PSI - Issue 47

A. Vrouva et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 47 (2023) 521–534 Vrouva et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

532 12

Table 4. Test results for the redesigned L-shaped rods. Specimen no Thread (mm) Fu ( tn ) 1 Low 9.4 2 Typical 9.2 3 Low 9.6 mean 9.4

It must also be mentioned here that though the design of the anchorage in the backing wall in the form of a barrel anchorage with wedges comported in an acceptable mode it was decided that a simple anchorage with a double nut would suffice for that part of the design (according to the discussion with the Acropolis Restoration Committee and their final decisions). After assuring the capacity of the L-shaped rod it was decided to model the composite anchor system with both the parts connected with the special nut tested simultaneously. Thus 5 specimens were designed to be tested assuring that the anchored part in the orthostate would not fail before the horizontal one that would be inserted in the backing wall. The second part was inserted in the loading jack.

Fig. 20. The composite anchor system testing until failure right: during testing, left: after failure.

Table 5. Test results for the redesigned composite anchor system. Specimen no Ø (mm) σ u, Ti (MPa) F,ult (kN)

1 2 3 4 5

13.5 13.5 13.4

595 591 592 588 590 591

85

84.5 83.4

13.65 13.65

86

86.2 85.0

mean

The thinned part of the horizontal specimens was decided to be 5cm long in order to check the behaviour of the rod at the pull out test (Fig. 20). The results (see Table 5) showed that the anchorage system can be trusted since only the intended part was systematically failing within the desired design loads of about 8,5 tn.