O F F S H O R E W I N D A C C E L E R AT O R (O W A )

Cable Protection
Systems (CPS) best
practice guideline
Cables technical working group

November 2024
OWA parties
Participants in the Offshore Wind Accelerator (OWA) programme (Stage IV): EnBW Energie Baden-
Württemberg AG, RWE Offshore Wind GmbH, Equinor ASA, Ørsted Wind Power A/S, ScottishPower
Renewables (UK) Limited, Shell Global Solutions International B.V, SSE Renewables Services (UK)
Limited, Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd, TotalEnergies OneTech, and the Carbon Trust.

Delivery partners
This report is published under the Offshore Wind Accelerator (OWA) cables technical working group. It
was delivered by Wood and reviewed by DNV.

Disclaimer
This report is issued by the Carbon Trust on behalf of the Offshore Wind Accelerator (“OWA”). While
reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the information contained within this report is
accurate, the authors, the Carbon Trust, its agents and consultants and the partners and developers
within the OWA (and each of them), to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall not have nor be deemed
to have (1) a duty of care to readers and/or users of this report, (2) made or given or to make or give any
warranty or representation (in each case whether express or implied) as to its accuracy, applicability or
completeness and/or (3) or have accepted any liability whatsoever for any errors or omissions (whether
negligent or otherwise) within it. It should also be noted that this report has been produced from
information relating to dates and periods referred to in it. Users and readers use this report on the basis
that they do so at their own risk. The intellectual property rights in this report shall be deemed, as
between readers and users of this report and the Carbon Trust, to belong to the Carbon Trust.

© The Carbon Trust 2024

1
Contents

1. Foreword.......................................................................................................................... 1

2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2

2.1. General ................................................................................................................ 2

2.2. CPS design .......................................................................................................... 3

2.3. Existing codes and standards............................................................................ 3

2.4. CPS modelling ..................................................................................................... 4

2.5. CPS qualification................................................................................................. 4

2.6. CPS IV project ..................................................................................................... 5

2.7. Document purpose ............................................................................................. 5

2.8. Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 6

3. Relevant codes and standards ....................................................................................... 7

3.1. General ................................................................................................................ 7

3.2. Codes and standards .......................................................................................... 7

4. Functional requirements ................................................................................................ 9

4.1. General ................................................................................................................ 9

4.2. Design life ............................................................................................................ 9

4.3. Cable protection .................................................................................................. 9

4.4. Cable Protection System (CPS) ........................................................................11

4.5. Additional cable protection measures ..............................................................21

4.6. CPS interfaces ....................................................................................................23

5. Design basis .................................................................................................................. 29

5.1. General ...............................................................................................................29

5.2. Scope of supply .................................................................................................29

5.3. Design parameters .............................................................................................29

5.4. Metocean Data ....................................................................................................36

5.5. Design criteria ....................................................................................................38

5.6. Design assumptions ..........................................................................................38

5.7. Design methodology ..........................................................................................38

2
 5.8. Design codes and standards.............................................................................38

5.9. Design verification / Validation .........................................................................38

6. Design Methodology ..................................................................................................... 39

6.1. Design assessments ..........................................................................................39

6.2. Design FMECA / Risk register ...........................................................................40

6.3. Design loads.......................................................................................................40

6.4. Limit states and characteristic Load Effects ....................................................41

6.5. Design Criteria....................................................................................................42

7. Analysis Methodology .................................................................................................. 44

7.1. Global System Analysis.....................................................................................44

7.2. Local cable analysis ..........................................................................................51

7.3. Local CPS analysis ............................................................................................52

7.4. Thermal analysis ................................................................................................54

8. Qualification process .................................................................................................... 56

8.1. Purpose ..............................................................................................................56

8.2. Process ...............................................................................................................57

8.3. Material selection ...............................................................................................58

8.4. Numerical modelling ..........................................................................................60

8.5. CPS verification testing .....................................................................................61

References ......................................................................................................................... 66

3
1. Foreword
The Offshore Wind Accelerator (“OWA”) is an industry-driven collaborative research, development and
demonstration programme which was initially launched by the Carbon Trust in 2008 in collaboration with
five offshore wind developers. The programme has since expanded during OWA Stages I, II, III and IV to
include currently nine offshore wind developers from various countries within the European Economic
Area (the “OWA Partners”) – SSE Renewables Developments (UK) Limited, Ørsted Wind Power A/S, RWE
Offshore Wind GmbH, ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited, Equinor ASA, Vattenfall Vindkraft A/S,
EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Shell Global Solutions International B.V. and TotalEnergies
OneTech.
OWA Stage IV, dated 27th October 2020, aims to continue the cost reduction of offshore wind to make it
cost competitive with other sources of energy generation, overcome market barriers, develop industry
best practice, trigger the development of new industry standards and support the international expansion
of offshore wind.
Research under the OWA currently falls into five research areas: Cables, Electricals, Foundations, Logistics
and O&M, and Energy Yield & Performance. Research, development and demonstration projects are
carried out in each of the five research areas to address technology challenges. Each of the five research
areas is managed by the Carbon Trust and governed by a Technical Working Group (“TWG”) consisting of
technical experts appointed by the OWA Partners.
In recent years, multiple wind farms have experienced issues with failures of Cable Protection Systems
(CPS) at the interface between the cable and the windfarm foundations (i.e. fixed Wind Turbine Generator,
Offshore Substation). It is further acknowledged within the industry that there exists varying levels of
qualification and standards related specifically to CPS design. It is recognised that CPS design and analysis
requirements are both unclear and not adequately addressed within the existing codes and standards.
In order to address these gaps, the CPS IV project was initiated by the Cables OWA TWG, with the objective
of developing and producing a recommended / best practice guidance for Cable Protection System (CPS)
design for offshore wind farm applications, and specifically CPS design at the interface between the cable
and the windfarm foundations.
The objective of the CPS IV project has been to consolidate current understanding of CPS system design
based on industry learnings to date, including applicable codes and standards, and to establish a
consistent set of requirements and guidance to be considered for CPS system design, analysis and
qualification.
The purpose of this document is to present the Carbon Trust Offshore Wind Accelerator’s (OWA) ‘Best
Practice Guidance for CPS Design’. This is a key deliverable from the OWA’s CPS IV project. The document
considers the CPS, cables and foundation as a whole system and not just as individual components.
This guidance document has been developed by Wood and the Cables Technical Working Group (TWG)
on behalf of the Carbon Trust Offshore Wind Accelerator (OWA).
This guidance document is intended to offer a consistent and standardised set of guidance for CPS system
design that may be used by all stakeholders involved in the development of an offshore wind farm.

1
2. Introduction

2.1. General
Submarine power cables are key components of an offshore wind farm installation as they allow for the
transmission of electricity between the turbines to the substation and eventually to shore.
As the cables approach the foundations of a Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) and Offshore Substation
(OSS), whether a jacket, gravity base or monopile foundation, there is an exposed section in which the
cable needs to transition from burial in the seabed up to the J-tube or monopile entry hole before
subsequently reaching the cable hang-off platform. This exposed area can be subject to both
hydrodynamic (current and wave) and geophysical (scouring) phenomena. To withstand these dynamic
forces a Cable Protection System (CPS) and Scour Protection are typically installed in this area to withstand
the hydrodynamic forces and consequent scouring respectively.
A CPS is installed around the cable at the interface between the cable and the windfarm foundations and
generally consists of a mechanical latch / connector (i.e. the foundation interface), and a number of
different CPS components comprising of, and combining bend stiffeners, tubular elements and/or bend
restrictors. There are several different designs and suppliers of CPS in the industry.
Additional measures for external cable protection are often used in conjunction with CPS, including burial,
rock placement, concrete mattresses, rock bags. These additional cable protection measures are typically
deployed where it has been identified that the CPS alone cannot fulfil the fundamental functional
requirements that include provision of cable protection, and provision of CPS function to provide cable
protection, for the specified design life of the system.

Figure 2-1: Generic illustration of monopile foundation cable protection system (CPS).

2
2.2. CPS design
The performance of a CPS is key for maintaining cable integrity in offshore wind farm installations over
the design life of the system. Since the main function of the CPS is to protect the cable, the cable cross
section and response characteristics must be considered and evaluated as part of the overall CPS design.
In addition, the CPS layout configuration (exit height from foundation, distance to burial, seabed/scour
protection geometry) must be considered along with changes to the configuration over time or due to
installation tolerances.
While some degree of movement of the CPS and cable on the seabed/scour protection is expected,
extreme and accumulated displacements of the CPS can lead to unforeseen problems such as abrasion of
the CPS (outer surface against the seabed) and of the cable (outer surface of the cable against the inside
of the CPS). For larger displacements under extreme loading conditions there is also a risk of obstructions
on the seabed causing localised loads on the system which may not be intended or foreseen in the design.
Where stabilisation using rock bags or bulk rock is used to mitigate CPS movement, it is key to understand
the effect of the stabilisation. Concentrated loads and cable fatigue hotspots could develop where the CPS
exits the stabilisation, depending on the length of CPS exposed to the environment outside of the
stabilised region.

2.3. Existing codes and standards

In general, there is limited specific code guidance for CPS design for offshore wind. At time of writing,
there exists no standard, guideline or recommended practice covering all aspects of cable / CPS system
design, modelling and qualification. In addition, no hierarchy of codes has been identified, and in some
instances, multiple different codes could be considered applicable.
Codes such as DNV-RP-0360 [1] and DNV-ST-0359 [2] tend to offer the broadest guidance in relation to
cables / CPS system design. These codes include general requirements in relation to cable protection
measures for cables at the interface of fixed offshore units, however, provide limited specific guidance in
relation to input data, analysis methodologies and design criteria.
Offshore oil and gas codes provide guidance on specific aspects, such as load effect analysis, seabed
interaction (e.g. on-bottom stability DNV-RP-F109 [10], burial DNV-RP-F114 [9]) and the design of ancillary
equipment for flexible pipes and umbilical’s such as bend stiffeners and restrictors (API SPEC 17L1 [24],
API RP 17L2 [25]) which are relevant to some CPS designs.
Other codes provide guidance for dynamic cables (DNV-RP-F401 [3], DNV-ST-0119 [4], CIGRÉ TB 862 [31])
and umbilicals (ISO 13628-5 [21]) without explicitly referencing CPS.
Codes and standards readily acknowledge abrasion as a potential failure mode, however, provide little
information in regard to input data and modelling methodologies that could be adopted to quantity this
failure mode.
The impact of current and wave flow amplification around the foundations (e.g. monopile) on the cable /
CPS system response is not explicitly covered within the codes and standards. However, flow amplification
adjacent to large structures has been acknowledging from the point of view of flexible riser design (API-
RP-17B [27]) as having a potentially significant impact on the system response.
A list of codes and standards relevant to CPS system design and modelling is provided in section 3.0.
Codes and standards are also referenced through this guidance document were considered relevant and
applicable.

3
2.4. CPS modelling
Developing representative analysis models of the proposed CPS and cable design is a key part of the CPS
system design process. Global analysis is used to predict the loads in the whole CPS/cable system from
hang off within the foundation to burial of the system in the seabed.
Some of the key aspects of global system modelling are illustrated in Figure 2-2 and include:
• Representation of CPS and cable behaviour, including contact modelling.
• Representation of seabed/scour protection geometry, and interaction between the CPS and
seabed/scour protection, including burial of the CPS in the seabed or beneath external
stabilisation.
• Hydrodynamics of environmental loading due to wave and current including the amplification of
flow due to presence of the foundations and drag/lift amplification due to near-seabed effects.

Figure 2-2: Global system modelling – Key aspects.

Local analysis/design refers to analysis/design of components to ensure that stress/strain limits of

components are within allowable limits. Typically, loads from the global design are used as input to the
local design. Local analysis tools are used to assess the fatigue performance of cable metallic components
(armour wires, metallic screens, radial water barrier and conductors) as part of CPS assessments using the
cable curvature and tension predictions of global analysis for FLS conditions. The individual CPS
components can be assessed using local FEA analysis which can incorporate the effects of material and
geometric nonlinearity, contact and bolting where applicable.

2.5. CPS qualification

Design verification testing is a key aspect of the overall CPS system design to demonstrate that the design
of the CPS and associated ancillaries are fully qualified for their intended application and onsite
environmental conditions.
The CPS qualification process should include material level testing and certification to the relevant
standards, and CPS component level testing, to verify that project specific loads are within the allowable
CPS capacity limits.

4
2.6. CPS IV project
The CPS IV project was initiated by the Cables OWA TWG, with the primary objective of developing and
producing a recommended / best practice guidance for Cable Protection System (CPS) design for offshore
wind farm applications, and specifically CPS design at the interface between the cable and the windfarm
foundations. Some of the key objectives of this project were as follows:
• To understand current practice and guidance relevant to CPS design and modelling and identify
gaps.
• To produce a specification of guidelines for the functional requirements of a CPS system design.
• To conduct scenario modelling and dynamic analysis to establish the behaviour of the CPS / cable
system for a given set of design conditions.
• To define a testing proposal scope to fully qualify a whole CPS design to ensure it gives satisfactory
lifetime performance.
• To outline the required exchanges and interfaces within different contracting strategies for the
delivery of subsea cables and cable protection systems.
• To produce best practice process guidance for the whole CPS design (including CPS, cable and
foundation as a whole system), CPS system modelling and CPS qualification.
The OWA partners have decided to publish the new ‘Best Practice Guidance for CPS Design’ in order to
offer a consistent and standardised set of guidance for CPS system design that may be used by all
stakeholders involved in the development of an offshore wind farm; however, the remainder of the project
remains confidential to the OWA partners.

2.7. Document purpose

The purpose of this document is to present the Carbon Trust Offshore Wind Accelerators OWA’s ‘Best
Practice Guidance for CPS Design’. This is a key deliverable from the OWA’s CPS IV project.
This ‘Best Practice Guidance for CPS Design’ should always be supplemented by sound engineering
judgement on a project specific basis. It is further noted that as the industry evolves, and new learnings
and new/updated codes and standard become available, these too should be considered in the overall
CPS system design process.

5
2.8. Abbreviations
ALS Accidental Limit State
API American Petroleum Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BM Bending Moment
CAD Computer Aided Design
CP Corrosion Protection
CPS Cable Protection System
DNV Det Norske Veritas
EOL End-of-Life
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FLS Fatigue Limit State
HSWL Highest Seawater Level
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
ISO International Organization for Standardization
KC Keulegan-Carpenter Number
LSWL Lowest Seawater Level
MBR Minimum Bend Radius
NORSOK Norwegian Standards Organisation
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OSS Offshore Substation
OWA Offshore Wind Accelerator
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
RP Return Period
Sh Shear
SLS Serviceability Limit State
SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength
SOL Start-of-Life
ULS Ultimate Limit State
UV Ultraviolet
VIV Vortex Induced Vibration
VMS Von Mises Strain
WP Work Package
WTG Wind Turbine Generator
TWG Technical Working Group
yr Year
1D, 2D, 3D 1,2,3-dimensional

6
3. Relevant codes and standards

3.1. General
In general, there is limited specific code guidance for CPS design for offshore wind. Codes such as DNV-
RP-0360 [1] and DNV-ST-0359 [2] primarily deal with cables rather than CPS, however some general
guidance in relation to CPS is also provided. Offshore oil and gas codes provide guidance on specific
aspects, such as seabed interaction (e.g. on-bottom stability DNV-RP-F109 [10], burial DNV-RP-F114 [9])
and the design of ancillary equipment for flexible pipes and umbilical’s such as bend stiffeners and
restrictors which are relevant to some CPS designs (API Spec 17L1 [24], API RP 17L2 [25]). Other codes
provide guidance for dynamic cables (DNV-RP-F401 [3], DNV-ST-0119 [4], CIGRÉ TB 862 [31]) and
umbilicals (ISO 13628-5 [21]) without explicitly referencing CPS.

3.2. Codes and standards

The codes and standards which have sections which are of relevance to cable / CPS design and modelling
(not all provisions in all of the codes and standards are applicable) are detailed below. Codes and standards
are also referenced through this guidance document were considered relevant and applicable.
It is noted that the codes and standards listed may not be inclusive of all codes and standards that could
be considered applicable. Designers should be responsible for the identification of any additional codes
or standards that may apply, and the use of such a code or standard should be justified. All codes and
standards used should be referenced appropriately throughout the CPS system design process. Where
conflict is found between these documents, in general, the most stringent should apply.
The codes and standards may be subject to update and amendment in the future, and as such the codes
and standards should be the latest revisions that are available at the date of project contract signing,
unless otherwise agreed with client.
The following documents are identified as the primary codes and standards applicable to CPS system
design. The latest revisions should apply:
• DNV-ST-0359 - Subsea Power Cables for Wind Power Plants
• DNV-RP-0360 - Subsea Power Cables in Shallow Water
• DNV-RP-F401 - Electrical Power Cables in Subsea Applications
• DNV-ST-0119 - Floating Wind Turbine Structures
• DNV-ST-0126 - Support Structures for Wind Turbines
• DNV-ST-0145 - Offshore Substations
• DNV-RP-C205 - Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads
• DNV-ST-0437 - Loads and Site Conditions for Wind Turbines
• DNV-RP-0416 - Corrosion Protection for Wind Turbines
• DNV-RP-B401 - Cathodic Protection Design
• DNV-RP-F114 - Pipe Soil Interaction for Submarine Pipelines
• DNV-RP-F109 - On-bottom Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines, Cables and Umbilicals
• DNV-RP-F107 - Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection
• DNV-RP-F204 - Riser Fatigue
• DNV-RP-C203 - Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures
• DNV-RP-F105 - Free Spanning Pipeline
7
• DNV-RP-F203 - Riser Interference
• DNV-OS-C101 – Design of offshore steel structures, general – LRFD method
• DNV-RP-C208 - Determination of Structural Capacity by Non-linear Finite Element Analysis
Methods
• DNV-ST-N001 - Marine Operations and Marine Warranty
• API SPEC 17L1 - Specification for Ancillary Equipment for Flexible Pipes and Subsea Umbilicals
• API RP 17L2 - Recommended Practice for Ancillary Equipment for Flexible Pipes and Subsea
Umbilicals
• API RP 17B - Recommended Practice for Flexible Pipe
• ISO 13628-5 - Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems – Part 5: Subsea Umbilicals
• ISO 13628-2 - Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems – Part 2: Unbonded Flexible
Pipe Systems for Subsea and Marine Applications
• Norsok Standard, “Actions and action effects”, N-003
• CIGRÉ TB 862 - Recommendations for Mechanical Testing of Submarine Cables for Dynamic
Application
• CIGRÉ TB 623 - Recommendations for Mechanical Testing of Submarine Cables
• IEC 60287-2-1 Electric cables - Calculation of the current rating - Part 2-1: Thermal resistance -
Calculation of thermal resistance

8
4. Functional requirements

4.1. General
There are two fundamental requirements associated with cable protection systems (CPS). These include,
provision of cable protection, and provision of CPS function to provide cable protection, for the specified
design life of the system (i.e. cable and CPS). These are described in section 4.3, and 4.4 and 4.5
respectively, while the CPS interfaces are described in section 4.6.

