Restricted

Fibre ropes - Terminology and good practices Rev.01

Prepared by: Hong-Duc PHAM

Riser Installation Analysis Umbilical (RIAU), Subsea7

The present document presents terminology and good practices on purchase, testing, installation, analysis of offshore fibre
ropes with the focus on polyester ropes.

I. BV NI 432 - Guidance Note

1. The installation of the mooring system is to be performed following detailed and

carefully engineered procedures, in order to avoid torsion and damage by over-
bending on obstacles, abrasion or cutting, as well as contamination by solid or
liquid projection.

2. Ropes being fitted with a particle ingress protection may be pre-laid on bottom,
provided it is ensured that sea-bottom do not include hard soil areas and is free
from other obstructions.

3. Fibre rope section may be made of several segments, if needed for practical
reasons of fabrication or handling. For instance, for permanent offshore units,
the monitoring of rope condition is normally achieved through “visual
inspection” (by ROV). However, recovery, then inspection and testing of a rope
section, may be necessary in some circumstances (e.g. after a significant
accidental event). For this purpose, it is recommended that short rope segments
(inserts) are provided (one at the top of each line). The length of inserts is
usually taken same as for test ropes, so that a break test can be performed.
Removed inserts generally need not be replaced, their length being
compensated by an adjustment of top-chain segment.

4. Length of finished rope

The length of finished ropes is defined as a bedded-in length at a specified
tension.
The bedded-in length LT0, in m of supplied ropes at a tension T0 is obtained as:
LT0 = M / LD T0
where:
M: The net mass of rope, in kg, obtained by weighing, and corrected for
ancillary weight and the additional mass of material in terminations,
Restricted

LD T0: The linear density (mass per unit length, MTex) of the rope in a bedded
in condition at a tension T0 (in % of MBS), obtained from “linear density test”.

Note 1: Unless otherwise specified, T0 is taken as 20% of MBS and the load
sequence in 13 a) iv). If a different tension or a different bedding-in / pre-
stretching sequence is used, these conditions are to be indicated in the rope
supply data sheet.

Note 2: Putting LD0 in the above formula, the “length at reference tension” L0
can be obtained.

Note 3: If another method than weighting is used to determine rope length, the
Manufacturer will have to document the relation between the length of finished
rope in the specified conditions and the length measurements performed during
production.

The length of short ropes (such as rope samples or inserts) may be taken as the
length measured at a reference tension of 2% of the rope MBS.

The length of finished ropes is to be within 1% of the specified length.

5. Pre-stretching: As possible, a pre-stretching of rope thorough appropriate hold

load or cycling is to be performed within the hook-up sequence. However, the
tension in rope during pre-stretching (and for anchoring testing, if applicable)
should not exceed 50% of fibre rope MBS.

6. Re-tensioning: During installation, and primarily in the first months after

installation, lines tend to slacken due to bedding-in of fibre ropes. Adequate
means are to be available to control line tensions, and re-tension the lines,
whenever needed, to design pretensions.

7. Creep: Where relevant, a prediction is to be made of the long-term creep of the

rope. This prediction is to be based on:

- Fibre data creep rates

- Correlation between fibre and rope obtained from proto-type testing

This prediction will provide an evaluation of the expected creep per year, thus of
the expected lifetime of rope (for this criterion) with respect to intended service
life, taking into account the allowable creep elongation for a section of the rope,
that is defined as the smaller of:
Restricted
- The extension at which the strength of the rope is still at least 95% of
the original specified MBS, or

- 10% of the installed length

Note 1: The term “creep” is referring here to the progressive, about proportional
to elapsed time, non-recoverable increase of length of the fibre or rope under a
constant load, that is exhibited by some materials.

Note 2: Creep is both load and temperature dependent. Then, only the most
critical section (usually the top part) needs to be evaluated with respect to the
allowable creep. An evaluation for the whole length could also be made to
indicate the expected total creep elongation, where needed.

