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

Jim Titt wrote:In other words we can carry on making whatever we want and customers can buy whatever they like:-) In fact I´m dropping 304 from production anyway (even though I sold some today) because it´s just a hassle having two grades which do effectively the same thing.

Actually....no.
That's not what I said.
Well, unless you call it Class 5, I guess.
But that idea might not be adopted: we still need to get it in a final draft, and then voted on by the rest of the UIAA SafeCom.

But sure, if customers DO want to buy something without a standard, then how can we stop them?
There is no law that says you have to use approved/certified anchors.

Anchors are not seen as safety critical PPE in Europe (or elsewhere).
So there are no laws governing it.
You don't have to have a CE mark to sell them.
For EN 959 you even self-certify: nobody actually checks what you do.

The only control at the moment is if bolting funds say they will only pay for certified/approved anchors. And if stores do the same.

This map of corrosion shows how corrosion risk varies across the world.
From:
Slamova et al 2012 Mapping atmospheric corrosion in coastal regions

The interesting points to note are:
- Red areas: high corrosion (and potential SCC too) in SE Asia, and some other coastal areas
- Continental Europe: even areas quite far inland can be quite aggressive (Orange), and some areas quite benign (it's because many areas in Europe are not so far from a source of chloride, and the mountaineous areas really disrupt the local climate)
- USA: the coastlines are not so severe, and the existing data on the interior shows it is in general more benign than Europe

This map has been made by looking at various factors:
- Chloride levels
- SO2 pollution
- Relative humidity

This was used to predict corrosion severity, and the results compared to known corrosion rates: it was seen to be a reasonable model over the scale looked at.

You need to consider more factors when you look at a specific issue like anchors on a climbing cliff in that area, but it DOES show the general trend.

Like if you are in a high corrosion region (Red or Orange) then there is very likely a good chance your climbing anchors will have issues. You should consider it a potential issue.

In our Location Classification Guidelines we want to build on this, and add other factors:
- Rock type
- Amount of washing by rain
- Ambient temperature
- Vegetation/biological corrosion issues

If you compare this one to earlier ones for the USA only that used somewhat similar factors, you can see that the inland continental USA has quite large areas that seem quite benign. An that explains why 304 and even mild steel has worked OK.



The only issue is not ALL the inland is benign: there ARE pockets of more severe corrosion, caused by higher salinity, due to the soil for instance. So you need to be careful.

If you can, it would be better to use 316 and get the extra assurance from that.

WarthogARJ wrote: This map of corrosion shows how corrosion risk varies across the world. From: Slamova et al 2012 Mapping atmospheric corrosion in coastal regions The interesting points to note are: - Red areas: high corrosion (and potential SCC too) in SE Asia, and some other coastal areas - Continental Europe: even areas quite far inland can be quite aggressive (Orange), and some areas quite benign (it's because many areas in Europe are not so far from a source of chloride, and the mountaineous areas really disrupt the local climate) - USA: the coastlines are not so severe, and the existing data on the interior shows it is in general more benign than Europe This map has been made by looking at various factors: - Chloride levels - SO2 pollution - Relative humidity This was used to predict corrosion severity, and the results compared to known corrosion rates: it was seen to be a reasonable model over the scale looked at. You need to consider more factors when you look at a specific issue like anchors on a climbing cliff in that area, but it DOES show the general trend. Like if you are in a high corrosion region (Red or Orange) then there is very likely a good chance your climbing anchors will have issues. You should consider it a potential issue. In our Location Classification Guidelines we want to build on this, and add other factors: - Rock type - Amount of washing by rain - Ambient temperature - Vegetation/biological corrosion issues If you compare this one to earlier ones for the USA only that used somewhat similar factors, you can see that the inland continental USA has quite large areas that seem quite benign. An that explains why 304 and even mild steel has worked OK. The only issue is not ALL the inland is benign: there ARE pockets of more severe corrosion, caused by higher salinity, due to the soil for instance. So you need to be careful. If you can, it would be better to use 316 and get the extra assurance from that.

That's funny that the entire coastline of CA is listed as "mild" when I know for a fact that there is a small crag in CA right next to the ocean that has had bolts fail from SCC. They went back and replaced everything with titanium a few years ago.

WarthogARJ wrote: Actually....no. That's not what I said. Well, unless you call it Class 5, I guess. But that idea might not be adopted: we still need to get it in a final draft, and then voted on by the rest of the UIAA SafeCom.

Well that´s the bit I meant having read this bit in the earlier post;-
"We are going to have lab tests that rank ANCHORS for their ability to resist SCC/corrosion attack.
A given anchor, warts and all, will be put through the various tests.
So it will consider material type, heat treatment, surface finish, welds, internal stresses etc etc."

Bearing in mind this has all been discussed to death prior to the 1996 standard and materials were removed from the standard, the 2006 revision was thrown out completely and you´ve been ten years and appear to have got nowhere I´m betting on another decade before a workable corrosion test for a bolt appears and that it would also be rejected. That´s the UIAA anyway so doesn´t bother me and I´m also betting the EN959 revision won´t make any difference. If anything appeared it would be buried in an appendix of recommendations that nobody would bother with.

I'm with you Jim. It was 1999 when I first contacted the UIAA (Pit Schubert) about SCC In stainless steel and aluminum carabiners and there's still no standard after 18 years.

"The best is the enemy of the good. A good plan, executed violently today, is better than the best plan next week." - General Patton (quoting someone else I think)

Alan, I've said this before and I'll say it again. It would be NICE to have a pedantic standard that everyone can agree to, but there's too many variables and too many players, so forget about it. An empirical standard can be communicated today, and it will protect climbers now and in the future.

If in an existing climbing area, the resident stainless bolts show signs of corrosion (photo examples), then all new routes and rebolted routes should use titanium. New routes in new areas should use stainless steel bolts unless the environment is judged to be similar to other areas where titanium is already being used or recommended.

Who can argue with that? The "testing" has been going on for 20 years. Use the data you already have.

As far as manufacturers go, let them do their own R&D. Let them try new materials and if they can withstand the "tests" then modify the standard to ...use titanium or blahblah.

Alan, I scoff at your maps. The SafeCom should be recording and collating all reports of SCC at climbing areas and be providing a map of that! That would be useful to climbers. Correlation of SCC in rock versus artificial structures is specious at best.

John Byrnes wrote:I'm with you Jim. It was 1999 when I first contacted the UIAA (Pit Schubert) about SCC In stainless steel and aluminum carabiners and there's still no standard after 18 years.

1999 the ship had already left harbour, titanium was listed in the 1996 standard and subsequently removed as where all material requirements, the UIAA still listed 304 or above in their later stuff but this was also removed in 2013.

"If in an existing climbing area, the resident stainless bolts show signs of corrosion (photo examples), then all new routes and rebolted routes should use titanium. New routes in new areas should use stainless steel bolts unless the environment is judged to be similar to other areas where titanium is already being used or recommended."

Heretic! You´re suggesting the installers themselves should use their own judgement and knowledge of the local conditions to decide what to use. Just like they always have and always will.

"The SafeCom should be recording and collating all reports of SCC at climbing areas and be providing a map of that! That would be useful to climbers."

There are a number of things the UIAA COULD do which would be useful to climbers:-
Set up a database where ALL bolts could be included, the resin used and their lifespan/failure mode so anyone can identify where action needs to be taken.
Arrange that pull-testing equipment is readily available for activists to actually check what they are working with.
Perform routine testing on manufacturers products to independently verify their material claims.
Increase the internal radius where the karabiner contacts the bolt to remove one of the biggest critiscisms of many modern bolts by the average climber.
Provide lab testing facilities so installers can identify the causes of bolt failure.

However all of the above imply the committee is working FOR climbers as opposed to TELLING climbers what to do.

20 kN wrote: That's funny that the entire coastline of CA is listed as "mild" when I know for a fact that there is a small crag in CA right next to the ocean that has had bolts fail from SCC. They went back and replaced everything with titanium a few years ago.

Sure: well spotted.
And I'd agree with your point.

I think it's potentially dangerous to have an sort of "blanket" recommendation.

Our idea is two fold:
(1) Have an anchor classification system (a standard)
(2) Have a location classification system (guidelines)

When you match (1) with (2) you get a good solution.
Long lived anchors at the most economical (long term) solution.

