See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236891071

Wire rope selection for manual winch application

Article  in  Journal of Engineering Design and Technology · July 2009

DOI: 10.1108/17260530910974998

CITATIONS READS
3 2,896

2 authors:

Moses Oduori T.O. Mbuya

University of Nairobi University of Nairobi
21 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   184 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of Multiple Criteria Decision Making in Engineering Design and Manufacturing View project

Analysis of Microstructure and Fatigue Micromechanisms of Cast Aluminium Piston Alloys View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Moses Oduori on 20 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Wire Rope Selection for Manual Winch Application 1

Moses Frank Oduori and Thomas Ochuku Mbuya,

School of Engineering,
The University of Nairobi.

Abstract

Category: Case study

To demonstrate the application of analytical decision making

Purpose: during the selection of engineering entities in an engineering
design setting.

The paper develops a quantitative method for wire rope

Design/methodology/ selection and uses handbook data to demonstrate the use of the
approach: method in selecting a suitable type and size of wire rope for the
hoisting/hauling mechanism of a hypothetical manual winch.

Wire rope data can be processed into forms that are more
readily useable in a quantitative selection method. Moreover,
Findings:
computer software such as Microsoft Excel may be used in the
selection process, so long as the data are in suitable form.

The selection of engineering entities often occurs in engineering

design processes. An information processing approach to wire
rope selection has been developed and demonstrated. The
Originality/value:
method demonstrated in this paper should be applicable in other
situations in which a need for the selection of engineering
entities arises.

Keywords: Wire Rope, Selection, Manual Winch Design

1
This paper was published in the Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2009.
Introduction
Ropes and chains have been used as hauling/hoisting appliances for centuries (The
Kirkpatrick Group, 2008; Sayenga, 2008). Today, chains find limited application on
hoisting devices, one example being the chain block, but ropes are more prevalent.
Among other things, ropes are more silent in operation and the symmetrical cross-section
of ropes allows for multi-axial bending that may not always be possible with chains.

Hemp rope has been the main competitor to wire rope in engineering applications. In
1856, an observer of ship rigging applications of ropes noted that wire rope was about
75% less bulky, 50% lighter, cheaper and about three times more durable, compared to
hemp rope of equal strength (The U.S. Nautical Magazine and Naval Journal, 1985).
Moreover, hemp ropes abrade rapidly and are easily damaged by sharp objects and by
environmental effects. For these reasons and possibly others, applications of hemp ropes
are limited to manual, low load, low speed hoisting/hauling devices with drum/sheave
diameters of at least ten times the nominal diameter of the rope (Rudenko, 1978).

Today, wire rope finds numerous applications in areas as diverse as aerial ropeways,
aeronautics, construction, elevators, logging, machinery, mining and shipping, among
others. Several types of wire rope have been developed, and continue to be developed, to
match the requirements of each of these numerous applications. It is therefore necessary
to develop a method that can be used to select a suitable wire rope for a specific
application.

Wire Rope Construction and Classification

Wire ropes are classified according to their construction and/or the materials used to
make them. Table 1 below summarizes the characteristics that are used to distinguish
and classify various types of wire rope, along with the corresponding designations, where
applicable. The literature on different types of rope constructions can be found in most
handbooks (Elsevier, 2004; Japanese Standards Association, 1981). One reference, JIS G
3525 of 1981 (Japanese Standards Association, 1981), has twenty-three different entries
of wire rope, about half of which are briefly described in Table 2 below.

The 6×19 class of rope, with fibre core, is generally considered to be the standard rope
for hauling/hoisting applications. The 6 × 37 class of rope, with fibre core, is an extra-
pliable hoisting rope. It features a larger number of much finer outer wires compared to
the 6×19 class and has inferior abrasion resistance but superior bending fatigue
resistance. It is therefore suitable for use with smaller diameter sheaves/drums.

2
 Table 1. Characteristics that Distinguish Types of Wire Rope

Characteristic Description Terminology (Designation)

• For instance, six strands, each

• Number of strands in the rope consisting of nineteen wires
and number of wires per strand ( 6× 19 )
Construction
• Sizes and configurations of the • Warrington (W), Seale (S),
wires consisting the strands Filler Wire (Fi or FW),
Warrington Seale (WS).

• Lay of wires in strands and that

of strands in rope is either left- • Right Regular Lay (RRL or sZ).
handed or right-handed. • Right Lang Lay (RLL or zZ)
• Lay of wires in strands and that • Left Regular Lay (LRL or zS)
Lay of strands in rope is either
opposed (regular) or same (lang) • Left Lang Lay (LLL or sS)

• In some cases, the lays of wires • Right Alternate Lay (RAL)

in adjacent strands are opposed • Left Alternate Lay (LAL)
(alternate)

• Round Strand
Wire rope strands may have different • Flattened Strand
Strand Form geometrical form with the standard
form being round. • Locked Coil Strand
• Concentric Strand

• Fibre Core (FC)

Rope central cores are commonly • Wire Strand Core (WSC)
Rope Core made of fibre, wire strand or
independent wire rope. • Independent Wire Rope Core
(IWRC)

• Traction Steel (TS), Plow Steel

(PS), Improved Plow Steel
• American classification uses
(IPS), Extra-Improved Plow
names describing wire materials.
Wire Grade Steel (XIPS) and Extra-Extra-
• Japanese classification uses upper Improved Plow Steel (XXIPS)
case letters of the alphabet
• Japanese classification: Grade
A, Grade B, Grade E, Grade D

Wire for wire rope manufacture is • Bright (B)

Wire Finish either galvanized or not galvanized
(bright). • Galvanized (G)

3
The 8 × 19 class of rope, with fibre core, is a much more pliable hoisting rope, compared
to the 6×19 class and the 6 × 37 class. However, even though its abrasion resistance
may be comparable to that of the 6×19 class of ropes, its larger number of strands
substantially reduces its resistance to crushing collapse. It should therefore be used with
comparatively light loads.

Table 2. Some Types of Wire Rope According to JIS G 3525, 1981

Designation Brief Description

6× 19 Six strands of nineteen wires each with fibre central core

6 × S(19) Seale type, six strands of nineteen wires each with fibre central core

6× W (19) Warrington type, six strands of nineteen wires each with fibre central core

6× Fi(25 ) Filler type, six strands of twenty-five wires each with fibre central core

6× Fi(29 ) Filler type, six strands of twenty-nine wires each with fibre central core

7 × 7 + 6 × Fi(25)
Filler type, six strands of twenty-five wires each with independent wire rope
central core

8 × S(19) Seale type, eight strands of nineteen wires each with fibre central core

8× W (19) Warrington type, eight strands of nineteen wires each with fibre centre core

8× Fi(25 ) Filler type, eight strands of twenty-five wires each with fibre centre core

6 × WS(26 )
Warrington Seale type, six strands of twenty-six wires each with fibre
central core

6 × WS (31)
Warrington Seale type, six strands of thirty-one wires each with fibre central
core

6× WS (36 )
Warrington Seale type, six strands of thirty-six wires each with fibre central
core

6× WS(41)
Warrington Seale type, six strands of forty-one wires each with fibre central
core

4
Wire Rope Selection Strategy for a Manual Winch Application
A winch is a mechanical device for hoisting/hauling. Essentially, it consists of a rotating
drum around which a cable is wound so that rotation of the drum can produce a drawing
force at the end of the cable. When the winch is manually powered then it is known as a
manual winch. Manual winches are used in a wide range of activities, including civil and
construction engineering, mining, shipping, forestry and logging, and fishing. The winch
may be installed on the ground or onto a stand and used to haul or hoist loads which
otherwise would be difficult, if not impossible, to handle manually.

Fundamentally, what we need to select is not necessarily wire rope, but rather, a suitable
flexible hauling/hoisting appliance for our purpose. This means that, strictly speaking,
we should look at all such appliances as candidates in the selection process. The
taxonomy of such appliances, fashioned after Cebon and Ashby (1997), with the use of
some terminology borrowed from set theory (Gowar and Flegg, 1973), is given in Table
3, below.

Table 3. Taxonomy of the Community of Flexible Hoisting Appliances

• Chains
Families of flexible hoisting/hauling • Natural Fibre Ropes
appliances • Synthetic Fibre Ropes
• Wire Ropes

• Construction Ropes
• Excavator Ropes
Classes (say of the wire rope family) • General Engineering Ropes
• Oil-well Applications Ropes
• Shipping Applications Ropes, etc.

• 6 × 19
Subclasses (say the hoisting/hauling subclass
• 6 × 37
of the general engineering ropes class)
• 8 × 19 , etc.
Attributes (say of the 6× 19 type of wire rope) Diameter, breaking load, unit mass, etc.

We have already pointed out that steel wire rope is generally preferred for
hauling/hoisting applications, such as on manual winches. Therefore, out of the families
of hoisting/hauling appliances, we select the wire rope family for our application, based
on experience. Further, we note that wire rope suitable for hoisting/hauling applications

5
should fall within the general engineering class of ropes. Again, based on experience, we
find that, within the hoisting/hauling subclass of general engineering ropes, rope types
6×19 , 6 × 37 , and their variants are the more commonly used in such applications as on
manual winches.

In the selection process, then, we shall carry out a quantitative screening of rope types
6×19 , 6 × 37 , and their variants, in order to determine the suitable rope type for our
particular application as follows.

