Fedja Arifovic

Mogens Peter Nielsen

Strength of anchors in masonry

DANMARKS
TEKNISKE
UNIVERSITET

Rapport
BYG·DTU
R-134
2006
ISSN 1601-2917
ISBN 87-7877-205-2
Strength of anchors in masonry

Fedja Arifović
M.P. Nielsen

Department of Civil Engineering

Technical University of Denmark
October, 2004
 Abstract

Strength of anchors in masonry is treated by means of the upper bound theorem of the theory
of plasticity. Thus, the theory of plasticity for bonded anchors is described.
The case of a single anchor in masonry far from edges and corners is treated by utilizing global
and local failure mechanisms. Local failure mechanisms are characterized as those where the
failure only occurs in the brick or the joint in which an anchor is installed. Those are: combined
brick-cone failure, splitting failure and sliding failure. Global failure mechanisms are defined
as those where most or the whole of masonry wall is involved in the failure. Those are: wall
strip bending failure, punching shear failure and sliding failure at an edge. Cases of anchors
close to a corner and an edge parallel to the bed joint are only treated experimentally.
The proposed upper bound expressions are determined in conjunction with the empirical
data based on tests conducted for the purpose of this report and some other ones conducted
recently.
Contents

1 Introduction 2
1.1 Behavior of bonded anchors in masonry - tension loading . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors 4

2.1 Constitutive equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Yield conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Extremum principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.1 The upper bound theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2 The lower bound theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.3 The uniqueness theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Dissipation formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5 Strength of masonry wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5.1 Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5.2 Tensile strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6 Local failure mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.6.1 Sliding failure along a deformed bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.6.2 Combined brick-cone failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.3 The splitting failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.7 Global failure mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.7.1 Wall strip bending failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.7.2 Punching shear failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.7.3 Sliding failure at an edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.8 Final remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3 Test results 31
3.1 Far from edges and corners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.1.1 Header arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.1.2 Stretcher arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1.3 Joint arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2 Close to edges and corners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.1 Edge arrangements - normal to the bed joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.2 Edge arrangements - parallel to the bed joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3 Corner arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

i
4 Theory and empirical data 43
4.1 Combined brick-cone failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2 Sliding failure of anchors in joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3 Sliding failure of anchors in bricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.4 Punching shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.5 Edge arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5 Conclusion 51

Bibliography 53

List of symbols 54

Appendix 2

A Test results - anchors in masonry 2

A.1 Test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A.2 Far from edge and corners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A.2.1 Stretcher arrangement - 1, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A.2.2 Stretcher arrangement - 2, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A.2.3 Stretcher arrangement - 3, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.2.4 Stretcher arrangement - 1, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.2.5 Stretcher arrangement - 2, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.2.6 Stretcher arrangement - 3, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2.7 Stretcher arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 100 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.2.8 Stretcher arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 120 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.2.9 Stretcher arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 140 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.2.10 Stretcher arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 160 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.2.11 Stretcher arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 100 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.2.12 Stretcher arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 120 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.2.13 Stretcher arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 140 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A.2.14 Stretcher arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 160 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.2.15 Stretcher arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 100 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A.2.16 Stretcher arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 120 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
A.2.17 Stretcher arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 140 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A.2.18 Stretcher arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 140 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.2.19 Header arrangement - 1, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A.2.20 Header arrangement - 2, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A.2.21 Header arrangement - 3, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
A.2.22 Header arrangement - 1, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
A.2.23 Header arrangement - 2, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A.2.24 Header arrangement - 3, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A.2.25 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 90 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A.2.26 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 100 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

ii
 A.2.27 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 110 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
A.2.28 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 120 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
A.2.29 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 130 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
A.2.30 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 140 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
A.2.31 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 150 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
A.2.32 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 160 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A.2.33 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 170 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
A.2.34 Header arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 100 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
A.2.35 Header arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 120 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
A.2.36 Header arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 140 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A.2.37 Header arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 160 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
A.2.38 Header arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 100 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
A.2.39 Header arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 120 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
A.2.40 Header arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 140 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
A.2.41 Header arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 160 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
A.2.42 Joint arrangements, d = 10 mm, h = 100 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
A.2.43 Joint arrangements, d = 10 mm, h = 120 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
A.2.44 Joint arrangements, d = 10 mm, h = 140 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
A.2.45 Joint arrangements, d = 10 mm, h = 160 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
A.2.46 Joint arrangements, d = 12 mm, h = 100 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
A.2.47 Joint arrangements, d = 12 mm, h = 120 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
A.2.48 Joint arrangements, d = 12 mm, h = 140 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
A.2.49 Joint arrangements, d = 12 mm, h = 160 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
A.2.50 Joint arrangements, d = 16 mm, h = 100 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
A.2.51 Joint arrangements, d = 16 mm, h = 120 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
A.2.52 Joint arrangements, d = 16 mm, h = 140 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
A.2.53 Joint arrangements, d = 16 mm, h = 160 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
A.3 Close to a corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
A.3.1 Corner distance c = 100 mm, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
A.3.2 Corner distance c = 160 mm, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
A.3.3 Corner distance c = 230 mm, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
A.3.4 Corner distance c = 230 mm - 2, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
A.3.5 Corner distance c = 100 mm, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
A.3.6 Corner distance c = 160 mm, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
A.3.7 Corner distance c = 160 mm - 2, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
A.3.8 Corner distance c = 230 mm, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
A.3.9 Corner distance c = 230 mm - 2, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
A.4 Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
A.4.1 Edge distance e = 90 mm, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
A.4.2 Edge distance e = 160 mm, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
A.4.3 Edge distance e = 230 mm, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
A.4.4 Edge distance e = 100 mm, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
A.4.5 Edge distance e = 160 mm, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
A.4.6 Edge distance e = 230 mm, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

iii
A.5 Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
A.5.1 Edge distance e = 90 mm, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
A.5.2 Edge distance e = 160 mm, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
A.5.3 Edge distance e = 230 mm, d = 12 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
A.5.4 Edge distance e = 100 mm, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
A.5.5 Edge distance e = 160 mm, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
A.5.6 Edge distance e = 230 mm, d = 16 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

iv
Foreword

The present report on anchors in masonry is based on tests conducted at the Department of
Civil Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark.

The introduction of concentrated loads is unavoidable in building structures and this

involves the use of fastening systems, mainly anchors. Since no empirical approaches are de-
veloped regarding the design of anchors in masonry the theoretical investigation becomes an
obvious goal. The theory of plasticity has reached the level where it is natural to use it in
practical design of anchors and some investigations have been conducted in recent years at
the Department of Civil Engineering.

It is important to emphasize that we are under great obligation to the consulting company
AI-gruppen A/S that made it possible for us to conduct this investigation and the present
report.
For support regarding the experimental part of this investigation we are grateful to the staff
at the laboratory of Department of Civil Engineering. Also, great thanks to Hilti Danmark
A/S that kindly donated the anchors and some of the equipment used in the experiments. We
also express gratitude to Karsten Findsen and Lars Z. Hansen for their valuable suggestions
and advices.

Finally, we would like to thank MURO1 , particularly managing director, Architect MAA
Søren Bøgh, who has initiated masonry research at the department and supported the pro-
duction of the test specimens.

Fedja Arifović
M. P. Nielsen

1
Danish abbreviation : Murerfagets oplysningsråd

1
1 Introduction

In this report strength of anchors in masonry is considered. The load carrying capacity of
anchors in masonry is determined by means of the theory of plasticity. So far, the theory of
plasticity has been successfully applied to anchors in concrete, firstly, by Olsen and Nielsen,
[3], for a single anchor far from edges and corners and later by Arifović, [6], extending the
treatment to anchors close to an edge and a corner as well as a group of anchors far from and
close to an edge and a corner. In [6], single anchors in masonry far from edges and corners
are treated and the pull-out tests are described (for the test results see Appendix A). This
work is extended in this report.

As far as anchors in masonry are concerned the knowledge on their behavior is very limited.
Thus, there exist no empirical formulas that can be used to verify the theoretical approach
of the theory of plasticity developed in this report. For this reason pull-out tests of single an-
chors in masonry are necessary in order to observe the failure modes that govern the failures
and in order to obtain the ultimate loads. In this report the test results obtained in [6] are
used as well as the pull-outs carried out for the purpose of this report involving anchors near
edges and corners - all shown in Appendix A.

The theory of plasticity for anchors in masonry is developed by analogy of the approach of
the concrete-cone failure in punching shear of concrete slabs, [4] and by analogy of the anchor-
age theory, [4]. The latter is due to the anchors used in masonry being bonded anchors. Also,
the approach of selecting the most dangerous mechanism in upper bound solutions is applied.

The description of the work starts off with a chapter on the theory of plasticity for bonded
anchors. In this chapter the theory of plasticity is shortly introduced and the development
of the necessary upper bound expressions is described. The upper bound expressions are de-
scribed for two different kinds of failures : local and global failures. Local failures are those
observed in tests and are of a local character, i.e. involving only the brick or the joint in which
an anchor is installed. The global failures involve most of or the whole wall and are described
by some simple failure mechanisms in cases where there is no edge and corner influence and
by the splitting failure mechanism in the case of edge influence.

The test results obtained and the results from Appendix D in [6] (reproduced in Appendix
A) are described in chapter 3. Finally, in chapter 4 the theoretical solutions are compared to
the test results on which basis effectiveness factors are proposed for future design.

2
1 Introduction Behavior of bonded anchors in masonry - tension loading

1.1 Behavior of bonded anchors in masonry - tension loading

When subjected to tension loading bonded anchors in masonry are seen to exhibit essentially
the same failure modes as bonded anchors in concrete, Appendix A:

• steel failure

• combined brick-cone failure

• pull-out/sliding failure

• brick-splitting failure for anchors arranged close to an edge normal to the bed joint

Steel failure of anchors in masonry is rarely observed and takes place only in cases when
the embedment depth and the strength of the masonry are very high.
Combined brick-cone failure is a cone-like failure that occurs in solid brick by analogy of the
cone failure in concrete. This kind of failure is treated as a combined failure due to another
failure that occurs simultaneously with the brick-cone failure. This is the sliding failure along
the anchor or along the interface. The failure is demonstrated by the tests shown in Appendix
A and Appendix D in [6].
Pure sliding failure occurs either by failure at the interface between resin mortar and the
base material or by failure within the resin mortar.
Brick-splitting failure occurs in solid brick where the brick splits in two parts. This failure is
believed to occur only when the anchor is arranged close to an edge normal to the bed joint
Otherwise, this kind of failure is not possible due to to the necessary dilatation of the brick
being prevented.

As mentioned, no predictive methods for determining the load-carrying capacity of an-

chors in masonry exist so far. Normally, failure loads are checked under actual conditions. It
is known that a lot of factors influence the failure loads but in order to avoid comprehensive
testings only the influence of the arrangement and the dimension of the anchor is investigated.

It should also be noticed that other failure mechanisms may occur. In this report those
are treated as global failure mechanisms - as proposed in [1] or as corner and splitting failures
observed in tests.
Also, punching shear failure is believed to govern the failure in some cases. The tests did not
show any evidence of this kind of failure but anchor arrangements involving anchor plates
might very easily impose this kind of failure, [1].

Strength of anchors in masonry 3

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors

In this chapter a short introduction to the theory of plasticity for bonded anchors is given.
The theory of plasticity is here applied to bodies made of rigid-plastic materials. Rigid-plastic
material does not exist in reality since it is assumed that no deformation occurs up to a certain
limit. This limit is called the yield point. At this point arbitrarily large plastic deformation
may occur without any change in stresses. Stresses at this limit are recognized as yield stresses.

The strength of anchors is calculated by means of the work equation where the dissipation
formulas defined in section 2.4 are used. The dissipation formulas describe the rate of work
in the body, i.e. the resistance against the deformation. The strain rates are defined by the
yield condition, the strain rate vector being perpendicular to the yield surface (associated
plasticity).
The plasticity of masonry is primarily due to the mortar connecting the bricks and the in-
terface between mortar and brick that is the weak part of masonry, [5].
Finally, the failure loads in upper bound solutions are determined by equalizing the external
work and the dissipation. In order to find upper bound solutions a prediction of a failure
mechanisms is necessary. This is done in sections 2.6 and 2.7.
Lower bound solutions are also of great interest but they are not considered because the
statically admissible stress distributions are too complicated.

A more detailed description of the theory of plasticity and its application on concrete is
given by Nielsen in [4].

2.1 Constitutive equations

In this section the constitutive equations for a rigid-plastic material are established. In this
case elastic strains are disregarded, thus Hooke’s law or any other relation between stress and
strain is not applied. This is a valid assumption when plastic strains are much greater than
elastic strains. The relation between stress and strain for a rigid-plastic material in uniaxial
state is illustrated in figure 2.1. From this figure it is obvious that stresses are undetermined
up to the yield stress fy and that the strains corresponding to fy can be arbitrarily large.

The constitutive equations for a rigid-plastic material may be based on an energy con-
sideration. It is the work necessary to be performed to deform a rigid-plastic body that is
sought. This work is found using von Mises hypothesis on maximum work. This means that
of all the stress combinations that satisfy the yield condition the one is sought that gives the
greatest possible work, i.e. the greatest possible resistance in the body.

4
2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Yield conditions

fy

fy

Figure 2.1: Stress-strain relation for rigid-plastic material and the normality condition for
two-dimensional case (n = 2)
Assuming that the yield surface is smooth without plane surfaces or apexes and that it
is convex and closed (as illustrated in figure 2.1 for a two-dimensional case) it can be shown
that under given assumptions the strain rate vector ǭ uniquely determines a stress vector σ̄
on the yield surface, where ǭ is normal to the surface. This is the associated flow rule called
the normality condition.

2.2 Yield conditions

The failure of the bricks, mortar and interface between brick and mortar and between anchors
and bricks is described by the modified Coulomb failure condition, [4]. Two kinds of failures
are considered, sliding failure and separation failure. The shear stress τ determining the sliding
resistance is composed of cohesion c and internal friction that equals a certain fraction µ of the
normal stress σ in the section. Thus, this part of the failure conditions is given by | τ |= c−µσ,
σ being positive as tension. The separation failure is determined by the separation resistance
which is normally equal to the tensile strength ft . As shown in [4] these assumptions are
equivalent to using a circular transition curve as shown in figure 2.2

Figure 2.2: Yield conditions for masonry - Modified Coulomb material

Strength of anchors in masonry 5

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Yield conditions

If the tensile strength is set to zero, which is reasonable to assume, the modified Coulomb
failure condition for masonry may be illustrated as shown in figure 2.3 (σ is here positive as
compression).
Mohr’s circle for uniaxial compression is shown in the figure and defines the compressive
strength fc . Even for a joint it might be convenient to define a formal compressive strength
fci . The relation between c and fc is in general

fc 1 − sin φ
c= (2.1)
2 cos φ
where φ is the angle of friction defined by µ = tan φ.

upper limit (no dilatation )

Figure 2.3: Modified Coulomb friction law for masonry, [4]

The angle of friction is still not known particularly well. Values between 30o and 37o are
normally used.
There is some evidence that in Coulomb materials an upper limit of the shear strength may
exist. This has been seen in the anchor tests (concrete, [3] and in the tests reported here).
An upper limit is illustrated in figure 2.3. When the associated flow rule is valid there is no
dilatation in this region.
Since the cohesion c is an important factor in determining the failure condition for masonry
it is important to add that the cohesion may be found by means of an empirical equation,
[2]. This equation reads

 v  v
c= − 0.11 + 0.03 IRA − 0.5 + 3.6 (2.2)
k c
where

• IRA is the initial rate of absorption in kg/m2 /min valid in the interval 1.7-3.9

• v/k is water-lime ratio

• v/c is water-cement ratio

Strength of anchors in masonry 6

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Extremum principles

2.3 Extremum principles

A body reaching the yield point is said to be subject to collapse by yielding. The corresponding
load is called the failure load or the load-carrying capacity. In order to determine the load-
carrying capacity the following extremum principles are developed.

2.3.1 The upper bound theorem

The upper bound theorem states that if various geometrically possible displacement fields
are considered, the work equation can be used to find values of the load-carrying capacity
that are greater than or equal to the true one. Thus the name upper bound theorem.

2.3.2 The lower bound theorem

The lower bound theorem states that if the load has such a magnitude that it is possible to find
a safe and statically admissible stress distribution (stresses corresponding to stresses within
the yield surface and satisfying the equilibrium conditions and statical boundary conditions
for the actual load) this load will not be able to cause collapse of the body. Thus the load is
then smaller than the collapse load - hence the name lower bound theorem.

2.3.3 The uniqueness theorem

From the upper bound and lower bound theorem it is seen that only one load exists that
satisfies all of the conditions for a failure load. This is seen from the fact that the lower bound
theorem determines a load smaller than or equal to the collapse load and the upper bound
theorem describes a load greater than or equal to the collapse load. Thus, the failure load is
uniquely determined. It should be noticed that only the load-carrying capacity is uniquely
determined. The stresses, strains and displacements at the yield point are not uniquely de-
termined.

For the proof of the upper bound and lower bound theorem see chapter 1 in [4].

2.4 Dissipation formulas

In the work equation the external work is set equal to the dissipation.
The dissipation per unit length for a modified Coulomb material for yield lines in case of
plane strain reads, [4]

1
Wl = fc ub(l − m sin α), π ≤α≤π−φ (2.3)
2
where fc is the compressive strength, u the relative displacement of the bodies separated by
the yield lines, α the angle between the displacement vector and the yield line and b is the
thickness.
l and m are defined by

Strength of anchors in masonry 7

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Strength of masonry wall

ft sin φ
l = 1−2
fc 1 − sin(φ)

ft 1 (2.4)
m = 1−2
fc 1 − sin(φ)

Here φ is, as before, the angle of friction defined by µ = tan φ. It is seen that for ft = 0 we
have

1
Wl = fc ub(1 − sin α) (2.5)
2

2.5 Strength of masonry wall

2.5.1 Compressive strength
In [5], the compressive strength of a masonry wall is found by an upper bound solution.
The expression is complicated and must be optimized with respect to several geometrical
parameters. However, the compressive strength can be found approximately by the following
expression, also given in [5]

νj fcj 0.66 νj fcj 1.38

     
fc = 1.81 − 0.81 νb fcb , (fcb andfcj in MPa) (2.6)
νb fcb νb fcb

where

• fcb is the compressive strength of a brick

• fcj is the compressive strength of the mortar

• νb is the effectiveness factor applied on the compressive strength of a brick fcb

• νj is the effectiveness factor applied on the compressive strength of the mortar fcj

Expressions for νb and νj are given in [5]

νb = 0.34fcb 0.34 



1.18 ≤ 1, (fcb andfcj in MPa) (2.7)
νj = 

fcj 0.45


Strength of anchors in masonry 8

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Strength of masonry wall

2.5.2 Tensile strength

The tensile strength of masonry disks depends on the direction in which the tension is applied.
The tensile strength normal to the bed joint is normally set to zero whereas the tensile
strength parallel to the bed joint is found by considering the failure modes shown in figure
2.4, [1].

Figure 2.4: Failure modes determining the tensile strength of a masonry wall parallel to the
bed joint, [1]

The failure mode a encloses the following tensile strength neglecting the strength of the
cross joint

hb
ft = ftb (2.8)
2(hb + hj )

where
1
• ftb is the tensile strength of a brick, normally set to 20 fcb

• hb is the height of a brick

• hj is the height of a joint

For zero cohesion failure mode b leads to zero dissipation. This is recommended in old
masonry. In such case the work equation leads to the external work

1 lb + hj
Wext = − (lb + hj )σu sin φ + (hb + hj )ft u cos φ = 0 ⇒ ft = σ tan φ (2.9)
2 2(hb + hj )

where lb is the brick length.

Thus, the tensile strength is found by

Strength of anchors in masonry 9

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Strength of masonry wall


hb

 ftb
 2(hb + hj )


ft = min (2.10)

 lb + hj

 σ tan φ
2(hb + hj )


In order to find the strength of a masonry wall in one-way bending (strip action) it is
necessary to define the effective width of the wall. The effective width may be determined by
figure 2.5 assuming that the tensile strength parallel to the bed joint is reached in a vertical
section through point A. Moment equilibrium about A gives

r
1 2 1 2 ft
σb = y ft ⇒ b = 2y (b ≤ y) (2.11)
8 2 σ

Figure 2.5: Defining the effective width b of a masonry wall, [1]

Strength of anchors in masonry 10

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Local failure mechanisms

2.6 Local failure mechanisms

The local failure mechanisms are described in this section. In those mechanisms only the
brick or the joint in which the anchor is installed is involved in the failure.
In order to predict the failure loads of anchors installed in masonry three different failure
mechanisms are considered: the combined brick-cone failure, splitting failure and sliding fail-
ure.
The splitting failure governs the failure only in cases where the anchor is arranged near
an edge normal to the bed joint. The cases of anchors close to edges parallel to the bed joint
and close to corners are only treated experimentally. This limitation is not important since
anchors should never be installed near a free edge parallel to the bed joint and thus also not
near a corner. For the test results on those arrangements, see chapter 3.

The sliding failure always governs the failure in cases where the anchor is arranged in the
joint and also in some cases where the anchor is arranged in the brick.

Firstly, the upper bound expression for the sliding failure is described since this failure is
always present in combination with other failure modes.

2.6.1 Sliding failure along a deformed bar

The failure of an anchor in masonry always involves a kind of a local failure, i.e. bond failure.
This kind of failure is characterized as a sliding failure along an anchor bar and is fundamen-
tal in all local failure mechanisms described. This failure mechanism is described in chapter
9 in [4].

A bar is shown in figure 2.6 where it is assumed to move a distance us in the direction of
the bar axis and the surrounding material is assumed to move axisymmetrically perpendicular
to the bar axis.

Figure 2.6: Local failure mechanism, [4]

The dissipation L along a length l is found by

 π el 1 − sin φ
 fc (d + e) , γ = α − φ ≥ γ0
 2 a sin(α − φ)


L= (2.12)
 π fc d + 2e − α tan(α − φ) l 1 − sin φ , 0 ≤ α − φ ≤ γ0

 h i

2 cos(α − φ)

Strength of anchors in masonry 11

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Local failure mechanisms

For d and e, see figure 2.6.

When the upper bound expression for the load-carrying capacity of an anchor in masonry is to
be described by means of an arbitrary failure mechanism the dissipation S in the surrounding
material must be added to the local dissipation L as well as possible contribution from
the transverse reinforcement B. Then the work equation is found assuming that n bars are
involved in the failure

nP cos α = nL + S + B (2.13)

Normalizing the equation with respect to nπdlfc , the bond strength τ per bar is found to
be

τ P L S B
= = + + (2.14)
fc πdlfc πdlfc cos α nπdlfc cos α nπdlfc cos α
γ = 0 gives an upper limit of the dissipation in the local failure mechanism.
As mentioned before experience seems to show, [3], that an upper limit of the bond strength
must be introduced. When this limit is reached the dilatation is zero, see figure 2.3. Formally
the limit may by found from (2.14) by setting γ = α = φ = 0. Without contribution from
the surrounding material and from the transverse reinforcement the bond strength of a single
anchor becomes

π
τ P L 2 fc [d
+ 2e]l 1 e 1
= = = = + ⇒ P = νfc πdl, (d >> e) (2.15)
fc πdlfc πdlfc πdlfc 2 d 2
when the√effectiveness factor ν is applied to fc . Normally, ν is defined by the√usual p form
(ν = Kn / fc ) and in this report an additional definition is also used: ν = (Kn / fc ) d/h .
fc is the formal compressive strength corresponding to the upper limit of the bond strength
of the base material, the interface or the resin. Kn is found by comparison to the tests.

Strength of anchors in masonry 12

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Local failure mechanisms

2.6.2 Combined brick-cone failure

The combined brick-cone failure is observed in the tests conducted and some typical brick-
cones are shown in figure 2.8. The failure mechanism may be considered as composed of
three contributions: the brick-cone failure and sliding failures along the anchor and along the
interface between the mortar and the brick, see figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7: The principle of the combined brick-cone failure

In order to simplify the upper bound expression the combined brick-cone failure is pre-
liminarily considered as a combination of the brick-cone failure and sliding failure along the
anchor, i.e. by analogy of the case of a single bonded anchor in concrete. Finally, the failure is
considered as a combination of the combined brick-cone failure and sliding failure along the
interface between brick and mortar. The sliding failure at the interface takes place along an
area on both bed sides of the brick. The area equals approximately the sliding area defined
by the brick-cone generatrix, the length of the brick and the anchor diameter - see hatched
area in figure 2.7.

Figure 2.8: Brick-cone failures typically observed in masonry

Strength of anchors in masonry 13

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Local failure mechanisms

From the typical brick-cone failures shown in figure 2.8 it is easily seen that the failure
involves only the brick in which the anchor is installed. The failure in the interface between
the brick and the mortar is also obvious from the figure.

Firstly, the combined brick-cone and sliding failure along the anchor is treated. This is
done by treating the brick-cone contribution by the theory of punching shear of concrete
slabs, [4], and by treating the combined brick-cone and sliding failure along the anchor with
the brick-cone height optimization, [3].

