Multi-section roller conveyor line optimization effect quantification evaluation method and system

Abstract

The application provides a multi-section roller conveyor line optimization effect quantitative evaluation method and system, and relates to the technical field of industrial automation conveying.The application adopts a combination evaluation architecture of standardized pressure test conditions, a 3+1 quantitative index system, a position-based hierarchical extrusion hard constraint and A / B paired statistical determination, realizes on-site physical quantitative evaluation of actual effects generated by roller line bottom layer control logic and limited local hardware optimization.The evaluation index system includes three core KPIs: maximum effective buffer capacity, relative emptying rate improvement ratio and upstream reproducible production time, and a one-vote veto constraint, i.e., continuous close piece number.A / B paired test requires no less than three effective test periods before and after the transformation.The application can realize on-site physical quantitative evaluation of multi-section roller conveying system transformation effects, A / B acceptance and auditable evaluation, and solves the problems of lack of standardized pressure test conditions, multi-dimensional quantitative indexes, position-based extrusion hard constraint mechanism and auditable evaluation in the prior art.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the technical field of industrial automated conveying systems, and more specifically, to a method and system for quantitatively evaluating the optimization effect of multi-segment roller conveyor lines. Background Technology

[0002] In the packaging industries of food, daily chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, multi-segment roller conveyor systems are commonly deployed between upstream case packers and downstream aligning and palletizing equipment. These systems consist of multiple independently driven roller conveyors connected in series, and rely on PLCs and photoelectric sensors for cascaded start / stop, blockage detection, and interlocking control. This system is not merely a conveying mechanism; its core function is to decouple the production rhythm between upstream and downstream processes, buffering rhythm disturbances caused by fluctuations in upstream equipment, follow-up production, and manual waiting, thereby improving the overall line's fault tolerance and operational efficiency. Therefore, the core performance indicators for evaluating this type of system are dynamic buffer capacity, material release efficiency, and the speed of upstream recovery after a fault, rather than basic conveying capacity.

[0003] On-site optimization of multi-segment roller conveyor systems primarily focuses on low-cost electronic control tuning, including adjusting photoelectric sensor logic, optimizing cascading strategies, and matching inverter parameters. This can alter system performance without modifying the mechanical structure. These devices mainly transport rigid corrugated cardboard boxes fully loaded with finished products, which differs fundamentally from flexible materials: the boxes show little deformation under pressure, and the risk of compression is hidden; under pressure, the rollers continuously rub against the stationary boxes, easily causing damage to the contents and accelerated wear of components. Therefore, the optimization evaluation of rigid cardboard box conveyor systems must incorporate the risk of compression in topological zones into hard constraints, and cannot rely solely on cycle time deviation for evaluation.

[0004] Currently, existing technologies cannot meet the standardized and quantitative evaluation requirements of this scenario. For example, CN120317865A, a predictive maintenance method for transmission equipment, focuses on identifying cycle time misalignment, predictive maintenance, and drive delay adjustment during flexible material handling. However, it lacks a standardized stress testing environment, cannot conduct A / B comparison evaluations before and after modification, and does not include a positional compression hard constraint mechanism for rigid or semi-rigid boxed products. CN121559999A, a material batching and conveying process monitoring system based on digital twins, relies on multi-source data and digital twin models for fault diagnosis. This solution prioritizes fault warning over performance acceptance, lacks controllable stress testing conditions, and lacks dedicated quantitative indicators for buffering, emptying, and resuming production. Furthermore, it has high deployment costs, weak auditability, and is unsuitable for on-site engineering acceptance. The CN107944765B evaluation system and method for intelligent manufacturing production scheduling and collaborative management capabilities is designed for simulation rating of upper-level scheduling business in MES and ERP systems. It is detached from the underlying physical conveying process and lacks on-site physical testing, making it unsuitable for integrated evaluation of multi-dimensional performance and extrusion risk of roller conveyors.

[0005] Currently, the industry lacks a comprehensive quantitative evaluation system for roller conveyor systems: there are no standardized anti-interference pressure test conditions, making the evaluation data incomparable; downstream parameter freezing constraints are not set, and parameter drift can easily contaminate the evaluation results; a multi-dimensional complementary index system is lacking, making it easy to produce pseudo-optimizations; there are no topological hierarchical extrusion hard constraints, making it difficult to prevent the behavior of exchanging product damage for surface indicators; at the same time, there is a lack of closed-loop evaluation processes that are compatible with PLCs, auditable, and reproducible, which restricts the implementation and acceptance of electrical control optimization solutions.

[0006] In view of the above, this application is hereby submitted. Summary of the Invention

[0007] This invention aims to provide a method and system for quantitatively evaluating the optimization effect of multi-segment roller conveyor lines, in order to solve the following problems existing in the current methods:

[0008] (1) The lack of standardized stress test conditions that can shield the inherent fluctuations of the upstream packing machine, the production follow-up conditions and the waiting time of the workers makes the test inputs before and after the modification of the conveying system incomparable and the optimization effect cannot be evaluated in a statistical sense. (2) The lack of a boundary constraint mechanism that uses the downstream aligning device and the robotic palletizer as a frozen constant physical consumption benchmark leads to the evaluation of the control optimization effect of the downstream parameter drift contamination roller conveyor itself. (3) The lack of a multi-dimensional quantitative indicator system that simultaneously covers and complements buffering capacity, release capacity and upstream reproducibility speed makes it easy for pseudo-optimization to occur, where optimization of a single indicator leads to degradation of other dimensions. (4) The lack of a graded extrusion hard constraint mechanism based on the physical topology of the roller conveyor line makes it impossible to identify and block dangerous optimizations that sacrifice product damage for surface KPI improvement. (5) There is a lack of an auditable evaluation process that unifies the archiving of original test data, video evidence, PLC event records and statistical significance determination, resulting in optimization effects that are not reproducible, not auditable, and not disclosed to the public. (6) There is a lack of an optimization verification closed-loop evaluation system that is compatible with existing PLC control systems, can be quickly deployed, and is matched with the underlying control parameter optimization scheme.

[0009] To address the aforementioned technical problems, this invention, based on standardized on-site testing, photoelectric sensor status, PLC events, video verification, and location-specific hard constraints, outputs quantitative evaluation conclusions before and after the modification. Specifically, this is achieved through the following technical solution: A quantitative evaluation method for the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line includes: S1, determine the test boundary of the multi-segment roller conveyor system being evaluated, exclude upstream production equipment from the formal test input or set it to a controlled feeding mode, set the downstream aligning device and / or palletizing device to a frozen constant physical consumption benchmark, and the core test object is the multi-segment roller conveyor system. S2, according to the preset feeding rate and feeding compliance criteria, performs standardized pressure feeding test. Throughout the test, differentiated thresholds are used to monitor the number of continuously closely attached parts on the physical topology of the roller conveyor, including at least the bends, straight sections, and positions in front of precision moving equipment. Feeding is achieved by manual rhythm feeding, audio-visual rhythm feeding, semi-automatic or programmable feeding devices. S3: Continue standardized feeding while the downstream equipment is locked down. Record the timestamp of each segment that triggers the shutdown. The reverse blockage in multiple sections is transmitted to the upstream segment to trigger the shutdown and stop feeding. Count the total number of products stuck inside and measure the maximum effective buffer capacity in this cycle. S4, maintain the maximum effective buffer capacity at full load, start the downstream equipment, record the moment when downstream consumption begins, the moment when the upstream photoelectric sensor remains unobstructed for the preset time, and the moment when the last product leaves the roller conveyor, to obtain the actual emptying rate and upstream production resumption time for this cycle. S5, repeat S2~S4 operations, and complete at least 3 valid test cycles without violations for Group A before the conveyor system modification and Group B after the modification respectively. During the baseline test before the modification and the retest after the modification, the motion trajectory, speed ratio, gripping mode, grouping logic, alignment logic and HMI key parameters of the downstream alignment device and / or palletizing device remain unchanged. S6, verify the validity of all cycle data, and calculate the relative evacuation rate improvement ratio, positional hard constraint judgment and comprehensive improvement degree based on the statistical significance analysis of the collected valid data; wherein, the positional hard constraint judgment refers to whether the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at the parallel monitoring of the corner, straight section and the position in front of the precision motion equipment meets the requirements. When the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at any of the physical topology positions exceeds the corresponding threshold, the corresponding test cycle is judged as invalid, or the corresponding optimization scheme is judged as unqualified; S7 integrates baseline data and raw test data from Group A / B to generate a standardized test report, and establishes auditable files according to test numbers to complete quantitative evaluation.

[0010] This invention also provides a quantitative evaluation system for the optimization effect of multi-segment roller conveyor lines, comprising: The test boundary determination unit is used to determine the test boundary of the multi-segment roller conveyor system being evaluated. It excludes upstream production equipment from the formal test input or sets it to a controlled feeding mode, and sets downstream aligning and / or palletizing devices to a frozen constant physical consumption benchmark. The core test object is the multi-segment roller conveyor system. The standardized feeding unit is used to perform standardized pressure feeding tests according to preset feeding rates and feeding compliance criteria. Throughout the test, differentiated thresholds are used to monitor the number of continuously closely attached parts on the physical topology of the roller conveyor, including at least the bends, straight sections, and positions in front of precision moving equipment. Feeding is achieved by manual rhythm feeding, audio-visual rhythm feeding, semi-automatic or programmable feeding devices. The maximum effective buffer capacity unit is used to continuously feed materials in a standardized manner when the downstream equipment is stopped and locked. It records the timestamp of each segment that triggers the shutdown. The reverse blockage of multiple segments is transmitted to the upstream segment to trigger the shutdown, stop feeding materials, count the total number of products stuck inside, and measure the maximum effective buffer capacity in this cycle. The actual emptying rate unit is used to maintain the maximum effective buffer capacity at full load, start the downstream equipment, record the moment when the downstream starts to consume, the moment when the upstream photoelectric sensor is unobstructed for the preset time, and the moment when the last product leaves the roller conveyor, so as to obtain the actual emptying rate and the upstream restart time for this cycle. The A / B group test units are used to call the standardized feeding unit, the maximum effective buffer capacity unit, and the actual emptying rate unit to operate. They are to complete at least 3 valid test cycles without violations for both the A group before the conveyor system modification and the B group after the modification. During the baseline test before the modification and the retest after the modification, the motion trajectory, speed ratio, gripping mode, grouping logic, alignment logic, and key HMI parameters of the downstream alignment device and / or palletizing device remain unchanged. The evaluation and calculation unit is used to verify the validity of all cycle data. Based on the statistical significance analysis of the collected valid data, it calculates the relative emptying rate improvement ratio, the hard constraint judgment of each position, and the overall improvement degree. Among them, the hard constraint judgment of each position refers to whether the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at the position of parallel monitoring of the corner, straight section, and in front of the precision motion equipment meets the requirements. When the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at any of the physical topology positions exceeds the corresponding threshold, the corresponding test cycle is judged as invalid, or the corresponding optimization scheme is judged as unqualified. The report generation unit is used to integrate baseline data and raw test data from A / B groups to generate standardized test reports, and to establish auditable files according to test numbers to complete quantitative evaluation.

[0011] The present invention also provides a quantitative evaluation device for the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line, including a processor and a memory. The memory stores a computer program, which can be executed by the processor to realize the quantitative evaluation method for the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line as described above.

[0012] The present invention also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions, which, when executed by a processor of the device on which the computer-readable storage medium is located, implement the above-described method for quantitative evaluation of the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line.

[0013] In summary, compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects: This invention provides the industry's first standardized A / B group on-site quantitative evaluation scheme for multi-segment roller conveyor buffer systems, enabling the optimization effect to be quantified, reproduced, and audited for the first time.

[0014] This invention evaluates the three dimensions of buffering, release, and upstream recovery through three complementary indicators (maximum effective buffer capacity, relative emptying rate improvement ratio, and upstream recovery time), avoiding the obscuring of control side effects by a single throughput or single buffer quantity indicator; and ensures a strict correspondence among the three by collecting basic measurement values ​​for at least three consecutive test cycles within the same full-load cycle, with zero additional testing cost.

[0015] This invention transforms specific physical risks into executable evaluation rules by using graded extrusion hard constraints and a veto mechanism based on the physical topology of the roller conveyor line, thereby fundamentally blocking the dangerous optimization direction of exchanging product damage for surface KPI improvement.

[0016] The evaluation system of this invention is compatible with existing PLC control systems, has a short deployment cycle, and its engineering implementation cost is significantly lower than existing technologies such as multimodal fault diagnosis and full-link simulation. Typical applications are expected to improve the overall performance of the production line by 15% to 30%, while meeting the hard constraints on the number of closely attached parts at different locations throughout the entire process. Attached Figure Description

[0017] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, the accompanying drawings used in the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. It should be understood that the following drawings only show some embodiments of the present invention and should not be regarded as a limitation of the scope. For those skilled in the art, other related drawings can be obtained from these drawings without creative effort.

[0018] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of a quantitative evaluation method for the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line provided in Example 1.

[0019] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the physical topology and positional hard constraints of the multi-segment roller conveyor system provided in Example 1.

[0020] Figure 3This is a schematic diagram of a quantitative evaluation system for the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line provided in Example 2.

[0021] The present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments. Detailed Implementation

[0022] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, 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 a part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of them. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without inventive effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention. Therefore, the following detailed description of the embodiments of the present invention provided in the accompanying drawings is not intended to limit the scope of the claimed invention, but merely represents selected embodiments of the invention. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without inventive effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0023] Example 1 Embodiment 1 of the present invention provides a method for quantitative evaluation of the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line, which can be implemented by a quantitative evaluation device for the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line (hereinafter referred to as the quantitative evaluation device), specifically, executed by one or more processors within the quantitative evaluation device.

[0024] In this embodiment, the quantitative evaluation device can be an electronic device equipped with a processor. The processor carries a computer program for the quantitative evaluation method of the optimization effect of the multi-segment roller conveyor line, and the computer program can be executed. For example, a computer, smartphone, smart tablet, workstation, etc. are not limited here.

[0025] like Figure 1 As shown, a quantitative evaluation method for the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line includes steps S1 to S7.

[0026] S1, determine the test boundary of the multi-segment roller conveyor system being evaluated, exclude upstream production equipment from the formal test input or set it to a controlled feeding mode, set the downstream aligning device and / or palletizing device to a frozen constant physical consumption benchmark, and the core test object is the multi-segment roller conveyor system.

[0027] S2, according to the preset feeding rate and feeding compliance criteria, performs standardized pressure feeding test. Throughout the test, differentiated thresholds are used to monitor the number of continuously closely attached parts on the physical topology of the roller conveyor, including at least the bends, straight sections, and positions in front of precision moving equipment. Feeding is achieved by manual rhythm feeding, sound and light rhythm prompt feeding, semi-automatic or programmable feeding device.

[0028] Specifically, the compliance criteria for standardized pressure feeding include: 1) Feeding is carried out at a fixed pace of 2 pieces every 5 seconds. Feeding 2 products within a single 5-second time interval is considered to be compliant with feeding regulations for that interval. 2) Accumulated deviation in material feeding is prohibited. The cumulative number of materials fed in three consecutive 5-second intervals shall not be less than 6, and it is not allowed to make up for the previous shortfall by subsequent concentrated feeding. 3) Use an audio-visual rhythm prompting device to assist in feeding, and designate 2-3 trained personnel to feed the materials exclusively to ensure a stable feeding rhythm throughout the test; If any criterion for feeding cycle time is not met, the data for this test cycle is deemed invalid, and the test for that cycle is restarted.

[0029] Specifically, the differentiated thresholds satisfy the following conditions: the threshold for turning positions (such as corners) is the most stringent, the threshold for positions in front of precision motion equipment (such as in front of weighing units) is the next most stringent, and the threshold for straight buffer positions (such as straight segments) is relatively lenient.

[0030] S3 continuously feeds materials in a standardized manner while the downstream equipment is locked down. It records the timestamp of each segment that triggers a shutdown. The shutdown is triggered by the reverse blockage in multiple segments and then the material feeding stops. The total number of products stuck inside is counted, and the maximum effective buffer capacity for this cycle is measured.

[0031] S4, maintain the maximum effective buffer capacity at full load, start the downstream equipment, record the moment when downstream consumption begins, the moment when the upstream photoelectric sensor remains unobstructed for the preset time, and the moment when the last product leaves the roller conveyor, to obtain the actual emptying rate and upstream restart time for this cycle.

[0032] Specifically, the formula for calculating the actual venting rate is as follows: ; in, For the first The single-pass emptying rate is tested once; For the first The maximum effective buffer capacity measured in this experiment; For the first The total time for a complete emptying process, i.e., from the start of downstream operation to the moment when the last product leaves the roller conveyor line; The formula for calculating the upstream production resumption time is as follows: ; in, This refers to the time when upstream production can resume; The upstream segment of the camera is continuously preset to be unobstructed during certain time periods. This is the moment when downstream consumption begins.

[0033] S5. Repeat S2~S4 to complete at least 3 valid test cycles without violations for Group A before the conveyor system modification and Group B after the modification. During the baseline test before the modification and the retest after the modification, the motion trajectory, speed ratio, gripping mode, grouping logic, alignment logic and HMI key parameters of the downstream aligning device and / or palletizing device remain unchanged.

[0034] Throughout the test, the downstream alignment device and the robotic palletizer, as constant external consumption sources, maintained constant motion trajectories, speed ratios, gripping modes, grouping logic, alignment logic, and key HMI parameters during both the baseline test phase before and the retest phase after the modification of the conveyor system. Only the tested objects were limited to the roller conveyor itself and its underlying control logic.

[0035] In addition, it also includes: a downstream parameter anti-tampering verification mechanism, which serves as a physical boundary protection mechanism to ensure that the evaluation boundary does not deviate; Before the baseline test begins, take photos of the downstream HMI core parameter page for archiving. Before each round of retesting after the modification, the current downstream parameters and the baseline frozen archived values ​​are checked on-site item by item. If the review finds that the actual downstream parameters are inconsistent with the baseline frozen values, the test results of this round of retesting will be invalidated, and a new downstream parameter baseline will be recalibrated and established.

[0036] S6, verify the validity of all cycle data, and calculate the relative evacuation rate improvement ratio, positional hard constraint judgment and comprehensive improvement degree based on the statistical significance analysis of the collected valid data; wherein, the positional hard constraint judgment refers to whether the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at the parallel monitoring of the turning point, straight section and the position in front of the precision motion equipment meets the requirements. When the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at any of the physical topology positions exceeds the corresponding threshold, the corresponding test cycle is judged as invalid, or the corresponding optimization scheme is judged as unqualified.

[0037] Specifically, the formula for the relative venting rate increase ratio is: ; in, This represents the relative improvement in venting rate. A value greater than 1 indicates an improvement in venting capacity, a value of 1 indicates that the modification has no substantial impact on venting capacity, and a value less than 1 indicates that the modification produces a negative optimization. The arithmetic mean of the exhaust rate of Group A before the modification; The value represents the arithmetic mean of the venting rate of Group B after the modification.

[0038] like Figure 2 As shown, the positional hard constraint determination refers to whether the number of consecutive tightly attached components at the corners, straight sections, and in front of precision moving equipment meets the requirements during parallel monitoring. That is, when the number of consecutive tightly attached components at any of the physical topology positions exceeds the corresponding threshold, the corresponding test cycle is determined to be invalid, or the corresponding optimization scheme is determined to be unqualified. If the limit is not exceeded, the valid test results before and after the modification are compared in pairs, specifically: If the number of consecutive tightly packed pieces at the bend If the value is greater than 0, the data for this period is invalidated, and the overall improvement and optimization plan for the conveying system is deemed unqualified. If the number of consecutive tightly fitted pieces on a straight line segment If the value is greater than 10, the data for this period will be invalidated, and the measurement will be repeated after adjusting the transportation system modification plan. If the number of consecutive tightly attached parts in front of the precision motion equipment If the value is greater than 3, the data for this period is invalidated, and the overall modification and optimization plan for the conveying system is deemed unqualified; wherein, the precision motion equipment includes at least one of the following: weighing unit, blocking cylinder, box-separating mechanism, steering mechanism, and train entry mechanism.

[0039] Figure 2 The placement of the electro-optical sensor is only an example; in practice, it can be arranged in a through-beam (i.e., paired arrangement on the top and bottom sides) or a diffuse reflection (i.e., single-sided arrangement).

[0040] The formula for the overall improvement is: ; ; ; in, To improve the overall level; This represents the increase in buffer capacity. This represents the average buffer capacity before the conveyor system was modified. This represents the average buffer capacity after the conveyor system was modified. This represents the relative increase in evacuation rate. This represents the time difference between upstream and downstream production resumption. , These represent the average upstream resumption time before and after the conveyor system modification; , , These are the weight coefficients for the corresponding terms, and .

[0041] This invention employs a 3+1 evaluation system consisting of three core quantitative indicators and one veto constraint: (1) The core quantitative indicator KPI1 is the maximum effective buffer capacity, which is defined as the total number of products remaining in the system when the downstream aligning device and robot palletizer are stopped and locked, and the upstream continues to feed materials at a preset rate, starting from no load, passing through multiple sections of reverse blockage transmission, until the upstream section triggers a shutdown. The unit is pieces, and the optimization direction is to make it as large as possible under the hard constraint of extrusion.

[0042] (2) The core quantitative indicator KPI2 is the relative evacuation rate improvement ratio, defined as the ratio of the average evacuation rate after the modification to the average evacuation rate before the modification, with the unit being dimensionless. The physical meaning is: a ratio greater than 1 indicates that the modification has improved the overall evacuation capacity of the system, equal to 1 indicates that the modification has no substantial impact on the evacuation capacity, and less than 1 indicates that the modification has a negative optimization. The optimization direction is that the larger the better. Using the relative evacuation rate improvement ratio instead of the absolute evacuation time as the core evaluation quantity can avoid the problem of incomparability of absolute evacuation time due to changes in buffer capacity, so that the evaluation object truly focuses on the improvement of the system's rate of releasing backlogged products after the modification.

[0043] (3) The core quantitative indicator KPI3 is the upstream restart time, which is defined as the earliest time interval between when the downstream failure causes the roller conveyor to be completely full to the maximum effective buffer capacity and the upstream boxer is blocked by reverse blockage and triggered to stop, and when the downstream failure is resolved and the roller conveyor restarts to digest the accumulation. The unit is minutes or seconds, and the optimization direction is to be as short as possible. This indicator is obtained synchronously during the emptying time test, without the need for additional disturbance test, and the test cost is zero.

[0044] (4) The veto constraint is the number of consecutively closely attached pieces. Throughout the test, the number of consecutively closely attached pieces in the physical topology of the roller conveyor line is monitored by different thresholds in three categories: at least at bends, straight sections, and in front of precision motion equipment (such as in front of the weighing unit). The optimization direction is that the number of consecutively closely attached pieces must not exceed the threshold of the corresponding position.

[0045] The test monitors the number of continuously closely attached pieces throughout the process and uses differentiated thresholds based on the physical topology of the roller conveyor line to implement a graded veto system.

[0046] The threshold at the bend of the roller conveyor is set to 0 pieces. The physical basis is that the speed difference between the inner and outer rollers at the bend naturally squeezes the outer products, and any close contact is an abnormal condition; once this happens, the stress point on the product is no longer the entire end face of the box but the four corners, which can easily lead to deformation and damage of the products inside the box. The judgment effect is that close contact at any time will trigger the invalidation of the data for this cycle, and the entire optimization plan will be unqualified.

[0047] The threshold for any position on a straight section is set to no more than 10 pieces. The physical basis for this is that the accumulated lateral pressure on a straight section is relatively uniform; 10 pieces correspond to a rigid stack of 3 to 4 meters, which, under common roller conveyor drive forces, does not reach the critical point for corrugated carton deformation. However, the accumulated stress from the continuous sliding friction between the bottom roller and the stationary bottom of the carton can lead to deformation and damage of the contents, as well as accelerated wear of the rollers and chains. If the effect exceeds the threshold, the data for that period is invalidated, and the inter-section stop delay and photoelectric sensor triggering logic must be readjusted before retesting.

[0048] The threshold for the weighing unit is set to no more than 3 items. The physical basis for this is that each box of products must pass through the weighing unit individually to obtain an accurate reading; compression can cause the front-mounted blocking cylinder-driven baffle to fail to properly separate the products, or even deform and malfunction, directly resulting in distorted weighing data or weighing failure. If the threshold is exceeded, the data for that period is invalidated, and the optimization scheme is deemed unqualified.

[0049] This invention employs a pre- and post-modification A / B paired testing method. A complete A / B evaluation includes at least three effective test cycles before modification and three effective test cycles after modification. Each effective test cycle consists of two consecutive steps: first, the maximum effective buffer capacity is measured, and then, under the same full load condition, the emptying time and the upstream restart time are measured in conjunction. Emptying, replenishment, or changes to downstream parameters are not permitted during this process.

[0050] The criteria for determining the validity of single test data include: no extrusion exceeding the standard occurred throughout the process; the feeding cycle was compliant, the product specifications were not changed, and the downstream parameters were consistent with the baseline frozen value; no equipment failures occurred during the test that were not for the purpose of testing; and the videos, PLC logs, and manual records are traceable.

[0051] Multiple tests and statistical processing were performed to calculate the mean, sample standard deviation, and coefficient of variation for each indicator at each stage before and after the modification. Paired significance was determined using paired t-tests or simplified engineering criteria.

[0052] Outlier handling employs a dual-condition approach: statistical anomalies and on-site evidence. If a result significantly deviates from the other two, and video, PLC logs, feeding records, or equipment status records show anomalies, the result can be removed. After removal, additional testing must be conducted to ensure that there are still 3 sets of valid data.

[0053] Under the premise that no hard constraints are triggered and all indicators pass the statistical significance test, weights are set according to the main bottleneck types of the project, and the overall improvement is calculated.

[0054] The weights are frozen during the technical review of the optimization plan and cannot be adjusted in reverse based on the results after the test is completed.

[0055] The overall improvement rate is divided into five levels according to preset thresholds: Level A: Breakthrough overall improvement rate greater than or equal to 20%; Level B: Significant overall improvement rate greater than or equal to 10% and less than 20%; Level C: Effective overall improvement rate greater than or equal to 5% and less than 10%; Level D: Fine-tuning overall improvement rate greater than or equal to 0% and less than 5%; and Failure overall improvement rate less than 0%.

[0056] S7 integrates baseline data and raw test data from Group A / B to generate a standardized test report, and establishes auditable files according to test numbers to complete quantitative evaluation.

[0057] In a practical application scenario, a 30-segment roller conveyor line in the paper packaging workshop of a food factory is used as an example. This roller conveyor line consists of independently driven roller sections connected in series, with each segment typically about 6 meters long, totaling nearly 100 meters in length. Upstream, it connects to four automatic case packers, and downstream, it connects to a aligning unit and a robotic palletizer, used to transport corrugated cartons containing finished products such as Tetra Pak cartons, tin cans, and PET bottles. Rollers within each section are evenly spaced, with the distance between the beginning and end rollers at the junctions between sections being roughly the same as within the section. Each section is equipped with an independent motor, and photoelectric sensors are installed at some key locations. The photoelectric sensors are densely distributed at critical locations such as before and after bends, before the weighing unit, and before the palletizing interface. The case packer confluence point is the upstream feeding starting point, and the aligning unit and robotic palletizer are the downstream consumption endpoints. The evaluation system in this embodiment is deployed on this roller conveyor line.

[0058] This embodiment employs a buzzer-based rhythm prompting device combined with trained feeding personnel. The personnel feed standard product boxes onto the roller conveyor according to the rhythm prompts from the buzzer, with the rhythm set at 2 boxes every 5 seconds, i.e., a preset feeding rate of 24 boxes / minute. This rate reflects the instantaneous design upper limit output of multiple case packers, including design redundancy in the rated capacity of the case packers, catch-up production after a case packer failure, and the instantaneous superposition peak due to asynchronous operation of multiple case packers. Feeding compliance criteria include feeding 2 boxes within a single 5-second interval, a cumulative total of no less than 6 boxes across three consecutive 5-second intervals, and not allowing concentrated supplementary feeding to cover up previous shortfalls. All photocell signals are connected to the PLC digital input terminal, with a sampling interval of no more than 50 milliseconds and a critical moment timestamp resolution of no more than 100 milliseconds. The collected data is stored in a field time-series database. The ON / OFF status of each photocell segment, motor start / stop events, long ON events due to blockage, and critical moment timestamps are collected to provide raw data support for subsequent evaluation and calculation.

[0059] The downstream aligning unit and the robotic palletizer are identified as constant physical consumption benchmarks. In this embodiment, the downstream reference consumption rate is calibrated as the theoretical upper limit of the robotic palletizer's speed in completing one full cycle under full-speed operation without waiting.

[0060] The calibration method involves confirming that the palletizer, aligning device, gripping mode, grouping logic, speed ratio, and trajectory parameters are all frozen before testing. The downstream system must then run continuously for at least 10 minutes without waiting, ensuring no alarms, missed gripping, or aligning waiting anomalies. Prioritize reading the no-wait full-speed cycle time or the number of boxes processed per unit time from the palletizer controller. If the HMI does not provide a direct value, manually record the number of boxes processed in 5 consecutive minutes. After calibration, photograph and archive the core parameter pages of the downstream HMI as baseline frozen values.

[0061] Before conducting baseline testing, compliance rectification is first performed. This involves checking the number of continuously tightly fitted parts under hard constraints at different locations within the current baseline state, recording whether each position at corners and before the weighing unit on straight sections meets the grading threshold. If any exceedances are found, rectification is carried out until the entire line is compliant. This rectification is assessed separately and is not included in the KPI improvement for this optimization. After rectification, it is jointly signed off by the quality assurance and engineering supervisors. Next, baseline testing preparation is conducted, confirming that product specifications, feeding methods, downstream palletizer and alignment device parameters, PLC program version, photoelectric sensor layout, video camera positions, and ambient temperature and humidity are all frozen and archived. Third, a technical review of the optimization plan is conducted. Engineers submit optimization plans specifying the changes, and the review meeting confirms the weighting and freezes the changes. The review meeting confirms that the modification does not exceed the engineer's optimization scope defined in this invention. The modification can only be implemented after passing the review.

[0062] The execution flow of baseline testing is as follows: First, the entire line is emptied to confirm that there are no residual products. The downstream aligning equipment and robotic palletizer are then stopped and locked. Photos are taken and archived to confirm that the downstream parameters are frozen.

[0063] Secondly, the upstream unit should be idled for at least 5 minutes to warm up and its initial state should be recorded.

[0064] Then, standardized feeding is initiated, strictly following the preset feeding rate and rhythm. The entire process is recorded on video, with standard product boxes being fed onto the roller conveyor at a rate of 2 pieces every 5 seconds.

[0065] Next, observe the reverse transmission of the blockage and record the timestamp of each segment that triggers a shutdown. When the upstream segment triggers a shutdown, stop feeding immediately.

[0066] The total number of items remaining on the line is manually counted and recorded as the maximum effective buffer capacity for this cycle. This manual count is performed by two operators, who independently record and compare the data to ensure accuracy.

[0067] After completing the maximum effective buffer capacity test, the joint testing process begins. First, maintaining the maximum effective buffer capacity at full load (i.e., without emptying, replenishing, or changing downstream parameters), the downstream alignment device and robotic palletizer are directly started, and timing begins. Observe each section of the photocell sequentially de-illuminate, and record the duration of unobstructed operation for more than 3 seconds by the photocell in the upstream section. To obtain the upstream resumption time The process continues until the last product leaves the roller conveyor, at which point the timer stops, and the total emptying time is obtained. Calculate the actual venting rate for this cycle according to the formula for calculating the actual venting rate.

[0068] Throughout the test, differentiated thresholds were applied to monitor the number of consecutively closely attached pieces (N) at at least three locations on the physical topology of the roller conveyor: bends, straight sections, and the area before the weighing unit. The threshold for bends was set to 0 pieces, meaning that any instance of close contact would invalidate the data for that cycle. The threshold for any location on a straight section was set to no more than 10 pieces; exceeding this threshold invalidated the data for that cycle, requiring readjustment of the inter-section stop delay and photoelectric sensor triggering logic before retesting. The threshold for the area before the weighing unit was set to no more than 3 pieces; exceeding this threshold invalidated the data for that cycle, and the optimized solution was deemed unqualified.

[0069] This embodiment adopts an A / B paired testing method before and after the modification. A complete A / B evaluation includes at least 3 effective test cycles before the modification and 3 effective test cycles after the modification. Each effective test cycle consists of two consecutive steps: first, the maximum effective buffer capacity is measured, and then, under the same full load condition, the total time for complete emptying and the upstream restart time are measured together. The downstream parameters must not be emptied, replenished, or changed during the test.

[0070] The criteria for determining the validity of single test data include: no extrusion events where the threshold is greater than 0 at bends, greater than 10 at any point on a straight section, or greater than 3 before the weighing unit; compliant feeding rhythm, no product specification switching, and downstream parameters consistent with the baseline frozen value; no equipment failures not intended for testing during the test; and traceability of video, PLC logs, and manual records.

[0071] If any of the above conditions are not met, the data for that period is invalidated and additional tests are conducted until three sets of valid data are obtained in each of the baseline and retest phases.

[0072] After the modification plan is implemented, the above test cycle will be repeated under the same product specifications, feeding rate, downstream freezing parameters, video camera position, and environmental conditions as the baseline test. If any feeding cycle violation, downstream parameter change, equipment failure not intended for testing, or threshold exceeding occurs in any cycle, the data for that cycle will be invalidated and additional testing will be conducted.

[0073] Data processing and judgment are conducted as follows: The mean, sample standard deviation, and coefficient of variation are calculated for each stage before and after the modification, including the maximum effective buffer capacity, actual evacuation rate, and upstream restart time. Outlier handling employs a dual-condition approach: statistical anomaly and on-site evidence. A result can be removed only if it significantly deviates from the other two, and anomalies are indicated by video, PLC logs, material feeding records, or equipment status records. After removal, additional testing must be conducted to ensure at least three sets of valid data remain. Data should not be removed solely because a single data point is detrimental to optimization results.

[0074] The pairing principle is to pair the same indicator within the same round, that is, to compare the i-th result before the modification with the i-th result after the modification for the same indicator. The pairing difference is the i-th result before modification minus the i-th result after modification. The mean of the difference, the sample standard deviation of the difference, and the pairing t-statistic are calculated according to the standard statistical formula. The t-test is used to determine whether the difference before and after modification is significant, with a preferred significance p-value of less than 0.05.

[0075] Of course, a simplified engineering criterion can also be used: for indicators where larger is better, if the mean after modification minus the mean before modification is greater than or equal to twice the standard deviation before modification and there is improvement in at least two out of three pairs, then the improvement is considered significant; for indicators where smaller is better, if the mean before modification minus the mean after modification is greater than or equal to twice the standard deviation before modification and there is improvement in at least two out of three pairs, then the improvement is considered significant.

[0076] Under the premise that no hard constraints on location are triggered and all indicators pass the statistical significance test, weights are set according to the main bottleneck types of the project to calculate the overall improvement. The weight settings are shown in Table 1.

[0077] Table 1. Overall Improvement Weight Setting Table

[0078] The calculated overall improvement can be divided into five levels according to preset thresholds: Level A is breakthrough, with an overall improvement of ≥20%; Level B is significant, with an overall improvement of ≥10% and <20%; Level C is effective, with an overall improvement of ≥5% and <10%; Level D is fine-tuning, with an overall improvement of ≥0% and <5%; and failure is an overall improvement of <0%.

[0079] The evaluation report output may include: project background and scope of modification; test condition calibration records, including preset feed rate, downstream reference consumption rate, environmental parameters, product specifications, and evidence of frozen downstream parameters; and three valid periods before the modification. , , and ; corresponding data for the three effective cycles after modification; A / B summary table for six cycles; explanation of paired significance analysis and outlier handling; comprehensive improvement calculation and grade assessment; evidence of compliance with positional compression constraints; side effect monitoring data including product damage rate, motor energy consumption, alarms and shutdown events; conclusions, rollback opinions and subsequent improvement suggestions, etc.

[0080] When the evaluation system of this invention is used in conjunction with the company's related intelligent diagnostic analysis model and parameter adaptive optimization method and system, the following steps are taken: First, the evaluation system of this invention is used to perform baseline testing on the current production line. Next, the associated diagnostic model is activated, collecting 1 to 2 weeks of full-load operation data. Bottlenecks are identified by fusing photoelectric sensor timing and motor current fluctuation characteristics. Optimization is achieved through digital twin simulation, with the objective function maximizing the overall line throughput Q as the positive benefit and the time integral of the variance of the entire line's motor current fluctuation as the mechanical stress penalty term, outputting an optimized parameter set. The optimized parameters are then sent to the PLC to complete the modification. Next, the evaluation system of this invention is used to perform a post-modification retest. Finally, the overall improvement is calculated to verify whether the actual effect of the optimization method described in the prior related application has achieved the expected results. A typical expectation is an overall line performance improvement of 15% to 30% with the continuous close-fitting number N remaining compliant throughout the entire process.

[0081] This invention's evaluation system is not limited to the aforementioned food industry full-case conveying scenarios; it can also be applied to full-case conveying lines in the beverage, daily chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, as well as other multi-segment, variable-length, and variable-sensor-density industrial buffer conveying systems. Horizontal comparative evaluation between different optimized technical solutions can be achieved by converting the maximum effective buffer capacity into buffer minutes (i.e., dividing the maximum effective buffer capacity by the preset feeding rate) and using the relative emptying rate improvement ratio and upstream resumable production time as relative evaluation metrics, enabling comparisons across production lines and equipment manufacturers.

[0082] The evaluation system of this invention can also be used as part of the technical specifications for bidding on multi-section transportation system renovation projects, providing both parties with quantifiable, traceable, and auditable acceptance criteria.

[0083] In summary, compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects: This invention provides the industry's first standardized A / B on-site quantitative evaluation scheme for multi-segment roller conveyor buffer systems, enabling the optimization effect to be quantified, reproduced, and audited for the first time. The tests before and after the modification have the same input pressure, the same downstream consumption benchmark, and the same product specification boundaries, and the A / B comparison is truly statistically significant.

[0084] This invention evaluates buffering, release, and upstream resumption of production through three complementary core indicators, avoiding the obscuring of control side effects by a single throughput or buffer quantity indicator; by continuously collecting the three basic measurement values ​​within the same full-load cycle, it ensures a strict correspondence among the three without additional testing costs.

