International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1413–1423

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Solids and Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijsolstr

Response of a wire rope strand to axial and torsional loads: Asymptotic modeling
of the effect of interwire contact deformations
Ivan Argatov 1
Mondragon Goi Eskola Politeknikoa, Mondragon Unibertsitatea, Loramendi 4, 20500 Arrasate-Mondragon, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The refined discrete mathematical model of a simple helical wire rope strand is developed. The effect of the
Received 5 July 2010 transverse contraction of the wire strand through Poisson’s ratio and also through local contact deforma-
Received in revised form 8 January 2011 tions (wire flattening) has been studied in detail. In order to express the interwire contact deformation in
Available online 28 January 2011
terms of the parameters describing the strand deformation, we formulate a two-dimensional model inter-
wire contact problem. The interwire contact interaction is treated as a frictionless unilateral plain strain
Keywords: problem. The nonlinear model interwire contact problem has been solved by the method of matched
Wire strand
asymptotic expansions. The constitutive equations for a helical wire rope strand, which take into account
Interwire contact problem
Asymptotic model
both the Poisson’s ratio effect and the effect of contact deformation, are obtained in a closed form.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction real cases (absence of friction between wires, small displacements

The construction of flexible stranded wire ropes, obtained by
wrapping wires helically on a central wire called the core, with spi-
rals that can in turn be wrapped on a central strand to form various
layers, determines a very complex hierarchical structure, which
exhibits an extremely complex inner stress state within the assem-
blage of wires (Giglio and Manes, 2005). Due to their construction,
wire ropes combine two practically useful properties: high axial
strength and flexibility in bending. These peculiar mechanical
properties convert wire ropes into indispensable load transmission
elements for many industrial applications. For instance, wire ropes
are widely used in cranes, mine hoisting, and lifts. Moreover, ten-
sion resisting elements like modern polymer wire ropes are ex-
pected to provide the ground for a new, recently emerging wind
engineering branch—so called kite wind-power generation tech-
nology, where highly tensioned elements have to be repeatedly
bent over drums connected to electrical generators (Canale et al.,
2009). It is therefore essential to be able to model the mechanical
behavior and fatigue life of wire ropes in order to reduce the need
for expensive experimental tests under varying parameters and
operating conditions.
In the last several decades (see review given by Cardou and
Jolicoeur (1997)), many mathematical models that, despite signif-
icant limitations due to some simplification hypotheses regarding
1 yield comparable results as far as global cable stiffness is con-
On leave from the Laboratory of Friction and Wear, Research Institute of
Mechanical Engineering Problems, V.O., Bolshoy pr. 61, 199178 St. Petersburg, Russia.
E-mail address: ivan.argatov@gmail.com
and strains), allow an analytical approach to the problem of evalu-
ating the global mechanical response of wire ropes have been
developed. The mechanical behavior of stranded systems such as
wire ropes is usually studied using discrete models, in which indi-
vidual equations are established for each wire. One of the first ana-
lytical models based on a theory for curved rods was proposed by
Machida and Durelli (1973). This discrete modeling approach is
advantageous in some problems such as structural integrity assess-
ment. Mathematical models giving a good approximation for the
mechanical response of the wire rope were developed by Velinsky
et al. (1984) and Costello (1990) using the Kirchhoff–Clebsch the-
ory of curved rods (Love, 1944).
Another approach for mathematical modeling of wire ropes, the
so-called semi-continuous approach, in which each wire layer is
replaced by a transversely isotropic continuous layer, has been
developed by Blouin and Cardou (1989), and recently extended
by Crossley et al. (2003). The semi-continuous models of wire
ropes might shed light on some aspects of the problem of bending
and torsion behavior of wire ropes.
The existing discrete models are generally not appropriate for
describing the bending behavior of ropes, which is of great impor-
tance in such phenomena as transverse vibration and fatigue,
whereas it is recognized (Feyrer, 2007) that bending and torsion
stresses may contribute significantly to the local stress level of
the wires. Finally, it should be noted (Jolicoeur and Cardou,
1991) that, although the discrete analytical mathematical models
cerned, they are not equivalent when it comes to the evaluation
of local effects such as the interlayer pressure and, obviously,

0020-7683/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.01.021
1414 I. Argatov / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1413–1423

nonlinear behavior of the interwire contact pressures that are 2. Geometry and axial deformation of the wire rope strand
responsible for wear. In the present study, applying an asymptotic
modeling approach for describing the interwire contact interac- Let us consider a helical wire rope strand. Following a widely-
tion, we develop the refined discrete mathematical model of a accepted approach (Machida and Durelli, 1973), it is assumed that
helical wire strand which lacks the indicated disadvantage and in the loaded state, the individual wires remain helical in shape.
allows one to estimate local deformations in the frictionless inter- Let d0 and d be the core wire diameter and the helical wire diam-
wire contact. eter, respectively. Then, in the unloaded state, the helix radius is
It should be noted that though most wire ropes in practical use
1
have a complex cross-section in which most wires are configured r¼ ðd0 þ dÞ: ð1Þ
as double helices, a majority of mathematical modeling studies 2
were limited to a single, straight strand where all wound wires Taking into account the Poisson’s ratio effect and the effect of
are single-helices. Recently, multi-strand constructions were ana- interwire contact deformations, we will have the following helix
lyzed while considering the double-helix geometry of the wires radius in the loaded state (Utting and Jones, 1987):
under the assumption that radial contraction due to Poisson’s ef-
1
fect is neglected (Elata et al., 2004; Usabiaga and Pagalday, r ¼ ½ð1  m0 eÞd0 þ ð1  mnÞd  dx : ð2Þ
2
2008). To the best of the author’s knowledge, the effect of the
transverse radial contraction of the stranded wire rope through lo- Here, e = uz,z is the axial strain of the strand, coinciding with the
cal contact deformations was not considered, as well. strain of the core, uz is the overall axial displacement (partial deriv-
A comprehensive discussion of simplifying hypotheses em- ative is denoted by a coma),n is the longitudinal strain in wires, dx is
ployed in modeling of the mechanical response of wire ropes was the contact approach between the core and wires.
presented by Cardou and Jolicoeur (1997). In particular, the Let also l and s be the length of non-deformed strand and the
hypothesis of radial contraction is responsible for taking into ac- initial length of the axial line of the helical wire, respectively.
count the transverse contraction of the wire strand through Pois- Denoting by a the wire helix angle in the unloaded state, we arrive
son’s ratio and also through local contact deformations. Several at the following relations (see Fig. 1a):
models neglect both effects, since accounting for them sufficiently
l l
complicates the equations so that no simple analytic results can be sin a ¼ ; tan a ¼ : ð3Þ
s x
obtained. In particular, the Poisson’s ratio effect is considered in
the models of Velinsky (1985), Kumar and Cochran (1987). The ef- Due to axial and torsional displacements, we have
fect of contact deformation (wire flattening) was introduced by Ut- x x
s ¼ ð1  nÞs; l ¼ ð1  eÞl; ¼ þ lhz;z0 ; ð4Þ
ting and Jones (1987) using an empirical relation for the contact r r
approach between the core and wires.
It is known that, depending on the wire strand construction, where hz,z is the overall twist angle per unit length.
interwire contacts may occur not only between the core and helical Following Machida and Durelli (1973), we introduce the nor-
wires (which is the prevalent case in most steel wire strands) but malized rotation per original pitch length p = 2prtana as
also between neighboring helical wires. The case of coupled core- c ¼ hz;z r tan a: ð5Þ
wire and wire-wire contact leads to a statically indeterminate con-
tact problem that requires considerations of the local contact In the loaded state (see Fig. 1b), we have the following counter-
deformations. A finite element model was recently developed by parts of Eq. (3):
Jiang et al. (2008) to analyze statically indeterminate contacts in l l
a simple axially loaded wire strand. sin a
¼ ; tan a
 : ð6Þ
s x
In the present paper, an asymptotic modeling approach is em-
ployed for evaluating the mechanical response of a helical wire Now, making use of formulas (3), (4) and (6), we derive the
rope strand to axial and torsional loads with the effect of wire relations
flattening taken into account. In order to evaluate the contact ap- 1þe
proach between the core and wires, we consider model two- sin a
¼ sin a; ð7Þ
1þn
dimensional interwire contact problems (Argatov, 2001) following,
rð1 þ eÞ
in particular, the approach developed by Castillo and Barber (1997) tan a
¼ tan a: ð8Þ
r ð1 þ cÞ
for the problem of lateral contact of an elastic rod with an elastic
foundation. Finally, from (7) and (8), it follows that
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
introduces the geometric hypotheses for a helical wire rope strand.
In this section, the deformation of wires is expressed in terms of (a) (b)
the parameters determining the strand deformation. In the case
of small deformations, simple asymptotic approximations are ob-
tained. The equilibrium and constitutive equations for the wires
are formulated in Section 3. In Section 4, the contact line force
per unit length is expressed in terms of the parameters describing
s
the strand deformation. Model interwire contact problems are con- s l
l
sidered in Section 5. The unilateral interwire contact interaction is
treated as a frictionless plain strain problem. Constitutive equa-
tions for a wire rope strand are presented in Section 6. Analytical α α
approximations for the stiffness matrix components are obtained
in a closed form. The results on comparison between the obtained
x x
asymptotic modeling results with the available finite-element sim-
ulations and experimental data are presented in Section 7. Finally, Fig. 1. Geometrical features of helix wire.
in Section 8 we formulate our conclusions.
 I. Argatov / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1413–1423 1415

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n ¼ ð1  qÞ2 ð1 þ cÞ2 cos2 a þ ð1 þ eÞ2 sin a  1;
2
ð9Þ 3. Equilibrium of a wire and the incorporation of the wires into
the strand
where we introduced the notation
Following Velinsky (1985), we make the following three
r em d þ nmd 2dx assumptions: (1) frictional effects are neglected; (2) individual
q¼1 ¼ 0 0 þ : ð10Þ
r d0 þ d d0 þ d wires are not subject to external bending moments per unit length;
(3) the tension, curvatures, and twist are uniform along the length
The binormal curvatures and twists for each wire in the un- of the wire. Thus, the application of the theory of thin rods (Love,
loaded and loaded states are given by the following relations, 1944) to an individual helical wire results in the following equilib-
respectively: rium equations (Fig. 2):

0 cos2 a sin a cos a  N0 s  0 þ X ¼ 0;

 þ Tj ð20Þ
k ¼ ; s¼ ; ð11Þ 0
r r Gs  0  N0 ¼ 0:
 þ Hj ð21Þ
2 
0 ¼ cos a
k ; s ¼
sin a
 cos a

: ð12Þ Here, T is the wire tension, G0 is the bending moment in the binor-
r r
mal direction, H is the twisting moment in the tangential direction,
On subtracting Eqs. (12) and (11), we find N0 is the resultant force acting on the wire in the binormal direction,
0 !1 1 and X is the line load per unit length in the normal direction (in gen-
cos2 a @ ð1 eÞ2 eral we preserve the notation of Velinsky (1985)).
Dk ¼ k0 k ¼
0 0 2
ð1 qÞ ð1 qÞ2 cos2 a þ sin a 1 A; ð13Þ
r ð1 cÞ2 The axial forces in the core and wires can be written as
0 !1 1
sin a cos a @ 1þ e ð1 eÞ2 2
T 0 ¼ E0 A0 e; T ¼ EAn; ð22Þ
Ds ¼ s
s¼ ð1 qÞ2 cos2 a þ sin a 1 A: ð14Þ
r 1 c ð1 cÞ2 where EA represents the axial stiffness. The core geometrical and
mechanical characteristics are denoted by the subscript 0.
We should note that in deriving Eqs. (13) and (14) we used the Following Ramsey (1988), we will employ the following refined
relations (8) and (10). constitutive relations:
Assuming small deformations, i.e., e, c, q  1, and neglecting
small quantities of the second order, we simplify formula (9) in G0 ¼ EIðDj0 þ j0 nÞ; H ¼ GJðDs þ snÞ: ð23Þ
the following way: Here, EI and GJ represent the bending and torsional stiffnesses,
2
respectively, G is the shear elastic modulus.
2
n ffi e sin a þ ðc  qÞ cos a: ð15Þ The total external axial force and twisting moment acting on
the strand can be expressed as follows (Velinsky, 1985):
Moreover, in view of (10) and (15), we have
 þ N0 cos a
F z ¼ T 0 þ mðT sin a  Þ; ð24Þ
2 2
eðm d þ md sin aÞ þ cmd cos a þ 2dx  þ ðG0 þ T r Þ cos a
Mz ¼ M 0 þ m½ðH  N0r Þ sin a  : ð25Þ
qffi 0 0 ð16Þ
d0 þ ð1 þ m cos2 aÞd
Here, m denotes the number of wires, M0 is the twisting moment in
Similarly, Eqs. (13) and (14) give the core given by

cos2 a M0 ¼ G0 J 0 hZ;Z : ð26Þ

0 2
Dk ffi ð2ðc  eÞ sin a þ q cos 2aÞ; ð17Þ
r In the case of a wire of circular cross-section, we have
sin a cos a
Ds ffi ððe  cÞ cos 2a þ 2q cos2 aÞ: ð18Þ p pER4
r EA ¼ pER2 ; EI ¼ ER4 ; GJ ¼ ð27Þ
4 4ð1 þ mÞ0
Note that in the case q = 0, the asymptotic formulas (15), (17)
and (18) agree with the corresponding results of Machida and Dur- where R = d/2 is the wire radius, E is Young’s modulus of the wire
elli (1973). material.
Finally, from (8), it follows that Among the three simplifying assumptions made above, only the
first one regarding frictional effects is strictly necessary for develop-
ðe  c þ qð1 þ cÞÞ sin a cos a ing the presented asymptotic below asymptotic model of interwire
tanða
  aÞ ¼ : ð19Þ
2
1 þ e sin a þ ðc  qð1 þ cÞÞ cos2 a contact. In fact, neglecting frictional effects, we greatly simplify

Formula (19) determines the change in helix angle of outer wires. z G'

