Issue 35

H. Dündar et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 35 (2016) 360-367; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.35.41 365 Figure 6 : Equivalent SIF comparisons between FCPAS and Yan’s [15] numerical results. While there is no information about the unit of constant C of the material in Yan’s study, load and material constant C used in the current simulations are, 15.333 N/mm 2 (value of Ref. [15] given in kg unit divided by 9.81) and 1.02E-9 (value of Ref. [15] multiplied by 9.81) to match the results with the same number of cycles. In that case, it is concluded from this application that Fig. 3 shows very good agreement in terms of crack path predictions and that Fig. 6 also shows good agreement, especially in the beginning and end of the simulation. Another non-planar crack propagation analysis performed in this study is about a plate under uniaxial stress containing a hole and multiple cracks [17]. Judt and Ricoeur’s study [17] contains three cracks analyzed by interaction integral. The same multiple nonplanar cracks problem is analyzed by FCPAS. Geometry, loading and boundary condition details of the problem can be seen in Fig. 7. Figure 7 : Geometry and boundary condition details of three cracked model (dimensions are in mm)[17]. Figure 8 : Crack path comparison between FCPAS and the literature data [17].