A method for determining the installation relationship of a ship's through-passage based on three-dimensional geometric intersection

Abstract

This invention provides a method for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hull components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection, belonging to the technical field of three-dimensional modeling. The method includes: acquiring hull structure data, task module data, and through-hull component data and performing unified modeling; extracting a reference structure set, module interface set, and through-hull component feature set under a unified coordinate system; constructing installation candidate domains and generating through-hull component candidate corridors based on these; performing three-dimensional geometric intersection between the through-hull component axis and the installation candidate domain, and automatically determining the installation base position and crossing direction by combining multiple intersection point screening; further analyzing the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship, and clearance constraint relationship of the through-hull component; identifying interface docking mismatch, directional docking mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch through matching consistency verification; and iteratively updating the installation relationship through installation correction analysis and geometric intersection until the constraint conditions are met.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the technical field of three-dimensional modeling, and specifically to a method for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection. Background Technology

[0002] With the development of modular ships and unmanned marine system mother ships, a large number of internal equipment on ships are gradually adopting mission-modular design, allowing for rapid replacement of different mission modules according to operational needs. In such ship structures, mission modules are typically connected to the hull structure via through-hole components to facilitate the continuous arrangement of cables, pipes, or structural connectors between different sections. When a mission module is replaced, the axial position, crossing path, and installation relationship between the through-hole component and openings in the hull structure often need to be redefined. In existing technologies, the installation relationship of through-hole components usually relies on experience-based layout from two-dimensional drawings, manual comparison of partial structural models, or simple spatial distance measurement methods. Designers manually adjust the hull structure model and module interface positions to determine the approximate installation position and crossing path of the through-hole component, and then make local dimensional corrections based on experience to complete the design of the through-hole component's installation relationship.

[0003] However, during module replacement scenarios, the interface positions, orientations, and numbers of different task modules may change. Furthermore, the internal structural components, reinforcing members, and opening boundaries of the hull have complex spatial distributions. Existing technologies relying on manual experience or local distance measurements struggle to accurately determine the spatial interaction between the through-hull axis and the hull structure within the overall three-dimensional structural environment. This can easily lead to problems such as interface docking direction deviations, interference between the crossing path and structural components, or insufficient safety distances at opening boundaries. Simultaneously, existing methods often require repeated manual adjustments to the through-hull position and re-comparison after installation conflicts are discovered. The lack of an automatic intersection and consistency verification mechanism based on overall geometric relationships results in low efficiency and insufficient stability in determining installation relationships, making it difficult to quickly obtain through-hull installation relationships that meet structural safety constraints and interface docking requirements under complex module replacement scenarios. Summary of the Invention

[0004] This invention provides a method for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection, which can improve the efficiency of determining the installation relationship of modular ship through-hole components.

[0005] In a first aspect of the present invention, a method for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection is provided, the method comprising: Acquire hull structure data, mission module data, and through-hole component data of the target vessel under the current module replacement condition; Perform unified modeling processing on the hull structure data, the mission module data, and the through-hole component data, and establish a unified coordinate system to extract the reference structure set, module interface set, and through-hole component feature set. An installation candidate domain is constructed based on the module interface set and the reference structure set, and the through-hole component model is arranged in the through-hole component candidate corridor formed in the direction of the module interface based on the through-hole component feature set; A three-dimensional geometric intersection process is performed between the axis of the through-hole component and the candidate installation domain, and the installation base and crossing direction are determined by screening multiple intersection points. Based on the installation base and the crossing direction, the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship and clearance constraint relationship of the cabin component are analyzed to form an initial installation relationship set; The initial installation relationship set is subjected to a matching consistency check to identify interface docking mismatch, directional docking mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch. Based on the identified mismatch type, installation correction parsing is performed and the three-dimensional geometric intersection and installation relationship parsing are re-executed until the target installation relationship set that meets the matching consistency check conditions is obtained. Based on the target installation relationship set, an installation result set is generated and an installation dimension drawing, an installation relationship table, and a change traceability record are output to form the result of determining the installation relationship of the through-cabin parts.

[0006] In a second aspect of the invention, an apparatus for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection is provided. The apparatus is used to execute a method for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection as described above. The apparatus includes an acquisition module, a processing module, and an output module, wherein: The acquisition module is used to acquire the hull structure data, mission module data and through-hole component data of the target vessel under the current module replacement condition; The processing module is used to perform unified modeling processing on the hull structure data, the mission module data and the through-hole component data and establish a unified coordinate system, and extract the reference structure set, the module interface set and the through-hole component feature set. The processing module is used to construct an installation candidate domain based on the module interface set and the reference structure set, and to arrange the through-hole component model in the through-hole component candidate corridor formed in the direction of the module interface based on the through-hole component feature set. The processing module is used to perform three-dimensional geometric intersection processing with the installation candidate domain around the axis of the through-hull component, and to determine the installation base and crossing direction by screening multiple intersection points. The processing module is used to analyze the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship and clearance constraint relationship of the through-hole component based on the installation base and the crossing direction, so as to form an initial installation relationship set; The processing module is used to perform a matching consistency check on the initial installation relationship set to identify interface docking mismatch, directional docking mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch, and to perform installation correction parsing and re-execute three-dimensional geometric intersection and installation relationship parsing according to the identified mismatch type until the target installation relationship set that meets the matching consistency check conditions is obtained. The output module is used to generate an installation result set based on the target installation relationship set and output an installation dimension diagram, an installation relationship table, and a change traceability record to form a determination result of the installation relationship of the through-cabin parts.

[0007] In a third aspect of the invention, an electronic device is provided, including a processor, a memory, a user interface, and a network interface, wherein the memory is used to store instructions, the user interface and the network interface are both used to communicate with other devices, and the processor is used to execute the instructions stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to perform the method as described in any of the preceding embodiments.

[0008] In a fourth aspect of the invention, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is provided, the computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed, perform the method as described in any of the preceding claims.

[0009] In summary, one or more technical solutions provided in the embodiments of the present invention have at least the following technical effects or advantages: This invention unifies the modeling of hull structure data, task module data, and through-hull component data, establishing a unified coordinate system. This allows the hull structure, module interfaces, and through-hull component geometric features to be uniformly expressed under the same spatial reference, enabling direct analysis of the spatial relationship between the through-hull component axis and the hull structure within the overall three-dimensional structural environment. Furthermore, by constructing installation candidate domains and through-hull component candidate corridors, and performing three-dimensional geometric intersection and multi-intersection point filtering around the through-hull component axis, the invention automatically determines the installation base position and crossing direction. Combined with axial installation relationships, in-plane positioning relationships, boundary constraint relationships, and clearance constraint relationships, an initial set of installation relationships is formed. Matching consistency checks identify interface docking mismatches, directional docking mismatches, structural collision mismatches, and boundary safety mismatches. Simultaneously, based on the mismatch type, installation correction analysis is performed, and the installation relationships are iteratively updated. This ensures that the through-hull component installation position automatically converges to the target set of installation relationships that satisfy interface design constraints, structural safety constraints, and installation process constraints under overall structural constraints. This reduces the reliance on repeated adjustments based on manual experience, achieving automatic solution and automatic verification of through-hull component installation relationships, and improving the efficiency and stability of determining through-hull component installation relationships for modular ships. Attached Figure Description

[0010] Figure 1This is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection, as disclosed in an embodiment of the present invention. Figure 2 This is a structural schematic diagram of a ship through-hole component disclosed in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of a candidate corridor for a through-cabin component disclosed in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of a module for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection, as disclosed in an embodiment of the present invention. Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device disclosed in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0011] Explanation of reference numerals in the attached drawings: 401, acquisition module; 402, processing module; 403, output module; 501, processor; 502, communication bus; 503, user interface; 504, network interface; 505, memory. Detailed Implementation

[0012] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the technical solutions in this specification, the technical solutions in the embodiments of this specification will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments.

[0013] In the description of the embodiments of the present invention, words such as "for example" or "for instance" are used to indicate examples, illustrations, or explanations. Any embodiment or design described as "for example" or "for instance" in the embodiments of the present invention should not be construed as being more preferred or advantageous than other embodiments or designs. Rather, the use of words such as "for example" or "for instance" is intended to present the relevant concepts in a specific manner.

[0014] In the description of the embodiments of the present invention, the term "multiple" means two or more. For example, multiple systems means two or more systems, and multiple screen terminals means two or more screen terminals. Furthermore, the terms "first" and "second" are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance or implicitly specifying the indicated technical features. Thus, a feature defined with "first" or "second" may explicitly or implicitly include one or more of that feature. The terms "comprising," "including," "having," and variations thereof all mean "including but not limited to," unless otherwise specifically emphasized.

[0015] With the development of modular ships, when replacing mission modules, it is necessary to redetermine the installation position and crossing path of through-hole components in the hull structure. Existing technologies usually rely on experience in 2D drawings or manual comparison with 3D structural models to determine the installation relationship of through-hole components. This method is difficult to accurately handle the spatial relationship between the axis of the through-hole component and the hull structure in a complex 3D structural environment. It is prone to problems such as interface docking deviation, structural interference, and insufficient boundary safety distance. Furthermore, repeated manual adjustments are required after conflicts are discovered, resulting in low efficiency and poor stability in determining the installation relationship. It is difficult to meet the requirements for rapid and accurate installation of through-hole components under module replacement conditions.

[0016] This embodiment discloses a method for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection, referring to... Figure 1 This includes the following steps S110-S170: This invention discloses a method for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection. This method is applied to a server, which includes, but is not limited to, electronic devices such as mobile phones, tablets, wearable devices, and PCs (Personal Computers). It can also be a backend server running the method for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection. The server can be a standalone server or a server cluster consisting of multiple servers.

[0017] S110: Obtain the target vessel's hull structure data, mission module data, and through-hole component data under the current module replacement condition.

[0018] S120 performs unified modeling processing on hull structure data, mission module data, and through-hole component data, establishes a unified coordinate system, and extracts reference structure set, module interface set, and through-hole component feature set.

[0019] S130: Construct installation candidate domains based on module interface set and reference structure set, and arrange through-hole component models in through-hole component candidate corridors formed in the direction of module interface based on through-hole component feature set.

[0020] S140 performs three-dimensional geometric intersection processing with the installation candidate domain around the axis of the through-cabin component, and determines the installation base and crossing direction through multi-intersection point screening.

[0021] S150, based on the installation base and crossing direction, analyzes the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship and clearance constraint relationship of the cabin components to form an initial installation relationship set.

[0022] S160, perform a matching consistency check on the initial installation relationship set to identify interface docking mismatch, direction docking mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch, and perform installation correction parsing according to the identified mismatch type, and re-execute three-dimensional geometric intersection and installation relationship parsing until the target installation relationship set that meets the matching consistency check conditions is obtained.

[0023] S170 generates an installation result set based on the target installation relationship set and outputs an installation dimension drawing, an installation relationship table, and a change traceability record to form the determination result of the through-cabin component installation relationship.

[0024] In one possible implementation, the target vessel object corresponding to the current module replacement condition is first determined, and a binding relationship is established between the vessel identifier and the module replacement condition identifier. The module replacement condition characterizes the task module replacement status that the target vessel needs to perform during a specific operational phase. It typically includes information such as the module replacement area, module interface location, module installation direction, and module reachable channels. Around the module replacement condition, the hull structure data corresponding to the target vessel is read. Hull structure data refers to a set of data describing the geometric shape and topological relationship of the internal and external structures of the hull, usually derived from a three-dimensional structural model database or a hull structure digital model library formed during the ship design phase. The hull structure data includes at least bulkhead structure models, deck structure models, longitudinal skeleton structure models, transverse skeleton structure models, reinforcing member models, and opening boundary models. The bulkhead structure model characterizes the partition structure between different compartments, the deck structure model characterizes the load-bearing structure between different height layers, the longitudinal and transverse skeleton structure models characterize the skeletal components of the hull structure, the reinforcing member models characterize local reinforced areas, and the opening boundary models characterize the locations and outlines of openings in the hull structure that allow components to pass through. By reading the above structural model and organizing it in a unified manner, a complete set of hull structure data can be obtained, thus providing a spatial structural foundation for subsequent through-hole component path analysis and structural intersection calculation.

[0025] After acquiring the hull structure data, the task module data corresponding to the module replacement condition is read. Task module data refers to a set of information describing the geometry, interface locations, and installation attitude of the replaceable task module, typically sourced from a task module design model library or module equipment database. Task module data includes at least a module outline model, a module interface model, and a module installation reference model. The module outline model represents the overall outer contour of the task module; the module interface model represents the interface structure connecting the task module to the hull structure or other modules; and the module installation reference model represents the positioning reference relationship of the task module within the hull structure. The module interface model typically includes the interface center position, interface direction vector, and interface connection type information. The interface center position represents the coordinate position of the interface in three-dimensional space; the interface direction vector represents the connection direction of the interface; and the interface connection type represents whether the interface is a pipe interface, cable interface, or structural connection interface. By reading the module outline model, module interface model, and module installation reference model, a complete task module data set can be formed, allowing subsequent installation relationship analysis to revolve around the task module interface locations.

