PSI - Issue 48

Bernadett Spisák et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 48 (2023) 326–333 Spisák et al / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

330

5

Fig. 4. The size and the finite element model of the 0.16CT specimen.

Fig. 5. (b) shows the curve fitting in case of the miniaturized CT specimen. To show the effect of the geometry on the results this diagram shows 4 cases (Table 1). In the first case, real geometry and realistic pre-cracking were used (P1-1), this version is in a very good agreement with the measurement. In the second case, the real geometry dimensions were left intact, but an average straight pre-cracking was applied (P1-2), which is a common procedure for normal sized specimens. It can be clearly seen that this variant overestimate the results. the same applies for the theoretical geometry size calculated with the averaged pre-cracking (P1-3). Finally, to see only the effect of the geometry differences the simulation was also done on theoretical geometry size with realistic pre-cracking (P1-4). This version is going between the two previously introduced version. As it can be seen it does have some effect on the results, however it is smaller than the effect of the pre-cracking.

(a) (b) Fig. 5. (a) F-LLD curve of normal CT specimen (b) F-displacement curve of miniaturized CT specimen.

Table 1. Geometry size of the simulated 0.16CT specimens. Identifier Thickness (B) High (H) Width (W) Total width (1.25W) Distance between pins pre-crack P1-1 4.00 mm 9.58 mm 7.955 mm 9.99 mm 4.411 mm real P1-2 4.00 mm 9.58 mm 7.955 mm 9.99 mm 4.411 mm average P1-3 4.00 mm 9.60 mm 8.000 mm 10.0 mm 4.400 mm average P1-4 4.00 mm 9.60 mm 8.000 mm 10.0 mm 4.400 mm real