This is an Updated and Corrected Version of the Paper Originally Presented at the

Marine Technology Society Conference, 1990

YARN FRICTION AND ABRASION CHARACTERISTICS

AS INDICATORS OF ROPE PERFORMANCE
IN MARINE SERVICE
John F. Flory, Tension Technology International, Inc.
4 Tower Lane, Morristown, NJ 07960

Prof. John W. S. Hearle, Tension Technology International, Ltd.

Old Vicarage, MELLOR, Stockport, Ch. SK65 5LX, U.K.

Dr. Mustafa Goksoy

Goodyear Technical Centre, Material Development Department,
L-7750 Colmar-Berg, Luxembourg
ABSTRACT

Wet breaking strength and cyclic-load tests were conducted on ropes made of two essentially
identical nylon yarns. There were significant differences in rope performance. The only difference
in the yarns was the type of finish; an ordinary marine finish and an improved finish. Yarn-on-yarn
friction and abrasion test methods, developed by the authors, were used to investigate the yarn
properties.

The nylon rope made with ordinary-finish yarn exhibited the usual 20% reduction in wet breaking
strength. The nylon rope made with improved-finish yarn had a very unusual 13% wet strength
increase. The wet breaking strengths of the yarns were the same. The improved-finish yarn had a
lower wet friction coefficient. This lower friction coefficient allowed fibers, yarns, and strands to
adjust and share tension loads more evenly, and thus resulted in a higher rope breaking strength.

The nylon rope made with the improved-finish yarn exhibited much better cyclic-load performance.
Internal abrasion was the principal form of cyclic-load damage in each rope. Wet yarn abrasion tests
showed that the improved-finish yarn could survive many more abrasion cycles than could the
ordinary-finish yarn. The better wet yarn abrasion resistance resulted in longer cyclic-load rope life.

Similar results were found in comparing the performances of two similar polyester yarns and the
ropes made of those yarns.

These studies indicate that finish has a major effect not only on yarn performance but also on rope
performance in the marine environment.

BACKGROUND

The Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) conducted several research programs to
understand the strength reduction of large synthetic fiber ropes in marine service and to develop
standards for such ropes. In the first program, small and large nylon double braid ropes were break
tested and cyclic loaded in wet condition.(1)(2) Also, used SPM hawsers were examined and then
break tested to determine residual strength. In the second program, small ropes of many different
materials and structures were break tested and cyclic loaded in wet condition.(3) Mr. Flory was the
principal investigator in these studies.
Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

Examination of ropes from these tests showed strong evidence that internal abrasion was the
principal cause of strength reduction. Ropes from similar test programs conducted by the British
National Engineering Laboratory (NEL) showed similar evidence of internal abrasion.(4)(5)
Abrasion occurs principally between adjacent strands, but it is also found between yarns and fibers.

As part of the program to develop rope standards, OCIMF then commissioned the University of
Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) to study this abrasion mechanism and to
develop a yarn quality test method. Dr. Goksoy performed the investigations under the direction
of Prof. Hearle and Mr. Flory.(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)

The final result of the OCIMF sponsored studies was publication of the "OCIMF Guidelines For
SPM Hawsers".(11) These Guidelines cover prototype testing, purchasing, production, and
inspection of large marine ropes. The rope test methods mentioned in this paper are included in the
Guidelines. The yarn test methods mentioned here appeared in drafts of the Guidelines (then called
Standards).(12) They were not included in the final Guidelines

This paper describes the yarn-on-yarn friction and abrasion test methods. It compares the results
of rope testing with the results of yarn testing for two essentially identical nylon yarns. The research
is described in detail in Dr. Goksoy's thesis and in earlier papers by the authors.(6)(7)(8).

PROTOTYPE ROPE TEST PROGRAM

An extensive series of tests was conducted to develop and demonstrate rope test methods intended
for the OCIMF Hawser Guidelines.
The OCIMF Rope Test Program

An important feature of the OCIMF Hawser Guidelines is the testing of prototype ropes to determine
properties known to be important in marine service. The rope maker is required to document a rope
design and then manufacture and test a prototype of that rope. The prototype rope is made of the
same materials and by the same methods as intended to be used for normal production ropes.

Various quality controls are included in the Guidelines to assure that production ropes are made in
the same manner and thus can be expected to have the same performance as the tested prototype.
This is important because the cost of the rope and especially the cost of the testing make it
economically impractical to test a sample rope in each order.

Prototype rope test methods were developed for new dry and wet strength and for wet cyclic-load
performance. It was essential that the test methods be practical for application to a variety of
different rope products. Thus a major program was undertaken to test the test methods.

Ten rope manufacturers contributed specimens of various types of rope for testing. Twenty four
types of rope were tested. Materials included nylon, polyester, polypropylene, and polyethylene
fibers, and some ropes were composed of combinations of several of these fibers. Rope
constructions included 3-strand, 6-strand (with core), 8-strand (plaited), and double-braid.
OCIMF Prototype Rope Test Methods

The dry and wet break test procedures call for cycling the rope ten times to 50% of its estimated
breaking strength before applying the break load. This accelerates the normal adjustments which
take place within the rope when first used. Measurements of elongation and extension are then more
Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

representative of the broken-in condition. This also reduces data scatter and generally increases
strength by causing fibers, yarns, and strands to adjust and more equally share loads, especially in
splices.

Early in the studies to develop test methods, it was found impractical to cycle good quality ropes to
failure at the relatively low load levels they might typically see in service. Wet nylon ropes
generally fail at about 1000 to 2000 cycles when cycled at 50% of new wet breaking strength. Wet
polyester ropes generally fail within 2000 cycles only when cycled at the 70% or 80% load level.
Hundreds of thousands of cycles might be required to cycle a wet polyester rope to failure at the
50% load level, and it would be unrealistic to expect this to be done as a routine test procedure.

The procedure developed in the OCIMF study calls for cycling the rope at increasing load levels.
The rope is first cycled 1000 times at 50% load level. If it survives, the load level is increased to
60%, and an additional 1000 cycles are applied. The load level is then increased to 70% for an
additional 1000 cycles. The load level is then increased to 80% load level, and if the rope survives
2000 cycles at this load level, it is then loaded to failure to determine residual strength.

The results of this step cyclic-load procedure are expressed in terms to the Thousand Cycle Load
Level (TCLL), the approximate constant cyclic-load level at which failure would have occurred in
1000 cycles. This value is determined by extrapolation. It is expressed both in terms of absolute
load and as a percentage of new wet breaking strength.

YARN TEST MACHINES AND TEST METHODS

The primary purpose of the studies conducted at UMIST was to develop test methods for use in
determining the quality consistency of yarns used in the making of ropes.
Yarn-on-Yarn Friction Test Method

The arrangement of the yarn-on-yarn friction test is shown in Figure 1. Three pulleys are mounted
on a vertical frame and spaced as shown in the Figure. The yarn is run over the upper pulleys and
under the lower pulley and is interwrapped between the upper and lower pulleys. The lower pulley
may be immersed in a beaker of water for wet testing.

One end of the yarn is attached to a small winch driven by a motor. The other end of the yarn is
attached to a length of chain. The chain lies on a flat surface prior to beginning the test.

As the yarn is taken up by the winch, it is drawn over itself in the interwrapped region. The tension
in the yarn is measured as it enters and leaves the interwrapped region. From these measurements
of incoming and outgoing tension, the coefficient of yarn friction can be calculated by the equation:

: = ln ( T2 / T1 ) / [ 4 B n sin ( $ / 2 )]
where:
= Coefficient of yarn friction
T1 = Tension coming into wrap area (feed tension).
T2 = Tension coming out of wrap area (take up tension).
$ = Apex angle as yarn enters interwrap region
n = Number of yarn wraps
Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

The chain is used to achieve an increasing tension. As it lifts, yarn tension increases, and the
coefficient of friction varies. The plot of friction coefficient against tension is one of the indicators
of yarn finish quality. In the discussions in this paper, friction will be cited as the average from 200
to 600 gm incoming tension.

The same results could be obtained from a series of tests conducted at various constant tensions.
However, such a test would take longer to conduct. One objective in developing these test methods
was that they could be quickly and easily performed in a quality assurance laboratory.

As with many friction phenomena, the yarn alternately sticks and slips. The range between friction
measurements at the higher and lower tension readings reflects the difference between static and
dynamic friction. This is another indicator of yarn finish quality.

After a critical length of chain is lifted, the combination of tension and abrasion causes the yarn to
break. This critical abrasion friction force is yet another value for judging yarn quality.
Yarn-on-Yarn Abrasion Test Method

The arrangement of the yarn-on-yarn abrasion test method is shown in Figure 2. The yarn specimen
is interwrapped between three pulleys in the same manner as that used for the yarn friction test.