Suppose that we have requirements C1 , C2 , C3 , L , Cn , that are to be met by the rope we

select. Let us further suppose that we can assign weights c1 , c2 , c3 , L , cn , which
represent the relative importance that we attach to each requirement. Given that there are
m candidate types of ropes to be screened, let us suppose that, for each type of rope, we
have n attributes, B1 , B2 , B3 , L , Bn , each of which should in some way, and to some
extent, satisfy a corresponding requirement, and each of whose value may be
appropriately coded bi1 , bi 2 , bi 3 , L , bin , for i = 1, 2, 3, L, m (for all rope types). With
appropriate coding of the attributes and the requirements, we should be able to calculate
indices of merit ai , for each types of rope, as follows:

⎧ a1 ⎫ ⎡ b11 b12 L b1n ⎤ ⎧ c1 ⎫

⎪ a ⎪ ⎢b
⎪ 2 ⎪ ⎢ 21 b22 L b2 n ⎥ ⎪⎪c2 ⎪⎪
⎨ ⎬= ⎥⎨ ⎬ (1)
⎪L ⎪ ⎢ M M O M ⎥⎪ M ⎪
⎢ ⎥
⎪⎩am ⎪⎭ ⎣bm1 bm 2 L bmn ⎦ ⎪⎩cn ⎪⎭
or:
n
ai = ∑ bij c j (2)
j =1

Our scheme of coding of the attributes and the weights of the requirements should be
deliberately and reliably designed, such that the type of rope with the highest index of
merit is the one that will most likely give the best overall performance. If, for example,
all requirements are deemed to be equally important and, therefore, each is given unit
weight, then equation (2) reduces to the following:
n
ai = ∑ bij (3)
j =1

6
Having found at least one type of rope to be suitable, in the next stage of selection, we
will scrutinize the attributes of each of the ropes within the selected types, vis-à-vis each
requirement upon the rope in order to finally select a suitable rope.

Wire Rope Selection Criteria and Properties

Several factors have to be considered in the endeavour to select a suitable wire rope for a
given application. Though the factors to be considered, and the importance attached to
each of these factors, will depend on the application at hand, the following factors usually
need to be considered in most applications:
• Resistance to breaking
• Resistance to bending fatigue
• Resistance to abrasion
• Resistance to crushing
• Resistance to corrosion
• Cost of the rope

It is fundamentally impossible for one particular rope to perform equally well against
each of the selection criteria. Often, a rope that performs well against one criterion, say
resistance to bending fatigue, will perform poorly against another criterion, say resistance
to abrasion. This is in fact true, as is illustrated in Fig. 1 below (Elsevier, 2004).

Least Fatigue Greatest Abrasion

Resistance Resistance

Increasing Increasing
Wire Wire Number
Diameter

Least Abrasion Greatest Fatigue

Resistance Resistance

Fig. 1. The X Diagram of Wire Rope Abrasion and Bending Fatigue Resistance

7
Thus, compromise and trade-off are necessary features of the wire rope selection process,
as indeed they are features of most mechanical design tasks. One must carefully evaluate
the requirements of the application at hand, so as to be able to select a rope that will
satisfy the most important criteria and sacrifice the least important advantage.

Resistance to Breaking
It should go without saying that the selected rope should be able to withstand the loads
that would normally be expected of its intended function without breaking. Wire rope
standards publications and manufacturer’s catalogs usually give three fields of data,
namely, rope nominal diameter, d r , the corresponding breaking load, Wb , and the
corresponding linear density or unit mass (mass per unit length), ρ l , for each rope entry.
A nominal volumetric density of wire rope may be defined, based on the rope’s nominal
diameter, as follows:
ρl 4ρl
ρ= = (4)
πd r 4 πd r
2 2

where ρ is the volumetric density (mass per unit volume) of the rope.

Further, the nominal breaking strength of wire rope may be defined, based on the rope’s
nominal diameter, as follows:
Wb 4Wb
σb = = (5)
πd r 4 πd r
2 2

where σb is the breaking stress (force per unit area) of the rope.

Now, a nominal specific breaking stress (numerically equal to specific strength) of wire
rope may be defined as follows:
σb 4Wb 4ρl Wb
σbs = = ÷ = (6)
ρ πd r 2 πd r 2 ρl

where σ bs is the specific breaking stress (force per unit mass per unit length) of the rope,
and is seen to be independent of the diameter of the rope. A large value of σ bs implies a
strong light rope.

8
Let us consider sample wire rope data for the 6×19 subclass as obtained from the
Japanese Industrial Standards, JIS G 3525, 1981, and given here in Table A1, in the
appendix. Regression analyses may be performed, using Microsoft Excel for instance, in
order to determine the relationship between Wb and ρ l , for each of the rope grades in
Table A1. The result of such an analysis for the grade G rope is illustrated in Fig. 2,
below.

1400

1200

W b = 136.61ρl
1000
Breaking Load, kN

R2 = 1
800

600

400

200

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Unit Mass, kg/m

Fig. 2. Breaking Load against Unit Mass for Grade G Wire Rope

The regression analyses reveal that the ratio σbs = Wb ρl is in fact a constant for a given
subclass and grade of rope. The results for a number of candidate ropes are given in
Table A2, in the appendix, later to be used in the selection process. In Table A2, the
specific strength rating was obtained by assigning a rating of unity to the median value of
all the values of specific strength in the table, each value being considered only once.
Evidently there is not much variation in the specific strength of the types of rope
considered. The coefficient of variation is only about 7.92%. In screening the type of
rope, we will use specific strength ratings for grade G, ordinary (regular) lay rope, since
we still have the option to change the grade and lay of rope at a later stage of the rope
selection process.

9
Resistance to Bending Fatigue
As a rope moves over sheaves, drums and rollers, it is subjected to cyclic bending
stresses. The magnitude of variation of the cyclic stresses may be expressed as follows:
dr
σ f = ±E (7)
Dd

where E is the effective wire rope modulus of elasticity, d r is the nominal diameter of
the wire rope, and Dd is the nominal diameter of the drum or sheave on which the rope
moves.

Evidently, the smaller the ratio d r Dd the smaller the magnitude of variation of bending
stress and the longer will be the fatigue life of the rope, all other things being equal.
Some wire rope data tables give the lower limiting values for the inverse ratio Dd d r for
various types of rope, which can be seen to be indicative of the resistance to bending
fatigue of the particular type of rope. The smaller the limiting value of this inverse ratio,
the higher the resistance to bending fatigue of the particular type of rope, since the rope
can withstand higher variation in bending stress.

Table A3 in the appendix gives ratings of resistance to bending fatigue for various
candidate types of rope, based on the ratio Dd d r [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998;
Shigley and Mischke, 1989]. These data will be used later in screening the types of rope.
Again, a rating of unity was assigned to the median value of all the values of Dd d r in
the table, each value being considered only once. Since the resistance to bending fatigue
is considered to be inversely proportional to Dd d r , the ratings of resistance to bending
fatigue for the various types of rope were then obtained by dividing the above-mentioned
median value by the actual value of Dd d r for each type of rope. It is evident from
Table A3 that there is considerable variation in the resistance to bending fatigue of the
types of rope considered. The coefficient of variation is about 20.13%.

Bending fatigue may be aggravated by poor rope lubrication and poor condition of the
surface over which the rope bends. As the rope bends the wires that constitute it move
relative to each other, in order to conform to the difference in radii of curvature between
the topside and the underside of the rope. Lack of lubrication or excessive pressure due
to inadequate groove radius would limit the relative movement among the wires that
constitute the rope. This would aggravate bending fatigue. As a general rule governing a

10
ropes resistance to bending fatigue, the greater the number of wires in each strand, the
greater the resistance of rope to bending fatigue.

Resistance to Abrasion
When wire rope is loaded, it stretches much like a coil spring. When bent over a sheave
or drum, its load-induced stretch causes it to rub against the drum, leading to abrasion of
both the rope and the groove. Abrasion is one of the most common destructive
conditions affecting wire rope. Abrasion also occurs whenever a rope rubs against itself,
and internally as wires and strands move relative to each other whenever wire rope is
loaded or bent. Abrasion weakens the rope simply by wearing away material from inside
and outside wires.

Abrasion may be aggravated by the sheave or drum material being too soft, or by the
sheave or drum diameter being too small, by too much rope pressure, by an improper
groove diameter, by sheave misalignment or by improper fleet angles. Generally
speaking, wire ropes with larger diameter outer wires and lang lay construction are more
resistant to abrasion than those of regular lay and outer wires of small diameter. Thus,
for the lack of a better, more direct measure of abrasion resistance, the number of outer
wires per strand, may be used as a basis for rating the abrasion resistance of various types
of ropes, as given in Table A4, in the appendix (Elsevier, 2004).

In Table A4, the rating of resistance to abrasion was calculated from the number of outer
wires per strand in the same manner that the rating of resistance to bending fatigue was
calculated from the ratio of drum diameter to rope diameter, in Table A3. The
coefficient of variation in the rating of abrasion resistance is about 19.24%.

Resistance to Crushing
Crushing results in distortion of the rope cross-section, the strand cross-section, the core
cross-section or all three of these. Crushing is the effect of external pressure on a rope.
Resistance to crushing (crushing resistance) therefore, is the ability of the rope to
withstand or resist external pressure, and is generally used to express comparison among
ropes.

When a rope is damaged through crushing, the wires, the strands and the core are
prevented from moving and adjusting normally in operation. As a rule of thumb,
regardless of the type of rope, ropes with IWRC and ropes of regular lay are more crush
resistant than those with fiber core and those of lang lay.

11
Resistance to Corrosion
The consideration as to whether corrosion is an important design factor or not depends
upon the environment in which the wire rope will function during its service life. Some
of the possible causes of corrosion are the following:
• Submersion into fresh water, which may contain some corrosive substances such as
chlorides, nitrates, calcium carbonates and bacteria, among others.
• Exposure to a damp atmosphere, either periodically of continually, including ropes
in storage, which may be subject to fungal-induced corrosion.
• Exposure to airborne corrosive substances, such as acids and salts.

Galvanized carbon steel, stainless steel and Kevlar ropes have been used for their
corrosion resistance. When administered carefully, lubrication may alleviate corrosion.

