1998
DOI: 10.1016/s0013-7944(98)00006-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Weight functions and stress intensity factors for corner quarter-elliptical crack in finite thickness plate subjected to in-plane loading

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[27] or Ref. [28] which makes growth computations solely based on the surface value unreliable. For this reason it is beneficial to analyse the crack as a whole, as the semi‐elliptical model does.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[27] or Ref. [28] which makes growth computations solely based on the surface value unreliable. For this reason it is beneficial to analyse the crack as a whole, as the semi‐elliptical model does.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SIF is usually given in a dimensionless form (the so-called geometry correction factor), which takes into account the effects of the boundary conditions as well as the shape and size of structure and flaw. [11][12][13][14] Different approaches have been proposed in the literature to determine the SIF: analytical methods, [15][16][17][18] the weight function method, [19][20][21][22][23][24][25] the body force method, 26 empirical relationships, [27][28][29] and numerical methods, [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] [such as the finite element method (FEM), the line spring FEM approach, 31 the stiffness derivative method, 30 and the virtual crack closure technique 32 ]. A general discussion related to numerical methods applied to fracture mechanics problems can be found in Bazant et al 40,41 More recent computational tools employed in fracture problems can also be recalled, as the dual boundary element method 42,43 and the meshless methods.…”
Section: S T R E S S -I N T E N S I T Y F a C T O R S F O R S U R F Amentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nonetheless, the "user-friendly" characteristic is only true if appropriate h s are known in priory because an in-situ assessment of an h s will most often require a fracture mechanic finite analysis and complex curve fitting regimes that compromise the appeal of the MWF approach. At present, the vast majority of documented h s comprise cracked structures that include a variety of cracked infinite bodies or bodies that are representative of a selection of semi-infinite or finite length rigidly restrained cracked plate, semi-infinite cracked hollow cylinder, semi-infinite plate with cracked fastener holes and semi-infinite cracked joint [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. Thus, the implementation of a traditional MWF approach is presently unsuitable for "userfriendly" assessment of K TS I associated with finite length elastically/thermoelastically restrained cracked plates and finite length elastically/thermoelastically restrained cracked hollow cylinders.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%