PSI - Issue 44

Annalisa Napoli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 2182–2189 Annalisa Napoli, Roberto Realfonzo / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

2188

7

3.2. Comparison with the models proposed by ACI 549.6R (2020) and by CNR-DT 215 (2018) The bar charts in Figures 2a,c,e show, for each group of examined datasets, the comparison in terms of MAPE values between the proposals in Table 3 and the analytical formulas suggested by the mentioned guidelines DT 215 (2018) and ACI 549.6R (2020). In particular, the latter guide is the result of the work carried out by ACI 549-L Committee and the RILEM Committee TC 250-CSM, in which design indications are provided according to both American (ACI) and European approaches (RILEM); consequently, two different formulations are given in the guide, not reported herein for the sake of brevity. In particular, the model following the “ACI approach”, labelled here ACI 549.6R_1, is very similar to the formulation suitable for FRP applications (ACI 440.2R 2017); the model following the “European approach”, labelled here ACI 549.6R_2, has a structure more similar to that adopted by DT 215 (2018), since it considers the contribution of the inorganic matrix but it neglects the influence of the masonry mass density.

a

b

  th

2.5

Proposal 3_ALL

ALL n = 99

13.64

Proposal 2_ALL

13.67

2.0

Proposal 1

Proposal 1_ALL

13.21

Proposal 3

1.5

63.05

ACI 549.6R_2

Model

ACI 549.6R_1

24.77

DT 215

1.0

  exp

DT 215

20.22

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

0.5

Model error [%]

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

c

d

  th

2.5

2.0

Proposal 3

1.5

DT 215

1.0

  exp

0.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

e

f

  th

2.5

2.0

Proposal 1

Proposal 3

1.5

80.85

DT 215

1.0

  exp

0.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Fig. 2. (a,c,e) Comparison among the strength models in terms of MAPE errors; (b,d,f) comparison between experimental data and predictions.