Asset Management Standards Committee

Engineering Standard
SAES-A-030 26 June 2017

Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Study Execution
Document Responsibility: Asset Management Standards Committee
Contents
1 Scope ................................................................ 2
2 Purpose............................................................. 4
3 Conflicts and Deviations ................................... 5
4 References........................................................ 5
5 Definitions ......................................................... 7
6 Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................... 11
7 RAM Study Requirements,
Methodology, and Instructions .................... 13
8 R&M Data Collection and Adjustments ........... 18
9 RAM Study Service Provider Qualification ...... 29
10 RAM Study Modeling Phases ......................... 30
11 RAM Improvement Prioritization Process ....... 48
12 RAM Benchmarking Process .......................... 50
13 RAM Study Final Report ................................. 50
Revision Summary .................................................. 52
Appendix A - Reliability and Maintenance

(R&M) Data........................................ 53
Previous Issue: 23 July 2016 Next Planned Update: 26 June 2020

Page 1 of 53
Contact: Abbaoui, Youssef (abbaouyx) at phone +966-13-8809721
©Saudi Aramco 2017. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: Asset Management Standards Committee SAES-A-030
Issue Date: 26 June 2017
Next Planned Update: 26 June 2020 Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Study Execution
1 Scope
1.1 This Saudi Aramco Engineering Standard (SAES) provides the mandatory
requirements for the systematic execution of Reliability, Availability, and
Maintainability (RAM) study.
1.2 This SAES applies to the following facilities:
1.2.1 Oil and gas upstream facilities, including offshore and onshore
1.2.2 Oil and gas midstream facilities, including offshore and onshore
1.2.3 Oil and gas downstream facilities, including NGL, refining, and
petrochemical
1.2.4 Oil and gas terminals facilities
1.2.5 Utilities facilities
1.2.6 Seawater injection facilities
1.2.7 Distribution and transportation
1.3 This SAES applies to the following assets:
1.3.1 Static equipment
1.3.2 Rotating equipment
1.3.3 Piping and pipelines
1.3.4 Mechanical equipment
1.3.5 Pressure vessels
1.3.6 Electrical equipment
1.3.7 Instrumentation equipment
1.4 This SAES can be applied to other facilities not listed in paragraph 1.2 and/or
other equipment not listed in paragraph 1.3 following the approval of the
Consulting Services Department (CSD) Manager.
1.5 The thresholds of the RAM study application to capital projects are as follows:
1.5.1 Saudi Aramco capital projects above $5 MM with a minimum of five

different or identical non-redundant assets shall require a RAM study
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use
Page 2 of 53
where “asset” refers to the asset, handling the main product(s) or main
function(s), displayed in the Process Flow Diagrams of the processing
plants and facilities.
Note: Asset redundancy is the duplication of the asset or function(s) of a
process with the intention of increasing availability of the system,
usually in the form of a backup or a fail-safe system.
1.5.2 To perform the RAM study on Saudi Aramco capital projects above
$5 MM with less than five different or identical and/or redundant assets
shall require the approval of the Chairman, Asset Management Standards
Committee, and the CSD of Saudi Aramco, Dhahran.
Examples of such projects could be:

1) Comparing different combustion gas turbine (CGT) suppliers for the
same application.
2) Comparing different gas compressor designs for the same application.
3) Comparing different process licensers for the same application.
1.5.3 Application of the RAM study to capital projects below $5 MM is not

mandatory. However, it is left up to the discretion of the proponent
and/or Facilities Planning Department (FPD) representatives to decide
whether to apply a RAM study for such projects. If a decision is made to
conduct the RAM study, for such projects, then it shall comply with
SAES-A-030 requirements and execution process.
1.5.4 For new projects where the PFDs have been extensively developed upon
completion of FEL 2 phase (i.e., DBSP phase) or extension projects
where existing PFD are being modified RAM FEL 2 (DBSP) shall be
skipped and RAM study shall start directly with RAM FEL 3 (PP).
1.5.5 Capital projects with the FPD project Characterization A, B, and C-Type
Projects shall require a RAM study.
1.5.6 A RAM study will not be applied to the following projects:
1.5.6.1 Exploration projects (BI-33)
1.5.6.2 Development Drilling projects (BI-60)
1.5.6.3 Saudi Aramco nonindustrial projects and projects that are

monetary appropriations only. These include, but are not
limited to:
1.5.6.3.1 Enterprise Computing Systems IT projects

Page 3 of 53
1.5.6.3.2 Communication Networks Upkeep
1.5.6.3.3 Innovation & Technology Deployment
1.5.6.3.4 Research & Development Center
1.5.6.3.5 Community projects
1.5.6.3.6 Road Transportation Equipment (e.g., cars and

buses)
1.5.6.3.7 Medical Equipment
1.5.6.3.8 Research Center(s) Equipment
1.5.6.3.9 Advanced Control and Monitoring Center

Equipment
1.5.6.3.10 Industrial Security projects
1.5.6.4 In-kind replacement assuming the asset’s nameplate capacity

and feed(s) composition are still within the design acceptable
limits and are still valid with regard to the production’s future
forecast outlook.
1.5.6.5 The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable, but not

mandatory, to the O&M phase for existing plants and facilities.
2 Purpose
2.1 To ensure that Saudi Aramco has a systematic execution process for the
Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) study.
2.2 To ensure that roles and responsibilities for RAM study steps and activities in
Saudi Aramco are outlined and auditable.
2.3 To assure that the RAM study data, assumptions, recommendations, and
execution are well defined.
2.4 To assure that the RAM study data, assumptions, recommendations, and
execution are uniformly documented for the purpose of corporate tracking and
auditing.
2.5 To assure that adequate resources (i.e., manpower, manhours, and SMEs) are
provided for the RAM study.

Page 4 of 53
2.6 To assure that process, steps, data, assumptions, deliverables, roles, and
responsibilities, when utilizing service providers to perform the RAM study, are
clearly defined.
3 Conflicts and Deviations
3.1 Any conflicts between this standard and other applicable Saudi Aramco
Engineering Standards (SAESs), Materials System Specifications (SAMSSs),
Standard Drawings (SASDs), or industry standards, codes, and forms shall be
resolved in writing by the company or buyer representative through the Manager
of CSD, Saudi Aramco, Dhahran.
3.2 All deviations from this Engineering Standard shall be separately listed by the
RAM service provider in his proposal and shall refer to the relevant paragraph
numbers.
3.3 Direct all requests to deviate from this Engineering Standard in writing to the
company or buyer representative, who shall forward such requests to the
Chairman, Asset Management Standards Committee, the CSD of Saudi Aramco,
Dhahran. The Asset Management Standards Committee Chairman shall follow
internal company procedures, SAEP-302, to process the request.
3.4 The Asset Management Standards Committee Chairman reserves the right to
approve or reject the RAM waiver depending on whether the waiver request
meets the waiver conditions and requirements.
3.5 All RAM study waivers, including approved and rejected, shall be documented
as an Appendix in the RAM study final report.
4 References
4.1 As the RAM study covers all types of assets used in Saudi Aramco operating
plants and facilities, except as modified by this SAES, applicable requirements
in the latest issues of all Saudi Aramco and industry codes, standards, and
practices shall be considered an integral part of this Engineering Standard.
4.2 The RAM studies shall comply with the latest edition of the references listed
below, unless otherwise noted.
a) Saudi Aramco References
Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

SAEP-12 Project Execution Plan
SAEP-14 Project Proposal

Page 5 of 53
SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

SAEP-71 Portfolio Execution Planning
SAEP-133 Instructions for the Development of “Regulated
Vendors List” Engineering Standards
SAEP-302 Instructions for Obtaining a Waiver of a Mandatory
Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirement
SAEP-329 Project Closeout Report
SAEP-367 Value Improvement Practice Requirements
SAEP-503 Assets’ Sparing Requirements and Guidelines
SAEP-1350 Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP) Preparation
and Revision Procedure
Saudi Aramco Best Practice

SABP-A-047 Qualification Criteria and Approved Service
Providers for Reliability, Availability, and
Maintainability (RAM) Study
Capital Management System Efficiency Enablers (CMSEEs)

documentation (for the latest versions of the below manuals, contact
Capital Program Efficiency Department):
Front End Loading (FEL) Manual
Integrated Project Team (IPT) Manual
Project Sponsor Manual
Portfolio Execution Planning Engineered Projects: Portfolio
Characterization
Loss Prevention Department (LPD) and Corporate Maintenance Services

(CMS) documentation (for the latest versions of the below manuals,
contact LPD for SMS and CMS for TPRM):
Safety Management System (SMS)
Total Plant Reliability Management (TPRM)
b) Industry Codes and Standards
American Petroleum Institute

API RP 571 Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in
the Refining Industry

Page 6 of 53
International Electrotechnical Commission

IEC 60812 Analysis Techniques for System Reliability -
Procedure for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
(FMEA)
International Organization for Standardization

ISO 6527 Nuclear Power Plants - Reliability Data Exchange -
General Guidelines
ISO 20815 Petroleum, Petrochemical, and Natural Gas
Industries - Production Assurance and Reliability
Management
5 Definitions
A System: Corresponds to a group of components, equipment connected or associated

in a fixed configuration to perform a specified function of delivering an end product or
service.
Asset: Refers to a physical asset of economic value used to generate revenue for the
company. In the RAM study, assets refer to the assets displayed in the Process Flow
Diagrams of the processing plants and facilities.
Asset Key Failure Modes and Damage Mechanisms: Those that lead to the worst
consequences on plant availability due to their high failure frequency (i.e., chronic
problems) and/or extended downtime duration.
Note: Generally, Failure Modes are associated with rotating and electrical assets, while
Damage Mechanisms are associated with static assets. The two terms have been
combined in this Engineering Standard to ensure the coverage of both while performing
a RAM analysis.
Asset Redundancy: The duplication of the asset or function(s) of a process with the
intention of increasing availability of the system, usually in the form of a backup or a
fail-safe system.
Availability: Refers to operational availability in the RAM analysis. It is a measure of

the “real” average availability over a period of time and includes all experienced sources
of downtime, such as technical downtime, administrative downtime, logistic downtime,
etc. The operational availability is the availability that the production throughput or the
customer experiences. The availability in general is defined as the Steady-State
Availability as follows:

Page 7 of 53
Capacity Utilization: The extent or level to which the productive capacity of an asset
or a plant is being used. It is expressed usually as a percentage, it is computed by
dividing the total capacity with the portion being utilized.
Notes:
(1) If a company is running at a 75% capacity utilization rate, it has room (25%) to increase
production, up to a 100% utilization rate, without incurring the expensive costs of building a
new plant or facility.
(2) Sometime the capacity utilization may also be computed by dividing the total time where
an asset or a plant is being used to the total available time where the asset is ready for
production.
Damage Mechanism: Also referred to as degradation mechanism, is a general term

referring to any causes of problems or failures within the process equipment. These can
range from corrosion, to cracking, to heat damage, and everything in between
(Source: API RP 571 Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining
Industry).
Note: The term damage mechanism is generally used for static assets.
Failure (of an asset): Termination of the ability of an asset to perform any one of its
designed intended functions.
Failure (of a system): Termination of the ability of a system to perform any one of its
designed intended functions.
Note: Failure of an asset within a system may occur in such a way that the system retains its
ability to perform all its required functions; in this case the system has not failed.
Failure Mode: The physical, chemical or other processes, which lead or have led to
the failure. It is the effect by which the failure is observed.
Note: The term failure mode is generally used for rotating, electrical assets, EIVs, and control
valves.
Failure Rate: Corresponds to the mean number of failures of an asset per unit
exposure time. Usually, exposure time is expressed in years and failure rate is given in
failures per year.
Front End Loading (FEL): A process that divides the project life cycle into stages
and phases with gates, each with defined activities and objective. For each stage,
achievement of the objectives is evaluated at the gate under a well-documented and
systemized methodology as displayed by FEL stages and gates displayed in Figure 1
below.

Page 8 of 53
Figure 1 - Overview of Front End Loading (FEL) Stage and Gate Process
Maintainability: The ease with which a system, an asset or component can be

maintained to:
1) Isolate defects or their causes.
2) Correct defects or their causes.
3) Repair or replace faulty or worn-out components without having to replace
still working parts.
4) Prevent unexpected breakdowns.
5) Maximize asset’s useful life.
6) Maximize efficiency, reliability, and safety.
7) Meet new requirements.
8) Make future maintenance easier.
9) Deal with a changed environment.
Mean Time between Failures (MTBF): The predicted elapsed time between intrinsic
failures of a system during operation. The MTBF can be calculated as the arithmetic
mean (average) time between failures of a system. The MTBF is typically part of a
model that assumes the failed system is immediately repaired (mean time to repair
(MTTR)), as a part of a renewal process. This is in contrast to the mean time to failure
(MTTF), which measures the average time to failures with the modeling assumption

Page 9 of 53
that the failed system is not repaired (infinite repair time). The MTBF for an asset is
defined as:
Mean Time to Repair (MTTR): Basic measure of the maintainability of repairable

items. It represents the average time required to repair a failed component or device.
Expressed mathematically, it is the total corrective maintenance time divided by the
total number of corrective maintenance actions during a given period of time. In this
document, the MTTR is meant to be a measure of the mean time between the point at
which the failure is first discovered until the point at which the equipment returns to
operation or is back to a ready state for operation.
Production Availability: The ratio of production to planned production, or any other

reference level, over a specified period of time.
Note: This measure is used in connection with analysis of delimited systems without
compensating elements such as substitution from other producers and downstream buffer
storage. Battery limits need to be defined in each case (Source: ISO 20815:2008,
Petroleum, Petrochemical, and Natural Gas Industries - Production Assurance and
Reliability Management).
Production Slowdown: The act of slackening of pace of an asset or plant production

throughput capacity.
Note: If two pieces of equipment are used in parallel (2x50% capacity each) produce
40 MBPD (2x20 MBPD each); in case of a failure of any one of the two pieces of
equipment would slowdown the total production capacity by 50%, thereby reducing the
total production capacity from 40 MBPD to 20 MBPD.
Plant Bottleneck: The phenomenon where the plant performance or capacity is limited
by a single or limited number of pieces of equipment. Plant debottlenecking is the
process used to free the plant capacity restriction or limitation.
RAM: A business performance improvement tool used to improve business

profitability and financial performance.
RAM Service Provider: A company that provides RAM data, modeling, analysis with
consulting, and many other RAM related services.
Reliability: The ability of a system, asset, equipment or component to perform its

required functions under stated conditions for a specified period of time.
Turnarounds (TA): Scheduled events wherein an entire process unit of a facility

(i.e., refinery, petrochemical plant, power plant, etc.) is taken off stream for an extended
period for revamp and/or renewal. Turnaround is a blanket term that encompasses more
specific terms, such as Testing and Inspection (T&I), debottlenecking projects,
Page 10 of 53
revamps, and catalyst regeneration projects. Turnaround can also be used as a synonym
of shutdowns and outages.
Notes:
(1) Key failure modes and damage mechanisms shall be defined in conjunction with the
commodity SMEs and designated representative(s) of the operating facility for the project.
(2) Reflecting key failure modes and damage mechanisms in the RAM study makes
substantial contribution to understanding the causes behind the unavailability of the plant
and facility production systems.
Unavailability: The proportion of a timespan that a system is unavailable or not ready

for operations.
Figure 2 - Availability vs. Unavailability of a Compression Train

Depending of the Subsystems Forming It (0 = Downstate and 1 = Upstate)
6 Acronyms and Abbreviations

AF Adjustment Factor
AFR Aspen Fidelis Reliability
APM Asset Performance Management
CAPEX Capital Expenditures
CCR Continuous Catalytic Regeneration
CDU Crude Distillation Unit
CGT Combustion Gas Turbine
CMP Corrosion Management Program
CMS Corporate Maintenance Services
CSD Consulting Services Department

Page 11 of 53
DBSP Design Basis Scoping Paper

EPC Engineering, Procurement, and Construction
EIV Emergency Isolation Valve
FEL Front End Loading
FMEA Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
FMECA Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis
FPD Facilities Planning Department
ID Identification
ILI In-Line Inspections
IPT Integrated Project Team
LPD Loss Prevention Department
MM Million
MTBF Mean Time between Failures
MTBO Mean Time between Overhauls
MTTF Mean Time to Failure
MTTR Mean Time to Repair
NPV Net Present Value
OE Operational Excellence
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
O&M Operate and Maintain
OPEX Operating Expenditures
OIM Operations Instruction Manual
PFD Process Flow Diagram
PM Preventive Maintenance
PMT Project Management Team
PP Project Proposal
P&ID Process and Instrumentation Diagram
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RAM Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability
R&M Reliability and Maintenance
ROI Return on Investment
SABP Saudi Aramco Best Practices
SAEP Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures
SAES Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards
SME Subject Matter Expert
SMS Safety Management System
Page 12 of 53
TA Turnaround
TPRM Total Plant Reliability Management
T&I Testing and Inspection
7 RAM Study Requirements, Methodology, and Instructions
7.1 General
7.1.1 The RAM methodology currently approved and implemented in this

Engineering Standard is the proprietary methodology of Saudi Aramco.
7.1.2 Use of other RAM methodologies is not permissible in Saudi Aramco

RAM studies.
7.1.3 Saudi Aramco Type “A” Type Projects (Figure 3), RAM study findings
and reports, for each of the RAM study phases [i.e., RAM FEL 2
(DBSP), RAM FEL 3 (PP), and RAM Execution (Commissioning)],
shall be submitted to the CSD Reliability Group for review.
Note: In Figure 3, ‘M’ refers to Million. To comply with this engineering standard terms and
definitions; then, the defined thresholds for Project Size clusters are as follows:
 Small: $4-100MM
 Medium: $100-500MM
 Large: >$500MM
Figure 3 - Saudi Aramco Project Types as per Portfolio Execution Planning (PXP)

Page 13 of 53
7.2 RAM Simulation Software
7.2.1 Saudi Aramco does allow using the following RAM simulation
software for conducting RAM studies for Saudi Aramco project and
existing plants and facilities:
7.2.1.1 Titan™ from ApenTech; rebranded ‘Aspen Fidelis

Reliability’ (AFR)
7.2.1.2 Taro from DNV-GL
7.2.1.3 Availability Workbench (AWB) from Isograph
7.2.2 Use of other RAM software, other than the three (3) above mentioned
RAM simulation platforms mentioned in subparagraph 7.2.1, is not
permissible in Saudi Aramco RAM studies.
7.3 RAM Study Scope of Application
7.3.1 The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable to new projects,

upgrade projects, and to existing plants and facilities.
7.3.2 The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable to the FEL 2

(DBSP) phase of the projects.
7.3.3 The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable to the FEL 3

(Project Proposal) phase of the projects.
7.3.4 The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable to the Execution

(commissioning) phase of the projects.
7.3.5 The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable, but not

mandatory, to the O&M phase for existing plants and facilities.
7.4 RAM Study Typical Objectives
Below is a list of RAM typical objectives. The RAM service providers are
required to meet the objectives of paragraphs 7.4.1, 7.4.2, 7.4.3, 7.4.4, 7.4.5, and
7.4.6 as a minimum.
7.4.1 Predict plants and facilities production throughput(s) and availability,

and quantify the contribution of the various assets to production and
availability losses (i.e., culprits, shutdowns, slowdowns, etc.).
7.4.2 Identify plants and facilities sections that limit the production
throughput(s) (i.e., production performance).

Page 14 of 53
7.4.3 Identify, recommend and justify the needed measures (i.e., improving
reliability, enhancing maintainability, using sparing and redundancy,
etc.) to attain the needed availability to deliver the production business
targets in a cost-effective manner.
7.4.4 Describe operating facilities’ operations and maintenance constraints

through the prediction of production volumes, availability, reliability,
maintainability, utilization, and sparing philosophy with capital spares.
7.4.5 Identify and rank improvement opportunities based upon the greatest
ROI.
7.4.6 Provide an outlook of costs, including OPEX, CAPEX, and revenue

losses through life NPV.
7.4.7 Compare and evaluate competing technologies, designs, and licenses

while keeping focus on the predicted production performance and
results.
7.4.8 Evaluate the performance optimization gained by the implementation

of new technologies and upgrades to operating facilities.
7.4.9 Give the full picture of annual production efficiency (i.e., utilization of
availability) over the asset’s life cycle.
7.4.10 Select and validate the optimum plants and/or assets configurations,
best practices or operating and maintenance strategies through the
predicted through life NPV.
7.4.11 Evaluate the performance optimization gained by the application of the

APM methods and strategies.
7.4.12 Predict the aging asset’s impact on operating facilities’ production

efficiency.
7.5 RAM Modeling Requirements
7.5.1 Plants and facilities’ assets shall be built in the RAM model as by
logical process flow function outlined in the PFDs.
7.5.2 For new plants and facilities, the IPT/PMT shall avail to the contractor
the latest of the PFD’s versions of plants and facilities in electronic
format.
7.5.3 For existing plants and facilities, the proponent shall avail to the
contractor the latest of the PFD’s versions of plants and facilities in

Page 15 of 53
electronic format.
7.5.4 Plants and facilities’ assets failure modes and damage mechanisms
impact and consequences in the production system shall be evaluated
and captured in the RAM model during the R&M data collection phase
using datasheets of Appendix A.
7.5.5 Plants and facilities’ assets failure modes and damage mechanisms
shall be defined and analyzed for each section of the plants as defined
by the plants and facilities’ logical process flow function.
7.5.6 Plants and facilities’ RAM model assets shall be limited to those
displayed in the PFDs.
7.5.7 Plants and facilities’ assets drilldown structure shall not go beyond the
assets displayed in the PFDs.
7.5.8 Plants and facilities’ assets modeling drilldown beyond the PFD layout
levels (i.e., P&ID levels) shall be first discussed with the CSD
Reliability Group and are subject to the approval of the Chairman of
the Asset Management Standards Committee and the CSD of Saudi
Aramco, Dhahran, prior to execution.
7.5.9 The RAM model building blocks shall have the same block description
and the same asset ID tags as those marked on the plants and facilities’
PFDs.
7.5.10 The RAM model building blocks composition and description shall
correspond to:
7.5.10.1 The asset description as described in the PFDs (e.g., CCR

recycle gas compressor, CGT power block, CDU bottom
pump, etc.).
7.5.10.2 The function intended by an asset as defined by the plants

and facilities’ process flow function (e.g., gas compression,
power generation, CDU bottom product transfer, etc.).
7.5.10.3 The event reflecting a failure mode or damage mechanism

associated with an asset (e.g., dry gas seals contamination,
compressor fouling, compressor surging, pump cavitation,
wear ring failure, bearing failure, heat exchanger fouling,
etc.).
7.5.10.4 A specific function associated with a specific operation step

taking place after a failure mode or a damage mechanism
Page 16 of 53
(e.g., equipment restart, cold restart, warm restart, etc.).
7.5.10.5 A maintenance activity, planned or unplanned, on an asset

(e.g., PM, T&I, decoking, borescope checks, combustor
inspection, hot gas path inspection, major inspection,
overhaul, etc.).
Note: Some assets shall be modeled in two, three or maybe
more building blocks to account for the large differences
in the process conditions with failure modes and damage
mechanisms found in that asset. These assets are then
broken-down, as sub-blocks, depending on the level of
details required by the RAM study (e.g., heat exchanger
tube and shell side, fin fan tubes, fin fan inlet header, fin
fan outlet header, etc.).
7.5.11 The RAM model shall reflect plant operations, including operational
objectives with operation schemes, scenarios, and constraints.
7.6 RAM Model Review and Validation
7.6.1 The RAM model shall reflect the exact function expected from the
process point of view as defined by the process flow function and OIM
of the plant and facilities being studied.
7.6.2 Prior to RAM model execution in the simulation platform, the RAM
model shall be reviewed, verified, and approved by the following
representatives:
7.6.2.1 RAM Service Provider representative(s).
7.6.2.2 Saudi Aramco proponent Process/Operations designated

Engineer(s).
7.6.2.3 Licenser(s) designated Process Engineer(s).
7.6.2.4 Saudi Aramco proponent designated representative(s)

(e.g., reliability, rotating equipment, static equipment,
corrosion, inspection, etc.) as needed depending the project
scope and asset types to be covered.
7.6.3 The RAM service provider representative(s) shall be responsible for

notifying the IPT/PMT representative of the need of conducting the
RAM model review, verification, and approval meeting.
7.6.4 When the RAM model review and validation is taking place out of
Saudi Arabia, the involvement of Saudi Aramco proponent
representative(s) needed for the RAM model review, verification, and
Page 17 of 53
approval shall be done via a phone conference call or a video

conference call to be arranged by the IPT/PMT representative.
Note: In case this review cannot be done through phone conference call or a
video conference; then, a face to face meeting needs to be held where
specified by IPT/PMT representative.
7.6.5 The RAM service provider representative(s) shall lead and facilitate
the RAM model review meeting and document the meeting outcome,
actions, and conclusions.
7.6.6 Once the RAM model is dully reviewed, verified, and approved by the
designated representatives, listed in paragraph 7.6.2, it shall be shared
with the proponent and the CSD Reliability Group for documentation
and records.
7.6.7 The RAM model validation shall be confirmed by the sign off of the
detailed meeting minutes, by the designated representatives identified
in paragraph 7.6.2.
7.6.8 For new plants and facilities, the IPT/PMT shall coordinate the RAM
model validation process and secure the signature of the RAM model
validation meeting minutes, in a reasonable time, after receiving the
RAM model from the RAM service provider.
7.6.9 For existing plants and facilities (i.e., RAM O&M), the proponent shall
coordinate the RAM model validation process and secure the signature
of the RAM model validation meeting minutes, in a reasonable time,
after receiving the RAM model from the RAM service provider.
7.6.10 The RAM model simulation, analysis, and results generation shall not
be executed without official validation of the RAM model by the
designated representatives identified in paragraph 7.6.2.
7.6.11 The RAM model validation representatives, identified in paragraph

7.6.2, shall comply with the schedule communicated by the IPT/PMT
or the proponent to complete the review and validation of the RAM
model with the sign off of the detailed meeting minutes.
8 R&M Data Collection and Adjustments
8.1 General
8.1.1 Saudi Aramco does have a standardized format, Appendix A

datasheets, for collecting R&M data needed to support the RAM study.

Page 18 of 53
8.1.2 The RAM analysis service providers can download the datasheets of
Appendix A from the specified hyperlink.
Note: In case of problems with getting access to the Appendix A, the RAM
service provider shall contact Saudi Aramco’s CSD Reliability Group at
the beginning of the study to get a soft copy of the document.
8.1.3 Use of R&M data from the international industry databanks is

permissible in the Saudi Aramco RAM study under the following
conditions:
8.1.3.1 The R&M data from the international industry databanks

shall be adjusted, as outlined in paragraph 8.3, to account for
Saudi Aramco’s operating environment, workforce
competency, experience, and skills.
8.1.3.2 The R&M data from the international industry databanks

shall be adjusted, as outlined in paragraph 8.3, through
comparison with the R&M data extracted from Saudi
Aramco’s similar plants and facilities.
8.1.3.3 The RAM service provider shall visit one to two similar sites
of Saudi Aramco to meet with and interview key field
personnel to collect, using datasheets of Appendix A, clean
and adjust the R&M data.
Note: The service provider might refer to existing maintenance
information repository systems (e.g., SAP PM module,
PMO, FRACAS, etc.) to collect available R&M data.
However, extreme caution should be exercised while using
those data due to lack of precision.
8.1.4 Use of other companies’ R&M data sources is permissible in Saudi

Aramco’s RAM study under the following conditions:
8.1.4.1 Official approval from the R&M data sources owner(s)

authorizing the RAM service providers to use their
proprietary R&M data in Saudi Aramco’s RAM study.
8.1.4.2 Other companies’ R&M data sources with OEM and/or

licenser data shall be adjusted, as outlined in paragraph 8.3, to
account for Saudi Aramco’s operating environment and
workforce competency, experience, and skills.
8.1.4.3 Other companies’ R&M data sources with OEM and/or

licenser data shall be adjusted, as outlined in paragraph 8.3,

Page 19 of 53
through comparison with the R&M data extracted from Saudi

Aramco’s similar plants and facilities.
8.1.4.4 The RAM service provider shall perform the needed site
visit(s) to Saudi Aramco’s similar plants and facilities with
Central Engineering representatives, if and as needed, to meet
with and interview key field personnel and Central
Engineering SMEs to collect, clean, and adjust the R&M data.
8.1.5 Use of non-adjusted R&M data is not permissible in Saudi Aramco’s

RAM study.
8.1.6 The R&M data for existing plants and facilities shall be extracted as
follows:
8.1.6.1 From Saudi Aramco’s existing similar assets’ history and

records.
8.1.6.2 By performing a field visit to one to two similar plants and

facilities and interviewing the frontline personnel operating
and maintaining similar assets.
8.1.7 The R&M data for new plants and facilities shall be extracted from
Saudi Aramco’s existing similar assets’ history if the same or
equivalent assets, technology, and/or license are already available
within Saudi Aramco’s plants and facilities.
8.1.8 The R&M data for new plants and facilities shall use OEM and/or
licenser data if the same or equivalent assets, technology, and/or
license are not available within Saudi Aramco’s plants and facilities
and are being newly introduced to the company.
8.1.9 For Modularization projects (i.e., using modular design), the R&M
data for new plants and facilities shall use designer data to account for
maintainability challenges, hence new repair turnaround durations.
Note: Modular designs use compact design and this might have a major
impact on extending assets MTTR and/or T&I turnaround durations.
Special attention shall be given to maintainability data collection for
modular designs.
8.1.10 Prior to the RAM model execution in the simulation platform, the
R&M data shall be submitted for review, verification, and approval by
the following representatives:
8.1.10.1 Saudi Aramco proponent Process/Operations Engineer(s)

(limited to new projects only).
Page 20 of 53
8.1.10.2 Saudi Aramco proponent representative(s) (e.g., reliability,

rotating equipment, static equipment, corrosion, inspection,
etc.) as needed depending on the project scope and asset
types to be covered (applicable to new projects and existing
plants).
8.1.10.3 Process Licenser Process/Operations Engineer(s) as

applicable (i.e., if a new Process License is being introduced
to the company).
8.1.10.4 OEM SME(s) representative(s) as applicable (i.e., if a new

equipment type and/or class is being introduced to the
company).

sending to the IPT/PMT representative the R&M data file to be
reviewed and approved by the representatives identified in paragraph
8.1.9 for review and concurrence.
8.1.12 The IPT/PMT representative shall share the R&M data with the
representatives identified in paragraph 8.1.9 for review and approval
prior to the RAM model execution.
8.1.13 After the R&M data review and approval by the representatives
identified in paragraph 8.1.9, the IPT/PMT representative shall share
the approved R&M data with the RAM service provider so they can
execute the model in the simulation platform.
8.1.14 The IPT/PMT representative shall share all R&M data reviewed and
approved by the representatives identified in paragraph 8.1.9, with the
proponent for record and documentation and with the CSD Reliability
Group for R&M data corporate databank development.
8.2 R&M Data Collection Requirements
8.2.1 The R&M data shall be collected in a standard format as defined by

Appendix A.
8.2.2 The RAM service provider shall use datasheets of Appendix A to

collect and adjust the R&M data needed for the RAM study as defined
in this document.
8.2.3 The RAM service provider shall use datasheets of Appendix A and
collect the following information:
8.2.3.1 Licenser information (i.e., FIELD 1 on Appendix A):

Page 21 of 53
Includes information on the process license(s), including the

year of installation with number and summary of design
changes introduced, if any, since the original installation of
the license(s).
8.2.3.2 Licenser T&I information (i.e., FIELD 2 on Appendix A):

Includes information on T&I of different plants or sections
of the plants, including T&I Frequency and Turnaround
Durations.
8.2.3.3 Asset Information (i.e., FIELDS 3, 4, 5, and 6 on Appendix

A): Includes information on the assets R&M information to
be collected during the field visit(s) and associated failure
modes and damage mechanisms. This section includes the
following information:
8.2.3.3.1 Plant information (i.e., FIELD 3 on Appendix A):

Includes information on plants IDs and plants’
brief descriptions.
8.2.3.3.2 Asset information (i.e., FIELD 3 on Appendix A):

Includes information on the assets, including their
ID, functions, categories, types, the year of
installation, total running hours with number and
summary of design changes introduced, if any,
since the original installation of the assets.
8.2.3.3.3 R&M information (i.e., FIELDS 4 and 5 on

Appendix A): Includes information on assets
unreliability (MTBF) and maintenance (MTTR)
associated planned events (i.e., FIELD 4 on
Appendix A) and unplanned events (i.e., FIELD 5
on Appendix A), including their descriptions,
frequencies and repair durations.
8.2.3.3.4 Key Failure Modes and Damage Mechanisms

Information (i.e., FIELD 6 on Appendix A):
Includes information on one to two key failure
mode(s) and damage mechanism(s) associated
with each of the events identified in paragraph
8.2.3.3.3 for each of the assets.
8.2.4 The RAM service provider shall perform R&M data collection,
cleansing, adjustment, and validation for the RAM study.

Page 22 of 53
8.2.5 The RAM service provider shall visit one to two similar sites of Saudi
Aramco’s to meet with and interview key field personnel (i.e., most
knowledgeable people) to collect, clean, and adjust the R&M data.
8.2.6 The RAM service provider shall submit an official request to the
IPT/PMT designated representative to identify, one to two, similar
Saudi Aramco plants and facilities to be visited to collect R&M data.
8.2.7 The IPT/PMT shall work with the proponent representative and
identify Saudi Aramco’s one to two similar plants and facilities to be
visited, by the RAM service provider, to collect the R&M data.
8.2.8 The IPT/PMT shall coordinate the R&M data collection site visit(s)
with the designated Saudi Aramco plants and facilities identified in
paragraph 8.2.7 and secure the site visits to interview field frontline
personnel and Central Engineering SMEs if and as needed.
8.2.9 The IPT/PMT shall avail to the RAM service provider the needed
access permit(s) (i.e., gate passes) to visit the designated plants and
facilities identified in paragraph 8.2.7.
8.2.10 The RAM service provider shall visit Saudi Aramco’s designated
plants and facilities, identified in paragraph 8.2.7 to collect and adjust
R&M data.
8.2.11 The RAM service provider shall meet with designated plants and
facilities personnel to collect the needed R&M data as identified in
datasheets of Appendix A for each asset appearing in the plant(s)
PFDs. The R&M data collection meetings with frontline personnel can
be done individually or in groups, depending on the needs.
8.2.12 The RAM service provider shall use the datasheets of Appendix A
and collect information on unreliability and maintenance events
(i.e., operations interruptions due to planned and unplanned
maintenance activities) for each of the assets as follows:
8.2.12.1 Asset trips.
8.2.12.2 Asset failures (including electrical, instrumentation, and

mechanical failures).
8.2.12.3 Asset process upsets (as applicable).
8.2.12.4 Asset fails to start (as applicable).
8.2.12.5 Asset cold restarts (as applicable).

Page 23 of 53
8.2.12.6 Asset unplanned overhauls (if any).
8.2.12.7 Other asset unreliability outages (to be defined and added

during R&M data collection in the field).
8.2.12.8 Asset Planned Maintenance, including:
8.2.12.8.1 Planned checks
8.2.12.8.2 Planned inspections
8.2.12.8.3 Preventive Maintenance (PM) activities

Notes:
(1) Assets planned overhauls shall be part of planned maintenance under

PM activities.
(2) CGTs borescope inspection, Midlife Inspection (MI) and Major Shop
Inspection shall be covered under planned maintenance (i.e., planned,
checks, inspections and planned overhauls).
(3) Pipeline ILI and scraping shall be covered under planned maintenance
(i.e., planned inspections and PM activities).
8.2.13 The RAM service provider shall use FIELD 6 of Appendix A and
collect one to two key failure mode(s) and damage mechanism(s), as
available, for each of the unreliability events (i.e., unplanned events)
listed in paragraphs 8.2.12.1, 8.2.12.2, 8.2.12.3, 8.2.12.4, 8.2.12.5,
8.2.12.6, and 8.2.12.7.
8.2.14 In case the key failure mode(s) and damage mechanism(s) for each,
some or all of the unreliability events listed in paragraphs 8.2.12.1,
8.2.12.2, 8.2.12.3, 8.2.12.4, 8.2.12.5, 8.2.12.6, and 8.2.12.7 is/are
unknown to the frontline personnel; then, it shall be recorded in
datasheets of Appendix A as “UNKNOWN” failure mode(s) and
damage mechanism(s).
8.2.15 The R&M data listed in paragraphs 8.2.3 and 8.2.12 is considered to be
the minimum R&M data to be collected during site visits by the RAM
service provider. The RAM service provider might extend the
information to be collected assuming it has relevance and is deemed
important for the RAM study and can use the datasheets of Appendix A
“Comments” sections to capture such information.
8.2.16 For existing plants and facilities, the RAM service provider shall
submit an official request to the proponent designated representative

Page 24 of 53
for the RAM study to perform a site visit to Saudi Aramco plant to be
modeled to collect the R&M data.
RAM data, identified in paragraphs 8.2.3 and 8.2.12, shall be reviewed,
verified, and approved by the representatives identified in paragraph
8.1.10.
8.2.18 Final approved R&M data captured in datasheets of Appendix A, shall

be shared by the RAM service provider with the proponent for record
and documentation and with CSD Reliability Group for R&M data
corporate databank development.
8.2.19 The RAM adjusted data collected from previous RAM studies can be
used in Saudi Aramco’s new RAM studies as a reference source
instead of international industry databanks R&M data. However, there
is still a need to undergo the adjustment process to make sure that they
will represent the plants being modeled.
8.3 R&M Data Adjustment
R&M data adjustment shall be done by multiplying Saudi Aramco reliability

(MTBF) and maintenance (MTTR) data by Adjustment Factors (AFs) to account
for Saudi Aramco specific operating environment, including operation strategies
(i.e., operating assets within design limits and operating environment),
maintenance strategies (i.e., availability of spare parts, scaffolding and tools
availability and accessibility to the failed asset), and workforce skills and
competency (i.e., experienced vs. young workforce).
8.3.1 MTBF Data Adjustment
8.3.1.1 The MTBF(Reference) shall be extracted from international

industry databanks assuming reasonable feed product(s)
specifications, reasonable operating conditions of the asset
with regard to design conditions and an adequate PM
program compliance.
8.3.1.2 The MTBF(Reference) shall be adjusted with three AFs as

displayed in Figure 4 to account for the feed product
specifications fluctuations, the asset operating conditions
deviations with regard to design specifications and the
surrounding environment, and finally, the asset Preventive
Maintenance (PM) program compliance.
8.3.1.3 In case - from the site visits and frontline personnel

interviews - it has been judged that the feed product to the
Page 25 of 53
asset is or has been off-spec, in an intermittent or continuous

manner, then the MTBF(Adjusted) shall be adjusted by
decreasing the MTBF(Reference) by 10% to 20%, as deemed
necessary, as follows:
Figure 4 - Assets MTBF Adjustment Factors Estimation

interviews - it has been judged that the asset is not or has not
been operating within its design limits and operating
environment as per the design specifications, in an
intermittent or continuous manner, then the MTBF(Adjusted)
shall be adjusted by decreasing the MTBF(Reference) by 10% to
25%, as deemed necessary, as follows:

interviews - it has been judged that the asset has not been
maintained in a timely and adequate manner as per the
established PM program for that asset, then the MTBF(Adjusted)
Page 26 of 53
shall be adjusted by decreasing the MTBF(Reference) by 5% to

10%, as deemed necessary, as follows:
8.3.1.6 Based on the adjustments to the MTBF(Reference) from the site

visits and frontline personnel interviews, the final
MTBF(Adjusted) shall be equal to the MTBF(Reference) adjusted
with the three AFs, to account for the feed product
specification’s impact on the assets, the asset operating
according to design specifications and operating environment,
and the PM program compliance, as follows:
8.3.1.7 As demonstrated by Figure 4 — if from the site visits and

frontline personnel interviews — it has been judged that the
feed to the asset is/has been on-spec, the asset is/has been
operating within the design limits and the PM is/has been
timely performed on the asset, then the MTBF(Adjusted) shall be
given by:
8.3.2 MTTR Data Adjustment
8.3.2.1 The MTTR(Reference) shall be extracted from international

industry databanks assuming reasonable repair conditions
(i.e., the needed tools, spare parts and experienced workforce
are available to timely and properly carryout the repair on the
asset).
8.3.2.2 The MTTR(Reference) shall be adjusted with three AFs as

displayed in Figure 5 to account for the repair time delays
associated with logistics problems (e.g., availability of spare
parts, special tolls availability, scaffolding, accessibility to the
failed asset, etc.) and workforce competency (i.e., experienced
vs. young workforce).

interviews - it has been judged that the repair workforce is
lacking the skills, experience and competency needed to
timely and properly carryout the repair on the failed asset,
then the MTTR(Adjusted) shall be adjusted by increasing the

Page 27 of 53
MTTR(Reference) by 50% to 100%, as deemed necessary, as

follows:
Figure 5 - Assets MTTR Adjustment Factors Estimation

interviews - it has been judged there are problems with spare
parts availability to timely and properly carryout the repair on
the failed asset, then the MTTR(Adjusted) shall be adjusted by
increasing the MTTR(Reference) by 30% to 100%, as deemed
necessary, as follows:

interviews - it has been judged that there are problems with
repair tools (e.g., scaffolding, shop tools, maintenance shops,
cranes, alignment tools and figures, etc.) availability to timely
and properly carryout the repair on the failed asset, then the
MTTR(Adjusted) shall be adjusted by increasing the
MTBF(Reference) by 15% to 30%, as deemed necessary, as
follows:

Page 28 of 53
8.3.2.6 Based on the adjustments to the MTTR(Reference), the final

MTTR(Adjusted) shall be equal to the MTTR(Reference) adjusted
with the three AFs, to account for the asset repair conditions
being reasonable (i.e., the needed tools, spare parts and
experienced workforce are available to timely and properly
carryout the repair), as follows:
8.3.2.7 As demonstrated by Figure 5, if from the site visits and

frontline personnel interviews, it has been judged that the
asset repair conditions are reasonable (i.e., the needed tools,
spare parts and experienced workforce are available to timely
and properly carryout the repair), then the MTTR(Adjusted) is
given by:
8.4 R&M Data and Assumptions Documentation
8.4.1 All information collected during meetings with plant personnel to

collect R&M data with one to two key failure modes and damage
mechanisms, inspection and consequences shall be documented as an
Appendix in the final report.
8.4.2 All RAM study assumptions so that the final risk quantification and
reduction shall be documented as an integral part of the final report.
8.4.3 The RAM adjusted data and assumptions shall be duly reviewed
and approved by the proponent representatives as identified in
paragraph 8.1.10.
8.4.4 Final adjusted and approved R&M data, captured in datasheets of

Appendix A, shall be shared by the RAM service provider with the
proponent for record and documentation and with the CSD Reliability
Group for R&M data corporate databank development.
9 RAM Study Service Provider Qualification
9.1 CSD has already defined the qualification criteria, and so far, approved the
RAM study service providers for the RAM study in SABP-A-047.
9.2 Only technically approved RAM study service providers identified in

Page 29 of 53
SABP-A-047 can perform the RAM studies for Saudi Aramco’s new and
existing plants and facilities.
9.3 RAM study approved service providers, identified in SABP-A-047, shall not use
subcontractor(s) to perform the RAM studies for Saudi Aramco’s new and
existing plants and facilities, unless they received an approval of the Chairman,
Asset Management Standards Committee, the CSD of Saudi Aramco, Dhahran.
9.4 To use subcontractor(s) to perform the RAM study for Saudi Aramco’s new and
existing plants and facilities, the RAM approved service provider shall address a
request letter, for that purpose, to the Chairman, Asset Management Standards
Committee, the CSD of Saudi Aramco, with justification of using
subcontractor(s), with the subcontractor(s) references of previous RAM studies
and the resumes of their RAM SMEs that shall be engaged in the Saudi Aramco
RAM study.
10 RAM Study Modeling Phases
10.1 RAM FEL 2 (DBSP)
10.1.1 Shall model, at high-level (i.e., PFDs at DBSP stage), the plants’ and
facilities’ overall production configuration. The RAM Model shall be
limited to the PFDs as developed at the DBSP stage. Figures 6-1 and
6-2 display a high-level PFD (DBSP stage) for a refinery and gas plant.
Note: A high-level RAM model shall not model the asset as reflected by the
final PFDs as at early stage of the project, PFDs are not fully
developed; however, we do have an idea of the general design
building blocks forming the facility. It is a model limited to the high-
level building blocks of the plants.

Page 30 of 53
Figure 6-1 - Example of High-Level Refinery PFD at DBSP Stage
Figure 6-2 - Example of High-Level Gas Facility PFD at DBSP Stage
10.1.2 Shall include plants’ and facilities’ major building blocks

configurations, capacities, buffer tank sizes, and different approved
operating logics to operate the plants and associated assets.

Page 31 of 53
10.1.3 Shall generate results with regard to the set business targets of the
operating plants and facilities.
For example, if a refinery designed capacity is 400 MBPD and the

RAM analysis forecasted capacity is 380 MBPD; then, there is a lost
profit opportunity of 20 MBPD, for which the relevant culprits and
required resolutions need to be identified to reduce it during the design
phase of the project.
10.1.4 Shall benchmark and rank the operating plants and facilities’ reliability
figures with regard to known industry benchmarks, if and as available
and applicable.
10.1.5 Shall identify the optimal availability needed to deliver the plant
business objectives. The RAM study needs to identify what availability
is needed to deliver the plant business objectives (e.g., 400 MBPD).
If, for example, 95% is the availability needed to deliver the refinery
400 MBPD, then it shall be the recommended availability design target.
However, if a different availability figure, higher or lower than 95%, is
needed to deliver the 400 MBPD, then the RAM study shall recommend
that availability as the availability design target. The RAM study shall
identify the optimal availability figures to be targeted by design so we
can secure Saudi Aramco’s Capital Efficiency strategy.
10.1.6 Shall comply with Saudi Aramco’s Capital Efficiency strategy by

identifying the optimal availability figure(s) to be targeted by design in
order to deliver the plant’s business targets in a cost-effective manner
over the plant life cycle.
10.1.7 For new projects where the PFDs have been extensively developed
upon completion of FEL 2 phase (i.e., DBSP phase) or extension
projects where existing PFD are being modified RAM FEL 2 is not
needed, RAM study shall start directly with RAM FEL 3 (PP).
10.2 RAM FEL 3 (PP)
10.2.1 Shall leverage the RAM FEL 2 (DBSP), Section 10.1, model to cover
all plants’ and facilities’ assets at the PFDs level.
10.2.2 Shall quantify production performance and economics given changes

in assets technology selection, redundancy allocation, buffer storage
volumes and locations, turn up capabilities, capital spares decision,
operations and maintenance practices and strategies.

Page 32 of 53
10.2.3 Shall identify high impact opportunities where design changes and
maintainability improvement opportunities are to be considered,
mitigated, and included during the detailed design phase of the project.
10.2.4 RAM FEL 3 (PP) design changes shall first address the failures modes
and damage mechanism, identified in FIELD 6 of Appendix A, that are
hindering production through-puts, which are normally a provider by
the simulator under the top 20% bad actors or performance loss
contributors.
10.2.5 Production performance gap(s) improvements shall either increase

asset’s MTBF, reduce MTTR or increase asset’s MTBF and reduce
MTTR. The balance between the improvement’s available alternatives
shall be driven by cost effectiveness and the ease of implementing the
recommendations.
Table 1 - Asset Production Throughput and Availability Enhancement Alternatives

Asset MTBF Asset MTTR
Option 1 Increase () Keep As-Is ()
Option 2 Keep As-Is () Decrease ()
Option 3 Increase () Decrease ()
10.2.6 Shall identify the top 20% of assets limiting production performance
with regard to production throughput target(s) (i.e., business
objectives).
with regard to plant availability.
with regard to reliability losses associated with unreliability events
(i.e., failures, trips, etc.).
10.2.9 Shall rank the top 20% of assets limiting production performance from
the highest to the lowest with regard to production losses.
the highest to the lowest with regard to availability losses.
the highest to the lowest with regard to reliability losses.

Page 33 of 53
10.2.12 Shall provide the list of assets with a total installed capacity utilization
rate lower than 80% with regard to the availability (e.g., an asset could
have an availability of 95% while the utilization of that 95%
availability is only 80% or lower).
10.2.13 Each of the top 20% of assets, limiting the production performance,
identified in paragraphs 10.2.6, 10.2.7, and 10.2.8 shall be associated
to one to two key failure modes and damage mechanisms as identified
during the R&M data collection process (i.e., FIELD 6 of Appendix A).
10.2.14 Design improvement opportunities shall comply with Saudi Aramco’s

Capital Efficiency strategy and shall be limited only to the top 20% of
assets limiting the production performance.
10.2.15 Shall be finalized before the 90% project proposal review to allow for
mitigation or identification of key failure mode(s) and damage
mechanism(s) so appropriate design changes and improvement
opportunities shall be incorporated during the detailed design phase of
the project.
10.2.16 Shall rank all plants’ and facilities’ assets with regard to production
performance losses, including production throughput losses.
10.2.17 Shall rank all plants’ and facilities’ assets with regard to plant’s
availability losses.
10.2.18 Shall rank all plants’ and facilities’ assets with regard to reliability
losses associated with unreliability events (i.e., failures, trips, etc.).
10.2.19 Shall prioritize the RAM FEL 3 (PP) improvements and

recommendations as per the RAM improvements prioritization process
outlined in Section 11 of this Engineering Standard.
10.2.20 IPT/PMT shall work with the proponent representatives to form, or hire,
a Failure Analysis Team and perform a failure analysis on the top 20%
of assets, limiting production performance, identified in paragraphs
10.2.6, 10.2.7, and 10.2.8, associated key failure modes and damage
mechanisms as identified during the R&M data collection process
(i.e., FIELD 6 of Appendix A).
Note: The RAM service provider is not responsible for performing the
failure analysis on the top 20% of assets, limiting production
performance, identified in paragraphs 10.2.4, 10.2.5, and 10.2.6.
10.2.20.1 For the known key failure modes and damage mechanisms,
the Failure Analysis Team shall work directly on a
mitigation plan to address those known failure modes and
Page 34 of 53
damage mechanisms, and the approved solution(s) and

recommendation(s) shall be submitted for implementation
during the detailed design phase of the project.
10.2.20.2 For the UNKNOWN key failure modes and damage
mechanisms, the Failure Analysis Team shall use a
structured and thorough failure analysis process on the
associated assets to address those UNKNOWN failure modes
and damage mechanism, and the approved solution(s) and
Notes:
(1) There are many reliability tools for conducting a thorough

and structured failure analysis on assets’ failure modes and
damage mechanisms (e.g., FMEA/FMECA, TapRoot RCA,
Appolo RCA, etc.).
(2) Despite that all available reliability tools for conducting a

failure analysis would address paragraph 10.2.20.2
requirements, it is highly recommended to use
FMEA/FMECA process to address assets’ UNKNOWN key
failure modes and damage mechanisms.
(3) For FMEA/FMECA guidelines execution details, refer to the

latest version of IEC 60812: Analysis Techniques for
System Reliability – Procedure for Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis (FMEA).
(4) The RAM service provider is not responsible for performing

the failure analysis on the top 20% of assets, limiting
production performance, identified in paragraph 10.2.20.
(5) The IPT/PMT can hire a 3rd party contractor to perform the
performance identified by the RAM study. They can engage
SMEs from Central Engineering if and as needed to support
this analysis.
(6) Proper and thorough failure analysis is a time-consuming

and resource consuming process. To avoid work conflicting
priorities and to ensure that the RAM improvement
opportunities shall be properly and timely addressed, it is
highly recommended to hire a 3rd party company specialized
on those analysis.
10.2.21 The final failure analysis report, performed by the Failure Analysis
Team, on the top 20% of assets limiting production performance key
failure modes and damage mechanisms shall be shared, by the

Page 35 of 53
proponent RAM study representative, with the CSD Reliability Group

to be included in the R&M data corporate databank development.
10.3 RAM Execution (Commissioning)
10.3.1 Shall be conducted only in the case when there is/are a deviation(s),
from the approved design, due to procurements, construction,
installation, and/or commissioning, of plants’ CRITICAL ASSETS that
have been identified as the top 20% assets limiting production
performance during RAM FEL3 (PP), paragraphs 10.2.6, 10.2.7, and
10.2.8.
Note: In the RAM analysis, critical assets refer to the assets identified on
the top 20% of the assets limiting the plant production performance
during RAM FEL3 (PP).
10.3.2 If there are no changes with regard to the approved design on plants’
critical assets [i.e., the top 20% of assets limiting production
performance identified during RAM FEL3 (PP)], RAM Execution
(Commissioning) shall not be conducted.
10.3.3 Shall start at 70% of the construction of the execution phase of the
project and shall continue during the commissioning of the operations
phase of the project to update the RAM FEL 3 (PP), Section 10.2, with
changes and deviations, on critical assets, that have resulted from
procuring assets, constructing plants and/or installing assets in a
different manner than the specified and approved design specifications.
10.3.4 Shall validate the RAM FEL 3 (PP) model for critical assets selection,
configuration, procurement, installation, and commissioning with
regard to the approved design specifications and the RAM FEL 3 (PP)
design approved improvement(s) recommendations to close production
performance gaps.
10.3.5 The below list of deviations, on plants’ critical assets, shall be obtained
from the IPT/PMT representative, to be handed over to the proponent
and RAM service provider, as part of the project handover and
accounted for during the RAM execution (commissioning) analysis.
10.3.5.1 RAM FEL 3 (PP) recommended vs. implemented design

improvement modifications as identified in paragraph
10.2.18 but limited to critical assets only.
10.3.5.2 Design errors and omissions on plants’ critical assets that

took place during the project construction phase.

Page 36 of 53
10.3.5.3 Engineering Standards’ violations and waiver’s

consequences obtained for plants’ critical assets during the
project execution.
10.3.5.4 Materials and assets’ procurement deficiencies and the

QA/QC noncompliance on plants’ critical assets.
10.3.5.5 Materials and assets’ installation deficiencies and

non-compliance with regard to the RAM FEL 3 (PP)
approved design as identified in paragraph 10.2.20 but
limited to critical assets only.
10.3.6 The list of deviations identified in paragraph 10.3.5 is considered as the

minimum list of deviations to be considered during the RAM execution
(commissioning) analysis on plants’ critical assets only.
10.3.7 The IPT/PMT representative shall avail the list of deviations, on plants’
critical assets, listed in paragraph 10.3.5 for the RAM service provider in
order to perform the RAM execution (commissioning) analysis.
10.3.8 Deviations, on plants’ critical assets, from approved designs shall be

identified and linked to the associated plant name and asset’s ID listed
in the plants and facilities’ PFDs.

quantified in term of Lost Production Opportunities (i.e., production
volume(s) losses) and financial losses.

ranked according to the following categories:
10.3.10.1 Deviations, on plants’ critical assets, from approved designs

due to the design changes and/or modifications.

due to material selection changes and/or modifications.

due to manufacturing deficiencies.

due to assembly and installation deficiencies.

due to material and asset procurement changes and/or
modifications.
Page 37 of 53

due to construction deficiencies.

due to inspection and QA/QC deficiencies.

due to commissioning process deficiencies.
10.3.11 All RAM FEL 3 (PP) deviations categories, listed in paragraph 10.3.10,
from the approved design on critical assets shall be documented in the
final report of the RAM study.
10.4 RAM O&M (Operate and Maintain)
10.4.1 The RAM O&M shall not be executed for new projects.
10.4.2 The RAM O&M shall be executed for existing plants and facilities
only, and this section outlines the RAM modeling and analysis
mandatory requirements in case existing plants decide to conduct a
RAM study.
10.4.3 The RAM studies’ typical objectives listed under Section 7.4 are all
applicable to the RAM O&M.
10.4.4 The RAM modeling requirements listed under Section 7.5 are all
applicable to the RAM O&M with exception to paragraph 7.5.2.
10.4.5 The R&M data collection and adjustment outlined in Section 8 are all
applicable to the RAM O&M.
10.4.6 The RAM Model Review and Validation
10.4.6.1 The RAM model shall reflect the exact function expected
from the process point of view as defined by the process
flow function and OIM of the plant and facilities being
studied.
10.4.6.2 Prior to the RAM model execution in the simulation

platform, the RAM model shall be reviewed, verified, and
approved by the following representatives:
10.4.6.2.1 RAM service provider representative(s).
10.4.6.2.2 Saudi Aramco proponent process/operations

designated Engineer(s).

Page 38 of 53
10.4.6.2.3 Saudi Aramco proponent designated

representative(s) (e.g., reliability, rotating
equipment, static equipment, corrosion,
inspection, etc.) as needed depending on the
scope of the study and asset types to be covered.
10.4.6.3 The RAM service provider representative(s) shall be

responsible for notifying proponent RAM study
representative of the need of conducting the RAM model
review, verification, and approval meeting.
10.4.6.4 The RAM service provider representative(s) shall lead and

facilitate the RAM model review meeting and document the
meeting outcome, actions, and conclusions.
10.4.6.5 Once the RAM model is dully reviewed, verified, and

approved by the designated representatives, listed in
paragraph 10.4.6.2, it shall be shared with the proponent and
CSD Reliability Group for documentation and records.
10.4.6.6 The RAM model validation shall be confirmed by the sign

off of detailed meeting minutes, by the designated
representatives identified in paragraph 10.4.6.2.
10.4.6.7 The proponent RAM study representative shall coordinate

the RAM model validation process and secure the signature
of the RAM model validation meeting minutes, in a
reasonable time, after receiving the RAM model from the
RAM service provider.
10.4.6.8 The RAM model simulation, analysis, and results generation

shall not be executed without official validation of the RAM
model by the designated representatives identified in
paragraph 10.4.6.2.
10.4.6.9 The RAM model validation representatives, identified in

paragraph 10.4.6.2, shall comply with the schedule
communicated by the RAM study representative to complete
the review and validation of the RAM model with the sign
off of detailed meeting minutes.
10.4.7 R&M Data Collection and Adjustments
10.4.7.1 Use of the R&M data from international industry databanks

is permissible in Saudi Aramco’s RAM study if it has been
adjusted as per paragraph 8.3 requirements.
Page 39 of 53
10.4.7.2 R&M data from international industry databanks shall be

adjusted, as outlined by paragraph 8.3, to account for Saudi
Aramco operating environment, workforce competency,
experience, and skills.
10.4.7.3 R&M data from international industry databanks shall be

adjusted, as outlined by paragraph 8.3, through comparison
with R&M data extracted from Saudi Aramco’s similar
plants and facilities.
10.4.7.3.1 The RAM service provider shall visit the Saudi

Aramco plant to meet with and interview key
field personnel to collect, cleans, and adjust the
R&M data.
Note: The service provider might refer to existing
maintenance information repository systems
(e.g., SAP PM module, PMO, FRACAS, etc.)
to collect R&M data as available. However,
extreme caution should be exercised while
using those data due to lack of precision.
10.4.7.3.2 Use of other companies’ R&M data sources is

permissible in Saudi Aramco for the RAM study
under the following conditions and shall be in full
compliance with paragraph 8.1.3 requirements.
10.4.7.3.3 Use of non-adjusted R&M data is not

permissible in the Saudi Aramco RAM study.
10.4.8 Prior to the RAM model execution in the simulation platform, R&M
data shall be submitted for review, verification, and approval by the
following representatives:
10.4.8.1 Saudi Aramco proponent Process/Operations Engineer(s).
10.4.8.2 Saudi Aramco proponent representative(s) (e.g., reliability,

rotating equipment, static equipment, corrosion, inspection,
etc.) as needed depending the study scope and asset types to
be covered.

sending to the proponent RAM study representative the R&M data file
to be reviewed and approved by the representatives identified in
paragraph 10.4.8 for review and approval.
10.4.10 The proponent RAM study representative shall share the R&M data
Page 40 of 53
with the representatives identified in paragraph 10.4.8 for review and

approval prior to the RAM model execution.
10.4.11 After the R&M data review and approval by the representatives
identified in paragraph 10.4.8, the proponent RAM study representative
shall share the approved R&M data with the RAM service provider so
they can execute the model in the simulation platform.
10.4.12 All R&M data reviewed and approved by the representatives identified
in paragraph 10.4.8 shall be shared with the CSD Reliability Group for
R&M data corporate databank development.
10.4.13 The RAM service provider shall use datasheets of Appendix A to

collect and adjust the R&M data needed for the RAM study.
10.4.14 The RAM service provider shall use datasheets of Appendix A and
collect the following information:
10.4.14.1 Licenser information (i.e., FIELD 1 on Appendix A):

includes information on the process license(s), including the
year of installation with the number and summary of design
changes introduced, if any, since the original installation of
the license(s).
10.4.14.2 Licenser T&I information (i.e., FIELD 2 on Appendix A):

includes information on T&I of different plants or sections
of the plants, including T&I frequency and turnaround
durations.
10.4.14.3 Asset Information (i.e., FIELDS 3, 4, 5, and 6 on

Appendix A): includes information on the assets R&M
information to be collected during the plant field visit
and associated failure modes and damage mechanisms.
This section includes the following information:
10.4.14.3.1 Plant information (i.e., FIELD 3 on

Appendix A): includes information on the
plant’s IDs and plant’s brief descriptions.
10.4.14.3.2 Asset information (i.e., FIELD 3 on

Appendix A): includes information on the
assets, including their ID, functions,
categories, types, the year of installation, total
running hours with the number and summary
of design changes introduced, if any, since the
original installation of the assets.
Page 41 of 53
10.4.14.3.3 The R&M information (i.e., FIELDS 4 and 5 on

Appendix A): includes information on asset’s
unreliability (MTBF) and maintenance (MTTR)
associated planned events (i.e., FIELD 4 on
Appendix A) and unplanned events (i.e.,
FIELD 5 on Appendix A), including their
descriptions, frequencies, and repair durations.
10.4.14.3.4 Key Failure Modes and Damage

Mechanisms Information (i.e., FIELD 6 on
Appendix A): includes information on one to
two key failure mode(s) and damage
mechanism(s) associated with each of the
events identified in paragraph 10.4.14.3.3 for
each of the assets.
10.4.15 The RAM service provider shall perform R&M data collection,
cleansing, adjustment, and validation for the RAM study.
10.4.16 The RAM service provider shall submit an official request to the
proponent designated representative for RAM study to perform a site
visit to Saudi Aramco plant to be modeled to collect the R&M data.
10.4.17 The proponent RAM study representative shall avail to the RAM
service provider the needed access permit(s) (i.e., gate passes) to visit
the plant.
10.4.18 The RAM service provider shall meet with designated plant and
facilities personnel to collect the needed R&M data, as identified in
datasheets of Appendix A, for each asset appearing in the plant(s)
PFDs. The R&M data collection meetings with frontline personnel can
be done individually or in groups, depending on the needs.
10.4.19 The RAM service provider shall use the datasheet of Appendix A
and collect information on unreliability and maintenance events
(i.e., operations interruptions due to planned and unplanned
maintenance activities) for each of the assets as follows:
10.4.19.1 Asset trips.
10.4.19.2 Asset failures (including electrical, instrumentation, and

mechanical failures).
10.4.19.3 Asset process upsets (as applicable).
10.4.19.4 Asset fail to starts (as applicable).

