the detour decision. The optimal switching rack node satisfies the following: 1) When the transportation organization executes the corrected driving route, the time interval from skipping to re-arriving at the conflict node is not less than the additional waiting time cost; 2) The sum of the driving distance from the optimal switching rack node and the next rack node to the conflict node is the shortest. The integrated decision-making module is used to determine the execution priority and execution decision of transportation agencies at conflict nodes based on the additional waiting time cost, diversion decision time cost and time margin of each transportation agency.

Images