I'll probably post my results later today.

GO

...Sorry, the dorrington cam software has been on the fritz all day today...

Strange thing being the one pic I ran while Gabe/Cracklover was first having problems went though just fine. A week or so ago I got an email from him saying he had moved on to other things due to lack of anyone's interest in the matter, and now that lots of people are interested in the mis-centered axle thing it wouldn't surprise me if he's finishing it off. Never met/talked with him, but he seems like a nice guy from the emails I've gotten, not to mention scary-smart.

The axle holes of the softer lobes were deformed during the test, as their edges were compressed with the same forces as for the fixture side (less deformation though, because of the even contact surface with the axle). So far, you've been looking for a correlation between the hardness of the lobes and the failure cam angle, ignoring the translation of the center point toward the fixture, but the angle is further increased by the ovalization of the axle hole.

I think this test has only an informative value, as far as it has to deal with so many variables which are masking one another. However, the test can be used to set a proper methodology for further tests.
IMHO this methodology would require (among others):
- A separate test for each size on a significant number of samples (mixed sizes = different qt. of deformed metal=errant results)
- Grouping of samples according to the axle hardness, measured before the test (to take out this variable for a given lot)
- A comparative study of each cam lobe geometry before and after testing (see the hole deformation point above)

What do you think about pull testing each individual lobe ? It could be mounted on an axle between two ball-bearings which would roll on one (smooth) side of the fixture, while the cam would press on the other side and you pull on the axle with some kind of a U stem. This way, you'd only have to deal with the lobe properties (and I guess you already have a lot of samples by now)

I think this test has only an informative value, as far as it has to deal with so many variables which are masking one another.

IMHO this methodology would require (among others):
- A separate test for each size on a significant number of samples (mixed sizes = different qt. of deformed metal=errant results)
- Grouping of samples according to the axle hardness, measured before the test (to take out this variable for a given lot)

In principle, the effects of those variables can be sorted out using multivariable statistics.

Separate tests aren't needed, just a proper statistical analysis.

Jay

It depends on the purpose of the test.
Indeed, multivariable statistics can be used to answer the question "How safe are the Aliens?" The actual test's conclusion is: Aliens are not safe to use (thus it has an informative value).

But for the question "what's wrong with the Aliens?" I would do separate tests. (I guess this is what UIAA would want to know)
Aric already made a separate test for the stems, as their strength has nothing to do with the cam heads, didn't he ?

So far, for the heads we have too many rabbits to catch:
- Axle hardness,
- lobe hardness
- position of the axle hole (which gives a large array of angles)
- contact surface (which differs by cam size)

I was thinking that by taking the axle and the sizes apart, the test would be able to tell more about the relationship between the lobe geometry and the hardness of the alloy.

I know what you were thinking and you are wrong. You can combine the data and use statistical modeling to estimate the effects of interest, and it is more efficient to do so.

Jay

OK, you're the one into statistics here, I only rely on common sense, so I admit that I might be wrong.

We can identify two major failure modes, not related to one another: from 21 samples, 5 had a cable/braze problem (and only one of them - which was old and used - was under rating).

If we take those away (and the offsets too, because they are not meant to be placed between parallel plates), we are left with 14 samples, which all pulled from the fixture with flat spots on the lobes and a more or less bent axle, and some of them with buckled lobe(s).

Could you explain how do you draw statistically meaningful conclusions from such a small number of samples and that many variables involved (hardness of the lobes and axle, lobe geometry and size, axle hole) ?

As before, a couple of ground rules:

1. This is The Lab and this thread will be highly moderated, as is customary for The Lab.


2. The purpose of this post is to keep you informed and safe, not to bash CCH. What happened with threads here on RC during the dimpled head recall did not do anyone any good and served only to bury important information under pages and pages of ugliness.


3. Posts/threads of an unhelpful nature either here in The Lab or elsewhere on RC will be removed as correct information needs to be kept accessible.


4. These tests were performed by me, witnessed by at least a dozen people who happened to stop in at Rock & Snow while the testing was being performed.


5. And before anyone starts with accusations of bias, a summary of the test results was sent to CCH shortly after the testing was finished to allow them the opportunity to take ownership of these issues. My only concern is the possibility of faulty gear being out in circulation and feel that these results should be made public so that people can make informed decisions regarding their safety and equipment.

---

EDIT- There is now a PDF version of this report available that is much easier to read than what was necessary to get it into this forum thread format. I've also made the raw data available for anyone who wants it. Feel free to use any of it, but if it gets published somewhere kindly credit me...

Report: Link
Spreadsheet: Link

---

Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past few weeks, you’ve probably heard about the pair of Aliens which failed below spec while I was testing gear at the New River Rendezvous (5/16/09). You have probably also heard that I took the puller up to Rock & Snow in New Paltz, NY to do some more testing (5/26/09), and what you’re reading now are the long-awaited results. There’s a lot to cover, so I’ll be doing things a bit differently this time and simply discussing the failure modes and their implications rather than getting into the details of each individual piece. All of the details and pics are available in the following posts for anyone who wants them, and I highly encourage checking them out. Simply click on any of them for a large version. I'll be making the rest of the photos available online shortly and once they're up I'll add links to the albums. Oh, and my apologies for the photo-intensiveness and resulting long load times of this thread... No real way around it without leaving out the pics, which isn't really a good option in my mind.

EDIT- All of the photos are now available here: Link to index There are ~500 of them, of which only a fraction of them are included in the article below, so if you're interested feel free to take a look.

First and foremost we have to define what “failure” is for the purposes of this testing. The definition I’m using is when something breaks or the device pulls from the fixture during testing at a force under its rated strength. Per the CE/UIAA spec the rated strength is the minimum strength that the manufacturer guarantees a device will hold, so by definition a device that does not meet its published rating has failed.

While there is some logic behind “almost held its rating” and “10kN is plenty”, the simple fact is that if Aliens are consistently failing below their rated strength then the ratings themselves are at best overly optimistic and at worst quite misleading. I do not know what method CCH uses to determine the ratings for their cams, but most of the other manufacturers use statistical methods such as 3 Sigma to determine a rating that some obscenely high percentage of pieces will meet or exceed easily. Not surprisingly, in testing I’ve done on gear from other manufacturers using the exact same equipment and fixtures and have gotten breaking strengths in excess of 110% of the rated strength. This should be par for the course, but unfortunately was not how the results of the Alien testing came out.

Basically what it boils down to is that climbing is an inherently dangerous activity and decisions regarding acceptable risk are quite frequent. Often these decisions are made partly upon the rated strength of a device, which means that there could be very unpleasant consequences resulting from a device not meeting its rating. As such, ratings should be overly conservative if anything and in my opinion having devices consistently fail considerably below rating is simply unacceptable.

On a related note, there is no such thing as Safety Factor or Safe Working Load when it comes to rating climbing equipment. Unless explicitly stated otherwise by the manufacturer the rating you’re seeing is a breaking strength and you should expect it to fail at any load above it. Gear will often break well above its breaking strength, but that’s due to how conservatively the manufacturer rates the gear to make sure it will always meet spec rather than some sort of government regulation that mandates a certain amount of padding be worked into the rating.

With that now out of the way, the testing at Rock & Snow comprised 22 Aliens that were loaded into the crack fixture and pulled until either something broke or it came out of the fixture. Of those 22 cams, 13 were brand new and straight off the shelf at Rock & Snow (Thanks to everyone who contributed funds to make this happen and to Rich at Rock & Snow for giving us a discount on the test samples). The other 9 were used and donated for testing by their owners. All were in good working order with no apparent problems or defects. The full breakdown is as follows:

Black: 1 new (4/08, Sample 7), one used (no date stamp but believed to be from the mid-1990’s, Sample 24)
Blue: 2 used (no date stamps but believed to be from the mid-1990’s, Samples 22 and 23)
Grey: 2 new (4/09, Samples 17 and 19), 2 used (12/04, 6/05, Samples 1 and 18)
Yellow: 3 new (5/09, Samples 8, 9 and 20), 2 used (5/99, 10/03, Samples 3 and 21)
Red: 2 new (5/09, Samples 12 and 14)
Orange: 1 used (no date stamp, but believed to be from the mid-1990’s, Sample 2)
Purple: 2 new (11/08, Samples 4 and 5)
Clear: 1 new (5/08, Sample 6)
Red/Silver Hybrid: 2 new (10/08, Samples 15 and 16)

Additionally two used cams (a Red Black Diamond Pre-C4 Camalot and a used Blue Metolius TCU, Samples 10 and 11) were donated by bystanders looking to have some control samples thrown into the mix. Both were in good, but well used condition and came straight off their owners’ racks. Since I would rather not draw Black Diamond or Metolius into this mess I will not be providing details about them other than to say that both of these cams failed well above their ratings, and in the case of the Camalot was still somewhat operable after the sling broke during its first test (we then tied a new sling to it and tested it again as Sample 13, but the puller ran out of stroke before it broke a second time).

As for the Aliens, only 5 of the 13 new ones met their rated strength, with the percentage of the rating held ranging from 63.3% to 116.7% and an overall average of 94.3%. Of the 9 used Aliens, only 2 met their rated strength, with the percentage of the rating held ranging from 54.7% to 105.0% and an overall average of 81.9%. Unfortunately there is no single issue that was the primary cause of failure for all of the cams, but rather there were a number of issues that appear to have played a part on some or all of the cams. These issues include: braze failure, swage failure, head failure, lobe deformation, axle deformation and incorrectly centered axle holes that reduce the outward force available to keep the cam in the fixture during testing.

Some quick thoughts on Stem Construction
Before we get to the specific issues discovered in the testing, it’s important to spend some time discussing the wire rope cable used to make Alien stems. CCH’s website lists the stem cables as being either 7x7 or 7x19 construction and either 5/32” or 3/16” diameter, depending on which size cam and whether it’s a Regular, Super Long or Hybrid. No mention is made of whether the wire rope is Stainless or Galvanized.

Wire rope is typically rated with the following breaking strengths:

5/32” 7x7: 2600# (Galvanized), 2400# (Stainless)
5/32” 7x19: 2800# (Galvanized), 2400# (Stainless)
3/16” 7x7: 3700# (Galvanized), 3700# (Stainless)
3/16” 7x19: 4200# (Galvanized), 3700# (Stainless)

The important thing to keep in mind is that these breaking strengths are just that: breaking strengths. They are the loads at which the wire rope will be expected to break and does not include any sort of safety factor or padding. Since the breaking strengths of these sizes/types of wire rope are usually only slightly higher than the rated breaking strengths of Aliens it should be obvious that close to 100% efficiency on the brazed or swaged joints are necessary for the stems to meet their ratings.

On a related note, I find it rather strange that the ratings for some Aliens are actually higher than the typical rating given to the wire rope used to build their stems. According to the CCH website a Gold Regular Alien uses 5/32” 7x19 cable and is rated to 3300#, yet that size cable is normally only rated to 2800#. Similarly Yellow through Red Super Longs use 5/32” 7x7 cable and are rated to 2700#, yet that cable is typically rated to 2600#. Obviously there is something goofy going on here and it is something I’d very much like to see an explanation from CCH about.

Description of the Test Equipment and Process
The quick version is that my tensile tester is a converted shop press with a hydraulic ram/power unit connected to a 10,000 pound S-beam load cell. The load cell is connected to a Daytronic 4077 strain gage indicator which feeds a National Instruments 6008 DAQ module which allows me to log all the data using NI’s Signal Express software. The Daytronic has a scan rate of 1000 samples/sec and is set to monitor the analog version of the signal from the load cell, which does away with a lot of the problems with ensuring measurement of the true peak when doing digital scans. The output from the Daytronic is an analog signal sent at 1000 samples/sec and well within the 250,000 samples/sec scan rate of the NI DAQ. The strain gage indicator was programmed using the mV/V rating given on the certificate of calibration that came with the load cell and all 5 sets of load cell/strain gage indicators I have agree within a fraction of a percent. Though I believe the equipment to be correct I have not had it certified by a third party lab.

When performing the tests I set the width of the fixture such that the cam lobes were roughly 50% expanded (the tips of the opposing lobes touching). I then connected a carabiner to both the thumb loop and hydraulic ram, reset the tare weight and max load on the strain gage indicator, started the data logging software and then pulled until something failed. The speed of the ram was fairly slow, but I did not measure it and it may be off from the speed called out in the CE/UIAA cert (20-50 mm/min if there are no textile load bearing elements, 50-200 mm/min if there are). After testing the cams in the fixture any that still had intact stems were then disassembled and the stem tested separately with a pin through the axle hole in the head (supported on either side of the head by steel blocks) to get a failure force for the stem itself.

If I were to pick one area of concern with my testing, it would be the crack fixture. While the faces on it are not at the maximum roughness spec called out in the CE12276/UIAA125 cert, I believe it to be adequate judging by the fact that some of the Aliens and all of the cams from other manufacturers I’ve tested with it held just fine. The cert states that a maximum roughness of 500µm is allowable, but that any roughness below that which will allow the cams to hold is acceptable.

And finally, on to the actual problems found during the testing…

Braze Failure
As we probably all know, problems with brazes in the head/stem connection were the source of the problem that initiated CCH’s recall of Aliens a couple years ago. While there was only one failure in this testing that was a direct result of brazing issues (Sample 3), there were many other samples that showed issues with porosity and contamination within the braze upon cross sectioning of their heads.

In a nutshell, brazing is a process by which two materials are joined together by heating them to somewhere below either of their melting points and then introducing a third material that is soluble in both of them. It’s quite similar to soldering (as done on electrical equipment or copper pipes), but is done at a much higher temperature and with a much stronger filler material. To do a properly executed brazed joint you first apply flux to the parts to be joined, begin heating the parts (which melts the flux and allows it to clean the surfaces of any contaminants) and then apply the brazing material to the joint. While feeding the brazing material into the joint it will melt and flow into the joint, pulled by capillary action, and join both the head and all of the strands of the cable together as a single unit.

In cases where the joint is closed (like on the head of a cam) a weep hole is typically included at the bottom of the joint to allow the excess flux to run out (carrying with it any contaminants) and make room for the braze material. Additionally the weep hole acts as a visual confirmation that the joint has been fully filled, as it will not close up until after the joint itself has filled completely. Without a weep hole it is entirely possible to have a finished joint that looks perfect upon examination but is completely devoid of braze material, as happened with Sample 3. Current generations of Aliens do not include a weep hole, and the pictures of the cross sections of the heads show the impact leaving it out has on the brazed joints. Some are good, but others have issues with porosity and contamination. The three units from the mid-1990’s actually do have a weep hole (Samples 22, 23 and 24) and those brazes look a good bit better. I can’t say why or when CCH stopped using one, but they obviously did.

Anyway, the problem with under-filled or contaminated joints should be obvious… the strength of the joint rests entirely on the quality of the connection between the brazing material and the materials being joined. If there is insufficient braze material there (under-filled) or the joint contaminated (as evidenced by porosity in the joint) then not all of the strands of the cable will share in bearing the load and failure somewhere below what would otherwise be expected will occur. And given that the strength ratings of Aliens frequently require almost 100% of the strength of the wire rope (if not more…) it should be quite clear that joints that are contaminated or not fully filled are probably not a good thing.

On a related note, very close attention must be paid when brazing wire rope as is done on Aliens. It is very easy to overheat the wires and cause them to loose a good deal of their strength. While this was not an issue with any of the test samples it was the likely cause of failure in a Red I broke a year or so ago which had the stem snap at the base of the head at ~93% or rating. The stem on Sample 18 may have failed for this reason, but it occurred slightly above its rating.

Incorrectly Centered Axle Holes
Shortly after publishing the results from my testing at the NRR I received an email from John Fields (the inventor of the Supercam) which suggested that some of the slippage and abrasion issues may have been due to incorrect cam angles due to improperly centered axle holes in the lobes. This issue came up a couple years ago and when several Aliens with greatly reduced range were found in circulation, which prompted John to write some software that would allow him to test his cams to see if they axles on them were properly centered on the center point of the spiral. It’s a neat piece of software and is available online at www.dorringtonclimbing.com.

Anyway, the issue here is that all sorts of screwy things happen to the effective cam angle if the axle is not centered on the center point of the logarithmic spiral that defines the bearing surface of the cam lobe. The nature of the effect depends on the relative direction of the divergence of the center points, but in every case it results in effective cam angles that increase or decrease significantly (and sometimes both) as the lobe travels through its rotation. The magnitude of the effect is largely dependent on the distance between the center points, but is also somewhat dependent on the direction.