Page 42 of 53
10.4.19.5 Asset cold restarts (as applicable).
10.4.19.6 Asset unplanned overhauls (if any).
10.4.19.7 Other asset unreliability outages (to defined and added

during R&M data collection in the field).
10.4.19.8 Asset Planned Maintenance, including:
10.4.19.8.1 Planned checks
10.4.19.8.2 Planned inspections
10.4.19.8.3 Planned overhauls
10.4.19.8.4 Preventive Maintenance (PM) activities.

Notes:
(1) Assets planned overhauls shall be part of planned maintenance under

PM activities.
(2) CGTs borescope inspection, midlife inspection (MI) and major shop
inspection shall be covered under planned maintenance (i.e., planned,
checks, inspections and planned overhauls).
(3) Pipeline ILI and scraping shall be covered under planned maintenance
(i.e., planned inspections and PM activities).
10.4.20 The RAM service provider shall use FIELD 6 of Appendix A and
collect one to two key failure mode(s) and damage mechanism(s), as
available, for each of the unreliability events (i.e., unplanned events)
listed in paragraphs 10.4.19.1, 10.4.19.2, 10.4.19.3, 10.4.19.4,
10.4.19.5, 10.4.19.6, and 10.4.19.7.
10.4.21 In case the key failure mode(s) and damage mechanism(s) for each,
some or all of the unreliability events listed in paragraphs 10.4.18.1,
10.4.19.2, 10.4.19.3, 10.4.19.4, 10.4.19.5, 10.4.19.6, and 10.4.19.7
is/are unknown to the frontline personnel; then, it shall be recorded in
datasheets of Appendix A as “UNKNOWN” failure mode(s) and
damage mechanism(s).
10.4.22 The R&M data listed in paragraphs 10.4.14 and 10.4.19 is considered to
be the minimum R&M data to be collected during site visits by the
RAM service provider. The RAM service provider might extend the
information to be collected assuming it has relevance and deemed
important for the RAM study and can use the datasheets of Appendix A
“Comments” sections to capture such information.

Page 43 of 53
RAM data, identified in paragraphs 10.4.14 and 10.4.19, shall be
reviewed, verified and approved by the representatives identified in
paragraph 10.4.8.
10.4.24 Final approved R&M data captured in datasheets of Appendix A, shall

be shared, by the proponent RAM study representative, with the CSD
Reliability Group for R&M data corporate databank development.
10.4.25 The R&M data and assumptions documentation requirements listed

under Section 8.3 are all applicable to the RAM O&M.
10.4.26 The R&M data adjustment(s) requirements listed under Section 8.4 are
all applicable to the RAM O&M.
10.4.27 Shall account for all field modifications that took place after the
commissioning and startup of the plants and facilities being analyzed.
10.4.28 The RAM O&M shall cover all plants’ and facilities’ assets as
identified and listed at the PFD level.
10.4.29 Shall use the plants’ latest maximum capacity test results to update the
assets design nameplate capacity with regard to potential capacity
limitations or bottlenecks.
Note: In case the plants’ latest maximum capacity test has been conducted
more than 5 years ago, it is highly recommended to perform a
maximum capacity test and use its results as the basis to update the
assets nameplate capacity.
10.4.30 Shall use the plants’ latest feed product(s) analysis results to update
assets design nameplate capacity with regard to feed specifications
deviations, from design values, and account for their impact with
potential capacity limitations or bottlenecks.
Note: In case the plants’ latest feed product(s) analysis has been
conducted more than 5 years ago, it is highly recommended to
perform a feed product(s) analysis and use its results as the basis to
update the assets nameplate capacity.
10.4.31 Shall quantify the plants’ and facilities’ production performance and
economics given changes in equipment technology selection, sparing
and redundancy, bottlenecks, buffer storage volumes and locations,
turn up capabilities, capital spares decision, operations and
maintenance practices and policies, etc.
10.4.32 Shall identify any mechanical bottlenecks (i.e., limitation to assets

reliability and maintainability) restricting the plants and facilities’ from
Page 44 of 53
meeting the business targets and limiting the overall production

efficiency.
10.4.33 Shall quantify production performance and economics given changes

in asset technology selection, redundancy allocation, buffer storage
volumes and locations, turn up capabilities, capital spares decision,
operations and maintenance practices and strategies.
10.4.34 Shall identify high impact opportunities where design changes and
maintainability improvement opportunities are to be considered and
included during the detailed design phase of the project.
10.2.35 The RAM FEL 3 (PP) design changes shall first address the failure
modes and damage mechanism, identified in FIELD 6 of Appendix A,
that are hindering production throughputs, which are normally
provided by the simulator under the top bad actors or performance
losses contributors.
10.4.36 Production performance gap(s) improvements shall either increase

assets MTBF, reduce MTTR or increase assets MTBF and reduce
MTTR. The balance between the improvements available and
alternatives shall be driven by cost effectiveness and easiness of
implementing the recommendations.
Table 2 - Asset Production Throughput and Availability Enhancement Alternatives
Asset MTBF Asset MTTR

Option 1 Increase () Keep As-Is ()
Option 2 Keep As-Is () Decrease ()
Option 3 Increase () Decrease ()
with regard to production throughput target(s) (i.e., business
objectives).
with regard to plant availability.
with regard to reliability losses associated with unreliability events
(i.e., failures, trips, shutdowns, PMs, etc.).
the highest to the lowest with regard to production losses.

Page 45 of 53
the highest to the lowest with regard to availability losses.
the highest to the lowest with regard to reliability losses.
10.4.43 Shall provide the list of assets with a total installed capacity utilization
rate lower than 80% with regard to the availability
(e.g., an asset could have an availability of 95% while the utilization of
that 95% availability is only 80% or lower).
10.4.44 Each of the top 20% of assets, limiting the production performance,
identified in paragraphs 10.4.37, 10.4.38, and 10.4.39 shall be
associated to one to two key failure modes and damage mechanisms as
identified during the R&M data collection process (i.e., FIELD 6 of
Appendix A).
10.4.45 Shall rank all plants’ and facilities’ assets with regard to production
performance losses, including production throughput losses.
10.4.46 Shall rank all plants’ and facilities’ assets with regard to plant’s
availability losses.
10.4.47 Shall rank all plants’ and facilities’ assets with regard to reliability
losses associated with unreliability events (i.e., failures, trips,
shutdowns, PMs, etc.).
10.4.48 Shall prioritize the RAM O&M improvements and recommendations

as per the RAM improvement prioritization process outlined in
Section 10 of this Engineering Standard.
10.4.49 The proponent shall form, or hire, a Failure Analysis Team and
perform a failure analysis on the top 20% of assets, limiting production
performance, identified in paragraphs 10.4.37, 10.4.38, and 10.4.39,
associated key failure modes and damage mechanisms as identified
during the R&M data collection process (i.e., FIELD 6 of Appendix A).
10.4.49.1 For the known key failure modes and damage mechanisms,
the Failure Analysis Team shall work directly on a
mitigation plan to address those known failure modes and
damage mechanisms and the approved solution(s) and
10.4.49.2 For the UNKNOWN key failure modes and damage
mechanisms, the Failure Analysis Team shall use a
Page 46 of 53
structured and thorough failure analysis process on the

associated assets to address those UNKNOWN failure modes
and damage mechanisms, and the approved solution(s) and
Notes:
(1) There are many reliability tools for conducting a thorough

and structured failure analysis on assets’ failure modes and
damage mechanisms (e.g., FMEA/FMECA, TapRoot RCA,
Appolo RCA, etc.).
(2) Despite that all available reliability tools for conducting

failure analysis would address paragraph 10.4.49
requirements, it is highly recommended to use the
FMEA/FMECA process to address assets’ UNKNOWN key
failure modes and damage mechanisms.
(3) For FMEA/FMECA guidelines execution details, refer to the

latest version of IEC 60812: Analysis Techniques for
System Reliability - Procedure for Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis (FMEA).
(4) The RAM service provider is not responsible for performing

the failure analysis on the top 20% of assets, limiting
production performance, identified in paragraph 10.4.49.
(5) The proponent can either form the Failure Analysis Team
from the plant or hire a 3rd party contractor to perform the
performance identified by the RAM study. They can engage
SMEs from Central Engineering if and as needed to support
this analysis.
(6) Proper and thorough failure analysis is a time-consuming

and resource consuming process. To avoid work conflicting
priorities and to ensure that the RAM improvement
opportunities shall be properly and timely addressed, it is
highly recommended to hire a 3rd party company specialized
on those analyses.
10.4.50 The Final Failure Analysis report, performed by the Failure Analysis
Team, on the top 20% of assets limiting production performance key
failure modes and damage mechanisms shall be shared, by the
proponent RAM study representative, with the CSD Reliability Group
to be included in the R&M data corporate databank development.
10.4.51 Shall prioritize the RAM O&M improvements and recommendations

as per the RAM improvements prioritization process outlined in
Section 10 of this Engineering Standard.

Page 47 of 53
11 RAM Improvement Prioritization Process
11.1 The RAM study improvement shall be limited to the top 20% of assets, limiting
production performance only.
11.2 Failure analysis techniques and tools shall be used to identify recommendations
to close the performance gaps on the top 20% of assets limiting production
performance key failure modes and damage mechanisms as identified during the
R&M data collection process (i.e., FIELD 6 of Appendix A).
11.3 The selection and prioritization of the failure analysis recommendations shall be
as follows:
11.3.1 RAM Improvements First Priority
11.3.1.1 Enhance assets MTBF through use of improved designs,

technologies and alloy upgrades as countermeasures to limit,
if not eliminate, the identified key failure modes and damage
mechanisms.
11.3.1.2 Reduce asset MTTR through the influence of new project

assets design to achieve ease of maintenance and designing
out maintenance, thereby reducing maintenance time and cost.
11.3.1.3 Use of proven robust designs that have reasonable and

acceptable MTBFs and the lowest failure rates with MTTRs
to deliver the plant’s business targets in a cost-effective
manner.
11.3.2 RAM Improvements Second Priority:
11.3.2.1 Shall use redundancy and capital spares in case the first
priority improvements don’t close the production
performance gaps. In this case capital expenditures on
capital spares become justifiable.
11.3.2.2 Shall define the sparing philosophy, including additional

redundant assets and capital spares needed to provide
acceptable continuity of service, to cover for the asset’s low
MTBFs, maintenance downtime, and meet the production
business targets in a cost-effective manner.
Note: Sparing philosophy is further elaborated on SAEP-503
“Assets’ Sparing Requirements and Guidelines.”
11.3.3 RAM Improvements Third Priority:

Page 48 of 53
11.3.3.1 Shall use/modify the buffer tank(s) levels if and as needed.

This option is generally expensive as it requires major
infrastructures costs and inspection and maintenance costs.
In most of the cases, the first and second priorities would
resolve the production performance gaps. However, in case
the gaps cannot be closed, then this option is available for
consideration, as a last resort solution, to close production
performance gaps if and as needed.
11.3.3.2 Shall use and optimize production buffer and storage tanks
to cover for the asset’s downtime due to reliability
limitations until it is restored to service by maintenance.
11.3.3.3 The buffer tank optimization process shall evaluate whether

extra buffering tank storage capacities are needed.
11.3.3.4 The buffer tank optimization process shall identify for what
product(s) and for how long (capacity) extra buffering tank
storage capacities are needed.
11.3.3.5 The buffer tank optimization process shall identify the

product(s) level(s) needed to optimally sustain production
targets with regard to equipment reliability and
maintainability problems and limitations.
11.4 RAM Improvements Repair vs. Replace Options Guidelines
The RAM study selection between repair vs. replace options, for existing plants’
assets, shall follow the following guidelines:
11.4.1 Shall consider repairing the assets if the assets’ production throughput
gap is less than 25% of the assets design capacity (i.e., the asset
production throughput is more than 75% of the design capacity).
Note: While considering the asset’s repair option and when running the
RAM simulation, the asset’s production throughput objective(s) is/are
still not met, then we need to consider the asset’s replacement option
to close production gap.
11.4.2 Shall consider replacing the assets if the production throughput gap of
that asset is exceeding 25% of the asset’s design capacity (i.e., the asset
production throughput is less than 75% of the design capacity).
11.5 RAM Model Iterations to Support RAM Improvements
11.5.1 For new projects, the RAM service provider is expected to modify/run
the RAM FEL 3 (PP) model between four to eight times (i.e., scenarios
Page 49 of 53
and alternatives analysis) while evaluating the RAM improvements

and recommendations impact on the results (i.e., business objectives
and cost effectiveness of the recommendations).
11.5.2 For existing plants, the RAM service provider is expected to modify/run
the RAM O&M model between four to eight times (i.e., scenarios and
alternatives analysis) while evaluating the RAM improvements and
recommendations impact on the results (i.e., business objectives and cost
effectiveness of the recommendations).
Note: When evaluating the RAM improvement(s) alternatives, the RAM
model modifications are minor if the RAM model blueprint has been
already built.
12 RAM Benchmarking Process
12.1 The RAM benchmarking process is optional as industry benchmarking figures

are not available to all RAM service providers. However, if those benchmarking
figures are available at Saudi Aramco, then the RAM service providers can
request those figures from the proponent and use them for benchmarking
purposes.
12.2 The RAM study availability targets shall be based on the plants’ and facilities’
business needs (i.e., operational plans) and shall not target industry benchmarks
(e.g., Solomon Quartiles or others) through extra capital expenditures.
12.3 The RAM study simulation projected availability figures shall be compared to
industry benchmark availability figures for information purposes only.
12.4 Industry benchmark availability figures shall not be met through project CAPEX
but through performance (i.e., TPRM, inspection operation and maintenance
strategies, CMP, etc.) SMS and OE practices.
12.5 Industry benchmark availability figures shall be met through performance by

implementing effective APM programs and optimizing inspection operation and
maintenance strategies.
13 RAM Study Final Report
13.1 All R&M data collected during different site visits with the interview meetings
with plant personnel and Central Engineering SMEs, shall be captured in
datasheets of Appendix A and it shall be attached to the final report.
13.2 The R&M data adjustment details and study assumptions shall be documented in
the final report, which shall include, but not be limited to:

Page 50 of 53
13.2.1 Interviews and meetings with plant frontline personnel, including

operators, technicians, machinists, inspectors, and engineers.
13.2.2 Interviews and meetings with Central Engineering SMEs.
13.2.3 Assets maintenance, inspection and failure consequences estimation

and calculation.
13.2.4 Assets MTBFs and MTTRs adjustment calculation details.
13.2.5 Assets R&M data captured in datasheets of Appendix A.
13.2.6 Assets failure analysis report of the top 20% of assets limiting
production performance key failure modes and damage mechanisms.
13.2.7 Assets failure analysis recommendations prioritization and selection.
13.3 The RAM study assumptions so that the final risk assessment and quantification
shall be documented as part of the final report.
13.4 For new projects, the RAM study final report findings, assumptions, and
recommendations shall be presented by the RAM service provider to the
IPT/PMT and the proponent.
13.5 For existing plants, the RAM study final report findings, assumptions, and
recommendations shall be presented by the RAM service provider to the
proponent management.
13.6 All R&M data captured in datasheets of Appendix A shall be shared by the
RAM service provider with the proponent for record and documentation and
with CSD Reliability Group for R&M data corporate databank development.
13.7 The assets failure analysis report of the top 20% of assets limiting production
performance key failure modes and damage mechanisms shall be shared with
the CSD Reliability Group for R&M data corporate databank development.
13.8 The RAM study final report findings, assumptions, and recommendations shall
be shared with the CSD Reliability Group for record and documentation.
13.9 The RAM model executable file shall be submitted in a compatible format with
Saudi Aramco’s specified corporate RAM simulator identified in subparagraphs
7.2.1.
13.10 All submitted information and documents shall be in electronic formats:
13.10.1 Final report in both MS Word format and PDF format.

Page 51 of 53
13.10.2 The SAES-A-030 Appendix A Excel document.
13.10.3 The RAM Assumptions Appendix in MS Word format and PDF

format.
13.10.4 The RAM model validation meeting minutes in PDF format.
13.10.5 The RAM model Waiver Request Form, if any, in PDF format.
13.10.6 The RAM study approved waivers in PDF format.
13.11 All submitted information and documents shall be in electronic formats and
shall not contain any protection password and shall be editable by the end-users.
Revision Summary
15 October 2014 New Saudi Aramco Engineering Standard.
23 April 2015 Minor revision to comply with new CMS and SAEP-12 January 2015 new requirements,
and add further clarifications with additional explanations to enhance the document and
minimize non-needed waivers.
23 July 2016 Major revision to include Value Engineering (VE) study findings and recommendations to
minimize study RAM study costs.
26 June 2017 Major revision to amend three RAM simulation platforms to be used for RAM studies.

Page 52 of 53
Appendix A - Reliability and Maintenance (R&M) Data
- Hold down Ctrl key and click => SAES-A-030A to view

the Appendix A, “Reliability and Maintenance (R&M) Datasheets”

Page 53 of 53

Asset Management Standards Committee

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Asset Management Standards Committee

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Engineering Standard

SAES-A-030 26 June 2017

Appendix A - Reliability and Maintenance

Previous Issue: 23 July 2016 Next Planned Update: 26 June 2020

©Saudi Aramco 2017. All rights reserved.

1.2 This SAES applies to the following facilities:

1.2.4 Oil and gas terminals facilities

1.2.5 Utilities facilities

1.2.6 Seawater injection facilities

1.2.7 Distribution and transportation

1.3 This SAES applies to the following assets:

1.3.1 Static equipment

1.3.2 Rotating equipment

1.3.3 Piping and pipelines

1.3.4 Mechanical equipment

1.3.5 Pressure vessels

1.3.6 Electrical equipment

1.3.7 Instrumentation equipment

1.5.1 Saudi Aramco capital projects above $5 MM with a minimum of five

Examples of such projects could be:

1.5.3 Application of the RAM study to capital projects below $5 MM is not

1.5.6 A RAM study will not be applied to the following projects:

1.5.6.1 Exploration projects (BI-33)

1.5.6.2 Development Drilling projects (BI-60)

1.5.6.3 Saudi Aramco nonindustrial projects and projects that are

1.5.6.3.1 Enterprise Computing Systems IT projects

1.5.6.3.2 Communication Networks Upkeep

1.5.6.3.3 Innovation & Technology Deployment

1.5.6.3.4 Research & Development Center

1.5.6.3.5 Community projects

1.5.6.3.6 Road Transportation Equipment (e.g., cars and

1.5.6.3.7 Medical Equipment

1.5.6.3.8 Research Center(s) Equipment

1.5.6.3.9 Advanced Control and Monitoring Center

1.5.6.3.10 Industrial Security projects

1.5.6.4 In-kind replacement assuming the asset’s nameplate capacity

1.5.6.5 The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable, but not

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

3 Conflicts and Deviations

a) Saudi Aramco References

Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Saudi Aramco Best Practice

Capital Management System Efficiency Enablers (CMSEEs)

Loss Prevention Department (LPD) and Corporate Maintenance Services

b) Industry Codes and Standards

American Petroleum Institute

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

International Electrotechnical Commission

International Organization for Standardization

A System: Corresponds to a group of components, equipment connected or associated

Availability: Refers to operational availability in the RAM analysis. It is a measure of

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Damage Mechanism: Also referred to as degradation mechanism, is a general term

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Maintainability: The ease with which a system, an asset or component can be

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Mean Time to Repair (MTTR): Basic measure of the maintainability of repairable

Production Availability: The ratio of production to planned production, or any other

Production Slowdown: The act of slackening of pace of an asset or plant production

RAM: A business performance improvement tool used to improve business

Reliability: The ability of a system, asset, equipment or component to perform its

Turnarounds (TA): Scheduled events wherein an entire process unit of a facility