This research demonstrates a novel optimization strategy to improve the structural design of crane girders, enhancing efficiency and performance.
The lightweight design of box-type double-girder overhead crane main girders is important for improving load-carrying capacity, reducing energy consumption, and enhancing transportation efficiency. However, the structural optimization of crane main girders involves multiple constraints and strong nonlinearity, which often leads to slow convergence and premature stagnation when using traditional optimization methods. To address these issues, a multi-strategy improved dung beetle optimization algorithm (MSIDBO) is proposed for the lightweight design of overhead crane main girders. First, the search mechanism and inherent limitations of the standard dung beetle optimization (DBO) algorithm are analyzed. Subsequently, several enhancement strategies are introduced, including hybrid chaotic population initialization; reflective boundary handling; adaptive quantum jump updating; adaptive hybrid updating; and a staged control strategy for search intensity. These strategies are designed to enhance population diversity and achieve a better balance between global exploration and local exploitation. The performance of MSIDBO was evaluated on 29 CEC2017 benchmark functions. The results show that MSIDBO generally converges faster on 25 functions and reaches the global optimum on 24 functions among the compared algorithms. Finally, based on mechanical analysis and design specifications of overhead crane main girders, a constrained structural optimization model is established. The lightweight design optimization is carried out, and finite element simulations were conducted using ANSYS Workbench to verify the effectiveness and engineering feasibility of the optimized design. The results show that the proposed MSIDBO algorithm exhibits enhanced stability and convergence performance, achieving a weight reduction of 19.4% in the main girder under the specified design configuration, meeting satisfying strength and safety requirements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: