Background

A wire rope broke while lifting a load of reinforcing steel estimated to weigh 2.5 - 3 tonnes. The precise sequence of events leading to the failure
were not known, but the load did not drop because the rope jammed in the gap between sheave and support bracket. The rope was 2 years old
and was stated to be maintained by regular lubrication. Bounce of the load (Activity 1) was possible during lifting. The rope sheave diameter was
520 mm, and it was known to have been in service longer than the rope.
The insurance loss adjustor (whose job is to advise the insurance company on the quantum of loss and whether the existing policies covered the
causes and consequences of the failure) commissioned a failure investigation to ascertain whether the rope was overloaded at the time of failure,
or whether poor maintenance had been responsible for premature breakage. The resolution of these issues would determine whether or not
insurance cover existed for the various consequences of the accident, and would also indicate if an increase in premium was necessary to offset
a possible higher level of risk.
Three pieces of rope were supplied to assist in this investigation - these comprised the two broken ends together with a section of rope taken well
away from the failed ends. The purpose of this latter piece was to check the load capacity of the rope, via tensile testing, at the time of failure.
Visual Observations
The rope was a general engineering 18 strand non-spin type designed as 12x7(6/1)/6x7(6/1) - see the illustration below.
This designation is a shorthand form which summarises the information contained in the image. Thus this rope had an inner layer of
6 strands of wires, with each strand comprising 7 wires wrapped as 6 outer wires around 1 inner wire, while the outer layer is formed
by 12 strands of wires wrapped in the same way. The inner core of the wire is fibre. Resistance to rope spin is provided by opposing
twist directions of the inner layer (anticlockwise) and outer layer (clockwise), whereby the load-induced torque tends to cancel out.
Further information on wire rope design, damage and the effect of sheave size can be found by following this hyperlink and looking at
thisweb page.
As received, rope lubrication was deficient to dry, with slight corrosion evident on the outside of the rope.Figure 1 shows the 2 broken ends of the
rope. Close inspection of the rope near to the fracture plane showed that a number of wires were cracked in outer and inner strands (Figures 2 &
3). Cracks on both inner and inner layers were associated with flattened regions on the wires.Cracking was also observed on wires well away
from this region (Figure 4).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Proceed to second part of case study.

Tensile Testing
Before performing tensile testing of the rope, it was necessary to establish the original grade and size of the wire rope. This would indicate what
degradation of properties had taken place over the service life, and provide an indicator of the severity of service and quality of maintenance.
The only information that the operator could supply, was that the rope was a 1770 MPa grade. Thus it was necessary to measure the diameter of
wires near to the break (average approximately 1.5 mm) and the rope diameter (approximately 21.5 mm).
Use the information contained in the wire rope manufacturer's table of properties (Activity 2) to find the most likely original rope diameter and
breaking force.
Tensile testing was performed on a 1.5 m length sample using a wire rope testing machine, giving a measured failure load of 232 kN. It should be
noted that this load did not represent complete failure of the rope, but rather fracture of 11 strands (66 wires) out of a total of 18 strands (108
wires). Two inner and five outer strands remained unbroken.Examination of the 66 wires that broke indicated that only 10 of them had a flat
fracture surface, which would be indicative of the presence of an initial fatigue crack, with the rest showing ductile failure modes.
Referring back to the information on original rope diameter and breaking force, use Activity 3 to compare this load with the observed value for
breaking load in the tensile test. What conclusions can be drawn regarding the likely influence of pre-existing fatigue cracks?
Fractography
A number of individual broken wires were cut off the fractured ends and examined at low magnification using stereo binoculars, and at high
magnification in a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The total number of wires in all strands was 108, and 20 wires were selected from the
outer strands and 11 from the inner strands. The wires were de-rusted and ultrasonically cleaned in a de-greasing agent.
Typical SEM observations of the fracture surfaces are given below at both a low and a high magnification, together with information on the
number of wires in the sample which were similar.
Type 1: Tensile cup-and-cone fracture - 3 occurrences - 1 wire in outer strands 2 wires in
inner strands.

Low magnification fractograph of

cup-and-cone.

High magnification fractograph from the central region

of the cup-and-cone fracture.

Type 2: Flat twisted failure -2 instances in outer strands.

Type 3: Flat semi-elliptic regions present - 26 cases; 17 in outer strands, 9 in inner strands

Example 1

High magnification fractograph from flat semi-elliptic

region shown with arrow.

Example 2
Using the fractographic information from Activity 4, determine the mechanism of failure
indicated by types 1-3.

Summary and Conclusions

The information gleaned so far from this case study is summarised below:
1. Overall, the strength of the rope was reduced by the presence of fatigue cracks - this is evidenced by the observed tensile strength of
232 kN compared with the manufacturers stated breaking load of 332 kN.
2. The observed breaking load is still very much higher than the stated load being lifted at the time of failure (some 25 - 30 kN). Thus the
rope must still have failed through application of an overload relative to its current strength level. The failure was not solely due to the
presence of fatigue cracks (whose existence is fairly normal in wire ropes and explains the requirement for regular maintenance and
high factors of safety).
3.

The cause of this overload is not clear, but bouncing of the load might have allowed the rope to jump from its groove and jam between
sheave and boom during winding. If this state of affairs could exist for a short time undetected, and the rope winding was continued, a
very significant overload could be applied to the rope.

4.

The cause of the fatigue cracks needs clarification. They can initiate as a result of bending stresses induced by too small a sheave
diameter. The recommended diameter is 18x rope diameter which equals 432 mm for the resent rope. The actual sheave diameter was
520 mm, which should have been sufficient. As the sheave was older than the rope, however, it is possible that wear of the sheave
groove has had an influence. Fatigue cracks can result from deformed surface regions where ductility thus becomes exhausted,
particularly if surface damage from abrasion occurs. This would be exacerbated by any decrease in sheave groove diameter, which
could occur by wear during service, and by poor lubrication practice (which was apparently the case).

The conclusion to be drawn from this investigation is that the presence of fatigue cracks has lowered the breaking load of the rope by some 30%.
However, the breaking load is still 232 kN, very much higher than the stated lifting load of 25 - 30 kN. The fractographic work has indicated ductile
fracture in all wires, demonstrating that the rope metallurgy is up to specification. The most likely cause of the fracture seems to be rope jamming
between sheave and groove, probably due to bounce during lifting. The cause of the bouncing is unknown.
In insurance terms, poor maintenance is not a prime cause of the failure, which would have been "sudden and unexpected" when it occurred.
Cover should exist for such circumstances.Recommendations
Any good failure investigation leads to recommendations aimed at avoiding the problem in the future or, at least, reducing its likelihood of
occurring. Recommendations in the present case are:
1. Ensure adequate lubrication is maintained in the rope.
2. Re-groove the sheave at regular intervals and, particularly, when the rope is replaced by a new one.

3.

Control lifting to avoid bouncing and install detectors which are activated by rope coming off the sheave.

4.

Monitor condition of rope by surface inspection and tensile testing.

References - to fatigue of wire ropes.

1. J Llorca and V Sanchez-Galvez (1989) Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures Vol. 12 No. 1 pp31-45
2. RE Hobbs and K Ghavami (1982) International Journal of Fatigue April 1982 pp69-72
3.

NF Casey and WK Lee (1989) International Journal of Fatigue Vol. 11 No. 2 pp78-84.

4.

M Alani and M Raoof (1997) Effect of mean axial load on axial fatigue life of spiral strands, International Journal of Fatigue Vol. 19 No. 1
pp1-11

5.

K Coultate (1997) Magnetic attraction of wire rope testing, Materials World Vol. 5 September 1997 pp519-520.

6.

K Schrems and D Maclaren (1997) Failure analysis of a mine hoist rope, Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 4 No. 1 pp25-38.

7.

MD Kuruppu, A Tytko and TS Golosinski (2000) Loss of metallic area in winder ropes subject to external wear, Engineering Failure
Analysis, Vol. 7 No. 3 pp199-207.

8.

J-I Suh and SP Chang (2000) Experimental study on fatigue behaviour of wire ropes, International Journal of Fatigue Vol. 22 pp339-347.

9.

M Torkar and B Arzensek (2002) Failure of crane wire rope, Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 9 No. 2 pp227-233.

