2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.04.235
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An iterative method to obtain the specimen-independent three-parameter Weibull distribution of strength from bending tests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Some samples cut under the same processing parameters may break under light load, whereas others will withstand significant bending forces [ 39 ]. For this reason, Weibull cumulative distribution is often employed to describe the distribution of the characteristic strength of such materials [ 40 ]: …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some samples cut under the same processing parameters may break under light load, whereas others will withstand significant bending forces [ 39 ]. For this reason, Weibull cumulative distribution is often employed to describe the distribution of the characteristic strength of such materials [ 40 ]: …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In theory, for a total number of samples n<100, ranking the tensile strength test data according to the order from small to large, the cumulative failure probability is given by the Bernard formula [10]:…”
Section: Estimation Of Weibull Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By assuming the existence of two distinct types of flaw populations on the same surface of a brittle material (Phani and De 1987), Klein (2011) proposed the use of a bimodal Weibull statistics, whose micromechanically motivated modeling is considered by Rickerby (1980). Another approach consists in adopting a three-parameter Weibull distribution (Przybilla et al 2011a), which prescribes a lower bound for glass strength. However, questions have been raised about the existence of a threshold (Basu et al 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%