Life Extension of Floating Production Installations

Requirements for
Life Extension of Floating Production

Installations
July 2022
REQUIREMENTS FOR
LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION

INSTALLATIONS
JULY 2022
American Bureau of Shipping

Incorporated by Act of Legislature of
the State of New York 1862
© 2022 American Bureau of Shipping. All rights reserved.

ABS Plaza
1701 City Plaza Drive
Spring, TX 77389 USA
Foreword (1 July 2022)
These Requirements for Life Extension of Floating Production Installations have been developed to
provide classification requirements for existing floating production installations when the intended period
of operation at the original site or the cumulative operating time at both the original and relocated sites is
extended beyond the installation’s original design life. This document supplements the requirements for
life extension and relocation of floating production installations in accordance with the ABS Rules for
Building and Classing Floating Production Installations (FPI Rules).
This document outlines the life extension process that includes data collection, baseline survey,
engineering reassessment, establishment of conditions for granting life extension and condition
implementation.
This document supersedes the previous ABS Guidance Notes on Life Extension Methodology for Floating
Production Installations.
The July 2022 version changes the document type from “Guide” to “Requirements”. “Requirements”
documents contain mandatory criteria for Classification and issuance of Class Certificates, while Guides
contain only requirements for optional Notations (see 1-1-4/1.5 of the ABS Rules for Conditions of
Classification (Part 1)). The title is changed from "Guide for Life Extension of Floating Production
Installations" to "Requirements for Life Extension of Floating Production Installations". Accordingly,
editorial changes are made throughout this document.
This document becomes effective on the first day of the month of publication.
Users are advised to check periodically on the ABS website www.eagle.org to verify that this version is the
most current.
We welcome your feedback. Comments or suggestions can be sent electronically by email to

rsd@eagle.org.
ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 ii

REQUIREMENTS FOR
LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION

INSTALLATIONS
CONTENTS
SECTION 1 General..................................................................................................7
1 Introduction..................................................................................... 7
2 Scope..............................................................................................7
3 Application...................................................................................... 7
4 Classification Notations.................................................................. 8
4.1 LE Notation ....................................................................... 8
4.2 Fatigue Life........................................................................ 8
5 Classification Procedure................................................................. 8
6 Applicable Design Codes................................................................9
7 Schedule.........................................................................................9
8 Alternatives................................................................................... 10
9 Abbreviation..................................................................................10
10 References....................................................................................11
10.1 ABS Reference................................................................ 11
10.2 Design and Integrity Management Codes........................11
FIGURE 1 Life Extension Classification Roadmap..................................9
SECTION 2 Life Extension Process..................................................................... 12

1 General......................................................................................... 12
2 Overview.......................................................................................12
3 Life Extension at Same Site..........................................................13
3.1 General Life Extension Procedure...................................13
3.2 ABS Record..................................................................... 14
4 Short Life Extension up to 5 Years at Same Site..........................15
4.1 Abbreviated Procedure.................................................... 15
4.2 Notation for Abbreviated Procedure................................ 15
4.3 Application Limit...............................................................15
5 Life Extension at a New Location................................................. 15
ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 iii
FIGURE 1 Life Extension Process ........................................................13
SECTION 3 Baseline Information......................................................................... 16

1 General......................................................................................... 16
2 Documentation for Life Extension.................................................16
3 Initial Review of Baseline Information...........................................18
SECTION 4 Baseline Survey................................................................................. 19

1 General......................................................................................... 19
1.1 Scope of Baseline Survey................................................19
1.2 Schedule..........................................................................19
1.3 Gauging Data...................................................................19
1.4 System and Equipment....................................................19
2 Structures..................................................................................... 20
3 Mooring Systems.......................................................................... 20
4 Tendons........................................................................................ 20
5 Outfitting....................................................................................... 21
6 Evaluation of Baseline Survey Report.......................................... 21
SECTION 5 Engineering Reassessment.............................................................. 22

1 General......................................................................................... 22
2 Environmental Conditions.............................................................22
3 Remaining Fatigue Life.................................................................22
4 Structures..................................................................................... 23
4.1 Hull Structure of Ship-Type Installation............................23
4.2 Other Structures of All FPIs............................................. 25
5 Stability Reassessment................................................................ 25
6 Mooring Systems.......................................................................... 26
6.1 General............................................................................ 26
6.2 Strength Reassessment ................................................. 27
6.3 Fatigue Analysis.............................................................. 27
6.4 Additional Considerations................................................ 28
6.5 Single Point Mooring Systems.........................................28
6.6 Anchoring Systems..........................................................28
7 TLP Tendons and Tendon Connectors......................................... 28
7.1 Reassessment Analysis...................................................28
7.2 Tendon Tension Monitoring System.................................29
8 Cathodic Protection System......................................................... 29
9 Review of Engineering Reassessment Results............................ 29
FIGURE 1 Ship-Type Hull Structure Reassessment............................. 24

FIGURE 2 Structure Reassessment of Structures other than Ship-
Type Hull.............................................................................. 26
ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 iv

SECTION 6 Conditions of Life Extension............................................................ 31
1 General......................................................................................... 31
2 Conditions of Life Extension......................................................... 31
3 Repairs and Modifications............................................................ 32
3.1 Repairs............................................................................ 32
3.2 Modifications....................................................................32
4 Revision of the ISIP...................................................................... 32
APPENDIX 1 Hull Strength and Fatigue Reassessment for Ship-Type

Installations........................................................................................ 34
1 General......................................................................................... 34
2 Future Corrosion Rate.................................................................. 34
3 ISE for Life Extension................................................................... 36
3.1 Strength Evaluation......................................................... 36
3.2 Simplified Fatigue Evaluation.......................................... 36
4 Total Strength Assessment (Simplified Fatigue Analysis) for
Life Extension............................................................................... 37
4.1 Model Requirements and Assessment Procedures
for Life Extension............................................................. 37
4.2 Use of As-gauged Scantlings.......................................... 37
4.3 Loads and Load Cases....................................................37
4.4 Fatigue Acceptance Criteria............................................ 38
5 Dynamic Loading Approach and Spectral Fatigue Analyses
for Life Extension.......................................................................... 38
5.1 Model Requirements and Reassessment Procedures.... 38
5.2 Loads and Load Cases....................................................38
5.3 Acceptance Criteria......................................................... 38
TABLE 1 General Corrosion Rate for Life Extension.......................... 34
APPENDIX 2 Fatigue Reassessment of Ship-Type FPIs Considering

Onboard Validated Historical Loading Information........................ 39
1 General......................................................................................... 39
2 Application of Environmental Severity Factors............................. 39
3 Identification of Relevant Onboard Historical Loading Data ........ 40
4 Identification of DLPs Affected by Onboard Historical Data......... 41
5 Procedure for Adjustment of Fatigue Assessment of Ship-
Type Installations.......................................................................... 42
TABLE 1 Example of Modified Design Fatigue Load Cases for

Fatigue Strength Assessment.............................................. 45
ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 v

FIGURE 1 Loading Conditions for Fatigue Strength Assessment –

Double Hull and Double Side Single Bottom FPSO/FSO
with Loading History Data Submitted................................... 43
FIGURE 2 Loading Conditions for Fatigue Strength Assessment –
Single Hull FPSO/FSO with Loading History Data
Submitted............................................................................. 44
APPENDIX 3 Fatigue Reassessment of FPI Structures (Except for Hull

Structures of Ship-Type Installations)............................................. 51
1 General......................................................................................... 51
2 Hull Structures and Hull Interface Structures of Non-Ship-
Type Installations.......................................................................... 51
2.1 Accumulated Fatigue Damage........................................ 51
2.2 Safety Factors for Fatigue Life of the Accumulated
Damages......................................................................... 51
2.3 Predicted Damage for Life Extension.............................. 53
2.4 Remaining Fatigue Strength Check.................................53
2.5 Calculation Example of Non-inspectable Critical Areas...53
3 Topside Structures of All FPIs and Major Hull Interface
Structures of Ship-Type Installations............................................ 54
4 Safety Factors for Fatigue Life for Extended Service................... 54
TABLE 1 Fatigue Safety Factor Reduction Criteria............................. 52

TABLE 2 Safety Factors for Fatigue Life............................................. 54
APPENDIX 4 Non-ABS Classed Installations........................................................ 56

1 Application.................................................................................... 56
2 AIM Process................................................................................. 56
3 Life Extension in AIM Process...................................................... 57
FIGURE 1 Assessment for Life Extension within the AIM Process....... 57
ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 vi

SECTION 1
General
1 Introduction
A floating production installation (FPI) is a site-specific unit with a defined design life, typically 20 years.
The defined design life in many cases is based on the estimated life of the initial reservoirs to be produced
and may not be fully indicative of the life the unit. When an FPI reaches the end of its design life, many
factors can influence the decision to extend life for continued service. In some cases, aging units are still
economically producing, either due to the re-evaluated life expectancy of the reservoirs or higher recovery
rates enabled by new technologies. Another common scenario is the discovery of new fields in the vicinity
of an existing facility, creating tie-back opportunities. When the expected life of the new discovery or
when production from existing reservoirs exceeds the stated design life of the FPI, the life extension
evaluation process takes place to verify that the unit will be able to operate in conformance with existing
safety standards beyond its design life.
When an FPI is intended to continue operating beyond its design life, the asset owner is required to initiate
a life extension process with the assistance of the Classification Society. An effective life extension process
allows the continued service of a unit in a way that mitigates risks and also minimizes production loss.
2 Scope
This document provides classification requirements associated with FPI life extension. It is to be used in
conjunction with and as a supplement to 1-1-2/5.11.5 of ABS Rules for Building and Classing Floating
Production Installations (FPI Rules).
This document focuses on the requirements for structures and stationkeeping systems during the life
extension process. Requirements for marine system and the associated equipment, machinery, safety
systems, and production facilities as applicable, are the same as required during the service life and are to
be fully in compliance with the FPI Rules.
Life extension of import/export systems is not within the scope of this document. Technical guidance on
life extension for subsea production risers attached to FPIs can be found in ABS Guidance Notes on
Production Riser Life Extension.
3 Application
This document is applicable to existing floating production installations of all hull forms (i.e., ship-type
installations, column stabilized installations, tension leg platforms (TLPs), Spar Installations (Spars) and
hybrid designs, etc.) with service notations such as:
Floating Production, Storage and Offloading System
Floating Production (and Offloading) System
ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 7

Section 1 General 1
Floating Storage and Offloading System
Floating Offshore Installation.
This document is not applicable to mobile offshore units. Non-ABS classed installations with Asset
Integrity Management (AIM) Programs may follow the guidance in Appendix 4.
This document is applicable to life extensions conducted for continued service at the same site or a
relocated site.
4 Classification Notations
4.1 LE Notation
Where requested by Owner, a notation LE (number of years) year, where (number of years) refers
to the extended life of the unit and year refers to the year of maturation, may be assigned to an FPI
intended to continue its service in the same location for the first five years or less, provided the
requirements in Subsection 2/4 are met. The LE notation is to replace the existing FL, RFL, FLM, or
RFLM.
The LE notation can only be granted once in the lifecycle of an FPI. For any additional request of life
extension beyond the first five years, LE is no longer valid and is to be replaced by RFL or RFLM.
4.2 Fatigue Life

For an FPI with the design fatigue life specified in the FL (number of years), Year, FLM (number of
years), Year, RFL (number of years), Year or RFLM (number of year), Year notation, once the
requirements in Subsection 2/3 are met and life extension is granted, the existing FL, FLM, RFL or RFLM
notation with year of maturation is to be updated accordingly.
Where none of the fatigue notations was previously assigned to the unit, RFL and/or RFLM are to be
assigned once the life extension is granted.
5 Classification Procedure
The overall classification procedure and corresponding references for FPI life extension are summarized in
Section 1, Figure 1.

Section 1 General 1
FIGURE 1
Life Extension Classification Roadmap
6 Applicable Design Codes

In general, design review and survey will be based on the following, except as modified in this document:
i) For structures, stationkeeping systems, machinery systems or equipment not modified and
maintained per original design:
Design review is to be based on the Rule or design codes used in the original design with current
environmental data.
ii) For added or modified structures, stationkeeping systems, machinery systems or equipment
Design review is to be based on the Rule or design codes used at the time of implementation with
current environmental data.
iii) Surveys will be based on the current ABS requirements.
7 Schedule
The life extension process includes data collection, engineering, and survey activities which could be time-
consuming. Should the Owner decide to extend the service life beyond original design life, it is
recommended that the Owner contacts ABS as early as possible. A typical time frame providing for a
suitable window to conduct such activity is at least two and a half years before the unit’s maturation date.

Section 1 General 1
8 Alternatives
ABS will consider alternative arrangements, novel features, and designs as part of the life extension
process which can be shown, through either satisfactory service experience or a systematic analysis based
on sound engineering principles, to be not less effective than those found in this document.
Risk assessment techniques may be used to demonstrate that alternatives and novel features provide
acceptable levels of safety commensurate with current offshore and marine industry practice. The risks
addressed are primarily those affecting the safety of an installation, facility or operation, but the methods
discussed can also be applied to other categories of risk. Risk assessment may be used to identify the
various technical risks and their severity associated with the life extension of an asset. Based on the level
of risk assigned, a mitigating approach is to be applied, either in terms of the level of robustness in the
approach or added measures that may lend confidence in the risk mitigation. The ABS Guidance Notes on
Risk Assessment Applications for the Marine and Offshore Industries provides guidance to ABS clients on
how to prepare a risk evaluation.
Risk evaluations for the justification of alternative arrangements or novel features may be applicable either
to the installation as a whole, or to individual systems, subsystems or components.
9 Abbreviation
ABS American Bureau of Shipping
AIM Asset Integrity Management
CVI Close-up Visual Inspection
DLA Dynamic Loading Approach
DLP Dynamic Loading Parameter
ESF Environmental Severity Factor
FDF Fatigue Design Factor
FPI Floating Production Installation
GVI General Visual Inspection
ISE Initial Scantling Evaluation
ISIP In-Service Inspection Program
LE Life Extension
NDT Nondestructive Testing
NDCV Nominal Design Corrosion Values
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OPB Out-of-Plane Bending
PMA Permanent Means of Access
RAO Response Amplitude Operator
RBI Risk Based Inspection
RFL Remaining Fatigue Life
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicles
SFA Spectral Fatigue Analysis
SIM Structural Integrity Management
SLP Static Loading Parameter

Section 1 General 1
TLP Tension Leg Platform
TSA Total Strength Assessment
TTMS Tendon Tension Monitoring System
10 References
10.1 ABS Reference

i) Rules for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations (FPI Rules)
ii) Requirements for Position Mooring Systems (Position Mooring Requirements)
iii) Guide for Dynamic Loading Approach for Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO)
Installations (FPSO DLA Guide)
iv) Guide for Spectral-Based Fatigue Analysis for Floating Production, Storage and Offloading
(FPSO) Installations (FPSO SFA Guide)
v) Guide for Fatigue Assessment of Offshore Structure (Offshore Fatigue Guide)
vi) Guide for Risk-Based Inspection for Floating Offshore Installations (RBI Guide)
vii) Guidance Notes on Review and Approval of Novel Concepts
viii) Guidance Notes on Risk Assessment Applications for the Marine and Offshore Industries
ix) Guidance Notes on Mooring Integrity Management (MIM Guidance Notes)
x) Guidance Notes on Composite Repairs of Steel Structures and Piping
xi) Advisory on Fatigue Monitoring of Floating Production Installations
xii) Advisory on Data Quality for Marine and Offshore Application – Transactional Data
xiii) Advisory on Data Quality for Marine and Offshore Application – Time Series Data
10.2 Design and Integrity Management Codes

American Petroleum Institute:
API 2A-WSD Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms
– Working Stress Design
API RP 2MET Derivation of Metocean Design and Operating Conditions
API RP 2FPS Planning, Designing, and Constructing Floating Production Systems
API RP 2SIM Recommended Practice for the Structural Integrity Management of Fixed Offshore
Structures
API RP 2I In-service Inspection of Mooring Hardware for Floating Structures
API RP 2FSIM Recommended Practice for Floating Systems Integrity Management
API RP 2RIM Recommended Practice for Risers Integrity Management
API RP 2MIM Recommended Practice for Mooring Integrity Management
API RP 2T Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Construction Tension Leg Platforms
National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE):
SP 0176 Corrosion Control of Submerged Areas of Permanently Installed Steel Offshore Structures
Associated with Petroleum Production

SECTION 2
Life Extension Process
1 General
When an FPI exceeds the original design life, an evaluation is to be made and appropriate actions are to be
taken to extend the life up to the new operating life of the installation under the site-specific environmental
conditions.
This Section outlines the general life extension process and lays out the life extension procedures in the
following three scenarios.
i) Life extension at the same site, see Subsection 2/3.

ii) Short life extension up to five years at the same location, see Subsection 2/4.
iii) Life extension at a new location, see Subsection 2/5.
Those procedures provide details regarding the steps to be followed in order to assess an installation for a
possible life extension. Details pertaining to the life extension process are given in Sections 3 through
Section 6.
2 Overview
The classification or continuance of classification of an existing installation for extension of service
beyond the design life requires review, surveys and engineering analyses in order to re-verify the adequacy
of the installation for its extended services.
The life extension process follows the three phases listed below and is also shown in Section 2, Figure 1:
i) Investigation phase
● Data collection and desktop study by Owner
● ABS engagement in documentation completeness check and initial engineering review of
baseline information
● Baseline survey
ii) Determination phase
● Life extension assessment
● Provision of conditions for life extension
iii) Implementation phase
● Conditions implemented
● Survey documents updated and Class notation changed

Section 2 Life Extension Process 2
FIGURE 1
Life Extension Process
3 Life Extension at Same Site
3.1 General Life Extension Procedure

The general procedure for the classification of an existing installation for extended service at the same site
is as follows:
3.1.1 Baseline Information

Owner is to collect and review the baseline information in accordance with Section 3. A desktop
study of the baseline information is to be carried out by the Owner to identify critical locations
and locations with low fatigue life. Such locations are to be included in the baseline survey. ABS
will review the desktop study report and verify the scope of the baseline survey.
Low fatigue life means that the calculated fatigue life is less than 1.25 times the total target fatigue
life, which is the original design fatigue life plus the requested extended life.

3.1.2 Baseline Survey

ABS is to perform a baseline survey of the structure, mooring systems, tendons for TLP, and
outfitting to establish the condition of the unit. The baseline survey is to be carried out in
accordance with Section 4.
3.1.3 Life Extension Assessment

Based on the baseline information and baseline survey, life extension assessment is to be
performed.
i) Evaluation of baseline survey report, see Subsection 4/6

ii) Engineering reassessment
Engineering reassessment is to be in accordance with Section 5. The reassessment is to

include, but not limited to, structure, stability, mooring system, tendon system for TLP,
and cathodic protection system.
3.1.4 Conditions of Life Extension
Based on the findings of the baseline survey and the results of engineering reassessment, a list of
action items is to be established as the conditions of life extension, see Subsection 6/2. Examples
of conditions of life extension are:
● Inspection of structural areas where analysis results indicate locations as being highly stressed
regions. Damaged members and connections are to be repaired or strengthened.
● Critical areas with low fatigue life are to be visually examined and Nondestructive Testing
(NDT) performed as appropriate. Low fatigue lives may be improved either by strengthening
or grinding the welds. Intervals of future periodic surveys are to be determined based on the
remaining fatigue lives of these connections.
● Substantial corroded areas are to be either cropped and renewed, reinforced, or have adequate
corrosion arresting measures approved and implemented prior to life extension.
● · Any other findings from the baseline survey are to be gathered and remedial plan proposed.
3.1.5 Implementation of Conditions
Prior to granting the life extension, all conditions of life extension are to be addressed and verified
to be satisfactory.
3.1.6 Revision of In-Service Inspection Program (ISIP)

Upon conclusion of life extension process, the Owner is to revise the related documents (i.e., ISIP,
operating manual, loading manual, etc.) to reflect any changes and conditions for life extension.
Those documents are to be submitted for approval. See Subsection 6/4.
3.2 ABS Record

Upon the satisfaction of the requirements in 2/3.1, the Class certificate is to be issued for life extension.
Where applicable, the existing spectral fatigue analysis (SFA), fatigue life (FL), fatigue life of mooring
system (FLM), remaining fatigue life (RFL) or remaining fatigue life of mooring system (RFLM) notation
with year of maturation is to be updated accordingly.
Where none of the fatigue notations was previously assigned to the unit, RFL and/or RFLM notation with
year of maturation are to be assigned once the life extension is granted.

4 Short Life Extension up to 5 Years at Same Site
4.1 Abbreviated Procedure

If the first life extension request for an installation remaining at the same site is for five years or less,
engineering reassessment in 2/3.1.3ii) is not required, unless considered necessary for the completion of
the Class Surveys. All other steps in the general life extension procedure as specified in 2/3.1 are to be
followed.
4.2 Notation for Abbreviated Procedure

Upon the satisfaction of the requirements in 2/4.1, a notation LE (number of years) year will be
assigned to an FPI to replace any existing notations such as FL, RFL, FLM, RFLM or SFA.
4.3 Application Limit

The abbreviated procedure is not to be applied under the following conditions:
4.3.1 Additional Request for Life Extension after the First Five Years
This abbreviated approval procedure can only be applied once in the lifecycle of an FPI. Once an
FPI has been granted life extension following this abbreviated procedure, additional requests for
life extension will be considered as the total additional life beyond the original design life, and are
to be in accordance with the full procedure as described in Subsection 2/3. For example, if the
design life of an installation is 20 years and it receives a life extension of five years, a second five-
year life extension will be a ten-year extension to the original design life.
4.3.2 More Severe Environmental Condition

If the environmental conditions for the field or operating area are more severe than the original
approval due to new environmental data or changing environmental conditions (e.g., new
environmental data in the Gulf of Mexico after hurricanes Rita and Katrina), the Coastal State may
require the use of new environmental conditions for life extension, in which case the general
procedure in Subsection 2/3 will apply.
4.3.3 Modification Beyond the Original Design Envelope

When changes such as configuration, loading, addition of facilities, watertight/weathertight
integrity, corrosion/wear allowance, or mooring system, are beyond the previously approved
design envelope, the general procedure in Subsection 2/3 is to be followed.
5 Life Extension at a New Location

If an existing installation is intended to remain in service beyond its original design life and also be
relocated to a new site, the requirements for life extension described in Subsection 2/3 are to be applied in
addition to the requirements for relocation requirements in the FPI Rules as follows:
● 1-1-2/5.9.3 for strength requirements for ship-type FPIs

● 1-1-2/5.10.2 for strength requirements for other types of offshore installations
● 1-1-2/5.11.4 for fatigue requirements for all types of FPIs
● 1-1-2/15 for significant changes to the operating conditions

SECTION 3
Baseline Information
1 General
Life extension process begins with data collection, which is recommended to start five years prior to the
expiration of the design life. The collected data forms the baseline information to enable the Owner to
decide on the feasibility and economics of the life extension. For an initial life extension assessment, it is
essential to have the original design reports, documents, original and as-is plans, specifications, survey
records during fabrication, installation, and past service. The Owner is to verify that any assumptions made
are reasonable and the information gathered is both accurate and representative of actual conditions at the
time of the life extension assessment.
If the information cannot be provided, reassessment of the installation is required. For a first life extension
up to 5 years, actual measurements or testing may be utilized in lieu of reassessment.
2 Documentation for Life Extension

The documentation listed below is to be available in order to proceed with the life extension process. The
procedure and result of life extension are based on availability and quality of the submitted documentation.
i) Design Drawings
● General arrangements, tank capacity plan, key structural plans, machinery diagrams and
system drawings, foundations connected to hull structure along with associated underdeck
reinforcement if added, tank vents and overflow arrangement, corrosion protection plan, Trim
and Stability booklets, and Loading Manuals.
● Drawings for mooring system and all components, including ropes, chains, connectors, and
anchoring system (piles or anchors), and mechanical components.
ii) Existing Design Analyses
● Scantling calculations, global and local strength analyses, buckling analyses, and fatigue
analyses
● Stability analysis
● Global performance analysis
● Mooring analysis
– Strength and fatigue analysis for the turret mooring system including turret structure,
support structure, turret gantry, chain table, mooring lines and accessories, mooring
equipment, anchoring system, turret main bearings, swivels, swivel stack, driving arms/
mechanisms, and structural connectors.
– Strength and fatigue analysis for spread mooring system including fairlead, chain stopper,
mooring hull interface structure, mooring lines and accessories, and anchoring system.

Section 3 Baseline Information 3
● Tendon Strength and Fatigue Analysis

iii) Existing ISIP or Survey Plan and results/findings, including revision history
iv) Survey and complete gauging reports including all tanks and spaces
v) Owners/Operators reports covering inspection, repairs, replacements, maintenance, and
operational history
vi) Composite Repair Installation and In-Service Data
● Composite Repair System
● Installation information including date, installer, post installation testing and results, and
provision of mitigations that may be required
● Fire rating
● Defect or anomaly data including number and description
● Applicable drawing or plan
● In-service inspection data
● Permanent repair information if applicable
vii) Weight control record
viii) Current coating conditions of all compartments
ix) Tank usage history (past and present)
● Contents of tanks
● Average length of storage of the contents
x) Estimated corrosion rates
xi) Latest underwater inspection report for mooring lines including conditions for wear, corrosion,
and out-of-plane bending
xii) Record of modifications, including updated drawings
xiii) Records of installation (piles orientation, inclination, mooring chain bar size, pile driving records,
etc.)
xiv) Data for tendon connectors containing non-metallic components. Owner is to approach original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) to ascertain the following:
● Component original design life
● Expected types of degradation failure (progressive or sudden), and performance consequences
● Possible methods for testing or observing in situ
● Current condition assessment
xv) Metocean data
● Updated metocean data of site, metocean history (normal and extreme events) from
monitoring system or hindcast analysis
xvi) Measured data
● Owner is to provide assurance of the measured data quality, which is to be validated by ABS
● Measured load history of mooring lines, risers, tendons, etc.
● Measured historical loading data, and hydrostatic properties applicable to RFL assessments,
gathered continuously throughout the vessel's operational life where installations follow the
process of fatigue reassessment in Appendix 2

Section 3 Baseline Information 3
xvii) Desktop study report containing an assessment of existing design, additional engineering analysis
performed in service, and proposed future plan/schedule for life extension, including examination,
repairs, or replacement due to life extension
xviii) Description of modifications to be carried out for life extension
xix) Retrieving, inspection, testing, and installation procedures for mooring components that are
intended to be retrieved and relocated to a new location for life extension
3 Initial Review of Baseline Information

The following procedure is to be followed:
i) Owner is to check the completeness of the baseline information and determine the actions to
address missing information
ii) Owner is to review the extent of the original design analyses and determine the need for further
analyses.
iii) Owner is to perform desktop study to assess the condition of the unit and propose any additional
items for baseline survey over and above normal Special Survey activity, including the need for
weight verification (deadweight survey or equivalent). Critical locations and locations with low
fatigue life are to be included in the baseline survey.
iv) ABS is to review the baseline information and desktop study report and verify the scope of the
baseline survey.

SECTION 4
Baseline Survey
1 General
Surveying an existing installation witnessed and monitored by an ABS Surveyor is necessary to determine
a baseline condition upon which justification of continued service can be made. The baseline survey
includes the following activities:
i) Review of reports of previous surveys and maintenance

ii) Agreement on a survey procedure
iii) Complete survey (including underwater inspection) to verify that an accurate assessment of the
installation’s condition is obtained
1.1 Scope of Baseline Survey

Generally, the scope of the baseline survey is to be not less than the next upcoming Special Periodical
Survey in accordance with Section 7-2-6 of the FPI Rules.
Additional items to be included in the baseline survey are to be determined in accordance with Subsection
3/3.
1.2 Schedule
The baseline survey information can be gathered during the surveys prior to the life extension. All items
are to have examination results. Any overdue parts or items are to be brought up to date or examined
sufficiently to determine their conditions for the life extension.
1.3 Gauging Data

Gauging within 15 months is considered valid.
Gauging older than 15 months can be used if a wastage correction is made based on estimated corrosion
rates. Estimation of corrosion rates is to be made by the Owner by considering any corrosion protection
measures, the type and temperatures of stored fluids and other variables affecting the corrosion rate.
Alternatively, for hull of ship-type installations, the general corrosion rates for plating and structural
members in Appendix 1, Table 1, can be used as minimum anticipated future corrosion rates for spaces
which have not been stored with produced water or off-spec oil.
1.4 System and Equipment

Survey of marine systems and associated equipment, machinery, safety systems, production facilities, as
applicable, are to be in full compliance with Part 7 of the FPI Rules. Any modifications that were not
previously reviewed or approved are to be included in the baseline survey.

Section 4 Baseline Survey 4
2 Structures
The baseline survey for structures is to include all items listed under the next upcoming Special Survey for
Hull given in 7-2-6/3 of the FPI Rules, and in addition, the following are to be performed.
i) For additional items identified from the initial review of baseline information in accordance with
Subsection 3/3, General Visual Inspection (GVI), Close Visual Inspection (CVI) or
Nondestructive Testing (NDT) are required, as appropriate.
ii) NDT (i.e., thickness measurement and crack detection) is to be carried out according to the ISIP to
establish an accurate assessment of the current condition.
iii) Areas originally designed as non-inspectable are not required to be inspected at this time. At the
Owner’s request, ABS may consider the reduction of safety factors for fatigue life for past service
life if a single inspection is carried out. Extent of such inspection is to be agreed upon between
Class and Owner.
iv) Hull interface structure between the position mooring system and the hull structure with low
fatigue life is to be examined using NDT techniques.
3 Mooring Systems
The baseline survey is to include all items listed in 7-2-6/5 of the FPI Rules, and in addition, the following
steps are to be followed. Reference can be made to API RP 2I for guidelines for inspecting mooring
components.
i) Carry out GVI of mooring lines, accessories, mooring equipment (i.e., windlasses, chain jacks,
chain stoppers, etc.), and piles. Additional inspections such as CVI and/or NDT (wet magnetic
particle inspection (MPI) or similar) may be applicable for suspect areas identified by the GVI.
ii) Carry out GVI of turret bearings, bogies, and wear pads. If accessible, bearings and races are to be
inspected.
iii) Inspect for cracks, corrosion, dimensional checks, and wear, as much as possible. A length of each
mooring chain at those critical locations, such as fairlead, splash zone, touch-down area, and any
other suspicious areas identified in the past operation history, is to be cleaned so that the overall
condition of each chain can be satisfactorily verified. If pitting and grooving are found on those
chain links, dimensions and shapes of those pitting and grooving are to be reported together with
close-up pictures/videos for further assessment. Underwater inspection techniques such as laser
scan may be used.
iv) Inspect wire ropes and synthetic ropes for mechanical damage, twist and sheathing conditions,
including anodes, on wire sockets (if installed).
v) Verify mooring pretension values are consistent with those used in the design and assessment.
vi) Verify mooring line configuration changes due to trenching at touchdown, scouring around the
foundation, etc.
Non-accessible areas are to be discussed and agreed upon between ABS and Owner.
4 Tendons
The following are to be performed:
i) Carry out GVI of the entire length of all tendons including tendon components using divers or
remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) as appropriate.
ii) Carry out visual inspections and surface flaw detection to the extent specified by ABS on tendon
joints as well as top and bottom tendon connectors.
iii) Carry out thickness measurement of tendons to the extent specified by ABS.

Section 4 Baseline Survey 4
iv) Carry out measurement of heights and visual examinations where possible of top and bottom flex
elements to record any noticeable degradation such as height loss.
v) Verify condition of coating and anodes. Anode depletion percentages are to be recorded.
vi) Verify that operating drafts and tendon pretensions are consistent with the design values and any
changes are to be reported.
vii) Check for flooded tendon sections in entire length of all tendons.
viii) Verify that Tendon Tension Monitoring System (TTMS) is fully functioning. Any degradation is to
be reported.
Non-accessible areas are to be discussed and agreed upon between ABS and Owner.
5 Outfitting
Personnel access and egress including walkways, permanent means of access (PMA) structures, gratings
and handrails are to be addressed as part of the baseline survey.
6 Evaluation of Baseline Survey Report

Upon completion of the baseline survey, the baseline survey report is to be evaluated to establish a list of
conditions for granting life extension. Any findings from the baseline survey are to be addressed and
remedial plans are to be proposed. See Section 6.
Findings related to marine system and associated equipment, machinery, safety systems, and production
facilities as applicable, are to be addressed based on Part 7 of the FPI Rules.

SECTION 5
Engineering Reassessment
1 General
Engineering reassessment is required when the installation is relocated for life extension or when the life
extension request is beyond five years at the same location.
The engineering reassessment of an existing installation is to incorporate the results of the baseline survey
in Section 4. Specifically, deck loads, wastage, marine growth, scour, and any modifications and damages
are to be incorporated into the reassessment. Where available, the original fabrication materials and fit-up
details are to be established such that proper material characteristics are used in the reassessment and any
stress concentrations are accounted for.
This Section presents the engineering reassessment criteria for the entire installation including structure,
stability, mooring system, tendon system (for TLP), cathodic protection system, etc.
The results of the reassessment are considered to be an indicator of areas needing careful inspection and
monitoring during the extended life. Possible modifications or replacement of classed items to allow
continued service of the installation are to be developed.
2 Environmental Conditions
The latest site-specific environmental conditions are to be developed for life extension assessment.
Metocean data and analyses when used as the basis for life extension assessment are to be collected and
processed by recognized consultants as per API RP 2MET (ISO 19901-1).
If the current site-specific environmental conditions are more severe than the original design
environmental condition, the current site-specific environmental conditions are to be applied.
Measured historic data can be also used for fatigue assessment provided that the data consistency and
accuracy are certified/verified by recognized parties and accepted by ABS.
3 Remaining Fatigue Life

One of the following conditions is to be satisfied by the fatigue assessment:
i) The original fatigue analysis indicates that the fatigue lives of all joints/critical details and
mooring system are sufficient to cover the extension of use. The fatigue environmental data used
in the original fatigue analysis remain valid or are deemed to be more conservative.
ii) New fatigue analysis covering all structural elements (hull, turret, hull interfaces, position
mooring system) shows that the remaining fatigue life is sufficient until the requested year of
maturation. The remaining fatigue life can be calculated by means of an analysis as described in
Appendices 1 to 4.

Section 5 Engineering Reassessment 5
A critical area or critical detail is defined in 3-3-A1/5 and 3-3-A1/7 of the FPI Rules.
4 Structures
4.1 Hull Structure of Ship-Type Installation

Hull structural reassessment of ship-type installations includes strength, fatigue and cathodic protection
assessment. The re-evaluation of the cathodic protection system is to follow Subsection 5/8.
4.1.1 Strength and Fatigue Reassessment Procedure for Ship-Type Hull Structure
The strength and fatigue assessment of hull structure is to follow the steps listed below and shown
in Section 5, Figure 1. Detailed procedures for initial scantling evaluation (ISE) and total strength
assessment (TSA) are outlined in Appendix 1.
i) Check if the design parameters have been changed or a scantling reassessment is desired.
If not, go to Step iii). Design parameters include environmental conditions, geographical
location of the unit, loading conditions, external loads, pressures, temperatures, etc.
ii) Determine the reassessed scantlings through ISE and TSA based on new rules at the time
of contract for the life extension. Go to Step iv).
iii) Check if the original strength and fatigue analysis have been performed. If not, ISE and
TSA are to be carried out based on new rules at the time of contract for the life extension.
iv) Review analysis and check if the gauged scantlings meet the strength requirement and the
remaining fatigue lives meet the requirements in Subsection 5/3. If yes, skip step v).
v) Establish a list of action items for structures that do not meet the strength or fatigue
requirements in Step iv). Those action items are considered as the conditions of life
extension. Possible action items could be:
● Crop and Renew
● Modification or Reinforcement. Modification plans with technical justification
through ISE and TSA are to be submitted for approval.
vi) Update ISIP plan
4.1.2 Additional Considerations
Wastages are to be incorporated into the reassessment model. Appendix 2 provides some guidance
on establishing gross and net scantlings taking consideration of wastages.
The following may be considered as an alternative to TSA when required for life extension.
● Dynamic Loading Approach (DLA) and Spectral Fatigue Analysis (SFA)

– DLA in accordance with ABS Guide for Dynamic Loading Approach for Floating,
Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Installations (FPSO DLA Guide)
– SFA in accordance with ABS Guide for Spectral-Based Fatigue Analysis for Floating,
Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Installations (FPSO SFA Guide)
● DLA and Load Component Spectral Fatigue Analysis (LC SFA)
– LC SFA is to follow 5A-3-4/9.5.4 of the FPI Rules
● Cargo block model analysis as defined in 5A-2-1/5.6.1 of the FPI Rules
● Other acceptable finite element analysis

4.1.3 Remaining Fatigue Life Procedure Based on Historical Loading Data

Accurate and continuous onboard data of historical hydrostatic loading conditions and associated
environmental conditions for 5 years or more can be considered for reassessing the remaining
fatigue life as described in 5A-1-3/3.9.3 of the FPI Rules. The procedure for ship-type
installations is given in Appendix 2.
FIGURE 1
Ship-Type Hull Structure Reassessment

4.2 Other Structures of All FPIs

Other structures are structures other than hull structure of ship-type installations, which could be:
● Hull Structure of Non-Ship-Type Installations

● Hull Interface Structure of All FPIs (Ship-Type and Non-Ship-Type installations)
● Topside Structure of All FPIs (Ship-Type and Non-Ship-Type installations).
Reassessment for these structures generally includes strength, fatigue, and cathodic protection analysis
except that fatigue analysis is optional for topside structure of ship-type installations as specified in
5A-1-5/1 of the FPI Rules.
Structural reassessment is to follow the procedure shown in Section 5, Figure 2. The re-evaluation of the
cathodic protection system is to follow Subsection 5/8.
Structures under as-is conditions are to be reassessed based on new data including increased weights,
metocean environmental condition changes, structural modifications, etc., and to incorporate the
significant wastages and configuration changes in the structural model.
4.2.1 Strength Reassessment

The strength reassessment is to be performed for the environment conditions in Subsection 5/2.
Installations in US Gulf of Mexico are to meet API RP 2FPS for assessment of existing structures
for hurricane condition.
Assessment of operational and damaged conditions is to follow the FPI Rules.
4.2.2 Fatigue Reassessment

The remaining fatigue life is to be greater than the requested years for life extension multiplied by
the safety factors for fatigue life.
The fatigue safety factors are to be in accordance with 3-2-3/3.7 TABLE 1 of the FPI Rules.
However, if a fatigue safety factor greater than the Rule requirement was used in the original
design, the fatigue safety factor can be reassessed based on the actual criticality and inspectability
provided it is not less than the FPI Rules.
A detailed procedure for remaining fatigue life assessment is given in Appendix 3 which includes
an example of calculations for non-inspectable critical areas.
5 Stability Reassessment
When there are changes in deadweight, lightship, loadings and site-specific environmental conditions, an
updated stability analysis is to be carried out using the Rules in effect when the installation was classed.
However, if the unit has undergone a major modification during its service, the Rules in effect at the time
of major modification are to be applied.
A modification which, for example, substantially changes the dimensions and hull buoyancy or changes
the type of the unit will usually constitute a “major modification”. For the purpose of compliance with
statutory requirements, whether a modification constitutes a major modification is dependent on the
applicable statutory instrument/regulations, IMO Circulars and/or flag administration, and is to be
determined in consultation with the flag and Coastal States, which have the final decision-making
authority.
The intact and damage stability of the installation are to be evaluated in accordance with the requirements
of the flag and Coastal States. See 3-3-1/11 of the FPI Rules. The Operating Manual is to be updated
accordingly.

FIGURE 2
Structure Reassessment of Structures other than Ship-Type Hull
6 Mooring Systems
6.1 General
Mooring systems are to be reassessed for any change that could affect mooring responses. This includes,
but is not limited to, change in mooring configuration, mooring components, metocean environmental
conditions, trenching effect, and fiber rope creep.

Strength, fatigue, and cathodic protection assessment are to be carried out for the entire mooring system
including mooring lines, mooring accessories, mooring equipment, and anchoring system. The evaluation
of cathodic protection system is to follow Subsection 5/8.
6.1.1 Global Performance

Global performance or mooring analysis, with new metocean data and other changes are to be
submitted for review.
Global performance responses such as motion, acceleration, offset, air gap, etc., are to be within
the original design criteria unless such responses are properly considered in other related
disciplines such as structure, riser, etc.
6.2 Strength Reassessment

The strength reassessment of a mooring system is to be carried out in accordance with applicable
requirements in the ABS Requirements for Position Mooring Systems (Position Mooring Requirements).
The strength factor of safety for mooring lines is to be in accordance with Section 3, Table 3 of the
Position Mooring Requirements.
For life extension assessment, the total corrosion and wear allowance is to consider the total mooring
design life, which is the original design life plus the requested extended life. For example, for a 10-year
life extension with the original design life of 20 years, the total corrosion and wear allowance is 15 mm if
the corrosion/wear rate is 0.5 mm/year.
The future corrosion/wear rates in the extended years are to be based on the past service history or the
corrosion/wear rate specified in the ABS Position Mooring Requirements.
6.3 Fatigue Analysis

i) The fatigue analysis is to be carried out unless all following conditions are met.
● Original platform design condition remains unchanged.
● Baseline inspection found the mooring system conditions meet the original design
requirement.
● The original calculated mooring life exceeds the original design life plus the extended
lifetime.
ii) When chain links are subject to constraints by chain hawse, chain stopper or bending shoes, new
mooring fatigue analysis is to consider the effect of out-of-plane bending, in-plane bending, and
tension-tension (OPB/IPB/TT) even if those effects were not considered in the original design.
This consideration does not apply to replaced chain links if the intended service life of the chain is
less than the served time of replaced chain segment. See 3/7.5.3 of the Position Mooring
Requirements.
iii) When evaluating the fatigue damage from past services, recorded single extreme events, such as
significant hurricanes beyond a 10-year return period, are to be taken into consideration.
iv) Where a mooring system has been operating for a period of time with one or more mooring lines
missing, those operation conditions are to be included in the fatigue analysis for the affected
mooring lines.
v) The design parameters from the field measurements in the past service period can be used in
fatigue analysis in lieu of the original design parameters.
vi) Service history of the replaced mooring components is to be taken into consideration when
performing fatigue analysis.
vii) For fatigue analysis, when determining the reference breaking strength of common chain links, the
diameter is to be taken as the as-measured nominal diameter at end of the original design life
minus half of the corrosion and wear allowance in the extended years. For example, for a 10-year

life extension with the original design life of 20 years, the total corrosion and wear allowance is
12.5 mm if the corrosion/wear rate is 0.5 mm/year.
viii) The original fatigue safety factor for non-inspectable mooring components may be reduced when
justifications submitted by the Owner show a reduction of the uncertainty in the original design
and is subject to the following conditions:
● No past findings
● Corrosion rate within the original design assumption
● Reliable load/metocean history
However, the fatigue safety factor is not to be less than three. This reduction can only apply to the
past service life. The fatigue safety factor during extended years is to be in accordance with
Section 3, Table 4 of the ABS Position Mooring Requirements.
6.4 Additional Considerations

The following items are to be considered for the mooring system if applicable.
i) If pitting/groove is found, its impact on the chain’s strength and fatigue is to be evaluated via finite
element analysis on the specific chain links, based on the inspected results.
ii) Unsheathed six or eight strand wire ropes are to be replaced for the extended years once their
original life expectancy recommended by the manufacturer is used up.
iii) For mooring systems with sheathed spiral strand steel wire ropes, if the life extension period
exceeds the warranty period provided by the steel wire rope manufacturer, the requirement of
reassessment, in-situ inspection, retrieval for inspection and testing or future inspection and
monitoring are to be considered.
6.5 Single Point Mooring Systems

Where single point mooring systems are installed, mechanical components including, but not limited to,
turret main bearings, swivels, swivel stack, driving arms/mechanisms, and structural connectors, are to be
reassessed for strength and fatigue based on as-is conditions and current metocean data. The mechanical
components are to be analyzed in accordance with the Position Mooring Requirements.
6.6 Anchoring Systems

Structural integrity (strength and fatigue) and holding capacity of anchoring systems are to be re-evaluated
in case the mooring line extreme load or fatigue loads are increased, or when there are scouring or other
changes in the foundation.
The cathodic protection system is to be re-evaluated per Subsection 5/8.
7 TLP Tendons and Tendon Connectors

When design loads or modifications have been identified, such as tendon components updates, metocean
environmental condition changes, seabed changes, any other possible changes affecting the tendon
responses, etc., tendons and tendon connectors are to be reassessed.
7.1 Reassessment Analysis

Tendon system models are to be developed and updated incorporating as-is platform and tendon conditions
while assessing tendon strength and remaining fatigue life. The strength and fatigue reassessments of
tendons are to be carried out using as-is conditions.
The environmental conditions in accordance with Subsection 5/2 are applied to verify the adequacy of the
tendon system based on the applicable design code as shown in Subsection 1/6. Robustness check of
tendons as per 5B-2-4/1.5 of the FPI Rules and/or API RP 2T is to be performed.

Global performance or tendon and foundation system analysis with new metocean data and other changes
are to be submitted for review.
In the tendon reassessment, inadvertent disconnect in storm conditions is to be addressed, and consequence
analysis of component failure is to be carried out.
When evaluating the fatigue damage from past services, recorded single extreme events, such as
significant hurricane beyond 10-year return period, are to be taken into consideration.
7.2 Tendon Tension Monitoring System

The TTMS is to be fitted if not currently installed or repaired if not in working order. The requirement for
the TTMS follows the recommendations in API RP 2T.
The monitored tendon tension is to be used to monitor platform weight during the platform’s service life,
provide load history of the tendon system to estimate fatigue damage accumulated, and provide
performance data during severe weather conditions to validate the design and improved design prediction
tools.
Tendon pretensions are to be calibrated with the design values in the baseline survey. Any changes on
pretensions are to be considered in engineering assessment and updated in its operation manual.
8 Cathodic Protection System

The cathodic protection system is to be re-evaluated to prove that the system is sufficient to cover the
extended service life. For the design of cathodic protection systems, refer to the appropriate National
Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) standards, such as SP0176 or other recognized standards.
If anode depletion is found to be significant during the baseline survey, one of the following is to be
carried out:
i) Cathodic protection reassessment is to be submitted to demonstrate that the cathodic protection

system is effective to cover the extended service life.
ii) A replacement plan is to be submitted for review and approval. Installation is to be performed to
the satisfaction of the attending Surveyor.
iii) An alternative corrosion protection system (e.g., impressed current system) is to be selected. The
system details are to be submitted for review and installation is to be performed to the satisfaction
of the attending Surveyor.
9 Review of Engineering Reassessment Results

If the results of engineering reassessment show that the installations are not suitable for life extension, a
list of actions is to be created as conditions for granting life extension.
The following are examples of actions based on review of engineering assessment:
● New critical areas identified based on the reassessment are to be examined using Nondestructive
Testing (NDT) techniques and verified to be satisfactory.
● Low fatigue lives may be improved either by strengthening or grinding the welds. Interval of future
periodic surveys are to be determined based on the remaining fatigue lives of these connections.
● If the fatigue reassessment is not satisfied for the requested years of life extension, the following
mitigation measures may be considered:
– Fatigue improvements, if feasible, in accordance with the ABS Guide for Fatigue Assessment of
Offshore Structure or other recognized standards
– Increased inspection frequency

– Modification of design loading conditions, particularly if the original metocean data has been
updated
– Make the originally non-inspectable structure accessible for inspection
● The mooring reassessment may call for additional monitoring, inspection, sampling, testing, or change
in inspection frequency, which are to be incorporated in the ISIP and to be reviewed by ABS.
● Any limitation on operations such as changes on limiting sea states for offloading, evacuation, etc.,
resulted from the mooring assessment are to be included in the Operating Manual.
● If the result of reassessment identifies required repairs and/or modifications to achieve life extension,
the Owner is to develop and submit such plans required for review and approval.
● Fatigue-prone areas introduced by modifications are to be identified and assessed.

SECTION 6
Conditions of Life Extension
1 General
The findings through baseline survey in conjunction with engineering reassessment will form the basis for
determining the conditions to class the FPIs for continued operation.
Conditions of life extension usually include both engineering review and survey activities. Prior to
granting the life extension, those conditions are to be addressed by Owner and verified by ABS. The ISIP
plan and operating manual are to be updated accordingly.
2 Conditions of Life Extension

The conditions of life extension include, but are not limited to:
i) For areas, such as produced water tanks, uncoated voids or other tanks, subject to rapid corrosion,
an effective plan to prevent rapid corrosion in these areas is to be provided and included in the
ISIP for approval.
ii) Substantial corrosion areas identified are to be either cropped and renewed or reinforced or have
adequate corrosion arresting measures approved and implemented prior to life extension.
Alternatively, reassessment is to be submitted to justify the acceptance of the structure as-is.
iii) The corrosion protection system is to be re-evaluated to verify that existing anodes and/or
protective coatings are capable of serving the extended design life of the installation. If found
necessary by the re-evaluation, replacement of the existing anodes or installation of additional new
anodes are to be carried out. The condition of protective coatings, if found deficient, is to be
rectified and maintained, or additional examination is to be conducted to verify the continued
satisfactory condition.
iv) Any areas determined to be critical to the structure are to be free of cracks.
v) Cracks or damaged joints, members, connections, and mooring components found during the
baseline survey are to be repaired to the satisfaction of the Surveyor. Alternatively, technical
justification is to be provided and submitted for approval.
vi) Marine growth has been cleaned to the Surveyor’s satisfaction and corrosion is found to be within
the allowable design limits.
vii) Enhanced survey programs are to be provided to monitor those structural elements or details with
lower fatigue life which cannot be modified or renewed on site. Those programs are to be included
in the ISIP for approval.
viii) Actions are to be proposed to increase the fatigue life of structural elements or details with a
fatigue life below the new intended design fatigue life.

Section 6 Conditions of Life Extension 6
ix) If significant pitting/grooving on steel mooring components are found, these components may be
replaced, or put under close monitoring. A remedial plan is to be proposed and submitted for
approval.
x) Unsheathed six or eight strand wire ropes are to be replaced for the extended years once their
original life expectation is used up.
xi) Any degradation on tendon components such as bulging of rubber or height loss of flex elements
is to be evaluated by the Owner. The original manufacturers are to be consulted. A remedial plan
is to be proposed and submitted for approval.
xii) All composite repairs that are currently installed at the time of the life extension are to be re-
validated for suitability, replaced, or permanently repaired to the as-built condition. The ABS
Guidance Notes on Composite Repairs of Steel Structures and Piping provides guidelines on the
bonded composite repairs of steel structures and piping.
xiii) For the mooring system in the extended years, suitable arrangements and/or equipment for the
crew to periodically verify that each mooring leg remains intact are to be provided. Suitable
arrangements might include, but are not necessarily limited to, mooring line load monitoring
arrangements, inclinometers, laser measuring devices, excursion monitoring systems (GPS), and
submersible cameras. These arrangements are to be able to last throughout the service life of the
installation, and the following are to be taken into account during the design of such arrangements:
● Robustness and reliability
● Serviceability and maintainability
● Validation and periodic verification/testing
xiv) Any other findings from the baseline survey and engineering assessment are to be gathered and
remedial plan proposed.
xv) Additional items are to be determined on a case-by-case basis during life extension process.
Prior to granting the life extension, all conditions of life extension listed above are to be addressed and
verified to be satisfactory.
3 Repairs and Modifications
3.1 Repairs
Where repairs to the FPI or its elements identified by life extension assessment are planned, a complete
repair procedure, including the extent of the proposed repair and the need for the surveyor’s attendance, is
to be submitted to and agreed upon by the Surveyor reasonably in advance. All repairs found necessary by
the Surveyor are to be completed to his/her satisfaction.
3.2 Modifications
Plans of any proposed alteration or modification are to be submitted by Owner and approved by ABS
before the work is commenced, and such work, when approved, is to be performed to the satisfaction of the
Surveyor.
4 Revision of the ISIP

The ISIP is a comprehensive program that outlines the procedures to be followed and the inspection
frequency of the hull and mooring system of a floating facility. The ISIP is to be developed or revised to
incorporate the results from surveys, engineering analyses, corrosion protection evaluation and mitigation
of structural and equipment damage and/or deficiency.

Section 6 Conditions of Life Extension 6
The ISIP is to follow the requirement in Section 7-2-3 of the FPI Rules. A Risk Based Inspection (RBI)
plan approved in accordance with the ABS Guide for Risk-Based Inspection for Floating Offshore
Installations may be considered as the ISIP so long as it includes all components of the ISIP.
Upon conclusion of the life extension process, the Owner is to revise the ISIP to reflect any changes and
conditions for life extension:
● New inspection intervals and scope

● New critical areas and inspection points identified
● Additional requirements for inspection or NDT on initial design critical areas
● Additional structural elements not previously included in the plan or added as part of the life extension
process
● Other inspection requirements identified during the process.
The updated ISIP is to be submitted for approval.

APPENDIX 1
Hull Strength and Fatigue Reassessment for Ship-Type Installations
1 General
This Appendix supplements the requirements of hull strength and fatigue assessment for the ship-type
installations given in 5/4.1.
2 Future Corrosion Rate

For ship-type installations, estimation of anticipated future corrosion rates is to be made by the Owner, by
considering any future corrosion protection measures to be used, in-service experience, the type and
temperatures of stored fluids and any other variables significantly affecting the corrosion rate.
In case the anticipated future corrosion rates are not available, the general corrosion rates for plating and
structural members given in Appendix 1, Table 1 are to be used as minimum anticipated future corrosion
rates.
The minimum corrosion margins are equal to the minimum anticipated future corrosion rates multiplied by
the expected service years. At the time of life extension, the required scantlings are the renewal scantlings
as determined by the reassessment calculation plus the minimum corrosion margins.
In view of the higher anticipated corrosion rates for structural members in some regions, such as areas
suspected of accelerated corrosion, increased corrosion rates are to be considered for required scantlings.
The Owner may specify additional corrosion rates based on maintenance plans.
TABLE 1
General Corrosion Rate for Life Extension
Double Hull
General Rates for Life Extension in mm/

Corrosion year
Structural Element/Location Cargo Tank Ballast Tank Void Space(3)(4)

Effectively
Coated
Deck Plating 0.100 0.100 0.080
Side Shell Plating N.A. 0.100 0.050
Bottom Plating N.A. 0.100 0.050
Inner Bottom Plating 0.090 0.050
Longitudinal Between Cargo Tanks 0.100 (0.150) N.A. N.A.

Appendix 1 Hull Strength and Fatigue Reassessment for Ship-Type Installations A1
General Rates for Life Extension in mm/

Corrosion year
Structural Element/Location Cargo Tank Ballast Tank Void Space(3)(4)

Effectively
Coated
Bulkhead Plating(for uncoated Other Plating 0.120 0.050

tanks)
Transverse Bulkhead Between Cargo Tanks 0.100 (0.150) N.A. N.A.
Plating (for uncoated tanks) Other Plating 0.120 0.050
Transverse & Longitudinal Deck 0.100 0.100 0.050
Supporting Members
Double Bottom Tanks Internals (Floors and N.A. 0.100 0.050(5)
Girders)
Web of Stiffeners on Deck 0.120 0.120 0.080
Flange of Stiffeners on Deck 0.120 0.120 0.080
Web of Stiffeners on Side Shell N.A. 0.140 0.050
Flange of Stiffeners on Side Shell N.A. 0.100 0.050
Web of Stiffeners on Bottom N.A. 0.100 0.050
Flange of Stiffeners on Bottom N.A. 0.150 0.050
Web of Horizontal Stiffeners on Longitudinal 0.180 (0.210) 0.210 0.080
Bulkheads (for uncoated tanks)
Flange of Horizontal Stiffeners on Longitudinal 0.120 0.120 0.050
Bulkheads
Web of Stiffeners on Transverse Bulkheads 0.100 0.100 0.050
Flange of Stiffeners on Transverse Bulkheads 0.130 0.130 0.050
Web of Horizontal Girders (for uncoated tanks) 0.100 (0.250) 0.120 0.080
Face Plate of Horizontal Girders 0.100 0.100 0.050
Web of Transverse Webs and Swash Bulkheads/Struts 0.080 0.090 0.050
Face Plate of Transverse Webs and Swash Bulkheads/Struts 0.070 0.090 0.050
Vertical Stiffeners and Supporting Members 0.050 0.050 0.050
Elsewhere
Non-vertical Longitudinals/Stiffeners and 0.080 0.100 0.050
Supporting Members Elsewhere
Single Hull(6):

Nominal Design Corrosion Rate in mm/year
Structural Element/Location Cargo Tank Ballast Tank Void Space(3)

Effectively
Coated
Side Shell Plating 0.100 0.100 0.050
Bottom Plating 0.100 0.100 0.050
Web of Stiffeners on Side Shell 0.120 0.140 0.050
Flange of Stiffeners on Side Shell 0.100 0.100 0.050
Web of Stiffeners on Bottom 0.080 0.100 0.050
Flange of Stiffeners on Bottom 0.130 0.150 0.050
Bottom Transverses and Girders (Web and Flange) 0.050 0.080 0.050
Notes:
1 Corrosion depends on many factors including coating properties, cargo composition, inert gas properties and
temperature of carriage, and actual wastage rates observed may be appreciably different from those provided here.
2 Pitting and grooving are regarded as localized phenomena and are not covered in this table
3 Void Space: The corrosion rates in ballast tank are to be applied for un-coated/partially coated void space,
temporary ballasting usage, or water ingress from adjacent tanks
4 Side stringer plating in Void Space: Watertight adjacent to ballast tank 0.1 mm/year
5 Watertight bottom girder adjacent to ballast tank: 0.1mm/year
6 Unless the modifications are made in the table for Single Hull, the general corrosion rates in the table for Double
Hull are applicable to the corresponding structural elements of single hull ship-type installations
3 ISE for Life Extension
3.1 Strength Evaluation

The original Eagle FPSO analysis may be used for strength verification unless the environmental
conditions have been updated or a scantling reassessment is desired. If this analysis is not available or the
design parameters have been modified, then the strength is to be verified using the ISE module of the ABS
Eagle FPSO software using the standard 20-year nominal design corrosion values (NDCV) values
specified in 5A-3-1/1.7.2(d) TABLE 1 of the FPI Rules. The requirements of Section 5A-2-1 of the FPI
Rules will be applicable only to reassessed portions of the structure where design, substantial corrosion and
renewal scantlings have changed, even in cases where environmental conditions have been updated.
3.2 Simplified Fatigue Evaluation

If the original fatigue analysis has been performed using the ABS Eagle FPSO ISE program, the remaining
fatigue life for all longitudinal stiffener end connections may be used to determine whether or not any of
the connections need to be renewed/repaired, assuming the environmental criteria have not been updated.
If the original analysis is not available or the design parameters have been modified, a re-analysis using
Eagle FPSO is to be performed. The cumulative fatigue damages from the historical route (if originally
converted from a trading tanker), the current and historical sites and the expected future fatigue damage for
the desired life extension are to be calculated to determine suitability of the end connections. For the
detailed procedure for conversions, refer to Part 5A, Chapter 2 of the FPI Rules.

4 Total Strength Assessment (Simplified Fatigue Analysis) for Life

Extension
4.1 Model Requirements and Assessment Procedures for Life Extension

As minimum requirements for fatigue, at least one three-hold global model within 0.4L amidships in
association with the most unfavorable topside loads and selected associated local models is to be used to
assess the hull structure fatigue remaining life, according to Section 5A-3-2 and 5A-3-4/11.5 of the FPI
Rules. The following steps are to be taken:
i) For conversions, build Tanker net scantlings model using as-built scantlings and current rules
NDCV for 20-year period – get stress ranges for original tanker conditions and obtain fatigue
damage due to past service history as tanker.
ii) Build or modify existing Tanker model considering net scantlings based on as-built or reassessed
scantlings at conversion and NDCV from Rules in effect at the construction/conversion. In the
absence of those requirements, the NDCV is to be considered not less than the ones indicated in
5A‑3-1/Table 1 of the FPI Rules (for a 20-year period) – get stress ranges and fatigue damage for
past service history as a ship-type FPI.
iii) Incorporate the latest thickness measurements* and take into consideration topside weight updates
and other modifications. The lesser of as-gauged and reassessed scantlings at conversion is to be
used as gross scantlings and define net scantlings based on the current Rules NDCV, then calculate
the remaining fatigue life. Alternatively, the model can be built using the reassessed net scantlings
at the life extension. Special attention is to be paid to screening locations according to the baseline
survey.
Note: * Average of the gauging over each strake for a global model, other methods may be applied.
4.2 Use of As-gauged Scantlings

When considering the use of as-gauged scantlings, it is important to apply the gauging information
available to also represent the structures that have not been gauged so as to best represent the hull in its
present condition. Several approaches can be used to accomplish this:
i) Average wastage by zone. Take an average value of wastage by zone representing upper/middle/
lower thirds of vertical structures, plus added zones for bottom and deck. Apply this information
as a wastage percentage to all structures within the zone.
ii) Refinement of i) above. Take same approach as above but apply separate values to plate, stiffener
and brackets and also divide the vertical and horizontal zones into groups of three bays each.
iii) Use a “gauged neighbor” approach, which can be applied to varying levels of granularity (plate,
strake, bay, zone, etc.). This is applied by denoting the wastage levels of a non-gauged plate or
component’s neighbor and taking the average of all adjacent neighbors. For example, if plates on
either side of a non-gauged plate have gauged wastages of 5% and 10% respectively, then the non-
gauged plate receives a wastage of 7.5%.
iv) Apply a known corrosion rate based on a particular service. This method can be used if an
operator is using gauging information to determine wastage rates. In this regard, a total loss can be
applied conservatively as the given wastage rate multiplied by x-years of past service and
subtracted from the as-built thickness. In this way, future condition can also be predicted for the
end-of-life extension period.
The local fine mesh fatigue models are to be built using actual (not averaged) gaugings.
4.3 Loads and Load Cases

i) For model built in A1/4.1i): TSA loads and load cases for trading tankers are to be considered.
The client is to provide trading history. In the absence of such information, the previous fatigue
damage is to be calculated based on unrestricted service environment.

ii) For model built in A1/4.1ii): TSA loads and load cases for FPSO are to be applied; if available,
the measured environmental condition and the wave heading may be utilized.
iii) For life extension model in A1/4.1iii): TSA loads and load cases for FPSO are to be considered.
The updated environmental condition and the wave heading are to be taken into account. Changes/
restrictions in loading conditions about the design draft, permissible still water bending moments
and still water shear forces, etc., can be considered on client’s request.
4.4 Fatigue Acceptance Criteria

The fatigue acceptance criteria are to follow Appendix 5A-3-A2 of the FPI Rules. When required, strength
reassessment is to be in accordance with 5A-3-4/3 and 5A-3-4/5 of the FPI Rules.
5 Dynamic Loading Approach and Spectral Fatigue Analyses for Life

Extension
5.1 Model Requirements and Reassessment Procedures

On client’s request, a full-length ship model can be used to reassess the hull structure and fatigue
remaining life instead of total strength assessment (TSA), according to 5A-2-1/5.6.1 of the FPI Rules. The
following steps are to be taken:
i) For conversions, build tanker as-built model.

ii) Build or modify existing tanker model to consider reassessed scantlings at conversion and
additions (turret/mooring, topsides modules, cranes, etc.).
iii) Incorporate life extension gauging* into scantlings, the lesser of the as-gauged and the reassessed
scantlings at life extension (gross or net depending on the methodology used), topside weight
updates and other modification (turret/mooring, topsides modules, cranes, etc.). Special attention
is to be paid to screening locations according to the baseline survey.
Note: * Average of the gauging over each strake for a global model, other methods may be applied.
5.2 Loads and Load Cases

i) Tanker as-built model in A1/5.1i): The client is to provide the trim and stability booklet for tanker
and trade route history for the accumulative fatigue damage calculation for trading tanker. In the
absence of such information, the previous fatigue damage is to be calculated based on unrestricted
service environment.
ii) Reassessed scantlings model at conversion built in A1/5.1ii): The client is to provide the trim and
stability booklet for existing FPSO operation and transit cases. The measured environmental
condition and the wave heading can be taken into account.
iii) Life extension model in A1/5.1iii): The client is to provide the trim and stability booklet for FPSO
operation. The updated environmental condition and the wave heading are to be taken into
account. Changes/restrictions in loading conditions can be considered on client’s request.
5.3 Acceptance Criteria

When required, the strength reassessment is to be in accordance with the ABS Guide for Dynamic Loading
Approach for Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Installations.
The fatigue acceptance criteria are to follow Section 9 of the ABS Guide for Spectral-Based Fatigue
Analysis for Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Installations.

APPENDIX 2
Fatigue Reassessment of Ship-Type FPIs Considering Onboard Validated
Historical Loading Information
1 General
This Appendix outlines the procedures for verifying the hull remaining fatigue strength of a permanently
moored ship-type installation using validated historical operational and environmental loading parameters.
The ABS Advisory on Fatigue Monitoring of Floating Production Installations, ABS Advisory on Data
Quality for Marine and Offshore Application – Transactional Data, and ABS Advisory on Data Quality for
Marine and Offshore Application – Time Series Data provide guidance on data acquisition.
Where the original analysis has been done for site-specific environmental conditions in accordance with
the FPI Rules (using the Eagle FPSO software program), the fatigue evaluations for site-specific
environments have already been performed and may be used as a basis for determining whether any further
evaluations are necessary in association with the consideration of actual operational historical loading
information.
2 Application of Environmental Severity Factors

This Subsection relates to the use of the onboard data acquired for historical loading in the determination
of Environmental Severity Factors (ESFs) defined in 5A-3-2/1 of the FPI Rules.
The proposed adoption of the acquired data impacts the ISE phase, addressed in Section 5A-3-2 of the FPI
Rules, and TSA, governed by the criteria specified in Section 5A-3-4 of the FPI Rules, since it affects the
ESF alpha and beta factors. For estimation of Remaining Fatigue Life, only ESF alpha factors are relevant
and will be addressed here.
The ESFs are to be determined in accordance with Appendix 5A-3-A1 of the FPI Rules using the ABS
Eagle FPSO SEAS program. The following design input data is needed in order to determine ESFs:
● Main particulars of the hull

● Draft aft and forward (initially for full load condition)
● Metacentric height
● Radii of gyration
● Critical roll damping
● Mass distribution along hull length
● Hull shape
● Environmental Data

Appendix 2 Fatigue Reassessment of Ship-Type FPIs Considering Onboard Validated Historical A2
Loading Information
The ISE of the FPI Rules was based on the tanker’s operation conditions (primarily sailing fully loaded on
inbound trips and ballasted on outbound trips). Generally, normal ballast loads are defined as between 40%
and 60% of the fully loaded draft for regular environmental conditions, and a deeper draft is designed for
heavy weather ballast conditions, to contain the hull motions in lower drafts during severe weather.
However, this is not the usual operation conditions of a ship-type FPI. To facilitate the estimation of
extreme and daily operational loads and stresses on the hull, some coefficients have been provided in the
FPI Rules to adjust the global behavior of the FPI when in lower drafts. Also, FPIs are designed to operate
with a large range of drafts and cargo distribution in their cargo tanks while considering the simultaneous
action of maximum expected hull girder loads, hull motions, acceleration, and pressures.
While this flexibility is positive for the initial design and building stages of an FPSO, it is a conservative
approach to the estimation of the Remaining Fatigue Life. These adopted contingencies impose high stress
ranges applied to the hull structure, which results in a greater impact on the fatigue damage and fatigue
life, since the fatigue damage is related to stresses on the hull by a power of 4.5 to 7.5 (m/0.65), depending
on the S-N curve adopted.
In addition, the absence of data on simultaneous loads occurrence leads to the assumption of maximum
positive and negative loadings acting in each of the Dynamic Loading Parameters (DLPs) that are relevant
to fatigue calculations, which may lead to a significant increase in damage.
3 Identification of Relevant Onboard Historical Loading Data

When the FPI operates under a regular loading and unloading sequence, the main Static Loading
Parameters (SLPs) related to stresses acting on the hull can be identified, regularly measured, validated,
and compiled to be considered in the life extension fatigue calculations instead of combining maximum
values.
The relevant SLPs are:
● Mean value of minimum, intermediate, and maximum operational draft

● Metacentric height in longitudinal and transverse directions (which can be obtained from hydrostatic
tables for measured drafts, and tanks sounding/ullage)
● Still Water Hull Girder Bending Moment at each section of the cargo block
● Still Water Hull Girder Shear Forces at each section of the cargo block
● Cargo and ballast tanks filling level – sounding/ullage
● Deadweight mass distribution
● Daily production rate
● Offloading operation start and end time, and offloading volume/weight
The SLPs mentioned above are to be measured at the same time, and in a time interval not greater than the
following, so that the intermediate filling of each cargo tank can be adequately considered:
tinterval = vsmallest * γcargo * 6/dp
where
tinterval = time interval for cargo tanks sounding/ullage measurement (hours)

vsmallest = smallest cargo tank volume, in m3 (m3, ft3)

Loading Information
γcargo = cargo density, in kN/m3 (tf/m3, Ltf/ft3)

dp = daily production, in kN/day (tf/day, Ltf/day)
Additionally, the SLPs data are to be accumulated continuously for at least five years so that the regular
operational loading/unloading sequence can be identified.
From the above data, the maximum and minimum operational drafts can be identified as the average values
of associated drafts at the start and end of offloading operations.
Two intermediate drafts are to be considered, as close as possible to an even distribution between
maximum and minimum operational drafts.
The offloading cycle period can be defined as the average of the different periods between two offloadings,
for all the range of time for which the onboard data has been submitted. Then, the total number of
offloading cycles for the entire service life of the FPSO can be estimated based on this offloading period.
Based on these defined drafts, the other associated SLPs may also be obtained as the average of values for
the mean drafts defined as minimum, maximum, and intermediate operational drafts.
4 Identification of DLPs Affected by Onboard Historical Data

For the determination of high cycle fatigue stress range loads in the hull structure, the following DLPs
related to stresses acting on the hull can be identified based on the FPI Rules and the FPSO SFA Guide, as
affected by onboard historical operational and environmental data:
● Environmental wave conditions and relative heading to the bow (Subsection 5/3 of the FPSO SFA
Guide and 5A-3-A2/5.7 of the FPI Rules)
● Roll and pitch motions, if available (Subsection 5/3 of the FPSO SFA Guide and 5A-3-2/5.7.1(a) and
5A‑3‑2/5.7.1(b) of the FPI Rules)
● Acceleration at one defined point at main deck level, if available (Subsection 5/3 of the FPSO SFA
Guide and 5A-3-2/5.7.1(c) of the FPI Rules)
● Hull girder longitudinal and vertical stresses/deflections at locations along cargo block previously
defined as target for allowable Stillwater Values, when available (Subsection 4/3 of the FPSO SFA
Guide and 5A-3-2/3.1, 5A-3-2/5.1 and 5A-3-2/5.2 of the FPI Rules).
The above listed information may be derived from hydrodynamic analysis based on the hydrostatic
properties calibrated from SLPs identified in A2/3 or can also be obtained from onboard measurements. If
onboard measurements are to be used, the method and frequency for taking the measurements along with
the data collection and analysis are to be agreed to with ABS prior to the start of the measurement
program.
If the Owner intends to consider the same historical operational and environmental data or any optimized
specific loading sequence as applicable to the extended life of the unit, the indication of the estimated
operational loading sequence is to be clearly identified in the Loading Manual, provided that this
preferential loading sequence has been successfully implemented into practice by the Owner over the
vessel´s past operational life, and it is very likely to occur over the vessel´s remaining operational life
(probability of occurrence over 90%).
The above information is to also be measured at the same time, and in a time interval associated with the
relative expected natural period of response. These periods may be obtained from the Response Amplitude
Operators (RAOs), generated by SEAS module of FPSO Eagle Software, or equivalent.The peak
magnitudes of the associated DLP may be obtained as the average of observed values for each of the drafts
defined as minimum, maximum, and intermediate operational drafts.

Loading Information
5 Procedure for Adjustment of Fatigue Assessment of Ship-Type

Installations
The connections to be considered for the fatigue assessment are the same as those identified in 5A‑3‑A2/3
of the FPI Rules. Other additional locations may be selected by the Owner.
The long term stress distribution parameter, identified in 5A-3-A2/5 of the FPI Rules, may be replaced by
a long term parameter calculated based on measurements and/or hydrodynamic simulations for the
specified maximum, minimum, and intermediate operational drafts and conditions, for a probability of
occurrence of 1 × 10-4, according to 5A-1-1/7.5.3 of the FPI Rules.
Usually, the typical loading patterns from 5A-3-A2/Figure 2A of the FPI Rules for double hulls and
5A‑3‑A2/Figure 2B of the FPI Rules for single hulls are to be used. However, for specified regular loading
sequences, the Owner may submit special loading patterns based on onboard data for the historical loading
sequence of each tank and provide an estimation of the remaining fatigue life for each tank portion, along
with the specific DLPs for the region.
When using historical loading or future planned loading information, namely using the modified loading
patterns in Appendix 2, Figure 1 for double hulls and Appendix 2, Figure 2 for single hulls, the load
combination factors given in Appendix 2, Tables 1 to 4 can be developed through hydrodynamic analysis
for the loading conditions specified in Appendix 2, Figures 1 and 2. For the SEAS database and ESF beta
and alpha definitions, one single database can still be considered for maximum scantling draft associated
with the modified load combination factors in Appendix 3, Tables 1 to 4 below as an example. However,
additional SEAS analyses for the specific intermediate drafts can also be processed, and each one can be
associated with coefficients found in 5A-3-2/Table 1A, as calibrated by the FPI Rules for maximum ESF
betas and alphas related to maximum draft (this requires SEAS analyses). This option, although extensive
in hydrodynamic calculations leads to a more accurate remaining fatigue life. The developed Tables 1 to 4
are to be reviewed and approved by ABS.
For computation of percentage of time in each draft, the total time is to be computed based on acquired
data on board and submitted for review.

Loading Information
FIGURE 1
Loading Conditions for Fatigue Strength Assessment – Double Hull
and Double Side Single Bottom FPSO/FSO with Loading
History Data Submitted
Notes:
1 Minimum operation condition draft – average minimum operational draft of all regular offloadings performed (4).
2 Intermediate drafts – draft equally divided between Loading Conditions 1 and 4 drafts
3 Maximum operation condition draft – average maximum operational draft of all regular offloadings performed (4).
4 Any abnormal offloading operations, that have resulted in premature offloading or abortion of the regular
offloading, are to be identified during the historical data capture and submittal.

Loading Information
FIGURE 2
Loading Conditions for Fatigue Strength Assessment – Single Hull
FPSO/FSO with Loading History Data Submitted
Notes:
1 Minimum operation condition draft – average minimum operational draft of all regular offloadings performed (4).
2 Intermediate drafts – draft equally divided between Loading Conditions 1 and 4 drafts
3 Maximum operation condition draft – average maximum operational draft of all regular offloadings performed (4).

Loading Information
4 Any abnormal offlaoding operations, that have resulted in premature offloading or abortion of the regular
offloading, are to be identified during the historical data capture and submittal.
TABLE 1
Example of Modified Design Fatigue Load Cases
for Fatigue Strength Assessment
(Load Combination Factors for Dynamic Load Components for Loading Condition 1)
FLC1 FLC2 FLC3 FLC4 FLC5 FLC6 FLC7 FLC8
A. Hull Girder Loads
Vertical B.M. Sag (-) Hog (+) Sag (-) Hog (+) Sag (-) Hog (+) Sag (-) Hog (+)
kc 0.90 0.90 0.15 0.15 0.70 0.70 0.80 0.80
Vertical S.F. (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-)
kc 0.55 0.55 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.50
Horizontal B.M. (-) (+) (-) (+)
kc 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.45
Horizontal S.F. (+) (-) (+) (-)
kc 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.45
B. External Pressure
kc 0.50 0.50 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
kf0 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00
C. Internal Tank Pressure
kc 0.40 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.40 0.40
wv 0.50 -0.50 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75
wℓ Fwd Bhd Fwd Bhd — — Fwd Bhd Fwd Bhd Fwd Bhd Fwd Bhd
0.20 -0.20 0.40 -0.40 0.80 -0.80
Aft Bhd Aft Bhd — — Aft Bhd Aft Bhd Aft Bhd Aft Bhd
-0.20 0.20 -0.40 0.40 -0.80 0.80
wt — — Port Bhd Port Bhd Port Bhd Port Bhd Port Bhd Port Bhd
-0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75
— — Stbd Bhd Stbd Bhd Stbd Bhd Stbd Bhd Stbd Bhd Stbd Bhd
0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75
cϕ, Pitch -0.15 0.15 -0.10 0.10 -0.30 0.30 -0.45 0.45
cθ, Roll 0.00 0.00 1.00 -1.00 1.15 -1.15 1.00 -1.00
D. Reference Wave Heading and Motion of Installation
Heading Angle 0 0 90 90 60 60 30 30
Heave Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up

Loading Information
Pitch Bow Bow Bow Bow Bow Bow Bow Bow

Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up
Roll — — Stbd Stbd Stbd Stbd Stbd Stbd

Down Up Down Up Down Up
Notes:
1 Rule vertical bending moment range = Mws − Mwℎ (see 5A-3-2/5.2 of the FPI Rules for Mws and Mwℎ)
2 Rule horizontal bending moment range = 2 × Mℎ (see 5A-3-2/5.3 of the FPI Rules for Mℎ)
3 For each load condition pair, the stress range due to local pressure is the difference between the stress values for
Local Pressure Load Conditions. For example, for Load Condition Pair FLC1 & FLC2, the stress range due to
local pressure is the difference between the stress values for FLC1 and FLC2.
4 For each load condition pair, the stress range is the sum of the absolute stress range values due to Vertical BM,
Horizontal BM, and Local Pressure Load Conditions.
TABLE 2
kc 0.95 0.95 0.25 0.25 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85
Vertical S.F. (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-)
kc 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.50
Horizontal B.M. (-) (+) (-) (+)
kc 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.60
Horizontal S.F. (+) (-) (+) (-)
kc 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.60
kc 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
kf0 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00
kc 0.55 0.55 0.70 0.70 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.40
wv 0.50 -0.50 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75
0.20 -0.20 0.40 -0.40 0.80 -0.80
-0.20 0.20 -0.40 0.40 -0.80 0.80

Loading Information
-0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75
0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75
cϕ, Pitch -0.20 0.20 -0.05 0.05 -0.10 0.10 -0.35 0.35
cθ, Roll 0.00 0.00 1.00 -1.00 1.15 -1.15 1.00 -1.00
Heading Angle 0 0 90 90 60 60 30 30


Notes:
TABLE 3
kc 0.95 0.95 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.85
Vertical S.F. (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-)
kc 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.50
Horizontal B.M. (-) (+) (-) (+)
kc 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.70
Horizontal S.F. (+) (-) (+) (-)
kc 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75

Loading Information
kc 0.50 0.50 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
kf0 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00
kc 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.75 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.40
wv 0.50 -0.50 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75
0.20 -0.20 0.40 -0.40 0.80 -0.80
-0.20 0.20 -0.40 0.40 -0.80 0.80
-0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75
0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75
cϕ, Pitch -0.15 0.15 -0.15 0.15 -0.20 0.20 -0.45 0.45
cθ, Roll 0.00 0.00 1.00 -1.00 1.15 -1.15 1.00 -1.00
Heading Angle 0 0 90 90 60 60 30 30


Notes:
TABLE 4

Loading Information
kc 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90
Vertical S.F. (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-)
kc 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.50
Horizontal B.M. (-) (+) (-) (+)
kc 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Horizontal S.F. (+) (-) (+) (-)
kc 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
kc 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
kf0 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00
kc 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.50
wv 0.50 -0.50 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75
0.20 -0.20 0.40 -0.40 0.80 -0.80
-0.20 0.20 -0.40 0.40 -0.80 0.80
-0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75
0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75 0.75 -0.75
cϕ, Pitch -0.30 0.30 -0.15 0.15 -0.10 0.10 -0.80 0.80
cθ, Roll 0.00 0.00 1.00 -1.00 1.15 -1.15 1.00 -1.00
Heading Angle 0 0 90 90 60 60 30 30



Loading Information
Notes:

APPENDIX 3
Fatigue Reassessment of FPI Structures (Except for Hull Structures of
Ship-Type Installations)
1 General
This Appendix outlines the fatigue reassessment procedure for
● Hull structures of non-ship-type FPIs,

● Hull interface structure for all FPIs,
● Topside structure for all FPIs.
2 Hull Structures and Hull Interface Structures of Non-Ship-Type

Installations
2.1 Accumulated Fatigue Damage

The accumulated fatigue damage, Dp, based on the past service history including:
i) Prior service
ii) Transit
iii) Site-specific operation at the current environmental criteria
is to be calculated as follows:
Dp = ∑ni Dpi
where Dpi is the accumulated fatigue damage at the ith past service condition.
2.2 Safety Factors for Fatigue Life of the Accumulated Damages (1 May 2017)
The safety factors for fatigue life of the accumulated damages are determined in the following conditions:
i) Fatigue design factor (FDF or safety factor for fatigue life) for the requested extended life (L) is to
be taken the same as that used in the original design according to the FPI Rules and the ABS
Guide for Fatigue Assessment of Offshore Structures.
For example:

Appendix 3 Fatigue Reassessment of FPI Structures (Except for Hull Structures of Ship-Type A3
Installations)
Safety Factor for Fatigue Life (FDF)
Structure Inspectable Non-inspectable
Non-Critical 3 5
Critical 5 10
ii) In calculating the accumulated damages or used-up fatigue life, the original FDF may be reduced
provided that the technical justifications submitted by the Owner reflect a reduction of the
uncertainty in the original design and subject to the following conditions:
● No past findings
● Corrosion rate to be within the original design assumption
● Reliable load/metocean history
Original FDF may be reduced if inspection can be performed examining the current condition of
the structure to confirm its structural integrity. The reduction in safety factor will depend on the
results of the inspection as shown in Appendix 3, Table 1. Reduced safety factor (a) reflects that a
certain extent of the uncertainty in the original design having been removed due to the inspection
and thus, is less than the original FDF.
TABLE 1
Fatigue Safety Factor Reduction Criteria
Visual Inspection Nondestructive Test

Fatigue Safety Factor
Magnetic Particle or Dye Penetrant Test, ACFM, UT, etc. Reduction
General Close (1)
100% - - 10%
- 100% - 20%
- 100% 20% 30%
- 100% 50% 40%
- 100% 100% 50%
Notes:
1 NDT types to be agreed upon on a case-by-case basis.
2 % means percent of total weld length.
The reduced safety factor (α) for the accumulated damage is to be not less than the values in the table
below:
Reduced Safety Factor (α)
Structure Inspectable Non-inspectable (1)
Non-Critical 2 3
Critical 3(2) 5
Notes:
1 Reduced Safety Factor, α, can be used
● If non-inspectable area is checked during Drydocking Survey or Underwater Inspection in lieu of Drydocking
(UWILD),

Installations)
● For a non-inspectable area if AIM data is available to confirm its current condition and structural integrity.
2 Original FDF for an inspectable critical structure can be reduced if inspection can be performed examining the
current condition of the structure to confirm its structural integrity.
2.3 Predicted Damage for Life Extension

The predicted annual fatigue damage De of the structure in “as-is” condition (as-gauged) for the requested
extended life is to be calculated at the current site-specific condition using the original wave scatter
diagram, or updated scatter diagram if more severe than the original design environmental criteria.
2.4 Remaining Fatigue Strength Check

The remaining fatigue strength is evaluated by using one of the following criteria:
i) The total factored damage including the accumulated fatigue damage for the past service and the
predicted damage for life extension should be less than 1.0:
Dp · α + De · FDF · L ≤ 1
ii) The requested life extension L at the current site is to be less than the remaining fatigue life (RFL):
L ≤ RFL = 1 − Dp · α / De · FDF
If the remaining fatigue strength is not satisfied, the following improvements may be performed:
● Fatigue improvements, if feasible, in accordance with ABS requirements or other recognized standards
● Increased inspection frequency
● Modification to the loading condition
● Making the non-inspectable structure accessible for inspection
2.5 Calculation Example of Non-inspectable Critical Areas

i) For non-inspectable critical areas, after a one-time inspection, Reduced Safety Factor (α), ranging
from five to ten, can be considered for determining the accumulated fatigue damage based on the
type (visual, diver, ROV, NDT, etc.) and extent of the one-time inspection.
ii) Fatigue Reassessment Example
● The original Safety Factor for Fatigue Life (FDF) is 10 for non-inspectable critical areas.
● Assume that the Reduced Safety Factor (α) is five based on the one-time inspection and that
the calculated accumulated fatigue damage (Dp) for the past service is 0.075.
● Assume that the predicted annual fatigue damage (De) for the requested fatigue life is 0.005.
● Assume a life extension (L) of 12 years is requested.
● Fatigue Safety Check:
Dp · α + De · FDF · L = 0 . 075 × 5 + 0 . 005 × 10 × 12 = 0 . 975 ≤ 1
Or
L = 12 ≤ RFL = 1 − Dp · α / De · FDF = 1 − 0 . 075 × 5 / 0 . 005 × 10 = 12 . 5

● The fatigue safety check is satisfied for the requested extended life of 12 years for the check
area at the current site.

Installations)
3 Topside Structures of All FPIs and Major Hull Interface Structures of

Ship-Type Installations
The same methodology and procedure for remaining fatigue strength of hull structures in Subsection A3/2
of this Appendix is applied for the remaining fatigue strength assessment of topside structures and other
major hull structures as identified in 5A-1-4/1 of the FPI Rules, except for the original FDFs in the table
below in accordance with the FPI Rules.
Safety Factor for Fatigue Life (FDF)
Structure Inspectable Non-inspectable
Non-Critical 2 5
Critical 3 10
The reduced safety factors (α) for fatigue life are to be not less than the values in the table below.
Reduced Safety Factor (α)
Structure Inspectable Non-inspectable (1)
Non-Critical 1.5 3
Critical 2(2) 5
Notes:
1 Reduced Safety Factor, α, can be used for a non-inspectable area if AIM is available to confirm its current
condition and structural integrity.
2 Original FDF for an inspectable critical structure can be reduced if inspection can be performed examining the
current condition of the structure to confirm its structural integrity.
4 Safety Factors for Fatigue Life for Extended Service

In case new Rules after 2020 are selected for life extension, the safety factors for fatigue life are to be in
accordance with 3-2-3/3.7 TABLE 1 of the FPI Rules and as shown in Appendix 3, TABLE 2 below.
TABLE 2
Safety Factors for Fatigue Life
Importance Degree of Accessibility for Inspection and Repair
Dry Access (2) Underwater Access Not Accessible
Non-Critical 2(5) 3 5
(1)
Critical 3 5 10

Installations)
Notes:
1 “Critical” implies that failure of these structural items would result in the rapid loss of structural integrity and
produce an event of unacceptable consequence.
2 “Access” refers to the possibility of a close inspection and repair operation.
3 Due to the structural redundancy and accessibility of inspection inherent in typical hull structures of ship-type
installations, the applied safety factor is generally 1.0. The approach outlined in 5A-1-3/3.9.3 and 5A-2-1/5.9.3 of
the FPI Rules is to be followed.
4 In the event of a safety factor conflict due to different degrees of accessibility to a location, the more stringent
safety factor is to be used.
5 ABS will consider a reduction in fatigue safety factor from 2 to 1 when the structural detail is readily visible,
inspectable and repairable during normal operation.
In calculating the accumulated damages or used-up fatigue life, the reduced safety factors (α) may be
determined in accordance with Appendix 3, Table 1 but are to be not less than the values in the table
below.
Importance Degree of Accessibility for Inspection and Repair
Dry Access Underwater Access Not Accessible(1)
Non-Critical 1 2 3
Critical(1) 2(2) 3(2) 5
Notes:
1 A reduced Safety Factor, α, can be used for a non-inspectable area if AIM is available to confirm its current
condition and structural integrity.
2 Original FDF for an inspectable (dry access or underwater access) critical structure can be reduced if inspection
can be performed examining the current condition of the structure to confirm its structural integrity.

APPENDIX 4
Non-ABS Classed Installations
1 Application
This Appendix is only applicable to Non-ABS Classed Installations with Asset Integrity Management
(AIM) program.
The Structural Integrity Management (SIM) Plan as part of the Owner’s AIM program is an ongoing
lifecycle process to verify that the hull structure, hull interface structure, topside, mooring, and riser have
adequate strength to resist the imposed assessment loads. Life extension as part of the AIM program is
integrated as part of the ongoing maintenance routine for operational installations.
AIM reports can be submitted in lieu of a data collection, baseline survey, and engineering reassessment
provided they cover all the items in Section 3 to Section 5. Any missing data or analysis is to be addressed
and listed as conditions of life extension.
To grant life extension under an owner’s AIM program, various AIM reports are to demonstrate that the
condition of the installation is fit for service for the requested life extension, and not less effective than the
requirements in this document. AIM reports are to be submitted for ABS approval.
2 AIM Process
The purpose of AIM is to provide a link between the assessment, inspection, and maintenance of the
installation. The AIM program is to follow recognized industry standards. Reference may be made to API
documents, such as API RP 2FSIM, API RP 2MIM, and API RP 2RIM, which provide recommended
practice for the evaluation, assessment, and inspection of floating installations, including structures,
mooring system, and riser system, to demonstrate their fitness-for-service.
The ABS Guidance Notes on Mooring Integrity Management can be used as an alternative reference for
mooring systems.
The AIM process consists of four key components:
i) Data Management System. Create and manage the systems for archiving and retrieving AIM data
and other relevant records.
ii) Integrity Evaluation of Installations. Evaluate installation, fitness-for-purpose, and propose
repairs/modifications if necessary.
iii) Integrity Strategy of Installation. Develop an inspection strategy and metrics for in-service
inspection.
iv) Inspection Program. Develop detailed inspection plans and a process for collecting quality data.

Appendix 4 Non-ABS Classed Installations A4
3 Life Extension in AIM Process

Since the life extension process is integrated within AIM, the following process as shown in Appendix 4,
Figure 1 can be used in lieu of Section 2, Figures 1:
i) When the remaining design life of an installation is less than or equal to the time before the next
special survey and life extension is requested, integrity of an installation is to be confirmed as
follows:
a) Establish the current configuration and physical condition of an installation using existing
AIM.
b) Identify all hazards and threats to the installation’s integrity relevant to extended life
using existing AIM.
c) Assess an installation for extended service life to fully account for identified hazards
including aging effects such as fatigue, corrosion, and any other issues which may affect
the fitness for service of the considered installation. Information from previous
assessments and verification reviews is to be used in planning the assessment process.
d) Review the assessment and survey the installation including updates on critical areas and
structural modifications deemed necessary based on any assessment performed.
e) If the review and survey are satisfactory, the Owner is to make any required repairs and
modifications for extending the service life of the installation.
ii) Revision of the inspection strategy based on i)
iii) Revision of the detailed work scopes for inspection activities
iv) Continue to manage the integrity of the installation in accordance with the revised AIM plan until
the end of operation or when a further life extension is required.
FIGURE 1
Assessment for Life Extension within the AIM Process

Life Extension of Floating Production Installations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life Extension of Floating Production Installations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life Extension of Floating Production Installations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Requirements for

Life Extension of Floating Production

LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION

American Bureau of Shipping

© 2022 American Bureau of Shipping. All rights reserved.

We welcome your feedback. Comments or suggestions can be sent electronically by email to

ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 ii

LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION

FIGURE 1 Life Extension Classification Roadmap..................................9

SECTION 2 Life Extension Process..................................................................... 12

SECTION 3 Baseline Information......................................................................... 16

SECTION 4 Baseline Survey................................................................................. 19

SECTION 5 Engineering Reassessment.............................................................. 22

FIGURE 1 Ship-Type Hull Structure Reassessment............................. 24

ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 iv

APPENDIX 1 Hull Strength and Fatigue Reassessment for Ship-Type

TABLE 1 General Corrosion Rate for Life Extension.......................... 34

APPENDIX 2 Fatigue Reassessment of Ship-Type FPIs Considering

TABLE 1 Example of Modified Design Fatigue Load Cases for

ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 v

FIGURE 1 Loading Conditions for Fatigue Strength Assessment –

APPENDIX 3 Fatigue Reassessment of FPI Structures (Except for Hull

TABLE 1 Fatigue Safety Factor Reduction Criteria............................. 52

APPENDIX 4 Non-ABS Classed Installations........................................................ 56

FIGURE 1 Assessment for Life Extension within the AIM Process....... 57

ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 vi

Floating Production, Storage and Offloading System

Floating Production (and Offloading) System

ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 7

Floating Storage and Offloading System

Floating Offshore Installation.

4.2 Fatigue Life

ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 8

6 Applicable Design Codes

ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 9

AIM Asset Integrity Management

CVI Close-up Visual Inspection

DLA Dynamic Loading Approach

DLP Dynamic Loading Parameter

ESF Environmental Severity Factor

FDF Fatigue Design Factor

FPI Floating Production Installation

GVI General Visual Inspection

ISE Initial Scantling Evaluation

ISIP In-Service Inspection Program

NDT Nondestructive Testing

NDCV Nominal Design Corrosion Values

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

OPB Out-of-Plane Bending

PMA Permanent Means of Access

RAO Response Amplitude Operator

RBI Risk Based Inspection

RFL Remaining Fatigue Life

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicles

SFA Spectral Fatigue Analysis

SIM Structural Integrity Management

SLP Static Loading Parameter

ABS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF FLOATING PRODUCTION INSTALLATIONS • 2022 10

TLP Tension Leg Platform

TSA Total Strength Assessment