An embedded modular building box hoist point arrangement automatic derivation optimization method

Abstract

The application discloses an automatic deduction and optimization method for hoisting point arrangement of an embedded modular building box. The method comprises the following steps: parameterized modeling, establishing a box space rigid frame model; rigidity assembly, adopting a Timoshenko beam unit and introducing a shear influence coefficient to correct the unit rigidity, and forming an overall rigidity matrix; load mapping, converting a plate surface uniform load into a node equivalent load; scheme generation and batch solution, automatically generating a feasible hoisting point combination based on construction topological constraints, simulating the hoisting point constraints by adopting a large number penalty function method, continuously and batch-solving the ten-thousand-level combination by keeping the basic rigidity matrix unchanged and only modifying the main diagonal elements of the hoisting point degrees of freedom; and optimization output, taking the minimum of the maximum vertical displacement of the box as the target, taking the bending moment of the key component not exceeding the limit as the constraint, and globally optimizing and outputting the optimal hoisting point scheme. The application realizes automatic deduction and global optimization of the hoisting point arrangement, and significantly improves the efficiency and scientificity of the hoisting scheme design.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of prefabricated building and structural optimization design technology, specifically to an automatic deduction and optimization method for the arrangement of hanging points of embedded modular building boxes. Background Technology

[0002] In the construction of embedded modular buildings, the box modules need to undergo hoisting, transportation, positioning, and installation. During the hoisting stage, the box module changes from a continuous support state during the service stage to a state supported by several discrete hoisting points, and its internal force transmission path, overall deformation form, and local component stress characteristics will all change significantly. In existing projects, the hoisting point layout scheme is usually determined by empirical point selection, finite element comparison of a small number of schemes, or on-site adjustment. This type of method can complete the basic hoisting design, but for box modules with large size, complex structure, and uneven load distribution, it often suffers from problems such as insufficient scheme coverage, low calculation efficiency, and strong reliance on experience, making it difficult to quickly obtain a better hoisting point layout scheme while meeting construction constraints. Summary of the Invention

[0003] To address the shortcomings of existing technologies, this invention provides an automatic deduction and optimization method for the layout of hanging points in embedded modular building boxes, aiming to achieve automatic generation, batch solution, and global optimal selection of hanging point schemes.

[0004] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solution: An automatic deduction and optimization method for the layout of hanging points of embedded modular building boxes includes the following steps: Step S1: Parametric Modeling Step: Obtain the structural parameters and load parameters of the embedded modular building box. The structural parameters include the column grid layout and component section parameters. Based on the structural parameters, establish a parametric spatial frame model of the box. The parametric spatial frame model is based on the axes of beam and column components, and records the spatial coordinates of nodes, the connection relationship of elements, and the section properties and material properties of each element. Step S2: Stiffness assembly step: Discretize the box beam system using Timoshenko beam elements that consider the influence of shear deformation, introduce a shear influence coefficient to correct the element stiffness, and assemble to obtain the overall global stiffness matrix. Step S3: Load mapping step: The uniformly distributed load on the plate surface is automatically converted into an equivalent line load acting on the boundary beam according to the plastic hinge line theory, and further mapped into an equivalent nodal load according to the finite element equivalence principle to form an equivalent nodal force matrix of the overall structure. Step S4: Scheme Generation and Batch Solution Step: Based on construction topology constraints, a combination traversal algorithm is used to automatically generate several sets of feasible lifting point layout combinations; the combination traversal algorithm includes: extracting all candidate lifting point nodes in the candidate lifting point area of ​​the top or bottom frame of the box body, determining the combination base number according to the lifting point quantity constraint, eliminating asymmetric combinations through a symmetric pruning strategy, eliminating combinations that do not meet the minimum installation spacing through spacing filtering, eliminating combinations that exceed the standard horizontal projection offset between the geometric center of the lifting point and the center of gravity of the box body through offset tolerance verification, and finally outputting a set of feasible lifting point combinations; For each feasible combination of lifting points, the large number penalty function method is used to introduce displacement constraints in the corresponding lifting point degrees of freedom: keeping the basic topology and non-lifting point constraint degree of freedom sub-blocks of the overall global stiffness matrix unchanged, only the main diagonal elements of the corresponding lifting point degrees of freedom are superimposed with the maximum penalty term λ, and the equivalent nodal load vector is updated. The corrected equilibrium equation is solved directly to obtain the vertical displacement response of the box and the internal force response of key components under this scheme; all feasible combinations of lifting points are traversed to achieve continuous batch solution; Step S5: Optimization Output Step: Using the minimization of the maximum vertical displacement of the box as the objective function and the constraint that the maximum bending moment of the key bending member does not exceed the preset limit, perform global optimization screening on all feasible lifting point arrangement combinations and output the optimal lifting point arrangement scheme.

