Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab:
tension
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Lab

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All


mtnrock


Oct 4, 2008, 2:19 PM
Post #1 of 123 (4969 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 23, 2008
Posts: 61

tension
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

is tension on a rope doubled in a top rope system when its on a redirect belay or a direct from the anchor belay.

it seems like it should but im draawing a blank if not please say why


Lazlo


Oct 4, 2008, 2:27 PM
Post #2 of 123 (4963 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5070

Re: [mtnrock] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

mtnrock wrote:
is tension on a rope doubled in a top rope system when its on a redirect belay or a direct from the anchor belay.

it seems like it should but im draawing a blank if not please say why

What? I don't get your question.

When you say tension, do you mean force?
When you say top rope, do you mean belaying your follower on multi-pitch?

I really don't mean to come off as a jerk...but when asking technical questions grammar is huge.


sungam


Oct 4, 2008, 2:28 PM
Post #3 of 123 (4961 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26570

Re: [mtnrock] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You need to explain it better.
But in a static system with a constant force (in this case weight) on one end of the rope, and a constant (in this case the anchor) opposing force on the other end of the rope, the tension will be the same no matter what angles it moves through.
Korekt me if ayem rong, but I do not b-leave aye am.


Lazlo


Oct 4, 2008, 2:30 PM
Post #4 of 123 (4957 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5070

Re: [sungam] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
You need to explain it better.
But in a static system with a constant force (in this case weight) on one end of the rope, and a constant (in this case the anchor) opposing force on the other end of the rope, the tension will be the same no matter what angles it moves through.
Korekt me if ayem rong, but I do not b-leave aye am.

Yer knot Rong. Yer Gamsum.


sungam


Oct 4, 2008, 2:32 PM
Post #5 of 123 (4954 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26570

Re: [Lazlo] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Lazlo wrote:
sungam wrote:
You need to explain it better.
But in a static system with a constant force (in this case weight) on one end of the rope, and a constant (in this case the anchor) opposing force on the other end of the rope, the tension will be the same no matter what angles it moves through.
Korekt me if ayem rong, but I do not b-leave aye am.

Yer knot Rong. Yer Gamsum.
Eye can stil b rong.


Lazlo


Oct 4, 2008, 2:34 PM
Post #6 of 123 (4952 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5070

Re: [sungam] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
Lazlo wrote:
sungam wrote:
You need to explain it better.
But in a static system with a constant force (in this case weight) on one end of the rope, and a constant (in this case the anchor) opposing force on the other end of the rope, the tension will be the same no matter what angles it moves through.
Korekt me if ayem rong, but I do not b-leave aye am.

Yer knot Rong. Yer Gamsum.
Eye can stil b rong.

New eww kan't.


Lazlo


Oct 4, 2008, 2:35 PM
Post #7 of 123 (4949 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5070

Re: [mtnrock] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Sorry for hi-jacking, OP. I'll play nice now.


sungam


Oct 4, 2008, 2:38 PM
Post #8 of 123 (4943 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26570

Re: [Lazlo] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Lazlo wrote:
Sorry for hi-jacking, OP. I'll play nice now.
I was just thinking "should I reply, or is it going too far?"
Probably the latter...
Anyways, yeah, explain the Q farther unless my answer that I answered answered the question that you questioned us with.


Lazlo


Oct 4, 2008, 3:23 PM
Post #9 of 123 (4924 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5070

Re: [sungam] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

OP'z prob'ly thinkin' "Crap, the two guyz I didn' wan' respondin' responded!"


sungam


Oct 4, 2008, 3:26 PM
Post #10 of 123 (4919 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26570

Re: [Lazlo] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Lazlo wrote:
OP'z prob'ly thinkin' "Crap, the two guyz I didn' wan' respondin' responded!"
LaughLaugh
Heh, I bet "meh" is having an anal period over this thread.


hafilax


Oct 4, 2008, 3:32 PM
Post #11 of 123 (4909 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 3025

Re: [mtnrock] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

To start let's ignore friction.

If you are belaying off of the anchor then the tension in the rope and the force on the anchor is equal to the force exerted by the person at the end.

[edited to change:]
With a redirect belay (and no friction) the tension is equal to the force exerted by the belayer plus that of the climber which is approximately equal to the force on the anchor.

With a redirect belay the tension on the rope is still the same since the climber is not accelerated but the belayer end of the rope has the same tension as well. This puts twice the force on the anchor.
[/edit]

Geometry and friction modify this force. I think biners are like 60% efficient as pulleys so it only requires about 60% of the force of the climber to hold her.

I hope that's what you were asking. Majid brings this up all the time so I'm sure he's proud of you for asking.


(This post was edited by hafilax on Oct 7, 2008, 2:16 PM)


sungam


Oct 4, 2008, 3:37 PM
Post #12 of 123 (4903 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26570

Re: [hafilax] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Are you sure the tension increases?
Maybe I'm getting confused, it is late, but I'm thinking the force on the rope can't change, as then the climber would be pulled up, no?
The force on the anchor would... aw naw! now I'm as confused as the OP!


hafilax


Oct 4, 2008, 3:41 PM
Post #13 of 123 (4901 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 3025

Re: [sungam] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

When toproping and the climber falls and you get lifted off the ground you are both hanging from the rope.

