# Tensile Capacity of Adhesive Anchors in Damaged Masonry
## 4 Discussion
### Effect of the Position  
The results (Table 1) are grouped in a different way to investigate whether they are affected by the position within the wall (Table 2). It can be noted that the coefficients of variation of the ultimate loads drop except for positions A1, A2, and A3. Positions A7 and A8 (far from the diagonal and in the bottom part of the specimen) showed good repeatability of the results (cov ca. 13%). It must be noted that in these positions the crack width was limited (up to 0.33 mm), while in other positions the coefficient of variation increases because the anchors installed in/nearby wide cracks exhibited low load-carrying capacity. For instance, in position A1 by excluding the test W3-A1 (with a crack width of 1.8 mm), the coefficient of variation falls to 4.4% (from 42.5%). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Code** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Max** \\ **Load** \\ \end{tabular} & **Mean** & **cov** & **Failure \({}^{*}\) &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Crack** \\ **Width** \\ \end{tabular} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Displacement @ (mm)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**cov of displ. @ (\%)**} \\ \hline  & & **(kN)** & **(kN)** & **(\%)** & & **(mm)** & **Peak** & **0.5 Peak** & **5 kN** & **Peak** & **0.5 Peak** & **5 kN** \\ \hline  & W2-A1 & 23.46 & & & S & 0.2 & 5.26 & 3.04 & 1.79 & & & \\  & W3-A1 & 6.80 & & PO & 1.8 & 1.59 & 0.61 & 0.84 & & & & \\  & W4-A1 & 21.47 & & S & 0.3 & 4.06 & 0.97 & 0.61 & & & & \\  & W5-A1 & 22.62 & & & S & 0.25 & 3.63 & 0.65 & 0.34 & & & \\ \hline  & W1-A2 & 19.51 & & & S & 0.3 & 5.86 & 1.57 & 1.03 & & & \\  & W2-A2 & 12.10 & & PO + C & 1.4 & 5.04 & 1.93 & 1.66 & & & & \\  & W3-A2 & 4.31 & & PO & 2 & 3.53 & 0.67 & & & & & \\  & W5-A2 & 22.36 & & & PO & 0.27 & 2.62 & 0.89 & 0.63 & & & \\ \hline  & W1-A3 & 12.97 & & & PO + B & 1.3 & 15.96 & 6.67 & 2.93 & & & \\  & W2-A3 & 17.92 & & & PO + B & 0.5 & 4.15 & 2.09 & 1.45 & & & \\  & W3-A3 & 3.00 & & & B & 2.5 & 27.03 & 11.99 & - & & & \\  & W4-A3 & 7.02 & & & B & 2.5 & 0.54 & 0.23 & 0.34 & & & \\ \hline  & W1-A4 & 14.74 & & & PO + C & 0.6 & 5.71 & 3.85 & 3.50 & & & \\  & W5-A4 & 19.36 & & PO + C & 0.38 & 1.84 & 0.98 & 0.76 & & & & \\ \hline  & W1-A5 & 14.14 & & & PO + B & 0.6 & 6.09 & 1.81 & 1.56 & & & \\  & W2-A5 & 21.77 & & & PO & 0.4 & 5.91 & 3.83 & 2.79 & & & \\  & W3-A5 & 27.06 & & & S & 0.1 & 4.27 & 0.89 & 0.49 & & & \\  & W4-A5 & 23.22 & & & PO + C & 0.2 & 2.66 & 0.86 & 0.54 & & & \\ \hline  & W3-A6 & 14.41 & - & - & PO + C & 0.7 & 2.38 & 0.62 & 0.46 & & & \\ \hline  & W1-A7 & 22.47 & & & PO + C & 0.28 & 7.59 & 4.11 & 3.07 & & & \\  & W2-A7 & 24.69 & & & S & 0.2 & 6.39 & 3.41 & 2.05 & & & \\ A7 & W3-A7 & 27.39 & 24.08 & 13.0 & S & 0.1 & 2.74 & 1.14 & 0.58 & 56.1 & 76.5 & 87.7 \\  & W4-A7 & 26.30 & & & S & 0.1 & 3.45 & 0.85 & 0.40 & & & \\  & W5-A7 & 19.55 & & & PO + B & 0.33 & 1.84 & 0.79 & 0.47 & & & \\ \hline  & W1-A8 & 23.89 & & & PO + C & 0.2 & 7.85 & 2.46 & 1.27 & & & \\  & W2-A8 & 23.33 & & & PO & 0.25 & 6.99 & 4.21 & 2.81 & & & \\ A8 & W3-A8 & 28.65 & 24.64 & 12.7 & PO + C & 0.1 & 8.51 & 2.81 & 1.35 & 67.7 & 71.3 & 82.8 \\  & W4-A8 & 26.76 & & & POC & 0.1 & 1.50 & 0.60 & 0.21 & & & \\  & W5-A8 & 20.57 & & & PO & 0.3 & 1.29 & 0.67 & 0.49 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) Notation according to Figure 6.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Test results evaluated on the basis of anchor position. Overall, the results show that the anchors along the diagonal (A3, A4, A6) feature the lowest carrying capacity with failure associated to anchor pull-out and/or brick failure or cone failure. Steel failure was never observed. This behavior is reasonable since the masonry along the diagonal underwent the highest stresses during the cycles and thus it was damaged already before the anchor tests. On the other side, in positions far from the diagonal (e.g., A1, A7, A8), in many cases steel failure or pull-out failure with very high loads (similar to those obtained with steel failure) were observed.