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

Greg Kuchyt wrote: I like knowing the details. What was the purpose and how is the double clip design not as good as a single?

The little clips were just that, little and tend to just pull through in soft rock. They were originally rated lower than the standard design.
The idea is that when the concrete has coarse aggregate the pebbles can explode when you drill them and leave nothing solid for the clip to engage into, having two clips means one must/should always be in the matrix. Making the single clip longer seems to have been the alternative solution.

Greg, start a new thread, please.

PLX...we don't know what series stainless it is?

Sticks to a magnet...is it 400 series?

Is there info out there with regard to 400 series and SCC?

I had a dream a long while back that Inconel got really affordable...(ha ha).

Brian in SLC wrote:PLX...we don't know what series stainless it is?

Duplex 2304.

I don't have any data on S400, but Prosek published some data on 2304 back in 2008 along with all the rest.

After 10 weeks at 40C and 50%RH, the 2304 showed pitting plus tiny surface cracks. Both pitting and tiny surface cracks are often precursors to SCC. Had the test gone on past 10 weeks...?

So Prosek showed that 2304 clearly performed better than 304 & 316, which both developed SCC in the same conditions and period, but I'd avoid it in a Class 1 environment.

Greg Barnes wrote: Duplex 2304.

I keep running into LDX 2101 when I type in SCC and 2304. The Fixe PLX name makes me wonder if the LDX2101 (which appears very similar to 2304) is what Fixe is using. Or the naming PLX,EDX,LDX are just ways to name your proprietary 2304 "mix". Greg, do you know for certain 2304?

Yes, we had a sample tested.

"PLX" also appears to be a (brand?) name of non-stainless steel used for roofing.

What happens when 304/316 is mixed with PLX? (I assume the 3xx is sacrificed, so we'd definitely want to be most careful about the bolt side of the equation where it's hidden in the rock).

(What's great is MEC has plx hangers for sale, but no bolts. Guess what'll happen.)

So, the title of the thread is "Fixe PLX HCR - "New"? Metal as alt to Titanium?".

My short answer is "no, it's not an alternative", at least for Class 1 environments.
Duplex has it's place for sure but not in Class 1 in my opinion. UIAA seems to think that it will be in Class 2 or Class 3 but that is still being debated.

These are the facts that I based my opinion on:
I installed 500 bolts in the "UIAA Long Term Corrosion Test" in southern Thailand 3 years ago. This is not a commercial project, it's scientific so no manufacturers will be mentioned, only material types. Bolts placed were glue in and expansion, made of various materials such as 304, 316, Duplex 2205, 1.4529, 254SMO and Titanium Grade 2.
The 500 bolts were placed in 45 clusters with each cluster having one of each type of bolt. The idea being that each bolt type are installed in a pretty similar environment for fairly direct comparison both within the cluster and to compare between clusters.
They were placed in different angles of rock, different hardness, colour, seepage/dry, exposed or not to rain rinsing, crag water run-off and direct sun, within a few metres of sea and up to about 7km inland.

I inspected all bolts after 18 months. Very few of the inland bolts showed much corrosion at all - only the 304 and 316 slightly. Closer to the coast every type of bolt was showing corrosion to varying degrees except Titanium which showed no visible change.

The extent of corrosion was generally in the order that you would expect with 304 showing the most, then 316, Duplex 2205 and then 1.4529/254SMO showing only the slightest corrosion.

On another note: My opinion is that "HCR" is too broad a term. Some manufacturers use 1.4529 (6% Molybdenum) while others use 904L and the Fixe PLX mentioned possibly uses 2205 or a 'lean' duplex with lower resistance to corrosion. I think these metals in the "HCR" category have a too large range of corrosion resistance.

Note/disclaimer/possible conflict of interest: For those that don't know, I work for a company that produces Titanium climbing equipment. Facts are facts and I'll stick to that.

Martin Roberts wrote:These are the facts that I based my opinion on: I installed 500 bolts in the "UIAA Long Term Corrosion Test" in southern Thailand 3 years ago.

I assume this is the report? theuiaa.org/documents/safet…

No, the tests haven´t been concluded. None of the bolts has failed yet so it is impossible to say whether they are suitable or not, surface corrosion is irrelevant effectively irrelevant as staining is commonplace with stainless steels.

Jim Titt wrote:No, the tests haven´t been concluded. None of the bolts has failed yet so it is impossible to say whether they are suitable or not, surface corrosion is irrelevant effectively irrelevant as staining is commonplace with stainless steels.

Jim, gotta disagree with you on that, at least in a Class 1 environment. In my experience any visible corrosion is cause for alarm, and is a clear indicator that invisible corrosion is taking place.

I've seen dozens of stainless bolts with slight pitting or staining break off (flush with the rock) with the tap of a hammer, or a yank on a quickdraw. I've seen "merely stained" hangers break under body-weight. A rusty stain on the rock below a perfect-looking bolt is a huge warning.

To the best of my knowledge, the test-bolts have not been pull-tested (correct me if I'm wrong) so it's not really accurate to say "none of the bolts has failed" just because they haven't fallen off the wall.

John Byrnes wrote: To the best of my knowledge, the test-bolts have not been pull-tested (correct me if I'm wrong) so it's not really accurate to say "none of the bolts has failed" just because they haven't fallen off the wall.

If they haven't been pull tested and failed then they haven't failed either.

Totally accurate statement, IMHO. Anyhoo...