Remark 1. The relative reduction in the helix radius, which is

N' H
quantified by the dimensionless parameter, can be evoked by the
G
wear degradation that occurs between the wires during wire rope T
exploitation. It is clear that the wear effect strengthens with the
wire rope service. For example, in the wear tests recently carried X
out by Urchegui et al. (2008) for a stranded steel wire rope, which
is used in hoisting devices, the so-called linear wear due to the _
r
contacts between the central wire of the core strand and the wires
of the inner layer of the core strand achieve a maximum depth of
about 6 lm after 1.6  106 cycles with the ratio between the _
α
sheave and rope diameters of.200:6.5 Taking into account the wire
diameter of 0.45 mm, we obtain q = 0.013 that corresponds to the
Poisson’s ratio effect induced by a relatively large axial deforma- Fig. 2. Force and moment resultants acting on a helical wire (after Velinsky, 1985).
tion of the rope (as much as 4.4%).
1416 I. Argatov / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1413–1423
the mathematical analysis of the local core-wire and wire-wire con-
tact problems obtaining the closed-form asymptotic solutions. The
assumption of frictional contact implies that the loading history
should be taken into account (Johnson, 1985). To the best of the
author’s knowledge, two-dimensional local interwire contact prob-
lems with friction forces taken into account were not examined pre-
viously. Finally, recall that this assumption is realistic only for a well-
lubricated wire rope in which wires are free to slide relative to each
other.
4. Contact forces between the core and wires
To determine the contact line force per unit length, X, appear-
ing in the equilibrium Eq. (20), we first solve Eq. (21) to find
N0 ffi EIðDj0 þ j0 nÞs þ GJðDs þ snÞj0 :
We emphasize that extracting the leading asymptotic behavior, we
may neglect the difference between the loaded and unloaded states
in the coefficients of Eqs. (20) and (21).
Further, Eq. (20) yields
X ffi EAnj0 þ N0 s
;
0
where N is given by (28).
Now, taking into account formulas (11), (17) and (18), we re-
write Eq. (29) as follows:
c
X ffi eNe ðaÞ  Nc ðaÞ þ qNq ðaÞ:
r tan a
Here we introduced the following notation:
Ne ðaÞ ¼ EAr1 cos2 a sin2 a þ EIr 3 cos4 a sin4 a  GJr 3 cos6 a sin2 a;
3 2 3 3 2 2 3 5
Nc ðaÞ ¼ EAcos a sin a  EIr cos a sin að1 þ sin aÞ  GJr cos a sin a; ð32Þ
Nq ðaÞ ¼ EAr 1 cos4 a  EIr 3 cos4 a sin4 a þ GJr 3 cos6 a sin2 a:
Observe that in view of (16), the right-hand site of Eq. (30) depends
on the quantity dX, which in turn depends on X.
5. Model interwire two-dimensional contact problems
Depending on the construction of the wire strand and the type
of loading, there may be the following three cases: (1) core-wire
contact, (2) wire-wire contact, (3) coupled core-wire and wire-wire
contact. Numerical simulations (Jiang et al., 2008) show that inter-
wire contact can take place simultaneously both between the core
and helical wires, and between neighboring helical wires.
In order to perform a rigorous asymptotic analysis of local inter-
wire contact interaction in the elastic stress–strain problem for a
helical wire rope strand, first of all, one needs to introduce a
dimensionless small parameter. In the case of axial loading and un-
der the restriction that the core and wires are of the same radius
and are manufactured of the same material, we can distinguish
two primary geometrical parameters (helix radius, r, and pitch
length, p) and two mechanical parameters (characteristic axial
stiffness, E0A0 + mEA = 7pEr2/4, and axial force, Fz). Thus, we can
introduce two dimensionless parameters l1 = 2pr/p = cota and
l = Fz/(E0A0 + mEA). The first parameter determines the applicabil-
ity of the theory of thin rods (Love, 1944) to describing the
mechanical behavior of an individual helical wire, while the second
one plays an important role in justifying the constructed asymp-
totic models of interwire contact, because its value determines
the relative size of the contact zone.
Further, since in a helical wired strand, the contact zone be-
tween the wires and the core can be characterized as the so-called
line contact (Kalker, 1972) with narrow contact zones stretching
along the core surface, the asymptotic technique of the so-called
plain boundary layers can be applied for modeling the local inter-
wire contact. This explains the fact that the unilateral interwire
contact interaction is treated below as a two-dimensional friction-
less plain strain problem. It should be observed that in view of the
helical symmetry, the local stress–strain state under the contact
zone in the planes perpendicular to the wire will be the same for
each helical wire in the strand. Finally recall that the plane strain
assumption amounts to consider that the structure is invariant in
the out of plane direction. With regard to the boundary layer
asymptotic constructions, this means that the plain boundary layer
is invariant in the out of plane direction.
5.1. Core-wire contact
As it is pointed out by Cardou and Jolicoeur (1997), under axial
ð28Þ loading, radial contact, in which the wires in the same layer do not
touch each other, seems to be the prevailing case, even when no
initial gap exists between wires in the layer.
We consider the following two-dimensional contact problem
(see Fig. 3a): given similar circular elastic discs under the distrib-
uted body forces XA1(e1coshj + e2sinhj) in contact with the central
disc balanced by the contact forces, find the displacements of the
ð29Þ
centers of the outer discs. Here, A is the area of each outer disc,
hj = (2p/m)(j  1), while j = 1,2, . . ., m. To obtain an approximate
solution of the problem, we employ the asymptotic modeling ap-
proach developed in detail by Argatov (2001). Considering a partic-
ular contact and modeling the influence of the other outer discs on
ð30Þ the central disc by the action of point forces, we simplify the prob-
lem (see Fig. 3b). Finally note that the body forces mentioned
above are introduced in the outer discs following the approach
developed by Castillo and Barber (1997) for the problem of lateral
ð31Þ
contact of an elastic rod with an elastic foundation. These body
forces describe the shear forces in the wires.
ð33Þ Following Argatov (2001), we make use of the method of
matched asymptotic expansions (Van Dyke, 1964; Il’in, 1992) and
introduce two different asymptotic representations (leading terms
of the asymptotic expansions) for describing the elastic fields in
the outer disk and the core. Namely, we construct the outer asymp-
totic representation, which is valid away from the contact zone,
and the inner asymptotic expansion, which is used near the contact
zone. The outer asymptotic representations depend on the type of
loading and are given in an explicit form as singular solutions for
an elastic circular disk, while the inner asymptotic representations
remain the same for both types of contact (core-wire and wire-
wire) and their constructions have been described in detail else-
where (Argatov, 2001).
Let us denote by G(x) the elastic displacement field in an elastic
disc of radius R under the distributed body forces A1e2 balanced
by the unit force e2 applied at the upper pole (see Fig. 4a). In
accordance with the explicit formulas given by Zegzhda and Filip-
pov (1986), we have
2pE
G1 ðxÞ ¼ 2ð1  2mÞw1 þ sin 2w1
1þm
r0 r2
þ ð1  2mÞ sin u  02 sin 2u;
R 2R
2pE r1
G2 ðxÞ ¼ 4ð1  mÞ ln  2 cos2 w1
1þm R
r0 r2 2
þ ð1  2mÞ cos u  02 ð1 þ 2 sin uÞ þ 2: ð34Þ
R 2R
Here we used the notation
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r0 ¼ x21 þ x22 ; r1 ¼ x21 þ ðR  x2 Þ2 ;
x1 x2 x1
sin u ¼ ; cos u ¼ ; w1 ¼ arcsin qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r0 r0
x1 þ ðR  x2 Þ2
2
 I. Argatov / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1413–1423 1417

(a) (b)

j
y1
j j j
x2 , y2 x1

θ Cj
j
Oj

Fig. 3. Schematic representation of the interwire contact configuration.