Not that (2) the location classification guidelines doesn't just have to be from us.
With good input, they can derive their own.
Or use what's is known from past experiences.

Like if you know that 304 fails due to SCC in an area it's not such a great idea to replace with 316.
You need a SCC resistant class.

And one of the reasons that people use titanium is because they KNOW it is SCC resistant.
And because there isn't any anchor classification system in place, they haven't many other choices.

So sure it works, but it might not be the most cost effective solution possible for a given area.

Jim Titt wrote: 1999 the ship had already left harbour, titanium was listed in the 1996 standard and subsequently removed as where all material requirements, the UIAA still listed 304 or above in their later stuff but this was also removed in 2013. "If in an existing climbing area, the resident stainless bolts show signs of corrosion (photo examples), then all new routes and rebolted routes should use titanium. New routes in new areas should use stainless steel bolts unless the environment is judged to be similar to other areas where titanium is already being used or recommended." Heretic! You´re suggesting the installers themselves should use their own judgement and knowledge of the local conditions to decide what to use. Just like they always have and always will.

Jim: this is a confusing mix of old history and things are not standards. Or not even what the UIAA has actually said.

Sure, we DID make some public announcements about SCC/corrosion issues, based on our best knowledge at the time.

They were not standards, nor were they us trying to BAN or FORCE people to do anything.

Before 2007 the UIAA and the EN standards had some VERY basic guidelines about anchor materials: we said anchors SHALL be made from materials equivalent or better than 1.4307 (equivalent to AISO 304L). And that Grade AISI 303 shouldn't be used (high sulphur levels added in it to make it easier to machine, but reduces corrosion resistance).

However it was widely recognized that corrosion/SCC issues were getting worse, and something had to be done.

The next standards said that the MANUFACTURERS had to make anchors of materials suitable for corrosion/SCC, and SPECIFICALLY to provide an expected lifespan. And how to assess the remaining lifespan (parts (j) and (l).
See attached excerpt.



But that also didn't work.

So the latest EN 959 revision proposes anchor classification using material classification (it hasn't been approved yet: will take 1-2 years to go thru vetting: I don't think it WILL be approved as is).

And the UIAA one is going to propose one based on resistance to SCC/corrosion: based on lab tests on the actual anchor: as installed, under load.

In any case, none of them FORCE the climber to do ANYTHING.
They are still free to use the anchor they want to.
But at least they will have more information to make an informed decision.

Do you want to hide that from them?
Why don't you want them to know?

"The SafeCom should be recording and collating all reports of SCC at climbing areas and be providing a map of that! That would be useful to climbers." There are a number of things the UIAA COULD do which would be useful to climbers:- Set up a database where ALL bolts could be included, the resin used and their lifespan/failure mode so anyone can identify where action needs to be taken. Arrange that pull-testing equipment is readily available for activists to actually check what they are working with. Perform routine testing on manufacturers products to independently verify their material claims. Increase the internal radius where the karabiner contacts the bolt to remove one of the biggest critiscisms of many modern bolts by the average climber. Provide lab testing facilities so installers can identify the causes of bolt failure. However all of the above imply the committee is working FOR climbers as opposed to TELLING climbers what to do.

Jim: sure all great ideas.
And ones that we are working on, with our available resources.

Jim: you are free to join up and help us with this, we'd love to have your help.
And you have helped: you did send test anchors to our site in Thailand.

(1) SCC/Corrosion Failure Analysis: this is being done, and we will put in a database.
Others need to help and either send in failures, or do the failure analysis in enough detail that it's useful.

(2) Pull testing equipment: we are planning on buying some gear, and providing it on loan.
It's in the 2017 Budget.

(3) Anchor database: I would LOVE to do that.
I don't have the time now to set it up now myself.
If someone DOES (Jim?) then please tell us, and we can get something going.
We have web space.

(4) Perform routine testing on manufacturers products to independently verify their material claims.
I'm not sure what you mean here: very few make any material clams.
Most are quite vague.

But the UIAA Anchor classification tests go one step further.
We verify BOTH the MATERIAL as well as the MANUFACTURE PROCESS to ensure that the anchor lives up to claims.

In addition, I think we need to look at Quality Control.
Anchors are a loop hole: there is ZERO requirement for them to satisfy any sort of Quality Control/Assurance.
Either with EN 959 or the UIAA 123.

It's because they are not Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
Even though they areE "safety critical".

I want anchors to have as rigorous a QC programme as carabiners or ropes have.
Why not?

We are very short of people who want to do stuff.
And unfortunately not short of people who want to give us a hard time.

John Byrnes wrote:I'm with you Jim. It was 1999 when I first contacted the UIAA (Pit Schubert) about SCC In stainless steel and aluminum carabiners and there's still no standard after 18 years. "The best is the enemy of the good. A good plan, executed violently today, is better than the best plan next week." - General Patton (quoting someone else I think) Alan, I've said this before and I'll say it again. It would be NICE to have a pedantic standard that everyone can agree to, but there's too many variables and too many players, so forget about it. An empirical standard can be communicated today, and it will protect climbers now and in the future. If in an existing climbing area, the resident stainless bolts show signs of corrosion (photo examples), then all new routes and rebolted routes should use titanium. New routes in new areas should use stainless steel bolts unless the environment is judged to be similar to other areas where titanium is already being used or recommended. Who can argue with that? The "testing" has been going on for 20 years. Use the data you already have. As far as manufacturers go, let them do their own R&D. Let them try new materials and if they can withstand the "tests" then modify the standard to ...use titanium or blahblah. Alan, I scoff at your maps. The SafeCom should be recording and collating all reports of SCC at climbing areas and be providing a map of that! That would be useful to climbers. Correlation of SCC in rock versus artificial structures is specious at best.

In fact that's also not quite right.
The standards WERE changed, but to get the manufacturers themselves to address the issue.
We tried to do more, but it wasn't approved.

And you can see that it's difficult for the manufacturer to address the issue themselves.

Well, look at any particular manufacturer again as an example.
Are their anchors EN 959 certified?

Well, part of EN 959 says you need to say how long your anchors should last.
And when they should be pulled (are at the end of their lives).

Pick a manufacturer who says their anchors are EN 959.
I can give you names if you need.

Do all of their customers know exactly when they need to pull their anchors?
I suspect not.

I also say that's an unreasonable expectation: anchors are used outside of the manufacturer's control.
How CAN they say this?

But that's why we have our current proposal.
To classify anchors in terms of SCC/corrosion resistance.
On a consistent basis.

Has this taken a long time?
Well, maybe.
But is not an easy issue to address.

The entire nuclear waste disposal industry has the same issue.
The oilfield too.

We should stop using the term "HCR": High Corrosion Resistant.
It's not a formal materials term, although it does have meaning in construction anchors.
However it hasn't been very rigorously defined.

It's my fault: I started using it to try to make things clearer.
But I can see it's causing some confusion.

For construction anchors, it's used to describe high alloy stainless steels used for their most resistant class.
In effect they mean the 6Mo super austenitic stainless steels.

Such as:
1.4529 (used by MKT)
1.4547 (254 SMO)
1.4565 (Alloy 24)

They don't use any duplex stainless steels, not even the super of hyper duplex. Not because of SCC issues, but due to the need to machine them. Remember most of their anchors are mechanical expansion.

For climbing anchors, there are really three groupings of potential materials in terms of SCC resistance:
(A) Titanium Grade 2
(B) 6Mo (and maybe also Super and Hyper Duplex). These have PREN >= 43
(C) Stainless steels with PREN >= 35 (like 904L, Duplex 2205)

Perhaps you can add in coated anchors, but for now we are uneasy/uncertain about them.
If the coating is vulnerable to wear, how do you know what will happen after a certain period of use?
And it's pretty difficult to have a lab test that looks at both wear and corrosion/SCC.

We are now pretty sure that (A) and (B) are SCC resistant enough for ANY climbing environment.

Group (C) we aren't as sure about: it will take time, and maybe more understanding of the environment effects at work in climbing locations.

The main advantage of Titanium is that it's so resistant to SCC, that even if you have a bad weld or heat treatment it will still probably resist attack.

