Generation method of transformer iron core packaging and transportation scheme

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of scheme design, and discloses a transformer core packaging and transportation scheme generation method comprising the following steps: obtaining a task list, and storing the task list in a preset temporary library; generating an initial scheme, a plurality of optimization schemes and a plurality of spelling schemes according to the task lists in the temporary library based on a preset triggering condition, wherein each sub-scheme comprises corresponding packaging information and logistics information; comprehensive scores of the initial scheme, the optimization scheme and the spelling scheme are calculated respectively; and selecting the scheme with the highest comprehensive score as the optimal scheme. According to the method, task lists are processed in a centralized manner, so that more cross-order combination modes are tried to form diversified support splicing schemes, the optimal packaging and transportation scheme is screened out from the initial scheme, the optimization scheme and the support splicing scheme, the mode of relying on artificial experience is changed, the packaging and transportation scheme is calculated based on real material and logistics data, and the packaging and transportation efficiency is improved. And a plurality of aspects such as cost, time efficiency and safety are considered.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the technical field of scheme design, and in particular to a method for generating a packaging and transportation scheme for transformer cores. Background Technology

[0002] The core is the main magnetic circuit component of a transformer, typically made of stacked cold-rolled silicon steel sheets secured together with clamps. Transformer cores require careful handling during transport to prevent impacts. Various packaging materials are used to enhance the core's stability during transit; common materials include pallets, steel straps, corner protectors, and wooden frames.

[0003] However, since iron cores are mostly non-standard parts, packaging solutions are usually based on manual experience, and this approach is generally suitable for a single type of iron core. When faced with a variety of products in small batches, traditional packaging design methods are unable to quickly provide a suitable packaging solution. Summary of the Invention

[0004] In view of the shortcomings of the prior art, the purpose of this invention is to provide a method for generating a transformer core packaging and transportation scheme, so as to solve one or more problems in the prior art.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, the technical solution of the present invention is as follows: A method for generating a packaging and transportation scheme for transformer cores includes the following steps: Obtain the task order for the goods to be packaged and store the task order in a preset temporary database. The task order includes core data, logistics data and business constraint data. Based on preset triggering conditions, an initial plan, several optimized plans, and several palletizing plans are generated according to the task orders in the temporary library. The initial plan contains only several first sub-plans formed by individually packaging a single iron core. The optimized plan contains a second sub-plan formed by combining and packaging iron cores from a single task order, as well as several first sub-plans. The palletizing plan contains a third sub-plan formed by combining and packaging iron cores from multiple task orders, as well as several first and / or second sub-plans. Each sub-plan contains corresponding packaging and logistics information. Calculate the comprehensive scores for the initial scheme, the optimized scheme, and the composite scheme respectively; The solution with the highest overall score is selected as the optimal solution.

[0006] Furthermore, the generation of the splicing scheme includes the following steps: Select iron cores that meet the preset loading conditions from several task orders as the goods to be assembled; Generate a preliminary scheme based on the goods to be combined; Verify the feasibility of the proposed sub-scheme. If the verification passes, the undetermined sub-scheme will be designated as the third sub-scheme. If the verification fails, the pending sub-scheme is cancelled; After all pending sub-schemes have been verified, cores that meet the preset combination conditions are selected from the remaining cores in each task order, and corresponding second sub-schemes are formed. The corresponding first sub-schemes are formed based on the cores that were not selected in each task order.

[0007] Furthermore, the step of generating a proposed sub-scheme based on the goods to be combined includes the following steps: Determine the location of the transit point based on the respective destinations of the goods to be combined; Logistics information is generated based on the location of transit points and destinations. This logistics information includes merged transportation routes and multiple dispersed transportation routes. Packaging information is generated based on the goods to be combined. The packaging information includes combined packaging information and multiple independent packaging information. The combined packaging information corresponds to the combined transportation route, and the multiple independent packaging information corresponds one-to-one with multiple dispersed transportation routes.

[0008] Furthermore, generating an optimized solution includes the following steps: Select iron cores that meet the preset combination conditions from each task list and form the corresponding second sub-scheme; The first sub-scheme is formed based on the iron cores that were not selected in each task list.

[0009] Furthermore, a corresponding second sub-solution is formulated, including the following steps: The selected iron cores are stacked or placed side by side to form various combinations to form sub-solutions to be recommended. Each recommended sub-solution includes packaging information and logistics information. Determine whether the total weight and dimensions of the sub-solution to be recommended are within the corresponding preset load-bearing limits; If all are within the corresponding preset load-bearing limits, then the sub-scheme to be recommended will be the second sub-scheme.

[0010] Furthermore, the feasibility verification of the proposed sub-scheme includes the following steps: The estimated packaging time, transit and splitting time, combined transportation time, and multiple independent transportation times for the proposed sub-schemes are calculated. The multiple independent transportation times correspond one-to-one with the multiple iron cores in the goods to be combined. The arrival time of the corresponding goods to be combined is calculated based on the packing time, transit and splitting time, combined transportation time and corresponding independent transportation time. It is then determined whether the arrival time of each combined goods is earlier than the corresponding latest delivery time. If all arrival times are earlier than and / or equal to the corresponding latest delivery time, then the corresponding pending sub-scheme is feasible; If any delivery time is later than the corresponding latest delivery time, the corresponding pending sub-solution is not feasible.

[0011] Furthermore, the comprehensive score is calculated separately for the initial scheme, the optimized scheme, and the composite scheme. The comprehensive score calculation includes the following steps: Calculate the combined cost of the initial plan, the optimized plan, and the combined plan respectively; Based on the overall cost of the initial plan, the cost scores of the optimized plan and the composite plan are calculated respectively, with the cost score of the initial plan being a preset default value; Evaluate the space utilization score, risk score, and work efficiency score of the initial plan, the optimized plan, and the splicing plan respectively; The comprehensive scores for the initial scheme, the optimized scheme, and the composite scheme are calculated using the following formulas: S = α × (cost score) + β × (space utilization score) + γ × (operational efficiency score) - λ × (risk score), where α, β, γ, and λ are all preset weights.

[0012] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial technical effects of the present invention are as follows: the task orders are processed centrally, so as to try more combinations across orders and form diversified palletizing schemes. This allows the optimal packaging and transportation scheme to be selected from the initial scheme, optimized scheme, and palletizing scheme. It changes the model that relies on manual experience and makes the packaging and transportation scheme calculated based on real material and logistics data, taking into account multiple aspects such as cost, timeliness, and safety. Attached Figure Description

[0013] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating a method for generating a transformer core packaging and transportation scheme according to an embodiment of the present invention is shown. Detailed Implementation

[0014] A method for generating a transformer core packaging and transportation scheme, see [link to relevant documentation]. Figure 1 This includes the following steps: S100: Obtain the task order for the goods to be packaged and store the task order in the preset temporary library.

[0015] The task list includes core data, logistics data, and business constraint data.

[0016] The core data includes the core's precise three-dimensional dimensions, weight, center of gravity location, and surface protection level requirements.

[0017] Logistics data includes the destination of the iron core, transportation mileage, estimated road conditions, and transportation mode.

[0018] Business constraint data includes the earliest shipping time, the latest delivery time, cost control targets, and the types and prices of current packaging materials in stock.

[0019] The task order uses a pre-integrated data interface to acquire and parse data from upstream Manufacturing Execution System (MES), Warehouse Management System (WMS), and downstream Logistics Management System in real time, and then forms a unified data set.

[0020] Each task order contains core data for one or more iron cores, but the corresponding logistics data is generally unique.

[0021] S200: Based on preset triggering conditions, generate an initial scheme, several optimized schemes, and several splicing schemes according to the task list in the temporary library.

[0022] The preset triggering conditions include receiving a high-priority task order, reaching a preset time node, and the latest shipping time corresponding to the task order stored in the temporary library approaching its expiration date.

[0023] When any of the above conditions is met, the task orders in the temporary database will begin to be processed. By setting multiple trigger conditions, the conflict between waiting for more task orders to seek a better combination and ensuring the timely shipment of each task order is balanced.

[0024] The initial scheme contains only a few first sub-schemes formed by individual core packaging. The optimized scheme contains a second sub-scheme formed by core combination packaging in a single task order and a few first sub-schemes. The consolidation scheme contains a third sub-scheme, a few first sub-schemes, and / or second sub-schemes formed by core combination packaging across task orders.

[0025] Each sub-plan includes corresponding packaging and logistics information. Packaging information specifies the type of pallet used, the type and quantity of protective gear, while logistics information specifies the specific transport vehicle and the actual transport route.

[0026] S300. Calculate the comprehensive scores for the initial scheme, the optimized scheme, and the composite scheme, respectively.

[0027] S400: Select the solution with the highest comprehensive score as the optimal solution.

[0028] The comprehensive score is used to quantitatively evaluate the merits of different options; the higher the comprehensive score, the better the corresponding option.

[0029] In one embodiment, generating a splicing scheme includes the following steps: A210. Select iron cores that meet the preset loading conditions from several task orders as the goods to be assembled.

[0030] A220. Generate a preliminary sub-scheme based on the goods to be combined.

[0031] A230. Verify the feasibility of the undetermined sub-scheme.

[0032] A240. If the verification passes, the undetermined sub-scheme will be taken as the third sub-scheme.

[0033] A250. If the verification fails, the pending sub-scheme is cancelled.

[0034] A260. After all the pending sub-schemes have been verified, select the iron cores that meet the preset combination conditions from the remaining iron cores in each task order, and form the corresponding second sub-scheme.

[0035] A270. Form the first sub-scheme based on the iron cores that have not been selected in each task list.

[0036] The preset consolidation condition is that multiple iron cores have similar destinations. However, it should be noted that in this embodiment, the criteria for determining similar destinations include not only that the transportation distance between two destinations is similar, but also that the two destinations are within the coverage area of ​​the same distribution center, and that the two destinations are on the same main transportation line and pass through one or more transfer stations. If any one of these three conditions is met, the corresponding iron core meets the preset consolidation condition.

[0037] The preset combination conditions are that the iron cores are sent to the same destination and have similar logistics time requirements.

[0038] In addition, the generation of goods to be combined requires traversing all combinations between iron cores in the task list. Any iron core combination that meets the splicing conditions will become the goods to be combined. For example, if iron core A meets the preset splicing conditions with iron core B and iron core C respectively, then goods to be combined (AB) and goods to be combined (AC) will be generated.

[0039] After forming the third sub-scheme, the second sub-scheme, and the first sub-scheme in sequence using the above method, it is still necessary to construct multiple splicing schemes based on each sub-scheme.

[0040] The principle of construction is that the same core cannot be used multiple times in a splicing scheme, and a splicing scheme needs to include the cores of all task orders.

[0041] Task 1 includes cores A, B, and C; Task 2 includes cores D, E, and F. The resulting third sub-scheme includes Scheme 1 between cores A and D, and Scheme 2 between cores A and E; the resulting second sub-scheme includes Scheme 3 between cores B and C, and Scheme 4 between cores D and F; the resulting first sub-scheme includes Scheme 5 for core E and Scheme 6 for core F. Ultimately, two possible combinations can be formed: the first combination consists of Schemes 1, 3, 5, and 6; the second combination consists of Schemes 2, 3, and 4. Both combination schemes include all cores and collectively cover all sub-schemes.

[0042] In one embodiment, generating a preliminary sub-scheme based on the goods to be combined includes the following steps: A221. Determine the location of the transit point based on the respective destinations of the goods to be combined.

[0043] A222. Generate logistics information based on the location of the transit point and the destination.

[0044] A223. Generate packaging information based on the goods to be combined.

[0045] The location of a transit point corresponds to the consolidation conditions that are met. If the consolidation condition is that the transport distance between the two destinations is similar, the transit point is set at the midpoint between the two destinations; if the consolidation condition is that the two destinations are within the coverage area of ​​the same distribution center, the transit point is set at that distribution center; if the consolidation condition is that the two destinations are on the same main transport route and pass through a transit station, the transit point is set at the transit station.

[0046] If the goods to be combined meet multiple consolidation conditions or pass through multiple transit stations, then multiple transit point locations can be set. Since the transit point locations are different, the resulting logistics information will also be different, thus realizing the formation of multiple undetermined sub-plans from a group of goods to be combined, further increasing the diversity of the plan.

[0047] Logistics information includes combined transport routes and multiple decentralized transport routes. A combined transport route refers to the transport route from the point of origin to the transit point, where goods to be combined are placed together for transport. A decentralized transport route refers to the transport route from the transit point to the destination, where goods to be combined are split at the transit point and transported separately to different destinations.

[0048] Packaging information includes combined packaging information and multiple individual packaging information. Combined packaging information corresponds to combined transportation routes, while multiple individual packaging information corresponds one-to-one with multiple separate transportation routes. Combined packaging information refers to the packaging plan for goods to be combined at the point of shipment; individual packaging information refers to the packaging plan for individual iron cores after the goods to be combined are separated at the transit point.

[0049] In one embodiment, verifying the feasibility of the proposed sub-scheme includes the following steps: A231. Estimate the packaging time, transit and splitting time, combined transportation time, and multiple independent transportation times for the undetermined sub-schemes.

[0050] A232. Calculate the arrival time of the corresponding goods to be combined based on the packing time, transit splitting time, combined transportation time, and corresponding independent transportation time, and determine whether the arrival time of each combined goods is earlier than the corresponding latest delivery time.

[0051] A233. If all arrival times are earlier than and / or equal to the corresponding latest delivery time, then the corresponding pending sub-scheme is feasible.

[0052] A234. If any delivery time is later than the corresponding latest delivery time, the corresponding pending sub-solution is not feasible.

[0053] Each of the multiple independent transport times corresponds one-to-one with a different iron core in the cargo to be combined.

[0054] Packing time is the estimated time for packaging goods to be combined based on the combined packaging information. Transit and splitting time is the estimated time for separating the goods to be combined from the combined packaging and then packaging them according to their respective individual packaging information. Consolidated transport time is the estimated time for completing the transport on the consolidated transport route, and independent transport time is the estimated time for completing the transport on the dispersed transport routes.

[0055] The arrival time is obtained by adding the packing time, transit and splitting time, combined transportation time, and corresponding independent transportation time to the current time.

[0056] In one embodiment, forming a corresponding second sub-solution includes the following steps: A261. The selected iron cores are stacked or placed side by side, and each combination is traversed to form a sub-scheme to be recommended.

[0057] A262. Determine whether the total weight and dimensions of the sub-schemes to be recommended are within the corresponding preset load limits.

[0058] A263. If all are within the corresponding preset bearing limits, then the sub-scheme to be recommended shall be the second sub-scheme.

[0059] Each recommended sub-plan also includes packaging and logistics information.

[0060] The preset load-bearing limit includes both the load-bearing limit of the packaging materials and the load-bearing limit of the transportation vehicle.

[0061] In one embodiment, generating an optimized solution includes the following steps: B210. Select iron cores that meet the preset combination conditions from each task list and form the corresponding second sub-scheme.

[0062] B220. Form the first sub-scheme based on the iron cores that have not been selected in each task list.

[0063] The generation methods of the second and first sub-schemes in the optimized scheme are the same as those in the splicing scheme, and will not be repeated here.

[0064] Furthermore, similar to the final generation method of the splicing scheme, even if there is only one task order, if the iron core in the task order has multiple combinations to form multiple second sub-schemes, then multiple optimized schemes can also be formed according to different combinations of the second sub-schemes and the corresponding generated first sub-schemes.

[0065] In one embodiment, the comprehensive score is calculated for the initial scheme, the optimized scheme, and the composite scheme, respectively. The comprehensive score calculation includes the following steps: S310. Calculate the combined cost of the initial plan, the optimized plan, and the combined plan, respectively.

