Lightweight optimization system and method for rocker arm structure derrick

Abstract

The invention relates to a lightweight optimization system and method for a rocker arm structure derrick, and the system comprises a processor which comprises a construction module, an analysis module, a calculation module and an optimization module. The construction module is used for constructing a finite element model based on the structural features of the rocker arm structure derrick; the analysis module is used for performing finite element static analysis based on the finite element model, calculating the maximum displacement and the maximum stress of the rocker arm structure derrick under different working conditions, and selecting a dangerous working condition based on the maximum displacement and the maximum stress; the calculation module is used for optimizing the finite element model into an optimization model based on a balance optimizer algorithm and a penalty function method, performing size optimization on the material cross section of each section of the rocker arm structure holding pole, and achieving the optimization target of structure mass minimization; and the optimization module is used for monitoring the change curve of the total mass of the dangerous working condition in the iteration process based on the optimization model to obtain the optimal parameters of the optimization model. The size of the rocker arm structure holding pole is optimized, and the total mass is obviously reduced.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of power transmission tower technology, and in particular to a lightweight optimization system and method for rocker arm structure masts. Background Technology

[0002] The derrick of a transmission tower is a crucial component used to enhance the structural stability of the tower. Typically shaped like a diagonal brace, it connects the main tower to other members. By forming a rigid triangular structure, the derrick effectively distributes external forces such as wind loads, ice loads, and conductor tension, improving overall load-bearing capacity and preventing structural deformation or collapse. Derricks are generally made of galvanized steel pipes or steel angle steel, requiring materials with good strength and corrosion resistance to withstand complex outdoor environments. Depending on design requirements, derricks can be single diagonal braces, combinations of double braces, or even triangular structures composed of multiple braces to meet the stress requirements of different parts. The position and installation angle of the derrick are carefully designed to ensure its load-bearing capacity while facilitating construction and future maintenance. Furthermore, in some tower designs, the derrick also serves to fix insulators and conductors, maintaining safe conductor spacing. To ensure the safe operation of transmission lines, derricks must be inspected regularly to promptly identify and address issues such as rust, deformation, or loosening, and to reinforce or replace them as necessary. In conclusion, as a key supporting component of power transmission towers, the gantry can effectively improve the structural safety and service life of the towers through proper design and maintenance.

[0003] As transmission voltage increases, the height and weight of transmission towers also increase, necessitating a corresponding increase in the height of the masts and the specifications of the steel used. However, excessively heavy masts increase manufacturing costs, cause inconvenience in transportation and handling, and may even increase the risks associated with tower erection. Therefore, obtaining lightweight masts is an urgent need in the field of power transmission line engineering.

[0004] Currently, Tao Ran, Zhou Huanlin, Meng Zeng, et al. proposed a method for optimizing the design of a holding pole based on the response surface method and an improved arithmetic optimization algorithm (see “Optimization Design of Holding Pole Based on Response Surface Method and Improved Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm” [J]. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 2022, 43 (10)). This method combines the improved arithmetic optimization algorithm with the response surface method to optimize the design of the holding pole structure. The optimization design method introduces fractional-order integration into the arithmetic optimization algorithm, improving the algorithm's development capabilities. Latin hypercube sampling is used to select the holding pole structure's cross-sectional test samples. The least squares method is used to analyze the sample points, and a second-order response surface proxy model of the holding pole structure's stress and displacement with respect to the cross-sectional dimensions of the pole is constructed. An optimization model is established with the minimum mass of the holding pole as the optimization objective and the allowable stress and displacement as the constraint conditions. The IAOA is used to solve it. The second-order response surface model can accurately predict the response of the holding pole structure, and the solving accuracy of the IAOA is significantly improved. The proxy model can significantly reduce the computational cost required for finite element analysis, and the optimized holding pole structure's mass is reduced by 8.2%.

[0005] However, applying the above design method to the lightweight design of a rocker arm structure holding pole has the following defects: (1) The second-order response surface proxy model is used to approximate the stress and displacement response of the holding pole structure, which can significantly reduce the finite element calculation amount, but the second-order response surface model is essentially a local approximation, which is difficult to accurately capture the response of the structure under complex loads or nonlinear behavior, especially at the boundary of the design space or in extreme working conditions. The prediction accuracy of the proxy model may decrease, affecting the reliability of the optimization results; (2) Although Latin hypercube sampling can uniformly cover the design space, when the sample size is limited, it may not be able to fully capture the nonlinearity and coupling effects of the structure response, leading to errors in the construction of the proxy model. In addition, the quality of the sample directly affects the accuracy of the response surface model, and insufficient or unreasonable distribution of the sample points will reduce the credibility of the optimization results.

[0006] For another example, CN109543232A discloses a double flat arm holding pole waist ring cable optimization method and device based on a glowworm algorithm, wherein the method includes the following steps: setting the waist ring cable cross-sectional area as a size variable, the height of each layer of cable layout as a shape variable, and the layout form of each layer of cable as a topology variable, and determining the pre-set value range of each variable; with the pre-set maximum allowable stress of the double flat arm holding pole member and the cable, the pre-set maximum allowable displacement of the holding pole member, and the pre-set minimum allowable buckling factor as constraints; establishing a synchronous optimization model, and taking the mass of the waist ring cable as the objective function; using an improved glowworm algorithm for synchronous optimization of size, shape, and topology, analyzing and calculating the mechanical properties, and using a penalty function method to handle the constraint conditions and iteratively update the global optimal solution. This technical solution is mainly designed for the characteristics of the double flat arm holding pole structure, which makes it unsuitable for rocker arm structure holding poles, mainly due to the differences in the holding pole structure: First, the structural layout differs. A double-arm gantry typically consists of two sets of parallel arms, creating a symmetrical structure. The waist-ring cable is primarily used to connect the arms to the main pole, adjusting the stress state to optimize and balance the load-bearing capacity. The cable arrangement is relatively regular, making it easy to optimize synchronously through size, shape, and topological variables. A rocker-arm gantry, on the other hand, uses an asymmetrical structure consisting of a main pole and a rocker arm. The rocker arm typically extends from one side, resulting in a more complex stress distribution. The force transfer between the rocker arm and the main pole relies mainly on a rigid connection. The function and arrangement of the cables in a rocker-arm gantry are fundamentally different from those in a double-arm gantry; some rocker-arm gantry gantry even lack waist-ring cables or have complex and varied cable arrangements.

[0007] Secondly, the technical solution in CN109543232A sets the optimization variables as the cross-sectional area of ​​the waist ring cable (size variable), the height of each layer of cables (shape variable), and the arrangement form (topology variable). These variables are designed for the layering and distribution of cables in a double-arm gantry, and are suitable for relatively regular double-arm systems. However, due to the asymmetry and concentrated force of the rocker arm structure, the number of cable layers in a rocker arm gantry may be small, or even nonexistent, and the cable forms and locations are diverse, making it difficult to describe using uniform height layers and topology variables. This results in the variable definitions in this solution failing to accurately characterize the cable structure of the rocker arm gantry, and the optimization model lacking representativeness.

[0008] As mentioned above, current optimization design methods for booms are not suitable for lightweight design of rocker arm booms. Therefore, for rocker arm booms, it is necessary to redefine optimization variables, constraints, and mechanical models based on their asymmetric structural characteristics and complex stress states, and design specialized optimization methods.

[0009] Furthermore, on the one hand, there are differences in understanding among those skilled in the art; on the other hand, the applicant studied a large number of documents and patents when making this invention, but due to space limitations, not all details and contents were listed in detail. However, this does not mean that the present invention does not possess the features of these prior art. On the contrary, the present invention already possesses all the features of the prior art, and the applicant reserves the right to add relevant prior art to the background art. Summary of the Invention

[0010] Currently, there is no suitable lightweight optimization method for rocker arm pylons. Excessive pylon mass directly increases the self-weight of the tower superstructure, leading to a significant increase in the load transmitted to the tower and foundation. The foundation and tower must withstand greater pressure and bending moments, potentially causing foundation settlement, structural deformation, or even failure, reducing the safety margin and stability of the entire tower system. A heavier pylon has a lower natural frequency and relatively insufficient structural damping, making it prone to resonance, especially under strong winds or wind-induced vibrations. This can lead to increased vibration amplitude of the pylon and power lines, exacerbating fatigue damage and shortening service life. Vibration control becomes more difficult, and maintenance costs rise.

[0011] Lightweighting of gantry cranes is essential. Firstly, as a critical load-bearing component of transmission lines, the weight of the gantry crane directly impacts the overall weight of the tower. Lightweight design effectively reduces material usage, thereby lowering manufacturing and transportation costs and improving economic efficiency. Simultaneously, reducing the gantry crane's weight also reduces the load transmitted to the tower body and foundation, simplifying tower foundation design and reducing costs, thus improving the overall safety margin and durability of the tower structure. Secondly, lightweight gantry cranes typically have a better stiffness-to-weight ratio, helping to suppress wind-induced vibration and improve the stability of transmission lines under complex conditions such as wind and ice loads, ensuring safe operation. With increasing transmission voltage levels and crossing distances, the size and stress requirements of gantry cranes are constantly increasing. Traditional designs often result in excessively heavy gantry cranes that fail to meet actual engineering needs. Lightweight design helps achieve structural optimization, meeting the performance indicators of higher-specification transmission lines.

[0012] To address the shortcomings of existing technologies, this invention provides a lightweight optimization system for a rocker arm structure gantry, comprising a processor, an analysis module, a calculation module, and an optimization module. The construction module builds a finite element model based on the structural characteristics of the rocker arm structure gantry. The analysis module performs finite element static analysis based on the finite element model, calculating the maximum displacement and maximum stress of the rocker arm structure gantry under different working conditions, and selecting the most critical working condition based on the maximum displacement and maximum stress. The calculation module optimizes the finite element model into an optimized model using a balance optimizer algorithm and a penalty function method, optimizing the dimensions of the material cross-sections of each segment of the rocker arm structure gantry to achieve the optimization objective of minimizing structural mass. The optimization module monitors the change curve of the total mass under the critical working condition during the iteration process based on the optimization model, obtaining the optimal parameters of the optimization model.

[0013] This lightweight optimization system for rocker arm structures establishes an accurate finite element model through a construction module. The analysis module directly calculates the maximum displacement and stress under different working conditions based on static analysis, accurately selecting hazardous working conditions as the optimization benchmark, thus avoiding the accuracy deviation caused by local approximations in traditional response surface methodology under complex loads. The calculation module innovatively integrates the balance optimizer algorithm and the penalty function method, enabling the algorithm to achieve a dynamic balance between global search and local exploitation, effectively avoiding local optimum traps. At the same time, allowable stress and displacement constraints are seamlessly integrated into the optimization objective through the penalty function, significantly improving the reliability of constraint handling. The optimization module monitors the change curve of the total mass in real time during the iteration process, dynamically adjusting the optimization strategy to ensure convergence to the global optimum, avoiding model errors caused by insufficient sample coverage. This technical solution not only optimizes the cross-sectional dimensions of each section of the gantry, taking into account the stress characteristics of the high-stress area at the root and the low-stress area in the middle, but also significantly reduces redundant calculations by focusing on dangerous working conditions, thereby reducing the dependence on high-performance computing resources. It fundamentally solves the core defects of traditional methods, such as insufficient accuracy of proxy models and limited sample quality, and provides a high-precision, high-efficiency and engineering-applicable technical path for the lightweight design of transmission tower gantry structures.

[0014] According to a preferred embodiment, the steps of constructing the finite element model by the building module include: using beam elements to simulate the standard section, stiffening section and mast of the mast; using cable elements to simulate the inner tension line and waist ring tension line under tension only; and releasing the rotational degree of freedom of the rocker arm about the Y-axis.

[0015] By constructing a finite element model, the structural stress characteristics of the mast can be accurately simulated. Beam elements are used to perform refined modeling of the standard section, reinforced section, and mast, realistically restoring the bending moment transmission path and stress distribution, avoiding the accuracy deviation caused by local approximations in the traditional response surface method. At the same time, the tension characteristics of the inner guy wire and waist ring guy wire are accurately simulated through cable-rod elements, effectively capturing the relaxation and stress concentration behavior of the cables under dynamic loads. Furthermore, the rotational degree of freedom of the rocker arm around the Y-axis is released, realistically reflecting the dynamic deflection and stress redistribution of the structure under strong wind or icing conditions. This completely avoids the problem of missing nonlinear features caused by the reliance on sample sampling in traditional methods, significantly improving the reliability of the optimization design under complex loads and the feasibility of engineering implementation.

[0016] According to a preferred embodiment, the steps of the analysis module to calculate the maximum displacement and maximum stress of the rocker arm structure under different working conditions include: calculating the displacement and stress generated at the end of the rocker arm under working conditions and strong wind conditions; generating displacement cloud maps and stress cloud maps based on the displacement and stress; identifying displacement deformation and maximum displacement based on the displacement cloud maps; and identifying stress distribution and maximum stress based on the stress cloud maps.

[0017] The maximum displacement and maximum stress of the pole-holding structure of the rocker arm under different working conditions are calculated by using the displacement nephogram and the stress nephogram, which can effectively solve the core defects of the traditional optimization method, such as insufficient accuracy of the surrogate model, limited sample coverage, and weak dynamic response capturing capability. Through the intuitive visualization of the displacement nephogram and the stress nephogram, the system can accurately identify the deformation mode and stress concentration area of the structure under working conditions and strong wind conditions, avoiding the accuracy deviation caused by local polynomial approximation in the traditional response surface method; at the same time, the displacement nephogram and the stress nephogram are directly generated based on finite element analysis, without relying on sample methods such as Latin hypercube sampling, significantly reducing the sensitivity to sample quality and solving the model error problem caused by insufficient sampling in the key area; in addition, the displacement nephogram and the stress nephogram can clearly present the dynamic deflection and stress redistribution characteristics of the rocker arm under strong wind or icing conditions, such as accurately locating the displacement extreme point and stress peak area at the end of the rocker arm, thereby providing a high-precision benchmark for optimization design, significantly reducing redundant calculation and improving engineering landing efficiency, and providing a reliable and practical technical path for lightweight design of the rocker arm structure of the power transmission tower.