But its downside is that it is expensive, and that its supplied quality in rod is quite variable. In terms of mechanical properties. And it's had to machine, so making a cost effective mechanical expansion with hanger is not easy.

6Mo is very tough, very strong, very SCC/corrosion resistant, and can be machined. And quality control of the rod is pretty good. But it IS expensive too.

Anyways, there are some good manufacturers, and with the right way to quantify/classify what they make, it will help us all.

WarthogARJ wrote: Well, look at any particular manufacturer again as an example. Are their anchors EN 959 certified? Well, part of EN 959 says you need to say how long your anchors should last. And when they should be pulled (are at the end of their lives). Pick a manufacturer who says their anchors are EN 959. I can give you names if you need. Do all of their customers know exactly when they need to pull their anchors? I suspect not.

Could you please post those manufacturers here? I have done a little bolting but would like more info on this. This is practical information for me.

Also, wanted to thank a number of folks, 20kn and John Byrnes especially. I did not appreciate some of the time bombs that are out there for coastal climbing. And thinking about my state that has both desert and coast, it was an eye opener for the practicality of both trusting and inspecting anchors, as well as doing it right the first time (is, Titanium in high corrosion terrain).

Just about every manuacturer has EN959, I can´t think of any that don´t except maybe some obscure Chinese company perhaps (and Wave Bolts!).

The issue of providing documentation and an expected lifespan is "interesting"! Historically this has never been done, sometimes there is something in the manufacturers advertising/website, sometimes not. We used to send out a data/installation sheet but dropped it for no particular reason but most everything is covered elsewhere on our website. The only companies that I know of that actually have a data sheet conforming to the EN959 requirement are Petzl and Climbing Technology, however it is in the best interests of many users NOT to read them as they specify exactly which brands of resin MUST be used. Use something else and you KNOW you have gone against the manufacturers requirements and presumably will then be liable if the bolt fails.

Petzl give the lifespan as infinite.

We (Bolt Products) give the lifespan as infinite but qualify this:-
"Excluding abnormal wear or damage this product has effectively an infinite lifespan installed in normal conditions. With use as a lower-off the bolt will wear and we recommend replacement when this reaches 50% of the original diameter.
In areas of high industrial polllution or in close proximity to the sea with the possibility of contact with sea spray the life of this product may be reduced, possibly to less than 20 years. Regular inspection should be carried out to determine the deterioration under local conditions."

Petzl also require inspection every 12 months.

Climbing Technology from Italy also provide an extensive data sheet and the relevant bits are:-

"5.2 - Lifetime. Lifetime and breaking load can be drastically reduced due to corrosion.
The corrosion can occur when components of the anchors are not all made
of the same metal (galvanic corrosion), for this reason, as per norm EN 959, all
parts of the rock anchor are made of the same material (AISI 316L or AISI 904L). If properly installed the anchor can have a working life of about 50 years. Attention!
Use in marine environments increases corrosion, in marine envioronments periodic
controls must be made more frequently. Attention! The corrosive effects of the sea can be observed several km inland from the sea.

5.4 - HCR Series. The HCR models (High Corrosion Resistant / 4A163) are made
of AISI 904L stainless steel and offer greater resistance to corrosion. They are ideal for use in highly corrosive environments (e.g. crags close to the sea) where the anchor may be subject to stress corrosion (Stress Corrosion Cracking). Attention! For the life span, please follow the instructions provided in paragraph 5.2.

6) PERIODIC CHECK.
At least every 12 months (6 months in marine environments) we advise a thorough
check by a competent person. This frequency can vary depending on the frequency
and intensity of usage. Performing periodic checks on a regular basis is essential to ensure the continued efficiency and durability of the device, on which the safety of the user depends."

Clearly the onus is on the user to detemine the suitabilty of the bolt/resin combination, we export to over 70 countries and have no idea what the conditions are locally, where, how or by whom the bolts are installed or what resin system is used.
It is totally unrealistic for anyone to give a definitive lifespan covering all the possible conditions, even for other items of climbing equipment such as ropes which are generally minimally subjected to outside influences the opinion of what is the lifespan is wildly different.

