Erratum to “Unraveling the myth of closure corrections: Sharpening the definition of opening and closure stresses with an energy approach” [Int. J. Fatigue 143 (2021) 106016] (International Journal of Fatigue (2021) 143, (S014211232030548X), (10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.106016))

An important figure was omitted from this article, as Fig. 11 was repeated in Fig. 12. The image below shows the correct version of Fig. 12 that should have appeared in the article. [Figure presented]

Unraveling the myth of closure corrections: Sharpening the definition of opening and closure stresses with an energy approach

The substantiation of fatigue crack closure corrections is disputed, based on the closure stress definition. The ΔK_eff equation lacks a physical explanation. An inconsistency is observed between the opening stress S_{op_phen} as used by this equation and the physical opening stress S_{op_phys}....

Measuring crack growth and related opening and closing stresses using continuous potential drop recording

To improve resolution of in-situ measurement of crack closure and opening in fatigue, potential drop (PD) measurement technique has been further developed to measure thousands of times through each load cycle with high precision. The results are interpreted with physical phenomena like strain, Poisson's effect, piezo-resistivity, plasticity,...

Fatigue crack surface area and crack front length: New ways to look at fatigue crack growth

This paper discusses the appropriateness of crack length as a reference dimension for fatigue damage. Current discussion on short crack versus long crack data is still divided between various approaches to model small crack growth. A proper physical explanation of the probable cause of the apparent differences between short crack and long...