## 4 Results and Discussion
For \(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\) = 10.0, the best configurations changed for \((L_{0}\)/\(H_{0})_{\rm o}\) = 0.075 and the optimal ratio \((L_{1}\)/\(H_{1})_{\rm o}\) dropped dramatically to \((L_{1}\)/\(H_{1})_{\rm o}\) = 2.0. In general, the results show that changes in one degree of freedom have a strong influence on the effect of other geometric ratios on the performance indicator. In this case, it was also noticed that there is no optimal universal configuration that leads to the best performance in this problem. The last optimization step consists of investigation on the influence of the ratio \(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\) over the twice-minimized filling time (\(t_{\rm mm}\)) and the respective optimal configurations: \((L_{0}\)/\(H_{0})_{\rm o}\) and \((L_{1}\)/\(H_{1})_{\rm o}\). To obtain this evaluation, the best results achieved in Figure 11a,b are compiled in Figure 12.  
These results show that the behavior of the (\(t_{\rm mm}\)) is largely affected by ratio \(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\), and it has a strong dependence on ratios \((L_{1}\)/\(H_{1})_{\rm o}\) and \((L_{0}\)/\(H_{0})_{\rm o}\). The three-minimized filling time (\(t_{\rm mm}\)) is obtained for the rate \((H_{0}\)/\(H_{1})_{\rm o}\) = 30.0, which is only 5.0% lower than that reached for \(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\) = 40.0. In general, it is possible to state that the higher magnitudes of the ratio \(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\) led to the best performance for this problem. The lowest magnitude of \(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\) = 10.0 obtained a performance 183.0% inferior to that reached for the optimal ratio \((H_{0}\)/\(H_{1})_{\rm o}\) = 30.0. Moreover, differences found for \(t_{\rm mm}\) between the ratios \(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\) = 20.0 and \((H_{0}\)/\(H_{1})_{\rm o}\) = 30.0 was nearly 23.0%. Figure 11: Effect of the ratio \(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\) for different ratios of \(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\) on (a) infusion time (once minimized), (\(t\))\({}_{\rm m}\); (b) ratio (once optimized), \((L_{1}\)/\(H_{1})_{\rm o}\). Figure 13 shows resin progression at the analyzed instants of time for \(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\) = 10.0 and \(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\) = 0.075, (\(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\))\({}_{0}\) = 0.1, and \(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\) = 0.3 corresponds to the lowest ratio of \(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\), the optimal configuration, and the superior magnitude, respectively. For the lowest ratio of \(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\), it is observed that the T-shaped channel almost degenerates into an I-shaped channel. This configuration leads to a poor distribution of resin in the lower region of the porous plate. The resin propagation is shown for three different instants of time: \(t\) = 20.0 s (Figure 13a), \(t\) = 40.0 s (Figure 13b) and \(t\) = 60.0 s (Figure 13c). For optimal configuration, despite the T-shaped channel being placed in a lower region of the porous plate in comparison with the case with \(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\) = 0.075, the elongated bifurcated branches led to better distribution of the resin in the lower region of the porous plate and allow easy resin propagation towards the exit of the domain. For the superior ratio of \(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\) = 0.3, the restriction of the T-shaped channel in the lower region of the porous plate affects the advancement of resin towards the exit of the domain, leading to a poorer performance than the optimal ratio of \(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\). Figure 14 presents the results of resin spread for the optimum ratio of \(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\), (\(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\))\({}_{0}\) = 30.0, for two different ratios of \(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\), (\(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\))\({}_{00}\) = 0.05, \(L_{0}\)/\(H_{0}\) = 0.2 and three different instants of time: \(t\) = 20.0 s (Figure 14a), \(t\) = 40.0 s (Figure 14b), \(t\) = 60.0 s (Figure 14c). These ratios represent the corresponding twice-optimized and worst-case scenarios for the ratio of (\(H_{0}\)/\(H_{1}\))\({}_{0}\) = 30.0, respectively.