WarthogARJ wrote: (3) Anchor database: I would LOVE to do that. I don't have the time now to set it up now myself. If someone DOES (Jim?) then please tell us, and we can get something going. We have web space. (4) Perform routine testing on manufacturers products to independently verify their material claims. I'm not sure what you mean here: very few make any material clams. Most are quite vague. But the UIAA Anchor classification tests go one step further. We verify BOTH the MATERIAL as well as the MANUFACTURE PROCESS to ensure that the anchor lives up to claims. In addition, I think we need to look at Quality Control. Anchors are a loop hole: there is ZERO requirement for them to satisfy any sort of Quality Control/Assurance. Either with EN 959 or the UIAA 123. It's because they are not Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Even though they areE "safety critical". I want anchors to have as rigorous a QC programme as carabiners or ropes have. Why not? We are very short of people who want to do stuff. And unfortunately not short of people who want to give us a hard time.

I can barely turn a computer on let alone set-up and run a database! I´d put all the bolts I´ve installed in though.

To get the UIAA safety label manufacturers were required to provide a works certificate for the material (up until the UIAA removed all material requirements from their "standard"). Surely you know this It is naturally convenient for some manufacturers not to have a material declaration anywhere, avoids all those annoying miss-selling claims if you make a load of junk.

Anchors may be "safety critical" but they are not and cannot be cat 1 or higher in the directive as they are not "personal". There is no possibility that the requirements for training in their use, inspection and recording their use could ever be carried out.
Adding external QA systems would achieve nothing and cost more. The QC systems used for ropes, karabiners etc are entirely up to the manufacturer. They merely have to show they are adequate and effectively applied. We know from innumerable recalls that on paper it all looks good but in reality it is all down to the manufacturer themselves.

WarthogARJ wrote:The main advantage of Titanium is that it's so resistant to SCC, that even if you have a bad weld or heat treatment it will still probably resist attack. But its downside is that it is expensive, and that its supplied quality in rod is quite variable. In terms of mechanical properties. And it's had to machine, so making a cost effective mechanical expansion with hanger is not easy. 6Mo is very tough, very strong, very SCC/corrosion resistant, and can be machined. And quality control of the rod is pretty good. But it IS expensive too.

There is always some varience in material properties, no matter what the metal is. There are maximum and minimum figures for mechanical properties, I'm sure we all know that and they are quite broad in my opinion.
It seems to me that you're suggesting that Titanium is more variable than 6Mo. Please forgive my next comment if it offends at all but I don't think you have the practical experience to make such a claim.
In my experience there's more variability in the cheaper metals. I've chipped carbide cutters a few times when milling mild steel because there was a large inclusion in the material, I've seen 304 and 316 sheet warp significantly when laser cut where the same process did not warp 254SMO sheet.

Titanium is not hard to machine, it's just different. I have a few hundred Titanium expansion bolt bodies sitting right next to me, I have the nuts and washers ready to go - I've not got any further yet as it's very time consuming to make dies for the spinning wedge piece and I don't particularly like expansion bolts anyway. I much prefer glue in bolts for many reasons and it's not likely that I can offer a Titanium expansion bolt much cheaper than similar in 1.4529 - Just too many individual parts.
Nobody in their right mind would 'machine' (cut) a thread on a bolt. They should be rolled.

Last time I checked a 904L hanger with a 1.4529 (6Mo) expansion bolt, nut and washer was 2.5 times the price of a Titanium glue in bolt

Jim Titt wrote: I can barely turn a computer on let alone set-up and run a database! I´d put all the bolts I´ve installed in though. To get the UIAA safety label manufacturers were required to provide a works certificate for the material (up until the UIAA removed all material requirements from their "standard"). Surely you know this It is naturally convenient for some manufacturers not to have a material declaration anywhere, avoids all those annoying miss-selling claims if you make a load of junk. Anchors may be "safety critical" but they are not and cannot be cat 1 or higher in the directive as they are not "personal". There is no possibility that the requirements for training in their use, inspection and recording their use could ever be carried out. Adding external QA systems would achieve nothing and cost more. The QC systems used for ropes, karabiners etc are entirely up to the manufacturer. They merely have to show they are adequate and effectively applied. We know from innumerable recalls that on paper it all looks good but in reality it is all down to the manufacturer themselves.

