PSI - Issue 33

Davide Palumbo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 33 (2021) 528–543

540

Fig. 6. Thermoelastic temperature trends Δ T and relative errors for the aluminium alloy AA6082: a), c) and e) thermoelastic temperature trend as a function of r , R and , b), d), f) relative error trend as a function of r , R and . 4.3 Experimental implications in SIF evaluation The new TSA formulation appears different from the classical one. In particular, the SIF and temperature variations are no longer directly related by only the constant of material a . In this regard, the main implication in SIF evaluation with experimental data is that the Stanley method Stanley (1997), is no longer valid. All the TSA approaches described in Introduction for SIF evaluation can be applied by considering Eq. (29) and by knowing the material constants b and υ . However, these approaches can be still applied, but a significant error can be committed depending on the material and adopted test parameters. In this case, the absolute error in SIF evaluation can be obtained by considering the following relation: �� �� � � � � √ � � � �� cos � � � �� � �� � � � � (35) Substituting Equation (22) in (36), we obtain: �� � � � √� � �� �� � cos � � � �� � � s�� � � � � s�� � � � � �� (36)