The paper deals with a subject of increasing interest and importance to the construction industry. The determination of the tensile strength of chemically bonded anchors is an obvious prerequisite to the establishment of design rules that can be used by practicing structural en gineers. The present work provides both a theoretical analysis and some experimental results for the behavior of chemically bonded anchors. Although the presented material provides an excellent foundation for a basic understanding of the way this type of structural element behaves under a tensile load, a few items in the paper would be significantly improved by some minor clarifications. For example, (3) is given without much discussion on why certain steps were taken. In the differential equation, which is based on equilibrium in the anchor rod, it appears that resistance to the anchor's pullout, offered by the adhesive, is given by TidG(wlt) (18) Fig. 7 indicates that the shearing strain in the adhesive is assumed to be uniform and is approximated by wit. Therefore, the preceding expression represents a shear force per unit length on the outer surface of the adhesive. It would seem that the equilibrium considerations of the anchor itself would require the shear stress at the interface between the adhesive and anchor to enter into the equation, rather than the shear exerted by the adhesive on the concrete. In addition, a justification for the assumption of uniform shearing strain across the thickness of the adhesive should be given. Fig. 1 shows that the ratio of do to the anchor diameter d can vary from 1.10 to 1.25. The uniform shearing strain will lead to a contradiction if the overall equilibrium of the hollow cylinder of adhesive is considered. That is, the average shearing stress, with respect to axial length, on the outer surface must be less than the corresponding average stress on the inner surface (by the ratio of its inner to outer diameter) to satisfy the equilibrium. Uniform shearing strain and elastic material behavior, of course, mandate that the stresses on both surfaces, at a given axial location, be equal. Hence, the summation of surface tractions on the two surfaces will not be equal. Following (4), it is stated that the stiffness ratio parameter A' is independent of the hole diameter do. This is quite surprising as it would seem logical that the stiffness of the adhesive depends on its thickness, which is the difference between the anchor diameter and the hole diameter. The definition of A' is not included in the text, so it is not immediately apparent why this assertion is made. It can be shown that for consistency between (3) and (4), A' must be expressed as ( 19) If this expression can be reduced to one without a dependence on do, the reasoning behind it should be given. In presenting the experimental results, which utilize the mathematical model developed in the paper, some further discussion of the results would be welcome. Table 1 gives values of the uniform bond stress, the maximum bond stress based on the formulas derived in the paper, and the stiffness parameter A'. The procedure used to obtain the maximum bond stress and A' from the experimental data is not described in great detail in the text. However, it is stated that A' was determined first and T lllax was obtained from the load at the elastic limit and A'. The values of A' range from 0.012 to 0.019 mm l/2 for the various epoxy adhesives used in the test program. If one assumes a hole diameter of 19 mm, an anchor diameter of 16 mm, and uses a value of A' of (UllS mm 1/2 as being representative, the calculation of the ratio of adhesive shear modulus to anchor modulus of elasticity, from the previously given expression for A', yields