The authors have written an interesting paper on the test to failure of a strengthened railway bridge. However, the failure mode analysis of the bridge as built is not correct. The failure mode is the same for the bridge as built as for the strengthened bridge, i.e., crushing of the compression concrete with yielding of the steel in tension. For the strengthened bridge, bond failure of the carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP)reinforcement also played an important part in the initiation of the final collapse. Eq. (1) in the original paper underestimates the bending moment capacity M1 of the bridge as built almost by a factor of 2 as loading up to crushing of the concrete was not considered. Instead, Eq. (8) should have been used with a zero contribution from strengthening. In Eq. (8) there is also a printing error as the coefficient β2 is left out in the last parentheses (it should read “h - β2x2” instead of “h - 2”). The underestimation of the capacity of the bridge as built gives erroneous results in Table 2 and in Fig. 5. In Table 2 the height x1 of the compression zone for the bridge as built should be about half the given value of 291 mm. The value M1 corresponding to the bridge as built should be about twice the given value of 4.5 MN. The given flexural capacities M1 and M2, of the as built and strengthened bridges, respectively, refer to the corresponding applied vertical load P causing the flexural moments and not to the moments themselves. This explains why the unit MN is used instead of MN·m. Furthermore, the shear capacity V also refers to the corresponding applied vertical load P causing the shear and not to the shear capacity itself (which is about half the value of the applied load P). Furthermore, in Table 2 the comment to the shear capacity V should be referring to Eq. (11) instead of to Eq. (6). In Fig. 5, all the load values refer to the values of the applied load P causing the shear and flexure;  not to the moments M1 and M2 or to the shear force T. After the corrections mentioned previously, the values corresponding to the two moments M1 and M2 will be located much closer to each other. 

The corrections do not change the main conclusions of the paper, and the discusser agrees with the authors that the tested bridge gives a good example of the complex interaction of bending and shear in concrete bridges. Additional information about the test and the different analysis of it and the European Research Project, which it was a part of, can be found in Elfgren et al. (2008), Puurula et al. (2008), Feltrin et al. (2008), Helmerich et al. (2008), Jensen et al. (2008), Täljsten et al. (2008), and Sustainable Bridges (2008).