[0018] According to a preferred embodiment, the step of calculating the optimization model based on the balance optimizer algorithm and the penalty function method includes: taking the objective function constructed by the penalty function method as the fitness function of the balance optimizer algorithm to guide the algorithm to search for feasible solutions that meet the constraints; wherein the minimum structural mass of the pole-holding structure of the rocker arm is taken as the optimization objective, the cross-sectional size of each component of the pole-holding structure of the rocker arm is taken as the design variable, and the maximum stress of the pole body and the rocker arm of the pole-holding structure of the rocker arm and the slenderness ratio of the rocker arm are taken as the constraints to establish the optimization model.

[0019] The optimization method takes the objective function constructed by the penalty function method as the fitness function of the balance optimizer algorithm, effectively solving the core defects in the prior art, such as insufficient accuracy of the surrogate model, unreliable constraint handling, and optimization easily falling into local optimum. The penalty function method seamlessly integrates constraints such as allowable stress and slenderness ratio into the mass minimization objective, avoiding the precision loss caused by separate handling of constraints in traditional methods, and significantly improving the reliability of constraint satisfaction; at the same time, the balance optimizer algorithm realizes dynamic balance between global search and local development, effectively avoiding the local optimal trap and ensuring accurate convergence to the global optimal solution in the optimization process. This design not only focuses on the differentiated cross-sectional size adjustment of the high-stress area at the root and the low-stress area in the middle of the pole-holding structure of the rocker arm, but also significantly reduces redundant calculation and reduces dependence on high-performance computing resources, fundamentally improving the accuracy, efficiency, and engineering practicality of the optimization design, and providing a high-precision, high-efficiency, and strong engineering landing technical path for lightweight design of the rocker arm structure of the power transmission tower.

[0020] According to a preferred embodiment, the optimization model is: ; ; ; ; ; wherein, represents the design variable seeking to meet the condition; represents the objective function reaching the minimum; represents the constraint condition; represents the design variable, referring to the sectional dimension of each component of the boom pole of the rocker arm structure; represents the to-be-determined sectional number of the channel steel, taking the first 5 sectional numbers as the value range; , and respectively represent the to-be-determined sectional number of the main material of the standard section, the reinforced section, the mast transition section and the mast ordinary section; , and respectively represent the to-be-determined sectional number of the auxiliary material of the standard section, the reinforced section, the mast transition section and the mast ordinary section; T represents the transpose, represents the total mass of the rocker arm structure boom 100, and respectively represent the stress constraint function, the displacement constraint function and the slenderness ratio constraint function. represents the maximum stress, represents the allowable stress; represents the maximum displacement, represents the maximum allowable displacement; represents the slenderness ratio of the rocker arm, represents the allowable slenderness ratio of the rocker arm.

[0021] The optimization model of the present application seamlessly integrates the stress, displacement and slenderness ratio constraints into the mass minimization objective through the penalty function method, completely solving the precision deviation caused by unreliable constraint processing in traditional methods; the optimizer algorithm dynamically balances global search and local development, effectively avoiding local optimal trap; the differentiated setting of design variables (such as independent optimization of the high stress area at the root and the low stress area in the middle) accurately matches the structural stress characteristics, eliminating the redundancy waste of "one-size-fits-all" design; at the same time, based on direct finite element analysis iteration, without relying on proxy model sample fitting, the calculation complexity is greatly reduced, and the optimization precision and efficiency are significantly improved, providing a high reliability, high efficiency and strong engineering landing technical path for lightweight design of the power transmission tower rocker arm structure.

[0022] ​​​The application provides a lightweight optimization method for a rocker structure holding pole from a second aspect.

[0023] The method of the application improves the calculation accuracy by fine finite element modeling (beam element simulates structure, cable-strut element simulates stay) and cloud analysis: directly restores the real stress characteristics, avoids the stress / displacement calculation deviation caused by local approximation of traditional proxy model; at the same time, based on the optimization process of penalty function method and balance optimizer algorithm, without relying on sample fitting, the calculation steps are greatly simplified, the iteration number is reduced, and the calculation convenience is improved. Compared with the defects of low precision, high sample dependence and easy to fall into local optimum in the prior art, the technical scheme realizes the unification of high precision and high efficiency, and provides a reliable and easy-to-land technical path for lightweight design of the rocker structure holding pole.

[0024] According to a preferred embodiment, the step of constructing a finite element model based on the structural characteristics of the rocker structure holding pole comprises: using beam elements to simulate the standard sections, reinforced sections and masts of the holding pole; using cable-strut elements to simulate the inner stay and waist ring stay which are only subjected to tension; and releasing the rotational freedom of the rocker around the Y axis.

[0025] By using beam elements to finely model the standard sections, reinforced sections and masts in the finite element model, the bending moment transmission path and stress distribution of the holding pole can be accurately restored, so that the structural stress characteristics thereof can be accurately simulated, and the precision deviation caused by local approximation in the traditional response surface method can be effectively avoided.

[0026] According to a preferred embodiment, the optimization model in the method is: ; ; ; ; ; wherein, represents the design variable that meets the condition; represents the target function reaching the minimum; represents the constraint condition; denote design variables, which refer to the cross-sectional dimensions of each component of the rocker structure; denote the to-be-determined cross-sectional numbers of the channel steel, and the value range is the first five cross-sectional numbers; denote the to-be-determined cross-sectional numbers of the main material of the standard section, the reinforced section, the mast transition section and the mast ordinary section, respectively; denote the to-be-determined cross-sectional numbers of the auxiliary material of the standard section, the reinforced section, the mast transition section and the mast ordinary section, respectively; T denotes transposition, denote the total mass of the rocker structure mast 100, denote stress constraint functions, displacement constraint functions and slenderness ratio constraint functions, respectively. denote the maximum stress, denote the allowable stress; denote the maximum displacement, denote the maximum allowable displacement; denote the rocker slenderness ratio, denote the allowable rocker slenderness ratio.

[0027] The optimization model of the present application uses the penalty function method to integrate the stress, displacement and slenderness ratio constraints into the mass minimization target, which fundamentally eliminates the precision error caused by inaccurate constraint processing in traditional methods; at the same time, the dynamic coordination of global search and local development of the balancing optimizer algorithm effectively prevents the occurrence of local optimal problems.

[0028] According to a preferred embodiment, in the method, the step of calculating the maximum displacement and the maximum stress of the rocker structure mast under different working conditions comprises: calculating the displacement generated at the end of the rocker and the stress borne under the working condition and the strong wind condition, generating a displacement nephogram and a stress nephogram based on the displacement and the stress; identifying the displacement deformation condition and the maximum displacement based on the displacement nephogram, and identifying the stress distribution condition and the maximum stress based on the stress nephogram.

[0029] The intuitive display of the displacement nephogram and the stress nephogram enables the system to accurately locate the deformation mode and the stress concentration area of the structure under the working condition and the strong wind condition, effectively eliminating the precision deviation caused by the local polynomial approximation of the traditional response surface method; at the same time, these nephograms are directly derived from the finite element analysis, without the need for sample methods such as Latin hypercube sampling, greatly reducing the dependence on sample quality, and completely solving the model error problem caused by insufficient sampling in the key area.

[0030] ​​​​​​​​According to one preferred embodiment, in the method, the step of optimizing the finite element model into an optimized model based on the balanced optimizer algorithm and the penalty function method comprises: taking the objective function constructed by the penalty function method as the fitness function of the balanced optimizer algorithm, and guiding the algorithm to search for a feasible solution satisfying the constraint; wherein the minimum structural mass of the boom of the rocker structure is taken as the optimization objective, the cross-sectional size of each component of the boom of the rocker structure is taken as the design variable, and the maximum stress of the boom and the rocker of the rocker structure and the slenderness ratio of the rocker are taken as the constraint, and the optimization model is established.

[0031] The technical means seamlessly integrates the stress, the slenderness ratio and the like constraints into the minimum mass minimization objective by the penalty function method, and completely solves the precision deviation problem caused by unreliable constraint processing in traditional optimization; meanwhile, the balanced optimizer algorithm dynamically coordinates global search and local development, effectively avoids local optimal trap, and realizes efficient lightweight design of the boom of the rocker structure under the condition of satisfying the constraint. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0032] Figure 1 is a structural schematic diagram of a boom of a rocker structure provided by the application; Figure 2 is a combined cross section of a rocker of a boom of a rocker structure provided by the application; Figure 3 is a transverse structural schematic diagram of a rocker of a boom of a rocker structure provided by the application; Figure 4 is a wind load wind direction diagram of a boom of a rocker structure provided by the application; Figure 5 is a schematic diagram of a finite element model of a boom of a rocker structure provided by the application; Figure 6 is a displacement nephogram of a fourth working condition before optimization provided by the application; Figure 7 is a stress nephogram of a fourth working condition before optimization provided by the application; Figure 8 is a schematic diagram of a total mass optimization convergence curve provided by the application; Figure 9 is a broken line diagram of the horizontal displacement of the top of the mast in each working condition before and after optimization provided by the application; Figure 10 is a broken line diagram of the maximum stress in each working condition before and after optimization provided by the application; Figure 11 is a displacement nephogram of a fourth working condition after optimization provided by the application; Figure 12 is a stress nephogram of a fourth working condition after optimization provided by the application; Figure 13 is a simplified structural schematic diagram of a lightweight optimization system of a boom of a rocker structure provided by the application; Figure 14 is a logic diagram of the lightweight optimization system of the rocker structure derrick provided by the present application.

[0033] List of reference signs 100: rocker structure derrick; 110: standard section; 111: standard segment; 120: reinforcing section; 121: inner guy; 122: waist ring guy; 123: reinforcing segment; 130: rocker; 140: mast section; 141: mast; 150: luff rope; 200: 90-degree wind direction; 210: 45-degree wind direction; 220: 0-degree wind direction; 300: processor; 310: construction module; 320: analysis module; 330: calculation module; 340: optimization module. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0034] The following will be described in detail with reference to the drawings.

[0035] Example 1 Figure 1 The derrick shown is not a complete derrick structure, but a test derrick in the construction process, and its structure does not include complete reinforcing sections 120 and standard sections 110. For the specific division method and structural features of the reinforcing sections 120 and the standard sections 110, please refer to Figure 5 for details. As Figure 5 shown, the main body of the rocker structure derrick 100 is composed of a standard section 110, a reinforcing section 120, a rocker 130 for hoisting, and a mast section 140. The secondary structure of the rocker structure derrick 100 includes a luff rope 150 for controlling the lifting angle of the rocker 130, an inner guy 121, a slewing segment, a waist ring guy 122 for lifting stability, etc. Figure 5 A partial enlarged view of the rocker 130 is also shown.

[0036] The total height of the rocker structure derrick 100 is 72 m, of which the standard section 110 is 50 m, the reinforcing section 120 is 16 m, the mast section 140 includes a mast transition section 1 m and a mast ordinary section 5 m, totaling 6 m, and the rocker 130 is 6 m. The cross-sectional size of the pole body of the rocker structure derrick 100 and the mast 141 is 500 mm x 500 mm, and the top of the mast adopts a variable cross-section design. The slewing segment of the rocker structure derrick 100 is provided with an inner guy 121, and the included angle with the plumb line of the rocker structure derrick 100 is 20°. Seven waist rings are provided between the rocker structure derrick 100 and the iron tower. The waist ring guy 122 is connected to the iron tower through a construction hole, and the spacing of each waist ring is 8 m. The component size of the original design of the rocker structure derrick 100 is listed in Table 1, the main material is Q345 steel, and the auxiliary material is Q235 steel. The rocker 130 is formed into a combined cross-section by two channel steels in a way that the flange ends are end-to-end, as Figure 2 shown. Figure 2 In the combined cross-section of the rocker 130, x-yOn the plane. Round steel is welded to the channel steel in the middle to improve rigidity and strength, such as... Figure 3 As shown.

[0037] In the mechanical analysis of composite sections of channel steel, lowercase letters x and y are usually used to represent the local coordinate system of the section, which is used to define the geometric properties of the section in these two directions, such as the moment of inertia (Ix, Iy). Figure 2 The x-axis and y-axis shown are used to express the local coordinate system and its corresponding cross-sectional properties.

[0038] When describing the direction of external loads (such as wind loads), a global coordinate system represented by uppercase letters is usually used, namely the X-axis and Z-axis. Figure 4 The X and Z directions shown correspond to the horizontal and vertical wind directions of the structure in the global coordinate system, respectively, and are used to characterize the direction of action of external loads on the overall structure, rather than to describe the local geometric properties of the cross section.

[0039] Table 1: Angle steel specifications and rocker arm channel steel specifications for each section

[0040] As a cantilever structure, the rocker arm structure gantry 100's self-weight directly acts on the tower body, significantly increasing the tower's bending moment and axial pressure. During hoisting, the increased inertial force of the heavier structure leads to increased vibration and sway amplitude. Furthermore, the rocker arm of the gantry 100 is a cantilever component, and its stability is closely related to the balance between its self-weight and the suspended load. A heavier gantry 100 significantly increases the overturning moment. Therefore, the gantry 100 requires lightweight design to mitigate these risks. Currently, existing technologies lack lightweight optimization systems and methods for the gantry 100. This invention aims to provide a lightweight optimization system and method for the gantry 100, applying the Equilibrium Optimizer (EO) algorithm and penalty function method to optimize the dimensions of the gantry 100.

[0041] The lightweight optimization system for the rocker arm structure gantry 100 of the present invention includes a processor 300. The processor 300 is used to run a coding program for lightweight optimization of the rocker arm structure gantry 100. Preferably, the processor 300 can also be connected to a memory and a network interface. The physical hardware of the processor 300 can be a dedicated integrated chip, a multi-core processor, a PLC controller, etc.

[0042] like Figure 13As shown, the processor 300 comprises a construction module 310, an analysis module 320, a calculation module 330 and an optimization module 340. Preferably, when the processor 300 is an independent physical hardware, the construction module 310, the analysis module 320, the calculation module 330 and the optimization module 340 can be functionally different coded programs.

[0043] When the processor 300 is integrated by multiple multi-core processors, the construction module 310, the analysis module 320, the calculation module 330 and the optimization module 340 are independent multi-core processors respectively. In this case, the construction module 310 and the analysis module 320 are connected through an internal bus, the analysis module 320 and the calculation module 330 are connected through an internal bus, and the calculation module 330 and the optimization module 340 are connected through an internal bus.

[0044] The construction module 310 constructs a finite element model based on the structural characteristics of the rocker structure derrick 100. The analysis module 320 performs finite element static analysis based on the finite element model, calculates the maximum displacement and the maximum stress of the rocker structure derrick 100 under different working conditions, and selects a dangerous working condition based on the maximum displacement and the maximum stress. The calculation module 330 optimizes the finite element model to an optimized model based on the balance optimizer algorithm and the penalty function method, and optimizes the material section of each segment of the rocker structure derrick 100 in size to achieve the optimization goal of minimizing the structural mass. The optimization module 340 monitors the change curve of the total mass of the dangerous working condition in the iteration process based on the optimized model, and obtains the optimal parameters of the optimized model, such as Figure 13 As shown.

[0045] According to a preferred embodiment, the process of constructing the finite element model by the construction module 310 is as follows.

[0046] For the convenience of modeling calculation, the following conventions are made: the axis direction when the rocker 130 rotates 0° is defined as the X direction, the direction perpendicular to the rocker 130 is defined as the Z direction, and the rocker 130 rotates in the counterclockwise direction, as shown in Figure 4 The positive direction of X is defined as the 0-degree wind direction 220 of the wind load, the positive direction of Z is defined as the 90-degree wind direction 200 of the wind load, and the diagonal direction of the two is defined as the 45-degree wind direction 210 of the wind load.

[0047] The designed rocker structure derrick 100 is appropriately simplified, and a finite element model is established, as shown in Figure 5 As shown in Figure 1 and Figure 14 Beam elements are used to simulate the standard sections 111, the reinforced sections 123 and the masts 141 of the rocker structure derrick 100; cable-strut elements are used to simulate the inner pull wires 121 and the waist ring pull wires 122 which are only subjected to tension; and the rotation freedom of the rocker 130 around the Y axis is released. The rocker 130 is adjusted in the working range by the luffing rope 150.

[0048] The load borne by the rocker arm structure gantry 100 mainly includes its own weight, wind load, and the weight of the tower materials lifted by both sides of the rocker arm 130. The lifting load of the rocker arm structure gantry 100 is considered under two conditions: symmetrical lifting and eccentric lifting. Under symmetrical lifting, the lifting load on both sides is 15 kN. Under eccentric lifting, the lifting load on one side is 15 kN, and the lifting load on the other side is 11.25 kN. Wind load is calculated according to three wind directions: 0°, 45°, and 90°. Wind speeds are considered under working conditions (13.8 m / s) and strong wind conditions (28.4 m / s). No work is carried out under strong wind conditions, and the rocker arm 130 of the rocker arm structure gantry 100 is not lifted, meaning the load at both ends is 0. The load conditions solved for the rocker arm structure gantry 100 are listed in Table 2.

[0049] Table 2: Load Cases

[0050] In Table 2, the load conditions for the first working condition (No. 1) are: wind speed of 13.8 m / s, wind direction of 90°, symmetrical lifting, and the rocker arm rotation angle of 130° is 0°.

[0051] The load conditions for the second working condition (No. 2) are: wind speed of 13.8 m / s, wind direction of 45°, symmetrical lifting, and the rocker arm rotates at a 130° angle of 45°.

[0052] The load conditions for the third working condition (No. 3) are: wind speed of 13.8 m / s, wind direction of 90°, and eccentric lifting with the rocker arm rotating at 0° for 130°.

[0053] The load conditions for the fourth working condition (No. 4) are: wind speed of 13.8 m / s, wind direction of 90°, and eccentric lifting with a 130° swing angle of 45°.

[0054] The load conditions for the fifth working condition (No. 5) are: wind speed of 28.4 m / s, wind direction of 90°, and rocker arm rotation angle of 0°.

[0055] The wind load acting on the rocker arm structure strut 100 under the following working condition is calculated using the following formula: ; ; .

[0056] In the above formula, This indicates the working wind load acting on the rocker arm structure strut 100; This represents the wind force coefficient; and the wind resistance reduction factor. Related; This indicates the calculation of wind pressure, in relation to wind speed. Related; represents the solid wind area of the hoisting mechanism component perpendicular to the wind direction. In a square tower, when the wind acts along the diagonal direction of the tower cross section, that is, the wind direction is 45°, the wind load is the largest, at this time, the wind load should be taken as 1.2 times the positive windward area wind load, at this time, the wind load should be calculated according to the following formula: .

[0057] In addition, under the condition of strong wind, the wind load acting on the rocker arm structure holding pole 100 is calculated according to the following formula: ; .

[0058] In the above formula, represents the wind pressure height variation coefficient, h represents the height from the ground, represents a constant, which is 0.3.

[0059] The process of the analysis module 320 calculating the maximum displacement and maximum stress of the rocker arm structure holding pole 100 under different working conditions is as follows.

[0060] The analysis module 320 calculates the displacement generated at the end of the rocker arm 130 and the stress borne under the working condition and the strong wind condition, as shown in Figure 14 .

[0061] Specifically, the above five working conditions are solved by using a finite element model. The stress data of the five working conditions of the present application before optimization are shown in Table 3. The results show that the fourth working condition is the most dangerous working condition. The analysis module 320 generates a displacement cloud map and a stress cloud map based on the displacement and stress, as shown in Figure 14 . Preferably, the displacement cloud map of the rocker arm structure holding pole 100 under the fourth working condition before optimization is shown in Figure 6 . The analysis module 320 identifies the displacement deformation condition and the maximum displacement based on the displacement cloud map of the rocker arm structure holding pole 100, as shown in Figure 14 . The displacement deformation condition refers to the distribution state of the displacement modulus of each spatial node of the rocker arm structure holding pole 100 under the load, as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 11 . In Figure 6 and Figure 11 , the displacement cloud map uses color scale to map the displacement value, and the color changes continuously from blue to red, corresponding to the increasing trend of the displacement modulus from small to large, the blue area represents a smaller displacement, and the red area represents a larger displacement, thereby directly reflecting the relative degree and distribution characteristics of the structural deformation. As can be seen from Figure 6 , the maximum displacement under the fourth working condition before optimization is 91.44 mm, which occurs at the end of the right rocker arm 130, which is due to the unbalanced load lifting weight causing the rocker arm structure holding pole 100 to tilt to the left and generating the maximum displacement at the end of the right rocker arm 130. At the same time, the horizontal displacement of the mast top is 39.85 mm.

[0062] The General Technical Conditions and Test Methods for Overhead Transmission Line Construction Pole published by the National Energy Administration states that the pole body top horizontal displacement of the guyed cantilever structure pole shall not exceed 1.34H / 100 (H is the free section height of the cantilever structure pole). For the rocker arm structure pole 100 optimized in the present application, the mast top horizontal displacement does not exceed 214.4 mm.

[0063] As shown in Figure 14 , the analysis module 320 identifies the stress distribution and the maximum stress based on the stress contour map. The stress distribution refers to the distribution of stress size of the rocker arm structure pole 100 at each spatial position, which is specifically shown in Figure 7 and Figure 12 . In the stress contour maps shown in Figure 7 and Figure 12 , the color scale is used to show the distribution of stress values, where the blue area represents a lower stress level and the red area represents a higher stress level. The transition from blue to red color represents the gradual increase of stress from low to high. This representation method intuitively reflects the distribution characteristics and gradual change trend of the internal stress of the structure, which facilitates accurate identification and analysis of high stress concentration areas and potential structural weaknesses. As shown in Figure 7 , the maximum stress of the rocker arm structure pole 100 is 124.54 MPa. For the pole main material Q345 steel, the allowable stress is 172.5 MPa under the condition of a stress safety factor of 2. At this time, the maximum stress occurs at the top of the main pole of the reinforcing section 120, which is also caused by the leftward deviation of the rocker arm structure pole 100 due to the influence of the eccentric load and the 90° wind direction load. Therefore, considering the maximum stress, the present application takes the fourth working condition as the dangerous working condition and carries out structural optimization design based on this working condition.

[0064] Table 3: Stress data before and after optimization of five working conditions

[0065] According to a preferred embodiment, the step of the calculation module 330 optimizing the finite element model into an optimized model based on the balance optimizer algorithm and the penalty function method includes: taking the objective function constructed by the penalty function method as the fitness function of the balance optimizer algorithm, and guiding the algorithm to search for feasible solutions that meet the constraints, as shown in Figure 14 .

[0066] The iteration principle of the balance optimizer algorithm is that the population contains many individuals with different concentrations, and the concentration of each individual represents a different solution. The concentration is updated by simulating the process of different individuals entering, leaving and generating in the control volume.

[0067] The standard balance optimizer algorithm mainly contains three stages: (1) concentration initialization, (2) updating the candidate solutions in the balance pool, and (3) updating the concentration of individuals by iterative formula.

[0068] In the first stage, the balance optimizer algorithm initializes the population by randomly generated way, and the mathematical model formed is: .

[0069] where, represents the initial concentration vector, and represent the upper and lower bounds of the design variables, respectively, N represents the number of particles in the population; represents a random number between 0 and 1.

[0070] In the second stage, the balance pool is composed of the four best candidate solutions and their average value in the optimization process, and is updated after each iteration. The mathematical model of the initial balance pool is: .

[0071] where, represents the balance pool of the algorithm; represents the four candidate solutions with the best fitness value in the iteration, represents the average position of the four best individuals. In addition, in each iteration, the calculation module 330 randomly selects a candidate solution from the balance pool with equal probability.

[0072] In the third stage, the balance optimizer algorithm contains two core update rules: the exponential term F that controls the exploration of the algorithm and the generating term G that controls the development of the algorithm.

[0073] The mathematical model of the exponential term is: .

[0074] where, represents the constant 2; and both represent a random number between 0 and 1. represents the coefficient of the balance optimizer algorithm. The expression of F is as follows: .

[0075] where, represents the current iteration number, represents the maximum number of iterations of the algorithm; represents a constant, taking the value 1.

[0076] The mathematical model of the generating term G is: ; .

[0077] wherein, represents a candidate solution randomly selected from the balance pool; represents the current (pre-update) position of the individual, both represent random values between [0, 1]. represents a constant with a value of 0.5; represents a unit vector. Therefore, the update formula of the balance optimizer algorithm is: .

[0078] wherein, represents the updated position of the individual.

[0079] Although the balance optimizer algorithm is a global optimization algorithm, its core goal is to find the optimal solution through iterative search, the balance optimizer algorithm itself does not directly handle the constraint conditions, but rather finds the optimal solution by optimizing the objective function (such as minimizing mass). In the design of the rocker structure boom 100, constraints such as maximum stress, maximum displacement, and slenderness ratio are key to ensuring the safety and functionality of the structure. If only relying on the balance optimizer algorithm for optimization, some constraints may be ignored or cannot be strictly met, which may lead to adverse consequences. For example, the maximum stress exceeding the allowable stress of the material may cause the structure to break or deform; excessive displacement may affect the stability and operation precision of the rocker structure boom 100, and even cause the equipment to malfunction; and the slenderness ratio not meeting the requirements may cause the structure to lose stability, increasing the risk during construction and use.

[0080] In addition, although the balance optimizer algorithm has strong global search capability, it may still fall into a local optimal solution when dealing with complex and multi-constrained optimization problems. In particular, in the design of the rocker structure boom 100, there is a complex nonlinear relationship between design variables (such as cross-sectional dimensions) and constraint conditions, and the balance optimizer algorithm may not be able to find a global optimal solution, but rather stay at a certain local optimal solution. To address these issues, the introduction of the penalty function method can effectively overcome the shortcomings of the balance optimizer algorithm, ensure that the optimization results strictly meet all constraint conditions, improve optimization efficiency, and achieve multi-objective optimization, ultimately obtaining a safe, reliable, and lightweight design scheme for the rocker structure boom 100.

[0081] In the constrained optimization problem, the invention introduces the constraint condition into the objective function of the balance optimizer algorithm by using the penalty function method. The basic idea is to convert the constrained optimization problem into an unconstrained optimization problem by adding a constraint penalty term to the original objective function. In the optimization process, infeasible solutions are penalized for violating the constraints, so they are at a disadvantage in the population competition; while feasible solutions or individuals close to feasible solutions are at an advantage due to less penalty. With this mechanism, the balance optimizer algorithm can automatically balance feasibility and optimality during the search process, gradually approach the feasible region and find the optimal solution of the problem. The framework is as follows: .

[0082] The constrained optimization is represented as: ; .

[0083] Wherein, represents the original objective function, represents the constraint function, represents the weighted transformation term of the constraint function, which is called the penalty term.

[0084] In the invention, the calculation module 330 takes the minimization of the structural mass of the rocker structure holding pole 100 as the optimization objective, takes the cross-sectional size of each component of the rocker structure holding pole 100 as the design variable, takes the maximum stress of the pole body and the rocker 130 of the rocker structure holding pole 100 and the slenderness ratio of the rocker 130 as the constraint, and establishes an optimization model as shown in Figure 14 .

[0085] According to a preferred embodiment, the optimization model is: ; ; ; ; ; Wherein, represents the design variable that meets the condition; represents the minimization of the objective function ; represents the constraint condition; represents the design variable, which refers to the cross-sectional size of each component of the rocker structure holding pole 100; represents the to-be-determined cross-sectional number of the channel steel, and the value range is the first 5 cross-sectional numbers; , , and These represent the section numbers of the main materials to be determined for standard section 111, reinforced section 123, mast transition section, and ordinary mast section, respectively. , , and These represent the section numbers to be determined for the auxiliary materials of standard section 111, reinforced section 123, mast transition section, and ordinary mast section, respectively; T indicates transposition. This indicates the total mass of the rocker arm structure support rod 100. , and These represent the stress constraint function, displacement constraint function, and slenderness ratio constraint function, respectively. Indicates the maximum stress. Indicates allowable stress; Indicates the maximum displacement. Indicates the maximum permissible displacement; Indicates the length-to-slenderness ratio of the rocker arm. This indicates the allowable slenderness ratio of the rocker arm.

[0086] Preferably, such as Figure 5 As shown, standard sections 111 are interconnected to form standard segment 110. (Combined with...) Figure 1 and Figure 5 The reinforcing sections 123 are interconnected to form the reinforcing segment 120. Preferably, both the standard section 111 and the reinforcing section 123 are 2m sections. Because the standard section 111 and the reinforcing section 123 are almost indistinguishable in appearance, differing only in the specifications of the angle steel used, therefore... Figure 5 Only the structural diagram of standard section 111 is enlarged. Preferably, combined with Figure 1 and Figure 5 The masts 141 are connected to each other to form mast section 140.

[0087] Preferably, The design variable is represented by the cross-section model, as shown in Table 4 of the cross-section model library. The cross-sections of each component of the rocker arm structure mast 100 are selected from the cross-section model library.

[0088] Table 4: Cross-section Model Library

[0089] Preferably, the optimization module 340 optimizes the finite element model of the fourth working condition, which has the highest stress among the five working conditions, using a total iteration count of T=100 and a population size of 20. The change curve of the objective function during the optimization process is shown in the figure. Figure 8 As shown. Figure 8 In the diagram, the horizontal axis represents the number of iterations, and the vertical axis represents the total mass t. From... Figure 8 It can be seen that the total mass t gradually decreases during the iteration process, and achieves stable convergence at the 50th iteration.

[0090] The present application analyzes the optimization results to obtain the numerical change rate of the quality of each design variable before and after optimization, as shown in Table 5. At the same time, the stresses of the five working conditions after optimization are shown in Table 3.

[0091] Table 5: Numerical change rate before and after optimization of design variables

[0092] As can be seen from Table 5, the main materials and auxiliary materials of the standard section 111, the reinforced section 123, the mast transition section, and the mast ordinary section of the new type of rocker structure holding pole 100 after optimization have different degrees of weight reduction, among which The corresponding mast ordinary section main material weight reduction is the most obvious, with a mass change rate of -45.04%, the total mass of the rocker structure holding pole 100 is reduced from 3.305 t to 2.837 t, with a weight reduction amplitude of -14.16%, the optimization effect is obvious, and the rocker structure holding pole 100 after optimization meets the stable safety factor, i.e. the buckling coefficient is not less than 2.0. In addition, the total mass of the rocker structure holding pole 100 in Table 5 is directly obtained from the finite element model in the analysis module 320, and includes the mass of the secondary structure of the rocker structure holding pole 100, and the secondary structure of the rocker structure holding pole 100 remains the original design.

[0093] According to the rocker structure holding pole 100 section angle size determined in the optimization results of Table 5, the finite element model is modified, and the finite element static calculation and analysis are carried out. The maximum stresses under the five working conditions before and after optimization are shown in Table 3, the mast top horizontal displacement results under the five working conditions before and after optimization are shown in Table 4, the displacement nephogram of the rocker structure holding pole 100 under the fourth working condition after optimization is shown in Table 6, and the stress nephogram of the rocker structure holding pole 100 under the fourth working condition after optimization is shown in Table 7. Figure 10 Figure 9 Figure 11 Figure 12

[0094] Figure 9 The horizontal axis of the figure represents the working condition category, and the vertical axis represents the mast top horizontal displacement, with the unit of mm. The red broken line represents the mast top horizontal displacement after optimization. The gray broken line represents the mast top horizontal displacement before optimization. Figure 9 ​​​​The changes in the horizontal displacement of the mast top before and after optimization are shown. In the fourth operating condition, the values ​​of the horizontal displacement of the mast top reached their minimum points before and after optimization. For the fourth operating condition, the value of the horizontal displacement of the mast top after optimization was higher than that before optimization. For the first, second, third, and fifth operating conditions, the values ​​of the horizontal displacement of the mast top after optimization were also higher than those before optimization, and the difference in horizontal displacement before and after optimization was more significant than in the fourth operating condition. This indicates that after weight reduction, the structural constraints or stiffness characteristics of the rocker arm structure mast 100 changed, causing the horizontal displacement of the mast top to increase compared to before optimization. This reflects that the impact of the weight reduction optimization of the rocker arm structure mast 100 on the horizontal displacement of the mast top has operating condition specificity.

[0095] Figure 10 The horizontal axis represents the operating condition category, and the vertical axis represents the maximum stress, in MPa. The red line represents the maximum stress after optimization. The gray line represents the maximum stress before optimization. Figure 10 The changes in maximum stress before and after optimization are shown. Under the fourth working condition, the maximum stress values ​​reached their highest points both before and after optimization. For the fourth working condition, the maximum stress value after optimization is higher than that before optimization, indicating that the maximum stress that the rocker arm structure strut 100 can withstand under the same working condition has increased.

[0096] like Figure 9 and Figure 10 As shown, the maximum stress of the boom 100 and the horizontal displacement of the mast top are slightly increased after optimization compared to before optimization. This is because the optimization process aims to maximize material utilization and achieve maximum weight reduction.

[0097] like Figure 11 As shown, the maximum displacement of the rocker arm structure mast 100 in the optimized fourth working condition is 100.97 mm. The horizontal displacement of the mast top is 48.12 mm, which is also less than 214.4 mm and meets the requirements.

[0098] like Figure 12 As shown, the maximum stress of the rocker arm structure 100 in the optimized fourth working condition is 163.1 MPa, which is less than the allowable stress of 172.5 MPa and meets the safety regulations.

[0099] The optimized rocker arm slenderness ratio was verified, and the calculated area of ​​a single leg of the 12# channel steel is: A 0 = 1536 mm 2 The total area is A= 2× A 0 = 3072 mm 2 , I x =3430000 mm 4 .

[0100] The total moment of inertia of the cross section is: .

[0101] According to the moment of inertia of the cross section of the rocker arm, the rocker arm rotation radius is calculated by the following formula: .

[0102] The slenderness ratio of the rocker arm structure holding pole 100 is: .

[0103] In the above formula, denotes the length coefficient, denotes the length of the rocker arm.

[0104] According to GB 50017-2017 "Steel Structure Design Standard", the slenderness ratio is required to be less than 150, and the verification result shows that the 12# channel steel can meet the requirement of the slenderness ratio.

[0105] As described above, in terms of optimizing the mass of the rocker arm structure holding pole 100, the penalty function method can significantly reduce the total mass of the rocker arm structure holding pole 100 by taking the total mass of the rocker arm structure holding pole 100 as the objective function and combining the constraint conditions. In the present application, the total mass of the optimized rocker arm structure holding pole 100 is reduced from 3.305 tons to 2.837 tons, with a weight reduction of 14.16%. In terms of stress distribution optimization, the penalty function method introduces stress constraints to ensure that the maximum stress of the optimized rocker arm structure holding pole 100 meets the design requirements. Specifically, the maximum stress of the optimized rocker arm structure holding pole 100 is 163.1 MPa, which is lower than the allowable stress of 172.5 MPa. For displacement optimization, the penalty function method ensures that the maximum displacement of the rocker arm structure holding pole 100 meets the design standards through displacement constraints. In the present application, the maximum displacement of the optimized rocker arm structure holding pole 100 is 100.97 mm, and the horizontal displacement at the top of the mast is 48.12 mm, both of which are less than the specified 214.4 mm. This significant lightweight effect not only reduces the amount of material used and reduces manufacturing costs, but also improves the overall mechanical performance utilization of the rocker arm structure holding pole 100. Lightweight design enables the rocker arm structure holding pole 100 to meet the strength and stiffness requirements, achieving economy and efficiency of the structure.

[0106] During the optimization process, by adjusting the size of each part of the rocker arm structure holding pole 100, the stress distribution of the material is more uniform, avoiding local overdesign or weak links, and improving the efficiency of material use. The optimized structure can more reasonably bear the load, enhancing the stability and safety of the structure, and maximizing the utilization of material performance.

[0107] The design is in the form of a double-groove steel split embrace pole with a rocker structure, which shows good practical feasibility for the application scene of small embrace poles. The groove steel structure has certain standardization advantages in manufacturing and installation, is simple in structure and easy to realize, and is conducive to popularizing the lightweight design method.

