innoTRAC Journal

Volume 1 (2020), pp. 37–46

https://doi.org/10.14464/innotrac.v1i0.456

Wire Ropes in Crane Applications – Current State

of the Standardization Work of ISO/WD 16625
Judith Reinl1*, Markus Golder2
1
Convenor ISO/TC 96 SC3 WG3, Germany
2
Professorship of Conveying Engineering and Materials Handling, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received 28 October 2020; Accepted 28 October 2020; Available online 7 December 2020

© 2020 by J. Reinl and M. Golder. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

A BSTRACT Nowadays, modern standards apply the proof of competence method to prove that a design force does
not exceed a certain limit to ensure a certain safety level. Furthermore, standards elaborated during the last years
apply a cycle-based approach instead of a time-based approach. The shortcomings of the standard ISO 16625:2013
need to be addressed in a revision. Therefore, a working group WG3 of ISO/TC 96 SC3 has been established in 2015
to prepare a new working draft ISO/WD 16625. Objectives are to adopt a cycle-based approach and to incorporate
proofs of competence for static strength and fatigue strength for running ropes and stationary ropes, based on
scientific inputs. The research work about steel wire ropes by the University of Stuttgart and the Technical
University of Dresden developed the method Stuttgart and the method Leipzig, both representing regression
models to determine the attainable number of bending cycles of a wire rope. The present paper briefly explains the
method Leipzig and the method Stuttgart in chapter 3. In chapter 4, the partly implementation of findings from the
method Stuttgart to the standard EN 13001-3-2:2014 is discussed and shortcomings are identified. Those
shortcomings have also been addressed by the new developed concept of ISO/WD 16625 that is outlined in chapter
5. Finally, chapter 6 provides an overview on the revised ISO/WD 16625 to conclude the current state of the
standardization work.

K EYWORDS ISO 16625, wire rope, fatigue, bending, proof of competence, running rope, stationary rope

1. Introduction

The international standard ISO 16625 Cranes and hoists – Selection of wire ropes, drums and
sheaves, valid in its first edition from 2013, specifies a minimum design factor 𝑍𝑝 taking
mainly into account the classification of mechanism, the rope type and the application. [1]
In ISO 16625:2013, the group classification of mechanism is in accordance with
ISO 4301-1:1986 and thus follows a time-based approach. [2] Considering the maximum
rope tension 𝑆 and selecting a specified value of the minimum design factor 𝑍𝑝 , the minimum
breaking force of the rope 𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛 is determined by a simple calculation [1]:
𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≥ 𝑆 × 𝑍𝑝
Reinl and Golder / innoTRAC Journal 1 (2020) 38

Nowadays, modern standards apply the proof of competence method to prove that a design
force does not exceed a certain limit to ensure a certain safety level. The (limit) design force
itself is not determined by specified values, it is rather calculated considering influencing
factors. Furthermore, standards elaborated during the last few years applying a cycle-based
approach instead of a time-based approach. [3]
The shortcomings of ISO 16625:2013 are obvious: a time-based approach, i.e. the total
duration of use, of the classification of mechanism forms the foundation to select a
minimum design factor 𝑍𝑝 although components of a mechanism are worn by stress cycles.
Furthermore, the first edition of ISO 16625 misses a link to scientific-based results on
impacts from bending stress or tensile loads during operation. A revision of ISO 16625:2013
is necessary.

2. Objectives of a Revision of ISO 16625

In 2015, subcommittee SC3 of ISO/TC 96 established a working group WG3 to revise

ISO 16625:2013 to address the above stated shortcomings. A new revision of ISO 16625 shall
adopt a cycle-based approach, e.g. as outlined in ISO 4301-1:2016 or EN 13001-3-2:2014 [2, 4],
and should incorporate modern methods to provide a proof that the limits of fatigue
strength and static strength of a wire rope - in relation to the drum and sheave geometry or
load bearing structure - are met. Furthermore, a revision of ISO 16625 shall be enhanced to
address the requirements of wire ropes in multi-layer spooling. Also, the difference of
running ropes that are under bending stress permanently in contact with drums and sheaves
and stationary ropes that are primarily under tensile load having no contact with drums or
sheaves must be considered.
Another objective is to implement modern, well-known methods and to incorporate
scientific proven input from wire rope tests like bending tests or tension-tension tests as
a foundation of a revision of ISO 16625. Thus, a broad expertise from different areas is
required and representatives from universities, research institutes, wire rope manufacturers
and crane and hoist manufactures collaborate in the standardization activities of
ISO/TC 96 SC3 WG3.

3. Scientific Studies and Best Practice

3.1. Overview
Reviewing the state of art and the state of research, the work undertaken by the University
of Stuttgart and Technical University of Dresden (in continuation of the work undertaken by
the “Institut für Bergbausicherheit Leipzig”) is of high interest. Both universities have a
strong presence with their main research about steel wire ropes.
The method Leipzig based on research of Jehmlich and Steinbach as well as the method
Stuttgart based on research of Feyrer representing regression models to determine the
attainable number of bending cycles of a wire rope subject to several influencing factors and
Reinl and Golder / innoTRAC Journal 1 (2020) 39

parameters. Both methods, differing in test conditions and evaluation of the results, have
already been considered as valuable input for the German guideline VDI 2358:2012- 12 Wire
ropes for mechanical handling equipment. [5]

3.2. Method Leipzig

The method Leipzig lays down a mathematical estimate in line with the Wöhler-line-system
based on endurance tests with known statistical variances of the failure probability to
calculate the attainable number of bending cycles of a wire rope in a rope drive system.
In the event of strain due to the rope tension force and bending and compression of rope
drive elements, there are stress combinations acting in the wires of a wire rope that could
lead to fatigue cracks. To calculate the stresses, certain parameters like the D/d-ratio of the
rope drive system, the rope force or load spectrum, the nominal strength of the wires as well
as the rope design itself must be considered. The method Leipzig summarizes these stresses
to a strain 𝑦 formula and sets up a single-parameter Wöhler-line-system with strain 𝑦 over
bending cycles 𝑁. Thus, the attainable number of bending cycles 𝑁 can be determined under
consideration of the failure probability. To calculate the compressive stress, the contact
conditions of the outer wires of the outer strands to the sheaves and wire rope core are
considered which is a notably feature of the method Leipzig. That enables to assess the inner
rope deterioration without yet visible wire break development. [6, 7]

1 𝑅 0,6 × 𝐸 𝜋 𝑓×𝑅
𝑦= × 1,04 × + + 𝐾𝐿 × 𝐿 × 𝐵 × √ × (1)
𝑅 𝜈 𝐾𝐿2 × 𝐷𝐺 4 𝜈 × 𝐷𝐺
𝑑 𝑑
( )
𝑃𝐴
𝐻 %
𝑁𝑃𝐴% = 𝐶𝐿 (2)
𝑦

Wöhler-line-system of method Leipzig for single bending cycles

discard

strand failure
scatter range
to

strain spectrum with

equivalent strain y* and
scatter range
scatter range
to
Figure 1:
Wöhler-line-system method Leipzig [7]

A full description and background details of the method Leipzig can be found in [6].
Reinl and Golder / innoTRAC Journal 1 (2020) 40

3.3. Method Stuttgart

The method Stuttgart goes back to Feyrer under whose leadership thousands of bending
tests have been conducted and evaluated since the 1980s. The empirical findings have been
transferred into lifetime diagrams of different wire ropes and utilized to develop a linear
regression model to determine the number of bending cycles 𝑁 of a wire rope, expressed by
the well-known Feyrer formula.
𝐷 𝑆 𝑅0
lg 𝑁 = 𝑏0 + (𝑏1 + 𝑏3 × lg ) × (lg 2 − 0.4 × lg )
𝑑 𝑑 1770
𝐷 (3)
+ 𝑏2 × lg + lg 𝑓𝑑 + lg 𝑓𝐿 + lg 𝑓𝐶
𝑑
The method Stuttgart considers the most important influences on the number of bending
cycles like the rope tensile force 𝑆 and the D/d-ratio of a rope drive systems. Furthermore,
different endurance factors 𝑓𝑗 and regression coefficients 𝑏𝑖 have been derived from the
empirical findings and incorporated to the Feyrer formula.
A lifetime diagram of a wire rope drawn in a logarithm scale is typically represented by
straight lines for constant D/d-ratios. The lifetime diagram shows that at a certain high
tensile force, the number of bending cycles declines suddenly. This limit of the tensile force
where the number of bending cycles starts to decline is called the Donandt force and the kink
in the lifetime diagram is called Donandt point respectively.

Figure 2:
Lifetime diagram of a Filler rope
[8] p. 220

A full description and background details of the method Stuttgart can be found in [8].

4. A First Linkage to Scientific Studies: The Concept of EN 13001-3-2

The European standard EN 13001-3-2:2014 Cranes – General design – Part 3-2: Limit states
and proof of competence of wire ropes in reeving systems has been prepared by the
Technical Committee CEN/TC 147. [4] EN 13001-3-2 applies the limit state method and
outlines proofs of competence for static strength and fatigue strength. The latter was
Reinl and Golder / innoTRAC Journal 1 (2020) 41

developed considering the findings from Feyer and is based on the Feyrer formula (3).
Comparing the original method Stuttgart as well as the method Leipzig with the concept of
EN 13001-3-2, the European standard determines a higher total number of bending cycles of
a wire rope until discard. [9] This finding was discussed at length and comparative
calculations and studies disclosed the reasons of the deviation. [7, 9] The total number of
bending cycles during the rated lifetime of a wire rope provides the basis for the wire rope
dimensioning. The critical issue is that the total number of bending cycles during the design
life of a rope 𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡 is predetermined by the total number of working cycles of a crane 𝐶 and
the number of bending cycles per movement 𝑤 that relates to the number of ropes specified
for the design life of a crane 𝑙𝑟 which in turn could be freely determined. [9]
In addition, the fatigue proof of competence of EN 13001-3-2 is based on assumptions that
are either incorrect or cannot be comprehended by means of the method Stuttgart nor
Leipzig. Formula 15 of EN 13001-3-2 (see formula (4)) shows a relationship of the increasing
D/d-ratio and the increasing number of bending 𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡 .
𝐷
~1,125log2(𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡 ) (4)
𝑑
It is also stated that the lifetime curve of a rope has a constant slope of 𝑚 = 3. [4, section 6.1]
This assumption is refuted by calculations that disclosed that the slope changes with the
D/d-ratio and thus cannot be constant. [7]
The relative total number of bendings 𝜈𝑟 relates the total number of bendings during the
design life of a rope 𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡 to the number of bendings at reference point 𝑤𝐷 with 𝑤𝐷 = 5 × 105
of an unknown Wöhler-line with a constant slope of 𝑚 = 3. [4, section 6.3.4] Also this
constant number of 𝑤𝐷 was assumed to be too high.
𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡
𝜈𝑟 =
𝑤𝐷
(5)
The way of calculating 𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡 representing the total number of bendings during the design life
of a rope resulted to a number of bendings that a wire rope could actually not endure and
thus is not in accordance with the number of bending cycles 𝑁 of the method Stuttgart nor
the method Leipzig. A major critique of the concept of EN 13001-3-2:2014 is that the
interpretation of 𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡 is misleading and this higher total number of bendings could lead to a
misinterpretation of the design life of a rope and thus leading to a safety issue.
The concept of EN 13001-3-2:2014 considers the findings of Feyrer but incorporated wrong
assumptions and derived wrong relationships of critical parameter. Those shortcomings can
be eliminated by proper calculations and assumptions thereof based on the scientific results
of the method Stuttgart and method Leipzig.

5. The New Concept of ISO/WD 16625

Starting point of the standardization work was to determine the necessary scope of revision
of ISO 16625:2013 and subsequently to review any potential input available. The evaluation
of the shortcomings of EN 13001-3-2 gave significant impetus to study the method Stuttgart
and method Leipzig and the scientific results thereof. As an outcome, a new approach was
Reinl and Golder / innoTRAC Journal 1 (2020) 42

considered to develop a new concept of ISO/WD 16625 that could eliminate the issues
identified and will meet the objectives set.
The new concept of ISO/WD 16625 has its foundation on a new defined reference point that
could be determined by assuming that a regression calculation by the method Stuttgart
could be done for forces exceeding the Donandt force. From a mathematical standpoint such
regression calculation is defined, although a wire rope in a rope drive system exposed to such
high forces will fail after a comparable small number of bending cycles. The graphical
representation of this mathematical approach (refer to formula (6) in conjunction with
formula (3)) is simple: the straight lines of different D/d-ratio in a Wöhler diagram of one
wire rope type will be extended until they intersect at a common point. This point is a virtual
reference point, defined by a specific reference force 𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 ⁄𝑑2 and a reference number of
bending cycles 𝑤𝑟𝑒𝑓 , derived from formula (6). [7]
𝐷1 𝐷2
𝑙𝑔(𝑁1 ) = 𝑙𝑔(𝑁2 ) 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ ( );( ) (6)
𝑑 𝑑
𝑅
(𝑏3 ×0,4×log( 0 )−𝑏2 )
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 1770
(7)
= 10 𝑏3
𝑑2
−𝑏2
𝑤𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 10
𝑏0 +𝑏1 ×(
𝑏3
)+(lg(𝑓𝑑 )+lg(𝑓𝐿 )+lg(𝑓𝐶 ))
(8)
Above mathematical approach proves that such a reference point would exist if a wire rope
could withstand forces higher than the Donandt force. In conclusion, the virtual reference
point could be utilized to determine the total number of bending cycles 𝑁 by a simplified
calculation, less complex than the regression calculations of the method Stuttgart or method
Leipzig, but comparable to the scientific results. [7]
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑚
𝑁 = 𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡 =( ) × 𝑤𝑟𝑒𝑓 (9)
𝑆
Utilizing formula (7) and (8), it could further be proven that formula (9) and formula (3) are
equivalent and that 𝑚 can be derived as follows:
𝐷
𝑚 = −(lg × 𝑏3 + 𝑏1 ) (10)
𝑑
The parameters of interest can be calculated by simply inserting values of the regression
coefficients 𝑏𝑖 that have been empirically determined by bending tests conducted by
Feyrer. [8] Those empirical findings of Feyrer can be utilized to further simplify the formula
to calculate 𝑚 which in turn is more feasible from a standardization work point of view and
in particular if the regression coefficients 𝑏𝑖 of a specific wire rope construction are not
known. [7]
𝐷
𝑚 = 1,1255×𝑑 (11)
To relate the minimum rope breaking force 𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛 to the reference force 𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 , a parameter 𝛾𝑟𝑒𝑓
is introduced.
𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝛾𝑟𝑒𝑓 =
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓
(12)
Reinl and Golder / innoTRAC Journal 1 (2020) 43

Studies and calculations undertaken by the expert members of WG3 confirmed that
applying formula (9) to calculate 𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡 and formula (11) for 𝑚 in function with the dynamic
factor, risk coefficient, load spectrum factor and factors for further influences results in a
total number of bending cycles lower than the total number of bending cycles until discard
that have been determined in bending tests. [7]
Further details of the mathematical derivation can be found in [7].

6. The Current Status of ISO/WD 16625

The new concept introduced in the previous chapter established the framework of the
working draft ISO/WD 16625 that outlines proofs of competence for running ropes in single
layer as well as multi-layer spooling and proofs of competences for stationary ropes.
Furthermore, the document structure and format of the proofs of competences from
EN 13001-3-2:2014 were partly adopted.
For running ropes, the static proof of competence follows the same approach as given in
EN 13001-3-2:2014, but some clarification on the interaction of the rope force increasing
factors 𝑓𝑠𝑖 have been implemented and the determination of the equivalent force 𝐹𝑒𝑞𝑢 has
been enhanced. To calculate the limit design force 𝐹𝑅𝑑,𝑠 , a reduction factor due to the type of
rope termination 𝑓𝑆4 is additionally considered.
The fatigue proof of competence implements the concept as stated in the previous chapter:
𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑓 and 𝑤𝑟𝑒𝑓 are introduced and 𝑚 is in dependency of the D/d- ratio instead of a constant
number. The calculation of the maximum number of bending cycles 𝑤 given by a reeving
system has been clarified: the fact that the D/d-ratio increases 𝑤 is now incorporated in the
calculation formula by the exponent 𝑚. Also, the calculation of the limit design rope force
𝐹𝑅𝑑,𝑓 has been enhanced: 𝑚 is in dependency of the D/d-ratio, a virtual reference force 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑓 is
introduced instead of the specified minimum breaking force, the value of the minimum rope
resistance factor 𝛾𝑟𝑓 is reduced and a factor 𝛾𝑟𝑓𝐷 is introduced to prevent from exceeding the
Donandt force. This minimum rope resistance factor 𝛾𝑟𝑓𝐷 is a combination of a correlation
factor to describe the Donandt force depending on the minimum rope breaking force 𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛
and the D/d-ratio and a safety factor. Furthermore, 𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡 is clarified and 𝑤𝑟𝑒𝑓 is corrected as
previously mentioned. The calculation of the relative total number of bending cycles 𝜈𝑟 is
enhanced. Based on the scientific results from Feyrer [8], a rope diameter factor 𝑓𝑤2 and a
rope bending length factor 𝑓𝑤3 are introduced that have to be considered in addition to other
factors of further influence to 𝑤𝑟𝑒𝑓 when calculating 𝜈𝑟 .
In EN 13001-3-2:2014 the requirements of multi-layer spooling are not sufficiently
considered. The fatigue proof of competence for single layer is applied and only one
additional factor introduced covers the impact of multi-layer spooling to reduce the limit
design rope force. The ISO/WD 16625 states a separate fatigue proof of competence for
multi-layer spooling following the structure of the proof of competence for fatigue strength
of running ropes in single layer spooling, but differs in the relevant rope force increasing
factors 𝑓𝑆𝑖 to be applied as well as calculating the limit design rope force 𝐹𝑅𝑑,𝑚 .
Reinl and Golder / innoTRAC Journal 1 (2020) 44

For stationary ropes, the static proof of competence follows the same approach as given for
running ropes. The fatigue proof of competence has been revised to incorporate the scientific
findings of the method Stuttgart and the method Leipzig and to reflect empirical verified
results from tension-tension tests conducted by the University of Stuttgart.
Compared to the current edition of ISO 16625:2013, annexes either normative or informative,
have been introduced to provide guidance on
– the number of relevant bending cycles,
– the determination of the maximum tensile force in the ropes of multi-rope grabs,
– a correlation of the minimum design factor 𝑍𝑝 and safety level,
– a new approach to calculate the assumed number of hoist ropes 𝑙𝑟 during the design life
of a crane.
The standardization work from technical point of view is nearly completed and only some
finetuning is needed prior to proceed to the next stage – the committee stage – in ISO
standardization process.

7. Conclusion

The stated objectives of a revision of ISO 16625 have been met although the standardization
work for stationary ropes at the time of this publication is not yet finalized. The state
of research with the scientific results from the method Stuttgart and the method Leipzig
have been of highly valuable input to provide a foundation for the new concept of
ISO/WD 16625. The working group WG3 of ISO/TC 96 SC3 addressed the shortcomings of
EN 13001-3-2:2014 to provide a fatigue proof of competence for running ropes to enhance
the determination of the limit design rope force. A separate proof of competence of fatigue
strength for running ropes in multi-layer spooling is introduced, too. The new concept
implemented in ISO/WD 16625 ensures that modern methods like the proof of competence
with a scientific based foundation supports the safe dimensioning and selection of a wire
rope in a rope reeving system.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the expert members of the working group WG3 of
ISO/TC 96 SC3 for their support and contribution to revise and enhance ISO/WD 16625.
Reinl and Golder / innoTRAC Journal 1 (2020) 45

List of Symbols

Symbol Description
𝐵 Wire contact factor
𝑏𝑖 Constants, regression coefficients
𝐶 Total number of working cycles during the design life of a crane
𝐶𝐿 Strain exponent
𝐷 Sheave diameter
𝐷𝐺 Bending diameter at bottom of groove
𝑑 Nominal diameter of the wire (method Leipzig)
Nominal rope diameter (method Stuttgart)
𝐸 Modulus of elasticity of the rope wire
𝐹𝑒𝑞𝑢 Equivalent force
𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛 Minimum rope breaking force
𝐹𝑅𝑑,𝑓 Limit design rope force for the proof of fatigue strength
𝐹𝑅𝑑,𝑚 Limit design rope force for multi-layer spooling
𝐹𝑅𝑑,𝑠 Limit design rope force for the proof of static strength
𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑓 Virtual reference rope tension force
𝑓 Fill factor
𝑓𝑑 Endurance factor rope diameter
𝑓𝐶 Endurance factor rope core
𝑓𝐿 Endurance factor bending length
𝑓𝑆𝑖 Rope force increasing factors
𝑓𝑆4 Rope force reduction factor die to the type of rope termination
𝑓𝑤2 Factor of rope diameter influence
𝑓𝑤3 Factor of rope bending length influence
𝐻 Constant operation period
𝐾𝐿 Construction factor wire rope
𝐿 Wire factor
𝑙𝑟 Number of ropes used during the design life of the crane (EN 13001-3-2)
Number of ropes assumed during the design life of a crane (ISO/WD 16625)
𝑚 Slope of the lifetime curve of a rope
𝑁 (Attainable) Number of bending cycles
𝑃𝐴% Occurrence probability respectively failure probability
𝑅 Nominal tensile strength of the rope wire
𝑅0 Nominal tensile strength
𝑆 Rope tensile force
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 (Virtual) Reference rope tension force
𝑤 Number of relevant bendings per movement (EN 13001-3-2)
Maximum number of bending cycles given by a reeving system (ISO/WD 16625)
𝑤𝐷 Number of bendings at reference point (EN 13001-3-2)
𝑤𝑟𝑒𝑓 Number of bending cycles at reference point (ISO/WD 16625)
𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑡 (Calculated) Total number of bending cycles during the design life of a rope
𝑦 Strain
𝑍𝑝 Minimum design factor
𝛾𝑟𝑒𝑓 Factor to increase 𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛 to virtual rope tension force 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑓 at reference point
𝛾𝑟𝑓 Minimum rope resistance factor (fatigue)
𝛾𝑟𝑓𝐷 Minimum rope resistance factor to prevent exceeding the Donandt force
𝜈 Safety factor
𝜈𝑟 Relative total number of bending cycles
Reinl and Golder / innoTRAC Journal 1 (2020) 46

References

[1] Cranes and hoists – Selection of wire ropes, drums and sheaves, ISO 16625:3013
[2] Cranes and lifting appliances – Classification – Part 1: General, ISO 4301-1:1986
[3] Golder, M.: As Time Goes By, Hoist Magazine, August 2016
Golder, M., Wagner, G.: As time goes by: classification of hoists, cranes and lifting equipment [Online].
Available: http://www.hoistmagazine.com/content/GolderPaper.pdf
[4] Cranes – General Design – Part 3-2: Limit states and proof of competence of wire ropes in reeving systems,
EN 13001-3-2:2014
[5] Wire ropes for mechanical handling equipment, VDI 2358:2012-12
[6] Steinbach, G., Anders, M., Ryk, D.: Betriebsdauer in Seiltrieben – Berechnung der Biegewechselzahl –
Methode Leipzig, Exklusivbeitrag, Hebezeuge Fördermittel, 5, pp. 34-35, 2018
[7] Golder, M., Anders, M., Novak, G., Eiwan, Ch.: New approach for ISO 16625 in Proceedings of the XXIII
International Conference on Material Handling, Constructions and Logistics, MHCL 2019, Vienna, Austria
[8] Feyrer, K.: Wire Ropes, 2nd ed. Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, 2015
[9] Steinbach, G., Anders, M., Ryk, D.: Drahtseile in Seiltrieben nach DIN EN 13001-3-2:2014-12 –
Bemessungsbiegewechselzahl und Realbiegewechselzahl, Exklusivbeitrag, Hebezeuge Fördermittel,
no. 1, pp. 1-23, 2016