Aluminum alloy camera holder stability evaluation method and system

Abstract

This invention discloses a method and system for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket, belonging to the field of structural performance evaluation technology. The method includes: acquiring the bracket's geometric, load, and manufacturing precision parameters, and calculating the intrinsic stiffness coefficient using an intrinsic stiffness model; acquiring dynamic performance parameters and calculating the dynamic fidelity coefficient using a dynamic fidelity model; acquiring connection structure parameters and calculating the connection integrity coefficient using a connection integrity model; combining the intrinsic stiffness coefficient, connection integrity coefficient, damping ratio, and static stiffness parameters, calculating the coupling robustness using a coupling robustness model; and finally, based on the dynamic fidelity coefficient, coupling robustness, and current wall thickness, calculating the wall thickness of key target components using a wall thickness optimization model. This invention achieves a systematic and quantitative comprehensive evaluation of bracket stability through a multi-dimensional mathematical model, and can directly output optimized design parameters for key components, effectively improving the scientific rigor of the evaluation and the accuracy of the design optimization.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of structural performance evaluation technology, and in particular relates to a method and system for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket. Background Technology

[0002] With the rapid development of fields such as security monitoring, intelligent transportation, and industrial vision, aluminum alloy camera brackets, as core load-bearing components, directly determine image quality and system reliability. Therefore, a scientific and systematic evaluation method is urgently needed to quantify their performance and guide structural optimization design.

[0003] Currently, stability assessments of support structures often rely on single-index testing or engineering experience. Common methods include measuring maximum deformation through static loading tests, obtaining natural frequencies through vibration testing, or performing stress-strain analysis using finite element simulation. These methods tend to focus on a specific performance characteristic of the structure (such as static stiffness or dynamic frequency) or depend on complex simulation modeling and physical testing, resulting in a relatively singular assessment dimension.

[0004] Existing technologies suffer from the following main shortcomings: First, the evaluation methods lack a systematic approach, failing to comprehensively consider the interplay of multiple dimensions such as structural intrinsic stiffness, dynamic fidelity, connection reliability, and system coupling robustness. Second, existing methods largely remain at the qualitative or single quantitative analysis level, failing to establish an integrated and unified quantitative evaluation system. Finally, traditional evaluation results are typically used only for qualification assessment, making it difficult to directly and effectively provide clear optimization basis for the refined design of key structural parameters (such as wall thickness in critical areas). Summary of the Invention

[0005] To address the shortcomings of existing technologies, this invention provides a method and system for evaluating the stability of aluminum alloy camera brackets, thus solving the aforementioned problems.

[0006] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solution: a method for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket, comprising:

[0007] Based on the moment of inertia of the arm cross section about the bending axis, the horizontal distance between the load center of mass and the root of the support, and the flatness error of the interface between the base and the platform, the intrinsic stiffness coefficient is obtained through the intrinsic stiffness model.

[0008] Based on the dynamic balance, repeatability, and maximum elastic deformation angle under standard test load, the dynamic fidelity coefficient is obtained through a dynamic fidelity model.

[0009] Based on the fastener preload torque, the number of fastening points, and the distribution density of fastening points, the connection integrity coefficient is obtained through a connection integrity model.

[0010] Based on the mechanism damping ratio and end static stiffness under intrinsic stiffness coefficient and connection integrity coefficient, coupling robustness is obtained through coupling robustness model.

[0011] Based on the dynamic fidelity coefficient, coupling robustness, and wall thickness of key components, the wall thickness of the target key components is obtained through a wall thickness optimization model.

[0012] Based on the above technical solutions, the present invention also provides the following optional technical solutions:

[0013] A further technical solution: The wall thickness optimization model is used to calculate the target critical part wall thickness based on the dynamic fidelity coefficient, the difference between the coupling robustness and a preset target coupling robustness, and the wall thickness of the critical part; wherein, when the coupling robustness is lower than the target coupling robustness, the calculated target critical part wall thickness increases, and the lower the dynamic fidelity coefficient, the greater the increase in wall thickness.

[0014] Further technical solution: The method for obtaining the coupling robustness is as follows:

[0015] Obtain the damping ratio and end-effector static stiffness of the mechanism;

[0016] The damping ratio index is obtained by comparing the mechanism damping ratio with the structural damping ratio reference value.

[0017] The end static stiffness index is obtained by taking the ratio of the end static stiffness to the sum of the end static stiffness and the reference end static stiffness.

[0018] The damping ratio exponent and the end static stiffness exponent are imported into the coupled robustness model to obtain the coupled robustness.

[0019] The coupling robustness model is used to perform coupling calculations on the intrinsic stiffness coefficient, the connection integrity coefficient, a damping ratio index positively correlated with the mechanism damping ratio, and a static stiffness index positively correlated with the end static stiffness to obtain the coupling robustness; the larger the coupling robustness value, the higher the overall structural robustness.

