Mountain Project Logo

Fixe PLX HCR - "New"? Metal as alt to Titanium?

mpulquerio · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2014 · Points: 0
Jim Titt wrote: There lies one problem, your community thinks it is SCC and thinks the affected material is 304. Testing would tell us if this is so, thinking it tells us nothing.
Well thinking is what you have to do when information is poor and you do not have the resources to do the investigation yourself. But we have sent the gear for testing, so hopefully we will know better what is hapening.
mpulquerio · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2014 · Points: 0
John Byrnes wrote: With so many installers continuing to put in galvanized bolts, which in most places must be replaced in less than 20 years at a huge incremental cost, education is paramount.
Agree education is paramount, but 20 years would be nice! We have 304 bolts breaking with only 5-6 years!
20 kN · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 1,346
mpulquerio wrote: But this raises the question on who regulates and controls the quality of the materials that manufacturers use? How can a manufacturer stamp 304 or 316 (supposedly certified) in its gear when if in fact they are not proper 304/316?
No one regulates it unless the item is being manufactured for a regulated industry (e.g. surgical implants). How they could do it is the same answer as to how any company can mislead customers. Companies lie about the performance of their products every day all day. They always have and always will. Until someone sues or the issue is big enough that the FTC steps in, companies will do what's in the best interest of their sales. Anyway, stainless steel grades are not as black and white as you think. It's not like the UIAA stamp that a hanger has to hold 25kN in shear to pass. If you get 24.9kN, you fail, 25kN you pass. It's not that simple. Grades 304 and 316 are not exact specifications, but rather a range.

"SAE 304 stainless steel, also known as A2 stainless steel (not the same as A2 tool steel) or 18/8 stainless steel, European norm 1.4301, is the most common stainless steel. The steel contains both chromium (usually 18%) and nickel (usually 8%) metals as the main non-iron constituents.[1]... It contains 17.5–20% chromium, 8–11% nickel, and less than 0.08% carbon, 2% manganese, 1% silicon, 0.045% phosphorus, and 0.03% sulfur.[2]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_3…

Further, the chemical composition is not the sole factor in determining how well the product performs. The passivation, preparation and manufacturing techniques play a critical role in how well the material performs. There are other ways the corrosion resistance can be further increased such as polishing. Some companies put in the extra effort to do these steps correctly and others exclude it all together.

As far as you hoping your 316 bolts wont fail, dont count on it. If you're seeing SCC in your 304 material, your 316 material will eventually need replacing too. I would do it sooner rather than later as you dont really gain anything from waiting. If you're experiencing SCC failures and you dont want to be constantly maintaining your hardware, you need to switch over to titanium.
20 kN · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 1,346
csa wrote: Crevice corrosion.
That was my first thought, but that doesent appear to be. This looks more like SCC or severe pitting to me, but I'm not a metallurgist. There is the bolt I was speaking to:

SCC

SCC

You can see where the epoxy ended. The end of the brown sections on the bolt is the end of the epoxy interface.
mpulquerio · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2014 · Points: 0
20 kN wrote: No one regulates it unless the item is being manufactured for a regulated industry (e.g. surgical implants). How they could do it is the same answer as to how any company can mislead customers. Companies lie about the performance of their products every day all day. They always have and always will. Until someone sues or the issue is big enough that the FTC steps in, companies will do what's in the best interest of their sales. Anyway, stainless steel grades are not as black and white as you think. It's not like the UIAA stamp that a hanger has to hold 25kN in shear to pass. If you get 24.9kN, you fail, 25kN you pass. It's not that simple. Grades 304 and 316 are not exact specifications, but rather a range. "SAE 304 stainless steel, also known as A2 stainless steel (not the same as A2 tool steel) or 18/8 stainless steel, European norm 1.4301, is the most common stainless steel. The steel contains both chromium (usually 18%) and nickel (usually 8%) metals as the main non-iron constituents.[1]... It contains 17.5–20% chromium, 8–11% nickel, and less than 0.08% carbon, 2% manganese, 1% silicon, 0.045% phosphorus, and 0.03% sulfur.[2]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_3… Further, the chemical composition is not the sole factor in determining how well the product performs. The passivation, preparation and manufacturing techniques play a critical role in how well the material performs. There are other ways the corrosion resistance can be further increased such as polishing. Some companies put in the extra effort to do these steps correctly and others exclude it all together.
Thanks for clarifying this. Like you say there will always be non-reliable manufacturers. But that's life! But for the installer the message if proper 304 is suitable for avoiding SCC needs to be clear. Considering the different ranges of manufacturing 304 turns any choice very complex as you need a very in-depth knowledge on the industry. This knowledge is not available for the majority of installers. I understand that this is not black or white but some guidance from better informed organisations is necessary.

20 kN wrote: As far as you hoping your 316 bolts wont fail, dont count on it. If you're seeing SCC in your 304 material, your 316 material will eventually need replacing too. I would do it sooner rather than later as you dont really gain anything from waiting. If you're experiencing SCC failures and you dont want to be constantly maintaining your hardware, you need to switch over to titanium.
We just do not have the means (funds and people) to replace 304 and 316 bolts in the short term. We are aiming to replace also 316 bolts but hopefully they will hold on long enough for us to first replace 304 and collect additional funds for buying new material, titanium as you said. All this if in fact the samples we have sent for analysis confirm what we believe to be SCC.
20 kN · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 1,346
mpulquerio wrote: But that's life! But for the installer the message if proper 304 is suitable for avoiding SCC needs to be clear.
If you cant raise the money because people are not willing to pitch in, maybe just start by chopping unsafe bolts and dont replace them. As the number of routes start to dwindle, maybe some people will get the hint. It would be better to chop and not replace dangerous bolts than it would be to allow them to sit and then someone breaks one resulting in injury or death.
mpulquerio · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2014 · Points: 0
20 kN wrote: It's not. Grade 304 is susceptible to SCC. That is not to say that all 304 placed on sea cliffs will fail from SCC.
Sorry I was not clear, I was referring about the need to understand clearly if 304 (and 316) are affected by SCC in the Mediterranean, following Jim's post. It is clear that both 304 and 316 are affected by SCC in tropical areas. The thing is that if 304 and/or 316 are not affected by SCC in the Mediterranean then we have a set of other (cheaper) options than titanium!

Hopefully we will know soon with the lab tests.
John Byrnes · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 392
Jim Titt wrote: You will have to better than that, intelligent, informed discussion is more useful than innuendo.
Sorry Jim, but I have to call you out on that.

All you ever try to do is cast doubt on the fact that SCC affects stainless steel in a wide range of climbing areas. You're like those guys who deny Global Climate Change, and every one of them has a vested profit motive.

So if you don't believe it's SCC when a bolt breaks, prove it. Get some broken hardware, pay for the analysis and publish the results. But for you to say that other bolt manufacturers use substandard materials is actual innuendo, bordering on libel. For you to say that the UIAA is wrong about SCC, when you have no proof to the contrary, is bullshit. And yes, you have a profit motive.

Have you actually read the formal analysis by Sjong? Prosek? Fuller? How about all the work done by Matteo Dalvit, et al, for the UIAA last year?

The abstract says it all:
researchgate.net/publicatio…

You want intelligent, informed discussion... Physician, cure thyself.
John Byrnes · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 392
20 kN wrote: As far as you hoping your 316 bolts wont fail, dont count on it. If you're seeing SCC in your 304 material, your 316 material will eventually need replacing too. I would do it sooner rather than later as you dont really gain anything from waiting. If you're experiencing SCC failures and you dont want to be constantly maintaining your hardware, you need to switch over to titanium.
Exactly right. Ti will solve the problem permanently.
John Byrnes · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 392
20 kN wrote: This looks more like SCC or severe pitting to me, but I'm not a metallurgist. There is the bolt I was speaking to: You can see where the epoxy ended. The end of the brown sections on the bolt is the end of the epoxy interface.

SCC

Looks like classic SCC to me, too. The dull granular surface with no ductile deformation was cracked before the bolt broke. The shiny surface and deformation on the right was not cracked through.

We see the same characteristic here (Of course Jim would say Petzl made these of inferior materials):

These glue-in bolts, ~10 years old, broke with a tap of a hammer. Notice the sharp edges and granular surface at the break. There's no ductile (pulled taffy) material which indicates they were completely cracked through before being struck.

The fact that this happened inside the glue envelope is definitely interesting. Runoff would have needed to get to the steel through a crack or void of some kind. What kind of rock was this in? Are there voids/cracks below the surface? Do you know what brand of glue was used?
Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
John Byrnes wrote: Sorry Jim, but I have to call you out on that. All you ever try to do is cast doubt on the fact that SCC affects stainless steel in a wide range of climbing areas. You're like those guys who deny Global Climate Change, and every one of them has a vested profit motive. So if you don't believe it's SCC when a bolt breaks, prove it. Get some broken hardware, pay for the analysis and publish the results. But for you to say that other bolt manufacturers use substandard materials is actual innuendo, bordering on libel. For you to say that the UIAA is wrong about SCC, when you have no proof to the contrary, is bullshit. And yes, you have a profit motive. Have you actually read the formal analysis by Sjong? Prosek? Fuller? How about all the work done by Matteo Dalvit, et al, for the UIAA last year? The abstract says it all: researchgate.net/publicatio… You want intelligent, informed discussion... Physician, cure thyself.
Wrong, the onus is on those who claim" All stainless steel bolts in the Med are plagued by SCC. The rest are plagued by general corrosion." to justify their statement.
That 4 manufacturers have used inferior materials isn´t innuendo, it is published fact.

There is a very old saying:- "Don´t shoot the messenger." Because you don´t like opposing views to your own there is no reason to resort to personal insults or making wild speculation about a persons motives (any concept that I have a profit motive in supplying sub-standard bolts in the hope of future business is laughable, I am 64 years old). You only have to prove your statement above is correct and the discussion is ended. Alan Jarvis was challenged by someone else on a previous thread to justify his claims and couldn´t so it will be a relief to him if you can provide the evidence. After all there are an estimated 1.5 million bolts in the Med region so the bodies must be stacking up pretty high by now.

And yes, I have read a considerably amount of literature including the ones you mention above, I have even personally discussed the matter with Ms Sjong.
20 kN · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 1,346
John Byrnes wrote: What kind of rock was this in? Are there voids/cracks below the surface? Do you know what brand of glue was used?
It was in Basalt. Most likely Powers T308+ was used. Are there voids/ cracks below the surface of what?
mpulquerio · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2014 · Points: 0
John Byrnes wrote: Have you actually read the formal analysis by Sjong? Prosek? Fuller? How about all the work done by Matteo Dalvit, et al, for the UIAA last year? The abstract says it all: researchgate.net/publicatio…
Thanks for the paper. Well it does show that bolts in Sardinia suffered SCC. Both bolts were 304 but no analysis of the quality of 304 was done. But unless there is a strong reason to doubt the quality of the material then SCC is taken place in the Mediterranean. Right?
John Byrnes · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 392
20 kN wrote: It was in Basalt. Most likely Powers T308+ was used. Are there voids/ cracks below the surface of what?
Below the surface of the rock.

In limestone, such as Cayman Brac, it's not uncommon to detect pockets (voids) below the surface when drilling or gluing (hole never fills).

Limestone is famous for having water running through it below the surface. I know of two climbs on CB where drilling a bolt hole caused water to gush out. I had to seal them up (small stones, glue, sand).
John Byrnes · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 392
Jim Titt wrote: Wrong, the onus is on those who claim" All stainless steel bolts in the Med are plagued by SCC. The rest are plagued by general corrosion." to justify their statement.


There's been dozens of photos posted here on MP, enough to convince anyone who has an open mind.

Are you trying tell me that mild steels don't corrode in the Med? Wasn't it you who posted the photo of stains on the rock from rusting plated bolts? That's general corrosion in the Med.

The UIAA is convinced that SCC is a problem, even though Alan was a total skeptic only a few years ago.

There's enough photos and anecdotes out there to convince anyone who is familiar with SCC that it is occurring all through the Med.

When you see a photo of a bolt, hanger or maillon that's broken, it's almost certainly SCC. Why? Because non-stainless steels don't break like that: they would have ductile deformation, or be obviously rusted to a point where the thickness of the material is significantly reduced.

Since mpulquerio is here, his photo below is classic SCC. Notice the AISI 316 CE stamped in the metal.

316 Maillon Rapide from Rui Rosado, Portugal. Granite sea cliffs

This bolt is from Sicily. Note that there's no sign of over-loading and the resulting deformation. It's just cracked off like a dry stick. Non-stainless steels don't break like this. The granular surface is classic SCC. I've seen this so many times I don't need to have some do a formal analysis.

Classic broken stainless bolt. Absolutely NO visible indication of cracking.

Jim Titt wrote:That 4 manufacturers have used inferior materials isn´t innuendo, it is published fact.


So what? We know that conditions that crack 303 & 304 also crack 316, it just takes a little longer (Prosek).
hb · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 0
John Byrnes wrote: There's been dozens of photos posted here on MP, enough to convince anyone who has an open mind. Are you trying tell me that mild steels don't corrode in the Med? Wasn't it you who posted the photo of stains on the rock from rusting plated bolts? That's general corrosion in the Med. The UIAA is convinced that SCC is a problem, even though Alan was a total skeptic only a few years ago. There's enough photos and anecdotes out there to convince anyone who is familiar with SCC that it is occurring all through the Med. When you see a photo of a bolt, hanger or maillon that's broken, it's almost certainly SCC. Why? Because non-stainless steels don't break like that: they would have ductile deformation, or be obviously rusted to a point where the thickness of the material is significantly reduced. Since mpulquerio is here, his photo below is classic SCC. Notice the AISI 316 CE stamped in the metal. This bolt is from Sicily. Note that there's no sign of over-loading and the resulting deformation. It's just cracked off like a dry stick. Non-stainless steels don't break like this. The granular surface is classic SCC. I've seen this so many times I don't need to have some do a formal analysis. So what? We know that conditions that crack 303 & 304 also crack 316, it just takes a little longer (Prosek).
Well, that's just blatantly false. There are many factors that can lead to all sorts of wacky fracture surfaces for any material. Without an analysis, you can only make assumptions. You need to go under the microscope, do chemical analysis, tensiles, hardness, etc for an answer. And even then the result is usually "this is most likely what happened."
Mike · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2013 · Points: 30

Are you aware that one of the most powerful tools in failure analysis is just visual inspection of the fracture surface? SEM-EDS would be nice to provide further evidence for the theory found visually. Hardness and tensile testing--helps you determine material susceptibility to this phenomenon, not what happened. You could get confirmation via a metallurgical cross section if you are allowed to destroy the sample. SCC has a very distinctive cracking pattern.

hb · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 0
Mike13 wrote:Are you aware that one of the most powerful tools in failure analysis is just visual inspection of the fracture surface? SEM-EDS would be nice to provide further evidence for the theory found visually. Hardness and tensile testing--helps you determine material susceptibility to this phenomenon, not what happened. You could get confirmation via a metallurgical cross section if you are allowed to destroy the sample. SCC has a very distinctive cracking pattern.
Yes, I used to do it. And I'm not denying that SCC isn't the cause. But blanket statements like "only this breaks like this" is misinformed.
20 kN · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 1,346
John Byrnes wrote: Below the surface of the rock. In limestone, such as Cayman Brac, it's not uncommon to detect pockets (voids) below the surface when drilling or gluing (hole never fills). Limestone is famous for having water running through it below the surface. I know of two climbs on CB where drilling a bolt hole caused water to gush out. I had to seal them up (small stones, glue, sand).
No, the rock is very contiguous. I've never hit a pocket or had anything come out.
John Byrnes · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 392
csa wrote: Well, that's just blatantly false. There are many factors that can lead to all sorts of wacky fracture surfaces for any material. Without an analysis, you can only make assumptions.
Perhaps for metals in other applications and other environments. But unless you'd like to identify a different corrosion/failure mechanism found in climbing bolts, what I say is blatantly true.

csa wrote:You need to go under the microscope, do chemical analysis, tensiles, hardness, etc for an answer. And even then the result is usually "this is most likely what happened."
Professional metallurgists have done all of that many times over the last 17 years. SCC has been the conclusion of every one of them. The UIAA conducted their own tests, which confirmed SCC, and has published a new standard in response. Do you know more than they do?

Or have you got some other hypothesis that explains thousands of stainless bolts from many different manufacturers breaking in the same manner all around the world? If not, shut up and stop calling me a liar.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Fixed Hardware: Bolts & Anchors
Post a Reply to "Fixe PLX HCR - "New"? Metal as alt to Titanium?"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.