## 6 Experimental Results and Discussion
### Hysteretic Response  
Experimental load-deformation results for specimens S1A, S1B, and S5 are summarized in Table 8 and shown on Figures 13 and 14 in terms of hysteretic shear-displacement and moment-drift relationships, respectively. The hysteretic plots use the displacement history recorded by the string pot located at the section of load application. (See Figure 9). Shear was obtained by adding or subtracting the self-weight of the beam specimens (66.2 kN for S1A/S1B and 64.0 kN for S5) to the (cyclic) load applied at the free end. Moment was calculated at the fixed support of the cantilever beams and also accounts for the effect of the self-weight. Flexural and shear-cracking strengths are provided in Table 8 in terms of moment and shear loads, respectively (M\({}_{\text{crf}}\) and V\({}_{\text{crs}}\)), and were back-calculated from the applied load at the time-step when the first flexural and shear cracks were observed using video recordings during the test. Shear load, moment, total displacement (\(\Delta\)), total rotation (\(\theta\) or \(\theta_{\text{t}}\)), and plastic rotation (\(\theta_{\text{p}}\)) values are provided for the characteristic performance points of the experimental cyclic envelope: first yield of the main longitudinal reinforcement (V\({}_{\text{V}0}\), \(\Delta_{\text{V}0}\), M\({}_{\text{V}0}\), \(\theta_{\text{V}0}\)), effective yield (V\({}_{\text{Yeff}}\), \(\Delta_{\text{Yeff}}\), M\({}_{\text{Yeff}}\), \(\theta_{\text{Yeff}}\)), peak strength (V\({}_{\text{P}}\), \(\Delta_{\text{P}}\), M\({}_{\text{P}}\), \(\theta_{\text{P}\text{P}}\)), and onset of strength loss (V\({}_{\text{L}}\), \(\Delta_{\text{L}}\), M\({}_{\text{L}}\), \(\theta_{\text{L}\text{P}}\)). Rotation values were computed by dividing the beam's deflection at the point of load application by the shear span (i.e., in this case, rotation is equivalent to drift). Plastic rotation values at peak (\(\theta_{\text{P}\text{p}}\)) and onset of strength loss (\(\theta_{\text{L}\text{P}}\)) were obtained by subtracting the rotation at the effective yield point from the total rotation values (\(\theta_{\text{P}\text{P}}=\theta_{\text{P}\text{T}}-\theta_{\text{Yeff}}\); \(\theta_{\text{L}\text{P}}=\theta_{\text{L}\text{T}}-\theta_{\text{Yeff}}\)). The effective yield point was determined as the intersection of the secant line to the first yield point with the regression line fitted to the set of cycle peaks between the yield and peak points. The ductility capacity (\(\mu\)) is evaluated by means of the peak-to-(effective) yield displacement ratio. Finally, the shear stress ratio at peak demand, i.e., \(\alpha=\text{V}_{\text{P}}/\text{b}_{\text{w}}\text{d}\sqrt{\ell_{\text{c}}}\), is provided (in SI units). To note, the shear stress ratio is in all cases below the limit prescribed in ACI 318 and ACI 440.2R (i.e., \((\text{V}_{\text{c}}+\text{V}_{\text{s}}+\text{V}_{\text{f}})/\left(\sqrt{ \ell_{\text{c}}}\,\text{b}_{\text{w}}\text{d}\right)\leq 0.17+0.66=0.83\) [SI units]), which is intended to prevent diagonal concrete-crushing failures. Figure 12: Crack patterns within the end-yielding region for specimen S5: (**a**) first cycle at 2.9% drift, (**b**) second cycle at 2.9% drift, (**c**,**d**) FRP strip fracture during second cycle at 3.8% drift (loading up), (**e**) FRP anchor fracture during second cycle at 3.8% drift (loading down), (**f**–**i**) degradation during cycle at 5.3%. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Finet} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Effective Yield} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Effective Yield} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Field Strength} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Consel of Strength Loss} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Decaility} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Slower Noise Ratio} \\ \cline{3-14} \multirow{3}{*}{Spec.}