Socket Manual

OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY
REPORT - OTO 2000 069
Resin-Socketed Termination
of Offshore Wire Ropes
Date of Issue: September 2000 Project number 3596

This report is made available by the Health and Safety Executive as
part of a series of reports of work which has been supported by funds
provided by the Executive. Neither the Executive, nor the
contractors concerned assume any liability for the reports nor do they
necessarily reflect the views or policy of the Executive.
Resin-Socketed Termination
of Offshore Wire Ropes
Prepared by
Health and Safety Laboratory

Summary
There have been a number of incidents in recent years involving the failure of resin-socketed wire rope
terminations (commonly known as resin cappings) on cables which were being used for mooring
floating offshore installations. Subsequent investigation by HSE’s Offshore Safety Division (OSD)
involved the making up of factory assembled samples, under controlled conditions, which failed at loads
of up to 50% below the specified breaking load limit for the ropes. These samples were made up by
two different manufacturers who utilised their normal procedures and site personnel. Since tethered
offshore installations are becoming more prevalent, OSD are concerned about the integrity of
resin-terminated sockets, particularly as regards the procedures used in their production and where
these are made up in the hazardous offshore environment.
Objectives
This project is intended to identify the main parameters that affect the integrity of a resin-socketed
terminations for 76 mm diameter stranded mooring rope which is typically used for this type of
application (this is the diameter of the ropes that failed) and additionally to investigate whether size
effects have a significant influence on the integrity of rope terminations. Parameters to be investigated
were:
w poor brush configuration;

w no release agent on the socket;
w Poor or inadequate cleaning of the rope brush;
w poor or inadequate resin mixing techniques;
w poor or inadequate resin pouring techniques;
w accelerated curing times when using accelerator packs at low temperatures;
w size effects by comparison of 76 mm, 52 mm and 32 mm diameter rope terminations.
Primary outputs for the project are the production of a guide to making good terminations and to
provide guidance on acceptance and rejections criteria for the inspection of the process of making resin
terminations.
Main Findings
1 HSL have had no difficulty in producing good wire rope terminations on 76 mm stranded wire
rope provided the long established procedure for doing so were followed. The procedure used
by HSL has been set out and illustrated in this report and a general procedure, highlighting
good and poor practice, is included as Annex 1.
2 The most important factor in ensuring a satisfactory wire rope termination was found to be the
cleaning of the wire rope brush. The rope dressing must be fully removed, particularly close to
the root of the brush at its narrow end. The use of steam cleaning is recommended as a final
stage in the cleaning process to remove any residual solvent or cleaning agent.
3 Adherence to the procedure is particularly important at low temperatures (below 10OC) and
when accelerators are added to reduce curing times for the resin. The resin mix under these
conditions becomes thicker at low temperatures and it becomes more difficult to ensure that a
satisfactory resin mix reaches into small spaces at the root of the brush. The making of wire
rope terminations in low temperature conditions should be avoided if possible.
4 Unsatisfactory cleaning of the brushed wires consistently caused termination failures at loads
below the minimum breaking load for the 76 mm diameter rope. At 52 mm and 32 mm rope
HEALTH AND SAFETY LABORATORY
An agency of the Health and Safety Executive
diameters, failures still occurred but the risk of the termination failing before the rope itself was
lower. It is considered that the most likely cause of this difference was the thicker rope
dressing used on the larger diameter ropes, although size effects cannot be ruled out. At the
smaller rope sizes, low temperatures increased the likelihood of termination failure.
5 Poor brush, lack of release agent, poor resin mixing and poor pouring techniques did not
produce termination failures when introduced as single faults or in combination at room
temperatures. A poor brush can, however, make cleaning of the brush more difficult and,
because of this, we consider it an important step in the procedure. It is also important to follow
the procedure for mixing and pouring the resin, particularly at low temperatures when the resin
becomes thicker, making penetration to the root of the brush more difficult. No evidence was
found to substantiate the theory that the use of release agent affected the ability of the resin
cone to bed into the cast sockets and it is concluded that this step could be safely omitted from
the procedure for terminating wire ropes with cast sockets.
6 In 5 cases from a total of 23 tests, the 76 mm diameter rope broke at a load below the
manufacturer’s minimum breaking load (MBL). In all 5 cases, the applied load was in excess
of 97% of the minimum breaking load and was held for up to 3 minutes 20 seconds before the
rope broke. Tests on the 76 mm were also characterised by loud cracks during the loading of
the rope at loads below the MBL. These were individual wire breaks, which did not occur with
the same frequency in tests with the lower diameter ropes. The pattern of failure initially
appeared to indicate that the 1770 grade rope was losing strength with time but it was also
considered that the ratio of sample length to diameter was low (33 although greater than 30, the
minimum value specified in BS 301: Part 1: 1987) and that the MBL was 98% of the actual
breaking load, giving a relatively low margin. It is therefore possible that the MBL for this
rope had been set at a level which is very close to the actual breaking load and that the MBL
may fall within the range of actual breaking loads from a series of breaking load tests.

Contents
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. THE WORK PROGRAMME 1
3. PROCEDURE USED FOR MAKING GOOD ROPE TERMINATIONS 2
3.1 Equipment list 2
3.2 Preparing the rope and socket 3
3.3 Preparing and cleaning the brush 4
3.4 Positioning and aligning the brush and socket 4
3.5 Mixing and pouring the resin 5
3.6 Dismantling the clamps and servings 6
4. THE TEST PROGRAMME AND RESULTS FOR 76MM WIRE ROPES 6
4.1 Poor brush preparation 6
4.2 Brush not cleaned 7
4.3 No release agent in the socket 8
4.4 Bad resin mix 10
4.5 Poor pouring techniques 10
4.6 Low temperatures 11
4.7 Bad resin mixture, poor pouring and no release agent 12
4.8 Brush not cleaned, no release agent 12
5. TESTS AT SMALLER SCALE 13
5.1 The combination of bad resin mixture, poor pouring techniques and no release 13
agent
5.2 Brush not cleaned 13
5.3 Tests at low temperature, brush not cleaned 14

6. APPARENT DETERIORATION IN STRENGTH OF THE 76MM 1770 15
GRADE GALVANISED WIRE ROPE
7. DISCUSSION 17
8. CONCLUSIONS 18
REFERENCES 19

1. INTRODUCTION
There have been a number of incidents in recent years involving the failure of resin-socketed wire rope
terminations (commonly known as resin cappings) on cables which were being used for mooring
floating offshore installations. Subsequent investigation by HSE’s Offshore Safety Division (OSD)
involved the making up of factory assembled samples, under controlled conditions, which failed at loads
of up to 50% below the specified breaking load limit for the ropes. These samples were made up by
two different manufacturers who utilised their normal procedures and site personnel. Since tethered
offshore installations are becoming more prevalent, OSD are concerned about the integrity of
resin-terminated sockets, particularly as regards the procedures used in their production and where
these are made up in the hazardous offshore environment.
This project is intended to identify the main parameters that affect the integrity of resin-socketed
terminations for 76 mm diameter stranded mooring rope typically used in this type of application (this
is the diameter of the ropes that failed) and additionally to investigate whether size effects have a
significant influence on the integrity of rope terminations. Parameters to be investigated were:
w poor brush configuration;
w no release agent on the socket;
w poor or inadequate cleaning of the rope brush;
w poor or inadequate resin mixing techniques;
w poor or inadequate resin pouring techniques;
w accelerated curing times when using accelerator packs at low temperatures;
w size effects by comparison of 76 mm, 52 mm and 32 mm diameter rope terminations.
Primary outputs for the project are the production of a guide to making good terminations and to
provide guidance on acceptance and rejection criteria for the inspection of the process of making resin
terminations.
2. THE WORK PROGRAMME
The initial programme envisaged the production of five 76 rope samples for each the following
parameters for poor rope capping techniques
w poor brush configuration
w no release agent
w poor cleaning of the brush
w poor resin mix
w poor pouring techniques
w low temperatures/accelerated curing

1
In addition, five good 76 mm cappings would be made up as controls for comparison. To investigate
size effects, five 52 mm samples and five 32 mm samples would be made up with the details of these
tests being agreed when the 76 mm sample tests were complete. In total, 45 tests were planned, 35 with
76 mm rope samples and 5 each of the smaller sizes.
One end of each sample was made up as a “good” end. This end was cast to fit split cones in the fixed
end of HSL’s 4000 kN tensile test machine, which was to be used to test the samples. The other end of
the sample was made up with one of the defects listed above. Except for tests done at deliberately low
temperatures, cappings were prepared indoors, using rope samples, sockets and materials which had
been stored indoors. As a result, all these items could be expected to have experienced ambient
temperatures between 15OC and 22OC.
As the test programme developed, it became clear that some of the defects did not weaken the capping
sufficiently for it to fail at a load below the minimum breaking load of the rope (or the 4000 kN
capacity of the test machine, see next paragraph). As a result, it was agreed that, in these cases, only
three tests per defect type would be carried out. This would allow the investigation of some
combinations of defects to determine if those combinations led to weakening of the capping.
A further variation was that the 76 mm rope, which had been expected to have a minimum breaking
load below the 4000 kN (408 tons) capacity of the test machine, had a stated minimum breaking load of
420 tons (4120 kN). This difference was not considered to be significant for the purpose of these tests
and it was agreed that survival of a rope sample with a 4000 kN load held for a period of 10 minutes
was sufficient to test the resin cappings. In some tests, the rope itself failed at this load. This
unexpected finding is discussed later in the report.
3. PROCEDURE USED FOR MAKING GOOD ROPE TERMINATIONS
This section of the report details the procedures used by HSL for making good resin-socketed
terminations for wire ropes. It is based on procedures used over many years for producing wire rope
test samples within HSL’s engineering workshop. Cordon (1995) describes the development of resin
cappings for the UK mining industry, when much of HSL’s work was carried out. All of the samples
made over the years have been subjected to tensile testing, fatigue testing or impact testing and in all
cases the wire rope has failed rather than the rope termination. It should be stressed, however, that the
capping process is normally carried out indoors and at temperatures no lower than 15OC. This may not
be possible in some offshore applications and, again, this is dealt with later in the report.
3.1 Equipment list
The following is a list of equipment and materials needed in order to produce a resin-socketed
termination of a wire rope:
Wire rope
Wire rope socket
Rope socket rig and fittings
Rope cutter/slitting disc
Steel tube for rope strands
Steel tube for rope wires
Split sleeve for centralising rope in socket
Tirfor/winch (for big ropes only)
Serving mallet/machine
Reel of soft iron serving wire (diameter of wire to match rope size)
Socket alignment tool
2
Plastic sheet
Rubber “O” ring
High pressure steam cleaner with water soluble detergent
Wirelock resin kit/s - volume to match conical bore of rope socket, including silicone grease, stirrer and
plasticine
Workshop hand tools including prybars, and tubes to fit strands and wires
Standard workshop protective clothing
3.2 Preparing the rope and socket
Uncoil new rope from drum.
Identify and mark the cutting point.
Support the rope horizontally between two rope clamps or similar so that the cutting point is midway
between the vices and the rope does not sag. Remove any excess rope dressing from the part of the
rope to be served.
Using the serving mallet, apply two soft iron servings, one at each side of the cutting point, as shown in
Figure 1. The length of these two servings must be at least equal to the rope diameter. The gap
between the two servings must be just wide enough to allow the rope to be cut without disturbing the
two servings.
Apply one long serving at the side of the rope to be brushed. The length of this serving must be at least
3 times the rope diameter and must be applied at a distance equal to the length of the rope socket
basket, minus, half the rope diameter, measured from the cutting point. Prior to this serving, short
lengths of plasticine must be applied in the valleys between the strands, Figure 2, over a distance of
approximately the rope diameter and half the diameter from the end of this serving nearest to the cutting
point. This will seal the spaces/cavities between the strands underneath the serving which will help to
eliminate possible resin leakage during the pouring process. Temporary rope clamps can be fitted at
each side of the cutting point prior to cutting. These are normally used if single stranded serving wire
is used.
Place the rope on the ground on “vee” block supports at each side of the cutting point. Cut the rope
squarely using a slitting disc or similar equipment, as shown in Figure 3. Flame cutting must not be
used as this is likely to affect the mechanical properties of the steel wires.
Remove rope clamps.
Examine the rope socket to ensure the interior of the socket is clean and free of dirt etc. Roughness of
the inside surface is not important provided that there are no obstructions to prevent the resin cone from
bedding into the socket when a load is applied to the termination. If the socket has been used
previously then any resin adhering to the socket wall should be removed. The taper bore of the socket
must be concentric within the socket and, in particular, the wall thickness should be the same all around
the socket periphery. Physical damage or non-concentricity of the socket can lead to failure of the
termination under load. Such sockets must never be used.
Secure the socket in position on the rope rig, Figure 4. The rope rig serves as a secure brushing bench
and helps to eliminate the manual handling of heavy rope sockets. It also provides accurate axial
alignment between rope and socket and it can be elevated and locked vertically to enable the casting to
be carried out correctly.

3
Apply a light smearing of silicon release agent, supplied with the resin kit, to the inside of the rope
socket bore.
Apply plastic covering over the portion of rope to be threaded through socket. Secure it with masking
tape, Figure 5. This will prevent contamination of the socket bore when the rope is threaded through
the socket.
Push the “O” ring onto rope over plastic covering and slide it on the rope so that it will be clear of the
brushing. This “O” ring will later be used as a seal at the socket neck.
Thread the served end of the rope through the socket so that the end to be brushed is clear of the socket.
Fasten the rope to the rope rig using the clamps provided, Figure 6. Ensure that the end clamp is
positioned exactly at the point on the rope to which the wires will be unlayed.
3.3 Preparing and cleaning the brush
Adjust the rig to desired position for brushing. Brushing is best carried out with the rig set at an angle
most convenient to the ropeman.
Remove and discard the short serving on the end of the rope.
Using the large steel tube, unwind and open out each rope strand, in turn, to form a basic brush as in
Figure 7. A flat blade is used to prise out each strand from the cluster before the tube is pushed on
over the strand. Great care must be taken when carrying out this operation as the strands are springy
when they are bent back and any slippage or accidental release of tube is a potential hazard to persons
standing nearby.
Starting with the IWRC, and using the small steel tube, gently ease out of lay and unwind each
individual wire, in turn, to form a complete brush. As the wires are opened out they should be brushed
with paraffin to remove and/or loosen the rope dressing, Figure 8. Each wire must be unwound down
to the serving whilst still retaining its helical shape. Do not attempt to straighten the wires. Do not
repeatedly bend wires to achieve correct position as this can seriously weaken them. Over bending,
nicking, and twisting of the wires must be avoided as this could later cause fatigue failure of the wires
during service. The finished brush, Figure 9, must be as concentric as possible and the wires must be
as evenly distributed as possible.
Adjust the rope rig so that the brush is pointing downwards to allow the cleaning fluids to drain away.
Cleaning fluid must not be allowed to penetrate down into the rope underneath the long serving.
Using the high pressure steam cleaner, Figure 10, thoroughly clean the brush using the detergent spray.
Finally clean the brush with pure water to rinse off the degreasing agent or detergent. Allow the clean
brush to drip dry whilst it is still pointing downwards, Figure 11.
Carry out a visual check of the brush to ensure that the wires are clean and that no lubricant or dressing
is present on the brushed wires. Check that the rope dressing is visible under the serving, Figure 12.
3.4 Positioning and aligning the brush and socket
Measure and mark on the serving a distance of half the rope diameter measured from the inner end of
the long serving, Figure 13. Discard the plastic sheet covering which was previously placed over rope.

4
Position the socket in the rope rig, using socket spacers if needed, to align the socket with the rope
clamps.
Undo the clamps on the rope rig and pull the brush into the socket so that the small end of the socket is
in line with the marking on the serving. Ensure that the ends of the brushed wires protrude
approximately 3 mm above the end of the big end of the socket. If all three servings have been
positioned accurately, everything should fit correctly, Figure 14. The objective is to achieve a length of
half the rope diameter inside the socket neck. This will ensure proper support of the wires at the root of
the brush and help to protect them from fatigue damage. It is important to minimise the rotation of the
socket to prevent the silicon from inside the socket being scraped off onto the freshly cleaned wires.
Using the split sleeve, Figure 15, align the rope so that it is concentric inside the socket neck. Further
axial alignment of the rope will be given by the seating clamp positions on the rope rig when the rope is
reclamped.
Reclamp the rope on the rig ensuring all the clamps are tight. Remove the socket alignment tool.
Slide the “O” ring into position so that it fills the annular gap between the rope and the socket neck,
Figure 16.
Seal the neck of the socket by applying plasticine over the top of the “O” ring, Figure 17.
Adjust the rope rig so that the rope socket is vertical, Figure 18.
3.5 Mixing and pouring the resin
Detailed information on the use of the resin kits can be found in the Wirelock Technical Data Manual
and in the information leaflet which accompanies each kit.
Consider the temperatures of the rope, socket and resin kit. Are they the same or is any of these likely
to be at a temperature below 10OC. Ideally, all components should be above this temperature, if not
then the use of accelerator packs may need to be considered. The easiest way to use these is to ensure
that all components are at the same temperature and to follow the resin kit suppliers instructions. If
there is any doubt as to the component temperatures, then they should be measured.
Examine the resin kit to be used, Figure 19. Each kit consists of two containers one with liquid resin
and one with powder together with a stirrer, silicon grease release agent and plasticine. These are
supplied in an outer container which is used for mixing. Booster packs are available separately and are
sized to match to the volume of the resin kits. Check that the resin kit is not out of date. Out of date
kits must be discarded. Check that the colour of the powder is off-white and the resin is free flowing.
Kits can be added together to give the required volume. Always use the full container contents, never
use part container contents.
Wear eye protection and a dust mask for mixing the resin. Mix the liquid resin and powder in the
container supplied with the resin kit. Stir for approximately 2 minutes whilst checking the viscosity
and colour of the mixture. For temperatures between 2OC and - 8OC one booster pack must be added
and between 2OC and - 3OC two booster packs must be added.
Pour the mixture into the socket immediately, ensuring that the mixture is poured at one position only,
as in Figure 20. Any movement is likely to introduce unwanted air into the mixture inside the socket.
Fill the socket up until the level of the fluid is flush with the end of the socket. Finally, using a straight
piece of wire of similar tool, broddle the mixture inside the socket basket to remove any trapped air,

