{
 "id": "ep6z7e7b9j",
 "slug": "pull-out-test",
 "title": "Pull-out test",
 "updated": "2026-10-15",
 "topic_path": [
  {
   "id": "technology",
   "label": "Technology and the built world",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/technology"
  },
  {
   "id": "technology.engineering",
   "label": "Engineering and manufacturing",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/technology.engineering"
  },
  {
   "id": "technology.engineering.engineering.civil.structural",
   "label": "Civil, structural, and geotechnical engineering",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/technology.engineering.engineering.civil.structural"
  }
 ],
 "geo": [
  {
   "id": "geo.nongeo.t1800.technology.engineering",
   "label": "Non-geographic · 1800 to 1945: Engineering and manufacturing",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1800.technology.engineering",
   "path": [
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo",
     "label": "Non-geographic",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1800",
     "label": "Non-geographic · 1800 to 1945",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1800"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1800.technology",
     "label": "Technology and the built world",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1800.technology"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1800.technology.engineering",
     "label": "Engineering and manufacturing",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1800.technology.engineering"
    }
   ]
  }
 ],
 "excerpt": "A pull-out test measures the force required to pull an embedded metal insert with attached concrete out of a structure, estimating in-place compressive strength under ASTM C900.",
 "snippet": "A pull-out test measures the force required to pull an embedded metal insert with attached concrete out of a structure, estimating in-place compressive strength under ASTM C900.",
 "node": "technology.engineering.engineering.civil.structural",
 "markdown": "# Pull-out test\n\nA pull-out test measures the force required to pull an embedded metal insert, together with the fragment of concrete attached to it, out of a concrete specimen or structure.<sup>[1](https://store.astm.org/c0900-25.html)</sup> The peak force represents the strength of the concrete within the conic frustum defined by the insert head and the bearing ring; for inserts installed in hardened concrete from the surface, it represents the strength of the outer cover zone.<sup>[1](https://store.astm.org/c0900-25.html)</sup> The test serves two distinct purposes: estimating in-place compressive strength with cast-in (LOK-test) or post-installed (CAPO-test) systems under ASTM C900, and proof-testing anchors or measuring rebar bond on site.<sup>[2](https://www.wurth.co.uk/media/downloads/pdf/anchors_2/literature/adm/03_Building_Site_Tests.pdf)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[3](https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/civileng/civileng-02-00002/article_deploy/civileng-02-00002.pdf?version=1609491531)</sup>\n\n| Key fact | Detail |\n|---|---|\n| What the peak force represents | Strength of the concrete in the conic frustum between insert head and bearing ring<sup>[1](https://store.astm.org/c0900-25.html)</sup> |\n| Standard geometry | 25 mm disc or insert at 25 mm embedment depth, pulled against a 55 mm inner-diameter counterpressure ring<sup>[4](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/31.-Petersen-and-Poulsen-PULLOUT-TESTING-BY-LOK-TEST-AND-CAPO-TEST-WITH....pdf)</sup> |\n| Failure mechanism | Crushing of concrete in the compression strut between insert and ring; cracks reach the ring by 65% of ultimate load<sup>[5](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CAPO-TDS-05.pdf)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[6](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-5d49f12389e0a2ca76336ea1e5f026d3/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-5d49f12389e0a2ca76336ea1e5f026d3.pdf)</sup> |\n| Strength conversion | General correlation \\( f_{\\mathrm{cube}} = 0.76 F^{1.16} \\), with \\( F \\) the pullout force in kN and \\( f_{\\mathrm{cube}} \\) the cube strength in MPa<sup>[7](https://www.banglajol.info/index.php/JES/article/view/76000/50217)</sup> |\n| Scatter | Coefficient of variation 4.5–7.5% on laboratory specimens and 7.8–12.5% on site for uniform batches<sup>[5](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CAPO-TDS-05.pdf)</sup> |\n| Test duration | 4–5 minutes per cast-in insert; 15–20 minutes per post-installed test, versus 3–4 days for correctly cured cores<sup>[8](https://trid.trb.org/View/2475185)</sup> |\n| Anchor design use | The CCD method assumes a 35° failure cone spanning about \\( 3h_{ef} \\times 3h_{ef} \\), with \\( k = 10 \\) for cast-in and \\( k = 7 \\) for post-installed single anchors per ACI 318-19<sup>[9](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/15/17/3040)</sup> |\n\n## How it works\n\nThe pull machine reacts against a counterpressure ring bearing on the concrete surface, so the concrete between the insert and the ring acts as a compression strut.<sup>[5](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CAPO-TDS-05.pdf)</sup> [Nonlinear finite element analysis](https://www.edgepedia.org/nonlinear-finite-element-analysis) by Ottosen showed that circumferential cracks begin at the disc edge at about 15% of ultimate load and reach the reaction ring by 65%; after that the load is carried by a compression strut, and ultimate failure is governed by crushing of that strut, so the pullout force depends directly on compressive strength.<sup>[6](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-5d49f12389e0a2ca76336ea1e5f026d3/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-5d49f12389e0a2ca76336ea1e5f026d3.pdf)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[4](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/31.-Petersen-and-Poulsen-PULLOUT-TESTING-BY-LOK-TEST-AND-CAPO-TEST-WITH....pdf)</sup> A large-scale study at the US National Bureau of Standards reached a different reading of the same mechanism: the failure surface forms at 65% of ultimate load, and the test likely measures the shear strength of the cement paste.<sup>[6](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-5d49f12389e0a2ca76336ea1e5f026d3/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-5d49f12389e0a2ca76336ea1e5f026d3.pdf)</sup> For headed anchors the failure regime changes with embedment depth: in validated single-stud pullout tests the mode transitioned from concrete cone breakout to steel failure around a critical embedment length of about 100 mm, and between 120 and 130 mm for group anchorage.<sup>[10](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/23/11262)</sup>\n\n## How it is done\n\nIn the cast-in LOK-test arrangement, a 25 mm steel disc is embedded 25 mm deep and pulled against a 55 mm inner-diameter counterpressure ring.<sup>[4](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/31.-Petersen-and-Poulsen-PULLOUT-TESTING-BY-LOK-TEST-AND-CAPO-TEST-WITH....pdf)</sup> The post-installed CAPO procedure needs no pre-planned insert: reinforcement is located with a covermeter, the surface is planed, an 18.4 mm hole is cored perpendicular to the surface with a water-cooled diamond bit, a 25 mm diameter recess is routed at 25 mm depth, a split ring is inserted and expanded, and the assembly is pulled through the 55 mm counterpressure until the conic frustum dislodges.<sup>[5](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CAPO-TDS-05.pdf)</sup> Testing a pre-installed insert takes 4–5 minutes and a CAPO test 15–20 minutes; in-place strength is available in about 15 minutes compared with 3–4 days for correctly cured cores.<sup>[8](https://trid.trb.org/View/2475185)</sup> Before in-place testing, a correlation between pullout force and the compressive strength of standard-cured cylinders must be established for each concrete mix.<sup>[11](https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp/shrp-c-376.pdf)</sup> For site proof-testing of anchors with a European Technical Assessment, at least 15 centric-tension tests are required, the load is increased continuously over not less than about 1 minute, support reactions must act at least \\( 1.5 \\cdot h_{ef} \\) from the anchors so breakout is not restricted, and the characteristic resistance is \\( N_{Rk1} = \\alpha \\cdot N_1 \\le N_{Rk,ETA} \\), with \\( N_1 \\) the mean of the five smallest ultimate loads and \\( \\alpha = 0.75 \\) for mechanical and chemical anchors or 0.5 for plastic and bonded anchors.