Failure Analysis of Wire Rope

Brett A. Miller, Stork Technimet Inc.
From: B.A. Miller, Failure Analysis of Wire Rope, Advanced Materials and Processes, Vol 157 (No. 5), May 2000, p
4346
Abstract: Mechanical properties of wire ropes, their chemical composition, and the failure analysis process for
them are described. The wires are manufactured from high-carbon, plain carbon steel, with high-strength ropes
most often manufactured from AISI Grade 1074. During visual failure examination, the rope, strand, and wire
diameters should all be measured. Examination should also address the presence or absence of lubricant, corrosion
evidence, and gross mechanical damage. Failed wires can exhibit classic cup-and-cone ductile features, flat fatigue
features, and various appearances in-between. However, wires are often mechanically damaged after failure. Most
nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques are not applicable to wire rope failures. Electron microscope
fractography of fracture surfaces is essential in failure analysis. Fatigue is the most important fracture mode in wire
ropes. Metallographic features of wire ropes that failed because of ductile overload and fatigue are described.
Keywords: Fractography; Metallography; Wire rope
Material: 1074 (Nonresulfurized carbon steel), UNS G10740
Failure types: Ductile fracture; Fatigue fracture

Introduction
Among load-bearing steel constructs, wire ropes and cables are possibly the most widely used and most
highly stressed. Wire ropes are assemblages of intertwined steel wires and wire strands for pulling or
lifting. They serve in critical applications and in severe environments, and failures are common. One

particularly damaged rope that failed via fatigue is shown in Fig. 1. From a metallurgical failure analysis
perspective, wire rope failures can appear deceptively mundane. However, investigation of these failures
involves many complicated and unique considerations that are worthy of review.

Fig. 1 This photograph of a severely cracked wire rope exhibits wire fractures that result from
an improper service environment.

This article includes a description of the mechanical properties of wire ropes, their chemical composition,
and a detailed discussion of the failure analysis process.
Mechanical properties
The mechanical properties of a wire rope result from the individual wires and their arrangement or
construction. Unlike most other metallic components, rope wires are stressed alternately in tension,
compression, torsion, and shear. The wires and strands are designed to slide in relation to each other,
distributing the complicated applied stresses more effectively. For this reason, wire rope is often called a
machine. As machines, ropes require prudent inspection, maintenance, and periodic replacement. The
inherent friction coefficient between bare steel strands mandates presence of adequate lubrication to allow
the requisite wire movement.
Wire rope constructions are identified by the number of strands, the number of wires per strand, the type
of core, the lay (length) direction, left or right handedness, and many other attributes. Rope grades are
rated in tons of breaking strength. The individual wires provide strength, whereas the construction dictates
service characteristics. It is generally accepted that many smaller wires provide better fatigue resistance,
while fewer, larger wires provide better abrasion resistance. Independent wire rope cores (IWRC) provide
better crushing resistance than fiber cores.
Because of the complex geometry of the assembled wires, the ultimate tensile strength is not equivalent to
a large wire of equal cross-sectional area. A certain percentage of the load on individual wires produces
shear stresses, rather than axial tensile stresses, and steels exhibit lower (approximately 30%) ultimate
strength in shear. Nevertheless, a synergy of mechanical properties is produced, providing excellent
elastic bending properties.

Chemical composition
Wire rope specifications are somewhat anachronistic compared with those of most steel components.
Although the engineering community has become increasingly more specification-driven, no standards
require steel wire ropes to be manufactured from a particular composition, with identified elemental or
impurity limits. The wires are manufactured from high-carbon, plain carbon steel, with high-strength
ropes most often manufactured from AISI Grade 1074. Wire rope conformance is typically dependent
upon mechanical properties alone, with composition dictated by the ability of the finished product to
satisfy the requisite strength level after wire drawing and rope manufacture.
Wire grades

Labeled grades of wires are of historical significance, but are somewhat vague. The following grades
have been specified: iron, traction steel, cast steel, extra strong cast steel (a.k.a. mild plow steel), plow
steel, improved plow steel, extra-improved plow steel, and extra-extra-improved plow steel. Lowerstrength grades have been almost completely discontinued. Improved plow steel, extra-improved plow
steel, and extra-extra-improved plow steel are primarily used in engineering applications, with
approximate comparative strength ratings of 1:1.15:1.26, respectively.
Lubricants

The lubricant applied to wire ropes also provides a measure of corrosion resistance in relatively benign
service environments. For enhanced corrosion resistance, wire rope is available in a galvanized form, but
with a 10% reduction in mechanical strength from identically sized bright (non-plated) carbon steel
rope, unless it is drawn after galvanizing. Austenitic stainless steel grades are available for more severe
environments, but can also be substantially lower in strength than plain carbon steel ropes, depending on
wire size and rope construction.
Microstructure
As with all engineering materials, the physical and mechanical properties of steel rope wires are a
function of the microstructure, which is a function of processing. Rope wires are very heavily drawn, with
severely cold-worked microstructures. The typical longitudinal and transverse microstructures of a high
strength wire rope are shown in Fig. 2. The structure consists of pearlite and ferrite grains that have been
drawn down so far that the grain boundaries are not easily resolved. Relatively low levels of nonmetallic
inclusions are required in high quality rope wires, to provide better fatigue resistance and more uniform
mechanical properties.

Fig. 2 Typical longitudinal (left) and transverse (right) microstructure of high strength steel wire
rope. 2% Nital etch (500)

Failure analysis process

Preliminary Investigation

The preliminary portion of an investigation is of great importance in wire rope analyses, similar to all
materials failure investigations. All possible information should be gathered, including the purchased rope
specification, service history, service environment, estimated loads, and maintenance history. However, it
is not unusual to receive very little reliable information concerning a rope failure. This is often due to a
general industrial misunderstanding of the complexity of wire rope constructions and service
characteristics. After the available information has been collected, the failure analysis procedure should
be planned, including identification of analytical tests and the location of test samples.
Visual examination

Since a prudent investigator will progress systematically from least to most destructive analytical
methods, a thorough visual evaluation is typically undertaken first. The visual examination of wire rope
and cable failures is analogous to other metallurgical failures, except for the fact that hundreds of
individual fracture surfaces may be present. Inspection generally includes photographic documentation of
all pertinent observations. The rope, strand, and wire diameters should all be measured. It is especially
important to measure all different wire sizes that may be present. This is necessary to identify the rope
construction. Examination should also address the presence or absence of lubricant, corrosion evidence,
and gross mechanical damage. The identification of cracks, kinks, doglegs, and abrasion on the rope is
also important.
Failure features

Failed wires exhibit classic cup-and-cone ductile features, flat fatigue features, and various appearances
in-between. However, wires are often mechanically damaged after failure, as the separated wires are often
dragged through sheaves or abraded against other components. In addition, the extreme energy dissipation
upon failure often results in considerable post-fracture damage that can be misleading to an investigator.
Relatively rapid general corrosion can also accompany wire rope failures as the protective lubricant is
removed and the natural passive oxide layer on the wires is disrupted.
Nondestructive examination

Most nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques are not applicable to wire rope failures. The size of the
individual wires confounds most inspection methods, requiring the rope to be addressed as a whole
construction. The most prevalent NDE methods are electromagnetic, magnetic flux, and magnetic flux
leakage for steel ropes. These methods can detect loss of cross-sectional area caused by corrosion or
degradation, and some types of flaws. NDE of wire ropes is used more often in determining when ropes
in service need to be replaced rather than during metallurgical failure analysis.
Wire ropes have a finite service life, and visual examination is the most prevalent method for determining
when ropes require replacement. Applicable specifications, such as ASME and ANSI, typically consider
the number of visibly broken wires in a prescribed length, or lay, to be an acceptance criterion. These
criteria differ with regard to the rope design and service criticality, and whether the rope is in running or
standing service.
Mechanical property evaluation

The mechanical strength of a failed wire rope cannot always be verified. Very often, additional regions of
the rope have been damaged or have yielded, providing unrealistic results for subsequent tests. Tensile
testing is the only strictly applicable mechanical test, as the breaking strength in tons is the sole guarantee
provided by the supplier to the purchaser.
Tensile strength of undamaged wire ropes can be verified in accordance with the requirements of ASTM
A 931. The preferred tension test attachment method is socketing, which requires a measure of familiarity
with wire rope handling. Direct clamping of wire ropes in V-shaped universal tensile machine jaws is not
recommended, because of poor load distribution and crushing of the wires and strands.
Sometimes the wire rope has been so distressed prior to and after a failure, that only microhardness
testing on cross sections can evaluate the strength of a rope. Although the approximate tensile strength of
the wires can be interpolated, and the wire rope strength can be estimated, these are unavoidably
imprecise appraisals, and cannot accurately discriminate between rope grades or be relied upon as an
acceptance/rejection criteria.
On occasion, ropes have been intentionally misrepresented or even counterfeited, but such incidents are
exceedingly rare. Ongoing industry efforts to better regulate and specify wire ropes are of great
importance; however, no simple nondestructive method has been developed to confirm mechanical
strength of a failed rope.
Chemical analysis
The chemical composition of a wire rope should be determined during the course of a failure
investigation, but will not likely provide much insight. In rare cases of excessive, deleterious impurity
content or possible counterfeit/substitution, the composition may be very important.
Chemical analysis of any surface residue or corrosion product can also be helpful, especially in cases of
corrosion fatigue or severe pitting. Other useful analytical techniques include energy dispersive X-ray
spectrometry, X-ray diffraction, or a comparable surface science methodology. In questions concerning
the presence or absence of lubricant, or if the identification of a wire rope lubricant is needed, infrared

spectrometry may provide answers. The fiber core could also be analyzed for evidence of overheating,
grease degradation, and organic contamination.
Fractographic analysis
Electron microscope fractography of wire rope fracture surfaces is essential in failure analysis. Visual
examination alone is not sufficient, as several hundred fracture surfaces are present and may not all be
analogous fractures. In overload, steel wire ropes typically exhibit classic cup-and-cone ductile overload
features.
Fatigue is the most important fracture mode in wire ropes because it generally appears at a fraction of the
rated strength, below the yield strength, and often without warning. The fractures are flat and do not
exhibit any necking. Many secondary cracks often accompany the fractures, particularly in low
stress/high cycle fatigue and corrosion fatigue. Well-defined fatigue striations are not always evident
during fractographic examination, and this is likely due to the complicated loading experienced by
running ropes and the cold-worked microstructure.
It should also be noted that shear failures can exhibit flat or angular profiles that may be incorrectly
identified as fatigue if the failure is not analyzed by fractography. Ductile failures are relatively straightforward, exhibiting classic ductile features. It is not unusual to observe several fracture modes on the
wires from a single failed rope.
Metallographic examination
Examination of metallographic cross sections can clarify many failure characteristics. Longitudinal
sections through representative failed wires can confirm the type of fracture mode indicated during visual
and fractographic examination. A typical ductile overload failed wire is shown in Fig. 3. Even if the
fracture surface has been damaged or corroded, the telltale grain flow and necking may be apparent.

Fig. 3 Metallographic cross section through a wire that failed via ductile overload. 2% Nital etch
(80)

The longitudinal metallographic profile of a fatigue fracture is shown in Fig. 4. Sometimes a whitish
surface layer of abrasion-induced untempered martensite is observed at the origin of cracks in severely
abraded ropes. These profiles may also show grain flow evidence, suggesting cutting or pinching in cases

of flat fractures without fatigue cracking. The longitudinal microstructure near the fracture is shown
in Fig. 5. Severe disruption of the linear structure is sometimes evident and may be very important if the
fracture surfaces have been obliterated by corrosion.

Fig. 4 Cross section through a wire that failed by fatigue. Secondary cracks are evident. 2%
Nital etch (32)

Fig. 5 Some longitudinal microstructure disruption near the fracture surface in Fig. 4 is
apparent. 2% Nital etch (500)

Transverse cross sections near the fracture surfaces are often useful, particularly when evaluating the
potential contribution of corrosion and mechanical cracking to a rope failure. Experience has shown that a
steel hose clamp affixed around the rope prior to metallographic mounting and polishing can avoid
inadvertent destruction of the wire strand and wire configuration. This allows for easy wire counting,

although wire dimensions will be misleading because the cross sections are oblong due to the helical
preforming.
Data summation
The final phase of the failure analysis is a logical summation of all laboratory data, service history
information, and technical knowledge. The data should indicate the failure mode and identify the
contributing factors. It may be helpful to delineate the factors that did not contribute to failure, as this
information can also