Issue 47

S. Akbari et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 47 (2019) 39-53; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.47.04 47 a/c c/B Location K N =K I /   0 . / a Q   parabolic cubic WF FEM WF FEM 0.2 0.2 surface 0.197 0.190 0.137 0.133 deepest 0.452 0.459 0.419 0.417 0.4 surface 0.190 0.192 0.132 0.134 deepest 0.449 0.449 0.415 0.414 0.6 surface 0.189 0.195 0.131 0.135 deepest 0.442 0.450 0.407 0.420 0.8 surface 0.193 0.200 0.135 0.142 deepest 0.435 0.456 0.401 0.421 1 0.2 surface 0.169 0.177 0.111 0.117 deepest 0.834 0.822 0.757 0.739 0.4 surface 0.199 0.205 0.134 0.138 deepest 0.812 0.858 0.733 0.768 0.6 surface 0.270 0.276 0.190 0.196 deepest 0.859 0.863 0.769 0.775 0.8 surface 0.382 0.374 0.279 0.275 deepest 0.978 0.975 0.869 0.867 Table 6 : Comparison between the SIFs calculated by the WF and FEM for the parabolic and cubic loading at ratio R 0 /R i =2.25. a/c c/B Location K N =K I /   0 . / a Q   parabolic cubic WF FEM WF FEM 0.2 0.2 surface 0.197 0.204 0.138 0.141 deepest 0.447 0.450 0.416 0.413 0.4 surface 0.192 0.194 0.133 0.137 deepest 0.456 0.428 0.417 0.390 0.6 surface 0.193 0.194 0.135 0.137 deepest 0.455 0.426 0.420 0.395 0.8 surface 0.192 0.197 0.137 0.139 deepest 0.445 0.453 0.413 0.418 1 0.2 surface 0.185 0.181 0.124 0.125 deepest 0.868 0.823 0.788 0.748 0.4 surface 0.202 0.208 0.137 0.142 deepest 0.810 0.819 0.729 0.724 0.6 surface 0.244 0.255 0.170 0.176 deepest 0.827 0.831 0.740 0.735 0.8 surface 0.310 0.314 0.227 0.229 deepest 0.916 0.936 0.818 0.828 Table 7 : Comparison between the SIFs calculated by the WF and FEM for the parabolic and cubic loading at ratio R 0 /R i =3.0.