Not sure what the test plan is, but, as soon as some pull test numbers start coming in, we can parse that data and decide what's a failure or not.

Great info, Martin!

(Martin, any report back on that Portuguese rapide?)

Ken Chase wrote: I assume this is the report? theuiaa.org/documents/safet…

No, that report/warning from UIAA is not the same as the 'Long Term Corrosion Test'.
That UIAA warning was prompted by several (mainly stainless) bolts that had failed at little or no load.

John Byrnes wrote: Jim, gotta disagree with you on that, at least in a Class 1 environment. In my experience any visible corrosion is cause for alarm, and is a clear indicator that invisible corrosion is taking place. I've seen dozens of stainless bolts with slight pitting or staining break off (flush with the rock) with the tap of a hammer, or a yank on a quickdraw. I've seen "merely stained" hangers break under body-weight. A rusty stain on the rock below a perfect-looking bolt is a huge warning. To the best of my knowledge, the test-bolts have not been pull-tested (correct me if I'm wrong) so it's not really accurate to say "none of the bolts has failed" just because they haven't fallen off the wall.

I pulled all 500 bolts to about 3kN axially at the 18 month inspection. I pulled some at the 3 year inspection but I was running out of time so not all bolts were pulled at the second inspection (last month).

Many nuts, washers and hangers were missing though. Whether any of these were cracked hangers that fell off, were vandalised or stolen I cannot tell. My suspicion is that they were stolen. I replaced as many missing hangers as I had spare and if I ran out of hangers I just placed a nut and washer and torqued it up to stress the threaded part of the bolt as if it were in service.
I tapped every thread with a chisel to peen the threads slightly to help prevent further theft.

Regarding the amount of staining before bolts fail... Well that's a tricky one to predict. I'm sure we have all clipped hangers/bolts that look worse than this one...



Here's the broken stud that failed only as the climber leaned back on it...



I've fallen on bolts and hangers that look at lot worse than the one above also and they have held. Hard to predict.

Jim, you're right, it's most likely that no bolts have failed in these tests so far, unless a hanger has failed inbetween inspections - not likely would be my best guess

Brian in SLC wrote: If they haven't been pull tested and failed then they haven't failed either. Totally accurate statement, IMHO. Anyhoo... Not sure what the test plan is, but, as soon as some pull test numbers start coming in, we can parse that data and decide what's a failure or not. Great info, Martin! (Martin, any report back on that Portuguese rapide?)

I passed the Portuguese rapide on to Alan Jarvis who has sent it to Tomas Prosek, who has in turn given it to students for failure analysis.
I know they have carried out several analyses and I would assume results should be ready to publish pretty soon but I don't have anything for you right now I'm afraid Brian.

The Maltese bolt above has been sent to the same place for failure analysis also by the way

Martin Roberts wrote:The Maltese bolt above has been sent to the same place for failure analysis also by the way

Whoa...that's frightening! What the heck happened to that bolt?

Thanks! I think...ha ha.

Brian in SLC wrote: Whoa...that's frightening! What the heck happened to that bolt? Thanks! I think...ha ha.

Most likely Stress Corrosion Cracking.
SCC in stainless bolts is something that's happening increasingly often in many warm coastal areas these days.
It's been happening at climbing areas for close to 30 years in the more corrosive areas and it's now becoming more common, or at least documentation is being more common, in less corrosive areas.

Probably the same fate as this recent failure from Sardinia - Here is the bolt installed in the rock...



Uri Geller eat your heart out moment- Here's the video of the removal of the same bolt, sorry it's not great quality...

youtu.be/gGuNIC0enes

This bolt was either 304 or 316 by the way (not yet confirmed either way), not duplex anyway. Sorry if I've strayed a bit off track here - just let me know if this should be elsewhere guys

Hello,
This glue in bolt is most likely 304 stainless steel(low grade).
Raumer , the italian brand stamped on the eye, moved away from 304 to 316 stainless steel just a year or two ago...

raumerclimbing.com/ita/prod…

Having climbed extensively in Sardinia , one rarely , if ever , encounter 316 bolts apart from very recent reequipping made mainly by Maurizio Oviglia .

vimeo.com/60317476

Martin Roberts wrote: Most likely Stress Corrosion Cracking. SCC in stainless bolts is something that's happening increasingly often in many warm coastal areas these days...

Uri Geller...funny...I got that reference...!

The Malta bolt is the one from over 4 years ago?

climbmalta.com/news/warning…

When you say its happening increasingly often...its that true on Malta? They've been fighting "bad nuts" for awhile, but, no more bolt failures reported?

They seem to have a gob of routes in the "splash zone".

Sounds like their bolting policy has gone to recommending titanium for these splash zone routes.

Darn place is on my list to visit...

Xavier Legendre wrote:Hello, This glue in bolt is most likely 304 stainless steel(low grade). Raumer , the italian brand stamped on the eye, moved away from 304 to 316 stainless steel just a year or two ago... raumerclimbing.com/ita/prod… Having climbed extensively in Sardinia , one rarely , if ever , encounter 316 bolts apart from very recent reequipping made mainly by Maurizio Oviglia . vimeo.com/60317476

Xavier - I agree, it's was most likely 304. 316 is succeptible to SCC just like 304 but 316 will last longer with all things being equal.
Main reason being that 316 resists the onset of corrosion a bit longer and therefore SCC is delayed.
If anybody wants to send me this bolt or any other then I can use an XFR gun and offer a free service to determine it's material grade