Vertical Rescue Friction Testing

Alan Sheehan B.E., Peter Howard and Jim Young – Oberon State Emergency Service
July 24, 2004.

The following tests were carried out one rainy Saturday afternoon in the Oberon State
Emergency Service (SES) headquarters. The load cell is a Straightpoint NIP/5T 5 tonne capacity
load cell with remote handheld display. Whilst the display error for the load cell is +/- 0.5 kg,
calibration data for the unit shows the true measurement error is +/- 2 kgs over the full range
from 0 to 5000 kgs.

Aim
The aim was to measure the amount of friction
developed in vertical rescue pulleys and similar
equipment.

Test Method
The method chosen was to anchor a rope to the
load cell in the roof of the building, run the rope
through a pulley to create a 180 degree wrap on
the pulley (i.e. a 2:1 mechanical advantage) and
then control the motion of the rope with a rescue
descender (Spelean Rescue Whaletail) also
anchored in the roof. To simplify movement and
resetting of the load for each test we chose to use a
rescuer, Peter Howard in this case. Working
beside the mezzanine floor gave good access to
simplify loading and resetting of the test rig.

Figure 1 (left) shows Pete having a hard day at the

office and may better illustrate the test rig than
words alone.

In the test procedure we found it was important to

achieve a free hanging pitch. The very act of
pushing off from the mezzanine floor was able to
affect the load measurements.

Appendix 1 shows the test results and

calculations. Most tests were repeated twice. The
exception to this is test 1 on the SRT P1a Pulley
which we actually did three times but rejected the
first two results based on measurement errors due
to pushing off the mezzanine floor. After minor adjustment to the position of the test rig we were
able to achieve a properly free hanging pitch for the remainder of the tests.
Discussion
Some tests show 3 or 4 measurements despite the test only being repeated twice. These
measurements were recorded where the measurement was stable for the first half of the lowering
run than changed and was again stable for the second half of the lowering run. In all cases the
change was indicated at 1 kilogram force change, and the change was always upwards. His
suggested a repeatable mechanism was at work, and worthy of recording. It is possible the load
was near the high end of the measurement error band for the load cell, and that heat created by
friction in the pulley caused a minor change in load that bumped the measurement out of the
error band for the lower measurement into its higher neighbour. Whatever the mechanism, the
split recording and averaging of the load readings was felt to be justified. The repeatability of
results was felt to be good.

All the pulleys tested were plain bearing, or bus hed, pulleys. None were believed to have rolling
or ball bearings fitted. Three pulleys were chosen to be tested a second time after lubrication
with WD 40. The lubricant was applied to the axles of the pulleys with excess lubricant wiped
off the pulleys before use to prevent contamination of the rope. The effects of lubrication appear
to be minimal, suggesting either the lubricant was not particularly effective or that the pulleys
were reasonably lubricated to start with. The plastic sheaved CMI Rescue Pulley showed an
average 3% reduction in friction after lubrication, while for the SRT P1a and P3a Pulleys, the
improvement was 4% and 1.5% respectively. The lubricated test for the P1a was interesting in
that at the start of the first lubricated lower the friction was 2 kgs less than unlubricated, but by
the bottom of the run it had gained 1 kg in tight side tension, and during the second run the
friction was exactly as if it had not been lubricated. It appears that the lubricant was squeezed out
of the bearing on the first run, suggesting that perhaps WD 40 is not the most appropriate
lubricant to use.

Both the stainless steel and plastic sheaved CMI Rescue Pulleys demonstrated exactly the same
friction characteristics suggesting that both pulleys use the same bearing bush and axle material
combinations.

Perhaps the most important point that the test reinforced is that there is no substitute for sheave
diameter in reducing friction. There is a good correlation between increasing sheave diameter
and reducing friction. In short, the bigger the pulley wheel, the less friction developed. For those
who haven’t though about this too much, this is because the pulley sheave acts like a lever. The
friction force acts circumferentially between the axle and the bearing (or bush). A larger
diameter wheel is like having a longer lever on that friction force so the force at the outer
diameter of the wheel, where the rope acts, is less.

Apart from pulleys, comparative tests were completed on alloy and steel karabiners and also on a
figure eight descender and an Italian or Munter Hitch. These were done to give an indication of
their effect on friction if they are substituted into a pulley system through necessity (usually
some sort of improvisation) or simply a lack of gear.

The Friction results are calculated and presented in three different ways.

The Effort Friction is the percentage of effort applied by a hauler on a 2:1 MA hauls system that
is lost as heat in the pulley. This is the best figure to use to calculate and compare the friction and
true mechanical advantage of various haul systems.
The Load Friction is the percentage increase in rope tension when a load line runs over a 180
degree redirection such as the head pulley on a Larkin Rescue Frame, or the top pulley in a
counterweight system.

The Redirection Friction is the change in load in the rope expressed as the load on the
redirection. So this is the figure that can be used to estimate the effects of a slight redirection on
the tension in the load line. Note that this is accurate considering first order effects only, but this
is well outside the expectations of rescue operators to be concerned with in the field.
Real Mechanical Advantages
Probably the most obvious thing we can do with this friction data is use it to calculate the real
mechanical advantages of some common rescue haul systems. All rescuers are used to working
with Theoretical Mechanical Advantages (TMAs) but how do different haul systems compare in
reality?