[0066] S320. Based on the overall cost of the initial solution, calculate the cost scores of the optimized solution and the composite solution respectively. The cost score of the initial solution is a preset default value.

[0067] S330. Evaluate the space utilization score, risk score, and work efficiency score of the initial plan, the optimized plan, and the splicing plan respectively.

[0068] S340. Calculate the comprehensive scores of the initial scheme, the optimized scheme, and the composite scheme according to the following formulas: S = α × (cost score) + β × (space utilization score) + γ × (operational efficiency score) - λ × (risk score), where α, β, γ, and λ are all preset weights.

[0069] Cost score refers to the score obtained by converting the cost savings of the optimized or complementary solution compared to the initial solution.

[0070] The default value is 0 points. This is because the cost of the initial solution is set as the benchmark for comparison. No matter what the cost of the initial solution is, it cannot save costs further. Therefore, the cost score of the initial solution is 0 points.

[0071] Space utilization score refers to the score evaluated based on the efficiency of overall space utilization in the plan. In this embodiment, space utilization includes pallet utilization and transportation vehicle utilization. Pallet utilization is the degree to which the materials (including protective structures) on a single pallet utilize the effective space of the pallet; transportation vehicle utilization is the degree to which all pallet units (including pallets and protective structures) utilize the effective volume of the transportation vehicle.

[0072] The reason for using both pallet utilization rate and vehicle utilization rate to represent space utilization is to account for the potential distortion of a single indicator. For example, if the outer dimensions of the pallet do not match the volume of the vehicle (such as multiple small pallets failing to fill the vehicle's capacity), the pallet utilization rate will be high, but the vehicle utilization rate will be extremely low, thus increasing transportation costs. Conversely, in order to fill the vehicle's capacity (such as a 10-ton long-haul truck), pallets of different sizes may be forcibly combined, resulting in poor pallet stability (center of gravity shift, material compression), leading to high vehicle utilization rate but low pallet utilization rate.

[0073] Pallet utilization rate is obtained by dividing the sum of the material volumes involved in the plan by the sum of the pallet volumes. The pallet volume is calculated by multiplying the pallet's length by its width and then by the maximum allowable stacking height.

[0074] Transportation vehicle utilization rate is obtained by dividing the sum of the material volumes involved in the plan by the transportation supply volume.

[0075] When the pallet utilization rate is ≤40% and 30% < the transportation vehicle utilization rate is ≤40%, or when the transportation vehicle utilization rate is ≤30%, the former has a moderate transportation vehicle utilization rate but serious waste of pallet space, and the latter has serious waste of transportation vehicle space. Therefore, the space utilization rate assessment for both is low utilization rate, and the corresponding score is 60 points.

[0076] When 40% < pallet utilization rate ≤ 80% and 30% < transport vehicle utilization rate ≤ 40%, both transport vehicle utilization rate and pallet utilization rate are moderate, there is no serious waste, and the optimal efficiency has not been achieved. The space utilization rate is assessed as moderate, and the corresponding score is 75 points.

[0077] When the pallet utilization rate is >80% and the transportation vehicle utilization rate is ≤40% or >40%, the former has a moderate transportation utilization rate but maximizes pallet space utilization, while the latter has the best transportation scale efficiency. Both are evaluated as high utilization rates, and the corresponding score is 90 points.

[0078] It should be noted that when the utilization rate of the transport vehicle is >40%, there may be cases where the pallet utilization rate is ≤40%. It is necessary to additionally verify whether the low pallet utilization rate is due to safety constraints (such as overweight materials / irregularly shaped materials that cannot be stacked). If the low pallet utilization rate is due to safety constraints, the judgment of high utilization rate will be maintained; if the low pallet utilization rate is not due to safety constraints, 10 points will be deducted from the high utilization rate (the final score is 80 points) to avoid designing loading schemes for the purpose of increasing the transport loading rate without reason.

[0079] Similarly, considering that specific optimization methods may be favored or rejected in actual application scenarios, the space utilization score will be additionally affected by specific optimization methods, with each specific optimization method corresponding to an increase or decrease in pre-sale scores. For example, in a certain solution using stacking optimization, the pallet utilization rate is 55.0%, and the matched score should be 75 points. However, stacking optimization reduces the floor space by 50%, which aligns with the priority consideration of "floor space" in industrial scenarios. Therefore, the solution using stacking optimization will receive an additional 15 points on top of the original matched score, resulting in a final score of 90 points. As another example, in a parallel pallet solution, two iron cores are combined into one pallet. Due to the large material space, an additional wooden frame is required for protection. Although the calculated pallet utilization rate reaches 83.6%, and the matched score should be 90 points, "space flexibility of the frameless solution" is more important in industrial scenarios. Therefore, 15 points are deducted, resulting in a final space utilization score of 75 points.

[0080] Another unique aspect of space utilization is that consolidation solutions involve both the space utilization rates of merged and dispersed transport routes. Considering that the utilization rate of dispersed transport often depends on the local order density and consolidation capabilities of the distribution center, and is unrelated to the "cross-order consolidation logic" of the consolidation solution itself—the core value of consolidation solutions lies in solving the scale problem of trunk transportation, not the order consolidation problem of regional distribution—and that in industrial logistics, regional distribution costs account for a lower proportion than trunk transportation costs, and that order consolidation at the distribution center is an independent operational optimization step, including it in the core scoring of consolidation solutions would misjudge the true optimization value of the solution. Therefore, for consolidation solutions, the space utilization rate is the space utilization rate corresponding to the merged transport routes.

[0081] Similar to space utilization scores, operational efficiency and risk scores are also set in three levels. The operational efficiency score assesses operational complexity, categorized as simple, medium, and complex, with corresponding scores of 80, 70, and 60 points respectively. The risk score assesses transportation risk, categorized as low, medium, and high, with corresponding scores of 30, 40, and 50 points respectively. Considering that both assessments are difficult to quantify, in this embodiment, complexity and transportation risk are assessed manually before being input into the system.

[0082] In this embodiment, the weights are: α=0.4, β=0.3, γ=0.2, λ=0.1, meaning that cost is the priority when selecting a solution.

[0083] To make it easier to understand, let's assume there are two task orders, and generate an initial solution, an optimized solution, and a combination solution to illustrate the differences between the different solutions.

[0084] Task sheet O1: Contains iron cores A, C, and E, all to be sent to Shanghai. Core A: Weight 2.2 tons, volume 2.5 m³ Iron core C: Weight 1.8 tons, volume 2.0 m³ Iron core E: weighs 1.5 tons, has a volume of 1.8 m³. Latest delivery time: 3 days later Task order O2: Includes iron cores B and D, both destined for Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province; Core B: Weight 2.0 tons, volume 2.2 m³ Iron core D: Weight 1.6 tons, volume 1.9 m³ Latest delivery time: 3 days later Task Sheet O1: Core A: Individual pallet (reinforced) Iron Core C: Individual Pallet (Standard Type) Iron Core E: Individual Pallet (Standard Type) Packaging cost = 488 + 194 + 194 = 876 yuan Transportation cost = 1200 yuan (5-ton truck directly to Shanghai) Task sheet O2: Iron Core B: Individual Pallet (Reinforced) Iron Core D: Individual Pallet (Standard Type) Packaging cost = 488 + 194 = 682 yuan Transportation cost = 1000 yuan (5-ton truck directly to Hangzhou) Total cost = 876 + 682 + 1200 + 1000 = 3758 yuan Pallet space utilization rate ≈ 38.7% Transportation vehicle utilization rate ≈ 28.7% Task Sheet O1: Iron core A+C combined tray (custom wooden frame) Iron Core E: Individual Pallet (Standard Type) Packaging cost = 672 + 194 = 866 yuan Task sheet O2: Iron core B+D combined tray (custom wooden frame) Packaging cost = 672 yuan Transportation cost: 1200 + 1000 = 2200 yuan Total cost = 866 + 672 + 2200 = 3738 yuan Pallet space utilization rate ≈ 72.5% Space utilization rate of transportation vehicles ≈ 32.3% Group buying: Iron core A+B combined support (custom wooden frame) Task Sheet O1: Iron core C+E combined support (custom wooden frame) Task sheet O2: Iron core D individual pallet Total packaging cost = 672 + 672 + 194 = 1538 yuan Transportation plan: Combined transportation: Cost = 1500 yuan (10-ton truck to East China first-level distribution center) Transit point breakdown: Cost = 50 yuan Distributed transportation (C+E): Cost = 200 yuan (5-ton truck from East China first-level distribution center to Shanghai) Distributed transportation (D): Cost = 150 yuan (5-ton truck from East China first-level distribution center to Hangzhou) Total transportation cost = 1500 + 50 + 200 + 150 = 1900 yuan Total cost = 1538 + 1900 = 3438 yuan Feasibility assessment of the splicing: Geographic compatibility: Shanghai and Hangzhou are both within the coverage area of ​​the East China Tier 1 distribution center. Time compatibility: Current time + 1 day (transportation to East China first-level distribution center) + 0.5 days (splitting at transit point) + 0.5 days (delivery from transit point to destination) = 2 days ≤ 3 days (latest delivery) Physical compatibility: 2.5m³ (core A) + 2.2m³ (core B) = 4.7m³ ≤ standard pallet combination limit Pallet space utilization rate ≈ 67.3% Transportation vehicle utilization rate ≈ 42% In addition, according to manual evaluation, the three schemes were classified as simple, medium and complex, with corresponding work efficiency scores of 80, 70 and 60, respectively; and the corresponding risk coefficients were low, medium and high, with corresponding risk scores of 30, 40 and 50, respectively.

[0085] Initial solution score: Cost score = (3758 - 3758) / 3758 × 100 × 0.4 = 0 Spatial score = 60 × 0.3 = 18 Efficiency score = 80 × 0.2 = 16 Risk deduction = 30 × 0.1 = 3 Total score = 0 + 18 + 16 - 3 = 31 Optimization Score: Cost score = (3758 - 3738) / 3758 × 100 × 0.4 = 0.21 Space score = 60 × 0.3 = 18 (points deducted for wooden frame) Efficiency score = 70 × 0.2 = 14 Risk deduction = 40 × 0.1 = 4 Total score = 0.21 + 18 + 14 - 4 = 28.21 Score for the puzzle design: Cost score = (3758 - 3438) / 3758 × 100 × 0.4 = 3.41 Spatial score = 75 × 0.3 = 22.5 (points deducted for wooden frame) Efficiency score = 60 × 0.2 = 12 Risk deduction = 50 × 0.1 = 5 Total score = 3.41 + 22.5 + 12 - 5 = 32.91 It can be seen that by optimizing cross-order carpooling, the economies of scale of trunk transportation are fully utilized while ensuring timely delivery, and the cost optimization of the entire chain of packaging and transportation is achieved, which fully demonstrates the advantages in complex scenarios with multiple orders.

[0086] The technical features of the above embodiments can be combined in any way. For the sake of brevity, not all possible combinations of the technical features in the above embodiments are described. However, as long as there is no contradiction in the combination of these technical features, they should be considered to be within the scope of this specification.

[0087] The embodiments described above are merely illustrative of several implementations of the present invention, and while the descriptions are relatively specific and detailed, they should not be construed as limiting the scope of the invention patent. It should be noted that those skilled in the art can make various modifications and improvements without departing from the concept of the present invention, and these all fall within the protection scope of the present invention. Therefore, the protection scope of this invention patent should be determined by the appended claims.

Claims

1. A method for generating a packaging and transportation scheme for transformer cores, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: Obtain the task order for the goods to be packaged and store the task order in a preset temporary database. The task order includes core data, logistics data and business constraint data. Based on preset triggering conditions, an initial plan, several optimized plans, and several palletizing plans are generated according to the task orders in the temporary library. The initial plan contains only several first sub-plans formed by individually packaging a single iron core. The optimized plan contains a second sub-plan formed by combining and packaging iron cores from a single task order, as well as several first sub-plans. The palletizing plan contains a third sub-plan formed by combining and packaging iron cores from multiple task orders, as well as several first and / or second sub-plans. Each sub-plan contains corresponding packaging and logistics information. Calculate the comprehensive scores for the initial scheme, the optimized scheme, and the composite scheme respectively; The solution with the highest overall score is selected as the optimal solution.

2. The method for generating a transformer core packaging and transportation scheme as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The method for generating the splicing scheme includes the following steps: Select iron cores that meet the preset loading conditions from several task orders as the goods to be assembled; Generate a preliminary scheme based on the goods to be combined; Verify the feasibility of the proposed sub-scheme. If the verification passes, the undetermined sub-scheme will be designated as the third sub-scheme. If the verification fails, the pending sub-scheme is cancelled; After all pending sub-schemes have been verified, cores that meet the preset combination conditions are selected from the remaining cores in each task order, and corresponding second sub-schemes are formed. The corresponding first sub-schemes are formed based on the cores that were not selected in each task order.

3. The method for generating a transformer core packaging and transportation scheme as described in claim 2, characterized in that: The process of generating a preliminary sub-scheme based on the goods to be combined includes the following steps: Determine the location of the transit point based on the respective destinations of the goods to be combined; Logistics information is generated based on the location of transit points and destinations. This logistics information includes merged transportation routes and multiple dispersed transportation routes. Packaging information is generated based on the goods to be combined. The packaging information includes combined packaging information and multiple independent packaging information. The combined packaging information corresponds to the combined transportation route, and the multiple independent packaging information corresponds one-to-one with multiple dispersed transportation routes.

4. The method for generating a transformer core packaging and transportation scheme as described in claim 1, characterized in that: Generating an optimization solution includes the following steps: Select iron cores that meet the preset combination conditions from each task list and form the corresponding second sub-scheme; The first sub-scheme is formed based on the iron cores that were not selected in each task list.

5. A method for generating a transformer core packaging and transportation scheme as described in any one of claims 2 or 4, characterized in that: The corresponding second sub-solution is formed by the following steps: The selected iron cores are stacked or placed side by side to traverse each combination to form a sub-solution to be recommended. Each recommended sub-solution includes packaging information and logistics information. Determine whether the total weight and dimensions of the sub-solution to be recommended are within the corresponding preset load-bearing limits; If all are within the corresponding preset load-bearing limits, then the sub-scheme to be recommended will be the second sub-scheme.

6. The method for generating a transformer core packaging and transportation scheme as described in claim 2, characterized in that: The feasibility verification of the proposed sub-scheme includes the following steps: The estimated packaging time, transit and splitting time, combined transportation time, and multiple independent transportation times for the proposed sub-schemes are calculated. The multiple independent transportation times correspond one-to-one with the multiple iron cores in the goods to be combined. The arrival time of the corresponding goods to be combined is calculated based on the packing time, transit and splitting time, combined transportation time and corresponding independent transportation time. It is then determined whether the arrival time of each combined goods is earlier than the corresponding latest delivery time. If all arrival times are earlier than and / or equal to the corresponding latest delivery time, then the corresponding pending sub-scheme is feasible; If any delivery time is later than the corresponding latest delivery time, the corresponding pending sub-solution is not feasible.

7. The method for generating a transformer core packaging and transportation scheme as described in claim 1, characterized in that: Calculate the comprehensive score for the initial scheme, the optimized scheme, and the combined scheme separately. The comprehensive score calculation includes the following steps: Calculate the combined cost of the initial plan, the optimized plan, and the combined plan respectively; Based on the overall cost of the initial plan, the cost scores of the optimized plan and the composite plan are calculated respectively, with the cost score of the initial plan being a preset default value; Evaluate the space utilization score, risk score, and work efficiency score of the initial plan, the optimized plan, and the splicing plan respectively; The comprehensive scores for the initial scheme, the optimized scheme, and the composite scheme are calculated using the following formulas: S = α × (cost score) + β × (space utilization score) + γ × (operational efficiency score) - λ × (risk score), where α, β, γ, and λ are all preset weights.

Images