Issue 29

R. Dimitri et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 29 (2014) 266-283; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.29.23 275 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 9 : Work of separation under non proportional Path 1 (  N <  T ): (a) CZM1; (b) CZM2; (c) CZM3; (d) CZM4-PL criterion; (e) CZM4-BK criterion. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 10 : Work of separation under non proportional Path 2 (  N <  T ): (a) CZM1; (b) CZM2; (c) CZM3; (d) CZM4-PL criterion; (e) CZM4-BK criterion. Example 2 (  N =  T ) In the second example the same value for  N and  T is assumed, as usually considered in the literature when there is a lack of experimental evidence to do otherwise. The normal, the tangential and the total work of separation as computed by means of each model under non-proportional loading paths 1 and 2 are shown in Fig. 11 and 12, respectively. CZMs 1 and 2 lead to symmetric answers in terms of energy dissipation, which can depend (Fig. 11a, 12a) or not (Fig. 11b, 12b) on the applied loading path. This means that both W N and W T vary by the same quantities for varying values of g * N (path 1),