Intelligent production scheduling and equipment state monitoring method for stamping production line

Abstract

The present application relates to a stamping production line intelligent scheduling and equipment state monitoring method, obtains work orders and scheduling tasks, generates scheduling execution sequences; the sequence is divided into at least two continuous execution sections according to any boundary of die change completion, first piece confirmation or continuous stamping upper limit; a set of release evidence points is set for each execution section, the evidence points include at least one of die change completion, first piece detection passing, stamping permission signal and protection loop stability; the evidence points are collected and consistency verified in real time during execution, if satisfied, the next section is released; if not satisfied or the evidence points are inconsistent, the protection loop is unstable or the stamping permission is abnormal, the unreleased section is frozen and the reason code is output; according to the reason code, the unreleased section is sequentially adjusted, migrated or inserted with a review point, and the stamping frequency or the beat is limited, an updated sequence is generated and the release judgment is repeated. Through the execution section division and the evidence point verification, combined with the reason code and the hierarchical restriction, the stamping scheduling safety controllability and balance are realized.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of industrial automation and intelligent manufacturing technology, specifically to a method for intelligent scheduling and equipment status monitoring of stamping production lines. Background Technology

[0002] Current technologies, such as CN116382222A (a publication numbered CN116382222A), which describes an unmanned intelligent stamping system and method, have achieved automated control and collaborative operation of multiple sub-stages in the production process. At the planning level, they have implemented automatic scheduling and dynamic correction capabilities based on element data, thus possessing the rudiments of an unmanned intelligent architecture. However, they still have many shortcomings in refined operation control, fault response, and safety and stability assurance. While this solution covers modules for raw material management, mold handling, quality inspection, and packing processes, and can adjust plans based on production events, its intelligent methods focus more on material handling chains and plan adjustment mechanisms, lacking real-time and accurate perception of equipment status fluctuations and deep linkage strategies. Regarding equipment safety signals such as protection circuits and stamping permissible states, this method has not established a restriction control model based on abnormal pattern recognition. In particular, it lacks a linkage restriction and gradual unlocking mechanism between production rhythm and equipment operating status. This results in a lack of step-by-step response capability in the initial stage of equipment operation abnormalities, potentially causing fault signals to be defaulted into the production process by the planning system before verification and closure, posing a risk of erroneous release of abnormalities. This scheme lacks a structured identification and state-level hierarchical control mechanism for the execution stages. Specifically, it doesn't differentiate signal judgment requirements for the execution units in the first-piece confirmation stage, mold-changing stage, and batch stamping stage. This results in a lack of boundary control in abnormal or incomplete signal chain situations, easily leading to signal instability and dependence on signals during production. Its signal consistency verification strategy is relatively simple, lacking multi-point verification methods for signal timing synchronization and delay jitter. It cannot effectively prevent the short-term cancellation of stamping permission signals or the discontinuity of protection circuit signals from being overlooked at the moment of release, leading to potential misjudgments in release decisions.

[0003] While this method emphasizes plan correction and adaptive adjustment during execution, its triggering mechanism relies primarily on production event records. It lacks behavioral aggregation analysis under statistical windows and parameter threshold triggering logic. Specifically, it fails to establish an anomaly exponential quantification model based on cause codes and cannot determine whether equipment should switch from a release-ready state to a restricted release or frozen state through mathematical mechanisms that leverage the weight decay and continuity enhancement of abnormal behavior over time. In scenarios involving intermittent protection circuits and frequent anomalies in stamping permission signals, without an exponential triggering mechanism, the system may remain in a laissez-faire scheduling state for extended periods, making it difficult to detect abnormal trends in a timely manner and to mitigate risks through restricted release control strategies. The response mode after anomalies occurs mainly involves global correction or suspension, lacking a release control approach that limits participation and verifies each segment, which is detrimental to maintaining stable, low-risk operation of the system during non-fatal anomalies. Current technology lacks a tiered release qualification management mechanism. For equipment in a frozen state, there is a lack of mandatory review and release condition verification links. The system cannot determine whether to allow gradual release and restart production scheduling strategies. It also lacks a mechanism for continuous satisfaction and stability verification of evidence point sets. Therefore, its state release method appears passive and relies on external manual intervention.

[0004] Regarding cycle time and stroke control, while the scheme mentions cycle time adjustment capabilities, it fails to set corresponding limit parameter groups based on anomaly types. It does not force a shift to a safe cycle time when the protection loop becomes unstable, nor does it limit the scale of continuous strokes when evidence points are missing. This allows the system to maintain high cycle time operation even with incomplete signals or link anomalies, expanding the scope of risk impact and violating the principle of conservative execution. Furthermore, in cases of repeated anomalies, the system does not record the lockout state of the freezing cause, preventing the implementation of stricter secondary limit strategies. This leads to the continuous erosion of system stability by recurring anomaly issues. Summary of the Invention

[0005] The purpose of this invention is to provide a method for intelligent scheduling and equipment status monitoring of stamping production lines, thereby solving some of the drawbacks and shortcomings pointed out in the background art.

[0006] The technical solution adopted by the present invention to solve the above-mentioned technical problems is as follows: a method for intelligent scheduling and equipment status monitoring of a stamping production line, comprising: acquiring work orders and scheduling tasks, generating a scheduling execution sequence; dividing the sequence into at least two consecutive execution segments according to any boundary of mold change completion, first piece confirmation, or upper limit of consecutive stamping times; Set a set of release evidence points for each execution segment. The evidence points include at least one of the following: mold change completion, first piece inspection passed, stamping allow signal, and protection circuit stability. During execution, collect and verify the evidence points in real time. If they are satisfied, release the next segment. If they are not satisfied, or the evidence points are inconsistent, the protection circuit is unstable, or the stamping allow signal is abnormal, freeze the unreleased segment and output the reason code. Based on the reason code, the unreleased segments are reordered, migrated, or inserted for verification and inspection, and the number of strokes is limited or the cycle time is reduced. An update sequence is generated and the release judgment is repeated.

[0007] Furthermore, the division of the continuous execution segment includes taking the confirmation of mold change completion as the segment start boundary when a mold change event is detected; taking the confirmation of first piece inspection as the release boundary when a first piece inspection is detected; and taking the moment when the continuous stroke count reaches the upper limit of strokes set by the system parameters as the segment end boundary, so as to form a continuous segment structure of mold change segment, first piece confirmation segment and batch stamping segment.

[0008] Furthermore, the consistency verification adopts the following methods: if the mold change completion confirmation is established and the stamping allow signal is not established within the verification time window, the mold change completion evidence point is determined to be inconsistent; if the first piece inspection pass confirmation is established and the protection circuit stability signal is discontinuous within the verification time window, the first piece inspection pass evidence point is determined to be inconsistent; if the inconsistency is determined, the unreleased section is frozen.

[0009] Furthermore, the identification of the cause code includes at least evidence point missing, evidence point conflict, protection circuit instability, and stamping allowable abnormality; when the number of times the same cause code appears in the statistical window meets the triggering condition, the release status of the corresponding equipment is switched from releaseable to limited release, and in the limited release status, release judgment is only performed on the execution segment containing the first piece confirmation boundary.

[0010] Furthermore, the restriction on the number of strokes or the reduction of the beat rate adopts a two-level restriction strategy: when the freezing reason first appears, a first restriction parameter group is used, which includes a first stroke limit and a first beat rate; when the same freezing reason appears again within the statistical window, a second restriction parameter group is used, which includes a second stroke limit and a second beat rate; when the evidence point set continuously meets the release condition, the restriction is lifted and the judgment continues.

[0011] Furthermore, the triggering conditions include the number of times the same reason code appears within the statistical window meeting a first threshold, or the number of consecutive occurrences of the same reason code within the statistical window meeting a second threshold; wherein, an anomaly triggering index is calculated based on the occurrence behavior of reason codes within the statistical window. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0012] in, This is the abnormal trigger index, used to determine whether the triggering condition is met; To count the number of observations of the cause code within the window; For the first The labeled value of the nth observation, when the nth When the same reason code as the current reason code is observed for the next time =1, otherwise =0; The time decay coefficient is set by the system parameters, satisfying This is used to reduce the impact of earlier observations on current decisions; This is the maximum number of consecutive occurrences of the reason code within the statistics window; The continuity weighting coefficient is set by system parameters to enhance the impact of consecutive occurrences on trigger determination; when When the first trigger threshold is reached, it is determined that the first threshold is met and the corresponding device is switched to the restricted access state. When the second trigger threshold is reached, it is determined that the second threshold is met and the corresponding device is switched to a frozen state and the subsequent execution segment is prohibited from being released, wherein the second trigger threshold is greater than the first trigger threshold; the restricted release state or frozen state is lifted and the release judgment is restored when the protection circuit is stable and the stamping allow signal simultaneously meets the release conditions within the verification time window.

[0013] Furthermore, the release judgment under the limited release state is not only limited to the execution segment containing the first piece confirmation boundary, but also includes the requirement that the first piece detection pass confirmation must be satisfied simultaneously with the stamping allow signal within a preset verification time window, and the protection circuit stability signal must be uninterrupted within the verification time window before the subsequent execution segment can be released.

[0014] Furthermore, the selection of the first and second limit parameter groups is related to the reason for freezing. When the reason for freezing is the instability of the protection circuit, the corresponding first cycle is set to the safe cycle position and the upper limit of the first stroke is set to the upper limit of the stroke in the first piece confirmation section. When the reason for freezing is the abnormality of the stamping allowance, the corresponding first cycle is set to the start cycle position and the upper limit of the first stroke is set to the preset upper limit of the stroke in the trial run. When the reason for freezing is the lack of evidence points or the conflict of evidence points, the corresponding first limit parameter group is used to maintain the conservative execution section waiting for evidence recovery.

[0015] Furthermore, the two-level restriction strategy adopts the following approach: when the same freezing reason reappears in the statistics window and switches to the second restriction parameter group, the restriction status of the freezing reason is recorded as a locked state. In the locked state, only the execution segment containing the first confirmation boundary is allowed to be released, and the execution segment is subject to mandatory review before the release judgment is allowed to continue.

[0016] Furthermore, the release conditions include the continuous satisfaction condition and the stability condition of the evidence point set. The continuous satisfaction condition is that the evidence point set meets the release requirements in multiple consecutive execution segments. The stability condition is that the stable signal of the protection circuit is uninterrupted within the verification time window and the stamping allow signal is continuously valid within the verification time window. The first restriction parameter group or the second restriction parameter group is released when both the continuous satisfaction condition and the stability condition are met.

[0017] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows: The production scheduling execution sequence of the stamping production line is divided into multiple continuous execution segments based on the critical process boundaries of die change completion, first piece confirmation, and the upper limit of continuous stamping. A consistency verification and segmented release mechanism based on evidence points is introduced into each execution segment, transforming the traditional one-time issuance of scheduling decisions into controllable segmented execution. During the scheduling execution process, key evidence points such as die change completion, first piece inspection, stamping permission signals, and protection circuit stability are collected and verified in real time. If inconsistencies in evidence points, instability in the protection circuit, or abnormal stamping permission are detected, subsequent unreleased execution segments can be frozen immediately, and a clear cause code can be output. This effectively prevents abnormal states from being amplified and propagated in the production line, significantly reducing equipment malfunctions, die damage, and batch quality risks, and improving the executability of the scheduling plan in actual production and the safety of equipment operation.

[0018] A control strategy combining cause code statistics, threshold triggering, and two-level limit parameter groups is introduced to enable direct feedback of equipment status changes and drive production scheduling adjustments. When an abnormal state occurs for the first time, the system mitigates the risk by limiting release, restricting strokes, or reducing cycle time. When the abnormality reappears within the statistical window, it escalates to a frozen state and implements stricter restrictions or locking strategies until the relevant evidence points continuously meet the release conditions across multiple execution segments before release can be restored. This mechanism achieves a dynamic balance between production scheduling rhythm, equipment status, and safety constraints, avoiding capacity losses caused by frequent line stoppages and preventing the blind pursuit of efficiency when equipment status is unstable, thereby improving the overall stability, production continuity, and intelligent management level of the stamping production line. Attached Figure Description

[0019] Figure 1 This is a diagram showing the relationship between the intelligent scheduling and equipment monitoring functions of the stamping production line of this invention.

[0020] Figure 2 This is a logic diagram for abnormal control of the stamping execution section of the present invention.

[0021] Figure 3 This is a diagram showing the functional relationship between stamping and release limits in this invention.

[0022] Figure 4 This is a diagram showing the stamping permission signal and freeze determination within a 10-second verification time window after mold change completion confirmation in Embodiment 1 of the present invention.

[0023] Figure 5 This is a graph showing the number of reason codes and the triggering of the release restriction in the statistics window in Embodiment 1 of the present invention.

[0024] Figure 6 This is a diagram showing the composition of the abnormal triggering index E and the threshold determination in Embodiment 1 of the present invention.

[0025] Figure 7This is an example diagram illustrating the consistency of verification windows and signals in three consecutive first-piece confirmation execution segments under the limited release state in Embodiment 2 of the present invention.

