Plate samples were designed with two distinct configurations of the internal structure: reticular and rhomboidal, labeled as PR and PT, respectively. For each configuration, two different patterns, primarily distinguished by varying the inclination θ of the walls forming the internal structure, were also taken into account. These patterns are denoted as PR_60 and PR_72 for the reticular pattern, and PT_27 and PT_45 for the rhomboidal pattern. (Figure 2).
Concerning the reticular configuration, the two distinct patterns were defined by interior walls inclined at ±60° (PR_60) and interior walls inclined at ±72° (PR_72). Both configurations maintained an identical thickness for both the flanges and the walls. (Figure 2; Table 1).
Regarding the rhomboidal configuration (Figure 2; Table 1), the internal walls were arranged to create a rhomboidal mesh. Specifically, the two distinct patterns considered were distinguished by walls inclined at 27° (PT_27) and, for the other type of sample, walls inclined at 45° (PT_45).
For each configuration (reticular and rhomboidal), the two pattern were derived from an optimization design process relied on a parametric geometrical model (Figure 3c) created in Grasshopper [19, 20], along with a corresponding structural model developed in Karamba3D [21].
In detail, for the reticular pattern the problem was set as in the following:
-constraint conditions: the structural optimization process was carried out by imposing a constraint condition on the maximum utilization ratio, denoted as Umax=sVM/slim≤1, where sVM represents the maximum value of Von Mises stress, considering the average strength value deduced from tensile tests on dog-bone samples (slim=44 MPa, see section 4.1);
-parameters: regarding the parameters varied during the optimization process, the PR_60 solution was obtained by adjusting both the slope θ of the internal structure walls and the thickness t (with the latter assumed to be the same for both walls and flanges). On the other hand, the PR_72 solution was derived by varying only the slope θ, while setting the thickness obtained for PR_60. This choice was made to compare structural models with the same thickness.
About the rhomboidal configuration, the optimization process was set as in the following:
-constraint conditions: the structural optimization process was carried out by imposing as the main constraint condition the same volume of material of the pattern PR_60 of the reticular configuration, in order to compare different solutions with the same volumeFurthermore, considering the average strength value deduced from tensile tests on dog-bone samples (slim=44 MPa, see section 4.1), an additional constraint was imposed on the maximum utilization ratio, denoted as Umax=sVM/slim≤1, where sVM represents the maximum value of Von Mises stress;
-parameters: regarding the parameters varied during the optimization process, the PT_27 solution was obtained by adjusting both the slope θ of the internal structure walls and the thickness t (with the latter assumed to be the same for both walls and flanges). On the other hand, the PT_45 solution was derived by varying only the thickness t, while setting the slope θ to 45°.
Table 1. Dimensions of the samples
|
b1 (mm)
|
b2 (mm)
|
h1 (mm)
|
h2 (mm)
|
r
(mm)
|
t (mm)
|
θ (°)
|
n. of
samples
|
DB
|
150
|
80
|
20
|
10
|
20
|
4
|
-
|
5
|
PR_60
|
200
|
-
|
30
|
100
|
-
|
4
|
60
|
5
|
PR_72
|
200
|
-
|
30
|
100
|
-
|
4
|
72
|
5
|
PT_27
|
200
|
-
|
30
|
100
|
-
|
4
|
27
|
5
|
PT_45
|
200
|
-
|
30
|
100
|
-
|
3.5
|
45
|
5
|
The numerical analyses conducted during the optimization process simulated the experimental three-point bending test described in the paper (Figure 3b), where the span was set at S=10 cm and a uniform load was distributed along the centerline of the upper flange (the resultant of this load being the total applied force F).
The optimization problem was tackled by using mono-objective genetic algorithms, defining the following objective function OF to be maximized (Eq. 2):
where α is a penalty factor, assumed here to be -105, and β is a parameter introduced to adhere to the constraint condition of the utilization ratio (it takes a value of -105 when Umax>1 and 0 when Umax≤1). Here, V and V* represent respectively the volume of material of the reticular solution PR_60 (taken as the reference value) and the volume obtained during the optimization process. The developed visual script is depicted in Figure 3c, outlining all the main steps.
Details regarding the dimensions of the plate sample are presented in Table 1, with the symbols referring to Figure 3.