where Pis the distributed contact force appearing when the wires
(a) (b) touch the core and establish a radial line contact with it, the con-
stant d represents the displacement of the disc center,
x2 , y2 z2

Gj1 ¼ G1 cos hj þ G2 sin hj ; Gj2 ¼ G1 sin hj þ G2 cos hj :

Cj From the equilibrium equation it follows that
y1
P ¼ X: ð39Þ
The outer asymptotic representation for the elastic displace-
ment field of the central disc (see Fig. 4b) can be represented in
x1 z1 the complex form as follows (Muskhelishvili, 1953):

E0
ðm0 ðzÞ þ im02 ðzÞÞ ¼ k0 u1 ðzÞ  zu1 ðzÞ  u1 ðzÞ: ð40Þ
1 þ m0 1

Here, z = z1 + iz2 is a complex variable, k0 = 3  4m0 is Kolosov’s con-

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the singular elastic problems corresponding to
the outer asymptotic expansions in the case of core-wire contact.
stant for plane strain, u1(z) = Pu(f) and w1(z) = Pw(f) are the Kolo-
sov–Muskhelishvili complex potentials, f = z/R0 is a dimensionless
complex variable, R0 is the radius of the central disc.
According to Muskhelishvili (1953), we have

The singular solution (34) and (35) satisfies the normalization con- 1 Xm
f
dition G(0) = 0 at the disc center. uðfÞ ¼ rj lnðrj  fÞ þ ummj¼1 jrj j2 ;
2p j¼1 4p
The following asymptotic expansion holds true: ð41Þ
1 Xm
1 Xm
jrj j2
GðxÞ ¼ Sðy=RÞ þ
ð1Þ
nA0 e2 þ 0ðjyjÞ; jyj ! 0: ð35Þ uðfÞ ¼  r j lnðrj  fÞ þ ;
2p j¼1 2p j¼1 rj  f0
Here, S(f) is a solution of the Flamant problem of the elastic half-
plane f2 < 0 loaded by an unit point force in the opposite direction where rj = exp (ihj) and the bar denotes the operation of complex
to the f2 axis, and conjugate.
In the framework of the method of matched asymptotic expan-
ð1Þ 5  4m 2ð1  m2 Þ
A0 ¼ ; n¼ : ð36Þ sions, the singular behavior of outer asymptotic representation is
8ð1  mÞ pE of paramount importance for constructing the inner asymptotic
Using dimensionless coordinates f = (f1,f2), we can represent S(f) as representation.
follows: Using the explicit formulas (41), one can show that the function
(40) admits the following asymptotic expansion at the point of
2pE 2f f f
S1 ðfÞ ¼  1 2 2 þ 2ð1  mÞ arctan 1 ; contact:
1þm jfj f2
ð37Þ h i
2pE 2f2 v 0 ðaÞ ¼ P S 0 ðyj =R0 Þ þ n0 Aj0 ðe1 sin hj þ e2 cos hj Þ þ OðjyjÞ ;
S2 ðfÞ ¼ 4ð1  mÞ ln f  22
1þm jfj
jyj ! 0: ð42Þ
Employing the method of matched asymptotic expansions (Van
Dyke, 1964; Il’in, 1992), we represent the outer asymptotic repre- Here, n0 and S0(f) are determined by formulas (36) and (37), respec-
sentation for the displacement field of the outer disc in the form tively, where the wire elastic constants and are replaced with the
core elastic constants E0 and v0. Due to the symmetry of the prob-
m j ðxj Þ ¼ PGj ðxj Þ  dx ðe1 cos hj þ eÞ2 sin hj Þ ð38Þ lem, Aj0 ¼ A0 for all j = 1, 2, . . . , m.
ð0Þ
1418 I. Argatov / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1413–1423

In the case of even m, we find shown that, employing the approach developed by Castillo and
m=21   Barber (1997), we will arrive at Eq. (45) with the following
m X pj 2pj p ð1  2m0 Þ 2p j
ð0Þ
A0 ¼  ln 2 þ ln tan cos  sin : asymptotic constant:
2 m m 4 ð1  m0 Þ m
j¼1
ð1Þ 320v 4  232v 3  1606v 2 þ 291v þ 1237
A0 ¼ :
In the most interesting case m = 6, we will have 2304ð1  v 2 Þ2
pffiffiffi
pffiffiffi 3p ð1  2m0 Þ The corresponding calculation shows that such a correction can be
ð0Þ
A0 ¼ 3  lnð2 3Þ  : ð43Þ neglected since the difference between the asymptotic constants is
4 ð1  m0 Þ
about 5% in the case v = 0.3. At the same time, the mentioned non-
The asymptotic constructions of outer and inner representa- uniform expression of the out-of-plane shear stresses is itself
tions contain some arbitrariness (in particular, the displacement approximate.
DX) that should be eliminated by asymptotic matching. Roughly
speaking (Cole, 1968), the idea of matching consists in the follow- 5.2. Wire-wire contact
ing: the outer asymptotic representation near the contact zone
should behave in the same way as the inner asymptotic represen- Let Q be the normal distributed contact force between the heli-
tation does far from the contact zone. From a physical point of cal wires. In accordance with the equilibrium condition we have
view, the procedure of asymptotic matching results in a compati-
bility condition corresponding to the elastic displacement fields X ¼ 2Q cosð2p=mÞ: ð49Þ
in contact which is kept between the core and the wire in the Furthermore, dX if represents a displacement of the disc center,
loaded state. then the approach between any two contacting discs will be equal
The method of construction of the inner asymptotic representa- to 2dXsin (p/m).
tions for describing the elastic displacement fields near the contact Thus, employing the asymptotic modeling method (Argatov,
zones is outlined in detail in Argatov (2001). The matching proce- 2001), we arrive at the following resulting system:
dure is based on the asymptotic formulas (35) and (42). We refer to  
the mentioned paper for more details, since they can be used here p 2R 1 ð1Þ
dX sin ¼ nQ ln þ  A0  nQA000 ; ð50Þ
without change. Thus, as a result of asymptotic modeling, we ar- m h1 2
2
rive at the following system of nonlinear algebraic equations: h1 ¼ 2nRQ: ð51Þ
2 2RR0 Here we introduced the notation
h ¼ ðn þ n0 ÞP; ð44Þ   
R þ R0
     1 p ð1  2v Þ 2p p 1 2p
2R 1 2R0 1 A000 ¼  sin  ln 2 cos þ cos :
P n ln þ  A0
ð1Þ
þ n0 ln
ð0Þ
þ  A0 ¼ dX : ð45Þ 2 2m ð1  v Þ m m 8ð1  v Þ m
h 2 h 2
In the case m = 6, we have
The quantity h has the meaning of the half-width of the contact
zone. 7  8v 1 p ð1  2v Þ
A000 ¼  ln 3  pffiffiffi : ð52Þ
Having in mind the application of the model contact problems 16ð1  v Þ 4 8 3 ð1  v Þ
to the interwire contact, we should replace Eq. (44) with the fol-
lowing refined relation: Note that the wire-wire contact is prevalent in the case of a soft
core. Also, the wire-wire contact mode has been used to develop
2 2RR0 semi-continuous strand models (Blouin and Cardou, 1989).
h ¼ 2
ðn þ n0 ÞP: ð46Þ
R sin a þ R0
5.3. Coupled core–wire and wire–wire contact
Note that Eq. (46) takes into account the misalignment between the
wires and the core that occurred due to wrapping wires around the
The equilibrium equation has the form
core. Note also that due to the misalignment between the wires and
the core in a helical wire rope strand, the wire cross sections are X ¼ P þ 2Q cosð2p=mÞ; ð53Þ
approximately elliptical in the plane perpendicular to the core axis.
Thus, though circular elastic discs are considered in the model two- (a) (b)
dimensional contact problems, Eq. (46) accounts for the noncircular
geometry.
In the case R0 = R and n0 = n, the system of Eqs. (45) and (46) can
be reduced to the following single equation: Q
0sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
2 Q
2ð1 þ sin a ÞR 1 P
#P@ln þ  A0 A ¼ dX : ð47Þ
#P 2

Here we introduced the notation P

1v 2
1  ð0Þ ð1Þ

#¼ ; A0 ¼ A þ A0 : ð48Þ
pE 2 0
It is clear that in the general case, Eqs. (45) and (46) also can be re-
duced to a single equation, which is similar to (48).

Remark 2. For the sake of simplicity, we do not take into account

the correction for non-uniform body force distribution, as it was
considered by Castillo and Barber (1997) using the classical Fig. 5. Schematic representation of the core-wire contact (a) and the wire-wire
bending problem of a cantilever beam with an end load. It can be contact (b).
 I. Argatov / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1413–1423 1419

where P is the line contact force between the core and a wire, Q is Remark 3. The case of coupled contact between the core and all the
the line contact force between two neighboring wires (see Fig. 5). wires was recently considered by Gnanavel et al. (2010) under the
The core-wire contact is governed by the following subsystem assumption of existence of interfacial frictional forces described by
(compare with (45) and (46)): Coulomb’s law. It should be noted that the obtained expression for
    the normal line contact force between the wires (see Eq. (12) in the
2R 1 ð1Þ 2R0 1 ð0Þ mentioned paper) results in an indeterminate form as the coefficient
dX ¼ nP ln þ  A0 þ n0 P ln þ  A0  2nQA00 ; ð54Þ
h 2 h 2 of friction tends to zero. Note also that since Gnanavel et al. (2010)
2 2RR0 do not consider the effects of local contact deformations, their
h ¼ 2
ðn þ n0 ÞP: ð55Þ
R sin a þ R0 results cannot be applied in the frictionless case.

In the case m = 6, we have

6. Constitutive equations for a wire rope strand
9  8v p ð1  2v Þ
A00 ¼  pffiffiffi : ð56Þ The deformation behavior of a wire rope exhibits coupling be-
16ð1  v Þ 4 3 ð1  v Þ
tween tension and torsion. Thus, the constitutive equations have
The wire-wire contact is described by the following subsystem the following form:
    
(compare with (50) and (51)): Fz k kh uz;z
  ¼ : ð65Þ
p 2R 1 ð1Þ
Mz kh khh hz;z
dX sin ¼ nQ ln þ  A0  nQA000  nPA000 ; ð57Þ
m h1 2 To find asymptotic representations for the stiffness matrix com-
2
h1 ¼ 2nRQ : ð58Þ ponents k,kh,kh, and khh, we proceed in the following way. First,
substituting the expressions (22) and (28) into Eq. (24) and taking
Eqs. (53)–(55), (57) and (58) form a system of five equations account of the relations (17) and (18), we obtain
with five unknowns P, Q, h, h1, and X. The quantity is determined
3 2
by the external load applied to the strand. F z  fE0 A0 þ mðEA sin a þ r2 cos4 a sin a sin a½EI sin a
þ GJ cos2 aÞg þ cmðEA cos2 a sin a þ r2 cos a sin a½GJ
Example. In the case n0 = n and m = 6, the system of Eqs. (53)–
2 2
(55), (57) can be reduced to the following system:  sin a  EIð1 þ sin aÞÞ þ qmðEA cos2 a sin a þ r2
2
nX e e  cos4 a sin a½EI sin a þ GJ cos2 aÞ: ð66Þ
 ¼ P þ Q; ð59Þ
R   Repeating this procedure with Eq. (25), we get
~dX ¼ Pe ln 4q0 þ 1  Að0Þ  Að1Þ  2 Q e A0 ; ð60Þ
0 0 0 2 2 2 2
~2
h Mz  mðEAr cos a sin þr 1 cos3 a sin a½GJ sin a  EIð1 þ sin aÞÞ

~2 ¼ 4 e G0 J 0 2
h 2
P; ð61Þ þc þ mðEAr cos3 a þ r 1 cos a½EIð1 þ sin aÞ2 cos2 a
sin a þ q0 r tan a
! o
6 2 2
e ln 4 þ 1  2Að1Þ  2 Q e A00  2 PA
e 0; þGJ sin aÞ þ qmðEAr cos3 a þ r 1 cos3 a sin a½GJ sin a
d~X ¼ Q 0 0 0 ð62Þ
h~2 2
1 EIð1 þ sin aÞÞ: ð67Þ
h e;
~2 ¼ 2 Q ð63Þ
1
In accordance with (66) and (67), we consider the
Here we introduced the dimensionless variables decompositions

k ¼ k þ K v þ K d ; kh ¼ kh þ K vh þ K dh ;

0 0
e ¼ nP ;
P e ¼ nQ ;
Q ~dX ¼ dX ; ~ ¼ h;
h ~ 1 ¼ h1 ;
h q0 ¼
R0
:
ð68Þ
R R R R R R
kh ¼ kh þ K vh þ K dh ; khh ¼ khh þ K vhh þ K dhh ;
0 0
ð69Þ
It is evident that excluding the variables ~ ~ and h
dX ; h ~ 1 , we can reduce
0 0 0 0
the system (59)–(63) to a system of two equations with respect to where k ; kh ; kh ,
and khh ,
are the stiffness matrix components
the variables Pe and Qe. for q = 0, that is, in the case when the effect of the transverse
Let us consider the example used by Jiang et al. (2008) with the contraction of the wire strand is neglected,
following parameters: R = 4.8706 mm, R0 = 5.1294 mm, E = 188 0
k ¼ E0 A0 þ mðEAsin
3
a þ r2 cos4 a sin a½EI sin2 a þ GJ cos2 aÞ; ð70Þ
GPa, v = 0.3, a = 75°. Moreover, it is assumed that a strand axial 0 0 2 2 2
kh ¼ kh ¼ m cos a sin aðEAr þ r 1 cos2 a½GJ sin a  EIð1 þ sin aÞÞ; ð71Þ
 = 0.003 strain is applied to the 1 + 6 strand. We estimate the line 0 2 2 2 6
force X by means of formula (78) with uz,z = 0.003 and hz,z = 0. In order khh ¼ G0 J0 þ m sin aðEAr cos2 a þ EIð1 þ sin aÞ cos2 a þ GJ sin aÞ: ð72Þ
to compare the results, we calculate the maximum contact pressures Note that formulas (70)–(72) correspond exactly to the model
2P 2Q previously presented by Sathikh et al. (1996).
r0max ¼ ; r1max ¼ : ð64Þ
Let us introduce the notation
ph ph1
Note that the maximal contact pressure expressions (64) are taken ! ðaÞ ¼ EAcos2 a sin a þ r 2 cos4 a sin a½EI sin2 a þ GJ cos2 a; ð73Þ
from the Hertzian theory of two-dimensional contact (Johnson, 3 1 3 2 2 2
!c ðaÞ ¼ EAr cos a þ r cos a sin a½GJ sin a  EIð1 þ sin aÞ; ð74Þ
1985), which exactly corresponds to the boundary layer asymptotic
constructions. v 0 d0 þ v dsin2 a v dr sin a cos a
p ðaÞ ¼ ; pc ðaÞ ¼ : ð75Þ
The numerical calculations based on Eqs. (59)–(64) give d0 þ ð1 þ v cos2 aÞd d0 þ ð1 þ v cos2 aÞd
r0max ¼ 1:499 GPa and r1max ¼ 1:052 GPa, while the FEM results
Now, taking into consideration formulas (16) and (66), (67), we
for the maximum contact pressures taken from Fig. 8 (Jiang
obtain:
et al., 2008) are r0max ¼ 1:45 GPa and r1max ¼ 1:09 GPa. Correspond-
ingly, the difference between the two sets of data is 3.4% and 3.4% K v ¼ m! ðaÞp ðaÞ; K vh ¼ m! ðaÞpc ðaÞ; ð76Þ
that shows a good agreement between the asymptotic model and K v ¼ m!c ðaÞp ðaÞ; K vhh ¼ m!c ðaÞpc ðaÞ: ð77Þ
the FEM simulations.
1420 I. Argatov / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1413–1423

It is readily seen that K vh – K vh and the stiffness matrix symme- entering formulas (81)–(84) should be calculated with the help of
try is lost. formula (78), where uz,z and hz,z are evaluated in accordance with
Let us return to Eq. (30). Taking into account formula (16), we the leading asymptotic formula
can rewrite Eq. (30) as follows: !1 
  0 0 
uz;z k kh FZ
X  uz;z ðN ðaÞ  Nq ðaÞp ðaÞÞ þ hz;z ðNc ðaÞ  Nq ðaÞpc ðaÞÞ: ð78Þ ¼ : ð87Þ
hz;z 0 0 MZ
k h khh
We emphasize that the asymptotic formula (78) has been derived
from (30) by further neglecting the dependence of X on dX through Formula (86) will be used in the next section.
the relations (30) and (16).
Now the dependence of the contact approach dX on the defor-
7. Comparison with finite element simulations and experiments
mation parameters uz,z and hz,z can be expressed in the form

dX  Kða; uz;z ; hz;z ÞðN ðaÞ  Nq ðaÞp ðaÞÞuz;z þ Kða; uz;z ; hz;z Þ To demonstrate the accuracy of the constructed asymptotic
 ðNc ðaÞ  Nq ðaÞpc ðaÞÞhz;z : ð79Þ model, the asymptotic modeling results are compared with the
experimental data reported by Utting and Jones (1987) and the
In deriving this formula, we used Eqs. (45) and (78). Moreover, in FEM simulations results obtained in Ghoreishi et al. (2007), Naw-
accordance with Eqs. (46) and (39), we have rocki and Labrosse (2000).
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 Utting and Jones (1987) have conducted an experimental study
2
2RðR0 þ R sin aÞ 1 on simple straight steel strands with six different lay angles b = (p/
Kða; uz;z ; hz;z Þ ¼ n@ln þ  A0
ð1Þ A
R0 ðn þ n0 ÞjXj 2 2)  a. For the following three lay angles b1 = 17°,b4 = 12.2°, and
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 b6 = 9.2°, Ghoreishi et al. (2007) have presented the results of FE
2R 0 ðR 0 þ R sin
2
aÞ 1 analysis. For all three cases, R0 = 1.97 and R = 1.865 mm. It is also
þ n0 @ln þ  A0 A ;
ð0Þ
ð80Þ assumed that E0 = E = 197.9 GPa and v0 = v = 0.3. Nominally fixed-
R0 ðn þ n0 ÞjXj 2
end tests as well as the tests with free and partially restrained ends
were performed. The rotations were measured during a load range
where X is determined by formula (78).
of 40 kN for free-end tests. For nominally fixed-end tests, the tor-
Finally, collecting formulas (16), (66)–(69) and (79), we find
que generated was recorded. It should be also noted that some
K d ¼ m! ðaÞpd ðaÞðN ðaÞ  Nq ðaÞp ðaÞÞKða; uz;z ; hz;z Þ; ð81Þ small rotations, hz,z, were recorded during the nominally fixed-
d end tests, namely, 0.064, 0, and 0.058 rad/m for specimen number
K h ¼ m! ðaÞpd ðaÞðNc ðaÞ  Nq ðaÞpc ðaÞÞKða; uz;z ; hz;z Þ; ð82Þ
1, 4, and 6, respectively.
K dh ¼ m!c ðaÞpd ðaÞðN ðaÞ  Nq ðaÞp ðaÞÞKða; uz;z ; hz;z Þ; ð83Þ Table 1 compares the asymptotic modeling results with the
K dhh ¼ m!c ðaÞpd ðaÞðNc ðaÞ  Nq ðaÞpc ðaÞÞKða; uz;z ; hz;z Þ; ð84Þ experimentally measured values and the corresponding FEM sim-
ulation results. The errors of the asymptotic modeling results were
where we introduced the notation evaluated with respects to the corresponding FEM simulations re-
2 sults. The following quantities are of interest:
pd ðaÞ ¼ ; ð85Þ
d0 þ ð1 þ v cos2 aÞd Fz
hz;z ¼ ðfree  end conditionÞ;
Observe that formulas (81)–(84) have a weak logarithmic sin- kh  ðk khh =kh Þ
gularity. This is explained by the nonlinear relationship between kh
Mz ¼ ðF z  kh hz;z Þ þ khh hz;z ðfree  end conditionÞ:
X and dX(see Eq. (47)). k
The inverse constitutive relations have the form
Observe that in Table 1 the asymptotic modeling result for
   1   a4 = 77.8° seems surprising: the error is not between the values ob-
uz;z k kh FZ
¼ ð86Þ tained for a1 = 73° and a6 = 80.8°. This fact can be explained that
hz;z kh khh MZ
the experimentally recorded small rotations mentioned above
where the stiffness matrix components are computed according to (namely, 0.064, 0, and 0.058 rad/m) were taken into account in
(68)–(72), (76), (77), (82)–(84). However, the coefficient (80) our computations.

Table 1
Comparison of the asymptotic modeling results with the experimental data (Utting and Jones, 1987) and FEM simulations (Ghoreishi et al., 2007) for nominally fixed-end and
free-end tests.

Specimen Mz (Nm) (fixed-end test) hz,z (rad/m) (free-end test)

Test FEM AM Error (%) Test FEM AM Error (%)
I a1 = 73° 34.4 36.7 38.8 5.8 2.4929 2.50889 2.62040 4.5
IV a4 = 77.8° 26 27.2 27.0 0.8 2.2049 2.12266 2.19051 3.2
VI a1 = 80.8° 18.8 19.9 21.4 7.4 1.62025 1.73139 1.78152 2.9

Table 2
Comparison of the asymptotic modeling results with the experimental data (Utting and Jones, 1987) and FEM simulations (Ghoreishi et al., 2007) for partially restrained ends.

