IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,455,990
Granted Patent B2
US 12,455,990 · App. 18/634,266 · Granted Oct 28, 2025

Automatic generation of flexible load design

Inventors: Ou Sun (Bentonville, AR); Minghui Liu (San Bruno, CA); Jing Huang (San Jose, CA); Mingang Fu (Palo Alto, CA); Joseph Wayne Hendricks (Bentonville, AR); Jamie Lee Hamilton (Dallas, TX)
Assignee: WALMART APOLLO, LLC
G06F30/15G06F30/17G06F30/20
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,455,990
App. No.
18/634,266
Granted
Oct 28, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A system including one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations: receiving a load design for loading a trailer to deliver orders; generating an initial grouping comprising stacks of pallets that are configured to be loaded interchangeably among respective floor spot assignments on the trailer; iteratively adjusting at least one of the stacks of pallets within the initial grouping to satisfy at least a center-of-gravity constraint in a final load design for the trailer; and outputting the final load design comprising the initial grouping to cause the stacks of pallets of the initial grouping to be loaded into the trailer according to the final load design. Other embodiments are described.

Claims (74)

1. A system comprising:

a processor; and

a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computing instructions that, when executed on the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:

receiving a load design for loading a trailer to deliver orders;

generating an initial grouping comprising stacks of pallets that are configured to be loaded interchangeably among respective floor spot assignments on the trailer;

iteratively adjusting at least one of the stacks of pallets within the initial grouping to satisfy at least a center-of-gravity constraint in a final load design for the trailer based on an actual center of gravity being between a lower bound center-of-gravity constraint and an upper bound center-of-gravity constraint, wherein the lower bound center-of-gravity constraint and the upper bound center-of-gravity constraint are determined based at least on axle positions of the trailer and a total weight of the stacks of pallets, and wherein iteratively adjusting at least one of the stacks of pallets comprises:

iteratively determining if fluid groups of the stacks of pallets are infeasible based on the center-of-gravity constraint; and

adjusting at least one of the fluid groups that are infeasible until the fluid groups collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint; and

outputting the final load design to cause the stacks of pallets to be loaded into the trailer according to the final load design, wherein the final load design specifies the respective floor spot assignments for the stacks of pallets for the initial grouping on the trailer.

2. The system of claim 1 , wherein generating the initial grouping comprising the stacks of pallets further comprises:

generating the fluid groups of the stacks of pallets based on one or more containers associated with the trailer to which the stacks of pallets are assigned based on the load design.

3. The system of claim 2 , wherein the operations further comprise:

determining that the fluid groups do not collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint; and

determining the upper bound center-of-gravity constraint, wherein the upper bound center-of-gravity constraint is based on the stacks of the fluid groups arranged heaviest rearward in each of the fluid groups.

4. The system of claim 2 , wherein the operations further comprise:

determining that the fluid groups do not collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint; and

determining the lower bound center-of-gravity constraint, wherein the lower bound center-of-gravity constraint is based on the stacks of the fluid groups arranged heaviest frontward in each of the fluid groups.

5. The system of claim 2 , wherein the operations further comprise:

determining that the fluid groups do not collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint by:

determining a side-to-side weight difference is within a threshold weight based on the stacks of the fluid groups that are arranged heaviest roadside in each of the fluid groups.

6. The system of claim 2 , wherein the operations further comprise:

determining that the fluid groups do not collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint by:

determining a side-to-side weight difference is within a threshold weight based on the stacks of the fluid groups that are arranged lightest roadside in each of the fluid groups.

7. The system of claim 1 , wherein the operations further comprise:

determining a first group of the fluid groups that is most infeasible is based on at least whether (i) the first group is based on one or more of front-to-rear center-of-gravity variations of the fluid groups or (ii) side-to-side weight differences of the fluid groups, wherein the first group of the fluid groups contributes more than remaining infeasible groups of the fluid groups to cause at least one feasibility check to remain unsatisfied.

8. The system of claim 7 , wherein the operations further comprise:

splitting the first group of the fluid groups into two subgroups to update the fluid groups; and

adjusting at least one of one or more infeasible groups of the fluid groups comprising combining two of the fluid groups.

9. The system of claim 8 , wherein adjusting the at least one of one or more infeasible groups of the fluid groups further comprises:

moving a stack from a second fluid group of the fluid groups to an adjacent fluid group of the fluid groups, wherein the second fluid group and the adjacent fluid group were both part of a same initial fluid group of an initial fluid grouping of the fluid groups.

10. A computer-implemented method comprising:

receiving a load design for loading a trailer to deliver orders;

generating an initial grouping comprising stacks of pallets that are configured to be loaded interchangeably among respective floor spot assignments on the trailer;

iteratively adjusting at least one of the stacks of pallets within the initial grouping to satisfy at least a center-of-gravity constraint in a final load design for the trailer based on an actual center of gravity being between a lower bound center-of-gravity constraint and an upper bound center-of-gravity constraint, wherein the lower bound center-of-gravity constraint and the upper bound center-of-gravity constraint are determined based at least on axle positions of the trailer and a total weight of the stacks of pallets, and wherein iteratively adjusting at least one of the stacks of pallets comprises:

iteratively determining if fluid groups of the stacks of pallets are infeasible based on the center-of-gravity constraint; and

adjusting at least one of the fluid groups that are infeasible until the fluid groups collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint; and

outputting the final load design to cause the stacks of pallets to be loaded into the trailer according to the final load design, wherein the final load design specifies the respective floor spot assignments for the stacks of pallets for the initial grouping on the trailer.

11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10 , wherein generating the initial grouping comprising the stacks of pallets further comprises:

generating the fluid groups of the stacks of pallets based on one or more containers associated with the trailer to which the stacks of pallets are assigned based on the load design.

12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11 further comprising:

determining that the fluid groups do not collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint; and

determining the upper bound center-of-gravity constraint, wherein the upper bound center-of-gravity constraint is based on the stacks of the fluid groups arranged heaviest rearward in each of the fluid groups.

13. The computer-implemented method of claim 11 further comprising:

determining that the fluid groups do not collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint; and

determining the lower bound center-of-gravity constraint, wherein the lower bound center-of-gravity constraint is based on the stacks of the fluid groups arranged heaviest frontward in each of the fluid groups.

14. The computer-implemented method of claim 11 further comprising:

determining that the fluid groups do not collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint by:

determining a side-to-side weight difference is within a threshold weight based on the stacks of the fluid groups that are arranged heaviest roadside in each of the fluid groups.

15. The computer-implemented method of claim 11 further comprising:

determining that the fluid groups do not collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint by:

determining a side-to-side weight difference is within a threshold weight based on the stacks of the fluid groups that are arranged lightest roadside in each of the fluid groups.

16. The computer-implemented method of claim 10 further comprising:

determining a first group of the fluid groups that is most infeasible is based on at least whether (i) the first group is based on one or more of front-to-rear center-of-gravity variations of the fluid groups or (ii) side-to-side weight differences of the fluid groups, wherein the first group of the fluid groups contributes more than remaining infeasible groups of the fluid groups to cause at least one feasibility check to remain unsatisfied;

splitting the first group of the fluid groups into two subgroups to update the fluid groups; and

adjusting at least one of one or more infeasible groups of the fluid groups comprising combining two of the fluid groups, comprising:

moving a stack from a second fluid group of the fluid groups to an adjacent fluid group of the fluid groups, wherein the second fluid group and the adjacent fluid group were both part of a same initial fluid group of an initial fluid grouping of the fluid groups.

17. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computing instructions that, when executed on a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:

receiving a load design for loading a trailer to deliver orders;

generating an initial grouping comprising stacks of pallets that are configured to be loaded interchangeably among respective floor spot assignments on the trailer;

iteratively adjusting at least one of the stacks of pallets within the initial grouping to satisfy at least a center-of-gravity constraint in a final load design for the trailer based on an actual center of gravity being between a lower bound center-of-gravity constraint and an upper bound center-of-gravity constraint, wherein the lower bound center-of-gravity constraint and the upper bound center-of-gravity constraint are determined based at least on axle positions of the trailer and a total weight of the stacks of pallets, and wherein iteratively adjusting at least one of the stacks of pallets comprises:

iteratively determining if fluid groups of the stacks of pallets are infeasible based on the center-of-gravity constraint; and

adjusting at least one of the fluid groups that are infeasible until the fluid groups collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint; and

outputting the final load design to cause the stacks of pallets to be loaded into the trailer according to the final load design, wherein the final load design specifies the respective floor spot assignments for the stacks of pallets for the initial grouping on the trailer.

18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17 , wherein generating the initial grouping comprising the stacks of pallets further comprises:

generating the fluid groups of the stacks of pallets based on one or more containers associated with the trailer to which the stacks of pallets are assigned based on the load design.

19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18 further comprising:

determining that the fluid groups do not collectively satisfy the center-of-gravity constraint; and at least one of:

determining the upper bound center-of-gravity constraint, wherein the upper bound center-of-gravity constraint is based on the stacks of the fluid groups arranged heaviest rearward in each of the fluid groups; or

determining the lower bound center-of-gravity constraint, wherein the lower bound center-of-gravity constraint is based on the stacks of the fluid groups arranged heaviest frontward in each of the fluid groups.

20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17 further comprising:

determining a first group of the fluid groups that is most infeasible is based on at least whether (i) the first group is based on one or more of front-to-rear center-of-gravity variations of the fluid groups or (ii) side-to-side weight differences of the fluid groups, wherein the first group of the fluid groups contributes more than remaining infeasible groups of the fluid groups to cause at least one feasibility check to remain unsatisfied;

splitting the first group of the fluid groups into two subgroups to update the fluid groups; and

adjusting at least one of one or more infeasible groups of the fluid groups comprising combining two of the fluid groups, comprising:

moving a stack from a second fluid group of the fluid groups to an adjacent fluid group of the fluid groups, wherein the second fluid group and the adjacent fluid group were both part of a same initial fluid group of an initial fluid grouping of the fluid groups.

