Re so within the CSA-CivilEng 2021,(five)12 (2012) and fib-TG9.3-01 (2001) models. In contrast, it was very considerable inside the predictions produced applying the Japanese code (JSCE (2001). Compared using the old version on the fib-TG9.3-01 (2001) European code, a clear improvement was observed within the updates in the new version (fib-TG5.1-19 2019) regarding the capture on the influence in the size impact with escalating specimen size.As described above, lots of large-scale RC projects have collapsed resulting from lack of knowledge on the size effect. Strengthening, repairing, and retrofitting current RC structures with EB-FRP represent a cost-effective option for deficient structures, especially those designed in line with older versions of constructing and bridge codes. Even so, the size impact can significantly decrease the shear resistance gain attributed to EB-FRP strengthening of RC beams. For that reason, the prediction models regarded within this analysis must be Exendin-4 Glucagon Receptor employed with caution. The authors suggest that the structural integrity verification requirement be adopted by all codes and style suggestions. This recommendation specifies that the strengthened structure must at least resist service loads within the case exactly where the EB-FRP is no longer powerful. This could be an interim option until the size effect is appropriately captured by the prediction models.Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.E.A.B. and O.C.; methodology, Z.E.A.B. and O.C.; validation, Z.E.A.B. and O.C.; formal evaluation, Z.E.A.B.; instigation, Z.E.A.B.; Ressources, O.C.; writing-original draft preparation, Z.E.A.B.; writing-review and editing, O.C.; Petroselinic acid Biological Activity supervision, O.C.; project administration, O.C.; funding acquisition, O.C. All authors have study and agreed towards the published version of your manuscript. Funding: O.C. is funded by the National Science and Engineering Analysis Council (NSERC) of Canada and by the Fonds de Recherche du Qu ec ature Technologie (FRQ-NT). Institutional Assessment Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Information Availability Statement: The information supporting the findings of this study are offered inside the post. Acknowledgments: The financial assistance of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Analysis Council of Canada (NSERC) and also the Fonds de recherche du Qu ec–Nature et technologie (FRQNT) by means of operating grants is gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank Sika-Canada, Inc. (Pointe Claire, Quebec) for contributing to the price of components. The effective collaboration of John Lescelleur (senior technician) and Andr Barco (technician) at ole de technologie sup ieure ( S) in conducting the tests is acknowledged. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.List of SymbolsAFRP b d dFRP EFRP f c , f cm fFRP hFRP Le SFRP S tFRP Vc ; Vs ; VFRP Vn Region of FRP for shear strengthening Beam width Successful depth of concrete Helpful shear depth of EB-FRP FRP elastic modulus Concrete compressive strength FRP tensile strength FRP bond length Productive anchorage length of EB-FRP Spacing of FRP strips Spacing of steel stirrups FRP ply thickness Contribution to shear resistance of concrete, steel stirrups, and EB-FRP Total nominal shear resistance from the beamCivilEng 2021,wFRP FRP FRP FRPu ; FRPe FRP s w vn FRPWidth of FRP strips Inclination angle of FRP fibre FRP strain FRP ultimate and powerful strain FRP strengthening material ratio Transverse steel reinforcement ratio Longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio Normalized.