<sup>[2](https://www.wurth.co.uk/media/downloads/pdf/anchors_2/literature/adm/03_Building_Site_Tests.pdf)</sup>\n\n## Origin\n\nThe method is codified in ASTM C900, whose current revision is ASTM C900-25,<sup>[1](https://store.astm.org/c0900-25.html)</sup> together with EN 12504-3, BS 1881:207, and CSA A23.2-15C.<sup>[12](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11153609/)</sup> In the published literature, Jensen and Bræstrup analyzed the LOK-test failure mechanism with plasticity theory, showing the pullout force proportional to compressive strength, in Nordisk Betong in 1976. Mailhot and colleagues reported new post-installed pullout methods for in-place concrete strength in the ACI Journal Proceedings in 1979.<sup>[13](https://doi.org/10.14359/10513)</sup> Moczko, Carino, and Petersen published the CAPO-test correlation for estimating concrete strength in bridges in the ACI Materials Journal in 2016; the general correlation \\( f_{\\mathrm{cube}} = 0.76 F^{1.16} \\) is credited to that work.<sup>[14](https://doi.org/10.14359/51689242)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[7](https://www.banglajol.info/index.php/JES/article/view/76000/50217)</sup> Olsen, Pregartner, and Lamanna published the basis for design of screw anchors in concrete in the ACI Structural Journal in 2012.<sup>[15](https://doi.org/10.14359/51683875)</sup>\n\n## Variants\n\nThe LOK-test uses a cast-in disc; the CAPO-test uses an expandable ring in a drilled hole, so it can be performed anywhere on an existing structure. Comparative testing found cast-in pullout more accurate for the same material, while the post-insert method has a wider detection range and applies to ultra-high-strength concrete.<sup>[16](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1550147720944021)</sup> For rebar bond, the standard pullout test (SPT) obtains bond strength indirectly by dividing the developed force by the lateral contact area of the embedment length; in the prevalent version (10Db cube, 5Db bonded length) measured bond strengths are two to three times higher than from other experiments because of supporting-plate compression, and variants such as the eccentric pullout test, beam-end tests, direct tension pullout, and lap-splice beam tests address transverse compression and strain gradients differently.<sup>[3](https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/civileng/civileng-02-00002/article_deploy/civileng-02-00002.pdf?version=1609491531)</sup> Concrete screw anchors under tension commonly fail in a combined pullout and breakout mode, with the combined load \\( N_{\\mathrm{comb}} \\) related to \\( h_{ef}^{1.3} \\), \\( f'_{c} \\), and \\( d^{0.35} \\).<sup>[17](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1369433220937143)</sup>\n\n## Applications\n\nPullout tests decide in-place strength milestones: post-tensioning, form and shore removal, placing structures into service, and terminating winter protection and curing.<sup>[1](https://store.astm.org/c0900-25.html)</sup> In Canadian formwork-stripping practice, 10 inserts can be tested in about 1 hour, and optimized mixes allowed forms to be removed as early as 1.5 days.<sup>[18](https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2022/08/matecconf_cs2022_07006.pdf)</sup> For anchor design, the Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) method reported by Fuchs, Eligehausen, and Breen in the ACI Structural Journal in 1995 assumes a failure cone inclined at 35° to the surface spanning about \\( 3h_{ef} \\times 3h_{ef} \\).<sup>[19](https://doi.org/10.14359/1533)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[9](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/15/17/3040)</sup> A 2025 numerical assessment found CCD underestimates cast-in-place headed anchor breakout capacity in 30–40 MPa concrete and overestimates it at 20 MPa, proposing \\( N_{b}' = 19.86 f_{c}' h_{ef}^{1.485} \\);<sup>[9](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/15/17/3040)</sup> the method may also be too conservative when the bolt head is large relative to the rod diameter.