When belaying off the anchor only one person is hanging from the rope.

You do the math.


rightarmbad


Oct 5, 2008, 1:58 AM
Post #14 of 123 (4839 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 21, 2005
Posts: 217

Re: [hafilax] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Will depend if it is a hanging belay or not.


USnavy


Oct 5, 2008, 5:33 AM
Post #15 of 123 (4816 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2658

Re: [hafilax] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

hafilax wrote:
When toproping and the climber falls and you get lifted off the ground you are both hanging from the rope.

When belaying off the anchor only one person is hanging from the rope.

You do the math.

That’s poor logic. In fact a fall straight onto an anchor produces more force on the anchor then when the rope runs through the anchor to the belayer. When you fall the belayer is lifted off the ground which increases the fall distance and decreases the peak load on the quickdraw / cam / anchor.

Belaying straight off the anchor for a second will produce more force on the anchor then doing a redirectional into your harness.


(This post was edited by USnavy on Oct 5, 2008, 5:35 AM)


joeforte


Oct 5, 2008, 7:32 AM
Post #16 of 123 (4797 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2005
Posts: 1092

Re: [USnavy] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
hafilax wrote:
When toproping and the climber falls and you get lifted off the ground you are both hanging from the rope.

When belaying off the anchor only one person is hanging from the rope.

You do the math.

That’s poor logic. In fact a fall straight onto an anchor produces more force on the anchor then when the rope runs through the anchor to the belayer. When you fall the belayer is lifted off the ground which increases the fall distance and decreases the peak load on the quickdraw / cam / anchor.

Belaying straight off the anchor for a second will produce more force on the anchor then doing a redirectional into your harness.

No, he's about right... What USnavy is saying is bad logic. You are assuming slack is developed in the belay, causing a fall before the rope gets taught. If a top belay is kept tight, it will experience HALF as much force as a toprope, or slingshot belay.

Add any slack, and the dynamics of the belay come into play, and the forces change. It's much harder to give a dynamic belay off the anchor, especially with an auto-locking device, so it is very important to keep any slack out of the rope.


Partner angry


Oct 5, 2008, 7:54 AM
Post #17 of 123 (4791 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8405

Re: [joeforte] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So what is the question?

Are we talking about tension? From a toprope VS belaying on top there is more rope out and since it's dynamic rope, it's harder to get it tight.

Or are we talking about the weight the anchor sees? Assuming nothing dynamic, the anchor see's your weight and the belayers weight. Kindof. Actually this brings up another question. Lets assume we have a junk anchor that will fail at 300lbs. The climber weighs 100lbs and the belayer lowering her off is 200. The way I'm looking at it, the anchor feels the belayers opposing weight up to the weight of the climber (actually a bit less due to friction). I might accept being wrong about this but that seems to make the most sense to me.


milesenoell


Oct 5, 2008, 10:06 AM
Post #18 of 123 (4757 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 1156

Re: [mtnrock] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but this is where Majid's diagrams help to make it simple. Force on the anchor from the climber falling is easy to grok, so we'll just think about the other forces that can come into play.

"is tension on a rope doubled in a top rope system when its on a redirect belay?"

Sort of. Replace "tension on the rope" with "force on the anchor". Now a portion of the belayers body weight is also added to the downward force, but only to the extent required to counter-balance the falling climber. How much force that is can be tricky to nail down due to variables like the friction and angles in the redirect/slingshot belay system. 60% seems like a reasonable estimate, but is far from a reliable constant. Is the rope new and slick or all beat to shit and fuzzy like mine? Is the blayer right under the anchor or off to the side some?


"is tension on a rope doubled in a top rope system when its ... direct from the anchor belay."

No. Because the belay device attached to to the anchor catches the falling climber and holds only the force of the falling climber.


milesenoell


Oct 5, 2008, 10:08 AM
Post #19 of 123 (4753 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 1156

Re: [milesenoell] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Did that answer your question or just the question I turned yours into?


jt512


Oct 5, 2008, 10:11 AM
Post #20 of 123 (4754 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [angry] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

angry wrote:
So what is the question?

Are we talking about tension? From a toprope VS belaying on top there is more rope out and since it's dynamic rope, it's harder to get it tight.

Or are we talking about the weight the anchor sees? Assuming nothing dynamic, the anchor see's your weight and the belayers weight. Kindof. Actually this brings up another question. Lets assume we have a junk anchor that will fail at 300lbs. The climber weighs 100lbs and the belayer lowering her off is 200. The way I'm looking at it, the anchor feels the belayers opposing weight up to the weight of the climber (actually a bit less due to friction). I might accept being wrong about this but that seems to make the most sense to me.

The climber is dead the moment he weights the rope, regardless of whether the belay is directly off the anchor or redirected through the anchor. Weighting a top rope is equivalent to taking a fall-factor-0 fall, which produces peak tension in the climber's rope of two times his weight, assuming, of course, that the anchor hasn't already failed. If the belay has been redirected through the anchor, then the tension in the belayer's side of the rope is about 2/3 the tension in the climber's side; that makes the peak tension in the belayer's rope in the toprope scenario 4/3 times the climber's weight. The peak force on the anchor is the sum of these two tensions, or 10/3 times the climber's weight — that is, a little more than triple the climber's weight.

