2006
DOI: 10.1007/s00024-006-0057-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Update on the Fracture Toughness Testing Methods Related to the Cracked Chevron-notched Brazilian Disk (CCNBD) Specimen

Abstract: This paper reviews the use of the cracked Chevron-notched Brazilian disc (CCNBD) for fracture toughness testing. Theoretical and experimental backgrounds of the method are described. Some issues regarding the current development (i.e., recalibration) of the specimen geometry are presented and discussed. A number of geometries related to the CCNBD proposed recently for fracture toughness testing of rock are then introduced and commented on.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
19
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Preliminary results from an approximate analytic solution for the problem of a disc with a relatively long central elliptic crack indicate that the results for the SIFs are significantly differentiated. This observation in conjunction with the respective one concerning the rotation of the crack axis during loading [18] support further the view that the standardized formulae for KIC needs to be updated, as it has been already indicated by a number of researchers [7][8][9][10][11].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Preliminary results from an approximate analytic solution for the problem of a disc with a relatively long central elliptic crack indicate that the results for the SIFs are significantly differentiated. This observation in conjunction with the respective one concerning the rotation of the crack axis during loading [18] support further the view that the standardized formulae for KIC needs to be updated, as it has been already indicated by a number of researchers [7][8][9][10][11].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Moreover some researchers believe that "… the formula of ISRM was inadequate and inaccurate" [10] while even Fowell, who is among the founders of the respective ISRM standard stated, that "… it may be necessary to revise the dimensionless SIF values for a future release of the suggested method to incorporate some recent developments. More research and input from different sources need to be coordinated [11]".…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Shetty et al (1985) used 1/ √ R in the initial development of the CCNBD method formulation. The use of 1/ √ R term was proposed in Fowell and Xu (1993); Xu and Fowell (1994); Fowell and Xu (1994); Fowell et al (2006); Iqbal and Mohanty (2006); Nasseri and Mohanty (2008) and Cui et al (2010). Using 1/ √ R term in the basic formula and constants u and ν improved by Wang et al (2004b) and Wang (2010) for computation of the dimensionless stress intensity factor, average K Ic becomes 1.62 ± 0.07 MPa √ m for CCNBD tests on andesite rock.…”
Section: Maximum Stress Intensity Factor Computationsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The method used to evaluateK IC is best defined as follows (Nasseri et al, 2007;Fowell, 1995Fowell, , 2006: …”
Section: Experimental Set-up and Samplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2) specimens (Fowell, 1995(Fowell, , 2006. This type of specimen has a small volume, can be easily processed using a rock core, and can withstand heavy loading.…”
Section: Experimental Set-up and Samplesmentioning
confidence: 99%