Issue 30

A. Fernández-Canteli et al., Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 30 (2014) 383-393; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.30.46 391 Figures 12-13 show a) the experimental and b) the numerical load-COD curves for model 3 before and after introducing the correction, respectively, for specimen 1 and specimen 2, while Fig. 14 presents a direct comparison for the experimental and numerical energy curves for specimens 1 and 2 once corrected. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 COD (mm) Load (kN) Without correction With correction 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 COD (mm) Load (kN) Without correction With correction a) b) Figure 12 : Original and corrected fracture energy curves for specimen 1: a) experimental and b) numerical results. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 COD (mm) Load (kN) Without correction With correction 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 COD (mm) Load (kN) Without correction With correction a) b) Figure 13 : Original and corrected fracture energy curves for specimen 2: a) experimental and b) numerical results.  Relationship between experimental test and numerical model results The results and estimated errors for the former numerical calculations, referred to work energy and fracture energy, and the tests performed are summarized in Tab. 3. W f [J] G f [J/m 2 ] Error [%] Specimen 1 Experimental 475.4 98.3 0.96 Simulation 480 99.2 Specimen 2 Experimental 710.4 127.3 24.2 Simulation 538.1 96.4 Table 3. Summary of the numerical and test results.