5
Figure 21. The socket may be topped up as necessary as the resin settles. Any leakages must be
stopped immediately by simply applying further plasticine around the socket neck as necessary. At
room temperature, gelling will normally take place in approximately 15 to 20 minutes. The mixture
will be fully set after approximately 1 hour. At low temperatures the gelling and setting may take much
longer and full setting can take as long as 2 hours even when booster kits are used.
When the resin has hardened, using a sharp instrument, carry out a scratch test by scoring the set resin
in the end of the socket, Figure 22. This should leave a shallow scratch mark indicating the resin is
fully set. The final colour of the resin is likely to be either bluish green, Figure 23, or sandy brown,
Figure 24, depending on the temperatures reached during curing. A sandy colour indicates a hotter
cure than the bluish green colour.
3.6 Dismantling the clamps and servings
Remove the plasticine and “O” ring from the socket neck. Examine the completed socket termination
for any defects.
Unwind the long serving wire and cut it off as close as possible to the end of the socket neck, Figure 25.
Remove the plasticine from between the rope strands and scrape off any leakage resin compound.
Finally relubricate the rope with rope dressing taking care to seal the neck of the socket.
Remove the complete socket termination from the rope rig.
Because the rope samples will be tested within a few days of being made, bedding in of the sockets with
a pre-load is not necessary.
One output of this project is a general procedure for making good resin terminations for stranded wire
ropes. This is included at Annex 1.
4. THE TEST PROGRAMME AND RESULTS FOR 76 MM WIRE ROPES
A full table of results for the project is included at Annex 2. Extracts from this table have been used to
illustrate the effects of specific parameters on the strength of wire rope terminations. Details of the
rope and other materials and equipment used in the tests are included at Annex 3.
4.1 Poor brush preparation
In order to form a good brush, it is necessary to remove the serving from the end of the rope and to
separate out the individual wires so that the resin, which will form the termination, will penetrate into
the spaces between the wires in order to form a solid resin cone. It is also recommended that the wires
should not be bent, twisted or straightened to avoid deformed wires which may later break in fatigue
during service. For the purpose of this project, a poor brush is taken to be one where the wires are not
fully separated out, as shown in Figure 26. It should be noted that a poor brush is also more difficult to
clean, particularly at the root of the brush where the wires of individual strands are still bunched
together.
Three tests were carried out on 76 mm rope with a bad brush, as detailed in Table 1. In all 3 tests the
socket survived the maximum machine load of 4000 kN for a period of 10 minutes. Individual wire
breaks were heard in each of the tests, both the tests with good samples and with bad brush. The
possible significance of these is discussed in Section 6.
6
Table 1 Tests with bad brush
Test No Date Socket condition Test load (kN)

76-01 06-04-98 Good 4,000
76-02 17-04-98 Good 4,000
76-03 11-05-98 Bad brush 4,000
76-04 12-05-98 Bad brush 4,000
76-05 13-05-98 Bad brush 4,000
In the first column of this and other Tables in this report, the test number is preceded by the rope
diameter in millimetres. Good tests refer to samples made to the normal procedure and are included as
controls for comparison.
It was concluded that bad brushing of the rope alone was not sufficient to reduce the strength of the
termination below that of the rope itself.
4.2 Brush not cleaned
These tests were initially carried out on the 76 mm rope and, in this Section of the report, only these
tests are considered. The rope dressing on the 76 mm rope was thick and heavy, as illustrated in Figure
9 and some rope dressing was necessarily removed during brushing of the rope end. Large lumps of the
dressing were removed using a brush and cold paraffin but the remaining rope dressing was still
substantial. The rope was terminated using the normal procedures with the dressing remaining as
shown in Figure 9. The test results are shown in Table 2.
All the terminations with the brush not cleaned failed at loads significantly below the 4120 kN
minimum breaking load (MBL) of the rope. The range of failure loads was very wide, the lowest being
1543 kN, the highest 3513 kN and the mean of 5 tests being 2590 kN or 63% of the minimum breaking
load of the rope.
Table 2 Tests on 76 mm rope with brush not cleaned

76-01 06-04-98 Good 4,000
76-02 17-04-98 Good 4,000
76-06 05-06-98 Brush not cleaned 1,543 (failed)
76-11 15-07-98 Brush not cleaned 3,083 (failed
76-20 28-09-98 Good 4,000
All the failures were of a similar nature and the following features were noted and are illustrated in
Figures 27 to 30.
a) the resin in the socket neck had crumbled and fragmented;
b) there were numerous broken wires within the socket which appeared to be mainly concentrated
around the edges of the resin cone, ie, they were mainly the outer wires of the brush;

7
c) the wide end of the resin cone was still intact and the wires had pulled out of the resin as the
rope pulled out of the socket;
d) the sides of the resin cone had largely survived and broken wires were still embedded in the
resin;
e) the central core of the resin cone and the narrow end of the cone had crumbled and were
presumed to form the dust and debris within the remainder of the resin cone.
It is considered that the presence of the rope dressing acts to degrade the strength of the resin through
being an extra component in the mixture. Failure of the resin to bond on the wires and the reduction in
friction between the wires and the resin caused by the lubricating effect of the rope dressing may also
allow relative movement when the load is applied, breaking down the resin as the load increases.
Acting together, these factors make the narrow end of the resin cone weaker such that it cannot
withstand the normal compression forces being developed as the tensile load increases. The wires in the
narrow part of the cone will then be able to straighten and the tensile loads will transfer to the wider,
back end of the cone. The wires then pull out of the wider end of the cone.
Bradon and Chaplin (to be published) have carried out finite element modelling of resin-socketed wire
rope termination in tension. The model was validated against strain gauge measurements made during
the testing of a good 76 mm rope sample in these tests. Bradon and Chaplin’s main finding is the back
(wider) half of the resin cone in not subjected to compression forces when the cone is pulled into the
tapered socket by tensile forces in the rope. Without this compression, the wires in the back of the
socket are held only by the bond between the wires and the resin and the friction forces between the
wires and the uncompressed resin. Once the resin at the narrow part of the cone fails, the wires simply
pull out of the wider part of the resin cone.
It is notable that, when good cones were examined after these tests, there was no evidence of resin
crumbling at the narrow end of cones, see Figure 31, for example. The crumbling of resin is only
associated with a failure to properly clean the wire brush. Figures 32 and 33 are photographs of 2
cones from terminations which failed in service in the off-shore industry. The terminations were on
pendant ropes from a crane on the Santa Fe Monitor and failed in service on 30 June 1994. It can be
seen that the loss of resin from the centre and narrower end of the resin cone is very similar, if less
extensive, than that seen in the HSL tests. The difference is one of degree only, in that the cleaning of
our samples was likely to have been poorer than that of the incident samples.
It follows from the observations that, when the brush is not adequately cleaned, the presence of the rope
dressing, particularly at the narrow end of the cone, causes a reduction in the compressive strength of
the resin such that it fails at applied tensile loads below the minimum breaking load of the rope. Once
the load reaches a level at which the resin fails, the remaining part of the cone is not in sufficient
compression for the wires to be retained within the cone.
There are issues here which may merit further investigation including
a) the type of rope dressing and variations in its effect in the resin;
b) scaling issues, such as the effect of the volume of resin relative to wire surface area.
These are probably better addressed initially by small sample tests. Some work in this area has been
done with 52 mm and 32 mm wire ropes as part of this project.
4.3 No release agent in the socket

8
Release agent, supplied in the resin kits, is normally applied to the inside surface of sockets in order to
reduce the risk of the resin cone bonding to the socket before the cone has been bedded in and to make
the cone easier to knock out if the socket is to be reused. With mining sockets, which have a machined
inner surface, this risk is well known and release agent is generally used. With cast sockets, as used in
the offshore industry, the inside surface of the socket is much rougher and more likely to be
contaminated by dirt and or grease, making the risk of chemical bonding by the resin much lower. To
investigate whether release agent was effective when used on cast sockets, the tests in Table 3 were
conducted.
The rope samples were loaded as normal for these tests ie the load was increased linearly at a rate of
800 kN/minute over a period of 5 minutes and then held at the peak load for a period of 10 minutes.
There were no socket or capping failures and no significant difference between the tests with and
without release agent. The rope sample in test 76-25 broke at a load below its minimum breaking load.
The reasons for this are dealt with separately in Section 6.
Table 3 Tests without release agents

76-01 06-04-98 Good 4,000
76-02 17-04-98 Good 4,000
76-14 13-08-98 No release agent 4,000
76-15 14-09-98 No release agent 4,000
76-17 18-09-98 No release agent 4,000
76-24 27-11-98 Good 4,000
76-25 27-11-98 No release agent 4000(rope broken)
To get information on the movement of the terminations within the socket, socket draw was measured
after each of the tests where the 76 mm rope sample survived the test. For comparison, draw was
measured at the split cone end of each sample. Socket draw is defined as the mean movement of the
resin capping relative to the socket during the test. Measurements were made to the nearest millimetre.
In two tests, one within and one without release agent, socket draw was measured at 1000 kN intervals
as the load was applied. It was clear that socket draw was progressive and that there was no significant
difference between the tests.
Measurements at the split-cone end of the samples had a mean (of 15 measurements) of 12.1 mm with a
standard deviation of 1.5 mm. 20 measurements at the socket end had a mean of 12.9 mm with a
standard deviation of 3.7 mm. Draw on the 4 sockets without release agent was 16, 13, 12 and 9 mm,
that is, not significantly different from the tests where release agent was used. The greater spread of
socket draw measures when compared with draw on the machined split cones is thought to be due to the
roughness of the surface of the sockets and the less controlled shape of the inside of the cast sockets
compared with the machined surfaces of the split cones.

9
4.4 Bad resin mix
These tests were carried out at room temperature. The resin kit manufacturer recommends that the
powder and resin be mixed using a stirrer for a period of 2 minutes. For the purposes of these tests, a
bad mix was produced by stirring 2 or 3 times, sufficient to ensure that the powder was wetted by the
resin but leaving a clearly inhomogeneous mixture of resin and powder. The mixture was poured
normally into the socket and the socket broddled using a stiff wire in order eliminate air pockets so far
as possible. Table 4 shows the results of the tests. It was clear that poor resin mix alone would not
cause the terminations to fail if they were prepared at room temperature.
Table 4 Tests with a bad resin mixture

76-01 06-04-98 Good 4,000
76-02 17-04-98 Good 4,000
76-10 09-07-98 Poor resin mix 4,000
76-12 21-07-98 Poor resin mix 4,000
76-13 21-07-98 Poor resin mix 4,000
This conclusion is qualified because later tests carried out at low temperatures showed that the resin
mix is much thicker as it nears the lower limits of its accepted temperature range. As a result, it is less
likely that the pouring process and the movement of the mixture through the wires in the brush would
aid mixing, as it may have done at room temperature where the resin mix is very thin.
4.5 Poor pouring techniques
It is normally recommended that the resin mix be poured slowly and steadily into one place in order to
allow the mixture to spread through the socket cone whilst reducing the risk of trapping air. When the
pouring is complete the resin is then broddled, using a vertical wire to encourage any trapped air to
move to the surface. For the purpose of these tests the resin was mixed normally but then poured
unevenly over the upper surface of the brush. Broddling was not carried out. Test results are shown in
Table 5.
Table 5 Tests with poor pouring techniques

76-01 06-04-98 Good 4,000
76-02 17-04-98 Good 4,000
76-16 14-09-98 Bad pouring 4000(rope broke)
76-18 18-09-98 Bad pouring 4,000
76-19 23-05-98 Bad pouring 4,000
76-20 28-05-98 Good 4,000
It is clear that, at room temperature, poor pouring techniques alone would not cause the terminations to
fail. Again this conclusion is qualified because later tests showed that the resin mix is much thicker as
it nears the lower limits of its accepted temperature range. As a result, it is more likely that poor
pouring techniques and no broddling would result in air spaces within the cone. However, there is no
direct evidence of this occurring in these tests.

10
4.6 Low temperatures
The original test programme called for low temperature tests on 76 mm rope samples. In order to
achieve this, it was decided to pre-soak the brushed rope, the socket and the resin pack in a cold
chamber in order to reduce their temperature. A target temperature of 3OC was chosen and it was
decided to use 1 accelerator (or booster) pack. The starting temperature was therefore close to the
lower temperature limit for a resin kit with 1 accelerator pack.
Once the sample had reached the target temperature, the socket was fitted with an insulating jacket and
removed from the cold chamber. It was necessary to do this because there was insufficient height in the
cold chamber to hold the sample vertical for pouring of the resin. The external temperature of the
socket was monitored using a calibrated temperature probe. A typical experimental record is set out
below.
Action Time(mins) Socket Temperature (OC)

Remove from cold chamber 0 3
Pour resin 10 4.5
Resin gelled (resin blue) 70 7.5
Resin set (resin brown) 95 9
Replaced in cold chamber 100 10
It was clear that the normal setting time of the resin (20 minutes) was increased to well in excess of an
hour. Once the socket warmed up to a temperature of 8 or 9OC, however, the centre of the resin surface
started to turn from blue to brown and the resin then cured rapidly. It is considered that the resin cured
as a result of the increase in socket temperature and of the heat generated by its own reaction.
It was noted from these tests that the resin mix was considerably stiffer than the mix at room
temperatures and that air bubbles took much longer to rise out of the poured resin. This suggests that
proper mixing of the resin and good pouring techniques may be more important for sockets made at low
temperatures.
The rope samples were returned to the chamber and left for a period of 24 hours before testing. The
temperature of the cold chamber was maintained between 3OC and 4OC. The time taken to remove the
sample from the cold chamber and install it in the test machine was typically 50 minutes when the
socket temperature was typically 6OC. The tensile load was ramped from 0 to 4000 kN over a period
of 5 minutes after which the load was held for 10 minutes. After the tests, measured socket
temperatures were between 7OC and 8OC. The results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Low temperature tests with 76 mm wire rope.

76-20 28-09-98 Good 4,000
76-27 12-01-99 Low temperature 4,000
76-28 13-01-99 Low temperature 4,000(rope broke)
76-29 15-01-99 Low temperature 4,000(rope broke)
The low temperature cappings survived intact, despite the delayed curing of the resin. It appeared that,
once the resin reached a temperature where curing could begin, it cured quickly as a result of the heat
generated by its own reaction.
4.7 Bad resin mixture, poor pouring and no release agent.

11
Because of the lack of effect of some of the parameters on the strength of the resin terminations, it was
decided to carry out tests with combinations of faults introduced during the capping process. These
tests were therefore carried out with the resin poorly mixed, using poor pouring techniques and without
release agent. The results are shown in Table 7.
It is clear that this combination of faults did not result in resin termination failures at room temperature.
Table 7 Tests with a combination of bad resin mix, bad pouring techniques and no
release agent

76-20 28-05-98 Good 4,000
76-26 04-01-99 Bad mix, bad pour no 4,000 (rope broke)
release agent
76-30 21-01-99 Bad mix, bad pour no 4,000
release agent
76-31 26-01-99 Bad mix, bad pour no 4,000
release agent
4.8 Brush not cleaned, no release agent
The earlier findings that lack of release agent had no effect on the strength of the terminations was not
expected by HSL, although later contact with industry representatives suggests that this was known to
them. The combination of brush not cleaned and no release agent was therefore tested to determine
whether the lack of release agent would further reduce the breaking load of ropes with the brush not
cleaned. The results are shown in Table 8, together with earlier results for tests with the brush not
cleaned.
Table 8 Test results for brush not cleaned, no release agent

76-06 08-06-98 Brush not cleaned 1,543 (Failed)
76-20 28-07-98 Good 4,000
76-21 22-10-98 Brush not cleaned, no 2,817 (Failed)
release agent
release agent
release agent
The results suggest that the lack of release agent either had a beneficial effect, increasing the mean
failure load from 2590 kN to 3240kN or, more likely, that the range of failure loads is too wide for any
difference to be evident between tests with and without release agent.
5. TESTS AT SMALLER SCALE

12
Although the main thrust of this work was to look at the termination of 76 mm wire rope, the initial
programme included a comparison of tests with rope terminations at 3 sizes: 76 mm, 52 mm and 32
mm. At the conclusion of the tests on the 76 mm rope it was agreed that tests would be carried at the 3
sizes under two conditions:-
a) the combination of bad resin mixture, poor pouring technique and no release agent;
b) brush not cleaned;
c) low temperatures tests, brush not cleaned on 32 mm rope.
5.1 The combination of bad resin mixture, poor pouring techniques and no release agent.
Table 9 shows the test results.
The smaller, 32 mm and 52 mm ropes were tested to destruction using a ramped increased load from 0
to MBL over a period of 5 minutes. The 76 mm rope was tested to 4000 kN, where the load was held
for 10 minutes.
The results show no termination failures in these tests. A feature of this comparison in that wires were
heard to break in all cones before the rope failed or the test was completed. It was notable that, with
the two smaller sized ropes, this only occurred at loads in excess of the rated minimum breaking load
(MBL). For the 76 mm rope, broken wires were heard consistently at loads in excess of 3800 kN
compared to the (MBL) of 4120.
Table 9 Results of tests at 3 rope sizes with a contamination of bad mix, bad pour
and no release agent.
Test No Date Minimum breaking load of Test load (kN)

rope (kN)
76-26 04-01-99 4,120 4,000 (rope broke)
76-30 21-01-99 4,120 4,000
76-31 26-01-99 4,120 4,000
52-34 18-05-99 1,707 1,940(rope broke)
52-35 09-06-99 1,707 1,910(rope broke)
52-36 01-07-99 715 790 (rope broke)
52-37 02-07-99 715 790 (rope broke)
5.2 Brush not cleaned
Test results are shown in Table 10. It is immediately clear that, as size decreases the terminations are
less likely to fail. All five samples at 76 mm size failed, plus 3 more at that size, reported in Section
4.8, where the brush was not cleaned and release agent not used. At 52 mm size, 3 of 4 terminations
failed. At 32 mm size only 1 of 4 terminations failed. There is a clear size effect here which gives a
greater risk of termination failure for larger sized resin cappings.

13
Table 10 Results of tests at 3 rope sizes with brush not cleaned.
Test No Date Minimum breaking load of Test load (kN)

rope (kN)
76-06 05-06-98 4,120 1,543 (failed)
76-07 08-06-98 4,120 2,691 (failed)
76-08 22-06-98 4,120 3,513 (failed)
76-09 23-06-98 4,120 2,162 (failed)
76-11 15-07-98 4,120 3,083 (failed)
52-33 17-05-99 1,707 1,917 (rope broke)
52-34 18-05-99 1,707 1,380 (failed)
52-40 18-10-99 1,707 1,027 (failed)
52-41 18-10-99 1,707 989 (failed)
32-38 14-07-99 715 661 (failed)
32-39 19-07-99 715 794 (rope broke)
32-42 19-07-99 715 775 (rope broke)
32-43 12-11-99 715 755 (rope broke)
5.3 Tests at low temperature, brush not cleaned
Five tests were carried out on samples using 32 mm diameter rope in which the combination of low
temperature and brush not cleaned was examined. The results are shown in Table 11. The survival of
3 from 4 samples at this size with the brush not cleaned but at normal temperatures was unexpected
and the addition of low temperatures, which may be more typical of a rope terminations made on an
offshore installation, was considered worthwhile. At this size, it was possible to pre-soak and construct
the termination entirely within the cold chamber and this was done. The rope, socket and resin kit were
pre-soaked for a minimum of 24 hours at the target temperature and were left in the cold chamber for a
minimum of 24 hours at the target temperature and were left in the cold chamber for a minimum of 24
hours before the test was carried out. Two tests were carried out at 8OC, without accelerator, two tests
at 3OC with one accelerator pack and one test at 3OC with one accelerator pack but with the brush
cleaned. The latter test was a control.
The resin mix for the 3OC tests was very stiff, increasing the time needed to complete the pour. The
resin tended to fall intermittently rather than as a smooth stream. It was clear that great care is needed
at these temperatures to ensure that the socket is completely filled with resin. The resin took
approximately 2 hours to set after which it satisfactorily passed a scratch test. This is a very long
setting time for resin cappings, well beyond what we would recommend. Cordon (1999) suggests that,
if curing times are long, then there is also a tendency for the silica sand in the resin to settle out, giving
a transparent zone at the top of the socket. This could make the resin cone weaker at the root of the
brush if there is a high sand to resin mix. The set resin was blue-green, noticeably different from the
usual sandy-brown colour at room temperature.
The resin mix for the 8OC tests was thinner than for the 3OC tests and it was able to be poured almost
normally. The resin took approximately 1 hour to set after which it passed the scratch test. Again, the
set resin was blue-green in colour.

14
Table 11 Low temperature tests with brush not cleaned
Test No Date Socket condition Test load

(kN)
32 - 44 15.12.99 Brush not cleaned, low 745 (Failed)
temperature 3OC
32 - 45 16.12.99 Brush not cleaned low 670 (Failed)
temperature 3OC
32 - 46 16.12.99 Brush not cleaned low 775 (Rope
O
temperature 3 C broke)
32 - 47 20.12.99 Brush not cleaned low 715 (Failed)
temperature 8OC
32 - 48 20.12.99 Brush not cleaned, low 485 (Failed)
temperature 8OC
The minimum breaking load for the 32 mm rope is 715 kN. Only the rope in test 32-46 (low
temperature only) broke in the middle of the test sample as would be expected if the termination did not
fail. The wires in the socket of test 32-48 pulled out and was typical of other low load failures with the
brush not cleaned. The resin at the root of the brush was crushed and powdery and appeared to have
failed as a result compression and the pulling of the wires through the socket when the capping failed.
The remaining 3 failures, tests 32 - 44, 32 - 45 and 32 - 47 had 2 or 3 wire rope strands broken inside
the socket and the inner wire rope core plus 1 or 2 other strands broken outside the socket. In each
case, the ends of the wires had pulled into the surface of the resin at the wide end of the socket and
there was evidence of powdery resin deposits inside the root of the brush. It was concluded that, in
these 3 tests, the strength of the resin had been reduced sufficiently by the low temperatures and the
rope dressing for the resin at the root of the brush for to crumble at the test loads. This would allow
some of the wires/strands to move within the resin cone and allow the forces to be redistributed,
probably unevenly, between the wires and strands. As a result, wires and strands failed in tension
within the brush at loads below their normal breaking load. It should be noted that, of four 32 mm rope
samples which broke, 775 kN was the lowest failure load. Although tests 32 - 44 (745 kN) and 32 - 47
(715 kN) are at or above the minimum breaking load for the rope of 715 kN, they are still considered to
be termination failures.
6. APPARENT DETERIORATION IN STRENGTH OF THE 76 mm 1770

GRADE GALVANISED WIRE ROPE
The 76 mm, 6 x 36 IWRC rope, constructed of 1770 grade galvanised wire, had a minimum breaking
load of 4120 kN (420 t). It was manufactured on 12/07/97 and tested on the same date to have an
actual breaking load of 4208 kN (429 t).
A total of 23 tests were carried out with 76 mm rope samples in which the resin termination did not fail.
Although the upper limit of the test machine, 4000 kN, was below the minimum breaking load for the
rope 4120 kN, the rope failed in 5 of the tests during the period when the rope was held at 4000 kN.
The sequence was as follows:

15
Test Date Result
60-04-98 to 14-09-98 10 tests, samples survived
14-09-98 rope broke (after 3 mins 20 secs at 4000 kN)
18-09-98 to 27-11-98 5 tests, samples survived
27-11-98 rope broke (1 min)
04-01-99 rope broke on reaching maximum load
12-01-99 sample survived
13-01-99 rope broke (1 min)
15-01-99 rope broke (1 min 45 sec)
Although the tests were not equivalent to a normal destructive test to determine actual breaking load,
the failures below minimum breaking load were unexpected. The sequence of rope failures also
suggests that rope failures became more likely as time progressed. Only 1 failure was observed in 16
tests during the first 14 months of the life of the rope, whereas 4(5) failures were observed in the tests
after that period. The final sample, tested 12 months after the previous test, did not fail, suggesting that
the rope had not deteriorated since January 1999.
A further feature of the tests with the 76 mm wire rope was that wires could be heard to break as the
rope sample neared the maximum load. These wire breaks occurred in all the tests where the rope
termination survived. On rope samples which survived the 4000 kN test load for 10 minutes there were
between 2 and 8 distinct wire rope breaks with a mean of 5 for 17 tests. Of the ropes which broke,
there were between 2 and 10 distinct breaks with a mean of 6. Wire breaks occurred at loads as low as
3100 kN, although the vast majority were above 3700 kN.
A comparison with the other sizes of rope showed 2 wire breaks below MBL in two tests with 52 mm
wire rope and 2 wire breaks below MBL in 5 tests with 32 mm wire rope. The main difference in the
rope samples are that the sample length to diameter ratio is smaller for the larger ropes:
33 for the 76 mm rope;

40 for the 52 mm rope; and
80 for the 32 mm rope;
and that the MBL for the 76 mm rope was closer to the breaking load:
98% for the 76 mm rope;

88% for the 52 mm rope; and
97% for the 32 mm rope as stated by Bridon but near to 92% according to the tests
reported here.

16
As a result, it is considered that the risk of wire breaks below the MBL was considerably higher for the
76 mm rope samples than for the smaller samples and that this may have influenced the risk of the rope
samples failing below the minimum breaking load for the rope. Had the minimum breaking load for the
76 mm rope been lower, say 4000 kN and therefore 95% of the actual breaking load of 4120 kN then
none of the samples would have broken below 4000 kN and the number of wire breaks would have been
significantly lower. It is also possible that higher breaking loads would have been recorded if the load
had continued to rise above 4000 kN rather than being held for a period at that level.
We therefore conclude that the 76 mm rope failures may have been influenced by either the lower
length to diameter ratio of these samples or by the apparent lower margin between the MBL and the
actual breaking load of this rope compared to the other rope sizes we tested.
Although there is evidence that the rope had lost strength over time these other factors make such a
conclusion less clear cut than it otherwise might be.
7. DISCUSSION
In considering the conclusions to be drawn from the tests carried out, it is necessary to remember that
the strength of a well made termination significantly exceeds that of the rope itself. The “faults” being
tested may, therefore, reduce the strength of the termination but not enough to reduce its strength below
that of the rope. Nevertheless, the faults put into the termination by HSL are considered to be worst
case and, therefore, unlikely to be repeated by operators trained to follow the correct procedures.
Several of the faults tested in the procedure did not reduce the strength of the terminations below that of
the rope. We have considered carefully whether these steps are necessary and these considerations are
set out below.
Cleaning of the rope is clearly the most important step in the procedure and poor cleaning consistently
produced termination failures below the minimum breaking load of the rope. We also believe that poor
brush configuration may contribute to poor cleaning. In particular, failure to adequately open out the
wires in the bottom third of the brush will make it difficult for the resin to penetrate the space between
the wires. It is also possible that the presence of rope dressing may adulterate the resin mixture,
resulting in set resin with a lower compressive strength. In the bottom third of the cone, there is a high
volume of wire to resin and the resin is easier to break down because of this. Although poor brush
configuration alone did not cause termination failures, a poor brush will make it more difficult to clean
the brush, particularly close to the root of the brush. We therefore consider that a satisfactory brush is
important to ensuring a good termination.
Use of release agent on the inner surface of cast sockets did not appear to affect the strength of the
termination. Measurements of socket draw (movement of the resin capping within the socket) showed
no difference in tests with and without release agent and lack of release agent appeared to have no
effect on the ability of the capping to pull into the socket under load. HSL believe that the resin cone
does not bond to the inside surface of cast sockets as it does to the machined and clean inner surface of
sockets used in the mining industry. If the offshore industry wishes to discontinue any use of release
agent in cast sockets, HSL would have no technical reason to oppose this on the basis of these tests.
At room temperatures, it is clear that the thin, watery resin mix can penetrate easily into the brush and
we believe that there is also some self-mixing as the resin mixture passes through the wires of the
brush. Poor mixing and pouring techniques can therefore be tolerated at room temperatures but it is
inevitable that there is some weakening of the terminations. At lower temperatures, where the addition
of accelerator packs is necessary, the resin mix is much thicker and, although the HSL work did not
fully investigate low temperature cases, it is believed that poor pouring and mixing techniques would
have a more significant effect at low temperatures. There is some evidence that low temperature curing

17
decreases the strength of terminations where the brush has not been satisfactorily cleaned. HSL believe
this is associated with the thicker resin mix and the difficulty in ensuring that it penetrates the smaller
spaces between wires in the bottom third of the brush. It is considered, therefore, that satisfactory
mixing and pouring techniques, including removal of air spaces, are essential steps in the production of
good terminations.
HSL found that smaller diameter terminations were less likely to fail when the rope brush was not
adequately cleaned. It is considered, however, that is more likely to be a result of the thicker, heavier
rope dressing used on the thicker ropes than a genuine size effect.
Although this work was not intended to address the fatigue life of resin-socketed terminations, it is
recognised that some of the faults introduced into resin capping could have an effect on fatigue life.
Terminations made to the procedure set out in Annex 1 should avoid problems which are known to
reduce fatigue life.
8. CONCLUSIONS
1 HSL has had no difficulty in producing good wire rope terminations on 76 mm galvanised
stranded wire rope provided the long established procedure for doing so were followed. The
procedure used by HSL has been set out and illustrated in this report and a general procedure,
highlighting good and poor practice, is included as an Annex.
2 The most important factor in ensuring a satisfactory wire rope termination was found to be the
cleaning of the wire rope brush. The rope dressing must be fully removed, particularly close to
the root of the brush at its narrow end. The use of steam cleaning is recommended as a final
stage in the cleaning process to remove any residual solvent or cleaning agent.
3 Adherence to the procedure is particularly important at low temperatures (below 10OC) and
when accelerators are added to reduce curing times for the resin. The resin mix under these
conditions becomes thicker at low temperatures and it becomes more difficult to ensure that a
satisfactory resin mix reaches into small spaces at the root of the brush. The making of wire
rope terminations in low temperature conditions should be avoided if possible.
4 Unsatisfactory cleaning of the brushed wires consistently caused termination failures at loads
below the minimum breaking load for the 76 mm diameter rope.
At 52 mm and 32 mm rope diameters failures still occurred but the risk of the termination
failing before the rope itself was lower. It is considered that the most likely cause of this
difference was the thicker rope dressing used on the larger diameter ropes although size effects
cannot be ruled out. At the smaller rope sizes, low temperatures increased the likelihood of
termination failure.
5 Poor brush, lack of release agent, poor resin mixing and poor pouring techniques did not
produce termination failures when introduced as single faults or in combination at room
temperatures. A poor brush can, however, make cleaning of the brush more difficult and,
because of this, we consider it an important step in the procedure. It is also important to follow
the procedure for mixing and pouring the resin, particularly at low temperatures when the resin
becomes thicker, making penetration to the root of the brush more difficult. No evidence was
found to substantiate the theory that the use of release agent affected the ability of the resin
cone to bed into the cast sockets and it is concluded that this step could be safely omitted from
the procedure for terminating wire ropes with cast sockets.

18
6 In 5 cases from a total of 23 tests, the 76 mm diameter rope broke at a load below the
manufacturer’s minimum breaking load (MBL). The applied load was in excess of 97% of the
minimum breaking load and was held for up to 3 minutes 20 seconds before the rope broke.
Tests on the 76 mm were also characterised by loud cracks during the loading of the rope at
loads below the MBL. These were individual wire breaks, which did not occur with the same
frequency in tests with the lower diameter ropes. The pattern of failure initially appeared to
indicate that the 1770 grade rope was losing strength with time but it was also considered that
the ratio of sample length to diameter was low (33 although greater than 30, the minimum
value specified in BS 301: Part 1: 1987) and that the MBL was 98% of the actual breaking
load, giving a relatively low margin. It is therefore possible that the MBL for this rope had
been set at a level which is very close to the actual breaking load and that the MBL may fall
within the range of actual breaking loads from a series of breaking load tests.
REFERENCES
BS 302: Part 1: 1987, Stranded wire ropes: Specification for general requirements.
Brandon J E and Chaplin C R (to be published), Analysis of a resin socket termination for a wire rope
Cordon C H H, 1995, The development of resin cappings for wire ropes in mines, part 1: the history of
the development of resin cappings in the UK, Mining Technology, 77, no.883, 1995, pp 90-96.
Cordon C H H, 1999, the development of resin cappings for wire ropes in mines, part 2: service trials
on friction-winder ropes, Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A, Mining
Industry, 108, January-April 1999, pp A37-A51.
Wirelock Technical Data Manual, 1996, The Crosby Group Inc and Millfield Enterprises
(Manufacturing) Ltd.

19
List of Figures
Figure 1 Diagram showing arrangement of servings prior 2BR1002.TIF

to cutting
Figure 2 Rope being served 3BR10026.TIF
Figure 3 Rope being cut 4BR0005.TIF
Figure 4 Socket secured to rope rig
Figure 5 Rope covered in plastic sheet
Figure 6 Rope with end clamp fixed in place
Figure 7 a) Strands being opened out 7BR10017.TIF

b) Strands opened out
Figure 8 Brushing with paraffin to loosen rope dressing
Figure 9 The uncleaned, finished brush 9805-048/4
Figure 10 Cleaning the brush 13BR0008.TIF
Figure 11 Drip drying the brush 14BR0005.TIF
Figure 12 Checking for rope dressing
Figure 13 Position of serving within the socket 1BRA0001.TIF
Figure 14 Wires should protrude 3 mm from socket 15BR0002.TIF
Figure 15 Use of split sleeve to centralise socket 16BR0015.TIF
Figure 16 Positioning the ‘O’ ring 17BR0011.TIF
Figure 17 Sealing with plasticine 18BR0039.TIF
Figure 18 Rope rig vertical, ready for pouring the resin
Figure 19 The resin kit
Figure 20 Pouring the resin 23BR0001.TIF
Figure 21 Broddling 24BR0003.TIF
Figure 22 The scratch test 28BR0003.TIF
Figure 23 Blue green if resin sets at low temperatures 26BR0001.TIF
Figure 24 Sandy brown if resin sets at room temperatures 27BR0001.TIF

20
Figure 25 Cut off the serving wire 29BR0004.TIF
Figure 26 A poor brush 9BR10005.TIF
Figure 27 Narrow end of a failed capping 980 7-100/13
Figure 28 A pulled out capping 98 06-056/7
Figure 29 Debris from a pulled out capping 98 06-081/31
Figure 30 Wires pulled out of wide end of capping 98 07-150/11
Figure 31 Good capping after 4000 kN load test and after 98 07-150/1
removal from socket
Figure 32 Incident capping
Figure 33 Incident capping

21
2BR1002.tif
Figure 1 - Diagram showing arrangement of
servings prior to cutting
3BR10026.tif
Figure 2 - Rope being served.
CROWN COPYRIGHT HEALTH AND SAFETY LABORATORY

4BR10005.tif
Figure 3 - Rope being cut.
Figure 4 - Socket secured on rope rig.

Figure 5 - Rope covered in plastic sheet.
Figure 6 - Rope with end clamp fixed in place.

7BR10001.tif
Figure 7 - Strands being opened out.
Figure 8 - Brushing with paraffin to loosen rope dressing.

9805-048/4
Figure 9 - The uncleaned, finished brush.
13BR0008.tif
Figure 10 - Cleaning the brush.

14BR0005.tif
Figure 11 - Drip drying the brush.
9805-048/7
Figure 12 - Checking for rope dressing.

1BRA0001.tif
Figure 13 - Position of serving within the socket.
15BR0002.tif
Figure 14 - Wires should protrude 3mm from socket.

16BR0015.tif
Figure 15 - Use of split sleeve to centralise socket.
17BR0011.tif
Figure 16 - Positioning the ‘O’ ring

18BR0039.tif
Figure 17 - Sealing with plasticine
Figure 18 - Rope rig vertical, ready for pouring the resin.

0002-079/9
Figure 19 - The resin kit.
23BR0001.tif
Figure 20 - Pouring the resin.

24BR0003.tif
Figure 21 - Broddling.
28BR0003.tif
Figure 22 - The scratch test.

26BR0001.tif
Figure 23 - Blue green if resin sets at low temperatures.
27BR0001.tif
Figure 24 - Sandy brown if resin sets at room temperature.

29BR0004.tif
Figure 25 - Cut off the serving wire.
9BR10005.tif
Figure 26 - A poor bush.

9807-150/13
Figure 27 - Narrow end of failed capping.
9806-056/7
Figure 28 - A pulled out capping.

9806-081/31
Figure 29 - Debris from a pulled out capping.
9807-150/11
Figure 30 - Wires pulled out of wide end of capping.

9807-150/1
Figure 31 - Good capping after 4000 kN load test

and after removal from socket.
0001-074/1 0001-074/4
Figure 32 - Incident capping. Figure 33 - Incident capping

ANNEX 1
GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR MAKING GOOD RESIN-SOCKETED ROPE

TERMINATIONS ON STRANDED ROPE
This procedure should be able to be followed by a semi-skilled operator given suitable training and who
has demonstrated competence in this area.
1 Equipment list
The following is a list of equipment and materials needed in order produce a resin-socketed termination
of a wire rope:
Wire rope
Wire rope socket
Rope socket rig and fittings
Rope cutter/slitting disc
Steel tube for rope strands
Steel tube for rope wires
Split sleeve for centralising rope in socket
Tirfor/winch (for big ropes only)
Serving mallet/machine
Reel of soft iron serving wire (diameter of wire to match rope size)
Socket alignment tool
Plastic sheet
Rubber “O” ring
High pressure steam cleaner with water soluble detergent
Wirelock resin kit/s - volume to match conical bore of rope socket, including silicone grease, stirrer and
plasticine
Workshop hand tools including prybars, and tubes to fit strands and wires
Standard workshop protective clothing
2 Preparing the rope and socket
Uncoil new rope from drum.
Identify and mark the cutting point.
Support the rope horizontally between two rope clamps or similar so that the cutting point is midway
between the vices and the rope does not sag. Remove any excess rope dressing from the part of the
rope to be served.
Using the serving mallet, apply two soft iron servings, one at each side of the cutting point, as shown in
Figure 1. The length of these two servings must be at least equal to the rope diameter. The gap
between the two servings must be just wide enough to allow the rope to be cut without disturbing the
two servings.
Apply one long serving at the side of the rope to be brushed. The length of this serving must be at least
3 times the rope diameter and must be applied at a distance equal to the length of the rope socket
basket, minus, half the rope diameter, measured from the cutting point. Prior to this serving, short
lengths of plasticine must be applied in the valleys between the strands, Figure 2, over a distance of
approximately the rope diameter and half the diameter from the end of this serving nearest to the cutting
point. This will seal the spaces/cavities between the strands underneath the serving which will help to
eliminate possible resin leakage during the pouring process.
Temporary rope clamps can be fitted at each side of the cutting point prior to cutting. These are
normally used if single stranded serving wire is used.
Place the rope on the ground on “vee” block supports at each side of the cutting point. Cut the rope
squarely using a slitting disc or similar equipment, as shown in Figure 3. Flame curring must not be
used as this is likely to affect the mechanical properties of the steel wires.
Remove rope clamps
Examine the rope socket to ensure the interior of the socket is clean and free of dirt etc. Roughness of
the inside surface is not important provided that there are no obstructions to prevent the resin cone from
bedding into the socket when a load is applied to the termination. If the socket has been used
previously then any resin adhering to the socket wall should be removed. The taper bore of the socket
must be concentric within the socket and, in particular, the wall thickness should be the same all around
the socket periphery. Physical damage or non-concentricity of the socket can lead to failure of the
termination under load. Such sockets must never be used.
Secure the socket in position on the rope rig, Figure 4. The rope rig serves as a secure brushing bench
and helps to eliminate the manual handling of heavy rope sockets. It also provides accurate axia
alignment between rope and socket and it can be elevated and locked vertically to enable the casting to
be carried out correctly. If a purpose made rope rig is not available, a reliable method of accurately
aligning the rope with the socket must be developed and used. This alignment must be maintained
during the casting process. If this is not done, the load in the rope and in the socket will not be axial,
the wires will be unevenly loaded and failure of the termination may result.
Apply a light smearing of silicon compound, supplied with the resin kit, to the inside of the rope socket
bore. This will help the resin cone to bed into the socket when a load is applied, a process which is
essential for the termination to develop its full strength, and will also help the removal of the resin cone
if the socket is to be reused.
Apply plastic covering over the portion of rope to be threaded through socket. Secure it with masking
tape, Figure 5. This will prevent contamination of the socket bore when the rope is threaded through
the socket.
Push the “O” ring onto rope over plastic covering and slide it on the rope so that it will be clear of the
brushing. This “O” ring will later be used as a seal at the socket neck.
Thread the served end of the rope through the socket so that the end to be brushed is clear of the socket.
Fasten the rope to the rope rig using the clamps provided, Figure 6. Ensure that the end clamp is
positioned exactly at the point on the rope to which the wires will be unlayed.
3 Preparing and cleaning the brush
Adjust the rig to the desired position for brushing. Brushing is best carried out with the rig set at an
angle most convenient to the ropeman.
Remove and discard the short serving on the end of the rope.

Using the large steel tube, unwind and open out each rope strand, in turn, to form a basic brush as in
Figure 7. A flat blade is used to prise out each strand from the cluster before the tube is pushed on
over the strand. Great care must be taken when carrying out this operation as the strands are springy
when they are bent back and any slippage or accidental release of tube is a potential hazard to persons
standing nearby.
Starting with the inner wire rope core, and using the small steel tube, gently ease out of lay and unwind
each individual wire, in turn, to form a complete brush. As the wires are opened out they should be
brushed with paraffin to remove and/or loosen the rope dressing, Figure 8. Each wire must be
unwound down to the serving whilst still retaining its helical shape. Do not attempt to straighten the
wires. Do not repeatedly bend wires to achieve correct position as this can seriously weaken them.
Over bending, nicking, and twisting of the wires must be avoided as this could later cause fatigue
failure of the wires during service. The finished brush, Figure 9, must be as concentric as possible and
the wires must be as evenly distributed as possible.
Adjust the rope rig so that the brush is pointing downwards to allow the cleaning fluids to drain away.
Cleaning fluid must not be allowed to penetrate down into the rope underneath the long serving.
Using the high pressure steam cleaner, Figure 10, thoroughly clean the brush using the detergent spray.
Finally clean the brush with pure water to rinse off the degreasing agent or detergent. Allow the clean
brush to drip dry whilst it is still pointing downwards, Figure 11.
Carry out a visual check of the brush to ensure that the wires are clean and that no lubricant or dressing
is present on the brushed wires. Check that the rope dressing is visible under the serving, Figure 12.
4 Positioning and aligning the brush and socket
Measure and mark on the serving a distance of half the rope diameter measured from the inner end of
the long serving, Figure 13. Discard the plastic covering which was previously placed over rope.
Position the socket in the rope rig, using socket spacers if needed, to align the socket with the rope
clamps.
Undo the clamps on the rope rig and pull the brush into the socket so that the small end of the socket is
in line with the marking on the serving. Ensure that the ends of the brushed wires protrude
approximately 3 mm above the end of the big end of the socket. If all three servings have been
positioned accurately, everything should fit correctly, Figure 14. The objective is to achieve a length of
half the rope diameter inside the socket neck. This will ensure proper support of the wires at the root of
the brush and help to protect them for fatigue damage. It is important to minimise the rotation of the
socket to prevent the silicon from inside the socket being scraped off onto the freshly cleaned wires.
Using the split sleeve, Figure 15, align the rope so that it is concentric inside the socket neck. Further
axial alignment of the rope will be given by the seating clamp positions on the rope rig when the rope is
reclamped.
Reclamp the rope on the rig ensuring all the clamps are tight. Remove the socket alignment tool.
Slide the “O” ring into position so that it fills the annular gap between the rope and the socket neck,
Figure 16.
Seal the neck of the socket by applying plasticine over the top of the “O” ring, Figure 17.

Adjust the rope rig so that the rope socket is vertical, Figure 18.
5 Mixing and pouring the resin
Detailed information on the use of the resin kits can be found in the Wirelock Technical Data Manual
and in the information leaflet which accompanies each kit.
Consider the temperatures of the rope, socket and resin kit. Are they the same or is any of these likely
to be at a temperature below 10OC. Ideally, all components should be above this temperature, if not
then the use of accelerator packs may need to be considered. The easiest way to use these is to ensure
that all components are at the same temperature and to follow the resin kit suppliers instructions. If
there is any doubt as to the component temperatures, then they should be measured. If low temperature
casting of the resin is unavoidable, it is particularly important that the root of the brush has been
properly cleaned and that the procedures for mixing, stirring and pouring the resin are closely followed.
It may be possible to use a warmed socket on a cold rope and some users have produced successful
cappings using this technique. In this case it is important to warm the socket only to room temperature
and not beyond. Storing the socket for a period in a warm area is better than heating it artificially. Use
of a warmed socket reduces the need for accelerator (booster) packs.
Examine the resin kit to be used, Figure 19. Each kit consists of two containers one with liquid resin
and one with powder together with a stirrer, silicon grease release agent and plasticine. These are
supplied in an outer container which is used for mixing. Booster packs are available separately and are
sized to match to the volume of the resin kits. Check that the resin kit is not out of date. Out of date
kits must be discarded. Check that the colour of the powder is off-white and the resin is free flowing.
Kits can be added together to give the required volume. Always use the full container contents, never
use part container contents.
Wear eye protection and a dust mask for mixing the resin. Mix the liquid resin and powder in the
container supplied with the resin kit. Stir for approximately 2 minutes whilst checking the viscosity
and colour of the mixture. For temperatures between 2OC and 8OC one booster pack must be added and
between 2OC and - 3OC two booster packs must be added.
Pour the mixture into the socket immediately, ensuring that the mixture is poured at one position only,
as in Figure 20. Any movement is likely to introduce unwanted air into the mixture inside the socket.
Fill the socket up until the level of the fluid is flush with the end of the socket. Finally, using a straight
piece of wire of similar tool, broddle the mixture inside the socket basket to remove any trapped air,
Figure 21. The socket may be topped up as necessary as the resin settles. Any leakages must be
stopped immediately by simply applying further plasticine around the socket neck as necessary. At
room temperature, gelling will normally take place in approximately 15 to 20 minutes. The mixture
will be fully set after approximately 1 hour. At low temperatures the gelling and setting may take much
longer and full setting can take as long as 2 hours even when booster kits are used.
When the resin has hardened, using a sharp instrument, carry out a scratch test by scoring the set resin
in the end of the socket, Figure 22. This should leave a shallow scratch mark indicating the resin is
fully set. The final colour of the resin is likely to be either bluish green, Figure 23, or sandy brown,
Figure 24, depending on the temperatures reached during curing. A sandy colour indicates a hotter
cure than the bluish green colour.

6.1 Dismantling the clamps and servings
Remove the plasticine and “O” ring from the socket neck. Examine the completed socket termination
for any defects.
Unwind the long serving wire and cut it off as close as possible to the end of the socket neck, Figure 25.
Remove the plasticine from between the rope strands and scrape off any leaked resin compound.
Finally relubricate the rope with rope dressing taking care to seal the neck of the socket.
Remove the complete socket termination from the rope rig.
When the rope is put into use, it is advisable to ensure that the resin cone has bedded into the socket.
Unless the cone pulls into the socket by a few millimetres, the resin cone may not be subjected to the
compressive forces which give the termination its strength. The use of release agent will help the cone
to bed into the socket.

ANNEX 2
PROJECT R31068, RESIN-SOCKETED TERMINATION OF OFF-SHORE WIRE
ROPES: SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Test No Date Socket condition Test load (kN)*

76-01 06-04-98 Good 4,000
76-02 17-04-98 Good 4,000
76-03 11-05-98 Bad brush 4,000
76-04 12-05-98 Bad brush 4,000
76-05 13-05-98 Bad brush 4,000
76-10 09-07-98 Poor resin mix 4,000
76-12 21-07-98 Poor resin mix 4,000
76-13 21-07-98 Poor resin mix 4,000
76-14 13-08-98 No release agent 4,000
76-15 14-09-98 No release agent 4,000
76-16 14-09-98 Bad pouring 4,000 (rope broke)
76-17 18-09-98 No release agent 4,000
76-18 18-09-98 Bad pouring 4,000
76-19 23-09-98 Bad pouring 4,000
76-20 28-09-98 Good 4,000
76-21 22-10-98 Brush not cleaned no 2,817 (failed)
release agent
release agent
release agent
76-24 27-11-98 Good, instrumented 4,000
76-25 27-11-98 No release agent 4,000(rope broke)
76-26 04-01-99 Bad mix, bad pour & 4,000(rope broke)
no release agent
76-27 12 Jan 1999 Poor temperature 4,000
76-28 13 Jan 1999 Poor temperature 4,000(rope broke)
76-29 15 Jan 1999 Poor temperature 4,000(rope broke)
76-30 21 Jan 1999 Bad mix, bad pour & 4,000
no release agent
76-31 26 Jan 1999 Bad mix, bad pour & 4,000

no release agent
52-32 14 May 1999 Brush not cleaned 1,917(rope broke)
52-33 17 May 1999 Brush not cleaned 1,380

52-34 18 May 1999 Bad mix, bad pour & 1,936(rope broke)
no release agent
52-35 9 June 1999 Bad mix, bad pour & 1,911(rope broke)
no release agent
32-36 1 July 1999 Bad mix, bad pour & 787(rope broke)
no release agent
32-37 2 July 1999 Bad mix, bad pour & 788(rope broke)
no release agent
32-38 14 July 1999 Brush not cleaned 661
32-39 19 July 1999 Brush not cleaned 794(rope broke)
52-40 18 Oct 1999 Brush not cleaned 1,027
52-41 18 Oct 1999 Brush not cleaned 989
32-42 19 Oct 1999 Brush not cleaned 775(rope broke)
32-43 12 Nov 1999 Brush not cleaned 755(rope broke)
32-44 Dec 1999 Brush not cleaned Low 745(failed)
temperature 3OC
temperature 3OC
32-46 Dec 1999 Brush not cleaned Low 775(rope broke)
temperature 3OC
temperature 8OC
32-48 Dec 1999 Brush cleaned Low 485(failed)
temperature 8OC
76-49 Jan 2000 Good
*4000 kN = 408 tons

ANNEX 3
SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT USED
1 Wire Ropes
The wire ropes conformed to the following specifications:
Ÿ 76 mm 6 x 36 IWRC 1770 GAL RHO

ZL200006 MBL 420.0t
Date of manufacture: 12/07/97
Actual breaking load: 429.0t
Actual diameter: 76.78 mm

ZL200006 MBL 174.0t

ZL302002 MBL 72.9t
Breaking load tests were carried out on the date of manufacture in all cases. Tests were to ISO
3108 using a testing machine calibrated to BS EN 100002-2.
2 Sockets
The sockets used in the tests were groved open spelter sockets with the following
specifications:
Ÿ for use with 76 mm rope, 3 - 3.1/8 inch rope diameter sockets made from cast alloy
steel;
Ÿ for use with 52 mm rope, 2 - 2.1/8 inch rope diameter sockets made from cast alloy
steel;
Ÿ for use with 32 mm rope, 1.1/4 - 1.3/8 inch rope diameter sockets made from forged
steel.
Sockets were reused as necessary for the tests. Resin cappings were removed by heating the
socket then pressing out the capping using a compressive test machine. The inner surface of
the used sockets was then cleaned using a wire brush.

3 Sample Lengths
Sample lengths were as follows
Ÿ 76 mm samples - rope length between resin cappings was 2560 mm, actual rope
diameter was 76.78 mm giving a length to diameter ratio of 33.3;
Ÿ 52 mm samples - rope length between resin cappings was 2135 mm and measured
diameter was 52.78 mm giving a length to diameter ratio of 40.5;
Ÿ 32 mm samples - rope length between resin cappings was 2620 mm and measured
diameter was 32.82 mm giving a length to diameter ratio of 80.
All the samples therefore complied with the minimum length criterion of 30 x diameter
specified in BS 301: Part 1: 1987.
4 Resin
Resin packs were Wirelock Rope Capping Kits. This was unsaturated polyester resin,
dissolved in styrene and containing low levels of inhibitors to prevent premature
polymerisation. Various sizes of the kits were purchased to suit the volume of resin cappings
being produced. Whole kits were always used. Low temperature accelerator (booster) packs
were also supplied.
5 Test Machine
The tensile test machine was an Avery 4000 kN 74N8 rope test machine serial number E55372
with RDP servo control. The machine is calibrated to BSEN100002-2: 1992. The machine is
calibrated to class 1, i.e. Accuracy is ± 1% of indicated value. The 76 mm rope samples were
loaded linearly at a rate of 800 kN/minute over a period of 5 minutes and then held at the peak
load for a period of 10 minutes. Smaller diameter ropes were loaded linearly at a rate
consistent with reaching the MBL after a period of 5 minutes.
6 Rope Cleaning Agents
Ropes were cleaned using cold paraffin and a brush followed by use of a Karcher steam
cleaner with Karcher RM87 detergent suitable for intensive cleaning applications and suitable
for removing oil and grease. Any residue was removed using clean steam.


Socket Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Socket Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY

REPORT - OTO 2000 069

Date of Issue: September 2000 Project number 3596

Health and Safety Laboratory

w poor brush configuration;

HEALTH AND SAFETY LABORATORY

2. THE WORK PROGRAMME 1

3. PROCEDURE USED FOR MAKING GOOD ROPE TERMINATIONS 2

3.1 Equipment list 2

3.2 Preparing the rope and socket 3

3.3 Preparing and cleaning the brush 4

3.4 Positioning and aligning the brush and socket 4

3.5 Mixing and pouring the resin 5

3.6 Dismantling the clamps and servings 6

4. THE TEST PROGRAMME AND RESULTS FOR 76MM WIRE ROPES 6

4.1 Poor brush preparation 6

4.2 Brush not cleaned 7

4.3 No release agent in the socket 8

4.4 Bad resin mix 10

4.5 Poor pouring techniques 10

4.6 Low temperatures 11

4.7 Bad resin mixture, poor pouring and no release agent 12

4.8 Brush not cleaned, no release agent 12

5. TESTS AT SMALLER SCALE 13

5.2 Brush not cleaned 13

5.3 Tests at low temperature, brush not cleaned 14

HEALTH AND SAFETY LABORATORY

HEALTH AND SAFETY LABORATORY

w poor brush configuration;

w no release agent on the socket;

w poor or inadequate cleaning of the rope brush;

w poor or inadequate resin mixing techniques;

w poor or inadequate resin pouring techniques;

w accelerated curing times when using accelerator packs at low temperatures;

w size effects by comparison of 76 mm, 52 mm and 32 mm diameter rope terminations.

2. THE WORK PROGRAMME

w poor brush configuration

w poor cleaning of the brush

w poor resin mix

w poor pouring techniques

w low temperatures/accelerated curing

HEALTH AND SAFETY LABORATORY

3. PROCEDURE USED FOR MAKING GOOD ROPE TERMINATIONS

3.1 Equipment list

3.2 Preparing the rope and socket

Uncoil new rope from drum.

Identify and mark the cutting point.

Remove rope clamps.

HEALTH AND SAFETY LABORATORY

3.3 Preparing and cleaning the brush

3.4 Positioning and aligning the brush and socket

HEALTH AND SAFETY LABORATORY

3.5 Mixing and pouring the resin

HEALTH AND SAFETY LABORATORY

3.6 Dismantling the clamps and servings

Remove the complete socket termination from the rope rig.

4. THE TEST PROGRAMME AND RESULTS FOR 76 MM WIRE ROPES

4.1 Poor brush preparation

Test No Date Socket condition Test load (kN)

4.2 Brush not cleaned

Table 2 Tests on 76 mm rope with brush not cleaned

Test No Date Socket condition Test load (kN)

a) the resin in the socket neck had crumbled and fragmented;