PSI - Issue 13

Kiiko V.M. et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 13 (2018) 1433–1437 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000 – 000

1436

4

y

y

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

x

x

50

0

50

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

a b Fig. 4. Forms of (a) the current lines and (b) the distribution of equipotential lines.

Fig. 5. Equipotential lines passing through the point (1 mm, 10 mm) for different crack lengths l (shown in the plot): points denote measurement results, and solid lines denote analytic solution results. ∆ = 2 − 1 = 2 (arccos √ (sh 2 2 − sh 2 0 sin 2 0 − ch 2 0 cos 2 0 ) sh 2 2 sh 2 0 sin 2 0 − sh 2 2 − arccos √ (sh 2 1 − sh 2 0 sin 2 0 − ch 2 0 cos 2 0 ) sh 2 1 sh 2 0 sin 2 0 − sh 2 1 ) We take a specimen of width d =100 mm and fix a contact at the point (1 mm, 10 mm) with coordinate dimensions in mm. Each position of the movable contact located on the upper edge of the sample on an equipotential line passing through the fixed point M then corresponds to a definite crack length. This dependence is shown in Fig. 6. For the given sample dimensions, coordinates of the fixed point M, and initial crack length 10 mm, we obtain the dependence of the shift x of the movable contact on the crack length l (see Fig. 6). We compared the obtained theoretical results with experimental results obtained with a model conducting specimen of width 100 mm, length 600 mm, and thickness 0.25 mm prepared from thermally expanded graphite foil. The crack was modeled by a side cute perpendicular to the edge of the sample. The electrical scheme was arranged