This paper was unfortunately published with Eq. (2) being in error. Eq. (2) appears as follows:

  • image

There are several issues with this 2nd term. First, the 2nd term contains quantities inline image and inline image that are not provided in this paper. Furthermore the load-partitioning factor inline image is not provided. More serious from a mathematical point of view, however, is the omission of the specimen width (b) in the 2nd term. The proper form would contain this term in the numerator as inline image, where a is the crack length. Fortunately, however, the 2nd term remains very small.

Calculation of the load-partitioning factor for a typical MMB sandwich test specimen over a range of crack lengths inline image reveals that this factor is highly insensitive to crack length. The magnitude of the term inline image is of the order of 10−13 and as a result of the 2nd term in Eq. (2) can be neglected, and the proper form of Eq. (2) becomes,

  • image

The symbols in this equation are defined in the original paper. Analysis of the results of the correction and subsequent neglection of this term shows that the results and conclusions forwarded in this paper are unaffected.