8. Load-elongation of fibre ropes

Due to the nature of constitute material (a complex assembly of long chains
organic molecules), fibres and fibre ropes exhibit a visco-elasto-plastic behaviour
(i.e. non-linear and time dependent) that cannot be reduced to a load-
elongation “characteristic”, be-it non-linear.

- Bedding-in: A particularly important aspect, quite specific to fibre

ropes, is the modification of the properties of a rope during the first
loading(s) and during early stages of the rope service. This process,
called “bedding-in”, involves changes at both a macroscopic level
(e.g. compaction of the structure) and, primarily, at a molecular level
within fibres. Bedding-in results in an essentially permanent – not
recoverable – elongation with respect to the rope initial length at
time of manufacturing (unless the rope is returned to a loose
condition for a substantial time – what does not happen in an
operating mooring system), and in some changes in the rheological
properties. Most of the bedding-in happens during initial loading, at
time of installation, or quickly after. Rope pre-stretching during
installation improves bedding-in. Further delayed bedding-in occurs
with the variations of mean loads and the cyclic loading imposed by
metocean or other (e.g. re-tensioning) actions.

- The (mean) elongation of a rope may be defined as a combination of

two terms:
o A load dependent incremental permanent (non-recoverable)
elongation, happening principally when the tension in rope
exceeds the maximum tension achieved in a previous storm
or other event.
o A time dependent visco-elastic term tending, under
stationary conditions, toward a stabilisation of the rope
elongation (depending on end conditions and previous
Restricted
history this term can be creep, recovery, relaxation or
inverse relaxation).

9. The elongation of a rope working as a line in a station-keeping system can be

written as the sum of three terms, related to the time scale of actions:

- Elongation under permanent load (line pretension)

- Variations of elongation induced by variations (increase or decrease)
of the mean tension in each line, under the effect of changing
weather conditions, i.e. a time scale of several hours, or days, that is
the field of application of the “quasi-static” stiffness

- Rapidly varying (cyclic) loading (or imposed cyclic dis-placements),

i.e. a time scale ranging from seconds (e.g. slow drift motions or VIM,
around the natural period of the system): this is modelled by the
dynamic stiffness

This separation is also matching the typical steps of a mooring analysis,

whatever frequency or time domain is used:

- Set up the model

- Static response to mean loads

- Low and wave frequency responses

10. Stiffness: Once the stiffness of ropes with a given fibre has been adequately
characterized, only a limited amount of full-size testing is needed, on one rope
size, to verify and calibrate, if necessary, the properties of a particular rope
model. Then, the measurement of “Krebi”, the dynamic stiffness at the end of
bedding-in, within the breaking test performed for each rope size, will confirm
these data for any other size.

Note 1: The quasi-static and the dynamic stiffness of fibre ropes are depending
on rope construction, but, primarily, on fibre material. A proper characterisation
should thus start by testing at the fibre level, then on representative sub-ropes
or ropes.

Note 2: The rope properties are depending on load history. In this respect, a
initial loading and bedding-in is included in the test sequences (see below), so
that the measure stiffness may be deemed representative of the conditions at
the time when the design conditions happen.
Restricted
11. “Quasi-static” stiffness: The variations of line elongation under a tension varying
at a very slow rate can be generally modelled by a linear “quasi-static” stiffness
Krs.

Note 1: The “quasi-static” stiffness is addressing the effect of mean tension

variations, under changing weather conditions such as the build-up and decay of
a storm or the occurrence of a loop current. Among other effects, these
changing conditions are causing an increase or a decrease of the mean tension
in the lines (in “wind-ward” or “leeward” lines, respectively) from the initial pre-
tension at a very slow rate. This does not include the “slow-drift motions, for
which the dynamic stiffness is applicable.

Note 2: The wording “quasi-static” stiffness is used to differentiate from other

approaches or measurement sequence, particularly the stiffness over a
monotonic ascending loading at standard cross-head rate, often but unduly
termed “static stiffness”.

The “quasi-static” stiffness is obtained by quasi-static stiffness test described in

Error! Reference source not found.. In this test, after a proper bedding-in, the
rope is cycled between two tension levels, over several cycles, each having a
duration of 1h (twice 30 minutes) as specified in 13 b).

Note 3: Cycling is performed to get rid of the initial condition of rope on the test
bench, not representative of actual condition. Result can be average over
several cycles, to verify stabilisation and eliminate eventual measurement
errors, in all cases ignoring the first half cycle.

The (linearised) “quasi-static” stiffness is then taken as a secant stiffness

between the tension T1 and T2 (normally taken as 10% and 30%) and the
duration T (normally taken as 12h).

Note 4: Longer duration T could be more appropriate for some meta-ocean

events (e.g. 7 days for the rising time of a loop current event)

Note 5: For variations of mean tension beyond the aforementioned in the

“quasi-static” stiffness test, a (non-linear) “quasi-static characteristic” can be
obtained from the results of the test, that will provide a more accurate estimate
of e.g. minimum tension in leeward lines.

12. “Dynamic” stiffness: A linear stiffness Krd, depending on the mean tension in
the line, can be used to model the response to dynamic loadings (both “wave
frequency” and “low frequency” loadings).
During cycling on a test bench at a constant mean tension, the stiffness rapidly
increases at the beginning of the run, then tends to stabilise. The measurements
of the dynamic stiffness with a limited number of cycles (100 to 300) after a
Restricted
standard bedding-in condition, as specified in 13 c), will provide adequate
reference data.

Note 1: Other parameters influencing the dynamic stiffness (load range,

frequency) are deemed negligible (at least less significant), and would be also
difficult to account for in the analysis process.

Note 2: For characterisation, the dynamic stiffness is typically obtained from

tests under cyclic loading around a number of mean tension, including primarily
tests under a constant amplitude (harmonic) loading and some test under
representative stochastic loadings.

For rope qualification, measurement at three levels of mean tension and one
tension range are deemed sufficient.
Note 3: Long duration tests indicate that the stiffness would continue to
increase, even over a very large number of cycles, but such observation were
made in conditions (constant amplitude, no prior bedding-in) that may not be
representative of the actual conditions in the field, where mean tension
variation and cycling happen simultaneously.

13. Stiffness tests

a) Phase 1:
i) Mount the sample and load to 2% of rope MBS, for
marking and for setting of extensometer
ii) Increase tension to 50% of MBS, in approximately 5 min
and hold load for 30 min
iii) Unload to 10% of MBS, at about same rate (approximately
10% / min)
iv) Bedding-in: perform cyclic loading between 10% and 30%
of MBS, for 100 cycles.

b) Phase 2-QS: Quasi-static stiffness test

For the measurement of the quasi-static stiffness, phase 2-QS
includes three cycles, without interruption, between two levels (10%
and 30% of rope MBS), with the following steps for each cycle:
i) Load slowly the rope from 10% to 30%, at a rate between
3% and 10% of MBS / min
ii) Hold load at 30% until 30 min after the star of i)
iii) Unload slowly the rope from 30% to 10%, at a rate as in i)
iv) Hold load at 10% until 30 min after the start of iii)

c) Phase 2-D: Dynamic stiffness test

For the measurement of the dynamic stiffness, phase 2-D includes, as
a minimum, cycling with a load range of 10% (i.e. +-5%) around each
Restricted
of the following mean loads, in ascending order, for a minimum of
100 cycles:
o 25% of MBS
o 35% of MBS
o 45% of MBS

See Figure 1 below for more illustration.

Figure 1 – Monofilament polyester rope, 102 Ton MBS, Upper – loading sequence, Lower –
Resulting Force versus strain recording, François et al., 2010.

14. Linear Density Test

See BV NI 432, 2018, Appendix 3, §3.3.

Restricted

II. Important notes

1. Q-S Practical characteristics: A stiffness measured between two levels is not

very representative of the actual situation in a station-keeping system, as described
above. By considering the relevant points to a monotonic load increase (or decrease)
from an initial pre-tension (extrapolated from the end points of corresponding creep
of recovery plateau in the test), a practical characteristic (load versus elongation) for
the analysis of system under design conditions can be obtained, as shown in Figure 2
below. These characteristics are derived from data for several samples, and very
consistent behaviour was found. They are dependent on the specified loading time,
and include the “delayed permanent elongation” that will develop during extreme
conditions (François et al., 2010).

