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. |
|
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, |
|
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:- |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |