## 3 Test Results
### Static Test Results and Damage Observations
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Beam Name**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**First Crack**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Steel Yield**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ultimate**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Failure**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ductility Ratio**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **F\({}_{\text{cr}}\) (kN)** & \(\delta_{\text{cr}}\) (mm) & F\({}_{\text{y}}\) (kN) & \(\delta_{\text{y}}\) (mm) & F\({}_{\text{u}}\) (kN) & \(\delta_{\text{u}}\) (mm) & F\({}_{\text{f}}\) (kN) & \(\delta_{\text{f}}\) (mm) & (\(\delta_{\text{f}}\)/\(\delta_{\text{y}}\)) \\ \hline Beam\_GFRP\_PreStr & 23.89 & 7.47 & 49.18 & 18.44 & 51.94 & 29.92 & 44.45 & 78.89 & 4.28 \\ Beam\_CFRP\_PreStr & 24.51 & 7.21 & 58.12 & 21.34 & 66.24 & 29.65 & 60.56 & 37.65 & 1.76 \\ Beam\_GFRP\_PostStr & 18.83 & 5.98 & 42.61 & 15.11 & 43.88 & 22.38 & 44.13 * & 84.32 * & 5.58 * \\ Beam\_GFRP\_PostStr & 43.05 * & 28.71 * & & 50.09 * & 44.97 * & 44.13 * & 84.32 * & 5.58 * \\ Beam\_CFRP\_PostStr & 19.23 & 6.18 & 41.86 & 15.23 & 44.63 & 29.96 & & & \\
47.74 * & 26.12 * & & 63.22 * & 44.74 * & 55.94 * & 54.32 * & 3.57 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Static test results for all beams. Figure 10: The failure mode of Beam_CFRP_PostStr. Figure 9: The failure mode of Beam_GFRP_PostStr. Beam_GFRP_PostStr shows a lower first crack load compared to Beam_CFRP_PostStr, indicating the superior effect of CFRP in improving stiffness. Beam_CFRP_PreStr exhibits the highest yield load, followed by Beam_GFRP_PreStr, showing that CFRP provides a greater improvement in load-carrying capacity before yielding in pre-strengthened beams. The static test results reveal that Beam_GFRP_PreStr, which is strengthened with GFRP in the undamaged state, exhibits a good balance between strength and ductility, effectively enhancing load-bearing capacity while maintaining ductility. In contrast, Beam_CFRP_PreStr, strengthened with CFRP in the undamaged state, has the highest ultimate load capacity but demonstrates the lowest ductility ratio which is consistent with the findings of similar studies by [PERSON] [18] and [PERSON] et al. [19]. Beams strengthened with GFRP exhibit significantly more ductile behavior compared to those strengthened with CFRP. This difference can be attributed to the increased internal forces within the CFRP-strengthened beams, corresponding to a substantial rise in the maximum load carried. Consequently, the debonding of the strengthening material from the concrete cover occurs at lower displacements. Beam_GFRP_PostStr, which is pre-damaged and then strengthened with GFRP, presents a slightly reduced load-carrying capacity compared to Beam_GFRP_PreStr; however, it shows improved ductility, suggesting that GFRP can still enhance the deformation capacity of damaged beams. Beam_CFRP_PostStr, strengthened with CFRP after pre-damage, exhibits a slightly lower load capacity than Beam_CFRP_PreStr but demonstrates greater ductility, indicating that CFRP effectively restores some structural performance even when applied to a damaged beam. Overall, CFRP consistently provided superior strength enhancement, while GFRP contributed more to ductility, demonstrating the varied benefits of each material.