Jul 2, 2005, 10:40 AM
Post #1 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2577
Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
This is a spin-off of the last Anchor analysis thread . Thought it would be better to give it an own thread.
In reply to:
I said that the force on the next piece should depend in part on how much the rope stretched before the first piece failed. If the first piece were to fail quickly then the next piece would not receive much of a shockload. On the other hand, if the first piece were to hold longer, the rope would stretch, and then the next piece would be loaded with, essentially, a less dynamic rope (in the sense that spring force increases with stretch).
-Jay
As this is a very common theory (at least on rockclimbing.com) but I've never found anything about it in the literature, I would be very glad if someone could point out a link/thread/discussion on that. I did a forum search but with no satisfying results.
I tried to talk about that with the instructor of the trad class I took recently. He completely disavowed the existence of said phenomenon. His argument: The energy lost in deformation/friction of the failing piece plus the energy absorbed by the rope just reduces the load on the second piece. The given (and now missing) rope stretch would be just the representation of energy already absorbed and therefor cannot increase the load on the second piece.
I'm no physician and both approaches seem reasonable to me... maybe the answer is out here?
Jul 2, 2005, 4:04 PM
Post #4 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
I can make a strong argument, but I can't come up with anything in the literature right off hand.
What it comes down to is this: If you have 2 systems with identical amounts of energy, but one with the rope already stretched, the peak force on the piece will be less in the one with the rope unstretched. That's a simple fact.
Now lets look at the two piece case. After the first piece fails, we can claim (due to conservation laws) that some of the energy will already be absorbed before any load hits that second piece. However, the work of a rope is twofold: to take energy out of a system and to make the impact take more time. So while the work done (in this case force inegrated over time) to the piece may stay constant, its peak force will be higher, perhaps even higher than what hit the initial piece. We are worried about peak force. The other thing to remember is that 30 ft/sec/sec is pretty fast and unless you put your second piece really close to your first piece, you'll be back up to the same speed that you hit your first piece with by the time you hit the second piece. There is simply not enough time to unstretch the rope between your topmost piece and the next piece. Rope recovery time is measued in minutes, not milliseconds.
And while there is a limited amount of energy in the system, its a high limit, your mass times your distance from the ground times the acceleration of gravity. In other words, until you hit the ground (or the rope stops you) there's always energy to spare.
Jul 2, 2005, 4:44 PM
Post #5 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
What it comes down to is this: If you have 2 systems with identical amounts of energy, but one with the rope already stretched, the peak force on the piece will be less in the one with the rope unstretched. That's a simple fact.
No, it isn't.
"rope already stretched" = energy
Basically, you are saying A+B > A
Really? Thats good to know.
Going off you first statement of "identical amounts of energy"
Then it would be A = B with a time differential
As far as the rest of your ramblings. The best guess seems to be that the "relaxation wave" in a rope travels around the speed of sound. So that would be mili-seconds.
Jul 2, 2005, 5:36 PM
Post #6 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
What it comes down to is this: If you have 2 systems with identical amounts of energy, but one with the rope already stretched, the peak force on the piece will be less in the one with the rope unstretched. That's a simple fact.
No, it isn't.
"rope already stretched" = energy
Basically, you are saying A+B > A
Really? Thats good to know.
Going off you first statement of "identical amounts of energy"
Then it would be A = B with a time differential
As far as the rest of your ramblings. The best guess seems to be that the "relaxation wave" in a rope travels around the speed of sound. So that would be mili-seconds.
Jul 2, 2005, 5:44 PM
Post #7 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
petsfed, take a look at this. It's posted by a, "genuine physicist". Thanks to Rgold for sending me the link a few years ago when this topic was making one of it's orbits around rc.com.
from rec.climbing
mhu...@bu.edu (maohai huang) writes: > Ken.Cl...@cs.cmu.edu wrote: > : When the > : next piece is significantly lower than the one that failed, the rope > : has time to relax a bit, dissipating energy that would otherwise > : contribute to peak fall force (in the form of spring energy.
> so, how quickly does the rope relax? how fast does waves propagate in a > rope when the first piece pops ? the rope must be acclerating really fast > since there is a force of many kN solely dedicated to accelerating a couple > of pounds of rope, until the next piece starts to hold.
To answer this, you have to say what you mean by relax. Some relaxation will take place as fast as the shock wave can travel the rope, l/v (where v is the speed of sound an l the rope length). On the other hand, we all know that ropes need to relax for minutes (hours? days?) to regain their full energy absorbing potential. The ultimate answer is somewhere between quite fast and forever.
First, let's consider the fast side of the coin: As any physicist knows, the speed of longitudinal waves in a string is given by
v = sqrt(F/mu),
where F, the rope tension, might be in the 2-10 kN range, and mu, its mass per unit length, is around .07 kg/m
So v is around 150-400 m/s. Approximately.
Even at the slower speed, the relaxation wave will travel, say 15 meters of rope 15 meters of rope in 0.1 second. That's pretty fast - certainly faster than you will fall (terminal velocity is on the order of 50m/s). I think it is safe to assume a good deal of relaxation occurs in practice, even if include factors like friction which I left out for simplicity.
>
> Maybe there are too many factors for my feeble mind to grasp, how about an > example: there are two pieces X feet apart, a climber of 150lb is falling > on a single rope from 5 feet above the first piece, and 30 feet above a > static belay. The rope stretches at 8% with 80kg load. The rope density is > 65g/m. The first piece pops after a half of the climber's kinetic engergy > (after falling 10ft) is absorbed by the rope. To simplify the matter, > suppose the popping was instant and the piece absorbs no energy. The > qustion now is: what is the maximum force the 2nd piece has to take in > order to hold as a fuction of X? what kind of distances X has to be > so that the peak force on piece #2 to be less 50% of the force that the > #1 piece had when it popped?
>
To get a rough approximation, assume the pieces are far enough apart for the rope to relax significantly and subtract the work done on the rope (that's half the potential energy of falling 10 feet - i.e. 5 feet worth of free-fall) from the fall energy. Better still, subtract the 5 feet from the distance fallen to determine a new fall factor.
OK, force goes up with the square root of fall factor:
f = k*sqrt(ff)
In the scenario you presented, we have a fall distance of 2X+10, so without to RP, the force is
f = k*sqrt( (2X+10)/30 )
with the RP, the force is
f_rp = k*sqrt( (2X+5)/30 )
A reasonable value for k is k = 1348 lbf, so we get the following table:
Thus, the failed RP will in theory reduce peak loads by about 100-200 lbf. In no case do you get a reduction by 50% of the force at the point of RP failure, and that's making some generous assumptions in the calculations.
This should come as no surprise, since fall force increases with the square root of fall energy. Take away half the energy and you've reduced the force by less then 1/3.
Jul 2, 2005, 6:25 PM
Post #10 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
so by his conclusion:
"This should come as no surprise, since fall force increases with the square root of fall energy. Take away half the energy and you've reduced the force by less then 1/3. "
may we surmise that even if the pieces were placed relatively short distances apart, the actual reduction of impact force on the second piece would be minimally less than the initial impact force on the top piece? (and that the rope will still stretch to absorb energy and increase the time that force is applied to the second piece)
Jul 2, 2005, 6:44 PM
Post #11 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
This is a spin-off of the last Anchor analysis thread . Thought it would be better to give it an own thread.
In reply to:
I said that the force on the next piece should depend in part on how much the rope stretched before the first piece failed. If the first piece were to fail quickly then the next piece would not receive much of a shockload. On the other hand, if the first piece were to hold longer, the rope would stretch, and then the next piece would be loaded with, essentially, a less dynamic rope (in the sense that spring force increases with stretch).
-Jay
I tried to talk about that with the instructor of the trad class I took recently. He completely disavowed the existence of said phenomenon. His argument: The energy lost in deformation/friction of the failing piece plus the energy absorbed by the rope just reduces the load on the second piece. The given (and now missing) rope stretch would be just the representation of energy already absorbed and therefor cannot increase the load on the second piece.
I think he's confusing energy and force. The rope stretch and friction do indeed reduce the kinetic energy of the falling climber. If the next piece were impacted with as elastic a rope as the first piece, then the maximum force on the second piece would be reduced, assuming that the climber hasn't had much time to re-accelerate. But if the rope is less elastic when the second piece is impacted, the force will be greater than in the above scenario. Consider, in theory, a rope whose entire stretch was used up just as the first piece popped, and assume that the rope hasn't recovered at all when it impacts the second piece. Then the maximum force on the second piece would be high, in spite of the reduced energy of the falling climber.
Jul 2, 2005, 7:26 PM
Post #12 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2577
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
I think he's confusing energy and force. The rope stretch and friction do indeed reduce the kinetic energy of the falling climber. If the next piece were impacted with as elastic a rope as the first piece, then the maximum force on the second piece would be reduced, assuming that the climber hasn't had much time to re-accelerate. But if the rope is less elastic when the second piece is impacted, the force will be greater than in the above scenario. Consider, in theory, a rope whose entire stretch was used up just as the first piece popped, and assume that the rope hasn't recovered at all when it impacts the second piece. Then the maximum force on the second piece would be high, in spite of the reduced energy of the falling climber.
-Jay
Maybe you're right that I (don't know if he did) mixed up energy and force in the OP.
Nonetheless: Consider the fall would be on a static rope. Then the impact on the second piece would be the same as on the first one (as no rope stretch took place) minus the reduction of falling speed provided by the the first piece.
Now to the dynamic rope:
Extreme a): 1st piece pops immediatly. There's no reduction of falling speed, but also no stretch in the rope - you fall on the 2nd piece as if there was no 1st one.
Extreme b): 1st piece pops when rope is stretched to the max. We now have (idealized) a static rope, the force on the second piece would be exactly the same as on the first one the very moment it failed.
As I see, this also refers to every case between the two extremes: The force on the second piece (no regain of stretching ability given) would be at max the same as on the first one in the moment it failed.* Thus in the (theoretically) worst case, the second piece is loaded as if the first one didn't exist - but there's no way the impact on the second piece could be higher than on the first one.
Maybe I'm missing something. Correct me, if I'm wrong...
Jul 2, 2005, 8:09 PM
Post #13 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2577
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Addition, as this might be the most irritating point in the whole discussion:
For sure the maximum force on the second piece might be reached much faster, (worst case again) maybe even immediatly. But this wouldn't affect the placement as the resulting force on the piece is the same.
- Daniel
(still wishing his english would be precise enough to discuss such topics the easy way :? )
Jul 3, 2005, 3:53 AM
Post #14 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
The practical answer to this question is; when things get out of hand, pile in the gear, use screamers if you have them and revert to "the leader must not fall"
Jul 3, 2005, 4:11 AM
Post #15 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
I think he's confusing energy and force. The rope stretch and friction do indeed reduce the kinetic energy of the falling climber. If the next piece were impacted with as elastic a rope as the first piece, then the maximum force on the second piece would be reduced, assuming that the climber hasn't had much time to re-accelerate. But if the rope is less elastic when the second piece is impacted, the force will be greater than in the above scenario. Consider, in theory, a rope whose entire stretch was used up just as the first piece popped, and assume that the rope hasn't recovered at all when it impacts the second piece. Then the maximum force on the second piece would be high, in spite of the reduced energy of the falling climber.
-Jay
Maybe you're right that I (don't know if he did) mixed up energy and force in the OP.
Nonetheless: Consider the fall would be on a static rope. Then the impact on the second piece would be the same as on the first one (as no rope stretch took place) minus the reduction of falling speed provided by the the first piece.
Now to the dynamic rope:
Extreme a): 1st piece pops immediatly. There's no reduction of falling speed, but also no stretch in the rope - you fall on the 2nd piece as if there was no 1st one.
Extreme b): 1st piece pops when rope is stretched to the max. We now have (idealized) a static rope, the force on the second piece would be exactly the same as on the first one the very moment it failed.
As I see, this also refers to every case between the two extremes: The force on the second piece (no regain of stretching ability given) would be at max the same as on the first one in the moment it failed.* Thus in the (theoretically) worst case, the second piece is loaded as if the first one didn't exist - but there's no way the impact on the second piece could be higher than on the first one.
Maybe I'm missing something. Correct me, if I'm wrong...
- Daniel
* edited to clarify
I'm afraid I'm going to have to correct you here.
Think of it this way...
Look at the force on the piece as a function of time distance as the rope rope stretches - it starts at zero, increases to a peak as the rope dissipates the energy, and decays away to a constant as you slow to a stop. Now, the energy dissipated in that fall is directly related to the area underneath the force-stretch curve (it's been much too long for me to remember the exact relationship) - that is, for a given fall length, the area under the curve is constant. The role of the stretch in the rope is to "stretch" this curve on the distance axis. Remembering that the area under the curve is constant, that means that the peak force must come down. On the other hand, in a truly, absolutely static situation, the distance axis is compressed to zero, and thus the peak force becomes infinite. Of course, this never happens in reality, but the argument here is how far towards this extreme "pre-stretching" the rope takes you.
Edit: just a small comment... in the club I started climbing in, we used to top-rope using static. I guess there's static and then there's static, but this stuff still had about 2% stretch. That meant that, on a 25m climb, if the climber fell off within the first 2 m, they would find themselves standing back on the ground. Even a small amount of stretch makes a big, big difference.
Edit #2: As pointed out by rgold, the work done is actually the equal to the area under the force-distance curve, not the force-time curve. I knew there was something not quite right, but it was too late in the day to work out what. :oops:
Jul 3, 2005, 5:09 AM
Post #16 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 124
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it (the first piece failing) could reduce the force on the 2nd piece if it is near enough (very) to the 1st;
if the 2st is really far down, the force will be about equal or slightly greater because the rope has rebounded considerably (but the fall factor has increased);
and if the 2nd piece is at a medium/close distance, the force will be maximum because the rope will not have rebounded and the climber will have regained his momentum
Jul 3, 2005, 5:41 AM
Post #17 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Hang a thousand pound rock on a full length 60 meter rope.
Cut the rope with a razor and how fast do you think the end of the rope is going to shoot upwards. Faster than a bullet at 300 feet per second? Easily.
Jul 3, 2005, 6:03 AM
Post #18 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 195
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Wow, very impressive physics going on here. Here's my two cents. By the way, I have some experiance writing papers on rock climbing falls, (one is to be published, I'll try and find out where) on falls from the upper vertical face of an over hang. so this is kinda familiar teritory. BUT ANYWAYS
SKIP TO HERE TO AVOID RANT in order to safely make any conclusions about "shockloading" some constants have to be set with all the possible variable in a fall scenario, and they have to represent the worst case scenario, jsut to be safe.
So, here are My constants for a rope that stretches first and then pulls/destroys the first anchor.
- The rope stretches its full capasity and length, ergo it cannot stretch anymore, and is essencially static.
- The first piece of pro did not fail until the force on it is equal to the greatest force a human body can sustain, (about 12 kN) (btw, SI units just for consistancy with UIAA standards)
These first two, I believe to represent the worst case for there variables. It also jsut so happens that the UIAA has a standard that for a factor 1.7 fall, a 4.8m fall on 2.8, given a specified length of rope and an 80kg mass, the force must never exceed 12 kN, and must have no more than a 40% elongation
- Factor 1.7 fall on the first piece
To further the worst case scenaro:
- The belay point IS the second anchor, (any distance away will padd the fall more, hance more worst case) and the belay is fixed by webbing to the fattest bolts imaginable, and the belay is grigri, and you belayer is superman starting to go cold turkey on smoking so hes kinda jump and grabs hold of the rope super fast.
Assume the mass of the rope and the first piece of pro that fails to be negligible.
At this point the math becomes simple, relatively speaking.
The distance between the two pieces of pro must be in a ratio of 1:16
this can then tell you the total energy of the climber the moment jsut before the rope takes load. you can also determine the elogation of the rope, (max 40%) and there for determine the distance and time over which the absorbtion of the 12 kN took place, allowing you to figure out how much Kinetic energy the climber still has.
The climber then falls to his next piece on a rope that is, for all intent and purposes, now a static line.
But let me save you some math. a fall greater than one meter in length on a static rope will generally create enough force to break a climber's back, due to the sudden stop at the end. so if your pro is more than a meter apart, there is a chance, you could be screwed, and superman will have to take your dangling, broken, and by now bleeding carcas to the ER.
The flip side of this worst case scenario is that the first piece blows off because of the wind jsut as your starting to fall, in which case its a normal,although long, fall.
Everything else is in between people.
AND JUST BECAUSE i know someone is going to be all smart and point out that the worst case scenario doesn't represent reality well at all, that most falls arn't going to be like that...well yes i realize that, but this is all theoretical reasoning, and there for can only prove any given theory or idea if it can be proven at an infinate point/most extreme case.
All standards on rope testing by the UIAA are from the UIAA testing guide lines Dynamic Mountaineering Ropes of both EN, Section: 892, and UIAA, section: 101. Up to date as of June 2004.
Jul 3, 2005, 12:21 PM
Post #19 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2577
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
This seems to get out of hand...
Just to clarify: The question is not weather or not the second piece is loaded to failure if the rope is completely streched out.
The question was and is still if the existence of an additional piece placed closely to the first one leads to a higher force on the second.
If this would be true one would try to avoid placements close to another to prevent shockloading the second one in case the first one blows. If not, there's reasonable cause to place another piece close to a manky placement to raise the chance that at least one of them holds the fall.
To avoid another complicated explanation, I tried to get some graphics done, which hopefully display my argument:
As I stated before I don't see that the second piece could ever be exposed to a peak force which is higher than the max impact the first one would have had to withstand. A 'shockload' in the sense that there's an additional force appearing out of... whatever, I just can't see.
In contrary I'm pretty sure that a) the energy the blow of the first piece takes out of the system and b) the regain of stretching ability of the rope (both not counted in when I did the graphics) reduce the force on the second piece enormously.
Jul 3, 2005, 4:10 PM
Post #20 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2004
Posts: 47
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Hi Tisar,
If the two pieces are close together, so close that there is not enough time for the rope to recover it's elasticity before loading the second piece, wouldn't it be better to equalise the two pieces?
Jul 3, 2005, 4:28 PM
Post #21 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
- The rope stretches its full capasity and length, ergo it cannot stretch anymore, and is essencially static.
Well then, you had better be d*mn glad the first piece failed. Otherwise, you would have one very broken body after your rope turned into a piece of chain... :wink:
Jul 3, 2005, 4:47 PM
Post #22 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
I know folks love to analyze fall scenarios with geeky physics that fail to consider all the factors and forces that bear on the situation (which would be unbearably complex)
That's good fun, but, just as sort of a disclaimer for any newbies that might think that they need to think about these arguments too hard in order to be safe, I feel like I should say:
The real safety issue in these scenario is whether hit simething on the way down until your rope stops you, and if you managed to avoid the rope flipping you over (cause maybe it was between your legs.)
In a real situation, if you don't hit anything, you're going to be fine with impact forces on your body in any scenario where God is not out to get you, and a good piece is going to hold you. (assuming modern rope)
Doubt it? Here's some back up. I took a whipper once which was hard enough to break the cable of a #4 stopper. I fell about 12 feet further and a wired hex with the same strength cable held my fall. Total fall, maybe 40 feet, distance from the ground after I fell, pretty darn close! Stress on my body, very little, it felt like a bungy jump.
My guess is the vast majority of pieces either pull right away before the rope stretches much, or they hold, but hey, that's a guess.
Jul 3, 2005, 11:31 PM
Post #24 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 729
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
One would have thought that the UIAA or some alpine organization would have tested this. So far in this thread there have been logical arguments or anecdotal experience but no actual measurements. As Douglas Adams once said "Assumptions are the things you don't know you are making". Goran Kropp pulled an undercammed #3 Camalot and then proceeded to break the biner on the second piece (#2 Camalot), rip out the third piece (#1 Camalot), and finally rip out the fourth piece (#3 TCU). That suggests shock loading to me. The Beal website reference above that showed the actual fall factor to be higher than the theoretical fall factor due to rope drag through the carabiners would indicate that gear placed farther apart would result in lower actual fall factors. Sounds counter-intuitive despite being correct. It all makes double ropes look like a good investment - wider spaced gear per rope (as compared to a single) to lower the actual fall factor and if one rope shock loads then the other is bungie fresh. Maybe the British have this thing figured out as they almost always trad with doubles.
Jul 4, 2005, 12:38 AM
Post #25 of 32
(4342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
That's good fun, but, just as sort of a disclaimer for any newbies that might think that they need to think about these arguments too hard in order to be safe, I feel like I should say:
The real safety issue in these scenario is whether hit simething on the way down until your rope stops you, and if you managed to avoid the rope flipping you over (cause maybe it was between your legs.)
In a real situation, if you don't hit anything, you're going to be fine with impact forces on your body in any scenario where God is not out to get you, and a good piece is going to hold you. (assuming modern rope)
Doubt it? Here's some back up. I took a whipper once which was hard enough to break the cable of a #4 stopper. I fell about 12 feet further and a wired hex with the same strength cable held my fall. Total fall, maybe 40 feet, distance from the ground after I fell, pretty darn close! Stress on my body, very little, it felt like a bungy jump.
My guess is the vast majority of pieces either pull right away before the rope stretches much, or they hold, but hey, that's a guess.
Screamers are a good call for sketchy pieces.
Karlee, you're my hero. As a lowly physics nOOb this discussion was making my head swim and my eyes cross, seeing purple cows and asterisks, and thinking "But what if I hit something on the way down?" and "Shouldn't I be using screamers on these pieces?"
Ratchet and I hope to get out your way some time before this year ends.
Jul 4, 2005, 5:43 AM
Post #26 of 32
(3196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
.......The Beal website reference above that showed the actual fall factor to be higher than the theoretical fall factor due to rope drag through the carabiners would indicate that gear placed farther apart would result in lower actual fall factors. Sounds counter-intuitive despite being correct. .....
On the other hand, that website would also seem to imply that if the fall factor is actually higher, that would result in the rope not being fully stretched, and that if a piece ripped, new sections of rope would become available for stretching more fully. It would seem that you can't have it both ways, if friction is keeping the fall factor high by restricting the absorbing potential of the rope within the system, that means absorbing potential remains.
Of course, none of this takes into account the give of the harnesses on both ends of the belay chain, slippage through the device, release of human waste into the climbing pants, or other forces coming into play
Jul 4, 2005, 5:52 AM
Post #27 of 32
(3196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
.......The Beal website reference above that showed the actual fall factor to be higher than the theoretical fall factor due to rope drag through the carabiners would indicate that gear placed farther apart would result in lower actual fall factors. Sounds counter-intuitive despite being correct. .....
On the other hand, that website would also seem to imply that if the fall factor is actually higher, that would result in the rope not being fully stretched, and that if a piece ripped, new sections of rope would become available for stretching more fully. It would seem that you can't have it both ways, if friction is keeping the fall factor high by restricting the absorbing potential of the rope within the system, that means absorbing potential remains.
Of course, none of this takes into account the give of the harnesses on both ends of the belay chain, slippage through the device, release of human waste into the climbing pants, or other forces coming into play
Jul 4, 2005, 7:57 AM
Post #28 of 32
(3196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 584
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
- The rope stretches its full capasity and length, ergo it cannot stretch anymore, and is essencially static.
UIAA fall is something very hard. I've whitnessed them in the lab. Now let's consider the worst case: you'll have such fall, a piece is broken and (in theory) the rope won't stretch no more (which in reality is never the case). Even in this case the "new" rope below the piece will be fresh and the rope isn't completely static.
The more I've learnt the less I'm interested in rope properties. The difference on forces between a good belayer and a bad belayer can be upto 50%. During the 50s people held factor two falls all the time with hemp ropes and body belay. Sometimes the rope broke but most of the times it didn't.
Jul 4, 2005, 8:19 AM
Post #29 of 32
(3196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 584
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
The real safety issue in these scenario is whether hit simething on the way down until your rope stops you, and if you managed to avoid the rope flipping you over (cause maybe it was between your legs.)
In a real situation, if you don't hit anything, you're going to be fine with impact forces on your body in any scenario where God is not out to get you, and a good piece is going to hold you. (assuming modern rope)
Yep, I'll second this statement. I started using my two half ropes as twin because of less stretch. If you have a good belayer, the impact forces won't get too high. Unless you mess up with too much rope friction, of course.
Jul 8, 2005, 1:08 AM
Post #30 of 32
(3196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 414
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
I think this subject was made more complicated than it needs to be.
As your pieces fail you progressively go from low fall factor to the worst possible fall ff2. That means each successive pro will be taking harder and harder fall factor hit (read: you will hit each successive piece with harder and harder force). As simple as that.
If any piece does indeed hold for some duration of time that simply can subtracted from absorbing qualities of the rope so the end result is about the same: you will hit your next pro with less speed but your rope is more static: same force anyway.
Good news is that you will never exceed max force of ff2 on any given piece no matter how many of them you zip along the way.
Jul 8, 2005, 7:53 AM
Post #31 of 32
(3196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
In reply to:
As your pieces fail you progressively go from low fall factor to the worst possible fall ff2.
.
I am afraid this would only be correct if the each pro would blow with nearly zero force. If a pro do a partial job, the rope will do do a partial job at decelerating the climber. if then the pro blows, the climber resume accelerating. At the next pro, the energy to be dissipated will be less as if the climber did not fall from as high. This being said, computations shared before on rec.climbing have shown that the longer the second fall, the less there is a benefit as the energy grows back quickly.
Ab absurdio, picture the pro blowing just "at the end of rope strech". the climber was close to at rest. the climber will fall twice the distance between the pro that has blown and the next pro onto the full length of rope. The rope will have relaxed between the two events, but will probably not have recovered all of its energy absorption capabilities.
Jul 12, 2005, 4:24 PM
Post #32 of 32
(3196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2005
Posts: 616
Re: Shockload theory / shockload on the second placement
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
I had a question. Sorry I'm new to this whole shockload stuff while climbing, but I did get an A in my engineering calculus based physics class so I think I have a good grasp on the theory.
I was wondering, wouldn't it be easier if you were so concerned about shockloading to climb with a yates screamer attached to your harness, or to the first piece of pro that you expect to take a big fall on? Does anyone out there trad climb with screamers? What are the pros and cons?