[0108] It should be noted that the above specific embodiments are exemplary, and those skilled in the art can come up with various solutions under the inspiration of the disclosure of the present application, and these solutions also belong to the disclosed range of the present application and fall within the protection scope of the present application. Those skilled in the art should understand that the specification and drawings of the present application are illustrative and do not constitute a limitation on the claims. The protection scope of the present application is defined by the claims and their equivalents. The specification of the present application contains multiple inventive concepts, such as "preferably", "according to a preferred embodiment", which means that the corresponding paragraph discloses an independent concept, and the applicant reserves the right to file a divisional application according to each inventive concept.

Claims

1. A lightweight optimization system for a boom structure of a swing arm, characterized by, The system comprises a processor (300), the processor (300) comprises: A construction module (310) constructs a finite element model based on the structural characteristics of the derrick structure boom (100); An analysis module (320) performs finite element static analysis based on the finite element model, calculates the maximum displacement and the maximum stress of the derrick structure boom (100) under different working conditions, and selects a dangerous working condition based on the maximum displacement and the maximum stress; A calculation module (330) optimizes the finite element model into an optimized model based on a balance optimizer algorithm and a penalty function method, optimizes the material section of each segment of the derrick structure boom (100) in size, and achieves the optimization goal of minimizing the structural quality; An optimization module (340) monitors the change curve of the total mass of the dangerous working condition in the iteration process based on the optimized model, and obtains the optimal parameters of the optimized model.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein, The step of constructing the finite element model by the construction module (310) comprises: Beam elements are used to simulate the standard sections (111), the reinforced sections (123) and the masts (141) of the boom; Cable-strut elements are used to simulate the inner pull wires (121) and the waist ring pull wires (122) which are only subjected to tension; The rotation freedom of the derrick (130) around the Y axis is released.

3. The system of claim 1 or 2, wherein, The step of calculating the maximum displacement and the maximum stress of the derrick structure boom (100) under different working conditions by the analysis module (320) comprises: The displacement and the stress generated at the end of the derrick (130) under the working condition and the strong wind condition are calculated, Displacement and stress cloud maps are obtained based on the finite element model; The displacement deformation and the maximum displacement are identified based on the displacement cloud map, The stress distribution and the maximum stress are identified based on the stress cloud map.

4. The system of any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein, The step of optimizing the finite element model into an optimized model by the calculation module (330) based on the balance optimizer algorithm and the penalty function method comprises: The objective function constructed by the penalty function method is used as the fitness function of the balance optimizer algorithm to guide the algorithm to search for feasible solutions that meet the constraints; Wherein, the minimization of the structural quality of the derrick structure boom (100) is taken as the optimization goal, the section sizes of the components of the derrick structure boom (100) are taken as the design variables, and the maximum stress of the shaft and the derrick (130) and the slenderness ratio of the derrick (130) are taken as the constraints to establish the optimization model.

5. The system of any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein, The optimization model is: ； ； ； ； ； wherein, denotes the design variables seeking to meet the conditions; denotes the objective function reaching the minimum; denotes the constraint conditions; denotes the design variables, referring to the cross-sectional dimensions of each component of the rocker arm structure; denotes the to-be-determined cross-sectional number of the channel steel, taking a value in the range of the first 5 cross-sectional numbers; and denote the to-be-determined cross-sectional number of the main material of the standard section (111), the reinforced section (123), the mast transition section and the mast ordinary section, respectively; and denote the to-be-determined cross-sectional number of the auxiliary material of the standard section (111), the reinforced section (123), the mast transition section and the mast ordinary section, respectively; T denotes the transpose, denotes the total mass of the rocker arm structure mast (100), and denote the stress constraint function, the displacement constraint function and the slenderness ratio constraint function, respectively; denotes the maximum stress, denotes the allowable stress; denotes the maximum displacement, denotes the maximum allowable displacement; denotes the rocker arm slenderness ratio, denotes the allowable rocker arm slenderness ratio.​​​​​ 6. A lightweight optimization method of a derrick structure of a swing arm structure, characterized by, The method comprises: A finite element model is constructed based on the structural characteristics of the derrick structure boom (100); Finite element static analysis is performed based on the finite element model, the maximum displacement and the maximum stress of the derrick structure boom (100) under different working conditions are calculated, and a dangerous working condition is selected based on the maximum displacement and the maximum stress; The finite element model is optimized into an optimized model based on a balance optimizer algorithm and a penalty function method, the material section of each segment of the derrick structure boom (100) is optimized in size, and the optimization goal of minimizing the structural quality is achieved; The change curve of the total mass of the dangerous working condition in the iteration process is monitored based on the optimized model, and the optimal parameters of the optimized model are obtained.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein, The step of constructing a finite element model based on the structural features of the rocker structure derrick (100) comprises: using beam elements to simulate the standard sections (111), reinforced sections (123) and masts (141) of the derrick; using cable-strut elements to simulate the inner pull wires (121) and waist ring pull wires (122) subjected to tension only; releasing the rotation freedom of the rocker (130) around the Y axis.

8. The method according to claim 6 or 7, characterized in that, The optimization model is: ； ； ； ； ； wherein, denotes the design variables seeking to meet the conditions; denotes the objective function reaching the minimum; denotes the constraint conditions; denotes the design variables, referring to the sectional dimensions of each component of the rocker arm structure holding pole; denotes the to-be-determined sectional number of the channel steel, taking the value range of the first 5 sectional numbers; and respectively denote the to-be-determined sectional number of the main material of the standard section (111), the reinforced section (123), the mast transition section and the mast ordinary section; and respectively denote the to-be-determined sectional number of the auxiliary material of the standard section (111), the reinforced section (123), the mast transition section and the mast ordinary section; T denotes the transpose, denotes the total mass of the rocker arm structure holding pole (100), and respectively denote the stress constraint function, the displacement constraint function and the slenderness ratio constraint function; denotes the maximum stress, denotes the allowable stress; denotes the maximum displacement, denotes the maximum allowable displacement; denotes the rocker arm slenderness ratio, denotes the allowable rocker arm slenderness ratio.​​​​​ 9. The method according to any one of claims 6 to 8, characterized in that, The step of calculating the maximum displacement and maximum stress of the rocker structure derrick (100) under different working conditions comprises: calculating the displacement generated at the end of the rocker (130) and the stress borne by the rocker (130) under the working condition and the strong wind condition, obtaining displacement nephograms and stress nephograms based on the finite element model; identifying displacement deformation conditions and maximum displacement based on the displacement nephograms, identifying stress distribution conditions and maximum stress based on the stress nephograms.

10. The method according to any one of claims 6 to 9, characterized in that, The step of optimizing the finite element model into an optimization model based on the balancing optimizer algorithm and the penalty function method comprises: using the objective function constructed by the penalty function method as the fitness function of the balancing optimizer algorithm to guide the algorithm to search for feasible solutions that meet the constraints; wherein the minimization of the structural mass of the rocker structure derrick (100) is taken as the optimization objective, the cross-sectional dimensions of the components of the rocker structure derrick (100) are taken as the design variables, and the maximum stress of the shaft of the rocker structure derrick (100) and the rocker (130), the slenderness ratio of the rocker (130) are taken as the constraints to establish the optimization model.

Images