This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Worrying warning from the UIAA about stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of bolts under low stress loads.
http://www.theuiaa.org/news-316-New-Download-UIAA-Warning-About-Climbing-An...
Once this becomes common knowledge, will the land owners of the crags that have been identified as susceptible to SCC, close them down for fear of being sued if an accident occurs. Also what is the position of individual climbers who have bolted these routes. Will they have to replace all of he bolts that they have placed or also face legal action should there be an accident. Just think of the bolted limestone crags near to the sea that could be affected.
It's a serious review by the UIAA and I know what I would do if I owned one of the crags.
http://www.theuiaa.org/news-316-New-Download-UIAA-Warning-About-Climbing-An...
Once this becomes common knowledge, will the land owners of the crags that have been identified as susceptible to SCC, close them down for fear of being sued if an accident occurs. Also what is the position of individual climbers who have bolted these routes. Will they have to replace all of he bolts that they have placed or also face legal action should there be an accident. Just think of the bolted limestone crags near to the sea that could be affected.
It's a serious review by the UIAA and I know what I would do if I owned one of the crags.
1
4
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:
In terms of landowners/bolters being afraid of being sued, How would this failure scenario be any different to bolts that are old/rusted/improperly placed (hole not cleaned out, wrong adhesive used etc) and fail due to factors other than SCC? I'm pretty sure accidents occur occasionally anyway, through failure modes other than SCC as well as SCC, has there been a precedent set of landowners being successfully sued after any mechanism of bolt failure? Genuinely curious about this.
In terms of landowners/bolters being afraid of being sued, How would this failure scenario be any different to bolts that are old/rusted/improperly placed (hole not cleaned out, wrong adhesive used etc) and fail due to factors other than SCC? I'm pretty sure accidents occur occasionally anyway, through failure modes other than SCC as well as SCC, has there been a precedent set of landowners being successfully sued after any mechanism of bolt failure? Genuinely curious about this.
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:
...and what about trad venues when the rock breaks/crumbles and your gear rips out? Can we sue the landowner then as well? Same for bouldering when holds break, I could go on....
...and what about trad venues when the rock breaks/crumbles and your gear rips out? Can we sue the landowner then as well? Same for bouldering when holds break, I could go on....
2
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:
Unlikely to be a problem in Scotland where the bolts are placed by "amateurs" without any payment. And landowners are too far from the act of bolting to be held responsible under Scottish law. That's assuming they ever gave permission, and in general, they haven't been asked.
Not that the review isn't accurate.
Unlikely to be a problem in Scotland where the bolts are placed by "amateurs" without any payment. And landowners are too far from the act of bolting to be held responsible under Scottish law. That's assuming they ever gave permission, and in general, they haven't been asked.
Not that the review isn't accurate.
1
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
As Andy says, it is not a problem for landowners, more for climbers, particularly the one relying on a bolt which has just failed !
As an engineer I have realised never to be surprised by a new problem arising, especially in new products and technology.
The answer is in the download.
Don't rely on one anchor.
Testing programs for in situ gear.
Everybody who goes sport climbing should contribute to bolt funds. ( I resisted the temptation to type in capitals )
"A penny a clip" would probably sort it out forever if all paid in.
When did YOU last cough up ? ( Not a question for Andy as he has done more than his fair share )
As Andy says, it is not a problem for landowners, more for climbers, particularly the one relying on a bolt which has just failed !
As an engineer I have realised never to be surprised by a new problem arising, especially in new products and technology.
The answer is in the download.
Don't rely on one anchor.
Testing programs for in situ gear.
Everybody who goes sport climbing should contribute to bolt funds. ( I resisted the temptation to type in capitals )
"A penny a clip" would probably sort it out forever if all paid in.
When did YOU last cough up ? ( Not a question for Andy as he has done more than his fair share )
8
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:
In summary, any bolt can break, any time, under body-weight?
> Worrying warning from the UIAA about stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of bolts under low stress loads.
In summary, any bolt can break, any time, under body-weight?
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:
So if Petzl France found that 20% of anchors would "barely sustain body weight, let alone the mildest of fall arrests" ... where are all the dead climbers?
There are, of course, fatalities from anchor failure, but I'm under the impression it is uncommon.
So if Petzl France found that 20% of anchors would "barely sustain body weight, let alone the mildest of fall arrests" ... where are all the dead climbers?
There are, of course, fatalities from anchor failure, but I'm under the impression it is uncommon.
5
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:
I am surprised that some of the earlier responses seem a bit blase over the seriousness of the UIAA report and especially the possible reaction of some of the local communes. In the south of France where I live, there was a fatality several years ago when a bolt failed. The response of the local Marie was not " oh, never mind, bolts can fail under body weight" they closed ALL of the crags in the eastern Aude. Some of these have only just been re-opened after a long battle to get them re-equipped. At the time of the accident, unlike now, there were no specific warnings over the safety of bolts. Can I pose another question? If an UIAA guide takes a client climbing on one of the suspect crags and there is an accident, would his insurance still be valid?
I do not want to be a doom-monger but this is not a flippant issue and needs to be addressed.
I am surprised that some of the earlier responses seem a bit blase over the seriousness of the UIAA report and especially the possible reaction of some of the local communes. In the south of France where I live, there was a fatality several years ago when a bolt failed. The response of the local Marie was not " oh, never mind, bolts can fail under body weight" they closed ALL of the crags in the eastern Aude. Some of these have only just been re-opened after a long battle to get them re-equipped. At the time of the accident, unlike now, there were no specific warnings over the safety of bolts. Can I pose another question? If an UIAA guide takes a client climbing on one of the suspect crags and there is an accident, would his insurance still be valid?
I do not want to be a doom-monger but this is not a flippant issue and needs to be addressed.
2
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:
The topic is not new, the document in question merely regurgitates matters which have been under discussion since the middle nineties, particularly regarding the various versions of the UIAA and the EN Standards. The answer is not and never has been a technical one, it is a problem with the climbing community in general failing to put in place an adequate system to allow financing of the standard of bolting which they wish to have. Bolt funds are inadequate for the expectations some users appear have.
The UIAA have nothing to do with guides, they come under the UIGM but that is irrelevant, all crags and all bolts are potentially suspect anyway:- "Rock climbing is dangerous." Guides and instructors both in the UK and the rest of the world anyway seem quite happy to use fixed equipment knowing it was neither manufactured to EN959, professionally installed or would be capable of passing the requirements of the current standards. Presumably their professional training allows them to make the judgement that they are sufficient for the purpose.
The topic is not new, the document in question merely regurgitates matters which have been under discussion since the middle nineties, particularly regarding the various versions of the UIAA and the EN Standards. The answer is not and never has been a technical one, it is a problem with the climbing community in general failing to put in place an adequate system to allow financing of the standard of bolting which they wish to have. Bolt funds are inadequate for the expectations some users appear have.
The UIAA have nothing to do with guides, they come under the UIGM but that is irrelevant, all crags and all bolts are potentially suspect anyway:- "Rock climbing is dangerous." Guides and instructors both in the UK and the rest of the world anyway seem quite happy to use fixed equipment knowing it was neither manufactured to EN959, professionally installed or would be capable of passing the requirements of the current standards. Presumably their professional training allows them to make the judgement that they are sufficient for the purpose.
7
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:
land owners need to stop being p*****s and just make clear that they are not liable. Job done
land owners need to stop being p*****s and just make clear that they are not liable. Job done
1
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:
Hopefully bolts in the UK are rarely affected (hopefully) since we both get lots of rain (and have few overhanging walls that stay dry) and the temperature rarely get anywhere near 30 degrees? (although this isn't a hard limit).
Hopefully bolts in the UK are rarely affected (hopefully) since we both get lots of rain (and have few overhanging walls that stay dry) and the temperature rarely get anywhere near 30 degrees? (although this isn't a hard limit).
In reply to andrewmcleod:
So,bolted climbing is NOT the panacea some take it to be.According to this report some bolts can fail within months of being placed.If a crux bolt is taking a lot of falls,maybe no surprise whatsoever.
So,bolted climbing is NOT the panacea some take it to be.According to this report some bolts can fail within months of being placed.If a crux bolt is taking a lot of falls,maybe no surprise whatsoever.
1
In reply to jimtitt:
You hit the nail on the head Jim, the attitude of the climbing community is one of blind faith in bolts. That every placement has the same properties of the very worst. Correctly placed bolts of the right type placed well in solid rock can take huge loads.
Its when like in the worst case scenario with the glued in star bolts in North Wales an inexperienced bolter takes advice from a DIY chain then bad things will happen.
You hit the nail on the head Jim, the attitude of the climbing community is one of blind faith in bolts. That every placement has the same properties of the very worst. Correctly placed bolts of the right type placed well in solid rock can take huge loads.
Its when like in the worst case scenario with the glued in star bolts in North Wales an inexperienced bolter takes advice from a DIY chain then bad things will happen.
1
In reply to jimtitt:
So Jim, I was talkoing aout this with a buddy - you've obviously thought this one through at immense length. We're now seeing titanium bolts beginning to replace stainless on sea cliffs ut the cost is enormous. What would your view be on a high tensile non stainless steel with better anti corrosion coating than plating be? Of course SCC is not experienced in many standard steels and if properly and carefully coated, will last an extremely long time. With standard steel corrosion is considerably more obvious than with stainless which will look almost as per new. For yours you gone down the road og making them stainless and drillable so they can be replaced easily but that of course doesn't remove the issue that it's nigh on impossible to predict the behaviour of the bolt or that people are pretty blase about it. So what can be done?
So Jim, I was talkoing aout this with a buddy - you've obviously thought this one through at immense length. We're now seeing titanium bolts beginning to replace stainless on sea cliffs ut the cost is enormous. What would your view be on a high tensile non stainless steel with better anti corrosion coating than plating be? Of course SCC is not experienced in many standard steels and if properly and carefully coated, will last an extremely long time. With standard steel corrosion is considerably more obvious than with stainless which will look almost as per new. For yours you gone down the road og making them stainless and drillable so they can be replaced easily but that of course doesn't remove the issue that it's nigh on impossible to predict the behaviour of the bolt or that people are pretty blase about it. So what can be done?
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Any face that sits in the sun will exceed 30 degrees during Summer.
> Hopefully bolts in the UK are rarely affected (hopefully) since we both get lots of rain (and have few overhanging walls that stay dry) and the temperature rarely get anywhere near 30 degrees? (although this isn't a hard limit).
Any face that sits in the sun will exceed 30 degrees during Summer.
In reply to beardy mike:
Hi Mike, not trying to answer for Jim, I am sure he will join in again soon,
"A high tensile non SS" is not necessarily required.
Not a lot of metal is needed to arrest a climbing fall load just making sure it is not affected by corrosion ( and other factors )
The answer has already been suggested by the UIAA
http://www.theuiaa.org/news-316-New-Download-UIAA-Warning-About-Climbing-An...
In the download it states
Don't rely on one anchor.
Testing programs for in situ gear.
Everybody who goes sport climbing should contribute to bolt funds.
"A penny a clip" would probably sort it out forever if all paid in.
> So Jim, I was talkoing aout this with a buddy - you've obviously thought this one through at immense length. We're now seeing titanium bolts beginning to replace stainless on sea cliffs ut the cost is enormous. What would your view be on a high tensile non stainless steel with better anti corrosion coating than plating be? Of course SCC is not experienced in many standard steels and if properly and carefully coated, will last an extremely long time. With standard steel corrosion is considerably more obvious than with stainless which will look almost as per new. For yours you gone down the road og making them stainless and drillable so they can be replaced easily but that of course doesn't remove the issue that it's nigh on impossible to predict the behaviour of the bolt or that people are pretty blase about it. So what can be done?
Hi Mike, not trying to answer for Jim, I am sure he will join in again soon,
"A high tensile non SS" is not necessarily required.
Not a lot of metal is needed to arrest a climbing fall load just making sure it is not affected by corrosion ( and other factors )
The answer has already been suggested by the UIAA
http://www.theuiaa.org/news-316-New-Download-UIAA-Warning-About-Climbing-An...
In the download it states
Don't rely on one anchor.
Testing programs for in situ gear.
Everybody who goes sport climbing should contribute to bolt funds.
"A penny a clip" would probably sort it out forever if all paid in.
> Don't rely on one anchor.
What about when you are at the first, second, or possibly 3rd bolt. The top bolt failing can mean a ground fall.
2
In reply to Rick Graham:
Well I realise that you can rely on replacement as a solution. But given that in the 30 years since sport climbing really exploded and that people are lazy and inherently selfish, it's unlikely that this situation will change. I have to raise my hand and say that I've never contributed to a olt fund although that said it's not my prefered style of climbing and I don't do it that often. ut then if everybody thinks like that then you get nowhere. I am particularly interested in this at the moment as I am considering starting to develop a series of crags near my place in Italy and I don't want to leave a legacy of detritus for someone else to clear up - I'd rather get it right first time.
Considering that for many years I think most people considered using stainless bolts as getting it right and we're now being told that we have a potentially huge problem on our hands I think we need to start looking at this in different lights. Do we try to change peoples attitudes of which there is no guarantee, bring in a team of crack employed bolters in the employ of each national governing body (which I suspect would be a gargantuan can of worms) or try to find a soution which does not require system replacement every 20-30 years.
The crags I'm thinking of are on calcarious limestone and Dolomite so they are suceptible. No where near the sea, and are often damp. So possibly not a problem but then I don't want to start down that road and then have to back track!
Well I realise that you can rely on replacement as a solution. But given that in the 30 years since sport climbing really exploded and that people are lazy and inherently selfish, it's unlikely that this situation will change. I have to raise my hand and say that I've never contributed to a olt fund although that said it's not my prefered style of climbing and I don't do it that often. ut then if everybody thinks like that then you get nowhere. I am particularly interested in this at the moment as I am considering starting to develop a series of crags near my place in Italy and I don't want to leave a legacy of detritus for someone else to clear up - I'd rather get it right first time.
Considering that for many years I think most people considered using stainless bolts as getting it right and we're now being told that we have a potentially huge problem on our hands I think we need to start looking at this in different lights. Do we try to change peoples attitudes of which there is no guarantee, bring in a team of crack employed bolters in the employ of each national governing body (which I suspect would be a gargantuan can of worms) or try to find a soution which does not require system replacement every 20-30 years.
The crags I'm thinking of are on calcarious limestone and Dolomite so they are suceptible. No where near the sea, and are often damp. So possibly not a problem but then I don't want to start down that road and then have to back track!
Post edited at 19:23
In reply to Rick Graham:
I don't understand this conclusion. The report's summary says:
How micro does a micro-climate have to be to affect one but not both anchor bolts?
> Don't rely on one anchor.
I don't understand this conclusion. The report's summary says:
> SCC ... depends on a complicated set of factors, especially: high acidity & temperature, low humidity, and unwashed, magnesium rich rock. Small differences in microclimate can lead to SCC degradation for some bolts, while other bolts on the same climb are unaffected.
How micro does a micro-climate have to be to affect one but not both anchor bolts?
2
In reply to beardy mike:
The experience with the FFME hot-dipped galvanised forged bolts and the Kong hybrid hangers makes the idea of selling coated steel stuff rather unnattractive, not a route I intend to go down for sure. We got some stainless bolts titanium nitrided to see if this would be a solution but despite it´s hardness and all the bull the manufacturers gave us it was still possible to achieve coating failure under the loads that could be imposed as the coatings are too hard which brings one back to a corrosion problem you can´t see. Any form of coating is anyway not accepted for the EN which specifies the anchor must be from one material.
