PSI - Issue 24

Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

12

Alessandro Pirondi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 24 (2019) 455–469

466

Fig. 6. Optimization function as a function of Ө 1 , Ө 2 for D2 and E2 sets with ply thickness of 1 = 2 = 0.4 mm, from Gandhi et al. (2019). 3.7. Comparison with FE analysis Fig. 7 shows the out-of-plane displacement of the SMAC after the cool-down stage for the optimal sets A2-1, B2-1, D2-2 and E2-2 of Table 5. It must be underlined that neither L, nor t, nor L/t shows a unique relationship with the deflection, therefore it would have been hard to find the optimal solution for a given deflection simply by trial and-error.

Fig. 7. Cured shapes and deflections obtained at the end of the cool-down step (in meters) for sets A2-1, B2-1, D2-2, E2-2 in Table 5, from Gandhi et al. (2019).

The comparison between the results obtained in ABAQUS and MATLAB is carried out in Table 6. The