[0085] This invention transforms specific physical risks such as corner jamming, sliding friction at the bottom of corrugated cardboard boxes on straight sections, and mechanical failure of the front blocking cylinder of the weighing unit into executable evaluation rules by using graded extrusion hard constraints and a veto mechanism based on the physical topological position of the roller conveyor (turning point, straight section, and position in front of precision motion equipment). This fundamentally blocks the dangerous optimization direction of "exchanging product damage for surface KPI improvement".

[0086] The evaluation system of this invention is compatible with existing PLC control systems and has a short deployment cycle; it does not require a large number of new pressure sensors, nor does it require the deployment of complex digital twin models or AI algorithms, and the engineering implementation cost is significantly lower than existing technologies such as multimodal fault diagnosis and full-link simulation.

[0087] This invention can be used independently for baseline testing, renovation acceptance, and project KPI reporting in multi-section conveyor system transformation projects. It can also be used in conjunction with the company's associated automatic diagnosis and optimization system to form a complete "diagnosis-optimization-verification" industrial solution. Typical applications are expected to improve the overall performance of the entire line by 15% to 30%, while meeting the hard constraints on the number of closely attached parts at different locations throughout the entire process.

[0088] This invention can be packaged as a standardized test procedure or industrial software product and promoted to similar multi-section conveyor line scenarios; it can also serve as the basis for enterprise internal technical transformation acceptance, supplier transformation acceptance, and bidding technical specifications, and has significant commercial value and industrialization prospects.

[0089] Example 2 like Figure 3 As shown, the second embodiment of the present invention also provides a quantitative evaluation device for the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line, comprising: The test boundary determination unit is used to determine the test boundary of the multi-segment roller conveyor system being evaluated. It excludes upstream production equipment from the formal test input or sets it to a controlled feeding mode, and sets downstream aligning and / or palletizing devices to a frozen constant physical consumption benchmark. The core test object is the multi-segment roller conveyor system. The standardized feeding unit is used to perform standardized pressure feeding tests according to preset feeding rates and feeding compliance criteria. Throughout the test, differentiated thresholds are used to monitor the number of continuously closely attached parts on the physical topology of the roller conveyor, including at least the bends, straight sections, and positions in front of precision moving equipment. Feeding is achieved by manual rhythm feeding, audio-visual rhythm feeding, semi-automatic or programmable feeding devices. The maximum effective buffer capacity unit is used to continuously feed materials in a standardized manner when the downstream equipment is stopped and locked. It records the timestamp of each segment that triggers the shutdown. The reverse blockage of multiple segments is transmitted to the upstream segment to trigger the shutdown, stop feeding materials, count the total number of products stuck inside, and measure the maximum effective buffer capacity in this cycle. The actual emptying rate unit is used to maintain the maximum effective buffer capacity at full load, start the downstream equipment, record the moment when the downstream starts to consume, the moment when the upstream photoelectric sensor is unobstructed for the preset time, and the moment when the last product leaves the roller conveyor, so as to obtain the actual emptying rate and the upstream restart time for this cycle. The A / B group test units are used to call the standardized feeding unit, the maximum effective buffer capacity unit, and the actual emptying rate unit to complete at least 3 non-violation effective test cycles for each of the A group before the conveyor system modification and the B group after the modification. During the baseline test before the modification and the retest after the modification, the motion trajectory, speed ratio, gripping mode, grouping logic, alignment logic, and HMI key parameters of the downstream alignment device and / or palletizing device remain unchanged. The evaluation and calculation unit is used to verify the validity of all cycle data. Based on the statistical significance analysis of the collected valid data, it calculates the relative emptying rate improvement ratio, the hard constraint judgment of each position, and the overall improvement degree. Among them, the hard constraint judgment of each position refers to whether the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at the position of parallel monitoring of the corner, straight section, and in front of the precision motion equipment meets the requirements. When the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at any of the physical topology positions exceeds the corresponding threshold, the corresponding test cycle is judged as invalid, or the corresponding optimization scheme is judged as unqualified. The report generation unit is used to integrate baseline data and raw test data from A / B groups to generate standardized test reports, and to establish auditable files according to test numbers to complete quantitative evaluation.

[0090] Example 3 The third embodiment of the present invention also provides a quantitative evaluation device for the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line, which includes a memory and a processor. The memory stores a computer program, which can be executed by the processor to realize the quantitative evaluation method for the optimization effect of the multi-segment roller conveyor line as described above.

[0091] Example 4 The fourth embodiment of the present invention also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions. When the computer-readable instructions are executed by the processor of the device where the computer-readable storage medium is located, the computer-readable instructions implement the above-described method for quantitative evaluation of the optimization effect of multi-segment roller conveyor lines.

[0092] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the invention. Various modifications and variations can be made to the present invention by those skilled in the art. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for quantitatively evaluating the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line, characterized in that, include: S1, determine the test boundary of the multi-segment roller conveyor system being evaluated, exclude upstream production equipment from the formal test input or set it to a controlled feeding mode, set the downstream aligning device and / or palletizing device to a frozen constant physical consumption benchmark, and the core test object is the multi-segment roller conveyor system. S2, according to the preset feeding rate and feeding compliance criteria, performs standardized pressure feeding test. Throughout the test, differentiated thresholds are used to monitor the number of continuously closely attached parts on the physical topology of the roller conveyor, including at least the bends, straight sections, and positions in front of precision moving equipment. Feeding is achieved by manual rhythm feeding, audio-visual rhythm feeding, semi-automatic or programmable feeding devices. S3: Continue standardized feeding while the downstream equipment is locked down. Record the timestamp of each segment that triggers the shutdown. The reverse blockage in multiple sections is transmitted to the upstream segment to trigger the shutdown and stop feeding. Count the total number of products stuck inside and measure the maximum effective buffer capacity in this cycle. S4, maintain the maximum effective buffer capacity at full load, start the downstream equipment, record the moment when downstream consumption begins, the moment when the upstream photoelectric sensor remains unobstructed for the preset time, and the moment when the last product leaves the roller conveyor, to obtain the actual emptying rate and upstream production resumption time for this cycle. S5, repeat S2~S4 operations, and complete at least 3 valid test cycles without violations for Group A before the conveyor system modification and Group B after the modification respectively. During the baseline test before the modification and the retest after the modification, the motion trajectory, speed ratio, gripping mode, grouping logic, alignment logic and HMI key parameters of the downstream alignment device and / or palletizing device remain unchanged. S6, verify the validity of all cycle data, and calculate the relative evacuation rate improvement ratio, positional hard constraint judgment and comprehensive improvement degree based on the statistical significance analysis of the collected valid data; wherein, the positional hard constraint judgment refers to whether the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at the parallel monitoring of the corner, straight section and the position in front of the precision motion equipment meets the requirements. When the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at any of the physical topology positions exceeds the corresponding threshold, the corresponding test cycle is judged as invalid, or the corresponding optimization scheme is judged as unqualified; S7 integrates baseline data and raw test data from Group A / B to generate a standardized test report, and establishes auditable files according to test numbers to complete quantitative evaluation.

