## 3 Results  
The results of the load-versus-displacement curves for the midspan displacement in the vertical direction are shown in Figure 3. The tests were stopped at a displacement of around 3.5 mm, as this displacement already covers all the questioned CMOD values. For prisms B23258/2 and B23258/3, where data-compiling errors occurred, the results are only given for displacements of up to approximately 2.5 mm. The residual load-bearing capacities were determined for the marked displacement values in Figure 3 (0.47 mm, 1.32 mm, 2.17 mm, and 3.02 mm), which, according to the EN14651 standard [19], correspond to the specified CMOD values (0.5 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.5 mm, and 3.5 mm). The maximum force (F\({}_{\mathrm{max}}\)) and force (F\({}_{\mathrm{i}}\)) values corresponding to the specified displacements (F\({}_{0.47}\), F\({}_{1.32}\), F\({}_{2.17}\), and F\({}_{3.02}\)) are given in Table 4. The corresponding  
Figure 3: Load-versus-displacement curves (midspan displacement in the vertical direction). Figure 2: Compression test. stress values (residual flexural tensile strength values (\(\sigma_{\text{i}}\))) were calculated by considering the notched cross-section dimensions in Table 1 under the assumption of a linear stress distribution (as specified by the EN14651 standard [19]). The results' average and standard deviation values are in the last four columns (F\({}_{\text{aver1}}\), F\({}_{\text{sd.i}}\), \(\sigma_{\text{aver1}}\), and \(\sigma_{\text{sd.i}}\)). The results show that the residual tensile strength (a result of the fibers) values were smaller than the tensile strength values of the concrete (it was assumed that the fibers did not affect the concrete's mechanical properties prior to crack formation), usually described as softening behavior. However, after crack formation, the loads increased with increasing displacements (and CMOD values), which is described as post-crack hardening behavior (see [17]). All fiber-reinforced prisms failed in the same way. A crack formed at the notch and propagated toward the point of load application, which is the desired failure mode, as per the EN14651 standard [19]. The fiber-reinforced prisms can be seen in Figure 4.  
The results of the compression tests can be found in Table 5. The individual cube results are designated as f\({}_{\text{c}}\), while the averaged results for the compressive strength are designated as f\({}_{\text{c-aver}}\). Figure 4: Fiber-reinforced prisms after bending tests (**left**) and the notched region (**right**) with the crack after the bending test (prism B23258/1). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**B23258/1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**B23258/2**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**B23258/3**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**B23258/4**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**B23258/5**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**B23258/6**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **F\({}_{\text{c}}\  
The results of the compression tests show that the fibers, to some extent, negatively affected the compressive strength of the concrete. This might be the consequence of the relatively high fiber dosage, which is in line with the explanation in [17], where it is stated that the fiber's effect on elastic properties and compressive strength is usually not significant, with the exemption of a high fiber dosage. The typical failure modes of the concrete cubes are shown in Figure 5.  
The failure modes of the unreinforced and reinforced cubes were satisfactory according to the EN12390-3 standard [23]. However, despite the cracks, the fiber-reinforced cubes retained some of their form, and only after removing the cracked parts by hand could the actual failure modes (or failure planes) be seen. It can be concluded that the failure modes of both the unreinforced and reinforced cubes were similar.