362
R. dell’Erba
Fig. 18.39 ASTM sample Poisson’s effect square lattice 2° gradient
Fig. 18.40 ASTM rectangular-centered lattice before tensile test
Fig. 18.41 ASTM rectangular-centered lattice after tensile test
Fig. 18.42 ASTM square lattice fracture
the internal distribution on the points and in the convexity of the propagation front
of the deformation, i.e., see the convexity of the points owing to the different lattice
used compared to the preceding case.
Case (h) Short beam, the plate
Now we want show some differences between the solution of a bending plate undergoing a shear load and what we have obtained by our tool. In the preceding works, we
got some success but we need to go deeply to a better understanding so we are looking
for some cases that do not fit on what we are expecting. We consider a bidimensional
square plate (X and Y coordinates from 10 to 21) with materials parameters Y = 1000
and ν = 0.33, where Y is Young’s modulus, ν Poisson’s coefficient; boundary load
R. dell’Erba
Fig. 18.39 ASTM sample Poisson’s effect square lattice 2° gradient
Fig. 18.40 ASTM rectangular-centered lattice before tensile test
Fig. 18.41 ASTM rectangular-centered lattice after tensile test
Fig. 18.42 ASTM square lattice fracture
the internal distribution on the points and in the convexity of the propagation front
of the deformation, i.e., see the convexity of the points owing to the different lattice
used compared to the preceding case.
Case (h) Short beam, the plate
Now we want show some differences between the solution of a bending plate undergoing a shear load and what we have obtained by our tool. In the preceding works, we
got some success but we need to go deeply to a better understanding so we are looking
for some cases that do not fit on what we are expecting. We consider a bidimensional
square plate (X and Y coordinates from 10 to 21) with materials parameters Y = 1000
and ν = 0.33, where Y is Young’s modulus, ν Poisson’s coefficient; boundary load