Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
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.
1.2.1 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
1.4 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
3.1 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.
5 Definitions
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.
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.
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.
Figure 1 - Overview of Front End Loading (FEL) Stage and Gate Process
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
that the failed system is not repaired (infinite repair time). The MTBF for an asset is
defined as:
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 Service Provider: A company that provides RAM data, modeling, analysis with
consulting, and many other RAM related services.
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.
TA Turnaround
TPRM Total Plant Reliability Management
T&I Testing and Inspection
7.1 General
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)
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:
7.2.2 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.
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.
7.4.2 Identify plants and facilities sections that limit the production
throughput(s) (i.e., production performance).
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.
7.4.5 Identify and rank improvement opportunities based upon the greatest
ROI.
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.
7.5.1 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
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:
7.5.11 The RAM model shall reflect plant operations, including operational
objectives with operation schemes, scenarios, and constraints.
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:
7.6.4 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
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use
Page 17 of 53
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
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.
8.1 General
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.
8.1.3.3 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.
8.1.4.4 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.
8.1.6 The R&M data for existing plants and facilities shall be extracted as
follows:
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:
8.1.12 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.
8.2.3 The RAM service provider shall use datasheets of Appendix A and
collect the following information:
8.2.4 The RAM service provider shall perform R&M data collection,
cleansing, adjustment, and validation for the RAM study.
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:
(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
for the RAM study to perform a site visit to Saudi Aramco plant to be
modeled to collect the R&M data.
8.2.17 Prior to the RAM model execution in the simulation platform, the
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.
8.2.19 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.
8.4.2 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.
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.
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.
10.1.1 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.
10.1.3 Shall generate results with regard to the set business targets of the
operating plants and facilities.
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.
10.1.7 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).
10.2.1 Shall leverage the RAM FEL 2 (DBSP), Section 10.1, model to cover
all plants’ and facilities’ assets at the PFDs level.
10.2.3 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.
10.2.6 Shall identify the top 20% of assets limiting production performance
with regard to production throughput target(s) (i.e., business
objectives).
10.2.7 Shall identify the top 20% of assets limiting production performance
with regard to plant availability.
10.2.8 Shall identify the top 20% of assets limiting production performance
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.
10.2.10 Shall rank the top 20% of assets limiting production performance from
the highest to the lowest with regard to availability losses.
10.2.11 Shall rank the top 20% of assets limiting production performance from
the highest to the lowest with regard to reliability losses.
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).
10.2.15 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.).
10.2.20 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
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use
Page 34 of 53
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
(5) The IPT/PMT can hire a 3rd party contractor to perform the
failure analysis on the top 20% of assets, limiting production
performance identified by the RAM study. They can engage
SMEs from Central Engineering if and as needed to support
this 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
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.
10.3.7 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.
10.3.11 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.
10.4.1 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.
10.4.6.1 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.
10.4.8 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:
10.4.10 The proponent RAM study representative shall share the R&M data
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use
Page 40 of 53
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
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.
10.4.14 The RAM service provider shall use datasheets of Appendix A and
collect the following information:
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:
(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.
10.4.23 Prior to the RAM model execution in the simulation platform, the
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.
10.4.26 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.
10.4.34 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.
10.4.37 Shall identify the top 20% of assets limiting production performance
with regard to production throughput target(s) (i.e., business
objectives).
10.4.38 Shall identify the top 20% of assets limiting production performance
with regard to plant availability.
10.4.39 Shall identify the top 20% of assets limiting production performance
with regard to reliability losses associated with unreliability events
(i.e., failures, trips, shutdowns, PMs, etc.).
10.4.40 Shall rank the top 20% of assets limiting production performance from
the highest to the lowest with regard to production losses.
10.4.41 Shall rank the top 20% of assets limiting production performance from
the highest to the lowest with regard to availability losses.
10.4.42 Shall rank the top 20% of assets limiting production performance from
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.).
10.4.49 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
recommendation(s) shall be submitted for implementation
during the detailed design phase of the project.
10.4.49.2 For the UNKNOWN key failure modes and damage
mechanisms, the Failure Analysis Team shall use a
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use
Page 46 of 53
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
(5) The proponent can either form the Failure Analysis Team
from the plant or hire a 3rd party contractor to perform the
failure analysis on the top 20% of assets, limiting production
performance identified by the RAM study. They can engage
SMEs from Central Engineering if and as needed to support
this analysis.
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.
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:
11.3.2.1 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.
11.3.3.2 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.
11.3.3.4 The buffer tank optimization process shall identify for what
product(s) and for how long (capacity) extra buffering tank
storage capacities are needed.
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).
11.5.1 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
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use
Page 49 of 53
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
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.
12.2 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.
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:
13.2.6 Assets failure analysis report of the top 20% of assets limiting
production performance key failure modes and damage mechanisms.
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.
13.10.5 The RAM model Waiver Request Form, if any, 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.