[0020] A further technical solution: The connection integrity coefficient is obtained as follows:

[0021] Obtain the fastener preload torque, the number of fastening points, and the distribution density of fastening points;

[0022] The fastener preload torque, number of fastening points, and fastening point distribution density are compared with the corresponding reference values ​​to obtain the preload torque index, fastening point number index, and fastening point distribution density index.

[0023] Import the preload torque index, fastening point quantity index, and fastening point distribution density index into the connection integrity model to obtain the connection integrity coefficient.

[0024] A further technical solution: The dynamic fidelity coefficient is obtained as follows:

[0025] Obtain dynamic balance, repeatability, and maximum elastic deformation angle under standard test load;

[0026] The dynamic balance value, repeatability, and maximum elastic deformation angle under standard test load are compared with the corresponding reference values ​​to obtain the dynamic balance index, positioning accuracy index, and deformation angle index.

[0027] The dynamic balance index, positioning accuracy index, and deformation angle index are imported into the dynamic fidelity model to obtain the dynamic fidelity coefficients.

[0028] A further technical solution: The intrinsic stiffness coefficient is obtained as follows:

[0029] Obtain the moment of inertia of the arm cross section about the bending axis, the horizontal distance between the load center of mass and the root of the support, and the flatness error of the interface between the base and the platform;

[0030] The moment of inertia of the arm cross section about the bending axis and the horizontal distance between the load center of mass and the root of the support are normalized by the maximum-minimum process to obtain the moment of inertia exponent and the horizontal distance exponent.

[0031] The flatness error index is obtained by comparing the flatness error of the base and platform interface with the allowable flatness error.

[0032] The moment of inertia exponent, horizontal distance exponent, and flatness error exponent are imported into the intrinsic stiffness model to obtain the intrinsic stiffness coefficients.

[0033] A further technical solution: The connection integrity model is used to calculate the connection integrity coefficient based on a preload index positively correlated with preload torque, a quantity index positively correlated with the number of fastening points, and a distribution density index positively correlated with the distribution density of fastening points, through a monotonically increasing function; the larger the value of the connection integrity coefficient, the higher the connection reliability.

[0034] A further technical solution: The dynamic fidelity model is used to calculate the dynamic fidelity coefficient by weighting a balance index negatively correlated with dynamic balance, an accuracy index negatively correlated with repeatability accuracy, and a deformation index negatively correlated with maximum elastic deformation angle; the smaller the dynamic fidelity coefficient value, the worse the dynamic vibration performance.

[0035] A further technical solution: The intrinsic stiffness model is used to perform function calculations based on an inertia exponent positively correlated with the moment of inertia, a lever arm exponent negatively correlated with the horizontal distance, and an error exponent negatively correlated with the flatness error to obtain the intrinsic stiffness coefficient; the larger the intrinsic stiffness coefficient value, the higher the basic stiffness brought about by the structure's own geometry and manufacturing precision.

[0036] A stability evaluation system for aluminum alloy camera brackets, employing the aforementioned stability evaluation method for aluminum alloy camera brackets.

[0037] This invention provides a method and system for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket, which has the following advantages compared with the prior art:

[0038] 1. This invention achieves a multi-dimensional and systematic quantitative assessment of the stability of the support structure. By constructing a series of mathematical models such as intrinsic stiffness, dynamic fidelity, connection integrity and coupling robustness, it comprehensively reflects the structural characteristics, dynamic performance, connection status and overall system robustness.

[0039] 2. This invention uses a coupled robustness model to couple the intrinsic stiffness coefficient with the connection integrity coefficient, and introduces the mechanism damping ratio and end static stiffness, which can more realistically reflect the overall structural performance under the coupling effect of multiple factors.

[0040] 3. This invention provides a clear wall thickness optimization model, which can quantitatively calculate and optimize the wall thickness of key parts based on the evaluation results of dynamic fidelity coefficient and coupling robustness, realizing a closed loop from "evaluation" to "design optimization", and significantly improving design efficiency and structural reliability. Attached Figure Description

[0041] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the process of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0042] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this invention clearer, the invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are merely illustrative and not intended to limit the invention.

[0043] The specific implementation of the present invention will be described in detail below with reference to specific embodiments.

[0044] Please see Figure 1 The present invention provides a method for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket, comprising the following steps:

[0045] Based on the moment of inertia of the arm cross section about the bending axis, the horizontal distance between the load center of mass and the root of the support, and the flatness error of the interface between the base and the platform, the intrinsic stiffness coefficient is obtained through the intrinsic stiffness model.

[0046] Based on the dynamic balance (dynamic balance of the gimbal mechanism), repeatability, and maximum elastic deformation angle under standard test load, the dynamic fidelity coefficient is obtained through a dynamic fidelity model.

[0047] Based on the fastener preload torque, the number of fastening points, and the distribution density of fastening points, the connection integrity coefficient is obtained through a connection integrity model.

[0048] Based on the mechanism damping ratio and end static stiffness under intrinsic stiffness coefficient and connection integrity coefficient, coupling robustness is obtained through coupling robustness model.

[0049] Based on the dynamic fidelity coefficient, coupling robustness, and wall thickness of key components (the thickness of the weakest point of the material measured directly from design drawings or physical calipers), the wall thickness of the target key components is obtained through a wall thickness optimization model.

