The Bolting End-Game

1) Rebolting, like any bolting, should only be done after careful consideration of the options and impact. All bolts, even the ones I've placed or replaced are ugly and destructive.

2) UIAA now does not recommend 304 SS for any outdoor placements and is beginning to doubt 316 SS. I can't say I completely agree but this is the direction things are going. I don't see carbon steel as an option for any outdoor climbing.
UIAA 2015 pdf re bolts

3) First choice is to replace the bolt using the old hole and same diameter.

4) Second choice is to replace the old bolt and enlarge the hole for a larger bolt.

5) Third choice is to drill a new hole and patch the old one.

6) Stainless steel isn't a great conductor of heat so removing glue-ins will be difficult.

7) Titanium is an even worse conductor of heat than SS so I would guess these might be a challenge to replace.

8) Rock and steel have very nearly the same coefficient of thermal expansion which is nice when these two materials are combined. This is why reinforced concrete does not blow itself apart with temperature changes. Adhesives do not have a compatible coefficient of thermal expansion so I sometimes wonder how glue-ins will do in the long run - especially in climates with temperature extremes. A cement grout might actually work better but maybe not if there is any acid.

9) I don't think all glue-ins use epoxy, some adhesives are acrylic I believe. Probably dozens of different adhesives.

Vinylester and epoxy are the only two I know of currently being recommended for climbing anchors. Cement grout is not an acceptable solution for glue-in anchors for a number of reasons. Your speculation is pretty unfounded, epoxies have been used to anchor rebar is construction for years and as mentioned several times already, glue-ins can be replaced without using the blow torch method, using a core drill.

Your speculation is pretty unfounded

Yep, pretty much standard for internet forums.

I've never seen a glue-in removed with a core drill, can you provide a link or something? I'd like to lean about that.

Buy a diamond core drill bit, inside diameter the size of the bolt hole if using twist bolts. Cut off the glue-in flush to the rock, core drill out the bolt. Not sure if there are any glue-in specific videos but I'm sure there are plenty videos demonstrating a core drill technique.

Perhaps we both speculate without foundation.

DrRockso wrote:Vinylester and epoxy are the only two I know of currently being recommended for climbing anchors. Cement grout is not an acceptable solution for glue-in anchors for a number of reasons. Your speculation is pretty unfounded, epoxies have been used to anchor rebar is construction for years and as mentioned several times already, glue-ins can be replaced without using the blow torch method, using a core drill.

The choice of resin is in theory down to the bolt manufacturer, at least when you are talking about EN/UIAA certified anchors as it has to be included on the certification. We certify using epoxy, vinylester, epoxyacrylate (a type of vinylester), polyester and cement grout.
There are tens of thousands of bolts out there cemented in and they have proved a reliable long-term system BUT you need to be sure the bolt is suitable, most bolts designed for chemical morter aren´t. Quick-setting cement is also a fiddly product to use hanging on a rope.
Some claim 50 years for epoxy but there is evidence that the deterioration in performance increases rapidly after 20 years, polyester deteriorates fairly quickly and then stabilises whereas epoxies appear to stay fairly constant then deteriorate rapidly. Hybrid resins where the filler is cement powder seem to be a better bet as the cement takes over from the resin over time. The main thing is to start with a system which is far stronger than required to allow for the invitable degradation whatever resin system is used.
I use and sell vinylester or epoxyacrylate depending on the current price. The system giving the strongest bond in our and others tests is glass-capsule vinylester.

Jim Titt wrote: Basalt is igneous and about as bad as it could possibly get for corrosion.

Except for the sea cliffs in Brazil, I don't have evidence about any other basalt cliffs, and I've always attributed the Brazilian corrosion to the sea. Where else have you heard of it happening? Do you know the underlying chemistry?

Climbing friend,

The end game of the bolting is to have every possible climbing rock across the land grid bolted from here to valhalla. Only once this is complete may you have happy fun-time euro dance party!

DrRockso wrote:There goes John Byrnes touting his Ti bolts again. His bolts are fantastic for any type of coastal/salt water/corrosive environment. I am certainly not trying to sway anyone away from using his products, they are great. It is however hard to justify their expense for areas where they aren't necessary.

They are not my bolts. They are Martin's bolts, who is the founder of Titan Climbing. titanclimbing.com I have no financial or other affiliation.

As you say, they "are fantastic for any time of ... corrosive environment" and the fact of the matter is that all environments are corrosive, some more than others. As I said, there is a spectrum of environments, from Thailand to alpine granite.

And I'm really tired of hearing that they are too expensive. If a stainless bolt lasts 50 years and a Ti bolt, even if it were twice the price, lasts several centuries, which is more expensive? Are we not talking geologic time when we talk about the rock resource?

If you compare the list price of a Ti Eterna to a Petzl Collinox, there's no real difference. Volume-pricing aside, I paid $12.50ea for Eternas and Collinox is sold for $19.95!

karstsports.com/petzl-p55-c…

DrRockso wrote:Let's not leave out the fact that for the majority of areas (perhaps 90%) 316 SS is more than acceptable and a heck of a lot cheaper than Ti.

Not necessarily true. It depends on how you do the math and whether you think 50 years is acceptable.

DrRockso wrote:John I know you have done a lot of research with this, so how long can we trust the epoxy used for glue-ins. I've heard manufacturers say 50 years, but is this a conservative estimate? Though the Titanium may have an indefinite lifespan can we say the same for the epoxy?

The "50 Years" quote is to conform to an international construction standard which is very conservative. Think of it this way, they guarantee AT LEAST 50 years, with no end date. The information I got from Hilti is similar to the situation with Ti: the lifespan is "indefinite".

I need to mention here that the UIAA's guidelines will specify at least 50 years as well in order to leverage the construction standard. This is why we keep talking about bolts lasting 50 years in rock; it's not clear that stainless will meet this standard in most environments because there's no field data yet. The oldest data is (I'm guessing) only about 20 years. Anyone have better data?

Jim Titt wrote: There are tens of thousands of bolts out there cemented in and they have proved a reliable long-term system BUT you need to be sure the bolt is suitable, most bolts designed for chemical morter aren´t.

Jim, can you be more specific here? Or give some examples?

John Byrnes wrote: Except for the sea cliffs in Brazil, I don't have evidence about any other basalt cliffs, and I've always attributed the Brazilian corrosion to the sea. Where else have you heard of it happening? Do you know the underlying chemistry?

Ask 20kN about it. Then look at the chemical composition of basalt and other igneous rocks and check out the halide content of basalt to find out where all that salt comes from in the first place. All interesting stuff:-)

John Byrnes wrote:-
"If you compare the list price of a Ti Eterna to a Petzl Collinox, there's no real difference. Volume-pricing aside, I paid $12.50ea for Eternas and Collinox is sold for $19.95!

Think of it this way, they guarantee AT LEAST 50 years, with no end date. The information I got from Hilti is similar to the situation with Ti: the lifespan is "indefinite". I need to mention here that the UIAA's guidelines will specify at least 50 years as well in order to leverage the construction standard. This is why we keep talking about bolts lasting 50 years in rock; it's not clear that stainless will meet this standard in most environments because there's no field data yet. The oldest data is (I'm guessing) only about 20 years. Anyone have better data?2

Trust you to compare with the most expensive bolt ever made, I´d sell you a certified 316L anchor for $3.11 without even starting on discounts.

And exactly which resin manufacturer gives a 50 year guarantee on their products in natural stone outdoors? None of the ones I talk to (including Hilti)give ANY guarantee for our application or even are willing to discuss the suitability of their products for our use.

The oldest stainless steel bolts I know of were installed in 1967 using quick-setting cement, they are still in fine condition (or were last year when I clipped them).

John Byrnes wrote: Jim, can you be more specific here? Or give some examples?

Standard practice in the Alps and Dolomites and plenty of climbing areas in Europe, probably half the Frankenjura is on cemented bolts, even I´ve installed some.
Discussed using concrete grout with a customer last week and once my rep gets over to look at the site that´s probably what will be used, for some stuff it´s better than resin as the mining industry well know.

Reality check: discussing $12-19 bolts is like listening to mitt Romney and Donald trump talk about which brand of private jet will last longer. The problem is more of a social one than a metallurgical one.

Joe public should take out a $5 bill and toss it in the breeze every time they clip a carbon steel bolt and hanger ($12 for each stainless glue in) to experience what it is like to be the first ascentionist oand spend 1 hour humping loads snd route cleaning for every 5 minutes of actual climbing. A nice day of climbing at the local crag for you set the fa back $100+ minimum. If they had used stainless or titanium, the fa would have likely thrown down $300-400 for you and them to have the same experience.

Over the life of the route, joe public will likely use the equipment 100x for each time the fa climbs the route and gets any value back. Call me an asshole, but I think its fair for the fa to put in hardware to cover 20 years and the boader climbing community can cover the cost to keep the worthwhile routes maintained into eternity. It cost $15-20 for one day of climbing in a gym for joe public. How much should they be paying to keep routes maintained for their day of outdoor climbing? We will have cliffs fully equipped with stainless and titanium if the climbing community, manufacturers, and shops would subsidize the initial purchase cost to bring it into line with a plenty strong but more corrosive alternative.

Perhaps a creatively written grant could be writen by climbing organizations to acquire money to subsidize purchase or even design and produce stainless glue ins without profit built into the cost in order to bring price down. Seems there are plenty of engineers on here who could cover the engineering pro bono.

The reality of the situation is that cheap hardware will last plenty long for the fa to get the send and have their kicks on the route. Like it or not, cost and rock hardness are the determining factors in first ascensionists' hardware choices. You can slander people for being cheap all you want but it isn't going to make their wallets any fatter or reduce their fever for climbing new rock. The wider community (vast majority users of the hardware) has to have some stake if they expect eternal hardare.

To me, regulating safety is contrary to the spirit of climbing. Although I'm sure many if not most climbers will disagree. The safety industry tends to take the approach that if a risk can be mitigated, it should be mitigated. In climbing, I would prefer that the risks be assessible and the climbers knowledgeable enough to make their own decisions.

I think there are a lot of climbers who don't have any interest in risk management. They want big fat bolts close together that they can trust without thought. This is sport climbing and is easiest to manage in the gym. I think most trad climbers enjoy assessing and managing risk according to their own level of comfort.

I've helped put up a couple routes that most would say are run out. Will the UIAA one day decide that route is dangerous, not approve and say that it should be retro-bolted? Will the UIAA one day decide that climbing is too risky and advise us not to climb? Will we one day be discussing acceptable guard rails for belay ledges and appropriate load capacities for granite knobs?

Sometimes I think old, rusty 1/4" carbon steel anchors should be replaced with new 1/4" stainless steel anchors thus preserving the spirit of the original climb. The only safety requirement would be to note the presence of 1/4" anchors in the route description.

As John Barry once said, "If climbers didn't die, climbing would."

Did I ruffle any feathers?

Thanks for all the info Jim. Maybe their should be some glue-ins installed in different rock types using a few different glues so that years from now we can test them to see which epoxies held up best. The only bolts I've ever seen cemented in these neck of the woods resulted in some bolts that wiggle after a few years. They are top rope anchors that are placed in the top of the cliff so they should still be usable for years to come but placed in a cliffside I don't think they would hold up long. What is the reasoning for using cement instead of glue in any application, besides cost?

bus driver wrote:You can slander people for being cheap all you want but it isn't going to make their wallets any fatter or reduce their fever for climbing new rock. The wider community (vast majority users of the hardware) has to have some stake if they expect eternal hardare.

I fully agree, and I have been trying to point that out to the UIAA now forever it seems. As their curent reversion of the standard is written, they basicaly want 316SS used in the desert and 317, 318 or 2205 used pretty much anywhere it rains more then a day out of the year. While I admire the zeal toward bolting excellence, I believe it's unreasonable to think developers are going to get with that program. In several cases, I had a hell of a time just convincing someone to use stainless steel or to purchase their bolts somewhere more reputable than Home Depot!!

If we have developers that need to be pressured to upgrade from that level, asking them to buy 316 or above is never going to convince them of anything. I am not saying we should not try, but I am saying it's unreasonable to think every developer in America is going to instantly switch to 316 or 2205 overnight when you consider that half dont even use stainless in the first place.

Dan Merrick wrote:I think there are a lot of climbers who don't have any interest in risk management.

That would be an understatement.

DrRockso wrote:Thanks for all the info Jim. Maybe their should be some glue-ins installed in different rock types using a few different glues so that years from now we can test them to see which epoxies held up best. The only bolts I've ever seen cemented in these neck of the woods resulted in some bolts that wiggle after a few years. They are top rope anchors that are placed in the top of the cliff so they should still be usable for years to come but placed in a cliffside I don't think they would hold up long. What is the reasoning for using cement instead of glue in any application, besides cost?

Chemical anchoring is "new" and even 20 years ago the idea you could go and pick up a few cartridges down the local hardware store was unheard of. The first cartridge system was horrible to use, expensive and came out in 1982. (One reason to mistrust claims of 50 years life since the first epoxy anchoring systems are only about 25 years old and our experience in the marine industry show we are wise to be doubtful).
Before then quick-setting cement was the only viable system and had the advantage that it is a proven technique from thousands of years construction experience. And it´s easy to carry and cheap, if you are installing the sort of belay bolts one meets in the Dolomites for example you´d be using $30 of resin for each hole.
Cement is a hassle to use but much less critical than resins and for those that are used to it there´s no reason to change a proven system. Installing large anchors resins have problems with shrinkage due to the heat generated when curing and while there are special resins available cement is the easier option in many cases.

If we are to avoid the Swiss cheese look at every belay, we need to consider what sort of maintenance schedule the area will get. Remote areas and areas without a local climbing organization are probably good candidates for glue-ins.

'bus driver' points out a problem with the cost/benefit analysis: as long as there is a $0.99 bolt option out there, that's what Joe Climber will use to conclude that a stainless/titanium/Legacy/(insert other better solution) bolt is just too expensive. Asking this generation to pay now for a bolt that will last several generations is a hard bargain even though it makes fiscal sense in the long run. LCO's can step up and foot that bill, but can lone developers?

Reusing holes takes more effort, but it's worth it. For mechanical bolts, boring out 3/8" holes to 1/2" makes a lot of sense in that with the right tools 1/2" 5-piece bolts are usually quicker and easier to remove than 3/8" (the sleeves don't tear apart).