Issue 36

R. Citarella, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 36 (2016) 160-167; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.36.16 166 In Tab. 1 and Tab. 2 the crack length vs. cycles and the related equivalent SIFs are respectively shown. With the aforementioned bidimensional approach a good agreement between numerical and experimental [7] crack scenarios is obtained and it is possible to capture the essential features of the response even if the secondary bending is not modelled. TIP N 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 51 73500 1.82 1.42 78810 2.63 2.28 84030 3.36 3.04 1.16 88830 4.46 4.18 2.24 93280 5.20 4.94 2.84 97330 5.92 5.70 3.43 99500 6.54 6.37 3.94 1.19 102850 7.23 7.14 4.52 1.77 105770 7.86 7.91 5.13 1.50 2.17 108000 1.15 1.12 9.27 link-up link-up 2.28 1.19 3.20 110500 1.83 1.94 10.30 3.25 1.78 3.60 1.12 112000 1.20 2.59 link-up link-up 4.02 2.14 4.00 1.43 113885 1.81 3.57 5.02 2.61 4.36 1.69 Table 1 : Crack propagation lengths (mm) versus load cycles. TIP N 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 51 73500 389 400 78810 397 403 84030 406 410 391 88830 428 435 390 93280 443 453 401 97330 456 472 415 99500 471 496 438 400 102850 474 501 476 393 105770 505 600 549 419 390 108000 502 555 611 417 468 418 110500 535 631 709 652 484 430 396 112000 542 720 729 527 500 400 113885 548 740 750 553 572 400 Table 2 : Equivalent SIF’s (MPa  mm) versus number of cycles.