Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 7,122

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws

Paris, P., Erdogan, F.·1963·Journal of Basic Engineering

Abstract

The practice of attempting validation of crack-propagation laws (i.e., the laws of Head, Frost and Dugdale, McEvily and Illg, Liu, and Paris) with a small amount of data, such as a few single specimen test results, is questioned. It is shown that all the laws, though they are mutually contradictory, can be in agreement with the same small sample of data. It is suggested that agreement with a wide selection of data from many specimens and over many orders of magnitudes of crack-extension rates may be necessary to validate crack-propagation laws. For such a wide comparison of data a new simple empirical law is given which fits the broad trend of the data.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1115/1.3656900

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 7,122

Metadata

Authors
Paris, P., & Erdogan, F.
Venue
Journal of Basic Engineering
Published
1963-12-01
Volume
85
Issue
4
Pages
528-533
ISSN
0021-9223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062613656
Cited by
7,122
References
0
FWCI
8.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1115/1.3656900
The paper
Paris, P., & Erdogan, F. (1963). A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws. Journal of Basic Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3656900

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.