Issue 43

P. Zampieri et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 43 (2018) 182-190; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.43.14 187 Configuration 1: n 1 =1 n 2 =18 n 3 =36; 0≤d k ≤176 Configuration 2: n 1 = 4 n 2 =18 n 3 =35; 176≤d k ≤189.2 Configuration 3: n 1 = 4 n 2 =18 n 3 =31; 189.2≤d k ≤193.6 Configuration 4: n 1 =6 n 2 =18 n 3 =31; 193.6≤d k ≤220 a) b) c) d) Figure 7 : Collapse mechanism configurations of limit analysis arch model As can be deduced from the graph shown in Fig. 8, which compares the different hinge configurations obtained from experimental testing against those obtained from limit analysis, the result of experimental testing and limit analysis do not coincide perfectly. The discrepancies however can be considered acceptable and are attributable to intrinsic uncertainties in the parameters that define the structural response of real structures: Figure 8 : Comparison of Configurations of cracking hinges carried out form. a) Limit Analysis and b) Experimental testing  uncertainties and/or irregularities in defining the geometry of the specimen [20]  irregularities due to masonry and mortar production processes  errors and uncertainties relating to how the test is conducted.