PSI - Issue 42

Harry O. Psihoyos et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 42 (2022) 299–306 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

304

6

0.005

Experimental Measurements Uniform Cartesian Mesh Cartesian Mesh with Projection Factor Layered Tetrahedral Mesh

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0

-0.001

-0.002 Strain z at z = 9.75mm

-0.003

-0.004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

(a)

x (mm)

0.003

Experimental Measurements Uniform Cartesian Mesh Cartesian Mesh with Projection Factor Layered Tetrahedral Mesh

0.002

0.001

0

-0.001

Strain x at z = 2.25 mm

-0.002

-0.003

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

(b)

x (mm)

Fig. 5. Comparison between predicted results for the models based the different meshing strategies and experimental measurements of z-components of residual strains along the horizontal line profiles of build part placed above the substrate at: (a) z = 9.75 mm and (b) z = 2.25mm. The three modellingapproaches present thesame accuracy for the sameelement size. However, thecomputational times and theelement quality present significant differences between the models as it is shown in Table 1. This can be a ttributed to the number of elements that was generated in each model because of the mesh strategy. The model with cartesianmesh with projection factor presents theminimumcomputational time with a little difference with the