Steel bar collision inspection and automatic deviation correction method based on three-dimensional graphic platform

Abstract

The invention provides a steel bar collision checking and automatic deviation rectifying method based on a three-dimensional graphic platform, and relates to the technical field of constructional engineering, the method comprises the following steps: obtaining a target position of a reserved truss steel bar in a lower prefabricated slab of a prefabricated composite floor slab and an initial arrangement scheme of a bidirectional steel bar in an upper cast-in-place layer; setting the target position to avoid hard constraint, performing reinforcement collision detection on the two-way reinforcement in the initial arrangement scheme and the reserved truss reinforcement through a constraint model, and extracting position information of the two-way reinforcement related to the collision after the collision is detected; generating a path avoiding scheme according to the position information; iterating the avoidance path scheme through a constraint model to generate a target avoidance path meeting a constraint condition; and according to the target avoiding path, the initial arrangement scheme is adjusted, and a target arrangement scheme of the two-way steel bars in the upper cast-in-place layer of the prefabricated composite floor slab is generated. The technical effect of the invention is that misjudgment of collision detection is reduced.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of building engineering technology, specifically to a method, system, equipment, and storage medium for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform. Background Technology

[0002] With the rapid development of prefabricated buildings, precast composite floor slabs have been widely used in engineering projects due to their economic efficiency and ease of construction. However, during the design process of precast composite floor slabs, the bidirectional reinforcing bars in the upper cast-in-place layer often collide with the truss reinforcing bars reserved in the lower precast slab. This not only affects the overall performance of the structure but also makes it difficult to guarantee construction quality. Therefore, how to effectively solve the problem of reinforcing bar collision and ensure the design quality and construction feasibility of precast composite floor slabs has become an urgent technical challenge.

[0003] Currently, the solution to the problem of rebar collision in precast composite floor slabs mainly relies on collision detection using 2D CAD software. While this method can avoid rebar collisions to some extent, the 2D planar representation cannot accurately reflect the spatial relationship of the rebars, which can easily lead to misjudgments in collision detection. Summary of the Invention

[0004] This application provides a method, system, device, and storage medium for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform, which can reduce false alarms in collision detection.

[0005] In a first aspect, this application provides a method for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform. The method includes: obtaining the target position of the reserved truss rebar in the lower precast slab of a precast composite floor slab, and the initial arrangement scheme of the bidirectional rebar in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab; setting the target position as an avoidance hard constraint; based on the avoidance hard constraint, using a constraint model established in the three-dimensional graphics platform, performing rebar collision detection between the bidirectional rebar and the reserved truss rebar in the initial arrangement scheme, and extracting the position information of the bidirectional rebar involved in the collision after detecting a collision; generating an avoidance path scheme based on the position information; iterating the avoidance path scheme through the constraint model to generate a target avoidance path that satisfies the constraint conditions; and adjusting the initial arrangement scheme based on the target avoidance path to generate a target arrangement scheme of the bidirectional rebar in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab.

[0006] By adopting the above technical solution, and establishing a constraint model in a 3D graphics platform, and setting the target position of the reserved truss reinforcement as an avoidance hard constraint, accurate detection of collisions between bidirectional reinforcement and reserved truss reinforcement is achieved. Based on this, the system automatically generates avoidance path schemes according to the detected position information and iteratively optimizes them through the constraint model to ensure that the generated target avoidance path meets design specifications and construction requirements. This automated detection and optimization mechanism not only improves the accuracy of reinforcement collision checks but also ensures the rationality of the adjusted reinforcement layout through systematic path optimization, thereby effectively solving the reinforcement collision problem in precast composite floor slabs, improving design efficiency and scheme quality, and reducing false judgments in collision detection.

[0007] Optionally, the constraint model includes geometric constraints and specification constraints; wherein, the geometric constraints include the minimum clear spatial distance between the reserved truss reinforcement and the two-way reinforcement, the maximum overlap depth of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement of the two-way reinforcement at the intersection point, and the minimum included angle between the web reinforcement of the reserved truss reinforcement and the two-way reinforcement; the specification constraints include the minimum center distance between adjacent two-way reinforcements.

[0008] By adopting the above technical solution and simultaneously considering geometric and code constraints in the constraint model, comprehensive control over the reinforcement layout is achieved. Geometric constraints ensure concrete pouring quality by setting minimum clear spacing, prevent reinforcement accumulation by limiting the maximum overlap depth at intersections, and guarantee structural load-bearing performance by specifying minimum included angles. Code constraints ensure that the reinforcement layout meets design code requirements by controlling the minimum center-to-center distance. This multi-dimensional constraint system ensures both the construction feasibility of reinforcement avoidance schemes and structural performance and code compliance, providing a reliable evaluation standard for generating high-quality reinforcement layout schemes.

[0009] Optionally, generating an avoidance path scheme based on the location information includes: determining the collision area between the bidirectional reinforcing bars and the reserved truss reinforcing bars based on the location information; calculating the avoidance direction and avoidance distance of the bidirectional reinforcing bars based on the collision area; generating an initial avoidance path scheme based on the avoidance direction and avoidance distance; determining whether the initial avoidance path scheme meets the specification requirements; if it does not meet the specification requirements, adjusting the avoidance direction and avoidance distance until an avoidance path scheme that meets the specification requirements is generated.

[0010] By adopting the above technical solution and implementing a systematic avoidance path generation process, an automatic transition from collision detection to path optimization is achieved. First, the collision area is accurately located. Then, based on the collision area, a reasonable avoidance direction and distance are calculated to generate an initial avoidance path plan. Through real-time verification and dynamic parameter adjustment according to specifications, it is ensured that the final generated avoidance path plan effectively solves the collision problem and meets specification requirements. This iterative optimization method avoids new problems that may arise from blind adjustments, improving the efficiency and reliability of avoidance plan generation.

[0011] Optionally, the step of iterating the avoidance path scheme through the constraint model to generate a target avoidance path that satisfies the constraint conditions includes: using the avoidance path scheme as an initial solution; evaluating the initial solution according to the geometric constraints and the normative constraints in the constraint model to generate a constraint satisfaction degree; adjusting the initial solution using an optimization algorithm based on the constraint satisfaction degree to generate a new avoidance path until the new avoidance path satisfies the geometric constraints and the normative constraints, or reaches a preset number of iterations; using the new avoidance path that satisfies the constraint conditions as the target avoidance path; if no new avoidance path satisfies the preset constraint conditions after reaching the preset number of iterations, then using the new avoidance path with the highest constraint satisfaction degree among the preset number of iterations as the target avoidance path.

[0012] By adopting the above technical solution and establishing a scientific iterative optimization mechanism, the process of generating obstacle avoidance paths is transformed into a quantifiable optimization problem. By evaluating the constraint satisfaction of the initial solution and adjusting the path using optimization algorithms based on the evaluation results, the system can automatically search for the optimal solution that satisfies the constraints. Simultaneously, by setting a preset number of iterations and a constraint satisfaction evaluation mechanism, even when a solution that fully satisfies the constraints cannot be found, a relatively optimal obstacle avoidance path solution can still be output. This iterative optimization method based on constraint models ensures the controllability of the optimization process and provides feasible solutions under complex constraints, significantly improving the intelligence level and solution quality of obstacle avoidance path generation.

[0013] Optionally, the step of evaluating the initial solution and generating constraint satisfaction based on the geometric constraints and specification constraints in the constraint model includes: calculating the first difference between the actual spatial clearance of the bidirectional reinforcement corresponding to the avoidance path and the reserved truss reinforcement, and the minimum spatial clearance; calculating the second difference between the actual overlap depth of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement of the bidirectional reinforcement corresponding to the avoidance path at the intersection point and the maximum overlap depth; calculating the third difference between the actual included angle between the web reinforcement of the reserved truss reinforcement corresponding to the avoidance path and the bidirectional reinforcement, and the minimum included angle; calculating the fourth difference between the actual center distance between adjacent bidirectional reinforcements corresponding to the avoidance path and the minimum center distance; combining the first difference, the second difference, the third difference, and the fourth difference to generate a constraint satisfaction score; and generating constraint satisfaction based on the constraint satisfaction score.

[0014] By adopting the above technical solution and establishing a multi-dimensional constraint evaluation system, a quantitative evaluation of avoidance path schemes was achieved. By calculating the differences between the actual values ​​and limits of spatial clearance, overlap depth, included angle, and center distance, and comprehensively evaluating these differences to generate constraint degree scores and constraint satisfaction scores, a comprehensive and objective evaluation standard was established. This evaluation method based on difference calculation not only accurately reflects the degree of conformity between the scheme and various constraint requirements, but also provides clear directional guidance for optimization adjustments through the quantitative expression of constraint satisfaction, thereby improving the accuracy and efficiency of avoidance path optimization.

[0015] Optionally, the step of generating a constraint score by combining the first difference, the second difference, the third difference, and the fourth difference, and generating a constraint satisfaction score based on the constraint score, includes: normalizing the first difference, the second difference, the third difference, and the fourth difference respectively to obtain multiple normalized differences; weighted summing of the multiple normalized differences to obtain a constraint score; setting a constraint satisfaction threshold; if the constraint score exceeds the constraint satisfaction threshold, generating a high constraint satisfaction score; if the constraint score does not exceed the constraint satisfaction threshold, generating a target constraint satisfaction score based on the difference between the constraint score and the constraint satisfaction threshold, wherein the target constraint satisfaction score is inversely proportional to the difference.

[0016] By adopting the above technical solution and establishing a standardized constraint evaluation mechanism, a unified assessment of indicators with different dimensions was achieved. By normalizing and weighted summing the differences between various values, the dimensional differences between different physical quantities were eliminated, making the evaluation results more objective. By setting constraint satisfaction thresholds and establishing a scoring mechanism based on differences, both the identification of high-quality solutions and the provision of quantitative evaluation standards for solutions that do not fully meet the requirements were ensured. This scientific evaluation system not only improves the accuracy and comparability of constraint assessments but also provides a clear basis for judgment on solution optimization through precise calculation of constraint satisfaction, thereby enhancing the controllability and effectiveness of the entire optimization process.

[0017] Optionally, after generating the target layout scheme of the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab, the method further includes: importing the target layout scheme into a three-dimensional graphics platform for visualization; performing a collision check on the target layout scheme to verify whether there are any unresolved collision points; if there are unresolved collision points, marking the collision positions and returning to the avoidance path generation step to recalculate; if there are no unresolved collision points, generating reinforcement layout construction drawings.

[0018] By adopting the above technical solutions and establishing a complete verification and output process, a seamless connection from scheme optimization to construction implementation was achieved. Visualizing and verifying the target layout scheme on a 3D graphics platform allows for intuitive verification of the scheme's rationality. Setting collision point feedback and recalculation mechanisms ensures that all collision issues are effectively resolved. Automatically generating construction drawings enables standardized output of design results. This systematic verification and output method not only guarantees the accuracy and reliability of the design scheme but also provides complete construction guidance documents, effectively improving the overall quality and practicality of precast composite floor slab reinforcement design.

[0019] Secondly, this application provides a system for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a 3D graphics platform. The system includes: an acquisition module, a collision detection module, a generation module, an iteration module, and an output module; wherein... The acquisition module is used to acquire the target position of the reserved truss reinforcement in the lower precast slab of the precast composite floor slab, and the initial arrangement scheme of the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab; the collision detection module is used to set the target position as an avoidance hard constraint, and based on the avoidance hard constraint, to perform reinforcement collision detection between the bidirectional reinforcement and the reserved truss reinforcement in the initial arrangement scheme through a constraint model established in a three-dimensional graphics platform, and to extract the position information of the bidirectional reinforcement involved in the collision after a collision is detected; the generation module is used to generate an avoidance path scheme based on the position information; the iteration module is used to iterate the avoidance path scheme through the constraint model to generate a target avoidance path that meets the constraint conditions; the output module is used to adjust the initial arrangement scheme according to the target avoidance path to generate a target arrangement scheme of the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab.

[0020] Thirdly, this application provides an electronic device that adopts the following technical solution: it includes a processor, a memory, a user interface, and a network interface. The memory is used to store instructions, the user interface and the network interface are used to communicate with other devices, and the processor is used to execute the instructions stored in the memory so that the electronic device executes a computer program such as any of the above-mentioned methods for steel bar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform.

[0021] Fourthly, this application provides a computer-readable storage medium that employs the following technical solution: storing a computer program capable of being loaded by a processor and executing any of the above-mentioned methods for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform.

[0022] In summary, this application includes at least one of the following beneficial technical effects: By establishing a constraint model in a 3D graphics platform and setting the target position of the reserved truss reinforcement as an avoidance hard constraint, accurate detection of collisions between bidirectional reinforcement and reserved truss reinforcement is achieved. Based on this, the system automatically generates avoidance path schemes according to the detected position information and iteratively optimizes them through the constraint model to ensure that the generated target avoidance path meets design specifications and construction requirements. This automated detection and optimization mechanism not only improves the accuracy of reinforcement collision checks but also ensures the rationality of the adjusted reinforcement layout through systematic path optimization. This effectively solves the problem of reinforcement collisions in precast composite floor slabs, improves design efficiency and scheme quality, and reduces false positives in collision detection. Attached Figure Description

[0023] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating a method for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform, as provided in an embodiment of this application. Figure 2 This is a structural schematic diagram of a rebar collision detection and automatic correction system based on a three-dimensional graphics platform provided in an embodiment of this application; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided in an embodiment of this application.

[0024] Explanation of reference numerals in the attached figures: 1000, electronic device; 1001, processor; 1002, communication bus; 1003, user interface; 1004, network interface; 1005, memory. Detailed Implementation

[0025] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the technical solutions in this specification, the technical solutions in the embodiments of this specification will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of this application, and not all embodiments.

[0026] In the description of the embodiments in this application, words such as "illustrative," "for example," or "for example" are used to indicate examples, illustrations, or explanations. Any embodiment or design described as "illustrative," "for example," or "for example" in the embodiments of this application should not be construed as being more preferred or advantageous than other embodiments or designs. Rather, the use of words such as "illustrative," "for example," or "for example" is intended to present the relevant concepts in a specific manner.

[0027] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating a method for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a 3D graphics platform, as provided in an embodiment of this application. Figure 1 As shown, the method includes S101-S105: S101, obtain the target location of the reserved truss reinforcement in the lower precast slab of the precast composite floor slab, and the initial arrangement scheme of the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab.

[0028] Before implementing the specific embodiments of the present invention, it is necessary to first clarify the structural characteristics of precast composite floor slabs. A precast composite floor slab consists of two parts: a lower precast slab and an upper cast-in-place layer. The lower precast slab has pre-embedded truss reinforcement bars during factory prefabrication. The main function of these truss reinforcement bars is to ensure a reliable integral connection between the upper cast-in-place concrete and the lower precast slab. The upper cast-in-place layer requires bidirectional reinforcement to meet structural stress requirements. Bidirectional reinforcement refers to a steel mesh formed by the intersecting arrangement of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement bars.

[0029] Before performing rebar collision checks and automatic correction, it is first necessary to obtain the target location information of the reserved truss rebar in the lower precast slab of the precast composite floor slab. This information can be obtained in the following ways: first, by extracting the three-dimensional coordinate information of the truss rebar from the precast slab construction drawings provided by the precast component manufacturer; second, by conducting on-site scanning and measurement of the produced precast slab using a 3D scanner; and third, by directly exporting relevant data from the BIM model of the precast component. The obtained target location information of the truss rebar includes the spatial arrangement and orientation of the truss rebar in the precast slab, as well as the relative positional relationships between various components.

[0030] Simultaneously, it is also necessary to obtain the initial layout plan for the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab. This initial layout plan is typically designed by structural designers based on structural calculations and in accordance with the requirements of building structural design codes. It mainly includes: parameters such as the specifications, spacing, and protective layer thickness of the bidirectional reinforcement, as well as spatial information such as the location and direction of the reinforcement within the floor slab plane. This information can be provided in the form of CAD drawings or BIM models.

[0031] By acquiring the above information, the accurate location of the reserved truss reinforcement can be used as the benchmark for subsequent reinforcement collision detection, while the initial arrangement of the bidirectional reinforcement serves as the basis for optimization and adjustment. This data acquisition method ensures that subsequent collision detection and avoidance optimization are based on accurate spatial positioning, effectively improving the accuracy of reinforcement collision detection and the reliability of avoidance schemes. Furthermore, a standardized data acquisition process can improve design efficiency, reduce human error, and lay the foundation for subsequent automated processing.

[0032] S102, set the target position to avoid hard constraints. Based on avoiding hard constraints, use the constraint model established in the three-dimensional graphics platform to perform steel bar collision detection between the bidirectional steel bars in the initial layout scheme and the reserved truss steel bars. After detecting the collision, extract the position information of the bidirectional steel bars involved in the collision.

[0033] After data acquisition, rebar collision detection is required. Since the position of the truss rebar in the lower precast slab of the precast composite floor slab is fixed and cannot be adjusted, the target position of the truss rebar is set as a hard constraint for avoidance. This hard constraint means that in the subsequent collision handling process, the position of the truss rebar serves as a fixed reference point, and other components must avoid this position. This setting aligns with the actual production and construction characteristics of precast components, ensuring the feasibility of the subsequently generated avoidance scheme.

[0034] In a 3D graphics platform, establishing a constraint model is fundamental for collision detection. The constraint model encompasses both geometric and regulatory constraints. Geometric constraints primarily consider parameters such as the minimum clear distance between the reserved truss reinforcement and the two-way reinforcement, the maximum overlap depth of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement at their intersections, and the minimum included angle between the web reinforcement of the reserved truss and the two-way reinforcement. Regulatory constraints mainly consider requirements such as the minimum center-to-center distance between adjacent two-way reinforcement bars. The setting of these constraint parameters must meet both the requirements of structural design codes and the feasibility of construction techniques.

[0035] Based on the established constraint model, the system will perform collision detection on the bidirectional reinforcing bars and reserved truss reinforcing bars in the initial layout scheme. The collision detection adopts the three-dimensional solid interference inspection method, which determines whether a collision exists by calculating the spatial relationship between the reinforcing bar entities. Specifically, the system first establishes a three-dimensional solid model of the reinforcing bars according to their actual dimensions, and then uses the collision detection algorithm provided by the three-dimensional graphics platform to check whether any two reinforcing bar entities intersect, overlap, or fail to meet the minimum spacing requirements.

[0036] When the system detects a collision, it automatically extracts the location information of the bidirectional reinforcing bars involved in the collision. This location information includes the specific spatial coordinates of the collision, the collision range, and the numbers of the reinforcing bars involved. The location information extraction uses a three-dimensional coordinate system, which can accurately locate the spatial position of each collision point, providing precise data support for subsequent avoidance path planning.

[0037] Based on the above embodiments, as an optional implementation method, in S102, the constraint model includes geometric constraints and specification constraints; wherein, the geometric constraints include the minimum clear spatial distance between the reserved truss reinforcement and the two-way reinforcement, the maximum overlap depth of the longitudinal reinforcement and the transverse reinforcement of the two-way reinforcement at the intersection point, and the minimum included angle between the web reinforcement of the reserved truss reinforcement and the two-way reinforcement; the specification constraints include the minimum center distance between adjacent two-way reinforcements.

[0038] When conducting rebar collision detection, a complete constraint model needs to be established to ensure the accuracy and practicality of the test results. The constraint model, serving as an evaluation criterion, includes both geometric and specification constraints. The setting of these constraints directly affects the quality and feasibility of the final generated solution.

[0039] Geometric constraints primarily consider the spatial relationship between reinforcing bars and are a fundamental requirement for ensuring the rationality of reinforcing bar arrangement. Among these, the minimum clear distance between the reserved truss reinforcing bars and the two-way reinforcing bars is the most basic geometric constraint. This clear distance value is usually determined based on the construction requirements of concrete pouring and vibration, with the aim of ensuring that the concrete can fully enclose the reinforcing bars and form effective bond strength. Different specifications of reinforcing bars may require different minimum clear distances; for example, for 12mm diameter reinforcing bars, the minimum clear distance may need to be set at 25mm to ensure construction quality.

[0040] The maximum overlap depth at the intersection of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in two-way reinforcement is another important geometric constraint parameter. At the intersection of two-way reinforcement, the space occupied by the reinforcement may affect the compactness of the poured concrete. Therefore, it is necessary to limit the overlap depth at the intersection. This depth is usually calculated and determined based on the diameter of the reinforcement and the thickness of the concrete cover. For example, for commonly used double-layer two-way reinforcement, the maximum overlap depth can be set to 1.5 times that of the smaller diameter reinforcement. This ensures the connection strength of the reinforcement without causing localized difficulties in concrete pouring.

[0041] The minimum angle constraint between the web reinforcement and the two-way reinforcement of the reserved truss is to consider the structural stress requirements. Too small an intersection angle may affect the anchorage performance of the reinforcement and the overall performance of the structure; therefore, a minimum angle limit needs to be set. Based on engineering experience and structural mechanics analysis, this minimum angle should generally not be less than 30 degrees to ensure the reliability of the structure under stress.

[0042] The main constraint in the code is the minimum center-to-center distance requirement between adjacent two-way reinforcing bars, which is a mandatory indicator directly stipulated by the building structure design code. The minimum center-to-center distance needs to consider factors such as the diameter of the reinforcing bars, the thickness of the concrete cover, and the dimensions of the structural members. For example, for a typical floor slab structure, the minimum center-to-center distance between adjacent reinforcing bars should not be less than 1.5 times the diameter of the reinforcing bars, and should not be less than 25 mm. This constraint ensures the uniformity of the reinforcing bar arrangement and the overall performance of the structure.

[0043] In practical applications, the constraint model is implemented parametrically in a 3D graphics platform. The system converts these constraints into specific numerical parameters and judgment criteria, and evaluates the satisfaction of each constraint in real time during collision detection. When the spatial relationship between the reinforcing bars is detected to not meet the constraint requirements, the system marks the specific violation location and violation type, providing accurate reference for subsequent collision avoidance scheme optimization.

[0044] S103, Generate an avoidance path plan based on the location information.

[0045] After obtaining the location information of the rebar collisions, it is necessary to generate reasonable avoidance path schemes for these collision points. Generating avoidance path schemes is a key step in realizing automatic rebar correction, and its purpose is to find the optimal rebar avoidance scheme while ensuring structural safety and construction feasibility.

[0046] First, the system needs to determine the collision zone between the bidirectional reinforcing bars and the reserved truss reinforcing bars based on the acquired location information. The collision zone is determined using spatial analysis methods. By calculating the intersection volume and intersection range between the interfering reinforcing bar entities, the spatial range requiring avoidance can be accurately delineated. This spatial analysis considers not only the direct contact between the reinforcing bar entities but also areas that do not meet the minimum spacing requirements, thus ensuring that the generated avoidance scheme meets the code requirements.

[0047] After determining the collision area, the system calculates the avoidance direction and distance for the bidirectional reinforcing bars. Determining the avoidance direction requires considering several factors: firstly, spatial constraints, ensuring the avoided reinforcing bars will not collide with other structural members; secondly, structural stress requirements, maintaining the original stress performance of the reinforcing bars as much as possible; and finally, construction feasibility, facilitating on-site construction operations. The avoidance distance is calculated based on the collision depth and minimum spacing requirements, ensuring the spacing of the avoided reinforcing bars meets the specifications.

[0048] Based on the calculated avoidance direction and distance, the system generates an initial avoidance path plan. This plan includes the new spatial location of the bidirectional reinforcement that needs adjustment, the adjustment range, and the arrangement of the transition section. The design of the transition section is particularly important, ensuring a smooth alignment of the reinforcement after the avoidance and preventing sharp turns or unnecessary bends, which not only affect structural performance but also increase construction difficulty.

[0049] After generating the initial avoidance path plan, the system performs a compliance check on it according to regulatory requirements. This includes checking whether the spacing of the rebars after the avoidance meets the minimum spacing requirements, whether the bending angle of the rebars meets the regulatory limits, and whether the thickness of the protective layer meets the requirements. If any non-compliance with regulatory requirements is found, the system will automatically adjust the avoidance direction and distance and regenerate the avoidance path plan. This process is an iterative optimization process until an avoidance path plan that meets the regulatory requirements is generated.

[0050] Based on the above embodiments, as an optional implementation, in S103, generating an avoidance path scheme according to the location information specifically includes S31-S34: S31, based on the location information, determine the collision area between the bidirectional reinforcement and the reserved truss reinforcement.

[0051] First, the system needs to determine the specific collision area between the bidirectional reinforcing bars and the reserved truss reinforcing bars based on the previously acquired location information. This process employs spatial geometric analysis methods, precisely locating the collision area by calculating the intersection volume and intersection range of the reinforcing bar entities. The system establishes a three-dimensional coordinate system, positions the colliding reinforcing bar segments in space, and calculates the specific coordinates of the collision point and the spatial boundaries of the collision range. This precise spatial positioning facilitates the accurate generation of subsequent avoidance schemes.

[0052] S32, calculate the avoidance direction and avoidance distance of the bidirectional reinforcement based on the collision area.

[0053] After identifying the collision zone, the system calculates the avoidance direction and distance for the bidirectional reinforcement based on the characteristics of the collision zone. Determining the avoidance direction requires considering several factors: firstly, spatial constraints—the system analyzes the spatial limitations around the reinforcement and selects the direction with the least resistance; secondly, structural stress requirements—the avoidance direction should maintain the original stress performance of the reinforcement as much as possible; and finally, construction feasibility—the avoidance direction should facilitate on-site construction operations. The avoidance distance is calculated based on parameters such as collision depth and minimum spacing requirements to ensure that the reinforcement arrangement after avoidance meets the specifications. For example, if the detected collision depth is 15mm, and considering the minimum clear distance requirement of 25mm, the avoidance distance needs to be set to at least 40mm.

[0054] S33: Generate an initial avoidance path scheme based on the avoidance direction and avoidance distance.

[0055] Based on the calculated avoidance direction and distance, the system generates an initial avoidance path plan. This plan includes the new spatial location of the bidirectional reinforcement that needs adjustment, the adjustment range, and the arrangement of the transition section. The design of the transition section is particularly important, ensuring a smooth alignment of the reinforcement after avoidance and preventing sharp turns or unnecessary bends. The system automatically calculates a suitable transition section length based on the reinforcement diameter and avoidance distance; typically, this length is no less than 30 times the reinforcement diameter to ensure that the reinforcement strength is not affected.

[0056] S34, determine whether the initial avoidance path plan meets the specification requirements; if it does not meet the specification requirements, adjust the avoidance direction and avoidance distance until an avoidance path plan that meets the specification requirements is generated.

[0057] After generating the initial avoidance path plan, the system performs a compliance check on it according to regulatory requirements. This includes checking whether the spacing of the rebars after the avoidance meets the minimum spacing requirements, whether the rebar bending angle meets the regulatory limits, and whether the protective layer thickness meets the requirements. If any non-compliance is found, the system will automatically adjust the parameters. The adjustment process uses an iterative optimization approach, fine-tuning the avoidance direction or increasing the avoidance distance until a solution that meets all regulatory requirements is found. For example, if the rebar spacing is found to be non-compliant at a certain point, the system will appropriately increase the avoidance distance; if the rebar bending angle is too large, it will be improved by extending the length of the transition section.

[0058] S104 Iterates the avoidance path scheme through the constraint model to generate the target avoidance path that meets the constraint conditions.

[0059] At the start of the optimization process, the system sets the avoidance path scheme generated in the previous step as the initial solution. The initial solution includes the spatial location information and avoidance parameters for each bidirectional reinforcement that needs adjustment. The constraint model serves as the evaluation criterion, with geometric constraints primarily including the minimum clear distance between the reserved truss reinforcement and the bidirectional reinforcement to ensure sufficient spacing between the reinforcements to meet the requirements of concrete pouring and vibration; the maximum overlap depth limit between the longitudinal and transverse reinforcements of the bidirectional reinforcement at intersections to avoid overcrowding at intersections; and the minimum angle requirement between the web reinforcement of the reserved truss reinforcement and the bidirectional reinforcement to ensure reasonable structural stress. The specification constraints mainly focus on the minimum center-to-center distance between adjacent bidirectional reinforcements to ensure that the reinforcement arrangement complies with design specifications.

[0060] The system first evaluates the constraint satisfaction of the initial solution, calculating the difference between the actual parameter values ​​corresponding to the avoidance path and the specified values ​​of the constraint conditions. Specifically, it calculates the difference between the actual clear distance between the two-way reinforcement and the reserved truss reinforcement and the specified minimum clear distance, denoted as the first difference; it calculates the difference between the actual overlap depth of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement of the two-way reinforcement at the intersection point and the maximum allowable overlap depth, denoted as the second difference; it calculates the difference between the actual included angle between the web reinforcement of the reserved truss reinforcement and the two-way reinforcement and the required minimum included angle, denoted as the third difference; and it calculates the difference between the actual center distance between adjacent two-way reinforcement and the specified minimum center distance, denoted as the fourth difference.

[0061] After normalizing these differences, the system calculates the constraint score using a weighted summation method. Based on a pre-set constraint satisfaction threshold, the system determines the merits of the current solution. If the constraint score exceeds the threshold, it indicates that the current solution has achieved a high level of constraint satisfaction; if it does not reach the threshold, the system calculates the target constraint satisfaction based on the difference between the constraint score and the threshold, and this satisfaction level is inversely proportional to the difference.

[0062] Based on the constraint satisfaction evaluation results, the system uses an optimization algorithm to adjust the current solution. The algorithm fine-tunes parameters such as the avoidance direction and distance according to the constraint satisfaction level, generating new avoidance path schemes. This optimization process is repeated until a solution satisfying all constraints is found, or a preset number of iterations is reached. If a solution satisfying the constraints is found within the specified number of iterations, it is used as the target avoidance path; if no solution fully satisfying the constraints is found after reaching the iteration limit, the scheme with the highest constraint satisfaction is selected as the target avoidance path.

[0063] Based on the above embodiments, as an optional implementation, in S104, iterating the avoidance path scheme through the constraint model to generate a target avoidance path that satisfies the constraint conditions specifically includes S41-S45: S41, the avoidance path scheme is used as the initial solution.

[0064] The system first sets the previously generated avoidance path scheme as the initial solution. The initial solution contains complete data such as the spatial location information, avoidance parameters, and transition section settings for each bidirectional reinforcement that needs to be adjusted. This data will serve as the starting point for optimization, providing basic reference values ​​for subsequent iterative optimization.

[0065] S42, evaluate the initial solution based on the geometric and canonical constraints in the constraint model, and generate the constraint satisfaction.

[0066] The evaluation of the initial solution is based on a constraint model, which includes both geometric and specification constraints. The system calculates the degree of compliance of various parameters in the current solution with the constraints, including the actual clear distance between the reserved truss reinforcement and the two-way reinforcement, the actual overlap depth at the intersection of the two-way reinforcement, the actual angle between the web members of the reserved truss reinforcement and the two-way reinforcement, and the actual center distance between adjacent two-way reinforcements. By comparing these actual values ​​with the limits specified by the constraints, the system can generate a quantitative constraint satisfaction index. For example, if the reinforcement spacing is 30mm at a certain location, while the specification requires a minimum spacing of 25mm, then the satisfaction level of this index is high; conversely, if the actual spacing is less than the required value, the satisfaction level is low.

[0067] Based on the above embodiments, as an optional implementation, in S42, the initial solution is evaluated according to the geometric constraints and ordinal constraints in the constraint model to generate the constraint satisfaction, specifically including S421-S425: S421, calculate the first difference between the actual spatial clearance between the bidirectional reinforcement corresponding to the avoidance path and the reserved truss reinforcement and the minimum spatial clearance.

[0068] S422, calculate the second difference between the actual overlap depth of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement of the bidirectional reinforcement corresponding to the avoidance path at the intersection point and the maximum overlap depth.

[0069] S423, calculate the actual angle between the web reinforcement of the reserved truss reinforcement corresponding to the avoidance path and the bidirectional reinforcement, and the third difference between the angle and the minimum angle.

[0070] S424 calculates the fourth difference between the actual center distance between adjacent bidirectional reinforcement bars corresponding to the avoidance path and the minimum center distance.

[0071] S425, combining the first difference, second difference, third difference, and fourth difference, generates a constraint degree score, and based on the constraint degree score, generates constraint satisfaction.

[0072] After obtaining these four differences, the system needs to synthesize them to generate the final constraint score. This process first requires normalizing each difference to eliminate dimensional differences between different physical quantities. Then, based on the importance of each indicator, corresponding weighting coefficients are set, and the comprehensive constraint score is calculated through weighted summation. For example, the weights of the spatial clearance and center distance can be set higher because these parameters directly affect construction quality; while the weight of the included angle can be relatively lower because its impact on construction is relatively small.

[0073] Finally, the system generates constraint satisfaction based on the calculated constraint score and pre-set scoring criteria. Constraint satisfaction can be expressed as a percentage, intuitively reflecting the rationality of the solution. For example, if the constraint score reaches or exceeds a preset threshold, it can be considered to have high constraint satisfaction (e.g., above 90%); if the score is low, the constraint satisfaction will decrease accordingly.

[0074] Based on the above embodiments, as an optional implementation, in S425, a constraint degree score is generated by combining the first difference, the second difference, the third difference, and the fourth difference. The constraint satisfaction score is then used to generate constraint satisfaction, specifically including S4251-S4254: S4251, normalize the first difference, the second difference, the third difference and the fourth difference respectively to obtain multiple normalized differences.

[0075] First, the first difference (spatial clearance difference), the second difference (overlap depth difference), the third difference (angle difference), and the fourth difference (center distance difference) need to be normalized. Since these differences have different physical dimensions, direct numerical comparison and calculation are unreasonable. The normalization process uses a maximum-minimum standardization method, mapping each difference to the interval [0,1]. The specific calculation formula is: Normalized difference = (Actual difference - Minimum difference) / (Maximum difference - Minimum difference). For example, if the first difference in spatial clearance ranges from -20mm to +40mm, and the actual difference at a certain location is 10mm, then its normalized value is (10 - (-20)) / (40 - (-20)) = 0.5. Through this process, all differences are converted into dimensionless standardized values, facilitating subsequent comprehensive calculations.

[0076] S4252 calculates a weighted sum of multiple normalized differences to obtain the constraint score.

[0077] After obtaining the normalized differences, the system needs to perform a weighted summation of these indicators to calculate the constraint score. The weighting needs to consider the degree of influence of each indicator on structural safety and construction feasibility. For example, the clear spatial distance (first difference) and center distance (fourth difference) directly affect the quality of concrete pouring and structural performance, and can be assigned higher weights such as 0.35 and 0.3 respectively; the overlap depth (second difference) affects local structure and can be assigned a moderate weight such as 0.2; the included angle requirement (third difference) mainly affects construction convenience and can be assigned a relatively low weight such as 0.15. The constraint score is calculated as: Score = Σ(Normalized Difference × Corresponding Weight). This weighted calculation method can reasonably reflect the relative importance of each indicator.

[0078] S4253, Set the constraint satisfaction threshold.

[0079] The system needs to pre-set a constraint satisfaction threshold, which is a crucial standard for judging whether a solution meets the expected requirements. The threshold setting should be based on engineering experience and actual needs, and is typically set to a high standard value such as 0.85 or 0.9. This means that only solutions with a high constraint score can be considered to fully meet the requirements.

[0080] S4254: If the constraint score exceeds the constraint satisfaction threshold, a high constraint satisfaction is generated; if the constraint score does not exceed the constraint satisfaction threshold, a target constraint satisfaction is generated based on the difference between the constraint score and the constraint satisfaction threshold. The target constraint satisfaction is inversely proportional to the difference.

[0081] After obtaining the constraint score, the system compares it with a preset constraint satisfaction threshold to generate a final constraint satisfaction evaluation. If the constraint score exceeds the threshold (e.g., a score of 0.92, higher than the threshold of 0.9), the system considers the solution to have high constraint satisfaction and can directly mark it as a qualified solution. If the constraint score does not reach the threshold (e.g., a score of 0.83, lower than the threshold of 0.9), the system calculates the target constraint satisfaction based on the difference between the score and the threshold (0.07 in this example). The target constraint satisfaction is inversely proportional to the difference and can be calculated as follows: Target constraint satisfaction = Baseline satisfaction × (1 - Difference / Threshold). This calculation method can reasonably reflect the degree of deviation between the solution and the expected goal.

[0082] S43. Based on the constraint satisfaction, the initial solution is adjusted using an optimization algorithm to generate a new avoidance path until the new avoidance path satisfies the geometric and specification constraints, or reaches the preset number of iterations.

[0083] Based on the constraint satisfaction evaluation results, the system uses an optimization algorithm to adjust the current solution. This optimization algorithm can be an intelligent optimization method such as genetic algorithm or particle swarm optimization. By setting a fitness function, parameters such as avoidance direction and avoidance distance are fine-tuned to generate new avoidance path schemes. In each iteration, the system evaluates the constraint satisfaction of the newly generated scheme and compares it with the previous generation solution. If the new scheme has a higher constraint satisfaction, it is retained for further optimization; if the new scheme fails to improve the results, it may be necessary to adjust the optimization parameters or find a new optimization direction.

[0084] S44, the new avoidance path that meets the constraints is taken as the target avoidance path.

[0085] S45. If no new avoidance path satisfies the preset constraints after a preset number of iterations, then the new avoidance path with the highest constraint satisfaction among the preset number of iterations will be taken as the target avoidance path.

[0086] This iterative optimization process continues until a solution that fully satisfies both geometric and specification constraints is found, or the preset number of iterations is reached. When the system finds a new avoidance path that satisfies all constraints, it is directly designated as the target avoidance path. In this case, the target avoidance path is the optimal solution that fully meets the design requirements and can be directly used for engineering implementation.

[0087] However, in some complex situations, a solution that fully satisfies all constraints may not be found even after reaching the preset number of iterations. In this case, the system adopts a compromise approach: from all solutions generated during the iterations, it selects the new avoidance path with the highest constraint satisfaction as the target avoidance path. This approach ensures that even under extremely stringent conditions, the system can output a relatively optimal solution. For example, if the preset number of iterations is 1000, after completing all iterations, the system compares the constraint satisfaction of these 1000 solutions and selects the solution with the highest constraint satisfaction as the final result.

[0088] S105, adjust the initial layout scheme according to the target avoidance path to generate the target layout scheme of the two-way reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab.

[0089] The system first compares the target avoidance path with the initial layout plan to determine the specific range of rebar locations that need adjustment. This range includes not only the area where a direct collision occurs but also the surrounding areas that may be affected by the avoidance adjustment. When determining the adjustment range, the system establishes an impact area analysis model, calculating the stress redistribution range caused by the rebar avoidance to ensure that the adjustment will not adversely affect the overall structural performance.

[0090] The initial layout is adjusted using a gradual transition approach. Specifically, in the collision-affected areas, the rebar positions are adjusted according to the target avoidance path, and then smoothly connected to the rebar in the unadjusted areas via a suitable transition section. The design of the transition section must consider the continuity of the rebar layout and its load-bearing capacity to avoid stress concentration. The system automatically calculates the appropriate transition section length and transition method based on the rebar diameter and structural requirements, ensuring a smooth rebar alignment after adjustment.

[0091] During the adjustment process, the system monitors in real time whether the modified scheme still meets the basic requirements of the structural design. This includes checking whether the effective load-bearing area of ​​the reinforcing bars meets the design requirements, whether the spacing of the reinforcing bars meets the specifications, and whether the thickness of the protective layer is appropriate. If it is found that the adjusted scheme causes certain areas to fail to meet the design requirements, the system will compensate by supplementing the reinforcing bars or adjusting the specifications of the reinforcing bars to ensure that the structural performance is not affected.

[0092] The generated target layout plan needs to include complete reinforcement information, including detailed parameters such as reinforcement type and specifications, spatial coordinates, bending point locations, and anchorage lengths. This information must meet the needs of design calculations and facilitate the creation of construction drawings and on-site construction guidance. The system will output this information in a standardized format, which can be directly used for subsequent construction drawing creation and quantity surveying.

[0093] To verify the feasibility of the target layout plan, the system will conduct a comprehensive review and verification. This includes reviewing collision detection to ensure that all collision points are effectively addressed; verifying structural calculations to confirm that the adjusted plan still meets the load-bearing capacity and deformation requirements; and conducting a construction feasibility analysis to assess the operability of the plan in on-site construction. If problems are found during the review process, the system will mark the problem location and return to the corresponding step for optimization and adjustment.

[0094] After generating the target layout scheme for the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab, the following steps are also included: Import the target layout plan into a 3D graphics platform for visualization; perform a collision check on the target layout plan to verify whether there are any unresolved collision points; if there are unresolved collision points, mark the collision location and return to the avoidance path generation step to recalculate; if there are no unresolved collision points, generate the rebar layout construction drawings.

[0095] First, the system imports the target reinforcement layout plan into a 3D graphics platform for visualization. This process requires converting the reinforcement layout data into a 3D model, including the spatial location, orientation, diameter, and other attributes of each reinforcement bar. The 3D graphics platform can be professional software that supports Building Information Modeling (BIM), such as Revit or Tekla. Through 3D visualization, designers can intuitively view the overall effect of the reinforcement layout, including the spatial relationships between the reinforcement bars and the rationality of avoidance paths. This three-dimensional display method is more helpful in identifying potential problems than traditional two-dimensional drawings and also facilitates design coordination with other disciplines.

[0096] Based on the visual display, the system needs to perform a comprehensive collision check on the target layout scheme. This check process employs a precise 3D collision detection algorithm, which not only checks for collisions between the bidirectional reinforcing bars and the reserved truss reinforcing bars, but also verifies whether the spatial relationships between all reinforcing bars meet the design specifications. The checks include the minimum clear distance between reinforcing bars, the thickness of the protective layer, and the uniformity of the reinforcing bar arrangement. This comprehensive check can promptly identify problems that may have been overlooked during the initial optimization process, ensuring the reliability of the final scheme.

[0097] If unresolved collision points are found during the review process, the system will automatically mark these locations and generate a detailed collision report. The collision report includes the specific spatial coordinates of the collision point, the relevant rebar numbers, and the collision type. These marked collision points will be prioritized, and the system will return the relevant information to the avoidance path generation step for recalculation and optimization. During the recalculation, the system will fully utilize existing calculation results and experience to adjust avoidance parameters in a targeted manner, improving optimization efficiency.

[0098] Once it is confirmed that there are no unresolved collision points, the system will automatically generate complete rebar layout construction drawings. The generation of construction drawings follows architectural drafting standards and includes floor plans, detailed sections, and detailed node drawings. The drawings must clearly indicate key parameters such as rebar specifications, spacing, protective layer thickness, and anchorage length, as well as construction details for special locations. Simultaneously, the system will also generate a rebar material statistics table, including rebar specifications, length, quantity, and other engineering quantity information, providing a basis for subsequent construction preparation.

[0099] Based on the above method, this application also discloses a system for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform, such as... Figure 2 As shown, Figure 2 This is a structural diagram of a rebar collision detection and automatic correction system based on a 3D graphics platform, provided in an embodiment of this application. The system includes: an acquisition module, a collision detection module, a generation module, an iteration module, and an output module; wherein, The system comprises the following modules: an acquisition module, which acquires the target location of the reserved truss reinforcement in the lower precast slab of the precast composite floor slab and the initial layout scheme of the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab; a collision detection module, which sets the target location as an avoidance hard constraint and, based on the avoidance hard constraint, performs reinforcement collision detection between the bidirectional reinforcement in the initial layout scheme and the reserved truss reinforcement through a constraint model established in a 3D graphics platform, and extracts the position information of the bidirectional reinforcement involved in the collision after a collision is detected; a generation module, which generates an avoidance path scheme based on the position information; an iteration module, which iterates the avoidance path scheme through the constraint model to generate a target avoidance path that meets the constraint conditions; and an output module, which adjusts the initial layout scheme based on the target avoidance path to generate the target layout scheme of the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab.

[0100] It should be noted that the system provided in the above embodiments is only illustrated by the division of the above functional modules. In actual applications, the above functions can be assigned to different functional modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the device can be divided into different functional modules to complete all or part of the functions described above. In addition, the system and method embodiments provided in the above embodiments belong to the same concept, and the specific implementation process can be found in the method embodiments, which will not be repeated here.

[0101] Please see Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided in an embodiment of this application. Figure 3 As shown, the electronic device 1000 may include: at least one processor 1001, at least one network interface 1004, a user interface 1003, a memory 1005, and at least one communication bus 1002.

[0102] The communication bus 1002 is used to realize the connection and communication between these components.

[0103] The user interface 1003 may include a display screen and a camera. Optionally, the user interface 1003 may also include a standard wired interface and a wireless interface.

[0104] The network interface 1004 may optionally include a standard wired interface or a wireless interface (such as a Wi-Fi interface).

[0105] The processor 1001 may include one or more processing cores. The processor 1001 connects to various parts of the server using various interfaces and lines, and performs various server functions and processes data by running or executing instructions, programs, code sets, or instruction sets stored in the memory 1005, and by calling data stored in the memory 1005. Optionally, the processor 1001 may be implemented using at least one hardware form of Digital Signal Processing (DSP), Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), or Programmable Logic Array (PLA). The processor 1001 may integrate one or a combination of several of the following: Central Processing Unit (CPU), Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), and modem. The CPU primarily handles the operating system, user interface, and applications; the GPU is responsible for rendering and drawing the content to be displayed on the screen; and the modem handles wireless communication. It is understood that the modem may also not be integrated into the processor 1001 and may be implemented as a separate chip.

[0106] The memory 1005 may include random access memory (RAM) or read-only memory. Optionally, the memory 1005 may include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The memory 1005 can be used to store instructions, programs, code, code sets, or instruction sets. The memory 1005 may include a program storage area and a data storage area, wherein the program storage area may store instructions for implementing an operating system, instructions for at least one function (such as touch function, sound playback function, image playback function, etc.), instructions for implementing the above-described method embodiments, etc.; the data storage area may store data involved in the above-described method embodiments, etc. Optionally, the memory 1005 may also be at least one storage device located remotely from the aforementioned processor 1001. Figure 3 As shown, the memory 1005, which serves as a computer storage medium, may include an operating system, a network communication module, a user interface module, and an application program for a method of steel bar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform.

[0107] exist Figure 3 In the electronic device 1000 shown, the user interface 1003 is mainly used to provide an input interface for the user and to obtain the user input data; while the processor 1001 can be used to call the application program stored in the memory 1005, which is a method for steel bar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform. When executed by one or more processors, the electronic device performs one or more of the methods described in the above embodiments.

[0108] An electronic device readable storage medium stores instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the electronic device to perform one or more of the methods described in the above embodiments.

[0109] It should be noted that, for the sake of simplicity, the foregoing method embodiments are all described as a series of actions. However, those skilled in the art should understand that this application is not limited to the described order of actions, as some steps may be performed in other orders or simultaneously according to this application. Furthermore, those skilled in the art should also understand that the embodiments described in the specification are preferred embodiments, and the actions and modules involved are not necessarily essential to this application.

[0110] In the above embodiments, the descriptions of each embodiment have different focuses. For parts not described in detail in a certain embodiment, please refer to the relevant descriptions in other embodiments.

[0111] In the several embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed apparatus can be implemented in other ways. For example, the apparatus embodiments described above are merely illustrative; for instance, the division of units is only a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be combined or integrated into another system, or some features may be ignored or not executed. Furthermore, the displayed or discussed mutual couplings, direct couplings, or communication connections may be through some service interfaces; indirect couplings or communication connections between devices or units may be electrical or other forms.

[0112] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the units can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs.

[0113] Furthermore, the functional units in the various embodiments of this application can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or as a software functional unit.

[0114] If the integrated unit is implemented as a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a computer-readable storage device (CMD). Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this application, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or all or part of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a memory and includes several instructions to cause a computer device (which may be a personal computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of this application. The aforementioned memory includes various media capable of storing program code, such as USB flash drives, portable hard drives, magnetic disks, or optical disks.

[0115] The foregoing description is merely an exemplary embodiment of this disclosure and should not be construed as limiting the scope of this disclosure. Any equivalent changes and modifications made in accordance with the teachings of this disclosure shall still fall within the scope of this disclosure. Other embodiments of this disclosure will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art upon consideration of the specification and practice of the disclosure herein. This application is intended to cover any variations, uses, or adaptations of this disclosure that follow the general principles of this disclosure and include common knowledge or customary techniques in the art not described herein. The specification and embodiments are to be considered exemplary only, and the scope and spirit of this disclosure are defined by the claims.

Claims

1. A method for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform, characterized in that, The method includes: Obtain the target location of the reserved truss reinforcement in the lower precast slab of the precast composite floor slab, and the initial arrangement scheme of the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab; The target position is set as an avoidance hard constraint. Based on the avoidance hard constraint, the bidirectional steel bars in the initial layout scheme and the reserved truss steel bars are subjected to steel bar collision detection through the constraint model established in the three-dimensional graphics platform. After the collision is detected, the position information of the bidirectional steel bars involved in the collision is extracted. Based on the location information, an avoidance path plan is generated; The avoidance path scheme is iterated through the constraint model to generate a target avoidance path that meets the constraint conditions. Based on the target avoidance path, the initial layout scheme is adjusted to generate a target layout scheme for the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab.

2. The method for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform according to claim 1, characterized in that, The constraint model includes geometric constraints and ordinal constraints; wherein... The geometric constraints include the minimum clear spatial distance between the reserved truss reinforcement and the bidirectional reinforcement, the maximum overlap depth of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement of the bidirectional reinforcement at the intersection point, and the minimum included angle between the web reinforcement of the reserved truss reinforcement and the bidirectional reinforcement. The specification constraints include the minimum center-to-center distance between adjacent bidirectional reinforcing bars.

3. The method for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of generating an avoidance path scheme based on the location information includes: Based on the location information, determine the collision area between the bidirectional reinforcing bars and the reserved truss reinforcing bars; Based on the collision area, calculate the avoidance direction and avoidance distance of the bidirectional reinforcement; Based on the avoidance direction and avoidance distance, an initial avoidance path scheme is generated; Determine whether the initial obstacle avoidance path scheme meets the specification requirements; if it does not meet the specification requirements, adjust the obstacle avoidance direction and obstacle avoidance distance until an obstacle avoidance path scheme that meets the specification requirements is generated.

4. The method for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform according to claim 2, characterized in that, The step of iterating the avoidance path scheme through the constraint model to generate a target avoidance path that satisfies the constraint conditions includes: The avoidance path scheme is used as the initial solution; The initial solution is evaluated based on the geometric constraints and the canonical constraints in the constraint model to generate constraint satisfaction. Based on the constraint satisfaction, an optimization algorithm is used to adjust the initial solution to generate a new avoidance path until the new avoidance path satisfies the geometric constraints and the specification constraints, or reaches a preset number of iterations. The new avoidance path that satisfies the aforementioned constraints shall be taken as the target avoidance path. If no new avoidance path satisfies the preset constraint after the preset number of iterations, then the new avoidance path with the highest constraint satisfaction among the preset number of iterations is taken as the target avoidance path.

5. The method for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform according to claim 4, characterized in that, The step of evaluating the initial solution based on the geometric constraints and the canonical constraints in the constraint model to generate constraint satisfaction includes: Calculate the first difference between the actual spatial clearance between the bidirectional reinforcement corresponding to the avoidance path and the reserved truss reinforcement and the minimum spatial clearance. Calculate the second difference between the actual overlap depth of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement of the bidirectional reinforcement corresponding to the avoidance path at the intersection point and the maximum overlap depth; Calculate the actual angle between the web reinforcement of the reserved truss reinforcement corresponding to the avoidance path and the bidirectional reinforcement, and the third difference between the angle and the minimum angle; Calculate the fourth difference between the actual center distance between adjacent bidirectional reinforcing bars corresponding to the avoidance path and the minimum center distance; By combining the first difference, the second difference, the third difference, and the fourth difference, a constraint degree score is generated, and a constraint satisfaction score is generated based on the constraint degree score.

6. The method for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform according to claim 5, characterized in that, The constraint score is generated by combining the first difference, the second difference, the third difference, and the fourth difference. Constraint satisfaction is then generated based on the constraint score, including: The first difference, the second difference, the third difference, and the fourth difference are normalized respectively to obtain multiple normalized differences; The constraint score is obtained by weighted summation of multiple normalized differences. Set a threshold for constraint satisfaction; If the constraint score exceeds the constraint satisfaction threshold, a high constraint satisfaction is generated; if the constraint score does not exceed the constraint satisfaction threshold, a target constraint satisfaction is generated based on the difference between the constraint score and the constraint satisfaction threshold, and the target constraint satisfaction is inversely proportional to the difference.

7. The method for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform according to claim 1, characterized in that, After generating the target arrangement scheme for the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab, the method further includes: The target layout scheme is imported into a 3D graphics platform for visualization. The target layout scheme is subjected to collision verification to check whether there are any unresolved collision points; If there are unresolved collision points, mark the collision locations and return to the avoidance path generation step to recalculate; If there are no unresolved collision points, then generate the reinforcement layout construction drawings.

8. A system for rebar collision detection and automatic correction based on a three-dimensional graphics platform, characterized in that, The system includes: an acquisition module, a collision detection module, a generation module, an iteration module, and an output module; wherein, The acquisition module is used to acquire the target position of the reserved truss reinforcement in the lower precast slab of the precast composite floor slab, and the initial arrangement scheme of the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab. The collision detection module is used to set the target position as an avoidance hard constraint. Based on the avoidance hard constraint, the module performs steel bar collision detection on the bidirectional steel bars and the reserved truss steel bars in the initial layout scheme through the constraint model established in the three-dimensional graphics platform. After a collision is detected, the position information of the bidirectional steel bars involved in the collision is extracted. The generation module is used to generate an avoidance path scheme based on the location information; The iteration module is used to iterate the avoidance path scheme through the constraint model to generate a target avoidance path that meets the constraint conditions. The output module is used to adjust the initial layout scheme according to the target avoidance path, and generate a target layout scheme for the bidirectional reinforcement in the upper cast-in-place layer of the precast composite floor slab.

9. An electronic device, characterized in that, The device includes a processor, a memory, a user interface, and a network interface. The memory is used to store instructions, the user interface and the network interface are used to communicate with other devices, and the processor is used to execute the instructions stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to perform the method as described in any one of claims 1-7.

10. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer program is stored that can be loaded by a processor and executed as described in any one of claims 1-7.

Images