PSI - Issue 28

Adrian Loghin et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 28 (2020) 2304–2311 A. Loghin et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2020) 000–000

2309

6

(a) x-coordinate

(b) y-coordinate

Fig. 6: Correlation plots of crack tip coordinates for the verification instances.

Fig. 7: K 1 correlation plots for the LHS verification instances.

Out of ten verification solutions, only two comparisons are provided for brevity. The remaining solutions came out similarly as far as the agreement between the parent and the surrogate model predictions. Figure 8 shows two sets of crack path predictions for the design points labeled as “DOE28” and “DOE33”. Red dots represent the parent model predictions whereas the overlapping red lines are the surrogate model predictions. The plots also include the light gray circles in the background, which represent the entire DOE space solutions used for model calibration. The level of variation in crack path indicates that the uncertainty in the hole center location by ± 0 . 5mm does not produce significant deviation in the the crack path response. Similar sets of plots of the K I predictions versus the crack length are shown in Figure 9 for the same two design points used for the surrogate model verification. The agreement between the parent and RBF models indicates that the surrogate model captures the parent behaviour very accurately. Larger K I scatter is observed for crack lengths approaching the hole location.