[0026] After acquiring the task module data, the data for through-hull components is further read. Through-hull component data refers to a collection of information describing the geometry and installation characteristics of connecting components that penetrate different sections of the hull structure; this data typically originates from a through-hull component design library or a ship equipment database. (Refer to...) Figure 2 A through-cabin component is a structural member used to enable the continuous arrangement of cables, pipes, or structural connections between different compartments. It generally has a defined axial structure and an installation end face that crosses the structural boundary. Through-cabin component data includes at least a geometric model, an axial model, and an installation end face model. The geometric model represents the overall outer contour of the through-cabin component; the axial model represents its central extension direction in space; and the installation end face model represents the end face structure where the through-cabin component connects to module interfaces or structural interfaces. The axial model is typically represented by a three-dimensional straight line or curve, with its start point, end point, and direction vector representing the extension path of the through-cabin component in space. The installation end face model is typically represented by a set of end face contours and end face normals, where the end face contours represent the shape of the end face boundary, and the end face normals represent the orientation of the end face. By reading the geometric model, axis model, and installation end face model of the through-hole component, a complete data set of the through-hole component can be formed, enabling subsequent steps to perform intersection calculations and installation relationship analysis based on the spatial relationship between the axis of the through-hole component and the hull structure.

[0027] Through the above processing, a set of data on the hull structure, a set of data on the task modules, and a set of data on the through-hole components corresponding to the module replacement conditions are formed. The ship identifier, the module replacement condition identifier, the module interface identifier, and the through-hole component identifier are bound to the data structure respectively, so as to form a unified relationship between different types of data, providing a complete data foundation for subsequent unified modeling processing and three-dimensional geometric intersection analysis.

[0028] In one possible implementation, unified modeling processing is performed on the hull structure data, mission module data, and through-cabin component data to establish a unified coordinate system. Reference structure sets, module interface sets, and through-cabin component feature sets are extracted. Specifically, this includes: performing structural object parsing processing on the hull structure data to extract plate contours, reinforcing member contours, opening contours, segment boundaries, compartment boundaries, and positioning reference information, and establishing a structural object index to form a hull structure model; performing interface object parsing processing on the mission module data to extract module interfaces, module connection boundaries, module mounting surfaces, and module attitude parameters, and establishing a module object index to form a mission module model; and performing through-cabin component object parsing processing on the through-cabin component data to extract the through-cabin component solid contours, end boundaries, center direction information, and installation control boundaries, and establishing a through-cabin component object index to form a through-cabin component model. A through-hull model is created; unified modeling processing is performed on the hull structure model, mission module model, and through-hull model, forming a three-dimensional object model system through geometric expression standardization, topological relationship standardization, and attribute field standardization; a structural datum of the target ship is selected and a unified coordinate system is established in combination with assembly datum data, and the hull structure model, mission module model, and through-hull model are mapped to the unified coordinate system; mounting plate surfaces, through-plate surfaces, opening boundaries, reinforcing member boundaries, and positioning datum lines are extracted from the hull structure model to form a reference structure set; the position, direction, end face, and envelope boundary of the module interface are extracted from the mission module model to form a module interface set; the through-hull axis, upper surface, lower surface, mounting end face, and outer contour of the through-hull are extracted from the through-hull model to form a through-hull feature set.

[0029] Specifically, the hull structure data is first processed by structural object parsing. Structural object parsing refers to breaking down the geometric, boundary, and attribute information mixed in the original hull structure data into independently identifiable, indexable, and computable structural object units. Plate profiles refer to the outer boundary shape of plate-like components that constitute the main load-bearing structure of the hull, usually used to represent the actual extent of bulkheads, deck plates, bottom plates, or side plates; stiffening member profiles refer to the geometric boundaries of profiles, elbows, stiffeners, or reinforcing frames attached to plates, used to describe the spatial occupancy of local reinforced areas; opening profiles refer to the boundary shape of openings on plates that allow through-hole components to pass through, used to characterize the structural opening areas that can be used or need to be avoided for through-hole components; segment boundaries refer to the spatial boundary edges formed during the manufacturing or assembly of hull segments, used to define the segment range to which the current structural object belongs; compartment boundaries refer to the spatial separation boundaries between different compartments, used to characterize the compartment range to which the installation area belongs; positioning reference information refers to the reference points, reference lines, reference surfaces, and their identification information used for unified positioning during hull design and assembly, used to provide a unified reference for subsequent dimension analysis and coordinate mapping. During implementation, the surfaces, solids, edges, and attribute labels in the hull structure data are analyzed one by one. Geometric elements that can form complete plate-like regions are contour-closed to obtain the plate contours. The outer envelope of solids connected to the plates and possessing reinforcement attributes is extracted to obtain the reinforcement component contours. Boundary tracking is performed on the edges of openings on the plates to obtain the opening contours. Then, based on hull assembly markings and compartment markings, segment boundaries and compartment boundaries are extracted. Existing data in the design model, such as datum planes, theoretical centerlines, rib lines, and station lines, are uniformly organized into positioning datum information. After completion, a unique structural object identifier is assigned to each structural object, and a structural object index is established. The structural object index is a retrieval table that binds structural object identifiers with object type, geometric range, spatial location, adjacent object relationships, and region relationships. This is used for subsequent rapid location of related structural objects, thereby forming the hull structure model.

[0030] Subsequently, interface object parsing processing is performed on the task module data. Interface object parsing processing refers to extracting module connection objects directly related to the installation of the through-hull component from the task module data and converting them into module objects that can participate in spatial calculations. A module interface refers to the interface structure on the task module used to form a physical connection with the through-hull component or other equipment; it can be represented as a flange interface, connector interface, pipe joint interface, or mounting hole interface. A module connection boundary refers to the connection restriction boundary formed around the module interface or module body, used to describe the usable and non-intrusive space around the interface. A module mounting surface refers to the reference surface where the task module contacts and is fixed to the hull structure or supporting structure, used to characterize the assembly attitude dependence relationship of the task module. Module attitude parameters refer to the set of parameters describing the translational position and rotational state of the task module in three-dimensional space, typically including position coordinates, Euler angles, direction cosines, or rotation matrices, used to characterize the actual spatial attitude of the task module under the current module replacement condition. During implementation, firstly, all interface entities with connection attributes are identified from the task module data. Their center positions, end face boundaries, and interface orientations are analyzed to form module interfaces. Next, the envelope edges related to connection behavior around the module body are extracted to form module connection boundaries. Surfaces in contact with hull support positions, mounting brackets, or mounting bases are identified to form module mounting surfaces. Simultaneously, based on the placement position, locking status, and assembly direction of the task module in the current module replacement scenario, module attitude parameters are calculated. After completion, a module object index is created for each module object. The module object index is a retrieval table that associates module interfaces, module connection boundaries, module mounting surfaces, and module attitude parameters with the same task module identifier. This index is used for subsequent rapid backtracking of surrounding geometry and assembly information by module interface, thereby forming the task module model.

[0031] Next, the through-hull component data undergoes through-hull component object parsing processing. This process involves extracting key geometric objects and their control boundaries from the through-hull component data, reflecting its installation and traversal behavior. The through-hull component entity contour refers to the external geometric boundary of the through-hull component body in three-dimensional space, used to describe the overall space occupied by the through-hull component; the end boundary refers to the boundary contour at both ends of the through-hull component used to connect or restrict installation positions, used to characterize the contact edges between the through-hull component and module or structural interfaces; the center direction information refers to the directional information describing the main extension direction of the through-hull component, used to characterize the center propagation direction of the through-hull component through the hull structure; and the installation control boundary refers to the control boundary that limits the installable range, insertion depth, exposed length, or assembly contact surface of the through-hull component, used to provide boundary references for subsequent installation relationship analysis. During implementation, the outermost geometric boundary of the through-hull component is first extracted from the solid model in the data to generate the solid outline of the through-hull component. Then, the connecting surfaces, sealing surfaces, or insertion surfaces at both ends of the through-hull component are identified, and their outer edges are extracted to generate end boundaries. Next, center direction information is extracted through centerline fitting, symmetry axis identification, or principal direction analysis. Simultaneously, control surfaces or control lines related to installation depth, installation contact position, and exposed position are identified to generate installation control boundaries. After completion, a unique through-hull component object identifier is assigned to each through-hull component object, and a through-hull component object index is established. The through-hull component object index is a retrieval table that organizes the solid outline, end boundaries, center direction information, and installation control boundaries of the through-hull component according to the same through-hull component identifier. This index is used for subsequent rapid retrieval of the geometric features required for through-hull component installation, thereby forming the through-hull component model.

[0032] After the hull structure model, mission module model, and through-hole component model are formed, a unified modeling process is performed on all three. This unified modeling process involves converting model objects from different sources, with different representation methods, and different attribute structures into 3D object models that can be compatiblely expressed under the same computational system. Geometric representation standardization involves converting surface models, mesh models, boundary representation models, solid models, or scan-reconstructed models into standard geometric representations that can participate in intersection, projection, distance measurement, and envelope analysis. Topological relationship standardization involves uniformly defining and encoding adjacency, containment, connection, and dependency relationships between objects to ensure consistent identification of object relationships across different models. Attribute field standardization involves using unified field naming and formats for object identifiers, object categories, region identifiers, version identifiers, operating condition identifiers, and material or functional attributes for subsequent retrieval and traceability. During implementation, the plates, boundaries, and reinforcing members in the hull structure model are first converted into unified parametric surfaces or boundary representation objects; the interfaces and mounting surfaces in the task module model are converted into unified connection objects; and the contours and control boundaries in the through-hull component model are converted into unified feature objects. Then, the inclusion, adjacency, and constraint relationships between objects are established; for example, a certain opening contour belongs to a certain plate contour, a certain module interface belongs to a certain task module, and a certain end boundary belongs to a certain through-hull component. Finally, the attribute fields of all types of objects are unified. Upon completion, a three-dimensional object model system is formed. The three-dimensional object model system refers to a comprehensive set of three-dimensional models built on the basis of unified geometric representation, unified topological relationships, and unified attribute fields, used to support subsequent spatial association calculations across models.

[0033] After establishing the 3D object model system, the structural datum of the target ship is selected and a unified coordinate system is established in conjunction with the assembly datum data. The structural datum refers to the unified reference datum used to express the spatial position of the entire ship during the design and construction of the hull structure. It typically includes the hull centerline, baseline, positioning plane, or segmental theoretical coordinate datum. Assembly datum data refers to the data set describing the installation datum information of mission modules and through-hole components relative to the hull structure during assembly. It typically includes docking datum points, assembly datum lines, locking datum planes, and calibration offset information. The unified coordinate system is a coordinate system that places the hull structure model, mission module model, and through-hole component model within the same spatial reference frame, ensuring that the distances, directions, and positional relationships between the objects can be directly compared. During implementation, the existing main structural datum of the target vessel is first selected as the global reference. Then, based on the assembly datum data, a transformation relationship is constructed from the local coordinate system of the task module, the local coordinate system of the through-hull component, to the global coordinate system of the hull. Subsequently, each structural object in the hull structural model is fixed to this global coordinate system. The task module model is mapped to the global coordinate system based on the module attitude parameters and assembly datum data, and the through-hull component model is mapped to the global coordinate system based on the initial definition of the installation control boundary and the connection end. Mapping refers to transforming the object from the original local space to a unified reference space through translation transformation, rotation transformation, and necessary scale unification processing. After this processing, all three types of models are mapped to a unified coordinate system, thereby ensuring that all subsequent spatial intersections and spatial measurements are performed within the same coordinate frame.

[0034] After completing the unified coordinate mapping, the mounting plate surface, through-plate surface, opening boundary, reinforcing member boundary, and positioning datum line are extracted from the hull structure model to form a reference structure set. The mounting plate surface refers to the plate-like surface that allows for the fixing or support of the through-hole component, used to support the installation position of the through-hole component; the through-plate surface refers to the plate-like structural surface through which the axis of the through-hole component may pass, used to support the core intersection object in subsequent three-dimensional geometric intersection calculations; the opening boundary refers to the boundary of the structural opening that allows the through-hole component to pass through, used to define the installable range of the opening edge; the reinforcing member boundary refers to the outer edge of the reinforcing member in space, used to define the avoidance area and the clearance analysis area; the positioning datum line refers to the reference line used to mark the installation position, such as rib lines, longitudinal datum lines, or segmented datum lines, used for subsequent in-plane positioning relationship analysis. During implementation, based on the installation area range of the current module replacement condition, plate objects and boundary objects adjacent to the installation area are selected from the hull structure model. Installation plates are extracted from plates with installation attributes, through-plates are extracted from plates intersecting with the potential crossing direction of through-hole components, opening boundaries are directly extracted from orifice boundaries, reinforcing member boundaries are extracted from the outer edges of reinforcing objects, and positioning baselines are extracted from existing baseline objects. These objects are then organized into a reference structure set according to a unified data structure. The reference structure set refers to the set of structural reference objects that participate in the subsequent construction of installation candidate domains and the resolution of installation relationships.

[0035] Next, the position, orientation, end face, and envelope boundary of the module interfaces are extracted from the task module model to form a module interface set. Position refers to the three-dimensional coordinate information of the module interface in a unified coordinate system, used to determine the spatial location of the interface; orientation refers to the connection direction of the module interface, used to define the initial direction of the candidate corridor for the through-hole component and subsequent crossing directions; end face refers to the surface boundary where the module interface actually connects, used to perform docking relationship analysis with the installation end face of the through-hole component; envelope boundary refers to the minimum outer envelope boundary formed around the module interface, used to describe the space occupied and non-intrusive space around the interface. During implementation, the center point coordinates, normal vector, or principal direction vector of each module interface in the task module model are read to determine its position and orientation; then, the actual connection end face geometric boundary of the interface is extracted to determine the end face; simultaneously, an envelope boundary is generated based on the interface body and the outer edge of its surrounding protective structure or connectors. Finally, the above position, orientation, end face, and envelope boundary are organized according to the module interface identifier to form a module interface set. The module interface set refers to the set of interface objects subsequently used to define the starting point and directional constraints for the through-hole component layout.

