Fixe Anchor Failure

alpenverein.de/bergsport/si…

Run it through google translate and it's pretty readable.

Appears to be these:

http://www.fixehardware.com/shop/anchors/fixe-ps-3/8-draco-v-anchor/

The potential issue would, however, appear to be applicable to any of their anchors where a chain link is attached directly to the hanger. Also, could a similar weld issue be an issue on their ring anchors (which are also welded...and are likely manually welded like the top link in these chains)?

Link to pre-translated article: translate.google.com/transl…

Wow, SCC on hardware on an artificial wall.. Even outdoors, I would never have even thought of that as a remote possibility.

Given Jim Titt's sizable knowledge on anchors and all things Euro, it would be nice if he would notice this and comment (thanks in advance if you do Jim.)

Interestingly enough, I have had arguments/discussions with a bunch of folks on MP (including Mr. Titt I believe) about what I see as the stupidity of linking two anchor points into one single rap ring. The response to my assertion has always been that I need not worry because those single welded rap rings can hold four trucks and then some (i.e. the setup in Fig. 4 of the translated document) .

However, it would appear from this article that a weld did fail, though admittedly it was on a smaller and weaker chain link versus the actual rap ring. Still, to me the principle is the same and it seems profoundly stupid to link two independent anchors to one single point when you could just as easily have left two unlinked chains hanging for rapping/lowering. In this case, if it had been the weld on the rap ring instead of one of the chains that failed, then the climber would have decked badly.

This reminds of the rap onto Broadway from Chasm View where there are two chains that are connected together with one single old rusty quick link. Because the chain is so small, you can only rap off of the single link because trying to thread through independent chain links causes binding and you can't pull your rope. Setups like this would be much better off without the connecting link, "convenience" of threading only one piece of gear notwithstanding.

J. Albers wrote:Given Jim Titt's sizable knowledge on anchors and all things Euro, it would be nice if he would notice this and comment (thanks in advance if you do Jim.) Interestingly enough, I have had arguments/discussions with a bunch of folks on MP (including Mr. Titt I believe) about what I see as the stupidity of linking two anchor points into one single rap ring. The response to my assertion has always been that I need not worry because those single welded rap rings can hold four trucks and then some (i.e. the setup in Fig. 4 of the translated document) . However, it would appear from this article that a weld did fail, though admittedly it was on a smaller and weaker chain link versus the actual rap ring. Still, to me the principle is the same and it seems profoundly stupid to link two independent anchors to one single point when you could just as easily have left two unlinked chains hanging for rapping/lowering. In this case, if it had been the weld on the rap ring instead of one of the chains that failed, then the climber would have decked badly.

Well the news item has been around on German Forums for a month or so but I go on holiday sometimes!
It´s not the first rusting chainset of that type that´s been seen, Peter Herold replaced a load in Sardinia last year. One problem on those chainsets is since the karabiners have aluminium parts Fixe can´t do a standard post weld treatment, something which can be avoided using all-stainless (which the EN requires anyway).
That some welding isn´t up to scratch is one matter, exactly why the links break on the other side is the interesting part since normally an unwelded link still holds a considerable amount.

dnoB ekiM wrote:http://www.alpenverein.de/bergsport/sicherheit/fixe-umlenkung_aid_16119.html Run it through google translate and it's pretty readable. Appears to be these: fixehardware.com/shop/ancho… The potential issue would, however, appear to be applicable to any of their anchors where a chain link is attached directly to the hanger. Also, could a similar weld issue be an issue on their ring anchors (which are also welded...and are likely manually welded like the top link in these chains)?

Sorry, I'm a little late to the party!
Any weld or Heat Affected Zone in all grades of stainless commonly used for climbing equipment is susceptible to SCC, as are non-welded parts given the right conditions.
The links have not just cracked in the HAZ but also on the 'back' of the link on the opposite side of the weld

J. Albers wrote:Given Jim Titt's sizable knowledge on anchors and all things Euro, it would be nice if he would notice this and comment (thanks in advance if you do Jim.) Interestingly enough, I have had arguments/discussions with a bunch of folks on MP (including Mr. Titt I believe) about what I see as the stupidity of linking two anchor points into one single rap ring. The response to my assertion has always been that I need not worry because those single welded rap rings can hold four trucks and then some (i.e. the setup in Fig. 4 of the translated document) . However, it would appear from this article that a weld did fail, though admittedly it was on a smaller and weaker chain link versus the actual rap ring. Still, to me the principle is the same and it seems profoundly stupid to link two independent anchors to one single point when you could just as easily have left two unlinked chains hanging for rapping/lowering. In this case, if it had been the weld on the rap ring instead of one of the chains that failed, then the climber would have decked badly. This reminds of the rap onto Broadway from Chasm View where there are two chains that are connected together with one single old rusty quick link. Because the chain is so small, you can only rap off of the single link because trying to thread through independent chain links causes binding and you can't pull your rope. Setups like this would be much better off without the connecting link, "convenience" of threading only one piece of gear notwithstanding.

Regarding "the stupidity of linking two anchor points into one single rap ring."...
Well I used to make an anchor with one bolt, one welded link and one anchor ring. Two of these sets were placed about 200mm (8") horizontally apart (photo below with rope properly threaded through both rings). What I found was people were just using one half of the anchor leaving the other swinging in the breeze on many occasions.

A pair of Titan Climbing, Three Piece Anchors

After seeing this I decided to change to a different anchor as below. All our anchor rings are machined from solid bar by the way to avoid having to weld and carry out all the extra quality control that welds require. The machined rings are perfectly round and smooth without the weld, allowing the wear to be spread as randomly as possible.

Latest all Titanium anchor

There can never be a perfect answer to anchor design but welds in my opinion are best avoided and screw links should have Loctite threadlock to resist unscrewing due to vibration etc.

Jim Titt wrote: Well the news item has been around on German Forums for a month or so but I go on holiday sometimes! It´s not the first rusting chainset of that type that´s been seen, Peter Herold replaced a load in Sardinia last year. One problem on those chainsets is since the karabiners have aluminium parts Fixe can´t do a standard post weld treatment, something which can be avoided using all-stainless (which the EN requires anyway). That some welding isn´t up to scratch is one matter, exactly why the links break on the other side is the interesting part since normally an unwelded link still holds a considerable amount.

Hope you had a great trip away Jim!

Below is the Techrock warning that they issued a while ago. I have the failure analysis of the anchor but I've been asked not to release it before UIAA so that will follow shortly I hope.

Techrock warning notice regarding anchor corrosion

Martin Roberts wrote: What I found was people were just using one half of the anchor leaving the other swinging in the breeze on many occasions. After seeing this I decided to change to a different anchor as below. All our anchor rings are machined from solid bar by the way to avoid having to weld and carry out all the extra quality control that welds require. \

Hi Martin, thanks for the posts.

I hear what you are saying, but just because some portion of the populace chooses not to take advantage of the full safety capacity of a given anchor, shouldn't mean that the developer should lower their standards to meet that lowest common denominator. If some parties want to thread only one link in an anchor, then fine, that is there choice. But by setting up your anchor with the common link, you are preventing me from taking full advantage of the anchors potential safety margin (i.e. independently threading a link connected to each bolt).

For e.g., in the picture below there is no way that I can thread my rope independently through each anchor. Instead this idiotic anchor forces me to rely on some hardware store bullsh*t screw pin. I find this frustrating when an equal amount of effort and money (probably less effort honestly) would have yielded a safer and more redundant anchor.

Peilstein - Austria

^^^^ @ Brian's pic.

Exactly my point. The only upside to the rams horn setup is that it makes cleaning convenient. On the downside, it makes setting up a top rope with ones own gear more difficult because while clipping one locker/draw setup to the chains is no problem, clipping your second locker setup to the rams horn is far from ideal. Why not just put a quick link/chain setup on the second bolt? Right, I know, because climbers are too lazy to untie and thread...or perhaps some will argue that it is safer for people not to have to untie (to which my reply is if you can't untie, thread, and retie, then you should find a new sport). If you insist on the rams horn, then at least insert a bit of chain and a quick link between it and the second anchor so that those of use who want to setup a top rope on our own gear and thread to independent anchors to lower are not impeded from doing so.

And finally, what exactly is required to replace the rams horn when it gets grooved from repeated lowering? Do you need to schlep up something to pry the horns apart so that you can slip it off the lower bolt? Ugh. I like clip throughs as much as the next schmo, but at least make it easy to replace. I mean, can two easy to remove and replace steel clip throughs really be that much more expensive than that fancy rams horn?

...though on the plus side, I definitely have infinitely more trust in the rams horn than that jank @ss hardware store pin shown in the photo I posted from Red Rocks.

"Right, I know, because climbers are too lazy to untie and thread...or perhaps some will argue that it is safer for people not to have to untie (to which my reply is if you can't untie, thread, and retie, then you should find a new sport)."
When you get older you may well think that is just elitism. Like "if you can't easily and safely set up a top rope on that setup then you should find a new sport)."
If you don´t like the system then feel free to replace them but expect critiscism from those who feel you are wrong.

Anyway depending on whose make the pigtails are you either have to split the weld with a cold chisel or if they are unwelded then they can be changed just using a hammer.

J. Albers wrote:If you insist on the rams horn, then at least insert a bit of chain and a quick link between it and the second anchor so that those of use who want to setup a top rope on our own gear and thread to independent anchors to lower are not impeded from doing so.

I'd never rapped or used a ram's horn anchor before so...(and this one was to the right of the single ring (ha!) belay anchor so common in especially parts of Germany/Austria/Italy.

So, we just used for rappelling. But, ran into a gob of "clip and go" type anchors and for TR, I just use a single draw off the top anchor, which takes the weight and then the last person just has to unclip the draw and voila, lower as usual.

With the ram's horns, could you thread the rope, then TR from a single draw clipped into the upper anchor? That'd keep the wear off, and, still provide a nice lower post TR.

Thoughts?

Jim Titt wrote: When you get older you may well think that is just elitism. Like "if you can't easily and safely set up a top rope on that setup then you should find a new sport)." .

Ha ha, well played Jim. Yes, I could figure out how to set a safe TR off of the rams horn setup, but it is certainly more of a hassle (though Brian's idea above is well thought out). That said, your setup still makes it nearly impossible to thread independently and you are therefore forced to use the rams horn to rap or lower.

....and by the way, needing to schlep up a chisel in order to update worn out anchor gear does not seem like the easiest setup to maintain moving forward. Just my two cents though.

anchor biners
Trango makes this one, I'm sure other manufacturers make others in SS.
I've been using this at the end of chains so it goes bolt, quicklink to chains, chains, this^^^. It's super nice when it starts raining on you while your climbing and you don't have to rethread the rope or deal with that ramshorn. just clip these 2 biners (opposite and opposed of course), unclip your TR draws and lower off.

And that little pin keeps asshats from taking them.

From my experience, dropping the lead rope into two "ram horns" (DQ puts one per anchor bolt at Rumney) takes maybe 2 seconds longer than if there were two quickies instead.

J. Albers wrote: some hardware store bullsh*t screw pin.

That shackle is the strongest part of that setup.

Jason Todd wrote: That shackle is the strongest part of that setup.

I sure hope not, because that shackle isn't very strong, say 9 kN on the generous side:

cargoequipmentcorp.com/3-8-…

I'm pretty sure those wedge bolts and hangers are rated to a hell of lot more than 9 kN. The chains? Yeah, less than the bolts and hangers, but that is why you usually have a pair for redundancy (and according to this whole forum post, apparently to allow for a weld to fail and not kill the party).

Sh*t, at least Jim's rams horn setups are rated and tested to hold a small house before bending and breaking. Those cheesy @ss shackles are rated very weakly to begin with and on top of that, they are almost surely made and "tested" in who-the-hell-knows-where, which really inspires confidence.

J. Albers wrote: I sure hope not, because that shackle isn't very strong, say 9 kN on the generous side: cargoequipmentcorp.com/3-8-… I'm pretty sure those wedge bolts and hangers are rated to a hell of lot more than 9 kN. The chains? Yeah, less than the bolts and hangers, but that is why you usually have a pair for redundancy (and according to this whole forum post, apparently to allow for a weld to fail and not kill the party).