Figure 2.9: Brick-cone failure modelling

From the appearance of the shape of the failure surface it is obvious that the shape is close
to the cone-like shape but slightly different from the one normally observed in concrete.
Even though the shape is different (see Appendix C in [6]) it is treated similarly. Thus, the
upper bound value of the failure load is governed by the dissipation in the failure surface,
that is the two cone-like failure surfaces on each side of the anchor along the bed joint.

The approach is illustrated in figure 2.9 where the failure surface is described by a gener-
atrix r(x) that is a function composed of a linear1 and a catenary part


d
 2 + x tan φ for 0 ≤ x ≤ h0



r(x) = (2.16)
 a cosh x − h0 + b sinh x − h0


 for h0 ≤ x ≤ hc
c c
1
The linear part is due to the geometrical conditions that can not always be satisfied by the catenary part

Strength of anchors in masonry 14

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Local failure mechanisms

and satisfies the geometrical conditions

p
c= a2 − b2 (2.17a)
d
a= + h0 tan φ (2.17b)
2
b
tan φ = (2.17c)
c
lb hc − h0 hc − h0
= a cosh + b sinh (2.17d)
2 c c
The angular strains are equal to zero, thus the generatrix r(x) may be considered as a
yield line in plane strain.

The dissipation is calculated by involving only the arc of length d/2θ, i.e. the arc limited
by the radii of length lb /2 making an angle θ with each other. The failure surface extends
along the height hc and the solid part of the circle with diameter lb drawn left in figure 2.9
that is the limit of the failure surface seen from above.

The dissipation is written by means of eq. (2.3) as

hc
dx 1 dx
Z
dA = rθ ⇒D=2 fcb u(l − m sin α)rθ (2.18)
cos α 0 2 cos α
where factor 2 is due to one failure surface on each side of the anchor. Angle θ is

h 
b
θ = 2 sin−1 (2.19)
lb
and fc is the compressive strength of the brick in which the anchor is installed.

The upper bound expression is written as

hc
dx
Z
Pu = θfcb (l − m sin α)r (2.20)
0 cos α
The linear part P1 is found by inserting the linear part of r(x) in (2.20) and integrating
from 0 to h0 . P1 is thus found to be (cf. [4])

h0 (l − m sin φ)(h0 sin φ + d cos φ)

P1 = θfcb (2.21)
2 cos2 φ
P2 is the catenary part of the failure mechanism found by inserting the catenary part of
r(x) in (2.20) and integrating from h0 to hc . P2 is thus found to be

Strength of anchors in masonry 15

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Local failure mechanisms


lc lb h  hc − h0 hc − h0 
P2 = θfcb (hc − h0 ) + l b cosh + a sinh
2 4 c c
(2.22)
 hc − h0 hc − h0  a i
−m a cosh + b sinh − (lb − ma)
c c 2

The ultimate failure load is the sum of the two parts and is determined by

Pcu = P1 + P2 (2.23)

In order to obtain an easy design method the non-dimensional parameter τ /fcb is intro-
duced where τ = P/π(d + hc )hc is the nominal shear stress on a cylindrical surface with
diameter d + hc (the control surface as seen in the punching shear capacity of concrete slabs).
In figure 2.10 τ /fcb is plotted for several d/hc and lb /hc values. Here, the generatrix r(x)
is optimized in accordance to the geometrical conditions (2.17) (standard Danish brick sizes
are assumed). Figure 2.10 can also be found by multiplying figure 7.2.4 in [4] by θ/π. This is
seen from the comparison of equations (2.21) and (2.22) with the corresponding expressions
in [4].
Furthermore it is evident that there is practically no variation of τ /fcb when lb /hc becomes
large. However, here we are mainly interested in τ /fcb for rather small values of lb /hc and
d/hc . Using the d/hc = 0.1 and the smallest value of lb /hc that satisfies the geometrical
conditions it is seen that τ /fcb = 0.02 may be used as a design value. Thus the upper bound
value for the brick-cone failure is approximately equal to

Pcu = 0.02νfcb π(d + hc )hc (2.24)

The combined brick-cone and sliding failure is found by calculating the sliding failure using
equation (2.15). The load carried by the sliding failure is then

π
P fcb [d + 2e]l 1 e π
= 2 = + ⇒ Psu = (h − hc )dνfcb , (d >> e) (2.25)
πdlfcb πdlfcb 2 d 2

Formula (2.25) implies that we have related the upper limit of the bond strength to the
compressive strength of the brick fcb by introducing the effectiveness factor ν.
The sliding occurs along the length l = h − hc of the anchor and the load carrying capacity
for the failure combined by the brick-cone failure and sliding failure along the anchor is found
to be

π
Pcomb,u = 0.02νfcb π(d + hc )hc + (h − hc )dνfcb (2.26)
2

Strength of anchors in masonry 16

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Local failure mechanisms

0.030
d/h = 1.0
0.028 d/h = 0.5
d/h = 0.2
0.026 d/h = 0.1

0.024
P/(πh(d+h)fc)
0.022

0.020

0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.010
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
lb/h

Figure 2.10: The normalized load-carrying capacity τ /fc for different d/h and lb /h ratios. In
the figure hc is named h

assuming the effectiveness factor on fcb to be the same in the two terms.
The minimum value is found by optimizing (2.26) with respect to hc

∂Pcomb,u 1
= 0 ⇒ hc = 12d ⇒ Pcomb,u = dνfcb π(h − 5.76d) (2.27)
∂hc 2
Finally, using the trapezoidal surface along which the sliding failure in the interface be-
tween brick and mortar occurs and the fact that the maximum bond strength is τ = 12 fcimax
where fcimax is the formal compressive strength corresponding to the upper limit of the bond
strength in the interface the upper bound expression for the combined brick-cone failure is
found to be

1
Pu = νfcb dπ(h − 5.76d) + ν2 fci (lb + d)12d (2.28)
2
The maximum bond strength is introduced due to experience, [3], and in this stage no
dilatation occurs - see figure 2.3.
Since the upper limit fcimax is not yet known the effective strength has been related to the
formal interface compressive strength fci through the effectiveness factor ν2 .
Thus, ν2 covers both the conversion from fci to fcimax and an effectiveness factor on fcimax .
ν is the effectiveness factor applied to the brick strength fcb . The factors are defined by

Strength of anchors in masonry 17

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Local failure mechanisms

analogy of the effectiveness factors usually suggested in concrete (dependence on the square
root of the compressive strength
p of concrete), [4], with the addition of the embedment depth
dependence defined by d/h (introduced in the anchorage theory - the bond strength of
reinforcement bars, [4]). Thus, the factors are defined

r r
K1 d K2 d
ν=√ , ν2 = √ (2.29)
fcb h fci h

For the determination of K1 and K2 on basis of the pull-out tests see chapter 4.
The formula (2.28) implies that the sliding along the interface is supposed not to change the
parameters governing the failure geometry.

2.6.3 The splitting failure

The splitting failure mechanism is similar to the face splitting mechanism in the case of
bonded anchors in concrete, [4]. This kind of failure occurs only when the anchor is close to
an edge normal to the bed joint where dilatation may take place without much resistance.
In the tests the failures are recognized as splitting of either the brick in which the anchor
is installed or the splitting of the same brick together with one of the neighbouring bricks
(including the joints, see figure 2.11). Since both of these failures eventually will result in the
same upper bound value they are treated equally considering the first one only to be a special
case of the last one. Thus, in order to simplify the calculations one upper bound expression
is found.

Figure 2.11: Typical splitting failures in masonry

Strength of anchors in masonry 18

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Local failure mechanisms

The upper bound expression for the splitting failure is written in analogy to the expression
valid for the face splitting in concrete, thus the expression for a number of bars n = 1 becomes,
[4]

  
b
0.12ν + 0.89 − 1 ρ


d


τ Pu 
= = min (2.30)
fcb fcb πdh 


b

 0.28ν + 0.48 −1 ρ


d

b being the width of the brick and d the anchor diameter. These expressions are only valid
if the dissipation in the surroundings can be neglected, since in (2.30) the only contribution
is from the brick (i.e. the sliding failure in the interface between the brick and mortar is
neglected).
The effectiveness factors ν and ρ introduced in equation (2.30) are defined by analogy of
the case of bonded anchors in concrete, [4]. By setting the tensile strength of the brick
ftb = 1/20fcb as reported in [5], we get

K1
ν =√
fcb
r (2.31)
νt ftb K2 d
ρ = =
fcb 20 h
For the determination of K1 and K2 , see chapter 4.

Strength of anchors in masonry 19

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Global failure mechanisms

2.7 Global failure mechanisms

The global failure mechanisms are applied to arrangements where most of or the whole of
the wall is involved in the failure. The mechanisms are described in the following.

2.7.1 Wall strip bending failure

The global strength of masonry may be determined by the wall strip bending failure, shown
in figure 2.12, [1].
The wall may be supported both at the top and bottom and along an additional vertical
support. The latter case may be due to a cross wall. In the vertical support a vertical dis-
placement may occur but it will sometimes be prevented for instance due to the wall being
bricklayed with the neighbouring wall. Thus, this case is treated both with and without a
free vertical displacement of the support. In both cases the bending tensile strength is set to
zero.

The prediction of the load-carrying capacity is carried out by using an effective width
of the wall teff that is found by subtracting the compression zone depth y0 from the actual
thickness t. Thus, teff is found to be

σ  σ
y0 = t ⇒ teff = t 1 − (2.32)
fc fc
Firstly, the wall strip supported only at the top and bottom is considered, as shown
in figure 2.12. The load-carrying capacity Pu is found by the work equation in which the
dissipation is zero due to the bending tensile strength being zero. The external work Wext is
found by the contributions from P , q and σbt as well as from G1 and G2 that are the weights
of the wall strips.
The external work for x ≥ η is found to be

η  1  1 1
Wext = P δ − σbtu − G2 u1 + u2 − G1 u1 + qbhδ (2.33)
x 2 2 2
where u,u1 and u2 are defined by the geometrical conditions obvious from figure 2.12. Thus

teff teff 1
u1 = δ, u2 = δ, u = u2 + u1 (2.34)
x h−x 2
Equalizing the external work form eq. (2.33) to zero dissipation and utilizing the definitions
of the deflections u,u1 and u2 an upper bound expression for P is found

  
x teff 1 teff  t
eff 1 teff  1 teff 1
Pu = σbt + + G2 + + G1 − qbh (2.35)
η x 2h−x x 2h−x 2 x 2

Strength of anchors in masonry 20

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Global failure mechanisms

Figure 2.12: The wall strip bending failure mechanism, [1]

Notice that the work of the normal stress σ at the top of the wall has been calculated
for a uniform stress distribution. If it can be assumed that the total force per unit length σt
moves to the corner with the larger vertical displacement the work will be greater.
In the case of x < η the definition of the displacements u,u1 and u2 remains the same. Only
the work done by the pull-out force P changes, thus in this case the upper bound expression
becomes

  
h−η teff 1 teff  t
eff 1 teff  1 teff 1
Pu = σbt + + G2 + + G1 − qbh (2.36)
h−x x 2h−x x 2h−x 2 x 2

The addition of a vertical support produces additional skew yield lines. A possible failure
mechanism is shown in figure 2.13.
The external forces are the same as in the previous failure mechanism shown in figure 2.12.
The displacements are determined for the rotation axes of the different slab parts lying in
a face of the slab. The dissipations in the skew yield lines as well as in the horizontal yield
line are neglected here. While the dissipation in the horizontal yield line should always be
neglected the contributions from the skew yield lines might be included.
The external work is the work done by external forces P , q and σbt and the weights of the
different wall parts shown in figure 2.13.
By analogy of the previous approach the external work for x ≥ η is found to be

Strength of anchors in masonry 21

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Global failure mechanisms

Figure 2.13: The wall strip bending failure mechanism with an additional vertical support, [1]

1 1  1  η
Wext = qδ bh + hξ − σtbteff θ1 + θ2 + P δ
3 6 2 x
  (2.37)
1  1
− (G1 + G3 ) θ1 + θ2 teff + (G2 + G5 )θ2 teff + G4 θ2 teff
2 2
The rotations θ1 and θ2 expressed by the displacement δ in figure 2.13 are

δ δ
θ1 = , θ2 = (2.38)
h−x x
Using the equations (2.37) and (2.38) an upper bound expression for P is found to be


x 1 1  1 t
eff teff 
Pu = − q bh + hξ + σtb +
η 3 6 2h−x x
 (2.39)
1 t teff  1 teff teff
eff
+(G1 + G3 ) + + (G2 + G5 ) + G4
2h−x x 2 x x
In the case of x < η only the work of pull-out force P changes and this gives by analogy
of the previous approach the upper bound expression for this case

Strength of anchors in masonry 22

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Global failure mechanisms


h−η 1 1  1 t
eff teff 
Pu = − qδ bh + hξ + σtb +
h−x 3 6 2h−x x
 (2.40)
1 t teff  1 teff teff
eff
+(G1 + G3 ) + + (G2 + G5 ) + G4
2h−x x 2 x x
In figure 2.14 the upper bound expressions defined in (2.35),(2.36), (2.39) and (2.40) are
compared. It is evident that the gain in the load-carrying capacity introduced by an addi-
tional vertical support with free vertical displacement when the dissipation in the skew yield
lines is neglected is small, ∆Pu = 1.01 kN. The optimum value of the load-carrying capacity
is achieved for x ∼= η. Data from table 2.1 are used in the comparison presented in the figure
- for the notation see the list of symbols at the end of the report.

