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] is the updated version in the European code. The contribution towards the nominal shear resistance because of Xanthoangelol custom synthesis EB-FRP is offered by the following formula: VRFRP = A FRP h FRP . f f wd (cot + cot )sin . S FRP (13)Within the new prediction model, f f wd represents the successful tensile strength in EB-FRP intercepted by the shear crack and will depend on the strengthening 3-Deazaneplanocin A web 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. two. U-wrap configuration with anchorage method f f wd = k a f f wd,c . three. U-wrap configuration f f wd = min f f bwd , f f wd,c . 8. Comparison of Experimental Outcomes 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 from the regarded as style recommendations. Note that the specifics of the specimens, such as geometry, strengthening configuration, material properties, and a few results, have already been displayed in Tables 3 and 6 for the experimental research carried out by the authors and these in the literature, respectively. Figure eight examines the accuracy of your prediction models by comparing the FRP contribution as predicted (Vpred ) with all the corresponding experimental worth (Vexp ). The diagonal inside the figure designates the 0 tolerance line, indicating a perfect prediction (Vpred = Vexp ). The points above the line are overestimated predictions (Vpred Vexp ), i.e., around the non-conservative (unsafe) side, whereas these inside the decrease aspect are around the conservative (safe) side (Vpred Vexp ). (17) (16)CivilEng 2021,Table 7. Comparison of experimental final results 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 43.7 107.6 0.9 1.0 56.1 194.five 1.1 1.eight 39.4 96.9 0.eight 0.9 163.six 319.0 3.3 two.9 53.eight one hundred.9 1.1 0.9 47.1 133.2 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.five 1.two 18.7 74.four 169.0 0.9 1.5 0.9 54.six 217.1 491.four two.5 4.three two.5 20.3 80.5 182.0 0.9 1.6 0.9 17.1 58.six 108.1 0.8 1.2 0.Leung et al. (2007) [14] SB-U1 MB-U1 LB-U2 SB-F1 MB-F1 LB-F1 24 5 22 25 87 334 7.9 32.3 105.six ten.7 42.0 181.9 0.3 6.5 4.eight 0.four 0.5 0.5 10.1 41.5 135.6 20.6 80.9 350.three 0.four 8.three six.two 0.8 0.9 1.0 7.1 29.1 95.1 9.6 37.8 163.8 0.three five.eight 4.3 0.4 0.four 0.5 26.1 102.6 444.2 26.1 102.6 444.2 1.1 20.5 20.two 1.0 1.two 1.3 9.8 38.six 167.0 17.7 69.8 302.1 0.four 7.7 7.6 0.7 0.eight 0.9 7.5 23.three 55.5 14.9 59.6 238.4 0.three 4.7 two.5 0.six 0.7 0.Bae et al. (2012) [10] S-Str M-Str L-Str 47 87 127 25.six 68.five 121.four 0.5 0.8 1.0 32.9 93.six 171.eight 0.7 1.1 1.four 23.1 61.7 109.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 80.two 180.four 319.5 1.7 2.1 two.five 38.four 94.6 167.8 0.8 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 33.9 123 232.4 38.5 153.1 294.0 1.9 two.2 3.6 2.1 1.9 1.6 43.5 157.9 298.four 49.4 196.six 377.six 2.4 two.9 4.7 2.7 2.five 2.1 30.5 110.7 209.2 34.7 137.9 264.8 1.7 two.0 three.3 1.9 1.7 1.five 91.0 364 819.0 101.9 459.7 1063.9 five.1 six.6 12.8 five.7 5.7 5.9 23.0 91.9 206.7 25.1 113.4 262.four 1.3 1.7 three.two 1.four 1.four 1.five 48.2 1.