SCC, 316ss, and what's going on in Taiwan

The Rebolt page is entirely in Chinese and the relevant posts are buried by years of other stuff. Regarding the "we had no choice" comment... if you were able to produce titanium bolts in 2016, what prevented you from doing this in 2011?

芳源 ç«  wrote:

No. Because we couldn't get Titanium bolt, so we had no choice, 316 is the only option at that time .

 I find that to be a pretty lame excuse, if you'll pardon my frankness.  If you couldn't get bolts from the Thaitanium Project in 2011, then you could have gotten them in 2012, when the next batch was produced.  Or 2013 or 2014, or from Titan Climbing for the last 4 years.  You get my point: it's 2017.

Note: The Thaitanium Project had Ti bolts produced in batches.  You ordered the number of bolts you wanted and pre-paid for them.  So anyone who expressed interest after the order was placed had to wait until the next years order.

Jim Titt wrote:

Bolts are only designed not to fail, distortion is expected (the repeat load test for the standard says specifically that the bolt may distort). 

I incorrectly assumed the rating of a bolt didn't include gross distortion, and was based on YS.  My suggestion was to pull to 70-80% of yield but I thought that was closer to rated strength.

The rating is just to failure, the majority of bolts will show permanent distortion at around 2-4kN when pulled axially. It´s basically a problem of leverage on the eye, in practice (on the cliff) it´s irrelevant but for proof testing it makes it almost impossible. Plate hanggers are particularly weak in this respect even though they still get the requirements.

No noticeable difference. Its hard to clearly answer as there was no formal study, but we saw corrosion at roughly the same rate.

Nate Ball wrote:

Wojtek, although you will consider this a cop-out, I really have no interest in arguing about the details of why and how SCC works the way it does. Email Alan Jarvis at the UIAA if you genuinely want to know. My feeling is you just want to argue on the internet. If I have made "less correct" statements then please point them out and I will be happy to correct them.

The point of this thread was to discuss whether 316ss should be replaced immediately or if it could be considered safe for the time being. Obviously it's complicated, but the fact of the matter is 316ss shouldn't have been used in 2011-2013, and yet the opinion of "a metallurgical scientist" - you - was at least part of the justification for its ongoing use. And yet now we can all agree that that was not the best long-term solution. Many of your bolts have already been replaced with titanium, and nobody is grieving the loss.

Regardless of our disagreements, regardless of whether there is or is not a precedent for 316ss failure, what is it you think should be done with the 2005-2007 TW-made 316ss bolts?

Nate, you are funny. Do you really think I have nothing better to do than arguing with you? No dude, I'm on the way to Arco and there are much better things to do.

Ha, "a metallurgical scientist" sounds cool. Corrosion, or in general, physico-chemical or electrochemical processes are very complex and depend on many factors (variables). When you write some information make it precise, please. I'll go back to your "crack growth rate is increasing exponentially". For the "regular reader" it sounds scary. The cracks are so fast and they can destroy bolts within hours. For someone who has "feeling" about engineering this information tells "the author doesn't know what he wrote or the author wants to make reader scared". Why? Because we have no idea what is the variable of exponential, we don't know what was the temperature, what was pH, what was the environment (MgCl? NaCl? something else?) how big was the stress? For example I read a paper about scc corrosion in 316 pipeline. As a conclusion, there was information that crack growth increasing exponentially with respect to stress at a given pH and a given temperature. And this is the information. If someone (it really doesn't matter who) gives information in public about such important issue then this information should be precise and can not leave any place for questions. 

What I think? It's a good question. For sure Ti is much better than 316ss, there is no discussion. The question is: should we be hurry with replacing 316ss in LongDong? I don't know. You said "we can all agree"...OK, but why? Is there confirmed (sic!) report about failure of bolt made of 316 that happened in some crack? Don't forget that tests done in laboratories don't reproduce a real situation. There are urban legends about 316 bolts that failed but when I tried to find a report then the material became 304 (or "low Mo 316" - WTF??? 316ss is well defined and there is no "low Mo 316" - it's just not 316. "There are no chicks with dicks" as said Ted) or there was no chemical analysis of failed bolt/hanger (which means it can be 304 or 316 or something else - we just don't know so it's not reliable). If you have access to a reliable report then please, share it with me. Again, I'm not against Ti bolts, I'm against making fast decision and against any fights inside our climbing community in Taiwan. If 316 in LD will show even a small trace of scc then they should be replaced immediately, if not, then the job can be done later without arguing and, IMHO, it should be started from the most popular routes bolted by the first set of 316 bolts (2006). Chopping bolts and replacing them because "I think they are dangerous" is not the best way, and it will only make people angry. Remember, that scc depends on many factors, and some of them can even slow down the process. We don't know values of these factors: we don't know concentration of Cl- in LD (which can be different from average in the Ocean), we don't know pH, we don't know concentration of Mg+ (which should be lower than in HKG), we don't know how big is the residual stress, we don't know many things. You asked a question what people think about scc in LD and when it will happen (sorry if the quotation is not precise but I don't have time to look for a correct one). I can give you the answer as "a metallurgical scientist" (I really like that description). The answer is: no one knows when. It will probably happen. Almost for sure. In 99%. As same as all diamonds will transform into graphite. But does the knowledge that diamond will transform into graphite stop you for buying a diamond ring for your wife?

