Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab:
A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems.
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Lab

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


VG62


Jan 19, 2010, 3:04 PM
Post #1 of 45 (9479 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2009
Posts: 1

A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems.
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Interesting comparative test of three-point anchors.
This report has been published in materials of ITRS-2007.
Links for download (pdf, 3.8 Mb):
1. http://rapidshare.com/...hor_Systems.pdf.html
or
2. http://depositfiles.com/files/2geg393vu
or
3. http://www.onlinedisk.ru/file/324515/


scottek67


Jan 19, 2010, 3:40 PM
Post #2 of 45 (9445 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2008
Posts: 515

Re: [VG62] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Mad


Rudmin


Jan 19, 2010, 3:48 PM
Post #3 of 45 (9441 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606

Re: [VG62] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

VG62 wrote:
Interesting comparative test of three-point anchors.
This report has been published in materials of ITRS-2007.
Links for download (pdf, 3.8 Mb):
1. http://rapidshare.com/...hor_Systems.pdf.html
or
2. http://depositfiles.com/files/2geg393vu
or
3. http://www.onlinedisk.ru/file/324515/

I am guessing that this isn't what it appears to be. Haven't bothered to check the file.

EDIT: I stand corrected


(This post was edited by Rudmin on Jan 19, 2010, 3:53 PM)


Rudmin


Jan 19, 2010, 4:13 PM
Post #4 of 45 (9411 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606

Re: [Rudmin] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Interesting stuff. The way the anchor failure tests happened with the weight hanging and an anchor suddenly releasing seems a bit cut and dry. I wonder if there would be any difference in the anchor failure tests if you had a falling mass (climber) pull out the anchor via some sort of preplanned weak point so that you get the full dynamic effect of the momentum of the climber and the shock vibrations in the rope..


rightarmbad


Jan 19, 2010, 4:53 PM
Post #5 of 45 (9391 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 21, 2005
Posts: 217

Re: [VG62] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

They stuffed up with the twin sliding X, of course the centre anchor is going to see twice the load, it's connected to both systems.
The ideal could never be what they postulated.


adatesman


Jan 19, 2010, 5:05 PM
Post #6 of 45 (9383 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479

Post deleted by adatesman [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  

 


patto


Jan 20, 2010, 12:21 AM
Post #7 of 45 (9309 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1451

Re: [VG62] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

All the extension results from this testing are absolutely bogus for most climbing and rescue situations. They are getting 18kN+ loads because there is nothing dynamic in the system.

A mass should NEVER be directly attached to an anchor that can extend. Either ensure that there a dynamic attachment or that the anchor has absolutely minimal extension.


Thats I cannot fault the equalisation testing. Given the nature of this debate everybody will take their own personal slant on this study.

Personally after looking at the load sharing ability of the equalette vs the cordalette I fail to see a good reason why I should use an equalette. I've said it before K.I.S.S.


(This post was edited by patto on Jan 20, 2010, 12:22 AM)


scottek67


Jan 20, 2010, 1:17 AM
Post #8 of 45 (9299 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2008
Posts: 515

Re: [adatesman] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

adatesman wrote:
For anyone who'd rather not register to a suspicious file sharing service I've put a copy of the PDF here.
much appreciated Aric. U rock. Cool


(This post was edited by scottek67 on Jan 20, 2010, 5:05 AM)


Partner cracklover


Mar 23, 2010, 9:50 AM
Post #9 of 45 (8832 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [VG62] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

This is excellent! I hadn't seen it before! Some of the results are predictable, but it's good to see real data!

The loads here seem reasonable for a rescue situation, but, unfortunately, not for most pure rock climbing situations.

Still, it does at least *hint* at the truth of what might happen in a hanging belay off an anchor when one arm blows. And if the loads were those you'd see in a worst-case scenario (which is exactly the one you build your anchor to handle) then you might expect to see loads like those in the study.

The main thing I wish is that they'd included some of the better anchors from the big anchors thread. Things like the CharlesJMM and the Mooselette make the equalette look like a poor first draft (IMO).

The best of the bunch in the thread were a beautiful blend of what the study calls load-sharing and load-distributing, with features of each. Unlike the load-sharing anchors in the study, these anchors had very little extension. The only real question is how well they'd equalize in a drop scenario - an answer that would have been well tested by this study.

GO


Partner cracklover


Mar 23, 2010, 10:27 AM
Post #10 of 45 (8787 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [rightarmbad] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rightarmbad wrote:
They stuffed up with the twin sliding X, of course the centre anchor is going to see twice the load, it's connected to both systems.
The ideal could never be what they postulated.

I'm not at all clear on why this should be. A simple diagram (ignoring for the moment the force multiplication through angles, and any friction/binding) suggests that the forces should look like this:



What are you seeing that I'm missing?

GO


bigjonnyc


Mar 23, 2010, 11:21 AM
Post #11 of 45 (8747 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 365

Re: [cracklover] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
rightarmbad wrote:
They stuffed up with the twin sliding X, of course the centre anchor is going to see twice the load, it's connected to both systems.
The ideal could never be what they postulated.

I'm not at all clear on why this should be. A simple diagram (ignoring for the moment the force multiplication through angles, and any friction/binding) suggests that the forces should look like this:

[image]http://i43.tinypic.com/qoc1o5.jpg[/image]

What are you seeing that I'm missing?

GO

Somehow your diagram is messed up. With a pull of X>0 on the bottom, this system will not remain static. Both the center and right anchors in your diagrams have uneven pulls from opposite sides of the webbing running through them. In a physical context this means acceleration, or one side of the anchor extending and the other contracting.


Partner cracklover


Mar 23, 2010, 11:35 AM
Post #12 of 45 (8734 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [bigjonnyc] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bigjonnyc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
rightarmbad wrote:
They stuffed up with the twin sliding X, of course the centre anchor is going to see twice the load, it's connected to both systems.
The ideal could never be what they postulated.

I'm not at all clear on why this should be. A simple diagram (ignoring for the moment the force multiplication through angles, and any friction/binding) suggests that the forces should look like this:



What are you seeing that I'm missing?

GO

Somehow your diagram is messed up. With a pull of X>0 on the bottom, this system will not remain static. Both the center and right anchors in your diagrams have uneven pulls from opposite sides of the webbing running through them. In a physical context this means acceleration, or one side of the anchor extending and the other contracting.

That's not necessarily an problem - a standard cordelette will have differing tension in every arm. It simply means that there is uneven stress on the anchor points.

But upon further reflection, there *is* an issue with my diagram above: assuming no friction, the tension in every strand should be equal.

This is now what the forces look like they should be. So they look to me like (friction etc aside) they should be equal on each strand.



Edited to add pic ^^^

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Mar 23, 2010, 12:16 PM)


bigjonnyc


Mar 23, 2010, 12:05 PM
Post #13 of 45 (8709 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 365

Re: [cracklover] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
bigjonnyc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
rightarmbad wrote:
They stuffed up with the twin sliding X, of course the centre anchor is going to see twice the load, it's connected to both systems.
The ideal could never be what they postulated.

I'm not at all clear on why this should be. A simple diagram (ignoring for the moment the force multiplication through angles, and any friction/binding) suggests that the forces should look like this:

[image]http://i43.tinypic.com/qoc1o5.jpg[/image]

What are you seeing that I'm missing?

GO

Somehow your diagram is messed up. With a pull of X>0 on the bottom, this system will not remain static. Both the center and right anchors in your diagrams have uneven pulls from opposite sides of the webbing running through them. In a physical context this means acceleration, or one side of the anchor extending and the other contracting.

That's not necessarily an issue - a standard cordelette will have differing tension in every arm. It simply means that there is uneven stress on the anchor points.

But upon further reflection, there *is* an issue with my diagram above: assuming no friction, the tension in every strand should be equal. Will post another version shortly.

GO

That's what I meant by uneven pulls, differing tension on opposite sides of the cordolette running to an anchor


rightarmbad


Mar 29, 2010, 3:14 AM
Post #14 of 45 (8585 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 21, 2005
Posts: 217

Re: [cracklover] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The way I read it was that they had a sliding x between anchor 1 and 2, a sliding x between anchor 2 and 3, then a sliding x to join the 2 original x's.
This would mean that anchor 2 was repesented in both x's and therefore would see twice the load and that would agree with their results.


Partner cracklover


Mar 29, 2010, 9:11 AM
Post #15 of 45 (8525 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [rightarmbad] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rightarmbad wrote:
The way I read it was that they had a sliding x between anchor 1 and 2, a sliding x between anchor 2 and 3, then a sliding x to join the 2 original x's.
This would mean that anchor 2 was repesented in both x's and therefore would see twice the load and that would agree with their results.

Are we talking about the same thing here? I see only one sling in this anchor:



GO


billl7


Mar 29, 2010, 11:14 AM
Post #16 of 45 (8463 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [cracklover] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:



Edited to add pic ^^^

The problem here is that the pair of biners at the bottom are not evenly stranded. If you weight the power point it will pull down the right biner (less stranded) while the left biner (more stranded) goes up ... until the power point contacts the right biner at which point I guess it stabilizes (not quite enough coffee).

I'm assuming everything can slide and friction is negligible, which I think is the intent.

Bill L

Edit: I think I pretty much said the same thing as bigjohnnyc. And I'm assuming the power point is on a sliding X. Take that out and I think the stability issue goes away.


