EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR YOUNG SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS, 1, 2012.

π Cam: The development of a camming device for

climbing
Pius Theiler

Abstract The project π Cam describes the development of a new anchoring device for
climbing. Camming devices are part of the safety gear used in rock and industrial climbing.
They help to create an anchoring point where no preattached bolts exist. The current
camming devices are only secured in a crack or between two parallel surfaces. The newly
invented π Cam, however, can be used also to rock protrusions, like flakes, limestone traces
or tufa, to create anchoring points. Thus, the device widens the range of rock formations
possible for protected climbing and increases the safety of the climber by less equipment and
weight. In industrial climbing and rescue at height, too, safety is of the highest priority. For
example on pillars the π Cam can provide an anchoring point to workers high above the
ground. The π Cam opens new horizons not only for climbers but also in many other usages,
therefore a patent is pending.

1 Introduction and current state-of-the-art

Modern free climbing can be divided into two different philosophies of protection:
Either the route is equipped with fixed bolts, which the climber can easily clip in to
every few meters; or the route is left natural. The latter is called Trad(itional) or
Clean Climbing. In this case, the lead climber must take special protection
equipment along to attach pieces to the rock every few meters. Then the following
climber collects them. The material can be reused and the rock remains unchanged
(Lourens, 2005).
Over the last century, aluminium, steel or brass nuts, hexagonal-shaped chocks,
Tricams and spring-loaded camming devices were invented. Today, numerous
variations of these devices are available (Krug, 2007). The current equipment
require solely cracks for satisfactory performance.
Many other formations exist on a rock wall, e.g. flakes, exposed edges, tufa and
limestone traces (see figure 1), which would also have the potential to install a
secure point on it. In fact, there are some developments like the open-source project
“Anticam” (Krug, 2011) or an inverted friend for anchoring to rock protrusions
Patent US 2009/0230268, but from the author’s perspective these are not handy
enough. The aim of this project is to shape a device, which can remove these
drawbacks of the state of the art, which means that this device should be as light and
as simple as possible and usable on negative and protrusive structures.

2 Proceeding and methods

After systematic analysis of the whole fall absorbing chain (Virrorio Bedogni, 2011)
and friction situation, a dozen solutions were developed. Guided by a list of criteria,
THEILER

Figure 1 Tufa (on left) and limestone traces (on right). Photographs by Roger Schäli and
Nicolas Zambetti

the best solution was discovered. Improvements on this chosen mechanism led to a
functional prototype. Results from static-loaded test were the basis for a second
prototype. It was tested in real applications and in dynamic fall operations. Further
changes have been made in the course of planning and implementing a third
prototype which would be ready for serial production. The procedure is shown in
figure 4.

Figure 2 The design procedure of π Cam

 π CAM: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAMMING DEVICE FOR CLIMBING

In addition to legal issues and market analysis, a close look into the norms
(especially EN 892/ UIAA 101 and EN-12276/ UIAA-125) (Schubert, 2003) or
measurements of protecting intellectual property were taken.
The engineering tools increased in the process. For the first functional prototype,
the tools were very simple for engineering design as well as manufacturing. All static
calculations were made analytically and analogically. For the production, trainees of
RUAG helped to put the plans into practise. The engineering design for the second
prototype was solved by demanding Excel calculations and CAD planning. Trainees
of Müller Martini machined the aluminium parts of the prototype with CNC-
machines. The parts were anodized by BWB Betschard. The carbon-reinforced part
was generated by hand lay-up technique after an introduction at the Pilatus Aircraft
Ldt. On the basis of stress Finite Element (FE) Simulation and FE parameter
studies, the third prototype was planned and produced with five-axis CNC chippers
at Helfenstein Mechanik AG and HS Composites. Apart from FEM-software to
improve the stress performance, bionics could deliver solutions for remaining
problems. For engineering, the CAD programs Unigraphics nx7.5 and CATIA V5
(see figure 3) and the FE program ANSYS (figure 4) were used. The Lucerne
University of Applied Sciences and Arts provided the programs for the project.

Figure 3 Prototype 0.0 in CATIA V5

Figure 4 Bow model in the FE-program ANSYS

THEILER

3 The physical problem and the mechanics of falls

The goal is to create a device, which is able to absorb a several meter fall of an 80 kg
climber and fulfil the current norm for frictional anchors (EN 12276; UIAA-125).
Furthermore, it should be applicable without altering the rock face. Finally, it
should be as light, as safe and as user-friendly as possible. Use of the device should
be carried out in a few seconds and with only one hand.
If we look closer at the physical problem, we can see that it is a question of
friction. The energy from climber falls is to be absorbed. Therefore the resulting
accelerating force must be transmitted to subjacent structures. Because the rock
should remain unchanged, the whole impact force must be transmitted to the rock
by friction. The force is caused by contact pressure (normal force). As long as the
friction force is higher than the attacking impact force, the device remains secured
on the structure. To sum up, a mechanism is to be found which can transform the
impact force into contact force so that the contact force grows proportional to the
impact force.
In this context, two questions appear: How high are the impact forces? And the
second related question: What is the required contact force. Theoretical
investigations of data from rope producers, the norm situation (EN 892/ UIAA 101),
calculations and current gear shows, that falls with a fall factor beyond one very
rarely exceed a force of 12 kN in a real situation. The fall factor is the ratio of fall
distance of a climber and the length of rope available to absorb energy (Fimml and
Larcher, 2000). With dynamic belay even a factor two fall causes no more than a
few kilonewtons of force. The norm strength requirement is 5 kN (EN-12276, UIAA-
125) (Schubert, 2005). Considering these facts, the first prototype was designed for
a maximal force of 12 kN. Thanks to structural improvement, the third prototype is
now designed for a force of 14 kN.
The second question is more difficult
to answer. The required contact force is
related to the minimum friction
expected. The lower the coefficient of
friction, the higher is the required
contact force. Or in other words, the
lower the coefficient, the smaller the
angle between normal vector of the
friction plane and the direction of
attacking force must be. The attacking
force refers to the vector sum of impact
and contact force (see figure 5).
Extensive and thorough tribological
analysis of Swiss rocks and aluminium
lead to an angle of maximal 16°. Not only
is the condition of the rock decisive for
Figure 5 Force diagram of impact and
contact force. friction, but also the surface design of the
aluminium is just as important. With a
 π CAM: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAMMING DEVICE FOR CLIMBING

clever surface design, it is possible to partly compensate friction reducing effects

such as sandy, slippery and wet rock. In general, the coefficient of limestone and
aluminium is lower than that of granite and aluminium.
Investigations of rock stability have shown that the stability for protrusive rock
structures is given down to a diameter of the structure of ca. 25mm, on condition
that the rock is not damaged in any way and provided compressive strength of the
rock is not beyond 50 N/mm2. Most rocks have a clearly higher strength, with the
exception of some kind of sandstones.
In sum, the device is slated for at least 14 kN static load. The attacking force is to
be transmitted to rock in the maximal angle of 16° to the normal vector of the rock
plain.

4 The physical principle of π Cam

The presumably first attempts to make protrusive structures protectable were made
in Rätikon CH in the 1980s. The climbers used screw clamps. These tools were not
user-friendly: They were heavy, with no chance for application with one hand and
usable only on a small range of structures.
The π Cam uses only the bow of a screw clamp. This element is necessary to
transmit forces to both sides of the rock protrusion in order clamp the structure. But
how is the problem solved? As mentioned above, enough contact force is required
for a secure performance. The principle generates contact force by means of
vectorial decomposition of the impact force (see figure 5). Therefore the point where
the impact force is lead into the device must be chosen at one side of the π Cam. So,
one component is transmitted
to the other end of the bow, the
other component is transmitted
via two cams to the rock (see
figure 6a). By using the device
in an upside down mode, with

a this principle it is also possible

to jam cracks (see figure 6b).
For that reason, the cams can
be rotated nearly 360° around.
These cams ensure, on the one
hand, that the device is
adaptable to different ranges of
structures. On the other hand,
they make sure that the
attacking force is always
b transmitted to the rock at the
same angle of less than 16°.
That is why the shape of a
Figure 6 Force diagram for whole п Cam (a)
logarithmic spiral is has been
protrusive structure, (b) negative structure
chosen for these excentric
THEILER

cams. Angle between the radius and any tangent remains constant although the
radius grows with rotation. This is required, because the contact force should be the
same over the whole range. And finally, these cams lead to increased clamping
under stress.
This mode of operation could be confirmed in a static load test with the first
prototype. At 2.5 kg, It was too heavy for climbing (see figure 2).
The drawback of the chosen principle is the relatively small range where a single
size π Cam can be used. The main advantage towards the principle seen in the pliers
is weight and compactness. The pliers have to bridge the distance between the two
parallel plains of structure twice. That results in a higher device mass. Furthermore,
with pliers, it is not possible to use the same device also for securing cracks.

5 The second prototype

The second prototype is a fully functional device that is slated for a static load of 12
kN. Thanks to structural optimisations and the use of carbon-reinforced material,
the mass of the device could be reduced from 2.5 kg to 650 g. The aluminium parts
consist of high-tensile EN AW- 7010 aluminium. The bow consists of carbon
reinforced-plastic. Apart from the higher strength of this plastic compared to
aluminium, the E-module is two times higher. Minimal elongation of the bow is
desired to prevent severe functional failure when the cams roll beyond their
expected area. Due to the higher bending moment in the middle of the bow, the
geometrical moment of inertia is enlarged with a rectangular cross section to control
the strain. Due to torsional stress, the cross section shape is closed, although a
double T-beam shape would be lighter. Pursuant to the Excel calculations, each
layer of the carbon fibre laminates was placed on a core of foam plastic. On the inner
and outer side of the bow, unidirectional (UD) and twill-woven tissues are mixed. In
this zone, normal stress occurs. To stabilize the lamination, some layers of twill-
woven tissue were inserted. The top and bottom contain twill-woven tissue layers in
appropriate orientation due to
shear stress (see figure 7). In a
static loaded-test to check the
dimensioning, the necessary
strength was not achieved. The
reason for this failure was found
in the lay-up technique, which
was altered. In a second attempt,
the bow passed the test. And the
second prototype, weighing 650 g,
could be assembled.

Figure 7 Laminate assembly of the bow

 π CAM: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAMMING DEVICE FOR CLIMBING

6 Tests
The second prototype was tested in dynamic fall operations and in real applications.
The test in the dynamic impact operation was made to confirm the functionality
with rapidly alternating impact forces. Therefore the π Cam was placed on steel
structure 5.5 meters above the ground. A dynamic rope links the 80kg dropping
weight with a belay on the bottom. The rope is not fixed in order to simulate
climber’s fall as closely as possible. The rope was clipped to the п Cam so that the
rope could move freely. Then a crane lifts the dropping weight to the height of 9
meters. With a trigger the fall can be initiated (see figure 8).

Figure 8 Prototype testing

Figure 9 Safe placement of the π Cam prototype 2 with redundancy

THEILER

Functionality at normal impact was confirmed. In cases with fixed rope at the
belay, the rebound of the rope increases dangerously. This rebound causes a
discharge in the bow. As a consequence, the strained bow relaxes and the cams
swing away, disconnecting from the structure. Before they swing back, a second
impact follows and tears the π Cam from the position. Although the circumstances
are extreme, a correction was required. The third prototype can prevent this effect.
To investigate user-friendliness, the device was used in real applications. Every
safety measure was taken to minimize risk, so the π Cam never was part of the
belaying chain. Beside the application time, the subjective security of every
placement was recorded (see figures 10 and 11). Compared to the state-of-the-art
equipment, the π Cam is less user-friendly. Instead of 10 to 15 seconds it takes up to
three times longer to set the π Cam onto protrusive structures. With the setting
mechanism, the time could be reduced to the common spans of time.

7 Third prototype
The test results influenced the design of the third prototype. Thanks to FE-
Simulations, prepreg carbon fibres and autoclave technologies, the weight could be
reduced to 390 g at a width of 320 mm. To improve the user-friendliness, a setting
mechanism had been developed. This drum brake based mechanism allows
spanning the cams before climbing. When arriving at a potential structure, a trigger
can be operated to release the cams so they can adapt themselves to the rock and
jam the device.

Figure 11 Application test in Engelberg, Switzerland

 π CAM: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAMMING DEVICE FOR CLIMBING

8 Conclusions
The tests show that the π Cam works well under real conditions. The mass of the
third prototype is almost 40% lighter than that of state-of-the-art Camalot C4 #6
with similar range of crack mode. This was possible thanks to carbon reinforced
plastics, which were arguably used for the first time in history in camming devices.
Low user-friendliness and the inability to function under extreme circumstances
are the weak points of the second prototype. These points are removed in the third
prototype. Thus, the required standards (EN-12276 and UIAA-125) are exceeded.
π Cam widens the spectrum of possible structures for protected climbing, which
could be a milestone for Trad and industrial climbing. The protected routes are now
assured with bolts (see figures 16 and 17). So, it is possible that Trad climbing is no
longer only bound to cracks in the future climbing is possible on exposed edges,
flakes, limestone traces and tufa. In combination with the possibility to use the same
device also in cracks, in combination with the very compact setting mechanism, a
competitive device has been developed.
The applications in industrial climbing are as varied as the structures that need
protection. The demand for quick and safe anchoring technique is strong in the
fields of industrial climbing and work safety. With more and more spectacular
buildings and infrastructures, the maintenance work gets more complex and
demanding. Unorthodox techniques are required due to tight maintenance
schedules. Industrial climbers or workers at height are dependent on safe anchors.

Figure 12 π Cam absorbing impact

THEILER

The columns, pillars and protrusive elements of buildings are optimal application
opportunities for π Cam without modifying the structure. On the one hand, the
anchoring of π Cam is created to be quick enough to be used in self evacuation
systems for fire fighters.
Although all the weak points seen in the tests could be improved in the third
prototype, additional testing is planned. One focus is to check all the improvements
under the hardest circumstances; another is the investigation into the endurance of
the device in longer periods of application.

9 Foresight
On the basis of these application possibilities, the invention is patented. Whether
the third prototype causes a revolution in Traditional climbing or only a tempest in
a teacup is at the moment unclear. Besides the mentioned applications areas, there
are more, which requires additional research. The third prototype is a precursor for
the possible commercial device. Mass production can be guaranteed for each part,
and for the most part manufacturers with appropriate know-how have been found.
For commercial launch an investment of several 10,000 € must be made.
Estimations show, that π Cam could be sold at a price comparable to today’s
commercial gear. Like with the common devices, it is planned to produce several
sizes п Cams in order to cover a certain range of structures.
 π CAM: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAMMING DEVICE FOR CLIMBING

References
Bedogni, V. and Manes, A., 2011. A constutive equation for the behaviour of
mountaineering rope under streching during a climber’s fall. Procedia
Engineering, 10, 3353–3358.
Fimml, W. and Larcher, M., 2000. Energie ist Kraft mal Weg. Bergundsteigen,
2000(4), 16–19.
Krug, G., 2007. Hexen & Exen: Das Hardwarebuch. Halle, Saale: Geoquest, pp.
88–141.
Krug, G., 2011. Hexen & Exen: Das Hardwarebuch. Halle, Saale: Geoquest, pp.
198.
Lourens, T., 2005. Klettern vom Einsteiger zum Könner. Bielefeld: Delius Klaus, pp.
15.
Schubert, P., 2003. Standarts-Normen für Bergsprotausrüstung. Bergundsteingen,
2003(1), 48–50.
Schubert, P., 2005. Klemmmaschinen-Normprüfung von Klemmgeräten.
Bergundsteingen, 2005(2), 76–80.