η = 1000 mm, t = 300 mm, t = 293 mm, x = 1007 mm, ∆P = 1.01 kN

eff min u
100
Wall strip bending failure
90 Additional vertical support
Additional vertical support−prevented vertical displ.
80

70

60
Pu [kN]

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
x [mm]

Figure 2.14: The load-carrying capacity vs. the positions of the force P for two cases : simple
wall strip bending failure and failure of wall with an additional vertical support, [1]
σ fc t lb hb bb hj q d
0.10 4.0 300 228 56 108 12 1.0 20
[MPa] [MPa] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [kN/m2 ] [mm]
ρ h b η ξ teff l
15 3000 3000 1000 1500 292.50 150
[kN/m3 ] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
(l is the embedment depth)

Table 2.1: Data used for the comparison in figure 2.14, [1]

Strength of anchors in masonry 23

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Global failure mechanisms

Finally, it remains to investigate the influence of the vertical support where the vertical
displacement is prevented. If the failure mechanism, shown in figure 2.13, is activated and
the vertical displacement of the support is prevented a shear failure through the bricks is
required for the mechanism to occur.

Figure 2.15: The vertical failure of a single brick - the unit cell, [1]

The treatment of the shear failure is simple, see figure 2.15 where the unit cell is shown.
In the figure, a unit cell of a facing bond is shown with a vertical yield line.
The dissipation in the yield line is found by the dissipation formula for a modified Coulomb
material, i.e. eq. (2.3), thus the case of plane strain is assumed. This implies that the angle
between the displacement vector and the yield line is larger than the angle of friction for the
interface between the brick and mortar and the brick, respectively. The angle of friction is
here set to φ = 30o . Because the cross joints can not be assumed to be properly filled with
mortar their contribution to the load-carrying capacity is neglected.

The dissipation per unit cell is formulated as

1
Wint = fcb (l − m sin α)hb ub (2.41)
2
where l and m are defined in eq. (2.4) and b is the width. The external work is (see figure
2.15)

Wext = 2τu cos(α)(hb + hj )ub (2.42)

By means of the work equation τu is found to be

1 hb l − m sin α
τu = fcb (2.43)
4 hb + hj cos α
∂τu
The optimal value of α is found by the non-trivial solution to ∂α = 0. Thus,

Strength of anchors in masonry 24

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Global failure mechanisms

teff lb hb bb hf fcb φ l m α
292.5 228 56 108 12 15 30 0.9 0.8 62.7
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [MPa] [Deg.] - - [Deg.]

Table 2.2: Data used for the calculation of the additional part of the dissipation for the failure
mechanism in figure 2.13, [1]

∂τu 1 hb l sin α − m −1 m
 
= fcb = 0 ⇒ α = sin , (α ≥ φ) (2.44)
∂α 4 hb + hj cos2 α l

The shear failure through the bricks (when the vertical displacement of the additional
support is prevented) governs the additional part of the dissipation. Thus, the additional
dissipation is found by using

δ
∆Wint = τu A teff (2.45)
x
δ
where A is the total sectional area of the yield line and x teff is the vertical displacement
defined by the failure mechanism from figure 2.13.

The additional part of the dissipation shown in (2.45) may be calculated by using the data
from table 2.2 (x = η). The increase in the load-carrying capacity is found by first finding τu

1 56 0.9 − 0.8 sin(62.7o )

τu = 15 = 1.27 MPa (2.46)
4 56 + 12 cos(62.7o )

Subsequently, ∆W is found from eq. (2.45). Thus the increase in the load-carrying capacity
when the shear failure in the bricks is introduced is found to be

3000 · 108 · 292.5

∆Wint = 1.27 · = 120.7 kN (2.47)
1000
Here, δ is neglected because in the work equations it vanishes.
The increase in the load-carrying capacity for other values of x is illustrated in figure 2.16.
However, it should be kept in mind that the increase in the load-carrying capacity may in
reality be smaller since an effectiveness factor needs to be applied on the compressive strength
of the brick fcb used in the upper bound expression for τu , eq. (2.43).
In such case it may be suggested to use the effectiveness factor νb used when calculating the
compressive strength of a masonry wall from eq. (2.7). Then τu is found to be

1 hb l − m sin α
τu = νb fcb (2.48)
4 hb + hj cos α

Strength of anchors in masonry 25

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Global failure mechanisms

where νb is found to be

νb = 0.34 · 150.34 = 0.85 (2.49)

thus, the increase is reduced by 15 %.

It is evident that the calculated increase in the load-carrying capacity is different from the
one calculated in [1] (33.1 kN). This is due to a calculation error in [1].
It should be kept in mind that the upper bound expression found in (2.43) only applies to
a masonry wall with the facing bond (figure 2.15) and the calculations are carried out for a
half-brick wall. In the case of other types of bond a new upper bound expression should be
established on basis of the unit cell of the actual bond.

η = 1000 mm, t = 300 mm, t = 293 mm, x = 1007 mm, P = 41.3 kN

eff min u,min
250
Wall strip bending failure
Additional vertical support
Additional vertical support−prevented vertical displ.
200

150
P [kN]
u

100

50

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
x [mm]

Figure 2.16: The load-carrying capacity vs. the arrangements of force P for three cases : simple
wall strip bending failure, wall with an additional vertical support with free and prevented
vertical displacement

Strength of anchors in masonry 26

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Global failure mechanisms

2.7.2 Punching shear failure

The load-carrying capacity of a single anchor in concrete is successfully treated by the theory
of punching shear of slabs in [3]. In [1], the punching shear mechanism is stated as the possible
failure mechanism for a single anchor in masonry too.
In the tests reported in [6] and the recent ones, given in Appendix A, there was no evidence
of punching shear failure. However, this failure mechanisms still needs to be considered when
designing the anchors in masonry especially in cases of anchors installed by use of an anchor
plate.

As explained in [1], the application of the punching shear analogy to anchors in masonry
is the same as the one in concrete. Thus, the developed simple form of the upper bound
expression for the concrete-cone failure is applied to masonry substituting the compressive
strength of concrete with the compressive strength of masonry. The upper bound expression
for the load-carrying capacity Pu is thus found by introducing the shear stress τ which is the
nominal shear stress along a control surface defined by the circumference around the anchor
in a radius of half the embedment depth, see figure 2.17.

d+h
1/2 h d 1/2 h control surface
P failure surface

CL d1
D
Figure 2.17: Punching shear in a reinforced concrete slab, [4]. Applied to masonry in the
present section

Pu is found to be

Pu = π(d + h)hτ, τ = 0.08νfc , (fc in MPa) (2.50)

where

• d is the anchor diameter

• h is the embedment depth of the anchor

Strength of anchors in masonry 27

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Global failure mechanisms

• fc is the compressive strength of masonry

and ν is the effectiveness factor applied to the compressive strength of masonry assumed to
be of the usual form used in concrete. Thus,

K1
ν=√ , (fc in MPa) (2.51)
fc
In [1], as a result of the comparison to the tests, K1 is suggested a value of 3.82.

2.7.3 Sliding failure at an edge

Figure 2.18: Sliding failure at an edge, [1]

Another global failure mechanism is sliding failure at an edge. The anchor arrangement is
shown in figure 2.18 together with the failure mechanism.
The upper bound expression is determined by the external work since the dissipation is set
to zero.
The part I has displacement zero while the part III is subjected to vertical displacements
only. The mutual displacement between the parts u is assumed to make an angle equal to the
angle of friction φ with the line of discontinuity.

The external work is formulated as usual

Wext = u(P cos φ − 2G sin φ) (2.52)

Setting the dissipation to zero Pu is found from (2.52) to

Pu = 2G tan φ (2.53)
where G is the vertical load originating from the forces including the weight of the structure
above.

Strength of anchors in masonry 28

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Final remarks

2.8 Final remarks

It is seen that the theory of plasticity provides some important formulas for the prediction
of the ultimate load for anchors in masonry.
In order to achieve an easy and simple design procedure the new expression for the combined
brick-cone failure is formulated using a rather simple approach (by analogy of the punching
shear problem in concrete). This involves the use of a cylindrical surface (control surface)
with a radius of half the embedment depth around the anchor. In practice, this may for
larger embedment depths extend beyond the brick surface involving the neighboring bricks
and joints. Since the theoretical approach disregards this fact this should also be done in the
design situation still of course using the strength of the single brick in which the anchor is
installed.
Furthermore, a rather rough estimate of the upper limit of the bond strength of the interface
between the brick and mortar is made. The strength is related to the formal compressive
strength fci through an effectiveness factor ν2 .

When predicting the strength of an anchor in masonry by means of the upper bound
theorem of the theory of plasticity the most dangerous mechanism needs to be found. This
is illustrated by the comparisons made in figure 2.19 where the load-carrying capacity of an
anchor in masonry is found by means of the investigated failure mechanisms. The data from
tables 2.1 and 2.2 are used and the normal pressure on the top of the wall (σ) is varied.
It is evident that the combined brick-cone failure governs the failure for almost any σ applied.
However, here fci is set to zero and thus in the case of large fci the sliding failure mechanism
may govern the failure. For very small σ the sliding failure at an edge is the critical failure
mode though with a reminder on the fact that this kind of failure is dependent on the ar-
rangement (i.e. the failure occurs only for anchors installed near an edge).

Since the comparison shown in figure 2.19 is only valid for the data from tables 2.1 and
2.2 it is natural to show the effect of some other values. In figure 2.20 the data are slightly
changed: the compressive strength of the brick fcb is changed to 21.1 MPa and the compres-
sive strength of masonry fc is changed to 7.5 MPa. Finally the anchor embedment depth is
changed to h = 230 mm - this corresponds to the masonry walls used in the tests.
It is then seen that the wall strip bending failure governs the failure, thus the local failure
modes, the combined brick-cone failure and the sliding failure no longer predict the lowest
failure loads. The sliding failure at an edge appears to govern the failure for almost no σ but
again with the reminder on the fact that this failure is dependent on the arrangement.
It is obvious from the above that all the possible failure mechanisms need to be checked
when designing anchors in masonry since in some cases global failure mechanisms are likely
to govern the failure. This is also supported by the fact that the determination of the upper
bound expressions is done in conjunction with pull-outs with no pre-compression of the walls
(i.e. σ = 0). Thus, it is reasonable to expect the local failure loads to be higher in reality for
which reason some global failure loads might govern the failure.

Finally, it should be noted that the sliding failure applied in the comparisons mentioned

Strength of anchors in masonry 29

2 Theory of plasticity for bonded anchors Final remarks

above is the sliding failure along the anchor installed in a brick. If the anchor is installed in
a joint the load carrying capacity is expected to be much lower due to a usually lower com-
pressive strength of mortar. Since the failure loads are low it is not recommended to install
anchors in joints.
In the comparison shown in figure 2.20 a formal compressive strength fci = 2.71 MPa is used.
In the comparison in figure 2.19 the cohesion is set to zero and consequently the same is fci .
The comparisons shown in figures 2.19 and 2.20 are based on the effectiveness factors defined
in chapter 4.

180
Wall strip bending − top and bottom
160 Wall strip bending − vertical support
Wall strip bending − vertical displ. prevented
Sliding failure at an edge
140 Punching shear

120

100
Pu [kN]

80

60

Sliding failure along the anchor

40

20
Combined brick−cone failure
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
σ [MPa]

Figure 2.19: Failure loads in relation to the normal pressure σ on top of the wall using the
different failure mechanisms - data from tables 2.1 and 2.2
180
Wall strip bending − top and bottom
160 Wall strip bending − vertical support
Wall strip bending − vertical displ. prevented
Sliding failure at an edge
140 Punching shear

120

100
Pu [kN]

80 Sliding failure along the anchor

Combined brick−cone failure
60

40

20

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
σ [MPa]

Figure 2.20: Failure loads in relation to the normal pressure σ on top of the wall using the
different failure mechanisms - data from tables 2.1 and 2.2 with different strengths of masonry
and bricks, different wall thickness and anchor embedment depth

Strength of anchors in masonry 30

3 Test results

In this chapter the test results are described.

The test results are due to pull-outs that involve cases of anchors arranged near edges and
corners as well as those arranged far from edges and corners, see Appendix A.
Also, the test results of the pull-outs of anchors arranged far from edges and corners carried
out in [6] are shortly described. For more information on those, see [6], Appendix D.

The test results contain cases of a single anchor far from edges and corners with the max-
imum embedment depth. Maximum embedment depth of anchors of size M16 is the wall
thickness, h = 230 mm, and for anchors of size M12 it is h = 185 mm (maximum drill
length). The test results achieved in [6] contain cases of anchors in stretcher and header side
of a brick as well as those arranged in joints. The embedment depth is varied as well as the
anchor diameter for all the arrangements tested.
The arrangements of the tests carried out are shown in figure 3.1. The figure shows the
principle of the anchor edge arrangement (parallel and normal to the bed joint) and corner
arrangement. The arrangement of anchors far from edges and corners is randomly chosen in
the interior of the wall with no edge and corner influence, i.e. the edge and corner distance
is chosen greater than 150 mm which is the minimum distance prescribed by Hilti, [7].

The test results are presented in tables 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 where the failure loads and the
failure modes are described. The graphs showing the relation between the failure loads and
the embedment depth are supplemented with the so-called normal probability assessment
plots, i.e. the plots where it is graphically assessed whether the data (test results) may come
from a normal distribution.

The nomenclature used in the description of the failure loads observed is

• SF - sliding failure (e.g. see figures A.85, A.95 and A.105)

• SPF - splitting failure of the brick or of the wall (edge arrangement) (e.g. see figures
A.133 and A.137)

• BPU - brick pull-out failure (e.g. see figures A.47, A.57 and A.143)

• BCF - combined brick-cone failure (e.g. see figures A.31 and A.35)

• CF - corner failure of the masonry wall (e.g. see figures A.109, A.111 and A.121)

• CBF - cover bending failure of the masonry wall (e.g. see figures A.139, A.141 and
A.145)

The pull-out tests are carried out using masonry walls with mean compressive strength of
7.5 MPa layed with bricks with the mean compressive strength of 21.1 MPa. The strengths
of the masonry walls and bricks are found by means of compressive strength testing. The test
results are shown in tables 3.1 and 3.2, respectively.
3 Test results

no 1 2 3 4 5 6
fc 8.1 6.6 7.6 7.7 8.1 6.9
fc,m = 7.5 MPa

Table 3.1: The compressive strength of masonry walls, [MPa]

no : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10
fcb 20.7 21.0 19.1 20.8 21.2 19.6 21.9 22.3 19.2 22.9 19.7
no : 12 13 14 15 16
fcb 20.2 22.7 20.8 20.1 21.1
fc,m = 21.1 MPa

Table 3.2: The compressive strength of bricks, [MPa]

Figure 3.1: The anchor arrangement. It should be noticed that in spite of what is shown in
the figure the anchors are always arranged in the mid point of the brick

Strength of anchors in masonry 32

3 Test results Far from edges and corners

3.1 Far from edges and corners

3.1.1 Header arrangements
The testing of the header arrangements, table 3.3, shows no clear dependency of the anchor
size on the load-carrying capacity - see also figure 3.3 (failure loads at the maximum embed-
ment depth are plotted as the mean values).
The tendency of increasing load-carrying capacity for increasing embedment depth is recog-
nized for anchors of size d = 12 mm, though only for embedment depths up to 140 mm.
The increasing load-carrying capacity for embedment depths higher than 140 mm should,
however, not be excluded since the failure mode of this particular arrangement at the em-
bedment dept of 160 mm is the brick pull-out that most likely originates from bad laying of
the masonry. In a recently conducted pull-out at the embedment depth of 185 mm the mean
failure load increases in relation to that of embedment depth of 160 mm, though it is still
lower than that of 140 mm depth.
The tendency of increasing load-carrying capacity for increasing embedment depth is clearly
recognized for anchors of size d = 16 and 10 mm though the failure load of the 160 mm em-
bedment depth arrangement is not in favor of the claimed tendency for neither of the anchor
sizes.
From table 3.3 it is evident that failures of anchors arranged in the header side of a brick
is the brick pull-out failure that in most cases is combined with a sliding failure along the
anchor. In the table, h is the embedment depth and h∗ is the height of the brick pull-out,
i.e. the sliding failure along the anchor occurs along the length h − h∗ . This is illustrated in
figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: The principle of the brick pull-out failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 33

3 Test results Far from edges and corners

d = 10 mm
h [mm] 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
h∗ [mm] 90 60 20 100 90 60 100 0 85
f.m. SF BPU+ BPU+ BPU+ BPU+ BPU+ BPU+ SF BPU+
SF SF SF SF SF SF SF
Pu [kN] 11.8 26.7 28.6 26.6 23.9 39.1 32.1 42.7 45.7
d = 12 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160 185
h∗ [mm] 80 55 55 160 1. 155
2. 0
3. 55
f.m. BPU+ BPU+ BPU+ BPU BPU+
SF SF SF SF (2. only SF)
Pu [kN] 27.2 29.6 38.8 15.2 1. 28.3
2. 36.3
3. 35.9
d = 16 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160 230
h∗ [mm] 100 120 - 160 1. 120
2. 80
3. 120
f.m. BPU BPU SPF BPU BPU+SF
Pu [kN] 17.1 25.4 45.2 28.6 1. 40.5
2. 73.4
3. 55.7

Table 3.3: Test results for the header arrangements (f.m. is the failure mode) [6]

Strength of anchors in masonry 34

3 Test results Far from edges and corners

Header arrangements
60
d = 10 mm
d = 12 mm
55
d = 16 mm

50

Failure load [kN] 45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Embedment depth [mm]
0.95
0.95 d = 10 mm 0.90 d = 12 mm
0.90
0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25
0.10
0.05 0.10
0.05
20 30 40 15 20 25 30 35
P P
test test

0.90 d = 16 mm

0.75
Probability

0.50

0.25

0.10
20 30 40
P
test

Figure 3.3: Failure loads for anchors arranged in the header side of a brick against the em-
bedment depth, ([6] - see table 3.3) and the normal probability assessment of the test results

Strength of anchors in masonry 35

3 Test results Far from edges and corners

3.1.2 Stretcher arrangements

From table 3.4 it is evident that the failure of anchors of size d = 16 mm arranged in the
stretcher side of a brick is governed by the combined brick-cone failure. This kind of failure
is also seen for anchor of size d = 12 mm though the sliding failure and the brick pull-out
failure normally seem to govern the failure of anchors of sizes d = 10 and 12 mm.
The failure loads listed in table 3.4 are shown in figure 3.4.
It is seen that tendency of increasing load-carrying capacity for increasing embedment depth
is recognized for all anchor sizes though a drop in the capacity is observed at the embedment
depth of 140 mm. The drop of the load carrying capacity of an anchor of size d = 16 mm at
the maximum embedment depth is surprising but the explanation is most likely to be found
in the different failure modes that govern the capacity at the maximum embedment depth
(see last column in table 3.4 for d = 16 mm).
Also, it is evident that the anchors of size d = 10 mm exhibit higher failure loads than those
of size d = 12 mm, which is in contrary to the expectations. This is most likely due to the
high deviation of the test result and the fact that anchors of size d = 10 and 12 mm have
rather close dimensions in comparison with anchors of size d = 16 mm.

d = 10 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160
h∗ [mm] 55
Pu [kN] 21.8/SF 34.2/SF 22.3/SF 37.8/BPU+SF

d = 12 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160 185
h∗ [mm] 55 100 (3.)
Pu [kN] 18.2/BPU+SF 21.6/SF 11.6/SF 27.6/BCF 1. 35.8/BCF
2. 41.7/BCF
3. 34.0/BPU+SF
d = 16 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160 230
h∗ [mm] 100 (2. and 3.)
Pu [kN] 42.3/BCF 58.3/BCF 52.9/BCF 63.9/SF 1. 63.1/SF
2. 36.8/BPU+SF
3. 33.7/BPU+SF

Table 3.4: Test results for the stretcher arrangements

Strength of anchors in masonry 36

3 Test results Far from edges and corners

Stretcher arrangements
70
d = 10 mm
d = 12 mm
d = 16 mm
60

50
Failure load [kN]

40

30

20

10

0
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Embedment depth [mm]
0.95
0.90 d = 10 mm 0.90 d = 12 mm

0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10
0.05
25 30 35 15 20 25 30 35
P P
test test

0.95
0.90 d = 16 mm

0.75
Probability

0.50

0.25

0.10
0.05
45 50 55 60
P
test

Figure 3.4: Failure loads for anchors arranged in the stretcher side of a brick against the
embedment depth,([6] - see table 3.4) and the normal probability assessment of the test results

Strength of anchors in masonry 37

3 Test results Far from edges and corners

3.1.3 Joint arrangements

From table 3.5 it is evident that the failure of anchors arranged in the joints is governed by
the sliding failure regardless of the anchor sizes and the embedment depth. It is observed
that the failure occurs in the interface between the mortar resin and the anchor which is in
accordance with the expectations.
The tendency of increasing load-carrying capacity, see figure 3.5, for increasing embedment
depth is recognized for anchors of size d = 16 mm. This is also the case for anchors of sizes
d = 10 and 12 mm though an unexpected drop in the capacities is observed at the embedment
depth of 160 and 140 mm, respectively. As for anchors arranged in the stretcher side of a
brick the anchors of size d = 12 mm exhibit failure loads lower than those of size d = 10 mm.
The same explanation applies as in the case of the stretcher arrangements.

d = 10 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160
1. 17.7/SF 22.6/SF 30.9/SF 22.6/SF
d = 12 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160
16.3/SF 17.6/SF 15.2/SF 21.2/SF
d = 16 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160
21.7/SF 28.4/SF 35.7/SF 53.2/SF

Table 3.5: Test results for the stretcher arrangements (Pu [kN]/failure mode), [6]

Strength of anchors in masonry 38

3 Test results Far from edges and corners

Joint arrangements
70
d = 10 mm
d = 12 mm
d = 16 mm
60

50
Failure load [kN]

40

30

20

10

0
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Embedment depth [mm]

0.90 d = 10 mm 0.90 d = 12 mm

0.75 0.75
Probability

Probability

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.10 0.10
20 25 30 16 18 20
P P
test test

0.90 d = 16 mm

0.75
Probability

0.50

0.25

0.10
30 40 50
P
test

Figure 3.5: Failure loads for anchors arranged in the joint against the embedment depth, ([6]
- see table 3.5) and the normal probability assessment of the test results

Strength of anchors in masonry 39

3 Test results Close to edges and corners

3.2 Close to edges and corners

3.2.1 Edge arrangements - normal to the bed joint
In table 3.6 failure loads for anchors arranged close to an edge normal to the bed joint are
shown. Here e is the edge distance.
It is evident that the splitting failure governs the failure. Two different kinds of splitting
failure are recognized : the one that only involves the brick in which the anchor is installed
and the one that involves part of the masonry wall. It is evident that the latter kind occurs
in larger edge distances (especially for anchors of size d = 12 mm). Also, for anchors of size
d = 12 mm the tendency of increasing failure load for increasing edge distance is recognized
(see figure 3.6) but for anchors of size d = 16 mm this is not the case. Anchors of size d = 12
mm demonstrate greater load-carrying capacity.

d [mm] e [mm] Pu [kN] Failure mode

12 90 30.4 SPF
12 160 36.9 SPF
12 230 45.4 SPF
16 100 34.4 SPF
16 160 27.5 SPF
16 230 36.0 SPF

Table 3.6: Test results for the edge arrangements - edge normal to the bed joint
Edge arrangements − normal to the bed joint
60 d = 12 mm
Failure load [kN]

d = 16 mm
40

20

0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Edge distance [mm]
0.90
d = 12 mm
Probability

0.75
0.50
0.25
0.10
32 34 36 38 40 42 44
0.90
d = 16 mm
Probability

0.75
0.50
0.25
0.10
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Ptest

Figure 3.6: Failure loads for anchors arranged close to an edge normal to the bed joint and
the normal probability assessment of the test results

Strength of anchors in masonry 40

3 Test results Close to edges and corners

3.2.2 Edge arrangements - parallel to the bed joint

The failure loads of anchors arranged close to an edge parallel to the bed joints appear to
be lower than those obtained for anchors arranged close to an edge normal to the bed joint -
compare tables 3.6 and 3.7.
The failure mode that governs the failure is the cover bending failure and the brick pull-out
failure.
From figure 3.7 it is evident that for this kind of arrangement the load-carrying capacity is
increasing with the edge distance e.

d [mm] e [mm] Pu [kN] Failure mode

12 90 10.3 CBF
12 160 14.9 CBF
12 230 42.7 BPU
16 100 43.6 CBF
16 160 45.1 BPU
16 230 57.5 BPU

Table 3.7: Test results for the edge arrangements - edge normal to the bed joint

Edge arrangements − parallel to the bed joint

60
Failure load [kN]

d = 12 mm
40 d = 16 mm

20

0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Edge distance [mm]
0.90
d = 12 mm
Probability

0.75
0.50
0.25
0.10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.90
d = 16 mm
Probability

0.75
0.50
0.25
0.10
44 46 48 50 52 54 56
Ptest

Figure 3.7: Failure loads for anchors arranged close to an edge parallel to the bed joint and
the normal probability assessment of the test results

Strength of anchors in masonry 41

3 Test results Corner arrangements

3.3 Corner arrangements

Testing of anchors arranged close to a corner reveals that the most common failure mode is
the corner failure, see table 3.8.
From figure 3.8, where mean failure loads are plotted, it is evident that the load carrying
capacity increases with increasing corner distance. This is valid for both anchor sizes tested.
Surprisingly, it is anchors of size d = 12 mm that have the greatest load carrying capacity in
most of the cases.

d [mm] e [mm] Pu [kN] Failure mode

12 100 17.1 CF
12 160 21.3 CF
12 230 21.9 SF
12 230 35.5 CF
16 100 12.5 CF
16 160 9.53 CF
16 160 19.6 CF
16 230 32.5 SPF
16 230 25.5 BPU

Table 3.8: Test results for the corner arrangements

Corner arrangements
30 d = 12 mm
Failure load [kN]

d = 16 mm
20

10

0
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Corner distance [mm]
0.90
d = 12 mm
Probability

0.75
0.50
0.25
0.10
18 20 22 24 26 28
0.90
d = 16 mm
Probability

0.75
0.50
0.25
0.10
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Ptest

Figure 3.8: Failure loads for anchors arranged close to a corner and the normal probability
assessment of the test results

Strength of anchors in masonry 42

4 Theory and empirical data

In this chapter failure loads predicted by the theory of plasticity are compared to those
achieved by the pull-out tests. On this basis the effectiveness factors applied to the material
constants (strength of bricks, mortar and masonry) are chosen so that the predicted failure
loads fit well to the√empirical ones. The effectiveness factors defined by the usual form are
proposed (ν = Kn / fc ). In the case of the brick-cone failure p and sliding failure of anchors
in joints d and h dependence is introduced by applying factor d/h to ν-expression, see eq.
(2.29). This is done in order to satisfy the correlation for different anchor sizes.
The test results are summarized in chapter 3 and a more detailed description is found in
Appendix A.

4.1 Combined brick-cone failure

In figure 4.2 the failure loads predicted by assuming the combined brick-cone failure are
compared to the corresponding pull-out tests (see table 4.1). The anchors in the pull-outs
were arranged far from edges and corners.

d = 12 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160 185
Pu [kN] 27.6 35.8
43.7
Pum [kN] 27.6 38.80
Pbrick-cone [kN] 33.66 32.68
Pbrick-cone /Pu 1.22 0.84
Psliding /Pu 1.21 1.00
Ppunch /Pu 2.62 2.47
d = 16 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160 230
Pu [kN] 42.3 58.3 52.9
Pbrick-cone 56.88 54.04 51.98
Pbrick-cone /Pu 1.34 0.93 0.98
Psliding /Pu 0.66 0.57 0.74
Ppunch /Pu 0.72 0.74 1.09

Table 4.1: Failure loads achieved by the pull-outs exhibiting the combined brick-cone failure

The effectiveness factors are proposed so that the predicted failure loads correlate well
to the empirical ones. The upper bound expression for the combined brick-cone failure is
composed of three contributions: the brick-cone failure and sliding failure along the anchor
and the sliding failure in the interface between brick and mortar, see eq. (2.28). It is necessary
to define two effectiveness factors: one on the compressive strength of the brick in which the
anchor is installed (fcb ) and the other one on the formal compressive strength of the interface
between a brick and the mortar (fci ).
If cohesion c is known fci may be found by eq. (2.1). In order to obtain c the empirical

43
4 Theory and empirical data Combined brick-cone failure

equation (2.2) is utilized.

Masonry used in the testing is bricklayed with bricks having mean IRA of 3,4 kg/m2 /min
(Appendix B in [6]). Thus c may be found by the cohesion graphs shown in figure 4.1 which
are the graphs for the commonly used mortars (for the mortar specifications see section 8.1
Supplement 1 in [2]). Thus, the cohesion for a mortar type with greater amount of lime
(hydrophobic mortar necessary in conjunction with bricks having high IRA, [5]), i.e. the
mortar 60/40/850, having IRA = 3,4 is 0.7 MPa. Using eq. (2.1) and inserting φ = 37o and
fc = fci , fci is found to be

fci 1 − sin φ
0.7 = ⇒ fci = 2.71 MPa (4.1)
2 cos φ

2.4
60/40/850
2.2 50/50/700
35/65/650
20/80/550
2

1.8

1.6
Cohesion c

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
IRA

Figure 4.1: Cohesion c vs. IRA using eq. (2.2), [2], for some commonly used mortars

Finally, applying the brick strength fcb = 21.1 MPa and the interface strength fci = 2.71
MPa the effectiveness factors ν and ν2 are defined by choosing K1 = 2.5 and K2 = 1.8. Thus,
by means of eq. (2.29) the effectiveness factors are found to be

r r r r
2.5 d d 3.12 d d
ν=√ = 0.54 , ν2 = √ = 1.15 (4.2)
21.1 h h 2.71 h h

From figure 4.2 it is evident that the correlation is good.

From table 4.1 it should be noted that the sliding failure criterion for an anchor installed in
a brick predicts lower failure loads than those predicted by the combined brick-cone failure.
This is conflicting with the upper bound theorem since the failure mechanism governing the
failure also has to be the most dangerous one (i.e. the lowest failure loads). This may be
explained by the fact that the proposed value of the effectiveness factors are only based on

Strength of anchors in masonry 44

4 Theory and empirical data Sliding failure of anchors in joints

the correlation to the empirical values. In order to remain obligated to achieving the best
possible correlation to the observed failure modes the choice of the effectiveness factors re-
mains unchanged regardless of the fact that this might not always produce the lowest upper
bound values.

µ = 1.06
80
d = 12 mm
d = 16 mm
70

60

50
Ptheory

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ptest

Figure 4.2: Predicted failure loads vs. empirical data for the combined brick-cone failure

4.2 Sliding failure of anchors in joints

The pull-out tests of anchors arranged in the joints show that the failure occurs by sliding
failure. The sliding failure takes place along a deformed bar. Eq. (2.15) describes the simple
upper bound expression when the failure is expected to occur in the mortar resin or the
interface between the resin and the anchor. The effectiveness factor ν applied to the com-
pressive strength of the mortar is defined by analogy of the effectiveness factor defined for
the combined brick-cone failure, i.e. eq. (2.29). This means that both the dependence on the
compressive strength of mortar and the anchor embedment depth is assumed.

A good correlation is found between the predicted and empirical failure loads when the
effectiveness factor ν, defined by K1 = 14.25, is applied to the compressive strength of the
mortar. It should be noticed that
p ν is here defined by introducing the embedment depth and
anchor size dependence (i.e. d/h). The compressive strength of the mortar (fcj ) is found
by the means of the approximative formula for the compressive strength of a masonry wall
(i.e. eq. (2.6)) by utilizing the known mean compressive strength of the bricks and masonry.
The effectiveness factor is thus defined as

Strength of anchors in masonry 45

4 Theory and empirical data Sliding failure of anchors in joints

r r
14.25 d d
ν=√ = 8.35 (4.3)
2.91 h h

The pull-out test results for different embedment depths are summarized in table 4.2 and
in figure 4.3 the predicted failure loads are compared to the empirical ones.
It is evident that the correlation is good, i.e. the mean value of the ratio between the pre-
dicted failure loads and the empirical ones is 0.95. The ratio becomes 1.0 if the one test that
does not comply well with the theory is neglected.

Finally, it should be noticed that the effectiveness factor defined by K1 = 14.25 is greater
than 1. This is due to the very low compressive strength of the mortar fcj and due to the
fact that fcj is found by an approximative formula, eq. (2.6), and not by tests.

d = 12 mm d = 16 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160 h [mm] 100 120 140 160
Pu [kN] 16.3 17.6 15.2 21.2 Pu [kN] 21.7 28.4 35.7 53.2
Psliding [kN] 15.85 17.36 18.75 20.04 Psliding [kN] 24.40 26.72 28.87 30.86
Psliding /Pu 0.97 0.99 1.23 0.95 Psliding /Pu 1.12 0.94 0.81 0.58

Table 4.2: Failure loads achieved by the pull-outs exhibiting the joint failure (the interface
failure) - [kN]

µ = 0.949
60
d = 12 mm
d = 16 mm
50

40
Ptheory

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Ptest

Figure 4.3: Predicted failure loads vs. empirical data. fcj = 2.9 MPa.

Strength of anchors in masonry 46

4 Theory and empirical data Sliding failure of anchors in bricks

4.3 Sliding failure of anchors in bricks

It is seen from the tests that the failure of anchors installed in bricks may also be governed
by the sliding failure. In this case the strength of the brick in which the anchor is installed
governs the failure. Thus, the upper bound expression for the sliding failure along a deformed
bar, eq. (2.15), is used.

In table 4.3 the failure loads obtained are shown. Using the usual definition of ν, i.e. the
dependence on the square root of the compressive strength of brick, and suggesting K1 = 2.41
a good correlation between the predicted and the empirical failure loads is obtained. This
is shown in figure 4.4 from which it is evident that the correlation is different for different
anchor sizes.
K1 = 2.41 yields a value of ν (here, ν is suggested in the usual form)

K1
K1 = 2.41 ⇒ ν = √ = 0.52 (4.4)
21.1

d = 10 mm
h [mm] 90 100 120 140 160
Pu [kN] 11.8 21.8 34.2 22.3 42.7
Psliding [kN] 15.65 17.39 20.87 24.34 27.82
Psliding /Pu [kN] 1.33 0.80 0.61 1.10 0.65
Pbrick /Pu [kN] 2.20 1.19 0.76 1.16 0.61
Ppunch /Pu [kN] 1.20 0.79 0.72 1.48 1.00
d = 12 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160 185
Pu [kN] 21.6 11.6 36.3
Psliding [kN] 25.04 29.21 38.60
Psliding /Pu [kN] 1.16 2.52 1.06
Pbrick /Pu [kN] 1.51 2.82 0.90
Ppunch /Pu [kN] 1.15 2.88 1.57
d = 16 mm
h [mm] 100 120 140 160 230
Pu [kN] 63.9 63.1
Psliding [kN] 44.52 64.00
Psliding /Pu [kN] 0.70 1.01
Pbrick /Pu [kN] 0.74 0.75
Ppunch /Pu [kN] 0.69 1.41

Table 4.3: Failure loads of the anchors installed in a brick exhibiting the sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 47

4 Theory and empirical data Sliding failure of anchors in bricks

µ = 1.1
70
d = 10 mm
d = 12 mm
60 d = 16 mm

50

40

Ptheory
30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Ptest

Figure 4.4: Predicted failure loads vs. empirical data. fcb = 21.1 MPa.
Furthermore, it is evident from table 4.3 that none of the suggested failure mechanisms for
anchors installed in a brick (combined brick-cone and punching shear failure) predict lower
failure loads than those predicted by the sliding failure of an anchor in a brick.

Strength of anchors in masonry 48

4 Theory and empirical data Punching shear

4.4 Punching shear

The punching shear solution for concrete slabs is applied by introducing a new effectiveness
factor ν (eq. (2.51)).
Since there has not been any evidence of this kind of failure in the pull-outs carried out in
[6] and the recent ones (Appendix A) the empirical data used are the ones referred to in [1],
see table 4.4. Here, in the light of the empirical data, K1 is suggested to 3.82.
It is evident from figure 4.5 that the correlation is good, i.e. 0.98-1.0 with a coefficient of
variation of 2.24 %.

d [mm] 10 10
h [mm] 90 90
fc [MPa] 3.66 6.87
fcb [MPa] 12.7 12.7
fcj [MPa] 1.00 5.93
Pu [kN] 16.80 22.30
Ppunch /Pu 0.98 1.02
Pbrick /Pu 1.07 0.87
Psliding /Pu 0.46 0.47

Table 4.4: Empirical failure loads exhibiting the punching shear failure, [1]

From table 4.4 it is evident that applying the punching shear failure does not produce the
lowest failure loads. However, it should be kept in mind that the punching shear failure is
dependent on the arrangement (the use of a back plate) for which reason it is still likely that
this kind of failure might govern the failure.
d = 10 mm, ratio : 0.98−1, δ = 2.24 %
30

25

20
Ptheory [kN]

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ptest [kN]

Figure 4.5: Predicted failure loads vs. empirical data, [1]

Strength of anchors in masonry 49

4 Theory and empirical data Edge arrangements

4.5 Edge arrangements

When anchors in masonry are arranged near an edge, so far it has only been possible to treat
the case where the edge is normal to the bed joint. Thus, only for this case the predicted
failure loads are compared to the empirical ones. The empirical data are reproduced in table
4.5. Since the splitting failure mechanism appears to govern the failure the failure loads are
predicted using eq. (2.30).

d [mm] e [mm] Pu [kN] Ptheory Ptheory /Pu

12 90 30.4 30.39 0.99
12 160 36.9 30.39 0.82
12 230 45.4 30.39 0.67
16 100 34.4 41.75 1.21
16 160 27.5 41.75 1.52
16 230 36.0 41.75 1.16

Table 4.5: Test results for the edge arrangements - edge normal to the bed joint
The comparison between the predicted failure loads and the empirical ones is shown in
figure 4.6. Here, a good correlation is achieved by suggesting the effectiveness factors defined
by K1 = 3.35 and K2 = 3.0, thus the effectiveness factors defined by eq. (2.31) are found to
be

r
K1 νt ftb K2 d
ν=√ = 0.73, ρ = = = 0.15 (4.5)
21.1 f cb 20 h

µ = 1.3
50
d = 12 mm
45 d = 16 mm

40

35

30
Ptheory

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Ptest

Figure 4.6: Predicted failure loads vs. empirical data for anchors exhibiting the local splitting
failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 50

5 Conclusion

It has been shown that the upper bound expressions developed using the upper bound theo-
rem of the theory of plasticity predict reasonable failure loads for anchors in masonry.
The introduction of the effectiveness factors is done in conjunction with the test results, i.e.
the factors are introduced so that the predicted failure loads comply well with the empirical
ones.

Combined brick-cone failure

The use of the combined brick-cone failure is proposed by using the effectiveness factors
defined by K1 = 2.5 and K2 = 3.12. Thus, the upper bound expression becomes

 p p r d
Pu = 3.93 fcb (h − 5.76d)d + 37.44 fci (lb + d)d , (fcb and fci in MPa) (5.1)
h
Splitting failure
In similar manner it is found that the splitting failure as a local phenomenon is to be
applied defining the effectiveness factors by K1 = 3.35 and K2 = 3.0. Thus, the upper bound
expression becomes

  r
 p b d
0.40 fcb + 0.13fcb −1


d h


Pu 
= min (fcb in MPa) (5.2)
πdh   r

 p b d
 0.94 fcb + 0.07fcb −1


d h
Sliding failure of an anchor in the joint
The sliding failure that occurs in the joint is treated by introducing the effectiveness factor
ν defined by K1 = 14.25. This way the upper bound expression is found to be

p 3
Pu = 22.38 fcj hd 2 , (fcj in MPa) (5.3)

Sliding failure of an anchor in the brick

If the anchor is installed in the brick and the sliding failure mechanism governs the failure
the upper bound expression is found by applying the suggested effectiveness factor defined
by K1 = 2.41. Thus, the upper bound expression is found to be

p
Pu = 3.79dh fcb , (fcb in MPa) (5.4)

Punching shear failure

The upper bound expression for the failure load by punching shear, after utilizing the
effectiveness factor by K1 = 3.82, is found to be

p
Pu = 0.96(d + h)h fc , (fc in MPa) (5.5)

51
5 Conclusion

Final remarks
Other global failure mechanisms (the wall strip bending failure and the sliding failure at
the side) are not verified by the empirical data for which reason it still stays uncertain whether
these mechanisms are reasonable to expect. This remains to be investigated and until that
these mechanisms need to be checked in similarity to the verified failure mechanisms.

The prediction of the failure loads of anchors arranged close to corners and edges (parallel
to the bed joint) remains to be investigated. As far as the edge arrangements are considered
the tests show that anchors arranged close to edges normal to the bed joint exhibit higher
failure loads than those arranged close to edges parallel to the bed joints.
This is not strange since the resistance against the dilatation of the surrounding material is
smaller for anchors close to an edge parallel to the bed joint. It has also been pointed out
that an anchor should never been installed near a free edge parallel to the bed joint nor a
corner.

At last the following remark: It appears that in some cases the load carrying capacity of an
anchor is far from average value indicating some error in the prediction of the masonry and/or
in the installment of the anchor. Thus in important cases the anchor should be checked on
the site after installment.

Strength of anchors in masonry 52

Bibliography

[1] L.Z. Hansen, Karsten Findsen and M.P. Nielsen, Beregning af indlimede ankre i murede
vægge (Strength of bonded anchors in masonry), Department of Civil Engineering, Tech-
nical University of Denmark, Lyngby 2004

[2] L.Z. Hansen and T. Gudmand-Høyer, Strength effects from the initial rate of absorption
on masonry, Danish Society for Structural Science and Engineering Volume 68, No. 2-3,
pp. 35-113, 1997

[3] M.K. Olsen and M.P. Nielsen, The strength of anchors, Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser,
Vol. 68, No.1, pp. 1-34, 1997

[4] M.P. Nielsen, Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity, CRC Press LLC, 2nd ed., 1998

[5] M.P. Nielsen and L.G. Hagsten, Murværk (Masonry), Forlaget Tegl, 1st edition, Novem-
ber 2002

[6] Fedja Arifović, Anchors in concrete and masonry, M.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, October 2004

[7] Hilti, Ankerhåndbogen (Anchor handbook), Hilti Danmark A/S, 2002

53
List of symbols
bb brick width
c cohesion or the geometrical parameter in optimizing
the shape generatrix of failure surface
d anchor diameter
fc masonry compressive strength
fcb compressive strength of brick
fci formal compressive strength of the interface between the mortar and the brick
fcj compressive strength of mortar
ft tensile strength of masonry wall
ftb tensile strength of brick
fy yield stress
G weight of masonry wall
h anchor embedment depth
hb brick height
hc brick-cone height
hj joint height
l anchor length, or a constant in the dissipation formula
lb brick length
m constant in the dissipation formula
Pu ultimate failure load of an anchor (load-carrying capacity)
t width of a masonry wall
teff effective width of a masonry wall
u virtual displacement
w displacement
q uniform load acting on a masonry wall in the transverse direction
x distance from the bottom of the bending point in the case of the wall strip bending
failure

α angle between displacement and corresponding yield surface

δ virtual displacement
η distance from bottom to force P in wall strip bending failure
µ coefficient of friction
νb effectiveness factor of compressive strength of brick
νj effectiveness factor of compressive strength of mortar
ξ distance from vertical support to force P in
wall strip bending failure

54
ρ effectiveness factor of masonry tensile strength ρfc = νt ft ,
or the density of masonry wall
ν effectiveness factor
σ normal compressive stress or standard deviation
τ shear stress
φ angle of friction

55
Appendix A

test results
A Test results - anchors in masonry

The pull-outs are executed on masonry walls with the following strengths. The compressive
strength of bricks is measured on 16 bricks as shown in table A.1. The mean strength is found
to be fc,m = 21.1 MPa.

no : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10
fc 20.7 21.0 19.1 20.8 21.2 19.6 21.9 22.3 19.2 22.9 19.7
no : 12 13 14 15 16
fc 20.2 22.7 20.8 20.1 21.1
fc,m = 21.1 MPa

Table A.1: The compressive strength of bricks

The compressive strength of a masonry wall is found by subjecting six masonry piers to
compressive testing, thus the mean compressive strength of a masonry wall is shown in table
A.2.
no : 1 2 3 4 5 6
fc 8.1 6.6 7.6 7.7 8.1 6.9
fc,m = 7.5 MPa

Table A.2: The compressive strength of masonry walls

A.1 Test setup

The pull-out tests are carried out using a steel frame retainer to hold the upstroke press. The
same setup is used in the anchor pull-out tests in the case of anchors in concrete, [6]. Here,
the steel plate used to pull several anchors at once is replaced by a single bar pulling out the
anchor installed in masonry (the plate shown in the detailed drawing in figure A.1).
The test set up is illustrated in figures A.2 and A.1.

Figure A.1: Principle of the test setup near the anchor (changed in the tests carried out for
the purpose of this report)

2
A.1 Test results - anchors in masonry Test setup

Figure A.2: Principle of the test setup

Strength of anchors in masonry 3

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2 Far from edge and corners

A.2.1 Stretcher arrangement - 1, d = 12 mm

Figure A.3: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick-cone failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 4

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

Figure A.4: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 5

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.2 Stretcher arrangement - 2, d = 12 mm

Figure A.5: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick-cone failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 6

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 41.7 kN, w = 1.5 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.6: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 7

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.3 Stretcher arrangement - 3, d = 12 mm

Figure A.7: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 8

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 34 kN, w = 1.3 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm

Failure loaod [kN] max max

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement [mm]
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.8: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 9

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.4 Stretcher arrangement - 1, d = 16 mm

Figure A.9: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 10

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 63.1 kN, w = 2.2 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm

max max

60
Failure loaod [kN]

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Displacement [mm]

60
Failure loaod [kN]

40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.10: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 11

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.5 Stretcher arrangement - 2, d = 16 mm

Figure A.11: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 12

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 36.8 kN, w = 1.4 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm

max max

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.12: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 13

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.6 Stretcher arrangement - 3, d = 16 mm

Figure A.13: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 14

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 33.7 kN, w = 1.4 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm

Failure loaod [kN] max max

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement [mm]
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.14: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 15

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.7 Stretcher arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 100 mm

Figure A.15: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 16

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 21.8 kN, w = 1.6 mm, h = 100 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement [mm]

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.16: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 17

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.8 Stretcher arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 120 mm

Figure A.17: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 18

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 34.2 kN, w = 1.9 mm, h = 120 mm, d = 10 mm

Failure loaod [kN] max max

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement [mm]
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.18: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 19

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.9 Stretcher arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 140 mm

Figure A.19: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 20

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 22.3 kN, w = 2.2 mm, h = 140 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement [mm]

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.20: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 21

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.10 Stretcher arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 160 mm

Figure A.21: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 22

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 37.8 kN, w = 2.2 mm, h = 160 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.22: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 23

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.11 Stretcher arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 100 mm

Figure A.23: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 24

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 18.2 kN, w = 2.1 mm, h = 100 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement [mm]

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.24: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 25

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.12 Stretcher arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 120 mm

Figure A.25: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 26

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 21.6 kN, w = 1.7 mm, h = 120 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement [mm]

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.26: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 27

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.13 Stretcher arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 140 mm

Figure A.27: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 28

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 11.6 kN, w = 1.5 mm, h = 140 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

15
Failure loaod [kN]

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Displacement [mm]

15
Failure loaod [kN]

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.28: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 29

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.14 Stretcher arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 160 mm

Figure A.29: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick-cone failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 30

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 27.6 kN, w = 1.9 mm, h = 160 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.30: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 31

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.15 Stretcher arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 100 mm

Figure A.31: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick-cone failure failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 32

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 42.3 kN, w = 2 mm, h = 100 mm, d = 16 mm

max max

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.32: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 33

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.16 Stretcher arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 120 mm

Figure A.33: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick-cone failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 34

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 58.3 kN, w = 2.4 mm, h = 120 mm, d = 16 mm

max max

60
Failure loaod [kN]

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement [mm]

60
Failure loaod [kN]

40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.34: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 35

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.17 Stretcher arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 140 mm

Figure A.35: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick-cone failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 36

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 52.9 kN, w = 2.4 mm, h = 140 mm, d = 16 mm

max max

50
Failure loaod [kN]

40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement [mm]

50
Failure loaod [kN]

40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.36: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 37

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.18 Stretcher arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 140 mm

Figure A.37: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 38

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 63.9 kN, w = 2.3 mm, h = 160 mm, d = 16 mm

max max

60
Failure loaod [kN]

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement [mm]

60
Failure loaod [kN]

40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.38: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 39

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.19 Header arrangement - 1, d = 12 mm

Figure A.39: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 40

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 28.3 kN, w = 1.5 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.40: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 41

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.20 Header arrangement - 2, d = 12 mm

Figure A.41: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 42

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 36.3 kN, w = 1.5 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm

max max
40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.42: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 43

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.21 Header arrangement - 3, d = 12 mm

Figure A.43: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 44

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 35.9 kN, w = 1.4 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm

max max
40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.44: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 45

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.22 Header arrangement - 1, d = 16 mm

Figure A.45: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 46

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 40.5 kN, w = 1.6 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm

max max

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.46: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 47

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.23 Header arrangement - 2, d = 16 mm

Figure A.47: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 48

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 73.4 kN, w = 2.3 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm

Failure loaod [kN] max max

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement [mm]
Failure loaod [kN]

60

40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.48: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 49

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.24 Header arrangement - 3, d = 16 mm

Figure A.49: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 50

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 55.7 kN, w = 2 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm

max max
60
Failure loaod [kN]

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement [mm]

60
Failure loaod [kN]

40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.50: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 51

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.25 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 90 mm

Figure A.51: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 52

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 11.8 kN, w = 0.47 mm, h = 90 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

15
Failure loaod [kN]

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement [mm]

15
Failure loaod [kN]

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.52: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 53

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.26 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 100 mm

Figure A.53: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 54

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 26.7 kN, w = 1.4 mm, h = 100 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.54: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 55

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.27 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 110 mm

Figure A.55: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 56

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 28.6 kN, w = 2.8 mm, h = 110 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.56: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 57

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.28 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 120 mm

Figure A.57: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 58

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 26.6 kN, w = 1.3 mm, h = 120 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.58: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 59

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.29 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 130 mm

Figure A.59: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 60

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

Pmax = 23.9 kN, wmax = 1.4 mm, h = 130 mm, d = 10 mm

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement [mm]

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.60: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 61

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.30 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 140 mm

Figure A.61: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 62

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 39.1 kN, w = 2.1 mm, h = 140 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.62: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 63

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.31 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 150 mm

Figure A.63: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 64

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 32.1 kN, w = 3.4 mm, h = 150 mm, d = 10 mm

Failure loaod [kN] max max

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement [mm]
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.64: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 65

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.32 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 160 mm

Figure A.65: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 66

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 42.7 kN, w = 4 mm, h = 160 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.66: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 67

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.33 Header arrangement, d = 10 mm, h = 170 mm

Figure A.67: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 68

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 45.7 kN, w = 2.8 mm, h = 170 mm, d = 10 mm

max max
50
Failure loaod [kN]

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement [mm]

50
Failure loaod [kN]

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.68: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 69

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.34 Header arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 100 mm

Figure A.69: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 70

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 27.2 kN, w = 1.7 mm, h = 100 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.70: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 71

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.35 Header arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 120 mm

Figure A.71: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 72

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 29.6 kN, w = 1.8 mm, h = 120 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.72: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 73

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.36 Header arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 140 mm

Figure A.73: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Combined brick pull-out and sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 74

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 38.8 kN, w = 2.1 mm, h = 140 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.74: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 75

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.37 Header arrangement, d = 12 mm, h = 160 mm

Figure A.75: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick pull-out failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 76

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 15.2 kN, w = 11 mm, h = 160 mm, d = 12 mm

max max
20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Displacement [mm]

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.76: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 77

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.38 Header arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 100 mm

Figure A.77: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick pull-out failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 78

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 17.1 kN, w = 1.6 mm, h = 100 mm, d = 16 mm

max max

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement [mm]

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.78: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 79

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.39 Header arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 120 mm

Figure A.79: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick pull-out failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 80

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 25.4 kN, w = 1.8 mm, h = 120 mm, d = 16 mm

max max
30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.80: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 81

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.40 Header arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 140 mm

Figure A.81: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Splitting failure in masonry

Strength of anchors in masonry 82

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 45.2 kN, w = 2 mm, h = 140 mm, d = 16 mm

max max
50
Failure loaod [kN]

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement [mm]

50
Failure loaod [kN]

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.82: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 83

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.41 Header arrangement, d = 16 mm, h = 160 mm

Figure A.83: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick pull-out failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 84

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

Pmax = 28.6 kN, wmax = 1.6 mm, h = 160 mm, d = 16 mm

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.84: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 85

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.42 Joint arrangements, d = 10 mm, h = 100 mm

Figure A.85: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 86

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 17.7 kN, w = 0.88 mm, h = 100 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 5 10 15
Displacement [mm]

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.86: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 87

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.43 Joint arrangements, d = 10 mm, h = 120 mm

Figure A.87: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 88

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 22.6 kN, w = 1.2 mm, h = 120 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement [mm]

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.88: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 89

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.44 Joint arrangements, d = 10 mm, h = 140 mm

Figure A.89: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 90

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 30.9 kN, w = 1.5 mm, h = 140 mm, d = 10 mm

Failure loaod [kN] max max

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement [mm]
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.90: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 91

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.45 Joint arrangements, d = 10 mm, h = 160 mm

Figure A.91: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 92

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 22.6 kN, w = 1.7 mm, h = 160 mm, d = 10 mm

max max

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement [mm]

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.92: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 93

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.46 Joint arrangements, d = 12 mm, h = 100 mm

Figure A.93: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 94

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 16.3 kN, w = 1.5 mm, h = 100 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement [mm]

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.94: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 95

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.47 Joint arrangements, d = 12 mm, h = 120 mm

Figure A.95: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 96

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 17.6 kN, w = 1.2 mm, h = 120 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement [mm]

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.96: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 97

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.48 Joint arrangements, d = 12 mm, h = 140 mm

Figure A.97: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 98

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 15.2 kN, w = 3.8 mm, h = 140 mm, d = 12 mm

max max
20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement [mm]

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.98: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 99

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.49 Joint arrangements, d = 12 mm, h = 160 mm

Figure A.99: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 100

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 21.2 kN, w = 1.3 mm, h = 160 mm, d = 12 mm

max max

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement [mm]

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.100: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 101

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.50 Joint arrangements, d = 16 mm, h = 100 mm

Figure A.101: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 102

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 21.7 kN, w = 1.3 mm, h = 100 mm, d = 16 mm

max max

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement [mm]

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20
15
10
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.102: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 103

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.51 Joint arrangements, d = 16 mm, h = 120 mm

Figure A.103: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 104

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 28.4 kN, w = 1.3 mm, h = 120 mm, d = 16 mm

max max

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.104: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 105

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.52 Joint arrangements, d = 16 mm, h = 140 mm

Figure A.105: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 106

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 35.7 kN, w = 1.8 mm, h = 140 mm, d = 16 mm

max max
40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.106: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 107

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

A.2.53 Joint arrangements, d = 16 mm, h = 160 mm

Figure A.107: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 108

A.2 Test results - anchors in masonry Far from edge and corners

P = 53.2 kN, w = 2 mm, h = 160 mm, d = 16 mm

max max

50
Failure loaod [kN]

40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement [mm]

50
Failure loaod [kN]

40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.108: Load-deflection curve for the anchor pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 109

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

A.3 Close to a corner

A.3.1 Corner distance c = 100 mm, d = 12 mm

Figure A.109: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Corner failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 110

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

P = 17.1 kN, w = 0.85 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm, c = 100 mm

max max

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Displacement [mm]

20
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.110: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 111

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

A.3.2 Corner distance c = 160 mm, d = 12 mm

Figure A.111: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Corner failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 112

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

P = 21.3 kN, w = 2 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm, c = 160 mm

max max

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement [mm]

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.112: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 113

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

A.3.3 Corner distance c = 230 mm, d = 12 mm

Figure A.113: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 114

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

P = 21.9 kN, w = 1.2 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm, c = 230 mm

max max

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement [mm]

25
Failure loaod [kN]

20

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.114: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 115

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

A.3.4 Corner distance c = 230 mm - 2, d = 12 mm

Figure A.115: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Corner failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 116

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

P = 35.5 kN, w = 1.3 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm, c = 230 mm

max max
40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.116: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 117

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

A.3.5 Corner distance c = 100 mm, d = 16 mm

Figure A.117: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Corner failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 118

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

P = 12.5 kN, w = 5.9 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm, c = 100 mm

max max

15
Failure loaod [kN]

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement [mm]

15
Failure loaod [kN]

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.118: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 119

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

A.3.6 Corner distance c = 160 mm, d = 16 mm

Figure A.119: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Corner failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 120

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

P = 9.53 kN, w = 1.2 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm, c = 160 mm

Failure loaod [kN] max max

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Displacement [mm]
Failure loaod [kN]

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.120: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 121

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

A.3.7 Corner distance c = 160 mm - 2, d = 16 mm

Figure A.121: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Corner failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 122

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

P = 19.6 kN, w = 1.8 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm, c = 160 mm

Failure loaod [kN] max max

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]
Failure loaod [kN]

20

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.122: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 123

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

A.3.8 Corner distance c = 230 mm, d = 16 mm

Figure A.123: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Splitting failure in the brick

Strength of anchors in masonry 124

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

P = 32.5 kN, w = 4 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm, c = 230 mm

Failure loaod [kN] max max

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement [mm]
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.124: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 125

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

A.3.9 Corner distance c = 230 mm - 2, d = 16 mm

Figure A.125: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick pull-out failure failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 126

A.3 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to a corner

P = 25.5 kN, w = 1.3 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm, c = 230 mm

max max
30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.126: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 127

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

A.4 Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

A.4.1 Edge distance e = 90 mm, d = 12 mm

Figure A.127: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Splitting failure in the brick

Strength of anchors in masonry 128

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

P = 30.4 kN, w = 3.3 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm, e = 90 mm

max max

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.128: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 129

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

A.4.2 Edge distance e = 160 mm, d = 12 mm

Figure A.129: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Splitting failure in the brick

Strength of anchors in masonry 130

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

P = 36.9 kN, w = 2.6 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm, e = 160 mm

max max

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.130: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 131

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

A.4.3 Edge distance e = 230 mm, d = 12 mm

Figure A.131: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Sliding failure in the wall

Strength of anchors in masonry 132

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

P = 45.4 kN, w = 2 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm, e = 230 mm

max max
50
Failure loaod [kN]

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement [mm]

50
Failure loaod [kN]

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.132: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 133

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

A.4.4 Edge distance e = 100 mm, d = 16 mm

Figure A.133: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Splitting failure in the brick

Strength of anchors in masonry 134

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

P = 34.4 kN, w = 1.4 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm, e = 100 mm

Failure loaod [kN] max max

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement [mm]
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.134: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 135

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

A.4.5 Edge distance e = 160 mm, d = 16 mm

Figure A.135: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Splitting failure in the wall

Strength of anchors in masonry 136

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

P = 27.5 kN, w = 1.2 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm, e = 160 mm

max max

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement [mm]

30
Failure loaod [kN]

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.136: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 137

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

A.4.6 Edge distance e = 230 mm, d = 16 mm

Figure A.137: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Splitting failure in the brick

Strength of anchors in masonry 138

A.4 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - normal to the bed joint

P = 36 kN, w = 1.3 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm, e = 230 mm

max max
40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.138: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 139

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

A.5 Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

A.5.1 Edge distance e = 90 mm, d = 12 mm

Figure A.139: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Cover bending failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 140

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

P = 10.3 kN, w = 2.1 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm, e = 90 mm

max max
15
Failure loaod [kN]

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement [mm]

15
Failure loaod [kN]

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.140: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 141

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

A.5.2 Edge distance e = 160 mm, d = 12 mm

Figure A.141: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Cover bending failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 142

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

P = 14.9 kN, w = 0.97 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm, e = 160 mm

Failure loaod [kN] max max

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement [mm]
Failure loaod [kN]

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.142: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 143

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

A.5.3 Edge distance e = 230 mm, d = 12 mm

Figure A.143: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick pull-out failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 144

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

P = 42.7 kN, w = 1.6 mm, h = 185 mm, d = 12 mm, e = 230 mm

max max

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.144: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 145

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

A.5.4 Edge distance e = 100 mm, d = 16 mm

Figure A.145: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Cover bending failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 146

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

P = 43.6 kN, w = 1.5 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm, e = 100 mm

max max

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement [mm]

40
Failure loaod [kN]

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.146: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 147

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

A.5.5 Edge distance e = 160 mm, d = 16 mm

Figure A.147: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick pull-out failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 148

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

P = 45.1 kN, w = 1.5 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm, e = 160 mm

max max
50
Failure loaod [kN]

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement [mm]

50
Failure loaod [kN]

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.148: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 149

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

A.5.6 Edge distance e = 230 mm, d = 16 mm

Figure A.149: The failure mode observed

Failure mode: Brick pull-out failure

Strength of anchors in masonry 150

A.5 Test results - anchors in masonry Close to an edge - parallel to the bed joint

P = 57.5 kN, w = 2.2 mm, h = 230 mm, d = 16 mm, e = 230 mm

max max

60
Failure loaod [kN]

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement [mm]

60
Failure loaod [kN]

40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement [mm]

Figure A.150: Load-deflection curve for the anchors pull-out

Strength of anchors in masonry 151