<sup>[10](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/23/11262)</sup>\n\n## Limitations and alternatives\n\nScatter sources include drilling damage and defects in the concrete above the expanded ring, and the CAPO test can only be carried out on smooth surfaces; the recorded value does not correspond to any single fundamental mechanical property but reflects both compressive and tensile strength.<sup>[20](https://www.icri.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CRBJulAug12_Courard-etal-1.pdf)</sup> A minimum distance of 100 mm must be kept between the insert center and edges or corners, otherwise severe radial cracking may lower the pullout force.<sup>[4](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/31.-Petersen-and-Poulsen-PULLOUT-TESTING-BY-LOK-TEST-AND-CAPO-TEST-WITH....pdf)</sup> What the test fundamentally measures remains disputed: the compression-strut crushing interpretation and the cement-paste shear interpretation coexist in the literature.<sup>[6](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-5d49f12389e0a2ca76336ea1e5f026d3/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-5d49f12389e0a2ca76336ea1e5f026d3.pdf)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[4](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/31.-Petersen-and-Poulsen-PULLOUT-TESTING-BY-LOK-TEST-AND-CAPO-TEST-WITH....pdf)</sup> Against alternatives, pullout results are not influenced by surface texture, moisture content, hardness, or depth of carbonation, unlike the rebound hammer, ultrasonic pulse velocity, or the Windsor probe.<sup>[5](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CAPO-TDS-05.pdf)</sup> In the Polish bridge study the Schmidt hammer overestimated strength by about 80% relative to cores, while the carbonation effect on the CAPO test was only 2.8%.<sup>[18](https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2022/08/matecconf_cs2022_07006.pdf)</sup> Pullout tests a greater depth and volume of concrete than the rebound hammer or Windsor probe and were judged satisfactory for estimating in-situ strength at both early and late ages.<sup>[21](https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/rncan-nrcan/m38-13/M38-13-76-8-eng.pdf)</sup> The companion pull-off test (EN 1542) requires a minimum of five tests to reach a coefficient of variation of 12% and is difficult to perform on vertical or overhead surfaces.<sup>[20](https://www.icri.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CRBJulAug12_Courard-etal-1.pdf)</sup>\n\n## References\n\n1. [ASTM C900-25 Standard Test Method for Pullout Strength of Hardened Concrete](https://store.astm.org/c0900-25.html)\n2. [Building Site Tests: Pull-out testing of anchors on site (Würth technical guidance)](https://www.wurth.co.uk/media/downloads/pdf/anchors_2/literature/adm/03_Building_Site_Tests.pdf)\n3. [Analytical Investigation on the Effect of Test Setup on Bond Strength (CivilEng, 2021)](https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/civileng/civileng-02-00002/article_deploy/civileng-02-00002.pdf?version=1609491531)\n4. [Petersen & Poulsen: Pullout Testing by LOK-TEST and CAPO-TEST with particular reference to the in-place concrete of the Great Belt Link](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/31.-Petersen-and-Poulsen-PULLOUT-TESTING-BY-LOK-TEST-AND-CAPO-TEST-WITH....pdf)\n5. [Germann Instruments CAPO-TEST technical datasheet](https://www.germanninstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CAPO-TDS-05.pdf)\n6. [Internal strain, deformation, and failure of large scale pullout test in concrete (NBS/GovInfo)](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-5d49f12389e0a2ca76336ea1e5f026d3/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-5d49f12389e0a2ca76336ea1e5f026d3.pdf)\n7. [Applicability of CAPO-TEST correlation for brick-chip concrete (Journal of Engineering Science, Bangladesh)](https://www.banglajol.info/index.php/JES/article/view/76000/50217)\n8. [Lok-Test and Capo-Test pullout for in-situ concrete strength (Bridge Structures, Vol. 20, IOS Press; TRID record)](https://trid.trb.org/View/2475185)\n9. [Numerical Assessment of Cast-in-Place Anchor Pullout Strength Regarding CCD Methodology (Buildings, 2025)](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/15/17/3040)\n10. [Numerical Simulation of Anchor Pullout and Shear Tests Using a Regularized Damage Model (Applied Sciences, 2024)](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/23/11262)\n11. [Field Manual for Maturity and Pullout Testing on Highway Structures (SHRP-C-376, TRB)](https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp/shrp-c-376.pdf)\n12. [Compressive strength assessment of concrete with brick chips using the CAPO-test (peer-reviewed, PMC)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11153609/)\n13. [G. Mailhot and colleagues (1979). In-Place Concrete Strength: New Pullout Methods. ACI Journal Proceedings.](https://doi.org/10.14359/10513)\n14. [Andrzej T. Moczko, Nicholas J. Carino, Claus Germann Petersen (2016). CAPO-TEST to Estimate Concrete Strength in Bridges. ACI Materials Journal.](https://doi.org/10.14359/51689242)\n15. [Jacob Olsen, Thilo Pregartner, Anthony J. Lamanna (2012). Basis for Design of Screw Anchors in Concrete. ACI Structural Journal.](https://doi.org/10.14359/51683875)\n16. [Experimental investigation of concrete strength curve based on pull-out post-insert method (Zheng et al., 2020, DOI 10.1177/1550147720944021)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1550147720944021)\n17. [Numerical simulation of failure mechanism in screw anchors under static tension (Advances in Structural Engineering, 2020)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1369433220937143)\n18. [Practical cases in the application of the pullout method (LOK-TEST and CAPO-TEST) for in-place compressive strength (MATEC, 2022)](https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2022/08/matecconf_cs2022_07006.pdf)\n19. [Werner Fuchs, Rolf Eligehausen, John E. Breen (1995). Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete. ACI Structural Journal.](https://doi.org/10.14359/1533)\n20. [Methods to Appraise the Mechanical Integrity of a Concrete Surface (Courard et al., Concrete Repair Bulletin, Jul/Aug 2012)](https://www.icri.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CRBJulAug12_Courard-etal-1.pdf)\n21. [Comparison of Pull-Out Strength of Concrete with Compressive Strength of Cylinders and Cores, Pulse Velocity and Rebound Number (Malhotra & Carette, CANMET)](https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/rncan-nrcan/m38-13/M38-13-76-8-eng.pdf)\n\n---\n*Topic: Encyclopedia › Technology and the built world › Engineering and manufacturing › Civil, structural, and geotechnical engineering*\n\n*Initially written Sep 29, 2026 · Edited: Oct 15, 2026*\n\n*Copyright 2026 EdgeChat AI, a subsidiary of Biostate AI.*\n\nLicense: Edgepedia Community License 1.0, https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license\n",
 "same_as": [],
 "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/pull-out-test",
 "markdown_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/pull-out-test.md",
 "license": {
  "name": "Edgepedia Community License 1.0",
  "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license",
  "summary": "Free with credit, commercial use included. AI training is open to everyone. For other uses, organizations over USD 100M in revenue or 100M monthly users license separately.",
  "spdx": "LicenseRef-Edgepedia-Community-1.0"
 },
 "credit": "\"Pull-out test\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), https://www.edgepedia.org/pull-out-test. Edgepedia Community License 1.0.",
 "credit_md": "\"[Pull-out test](https://www.edgepedia.org/pull-out-test)\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), [https://www.edgepedia.org/pull-out-test](https://www.edgepedia.org/pull-out-test). [Edgepedia Community License 1.0](https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license).",
 "credit_html": "\"<a href=\"https://www.edgepedia.org/pull-out-test\">Pull-out test</a>\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), <a href=\"https://www.edgepedia.org/pull-out-test\">https://www.edgepedia.org/pull-out-test</a>. <a href=\"https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license\">Edgepedia Community License 1.0</a>.",
 "speakable": "A pull-out test measures the force required to pull an embedded metal insert with attached concrete out of a structure, estimating in-place compressive strength under ASTM C900."
}