Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Construction
and Building

Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 2041–2046

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Investigation of masonry wall fixings subject to pullout load and torque

Halil Murat Algin *

Civil Engineering Department, Harran University, Osmanbey Campus, 63300 Sanliurfa, Turkey

Received 12 March 2006; accepted 9 August 2006

Available online 22 September 2006

Abstract

The experimental investigation into masonry wall fixings is carried out to develop an in-depth knowledge by investigating the factors
which lead to a reduction in the effectiveness of scaffolding/brickwork anchors. Since the pullout test of fixings is currently not practical
in construction site the research carried out to determine the potential use of torque test as an alternative. The information to assess how
various parameters in anchor settings could affect the load bearing capacity of an individual anchor used in scaffolding/brickwork sys-
tems is presented in this paper. The correlation between the ultimate pullout load bearing capacity, the maximum torque values, the
increments in anchor hole depths and diameters has also been determined. The method, which is described in this paper, can be used
to estimate the in situ pullout strength of scaffolding/brickwork anchors by means of the calibration graph between torque and pullout
load. The torque in practice can be applied by using a simple torque-meter like tool fits into the fixing and is clamped to it. Paper presents
the results and draws conclusions.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Scaffolding; Brickwork; Masonry wall anchor; Pullout load; Torque

1. Introduction gradually over time because of the repeated number of

Scaffolding can provide an efficient and safe means to
perform work. However, unsafe scaffolding procedures
can lead to accidents, serious injuries and death. Scaffold-
ing fixing is one of the most commonly used methods to
maintain stability between scaffolding and masonry wall.
It has a superior capability to prevent motion in each trans-
lational plane of motion and rotational axis, with minimal
risk to the scaffolding elements when properly applied. It is
important to evaluate the performance of fixings because
their support is critical to maintain safe working conditions
for the scaffolding structures. The strength of fixation is
primarily determined by the fixing’s mechanical and mate-
rial properties, as well as the mechanical properties of the
scaffolding–wall interface. The literature reports many
cases of scaffolding failures caused by scaffolding fixings
[1–4]. Fixation failure may occur through a number of
mechanisms: Fixings may toggle in wall; they may loosen
*
Tel.: +90 414 344 0020; fax: +90 414 344 0031.
E-mail address: hmalgin@yahoo.co.uk.
loads; they may fail acutely in pullout or brick fracture.
The scaffolding–masonry wall interface has been studied
with respect to loosening and pullout strength. Researchers
analyzed pullout strength and stiffness as well as torque for
the strength of concrete and concluded that the two charac-
teristics were correlated [5–8]. However the correlation
between insertional torque and pullout strength of anchors
has not been investigated in a great detail. Since the pullout
tests are not practical in construction site [9–13] it may be
possible to develop a simple handheld torque-meter like
apparatus to measure the maximum torque values of fixing
and predict the corresponding pullout load that the fixings
can possibly support. Unlike visual inspections that do not
give a load profile of the fixings, the handheld tool can indi-
cate places where support is weak. A scaffolding engineer
can also use the tool to analyze the effectiveness of different
fixing types, lengths, and hole sizes in a specific masonry
wall type. The in situ torque value is believed to be a good
predictor of the pullout strength [5] and thus initial stability
of the fixing. Little is known as to how realistic this
assumption would be when applied to new fixing and

