Issue34

F. Berto, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 34 (2015) 169-179; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.34.18 176   max ( *, ) K t f n s      (21) The relative deviation can be defined as follows:     t f t t f Δ K K K     (22) Figure 3 : Geometry and dimensions of the double-V-notched quadratic plate specimen considered in the FE analyses; remote loading by prescribed nominal stress  n ; dimensions w = 100 mm and 2 a = 14.14 mm; real pointed versus fictitiously rounded (root hole) V- notch. 2  (°)  (°)  K 1 (MPa mm 1-  1 ) K 2 (MPa mm 1-  2 )  1  2  0 (°)  M s 45 15 472 128 0.550 0.660 –13.49 0.272 0.169 2.56 30 376 222 0.550 0.660 –25.73 0.592 0.340 3.16 45 244 257 0.550 0.660 –36.52 1.053 0.516 4.24 60 112 223 0.550 0.660 –46.70 1.993 0.704 6.08 Table 1 : Notch stress intensity factors K 1 and K 2 and crack propagation angle   0 for different mode ratios M resulting in support factors s. C OMPARISON WITH FE RESULTS he maximum stress  max (  *, s ) has been determined in this section directly by means of finite element analyses modeling the plate shown in Fig. 3 with  f = s  * , while  values are those evaluated analytically. The finite element analyses (FEA) were carried out by using Ansys (release 13.0). In total 2000 models have been analysed, each model characterized by the specific values of 2    and  f . The results from some models exhibiting relative deviations less than or equal to 10% are listed in Tab. 2 as example. The errors are due not only to the adopted simplified hypothesis, K 1 = K 1  and K 2 = K 2  , but also to the fact that the maximum stress component  max takes place outside the notch bisector, T  f 2 a w w    n 