Method for evaluating and optimizing flexible cable layout design based on engineering constraint rules

Abstract

The application provides a flexible cable layout design evaluation and optimization method based on engineering constraint rules, establishes an assembly body three-dimensional model of a target product according to design characteristics of the target product and manufacturing and assembly information of the target product; establishes an evaluation standard of flexible cable layout design according to engineering constraint rules of the flexible cable layout design of the target product; determines an evaluation method of each layout design engineering constraint rule according to the evaluation standard of the flexible cable layout design; establishes an evaluation model of the flexible cable layout design according to the evaluation method of each layout design engineering constraint rule; and designs the flexible cable layout of the target product according to the assembly body three-dimensional model of the target product, and evaluates the layout design through the evaluation model until a target layout design satisfying specified requirements is obtained. The method can realize evaluation and optimization of the flexible cable layout design quality of complex electromechanical products, in particular, satellite products.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This article belongs to the field of cable layout technology, specifically involving the evaluation and optimization method of flexible cable layout design based on engineering constraint rules. Background Technology

[0002] Flexible cables are used in complex electromechanical products to connect electrical components, electrical equipment, and control devices. With the development of electronic information technology and its application in the field of mechanical manufacturing, flexible cables, as an important channel for transmitting electrical energy and signals, are increasingly widely used in aerospace, automobile manufacturing, marine, and home appliance industries.

[0003] As a crucial component of electromechanical systems, flexible cables are distributed in a complex and numerous manner. The layout design of flexible cables constitutes a significant portion of product development and is a complex and time-consuming task. The rationality of the flexible cable layout design plays a vital role in the final quality of the product. If the flexible cable design is unreasonable, malfunctions are likely to occur during product operation, directly leading to serious consequences such as system control failure or power loss, rendering the electromechanical product unable to function properly. Studies show that the failure rate of cables in electromechanical products is very high, frequently exhibiting problems such as cable end detachment, bending damage, clamping, fatigue, outer sheath wear, and entanglement with protruding structural components. General Electric (GE) in the United States summarized the failures of previously developed aircraft engines during use and found that 50% of in-flight engine shutdowns were caused by damage or failure of external wiring, conduits, and sensors.

[0004] In the layout design of flexible cables, many engineering constraints need to be considered. Existing technologies for cable layout are not precise enough and have low accuracy. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a method that can achieve high-quality evaluation of flexible cable layout design in complex electromechanical products. Summary of the Invention

[0005] To address the aforementioned problems in existing technologies, this paper aims to provide a method for evaluating and optimizing flexible cable layout design based on engineering constraint rules, which can improve the quality of flexible cable layout design.

[0006] To solve the above-mentioned technical problems, the specific technical solution presented in this paper is as follows: On the one hand, this paper provides a method for evaluating and optimizing the layout design of flexible cables based on engineering constraint rules, the method including: Based on the design features of the target product and its manufacturing and assembly information, a three-dimensional model of the target product assembly is established. Based on the engineering constraints of the flexible cable layout design in the target product, establish the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design; Based on the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design, the evaluation method for the engineering constraint rules of each layout design is determined; An evaluation model for the flexible cable layout design is established based on the evaluation method of the constraint rules for each layout design project. Based on the 3D model of the target product assembly, the flexible cable layout in the target product is designed, and the layout design is evaluated through the evaluation model until a target layout design that meets the specified requirements is obtained.

[0007] Furthermore, based on the engineering constraints of the flexible cable layout design in the target product, an evaluation standard for the flexible cable layout design is established, including: Based on the product type of the target product, determine the constraints on the design layout of the flexible cable in the target product, wherein the constraints represent the usage standards and empirical data of the flexible cable; Based on the constraints of the flexible cable design layout in the target product, determine multiple layout design engineering constraint rules for the flexible cable; Based on the constraint characteristics of each layout design engineering constraint rule, the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design are determined. The constraint characteristics represent the evaluation characteristics of the layout design engineering constraint rules. The evaluation criteria include mandatory constraint criteria and optimized constraint criteria. The mandatory constraint criteria refer to the evaluation indicators that the flexible cable must meet, while the optimized constraint criteria refer to the evaluation indicators that the flexible cable should meet as much as possible.

[0008] Furthermore, the target product is a satellite product, and accordingly, the layout design engineering constraints include at least the following rules: no interference rule, minimum bending radius rule, installability rule, distance from special equipment rule, separate layout rule, color differentiation rule, surface laying rule, segmented fixing rule, bundled binding rule, and length as short as possible rule.

[0009] Furthermore, the rules that comply with the mandatory constraint standards are: no interference rule, minimum bending radius rule, installability rule, distance from special equipment rule, and separate layout rule; the rules that comply with the optimization constraint standards are: color differentiation rule, surface laying rule, segmented fixing rule, bundled binding rule, and shortest possible length rule.

[0010] Furthermore, based on the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design, the evaluation method for the engineering constraint rules of each layout design is determined, including: For any layout design engineering constraint rule, perform the following steps: Determine the evaluation criteria for the design engineering constraint rules of the aforementioned project; When the constraint standard of the layout design engineering constraint rule is a mandatory constraint standard, the evaluation qualification rule of the layout design engineering constraint rule is determined. When the constraint criterion of the layout design engineering constraint rule is an optimization constraint criterion, the evaluation calculation formula of the layout design engineering constraint rule is determined.

[0011] Furthermore, based on the evaluation method for each layout design engineering constraint rule, an evaluation model for the flexible cable layout design is established, including: Determine the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated; The evaluation results of the constraint rules for layout design projects with mandatory constraint standards are determined sequentially. If at least one of the evaluation results is unqualified, the evaluation is terminated and the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated is output as unqualified. When all the evaluation results are qualified, the evaluation score of each layout design engineering constraint rule is calculated using the evaluation calculation formula of the layout design engineering constraint rule with the constraint standard as the optimization constraint standard. Based on the preset weights of all layout design engineering constraints, the final score of the flexible cable layout design is calculated using a preset formula, which is: ,in, i This refers to the sequence number of the current optimization constraint criterion; n This represents the total number of optimization constraint criteria currently under consideration. R i To apply the first method without considering weights i The actual score when evaluating cable layout based on the optimization constraint criteria; Ti To apply the first method without considering weights i The ideal score when evaluating cable layout based on the optimization constraint criteria; W i For the first i The weight value of each standard; T To optimize the overall evaluation score of the constraints; If the final score does not exceed the first preset score, the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated will be deemed unqualified. When the final score exceeds the first preset score, the flexible cable layout design is determined to be the target layout design.

