Some Thoughts on Rope Life
Julia Munday
20 Berrydale, Northampton NN3 5EQ, United Kingdom
munday_45@[Link]
Keywords: steel wire ropes, rope life, fleet angle
Abstract. This document explores the issues that affect the working lifetime of the ropes used with
electric traction lifts and considers how “best practice” has changed over the years by using the
modernisation of a common type of lift as an example.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the 1970’s engineers were taught the rope life for an electric traction lift depended on traction,
groove pressure and rope drag (i.e. fleet angle).
Although modern methods of traction assessment where both the static and dynamic forces are
considered are an improvement over the old; groove pressure has fallen out of fashion having been
superseded by the mandatory requirements for the minimum rope safety factor in EN81-1 [1] and
EN81-20 [2] but the effect of rope drag or fleet angle is mostly overlooked today.
Why does this matter? The fleet angle can have a deleterious impact on rope life; the old engineers
considered it to have a worse effect than excessive groove pressure. Experts on ropes acknowledge
the part it plays by including a correction factor for fleet angle in rope life calculations; but although
recommendations for maximum limits were included in BS5655-6:1990 [3], it is conspicuous by its
absence in current standards.
Patrick Ryan’s paper, presented at the 2015 lift symposium in Northampton [4] indicated issues with
modern machine room less (MRL) lifts having inadequate rope life, despite the fact the requirements
of that complex equation in Annex N of EN 81-1having been met.
This paper explores how the requirements of British Standards have developed over the last 40 years
and discusses whether looking backwards to past best practice may help resolve this.
2 ROPE SELECTION THROUGH THE AGES
2.1 General Observations
When choosing the correct rope for an application the following factors need to be considered by the
designer:
• The number of pulleys in the system and the roping ratio
• The ratio between the rope diameter and sheave diameter
• The material of the sheave and its hardness
• The groove form of the driving sheave
• The construction of the rope
• The minimum safety factor permitted by code
• The usage, i.e. the likely number of trips in a day
All the above factors are considered when checking there will be sufficient traction without excessive
groove pressure, but the fleet angle needs to be considered separately. It can be said therefore that
rope selection will depend on satisfactory traction, groove pressure, and fleet angle.
18-2 7th Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies
2.2 In the 1970s
It must be remembered that at this time the lift industry in the UK was very different to how it is
today. Lift manufacturers generally designed, made, installed and serviced their own equipment; the
independent sector did not yet exist. It was normal for a building owner to enter into a 25-year
comprehensive maintenance agreement with the manufacturer of their lifts, and it was in the interest
of the lift manufacturer to ensure their components were designed to give a long life to maximise
their long-term profits. If the traction and groove pressure, (which had been calculated in the same
way for many years), was close to the limits dictated by experience, the cost of replacement sheaves
and additional ropes were factored into the maintenance costs, and so there are no specific
requirements in BS 2655 [5] or the code of practice CP 407 [6] regarding traction or groove pressure
because it wasn’t perceived to be an issue.
As BS 2655 and CP 407 may be unfamiliar to most people under the age of 60, their requirements
regarding rope related matters are summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Requirements for Ropes in the 1970s
Item Description Source Remarks
10:1 ≤ 2.0 [m/s] rated speed
Minimum rope BS 2655-1:1970
11:1 ≤ 3.5 [m/s] rated speed Note this is speed dependant.
safety factor clause 2.14.2
12:1 ≤ 7.0 [m/s] rated speed
Permitted rope Spliced or gripped return loops with BS 2655-1:1970
terminations thimbles or metalled sockets. clause 2.14.2
d (44 + 3S) with a minimum of 47 for
6 × 19 (9/9/1) construction ropes or
d (37 + 3S) with a minimum of 40 for
Minimum sheave 6 × 19 (12/6 + 6 F/1) or 8 × 19 (9/9/1)
BS 2655-1:1970 Note limited rope types and
and pulley construction ropes
clause [Link] speed dependant.
diameter Where:
d = rope diameter
S = rope speed = rated speed x roping
ratio [m/s]
A 2:1 roped double wrap system with the
rope to sheave ratio increased to 10%
Single wrap vs CP 407:1972
above the minimum recommended by BS
double wrap Clause [Link]
2655 will give a similar rope life to a 1:1
single wrap system
Increase the minimum diameters of the
slower speed pulleys by 10% in all cases CP 407:1972
Reverse bends
where the rope speed over such pulleys is Clause [Link]
more than 0.5 [m/s]
For 2:1 roped lifts with rated speeds
Multiplying CP 407:1972
above 1.0 [m/s] only one pulley should be
pulleys Clause [Link]
on the car and one on the counterweight
Where the distance between two pulleys
or a pulley and a sheave is fixed, the
minimum drag ratio should be 100:1. The rope drag ratios are
Where the drag is between two points so equivalent to maximum fleet
that the distance between the two points CP 407:1972 angles of 0.6° between fixed
Rope drag
and therefore the drag ratio varies as the Clause [Link] pulleys and 1.4° between a
car travels then the minimum drag ratio fixed point and a moving
should be 41:1 when the car or point.
counterweight rests on a completely
compressed buffer.
Some Thoughts on Rope Life 18-3
Other points to note:
1. Sheaves were generally made from cast iron and had a Brinell hardness in the region of 200-
250, i.e. grooves were not hardened.
2. Rope anchorage plates were designed to keep the distances between the anchorages to a
minimum to increase the rope drag ratio (i.e. minimise the fleet angle). “Long and short”
eyebolts especially with the 2:1 roping anchorages were common and allowed an even more
compact arrangement.
2.3 In the 1980s and early 1990s
In 1979 EN 81-1 was published in the UK as BS 5655-1 and included several national variations. The
standard went through several amendments in the early 1980s, the “definitive” version which will be
considered by this paper was published in 1986 [7].
The old code of practice CP 407 was replaced by BS 5655-6:1985.
Following some controversial remarks about the state of modern architecture by the Prince of Wales,
and the planning authorities tightening up on interruptions to the skyline, designers wanted to avoid
placing lift machine rooms on the top of their buildings, leading to the rising popularity of underslung
lifts with the machine room located in a basement if you were lucky or at the top floor at the rear or
side of the lift well if you were unlucky. As result of the experience gained by the industry in the UK
during the 1980s, BS 5655-6:1990 [3] included a clause intended to reduce the permitted fleet angle
between fixed pulleys to 0.4° (equivalent to 143:1 rope drag). But, due to an unfortunate
typographical error, a figure of 4° was stated in the standard which has been adopted into common
lift culture despite the clause being omitted from later issues of the standards.
The requirements of these standards are summarised in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Requirements for Ropes in the 1980s and early 1990s
Item Description Source Remarks
8 mm minimum diameter, wires to have a
Rope minimum tensile strength, characteristics BS 5655-1:1986
New requirement
Specification to be as specified in international clause 9.1.2
standards.
12 for systems with 3 or more ropes, 16
BS 5655-1:1986
for those with two ropes No longer speed dependent.
Minimum rope clause 9.9.2
A very high factor is not recommended Note the comment on high
safety factor BS 5655-6:1990
since insufficient loading on a rope may safety factors!
clause [Link]
reduce rope life.
Must withstand at least 80% of the
breaking load of the rope.
Spliced return loops with thimbles, BS 5655-1:1986 New strength requirement,
Permitted rope
gripped return loops with thimbles and at clause 9.2.3 more types of terminations
terminations
least 3 grips, metalled or resin sockets, clause [Link] now permitted
self-tightening wedge sockets, ferrules or
any system with equivalent safety.
BS 5655-1:1986
Minimum sheave 40 x the rope diameter
clause 9.2.1 No longer dependant on the
and pulley In some cases, it may be advantageous to
BS 5655-6:1990 rope construction or speed
diameter increase this ratio to extend rope life.
clause [Link]
Traction and Formulae are given for traction, limits BS 5655-1:1986
New requirement
groove pressure specified for groove pressure. clause 9.3
Must be fitted at one end at least, if a
Rope tensioning spring it must be in compression, slack BS 5655-1:1986
New requirement
devices rope switches to be fitted on systems with clause 9.5
only two ropes.
18-4 7th Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies
Item Description Source Remarks
Single wrap vs
Withdrawn
double wrap
The minimum diameter of the pulleys
should be increased by at least 10 % BS 5655-6:1990 Like CP 407:1972
Reverse bends
when the rope speed is greater than 0.5 clause [Link] clause [Link]
[m/s].
The more pulleys introduced into a
Multiplying BS 5655-6:1990 No longer limits on the
roping system, the greater will be the
pulleys clause [Link] numbers of pulleys
rope wear.
Conversion table
Where the distance between two Fleet Rope
pulleys/sheaves is fixed, the fleet angle of Angle Drag
the ropes in relation to the grooves should Ratio
not exceed 0.4° (4° sic) either side of the 0.6° 100:1 CP 407
BS 5655-6:1990 Typo!