[0036] Finally, the through-hub component model is used to extract the through-hub component axis, upper surface, lower surface, mounting end face, and outer contour to form a feature set. The through-hub component axis refers to the centerline object representing the main extension direction and center crossing path of the through-hub component, used for subsequent 3D geometric intersection calculations; the through-hub component upper surface refers to the control surface located on one side of the through-hub component according to the installation definition, used for subsequent calculations of the one-side installation position in the axial installation relationship; the through-hub component lower surface refers to the control surface on the opposite side of the through-hub component upper surface, used for subsequent calculations of the other side installation position; the through-hub component mounting end face refers to the end surface that connects to the module interface or structural interface, used for docking consistency analysis; the through-hub component outer contour refers to the outer boundary envelope of the through-hub component body, used for subsequent boundary constraint relationship and clearance constraint relationship analysis. During implementation, the axis of the through-hull component is extracted using the center direction information and the center of the solid contour; control surfaces located on both sides of the axis or at both ends of the installation direction are identified according to the installation control boundary definition, and the upper and lower surfaces of the through-hull component are determined respectively; the installation end face of the through-hull component is extracted through the end boundary and its attached surface; and the outer contour of the through-hull component is generated by extracting the overall outer envelope of the solid contour. Subsequently, the above features are organized into a through-hull component feature set according to the same through-hull component identifier. The through-hull component feature set refers to the set of core feature objects that subsequently participate in the generation of candidate corridors for through-hull components, three-dimensional geometric intersection, axial installation relationship analysis, docking consistency verification, and clearance analysis.

[0037] In one possible implementation, an installation candidate domain is constructed based on a set of module interfaces and a set of reference structures. The through-cabin model is then arranged in a through-cabin candidate corridor formed by the module interface direction based on a set of through-cabin features. Specifically, this includes: performing matching analysis between the module interfaces in the module interface set and the through-cabin feature set, including the through-cabin mounting end face, through-cabin axis direction, and through-cabin outer contour, to determine the target module interface; constructing an interface adjacency space based on the position and direction of the target module interface, and selecting structural objects from the reference structure set that have spatial relationships with the interface adjacency space to form a candidate structural object set; performing directional correlation filtering on the candidate structural object set based on the interface direction of the target module interface to form a target structural object set; constructing a spatial combination region based on the mounting plate surface, through-plate surface, opening boundary, reinforcing member boundary, and positioning baseline in the target structural object set; performing overlay and trimming processing on the spatial combination region to form an installation candidate domain; and reading the through-cabin axis, through-cabin mounting end face, through-cabin upper surface, through-cabin lower surface, and through-cabin outer contour from the through-cabin feature set, and generating a through-cabin candidate corridor with the through-cabin axis as the center line.

[0038] Specifically, a matching analysis is first performed on each module interface in the module interface set and the hatchway feature set, including the hatchway mounting end face, hatchway axis direction, and hatchway outer contour, to determine the target module interface. Here, a module interface refers to an interface object on a task module that can form a physical connection with the hatchway, possessing at least an interface position, interface direction, interface end face, and interface envelope boundary. The hatchway mounting end face refers to the end surface of the hatchway used to connect with the module interface; the hatchway axis direction refers to the direction vector corresponding to the center extension direction of the hatchway; and the hatchway outer contour refers to the spatial envelope boundary of the hatchway body. During implementation, the interface end face center, interface direction vector, and interface end face contour of each module interface are read sequentially from the module interface set. Then, the end face center, hatchway axis direction vector, and hatchway outer contour cross-sectional dimensions of the hatchway mounting end face are read from the hatchway feature set. Subsequently, the end face mating compatibility, direction consistency, and contour inclusiveness are calculated separately, and the three are weighted and fused to form an interface matching score. End-face compatibility measures the degree of fit in shape and size between the mounting end face of the through-hole component and the module interface end face; directional consistency measures the alignment between the axis direction of the through-hole component and the direction of the module interface; and contour containment measures whether the outer contour of the through-hole component can be arranged within the space surrounding the interface. After scoring all module interfaces, the module interface with the highest comprehensive score and meeting the preset threshold condition is selected as the target module interface, thereby avoiding the problem of confusion in the starting point of the through-hole component arrangement when multiple interfaces exist simultaneously.

[0039] End-face mating compatibility can be calculated jointly by end-face area difference, end-face contour overlap, and end-face center offset. The end-face area difference reflects the degree of dimensional matching between the two end faces; the end-face contour overlap reflects the consistency of their planar geometry; and the end-face center offset reflects the spatial proximity of the two end faces. Orientation consistency is preferably measured using the angle between direction vectors; a smaller angle indicates easier low-deviation docking of the through-hull component's installation end faces. Contour inclusion is preferably determined by the margin between the module interface envelope boundary and the minimum outer envelope of the through-hull component's outer contour. If the usable space around the module interface is less than the space requirement of the through-hull component's outer contour, then even if the end-face mating and orientation matching are good, the module interface cannot be used as the target module interface. The expression for the matching score is: in, This represents the overall matching score between the module interface and the through-hole components; a higher value indicates a higher degree of matching. This indicates the end-face contact compatibility, and its preferred value range is 0 to 1. This indicates the degree of directional consistency, and its preferred value range is 0 to 1. This represents the contour coverage, and its preferred value range is 0 to 1. , and These represent the weighting coefficients of the three categories of indicators, with each coefficient being greater than 0, and the sum of the three preferably being 1. The principle behind this formula is to uniformly map the geometric shape factor, directional factor, and spatial capacity factor that determine the interface connectability to the same scoring space, thereby completing the selection of the target module interface with a single evaluation metric.

[0040] After determining the target module interface, an interface adjacency space is constructed based on the target module interface's location and orientation. Then, structural objects with spatial relationships to the interface adjacency space are selected from the reference structure set to form a candidate structural object set. Here, the interface adjacency space refers to a local three-dimensional space centered on the target module interface, extending along the interface direction, and covering a certain spatial range around the interface. It is used to define the local structural range directly related to the current installation task. Spatial relationship refers to a relationship between a structural object in the reference structure set and the interface adjacency space, including intersection, adjacency, projection overlap, or a minimum distance less than a preset threshold. During implementation, refer to... Figure 3First, the location of the target module interface is used as the starting center point of the interface adjacency space, and the direction of the target module interface is used as the main extension direction of the interface adjacency space. Then, a directional envelope space is generated based on the outer contour dimensions of the through-hole component, the preset installation allowance, and the preset intersection search length. This envelope space can be expressed as a cuboid, elliptical cylinder, or variable cross-section corridor. Its length is used to cover the expected passage path of the through-hole component, and its lateral width is used to cover the outer contour of the through-hole component and the installation correction allowance. Then, the interface adjacency space is spatially associated with the mounting plate surface, through plate surface, opening boundary, reinforcing member boundary, and positioning baseline in the reference structure set one by one. All structural objects that meet the spatial association conditions are retained as candidate structural objects.

[0041] The construction of the interface adjacency space is not simply a spherical expansion of the interface location, but must also reflect the constraint effect of the interface direction on the installation propagation direction. If a non-directional expansion method related only to the interface location is adopted, a large number of irrelevant structural objects located behind or to the side of the interface will be incorrectly included in the candidate set, resulting in an excessively wide subsequent installation candidate domain and increasing the number of spurious intersection solutions. Therefore, it is preferable to establish a directional adjacency space with the interface direction as the axis. The length of the directional adjacency space should be greater than the sum of the nominal length of the through-hull component and the estimated structural crossing length, and the lateral dimension should be greater than the sum of the maximum lateral dimension of the through-hull component's outer contour and the preset installation compensation amount. The interface adjacency space can be represented as a spatial volume jointly constrained by the axial interval along the interface direction and the lateral envelope perpendicular to the interface direction. Its essence is to provide a spatial window for subsequent local structural screening, so that a large number of irrelevant structural objects within the entire ship are eliminated in advance.

[0042] After obtaining the candidate structural object set, directional correlation screening is performed on the candidate structural object set according to the interface direction of the target module interface to form the target structural object set. This directional correlation screening refers not only to determining whether a structural object has a geometric proximity relationship with the interface's adjacent space, but also to further determining whether the geometric orientation, normal distribution, or boundary extension direction of the structural object has an installation-meaning association with the interface direction of the module interface. The target structural object set refers to the set of structural objects that are both within the interface's adjacent space and meet the directional requirements for passage of the cabin component. During implementation, for installation and passage surfaces, the focus is on whether the angle between the surface normal and the interface direction meets the preset intersection range; for opening boundaries, the focus is on whether the plane or boundary center normal has a valid passage relationship with the interface direction; for reinforced component boundaries, the focus is on whether the boundary area is located on the structural propagation path pointed to by the interface direction; for positioning reference lines, the focus is on whether they can provide a stable positioning reference in a reference plane perpendicular to the interface direction. After screening, only those structural objects that simultaneously meet the conditions in spatial location and directional attributes are retained, thus forming the target structural object set.

[0043] For plate-type structural objects, the physical meaning of directional correlation is that if the plate surface normal is approximately perpendicular to the interface direction, the axis of the through-hole component will find it difficult to form an effective crossing relationship with the plate surface when propagating along the interface direction; it will usually only form a grazing or distant adjacency. If the plate surface normal has a suitable angle with the interface direction, it indicates that the plate surface has interception significance for the current propagation path of the through-hole component axis, and it should be a key object to be considered in subsequent intersection calculations. For boundary-type structural objects, the significance of directional correlation is that if the boundary intersects with the interface's adjacent space, but the boundary is located in the opposite direction of the interface direction or significantly deviates from the main propagation path, its constraint significance for the current installation path is weak, and it should be eliminated. The role of directional correlation screening is to perform another filtering based on the installation mechanism on the candidate structural object set, so that the final set of target structural objects truly has a direct correlation with subsequent 3D geometric intersection calculations and installation constraint formation.

[0044] A spatial combination region is constructed based on the mounting plate surface, through-plate surface, opening boundary, reinforcing member boundary, and positioning baseline in the target structural object set. This spatial combination region refers to a composite local spatial region formed by jointly representing different types of target structural objects in a unified coordinate system. The mounting plate surface provides the structural bearing surface for possible fixed installation of the through-hull component; the through-plate surface provides the main intersection object of the through-hull component's axis; the opening boundary defines the usable hole positions or hole position boundary range; the reinforcing member boundary defines the avoidance zone and high-risk collision zone; and the positioning baseline defines the reference frame for subsequent in-plane positioning analysis. In implementation, the mounting plate surface and through-plate surface first form the main spatial skeleton. Then, the opening boundary is mapped onto the local parameter domain of the corresponding plate surface to form the hole position restriction region. The reinforcing member boundary is extended outward by a preset safety distance along its normal and tangential directions to form the avoidance restriction region. The positioning baseline is then projected onto the corresponding plate surface to form a positioning reference zone. Finally, the main spatial skeleton, hole position restriction region, avoidance restriction region, and positioning reference zone are superimposed in the unified coordinate system to obtain the spatial combination region.

[0045] The construction of a spatial composite region essentially involves unifying the installable area, traversable area, prohibited intrusion area, and positioning reference area within a local structural space into a composite descriptive framework. The mounting and traversing surfaces determine where the cabin components might contact or penetrate the structure; the opening boundaries determine the availability of openings within the local area; the reinforcing component boundaries determine which local areas, while geometrically accessible, are unsuitable for entry from a strength or collision perspective; and the positioning baseline enables in-plane position calibration beyond spatial analysis. The resulting spatial composite region is no longer a single geometric boundary but a composite structural space encompassing installation possibilities, installation limitations, and installation references, providing an input basis for subsequent overlay and trimming processes.

[0046] Subsequently, overlay and trimming processes are performed on the spatial combination area to form the installation candidate domain. Overlay refers to jointly calculating the sub-regions within the spatial combination area according to spatial intersection relationships; trimming refers to removing excessively wide, scattered, or conflicting spatial portions based on the boundaries of the hole position restriction area, avoidance restriction area, and reference area. The installation candidate domain refers to the locally feasible spatial area that remains after comprehensively considering interface direction, structural panel surface, hole position boundaries, reinforcement member avoidance requirements, and positioning reference conditions, and can be used for intersection calculation and installation relationship analysis for the through-cabin component installation. In implementation, firstly, the spatial intersection or axial continuity relationship between the effective area of ​​the installation panel surface and the effective area crossing the panel surface is obtained to obtain the foundation crossing area; then, the intersection operation is performed between the allowable area of ​​the opening boundary and the foundation crossing area to retain the spatial portion that meets the hole position boundary conditions; subsequently, the avoidance restriction area formed by the outward expansion of the reinforcement member boundary is subtracted from the above results to eliminate high-risk collision spaces; finally, combined with the reference zone where the positioning baseline is located, the spatial portions that significantly deviate from the design positioning baseline are further trimmed to obtain the installation candidate domain.

[0047] The principle of superposition and clipping is to use continuous set operations to gradually shrink a space that seems feasible only from a geometrical accessibility perspective into a comprehensive feasible space that simultaneously satisfies installation accessibility, hole availability, obstacle avoidance feasibility, and positioning solvability. Without this step, the resulting spatial combination region is often still too broad, including both truly installable structural areas and areas that are geometrically adjacent but do not meet boundary or collision conditions. Through superposition and clipping, the installation candidate domain is limited to a narrower, more realistic, and more stable local space. This significantly narrows the range of intersection objects when performing three-dimensional geometric intersection calculations around the through-hull axis, effectively reducing the probability of multiple intersection point spurious solutions and incorrect installation paths.

[0048] The system reads the hatch component's axis, mounting face, upper surface, lower surface, and outer contour from its feature set, and generates candidate corridors for the hatch component with the axis as the centerline. These candidate corridors are directional spatial channels formed by using the hatch component's axis as the main propagation center, the outer contour as the lateral envelope, and incorporating installation and correction allowances. They define the candidate arrangement range of the hatch component model in the current target module interface direction. The upper and lower surfaces of the hatch component are the control surfaces on both sides of the hatch component, defined along the installation specifications, and are used to define the control relationship of the candidate corridor in axial length and attitude direction. During implementation, firstly, an initial alignment relationship is established between the mounting end face of the through-hole component and the interface end face of the target module, ensuring that the axial direction of the through-hole component is consistent with the interface direction of the target module. Then, using the axis of the through-hole component as the centerline, minimum envelope sections are generated on each section perpendicular to the axis of the through-hole component based on its outer contour. Pre-set installation and correction allowances are then added outwards from these envelope sections. Subsequently, along the axial direction of the through-hole component, the corridor length boundary is generated using the axial range between the upper and lower surfaces of the through-hole component and a pre-set extension range. The resulting candidate corridor for the through-hole component is a spatial corridor body established around the axis of the through-hole component, possessing a clear starting point, direction, length, and lateral envelope.

[0049] The centerline of the candidate corridor for the through-hole component is taken from the axis of the through-hole component because the axis of the through-hole component directly represents the main propagation path of the through-hole component in subsequent 3D geometric intersection and structural crossing. If the axis of the through-hole component is not used as the center of the corridor, but the geometric center of the outer contour or the end face center is used, it is easy to cause the corridor direction to deviate under the condition of irregular or asymmetrical through-hole components. The outer contour of the through-hole component determines the lateral occupancy range of the candidate corridor. The installation margin is used to accommodate manufacturing deviations, assembly deviations and local correction requirements, and the correction margin is used to reserve space for subsequent installation correction analysis after matching consistency verification. The lateral envelope radius or half-width of the candidate corridor for the through-hole component can be expressed as: in, The lateral envelope control dimension of the candidate corridor for the through-hole component represents the control range of the candidate corridor relative to the centerline on a cross section perpendicular to the axis of the through-hole component. This represents the maximum circumscribed dimension of the outer contour of the through-hole component on the corresponding cross section, which can be obtained by fitting the boundary of the outer contour cross section. This represents the installation allowance, which is used to compensate for possible positional and machining errors during assembly. Its value is set according to the assembly accuracy requirements. This represents the correction margin, used to reserve space for attitude and lateral collision avoidance adjustments in subsequent installation correction analysis. Its value is set according to the allowable range of the correction strategy. The principle of this formula is to incorporate the minimum occupied area of ​​the through-cabin component itself and the error buffer space that must be reserved during installation into the candidate corridor construction, so that the candidate corridor can truly enclose the through-cabin component, but will not lose adjustable space in subsequent iterative corrections due to the corridor being too narrow.

[0050] The axial length of the candidate corridor for the through-hole component is preferably determined by the starting point of the through-hole component's mounting end face, the control range of the upper and lower surfaces of the through-hole component, and a preset extension distance. This aims to ensure that the through-hole component model, before entering subsequent 3D geometric intersection calculations, not only has the initial alignment capability with the target module interface but also sufficient forward structural traversal and backward correction capabilities. Through the above processing, the mounting candidate domain defines the feasible space of the local structure, and the candidate corridor for the through-hole component defines the propagation and arrangement space of the through-hole component.

[0051] In one possible implementation, a three-dimensional geometric intersection process is performed around the axis of the through-hull component and the installation candidate domain, and the installation base and crossing direction are determined through multi-intersection point screening. Specifically, this includes: reading the axis of the through-hull component from the feature set of the through-hull component, and generating an intersection axis based on the initial attitude of the through-hull component model, wherein the interface position of the target module interface is used as the starting point of the intersection axis and the centerline of the through-hull component candidate corridor is used as the direction of the intersection axis; performing categorized three-dimensional geometric intersection processing around the intersection axis and the main intersection object to obtain an original set of intersection points; performing boundary validity determination on the original set of intersection points to form a set of valid intersection points; performing axial sorting according to the axial parameter position of the valid intersection points on the intersection axis, and identifying a set of candidate crossing segments; performing multi-intersection point screening on the set of candidate crossing segments based on interface consistency, direction consistency, regional validity, boundary safety, and path continuity to determine the target crossing segment; determining the starting intersection point on the side closer to the target module interface on both sides of the target crossing segment as the installation base, and determining the main extension direction of the target crossing segment as the crossing direction.

[0052] Specifically, the process begins by reading the through-hub component axis from the feature set and generating an intersection axis based on the initial orientation of the through-hub component model. Here, the through-hub component axis refers to the centerline object representing the main extension direction and geometric center propagation path of the through-hub component; the initial orientation of the through-hub component model refers to its spatial position and orientation after completing target module interface alignment and through-hub component candidate corridor arrangement; and the intersection axis is the unique axial reference line used to perform geometric intersection calculations with the main intersection object in the installation candidate domain under the current installation task. In practice, the original geometric expression of the through-hub component axis is extracted from the feature set, and then a rigid body transformation is performed on the original geometric expression based on the initial orientation of the through-hub component model, mapping it from the local coordinate system of the through-hub component to a unified coordinate system. After mapping, the interface position of the target module interface is determined as the starting point of the intersection axis, and the centerline direction of the through-hub component candidate corridor is determined as the direction of the intersection axis, thus obtaining the intersection axis extending along the target module interface towards the interior of the installation candidate domain. The reason for this approach is that the axis of the through-hub component itself reflects the propagation trend of the geometric center of the through-hub component, while the position of the target module interface and the center line of the candidate corridor of the through-hub component together define the spatial starting position and main propagation direction under the current installation task. Therefore, unifying the three to generate the intersection axis can ensure that the subsequent intersection results are consistent with the actual installation path.

[0053] In specific calculations, the intersection axis is preferably expressed using a parametric straight line. If the interface position of the target module is denoted as the starting coordinate, and the centerline direction of the candidate passageway for the access component is denoted as the direction vector, then the expression for finding the intersection axis is: in, This indicates finding the position vector of any point on the intersection axis; This represents the starting position vector of the intersection axis, and its value is the interface position of the target module interface; This represents the direction vector for finding the intersection axis, and its value is obtained by normalizing the centerline direction of the candidate corridor for the through-hole component. The axial parameter represents the relative position along the intersection axis from the starting point forward, and its value is preferably a real number greater than or equal to zero. The principle of this formula is that the target module interface position is used as a unified zero-point reference, and the direction of the centerline of the candidate corridor for the passage component is used as a unified propagation direction reference. All subsequent intersection points, crossing segments, and installation bases are projected into the same axial parameter system, thereby ensuring that multi-intersection point screening and axial sorting can be completed in a single parameter space.

[0054] A categorized 3D geometric intersection process is performed around the intersection axis and the primary intersection object to obtain the original set of intersection points. The primary intersection object here refers to the main structural object in the installation candidate domain responsible for determining the passage of the cabin component, typically including the installation surface and the passing surface. The categorized 3D geometric intersection process employs different intersection strategies for primary intersection objects with different geometric representations to obtain the true intersection points between the intersection axis and the structural object. In practice, if the primary intersection object is a planar surface, the analytical intersection point between the intersection axis and the plane is directly calculated, and it is further determined whether the intersection point falls within the surface boundary. If the primary intersection object is a parametric curved surface, the intersection axis is substituted into the surface parametric equation, and the surface intersection points satisfying the convergence condition are obtained through iterative solution. If the primary intersection object has a thickness attribute, the outer surface intersection points and inner surface intersection points are obtained separately to characterize the positions where the cabin component enters and leaves the structural object. After intersecting all primary intersection objects in the installation candidate domain one by one, the original set of intersection points is formed. The original intersection set refers to the initial set of intersection points obtained by finding the intersection axis and all main intersection objects before considering boundary validity and constraints. Each original intersection point is bound to its corresponding plate surface identifier, plate identifier, normal information, and axial parameter position.

[0055] If the object of intersection is a plane, its plane representation can be expressed in the form of a normal vector. Then, the parameters of the intersection point between the intersection axis and the plane can be obtained by the following formula: in, Express the intersection axis with the first... Find the intersection parameters between the objects in the plane; Indicates the first The normal vector of the object that intersects the plane is used to characterize the orientation of the plane; Indicates that it is located at the th The position vector of any known point on the intersection of a plane is used to determine the spatial position of the plane. This represents the position vector of the starting point of the intersection axis; This expression represents the direction vector of the intersection axis. The principle behind this formula is to satisfy the plane point normal condition for points on the intersection axis, thereby solving for the axial parameter position of the intersection point. When the denominator is close to zero, it indicates that the intersection axis is nearly parallel to the plane; in this case, a valid intersection point is usually not formed, or only a grazing relationship is formed. The principle is the same when finding intersections on curved surfaces, except that the plane constraint needs to be replaced with the surface parametric equation constraint, and the intersection point satisfying the error limit is obtained through iteration.

[0056] Boundary validity is determined on the original set of intersection points to form a valid set of intersection points. This boundary validity determination checks whether each original intersection point truly falls within the valid entity range of the corresponding main intersection object and whether it satisfies the spatial constraints formed by the opening boundary, reinforcing member boundary, and local boundary conditions in the installation candidate domain. The valid set of intersection points refers to the set of intersection points that, after boundary validity filtering, can still serve as the basis for actual structural crossing. During implementation, each original intersection point is first projected onto the local parameter domain or boundary domain of its respective plate surface to determine if it is located inside the plate surface outline; if it is located outside the boundary, it is marked as an extended intersection point and discarded. Then, it is determined whether the original intersection point falls within the allowable area of ​​the opening boundary or the adjacent area of ​​the opening boundary; if it is completely outside the usable area of ​​the opening, its priority is reduced or it is directly discarded. Finally, based on the avoidance restriction area formed by the outward expansion of the reinforcing member boundary, it is determined whether the original intersection point is located in a high-risk area; if it is located in a high-risk area, it is marked as a restricted intersection point. Finally, all intersections that satisfy the conditions of valid plate boundary, usable hole location boundary, and not located in unacceptable avoidance areas are retained to form a valid intersection set.

[0057] The core of boundary validity determination lies not in whether the intersection axis intersects with a theoretical geometric surface, but in whether the intersection point has practical installation significance. In a 3D modeling environment, the intersection axis may intersect with the theoretical extension surface of the plate, but this intersection point may be located outside the actual plate contour, rendering it ineffective for installation; or it may be within the plate surface, but in an area that cannot be traversed outside openings or in a strongly constrained area of ​​reinforcing components. While such intersection points have a geometric intersection relationship, they lack engineering feasibility. Therefore, boundary validity determination essentially involves filtering the geometric intersection results using engineering semantics, ensuring that subsequent multi-intersection point selection is based on truly usable structural intersection points, rather than on abstract geometric extension results.

[0058] Axial sorting is performed based on the axial parameter positions of valid intersection points on the intersection axis, and a candidate crossing segment set is identified. Here, axial sorting refers to a monotonic arrangement of valid intersection points from the side closest to the target module interface to the side furthest from the target module interface, according to the parameter values ​​expressed in the intersection axis parameter representation. The candidate crossing segment set refers to a group of axial segments formed by pairing adjacent valid intersection points, potentially representing the actual crossing structural sections of the passageway component. During implementation, the axial parameter positions corresponding to each valid intersection point in the valid intersection point set are first read, and then arranged in ascending order of parameter value to form an ordered intersection point sequence. Subsequently, adjacent valid intersection points are paired and analyzed. If two adjacent valid intersection points correspond to the outer surface intersection point and inner surface intersection point of the same plate respectively, then the pair of adjacent intersection points is considered to form a single-plate candidate crossing segment; if two adjacent valid intersection points correspond to two spatially adjacent plates respectively, and there is no obvious discontinuity between the two intersection points, then the pair of adjacent intersection points is considered to form a composite candidate crossing segment. Pairs of adjacent intersections that only form local contact, grazing, or do not have a structural thickness crossing relationship are not included in the candidate crossing segment set. After this processing, a set of continuous crossing segments distributed along the intersection axis can be recovered from discrete intersections, providing a basis for subsequent determination of target crossing segments.