4.2. Design life

The system (cable and CPS) should be designed to have a minimum operational design life as specified by
the project.

4.3. Cable protection

The functional requirements of the CPS with respect to providing cable protection should include the
following:
• The CPS should provide cable protection for the specified design life of the system. This should
include protection during installation, operations (temporary and permanent conditions), and
intervention periods which may require disconnection and reconnection of the cable and CPS to
facilitate cable repairs / replacement.
• The CPS should protect the primary functionality of the cable for the specified design life including:
o Maintain all aspects of cable performance (including mechanical, electrical and thermal
performance), accessibility, and maintainability over the specified design life.
o Continuous power transmission with the required availability.
o Operability under the site-specific environmental conditions.
o Capability to withstand site-specific design loads and load combinations.
o Dissipation of heat to prevent cable overheating.
o Compatibility of cable materials with the surrounding environment, including CPS.
o Capability of being, installed, recovered, repaired, and reinstated.
• The CPS should ensure that the mechanical and thermal limits of the cable are respected for the
specified design life.
• The CPS should protect and facilitate the transition of the cable from burial in the seabed up to
the foundation interface (monopile entry hole / J-tube) and onwards towards the cable hang-off
platform. The CPS should provide protection to the cable along each of the key interfaces during
the cable transition, including:
o Transition of the cable from full burial depth in the seabed to the seabed surface. The CPS
should have sufficient length to ensure it protects the cable until the cable has reached
the required burial depth (depth of lowering). The CPS should also be of sufficient length
such that it will not be pulled out of the burial region leading to cable exposure whilst
maintaining the required depth of lowering. Where there is potential for this to occur,
then consideration should be given to extending the length of the CPS into the burial
region.

9
 o Transition of the cable across the seabed and / or scour protection, and / or beneath
stabilisation as applicable (e.g., rock berm, rock bags, mattressing) prior to interfacing with
the foundation (monopile entry hole / J-tube).
o Spanning section of the cable between the seabed and / or scour protection and the
foundation interface (monopile entry hole / J-tube).
o Transition of the cable from horizontal to vertical alignment at the foundation interface
(monopile entry hole / J-tube). The CPS should facilitate a smooth transition of the cable
from the CPS exit in the vicinity of the foundation interface (monopile entry hole / J-tube)
to the cable hang-off platform. The cable integrity, including minimum bend radius of the
cable, should be respected at all times during installation and operation (temporary and
permanent conditions), or during disconnection and reconnection of the cable and CPS.
o Transition of free hanging cable section to cable hang-off platform (i.e., in the case of a
monopile foundation). Dynamic cable interference and clashing with the inside of the
foundation or structures within the foundation (including other cables) should be avoided.
In some instances, allowance for cable contact may be permitted (e.g., cable-cable, cable-
foundation) during extreme/abnormal conditions, provided that the impact energy is
below the design limit. However, this should be subject to approval and agreement with
client on a project specific basis.
o The integrity of the cable components within the cable hang-off interface (e.g. clamped
armour wires) should be ensured for the specified design life.
• The CPS should protect the cable against the following failure modes, for the specified design life
of the system, and should not inadvertently cause any of these failure modes:
o Overbending - The CPS should prevent overbending of the cable beyond its allowable
limits. This should also account for allowable bending limits of the cable at varying levels
of combined tension and bending (i.e., cable tension versus MBR capacity curve).
o Excessive Tension - The CPS should prevent the cable from exceeding its allowable tension
limit.
o Compression - The CPS should prevent the cable from exceeding its allowable
compression limit.
o Sidewall Pressure - The CPS should prevent the cable from exceeding its allowable
sidewall pressure limit.
o Overheating - The CPS should have sufficient thermal performance to prevent
overheating of the cable. The CPS design should also account for the installed thermal
environment which may include as applicable:
 seawater,
 burial in seabed,
 rock cover,
 stabilisation,
 marine growth,
 ambient air.
o External Impact - The CPS should protect the cable against all sources of external impact,
including dropped objects, rock placement and collision (e.g., ROV impact). The CPS
should contain the impact energy to a level below that to which the cable is qualified.
o Radial Compression / Crush - The CPS should protect the cable from all sources of radial
compression / crush loading, including loads applied by machinery onboard the cable
10
 installation vessel and static loads during operating (e.g. additional stabilisation
measures). The CPS should protect the cable from radial compression/crush loads beyond
that to which the cable is qualified.
o Fatigue (Wave / VIV) - The CPS should protect against fatigue failure of the metallic layers
of the cable cross-section, including armour layer, conductor, metallic screen and radial
water barrier as applicable.
o Abrasion - The CPS should protect the cable from abrasion against the seabed/scour
protection by preventing contact and relative movement between the cable and the
seabed/scour protection. The CPS should also not cause abrasion of the cable due to
relative movements between the cable and the inner surface of the CPS. The internal bore
of the CPS and the interface points between adjacent CPS components should provide a
smooth transition for the cable within the CPS with no sharp edges to avoid potential for
abrasion hotspots at these locations. If there is a risk of cable abrasion, then suitable
design mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce this risk.
• The CPS should be capable of protecting the cable against the most onerous combination of
functional, environmental, and accidental loads expected to be experienced by the system due to
extreme and fatigue (cyclic) loading conditions during the operational design life of the system
and during installation. This should include, but may not be limited to:
o Loads imparted by the CPS onto the cable.
o Loads due to impact / clashing.
o Loads due to handling and installation (including friction and clamping between the cable
and CPS to facilitate pull-in of the CPS and during overpull/breakaway of the cable from
the CPS).
o Extreme wave and current loading.
o Fatigue loading due to the operational wave environment.
o Fatigue loading due to vortex induced vibration (VIV).
o Loads due to maintenance, replacement, and intervention.

4.4. Cable Protection System (CPS)

The functional requirements associated with the overall CPS system design are summarised in section
4.4.1, while component specific requirements of the CPS are summarised in sections 4.4.2 to 4.4.4 as
applicable. The requirements specified in section 4.4.1 are also applicable to the components described in
sections 4.4.2 to 4.4.4.

4.4.1. General
The functional requirements of the overall CPS system design should include the following:
• The CPS should be designed for the specified design life of the system and should maintain
functionality throughout this period. This should include transportation, storage, installation,
operations (temporary and permanent conditions), and intervention periods which may require
disconnection and reconnection of the cable and CPS to facilitate cable repairs / replacement.
• The CPS should maintain all aspects of performance, accessibility, and maintainability over the
specified design life.
• The design of the CPS should ensure that the mechanical and thermal limits of the CPS are
respected for the specified design life.

11
• The CPS should be of sufficient length such that it will not be pulled out of the burial region
leading to cable exposure whilst maintaining the required depth of lowering. Where there is
potential for this to occur, then consideration should be given to extending the length of the CPS
into the burial region.
• The CPS materials should be selected such that they are compatible with the environment to which
the materials will be exposed over the specified design life. The selection of CPS material should
account for:
o Creep due to long-term loads, dimensional changes, and strain to failure in the operating
environment. The assessment of creep should account for temperatures induced in the
CPS materials by the cable and the surrounding environment (i.e., seawater / air).
o Corrosion of metallic components (including fasteners). The metallic parts of the CPS
should be selected to be corrosion resistant, or, alternatively, be designed with adequate
corrosion protection that will prevent loss of functionality throughout the specified design
life in line with the requirements of API-Spec-17L1 [24]. The following should be
considered:
 All metallic surfaces of the CPS should be prepared and coated in accordance
with an appropriate international standard for corrosion protection and suitable
for the specified environment, unless the material is documented to be corrosion
resistant, or a suitable corrosion allowance is employed. Where coating is
employed, then the CPS design should account for potential corrosion coating
breakdown for the specified design life and associated consequences for metallic
components.
 Selection of metallic materials should account for the effect of galvanic corrosion
(due to dissimilar metals) to ensure that material loss due to galvanic corrosion
does not occur.
 All metallic surfaces of the CPS should be protected by a dedicated cathodic
protection system (e.g., sacrificial anodes) that should have sufficient capacity to
provide corrosion protection for the specified design life, in accordance with an
appropriate international standard, unless any of the following apply:
1. The material is documented to be corrosion resistant in the specified
environment.
2. A corrosion allowance is being employed.
3. The structure is protected by an adjacent cathodic protection system
(e.g., foundation).
 If the CPS is reliant on an adjacent cathodic protection system (e.g., foundation),
then it should be confirmed that the adjacent cathodic protection system is both
compatible with and has sufficient capacity to give protection to the CPS for the
specified design life.
 The selection of metallic materials that are to be connected to a cathodic
protection system should be confirmed not to suffer from hydrogen
embrittlement (which may cause cracking) because of the cathodic protection
system.
o Aging of polymer and composite material due to mechanical, chemical, and thermal
degradation. The selection of CPS materials should be resistant to seawater, chemical
exposure, and suitable for the temperature ranges to which the CPS will be exposed to in
the operating environment (i.e., cable temperatures, seawater / air temperatures).

12
 o Non-metallic CPS materials should be designed with UV (ultraviolet) resistance or UV
protection when exposed to sunlight during storage, transportation, installation, and
operation. Painted components (e.g., painted for corrosion protection) should also be
assessed for UV protection.
• The CPS should provide sufficient thermal performance to prevent overheating of the cable and
to prevent thermal degradation of the CPS materials for the specified design life. The CPS design
should also account for the installed thermal environment which may include as applicable:
o seawater,
o burial in seabed,
o rock cover,
o stabilisation,
o marine growth,
o ambient air.
• The CPS should provide dynamic bend stiffening/restriction for bridging free spans at the
foundation interface (monopile entry hole / J-tube). The design should protect the cable and CPS
integrity under the most onerous combination of extreme loading, fatigue loading, and seabed
scouring expected for the specified design life.
• The CPS should provide bend stiffening/restriction to support freespan transition to the seabed /
scour protection including across seabed/scour protection, provide anchorage and shallow burial
protection. The design should protect the cable and CPS integrity under the most onerous
combination of extreme and fatigue loading for the specified design life. The CPS design should
account for the layout and design of the scour protection at the foundation.
• The CPS should be capable of accommodating the full range of expected scour development,
including edge scour and the case of no scour for the specified design life. The CPS should also
not cause damage to the scour protection where applicable.
• The CPS should be designed with sufficient impact protection, to safeguard the cable and ensure
CPS integrity for the specified design life. The CPS should be designed with sufficient impact
protection to prevent damage to the CPS from dropped objects, rock placement and collision
(e.g., ROV impact).
• The CPS should be capable of withstanding radial compression / crush loads imparted to the CPS
during installation and operation, including crush loads due to the presence of additional
stabilisation measures as applicable (e.g., rock berm, rock bags, mattressing).
• The CPS should be designed with sufficient abrasion resistance when in contact with the seabed
/ scour protection, or other interfacing structures (e.g. foundation monopile entry hole / J-tube)
to ensure CPS integrity for the specified design life. The CPS should be designed with an abrasion
/ wear allowance where abrasion / wear is expected to occur during the design life of the system.
The CPS should also not cause cable abrasion due to relative movements between the cable and
the inner surface of the CPS.
• The CPS should be compatible with all relevant dimensions of the cable including design
tolerances on the external diameter of the cable, as well as ovalisation when the cable bends. The
design of CPS components should not result in restrictions to axial movement of the cable or
localised pressure points on the cable.
• The CPS should be designed in so much as possible to minimise the hydrodynamic loading on the
system.
• The CPS should provide alignment and secure the CPS at the foundation interface (monopile entry
hole / J-tube).
13
• The CPS connection/lock-in facility should be designed compatible with the foundation interface
(monopile entry hole / J-tube), including allowance for design tolerances.
• The CPS should be dimensionally compatible with the foundation interface structure (monopile
entry hole / J-tube), accounting for all tolerances of the interface structure, including but not
limited to:
o CPS angle of entry to foundation relative to seabed.
o Foundation interface height above seabed.
o Dimensional tolerances.
• The CPS should be designed to accommodate dynamic behaviour (deflection) or vibration of
monopile foundations if applicable.
• The CPS should have the capability to be retrieved and replaced at any time throughout the
specified design life, i.e., it should not prevent the replacement of the cable in case of repair or
replacement. The following should be considered:
o Installation of the CPS should be non-obstructive, proven and a relatively simple
procedure to minimise offshore activities and risk.
o The installation of the CPS should not require divers and be performed with as minimum
subsea intervention as is possible.
o Retrieval of the CPS should preferably be performed using non-destructive recovery
methods.
o Installation / retrieval of the CPS should not require the removal of any in-situ equipment
or structures.
o Installation / retrieval of the CPS should be compatible with the foundation interface
structure (monopile entry hole / J-tube) and should not cause damage to either the cable
or CPS during these operations (e.g., wear, tears, or coating damage). The mechanical
limits of the cable and CPS should be respected during installation / retrieval operations.
o Installation / retrieval of the CPS should not cause damage to the foundation interface
structure (monopile entry hole / J-tube).
o Marine growth should be considered in the design of the connection system and should
not impair disconnection / reconnection.
• The CPS fastener forces required to secure the components of the CPS together as applicable
should ensure:
o provision of sufficient residual load to secure the components together for the specified
design life.
o no damage caused to the CPS components.
o pre-tension in fasteners satisfies strength / fatigue criterion.
• The CPS external structure should not contain any external hazards (e.g., excessive protrusions)
that may cause pinch points along the CPS in response to environmental loading, e.g., excessive
localised curvature due to a local restriction.
• The CPS should not require maintenance during the specified design life.
• The CPS should be capable of withstanding the most onerous combination of functional,
environmental, and accidental loads expected to be experienced by the system due to extreme
and fatigue (cyclic) loading conditions during the operational design life of the system and during
installation. This should include, but may not be limited to:

14
 o Loads imparted by the cable onto the CPS.
o Loads due to impact / clashing / crush.
o Loads due to handling and installation.
o Extreme wave and current loading.
o Fatigue loading due to the operational wave environment.
o Fatigue loading due to vortex induced vibration (VIV).
o Loads due to maintenance, replacement, and intervention.

4.4.2. Mechanical latch / connector

The function of the mechanical latch/connector is to connect and anchor the CPS to the foundation
interface (i.e., monopile entry hole / J-tube) and safely transfer cable and CPS loads to the interface
structure. The functional requirements of the mechanical latch/connector should include the following:
• The mechanical latch/connector should maintain the cable protection system in place for the
specified design life of the system (unless retrieval of the cable / CPS is required to facilitate repair
or replacement).
• The mechanical latch/connector should be capable of transferring loads generated from the cable
and CPS to the foundation interface structure (monopile entry hole / J-tube). The extreme and
fatigue loads transferred to the foundation interface structure should not exceed the capacity of
the interface structure.
• The mechanical latch/connector should be easy to install and removable, i.e., it should not prevent
the retrieval of the cable in case of repair or replacement. The design of the locking mechanism
should account for the following:
o Ensure that the mechanism is successfully and safely locked in position after cable pull-
in.
o Allow unlocking of the mechanism for cable pull-out operations as required.
o Be capable of locking and unlocking without diver intervention.
o Be capable of unlocking using non-destructive methods.
• The mechanical latch/connector should be compatible with all dimensions, including tolerances,
of interfacing components and structures which may include the following:
o Cable.
o Monopile entry hole / J-tube.
o Bend stiffener interface structure (if applicable).
o Adjacent CPS components (e.g. clamps, fasteners, inserts, etc.).
• The mechanical latch/connector may be designed to accommodate a certain level of horizontal
and vertical rotation at the interface point in so far as the design requirements and integrity of the
cable and CPS are satisfied.
• The mechanical latch/connector should be designed to ensure that no localised over-bending of
the cable can occur at the interface between the cable exit from the mechanical latch/connector
(e.g., inside the J-tube). If there is a risk of localised over-bending at this interface, then suitable
design mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce the risk.
• The mechanical latch/connector should not cause wear/abrasion damage to the cable, i.e.,
abrasion of the cable due to the relative movement between the cable and metallic parts of the

15
 mechanical latch/connector. If there is a risk of abrasion, then suitable design mitigation measures
should be implemented to reduce this risk.
• Corrosion protection should be provided to the mechanical latch/connector. The material of the
mechanical latch/connector should be chosen to be compatible with the foundation interface
(monopile entry hole / J-tube) to prevent galvanic corrosion unless electrically isolated from the
foundation interface.
The design of the mechanical latch/connector should consider all potential failure modes over the
specified design life. A list of potential failure modes that should be considered in the design of the
mechanical latch/connector, as applicable, are presented in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Mechanical latch / connector – possible failure modes [25].