Rope drag groove axis. Where the distance between 4° 14:1
clause [Link]
the two points varies as the car travels, 0.4° 143:1 Correct
the fleet angle should not exceed 1.4° 1.4° 41:1 Same
when the car or counterweight is on a Increasing the fleet angle
compressed buffer. from 0.6° to 4° makes no
sense!
Machine above arrangements preferred,
BS 5655-6:1990
Machine layouts others require more pulleys and lead to
clause [Link]
greater rope wear.
Other points to note:
1. The independent sector started to take off in the 1980s; the harmonisation of British Standards
with European Standards allowed for the importation of components and package lifts from
suppliers in other parts of Europe.
2. It was discovered through bitter experience that hardened grooves on sheaves may require a
different rope construction to the “standard” 6 or 8 strand Seale (9/9/1).
2.4 Late 1990s to Present Day
EN 81-1 [1] underwent a major revision in the late 1990s and has recently been superseded by
EN 81-20 [2] and EN 81-50 [8]. These standards will be familiar to most within the industry so this
section will briefly summarise the major changes from BS5655-1:1986 (EN 81-1:1985) regarding
ropes:
• End terminations: spliced return loops with thimbles, gripped return loops with thimbles and
at least 3 grips, metalled or resin sockets are no longer permitted, only self-tightening wedge
sockets, ferrules or swaged terminations may be used.
• The method of calculating traction has changed.
• Groove pressure is no longer considered, replaced by a very complicated mandatory equation
that gives a minimum permissible rope safety factor (EN 81-1:1998, Annex N). Note if this
safety factor is less than 12 (three or more ropes) or 16 (two ropes) the higher figure should
be used.
BS 5655-6 [9] only recommends the following it does not impose any restrictions:
• Machines should be located above if possible.
• The number of pulleys used in the system and the number of reverse bends should be
minimised.
• Careful consideration should be given to the effect of the number of pulleys, the number of
reversed bends, and the fleet angles of the ropes on and off the sheave or pulley.
Some Thoughts on Rope Life 18-5
3 WHERE HAS IT ALL GONE WRONG?
3.1 Some Anecdotal Evidence
Many people in the industry considered dropping the requirements for groove pressure from the
standards to be a step backwards. Some still take it into consideration, but many do not.
One heard whispers from the mid-2000s onwards that ropes were not lasting as long as they should
do, with the rope and machine manufacturers getting the blame in many cases.
One company the author worked for believed the Annex N equation only allowed a minimum rope
life of three years and the safety factor should be increased.
Some of the technical people at Brugg wrote an article in Elevator World to set the record straight
about the quality of modern ropes [10] and concluded that poor rope life was due to a combination of
the following factors:
• High usage
• Small ratios between the rope diameter and sheave diameter
• Uneven load distribution between the ropes
• High acceleration and deceleration rates
• Poor quality sheaves
• Poor installation
• Poor maintenance
All valid points, but note fleet angle does not make the list.
3.2 It All Goes Back to Feyrer
According to Feyrer [11], the equation used to calculate the number of bending cycles is based on the
following assumptions:
• The rope is well lubricated
• There is no side deflection (i.e. fleet angle)
• The grooves are steel (i.e. not lined with plastic) and the radius = 0.53 x the rope diameter
• The ropes are not twisted
If the assumptions made above do not hold true the number of bending cycles calculated in equation
3.55, it is corrected by multiplying by four endurance factors fN1, fN2, fN3 and fN4 which are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3 Endurance Factors (Feyrer)
Endurance
Description Value
Factor
Lubrication – assume the
fN1 1.0
rope is well lubricated
D
1 - (0.00863 + 0.00243 ) ϑ - 0.00103ϑ2 (1)
fN2 Fleet angle ϑ [degrees] d
Where D = sheave/pulley diameter, d = rope diameter
Assuming an undercut U or V groove form:
Undercut β 75° 80° 85° 90° 95° 100° 105°
fN3 Groove form
fN3 0.40 0.33 0.26 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.066
(refer to Feyrer for other groove forms)
Twisted ropes - assume
fN4 the rope twist is 1.0
negligible
18-6 7th Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies
Where lifts are concerned, the only one of these factors that are generally considered is the one for
the groove form. Indeed, the value of the equivalent number of traction sheaves (Nequiv(t)) in the
evaluation of the minimum rope safety factor is groove form dependent. Despite the lessons of
experience, it must be assumed the ropes will be properly lubricated, installed without twist and fitted
with anti-twist lanyards (although this is by no means certain given the diminishing skills of site
personnel), but what about the fleet angle?
