PSI - Issue 37

Haya H. Mhanna et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 37 (2022) 359–366 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

363

5

wrapping scheme configuration: U-wraps, complete wraps, and anchored U-wraps. The points in Fig. 1 that lie below the unity line indicate that the predicted values were higher than the experimental counterpart; and therefore, result in unsafe and overestimated predictions. On the other hand, the points on top of the unity line in Fig. 1 indicate that V f (exp) was higher than V f (pred) ; hence, the predictions in this case are considered safe and conservative.

a

b

c

d

Fig. 1. V f (exp) versus V f (pred) graphs for: (a) ACI440.2R-17; (b) CSA-S806.12 (R2017); (c) fib bulletin 90; (d) TR55. The average ratio of V f (exp) to V f (pred) ( ̅ ) was also calculated for all design guidelines along with the standard deviation (StD), coefficient of variation (CoV), mean absolute error (MAE), and root of mean squared error (RMSE). The preceding statistical measures were calculated using Eqs. (1)-(5) and the corresponding values for each wrapping configuration are provided in Table 3. In addition, Table 4 shows the results for all wrapping schemes combined. Note that values of ̅ less than 1.0 provided in Tables 3 and 4 indicate overestimated predictions, while values of ̅ greater than 1.0 indicate underestimated and conservative predictions. ̅ = ∑ ( ) ( ) =1 (1) = √ ∑ ( ( ) ( ) − ̅ ) =1 2 (2)