Method and system for verifying weather resistance of detector transport protection packaging

Abstract

The present application relates to the technical field of package reliability verification, and particularly relates to a kind of detector transport protective packaging weather resistance verification method and system.By constructing the bidirectional deduction mapping chain from outer protective layer to inner cavity, real-time identification of environmental disturbance type and activation of differentiated multi-level response verification plan, three-dimensional verification of response index execution timing compliance, amplitude matching degree and recovery convergence degree is performed, and when verification fails, structural redundancy is gradually recruited to locate implicit weather resistance defects, and then multi-dimensional cross verification is combined to form a negative judgment, and finally a three-level conclusion of weather resistance and a complete traceability evidence chain are output.The technical scheme realizes the whole process dynamic verification of detector transport protective packaging weather resistance, accurate positioning of implicit defects and full-link reliable traceability.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of packaging reliability verification technology, and in particular to a method and system for verifying the weather resistance of detector transport protective packaging, which is suitable for real-time verification of the dynamic protective performance of multi-layer composite packaging and tracing the source of hidden defects during transportation. Background Technology

[0002] During transportation, detectors rely on multi-layered composite packaging, including outer protective layers, buffer layers, and sealing layers, to withstand various environmental stresses. The weather resistance of this packaging directly determines the detector's functional integrity after delivery. Currently, packaging weather resistance verification mainly relies on destructive tests such as accelerated aging, temperature and humidity cycling, and mechanical impact in laboratories, using overall leakage rate or visual inspection to determine whether the protection has failed. However, such methods can only provide a pass / fail conclusion for the entire box, failing to reveal the functional degradation of each protective layer as environmental stress penetrates layer by layer from the outside in, and even less able to distinguish between cumulative failure modes, sudden impact failure modes, and differentiated failure modes under the combined and alternating effects of both. Actual transportation environments are subject to highly variable and random stresses, and pre-set standard test patterns cannot reproduce the dynamic response sequences of each protective layer under real road conditions, causing a disconnect between verification results and actual weather resistance performance, making it difficult to expose hidden weathering defects.

[0003] With the development of IoT sensing technology, some packaging solutions have begun to incorporate sensors to monitor environmental parameters such as temperature, humidity, and vibration during transportation. However, these methods often remain at the level of data recording or exceeding threshold alarms, lacking the ability to correlate and verify environmental disturbances with the design response indicators of each layer of packaging. Existing monitoring methods have failed to establish temporal logic and amplitude tolerance models for the multi-level responses of outer protective layers, buffer layers, and sealing layers. This makes it impossible to determine whether the responses at each level are activated in a preset order, whether the response intensity falls within the allowable range, and whether each level synchronously returns to a steady state after the disturbance subsides. Once the detector's function deteriorates due to hidden defects in the packaging, it is difficult to trace the specific protective layer where the defect occurred, and it is also impossible to reconstruct the complete path of environmental stress intrusion into the inner cavity. This results in a lack of a traceable and complete chain of evidence for weather resistance assessment, posing significant obstacles to subsequent quality accountability and packaging improvement. Summary of the Invention

[0004] To overcome the problems of existing technologies, such as the inability to dynamically verify the compliance of responses at each protection level, the difficulty in accurately locating latent weathering defects, and the lack of a complete chain of evidence for tracing failures, this invention provides a weathering resistance verification method and system for detector transport protective packaging. This system enables dynamic verification of the weathering resistance of detector transport protective packaging throughout the entire process, accurate location of latent defects, and reliable traceability across the entire chain.

[0005] The technical solution of the present invention specifically includes: According to one aspect of the present invention, a method for verifying the weather resistance of protective packaging for detector transport is provided, comprising: The detector's transport packaging was disassembled layer by layer to construct a two-way deductive mapping chain of the forward intrusion path and the reverse tracing path from the outer protective layer through the buffer layer and the sealing layer to the inner cavity. Differentiated verification plans, including response indicators, triggering order and response tolerance range, were customized for three types of failure causes: continuous accumulation, shock mutation, and compound alternation. During transportation, the system identifies environmental disturbance types in real time and activates corresponding contingency plans, collects response signals from each protection level, and sequentially performs three-dimensional verification of timing compliance, amplitude matching, and recovery convergence. If any dimension fails, the response compliance is deemed unqualified, and the measured response data is saved. If all three dimensions pass, the system is deemed qualified. For disturbance events that fail to meet compliance requirements, the measured response records are invoked to initiate a cyclical verification of structural redundancy by requisitioning each level. By assuming single or combined protection level functional concessions and comparing the results along the bidirectional deduction mapping chain, the protection level at which the latent weathering defects are located is determined. Within the same transport segment, all disturbance event judgment results and defect location information are collected and multi-dimensional cross-verification is performed; when two or more dimensions point to the same protection level or failure type, a multi-dimensional negative judgment is formed and the failure link is identified; otherwise, it is listed as an observation state. After the transportation is completed, the judgment results of the entire journey are summarized, and a three-level conclusion of weather resistance qualified, conditionally qualified, or unqualified is output. A complete traceability evidence chain from environmental stress intrusion to defect confirmation is constructed using a two-way deductive mapping chain as an index and handed over to the recipient.

[0006] Preferably, the construction of the bidirectional extrapolation mapping chain includes establishing a forward intrusion path of environmental stress: Based on the spatial order of the protective layers from the outside to the inside, the external ambient temperature, external relative humidity, and external vibration acceleration are used as the original stress sources. The environmental stress is defined to pass through the layers step by step, so that the outer protective layer attenuates the external environmental parameters into the temperature and relative humidity of the inner surface of the outer protective layer and converts the vibration energy into the strain response of the outer protective layer. The buffer layer receives the temperature and relative humidity of the inner surface of the outer protective layer and the residual vibration and generates the compressive displacement of the buffer layer and the temperature, relative humidity, and attenuation acceleration of the inner surface of the buffer layer. Under the action of the temperature, relative humidity, and attenuation acceleration of the inner surface of the buffer layer, the sealing layer maintains the water vapor partial pressure difference at the sealing interface and outputs the internal cavity temperature and relative humidity.

[0007] Preferably, the construction of the bidirectional deduction mapping chain further includes establishing a reverse tracing path for internal cavity failure: starting from the consequences of internal cavity failure, tracing back step by step in the opposite direction to the forward intrusion path, tracing back from excessive internal cavity humidity to leakage of the sealing layer or saturation of the desiccant, tracing back from sealing layer failure to permanent deformation of the buffer layer or damage to the outer protective layer, until tracing back to the external stress source, forming a bidirectional deduction mapping chain in which the external stress source node, the outer protective layer state node, the buffer layer state node, the sealing layer state node and the internal cavity state node are connected in sequence.

[0008] Preferably, the step of customizing the differentiated verification plan includes: Based on the statistical laws of the transportation environment, environmental disturbances are abstracted into continuous accumulation type, shock mutation type and compound alternating type. The time domain and amplitude domain characteristics of each type are extracted and quantified into peak factor threshold, short-term impact duration threshold and long-term accumulation duration threshold. The first contingency plan for continuous accumulation type is triggered by the temperature gradient of the outer protective layer → the relative humidity change rate of the sealing layer → the dew point temperature shift of the inner cavity. The second contingency plan for impact mutation type is triggered by the strain of the outer protective layer → the acceleration decay of the buffer layer → the instantaneous pressure fluctuation of the sealing layer. The third contingency plan for composite alternating type is triggered by the strain envelope of the outer protective layer → the cumulative displacement of the buffer layer → the humidity holding time of the sealing layer. Each contingency plan also specifies the response tolerance range for each response indicator under the corresponding failure cause type.

[0009] Preferably, the real-time identification of the environmental disturbance type and the activation of the corresponding contingency plan include: Environmental disturbance signals are collected by triaxial accelerometers and temperature and humidity sensors arranged on the outer surface of the outer sheath; response signals of the outer sheath are collected by strain gauges and thin-film thermocouples attached to the inner surface of the outer sheath; response signals of the buffer layer are collected by accelerometers and displacement sensors embedded in the buffer layer; and response signals of the sealing layer are collected by miniature barometers and hygrometers installed on the inner surface of the sealing layer. The environmental disturbance signal is processed by a sliding window. The ratio of the signal peak value to the root mean square value is extracted as the impact level. The cumulative time when the signal exceeds the background noise threshold is extracted as the duration. When the impact level is higher than the preset threshold and the duration is lower than the short-term impact duration threshold, it is determined to be an impact mutation type. When the impact level does not exceed the preset threshold and the duration is greater than the long-term cumulative duration threshold, it is determined to be a continuous accumulation type. All other cases are determined to be a compound alternation type, and the corresponding differentiated verification plan is automatically invoked.

[0010] Preferably, the acquisition of response signals for each protection level includes: Based on the response indicators specified in the activated contingency plan, the peak strain of the outer protective layer, the acceleration transfer rate of the buffer layer, and the peak-to-peak value of the instantaneous pressure of the sealing layer are extracted for the impact-induced sudden change contingency plan; the temperature rise rate of the outer protective layer, the humidity change rate of the sealing layer, and the change in the dew point of the inner cavity are extracted for the continuous accumulation contingency plan; and the peak strain envelope of the outer protective layer, the cumulative displacement of the buffer layer, and the humidity holding time of the sealing layer are extracted for the composite alternating contingency plan. The response amplitude is calculated using the root mean square value with the activation period as the integration interval.

[0011] Preferably, the execution steps of the three-dimensional verification of timing conformity, amplitude matching degree, and recovery convergence degree include: The first dimension of verification is timing compliance verification. A threshold detection method is used to determine the first significant deviation time of the response signal at each protection level. The activation time difference between adjacent levels is calculated. Timing compliance is determined when all time differences fall within the allowable time interval specified in the plan. Defined as: In the formula, For timing compliance, For adjacent activation order index, For indicator functions, For the first One activated protection level index, For the first The moment of the first significant deviation of the hierarchical response signal. The contingency plan is aimed at the first The preset allowed time interval range for adjacent segment activation is used. As the lower limit, The upper limit, For logical AND operation; The second dimension of verification is amplitude matching verification, which calculates the root mean square value of the response signal of each protection level during the active period as the actual response amplitude. , In the formula, For the integral window length, For the first The response signal of the protection level, For the first The first significant deviation of the hierarchical response signal occurs when all levels... All fell within the amplitude tolerance range specified in the contingency plan. Intra-time amplitude matching determination and For the contingency plan The lower and upper limits of amplitude tolerance specified by the level; The third dimension verification is the recovery convergence verification, which involves performing a first-order exponential decay fitting on the recovery segments of the response signals at each level after the disturbance subsides. In the formula, This is the steady-state value. To restore the initial deviation, To restore the starting time, For the first Time constant of protection layer Corresponding to the outer protective layer, Corresponding buffer layer, Calculate the time constant of the outer protective layer corresponding to the sealing layer. Buffer layer time constant and sealing layer time constant mean and standard deviation Restoring convergence ,when Not less than the preset threshold Timely determination of convergence; If any dimension in the three-dimensional verification fails to meet the requirements, the response compliance of the disturbance event is deemed to have failed, and the non-compliant dimension and the corresponding measured response record are recorded.

[0012] Preferably, the structural redundancy hierarchical requisition cyclic verification includes: The measured response records of disturbance events that fail to meet compliance are retrieved, and the measured response characteristic values ​​of each protection level are normalized according to preset rules to form a dimensionless measured response vector. Weight coefficients are set according to the protection importance of each protection level under the corresponding failure cause. Initialize the single protection level function concession assumption, and shift the response tolerance range of the assumed concession protection level in the unfavorable direction by a preset offset amount, so as to simulate the state after the response capability of the level is weakened by the contracted tolerance range. Substitute the hierarchical parameters containing the concession assumption into the forward model of the bidirectional extrapolation mapping chain, and extrapolate the response of each level from the assumed concession level to both the inner and outer sides. After normalization, a simulated response vector is formed. The weighted Euclidean distance between the simulated response vector and the measured response vector is calculated as the extrapolation error. If the deduction deviation of all single-level retreat assumptions is greater than the convergence threshold, then based on the single retreat assumption corresponding to the minimum deduction deviation, the synchronous retreat assumption of adjacent protection levels is superimposed to form a combined retreat scheme and the deviation is deduced and calculated again. The superposition direction that makes the deviation continuously decrease is retained through iteration until the deviation drops below the convergence threshold or the deviation no longer decreases and the loop is exited. After the loop exits, the primary yield protection level pointed to by the matching yield assumption combination is recorded as the protection level where the latent weathering defect is located.

[0013] Preferably, the multi-dimensional cross-verification execution step includes: The first dimension of verification involves comparing the protection levels of each failed event within the same transport segment that exceed the limits in terms of amplitude matching degree or recovery convergence degree, and determining whether the anomaly dimensions are concentrated in the same protection level. The second dimension verification checks whether the failure dimensions caused by different types of disturbance events within the same transport segment satisfy the mutual interpretation relationship defined in the preset interpretation matrix. The interpretation matrix stores the logical association between different failure cause types and abnormal response performance. The third dimension verifies whether the protection level of the latent weathering defects located by the stepwise requisition of structural redundancy coincides with the protection level of the multiple occurrences of response anomalies in the bidirectional extrapolation mapping chain. When the verification results of at least two dimensions point to the same protection level or the same failure cause type, a multi-dimensional negative judgment is formed for the transport segment, and the specific failure link is identified; when a disturbance event that fails to meet response compliance occurs in the segment, but the verification results of each dimension are scattered and lack consistent direction, the transport segment is listed as an observation segment; when no disturbance event that fails to meet response compliance occurs in the segment, the transport segment is listed as a normal segment.

[0014] Preferably, the step of outputting the weather resistance level 3 conclusion includes: Summarize the number of multi-dimensional negative judgment segments, the identified failure links, and the proportion of segments under observation in the entire transportation segment; If no multi-dimensional negative judgments occur throughout the entire process and the proportion of observed state segments is lower than the threshold for the proportion of observed state segments, the overall weather resistance of the packaging is deemed qualified. If a multi-dimensional negative assessment occurs, all identified failure points do not involve the inner cavity sealing interface, and the proportion of the observed state section is lower than the threshold for the proportion of the observed state section, the overall weather resistance of the packaging is deemed conditionally qualified and a defect list is attached. If multiple negative assessments are made, all identified failure points do not involve the inner cavity sealing interface, and the proportion of observed state sections is lower than the threshold for the proportion of observed state sections, the overall weather resistance of the packaging is deemed conditionally qualified and a defect list is attached.

[0015] Preferably, the step of constructing the chain of evidence for tracing the source includes: Using a two-way deductive mapping chain as an index framework, the response compliance judgment results of each protection level in the entire process of each environmental disturbance event are extracted from the outer protection level to the inner cavity. The convergence curve and deviation record of the level being deduced as a yield level in the cyclic verification of the progressive requisition of structural redundancy are also extracted, as well as the judgment basis of the level in the cross-verification. The extracted evidence is organized according to timeline and spatial hierarchy, and the original sensor data signatures and timestamps are attached to form an immutable chain of traceability evidence. The chain of evidence for tracing the source will be handed over to the recipient along with the packaging and detector in an encrypted report and structured data format.

[0016] Another aspect of the present invention provides a weather resistance verification system for protective packaging of detectors during transport, the system comprising: The two-way extrapolation mapping chain construction and contingency plan customization unit is used to disassemble the detector transport packaging layer by layer, construct a two-way extrapolation mapping chain from the outer protective layer through the buffer layer and sealing layer to the inner cavity, and customize differentiated verification contingency plans including response indicators, triggering order and response tolerance range for three types of failure causes: continuous accumulation type, shock mutation type and compound alternating type. The real-time environmental disturbance identification and three-dimensional verification unit is used to identify the type of environmental disturbance and activate the corresponding contingency plan in real time during transportation. It collects response signals of each protection level and performs three-dimensional verification of timing compliance, amplitude matching and recovery convergence in sequence. If any dimension fails, the response compliance is deemed to have failed. At the same time, the measured response data is saved. If all three dimensions pass, the response is deemed to have passed. The structural redundancy hierarchical requisition cyclic verification unit is used to call the measured response record to start the structural redundancy hierarchical requisition cyclic verification for disturbance events that fail to pass the response compliance test. By assuming the functional concession of a single or combined protection level and comparing and deducing along the bidirectional deduction mapping chain, the protection level where the hidden weathering defects are located is located. The multi-dimensional cross-verification unit is used to gather the judgment results and defect location information of all disturbance events within the same transport segment, and perform multi-dimensional cross-verification. When two or more dimensions point to the same protection level or failure type, a multi-dimensional negative judgment is formed and the failure link is identified; otherwise, it is listed as an observation state. The weather resistance level 3 conclusion output and traceability evidence chain construction unit is used to summarize the judgment results of the entire journey section after the transportation is completed, output the level 3 conclusion of weather resistance qualified, conditionally qualified or unqualified, and construct a complete traceability evidence chain from environmental stress intrusion to defect confirmation using a two-way deduction mapping chain as an index, and hand it over to the recipient.

[0017] Compared with existing technologies, the weather resistance verification method for detector transport protective packaging provided by this invention has the following advantages: This invention achieves dynamic layer-by-layer verification of the weather resistance of multi-layer packaging throughout the entire transportation cycle and precise tracing of latent defects by constructing a two-way deductive mapping chain from the outer protective layer to the inner cavity and a differentiated verification plan. Compared with traditional whole-case level black-box testing, this method can distinguish three types of failure causes in real time during actual transportation: continuous accumulation, sudden impact, and compound alternation. It also performs a three-dimensional comprehensive diagnosis of timing compliance, amplitude matching, and recovery convergence, effectively capturing early functional degradation. For disturbance events that fail verification, the structural redundancy is used for step-by-step requisition and cyclic verification, with a 74.5% success rate in pinpointing the defect to specific layers such as the buffer layer and the heat-sealed sealing layer. Through multi-dimensional cross-verification, a segment-level negative judgment is formed, solving the problem that existing technologies cannot reconstruct the layer-by-layer intrusion path and cannot trace the defect level. In an intercontinental transportation case, hidden defects such as buffer layer creep and sealing layer degradation were successfully identified from 711 disturbances, and a complete traceability evidence chain was output. Based on this, after packaging was optimized, the number of failure events was reduced from 55 to 3, systemic failures were completely eliminated, and the accuracy of verification and delivery reliability were significantly improved. Attached Figure Description

[0018] Figure 1 A schematic diagram of the overall method for verifying the weather resistance of protective packaging for detector transportation; Figure 2 Flowchart of method S100 for verifying the weather resistance of protective packaging for detector transportation; Figure 3 Flowchart of method S200 for verifying the weather resistance of protective packaging for detector transportation; Figure 4 Flowchart of the S300 method for verifying the weather resistance of protective packaging for detector transportation; Figure 5 Flowchart of the S400 method for verifying the weather resistance of protective packaging for detector transportation; Figure 6 Flowchart of the S500 method for verifying the weather resistance of protective packaging for detector transportation; Figure 7 A transportation overview interface in the weather resistance verification system for the protective packaging of the detector; Figure 8 A three-dimensional verification interface for the weather resistance verification system of the protective packaging for detector transportation; Figure 9 A defect location interface in a weather resistance verification system for protective packaging of detector transport. Detailed Implementation

[0019] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0020] The theoretical foundation of this invention is based on the bidirectional deductive mapping theory of multi-layer protection systems, the self-identification theory of environmental disturbance characteristics, the three-dimensional response compliance verification theory, and the reverse concession deductive theory of structural redundancy. By disassembling the packaging layer by layer and establishing a forward intrusion path and a reverse failure tracing path from the outer protective layer through the buffer layer and sealing layer to the inner cavity, a bidirectional deductive mapping chain is formed. Response anomalies occurring at any protection level can be located along this chain to pinpoint their role in the intrusion path. Then, for three typical failure causes—continuous accumulation, shock mutation, and compound alternation—differentiated multi-level response plans are customized. The plans clearly define the response indicators to be activated at each protection level, the order of triggering between indicators, and the response tolerance range. During actual transportation, the type of environmental disturbance is identified in real time, and the corresponding plan is activated. Three-dimensional verification of the timing compliance, amplitude matching, and recovery convergence of the response indicators at each level is performed. If the verification fails, a step-by-step requisition verification of structural redundancy is initiated. Through concession deduction and comparison along the bidirectional deductive mapping chain, the specific protection level where the latent weathering defect is located is accurately located. Finally, by combining multi-dimensional cross-verification within the same transportation segment, misjudgments caused by accidental disturbances are avoided, and a complete chain of evidence for tracing the source of the weather resistance level three conclusion and the confirmation of internal defects is formed after the entire journey is completed.

[0021] The core theoretical model is explained as follows: The detector packaging is considered as a combination of an outer protective layer (index) ), buffer layer (index) ), sealing layer (index) A cascaded system consisting of three layers of protection, with an inner cavity ( () represents the protected space. Definition of the first The response indicator signal of the protection level is The specific physical quantities are selected based on the hierarchical function. For example, the outer protective layer can be selected based on surface strain or temperature, the buffer layer can be selected based on acceleration or displacement, and the sealing layer can be selected based on relative humidity or air pressure. Environmental disturbances The causal relationships between the response signals at each level acting on the outer surface of the packaging are described by a bidirectional inference mapping chain.

[0022] For identifying the type of environmental disturbance, environmental signals are analyzed in real time. This is achieved through statistical characteristics within a sliding time window. The ratio of the signal peak value to the overall energy level is used to measure the impact of the disturbance, while the cumulative duration of the signal exceeding a preset threshold is used to determine its persistence. Based on the combination of impact level and duration, environmental disturbances are classified into three types: sudden impact, continuous accumulation, and compound alternation. The specific classification thresholds are pre-calibrated by packaging weathering design indicators and typical transportation environment spectra.

[0023] Formula (1): Timing compliance verification model. For a given differentiated verification plan, the theoretical order of response indicator activation is specified as follows: And set an allowed time interval range for adjacent activations. , The actual number of samples collected was... The first significant deviation of the hierarchical response signal is at time Timing compliance is defined as: In the formula, This represents the timing compliance score, a Boolean variable. A value of 1 indicates timing compliance, and a value of 0 indicates timing non-compliance. For adjacent activation order index, Let 1 and 2 represent the first adjacent activation interval and the second adjacent activation interval, respectively. This is an indicator function; it takes the value 1 when the condition within the parentheses is true, and takes the value 0 when the condition is false. For the first One activated protection level index, , , These are the three levels corresponding to the activation order of the response indicators specified in the contingency plan. For the first The moment when the hierarchical response signal first deviates significantly is the moment when the actual collected hierarchical response signal first reaches the preset detection threshold of the plan. This represents the time difference between the actual activation times of two adjacent levels. The contingency plan is aimed at the first The preset allowed time interval range for adjacent segment activation is used. As the lower limit, This is the upper limit. For logical AND operation, it represents a pair of... and The result is 1 if and only if both conditions are true.

[0024] Formula (2): Amplitude matching degree verification model. The contingency plan is the first... The protection level specifies the lower limit of amplitude tolerance under the corresponding disturbance type. and upper limit Define the actual response amplitude. The root mean square value of the response signal during the activation period: In the formula, For the integral window length, For the first The moment of the first significant deviation of the hierarchical response signal. For the first The condition for the amplitude matching degree verification of the response indicator signal of the protection level to pass is: For all Both are valid.

[0025] Formula (3): Recovery convergence verification model. After the disturbance subsides, let the recovery start time be... The response signals at each level return to steady-state values The convergence process can be approximated by a first-order exponential decay model: In the formula To restore the initial deviation, The time constants are obtained through least-squares fitting. The mean of the three time constants is calculated. and standard deviation The degree of convergence is defined as follows: ; The closer the value is to 1, the more synchronized the recovery processes at each level are. At that time, the convergence check passed. This is a preset threshold.

[0026] In the iterative verification process of progressively requisitioning structural redundancy, the measured response records are normalized to form a measured response vector, and weight coefficients are set for each level. For any combination of concession assumptions, a simulated response vector is derived along a bidirectional derivation mapping chain, and the weighted Euclidean distance between the simulated vector and the measured vector is used as a deviation metric. The iterative verification aims to minimize the deviation and gradually approximate the most probable combination of concession levels, thereby locating latent weathering defects.

[0027] The specific embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail below.

[0028] Example 1: Please see Figure 1 This invention illustrates a method for verifying the weather resistance of a detector transport protective packaging according to an embodiment of the present invention. The method includes: S100: Construct a two-way deductive mapping chain for packaging and develop differentiated verification plans for three types of failure causes.

[0029] S200: Real-time identification of environmental disturbances and automatic activation of contingency plans; three-dimensional verification of response signals at each protection level; determination of response compliance; and saving of measured response records.

[0030] S300: For disturbance events that fail verification, initiate a step-by-step requisition verification of structural redundancy, deduce along the bidirectional deduction mapping chain and compare with the measured response to uncover the protection level where the hidden weathering defects are located.

[0031] S400: Within the same transport segment, the results of multiple event judgments and defect location information are cross-verified to form a multi-dimensional negative judgment or to be placed under observation.

[0032] S500: Summarizes the multi-dimensional judgment results of the entire transportation segment, outputs the three-level conclusion of packaging weather resistance, and generates a complete traceability evidence chain.

[0033] In a weather resistance verification method for protective packaging of detector transport, S100 constructs a mapping relationship that can be deduced in both forward and reverse directions by disassembling layer by layer and analyzing failure mechanisms, and formulates differentiated multi-level response verification plans for different failure causes, providing a benchmark for subsequent dynamic verification.

[0034] Please refer to Figure 2 The diagram illustrates a flowchart of an exemplary weather resistance verification method S100 for a detector transport protective package according to the present invention, the contents of which include: S110: Disassemble and model the detector's transport packaging layer by layer.

[0035] In this step, the transport packaging of the detector to be verified is disassembled according to its physical composition into an outer protective layer, a buffer layer, a sealing layer, and an inner cavity, clarifying the materials, thickness, interface bonding method, and protective functions of each layer.

[0036] In one possible implementation of this step, the outer protective layer is an aluminum-plastic composite film, which serves to block oxygen and water vapor and resist mechanical abrasion; the buffer layer is polyurethane foam, which serves to absorb impact energy and attenuate vibration transmission; the sealing layer is a combination of aluminum foil heat-sealed bag and desiccant, which serves to maintain low humidity in the inner cavity; and the inner cavity is the detector body and its fixing bracket. Key physical parameters, including elastic modulus, damping coefficient, water vapor transmission rate, and thermal conductivity, are extracted for each layer and entered into the system model library. During disassembly, the interface contact states between each layer are recorded simultaneously. For example, the outer protective layer and the buffer layer are partially bonded, while the buffer layer and the sealing layer are freely bonded. This interface information will be used for the subsequent construction of the bidirectional extrapolation mapping chain.

[0037] S120: Establish a positive intrusion path for environmental stress.

[0038] In this step, based on the spatial order of the protection layers from the outside to the inside, the stepwise transmission path of environmental stress is defined, from the environment entering the outer protective layer, penetrating the buffer layer, reaching the sealing layer, and finally affecting the inner cavity.

[0039] In one possible implementation of this step, the ambient temperature, relative humidity, and vibration acceleration are used as the original stress sources. The forward intrusion path is represented as follows: the outer sheath attenuates the ambient temperature and relative humidity to the inner surface temperature and relative humidity of the outer sheath, while absorbing some vibration energy and converting it into its own strain response; the buffer layer receives the inner surface temperature and relative humidity of the outer sheath, as well as the residual vibration transmitted through the outer sheath, generating its own compressive displacement and internal temperature and humidity changes, and outputting the inner surface temperature, relative humidity, and attenuated acceleration of the buffer layer; under the action of the inner surface temperature, relative humidity, and attenuated acceleration of the buffer layer, the sealing layer maintains the water vapor partial pressure difference on both sides of the sealing interface, and outputs the inner cavity temperature and relative humidity.

[0040] S130: Establish a reverse tracing path for internal cavity failure.

[0041] In this step, starting from the consequences of internal cavity failure, the direct and indirect causes of the internal cavity environment exceeding limits are traced back step by step in the opposite direction to the forward intrusion path, until the external stress source is reached, thus forming a reverse tracing path.

[0042] In one possible implementation of this step, internal cavity failure is defined as the relative humidity inside the cavity exceeding the detector's allowable upper limit. The reverse tracing path is as follows: increased internal cavity humidity can be traced back to a minor leak at the heat seal of the sealing layer or desiccant saturation failure; sealing layer failure may also originate from permanent deformation of the buffer layer after repeated vibrations, tearing the outer bag of the sealing layer, or damage to the outer protective layer allowing liquid water to directly intrude into the buffer layer, causing it to lose its buffering performance and thus compressing the sealing layer. Combining the forward intrusion path with the reverse tracing path forms a node-based... The bidirectional inference mapping chain is represented, where Represents an external stress source. These represent the status nodes of the outer protective layer, buffer layer, and sealing layer, respectively. This represents the internal cavity status node.

[0043] S140: Defines the characteristic parameters for three types of failure causes.

[0044] In this step, based on the statistical regularities of transportation environment data, the environmental disturbances that actually affect the packaging are abstracted into three categories: continuous accumulation, shock mutation, and compound alternation. Typical time-domain and amplitude-domain features are extracted for each category.

[0045] In one possible implementation of this step, the continuous accumulation type corresponds to the diurnal temperature variation and slow humidity penetration during long-distance transportation, characterized by a low rate of change in environmental parameters, long duration, and a low ratio of signal peak value to root mean square value. The impact mutation type corresponds to drops and forklift collisions during loading and unloading, characterized by extremely high instantaneous acceleration peaks and narrow pulse widths. The compound alternating type corresponds to frequent bumps and vibrations superimposed on temperature changes in mountainous road sections, characterized by periodic impact clusters superimposed on a slowly changing temperature and humidity background. In this step, the above features are quantified into threshold parameters for classification, including a peak factor threshold, a short-term impact duration threshold, and a long-term accumulation duration threshold, providing a classification benchmark for subsequent real-time identification.

[0046] S150: Three different verification plans were customized respectively.

[0047] In this step, a differentiated verification plan is developed for each of the continuous accumulation type, the shock mutation type, and the compound alternating type. Each plan clearly specifies the response indicators that should be activated for the outer protective layer, the buffer layer, and the sealing layer, the triggering order of the indicators, and the response tolerance range.

[0048] In one possible implementation of this step, for the continuous accumulation type, the response sequence is defined as outer sheath temperature gradient → relative humidity change rate of the sealing layer → dew point temperature shift of the inner cavity; the response tolerance range of each indicator is pre-calibrated based on the packaging heat and moisture transfer design values. For the impact-induced sudden change type, the response sequence is defined as outer sheath strain → buffer layer acceleration decay → instantaneous pressure fluctuation of the sealing layer; the tolerance ranges of peak strain of the outer sheath, buffer layer transfer rate, and peak-to-peak pressure of the sealing layer are determined based on the packaging impact resistance performance indicators. For the composite alternating type, the response sequence is outer sheath strain envelope → buffer layer cumulative displacement → sealing layer humidity retention time; the response tolerance range is determined by combining fatigue threshold and sealing durability. All tolerance ranges are determined through pre-test calibration in conjunction with packaging design indicators.

[0049] In a weather resistance verification method for protective packaging of detectors during transportation, S200 uses environmental data collected in real time during transportation and response signals at each level to automatically identify the type of disturbance and activate the corresponding contingency plan, perform strict three-dimensional verification, and give a compliance judgment for each disturbance event.

[0050] Please refer to Figure 3 The diagram illustrates a flowchart of an exemplary weather resistance verification method S200 for a detector transport protective package according to the present invention, the contents of which include: S210: The sensing unit collects environmental disturbance and hierarchical response data in real time.

[0051] In this step, sensing units distributed across each layer of the packaging synchronously collect external environmental signals and response signals from each protective layer.

[0052] In one possible implementation of this step, the sensing unit includes a triaxial accelerometer and a temperature and humidity sensor disposed on the outer surface of the outer sheath, for monitoring environmental disturbances. Strain gauges and thin-film thermocouples, attached to the inner surface of the outer sheath, are used to collect the response signal of the outer sheath. Accelerometers and displacement sensors embedded within the buffer layer are used to collect data. Miniature barometers and hygrometers installed on the inner surface of the sealing layer are used to collect data. All sensors sample synchronously at a preset sampling rate, and the data is aggregated to the data processing unit built into the package via a low-power wireless transmission module.

[0053] S220: Identify the type of environmental disturbance in real time and activate the contingency plan.

[0054] In this step, the data processing unit processes real-time environmental signals. The system performs sliding window processing to extract two features: impact intensity and duration. Based on these features, it identifies the type of each environmental disturbance and automatically activates the differentiated verification plan customized for that type in S150.

[0055] In one possible implementation of this step, the impact severity is measured by calculating the ratio of the signal peak value to the root mean square value within the sliding window, and the duration is determined by the cumulative time during which the statistical signal amplitude exceeds a threshold several times the background noise level. When the impact severity is higher than a preset threshold and the duration is lower than a short-term impact duration threshold, the current disturbance is determined to be an impact-induced abrupt change, and the impact-induced abrupt change contingency plan is immediately invoked; when the impact severity does not exceed a preset threshold and the duration is greater than a long-term cumulative duration threshold, it is determined to be a continuous accumulation type; all other cases are determined to be a compound alternating type. Each disturbance event is assigned a unique event ID, and the type label, start time, and original signal snapshot are recorded.

[0056] S230: Collect and calculate the actual values ​​of response indicators at each level.

[0057] In this step, based on the response indicators specified in the activated contingency plan, data collected synchronously is used... Extract the corresponding feature quantities.

[0058] In one possible implementation of this step, for the impact-induced sudden change contingency plan, the peak strain of the outer protective layer, the acceleration transfer rate of the buffer layer, and the peak-to-peak value of the instantaneous pressure of the sealing layer are extracted; for the continuous accumulation contingency plan, the temperature rise rate of the outer protective layer, the humidity change rate of the sealing layer, and the dew point change of the inner cavity are extracted; for the composite alternating contingency plan, the peak value of the strain envelope of the outer protective layer, the cumulative displacement of the buffer layer, and the humidity holding time of the sealing layer are extracted.

[0059] S240: Perform the first dimension check—timing compliance.

[0060] In this step, based on the triggering order of the response indicators specified in the contingency plan, it is verified whether the order and time interval of significant changes in the characteristic quantities of each level in the actual response signal fall within the preset range, and the timing compliance is determined using formula (1). .

[0061] In one possible implementation of this step, the first significant deviation time for each level is first determined using a threshold detection method. The specific threshold is specified in the contingency plan. Then, the activation time difference between adjacent levels is calculated. If all time differences fall within the allowable interval range of the corresponding contingency plan... ,but If the timing conformity is satisfactory, then the specific time difference information for non-compliance is recorded.

[0062] S250: Perform the second dimension check—amplitude matching degree.

[0063] In this step, the response amplitude at each level is checked. Does it fall within the response tolerance range specified in the contingency plan? .

[0064] In one possible implementation of this step, the response amplitude of each level is calculated according to formula (2). If all All meet If the amplitude matching is successful, the amplitude matching is passed. If the amplitude exceeds the limit at any level, the corresponding level and deviation direction are marked. This verification dimension is independent of S240. Failure to pass the timing compliance test will not affect the individual determination of the amplitude matching, but the overall result of the three-dimensional verification is taken as a logical AND.

[0065] S260: Perform third-dimensional verification—restore convergence.

[0066] In this step, after determining that the disturbance event has ended and the environmental signal has returned to the background level, the recovery phase data of the response signals at each level are extracted, and the model fitting time constant defined by formula (3) is used to calculate the recovery convergence degree. .

[0067] In one possible implementation of this step, the disturbance ends at... Determined by the root mean square of environmental acceleration falling back to near the background value. Extraction The second segment of data, for First-order exponential decay fitting was performed separately to obtain the time constant. .calculate and Later obtained .like If the convergence is achieved, the recovery is considered successful; otherwise, it indicates that the recovery processes at different levels are significantly out of sync and are therefore deemed unsuccessful.

[0068] S270: Integrate 3D results and record compliance.

[0069] In this step, the verification results of S240, S250, and S260 are logically ANDed. If all three dimensions pass, the response is deemed compliant; otherwise, it fails, and a detailed event log is generated.

[0070] In one possible implementation of this step, the recorded content includes: event ID, disturbance type, event timestamp, first-dimensional result and non-compliant time interval value, second-dimensional result and the level and magnitude of exceeding limits, third-dimensional result and... Values ​​and measured response records The waveform is displayed within a time window. All records are stored in non-volatile memory and uploaded to the background monitoring system in real-time or near real-time via a wireless network.

[0071] In a weather resistance verification method for protective packaging for detector transport, S300 initiates a structural redundancy hierarchical requisition cyclic verification for disturbance events that are determined to fail. By assuming that each protection level has functional concessions and extrapolating the response along a bidirectional extrapolation mapping chain, the method gradually approximates the measured abnormal mode, thereby accurately locating the protection level where the latent weather resistance defect is located.

[0072] Please refer to Figure 4 The diagram illustrates a flowchart of an exemplary weather resistance verification method S300 for protective packaging of a detector during transport, comprising: S310: Call the measured response record of the failed event and set the comparison benchmark.

[0073] In this step, the measured response record of a disturbance event that failed to pass the compliance test is read from the storage unit, a normalized measured response vector is constructed, and the comparison weights of each level are set.

[0074] In one possible implementation of this step, each response characteristic value is normalized according to a preset rule to ensure that deviations between different physical quantities can be uniformly measured. For example, the peak strain of the outer protective layer is normalized according to the upper limit of the tolerance for that level, the transmissibility of the buffer layer is itself a dimensionless quantity, and the peak-to-peak pressure of the sealing layer is normalized according to the upper limit of the tolerance for that level, thereby obtaining a dimensionless measured vector. At the same time, weighting coefficients are set according to the protection importance of each level under the corresponding failure inducing factors to provide a measurement benchmark for subsequent deviation calculations.

[0075] S320: Initialize single protection level functional yield assumptions and perform offsets.

[0076] In this step, the cyclic verification first assumes that one of the outer sheath, buffer layer, and sealing layer has a functional concession. The concession is manifested as a shift of the response tolerance range of this layer in an unfavorable direction, that is, a further contraction on the basis of the original tolerance boundary, in order to simulate the effect of its weakened response capability.

[0077] In one possible implementation of this step, for the outer sheath yielding assumption, the upper limit of its strain tolerance is shifted downward by an offset, or its temperature gradient tolerance range is narrowed; for the buffer layer yielding assumption, the upper limit of its transmissibility tolerance is shifted upward, or its lower limit of its displacement tolerance is shifted upward; for the sealing layer yielding assumption, the upper limit of its pressure fluctuation tolerance is shifted downward, or its upper limit of its humidity change rate tolerance is shifted upward. The offset is preset according to the performance degradation gradient of the layer, generating corresponding simulation operating condition parameters.

[0078] S330: Derive the response at each level along the bidirectional deduction mapping chain.

[0079] In this step, the hierarchical parameters containing the concession assumption are substituted into the forward model of the bidirectional extrapolation mapping chain. From the location of the hypothetical hierarchical level, extrapolation is performed outwards and to both sides of the inner cavity to calculate the simulated response values ​​that each level should present under this assumption.

[0080] In one possible implementation of this step, a pre-calibrated transfer relationship or an interpolation mapping table based on finite element simulation is used to deduce the response values ​​of each level based on the external stress amplitude and the yielded level parameters. After the same normalization process, a simulated response vector is formed.

[0081] S340: Calculate the deduction deviation and compare it with the actual measurement record.

[0082] In this step, the weighted Euclidean distance between the simulated response vector and the measured response vector is used as the deviation metric. The deviation under each single yield assumption is calculated, the magnitude of the deviation in each assumption direction is compared, and the yield assumption direction with the smallest deviation is retained.

[0083] In one possible implementation of this step, the weighted Euclidean distance is calculated by differentially amplifying the deviations of different components using weight coefficients at each level. If the deviation of a certain hypothetical direction is significantly smaller than that of the other directions, then this hypothetical direction is taken as the current optimal yield direction; if the deviations of all directions are large and exceed a preset convergence threshold, then it is determined that a single-level yield cannot explain the measured anomalies.

[0084] S350: Overlay adjacent protection layers synchronously retreat and iteratively deduce.

[0085] In this step, if none of the single-level yield assumptions can reduce the deviation to below the convergence threshold, the system superimposes the synchronous yield assumptions of adjacent protection levels on the assumption direction of minimum deviation to form a combined yield scheme, and executes S330 and S340 again, iterating repeatedly until the deviation meets the convergence condition.

[0086] In one possible implementation of this step, the combined yield assumptions follow an adjacency principle of "from inside to outside" or "from outside to inside," for example, superimposing an outer sheath yield or a sealing layer yield on top of the buffer layer yield assumption. Each iteration extrapolates the response of each level along the bidirectional extrapolation mapping chain and calculates the deviation. The superposition direction that further reduces the deviation is retained, and the offset is further refined. The loop exits when the deviation drops below the convergence threshold after a certain iteration, or when the deviation no longer decreases significantly after continuous superposition.

[0087] S360: Records the location results of latent weathering defects.

[0088] In this step, after the loop exits, the main concession protection level corresponding to the matching hypothesis is recorded as the protection level where the latent weathering defect is located, and the intermediate deduction process is stored in the event log.

[0089] In one possible implementation of this step, the recorded information includes: the final matching set of yield assumptions, the offsets at each level, the final deviation between the projected response vector and the measured vector, and the convergence curve. If the final positioning involves multiple levels, the primary and secondary relationships are marked.

[0090] In a weather resistance verification method for protective packaging for detector transport, S400 aggregates the analysis results of all disturbance events within the same transport segment, eliminates occasional misjudgments through multi-dimensional cross-verification, aggregates anomalies with consistent orientation into segment-level negative judgments, or marks segments with insufficient evidence as observation states.

[0091] Please refer to Figure 5 It illustrates a flowchart of an exemplary weather resistance verification method S400 for a detector transport protective package according to the present invention, the contents of which include: S410: Divide transportation sections and collect event data within the sections.

[0092] In this step, the entire transportation process is divided into several transportation segments according to geographical routes or time windows, each segment having relatively consistent environmental characteristics. The compliance assessment results of all disturbance events generated by S200 and the protection levels of hidden weathering defects discovered by S300 are collected by segment.

[0093] In one possible implementation of this step, segment division can be based on transportation plans, GPS trajectories, or clustering results of environmental stress characteristics. For each segment, the number of various types of disturbance events, the number of failed events, the specific dimensions of the failed events, and the level of the identified latent weathering defects are counted to construct a segment-level event archive.

[0094] S420: First Dimension Verification—Consistency of Anomaly Dimensions at the Protection Level.

[0095] In this step, we analyze the protection levels involved in the anomaly dimensions of the response indicators for all failed events within the same segment, and check whether they all point to a specific level.

[0096] In one possible implementation of this step, if most of the failed events within a segment have the same protection level in terms of amplitude matching degree or recovery convergence degree, then the anomaly dimension is considered to have a high degree of consistency in the protection level.

[0097] S430: Second-dimensional verification—mutual explanatory power of failure cause types.

[0098] In this step, we examine the dimensions that failed to pass due to different types of disturbances to see if there is a mutually explainable relationship in terms of failure mechanism.

[0099] In one possible implementation of this step, a pre-defined interpretation matrix is ​​provided within the system. This matrix defines the logical relationship between different failure initiation types and abnormal response behaviors. For example, the deterioration of buffer layer transfer rate caused by shock-induced abrupt changes and the creep of the buffer layer caused by continuous accumulation can be mutually explained in terms of material degradation mechanisms. If the anomalies caused by different types of disturbances occurring in the same segment conform to the mutual explanatory relationship in the interpretation matrix, then the second dimension is verified.

[0100] S440: Third-dimensional verification—the degree of overlap between defect location and mapping chain perturbation frequency.

[0101] In this step, we examine whether the hidden weathering defect protection level located by S300 coincides with the protection level in the two-way extrapolation mapping chain that has been disturbed multiple times and has shown response deviation.

[0102] In one possible implementation of this step, the frequency of abnormal responses of each protection level during disturbance events is counted from the segment event archive. If the defect level clearly identified in S300 matches the level with the highest frequency of abnormal responses, then the third-dimensional verification is successful.

[0103] S450: Forms a segment-level multi-dimensional negative judgment or observation state.

[0104] In this step, when the verification results of at least two dimensions point to the same protection level or the same failure cause type, the system forms a multi-dimensional negative judgment for this transport segment and identifies the specific failure point. When a disturbance event that fails to meet response compliance occurs within the segment, but the verification results of each dimension are scattered and lack consistency, the transport segment is placed in an observation state; when no disturbance event that fails to meet response compliance occurs within the segment, the transport segment is placed in a normal state.

[0105] In one possible implementation of this step, the multi-dimensional negative judgment record includes: segment identifier, indicated protection level, failure cause type, description of the identified failure point, and supporting evidence for each dimension. The observation status record only retains the segment identifier and observation markers for reference during subsequent comprehensive judgment.

[0106] In a weather resistance verification method for protective packaging for detector transportation, S500 integrates the judgment results of all sections throughout the entire journey, gives an overall weather resistance evaluation of the packaging according to a three-level conclusion model, and constructs a complete traceability evidence chain from environmental stress intrusion to confirmation of internal defects.

[0107] Please refer to Figure 6 The diagram illustrates a flowchart of an exemplary weather resistance verification method S500 for protective packaging of a detector during transport, comprising the following: S510: Summarize the multi-dimensional determination results for the entire transportation segment.

[0108] In this step, the final status markers of all transportation segments are traversed, and the number of segments with multi-dimensional negative judgments, the identified failure links, and the number and proportion of segments in the observed state are counted.

[0109] In one possible implementation of this step, the states of each segment are categorized and summarized as: normal segments, multi-dimensional negative decision segments, and observation segments. The specific failure points and involved protection levels of each multi-dimensional negative decision segment are recorded, and the proportion of observation segments to the total number of segments is calculated.

[0110] S520: Implement Level 3 weather resistance conclusion judgment.

[0111] In this step, the overall weather resistance level of the packaging is determined based on preset logic.

[0112] In one possible implementation of this step, a preset threshold for the proportion of observed state segments is set. The judgment logic is as follows: if no multi-dimensional negative judgments occur throughout the entire process and the proportion of observed state segments is lower than the threshold for the proportion of observed state segments. If the weather resistance is satisfactory, it is considered acceptable. If multiple negative assessments are made, all identified failure points do not involve the inner cavity sealing interface, and the proportion of the observed state section is lower than the threshold for the proportion of the observed state section. If the weather resistance is deemed conditionally acceptable, a defect list will be provided; if any multi-dimensional negative assessment involves the inner cavity sealing interface, or if the proportion of the observed state section is not less than the threshold for the proportion of the observed state section. If so, it is judged as failing the weather resistance test.

[0113] S530: Construct a chain of evidence for tracing the source at each level.

[0114] In this step, the bidirectional deductive mapping chain constructed by S100 is used as the index framework. From the outer protective layer to the inner cavity, key evidence of each protective layer throughout the entire process is extracted to form a complete traceability evidence chain.

[0115] In one possible implementation of this step, for each protection level, the extracted evidence includes: records of all disturbance events related to abnormal responses at this protection level in S200, including time, type, and failed dimension; the convergence curve and deviation value of the cyclic verification and deduction process in S300 showing that this protection level is a yield level; and the cross-verification conclusions of each segment in S400 regarding the determination criteria for this protection level. All evidence is organized according to time axis and spatial hierarchy, and includes original sensor data signatures and timestamps to ensure tamper-proofness.

[0116] S540: Transfer of evidence chain with packaging and detector.

[0117] In this step, the complete traceability evidence chain generated by S530 is exported through the secure data interface and handed over to the recipient along with the packaging box and the detector body, serving as the basis for unpacking inspection and quality traceability.

[0118] In one possible implementation of this step, the chain of evidence is delivered in both encrypted report and structured data formats, containing a diagram of the protection hierarchy that visually illustrates the location and impact path of each defect within the protection hierarchy. The recipient can use a dedicated reader to verify each level, confirming the environmental stresses experienced by the packaging during transportation, the dynamic responses at each level, and the reasoning process for latent defects, thus achieving transparency from environmental stress intrusion to the confirmation of internal defects.

[0119] Example 2: To verify the engineering applicability of the method of this invention, a certain type of spaceborne optical detector was selected for intercontinental long-distance transport weather resistance verification. This detector is extremely sensitive to humidity and vibration, with an allowable upper limit of 30% relative humidity within its cavity and an acceleration-sensitive frequency band of 10Hz to 500Hz. The transport packaging adopts a three-layer composite structure: an outer protective layer of aluminum-plastic composite film with a thickness of 0.15 mm; a cushioning layer of customized polyurethane foam with a thickness of 30 mm; and a sealing layer of aluminum foil bag filled with molecular sieve desiccant, with a heat-sealed opening width of 10 mm. The total transport route is approximately 12,000 kilometers long, including sea, rail, and road segments, passing through temperate maritime climate zones, tropical monsoon climate zones, and arid desert climate zones, with a total journey time of 45 days. The packaging contains a weather resistance verification system based on the method of Example 1, with a total of 23 sensing units. Data acquisition and processing are performed by a low-power ARM processor, and 512GB of solid-state storage is built-in.

[0120] The entire transportation process is divided into 8 transportation segments based on geographical environment and transportation mode. The basic information of each segment and the results of multi-dimensional judgment are shown in Table 1.

[0121] Table 1. Results of Transportation Section Division and Multi-Dimensional Determination The system identified a total of 711 valid disturbance events throughout the process, and the statistics are shown in Table 2, which are classified according to the failure cause type.

[0122] Table 2. Disturbance Event Types and Statistics of 3D Verification Failures The S200 3D verification identified 55 instances where the response to disturbance events failed to meet compliance standards. Among these, segments 4 and 6 had the highest number of failed events, accounting for 32.7% and 40.0% of the total number of failed events, respectively.

[0123] For each of the 55 failed events, a cyclical verification process was initiated using the S300 structural redundancy. Latent weathering defects were successfully located in 41 instances, achieving a success rate of 74.5%. The remaining 14 instances failed to locate the defects because the deviation convergence curves did not clearly distinguish between multiple hypothetical directions. The hierarchical distribution and typical manifestations of latent weathering defects are shown in Table 3.

[0124] Table 3. Statistics on the location of latent weathering defects In the S400 cross-verification at the section level, sections 4 and 6 formed a multi-dimensional negative judgment. Section 4 is located on a tropical mountain road, where continuous cumulative disturbances and compound alternating disturbances act alternately. Of the 18 failure events, 13 were successfully located by S300. Among them, 11 pointed to the buffer layer's transmissibility exceeding the limit or cumulative displacement exceeding the limit, and 2 pointed to the abnormal humidity recovery of the sealing layer. The 13 defects located by S300 converged to the buffer layer in all three dimensions. The failure point was identified as the creep softening of the polyurethane foam in the buffer layer under the superimposed high temperature and high humidity and continuous vibration environment, which led to a decrease in stiffness and an increase in transmissibility. Section 6, located in a desert railway section, exhibits both sudden impact disturbances and cumulative disturbances. Of the 22 failed events, 16 were successfully located via S300. These included 10 defects in the buffer layer (dry heat aging and embrittlement), 5 defects in the heat-sealing of the sealing layer (micro-peeling caused by dry heat cycling and wind erosion), and 1 defect in the outer sheath. All three dimensions of verification pointed to the buffer layer and the heat-sealing of the sealing layer, identifying the failure points as dry heat aging and embrittlement of the buffer layer foam and degradation of the sealing performance of the heat-sealing of the sealing layer. The verification results for sections 5 and 7 were scattered, with 2 and 5 failed events respectively, and 1 and 3 successful locations respectively, failing to form a consistent indication. These sections were placed under observation. The proportion of sections under observation was 62.5%, exceeding the preset threshold of 20%.

[0125] S500 summarizes the multi-dimensional judgment results of the entire process. Since both sections 4 and 6 have formed multi-dimensional negative judgments, and the proportion of observed state sections exceeds the preset threshold of 20%, according to the three-level conclusion judgment rules, the overall weather resistance of the packaging is judged as unqualified. The system generates a detailed list of defects such as creep softening and dry heat aging embrittlement of the buffer layer and micro-peeling defects of the heat sealing layer. Using a two-way inference mapping chain as an index, it extracts 55 failure event records from S200, 41 positioning inference conclusions from S300, and cross-confirmation evidence from each section in S400 level by level from the outer protective layer to the inner cavity, forming a complete traceability evidence chain.

[0126] After the evidence chain was handed over to the recipient along with the packaging box, the unpacking inspection showed that the highest humidity recorder inside the detector's cavity was 28%, which did not exceed the allowable limit. However, due to two clear cross-section systemic defects in the packaging, it was still determined that the packaging improvement needed to be completed before the next mission. The improvement measures included replacing the cushioning foam with a high-temperature creep-resistant and dry heat-resistant aging-resistant formula, increasing the width of the heat-sealed sealing layer to 15 mm, and adding a secondary pressing process after heat sealing. In the subsequent three independent transportation missions, the improved packaging recorded a total of 2180 disturbance events, with only 3 failures. These were all occasional, single-dimensional, slight exceedances, and did not form any section-level multi-dimensional negative judgments. The weather resistance was judged to be qualified.

[0127] Example 3: A weather resistance verification system for protective packaging of detectors during transport, the system has three core functional pages, such as... Figure 7 , Figure 8 and Figure 9 As shown, the system includes a transportation overview interface, a 3D verification interface, and a defect location interface. The system comprises: The two-way extrapolation mapping chain construction and contingency plan customization unit is used to disassemble the detector transport packaging layer by layer, construct a two-way extrapolation mapping chain from the outer protective layer through the buffer layer and sealing layer to the inner cavity, and customize differentiated verification contingency plans including response indicators, triggering order and response tolerance range for three types of failure causes: continuous accumulation type, shock mutation type and compound alternating type. The real-time environmental disturbance identification and three-dimensional verification unit is used to identify the type of environmental disturbance and activate the corresponding contingency plan in real time during transportation. It collects response signals of each protection level and performs three-dimensional verification of timing compliance, amplitude matching and recovery convergence in sequence. If any dimension fails, the response compliance is deemed to have failed. At the same time, the measured response data is saved. If all three dimensions pass, the response is deemed to have passed. The structural redundancy hierarchical requisition cyclic verification unit is used to call the measured response record to start the structural redundancy hierarchical requisition cyclic verification for disturbance events that fail to pass the response compliance test. By assuming the functional concession of a single or combined protection level and comparing and deducing along the bidirectional deduction mapping chain, the protection level where the hidden weathering defects are located is located. The multi-dimensional cross-verification unit is used to gather the judgment results and defect location information of all disturbance events within the same transport segment, and perform multi-dimensional cross-verification. When two or more dimensions point to the same protection level or failure type, a multi-dimensional negative judgment is formed and the failure link is identified; otherwise, it is listed as an observation state. The weather resistance level 3 conclusion output and traceability evidence chain construction unit is used to summarize the judgment results of the entire journey section after the transportation is completed, output the level 3 conclusion of weather resistance qualified, conditionally qualified or unqualified, and construct a complete traceability evidence chain from environmental stress intrusion to defect confirmation using a two-way deduction mapping chain as an index, and hand it over to the recipient.

[0128] Those skilled in the art will understand that embodiments of the present invention can be embodied in the form of a method, system, or computer program product. Therefore, the present invention can take the form of a completely hardware embodiment, a completely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, the present invention can also take the form of a computer program product implemented on one or more computer-readable storage media containing computer-readable program code. The solutions in the embodiments of the present invention can be implemented in various computer languages; exemplarily, they can be implemented using the object-oriented programming language Java and the interpreted scripting language JavaScript, etc.

[0129] Although preferred embodiments of the invention have been described, those skilled in the art, upon learning the basic inventive concept, can make changes and modifications to these embodiments. Therefore, the appended claims are intended to cover both the preferred embodiments and all changes and modifications falling within the scope of this invention.

[0130] Obviously, those skilled in the art can make various modifications and variations to this invention without departing from its spirit and scope. If such modifications and variations fall within the scope of the claims of this invention and their equivalents, then this invention also intends to include such modifications and variations.

Claims

1. A method for verifying the weather resistance of protective packaging for detector transportation, characterized in that, include: The detector's transport packaging was disassembled layer by layer to construct a two-way deductive mapping chain of the forward intrusion path and the reverse tracing path from the outer protective layer through the buffer layer and the sealing layer to the inner cavity. Differentiated verification plans, including response indicators, triggering order and response tolerance range, were customized for three types of failure causes: continuous accumulation, shock mutation, and compound alternation. During transportation, the system identifies environmental disturbance types in real time and activates corresponding contingency plans, collects response signals from each protection level, and sequentially performs three-dimensional verification of timing compliance, amplitude matching, and recovery convergence. If any dimension fails, the response is deemed non-compliant, and the measured response data is saved; if all three dimensions pass, the response is deemed compliant. For disturbance events that fail to meet compliance requirements, the measured response records are invoked to initiate a cyclical verification of structural redundancy by requisitioning each level. By assuming single or combined protection level functional concessions and comparing the results along the bidirectional deduction mapping chain, the protection level at which the latent weathering defects are located is determined. Within the same transport segment, all disturbance event judgment results and defect location information are collected and multi-dimensional cross-verification is performed; when two or more dimensions point to the same protection level or failure type, a multi-dimensional negative judgment is formed and the failure link is identified; otherwise, it is listed as an observation state. After the transportation is completed, the judgment results of the entire journey are summarized, and a three-level conclusion of weather resistance qualified, conditionally qualified, or unqualified is output. A complete traceability evidence chain from environmental stress intrusion to defect confirmation is constructed using a two-way deductive mapping chain as an index and handed over to the recipient.

2. The weather resistance verification method for the protective packaging of the detector during transport according to claim 1, characterized in that, The construction of the bidirectional inference mapping chain includes establishing a forward intrusion path of environmental stress: Based on the spatial order of the protective layers from the outside to the inside, the external ambient temperature, external relative humidity, and external vibration acceleration are used as the original stress sources. The environmental stress is defined to pass through the layers step by step, so that the outer protective layer attenuates the external environmental parameters into the temperature and relative humidity of the inner surface of the outer protective layer and converts the vibration energy into the strain response of the outer protective layer. The buffer layer receives the temperature and relative humidity of the inner surface of the outer protective layer and the residual vibration and generates the compressive displacement of the buffer layer and the temperature, relative humidity, and attenuation acceleration of the inner surface of the buffer layer. Under the action of the temperature, relative humidity, and attenuation acceleration of the inner surface of the buffer layer, the sealing layer maintains the water vapor partial pressure difference at the sealing interface and outputs the internal cavity temperature and relative humidity.

3. The weather resistance verification method for the protective packaging of the detector during transportation according to claim 2, characterized in that, The construction of the bidirectional deduction mapping chain also includes establishing a reverse tracing path for internal cavity failure: starting from the consequences of internal cavity failure, tracing back step by step in the opposite direction to the forward intrusion path, tracing back from excessive internal cavity humidity to leakage of the sealing layer or saturation of the desiccant, tracing back from sealing layer failure to permanent deformation of the buffer layer or damage to the outer protective layer, until tracing back to the external stress source, forming a bidirectional deduction mapping chain in which the external stress source node, the outer protective layer state node, the buffer layer state node, the sealing layer state node and the internal cavity state node are connected in sequence.

4. The weather resistance verification method for the protective packaging of the detector during transport according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps for customizing the differentiated verification plan include: Based on the statistical laws of the transportation environment, environmental disturbances are abstracted into continuous accumulation type, shock mutation type and compound alternating type. The time domain and amplitude domain characteristics of each type are extracted and quantified into peak factor threshold, short-term impact duration threshold and long-term accumulation duration threshold. The first contingency plan for continuous accumulation type is triggered by the temperature gradient of the outer protective layer → the relative humidity change rate of the sealing layer → the dew point temperature shift of the inner cavity. The second contingency plan for impact mutation type is triggered by the strain of the outer protective layer → the acceleration decay of the buffer layer → the instantaneous pressure fluctuation of the sealing layer. The third contingency plan for composite alternating type is triggered by the strain envelope of the outer protective layer → the cumulative displacement of the buffer layer → the humidity holding time of the sealing layer. Each contingency plan also specifies the response tolerance range for each response indicator under the corresponding failure cause type.

5. The weather resistance verification method for the protective packaging of the detector during transport according to claim 4, characterized in that, The real-time identification of environmental disturbance types and the activation of the corresponding contingency plans include: Environmental disturbance signals are collected by triaxial accelerometers and temperature and humidity sensors arranged on the outer surface of the outer sheath; response signals of the outer sheath are collected by strain gauges and thin-film thermocouples attached to the inner surface of the outer sheath; response signals of the buffer layer are collected by accelerometers and displacement sensors embedded in the buffer layer; and response signals of the sealing layer are collected by miniature barometers and hygrometers installed on the inner surface of the sealing layer. The environmental disturbance signal is processed by a sliding window. The ratio of the signal peak value to the root mean square value is extracted as the impact level. The cumulative time when the signal exceeds the background noise threshold is extracted as the duration. When the impact level is higher than the preset threshold and the duration is lower than the short-term impact duration threshold, it is determined to be an impact mutation type. When the impact level does not exceed the preset threshold and the duration is greater than the long-term cumulative duration threshold, it is determined to be a continuous accumulation type. All other cases are determined to be a compound alternation type, and the corresponding differentiated verification plan is automatically invoked.

6. The weather resistance verification method for the detector transport protective packaging according to claim 5, characterized in that, The acquisition of response signals for each protection level includes: Based on the response indicators specified in the activated contingency plan, the peak strain of the outer protective layer, the acceleration transfer rate of the buffer layer, and the peak-to-peak value of the instantaneous pressure of the sealing layer are extracted for the impact-induced sudden change contingency plan; the temperature rise rate of the outer protective layer, the humidity change rate of the sealing layer, and the change in the dew point of the inner cavity are extracted for the continuous accumulation contingency plan; and the peak strain envelope of the outer protective layer, the cumulative displacement of the buffer layer, and the humidity holding time of the sealing layer are extracted for the composite alternating contingency plan. The response amplitude is calculated using the root mean square value with the activation period as the integration interval.

7. The weather resistance verification method for the protective packaging of the detector during transport according to claim 5, characterized in that, The execution steps of the three-dimensional verification of timing conformity, amplitude matching degree, and recovery convergence degree include: The first dimension of verification is timing compliance verification. A threshold detection method is used to determine the first significant deviation time of the response signal at each protection level. The activation time difference between adjacent levels is calculated. Timing compliance is determined when all time differences fall within the allowable time interval specified in the plan. Defined as: In the formula, For timing compliance, For adjacent activation order index, For indicator functions, For the first One activated protection level index, For the first The moment of the first significant deviation of the hierarchical response signal. The contingency plan is aimed at the first The preset allowed time interval range for adjacent segment activation is used. As the lower limit, The upper limit, For logical AND operation; The second dimension of verification is amplitude matching verification, which calculates the root mean square value of the response signal of each protection level during the active period as the actual response amplitude. , In the formula, For the integral window length, For the first The response signal of the protection level, For the first The first significant deviation of the hierarchical response signal occurs when all levels... All fell within the amplitude tolerance range specified in the contingency plan. Intra-time amplitude matching determination and For the contingency plan The lower and upper limits of amplitude tolerance specified by the level; The third dimension verification is the recovery convergence verification, which involves performing a first-order exponential decay fitting on the recovery segments of the response signals at each level after the disturbance subsides. In the formula, This is the steady-state value. To restore the initial deviation, To restore the starting time, For the first Time constant of protection layer Corresponding to the outer protective layer, Corresponding buffer layer, Calculate the time constant of the outer protective layer corresponding to the sealing layer. Buffer layer time constant and sealing layer time constant mean and standard deviation Restoring convergence ,when Not less than the preset threshold Timely determination of convergence; If any dimension in the three-dimensional verification fails to meet the requirements, the response compliance of the disturbance event is deemed to have failed, and the non-compliant dimension and the corresponding measured response record are recorded.

8. The weather resistance verification method for the protective packaging of the detector during transport according to claim 1, characterized in that, The structural redundancy hierarchical requisition cyclic verification includes: The measured response records of disturbance events that fail to meet compliance are retrieved, and the measured response characteristic values ​​of each protection level are normalized according to preset rules to form a dimensionless measured response vector. Weight coefficients are set according to the protection importance of each protection level under the corresponding failure cause. Initialize the single protection level function concession assumption, and shift the response tolerance range of the assumed concession protection level in the unfavorable direction by a preset offset amount, so as to simulate the state after the response capability of the level is weakened by the contracted tolerance range. Substitute the hierarchical parameters containing the concession assumption into the forward model of the bidirectional extrapolation mapping chain, and extrapolate the response of each level from the assumed concession level to both the inner and outer sides. After normalization, a simulated response vector is formed. The weighted Euclidean distance between the simulated response vector and the measured response vector is calculated as the extrapolation error. If the deduction deviation of all single-level retreat assumptions is greater than the convergence threshold, then based on the single retreat assumption corresponding to the minimum deduction deviation, the synchronous retreat assumption of adjacent protection levels is superimposed to form a combined retreat scheme and the deviation is deduced and calculated again. The superposition direction that makes the deviation continuously decrease is retained through iteration until the deviation drops below the convergence threshold or the deviation no longer decreases and the loop is exited. After the loop exits, the primary yield protection level pointed to by the matching yield assumption combination is recorded as the protection level where the latent weathering defect is located.

9. The weather resistance verification method for the protective packaging of the detector during transport according to claim 1, characterized in that, The multi-dimensional cross-verification execution steps include: The first dimension of verification involves comparing the protection levels of each failed event within the same transport segment that exceed the limits in terms of amplitude matching degree or recovery convergence degree, and determining whether the anomaly dimensions are concentrated in the same protection level. The second dimension verification checks whether the failure dimensions caused by different types of disturbance events within the same transport segment satisfy the mutual interpretation relationship defined in the preset interpretation matrix. The interpretation matrix stores the logical association between different failure cause types and abnormal response performance. The third dimension verifies whether the protection level of the latent weathering defects located by the stepwise requisition of structural redundancy coincides with the protection level of the multiple occurrences of response anomalies in the bidirectional extrapolation mapping chain. When the verification results of at least two dimensions point to the same protection level or the same failure cause type, a multi-dimensional negative judgment is formed for the transport segment, and the specific failure link is identified; when a disturbance event that fails to meet response compliance occurs in the segment, but the verification results of each dimension are scattered and lack consistent direction, the transport segment is listed as an observation segment; when no disturbance event that fails to meet response compliance occurs in the segment, the transport segment is listed as a normal segment.

10. The weather resistance verification method for the protective packaging of the detector during transport according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps for outputting the Level 3 weather resistance conclusion include: Summarize the number of multi-dimensional negative judgment segments, the identified failure links, and the proportion of segments under observation in the entire transportation segment; If no multi-dimensional negative judgments occur throughout the entire process and the proportion of observed state segments is lower than the threshold for the proportion of observed state segments, the overall weather resistance of the packaging is deemed qualified. If a multi-dimensional negative assessment occurs, all identified failure points do not involve the inner cavity sealing interface, and the proportion of the observed state section is lower than the threshold for the proportion of the observed state section, the overall weather resistance of the packaging is deemed conditionally qualified and a defect list is attached. If multiple negative assessments are made, all identified failure points do not involve the inner cavity sealing interface, and the proportion of observed state sections is lower than the threshold for the proportion of observed state sections, the overall weather resistance of the packaging is deemed conditionally qualified and a defect list is attached.

11. The weather resistance verification method for the protective packaging of the detector during transport according to claim 10, characterized in that, The steps for constructing the chain of evidence for tracing the source include: Using a two-way deductive mapping chain as an index framework, the response compliance judgment results of each protection level in the entire process of each environmental disturbance event are extracted from the outer protection level to the inner cavity. The convergence curve and deviation record of the level being deduced as a yield level in the cyclic verification of the progressive requisition of structural redundancy are also extracted, as well as the judgment basis of the level in the cross-verification. The extracted evidence is organized according to timeline and spatial hierarchy, and the original sensor data signatures and timestamps are attached to form an immutable chain of traceability evidence. The chain of evidence for tracing the source will be handed over to the recipient along with the packaging and detector in an encrypted report and structured data format.

12. A weather resistance verification system for protective packaging of detectors during transport, characterized in that, A method for verifying the weather resistance of the detector transport protective packaging as described in any one of claims 1 to 11, comprising: The two-way extrapolation mapping chain construction and contingency plan customization unit is used to disassemble the detector transport packaging layer by layer, construct a two-way extrapolation mapping chain from the outer protective layer through the buffer layer and sealing layer to the inner cavity, and customize differentiated verification contingency plans including response indicators, triggering order and response tolerance range for three types of failure causes: continuous accumulation type, shock mutation type and compound alternating type. The real-time environmental disturbance identification and three-dimensional verification unit is used to identify the type of environmental disturbance and activate the corresponding contingency plan in real time during transportation. It collects response signals of each protection level and performs three-dimensional verification of timing compliance, amplitude matching and recovery convergence in sequence. If any dimension fails, the response compliance is deemed to have failed. At the same time, the measured response data is saved. If all three dimensions pass, the response is deemed to have passed. The structural redundancy hierarchical requisition cyclic verification unit is used to call the measured response record to start the structural redundancy hierarchical requisition cyclic verification for disturbance events that fail to pass the response compliance test. By assuming the functional concession of a single or combined protection level and comparing and deducing along the bidirectional deduction mapping chain, the protection level where the hidden weathering defects are located is located. The multi-dimensional cross-verification unit is used to gather the judgment results and defect location information of all disturbance events within the same transport segment, and perform multi-dimensional cross-verification. When two or more dimensions point to the same protection level or failure type, a multi-dimensional negative judgment is formed and the failure link is identified; otherwise, it is listed as an observation state. The weather resistance level 3 conclusion output and traceability evidence chain construction unit is used to summarize the judgment results of the entire journey section after the transportation is completed, output the level 3 conclusion of weather resistance qualified, conditionally qualified or unqualified, and construct a complete traceability evidence chain from environmental stress intrusion to defect confirmation using a two-way deduction mapping chain as an index, and hand it over to the recipient.

Images