Assignments (2)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 27, 2024
From: HENDRICKS, JOSEPH WAYNE; HAMILTON, JAMIE LEE
To: WALMART APOLLO, LLC
Reel/Frame 068411/0334 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 18, 2024
From: SUN, OU; LIU, MINGHUI; HUANG, JING; FU, MINGANG
To: WALMART APOLLO, LLC
Reel/Frame 068320/0209 →
Continuity (5)
Continuation 17161559 · Jan 28, 2021
Continuation In Part 16777498 · Jan 30, 2020
Continuation In Part 16712783 · Dec 12, 2019
Provisional Application 62798911 · Jan 30, 2019
Related Publication 20240273253A1 · Aug 15, 2024
References Cited (55)
US 7561533B2 · Aklepi et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 9171277B2 · Rutt et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9665845B2 · Ye et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9881263B2 · Kim et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10161746B2 · Ochsendorf et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10337880B2 · Koga et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10467562B1 · Mo et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10467563B1 · Mo et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20020178074A1 · Bloom · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20050149303A1 · Agrawala et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050187711A1 · Agrawala et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050246192A1 · Jauffred et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20080065262A1 · Gottlieb et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080077464A1 · Gottlieb et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080140597A1 · Satir et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080306795A1 · Ho · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080312991A1 · Bharadwaj et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090228417A1 · Rothberg · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090254405A1 · Hollis · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100318437A1 · Yee et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110022298A1 · Kronberg · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110317570A1 · Likar et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120283868A1 · Rutt et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130138330A1 · Xu et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130159206A1 · Barahona et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20160011073A1 · Long · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160032725A1 · Heidari et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160202941A1 · McLeod · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160300186A1 · Scharaswak et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170154394A1 · Kan et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180111698A1 · Podnar et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180349849A1 · Jones et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190213529A1 · Donnelly et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190318629A1 · Ranjan et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200242285A1 · Huang et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200292375A1 · Murray et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
CN 103761635 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
CN 106096881A · 2016 [cited by applicant]
CN 110175402 · 2019 [cited by applicant]
DE 102007027993 · 2008 [cited by applicant]
EP 2573041 · 2013 [cited by applicant]
GB 2524952 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
JP 2007191296 · 2007 [cited by applicant]
WO 2017221233 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
Ramos AG, Silva E, Oliveira JF. A new load balance methodology for container loading problem in road transportation. European Journal of Operational Research. May 1, 2018;266(3):1140-52. (Year: 2018). [cited by examiner]
Pollaris, Hanne. “Loading constraints in vehicle routing problems: a focus on axle weight limits.” (2017). 206 Pages. (Year: 2017) 2017. [cited by applicant]
Ruan, Qingfang, et al. “A hybrid approach for the vehicle routing problem with three-dimensional loading constraints.” Computers & Operations Research 40.6 (2013): 1579-1589. (Year: 2013) 2013. [cited by applicant]
Van Rijn, Sander, et al. “Optimizing highly constrained truck loadings using a self-adaptive genetic algorithm.” 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). IEEE, 2015. (Year: 2015) 2015. [cited by applicant]
Oliskevych, M. “Optimization of the load scheme of heavy vehicle for a given flow of goods.” ECONTECHMOD: An International Quarterly Journal on Economics of Technology and Modelling Processes 6, No. 1 (2017): 55-62. (Ye… [cited by applicant]
Wikipedia, “Vehicle Routing Problem,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_routing_problem, accessed on Jan. 27, 2020. 2020. [cited by applicant]
Olsson et al., “Automating the Planning of Container Loading for Atlas Copco: Coping with Real-Life Stacking and Stability Constraints,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 280, Issue 3, pp. 1018-1034, Feb. 1… [cited by applicant]
Wei et al. “A simulated annealing algorithm for the capacitated vehicle routing problem with two-dimensional loading constraints,” European Journal of Operatoinal Research 225 (2018) 843-859 2018. [cited by applicant]
Zhao et al. “A Novel Algorithm for Nesting of 3-Dimensional Parts,” 2009 International Asia Symposium on Intelligent Interaction and Affective Computing—4 pages 2009. [cited by applicant]
Ghomi et al., “Three-Dimensional Container Loading: A Simulated Annealing Approach,” International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 vol. 12, No. 7 (2017) pp. 1290-1304 2017. [cited by applicant]
Zhu et al., “A two-state tabu search algorithm with enhanced packing heuristics for the 3L-CVRP and M3L-CVRP,” Computers & Operations Research 39 (2012) 2178-2195 2012. [cited by applicant]