One end of the yarn is driven by an eccentric crank or cam turned by a motor. A weight attached
to the other end applies tension to the yarn. The rate of abrasion is a function of the inter-yarn
pressure

P = [ T sin2 ( $ / 2 )] / r
where
P = Pressure between yarns
T = Tension
r = Radius of yarn

During testing, the interwrapped yarn slides over itself, and the interwrapped portions of yarn
abrade. Testing continues until the yarn fails due to the resulting abrasion and the tension applied
by the weight.

The angle between the yarns is controlled by the distance between the pulleys. Inter-yarn pressure
is a function of the square of sine of this angle, and results are particularly sensitive to variations in
angle. It is difficult to accurately measure this angle directly. The angle is more accurately
calculated from measurements of the distances between pulleys. Earlier papers stated the yarn angle
$ was 35/, but this has been redefined as 32.3/ by this more accurate measurement.
Tension in the yarn varies throughout the interwrapped region due to friction. The maximum
tension occurs at the end which is pulled by the motor drive. This maximum tension increases with
the number of yarn wraps. In these tests 3 wraps were applied.

In these tests the length of stroke was 50 mm (2 in.) The frequency was 1 hz. Applied tension is
designated by the weight on the end of the yarn.
Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

NYLON YARN AND ROPE COMPARISONS

Much was learned from the testing program conducted to develop these prototype rope test
procedures. Of particular interest is the relative performances of two almost identical nylon ropes.
Nylon Rope and Yarn Characteristics

The nylon ropes of interest were size 6 (50 mm, 2 in. dia.) 8-strand ropes These ropes were made
by the same manufacturer in the same manner. The nylon fibers used in these ropes were from the
same fiber producer. The only difference was in the finishes applied to these fibers by the producer.

The finish is an oil or other process applied to the yarn either as it is spun or later to improve yarn
properties. Some finishes make the yarn easier to handle in subsequent processes. Other finishes
reduce static electricity, improve abrasion resistance, or make the yarn resistant to water.

One yarn, assigned the code Nylon B, had a normal finish which was known to produce good ropes
for marine applications. The other yarn, assigned the code Nylon A, had a new improved finish
which the fiber producer thought would perform even better. The rope made from Nylon B yarn was
assigned the code 4A. The rope made from Nylon A yarn was assigned the code 4D. The yarn
codes were arbitrarily assigned to conduct blind testing. To avoid confusion, in this paper the ropes
will be referred to by the yarn codes.
Test Results For Nylon Ropes

Table 1 compares the breaking strengths of these two ropes. In each case the value is the average
of two tests. The new dry breaking strengths are essentially the same, considering usual data scatter
for such testing.

Table 1 Nylon Rope Strengths

Yarn Code Nylon A Nylon B
Rope Designation Rope 4D Rope 4A
New Dry Breaking Strength 51,700 kg 49,900 kg
New Wet Breaking Strength 58,500 kg 38,600 kg
Wet/Dry Strength Ratio 1.13 0.77

The new wet breaking strength of Nylon B rope is less than 80% of the dry breaking strength. This
wet strength reduction is typical for nylon ropes. The new wet breaking strength of Nylon A rope
was 13% higher than the dry strength. This is very unusual. Although the dry breaking strengths
of these two ropes are essentially the same, the wet breaking strength of Nylon A rope is almost 50%
greater than that of Nylon B rope.

The cyclic-load performance of these two nylon ropes is summarized in Table 2.

Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

Table 2 Nylon Rope Cyclic Load Test Performance

Yarn Code Nylon A Nylon B
Rope Designation Rope 4D Rope 4A
Thousand Cycle Load Level TCLL 26,300 kg 19,000 kg
Projected Cycles to Failure at 38,600 kg 5000 1000

The rope made of Nylon A has significantly better cyclic-load performance. The Nylon A rope
would last about five times longer than the Nylon B rope when cycled at a load of 19,000 kg.
The fibers used in making these two ropes are identical. The nylon yarns differ only in the finishes.
What features of the finish explain the superior breaking strength and cyclic-load performance of
the rope made of Nylon A?
Yarn Breaking Strength and Elongation

Table 3 gives the conventional properties of the two nylon yarns. These are the only properties
generally used to judge the suitability of rope-making yarns.