[0026] Figure 8 This is an example diagram showing the changes over time of the freezing cause-related restriction parameter group and the parameters under the locked state in Embodiment 2 of the present invention.

[0027] Figure 9 This is an example diagram of the release condition determination and the restoration of secondary restriction parameters after release in Embodiment 2 of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0028] The specific embodiments of the present invention will now be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0029] Combined with appendix Figure 1 This invention discloses an intelligent scheduling and equipment status monitoring method for stamping production lines. It obtains work order information and corresponding scheduling task information for the current stamping production line from the production management system. The work order information includes at least the work order number, product model, process parameters, and planned production quantity. The scheduling task information includes at least the target equipment, expected production cycle time, and execution sequence. Based on the work order information and scheduling task information, the work orders to be produced are sorted and combined to generate a scheduling execution sequence to guide the stamping production line, ensuring that the scheduling execution sequence reflects the sequential relationship of the work orders in both time and equipment dimensions.

[0030] After generating the production scheduling execution sequence, the sequence is segmented, with key process nodes in the stamping production process serving as execution boundaries. When the stamping equipment completes a die-changing operation and outputs a die-changing completion confirmation signal, this confirmation is used as the starting boundary of a new execution segment to ensure that the production process after the die change is independently controlled within the new segment. When the first piece inspection is passed and a first piece confirmation signal is output, this confirmation is used as the release boundary of the execution segment to distinguish between the trial operation phase and the mass production phase. When the number of continuous stamping operations reaches the system's preset upper limit, the moment when the upper limit is reached is used as the termination boundary of the current execution segment to prevent the equipment from running continuously for extended periods within a single execution segment.

[0031] The set of release evidence points includes at least one or more of the following: mold change completion confirmation, first piece inspection pass confirmation, stamping permission signal, and protection circuit stability signal. Different execution stages can select different combinations of evidence points according to their production stage, so that the release conditions match the stamping process.

[0032] During production scheduling, the system collects release evidence points for each execution segment in real time and performs consistency verification on the collected evidence point signals to determine whether the evidence points meet the expected release relationship in terms of time and logic. When the verification result shows that all release evidence points in the current execution segment meet the preset conditions, the system issues a release command to the stamping production line, allowing the production scheduling to proceed to the next execution segment, thereby realizing the segmented and controlled advancement of the production scheduling process.

[0033] When the verification result shows that the release evidence point does not meet the preset conditions, or a logical inconsistency is detected between evidence points, or a protection circuit becomes unstable or the stamping permission signal is abnormal during execution, the system immediately freezes the subsequent execution segment that has not yet been released, preventing it from being issued and executed, and simultaneously outputs the cause code corresponding to the abnormal state to identify the specific reason for the freeze.

[0034] When an unreleased execution segment is frozen and a corresponding reason code is output due to the failure to meet the release evidence points, the system performs targeted production scheduling adjustments based on the reason code. The reason code is used to characterize the specific type of exception that triggered the freeze. The system matches corresponding adjustment strategies according to different reason codes to avoid unnecessary overall disturbances to the production line.

[0035] When the reason code indicates that the anomaly is related to the process sequence or resource usage of the current execution segment, the system adjusts the order of the unreleased execution segments, moving high-risk work orders to the back or prioritizing the execution of lower-risk work orders. When the reason code indicates that the anomaly is related to the current stamping equipment status and is not suitable for continued execution on that equipment, the system migrates the work order corresponding to the unreleased execution segment to other stamping equipment with execution conditions. When the reason code indicates that the anomaly is uncertain or requires further confirmation, the system inserts a review or inspection step before the unreleased execution segment to confirm the mold status, equipment status, or process conditions before deciding whether to continue execution.

[0036] While completing the above-mentioned sequence adjustment, migration, or insertion of verification and inspection processes, the system imposes operational restrictions on unreleased execution segments based on the degree of anomaly. This reduces equipment load and operational risks by limiting consecutive strokes or lowering the execution cycle time. Based on the adjusted execution content and operational restrictions, the system generates an updated production scheduling execution sequence and resets the release evidence point set for the updated execution segments. The release judgment process is then repeated, forming a closed-loop control mechanism for production scheduling adjustment and status monitoring driven by reason codes.

[0037] Combined with appendix Figure 2When the system detects that the stamping equipment has undergone a mold change operation and receives a mold change completion confirmation signal, it determines the mold change completion confirmation as the starting boundary of the corresponding execution segment. This is used to mark the production start point after the new mold is put into use, so that subsequent execution segments can start execution on the premise that the mold change has been completed and basic production conditions are met.

[0038] During the execution process after mold change, when the stamping equipment completes the first piece production and the first piece inspection result is deemed qualified, the system receives the first piece inspection pass confirmation signal and uses this confirmation as the release boundary for the execution segment. By using the first piece confirmation as a critical boundary node, the trial operation and verification phase is distinguished from the subsequent batch stamping phase, ensuring that subsequent production scheduling is only allowed to enter batch execution if the first piece quality meets the requirements.

[0039] During batch stamping, the system counts the continuous strokes of the stamping equipment in real time. When the count reaches the upper limit preset by the system parameters, the moment when the upper limit is reached is determined as the termination boundary of the current execution segment, and the production scheduling execution of that segment ends. The production scheduling execution process is divided into a mold change segment, a first piece confirmation segment, and a batch stamping segment, forming a continuous execution segment structure that is interconnected and clearly hierarchical. This provides clear execution units for subsequent release control based on evidence points and dynamic adjustment of production scheduling.

[0040] After receiving the mold change completion confirmation signal, the system starts the corresponding verification time window and continuously monitors the status change of the stamping allow signal within the verification time window. When the mold change completion confirmation has been established but the stamping allow signal has not been detected within the verification time window, the system determines that there is a logical inconsistency between the mold change completion confirmation and the stamping allow condition, and thus concludes that the evidence points for mold change completion are inconsistent, thereby believing that the equipment does not yet meet the conditions for entering the subsequent execution stage.

[0041] After the first article inspection is confirmed, the system also starts the corresponding verification time window and continuously monitors the stability signal of the protection circuit within the verification time window. When the first article inspection has been confirmed but the stability signal of the protection circuit is detected to be intermittently changing within the verification time window, the system determines that there is a logical inconsistency between the first article inspection confirmation and the equipment safety status, and therefore concludes that the evidence points for the first article inspection are inconsistent, indicating that there is a potential risk in the first article confirmation stage.

[0042] When any of the above consistency verification results is determined to be inconsistent in evidence points, the system immediately freezes the subsequent execution segments that have not yet been released, preventing them from being issued and executed, thereby avoiding the advancement of production scheduling in the event of abnormal evidence points or unstable equipment status.

[0043] The cause code includes at least the following: missing evidence point, conflicting evidence point, unstable protection circuit, and abnormal stamping permission. The missing evidence point is used to indicate that the key confirmation signal required for the execution section was not collected or was not formed within the effective time. The conflicting evidence point is used to indicate that there is a logical or temporal inconsistency between different evidence points. The unstable protection circuit is used to indicate that the equipment safety circuit is in an unstable state during execution. The abnormal stamping permission is used to indicate that the equipment does not meet the permission conditions for entering the stamping operation state.

[0044] During operation, the system statistically analyzes various cause codes. When the number of occurrences of the same cause code within a preset statistical window reaches the trigger condition set by the system parameters, it determines that the corresponding anomaly has a recurring or persistent risk, and accordingly switches the release status of the corresponding equipment from "releaseable" to "restricted release." In the restricted release state, the system adopts a more cautious control strategy for production scheduling, allowing release judgments only for execution segments containing first-piece confirmation boundaries. By repeatedly verifying first-piece confirmation and related safety signals, the system assesses whether the equipment status has returned to stability, achieving risk-controlled operation without complete shutdown, and improving the stability and production continuity of the stamping production line under abnormal conditions.

[0045] The hierarchical control adopts a two-level restriction strategy. When a certain freezing cause first appears on the corresponding equipment and triggers the restriction conditions, the system applies the first restriction parameter group to the equipment. By setting the first upper limit of the number of continuous stamping strokes and adjusting the equipment running cycle to the first cycle, the equipment continues to execute the controlled production task in a more conservative operating state, thereby avoiding the abnormality from being further amplified in the early stage.

[0046] When the same freezing cause recurs within a preset statistical window, the system determines that the anomaly carries a risk of repetition or persistence and upgrades the operating restrictions of the corresponding equipment to the second set of restriction parameters. The second set of restriction parameters further tightens the upper limit of consecutive strokes and reduces the equipment's operating cycle time, putting the equipment into a more strictly controlled operating state to prevent continued high-load operation before the anomaly is resolved. In this state, production scheduling is subject to stricter constraints, and limited progress is only allowed when relevant release conditions are met.

[0047] During the execution of the first or second set of restriction parameters, the system continuously monitors and verifies the set of evidence points corresponding to the execution segment. When it is detected that the set of evidence points meets the system's preset release conditions in multiple consecutive execution segments, the system removes the operational restrictions imposed on the corresponding equipment, restores the original release judgment process, and brings the production scheduling execution back to normal control.

[0048] Triggering conditions include the number of times the same reason code appears within a preset statistical window reaching a first threshold, or the number of consecutive occurrences of the same reason code within the statistical window reaching a second threshold. To ensure that trigger determination reflects both the frequency and continuity characteristics of anomalies, the system calculates an anomaly trigger index based on the occurrence behavior of reason codes within the statistical window. The formula for calculating the abnormal trigger index is:

[0049] in, This represents the abnormal trigger index, used to comprehensively determine whether the triggering conditions are met; This indicates the total number of observations of the cause code within the statistics window; Indicates the first The label value corresponding to the nth observation, when the nth observation When the observed reason code matches the currently analyzed reason code =1, otherwise =0; This represents the time decay coefficient set by system parameters, and satisfies... This is used to reduce the weight of earlier cause codes on the current judgment result; Indicates the maximum number of consecutive occurrences of the reason code within the statistics window; This represents the continuity weighting coefficient set by system parameters, used to enhance the influence of continuous abnormal behavior in the judgment process.

[0050] Time decay coefficient Used to adjust the decay rate of historical observations, A smaller α value indicates greater sensitivity to recent data and a faster response time; a larger α value retains a longer historical memory. The continuity weighting coefficient λ is taken as... This value reflects the risk amplification effect of continuous anomalies relative to discrete anomalies; the higher the continuous risk, the larger the value. First trigger threshold. With the second trigger threshold and > It can be statistically calibrated based on historical normal and abnormal period data: for example, ... To control the false alarm rate, the index was set to a high quantile of the normal period exponential distribution. Set to a higher quantile or corresponding unacceptable risk level to achieve tiered triggering from restricted release to freezing; the above parameters can be verified by combining the manufacturer's recommended range with field trial operation regression.

[0051] The abnormal triggering index was calculated. The system then compares the abnormality trigger index with a pre-set trigger threshold. When the abnormality trigger index reaches the first trigger threshold, the system determines that the first threshold condition is met and switches the release status of the corresponding device to a limited release status to restrict the execution intensity of subsequent production scheduling. When the abnormality trigger index reaches the second trigger threshold, the system determines that the second threshold condition is met and switches the release status of the corresponding device to a frozen status, while prohibiting subsequent execution segments from continuing to release. The second trigger threshold is higher than the first trigger threshold and is used to distinguish between general abnormalities and high-risk abnormalities.

[0052] While the equipment is in a restricted release state or a frozen state, the system continuously monitors the set of evidence points corresponding to the execution segment. When the system detects that the protection circuit stability signal and the stamping allow signal simultaneously meet the system's preset release conditions within the verification time window, the system releases the restricted release state or frozen state imposed on the equipment and restores the release judgment for subsequent execution segments, thereby realizing dynamic control and adaptive recovery based on the evolution of abnormal behavior.

[0053] Combined with appendix Figure 3 Under the restricted release state, the system limits the release judgment to the execution segment containing the first piece confirmation boundary, and other types of execution segments do not participate in the release decision, thereby focusing the production scheduling execution on the verification production stage with lower risk and easier monitoring.

[0054] The system synchronously monitors the first-piece inspection pass confirmation signal and the stamping allow signal within a preset verification time window. Only when the first-piece inspection result is confirmed as qualified and the stamping allow signal is valid within the verification time window is the first-piece confirmation condition determined to be met. Simultaneously, the system continuously monitors the protection circuit stability signal within the same verification time window, requiring this signal to remain continuous and stable throughout the entire verification time window without interruption or abnormal changes.

[0055] The system will only allow subsequent execution stages to continue the production scheduling task if all three conditions are met simultaneously within the verification time window: the first piece inspection passes, the stamping permission signal is established, and the protection circuit stability signal remains continuously stable.

[0056] When a device is restricted from operation due to an anomaly, the system differentiates the selection of restriction parameters based on the reason for the freeze before applying the first or second set of restriction parameters. This ensures that the restriction strategy matches the anomaly type, thereby avoiding excessive restriction or insufficient control caused by using a single fixed strategy.