There doesn’t seem to be much rhyme or reason to the direction or distance of the discrepancies found in the cam lobes from the test samples, but on the handful I tested all four lobes from both the distance and direction was the same on all of them. The effective cam angles found on these samples ranged from 7 degrees all the way up to 28 degrees. The nominal cam angle on Aliens is 16 degrees, which gives a holding power (ratio of outward force on the crack to downward force on the cam) of 1.74:1. At 7 degrees the holding power jumps up to 4.07:1, which could easily be more force than the components of the cam or the rock in the placement can handle. On the other end, an effective cam angle of 28 degrees has a holding power of only 0.94:1 and there simply won't be enough force available for the friction between the aluminum and rock to hold the cam in place for the types of rock normally climbed. If you’re interested, Viano Kodas has an excellent explanation of the physics behind it on his site here: Link

Head Failure
This was by far the most surprising failure mode found in the testing and only occurred on the two Black Aliens that were tested (Samples 7 and 24). Quite simply the top of the head above the axle hole came off when the stem was tested separately from the rest of the cam. One was brand new (4/08) and had the top of the head come off at 80% of the cam’s rating (1493# / 6.64kN, rated to 1860# / 8.27kN) and the other was used (mid-1990’s) and had it happen at 146% of the cam’s rating (2724# / 12.12kN). Both of these cams pulled out of the fixture during the initial tests well below their ratings, at 64% rating for the new one and 55% rating for the used one. Had it not slipped from the fixture so far below rating it’s likely that the new one would have had the head fail during the initial test.

One item of note is that CCH states on their website that since 2006 all of their stems from Black through Red are proof tested to 1750# prior to assembly into a cam (Gold through Clear get pulled to 2400#). This new Black was marked as Tensile Tested, yet failed at a load considerably lower than what was applied during this proof test. I personally don’t know what to make of this, but find it somewhat disturbing.

Lobe Deformation
Nearly all of the test samples experienced deformation of their lobes to some degree, with the most common modes being flat spots either pressed or abraded into the lobes. The degree of deformation varied wildly, with some being very minor and others being quite pronounced. Several of the lobes also buckled considerably, with one or more lobes being bent significantly away from perpendicular to the axle.

The main concern with this deformation is that any change in the geometry of the cam lobe will have a direct effect on the holding power of the unit because it changes the angle at which the force is transferred from the axle to the sides of the crack. In the case of flat spots the effective cam angle between the center of the axle and the leading edge of the flat spot (where the majority of the force will be concentrated as the lobe tries to rotate) increases considerably from the original cam angle prior to deformation. In the case of buckled lobes the concern is that once they begin to buckle the forces are no longer being applied in the plane in which the lobe is strongest, which means that the strength is greatly reduced.

I do not have an explanation for why some lobes experienced more deformation and abrasion than others, but suspect it is due to differences in hardness and strength of the material used to make the lobes. In general harder = stronger and the hardness of the lobes from the test samples varied wildly. CCH claims to use 6061T6 aluminum extrusions for their lobes, which should have a hardness of ~55-60 on the Rockwell B scale. The hardness of the lobes from the samples ranged from HRB1 all the way to HRB73, with clusters around HRB40, HRB46 and HRB 54. While the hardness of the samples will not tell us what material and temper they are it will tell us what they are not, which is 6061T6 in the case of the ones that vary significantly from the HRB55-60 hardness found for that material and temper. To determine the exact material and condition a full metallurgical analysis would be necessary and is beyond the scope of this testing since it doesn’t really matter what the lobes are made of so long as they allow the cam to hold its rated strength.

Axle Deformation
Like with the lobes, many of the axles from the Aliens experienced some degree of deformation, with some remaining dead straight while others became decidedly C-shaped. I suspect that the deformation was caused by either inconsistencies in the hardening of the axles or differences in cam lobe geometry that resulted in greater than usual forces applied to the axle. The biggest issue with axle deformation is that it results in the cam lobes being loaded sideways, which is not the direction in which they are strongest and will quickly lead to buckled lobes.

Note: Unfortunately I was unable to perform hardness testing on the axles to because the V-anvil on my tester is located slightly off center, which causes the penetrator to skip off the axle as the main load was applied. I’d be quite interested in this data though and would be quite happy to send the axles along to anyone who has the capability to test them.


