## 4 Results and Discussion
### Use of CFRP Bars versus Conventional Steel Rebars as Beam Longitudinal Reinforcement  
Since the experimental program did not contain steel RC joints with conventional steel rebars in the beam, the authors were not able to validate the developed FE simulation against such experimental results of RC joints. Nonetheless, the previously developed FE models by the authors [52; 53], which were validated for the monotonic and cyclic response of RC beams against shear and flexure, are equally applicable for predicting the behavior of RC joints. Notably, no significant alterations to the established FE analysis for the CFRP-RC joints were performed aside from employing longitudinal steel reinforcing bars in the beam region shown in Figure 9.  
Compared to the CFRP-RC specimens (JBL10, JBL5.5), the steel-reinforced specimens (JBL10s, JBL5.5s) demonstrated a quicker decline in load bearing capacity (Figure 11). The steel RC specimens exhibited linear behavior up to an SD = 0.6%. Due to the yielding of the steel reinforcement, the rate of growth in the specimens' lateral capacity reduced and stayed practically constant up to an SD = 4%. At greater SD ratios, the CFRP-RC maintained a higher load. This suggests that CFRP-RC beam-column joints may withstand a seismic event with minimal residual damage. This function decreases the post event cost of repairing the framed structure and permits the complete restoration of the original CFRP-RC section performance by replacing the damaged concrete. However, this is not applicable for steel RC sections, which are intended to yield at such a point of ultimate loading. Even by repairing the damaged concrete, the original section's strength and stiffness (prior to yielding) cannot be recovered. After attaining their design capacity, specimens JBL10 and JBL5.5 revealed a decrease in lateral load resistance at an SD = 1%. This decrease is attributable to the slip of the beam longitudinal bars that were anchored in the joint as a result of bar anchoring failure. As seen in Figure 11a,b, despite the anchorage's failure, both specimens were still able to withstand about 35.0% of their initial capacity through their final loading cycles until the completion of the test at an SD = 4%. Despite the fact that the slip of the bar is a brittle form of failure, it must be emphasized that specimens JBL10 and JBL5.5 were initially intended to attain the desired shear stress in the joint body when the beam achieves its flexural capacity. The failure due to slip of the bars occurred after the joint achieved the intended load level, as illustrated in Figure 13a,b, and that has no effect on the study's analysis or findings given the study's scope. In addition, earthquake occurrences are regarded as extreme-ultimate limit state situations; hence, the performance of both specimens after the failure occurrence is significant since it exhibited a residual strength greater than 35% of the maximum load after the slip of the bars. The envelope of the specimens' total dissipated energy at each loading versus SD is depicted in Figure 14. It is evident that both CFRP-RC specimens had a comparable degree of dissipated energy up to an SD = 3%, but the energy dissipated at failure slightly differed for each specimen. In addition, the figure indicates a substantial association between the energy lost due to hysteretic activity and the extent of damage detected during the test. As the specimens fail, the inclination of the curve of cumulative energy dissipation versus SD rises, indicating the concrete deterioration rate owing to the development of plastic hinges. Nevertheless, the increase in energy dissipation during the final steps of loading for specimens JBL10 and JBL5.5 is mostly attributable to the slippage of the longitudinal reinforcement of the beam, as previously noted. Figure 14 also demonstrates that specimens with conventional reinforcement dissipated less energy than those with CFRP.