Int. J. Mech. Sci. Vol. 29. No. 9, pp. 605-619. 1987 0020-7403/87 $3.00+ .

00
Printed in Great Britain. © l 987 Pergamon Joumala Ltd.

THE RESPONSE OF WIRE ROPE STRANDS TO AXIAL TENSILE

LOADS-PART I. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND
THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS

W. S. UTTING* and N. JoNEst

*Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Technology, Lae, Papua New Guinea and
toepartment of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Liverpool, U.K.

(Received 2 May 1986; and in revised form 16 January 1987)

Abstract--Carefully instrumented tests were performed on straight single steel strands of seven-wire
construction subjected to axial loads and with various end restraints. The strands have a practical
range of lay angles between 9.2 and 17.0° with core and helical wire diameters of 3.94 and 3.73 mm,
respectively. A mathematical model of a strand was developed to explore the change of helix angle
under load, Poisson ratio effects in wires, wire flattening under interwire pressure and the effect of
friction between the core and helical wires. A companion article (Part II) [Int. J. Mech. Sci. 29,
621-636 (1987)] compares the theoretical predictions with previously published analytical work and
with the corresponding experimental results reported in this article.

NOTATION
d, core wire diameter
d" helical wire diameter
h length of strand
k wire curvature about normal axis of helix
k' wire curvature about binormal axis of helix
m number of wires in a strand
r helix radius (r0 = (d, + dh)/2)
s original length of helical wire centre-line
z 1 restraining ratio, bending (friction effect of core on helical)
z2 restraining ratio, torsion (friction effect of core on helical)
A, cross-sectional area of core wire
Cs slip ratio
E Young's modulus
F' frictional force per unit length of wire surface
G bending moment component about normal axis of helical wire
G' bending moment component about binormal axis of helical wire
H twisting moment about axis of helical wire
1, core wire: second moment of area about diameter of cross-section
J" helical wire: second moment of area about diameter of cross-section
K, K' components of external bending moment per unit length acting about normal and binonnal axes of helical
wire
L total strand length
2L L strand length with no end effects (L L = L/2- Lr)
LT transitional length adjacent to strand termination
M torque acting on strand
M, torque acting on core wire
N component of shearing force on wire cross-section in a direction normal to helical wire
N' component of shearing force on wire cross-section in a direction binormal to helical wire
P axial force in strand
S 1 torsional stiffness of core wire
S2 axial stiffness of core wire
S3 bending stiffness of helical wire
S4 torsional stiffness of helical wire
T axial force in helical wire
T, axial force in core wire
X, Y components of contact force per unit length in normal and binormal directions of helical wire, respectively
Z component of contact force per unit length along axis of helical wire
ex strand helix angle = n/2 - lay angle
,5 linear distance moved by a point on_ a developed wire surface

MS 29:9-A
605
606 W. S. UTTING and N. JONLS

b' linear distance moved by a point on a developed wire surface per unit length of helical wire
bx change in helix radius of strand due to interwire contact
i; axial strain of strand
µ coefficient of friction between core and helical wires
v Poisson's ratio
( strain of helical wire axis
�8 strain on helical wire surface due to bending
( H strain on helical wire surface
r helical wire twist (tortuosity)
</>, rotational strain of strand (rotation per unit length)
I 0 I external torque per unit length acting about helical wire axis
subscripts applied to b, b' and F' above
A direction parallel to wire axis
C core wire
F friction present but no slip between wires
H helical wire
S slip between wires (friction present)
T direction tangential to wire axis

1. INTRODUCTION
The authors reviewed recently [1 J some of the literature published on wire rope and found
few studies which sought the general principles of tensile behaviour.
Machida and Durelli [2] examined the theoretical and experimental behaviour of oversize
plastic and wire single strands. However, the lay angles of the test strands were less than 10°,
which are extreme practical strand geometries. Costello et al. [3, 4] have used a fundamental
approach to model the elastic response of six-wire strands (i.e. no core wire). Velinsky et al.
[5] considered Poisson effects on the response of a seven-wire strand (with a core) and more
complex strand and rope constructions. They linearized the non-linear equations of
equilibrium and in a later paper Velinsky (6] showed that the predictions from linear and
non-linear theories are nearly identical in the load range in which most wire ropes are used.
No systematic experimental studies have been conducted to determine the accuracy of the
theoretical methods of Machida and Durelli [2], Phillips and Costello (3, 4], Velinsky et al.
(5, 6]. Moreover, no assessment appears to have been made of the importance of the friction
forces between the wires and the effect of wire flattening under contact pressure; both effects
which were neglected in the theoretical developments.
It is the objective of this study to conduct a series of carefully instrumented tests on straight
steel strands of seven-wire construction having a range of practical lay angles. Details of the
test programme are given in this article. A new mathematical model for the strand response is
also presented which takes account of friction between the individual wires, Poisson ratio
effects and flattening of the individual wires.
In a companion article [7], predictions on the response of the test strands from the theories
of Machida and Durelli [2], Phillips and Costello (3, 4] and Velinsky et al. [5, 6] are
compared with those computed from the new mathematical model which are presented in
this article. The three different theoretical predictions are also compared in Ref. [7] with the
corresponding experimental results.

2. DETAILS OF TEST PROGRAMME

2.1 Test equipment and strand preparation

The loading rig and instrumentation are described fully in Ref. [8].
A number of seven-wire strands having a range of helix angles were made available by
courtesy of British Ropes. The strands were formed in the same stranding machine from
seven reels of wire that were unchanged throughout; particular care was taken to eliminate
strand curvature which was present in the test specimens examined in Ref. [8]. A length of
about 1½ m was stranded and discarded after each gear (strand lay) change in order to ensure
that the geometry of each test length was free from any irregularities due to the transition.
Table 1 contains the details of the six test strands which were selected for the instrumented
 TABLE 1. NOMINAL AND MEASURED STRAND GEOMETRY

Calculated
Core Helical Nominal Measured Nominal From measured lay Wire 0
-,
Strand diameter* diameter* layt lay Lay angle Helix angle Lay angle Helix angle modulust
No. (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) °
( )
°
( ) n °
( ) (GN m-2) �-
I 3.94 3.73 82.04 78.66 16.37 73.63 17.03 72.97 197.9 i�
II 3.94 3.73 97.79 96.69 13.84 76.16 13.99 76.01 197.9 ii.l
III 3.94 3.73 104.14 105.00 13.03 76.97 12.92 77.08 197.9 8.
IV 3.94 3.73 110.49 111.41 12.30 77.70 12.20 77.80 197.9
V 3.94 3.73 123.19 123.58 11.07 78.93 11.03 78.97 197.9
0
VI 3.94 3.73 149.86 148.27 9.13 80.87 9.23 80.77 197.9 i!:!.
I!!.
* Wire diameters: random measurements within + 0.01 mm. f!l.
t Nominal figure: from stranding machine specifi;tion. ci'
t Wire modulus: mean determined from tests on strand core wires. 0
The grade of wire in these strands is 180 kgf mm-2 (1.765 GN m-2) minimum breaking load, to B.S. 2763. �
Tests on wires from adjacent lengths of strand gave mean U.T.S. of 1.784 GN m-2 and 0.1 % proof stress of 0.98 GN m - 2
608 w. S. UTTING and N. JONES