Technically there´s no problem, I can think of maybe 20 materials which would do the job at a reasonable price. Higher grades of stainless which don´t suffer from SSC would be the way to go but the UIAA is on a Titanium thing at the moment so there´s no real interest on their side to move along in that direction and anyway as I know to my cost the market talks a lot about what they would like but actually paying for it is another matter. I´m dropping the 1.4462 bolts from my catalogue as the material runs out due to lack of demand and our plans for Titanium bolts are on hold until we see sufficient interest in a competitively priced product in the volumes nescessary.
> So Jim, I was talkoing aout this with a buddy - you've obviously thought this one through at immense length. We're now seeing titanium bolts beginning to replace stainless on sea cliffs ut the cost is enormous. What would your view be on a high tensile non stainless steel with better anti corrosion coating than plating be? Of course SCC is not experienced in many standard steels and if properly and carefully coated, will last an extremely long time. With standard steel corrosion is considerably more obvious than with stainless which will look almost as per new. For yours you gone down the road og making them stainless and drillable so they can be replaced easily but that of course doesn't remove the issue that it's nigh on impossible to predict the behaviour of the bolt or that people are pretty blase about it. So what can be done?
The experience with the FFME hot-dipped galvanised forged bolts and the Kong hybrid hangers makes the idea of selling coated steel stuff rather unnattractive, not a route I intend to go down for sure. We got some stainless bolts titanium nitrided to see if this would be a solution but despite it´s hardness and all the bull the manufacturers gave us it was still possible to achieve coating failure under the loads that could be imposed as the coatings are too hard which brings one back to a corrosion problem you can´t see. Any form of coating is anyway not accepted for the EN which specifies the anchor must be from one material.
Technically there´s no problem, I can think of maybe 20 materials which would do the job at a reasonable price. Higher grades of stainless which don´t suffer from SSC would be the way to go but the UIAA is on a Titanium thing at the moment so there´s no real interest on their side to move along in that direction and anyway as I know to my cost the market talks a lot about what they would like but actually paying for it is another matter. I´m dropping the 1.4462 bolts from my catalogue as the material runs out due to lack of demand and our plans for Titanium bolts are on hold until we see sufficient interest in a competitively priced product in the volumes nescessary.
3
In reply to jimtitt:
Interesting that coating is not acceptable. So do Fixe just ignore that standard then or only sell these outside europe?
Interesting that coating is not acceptable. So do Fixe just ignore that standard then or only sell these outside europe?
In reply to beardy mike:
I've never seen a lower-off where one bolt is under an overhang, and the other is not. Not saying it couldn't or doesn't happen, but I'd be surprised if it's common.
I'd expect that most microclimates affecting one bolt of a lower-off will affect the other one too.
I've never seen a lower-off where one bolt is under an overhang, and the other is not. Not saying it couldn't or doesn't happen, but I'd be surprised if it's common.
I'd expect that most microclimates affecting one bolt of a lower-off will affect the other one too.
1
In reply to beardy mike:
Depends on the certifying persons intepretation I expect, others have been known to just ignore the standard anyway.
Depends on the certifying persons intepretation I expect, others have been known to just ignore the standard anyway.
In reply to humptydumpty:
Sorry I was just talking in general. You could have one bolt under an overhang where it doesn't get washed off, the next on the lip where it does thus making the two olts perform differently due to a microclimate. not talking about lower offs... but you were so sorry about that!
Sorry I was just talking in general. You could have one bolt under an overhang where it doesn't get washed off, the next on the lip where it does thus making the two olts perform differently due to a microclimate. not talking about lower offs... but you were so sorry about that!
In reply to beardy mike:
Yep, that makes sense. Or (especially in conglomerates), I guess you might see a single bolt on a route in magnesium-rich rock.
Yep, that makes sense. Or (especially in conglomerates), I guess you might see a single bolt on a route in magnesium-rich rock.
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:
Not sure if you're referring to responses in this thread, or responses from the wider community.
I expect people are blase about this because it seems, anecdotally, that not many people suffer bolt failure. People fall on bolts a lot more than they fall on trad gear, and stories of gear ripping are much more common than of bolts failing. If there's no way for a normal climber to assess the quality of an in-situ bolt, then we have the choice of trusting none of them, or all of them.
> I am surprised that some of the earlier responses seem a bit blase over the seriousness of the UIAA report...
Not sure if you're referring to responses in this thread, or responses from the wider community.
I expect people are blase about this because it seems, anecdotally, that not many people suffer bolt failure. People fall on bolts a lot more than they fall on trad gear, and stories of gear ripping are much more common than of bolts failing. If there's no way for a normal climber to assess the quality of an in-situ bolt, then we have the choice of trusting none of them, or all of them.
In reply to David Coley:
Depends on the spacing of course, but on most routes if a low bolt fails the consequences are not usually fatal.
Assuming normal spacing, a failure after, say, bolt 3 or 4, usually only involves air time.
Your problems really start if the lower off fails, though the leader can always use a system like the " Petzl prussick ".
> What about when you are at the first, second, or possibly 3rd bolt. The top bolt failing can mean a ground fall.
Depends on the spacing of course, but on most routes if a low bolt fails the consequences are not usually fatal.
Assuming normal spacing, a failure after, say, bolt 3 or 4, usually only involves air time.
Your problems really start if the lower off fails, though the leader can always use a system like the " Petzl prussick ".
In reply to beardy mike:
All you can do , Mike , is to follow current best practice.
or wait until the permanent solution of an everlasting protection system is developed and proved to work.
How old are you again?
> I am particularly interested in this at the moment as I am considering starting to develop a series of crags near my place in Italy and I don't want to leave a legacy of detritus for someone else to clear up - I'd rather get it right first time.
All you can do , Mike , is to follow current best practice.
or wait until the permanent solution of an everlasting protection system is developed and proved to work.
How old are you again?
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:
To widen the concern I was shown this article recently which extends the discussion indoors.
http://www.alpenverein.de/chameleon/public/d73c4b0e-7ede-727f-7b53-dbe4fa2f...
I am glad to say that my local wall has responded by backing up the top links with mallions even though an inspection revealed no cause for concern.
To widen the concern I was shown this article recently which extends the discussion indoors.
http://www.alpenverein.de/chameleon/public/d73c4b0e-7ede-727f-7b53-dbe4fa2f...
I am glad to say that my local wall has responded by backing up the top links with mallions even though an inspection revealed no cause for concern.
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
Why indoors? The failure occured outdoors and the other two cracked chains also outdoors. The metallurgical report showed the material in the chain links was not 304 anyway, buy cheap buy twice.
Why indoors? The failure occured outdoors and the other two cracked chains also outdoors. The metallurgical report showed the material in the chain links was not 304 anyway, buy cheap buy twice.
In reply to jimtitt:
The wall I refer to is in a Leisure Centre and in talking to the wall manager he had concerns about the effect of the swimming pool atmosphere on the anchors. I don't think we should dismiss this.
The wall I refer to is in a Leisure Centre and in talking to the wall manager he had concerns about the effect of the swimming pool atmosphere on the anchors. I don't think we should dismiss this.
In reply to jimtitt:
This paper shows what can happen indoors. Leisure centres often have pools and walls in the same building.
http://www.bssa.org.uk/cms/File/Baddoo%20Swimming%20Pools%20(3p).pdf
This paper shows what can happen indoors. Leisure centres often have pools and walls in the same building.
http://www.bssa.org.uk/cms/File/Baddoo%20Swimming%20Pools%20(3p).pdf
1
In reply to 3leggeddog:
Doing rope access above swimming pools I've had brand new tools and krabs show extensive surface corrosion after only one shift.
Doing rope access above swimming pools I've had brand new tools and krabs show extensive surface corrosion after only one shift.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...