## 3 Results  
### Main Truss Optimization  
A Front Elevation of Main Truss  
The schematic diagram of the front elevation angle of the main truss of the hanging basket is shown in Figure 43, and the range of the front elevation angle can be taken as 0-35\({}^{\circ}\). In this study, the initial front elevation was 35\({}^{\circ}\), and the front elevation was gradually reduced to 5 degrees when the horizontal distance between the upper end of the main truss and the web member was fixed. According to the simulation results, the most suitable front elevation value was analyzed. The front angle of elevation of each simulation model was 5\({}^{\circ}\) lower than that of the previous model. Except for the model with a front angle of elevation of 35\({}^{\circ}\), six additional groups of simulation models were established for the analysis of changes in bar length and steel consumption caused by the changes in the angle, as shown in Table 10 and  
Figure 43: Front elevation of main truss. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Member**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Finite Element Analysis**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Allowable Value**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Performance**} \\  & & **Results** & & & **Redundancy** \\ \cline{3-8}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Stress**} & **Stress** & **Distortion** & **Stress** & **Distortion** & **Stress** & **Distortion** \\  & & **[MPa]** & **[mm]** & **[MPa]** & **[mm]** & **[\%]** & **[\%]** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Main trusses} & AB & 92.6 & 0.21 & 175 & 11.75 & 47.09 & 98.21 \\ \cline{2-8}  & AD & 103.9 & 0.60 & 175 & 14.91 & 40.63 & 95.98 \\ \cline{2-8}  & BC & 134.2 & 10.33 & 175 & 15.25 & 23.31 & 32.26 \\ \cline{2-8}  & BD & 55.0 & 0.41 & 175 & 9.00 & 68.57 & 95.44 \\ \cline{2-8}  & CD & 119.7 & 12.53 & 175 & 13.25 & 31.60 & 5.43 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Front upper crossbeam} & 113.8 & 12.47 & 175 & 18.13 & 34.97 & 31.22 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Bottom longitudinal beam} & Under the Web & 71.32 & 9.05 & 175 & 15.25 & 59.25 & 40.66 \\ \cline{2-8}  & Under the floor & 57.99 & 13.67 & 175 & 15.25 & 66.86 & 10.36 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Lower cross beam} & Front lower beam & 52.93 & 16.12 & 175 & 18.00 & 69.75 & 10.44 \\ \cline{2-8}  & Lower rear beam & 48.59 & 9.80 & 175 & 18.00 & 72.23 & 45.56 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Comparison of finite element calculation results and allowable values of members. Figure 44. According to the analysis, relying on the previous finite element calculation, the load was applied. In the most unfavorable condition 1, at point C, the single main truss was subjected to the pressure of 399.32 t, which was respectively applied to the newly established six models. And the changes in stress in various bars are shown in Figure 45. Because the z-direction distortions of the BC and CD bars of the main truss are relatively large, the other three bars can be ignored. The comparison of z-direction distortions in BC and CD bars is shown in Figure 46. It can be seen from the analysis of Figure 44 that when the horizontal distance between the upper end of the main truss and the web member is fixed, the front elevation angle of the main truss is reduced, and the steel consumption of the hanging basket is changed. In the range of a 5-35\({}^{\circ}\) front elevation, the sum of the BC and BD pole length is first decreased \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Front Elevation** & **35\({}^{\circ}\)** & **30\({}^{\circ}\)** & **25\({}^{\circ}\)** & **20\({}^{\circ}\)** & **15\({}^{\circ}\)** & **10\({}^{\circ}\)** & **5\({}^{\circ}\)** \\ \hline BC + BD & & & & & & & \\ Pole length [m] & 11.161 & 10.824 & 10.675 & 10.628 & 10.664 & 10.768 & 10.935 \\ BC + BD & & & & & & & \\ Rod steel amount [kg] & 1421.5 & 1378.5 & 1359.6 & 1353.6 & 1358.1 & 1371.4 & 1392.7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Model parameters for changing front elevation angle. Figure 44: Schematic diagram of model parameters change caused by the change of front elevation angle.