Cost of the Rope

The cost and availability of candidate ropes must be taken into account early in the
process of selecting wire rope. An engineering design generally does not succeed by
merely being technically successful. It must also be economically successful. Some
factors that contribute to the cost of wire rope are the following:
• The material of which the rope is made – for instance, some stainless steel ropes
may not be readily available off-the-shelf and special orders may be both expensive
and time consuming.
• The type of rope – for instance, certain rope constructions may be either expensive
or not readily available off-the-shelf.
• The size (diameter) of the rope – it should be expected that larger diameter ropes
would be more expensive. Moreover, rope diameters greater that some size (say 38
mm) may not be readily available off-the-shelf.

At the screening level of wire rope selection, we endeavour to determine the most
suitable type of rope to use in our design. We therefore use rope cost data that compare
the costs of the candidate types of rope, as given in Table A5, in the appendix (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1998). Table A5 gives cost data for ropes with fibre core
only, since we still have a chance to select different cores at a later stage of rope
selection. Since lower cost is generally preferable, the ratings of economy in Table A5
were calculated as the reciprocals of the relative cost indices. The coefficient of variation
in the rating of economy is about 7.894%. It is clear that there is not much variation in
cost among our candidate types of wire rope.

12
Relative Importance of the Factors Considered in Selecting the Type of Wire
Rope
In the preceding section, we coded quantitative data to be used in the screening of the
candidate types of rope. The factors to be used in this quantitative screening will be the
following:
• Resistance to breaking – attribute B1
• Resistance to bending fatigue – attribute B2
• Resistance to abrasion – attribute B3
• Cost of the rope – attribute B4

For attribute B1 – resistance to breaking – we shall use the specific strength data for
grade G, ordinary lay rope as the representative specific strength of the given rope types.
After selecting the preferred type of rope, in the next stage of selection, a different grade
and lay of rope may well be selected from among the rope designs available within the
preferred type of rope.

In the absence of strong reasons to compel the assignment of different weights to the
different attributes, based on relevant and reliable data, we may assign a weight of unity
to all the attributes and therefore use equation (3) to screen the candidate types of rope.
Alternatively, we may use the vector sum of the values of the attributes as an index of
merit for screening the types of rope. This is calculated according to the following
equation:
n
ai = ∑ bij
2
(8)
j =1

with the notations used as earlier defined (equations 1 through 3).

Moreover, we may examine the standard deviation among the values of the attributes of
each type of rope, in order to gain insight into the variability within the values of the
attributes of each of the candidate types of rope. In this context, the type of rope with
less variability within the values assigned to its attributes should be preferred. Thus we
will be able to screen the candidate types of rope.

A Microsoft Excel worksheet was used for the screening of wire rope types and the
results are given in Table 4, below.

13
 Table 4. Screening of the Types of Wire Rope

6 by 6 by 6 by 6 by
Types of Wire Rope 6 by 19S 6 by 19 6 by 25Fi
26WS 31WS 36WS 41WS

Specific Strength Rating 0.8996 0.9682 0.8996 0.9003 0.9055 0.9055 0.9055

Bending Fatigue Rating 0.7647 0.7647 1.0000 0.8667 1.0000 1.1304 1.3000

Abrasion Resistance Rating 1.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.2000 1.0000 0.8571 0.7500

Relative Cost Rating 1.0753 1.0753 1.0753 1.0753 0.9259 0.9259 0.9259

Sum of Ratings 4.0729 3.8082 3.9749 4.0422 3.8315 3.8190 3.8815

Vector Sum of Ratings 2.0804 1.9179 1.9913 2.0391 1.9176 1.9209 1.9824

Standard Deviation of Ratings 0.2456 0.1327 0.0721 0.1559 0.0494 0.1206 0.2334

Table 4 reveals that, based on our screening, two types of wire rope, namely, 6 by 19
Seale and 6 by 26 Warrington Seale, appear to be the most suitable, and about equally
suitable for our specific application. That these two types of wire rope are about equally
suitable is not surprising when one considers the fact that, according to Japanese
Standards JIS G 3525, 1981, for a given rope diameter, the two types of rope have equal
breaking load and equal mass per unit length. Further, the two types of rope are found to
be equal in their economy ratings and to differ only slightly in their ratings of bending
fatigue resistance and abrasion resistance. These two are the only types that shall be
further considered in our selection process.

Selection of a Suitable Wire Rope

So far, we have been able to select suitable wire rope types, without reference to the
specifications of the appliance in which the rope is to be used. We were able to choose
the suitable wire rope types by considering only the characteristics of the rope types.

To proceed farther, we now have to consider the load that the wire rope will be subjected
to when in use on the manual winch that we are designing. Now suppose that, in our
specifications, the load capacity of our winch is 2.5 metric tons (2 500 kg). Then our safe
working load will be as follows:
Wsw = 2500 × 9.8 = 24500 N

Moreover, we will use a design factor of safety, denoted n , which is defined such that:

14
 Wd
n= (9)
Wsw

where Wd is the design load and should be less than the rope’s breaking load.

Recommended minimum factors of safety for wire rope in some common applications are
given in Table A6, in the appendix (Shigley and Mischke, 1989; Black and Adams,
1981).

The manual winch is used for haulage/hoisting operations and therefore a factor of safety
of 6 would be appropriate. Thus:
6 × 24500
Wd = nWsw = = 147 kN ≤ Wb (10)
1000

Equation (10) will be used to determine the diameters of ropes that can sustain the design
load.

Further regression analyses of JIS G 3525, 1981, wire rope data revealed that wire rope
breaking load is, to a very close approximation, proportional to the square of the rope
diameter, with the constant of proportionality being a characteristic of the rope type
rather than the particular rope. This is illustrated in Fig. 3, overleaf, for Grade G rope
with fibre core, in the 6×19 subclass.

The regression equations for the grades and constructions of wire ropes found in the 6 by
19 Seale and 6 by 26 Warrington Seale subclasses are given in Table A7, in the
appendix. The regression equations together with the relevant breaking load data were
used to determine the diameters of the candidate ropes (Microsoft Excel Worksheet,
Table 5), according to the following equation:

Wd
dr = (11)
k1

where k1 is the regression coefficient whose values can be discerned in Table A7.

15
 1400

1200

W b = 0.4968d r 2.0002
Rope Breaking Strength, kN

1000
R2 = 1
800

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Rope Diameter, mm

Fig. 3. Regression of Strength on Diameter for Grade G, 6 by 19 Rope

Table 5. Determination of Rope Diameters Suited to the Design Load

Calculated Standard
Grade
Type or Bright or Design Rope Rope Breaking
of Lay of Rope
Rope Galvanized Load, kN Diameter, Diameter, Load, kN
Rope
mm mm

6 by 19S G Ordinary Galvanized 147 17.3064 18 158.9

6 by 19S A Ordinary/Lang Bright/Galv. 147 16.415 18 176.5

6 by 19S B Ordinary/Lang Bright 147 15.9407 16 148.1

6 by 26WS G Ordinary Galvanized 147 17.3064 18 158.9

6 by 26WS A Ordinary/Lang Bright/Galv. 147 16.415 18 176.5

6 by 26WS B Ordinary/Lang Bright 147 15.9407 16 148.1

We now have six wire ropes that can all be used for our application and we need to
finally screen these so that we can end up with one that will be most suitable. We may
screen these ropes based on the following factors.

16
• Rope diameter d r : A smaller rope diameter is desirable because the cost of rope,
pr , increases with rope diameter (Fig. 4) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998).
Moreover, a larger rope diameter will require a larger rope drum diameter too, since
minimum Dd d r ratios are stipulated for each type of rope. In the present case we
have only two rope diameters to deal with, i.e. 16 mm and 18 mm. If we assign a
rating of unity to the reciprocal of 16 mm then the corresponding rating for the 18
mm diameter will be 0.8889.

p r = 0.0017d r 2 - 0.0186d r + 0.3454

5
R 2 = 0.9981
Relative Cost

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Rope Diameter in mm

Fig. 4. Regression of Relative Cost on Rope Diameter

• Specific strength: The ratings of specific strength were given in Table A2.
• Percent reserve strength: As the rope is used, abrasion and fatigue, particularly at
the rope’s outer wires, reduce its strength. The term reserve strength defines the
combined strength of only the rope’s inner wires, which tend to be less affected by
abrasion and fatigue. Reserve strength data for our candidate types of rope are given
in Table A8, in the appendix (Elsevier, 2004; Army Corps of Engineers, 1998). The
ratings of reserve strength were obtained by dividing each of the values of percent
reserve strength by the median value of percent reserve strength. The coefficient of
variation for the ratings is 17.22%.

17
The results of wire rope screening (Microsoft Excel Worksheet) are given in Table 6,
below. According to these results, the 6 by 26WS, Grade B Rope should be the most
suitable for the application at hand, with the 6 by 19S, Grade B rope being the second
choice.