[0057] When the cause of the freeze is the instability of the protection circuit, the system determines that the abnormality is directly related to the safety of equipment operation. Therefore, in the first limit parameter group, the equipment operating cycle time is set to the safe cycle time level, and the upper limit of continuous strokes is set to the upper limit of strokes corresponding to the first piece confirmation section. This allows the equipment to perform controlled production only under low cycle time and short continuous operation conditions, thereby reducing safety risks and facilitating continuous monitoring of the protection circuit status.

[0058] The safety cycle setting is used for conservative operation when safety-related anomalies or increased risks occur, and can be switched from the normal production cycle. The reduction should be determined proportionally and in conjunction with the manufacturer's safety upper limit, for example... ,in A value of 0.6 to 0.8 can be used to meet the requirements for impact, vibration, and mold life margin; the starting cycle speed setting is used for starting / permission link verification and low-load stability confirmation, and can be adopted. ,in A value of 0.7 to 0.9 can be used to verify signal stability and process consistency under medium and low load conditions.

[0059] When the cause of the freeze is an abnormality in the stamping allowance, the system determines that the abnormality is mostly related to the equipment start-up conditions or control signals. Therefore, in the first limit parameter group, the equipment running cycle is set to the start-up cycle gear, and the upper limit of continuous stamping is set to the preset upper limit of trial run stamping, so that the equipment can perform limited execution in a mode close to the start-up phase to verify whether the stamping allowance conditions have returned to normal.

[0060] When the reason for freezing is missing or conflicting evidence points, the system determines that the anomaly is due to incomplete or inconsistent information, rather than failure of the equipment itself or the safety circuit. At this time, the corresponding first limit parameter group is used to maintain a conservative execution state. By limiting the number of consecutive strokes and maintaining a low operating cycle, the equipment is kept in a controllable operating state, and further release is only allowed after the relevant evidence points are restored to completeness or consistency.

[0061] When the same freezing reason reappears within the preset statistical window and triggers the second set of restriction parameters, the system records the restriction status corresponding to that freezing reason as a locked state, indicating that the current equipment is in a high-risk or unstable operating phase. In the locked state, the system implements a stricter control strategy for production scheduling, allowing release operations only for execution segments containing first-piece confirmation boundaries; other types of execution segments are not included in the release judgment, thus limiting production activities to a controllable and easily verifiable range.

[0062] During the execution of this stage, the system synchronously verifies the first piece inspection results, the stamping permission signal, and the protection circuit stability signal. Only after all relevant verification conditions are met is it allowed to continue with the subsequent release judgment, thereby avoiding blindly expanding the production scope before the equipment status is stable.

[0063] Regarding the lifting of restrictions, the system employs a lifting decision mechanism comprised of continuous satisfaction conditions and stability conditions. The continuous satisfaction condition determines whether the anomaly has been eliminated at the execution level, requiring the set of release evidence points to meet the system's preset release requirements across multiple consecutive execution segments. The stability condition determines whether equipment safety and operational permissions have returned to stability, requiring the protection circuit stability signal to remain stable and uninterrupted within the verification time window, while the stamping permission signal remains valid within the same verification time window. Only when both the continuous satisfaction condition and the stability condition are met simultaneously will the system lift the first or second set of restriction parameters applied to the equipment, allowing the equipment to exit the locked or restricted state and resume the normal release decision process, thereby achieving a balance between anomaly control and production recovery.

[0064] Example 1:

[0065] In the stamping workshop of an automotive parts factory, there is a stamping production line consisting of three stamping machines. Machine P1 is used to produce door reinforcement panels. At the start of the morning shift, the system receives a work order with a planned production quantity of 1200 pieces. The die type is M45, and the system parameters are set with a maximum continuous stamping count of 300 times and a verification time window of 10 seconds.

[0066] The system generates a production execution sequence based on work orders and production tasks, and detects that equipment P1 needs to switch from the previous mold to the M45 mold, thus triggering a mold change event. After the mold change operation is completed, the equipment control system sends a mold change completion confirmation signal at 08:15:20. The system identifies this moment as the starting boundary of a new execution segment, forming the starting point of the mold change segment. This process is as follows: Figure 4 As shown in the diagram. At this point, the system does not immediately allow mass production to begin, but instead enters the execution phase related to first article confirmation, in order to avoid starting production before the equipment is stable after mold change.

[0067] During the execution process after the mold change is completed, the equipment completes the first piece stamping and sends it for inspection at 08:17:10. The quality inspection system returns a first piece inspection pass confirmation signal at 08:18:05. The system recognizes this signal as the first piece confirmation event and uses it as the release boundary of the execution segment to distinguish between the trial operation stage and the subsequent batch stamping stage.

[0068] Within a 10-second verification window following the confirmation of mold change completion, the system continuously monitors the stamping permission signal. Data collection shows that the stamping permission signal was not established between 08:15:20 and 08:15:30. Figure 4As shown in the stepped curve, the system determines that the mold change completion confirmation is inconsistent with the stamping allowable conditions, generates a judgment result indicating an inconsistency in the evidence points for mold change completion, and immediately freezes subsequent execution segments that have not yet been released. After the freeze occurs, the system prevents the issuance of batch stamping commands and records the cause code as evidence point conflict, thereby preventing production from starting before the equipment meets the stamping allowable conditions.

[0069] After maintenance personnel confirmed and restored the stamping conditions, the system re-entered the first-piece verification process. Within the verification time window following the second successful first-piece inspection, the protection circuit stability signal experienced two brief interruptions within 10 seconds, occurring at the 4th and 7th seconds respectively. Based on this, the system determined that the first-piece inspection pass confirmation and the protection circuit stability state were inconsistent, identifying a discrepancy in the evidence points for the first-piece inspection pass, and re-froze the unreleased section. This freeze determination was also based on consistency verification rules, effectively preventing production from continuing under unstable safety circuit conditions.

[0070] In the third attempt, after the first piece passed inspection and was confirmed as successful, the protection circuit stability signal remained continuous and stable throughout the entire verification time window, and the stamping permission signal also remained active. The system determined that the consistency verification was successful and officially released the piece into the batch stamping section. Subsequently, the equipment began continuous stamping production, and the system counted the number of stamps in real time. When the number of continuous stamps reached 300 as set by the system parameters, corresponding to 08:42:30, the system identified this moment as the termination boundary of the current execution segment, ending the batch stamping segment and preparing to enter the next execution segment.

[0071] After equipment P1 enters the batch stamping section, the system continuously monitors the release evidence points and equipment status. During the statistical window from 08:45 to 09:15, the system recorded a total of 3 abnormal events. The statistical process and results are as follows: Figure 5 As shown in the diagram. In the first anomaly, since the first piece inspection pass signal was generated but the corresponding inspection data was not uploaded in time, the system determined that this anomaly was due to missing evidence and generated a corresponding cause code. In the second anomaly, the stamping allow signal was detected to be briefly withdrawn while the protection circuit remained in a stable state; the system determined this anomaly to be a stamping allowance anomaly. In the third anomaly, the stable signal of the protection circuit was detected to be intermittent twice within 5 seconds; the system determined this anomaly to be a protection circuit instability. The system records the cause codes for each of the above anomalies and accumulates the number of occurrences in the statistics window.

[0072] When the number of times the same cause code appears in the statistics window reaches the trigger condition set by the system parameters, and the instability of the protection circuit occurs twice within the 30-minute statistics window, the system determines that the cause code meets the trigger condition and switches the release status of device P1 from allowable release to limited release status. Figure 5The threshold lines and statistical bar charts are shown in the data. Under the limited release state, the system adjusts the production scheduling control logic, allowing release judgments only for execution segments containing the first piece confirmation boundary. Other batch stamping segments are no longer directly released, thus limiting production activities to a range that can be repeatedly verified and monitored.

[0073] Simultaneously with the triggering of the restricted release state, the system applies a two-level restriction strategy to the equipment operating parameters. Addressing the initial freeze caused by the protection circuit instability, the system activates the first set of restriction parameters, reducing the maximum number of consecutive strokes from the original 300 to a maximum of 20 for the first-piece confirmation stage, and reducing the equipment operating cycle time from 45 cycles per minute to a safe cycle time of 30 cycles per minute. This adjustment allows the equipment to continue verification production under low-load conditions while facilitating continuous monitoring of the protection circuit status.

[0074] If the same cause of protection circuit instability recurs within the following hour and is recorded by the system, the system determines that the cause of the freeze has occurred repeatedly within the same statistical window and switches to the second limit parameter group. At this time, the system further reduces the maximum number of consecutive strokes to 10 and the operating cycle time to 20 times per minute, putting the equipment into a more strictly controlled operating state, allowing only a very small amount of first-piece confirmation production to determine whether the anomaly has been eliminated.

[0075] During the execution of the first or second set of limiting parameters, the system continuously verifies the consistency of the release evidence point set. It is assumed that in the next four consecutive execution segments, the mold change completion confirmation, first piece inspection pass confirmation, stamping permission signal, and protection circuit stability signal all remain consistent and without anomalies within the verification time window. The system determines that the evidence point set continuously meets the release conditions. Simultaneously, the protection circuit stability signal remains uninterrupted for 40 consecutive seconds, and the stamping permission signal remains valid. Based on this, the system determines that the stability condition is met. When both the continuous satisfaction condition and the stability condition are met simultaneously, the system removes the first or second set of limiting parameters applied to equipment P1, restores the equipment's release status to a release-ready state, and re-allows it to enter the batch stamping stage release judgment process.

[0076] The current statistical window is set to 30 minutes. The number of observations of the cause code within this window is recorded by the system in chronological order and used to calculate the anomaly trigger index. This calculation process is as follows: Figure 6 As shown. Between 09:20 and 09:50, the system observed anomalies caused by protection circuit instability, and a total of 6 observation records were obtained, denoted as:

[0077] In the first to sixth observations, protection circuit instability was detected in the second, third, and fourth observations, while the cause code was not detected in the remaining observations. The corresponding flag values ​​are:

[0078] The time decay coefficient is set in the system parameters as follows:

[0079] This is used to reduce the weight of earlier observations on the current judgment. Simultaneously, the system analyzes and statistically analyzes the consecutive occurrences of cause codes within the window, finding that protection circuit instability occurred consecutively in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th observations, with a maximum consecutive occurrence count of:

[0080] The continuity weighting coefficient is set as follows:

[0081] Based on the above data, the system calculates the anomaly trigger index according to the formula:

[0082] After substituting the specific values, we get:

[0083]

[0084] The system presets the first trigger threshold:

[0085] Second trigger threshold:

[0086] Because it satisfies:

[0087] The system determines that the first trigger threshold is met but the second trigger threshold is not reached. Therefore, it switches the release status of device P1 from "allowed to release" to "restricted to release." This determination result is... Figure 6 The weighted contribution bar structure and threshold line are used to visually represent the data. After entering the restricted release state, the system only allows release judgment on the execution segment containing the first item confirmation boundary, and continues to apply the first set of restriction parameters, thereby achieving risk control without complete shutdown.

[0088] Over the next 10 minutes, the system continues to monitor the cause codes for protection circuit instability. If two consecutive protection circuit instabilities occur within this statistical window, the system updates the statistical data as follows:

[0089] And the anomaly triggering index was recalculated, resulting in:

[0090] The result satisfies:

[0091] Based on this, the system determines that the second trigger threshold is met, immediately switches device P1 to a frozen state, and prohibits subsequent execution segments from continuing to allow access, in order to prevent the device from continuing to operate in a high-risk state.

[0092] During the freeze period, the system continuously monitors the set of release evidence points. When the protection circuit stability signal remains stable for 20 consecutive seconds, the stamping permission signal remains valid within the same verification time window, and the consistency requirement of release evidence points is met in three consecutive execution segments, the system determines that the release condition has been met, clears the cumulative effect of the abnormal trigger index, releases the restricted release state or freeze state, and restores the normal release judgment process.

[0093] Example 2:

[0094] Based on Example 1, at 09:30, the system, based on the updated production execution sequence, selects only the execution segment containing the first piece confirmation boundary for release judgment, while the remaining batch stamping segments are temporarily skipped and do not enter the release judgment process. At this time, the system reschedules the first piece confirmation type execution segment, limiting the target number of stampings for this execution segment to 20, corresponding to the upper limit of the number of stampings for the first piece confirmation segment under the first limit parameter group. Equipment P1 completes the first piece stamping and sends it for inspection at 09:32, and the quality inspection system returns a first piece inspection pass confirmation signal at 09:32:40.

[0095] Within the verification time window following the successful confirmation of the first piece inspection, the system simultaneously collects and verifies the consistency of the stamping permission signal and the protection circuit stability signal. The verification time window is still set at 10 seconds, corresponding to the time interval from 09:32:40 to 09:32:50. Within this time window, the collected data shows that the stamping permission signal remains valid for the entire 10 seconds without any cancellation or jitter, and the protection circuit stability signal remains continuous and stable within the same time window without any discontinuities.

[0096] Based on this, the system determines that the first piece inspection has passed, confirming that both the stamping permission signal establishment condition and the protection circuit stability condition are met within the verification time window, and the set of release evidence points meets the release requirements under the restricted release state. Based on this determination, the system allows the current first piece confirmation execution segment to complete the release and generates the release judgment qualification for the next execution segment, but does not lift the restricted release state.

[0097] In the subsequent verification process, the system continuously executed three execution segments containing the first-piece confirmation boundary. Within each execution segment, the first-piece inspection pass confirmation was synchronously met with the stamping allowance signal condition within the verification time window, and the protection circuit stability signal remained continuously stable within each verification time window. Statistical results showed that in the three consecutive execution segments, the stamping allowance signal establishment rate was 100%, and the cumulative continuous stability time of the protection circuit stability signal reached 30 seconds, with no abnormalities observed. The above process is as follows: Figure 7 As shown, Figure 7 The timeline shows the distribution of verification time windows, signal consistency status, and changes in execution segment numbers for three consecutive first-piece confirmation execution segments under restricted release conditions. It intuitively reflects the system's operational characteristics of repeatedly verifying only the first-piece confirmation boundary under restricted release control.

[0098] During the aforementioned continuous verification period, the system never performed a release judgment on the batch stamping section, thus avoiding direct entry into high-stroke production while the equipment was still in the observation period. This limited release control strategy ensured that equipment operation always revolved around the first-piece confirmation boundary, with each release accompanied by a complete signal consistency verification process, significantly reducing the risk of anomaly recurrence.

[0099] The system reduces the equipment's operating cycle time from 45 cycles per minute under the original batch stamping conditions to a safe cycle time of 30 cycles per minute. Simultaneously, the maximum number of consecutive stamping cycles is adjusted from 300 to a maximum of 20 cycles for the first-piece confirmation stage. This setting allows the equipment to operate at a lower impact frequency and smaller stamping scale, which is beneficial for continuous monitoring and stability verification of the protection circuit signals. Under this set of limiting parameters, the equipment only performs first-piece confirmation stamping tasks, and a new release judgment process begins after every 20 stamping cycles.

[0100] In another scenario, the system detected an abnormal cancellation of the stamping permission signal at 10:10 AM, but the protection circuit stability signal remained normal. Based on this, the system determined the freeze to be due to an abnormal stamping permission and selected the corresponding first limit parameter group in the initial limit settings. In this parameter group, the equipment operating cycle time was set to a starting cycle time of 35 times per minute, and the maximum number of consecutive stampings was set to a preset trial run maximum of 30 times, thus allowing the equipment to perform verification operation of the stamping permission signal under medium load conditions.

[0101] In a scenario where an evidence point missing anomaly occurs at 09:40, the system detects that the first piece inspection pass signal has been generated, but the corresponding inspection data has not been uploaded within the specified time. The system freezes the system due to missing evidence points and selects the first set of limiting parameters to maintain the system while awaiting evidence recovery. Under this parameter set, the equipment operating cycle time is maintained at 25 times per minute, and the maximum number of consecutive strokes is set to 10. The system does not pursue production efficiency but maintains a conservative execution phase with low strokes and low cycle time, waiting for the inspection data or signal chain to be fully restored before proceeding to the next release judgment. If an evidence point conflict is detected, i.e., the mold change completion confirmation and the stamping allow signal logic are inconsistent, the system also uses this conservative first set of limiting parameters to avoid expanding the production range due to incomplete evidence chains.

[0102] During the execution of the first set of limiting parameters corresponding to any of the above-mentioned freezing reasons, the system continuously performs cumulative analysis on anomalies within the statistical window. When the same freezing reason reappears within the 30-minute statistical window and meets the repeated triggering condition, the system upgrades the limiting strategy corresponding to that freezing reason to the second set of limiting parameters and records the limiting status of that freezing reason as locked. Taking protection circuit instability as an example, after the first limiting is triggered and the first set of limiting parameters is applied at a certain moment, if the system detects discontinuous stability signal of the protection circuit again in subsequent statistical windows, it determines that the freezing reason has reappeared within the statistical window and then switches to the second set of limiting parameters. The upgrade relationship of the limiting parameters from the first set of limiting parameters to the second set of limiting parameters is as follows: Figure 8 As shown.

[0103] After entering the locked state, the system further tightens the release control rules. At this time, only the execution segment containing the first-piece confirmation boundary is allowed to be released, and all batch stamping segments are completely prohibited from release. At the same time, the system performs a mandatory verification process for each allowed first-piece confirmation execution segment, that is, within the execution segment, the verification of three conditions must be completed simultaneously: first-piece inspection passed, stamping permission signal continuously established, and protection circuit stability signal continuous without interruption. Only after all mandatory verifications are passed will the system allow the next release judgment, but the locked state will remain unchanged.

[0104] During the locked state, equipment P1 executed only 5 first-piece confirmation execution segments between 10:00 and 10:30, with each segment consisting of no more than 10 strokes, and the operating cycle time remained stable at 20 strokes per minute. Monitoring data showed that the protection circuit's stable signal remained continuously stable for a cumulative period of 180 seconds during this period, and the pressurization allowance signal remained valid throughout the entire verification time window, without any recurrence of the same freezing cause. The evolution of the above limiting parameters over time and the overall evolution of the locked state interval are as follows: Figure 8 As shown, Figure 8The switching process of the limiting parameter groups corresponding to different freezing reasons, as well as the dynamic changes in the maximum number of beats and consecutive strokes, are shown in time series.

[0105] After 10:30 AM, the system continued to operate the first-piece confirmation execution segment while in a locked state, and fully verified the release evidence point set for each execution segment. The system was set to continuously meet the release requirements in three consecutive execution segments. Operational data showed that between 10:32 AM and 10:42 AM, equipment P1 continuously executed three first-piece confirmation execution segments, each with 10 strokes, corresponding to the upper limit of strokes under the second set of limiting parameters. In these three execution segments, the mold change completion confirmation remained valid throughout, the first-piece inspection pass confirmation returned promptly within each execution segment, the stamping allow signal remained valid within its respective verification time window, and the protection circuit stability signal remained uninterrupted within each verification time window. Based on this, the system determined that the evidence point set fully met the release requirements in the three consecutive execution segments, and the continuous satisfaction condition was met.

[0106] Within the verification time windows corresponding to the three execution segments mentioned above, each verification time window is 10 seconds long. The system cumulatively monitored the stability of the protection circuit signal, achieving a total stability duration of 30 seconds across the three verification time windows, during which no interruptions or jitter events were recorded. The stamping allow signal remained continuously active within the same verification time window, without any cancellation or short-term failure. Based on this, the system determined that the stability condition was met, meaning the protection circuit stability signal was uninterrupted within the verification time windows, and the stamping allow signal remained active within the verification time windows.