[0012] Furthermore, when the final score exceeds the first preset score, the flexible cable layout design is determined to be the target layout design, including: When the final score exceeds the second preset score, the flexible cable layout design is determined as the target layout design, and the second preset score is greater than the first preset score. When the final score exceeds the first preset score but does not exceed the second preset score, multiple optimized flexible cable layout designs are obtained, and the final score of each optimized flexible cable layout design is calculated. The flexible cable layout design with the highest final score that is greater than the first preset score is determined as the target layout design.

[0013] Furthermore, when the layout design evaluation of the flexible cable fails, the method further includes: Determine whether the evaluation results of the layout design engineering constraint rules with mandatory constraint standards in the layout design of the flexible cable are unqualified. If so, the flexible cable layout design is optimized according to the constraints of the unqualified layout design engineering constraint rules to obtain an optimized layout design, and the optimized layout design is evaluated. If not, then the evaluation score of the constraint rule for each layout design project with the constraint standard as the optimization constraint standard is calculated to obtain the deviation value of the constraint rule for each layout design project with the constraint standard as the optimization constraint standard. Layout design engineering constraint rules whose deviation values ​​exceed preset values ​​are identified as layout design engineering constraint rules to be optimized. The layout design of flexible cables is optimized according to the constraints of the engineering constraint rules of the layout design to be optimized, so as to obtain the optimized layout design, and the optimized layout design is evaluated.

[0014] On the other hand, this paper also provides a device for evaluating and optimizing the layout design of flexible cables based on engineering constraint rules, the device comprising: The 3D model building module is used to build a 3D model of the target product assembly based on the design features of the target product and the manufacturing and assembly information of the target product. The evaluation criteria establishment module is used to establish the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design based on the engineering constraints of the flexible cable layout design in the target product. The evaluation method establishment module is used to determine the evaluation method for the engineering constraint rules of each layout design based on the evaluation criteria of the flexible cable layout design. An evaluation model is established to build an evaluation model for the flexible cable layout design based on the evaluation method of the constraint rules of each layout design project. The evaluation and optimization module is used to design the flexible cable layout in the target product based on the 3D model of the target product assembly, and to evaluate the layout design through the evaluation model until a target layout design that meets the specified requirements is obtained.

[0015] Finally, this document also provides a computer device including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, implements the method described above.

[0016] Using the above technical solution, the flexible cable layout design evaluation and optimization method based on engineering constraint rules described in this paper establishes a three-dimensional model of the target product assembly based on the design characteristics of the target product and its manufacturing and assembly information; establishes an evaluation standard for the flexible cable layout design based on the engineering constraint rules of the flexible cable layout design in the target product; determines the evaluation method for each layout design engineering constraint rule based on the evaluation standard; establishes an evaluation model for the flexible cable layout design based on the evaluation method of each layout design engineering constraint rule; designs the flexible cable layout in the target product based on the three-dimensional model of the target product assembly, and evaluates the layout design through the evaluation model until a target layout design that meets the specified requirements is obtained. This paper proposes an automatic evaluation algorithm and optimization system for flexible cable layout design, which can realize the evaluation and optimization of the flexible cable layout design quality in complex electromechanical products, especially satellite products.

[0017] To make the above and other objects, features and advantages of this document more apparent and understandable, preferred embodiments are described below in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. Attached Figure Description

[0018] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments or prior art described herein, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the embodiments or prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the accompanying drawings described below are only some embodiments of this article. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0019] Figure 1 The illustration shows the steps of the flexible cable layout design evaluation and optimization method based on engineering constraint rules provided in the embodiments of this paper; Figure 2 A flowchart illustrating the method provided in the embodiments of this article is shown; Figure 3 This paper illustrates a schematic diagram of the evaluation criteria for layout design engineering constraint rules in satellite products in the embodiments of this paper. Figure 4 A flowchart illustrating the evaluation method in the embodiments of this paper is shown; Figure 5 A schematic diagram of the structure of the flexible cable layout design evaluation and optimization device based on engineering constraint rules provided in the embodiments of this article is shown. Figure 6 A schematic diagram of the structure of the computer device provided in the embodiments of this article is shown.

[0020] Explanation of symbols in the attached drawings: 510. 3D Model Establishment Module; 520. Evaluation Criteria Establishment Module; 530. Evaluation Method Establishment Module; 540. Evaluation Model Establishment Module; 550. Evaluation Optimization Module. Detailed Implementation

[0021] The technical solutions in the embodiments described below will be clearly and completely described with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments described herein, and not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments described herein, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of this document.

[0022] It should be noted that the terms "first," "second," etc., used in the specification, claims, and accompanying drawings herein are used to distinguish similar objects and are not necessarily used to describe a specific order or sequence. It should be understood that such data can be interchanged where appropriate so that the embodiments described herein can be implemented in orders other than those illustrated or described herein. Furthermore, the terms "comprising" and "having," and any variations thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion; for example, a process, method, apparatus, product, or device that comprises a series of steps or units is not necessarily limited to those steps or units explicitly listed, but may include other steps or units not explicitly listed or inherent to such processes, methods, products, or devices.

[0023] As a crucial component of electromechanical systems, the layout of pipelines plays a vital role in product quality. Previous research has proposed various evaluation methods. One approach addresses the challenge of optimizing pipeline layouts in complex electromechanical products by using knowledge-based first-order predicate logic to model engineering constraints in pipeline layout design. An automatic evaluation algorithm for pipeline layout design in application service providers is proposed, achieving knowledge-based automatic comprehensive evaluation of pipeline layouts. However, this method primarily evaluates pipeline layout design and is not applicable to flexible cables. Another approach addresses the difficulty in controlling cable laying quality in complex electromechanical products. Based on an analysis of the factors influencing cable laying quality, a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method for cable laying quality grade assessment is proposed, combining the entropy weight method for determining single-factor fuzzy weight vectors and the hierarchical analysis method for determining comprehensive fuzzy weight vectors. However, this method considers a wide range of evaluation factors and is a fuzzy evaluation, lacking precision. In the layout design of flexible cables, numerous engineering constraints need to be considered. Existing technologies for cable layout are not precise enough and have low accuracy. Therefore, a method for achieving high-quality evaluation of flexible cable layout design in complex electromechanical products is urgently needed.

[0024] To address the aforementioned issues, this paper provides a method for evaluating and optimizing flexible cable layout design based on engineering constraint rules, which can improve the quality and reliability of flexible cable layout design. Figure 1 This document illustrates the steps of a method for evaluating and optimizing flexible cable layout design based on engineering constraints, as provided in the embodiments. While this specification provides the operational steps described in the embodiments or flowcharts, conventional or non-creative work may include more or fewer steps. The order of steps listed in the embodiments is merely one possible execution order among many and does not represent the only possible order. In actual system or device products, the methods shown in the embodiments or accompanying drawings can be executed sequentially or in parallel. Specifically, as shown in the embodiments or accompanying drawings... Figure 1 As shown, the method may include: S101: Based on the design characteristics of the target product and the manufacturing and assembly information of the target product, establish a three-dimensional model of the target product assembly; S102: Based on the engineering constraints of the flexible cable layout design in the target product, establish the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design; S103: Based on the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design, determine the evaluation method for the engineering constraint rules of each layout design; S104: Based on the evaluation method of the constraint rules for each layout design project, establish an evaluation model for the flexible cable layout design; S105: Based on the three-dimensional model of the target product assembly, design the flexible cable layout in the target product, and evaluate the layout design through the evaluation model until a target layout design that meets the specified requirements is obtained.

[0025] This paper can be understood as follows: by determining the layout design engineering constraint rules for evaluating the flexible cable layout design based on the characteristics of the target product itself, a corresponding evaluation model is established based on these rules, and then the flexible cable layout design is evaluated and optimized based on the established three-dimensional model of the target product assembly, thereby obtaining the final flexible cable layout design that meets the conditions, which can improve the quality and reliability of the flexible cable layout design of the target product.

[0026] For example, embodiments of this specification also provide specific processes for the above methods, wherein the target product is a satellite product, such as... Figure 2 As shown, specifically: (1) Obtain the design, manufacturing and assembly information of the product, complete the structural component modeling and assembly of the product in a virtual three-dimensional environment, and carry out the layout design of flexible cables on the assembly model of the product; (2) Analyze the engineering constraint rules of the layout design of flexible cables in electromechanical products, especially satellites, and establish the evaluation standard for the layout design of flexible cables; (3) Based on the engineering constraint rules of cable layout design and related technologies such as cable interference detection, minimum bending radius calculation, physical property modeling, distance calculation and length calculation, determine the cable layout design evaluation method; (4) Based on the cable layout design evaluation standard and method, design an automatic evaluation algorithm for flexible cable layout; (5) Automatically evaluate the cable layout and feed the evaluation results back to the virtual environment of cable layout design, and correct and optimize cables that do not meet the engineering constraints until they meet the requirements.

[0027] In the embodiments of this specification, an evaluation standard for the flexible cable layout design is established based on the engineering constraints of the flexible cable layout design in the target product, including: Based on the product type of the target product, determine the constraints on the design layout of the flexible cable in the target product, wherein the constraints represent the usage standards and empirical data of the flexible cable; Based on the constraints of the flexible cable design layout in the target product, determine multiple layout design engineering constraint rules for the flexible cable; Based on the constraint characteristics of each layout design engineering constraint rule, the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design are determined. The constraint characteristics represent the evaluation characteristics of the layout design engineering constraint rules. The evaluation criteria include mandatory constraint criteria and optimized constraint criteria. The mandatory constraint criteria refer to the evaluation indicators that the flexible cable must meet, while the optimized constraint criteria refer to the evaluation indicators that the flexible cable should meet as much as possible.

[0028] This can be understood as the layout design engineering constraints differing for different types or categories of target products. This allows for the design of different evaluation criteria for each product. Furthermore, the requirements for the same product can also vary depending on the application scenario. For example, the design of flexible cables for target products can consider various factors, such as relevant national standards, usage standards, and corresponding user manuals. Of course, the empirical data can also be the experiential knowledge summarized by experts or engineers. This ensures the comprehensiveness and reliability of the layout design engineering constraints for each target product, thereby improving the reliability and accuracy of the overall layout design of flexible cables.

[0029] For example, through a survey of a certain aerospace unit, the engineering constraints considered in the layout design of flexible cables in satellite products mainly include the following categories of rules: no interference rule, minimum bending radius rule, installability rule, distance from special equipment rule, separate layout rule, color differentiation rule, surface laying rule, segmented fixing rule, bundled bundling rule, and length as short as possible rule. The specific requirements of each constraint rule are shown in Table 1.

[0030] Table 1 Engineering Constraints for Flexible Cable Layout Design

[0031] Furthermore, the automatic evaluation of flexible cable layout design needs to be based on layout design evaluation standards. Therefore, the first step should be to establish flexible cable layout design evaluation standards based on the engineering constraint rules for flexible cable layout design. Table 1 shows ten engineering constraint rules for flexible cable layout design. Based on the different levels of constraint strength applied to cable layout design, these rules can be divided into mandatory constraint standards and optimization constraint standards, such as... Figure 3 As shown.

[0032] Mandatory constraint standards refer to the evaluation indicators that flexible cables must meet. If any rule in these constraints is not met, the cable layout design scheme is considered invalid. These include rules for cable non-interference, minimum bending radius, installability, distance from special equipment, and separate layout.

[0033] Optimization constraint standards refer to evaluation indicators that flexible cables should ideally meet. These standards are not mandatory; violations of these constraints in cable layout design will only affect the degree of optimization, not directly lead to the failure of the layout design. These include rules for cable color differentiation, surface laying, segmented fixing, bundled binding, and minimizing cable length.

[0034] After classifying the cable layout design evaluation standards, it is also necessary to grade or evaluate the scores of each standard. For mandatory constraint standards, the evaluation results can be divided into two levels: "Y" and "N". "Y" indicates that the cable layout result meets the standard; "N" indicates that the standard is not met and a redesign is required for that standard. For optimization constraint standards, each rule can be scored according to its evaluation method, and the score represents the evaluation result of each rule.

[0035] In the embodiments of this specification, the evaluation method for determining the engineering constraint rules of each layout design according to the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design includes: For any layout design engineering constraint rule, perform the following steps: Determine the evaluation criteria for the design engineering constraint rules of the aforementioned project; When the constraint standard of the layout design engineering constraint rule is a mandatory constraint standard, the evaluation qualification rule of the layout design engineering constraint rule is determined. When the constraint criterion of the layout design engineering constraint rule is the optimization constraint criterion, then the evaluation calculation formula for each of the layout design engineering constraint rules is determined.

[0036] This can be understood as follows: the evaluation principle for strong constraint standards is simply pass / fail; when it fails, it means the entire layout design is unqualified and needs optimization. Optimization constraint standards, on the other hand, are evaluated through scoring; the score determines whether the layout design is reasonable and meets the corresponding requirements.

[0037] For example, the evaluation criteria for each engineering constraint rule in flexible cable layout design have different grading or scoring methods. Taking satellite products as an example, these methods require the support of related technologies such as cable interference detection, minimum bending radius calculation, physical property modeling, distance calculation, and length calculation. The evaluation methods for each constraint rule in flexible cable layout design are as follows: (1) No interference rule When performing interference-free standard inspection for flexible cables, it is first necessary to construct an interference model of the flexible cable and the product structural member. The interference model of the product structural member can be directly constructed using triangular facets. To improve the efficiency of interference detection, the interference model of the flexible cable can be divided into two levels: a spherical hierarchical bounding box and a cylindrical bounding box constructed by triangular facets. When performing interference detection on the flexible cable, the spherical hierarchical bounding box of the cable is first used for rapid interference detection. If interference is detected in a certain leaf node, a cylindrical bounding box of the cable segment is constructed using triangular facets to perform precise interference detection. If no interference occurs in all cables, the standard inspection is considered qualified, and the evaluation result is marked as "Y". If any cable has interference, the standard inspection is considered unqualified, the evaluation result is "N", and the interfering cable is displayed in highlight.

[0038] (2) Minimum bending radius rule When performing the minimum bending radius standard inspection for flexible cables, it is first necessary to set the minimum radius value for each type of flexible cable r min , this value may be several times the diameter of the cable or a fixed value, which is subject to the actual engineering situation. Then it is necessary to calculate the bending radius r of the flexible cable, and the bending radius calculation formula is as follows: ; where, r is the bending radius of the flexible cable; u is the arc length of the cable center, with a value range of [0,1]; w is the center curve of the flexible cable; w' is w the first-order derivative with respect to the independent variable u ; w" is w the second-order derivative with respect to the independent variable u ; x ( u ), y ( u ), z ( u ) are functions of the curve w ( u ) expanded in the x , y , z three directions; x' ( u ), y' ( u ), z' ( u ) are x ( u ), y ( u ),z ( u )The first derivative with respect to the independent variable u , x" ( u ), y" ( u ), z" ( u )are x ( u ), y ( u ), z ( u )the second derivative with respect to the independent variable u.

[0039] After obtaining the bending radius r of the flexible cable, compare r with the set minimum bending radius value r min to determine whether the flexible cable has an over-bending phenomenon. If r is greater than r min , the cable is considered to be within the allowable bending range, this standard test is qualified, and the evaluation result is marked as "Y". If r is less than r min , the cable is considered to be over-bent, this standard check is unqualified, the evaluation result is "N", and the over-bent part of the cable is highlighted.

[0040] (3) Installability rule When performing the installability rule detection of flexible cables, the main focus is on whether the connectors connected to the end positions of the cables have sufficient space for plugging and unplugging without redundant interference. To achieve accurate detection of this rule, it is necessary to perform physical modeling on the flexible cable or at least its end position, such as the bending-torsion composite spring-mass model and the elastic thin rod model, consider its physical properties such as gravity, tensile resistance, bending resistance and torsion resistance, realize accurate simulation of the spatial pose of the flexible cable, and then establish kinematic constraint association between the connector and the flexible cable, so as to simulate the plugging and unplugging process of the connector, simulate the deformation of the flexible cable, and thus determine whether the flexible cable is too short in length during the simulation process, resulting in over-bending of the cable or the connector cannot be plugged and unplugged, or whether the flexible cable is too long in length, resulting in redundant interference with surrounding structural parts. If the above situation does not occur, this standard check is considered qualified, the flexible cable is installable, and the evaluation result is marked as "Y". If the above situation occurs, this standard check is considered unqualified, the flexible cable is not installable, the evaluation result is marked as "N", and the unqualified cable end is highlighted.

[0041] (4) Keep away from special equipment rule When performing the detection of the rule that flexible cables shall be kept away from special equipment, it is first necessary to set the safety distance between the flexible cable and the special equipment d min , then it is required to measure the distance between the flexible cable and special equipment such as high-temperature equipment, low-temperature equipment, and movable parts, for example, by measuring the distance between the constituent control points of the flexible cable and the triangular surfaces of each special equipment, and selecting the minimum value to obtain the shortest distance d 0, then compare d 0 with the set value d min to judge whether the distance between the flexible cable and the special equipment is too close. If d 0 is greater than d min , the cable is considered to meet the requirements, the standard item is qualified in detection, and the evaluation result is marked as "Y". If d 0 is less than d min , the cable is considered not to meet the requirements, the standard item is unqualified in inspection, the evaluation result is "N", and the cable that does not meet the requirements and the corresponding special equipment are highlighted.

[0042] (5) Separate layout rule When performing the detection of the separate layout rule for flexible cables, it is first necessary to set the safety distance between certain types of flexible cables and other types of cables d min , then it is required to measure the distance between these special types of flexible cables and other types of cables, for example, by measuring the distance between the constituent control points of the two cables, and selecting the minimum value to obtain the shortest distance d 0, then compare d 0 with the set value d min to judge whether the flexible cables are arranged in a separate layout. If d 0 is greater than d min , the cable is considered to meet the requirements, the standard item is qualified in detection, and the evaluation result is marked as "Y". If d 0 is less than d min , the cable is considered not to meet the requirements, the standard item is unqualified in inspection, the evaluation result is "N", and the cable that does not meet the requirements is highlighted.

[0043] (6) Color distinction rule When performing color distinction rule detection for flexible cables, it is first necessary to set the colors of different types of flexible cables, and then identify and verify the colors of different types of flexible cables. If the color of a certain cable is consistent with the set color of the cable type it belongs to, the cable is deemed to pass the detection; if a certain cable has no set cable type or its color is inconsistent with the set color of the cable type it belongs to, the cable is deemed to fail the detection and will be highlighted. The final score of this detection is calculated according to the ratio of the number of cables that pass the inspection to the total number of cables, and the specific calculation formula is as follows: ; where, R 1 is the actual score of this detection; N is the total number of cables; N 1 is the total number of cables that pass this detection; T 1 is the ideal score of this detection, which can generally be set to 100 points.

[0044] (7) Surface laying rule When performing surface laying rule detection for flexible cables, the cable segments other than the end positions are mainly focused on. First, it is necessary to specify the identification standard for flexible cables laid along the product surface, that is, the set value of the distance between the center line of the flexible cable and the product surface d max , this value can be several times the radius of the cable, or the radius of the cable plus a specific distance. Then, by measuring the distance between the constituent control points of the intermediate cable excluding the end positions and the surface of the product equipment, the maximum value is selected to obtain the maximum distance d 1, and then compare d 1 with the set value d max to judge whether the flexible cable is laid along the equipment surface. If a certain cable's d 1 is less than d max , the cable is considered to meet the surface laying requirement, and this standard detection is qualified. If a certain cable's d 1 is greater than d max , the cable is considered not to meet the surface laying requirement, this standard inspection is unqualified, and it will be highlighted. The final score of this detection is also calculated according to the ratio of the number of cables that pass the inspection to the total number of cables, and the specific calculation formula is as follows: ; where, R 2 is the actual score of this detection; N is the total number of cables; N 2 is the total number of cables that pass this detection; T2 is the ideal score for this test, which can generally be set to 100 points.

[0045] (8) Segmented fixing rule When performing the segmented fixing rule test for flexible cables, the focus is also mainly on the cable segments excluding the end positions. First, it is necessary to define the maximum interval at which the flexible cable should be fixed at least, and this distance is the judgment criterion l max . Then the test is carried out. The specific test method is to measure the cable length between every two adjacent fasteners such as clamps on the cable l , compare l with the set value l max to judge whether it meets the requirements. If the cable length between every two adjacent fasteners on a certain cable l is less than l max , the cable is considered to meet the segmented fixing requirements, and this standard test is qualified. If the cable length between two adjacent fasteners on a certain cable l is greater than l max , the cable is considered not to meet the segmented fixing requirements, this standard test is unqualified, and the cable segments that do not meet the requirements are highlighted. The final score of this test is also calculated according to the proportion of the number of qualified cables to the total number of cables, and the specific calculation formula is as follows: ; where, R 3 is the actual score of this test; N is the total number of cables; N 3 is the total number of cables that pass this test; T 3 is the ideal score for this test, which can generally be set to 100 points.

[0046] (9) Bundling rule When performing the bundling rule test for flexible cables, the main focus is on whether the cables with the same path are bundled together. First, it is necessary to set the maximum distance between flexible cables that should be bundled together d max , and then carry out the test. The specific test method is to test every two cables. If two cables are bundled with a clamp or a tie, the distance between the cables outside the set length from the bundling position l max is calculated; if two cables are not bundled, the distance between the cables of all lengths is calculated to obtain the minimum distance d 0, then compare d 0 with the set value d maxthe magnitude between them to determine whether the cable pair meets the requirements. If d 0 is greater than d max , it is determined that the cable pair meets the bundling requirement, and this standard test is qualified; if d 0 is less than d max , it is determined that the cable pair does not meet the bundling requirement, this standard test is unqualified, and the cable pair that does not meet the requirement is highlighted. The final score of this test is calculated according to the proportion of the number of qualified cable pairs in the total number of cable pairs, and the specific calculation formula is as follows: ; wherein, R 4 is the actual score of this test; N'=N ( N -1) / 2 is the total number of cable pairs; N' 4 is the total number of cable pairs that pass this test; T 4 is the ideal score of this test, which can generally be set to 100 points.

[0047] (10) Minimum possible length rule When performing the minimum possible length rule test for flexible cables, the overall end-to-end length of the flexible cable is mainly focused on. There are many influencing factors on the length of flexible cables, and the premise of minimizing the length is to meet the other requirements mentioned above, so it is difficult to accurately formulate the evaluation for this rule. Here, a fuzzy total length range is mainly set, for example, the total length of the cable cannot exceed the straight-line distance between the two ends by m times, which is recorded as l max . Then calculate the total length between all end pairs of the flexible cable l , compare l with the set value l max to determine whether the cable meets the requirements. If l is less than l max , it is determined that the cable meets the minimum possible length requirement, and this standard test is qualified; if l is greater than l max , it is determined that the cable does not meet the minimum possible length requirement, this standard test is unqualified, and the cable that does not meet the requirement is highlighted. The final score of this test is also calculated according to the proportion of the number of qualified cables in the total number of cables, and the specific calculation formula is as follows: ; wherein, R 5 is the actual score of this test; N is the total number of cables; N5 represents the total number of cables that passed the test; T5 represents the ideal score for the test, which can generally be set to 100 points.

[0048] In the embodiments of this specification, an evaluation model for the flexible cable layout design is established based on the evaluation method of each layout design engineering constraint rule, including: Determine the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated; The evaluation results of the constraint rules for layout design projects with mandatory constraint standards are determined sequentially. If at least one of the evaluation results is unqualified, the evaluation is terminated and the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated is output as unqualified. When all the evaluation results are qualified, the evaluation score of each layout design engineering constraint rule is calculated using the evaluation calculation formula of the layout design engineering constraint rule with the constraint standard as the optimization constraint standard. Based on the preset weights of all layout design engineering constraints, the final score of the flexible cable layout design is calculated using a preset formula, which is: ,in, i This refers to the sequence number of the current optimization constraint criterion; n This represents the total number of optimization constraint criteria currently under consideration. To apply the first method without considering weights The actual score when evaluating cable layout based on the optimization constraint criteria; To apply the first method without considering weights The ideal score when evaluating cable layout based on the optimization constraint criteria; For the first i The weight value of each standard; T To optimize the overall evaluation score of the constraints; If the final score does not exceed the first preset score, the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated will be deemed unqualified. When the final score exceeds the first preset score, the flexible cable layout design is determined to be the target layout design.

[0049] like Figure 4 The diagram shown illustrates the process for evaluating the layout design of flexible cables. It can be seen that the entire evaluation process comprises two parts: a mandatory constraint level evaluation and an optimization constraint scoring evaluation. The evaluation results also include two parts: the overall mandatory constraint evaluation level and the overall optimization constraint evaluation score.

[0050] If all mandatory constraint evaluation results are "Y", the overall evaluation level is "Y", indicating that the cable layout meets the mandatory constraint standards. However, if any mandatory constraint evaluation result is "N", the overall evaluation level is "N", indicating that the cable layout does not meet the mandatory constraint standards and needs to be redesigned according to the corresponding constraint rules.

[0051] The overall evaluation score of the optimization constraints for flexible cable layout design can be expressed as the sum of the weighted scores of the flexible cable layout design for all optimization constraint criteria. The specific calculation formula is as follows: ; in, i This refers to the sequence number of the current optimization constraint criterion; n This represents the total number of optimization constraint criteria currently under consideration. To apply the first method without considering weights The actual score when evaluating cable layout based on the optimization constraint criteria; To apply the first method without considering weights The ideal score for evaluating cable layout using the optimization constraint criteria can generally be set to 100 points. For the first i The weight value of each standard; T To optimize the overall evaluation score, it can generally be set to 100 points.

[0052] Furthermore, when the final score exceeds the first preset score, the flexible cable layout design is determined to be the target layout design, including: When the final score exceeds the second preset score, the flexible cable layout design is determined as the target layout design, and the second preset score is greater than the first preset score. When the final score exceeds the first preset score but does not exceed the second preset score, multiple optimized flexible cable layout designs are obtained, and the final score of each optimized flexible cable layout design is calculated. The flexible cable layout design with the highest final score that is greater than the first preset score is determined as the target layout design.

[0053] In other words, to further enhance the optimization process of flexible cables, this paper appropriately increases the difficulty of the optimization objective. Therefore, two preset scores can be set: a first preset score and a second preset score. The second preset score is larger, such as 80 or 90 points, to ensure better evaluation results and improve the reliability of the layout design. While the first preset score theoretically also meets the optimization preset criteria, to improve the model's utilization, optimization can be performed between the first and second preset scores to obtain a higher evaluation score, thereby ensuring a more rational flexible cable layout design.

[0054] Therefore, for the optimization constraint evaluation, if the final evaluation result is 80 points or above, the cable layout result is considered to generally meet the optimization constraint standard; if the final evaluation result is between 60 and 80 points, the cable layout result is considered to basically meet the optimization constraint standard, and it is advisable to optimize the layout design scheme of the flexible cable; if the result is below 60 points, the cable layout result is considered to not meet the optimization constraint standard, and the layout design scheme of the flexible cable must be optimized.

[0055] For the overall evaluation, the flexible cable layout result can only be considered to meet the requirements if the mandatory constraint evaluation result is "Y" and the optimization constraint evaluation result is 60 points or above. Otherwise, it is considered an invalid layout design scheme and the scheme must be modified and optimized. The cable layout is optimized by adjusting the length, direction, and binding and fixing method of the flexible cable until the layout result meets the design requirements.

[0056] In the embodiments of this specification, when the layout design evaluation of the flexible cable fails, the method further includes: Determine whether the evaluation results of the layout design engineering constraint rules with mandatory constraint standards in the layout design of the flexible cable are unqualified. If so, the flexible cable layout design is optimized according to the constraints of the unqualified layout design engineering constraint rules to obtain an optimized layout design, and the optimized layout design is evaluated. If not, then the evaluation score of the constraint rule for each layout design project with the constraint standard as the optimization constraint standard is calculated to obtain the deviation value of the constraint rule for each layout design project with the constraint standard as the optimization constraint standard. Layout design engineering constraint rules whose deviation values ​​exceed preset values ​​are identified as layout design engineering constraint rules to be optimized. The layout design of flexible cables is optimized according to the constraints of the engineering constraint rules of the layout design to be optimized, so as to obtain the optimized layout design, and the optimized layout design is evaluated.

[0057] This can be understood as follows: when the flexible cable layout design is determined to be unreasonable, it needs to be optimized. Optimization can be achieved by designing different layouts using a 3D model of the target product assembly, followed by evaluation, until a satisfactory layout design is obtained. However, this method has limitations. For example, each layout design is random, failing to reflect the gradual improvement of evaluation results during the optimization process. Therefore, more designs are needed to determine the final layout design, resulting in significant randomness. Therefore, this paper proposes an optimization scheme: targeted optimization based on the unqualified layouts in the unqualified designs. This will inevitably change the evaluation results of other rules. Therefore, when performing targeted optimization, the impact on other rules should be minimized. In other words, during the flexible cable layout adjustment process, optimization should be focused on the characteristics corresponding to the unqualified rules. This improves the accuracy and efficiency of optimization, allowing for a final layout design to be obtained with fewer optimization iterations.

[0058] For example, when the no-interference rule is unqualified, during the optimization process, interference optimization can be performed only on the cables. With minimal changes to the overall layout, all cables can be removed from the interference state and obtained a completely non-interference state. This allows the no-interference rule to be qualified with minimal changes to other rules. In subsequent evaluations, the remaining rules can be further optimized, achieving progressive optimization.

[0059] Based on the methods provided above, this specification also provides an evaluation and optimization device for flexible cable layout design based on engineering constraint rules, such as... Figure 5 As shown, the device includes: The 3D model building module 510 is used to build a 3D model of the target product assembly based on the design characteristics of the target product and the manufacturing and assembly information of the target product. The evaluation criteria establishment module 520 is used to establish the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design based on the engineering constraints rules of the flexible cable layout design in the target product. The evaluation method establishment module 530 is used to determine the evaluation method for the engineering constraint rules of each layout design based on the evaluation criteria of the flexible cable layout design. Evaluation model 540 is used to establish an evaluation model for the flexible cable layout design based on the evaluation method of the constraint rules of each layout design project. The evaluation and optimization module 550 is used to design the flexible cable layout in the target product based on the three-dimensional model of the target product assembly, and to evaluate the layout design through the evaluation model until a target layout design that meets the specified requirements is obtained.

[0060] The beneficial effects obtained by the above-described device are the same as those obtained by the above-described method, and will not be described in detail in the embodiments of this specification.

[0061] This embodiment provides a computer device, the internal structure of which can be shown in the following diagram. Figure 6 As shown, the computer device includes a processor, memory, and a network interface connected via a system bus. The processor provides computing and control capabilities. The memory includes non-volatile storage media and internal memory. The non-volatile storage media stores the operating system and computer programs. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of the operating system and computer programs stored in the non-volatile storage media. The network interface is used for communication with external terminals via a network connection.

[0062] Those skilled in the art will understand that Figure 6 The structure shown is merely a block diagram of a portion of the structure related to the present application and does not constitute a limitation on the computer device to which the present application is applied. Specific computer devices may include more or fewer components than those shown in the figure, or combine certain components, or have different component arrangements.

[0063] In one embodiment, a computer device is provided, including a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program to implement the steps in the above-described method embodiments.

[0064] In one embodiment, a computer-readable storage medium is provided having a computer program stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, implements the steps in the above method embodiments.

[0065] In one embodiment, a computer program product is provided, including a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the steps in the above method embodiments.

[0066] Those skilled in the art will understand that all or part of the processes in the above embodiments can be implemented by a computer program instructing related hardware. The computer program can be stored in a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium. When executed, the computer program can include the processes of the embodiments described above. Any references to memory, databases, or other media used in the embodiments provided in this application can include at least one of non-volatile and volatile memory. Non-volatile memory can include read-only memory (ROM), magnetic tape, floppy disk, flash memory, optical memory, high-density embedded non-volatile memory, resistive random access memory (ReRAM), magnetic random access memory (MRAM), ferroelectric random access memory (FRAM), phase change memory (PCM), graphene memory, etc. Volatile memory can include random access memory (RAM) or external cache memory, etc. By way of illustration and not limitation, RAM can take many forms, such as Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) or Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM). The databases involved in the embodiments provided in this application may include at least one type of relational database and non-relational database. Non-relational databases may include, but are not limited to, blockchain-based distributed databases. The processors involved in the embodiments provided in this application may be general-purpose processors, central processing units, graphics processing units, digital signal processors, programmable logic devices, quantum computing-based data processing logic devices, etc., and are not limited to these.

[0067] It should also be understood that, in the embodiments herein, the term "and / or" is merely a description of the relationship between associated objects, indicating that three relationships can exist. For example, A and / or B can represent: A existing alone, A and B existing simultaneously, and B existing alone. Additionally, the character " / " in this document generally indicates that the preceding and following associated objects have an "or" relationship.

[0068] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the units and algorithm steps of the various examples described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in electronic hardware, computer software, or a combination of both. To clearly illustrate the interchangeability of hardware and software, the components and steps of the various examples have been generally described in terms of functionality in the foregoing description. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution. Those skilled in the art can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementation should not be considered beyond the scope of this document.

[0069] Those skilled in the art will clearly understand that, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the specific working processes of the systems, devices, and units described above can be referred to the corresponding processes in the foregoing method embodiments, and will not be repeated here.

[0070] In the embodiments provided herein, it should be understood that the disclosed systems, apparatuses, and methods 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 couplings or direct couplings or communication connections shown or discussed may be indirect couplings or communication connections through some interfaces, devices, or units, or they may be electrical, mechanical, or other forms of connection.

[0071] 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 the embodiments described herein, depending on actual needs.

