Deaths Head Tree

Steve Clark

Well-known member
If it's of interest to anyone, there's some good experimental data on ground stakes on Jim Titt's website. Part way down the page.


There's some counter-intuitive stuff in there. Bendy stakes actually have greater pull-out strength due contact area & friction.

In this case, you can take some comfort that the 38dia x 1300mm long is well above the scale tested. And there's two!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2xw

Tseralo

Active member
If it's of interest to anyone, there's some good experimental data on ground stakes on Jim Titt's website. Part way down the page.


There's some counter-intuitive stuff in there. Bendy stakes actually have greater pull-out strength due contact area & friction.

In this case, you can take some comfort that the 38dia x 1300mm long is well above the scale tested. And there's two!

DCA has been using and installing similar anchors for years around Derbyshire. I'm not aware of any issues. BMC has also been using them for years to a similar effect and i cant find any reference to an incident using a ground anchor.
 

IanWalker

Active member
DCA has been using and installing similar anchors for years around Derbyshire. I'm not aware of any issues. BMC has also been using them for years to a similar effect and i cant find any reference to an incident using a ground anchor.
I'm intrigued by this. I understand DCA pull-test every resin anchor after installation. Do you know if they pull-test ground anchors too? (Genuine question.) I am interested in how they judge the ground anchor is safe for a given usage, given it is being placed into a softer and variable medium. Is it purely down to the feel of the installer? I am also interested in the corrosion susceptibility of the steel ground anchors, and how that is managed (ie the installer knows it is likely to corrode, without it being inspectable below ground at the critical spot). Are they a given thickness/ grade of steel, are they replaced after a given time period?


The hitherto CNCC system of resin-only anchors may have been thought of as strict by some, but has had the advantage of being very clear to all what is a CNCC anchor and what is not. The CNCC anchors are visibly distinct from shop-bought anchors, and gives the user confidence in them having being installed inline with the BCA scheme, and by trained installers. CNCC installing rustable scaffold bar belays could create a two-tier system, where one is up to the agreed standards, and the other is not. Or perhaps a systems of two-standards.

The wider or longer term issue that I think I am meandering around, is that in time, this sets the precedent for a variety of anchors to appear in our caving area, created and installed outside of an approved scheme, potentially of a degradable material not made for the purpose.

A quick internet search shows that the BMC has supplied stakes for installation in the past. Perhaps their experience could help form a precedent for a CNCC standard.


@CNCC I will send a PM separately
 

Pete K

Well-known member
I'm intrigued by this. I understand DCA pull-test every resin anchor after installation. Do you know if they pull-test ground anchors too? (Genuine question.) I am interested in how they judge the ground anchor is safe for a given usage, given it is being placed into a softer and variable medium. Is it purely down to the feel of the installer? I am also interested in the corrosion susceptibility of the steel ground anchors, and how that is managed (ie the installer knows it is likely to corrode, without it being inspectable below ground at the critical spot). Are they a given thickness/ grade of steel, are they replaced after a given time period?

DCA do not pull-test ground stakes. I have done some limited personal testing on 16mm rebar and Lyon anchor pins, and have experience using some ground anchor safety systems for work and rescue. Testing stake placements to any serious load would no doubt render the anchor unsafe for further use and then another would need placing and testing anyway. Start off with a bit of metal strong enough not to bend under the desired design load and made in a shape that resists cutting through the ground in the direction of pull like a knife. It should of course also be placed in a location where there is no risk of it being extracted out of the ground with an upwards force.

Since starting my time as DCA Projects Officer (9 years) we have only installed a handful of ground anchors when it was the only option, and all were in 304 or 316 stainless steel.
Several years ago Eldon Hole got approx 30mm dia stainless rebar set into the bedrock with resin. This was done by skilled volunteers that did that kind of installation on cliffs and embankments for a living. These are really more like a massive P bolt than a ground stake though.
More recently, we have made up metre long T-section 70mmx70mmx8mm 304 stainless stakes to ready replace backup anchors on shaft tops if the original was reported to us as unsafe. These are typically only used to protect a rigger as they open a shaft lid and rig to the bar/bolts inside. Only one of these has been placed so far and that is at Snelslow Swallet's '1984' shaft to protect the DCA resin anchor installer who did the rest of the BP bolting in the shaft (we're also waiting on a new lid with integral belay bar to be fabricated).

Stainless T stakes (4).jpg

Don't ask how much these cost! Flat side is in the direction of pull to give resistance to cutting through the ground, and the notch on the back helps keep slings or rope located on the stake.
The quality of the anchor placement is assessed at the time of installation and is based on the ground type and ease of driving the stake in. Essentially if there was any doubt about the security of the backup anchor, we'd not install it. We'd place as many as we felt were needed. We cannot quantify the strength of any individual ground anchor placement, but pulling a 70mm x 750mm flat face of steel through compacted ground horizontally is something that would be basically impossible for a single person to achieve when pulling their body weight against it whilst rigging a shaft top. If we needed to install these for someone to actually hang on, then we'd install more than one for sure.
I'm sure DCA would happily work with CNCC and the BCA to come up with a national approach to ground anchors where they are necessary. If a shaft needs one then someone will put one in anyway, so it might as well be us with the budget and skill to do it in a way that lasts forever.
 

Pete K

Well-known member
Oh, and I also meant to say that I have a load cell and chain winch so would be more than up for some testing of ground anchors if there was a bunch of people keen to make a working group and look into creating a body of data to back up the use of certain anchor types.
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
If people who aren't lawyers would stop spouting rubbish about liability and duty of care, that would certainly make it easier for the CNCC/other regional councils to actually install probably safe anchors that cavers can, if they choose to do so, use to actually get down holes in the ground (which is of course a thoroughly dangerous activity only practiced by the worst kind of deviants anyway).
 

hannahb

Active member
If people who aren't lawyers would stop spouting rubbish about liability and duty of care, that would certainly make it easier for the CNCC/other regional councils to actually install probably safe anchors that cavers can, if they choose to do so, use to actually get down holes in the ground (which is of course a thoroughly dangerous activity only practiced by the worst kind of deviants anyway).

@andrewmcleod Who is spouting rubbish about liability and duty of care?

It seems to me that the CNCC have been doing, and are continuing to do, a an excellent job of installing plenty of very safe anchors for everyone's use. It doesn't seem like anything has got in the way of that.
 

JAA

Active member
It seems to me that the CNCC have been doing, and are continuing to do, a an excellent job
I suspect that’s Andrew’s point Hannah, that the CNCC are taking a reasonable and pragmatic approach to the issues around anchors, which isn’t always helped by armchair lawyers with a limited understanding of the law and the levels of legal knowledge and reasonable knowledge that would be applied as a legal test in the extremely unlikely event of a failure. I’m not sure it was meant as a critiscm of the CNCC.

I think they’re doing an excellent job and commend anyone who takes the time to do a job like it!
 

2xw

Active member
What a great example of regional councils efficiently tackling issues for all cavers. Cracking work and I bet very satisfying from all angles
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
What does make it more difficult for them is when people turn up at meetings and say that if anything goes wrong with any fixed aid they include in their descriptions or topos it will make them liable for damages. It was even suggested once that individual officers and committee members could be liable and possibly lose their homes and jobs over it. These are all volunteers so naturally they have been cautious.
My comment was mostly aimed at the kind of comments Badlad is describing here, and not aimed at anyone in this thread or at the CNCC.
 

CNCC

Well-known member
Hopefully the end of the Death's Head Hole tree saga...

During the week of 17th April, CNCC Chairman Andrew Hinde, accompanied by Ingleborough National Nature Reserve warden, Frank Morgan (who is new to caving) took a morning off to plant a selection of native trees around the Death's Head Hole enclosure. About 20 were planted which will hopefully, in time, help to stabilise the steep ground above the old belay tree and prevent any collapses into the pothole.

Cavers are urged to tread carefully. Not all of the new trees are inside a ‘guard’.

Photos below courtesy of Andrew Hinde. Yes, that is sunshine on Leck Fell!!!

Tree Planting 1 (Andrew Hinde).jpg


Tree Planting 2 (Andrew Hinde).jpg
 

rm128

Active member
Many thanks to all involved in this effort. It’s worth pointing out that ALL ropes on the main through route to the main drain have now been removed. I’m not sure if this was done as part of the CNCC effort, or on completion of whatever project was ongoing. Either way, it makes for more hassle-free rigging of your own tackle.
 

Ian P

Administrator
Staff member
Many thanks to all involved in this effort. It’s worth pointing out that ALL ropes on the main through route to the main drain have now been removed. I’m not sure if this was done as part of the CNCC effort, or on completion of whatever project was ongoing. Either way, it makes for more hassle-free rigging of your own tackle.

None of the fixed ropes were removed as part of the CNCC work. (It was clear of ropes when the stakes and additional anchors were installed 😃👍)
 
Top