Figure 2 – QS characteristics, François et al., 2010.

A First observation is that, for the 12 hour (standard) loading time, this
characteristic is almost linear, i.e. the standard quasi-static stiffness derived
from tests between 10 and 30% is valid over a large range, from 7 to above 70%,
and that characteristic for the 7 days loading time is only marginally different.
For tension below 10%, there is a clear increase of compliance with decreasing
load: this should be considered for systems working at low tensions in leeward
lines.
Taking the pre-tension T0 as a starting point, this characteristic (elongation
versus load) can be written as:
X(T) – X(T0) = (T - T0) / Krst for T between 10 and 30 %
X(T) – X(T0) = (30 - T0) / Krst + (T- 30) / Krs12h for T between above 30 %
X(T) = X(10) - 10 / Krst * (u + 1.8*u3.6), where u = 1- T/10 for T below 10 %

Where:
Restricted
- Krst is the 10-30 stiffness for the loading time considered (12 hours or 7
days)
A range of values of 12 to 15 is recommended for Krs12h. Krs7d may be assumed to
be 12% lower (François et al. 2008).
- X(T0) is the permanent elongation at T0. It is a stabilised elongation after
previous storms and re-tensioning(s), in principle (BV NI432, 2018), but other
situations can be easily modelled by adjusting X(T0) and/or length of top chain.

Observations:

- For the 12h loading time, the quasi-static stiffness (Krs10-30) derived
from standard tests is valid over a large range of tensions, from
about 7 to above 70 %, i.e. the characteristic is linear over this range,
François et al., 2008.
- For tension below 10 %, the characteristic shows a clear increase of
compliance with decreasing load: this should be considered for
systems working at low tensions in leeward lines, François et al.,
2008.

2. Rope length and permanent elongation: As reported before by many

authors, a fibre rope is subject, during its first loading(s) and during early stages of
its life in service, to a process called “bedding-in”, resulting, in an essentially
permanent – not recoverable – elongation with respect to the rope initial length at
the time of manufacturing. This is sometimes called “construction stretch”, but this
term does not reflect that it is mainly due to changes at a molecular level, re-
orientation with fibres (François et al., 2010).

For a mooring line, this will happen during installation or shortly afterwards. The
length of a finished rope is thus defined in ISO 18692:2007 and BV NI432, 2018 as a
bedded-in length at a specified tension (usually the length L20, at a load of 20% of
rope MBS), from the results of the “linear density” test defined in BV NI432, 2018.
This length is the purchasing length, and may be deemed a reasonable lower bound
of the deployed length, when system installation is completed (François et al., 2010).

During vessel life, with time, and after exposure to storms, lines being maintained
under a sustained tension will see a progressive increase of their length, and re-
tensioning of the system will be needed. This permanent -also non-recoverable-
elongation was quantified within the tests discussed below. It is principally (Figure 3)
a function of the maximum load previously attained, but does not develop instantly
with load: it also depends on time, indeed on load history.
Restricted

Figure 3 – Mean elongation at a 20% load – after a standard (blue) or a mild (red) bedding-
in, François et al., 2010.
Notes:

- Standard bedding-in: see 13 a).

- Mild bedding-in: Applying the procedure defined in BV NI432, 2018
for linear density test (i.e. an initial loading to 20%, then 100 cycles
between 15 and 25%, ending at a 20% load).
- The results shown in Figure 3 are obtained from an extended quasi-
static stiffness test sequence (continuous record over 48 hours) on
different 8-strand braided polyester sub-rope samples with a 70t
breaking strength, as shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 – Extended quasi-static stiffness test sequence (continuous record over 48 hours),
François et al., 2008.
Observations:
Restricted
- As seen in Figure 5, the quasi-static stiffness is found to be increased
with mean load, and there is a close match between the results of all
four samples, and a very limited effect of previous bedding-in:
stiffness for the samples with mild bedding-in are only marginally
lower than for well bedded-in samples, the lowest point
corresponding to the very first load set after measurement of L20,
François et al., 2008.