Nate Ball wrote:

This is the Doc, one of the main contributors of the "official" rebolt group. Thanks for joining the conversation. I have a couple questions...

1.) Was Wojtek's justification that "316ss is good enough" the main basis for continuing to use 316ss in 2011?

Ouch...Dude, you are mixing 2 different things here. 

I can tell you the story: once upon a time we (Patrick and I) were climbing a route. It was a pretty cool climb. According to the guidebook there should be anchor at the end. But there was no anchor, there was a surprise. Thanks God the cactus (or whatever it was) was strong enough and we were able to repel down. After that adventure I decided to bolt anchors of trad routes. I bought the beautiful, green drill (I hope this fucking burglar hurt himself drilling holes after he stole it) and I tried buy Ti bolts. At that time (c.a. 2010) the bolts were made only for guys in Tonsai and they were not available for other people. We tried to buy few of them from rebooting team in Tonsai (you can ask Matt about details) but it was impossible, they needed all of them to rebolt Krabi. Since it was impossible to buy Ti, then I contacted Jim Titt; however, somehow we didn't finalize the deal so I bought Fixe 316. Shortly after that the Taiwan team made a second set of 316 bolts. Yes, my young friend...there was time when Ti bolts were not available, there also was time without computers and you know what? there even was time when people didn't have cellphones. 

Obviously you didn't try too hard to buy Ti, because I got it from folks in Hawaii in 2013. Again, justifying the use of stainless steel in an environment with proven history of SCC, even way back in 2011, just seems incredibly short-sighted to me.

Refer to this work for reference on "catastrophic failure" stage of SCC: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_XDNHJefiOmYXE4SHFWQk16c0E

"But does the knowledge that diamond will transform into graphite stop you for buying a diamond ring for your wife?" 
This is a hilariously nonsensical analogy. If the graphite ring saves her life, then I'll buy her a graphite ring.

"If 316 in LD will show even a small trace of scc then they should be replaced immediately, if not, then the job can be done later without arguing"
Tell us about how well your relationships with Taiwanese climbers worked out when you bolted a new route at Music Hall. I don't believe anything can get done at LD without old men who cling desperately to their little spheres of influence trying to make the real work impossible for people who are DOING instead of TALKING. It just becomes a nationality issue, and no matter how hard you might try to speak Chinese or how many friends you might make, you are just "that foreigner destroying Long Dong."

The point of this thread was to find out if there was any legitimate reason for delaying the rebolting work, especially when the community has already paid for and produced the bolts necessary to at least get started. I do not consider "no verified failure yet" to be a good reason.

It is indeed interesting that there are no verified failures though. Perhaps Long Dong can be the first. Check out these 316ss bolts and tell me they don't show obvious signs of crevice/pitting corrosion, the first step to SCC...

Nate Ball wrote:

Obviously you didn't try too hard to buy Ti, because I got it from folks in Hawaii in 2013. 

Titanium bolts have been available at wholesale cost since at least 2007 if not earlier. Before we were able to source them from Titan, the Thailand crew and several others sourced them in large bulk lots which were ordered once or twice a year. We all did that for a few years prior to Titan Climbing becoming established, but even before that many places including Thailand were sourcing them from titanium companies in the USA. I believe Thailand used United Titanium out of Ohio for awhile to create grade 5 U bolts and we did something similar. We were on target to 100% titanium development (for all new routes) over 10 years ago. So in reality, titanium could be found at prices of $12 a bolt or less for over a decade.

20 kN wrote:

Titanium bolts have been available at wholesale cost since at least 2007 if not earlier. Before we were able to source them from Titan, the Thailand crew and several others sourced them in large bulk lots which were ordered once or twice a year. We all did that for a few years prior to Titan Climbing becoming established, but even before that many places including Thailand were sourcing them from titanium companies in the USA. I believe Thailand used United Titanium out of Ohio for awhile to create grade 5 U bolts and we did something similar. We were on target to 100% titanium development (for all new routes) over 10 years ago. So in reality, titanium could be found at prices of $12 a bolt or less for over a decade.

We were not able to find info about other supplier than this one who made bolts for Thaitanium team. If I good remember, at that time they were using Tortuga bolts ordered once or twice a year.

Nate Ball wrote:

"But does the knowledge that diamond will transform into graphite stop you for buying a diamond ring for your wife?" 
This is a hilariously nonsensical analogy. If the graphite ring saves her life, then I'll buy her a graphite ring.

Nate, well...there are 2 options.

Option 1) The easiest. Keep writing and talking, but don't expect that all people will have patience to read, talk, discuss.

Option 2) Hard, but will bring you a lot of benefits. Go to university, take following courses: calculus, engineering mathematics, chemistry, physics, physical chemistry, thermodynamics, kinetics, physical metallurgy, corrosion. After that people will be happy to read your comments (as well as you will understand why I wrote about diamond and graphite).

Tell you about their reaction after bolting a new route? No problem, it's not a secret. Some people were angry. But at that same time other were happy to have a new route for climbing (sadly, until now most of climbers can not realize that it's forbidden to use the dihedral on a right side). However, the situation was totally different from now. According to YumYum's guide book it was a TR route thus I bolted it. After bolting there were claims that actually it was a trad route and I bolted it. Totally different case.

And one more thing. Please, do not treat me as a part of conflict between you and a rebolting team. I did some bolting in LD using the best available materials (and I really spent a huge amount of my own money to buy all the stuff so if Ti bolts were available at that time I would buy them). Other thing is here: if someone asks me about my opinion as "a metallurgical scientist" (I really like it, especially in that quotation). If this question is about material condition or current knowledge of some issue then I will give the answer based on my own observations/tests done in a lab and reliable literature information. And this information has nothing common with personal thinking/climbing/conflicts/love/hate/etc. etc. To make situation more clear: I got 2 samples. One revealed scc, other didn't. My answer is: sample no.1 made of ABC material shows scc (and here you have a micrograph picture with a very nice intergranular crack), sample 2, made of DEF, doesn't show any corrosion (and here is micrograph picture, chemical analysis and XRD analysis). Nothing more, nothing less. I can not say: sample DEF doesn't show corrosion now, but according to urban legends it will show corrosion in 1 week/1 year/10 years . No one who seriously treats his/her job will do that. 

wojtek gierlotka wrote:

We were not able to find info about other supplier than this one who made bolts for Thaitanium team. If I good remember, at that time they were using Tortuga bolts ordered once or twice a year.

They were not actually Tortugas, they were similar though. But yes, they made those. However, the Thailand group made several versions of titanium bolts before they started making the Tortuga copy (which I dont think occurred until Ushba, the maker of the Tortuga, went out of business).

The conclusions of this thread don't require a metallurgy degree to understand.
1.) There is no verified 316ss failure in climbing applications [edit: outside of Thailand], but there are "urban legends" to go along with the lab tests that prove its susceptibility to SCC at ambient temperatures.
2.) The UIAA does not list it as a recommended material for areas with known SCC failures. It is discouraged by all legitimate seaside crag developers (not bolt manufacturers).
3.) There is no reliable way to determine a bolt's lifetime; only whether it is already compromised.
4.) 316ss bolts at LD show obvious signs of pitting/crevice corrosion.

"Some people were angry... other were happy to have a new route for climbing... However, the situation was totally different from now."
Some people were upset when QX rebolted with Titan Climbing bolts. Some people were happy. Same when I cut old bolts. Seems  to me the situation just keeps repeating itself. Some people do work, some people get butt-hurt and try to sabotage their work.

"Please, do not treat me as a part of conflict between you and a rebolting team."
Your only involvement has been your participation in this thread. If you don't want to be involved, stop commenting.

"I did some bolting in LD using the best available materials (...so if Ti bolts were available at that time I would buy them)"
As others have pointed out, titanium and duplex steel were both available and you used neither. So now here you are justifying your well-intended but short-sighted decision.

"I can not say: sample DEF doesn't show corrosion now, but according to urban legends it will show corrosion in 1 week/1 year/10 years. No one who seriously treats his/her job will do that."
This is why you aren't on the UIAA Safety Commission, whose job it is to make these determinations. Anybody who takes cost-benefit/risk-assessment decisions seriously WOULD recommend you use an SCC-immune material. You don't wait until a failure/injury happens before switching to a replacement you've already developed and produced explicitly for that purpose.

So let me explain one last time what the situation is. There are still many 304ss bolts that need to be replaced, and many more 316ss bolts over 10 years old (many of which show obvious signs of corrosion). There are two groups doing work: one that collects public money and does very little with no clear plan, and the other who just gets work done regardless of the shit he gets from the previous group. One is using an over-developed and uncertified bolt with a questionable production method, while the other is using a proven, certified product. One can only be seen at the crag on the rare occasions they are doing work, the other lives and guides there. One has bullied the other into following along with their incoherent direction, which seems to be not to use the bolts they've already produced to replace bolts that which, by their own admission, will fail eventually. Feel free to argue about my characterization of the situation, and I'll feel free to tell you that you have no idea (or maybe the absence has helped you to forget) how awful it can be to get work done when the people who should be most appreciative are the ones trying their best to make your life difficult.

My idea of a solution is simple: Determine if core-drilling is going to work. If not, abandon it as an excuse for delay. Determine if pull-testing is worthwhile. If not, abandon it as an excuse for delay. If either of these are to continue, explain why and set a timeline. Finish rebolting all those with failure precedent. Begin rebolting anything questionable.