PSI - Issue 71

Arun K. Singh et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 71 (2025) 90–94

93

the present study, elastic modulus E = 209.0 GPa and mass density s  = 7800 kg.m -3 of the steel material have been considered for the analysis (Rosakis et al., 1984). Fig.1 illustrates the best curve fit between the modified Mott’s fracture model and the experimental data. The optimal value of fracture parameters is presented in Table 1. These values also enable us to establish the relationship between ID K vs. v as 0.24 2 v    

1 0.76

K

 +

690      

IC

 



2

K

=

ID

  

2         690 v

1 0.35

 −

 

(7)

( -2 (kJ.m ) (6.96) 1 690 d v   = +

) 0.24

  ,



where

And IC K

dynamic

surface

energy

and corresponding s  = 6.96 kJ.m -2 .

1 2 53.93 . MNm

=

Table 1: Optimal value of fracture parameters.

% error (MAPE)

l v (m.s -1 )

s  ( kJ.m -2 )

k

n

6.96

9.93

690.0

0.24

12.38%

Fig.1. The best curve fit between the modified Mott’s fracture model and the experimental data Rosakis et al., (1984).