PSI - Issue 64

1004 Amir Mofidi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 64 (2024) 999– 1008 Mofidi et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000 results for FRP laminates. This model can predict the possible failure modes of debonding of FRP, concrete-cover splitting, and NSM FRP rupture. In Mofidi et al . (2023), − is different from Mofidi et al. (2016) and is calculated using Eq. 16 as follows: (16) where is the interfacial fracture energy calculated using Eq. 17 and is the cross-sectional contour of the failure surface, as described by Zhang et al. (2014). 0.422 '0.619 0.4 g f c g h G f w   =   (17) where ℎ and are the groove height and width, respectively. For calculations of − in Mofidi et al. (2023), the provided equations in this article for modified Mofidi et al. (2016) are considered. The FRP effective strain is taken as = min( − , − ) and implemented in Eq. 15 to calculate the for all NSM FRP shapes. 3. Comparison of the models In order to compare the aforementioned models in a multi-metric comparative study, 131 test specimens from 24 studies were gathered in this research study. The predictions of all introduced design models for shear-strengthened RC beams were compared with the existing experimental test results. Fig. 1 a-h show the calculated values of NSM FRP shear contribution ( ) using the mentioned models versus the experimental values ( ) . 6 2 f f fe b  − = f f G C E A    

(a)

(b)

100 120 140 160

100 120 140 160

Rizzo and De Lorenzis (2009) Lower GIP R 2 1:1 = 0.01

Parretti and Nanni (2004) R 2 1:1 = -0.49

0 20 40 60 80

0 20 40 60 80

V f cal (kN)

V f cal (kN)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

V f exp (kN)

V f exp (kN)