3.3 What About the Fleet Angle?
Figure 1 shows the results of using eq. 1 to calculate the endurance factor for the fleet angle depending
on the rope to sheave ratio. The maximum fleet angles recommended by CP 407 and BS 5655-6:1990
are indicated for easy reference. The chart only goes up to 4°, as this appears to be the general
consensus for the maximum limit.
Endurance Factors for Various Rope:Sheave Ratios
40:1 44:1 47:1 49:1 55:1 60:1
1.00
Endurance factor fN2
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.0° 0.2° 0.4° 0.6° 0.8° 1.0° 1.2° 1.4° 1.6° 1.8° 2.0° 2.2° 2.4° 2.6° 2.8° 3.0° 3.2° 3.4° 3.6° 3.8° 4.0°
recommended maximum recommended maximum
between fixed points between moving points Fleet Angle ϑ
Figure 1
It is apparent that the endurance factor not only reduces as fleet angle increases but also as the rope
to sheave ratios increase. To put this into context, assuming as a worst case a fleet angle of 4°, a
10mm diameter rope running over a 600mm diameter sheave would have an endurance factor
approximately 35% smaller than the same rope running over a 400mm diameter sheave.
If the fleet angle is limited to the 1.4°, the CP 407 and BS 5655-6:1990 recommendation for the
maximum between a fixed pulley and a moving pulley or anchorage, the endurance factor reduces by
approximately 8%; and 2% if the fleet angle is reduced to the 0.4°, the figure BS 5655-6:1990 would
have recommended between fixed pulleys if the typographical error hadn’t occurred.
Although the fleet angle does not have as deleterious an effect on rope life as the groove form of the
sheave, it will have some effect and this could be substantial depending on the circumstances.
Some Thoughts on Rope Life 18-7
3.4 But What Does It All Mean? – An Example
As all the standards and codes of practice recommend 1:1 roped gear above systems to maximise the
rope life it has been decided to use the modernisation of a typical standard lift of this type installed in
the early 1990s as an example that many people will be familiar with from their own experience. It is
based on a standard “Omega” made by Express Lifts. The building is an office block, the details are
summarised below:
Rated Load : 630 kg
Rated Speed : 1.6 m/s
Car weight : 950 kg
Balance : 50%
Travel : 40 m
Number of floors served : 12
The lift was fully compliant with the codes and standards of its day and has 6 x 11 mm diameter ropes
of 8x19(9/9/1) Sz FC 1370/1770 N/mm2; the sheave has 97° undercut “V” grooves; the ropes are
terminated with sprung eyebolts with babbitted sockets at the counterweight end, and dead eyebolts
with clipped returns at the car end; the other relevant details are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 The Existing Arrangement
As the machine is approximately 25 years old, it has been decided to replace it, the diverter, supply a
new raft re-using the existing concrete upstands, new ropes and anchorages, a new control panel and
some cosmetic refurbishment to the car. The replacement of any other equipment and provision of
devices to prevent the uncontrolled movement of the car have been disregarded as they will not have
any bearing on the rope life.
18-8 7th Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies
A suitable new “Toro” machine has been determined using the software on Sassi’s “Argaweb”
website; using 97° undercut “U” grooves the same number, size and construction of ropes as the
original will be required to meet EN81-20/50. It has been assumed the car weight will increase by
200 kg because of the refurbishment. The other relevant details are shown in
Figure 3 The Modernised Arrangement
The first problem arises trying to fit new anchorages with self-tightening wedge sockets on to the
existing anchorage plates. They don’t fit, so have to be replaced, with consequences for the fleet
angles as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Figure 4 Original Arrangement Figure 5 New Arrangement
The worst-case fleet angle was originally 1.4° (i.e. 41:1) but now has increased to 2.3° (approximately
25:1), but the rope to sheave ratio has decreased from 51 to 41 approximately. The only other
parameter that will affect the rope lift calculation is the increase in the bending length.
Some Thoughts on Rope Life 18-9
Following the method used in Example 3.11 in Feyrer of a 1:1 roped lift (assuming the car is loaded
with 50% of the rated load) for both the original lift and the modernised lift but also considering the
effect of the fleet angle gives the results shown in Table 4. The total number of trips before discard
ignoring the effect of the fleet angle has also been calculated for comparison.
