The phrase "a safe design of" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the characteristics or features of a design that prioritize safety, often in contexts like engineering, architecture, or product development.
Example: "The engineers presented a safe design of the new bridge, ensuring it could withstand extreme weather conditions."
Alternatives: "a secure design of" or "a risk-free design of".
These criteria present the minimum heat-transfer capacity βc required for a safe design of a reacting system for a given adiabatic temperature rise α and a given ratio ϵ of the Arrhenius temperature and the modified coolant temperature.
To enable a safe design of aluminum cast components, the microstructure characteristics, e.g. porosity, secondary dendrite arm spacing and Si eutectic morphology, have to be taken into account.
The final objective of DESC is the development of a numerical code to be able to support a safe design of dust handling facilities.
A formulation based on the CLD model was proposed for a safe design of the alloy as a structural pre-stressing element under a high-cycle fatigue loading regime.
When the groove spacing (i.e., the net distance between grooves) is relatively small, the bond behaviour of each NSM FRP strip is detrimentally influenced by the adjacent grooves/FRP strips, and such detrimental effect should be taken into account for a safe design of the NSM FRP strengthening system.
First combined simulations using a three way coupled CFD/DPBM/mass-transfer solver pave the way for a safer design of industrial-sized columns, where no correlations are available.
It can be assumed that a safer design of nanoparticles might include robust protective layers conferring on them more resistance to alterations during their life cycle.
In addition, a better understanding of the translocation of NPs across an internal barrier such as the placenta would also contribute to a safer design of NPs in general.
A design rule allowing a safe design independent of the type of PM, FM and the welding parameters will be uneconomic for a large number of applications.
Ultimate ductility capacity can be determined as 5.8, with a safe design limit of 5.0, providing a 20%% reserve of displacement capacity.
Ultimate ductility capacity can be determined as 6.3 and 5.7, with a safe design limit of 5.0, providing 26 and 14%% reserve of displacement capacity. Figure 9 also shows the design shear strength of the prefabricated bridge substructures.
