Comparison between Visibility and Diffraction Criteria on SIF and <svg     style="vertical-align:-2.61pt;width:10.3625px;" id="M1" height="17.950001" version="1.1" viewBox="0 0 10.3625 17.950001" width="10.3625"  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
	
		
			<g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,.062,14.638)"><path id="x1D43D" d="M434 650l-5 -28q-60 -8 -75 -20.5t-25 -69.5l-71 -395q-20 -107 -57.5 -168t-106.5 -94q-40 -18 -61 -20l-10 32q77 23 113 108q21 50 41 160l68 377q10 57 -1.5 69.5t-76.5 20.5l6 28h261z" /></g>

		
	
</svg>-Integral Value for Mode <svg     style="vertical-align:-0.0pt;width:9.9250002px;" id="M2" height="14.7" version="1.1" viewBox="0 0 9.9250002 14.7" width="9.9250002"  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
	
		
			<g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,.062,14.638)"><path id="x1D43C" d="M414 650l-6 -28q-63 -4 -78.5 -17.5t-27.5 -71.5l-77 -416q-11 -58 0.5 -71.5t77.5 -17.5l-5 -28h-275l8 28q63 4 79.5 18.5t27.5 70.5l80 416q11 57 -2 71t-81 18l6 28h273z" /></g>

		
	
</svg> Crack Using RKPM

<table><svg height="13.6375" id="M168" style="vertical-align:-1.97925pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 7.8874998 13.6375" width="7.8874998" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,.062,11.113)"><path d="M434 650l-5 -28q-60 -8 -75 -20.5t-25 -69.5l-71 -395q-20 -107 -57.5 -168t-106.5 -94q-40 -18 -61 -20l-10 32q77 23 113 108q21 50 41 160l68 377q10 57 -1.5 69.5t-76.5 20.5l6 28h261z" id="x1D43D"></path></g>
</svg>-integral values versus tensile stress using diffraction criterion.</table>

Journal of Structures

fig16

Figure 16

Figure 16: Comparison between Visibility and Diffraction Criteria on SIF and <svg     style="vertical-align:-2.61pt;width:10.3625px;" id="M1" height="17.950001" version="1.1" viewBox="0 0 10.3625 17.950001" width="10.3625"  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
	
		
			<g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,.062,14.638)"><path id="x1D43D" d="M434 650l-5 -28q-60 -8 -75 -20.5t-25 -69.5l-71 -395q-20 -107 -57.5 -168t-106.5 -94q-40 -18 -61 -20l-10 32q77 23 113 108q21 50 41 160l68 377q10 57 -1.5 69.5t-76.5 20.5l6 28h261z" /></g>

		
	
</svg>-Integral Value for Mode <svg     style="vertical-align:-0.0pt;width:9.9250002px;" id="M2" height="14.7" version="1.1" viewBox="0 0 9.9250002 14.7" width="9.9250002"  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
	
		
			<g transform="matrix(.022,-0,0,-.022,.062,14.638)"><path id="x1D43C" d="M414 650l-6 -28q-63 -4 -78.5 -17.5t-27.5 -71.5l-77 -416q-11 -58 0.5 -71.5t77.5 -17.5l-5 -28h-275l8 28q63 4 79.5 18.5t27.5 70.5l80 416q11 57 -2 71t-81 18l6 28h273z" /></g>

		
	
</svg> Crack Using RKPM 

Figure 16 | Comparison between Visibility and Diffraction Criteria on SIF and 
	
		
			

		
	
-Integral Value for Mode 
	
		
			

		
	
 Crack Using RKPM 

Journal of Structures

Comparison between Visibility and Diffraction Criteria on SIF and -Integral Value for Mode Crack Using RKPM

Figure 16