[0005] Furthermore, the embedded modular building box has embedded splicing interfaces at the column grid nodes. The parameterized spatial frame model of the box established in step S1 is locally densified and discretized in the stiffness mutation zone corresponding to the embedded splicing interface. The construction topology constraint in step S4 also includes interference verification of the edge protection component. The interference verification of the edge protection component adopts the axial bounding box collision detection algorithm. By judging whether the spatial coordinates of the suspension point position and the edge protection component column fall into the same bounding box, the suspension point combination that overlaps in space is automatically eliminated.

[0006] Furthermore, step S2 introduces a shear influence coefficient to correct the element stiffness, specifically including: introducing a shear influence coefficient in the stiffness derivation of the Timoshenko beam element. To reflect the shear hysteresis effect of the box, the calculation formula is as follows:

[0007] in, E The elastic modulus of the material, G The shear modulus of the material. The moment of inertia of the cross section is the bending moment. The effective shear area of ​​the cross section. L The unit length is denoted as .

[0008] Furthermore, in step S4, the construction topology constraint includes at least one of the following: The lifting points are arranged in pairs symmetrically, that is, they are distributed opposite each other in the plane space to adapt to the rectangular configuration of the lifting equipment; Minimum installation spacing constraint, that is, the minimum distance between the lifting points must meet the preset requirements; The number of lifting points is constrained, meaning that the total number of lifting points must meet the definition of the predetermined lifting scheme; Offset tolerance constraint means that the offset between the center of the line connecting the lifting points and the center of gravity of the box is within the tolerance range.

[0009] Furthermore, the overall equilibrium equation constructed using the large number penalty function method in step S4 is written as follows:

[0010]

[0011] in, i This represents the row number in the stiffness matrix. j This refers to the column number in the stiffness matrix. z, b, y Let the set of degrees of freedom corresponding to the lifting point constraint be denoted as . K For the global stiffness matrix, U Here is the displacement matrix. F For force matrix, λ As a maximum penalty term superimposed on the main diagonal elements of the global stiffness matrix, this model takes... Used to simulate the support state of the lifting device.

[0012] The expression for the objective function in step S5 is:

[0013] in, For the hoisting point layout scheme, For the first Vertical displacement response of the box under the group scheme This represents the total number of feasible solutions; and during the optimization process, solutions whose maximum bending moment of key bending components exceeds the preset limit are automatically eliminated.

[0014] Furthermore, the batch solution in step S4 is specifically implemented as follows: keeping the basic topology and non-suspension point constrained degree of freedom sub-blocks of the overall global stiffness matrix unchanged, and only for each feasible suspension point combination, superimposing the maximum penalty term λ on the main diagonal element of the corresponding suspension point degree of freedom and updating the equivalent nodal load vector F, directly solving the corrected equilibrium equation, without reassembling the overall stiffness matrix, thus realizing continuous batch solution of suspension point combination schemes of tens of thousands.

[0015] Furthermore, the output optimal lifting point arrangement scheme includes at least: the optimal number of lifting points, the spatial coordinate position of each lifting point, the specific value of the maximum vertical displacement of the box body, the maximum bending moment value of the key components, and several sets of preferred alternative lifting point arrangement schemes provided in order of objective function.

[0016] An automatic deduction and optimization system for the arrangement of suspension points of an embedded modular building box is provided. The system is used to implement the above-mentioned method. The system includes: a parametric modeling module, which is used to obtain the structural parameters and load parameters of the embedded modular building box, establish a parametric spatial frame model of the box, and output the node coordinate matrix, the element connection matrix and the section attribute matrix. The stiffness assembly module is data-connected to the parametric modeling module. It is used to receive the node coordinate matrix, element connection matrix and section attribute matrix, discretize the box beam system using Timoshenko beam elements that consider the influence of shear deformation, introduce shear influence coefficient to correct the element stiffness matrix, assemble and obtain the overall global stiffness matrix and output it. The load mapping module is used to obtain the uniformly distributed load parameters on the plate surface during the box hoisting stage, convert the uniformly distributed load on the plate surface into the equivalent line load of the boundary beam according to the plastic hinge line theory, and further map it into the equivalent load of the nodes, forming the equivalent nodal force matrix of the overall structure and outputting it to the scheme generation and batch solution module. The scheme generation and batch solution module is data-connected with the stiffness assembly module and load mapping module. It is used to automatically generate several sets of feasible lifting point layout combinations based on construction topology constraints. For each combination, the large number penalty function method is used to introduce displacement constraints in the corresponding lifting point degree of freedom. The basic topology and non-lifting point constraint degree of freedom sub-blocks of the overall global stiffness matrix remain unchanged. Only the main diagonal elements of the corresponding lifting point degree of freedom are modified and the maximum penalty term is superimposed. The modified equilibrium equation is solved directly to obtain the vertical displacement response of the box and the internal force response of key components under each scheme. The optimization output module is connected to the scheme generation and batch solution module. It is used to perform global optimization screening on all feasible lifting point arrangement combinations with the objective function of minimizing the maximum vertical displacement of the box and the constraint that the maximum bending moment of the key bending member does not exceed the preset limit, and output the optimal lifting point arrangement scheme.

[0017] Compared with existing technologies, the beneficial effects of this invention are as follows: This invention integrates parametric modeling of the box-type structure, load equivalence, feasible lifting point generation, boundary application, structural response solving, and optimal solution search by constructing an automatic deduction and optimization model for the arrangement of lifting points. This overcomes the problems of existing lifting point arrangements relying mainly on experience, low efficiency in scheme comparison, and poor adaptability, and has the following advantages: 1. It can automatically generate and filter all feasible hanging point schemes, avoiding the limitations caused by manual trial and error.

[0018] 2. It can perform batch calculations and automatic comparisons of different lifting point schemes, significantly improving the efficiency of lifting scheme selection.

[0019] 3. It is applicable to box modules of different sizes, column grids and load forms, and has strong versatility. Attached Figure Description

[0020] The accompanying drawings are provided to further illustrate the invention and form part of the specification. They are used in conjunction with embodiments of the invention to explain the invention and do not constitute a limitation thereof. In the drawings: Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the hoisting module in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 2 These are schematic diagrams of four hanging point planar layout schemes (DJ1-DJ4) in embodiments of the present invention. Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram showing the calculation results of four lifting point schemes in the embodiments of the present invention; Figure 4 This is a deformation cloud diagram of the box body verified by finite element method in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 5 This is the optimal lifting point layout diagram of the six-point lifting scheme output by the deduction and optimization model in this embodiment of the invention. Detailed Implementation

[0021] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention 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. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0022] This embodiment focuses on a specific embedded modular building box, and uses the method described in this invention to automatically optimize the arrangement of hanging points.

[0023] Step S1: Parametric Modeling Steps First, obtain the structural and load parameters of the target embedded modular building box.

[0024] like Figure 1 and Figure 2 As shown, the box module in this embodiment has defined length, width, and height dimensions. Its column grid layout, beam-column connection relationships, component cross-sectional parameters, and material parameters are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Specifically, the column components (GKZ-1), main beams (GL-1), secondary beams (GL-2), and various bottom beams (GCL-1, GCL-2, GCL-3) all utilize Q355 thin-walled steel, with specific cross-sectional dimensions shown in Table 1.