Table 3 Nylon Yarn Strength and Elongation Properties

Yarn Code Nylon A Nylon B
Denier 1260 1260
Conditon Dry Wet Dry Wet
Tenacity, g/denier 8.7 8.1 8.6 8.1
Elongation at Break 17.9% 18.6% 17.7% 17.8%

Denier is a measurement of yarn weight per unit length, being the weight in grams of 9,000 meters
of yarn. It is used in the textile industry to designate yarn size. The actual total cross-section area
of fibers in the yarn can be calculated from the density of the material. Tenacity is a term used in
the textile industry for yarn strength. It is commonly expressed as the breaking load in grams
divided by the size expressed in denier.

The superior wet breaking strength of the rope made from Nylon A yarn is not related to yarn
strength or elongation. The dry strengths of these two yarns are essentially the same, as are the wet
strengths. Both yarns lose about 10% strength when wet, as is typical for nylon yarns. The
elongation characteristics are also essentially the same.
Yarn-on-Yarn Coefficient of Friction

Figure 3 shows a comparison of the wet yarn-on-yarn friction characteristics of these two nylon
yarns. Nylon A is shown by solid lines and Nylon B is shown by dashed lines. For each yarn, the
upper line is the static coefficient and the lower line is the dynamic friction coefficient.

Table 4 compares the dry and wet friction characteristics of these two yarns. The static-dynamic
coefficient range is the difference between the static and dynamic friction coefficients.
Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

Table 4 Nylon Yarn Friction Characteristics

Yarn Code Nylon A Nylon B

Conditon Dry Wet Dry Wet

Average Static Coefficient of 0.101 0.103 0.139 0.148
Friction
Average Dynamic 0.087 0.091 0.099 0.132
Coefficient of Friction
Static-Dynamic Coefficient 0.024 0.013 0.030 0.016
Range

The wet static friction coefficient for Nylon A yarn is much lower than that for Nylon B. Lower
yarn friction permits the fibers, yarns, and stands within the rope to move and more easily adjust
under stress, increasing load sharing and thus increasing breaking strength.

The difference between static and dynamic friction is also lower for Nylon A. Only a little
movement takes place each time the fibers, yarns, and strands slip. This prevents excessive
adjustments which might further upset stress balances.

These differences in yarn-on-yarn friction coefficients explain the large differences in wet rope
breaking strengths between the rope made with Nylon A yarn and that made with Nylon B yarn.
Yarn-on-Yarn Abrasion Performance

Figure 4 compares the wet yarn abrasion cycles to failure of Nylon A and Nylon B yarns over a
range of applied loads. The abscissa is cycles to failures on a logarithmic scale. Table 5 tabulates
this abrasion performance.

Table 5 Nylon Yarn Wet Abrasion Performance

Yarn Code Nylon A Nylon B
Load Level, grams Mean Abrasion Life (cycles)
200 10,000 1,000
400 3,000 100
600 1,500 80
800 1,000 8
1000 700 3
Thousand Cycle Load Level 700 g 200 g

Nylon A yarn has much longer abrasion life than does Nylon B yarn. Nylon A yarn fails at about
1000 cycles at an applied load of 700 gm. Nylon B yarn fails at about 1000 cycles at an applied load
Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

of 200 gm. Thus the load level required to fail nylon yarn A in 1000 cycles is about 3.5 times that
which fails nylon yarn B in 1000 cycles.

The 3.5:1 ratio of thousand cycle load levels for the yarns is similar to the 5:1 ratio of thousand cycle
load levels for the ropes. The superior cyclic-load performance of the Nylon A rope is probably
related to the yarn-on-yarn abrasion performance.

POLYESTER YARN AND ROPE COMPARISON

Two similar polyester yarns were also examined in the UMIST studies. These yarns were from
different yarn producers, but they had very similar strength and elongation characteristics. As with
the nylon yarns discussed above, the ropes made of these similar polyester yarns had much different
strength and abrasion performances. Both ropes were made by the same rope manufacturer in
identical manners. The two polyester yarns were designated A and B for the UMIST yarn quality
tests.
Polyester Rope Performance

Table 6 presents the wet and dry strength performances of the ropes made of these two polyester
yarns, as determined by the OCIMF break test method.

Table 6 Polyester Rope Strengths

Yarn Code Polyester A Polyester B
Rope Designation Rope 1C Rope 1B
New Dry Breaking Strength 46,300 kg 36,300 kg
New Wet Breaking Strength 50,800 kg 36,700 kg
Wet/Dry Strength Ratio 1.10 1.01

There are significant differences in both new dry and new wet strengths. Another remarkable
feature is that wet strength of the Polyester A rope is 10 % higher than its dry strength. Polyester
rope strength is normally not affected by wetting.

Table 7 compares the cyclic-load performance of the ropes made of these two polyester yarns.

Table 7 Polyester Rope Cyclic Load Test Performance

Yarn Code Polyester A Polyester B
Rope Designation Rope 1C Rope 1B
Thousand Cycle Load Level TCLL 37,200 kg 31,300 kg
Projected Cycles to Failure at 31,300 kg 18,000 1000

The Thousand Cycle Load Level of the Polyester A rope is much higher than that of the Polyester
B rope. When extrapolated to the 31,300 kg load level at which the Polyester B rope fails in 1000
cycles, the Polyester A rope might last for 18,000 cycles.
Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

Polyester Yarn Strength and Friction Characteristics

Table 8 gives the yarn strength and elongation characteristics for the Polyester A and Polyester B
yarns.

Table 8 Polyester Yarn Strength and Elongation Properties

Yarn Code Polyester A Polyester B
Denier 1000 1000
Conditon Dry Wet Dry Wet
Tenacity, g/denier 9.0 8.7 8.5 8.2
Elongation at Break 14.3% 14.0% 12.6% 12.7%

Both the dry and wet breaking strengths of Polyester A yarn were about 6% higher than those of
Polyester B yarn. The new dry breaking strength of the Polyester A rope was about 28% higher than
that of the Polyester B rope. The new wet breaking strength of the Polyester A rope was about 38%
stronger than the Polyester B rope. Yarn strength alone could not have caused these differences.

Table 9 summarizes the dry and wet yarn-on-yarn friction coefficient data.

Table 9 Polyester Yarn Friction Characteristics

Yarn Code Polyester A Polyester B

Condition Dry Wet Dry Wet

Average Static Coefficient of 0.123 0.108 0.130 0157
Friction
Average Dynamic 0.098 0.094 0.089 0.127
Coefficient of Friction
Static-Dynamic Coefficient 0.025 0.014 0.041 0.030
Range

The dry static and dynamic friction coefficients of Polyester A yarn are about 5% less than that of
Polyester B yarn. More significantly, the range between the dry static and dynamic friction
coefficients is only 0.025 for Polyester A and is 0.041 for Polyester B.

In wet condition, the static and dynamic friction coefficients of Polyester A yarn are less than 75%
of those for Polyester B yarn. Also, the range between the static and dynamic friction coefficients
for Polyester A yarn is half that for Polyester B yarn.

As with the nylon ropes discussed above, these differences in yarn friction coefficients are probably
the cause of the superior strength performance of Polyester A rope. These features are also probably
the reason for the unusual wet strength increase of the rope made of Polyester A yarn.
Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

Polyester Yarn Abrasion Performance

The wet yarn-on-yarn abrasion performance of the polyester yarns is summarized in Table 10.

Table 10 Polyester Yarn Wet Abrasion Performance

Yarn Code Polyester A Polyester B
Load Level, grams Mean Abrasion Life (cycles)
200 13,000 3,000
400 6,000 300
600 1,500 10
800 100 -
Thousand Cycle Load Level 700 g 25 g

Polyester A yarn clearly has better abrasion performance than does Polyester B yarn. Polyester B
yarn lasted about 1000 cycles at a tension of 250 gm. Polyester A yarn lasted about 1000 cycles at
700 gm.

The superior yarn-on-yarn abrasion resistance of polyester A yarn is probably the principal reason
that the rope made with this yarn performs much better in cyclic loading than does the rope made
of polyester B yarn

CONCLUSIONS

Methods and test machines have been developed to determine yarn-on-yarn friction and abrasion
performance of rope-making yarns. These methods and machines are intended for use in assuring
the consistent quality of yarns for making high-performance marine ropes.

Clear distinctions in yarn quality can be made using these methods and machines. A correlation
between yarn-on-yarn friction and rope strength has been demonstrated. A correlation has been
demonstrated between yarn-on-yarn abrasion life and rope cyclic-load performance.

