Prusik Bypass On Control Lines: Necessary Or Legacy?

Presented at the 2021 International Technical Rescue Symposium - Golden, CO

Kevin Lunnie & James Croswell

Vector Rescue LLC, New Milford, CT 06776

Kevin@vector-rescue.com James@vector-rescue.com

Introduction:
The Kootenay high-line system as we know it was developed in British Colombia
in the mid to late 1980’s. While many variants have spawned off of the original design,
these ‘traditional’ high-lines remain a quintessential component of most rope technician
programs. Learning to construct and operate one safely provides a solid foundation on
which more advance techniques are built. In many textbooks and eld guides you will
nd prusik bypass used on the control (tag) lines where they connect to the carriage. The
commonly taught theory is that prusik bypass will act as a shock absorber in case of over
tension and/or to maintain full strength the control line. Despite the advances in
technical rescue since this practice began, there is still no compelling evidence to support
the ef cacy of prusik bypass used in this fashion. In recent years, some forward thinking
practitioners have substituted these prusik bypasses with commercial screamers/shock
packs hoping to achieve the same intended result. Another recent concept, is the use of
’force limiting’ descent control devices, that are expected to slip in the event of over
tension. With so many approaches to this topic, this project sought to answer the question:
Are prusik bypasses on control lines necessary for system integrity or are they simply a
remnant from the past?

1
fi
fi

fi

 Background:
The use of prusik bypass on control lines has been taught for well over 2 decades.
In the 1996 edition of “On Rope…”, you will nd instructions for their use stating, “ The
carriage tag lines should have 3 wrap prusiks as shock absorbers”. It continues, “In the
event of mainline failure, the prusiks may slide. The prusiks and the tag line knots should
be able to hold the full shock force of the adjusting system” (Padgett/Smith 251). Rigging
for Rescue published similar guidance around the same time, “Rig the tag-lines to handle
shock forces in case of track rope failure by the use of Prusik bypasses at end knots…”
(Larson 1997). This method of rigging has gone largely unchanged and can be found in
the 5th edition, CMC rope manual, “Prusik hitches are used to attach the tag lines to the
track pulley to maintain rope strength” (CMC 267) and in the 5th Edition, Desert Rescue
Research eld guide, “Connect control lines to carriage with 8mm prusiks…” (Pendley
96). In the event of track line failure, the generally accepted belief is that prusik bypasses
will reduce peak forces in several places including; the anchors, the carriage and most
importantly at the terminal knot where the control line connects to the carriage.

Existing prusik studies:

Before beginning testing, a retrospective evaluation of previous work was done
due to the large body of research that exists on the performance of prusik hitches in both
slow pull and dynamic con gurations. It should be noted that the dynamic testing is
largely focused on tandem triple wrapped prusiks used in a ‘traditional’ dedicated main/
dedicated belay setup, with only limited data evaluating the use of single prusiks during a
dynamic event.
A recent slow pull study evaluating single 8mm prusik on 11mm host rope, (both
of varying age) showed a mean prusik break strength of 10.89 kn (Std Dev 1.510kn). The
same study also evaluated new 8mm prusik on new 11mm host rope and found average
break strength of 14.13kn (Std Dev 0.425kn). The study came to several conclusions
including, “the research strongly indicates that prusiks cannot be predictably or reliably
counted upon to slip and re-grab- thus acting as a ‘clutch’…slipping prusiks appear to be
an indicator of impending failure more so than a clutch or force limiter”

2
fi

fi

fi

 ( McCullar/Walker 2014). A similar study also evaluated new 8mm prusiks on new
11mm host rope and found an average break strength of 15.46kn (Std Dev 0.74kn)
(Evans 2014).
The majority of dynamic test data done to date, focuses primarily on ‘traditional’,
tandem prusik belay. In 2000, Jerome Stiller compiled data from 6 studies on dynamic
testing. He reported, the methodology used in 95% of the studies included a simulated
rescue load (200-300kg), being dropped 1 meter on 3 meters of rope, with tandem triple
wrapped prusiks used to arrest the falling load. Only a small data set existed at that time
for single 8mm prusiks being used to arrest the falling load (15 drops). His analysis found
that the overall rate of failure for tandem Prusiks (n=197) was 19% and the failure rate
for single prusiks (n=15) was 27%” (Stiller 2000).
When considering all of the existing prusik data, it is apparent that the peak force
(failure) range of 8mm prusiks is quite variable and tied to many factors including the age,
condition and construction of both the prusik cordage and host rope. With that in mind,
it is our conclusion that it would be unsafe to expect consistent performance from a prusik
hitch for the purposes of evaluating a system safety factor.

Summary of testing setup:

A series of 21 drop tests were conducted to simulate track line failure in two
conditions; 1) failure when the carriage is mid-span, with both control lines locked off
and 2) failure when the carriage is moving with one control line hauling (left, in this study)
and the other with approximately 45cm of slack present (right). 10 drops were conducted
for each condition; the rst 5 without prusik bypass in place, then 5 drops with prusik
bypass in place. A Rock Exotica Enforcer load cell was placed on each side of the carriage
at the connection with the control lines to measure peak force on either side of the
carriage at the terminal connection. New (7/16”) CMC Static-Pro rope was used for all
tests; CMC reports 7/16” Static-Pro has 2% elongation @ 600lb (272kg) and a MBS of
35kn. A high modulus rope was chosen for this study to simulate a less than ideal choice
of belay ropes. The test mass for all drops was 250kg. The span for all drop was
approximately 12 meters. A 3-ring quick release setup was used for remote activation of
the drop to simulate track line failure. The control lines were terminated at the anchor
with either a brake bar rack or rescue 8, with every attempt being made to prevent any
3

fi

 rope slip at the anchor. The prusiks were dressed and set by the same person, using the
same technique. For the moving carriage simulation, the hauling side was pre-tensioned to
approximately 0.4kn and the right side was allowed to have 45cm of slack.

Results:
Drops 1-5 simulated track-line failure with a non-moving carriage that is mid-
span and no prusik bypass in place. The mean peak force at the terminal connection with
the carriage was found to be 6.79kn (Std Dev 0.144). The test was repeated with prusik
bypass in place (Drops 6-11) and the mean peak force was found to be 6.44kn (Std Dev
0.162). The prusik slip in drops 6-11 ranged from 2.9-16.9cm. The addition of prusiks
showed a decrease in mean peak force of 0.35kn. There was a range of prusik slip noted
and there was no obvious correlation between the amount of prusik slip and the change
in peak force. All drops were successfully arrested by the control lines as intended.
Drops 12-16 simulated track line failure with a carriage moving left and no prusik
bypass in place. The mean peak force at the carriage terminal connection on the ‘hauling’
side (left) was found to be 7.64kn (std dev 0.277). The mean peak force on the ‘slack’ side
(right) was found to be 6.65kn (std dev 0.243). The test was repeated with prusik bypass in
place (Drops 17-21) and the mean peak force on the ‘hauling' side (left) was found to be
7.13kn (std dev 0.145). The mean peak force on the ‘slack’ side (right) was found to be
10.18kn (std dev 4.67). The rst two drops of this series (drop 17 & 18) showed a peak
force on the ‘slack’ (right) side of 15.52kn and 15.06kn respectively. The remaining drops,
19-21 showed a mean peak force of 6.77kn (std dev 0.083). The difference found, was
apparent rope slip through the brake bar rack where the control line was terminated at
the anchor. Once noted, the rope was marked at the rack for drops 20-21. Drops 20-21
averaged 7.7cm of slip through the brake bar rack. The addition of prusiks showed a
decrease in peak force on the “hauling side” (left) by 0.52kn. The addition of prusiks to
the “slack” side (right) showed an increase in mean peak force of 0.11kn (excluding drops
17 & 18). There was a wide range of prusik slip noted and there was no obvious
correlation between the amount of prusik slip and the peak force. All drops were
successfully arrested by the control lines as intended.
All of the gure 8 knots remained unloaded with prusik bypass in place however,
the host rope in all tests with prusik bypass in place showed varying degrees damage and/
4

fi
fi

 or glazing to the sheath with several showing considerable deformity, notably the "slack
side” (right) in drops 17-21. The possible reduction in MBS due to core damage was
discussed. The prusik’s were left in place and all ropes were packaged “as-is” and sent to
the manufacturer for testing. The prusiks were removed from the samples by the
manufacturer and then pulled tested from the gure 8 knot on one end and capstan on
the other. The samples from drops 17-21 right (slack line with prusik bypass) showed a
mean MBS of 4908.4 lbf (n=5) with a Std Dev of 206.3 with all samples breaking at the
gure 8 knot. This represents an approximate 37% reduction in the listed MBS of 35kn
(7875 lbf) and is consistent with the expected performance. The samples from drops 6-10
left (no slack with prusik in place) showed a mean MBS of 4688.8 lbf (n=5) with a Std
Dev of 169.93 with all samples breaking at the gure 8 knot. This represents an
approximate 40% reduction in the listed MBS of 35kn (7875 lbf) and is consistent with
the expected performance. Despite sometimes signi cant deformity, all 10 samples
retained enough strength to dismiss any concerns about core damage at the site of prusik
catch.

Force Limiting Descent Control Devices:

The concept of ‘force limiting’ descent control devices on the control and track-
lines has become more prevalent in recent years. A slip value of 6kn has been widely
circulated as an expectation of performance for DCD’s such as the I’D, MPD or Clutch.
After evaluating the performance data provided by the respective manufacturers, the 6kn
value appears to be a misinterpretation of the data or perhaps it has been broadly applied
to all devices inappropriately. (The performance data is available upon request). For
11mm dynamic drops, there was mean peak force (slip) of 8.50kn when looking at the
I’D, Clutch and Maestro data combined, however the range was 5.9kn - 11.2kn; which
can be attributed to rope brand, size and speci c device. For 11mm slow pull tests, there
was a mean peak force (slip) at 8.26kn when looking at the I’D, Clutch and Maestro data
combined however the range was 2.6kn - 11.56 kn; which can again be attributed to rope
brand, size and speci c device. It should be noted that all tests performed with new rope
and these values will likely change when the condition of the rope changes.
This manufacturer provided data shows a wide range of performance values that
are directly related to the condition, brand, size and construction of the rope. With that in
5
fi

fi
fi
fi
fi

fi

 mind, it is our conclusion that it would be unreasonable to broadly apply a 6kn value as
an expectation of performance for the purposes of evaluating a system safety factor. In
order to narrow the range of expected performance, the end user should evaluate the
data for both the speci c device and brand of rope used by their organization.

Conclusions:

While there was a slight decrease in peak force noted with the use of prusik bypass
in one condition, there was a potentially large increase in peak force noted in another
which requires more testing. Despite these variants, a 250kg load was successfully
arrested by high modulus, HTP control lines in all drops with and without prusik bypass
in place (n=21). The mean peak force of all individual samples without prusik bypass
(slack and pre-tensioned) was 6.59kn (n=22) with a Std Dev of 0.22. With that in mind, a
50% reduction in the 35kn MBS (due to the gure 8) with a 2.4kn load would still yield a
7:1 static safety factor or a 2.5:1 dynamic safety factor on the control (belay) line. We
expect these numbers will only improve if rope with a lower modulus is tested.
Given all of these factors, it is our opinion that omitting prusik bypass on highline
control lines is perfectly acceptable and affords operators an appropriate static and
dynamic safety factor for the control (belay) lines. When coupled with responsible force
limiting techniques and adding a second (redundant) track line whenever possible, the
safety factor can potentially increase even further. Ultimately, end users are encouraged
to discuss the safety factors that are acceptable for their team based on anticipated loads
and team experience.

fi
fi

 Test Results
No Slack - No Prusik No Slack - Prusik Bypass

Left Hauling - Right Slack - No Prusik

Left Hauling - Right Slack - Prusik Bypass

 Acknowledgments

Vector Rescue would like to thank the following parties for their contributions to this
research, without their help this research would not have been possible.

• CMC
• Sterling Rope
• Teufelberger/New England Ropes
• Total Rescue
• New Milford High School
• Mr. Stephen Donahue
• Mr. Michael Grasso
• Mr. Clifford Freer

Works Cited

• CMC Rescue Inc. “Rope Rescue Manual” 5th Edition, 2018 CMC Rescue Inc,
Goleta CA

• Pendley, Tom. “The Essential Technical Rescue Field Operations Guide”. 5th
Edition, July 2017 Desert Rescue Research

• Larson, A. “The Kootenay Highline System, Rigging for Rescue, Notes, 1997. Ouray,
CO.
• Evans, Thomas, 2014, “Empirical Breaking Strengths of Single Prusiks of Four
Diameters on 11 mm Static Rope" International Technical Rescue Symposium,
• Padgett, Allen, and Smith, Bruce. “On Rope : North American vertical rope
techniques” United States, Vertical Section, National Speleological Society, 1996.

• Walker, DJ and McCullar, Russell. “Slow Pull Testing of Progress Capture Devices”
2014, International Technical Rescue Symposium

• Stiller, Jerome. “When Prusiks Go Bad, or Are You Sure That Thing is Gonna Hold”
2000, International Technical Rescue Symposium