The Limiting Value of the Fleet Angle of a Rope Running off a Sheave

Moses F. Oduori, Email: foduori@uonbi.ac.ke and mfwedida@yahoo.com. (Corresponding author).

Thomas O. Mbuya, Email: tmbuya@uonbi.ac.ke
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 30197, NAIROBI, KENYA.
Abstract
The problem of determination of the upper limiting value of the fleet angle of a rope
running off a sheave is encountered in the design of hoisting mechanisms such as that of an
electric overhead travelling (EOT) crane, or an elevator, among other applications. In this
paper, a mathematical expression for the determination of this limiting value of the fleet
angle is derived from first principles. The expression obtained here is then compared to,
and contrasted with another that is given in the literature. The earlier expression in the
literature is found to generally overestimate the upper limiting value of the fleet angle.
Introduction
The problem of determination of the upper limiting value of the fleet angle (Fig. 1) is
encountered in the design of hoisting mechanisms such as that of an electric overhead
travelling (EOT) crane or an elevator [1]
1
If, in a given application, the actual maximum
fleet angle is allowed to be greater than the limiting value, intense abrasion will occur
between the rope and the sides of the sheave groove. Moreover, the rope will be pinched
by the upper edge of the sheave groove, leading to high contact stress that may result in
1
Numbers in square brackets refer to cited literature as listed in the references section.
1
intense abrasive wear of both the rope and the sheave, possible crushing of the rope, and
strand nicking the result of adjacent strands pressing and rubbing against one another.
The end result is shortened rope and sheave service life [2,3].





































Fig. 1 - Illustration of the Fleet Angle on an EOT Hoisting Mechanism

Hoisting Drum
Hoisting
Rope
Fleet
Angle
Sheave
Hoisting
Hook
Iwai and Ishikawa [4] present a graphical method for determining this limiting value.
However, graphical methods have the disadvantage of having to be laid out to scale, in
entirety, in every case, and can be time consuming. Where an analytical formula is
2
available, it is generally to be preferred to graphical methods. According to Rudenko [5],
the upper limiting value of the fleet angle may be determined by use of an equation that
can be written in the following form ( see Fig. 3 ):
1
2
1
1
max
43 . 1
tan 2
tan
+


(1)
where;
is one half of the sheave's groove angle,

max
is the upper limiting value of the fleet angle,
D is the nominal diameter (pitch circle diameter) of the sheave,
h
1
is the depth of the sheave's groove measured from the top of the groove to the
bottom of groove,

1
is the ratio of the depth of the sheave's groove to the nominal diameter of the
sheave; hence
D h
1 1

.
Unfortunately, Rudenko [5] presents neither the theoretical basis nor the procedure of
derivation of equation (1). In this paper, an equation for the determination of
max
is
derived from first principles and then its application is discussed, compared to, and
contrasted with equation (1).
Analysis
The co-ordinate system to be used in this analysis is illustrated in Fig. 2. The sheave may
rotate about the yaxis of the fixed coordinate system. In practice, sheave form and
3
dimensions would be according to standards commonly used in the crane and elevator
industry.























Fig. 2 - The Coordinate System, with Origin at the Geometric Centre of the Sheave
z
y x
It should be evident in Fig. 3 that the following relationship holds true:
h D D
O
2 +
(2)
where;
D is the nominal diameter (pitch circle diameter) of the sheave,
h is the nominal depth of the sheave's groove measured from the top of the groove
to the centreline of the rope (pitch line).
It shall be assumed that the surfaces of the sides of the sheave's groove are conical. Thus, a
diametrical section of the sheave's groove would be a straightsided Vshape, except for the
bottom of the groove, which is rounded.
4




























Fig. 3 - The Coordinate System and Relevant Notation
x
z
D D
O

h
r

z
z
max

S
x
d
Section A - A
y
z
y
z

max


A
A
The design objective is to limit the fleet angle so that the rope shall not be forced to
sharply bend over the edge of the sheave's groove, at the point S (Fig. 3) where it runs off
the sheave. As mentioned earlier, such an occurrence would shorten the service life of
the rope. Thus, the limiting value of the fleet angle is the largest value that may be used
without the rope being so bent over the edge of the sheaves groove. This sharp bending
of the rope over the edge of the sheaves groove would be avoided if the rope should run
off the sheave at a tangent to the surface of the sheave's groove.
In Fig. 3, if i, j and k are unit vectors in the x, y and z directions respectively, the quantity
denoted r can be represented by the following vector equation:
5
k i z x r +
Thus, application of the Pythagorean theorem, in Fig. 3, gives the following equation:
2
2
4
z
D
r + (3)
Hence,
2 2
4
2
1
z D r + (4)
With the use of trigonometry in Fig. 3, it can be shown that:

,
_

tan
2
D
r y
(5)
Thus, by using equations (4) and (5), one obtains the following:
( )
2
tan
4
2 2

+ D z D y (6)
The value of the fleet angle can then be found by use of the differential calculus as
follows:
2 2
4
tan 2
tan
z D
z
dz
dy
+

(7)
Furthermore, the following too is evident in Fig. 3:
r
z
sin (8)
Thus from equations (4) and (8):
2 2
4
2
sin
z D
z
+

(9)
Hence, using equations (7) and (9), one obtains:
sin tan tan
(10)
6
Application
The First Approach
As a design approach, it may be assumed that the design of the sheave is as shown in
section AA of Fig. 3, so that the following constraint is imposed upon the dimensions of
the sheave:
2
max
D
z z
S
(11)
Substituting equation (11) into equation (4) leads to the results:
2
max
D
r
(12)
Using equation (12) and Fig. 3, the following equations are found to hold true:
D
D D
h
D D
O
O
207 . 0
2
2

(13)
With the constraints expressed in equations (11) and (12) in play, equation (9) becomes:
2
1
sin
max

(14)
Hence, using equations (10) and (14), one obtains an expression for the limiting value of
the fleet angle as follows:
tan 707 . 0 tan
max
(15)
7
The Second Approach
A more general, alternative design approach may be adopted in which the value of h is
not in any way constrained, in relation to the value of D. Then, with reference to Fig. 3,
it follows that;
h
D
r +
2
max
(16)
Hence, by use of the Pythagorean theorem in Fig. 3:
2
1
2 2
max
2 2
1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

+
D
h
D
z (17)
which may be simplified into:
2
max
h Dh z + (18)
Note that:
max
max
max max max
sin and sin tan tan
r
z

Therefore, it follows that:
h D
h Dh
2
tan 2
tan
2
max
+
+

(19)
Introducing the notation
D h
, one then obtains the following:
+
+

2 1
tan 2
tan
2
max
(20)
Discussion
As was seen earlier, the equation according to Rudenko is as follows:
8
1
2
1
1
max
43 . 1
tan 2
tan
+


(21)
Sheave groove dimensions are normally standardized and Table 1 below gives a sample
of such dimensions, derived from Japanese Industrial Standards JIS B 8807 [4].
Table 1 Some Standard Sheave Data According to JIS B 8807
Wire Rope
Diameter, d mm
Sheave Pitch
Diameter, D mm
D
h

D
h
1
1

1
12.5 250.5 0.05489 0.07984 1.4545
14 280 0.05536 0.08036 1.4516
16 315 0.05397 0.07937 1.4706
18 355 0.05352 0.07887 1.4737
20 400 0.05375 0.07875 1.4651
Average Values 0.0543 0.07944 1.4631
Standard Deviations 0.000789 0.000673 0.009732
Coefficients of Variation 1.4535% 0.8473% 0.6651%
Using the information from Table 1, we may write the following relationship:
4631 . 1
1
(22)
Now, from equations (21) and (22), for the sheave dimensions used in Table 1,
Rudenkos equation may now be rewritten in the following form:
+


9774 . 0
tan 2
tan
2
max
(23)
which facilitates the comparison of Rudenkos equation and the authors equation.
9
For purposes of comparison, two quantities denoted
1
and
2
, which are the normalized
forms of Rudenkos equation (21) and the authors equation (20), were computed using
the following mathematical equations:
+

9774 . 0
2
tan
tan
2
max
1
(24)
+
+

2 1
2
tan
tan
2
max
2
(25)
Values of
1
and
2
are plotted against those of in Fig. 4. This figure reveals that
Rudenko's equation consistently overestimates the upper limiting value of the fleet angle
for the full range of plotted values.
Further comparison of fleet angles as calculated by Rudenkos formula, and by the
authors formula are given in Table 2 below, for a groove angle of 38 degrees. The
consequences of allowing the maximum value of the fleet angle to be too large have
already been mentioned in the introduction to this paper. Suffice to say that
overestimating the upper limiting value of the fleet angle is unacceptable.
10
Fig. 4 - Comparison of Rudenko's and the Authors' Results
0.35
0.5
0.65
0.8
0.95
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

values

v
a
l
u
e
s
Rudenko's Values
The Authors' Values
Table 2 Comparison of the Results of Rudenkos and the Authors Equations
Wire Rope
Diameter, d mm
Sheave Pitch
Diameter, D mm
D
h

Rudenkos

max
, degrees
The Authors

max
, degrees
12.5 250.5 0.05489 19.815 18.717
14 280 0.05536 19.888 18.780
16 315 0.05397 19.669 18.591
18 355 0.05352 19.597 18.529
20 400 0.05375 19.634 18.561
Average Values 19.721 18.636
For the values of r occurring in Table 2, above, the upper limiting values of the fleet
angle, as calculated by Rudenkos equation is 5.823% higher than that obtained by use of
the Authors equation.
11
In the application of equation (10), two alternative approaches were presented. The first
approach constrains the value of h to be equal to 0.207D while the second approach
allows the value of h to be varied freely. However, there are other factors that come into
consideration when the values of D and h are to be determined. For example, a
consideration of the ropes flexural fatigue imposes a lower limit on the nominal sheave
diameter, which depends on the type and diameter of the rope to be used. This
relationship is adequately dealt with in the relevant literature. It has also been reported
that the depth of sheave grooves should be at least 1.5 times the rope diameter and that
one half of the sheaves groove angle should not exceed 26

degrees [3]. Thus, one may
not be entirely free to fix the value of h to be equal to 0.207D, for example, as the values
of both these quantities (h and D) are influenced by factors such as the type and diameter
of the rope to be used.
In a given design situation, the volume of the sheave may be estimated to be that of two
identical but longitudinally opposed conical frusta (Fig. 5), which can be calculated by
use of the following formula [6]:
( ) ( ) ( ) d D D d D D
b
V
o o
+ +

2 2
12
(26)
12


Fig. 5 Determination of the Volume of the Sheave
b
D-d
D
o
Thus, it will be found that for given values of D, deeper sheave grooves lead to larger,
heavier sheaves, which is undesirable. Grooves should not be made unnecessarily deep.
The literature is seemingly inconsistent in recommending the upper limiting values of the
fleet angle. Recommended values range from 0.25
0
to 4.75
0
[2,3,4] and one
recommendation gives 15
0
[1] as the upper limiting value for EOT Crane applications.
The problem with most of these recommendations is that they do not give a basis upon
which the recommendations are made. Note that this paper looks at the upper limiting
value of the fleet angle from the point of view of a rope running off a sheave. In
applications utilizing sheaves and drums/barrels, the maximum value of the fleet angle
may be farther limited by the phenomenon of the rope running onto and off a
drum/barrel.
13
Conclusions
(1) The problem of the determination of the upper limiting value of the fleet angle of a
rope running off a sheave is relevant to the design of hoisting mechanisms such as
those of cranes and elevators.
(2) An equation that may be used to determine the upper limiting value of the fleet angle
of a rope running off a sheave was derived from first principles. The use of this
equation was discussed and compared to one that was given by Rudenko [2] and it
was found that Rudenko's equation overestimates this upper limiting value.
(3) Two design approaches were presented and their effect on the size of the sheave
discussed. The second approach was found to be flexible in its application and
therefore should be a preferred choice for designers.
14
Nomenclature
is one half of the sheave's groove angle,

max
is the upper limiting value of the fleet angle,
D is the nominal diameter (pitch circle diameter) of the sheave,
h is the nominal depth of the sheave's groove measured from the top of the groove to the
centreline of the rope (pitchline),
h
1
is the depth of the sheave's groove measured from the top of the groove to the bottom
of groove, thus
2
1
d h h +
,
is the ratio of the nominal depth of the sheave's groove to the nominal diameter of the
sheave; hence
D h
,

1
is the ratio of the depth of the sheave's groove to the nominal diameter of the sheave;
hence
D h
1 1

.
References
(1) Oduori, M. F. and Nyauma, G. F. (1979). The Design of an Electric Overhead
Travelling Crane, Final Year Project Report Submitted in Partial Fulfilment for the
Award of the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nairobi, Nairobi.
(2) Dickie, D. E. (1975). Crane Handbook. Construction Safety Association of
Ontario, Revised UK Edition published in 1981 by Butterworths & Co. Ltd.
London.
15
(3) Dickie, D. E. (1975). Lifting Tackle Manual. Construction Safety Association of
Ontario, Revised UK Edition published in 1981 by Butterworths & Co. Ltd.
London.
(4) Iwai, Minoru and Yoshio Ishikawa (1989). Modern Machine Design and Drawing
Practice, Number 5. Part 4 Design of the Power Winch. Pp 150-151. Ohm Sha,
Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
(5) Rudenko, N. (1969), Materials Handling Equipment, 2nd Edn. Mir Publishers,
Moscow.
(6) Carmichael, R. D. and. SMITH, E. R (1962), Mathematical Tables and Formulas,
Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
16