The shackle you linked to has a WLL of 9kN so it will hold over 45kN for sure. It will be bent and hard to undo which is why the WLL is fairly low but the actual breaking load is far higher.
Chain is also strong, the 8mm long link chain we use (like the stuff shown in the ramshorn setup which is not one of mine) has a rated WLL of 4kN, a rated breaking load of 25kN and a test breaking load of 58kN. Chain ratings are fairly complicted and under AISI the Ratings are completely different.
Like many manufacturers we use this chain rather than smaller, cheaper chain as the link size allows the climber to clip any karabiners including HMS ones anywhere into the chain. As the chain is joined both ends to bolts by clipping any two links you have the complete redundancy you require.
You can of course thread any two links as well to lower or abseil but we would laugh at you for doing that since the ramshorn is specifically designed and was installed for this purpose! No-one is forced to agree with the decision the installer made regarding the type top anchor, if they don´t like it then climb elsewhere.
Some manufacturers weld their all their pigtails, we offer it as an option for areas where theft is a problem but I haven´t welded any in the last few years that I remember, mostly they can easily be changed with a hammer.
Single top anchors are standard in many areas of Europe, and are perfectly adequate, if the climber doesn´t leave a draw in the previous bolt when top-roping as redundancy then they are stupid.

Jim Titt wrote: The shackle you linked to has a WLL of 9kN so it will hold over 45kN for sure. It will be bent and hard to undo which is why the WLL is fairly low but the actual breaking load is far higher. Chain is also strong, the 8mm long link chain we use (like the stuff shown in the ramshorn setup which is not one of mine) has a rated WLL of 4kN, a rated breaking load of 25kN and a test breaking load of 58kN. Chain ratings are fairly complicted and under AISI the Ratings are completely different. Like many manufacturers we use this chain rather than smaller, cheaper chain as the link size allows the climber to clip any karabiners including HMS ones anywhere into the chain. As the chain is joined both ends to bolts by clipping any two links you have the complete redundancy you require. You can of course thread any two links as well to lower or abseil but we would laugh at you for doing that since the ramshorn is specifically designed and was installed for this purpose! No-one is forced to agree with the decision the installer made regarding the type top anchor, if they don´t like it then climb elsewhere. Some manufacturers weld their all their pigtails, we offer it as an option for areas where theft is a problem but I haven´t welded any in the last few years that I remember, mostly they can easily be changed with a hammer. Single top anchors are standard in many areas of Europe, and are perfectly adequate, if the climber doesn´t leave a draw in the previous bolt when top-roping as redundancy then they are stupid.

I agree with most of what you are saying here Jim. In particular, the part about using larger chain so that you can clip in anywhere while also allowing complainers like myself to have redundancy. This point applies to why I dislike the anchor that I posted in the picture above so much because by threading the shackle directly through the bolt there is no way for multiple parties to achieve redundancy. That is, the first party can clip in to each bolt, but any additional party will only be able to clip into the chain set, which means the second party is relying on one set of chain link. And at a popular place like Red Rocks where you are rapping the route, there is almost a 100% chance that multiple times a day there are multiple parties that are encountering this issue.

The only thing I don't agree with you about is that it is sufficient to lower off of one anchor bolt. This is where I am coming from on this. I agree with you that from a statistical standpoint, one anchor bolt is way more than safe. The problem is that shit does go wrong occasionally. For e.g., the bolt installer may have messed up putting the bolt in or the chain link weld may fail for some bizarre reason. While it is a statistical anomaly, the consequences are likely death. For me personally, that isn't a worthwhile risk when sport climbing when the risk is so easily mitigated. And for the record, I have done more than my share of rapping off of total sketch ball anchors in the mountains and I have done my share of runout climbing where a fall would have been pretty ugly. But in those circumstances I was making an active choice to do so where there probably isn't really any other option. Sport climbing isn't the same thing because as I said, it is so easy to mitigate the risk. I realize that I am probably making a mountain out of a mole hill, but to be honest, I would greatly prefer that the standard practice defaults to the more redundant option. And no small part of my decision is based upon the fact that I just don't have enough trust in a great many developers to use top quality gear and install it right, which is a requirement to allow for your type of setups to have such a robust non-failure statistic. Anyway....

Martin Roberts wrote: Sorry, I'm a little late to the party! Any weld or Heat Affected Zone in all grades of stainless commonly used for climbing equipment is susceptible to SCC, as are non-welded parts given the right conditions. The links have not just cracked in the HAZ but also on the 'back' of the link on the opposite side of the weld

Perhaps the "back" of the link, the portion of link that is opposite the HAZ, also failed because it wasn't sufficiently protected from the intense heat of welding merely millimeters away.