Chorage system0.56 2/3 f cm ; 0.17 E f u f 0.(11)f u Uwrap on lateral sides. (12)0-fib-TG5.1-19 (2019) [23] could be the updated version with the European code. The contribution towards the nominal shear resistance resulting from EB-FRP is provided by the following formula: VRFRP = A FRP h FRP . f f wd (cot + cot )sin . S FRP (13)Inside the new prediction model, f f wd represents the productive tensile strength in EB-FRP intercepted by the shear crack and is determined by the strengthening configuration as follows. 1. Full-wrap configuration f f wd = f f wd,c = k R at f FRPu kR =R 0.five 50 two – R(14) (15)R 50 mm0.five R 50 mmwhere f f wd,c = FRP tensile strength for full-wrap configuration, at = 0.eight, and R = chamfer radius. 2. U-wrap configuration with anchorage system f f wd = k a f f wd,c . 3. U-wrap configuration f f wd = min f f bwd , f f wd,c . eight. Comparison of Experimental Results with Prediction Models of Codes and Design Recommendations Table 7 presents a comparison among experimental EB-FRP contributions to nominal shear resistance Vexp along with the prediction models Vpred in the AB928 References thought of design guidelines. Note that the information in the specimens, such as geometry, strengthening configuration, material properties, and a few outcomes, have currently been displayed in Tables three and six for the experimental studies carried out by the authors and these from the literature, respectively. Figure 8 examines the accuracy on the prediction models by comparing the FRP contribution as predicted (Vpred ) together with the corresponding experimental value (Vexp ). The diagonal within the figure designates the 0 tolerance line, indicating an ideal prediction (Vpred = Vexp ). The points above the line are overestimated predictions (Vpred Vexp ), i.e., around the non-conservative (unsafe) side, whereas those within the decrease component are around the conservative ((-)-Blebbistatin Autophagy secure) side (Vpred Vexp ). (17) (16)CivilEng 2021,Table 7. Comparison of experimental benefits versus prediction models of codes and recommendations.Specimens Vexp S6-19 Vpred /Vexp S806-12 Vpred /Vexp AC-I440 Vpred /Vexp JSCE 2001 Vpred /Vexp fib 2001 Vpred /Vexp fib 2019 Vpred /VexpDeniaud (2001) [12] T4S4-G90 T6S4-G90 49 110 43.7 107.six 0.9 1.0 56.1 194.five 1.1 1.eight 39.four 96.9 0.eight 0.9 163.6 319.0 3.three two.9 53.eight 100.9 1.1 0.9 47.1 133.two 1.0 1.Qu et al. (2005) [16] U4 U5 U6 22 50 196 20.8 82.6 187.0 0.9 1.7 1.0 31.4 125.0 240.9 1.four two.5 1.2 18.7 74.4 169.0 0.9 1.five 0.9 54.six 217.1 491.four two.five 4.three two.5 20.three 80.five 182.0 0.9 1.six 0.9 17.1 58.six 108.1 0.eight 1.two 0.Leung et al. (2007) [14] SB-U1 MB-U1 LB-U2 SB-F1 MB-F1 LB-F1 24 five 22 25 87 334 7.9 32.three 105.6 10.7 42.0 181.9 0.three six.five four.eight 0.four 0.5 0.five ten.1 41.5 135.6 20.six 80.9 350.3 0.4 eight.3 six.2 0.eight 0.9 1.0 7.1 29.1 95.1 9.six 37.eight 163.eight 0.three five.eight 4.three 0.4 0.4 0.5 26.1 102.6 444.two 26.1 102.six 444.2 1.1 20.5 20.2 1.0 1.two 1.3 9.8 38.6 167.0 17.7 69.eight 302.1 0.4 7.7 7.6 0.7 0.eight 0.9 7.5 23.3 55.five 14.9 59.six 238.four 0.3 four.7 two.five 0.6 0.7 0.Bae et al. (2012) [10] S-Str M-Str L-Str 47 87 127 25.six 68.five 121.four 0.five 0.eight 1.0 32.9 93.six 171.8 0.7 1.1 1.four 23.1 61.7 109.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 80.2 180.four 319.5 1.7 2.1 two.5 38.4 94.6 167.8 0.eight 1.1 1.3 33.3 80.4 136.7 0.7 0.9 1.Nguyen-Minh and Rovn (2015) [15] G1-GFRP-1B G1-GFRP-2A G1-GFRP-3A G2-GFRP-1A G2-GFRP-2A G2-GFRP-3A 18 55 64 18 80 180 33.9 123 232.four 38.five 153.1 294.0 1.9 two.two three.six 2.1 1.9 1.6 43.five 157.9 298.four 49.4 196.6 377.six 2.4 two.9 four.7 two.7 two.5 two.1 30.five 110.7 209.two 34.7 137.9 264.eight 1.7 two.0 3.three 1.9 1.7 1.5 91.0 364 819.0 101.9 459.7 1063.9 5.1 six.six 12.8 5.7 5.7 5.9 23.0 91.9 206.7 25.1 113.4 262.4 1.3 1.7 three.2 1.four 1.four 1.five 48.2 1.