Educing terms from Inside the following, examples models for standard RC beams ([25,325]). All some shear resistance predictionof size effect consideration by some codes for the design these of traditional RC structures are to productive beam depth with the aim of only the terms are inversely proportional presented. Note that the size effect influences correcting the concrete contribution to shear the size impact. shear resistance to account for resistance. Consequently, the size effect correction (reduction)Lowering termsReducing terms230/(1000 + )230/(1000 + dv )Table 1. Size effect minimizing terms from prediction models. 0.4 1/1 + 200/CSA-A23.3-14 (2014) [18]1+ d Figure 2 illustrates the behaviour of the reducing terms from Table 0.004.d a function of 1 as beam size. It shows that the curves reduce because the beam size increases. That is critical becauseFigure two illustrates the behaviour of impact is accounted for Table 1 asmodels. The curves it Varespladib Purity & Documentation clearly indicates that the size the reducing terms from in these a function of beam size. It shows that the curves decrease as the beam size increases. This is crucial start out having a really sharp lower up to a beam height of about 1000 mm. For successful since it clearly indicates that the size effect is accounted for in these models. The curves depths greater than 1000 mm, the to a beam height out, and their slopes gradually lower. curves flatten of about 1000 mm. For efficient depths start out using a extremely sharp reduce up Depending on these curves, thecan also be concluded that RCgraduallyexhibit a Based on it curves flatten out, and their slopes beams reduce. significant size higher than 1000 mm, impact when d it1000also be In contrast, the size effect loses a great deal ofsize effect when these curves, can mm. concluded that RC beams exhibit a significant its influence when d d 1000 1000 mm. mm. In contrast, the size effect loses considerably of its impact when d 1000 mm.EC2-2004 [24] 1 + 200/dBS-8110 (1997) [15]0.4 1/()-1/JSCE (2001) [28] d-1/2 1 + 0.004. ACI-318-19 (2019) [1]0.CSA-A23.3-1.EC2-+/ +0.1.0.1.0 0 1000 d (mm) 0.four 20001 0 1000 d (mm) 0.4 2000BS-8110-0.JSCE0..-/0.two 0.1 0 0 1000 d (mm) 20000.two 0.1 0 0 1000 d (mm) 2000Figure 2. Cont.CivilEng FOR PEER Assessment CivilEng 2021, 2, 2021,1.five 1.ACI-318-+ .0.9 0.6 0.three 0 0 1000 d (mm) 2000Figure two. Lowering terms evolution according increasing beam size. Figure 2. Lowering terms evolution according toto rising beam size.four. Experimental Tests 4. Experimental TestsThe experimental program involved six Chelerythrine Protocol series of geometrically similar RC T-beams The experimental program involved six series of geometrically comparable RC T-beams shear-strengthened with EB carbon FRP (EB-CFRP) divided into two groups to assess the shear-strengthened2). Study parameters in (EB-CFRP) divided into two groups to assess the size impact (Table with EB carbon FRP the first group (strengthened with continuous sizeCFRP sheet) were the influence on the steel stirrups and the increase within the CFRP rigidity, effect (Table 2). Study parameters in the very first group (strengthened with continuous whereas in the second group (strengthened with CFRP along with the strips), the study parameCFRP sheet) had been the influence from the steel stirrupslaminates increase within the CFRP rigidity, ters were the second of the (strengthened with CFRP laminates use of a confirmed whereas within the influencegroupuse from the CFRP L-shaped laminate and thestrips), the study paanchorage system. Note that the experimental rameters were t.