Sports Eng (2009) 11:85–91
DOI 10.1007/s12283-008-0010-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Effects of wear on static and dynamic failure loads
of aluminium-based alloy climbing karabiners
Thomas Schambron Æ Peter J. Uggowitzer
Published online: 13 November 2008

International Sports Engineering Association 2008
Abstract In rock climbing, karabiners are used to arrest
falls and consequently must be able to withstand dynamic
loads. The current international standard for rating kara-
biner strength prescribes a quasi-static tensile test, which
poorly simulates the dynamic nature of an actual climbing
fall. In this study, a new method was developed to measure
the dynamic failure loads of climbing karabiners. Both new
and heavily worn karabiners were tested open and closed,
and results from static and dynamic tests were compared.
We found that the dynamic failure loads of closed kara-
biners were up to 50% lower than the failure loads in static
tests, while for open karabiners, the static and dynamic
values were similar. The reason for this behaviour is
unclear; it is most likely due to the combined effects of
different stress concentrations and loading regimes of the
two tests. Irrespective of test type, karabiner strength
decreased with wear level. Based on our results, we advise
frequent inspection of permanently placed karabiners for
signs of excessive wear. In addition, testing of climbing
karabiners in a dynamic test in addition to the standard
static test might be considered when developing new ka-
rabiner models.
T. Schambron (&)
Faculty of Engineering, University of Wollongong,
Northfields Ave, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
e-mail: thomas.schambron@alumni.ethz.ch
P. J. Uggowitzer
Department of Materials, Laboratory of Metal Physics
and Technology, ETH Zurich, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Keywords Karabiner
Dynamic testing

Failure mechanisms
Rock climbing
Safety
1 Introduction
Recreational rock climbing is usually carried out in teams
of two. One person climbs (the climber), and the second
person (the belayer) secures the climber by running the
other end of the rope through a so-called belay device. This
device works like a force multiplier, enabling the belayer to
hold large impact forces using hand strength only. There
are two ascent styles, ‘‘top-rope’’ and ‘‘lead’’. On top-rope,
the rope is already threaded through an anchor at the top of
the climb. The climber ties into one end of the rope, and the
belayer uses the other strand. Since the climber is always
secured by a near taut rope from above, any fall is fairly
short and will result in minimal loads on anchor and rope.
However, top-roping causes fast wear on the top anchor.
The other style of ascent is leading, where the climber
starts with all the rope on the ground. As he/she climbs up,
the belayer feeds out rope, which is clipped into anchor
points along the way, using karabiners (Fig. 1a, b). While
lead climbing generally causes less wear on the individual
karabiners, a fall can result in high impact loads on the rope
and the anchor points (Fig. 1a, b). Due to the pulley effect,
the highest anchor point experiences the highest load.
There, the forces of the climber, the belayer and of rope
drag are all combined. Since both the rope and the belay
devices are designed to keep these loads to a minimum [1,
2] a moderate fall will only cause impact loads in the order
of 5 kN (Fig. 1a) [2–6]. However, heavy friction, which
occurs if the rope runs through many anchor points at
oblique angles, can increase this value up to 16 kN
(Fig. 1a) [4].
86 T. Schambron, P. J. Uggowitzer

Fig. 1 Loads experienced by

the climber (Fc), the belayer
(Fb), the top anchor (Fa) and
rope friction (Fr) in a moderate
lead fall for a little friction and
b high friction caused by rope
drag through multiple anchor
points at oblique angles. Note
that friction alone can increase
the anchor load from a moderate
5–16 kN [4]. The inset on the
right-hand side shows how the
rope is usually clipped into
anchor points, using two
karabiners connected by a nylon
sling. Figure based on a sketch
by Randelzhofer [4]

Commercial climbing karabiners are required to have a

minimum failure load of 20 kN closed, 7 kN open and
7 kN cross-wise loaded, as specified in the International
Standard EN 12275 [7]. This load is measured in a quasi-
static tensile test with a crosshead speed of 20–50 mm/min
[7], which poorly simulates an actual fall occurring at
several metres per second, although viscoelastic rope
deformation will reduce this value somewhat. Although
Altenpohl [8] has shown that an increase in strain rate from
10-6 to 104 s-1 led to an increase in tensile strength of
30% for aluminium alloys, it is not known if the same
holds true for the breaking strength of a karabiner, for
which the strain rate increase would be 103–104 times.
Climbers are reported to believe that equipment will per- Fig. 2 The two karabiner models used in this study, ‘‘Standard
form better under dynamic conditions [4]. However, no Straight’’ (SS, top row) and ‘‘Wire Straight’’ (WS, bottom row) with
study has investigated the dynamic failure loads of the respective wear levels indicated. Note how for higher wear a sharp
edge has formed on the karabiners (marked by the white circle). The
karabiners. transect A-A indicates where the thickness of the karabiners was
Permanently placed karabiners on indoor and outdoor measured to quantify the wear level. The scale bar applies to the
climbing walls undergo heavy wear by the rope [6], which overall figure, not the inset
can remain undetected until the next scheduled inspection.
Karabiners are also damaged due to contact with bolt
plates, usually made from austenitic stainless steel, that 2 Methods
have sharp edges [6, 9]. The minimum edge radius pre-
scribed by the relevant standard EN 959 [10] is only 2.1 Karabiner geometries
0.2 mm. This sharp edge in combination with the hardness
of the stainless steel causes grooves to form in the alu- Two commercial karabiners with different designs were
minium karabiner upon loading [6, 9]. To date, the residual investigated (Fig. 2, material: AA7075-T6; composition in
strength of karabiners subject to wear from either the rope weight percent: 5.5 Zn, 2.5 Mg, 1.7 Cu; yield strength
or bolt plates has not been systematically analysed. Studies &500 MPa, tensile strength &550 MPa). The ‘‘Standard
investigating karabiner wear either have relied on only 1–3 Straight’’ (SS) model had a spring-loaded aluminium gate,
samples [9, 11] or used karabiners with an unknown history while the ‘‘Wire Straight’’ (WS) had a gate made from
[6]. Here, the static and dynamic failure loads of climbing steel wire (material: martensitic, precipitation hardenable
karabiners (unused and with varying amounts of simulated 17Cr-4Ni stainless steel [12]). The latter was designed as
wear) have been measured and compared. an ultra-lightweight karabiner and only weighed 36.3 g as
Static and dynamic failure loads of aluminium-based alloy climbing karabiners 87

opposed to 50.7 g for the more traditional SS. The rated percentage of missing material was calculated using Qwin
strength was similar for both models (SS: 26/8/7 kN, WS: imaging analysis software. Wear levels of 20, 40 and 60%
24/8/8 kN closed/open/cross-wise). were induced in both karabiner models. Table 1 lists the
number of specimens used for each condition. Grooves
were induced by repeatedly pulling karabiners into a
2.2 Inducing damage
stainless steel (material: A304, composition in weight
percent: 18–20 Cr, 8–10.5 Ni, 0.08 C, 2.0 Mn) bolt plate. A
Varying degrees of rope wear were induced in one subset
square load profile was used (Fmax = 12 kN, Fmin =
of karabiners, and grooves (simulating abrasion by bolt
0.8 kN, f = 0.1 Hz), and 3,000 load cycles were per-
plates) in another subset. Rope wear was induced by con-
formed. This is the highest number of falls that a karabiner
tinuously running a welded loop of 10.5 mm elastic nylon
on a very popular route might realistically experience over
rope through the karabiners at a speed of around 1 m/s. A
several years.
spring was used to keep the rope under a tensile load of
around 100 N (Fig. 3). An abrasive agent (commercial
2.3 Destructive testing
alumina powder, average grain size: 50 lm), used to
accelerate the wear process, was rubbed into the rope with
After the specimens were worn to the desired levels, they
Vaseline. The karabiners were rotated by 180 several
were destructively tested in a quasi-static tensile and a
times to ensure that wear was induced symmetrically along
dynamic fall test. Since open-gate situations occasionally
the length axis (horizontal axis in Fig. 3). Karabiner tem-
occur when climbing [12, 13], the karabiners were tested
perature was regularly checked and kept below 40C to
closed and open. For static tests, a Schenck Instron Trebel
prevent thermal ageing. The wear level was controlled by
was used, following the guidelines from EN 12275 [7],
measuring the thickness of the karabiners before and after
using two 12 mm steel rods to apply the load. The load was
wear along transect A-A in Fig. 2 using callipers. From the
increased at a crosshead speed of 50 mm/min until the
thickness and the known shape of the cross-section, the
karabiner failed, and the maximum force was reported. The
accuracy of the load cell was 0.5%. For karabiners worn by
the rope, two static tests were performed for each condi-
tion, whereas for karabiners with a groove, one test was
performed. Dynamic tests were conducted as closely as
possible to the standard test method for climbing ropes EN
892 [1], to realistically simulate a climbing fall. The ka-
rabiners were attached to a load cell (described in detail in
EN 892) using an 8 mm Dyneema sling. 2.6 m of regular
10 mm climbing rope were tied off 0.3 m below the load
cell, fed through the karabiner and attached to a mass of
Fig. 3 Schematic drawing illustrating how rope wear was induced. 80 kg, which was dropped from 2.3 m above the load cell.
An endless loop of climbing rope, saturated with abrasive alumina Thus, the total fall height was 4.6 m. This setup with a tight
particles, was continuously run through a karabiner, which was Dyneema sling ensured that the karabiners remained well
clipped into a spring to keep the rope under a slight tension of 100 N
aligned during testing. Prior to testing, the rope was pre-
stretched by running three load cycles with an undamaged
karabiner, to prevent subsequent plastic deformation of the
rope during the experiments. The load was recorded at a
Table 1 Number of specimens used for the individual tests sampling rate of 1,000 Hz, and the maximum value
0% 20% 40% 60% Grooves reported. The karabiner gates were fixed with adhesive tape
Wear Wear Wear Wear in the open or closed position, and all karabiners were
tested upside down to avoid rope damage by the sharp
SS closed static 1 2 2 2 1
edges that had formed during the rope wear process. In
SS closed dynamic – 3 3 3 –
Fig. 4, a typical load versus time diagram, as obtained in a
SS open static 2 2 2 – –
dynamic test is plotted, showing the loading rate of
SS open dynamic 3 3 3 – 1
145 kN/s. The measurement error of the load cell was less
WS closed static 1 2 2 2 1
than 0.2 kN in accordance with EN 892 [1]. For karabiners
WS closed dynamic – 3 3 3 –
worn by the rope, three dynamic tests were performed for
WS open static 2 2 2 – –
each condition, whereas for karabiners with a groove, one
WS open dynamic 3 3 3 – 1
test was performed (Table 1).
88 T. Schambron, P. J. Uggowitzer

b
Fig. 4 Typical load versus time curve in a dynamic test. The solid
line represents the force measured by the load cell, the dashed line the
position of the falling weight. Following specimen failure (around
1.2 s), the weight hit a rubber cushion on the ground and bounced
several times. The inset is an expanded section of the curve to show
how the load increased linearly until karabiner failure. The measured
loading rate was 145 kN/s (y = –145.4x ? 159.3, R = 0.988), the
maximum speed of the falling weight around 11 m/s. The arrows on
the x-axis indicate which section of the curve was expanded

3 Results

3.1 Wear

Rope wear was induced very quickly in both karabiner

models. Roughly 0.1 mm of material was worn off for
every 60 m of rope that ran through the karabiners. The
rope loop was also damaged and generally needed replac-
ing every few hundred revolutions. During the wear
process, the temperature in the karabiners increased by
between 10 and 20C. By regularly turning the karabiners,
it was possible to induce symmetric wear. However, since
the ropes ran through the karabiners at an angle of around
20, a sharp edge was formed, which can be seen in the
heavily worn karabiners in Fig. 2.
Repeated pulling of the karabiner into a steel bolt plate
resulted in a relatively small, but sharp groove around 0.5 mm
deep where the karabiner was in contact with the bolt plate
(the same location where rope wear was induced as marked by
the circle in Fig. 2). The karabiners showed no fatigue failure
after 3,000 load cycles. However, galvanized steel bolt plates
failed and needed replacing after around 2,000 load cycles at
12 kN. In addition, plates made from austenitic stainless steel
did not last more than 5,000 load cycles.
3.2 Static tests
In static tests with a closed gate, both karabiner models
showed remarkable failure loads for low to moderate rope
Fig. 5 Static (solid symbols) and dynamic (open symbols) failure
load versus rope wear for SS (squares) and WS (triangles) karabiners,
tested with a a closed and b an open gate. Error bars indicate the sum
of least squares of the standard deviation of replicates and the
measurement error. Where it was not possible to bring the karabiners
to failure, the highest measured load is plotted (indicated by the
arrow)
wear levels (Fig. 5a). For up to 40% wear, no decrease in
static strength was observed, and failure occurred on the
hook of the gate. For 60% wear, the karabiners did fail at
the pre-damaged site, but 64% (WS) and 73% (SS) of the
initial strength were retained. In tests with an open gate
however, the static failure load decreased proportionally
with wear (Fig. 5b) for both karabiner models. The effect
of grooves induced by the steel bolt plates was negligible;
the measured failure loads were barely affected. For the
closed SS karabiners, the static strength dropped from
29.5 ± 0.15 to 29.3 ± 0.15 kN, and for closed WS kara-
biners from 23.8 ± 0.12 to 23.0 ± 0.12 kN. In all tests, the
strength of the heavier SS karabiner was around 25%
higher than that of the WS model.
Static and dynamic failure loads of aluminium-based alloy climbing karabiners
3.3 Dynamic tests
The dynamic failure loads of closed karabiners were 30–
50% lower than the static values (Fig. 5a). This behaviour
was observed for both karabiner models throughout all
tests, and it was more pronounced for higher wear levels.
SS karabiners with 20% wear did not fail in a dynamic test;
the plotted value is the failure load of the rope; the actual
karabiner value would be higher (indicated by the arrow in
Fig. 5a). It was also not possible to bring undamaged ka-
rabiners to failure. In tests with an open gate, the effect of
wear was greater; the reduction in strength was roughly
proportional to the amount of missing cross-section.
Additionally, failure occurred at the site of wear. The
dynamic failure loads of open karabiners were 10–15%
lower than the static ones, though this difference seemed to
decrease with increasing wear. For karabiners with grooves
caused by the bolt plate, the dynamic failure load of open
SS karabiner dropped from 7.50 ± 0.32 to 7.31 ±
0.20 kN, whereas for WS karabiners the values actually
increased slightly, from 6.88 ± 0.84 to 7.22 ± 0.20 kN. It
was not possible to bring closed karabiners with a groove
to failure. As for the static tests, the failure load of the SS
karabiners was around 25% higher than that of the WS
model throughout. Generally, undamaged karabiners failed
along the long axis, while worn karabiners failed at the
wear site.
4 Discussion
4.1 Inducing rope wear
Approximately 0.1 mm of material was removed from the
karabiner for every 60 m of rope that ran through it. This
meant that after 60 such cycles, equivalent to only 120
top-rope ascents/lower-offs on a 30 m high climbing wall,
the karabiner cross-section was reduced by up to 60%. It
is unlikely that a climber would use a rope saturated with
abrasive material, however ropes do readily pick up sig-
nificant amounts of sand and grit, which is similar in
grain size and hardness to the alumina powder used in
this study. Since a popular climb might see as many as
10–20 top-rope ascents per day, it is apparent that dan-
gerously high levels of wear could occur very quickly on
top anchor points made from aluminium. For that reason,
we suggest that only top-rope anchors made from plated
martensitic or austenitic stainless steel (A304 or even
A316) be used. Unfortunately, the EN standard for arti-
ficial climbing structures EN 12572 [14] only specifies a
minimum strength of the karabiners and does not com-
ment on wear resistance. In lead climbing, the individual
89
anchor points also undergo wear. Particularly permanently
placed karabiners, used for lowering off if the climber
does not reach the top of the climb, often show heavy
wear [6], sometimes associated with a sharp edge [15]
identical to that observed in this study. In addition, a
reduced cross-section will reduce the karabiner’s ability to
dissipate heat generated while lowering off, which could
cause rope damage due to melting. Based on the ease of
wear noted, we suggest that all permanent karabiners in
commercial facilities be checked frequently for signs of
wear. For karabiners that have been permanently placed
on cliff faces, it is every climber’s responsibility to check
the condition of each karabiner before clipping the rope
into them.
4.2 Inducing grooves and bolt plate failure
Repeated pulling of the karabiners into bolt plates resul-
ted in a small groove, though the residual strength of the
karabiner was not diminished. Schubert [9] reported
similar results after artificially inducing grooves into ka-
rabiners with a chisel. We believe there are two main
reasons why the strength remained unaffected. Firstly, the
damaged area is in a state of compression, which is not
expected to lower the tensile strength. Secondly, the
location of these grooves is not a critical section of the
karabiner, so a weakening there would not affect the
overall karabiner strength. The area around the gate,
particularly the hook and the hinge, has been identified as
the weakest region, since the material thickness is much
lower there than on the main part of the karabiner. This
areas, though, is very well protected from damage. Thus,
the sharp edge on the bolt plates may be considered rel-
atively unproblematic.
After 3,000 load cycles, no fatigue crack growth was
observed. This is not surprising, since the applied load of
12 kN is only 50 and 40% of the maximum static strength
of the WS and SS karabiners, respectively. At such low
loads, aluminium 7075 can be expected to sustain 105–106
load cycles [16]. This result also agrees with a previous
study by Stopper [11], who observed no fatigue effects on
three karabiners after 500 load cycles at 15 kN. The
fatigue failure of the bolt plates most likely occurred
because they were not designed for the direction of the
applied load. For a bolt plate screwed to a wall, the load
direction is more or less perpendicular to the bolt along
the plate. However, in our experimental setup the bolt
plate was oriented at *45 to the optimal direction of
use. Given this, and since the applied load of 12 kN was
significantly higher than the 5 kN of an average climbing
fall [2–6], these failures are highly unlikely to occur in
real life.
90
4.3 Static tests
Wear of up to 40% did not affect the static strength of
closed climbing karabiners. Semmel reported similar
results for karabiners with around 30% wear [6]. However,
we increased the wear further, and found that at 60%, the
karabiners do fail at the site where wear has been induced
in a static test. Our conclusions were similar to those for
grooves induced by bolt plates: the area of the karabiner
affected by wear is not critical. The overall static strength
of the karabiner only starts decreasing once the cross-sec-
tion at the worn site approaches that of the area around the
hook of the gate. In the case of open karabiners, however,
the strength was reduced proportionally to the amount of
missing cross-sectional area (Fig. 5b). This can be
explained by the fact that for an open karabiner, the entire
load is carried through this section, which means any
reduction in thickness leads to an increase in stress. These
observed failure loads (as little as 5 kN in some cases)
would most certainly occur in a moderate lead fall [2–6],
thus causing karabiner failure and potentially a ground fall
[12, 15]. This highlights the necessity of ensuring that the
gate remains closed at all times, which can be achieved by
keeping the hinge well lubricated; preventing the gate from
touching the rock; and replacing karabiners where the
spring has weakened. Furthermore, in all circumstances
where karabiner failure might cause a dangerous fall, it is
good practice to use a second karabiner as a backup [12,
17]. The known danger of open gates is something all
novice lead climbers should be made aware of.
4.4 Dynamic tests
For closed karabiners, the dynamic failure loads were
significantly lower than the static loads; the difference
ranged from 27 to 52%. This is believed to be a conse-
quence of the combined effects of different load
introduction and loading regimes, rather than static/
dynamic material properties. The same difference was not
observed when performing tests with an open gate, and
Altenpohl [8] has shown that the tensile strength of alu-
minium alloys is actually slightly increased for higher
strain rates. It is unlikely that the lower dynamic failure
loads are due to a misalignment of the karabiner during
testing, because this would have affected tests with an open
gate as well, and the setup with the tight Dyneema sling did
not allow for much movement of the karabiner. It is likely,
however, that the use of the 8 mm Dyneema sling in the
dynamic tests lead to an increase in stress concentration
around the worn area compared to the static tests, where
12 mm steel rods were used to introduce the load. Thus the
standard static test would consistently lead to higher failure
loads. Another factor that could come into play is a
T. Schambron, P. J. Uggowitzer
different propagation of elastic waves through the kara-
biner upon dynamic loading compared to a static test. With
the gate closed, two separate elastic waves propagate
through each half of the karabiner, which can cause
interference effects where they meet, thus lowering the
dynamic failure load. If the gate is open, no such behaviour
is possible, and the static and dynamic failure loads would
be the same. Further testing is required to evaluate this
hypothesis.
The scatter of the measured values was similar for both
test methods, with a standard error of around 10%. One of
the data points (WS dynamic 40%) in Fig. 5a showed a
somewhat higher error, probably because one of the three
specimens had a slightly higher wear level (measured at
around 45%). Since the dynamic strength of closed
undamaged karabiners was higher than that of the rope
used in testing, it was not possible to obtain values in this
study, where emphasis was placed on performing tests as
realistically as possible. However, based on our findings,
we suggest performing dynamic tests on undamaged ka-
rabiners using stronger ropes, since it is not known whether
the EN limit of 20 kN will be reached. Furthermore, only
two karabiner models were tested in this study, and it is
possible that other karabiner designs will show a lower
dynamic strength. This is of particular importance as
manufacturers are striving to produce ever lighter climbing
equipment.
The SS karabiner exhibited significantly higher strength
both in static and dynamic open and closed gate tests. This
may be due to the higher wall thickness of the karabiner,
rather than the different gate. The investigated WS kara-
biner was specifically designed as a lightweight model,
weighing only 36.3 g as opposed to 50.7 g for the SS
model. Thus, all the critical areas were slightly thinner,
which would explain the lower failure loads. All the cri-
teria listed in EN 12275 are easily surpassed for both
models though.
5 Conclusions
• For open karabiners, the measured static and dynamic
failure loads are similar, whereas for closed karabiners,
dynamic tests lead to much lower failure loads than
static tests. The reason for this behaviour is believed to
be a combination of the effects of different stress
concentrations and loading regimes.
• Moderate wear levels of up to 40% barely affect the
failure load of closed karabiners. Grooves caused by
contact with the bolt plate do not lower that load either,
indicating a high tolerance of climbing karabiners to
wear that can be expected to occur in day to day use.
Static and dynamic failure loads of aluminium-based alloy climbing karabiners
• Undamaged karabiners with an open gate showed
failure loads as low as 7 kN, emphasising once more
the well-established fact that it is crucial to ensure that
the karabiner gate remains closed.
• Rope wear can occur very quickly in aluminium
climbing karabiners. Thus, we strongly advise the
installation of top rope anchors made from plated
martensitic or austenitic stainless steel. Furthermore,
we believe that every karabiner on commercial climb-
ing walls should be inspected frequently for signs of
excessive wear or sharp edges that might damage the
rope. At the very latest, they should be replaced once
the thickness of the worn area approaches the thickness
of the hook.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the support of
Mammut Switzerland for providing specimens, testing facilities and
invaluable expertise in the field of dynamic testing of climbing
equipment. They would like to thank Prof. Rian Dippenaar and Dr.
Helen McGregor for many fruitful discussions and proof reading the
manuscript. This manuscript benefited from constructive comments
from the editor Dr. Martin Strangwood and two anonymous reviewers.
References
1. DIN (1996) EN 892: mountaineering equipment, dynamic
mountaineering ropes––safety requirements and test methods.
European Standard EN 892
2. Fimml W, Larcher M (2000) Energie ist Kraft mal Weg––
Sicherungstheoretische Grundlagen 2. Berg und Steigen
9(04):14–20
91
3. Pavier M (1998) Experimental and theoretical simulations of
climbing falls. Sports Eng 1:79–91
4. Randelzhofer P (1996) Zur Funktion und Wirkung von
Sicherungsgeräten beim Klettern. Fachbereich 06 Physikalische
Technik. Diploma Thesis Fachhochschule, München, pp 27–33
5. Semmel C, Stopper D (2002) Ein Praxisvergleich der
Sicherungsmethoden beim Klettern. Panorama Mitteilungsblatt
des Deutschen Alpenvereins 52(05):59–61
6. Semmel C, Stopper D (2003) Materialverschleiss. Panorama,
Mitteilungsblatt des Deutschen Alpenvereins 55(03):71–73
7. DIN (1998) EN 12275: mountaineering equipment, connectors––
safety requirements and test methods. European Standard EN
12275
8. Altenpohl D (1965) Aluminium und Aluminiumlegierungen.
Springer, Berlin
9. Schubert P (2002) Hänger gegen Karabiner. Berg und Steigen
11(01):19–20
10. DIN (1996) EN 959: mountaineering equipment, rock anchors––
safety requirements and test methods. European Standard EN 959
11. Stopper D (2001) Vielfachbelastung von Karabinern. Panorama
Mitteilungsblatt des Deutschen Alpenvereins 53(04):64–65
12. Blackford J (2003) Materials in mountaineering. In: Jenkins M
(ed) Materials in sports equipment. Woodhead, Cambridge, pp
279–325
13. Nilsson M, Leyon J, Johansson M, Nilsson M (2004) Analysis of
the accident on air guitar. The safety committee of the Swedish
climbing association
14. DIN (1999) EN 12572: artificial climbing structures––protection
points, stability requirements and test methods. European
Standard EN 12572
15. Semmel C, Stopper D (2005) Karabiner oder Mensch. Panorama
Mitteilungsblatt des Deutschen Alpenvereins 57(01):72–74
16. Polmear IJ (1995) Light alloys: metallurgy of the light metals.
Arnold, London
17. Schubert P (1999) Karabinerbruch. Panorama Mitteilungsblatt
des Deutschen Alpenvereins 51(01):40–41