[0025] Table 1 Component cross-sectional dimensions

[0026] Based on the above parameters, a parametric spatial frame model of the box girder is established. This model is based on the axes of all beams and columns, recording the spatial coordinates of the nodes, the connection relationships between elements, and the cross-sectional and material properties of each element. After the model is established, it can be visualized as needed, such as... Figure 1 As shown. Figure 2 It is a planar layout scheme for the suspension points.

[0027] For box-type structures with embedded splicing interfaces at column grid nodes, the parameterized spatial frame model established in step S1 will identify the locations of these interfaces and perform local element refinement discretization in the corresponding stiffness abrupt change zones to improve the accuracy of subsequent structural analysis.

[0028] Step S2: Stiffness Assembly Step Based on the parameterized spatial frame model established in step S1, component discretization and stiffness assembly are performed.

[0029] To improve calculation accuracy, all beams of the box girder (including main beams, secondary beams, and bottom beams) are discretized using Timoshenko beam elements that can account for shear deformation. To more accurately reflect the shear hysteresis effect of the thin-walled steel box girder during stress, this invention introduces a shear influence coefficient φ to correct the element stiffness matrix. The formula for calculating this coefficient is as follows:

[0030] in, E and G These are the elastic modulus and shear modulus of the material, respectively, and their values ​​are shown in Table 2. Let be the moment of inertia of the cross section in the two principal planes; The effective shear area of ​​the cross section; L The unit length is denoted as .

[0031] Table 2 Steel Material Properties

[0032] For each Timoshenko beam element, its standard stiffness matrix is ​​first calculated, and then corrected using the aforementioned shear influence coefficient to obtain the corrected element stiffness matrix. Subsequently, according to the correspondence of nodal degrees of freedom, the corrected stiffness matrices of all elements are assembled to form the overall global stiffness matrix K of the structure.

[0033] Step S3: Load Mapping Step Obtain the load parameters of the box body during the hoisting stage, mainly including the uniformly distributed load on the plate surface (such as self-weight, construction live load, etc.).

[0034] This step automatically converts the uniformly distributed loads acting on the floor or roof slab into equivalent line loads acting on the surrounding beam members, according to the plastic hinge line theory. For example, for a rectangular slab supported on four sides, the uniformly distributed load on it will be converted into trapezoidal or triangular distributed line loads along the four boundary beams. Subsequently, according to the finite element theory, these distributed line loads are further converted into equivalent nodal loads acting on the beam element nodes, forming the equivalent nodal force matrix F of the overall structure.

[0035] Step S4: Solution Generation and Batch Solving Steps This step is the core of the method, enabling the automatic generation and batch solution of feasible lifting point schemes.

[0036] 1. Generating Feasible Lifting Point Combinations: First, extract all candidate lifting point nodes in the pre-defined candidate lifting point area of ​​the top or bottom frame of the box girder (e.g., at the intersection of main beams and secondary beams). Then, based on actual construction conditions and lifting equipment requirements, apply a series of topological constraints to automatically generate all lifting point combinations that meet the conditions. These constraints include: Paired symmetrical arrangement constraint: Lifting points must appear in pairs and be symmetrically distributed about the center of the box in planar space to accommodate the rectangular configuration of the lifting equipment.

[0037] Minimum installation spacing constraint: The distance between any two lifting points shall not be less than the preset minimum value (for example, 1.5 meters based on the size of the lifting device) to avoid mutual interference.

[0038] Lifting point number constraint: The total number of lifting points must meet the requirements of the predetermined lifting scheme (e.g., 4-point lifting, 6-point lifting, or 8-point lifting).

[0039] Offset tolerance constraint: The horizontal projection offset between the geometric center formed by the connection of all lifting points and the total center of gravity of the box must be within the allowable tolerance range (e.g., not exceeding 5% of the length and width dimensions) to ensure lifting balance.

[0040] Interference check constraint (improved): The system automatically checks whether the position of the lifting point overlaps with the edge protection components (such as safety guardrail posts) around the box. If there is an overlap, the combination is automatically removed.

[0041] In this embodiment, with a specific box size, when the goal is to find the optimal 6-point lifting scheme, the model automatically traverses and generates 34,917 feasible lifting point combinations that meet all the above constraints.

[0042] 2. Batch Solution: For each generated feasible lifting point combination, the support state of the lifting device is simulated using the large number penalty function method. Specifically, in the global equilibrium equations, a maximal penalty term λ is superimposed on the main diagonal elements of the global stiffness matrix K for the degrees of freedom corresponding to the current lifting point combination (for example, λ = 1 × 10¹). 0 × max(diag(K))) to force the displacement of that degree of freedom to be zero.

[0043] The revised overall equilibrium equation is written as:

[0044]

[0045] in, i This represents the row number in the stiffness matrix. j This refers to the column number in the stiffness matrix. z, b, y Let the set of degrees of freedom corresponding to the lifting point constraint be denoted as . K For the global stiffness matrix, U Here is the displacement matrix. F For force matrix, λ As a maximum penalty term superimposed on the main diagonal elements of the global stiffness matrix, this model takes... Used to simulate the support state of the lifting device. I λ is the identity matrix, and at non-suspension degrees of freedom, λ = 0. DOF z The DOF represents the translational degree of freedom of the suspension point in the vertical direction (Z-axis). y The degree of translational freedom (DOF) represents the horizontal (Y-axis) direction of the suspension point. b Represents the boundary degrees of freedom.

[0046] To achieve continuous batch solving of tens of thousands of solutions, this invention employs an efficient solution strategy: (1) Keep the stiffness matrix topology unchanged: throughout the calculation process, keep the basic topology (non-zero element position mode) of the overall stiffness matrix K and the sub-blocks of unconstrained degrees of freedom unchanged.

[0047] (2) Incremental main diagonal element correction: For each new combination of lifting points, only the main diagonal element of the corresponding lifting point degree of freedom (i.e. superimposed λ) needs to be modified, and the equivalent nodal load vector F is updated.

[0048] (3) Fast solution of sparse matrix: Using the previous decomposition results or directly solving the corrected sparse linear equation system, the displacement matrix U of the box under this combination (including the vertical displacement response U) is obtained. z ) and the internal force response of key components.

[0049] Using the above strategy, the single solution time is approximately 3.4 ms, and the total solution time for 34,917 schemes is approximately 119 seconds. In contrast, if the traditional finite element method is used, each scheme needs to be remodeled, meshed, and the stiffness matrix assembled and solved. Assuming each scheme takes 10 minutes, the 34,917 schemes would take approximately 242 days. The solution efficiency of this invention is improved by approximately 18,000 times.

[0050] Step S5: Optimization Output Step After the structural response of all feasible suspension point combinations has been calculated, the global optimization and output stage begins.

[0051] 1. Establishing the objective function: This invention takes minimizing the maximum vertical displacement (i.e., maximum deflection) of the box structure during hoisting as the primary optimization objective. The objective function is defined as follows:

[0052] in, For the hoisting point layout scheme, For the first Vertical displacement response of the box under the group scheme This represents the total number of feasible solutions (34,917 in this example); and solutions whose maximum bending moment of critical bending members exceeds the preset limit are automatically eliminated during the optimization process.

[0053] 2. Applying Constraints: To ensure lifting safety, this invention introduces constraints. The system automatically checks the maximum bending moment of key bending components (such as the main beam where the lifting point is located) in each scheme. If the value exceeds a preset limit (e.g., 80% of the material yield moment), the scheme will be automatically eliminated and will not participate in the objective function ranking.

[0054] 3. Output the optimal solution: The system sorts all feasible solutions that meet the safety constraints in ascending order of their objective function values ​​(i.e., maximum vertical displacement). The final output is the optimal lifting point layout scheme, such as... Figure 5 As shown.

[0055] The output is rich in content and includes at least: Optimal lifting point information: the optimal number of lifting points (e.g., 6) and their specific coordinates in space.

[0056] Performance prediction values: The specific value of the maximum vertical displacement of the box body under the optimal hoisting scheme (e.g., 10.25mm) and the maximum bending moment value of key components.

[0057] Alternative options: Sorted by objective function value, 2-3 additional preferred alternative lifting point layout schemes are provided for engineers to flexibly select based on other on-site factors (such as lifting equipment availability).

[0058] Verification Example: To verify the accuracy and efficiency of the method of this invention, four typical suspension point schemes (DJ1-DJ4, etc.) automatically derived in this embodiment are used. Figure 2 The calculation results (shown) are compared with the calculation results of a fine solid / shell element model built using general-purpose finite element software (such as Abaqus).

[0059] The comparison results are as follows Figure 3 , Figure 4 As shown in Table 3, the calculated deformation is in good agreement with the finite element reference value.

[0060] Table 3 Comparison of Deformation Amount Calculation and Verification

[0061] As shown in Table 3, for the four suspension point arrangement schemes adopted in this study, the maximum vertical deformation of the box body calculated by the method of this invention (14.62mm, 32.21mm, 33.88mm, 45.06mm) is only 3.16% different from the reference values ​​(14.43mm, 33.26mm, 34.81mm, 43.72mm) of the finite element fine model. The relative error is strictly controlled within the 5% accuracy range allowed for engineering structural analysis.

[0062] In terms of computational efficiency, such as Figure 5 As shown, an example diagram of the optimal lifting point arrangement scheme automatically optimized by the model under custom loads and grid conditions is presented. In the specific case of the box-shaped structure presented in this paper, the model's automatic optimization calculation time was 119 seconds, traversing 34,917 feasible lifting schemes that met the set conditions. This demonstrates that its computational efficiency is significantly higher than that of the exhaustive engineering experience method of finite element modeling. Finite element modeling still requires consideration of pre-processing modeling work. Furthermore, the custom module of this model allows for rapid modification of parameters such as load, box-shaped structure dimensions, and column grid distribution according to actual needs, enabling rapid adaptation to the requirements of rapid optimization for lifting various sizes of embedded module box-shaped structures.

[0063] The present invention also provides an automatic deduction and optimization system for the arrangement of suspension points of embedded modular building boxes. The system is used to implement the above method. The system includes: a parametric modeling module, used to obtain the structural parameters and load parameters of the embedded modular building box, establish a parametric spatial frame model of the box, and output the node coordinate matrix, element connection matrix and section attribute matrix. The stiffness assembly module is data-connected to the parametric modeling module. It is used to receive the node coordinate matrix, element connection matrix and section attribute matrix, discretize the box beam system using Timoshenko beam elements that consider the influence of shear deformation, introduce shear influence coefficient to correct the element stiffness matrix, assemble and obtain the overall global stiffness matrix and output it. The load mapping module is used to obtain the uniformly distributed load parameters on the plate surface during the box hoisting stage, convert the uniformly distributed load on the plate surface into the equivalent line load of the boundary beam according to the plastic hinge line theory, and further map it into the equivalent load of the nodes, forming the equivalent nodal force matrix of the overall structure and outputting it to the scheme generation and batch solution module. The scheme generation and batch solution module is data-connected with the stiffness assembly module and load mapping module. It is used to automatically generate several sets of feasible lifting point layout combinations based on construction topology constraints. For each combination, the large number penalty function method is used to introduce displacement constraints in the corresponding lifting point degree of freedom. The basic topology and non-lifting point constraint degree of freedom sub-blocks of the overall global stiffness matrix remain unchanged. Only the main diagonal elements of the corresponding lifting point degree of freedom are modified and the maximum penalty term is superimposed. The modified equilibrium equation is solved directly to obtain the vertical displacement response of the box and the internal force response of key components under each scheme. The optimization output module is connected to the scheme generation and batch solution module. It is used to perform global optimization screening on all feasible lifting point arrangement combinations with the objective function of minimizing the maximum vertical displacement of the box and the constraint that the maximum bending moment of the key bending member does not exceed the preset limit, and output the optimal lifting point arrangement scheme.

