Fixed Hardware Etiquette? and a question re: glue-in bolts

Jim Titt wrote:

That would be the case if they both wear out at the same speed, as stainless steels have over three times the wear resistance of normal steels this possibly might not be good economics. Once the plating is worn through the steel component will acquire surface rust on the unprotected areas and this accelerates the wear even more to around four to five times faster than stainless steel. 

Good point Jim.  Generally when talking quicklinks at least here in the states, the best price for a stainless quicklink is usually around $6 whereas plated can be found for $1, so even with the accelerated wear of a plated steel link it will be more economical. 

Ken Noyce wrote:

I Ken, an am Aerospace Engineer with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Utah, and have been working in corrosion and fatigue of aircraft and missile components for the past 7 years and am considered a subject matter expert in both corrosion and fatigue. 

That's awesome. You've given me much better reason to consider your opinion. Thank you. I think if you'd have led with that, we might have saved some time.

20 kN wrote:

It will not reform if carbon steel deposits remain on the stainless steel and are not washed away. This becomes more of an issue where rusting carbon steel parts are left in continuous contact with stainless steel parts which can compromise the passive layer and prevent it from reforming. But yes, if you were to damage the layer with a tool steel hammer blow and you were to thoroughly clean off the iron left on the stainless steel, then the passive layer would reform. Ken is correct as to why CT sells the stainless steel adapter; it's to prevent strikes on the bolt from a tool steel hammer. However, you can also just buy a stainless steel hammer which is cheaper anyway.

Just like this...!

Merlin wrote:

Its been my experience, over the last 17 years, that explaining science to certain non-scientists should be replaced with repeatedly banging one's head against some form of concrete. The latter always proves to be more fruitful and less personally irritating.

The thing is, up until the post of Ken's that you quote, he had not presented anything that might qualify as science (like data) or anything to justify taking his word as a scientist. Science is about both quantity and quality of observations, and from the view of an impartial reader, there was no reason to take Ken's opinion as anything. If some guy on the street walks up to you, presents (not even claims any) no credentials and starts spouting scientific sounding things, should you take that as gospel? I know lots of people that talk on this website as though they know what they're talking about, but actually do not - so pardon me for being skeptical and going with the better risk management decision based on my knowledge at the time.

Mark E Dixon wrote:

Just out of curiousity James, how many anchors have you replaced? 

Not the bolts, just the rings, mussys, links, etc. 

I couldn't give you an exact count 10-20 pure replacements of only the rings/links in a variety of situations, less than that of anchor bolts, but some. Additionally I've been present for the installation of a few routes. We don't have a vast amount of sport climbing here in Wisconsin, or fixed anchors in general. When I'm travelling to other areas I tend to carry a few plated quick links with me when I travel. In general when I'm going to do "crag maintenance" around here, I try to match hardware, because I still think it is best practice. Maybe, given Ken's enlightened opinion, I might place less emphasis on that than I have in the past.

20 kN wrote:

It will not reform if carbon steel deposits remain on the stainless steel and are not washed away. This becomes more of an issue where rusting carbon steel parts are left in continuous contact with stainless steel parts which can compromise the passive layer and prevent it from reforming. But yes, if you were to damage the layer with a tool steel hammer blow and you were to thoroughly clean off the iron left on the stainless steel, then the passive layer would reform. Ken is correct as to why CT sells the stainless steel adapter; it's to prevent strikes on the bolt from a tool steel hammer. However, you can also just buy a stainless steel hammer which is cheaper anyway.

Agreed that if left in constant contact with a significant piece of rusting carbon steel (PS quick link hanging on SS hanger), it will disrupt the passivization layer from properly forming. However a few flecks of carbon steel seem to be a very low likelihood of causing long term corrosion issues.  The carbon steel flecks will oxidize/rust (which is what you are seeing in the picture posted above), but will tend to naturally flake off, weather off, or be knocked off with normal climbing use exposing the base SS and then you're back to good passivization.  

Purchasing the tool or a SS hammer would improve corrosion resistance but I see no evidence that using a regular hammer directly on SS is an actual problem in climbing.  I have never seen the AAC, the Access Fund, or ASCA even mention using a regular hammer as even a possible issue much less documented evidence of causing a failure.  In fact this is the first forum on here that I have seen mention this concern.

I would be curious to know what the actual numbers are but I would speculate hardly anyone that installs SS bolts uses that tool or a SS hammer.  Maybe Jim, or Greg, or another active bolter can share.

Omega pacific wall hammer has a stainless head FYI.

James Schroeder wrote:

That's awesome. You've given me much better reason to consider your opinion. Thank you. I think if you'd have led with that, we might have saved some time.

I must have missed the part where you have to share your credentials to disseminate accurate information.

Highlander wrote:

Omega pacific wall hammer has a stainless head FYI.

I don't think so... i have one and it's magnetic. 

Mike Slavens wrote:

Agreed that if left in constant contact with a significant piece of rusting carbon steel (PS quick link hanging on SS hanger), it will disrupt the passivization layer from properly forming. However a few flecks of carbon steel seem to be a very low likelihood of causing long term corrosion issues.  The carbon steel flecks will oxidize/rust (which is what you are seeing in the picture posted above), but will tend to naturally flake off, weather off, or be knocked off with normal climbing use exposing the base SS and then you're back to good passivization.  

Purchasing the tool or a SS hammer would improve corrosion resistance but I see no evidence that using a regular hammer directly on SS is an actual problem in climbing.  I have never seen the AAC, the Access Fund, or ASCA even mention using a regular hammer as even a possible issue much less documented evidence of causing a failure.  In fact this is the first forum on here that I have seen mention this concern.

I would be curious to know what the actual numbers are but I would speculate hardly anyone that installs SS bolts uses that tool or a SS hammer.  Maybe Jim, or Greg, or another active bolter can share.

Conditions that present themselves as benign in one region may not be somewhere else so any action that can prevent known or potential problems from occurring is going to be good practice.

The rusting on the posted image is well established on the eye and has been present for a number of years.

Whether or not this will lead to a failure is subject to environmental conditions and history particular to any bolt in question however 1) it is easily preventable so no reason not to use a non ferrous hammer and 2) can be alarming to some non informed people who see the rust and think the bolt is suspect.

The use of a non ferrous hammer when installing inference style glue-in bolts is accepted best practice for the reason of preventing rust deposits that have the potential to initiate corrosion. This is certainly practiced throughout Australia, Asia, the UK and likely by anyone installing inference style bolts.

Three suppliers sell inference style glue-in products; Titan Climbing, Climb Tech and of course Jim.

Titan Climbing on their website for installing titanium inference bolts state:

"Do not use a normal steel hammer as it will leave Iron deposits on the Titanium bolt and the iron will rust, which may cause corrosion issues with the titanium anchor itself. Either use a proper Stainless Steel climbing hammer or a wooden or plastic shim"

ClimbTech sell the adapter previously discussed.

And Jim:

"If possible weld a thick (6mm) stainless steel plate on the striking face, this stops unsightly rust marks on the bolt where you hit it"

As Francis says, it´s fairly common knowedge you shouldn´t use steel tools on stainless and warned against by several manufacturers including myself. Whether it causes any serious problems is debatable, the normal opinion is that fly rust (rust from metal particles in the air from someone grinding in the near vicinity or usual contact with steel fixtures and such like) isn´t a problem as it will eventually dissapear but the extent to which hammering drives the iron into the stainless is unknown. The biggest hassle from the point of view of the manufaturers is that people see the rust marks and say the bolt is corroding/has SCC/we are all going to die etc etc.

Rob Warden...Space Lizard wrote:

I don't think so... i have one and it's magnetic. 

It´s made from 17-4 stainless which is martensitic which allows it to be hardened. Martensitic stainless steels are magnetic. Austenitic stainless steels such as 304/316 are not magnetic until they are worked, our bolts (and most others) are in fact magnetic due to the manufacturing processes though the attraction is mostly weaker than a piece of steel

The more you know, thank you Jim

Mike Slavens wrote:

I would be curious to know what the actual numbers are but I would speculate hardly anyone that installs SS bolts uses that tool or a SS hammer.  Maybe Jim, or Greg, or another active bolter can share.

You can make a "Clown-nose" to put over your regular hammer.  VERY necessary with Ti bolts.

https://www.mountainproject.com/v/110549451

John-

Hadn't seen the 'clown nose'.  Great idea.  I will make one for next time I am out placing WAVE bolts.

Thanks!

John Byrnes wrote:

You can make a "Clown-nose" to put over your regular hammer.  VERY necessary with Ti bolts.

https://www.mountainproject.com/v/110549451

I'm not the Greg mentioned previously in the query related to hammer use, but I use a cheap 1-1/2 lb soft-face mallet (plastic/rubber) from Harbor Freight on Jim T's bolts and that is good enough for the interference fit on his 1/2" and 16mm bolts. I've never placed a Wave or Eterna so I don't know if that would be enough for those bolts.

Living in the NE US, we have a lot of water and specifically in VT our areas aren't currently super busy so I trend on the stainless end to end train. It's not unreasonable that our "consumable" anchor components will last 10-20+ years before wear-related replacement is required.

Greg Kuchyt wrote:

I'm not the Greg mentioned previously in the query related to hammer use, but I use a cheap 1-1/2 lb soft-face mallet (plastic/rubber) from Harbor Freight on Jim T's bolts and that is good enough for the interference fit on his 1/2" and 16mm bolts. I've never placed a Wave or Eterna so I don't know if that would be enough for those bolts.

Your mallet would probably be fine for seating the bolts, but my hammer is my #1 tool.  Even when doing the bolting, I'm tapping placements, cleaning scaly rock that I missed on previous passes and removing "crosslies".  So having one hammer on board, and popping on the clown-nose to seat the bolts, seems a lot more efficient to me.

BTW, the handball rubber is dense and tough.  It transfers the force of the hammer very well and doesn't split.

I agree with John.  I have enough items hanging from my harness/ bosun's seat when bolting.  I wouldn't be psyched on adding another hammer.......what is this?.......aid climbing?

John Byrnes wrote:

Your mallet would probably be fine for seating the bolts, but my hammer is my #1 tool.  Even when doing the bolting, I'm tapping placements, cleaning scaly rock that I missed on previous passes and removing "crosslies".  So having one hammer on board, and popping on the clown-nose to seat the bolts, seems a lot more efficient to me.

BTW, the handball rubber is dense and tough.  It transfers the force of the hammer very well and doesn't split.

Fair points. I don't mind using a second hammer but that's a personal preference kind of choice. I'll have to give the clown-nose a try.

The ClimbTech tool is expensive, and one more thing in your kit, but if you are placing a lot of Wave bolts, maybe worth it. The Waves take some force to drive in, and have an angled profile that lacks a good striking surface perpendicular to the direction you're trying to drive, so you can't get a very satisfying hit. The tool solves that problem. You can manage without one, for sure, but just FYI for anyone with a lot of Waves in their future.