(This post was edited by billl7 on Mar 29, 2010, 11:23 AM)


Partner cracklover


Mar 29, 2010, 12:29 PM
Post #17 of 45 (8414 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [billl7] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

billl7 wrote:
I'm assuming the power point is on a sliding X. Take that out and I think the stability issue goes away.

It's not. See the picture I posted in the post above yours.

GO


ptlong


Mar 29, 2010, 3:08 PM
Post #18 of 45 (8367 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418

Re: [cracklover] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

GO, are you sure you can really see that poor photograph well enough to draw an accurate diagram? It sure isn't clear to me. While your sketch might be correct I think it's just as easy to see it as two sliding Xs with four strands going to the center anchor.

Now that would require you to believe that they screwed up their calculation of the ideal static loads. But look at the equalette case. They screwed up the ideal values for that one.


Partner cracklover


Mar 29, 2010, 3:58 PM
Post #19 of 45 (8340 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [ptlong] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ptlong wrote:
GO, are you sure you can really see that poor photograph well enough to draw an accurate diagram? It sure isn't clear to me. While your sketch might be correct I think it's just as easy to see it as two sliding Xs with four strands going to the center anchor.

You're right, it is a poor photo. But if you think you see four strands going to the middle of the three anchors, you need your eyes examined!

GO


ptlong


Mar 29, 2010, 5:27 PM
Post #20 of 45 (8306 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418

Re: [cracklover] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I don't see 4 strands. But I don't see the one crossing from left to right down below either.

Here's another bad photo. It's not so bad that you won't be able to tell the configuration but I think it makes my point.




Partner cracklover


Mar 29, 2010, 9:30 PM
Post #21 of 45 (8262 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [ptlong] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ptlong wrote:
I don't see 4 strands. But I don't see the one crossing from left to right down below either.

Look at the strand of webbing on the right anchor that has the knot in it - running down to the left biner - and then up to the left anchor.

Do you not see that strand? Where else could it go?

GO


davidnn5


Mar 30, 2010, 12:25 AM
Post #22 of 45 (8236 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 7, 2009
Posts: 348

Re: [cracklover] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Without wanting to sound too unscientific, what are the conclusions of the more gear-headed people here? I hate using webbing to start with as anchors and will generally use lengths of static rope with appropriate knots etc. I have money, and will pay for my life to be secure up to ~30kn. And wear a helmet. Yes, I'm that uncool.


(This post was edited by davidnn5 on Mar 30, 2010, 12:27 AM)


rightarmbad


Mar 30, 2010, 3:01 AM
Post #23 of 45 (8215 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 21, 2005
Posts: 217

Re: [cracklover] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The original link I followed never showed any piccies.
I shall have another look.


ptlong


Mar 30, 2010, 7:54 PM
Post #24 of 45 (8146 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418

Re: [cracklover] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

GO, I see what you're talking about and it is suggestive. But I don't think this photo is good enough to really say one way or the other. It's just too easy to see things in a lousy photo, especially if you're already thinking it's supposed to be there.

Let's take another tack. If you're interpretation is correct the force on each anchor should be the same ideally. The angle between the left and right anchors looks like about 85 degrees or so. For the 595 lb load that would give a value of 240 lbs on each anchor.

If instead four strands go to the center, the ideal would be 171 lbs for the side anchors and 342 lbs for the center one.

The actual mean values they measured were: 195 lbs (left) 365 lbs (center) 189 lbs (right).

Now any monkey would quickly discover that this anchor binds like crazy. But is this the reason the results do not come close to matching the ideal case? Or is it rigged so that it wouldn't?

I don't know.


(This post was edited by ptlong on Mar 30, 2010, 7:56 PM)


Partner cracklover


Mar 31, 2010, 8:57 AM
Post #25 of 45 (7233 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [ptlong] A Look at Load Distributing and Load Sharing Anchor Systems. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ptlong, I'm open to other interpretations of the pic, because, as you said, the detail in the pic is poor. But the photo is far from uninterpretable. Sure, it is difficult to tell where the strands are going as they get to the two power-point biners, so I'm open to other interpretations. But beyond that, you can easily see every strand, and there are not four strands going to the middle anchor.

If you want to make an argument about how either the binding or the large angle could result in the data shown in the article, or if you see the configuration of the sling more clearly than I, in a way that's more consistent with the test results, I'm all ears. But just to say that the data from the forces prove configuration "X" does not make "X" so, when the other data (the photo) clearly invalidates "X" as an answer.

I suppose you could also argue that the pic displayed with that set of data was not actually the anchor configuration tested. That would be a serious allegation against the authors of the article, but at least it would be consistent with the data.

GO

First page Previous page 1 2 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?
$87.75 (10% off)
$134.55 (10% off)
$37.76 (10% off)
$53.96 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook