## 8 Final Comparison of Results  
Two beams were designed, both with one sound side and one damaged side. The design was conducted both manually using analytical formulation (STM and Block tearing) and numerically, using a non-linear f.e.m. analysis. The results are presented in Table 5. In the table, the term \"Analytical\" defines the minimum result obtained with STM and Block tearing models. Analytical is equal to STM where this model is applicable (sound side of the gerber saddle and damaged side without jacketing system) as the block tearing model gives higher results and is therefore excluded as not physically possible. Analytical is equal to block tearing for jacketed damaged cases. According to the manual design, the sound sides should fail in the discontinuity region of the half joint for an applied load on the beam midspan (p  
Figure 20: Comparison between experimental and numerical crack pattern. (**a**) Beam with orthogonal reinforcement in static scheme 1. (**b**) Beam with orthogonal reinforcement in static scheme 2. (**c**) Beam with inclined reinforcement in static scheme 1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Specimen** & **Experimental** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Strut** \\ **\& Tie** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Block** \\ **Tearing** \\ \end{tabular} & **Analytical** & **f.e.m.** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Orthogonal \\ reinforcement \\ \end{tabular} } & Sound & 360 & 300 & 446 & 300 & 360 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Damaged & n.a. & 130 & 320 & 130 & 200 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Damaged \& jacketed & 250 & n.a. & 320 & 320 & 280 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Inclined \\ reinforcement \\ \end{tabular} } & Sound & n.a. & 320 & 444 & 320 & 440 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Damaged & n.a. & 140 & 296 & 140 & 220 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Damaged \& jacketed & 250 & n.a. & 296 & 296 & 330 \\ \hline n.a. not available. & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison between failure loads [kh]. 300 kN and 320 kN for straight and inclined reinforcement respectively obtained by strut & tie calculations. The same calculations provided a failure load for the damaged and not jacketed side of 130 kN and 140 kN for straight and inclined reinforcement respectively (less than 45% of sound resistance). When jacketing is applied the strut & tie calculations are not applicable anymore and a block tearing mechanism is adopted for hand calculations of the jacketed discontinuity region. This approach provided failure loads of 320 kN and 296 kN for jacketed straight and inclined reinforcement respectively. This result provided a theoretical failure load of the jacketed damaged side equal to one of the sound non-jacketed ones. Laboratory tests demonstrated that both orthogonal and inclined jacketed sides failed at an applied load of 250 kN (20% less than the analytical block tearing calculation, but 85% more than the expected failure load of the damaged and unjacketed sides). The failure registered during the experimental test was localised on the casting joint between the web and flange of the beam and did not interest the half joint area. Therefore, the failure was just outside the area covered by the jacketing system ended the tests completely undamaged. The steel jacketing, therefore, demonstrated to be able to strongly increase the resistance of a heavily damaged half joint (+85%), but it was not able to reach the design target of +120%. Failure was probably due to the lack of proper vertical reinforcement crossing the casting joint. This reinforcement was less than 50% of the sound side one and therefore less than the minimum one required by design code. Vertical stirrups on the damaged side were realised with a smaller diameter than the ones on the sound side; therefore, they presented a uniform cross-section reduction along their length. This choice is probably far more severe than the real corrosion effect. Numerical design using f.e.m.