Figure 5 – Quasi-static stiffness versus mean load, all four samples (two with standard
bedding-in, and two with mild bedding-in), François et al., 2008.
- The mean elongation of well-bedded-in samples is stable, about
1.6% higher than L20 for all loads up to 40%. For higher maximum
loads, further (delayed) permanent elongation is observed, increasing
almost linearly until 70% (the maximum load for these two samples).
For the samples with a milder bedding-in, the elongation increases
quickly when the load exceeds the maximum seen during bedding-
in, confirming that L20 is a lower-bound of the installed length, and
is always lower than the well bedded-in ropes, up to 70% load.
Given the time frame of the test (within 48 hours of the very first
loading of the rope, i.e. much less than the time required to install a
system and to have it actually operating) the resulting permanent
elongations may be also considered as a very low bound, François et
al., 2008.

3. Dynamic stiffness
Restricted
Observations:
- For the dynamic stiffness, the discussion of the dependence of
dynamic stiffness on testing parameters, based on recent data,
highlighted mean load as the principal parameter under real
stochastic loading. This confirmed the adequacy of current practice in
the analysis of a system, of modelling the dynamic stiffness as a linear
function of mean load only, François et al., 2008.
- Besides, for a particular rope, it is important to note that load history
and other effects will always affect the test results, thus due care is to
be taken in the derivation of engineering values that cannot be simply
taken as the raw results of a few test. Using stochastics loading time
series for the testing appears an efficient method in this respect.

3. Creep and relaxation – the viscoelastic behaviour of polymer fibres and

ropes, Davies et al., 2000.

- Single fibre behaviour: The time-dependent response of different

fibres varies significantly, and even within a generic class of fibres
structural differences may significantly affect the behaviour. One of
the most widely used fibres for mooring lines is semi-crystalline high
tenacity PET (polyethylene terephthalate), usually simply described as
polyester, and the majority of large polyester cables are based on
fibres from three suppliers. Their degree in crystallinity, measured by
differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), tends to be around 50%.
From these fibres, generally supplied in 110 or 220 tex yarns, adding
twist and lay angles to optimise the mechanical and handling
properties. The behaviour of the fibres will be found in the final rope
but many factors will influence the degree of property translation.

Figure 6 illustrates a single fibre force-strain response where load-

unload cycles with creep and recovery periods are shown.
Restricted

Figure 6 – Single fibre force-strain response

It can be seen that the load-strain response is non-linear. Moreover,
there is a very significant permanent strain after the first loading. The
magnitude of this inelastic strain depends on the load level, up to a
certain value. Results from a series of single fibre creep and recovery
tests are shown in Figure 7. Above a load corresponding to about 25
% of the fibre strength the permanent strain remains constant after
recovery, around 4 %.

Figure 7 – Creep and recovery tests on six new single fibres

- Permanent strain: This permanent strain is seen at all construction

levels, from yarn through to large cables. As fibres are worked and
twisted in producing the rope an additional permanent strain
component will be added due to construction compaction. Finally a
third bedding-in strain component will be caused by the splices
settling in. However, it is important to note that most of the
Restricted
permanent bedding-in strain is intrinsic to the material and not the
construction. These contributions of the rope elongation will appear
during the first loading of the rope but if, during the anchor test for
example, the initial loads are lower than those subsequently seen by
the line then the elongation may appear later. Given the magnitude
of the bedding-in strains in ropes, which can be 5 % or more, and the
influence of loading history, these effects will complicate
considerably the prediction of-long term elongation.

- Creep: Results from the test run on yarns samples loaded to 50 % of

break load and also on a series of specimens loaded five times to 90
% of break load before creep tests are shown in Figure 8. It is clear
that after bedding-in at 50 % MBL creep rates drop significantly, and
when the yarn has been preloaded to 90 % MBL the creep rate is
even lower. It might be thought that the later effect is due to
recovery effects from the 90% loading taking place during subsequent
creep at lower loads. The creep test were performed immediately
after preloading, but the same creep rate was measured when one
specimen was preloaded at 90% MBL and not creep loaded until over
12 hours later, thus showing that recovery is not significant at this
preload level. The bedded-in rope yarn results are similar to those of
the 50 % yarn tests but slightly lower as expected on account of the
additional twist.

Figure 8 – Creep rates from yarn and bedded-in rope yarn tests (20°C)

Data from “Tether 2000” project, Oudet et al. 1987 and Del Vecchio 1992 give creep rates in
% per decade. Typical values for polyester yarns loaded at 30 % MBL were 0.12 %/decade for
Restricted
103 to 104 seconds, decreasing to 0.07 %/decade after one year (between 106 to 107
seconds).
With respect to creep rupture Del Vecchio has indicated that yarns loaded at 60 % MBL will
not break after one year, and suggested 60 % as an upper load limit to avoid creep rupture
failure mechanism. Results from van den Huvel et al. on polyester yarns suggest that from
bout 8 % strain upwards (corresponding to 60 % to 70 % of failure load) molecular chain
breakage occurs, which will lead to irreversible damage and could affect subsequent
durability. Given the range of safety factors (2 or less than 2) considered for fibre moorings,
there is some concern over the effect of even short excursions into the high tension domain
on long term behaviour.

- Creep and recovery cycle: The loading cycle shown in Figure 9 below
was performed on rope yarn, sub-rope and ropes, leading to the
same main conclusions:

o Creep and recovery over plateau periods (typically

one hour) are adequately described by a log
function, but rates are a function of preceding load
history (e.g. creep rate at 50 % MBL is reduced by
the preceding hold time; at 30% creep and recovery
are both observed.

Figure 9 – Creep/recovery cycle. Recording for bedded-in 500 Ton MBL rope

o One the rope has been bedded-in the creep strain

measured during the load rise and upper plateau is
fully recovered at the end of the cycle as seen in
Table 1.
Restricted

Table 1 – Strain level (%) at start and end of each one hour load-hold plateau during
creep/recovery cycle

- Relaxation: Relaxation tests run on yarns and ropes provided

information on the rate of force decrease, and can therefore be
useful in planning re-tensioning operation. Plotting on a semi-log
basis suggests that there is a double slope, with an initial more rapid
drop followed after about 10 minutes by a slowing-down of
relaxation, as per Figure 10. Bedding-in significantly reduces the rate
of force decrease.

Figure 10 – Relaxation of rope yarns form 50% MBL, showing double log plot for new (n)
and bedded-in (b) yarns

Relaxation tests were also performed on full size ropes, the machine
displacement was generally blocked overnight and force was
recorded continuously. It’s interesting to see to what extent
Restricted
relaxation behaviour can be extrapolated from short term data and a
relaxation test was run on a full sized rope at 30 % MBL (150 tons) for
44 days, as per Figure 10. The prediction of relaxation based on the
initial slope (first 15 minutes) is also shown and it is apparent that the
prediction overestimates the loss of load. A closer correlation is
obtained if the double log slope is used in the prediction, but
accurate estimation of the latter requires longer relaxation tests. This
decrease in relaxation rate is analogous to the decrease in creep rate
described above.
Restricted
III. DNV RP E305 - Guidance Note
Restricted
IV. References

[1] Certification of Fibre Ropes for Deepwater Offshore Services, Bureau Veritas
Guidance Note NI 432, 2018

[2] François et al., “Characterization of polyester mooring lines”, Proceeding of the ASME
27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
OMAE2008, 2008

[3] François et al., “Modelling Fiber Rope Load-elongation properties – Polyester and
other fibers”, OTC 20846, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2010

[4] Del Vecchio CJM, PhD thesis Univ. of Reading, 1992.

[5] Davies et al., Creep and relaxation of polyester mooring lines, OTC 12176, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2000

[6] Oudet et al., J. Materials Sci., 22, 1987, p4292

[7] van den Heuvel et al., J. Appl Polymer Sci., 1993, 49, p925

[8] Design, testing and analysis of offshore fibre ropes, DNV RP E305, September 2021