Defect Consequence Possible cause

• Excessive loading,
• Fatigue failure,
• Corrosion,
• Transfer of loads to other
• Failure of weld,
structures that are not,
Mechanical latch / • Manufacturing defect,
designed to sustain loads.
connector failure • Hydrogen embrittlement,
• Possible damage to cable /
CPS from failure. • Creep,
• Inadequate design (under-prediction of stresses
/ strains),
• Inadequate installation.
• Excessive loading,
• Fatigue failure,
• Transfer of loads to other
• Corrosion,
structures that are not
• Manufacturing defect,
Failure of fasteners designed to sustain loads,
• Hydrogen embrittlement,
• Possible damage to cable /
CPS from failure. • Inadequate design (fasteners size too small),
• Inadequate installation (e.g. fasteners not
tightened properly).
• Transfer of loads to other
Failure of latch / structures that are not • Manufacturing defect,
connector locking designed to sustain loads, • Inadequate design,
system • Possible damage to cable / • Inadequate installation.
CPS from failure.
• Damage caused during handling, storage,
transport, installation, or service,
• Manufacturing defect (e.g. paint coating not
Paint coating removal • Possible corrosion of structure.
applied correctly),
• Inadequate design (e.g. coating system
selection).
• Anode(s) broken off,
CP reading differs from
• Possible corrosion of structure. • Inadequate CP system design (e.g. inadequate
specification
anode masses).
• Excessively corrosive environment,
Corrosion of latch /
• Inadequate CP system protection,
connector structural
• Possible failure of structure. • Damage to paint coating system,
components or
fasteners • Inadequate design (e.g. material selection, CP
system design, coating system selection).

16
4.4.3. Bend stiffener
Bend stiffeners are used to protect cables from overbending beyond allowable limits and to increase the
fatigue performance of the cable by reducing curvature variations at fatigue critical locations such as in
the vicinity of the foundation interface (monopile entry hole / J-tube).
Bend stiffeners, as applicable, should be designed in accordance with the requirements of API-Spec-17L1
[24] Section 5.0. The functional requirements of the bend stiffener should include the following:
• The bend stiffener should prevent the cable from overbending, i.e., prevent overbending of the
cable both within the bend stiffener and in the region immediately beyond the bend stiffener tip.
• The bend stiffener should provide progressive stiffness along its length and be capable of
distributing cable curvatures to avoid fatigue hotspots.
• The bend stiffener should remain securely attached to its adjacent support structure and should
be restrained axially, i.e., no axial slippage of the bend stiffener should occur.
• The bend stiffener should safely transfer loads from the cable / CPS to its adjacent support
structure. The loads transferred should not exceed the capacity of the support structure.
• The bend stiffener metal-polymer interfaces, where a bond is required for structural strength or
watertightness, should be designed to sustain all debonding forces for the specified design life.
• The bend stiffener construction should be such that no unacceptable localised loads are imparted
at any location on the cable (e.g., at the polyurethane/steel interface).
• The bend stiffener design should account for the range of cable bend stiffness. This may also
include nonlinear bend stiffness of the cable due to hysteresis behaviour.
• The bend stiffener body design should account for the material properties of the bend stiffener
body when exposed to the combination of cable and surrounding seawater/air temperatures that
induce the minimum and maximum temperatures in the material. The design should consider the
nonlinear material properties of the bend stiffener body material.
• The bend stiffener should ensure compatibility with all dimensions, including tolerances, of
interfacing components and structures which may include, but not be limited, to the following:
o Cable.
o Mechanical latch / connector.
o Bend restrictors.
o Adjacent bend stiffeners.
o Clamps / other CPS components (e.g. fasteners, inserts, etc.).
• Ovalisation of the bend stiffener tip should not affect the performance of the bend stiffener.
• The bend stiffener interface structure (e.g. steel inserts) should not cause wear/abrasion damage
to the cable, i.e., abrasion of the cable due to the relative movement between the cable and
metallic parts of the interface structure. If there is a risk of abrasion, then suitable design
mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce this risk.
The design of the bend stiffener should consider all potential failure modes over the specified design life.
A list of potential failure modes that should be considered in the design of the bend stiffeners, as
applicable, are presented in Table 4-2.

17
Table 4-2: Bend stiffener – potential failure modes [25].

Failure mode Consequence Possible cause

• Excessive loading,
• Impact from dropped object,
• Fatigue failure,
• Manufacturing defect,
• Possible loss of bend stiffener
• Aging of material due to seawater, high
Failure of bend stiffener and its protection, over-
temperature,
body bending of and possible failure
of cable due to fatigue. • Creep,
• Inadequate design,
• Abrasion (inadequate thickness),
• Damage caused during handling, storage,
transport or installation.
• Excessive loading,
• Fatigue failure,
• Possible loss of bend stiffener • Corrosion,
Failure of Interface and its protection, over-
• Failure of weld,
structure bending of and possible failure
of cable due to fatigue. • Manufacturing defect,
• Hydrogen embrittlement,
• Inadequate design.
• Excessive loading,
• Possible loss of bend stiffener • Fatigue failure,
and its protection, over- • Corrosion,
Failure of interface bending of and possible failure • Manufacturing defect,
structure fasteners of cable due to fatigue, • Hydrogen embrittlement,
• Excess loading on remaining • Inadequate design (fastener size too small),
fasteners.
• Inadequate installation (e.g., fasteners not
tensioned properly).
• Excessive loading,
Cable not properly • Manufacturing defect (e.g. voids in molding),
• Over-bending of and possible
protected from over- • Aging of material due to seawater, high
failure of cable
bending temperature,
• Inadequate design.

4.4.4. Bend restrictor

Bend restrictors are used to prevent bending of cables beyond a predefined threshold value under static
loading conditions. Bend restrictors should not be used in sections of the CPS where dynamic loading is
expected. They comprise of a number of interlocking elements that fit around the cable that form a semi
rigid curved structure.
Bend restrictors, as applicable, should be designed in accordance with the requirements of API-Spec-17L1
[24] Section 6.0. The functional requirements of the bend restrictor should include the following:
• The bend restrictor should prevent the cable from overbending, i.e., the bend restrictors should
have a minimum bend radius in excess of the cable which they protect.
• The bend restrictor should remain securely attached to its adjacent support structure and should
be restrained axially, i.e., no axial slippage of the bend restrictors should occur.
• Bend restrictor elements should be designed such that adjacent elements will be dimensionally
compatible with each other when the bend restrictor is assembled:

18
 o The bore of a string of bend restrictor elements should be designed to ensure that
localised over-bending of the cable does not occur at the interface between adjacent
elements.
o The bend restrictor elements should be designed to ensure that during lock-up the cable
outer surface does not get trapped and damaged between adjacent elements, i.e., there
should be a smooth transition within the bore of the bend restrictors with no sharp edges
that may otherwise cause abrasion/wear of the cable.
• The bend restrictor should not cause wear/abrasion damage to the cable, i.e., abrasion of the cable
due to the relative movement between the cable and bend restrictor elements. If there is a risk of
abrasion, then suitable design mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce this risk.
• Corrosion protection should be provided to metallic bend restrictor elements (as applicable).
• The bend restrictor should ensure compatibility with all dimensions, including tolerances, of
interfacing components and structures which may include, but not be limited, to the following:
o Cable
o Bend stiffeners
o Adjacent bend restrictors
o Clamps / other CPS components (e.g. fasteners, etc.).
• The bend restrictor design should ensure that bending moments and shear forces transferred
along the length of the bend restrictor do not damage the cable at either end of the bend
restrictor.
• The sizing of the bend restrictor bore should account for tolerances on the external diameter of
the cable, as well as the increased external diameter due to ovalisation when the cable bends to
the maximum curvature predicted during installation or operation.
• The bend restrictor internal diameter should be such that they can be easily fitted around the
cable and do not impart significant loads on the cable during installation or operation.
• The bend restrictor design should allow for quick and easy attachment of the bend restrictors to
the cable on-board the installation vessel as the cable is being installed.
The design of the bend restrictor should consider all potential failure modes over the specified design life.
A list of potential failure modes that should be considered in the design of the bend restrictors, as
applicable, are presented in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3: Bend Restrictor – Possible failure modes [25].

Failure mode Consequence Possible cause

• Excessive loading
• Possible detachment of bend • Impact from dropped object
restrictor from support • Fatigue failure (dynamic applications)
structure, loss of its protection, • Manufacturing defect (e.g., voids in moulding of
Failure of bend over-bending of and possible polymer bend restrictor element)
restrictor element failure of cable. • Aging of material due to seawater, high
• Possible damage to cable from temperature.
broken edges of bend • Creep
restrictor element. • Inadequate design
• Abrasion (inadequate thickness)
Denting to metallic • Dents may protrude and
• Excessive loading
bend restrictor contact cable, thus causing
• Impact from dropped object
elements damage to the cable

19
 Failure mode Consequence Possible cause
• Damage caused during handling, storage,
transport or installation.
• Excessive loading
• Fatigue failure (dynamic applications)
• Loosening of bend restrictor
• Corrosion
Failure of bend element, and reduction in
• Manufacturing defect
restrictor element bend restrictor protection
fasteners • Hydrogen embrittlement
• Excess loading on remaining
fasteners • Inadequate design (fastener size too small)
• Inadequate installation (e.g., fasteners not
tensioned properly)
• Excessive loading
• Possible detachment of bend • Fatigue failure (dynamic applications)
restrictor from support • Corrosion
structure, loss of its protection,
• Failure of weld
Failure of interface over-bending of and possible
failure of cable. • Manufacturing defect
structure
• Possible damage to cable from • Hydrogen embrittlement
broken edges of interface • Inadequate design
structure • Inadequate installation (e.g., fasteners not
tensioned properly)
• Excessive loading
• Possible detachment of bend • Fatigue failure (dynamic applications)
restrictor from support
• Corrosion
structure, loss of its protection,
Failure of interface • Manufacturing defect
over-bending of and possible
structure fasteners • Hydrogen embrittlement
failure of cable.
• Excess loading on remaining • Inadequate design (fastener size too small)
fasteners • Inadequate installation (e.g., fasteners not
tensioned properly)
• Excessive loading
• Manufacturing defect (e.g., voids in moulding of
polymer bend restrictor element)
• Aging of material due to seawater, high
Cable not properly
• Over-bending and possible temperature.
protected from
failure of cable • Inadequate design.
overbending
• Abrasion of restrictor elements at their joints
(i.e., from sand or other particulates) may lead
to a lack of protection of the cable due to
decreased bend radii.
• Damage caused during handling, storage,
transport installation or service.
Paint-coating removal
• Manufacturing defect (e.g. paint coating not
(metallic bend • Possible corrosion of structure
applied correctly)
restrictors only)
• Inadequate design (e.g. coating system
selection)
• CP system cable disconnected.
CP reading differs from • Possible corrosion of bend • Anode(s) broken off.
specification restrictor metallic components • Inadequate CP system design (i.e. inadequate
anode masses).

20
 Failure mode Consequence Possible cause

• Excessively corrosive environment

• Inadequate CP system protection
Corrosion of metallic
• Damage to paint coating system
bend restrictor • Possible failure of structure
elements or fasteners. • Disconnection of CP system cables
• Inadequate design (i.e. material selection, CP
system design)

4.5. Additional cable protection measures

Where the CPS cannot fulfil all the functional requirements in Section 4.3 and Section 4.4 to provide
sufficient protection to the cable and to itself, there may be a requirement to incorporate additional cable
protection measures to stabilise the cable/CPS system. These may include, but not be limited to:
• Rock placement/berm.
• Rock bags / mattressing.
• Tubular products.
• VIV suppression devices.
These additional cable protection measures should also be designed to satisfy the functional requirements
specified in Section 4.3 and Section 4.4 in terms of ensuring provision of cable protection, and provision
of CPS function to provide cable protection for the specified design life of the system. The requirements
associated with additional cable protection measures are summarised in sections 4.5.1 to 4.5.4.

4.5.1. Rock placement / berm

Rock placement (or rock berm) involves the subsea installation of crushed rock of varying size to form a
protective barrier over the cable / CPS, shielding the cable / CPS from hydrodynamic loading and providing
additional stability to the system.
The rock berms, as applicable, should be designed to protect and stabilise the cable/CPS for the specified
design life of the system considering the site-specific environmental and seabed conditions. The design
of the rock berm should account for:
• Long term hydraulic stability to provide cable/CPS protection/stabilisation for the specified design
life of the system. This should include:
o External stability - The rock berm should be sufficiently stable when exposed to the design
environmental conditions i.e., wave and current.
o Internal stability - The wash out of sediment below the rock berm through the pores of
the rock berm should be prevented or mitigated, i.e., to prevent potential sinking of the
rock berm. This may be achieved by means of a filter layer as required.
o Flexibility - The rock berm should be able to handle the possible development of edge
scour and possible morphodynamic bed level changes, i.e., lowering of the surrounding
seabed level. This may be achieved by means of a falling apron, i.e., a rock berm toe
protection.
• Material used for the rock berm should be suitable for the onsite conditions.
• Rock berm installation should be performed in a controlled manner. The method of rock
installation should be suitable for the product to be deployed with the required profile and
accuracy in the water depth at site. Rock impact energy during installation should be confirmed
to not compromise the integrity of the cable/CPS.

21
 • Radial compression or crush resistance of the cable/CPS should not be exceeded.
• The thermal performance of the cable / CPS should not be impacted by the presence of the rock
berm, i.e. there should be sufficient thermal performance to prevent overheating of the cable and
to prevent thermal degradation of the CPS materials for the specified design life.
• Ratcheting effects on the CPS due to the presence of the rock berm should be avoided.

4.5.2. Rock bags / mattressing

Mattresses typically comprise of lattices of segmented, mould-produced blocks of concrete or bitumen,
connected by polypropylene ropes which can be laid over a cable / CPS to protect, stabilise and shield it
from hydrodynamic loading. Rock bags can also be used to intermittently shield and stabilise parts of the
cable / CPS. These typically consist of pre-filled sand/grout bags, or gabion (rock filled) bags.
Rock bags / mattressing, as applicable, should be designed to protect and stabilise the cable/CPS for the
specified design life of the system considering the site-specific environmental and seabed conditions. The
design of rock bags / mattressing should account for:
• Long term hydraulic stability, e.g., through overall weight, increased density, and configuration.
• Multi-flexibility (mattresses), i.e. ability to bend over two axes.
• Adaptation to scour at the periphery as applicable.
• Placing of mattresses and bags should be performed in a controlled manner, such that the
mattresses or bags are placed as required. Impact energy during installation should be confirmed
to not compromise the integrity of the cable/CPS.
• Radial compression or crush resistance of the cable/CPS should not be exceeded.
• The thermal performance of the cable / CPS should not be impacted by the presence of the rock
bags / mattressing, i.e. there should be sufficient thermal performance to prevent overheating of
the cable and to prevent thermal degradation of the CPS materials for the specified design life.

4.5.3. Tubular products

Tubular protection includes protective sleeves consisting of sections made of polymer or metallic structure.
The segments typically comprise cylindrical half-shells (‘split pipe’) that overlap, interlock and fit around
the cable. Some products provide a degree of flexibility (e.g. polymer), some are articulated structures (e.g.
polymer or metallic). Tubular products provide added weight to the cable which improves the overall
stability of the system; however, these can also make the cable more susceptible to hydrodynamic loading
by increasing the exposed area.
Tubular products are often used in combination with mattresses or rock placement to protect the cable
against radial compression and crush loads. Tubular products should be designed to protect and stabilise
the cable/CPS considering the site-specific environmental and seabed conditions. Design requirements
are similar to those covered in sections 4.4.1, 4.4.3 and 4.4.4, including:
• Bend restriction (section 4.4.4), to prevent bending below the minimum bending radius of the
cable, or bend stiffening (section 4.4.3).
• Impact protection.
• Stability improvement by mass addition.
• Abrasion resistance.
• Durability (i.e. material selection).
• Thermal conductance, to prevent overheating of the cable during operation for the installed
thermal environment.
22
 • Corrosion protection, the metallic parts should be selected to be corrosion resistant, or,
alternatively, be designed with adequate corrosion protection.

4.5.4. VIV suppression devices

VIV suppression devices (e.g., strakes) have been used in the offshore industry on pipelines, risers and
umbilicals to counteract vortex induced vibrations (VIV) by disrupting flow velocities around these
structures and mitigating against VIV oscillations. If VIV suppression devices are employed, the following
design aspects should be considered:
• The VIV suppression device should be designed with sufficient coverage and profile to provide
the required VIV suppression to mitigate against VIV fatigue damage of the cable/CPS. A VIV
fatigue assessment should be performed to inform the design of the VIV suppression device.
• VIV suppression devices can influence the mass and hydrodynamic loading of the cable/CPS
system. This should be accounted for in the ULS (strength) and FLS (wave and VIV) analyses to
ensure design limits are not exceeded.
• The VIV suppression device should not compromise the primary functionality of the cable over
the specified design life. This should include maintaining the mechanical and thermal aspects of
performance of the cable as discussed in section 4.3.
• The VIV suppression device materials should be selected to be compatible with the environment
to which the materials will be exposed over the specified design life. The material should display
the following properties:
o Limited degradation of material properties due to aging, i.e. mechanical, chemical,
thermal.
o UV resistance.
o Abrasion resistance against the seabed/scour protection.
o Impact resistance from dropped objects and collision (e.g., ROV impact).
o Sufficient thermal performance to prevent overheating of the cable and to prevent
thermal degradation of the CPS materials as applicable.
o Corrosion resistance of fasteners.
• The VIV suppression device should remain securely attached to the cable/CPS for the specified
design life. In addition, the VIV suppression device clamping/fasteners should have sufficient
capacity to prevent slippage along and rotation around the cable/CPS.
• The VIV suppression device design should provide the required VIV suppression with and without
marine growth. If marine growth reduces the functionality of the VIV suppression device, then
anti-fouling coating should be considered.
• The VIV suppression device fastening assemblies should be configured to minimise the installation
time offshore. The device should be capable of withstanding the installation loads imposed during
the deployment process without introducing damage.

4.6. CPS interfaces

4.6.1. CPS physical interfaces

The key physical interfaces of the CPS may be summarised as follows:
• CPS – Cable Interface:

23
 Cable within CPS, along length of CPS.
• CPS – Foundation Interface:
CPS mechanical latch / connector at monopile entry hole / J-tube
CPS suspended within monopile (as applicable)
CPS in contact with scour protection and/or buried in scour protection.
• CPS – Other Interfaces:
CPS in contact with seabed and/or buried in seabed.
CPS in contact with external cable protection measures and/or buried beneath external
protection (as applicable).
These physical interfaces are illustrated in Figure 4-1, for a monopile WTG foundation. The key parameters
relating to each interface are summarised in Table 4-4.

Figure 4-3: Physical interfaces with CPS (not to scale).

Table 4-4: Key parameters relating to CPS physical interfaces.

Physical interface Relevant parameter

CPS geometric properties (e.g. length, inner/outer

diameter, profile)

CPS mechanical properties (e.g. weights, stiffness, locking

CPS radius)
CPS – Cable
Interface
CPS thermal properties (e.g. thermal conductivity)

CPS materials

Cable Cable geometric properties (e.g. outer diameter, weight)

24
 Physical interface Relevant parameter

Cable mechanical properties (e.g. stiffness, cable

capacities, abrasion/wear characteristics, fatigue
properties)

Cable thermal properties (e.g. max / design temperature)

Cable materials / construction (e.g. metallic components,

outer serving/sheath)

CPS latching mechanism (geometry, stiffness, materials)

CPS/cable weight

CPS maximum interface loads (i.e. mechanical latch /

CPS
connector)

CPS materials
CPS – Foundation
Interface
CPS corrosion protection (CP) system
(including scour
Protection)
Foundation monopile entry hole/bellmouth/J-tube
geometry & materials

Foundation allowable loads at CPS Interface

Foundation
Scour protection geometry & materials

Foundation corrosion protection (CP) system

CPS materials

CPS CPS/cable weight

CPS – Seabed CPS depth of burial

Seabed geotechnical properties (e.g. stiffness, friction)

Seabed
Seabed thermal properties (e.g. thermal conductivity)

CPS materials

CPS thermal properties

CPS CPS geometric properties

CPS – External Cable
Protection
CPS/cable weight

CPS mechanical properties (impact / crush resistance)

External protection materials

25
 Physical interface Relevant parameter

External External protection geometric properties

Protection
External protection thermal properties

External protection mechanical properties

External protection weight

4.6.2. CPS interface matrix

Provision of CPS to a project can be achieved through a variety of different contracting strategies, each
involving several interfaces between parties. The key interfacing parties associated with an offshore wind
farm project can include:
• Project developer.
• CPS supplier.
• Cable supplier.
• Cable installation contractor.
• Foundation supplier.
• Foundation installation contractor.
A list of key data that is typically required during the supply of a CPS for an offshore wind farm project is
summarised in Table 4-5. This information includes parameters relating to the physical interfaces discussed
in Section 4.6.1, as well as other project-specific data that is relevant to the CPS design and installation.
The layout of this table is selected to be consistent with the tables in Appendix B of DNV-RP-0360 [1],
where three project stages are presented. These include:
• Enquiry stage (Purchaser approaches CPS Manufacturer(s) to make initial request for CPS for a
particular project),
• Offer stage (CPS Manufacturer provides Purchaser with their offer, including details of the design),
and
• Supply stage (CPS Manufacturer provides Purchaser with the CPS along with details of as-built
system).
It is noted that there is likely to be multiple exchanges of data between contracting parties as the design
matures, and that the number of exchanges between contracting parties will not be limited to only those
exchanges at three project stages described in Table 4-5.
In Table 4-5, the Manufacturer of the CPS is denoted by “M”, while the Purchaser of the CPS (entity
dependent on the contracting strategy adopted) is denoted by “P”. Optional information is denoted by
parentheses “( )”.
Table 4-5: Interface matrix – Direction of information flow for key data exchanges relating to CPS.

Responsibility at stage
No. Category
Enquiry Offer Supply

1. General Project Information

1.1 Project name P

26
 Responsibility at stage
No. Category
Enquiry Offer Supply

1.2 Location of project P

1.3 Life (Design / Service) P M M

2. Site Data

2.1 Water depth P

2.2 Seabed properties (e.g. geotechnical / thermal) P

2.3 Seawater properties (e.g. density / thermal) P

2.4 Metocean data P

2.5 Marine growth characteristics P

3. Cable Properties

3.1 Cable outer diameter P

3.2 MBR (installation / operation / combined tension & bending) P

3.3 Weight (in air / in water) P

3.4 Maximum allowable tension P

3.5 Maximum allowable axial compression P

3.6 Maximum sidewall pressure P

Maximum crush strength and allowable impact energy (e.g., due to P

3.7
dropped object).

3.8 Stiffness (bending/axial/torsional) P

3.9 Thermal properties (e.g. design / allowable temperatures) P

3.10 Materials (e.g. outer sheath/serving) P

3.11 Cable wear / abrasion characteristics P

4. Foundation Properties

4.1 Foundation type (I-/J-tube / tubeless) P

Foundation interface information (e.g. monopile entry hole/bellmouth P

4.2
dimensions, physical location, orientation, materials)

4.3 Interface Loads (max. / allowable) (P) M M

27
 Responsibility at stage
No. Category
Enquiry Offer Supply

4.4 Scour protection provision (if required / geometry / layout / materials) P

Details of Foundation CP System (is CPS protected by Foundation CP? / P

4.5
material compatibility)

5. CPS Properties

5.1 Geometry (e.g. length, inner/outer diameter, profile) M M

5.2 Weight (in air / in water) M M

5.3 Maximum allowable tension M M

5.4 Maximum allowable bending moment M M

5.5 Maximum allowable shear force M M

5.6 Maximum allowable VMS (von Mises Strain) M M

5.7 Locking radius of bend restrictors M M

5.8 Bend stiffener curve M M

5.9 Friction and wear / abrasion properties M M

5.10 Maximum allowable impact energy M M

5.11 Maximum crush resistance M M

5.12 Materials (P) M M

5.13 Thermal performance / limits P M M

5.14 Latching mechanism properties (e.g. geometry, stiffness, materials) M M

5.15 Interface loads (max. / allowable) (P) M M

6. External Protection Properties

6.1 Type of external protection (materials / geometry) P

6.2 Volume / quantity (of rock etc.) P (M)

6.3 Thermal properties P

7. Installation Parameters

7.1 Vessel deck area requirements (P) M

7.2 Installation procedure M

28
 Responsibility at stage
No. Category
Enquiry Offer Supply

7.3 Depth of burial P

4.6.3. CPS interface timelines

A key challenge associated with the supply of a CPS for a given project is balancing its delivery time with
the delivery times associated with other key interface packages (i.e. cables and foundations), to ensure
that there exists sufficient quality of design data to validate a CPS proposal, but also sufficient time to
allow for holistic design update to interface packages if required (e.g. facilitated via design feedback loops
between interfacing parties).
In general, there should exist a point during the overall design process, where there is an adequate balance
between the quality of interface design data (to be provided to the CPS supplier) and the ability to
incorporate holistic design updates if required. This will be specific to different projects depending on
contract signing times for the key interface packages. However, it is considered appropriate to have a
minimum of one design review cycle between interfacing parties during the course of the project, in
addition to verification of the final design at the end of design process, i.e. when the maturity of design
data is at its highest.

5. Design basis

5.1. General
A CPS design basis should be produced for the project. The design basis, as a minimum, should detail the
methodologies, design parameters, data sources, codes and standards, and assumptions considered in
the CPS design process, including for those design assessments detailed in section 6.1. The design basis
should, as a minimum, include the parameters and requirements highlighted in the following sections.

5.2. Scope of supply

A detailed description of the scope of supply for the intended CPS system design should be specified,
including:
• CPS system description (including ancillaries).
• CPS components and quantities.
• CPS size, length and compatible cable size.
• CPS stabilisation measures (as applicable).

5.3. Design parameters

5.3.1. System layout data

System layout definition of the cable/CPS at the foundation interface should be specified, including:
• Cable hang-off arrangement:

29
 o Cable hang-off location wrt to vertical and horizontal reference point.
o Cable hang-off end constraint.
• Monopile / OSS foundation (as applicable):
o Monopile outer diameter.
o Monopile inner diameter or wall thickness.
o Monopile entry hole / J-tube exit height above seabed / scour protection.
o Monopile entry hole / J-tube exit angle relative to seabed / scour protection.
o Geometric constraint at monopile entry hole / J-tube interface.
o Design tolerances.
o J-tube geometrical definition including:
 outer diameter.
 inner diameter.
 straight section lengths.
 bend section radii.
 angular alignment with the vertical / horizontal.

• Scour protection geometrical definition (see Figure 5-1):

o Scour protection geometry including (as applicable):
 armour layer horizontal distance (to top edge) from monopile entry hole / J-tube
exit.
 armour layer horizontal distance (to bottom edge) from monopile entry hole / J-
tube exit.
 armour layer thickness and slope.
 filter layer horizontal distance (to top edge) from monopile entry hole / J-tube
exit.
 filter layer horizontal distance (to bottom edge) from monopile entry hole / J-
tube exit.
 filter layer thickness and slope.
 Design tolerances.
o Horizontal distance from monopile entry hole / J-tube exit to start of cable/CPS burial.
o Cable/CPS burial gradient.
o Burial depth (i.e. depth of lowering).
o Burial transition distance.
o Potential for Edge Scour should be considered in geometries assessed.

30
 Figure 5-4: Scour protection geometry.

• No scour protection / seabed geometry:

o Seabed and worst-case scour hole geometry including:
 scour hole depth.
 scour hole horizontal distance from monopile entry hole / J-tube exit.
o Horizontal distance from monopile entry hole / J-tube exit to start of cable/CPS burial.
o Cable/CPS burial gradient.
o Burial depth (i.e. depth of lowering).
o Burial transition distance.
• Stabilisation geometry as applicable (e.g., but not limited to, rock berm, rock bags, mattressing,
etc.):
o Rock berm protection geometry (as per scour protection geometry detailed above).
o Rock grade and weight.
o Location / distribution of rock bags / mattressing.

5.3.2. Cable data

Cable input parameters considered in the design and analysis of the CPS/cable system should be specified,
including:
• Detailed description of the cable cross-section (e.g. conductor size, cable layers / components,
quantities, dimensions, material properties, interlayer friction and stick-slip behaviour of the cable
cross-section, etc.).
• Outer diameter (including tolerance).
• Weight in air and water.
• Axial stiffness.
• Bending stiffness, i.e. linear and/or non-linear (hysteretic).
• Torsional stiffness.
• MBR (installation / operation / combined tension and bending).
• Maximum allowable tension.
• Maximum allowable axial compression.

31
 • Maximum allowable sidewall pressure.
• Maximum crush strength.
• Maximum allowable impact energy.
• Thermal properties / capacities.
• Fatigue data (e.g. SN curves, factors of safety, stress/strain factors, etc.).
• Wear / abrasion characteristics.
Cable bending stiffness may be modelled using either a linear or non-linear (hysteresis) approach. Where
linear bending stiffness is considered in the global analysis then this should be based on the ‘slipped’
(lower bound) bending stiffness of the cable as this will induce larger cable curvatures and displacements
in response to hydrodynamic loading, however, for the local stress analysis of the cable components a 'full
stick' (upper bound) bending stiffness should be considered which is more conservative.
Where both linear and non-linear bending stiffnesses are available then sensitivities should be performed
to ascertain the most onerous condition for design.

5.3.3. CPS data

CPS input parameters considered in the design and analysis of the CPS/cable system should be specified,
including:
• Geometry (e.g. component lengths, inner / outer diameters, etc.).
• Components weights in air (empty and full of water).
• Component weights in water (empty and full of water).
• Axial stiffness.
• Bending Stiffness.
• Torsional stiffness.
• Material properties of components/sub-components, including stress/strain limits.
• Non-linear material characteristics (e.g. stress-strain curves) including temperature dependencies
(e.g. polymer materials such as bend stiffener).
• Bend restrictor (as applicable) non-linear bending moment versus curvature lock-out relationship.
• Maximum allowable tension.
• Maximum allowable axial compression.
• Maximum allowable bending moment.
• Maximum allowable shear force.
• Maximum allowable von mises strain (VMS).
• Maximum crush strength.
• Maximum allowable impact energy.
• Maximum allowable stress / strain.
• Thermal properties / capacities.
• Fatigue data (e.g. SN curves, factors of safety, stress concentration factors, etc.).
• Abrasion / wear characteristics.

32
Bend stiffeners should be modelled with a cross-sectional area that varies from the bend stiffener base to
the bend stiffener tip, and the non-linear material properties (non-linear stress-strain relationship) of the
bend stiffener (polymer) should be captured. The non-linear material properties associated with the
minimum and maximum service temperatures should be assessed as part of the design.
For bend restrictors, the non-linear bending moment versus curvature lock-out relationship should be
captured. Due to the complex geometry at the interfaces of each of the bend restrictor components, local
modelling of the bend restrictors and/or physical testing should be performed to determine the
characteristic curve to represent the bend restrictor response to bending. This characteristic curve should
be utilised as an input in the global system model to accurately capture the bend restrictor lock-out
response.

5.3.4. Hydrodynamic data

Hydrodynamic load coefficients considered in the design and analysis of the CPS/cable system should be
specified, including:
• drag coefficients.
• added mass coefficients.
• inertia coefficients.
• lift coefficients.
• seabed Interaction effects.
The selection of appropriate hydrodynamic load coefficients should account for CPS / cable surface
roughness, marine growth, start-of-life (SOL) and end-of-life (EOL) conditions.
Guidance on the selection of hydrodynamic coefficients for cylindrical elements can be found in a number
of codes and standards, including DNV-RP-C205 [7], ISO 13628-11 [23], API-RP-17B [27] and Norsok N-
003 [29].
DNV-RP-C205 [7] is recommended as the primary reference code for cable / CPS design as it includes
recommendations and formulations for capturing wall interaction effects i.e., hydrodynamic coefficients
for circular cylinders close to a fixed boundary. Wall interaction effects should be captured as part of the
global system model to capture the response of the cable / CPS in close proximity to the seabed / scour
protection.

5.3.5. Marine growth data

Marine growth characteristics considered in the design and analysis of the CPS/cable system should be
specified, including:
• Marine growth thickness
• Marine growth density
• Thermal properties
Marine growth build-up should be fully captured to account for the increased mass, buoyancy, added
mass and drag of the cable / CPS, and in doing so capture its influence on the hydrodynamic loads and
dynamic system response.
The density and thickness of marine growth should be based on site specific data where available, and the
influence of water depth on marine growth thickness should be captured. Where no site specific data is
available, then guidance based on recommendations from DNV-ST-0437 [8] should be considered. It may
be assumed (in the absence of site-specific data) that the thickness of marine growth increases linearly to
the given thickness over a period of 2 years after the cable / CPS has been placed in the water as per
guidance in DNV-RP-C205 [7] and Norsok N-003 [29].
33
The hydrodynamic diameter to be used for prediction of added mass and drag loading should be taken
as D + 2t, where D is the diameter without marine growth, and t is the marine growth thickness ([7], [29]).
Marine growth should not be considered in the start-of-life (SOL) assessment, while full marine growth
thickness (100%) should be considered in the end-of-life (EOL) assessment. As marine growth build-up is
expected to fully develop after approximately 2 years ([7], [29]), then 100% marine growth thickness should
be considered in the fatigue analysis for the permanent condition. Marine growth build-up for the
temporary condition should reflect the time period between the temporary and permanent installation
conditions.
It is acknowledged that marine growth may not be present underneath the cable / CPS in contact with the
seabed / scour protection. However, it is recommended that full marine growth thickness (100%) be
conservatively assumed as the level of embedment that the cable / CPS may experience throughout the
specified design life may vary.

5.3.6. Corrosion data

Corrosion and cathodic protection inputs considered in the design and analysis of the CPS/cable system
should be specified, including:
• Corrosion rates.
• Corrosion protection design methods (coating, corrosion allowance, cathodic protection,
corrosion resistant materials, bitumen, etc.).
• Seawater temperature.
• Seawater salinity.
• Water depth.
• Nutrition content (e.g. dissolved inorganic nitrogen).
• Microbial activity.
Corrosion allowance for metallic CPS components should be considered in the design/analysis if specified
as part of the corrosion protection design. The maximum surface corrosion for both the outer and inner
metallic CPS surfaces should be considered for the EOL condition, while no corrosion should be considered
for the SOL condition.
As corrosion develops gradually during the specified service life of the cable / CPS, then an average
corrosion on both surfaces should be considered in the fatigue analysis.

5.3.7. Geotechnical data

Geotechnical input parameters considered in the design and analysis of the CPS/cable system for the
seabed, scour protection and stabilisation should be specified, including:
• Soil stiffness.
• Soil friction coefficients.
• Vertical, axial and lateral restraint when the cable/CPS is buried in the seabed / stabilisation.
The resistance to cable / CPS movement on the seabed (or scour protection) may be represented using
normal resistance (vertical stiffness) and a coulomb friction model (axial and lateral friction coefficients).
Soil stiffness and friction coefficients should be based on site specific data, however DNV-RP-F114 [9],
DNV-RP-F109 [10] and API-RP-17B [27] provide recommendations for these parameters that may be
considered in the absence of more detailed information.

34
The soil restraint acting on those sections of the cable / CPS that are in burial, either in the seabed, the
rock stabilisation, or constrained by rock bags, may be represented using formulations presented in DNV-
RP-F114 [9] to capture the axial, vertical and lateral behaviour of the cable / CPS as follows:
• The axial restraint acting on the cable / CPS may be calculated according to DNV-RP-F114 [Section
5.3.2]. The overall axial resistance should be taken as the lowest resistance of the deep and shallow
failure modes as recommended in DNV-RP-F114.
• The vertical uplift resistance for the cable / CPS may be calculated according to DNV-RP-F114
[Section 5.5.1].
• The vertical stiffness for downward movement of the cable / CPS may be calculated according to
DNV-RP-F114 [Section 7.2.4]. The stiffness factor, CV, may be obtained from DNV-RP-F114
guidance based on the friction angle of the soil type being considered.
• The lateral stiffness of the burial layer may be calculated according to DNV-RP-F114 [Section 7.2.4]
The stiffness factor, CL, may be obtained from DNV-RP-F114 guidance based on the friction angle
of the soil type being considered.

5.3.8. SN data
SN curves should be established for assessing fatigue damage of the cable and CPS components.
If fatigue data does not exist for the material, detail, and environment under consideration, then SN curves
should be developed by testing. SN curves should be based on the mean-minus-two-standard deviations
curve for the relevant experimental data based on recommendation in DNV-RP-F204 [13].

5.3.9. Wear / Abrasion data

The wear characteristics/coefficients and material hardness values of the cable and CPS components
should be specified.
Wear characteristics/coefficients and material hardness values should be determined through appropriate
material testing.
A wear / abrasion allowance should be specified as part of the design where wear / abrasion is expected
during the design life of the system.

5.3.10. Thermal data

Thermal input parameters considered in the design and analysis of the CPS/cable system should be
specified, including for the following:
• Cable.
• CPS.
• Seabed / soil.
• Scour protection.
• Stabilisation (e.g., rock berm, rock bags, mattressing, etc.).
• Seawater.
• Ambient air.
• Marine growth.
• Foundation (monopile / J-tube).

35
5.4. Metocean Data

5.4.1. Seawater
Seawater parameters considered in the design and analysis of the CPS/cable system should be specified,
including:
• Density
• Temperature
• Salinity
Seawater parameters should be based on site specific data. Where no site-specific data is available, then
guidance based on recommendations from DNV-ST-0437 [8] should be considered.

5.4.2. Water level

The range of water levels should be based on site-specific data. The water level that generates the most
onerous hydrodynamic loads on the cable/CPS system should be assessed as part of the design.
The lowest seawater level (LSWL) should be used for design for sites outside the breaking wave zone. This
is the most conservative as it maximises the hydrodynamic loading on the system due to the increased
water particle velocities and accelerations in shallower water.
For sites inside the breaking wave zone (i.e., where wave heights are depth limited), then sensitivities
should be performed to identify the water level between LSWL and HSWL that maximises the
hydrodynamic loading on the system. The water level that maximises the hydrodynamic loading on the
system should be considered for design.

5.4.3. Current
Current velocities and depth profiles should be based on site-specific data. The extreme and operational
current data, including directionality, to be considered in the design and analysis of the CPS/cable system
should be specified.
Where no site-specific depth profile is available, it is recommended that a depth profile based on the 1/7th
power law as defined in DNV-RP-C205 [7] and DNV-ST-0437 [8] should be considered.

5.4.4. Wave
Wave data, including wave heights and wave periods should be based on site specific data. The extreme
and operational wave data, including directionality, to be considered in the design and analysis of the
CPS/cable system should be specified.
A regular or irregular wave representation may be applied to model the wave environment.
The regular-wave approach is based on a deterministic sea-state description of the wave environment
using a single maximum wave height and associated period to model the sea-state. These parameters are
derived using wave statistics and should be included in a site-specific metocean report. Where a regular
wave approach is considered, the applicable regular wave theory and breaking wave limit should be
captured in the model as per the recommendations provided in DNV-RP-C205 [7]. The duration of the
simulation should be sufficient to achieve a steady state response in the cable and CPS parameters. The
regular wave approach is considered standard industry practice.
The irregular-sea approach is based on a stochastic description of the wave environment. The seastate is
modelled as a wave spectrum with energy distributed over a range of frequencies. The most common
spectra used are the Pierson-Moskowitz (fully developed sea) and the JONSWAP (developing sea) spectra.

36
A description of the site-specific seastate parameters should be included in a site-specific metocean report.
A 3-hour irregular-wave simulation duration is normally considered, with multiple realisations.

5.4.5. Wave scatter blocking

Long-term wave loading, for application in fatigue analysis, should be based on a site-specific operational
wave scatter diagram, i.e., a tabular representation of the joint probabilistic distribution of the
characteristic wave height and period. The scatter diagram may take one of the following forms:
• Regular wave scatter diagrams giving the joint probability of occurrence of individual wave height
(H) and wave period (T).
• Irregular wave scatter diagram giving the joint probability of occurrence of significant wave height
(Hs) and peak wave period (Tp).
Wave directionality and seasonal variation in wave climate can also be described by wave scatter diagrams:
• Regular/irregular directional wave scatter diagrams (i.e. multiple scatter diagrams given for
specific wave directions).
• Regular/irregular seasonal wave scatter diagrams, (e.g. monthly).
Where the number of load cases associated with the wave scatter diagram results in a substantial
computational effort, then blocking of the wave scatter diagram may be considered, i.e., division of the
scatter diagram into blocks that are representative of the individual wave heights and periods within the
block.
Guidance in relation blocking of the wave scatter diagram is provided in DNV-RP-F204 [13] and API-RP-
17B [27]. The following recommendations are provided:
• The probability of occurrence of the block is the sum of the probability of occurrence of all
individual waves within the block.
• Wave height, should be selected as the maximum wave height within the block. The blocks should
be selected so that they do not span over a wide range of wave heights (to avoid over-
conservatism).
• Wave period, should be selected as the weighted average wave period of the block which is
considered most representative of the block.
• It is estimated that 15-20 blocks would be required to represent the annual operating conditions
adequately.
The Longuet-Higgins distribution is recommended to convert a stochastic seastate (irregular sea) scatter
diagram to a deterministic (regular wave) scatter diagram if required (API-RP-17B [27]).

5.4.6. Environmental directionality

Environmental loading (wave and current) should be applied collinearly and perpendicular (90⁰) to the
plane of the cable / CPS. This is the most conservative environmental direction as it imparts the largest
hydrodynamic loading onto the system resulting in the most onerous cable/CPS response.
Environmental direction sensitivities should also be assessed as part of the design.

5.4.7. Flow amplification effects

The impact of current and wave flow amplification around the monopile on the cable / CPS system
response should be accounted for in the global system model. Flow amplification around the monopile
imparts larger hydrodynamic loading onto the system resulting in a more onerous cable/CPS response.

37
Flow amplification has also been acknowledged in codes and standards, such as API-RP-17B [27] and ISO
13628-11 [23], as having a potentially significant impact on the system response.

5.5. Design criteria

Design criteria / allowable limits considered in the analysis and design of the CPS / cable system should
be specified, including:
• Cable criteria.
• CPS criteria.
• Design factors of safety.
• Stabilisation criteria (as applicable).
See also section 6.1.

5.6. Design assumptions

Details of all assumptions considered in the design and analysis of the CPS / cable system including
reference and justification for these assumptions should be specified. This should include assumptions in
relation to design parameters, methodologies, load case selection, etc.
Sensitivity studies should be performed as required in order to validate and justify design assumptions,
particularly were there exists uncertainty regarding these assumptions. Details and outcomes of the
sensitivity studies should be documented. See also section 7.1.2.

5.7. Design methodology

A detailed description of the full suite of design and analysis activities to be performed as part of the CPS
design process, including for those design assessments detailed in section 6.1. This should include, but
may not be limited to:
• Design / analysis workflows.
• Methodologies (ULS, FLS, VIV, thermal, abrasion, stabilisation, extracting of interface loads, etc).
• Temporary and permanent conditions (as applicable).
• Software
• Load Case Matrix
• Design Criteria
• Assumptions

5.8. Design codes and standards

All design codes and standards used as part of the CPS / cable system design process should be referenced
appropriately in the design basis and throughout the applicable design documentation as appropriate.

5.9. Design verification / Validation

A detailed description of the design verification / validation activities and tests to be performed to ensure
that the CPS/cable system is fully qualified for its intended application, and site-specific environmental
conditions, should be specified. See also section 7.0.
38
6. Design Methodology

6.1. Design assessments

The following design assessments should be performed as part of the cable and CPS system design:
• Material – a material assessment should be performed to assess the expected degradation of
materials in the operating environment over the specified design life and the implications on the
strength of the system.
• Corrosion – a corrosion protection assessment should be performed to ensure that the CPS has
sufficient corrosion protection in the operating environment for the specified design life of the
system.
• Strength (global and local) – a strength assessment should be performed to demonstrate the
ability of the system to withstand extreme environmental loading and accidental events, and the
ability of the system to protect the cable and CPS during these events for the specified design life.
Temporary and permanent cable/CPS configurations should be assessed as applicable.
• Fatigue (global and local) – a fatigue assessment should be performed to ensure that the cable
and CPS has sufficient fatigue capacity to withstand fatigue loading throughout the specified
design life. This should include fatigue due to wave and vortex induced vibration (VIV). Temporary
and permanent cable/CPS configurations should be assessed as applicable.
• Abrasion (CPS and cable) – an abrasion assessment should be performed to ensure that the CPS
has sufficient resistance to abrasion due to the relative movement between the CPS and the
seabed/scour protection for the specified design life. An abrasion assessment should also be
performed on the cable to ensure it has sufficient abrasion resistance due to the relative
movement between the cable and CPS for the specified design life. The ability of the cable and
CPS component materials to withstand abrasion should be demonstrated through mechanical
testing, and by using analytical methods (using outputs from the global system model).
• Interference – an interference assessment should be performed (as applicable) to ensure that the
cable/CPS does not experience clashing with other subsea infrastructure, including clashing of the
cable inside the foundation (i.e., in the case of a monopile foundation – the cable should not come
into contact with the foundation internals). In some instances, allowance for cable contact may be
permitted (e.g., cable-cable, cable-foundation) during extreme/abnormal conditions, provided
that the impact energy is below the design limit. However, this should be subject to approval and
agreement with client on a project specific basis.
• Thermal – a representative thermal assessment should be performed to identify thermal
limitations of any materials within the cable and CPS and ensure that the CPS has sufficient thermal
performance to prevent overheating of the cable. The allowable limits of cable and CPS materials
should not be exceeded.
• Impact Assessment – an impact assessment should be performed to ensure that the CPS is capable
of containing the impact energy (from all potential sources of external impact, including dropped
object, rock placement, ROV impact) to a level below that to which the cable has been qualified
and ensure CPS integrity. The impact assessment should be performed at CPS component
locations most vulnerable to impact energy. This may include interface connections and/or central
locations of the component. The impact assessment should be performed using numerical
modelling and supplemented via physical testing to verify/qualify the design of the CPS for the
project.
• Crush Assessment – a crush capacity assessment should be performed to ensure that the CPS has
sufficient crush capacity to resist the potential range of crush loads that may be imparted to the
CPS over the specified design life of the system, i.e. crush loads applied by machinery onboard
39
 the cable installation vessel and static loads during operating (e.g. additional stabilisation
measures). The crush assessment should be performed at CPS component locations most
vulnerable to crush loads. This may include interface connections and/or central locations. The
crush assessment should be performed using numerical modelling and supplemented via physical
testing to verify/qualify the design of the CPS for the project.
• CPS Stabilisation – a CPS stabilisation design should be performed (as applicable) to ensure long
term hydraulic stability of the CPS/cable and stabilisation, to ensure cable and CPS integrity for
the specified design life.
• Cable Hang-off Interface Loads Assessment – an extreme and fatigue loading assessment should
be performed to ensure the integrity of the cable components within the cable hang-off interface
(e.g. clamped armour wires) for the specified design life.
• CPS / foundation Interface Loads Assessment – an extreme and fatigue loading assessment should
be performed to ensure the CPS/foundation interface loads are within the allowable structural
limits of foundation interface (e.g., monopile entry hole / J-tube) for the specified design life. The
structural integrity analysis should account for the interface loads imposed by the cable/CPS to
ensure that the structural capacity of the foundation interface is not exceeded.
• CPS Installation Analysis – CPS/cable installation analysis should be performed to ensure the
integrity of the cable, CPS and foundation interface (e.g., monopile entry hole / J-tube) during all
stages of the installation campaign, including overboarding, laying and pull-in operations. The
analyses should establish the operational parameters (e.g., layback, departure angle, pulling
tension, back tension, etc.) for each stage of the installation and the associated limiting
environmental conditions to ensure that all operations associated with the installation will be
safely completed within the allowable integrity limits of all equipment used (including ancillary
installation equipment such as pull-in heads, etc.), and to ensure the integrity of the cable, CPS
and foundation interface throughout the installation process.

6.2. Design FMECA / Risk register

A design FMECA / risk register that documents the range of potential CPS failure modes over the specified
design life of the system should be developed on a project specific basis. In doing so, the safeguards,
including the design and operational barriers that mitigate against the risk of each of the failure modes
should be specified.

6.3. Design loads

The cable and CPS should be designed to withstand all functional, environmental, and accidental loading
that is expected to be experienced by the system under extreme and fatigue loading conditions during
the specified design life of the system. These loads may include, but not be limited to the following:
a) Functional Loads:
o System weights, i.e., cable, CPS, attachments, buoyancy, marine growth.
o Reactions from components (clamps, terminations, CPS, foundation interface structure).
o Reactions from seabed / scour protection (including friction loads).
o Loads from protective cover / additional stabilisation (soil, rock, mattress, etc.).
o Loads due to positioning tolerances.
o Residual cable lay tension following installation.
o Heat (internal / external).

40
 o Cable loads transmitted to CPS and vice versa.
b) Environmental Loads:
o Wave, Current (including loading due to VIV)
c) Accidental Loads:
o Dropped Object / Collision
The cable / CPS system should be able to withstand the most onerous combination of loads that can be
predicted to occur simultaneously in accordance with the limit state design approach detailed in Section
6.4.

6.4. Limit states and characteristic Load Effects

The system capacity can be described by a set of limit states covering the significant failure modes and
can be defined as a state beyond which the component no longer satisfies its design requirements. The
limit states are defined in Table 6-1 based on DNV codes and standards.
For each of the limit states, DNV-ST-0126 [5] and DNV-ST-0145 [6] define that the characteristic load
effects to be considered at wind turbine generator (WTG) and offshore substation (OSS) locations
respectively. These are summarised in Table 6-1.
The cable and CPS should be capable of withstanding the characteristic load effects associated with the
limit states presented in Table 6-1.
Table 6-6: Limit states and characteristic load effects.

Characteristic Load Effects

Definition
Limit State
DNV-RP-0360 [1] WTG OSS
DNV-ST-0126 [5] DNV-ST-0145 [6]
the characteristic value of the the characteristic value of the
a condition which, if
resulting load effect is resulting load effect is
exceeded, compromises the
Ultimate Limit State defined as a load effect with defined as a load effect with
integrity of the item, e.g.,
(ULS) an annual probability of an annual probability of
exceeding minimum bend
exceedance equal to or less exceedance equal to or less
radius of cable.
than 0.02, i.e., 50yr RP. than 0.01, i.e., 100yr RP.
a ULS condition accounting
Fatigue Limit State for accumulated cyclic load the characteristic load effect history is defined as the expected
(FLS) effects, e.g., cyclic cable load effect history.
bending, wear / abrasion.
the characteristic load effect
a ULS condition due to
Accidental Limit is a specified value,
accidental (infrequent) loads, None defined
State (ALS) dependent on operational
e.g., dropped objects.
requirements.
a condition which, if
exceeded, renders the item
unsuitable for normal
operations; exceedance of a
Serviceability Limit the characteristic load effect is a specified value, dependent
serviceability limit state
State (SLS) on operational requirements.
category should be evaluated
as an accidental limit state,
e.g., damage to cable sheath
or armour.

41
6.5. Design Criteria

6.5.1. Cables
The following cable capacities should be provided by the cable manufacturer. In each case the design
loads should be assessed and shown not to exceed the manufacturers specified design limits.
• maximum allowable tension.
• maximum allowable axial compression.
• minimum allowable bending radius at varying levels of combined tension and bending (tension v
MBR capacity curve).
• maximum allowable sidewall pressure.
• maximum crush strength.
• maximum allowable impact energy.
• maximum thermal capacities of the cable that should not be exceeded including:
o allowable conductor temperature (⁰C).
o allowable cable surface temperature (⁰C).
The following cable capacities are not traditionally provided by the cable manufacturers but should be
requested. If not available a suitable criterion should be assigned by reference to codes and standards
where possible or by risk assessment and agreement with the client:
• maximum fatigue damage for cable components within the cable cross-section, for specified load
combinations (i.e., tension and curvature).
• maximum allowable wear (due to abrasion).
Guidance in relation to the allowable design criteria for the cable can also be found in the codes and
standards. These are summarised as follows:
• Allowable stress utilisation factors for cable steel armour layers are provided in DNV-RP-F401 [3]
and DNV-ST-0119 [4].
• An allowable 1% strain utilisation is recommended in CIGRÉ [30] for conductor insulation due to
the risk of water treeing.
• Fatigue failure criteria and fatigue safety factors associated with the metallic layers of the cable
cross-section, namely the armour layer, metallic screen / sheath and cable conductor are provided
in DNV-RP-F401 [3].
• DNV-ST-0119 [4] specifies that for metallic components of the cable cross section, the design
fatigue factor should not be taken less than 10 unless specified otherwise. It is further noted that
the effects of friction and stick / slip behaviour between layers in the cable cross-section should
be included in calculations of fatigue damage.
Note, that in the absence of a non-linear (hysteresis) approach and where linear stiffness is
considered then, a linear ‘slipped’ (lower bound) bending stiffness should be considered in the
global analysis as this this will induce larger cable curvatures and displacements in response to
hydrodynamic loading, while for the local stress analysis of the cable components a linear 'full
stick' (upper bound) stiffness should be considered which is more conservative.

42
6.5.2. CPS
The following CPS capacities should be assessed against the global design loads. The CPS designer should
determine the capacities of the CPS components for each of the global loads below based on calculations
against allowable material stress and strain, supplemented by verification testing (see Section 8.0).
• maximum allowable tension.
• maximum allowable axial compression.
• maximum allowable bending moment.
• maximum allowable shear force.
• maximum allowable VMS (as applicable).
• maximum crush strength.
• maximum allowable impact energy.
• maximum allowable fatigue damage for CPS components.
• maximum allowable wear (due to abrasion).
• allowable thermal capacities of the CPS materials that should not be exceeded.
In addition to the above capacities the CPS should be of sufficient length such that it will not be pulled
out of the burial region leading to cable exposure whilst maintaining the required depth of lowering.
Where there is potential for this to occur, then consideration should be given to extending the length of
the CPS into the burial region.
Guidance in relation to the allowable design criteria for the CPS can be found in the codes and standards
API-Spec-17L1 [24], API-RP-17L2 [25] and DNVGL-OS-C101 [17].

43
7. Analysis Methodology

7.1. Global System Analysis

7.1.1. Global Model Development

The cable and CPS system modelling should be performed to identify the global loads and displacements
for the extreme and fatigue load case combinations that may be experienced by the system over the
specified design life. Global system modelling should be performed in a suitable and recognised dynamic
analysis software package.
The following should be considered as part of cable / CPS system modelling:
• The cable hang-off termination at the foundation interface should be modelled as per the
specified design, including hang-off elevation, lateral location, and representative end constraint
considering the installation methodology. The method of modelling the cable hang-off can
influence the system response, particularly cable curvature, and as such this detail should be
accurately represented in the model.
• The cable end at burial should be representative of the post-installed cable condition, including
residual lay tension as applicable.
• The cable and CPS should be modelled as separate structures, each with its own properties and
characteristics. The interaction between these structures should be accurately represented,
including friction and contact stiffness effects. The cable should be allowed to move independently
from the CPS in the axial direction, and the CPS inner bore should be modelled as free flooding.
• The CPS interface with the foundation (monopile entry hole / J-tube) should be modelled as per
the specified design, including height above seabed/scour protection and angle of entry relative
to seabed/scour protection. Installation tolerance on height above seabed/scour protection and
angle of entry relative to seabed/scour protection should also be assessed to determine the most
onerous/conservative configuration for design purposes.
• The CPS constraints at the foundation interface (monopile entry hole / J-tube) should be
representative of the CPS latching mechanism design and its interaction with the interface
structure in the 6 degrees of freedom, including if there is an allowance for some degree of
rotation as applicable.
• The cable and J-tube, as applicable, (and section of CPS inside the J-tube) should be modelled as
separate structures each with its own properties and characteristics. The interaction between these
structures should be accurately represented, including friction and contact stiffness effects. The
geometrical arrangement of the J-tube should be modelled as representative, including straight
section, bend sections, inner diameter, etc.
• The CPS end at burial should be representative of the post-installed condition.
• The resistance to CPS/cable movement on the seabed / scour protection should be representative
of the soil and scour protection conditions onsite and should accurately account for stiffness and
friction effects.
• The soil restraint acting on those portions of the CPS/cable that are in burial in the seabed or
beneath stabilisation (as applicable) should be representative of the soil conditions onsite and
should account for the lateral, vertical and axial behaviour of the CPS/cable as per guidance
provided in DNV-RP-F114 [9] (see Section 5.3.7). Those sections of the cable and CPS in burial in
the seabed or beneath stabilisation (as applicable) should be represented by applying soil spring
restraints. SOL and EOL soil restraints may be captured to account for depth of cover and corrosion
allowance if applicable.
44
• The length of CPS in the burial zone should be accurately modelled to ensure that the CPS will
not be pulled out of the burial region leading to cable exposure whilst maintaining the required
depth of lowering, as detailed in section 6.5.2.
• The seabed / scour protection should be modelled as representative, including:
o Seabed geometry (including scour hole geometry)
o Scour protection geometry, i.e., armour / filter layer extents, thicknesses, slopes and
design tolerances. The most onerous tolerance should conservatively be considered for
design purposes.
o CPS / cable burial start point, i.e., distance from scour protection.
o CPS cable burial gradient.
o CPS to seabed / scour protection friction (normal and axial) and stiffness.
• The weight in water of the cable/CPS cross-section (as applicable) including the seawater
contained within the CPS and the buoyancy/upthrust of the system should be accurately modelled.
The seawater density should reflect the specific onsite conditions.
• Non-linear material properties of the polymer bend stiffeners (where applicable) should be
captured in the model. The non-linear material properties associated with the minimum and
maximum service temperatures should be assessed as part of the design.
• The non-linear bending moment versus curvature lock-out relationship of the bend restrictors
(where applicable) should be captured in the model. Due to the complex geometry at the
interfaces of each of the bend restrictor components, local modelling of the bend restrictors
and/or physical testing should be performed to determine the characteristic curve to represent
the bend restrictor response to bending. This characteristic curve should be utilised as an input in
the global model to accurately capture the bend restrictor lock-out response.
• Linear or non-linear cable bending stiffness should be captured in the model where available.
Where linear bending stiffness is considered then this should be based on the ‘slipped’ (lower
bound) bending stiffness of the cable as this will induce larger curvatures and displacements in
response to hydrodynamic loading. Where both linear and non-linear bending stiffnesses are
available then sensitivities should be performed to ascertain the most onerous condition for
design.
• Marine growth should be captured in the model. It is recommended to assess a start-of-life (SOL)
CPS system configuration with no marine growth and an end-of-life (EOL) CPS configuration with
full marine growth profile.
• CPS surface corrosion should be considered in the model where applicable (i.e., where a corrosion
allowance is considered as part of the corrosion protection system). It is recommended to assess
a start-of-life (SOL) CPS system configuration with no surface corrosion and an end-of-life (EOL)
CPS configuration that captures the maximum surface corrosion for both the outer and inner CPS
surfaces.
• A start-of-life (SOL) CPS system configuration and an end-of-life (EOL) CPS configuration should
be assessed as part of the design. A mid-life configuration should also be assessed where a SOL
and EOL configuration is not anticipated to sufficiently bound the results of the analysis.
• The water depth should reflect the specific onsite conditions. The most onerous water depth that
imparts the largest hydrodynamic loading on the cable/CPS system should be assessed. The low
water level is typically the most onerous condition as it will maximise the hydrodynamic loading
on the system due to increased water particle velocities and accelerations in shallower water.
However, it is recommended that a number of sensitivities from low water depth to high water
depth be performed, (particularly for the extreme assessment for sites inside the breaking wave

45
 zone) as the combination of water depth and depth limiting breaking wave height can influence
the magnitude of water particle velocities and accelerations at the CPS elevation. See also Section
5.4.2.
• Environmental loading due to wave and current should reflect the specific onsite conditions.
Where the wave height is limited by water depth onsite, then this should be captured in the model.
Hydrodynamic loading on the CPS should consider the following:
o Influence of near seabed effects (e.g., drag, lift and added mass).
o Flow amplification around monopile foundations as applicable.
Those sections of the cable and CPS that are shielded by the monopile, J-tube, seabed, or rock
stabilisation (where applicable) should not be subjected to hydrodynamic loading. Similarly, the
cable should not be subjected to hydrodynamic loading when shielded inside the CPS.
• Abrasion assessment should consider the wear characteristics between the CPS and the
seabed/scour protection, and wear characteristic between the cable and the internal bore of the
CPS where available.
• CPS system modelling should be capable of capturing the following system responses:
o Extreme response due to wave and current.
o Fatigue response due to wave and vortex induced vibration (VIV).

7.1.2. Sensitivites
The analysis work should allow for sensitivity studies to assess the impact of uncertainties, assumptions
and variations within the input parameters of the global analysis. The analysis should define the envelope
in which the CPS and cable are able to perform their intended functions (without comprising allowable
limits), whilst considering all reasonable tolerances and their effects that should include, but be not limited
to, the following:
• Residual lay tension of cable after pull-in.
• Foundation interface tolerances, e.g. height, angle.
• Scour protection tolerances.
• Scour hole geometry.
• CPS material properties.
• Cable properties.
• Environmental directionality.
• Water depth (particularly in the breaking wave zone)
• Cable / CPS line to line friction coefficient and line contact stiffness.
• Impact of abrasion on the affected section(s) of the CPS, where predicted to occur as applicable.
The stiffness and mechanical properties of affected sections should be altered to reflect the
amended mechanical properties that are subject to abrasion.

7.1.3. ULS Analysis

The cable and CPS should be designed to withstand the maximum environmental load combinations (wave
and current) it is likely to be subjected to throughout its specified design life, including for permanent and
temporary conditions as applicable.
The following hydrodynamic loads should be considered in the ULS analysis ([5], [6], [10])

46
Offshore Substation (OSS) location for permanent conditions ([6], [10]):
• For permanent operational conditions and temporary phases with a duration exceeding 12
months, a 100yr return period (RP) should apply, i.e. the characteristic load condition is the load
condition with 0.01 annual exceedance probability ([7], [6]). When detailed information about the
joint probability of waves and current is not available, the following load case combinations should
be assessed [6]:
o 100yr RP for wave combined with 10yr RP for current
o 10yr RP for wave combined with 100yr RP for current
Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) location for permanent conditions ([5], [10]):
• For permanent operational conditions and temporary phases with a duration exceeding 12
months, a 50yr return period (RP) should apply, i.e. the characteristic load condition is the load
condition with 0.02 annual exceedance probability ([7], [6]). When detailed information about the
joint probability of waves and current is not available, the following load case combinations should
be assessed [6]:
o 50yr RP for wave combined with 10yr RP for current
o 10yr RP for wave combined with 50yr RP for current
Offshore Substation (OSS) & Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) locations for temporary conditions ([10]):
• For a temporary phase with duration less than 12 months, but in excess of three days, a 10yr return
period (RP) for the actual seasonal environmental condition applies. The following load case
combinations should be assessed [10]:
o Seasonal 10yr RP for waves combined with the seasonal 1yr RP for current
o Seasonal 1yr RP for waves combined with the seasonal 10yr RP for current
The season covered by the environmental data should be sufficient to cover uncertainties in the
beginning and end of the temporary condition to account for e.g. delays.
• For a temporary phase less than three days, an extreme load condition may be specified based on
reliable weather forecasts [10].
• Where the above guidance for the temporary condition is considered overly conservative in terms
of achieving a feasible solution, then further refinement of the return period environment may be
considered in line with the guidance provided in Table 3-1 of DNV-ST-N001 [20] (see Figure 7-1).
However, this should be subject to approval and agreement with client on a project specific basis.

47
Figure 7-5: DNV-ST-N001 – Metocean minimum design return periods – Unrestricted marine operations [20].

Environmental loading (wave and current) should be applied collinearly and perpendicular (90⁰) to the
plane of the cable / CPS as this will conservatively impart the largest hydrodynamic loading on system and
induce the most extreme response. However, sensitivities assessing environmental directionality should
be considered to prove the CPS system can operate within the most unfavourable combination without
exceedances in any of the allowable cable and CPS criteria.
The ULS assessment of the cable and CPS should consider both a start-of-life (SOL) and end-of-life (EOL)
condition that accounts for both marine growth and corrosion allowance (as applicable). A mid-life
configuration should also be assessed where a SOL and EOL configuration is not anticipated to sufficiently
bound the results of the analysis.
The key parameters of interest include, but may not be limited to:
• Cable lateral displacement
• Cable tension
• Cable compression
• Cable curvature / MBR
• Cable normalised curvature (for varying levels of combined tension and bending)
• Cable sidewall pressure
• CPS tension
• CPS compression
• CPS bending moment

48
 • CPS shear force
• CPS von mises strain (VMS) as applicable
In addition, the CPS should be of sufficient length such that it will not be pulled out of the burial region
leading to cable exposure whilst maintaining the required depth of lowering.
Results plots should be provided along the length of the cable and CPS for each of these parameters.
The global extreme loads should be extracted for input to the local stress / strain analysis.

7.1.4. Wave (FLS) Analysis

The cable and CPS should be designed to withstand fatigue loading due to bending and tension
throughout its specified design life, including for permanent and temporary conditions as applicable. An
operational wave environment should be considered for the purposes of this assessment.
The following should be considered as part of the wave fatigue assessment:
• Long-term wave loading for application in the fatigue analysis should be based on an operational
wave scatter diagram. See section 5.4.5.
• An omnidirectional wave scatter diagram should be conservatively considered, and all wave
loading should be applied perpendicular (90⁰) to the plane of the cable / CPS as this will induce
the largest bending response in the system.
• Blocking of the wave scatter diagram may be considered and should follow the recommendations
provided in section 5.4.5.
• Cable and CPS mechanical properties should represent the most conservative properties from a
FLS perspective. i.e. the properties which result in the highest bending of the cable and CPS under
environmental loading conditions.
• Marine growth build-up is expected to fully develop after approximately 2 years (see section 5.3.5),
and therefore 100% marine growth thickness should be accounted for in the fatigue assessment
for the permanent condition. Marine growth build-up for the temporary condition should reflect
the time period between the temporary and permanent installation conditions.
• The average corrosion (over the specified design life) on both the inner and outer surfaces of the
metallic components of the CPS should be considered where applicable.
• The inclusion of current loading, or not, in the fatigue analysis should be assessed to ascertain its
impact on the on the fatigue performance. Where the inclusion of current is demonstrated to have
an onerous impact on the fatigue performance, then the use of an operational current should be
considered as per recommendations in API-RP-17B [27]. Where applicable, current should be
applied collinear with wave, i.e. applied perpendicular (90⁰) to the plane of the cable / CPS.
• The global fatigue response (i.e., tension and curvature) should be extracted at each location along
the cable and CPS for input to the local stress analysis.
• The global fatigue response may also be extracted at fatigue hotpots (locations where bending
and tension ranges are comparatively large) along the cable and CPS for input to the local stress
analysis. The standard deviation of tension and curvature response provide a method for
determining fatigue hotspots as described in API-RP-17B [27]. The following approach may be
used to identify fatigue hotspots as appropriate:
o Standard deviation of tension and curvature along the component length are extracted
for all load cases.
o The standard deviation of each load case is weighted based on its percentage of
occurrence.

49
 o Weighted standard deviations of tension and curvature are used to identify locations of
maximum standard deviation in the fatigue critical regions.
The format of the global fatigue outputs should be compatible with local analysis software.

7.1.5. VIV (FLS) Analysis

The cable and CPS should be assessed for VIV (Vortex-Induced Vibration) response, including for
permanent and temporary conditions as applicable. The initial focus of this assessment should involve
determining whether VIV excitation will occur, i.e., whether the natural frequencies of the cable / CPS are
within the bandwidth of the vortex shedding frequency which would lead to lock-in vibration to occur. The
following should be considered as part of the VIV screening assessment:
• Modal analysis should be performed to determine the natural frequencies and mode shapes of
the cable / CPS. The modal analysis should reflect the physical cable / CPS configuration (i.e.,
geometrical layout, tension, boundary conditions, etc.).
• The number of modes extracted from the modal analysis should be sufficient to determine the
system response for the full range of potential vortex shedding frequencies associated with
combined current and wave particle velocities as per DNV-RP-F105 [11]. A joint probability
distribution of combined current and wave particle velocities should be provided as part of a site
specific metocean report for the purposes of this assessment.
• The impact of current and wave flow amplification around the monopile should be accounted for
as applicable.
• Combined current and wave particle velocities should be applied perpendicular (90⁰) to the
plane of the cable / CPS which is most conservative.
• VIV screening should be performed with the use of a suitable mode superposition software
package.
Where VIV excitation is predicted to occur a VIV fatigue analysis should be performed to ensure the cable
and CPS can withstand fatigue loading due to bending and tension throughout its specified design life.
Similar to the wave fatigue assessment (section 7.1.4), the VIV fatigue assessment involves the extraction
of global fatigue loads along the cable / CPS (or at fatigue hotspots) for input to the local stress analysis.
The format of the global fatigue outputs should be compatible with local analysis software.

7.1.6. Abrasion Assessment

The cable and CPS should be designed to withstand abrasion (leading to failure) due to relative motion
between the cable and CPS, and relative motion between CPS and seabed / scour protection for the
specified design life of the system.
The ability of the cable and CPS component materials to withstand abrasion should be demonstrated
through mechanical testing, and analytical methods (using outputs from the global system model).
A methodology for predicting wear damage based on the Archard Wear Abrasion formulation may be
used as an analytical approach for the purposes of this assessment.
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝑉𝑉 =
𝐻𝐻
where:

V = wear volume due to abrasion k = wear coefficient W = normal load

L = sliding length H = material hardness

50
The following should be considered when using the Archard Wear formulation as part of the abrasion
assessment:
• The wear volume due to abrasion should be calculated at each point along the cable / CPS (as
applicable) for each individual wave fatigue load case (from the wave scatter diagram) and
combined with all load cases to give an accumulated wear volume based on annual occurrence
per load case. The wear volume per load case may be determined as follows:
o The accumulative movement of the cable relative to the CPS, and accumulative movement
of the CPS relative to the seabed/scour protection should be output from the global
model at each point along the cable / CPS for input into the Archard Wear formulation.
All sources of relative movement should be considered as applicable, including axial,
sliding and rotation.
o The mean contact force between the cable and CPS, and CPS and seabed/scour protection
should also be output from the global model at each point along the cable / CPS and
input into the Archard Wear formulation.
o Wear coefficients and material hardness values which are required as input to the Archard
Wear formulation should be determine through appropriate material testing of the
applicable cable and CPS component materials.
• The cable abrasion assessment should consider wear of the outer surface of the cable (i.e.,
polypropylene rovings or outer sheath) and steel armour wires, while CPS abrasion should
consider wear of the CPS component.
• The annual accumulated wear volume should be computed by combining the total wear
associated with each of the individual wave fatigue load cases based on annual occurrence per
load case. The annual accumulated wear volume should be compared to allowable wear volume
of the cable / CPS component so that the number of years to wear of the allowable volume can
be predicted. Results plots should be provided along the length of the cable and CPS predicting
the number of years to wear of the allowable volume.
Similarly, to the wave fatigue analysis (see Section 7.1.4), the inclusion of current, or not, in the fatigue
analysis load cases for the purposes of the abrasion assessment, should be assessed to ascertain its impact
on abrasion. Where the inclusion of current is demonstrated to have an onerous impact on abrasion, then
the use of an operational current should be considered. Where applicable, current should be applied
collinear with wave, i.e. applied perpendicular (90⁰) to the plane of the cable / CPS.

7.1.7. Interference
An interference assessment should be performed to ensure that the cable/CPS inside the foundation (i.e.,
in the case of a monopile foundation) does not come into contact with the internal wall of the monopile
or foundation internals. Further guidance on this topic is provided DNVGL-RP-F203 [19].

7.2. Local cable analysis

Local analysis of the cable cross-section should be performed to ensure that the accumulative fatigue
damage within the metallic cable components is within allowable limits for the specified design life.
The metallic layers of the cable cross-section may include armour layer, conductor, metallic screen and
radial water barrier as applicable.
The stress for each metallic layer should be computed in the local analysis using the global load responses
and cable cross-section properties.
Local analysis of the cable may be performed using either analytical or finite element models as
appropriate.

51
Input data for local cable analysis should include the following:
• Component by component data including, dimensions, lay angle, mass, number of components,
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio.
• Friction coefficient between component and adjacent layers; wires, or screen.
• The tension and curvature ranges for each of the load cases defined as part of the global wave
fatigue analysis (see Section 7.1). Resultant curvature may be conservatively assumed to occur in
the same plane. A more refined approach could be taken if time traces (to account for phasing)
of the curvatures, about two axes, were to be provided for each wave fatigue load case.
• SN Data. SN curves should be established for assessing fatigue damage of the metallic cable
components. If fatigue data does not exist for the material, detail, and environment under
consideration, then SN curves should be developed by testing.
In the event of high contact pressures occurring within the components of the cable, high friction will
result. With a high friction load on the components, it is possible that a ‘no slip’ condition will result at
least for the initial onset of curvature until such time as the friction is overcome and the internal
components begin to slip. Therefore, the internal components prior to slip will bend about the neutral axis
of the cable rather than their own neutral axis. This will result in larger bending stresses and smaller fatigue
lives than for the slip condition. Ignoring these effects can potentially result in an unconservative fatigue
life estimation. Therefore, the effects of friction and stick/slip behaviour between layers in the cable cross-
section should be considered in calculations of fatigue damage as per guidance in DNV-ST-0119 [4].
Stress in the cable cross-section should account for the combined effects of axisymmetric, wire bending,
and (bending-induced) friction stress in calculations of fatigue damage.
Minimum fatigue lives for each component in the cable cross section should be output as part of the local
cable fatigue analysis, based on the calculated stress ranges, SN curves and Miners Rule for damage
summation. A fatigue factor of safety of 10 should be considered in line with recommendations provided
in DNV-RP-F401[9], and DNV-ST-0119 [23].

7.3. Local CPS analysis

The local analysis of the CPS should be performed to evaluate the performance of the individual
components of the CPS (including banding or fasteners such as nuts and bolts) and check to ensure that
the structural integrity of the components is not compromised during extreme (ULS) conditions and
operational (FLS) environmental conditions, including for permanent and temporary conditions as
applicable, for the specified design life of the system. Local analysis of the CPS should be performed using
3D finite element analysis techniques for which a number of commercial software packages exist.
The local analysis should confirm acceptable performance for all CPS components to satisfy the design life
of the system. CPS components may include, but are not limited to:
• Bend stiffeners,
• Bend restrictors,
• Interface unit or mechanical latch / connector,
• Connection units between adjacent CPS components, e.g. clamps, inserts, etc.,
• Banding or fasteners (bolts and nuts) for the entire CPS.
The local analysis should demonstrate that all CPS system components are within allowable design limits
for both extreme and fatigue loading. The local analysis should also account for the impact of
manufacturing tolerances and the degradation of the materials during the operational lifetime. i.e.,
sufficient structural strength should be proven for both start of life (SOL) and end of life (EOL) conditions.
Corrosion allowance for metallic materials should be considered in the analysis which may impact the

52
performance of the CPS during the design lifetime. Abrasion of CPS components, where predicted to occur,
should also be considered in the analysis as this may also impact the performance of the CPS during the
design lifetime, i.e. reduction in structural capacity of the CPS.
The local analysis of the CPS should be performed to determine the local stress / strain response of the
CPS components in response to the global loads obtained from the global system analysis as described in
section 7.1. The global loads required for input to the local analysis may include as applicable:
• Effective tension
• Shear force
• Bending moment
• Rotation
• Axial Compression
The following describes some of the key aspects to be considered in the local analysis:
• The local analysis of the CPS may be modelled as individual components (i.e., bend stiffener,
mechanical latch, bend restrictor, etc.) as applicable in order to minimise the system complexity
and reduce the computational effort required to simulate the response of the CPS. This will require
an accurate representation of boundary conditions and load application, including extraction of
global loads at the associated component interfaces for input to the local analysis.
• CPS bend restrictors (as applicable) are typically half shell structures clamped together during
installation. As a result, determining the worst-case loads on these CPS components may require
performing separate load cases to account for different orientations on the interface, i.e.
o with the CPS half shell interface in-plane with the applied loads.
o with the CPS half shell interface out-of-plane with the applied loads.
In general, the worst-case loading orientation of the CPS components should be assessed.
• The geometry of the CPS components should be accurately represented in the local analysis.
Where considered appropriate, planes of symmetry may be considered to reduce the model’s
computational requirements. This will depend on the component geometry and the plane of
loading.
• The material properties of the CPS components should be documented and accurately
represented in the local analysis. This may include elastic-plastic (metallic) and/or hyper-elastic
(polymer) materials with non-linear stress-strain relationships. Material properties used in a local
analysis can be based on specific test data or generated from typical or referenced data.
Representative non-linear stress-strain curves can be generated from typical physical data (elastic
modulus, yield stress, tensile strength, and elongation) using curve fitting techniques (e.g.,
Ramberg-Osgood). Alternatively, simple bilinear stress-strain curves can be used.
• The local analysis of CPS should consider the degradation of the materials during the operational
lifetime. i.e., sufficient structural strength should be proven for both start of life (SOL) and end of
life (EOL) conditions. Corrosion allowance for metallic materials should be considered in the
analysis, i.e., reduction in wall thickness at EOL to account for corrosion. The impact of abrasion
on the structural capacity of the CPS should also be assessed where this is predicted to occur
within the specified design life.
• Meshing of CPS components should be of sufficient quality to accurately capture the stress and
strain response of the components. This includes selection of mesh type and dimension to ensure
sufficient accuracy in critical areas (e.g., bolt holes, etc.), including accurately capturing the
through-thickness response of the components. Mesh sensitivity studies should be carried out to
ensure sufficient mesh quality.

53
 • Bolt pre-tensions should be applied to bolted connections where applicable and allow for correct
interaction of pre-tension and applied loads. Bolt tension range during pre-tension and
operational loading can usually be extracted directly from a local analysis for assessment against
code allowable (e.g., DNV-OS-C101[17]). The low estimate bolt tension should be assumed.
• Frictional sliding contact between all interacting surfaces should be included in the model as
applicable.
• The load cases and combinations should be clearly stated and referenced against the global
analysis. Where appropriate load and material factors are applied to global loads (as per DNV-
OS-C101 [17]) then these should be clearly identified.
• In simulations, a linear ramp profile may be used to apply the applicable loads on a component
including loading from moment, shear and tension, etc. The maximum increment size in the load
step of each analysis should be controlled to provide a sufficient number of output requests to
enable each component's nonlinear response to load to be accurately represented as applicable.
• Each component analysed should be represented with a max stress and / or strain output from
the local analysis and compared against limiting values of stress and /or strain for the constituent
material to provide associated utilisations per load case.
• The worst-case fatigue life including factor of safety should be documented.
Further guidance in relation to establishing structural resistance by use of non-linear finite element
methods is provided in DNV-RP-C208 [18].

7.4. Thermal analysis

7.4.1. General
A representative thermal analysis to demonstrate the thermal limitations of any materials within the cable
or CPS should be performed. The design of the CPS should have sufficient thermal performance to prevent
overheating of the cable and to prevent thermal degradation of the CPS components for the specified
design life. The CPS design should also account for each of the installed thermal environments and
interfaces which may include as applicable:
• seawater,
• burial in seabed,
• rock cover,
• stabilisation,
• mattresses,
• marine growth,
• ambient air,
• foundation interface (e.g. J-tube).
The results of the analysis should show that the maximum temperature in any given material in both the
cable and CPS components are within allowable limits. The thermal analysis should ensure that the nominal
load that the cable needs to carry is not compromised due to the presence of the CPS in its installed
thermal environment, i.e., there should not be curtailment of the current rating.
The thermal analysis may be performed as either a higher 2D screening study or as a more complex 3D
assessment. 1D assessments for screening purposes can also be beneficial to broadly determine the
suitability of CPS section materials and thicknesses at the early stages of design.

54
7.4.2. Thermal screening assessment
Thermal screening assessments are typically performed using a radial conduction approach in line with
IEC60287 [33] analytical methods as appropriate. These assessments are performed to understand the
general performance of the CPS and identify potential thermal hotspot areas where temperatures are close
to or have exceeded allowable cable and CPS limits. Where the temperatures calculated by the thermal
screening assessment are within ±10% of the allowable limit a more detailed and representative 3D FEA
assessment is considered appropriate.
The IEC60287 [33] approach is considered conservative as it only considers heat transfer from the outside
of the cable to the surrounding medium by conduction. Convection in both axial and radial directions, or
radiation through the CPS is not considered, however these mechanisms may exist (as applicable), and can
contribute to the dissipation of heat losses from the cables and through the CPS.
A detailed 3D FEA assessment would be required in order to accurately capture the combined heat loss
mechanisms of conduction, convection and radiation in both the radial and transverse directions.

7.4.3. Detailed 3D FEA assessment

Modelling the thermal performance of a CPS may be undertaken by a number of commercial software
packages. However, it should be understood that the accuracy of the results will strongly depend on the
physical phenomena which need to be simulated. For instance, the presence of air gap or vacuum between
different layers would imply that radiation would need to be considered as it could become one of the
main contributors of the CPS performance. A good understanding of the physics which is needed to be
simulated is important for the selection of the appropriate package to reproduce it.
The following describes some of the key aspects to be considered in the thermal analysis:
• The 3D model should capture all thermally critical transitional features from buried bare cable,
cable in CPS, bare cable in water within monopile/J-tube, or bare cable in air in J-tube, etc.
• The CPS should be modelled as per the general arrangement drawings of both the overall
construction and individual elements. Due to the inherent low thermal conductivity of the
polymers, the modelling of the metallic components is an important consideration to ensuring
that a non-overly conservative solution is obtained.
• Where the cable manufacturer has performed a thermal analysis and provided a maximum heat
dissipation (W/m) from the cable, the cable may be considered as a homogenous tube within the
calculation. Where this information is not available the cable should be included in the model. The
cable model should be detailed enough to assign thermal losses for appropriate layers of the
cable system, i.e., conductor, dielectric (insulation), metallic screen/sheath and armour wires.
• Marine growth should be applied to those exposed sections of the CPS as applicable. Marine
growth thickness and thermal resistivity based on site specific data should be used, or in its
absence recommendations from codes and standards (see section 5.3.5).
• The key dimensions of the monopile or J-tube interface for the cable and CPS should be
incorporated into the model. An engineering evaluation of the worst-case height (based on
potential scour, mobile sediment overburden and/or stabilisation) should be made, or sensitivity
analysis performed.
• Scour protection should be considered in the model.
• Seabed or rock berm material (as applicable) around or on top of the cable / CPS should be
modelled as applicable. The addition of stabilisation adds additional thermal load and should be
captured in the model.
• Any slope from the start of burial to full depth should be included in the model.

55
 • Sensitivities should be performed on the extent of the seabed domain (i.e., below the sea floor
level and radially around the cable / CPS) such that the system response has been stabilised in the
numerical simulation.
• The overall arrangement modelled may use symmetry (as applicable) to half the overall model
size to improve computation efficiency and to generate a higher-quality general arrangement
representation where possible.
• Component materials and their associated thermal properties (e.g., thermal conductivity) should
be assigned to each domain of the system. It is important to ensure that the model is analytically
accurate and captures the thermally critical elements of the system with appropriate conservatism.
Where critical material properties vary with temperature, the influence may be captured with
temperature dependent functions, e.g., seawater has thermal characteristics (thermal conductivity)
that vary with temperature.
• The appropriate physics of heat transfer should be applied across all domains within the model.
This should include conduction, convection, and radiation as applicable in both the radial and
transverse directions.
• Model boundaries should be set according to the most appropriate physics.
• Where applicable thermal modelling may be performed considering steady-state or transient
conditions (e.g., to account for margins to allow for power transmission changes).
• Mesh sensitivity should be carried out to ensure sufficient mesh quality.
• Consideration should be given for appropriate sensitivity studies for parameters to determine the
model dependency.
Analytical parameters that may be considered include:
o Mesh type, size, quality
o Convergence criteria
o Boundary conditions
o Material properties
o Time dependency
Geometric parameters that may be considered include:
o Marine growth
o Mobile sediment
o Scour
o Temporary conditions
o Monopile/J-tube entry height.

8. Qualification process

8.1. Purpose
The qualification process should provide the following allowable limits for a given CPS design which can
then be compared to project specific loads to determine the suitability of the CPS for a given project.
• maximum allowable tension.
• maximum allowable axial compression.

56
 • maximum allowable bending moment.
• maximum allowable shear force.
• maximum allowable VMS
• maximum fatigue damage for CPS components.
• maximum allowable wear (due to abrasion).
• maximum allowable impact energy (e.g., due to dropped object).
• maximum allowable crush capacity.
• thermal limits of the CPS.

8.2. Process
The qualification process is summarised below and in Figure 8-1. Further details on each element of the
process are provided in the following sections of this document.

8.2.1. Material selection

Material level tests define the characteristics of the materials within the construction and the capacity of
the materials against relevant failure modes. These are adequately covered in API-Spec-17L1 [24]. This
standard should be considered for Material Tests.

8.2.2. Numerical modelling

Material characteristics are input into the numerical models of the CPS in order to calculate the component
level capacities of the CPS.

8.2.3. Verification testing

The component level tests verify the capacity of the CPS system against failure modes driven by mechanical
loads as defined by the numerical model over the lifetime of the CPS. The majority of these are adequately
covered in API-RP-17L2 [25]. This recommended practice should be considered for verification testing.

8.2.4. Qualification
The CPS numerical modelling is qualified by comparison with the verification testing. The numerical model
may also need to be calibrated with the results of the verification testing. The CPS is qualified to loads up
to the allowable loads as defined by the benchmarked numerical model with a safety factor applied for
Operation, Installation and Abnormal conditions.

57
 Figure 8-6: CPS qualification process.

8.3. Material selection

8.3.1. Requirements
The CPS materials should be selected such that they are compatible with the environment to which the
materials will be exposed over the specified design life. The selection of CPS material should account for
the functional requirements as summarised in Section 4.4.1.

8.3.2. Material testing

58
Material level tests define the characteristics of the materials within the construction and the capacity of
the materials against relevant failure modes. API-Spec-17L1 [24] provides details on the material level
testing required for bend stiffeners and bend restrictors (the constituent components in a CPS system) to
define the characteristics and capacity of the materials. These requirements are re-produced in the
following tables.
Testing should account for the influence of temperature and environment on the mechanical properties
of the materials over time. Testing procedures are provided in the referenced standards.
Table 8-1 provides the general testing requirements for polymeric materials as defined by API-Spec-17L1.
Table 8-7: General test procedures for polymer materials – API-Spec-17L1.