0950-0618/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.08.004
2042 H.M. Algin / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 2041–2046
thread designs. The presented investigation carried out to
determine the correlation between the maximum inser-
tional torque values and the ultimate pullout resistance of
scaffolding fixings in terms of the increments in anchor hole
depths and diameters.
2. Testing of fixings
The M10 · 40 type of anchor and TE92 masonry drill
used in the research are produced by HILTI [15]. The
advantage of this type of anchors is that accurate setting
can be achieved with a flared collar that is fixed flush with
the surface and is independent of hole depth. The internal
thread in the anchor is not damaged when hammering the
fixing into the hole. It is ideal for the research because of
the flexibility in using the threaded rods of required length.
This allowed the load–displacement measuring system to be
set on the threaded rod. The previous research [14] con-
cluded that the anchor length must be suitable for the brick
thickness as stated by most of the manuals and specifica-
tions published by companies that produce masonry
anchors such as HILTI [15]. In the presented research
[16,17] the pullout tests were followed by 20 tests in which
bolts are fixed into full-depth holes in the bricks. The pro-
cess involves setting the anchor is to drill a hole of the
required diameter and length which are of full-depth
(40 mm) and full diameter (12 mm) and cleaning the debris
from the hole and inserting the wedge anchor, slotted end
first, pushing or tapping it to the bottom of the hole (Fig. 1).
In this stage the brick sample was placed into a specially
fabricated frame to apply a constant compressive load of
1 ton throughout the testing process. Fig. 2a shows the
method used for restraining the bricks.
The bricks were restrained with this method to prevent
tensile failure which would otherwise be caused by the
Fig. 2. (a) Method used to restrain the brick to prevent tensile failure when the anchor is expanded. (b) Pullout test configuration.
Fig. 1. Drilling the hole and fixing the threaded rod.
applied compressive force when the anchor is expanded
by the setting tool. After placing and compressing the brick
in the metal frame and by using the setting tool the internal
wedge is driven into the anchor until the shoulder of the
setting tool touches the face of the anchor. Finally the
threaded rod is fixed into the expanded wedge anchor.
The pullout test method is shown in Fig. 2b. In each test
the anchor was extracted and a graph was produced show-
ing the relationship between the applied pullout force and
corresponding displacement (see Fig. 3).
The results were assessed and they provided sufficient
consistency which allowed the following phases to proceed.
A further 60 tests were undertaken in which anchors were
fixed into brick samples and then subjected to a torque.
The process involved setting the anchor for the torque tests
was repeated for each test (see Fig. 4).
The brick sample was then placed into the same frame
that was used earlier of the research. However in this phase
of the project the frame was connected to the support col-
umns in the laboratory in order to allow the application at
an axial rotation onto the threaded rod (see Fig. 4). Two
steel bars (S1 and S2) acting as a lever arm were welded
on a steel circular plate (SP) as shown in Fig. 4. When
the load was applied to the lower end of the steel bars,
the applied load generated a torsional action on the circu-
lar plate which was fixed on the threaded rod by fillet welds
 H.M. Algin / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 2041–2046
Fig. 3. A typical pullout test graph shows the relationship between the
applied pullout loads and corresponding displacements.
(see Fig. 4). In a typical application of the bolt/fixing sys-
tem, the washer’s internal diameter is smaller than the
anchor’s external diameter. Because of this reason, when
the torque is applied onto the bolt, the washer converts
the torque to an axial compressive force and this force gen-
erates a pullout force in the anchor. This assembly failed to
provide direct torque behaviour in anchor (see Fig. 5).
The mechanism shown in Fig. 4 however provided a
direct application of axial torque onto the expanded
anchors. By this method the torque was directly transferred
onto the anchor and the rotation in the anchor caused by
Fig. 4. The rotation in the expanded anchor (the rotation dimensions are exaggerated).
2043
Fig. 5. Bolt/fixing with and without washer.