Table 6. The Screening of Candidate Ropes

6 by 19S 6 by 19S 6 by 19S 6 by 26WS 6 by 26WS 6 by 26WS

Wire Rope
Grade G Grade A Grade B Grade G Grade A Grade B

Diameter Rating 0.8889 0.8889 1.0000 0.8889 0.8889 1.0000

Strength Rating 0.8996 1.0000 1.0651 0.9063 0.9994 1.0653

Reserve Strength Rating 0.7442 0.7442 0.7442 0.8372 0.8372 0.8372

Sum of Ratings 2.5327 2.6331 2.8093 2.6264 2.7255 2.9025

Vector Sum of Ratings 1.4674 1.5310 1.6396 1.5171 1.5779 1.6840

Standard Deviation of Ratings 0.0868 0.1283 0.1696 0.0336 0.0828 0.1175

There are still a few other factors to consider before ultimately making the choice of wire
rope to be used. These are factors, which, up to this point, have not been considered
because they are difficult to quantify. The factors are:
• Corrosion resistance: Ropes that are expected to operate in corrosive environments
should either be galvanized or made of stainless steel. Where the rope is neither
galvanized nor made of stainless steel, lubrication provides some protection against
corrosion. In a manual winch for civil engineering applications, the environment is
not expected to be particularly corrosive. Thus we will depend on lubrication to
provide for a measure of corrosion resistance.
• Resistance to crushing: Resistance to crushing was earlier discussed. Ropes with
IWRC and regular lay ropes are more crush-resistant than fiber core and lang lay
ropes. For the ropes in Table 6, a rope with IWRC would be about 7.5% more
expensive than one with FC. On the other hand, the breaking load of a rope with
IWRC would be about 10% greater than that of a corresponding rope with FC. Fibre
cores are not suitable for operations at temperatures greater than 82oC (Elsevier,
2004). Where wire ropes with FC may be used, they provide greater flexibility and
lubricant retention. For our application, a rope with FC should suffice.

18
• Rope lay: Regular lay ropes are easier to handle and are not prone to untwisting in
hoisting applications with suspended loads. On the other hand, lang lay ropes
exhibit better flexibility and fatigue resistance but they are less resistant to crushing
under heavy loads. For our application, a regular lay rope should be more suitable.

Thus we choose a 6 by 26WS, Grade B, Right Regular lay rope of 16 mm diameter, with
a fibre core. The length of the rope may be specified after designing the rope drum.

Conclusion
The paper develops and presents a quantitative method of wire rope selection for manual
winch application. The method may readily be extended to selecting a suitable wire rope
for applications other than the manual winch.

References
Black, P. H and O. E. Adams Jr., (1981) “Machine Design”, 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill
International.

Cebon, D. and M. F. Ashby, (1997) “The Optimal Selection of Engineering Entities”,

Technical Report CUED/C–EDC/TR 59, Cambridge University Engineering
Department. ISSN 0963-5432. http://www-mech.eng.cam.ac.uk/cms/publ/papers/gen3.pdf.

Elsevier Ltd. (2004). “Wire Rope”, Encyclopedia of Materials Science and Technology.
(http://www1.elsevier.com/emsat/pdf/200134.pdf).

Gowar, N. and H. G. Flegg, (1973) “Basic Mathematical Structures”, Transworld

Publishers Limited.

Japanese Standards Association, “JIS Handbook (1981), Ferrous Materials and

Metallurgy”.

Rudenko, N., (1978) “Materials Handling Equipment”, Envee Publishers, New Delhi.
Shigley, J. E. and C. R. Mischke. (1989) “Mechanical Engineering Design”, 5th Edition.
McGraw-Hill International.

Sayenga, Donald, (Accessed, 2008) “Modern History of Wire Rope”.

http://www.domesticwirerope.org/ModerHistorWireRope.pdf

The Kirkpatrick Group Inc., (Accessed, 2008) “History of Wire Rope”.

http://www.thekirkpatrickgroup.com/products_about_history.htm

19
The U.S. Nautical Magazine, and Naval Journal. Vol. IV (1855). pages. 192-197
(http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Rigging/Wire_Rope.html).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, (1998) “Wire Rope Selection
Criteria for Gate Operating Devices”. http://www.gisceu.com/epdf_files/U2.pdf

20
Appendix
Table A1. The 6 by 19 Wire Rope Data According to JIS G 3525

Breaking Load, kN
Rope Galvanized or Mass per
Galvanized Bright
Diameter, Bright Unit Length,
mm Grade G Grade A Grade B kg/m

Regular Lay Regular Lay Regular Lay Lang Lay

4 7.94 8.63 9.22 9.41 0.058
5 12.45 13.53 14.32 14.71 0.091
6.3 19.71 21.38 22.85 23.34 0.144
8 31.77 34.52 36.78 37.66 0.233
9 40.31 43.74 46.48 47.66 0.295
10 49.72 53.94 57.47 58.84 0.364
11.2 62.37 67.67 72.08 73.84 0.457
12.5 77.67 84.24 89.73 91.99 0.569
14 97.38 105.9 112.8 115.7 0.713
16 127.5 138.3 147.1 151.0 0.932
18 160.8 174.6 186.3 190.3 1.18
20 199.1 215.8 229.5 235.4 1.46
22.4 249.1 270.7 288.3 295.2 1.83
25 310.9 337.4 358.9 367.8 2.28
28 389.3 422.7 450.1 460.9 2.85
30 447.2 485.4 516.8 529.6 3.28
31.5 493.3 535.4 569.8 583.5 3.61
33.5 558 605.1 644.3 660.0 4.08
35.5 626.6 679.6 723.7 741.4 4.59
37.5 699.2 758.1 808.1 827.7 5.12
40 795.3 862.9 918.9 941.4 5.82
42.5 897.3 973.8 1040 1059 6.57
45 1010 1089 1167 1196 7.37
47.5 1118 1216 1295 1324 8.21
50 1245 1353 1432 1471 9.10

