PSI - Issue 41

America Califano et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 41 (2022) 145–157 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 Table 1 - Numbered labels of the twelve configurations of the considered model based on the geometrical parameters � and � � � � = 2 = 4 = 10 = 20 = 1.0 mm 1 2 3 4 = 1.5 mm 5 6 7 8 = 2.0 mm 9 10 11 12

150

6

Figure 3 - Schematization of the twelve configurations according to their numbered label in Table 1. In each configuration there is a network of points in which the SED criterion has been evaluated to classify between unsafe (red dots) and safe (blue squares) conditions. The dimensions along the three directions in Figure 5 are a-dimensional; in particular, the coordinates ( x, y, z ) of each point, which parametrically vary within the considered 3D model, have been rationalized as follows: � � � � � � � �� � ℎ � � � � � � � � � . In order to reduce the dimensionality of the problem, it has been useful to: i) focus on the volume comprising the interface between the safe and unsafe areas, herein called border volume (BV) and represented in Figure 4 for the twelve configurations; ii) simplify the model by transforming it in a 2D one. This last point has been done by considering just one z plane in the 3D volume, i.e., the plane z = 6 represented in Figure 5 for all the configurations. At this point, it has been possible to draw a line between the safe and unsafe 2D plane areas for each configuration. This line has been called separation line (SL) and it is shown in Figure 5 with a black line for the twelve configurations. The empty squares and dots in Figure 5 represent the points that do not belong to the BV and, so, have been unselected and not considered in the following evaluations.