Multi-objective optimization improves sealing efficiency and structural performance in concrete pump components, indicating enhanced service life.
Purpose This study aims to enhance the sealing efficiency and prolong the service life of concrete sealing bodies by optimizing the lip cross-section geometry, which plays an important role in contact pressure distribution and stress evolution during operation. Design/methodology/approach A finite element model of the concrete pumping process was established based on an initial single-cone-angle lip design. To improve sealing performance, a double-cone-angle lip cross-section was proposed and optimized with respect to three design parameters: interference amount, first cone angle and its length. A multi-objective evaluation framework integrating sealing performance, frictional heat generation, stress level and operational stability was developed. Finite element simulations combined with design of experiments were used to construct surrogate models, and the optimal model (BP neural network) was coupled with a genetic algorithm to obtain the optimal design. Findings The optimized sealing body significantly improved all performance indices: the comprehensive performance index increased by 0.2179, the frictional heat generation index by 0.5889, the stress index by 0.2586 and the operational stability index by 0.2288. These improvements were achieved while maintaining sufficient sealing integrity. Originality/value This work introduces a design optimization framework for rubber sealing components used in concrete pumps, integrating finite element analysis with surrogate modeling and evolutionary algorithms. The proposed biconical lip design not only enhances contact pressure uniformity but also reduces internal stress and thermal load, providing valuable insights into the structural optimization of dynamic sealing systems. Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/ILT-07-2025-0328/
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: