Issue 77

V. Antonchenko et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 77 (2026) 247-264; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.77.15

,% Size

0 i

1 i

2 i

3 i

5

0.7144 0.7228 0.7280 0.7299 0.7178 0.6331 0.6414 0.6470 0.6496 0.6520

0.5577 0.5516 0.5418 0.5387 0.5005 0.4981 0.4988 0.4873 0.4831 0.4818

0.4730 0.4932 0.4572 0.4560 0.3455 0.3957 0.4529 0.3932 0.3816 0.3836

0.8785 0.9121 0.5983 0.5134 0.1666 0.6587 0.8715 0.4395 0.3321 0.3185

7.5

E



1

1

10

E

2

12.5

15

5

7.5

E



0.7

1

10

E

2

12.5

15

Table 9: Refined Chapuliot coefficients UCC.

Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 show the results for other groups of accident scenarios. The graphs show the results of FEM and those based on the refined coefficients determined by system (7). The results for all types of cracks are similar, so only one scenario for one type of crack is presented. It can be seen that the coefficients obtained by the least-squares method are more accurate than those determined by the direct ICM.

Figure 9: SIF in time for LOCA and MSLB test accident scenarios, a/c=0.3.

258