2. The method for quantitatively evaluating the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line according to claim 1, characterized in that... The formula for calculating the actual venting rate is: ； in, For the first The single-pass emptying rate is tested once; For the first The maximum effective buffer capacity measured in this experiment; For the first The total time for a complete emptying process, i.e., from the start of downstream operation to the moment when the last product leaves the roller conveyor line; The formula for calculating the upstream production recovery time is as follows: ； in, This refers to the time when upstream production can resume; The upstream segment of the camera is continuously preset to be unobstructed for a set period of time. This is the moment when downstream consumption begins.

3. The method for quantitatively evaluating the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line according to claim 2, characterized in that... The formula for the relative venting rate increase ratio is: ； in, This represents the relative improvement in venting rate. A value greater than 1 indicates an improvement in venting capacity, a value of 1 indicates that the modification has no substantial impact on venting capacity, and a value less than 1 indicates that the modification produces a negative optimization. The arithmetic mean of the exhaust rate of Group A before the modification; The value represents the arithmetic mean of the venting rate of Group B after the modification.

4. The method for quantitatively evaluating the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line according to claim 1, characterized in that... The specific determination of the hard constraint at each location is as follows: If the number of consecutive tightly packed pieces at the bend is greater than 0, the data for this period is invalidated, and the overall modification and optimization plan for the conveyor system is deemed unqualified. If the number of consecutive tightly packed pieces on a straight section is greater than 10, the data for this period will be invalidated, and the measurement will be repeated after adjusting the conveyor system modification plan. If the number of consecutive tightly attached pieces in front of the precision motion device is greater than 3, the data for this cycle is invalidated, and the overall modification and optimization plan for the conveying system is deemed unqualified; wherein, the precision motion device includes at least one of the following: weighing unit, blocking cylinder, box-separating mechanism, steering mechanism, and train entry mechanism.

5. The method for quantitatively evaluating the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line according to claim 3, characterized in that... The formula for the overall improvement is: ； ； ； in, To improve the overall level; This represents the buffer capacity increment; This represents the average buffer capacity before the conveyor system was modified. This represents the average buffer capacity after the conveyor system was modified. This represents the relative increase in evacuation rate. This represents the time difference between upstream and downstream production resumption. , These represent the average upstream resumption time before and after the conveyor system modification; , , These are the weight coefficients for the corresponding terms, and .

6. The method for quantitatively evaluating the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line according to claim 1, characterized in that... The standardized pressure feeding compliance criteria specifically include: 1) Feeding is carried out at a fixed pace of 2 pieces every 5 seconds. Feeding 2 products within a single 5-second time interval is considered to be compliant with feeding regulations for that interval. 2) Accumulated deviation in material feeding is prohibited. The cumulative number of materials fed in three consecutive 5-second intervals shall not be less than 6, and it is not allowed to make up for the previous shortfall by subsequent concentrated feeding. If any criterion for feeding cycle time is not met, the data for this test cycle is deemed invalid, and the test cycle is restarted.

7. The method for quantitatively evaluating the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line according to claim 1, characterized in that... It also includes: a downstream parameter anti-tampering verification mechanism, which serves as a physical boundary protection mechanism to ensure that the evaluation boundary does not deviate; Before the baseline test begins, take photos of the downstream HMI core parameter page for archiving. Before each round of retesting after the modification, the current downstream parameters and the baseline frozen archive values ​​are checked on-site item by item. If the review finds that the actual downstream parameters are inconsistent with the baseline frozen values, the test results of this round of retesting will be invalidated, and a new downstream parameter baseline will be recalibrated and established.

8. A quantitative evaluation system for the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line, used to implement the quantitative evaluation method for the optimization effect of a multi-segment roller conveyor line as described in any one of claims 1-7, characterized in that, include: The test boundary determination unit is used to determine the test boundary of the multi-segment roller conveyor system being evaluated. It excludes upstream production equipment from the formal test input or sets it to a controlled feeding mode, and sets downstream aligning and / or palletizing devices to a frozen constant physical consumption benchmark. The core test object is the multi-segment roller conveyor system. The standardized feeding unit is used to perform standardized pressure feeding tests according to preset feeding rates and feeding compliance criteria. Throughout the test, differentiated thresholds are used to monitor the number of continuously closely attached parts on the physical topology of the roller conveyor, including at least the bends, straight sections, and positions in front of precision moving equipment. Feeding is achieved by manual rhythm feeding, audio-visual rhythm feeding, semi-automatic or programmable feeding devices. The maximum effective buffer capacity unit is used to continuously feed materials in a standardized manner when the downstream equipment is stopped and locked. It records the timestamp of each segment that triggers the shutdown. The reverse blockage of multiple segments is transmitted to the upstream segment to trigger the shutdown, stop feeding materials, count the total number of products stuck inside, and measure the maximum effective buffer capacity in this cycle. The actual emptying rate unit is used to maintain the maximum effective buffer capacity at full load, start the downstream equipment, record the moment when the downstream starts to consume, the moment when the upstream photoelectric sensor is unobstructed for the preset time, and the moment when the last product leaves the roller conveyor, so as to obtain the actual emptying rate and the upstream restart time for this cycle. The A / B group test units are used to call the standardized feeding unit, the maximum effective buffer capacity unit, and the actual emptying rate unit to complete at least 3 non-violation effective test cycles for each of the A group before the conveyor system modification and the B group after the modification. During the baseline test before the modification and the retest after the modification, the motion trajectory, speed ratio, gripping mode, grouping logic, alignment logic, and HMI key parameters of the downstream alignment device and / or palletizing device remain unchanged. The evaluation and calculation unit is used to verify the validity of all cycle data. Based on the statistical significance analysis of the collected valid data, it calculates the relative emptying rate improvement ratio, the hard constraint judgment of each position, and the overall improvement degree. Among them, the hard constraint judgment of each position refers to whether the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at the position of parallel monitoring of the corner, straight section, and in front of the precision motion equipment meets the requirements. When the number of consecutive tightly attached parts at any of the physical topology positions exceeds the corresponding threshold, the corresponding test cycle is judged as invalid, or the corresponding optimization scheme is judged as unqualified. The report generation unit is used to integrate baseline data and raw test data from A / B groups to generate standardized test reports, and to establish auditable files according to test numbers to complete quantitative evaluation.

Images