5 ms·

I worked on something similar over the summer. The most difficult thing about this problem is mixed size boxes. Knowing where every box is is easy when they're

by brink 5y ago

I worked on something similar over the summer. The most difficult thing about this problem is mixed size boxes. Knowing where every box is is easy when they're all the same dimension and stacked neatly, but what about when they're packed randomly, many boxes are askew, and they're all different sizes? Then you need to get into complicated time-of-flight sensors, point clouds, surface/box recognition logic/AI, etc..

chairmanwow1 5y ago
Wouldn’t a strobe lidar be perfect for this? Or would you just want CV segmentation?
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
When I worked at a grocery store, our solution for re-stacking pallets of merchandise was to place the largest boxes at the bottom and build upward with smaller boxes. Obviously this wouldn't be a great way to do things in a shipping container given the amount of vertically wasted space, but it worked in a warehouse. Of course, the reason we were re-stacking pallets is because our original managers were so bad at managing inventory that the 20ish backstock carts were full, so we would routinely have 15-25 pallets of backstock in the warehouse... when ideally the carts should only ever be half full. Saved their jobs when I took the order gun from them, lol.
- jcims 5y ago
  The nice thing about shipping containers is that you have walls that can provide lateral stability and a bit of retention. Loading for UPS you would basically play 3D Tetris building walls of boxes. As you neared the end of each row you would pick a box 2-3 inches too wide to fit and smash it in there to lock everything up. To unload you most reverse the process. Unless it gets busy then you just pull the whole wall down at one time and bulldoze the boxes onto the rollers. Restacking pallets in warehouses is way harder. It’s more like building a house of cards but no card is the same size.
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  > place the largest boxes at the bottom and build upward with smaller boxes I think this is actually a basic rule in packing / loading. Get the big things in first and then work around them with the small things. It's how I load my car when going on a big trip. The main exception is things that you will need quickly without having to unload everything. 'Big things first' is also why mixtures (e.g. muesli) settle in transit with the larger pieces at the top and dust at the bottom. Small things can work their way under the big things but the converse isn't true, unless the whole volume is vigorously shaken.
jollybean 5y ago
The world changed quite a lot due to standardized shipping containers. It was a mess before that. I really do think the same could be applied to shipping packaging. There are 12 sized boxes and that's that. They need to be stacked a certain way. Or maybe a bit of flex here and there for some things. Nobody really has the wherewithal or power to do that, but you know ... Xi could. I can see that being something China imposes, and then it's a standard that naturally gets exported.
- IneffablePigeon 5y ago
  Amazon basically does this, I think? As a consumer, I hate it, because I end up with a huge box and loads of useless paper whenever something isn't the right aspect ratio for one of the standard boxes. Obviously for distribution of stock you could probably be smarter about it and waste less space/cardboard since you've probably got lots of each size of item.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Yes I detest that. For distribution it would work. For end-consumer shipping, they should frankly have boxes that 'fit' perfectly. Amazon should have a 'box maker machine' that makes all the dam boxes on the spot as needed from cardboard. Or forget boxes, how about a really light mesh?
    - DougBTX 5y ago
      They pretty much do this in some cases, they use boxes like this[0] which fit their contents based on where they are taped. [0] https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B094DL2GQ6 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B094DL2GQ6
    - Schiendelman 5y ago
      I worked for Amazon in sustainability for some time. "Fitting" 'perfectly' requires literally billions of shape combinations, because multiple items ship in one box. I question whether it would save any holistic measure of energy/emissions/waste to solve that problem to any measure of 'perfectly'. The work Amazon has done to change box types, switch to bags, etc., has reduced waste considerably per package, though I suspect the absolute amount of waste has continued to increase with business growth.

by brink 5y ago

chairmanwow1 5y ago

Wouldn’t a strobe lidar be perfect for this? Or would you just want CV segmentation?

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

When I worked at a grocery store, our solution for re-stacking pallets of merchandise was to place the largest boxes at the bottom and build upward with smaller boxes. Obviously this wouldn't be a great way to do things in a shipping container given the amount of vertically wasted space, but it worked in a warehouse. Of course, the reason we were re-stacking pallets is because our original managers were so bad at managing inventory that the 20ish backstock carts were full, so we would routinely have 15-25 pallets of backstock in the warehouse... when ideally the carts should only ever be half full. Saved their jobs when I took the order gun from them, lol.

jcims 5y ago
The nice thing about shipping containers is that you have walls that can provide lateral stability and a bit of retention. Loading for UPS you would basically play 3D Tetris building walls of boxes. As you neared the end of each row you would pick a box 2-3 inches too wide to fit and smash it in there to lock everything up. To unload you most reverse the process. Unless it gets busy then you just pull the whole wall down at one time and bulldoze the boxes onto the rollers. Restacking pallets in warehouses is way harder. It’s more like building a house of cards but no card is the same size.
KineticLensman 5y ago
> place the largest boxes at the bottom and build upward with smaller boxes I think this is actually a basic rule in packing / loading. Get the big things in first and then work around them with the small things. It's how I load my car when going on a big trip. The main exception is things that you will need quickly without having to unload everything. 'Big things first' is also why mixtures (e.g. muesli) settle in transit with the larger pieces at the top and dust at the bottom. Small things can work their way under the big things but the converse isn't true, unless the whole volume is vigorously shaken.

jollybean 5y ago

The world changed quite a lot due to standardized shipping containers. It was a mess before that. I really do think the same could be applied to shipping packaging. There are 12 sized boxes and that's that. They need to be stacked a certain way. Or maybe a bit of flex here and there for some things. Nobody really has the wherewithal or power to do that, but you know ... Xi could. I can see that being something China imposes, and then it's a standard that naturally gets exported.

IneffablePigeon 5y ago
Amazon basically does this, I think? As a consumer, I hate it, because I end up with a huge box and loads of useless paper whenever something isn't the right aspect ratio for one of the standard boxes. Obviously for distribution of stock you could probably be smarter about it and waste less space/cardboard since you've probably got lots of each size of item.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Yes I detest that. For distribution it would work. For end-consumer shipping, they should frankly have boxes that 'fit' perfectly. Amazon should have a 'box maker machine' that makes all the dam boxes on the spot as needed from cardboard. Or forget boxes, how about a really light mesh?
  - DougBTX 5y ago
    They pretty much do this in some cases, they use boxes like this[0] which fit their contents based on where they are taped. [0] https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B094DL2GQ6 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B094DL2GQ6
  - Schiendelman 5y ago
    I worked for Amazon in sustainability for some time. "Fitting" 'perfectly' requires literally billions of shape combinations, because multiple items ship in one box. I question whether it would save any holistic measure of energy/emissions/waste to solve that problem to any measure of 'perfectly'. The work Amazon has done to change box types, switch to bags, etc., has reduced waste considerably per package, though I suspect the absolute amount of waste has continued to increase with business growth.