Specimen DMz/D uz,z (103 Nm) DMz/Dhz,z (Nm2)

Test FEM AM Error (%) Test FEM AM Error (%)
I a1 = 73° 16.2 15.94 14.92 6.4 13.7 15.03 14.46 3.8
IV a1 = 77.8° 20.1 18.84 18.08 4 12.8 12.84 12.52 2.5
VI a1 = 80.8° 22.9 23.10 22.34 3.3 11.6 11.92 11.64 2.4
 I. Argatov / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1413–1423 1421

24 Table 4
ΔM z
⋅10 −3 Nm Experiment
Comparison of the asymptotic modeling results with the theoretical predictions and
Δu z , z (Utting & Jones,1987) experimental results.
Slope of torsional restraint against strand strain Theory (Costello, 1990)
22 Relative stiffnesses ~
k ~
k ~
k ~
k
h h hh
FEM simulation
(Nawrocki & Labrosse, 2000) Theory (Kumar and Cochran, 1987) 0.96 0.093 0.210 0.079
FEM simulation Experiment (Kumar and Botsis, 2001) 0.92 0.107 0.215 0.095
20 (Ghoreishi et al., 2007) Asymptotic model 0.95 0.092 0.223 0.080
Asymptotic modeling

18

0
accordance with the following approximate formulas: uz;z ¼ F z =k
h  i
0 0 0 0
16 and hz,z = 0(for fixed-end tests), uz;z ¼ F z = k  kh kh =khh and
h  i
0 0 0
hz;z ¼ F z = kh  khh k =kh (for free-end tests).
14 Figs. 6 and 7 present the comparison of the data contained in
8 10 12 14 16 18
Table 2 with the predictions from the linear theory of wire ropes
Strand lay angle (deg.) β
by Costello (1990), which does not take into account the effect of
Fig. 6. Slope of torsional restraint against strand strain vs. strand lay angle contact deformation, and the FEM simulations results obtained
b = 90°  a. by Nawrocki and Labrosse (2000) and Ghoreishi et al. (2007). Ob-
serve that the difference between the predictions of the two theo-
ries is quite negligible. Observe also that the results presented in
16 Figs. 6 and 7 turn out to be close to the Costello theory. This fact
ΔM z is consistent with the results of Section 8 which show that for
Experiment Nm 2
(Utting & Jones,1987) Δθ z , z small lay angles, the difference between the different models is
Theory (Costello, 1990) 15 very small.
against strand rotation over 1 m
Slope of torsional restraint

FEM simulation Table 3 presents the comparison between the stiffness matrix
(Nawrocki & Labrosse, 2000) components. Observe that Ghoreishi et al. (2007) do not discuss
FEM simulation
(Ghoreishi et al., 2007) 14 the nonlinearity of the constitutive relations, which is caused by
Asymptotic modeling the unilateral boundary conditions of interwire contact. The
asymptotic modeling results for the stiffness matrix components
13 were obtained in the case of fixed-end condition.
In general, Tables 1–3 and Figs. 6 and 7 show a good correlation
between the FE models (Ghoreishi et al., 2007; Nawrocki and Labr-
12 osse, 2000) and the constructed asymptotic model, at least for the
range of lay angles considered here.
Finally, Table 4 presents the comparison between theoretical
11 predictions and experimental values of the relative stiffness matrix
8 10 12 14 16 18
components
Strand lay angle (deg.) β

Fig. 7. Slope of torsional restraint against strand rotation vs. strand lay angle ~ ¼ k ;
k ~h ¼ kh ;
k ~h ¼ kh ;
k ~hh ¼ khh ;
k
b = 90°  a. EAn EAn Rn ER3n ER4n

Table 2 presents the comparison for the intermediate case
where both an axial load and twisting moment are imposed. It is
assumed that the axial load, Fz, is 40 kN. Denoting
DMz ¼ M2z  M1z ; Duz;z ¼ u2z;z  u1z;z ; Dhz;z ¼ h2z;z  h1z;z , where u1z;z ; h1z;z
and u2z;z ; h2z;z are deformations corresponding to the twisting mo-
ments M 1z and M 2z , respectively, we will have
DM z k khh DM z
¼ k h  ; ¼ khh 
Duz;z kh Dhz;z
The analytical results were obtained by the use of formula (86). At
that, the coefficient (80) entering formulas (81)–(84) was calculated
by formula (78) with uz,z and hz,z corresponding to the applied load in
where An ¼ pR2c þ 6pR2w is the metallic area of cross-section,
Rn = Rc + 2Rw is the strand radius. At that, Rc = Rw = 1.5 mm,
E = 157 GPa, v = 0.3, and a = 80.4°. It is assumed that the axial load,
Fz, is 8 kN. The discrepancy between the theoretical and experimen-
tal results is found to be maximum for the parameter k ~hh . As it was
noticed by Kumar and Botsis (2001), even here, the error seems to
kh khh be within the normally acceptable limits. Overall, the asymptotic
: modeling results are very close to the theoretical results based on
k
the linear theory of Costello (1990) and the additional simplifying
approximations of Kumar and Cochran (1987). Observe also that
the experimental stiffness matrix lacks the symmetry. The discrep-
ancy between the quantities EAn Rn k ~h and ER3 k
~
n h is about 17.7%.

Table 3
Comparison of the asymptotic modeling results with the FEM simulations (Ghoreishi et al., 2007).

Specimen k (104N) kh (3Nm) kh (3Nm) khh (Nm2)

FEM AM Error (%) FEM AM Error (%) FEM AM Error (%) FEM AM Error (%)
I 1.32 1.317 0.2 12.4 12.76 3.4 12.4 12.48 1.2 26.74 26.550 0.4
IV 1.43 1.427 0.1 9.72 9.882 1.8 9.72 9.783 0.8 19.46 19.293 0.8
VI 1.48 1.476 0.2 7.64 7.691 0.7 7.64 7.651 0.2 15.86 15.622 1.5
1422 I. Argatov / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1413–1423

(a) (b)
2 0.4
k εε k θθ Machida & Durelli (1973)
1.8 0.35 Kumar & Cochran (1987)
Sathikh et al. (1996)
0.3 FEM (Ghoreishi et al., 2007)
1.6 Present model

0.25
1.4
0.2
1.2
0.15
Machida & Durelli (1973)
1
Sathikh et al. (1996)
0.1
Kumar & Cochran (1987)
FEM (Ghoreishi et al., 2007)
0.8
Present model 0.05

0.6 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Lay angle β Lay angle β

Fig. 8. Dimensionless axial and torsional stiffnesses vs. lay angle b = 90°  a.

(a) (b)
0.6 0.6
k εθ k θε
0.55 0.55

0.5 0.5
0.45 0.45
0.4 0.4

0.35 0.35
0.3 0.3

0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2 Machida & Durelli (1973)
Machida & Durelli (1973)
0.15 Kumar & Cochran (1987) 0.15 Kumar & Cochran (1987)
Sathikh et al. (1996) Sathikh et al. (1996)
0.1 FEM (Ghoreishi et al., 2007) 0.1 FEM (Ghoreishi et al., 2007)
Present model Present model
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Lay angle β Lay angle β

Fig. 9. Dimensionless coupling terms vs. lay angle b = 90°  a.

8. Discussion and conclusions
Figs. 8 and 9 present the evolutions of the dimensionless stiff-
ness matrix components
 ¼ k ;
k h ¼ kh ;
k  h ¼ k h ;
k hh ¼ khh ;
k effect.
Epr 2 Epr 3 Epr 3 Epr 4
obtained by different analytical models versus lay angle. On the fig-
ures, we also superimposed the FEM simulation results obtained by
Ghoreishi et al. (2007) (see Table 3). It should be noted that the
qualitative behavior of the asymptotic modeling curves is also in
a good agreement with the FE model. A significant difference be-
tween the asymptotic model and the other analytical models ap-
pears for b P 20°. This fact can be attributed to the effect of
interwire contact.
Recall that each of the matrix stiffness components k, kh, kh
and khh is represented as the sum of three terms, two of which cor-
respond to the Poisson’s ratio effect and the effect wire flattening
due to contact deformation. Fig. 10 shows the behavior of the rel-
ative constituting terms versus lay angle. It is readily seen that for
the small lay angles b 6 15°, the terms corresponding to the Pois-
son’s ratio effect predominate over the terms corresponding to
the effect of interwire contact. For lay angles beyond 25°, the im-
pact of the interwire contact effect becomes significant in compar-
ison with the correction introduced due to the Poisson’s ratio
The objective of this paper is to describe analytically the effect
of the transverse contraction of the wire strand through local con-
tact deformation. It is shown that the effect of elastic local defor-
mations in the frictionless interwire contact interactions is
relatively small for small lay angles (less than 15°), while for large
lay angles (more than 25°), the wire flattening effect dominates the
Poisson’s ratio effect. As the main result of the present paper, a
simple asymptotic model of a wire strand under tensile and tor-
sional loads has been established in order to more accurately pre-
dict its deformation with interwire contacts taken into account.
The constructed asymptotic model allows for obtaining local
contact stresses which are very important in a design process
and in a preliminary step to study the strand strength and its wear
resistance.
 I. Argatov / International Journal of Solids and Structures 48 (2011) 1413–1423 1423

(a) (b)
20 30 25

δ 0 δ
Kεε / kεε Kεδθ / kε0θ
0
Kθθ / kθθ
ν 0 ν 20
Kεε / kεε Kενθ / kε0θ
0
15 Kθθ / kθθ 22.5

15
Kθδε / kθ0ε

10 15 Kθνε / kθ0ε
10

5 7.5
5

0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Lay angle β Lay angle β

Fig. 10. Relative constituting terms of the matrix stiffness components of vs. lay angle b = 90°  a. The results are expressed in percents. In Fig. 10a, the left and right ranges
correspond to K/k and Khh/khh, respectively.

Acknowledgements
The financial support via an Ikerbasque fellowship from the
Basque Foundation for Science is gratefully acknowledged. The
author also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-
ments and discussions.
References
Argatov, I.I., 2001. Solution of the plane Hertz problem. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 42,
1064–1072.
Blouin, F., Cardou, A., 1989. A study of helically reinforced cylinders under axially
symmetric loads and application strand mathematical modeling. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 25 (2), 189–200.
Canale, M., Fagiano, L., Milanese, M., 2009. KiteGen: a revolution in wind energy
generation. Energy 34, 355–361.
Cardou, A., Jolicoeur, C., 1997. Mechanical models of helical strands. Appl. Mech.
Rev. 50, 1–14.
Castillo, J., Barber, J.R., 1997. Lateral contact of slender prismatic bodies. Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. A 453, 2397–2412.
Cole, J.D., 1968. Perturbation Methods in Applied Mathematics. Blaisdell Pub. Co.,
Waltham, Mass.
Costello, G.A., 1990. Theory of Wire Rope. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Crossley, J.A., Spencer, A.J.M., England, A.H., 2003. Analytical solutions for bending
and flexure of helically reinforced cylinders. Int. J. Solids Struct. 40, 777–806.
Elata, D., Eshkenazy, R., Weiss, M.P., 2004. The mechanical behavior of a wire rope
with an independent wire rope core. Int. J. Solids Struct. 41, 1157–1172.
Feyrer, K., 2007. Wire Ropes: Tension, Endurance, Reliability. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Ghoreishi, S.R., Messager, T., Cartraud, P., Davies, P., 2007. Validity and limitations of
linear analytical models for steel wire strands under axial loading, using a 3D FE
model. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 49, 1251–1261.
Giglio, M., Manes, A., 2005. Life prediction of a wire rope subjected to axial and
bending loads. Eng. Fail. Anal. 12, 549–568.
Gnanavel, B.K., Gopinath, D., Parthasarathy, N.S., 2010. Effect of friction on coupled
contact in a twisted wire cable. J. Appl. Mech. ASME 77, 024501. 6 p..
Il’in, A.M., 1992. Matching of asymptotic expansions of solutions of boundary value
problems. Trans. Math. Monogr., Vol. 102. AMS, Providence, RI.
Jiang, W.-G., Warby, M.K., Henshall, J.L., 2008. Statically indeterminate contacts in
axially loaded wire strand. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 27, 69–78.
Johnson, K.L., 1985. Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jolicoeur, C., Cardou, A., 1991. A numerical comparison of current mathematical
models of twisted wire cables under axisymmetric loads. J. Energ. Resour.
Technol. ASME 113, 241–249.
Kalker, J.J., 1972. On elastic line contact. J. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME. E 39, 1125–
1132.
Kumar, K., Botsis, J., 2001. Contact stresses in multilayered strands under tension
and torsion. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 68, 432–440.
Kumar, K., Cochran Jr., J.E., 1987. Closed-form analysis for elastic deformations of
multilayered strand. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 54, 898–903.
Love, A.E.H., 1944. A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity. Dover Publ.,
New York.
Machida, S., Durelli, A.J., 1973. Response of a strand to axial and torsional
displacements. J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 15, 241–251.
Muskhelishvili, N.I., 1953. Some Basic Problems of the Mathematical Theory of
Elasticity. Groningen, Noordhoff.
Nawrocki, A., Labrosse, M., 2000. A finite element model for simple straight wire
rope strands. Comput. Struct. 77, 345–359.
Ramsey, H., 1988. A theory of thin rods with application to helical constituent wires
in cables. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 30, 559–570.
Sathikh, S., Moorthy, M.B.K., Krishnan, M., 1996. A symmetric linear elastic model
for helical wire strands under axisymmetric loads. J. Strain Anal. 31, 389–399.
Urchegui, M.A., Tato, W., Gómez, X., 2008. Wear evolution in a stranded rope
subjected to cyclic bending. J. Mat. Eng. Perform. 17, 550–560.
Usabiaga, H., Pagalday, J.M., 2008. Analytical procedure for modelling recursively
and wire by wire stranded ropes subjected to traction and torsion loads. Int. J.
Solids Struct. 45, 5503–5520.
Utting, W.S., Jones, N., 1987. The response of wire rope strands to axial tensile
loads—Part I. Experimental results and theoretical predictions. Int. J. Mech. Sci.
29, 605–619.
Van Dyke, M.D., 1964. Perturbation Methods in Fluid Mechanics. Academic Press,
New York.
Velinsky, S.A., 1985. General nonlinear theory for complex wire rope. Int. J. Mech.
Sci. 27, 497–507.
Velinsky, S.A., Anderson, G.A., Costello, G.A., 1984. Wire rope with complex cross
sections. ASCE J. Eng. Mech. Div. 110, 380–391.
Zegzhda, S.A., Filippov, N.G., 1986. Collision of cylinders along their generatrices.
Vestnik Leningr. Univ. 1 3, 58–62.