## 3 Analysis of the Pull-Out Test Results  
### Failure Modes and Ultimate Loads  
The typical failure modes of specimens are shown in Figure 5. Among the 24 rebar planting specimens, except for the D4 specimen, which exhibited a bond failure of the adhesive-rebar interface, the remaining specimens were all rebar fractured, and there was no cone failure or mixed failure. When specimen D4's bond failed, the steel bar was pulled out from the hole. Under the action of a drawing load, a small amount of overflow anchoring adhesive from the orifice generated during the production of the specimen was pulled out with the rebar and peeled off from the surface of the substrate. There was no significant cone formation or steel bar fracture throughout the entire process. When the rebar specimen was rebar fractured, there was no significant damage to the substrate and anchoring adhesive, and the surface quality was relatively intact. Table 4 shows the ultimate load and failure mode of specimens.  
Figure 4: Loading device.  
Figure 6 shows the scatter plot of the ultimate load of the 24 specimens. It can be clearly seen from the figure that when the failure mode was rebar fracture, from the scatter diagram of the same diameter specimen, the ultimate load was kept at the same level. When the diameters of the steel bar were 6 mm and 8 mm, the ultimate load values were about 19 kN and 30 kN, respectively. This value did not change with the anchor depth and loading times. This shows that the fatigue loading times and anchor depth have nothing to do with the ultimate load of the implanted bar. The diameter of the steel bar was the main factor affecting the ultimate load during rebar fracture. The ultimate load of the D4 specimen with bonding failure was 8.9% lower than that of the specimen without fatigue loading with the same anchor depth and steel bar diameter. The diameter of the rebar was the main factor affecting the ultimate load during rebar fracture. With the decrease in steel  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Specimen** & **Diameter of** & **Anchor Depth** & **Load Times** & **Ultimate Load** & **Failure Mode** \\
**Number** & **Rebar (mm)** & **(mm)** & **(\(\times 10^{4}\))** & **(kN)** & **Failure Mode** \\ \hline A1 & 8 & 80 & 0 & 30.79 & Rebar fracture \\ A2 & 8 & 80 & 1 & 30.16 & Rebar fracture \\ A3 & 8 & 80 & 5 & 30.37 & Rebar fracture \\ A4 & 8 & 80 & 10 & 29.42 & Rebar fracture \\ B1 & 8 & 120 & 0 & 34.72 & Rebar fracture \\ B2 & 8 & 120 & 1 & 28.42 & Rebar fracture \\ B3 & 8 & 120 & 5 & 30.03 & Rebar fracture \\ B4 & 8 & 120 & 10 & 30.32 & Rebar fracture \\ C1 & 8 & 160 & 0 & 30.80 & Rebar fracture \\ C2 & 8 & 160 & 1 & 30.19 & Rebar fracture \\ C3 & 8 & 160 & 5 & 29.86 & Rebar fracture \\ C4 & 8 & 160 & 10 & 29.90 & Rebar fracture \\ D1 & 6 & 60 & 0 & 19.16 & Rebar fracture \\ D2 & 6 & 60 & 1 & 19.92 & Rebar fracture \\ D3 & 6 & 60 & 5 & 19.38 & Rebar fracture \\ D4 & 6 & 60 & 10 & 17.46 & Bonding failure \\ E1 & 6 & 90 & 0 & 19.91 & Rebar fracture \\ E2 & 6 & 90 & 1 & 19.35 & Rebar fracture \\ E3 & 6 & 90 & 5 & 19.48 & Rebar fracture \\ E4 & 6 & 90 & 10 & 19.00 & Rebar fracture \\ F1 & 6 & 120 & 0 & 19.45 & Rebar fracture \\ F2 & 6 & 120 & 1 & 19.50 & Rebar fracture \\ F3 & 6 & 120 & 5 & 18.97 & Rebar fracture \\ F4 & 6 & 120 & 10 & 19.37 & Rebar fracture \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Ultimate load and failure mode of specimens.  
Figure 5: Typical failure modes: (**a**) bonding failure; (**b**) rebar fracture.  
bar diameter and the increase in fatigue loading times, the failure mode of the specimen tended to be non-ductile failure from the ductile failure of the steel bar breaking.