## 5 Conclusions  
Cylindrical concrete test pieces were compression tested until breaking point and short reinforced concrete beams were subjected to three-point flexural strength testing. The results were compared with those of identical test pieces confined with carbon fiber fabrics featuring two very different moduli of elasticity. Based on the results, the following conclusions may be reached:  
* In confined elements, the type of fracture and breaking load were very similar for both types of reinforcement, despite the enormous difference in rigidity of the fabrics providing confinement. The fault occurred due to the fracturing of fibers under tensile stress. For the purposes of breaking load in confined elements, the rigidity of the casing plays a secondary role. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(P_{max}\) (kN) & \(P_{f}\) (kN) & \(U_{f}\) (kN) & \(A\) (\%) & \(\varepsilon_{f}\) (\%) & \(\varepsilon_{f,ACI}\) (\%) \\ \hline BR & 46.0 & & & & & \\ HR & 114.0 & 68 & 44.2 & 28 & 0.59 & \(3.5\leq 1.9\) \\ HM & 110.8 & 64.8 & 44.1 & 29 & 0.32 & \(2.7\leq 1.0\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Analytical estimation of the strain reached by the fabrics, \(\varepsilon_{f}\). After analyzing the data regarding confined elements using an ANOVA technique, it can be stated that the confinement of the material significantly increases compression resistance, but there were no differences in strength between both types of analyzed confinement. * In confined elements, the breaking loads obtained using the ACI and FIB models were very similar to those obtained through experiments on both types of test piece, and they remain on the conservative side when evaluated using the ACI model and on the uncertain side when the FIB model is used. Values of between 0.35 and 0.47 were obtained for the FIB model and between 0.67 and 0.85 for the ACI model as values for the reduction coefficient of the ultimate strain of the fiber, meaning that the analytical values match the experimental ones for HR and HM fabrics, respectively. * The experimental breaking load for confined test pieces was very similar for both types of reinforcement and was significantly higher than the breaking load for the unreinforced test pieces. The theoretical breaking load in confined test pieces was also very similar for both types of reinforcement and almost triple the experimental breaking load. * The experimental values obtained in short beams for the breaking load, maximum displacement, rigidity, and energy absorbed in the test were very similar and significantly exceeded those for the unreinforced beams. * After analysis of the results regarding the breaking load and the maximum displacement of short beams using an ANOVA technique, we found significant BHM-BRF and BHR-BRF treatment differences, whereas we cannot reject the hypothesis that the BHM and BHR averages are equal. * The theoretical breaking load for the beams reinforced using both procedures obtained using the rods and straps model was also very similar and almost triple the value of the theoretical breaking load. The values obtained for fabric strain, \(\epsilon_{\text{f}}\), suggest a fabric performance of 28-29%. By way of general conclusion, it can be noted that the results obtained reveal a huge similarity between the behavior of the test pieces subjected to compression and flexural strength testing when reinforced using both types of fabric, which suggests that the rigidity of the casing plays a secondary role. In order to delve into this topic, it would be necessary to carry out another experimental campaign similar to the one used in this work, but also using other types of fibers that, while maintaining approximately the same mechanical capacity, offer a significant range of stiffness. Conceptualization, D.B.V., M.d.l.N.G.G. and A.C.E. ; methodology, M.d.l.N.G.G. and A.C.E. ; validation, M.d.l.N.G.G. and A.C.E. ; formal analysis, D.B.V., M.d.l.N.G.G. and A.C.E. ; investigation, D.B.V. ; resources, D.B.V. ; data curation, D.B.V.