PSI - Issue 60

A.B. Penurkar et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 355–363 A.B. Penurkar/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000 – 000

361

7

exp. data (8 mm thick plate) Weibull model (40.24, 9.11)

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Frequency

exp. data (4 mm thick plate) Weibull model (46.24, 8.537)

5

θ β

θ β

4

3

2 Frequency

1

32 36 40 44 48 52 56 0

28

32

36

40

44

Fracture Stress (MPa)

Fracture Stress (MPa)

(a) (b) Fig. 7: Comparison of fracture stress with Weibull model for glass thickness of (a) 4 mm (b) 8 mm.

5

8 mm thickness plate

4 mm thickness plate

4

3

2

Frequency

1

Shift in representative fracture stress

32 36 40 44 48 52 56 0

Fracture Stress (MPa)

Fig. 8: Comparison of two parameter Weibull model obtained from 4 mm and 8 mm thickness of glass.

5. Determination of probability of failure using two parameter Weibull model for different thickness of glass The probability of failure was obtained from experimental data and Weibull model. The parameters for different thickness of glass used in the Weibull model is shown in Fig. 7. The comparison of probability of failure using Weibull model and experimental data is shown in Fig. 9. It was seen that there is very well match between the probability of failure using Weibull model and experimental probability for both the thickness of glass. Hence, Weibull model may be used for determination of probability of failure of glass under different loading conditions.