Final Report of Equipment Tests

Contents
1 Introduction 4
1.1 Purpose of testing and main goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 State of the art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Methodology 6
3 Results 11
3.1 Knotted ropes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.1 Overhand loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.2 Figure of eight loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.3 Bowline on a bight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.4 Extremely old ropes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.5 Pure dyneema accessory cord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 Cowstails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Slings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.4 Carabiners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.5 Descenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.6 Rope clamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.7 Pulleys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4 Appendix 54
5 References 65
Report on the testing of new, used, and retired personal pro-
tective equipment employed in cave rescue
Excerpt
To date, throughout caving society very little comprehensive tests widely avail-
able to public on personal protective equipment used in caving have been con-
ducted with specific aims of their evaluation from the cave rescue point of view.
With the possibility put forward by the European project EU-PROTEUS this be-
came possible for the equipment and techniques adopted by the Slovene Cave
Rescue Association and Croatian Mountain Rescue Association. The main pur-
pose was therefore to make an overall check of the safety of the equipment of
different ages and history of usage employed in cave rescue. Deriving from this
cross-sectional methodological point of departure it may be asserted that the re-
search was tailored also to the needs of the Slovene Cave Rescue Association as
all services have somewhat specific criteria for retiring equipment. This holds
true especially for equipment used in some specific cave rescue manoeuvres
where the system is pushed to virtually no safety factor situations. Surprising
is the fact that in some instances retired equipment performs better than brand
new one such as descenders for tightening high tension traverse lines.
Keywords: personal protective equipment, equipment testing, caving, cave

rescue.
3
1 Introduction
Nowadays the vast majority of the Earth is already explored and charted. One
may dare to say that some of the very few undiscovered parts of the Earth is the
underground world. In this respect it would not be an overstatement to say that
cavers are exploring one the last frontiers. Through experience and empiricism
cavers have learned how to deal with these environments and how to protect
themselves against the inherent dangers. But the unpredictable always happens
and accidents, despite rare, just as in our everyday lives, do occur.
Caving is thus a pursuit with its own inherent objective dangers. It occurs
in confined sometimes stone-fall prone spaces and progression frequently has a
accentuated vertical dimension. These are among the main (but not sole) reas-
ons why they have to protect themselves against objective risks. To overcome
the risks of the austere environment they have to adopt special procedures and
techniques coupled with specifically designed personal protective equipment
that aids in progression and protects them against falls from a height, falling
objects, cold, dirt, moisture etc. The hostile environment forced cavers to de-
vise strict safety principles and procedures and use faultless equipment carrying
proof of standardized guarantees of safety.
Within the European Union all merchandise is subject to laws of consumer
safety and personal protective equipment is even more so. Its conformity with
the European legislation is demonstrated by the label C which guarantees the
equipment has passed the scrutiny of a notified body according to the tests set
within European norms relevant for particular types of equipment. This is even
more true for equipment used in rescue where not only it has to demonstrate
standardized safety, but procedural safety factors have to be even more elevated
as rescue techniques are generally more demanding on the equipment.
Just as in many karst reach high-income countries, Slovenia too has a form-
ally organized Cave rescue service as a voluntary part of the Civil protection. Its
main objectives are rescue from caves and other confined deep or high places
where less specialized techniques can not be employed due to hazard or re-
moteness.
The European Commission has recognized the benefits of voluntary civil
forces and supports them within the Directorate’s General for Humanitarian
Aid and Civil Protection with project-funding calls. The joint-venture of Slov-
ene Cave Rescue Service (leading partner) with the Croatian Mountain Rescue
Service was successful in the application for one of these calls. The project
4
is fully entitled Raising Awareness and Improving Effectiveness of Cave Rescuing
within Community Civil Protection Mechanism (Merela, 2012). The funding in
the amount of approximately 0.5 million Euro is granted for 24 months starting
with the beginning of the year 2012. A bit less than 75 % of the budget are
co-financed by the European Commission while the rest has to be covered by
the native institutions.
There is a wealth of different goals the project aims to achieve. It is not
the intention of this text to present them all. Among them, however, there
are also the recognition and evaluation of possible hazards stemming from the
equipment and equipment-related techniques used for caving and especially
cave rescue (task H).
Slovene Cave Rescue Association and Croatian Mountain Rescue Association
acknowledge the efforts by the European Commission and are deeply thankful
for its support which primarily made the tests described in this report possible. We
thank also the company Anthron that put their facilities, measuring equipment
and labour at our service to conduct laboratory tests. Not least we thank all the
volunteers that helped during testing and endured even after long and exhausting
testing series that lasted well in the dark half of the day.
1.1 Purpose of testing and main goals

The main purpose of testing was therefore to make an overall check of the safety
of used and new equipment employed in cave rescue.
Derived from the purpose specific goals comprehend:
• Evaluate differences between load bearing capacities of new, used and

retired equipment employed in cave rescue.
• Evaluate possible differences between static and dynamic loads on dif-

ferent types of equipment used in cave rescue and assess its reliability
according to its typical use.
• Perform selected functional tests of combinations of rope access equip-

ment used in caving and evaluate their safety.
• Make a list of non-safe equipment and equipment combinations based on

expected loads evaluated against expected safety factors.
• Last but not the least important is the educational value of testing for cave
rescuers that volunteered to help in the process.
5
1.2 State of the art
Quite a lot of testing has been performed from the eighties onwards on cav-
ing equipment with the aim of evaluation of its safety. Much of the problem
with results of such tests is comported by the fact that reports are either non-
published or reclused from open public due to their classified nature. PPE busi-
ness is a flourishing sector and producer companies often do not have the in-
terest to publish tests that would either put in an awkward light their equipment
or make comparative tests. Additionally, there exists no topical journal which
would follow and publish test reports. Existing reports either more or less com-
prehensive tests (e.g. Celesti et al. 1984, Resistenza dei materiali 1989, Long
et al., 2001) or tests focusing on specific equipment or problems. In Slovenia
Naše jame was the national journal dedicated to speleology and a few articles
were dedicated to techniques and tests (e.g. Planina 1989, Planina 1991 and
Baričič et al. 2002, Lorbek 2003). Later the journal Jamar took over (e.g. Staut
et al. 2010). Similar publications abound through speleologically developed
countries but are difficult to spot because of national languages being used and
very small printing numbers. Many interesting informations are spread over the
internet as well but were never formally published (e.g. SepeleoCRASC 2012).
Of special interest is the fact that there was very little testing performed so
far with the aim of the evaluation of caving equipment from the cave rescue
application standpoint. As Dave Merchant states at the end of his book Life on
a line:
I would like to think that the questions raised throughout this book will
lead to more rescue-rated test data becoming available, and one day letting
this book quote numbers that everyone agrees on!
This fact was maybe the most influential impetus to start thinking about a
dedicated testing experiment.
2 Methodology
The among the aims of the task H was to make a selection of equipment for lab
testing (task H3) based on past experience field testing and available resources.
From these factors a list of equipment was selected and the testing protocol
devised.
6
The idea was to choose a broad spectrum of different equipment (all types
of PPE equipment against falls from a height used in cave rescue) and test their
braking strength statically and dynamically. Additionally, differences between
new and old equipment seemed interesting. To the permutation 3 age categor-
ies of ropes and 2 age categories of other equipment were added. This amoun-
ted to a lot of equipment and even more tests. Table 1 lists the equipment used
in tests.
Table 1: List of equipment used in testing

Item Status Required Acquired
Edelrid Superstatic 10 mm new 40 50
Edelrid Superstatic 10 mm used 15 18
Edelrid Superstatic 10 mm retired 70 80
Beal 8 mm new 15 10
Tendon static 11 mm retired 0 15
> 20 years old laid rope, 13 mm extremely used 0 5
UKrope extremely used 0 5
Singing rock Icon, 9.3 mm new 20 20
Unknown cowstails retired 0 2
Beal Pure Dyneema, 5 mm new 10 10
Beal Pure Dyneema, 5 mm retired 15 1
Webbing (for knotting) new 10 10
Webbing (for knotting) retired 5 3
Beal dyneema sling, 6 mm new 0 1
Mammut dyneema sling, 8 mm retired 0 1
Carabiner – same type new 5 10
Carabiner – same type retired 15 15
Hanger plate – Coudee retired 6 1
Hanger plate – Vrilee retired 6 4
Ring new 5 4
Ring retired 5 1
Spit new 10 10
Raumer spit for drilling machine new 10 5
Raumer inox expansion anchor 8 mm new 10 0
Raumer Multi monti 7.5 mm new 5 5
Hilti black head new 2 2
Merkur expansion anchor new 20 3
FAZ expansion anchor new 2 2
Petzl Stop descender new 1 1
Petzl Stop descender retired 1 1
Petzl Simple descender retired 1 1
Petzl rope clamp new 1 1
Petzl rope clamp retired 1 1
Petzl Croll retired 1 2
Pulley Petzl Rescue retired 1 1
Pulley Pezl Fixe retired 1 2
Pulley Anthron AR35 retired 1 1
* quantities for ropes are expressed in metres
7
As table 1 demonstrates, not all desired equipment (especially old one) was
available for testing. On the other hand, diverse interesting items of very high
wear and age were obtained.
The age categories were determined in the following way. For 3 age cat-
egories: new: brand new equipment of as recent production as possible; used:
equipment that was used but in perfect working condition for rescue; retired:
equipment retired from use due to wear and tear or ageing. For two age cat-
egories only the two extreme (new and retired) were adopted. Since equip-
ment of very old age kept coming, it was decided to present results about it as
well. This equipment was assigned the category extremely old. The category
comprised items in very variable condition so that results in this category are
purely informative.
Besides traditional static and dynamic time force tests some more specific
functional tests were planned where combinations of various equipment used
in a wrong way were planned to be tested.
The desired list of equipment was actually based on what tests the Cave
rescue service had in plan. Since broad spectrum of equipment was chosen
there was no possibility to delve into more specific tests. Table 2 displays the
planned tests for different groups of equipment.
Table 2: Planned tests.

Item Type of test Status Repetitions
Knotted ropes
Overhand loop, Edelrid superstatic 10 mm static new 5
Overhand loop, Edelrid superstatic 10 mm static used 5
Overhand loop, Edelrid superstatic 10 mm static retired 5
Figure of 8, Edelrid superstatic 10 mm dynamic new 5
Figure of 8, Edelrid superstatic 10 mm dynamic used 5
Figure of 8, Edelrid superstatic 10 mm dynamic retired 5
Figure of 8, Beal Spelenium 8 mm dynamic new 1
Bowline on a bight, Edelrid Superstatic dynamic retired 5
Figure of 8, Tendon Static, 11 mm dynamic retired 5
Figure of 8, UKrope dynamic extremely 1
old
Figure of 8, thick laid rope dynamic extremely 1
old
Triple fisherman’s, Beal Pure dyneema dynamic new 5
Triple fisherman’s, Beal Pure dyneema dynamic retired 5
Double fihherman’s, Beal Pure dyneema dynamic retired 5
Overhand on a bight, double cowstail dynamic new 5
Overhand on a bight, single cowstail dynamic new 5
Continued on next page. . .
8
Barrel’s knot, single cowstail dynamic new 5
Overhand on a bight, single cowstail dynamic retired 2
Petzl Spelegyca dynamic retired 1
Webbing
Water knot, tubular webbing 25 mm static new 5
Overhand on a bight, tubular webbing 25 mm static new 5
Water knot, tubular webbing 25 mm dynamic new 1
Overhand on a bight, tubular webbing 25 mm dynamic new 1
Water knot, Beal dyneema webbing, 6 mm dynamic new 3
Triple fisherman’s Beal dyneema webbing, 6 dynamic new 3
mm
Overhand on a bight, Mammut dyneema dynamic retired 3
webbing, 8 mm
Carabiners
Asymmetric dynamic retired 5
Oval dynamic retired 5
Maillon rapide MRGO7 07.0 static extremely 2
old
Asymmetric static extremely 3
old
Oval static extremely 3
old
Hanger plates and rings
Vrilee (clipping hole strain) dynamic retired 1
Coudee (clipping hole strain) dynamic retired 1
Raumer ring (clipping hole strain) dynamic retired 1
Vrilee (clipping hole strain) static extremely 2
old
Coudee (clipping hole strain) static extremely 3
old
Descender devices
Petzl Stop start of slippage (new rope) static new 5
Petzl Stop start of slippage (new rope) static retired 5
Petzl Stop with blocking of the rope (retired) static new 2
Petzl Stop with blocking of the rope (retired) static retired 2
Petzl Stop pull off upper pin up static retired 1
Petzl Stop pull off upper pin outwards with a static retired 1
rope
Rope clamps
Petzl rope clamp with new rope static new 5
Petzl rope clamp with retired rope static new 5
Petzl rope clamp with new rope static retired 5
Petzl rope clamp with retired rope static retired 5
Petzl Croll half sawn by rope pull rope perpen- static retired 1
dicular
Petzl Croll half sawn by thin rope pull rope static retired 1
down
Continued on next page. . .
9
Petzl Croll half sawn by thin rope pull rope up static retired 1
Pulleys
Petzl Rescue static retired 1
Petzl Fixe static retired 1
Anthron AR35 static retired 1
Static tests are usually conducted at low speeds (typically < 300 mm/min)
on very strong strain machines capable of deforming and breaking or tearing
the material being tested. They were conducted on a hydraulic strain machine
MFL SYSTEME, Type VPP 12 with accuracy ±10 daN at room temperature and
standard relative air moisture. The machine is calibrated regularly on annual
basis. The digital sensor by means of which the digital signal was acquired is a
product of the company PCB Peizoelectrics, model 204C with a range of up to
40000 lbF or ≈ 178 kN and sensitivity of 27 mV/kN.
Dynamic tests are usually conducted by simulating a real fall. I.e. by drop-
ping weights onto a system where the tested item receives all the energy of the
impact. With dynamic tests there was no interest in understanding whether
tested items would hold the specified weight under specific fall conditions but
to understand possible differences in breaking forces between static and dy-
namic loads. For former purpose human-like flexible weights (e.g. a crash test
dummy) would be needed. Dynamic tests were conducted on standard type
drop test system with weights ranging from 180 kg up to 225 kg and fall factors
ranging from 1 up to 4. The employed sensor was a Dytran ring style excita-
tion force sensor (model 1203V5) with a range of 10000 LbF or ≈ 44.5 kN and
sensitivity of 0.12 mV/N.
Figure 1 is displaying both static testing machine and dynamic testing ap-
paratus. The static strain machine is composed of the control console with the
analogue scale and dial on the left hand side of the photo, the hydraulic beam
for strain application on the right hand side and computer with digital signal ac-
quisition software in the front. The dynamic apparatus is composed of a firmly
mounted very low stretch chain, weights, winch for lifting, quick release system
and a sensor connected with a computer for the acquisition of data.
For functional tests a standard type strain gauge by Laumas elettronica,
model CTL with maximum loads of 2500 kg and accuracy of ±0.02 % was
used. Functional tests were conducted on a 10 m high bridge in the village of
Škoflje. The bridge serves as the site of annual high jumps so that a construction
above the water was already built to make tests easier. The knowledge about
the jumps being performed there also made life easier to Uroš Ilič who braved
10
the functional tests. We have to express a special thanks to him as he volunteered
for a potentially dangerous task.
Figure 1: Static testing machine and dynamic testing apparatus.
Where applicable and possible Student’s t-tests were performed to compare

sample means. The readers may know that the test relies on the assumption of
normal distribution in both samples and it is particularly appropriate for small
samples (below n=100).
3 Results
Overview and commentary of results will follow a similar line-up as table 2 does
with the distinction that an attempt to parallel static and dynamic tests will be
done.
3.1 Knotted ropes

In first place results of breaking strengths of different knots on different new
and used ropes will be presented. Most of them are drawn from applications
common in cave rescue but some reflect also general conditions encountered in
caves.
11
3.1.1 Overhand loops
In cave rescue overhand loops (figure 2) are mostly used in equalization an-
chors on shorter pieces of static rope. Dynamic loads on these types of anchors
are rare because of very high safety factors in equalization anchors. They could
happen in the case one of the three anchors breaks. This is more probable if the
eqalisation was not done properly. The intention of the test, however, was more
to determine how the knot behaves with the degradation of the ropes and at
very high tensions. Figure 3 is displaying graphs with basic information about
specific tests given in the title.
Figure 2: Overhand loop.
Source: Bakšić, 2012
The right hand scale (slate grey colour) is giving the strain of the sample
in mm. This in other words is the shift of the moving part of the tensioning
machine. Without delving too deeply into details two characteristics may be
clearly discerned. The non-linearity of stretch ∝ force and the indentations
produced by sudden slips of the knot. The non-linearity is somewhat more
pronounced in new ropes compared to used and retired ones. It is the result of
stretching of the braiding in the rope and stretching of the polyamide fibres.
Given the results it may deduced that the overhand loop used for forming
slings holds a lot. This may be confirmed by the reached breaking forces (µnew =
26335 N, µused = 24336 N and µretired = 23940 N). The strength on triple
equalisation anchors is dependant on the angles between different strands. In
case of low angles it theoretically should almost triple. This means that judging
purely on the basis of knotted rope strength, triple anchors should hold well
in excess of 50 kN. In caving however large angles are used due lack of space.
Nevertheless even with large angles (around 120°) even very old ropes should
hold forces well in excess of 20 kN. This means they probably hold more than
the bolts they are fixed to.
On the downside, the fact remains that the knot is slipping under high
forces. Even with long tails it happened a lot of the times that the knot simply
untied. It is therefore warmly recommended to leave free ends long enough. This
12
means more than 20 cm to be on the safe side.
3 relations between 3 age categories may be constructed and t-tests ran
between them to check for the possibility of dissimilarity between arithmetic
mean with statistical value.
Welch Two Sample t-test
data: new_rope and used_rope

t = 1.4309, df = 4.112, p-value = 0.2239
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
-1838.594 5836.694
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
26335.25 24336.20
data: new_rope and retired_rope

t = 1.5637, df = 5.162, p-value = 0.1768
-1505.433 6296.433
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
26335.25 23939.75
data: used_rope and retired_rope

t = 0.3952, df = 5.416, p-value = 0.7078
-2124.089 2916.989
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
24336.20 23939.75
Judging by the results of t-tests it may deduced that there is not enough
evidence that even new and retired rope behave importantly dissimilarly with
the overhand loop regarding breaking forces. Based on the data at hand there
was a mere 9 % decrease in breaking force between new and retired ropes. It
is true, however, that we managed to break only one sample with a new rope.
The fact that most of the samples did not break at or close to the knots is also
quite enlightening.
13
Figure 3: Static performance of overhand loops on new, used and retired ropes.
New rope, overhand loop 1 Used rope, overhand loop 1 Retired rope, overhand loop 1
Untied due to short free ends Broken, not on the knot Broken, not on the knot
Fmax = 16400 N Fmax = 22282 N Fmax = 25463 N
200
25000
15000
20000
200
80
150
150
10000
60
15000
Strain [mm]
Force [N]
100
5000 10000
100
40
5000
50
5000
50
20
0
0
0
0
0
-5000
140 160 180 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 60 80 100 120 140 160
Untied due to short free ends 25000 Broken, not on the knot Untied due to short free ends
20000
150
20000
150
150
15000
15000
15000
100
100
Strain [mm]
100
Force [N]
10000
10000
50
50
5000
5000
50
5000
0
0
0
-5000
0
100 120 140 160 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60
Length limit of machine reached Broken, not on the knot Broken, not on the knot
25000
25000
400
25000
150
150
300
15000
15000
100
100
Strain [mm]
Force [N]
15000
200
50
50
5000
5000
100
5000
0
0
0
-5000
-5000
0
50 100 150 200 250 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Length limit of machine reached Broken, not on the knot Broken, not on the knot
200
25000
20000
25000
200
150
150
15000
150
100
Strain [mm]
100
Force [N]
15000
5000 10000
100
50
50
5000
50
5000
0
0
0
-5000
0
40 60 80 100 120 40 60 80 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Sheath torn apart Broken, not on the knot Broken, not on the knot
25000
200
250
200
20000
150
200
15000
15000
150
150
Strain [mm]
100
Force [N]
100
100
5000 10000
50
5000
5000
50
50
0
0
0
0
-5000
-5000
0
0 20 40 60 80 140 150 160 170 180 190 140 160 180 200 220
Time [s] Time [s] Time [s]
14
3.1.2 Figure of eight loop
The figure of eight loop (figure 4) is probably the most common knot in cave
rigging and general cave use. It is very sturdy, reliable, easy to check and
even if not dressed the best way it still holds. The same cross-age comparison
as with overhand loops seemed interesting but this time the tests were done
dynamically. Performance on static machines for this knot is very well known
and may be found elsewhere (e.g. Soles 2011, Merchant 2003 or Marbach &
Tourte 2002). Additionally, if there was a chance of breaking this knot in cave
use, this would very probably happen by means of a dynamic load. For each age
category five samples were prepared and pre-tightened by body weight. After
that, they were subject to dynamic falls of a 200 kg with fall factors around 2.
Figure 4: Figure of eight loop.
Unluckily this was the time problems with the set-up of our measuring sys-
tem were most present. Thinking that it does a good job it actually successfully
acquired only half of the measurements. Nevertheless the informations are
summed up in the graphs given in figure 5. Since no samples useful for statist-
ical comparison were managed to be acquired, only arithmetic means are given
for new ropes µnew = 21559 N, used ropes µused = 17158 N and retired ropes
µretired = 13585 N. With the acquired samples the performance of ropes on the
figure of 8 deteriorated for about 37 %.
Compared to static or more accurately quasi-static loading, dynamic impacts
happen about 2 magnitudes faster. Only time lapses of the actual impacts were
cut out of the whole acquired signal. The jagged nature or the graphs may be
attributed to trembling and shocks in the whole system (sensor, chain, weight,
sample) during the free fall of the weight and the ensuing impact. The dis-
tinction between a breakage and non-breakage may also be understood easily
by the sudden fall in force after breakage. The signal of the first sample with
used rope (no breakage, the weight actually hit the ground) was not cut to see
the resulting damped oscillation. In many graphs it seems just as the sample
broke only a fraction after reaching the peak force. This phenomenon may be
15
Figure 5: Dynamic performance of figure of eight loops on new, used and retired ropes.
Fig. 8, new, 10 mm, sample 1 Fig. 8, new, 10 mm, sample 1.1 Fig. 8, new, 10 mm, sample 3 Fig. 8, new, 10 mm, sample 4
no breakage breakage, unreliable result breakage breakage
Fmax = 15185 N Fmax = 15255 N Fmax = 21376 N Fmax = 21742 N
15000
15000
20000
20000
10000
15000
10000
15000
5000
10000
10000
5000
0
Force [N]
5000
5000
0
-5000
0
-10000
-5000
-5000
1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 0.65 0.70 0.75 2.10 2.15 2.20 2.25 2.30 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25
Fig. 8, used, 10 mm, sample 1 Fig. 8, used, 10 mm, sample 3 Fig. 8, used, 10 mm, sample 6 Fig. 8, used, 10 mm, sample 7
no breakage breakage unreliable result no breakage
6000
15000
15000
16
4000
10000
10000
2000
10000 15000 20000
5000
Force [N]
5000
0
5000
0
0
0
-2000
-5000
0 1 2 3 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 1.36 1.40 1.44 1.48 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Fig. 8, retired, 10 mm, sample 1 Fig. 8, retired, 10 mm, sample 2 Fig. 8, retired, 10 mm, sample 3 Fig. 8, retired, 10 mm, sample 4
breakage, unsuccessful acquisition breakage, unsuccessful acquisition breakage breakage
40000
10000
-900
10000
20000
0
5000
5000
-950
Force [N]
0
-1000
-40000
2.82 2.84 2.86 2.88 2.90 2.92 2.94 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 2.60 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.80 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85
Time [s] Time [s] Time [s] Time [s]

attributed to the transmission of the force along the whole system to the sensor
which may record some lag after sudden discharges.
With dynamic forces reaching up to 7 kN or even more in certain rescue
manoeuvres breaking loads of 13 to 14 kN would lead to safety factors of less
than 2. Safety factors in different rescue groups do vary but are never lower
than 4 (most of them are satisfied with RF ≥ 5 but some work with 10 or even
15). This is why we are inclined to think of retired ropes to be safe where they
are. Retired. At least for rescue applications. But they may still be perfectly
safe for plain caving where peak forces according to some studies reach up to
400 daN (SpeleoCRASC – Forze progressione, usura corde, fragilità atrezzi).
3.1.3 Bowline on a bight
With the fashion of going light in the caves, carabiner-free rigging is getting
increasingly popular. Since it looks as it is not less safe (from the resilience
point of view it is probably even safer) it actually has some advantages over the
traditional hanger plate and carabiner but pitfalls may be found as well.
Figure 6: Bowline on a bight.
Anyhow, with rings and ring like material new knots have to be used. And
one of the most credited and most used is the bowline on a bight. It attributes
its popularity to the ease of tying and untying with good breaking forces. This
is demonstrated also by its performance in dynamic tests summed up in figure
7.
In eight tests five successful breakages were produced. The non-breakages
may mostly be attributed to too long samples and consequently the weight hit-
ting the ground. Successful tests may be discriminated from the non-successful
by sharp falls in force immediately after it reached peak forces. With approxim-
ately 0.5 m long samples and fall factors of 2 successful shocks lasted between
5 and 10 hundredths of a second. The average breaking force was µretired =
17770 N with minimum not lower than 15 kN. Compared to figure of eight
17
Figure 7: Dynamic performance of bowlines-on-a-bight on retired ropes.
Retired 10 mm, 1 Retired 10 mm, 2 Retired 10 mm, 3 Retired 10 mm, 4.1