[0107] When both the continuous release condition and the stability condition are met simultaneously, the system releases the second set of limiting parameters currently applied to device P1, clears the locked status indicator, and restores the device's release status from restricted release to releaseable release. Simultaneously, the system restores the original production scheduling control parameters, increasing the continuous stamping limit from 10 to 300 times and the device's operating cycle time from 20 times per minute to 45 times per minute, creating conditions for subsequent batch stamping production. The above-mentioned process for determining the release conditions and the parameter restoration effects before and after the release are as follows: Figure 9 As shown, Figure 9 By statistically analyzing and cumulatively displaying the verification results of each execution segment, the complete logic of the system lifting restrictions and restoring normal production scheduling control is intuitively reflected when both the continuous satisfaction condition and the stability condition are met simultaneously.

[0108] In the first execution phase after the restrictions are lifted, the system still performs a complete consistency verification on the set of release evidence points to ensure that the operating status after the restrictions are lifted is consistent with the equipment status. The verification results of this execution phase show that the first piece inspection pass confirmation, the stamping allow signal, and the protection circuit stability signal are all stably established within the verification time window. Based on this, the system officially releases the batch stamping phase and continues to execute the updated production scheduling execution sequence, thereby achieving an intelligent production scheduling and equipment status monitoring process for the stamping production line with controlled anomalies, sufficient verification, and smooth recovery.

[0109] The foregoing has shown and described the basic principles, main features, and advantages of the present invention. Those skilled in the art should understand that the present invention is not limited to the above embodiments. The embodiments and descriptions in the specification are merely illustrative of the principles of the invention. Various changes and modifications can be made to the invention without departing from its spirit and scope, and all such changes and modifications fall within the scope of the present invention as claimed. The scope of protection of this invention is defined by the appended claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. A method for intelligent scheduling and equipment status monitoring of a stamping production line, characterized in that... include: Obtain work orders and production scheduling tasks, and generate a production scheduling execution sequence; divide the sequence into at least two consecutive execution segments according to any boundary of mold change completion, first piece confirmation, or the upper limit of continuous punching; Set a set of release evidence points for each execution segment. The evidence points include at least one of the following: mold change completion, first piece inspection passed, stamping allow signal, and protection circuit stability. During execution, collect and verify the evidence points in real time. If they are satisfied, release the next segment. If they are not satisfied, or the evidence points are inconsistent, the protection circuit is unstable, or the stamping allow signal is abnormal, freeze the unreleased segment and output the reason code. Based on the reason code, the unreleased segments are adjusted in order, migrated or inserted for verification and inspection, and the number of strokes is limited or the cycle time is reduced. An update sequence is generated and the release judgment is repeated. The division of the continuous execution segment includes: when a mold change event is detected, the confirmation of mold change completion is taken as the segment start boundary; when a first piece confirmation event is detected, the confirmation of first piece inspection is taken as the release boundary; when the continuous stroke count reaches the upper limit of strokes set by the system parameters, that moment is taken as the segment end boundary, so as to form a continuous segment structure of mold change segment, first piece confirmation segment and batch stamping segment. The consistency verification is as follows: if the mold change completion confirmation is established but the stamping allow signal is not established within the verification time window, the mold change completion evidence point is determined to be inconsistent; if the first piece inspection pass confirmation is established but the protection circuit stability signal is discontinuous within the verification time window, the first piece inspection pass evidence point is determined to be inconsistent; if the inconsistency is determined, the unreleased section is frozen. The identification of the cause code includes at least evidence point missing, evidence point conflict, protection circuit instability, and stamping allowable abnormality; when the number of times the same cause code appears in the statistical window meets the trigger condition, the release status of the corresponding equipment is switched from releaseable to limited release, and in the limited release status, release judgment is only performed on the execution segment containing the first piece confirmation boundary. The restriction on the number of strokes or the reduction of the beat rate adopts a two-level restriction strategy: when the freezing reason first appears, the first restriction parameter group is used, which includes the first stroke limit and the first beat rate; when the same freezing reason appears again within the statistical window, the second restriction parameter group is used, which includes the second stroke limit and the second beat rate; when the evidence point set continuously meets the release condition, the restriction is lifted and the judgment continues. The triggering conditions include the number of times the same reason code appears in the statistical window meets a first threshold, or the number of times the same reason code appears consecutively in the statistical window meets a second threshold; when the first threshold is met, the corresponding device is switched to a restricted release state, and when the second threshold is met, the corresponding device is switched to a frozen state and subsequent execution segments are prohibited from releasing, until the protection circuit is stable and the stamping permission signal simultaneously meets the release conditions.

2. The intelligent scheduling and equipment status monitoring method for stamping production lines according to claim 1, characterized in that... The release judgment under the restricted release state is limited to the execution segment containing the first piece confirmation boundary, and includes the requirement that the first piece detection pass confirmation must be satisfied simultaneously with the stamping allow signal within a preset verification time window, and the protection circuit stability signal must be uninterrupted within the verification time window before the subsequent execution segment can be released.

3. The intelligent scheduling and equipment status monitoring method for stamping production lines according to claim 1, characterized in that... The selection of the first and second limit parameter groups is related to the reason for freezing. When the reason for freezing is the instability of the protection circuit, the corresponding first cycle is set to the safe cycle position and the upper limit of the first stroke is set to the upper limit of the stroke of the first piece confirmation section. When the reason for freezing is the abnormality of the stamping allowance, the corresponding first cycle is set to the start cycle position and the upper limit of the first stroke is set to the upper limit of the preset trial run stroke. When the reason for freezing is the lack of evidence points or the conflict of evidence points, the corresponding first limit parameter group is used to maintain the conservative execution section waiting for evidence recovery.

4. The intelligent scheduling and equipment status monitoring method for stamping production lines according to claim 1, characterized in that... The two-level restriction strategy is as follows: when the same freezing reason reappears in the statistics window and switches to the second restriction parameter group, the restriction status of the freezing reason is recorded as a locked state. In the locked state, only the execution segment containing the first confirmation boundary is allowed to be released, and the execution segment is subject to mandatory review before the release judgment is allowed to continue.

5. The intelligent scheduling and equipment status monitoring method for stamping production lines according to claim 1, characterized in that... The release conditions include the continuous satisfaction condition and the stability condition of the evidence point set. The continuous satisfaction condition means that the evidence point set meets the release requirements in multiple consecutive execution segments. The stability condition means that the stable signal of the protection circuit is uninterrupted within the verification time window and the stamping allow signal is continuously valid within the verification time window. When both the continuous satisfaction condition and the stability condition are met, the first restriction parameter group or the second restriction parameter group is released.

Images