Yarn-on-yarn friction and abrasion tests offer an easy, quick, and inexpensive way of evaluating
rope yarns without resorting to full-scale rope trials. These methods can also further understanding
of relationships between yarn and rope performance and help in the development of better rope
products for marine service.

Additional Comments, November, 2000

The yarn-on-yarn abrasion test method has now been published by the Cordage Institute and the
American Society for Testing and Materials.(13)(14)

It is now specified for quality control of yarns in the revised OCIMF Guidelines for the Purchasing
and Testing of SPM Hawsers.(15)

It will be used as the basis for the new Cordage Institute Cirteria for Marine Finish on yarns.(16)
Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

The yarn-on-yarn abrasion test method was used in the Tethers 2000 joint research program to
evaluate polyester and other fiber ropes for deepwater moorings and was used in other similar
research and test programs.(17)

REFERENCES
1 J. F. Flory, OCIMF Hawser Test Program Report, Witherby & Co., London, 1982.
2 J. F. Flory, "New and Used Strength of Large Marine Hawsers", 1982 Offshore Technology
Conf., OTC 4303, pp 37-48, Houston, 1982
3 J. F. Flory, OCIMF Hawser Standards Development Program, Trial Prototype Rope Tests,
Draft Final Report, Oil Companies International Marine Forum, London, 1983
4 H. Crawford and L. M. McTernan, "Cyclic Testing of Continuously Wetted Synthetic Fibre
Ropes", 1983 Offshore Technology Conf., OTC 4637, pp. 455-466, Houston, 1983.
5 H. Crawford and L. M. McTernan, "Cyclic Load Testing at Sea Wave Frequency of
Continuously Wetted Man-Made Fibre Rope", 1985 Offshore Technology Conf., OTC 5061,
pp. 375-382, Houston, 1985.
6 M. Goksoy, A Study of Yarn-on-Yarn Abrasion, PhD Thesis, Dept. of Textiles, University
of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester, 1986.
7 J. F. Flory, M. Goksoy, and J. W. S. Hearle, "Abrasion Resistance of Polymeric Fibres In
Marine Conditions", Proc. 2nd International Conf. on Polymers In a Marine Environment,
The Inst. of Marine Engineers, London, 1989.
8 J. F. Flory, M. Goksoy and J. W. S. Hearle, "Yarn-on-Yarn Abrasion Testing of Rope Yarns,
Part 1: The Test Method, Journal of the Textile Institute, Manchester, 1988.
9 M. Goksoy and J. W. S. Hearle, "Yarn-on-Yarn Abrasion Testing of Rope Yarns, Part II:
The Influence of Machine Variables, Journal of the Textile Institute, Manchester, 1988.
10 M. Goksoy and J. W. S. Hearle, "Yarn-on-Yarn Abrasion Testing of Rope Yarns, Part III:
The Influence of Aqueous Environments, Journal of the Textile Institute, Manchester, 1988.
11 OCIMF Prototype Rope Testing Guidelines, Oil Companies International Marine Forum,
Witherby and Co., London, 1987.
12 Draft OCIMF Hawser Standards, Oil Companies International Marine Forum, London,
1984.
Additional References
13 CI, "Test Method for Yarn-on-Yarn Abrasion, Wet and Dry", CI-1503, Cordage Institute,
Wayne, PA, 2000
14 ASTM "Standard Test Method for Yarn-on-Yarn Abrasion Resistance", D6611, American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000
15 OCIMF, "Guidelines for the Purchasing and Testing of SPM Hawsers" Oil Companies I
International Marine Forum. Witherby and Co., Ltd., 2000
16 CI, "Determination of Marine Finish on Rope Fibers", CI-2009 (draft), Cordage Institute,
Wayne, PA, 2000
17 ... Final Report, Fiber Tethers 2000, High-Technology Fibres for Deepwater Tethers and
Moorings, Nobel Denton Europe, National Engineering Laboratory, and Tension
Technology International, London, 1995
Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

Figure 1 Yarn-on-Yarn Friction Test Arrangement

Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

Figure 2 Yarn-on-Yarn Abrasion Test Arrangement

Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

Figure 3 Yarn-on-Yarn Wet Friction, Nylon A and Nylon B Yarns

Yarn Friction and Abrasion Characteristics as Indicators of Rope Performance in Marine Service MTS 1990

Figure 4 Yarn-on-Yarn Abrasion, Wet Nylon A and Nylon B Yarns