I seem to be replying a lot to Jim, but in fact his points have been asked by a number of people. And as I've said, he is helpful in trying to address the problem. And from what I've seen, he makes good anchors, and says what they are. And I think they are what he says: I have no reason NOT to think so.

But this is incorrect that the "UIAA removed all material requirements". There were ZERO effective material requirements before, so how COULD we "remove" what didn't exist?

Please read what I said. And the standard.

The only materials requirement was that anchors be made from better or equal to 304L (1.4307). And that attention needed to be paid to dissimilar materials due to risk of galvanic corrosion.

That's all we actually said: either us, or our partner standard, EN 959.

What was done was to INCREASE the requirements for materials: to specify a LIFETIME. And say how you know when you need to pull the anchor.

In fact I did not want to do that: I wanted to do what we are doing now. But I was voted down. Both at the UIAA and at CEN (both groups are very similar, and contain lots of manufacturers).

So I do not know how someone can claim to be certified to EN 959 without giving very explicit directions about lifetime. And when to know if the anchor needs to be pulled.
Read Parts (J) and (L) in Section 7 of EN 959 that I sent you.

The trouble is that there is not much actual legal enforcement of EN 959. It is all "self-certified". You can say what you want. No test lab checks what you do (although we do for the UIAA standard).

Anyways, as I've said, it isn't working to have manufacturers look after the environmental degradation (corrosion and SCC) of anchors.

We're going to have a revision for UIAA 123 soon.
We will have GOOD tests to classify their resistance to corrosion and SCC.

I hope that climbers will reward manufacturers who abide by it by buying their anchors.

I'm on a roll.

What ACTUALLY happened was that in 2007 people on the related UIAA and CEN associations tried to add more control over how anchors were degraded by corrosion and/or SCC.

Remember what I said, before there were ZERO effective materials requirements.
I don't know why Jim thinks/says there were, but he needs to read the standards.

The earlier standards in effect had none.
All they said was you needed to use 304L (1.4307) or better.
That's for both the UIAA and EN standards: they are sister standards.

So what happened was that the manufacturers and some country delegates, said that they will look after this.
The MANUFACTURERS (like Jim Titt) will say how long anchors will last.
And when to tell if they need replacing.
So they said to trust THEM to look after material requirements.

That's what EN 959 says.
Read what I posted from EN 959: Section 9, Parts (J) and (L).
It's pretty clear.

I was not in favour of this approach, but I got voted down.

And it's obvious that it did not work.
Even though you can find MANY manufacturers who claim to be certified to EN 959, they are not able to effectively follow Section 7.

Why not?
Well, because it's impossible, or at least illogical.

Anchors are used outside of their control.
Climbers buy what they want, are given little guidance in where they should be used, and install them where they want to.
And are guided mainly by purchase cost: not by the long term cost of re-bolting.
Or of what a failure can mean.

My suggestion, both then and now, is to follow the same rationale as the European construction industry does (EOTA).

They do three things:
- Classify their anchors according to a consistent scheme (for them it's easy: three classes)
- Classify the locations (again, this is easy: three classes)
- Match ANCHORS with LOCATIONS

As a result, the EOTA scheme says the END USER can "reasonably expect a specified working life" (or words to that effect).
In construction a period of 50 years is seen as "normal", and "expected".

And the MANUFACTURERS are not "guaranteeing" this lifetime.
It is corrosion science that is.
If you buy certified anchors, and use as directed you DO have a very reasonable expectation of a 50 year lifetime when using construction anchors in concrete.

The construction anchor classes are:
- "HCR" (in effect just the 6Mo stainless steels)
- 316 or better
- Coated

The location classes are:
- ANYWHERE that can see SCC (in construction that is effectively only indoor swimming pools and alpine tunnels
- Any other outdoor location
- Indoors (except swimming pools)

So it is EASY for construction.

For climbing, we are more complicated.

Natural rock is less benign than concrete (I will post on that: is very interesting).
And there are more factors involved.
And climbing anchors often have welds, which are harder to make resistant to attack.

But we DO have a good system of anchor classification.
As I described it.
It's based on corrosion science.