Swage Failure
This section could quite easily be left out, as every single cam tested had the swage either hold over the cam’s rated strength or hold a force that caused a failure at the head/stem joint. I’m choosing to include it though because of the number of stems that only met their rating by a very small amount.

Of these stems, 8 were ones that were subject to the issue mentioned above where the cam was rated to 2700# and the wire used to make the stem typically rated to only 2600# or 2400#, depending on whether it was galvanized or stainless. A properly completed oval swage joint should be good for 100% of the strength of the wire rope, but certainly can’t add strength to it. The two most common errors in swaging are too little pressure and too much pressure. With too little pressure applied to the swaging die, the fitting will not hold the wire rope tight enough and the end can slide out. Too much pressure and the wire rope can be damaged and will snap at the swage at a force somewhere under the rating of the cable. I can’t say for certain whether the swages on these 8 were done correctly or not; only that they failed above the typical rating for the cable they were done on and all 8 failed at the top of the swage at a hair above the rating of the cam (within 75 pounds of the rating for 6 of them).

Summary
In summary, there were quite a few issues uncovered in the testing and all of the data and photos are included below so people can make their own informed decisions regarding their gear and safety. As I’ve said in the threads that preceded this, I have no particular agenda against CCH. My only concern is that there appears to be a high probability that there is faulty gear out in circulation and people should be aware of this and take whatever precautions they deem necessary to ensure their safety. In fact, CCH was informed of the results of my testing prior to making the results public, both this time and with the testing done at the NRR. I would have much preferred if they had been proactive about this like the other gear companies are when issues are found with their gear, but unfortunately CCH chose to ignore it instead.




BTW, if you volunteered to contribute funds to cover the costs of the test samples and have not yet sent them I'd appreciate it if you would kindly do so. I'm close to having the costs of the testing covered, but not quite there yet. Thanks.

Sample 1: Grey Alien
Condition: Used
Date Stamp: 0605
"Tensile Tested" Stamp: No
Strength Rating: 2700# / 12.01kN
Failed at: 2381# / 10.59kN
Percent of Rating Held: 88.2%
Failure Mode: Pulled from fixture with large flat spots, buckled cam lobes and slightly bent axle. Much material abraded from the lobes.
Notes: Larger than normal cable used for the stem, according to what's listed on CCH's website. Should be 5/32" 7x7 cable, not 3/16" 7x7.

[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample01/sample01.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample01/sample01-fixture.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample01/sample1-chart.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample01/sample01_broken_back.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample01/sample01_head.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample01/sample01_axle.JPG[/image]

Stem Construction: 3/16" 7x7
Typical Strength Rating for that type of Cable:
Galvanized: 3700# / 16.46kN
Stainless: 3700# / 16.46kN
Failure load of Stem Test: 3417# / 15.20kN
Stem Failure Mode: Cable separated at base of head.

Average Lobe Hardness: (converted from HRE scale due to them being too soft to test HRB. Lobe 4 was too mangled to test)
Lobe 1: HRB1
Lobe 2: HRB12
Lobe 3: HRB5
Lobe 4: -

Effective Cam Angle at Various Positions:
Red: 16 + 6.5 = 22.5 Degrees
Yellow: 16 + 0 = 16 Degrees
Blue: 16 – 3.5 = 12.5 Degrees

[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample01/sample1-error-angles.JPG[/image]

Sample 2: Orange Alien
Condition: Used
Date Stamp: none
"Tensile Tested" Stamp: No
Strength Rating: 3500# / 15.57kN
Failed at: 2562# / 11.40kN
Percent of Rating Held: 73.2%
Failure Mode: Sling broke, cam looked in reasonable condition afterward so tested again clipped directly to the thumb loop.

Failed at: 2502# / 11.13kN
Percent of Rating Held: 71.5%
Failure Mode: Pulled from fixture with bent axle, some flat spots and abrasion on lobes.
Notes:

[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample02/sample02.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample02/sample2a-chart.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample02/sample2b-chart.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample02/sample02-fixture.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample02/sample02_broken_front.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample02/sample02_head.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample02/sample02_axle.JPG[/image]

Stem Construction: 3/16" 7x7
Typical Strength Rating for that type of Cable:
Galvanized: 3700# / 16.46kN
Stainless: 3700# / 16.46kN
Failure load of Stem Test: 4104# / 18.26kN
Location of Stem Failure: Cable separated at swage.

Average Lobe Hardness:
Lobe 1: HRB71
Lobe 2: HRB65
Lobe 3: HRB73
Lobe 4: HRB71

Effective Cam Angle at Various Positions:
Red: 16 + 6.5 = 22.5 Degrees
Yellow: 16 + 2.5 = 18.5 Degrees
Blue: 16 – 0.5 = 15.5 Degrees
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample02/sample2-error-angles.JPG[/image]

Sample 3: Yellow Alien
Condition: Used
Date Stamp: 1003
"Tensile Tested" Stamp: No
Strength Rating: 2700# / 12.01kN
Failed at: 2099# / 9.34kN
Percent of Rating Held: 77.7%
Failure Mode: Cable pulled from head with no braze on inner bundle of wire.
Notes: Braze looked perfect prior to test, axle and lobes remain in good condition after test.

[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample03/sample03.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample03/sample3-chart.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample03/sample03-fixture.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample03/sample03_broken_left.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample03/sample03_head.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample03/sample03_axle.JPG[/image]

Stem Construction: 5/32" 7x19
Typical Strength Rating for that type of Cable:
Galvanized: 2800# / 12.46kN
Stainless: 2400# / 10.68kN
Failure load of Stem Test: N/A
Location of Stem Failure: N/A

Average Lobe Hardness:
Lobe 1: HRB41
Lobe 2: HRB36
Lobe 3: HRB42
Lobe 4: HRB50

Effective Cam Angle at Various Positions:
Red: 16 + 4.0 = 20 Degrees
Yellow: 16 – 2.0 = 14 Degrees
Blue: 16 – 4.0 = 12 Degrees
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample03/sample3-error-angles.JPG[/image]

Sample 4: Purple Alien
Condition: New
Date Stamp: 1108
"Tensile Tested" Stamp: Yes
Strength Rating: 3500# / 15.57kN
Failed at: 2829# / 12.58kN
Percent of Rating Held: 80.8%
Failure Mode: Pulled from fixture with bent axle and relatively minor flat spots/abrasion of lobes.
Notes: "W" stamped on head. Don't have pic of cam in fixture.

[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample04/sample04.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample04/sample4-chart.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample04/sample04_broken_braze1.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample04/sample04_head.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample04/sample04_axle.JPG[/image]

Stem Construction: 3/16" 7x7
Typical Strength Rating for that type of Cable:
Galvanized: 3700# / 16.46kN
Stainless: 3700# / 16.46kN
Failure load of Stem Test: 4194# / 18.66kN
Location of Stem Failure: Middle of cable between swage and head.

Average Lobe Hardness:
Lobe 1: HRB53
Lobe 2: HRB52
Lobe 3: HRB49
Lobe 4: HRB51

Effective Cam Angle at Various Positions:
Red: 16 + 12.0 = 28 Degrees
Yellow: 16 + 3.0 = 19 Degrees
Blue: 16 – 2.5 = 13.5 Degrees
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample04/sample4-error-angles.JPG[/image]

Sample 5: Purple Alien
Condition: New
Date Stamp: 1108
"Tensile Tested" Stamp: Yes
Strength Rating: 3500# / 15.57kN
Failed at: 3113# / 13.85kN
Percent of Rating Held: 88.9%
Failure Mode: Pulled from fixture with bent axle and relatively minor flat spots/abrasion on lobes.
Notes: "W" stamped on head.

[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample05/sample05.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample05/sample5-chart.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample05/sample05-fixture.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample05/sample05_broken_top2.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample05/sample05_head.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample05/sample05_axle.JPG[/image]

Stem Construction: 3/16" 7x7
Typical Strength Rating for that type of Cable:
Galvanized: 3700# / 16.46kN
Stainless: 3700# / 16.46kN
Failure load of Stem Test: 3948# / 17.56kN
Location of Stem Failure: End of cable pulled from swage.

Average Lobe Hardness:
Lobe 1: HRB54
Lobe 2: HRB54
Lobe 3: HRB51
Lobe 4: HRB55

Effective Cam Angle at Various Positions:
Red: 16 + 12.0 = 28 Degrees
Yellow: 16 + 3.0 = 19 Degrees
Blue: 16 – 2.5 = 13.5 Degrees
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample05/sample5-error-angles.JPG[/image]

Sample 6: Clear Alien
Condition: New
Date Stamp: 508
"Tensile Tested" Stamp: Yes
Strength Rating: 3500# / 15.57kN
Failed at: 3159# / 14.05kN
Percent of Rating Held: 90.3%
Failure Mode: Pulled from fixture with bent axle, buckled lobes and relatively minor flat spots/abrasion on lobes.
Notes: "W" stamped on head.

[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample06/sample06.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample06/sample6-chart.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample06/sample06-fixture.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample06/sample06_broken_top.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample06/sample06_head.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample06/sample06_axle.JPG[/image]

Stem Construction: 3/16" 7x7
Typical Strength Rating for that type of Cable:
Galvanized: 3700# / 16.46kN
Stainless: 3700# / 16.46kN
Failure load of Stem Test: 3921# / 17.56kN
Location of Stem Failure: Cable separated at swage.

Average Lobe Hardness:
Lobe 1: HRB55
Lobe 2: HRB53
Lobe 3: HRB52
Lobe 4: HRB23 (not a typo)

Effective Cam Angle at Various Positions:
Red: 16 + 7.0 = 23 Degrees
Yellow: 16 – 5.0 = 11 Degrees
Blue: 16 – 9.0 = 7 Degrees
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample06/sample06-error-angles.JPG[/image]

Sample 7: Black Alien
Condition: New
Date Stamp: 408
"Tensile Tested" Stamp: Yes
Strength Rating: 1860# / 8.27kN
Failed at: 1183# / 5.26kN
Percent of Rating Held: 63.6%
Failure Mode: Pulled from fixture with major flat spots and abrasion of lobes.
Notes: "W" stamped on head.

[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample07/sample07.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample07/sample7-chart.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample07/sample07-fixture.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample07/sample07_broken_right.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample07/sample07_head1.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample07/sample07_head2.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample07/sample07_axle.JPG[/image]

Stem Construction: 5/32" 7x19
Typical Strength Rating for that type of Cable:
Galvanized: 2800# / 12.46kN
Stainless: 2400# / 10.68kN
Failure load of Stem Test: 1493# / 6.64kN
Location of Stem Failure: Top of head above axle broke off.

Average Lobe Hardness: (only room for 1 test on each lobe, test on Lobe 1 was too close the edge for reliable reading)
Lobe 1: -
Lobe 2: HRB49
Lobe 3: HRB45
Lobe 4: HRB42

Effective Cam Angle at Various Positions:
Red: 16 – 3.5 = 12.5 Degrees
Yellow: 16 + 7.5 = 23.5 Degrees
Blue: 16 + 8.0 = 24 Degrees
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample07/sample07-error-angles.JPG[/image]

Sample 8: Yellow Alien
Condition: New
Date Stamp: 509
"Tensile Tested" Stamp: Yes
Strength Rating: 2700# / 12.01kN
Failed at: 2493# / 11.09kN
Percent of Rating Held: 92.3%
Failure Mode: Pulled from fixture with major flat spots and abrasion on lobes.
Notes: "W" stamped on head.

[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample08/sample08.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample08/sample8-chart.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample08/sample08-fixture.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample08/sample08_broken_left.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample08/sample08_head.JPG[/image]
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample08/sample08_axle.JPG[/image]

Stem Construction: 5/32" 7x7
Typical Strength Rating for that type of Cable:
Galvanized: 2600# / 11.57kN
Stainless: 2400# / 10.68kN
Failure load of Stem Test: 2795# / 12.43kN
Location of Stem Failure: Cable separated at swage.

Average Lobe Hardness:
Lobe 1: HRB55
Lobe 2: HRB53
Lobe 3: HRB48
Lobe 4: HRB54

Effective Cam Angle at Various Positions:
Red: 16 + 3.0 = 19 Degrees
Yellow: 16 + 2.0 = 18 Degrees
Blue: 16 + 0 = 16 Degrees
[image]www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/RSaliens/Sample08/sample08-error-angles.JPG[/image]