the torsional moment was effectively measured. A linear
transducer was placed on a rectangular metal plate welded
on the circular plate. When the torque was applied onto the
circular plate and subsequently onto the threaded rod and
the expanded anchor, the applied load and corresponding
horizontal displacement were measured by a load cell and
the linear transducer respectively. It was then straightfor-
ward to convert the measured horizontal displacement to
angular deflection (rotation) of the expanded anchor as
shown in Fig. 4.
A parametric study was then undertaken for three cate-
gories of anchor hole diameter and four categories of
anchor hole depth. Each category was correlated with the
pullout force values. These additional experiments concen-
trated on the response of anchors that were fixed in a less
than perfect manner such that their resistance to pullout
2044 H.M. Algin / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 2041–2046
is less than intended. The additional 120 tests were under-
taken to determine the performance of anchors subjected
to pullout force. The tests were carried out for various
brick hole sizes and brick anchor depths. The wedge
anchors were inserted into holes drilled with the diameters;
correct size (12 mm), 0.5 mm over size (12.5 mm) and 1 mm
over size (13 mm). For each of these conditions the anchors
were inserted into the holes of; full-depth (40 mm), 5 mm
short of full-depth (35 mm), 10 mm short of full-depth
(30 mm) and 30 mm short of full-depth (10 mm). The tests
were undertaken for 12 different conditions and 10 tests
were undertaken for each condition.
3. Implication of results
In each torque test a graph indicating the relationship
between the applied moment and rotation was produced.
The obtained results allowed developing correlation
between the torsional moment and various levels of pullout
forces. In this correlation the maximum pullout force val-
ues are based on the full-depth (40 mm) and correct size
(12 mm) of the anchor holes. Fig. 6 shows the correlation
between the maximum applied torque and maximum pull-
out load values. The results show that the ultimate pullout
load and torque resistance of anchor is directly related with
the anchor hole diameter and depth.
Table 1 can be used for determining the pullout load
corresponding with a torque value. Table 1 has been devel-
oped on the basis of a safety factor of 2, using the regres-
sion curve in Fig. 6.
The relationship between the pullout force and the cor-
responding vertical displacement was determined. The
influence of hole size and anchor depth on the maximum
load bearing capacity of anchors has been analyzed. The
relationship between the maximum pullout load and the
depth of anchor hole was determined for anchor hole diam-
eters of 12, 12.5 and 13 mm. The results are shown in
Fig. 6. Correlation between maximum applied pullout load and maximum torque values.
Table 1
Required pullout force in terms of applied proof torque
Pullout force required (kN) Proof torque load (N m)
10 130
15 140
20 170
25 220
30 300
Fig. 7. The depths of the anchor holes in Fig. 7 are 40,
35, 30 and 10 mm. Fig. 8 indicates the influence of anchor
hole diameter on maximum pullout load value. Table 2
summarizes Figs. 7 and 8 in terms of the percentage reduc-
tion in the strength of the anchor.
Fig. 6 confirms that there is a positive correlation
between the applied torque and pullout loads. Figs. 7 and
8 show that the pullout loads are influenced by variations
in anchor hole diameters and depths. The regularity of
the distribution of data is sufficient to be generalized by
the function of the regression line. The correlation clearly
shows that the maximum pullout load bearing capacity
of an anchor can be determined by using the maximum tor-
que value that can be transferred by the anchor itself. The
maximum pullout load bearing capacity is substantially
dependent on anchor hole diameter and depth. When the
anchor hole diameter is correct there is almost a linear rela-
tionship between the maximum pullout load and anchor
hole depth. A 25% reduction in anchor depth causes a
23% decrease in ultimate pullout load values. There is also
a dramatic decrease in the load carrying capacity and
unpredictability in the behaviour of anchors if the anchor
hole diameter is excessively over sized. An 8.3% increase
in the anchor hole diameter causes an approximately 90%
reduction in the ultimate pullout load values. Figs. 7 and
8 show that the probability of failure is clearly dependent
on the anchor hole diameter and depth.
 H.M. Algin / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 2041–2046 2045

Fig. 7. The relationship between maximum applied pullout load and depth of anchor.

Fig. 8. The relationship between maximum applied pullout load and size of anchor holes.

Table 2 diameter is much more crucial than the reduction in anchor

Percentage reduction in ultimate pullout load in terms of the variations in
hole depth. When the anchor hole depth is correct, an 8.3%
anchor hole diameter and depth
(1 mm) increase in anchor hole diameter causes an 86%
Diameter over Shortfall in lengthb (mm)
reduction in ultimate pullout load (even a 0.5 mm increase
sizea (mm)
0 (0%)c 5 (12.5%) 10 (25%) 30 (75%) in anchor hole diameter reduces the strength of the anchor
d
0 (0%) 0% 14% 23% 59% by over 23%), whereas, when the anchor hole diameter is
0.5 (4.17%) 23% 39% 45% 68% correct, an 8.3% decrease in anchor hole depth reduces
1 (8.33%) 86% 94% 95% 98%
the ultimate pullout load values by only 10%. The reduc-
a
Increase in another hole diameter. tion in the strength of the anchor is almost nine times lower
b
Reduction in anchor hole depth.
c than that caused by the increments in anchor hole diame-
Full-depth (40 mm).
d
Correct hole diameter (12 mm). ter. Therefore, it is probable that anchor hole diameter
oversizing is the premier reason for the failures in scaffold-
Fig. 8 shows that the anchor hole diameter is inversely ing/brickwork anchors.
related to the ultimate pullout load values and that the
strength of the anchor increases when the anchor hole 4. Conclusion
diameter approaches the correct size. If the anchor hole
diameter is oversize, the ultimate applied pullout load is Parameters other than those investigated in this paper as
reduced. Table 2 indicates that the oversized anchor hole the type of brick, the brittleness of brick, environmental
2046 H.M. Algin / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 2041–2046
effects and the changes in the loading configuration may
also have a crucial effect on the performance of masonry
anchors. The sensitivity of parameters is beyond the scope
of this paper. Information developed from the investiga-
tions and non-destructive tests were used to assess the
extent of certainty involved in the overall performance of
expanded anchors, and to confirm that there is a sufficient
agreement in the correlation of torque and pullout loads.
However, since the overall objective of the exercise was
to explore the relationship between torque and pullout
loads, the research could be expanded to cover more
diverse factors such as the types of brick used in masonry
walls. In view of the good correlation between pullout force
and torque sustained it is recommended that a simple tor-
que mechanism to be developed for use on site. A device
similar in concept to a simple torque-meter like tool could
be used to apply a proof load to a fixing system. The cor-
relation given in this paper can be used for determining the
pullout load corresponding with a torque value. Such a
tool would be of great benefit to scaffold engineers and per-
sonnel and would enhance safety and installation quality of
scaffolding systems.
Acknowledgments
The author expresses his sincere thanks to Prof. Dr.
John Knapton (University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)
and Hash Matria (Health and Safety Executive, UK) for
their help to conduct the research presented in this paper.
References
[1] Berry CK, Davis BR. A Guide to safe scaffolding, Division of
Occupational Safety and Health N.C. Department of Labor, 4 W.
Edenton St., Raleigh, NC 27601-1092, 2002.
[2] Heckmann JV. Analysis of accidents related to scaffolding and floor/
wall openings, MSc. Thesis, Washington Univ. St Louis Mo. Dept.
Of Civil Engineering, Washington, US;1995.
[3] Causal factors in construction accidents, Research Report 156,
Health & Safety Executive, UK; 2003.
[4] Robson JK. Ship/platform collision incident database (2001). UK:
Health & Safety Executive; 2003.
[5] Naderi M. Friction-transfer test for the assessment of in situ strength
and adhesion of cementitious materials. Constr Build Mater
2005;19:454–9.
[6] Malhotra VM. Testing hardened concrete; nondestructive meth-
ods. Detroit: ACI Monograph 9, Iowa State University Press;
1976.
[7] Martin L, Goris J, Roberts L. Report on design and testing of a
nondestructive friction bolt tester, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Servıces, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Spokane
Research Laboratory, Spokane, WA, 2004.
[8] Tomory PB, Grabinsky MW, Curran JH, Carvalho J. Factors
influencing the effectiveness of split-set friction stabilizer bolts. CIM
Bull 1998;91(1018):205–14.
[9] Hashimoto J, Takiguchi K. Experimental study on pullout strength of
anchor bolt with an embedment depth of 30 mm in concrete under
high temperature. Nucl Eng Des 2004;229:151–63.
[10] Murray AMcC. The development and application of the pull-off test
for concrete strength, Ph.D. Thesis. Queen_s University, Belfast;
1984.
[11] Keiller AP. A preliminary investigation of test methods for the
assessment of strength of in situ concrete, Cement and Concrete
Association, Technical Report 511, London; 1982. p. 37.
[12] Bungey JH. The testing of concrete in structures. London: Surrey
University Press; 1982.
[13] Long AE, Murray AMcC. The _pull-off_ partially destructive test for
concrete. Detroit: American Concrete Institute, Publication SP 82;
1984. p. 327–50.
[14] Mitchinson AJ. Scaffold Fixings, MSc Project, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Department of
Civil Engineering, UK, 1999.
[15] HILTI Anchor Specifier’s Guide, The Mount Business Park, Wood-
stock Link, Belfast, Ireland, 1999. p.105.
[16] Algin HM. Experimental investigation of masonry wall fixings
subjected to pullout load and torque, Research Report for HSE,
University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, UK, 2001.
[17] Algin HM. Analysis of masonry wall fixings using finite element
method, Research Report for HSE, University of Newcastle Upon
Tyne, Department of Civil Engineering, UK, 1998.