numero25

A.S. Chernyatin et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 25 (2013) 15-19 ; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.25.03 17 The computed fields of tangential (u, v) and normal (w) displacement (Fig. 2), analogues of which in practice can be measured using the ESI, are obtained from the solution of the direct problem including calculation of stress and strain states due to the formation of the hole in the vicinity of the surface crack tip (Fig. 1a). Further, the displacement fields u, v, w are used as the original experimental data to compute the strain response e i * at corresponding points of the body under external load. The resulting array e i * is employed for the calculation of parameters P j = { b , σ x , σ y } by minimization of the objective function I ( e i *, e i ) comparing experimental and numerical data. The details of the above-mentioned procedure are given in Ref. [3]. ACCURACY OF THE RESULTS he objective function I ( e i *, e i ) reached the minimum magnitude at the following condition P j = P j *. The objective function I is taken as root-mean square norm (I RMS ) or maximum norm (I max ) reflecting the divergence between calculated e i and experimental e i * data. The procedure of searching the minimum of the objective function is based on simplex method for function minimization [4] which is widely used in practice. To analyze the stability of the solution and to assess the sensitivity of the procedure to the error of the experimental data, series of numerical experiments were carried out to determine the parameters P j under various conditions of experimental measurements and solution of the minimization problem. Variation of the experimental error ( δ e ), the number of measurement points ( N ), and the area of their location (described by normalized radius vector r / ρ , where ρ is radius of the hole) is used to estimate the accuracy of the obtained results. Some numerical results for the expectation and variation of the normalized parameters * * * x x x y y y b b / b , / , /          are summarized in Tab. 1. It can be seen that the proposed method gives very high accuracy. Conditions Expectation Variation № r / ρ N δ , % I b x  y  b x  y  1 [2; 3] [2; 3] 55 55 55 55 10 10 10 10 I RMS 1.013 0.998 0.988 0.081 0.036 0.049 2 I max 1.010 0.996 0.988 0.109 0.061 0.067 3 [1; 2] [1; 2] I RMS 1.049 0.994 0.982 0.216 0.091 0.116 4 I max 1.075 0.989 0.975 0.262 0.093 0.128 5 [2; 3] [2; 3] [2; 3] [2; 3] 110 110 110 10 I RMS 1.003 0.992 0.992 0.051 0.023 0.030 6 20 20 I RMS 1.030 0.970 0.959 0.124 0.055 0.071 7 I max 1.054 0.093 0.932 0.097 0.040 0.055 8 60 20 I RMS 0.996 0.978 0.078 0.081 0.048 0.054 Table 1 : The influence of the experimental error on the values of the unknown parameters (numerical example). C ALCULATION OF THE STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS AND THE T- STRESSES he final step of a comprehensive analysis is estimation of the distribution of the singular (K I , K II ) and the non- singular (T xx , T zz ) terms along the crack front on a basis of the calculated parameters b , σ x , σ y . The first and the second terms in a series expansion of the three-dimensional elastic stress components can be presented as follows [5]: xx I II xx 1 3 3 K cos 1 sin sin K sin 2 cos cos T 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 r                                yy I II 1 3 3 K cos 1 sin sin K sin cos cos 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 r                              (1) xy I II 1 3 3 K sin cos cos K cos 1 sin sin 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 r                              T T