ROPS Cab Framework Sizing for Faster Lightweight Design

Solution Overview

Problem

The existing design methods for cab ROPS frameworks in engineering machines are inefficient, leading to long development cycles, high design costs, and inadequate initial structural design and profile selection.

Innovation Solution

A design method that calculates target lateral load and energy values using GB/T standards, selects suitable cab framework structures from simply supported beam models, and determines profile sectional moduli to construct a closed spatial framework structure efficiently.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Manufacturing precision

If 3D mathematical model-based simulation analysis is used for ROPS framework design, then design accuracy is improved, but design cycle is extended

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedesign accuracyVSAvoiddesign cycle

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The design process is segmented into three distinct stages: initial design using simplified formulas, simulation verification using 3D mathematical models, and prototype testing. This segmentation allows the majority of design work to be completed quickly with formulas, reserving simulation analysis for verification only, thus resolving the contradiction between design accuracy and design cycle length.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The simplified formulas provide preliminary design results before simulation analysis is conducted. By performing preliminary calculations with the formulas first, designers obtain initial structural parameters and profile selections that guide the subsequent simulation process, reducing the need for repeated simulation iterations and shortening the overall design cycle while maintaining accuracy.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

2Manufacturing precision

If 3D mathematical model-based simulation analysis is used for ROPS framework design, then design quality is improved, but design cost is increased

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedesign qualityVSAvoiddesign cost

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The design process is segmented into three distinct stages: initial design using simplified formulas, simulation verification using 3D mathematical models, and prototype testing. This segmentation allows the majority of design work to be completed quickly with formulas, reserving simulation analysis for verification only, thus resolving the contradiction between design accuracy and design cycle length.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The simplified formulas provide preliminary design results before simulation analysis is conducted. By performing preliminary calculations with the formulas first, designers obtain initial structural parameters and profile selections that guide the subsequent simulation process, reducing the need for repeated simulation iterations and shortening the overall design cycle while maintaining accuracy.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

3Reliability

If structural design and profile selection are performed after 3D mathematical model completion, then simulation analysis can be conducted, but initial design stage efficiency is lost

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesimulation verificationVSAvoidinitial design stage efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The conventional sequence is inverted: instead of completing the 3D mathematical model first and then performing structural design and profile selection, the simplified formulas are used first to determine structural parameters and profiles, followed by creating the 3D model for simulation verification. This inversion allows structural design to be completed efficiently at the initial stage while still maintaining simulation verification capability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

Solution Approach 2:

The simplified formulas provide preliminary design results before simulation analysis is conducted. By performing preliminary calculations with the formulas first, designers obtain initial structural parameters and profile selections that guide the subsequent simulation process, reducing the need for repeated simulation iterations and shortening the overall design cycle while maintaining accuracy.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS20250117534A1Design method for ROPS framework and cab for engineering machines

Publication Date: 2025.04.10 JIANGSU XCMG CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY RESEARCH INSTITUTE LTD

AI summary

Disclosed are a design method for an ROPS framework and a cab for engineering machines. The design method for an ROPS framework comprises: obtaining target values of a lateral load Fmax and lateral load energy Umax of an ROPS framework by calculation according to the standards of earth-moving machines; selecting a suitable cab framework structure type from a simply supported beamstructural mechanics model; and calculating the sum of profile sectional moduli of all pillars and top cross beams according to a maximum lateral load Fmax quick calculation formula and a maximum load energy Umax quick calculation formula, selecting suitable profiles based on the sum, and constructing a closed spatial framework structure according to the selected cab framework structure type.