[0050] Compared to existing technologies that often rely on single-index testing or engineering experience, this invention constructs a systematic evaluation framework by introducing multiple dimensions such as intrinsic stiffness coefficient, dynamic fidelity coefficient, connection integrity coefficient, and coupling robustness. Traditional methods often remain at the qualitative or single quantitative analysis level, making it difficult to provide comprehensive quantitative results. This invention can directly and effectively provide clear optimization basis for the refined design of key structural parameters, realizing closed-loop management from evaluation to optimization, and greatly improving design efficiency and optimization effect. Thus, this invention overcomes the shortcomings of existing technologies, such as the lack of systematic evaluation methods, inconsistent quantitative systems, and difficulty in guiding structural optimization, and provides a more comprehensive, accurate, and instructive method for the stability evaluation and optimization of aluminum alloy camera brackets.

[0051] Preferably, the intrinsic stiffness coefficient is obtained as follows:

[0052] Obtain the moment of inertia of the arm cross section about the bending axis, the horizontal distance between the load center of mass and the root of the support, and the flatness error of the interface between the base and the platform;

[0053] The moment of inertia of the arm cross section about the bending axis and the horizontal distance between the load center of mass and the root of the support are normalized by the maximum-minimum process to obtain the moment of inertia exponent and the horizontal distance exponent.

[0054] The flatness error index is obtained by comparing the flatness error of the base and platform interface with the allowable flatness error.

[0055] The moment of inertia exponent, horizontal distance exponent, and flatness error exponent are imported into the intrinsic stiffness model to obtain the intrinsic stiffness coefficients.

[0056] The intrinsic stiffness model is used to perform function calculations based on an inertia exponent positively correlated with the moment of inertia, a lever arm exponent negatively correlated with the horizontal distance, and an error exponent negatively correlated with the flatness error to obtain the intrinsic stiffness coefficient; the larger the intrinsic stiffness coefficient value, the higher the basic stiffness brought about by the structure's own geometry and manufacturing precision.

[0057] The intrinsic stiffness model is expressed as follows:

[0058] ;;

[0059] in, Indicates the intrinsic stiffness coefficient. Indicates the index of moment of inertia. Indicates the horizontal distance index. The flatness error index is represented by the following. Furthermore, the larger the value, the higher the basic stiffness resulting from the structure's own geometric configuration and manufacturing precision.

[0060] Specifically, the moment of inertia of the arm's cross-section about the bending axis is a key geometric parameter for measuring the arm's resistance to bending deformation. Its magnitude directly reflects the distribution of the cross-sectional material relative to the bending axis. The larger the moment of inertia, the stronger the arm's resistance to bending deformation and the higher the structural stiffness. This parameter can be obtained by creating a 3D model of the arm and calculating its moment of inertia relative to a specific bending axis using CAD software, or by physically measuring the geometric dimensions of the arm's cross-section and calculating it according to engineering mechanics formulas. The horizontal distance between the load's center of mass and the base of the support refers to the horizontal projection distance from the center of gravity of the load, such as the camera, to the fixed end of the support. This distance directly affects the magnitude of the bending moment generated by the load on the support. The larger the distance, the larger the bending moment, and the higher the stiffness requirement for the support. This distance can be calculated by measuring the relative position of the load's center of mass and the base of the support, or determined during the design phase using design drawings or simulation software based on the camera model and installation location. The flatness error of the base-platform interface refers to the deviation between the actual shape of the contact surface between the support base and the mounting platform and the ideal plane. Excessive flatness error can lead to poor contact and stress concentration, thereby reducing connection stiffness and affecting the stability of the overall structure. This error can be measured using a coordinate measuring machine to scan the surface of the base-platform interface, obtain three-dimensional data, and calculate the error, or non-contact measurement of the interface surface can be performed using optical measuring equipment. In the intrinsic stiffness model, the moment of inertia exponent... Located in the molecule, the larger its value, the higher the intrinsic stiffness coefficient. The larger the value, the stronger the structure's resistance to bending; horizontal distance index Located inside the negative sign of the exponential function, the larger the value of the exponential term, the stronger its value. The smaller the value, the lower the intrinsic stiffness coefficient. The decrease reflects the negative impact of the increased load arm on stiffness; flatness error index Located in the denominator, the larger its value, the larger the denominator, and the greater the intrinsic stiffness. The smaller the value, the more it reflects the weakening effect of manufacturing precision defects on stiffness.

[0061] The following is a concrete example to illustrate this. Suppose we are evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket. First, we obtain the moment of inertia of the arm's cross-section about the bending axis and measure the horizontal distance between the load center of mass and the bracket's root under typical load. Simultaneously, we use a coordinate measuring machine to measure the flatness error of the interface between the bracket base and the mounting platform. Next, we perform maximum-minimum normalization on the calculated moment of inertia and horizontal distance, respectively, to obtain the moment of inertia exponent and the horizontal distance exponent. We then compare the measured flatness error with a preset allowable flatness error to obtain the flatness error exponent. Finally, we substitute these three exponents into the intrinsic stiffness model to calculate the bracket's intrinsic stiffness coefficient. For example, if the calculated moment of inertia exponent is 0.7, the horizontal distance exponent is 0.4, and the flatness error exponent is 0.1, the specific intrinsic stiffness coefficient value can be calculated accordingly.

[0062] Through the above technical solution, this application can accurately and quantitatively evaluate the fundamental stiffness resulting from the structure and manufacturing precision of the aluminum alloy camera bracket. This overcomes the limitations of traditional evaluation methods, such as insufficient quantification of structural stiffness or reliance on empirical judgment. By providing a precise intrinsic stiffness coefficient, this method provides a solid foundation for subsequent dynamic fidelity, connection integrity, and coupling robustness evaluations, thereby significantly improving the accuracy and reliability of the overall stability assessment. This makes the prediction of the overall performance of the bracket more accurate and provides clear guidance for optimizing design and manufacturing processes.

[0063] Preferably, the dynamic fidelity coefficient is obtained in the following way:

[0064] Obtain the dynamic balance (dynamic balance of the gimbal mechanism), repeatability, and maximum elastic deformation angle under standard test load;

[0065] The dynamic balance value, repeatability, and maximum elastic deformation angle under standard test load are compared with the corresponding reference values ​​to obtain the dynamic balance index, positioning accuracy index, and deformation angle index.

[0066] The dynamic balance index, positioning accuracy index, and deformation angle index are imported into the dynamic fidelity model to obtain the dynamic fidelity coefficients.

[0067] The dynamic fidelity model is used to calculate the dynamic fidelity coefficient by weighting a balance index negatively correlated with dynamic balance, an accuracy index negatively correlated with repeatability accuracy, and a deformation index negatively correlated with maximum elastic deformation angle; the smaller the dynamic fidelity coefficient value, the worse the dynamic vibration performance.

[0068] The dynamic fidelity model is represented as follows:

[0069] ;;

[0070] in, Indicates the dynamic fidelity coefficient. Indicates the dynamic balance index. This indicates the positioning accuracy index. Indicates the deformation angle index. Represents the weight coefficient and The Furthermore, the larger the value, the smaller the dynamic vibration.

[0071] Specifically, obtaining dynamic balance (dynamic balance of the gimbal mechanism) refers to measuring the degree of imbalance of inertial torque caused by factors such as uneven mass distribution or manufacturing errors during the movement of the gimbal mechanism. It aims to measure the potential magnitude of vibration generated by the gimbal mechanism during dynamic operation. This can be achieved through measurement using specialized dynamic balancing testing equipment, such as using vibration sensors and analyzers to record the vibration amplitude and phase of the gimbal at different rotational speeds. Repeatability accuracy refers to the consistency or dispersion of the final position of the gimbal mechanism when it repeatedly positions itself to the same target location. It aims to measure the ability of the gimbal mechanism to accurately return to a preset position after dynamic operation. This can be achieved by recording the actual position of the gimbal in multiple positioning tasks using a high-precision encoder or vision measurement system and calculating its statistical deviation, or by performing repeatability tests using precision measuring equipment such as a laser interferometer. The maximum elastic deformation angle under standard test load refers to the maximum elastic deformation angle produced at the end of the aluminum alloy camera bracket under a preset standard test load. It aims to measure the bracket's ability to resist deformation under dynamic loads. This can be achieved by applying a known load to the end of the bracket and measuring the angle change at the end using an angle sensor, laser displacement sensor, or 3D coordinate measuring machine, or by simulating the maximum deformation angle under standard load through finite element analysis (FEA). Weighting coefficients. To adjust the relative importance of each indicator to dynamic fidelity, and to ensure that the contribution of different indicators to the final result is controllable and reasonable, the weight coefficients can be obtained through expert experience or by using the analytic hierarchy process.

[0072] The following example illustrates how to obtain dynamic balance values. A laser vibrometer can be used to non-contactly measure the vibration of the gimbal mechanism at different speeds, combined with a high-speed camera recording its motion trajectory. For repeatability, a high-precision rotary encoder can be used to monitor the angular position of the gimbal in real time, and the positional deviation can be calculated through statistical analysis after multiple positioning cycles. When measuring the maximum elastic deformation angle under a standard test load, a standard load simulating the weight and inertial force of the camera can be applied to the end of the support, and a digital inclinometer or optical measurement system can be used to accurately measure the angular deflection of the support end under the load. For example, if the measured dynamic balance value of the gimbal mechanism is 0.05 g·cm, and the reference dynamic balance value is set to 0.2 g·cm, then the dynamic balance index... The value is 0.05 / 0.2 = 0.25. If the repeatability is measured to be 0.005 degrees, and the reference value is 0.005 degrees, then the positioning accuracy index is... The value is 0.005 / 0.005 = 1. If the maximum elastic deformation angle under the standard test load is 0.01 degrees, and the reference value is 0.01 degrees, then the deformation angle exponent is... The value is 0.01 / 0.01 = 1. As a specific implementation method, assume the weighting coefficient... =0.4, =0.3, =0.3, substitute the calculated exponent into the dynamic fidelity model: The calculated result of 0.588 is located at... Within the range, it indicates that the stent has poor dynamic fidelity performance.