And we are working on a location classification.
And before someone asks why we haven't provided it yet, remember that if at least you know how anchors are classified, you can at least start to apply it in your own specific area.
Based on what you know works.
Or doesn't work.

At least you can look at various anchors, and be able to compare them.
If you know their SCC/corrosion resistance.

It's not easy to provide a good location classification system that works globally.

WarthogARJ wrote:I'm on a roll. What ACTUALLY happened was that in 2007 people on the related UIAA and CEN associations tried to add more control over how anchors were degraded by corrosion and/or SCC. Remember what I said, before there were ZERO effective materials requirements. I don't know why Jim thinks/says there were, but he needs to read the standards. The earlier standards in effect had none. All they said was you needed to use 304L (1.4307) or better.

The 1996 EN959 (I have a copy if you wish to read it) required 304 or better and as the USA and French federations objected (and the FFME completely ignored it and continued to produce forged steel bolts) AND under the new system in force at CEN the materials requirement was removed altogether. The UIAA persisted with 304 and tried to re-introduce a multi-material standard with corrosion areas and this was defeated internally in the UIAA.
I see no reason your proposals will have any more success.

Jim Titt wrote: Clearly the onus is on the user to detemine the suitabilty of the bolt/resin combination, we export to over 70 countries and have no idea what the conditions are locally, where, how or by whom the bolts are installed or what resin system is used. It is totally unrealistic for anyone to give a definitive lifespan covering all the possible conditions, even for other items of climbing equipment such as ropes which are generally minimally subjected to outside influences the opinion of what is the lifespan is wildly different.

Jee whillickers....."Clearly the onus is on the user'...."

I see. Well in that case why would a manufacturer say they are certified to EN 959, and yet EN 959 very clearly says it is up to the MANUFACTURER to state the lifetime of the anchor, as well as how to inspect it.

Seems to me that one shouldn't say they are going to abide by a standard and then not do it.
Seems wrong.

And is impossible too.
So instead of expecting the impossible, let's do something constructive.

Jim was complaining that we removed the material requirements: well we didn't, we let the manufacturer's handle it.
And they didn't.

So we will.

We've got some very good people working on a very good standard.

And we know the concept works: it's already at work in the European construction industry: building stuff for 700 million Europeans.

The general climbing anchor classifications make sense: there are some very logical steps between the five classes:
(1) Extremely resistant: we know that both titanium and the 6Mo's are very resistant to ambient conditions based on experience in other industrial applications

(2) Very resistant: this is not as strong a case, we know that duplex 2205 for instance works sometimes, and times doesn't. But it's a LOT cheaper than Class 1, so is worth some effort to see where it CAN work.

(3) Resistant to corrosion only: 316 is very widely used. Lots of examples where it can be used

(4) Moderate resistance to corrosion: 304 is widely used in the USA. We'd prefer it was'nt used, and 316 was used instead, but we don't want to drive people away from the standard if they are confident that 34 will work in their area

(5) Everything else: indoors, coated anchors etc. You can trust the manufacturer to give you what you want.

And as various people have already said, including Mr. Titts, climbers are already used to the idea of deciding what anchors to use based on previous experience. So at least now there will be a way to compare anchors from various manufacturers.

And a standard for manufacturers to aim at.

But (some of us) do, we state the lifetime is infinite. The conditions the are used in are unknown to both us and CEN so then the onus is on the installers/user.
There is no guidance from both the UIAA or CEN about when an anchor is no longer usable so we cannot say how to check them or when to replace them. This is also an issue with ALL other climbing equipment where the manufacturer MUST give a lifespan but no criteria are given for what is a fail, if the expectation is that when it no longer conforms to the original certification then most climbig equipment should be junked effectively straight out of the packaging. Manufacturers have their own opinions on what is safe and use this instead as there is no information from the standards authority regarding acceptable deterioration.

I didn´t "complain" about the UIAA removing the material requirement, it is a matter of complete indifference to me. The observation was in the context of previous posts where you stated the UIAA would be unable to perform independent verification of manufacturers claims as to the materials used as often their claims were vague and I pointed out that previous to the UIAA removing the material requirements a works certificate was required and the approval of the UIAA safety label was conditional on this information being available to you.

The majority of anchors in Europe are also 304 or worse.