PSI - Issue 16

Cristian Alejandro de León Gómez et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 16 (2019) 265–272 Cristian Alejandro de León Gómez et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

269

5

2

3

t a

t a

t a

4

t a

 

   

  

   

   t a for

  

Y

     1,99 0,41

;

     18,7

38,48

0,6 

53,85



   

      

2 1

2 3





  

t a

t a

t a

    2 1

t a >0,6.

  

    1

  

  

Y

1 3

   

for

Model No. 3. Relation (2) was used for SIF calculation for described in Fig. 3c, from Tada et al. (2013), however here:

2

3

t a

t a

t a

  

   

  

   

  

  

 1,122 0,561

0,015

0,091

Y



.

t a

1



Model No. 4. Calculation formulas for SIF (Fig. 3d) have the form as shown by Newman et al. (1983):

K F a    0 ,

(3)

where K 0 – argument from K I a ;

2

4

  

 

t M M a 2 1    

t M a 3

    

1,65

1

c a

  

  

F w



Q

w F

F

 

1 1,464

;

;

;



   

     2

Q

W c

t a

cos

24

c a

c a

  

  

M

 0,2 0,54 0,89

M

  

 

0,65 0,5 1

14 1     

0 I K K a  .

M

     1,13 0,09

;

;

;

c a

c a

2

3

1



Model No. 5. Calculation formulas for SIF (Fig. 3e) from Newman et al. (1983) have the form:

  K K a I (φ = π/2);

(4)

where

1,65

   

   

2

4

c a

Q K F a    

  

  

  

 

Q

 

1 1,464

;

;

;

     t F M M a 2 1

t M a

g g f 1 2

     3



15

c a

c a

c a

  

M

 0,3 0,44 1,06

  

M

M

0,5 0,25

14,8 1     

  

;

;

;

1,08 0,03

1  

c a

2

3