tests reported herein. The strand Jays were measured over lengths of about 1900 mm and were
found to be within 1.1 % of the nominal figures, except for Strand I which was 4.1 % less than
the nominal lay.
The experience gained during the preliminary tests [8] suggested that efficient gripping of
the individual wires could be achieved when bent through complete 360° circular arcs of
about 25---40 mm diameter and orientated to minimize interference between the wires when
confined in the hollow conical grip. A polyester resin based socketing medium was used with
a silica filler. The loops ensured that a bollard type of mechanism was involved in the gripping
of the wires, as well as the adhesive and, when developed, the radial gripping forces as
reported by Chaplin and Sharman [9].
The preliminary tests reported in Ref. [8] show that strain differences along a particular
wire were smaller than the differences between wires, except within one lay length of the grips.
For the present tests, therefore, strain gauges were attached to wires at the mid-strand
position and near to one end grip on each strand except Strand III.
2.2 Loading programme
The preliminary test programme reported in Ref. [8] showed significant differences in
strand response between tests having fixed- and free- (zero torque) end conditions. In addi­
tion, the load-extension behaviour became non-linear at lower loads in the free-end case. It
was, therefore, decided to test strands with the free-end condition up to loads no higher than
45 kN. The relation between strand tension and torque generated was determined first from
fixed-end tests for each strand. The tension-torque relation for each fractional torsional
restraint was then calculated and the predetermined torques found for particular tension
values used in experimental tests on strands with partially restrained ends (¾, ½, ¼ fixed) and
free ends.
2.3 Data processing
The raw data from the strain gauges together with strand tension, torque generated,
extension and rotation were processed in a Systime PDPl 1 computer. In order to obtain
information about the nature of the load-extension, load-rotation, load-strain and
load-torque relations, a programme was devised to determine the best straight lines over
selected ranges of these loading cycles above 10 kN.
Load-torque plots from the fixed-end tests up to 100 kN load are given in Fig. 1. A selected
number of the other experimental results obtained in tabular form for all loading cycles, were

Strand Number JlI :ll' Nm lI I

z
..lC

0
<{
0
..J

o !"---�-�-�--�-�-�-��-_.___
0 20 40 60 80
TORQUE (Nm.)
Fm. 1. Load-torque generated in Strands I-VI with fixed-ends and loaded to 100 kN.
 Response of wire rope strands to axial tensile loads-I 609

plotted using a graph plotting facility connected to the computer. Figures 2 and 3 are
examples of load-extension (for Strand II) and load-rotation (from Strand V) plots,
respectively; Fig. 4 is an example of load-mean surface strain on all six helical wires (Strand
IV) and Figs 5-7 are examples of load-surface strain on all six helical wires at a strand section
(Strands IV and I).
2.4 Breaking loads and types of fracture
The breaking load of a wire rope, or strand, is of major interest to designers, manufacturers
and users. Test procedures to determine this load are well developed and it is invariably
quoted in catalogues and specifications. For this reason, the determination of the breaking
load for these particular strands was not considered a top priority in this study. However, the
values are given in Table 2, together with details of the failure. The fact that there was some

Cycle Cycle
8 7
so

Cycle
..... 40 (Freel

30

20

10

0
0 1250 2500 3750 5000

MICROSTRAIN

FIG. 2. Load-strand extension for Strand II with fixed, partially restrained and free ends.

so Cycle
z
.:c Cycle 9 Cycle 8 Cycle 7 I Free)

..... 40

30

20

10

o�__._-��--'--�--'--�-'--�--'----'----'---�----'--
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
STRANO ROTATION OVER 600 mm I Degrees J

FIG. 3. Load-strand rotation for Strand V with free and partially restrained ends.
610 w. s. UTTING and N. JONES

z
""
D
<(
...,
0

0'-----'----'----'------'---'----'---'-----'----'---'-----
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
MICROSTRAIN

FIG. 4. Load-mean surface strains on helical wire at mid-strand of Strand IV with fixed, partially
restrained and free ends (strains parallel to wire axis).

Wire Number 1 3 2 5 6 4

D
<(
...,
0

60

40

20

2000 4000 6000 8000

MICROSTRAIN

FIG. 5. Load-strains on all helical wires at mid-strand of Strand IV with fixed ends and loads up to
110 kN (strains parallel to wire axis).

consistency about the nature of the failures reinforces the view that the testing procedure,
particularly the strand termination technique, was also consistent.

3. MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF STRAND RESPONSE

3.1 Seven-wire strand

Machida and Durelli [2] developed approximate theoretical expressions for the response
of a seven-wire strand subjected to an axial load. Costello et al. [3, 4] examined a six-wire
strand and following on Love [10] considered the individual helical wires of the strand as
 Response of wire rope strands to axial tensile loads-I 611

Wire Number 3 2 6 4 5 1

100
z
...:

-' 80

60

20

2000 4000 6000 8000

MICR0STRAIN

FIG. 6. Load-strains on all helical wires near grips of Strand IV with fixed ends and loads up to
100 kN (strains parallel to wire axis).

50
.­
a
]>
Wire Number 1 D
,..
z
40 -

30

20

10

-�-�--�-�--�------------0
-800 -600 -400 -200 0
MICROSTRAIN

FIG. 7. Load-strains on all helical wires at mid-strand of Strand I with free ends and loads up to
44 kN (strains parallel to wire axis).

thin rods subjected to tension, bending, twisting and bearing loads (where they have line
contact with each other). Expressions were obtained for extension, rotation and torque
generated in the strand under a static axial tensile load. Costello and Phillips [4] retain the
influence of wire extension in the compatibility equations. This analysis is extended by a
method similar to that of Velinsky et al. [5] to take account of a core wire.
The total axial force and total axial twisting moment are given by
P = 6(TsinllC 1 + N'cosllC i ) + Tc (1)
 °'
N

TABLE 2. BREAKING LOADS AND TYPES OF FRACTURE

Helix angle Breaking load % deviation

Strand No. (° ) (kN) from mean Fracture description

73.0 137.0 -1.6 All wires severed about ¼ of strand length from grip.
'Birdcaging' about 70 mm from both ends. Largest
'birdcage' (50 mm dia.) in longer length of broken
strand. �
�
II 76.0 139.6 +0.3 All wires severed about 220 mm from end opposite c::
:j
z
load cell. Double 'birdcage' covering full wire lay
length at load cell end. Cl
I»
III 77.l 138.6 -0.4 Four helical wires broken at end grip. Broken wires :,
Q.
'birdcaged' at opposite end grip. z
IV 77.8 145.4 +4.5 All wires severed about 190 mm from load cell end. 0
z
Double 'birdcage' at opposite end. rn
Cl)

V 79.0 136.7 -1.8 All wires severed about 160 mm from load cell end.
Double 'birdcage' at opposite end.
VI 80.8 137.9 -0.9 One helical wire broken just inside end grip. Snaked
loose from remaining wires over whole length.
Formed a 'single wire birdcage'.

Mean breaking load= 139.2 kN

 Response of wire rope strands to axial tensile loads-I 613

and
M = 6(Hsintx 1 +G'cosrx 1 +Tr 1 costx1 -N'r1 sintx i )+Mc, (2)
respectively, where
(3, 4)
are the core tension and twisting moment about the core axis (see Figs 8 and 9).
Analysis of the original and deformed configurations of a developed wire helix yields an
axial strain
t: = (1 + e) sintx i /sintx -1 (5)
and a rotational strain

r
or 'Pc = -(1 +t:)/tantx 1 - 1/tantx. (6)
r1
Inward migration of the helical wires under increased load is prevented by contact with the
core of a seven-wire strand. If wire flattening and Poisson's ratio effects are neglected, the
helix radius under all conditions of loading is
(7)
3.2 Poisson's ratio effects
If Poisson's ratio effects in the individual wires are now considered, the helix radius for a
strand under load is
(8)
when the core and helical wires are made from the same material. The helix radius is reduced

FIG. 8. Resultant forces and moments on the core wire.

Section A-A

FIG. 9. Geometry of a seven-wire strand.

614 w. S. UITING and N. JONES

further if wire flattening is taken into account and equation (8) then becomes
r1 = {dc (l-vs)+dh (l-vm12-c5x, (9)
where c5 x = f(X) is a flattening term which is an empirical relation based on the experimental
work of Hamlet [11].
After flattening, the wire cross-sections are no longer circular and, in the case of helical
wires, are also unsymmetrical. However, it is assumed that the response to tension, bending
and torsion remains unchanged after flattening because the magnitude of these dimensional
changes is very small.
3.3 Zero friction between wires
Previous theoretical analyses [2-6] assumed that friction effects between wires in a strand
are small enough to be neglected. End effects are also neglected and the analyses imply that
there must be an instantaneous change from the geometry of the loaded strand (with helix
angle 1 and helix radius r 1) to that of the unloaded strand (with helix angle and radius r) at
(X (X

the point where the strand enters an ideal grip or termination.

An alternative way of regarding the end effect is to assume that any changes in the strand
geometry occur over a transitional length L T at each end of the strand, adjacent to an end grip.
In Fig. lO(a) the developed surface of the core wire in the unloaded strand is represented by
rectangle abed. Diagonal ac at angle to the cross-section is a development of the original line
(X

of contact on the core surface between the core and a helical wire. The parallelogram ab'c'd'
represents the developed surface of the core wire in the loaded strand which has suffered
extension and rotation. In addition, the core wire diameter has decreased due to Poisson
effects. Diagonal ac' is the development of the new position of the original line of contact in
the core surface, while line afc' is the new position of the original line of contact in the helical
wire surface. This line forms a curve between f and c' over the transitional length of the strand.
The helix angle changes from 1 to the original unloaded angle where it is gripped in the
(X (X

I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I
�
--'
I

FIG. 10. Development of wire contact lines and core wire surface. (a) No interwire friction. (b)
Friction with no slip. (c) Friction with slip.
 Response of wire rope strands to axial tensile loads-I 615

strand termination through the bending moment G, which is not zero over the transition
length.
At a distance L r from the strand termination, the total displacement of a point e on the
original line of contact is given by eg for the core and ef for the helical wire. Over the strand
length L L the component of displacement perpendicular to the helical wire axis is tf in
Fig. lO(a). The displacement component et is parallel to the axis of the helical wire and
consists of an axial extension of the original line of contact according to simple bending
theory together with the contribution from the strain of the helical wire axis.
3.4 Friction with zero slip
The effect of friction is now considered over that part of the strand which is at sufficient
distance from the grips to avoid end effects. It is postulated that frictional resistance from a
core wire prevents some of the rotation and bending of the helical wires about their own axes
which would otherwise have occurred in the absence of friction. The contributions of Hand
G' to the overall torque generated in a strand are, therefore, transmitted to the end grips
partly by the helicals and partly by the core wire. Contact is maintained between the core and
helical wires over a strand length L L as shown by line ax in Fig. lO(b). (Over the transition
length Lr the contact force decreases until it is zero upon entry to the grip and, therefore, slip
between the core and helical wires gives separate lines for each between x and c'.)
A friction force per unit length of a helical wire FF acts as shown in Fig. ll(c) with
components F'HTF and F'ttAF which are tangential and parallel to the wire axis along the line
of contact, respectively. The equal and opposite force acting on the core wire has the two
components F'crF and FcAF· If the effect of friction is now superimposed on the wire
orientations which are determined under conditions of zero friction [see Fig. lO(a)], then
point f on the helical wire and point g on the core wire move to point x [see Figs lO(b)
and ll(a)].
The effect of friction force alone is now considered by treating each wire as a thin rod after
Phillips and Costello [3, 4] and Love [10].
The core wire can be considered as a special case of a helical wire with ix = 90 ° for which
external forces and moments and reactions are given by
X = Y= 0, K = K' = 0, N = N' =0 (lOa-f )

(al ( b)

( C) (d)

FIG. 11. Interwire friction: displacements and forces. (a) Friction with no slip------displacements. (b)
Friction with slip------displacements. (c) Friction with no slip-forces. (d) Friction with slip-forces.
616 w. S. UITING and N. JONES
and G' =G=0, (lla, b)
while r = k=k'=0. (12a-c)
Now, due to symmetry of the loading from the six helical wires and since the core wire
remains straight under loading, the equilibrium equations [3, 4] and equations (lOa-f),
(1la, b)and (12a-c)give
dT/dsc+ Z = 0 (13)
and
dH/dsc + 101 = 0. (14)
It should be noted that for a unit length of a helical wire, the corresponding length of core
wire over which interwire friction acts is sin Cl(. The external axial force and external torque
acting per unit length of a core wire are, therefore,
Z = 6(FcAF)/sin Cl( (15)
and
I 0 I = 6(FcrFHdc /2)/sin Cl(, (16)
respectively, when FcAF and FcrF are defined with respect to a unit length of helical wire.
The total friction force acting on the core per unit length of the core wire is

(17)

Friction effects on the helical wires are now considered. The friction force components
acting along (F'HAF )and perpendicular to (F'HrF)the line of contact between the core and
helical wires produce an external bending moment
(1-8)
and an external torque
(19)

per unit length of a helical wire. If no other external forces are considered, then it follows that
X=Y= Z=0, K=O. (20)
Any geometry changes of a strand due to frictional effects are assumed to be very small
compared with those caused by tensile loading of a strand. Thus, any non-linear terms
containing changes of curvature and twist (k'and r)can be omitted from the equations of
equilibrium [3, 4]. Substituting equations (18)and (19)yields
dG'/ds + N = F'HAF(dh /2) (21)
and
(22)
The shear force component N was shown by Phillips and Costello [3, 4] to be zero in the
case where friction is not considered. Moreover, dN d / s is zero when X = 0 if friction only is
considered. Thus, the shear force N due to friction is taken as zero and, therefore, equation
(21)gives
(23)

The frictional force acting on the helical wire per unit length is
F'F-(F'HAF2+F'HTF2)0.s' (24)
which is equal and opposite to the force acting on the core wire, where
F� = FHF = FcF sin 0(/6. (25)
The equations of equilibrium can now be established, and, with reference to Fig. 11(c)are
given by
FcrF = FHTF sin Cl( - F'HAF cos Cl( (26)
 Response of wire rope strands to axial tensile loads-I 617

and
(27)*
Equations linking the displacements of the core and helical wires with friction forces can also
be established [see Fig. ll(a) and (c)]. For the core wire
(28)
and
bcAF = 6FcAFIs2, (29)
where S1 and S2 are, respectively, the torsional and axial stiffnesses
S1 = EJc /{(1 +v)sincx(dc /2) 2 } (30)
and
(31)
according to elementary theory. t
Similarly, for the helical wire
(32)
and
(33)
where S3 and S4 are, respectively, the bending and torsional stiffnesses of the helical wire,
which are given by
(34)
and
(35)
It is convenient to consider the friction force components acting on a helical wire as
fractions of the restraining forces from a core of infinite stiffness that would prevent all
torsion and bending when the strand is loaded. These forces are, to prevent all bending

(36)
and to prevent torsion
H
F IHTH = - (37)
(dh/2)L L"
Since the core wire has a finite stiffness, the components of restraining force due to friction
will be smaller and may be quantified in terms of the restraining ratios z 1 and z 2 , where
(38)
and
(39)
Thus, the actual bending moment G� and the actual torque Ha in the helical wire of a loaded
strand may be written
G� = (1-z i )G' (40)
and
(41)
respectively.
Expressions linking the friction force components in the core with those in the helical wires
can now be obtained by equating net components of the displacement of a contact point on
the core with those of the contact point on a helical wire. From equations (28), (29), (32), (33),

* The initial helix angle (tx) may be used in these expressions. This simplification introduces negligible error since
the final angle (tx i ) is never more than 0.6° greater than tx for the tests reported here.
tstifTnesses are normaliz.ed in terms of moment of force (Si) or force (S2) per unit length of helical wire.
618 w. S. UTTING and N. JONES
(36) and (37) we obtain
6F'crF/S 1 = [(-2H/(dh Ld-F'HrF )/S4 ]sin1X
-[(-2G'/(dh Ld-F'HAF)/S3 Jcos IX (42)
and
6F�AFIS2 = [(-2H/(dh Ld-F�m)/S4]cos1X
+ [(-2G' /(dh Ld-F'HAF)/S 3 ]sin IX. (43)
Manipulation of equations (26), (27), (42) and (43) yields
_ (G'B/S3 -HA/S4)
F'HAF - (44)
3dh Ld A - BC)
2

and
_ (HC/S4 -G'A/S )
F'HTF - --- ___2___ __3_' (45)
3dh L d A BC)
where
A= sin1X cos1X(l/S2 - 1/S i )
B = sin 2 1X/S 1 +cos2 1X/S2 + l/6S4 (46a--c)
C = cos 2 1X/S 1 +sin 2 1X/S2 +1/6S3.
The resultant force per unit length of a helical wire is given by equation (24).

3.5 Friction with some slip

If the frictional force between points on the core and helical wires, which were in contact
before loading, is insufficient to maintain rolling contact, then slip occurs. The helical wire is
less restrained by frictional force from the core and the associated displacements from the
zero friction condition are therefore less, giving
fy <fx
or
()'HAS < b' HAF and ()�!TS < bi-iTF- (47)
Similarly,
gz < gx,
or
(48)
as indicated in Figs lO(b) and (c), and 11 (a) and (b).
The final separation, or slip, between the points originally in contact is now represented by
distance yz in Figs lO(c) and ll(b).
The force on unit length of the helical wire is
(49)
Moreover, the force acting on the core wire, per unit length of helical wire [see Fig. 11 (d) ], is
F's = (F'cr/ +F'cA/) 0 ·5, (50)
where F's now acts in the opposite sense. If
F's= C 8F� where Cs< 1,
then
F's = Cs(F'HT/+F'HA/) ° · 5• (51)
Slip occurs between the core wire and helical wires when
F's>µX, (52)
where X is the contact force per unit length of helical wire.
Phillips and Costello (3, 4] obtained the expression for line contact force on a helical wire
X = Hk'1 t 1 -G'rf-Tk'1 - (53)
 Response of wire rope strands to axial tensile loads-I 619

This expression must be modified to take account of the reduced bending moment and torque
in the helical wires when friction between the core and helical wires is considered. Thus,
substituting the bending moment G� from equation (40) and torque Ha from equation (41)
into equation (53) gives
(54)
If the coefficient of friction is known, the onset of slip for a strand of a particular geometry
may be predicted and the amount of slip distance estimated.
3.6 Strains on helical wire surfaces
The strain on the surface of a helical wire in the direction of the individual helical wire axis
is given by
(55)
where� is the strain at the wire axis, which is obtained from the strand strain E [equation (5) J
and � 8 is the strain due to wire bending under strand load. When interwire friction is
neglected,
�B = G'dh /2Elh, (56)
where the bending moment G' is given by
G' = E/h (cos 2 a i /r 1 - cos 2 a/r). (57)
If interwire friction is considered,
�B = G�dh /2El h , (58)
where the bending moment G� is obtained from equation (40).

4. FINAL COMMENTS

The theoretical predictions developed in Section 3 are compared in Part II of this study
[7] with the analytical work of Machida and Durelli [2], Phillips and Costello [3, 4] and
Velinsky et al. [5, 6] and with the experimental results reported in Section 2.

REFERENCES

1. W. S. UTTING and N. JONES, A survey of literature on the behaviour of wire ropes. Wire Ind. 51, 623-629 (1984).
2. S. MACHIDA and A. J. DURELLI, Response of a strand to axial and torsional displacements. J. Mech. Engng Sci.
15, 241-251 (1973).
3. J. W.PHILLIPS and G. A. COSTELLO, Contact stresses in twisted wire cables. Proc. ASCE, J. Engng Mech. Div. 99,
331-341 (1973).
4. G. A. COSTELLO and J. W.PHILLIPS, Effective modulus of twisted wire cables. Proc. ASCE, J. Engng Mech. Div.
102, 171-181 (1976).
5. S. A. VELINSKY, G. L. ANDERSON and G. A. COSTELLO, Wire rope with complex cross-sections. Proc. ASCE, J.
Engng Mech. Div. 110, 380--391 (1984).
6. S. A. VELINSKY, General Non-linear theory for complex wire rope. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 27, 497-507 (1985).
7. W. S. UTTJNG and N. JONES. The response of wire rope strands to axial tensile loads-Part II. Comparison of
experimental results and theoretical predictions. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 29, 621-636 (1987).
8. W. S. UTTING and N. JONES, Tensile testing of a wire rope strand. J. Strain Anal. 20, 151-164 (1985).
9. C. R. CHAPLIN and R. C. SHARMAN, Mechanisms of load transfer in resin socketed terminations. Wire Ind. 51,
749-751 (1984).
10. A. E. H. LOVE, A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity. DoverPublications Inc., New York (1944).
11. C. D. HAMLET, Contact stresses and loads between individual wires in a stranded wire rope. B. Eng.Project
Report, Dept Mech. Engng, University of Liverpool, U.K. (1983).