[0072] This document uses specific embodiments to illustrate the principles and implementation methods of this document. The descriptions of the embodiments above are only for the purpose of helping to understand the methods and core ideas of this document. At the same time, for those skilled in the art, there will be changes in the specific implementation methods and application scope based on the ideas of this document. Therefore, the content of this specification should not be construed as a limitation of this document.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating and optimizing the layout design of flexible cables based on engineering constraint rules, characterized in that, The method includes: Based on the design features of the target product and its manufacturing and assembly information, a three-dimensional model of the target product assembly is established. Based on the engineering constraints of the flexible cable layout design in the target product, an evaluation standard for the flexible cable layout design is established. Specifically, based on the product type of the target product, constraints on the flexible cable layout design are determined, whereby the constraints represent the usage standards and empirical data of the flexible cable. Based on the constraints on the flexible cable layout design in the target product, multiple engineering constraints on the flexible cable layout design are determined. Based on the constraint characteristics of each engineering constraint rule, an evaluation standard for the flexible cable layout design is determined, whereby the constraint characteristics represent the evaluation characteristics of the engineering constraint rule. The evaluation standard includes mandatory constraint standards and optimized constraint standards, where mandatory constraint standards refer to the evaluation indicators that the flexible cable must meet, and optimized constraint standards refer to the evaluation indicators that the flexible cable should meet as much as possible. Based on the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design, the evaluation method for each layout design engineering constraint rule is determined. Specifically, for any layout design engineering constraint rule, the following steps are performed: determine the evaluation criteria for the layout design engineering constraint rule; when the constraint criteria for the layout design engineering constraint rule is a mandatory constraint criterion, then determine the evaluation qualification rule for the layout design engineering constraint rule; when the constraint criteria for the layout design engineering constraint rule is an optimized constraint criterion, then determine the evaluation calculation formula for each layout design engineering constraint rule. Based on the evaluation method of each layout design engineering constraint rule, an evaluation model for the flexible cable layout design is established. Specifically, the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated is determined; the evaluation results of the layout design engineering constraint rules with mandatory constraint standards are determined sequentially; when at least one of the evaluation results is unqualified, the evaluation is terminated, and the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated is output as unqualified; when all the evaluation results are qualified, the evaluation score of each layout design engineering constraint rule is calculated using the evaluation calculation formula of the layout design engineering constraint rules with optimized constraint standards; based on the preset weights of all layout design engineering constraint rules, the final score of the flexible cable layout design is calculated using a preset formula; when the final score does not exceed a first preset score, the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated is output as unqualified; when the final score exceeds the first preset score, the flexible cable layout design is determined as the target layout design, and the preset formula is... ,in, i This refers to the sequence number of the current optimization constraint criterion; n This represents the total number of optimization constraint criteria currently under consideration. R i To apply the first method without considering weights i The actual score when evaluating cable layout based on the optimization constraint criteria; Ti To apply the first method without considering weights i The ideal score when evaluating cable layout based on the optimization constraint criteria; W i For the first i The weight value of each standard; T To optimize the overall evaluation score of the constraints; Based on the 3D model of the target product assembly, the flexible cable layout in the target product is designed, and the layout design is evaluated through the evaluation model until a target layout design that meets the specified requirements is obtained.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The target product is a satellite product, and accordingly, the layout design engineering constraints include at least the following rules: no interference rule, minimum bending radius rule, installability rule, distance from special equipment rule, separate layout rule, color differentiation rule, surface laying rule, segmented fixing rule, bundled binding rule, and length as short as possible rule.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The rules that comply with the mandatory constraint standards are: no interference rule, minimum bending radius rule, installability rule, distance from special equipment rule, and separate layout rule; the rules that comply with the optimization constraint standards are: color differentiation rule, surface laying rule, segmented fixing rule, bundled binding rule, and shortest possible length rule.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, When the final score exceeds the first preset score, the flexible cable layout design is determined to be the target layout design, including: When the final score exceeds the second preset score, the flexible cable layout design is determined as the target layout design, and the second preset score is greater than the first preset score. When the final score exceeds the first preset score but does not exceed the second preset score, multiple optimized flexible cable layout designs are obtained, and the final score of each optimized flexible cable layout design is calculated. The flexible cable layout design with the highest final score that is greater than the first preset score is determined as the target layout design.

5. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, When the layout design evaluation of the flexible cable fails, the method further includes: Determine whether the evaluation results of the layout design engineering constraint rules with mandatory constraint standards in the layout design of the flexible cable are unqualified. If so, the flexible cable layout design is optimized according to the constraints of the unqualified layout design engineering constraint rules to obtain an optimized layout design, and the optimized layout design is evaluated. If not, then the evaluation score of the constraint rule for each layout design project with the constraint standard as the optimization constraint standard is calculated to obtain the deviation value of the constraint rule for each layout design project with the constraint standard as the optimization constraint standard. Layout design engineering constraint rules whose deviation values ​​exceed preset values ​​are identified as layout design engineering constraint rules to be optimized. The layout design of flexible cables is optimized according to the constraints of the engineering constraint rules of the layout design to be optimized, so as to obtain the optimized layout design, and the optimized layout design is evaluated.

6. A device for evaluating and optimizing the layout design of flexible cables based on engineering constraint rules, characterized in that, The device includes: The 3D model building module is used to build a 3D model of the target product assembly based on the design features of the target product and the manufacturing and assembly information of the target product. The evaluation criteria establishment module is used to establish evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design based on the engineering constraints of the flexible cable layout design in the target product. Specifically, it determines the constraints of the flexible cable layout design in the target product according to the product type, where the constraints represent the usage standards and empirical data of the flexible cable; it determines multiple layout design engineering constraints of the flexible cable based on the constraints of the flexible cable layout design in the target product; and it determines the evaluation criteria for the flexible cable layout design based on the constraint characteristics of each layout design engineering constraint rule, where the constraint characteristics represent the evaluation characteristics of the layout design engineering constraint rule. The evaluation criteria include mandatory constraint criteria and optimized constraint criteria, where mandatory constraint criteria refer to the evaluation indicators that the flexible cable must meet, and optimized constraint criteria refer to the evaluation indicators that the flexible cable should meet as much as possible. The evaluation method establishment module is used to determine the evaluation method for each layout design engineering constraint rule based on the evaluation criteria of the flexible cable layout design. Specifically, for any layout design engineering constraint rule, the following steps are performed: determine the evaluation criteria for the layout design engineering constraint rule; when the constraint criteria for the layout design engineering constraint rule is a mandatory constraint criterion, determine the evaluation qualification rule for the layout design engineering constraint rule; when the constraint criteria for the layout design engineering constraint rule is an optimized constraint criterion, determine the evaluation calculation formula for each layout design engineering constraint rule. An evaluation model is established to build an evaluation model for the flexible cable layout design based on the evaluation method of each layout design engineering constraint rule. Specifically, the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated is determined; the evaluation results of the layout design engineering constraint rules with mandatory constraint standards are determined sequentially; when at least one of the evaluation results is unqualified, the evaluation is terminated, and the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated is output as unqualified; when all the evaluation results are qualified, the evaluation score of each layout design engineering constraint rule is calculated using the evaluation calculation formula of the layout design engineering constraint rules with optimized constraint standards; based on the preset weights of all layout design engineering constraint rules, the final score of the flexible cable layout design is calculated using a preset formula; when the final score does not exceed a first preset score, the layout design of the flexible cable to be evaluated is output as unqualified; when the final score exceeds the first preset score, the flexible cable layout design is determined as the target layout design, and the preset formula is... ,in, i This refers to the sequence number of the current optimization constraint criterion; n This represents the total number of optimization constraint criteria currently under consideration. R i To apply the first method without considering weights i The actual score when evaluating cable layout based on the optimization constraint criteria; Ti To apply the first method without considering weights i The ideal score when evaluating cable layout based on the optimization constraint criteria; W i For the first i The weight value of each standard; T To optimize the overall evaluation score of the constraints; The evaluation and optimization module is used to design the flexible cable layout in the target product based on the 3D model of the target product assembly, and to evaluate the layout design through the evaluation model until a target layout design that meets the specified requirements is obtained.

7. A computer device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, characterized in that, When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the method as described in any one of claims 1 to 5.

Images