Jay


Lazlo


Oct 5, 2008, 10:14 AM
Post #21 of 123 (4748 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5070

Re: [USnavy] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
Belaying straight off the anchor for a second will produce more force on the anchor then doing a redirectional into your harness.

That'a not what my Bible says.

Either Freedom or Climbing Anchors says the opposite. I think it's Climbing Anchors.

(I only know what I know. Don't fault me for what I don't know...or what I read and blindly believedTongue.)


Partner rgold


Oct 5, 2008, 10:37 AM
Post #22 of 123 (4730 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [Lazlo] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 has given a clear and correct explanation. USNavy, I'm afraid, is misreading his bibles.

For those who are puzzled by the rope tension going up to a (momentary) peak load of twice the climber's weight, remember that there is still rope stretch when a climber just hangs on the rope, the moment of maximum stretch produces the peak tension in the rope, and that peak tension turns out to be twice the weight hung on the rope.

A redirected top-rope anchor has to be able to withstand far more than triple body weight to be even remotely safe, since most belayed falls with have small but non-zero fall factors.


jt512


Oct 5, 2008, 12:14 PM
Post #23 of 123 (4702 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [rgold] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
jt512 has given a clear and correct explanation.

Well, I had good material¹ to work from.

In reply to:
A redirected top-rope anchor has to be able to withstand far more than triple body weight to be even remotely safe, since most belayed falls with have small but non-zero fall factors.

Which leads to the question: How strong should a toprope anchor be to be more than just remotely safe?

We saw, above, that when a 200-lb climber takes a toprope fall, the peak force on the anchor will be at least 10/3 times his weight, or 667 lb. Since some climbers weigh more than 200 lb, and most toprope falls will have fall factors greater than zero, let's round this number up to 1000 lb. Now multiply by a safety factor of 3, and I claim that a toprope anchor should be built to withstand a force of at least 3000 lb.

Jay

Ref:
¹Goldstone R. The Standard Equation for Impact Force.


chriss


Oct 5, 2008, 12:19 PM
Post #24 of 123 (4699 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2004
Posts: 92

Re: [mtnrock] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

mtnrock wrote:
is tension on a rope doubled in a top rope system when its on a redirect belay or a direct from the anchor belay.

it seems like it should but im draawing a blank if not please say why

I have read through the responses listed above and am confused. I must not understand the question. What are you calling a "redirect belay"? Is that the belayer on the ground where the climber began and the rope through a single overhead anchor?

If you tie the rope at the anchor and hang from it. It has your weight as tension. If you double the rope through the anchor and it is able to slide. Then hang from 1 end you will fall. So, you tie off the other side to counter your weight. The rope has the same tension as before. You just moved the tie off place and have twice as much rope in play.

This does assume no movement. Just a static situation. Falling on the rope and movement of the rope complicates this.

But 10/3 times the climbers weight? What Bible is that?


chris


colatownkid


Oct 5, 2008, 12:22 PM
Post #25 of 123 (4695 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 512

Re: [jt512] tension [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
angry wrote:
So what is the question?

Are we talking about tension? From a toprope VS belaying on top there is more rope out and since it's dynamic rope, it's harder to get it tight.

Or are we talking about the weight the anchor sees? Assuming nothing dynamic, the anchor see's your weight and the belayers weight. Kindof. Actually this brings up another question. Lets assume we have a junk anchor that will fail at 300lbs. The climber weighs 100lbs and the belayer lowering her off is 200. The way I'm looking at it, the anchor feels the belayers opposing weight up to the weight of the climber (actually a bit less due to friction). I might accept being wrong about this but that seems to make the most sense to me.

The climber is dead the moment he weights the rope, regardless of whether the belay is directly off the anchor or redirected through the anchor. Weighting a top rope is equivalent to taking a fall-factor-0 fall, which produces peak tension in the climber's rope of two times his weight, assuming, of course, that the anchor hasn't already failed. If the belay has been redirected through the anchor, then the tension in the belayer's side of the rope is about 2/3 the tension in the climber's side; that makes the peak tension in the belayer's rope in the toprope scenario 4/3 times the climber's weight. The peak force on the anchor is the sum of these two tensions, or 10/3 times the climber's weight — that is, a little more than triple the climber's weight.

Jay

where does the 2/3 come from? is this an empirical value derived from research somewhere (in which case i'd like to read the link if you remember where to find it)? or is the 2/3 a value that can be determined by math and physics? in that case would you mind posting the math or PMing me?

also, why is the climber's force double the static weight? clearly the climber must realistically undergo some acceleration and therefore an increase in force, but why is it double? is this value research based or math based?

edited to add:
if this is all explained in the above link to Rich's paper, then never mind.


(This post was edited by colatownkid on Oct 5, 2008, 12:26 PM)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : The Lab

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$12.56 (10% off)
$16.16 (10% off)
$7.65 (10% off)
$8.55 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook