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

Moses F. Oduori, email: foduori@uonbi.ac.ke. (corresponding author).

Thomas O. Mbuya, email: tmbuya@uonbi.ac.ke
epartment of Mechanical and Manufacturing !ngineering,
"ni#ersity of $airobi, %. O. &o' ()*+,, $-./O&., 0!$1-.
Abstract
The problem of determination of the upper limiting value of the fleet angle of a rope
running off a sheave is encountered in the design of hoisting mechanisms such as that of
an electric overhead travelling (EOT) crane, or an elevator, among other applications. In
this paper, a mathematical expression for the determination of this limiting value of the
fleet angle is derived from first principles. The expression obtained here is then
compared to, and contrasted with another that is given in the literature. The earlier
expression in the literature is found to generally overestimate the upper limiting value of
the fleet angle.
Introduction
The problem of determination of the upper limiting value of the fleet angle (Fig. 1) is
encountered in the design of hoisting mechanisms such as that of an electric overhead
travelling (EOT) crane or an elevator !"
!
If, in a given application, the actual maximum
fleet angle is allowed to be greater than the limiting value, intense abrasion will occur
between the rope and the sides of the sheave groove. #oreover, the rope will be pinched
by the upper edge of the sheave groove, leading to high contact stress that may result in
intense abrasive wear of both the rope and the sheave, possible crushing of the rope, and
strand nic$ing % the result of ad&acent strands pressing and rubbing against one another.
The end result is shortened rope and sheave service life ', (".
!
)umbers in s*uare brac$ets refer to cited literature as listed in the references section.
Iwai and Ishi$awa +" present a graphical method for determining this limiting value.
,owever, graphical methods have the disadvantage of having to be laid out to scale, in
entirety, in every case, and can be time consuming. -here an analytical formula is
available, it is generally to be preferred to graphical methods. .ccording to /uden$o 0",
the upper limiting value of the fleet angle may be determined by use of an e*uation that
can be written in the following form (see Fig. )1
!
'
!
!
max
+( . !
tan '
tan
+


(!)
' of !(
In the above expression1

is one half of the sheave2s 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 depth of the sheave2s groove measured from the top of the groove to the
bottom of groove,

is the ratio of the depth of the sheave2s groove to the nominal diameter of the
sheave3 hence
D h
! !

.
4nfortunately, /uden$o 0" presents neither the theoretical basis nor the procedure of
derivation of e*uation (!). In this paper, an e*uation for the determination of
max

is
derived from first principles and then its application is discussed, compared to, and
contrasted with e*uation (!).
Anal!sis
The co5ordinate system to be used in this analysis is illustrated in Fig. ". The sheave may
rotate about the
y
5axis of the fixed co5ordinate system. In practice, sheave form and
dimensions would be according to standards commonly used in the crane and elevator
industry.
It should be evident in Fig. that the following relationship holds true1
h D D
O
' +
(')
In the above expression1
D is the nominal diameter (pitch circle diameter) of the sheave,
h is the nominal depth of the sheave2s 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 sheave2s groove are conical. Thus, a
diametrical section of the sheave2s groove would be a straight5sided 65shape, except for the
bottom of the groove, which is rounded.
( of !(
The design ob&ective is to limit the fleet angle so that the rope shall not be forced to
sharply bend over the edge of the sheave2s groove, at the point S (Fig. ) where it runs
off the sheave. .s 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 sheave2s groove. This sharp bending
of the rope over the edge of the sheave2s groove would be avoided if the rope should run
off the sheave at a tangent to the surface of the sheave2s groove.
In Fig. , if i ,
#
and $ are unit vectors in the
x
,
y
and z directions respectively, the
*uantity denoted
!
r
can be represented by the following vector e*uation1
$ i
! ! !
z x r +
Thus, application of the 7ythagorean theorem, in Fig. , gives the following e*uation1
'
!
'
!
+
z
D
r + (()
,ence,
'
!
'
!
+
'
!
z D r + (+)
+ of !(
-ith the use of trigonometry in Fig. , it can be shown that1

,
_

tan
'
!
D
r y
(0)
Thus, by using e*uations (+) and (0), one obtains the following1
( )
'
tan
+
'
!
'
!

+ D z D y (8)
Thus, at any point
{ } z y x , ,
, on the centre line of the rope segment that runs off the
sheave, the value of the fleet angle can be found by use of the differential calculus as
follows1
' '
+
tan '
d
d
tan
z D
z
z
y
+

(9)
:urthermore, the following should be evident in Fig. 1
0 of !(
!
!
!
sin
r
z

(;)
Thus from e*uations (+) and (;) it follows that at any point
{ } z y x , ,
, on the centre line of
the rope segment that runs off the sheave1
' '
+
'
sin
z D
z
+

(<)
,ence, using e*uations (9) and (<), one obtains1
sin tan tan
(!=)
Application
The First Approach
.s a design approach, it may be assumed that the design of the sheave is as shown in
section .%. of Fig. , so that the following constraint is imposed upon the dimensions of
the sheave1
'
max
D
z z
S
(!!)
>ubstituting e*uation (!!) into e*uation (+) leads to the results1
'
max
D
r
(!')
4sing e*uation (!') and Fig. % the following e*uations are found to hold true1

D
D D
h
D D
O
O
'=9 . =
'
'
(!()
-ith the constraints expressed in e*uations (!!) and (!') in play, e*uation (<) becomes1
'
!
sin
max

(!+)
?y using e*uations (!=) and (!+), one obtains an expression for the limiting value of the
fleet angle as follows1
tan 9=9 . = tan
max
(!0)
8 of !(
The Second Approach
. 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. ,
it follows that1
h
D
r +
'
max
(!8)
?y using of the 7ythagorean theorem in Fig. 1
'
!
' '
max
' '
1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

+
D
h
D
z (!9)
which may be simplified into1
'
max
h Dh z + (!;)
)ote that1

max
max
max
max max
sin
sin tan tan
r
z
Therefore, it follows that1
h D
h Dh
'
tan '
tan
'
max
+
+
(!<)
?y introducing the notation
D h
, one then obtains the following1
+
+

' !
tan '
tan
'
max
('=)
&iscussion
.s was seen earlier, the e*uation according to /uden$o is as follows1
!
'
!
!
max
+( . !
tan '
tan
+


('!)
>heave groove dimensions are normally standardi@ed and Table 1 below gives a sample
of such dimensions, derived from Aapanese Industrial >tandards AI> ? ;;=9 +".
9 of !(
Table 1 ' Some Standard Sheave &ata According to (IS ) **+,
-ire /ope
Biameter, d mm
>heave 7itch
Biameter, D
mm
D
h

D
h
!
!

!
!'.0 '0=.0 =.=0+;< =.=9<;+ !.+0+0
!+ ';= =.=00(8 =.=;=(8 !.+0!8
!8 (!0 =.=0(<9 =.=9<(9 !.+9=8
!; (00 =.=0(0' =.=9;;9 !.+9(9
'= +== =.=0(90 =.=9;90 !.+80!
.verage 6alues =.=0+( =.=9<++ !.+8(!
>tandard Beviations =.===9;< =.===89( =.==<9('
Coefficients of 6ariation !.+0(0D =.;+9(D =.880!D
4sing the information from Table 1, we may write the following relationship1
+8(! . !
!
('')
)ow, from e*uations ('!) and (''), for the sheave dimensions used in Table 1,
/uden$o2s e*uation may now be rewritten in the following form1
+


<99+ . =
tan '
tan
'
max
('()
The above expression facilitates the comparison of /uden$o2s e*uation and the authors2
e*uation.
:or purposes of comparison, two *uantities denoted
!

and
'

, which are the

normali@ed forms of /uden$o2s e*uation ('!) and the authors2 e*uation ('=),
respectively, were computed using the following mathematical e*uations1
+

<99+ . =
'
tan
tan
'
max
! ('+)
+
+

' !
'
tan
tan
'
max
'
('0)
; of !(
6alues of
!

and
'

are plotted against those of in Fig. -. This figure reveals that

/uden$o2s e*uation consistently overestimates the upper limiting value of the fleet angle
for the full range of plotted values.
Fig. - ' .omparison of Ruden$o/s and the Authors/ Results
:urther comparison of fleet angles as calculated by /uden$o2s formula, and by the
authors2 formula are given in Table " below, for a groove angle of (; degrees. The
conse*uences of allowing the maximum value of the fleet angle to be too large have
already been mentioned in the introduction to this paper. >uffice to say that
overestimating the upper limiting value of the fleet angle is unacceptable.
Table " ' .omparison of the Results of Ruden$o/s and the Authors/ 01uations
-ire /ope
Biameter, d mm
>heave 7itch
Biameter, D
mm
D
h

/uden$o2s
max

, degrees
The .uthors2
max

, degrees
!'.0 '0=.0 =.=0+;< !<.;!0 !;.9!9
!+ ';= =.=00(8 !<.;;; !;.9;=
< of !(
!8 (!0 =.=0(<9 !<.88< !;.0<!
!; (00 =.=0(0' !<.0<9 !;.0'<
'= +== =.=0(90 !<.8(+ !;.08!
.verage 6alues !<.9'! !;.8(8
:or the values of

occurring in Table ", above, the upper limiting values of the fleet
angle, as calculated by /uden$o2s e*uation is 0.;'(D higher than that obtained by use of
the .uthors2 e*uation.
In the application of e*uation (!=), two alternative approaches were presented. The first
approach constrains the value of h to be e*ual to =.'=9D while the second approach
allows the value of h to be varied freely. ,owever, there are other factors that come into
consideration when the values of D and h are to be determined. :or example, a
consideration of the rope2s 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 ade*uately dealt with in the relevant literature. It has also been reported
that the depth of sheave grooves should be at least !.0 times the rope diameter and that
one half of the sheave2s groove angle should not exceed '8

degrees (". Thus, one may
not be entirely free to fix the value of h to be e*ual to =.'=9D, for example, as the values
of both these *uantities (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. 2), which can be calculated by
use of the following formula 8"1
( ) ( ) ( ) d D D d D D
b
V
o o
+ +

' '
!'
('8)
!= of !(
Thus, it will be found that for given values of D, deeper sheave grooves lead to larger,
heavier sheaves, which is undesirable. Erooves should not be made unnecessarily deep.
The literature is seemingly inconsistent in recommending the upper limiting values of the
fleet angle. /ecommended values range from =.'0
=
to +.90
=
',(,+" and one
recommendation gives !0
=
!" 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. )ote that this paper loo$s at the upper limiting
value of the fleet angle from the point of view of a rope running off a sheave. In
applications utili@ing sheaves and drumsFbarrels, the maximum value of the fleet angle
may be farther limited by the phenomenon of the rope running onto and off a
drumFbarrel.
.onclusions
(!) The problem of the determination of the upper limiting value of the fleet angle of a
rope running off a sheave is relevant to the design of hoisting mechanisms such as
those of cranes and elevators.
(') .n e*uation that may be used to determine the upper limiting value of the fleet angle
of a rope running off a sheave was derived from first principles. The use of this
e*uation was discussed and compared to one that was given by /uden$o '" and it
was found that /uden$o2s e*uation overestimates this upper limiting value.
!! of !(
(() Two design approaches were presented and their effect on the si@e of the sheave
discussed. The second approach was found to be flexible in its application and
therefore should be a preferred choice for designers.
3omenclature

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 sheave2s groove, measured from the top of the groove
to the centreline of the rope (pitchline),

!
h
is the depth of the sheave2s groove measured, from the top of the groove to the
bottom of groove, thus
'
!
d h h +
,

is the ratio of the nominal depth of the sheave2s groove to the nominal diameter
of the sheave3 hence
D h
,

is the ratio of the depth of the sheave2s groove to the nominal diameter of the
sheave3 hence
D h
! !

.
References
(!) Oduori, #. :. and )yauma, E. :. (!<9<). GThe Besign of an Electric Overhead
Travelling CraneH, :inal Iear 7ro&ect /eport >ubmitted in 7artial :ulfilment for the
.ward of the Begree of ?achelor of >cience in #echanical Engineering, Bepartment
of #echanical Engineering, 4niversity of )airobi, )airobi.
(') Bic$ie, B. E. (!<90). GCrane ,andboo$H. Construction >afety .ssociation of
Ontario, /evised 4J Edition published in !<;! by ?utterworths K Co. Ltd.
London.
(() Bic$ie, B. E. (!<90). GLifting Tac$le #anualH. Construction >afety .ssociation of
Ontario, /evised 4J Edition published in !<;! by ?utterworths K Co. Ltd.
London.
(+) Iwai, #inoru and Ioshio Ishi$awa (!<;<). G#odern #achine Besign and Brawing
7ractice, )umber 0. 7art + % Besign of the 7ower -inch. 7p !0=5!0!. Ohm >ha,
To$yo, Aapan (in Aapanese).
!' of !(
(0) /uden$o, ). (!<8<), G#aterials ,andling E*uipmentH, 'nd Edn. #ir 7ublishers,
#oscow.
(8) Carmichael, /. B. and. >#IT,, E. / (!<8'), G#athematical Tables and :ormulasH,
Bover 7ublications, Inc., )ew Ior$.
!( of !(