2:1 Mechanical Advantage (shown as Bolt On)

Effort

Anchor Load

Effort
Friction: 0% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Effort: 50% 51% 53% 56% 59% 63% 67%
Anchor: 50% 49% 47% 44% 41% 38% 33%
Load: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
MA: 2 1.95 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5

The above table and diagram represents a bolt on 2:1 MA. I.e. the Theoretical Mechanical
Advantage is 2:1. Lets say we rig this hauls system with an SRT P2a Pulley which we can see
from Appendix 1 has an effort friction factor of 20.2% - from this table we can see the real MA
is 1.8:1.

3:1 Bolt On Mechanical Advantage

Anchor
Load
Effort

*
Friction : 0% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Effort: 33% 35% 37% 41% 46% 51% 57%
Anchor: 67% 65% 63% 59% 54% 49% 43%
Load: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
MA: 3 2.8525 2.71 2.44 2.19 1.96 1.75

3:1 Inline Z Rig Mechanical Advantage

Effort

Anchor Load
*
Friction : 0% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Effort: 33% 35% 37% 41% 46% 51% 57%
Anchor: 67% 65% 63% 59% 54% 49% 43%
Load: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
MA: 3 2.8525 2.71 2.44 2.19 1.96 1.75
3:1 Mechanical Advantage Haul Systems, regardless of whether they are an inline Z rig or a bolt
on, are essentially the same from a friction point of view. Again working our example of using
SRT P2a pulleys, the real MA of this system would be 2.44:1 not 3:1.

If we were short of gear and decided to make this system using karabiners only because we had
no pulleys, from Appendix 1 we see that the Effort friction of karabiners is about 50%, so the
real MA of a 3:1 with krabs only would be just 1.75:1.

4:1
Multiplying
Bolt On
Mechanical
Effort
Advantage
(2:1 x 2:1)

Anchor Load

*
Friction : 0% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Effort: 25% 26% 28% 31% 35% 39% 44%
Anchor: 75% 74% 72% 69% 65% 61% 56%
Load: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
MA: 4 3.8025 3.61 3.24 2.89 2.56 2.25

4:1 Block and Tackle, Double Sheaved Running Block, Single Sheave Fixed Block
*
Friction : 0% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Effort: 25% 27% 29% 34% 39% 46% 53%
Anchor: 75% 73% 71% 66% 61% 54% 47%
Load: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
MA: 4 3.709875 3.439 2.952 2.533 2.176 1.875

4:1 Block and Tackle, Double Sheaved Blocks Both Ends

*
Friction : 0% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Effort: 25% 28% 32% 42% 56% 77% 107%
Anchor: 125% 128% 132% 142% 156% 177% 207%
Load: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
MA: 4 3.524381 3.0951 2.3616 1.7731 1.3056 0.9375

Once we start considering 4:1 TMA Haul Systems, and this is in the realm of bread and butter
for vertical rescue operators, the above table shows that friction becomes significant not only in
terms of choice of pulley for the task but also in terms of the type of haul system that is chosen to
be rigged. From the above table it is easy to compare a 4:1 Multiplying Bolt On with either of the
traditional block and tackle rigs.

Of special note here, if a 4:1 lifting block and tackle (i.e. double sheave blocks both ends) was
improvised using karabiners only, the friction would be so great that it would be easier to haul
the load directly with no MA! I.e. the real MA is 0.9375:1.
 5:1 Block and Tackle, Double Sheaved Blocks Both Ends
*
Friction : 0% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Effort: 20% 22% 24% 30% 36% 43% 52%
Anchor: 80% 78% 76% 70% 64% 57% 48%
Load: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
MA: 5 4.524381 4.0951 3.3616 2.7731 2.3056 1.9375

6:1 Multiplying Mechanical Advantage (3:1 x 2:1 - shown as Bolt On)

Effort

Anchor Load

*
Friction : 0% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Effort: 17% 18% 19% 23% 27% 32% 38%
Anchor: 83% 82% 81% 77% 73% 68% 62%
Load: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
MA: 6 5.562375 5.149 4.392 3.723 3.136 2.625

To complete our comparison of haul systems consider the 6:1 multiplying MA and the 5:1 block
and tackle. If we used SRT P2a Pulleys to rig the 6:1 Multiplying rig, the real MA is about 4.1:1,
not 6:1. Compare this with a 4:1 multiplying MA at 3.24:1.

Conclusion

This paper is not about getting rescuers to do accurate load calculations in the field. It’s about
making rescuers aware of the effects of friction and some of the decisions that rescuers can make
to make their systems simpler, safer and easier to operate. Keep the friction in your system low,
and you will have lower loads and stresses on gear, easier work for the haul team and a better
feel for what is happening in you system, especially if something jams!

So what does all this mean in a nut shell?

? Buy and use the largest diameter pulleys you can afford to buy and/or carry. Remote area
teams who must carry all their gear, and survival gear as well, will be well aware of the
trade off to be made and may well choose to continue with small light pulleys.
? Rig the simplest and most efficient haul systems you can. The greater the MA you can
build with the least number of pulleys, the more efficient the system will be. This usually
means using multiplying MAs, or piggy back systems as some people know them.
Typically the 4:1 and 6:1 multiplying MA’s are the most practical and efficient. If you
aren’t proficient at rigging multiplying MA’s, here is you incentive to learn them: they
require less gear, produce less friction (i.e. more real MA!), provide better feel and are
easier for the haul team to operate.
Appendix 1: Test Measurements and Calculations
Friction Testing
24/07/2004
Alan Sheehan
Peter Howard
Jim Young
Oberon State Emergency Service
Tight
Average Side % % %
Sheave Measured Load Load Load Load 2:1
Diameter, Measured Tight Tight side Error, Tight Slack Effort Redirection Load Error, Actual
mm Side Load, kg load, kg kg +/- Side Side Friction Friction Friction +/- MA
Load Calibration Tests 118 114 115 116 2 100.0%
SRT P1a
Test 1 Pulley 28.5 65 65 2 56.0% 44.0% 21.5% 12.1% 27.5% 4.8% 1.78
SRT P2a
Test 2 Pulley 38 64 65 64.5 2 55.6% 44.4% 20.2% 11.2% 25.2% 4.8% 1.80
RSI
Rescue
Test 3 Pulley 31 65 66 66 65.5 2 56.5% 43.5% 22.9% 12.9% 29.7% 4.8% 1.77
SRT P3Ta
Pulley (red
Test 4 16mm) 46 64 64 64 2 55.2% 44.8% 18.8% 10.3% 23.1% 4.8% 1.81
SRT P3a
Test 5 Pulley 49 63 63 63 2 54.3% 45.7% 15.9% 8.6% 18.9% 4.9% 1.84
Petzl P00
Pulley
Test 6 wheel 25.5 70 71 70 71 70.5 2 60.8% 39.2% 35.5% 21.6% 54.9% 4.6% 1.65
CMI Plastic
Sheave
Rescue
Test 7 Pulley 53 62 61 62 61.5 2 53.0% 47.0% 11.4% 6.0% 12.8% 5.0% 1.89
 SRT P2Pa
Prusik
Minding
Test 8 Pulley 38 63 64 64 63.5 2 54.7% 45.3% 17.3% 9.5% 21.0% 4.9% 1.83
CMI
Stainless
Steel
Sheave
Rescue
Test 9 Pulley 53 61 62 62 61.5 2 53.0% 47.0% 11.4% 6.0% 12.8% 5.0% 1.89
Alloy
Test 10 Karabiner 78 79 79 80 78.5 2 67.7% 32.3% 52.2% 35.3% 109.3% 4.3% 1.48
Steel
Test 11 Karabiner 76 77 76 77 76.5 2 65.9% 34.1% 48.4% 31.9% 93.7% 4.3% 1.52
CMI Plastic
Sheave
Rescue
Pulley -
Test 12 lubricated 53 60 61 59 60 60.5 2 52.2% 47.8% 8.3% 4.3% 9.0% 5.0% 1.92
SRT P1a
Pulley -
Test 13 lubricated 28.5 63 64 65 65 63.5 2 54.7% 45.3% 17.3% 9.5% 21.0% 4.9% 1.83
SRT P3a
Pulley -
Test 14 lubricated 49 62 63 62 63 62.5 2 53.9% 46.1% 14.4% 7.8% 16.8% 4.9% 1.86
Figure 8
Test 15 Descender 99 100 100 99.5 2 85.8% 14.2% 83.4% 71.6% 503.0% 3.7% 1.17
Italian /
Munter
Hitch on
Test 16 Alloy Krab 108 108 108 2 93.1% 6.9% 92.6% 86.2% 1250.0% 3.6% 1.07

Notes: All tests completed on 11mm static kernmantel rope.

Figure 8 descender tested with brake rope parallel to standing part, so indicated friction is less than normal abseiling position.
All tests completed with rope forming 180 degree bend around pulley (i.e.M.A. = 2)
Lubricated pulley tests were completed after lubricating the same pulleys as previously tested with WD 40 and wiping away excess lubricant.
Effort Friction measures friction as a % of hauling effort.
Redirection Friction measures friction as a % of load on the redirection.
Load Friction measures friction as a % of the load being lifted.
Disclaimer

The information provided in this paper is presented in good faith. While every effort has been
made to eliminate mistakes and false information from the information included in this paper,
errors may occur. The authors, and The New South Wales State Emergency Service, its
employees, volunteers and Units do not accept responsibility for any errors contained in this
paper or for the results of the application of this information correct or otherwise. Vertical
Rescue is a hazardous activity and requires appropriate quality equipment, and sound initial and
ongoing training, teamwork, discipline, protocols and procedures to be executed safely. Check
your vertical rescue protocols before applying the information provided in this paper.