Issue 73

V. Pisarev et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 73 (2025) 108-130; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.73.08

u N  = –10.0

v N  = +8.5

(c) Component u ,

(d) Component v ,

(e) Component u , v N  = –12.5 Figure 8: Specimen CP_D-20. Interferograms referred to point 2 (a), (b); point 8 (c), (d) and point 5 (e), (f). u N  = +20.0 (f) Component v ,

Involved points are located both close to the contour of the dimple and some distance from its boundary. Figs. 8(a, b) and 8(c, d) include interference fringe patterns inherent in point 2 and point 8, respectively, which are located out of contact dimple area. This fact considerably increases the fringe quality comparing with images presented in Fig. 7. The quality of the fringes visualized at point 5 (Fig 8(e, f)) is quite satisfactory for quantitative processing, despite the fact that the probe hole partially overlaps the damaged contour of the contact dimple.

117