ME 417 Advanced Machine Design

2013

Climbing Grade Aluminum Carabineer Analysis

Group 2 Nick Miller and Luke Stephenson

Abstract
The purpose of this report was to determine the best material selection for a climbing grade carabiner. Currently steel and aluminum are the two main materials used in carabiner manufacturing. The criteria was to determine materials that would maintain at
least the same minimum yield strength, youngs modulus, fracture toughness and fatigue

strength while at the same time reducing density. For the first portion some material indices were developed for minimizing mass within a circular cross section that if used could give a rough estimation for diameter sizes. The cost of the materials found was not a major concern but will be taken into account. Next these materials were each input into a model made after a current carabiner design on the market. Initially, the most common material Aluminum 7075-T6 was test in an FEA model in Solidworks. This gave a baseline for stress levels and distributions for a given load that would be under the failure levels. After finding the max stress produced, the FEA was run for two competitive materials, an Epoxy carbon fiber hybrid and magnesium. The results of the epoxy were similar but slightly reduced stress levels with a large reduction in weight. However, with the large increase in material and manufacturing costs this was not an ideal solution. The next material was magnesium, which gave an even large reduction in stress and similar but not as great of weight loss. However, at nearly a tenth the cost of the carbon fiber it was the more desirable material by far.

Introduction
Carabiners on the market today have a vast range of shapes and sizes, each designed for a particular use. The profile shape as well as cross sectional shape can vary from one carabineer to another. When it comes to material selection the majority of products that are available to consumers mostly vary between two main metals; aluminum and steel. Each has its own design specification and target market. Steel carabiners tend to be for the brute force task oriented processes of commercial use. Jobs such as arborists, radio tower maintenance, construction harnesses dominantly use steel carabiners. These need to be strong enough not to fail under extreme load conditions and potential misuse but also relatively cheap to mass produce. Aluminum carabiners have found a niche market with outdoor sports and the climbing industry. These need to be strong and dependable to take consistent use and abuse in outdoor environments as well as being lightweight for performance. These are the types of carabiners that we will be focusing our design around. The climbing carabiners are used in situations where the climber could have around 35 different carabiners attached to them at any given time. For bigger climbs this could easily reach 60 carabineers. Individually aluminum carabiners are relatively light in weight, approximately 28 grams each. The number of carabiners carried begins to add significant amounts of weight, which makes successfully completing climbs difficult. The increase in weight means that extra production of energy is required to create the work necessary in moving up a particular climb. This means not only is it harder for an individual but they may need to bring extra food just to supply the energy which again continues to add weight. This is an industry where weight and strength are the primary factors for every piece of gear that is on the market.

Objectives
The focus will be to analyze the mechanical and material properties of current popular designs of climbing grade carabiners and ideally improve upon product weight as well as product strength by altering material selection. Our desired design will be both stronger and lighter than existing products, however maintaining the same strength is acceptable if weight can be reduced. The outcome that the group expects is that the desired solution can be found but it will lead to a product that is more expensive than that currently on the market. The reduction of weight and increase in strength may be enough to justify the increase in price. This is a variable that will be discussed further depending on the result of the cost analysis. If the weight loss is significant enough the market demand would increase allowing for a higher product price, thus increasing profits even with the increased production price.

Design criteria
Currently the dominant material used in carabiner construction is an aluminum alloy, specifically 7075-T6. The relevant material properties for the design include yield strength, young's modulus, density, price, corrosion resistance, and formability. A successful design of the new carabiner would be selecting a material that matches or exceeds yield strength, youngs modulus, formability, corrosion resistance, and reduces price or density. There will be three main portions of this project; material selection, shape selection and mass minimization. These will be tested through FEA computer simulations. It is presumed that the only materials that will meet these requirements are metals, however, ceramics and polymers will also be investigated for a complete report. The final criteria for the design are that the force analysis remains equal or less than that of the existing design and material.

Methods
When beginning design analyses the first thing examined was the potential forces that will be applied and verifying the standards in place. The carabiner not only has to hold someone while climbing but could also see a fall from several meters or more.

To get a general sense of the force that might be applied on a general fall the impact velocity is calculated using the above equation. This is then input in the next equation which will be used to find kinetic energy. The kinetic energy along with the distance traveled after impact are used in the below equation to find the impact force. The distance travelled after impact will be estimated from various climbing literature to determine the average elongation of a rope and the incurring fall.

The first portion will be a material selection using CES edupack. After finding desirable materials they will be analyzed using an existing carabiner design. This will be done using Solidworks simulation features such as FEA. For the analysis our team modeled the carabiner after an oval style carabiner which Black Diamond produces. This is a common style for certain uses within climbing equipment and was a straightforward geometry to reproduce. After the model was created and the known material, 7075-T6 aluminum, was applied the carabiner was tested. The test standards as stated by UIAA are shown in the diagram below. Our test will focus mainly on the longitudinal or main direction.

Figure 1: UIAA carabiner testing standards

It was tested with loads until it reached stress levels that would define failure by the material properties. This sample allows for baseline stress levels with known geometry and material. These results will be used to compare against the remainder of our tests to show an increase or decrease in performance. The team concluded that due to several factors, including specific material composition, heat treating, forging processes and varying test methods, that may influence results, it would be better to compare directly against the proven baseline data rather than with the given standards from Black Diamond. The UIAA standards in this case will no longer play a large influence in the final standards as opposed to strictly comparing the original test data with data from new material tests.

The second procedure will be an optimization. The material indices will be calculated to optimize the cross sectional area for mass. Because of the variability in the existing designs and optimal shapes cross sections the groups analysis will use a simple circular cross section. This will result in rough estimates but will give a basic baseline for approximate sizes necessary. This begins by combining a mass equation as well as one involving failure strength, safety factors will be neglected for simplicity.

and and From the equations above the material indexes that are needed for maximization can be determined. These indexes are with regards to the failure strength and Youngs modulus respectively. and

Results
After looking in CES edupack the material properties were found for the standard material used, they are as follows.
Aluminum Alloy 7075-T6 Mechanical Properties Density Price Youngs Modulus Yield Strength Hardness (vickers) Fracture Toughness Tensile Strength Corrosion Resistance Properties Water (fresh) Water (salt) Weak acids Strong acids Weak alkalis Strong alkalis Organic solvents UV radiation (sunlight) 2770-2830 3.03-3.33 69-76 359-530 152-168 30-33 434-580 Excellent Acceptable Excellent Excellent Acceptable Unacceptable Excellent Excellent kg/m^3 USD/kg GPa MPa MPa MPa

Table 1: Material properties for Al 7075-T6

Using these properties as limiting factors in the CES software, other materials that met these minimum requirements as well as having a lower density were found. Much to the teams surprise there were not very many materials that ranked better than the particular aluminum with the same strengths and a lower density. Two of the materials that were possible for consideration were Magnesium and an Epoxy/HS carbon fiber. Each of these was tested with regards to the aluminum baseline loads for comparisons. Below is the Aluminum 7075-T6 force analysis.

Figure 2: Al 7075-T6

With a 1000kN force applied the above distribution was found. This is under the failure limit and results in a maximum stress of 209 MPa. This is what will be used as a reference for the remaining tests.

Figure 3: Epoxy/HS carbon fiber, UD composite, 0* lamina

After changing the material to the epoxy/carbon fiber layout found in CES, the same force was applied. The force was determined to be slightly less than that of the aluminum with a max stress of 206 Mpa. For this material this was quite a bit less than failure strength.

Figure 4: Magnesium

The final simulation was run with a magnesium selection of material, again, the same force and same restraints for the program. This simulation showed that largest increase in strength with a maximum stress of 199 Mpa was with this material.

Discussion
Some of the challenges related to this project involved working with the FEA. The team attempted several different methods to apply the force to the carabiner, each of which was giving incredibly incorrect and concentrated force distributions. After some trial and error it was determined that the force needed to be applied to a system that would act as the connecting rope and would better distribute the load in an accurate manner.

Figure 5: Force Analysis application

Figure 6: Example of real life forces

Further development would include the combination of multiple components to give a mass and cost minimization while including the shape factors and material selection. Other possible design analysis revolves around the study of hybrid materials. Using composites of various materials, or looking at casings and sandwich like structures may have a large impact on values. These would potentially have much larger manufacturing costs, but open up entire new categories of design and material selection.

Conclusion
After searching for competitive materials using CES edupack, it was surprising how limited the material choices were. Aluminum proved to be a very unique, strong, light and cost effective material. Out of the two other materials that were determined to be close in strength and density, the epoxy/ carbon fiber material was the lightest, it was however by far the most expensive. The team had originally not planned to include composite or hybrid material such as this but with limited options it was tested anyways. This material would most likely be far too expensive with material and manufacturing costs to be even remotely reasonable. The next material, magnesium, proved to be able to both increase strength as well as decrease weight. The comparison of these values can be seen in table 2.

Material Aluminum 7075-T6 Magnesium Epoxy/HS carbon fiber

Table 2: Material price and density

Price Density (USD/kg) (kg/m^3) 3.03 2770 4.7 1740 37.9 1550

Overall, Magnesium was found to be a better material with a lighter weight and a cost that was not unreasonably higher than aluminum.

References
"Carabiner Development." Carabiner Development - Tracking Developments in Rock Climbing Technology. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013. http://theclimbinglab.com/tiki-index.php?page=UIAA+Safety+Standards http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobi.html Ashby, M. F. Materials Selection in Mechanical Design. Burlington, MA: ButterworthHeinemann, 2011. Print. http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-climbing-equipment-carabiner-rope-image16531593