Version 2 - Strap them to a drill that as it spins, makes them wack against a surface.. You can then roughly count how many strikes based on knowing its X rotations per second and build a graph of say 100 strikes 500 strikes 1000 strikes 5000 strikes
Micro-fractures exist, but I doubt you can get them by ground hits. The main mechanism that produces micro-fractures is fatigue. Aluminium is highly susceptible to fatigue by repeatedly stressing it close to it's yield strength, a.k.a. a few very bad falls with at least 75% MBS force and no deformation. But that would be a different test. Sorry to get all technical and I have great respect for the practically scientific side of this channel.
@@blakenev10 They shouldn't, but data on what happens when they do will inform your gear decisions. If potential fatigue-related failures occur due to some event or series of events, at what point do you replace it?
@@blakenev10 A few bad falls should retire most equipment under stress anyway. I don't think there was a situation that registered the forces required ever found on this channel in their specific applications.
Exactly. All these ground impacts have created excellent sites for the propagation of micro-fractures through the aluminum, if they were to then undergo cyclic loading. Such as one might see on a slackline or highline. This loading also doesn't have to be up to 75% of MBS or the like. Microcracks can propagate and enlarge at much lower loads, if you've got a good starting feature (like tons of dings) that acts to concentrate stresses on the part. See for instance: www.wired.com/story/microcracks-undermined-san-franciscos-new-bus-terminal/
You should team up with one of the "ultra-high speed camera" channels to get very slow-mo footage of the breaking equipment. Watching a crack propagate thru a device often reveals interesting insights. Great channel. I never climb, highline, or slackline, but I command a Urban Search And Rescue (USAR) crew so I enjoy watching your destruction testing and your diligence on safety. You're an excellent role model. Thanks!
Cracks propagate through materials at speeds nearly the speed of sound in the material, or sometimes higher than the speed of sound if it is a brittle failure. In most metals, that means that the crack in something the size of a carabiner would propagate through the material in low single digit micro seconds. If the fracture was two micro seconds long, then at a frame rate of 500,000 frames per second, the fracture would still occur in a single frame. For reference, 500,000 frames per second is the fastest the SlowmoGuys have ever filmed at (not including the time they went to Caltech and filmed laser light with a special camera). In fact, the slowmoguys filmed a 1.5 inch steel rod break test at Purdue at 28,000 fps and they noted that it was essentially instantaneous, even at those speeds and they theorized that they'd need a million FPS to see it actually crack. They weren't wrong. At a million fps, that bar would have broke over the course of about 6-7 frames. But to get 1 million fps, the quality of the recording would make 2006 UA-cam videos look like HD. But a carabiner, even at a million frames per second, the crack would occur in about 2 frames.
Once you get the drop tower up and running, it would be great to revisit micro fractures … scratch up some carabiners in this way, then shock load them from a few to a ton of falls. Then do a fail test and see their actual strength.
I am a mechanical engineering student and have studied material sciences as well as mechanics of materials. So, within these topics it looks all the way down to the crystal structure of materials and how they behave to how different loads will cause different stresses within materials. I can say from these classes that THERE ARE MICROFRACTURES. When a force is added to an object stress can be visualized as “flowing”. When ever there is a little defect in something the stress flow is compressed like if you were to see a river try to flow around a rock. This causes a concentration of forces where there is a small defect. It is completely dependent on the geometry of the crack and how the stress flows through the object. So, for the carabiner there could definitely be some sort of stress concentration depending on the types of chips and cracks in it. This is probably why there was a bigger range of failing forces because there were different chis in each of the carabiners. From this abuse there is more likely to be dull dents and chips which have way lower stress concentrations than a sharp crack since the stress can flow around a circle better than a sharp point. What is probably more likely to make the fractures is causing lots of stress then reliving it. This can lead to the “microfractures” that aren’t really visible. Each time the material is loaded to a high amount these cracks can propagate and weaken it. There are graphs for different materials called S/N Fatigue curves that show different loading cycles and how many times they can withstand those loads. So, in the case of these carabiners they can take so many falls and will form small “microfractures” within the material that will eventually fail. This was the cause of an aircraft accident since the cabins are pressurized and depressurized causing a loading cycle. There is a good quick video that covers some if this linked below. With this being said it might be a better experiment to put a load of a bad fall on a single carabiner then relive it. Do this multiple times and then test the maximum breaking force or continue to do it until the carabiner fails. Another point I would like to make is that there was somewhere in this video that quickly mentioned the maximum breaking force to be much higher than what is labeled. There is something called the factor of safety that engineers use when designing a product. The product has a requirement that it must be able to withstand. The requirement is then multiplied by the factor of safety and then designed to meet this new higher load. The product is then labeled with the load required not what it was designed to. This is so if something happens that is accounted for or someone uses it improperly there is still more strength than what the end user really thinks there is but never load something beyond what it is labeled. In the case of these carabiners they could also be labeled with the standard minimum they go by so people know that it is safe enough. I hope this helps! Different equations for facture mechanics and stress concentration from them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_mechanics Video on plane windows: ua-cam.com/video/7rXGRPMD-GQ/v-deo.html Plane accident from fatigue: lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=4&LLID=20&LLTypeID=2
I would like to test cyclic loading stressing aluminum, maybe new and maybe abused gear, to demonstrate what you are referring to. What is the % of MBS of aluminum that a carabiner could in theory take infinite loads... 25%? I know if you cyclic load near MBS it only takes a reachable number before it breaks from micro fractures forming. I was joking that the breaking strength was higher than MBS because sooooo many times on slacksnap that wasn't the case because MBS is based on a sterile enviroment, especially on soft goods, especially on highline gear. So everytime something breaks higher than MBS I make a joke about it. I know the printed number is the lowest it should ever be but I find great joy in showing that isn't always the case haha.
@@HowNOT2 another Mechanical Engineer chiming in. Aluminum doesnt have an "endurance limit" like steel does. In theory, you could cyclically load an aluminum carabiner to just 100 pounds, and it may take a billion cycle, but it will eventually fail. The problem is, shape has a lot to do with this calculation and would be really tough. But if you're looking to do an actual test that would have a low enough set of cycles to be feasible, I'd recommend doing a super slow test of a carabiner where you load it and unload it until it deforms and wont go back to normal (also known as the yield strength) , and then run your test at about 80%-90% of the yield strangth on a fresh sample. If I were a betting man I'd estimate the force to get to the yield strength of a 24 kN carabiner is probably close to 20kN. Anther problem in designing this kind of test is that fatigue is rather sensitive to the load, so if you're loading a carabiner to 4000±100 pounds, it it constantly loads high vs another sample consistently loading low, the resulting life could be off by an order of magnitude (the difference between 10,000 cycles and 100,000 cycles). These sorts of differences could literally make a test take 10 times longer or something could break in one tenth of the time you might have been expecting.
@@HowNOT2 I did some looking into the materials that are used and the data on it. It looks like about 20% MBS is what would give you "infinite" falls and by infinite I mean you probably will not ever reach that number of falls. While looking around on the internet I found that MIT actually did a lot of testing to see what a carabiner could withstand. They did testing that would mimic how a climber would actually use it in the real world and all of that data can be found here web.mit.edu/sp255/www/reference_vault/Fatigue_Presentation.pdf . I came up with the 20% from the data found on page 13-15 (as well as some other material sources linked below). The failures became asymptotic at about 5kn which is about 20% of the rated MBS of the carabiners. I also agree with @TheArmyKnifeNut on all of what he said. What I think might be an interesting test is to load a carabiner up to 20kn like 20ish times and then do a final MBS test to see if those few loads lower the MBS. This would be to simulate how multiple type 2 falls effect the MBS of a carabiner. I watched your video on the forces from falling and seeing that the highest forces created from those typical falls never even reached 5kn, I dont think climbers should worry about failure of gear from fatigue unless there are a lot of type 2 falls. Thanks for making the cool videos! asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA7075T6 ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730023698.pdf
These tests are so awesome! I'm a climber, rope access tech and professional rigger and these vids are SUPER RAD! Thanks so much! It would be interesting to drop a carabiner from 100ft and the xray it first to see if there are micro fractures and then break test it. I'd love to see that... I might be able to get the xrays done and then send the biner to ya to break it!
Love the channel and this series. Micro fractures are a real thing, and there are material science equations that can calculate the minimum size of a surface defect that could lead to failure under different loading scenarios. Older carabiner were manufactured without a specific design for avoiding microfractures. Newer carabiners are a lot less prone cracking, and the minimum crack size for failure (usually) is visible to the eye. If you see a crack or large dent, retire the gear, they fail fast when they go and don't give visual warning they are about to.
Thanks for taking the time to fully prep, test, and share this information Ryan and associates. Appreciate the bit of knowledge and entertainment for sure.
12:58 Sure, we need more testing (ie more Patreons) to get a more precise average. But, still, in both models, we can see that one out of 3 got impacted by the abuse. So, kids, take care of your gear, but don't replace it every time it touch the rock either. Very great video, thumbs UP as always. Alex, whitewater rescue instructor in Québec.
That was very cool ! So interesting. Should be very interesting to watch the carabiner rupture with a very high frequency camera, in order to detected the initiation of cracks.
I don't have any clue how I got this recommended but I'm not disappointed at all, I've watched a few of your vids. I don't do any rope work, or certainly not any highlines.I used to be a Firefighter I've used some ropes and harnesses, mainly Gemtor 541NYC harness with Petzel ID Rig or Rescue8...all very minimal expierence with it. I like the ground pretty good, that and knots aren't my strong suit, awesome as crap vids yall.
Yeah micro-fractures are def a sketchy ground, but thanks for the info!! and please put a plexiglass cover over your machine! :) MBS tested equipment can jump a lot. From my POW it is good practice to not use any gear after you dropped it from a wall. For instance I dropped a Photon Screw Lock from 400 feet, found it and retired. When I tested the carabiner got to 24 kN. So apparently no issues. I believe that what mfr are saying is that there is a very tiny chance you get micro-fractures after carabiners fall down. The thing is that as they categorised as PPE class 3 according to European regulations, hence protecting the user from death. So this is when even small chances lead to extra safety. In terms of fatigue as some other comments were saying be aware that fatigue in metals concerns loads that are generally much lower than MBS, but simply repeat them to thousands (sometimes million cycles) and they lead to breakage (classic example train axles). There are very interesting studies linked to some carabiners and fatigue, specially considering paragliding flight (search for DHV). Even with very low figures (100-150 kg) a carabiner might break after 100'000 cycles. Of course in climbing this is not really relevant, by the time your gear gets to 10'000 cycles it will look that bad that you might just wanna use it as a keychain.
Great content, is it true a carabiner can’t be used if exposed to salt water. I heard it during Air assault school. We used non locking “snap link” carabiner.
It does look like the lowest numbers came from the abused equipment. I will still use my known history equipment and keep the others for utility where I know I won't fall to my death even though I know that a triaxial load or a mis-aligned over a rock has a much more likely risk of failure. Great info and keep up the great work.
From this kind of abuse, it seems more likely that the result would be Work Hardening of the aluminium. there is a wikipedia article from this, and quoting the section on aluminium: "Devices made from aluminum and its alloys, such as aircraft, must be carefully designed to minimize or evenly distribute flexure, which can lead to work hardening and, in turn, stress cracking," That being said you'd have to repeatedly be causing impact stress on the aluminium to normally cause that to happen (to my knowledge). It's possible it could worsen a very minor defect in grain structure eventually though.
work hardening is only done through plastic deformation. Dropping a carabiner on the ground will plastically deform a small portion, a dent or scratch would be an indication of that. But that would be the only area that is hardened. due to the thickness of the material, this wouldn't have a significant effect. Its like bending a paper clip back and forth. The part you are bending will slowly get harder to bend and eventually snap. But the rest of the paper clip is unchanged.
Might I ask why test 824 and 830 were disregarded in your conclusion? Those instances identify that the carabiners were compromised. The reason behind microfracture caution is that invisible damage could possibly compromise your gear, which I believe you have proven with your tests. All the new gear held to within 2% standard deviation from the mean while test 824 showed 5% less strength and test 830 showed 12% less strength. Thats a 33% chance your gear has been compromised and weakened from its original state.
Because it's still much more than you would experience climbing, and I believe the test was more to show that you don't have to throw away equipment if it touches down on rock once, like some people believe you should.
Ryan.... what happens if the carabiners are heated? for example for being hanged 50cm over a house heating sistem !! where they get heated then cold , heated then cold,. ... or in the car on a road trip where in the day they get heated then at night cold. for several days or months.
Think about the physics, I think he put way more force into the smashes than the gravity could reach within 50m... So that makes not much of a difference.
@@dalivanwyngarden3204 I'm calculating 70 mph when an object falls from 50 meters which is comparable to a relatively good baseball player pitch. So I'm guessing a real fall does more damage than throwing it against the ground unless you are an amazing thrower.
I recently dropped atc style belay device with a carabiner from about 50 meters and looking at the huge scars they got im seriously thinking about retiring them
so just throwing them on the ground is not gonna be enough, they need to be thrown down and then cyclic loaded for years for them to be compromised. possible micro cracks are gonna take many many cycles to grow. I'm a machinist and Ive seen this in engine parts.
From what I remember the micro fracture thing started from a bad batch of biners from just one company back in the early 90's but who knows. Love your show
I'd be interested in seeing High Res Pics of 824 and 830 to see if there was some deep gouge near where it ended up breaking since those are both the "outliers" in this experiment.
This is good to know! It would be also great to see how minimal usage affects strength of biners. Like a few cycles of weighting/releasing load. I have noticed that most biners can be flexed a bit just by pulling apart with your hands. So that kind of usage can build up some fatigue in the aluminum. I'm curious how much?
Interesting experiment, but due to the limited number of tests it really only shows that microfractures are not guaranteed to occur when throwing biners around.. Not trying to tell you to destroy more carabiners though ;)
Andrey Mironov microfractures start at stress risers and then form from cyclic loading. Abusing your gear is going to create stress risers, if it does anything, but not directly form microfractures.
I imagine it's less likely that micro-fractures are the cause, but rather stress concentrators. Basically if you get enough dents in the wrong places you can artificially create a place where all the force gets dumped and it breaks faster. Imagine taking it and cutting a notch all the way around the shaft of the clip, what's what it can functionally do. It would explain why they broke in less consistent ways at less consistent forces. It's no longer breaking in the designed location at the designed force. It's breaking in the location dictated by where the stress is being concentrated. If it doesn't compromise the integrity enough, it breaks how it should. You may have even work hardened it a tiny bit or allowed for more plastic deformation in certain places that wouldn't normally get it. But if you get blemishes in just the right places you get significant failure differences. So it's more nuanced that does it cause a crack. It's how is the structural integrity affected by small dents where.
I used to work for a boutique bike frame builder in San Diego back in the 90's making custom steel, and then Ti frames. Aluminum has a "quality" called catastrophic failure. Really sucks on bicycles. Probably does when a biner fails also.
I wanna see expensive bd draws compared to the cheaper wire gate bd draws. In this video a lot of the biners are breaking at the nose and I know that on the more expensive bd draws there is no wire gate/nose. Are they really worth that extra coin?
I realize that i am four years late, but i just had an idea to help catch flying parts.... put a one-gallon freezer bag around the part under test. cut a hole in each end to pass the ropes through so that the bag can't add any strength to the part under test (not that it would add meaningful strength). it probably won't stop some of the more energetic pops, but it should slow down the pieces enough that you don't have to hunt all over the shop for them.
Small imperfections may be points of corrosion entry. Possibly have some abused equipment stored in sub optimal conditions (left dirty and damp for a period of timed and repeat.
Very cool, just wanted to throw some ideas into the air for wearing out the carabiner in a more practical manner. I want to preface, you guys have an amazing set up to do these test and the method used for testing looked very consistent. I just want to add some ideas for further tests because I'm very curious myself. Prefacing these tests I want to give some insight on some of my thoughts. Throwing the carabiner on the ground would most likely result in compressive and shear strain. These forces will wear out products, however compressive and shear forces are not typically how materials break but still lead to structural degradation. Typically materials break from tensile strain/forces, which is how you guys mangled those carabiners for science with your pulleys. I think it would be really cool to come back to these tests and include another way to strain the carabiners with tension. Some ideas would lead climbing falls, or even some mad lad contraptions you guys can think of. I don't know if producing tensile strain on the carabiners would yield actual results, but I think it's worth a shot. Awesome video, and thanks for keeping us entertained (:
Agreed. Throwing them on the ground also only damages the outside. I have some carabiners with some pretty sharp scratches and gouges from bolt hangers. I could imagine those acting as a starting point of a real failure.
@@Mike-oz4cv The outside matters too. In tensile stress cross-section and lack of stress concentrators matters. But in the spine close to the rope and rope anchor points there is bending, and bending stress is mostly held by the inside outside while the middle section just sits there. Any gouge is significant in that portion of a carabiner.
My understanding is that they wanted to test whether dropping gear specifically leads to microfracture that reduce stability. Which leads to having to discard gear after dropping, without visible fractures. Not to debate whether microfracture in generally happen maybe through other means than dropping.
In all tests it is possible to see that the carabiners gets deformed before breaking. Do you record the forces when the carabiners start to "bend"? And do you know if you stop to increase the force at this time do they go back to the original form? And thanks for the video!!
You always have an elastic deformation phase in which the stress varies linearly woth the strain. Stopping applying any force there will mean the biner is gonna get back to its original shape. Past a threshold you enter the plastic deformation regime in which the aluminum undergoes microalignement of its cristalline structure. Then the material extends even more and that's where the material is actually torn apart. The required force starts to decrease. Then the biner breaks. So the forces we see on the sensors are the max force observed at the end of the plastic deformation. I guess
Hey meche here, while cracks theoretically do lower your mbs, the real issue lies in crack propagation due to cyclic stress, so even tho you “can’t” see a decrease in this test, if you did many pulls at a value lower than mbs (much lower) you would see a decrease on the cycle life. That is let’s say you pull it to 8kN, the new one would break (making up a number here) at 5,000 cycles, while the one that’s banged up would break at (again making up a number) 3500 cycles. There are formulas to estimate and approximate this, but again it’s mainly seen in the cycle life rather than the breaking strength
Would you guys consider doing any fall tests on rope stoppers like what they use in the Czech Republic? That stuff seems to sketchy, but the more I think about it, the less bad they seem.
Arnold Kotlyarevsky literally sitting in the Slacksnap test bed right now waiting for a bad weather weekend I can justify staying inside to break them!
You should test auto locking devices and see how many KN it can take before it slips or destroys the rope. IE pilot, Grigri, traxion, ATC in guide mode etc.
sharp dents in aluminum, any metal really, cause stress risers. which is why changes in direction are radiused. Aluminum also work hardens and gets more brittle under mechanical deformation.
I'm curious about a carabiner dropped between 20 and to a hundred feet. Also I'm curious about a stainless steel Rapide. Also if these carabiners/rapides were in a rope bag (so a little bit of cushion). This is canyoneering specific. I personally don't throw my carabiners but I will toss my rope and rope bag, but I've seen some who keep carabiners in the rope bag, and they toss the rope bag. Also to keep in mind, these are rapelling forces only.
Aluminum is sensitive to salt from sweat or the environment which can hugely increase fatigue by weakening and removing the hard oxide that keeps aluminum from rusting. Salt will wick into a microcrack. Still more likely to be a problem on a beach or a boat than a mountain.
you gotta let water in those tiny breaks in the aluminum over long periods over time. i've seen it it bike parts. especially crank arms. cracks you can't see that have let water in over time that eventually fail and when they fail you can see the corrosion coming from the outside in along the invisible crack. after working on bikes and going into climbing i've always assumed that this could happen to carabiners. inspect your gear thoroughly, maybe even with a magnifying glass, why not?
I like Mammut carabiners.But they have some issue: some models have plastic pin under the spring,which lock the gate of carabiner.And this plastic can give away,and you can use your carabiner
I am a climber as well as an engineer. The biggest variable missing here imo is *time*. A single impact is not going to shatter a biner, and I'm sure Mammut makes extra sure of this during their testing. The real question is, after a few impacts, what happens as the carabiner gets weathered. If you load the carabiner repeatedly? Then leave it exposed to the elements. Allow it to slightly expand and contract with temperature changes. Etc. Basically simulate real climbing conditions. After many cycles of this I'm sure you would be able to measure some compromise in the material's integrity.
Shear force is not what you're thinking it is. For some materials instantaneous force does make a difference, but for metals it is much easier to handle than equal longer duration force.
Fatigue is way more dangerus than this dents from hitting surfaces. Because it is more like cold forging. It just keeps the internal cristallin struckture. But, fatigue can start often from such damages and slowly crack through the material.
I was once told by an industry professional (canopy your builder and trainer) that when microfractures were "officially" made a thing to look out for they x-rayed new steel carabineers, dropped them and x-rayed them again, and there were no fractuctures before dropping and some after. Break tests showed the ones with microfractures failing in a catastrophic manner. More recently someone x-rayed NEW aluminum carabineers and saw micro fractures there. Basically the aluminum ones develop microfractures in the forging process, so EVERY aluminum carabineers has microfractures, but aluminum, as a softer, less brittle metal, doesn't fail catastrophically as a result of microfractures the way steel does. If you drop steel from three feet to rock it's done, but aluminum is likely okay. (How okay would take far more comprehensive testing and larger sample size)
We will explore this. I don't want to find out they are super good enough because I don't think super off brands should be supported without truly being compliant with all standards and I've heard amazon has knockoffs of name brands. I want to do some detective work there for sure.
My concern with Xinda and some of the other "off-brands" is consistency, you could test 100 from a batch and be great, but due to questionable quality control, the next thousand may fail miserably.
@@HowNOT2 my guess is they won;'t be super good enough. I have confiscated Chinese stuff and swapped it with real gear (free). I am highly dubious about the increasing use of this kind of cheap gear coming into widespread use. Please test and post. :-)
I know in sailing and aircraft it's the corrosion that lives in the cracks that grows faster and unseen is what really makes it more fragile. Sure the nicks and cracks give stress some place to gather but the hitting corrosion that's the killer that makes the micro grow from not visible to visible. Give it a try and water and current to speed up time. Salt if you want to make it go really fast
Did quick maths. If we count an average for LineScale data, we can see, that this might have a little impact. For Crag Wire Gate, we get around 2.48 percent less strength after tossing them around, and for Locking Carabiner we get about 7.12 percent less strength. Of course to have more accurate data, you should brake like couple hundred of carabiners with different types, but we all know it would be quite expensive to do it :D
Trashing the carabiner that way crated the microfratures FROM WHICH THE CRACK WILL START, if the carabiner would undergo a long cyclical loading. Just starting the crack will not affect the resistance much, as you've shown, but that's not the problem with microfractures
Your data set is way too small to make any kind of serious conclusion. Also I don't know if the carabiners reached terminal velocity when they were hitting the ground. The carabiners hitting different surfaces could also affect the results. My health is worth the expense of replacing a piece of compromised climbing equipment.
Micro fractures are a thing but you never checked if you have any cracks. Throwing them on the floor are not guaranteeing that you create one on the inside of the carabiner. You maybe created them on the outside but you should do a test over loading them until shape changes and after a day try a pull test again. All the best from japan
A few years ago there were a few paraglider carabiners that broke. Kind of surprising considering that paraglider carabiners probably have a much easier life than climbing carabiners. I’m not sure if there was ever a study done on why they broke.
I can answer the results you should expect from this, you should see no big reduction in strenght this is because throwing them on the ground only cause minor frequencies into the metal. This aluminium is designed to withstand forces beyond 20kN. If you want to introduce microfractures the only way to get those is by tweaking the metal back and forth. And you need ultrasound to inspect for microfractures as it will resonate differently on weakened areas.
I was always worried about micro fractures after a shock load more then bashing them. So do that test please, bring it fast to right b4 or right after the limit. Then do it till it breaks and see if that changes it.
Some thrown carabiners went below their guarantee strengths, so how does that prove no microfractures? I agree they were still good enough for use. Not considering the damaged gate.
I have some metolius mini wiregates that are rated for 22 (I think). They say on the side "For rock climbing and moutaineering use only" As if it is not rated for keychain and dog walking duties.
I'm wondering if paragliding biners really getting weak by the time... they should only be used 500h... I'm smelling a myth... if you need some old pg biners let me know.
One thing I don't get why you're throwing them on the ground like that? Throwing those on the ground even 500 times doesn't compare or compete with stress from weight stretch hanging rope this that are the other does that make any sense capisce?
Because people use to say if you drop a carabiner on the ground from even chest high, there would be invisible microfractures and they should be retired. So I threw them on the ground and tested them.
Your perfectly new biner may occasionally break under minimum guaranteed load, there are examples of this on the channels and it's impossible to test the entire batch as the testing is destructive. Not much to consider
I don't really know anything about climbing gear but I do know microfracture is a something that can happen to aluminum. It's usually is caused when its bent slightly then returns to it original shape
What climber hasn't had this told to them at one time or another, more specifically as you point out at the beginning of their climbing career LOL-Or cavers for that matter (I'm both). Interesting brittle fracture surfaces from your tests. I guess too whether micro fractures are a myth or not (I'd still like to see a bigger sample size of say 100 krabs abused in a slightly more repeatable way, say simply dropped many times from the same height rather than thrown sometimes or not; and them make the comparison. of course this would be an expensive "adventure in physics" LOL.....Who said that?? I don't know about micro fractures occurring like this (kind of work hardening via throwing into objects AKA un-yielding rock face- as apposed to repeated falls close to the yield strength- and certainly big falls on krabs, I've chucked them, falls that I really knew about LOL- probably being over paranoid) like this but once on the cliffs I met this climber who was about to abseil/rap off the top and I noticed he had some crazy Bonaiti Krabs i'd never seen before. I asked to see them and by sheer fluke (I'd never ever seen it in over 30 years of climbing and caving) the spine had numerous parallel hairline fractures down it! Of course he was amazed and somewhat relieved as this was his main harness krab he was about to tie into LOL. I'm sure under a little load it would have just collapsed. As to how these fractures got there (there was no visible damage to the alloy, a little wear on the anodizing, that's all but it was interesting to see. Another great video of yours!
Would love to see some cheap/non rated hardware store carabiners to shoe how even "strong looking" non rated carabiners are not enough, and you need actual rated ones
Not sure that’s the result you’d get. If it’s a good enough physical copy and it’s made out of the right aluminum alloy, it’s gonna have pretty similar breaking tests, rated or not. Most of the time.
When I begun climbing I was told not to use biner that were found at the bootm of the cliffs because falls from high above would be bad for biners. So IMHO throwing biners to the ground is not really smashing enough. You would have to throw them at 220 km/H against a hard surface (to simulate a fall from high enough) and then we could consider them smashed. seriously, there are some serious metalurgists input here. And it looks like the myth originated from a misunderstanding/collapsing of issues done by non-specialist: myth origin: 1/ micro-fracture exist and are bad (Comet anyone ?) Premise True but the origin of the fracture in alumiium is repetive loading cycle (fatigue) 2/ biners hit bad develop micro-fractures premise False 3/ biners hit hard develop micro-frctures (Incorrect conclusion
If I can weigh in: TimeforTom is correct that you're only getting a 10:1 mechanical advantage when it comes to converting the torque into latteral force (minus friction). Simplified math to follow. If the max torque the motor could output were 100 foot pounds and it wraps around a 6 inch diameter or 3 inch radus (0.5 and 0.25 foot respectivly) axle, then the max pull the motor could generate would be 400 pounds of force. Howevery, that 400 pounds is split between the two different lines. So you could look at it as being a 10:1 system converting 400 pounds into 4000 pounds, or a 20:1 system converting 200 pounds into 4000 pounds. However, if you had it hooked up as a 20:1 system with only a single line going in, you'd have a 20:1 system capable of converting all 400 pounds at the axle into 8000 pounds at the sample. On the other hand, splitting the system into 2x 10:1 pulleys in parallel halves the force seen by each, and if the motor has a high enough torque to allow you to reach your target loads, it allows you to reduce the load on the separate lines compared to what would be seen in a single 10:1 pully, increasing the safety factor by 2x.
@@HowNOT2 Yeah i believe TheArmyKnifeNut and I are on the same page, so yeah lets say the winch can pull a maximum of 400N, now we have two cables attached to the winch, so that would mean that both cables get 200N of pull. If both cables have a 10 to 1 pulley system, that would mean both cables can pull 2000N each. If we combine the two cables which can pull 2000N each in one point, this point will be pulled at with 4000N. This means that it is a 10 to 1 ration, since 4000N is ten times bigger than 400N (400N is the original pull). Now if you add another winch on top of the existing winch and attach one cable to that winch, you end up with a 20:1 force and 10:1 speed, but thats just because you double the initial force. And asTheArmyKnifeNut pointed out, indeed if the cable in between the pulleys is the weak point, this does reduce the risk of this cable snapping, because the force on it is only half as much.
"Raw aluminum, cool!" I can tell you are not easy to impress I assumed you would get at least one of them breaking at a higher load after you banged them up because my guess is that it de-stresses the metal a bit like peening. Sure, it is inconsistently applied and there are more highly abraded and surface roughened areas that can increase fatiguing, but in general a goodly amount of small impacts evenly distributed through a crystalline structure like a metal lattice should work out stresses like a thick fluid works out bubbles and make it more ideally compressed?
I thought the whole microfracture precaution was more about descending gear that heats and cools Repeatedly. especially if the cooling is fast like in a canyon situation on a dry abseil into a cold pool
Oh cool. Black Diamond's QC lab called, and said they've already done exhaustive, rigorous, scientific testing on all manner of gear. And have ruled that dropping gear doesn't harm it. And then 2007 and the Outdoor Safety Institute called, and said they've got published findings on this.
Check out our new store! hownot2.store/
Version 2 - Strap them to a drill that as it spins, makes them wack against a surface.. You can then roughly count how many strikes based on knowing its X rotations per second and build a graph of say 100 strikes 500 strikes 1000 strikes 5000 strikes
Micro-fractures exist, but I doubt you can get them by ground hits. The main mechanism that produces micro-fractures is fatigue. Aluminium is highly susceptible to fatigue by repeatedly stressing it close to it's yield strength, a.k.a. a few very bad falls with at least 75% MBS force and no deformation. But that would be a different test.
Sorry to get all technical and I have great respect for the practically scientific side of this channel.
And those kind of forces shouldn't happen consistently if ever during climbing.
@@blakenev10 They shouldn't, but data on what happens when they do will inform your gear decisions. If potential fatigue-related failures occur due to some event or series of events, at what point do you replace it?
@@blakenev10 A few bad falls should retire most equipment under stress anyway. I don't think there was a situation that registered the forces required ever found on this channel in their specific applications.
Exactly. All these ground impacts have created excellent sites for the propagation of micro-fractures through the aluminum, if they were to then undergo cyclic loading. Such as one might see on a slackline or highline. This loading also doesn't have to be up to 75% of MBS or the like. Microcracks can propagate and enlarge at much lower loads, if you've got a good starting feature (like tons of dings) that acts to concentrate stresses on the part. See for instance: www.wired.com/story/microcracks-undermined-san-franciscos-new-bus-terminal/
@@MSPatterson Woah that was a super interesting article.
You should team up with one of the "ultra-high speed camera" channels to get very slow-mo footage of the breaking equipment. Watching a crack propagate thru a device often reveals interesting insights. Great channel. I never climb, highline, or slackline, but I command a Urban Search And Rescue (USAR) crew so I enjoy watching your destruction testing and your diligence on safety. You're an excellent role model. Thanks!
Cracks propagate through materials at speeds nearly the speed of sound in the material, or sometimes higher than the speed of sound if it is a brittle failure. In most metals, that means that the crack in something the size of a carabiner would propagate through the material in low single digit micro seconds. If the fracture was two micro seconds long, then at a frame rate of 500,000 frames per second, the fracture would still occur in a single frame. For reference, 500,000 frames per second is the fastest the SlowmoGuys have ever filmed at (not including the time they went to Caltech and filmed laser light with a special camera). In fact, the slowmoguys filmed a 1.5 inch steel rod break test at Purdue at 28,000 fps and they noted that it was essentially instantaneous, even at those speeds and they theorized that they'd need a million FPS to see it actually crack. They weren't wrong. At a million fps, that bar would have broke over the course of about 6-7 frames. But to get 1 million fps, the quality of the recording would make 2006 UA-cam videos look like HD. But a carabiner, even at a million frames per second, the crack would occur in about 2 frames.
@@TheArmyKnifeNut ummmmm....okay.... alrighty then thanks for scrambling our brains you know us.... spectators who don't climb...???? 🤔🤔🤔
Smarter everyday
Once you get the drop tower up and running, it would be great to revisit micro fractures … scratch up some carabiners in this way, then shock load them from a few to a ton of falls. Then do a fail test and see their actual strength.
I am a mechanical engineering student and have studied material sciences as well as mechanics of materials. So, within these topics it looks all the way down to the crystal structure of materials and how they behave to how different loads will cause different stresses within materials. I can say from these classes that THERE ARE MICROFRACTURES. When a force is added to an object stress can be visualized as “flowing”. When ever there is a little defect in something the stress flow is compressed like if you were to see a river try to flow around a rock. This causes a concentration of forces where there is a small defect. It is completely dependent on the geometry of the crack and how the stress flows through the object. So, for the carabiner there could definitely be some sort of stress concentration depending on the types of chips and cracks in it. This is probably why there was a bigger range of failing forces because there were different chis in each of the carabiners. From this abuse there is more likely to be dull dents and chips which have way lower stress concentrations than a sharp crack since the stress can flow around a circle better than a sharp point.
What is probably more likely to make the fractures is causing lots of stress then reliving it. This can lead to the “microfractures” that aren’t really visible. Each time the material is loaded to a high amount these cracks can propagate and weaken it. There are graphs for different materials called S/N Fatigue curves that show different loading cycles and how many times they can withstand those loads. So, in the case of these carabiners they can take so many falls and will form small “microfractures” within the material that will eventually fail. This was the cause of an aircraft accident since the cabins are pressurized and depressurized causing a loading cycle. There is a good quick video that covers some if this linked below. With this being said it might be a better experiment to put a load of a bad fall on a single carabiner then relive it. Do this multiple times and then test the maximum breaking force or continue to do it until the carabiner fails.
Another point I would like to make is that there was somewhere in this video that quickly mentioned the maximum breaking force to be much higher than what is labeled. There is something called the factor of safety that engineers use when designing a product. The product has a requirement that it must be able to withstand. The requirement is then multiplied by the factor of safety and then designed to meet this new higher load. The product is then labeled with the load required not what it was designed to. This is so if something happens that is accounted for or someone uses it improperly there is still more strength than what the end user really thinks there is but never load something beyond what it is labeled. In the case of these carabiners they could also be labeled with the standard minimum they go by so people know that it is safe enough.
I hope this helps!
Different equations for facture mechanics and stress concentration from them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_mechanics
Video on plane windows: ua-cam.com/video/7rXGRPMD-GQ/v-deo.html
Plane accident from fatigue: lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=4&LLID=20&LLTypeID=2
I would like to test cyclic loading stressing aluminum, maybe new and maybe abused gear, to demonstrate what you are referring to. What is the % of MBS of aluminum that a carabiner could in theory take infinite loads... 25%? I know if you cyclic load near MBS it only takes a reachable number before it breaks from micro fractures forming.
I was joking that the breaking strength was higher than MBS because sooooo many times on slacksnap that wasn't the case because MBS is based on a sterile enviroment, especially on soft goods, especially on highline gear. So everytime something breaks higher than MBS I make a joke about it. I know the printed number is the lowest it should ever be but I find great joy in showing that isn't always the case haha.
@@HowNOT2 another Mechanical Engineer chiming in. Aluminum doesnt have an "endurance limit" like steel does. In theory, you could cyclically load an aluminum carabiner to just 100 pounds, and it may take a billion cycle, but it will eventually fail. The problem is, shape has a lot to do with this calculation and would be really tough. But if you're looking to do an actual test that would have a low enough set of cycles to be feasible, I'd recommend doing a super slow test of a carabiner where you load it and unload it until it deforms and wont go back to normal (also known as the yield strength) , and then run your test at about 80%-90% of the yield strangth on a fresh sample. If I were a betting man I'd estimate the force to get to the yield strength of a 24 kN carabiner is probably close to 20kN.
Anther problem in designing this kind of test is that fatigue is rather sensitive to the load, so if you're loading a carabiner to 4000±100 pounds, it it constantly loads high vs another sample consistently loading low, the resulting life could be off by an order of magnitude (the difference between 10,000 cycles and 100,000 cycles). These sorts of differences could literally make a test take 10 times longer or something could break in one tenth of the time you might have been expecting.
@@HowNOT2 I did some looking into the materials that are used and the data on it. It looks like about 20% MBS is what would give you "infinite" falls and by infinite I mean you probably will not ever reach that number of falls. While looking around on the internet I found that MIT actually did a lot of testing to see what a carabiner could withstand. They did testing that would mimic how a climber would actually use it in the real world and all of that data can be found here web.mit.edu/sp255/www/reference_vault/Fatigue_Presentation.pdf . I came up with the 20% from the data found on page 13-15 (as well as some other material sources linked below). The failures became asymptotic at about 5kn which is about 20% of the rated MBS of the carabiners. I also agree with @TheArmyKnifeNut on all of what he said. What I think might be an interesting test is to load a carabiner up to 20kn like 20ish times and then do a final MBS test to see if those few loads lower the MBS. This would be to simulate how multiple type 2 falls effect the MBS of a carabiner. I watched your video on the forces from falling and seeing that the highest forces created from those typical falls never even reached 5kn, I dont think climbers should worry about failure of gear from fatigue unless there are a lot of type 2 falls.
Thanks for making the cool videos!
asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA7075T6
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730023698.pdf
Blah blah, blah. Dont retire yer beenerz because you drop em.
For future video can you break test some cheap “climbing” carabiners off Amazon that use the CE rating?
Yes! I have always wondered
Highly interessted, too!
58 Thumbs Up.... Geez! OK! 3 kinds 3 of each. Post links here which ones you want to see tested? Non UIAA rated or the ones that are? Go!
yeah, because also sayins CE they could be selling "China Export". And thats no the same ;)
Taylor Wayne funny I was thinking the same thing.
These tests are so awesome! I'm a climber, rope access tech and professional rigger and these vids are SUPER RAD! Thanks so much! It would be interesting to drop a carabiner from 100ft and the xray it first to see if there are micro fractures and then break test it. I'd love to see that... I might be able to get the xrays done and then send the biner to ya to break it!
Love the channel and this series. Micro fractures are a real thing, and there are material science equations that can calculate the minimum size of a surface defect that could lead to failure under different loading scenarios. Older carabiner were manufactured without a specific design for avoiding microfractures. Newer carabiners are a lot less prone cracking, and the minimum crack size for failure (usually) is visible to the eye. If you see a crack or large dent, retire the gear, they fail fast when they go and don't give visual warning they are about to.
Thanks for taking the time to fully prep, test, and share this information Ryan and associates. Appreciate the bit of knowledge and entertainment for sure.
12:58 Sure, we need more testing (ie more Patreons) to get a more precise average.
But, still, in both models, we can see that one out of 3 got impacted by the abuse.
So, kids, take care of your gear, but don't replace it every time it touch the rock either.
Very great video, thumbs UP as always.
Alex, whitewater rescue instructor in Québec.
By far my favourite channel on youtube, thank you for being you..🏆
The animation in this one is amazing!
That was very cool ! So interesting.
Should be very interesting to watch the carabiner rupture with a very high frequency camera, in order to detected the initiation of cracks.
I don't have any clue how I got this recommended but I'm not disappointed at all, I've watched a few of your vids. I don't do any rope work, or certainly not any highlines.I used to be a Firefighter I've used some ropes and harnesses, mainly Gemtor 541NYC harness with Petzel ID Rig or Rescue8...all very minimal expierence with it. I like the ground pretty good, that and knots aren't my strong suit, awesome as crap vids yall.
What brand longsleeve are you wearing in the beginning? Looking for one exactly like that for climbing.
Good video!! Thanks this will help as the conversation at the crag always end up to this subject. Thanks a lot! :)
I love these climbing related slack snap videos very entertaining thank you.
Yeah micro-fractures are def a sketchy ground, but thanks for the info!! and please put a plexiglass cover over your machine! :) MBS tested equipment can jump a lot.
From my POW it is good practice to not use any gear after you dropped it from a wall. For instance I dropped a Photon Screw Lock from 400 feet, found it and retired. When I tested the carabiner got to 24 kN. So apparently no issues. I believe that what mfr are saying is that there is a very tiny chance you get micro-fractures after carabiners fall down. The thing is that as they categorised as PPE class 3 according to European regulations, hence protecting the user from death. So this is when even small chances lead to extra safety.
In terms of fatigue as some other comments were saying be aware that fatigue in metals concerns loads that are generally much lower than MBS, but simply repeat them to thousands (sometimes million cycles) and they lead to breakage (classic example train axles). There are very interesting studies linked to some carabiners and fatigue, specially considering paragliding flight (search for DHV). Even with very low figures (100-150 kg) a carabiner might break after 100'000 cycles. Of course in climbing this is not really relevant, by the time your gear gets to 10'000 cycles it will look that bad that you might just wanna use it as a keychain.
Hi, it would be wonderful to see the difference between climbing knots. There are many and we all know that it has a big effect on the rope strength
Great content, is it true a carabiner can’t be used if exposed to salt water. I heard it during Air assault school. We used non locking “snap link” carabiner.
This is awesome! One of my new favorite channels. I love climbing and breaking shit.
It does look like the lowest numbers came from the abused equipment. I will still use my known history equipment and keep the others for utility where I know I won't fall to my death even though I know that a triaxial load or a mis-aligned over a rock has a much more likely risk of failure. Great info and keep up the great work.
The abused equipment had the lowest AND highest numbers. And you should never be creating close to 20+ kN anyway so they would all be fine
@@blakenev10 That is good to know and your channel is the greatest.
Is the only thing you did with them just chuck them into the ground? Or did you do any kind of shock loading them with like a sand bag on a rope?
From this kind of abuse, it seems more likely that the result would be Work Hardening of the aluminium. there is a wikipedia article from this, and quoting the section on aluminium:
"Devices made from aluminum and its alloys, such as aircraft, must be carefully designed to minimize or evenly distribute flexure, which can lead to work hardening and, in turn, stress cracking,"
That being said you'd have to repeatedly be causing impact stress on the aluminium to normally cause that to happen (to my knowledge). It's possible it could worsen a very minor defect in grain structure eventually though.
work hardening is only done through plastic deformation. Dropping a carabiner on the ground will plastically deform a small portion, a dent or scratch would be an indication of that. But that would be the only area that is hardened. due to the thickness of the material, this wouldn't have a significant effect.
Its like bending a paper clip back and forth. The part you are bending will slowly get harder to bend and eventually snap. But the rest of the paper clip is unchanged.
That’s very interesting. Thanks for the testing, I’ve always wondered 🤔
Would this be the same with camming devices? Multiple moving parts of different sizes?
So what you're saying is that if I (totally hypothetically...) dropped a carabiner from the top of my single pitch sport route - it's still ok to use?
Might I ask why test 824 and 830 were disregarded in your conclusion? Those instances identify that the carabiners were compromised. The reason behind microfracture caution is that invisible damage could possibly compromise your gear, which I believe you have proven with your tests. All the new gear held to within 2% standard deviation from the mean while test 824 showed 5% less strength and test 830 showed 12% less strength. Thats a 33% chance your gear has been compromised and weakened from its original state.
Because it's still much more than you would experience climbing, and I believe the test was more to show that you don't have to throw away equipment if it touches down on rock once, like some people believe you should.
Ryan.... what happens if the carabiners are heated? for example for being hanged 50cm over a house heating sistem !! where they get heated then cold , heated then cold,. ... or in the car on a road trip where in the day they get heated then at night cold. for several days or months.
I would like to see this with carabiners dropped from a signifact height, like 25-100 meters or so. Not just smashed a little bit to the ground.
Yes, and also with old carabiners. Maybe time affects them too…
So many parameters to test…
Think about the physics, I think he put way more force into the smashes than the gravity could reach within 50m... So that makes not much of a difference.
@@dalivanwyngarden3204 I'm calculating 70 mph when an object falls from 50 meters which is comparable to a relatively good baseball player pitch. So I'm guessing a real fall does more damage than throwing it against the ground unless you are an amazing thrower.
Guys... Don't be ignorant.
Dropping your carabiners will never make a difference lol. This is all snake oil 🤦♀️
I recently dropped atc style belay device with a carabiner from about 50 meters and looking at the huge scars they got im seriously thinking about retiring them
so just throwing them on the ground is not gonna be enough, they need to be thrown down and then cyclic loaded for years for them to be compromised. possible micro cracks are gonna take many many cycles to grow. I'm a machinist and Ive seen this in engine parts.
Next time have Bobby take whippers on the carabiners, then test them.
**snort**!
From what I remember the micro fracture thing started from a bad batch of biners from just one company back in the early 90's but who knows. Love your show
I am highly interested in the history of that! Do you maybe know the company name or the year an article was made about it?
@@jeanjacket5206 quick google search shows an article in Rock and Ice. Turns out it was chouinard back in the late 70s.
I'd be interested in seeing High Res Pics of 824 and 830 to see if there was some deep gouge near where it ended up breaking since those are both the "outliers" in this experiment.
This is good to know! It would be also great to see how minimal usage affects strength of biners. Like a few cycles of weighting/releasing load. I have noticed that most biners can be flexed a bit just by pulling apart with your hands. So that kind of usage can build up some fatigue in the aluminum. I'm curious how much?
Interesting experiment, but due to the limited number of tests it really only shows that microfractures are not guaranteed to occur when throwing biners around.. Not trying to tell you to destroy more carabiners though ;)
I think the burden of proof should be on those who claim microfractures do happen from dropping your equipment
Andrey Mironov microfractures start at stress risers and then form from cyclic loading. Abusing your gear is going to create stress risers, if it does anything, but not directly form microfractures.
Thanks for the testing and the mith-busting!
I imagine it's less likely that micro-fractures are the cause, but rather stress concentrators. Basically if you get enough dents in the wrong places you can artificially create a place where all the force gets dumped and it breaks faster. Imagine taking it and cutting a notch all the way around the shaft of the clip, what's what it can functionally do. It would explain why they broke in less consistent ways at less consistent forces. It's no longer breaking in the designed location at the designed force. It's breaking in the location dictated by where the stress is being concentrated. If it doesn't compromise the integrity enough, it breaks how it should. You may have even work hardened it a tiny bit or allowed for more plastic deformation in certain places that wouldn't normally get it. But if you get blemishes in just the right places you get significant failure differences.
So it's more nuanced that does it cause a crack. It's how is the structural integrity affected by small dents where.
I used to work for a boutique bike frame builder in San Diego back in the 90's making custom steel, and then Ti frames. Aluminum has a "quality" called catastrophic failure. Really sucks on bicycles. Probably does when a biner fails also.
All that throwing and not one Hadouken gag.
I wanna see expensive bd draws compared to the cheaper wire gate bd draws. In this video a lot of the biners are breaking at the nose and I know that on the more expensive bd draws there is no wire gate/nose. Are they really worth that extra coin?
I realize that i am four years late, but i just had an idea to help catch flying parts.... put a one-gallon freezer bag around the part under test. cut a hole in each end to pass the ropes through so that the bag can't add any strength to the part under test (not that it would add meaningful strength).
it probably won't stop some of the more energetic pops, but it should slow down the pieces enough that you don't have to hunt all over the shop for them.
Small imperfections may be points of corrosion entry. Possibly have some abused equipment stored in sub optimal conditions (left dirty and damp for a period of timed and repeat.
Very cool, just wanted to throw some ideas into the air for wearing out the carabiner in a more practical manner. I want to preface, you guys have an amazing set up to do these test and the method used for testing looked very consistent. I just want to add some ideas for further tests because I'm very curious myself. Prefacing these tests I want to give some insight on some of my thoughts. Throwing the carabiner on the ground would most likely result in compressive and shear strain. These forces will wear out products, however compressive and shear forces are not typically how materials break but still lead to structural degradation. Typically materials break from tensile strain/forces, which is how you guys mangled those carabiners for science with your pulleys. I think it would be really cool to come back to these tests and include another way to strain the carabiners with tension. Some ideas would lead climbing falls, or even some mad lad contraptions you guys can think of. I don't know if producing tensile strain on the carabiners would yield actual results, but I think it's worth a shot. Awesome video, and thanks for keeping us entertained (:
Agreed. Throwing them on the ground also only damages the outside. I have some carabiners with some pretty sharp scratches and gouges from bolt hangers. I could imagine those acting as a starting point of a real failure.
@@Mike-oz4cv The outside matters too. In tensile stress cross-section and lack of stress concentrators matters. But in the spine close to the rope and rope anchor points there is bending, and bending stress is mostly held by the inside outside while the middle section just sits there. Any gouge is significant in that portion of a carabiner.
My understanding is that they wanted to test whether dropping gear specifically leads to microfracture that reduce stability.
Which leads to having to discard gear after dropping, without visible fractures.
Not to debate whether microfracture in generally happen maybe through other means than dropping.
This is not what I was learn from the past, surprised for the well building of those structure, good work.
So I should change my AL MTB everytime I scratch it?
LMAO that smashing montage was incredible
Lol the action shot edits were so stupid and I'm here for it
I used to get my ass chewed for dropping these and stepping on rope. You all should do a rope test next.
In all tests it is possible to see that the carabiners gets deformed before breaking. Do you record the forces when the carabiners start to "bend"? And do you know if you stop to increase the force at this time do they go back to the original form? And thanks for the video!!
You always have an elastic deformation phase in which the stress varies linearly woth the strain. Stopping applying any force there will mean the biner is gonna get back to its original shape.
Past a threshold you enter the plastic deformation regime in which the aluminum undergoes microalignement of its cristalline structure.
Then the material extends even more and that's where the material is actually torn apart. The required force starts to decrease. Then the biner breaks.
So the forces we see on the sensors are the max force observed at the end of the plastic deformation. I guess
Hey meche here, while cracks theoretically do lower your mbs, the real issue lies in crack propagation due to cyclic stress, so even tho you “can’t” see a decrease in this test, if you did many pulls at a value lower than mbs (much lower) you would see a decrease on the cycle life. That is let’s say you pull it to 8kN, the new one would break (making up a number here) at 5,000 cycles, while the one that’s banged up would break at (again making up a number) 3500 cycles. There are formulas to estimate and approximate this, but again it’s mainly seen in the cycle life rather than the breaking strength
Would you guys consider doing any fall tests on rope stoppers like what they use in the Czech Republic? That stuff seems to sketchy, but the more I think about it, the less bad they seem.
Arnold Kotlyarevsky literally sitting in the Slacksnap test bed right now waiting for a bad weather weekend I can justify staying inside to break them!
I know shit ,but is it possible for it to work harden in a small way ? Causing stress fractures?
Note to self: Throwing carabiners on the ground makes them stronger 😂
work hardening 🤣
@@error.418 hahaha, good one. 😆
You should test auto locking devices and see how many KN it can take before it slips or destroys the rope. IE pilot, Grigri, traxion, ATC in guide mode etc.
was always curious about that but couldnt find actual tests so thanks
sharp dents in aluminum, any metal really, cause stress risers. which is why changes in direction are radiused. Aluminum also work hardens and gets more brittle under mechanical deformation.
I'm curious about a carabiner dropped between 20 and to a hundred feet. Also I'm curious about a stainless steel Rapide. Also if these carabiners/rapides were in a rope bag (so a little bit of cushion). This is canyoneering specific. I personally don't throw my carabiners but I will toss my rope and rope bag, but I've seen some who keep carabiners in the rope bag, and they toss the rope bag. Also to keep in mind, these are rapelling forces only.
Great info Can you test some of the amazon cheap climbing gear companies like GM Climbing and Xinda.
Yes i plan on it.
Aluminum is sensitive to salt from sweat or the environment which can hugely increase fatigue by weakening and removing the hard oxide that keeps aluminum from rusting. Salt will wick into a microcrack. Still more likely to be a problem on a beach or a boat than a mountain.
LLC
Lol
you gotta let water in those tiny breaks in the aluminum over long periods over time. i've seen it it bike parts. especially crank arms. cracks you can't see that have let water in over time that eventually fail and when they fail you can see the corrosion coming from the outside in along the invisible crack. after working on bikes and going into climbing i've always assumed that this could happen to carabiners. inspect your gear thoroughly, maybe even with a magnifying glass, why not?
I like Mammut carabiners.But they have some issue: some models have plastic pin under the spring,which lock the gate of carabiner.And this plastic can give away,and you can use your carabiner
so its ok if i still use my alu biner i dropped from like 1 meter on rock
I am a climber as well as an engineer. The biggest variable missing here imo is *time*. A single impact is not going to shatter a biner, and I'm sure Mammut makes extra sure of this during their testing. The real question is, after a few impacts, what happens as the carabiner gets weathered. If you load the carabiner repeatedly? Then leave it exposed to the elements. Allow it to slightly expand and contract with temperature changes. Etc. Basically simulate real climbing conditions. After many cycles of this I'm sure you would be able to measure some compromise in the material's integrity.
Can we get a cyclical loading test like if u used ur climbing carabiners for your long line
Why has nobody noted the slow pulling into a break is a different stress than a near instantaneous snap of a falling human? (Aka shear force)
Shear force is not what you're thinking it is. For some materials instantaneous force does make a difference, but for metals it is much easier to handle than equal longer duration force.
Fatigue is way more dangerus than this dents from hitting surfaces.
Because it is more like cold forging. It just keeps the internal cristallin struckture.
But, fatigue can start often from such damages and slowly crack through the material.
Kudos for not just tying them to a piece of string and whipping them around, so you don't have to bend over to pick them up constantly...
I was once told by an industry professional (canopy your builder and trainer) that when microfractures were "officially" made a thing to look out for they x-rayed new steel carabineers, dropped them and x-rayed them again, and there were no fractuctures before dropping and some after. Break tests showed the ones with microfractures failing in a catastrophic manner. More recently someone x-rayed NEW aluminum carabineers and saw micro fractures there. Basically the aluminum ones develop microfractures in the forging process, so EVERY aluminum carabineers has microfractures, but aluminum, as a softer, less brittle metal, doesn't fail catastrophically as a result of microfractures the way steel does. If you drop steel from three feet to rock it's done, but aluminum is likely okay. (How okay would take far more comprehensive testing and larger sample size)
Please please !! Buy some Chinese branded carabiners and test them 🙏🏽🙏🏽
We will explore this. I don't want to find out they are super good enough because I don't think super off brands should be supported without truly being compliant with all standards and I've heard amazon has knockoffs of name brands. I want to do some detective work there for sure.
HowNOTtoHIGHLINE good point. Even if they could be compliant they haven’t done the work which we don’t like
My concern with Xinda and some of the other "off-brands" is consistency, you could test 100 from a batch and be great, but due to questionable quality control, the next thousand may fail miserably.
@@HowNOT2 my guess is they won;'t be super good enough. I have confiscated Chinese stuff and swapped it with real gear (free). I am highly dubious about the increasing use of this kind of cheap gear coming into widespread use. Please test and post. :-)
I know in sailing and aircraft it's the corrosion that lives in the cracks that grows faster and unseen is what really makes it more fragile. Sure the nicks and cracks give stress some place to gather but the hitting corrosion that's the killer that makes the micro grow from not visible to visible. Give it a try and water and current to speed up time. Salt if you want to make it go really fast
Did quick maths. If we count an average for LineScale data, we can see, that this might have a little impact. For Crag Wire Gate, we get around 2.48 percent less strength after tossing them around, and for Locking Carabiner we get about 7.12 percent less strength. Of course to have more accurate data, you should brake like couple hundred of carabiners with different types, but we all know it would be quite expensive to do it :D
Trashing the carabiner that way crated the microfratures FROM WHICH THE CRACK WILL START, if the carabiner would undergo a long cyclical loading. Just starting the crack will not affect the resistance much, as you've shown, but that's not the problem with microfractures
Ну теперь с уверенностью можно сказать, что карабины заявленную нагрузку держат и миф про микротрещины просто миф. Спасибо вам за ваши видео!
I'm enjoying the trashing montage much more then I ever though I will
Your data set is way too small to make any kind of serious conclusion. Also I don't know if the carabiners reached terminal velocity when they were hitting the ground. The carabiners hitting different surfaces could also affect the results. My health is worth the expense of replacing a piece of compromised climbing equipment.
Micro fractures are a thing but you never checked if you have any cracks. Throwing them on the floor are not guaranteeing that you create one on the inside of the carabiner. You maybe created them on the outside but you should do a test over loading them until shape changes and after a day try a pull test again. All the best from japan
nice video! what about rope worn carabiners?
A few years ago there were a few paraglider carabiners that broke. Kind of surprising considering that paraglider carabiners probably have a much easier life than climbing carabiners. I’m not sure if there was ever a study done on why they broke.
I can answer the results you should expect from this, you should see no big reduction in strenght this is because throwing them on the ground only cause minor frequencies into the metal. This aluminium is designed to withstand forces beyond 20kN. If you want to introduce microfractures the only way to get those is by tweaking the metal back and forth. And you need ultrasound to inspect for microfractures as it will resonate differently on weakened areas.
I was always worried about micro fractures after a shock load more then bashing them. So do that test please, bring it fast to right b4 or right after the limit. Then do it till it breaks and see if that changes it.
Some thrown carabiners went below their guarantee strengths, so how does that prove no microfractures? I agree they were still good enough for use. Not considering the damaged gate.
love this channel
I have some metolius mini wiregates that are rated for 22 (I think). They say on the side "For rock climbing and moutaineering use only" As if it is not rated for keychain and dog walking duties.
I'm wondering if paragliding biners really getting weak by the time... they should only be used 500h... I'm smelling a myth...
if you need some old pg biners let me know.
One thing I don't get why you're throwing them on the ground like that? Throwing those on the ground even 500 times doesn't compare or compete with stress from weight stretch hanging rope this that are the other does that make any sense capisce?
Because people use to say if you drop a carabiner on the ground from even chest high, there would be invisible microfractures and they should be retired. So I threw them on the ground and tested them.
2:01 Dude Perfect carabiner edition.
Still, that one carabiner that went 21.11 should be considered. I wouldn't put trashed carabiners into situatuions that could go over 20kN anymore.
Your perfectly new biner may occasionally break under minimum guaranteed load, there are examples of this on the channels and it's impossible to test the entire batch as the testing is destructive. Not much to consider
Like what?
I don't really know anything about climbing gear but I do know microfracture is a something that can happen to aluminum. It's usually is caused when its bent slightly then returns to it original shape
U guys R AWESOME!!!
What climber hasn't had this told to them at one time or another, more specifically as you point out at the beginning of their climbing career LOL-Or cavers for that matter (I'm both). Interesting brittle fracture surfaces from your tests. I guess too whether micro fractures are a myth or not (I'd still like to see a bigger sample size of say 100 krabs abused in a slightly more repeatable way, say simply dropped many times from the same height rather than thrown sometimes or not; and them make the comparison. of course this would be an expensive "adventure in physics" LOL.....Who said that?? I don't know about micro fractures occurring like this (kind of work hardening via throwing into objects AKA un-yielding rock face- as apposed to repeated falls close to the yield strength- and certainly big falls on krabs, I've chucked them, falls that I really knew about LOL- probably being over paranoid) like this but once on the cliffs I met this climber who was about to abseil/rap off the top and I noticed he had some crazy Bonaiti Krabs i'd never seen before. I asked to see them and by sheer fluke (I'd never ever seen it in over 30 years of climbing and caving) the spine had numerous parallel hairline fractures down it! Of course he was amazed and somewhat relieved as this was his main harness krab he was about to tie into LOL. I'm sure under a little load it would have just collapsed. As to how these fractures got there (there was no visible damage to the alloy, a little wear on the anodizing, that's all but it was interesting to see. Another great video of yours!
I love those mammut micro walls
Would love to see some cheap/non rated hardware store carabiners to shoe how even "strong looking" non rated carabiners are not enough, and you need actual rated ones
Not sure that’s the result you’d get. If it’s a good enough physical copy and it’s made out of the right aluminum alloy, it’s gonna have pretty similar breaking tests, rated or not. Most of the time.
micro fractures from repeated high loading will be in the most damaging places, ones from dropping will be in random places that are less loaded
When I begun climbing I was told not to use biner that were found at the bootm of the cliffs because falls from high above would be bad for biners.
So IMHO throwing biners to the ground is not really smashing enough. You would have to throw them at 220 km/H against a hard surface (to simulate a fall from high enough)
and then we could consider them smashed.
seriously, there are some serious metalurgists input here. And it looks like the myth originated from a misunderstanding/collapsing of issues done by non-specialist:
myth origin:
1/ micro-fracture exist and are bad (Comet anyone ?) Premise True but the origin of the fracture in alumiium is repetive loading cycle (fatigue)
2/ biners hit bad develop micro-fractures premise False
3/ biners hit hard develop micro-frctures (Incorrect conclusion
If the speed is 10 to 1 then the force is also 10 to 1 right? Not 20 to 1
I'm pulling 2 separate 10:1s at the same time with the winch.
If I can weigh in:
TimeforTom is correct that you're only getting a 10:1 mechanical advantage when it comes to converting the torque into latteral force (minus friction). Simplified math to follow. If the max torque the motor could output were 100 foot pounds and it wraps around a 6 inch diameter or 3 inch radus (0.5 and 0.25 foot respectivly) axle, then the max pull the motor could generate would be 400 pounds of force. Howevery, that 400 pounds is split between the two different lines. So you could look at it as being a 10:1 system converting 400 pounds into 4000 pounds, or a 20:1 system converting 200 pounds into 4000 pounds. However, if you had it hooked up as a 20:1 system with only a single line going in, you'd have a 20:1 system capable of converting all 400 pounds at the axle into 8000 pounds at the sample.
On the other hand, splitting the system into 2x 10:1 pulleys in parallel halves the force seen by each, and if the motor has a high enough torque to allow you to reach your target loads, it allows you to reduce the load on the separate lines compared to what would be seen in a single 10:1 pully, increasing the safety factor by 2x.
@@HowNOT2 Yeah i believe TheArmyKnifeNut and I are on the same page, so yeah lets say the winch can pull a maximum of 400N, now we have two cables attached to the winch, so that would mean that both cables get 200N of pull. If both cables have a 10 to 1 pulley system, that would mean both cables can pull 2000N each. If we combine the two cables which can pull 2000N each in one point, this point will be pulled at with 4000N. This means that it is a 10 to 1 ration, since 4000N is ten times bigger than 400N (400N is the original pull). Now if you add another winch on top of the existing winch and attach one cable to that winch, you end up with a 20:1 force and 10:1 speed, but thats just because you double the initial force.
And asTheArmyKnifeNut pointed out, indeed if the cable in between the pulleys is the weak point, this does reduce the risk of this cable snapping, because the force on it is only half as much.
Thanks!
"Raw aluminum, cool!" I can tell you are not easy to impress
I assumed you would get at least one of them breaking at a higher load after you banged them up because my guess is that it de-stresses the metal a bit like peening. Sure, it is inconsistently applied and there are more highly abraded and surface roughened areas that can increase fatiguing, but in general a goodly amount of small impacts evenly distributed through a crystalline structure like a metal lattice should work out stresses like a thick fluid works out bubbles and make it more ideally compressed?
I thought the whole microfracture precaution was more about descending gear that heats and cools Repeatedly. especially if the cooling is fast like in a canyon situation on a dry abseil into a cold pool
Anybody who follows the scientific method is a scientist! Reliable in my book.
Oh cool. Black Diamond's QC lab called, and said they've already done exhaustive, rigorous, scientific testing on all manner of gear. And have ruled that dropping gear doesn't harm it. And then 2007 and the Outdoor Safety Institute called, and said they've got published findings on this.
any links on this please?