## 3 Simulation Experiment
### Results Analysis  
#### 3.2.1 Analysis of the Application Effects of the RSGM  
By conducting a finite element simulation experiment on Case 1, simulation data as shown in Table 3 can be obtained. Based on the measurement data from Table 3, the simulation results obtained using the Monte Carlo method are shown in Figures 8 and 9. It is worth noting that the equivalent support points for a, b, c, d, and e in the figure are located at 30,298 mm, 30,254 mm, 30,215 mm, 30,173 mm, 30,121 mm, and 30,098 mm, respectively. Table 3, in conjunction with Figure 8, shows that when only stress measurement errors are present, the equivalent support point position of the No. 3 intermediate bearing gradually shifts from being biased to the left to being biased to the right, and the bearing load continuously decreases. The continuous increase in sectional stress leads to an increase in the standard deviation of the measurement results in Figure 8; the distribution functions of the calculation results from both SGM and RSGM conform to a normal distribution. The standard deviation of the SGM calculation results ranges from a maximum of 854 N to a minimum of 360 N; the standard deviation of the RSGM calculation results ranges from a maximum of 603 N to a minimum of 269 N. Under the same conditions, the maximum difference in the mean results of the two methods is 1, and the standard deviation of the RSGM calculation results is at its minimum 69.8% and at its maximum 74.7% of the standard deviation of the SGM calculation results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Design Position** & **Case 1** & **Case 2** & **Case 3** & **Case 4** \\ \hline Assumed Support Point Position (at 1/2 bearing)/mm & \(\backslash\) & 30,205 & 30,205 & 30,205 \\ Equivalent Support Point Position/mm & \(\backslash\) & 30,305 & 30,305 & 30,205 \\ Jacking Position/mm & \(\backslash\) & 29,784 & 30,732 & 29,784 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Design states of various cases. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Bearing Equivalent Support** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Standard Load/N**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Standard Section Stress/MPa**} \\
**Point Position/mm** & & **Section 1** & **Section 2** & **Section 3** & **Section 4** \\ \hline
30,298 & 25,866 & \(-\)1.262 & \(-\)0.550 & \(-\)1.010 & \(-\)2.181 \\
30,254 & 24,595 & \(-\)1.463 & \(-\)0.830 & \(-\)1.488 & \(-\)2.492 \\
30,215 & 23,769 & \(-\)1.582 & \(-\)0.995 & \(-\)1.822 & \(-\)2.712 \\
30,173 & 22,946 & \(-\)1.702 & \(-\)1.160 & \(-\)2.154 & \(-\)2.930 \\
30,121 & 21,685 & \(-\)1.915 & \(-\)1.452 & \(-\)2.609 & \(-\)3.221 \\
30,098 & 19,924 & \(-\)2.298 & \(-\)1.978 & \(-\)3.089 & \(-\)3.503 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Finite element simulation measurement data for Case 1. Figure 8: Relative frequency distribution of SGM and RSGM calculation results under the condition of no assumed support point position deviation. Figure 9: Relative frequency distribution of SGM and RSGM calculation results under the condition of existence of assumed support point deviation. From Figure 9, it can be seen that, when both stress measurement errors and assumed support point deviations are present, when it is assumed that the support point of the No. 3 intermediate bearing is at the 1/2 position, the SGM calculation results are affected by the deviation between the assumed support point position and the equivalent support point position. The distribution function of its calculation results changes significantly with the magnitude of the assumed support point deviation. When the assumed support point deviation is large, its result distribution function gradually tends towards a bimodal distribution. This is because the measured strain sections are located at both ends of the bearing, and the increase in the assumed support point deviation shifts the main error factor from the stress measurement error to the assumed support point deviation, leading to the emergence of a bimodal distribution.