[0073] Through the above technical solution, this application can more comprehensively evaluate the performance of aluminum alloy camera brackets under actual dynamic working conditions. This method quantifies dynamic balance, repeatability, and the maximum elastic deformation angle under standard test loads, and integrates them into a dynamic fidelity model, thus providing an accurate indicator reflecting the dynamic vibration level and positioning stability of the bracket. This allows for consideration not only of static stiffness during bracket design and optimization but also effective prediction and improvement of its performance under dynamic environments such as motion and variable loads, significantly improving the accuracy and guidance of the evaluation. Ultimately, this helps in designing camera brackets with higher stability and reliability during dynamic operation, avoiding image blurring or positioning deviations caused by insufficient dynamic performance.

[0074] Preferably, the connection integrity coefficient is obtained in the following way:

[0075] Obtain the fastener preload torque, the number of fastening points, and the distribution density of fastening points;

[0076] The fastener preload torque, number of fastening points, and fastening point distribution density are compared with the corresponding reference values ​​to obtain the preload torque index, fastening point number index, and fastening point distribution density index.

[0077] Import the preload torque index, fastening point number index, and fastening point distribution density index into the connection integrity model to obtain the connection integrity coefficient.

[0078] The connection integrity model is used to calculate the connection integrity coefficient through a monotonically increasing function based on a preload index positively correlated with preload torque, a quantity index positively correlated with the number of fastening points, and a distribution density index positively correlated with the distribution density of fastening points; the larger the connection integrity coefficient value, the higher the connection reliability.

[0079] The complete connection model is represented as follows:

[0080] ;;

[0081] in, Represents the connectivity integrity coefficient. Indicates the preload torque index. This represents the index of the number of fastening points. The density index of fastening points is represented by the index. The larger the value, the more reliable the connection.

[0082] Fastener preload torque refers to the preload torque applied during fastener installation. This torque directly affects the tightness and anti-loosening ability of the fastener connection, and is an important parameter for measuring connection reliability. It can be obtained through precise control and recording using a torque wrench during installation, or through non-contact measurement techniques such as ultrasonic testing or strain gauge methods to assess the preload of installed fasteners. The number of fastening points refers to the total number of fasteners used to connect the various components of the bracket. Increasing the number of fastening points usually improves the redundancy and overall strength of the connection, thereby enhancing its integrity. This number can be obtained directly from design drawings or determined through visual inspection and counting of the actual assembled bracket. Fastening point distribution density refers to the spatial density of fasteners within the connection area. A reasonable fastening point distribution density can make the stress distribution in the connection area more uniform, avoiding local stress concentration, thereby improving the overall reliability of the connection. It can be obtained by calculating the number of fastening points per unit area or by analyzing the ratio of fastener spacing to connector dimensions. The connection integrity model employs a hyperbolic tangent function (tanh), which maps the product of the input parameters to a finite range (0,1), giving the connection integrity coefficients a clear physical meaning: larger values ​​indicate more reliable connections. Connection integrity coefficients It is calculated by connecting the complete model and is used to characterize the reliability and integrity of the connecting parts of the aluminum alloy camera bracket. The value range of this coefficient is (0,1). The larger the value, the tighter and more stable the connecting parts of the bracket are, the stronger the resistance to external loads, and thus the greater the contribution to the overall robustness of the bracket.

[0083] As a specific implementation method, the connection integrity coefficient can be obtained as follows: First, by monitoring the assembly process of the aluminum alloy camera bracket, the preload torque value of each fastener is recorded using a torque wrench with calibration function, and the total number of all fasteners is counted. Simultaneously, based on the bracket's design drawings, the arrangement of fasteners in the connection area is analyzed, and the number of fastening points per unit area is calculated, thus obtaining the fastening point distribution density. For example, a standard preload torque value, a standard number of fastening points, and a standard fastening point distribution density can be set as reference values. Then, the actual measured preload torque value is divided by the standard preload torque value to obtain the preload torque index; the actual number of fastening points is divided by the standard number of fastening points to obtain the fastening point number index; and the actual fastening point distribution density is divided by the standard fastening point distribution density to obtain the fastening point distribution density index. Finally, these three indices are substituted into the connection integrity model. In this process, the connection integrity coefficient is calculated. For example, if the preload torque index is 0.9, the number of fastening points index is 1.0, and the fastening point distribution density index is 0.8, then the connection integrity coefficient is... The reliability of the current connection will be calculated based on this model.

[0084] Through the above technical solution, this application can more comprehensively and accurately assess the connection integrity of aluminum alloy camera brackets. By introducing three key parameters—fastener pre-tightening torque, number of fastening points, and fastening point distribution density—and quantifying them into corresponding indices, and then calculating the connection integrity coefficient through a connection integrity model, the assessment of bracket connection reliability is no longer a simple qualitative judgment, but a quantitative analysis based on multi-dimensional physical parameters. This refined method of obtaining the connection integrity coefficient effectively avoids deviations in coupling robustness calculations caused by inaccurate connection assessments, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the entire aluminum alloy camera bracket stability assessment method. Ultimately, this helps to make more reasonable decisions during wall thickness optimization, ensuring that the bracket meets performance requirements while achieving effective material utilization, thus improving the overall performance and economy of the product.

[0085] Preferably, the coupling robustness is obtained as follows:

[0086] Obtain the damping ratio and end-effector static stiffness of the mechanism;

[0087] The damping ratio index is obtained by comparing the mechanism damping ratio with the structural damping ratio reference value.

[0088] The end static stiffness index is obtained by taking the ratio of the end static stiffness to the sum of the end static stiffness and the reference end static stiffness.

[0089] The damping ratio exponent and the end static stiffness exponent are imported into the coupled robustness model to obtain the coupled robustness.

[0090] The coupling robustness model is used to perform coupling calculations on the intrinsic stiffness coefficient, the connection integrity coefficient, a damping ratio index positively correlated with the damping ratio of the mechanism, and a static stiffness index positively correlated with the end static stiffness to obtain the coupling robustness; the larger the coupling robustness value, the higher the overall robustness of the structure.

[0091] The coupling robustness model is expressed as follows:

[0092] ;;

[0093] in, Indicates coupling robustness. Indicates the intrinsic stiffness coefficient. Represents the connectivity integrity coefficient. Indicates the damping ratio index. The term "end-efficiency static stiffness index" indicates that... Furthermore, the larger the value, the more robust the overall structure.

[0094] Among them, the mechanism damping ratio is a key parameter for measuring the energy dissipation capacity of a structure during vibration, and can be obtained through experimental modal analysis (such as free decay vibration test, frequency sweep test) or numerical simulation (such as damping matrix calculation in finite element analysis). The end static stiffness reflects the deformation resistance of the support end under static load, and can be directly tested by applying a known load to the support end and measuring its displacement, or predicted through structural mechanics calculations, finite element static analysis, etc. The coupled robustness model is a comprehensive mathematical expression used to quantify the overall robustness of the aluminum alloy camera bracket, where... This is the final coupling robustness value, ranging from 0 to 1. A larger value indicates better overall structural robustness. Intrinsic stiffness coefficient. and connectivity integrity coefficient As a multiplicative factor, it reflects the impact of the support's own foundation stiffness and connection reliability on the overall robustness. Damping ratio index Through exponential function The introduction of this form causes the contribution of damping performance to robustness to increase non-linearly, meaning it has a significant impact at low damping and tends to saturate at high damping. End-effector static stiffness index This directly reflects the contribution of the stent's ability to resist static deformation to its robustness. Through this coupling method, the model can comprehensively and quantitatively evaluate the stent's overall performance considering its inherent characteristics, connection quality, dynamic energy dissipation capacity, and static load-bearing capacity.

[0095] The following is a concrete example to illustrate this. When evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket, its structural damping ratio can first be obtained through vibration table testing, for example, by fitting a free decay curve. Simultaneously, the end static stiffness is obtained by applying a standard load to the bracket's end and measuring its deformation. Assume we have set a reference structural damping ratio and a reference end static stiffness. Next, the measured structural damping ratio is compared to this reference structural damping ratio to obtain the damping ratio exponent. Similarly, the measured end static stiffness is normalized to the reference end static stiffness, for example, by comparing it to the sum of the reference end static stiffness to obtain the end static stiffness exponent. Subsequently, these calculated damping ratio exponents and end static stiffness exponents, along with the intrinsic stiffness coefficient and connection integrity coefficient obtained from other models, are input into a preset coupling robustness model, outputting a coupling robustness value between 0 and 1. This value will serve as an important input parameter for the wall thickness optimization model, guiding the wall thickness design of key parts of the bracket.

[0096] Through the above technical solution, this application provides a more refined and quantitative method for obtaining coupling robustness. This method introduces the damping ratio index and the end-effector static stiffness index, and couples them with the intrinsic stiffness coefficient and the connection integrity coefficient, enabling a comprehensive and accurate assessment of the overall robustness of the aluminum alloy camera bracket. This solves the problem of insufficient precision in coupling robustness calculation in existing technologies, making the stability assessment results more reliable. This provides a more solid data foundation for subsequent optimization of the wall thickness of key target components, effectively improving the scientific rigor and accuracy of bracket design.

[0097] Preferably, the wall thickness optimization model is used to calculate the target critical component wall thickness based on the dynamic fidelity coefficient, the difference between the coupling robustness and a preset target coupling robustness, and the wall thickness of the critical component; wherein, when the coupling robustness is lower than the target coupling robustness, the calculated target critical component wall thickness increases, and the lower the dynamic fidelity coefficient, the greater the increase in wall thickness. The wall thickness optimization model is expressed as follows:

[0098] ;;

[0099] in, Indicates the wall thickness of the key parts of the target. Indicates the wall thickness of key components. Indicates the dynamic fidelity coefficient. Indicates the robustness of the target coupling. This indicates the robustness of coupling.