Breakage Breakage Breakage No breakage, sample too long
15000
20000
15000
15000
10000
10000
10000
Force [N]
5000
5000
5000 10000 15000 20000
5000
0
0
0
0
-5000
1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 3.50 3.55 3.60 3.65 3.70 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.05 2.10 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
18
Retired 10 mm, 4.2 Retired 10 mm, 5.1 Retired 10 mm, 5.2 Retired 10 mm, 5.3
Breakage No breakage, sample too long No breakage, sample too long Breakage
15000
10000
15000
15000
10000
10000
6000
10000
Force [N]
5000
5000
5000
2000
0
0
0
0
1.05 1.10 1.15 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65
Time [s] Time [s] Time [s] Time [s]
loops higher average breaking forces were achieved but no statistical signific-
ance can be drawn from this comparison. Nevertheless, 95 % confidence in-
terval with Student’s-t distribution (under known assumtions) for the bowline
on a bight tests yield an interval between 14782 N ≤ F ≤ 20761 N. That is
above the rated average values for figure of eight loops. But again, it can not
be said with a high degree of confidence whether this may be attributed to ac-
tual differences between the behaviour of both knots on retired ropes or just
apparent differences due to small sample numbers. Judging by the results on
new ropes obtained elsewhere (e.g. Marbach & Tourte 2002) both knots do not
differ widely at breaking forces.
3.1.4 Extremely old ropes
The information about the testing sprang quite a bit of interest among the cave
rescue community. Many people volunteered to help during testing. As em-
phasized in the introductory part, the educational aspect was also among the
goals of the whole testing experiment. Namely to demonstrate rescuers how
such tests are being performed and to experience in first person how different
devices used in cave rescue behave at extreme loads. Anyhow. Some of them
even gathered a few pieces of very old equipment from their own retired stocks
and they were happily included in the tests.
Figure 8: Samples of extremely old ropes from Čehi II and Ljubljanska jama.
Among them there were three samples of ropes. The first was > 30 years
19
old laid rope of apparently 13 mm or 14 mm diameter found by Luka Zalokar in
Ljubljanska jama situated in Kamniško-Savinjske Alpe. The second was again
found by Luka Zalokar in the deepest cave of Slovenia, Čehi II. It is at least
15 years old sample of 10 mm diameter UKROPE. This type of rope is widely
used by cavers of former Soviet provenance that used to explore also the men-
tioned cave. There is very little known about UKROPEs among the Slovene
caving community besides it is infamous for its stiffness and very low elasticity
and therefore suitability for use with racks. Some additionally mention its bib-
lical breaking tenacity values. It looks as it has not passed any sort of norms
(standardized testing). Furthermore on some internet sites there is a warning
that these ropes (model Teksma) are not suitable for climbing, caving or sail-
ing (http://shop.ice-age.ru/catalog/staticropes/Ukrope/). At least this is what
automatic internet translators may tell about it. The third sample, compared to
the previous two, was of relatively recent date. It was an 11 mm Tendon used
in the cave Bela Griža and was brought for testing by Bogomir Remškar.
Due to short samples of the first two ropes, only one test with the first
sample, two tests with the second, and five tests with the last sample that was
a bit longer were done 8 (with 3 samples and 2 breakages). All tests were
typical drop tests with dynamic loads applied. All samples were prepared with
terminal figure of eight loops.
By taking into account the age, the laid rope with the peak force of 9591
N defended itself proudly. That, however, still does not mean it was a safe
rope. All ropes with breaking forces below 10 kN are extremely dangerous
and even the slightest mistake – for instance rubbing against the wall – may
lead to tragedy. The time force curve reveals additional peaks after breakage.
Those may be attributed to the safety rope preventing the pack of weights flying
around during successful tests. UKROPE samples did a bit better. In fact they
performed similar to the retired Superstatics from the Cave rescue stock despite
being probably more used and older. The newest rope in the extremely old stack
performed magnificently. The added security of an 11 mm rope is expressed
here to its full. Even though the rope had seen quite a bit of battering, it still
withstood forces well in excess of 22 kN. The average breaking force was 25359
N. Maybe even more explaining is the information that peak forces for the non-
successful tests reached values of about 24 kN. For comparison new 10 mm
Edelrid Superstatic broke at average force of 21.5 kN.
20
3.1.5 Pure dyneema accessory cord
Despite Beal’s official web page has clear informations about the accessory cord
Pure dyneema, at least within the Slovene Cave Rescue Service, its perform-
ances have always been wrapped in some sort of mystery. Many enigmas and
guesses were present around its breaking forces, what happens with it at very
high loads, what are the right knots to tie it, and its reliability and hence usabil-
ity. The official page states the cord itself should break at 1200 daN and displays
a warning that for tying slings a tripple fisherman’s knot should be used instead
Figure 9: Dynamic performance with figure of 8 loops on extremely old ropes.

>30 years old laid rope from Ljubljanska Extremely old UKrope from Cehi 2, 1 Extremely old UKrope from Cehi 2, 2
jama, breakage sample too long breakage
10000
15000
10000
10000
6000
Force [N]
Force [N]
Force [N]
6000
5000
2000
2000
0
0
−2000
−2000
3.00 3.05 3.10 3.15 3.20 1.95 2.00 2.05 2.10 1.60 1.65 1.70
Old Tendon 11 mm from Bela Griza, 1.1 Old Tendon 11 mm from Bela Griza, 1.2 Old Tendon 11 mm from Bela Griza, 2.1
no breakage breakage o breakage
25000
25000
25000
15000
15000
15000
Force [N]
Force [N]
Force [N]
5000
5000
5000
0
0
0
−5000
−5000
2.25 2.30 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.80 2.85 2.90 6.70 6.75 6.80 6.85 6.90 6.95
Old Tendon 11 mm from Bela Griza, 2.2 Old Tendon 11 mm from Bela Griza, 3
breakage no breakage
Fmax = 24490 N Fmax = 23928 N
25000
15000
15000
10000
Force [N]
Force [N]
5000
5000
0
0
−5000
1.34 1.36 1.38 1.40 1.42 1.44 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Time [s] Time [s]
21
of a double one (figure 10).
Figure 10: Double and triple fisherman’s knot.
The idea of testing dyneema cord was twofold: first to test its deterioration
during use and second to test the validity of assertions about triple fisherman’s
knots usability and check about double fisherman’s knots suitability (figure 10).
The test was intentionally done dynamically to test its dynamic performances,
which should supposedly not be good. Based on the breaking forces their suit-
ability for use in triple equalization anchors might be inferred upon. Fall factors
ranged between 1.5 and 2 with a weight of 200 kg.
The results of the tests performed on dyneema accessory cords are summed
up in figure 11. In columns from left to right follow: new cord with triple
fisherman’s knot, new rope with double fisherman’s knot, and retired rope with
triple fisherman’s knot.
The average breaking force of new cord with triple fisherman’s knot was
24120 N with minimum of 20450 N. Within known assumptions 95 % confid-
ence intervals with Student’s t distribution give a range between 16.2 kN and
32 kN. It has to be emphasized that the statistic was performed on 3 units only.
In fact at two drop tests the samples did not break. Anyhow, new dyneema cord
despite its known ultra-static properties seems quite suitable for both: use in
single bolts for plain cave rigging and triple equalization anchors used in cave
rescue where the force is split into three branches. Its ultra-static properties
does not give it praise for this use but expansion anchors are not very dynamic
either. Despite knots on very static ropes untie easier than on more stretchy
ropes, triple fishermans’ are quite forbidding. Unfortunately overhands on a
loop that are preferred for equalization anchors were not tested.
In the second column of the figure 11 it might be seen that double fisher-
man’s knots are extremely unreliable on dyneema cords. In fact in all instances
they untied. Even after tying the same knot on the same sample. After untying
the sheath of the cord was partly melted what indicates the range of heat pro-
duced during untying. The forces at which they untied varied widely but were
22
Figure 11: Dynamic performance for Pure dyneema accessory cords.
New rope, Triple fisherman's, 1.1 New rope, Double fisherman's, 4.1 Retired rope, Triple fisherman's, 1
No breakage Knot untied Breakage
15000
15000
10000
10000
Force [N]
5000
5000
5000
0
0
0
1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 2.26 2.30 2.34 2.38 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65
Breakage Knot untied Breakage
25000
15000
10000
15000
10000
Force [N]
5000
5000
5000
0
0
1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.58 3.60 3.62 3.64 3.66 3.68 3.70 3.72 1.00 1.05 1.10
New rope, Triple fisherman's, 2 New rope, Double fisherman's, 4.3 Retired rope, Triple fisherman's, 3
Breakage Knot untied Breakage
2000 4000 6000 8000
10000
15000
Force [N]
5000
5000
0
0
4.15 4.20 4.25 4.30 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.55 1.20 1.24 1.28 1.32
No breakage Knot untied Breakage
10000
15000
5000 10000
Force [N]
5000
5000
0
0
0
2.15 2.20 2.25 2.30 1.42 1.46 1.50 1.54 2.00 2.05 2.10 2.15
Time [s]
New rope, Triple fisherman's, 3.2 New rope, Double fisherman's, 4.5
Breakage Knot untied
Fmax = 25991 N Fmax = 12058 N
25000
10000
15000
Force [N]
6000
2000
5000
0
-2000
1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.65 1.70 1.75
Time [s] Time [s]
23
somewhat correlated to the lengths of free ends exiting from the knot.
The third column in the figure 11 displays performance of retired dyneema
cords with a triple fisherman’s knot. The average breaking force was 12320
N. This is only 51 % of the average force of new specimens. From the limited
sample acquired, it might be said, that despite the relatively preserved appear-
ance, breaking forces fell drastically from the new to the retired specimens.
Despite very small numbers t-test yields a significant difference between new
and old cords.
data: Dyneema_new and Dyneema_old
t = 5.2756, df = 3.806, p-value = 0.007097
5466.915 18148.418
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
24122.67 12315.00
Plain 10 mm rope (for tests Edelrid Superstatic was used) used for triple
equalization anchors is nonetheless safer. Despite average breaking forces (they
were not performed in the same way) are not that much apart (26335 N for
rope against 24120 N for dyneema cord) the added safety of greater elasticity
and thickness and more reliable knotting give it advantage over the lighter and
more abrasion resistant dyneema.
The issue of weak dynamic performances of very static cordage in terms of
its energy absorption capacities were not brought up in these tests as there were
no means to measure differences in pre and post breakage velocities and hence
derive momentum and energy absorption from it. With some more in-depth
testing and better knowledge about its properties it might be possible to give it
a try even in triple equalization anchors and make rescue racks for a fraction
lighter.
3.2 Cowstails
The test with cowstails was done with two ideas in mind.
• To check about possible differences in breaking strength and shock ab-
sorption between single cowstails (tied on the central half moon cara-
biner with separate knots) and double cowstails (connected to the half
moon with a single knot).
24
• To check about possible differences in breaking strength and shock ab-
sorption between overhand loops and barrel knots on cowstails.
Figure 12 is explaining the differences between two separate cowstails, one

double cowstail and a cowstail tied to the clipping carabiner with a barrel knot.
Various literature generally recommends very diverse setups with different pur-
poses in mind.
Figure 12: Comparison between one double cowstails and two single cowstails
tied with overhand loops and a cowstail tied to the clipping carabiner with a
barrel knot.
Source of barrel knot: Bakšić, 2012
Even though they are simple knotted pieces of rope fit with end connectors,
the topic of cowstails’ strength permeates caving and cave rescue society for a
very long time. At least in Slovenia this may be asserted openly. Only recently
though people became aware of dangers of excessively old (worn) cowstails
that might break even at moderate shocks (Ilič 2008, Staut & Ilič, 2010) and
sewn slings with very high shock loads. Since it looks like breaking strength
and shock absorption capability (lower peak forces) are important for determ-
ining both safety and service time of a cowstail, among a multitude of different
possible setups the test was done on three currently most popular.
The test was performed with an unused single dynamic rope (EN 892) of
9.3 mm diameter (Singing rock Icon Dry).
Each specimen was tied and consequently tightened by subjecting it to 200
daN of force for 1 min ± 5 s. With Double cowstails both strands were tightened
25
(like in actual use). The conditioning was done well in advance of testing
(about 2 months) in a way that the rope was bent and twisted in the knots for
a longer period of time. For each setup five specimen were prepared.
Figures 13, 14 and 15 display respective results of testing on single cowstails,
double cowstails and cowstails tied with a barrel knot. Just like in previous fig-
ures all graphs feature some basic description of the testing conditions and out-
comes in the title. Fall factors ranged between 3 at the beginning when some
specimen did not break to 5 for some of the barrel knots.
Figure 13: Dynamic performance of single cowstails.

FF = 3, broken on knot FF = 4, broken on knot FF = 4, broken on knot
15000
15000
15000
10000
10000
10000
Force [N]
Sila [N]
Sila [N]
5000
5000
5000
0
0
0
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Time [s]
FF = 3, sheath torn, rope not broken FF = 4, broken on knot
Fmax = 12478 N Fmax = 13097 N
10000
10000
Force [N]
Sila [N]
5000
5000
0
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

Time [s] Time [s]
The graphs representing single cowstails performance, with overhand loop

show clear and sharp force peaks with an average strain time of 0.063 s. Under
same testing conditions the strain time should be dependant on the length of the
cowstail, type of the knot, and its degree of tightening. The average breaking
force with single cowstails was 1585 daN. By taking into account that tests
were done with a 9.3 mm dynamic rope, this is a reasonable achievement that
has to be interpreted through their quick deterioration during use (described
elsewhere).
Quite similarly to single cowstails, the double ones feature expressed and
sharp force peaks. The average impulse with fall factors of 4 lasted 0.080 s.
26
Figure 14: Dynamic performance of double cowstails.
FF = 4, broken on common knot FF = 4, broken on upper knot FF = 4, broken on common knot
10000
10000
10000
Force [N]
5000
5000
5000
0
0
1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
Time [s]
FF = 4, broken on upper knot FF = 4, broken on upper knot
Fmax = 13367 N Fmax = 12872 N
10000
10000
Force [N]
5000
5000
0
0
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9
Time [s] Time [s]
Judging by the Student’s t-test, differences between impulse times are not dis-
similar in such a way to be statistically significant (p = 0.267).
When looking at average breaking forces the difference between single and
double cowstails becomes more expressed (mean breaking force for for success-
fully broken double cowstails was 1313 daN). The t-test however again does not
confirm a statistically plausible difference between them (p = 0.064).
Judging by the results, double cowstails behaved in a very similar way to
single cowstails (a weak difference in breaking forces might appear if elevating
the numerus). It might therefore be openly asserted that both setups are not
dissimilar in such a way that one of them is less safe than the other. Despite
tests were not conducted on different types and ages of ropes, theoretically,
relationships should not change in dependence of the diameter. At least with
unused conditioned cowstails. Despite it is not a revolutionary statement, it
should rather be said that thinner rope cowstails demonstrate weaker perform-
ance than thicker ones.
If the performance of single and double cowstails was quite similar, cowstails
with barrel knots on the clipping carabiner distinguish from both in a more
27
Figure 15: Dynamic performance of cowstails with a barrel knot.
Sheath torn close to barrel knot Sheath torn close to barrel knot Rope broken on barrel knot
FF = 4, Fmax = 11050 N FF = 4, Fmax = 11504 N FF = 5, Fmax = 11413 N
10000
10000
10000
6000
5000
5000
Force [N]
2000
0
0
0
-2000
3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7
Most of the core strands broken Rope broken on barrel knot

FF = 5, Fmax = 15264 N FF = 5, Fmax = 11604 N
15000
10000
10000
Force [N]
5000
5000
0
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1
Time [s] Time [s]
evident way.
From the graphs in the figure 15 it may be easily seen that despite equal or
higher fall factors only two of the specimen were managed to be broken. The
rest resulted in partial (but not complete) tearing of the sheath and strands of
the rope. This fact may confirm the widely acclaimed hypothesis on good shock
dampening effects of the barrel knot and the derived good energy absorption
capabilities. The fact that the knot broke at quite lower forces than the over-
hand loop (confirmed by t-test statistical significance: p = 0.021) viewed from
the aspect of more effective energy absorption does not count very much. Also
impulse times (µ = 0.1021 s, again with p = 0.0434 on the t-test of equality
of arithmetic means with single, overhand loop cowstail that evidence statist-
ical significance) witness in favour of the barrel knot with longer impulses and
weaker peak forces compared to the overhand loop.
From the above set the ideal combination of a double cowstail with barrel
knots on clipping carabiners might be drawn. As already put forward, within
the chosen methodology, the experiment could be refined by increasing the
numerus and adding a larger number of different diameters and ages of rope
types and knots. So far the methodology did not concentrate on standard falls
28
with predefined weights and fall factors. There are two reasons for that. The
first is that also cowstails’ breaking strengths were tried to be collected (there
is no way to tell the difference between single and double cowstails otherwise).
The second is that at present state there are no means to measure the dissipation
of energy.
In the area influenced by Italian techniques the so called trilonge knot is
known for its excellent shock dampening performances (Antonini et al. 2012).
In some future tests also the performance of these and possibly other knots
might be checked with possibly measuring the dissipation of energy as well.
To check the alleged quick deterioration of cowstails during use, a sample of
retired single and double cowstails and Petzl’s Spelegyca was collected. Rope
types were not known as well as their history of use. It looked like the double
cowstail was a bit thicker (about 10 mm in diameter) than the single one and
had a bit thicker sheath. The single cowstail had a similar diameter to the
new rope used in previous cowstails tests (i.e. around 9.3 mm). Figure 16 is
featuring graphs on their performance.
Figure 16: Dynamic performance of retired cowstails.

Double cowstail Single cowstail Old Petzl Spelegyca
FF = 2, broken on common knot FF = 2, broken on the knot FF = 5, seam torn open but not ripped apart
10000 12000
10000
6000
8000
8000
4000
6000
Force [N]
6000
4000
2000
4000
2000
2000
0
0
0
-2000
3 4 5 6 7 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Despite a relatively small sample (actually one specimen of each type), the
results show at least one cowstail broke due to a relatively weak shock (fall
factor about 2 with maximum force barely exceeding 7 kN). Earlier work on
used cowstails (Ilič 2008, Staut & Ilič 2010) demonstrated that even short falls
on anchors might result in higher forces being produced. The thicker double
cowstail with breaking force of 1118 daN performed somewhat better. If know-
ing rope types, it would be interesting to recalculate the share of original break-
ing force each specimen lost through use. There exist detailed researches about
the deterioration of dynamic rope (e.g. Prove di usura delle corde 1986, Be-
29
lotti 1995, Bressan 2003) and it is not the purpose of this text to reiterate their
findings. With the achieved results it might be asserted on pure qualitative
basis that the rule of changing cowstails on relatively short time intervals has
its foundation in the tests.
The prefabricated cowstail Petzl’s Spelegyca on the other hand, is a com-
pletely different story. Its shock absorbtion capacities attributable to non-holding
seam tearing were known. The test therefore tried to achieve breakage. The
fall factor was set to 5. Despite a fall factor that in typical single rope tech-
nique applied in caving could not happen (it could happen upon falls on ver-
tical lifelines) the cowstail tore but did not break. The impulse, however, gen-
erated a maximum force of 12,6 kN. Within the work at height sector two force
thresholds are quite emphasized. The 6 kN threshold is the one below which
an average 80 kg person should not experience injuries attributable to the fall.
This is also the threshold above which shock absorbers concordant with EN 355
should start to absorb the energy of a fall. The second threshold is 12 kN above
which the possibility of death is imminent. If the intention of the producers
with seam tearing was shock absorption, then they messed up its construction.
The alteration of seams through age is another plausible explanation to the
achieved high forces. On the other hand, dynamic ropes be it new or old with
whatever knot in terms of shock absorption in hard falls perform even worse.
3.3 Slings
There were two goals behind the testing of webbing knotted into slings. The
first was to estimate possible differences in breaking strength between new and
used webbing. The purpose of this goal was more or less the same as with other
comparisons between new and used equipment. This is to evaluate its deteri-
oration and consequently possible safety risks. The second was to evaluate the
suitability of the overhand loop on webbing for creating slings. Virtually all liter-
ature recommends the tape (also known as the water knot) for that purpose.
So what driving idea is behind this test? The two knots are basically the same
and they are done and dressed in a very similar way. The difference is that you
start threading them from opposite sides when dressing them and consequently
different ends are being pulled in their working state. With other knots this
distinction might be huge and could even mean the difference between life and
death. Just like with the ropes (with which the knot is used), the overhand loop
is being pulled so that the force is trying to capsize or open the knot. With the
30
tape knot this is not the case. There were multiple witnessed instances at which
apprentices devised an overhand loop instead of a tape knot. Undoubtedly the
knot does not undo by itself. Otherwise it would have a different reputation.
But how much does it hold? Is the difference compared to the tape knot so
important to strongly discourage its use?
All knots were tested statically on the strain machine where processes in
the knot may be observed during tensioning. The test was performed with a
standard 25 mm polyamide tubular webbing.
Figure 17 is displaying graphs of the performance of knotted webbing.
It might be expected that used webbing graphs would have a more jagged
time vs. force line than the new ones due to different frictional properties.
The former having lost their impregnation and being soiled compared to the
latter. This, however, does not seem to be the case. Mid tape breakages have
somewhat more pronounced peaks since the breakage occurs instantly while
knot breakages often but not always tear strand by strand or in a cascade.
By calculating the averages for the three groups, conclusions might quickly be
drawn.
At first glance it is possible to see that new webbing performed far better
than used. Average breaking strengths for new and used tape knotted webbing
were µnew = 20360 N and µused = 15985 N. Judging by the two sample t-test
this on a sample of n = 5 is a difference with statistical significance. By having
a look at the graphs on figure 17, it may be deduced that 2 out of 5 samples of
used webbing did not break at the knot. This could suggest that webbing itself
weakened and the knots comparatively hold well. However, also few specimen
of new webbing did not break at the knot (2 out of 10 if overhand loops are
added to the sum). With such low numbers it would be a tricky feat to draw
distinctions in mid tape holding strength between new and used webbing. But
again. As it looks, the grand average values are significantly different.
data: new tape knot and used tape knot

t = 4.5374, df = 5.95, p-value = 0.004028
2010.7 6738.8
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
20359.8 15985.0
31
Figure 17: Static performance of tested webbing.
New webbing, tape knot, 1 Used webbing, tape knot, 1 New webbing, overhand loop, 1
Broken at the knot, Fmax = 20345 N Broken at the knot, Fmax = 14526 N Broken at the knot, Fmax = 16529 N
15000
20000
15000
50
60
60
15000
50
50
40
10000
10000
40
40
10000
30
Sila [N]
Sila [N]
30
30
20
5000
20
5000
5000
20
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
New webbing, tape knot 2 Used webbing, tape knot, 2 New webbing, overhand loop, 2
Broken at the knot, Fmax = 20216 N Broken at mid tape, Fmax = 13356 N Broken at mid tape, Fmax = 16845 N
20000
50
70
15000
60
60
40
15000
10000
50
10000
30
40
40
10000
Sila.[N]
Sila.[N]
30
20
5000
5000
20
20
5000
10
10
0
0
0
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 60 70 80 90 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Broken at the knot, Fmax = 20645 N Broken at the knot, Fmax = 17505 N Broken at the knot, Fmax = 17780 N
20000
80
50
15000
15000
60
15000
60
40
10000
10000
30
10000
40
Sila [N]
Sila [N]
40
20
5000
5000
5000
20
20
10
0
0
50 55 60 65 70 20 30 40 50 60 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Broken at mid tape, Fmax = 21662 N Broken at the knot, Fmax = 17040 N Broken at the knot, Fmax = 14850 N
15000
80
20000
15000
50
60
60
10000
40
10000
40
5000 10000
30
Sila [N]
Sila [N]
40
5000
20
20
5000
20
10
0
0
0
70 80 90 100 110 30 40 50 60 70 30 40 50 60 70 80
Broken at the knot, Fmax = 18931 N Broken at mid tape, Fmax = 17498 N Broken at the knot, Fmax = 13476 N
15000
50
50
60
15000
10000
40
40
10000
40
10000
30
30
Sila [N]
Sila [N]
5000
20
5000
20
20
5000
10
10
0
0
40 50 60 70 80 50 60 70 80 70 80 90 100 110 120
Èas [s] Èas [s] Èas [s]
32
As already explained, the history of usage unfortunately could not be traced
for the tested equipment. This is why it is not be possible to estimate the speed
of deterioration of materials. This could prove to be a useful information. Es-
pecially when deciding when to retire a certain piece of equipment. Judging by
the literature (Soles 2011), webbing deteriorates faster and is more susceptible
to abrasion than rope. Its strong point is that it is far less stretchy than rope
leaving most of the shock absorption to ropes attached to it. It therefore rubs
less against the surface. The hypothesis of quicker deterioration of webbing
compared to rope might indirectly be confirmed by comparing overhand loops
on rope and tape knots on webbing. This investigation found a mere 9 % de-
crease in breaking strength between new and retired rope and 7.5 % between
new and used rope. The same figure for a tape knotted webbing sling is 21.5
%. This is an almost 3-fold difference in the speed of deterioration. But as
mentioned methodological questions to these conclusions remain as there is no
record of usage of both.
As mentioned, there are instances when people either by mistake or de-
liberately use an overhand loop instead of the tape knot for joining two ends
of a length of webbing to create slings. By comparing the first and the third
column of graphs on the figure 17 it is possible interpret some of the differ-
ences in the behaviour of both knots. Just as with rope the overhand loop walks,
but when stretched enough individual strands start to break starting from both
outer sides. This demonstrates that forces are not spread evenly along the width
of the webbing but that extremities are more strained. From the lines it can be
seen that more intensive walking starts at forces between 600 and 900 daN and
ripping between 1000 and 1500 daN. To the contrary, the tape knot only tight-
ens until breaking. This distinction may be discerned also by the curvature of
the time vs. force lines. Since the tape knot does not walk, the curves are more
traditionally curved owing the curvature to the fact that initial stretch happens
within the structure and the material. As the force is increasing the stretch is
increasingly only due to material because the structure is already compacted.
With the overhand loop the stretch is all the way within the material and the
structure (it is ripping bit by bit). This is why the graph line is more linear.
In comparison the tape knot far outperforms the overhand loop. In the test
the former broke at approximately 4500 daN higher forces than the later. The
significance of this difference is demonstrated in the results of the t-test below.
The overhand loops weaken the sling just as a good period of use would. In
fact overhand loops on new webbing broke at similar forces than the tape knot
33
on used webbing.
data: new.water.k and new.overhand.l

t = 5.0477, df = 6.354, p-value = 0.001978
2328.7 6598.8
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
20359.8 15896.0
The overhand loop is once again discouraged to create slings from webbing
as it is less reliable and holds less than the tape knot. It is good to issue a
warning to the ones that really can not separate from it. As the knot walks free
ends of the webbing should be left long enough.
3.4 Carabiners
Since new connecting PPE equipment has to demonstrate sufficient strength
properties according to the norms used either in sport (EN 12275 or UIAA-121)
or at work at height (EN 362), there was no point in testing new connectors. It
was in fact not the purpose of the test to search for possible new connector spe-
cimen that would not meet the requirements and with that expose fraudulent
companies. Furthermore there usually is no lifetime limit set by producers for
metal equipment not being used. Therefore old unused carabiners should hold
just as much as new ones.
The test rather concentrated on retired connecting material used in rescue
and evaluate the plausibility of its retirement. Exclusively for the purpose of
easier display the population was separated into asymmetric (D-shaped) and
oval carabiners but they might be treated as a one rather uniform group with
different breaking strength characteristics.
Since there is very little chance carabiners would be statically overloaded in
correctly performed cave rescue applications, the tests save for the first sample
were conducted dynamically. There was a clear ambition of destructive tests so
the fall factors in drop tests ranged between 4 and 5 with a rigid mass of 200
kg. Figures 18 and 19 are giving time vs. force curves for the drop tests for
asymmetric and oval carabiners. Table 3 is summing up the results.
34
Figure 18: Dynamic performance of retired asymmetric carabiners used in cave
rescue.
Kong 1 Kong 2 Simond 1
35000
30000
25000
25000
20000
Force [N]
15000
15000
10000
5000
5000
0
0
0
1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.90
Vaude 1 Vaude 2 - not broken Vaude 2 - 2nd try

25000
25000
30000
Force [N]
20000
15000
15000
10000
5000
5000
0
0
0
-5000
0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.30 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95
Vaude 3 - not broken Vaude 3 - 2nd try Vaude 4

40000
20000
30000
30000
15000
20000
Force [N]
20000
10000
10000
10000
5000
0
1.14 1.16 1.18 1.20 4.50 4.51 4.52 4.53 4.54 4.55 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14
From the declining part of the line successful tests may be distinguished
from the unsuccessful ones. With notable exceptions most of the curves show
marked changes in slope steepness in an otherwise quite linear impulse lines
just before breakage. They might be interpreted as points of transition between
elastic and plastic deformation. With the above mentioned drop settings im-
pulse times lasted between 0.02 and 0.03 seconds.
By skipping towards the carabiner test sum-up table it may be deduced the
tested carabiners were in various degradation states. Skimming through the
table and comparing nominal long axis forces with actual breaking forces one
35
Table 3: Carabiner’s characteristics.
Model Declared Declared tra- Declared open State of the carabiner State Breaking Location of ratio
axial [kN] verse [kN] gate [kN] rank force [daN] breakage
Vaude asym- 30 9 9 Used, without evident corro- 3 3150 clipping pin & 1.05
metric 0 sion’s lesions upper curve
Kong asymmet- 30 6 Partly corroded, nut does not 2 3308 upper curve 1.10
ric 1 rotate
Kong asymmet- 30 6 Partly corroded, nut does not 2 3456 upper curve 1.15
ric 2 rotate
Simond asym- 28 8.4 Partly corroded 2 3370 clipping pin & 1.20
metric 1 lower curve
Vaude asym- 30 9 9 Used, without evident corro- 3 3018 tooth % lower 1.01
metric 1 sion’s lesions curve
Vaude asym- 30 9 9 Used, without evident corro- 3 3153 not broken
metric 2_1 sion’s lesions
Vaude asym- 30 9 9 Used, without evident corro- 3 3450 not broken
Vaude asym- 30 9 9 Used, without evident corro- 3 3817 upper curve 1.27
Vaude asym- 30 9 9 Partly corroded, without lar- 2 3639 not broken
36
metric 4_1 ger corrosion’s lesions
Vaude asym- 30 9 9 Partly corroded, without lar- 2 4198 tooth & upper 1.41
metric 4_2 ger corrosion’s lesions curve
Vaude asym- 30 9 9 Partly corroded, nut does not 2 2232 tooth & upper 0.74
metric 5 rotate curve
Camp oval 1 24 7 7 Partly corroded, nut does not 2 measurement upper curve
rotate not successful
Camp oval 2 24 7 7 Partly corroded, nut does not 1 2540 upper curve 1.06
rotate, gates do not close
upon release
Camp oval 3_2 24 7 7 Partly corroded, nut does not 2 2953 upper curve 1.23
rotate
Kong oval 1 20 7 6 Partly corroded, partly ab- 1 2818 clipping pin & 1.41
raded by the rope lower curve
Simond Titan 1 22 10 Partly corroded, nut does 1 3143 upper curve 1.43
not rotate, gates hardly close
upon release
Vaude oval 1 23* 8* 6* Substantially corroded, most 1 2603 upper curve 1.13
surface is scaling
Vaude oval 2 23 8 6 No evident corrosion’s lesions 3 measurement upper curve
not successful
* Values are not readable. They were inferred based on an equal carabiner.
Figure 19: Dynamic performance of retired oval carabiners used in cave rescue.
Camp 2 Camp 3
Fmax = 2540 N Fmax = 29534 N
25000
25000
Force [N]
15000
15000
5000
5000
0
0
1.48 1.49 1.50 1.51 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12
Kong 1 Simond Titan 1

Fmax = 28176 N Fmax = 31431 N
25000
25000
15000
Force [N]
15000
5000
5000
0
0
1.35 1.36 1.37 1.38 1.39 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22
Time [s]
Vaude 1
Fmax = 26026 N
20000
Force [N]
5000 10000
0
0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80
Time [s]
may quickly conclude that compared to producers’ declarations most of the

carabiners held more. There is an explanation for that. There is a standard
procedure of setting the nominal three figures. It is called the “3σ test” which
sets the breaking force by subtracting three standard deviations from the aver-
age breaking force with a sample of n = 5. In this way the probability that a
carabiner breaks at lower forces than declared is smaller than p = 0.0015. A
bit simplistically this would sound like approximately 15 carabiners in a stack
of 10000 should break at forces lower than declared.
This of course is not the case in our population (see table 3). It might
be seen, that in a sample of 15 carabiners, despite used, one held less than
37
the nominal load. The last column of the table gives the ratio between the
actual and the nominal breaking force. And one in a series of Vaude asymmetric
carabiners has a figure smaller than one. It first broke at the gate’s pin and
consequently at the upper curve. But it is retired carabiners this analysis is
dealing with. And here is the argument that retired carabiners should not be
trusted equally as the new ones. Even if most of them break at considerably
higher forces than declared.
Various experiments with used and retired metal equipment (connectors in-
cluded) confirm the hypothesis of unpredictability of results. It is actually very
hard to estimate which of the carabiners would hold the stated load and which
would not. In most of the cases weak points are hidden from the evaluator’s
eye. General appearance, save for extremely trashed specimen, does not tell us
much about how the carabiner would perform. This fact, of course, sets ground
for concern. If one in 20 or 30 connectors does not perform as expected there
is a solid basis for discarding them on regular basis.
From the column describing the state of the carabiner an ordinal three-level
dummy variable may be constructed (1 = most damaged, 2 = partly damaged,
3 = without evident damage). The rank-evaluation of the state gives the pos-
sibility to calculate the Spearman’s correlation coefficient on ranks between the
new dummy variable and the already described ratio. This would give an estim-
ation of how accurately an evaluator is able to determine the state of a carabiner
and hence time for its retirement. The Spearman’s coefficient of correlation was
ρ = −0.36. Since the coefficient goes from −1 to +1 (for functional linear neg-
ative and positive correlations) this figure gives us a weak to moderate negative
correlation. The dummy variable was constructed so that strong positive correl-
ations would be expected in the case of successful predictions. To the contrary
the test demonstrates the evaluator’s estimation of general appearance failed
to successfully estimate connectors’ strength. This is just another in a series of
confirmations of the hypothesis of difficult evaluation of the state of carabiners.
3.5 Descenders
All groups of personal protective equipment against falls from a height have to
pass requirements of their respective European norms. At least in the European
Union this is how institutional safety works. Probably among the most demand-
ing norms is the norm EN 341 – Descender devices for rescue. Because of the high
demands of the norm, standard tests were not of utmost interest (the aspects
38
tested by the norm were regarded as safe) but rather were descenders’ static
and functional capabilities in some standard rescue manoeuvres and the differ-
ence between new and old devices. By revisiting the table 2 it may be seen
that an emphasis has been put on the difference between combinations of old
and new descenders with new and old ropes. The ropes were either blocked or
let to slide through the device. Since some assertions were circling around the
rescue community that in the pulley system tensioning manoeuvres the upper
pin may be safely used as a redirection point for the pulley system, the testing
procedure made provisions also to check how safe this actually is.
Figure 20: Start of slippage on new and retired descender devices.

New descender, new rope New descender, retired rope
Fmax = 2723 N Fmax = 8522 N
300
8000
2500
80
250
2000
6000
60
200
Force [N]
1500
150
4000
40
1000
100
2000
20
500
50
0
0
0
130 140 150 160 170 180 190 40 60 80 100 120 140
Retired descender, new rope Retired descender, retired rope

Fmax = 388 N Fmax = 320 N
400
300
80
60
250
300
60
200
Force [N]
40
200
150
40
100
100
20
20
50
0
32 34 36 38 40 42 135 140 145 150

Time [s] Time [s]
Additionally, and this is not shown in table 2, the functional tests were con-
ducted exclusively on different types of descender devices in different setups
with different rope diameters.
39
Among the donations of collaborating volunteers were also two retired des-
cender devices. One was Petzl Stop and the other Petzl Simple. Both were
employed in tests but only with Petzl Stop the start of slippage actually seemed
feasible since the Simple actually does not have a proper brake. In the figure 20
the great difference between new and retired devices in terms of their braking
capacity may be seen.
While differences between new and retired ropes are well expressed with
the new device (272 daN vs. 852 daN), the retired device does not show them.
The general characteristic of the retired device is a very low breaking force re-
gardless of the rope employed. These results show it is actually up to the user
to control the device once the bobbins get consumed. A comment from the user
point of view might be that one behaviour might be expressed in slow trac-
tion laboratory tests but once hanging even old devices brake. Later described
functional tests will demonstrate the erroneous nature of this thinking. Both
graphs on new descender devices show how rope accommodates to tension by
stretching. In both tests tensioning was stopped for a few seconds and tension
immediately fell. The braking of the new device on retired rope was so intense
that the sheath of the rope eventually broke at 852.2 daN. This may be de-
duced by the fall in force while traction speed increased. With the new device
and new rope tensioning was stopped at machine’s pull limit because the rope
was slipping quickly through the device despite increases in force.
Next test was done by blocking of the rope in the descender (securing the
descender). Again differences between new and retired devices seemed inter-
esting, but this time only tests with a retired rope were conducted. Figures 21
and 22 display graphs and short descriptions on how they performed.
By comparing new and old descenders two remarkable differences appear
immediately. The first is that damage occurs on rope in the first instance and on
the device itself in the second instance. The second and perhaps more astound-
ing is that higher forces were achieved on retired devices compared to new
ones (Student’s t-test proved high significance for rejecting the null hypothesis
of equality of means p = 0.0089)! The rope damaged in the new descender at
an average force of 9174 N. While with the retired descender the first strain did
not lead to damage. Only the second “successfully” bent the handle and broke
the upper spool of the device. The figure 23 evidences the consequences of a
too hard pull on an old secured descender device.
40
Figure 21: Securing of a retired rope in a new descender Petzl Stop.
Pull of the machine too short, sheath torn,
2 core strands torn Sheath torn, 4 strands torn Sheath damaged
10000
300
8000
8000
200
200
250
8000
6000
6000
150
150
200
6000
Pomik [mm]
Force [N]
150
4000
4000
100
100
4000
100
2000
2000
2000
50
50
50
0
0
380 400 420 440 180 200 220 240 300 320 340 360
Time [s]
Sheath damaged Sheath torn, 4 strands torn
Fmax = 9028 N Fmax = 9608 N
250
250
8000
8000
200
200
6000
6000
150
150
Pomik [mm]
Force [N]
4000
4000
100
100
2000
2000
50
50
0
120 140 160 180 40 60 80 100 120
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 22: Securing of a retired rope in a retired descender Petzl Stop.

Pull of the machine too short, Handle bent, upper spool broken
rope a bit flattened but intact, and rotated, rope intact
Fmax = 10697 N Fmax = 11161 N
150
150
8000
2000 4000 6000 8000
Strain [mm]
6000
Force [N]
100
100
4000
50
50
2000
0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 70 80 90 100 110 120

Time [s] Time [s]
41
Figure 23: Consequences of a too hard pull on a secured retired Petzl Stop
descender.
Figure 24: Possible reason for differences in new and old Petzl Stop descenders.
42
Figure 25: Tests on Petzl Stop descender’s upper pin.
Force upwards, breakage Force outwards, bending
Fmax = 11530 N Fmax = 8860 N
200
150
8000
10000
Start of bending
150
6000
Start of plastic
100
Strain [mm]
deformation
Force [N]
6000
100
4000
50
2000
50
2000
0
0
520 525 530 535 540 545 550 555 30 40 50 60 70
Time [s] Time [s]
As mentioned, the descender’s upper pin is being used by some cave rescuers
as a redirection clipping point for the pulley. Since nobody was aware of any
proper tests concerning the strength of the upper pin, these were conducted
at this occasion. Two tests have been performed. One is the direct pull of the
pin “upwards” and the other is tensioning the rope exiting in the upper part of
the descender to force the pin bent (1st and 3rd photo in the bottom row of
the figure 25). It may be seen that reached breaking forces a few times exceed
typical forces exerted during a hauling system pull. If the mechanical advantage
system is 3:1 and the traverse line is tensioned to maximum 400 daN, the force
of pull on the pin should be about 150 daN. The safety factor should therefore
exceed 5 and is in this respect sufficient.
With descenders, besides static and dynamic performance tests, also func-
tional tests have been performed. They were conducted by the author of the
idea on a 10 m high bridge in the village of Škoflje where water high jumps are
performed annually. The site features a jumping ramp on the bridge and safe
depth of the water below the bridge.
A combination of a series of different devices of different ages with different
43
ropes have been tested. The emphasis of rope – descender combination went on
possible problems and tried to uncover non-safe couples. The tests went from
easier ones to harder ones to complicate life to the tester a bit more gradually.
Figure 26: Graphs recorded during functional tests

Simple, 9 mm, quick descent with a Simple, 9 mm, quick descent with a
Simple, 9 mm, slow descent with a redirectional carabiner, 1 redirectional carabiner, 2
redirectional carabiner successful stop successful stop
2000
1600
1500
1400
1500
1200
Force [N]
1000
1000
1000
800
500
500
600
400
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Simple, 9 mm, with redirection without initial 9 mm, steel rack, initially hands free 9 mm, new Stop, with redirection, no control of
control of the free end of the rope and subsequent braking the rope and release of the brake after 5 m
successful stop successful stop rope sheath tore, extreme force on the body
2500
8000
2500
2000
2000
6000
1500
Force [N]
1500
4000
1000
1000
2000
500
500
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
9 mm, retired Stop, no redirection, no control of Simple, 8 mm, quick descent with redirection,
the rope and release of the brake after 5 m Simple, 9 mm, no control of the rope, caught by tester did not manage to stop the descent
no stop, breaking finished in the water a knot and the water after 10 m descent not able to stop, breaking finished in the water
1500
1500
4000
1000
1000
3000
Force [N]
2000
500
500
1000
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time [S] Time [S] Time [S]
Figure 26 is displaying time vs. force graphs of descent performances. Titles

of individual graphs give a short description of the setup and the outcomes of
the test.
It may be seen that uncontrolled descents are unsafe regardless of the device
used. Up to now devices with a brake were regarded as safe or at least safer
44
for use compared to descenders without a brake. This is reflected also in the
absence of relevant norms on devices without a brake. The idea was that un-
controlled descents with devices with a brake will be stopped by a hands free
position which will stop descending at some point. But, as shown on the 6th
graph, panicked quick descents with subsequent abrupt release of the brake
may result in serious shock loads of the system and the person descending. 8
kN shock loads should already cause internal injuries to the body. This luckily
did not happen to the tester who still walks around on his own feet.
On the other hand the fact remains that much more accidents happen with
devices that do not feature a brake. And this even more holds true for old
Simples with consumed bobbins on thin ropes. On an 8 mm Beal Antipodes
rope, categorized by the French Speleological Association as an “L” or light-
weight type of rope for caving (despite it does not feature an European norm
for securing persons), even the tester has not managed to stop a quick descent
before too late. It has to be emphasized that the tester was a very experienced
caver that was expecting a difficult catch with a descender. A tired not very ex-
perienced caver that is surprised by a rope slipping out of his/her hands would
be smashed on the bottom of the pit for sure. Within the reached descent speeds
the forces on the system during descent were invariably low, ranging between
150 N and 400 N. This means there was still much room for acceleration, if an
uncontrolled descent endured.
Functional test again confirmed the important difference between new (too
intensive braking with damage to the rope) and used (too weak braking without
damage to the rope) Petzl Stop descenders.
45
3.6 Rope clamps
In Europe rope clamps are certified according to the European norm EN 567 –
Mountaineering equipment – Rope clamps – Safety requirements and test methods.
The test requirements of this, in comparison to other norms, are very easy on
the devices. In fact the rope clamp has to slide along a rope in one direction and
block in the other and has to withstand with maximum and minimum diameter
ropes a static strain test where the system is five times statically loaded to 4
kN force for periods of one minute with intermediate relaxations. To a non-
specialist it might not be evident, but the norm requirement opens the gates
to weak tensile strength devices wide. Especially when we are dealing with
the rope – device system. In addition, rescue techniques are usually even more
demanding on the equipment than plain rope access techniques (e.g. the weight
of two people hanging on one rope clamp).
Figure 27: The new proposals for the push and pull test.
Pushing test Pulling test
Source: prEN 567:2012, 2012
The weak nature of this system has a reason. For a user the fact that a
rope clamp instantly blocks on the rope is essential. On one hand it has to bite
aggressively to grab immediately and on the other release the rope without any
impedance when pushed in the other direction (usually upwards). Rope clamps
have therefore been designed with aggressive teeth and the situation in recent
46
times is tending to the side of aggressiveness.
The idea was therefore to investigate what might the differences between
new and well used (retired) equipment in terms of breaking strength be. The re-
search, again, did not concentrate on differences between a multitude of brands
producing PPE equipment but on the possible age differentials. Since Petzl rope
clamps are probably most represented, the test made use of them. And again
new and retired specimen of a 10 mm Edelrid Superstatic were used.
The new revision of the norm (prEN 567:2012), due to be published within
this year, will include two additional tests providing means to test the safety
of rope clamps in few wrong positions. The push test strains downwards both
the ends of the rope exiting the device forcing the cleat of the rope clamp open
(figure 27). The pull test, on the other hand, strains both the ends of the rope
exiting the device upwards (figure 27). In both cases the rope jams between the
edge of the slot for the rope and the cleat and eventually tears free. The static
requirement for the push test is 400 ± 10 N. The static requirement for the pull
test is 2000 ± 10 N. These tests were performed with the thinnest suitable rope
specified by the producer. An 8 mm Beal Antipodes rope was used, therefore.
Figures 28 and 29 are displaying the time vs. force graphs of the established
sheath rupture straining tests for new and retired rope clamps in a normal setup
(i.e. by the instructions).
By having a look at the graphs it is possible to observe typical slow traction
time vs. force lines for rope clamps. The force initially rises almost linearly.
At some point the rope clamp starts to damage the sheath of the rope (smaller
indentations in the line) what eventually brings to its rupture (peak followed
by a drop in force). Subsequently the cleat bites into core strands but slides on
them in characteristic leaps. Individual core strands may be torn in that process.
In a real situation a torn sheath would mean a rapid slide along the rope until
the next obstacle on the rope or the ground none of which is desirable.
Table 4: Means comparison in rope clamps test
Rope age Rope clamp

New Retired
New 6418 N 4639 N
Retired 6459 N 5752 N
A means comparison between the four combinations of rope clamps and
47
ropes ages gives the result displayed in table 4.
Instantly it is seen that new rope clamps have a smaller weakening effect
on the ropes than old rope clamps. This can be confirmed with a t-test which
gives a very small probability that true means of ropes tearing in new and old
rope clamps might be equal (p = 0.000018). At first hand this fact might be
surprising as older cleats have more abraded and hence shorter teeth which
bite less deep than new ones. The interpretation of this difference will here be
drawn along the sharpness of the teeth. Abrasion in fact slowly shortens the
initially rounded teeth and sharpens them by creating a flat surface on their
tops with very sharp edges.
Paradoxically results show a non-significantly higher mean tearing force for
retired ropes compared to new ones (p = 0.1203). The author can not find an
immediate reason for that and leaves the interpretation of this phenomenon to
the reader.
Judged by the t-tests the only non-significant difference in means between
individual combinations is the difference between new and retired ropes with
new rope clamps.
From the interpretation of the results it might be concluded that age (or
more appropriate wear) of rope clamps might have a more accentuated effect
on the system than the wear of ropes!
48
Figure 28: Static performance of a new rope clamp with new and retired rope.
New rope clamp, new rope, 1 New rope clamp, retired rope, 1
Fmax = 6388 N Fmax = 7138 N
7000
120
150
5000
100
5000
Strain [mm]
80
Force [N]
100
3000
60
3000
40
50
1000
1000
20
0
0
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Fmax = 6570 N Fmax = 6270 N
100 120
150
5000
5000
80
Strain [mm]
Force [N]
100
3000
3000
60
40
50
1000
20
1000
0
0
30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fmax = 6419 N Fmax = 6302 N
120
100
100
5000
5000
80
80
Strain [mm]
Force [N]
60
3000
3000
60
40
40
1000
1000
20
20
0
60 70 80 90 100 20 30 40 50 60
Fmax = 6182 N Fmax = 6366 N
150
120
5000
5000
100
100
Strain [mm]
Force [N]
80
3000
3000
60
50
40
1000
1000
20
0
0
20 30 40 50 70 80 90 100 110 120
Fmax = 6530 N Fmax = 6221 N
150
150
5000
5000
100
Strain [mm]
Force [N]
100
3000
3000
50
50
1000
1000
0
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 20 30 40 50
Time [s] Time [s]
49
Figure 29: Static performance of a retired rope clamp with new and retired
rope.
Retired rope clamp, new rope 1 Retired rope clamp, retired rope 1
Fmax = 5191 N Fmax = 5398 N
5000
5000
250
150
4000
4000
200
3000
Strain [N]
Force [N]
3000
100
150
2000
2000
100
50
1000
1000
50
0
0
0
0
45 50 55 60 65 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
Fmax = 4915 N Fmax = 5421 N
5000
300
100
5000
250
4000
80
4000
200
3000
60
Strain [N]
Force [N]
3000
150
2000
2000
40
100
1000
1000
20
50
0
0
0
30 40 50 60 50 100 150
Fmax = 4474 N Fmax = 5809 N
300
120
4000
5000
250
100
3000
200
80
Strain [N]
Force [N]
3000
150
60
2000
100
40
1000
1000
50
20
0
0
40 50 60 70 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fmax = 4282 N Fmax = 6043 N
200
120
4000
5000
100
150
3000
80
Strain [N]
Force [N]
3000
100
2000
60
40
1000
50
1000
20
0
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fmax = 4332 N Fmax = 6090 N
200
4000
120
5000
150
100
3000
80
Strain [N]
Force [N]
3000
100
2000
60
40
1000
50
1000
20
0
100 110 120 130 140 30 40 50 60 70
Time [s] Time [s]
50
Figure 30: Pushing and pulling tests with a worn and retired chest ascender
Pushing test, rope slid between the cleat Pulling test, rope sheath tore and slid
and the slot edge between the cleat and the slot edge
Fmax = 1904 N Fmax = 5186 N
2000 3000 4000 5000

1500
100
100
Strain [mm]
Force [N]
1000
50
50
500
1000
0
0
0
0
60 80 100 120 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 30 is displaying performance results of a retired rope clamp (Petzl’s

Croll) on the described pushing and pulling tests (figure 27). By comparing
maximum values with the norm requirement, it may be seen that even a con-
sumed and retired chest ascender easily withstands the required forces, despite
the slot was weakened by the intense rope abrasion groove. In both tests the
slot gradually opened so, that after the pull test it was flowering like a blossom.
In some rescue techniques the upper hole of a chest ascender is used to lift
a whole person’s weight. This hole is meant to hold the chest ascender in place
during ascent and no producer will ever state it may be used for securing a
person. For careful non-dynamic loads it is, nonetheless being used by various
rescue groups as a legitimate attachment point. This practice might be seen
as a breach to the usually very strict safety regulations such groups usually
adopt. This is why only subsequently the destructive test of chest ascender’s
attachment point was included in the report. The hole broke at 670 daN. The
51
rescue procedures using this attachment point usually recur to a rope clamp
attached to the main rope and by means of a counterweight unclip the victim’s
chest ascender from the rope. In case of overloading the rope in the rope clamp
used for conuterweighting would break way before this attachment point as
it is being loaded by a two persons weight. Despite not being aligned with
the instructions, this practice’s weakest point is not clipping in the upper chest
ascender’s hole but two persons weight on a rope clamp.
3.7 Pulleys
It was decided to finish the analytical part of this report with the results of the
testing of pulleys. By looking at pulleys from their structural point of view, two
distinct but complementary functions may be discovered. The first is the basic
connecting and load bearing function and the second is the friction diminishing
and travelling function. The European norm for pulleys EN 12278 checks both
of them but is not very demanding. At present most of the pulleys on the
market far exceed the requirements of the norm. As the matter of the fact
pulleys became so strong that they are usually oversized for most of the tasks
at hand. Even in cave rescue.
But how do they react on use? Do pulleys experience fatigue? This is what
the test was aiming at. However. Attributable to the lack of means the more
interesting test – namely the test of friction deterioration – dropped out of the
list. A special spinning machine with a loop of rope would be needed to be
able to perform this test. With it, it might be possible to measure friction (and
hence its differences) and test for pulleys endurance. What was left to be done
was bare safety test of the breaking strength of retired pulleys which was com-
pared against its nominal breaking load capacities. Two retired fixed side plates
pulleys (Petzl Fixe) and two retired large sheave, ball bearing pulleys (one old
model Petzl Rescue and one Anthron’s AR-35) were tested statically. The sheave
was embraced with a larger diameter dyneema splice and the main attachment
point was attached with a strong carabiner on the strain machine.
Figure 31 is displaying the static performance of pulleys on a strain machine.
With slow load application, all of them broke at very high loads. Notable
are two facts. The first is that in all the tests one of the sideplates at attachment
point broke. This means that despite apparently thin, sheave bearing pins are
still stronger than both sideplates put together. The second is that despite small
pulleys breaking strength is rated to be much lower than the breaking strength
52
Figure 31: Static performance of pulleys.
Petzl Rescue, retired Anthron AR-35, retired
Fmax = 34659 N Fmax = 32607 N
35000
20
25
25000
20
25000
15
Strain [mm]
Force [N]
15
15000
10
15000
10
5
5000
5
5000
0
0
0
60 80 100 120 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Petzl Fixe, retired 1 Petzl Fixe, retired 2

Fmax = 39940 N Fmax = 40399 N
40000
40000
30
30
30000
30000
Strain [mm]
Force [N]
20000
20
20000
20
10000
10000
10
10
0
0
0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time [s] Time [s]
of large pulleys (22 kN vs. 32 kN for Rescue and even 36 kN for the AR-35)
small pulleys broke at higher forces. They broke at 182 % times their nominal
breaking load! It may concluded that small pulleys are very safe from the static
point of view. Another story is probably revealed once the sheaves start rotating.
In fact their nominal working loads (this time perfectly justifiably) are much
lower than large pulleys working loads. The only pulley that broke below its
rated breaking strength but still well within the factors of any rescue team is
the AR-35. One new AR-35 pulley was tested off the record and it broke at 40.6
kN. This demonstrates either that the quality of aluminium between batches of
Anthron’s production fluctuates or that the retired AR-35 in fact experienced
some damage or fatigue.
53
4 Appendix
Table 5: Results summarizing table – knots.
Tested item Test Max. Breakage Description

mode force [N]
Overhand loop
New rope overhand loop 01 Static 16400 no Untied due to short free
ends
New rope overhand loop 02 Static 22869 no Untied due to short free
ends
New rope overhand loop 03 Static 28653 no Tensioning stopped due to
reaching the limit on the
machine
New rope overhand loop 04 Static 27833 no Tensioning stopped due to
reaching the limit on the
machine
New rope overhand loop 05 Static 25986 yes The sheet tore apart
Used rope overhand loop Static 22282 yes In the middle of the rope
01
02
03
04
05
Retired rope overhand loop Static 25463 yes In the middle of the rope
01
Retired rope overhand loop Static 21193 no Untied due to short free
02 ends
03
04
05
Figure of eight
New rope fig. 8 1.1 Dynamic 15185 no
New rope fig. 8 1.2 Dynamic 15255 yes Close to the knot
New rope fig. 8 2 Dynamic 21376 yes Close to the knot
New rope fig. 8 4 Dynamic 21742 yes Close to the knot
New rope fig. 8 5 Dynamic U.A.
Used rope fig. 8 1_1 Dynamic 5705 no
Used rope fig. 8 1.2_2 Dynamic U.A. Close to the knot
Used rope fig. 8 2_3 Dynamic U.A. Close to the knot
Used rope fig. 8 3_4 Dynamic 17158 yes Close to the knot
Continued on next page. . . U.A. = unsuccessful acquisition
54
. . . Continued from previous page
mode force [N]
Used rope fig. 8 4_5 Dynamic U.A. Close to the knot
Used rope fig. 8 5.1_7 Dynamic U.A. Close to the knot
Used rope fig. 8 5_6 Dynamic 16939 no
Retired rope fig. 8 1_9 Dynamic U.A. Close to the knot
Retired rope fig. 8 2_10 Dynamic U.A. Close to the knot
Retired rope fig. 8 3_12 Dynamic 13124 yes Close to the knot
Retired rope fig. 8 4_14 Dynamic 14046 yes Close to the knot
Bowline on a bight
Retired rope bowline on a Dynamic 19359 yes Close to the knot
bight 1_15
Retired rope bowline on a Dynamic 15872 no The knot untied
bight 2_16
bight 3_17
Retired rope bowline on a Dynamic 14345 no
bight 4_18
bight 4.1_19
bight 5_20
bight 5.1_21
bight 5.2_22
Extremely old ropes
Retired Tendon 11mm fig. Dynamic 24198 no Withstood the shock of the
81 fall
Retired Tendon 11mm fig. Dynamic 26228 yes Close to the knot (repeti-
8 1.2 tion)
8 2.1 fall
Retired Tendon 11mm fig. Dynamic 24490 yes Close to the knot (repeti-
8 2.2 tion)
8 2.3_1 fall
Extremely old laid rope Dynamic 9591 yes Close to the knot
from Ljubljanska jama
Extremely old UKrope from Dynamic 12364 no Sample too long
Čehi 2, 1
Extremely old UKrope from Dynamic 15789 yes Close to the knot
Čehi 2, 2
Dyneema cord
Dyneema retired triple fish- Dynamic 13335 yes In the middle of the rope
erman’s 1_24
erman’s 2_25
Continued on next page. . . U.A. = unsuccessful acquisition
55
. . . Continued from previous page
mode force [N]
erman’s 3_26
Dyneema retired triple fish- Dynamic 14313 yes Close to the knot
erman’s 4_27
Dyneema new triple fisher- Dynamic U.A.
man’s 1_28
Dyneema new triple fisher- Dynamic 19039 In the middle of the rope
man’s 2.1_30
man’s 2.2_31
man’s 3.1_32
Dyneema new triple fisher- Dynamic 18675 no
man’s 4.1_33
man’s 4.2_34
Dyneema new double fish- Dynamic no The carabiner broke
erman’s 5.1_35
Dyneema new double fish- Dynamic 15735 no The knot untied
erman’s 5.2_36
erman’s 5.3_37
Dyneema new double fish- Dynamic 12684 no Withstood the fall
erman’s 5.4_38
erman’s 5.5_39
Dyneema new triple fisher- Dynamic 12058 yes Broken on barrel knot
man’s 5.6_40
U.A. = unsuccessful acquisition
56
Table 6: Results summarizing table – cowstails.

mode force [N]
Barrel’s knot
Barrel’s knot 1.1 Dynamic 11050 no Sheath torn close to
barrel knot
Barrel’s knot 2.1 Dynamic 11504 no Sheath torn close to
barrel knot
Barrel’s knot 3.1 Dynamic 11413 no Rope broken on barrel
knot
Barrel’s knot 4.1 Dynamic 9282 no No damage
Barrel’s knot 4.2 Dynamic 15264 no Most of the core
strands broken
Barrel’s knot 5.1 Dynamic 11604 yes Rope broken on barrel
knot
Double
Double with overhand loop 1.1 Dynamic 14073 yes At the common knot
Double with overhand loop 2.1 Dynamic U.A. yes
Double with overhand loop 5.1 Dynamic 12872 yes At the upper knot
Double with overhand loop 6.1 Dynamic 12570 yes At the upper knot
Single
Single with overhand loop 1.1 Dynamic 13096 no
Single with overhand loop 1.2 Dynamic 17078 yes At the knot
Single with overhand loop 2.1 Dynamic 13117 no
Single with overhand loop 4.2 Dynamic 12478 yes sheath torn, rope not
broken
Single with overhand loop 5.1 Dynamic U.A. yes
Single with overhand loop 6.1 Dynamic U.A. yes
Retired
Retired double cowstail Dynamic 11181 yes At the common knot
Retired single cowstail Dynamic 7056 yes At the knot
Retired Petzl Spelegyca Dynamic 12588 no Seam torn open but not
ripped apart
57
Table 7: Results summarizing table – webbing and slings.

mode force [N]
Tape knot
New 25mm tub. webbing tape knot 01 Static 20345 yes Broken at the knot
New 25mm tub. webbing tape knot 04 Static 21662 yes Broken at mid tape
New 25mm tub. webbing tape knot Dynamic 20253 yes Broken at the knot
used 25mm tub. webbing tape knot 01 Static 14526 yes Broken at the knot
used 25mm tub. webbing tape knot 02 Static 13356 yes Broken at mid tape
used 25mm tub. webbing tape knot 05 Static 17498 yes Broken at mid tape
Overhand loop
New 25mm tub. webbing overhand Static 16529 yes Broken at the knot
loop 01
New 25mm tub. webbing overhand Static 16845 yes Broken at mid tape
loop 02
loop 03
loop 04
loop 05
New 25mm tub. webbing overhand Dynamic 12634 yes Broken at the knot
loop
Prefabricated slings
New Beal dyneema sling 6 mm Dynamic 23935 yes In the middle of the
specimen
New Beal dyneema webbing tape knot Dynamic 3966 no The knot untied
New Beal dyneema webbing triple fish- Dynamic 12975 yes Close to the knot
erman’s
Retired Mammut dyneema webbing, Dynamic 8530 yes Close to the knot
triple fisherman’s
58
Table 8: Results summarizing table – carabiners.

mode force [N]
asymmetric
Kong asymmetric 1 Dynamic 3308 yes Upper curve
Kong asymmetric 2 Dynamic 3456 yes Upper curve
Simond asymmetric 1 Dynamic 3370 yes Clipping pin
Vaude asymmetric 1 Dynamic 3018 yes Tooth & lower curve
Vaude asymmetric 2_1 Dynamic 3153 yes Not broken
Vaude asymmetric 2_3 Dynamic 3817 yes Upper curve
Vaude asymmetric 4_2 Dynamic 4198 yes Tooth & upper curve
Vaude asymmetric 5 Dynamic 2232 yes Tooth & upper curve
oval
Camp oval 1 Dynamic U.A. yes Upper curve
Camp oval 2 Dynamic 2540 yes Upper curve
Camp oval 3_2 Dynamic 2953 yes Upper curve
Kong oval 1 Dynamic 2818 yes Clipping pin
Simond Titan 1 Dynamic 3143 yes Upper curve
Vaude oval 1 Dynamic 2603 yes Upper curve
Vaude oval 2 Dynamic U.A. yes Upper curve
Table 9: Results summarizing table – rings and hanger plates.

mode force [N]
Retired Coudee (clipping Dynamic 18111 yes Main part of the body
hole strain)
Retired Raumer ring (clip- Dynamic 40269 no Substantial deformation
ping hole strain)
59
Table 10: Results summarizing table – descenders.

mode force [N]
Boundary of slippage
Boundary of slippage in re- Static 388 N.A.
tired Pezl Stop, new rope
Boundary of slippage in Static 2723 N.A.
new Petzl Stop, new rope
retired Petzl Stop, retired
rope
new Pezl Stop, retired rope
Securing
Descender, securing, new Static 8510 N.A. Pull of the machine too
rope, new Petzl Stop, 01 short, sheath torn, 2 core
strands torn
Descender, securing, new Static 8735 N.A Sheath torn, 4 strands torn
rope, new Petzl Stop, 02
Descender, securing, new Static 9988 N.A Sheath damaged
Descender, securing, new Static 9029 N.A Sheath damaged
Descender, securing, new Static 9608 N.A Sheath torn, 4 strands torn
Descender, securing, re- Static 10697 N.A Pull of the machine too
tired rope, new Petzl Stop, short, rope a bit flattened
01 but intact
Descender, securing, re- Static 11161 N.A Handle bent, upper spool
tired rope, new Petzl Stop, broken, and rotated, rope
07 intact
Breaking of pin
Breaking of descender’s up- Static 11530 yes Upper side plate broken at
per pin, force upwards the indentation for the pin
Breaking of descender’s up- Static 8860 no Lower side plate bent at the
per pin 04 point where the pin is fixed
to it
60
Table 11: Results summarizing table – rope clamps.
mode force [N]
Axial tests
New rope new rope clamp 1 Static 6388 yes sheath torn
New rope retired rope clamp 1 Static 5191 yes sheath torn
retired rope new rope clamp 1 Static 7138 yes sheath torn
retired rope retired rope clamp 1 Static 5398 yes sheath torn
Non-axial tests
Petzl Croll half sawn by thin rope Static 1904 no slot opened a
pull rope down bit
Petzl Croll half sawn by thin rope Static 5186 no slot opened
pull rope up widely
Petzl Croll upper hole test Static 6700 yes the bridge
broke
61
Table 12: Results summarizing table – pulleys.

mode force [N]
Used Anthron AR35 Static 32607 yes Clipping hole on 1 flange is
broken, sheave rotates ball
bearing OK
New Anthron AR35 Static 40642 yes Clipping hole on 1 flange is
bearing OK
New Anthron AS05 Static 44093 yes Clipping hole on 1 flange is
bearing OK
Used Petzl Fixe 01 Static 39940 yes Clipping hole on 1 flange is
broken, sheave does not rotate
Used Petzl Fixe 02 Static 40399 yes Clipping hole on 1 flange is
broken, sheave does not rotate
Used Petzl Rescue 01 Static 34659 yes Clipping hole on 1 flange is
bearing OK
62
List of Figures
1 Static testing machine and dynamic testing apparatus. . . . . . . 11
2 Overhand loop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3 Static performance of overhand loops on new, used and retired
ropes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4 Figure of eight loop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5 Dynamic performance of figure of eight loops on new, used and
retired ropes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6 Bowline on a bight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7 Dynamic performance of bowlines-on-a-bight on retired ropes. . . 18
8 Samples of extremely old ropes from Čehi II and Ljubljanska jama. 19
9 Dynamic performance with figure of 8 loops on extremely old
ropes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10 Double and triple fisherman’s knot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11 Dynamic performance for Pure dyneema accessory cords. . . . . . 23
12 Comparison between one double cowstails and two single cowstails
tied with overhand loops and a cowstail tied to the clipping ca-
rabiner with a barrel knot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13 Dynamic performance of single cowstails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14 Dynamic performance of double cowstails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15 Dynamic performance of cowstails with a barrel knot. . . . . . . . 28
16 Dynamic performance of retired cowstails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
17 Static performance of tested webbing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
18 Dynamic performance of retired asymmetric carabiners used in
cave rescue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
19 Dynamic performance of retired oval carabiners used in cave res-
cue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
20 Start of slippage on new and retired descender devices. . . . . . . 39
21 Securing of a retired rope in a new descender Petzl Stop. . . . . . 41
22 Securing of a retired rope in a retired descender Petzl Stop. . . . 41
23 Consequences of a too hard pull on a secured retired Petzl Stop
descender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
24 Possible reason for differences in new and old Petzl Stop des-
cenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
25 Tests on Petzl Stop descender’s upper pin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
26 Graphs recorded during functional tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
63
27 The new proposals for the push and pull test. . . . . . . . . . . . 46
28 Static performance of a new rope clamp with new and retired rope. 49
29 Static performance of a retired rope clamp with new and retired
rope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
30 Pushing and pulling tests with a worn and retired chest ascender 51
31 Static performance of pulleys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
List of Tables
1 List of equipment used in testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Planned tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Carabiner’s characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4 Means comparison in rope clamps test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5 Results summarizing table – knots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6 Results summarizing table – cowstails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7 Results summarizing table – webbing and slings. . . . . . . . . . 58
8 Results summarizing table – carabiners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
9 Results summarizing table – rings and hanger plates. . . . . . . 59
10 Results summarizing table – descenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
11 Results summarizing table – rope clamps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
12 Results summarizing table – pulleys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
64
5 References
Antonini, G., Piazza, O., 2012. Test sui materiali: Le longes. Il Soccorso alpino
speleosoccorso, 53, p. 16–23.
Bakšić, D., 2012. Uzlovi u speleologiji i speleospašavanju. Zagreb, Hrvatska gorska

služba spašavanja, 23 p.
Baričič, M., Planina, T., 2002. Preizkus vrvi iz Brezna pod Velbom. Naše jame, 44, p.
173–177.
Belotti, P., 1995. Quanto dura una corda d’alpinismo?. La rivisita del Club Alpino
Italiano, 1995,3, p. 56–58.
Bressan, G., 2003. Usura delle corde in arrampicata e in laboratorio. Annuario CAAI,
1995,1, p. 170–181.
Celesti, S., Guerriero G., Salvatori, F., 1984. Sollecitazioni dinamiche e statiche nelle
attrezzature speleologiche. Teoria e sperimentazione. Speleologia Umbra, 1984, p.
1–190.
Crawley, M. J., 2005. Statistics: an Introducion Using R. Hoboken, Wiley, 327 p.
Crawley, M. J., 2007. The R book. Hoboken, Wiley, 942 p.
prEN 567:2012, 2012. Mountaineering equipment – Rope clamps – Safety require-

ments and test methods. Brussels, European Committee for Standardization, 12 p.
Ice-age. URL: http://shop.ice-age.ru/catalog/staticropes/Ukrope/ (cited: 18th Janu-

ary 2013).
Ilič, 2008. Vrvi. Jamar, 1,2, p. 45–46.
Long, A., Lyon, M., Lyon, G., 2001. Industrial rope access – Investigation into items
of personal protective equipment. Sedbergh, Lyon Equipment Limited, 159 p.
Lorbek, J., 2003. Meritve sidrišč v različnih kameninah in različnih izvedbah. Naše
jame, 45, p. 90–95.
Marbach, G., Tourte, B., 2002. Alipne Caving Techniques – a Complete Guide to Safe
and Efficient Caving. Allscwil, Speleo Projects, 320 p.
Merchant, D. F., 2003. Life on a line. North Wales, published by the author, 179 p.
Merela, M., 2012. Projekt EU Proteus – evropski projekt Jamarske reševalne službe pri
Jamarski zvezi Slovenije. Ujma, 26, p. 264–271.
Planina, T., 1989. Naše izkušnje s staranjem vrvi. Naše jame, 31, p. 41–43.
Planina, T., 1991. Primerjava bičevih vozlov. Naše jame, 33, p. 86–88.
65
Prove di usura delle corde confronto fra corde statiche. 1986. Costacciaro, Club
Alpino Italiano, Commisione Tecnice e Materiali della Sezione Speleologica del Corpo
Nazionale Soccorso Alpino e del Centro Nazionale di Speleologia "M. Cucco", 45 p.
Resistenza dei materiali speleo-alpinistici. 1989. Costacciaro, Club Alpino Italiano,

Commisione Tecnice e Materiali della Sezione Speleologica del Corpo Nazionale Soc-
corso Alpino e del Centro Nazionale di Speleologia "M. Cucco", 311 p.
Salvatori, F., 1988. Teoria della percussione di elementi elastici applicata alle sol-
lecitazioni impulsive sulle attezzature speleo-alpinistiche. Il Bolletino del Club Alpino
Italiano, 89., p. 60–70.
Soles, C., 2011. The Outdoor Knots Book. Seattle, The Mountaineering Books, 157 p.
SpeleoCRASC. URL: http://www.speleocrasc.it/ (cited: 26th December 2012).
Staut, M., Ilič, U., 2010. Dinamični testi vrvi, rabljene v visokogorskih pogojih. Jamar,
3,1, p. 36–39.
66

Final Report of Equipment Tests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report of Equipment Tests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

Keywords: personal protective equipment, equipment testing, caving, cave

1.1 Purpose of testing and main goals

• Evaluate differences between load bearing capacities of new, used and

• Evaluate possible differences between static and dynamic loads on dif-

• Perform selected functional tests of combinations of rope access equip-

• Make a list of non-safe equipment and equipment combinations based on

Table 1: List of equipment used in testing

Table 2: Planned tests.

Figure 1: Static testing machine and dynamic testing apparatus.

Where applicable and possible Student’s t-tests were performed to compare

3.1 Knotted ropes

Figure 2: Overhand loop.

Source: Bakšić, 2012

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: new_rope and used_rope

data: new_rope and retired_rope

data: used_rope and retired_rope

100 120 140 160 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60

40 60 80 100 120 40 60 80 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Time [s] Time [s] Time [s]

Figure 4: Figure of eight loop.

Source: Bakšić, 2012

Time [s] Time [s] Time [s] Time [s]

3.1.3 Bowline on a bight

Figure 6: Bowline on a bight.

Source: Bakšić, 2012

Retired 10 mm, 1 Retired 10 mm, 2 Retired 10 mm, 3 Retired 10 mm, 4.1

3.1.4 Extremely old ropes

Figure 9: Dynamic performance with figure of 8 loops on extremely old ropes.

Time [s] Time [s] Time [s]

Time [s] Time [s] Time [s]

Time [s] Time [s]

Figure 10: Double and triple fisherman’s knot.

Source: Bakšić, 2012

Figure 12 is explaining the differences between two separate cowstails, one

Source of barrel knot: Bakšić, 2012

Figure 13: Dynamic performance of single cowstails.

1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

The graphs representing single cowstails performance, with overhand loop

Time [s] Time [s]

3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

Most of the core strands broken Rope broken on barrel knot

Figure 16: Dynamic performance of retired cowstails.

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: new tape knot and used tape knot

50 55 60 65 70 20 30 40 50 60 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

40 50 60 70 80 50 60 70 80 70 80 90 100 110 120

Èas [s] Èas [s] Èas [s]

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: new.water.k and new.overhand.l

Vaude 1 Vaude 2 - not broken Vaude 2 - 2nd try

Vaude 3 - not broken Vaude 3 - 2nd try Vaude 4

Kong 1 Simond Titan 1

0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80

may quickly conclude that compared to producers’ declarations most of the

Figure 20: Start of slippage on new and retired descender devices.

Retired descender, new rope Retired descender, retired rope

32 34 36 38 40 42 135 140 145 150

120 140 160 180 40 60 80 100 120

Time [s] Time [s]

Figure 22: Securing of a retired rope in a retired descender Petzl Stop.

2000 4000 6000 8000

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 70 80 90 100 110 120