## 2 Literature Review
The anchors were of nominal element diameter d = 20 mm (drillhole equal to 60 mm), whereas two embedment lengths were examined, namely, h\({}_{\text{ef}}\) = 400 mm in monotonic tests and h\({}_{\text{ef}}\) = 400 mm and h\({}_{\text{ef}}\) = 900 mm in tests under repeated loading. The tension tests were carried out with the masonry wall subjected to a vertical compressive stress. Several values of this parameter were examined (between 0.05 MPa and 0.20 MPa), to simulate the conditions of masonry walls at various levels within a building. The findings show that there is no significant dependence of the tension resistance values of the injected anchor for low vertical stress values, varying between 0.05 and 0.10 MPa. On the contrary, for larger compressive stresses (up to 0.20 MPa), the tension capacity of the anchors was increased. As described by the authors of [12], the failure was due to the extraction of a limited portion of bricks sliding along weak mortar joints. It is noted that due to the large diameter of the borehole and the location of the anchors (including both brick and mortar joint areas), a large area around the anchors was affected. To reach conservative results, in the case of repeated tests, the adverse case of low normal stress was chosen. The quasi-static repeated load-controlled tests have shown a reduction of the tension resistance by 25-35%, compared to that measured under monotonic loading. In the experimental campaign by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [13], the purpose was to investigate the tension behavior of anchors embedded in masonry, as part of the strengthening of walls using reinforced plaster. Within their campaign, they have tested solid clay brick masonry wallettes in in-plane cyclic shear until severe damage occurs. The anchors, 8 mm diameter reinforcing bars of 200 mm embedment depth (12 mm borehole diameter) were installed to the walls prior to their in-plane loading as part of the strengthening method. The anchors were installed in several locations (brick and joints), where the damage due to in-plane loading of the walls varied. Thus, several anchors had at their vicinity cracks of width ranging between 0.10 mm and 2.50 mm. After the in-plane testing phase, the anchors were tested in tension, and the effect of cracking, as well as that of their location on the wall, was evaluated. The results show a decrease in the tension resistance as the crack width increases. However, no clear correlation of the crack width to the displacement of the ultimate resistance was observed. Moreover, as expected, anchors along the diagonals exhibited the lowest capacity, accompanied by a large scatter of tension resistances and corresponding displacements. On the contrary, anchors that were installed far from the diagonals showed high-tension resistance, and in cases where the crack width was limited (<0.50 mm) (e.g., the bottom of the wall), the scatter of resistance values was also limited. Thus, the authors conclude that the location of the anchor in the wall is a critical parameter, as good performance was observed in the areas of limited damage. [PERSON] et al. [14] investigated timber-to-masonry connections under monotonic, cyclic, and dynamic loading. Seven types of connections were investigated. The authors focus on the loading protocol, with the purpose of yielding conservative experimental results. They have investigated the effect of short-duration earthquake signals, long-duration ones, and quasi-static cyclic loading. On the basis of their experimental results, they have concluded that quasi-static cyclic tests are adequate for the assessment of connections to masonry under seismic conditions. [PERSON] et al. [15] have conducted monotonic, repeated, and impact tension tests on anchors installed in single brick units.