# Optimization Design of Space Camera Enclosure Based on Bionics
## 4 Simulation Experiment Verification  
Given the high accuracy of the optimization results mentioned above, and considering factors such as production feasibility and actual usage, in the design of the box structure in this section, relevant parameters were approximated. The final data are presented in Table 5, and the box structure is illustrated in Figure 8.  
Finite element analysis is a commonly used method for analysis and verification in the field of mechanical structure design. Therefore, this article employs Ansys to perform finite element analysis and comparative verification on the box structure before and after optimization. To guarantee the reliability of the simulation outcomes, identical material properties and boundary conditions were estab \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Variable Parameters**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Response Parameters**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**Candidate Points** & **Stiffener Height** & **Stiffener Width** & **Substrate Thickness** & **Box’s Weight (Kg)** & **Maximum Deformation (mm)** & **First-Order Natural Frequency (Hz)** \\ \hline Candidate point 1 & 11.732 & 8.462 & 1.974 & 24.362 & 0.00152 & 267.01 \\ Candidate point 2 & 11.781 & 8.498 & 1.983 & 24.974 & 0.00152 & 266.83 \\ Candidate point 3 & 11.803 & 8.522 & 2.012 & 25.012 & 0.00153 & 266.15 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Candidate point information. Figure 8: Optimized rear box structure diagram. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Project**} & **Stiffener Height** & **Stiffener Width** & **Substrate Thickness** \\  & **(mm)** & **(mm)** & **(mm)** \\ \hline
**Content** & 11.7 & 8.5 & 2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Final box structure parameters. The boundary conditions of the box are primarily determined by the position and weight of the main components installed for simplified analysis. As previously mentioned, the bottom of the box mainly accommodates three components; therefore, the position, magnitude, and direction of the equivalent loads are illustrated in Figure 9.  
In addition, the bottom of the box is also designed with a fixed support platform, which is set as a fixed support type in ANSYS 2023 R1. As shown in Figure 10.  
It should also be pointed out that in this article, tetrahedral grids were set up during grid division, and local areas were encrypted to control the maximum size of the grid. Finally, 16,834 units and 33,452 nodes were divided. The simulation results are shown in Figure 11.  
The vibration environment has a significant impact on the performance of space payloads, and its potential destructive power should not be underestimated. Minor vibrations may lead to a decline in payload performance parameters, affecting the efficiency and accuracy of mission execution, while severe vibrations may directly cause structural damage to the payload, or even lead to the failure of the entire launch mission. Given this, vibration factors play a crucial role in the design and development of space products and must be given high priority. To effectively predict and avoid potential vibration risks, this paper uses ANSYS 2023 R1 for vibration response analysis. This method can comprehensively reveal the dynamic response characteristics of the structure under complex vibration environments, thereby ensuring that space payloads have excellent vibration resistance performance in the design stage and guaranteeing the success rate and reliability of the launch mission. Figure 10: Schematic diagram of box support. Figure 9: Schematic diagram of box load. The model boundary conditions are fully constrained through a series of mounting platforms on the base plate. The random vibration load conditions are as shown in Table 6.  
The analysis results, as depicted in Figure 12, indicate a maximum stress of 185.45 MPa. In engineering practice, it is standard procedure to compare three times the root mean square (RMS) stress with the material's yield strength to assess structural adequacy.