Digital Millenium Copyright Act:Hello, my name is John Smith. I just graduated from university and now I work in Australia. My work is related to engineering and construction, so in my spare time I often collect some useful standards, hoping that they can help you.
All the resources of this website are uploaded freely by netizens from all over the world. If any content violates the DMCA or your copyright, please contact the administrator of this website, and I will delete it within one working day.
E-mail address is:firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi Ian,Thanks both, this is super helpful.
@Bob Mehew raised the BCA approach. The BCA adopted its own protocol for accepting anchors using an axial test:
View attachment 17487
From BS EN 1990 it chose a characteristic value based on statistical analysis and 5% fractile value. It seems there are other methods of choosing a characteristic value too. Interesting that BCA chose axial only (which doesn't meet 959) and 15kN (which doesn't meet UIAA 123).
But this isn't coming from BS EN 959, which is what my question referred to.
The meeting document refers to Simon Wilson's IC anchor testing. The doc on the CNCC website seems to follow the BCA standard above, with the addition of rotational and radial tests (one of each). Which suggests it meets BS EN 959 even though the sample size is one in each case. The IC anchors were axially tested in limestone (not concrete per 959) which is explained in the text.
Its clearer to me now, having read the above, how the BCA cherry picked from recognised standards. The other thread about rope standards and selecting appropriate equipment even if not CE marked springs to mind. But this wasn't intended to be a thread about the BCA scheme.
@Loki Are anchors PPE? I'm not sure. But it makes sense that where recognised quality systems are already in place that they are used.
Still looking for anyone to add to the discussion on BS EN 959 - it would be appreciated. Thanks
I dared to click the link but it didn't workThis claims to be a free copy of 2018 standard (haven't actually checked it's veracity):
This is super useful .Off the theme but for information, BSI charge £186 for EN 959 badged by them (or £93 if you are a member). Estonia standards charge 13.20 euros for EN 959 in English and badged by them (pdf version). How many standards cavers are interested in which are not EN based? Oh, also some libraries still offer access to BSs. I will come back on the theme late today as I am now off on another job.
It does say that documents will be removed if copyrighter complains.I dared to click the link but it didn't work
My query relates to concrete screws in recreational use.Anchors intended for permanent installation (which is what you’re interested in I assume?) are not considered PPE. PPE is classed as equipment which is “intended to be worn or held by a person”. For example a carabiner is classed as PPE, but a safety handrail is not. HTH.
No anchors need to meet BS EN959. There are very few BS or EN standards which are required by law in the UK (not the case in some other countries). The standards represent good practice as determined by a committee of experts from the user and manufacturer community for the standard in question. Installers and manufacturers may comply with the standards they consider appropriate and (as in the other thread) can then state that they comply.Does it mean a temporary anchor doesn't need to meet EN959 at all?
I have tested them - in a fashion - my query is to assist with interpretation of the results. I'm looking for context of other anchors and anchor testing methods.If you plan to use concrete screws, the question should be not whether they can meet EN959, but whether the specific screw you plan to use has been tested for the use you intend, or if not, for a use which you are confident is sufficiently similar.
I understand this. EN959 and the BCA scheme use static (or at least slow pull) tests for their anchor testing which gives me confidence it is an widely accepted compromise in this case.Testing the capacity for static loads doesn't necessarily mean that capacity will be available for dynamic loads, even if the peak force is the same.
This is the sort of statement sometimes seen about the performance of ropes under static and dynamic load.the capacity for static loads doesn't necessarily mean that capacity will be available for dynamic loads, even if the peak force is the same.