STS-Crane-Hoist-Structure with Freewheel Coupling
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Vöth, AppliedDesign, voeth@applieddesign.de, www.applieddesign.de
Gearings of STS-Crane-Hoists are highly dynamically loaded
equipment. This especially applies for safety braking
processes out of lowering the load introduced by brakes
located at the rope drum. In practice failures of gearings due
to this situation are observed. To reduce the occurring top
loadings on the gearing the implementation of a freewheel
coupling is proposed. The paper describes the system layout
including a freewheel coupling and the resulting changes in
system behaviour. Especially in focus of consideration are
top gearing loadings and braking times.
Initial Situation
Development of STS-crane-hoists has shown different
configurations. Generation 1 hoists were DC-motor
driven machines with just service brakes on the axis of
the motor shaft. Improved control of the drives took
place with inverter driven AC-motors coming up with
generation 2. The present generation 3 introduced
safety brakes acting on a brake disc located at the rope
drum (Fig. 1).
Aligning Coupling Service Brake Service Brake
Motor
Gearing
Rope drum
Safety Brake
Drum Coupling
Rope drive
Load
Fig. 1: Structure of a gen. 3 STS-crane-hoist with
safety brakes acting on a brake disc located at the rope
drum
Advantage of safety brakes located on the axis of the
rope drum is the action close to the load. For most
imaginable cases of a mechanical drivetrain failure
they are able to brake down and hold the load.
Unfortunately they also imply negative aspects. Action
of the safety brakes out of lowering the load may cause
extreme gearing loads. This occurs due to the
concentration of reduced masses on the motor shaft
axis. Such emergency stops are of special relevance in
case of high safety brake torques and clearances in the
drivetrain such as gearing clearances or drum coupling
clearances [1]. Clearances allow to happen load-
bearing flank changes and impacts due to changes in
load direction. EN 13001 [2] takes this aspect into
account by dynamic factor φ5. A strategy to prevent
these outcomes was presented in [3].
Hoist Structure with Freewheel Coupling
Basically the high reduced masses of the motor and
surrounding components as aligning coupling and
brake drum or disc are causing high gearing loads in
case of an emergency stop out of lowering the load.
Further considerations focus the idea of uncoupling the
motor mass (and further masses close to the motor)
from the hoist in the operational mode described above.
This is realized by implementation of a freewheel
coupling between the motor and the gearing. This
allows the motor to lift a load but prevents the motor to
press on the gearing after a change of load direction.
As there is no need to actively brake down the motor
the service brakes may be omitted. In case of a non-
active motor (e.g. hoist out of service, energy cut-off)
the load is held by a motor lock assembled next to the
Aligning Coupling
motor. These changes lead to the structure of a
generation 4 hoist, proposed by [4] (Fig. 2).
Motor
Aligning Coupling Freewheel Couplings Aligning Coupling
Motor Motor
Motor Lock Motor Lock
Rope drum
Gearing
Safety Brake
Drum Coupling
Rope drum Rope drum
Rope drive
Safety Brake Safety Brake
Drum Coupling Drum Coupling
Rope drive Rope drive
Load
Fig. 2: Structure of a gen. 4 STS-crane-hoist with a
freewheel coupling and a motor lock
Considered STS-Crane-Hoist
The hoist behaviour as a result of a freewheel coupling
implementation is considered. Basis of the
consideration are the parameters of the hoist, which are
distributed symmetrically with regard to shape and
process (Fig. 3).
Vöth: STS-Crane-Hoist-Structure with Freewheel Coupling, Page 1 of 6 Pages
 Aligning Coupling Freewheel Coupling a

Motor θ1

Motor Lock x x
Gearing
iG, cG
v<0, a>0 v>0, a>0
Rope drum Braked lowering Accelerated hoisting
θ1, r
v

Safety Brake
MSB, ∆tSB Drum Coupling

x x
Hoisting speed
Rope drive vH
iR, cR
v<0, a<0 v>0, a<0
Accelerated lowering Braked hoisting
Load mLAD+mSWL

Fig. 4: Four quadrant diagram and operational mode

Fig. 3: Parameters of the considered STS-crane-hoist considered

Hoist parameters: As system configurations are distinguished:

Nominal power Pnom=1.9MW Classical generation 3 system

Generation 4 system with freewheel coupling
Motor speed n1=900/1800min-1 Generation 4 system with freewheel coupling anda
Hoisting speed vH=90/180m/min reduced safety braking torque of MSBred=65%
Acceleration aH=0.8m/s2 MSB=500kNm

Mass motor axis θ1=8.78…86.47kgm2 These systems are considered with following
variations:
Mass drum axis θ2=4451.4kgm2
Maximum load (dead load plus safe working load)
Mass load att. device mLAD=40t / Minimum load (dead load)
Masse load mSWL=65t
Maximum load height / Minimum load height
Radius rope drum r=0.732m In all cases a switch-off of the motor at the beginning
Ratio gearing iG=23.02 of the process is considered. Following the brakes
Ratio rope drive iR=2 come into action. The safety brake after the dead time
∆tSB and, for the system without freewheel coupling,
Torque service brake MHB=50kNm
the service brake after the dead time ∆tHB (Fig. 5). For
Dead time service brake ∆tHB=0.4s the systems with freewheel coupling the service brake
Torque safety brake MSB=768kNm was omitted.
Dead time safety brake ∆tSB=0.2s
Hoisting
Gearing stiffness cG=1e8Nm/rad t
Gearing clearance sG=1,88° Off
Motor
Freewheel friction MFW=2% MSt* Lowering
Emergency Off Event
∆tM ∆tHB

Static load torque MSt*=16377Nm

Braking factor BB BFBB=3.05 On

Braking factor SB BFSB=2.04 Off

t

Service brake
∆tSB
Considered Load Case and Configurations
On

Process in focus is an emergency stop out of a lowering Off

t

movement. This process is taking place in the upper Safety brake

left quadrant (second quadrant) of the four quadrant

diagram (Fig. 4), (Speed and acceleration defined Fig. 5: Switching sequence of motor, safety brake and
positive in direction of lifting). service brake

Rigid body kinetics

To investigate the system behaviour different models

are applied. First is a rigid body model (Fig. 6). In this
model all masses are coupled via fixed ratios,
elasticities and non-linearities are not considered.

Vöth: STS-Crane-Hoist-Structure with Freewheel Coupling, Page 2 of 6 Pages

 MG MG⋅iG Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Motor Side

Motor Side

Motor Side
Load Side

Load Side

Load Side
iG

θ2α2
θ1α1
r
θ1
θ2
ω1
ω2
FS
MM
MHB
MSB iS

v
m
Lowering Lowering Lowering

mg ma

Fig. 8: Flank change in gearing due to change in load

Fig. 6: Rigid body model of the STS-crane-hoist direction

Due to this model the acceleration of the motor shaft is Hoist behaviour without Freewheel Coupling
determined as follows:
Without a freewheeel coupling (Generation 3 system) a
M SB g ⋅ r maximum gearing torque of 6.7 times the maximum
± M M m M HB m − (mLAM + mLast ) static load torque has to be expected (Fig. 9). The drum
ω&1 =
∑M =
iG iG iS
will move after motor switch-off for further 3.8 rad
∑θ θ r2
θ1 + 22 + 2 2 (mLAM + mLast ) until standstill (Fig. 10).
iG iG iS
1

The motor torque MM here is not of relevance, as 0

processes after switching off the motor are regarded. -1

Relative Gearing Torque MG/MGSt in 1

The equation is useful to calculate the general speed -2

and the displacement of the load for example. -3

Depending on the system masses and the acting actors
-4
(motor, brakes) the medium kinematic values are
determined (Fig. 7). Main result is a braking time for -5

the safety braking out of lowering dead load for the -6

generation 3 system of 0.60s. -7

0 1 Time t in s 2
Lowering speed vH in m/min

0
t Fig. 9: Relative gearing torque for braking out of
lowering of dead load
∆tSB
0

-2

-4
Drum Speed ωD in rad/s

100%
Lowering, Dead load
-6

-8
Lowering, Full load

-10

-12
Fig. 7: Speed-time-behaviour of a generation 3 hoist -4 -3 -2 -1 Drum Angle φD in rad 0

due to rigid body model

Fig. 10: Rope drum speed vs. rope drum angle for
Elastic body kinetics braking out of lowering of dead load

To investigate the system beahviour in more detail, an Hoist behaviour with Freewheel Coupling
elastic body model is considered. In addition to the
rigid body model this regards elasticities in the system Witht a freewheeel coupling a maximum gearing
as well as non-linear properties, e.g. clearances in the torque of 4.7 times the maximum static load torque has
gearing and the rope drum coupling. This model to be expected (Fig. 11). The drum will move after
depicts the vibrational behavior of the system in motor switch-off for further 2.4 rad until standstill
general and the effect of a flank change in the gearing (Fig. 12).
due to changes of load direction especially (Fig. 8).
Vöth: STS-Crane-Hoist-Structure with Freewheel Coupling, Page 3 of 6 Pages
 1
Kinematic behavior
0

-1 Following picture shows the kinematic behaviour for

Relative Gearing Torque MG/MGSt* in 1

-2 the three different configurations in comparison

-3 (Fig. 15).
-4
0

-5
Without Freewheel Coupling
-2 With Freewheel Coupling
-6 With Freewheel Coupling and MSB=500kNm

-7 -4

Drum Speed ωD in rad/s

0 1 Time t in s 2

-6

Fig. 11: Relative gearing torque for braking out of Engagement

Safety Brake Motor Switch-Off
-8
lowering of dead load Engagement
Service Brake
-10
0

-12
-2 -4 -3 -2 -1 Drum Angle φD in rad 0

-4
Drum Speed ωD in rad/s

Fig. 15: Rope drum speed vs. rope drum angle for
-6 braking out of lowering of dead load
-8
After motor-switch-off the hoist is accelerating until
-10
engagement of the safety brake. With engagement of
the safety brake deceleration starts. The systems with
-12
-4 -3 -2 -1 Drum Angle φD in rad 0 freewheel coupling are just braked down by the safety
brake whereas the generation 3 system is also affected
Fig. 12: Rope drum speed vs. rope drum angle for by the service brake after expiration of the according
braking out of lowering of dead load dead time.

Hoist behaviour with Freewheel Coupling and a The braking times involved are determined as follows
modiefied Braking Torque of MSBred=500kNm (Fig. 16):

With a freewheeel coupling and a reduced safety brake Braking Time tB in s

torque a maximum gearing torque of 3.4 times the
Dead Load Full Load
maximum static load torque has to be expected
(Fig. 13). The drum will move after motor switch-off without Freewheel Coupling 0.60 0.52
0.59 0.52
for further 3.2 rad until standstill (Fig. 14). 0.39 0.33
with Freewheel Coupling
1
0.38 0.33
0
with Freewheel Coupling and 0.59 1.16
MSB=500kNm 0.55 1.16
-1
Fig. 16: Braking time dependant on hoist configuration
Relative Gearing Torque MG/MGSt* in 1

-2
and load (top position/bottom position)
-3

-4
With 0.59s/0.60s the braking time for the safety
-5 braking out of lowering dead load for the generation 3
-6 system matches the result of the rigid body simulation.
-7
0 1 Time t in s 2
Gearing loading
Fig. 13: Relative gearing torque for braking out of Following picture shows the gearing torque for the
lowering of dead load three different configurations in comparison (Fig. 17).
0
1

-2 0

-1
Relative Gearing Torque MG/MGSt in 1

-4
Drum Speed ωD in rad/s

-2

-6
-3

-4
-8

-5
-10 Without Freewheel Coupling
-6 With Freewheel Coupling
With Freewheel Coupling and MSB=500kNm
-12 -7
-4 -3 -2 -1 Drum Angle φD in rad 0 0 1 Time t in s 2

Fig. 14: Rope drum speed vs. rope drum angle for Fig. 17: Relative gearing torque for braking out of
braking out of lowering of dead load lowering of dead load

Vöth: STS-Crane-Hoist-Structure with Freewheel Coupling, Page 4 of 6 Pages

For the Generation 3 system a maximum relative Reduction of Maximum
gearing torque of 6.7 the maximum static load torque Torque Span Mspan* in %
has to be expected. As intented this is reduced to 4.7 Dead Load Full Load
with implementation of the freewheel coupling which
Without Freewheel Coupling 0 0
matches a reduction of 29.9%. The braking time is 0 0
reduced by this measure as well from 0.60s to 0.39s.
With Freewheel Coupling -22.5 -22.4
This is a result of the smaller masses to be braked and MSB=768kNm -21.1 -23.1
down. If the braking time (and the corresponding With Freewheel Coupling -43.7 -43.3
braking distance) is not to be reduced, the torque of the and MSBred=500kNm -46.5 -47.7
safety brake may be reduced. A reduced safety brake Fig. 21: Reduction of Maximum gearing torque span
torque of MSBred=500kNm leads again to the original dependant on hoist configuration and load (top
braking time of 0.59s. The maximum relative gearing position/bottom position)
torque is again reduced to 3.4 which matches a
reduction of 49.3% in comparison to the original Ahead running load mass
system configuration. The torque spans are reduced in
a similar magnitude as the maximum values. The acceleration ramps set of the control system lead to
an acceleration of the load of aH = 0.8 m/s2.
In detail the maximum gearing torque, the reduction of
maximum gearing torque in relation to the system Out of this result the accelerations oft he rope aR, of the
without freewheel coupling, the maximum gearing drum aD and oft he motor aM.
torque span and the reduction of maximum gearing
torque span in relation to the system without freewheel Minimum Load aLAD = 0.8 m/s2
coupling are as follows (Fig. 18-21): Maximum Load aSWL = 0.8 m/s2
Rope aR = 1.6 m/s2
Maximum Relative Drum aD = 2.2 rad/s2
Torque Mmax*
Motor aM = 50.3 rad/s2
Dead Load Full Load
According to the rigid body model following
Without Freewheel Coupling 6.7 5.7
6.7 5.5
accelerations of the freely falling load – all actors
(motor, brakes) out of service - are determined:
With Freewheel Coupling 4.7 4.0
and MSB=768kNm 4.7 4.0
Dead load aLAD = 3,63 m/s2
With Freewheel Coupling 3.4 2.5
and MSBred=500kNm 3.4 2.4 Maximum load aSWL = 5,96 m/s2
Fig. 18: Maximum gearing torque dependant on hoist According to the elastokinetic model following
configuration and load (top position/bottom position) accelerations of the freely falling load are determined:
Reduction of Maximum
Torque Mmax* in % Dead load aLAD = 3,66 m/s2
Maximum load aSWL = 5,88 m/s2
Dead Load Full Load
0 0
This proposes, that in case of accelerated lowering
Without Freewheel Coupling
0 0 movement the load will run ahead of the drivetrain for
With Freewheel Coupling -29.9 -29.8
the adjusted values of acceleration. No change of load
and MSB=768kNm -29.9 -27.3 direction in the rope has to be expected. In fact the
With Freewheel Coupling -49.3 -56.1 acceleration could be about four times higher without
and MSBred=500kNm -49.3 -56.4 the load being “overtaken” by the drive.
Fig. 19: Reduction of Maximum gearing torque
dependant on hoist configuration and load (top Conclusions
position/bottom position)
A modification of fast running STS-crane-hoists
Maximum Relative including the implementation of a freewheel coupling
Torque Span Mspan* is proposed in order to reduce hoist gearing loading.
Dead Load Full Load System modifications may include: Implementation of
Without Freewheel Coupling 7.1 6.7 a freewheel coupling between motor and gearing.
7.1 6.5 Implementation of motor lock next to the motor.
With Freewheel Coupling 5.5 5.2 Omission of the typically present service brake.
and MSB=768kNm 5.6 5.0
With Freewheel Coupling 4.0 3.8 The implementation of the freewheel coupling results
and MSBred=500kNm 3.8 3.4
in a potential for a significant reduction of gearing
Fig. 20: Gearing torque span dependant on hoist loading. This applies for maximum relative gearing
configuration and load (top position/bottom position) torques as well as spans of relative gearing torque
magnitude.

Vöth: STS-Crane-Hoist-Structure with Freewheel Coupling, Page 5 of 6 Pages

The implementation of the freewheel coupling results
in a potential for the reduction of braking times and
braking distances.
The position of the load, either upper or lower limit
position, does not affect the evaluated results with
practica significance.
Vöth: STS-Crane-Hoist-Structure with Freewheel Coupling, Page 6 of 6 Pages
Literature
[1] Schmeink: Dynamische Beanspruchung von
Hubwerksgetrieben, Tagungsband 22.
Internationale Kranfachtagung, Magdeburg, 2014
[2] EN 13001-2: Crane safety, General design, Part 2:
Load actions
[3] Vöth, S.: Hubwerke mit Sicherheitsbremsen, Teil
3: Intelligentes Bremsen, Hebezeuge und
Fördermittel, Heft 5, 2015
[4] WIPO/PCT WO2016/110333A1, System
arrangement of lifting mechanisms and method of
operating the arrangement