Issue 75

R. Ince et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 75 (20YY) 435-462; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.75.30

s un K Ic K Ic  MPa √ m

ref

K Ic MPa √ m

No

106-1 106-3 206-1 206-2 206-3 306-1 306-2 406-1 406-2 406-3 107-1 107-2 207-1 207-2 207-3 307-2 307-3 407-2 407-3

1.579 1.201 1.217 1.201 1.128 1.396 1.227 1.263 1.289 1.414 1.267 1.337 1.266 1.355 1.335 1.475 1.238 1.264

1.265

1.068

1.269

1.314

1.201

1.168

1.276

1.357

1.501 Descriptive Statistics

19

8

n

1.313 0.116

1.240 0.091

 

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

[1.257, 1.369]

[1.164, 1.316]

Normality Check

Shapiro-Wilk ( p )

0.285

0.812

Result

Normal

Normal

Hypothesis Testing

1.58 ( p >0.05)

t calc

1.71

t 25,0.025 Result

t calc = 1.58 < t 25, 0.025 =1.71

F calc

1.63 ( p >0.05)

F 0.05,18,7 Result

3.47

F calc = 1.63 < F 0.05, 18,7 =3.47

Effect Size (Hedges' g) Achieved Power (1-  )

0.66 (Medium)

0.34 There is not a significant difference between fracture toughness. Table 6: Statistical comparison based on t -test and F -test between this study and Tutluoglu and Keles [14] for non-linear fracture toughness.

457