PSI - Issue 33

Stanislav Seitl et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 33 (2021) 312–319 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

316

5

 HPC Miarka et al (2018)

HPC (a/R=0.4)

angle α [°]

K I [MPamm

1/2 ]

II [MPamm

1/2 ]

Specimen n.o.

K

0 0 5

38.798 33.508 34.981 28.597 24.668 20.736 20.516 11.543 11.503

0.001 0.001

HPC_04_2_02 HPC_04_2_03 HPC_04_2_04 HPC_04_2_05 HPC_04_2_06 HPC_04_2_07 HPC_04_2_08 HPC_04_2_09 HPC_04_2_10 HPC_04_2_11 HPC_04_2_12

15.006 27.757 23.943 38.862 38.450 49.219 49.049 48.499 53.178

10 10 15 15 20 20

25.2 25.2

0.006 0.007

 AAC Miarka et al (2019)

AAC (a/R=0.4)

angle α [°]

K I [MPamm

1/2 ]

II [MPamm

1/2 ]

Specimen n.o.

K

0 5 5

18.463 21.678 20.846 18.716 17.039 17.298 12.806 14.375

0.000 9.299 8.942

AAC_04_1 AAC_04_2 AAC_04_3 AAC_04_4 AAC_04_5 AAC_04_6 AAC_04_7 AAC_04_8 AAC_04_9 AAC_04_10 AAC_04_11

10 10 10 15 20 20 20

18.166 16.538 16.790 24.000 26.940 31.203 30.383 34.309

7.318 7.126 0.004

25.2

4. Results and discussion Figs. 2 – 5 illustrate the relationship of SIFs corresponding to fracture toughness under three kinds of fracture modes, in which points on axes x and y denote, mode I and mode II, respectively and the rest of points denote the mixed mode I-II for various level of combination. For each studied materials (C 50/60, HSC, HPC and AAC) the fit of obtain experimental data were performed by mentioned criteria. In Figs. 2 – 5 firstly, the best fit by criteria is compared by graphical view and later the coefficients of criteria together with coefficient of determination (R 2 ) are mentioned in Table 1. As it is known, the higher coefficient of determination is, the better fit.