Re so in the CSA-CivilEng 2021,(5)12 (2012) and fib-TG9.3-01 (2001) models. In contrast, it was quite considerable inside the predictions made using the Japanese code (JSCE (2001). Compared with all the old version with the fib-TG9.3-01 (2001) European code, a clear improvement was observed within the updates within the new version (fib-TG5.1-19 2019) with regards to the capture of the influence with the size effect with growing specimen size.As talked about above, numerous large-scale RC projects have collapsed as a result of lack of knowledge on the size effect. Strengthening, repairing, and retrofitting current RC structures with EB-FRP represent a cost-effective answer for deficient structures, particularly these developed based on older versions of building and bridge codes. On the other hand, the size effect can drastically lower the shear resistance obtain attributed to EB-FRP strengthening of RC beams. Consequently, the prediction models regarded in this study must be applied with caution. The authors advise that the structural integrity verification requirement be adopted by all codes and style guidelines. This recommendation specifies that the strengthened structure ought to at the least resist service loads inside the case where the EB-FRP is no longer powerful. This may be an interim resolution 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 Dorsomorphin custom synthesis 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 read and agreed towards 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 Assessment Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Information Availability Statement: The information supporting the findings of this study are out there within the short article. Acknowledgments: The financial assistance in the Organic Sciences and Engineering Investigation Council of Canada (NSERC) and 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 expense of materials. 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 Location of FRP for shear strengthening Beam width Efficient depth of concrete Successful shear depth of EB-FRP FRP elastic modulus Concrete compressive strength FRP tensile strength FRP bond length Effective anchorage length of EB-FRP Spacing of FRP 2-Methoxyestradiol Cancer strips Spacing of steel stirrups FRP ply thickness Contribution to shear resistance of concrete, steel stirrups, and EB-FRP Total nominal shear resistance with 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.