PSI - Issue 19

L.C. Araujo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 19 (2019) 19–26 L.C. Araújo et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

24 6

Figure 3. A comparison of predictions with Crossland ’s model and experimental results of uniaxial, torsional and combined in-phase loads. It can be observed a good agreement of the experimental results with the prediction of the model. The same comparison is made in Fig. 4 and 5 with the Findley ’s model and the MWCM, respectively. The values of and , used to plot the experimental results of the MWCM model, Fig.5, were obtained as demonstrated by Araújo et al. (2011). They consider a range of 99% of the maximum value of and within of this range searches in all planes the value of the maximum normal stress , , and thus the definition of the critical plane is made. In the Findley ’s model for pure torsional loads, / = ∞ , the forecast is somewhat non-conservative, the opposite happens with the MWCM in uniaxial cases, / = 0 , where the forecast is more conservative and this can be attributed to the fact that the value of in this loading condition is approaching the value of . However, it can be observed that overall, results sit within 5% error bands.

Figure 4. A comparison of predictions with Findley ’s model and experimental results of uniaxial, torsional and combined in-phase loads.