[0059] The principle behind candidate crossing segments is that structural crossing essentially corresponds to a continuous axial interval where the intersection axis enters and exits the structural object, rather than a single intersection point. Therefore, intersection points must be reconstructed into segments to correctly represent the crossing behavior. The starting point of a segment typically corresponds to the position where the intersection axis first enters a structural object, and the ending point typically corresponds to the position where the intersection axis leaves the structural object. If the structural object has thickness, the segment length should be greater than zero; if the axial interval between adjacent intersection points is extremely small and does not constitute effective thickness, it often only represents surface contact or local numerical perturbation and should not be considered a crossing segment. Through axial sorting and segment identification, complex and multifaceted intersection results can be summarized into several candidate structural crossing segments with engineering significance.

[0060] The candidate crossing segment set is screened using multi-intersection methods based on interface consistency, directional consistency, regional validity, boundary safety, and path continuity to determine the target crossing segment. Interface consistency refers to the degree of matching between the candidate crossing segment's position and direction relative to the target module interface; directional consistency refers to the consistency between the candidate crossing segment's main extension direction and the intersection axis direction, as well as the centerline direction of the candidate corridor for the through-cabin component; regional validity refers to whether the candidate crossing segment completely falls within the allowable area of ​​the installation candidate domain; boundary safety refers to whether the adjacent area of ​​the candidate crossing segment meets the safety requirements of the opening boundary and the reinforcement component boundary; and path continuity refers to whether the process from the target module interface along the intersection axis to the candidate crossing segment is continuous, uninterrupted, and without inaccessible obstacles. In practice, the above five evaluation metrics are calculated for each candidate crossing segment in the candidate crossing segment set, and these are merged into a comprehensive segment score. The candidate crossing segment with the highest comprehensive score that satisfies all bottom-line constraints is then selected as the target crossing segment.

[0061] The overall score for a segment can be calculated using a weighted evaluation method, the expression of which is: in, This represents the overall score of the candidate crossing segment; the higher the value, the more suitable the segment is as the target crossing segment. The interface consistency score measures the degree of matching between the position and orientation of the candidate traversal segment and the target module interface. The directional consistency score measures the degree of closeness between the main extension direction of the candidate crossing segment and the direction of the intersection axis. The region validity score is used to measure whether a candidate traversal segment is completely within the main candidate region of the installation candidate domain; The boundary safety score measures the safety margin of the area adjacent to the candidate crossing segment relative to the opening boundary and the reinforcement member boundary. The path continuity score measures whether the propagation path from the target module interface to the candidate traversal segment is continuous and reachable. , , , and These represent the weighting coefficients for the five categories of scores mentioned above, with each weighting coefficient being greater than 0 and the sum preferably being 1. The principle behind this formula is to unify the five key factors that determine the feasibility of actual installation and crossing into the same evaluation framework, and to screen segments through comprehensive scoring rather than a single distance criterion, thereby improving the stability of target crossing segment selection under complex structural conditions.

[0062] The interface consistency score is preferably determined based on the axial distance, in-plane offset, and directional deviation of the candidate crossing segment's starting point relative to the target module interface; the directional consistency score is preferably determined based on the angle between the line connecting the beginning and end of the candidate crossing segment and the intersection axis; the area effectiveness score is preferably determined based on the coverage ratio of the candidate crossing segment in the installation candidate domain; the boundary safety score is preferably determined based on the minimum safe distance of the candidate crossing segment's adjacent boundary; and the path continuity score is preferably determined based on whether there is a continuous axial interval between the target module interface starting point and the candidate crossing segment's starting point that is not blocked by the reinforced component boundary. Through this multi-factor joint screening, it is possible to avoid incorrectly selecting a segment simply because it is close, while ignoring problems such as large directional deviation, insufficient boundary safety, or interrupted propagation path.

[0063] The initial intersection point on the side closer to the target module interface of the target crossing segment is determined as the installation base position, and the main extension direction of the target crossing segment is determined as the crossing direction. Here, the installation base position refers to the initial effective entry point of the through-hull component into the target structure object when it propagates along the intersection axis from the target module interface direction; it serves as the unified positional reference for all subsequent installation relationship analyses. The crossing direction refers to the main direction vector corresponding to the effective propagation trend of the target crossing segment; it serves as the unified directional reference for subsequent axial installation relationship and attitude relationship analyses. In implementation, after the target crossing segment is determined, the magnitudes of the intersection points at both ends of the segment on the intersection axis parameters are compared. The intersection point with the smaller parameter value and closer to the target module interface is selected as the installation base position, because this intersection point represents the first effective contact position of the through-hull component entering the structure from the module side. Subsequently, based on the starting and ending coordinates of the target crossing segment, the main extension vector of the segment is constructed and normalized; the resulting normalized vector is determined as the crossing direction. If the target traverses a curved panel, the traversal direction can be checked for consistency by combining the local normal information at the installation base, ensuring that it is in the same direction as the direction of propagation of the intersection axis.

[0064] The expression for the direction of crossing can be written as: in, Represents the direction vector of crossing; This represents the position vector of the starting intersection point on the side closest to the target module interface in the target crossing segment, i.e., the position vector of the mounting base. This represents the vector indicating the position of the termination point of the target traversing segment on the side furthest from the target module interface; This represents the Euclidean distance between the start and end points of the target crossing segment, used to normalize the principal extension vector. The principle behind this formula is that the effective crossing direction of the through-cabin component in the structure is defined by the actual structural entry and exit positions of the target crossing segment, ensuring that the subsequently analyzed installation depth, exposed length, and directional deviation are based on the actual crossing path rather than abstract candidate directions.

[0065] The target module interface, installation candidate domain, and through-hole component candidate corridor output in the previous step provide the starting point datum, direction datum, and solution space boundary for this step, enabling the 3D geometric intersection to unfold around the actual installation path. The installation base and crossing direction output in this step provide a unified spatial zero point and a unified directional zero-degree datum for the subsequent analysis of the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship, and clearance constraint relationship of the through-hole component. In other words, without this step to screen multiple intersection points and determine a unique installation base and a unique crossing direction, the subsequent analysis of installation relationships will lack a unified reference, making it difficult to obtain stable and traceable installation results.

[0066] In one possible implementation, the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship, and clearance constraint relationship of the through-hull component are analyzed based on the installation base and the crossing direction to form an initial installation relationship set. Specifically, this includes: establishing an installation analytical coordinate frame with the installation base as the coordinate origin and the crossing direction as the axial reference direction; reading the through-hull component installation end face, upper surface, lower surface, and axis of the through-hull component from the feature set, and calculating the axial distance from the installation base to each feature face along the axial reference direction to form the axial installation relationship; projecting the installation base onto the positioning reference line and the local coordinate frame of the installation plate surface in the reference structure set, and calculating the in-plane positioning relationship of the installation base. The lateral and longitudinal positioning distances in the reference direction are used to form in-plane positioning relationships; the outer contour of the through-hole component is mapped to the local parameter domain of the mounting plate or the plate crossing surface, and the minimum boundary distances from the outer contour of the through-hole component to the opening boundary, the mounting plate boundary, and the area boundary are calculated to form boundary constraint relationships; the outer contour of the through-hole component is unfolded along the crossing direction to form a through envelope, and the minimum clearance distances from the through envelope to the reinforcing member boundary, the adjacent module connection boundary, and the adjacent through-hole component object are calculated to form clearance constraint relationships; the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship, and clearance constraint relationship are uniformized and merged to form an initial installation relationship set.

[0067] Specifically, In one possible implementation, a matching consistency check is performed on the initial installation relationship set to identify interface docking mismatch, directional docking mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch. Specifically, this includes: reading the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship, and clearance constraint relationship in the initial installation relationship set, and establishing a check task index indexed by the through-cabin component identifier and the target module interface identifier; simultaneously retrieving interface design constraints, structural safety constraints, and installation process constraints to form a check constraint set; performing interface docking consistency check based on the axial installation relationship and interface design constraints to identify interface docking mismatch; performing directional docking consistency check based on the crossing direction, through-cabin component axis, and in-plane positioning relationship to identify directional docking mismatch; performing structural collision consistency check based on clearance constraint relationship and installation process constraints to identify structural collision mismatch; performing boundary safety consistency check based on boundary constraint relationship and structural safety constraints to identify boundary safety mismatch; and performing mismatch attribution processing on the identified interface docking mismatch, directional docking mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch to generate a mismatch result set.

[0068] Specifically, the axial installation relationships, in-plane positioning relationships, boundary constraint relationships, and clearance constraint relationships in the initial installation relationship set are first read, and a verification task index is established using the through-hull component identifier and the target module interface identifier as indexes. At the same time, interface design constraints, structural safety constraints, and installation process constraints are retrieved to form a verification constraint set. The initial installation relationship set here refers to the set of multiple types of installation relationship data obtained after the previous step of parsing around the installation base and crossing direction. Among them, the axial installation relationship is used to characterize the axial positional relationship of the through-hull component relative to the target module interface and structural plate surface along the crossing direction; the in-plane positioning relationship is used to characterize the lateral and longitudinal positional relationship of the through-hull component in the local plane of the installation plate surface; the boundary constraint relationship is used to characterize the distance relationship between the outer contour of the through-hull component and the opening boundary, the installation plate surface boundary, and the area boundary; and the clearance constraint relationship is used to characterize the net space clearance relationship between the outer contour of the through-hull component or the through envelope and the boundary of the reinforcing member, the connection boundary of the adjacent module, and the adjacent through-hull component object. During implementation, all relationship records in the initial installation relationship set are first categorized. All relationship records with the same through-cabin component identifier and corresponding to the same target module interface identifier are aggregated into a single verification unit. Each verification unit is then written into the verification task index. The verification task index is a task mapping table that uses the through-cabin component identifier and the target module interface identifier as dual primary keys to uniformly retrieve and call all geometric, boundary, and constraint relationships related to the installation task. This ensures that the subsequent four types of consistency checks all revolve around the same installation task. Simultaneously, interface design constraints, structural safety constraints, and installation process constraints are retrieved from the design database, structural rule database, and assembly process database. Interface design constraints refer to the axial distance tolerance, end-face alignment tolerance, and attitude deviation tolerance that the target module interface and the through-hub component mounting end face must meet during the docking process. Structural safety constraints refer to the minimum safe distance and offset limits that the through-hub component should maintain relative to the opening boundaries, plate boundaries, section boundaries, and compartment boundaries during its arrangement. Installation process constraints refer to the minimum clearance and minimum operable clearance that the through-hub component should maintain relative to the reinforcing member boundaries, adjacent module connection boundaries, and adjacent through-hub components during assembly and operation. After completing the above processing, the three types of constraints are uniformly organized into a verification constraint set, so that each subsequent mismatch identification has a clear reference benchmark, rather than just making isolated judgments on individual geometric quantities.

[0069] Interface docking consistency verification is performed based on axial installation relationships and interface design constraints to identify interface docking mismatches. This interface docking consistency verification refers to the feasibility assessment of docking based on the axial closure state, end-face spacing state, and continuous connection state between the through-hull component's mounting end face and the target module interface. Interface docking mismatch refers to an abnormal state where, although the through-hull component is spatially close to the target module interface, it fails to meet the interface design constraints in terms of axial length, end-face spacing, or connection continuity. During implementation, the first axial distance from the mounting base to the through-hull component's mounting end face, the interface axial connection length from the mounting base to the target module interface reference surface, and the layered axial distances of the through-hull component in the target crossing segment are first read from the axial installation relationships. Then, the target docking distance, allowable axial deviation, and minimum continuous connection length are read from the interface design constraints. Finally, the axial docking deviation, continuous connection margin, and layered cumulative docking error are calculated. Axial mating deviation reflects the axial difference between the mounting face of the through-hull component and the target position of the target module interface. Continuous connection margin reflects whether there is a sufficient and continuous connection path from the target module interface to the mounting face of the through-hull component. Layered cumulative mating error reflects whether the through-hull component can still meet the interface closure requirements in terms of total axial length after traversing multiple layers of structure. When the axial mating deviation exceeds the allowable axial deviation, it can be identified as an axial misalignment type interface mating mismatch; when the continuous connection margin is less than the minimum continuous connection length, it can be identified as a path interruption type interface mating mismatch; when the layered cumulative mating error causes the mounting face of the through-hull component to be unable to reach the designed position of the target module interface, it can be identified as a length deficiency type interface mating mismatch. Axial mating deviation can be expressed as: in, This indicates the axial docking deviation, used to characterize the difference between the current actual axial docking length and the target axial docking length; This represents the actual docking length obtained from the axial installation relationship analysis. Its value comes from the actual axial distance between the installation base and the through-hull component installation end face or the target module interface. This represents the target mating length specified in the interface design constraints, and its value is determined by the interface design model. The principle behind this formula is to directly compare the axial mating length in the actual installation state with the target length required by the design, thereby determining whether there is any axial deviation in the current mating state. As long as... If the preset tolerance threshold is exceeded, it can be determined that the installation end face of the through-hole component cannot achieve effective docking in the current installation state.

[0070] A directional docking consistency check is performed based on the crossing direction, the through-hull component axis, and the in-plane positioning relationship to identify directional docking mismatches. This directional docking consistency check refers to the attitude consistency determination of the directional coupling state and in-plane alignment state between the actual crossing direction of the through-hull component, the intrinsic axis direction of the through-hull component, and the expected connection direction of the target module interface. Directional docking mismatch refers to an abnormal state where, although the through-hull component can approach the target module interface in axial length, its directional orientation or in-plane position is offset, preventing correct docking. During implementation, the crossing direction vector, the through-hull component axis direction vector, and the lateral and longitudinal positioning distances in the in-plane positioning relationship are first read. Then, the target module interface direction vector and the allowable directional deviation and allowable lateral offset constraints of the interface are read. Subsequently, the angular deviation between the crossing direction and the target module interface direction, the self-consistency deviation between the through-hull component axis and the crossing direction, and the lateral offset of the installation base relative to the extended center line of the target module interface are calculated. If the included angle deviation exceeds the allowable directional deviation, it indicates that the current traversal path of the hatch component deviates from the docking direction of the target module interface. If there is a significant self-consistent deviation between the axis of the hatch component and the traversal direction, it indicates that the current installation posture has deviated from the normal installation propagation trend of the hatch component itself. If the lateral offset exceeds the allowable lateral offset limit, it indicates that the in-plane position of the hatch component on the mounting plate has deviated from the interface alignment area. If any of the above conditions are not met, it is identified as a directional docking mismatch. The included angle deviation is preferably calculated using a vector angle method, the expression of which is: in, The directional deviation angle is used to characterize the degree of deviation between the crossing direction and the target module interface direction. This represents the crossing direction vector, determined by the main extension direction of the target crossing segment; The target module interface direction vector is determined by the interface directions in the module interface set. The principle behind this formula is that the angle between the two direction vectors directly quantifies the consistency between the current installation direction of the through-hole component and the desired interface direction; a smaller angle indicates a more consistent direction, while a larger angle indicates a greater deviation. The lateral offset is determined by the lateral and longitudinal positioning distances in the in-plane positioning relationship; essentially, it represents the two-dimensional offset of the installation base relative to the center projection position of the target module interface. When either the direction deviation angle or the lateral offset exceeds its limit, it can be determined that the current attitude of the through-hole component does not meet the orientation docking requirements.

[0071] Structural collision consistency verification is performed based on clearance constraints and installation process constraints to identify structural collision mismatches. Here, structural collision consistency verification refers to the collision risk assessment conducted to determine whether the minimum clearance between the outer contour of the through-hull component and its through-envelope along the crossing direction meets assembly and operational requirements. Structural collision mismatch refers to an abnormal state where, under the current installation condition of the through-hull component, the spatial distance between the through-hull component and the boundary of the reinforcing member, the connection boundary of adjacent modules, or adjacent through-hull components is insufficient, leading to risks of interference, collision, or assembly unavailability. During implementation, the clearance distances of the reinforcing members, module connections, and between through-hull components are first read from the clearance constraints. Then, the corresponding minimum assembly clearance distance, minimum maintenance clearance distance, and minimum operational safety clearance distance are read from the installation process constraints. Subsequently, each type of clearance distance is compared separately. If the clearance distance between the reinforcing members is less than the minimum assembly clearance distance of the reinforcing members, it indicates that the through-cabin component lacks sufficient assembly clearance with the boundary of the reinforcing member in the current installation state, and is identified as a collision-type structural mismatch of the reinforcing member. If the clearance distance between modules is less than the minimum maintenance clearance distance of the adjacent module connection boundary, it indicates that the through-cabin component will encroach on the operable space of the adjacent module interface or connection structure, and is identified as a collision-type structural mismatch of the module connection interference. If the clearance distance between through-cabin components is less than the minimum operational safety clearance distance between through-cabin components, it indicates that there is a channel occupancy conflict or operational interference risk between the two through-cabin components, and is identified as a collision-type structural mismatch of the through-cabin components interference. The clearance margin can be expressed as: in, It represents the clearance margin, used to characterize the remaining degree of current actual clearance distance relative to the minimum allowable clearance distance; This represents the actual minimum clearance distance obtained by parsing in the clearance constraint relationship; This represents the minimum allowable clearance distance specified in the installation process constraints. The principle behind this formula is to compare the actual clearance in the current installation state with the minimum clearance required by the process. When... A value greater than or equal to zero indicates that the clearance requirement is met. A value less than zero indicates insufficient clearance and potential collision risk. By calculating the clearance margin for different nearest neighbor objects, it is possible to identify which type of structural object the structural collision mismatch originates from, thus providing a directional basis for subsequent corrective analysis.

[0072] Boundary safety consistency checks are performed based on boundary constraints and structural safety constraints to identify boundary safety mismatches. Here, boundary safety consistency checks refer to the determination of safety margins based on whether the distances of the outer contour of the through-hull component relative to the opening boundary, mounting plate boundary, segment boundary, and compartment boundary meet the requirements of structural strength, safe arrangement, and area boundary control. Boundary safety mismatch refers to an abnormal state where, although the through-hull component can form a geometric installation relationship, its safety margin relative to the structural boundary is insufficient, leading to risks of hole edge weakening, boundary approach, or area boundary overflow. During implementation, the minimum boundary distance from the outer contour of the through-hull component to the opening boundary, the minimum boundary distance to the solid boundary of the mounting plate, the area boundary distance to the segment boundary and compartment boundary, and the offset of the installation center relative to the opening boundary center are first read from the boundary constraints. Then, the minimum hole edge safety distance, minimum plate edge safety distance, minimum area boundary safety distance, and allowable opening center offset limit are read from the structural safety constraints. Each item is then compared. If the minimum boundary distance is less than the minimum hole edge safety distance or the minimum plate edge safety distance, it indicates that the outer contour of the through-hole component is too close to the hole edge or plate edge, which may weaken the local structural bearing capacity, and is identified as an edge-weakening type boundary safety mismatch. If the area boundary distance is less than the minimum area boundary safety distance, it indicates that the installation position of the through-hole component is too close to the segment joint or compartment boundary, and is identified as an area-approaching type boundary safety mismatch. If the opening center offset exceeds the allowable offset limit, it indicates that the installation center of the through-hole component does not fall within the allowable area of ​​the hole center, and is identified as a hole-off load type boundary safety mismatch. The boundary safety margin can be expressed as: in, It represents the boundary safety margin, used to characterize the remaining amount of the current boundary distance relative to the structural safety requirements; This represents the actual boundary distance obtained from the analysis of the boundary constraint relationship, which can correspond to the opening boundary distance, plate edge distance, or region boundary distance; This represents the minimum safety boundary distance specified in the structural safety constraints. The principle behind this formula is to directly subtract the minimum safety requirement from the actual boundary distance to uniformly determine whether the boundary meets the safety arrangement conditions. When A value less than zero indicates that the current installation location has encroached upon the structural safety boundary, resulting in a boundary safety mismatch. For the opening center offset, the actual offset is compared with the allowable offset limit to determine if there is a risk of off-center loading. Its physical significance lies in controlling the degree of deviation between the installation center of the through-hole component and the designed opening center, avoiding localized stress concentration and uneven edge stress.

[0073] The identified interface mismatch, directional mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch are processed for mismatch attribution, generating a mismatch result set. This mismatch attribution process involves performing causal correlation analysis, primary / secondary relationship analysis, and correction entry point identification on multiple mismatches that may occur simultaneously under the same installation task, thereby determining which mismatch is the root cause and which is a concurrent mismatch. The mismatch result set is a structured set of results formed by uniformly organizing all mismatch types, mismatch objects, mismatch locations, mismatch deviations, constraint sources, and primary mismatch identifiers. During implementation, the four types of mismatches in each installation task are first aggregated according to the verification task index, and then analyzed to determine whether their occurrence locations overlap, whether the deviation directions are consistent, and whether there are inclusion relationships in the correction paths. If interface mismatch and directional mismatch occur simultaneously, and the axial deviation of the interface decreases after the directional deviation is eliminated, then the directional mismatch is marked as the primary mismatch, and the interface mismatch is marked as a secondary mismatch. If structural collision mismatch and boundary safety mismatch occur simultaneously, and the collision location and the boundary proximity location are in the same local area, then their deviations and safety margins are further compared, and the mismatch with the larger deviation or lower safety margin is marked as the primary mismatch. Then, for each mismatch record, a mismatch type identifier, a mismatch object identifier, mismatch location coordinates, deviation, constraint source, and primary mismatch identifier are written, and all mismatch records belonging to the same installation task are organized into a mismatch result set. The mismatch type identifier is used to distinguish four types of mismatch; the mismatch object identifier is used to identify the module interface, plate boundary, reinforcing member, or adjacent object that caused the mismatch; the mismatch location coordinates are used to describe the local spatial location where subsequent geometric corrections should take effect; the deviation is used to quantify the current degree of mismatch; the constraint source is used to identify whether the mismatch originates from interface design constraints, structural safety constraints, or installation process constraints; and the primary mismatch identifier is used to indicate the priority direction for subsequent installation correction analysis. Through the above processing, the four types of verification results are no longer isolated out-of-limit judgments, but are converged into a unified problem description result for subsequent installation correction and analysis.

[0074] In one possible implementation, installation correction parsing is performed based on the identified mismatch type, and 3D geometric intersection and installation relationship parsing are re-executed until a target installation relationship set that meets the matching consistency verification conditions is obtained. Specifically, this includes: reading the mismatch result set and establishing a correction task index indexed by the through-cabin component identifier and the target module interface identifier; simultaneously forming a correction input set based on the mismatch type, mismatch object identifier, mismatch position coordinates, deviation amount, and constraint source; selecting the corresponding correction strategy based on the main mismatch type in the correction input set; generating a correction parameter set based on the correction strategy; performing correction geometric update processing based on the correction parameter set to generate a correction geometric state; re-executing the 3D geometric intersection processing between the through-cabin component axis and the installation candidate domain based on the correction geometric state to generate an updated installation base and an updated crossing direction; re-analyzing the through-cabin component axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship, and clearance constraint relationship based on the updated installation base and updated crossing direction to generate an updated installation relationship set; and re-executing the matching consistency verification on the updated installation relationship set. When the matching consistency verification meets the constraint conditions, the updated installation relationship set is determined as the target installation relationship set.

[0075] Specifically, the process begins by reading the mismatch result set and establishing a correction task index indexed by the access component identifier and the target module interface identifier. Simultaneously, a correction input set is formed based on the mismatch type, mismatch object identifier, mismatch location coordinates, deviation amount, and constraint source. The mismatch result set here refers to the summary result of all mismatch records obtained after the previous matching consistency verification step. Each mismatch record corresponds to a specific installation task, a specific mismatch object, and a specific reason for exceeding limits. The correction task index is a task mapping structure used during the installation correction phase to uniformly merge, track, and schedule all mismatch issues corresponding to the same access component and the same target module interface. During implementation, all records in the mismatch result set are traversed, and mismatch records with the same access component identifier and the same target module interface identifier are merged into the same correction task unit. A unique correction task number is then assigned to each correction task unit. Subsequently, the mismatch records within each correction task unit are organized according to mismatch type, mismatch location coordinates, and deviation amount to form the correction input set. The mismatch type here distinguishes whether the current installation anomaly is due to interface mismatch, directional mismatch, structural collision mismatch, or boundary safety mismatch; the mismatch object identifier indicates whether the current mismatch specifically affects the module interface, plate boundary, reinforcing member boundary, or adjacent objects; the mismatch location coordinates provide the local spatial location where geometric correction should be prioritized; the deviation quantifies the degree of current exceedance; and the constraint source distinguishes whether the current mismatch originates from interface design constraints, structural safety constraints, or installation process constraints. This processing ensures that subsequent correction strategy selection is no longer based on scattered individual mismatch records, but rather on structured correction task units, thereby guaranteeing that installation correction analysis has a unified object, a unified coordinate reference, and a unified correction entry point.

[0076] After the correction task index is established, the corresponding correction strategy is selected based on the primary mismatch type in the correction input set. Here, the primary mismatch type refers to the mismatch category determined as a root cause of the problem within the same correction task after mismatch attribution; the correction strategy refers to the geometric adjustment path and parameter correction rules selected for a specific primary mismatch type. During implementation, the primary mismatch identifier in the correction input set is first read, and then the corresponding strategy template is called based on the primary mismatch type. If the primary mismatch type is interface docking mismatch, an axial correction strategy is preferred. This involves adjusting the axial position of the mounting base in the crossing direction to eliminate the axial deviation between the mounting end face of the through-hole component and the target module interface. If the primary mismatch type is directional docking mismatch, an attitude correction strategy is preferred. This involves adjusting the axial direction of the through-hole component, the centerline direction of the candidate corridor, and the in-plane projection position of the mounting base to eliminate directional deviations and lateral offsets. If the primary mismatch type is structural collision mismatch, a collision avoidance correction strategy is preferred. This involves correcting the center of the candidate corridor section, the local position of the mounting base, or the crossing direction by moving away from the nearest neighbor obstructing object. If the primary mismatch type is boundary safety mismatch, a boundary retreat strategy is preferred. This involves adjusting the positions of the mounting base and the candidate corridor along the opposite direction of the opening boundary normal or along the direction away from the region boundary to allow the outer contour of the through-hole component to regain a safety boundary margin. The essence of choosing a correction strategy is to map mismatch problems of different natures into different geometric correction degrees of freedom, avoiding inefficient iteration caused by using the same type of translation or rotation correction for all mismatches. If a correction task also has accompanying mismatches, after the correction strategy corresponding to the primary mismatch type is determined, the secondary correction rules corresponding to the accompanying mismatches are then added to the same strategy template to form a composite correction strategy.

[0077] A set of correction parameters is generated based on the correction strategy. This set of correction parameters refers to a set of quantitative adjustment parameters used to drive changes in the installation geometry, the contents of which are determined by the current correction strategy. During implementation, the axial correction, directional rotation, in-plane translation, and lateral collision avoidance are calculated according to the correction strategy type. For the axial correction strategy, the axial correction of the installation base along the crossing direction is mainly generated; for the attitude correction strategy, the directional rotation of the through-hull component axis around the local reference axis and the in-plane translation of the installation base in the local plane of the installation plate are mainly generated; for the collision avoidance correction strategy, the lateral collision avoidance of the through-hull component candidate corridor section center along the opposite direction of the nearest neighbor blocking object is mainly generated, and a small directional rotation can be added if necessary; for the boundary retreat strategy, the boundary retreat of the installation base along the normal corresponding to the minimum boundary distance is mainly generated. The values ​​of the correction parameters are not fixed but are adaptively calculated based on the deviation and constraint margin. The larger the deviation, the larger the initial value of the correction parameter; the smaller the constraint margin, the more limited the correction step size needs to be to prevent a single correction from crossing the feasible area. The axial correction amount can be generated based on the current interface mating deviation, and its expression is: in, This indicates the axial correction amount, used to characterize the distance that the mounting base should be adjusted along the crossing direction; This indicates the target docking length in the interface design constraints; Indicates the current actual docking length; This represents the axial correction gain coefficient, which is greater than 0 and preferably less than or equal to 1, used to control the correction amplitude of a single wheel. The principle behind this formula is that it directly uses the difference between the target length and the actual length to construct the correction amount, automatically pointing the axial correction direction in the direction that reduces the interface docking deviation, while suppressing one-time overshoot through the gain coefficient. The directional rotation amount can be generated based on the current directional deviation angle, and its expression is: in, Indicates the amount of directional rotation, used to characterize the angle by which the axis of the through-hole component or the centerline of the candidate through-hole corridor should be rotated; Indicates the current direction deviation angle; This represents the directional correction gain coefficient, which is greater than 0 and preferably less than or equal to 1. The principle behind this formula is to proportionally map the current directional deviation into a single-wheel attitude correction, gradually bringing the through-cabin orientation closer to the target module interface orientation. For boundary retraction and lateral collision avoidance, the same approach can be used to calculate based on the degree of insufficiency of the current boundary safety margin and clearance margin, thus forming a complete set of correction parameters.

[0078] A corrected geometric update process is performed based on the corrected parameter set to generate a corrected geometric state. This corrected geometric update process refers to actually applying the corrected parameter set to the geometric objects corresponding to the installation base, the through-hull axis, the through-hull candidate corridor, and the candidate arrangement state, causing the current installation configuration to enter a new geometric state. The corrected geometric state refers to the combined state obtained after one round of parameter updates, including the new installation base position, the new through-hull axis direction, the new through-hull candidate corridor spatial position, and the new initial attitude of the through-hull model. During implementation, firstly, an axial correction is applied to the installation base, causing it to move forward or backward along the crossing direction; then, a directional rotation is applied to the through-hull axis direction and the through-hull candidate corridor centerline direction, causing them to rotate synchronously around a local reference axis near the installation base; subsequently, an in-plane translation is applied to the projection position of the installation base in the local parameter domain of the installation plate surface, causing the through-hull arrangement center to shift laterally or longitudinally within the plane; finally, a lateral collision avoidance is applied to the center of the through-hull candidate corridor section, causing the candidate corridor to shift laterally or slightly offset around the centerline. If a correction task employs a composite correction strategy, the aforementioned updates are executed sequentially according to a predetermined order, with the representation of relevant geometric objects in a unified coordinate system updated immediately after each step. To avoid introducing new discontinuous attitudes during the correction process, an attitude continuity check is preferably performed after the update to ensure that the mounting end face of the through-hole component and the interface end face of the target module maintain a unidirectional connection, and that the relative definitions of the upper and lower surfaces of the through-hole component do not flip. After this processing, the original mounting configuration is converted into a new corrected geometric state, providing new geometric input for re-performing 3D geometric intersection.

[0079] Based on the corrected geometry, the 3D geometric intersection process between the through-hole component axis and the installation candidate domain is re-executed to generate updated installation base positions and updated crossing directions. Here, the updated installation base position refers to the new structural entry point determined after re-intersection under the current corrected geometry; the updated crossing direction refers to the new main extension direction of the corresponding target crossing segment under the current corrected geometry. In implementation, a new intersection axis is first generated based on the corrected through-hole component axis direction, the corrected initial value of the installation base position, and the corrected centerline of the through-hole component candidate corridor. Then, the categorized 3D geometric intersection process is re-executed around this intersection axis and the main intersection object in the installation candidate domain. The specific process still includes generating the original intersection point set, performing boundary validity determination to form a valid intersection point set, identifying the candidate crossing segment set according to the axial parameter position, and performing multi-intersection filtering on the candidate crossing segment set based on interface consistency, direction consistency, area validity, boundary safety, and path continuity. Unlike the initial intersection, the input through-hole component axis direction, initial installation base position, and through-hole component candidate corridor position have all been corrected, therefore the obtained original intersection point set and target crossing segment will also change accordingly. After redefining the target crossing segment, the starting intersection point closest to the target module interface is determined as the updated installation base, and the main extension direction of the target crossing segment is determined as the updated crossing direction. The purpose of this process is to reproject the geometric correction results into the real structural environment for verification, rather than simply assuming that the installation has been successfully corrected based on parameter changes. This ensures that the corrected installation base and crossing direction still have intersection significance with the real structure.

[0080] Based on the updated installation base and updated crossing direction, the axial installation relationships, in-plane positioning relationships, boundary constraint relationships, and clearance constraint relationships of the through-hull component are re-analyzed to generate an updated installation relationship set. This updated installation relationship set refers to the collection of various installation relationship results obtained after recalculation around the updated installation base and updated crossing direction. Its structural form is the same as the initial installation relationship set, but the relationship values ​​have been replaced with new values ​​corresponding to the corrected installation state. During implementation, the installation analysis coordinate frame is first re-established with the updated installation base as the coordinate origin and the updated crossing direction as the axial reference direction. Then, the installation end face, upper surface, lower surface, and outer contour of the through-hull component under the corrected geometric state are read respectively. Subsequently, following the same method as the initial analysis, the axial distances from the installation base to each feature surface are recalculated to form updated axial installation relationships. The updated installation base is then reprojected onto the positioning baseline and the local coordinate frame of the installation plate surface, and the lateral and longitudinal positioning distances are calculated to form updated in-plane positioning relationships. The outer contour of the through-hole component is remapped to the local parameter domain of the installation plate surface or the surface it traverses, and the minimum boundary distances between it and the opening boundary, plate boundary, and region boundary are calculated to form updated boundary constraint relationships. The outer contour of the through-hole component is then re-expanded along the updated traversal direction to form a through envelope, and the minimum clearance distances between it and the boundary of the reinforcing member, the connection boundary of adjacent modules, and adjacent through-hole component objects are calculated to form updated clearance constraint relationships. After completing the re-analysis of the above four types of relationships, all results are re-bound to the through-hole component identifier, target module interface identifier, updated installation base identifier, and reference structure identifier to generate an updated installation relationship set. Since this set directly reflects the true geometric relationship of the corrected installation state, it will serve as the sole input basis for the next round of matching consistency verification.

[0081] The updated installation relationship set is re-executed for consistency verification. When the consistency verification meets the constraints, the updated installation relationship set is determined as the target installation relationship set. Re-execution of consistency verification here refers to re-applying interface design constraints, structural safety constraints, and installation process constraints to the axial installation relationships, in-plane positioning relationships, boundary constraint relationships, and clearance constraint relationships in the updated installation relationship set, and repeatedly executing interface docking consistency verification, directional docking consistency verification, structural collision consistency verification, and boundary safety consistency verification. The target installation relationship set refers to the final set of installation relationship results after one or more rounds of installation correction analysis, where all consistency verifications have met the constraints. During implementation, the updated installation relationship set is first checked item by item for consistency verification. If no new mismatch types are identified in the four types of verifications, it means that the current corrected geometry meets the design and process requirements. At this time, the updated installation relationship set is directly solidified as the target installation relationship set, and iteration stops. If mismatch types are still identified, it means that the current correction has not completely eliminated the over-limit problem. At this time, a new mismatch result set is regenerated and rewritten into the correction task index, entering the next round of correction strategy selection and correction parameter generation process. To ensure the convergence of the correction process, it is preferable to set termination conditions during implementation. Termination conditions may include conditions such as complete elimination of mismatch, the change in mounting base being less than a convergence threshold, and the number of correction rounds reaching an upper limit. The change in mounting base can be expressed as: in, Indicates the first The change in the mounting base position after the round correction is used to characterize the degree of change in the mounting base position between two adjacent round correction results; Indicates the first The corrected mounting base position vector; Indicates the first The corrected mounting base position vector. The principle of this formula is to determine whether the current correction process has approached a stable state by using the position difference between two adjacent mounting base positions. If all mismatches are eliminated, or If the current set of updated installation relationships remains below the preset convergence threshold and the verification results meet the constraints, then the current set of updated installation relationships can be determined as the target set of installation relationships. Through the above-mentioned iterative correction and verification mechanism, the installation relationship results can be gradually converged from the initial out-of-limit state to the target installation state that meets the interface design constraints, structural safety constraints, and installation process constraints.

[0082] This embodiment also discloses a device for determining the installation relationship of ship cabin components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection, referring to... Figure 4The device includes an acquisition module 401, a processing module 402, and an output module 403. It is used to execute any of the methods described above for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection, wherein: Module 401 is used to acquire hull structure data, mission module data and through-hole component data of the target vessel under the current module replacement condition. Processing module 402 is used to perform unified modeling processing on hull structure data, mission module data and through-hole component data and establish a unified coordinate system, and extract reference structure set, module interface set and through-hole component feature set; The processing module 402 is used to construct an installation candidate domain based on the module interface set and the reference structure set, and to arrange the through-hole component model in the through-hole component candidate corridor formed by the module interface direction based on the through-hole component feature set; Processing module 402 is used to perform three-dimensional geometric intersection processing with the installation candidate domain around the axis of the through-hull component, and to determine the installation base and crossing direction by screening multiple intersection points; The processing module 402 is used to analyze the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship and clearance constraint relationship of the through-hull component based on the installation base and crossing direction, so as to form an initial set of installation relationships; Processing module 402 is used to perform a matching consistency check on the initial installation relationship set to identify interface docking mismatch, directional docking mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch, and to perform installation correction parsing according to the identified mismatch type and re-execute three-dimensional geometric intersection and installation relationship parsing until the target installation relationship set that meets the matching consistency check conditions is obtained. The output module 403 is used to generate an installation result set based on the target installation relationship set and output the installation dimension drawing, installation relationship table and change traceability record to form the installation relationship determination result of the through-cabin parts.

[0083] It should be noted that the above embodiments of the apparatus are only illustrated by the division of the above functional modules. In practical applications, the above functions can be assigned to different functional modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the device can be divided into different functional modules to complete all or part of the functions described above. In addition, the apparatus and method embodiments provided in the above embodiments belong to the same concept, and the specific implementation process can be found in the method embodiments, which will not be repeated here.

[0084] This embodiment also discloses an electronic device, as shown in the reference. Figure 5 The electronic device may include: at least one processor 501, at least one communication bus 502, user interface 503, network interface 504, and at least one memory 505.

[0085] The communication bus 502 is used to enable communication between these components.

[0086] The user interface 503 may include a display screen and a camera. Optionally, the user interface 503 may also include a standard wired interface and a wireless interface.

[0087] The network interface 504 may optionally include a standard wired interface or a wireless interface (such as a Wi-Fi interface).

[0088] The processor 501 may include one or more processing cores. The processor 501 connects to various parts of the server using various interfaces and lines, and performs various server functions and processes data by running or executing instructions, programs, code sets, or instruction sets stored in memory 505, and by calling data stored in memory 505. Optionally, the processor 501 may be implemented using at least one hardware form of Digital Signal Processing (DSP), Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), or Programmable Logic Array (PLA). The processor 501 may integrate one or a combination of several of the following: Central Processing Unit (CPU), Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), and modem. The CPU primarily handles the operating system, user interface, and applications; the GPU is responsible for rendering and drawing the content to be displayed on the screen; and the modem handles wireless communication. It is understood that the modem may also not be integrated into the processor 501 and may be implemented as a separate chip.

[0089] The memory 505 may include random access memory (RAM) or read-only memory. Optionally, the memory may include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The memory 505 may be used to store instructions, programs, code, code sets, or instruction sets. The memory 505 may include a program storage area and a data storage area, wherein the program storage area may store instructions for implementing an operating system, instructions for at least one function (such as touch function, sound playback function, image playback function, etc.), instructions for implementing the above-described method embodiments, etc.; the data storage area may store data involved in the above-described method embodiments, etc. Optionally, the memory 505 may also be at least one storage device located remotely from the aforementioned processor 501. As a computer storage medium, the memory 505 may include an operating system, a network communication module, a user interface 503 module, and an application program for determining the installation relationship of ship cabin components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection.

[0090] exist Figure 5 In the electronic device shown, the user interface 503 is mainly used to provide an input interface for the user and to obtain the user input data; while the processor 501 can be used to call the application program stored in the memory 505, which is a method for determining the installation relationship of ship cabin components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection. When executed by one or more processors 501, the electronic device performs one or more methods as described in the above embodiments.

[0091] It should be noted that, for the sake of simplicity, the foregoing method embodiments are all described as a series of actions. However, those skilled in the art should understand that the present invention is not limited to the described order of actions, as some steps can be performed in other orders or simultaneously according to the present invention. Furthermore, those skilled in the art should also understand that the embodiments described in the specification are preferred embodiments, and the actions and modules involved are not necessarily essential to the present invention.

[0092] In the above embodiments, the descriptions of each embodiment have different focuses. For parts not described in detail in a certain embodiment, please refer to the relevant descriptions in other embodiments.

[0093] In the several embodiments provided by this invention, it should be understood that the disclosed apparatus can be implemented in other ways. For example, the apparatus embodiments described above are merely illustrative; for instance, the division of units is only a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be combined or integrated into another system, or some features may be ignored or not executed. Furthermore, the coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed may be through some service interface; the indirect coupling or communication connection between apparatuses or units may be electrical or other forms.

[0094] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the units can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs.

[0095] Furthermore, the functional units in the various embodiments of the present invention can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or as a software functional unit.

[0096] If the integrated unit is implemented as a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a computer-readable storage device (CMD). Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this invention, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or all or part of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a memory 505 and includes several instructions to cause a computer device (which may be a personal computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods of the various embodiments of this invention. The aforementioned memory 505 includes various media capable of storing program code, such as a USB flash drive, external hard drive, magnetic disk, or optical disk.

[0097] The present invention also discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions. When executed by one or more processors 501, these instructions cause an electronic device to perform one or more methods as described in the above embodiments.

[0098] The above are merely exemplary embodiments of this disclosure and should not be construed as limiting the scope of this disclosure. Any equivalent changes and modifications made in accordance with the teachings of this disclosure shall still fall within the scope of this disclosure. Those skilled in the art will readily conceive of other embodiments of this disclosure upon considering the specification and the disclosure of practical truths. This invention is intended to cover any variations, uses, or adaptations of this disclosure that follow the general principles of this disclosure and include common knowledge or customary techniques in the art not described in this disclosure. The specification and embodiments are to be considered exemplary only, and the scope and spirit of this disclosure are defined by the claims.

Claims

1. A method for determining the installation relationship of a ship's through-passage fitting based on three-dimensional geometric intersection, characterized in that, The method includes: Acquire hull structure data, mission module data, and through-hole component data of the target vessel under the current module replacement condition; Perform unified modeling processing on the hull structure data, the mission module data, and the through-hole component data, and establish a unified coordinate system to extract the reference structure set, module interface set, and through-hole component feature set. An installation candidate domain is constructed based on the module interface set and the reference structure set, and the through-hole component model is arranged in the through-hole component candidate corridor formed in the direction of the module interface based on the through-hole component feature set; A three-dimensional geometric intersection process is performed between the axis of the through-hole component and the candidate installation domain, and the installation base and crossing direction are determined by screening multiple intersection points. Based on the installation base and the crossing direction, the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship and clearance constraint relationship of the cabin component are analyzed to form an initial installation relationship set; The initial installation relationship set is subjected to a matching consistency check to identify interface docking mismatch, directional docking mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch. Based on the identified mismatch type, installation correction parsing is performed and the three-dimensional geometric intersection and installation relationship parsing are re-executed until the target installation relationship set that meets the matching consistency check conditions is obtained. Based on the target installation relationship set, an installation result set is generated and an installation dimension drawing, an installation relationship table, and a change traceability record are output to form the result of determining the installation relationship of the through-cabin parts.

2. The method for determining the installation relationship of a through-passage fitting of a ship based on three-dimensional geometric intersection according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process of performing unified modeling processing on the hull structure data, the mission module data, and the through-hole component data, establishing a unified coordinate system, and extracting the reference structure set, module interface set, and through-hole component feature set specifically includes: The hull structure data is subjected to structural object parsing processing to extract plate contours, reinforcing member contours, opening contours, segment boundaries, compartment boundaries, and positioning reference information, and a structural object index is established to form a hull structure model. The task module data is parsed to extract the module interface, module connection boundary, module mounting surface and module attitude parameters, and a module object index is established to form a task module model. Perform through-hole component object parsing processing on the through-hole component data, extract the through-hole component entity outline, end boundary, center direction information and installation control boundary, and establish through-hole component object index to form through-hole component model; A unified modeling process is performed on the hull structure model, the mission module model, and the through-hole component model, and a three-dimensional object model system is formed through geometric expression standardization, topological relationship standardization, and attribute field standardization. A unified coordinate system is established by selecting the structural reference of the target ship and combining it with the assembly reference data, and the hull structure model, the mission module model and the through-hole component model are mapped to the unified coordinate system. The mounting plate surface, through-plate surface, opening boundary, reinforcing member boundary and positioning reference line are extracted from the hull structure model to form the reference structure set; The location, orientation, end face, and envelope boundary of the module interface are extracted from the task module model to form the module interface set; The through-hole component model is used to extract the through-hole component axis, the through-hole component upper surface, the through-hole component lower surface, the through-hole component mounting end face, and the through-hole component outer contour to form the through-hole component feature set.

3. The method for determining the installation relationship of a through-passage fitting of a ship based on three-dimensional geometric intersection according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of constructing an installation candidate domain based on the module interface set and the reference structure set, and arranging the through-hole component model in the through-hole component candidate corridor formed in the module interface direction based on the through-hole component feature set, specifically includes: The target module interface is determined by matching the module interface set with the through-hole component mounting end face, through-hole component axial direction and through-hole component outer contour in the through-hole component feature set. An interface adjacency space is constructed based on the position and orientation of the target module interface, and structural objects that have spatial association with the interface adjacency space are selected from the reference structure set to form a candidate structural object set; Based on the interface direction of the target module interface, the candidate structure object set is filtered by directional relevance to form the target structure object set; A spatial combination region is constructed based on the mounting plate surface, through-plate surface, opening boundary, reinforcing component boundary, and positioning baseline in the target structural object set; The spatial combination region is overlaid and clipped to form the installation candidate domain; Read the through-hub component's axis, mounting end face, upper surface, lower surface, and outer contour from the feature set of the through-hub component, and generate the candidate corridor of the through-hub component with the through-hub component's axis as the center line.

4. The method for determining the installation relationship of a through-passage element of a ship based on three-dimensional geometric intersection according to claim 3, characterized in that, The process of performing three-dimensional geometric intersection calculations between the axis of the through-hole component and the candidate installation domain, and determining the installation base and crossing direction through multiple intersection point screening, specifically includes: Read the axis of the through-hole component from the feature set of the through-hole component, and generate the intersection axis by combining it with the initial attitude of the through-hole component model. The interface position of the target module interface is used as the starting point of the intersection axis and the center line of the candidate corridor of the through-hole component is used as the direction of the intersection axis. A categorized 3D geometric intersection process is performed around the intersection axis and the main intersection object to obtain the original set of intersection points; Perform a boundary validity check on the original set of intersection points to form a valid set of intersection points; Axial sorting is performed according to the axial parameter positions of the valid intersection points on the intersection axis, and a set of candidate crossing segments is identified; The candidate traversal segment set is subjected to multi-intersection filtering based on interface consistency, direction consistency, region validity, boundary security, and path continuity to determine the target traversal segment; The starting intersection point on the side of the target crossing segment closest to the target module interface is determined as the installation base, and the main extension direction of the target crossing segment is determined as the crossing direction.

5. The method of determining installation relationship of a through passage fitting of a ship based on three-dimensional geometric intersection according to claim 1, characterized in that, The initial installation relationship set is formed by analyzing the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship, and clearance constraint relationship of the through-hole component based on the installation base and the crossing direction, specifically including: An analytical coordinate frame for installation is established with the installation base as the origin and the crossing direction as the axial reference direction. Read the through-hole component mounting end face, through-hole component upper surface, through-hole component lower surface and through-hole component axis from the through-hole component feature set, and calculate the axial distance from the mounting base to each feature face along the axial reference direction to form an axial mounting relationship; Project the mounting base onto the positioning reference line and the local coordinate frame of the mounting plate in the reference structure set, and calculate the lateral positioning distance and longitudinal positioning distance of the mounting base in the in-plane reference direction to form an in-plane positioning relationship; Map the outer contour of the through-hole component to the local parameter domain of the mounting plate surface or the area crossing the plate surface, and calculate the minimum boundary distance from the outer contour of the through-hole component to the opening boundary, the mounting plate surface boundary, and the area boundary to form boundary constraint relationships; The outer contour of the through-hole component is unfolded along the crossing direction to form a through-envelope, and the minimum clearance distance from the through-envelope to the boundary of the reinforcing member, the connection boundary of the adjacent module, and the adjacent through-hole component object is calculated to form a clearance constraint relationship. The axial installation relationship, the in-plane positioning relationship, the boundary constraint relationship, and the clearance constraint relationship are subjected to a consistency merging process to form the initial installation relationship set.

6. The method of determining installation relationship of a through passage fitting of a ship based on three-dimensional geometric intersection according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process of performing a matching consistency check on the initial installation relationship set to identify interface docking mismatch, directional docking mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch specifically includes: Read the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship and clearance constraint relationship in the initial installation relationship set, and establish a verification task index with the through-cabin part identifier and the target module interface identifier as the index. At the same time, retrieve the interface design constraint, structural safety constraint and installation process constraint to form a verification constraint set. Perform interface docking consistency verification based on the axial installation relationship and the interface design constraints to identify interface docking mismatches; Perform a directional docking consistency check based on the crossing direction, the axis of the through-hole component, and the in-plane positioning relationship to identify directional docking mismatch; Perform structural collision consistency verification based on the aforementioned clearance constraint relationship and the aforementioned installation process constraint to identify structural collision mismatch; Perform boundary safety consistency checks based on the boundary constraint relationships and the structural safety constraints to identify boundary safety mismatches; The identified interface mismatch, directional mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch are processed for mismatch attribution, and a mismatch result set is generated.

7. A method of determining installation relationships of a ship's through-passage item based on three-dimensional geometric intersection according to claim 6, characterized in that, The process of performing installation correction parsing based on the identified mismatch type and re-performing 3D geometric intersection and installation relationship parsing until a target installation relationship set satisfying the matching consistency verification condition is obtained specifically includes: Read the mismatch result set and establish a correction task index indexed by the through-hole component identifier and the target module interface identifier. At the same time, form a correction input set according to the mismatch type, mismatch object identifier, mismatch location coordinates, deviation amount and constraint source. Select the corresponding correction strategy based on the main mismatch type in the correction input set; A set of correction parameters is generated based on the correction strategy; Perform a correction geometry update process based on the set of correction parameters to generate a correction geometry state; Based on the corrected geometric state, the three-dimensional geometric intersection process between the through-hole component axis and the installation candidate domain is re-executed to generate an updated installation base site and an updated crossing direction; Based on the updated installation base and the updated crossing direction, the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship and clearance constraint relationship of the through-cabin component are re-analyzed to generate an updated installation relationship set; The matching consistency check is re-executed on the updated installation relationship set. When the matching consistency check meets the constraints, the updated installation relationship set is determined to be the target installation relationship set.

8. A device for determining installation relationship of a hatchway fitting of a ship based on three-dimensional geometric intersection, characterized in that, The device is used to execute a method for determining the installation relationship of ship through-hole components based on three-dimensional geometric intersection as described in any one of claims 1-7. The device includes an acquisition module, a processing module, and an output module, wherein: The acquisition module is used to acquire the hull structure data, mission module data and through-hole component data of the target vessel under the current module replacement condition; The processing module is used to perform unified modeling processing on the hull structure data, the mission module data and the through-hole component data and establish a unified coordinate system, and extract the reference structure set, the module interface set and the through-hole component feature set. The processing module is used to construct an installation candidate domain based on the module interface set and the reference structure set, and to arrange the through-hole component model in the through-hole component candidate corridor formed in the direction of the module interface based on the through-hole component feature set. The processing module is used to perform three-dimensional geometric intersection processing with the installation candidate domain around the axis of the through-hull component, and to determine the installation base and crossing direction by screening multiple intersection points. The processing module is used to analyze the axial installation relationship, in-plane positioning relationship, boundary constraint relationship and clearance constraint relationship of the through-hole component based on the installation base and the crossing direction, so as to form an initial installation relationship set; The processing module is used to perform a matching consistency check on the initial installation relationship set to identify interface docking mismatch, directional docking mismatch, structural collision mismatch, and boundary safety mismatch, and to perform installation correction parsing and re-execute three-dimensional geometric intersection and installation relationship parsing according to the identified mismatch type until the target installation relationship set that meets the matching consistency check conditions is obtained. The output module is used to generate an installation result set based on the target installation relationship set and output an installation dimension diagram, an installation relationship table, and a change traceability record to form a determination result of the installation relationship of the through-cabin parts.

9. An electronic device, comprising: The device includes a processor, a communication bus, a user interface, a network interface, and a memory. The memory is used to store instructions. The user interface and the network interface are both used to communicate with other devices. The communication bus is used to enable communication between the components within the electronic device. The processor is used to execute the instructions stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to perform the method as described in any one of claims 1-7.

10. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising: The computer-readable storage medium stores instructions that, when executed, perform the method as described in any one of claims 1-7.

Images