Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Proof loading bolts 21-Jul-2009 At 6:35:01 PM Jim Titt

Message

This one comes up every few years here in Europe, usually from a freshly certified window cleaner with access to a tester and while you may think that climbing anchors should be proof tested there are a number of very good reasons why the experts in Europe (which tends to have standards and regulations for everything) think this is a bad idea.

The fundamentals of proof testing are that ALL the items must be tested, if you only test 1 in 10 then quite obviously the other 9 can be crap and in fact this is the reason it is called proof testing, all are `proofed´.
The other approach is design based where ones use an anchor system which is designed to reach a satisfactory strength in all conceivable circumstances.
Since no one is prepared to test every bolt every year then obviously proof testing is unworkable, the design approach being then the only option.

If Australia (and the other countries outside of the EU) in the future decide on some certification system for rock anchors then a choice would have to be made between proof testing and a design based system.
If the proof test system is chosen then the owner of the bolts or responsible body will be liable for the testing costs and naturally take on any subsequent liability as in most countries the legal system considers that by testing (passing) a product you have given an implied approval of its suitability. An unlikely scenario in the climbing world!
Original (manufacturers) certification of the product is another problem, the costs being considerably higher, in fact here in Europe better described as massively, which will both limit the availabilty of suitable anchors and raise installer costs.
The other major drawback with proof testing is that rock anchors are part of an integrated system involving rope, karabiners etc all of which use the design based system. Unless, as in the rope access industry, a control and inspection regime is put in place for the rest of the climbing equipment no national standards organisation is going to accept this as they have (rightly) a fundamental distrust of mixed systems. It is unlikely that the climbing world is prepared to go down the route of compulsary equipment inspection, activity/fall logging etc let alone the corresponding safety factor requirements such as 100kN karabiners. It is also extremely unlikely that equipment manufacturers are prepared to re-certify their equipment just for a small market such as Australia.

It is my professional opinion, shared by all the experts involved in rock anchor manufacture, installation, use and certification is that proof testing is not a desirable option and should not be used or introduced into climbing in any way.
The only workable and without doubt superior system is to perform routine random pull testing to destruction, to test both the original suitability of the anchor system and any subsequent deterioration.

The only group using bolts that decided on proof testing was the cavers in the U.K. but this idea has proved not to be the best idea as some errors in using the tester meant they ended up weakening bolts which where in fact sound.

In the interests of accuracy you should know that the UIAA do not set standards (and are not allowed to) and are not a recognised standards authority, to carry the UIAA Safety Label rock anchors first have to pass EN959. The UIAA Safety Label is ignored by the rock anchor industry and you will find it extremely difficult to buy an anchor with the safety label.

The requirements of EN959/UIAA123 are not 22kN.

To introduce a testing standard (6kN) from an industry which has different criteria and equipment is only confusing the issue and since the routine loads encountered are often much higher, completely inadequate.

Jim Titt
Bolt Products
Germany