[0100] in, This indicates the wall thickness of critical components. This is the thickness of the critical components (the thinnest part) in the current design or actual existence of the support. It can be the initial thickness marked on the design drawings, or the actual thickness obtained directly from the physical object using measuring tools such as calipers. This parameter serves as the starting point for the optimization process and reflects the original state of the support before stability assessment and optimization. The dynamic fidelity coefficient represents the performance of an aluminum alloy camera bracket under dynamic loads, such as its ability to suppress vibration and maintain the accuracy of motion trajectory. A higher dynamic fidelity coefficient usually means that the bracket has a more stable dynamic response and less vibration. This represents the target coupling robustness, which is the desired overall stability level set during the design or optimization process for an aluminum alloy camera bracket. This target value is typically determined based on the product's operating environment, performance indicators, reliability requirements, and relevant industry standards. For example, for high-precision applications, the target coupling robustness... It might be set too high. The coefficient represents the coupling robustness, reflecting the overall stability assessment value of the aluminum alloy camera bracket. It comprehensively considers multiple aspects such as the bracket's intrinsic stiffness, connection integrity, and damping characteristics, quantifying the bracket's ability to resist external disturbances, maintain structural integrity, and functional stability.

[0101] This application's solution introduces an explicit wall thickness optimization model, quantitatively linking the dynamic performance and overall robustness of the aluminum alloy camera bracket to adjustments in the structural wall thickness. This model uses the current wall thickness of key components of the bracket as the basis for its design. Based on this, the target wall thickness is calculated using a correction term. The core of the correction term lies in the dynamic fidelity coefficient. and coupling robustness Robustness of coupling with the target The relationship between them. Specifically, when the current coupling robustness of the stent... Below the target coupling robustness At that time, the model will calculate a positive correction amount, prompting the target wall thickness to be adjusted. Greater than the current wall thickness Therefore, it is recommended to increase the wall thickness to improve robustness. Conversely, if Higher than In this case, it might be recommended to reduce the wall thickness to achieve a lighter weight. The term, as a weighting factor, implies the dynamic fidelity coefficient. The higher the value (i.e., the better the dynamic performance), the smaller the wall thickness adjustment can be, in order to more actively improve the overall stability of the stent. The use of the tanh function ensures the smoothness and boundedness of the correction amount, avoiding excessive or insufficient wall thickness adjustment. In this way, the model transforms abstract stability assessment results into specific structural design parameters, enabling engineers to precisely guide wall thickness optimization based on the actual performance of the stent and the expected stability goals. This effectively solves the accuracy and operability problems faced in structural optimization without explicit mathematical guidance.

[0102] The following is a specific example to illustrate this. As a concrete implementation, suppose that during a stability assessment of an aluminum alloy camera bracket, the initial wall thickness of its key components... The diameter is 3.0 mm. The dynamic fidelity coefficient of the stent was calculated using a dynamic fidelity model. A value of 0.85 indicates good dynamic performance. Based on the product design specifications, a target coupling robustness is set. The value is 0.92. Simultaneously, the coupling robustness of the current stent is evaluated using a coupling robustness model. The value is 0.88. Substituting these parameters into the wall thickness optimization model: The calculation results show that in order to improve the coupling robustness of the aluminum alloy camera bracket from 0.88 to 0.92, the wall thickness of its key parts needs to be increased from 3.0 mm to approximately 3.018 mm. This provides engineers with a clear direction and quantitative basis for structural optimization.

[0103] The above technical solution provides a clear wall thickness optimization model. This model, in the form of mathematical expressions, directly links key evaluation parameters such as dynamic fidelity coefficient, coupling robustness, and target coupling robustness to the wall thickness adjustment of critical components of the bracket. This allows the stability evaluation results of the aluminum alloy camera bracket to be accurately translated into specific structural optimization suggestions, effectively solving the problems of blindness and uncertainty that may occur when optimizing structures without quantitative guidance. Engineers can systematically adjust the bracket wall thickness based on this model to achieve the expected stability goals, thereby improving the overall performance and reliability of the bracket and optimizing material utilization efficiency.

[0104] A stability evaluation system for aluminum alloy camera brackets, employing the aforementioned stability evaluation method for aluminum alloy camera brackets.

[0105] It should be noted that, in this document, relational terms such as "first" and "second" are used only to distinguish one entity or operation from another, and do not necessarily require or imply any such actual relationship or order between these entities or operations. Furthermore, the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or apparatus.

[0106] Although embodiments of the invention have been shown and described, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes, modifications, substitutions and alterations can be made to these embodiments without departing from the principles and spirit of the invention, the scope of which is defined by the appended claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket, characterized in that, include: Based on the moment of inertia of the arm cross section about the bending axis, the horizontal distance between the load center of mass and the root of the support, and the flatness error of the interface between the base and the platform, the intrinsic stiffness coefficient is obtained through the intrinsic stiffness model. Based on the dynamic balance, repeatability, and maximum elastic deformation angle under standard test load, the dynamic fidelity coefficient is obtained through a dynamic fidelity model. Based on the fastener preload torque, the number of fastening points, and the distribution density of fastening points, the connection integrity coefficient is obtained through a connection integrity model. Based on the mechanism damping ratio and end static stiffness under intrinsic stiffness coefficient and connection integrity coefficient, coupling robustness is obtained through coupling robustness model. Based on the dynamic fidelity coefficient, coupling robustness, and wall thickness of key components, the wall thickness of the target key components is obtained through a wall thickness optimization model.

2. The method for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket according to claim 1, characterized in that, The wall thickness optimization model is used to calculate the target critical part wall thickness based on the dynamic fidelity coefficient, the difference between the coupling robustness and a preset target coupling robustness, and the wall thickness of the critical part; wherein, when the coupling robustness is lower than the target coupling robustness, the calculated target critical part wall thickness increases, and the lower the dynamic fidelity coefficient, the greater the increase in wall thickness.

3. The method for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket according to claim 2, characterized in that, The method for obtaining the coupling robustness is as follows: Obtain the damping ratio and end-effector static stiffness of the mechanism; The damping ratio index is obtained by comparing the mechanism damping ratio with the structural damping ratio reference value. The end static stiffness index is obtained by taking the ratio of the end static stiffness to the sum of the end static stiffness and the reference end static stiffness. The damping ratio exponent and the end static stiffness exponent are imported into the coupled robustness model to obtain the coupled robustness. The coupling robustness model is used to perform coupling calculations on the intrinsic stiffness coefficient, the connection integrity coefficient, a damping ratio index positively correlated with the mechanism damping ratio, and a static stiffness index positively correlated with the end static stiffness to obtain the coupling robustness; the larger the coupling robustness value, the higher the overall structural robustness.

4. The method for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket according to claim 3, characterized in that, The connection integrity coefficient is obtained as follows: Obtain the fastener preload torque, the number of fastening points, and the distribution density of fastening points; The fastener preload torque, number of fastening points, and fastening point distribution density are compared with the corresponding reference values ​​to obtain the preload torque index, fastening point number index, and fastening point distribution density index. Import the preload torque index, fastening point quantity index, and fastening point distribution density index into the connection integrity model to obtain the connection integrity coefficient.

5. The method for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket according to claim 2, characterized in that, The dynamic fidelity coefficient is obtained as follows: Obtain dynamic balance, repeatability, and maximum elastic deformation angle under standard test load; The dynamic balance value, repeatability, and maximum elastic deformation angle under standard test load are compared with the corresponding reference values ​​to obtain the dynamic balance index, positioning accuracy index, and deformation angle index. The dynamic balance index, positioning accuracy index, and deformation angle index are imported into the dynamic fidelity model to obtain the dynamic fidelity coefficients.

6. The method for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket according to claim 3, characterized in that, The intrinsic stiffness coefficient is obtained as follows: Obtain the moment of inertia of the arm cross section about the bending axis, the horizontal distance between the load center of mass and the root of the support, and the flatness error of the interface between the base and the platform; The moment of inertia of the arm cross section about the bending axis and the horizontal distance between the load center of mass and the root of the support are normalized by the maximum-minimum process to obtain the moment of inertia exponent and the horizontal distance exponent. The flatness error index is obtained by comparing the flatness error of the base and platform interface with the allowable flatness error. The moment of inertia exponent, horizontal distance exponent, and flatness error exponent are imported into the intrinsic stiffness model to obtain the intrinsic stiffness coefficients.

7. The method for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket according to claim 4, characterized in that, The connection integrity model is used to calculate the connection integrity coefficient through a monotonically increasing function based on a preload index positively correlated with preload torque, a quantity index positively correlated with the number of fastening points, and a distribution density index positively correlated with the distribution density of fastening points; the larger the connection integrity coefficient value, the higher the connection reliability.

8. The method for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket according to claim 5, characterized in that, The dynamic fidelity model is used to calculate the dynamic fidelity coefficient by weighting a balance index negatively correlated with dynamic balance, an accuracy index negatively correlated with repeatability accuracy, and a deformation index negatively correlated with maximum elastic deformation angle. The smaller the dynamic fidelity coefficient value, the worse the dynamic vibration performance.

9. The method for evaluating the stability of an aluminum alloy camera bracket according to claim 6, characterized in that, The intrinsic stiffness model is used to perform function calculations based on an inertia exponent positively correlated with the moment of inertia, a lever arm exponent negatively correlated with the horizontal distance, and an error exponent negatively correlated with the flatness error to obtain the intrinsic stiffness coefficient; the larger the intrinsic stiffness coefficient value, the higher the basic stiffness brought about by the structure's own geometry and manufacturing precision.

10. A stability evaluation system for an aluminum alloy camera bracket, characterized in that, The stability evaluation method for aluminum alloy camera brackets as described in any one of claims 1-9 is adopted.

Images