ACTA PHYSICA POLONICA A No. 3 Vol. 138 (2020) Revision of Commonly Used Loop Knots Efficiencies J. Šimona;∗, V. Dekýšb and P. Palčekc aDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 8215/1, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia bDepartment of Applied Mechanics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 8215/1, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia cDepartment of Materials Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 8215/1, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia Received: 15.11.2019 & Accepted: 24.04.2020 Doi: 10.12693/APhysPolA.138.404 ∗e-mail: [email protected] In a number of professions, human life hangs on a knotted rope. However, until now only a poor attention of scientists has been paid to the properties of knots. The main objective of the presented research is to provide an in-depth revision of commonly used loop knot efficiencies employing modern experimental technologies and correct statistical processing. In the first part of the paper, the common mistakes in the available information sources were pointed out and the correct way of assessing the loop knot efficiency was proposed. Subsequently, correct statistical calculus was derived to evaluate mean knot efficiency and confidence interval. Efficiencies of eight commonly used loop knots loaded in several geometries were precisely measured, evaluated, and analyzed. Special attention was paid to avoid misleading conclusions based on experiments of low statistical power. Loop knot efficiency is not a constant, but it depends at least on the static breaking strength of a rope. The process of knot breakage was recorded by high-speed infrared thermal imaging. Analyses showed that the temperature of the most exposed parts of a knot could reach polyamide melting point. Finally, the microfilament analysis using electron microscopy was carried out to understand the breakage process on the microscopic level. topics: knot efficiency, rope, tensile tests, thermal imaging, electron microscopy 1. Introduction strength reduction due to presence of knot has been dealt with for a long time (for early experimental “Simply placing a knot in the rope before loading results see the following works [2, 3]). Later on, it will reduce its strength and, apart from the case works that dealt with the impact of various rope of localized damage, the rope will always break at types and used materials on knot efficiency were the knot. This weakness varies from 30 to 50%, ac- written [4–10]. Among the first theoretical mod- cording to the kind of knot used.” The author of els that described friction and force distribution this quotation is G. Marbach [1], a French pioneer of certain knot types were works [11, 12]. These of speleo-alpinism, and it briefly explains the rea- works were further supported by more precise mod- sons that led to the work on the submitted study els that focused also on the concentration of stress in between 2014 and 2019. A rope without a termina- the cross-sectional rope area, the mutual interaction tion, respectively without an opportunity to form of selected knotted structures [13–15], respectively a solid connection between a rope and a manipu- rope contact with different surface types [16]. lated object or a person, is in the most cases of Several significant changes have taken place in no use. Technically undemanding, reversible, easy, rope production since the old adventurous and pio- fast, and probably the most frequently used way neering times. Producers have moved from the ap- how to make a rope termination is to tie a loop plication of natural construction materials to syn- knot. Unfortunately, only a few climbers, speleolo- thetic materials with various surface modifications. gists, workers at heights and mountain rescuers re- The reason for this was mostly biological degra- alize how a presence of a knot fundamentally affects dation of natural organic materials and a lower rope breaking strength. strength/mass ratio [1, 17]. However, water, UV ra- Available information sources represented espe- diation, and mechanical strain still affect the prop- cially by mountaineering textbooks, working guide- erties and durability of modern ropes [18–21]. lines, selected technical standards, specialized web- The shift towards synthetic materials and impreg- pages, electronic articles and, to a certain extent, nation can be regarded as a crucial technological even scientific papers, show that the issue of a rope progress in rope making. 404 The 100 years anniversary of the Polish Physical Society — the APPA Originators Even the construction of low stretch ropes has been dramatically transformed, as a typical twisted rope has been substituted by so-called “kern- mantle rope”. Configuration with central load- bearing part “core”, consisting of several twisted strands of evenly distributed chirality S and Z surrounded by “sheath” with both protective and bearing functions, improves knotability, and at the same time improves durability and safety of the rope [1, 22, 23]. It is evident that modern ropes substantially dif- fer from the ropes that were used by the older gener- ation of climbers, speleologists, and rescue workers. Due to this change, the knot efficiencies required a general revision. Within the previous 20 years, several works have Fig. 1. A graphical comparison of loop knot effi- been published with the ambition to fill the gap ciencies (data acquired from available information [24–34]. Many methodological guidelines and moun- sources). taineering textbooks have adopted the results of these works, unfortunately, including many of the errors. In the following text, we will try to point • Most authors have focused on a narrow range out frequent mistakes that can be found across the of knots. Only a few authors applied a uni- information sources. Namely, form methodology in the whole range of knots that are used in mountaineering, speleo- • A small number of repeated experiments is alpinism, and mountain rescue. Results that usually one of the biggest problems. Results were consequently summarized in most of of our research clearly show that if we test the textbooks are of poor importance as these the strength of the same rope repeatedly (with results come from various sources. However, or without a knot), breaking strength may the results cannot be combined due to differ- vary up to 40% of the average value. ent methodologies of measurement, heteroge- • In most cases, incorrect mathematical meth- neous rope materials, and statistical process- ods are used to calculate knot efficiency. De- ing applied. pending on the type of rope, it can yield re- • Available results are extremely heterogeneous. sults with margin error up to 10%. Their dispersion is so wide-ranged that even • Imprecise or missing documentation of ex- the accumulation of all the above-stated er- perimental setup, conditions and performance rors cannot explain it (see Fig. 1). One of of experiments is a common mistake. Inter- the most important conclusions of the pre- pretation of such results is disputable, and sented research is that the knot efficiency is a systematic error of unknown magnitude may most likely not a constant, but it at least de- skew the results. pends on the static strength of a rope. It is • The photographic and image documentation clear that combining incompatible results of in the published works reveals that knots were different experiments measured on different not always dressed correctly. Although it is ropes must lead to an output of low informa- well known that stress distribution within un- tive value. dressed knot is not optimal, a simple or even multiple crossing is a common mistake. The submitted study has the ambition to avoid • Authors do not distinguish between a loop the above-mentioned mistakes and to provide knot tied in geometry I and O (see Sect. 3.3). the most objective information on a wide range of This happens even though there exist works loop knots in all possible variants of load, tied on assuming geometry I and geometry O are the latest generation of static ropes. Tests were per- not equally efficient. Moreover, we may find formed using a uniform methodology, harmonized cases in which the authors did not distin- with existing standards when possible. Only certi- guish between standard load and cross-load fied and calibrated experimental setup was applied, of a loop knot. an emphasis was laid on correct tying and dress- • Unclear precision of experimental setup and ing of knots and thorough photographic documenta- absence of certifications on regular calibra- tion. A number of experiments were selected in such tions may affect results by an error of un- a way to use experimental material most effectively known significance. and to get results of the highest possible statistical • Some works do not distinguish between a fail- power. Measurements on older static ropes were ure of a knot by rope breakage and by untying, also carried out to assess the effect of rope ageing while both failures are of a different nature on knot efficiency. The points with the increased and absolutely incomparable. concentration of stress and excessive friction were 405 The 100 years anniversary of the Polish Physical Society — the APPA Originators Parameters of tested ropes declared by the manufacturer, their mission, and stage of wear. TABLE I Manufacturer GILMONTE BEAL EDELWEISS LANEX EDELRID LANEX Profistatic Contract TENDON Superstatic TENDON Rope trademark label Bud 10.5 10.5 A 10.5 Static 11 mm 10.5 mm Static 9 mm Abbreviation G