21
 Table A2. Specific Strengths of Various Types of Rope

Specific Strength, Specific Strength

Type of Rope Grade of Wire and Lay
kN/kg/m Rating

Grade G, Ordinary 126.94 0.899582

6 × 19 S Grade A, Ordinary/Lang 141.11 1.000000

Grade B, Ordinary/Lang 150.3 1.065126

Grade G, Ordinary 136.62 0.968181

Grade A, Ordinary/Lang 148.19 1.050174

6 × 19
Grade B, Ordinary 157.82 1.118418

Grade B, Lang 161.61 1.145277

Grade G, Ordinary 126.94 0.899582

6 × 25 Fi Grade A, Ordinary/Lang 141.11 1.000000

Grade B, Ordinary/Lang 150.3 1.065126

Grade G, Ordinary 127.04 0.900291

6 × 26 WS Grade A, Ordinary/Lang 141.02 0.999362

Grade B, Ordinary/Lang 150.32 1.065268

Grade G, Ordinary 127.78 0.905538

6 × 31 WS Grade A, Ordinary/Lang 140.63 0.996598

Grade B, Ordinary/Lang 149.51 1.059528

Grade G, Ordinary 127.78 0.905538

6 × 36 WS Grade A, Ordinary/Lang 140.63 0.996598

Grade B, Ordinary/Lang 149.51 1.059528

Grade G, Ordinary 127.78 0.905538

6 × 41 WS Grade A, Ordinary/Lang 140.63 0.996598

Grade B, Ordinary/Lang 149.51 1.059528

22
 Table A3. Resistance to Bending Fatigue for Various Types of Ropes

Recommended Ratio Rating of

Type of Rope Construction of Drum to Rope Resistance to
Diameter Bending Fatigue

6 × 19 S Seale construction 34 0.764706

6 × 19 Equal diameter wires 34 0.764706

6 × 25 Fi Filler 26 1.000000

6 × 26 WS Warrington Seale 30 0.866667

6 × 31 WS Warrington Seale 26 1.000000

6 × 36 WS Warrington Seale 23 1.130435

6 × 41 WS Warrington Seale 20 1.300000

Table A4. Resistance to Abrasion for Various Types of Ropes

Rating of
Number of Outer
Type of Rope Construction Resistance to
Wires per Strand
Abrasion

6 × 19 S Seale construction 9 1.333333

6 × 19 Equal diameter wires 12 1.000000

6 × 25 Fi Filler 12 1.000000

6 × 26 WS Warrington Seale 10 1.200000

6 × 31 WS Warrington Seale 12 1.000000

6 × 36 WS Warrington Seale 14 0.857143

6 × 41 WS Warrington Seale 16 0.750000

23
 Table A5. Relative Cost of Various Types of Ropes with Fibre Core

Type of Rope Construction Relative Cost Index Rating of Economy

6 × 19 S Seale construction 0.93 1.075269

6 × 19 Equal diameter wires 0.93 1.075269

6 × 25 Fi Filler 0.93 1.075269

6 × 26 WS Warrington Seale 0.93 1.075269

6 × 31 WS Warrington Seale 1.08 0.925926

6 × 36 WS Warrington Seale 1.08 0.925926

6 × 41 WS Warrington Seale 1.08 0.925926

Table A6. Minimum Safety Factors for Some Wire Rope Applications

Type of Service Factor of Safety Type of Service Factor of Safety

Track Cables 3.2 Hot ladle Cranes/Slings 8

Guys 3.5 Hand Elevators 5

Hoisting 5 Private Elevators 7.5

Haulage 6 Hand Dumbwaiter 4.5

Cranes and Derrick 6 Grain Elevators 7.5

Electric and Air Hoists 7 Hot ladle Cranes 8

24
 Table A7. Regression of Breaking Strength on Rope Diameter

Type of
Grade and Lay Bright/Galvanized Regression Equation
Rope

Wb = 0.4908 d r
2
Grade G, Ordinary Lay Galvanized

Grade A, Ordinary and

Wb = 0.5455d r
2
6 × 19 S Lang Lay
Bright and Galvanized

Grade B, Ordinary and

Wb = 0.5785d r
2
Bright
Lang Lay

Wb = 0.4908 d r
2
Grade G, Ordinary Lay Galvanized

Grade A, Ordinary and

Wb = 0.5455d r
2
6 × 26 WS Lang Lay
Bright and Galvanized

Grade B, Ordinary and

Wb = 0.5785d r
2
Bright
Lang Lay

Table A8. Ratings of Reserve Strength for Various Types of Rope

Percent Reserve Rating of Reserve

Type of Rope Construction
Strength (%) Strength
6 × 19 S Seale construction 32 0.744186
6 × 19 Equal diameter wires 43 1.000000
6 × 25 Fi Filler 43 1.000000
6 × 26 WS Warrington Seale 36 0.837209
6 × 31 WS Warrington Seale 43 1.000000
6 × 36 WS Warrington Seale 49 1.139535
6 × 41 WS Warrington Seale 54 1.255814

25

View publication stats