Saep 135 PDF

Engineering Procedure
SAEP-135 11 April 2012

Process Automation Systems Obsolescence Evaluation
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee
Saudi Aramco DeskTop Standards

Table of Contents
1 Scope............................................................ 2
2 Applicable Documents................................... 2
3 Terms and Definitions................................... 2
4 PAS Obsolescence Overview....................... 3
5 PAS Obsolescence Criteria........................... 5
6 Roles and Responsibilities............................ 7
Attachment 1 – Obsolescence Criteria

and Scoring Procedure.......................... 9
Previous Issue: 9 October 2010 Next Planned Update: 11 April 2017

Page 1 of 15
Primary contact: Kinsley, John Arthur on 966-3-8801831
Copyright©Saudi Aramco 2012. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-135
Issue Date: 11 April 2012
Next Planned Update: 11 April 2017 Process Automation Systems Obsolescence Evaluation Criteria
1 Scope
The purpose of this procedure is to provide a consistent methodology for objectively

evaluating the Obsolescence status of a particular Process Automation System (PAS).
The evaluation process and evaluation criteria described in this procedure can be used
to determine the degree of obsolescence of a specific System. The outcome of the
evaluation is an evaluation score which may be used as a data point in deciding whether
or not capital investment is required to address obsolescence issues.
2 Applicable Documents
Standards related to the evaluated product shall be applied.
2.1 Saudi Aramco References
Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure

SAEP-360 Project Planning Guidelines
SAEP-746 Lifecycle Management Procedures for Process
Automation Systems
2.2 Other References
International Electrotechnical Commission

IEC 62402 Obsolescence Management - Application Guide
3 Terms and Definitions
3.1 Abbreviations
FPD Facilities Planning Department
HMI Human Machine Interface
LCM Life Cycle Management
PAS Process Automation System
P&CSD Process and Control Systems Department
PMT Project Management Team
SAEP Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure
Page 2 of 15
3.2 Definitions
Process Automation System (PAS): Refers to any system used for the purpose
of monitoring, controlling and/or automating production plant processes.
These include but are not limited to: process control systems, auxiliary systems
such as equipment monitoring and protection systems, systems used for higher
level applications such as multi-variable control and real-time optimization, and
plant information systems. PAS refers to any component used in these systems
including the servers, workstations and associated network components used for
the collection and transfer of data.
4 PAS Obsolescence Overview
The following are general guidelines for conducting PAS Obsolescence evaluations.
The procedure identifies two categories of PAS equipments that need to be treated
based on criticality and cost value. These categories are:
 Category (A) – Major PAS systems: Includes all potentially obsolete PAS
equipment that would require capital funding, greater than $4.0 MM to rectify the
obsolescence issue. The procedure for this category is outlined in paragraph 4.1.
 Category (B) – Minor PAS systems: Includes all PAS potentially obsolete
equipment that would require funding greater than 0.5 MM and less than $4.0 MM
in order to rectify the obsolescence issue. The procedure for this category is
outlined in paragraph 4.2.
4.1 Category-A PAS equipment are subject to life cycle management evaluation as
defined in SAEP-746. In addition, the following obsolescence evaluation
procedures apply:
4.1.1 Obsolescence Evaluation Trigger: Category-A obsolescence

evaluations will be triggered by request from proponent due to lack of
spare parts, vendor support or by poor system reliability or at the request
of FPD.
4.1.2 Obsolescence Evaluation Team: P&CSD will assemble and lead an

obsolescence evaluation team consisting of subject matter experts from
proponents, FPD and other Company organizations involved in the
maintenance and operation of the specific system under evaluation.
4.1.3 Preparation: The team will perform preliminary preparation.

The objective is to understand and define the scope of the evaluation,
finalize the evaluation criteria, and obtain the required input data. At this
stage the team will provide the following deliverables:
Page 3 of 15
 A clear obsolescence evaluation scope

 Final evaluation criteria (The team will develop an evaluation criteria
using the criteria outlined in Attachment 1 as a guideline).
 Valid equipment failure rate data (Proponent will provide and verify
this data)
 Valid data on spare parts and vendor support (P&CSD and proponent
will verify and provide this data)
 Valid data on the installed base of the system throughout the
Company.
4.1.4 Size of Installed Base and Affected Facilities: P&CSD will work with
the proponent to determine the size of the installed base and determine if
other facilities are subject to the same obsolescence issue. Each
proponent is responsible for providing data of PAS equipment installed
at their facility. P&CSD will compile input from various proponent
organizations utilizing the PAS under evaluation and develop a
corporate-wide data base of the installed equipment per system.
4.1.5 Obsolescence Evaluation: The team will perform an obsolescence

evaluation. The team will perform a data capture and analysis at
representative facilities utilizing the system under evaluation. This data
will be used to score the system using the evaluation criteria defined in
Section 5 of this procedure. The objective is to validate the obsolescence
concerns and determine the equipment status with respect to
obsolescence.
4.1.6 Obsolescence Evaluation Report: The team will produce a final report
detailing the results of the obsolescence evaluation. The report shall list
support issues, status of spare parts, any reliability concerns and the
expected remaining life of the system. The report shall include
recommendations and alternatives to mitigate the issues observed.
The report shall be signed by the Manager, P&CSD and be distributed to
proponent organizations utilizing the system under evaluation.
4.1.7 Project Submittals: The obsolescence evaluation report will contain

recommendations on whether project submittals need to be developed to
address obsolescence issues. Proponent organizations will be
responsible for developing project submittals for the affected systems at
their facilities using the procedures defined in SAEP-360, ‘Capital
Project Planning’, and submitting these to FPD for evaluation.
Page 4 of 15
4.2 Obsolescence evaluation of Category-B PAS equipment: Category B

equipment includes PAS where the obsolescence issues can be mitigated
through BI-1900 projects. These evaluations are initiated and lead by the
proponent with limited support from P&CSD and FPD, if requested by the
proponent organization. The evaluation team will execute the evaluation
utilizing the procedures and criteria in this document. The team will issue an
obsolescence report stating the study findings and recommendations. The report
shall be signed by the Manager of the proponent organization conducting the
study and distributed to P&CSD and FPD for review.
5 PAS Obsolescence Criteria
5.1 PAS Obsolescence Criteria Description
The PAS obsolescence criteria examine four major system health categories:
Reliability, Support, Technology, and Business Impact. Each category has
several evaluation criteria and specific questions selected to measure the impact
of obsolescence on the PAS functionality. When scored and summed, they
produce an objective measure of a system’s degree of obsolescence.
5.2 PAS Obsolescence Criteria Application and Scoring
5.2.1 The PAS Obsolescence Criteria are to be scored utilizing the PAS
equipment information obtained from the proponent. The Criteria
require careful and deliberate evaluation using the best information and
data available, therefore application of the Criteria will not be automatic
and will require expert individual scoring for each plant.
5.2.2 The Obsolescence Criteria has been divided into four major categories.
Each category contains a number of areas where a score for each area is
assigned by the team. The four major categories are listed below:
 Reliability
 Support
 Technology
 Business and Safety Impact
5.2.3 Each category contains a number of criteria which is evaluated by the

team and a consensus score assigned for each criteria. Scoring for each
criteria is on a scale from 0-10 with 0 being the most obsolete and 10
being not obsolete at all. A description of the criteria for each of the four
major categories is provided below. Additional details on how to
evaluate each category are contained in Attachment 1.
Page 5 of 15
Criterion 1 - Reliability
 Overall system reliability: This will include the availability of the
system based on equipment or component annual failure rate.
 The impact of age degradation on system reliability
 The ability to reasonably predict failure due to obsolescence
Criterion 2 - Support
 Availability of spare parts
 Ability to secure spare parts via alternate sources such as shared
inventory, refurbished parts or third party suppliers.
 Vendor’s ability to provide technical support
 Vendor’s ability to provide training for the system
Criterion 3 - Technology
 The state of technology of the system/equipment
 Software application longevity “Software Release Life Cycle”
 The migration path of the products utilized in this system.
 System scalability: Ability to expand the system or to incorporate
enhancements to support additional business functionality or
capabilities.
Criterion 4 - Business and Safety Impact

 The criticality of the system to plant production and the consequence
of a failure in the system in terms of lost production value.
 The criticality of the system to plant safety and the consequence of
failure (i.e., Will it create a worker health and safety concern, Will it
create an environmental incident, …)
5.3 Each attribute is scored on a basis from 0 – 10. The average of the individual
criteria for each category results in an average score for each of the four major
categories, from 0-10. The average score for each category is then multiplied by
a ‘weighting factor’ to develop a ‘percentage score’ for each category.
The weighting factors applied to each category are listed below:
 Reliability (25%)
 Support (25%)
Page 6 of 15
 Technology (10%)
 Business and Safety Impact (40%)
5.4 The percentage score for each category is summed to determine the overall
system score on a scale of 0-100%. A system or equipment scoring between
(70% & 100%) is considered acceptable and no further action is required.
A score between (40% & 70%) will constitute an action to monitor the
equipment. Systems or equipment scoring below 40% shall be considered for
upgrade or replacement. Where the costs to address the obsolescence issue
exceed Company guidelines for capital projects, project submittals shall be
developed in accordance with the procedures defined in SAEP-360, ‘Project
Planning Guidelines’, for evaluation by FPD.
5.5 Additional elements may be considered in the evaluation and incorporated into
the evaluation criteria as determined by the evaluation team. Elements such as:
availability of training, ability to incorporate mandatory functionality, and
requirements for major system expansion in the future. When additional criteria
is utilized, scoring for the additional items shall be integrated into the overall
evaluation criteria and normalized to produce an overall system scoring on a
scale of 0-100%.
6 Roles and Responsibilities
The roles and responsibilities for conducting PAS obsolescence evaluations are as
follows:
6.1 P&CSD Responsibilities
6.1.1 Lead PAS Obsolescence evaluations for equipment falling under

Category-A as part of the PAS life cycle management activities.
6.1.2 Obtain vendor support information and vendor migration and upgrade
plans for PAS evaluations falling under Category-A.
6.1.3 Provide support to proponent organizations for PAS evaluations falling

under Category-B.
6.1.4 Ownership and updating of this procedure.
6.2 Proponent Responsibilities
6.2.1 Participate in Category-A PAS evaluations when requested to do so by

P&CSD.
Page 7 of 15
6.2.2 Provide failure rate data, spare parts data and installed base information
specific to their department to P&CSD as part of Category-A PAS
evaluations.
6.2.3 Develop Capital project submittals as recommended by Category-A

obsolescence evaluation reports.
6.2.4 Initiate, lead, and execute obsolescence evaluations for PAS equipment
under Category-B.
6.3 FPD Responsibilities
6.3.1 FPD shall participate in Category-A obsolescence evaluations when

requested by P&CSD.
6.3.2 FPD shall evaluate project submittals for capital projects to address
obsolescense issues for systems which scored less than 40%.
In addition, FPD maintains its traditional role of conducting project
alternative analysis consistent with the Capital Program investment
policies and requirements from Corporate Planning and Finance.
6.3.3 FPD shall consider Category-A evaluation results in the development of

the corporate programs to address obsolescence of major automation
systems and in the development of corporate PAS Master plans.
6.3.4 Provide support to proponent organizations for PAS evaluations falling

under Category-B.
Revision Summary
11 April 2012 Major revision, program elements moved to Lifecycle Management Procedure.
Page 8 of 15
Attachment 1 – Obsolescence Criteria and Scoring Procedure
Criterion 1: Reliability
Clarification:
This criterion is intended to provide a score that is based upon many considerations
such as: system reliability, condition, and annual failure rate.
Guideline for Scoring:
The score should be based on plant data and expert union. Utilize the matrices below to
determine the score. The final score is calculated as follows:
Reliability Score = 2.5 x Average (score (1.1), score(1.2), score (1.3))
1.1 Rate the reliability of the system
This is the availability of the system based on equipment or component annual

failure rate.
Score Classification Reliability Rating

Overall failure rate is low compared to the number of
10 Highly reliable installed components and No failures have occurred which
have led to a direct process shutdown or disturbance
Overall failure rate is moderate compared to the number
of installed components and less than one failure per year
5 Moderate
have occurred which have led to a direct process
shutdown or disturbance
Overall failure rate is low compared to the number of
Very installed components and more than one failure per year
0
unreliable has occurred which has led to a direct process shutdown
or disturbance
1.2 Rate the age degradation impact on reliability
Score Age impact on reliability (Condition)

10 No impact
5 Degradation has low impact
0 Degradation has high impact
Page 9 of 15
Criterion 2: Support
Clarification:
This criterion is intended to rate the effectiveness of support and the availability of spares
by which a PAS can be operated and maintained to a specified condition. Further, the
criterion also includes the system scalability to support growth or new feature.
Support Score = 2.5 x Average(score (2.1), …, score (2.4))
2.1 Rate the availability of spare parts
These criteria should consider the number of each component in use at the
facility, the number of failures / component which have occurred historically
and the available number of spare parts for each component either In-house or
available for purchase from the original vendor.
Availability of Spares
Score % Available Description
10 100 Sufficient spares available
Number of spares available are 75-95% of the estimated
8 75-95%
number required.
5 50-75%
number required.
3 30-50%
number required.
Number of spares available are less than 30% of the
0 < 30%
estimated number required.
2.2 Availability of Spare parts from alternate sources
Rate the availability of spare parts via other sources or contingencies such as
shared inventory, refurbishment parts or third party suppliers.
Spare parts availability via other sources?

No Yes
0 8
Page 10 of 15
2.3 Vendor Technical Support
Rate the availability of technical support from the vendor. Note that the rating is
affected by whether or not the site is covered by an annual maintenance
agreement with the vendor. If the site has an active service agreement, utilize
the ratings in column B, if not use the rating in column C.
Site has valid Site does not

Description support contract have support
with vendor contract
Excellent: extremely responsive and effective 10 10
Good: responsive and effective 5 10
Poor: slow response and barely effective 0 5
2.4 Availability of Vendor Training
Rate the availability of training courses from the vendor for the specific system.
Score Classification Description

Beginner and advanced training courses still offered
10 Excellent
yearly by vendor at vendor training facility.
Vendor training course not normally offered by vendor but
5 Satisfactory can be arranged specifically for Saudi Aramco with
minimum number of participants.
Vendor training course are not available from vendor as
0 Unsatisfactory either part of their standard training curriculum and cannot
be arranged specifically for Saudi Aramco.
Page 11 of 15
Criterion 3: Technology
Clarification:
This criterion is intended to rate the state of the technology and the ability to upgrade
the product to a more current or active product. Considerations should include the
extent of migration possible and the utility, purpose or benefit derived from such a
migration. The rating should take into consideration the hurdles involved in
accomplishing the migration such as the resources and expertise required.
Technology Score = 1 x Average (score (3.1),…, score (3.4))
3.1 Rate the state of technology of the system / equipment
Score State of Technology

10 State of the Art, still being actively developed and supported
Technology has been superseded but is still supported and widely
5
used in the industry.
Technology is no longer supported and is not being utilized at many
0
locations within the industry.
3.2 Rate the software support (including operating system), “Software Release
Life- Cycle”
Score Software Release

10 No Subsequent Release yet.
5 New Release announced and but current release is supported
0 Existing software is no longer supported
Page 12 of 15
3.3 Rate system scalability
The ability to expand the system or the ability to enhance or upgrade system to
add additional functionality or capabilities.
Score Description
10 Able to expand system and to support additional new functionality
5 Limited ability to expand and support new functionality
0 Unable to expand system or to support new and functionality
3.4 Rate the migration path of the components in the system affected by
obsolescence and the Technology incorporated in this system.
Technologies Incorporated
Relay or Analog Open

Migration Path Description Digital
Solid State Proprietary Architecture
Migration path not available 2 3 4 5
migration available
Only partial migration available 3 4 5 6
which is very difficult or complex
Complete migration available 4 5 6 7
but Difficult or Complex
Moderately involved migration 5 6 7 8
available
Complete and simple migration 6 7 8 9
available
Page 13 of 15
Criterion 4: Business and Safety Impact
Clarification:
This criterion is intended to rate the criticality of the system and the specific
components facing obsolescence to the business in which the system is operated and
also to the systems applicability to overall plant safety. Systems which have a direct
impact on production are more critical than those which are supervisory or advisory in
nature. The higher the business impact, the lower the aggregate score for this category
will be. Systems which have a direct role in providing overall plant and/or process
safety are more critical than those which do not. The higher the system’s impact on
plant safety, the lower the aggregate score will be.
Business Impact Score = 4 x Average(score (4.1), …, score(4.4))
4.1 Rate the criticality of the system with regard to production at the facility:
Criticality to Production
System has minimal impact on production. There will not
10 Low be impacted significantly as a result of a failure of the
system.
System has moderate impact on production. Some
functions or components may have direct impact on
5 Moderate
production; however the impact is limited to specific plant
areas or process units.
System has a direct impact on production. Failure is
0 High highly likely to lead to a plant shutdown or process
interruption.
4.2 Rate the level of redundancy for components whose failure will impact
production:
Level of Redundancy
Full All components whose failure will lead to a direct process
10 redundancy shutdown or interruption are provided in redundant
provided configuration.
There are some components of the system whose failure
Partial
would lead to a process shutdown or interruption; but the
5 Redundancy
majority of components are supplied in redundant
provided
configuration.
Page 14 of 15
Level of Redundancy
Major components of the system or over 50% of overall
Minimal
components whose failure would lead to a process
0 redundancy
shutdown or plant disturbance are not provided with
provided
redundant configuration.
4.3 Rate the cost of a shutdown in terms of lost production value against the
expected upgrade or migration costs for the system. Systems whose failure will
result in a production loss, whose value is very high, should be rated lower:
Cost of Shutdown
Multiple failures per year leading to a process shutdown or
disturbance would be required to result in production loss
10 Minimal cost
whose value is equal to or exceeds the cost to replace or
migrate the system to address the obsolescence issues.
Three or more failures which lead to a shutdown would
result in a production loss whose value is equal to or
5 Moderate Cost
exceeds to cost to replace or migrate / upgrade the
system to address the obsolescence issues.
A single failure which leads to a shutdown would result in
a production loss whose value is equal to or exceeds to
0 Very high cost
cost to replace or migrate / upgrade the system to address
the obsolescence issues.
4.4 Rate the impact of a component failure on plant safety
Considering a failure of a single component in the system, rate the overall

impact on plant safety.
Safety Impact
The system is not directly related to ensuring plant safety;
Minimal
10 or a single component failure will not have any impact on
Impact
overall plant safety.
The system performs a supervisory safety function but is
not directly responsible for the prevention or mitigation of
Potential a plant safety incident. A single failure would not result in
5
Impact an unsafe condition; however multiple failures (not
including dual failures of redundant modules) may lead to
an unsafe condition.
The system is directly used in the prevention of mitigation
Significant
0 of a plant safety incident or a single failure would result in
Impact
an unsafe plant condition.
Page 15 of 15

Saep 135 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saep 135 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Procedure

SAEP-135 11 April 2012

Saudi Aramco DeskTop Standards

Attachment 1 – Obsolescence Criteria

Previous Issue: 9 October 2010 Next Planned Update: 11 April 2017

Copyright©Saudi Aramco 2012. All rights reserved.

The purpose of this procedure is to provide a consistent methodology for objectively

Standards related to the evaluated product shall be applied.

2.1 Saudi Aramco References

Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure

2.2 Other References

International Electrotechnical Commission

3 Terms and Definitions

4 PAS Obsolescence Overview

4.1.1 Obsolescence Evaluation Trigger: Category-A obsolescence

4.1.2 Obsolescence Evaluation Team: P&CSD will assemble and lead an

4.1.3 Preparation: The team will perform preliminary preparation.

 A clear obsolescence evaluation scope

4.1.5 Obsolescence Evaluation: The team will perform an obsolescence

4.1.7 Project Submittals: The obsolescence evaluation report will contain

4.2 Obsolescence evaluation of Category-B PAS equipment: Category B

5 PAS Obsolescence Criteria

5.1 PAS Obsolescence Criteria Description

5.2 PAS Obsolescence Criteria Application and Scoring

5.2.3 Each category contains a number of criteria which is evaluated by the

Criterion 4 - Business and Safety Impact

6 Roles and Responsibilities

6.1 P&CSD Responsibilities

6.1.1 Lead PAS Obsolescence evaluations for equipment falling under

6.1.3 Provide support to proponent organizations for PAS evaluations falling

6.1.4 Ownership and updating of this procedure.

6.2 Proponent Responsibilities

6.2.1 Participate in Category-A PAS evaluations when requested to do so by

6.2.3 Develop Capital project submittals as recommended by Category-A

6.3 FPD Responsibilities

6.3.1 FPD shall participate in Category-A obsolescence evaluations when

6.3.3 FPD shall consider Category-A evaluation results in the development of

6.3.4 Provide support to proponent organizations for PAS evaluations falling

Attachment 1 – Obsolescence Criteria and Scoring Procedure

Guideline for Scoring:

Reliability Score = 2.5 x Average (score (1.1), score(1.2), score (1.3))

1.1 Rate the reliability of the system

This is the availability of the system based on equipment or component annual

Score Classification Reliability Rating

1.2 Rate the age degradation impact on reliability

Score Age impact on reliability (Condition)

Guideline for Scoring:

Support Score = 2.5 x Average(score (2.1), …, score (2.4))

2.1 Rate the availability of spare parts

2.2 Availability of Spare parts from alternate sources

Spare parts availability via other sources?

2.3 Vendor Technical Support

Site has valid Site does not

2.4 Availability of Vendor Training

Score Classification Description

Guideline for Scoring:

Technology Score = 1 x Average (score (3.1),…, score (3.4))

3.1 Rate the state of technology of the system / equipment

Score State of Technology

Score Software Release

3.3 Rate system scalability

Relay or Analog Open

Criterion 4: Business and Safety Impact