2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.03.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Significance of K-dominance zone size and nonsingular stress field in brittle fracture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…While the non-singular stresses may not have a direct contribution on the value of K I , they can indirectly influence its magnitude. [13] In order to estimate K I from the numerical results we used the projection method as presented in [32] and briefly described below. Considering the y-direction normal stress distribution (σ θθ ) ahead of the crack tip (θ=0) only, equation (1) can be transformed as:…”
Section: Analysis Of Numerical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…While the non-singular stresses may not have a direct contribution on the value of K I , they can indirectly influence its magnitude. [13] In order to estimate K I from the numerical results we used the projection method as presented in [32] and briefly described below. Considering the y-direction normal stress distribution (σ θθ ) ahead of the crack tip (θ=0) only, equation (1) can be transformed as:…”
Section: Analysis Of Numerical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The K-dominant region was considered as the zone around the crack tip where K I contributes to more than 95% of the opening stress at the crack tip (see horizontal dashed line in Figure 3b). The degree of K-dominance [13,15,33] is therefore estimated as:…”
Section: Analytical Interaction Integralmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this case the fracture load is expected to be different from the specimens with lower constraint effect. It has been shown in previous researches that different fracture toughness values can be obtained for an identical material when using various specimens' geometries [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. This paper shall show differences between the well-known one-parameter fracture mechanics concept and the multiparameter one.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Experiments on brittle materials are mainly focused on homogeneous specimens. However, even for this presumably predictable case, different values of fracture toughness have been reported for different specimen configurations or sizes, deviating from the usual scaling predicted by LEFM [12][13][14][15][16]. In order to explain such discrepancies, scientists are rejecting the notion of an indisputably large K-dominant zone and are investigating two parameter models, including non-singular terms in addition to the SIF, to more accurately and consistently predict the fracture toughness of different specimens.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%