Re so within the CSA-CivilEng 2021,(five)12 (2012) and fib-TG9.3-01 (2001) models. In contrast, it was pretty significant inside the predictions created using the Japanese code (JSCE (2001). Compared together with the old version of your fib-TG9.3-01 (2001) European code, a clear improvement was observed inside the updates in the new version (fib-TG5.1-19 2019) with regards to the capture in the influence from the size impact with escalating specimen size.As mentioned above, lots of large-scale RC projects have collapsed resulting from lack of knowledge on the size impact. Strengthening, repairing, and retrofitting current RC structures with EB-FRP represent a cost-effective resolution for deficient structures, specially those developed in accordance with older versions of building and bridge codes. Even so, the size effect can substantially cut down the shear resistance gain attributed to EB-FRP strengthening of RC beams. Hence, the prediction models thought of within this research should be employed with caution. The authors recommend that the structural integrity verification requirement be adopted by all codes and style recommendations. This recommendation specifies that the strengthened structure must at the least resist service loads inside the case exactly where the EB-FRP is no longer successful. This could be an interim resolution until the size impact 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 analysis, 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.; supervision, O.C.; project administration, O.C.; funding acquisition, O.C. All authors have study and agreed to the published version from the 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 Critique Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Information Availability Statement: The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article. Acknowledgments: The financial help with the Organic Sciences and Engineering Analysis Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Fonds de recherche du Qu ec–Nature et technologie (FRQNT) by way of operating grants is gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank Sika-Canada, Inc. (Pointe Claire, Quebec) for contributing to the cost of materials. The efficient 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 Effective depth of concrete Productive shear depth of EB-FRP FRP elastic modulus Concrete compressive strength FRP tensile strength FRP bond length Albendazole sulfoxide Epigenetic Reader Domain Successful 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 effective strain FRP strengthening material ratio Transverse steel reinforcement ratio 5-Methyltetrahydrofolic acid web Longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio Normalized.