Table 8-2 and Table 8-3 provides a list of the standards for a variety of metallic materials for structural
components and fasteners respectively as defined in API-Spec-17L1. In addition, API-Spec-17L1 specifies
that as a minimum, metallic materials should be certified to 3.1b) of ISO 10474:1991 (EN 10204 3.1) and
that materials should be tested at raw materials suppliers or manufacturers work site.
Table 8-8: Standards for metallic structural materials – API-Spec-17L1.

59
Table 8-9: Standards for metallic fastener materials – API-Spec-17L1.

8.3.3. Deliverables
The CPS Manufacturer should provide material certificates for all materials used in the construction of the
CPS. The certificates should include the results of all the material tests in Table 8-1 for polymer materials
and certification to the relevant ISO/ASTM/EN standards in Table 8-3 for metallic materials. The certificates
should provide all the properties of the materials required for the numerical model of the CPS. These can
be based on historical qualification test data.

8.4. Numerical modelling

8.4.1. Material data input

The minimum material information required for the CPS capacity calculations are:
• Material Properties
o Elastic Modulus
o Wear Coefficients
o Corrosion rates
o Hardness
• Material Capacities
o Yield Strength
60
 o Allowable Strain
o S-N / ε-N
Further definition of the input data requirements is described in Section 4.6 to Section 7.0.

8.4.2. CPS modelling

Definition of CPS modelling requirements are described in Section 5.0 to Section 7.0.

8.4.3. Capacity calculations

The purpose of the capacity calculations is to define the allowable loads on a given CPS construction
irrespective of project loads and define the inputs to testing of the CPS to qualify the design for loads up
to the allowable loads.
The capacity calculations can be performed using certified Finite Element Analysis software models or
certified calculations.
The calculations should provide the capacities for the following loads:
• Bending Moment (Global Curvature/MBR)
• Tension
• Shear
• Combined Bending, Tension and Shear
• Impact load
• Crush Load
The capacities should be defined as a utilisation of 1.0 against the yield stress or allowable strain of the
materials. Additional safety factors may then be applied in the design, for Operation, Installation and
Abnormal conditions.

8.5. CPS verification testing

8.5.1. General
The component level tests define the capacity of the CPS system against failure modes driven by
mechanical loads over the lifetime of the CPS.
API-RP-17L2 [25] provides details on the component level testing required for bend stiffeners and bend
restrictors (the constituent components in a CPS system). API-RP-17L2 [25] is aimed towards project
specific testing rather than to define the characteristics and capacity of the components. The tests remain
the same, however, the definition of the loads for the CPS verification tests should be based on capacity
calculations. These requirements are summarised in the sections below and modified as required to reflect
a capacity test rather than a project specific test.

8.5.2. Static bend test

Bend stiffeners / Tubular elements

The objective of the static bend test is to verify that the bend stiffener / tubular elements of the CPS deflect
(bend) to the same profile as predicted by the numerical model for a range of angular variations up to the
maximum allowable curvature based on strain limits and that the strain in the polymer through the range
of angular variations and at the curvature limit reflects the model.
61
Procedure
The bend stiffener/tubular element should be subjected to a particular tension and angle combination
which is representative of the capacity of the bend stiffener element as defined by the strain in the polymer.
The test should be applied over time and the curvature and strain in the polymer measured. However, if
the test equipment has a load limitation that restricts application of the capacity load, then the test may
be modified (with agreement from the purchaser) to the maximum allowable load for the test equipment.
The applied load must still be sufficient to show that the bend stiffener element deflects to the same
profile (±0.01m-1 on curvature) as predicted by the design software and the stress/strain relationship is in
line with the design software to allow for extrapolation to the defined capacity limit. The integrity of the
polymer/metallic interface at the mechanical fixation should also be evaluated.
As the cable is not the focus of these tests a representative structure can be used in place of the cable
provided the numerical model which is used to predict the capacity of the CPS accounts for the influence
of the representative structure.

Bend restrictor elements

The objective of the static bend test is to verify that the bend restrictor elements lock-out at the defined
MBR and that as the bending moment increases on the locked-out system the moment versus strain
relationship is in line with the results from the design software up to the defined capacity limit based on
allowable stress/strain in the CPS elements.
Procedure
The number of bend restrictor elements that are assembled for the test should be sufficient to simulate
the maximum load in one of the elements while ensuring that boundary effects due to the test set up are
representative of the operational condition or negligible in the element which is being tested. Therefore,
assembly of the entire set of elements is not necessarily needed.
The required number of bend restrictor elements should be assembled onto the interface structure, or
onto dimensionally and geometrically representative mock-ups of the interface structure. As this is not a
project specific acceptance test, the test support structure does not need to be dimensionally and
geometrically representative of the support structure during service.
The elements should be fastened together using fasteners of the same specification and fastened to the
same fastening force as determined in the numerical model. Before application of loads, the bend restrictor
should be checked to ensure that all fasteners are in position.
The bend restrictor should be subjected to lock-up and then gradually loaded up to the defined capacity
for an agreed time period. The load is typically applied by running straps or ropes through the centre of
the bend restrictor and applying lateral tension using a tensioning device. The deformed locking radius
should then be measured. The bend restrictor should then be disassembled.
The disassembled bend restrictor elements, when examined, should be free from any damage. Typical
signs of damage are cracking or warping in the bend restrictor elements. The deformed locking radius
should be equal to or greater than the specified operating MBR and should correspond to that calculated
at the design stage.
API-RP-17L2 [25] also defines a destructive test. The objective of the destructive test is to identify the
failure load of the bend restrictor, and to compare this load to design calculations. The procedure is the
same as the proof load testing procedure except that the load is gradually increased until failure of the
bend restrictor occurs. There should be added safety requirements specified before the test, since failure
of bend restrictor elements may cause broken pieces to be projected from the point of failure. Test
personnel should therefore be standing at a safe distance and wear protective clothing and safety glasses.
The failure load should be equal to or greater than that calculated in the design, accounting for material
utilisation factors.

62
8.5.3. Combined tension and bending test
The tests above should be repeated with combined tension and bending load to the defined maximum
limits. Multiple tension and bending load combinations may be required to fully define the capacity of the
system.

8.5.4. Dynamic fatigue test

Full-scale dynamic fatigue tests are not mandatory but may be requested by the purchaser. The
manufacturer may be able to rely on historical test data or other means to justify the omission of full-scale
dynamic fatigue testing.
Full-scale dynamic fatigue tests are described in API-RP-17L2 [25] for bend stiffeners and CIGRE TB 623
[32] and CIGRE TB 862 [31] for submarine cables. These tests are aimed towards project specific fatigue of
the cables/flexibles/umbilicals which the bend stiffener/CPS protects, however, the principle remains the
same here but with a focus on understanding the fatigue performance capacity of the CPS itself.
The key objective is to verify that the S-N / ε-N or equivalent κ-N properties of the CPS from the material
level tests are appropriate for the specific geometries of the CPS and understand any potential impact on
the metallic/polymer interfaces including adhesion and mechanical connections.
Procedure
The testing procedures outlined in API-RP-17L2 [25] Section 5.5.3 and CIGRE TB 862 [31] Section 6.3 should
be adopted for fatigue testing of each component within the CPS. These describe the set-up requirements
including the bend stiffener and other CPS elements.
As the cable is not the focus of these tests a representative structure can be used in place of the cable
provided the numerical model which is used to predict the required cyclical loading to verify the fatigue
performance of the CPS accounts for the influence of the representative structure.
The procedures call for the definition of at least 5 load blocks. For these capacity definition tests the five
blocks should represent a point on the s-N/ε-N curve. As this is not a project specific acceptance test the
test support structure does not need to be dimensionally and geometrically representative of the support
structure during service. However, the test support structure and all fastenings should be included in the
model used to define the 5 loading blocks.
A successful dynamic fatigue test of a CPS does not imply that any cable placed within the CPS will not be
subjected to excessive fatigue loading. This test is only for the fatigue performance of the CPS. Separate
dedicated fatigue testing of the cable would be required to confirm its fatigue performance.
As described in API-RP-17L2 [25] it can be difficult to predict the failure point of the bend stiffener with
any accuracy, due to the effect of heat generation and surface defects. Therefore, the load application
should consider the effects of temperature and results of this verification test should be used to refine the
numerical model where appropriate.

8.5.5. Impact test

All CPS (Bend Stiffeners/Tubular Elements and Bend Restrictors)

Impact tests for ancillary equipment are described in API-RP-17L2 [25] and for submarine cables in CIGRE
TB 623 [32].
The allowable impact energy on a CPS is driven by stress/strain and ovalisation of the CPS.
Procedure
The impact test procedures are outlined in API-RP-17L2 [25] and CIGRE TB 623 [32]. The test involves
dropping a mass on the CPS to achieve a calculated impact energy. The CPS should be laid on a surface

63
that is representative of a scour protection or a hard surface to provide a conservative estimate of
allowable impact energy. The impact energy applied in the test should be based on the impact energy
which will cause damage to the CPS (excessive stress/strain, indentation, ovalisation whichever is the
driving factor from the numerical models).
The load application should consider the component or location within the CPS which is most vulnerable
to impact energy based on the numerical model or which transfers the highest energy to the cable as
determined by the numerical model.

8.5.6. Crush Test

All CPS (Bend Stiffeners/Tubular Elements and Bend Restrictors)

Crush tests for ancillary equipment are described in API-RP-17L2 [25], (which references API-RP-17B [28]),
and for submarine cables in CIGRE TB 623 [32] and CIGRE TB 862 [31]. The purpose of the crush strength
test is to determine the crush capacity of the CPS. Crush loads may be applied to the CPS from forces
applied by machinery onboard the cable installation vessel and static loads during operating. The crush
strength test should be used to validate the design methodology and calculation tools (e.g., numerical
models) used to define the crush capacity of the CPS.

Procedure
The CPS should be positioned, empty without internal pressure, on the test device. The test device should
be represented using a clamping device with contact loads being exerted onto the CPS from two opposing
sides.
The crush load should be increased from zero up to the maximum allowable crush load determined by the
CPS manufacturer, i.e., based on excessive stress/strain, indentation, ovalisation whichever is the driving
factor from the numerical models. The crush load should be applied at a rate not greater than 1% of the
maximum load per second (1%/s) API-RP-17B [28], and it is recommended that the maximum crush load
is kept constant (within ±2 % API-RP-17B [28]) for a minimum of 1 hour (CIGRE TB 623 [32], API-RP-17B
[28]).
The CPS diameter, and CPS ovalisation should be measured prior to the test and measured continuously
during the test (including at maximum loading) using a suitable device. The diameter and ovalisation of
the CPS may change over time due to the applied load. The applied load should also be measured and
recorded throughout the test. To account for long term crush loading and the reduction in diameter due
to creep effects, it is recommended in CIGRE TB 862 [31] and CIGRE TB 623 [32] that the maximum crush
load be applied for a period of at least 5 to 7 days respectively.
For polymer CPS designs, crush tests should be performed for a range of different temperature conditions
as stiffness and creep properties of polymeric materials are temperature dependent.
The crush test should also be applied to each of the constituent components that comprise the CPS and
performed at locations on each of these components that are identified as most vulnerable to crush loads
based on the outputs predicted from the numerical model. The sample length of the CPS should be
selected such that end effects are minimised at the point of load application.
The objective of the test is to validate the manufacturer’s design methodology, i.e., the max crushing load
should be greater than that predicted by the design methodology. There should be no cracks, holes or
harmful indentations in the CPS.

64
8.5.7. Abrasion Test

All CPS (Bend Stiffeners/Tubular Elements and Bend Restrictors)

Full scale abrasion testing of the individual CPS components considering a surface representative of a
scour protection including expected sediment levels and in a seawater environment at a representative
temperature is required. Material level testing is informative, however, the interaction between the CPS
component geometry and the scour protection is important to understand and this can only be replicated
by fullscale (component level) testing. The objective of the test is to determine the reduction in load
capacity of the CPS component with increasing distance of travel per unit contact force. The reduction in
capacity is linked to the reduction in wall thickness which is linked to the volumetric wear rate and the
geometry of the CPS in contact with the scour protection. Therefore, calculation of the volumetric wear
rate per metre per unit force considering all the materials in the CPS cross-section is the key output from
the test. This wear rate may change depending on the materials which become exposed and contact the
seabed as wear develops. Therefore, destructive testing through the full wall thickness of the CPS is
recommended.
Procedure
The test set-up should ensure that the CPS component is in contact with the representative scour
protection surface with a known contact force. The CPS or scour protection surface is then moved either
linearly or rotationally and the distance of travel of the CPS on the scour protection continuously
measured. At regular intervals the test is paused, and dimensional reading taken of the wall thickness of
the CPS in contact with the scour protection surface in order to allow the calculate of a volumetric wear
rate and wall thickness reduction rate to generate a load capacity curve based on distance travelled.

65
References
DNVGL, “Subsea power cables in shallow water”, DNV-RP-0360, March 2016 (Amended October 2021).
DNVGL, “Subsea power cables for wind power plants”, DNL-ST-0359, June 2016 (Amended November 2021).
DNVGL, “Electrical power cables in subsea application”, DNV-RP-F401, September 2019 (Amended September
2021).
DNVGL, “Floating wind turbine structures”, DNV-ST-0119, June 2021.
DNVGL, “Support structures for wind turbines”, DNV-ST-0126, December 2021.
DNVGL, “Offshore Substations”, DNV-ST-0145, October 2020 (Amended September 2021).
DNVGL, “Environmental conditions and environmental loads”, DNV-RP-C205, September 2019 (Amended
September 2021).
DNVGL, “Loads and site conditions for wind turbines”, DNV-ST-0437, November 2016 (Amended November
2021).
DNVGL, “Pipe-soil interaction for submarine pipelines”, DNV-RP-F114, May 2021.
DNVGL, “On-bottom stability design of submarine pipelines, cables and umbilicals”, DNV-RP-F109, May 2021.
DNVGL, “Free spanning pipelines”, DNV-RP-F105, June 2017 (Amended September 2021).
DNVGL, “Risk assessment of pipeline protection”, DNV-RP-F107, September 2019 (Amended September 2021).
DNVGL, “Riser fatigue”, DNV-RP-F204, September 2019 (Amended September 2021).
DNVGL, “Fatigue design of offshore steel structures”, DNV-RP-C203, September 2019 (Amended September
2021).
DNVGL, “Corrosion protection for wind turbines”, DNV-RP-0416, March 2016 (Amended October 2021).
DNVGL, “Cathodic protection design”, DNV-RP-B401, May 2021.
DNVGL, “Design of offshore steel structures, general – LRFD method”, DNV-OS-C101, July 2019 (Amended
August 2021).
DNVGL, “Determination of structural capacity by non-linear finite element analysis methods”, DNV-RP-C208,
October 2022.
DNVGL, “Riser Interference”, DNV-RP-F203, September 2019 (Amended September 2021).
DNV, “Marine Operations and Marine Warranty”, DNV-ST-N001, December 2023.
ISO, “Petroleum and natural gas industries – Design and operation of subsea production systems, Part 5: Subsea
umbilicals”, ISO 13628-5:2009, December 2009.
ISO, “Petroleum and natural gas industries – Design and operation of subsea production systems, Part 2:
Unbonded flexible pipe systems for subsea and marine applications”, ISO 13628-2:2006, April 2009.
ISO, “Petroleum and natural gas industries – Design and operation of subsea production systems – Part 11:
Flexible pipe systems for subsea and marine applications”, ISO 13628-11:2007, June 2008.
API, “Specification for ancillary equipment for flexible pipes and subsea umbilicals”, API Specification L1, Second
Edition, June 2021.
API, “Recommended practice for ancillary equipment for flexible pipes and subsea umbilicals”, API
Recommended Practice 17L2, Second Edition, June 2021.
API, “Specification for unbonded flexible pipe”, API Specification 17J, Fourth Edition, May 2014 (Reaffirmed
March 2021).
API, “Recommended practice for flexible pipe”, API Recommended Practice 17B, Fifth Edition, May 2014
(Reaffirmed March 2021).

66
API, “Recommended practice for flexible pipe”, API Recommended Practice 17B, Fifth Edition, May 2014
(Reaffirmed March 2021).
Norsok Standard, “Actions and action effects”, N-003, Edition 3, 2017.
CIGRÉ, “Water tree ageing of high voltage XLPE cable insulation system under combined dynamic mechanical
and AC electrical stress”, Publication B1-307_2014, 2014.
CIGRÉ, “Recommendations for Mechanical Testing of Submarine Cables for Dynamic Applications”, TB 862,
January 2022.
CIGRÉ, “Recommendations for Mechanical Testing of Submarine Cables”, TB 623, June 2015.
IEC, “Electric cables – calculation of the current rating - Part 2-1: Thermal resistance – Calculation of thermal
resistance” IEC 60287-2-1:2015.

67
carbontrust.com
+44 (0) 20 7170 7000

Whilst reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the information contained within this
publication is correct, the authors, the Carbon Trust, its agents, contractors and sub-contractors give no
warranty and make no representation as to its accuracy and accept no liability for any errors or
omissions. Any trademarks, service marks or logos used in this publication, and copyright in it, are the
property of the Carbon Trust. Nothing in this publication shall be construed as granting any licence or
right to use or reproduce any of the trademarks, service marks, logos, copyright or any proprietary
information in any way without the Carbon Trust’s prior written permission. The Carbon Trust enforces
infringements of its intellectual property rights to the full extent permitted by law.

The Carbon Trust is a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under
Company number 4190230 with its Registered Office at: Level 5, Arbor, 255 Blackfriars road, London
SE1 9AX.

© The Carbon Trust 2024. All rights reserved.

Published in the UK: 2024

68