Table 4 Calculation Results
Original Lift Modernised Lift
Sheave Diverter Sheave Diverter
Rope Tensile Force S [N] 3,347 3,831
fN1 1 1
fN2 0.87 0.81 0.80 0.75
Endurance Factors
fN3 0.13 1 0.13 0
fN4 1 1
Discard No Bending Cycles NA10 1,725,963 12,361,008 417,186 3,008,553
Number of trips to/from G ZA10 1,514,494 366,381
Holeschak Ratio fGF 0.51 0.51
Total trips before discard
ZA10,tot 2,969,500 718,300
with fleet angle considered
Total trips before discard 3,442,900 904,500
ZA10,tot
With fleet angle disregarded
4 CONCLUSIONS
Patrick Ryan states the modern requirements for the rope safety factor will ensure a rope life of
600,000 trips; the results above confirm this. Assuming the example lift will undertake 200,000 trips
per annum the ropes on the original lift would have had a life of over 10 years (assuming proper
maintenance), but the modernised lift would require the ropes to be replaced within 4 years.
As can be seen from the example in section 3.4 above using a larger rope to sheave ratio (on both the
traction sheave and pulleys) has a massively beneficial effect on the rope life. The calculations
indicate the ropes on the modernised lift will have an expected life of only 24% of that of the original
lift with only a slight improvement if the effect of the fleet angle is ignored.
When the effect of the fleet angle is taken into consideration the anticipated life of the ropes will
reduce by about 13% for the original lift, but about 20% for the modernised lift.
If the fleet angle can be shown to have this much of an effect on the rope life of a straightforward
conventional 1:1 roped gear above lift, which all parties agree is the “best case scenario” for rope life,
how much of an effect will it have on a modern MRL where fleet angles up to 4° are not uncommon
and the number of pulleys and the roping arrangement are considerably more complex?
The rope safety factor equation in EN 81-50 is very complicated, its correct application is not
explained in terms that are easily understandable and requires a level of mathematical ability many
do not possess, thus making it difficult to check the calculations provided by machine manufacturers.
The equation assumes the use fibre core ropes and disregards the effect of fleet angle and rope
construction, perhaps it is time for it to be reviewed in the light of these concerns and consideration
given to returning to a simpler system of placing limitations on fleet angles and increasing minimum
rope to sheave ratios?
18-10 7th Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies
5 REFERENCES
[1] British Standards Institution, BS EN 81-1:1998+A3:2009 - Safety rules for the construction and
installation of lifts - Electric Lifts, London: British Standards Institution, 2009.
[2] British Standards Institution, BS EN 81-20:2014 Safety rules for the construction and
installation of lifts - Lifts for the transport of persons and goods, London: British Standards
Institution, 2014.
[3] British Standards Institution, BS 5655-6:1990 Lifts and service lifts - Code of practice for
selection and installation, London: British Standards Institution, 1990.
[4] P. Ryan, “Service Life of Steel Wire Suspension Ropes,” in Symposium on Lift and Escalator
Technologies, Northampton, 2015.
[5] British Standards Institution, BS 2655-1:1970 - Specification for lifts, escalators and
paternosters-Part 1 General requirements ..., London: British Standards Institution, 1970.
[6] British Standards Institution, CP 407:1972 - Code of Practice for Electric, Hydraulic and
Handpowered Lifts, London: British Standards Institution, 1972.
[7] British Standards Institution, BS 5655-1:1986 (EN 81-1:1985) - Lifts and service lifts. Safety
rules for the construction and installation of electric lifts, London: British Standards Institution,
1986.
[8] British Standards Institution, BS EN 81-50:2014 Safety rules for the construction and
installation of lifts — Design rules, calculations, examinations and tests of lift components,
London: British Standards Institution, 2014.
[9] British Standards Institution, BS 5655-6:2011 Lifts and service lifts - Code of practice for
selection and installation, London: British Standards Institution, 2011.
[10] K. Heling, R. Perry and M. Rhiner, “The Impact of Worn Sheave Grooves on Rope Life
Expectancy,” Elevator World, vol. LVII, no. 7, pp. 124-136, 2009.
[11] K. Feyrer, Wire Ropes - Tension, Endurance, Reliability (Second Edition), Berlin Heidelburg:
Springer-Verlag, 2015.
BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS
In 1979, Julia took a temporary job as a Trainee Draughtsman at the Express Lift Company in
Northampton, becoming a Sales Engineer. During this time she worked on major projects in the UK
and abroad (including Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia), before finally moving on to
Modernisation. After the demise of Express Lifts, she worked as a Project Engineer for
ThyssenKrupp, Elevator, and Kone before joining WSP as a consultant in 2013. Along the way she
kept studying, eventually being awarded an MSc in Lift Engineering from the University of
Northampton in 2010.
