Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Non-destructive testing and tension estimation of static steel wire ropes using vibration analysis are conventionally distorted by deterministic mass-loading and local bending stiffness alterations introduced by rigidly clamped contact accelerometers, which artificially shift the system’s dynamic baseline. To address this measurement error, a minimally invasive optical methodology utilizing a 25,600 DPI optical flow sensor architecture is proposed. The method’s metrological validity was verified against a theoretical beam-string model—incorporating the effective rope modulus (Eeff) and structural geometric factor (Gm)—and contact accelerometer measurements across ten independent 6×37 FC steel rope specimens tensioned up to 64 kN. By eliminating the 191 g mass-loading and clamping-stiffness artifacts of traditional accelerometers (validated on a 0 g bare rope surface) and utilizing a lightweight 28 g reflective target plate during degradation tests to mitigate helical surface artifacts without altering local bending stiffness, the measurement chain achieved a combined standard uncertainty of uc=0.0106 Hz (expanded uncertainty U=0.0212 Hz). To establish the laboratory sensitivity limit of the optical chain, progressive structural degradation was artificially induced across all ten specimens by severing 3 to 35 wires at mid-span under constant tension. The system reliably detected initial damage at 3 broken wires (1.35% loss of metallic cross-section, causing a 0.1 Hz shift at 16 kN) and resolved incremental frequency shifts down to Δf=0.036 Hz (between 3 and 5 broken wires, exceeding the 3uc=0.0318 Hz significance threshold). While these artificial wire cuts represent a laboratory metrological sensitivity limit rather than a universal field NDT calibration, the linear correlation at 64 kN (R2=0.9419) confirms that localized axial stiffness loss dominates the dynamic response. The proposed optical approach provides a reliable framework for laboratory baseline verification and tension assessment under controlled conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Timko et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: