Issue 78

A. Zakharov et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 78 (2026) 260-274; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.78,16

Figure 8: The plastic SIF distributions for both small-scale yielding ( K ssy ) and extensive plasticity ( K p ). Note that difference between the plastic SIF for the SSY ( K ssy ) and extensive plasticity ( K p ) is substantially larger for the FRC crack tip throughout the stress range 0.1 ≤ ( σ / σ 0 ) ≤ 0.4. For the MN crack-tip configuration, in the range of the applied stresses from 0.1 ≤ ( σ / σ 0 ) ≤ 0.2 the difference between the plastic SIF for the SSY and extensive plasticity regimes remains relatively small, as the applied stresses exceeds ( σ / σ 0 ) > 0.2, the influence of the formulation of the plastic SIF becomes insignificant. The effect of the crack tip shape on the plastic SIF distributions for the SSY and extensive plasticity is more clearly illustrated in Fig.9. In this figure, the red curves correspond to the MN configuration (  = 0 ), while the blue curves represent results for the FRC configuration (  = 10 -3 a ). As in Fig. 8, solid and dashed lines denote the plastic SIF under extensive plasticity and SSY regime, respectively. For the SSY regime the plastic SIF distributions ( K ssy ) calculated using by Eq.(14) are independent of the crack tip configuration. For all biaxial loading conditions studied, the plastic SIF values for the MN and FRC crack-tip configurations are nearly identical. However, under extensive plasticity, the values of the plastic SIF for those two configurations differ substantially at the same loading conditions.

271