[0064] The data flow relationships between the modules are as follows: the node coordinate matrix, element connection matrix, and section attribute matrix output by the parametric modeling module are passed as input to the stiffness assembly module; the equivalent nodal force matrix output by the load mapping module and the global stiffness matrix output by the stiffness assembly module are jointly passed as input to the scheme generation and batch solution module; the displacement response and internal force response of each scheme output by the scheme generation and batch solution module are passed as input to the optimization output module, and finally the optimal lifting point layout scheme is output.

[0065] In summary, this specific embodiment fully demonstrates the effectiveness, high accuracy, and high efficiency of the automatic deduction and optimization method for the layout of embedded modular building box suspension points provided by this invention. This method can fully automate the entire process from model building to optimal solution output, overcoming the limitations of traditional empirical methods and providing reliable and efficient technical support for modular building construction.

[0066] Other embodiments: It is understood that the application of the present invention is not limited to the specific box dimensions, cross-sectional forms, and load conditions given in the above embodiments. When the dimensions of the box, column grid, secondary beam arrangement, or local load changes, technicians only need to modify the corresponding input parameters (such as length, width, column spacing, etc.) in step S1 and adjust the candidate area of ​​the lifting points and constraint conditions (such as minimum spacing) in step S4. The system described in this method can automatically adapt and rerun the optimization process without any modification to the underlying algorithm, demonstrating strong versatility and adaptability.

[0067] Furthermore, the batch solution strategy adopted in step S4 of this invention, which involves "keeping the overall stiffness matrix and basic topology unchanged while modifying only the main diagonal elements of the lifting point degrees of freedom," is key to achieving rapid calculation of tens of thousands of solutions. For box models of different sizes and combinations of different numbers of lifting points, those skilled in the art can flexibly set the value of the penalty factor λ or use a more efficient sparse matrix solver based on actual computing resources and time requirements; all of these fall within the scope of protection of this invention.

[0068] Finally, it should be noted that the above descriptions are merely preferred embodiments of the present invention and are not intended to limit the present invention. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art can still modify the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments or make equivalent substitutions for some of the technical features. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for automatically deducing and optimizing the arrangement of hanging points in an embedded modular building box, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: Step S1: Parametric modeling step: Obtain the structural parameters and load parameters of the embedded modular building box. The structural parameters include column grid layout and component section parameters. Establish a parametric spatial frame model of the box based on the structural parameters. Step S2: Stiffness Assembly Step: Discretize the box girder system using Timoshenko beam elements that consider the influence of shear deformation, and introduce a shear influence coefficient. Correcting element stiffness: In the stiffness derivation of the Timoshenko beam element, the shear influence coefficient... The formula used to reflect the shear hysteresis effect of the box is as follows: In the formula, E The elastic modulus of the material, G The shear modulus of the material. The moment of inertia of the cross section is the bending moment. The effective shear area of ​​the cross section. L The element length is given; and the overall global stiffness matrix is ​​obtained through assembly. Step S3: Load mapping step: The uniformly distributed load on the plate surface is automatically converted into an equivalent line load acting on the boundary beam according to the plastic hinge line theory, and further mapped into nodal equivalent loads; Step S4: Scheme Generation and Batch Solution Step: Based on construction topology constraints, several feasible lifting point layout combinations are automatically generated; for each combination, the large number penalty function method is used to introduce displacement constraints in the corresponding lifting point degrees of freedom, modify the main diagonal elements of the global stiffness matrix, construct the overall equilibrium equation, and perform continuous batch solution to obtain the vertical displacement response of the box girder and the internal force response of key components under each scheme; wherein, the overall equilibrium equation is written as: In the formula, i This represents the row number in the stiffness matrix. j This refers to the column number in the stiffness matrix. z, b, y Let the set of degrees of freedom corresponding to the lifting point constraint be denoted as . K For the global stiffness matrix, U Here is the displacement matrix. F For force matrix, λ As a maximum penalty term superimposed on the main diagonal elements of the global stiffness matrix, this model takes... Used to simulate the support state of the lifting device; The batch solution is specifically implemented as follows: keeping the basic topology and non-suspension point constrained degree of freedom sub-blocks of the overall global stiffness matrix unchanged, and only for each feasible suspension point combination, superimposing the maximum penalty term λ on the main diagonal element of the corresponding suspension point degree of freedom and updating the equivalent nodal load vector F, directly solving the corrected equilibrium equation, without reassembling the overall stiffness matrix, to achieve continuous batch solution of suspension point combination schemes of tens of thousands. Step S5: Optimization Output Step: The objective function is to minimize the maximum vertical displacement of the box. The expression for the objective function is: In the formula, For the hoisting point layout scheme, For the first Vertical displacement response of the box under the group scheme. The total number of feasible solutions is given; and during the optimization process, solutions whose maximum bending moment of the key bending member exceeds the preset limit are automatically eliminated. The maximum bending moment of the key bending member does not exceed the preset limit as a constraint condition. The entire feasible lifting point arrangement combination is then optimized and screened to output the optimal lifting point arrangement solution.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The embedded modular building box is provided with embedded splicing interfaces at the column grid nodes. The parameterized spatial rigid frame model of the box established in step S1 is subjected to local unit densification discretization in the stiffness change zone corresponding to the embedded splicing interface. The construction topology constraints in step S4 also include interference verification of the edge protection components, and automatically eliminates the suspension point combinations that spatially overlap with the edge protection components of the box.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S4, the construction topology constraints include at least one of the following: The lifting points are arranged in pairs symmetrically, that is, they are distributed opposite each other in the plane space to adapt to the rectangular configuration of the lifting equipment; Minimum installation spacing constraint, that is, the minimum distance between the lifting points must meet the preset requirements; The number of lifting points is constrained, meaning that the total number of lifting points must meet the definition of the predetermined lifting scheme; Offset tolerance constraint means that the offset between the center of the line connecting the lifting points and the center of gravity of the box is within the tolerance range.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The optimal lifting point layout scheme output includes at least: the optimal number of lifting points, the spatial coordinates of each lifting point, the specific value of the maximum vertical displacement of the box body, the maximum bending moment value of the key components, and several sets of preferred alternative lifting point layout schemes provided in order of objective function.

5. An automatic deduction and optimization system for the layout of embedded modular building box suspension points, characterized in that, The system is used to implement the method according to any one of claims 1 to 4, the system comprising: The parametric modeling module is used to obtain the structural and load parameters of the embedded modular building box, establish the parametric spatial frame model of the box, and output the node coordinate matrix, element connection matrix and section attribute matrix. The stiffness assembly module is data-connected to the parametric modeling module. It is used to receive the node coordinate matrix, element connection matrix and section attribute matrix, discretize the box beam system using Timoshenko beam elements that consider the influence of shear deformation, introduce shear influence coefficient to correct the element stiffness matrix, assemble and obtain the overall global stiffness matrix and output it. The load mapping module is used to obtain the uniformly distributed load parameters on the plate surface during the box hoisting stage, convert the uniformly distributed load on the plate surface into the equivalent line load of the boundary beam according to the plastic hinge line theory, and further map it into the equivalent load of the nodes, forming the equivalent nodal force matrix of the overall structure and outputting it to the scheme generation and batch solution module. The scheme generation and batch solution module is data-connected with the stiffness assembly module and load mapping module. It is used to automatically generate several sets of feasible lifting point layout combinations based on construction topology constraints. For each combination, the large number penalty function method is used to introduce displacement constraints in the corresponding lifting point degree of freedom. The basic topology and non-lifting point constraint degree of freedom sub-blocks of the overall global stiffness matrix remain unchanged. Only the main diagonal elements of the corresponding lifting point degree of freedom are modified and the maximum penalty term is superimposed. The modified equilibrium equation is solved directly to obtain the vertical displacement response of the box and the internal force response of key components under each scheme. The optimization output module is connected to the scheme generation and batch solution module. It is used to perform global optimization screening on all feasible lifting point arrangement combinations with the objective function of minimizing the maximum vertical displacement of the box and the constraint that the maximum bending moment of the key bending member does not exceed the preset limit, and output the optimal lifting point arrangement scheme.

Images