Saes A 030

Engineering Standard
SAES-A-030 10 June 2019

Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Study Execution
Document Responsibility: Asset Management Standards Committee
Contents
1 Scope of Application ......................................... 2
2 Conflicts and Deviations ................................... 5
3 References........................................................ 5
4 Purpose............................................................. 6
5 Definitions ......................................................... 7
6 Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................... 12
7 RAM Study Requirements, Objectives,
Methodology, and Instructions ........................ 13
8 R&M Data Collection and Adjustments ........... 21
9 Assets Information and Configuration ............. 32
10 RAM Study Operational Targets ..................... 32
11 RAM Base-case Model Development
and Adjustment ............................................... 33
12 RAM Base-Case Model................................... 34
13 RAM Study Modeling Phases ......................... 34
14 RAM Improvements Identification
and Prioritization ............................................. 43
15 RAM Improvement, Repair versus
Replace Options Guidelines............................ 46
16 RAM Study Sensitivity Analysis Cases ........... 46
17 RAM Benchmarking Process .......................... 47
18 RAM Study Draft and Final Report .................. 48
Revision Summary .................................................. 51
Previous Issue: 2 May 2019 Next Planned Update: 10 June 2024

Page 1 of 57
Contact: Abbaoui, Youssef (abbaouyx) on phone +966-13-8809721
©Copyright 2019, Saudi Aramco. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: Asset Management Standards Committee SAES-A-030
Issue Date: 10 June 2019
Next Planned Update: 10 June 2024 Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Study Execution
1 Scope of Application
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
1.2.8 Storm water facilities
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 assets not listed in paragraph 1.3 following the approval of the Asset
Management Standards Committee Chairman, the CSD of Saudi Aramco,
Dhahran.
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

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use
©Copyright 2019, Saudi Aramco. All rights reserved. Page 2 of 57
different or identical non-redundant assets shall require a RAM study

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 of Saudi Aramco, Dhahran.
Examples of such projects could be
1.5.2.1 Comparing different combustion gas turbine (CGT) suppliers

for the same application.
1.5.2.2 Comparing different gas compressor designs for the same

application.
1.5.2.3 Comparing different process licensers for the same application.
1.5.2.4 Others.
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
during the early phase of FEL 2 phase (i.e., DBSP phase) or extension
projects where existing PFDs are being modified, RAM FEL 2 (DBSP)
shall be replaced by RAM FEL 3 (PP). In this case, RAM FEL 3 (PP)
shall be advanced to start at RAM FEL 2 (DBSP) due date and shall be
completed prior to project FEL Gate-2.
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
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
1.5.7 A RAM study will not be applied to the following installations:
1.5.7.1 Fire Protection and Safety assets and installation as these assets
and installations are governed by LPD and Fire Protection
Department mandatory engineering standards, practices and
guidelines.
1.5.7.2 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.
1.5.7.3 Supporting facilities that are not directly linked to the process
operations including;
1.5.7.3.1 Potable water,
1.5.7.3.2 HVAC,
1.5.7.3.3 Sanitary water,
1.5.7.3.4 Fire water,
1.5.7.3.5 Chemical inhibitors injection.
1.6 The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable, but not mandatory, to the
O&M phase for existing plants and facilities.
1.7 If a facility elects to conduct a RAM O&M, then the RAM study shall comply
with this all this Engineeing Standard and more specifically with subparagraph
10.4 requirments for O&M phase.
2 Conflicts and Deviations
2.1 Any conflicts between this document and other applicable Mandatory Saudi
Aramco Engineering Requirements (MSAERs) shall be addressed to the
EK&RD Coordinator.
2.2 Any deviation from the requirements herein shall follow internal company
procedure SAEP-302.
2.3 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.
2.4 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.
2.5 All RAM study waivers, including approved and rejected, shall be documented
as an Appendix in the RAM study final report.
3 References
3.1 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.
3.2 The RAM studies shall comply with the latest edition of the references listed
below, unless otherwise noted:
 Saudi Aramco Documents
- Saudi Aramco Best Practice

SABP-A-047 Technical and Performance Evaluation Criteria for
Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM)
Service Providers) (rev. 15 April 2019)
- Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

SAEP-12 Project Execution Plan (Rev. September 08, 2015)
SAEP-14 Project Proposal (Rev. May 02, 2017)
SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process (Rev. August 16, 2016)
SAEP-71 Portfolio Execution Planning (Rev. December 10,
2017)
SAEP-302 Waiver of a Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering
Requirement (Rev. November 20, 2017)
SAEP-329 Project Closeout Report (Rev. December 11, 2014)
SAEP-367 Value Improvement Practice Requirements
(Rev. February 22, 2018)
SAEP-503 Assets’ Sparing Requirements and Guidelines
(Rev. November 09, 2018)
SAEP-1350 Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP) Preparation and
Revision Procedure (Rev. February 09, 2017)
 Industry Codes and Standards
- American Petroleum Institute

API RP 571 Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in
the Refining Industry (2nd Edition, April 2011)
- International Electrotechnical Commission

IEC 60812 Analysis Techniques for System Reliability -
Procedure for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
(FMEA) (2nd Edition, January 2006)
- International Organization for Standardization

ISO 6527 Nuclear Power Plants - Reliability Data Exchange -
General Guidelines (1st Edition October 15, 1982)
ISO 20815 Petroleum, Petrochemical, and Natural Gas
Industries - Production Assurance and Reliability
Management (1st Edition, June 15, 2009)
4 Purpose
4.1 To ensure that Saudi Aramco has a systematic execution process for the
Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) study.

4.2 To ensure that roles and responsibilities for RAM study steps and activities in
Saudi Aramco are outlined and auditable.
4.3 To assure that the RAM study data, assumptions, recommendations and
execution are well defined.
4.4 To assure that the RAM study data, assumptions, recommendations and
execution are uniformly documented for the purpose of corporate tracking and
auditing.
4.5 To assure that adequate resources (i.e., work force, person-hours and SMEs) are
provided for the RAM study.
4.6 To assure that process, steps, data, assumptions, logic coding, deliverables, roles
and responsibilities, when utilizing service providers to perform the RAM study,
are clearly defined.
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 a 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(s) or function(s) of a process(es) 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:

𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹
𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑦 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹 + 𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑅
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 of the availability of the plant, 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 assets. These can
range from corrosion, to cracking, to heat damage, and everything in between (Source:
API 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 safely perform any one
of its designed intended functions.
Failure (of a system): Termination of the ability of a system to safely 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 safely 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, Emergency
Isolation Valves (EIV)s, and control valves.
Failure Rate: Corresponds to the mean number of failures of an asset per usage unit.
Usually, usage unit is expressed in ‘time’ and 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 further details on
FEL, refer to SAEP-12, SAEP-71, and SAEP-40). 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.

Figure 1 - Overview of Front End Loading (FEL) Stage & 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
that the failed system is not repaired (infinite repair time). The MTBF for an asset is
defined as;
∑ 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒
𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹 =
∑ 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠
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.
Planned Event: Corresponds to a planned shutdown of the asset (e.g., Preventive

Maintenance, planned repair, planned overhaul, planned inspection, T&I, etc.).
During planned shutdowns, there is always the planning and coordination of the
planned event and which includes budgeting, scheduling, necessary work permits,
contracting and tooling, etc.
Production Availability: The ratio of actual production system readiness 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 Mean Deliverability: Is defined as the production average rate achievable

from a given feedstock(s) to produce a given end product(s). It is given in MBCD,
MMScfd, MW, KTA, or in any other production unit.
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 assets. 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,
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
Un-planned Event: Corresponds to an unplanned shutdown of the asset (e.g., trips,

failure, fail-to-start, unplanned overhaul, leak, etc.). During unplanned shutdowns,
emergency response and reactive work are needed to bring back the asset to normal and
safe operation. Facility critical assets unplanned shutdown increases maintenance NDEs
and could have major production losses, product(s) quality depletion, and/or HSE impact.
6 Acronyms and Abbreviations

AF Adjustment Factor
APM Asset Performance Management
BFD Block Flow Diagram
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
DBSP Design Basis Scoping Paper
EPC Engineering, Procurement, and Construction
EIV Emergency Isolation Valve
Exec Execution
FEL Front End Loading
FMEA Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
FMECA Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis
FPD Facilities Planning Department
FRACAS Failure Reporting Analysis and Corrective Action System
ID Identification
ILI Inline Inspections
IPT Integrated Project Team
KTA Kilo Tons per Annum
LPD Loss Prevention Department
MBCD Thousand Barrels Calendar Day
MBOD Thousand Barrels Operating Day
MBWCD Thousand Barrels Water Calendar Day
MBWOD Thousand Barrels Operating Day
MLI Midlife Inspection
MM Million
MSI Major Shop Inspection
MTBF Mean Time between Failures
MTBO Mean Time between Overhauls
MTTF Mean Time to Failure
MTTR Mean Time to Repair
MW Megawatts
NDE Net Direct Expenditures
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 Piping 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
TA Turnaround
TPRM Total Plant Reliability Management
T&I Testing and Inspection
7 RAM Study Requirements, Objectives, 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 The current approved RAM study process steps is outlined by Figure 4.
7.1.4 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 and agreement.
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 Characterization as per Portfolio

Execution Planning (PXP) (SAEP-71 and SAEP-12)

Define RAM Study Boundaries (SAES-A-030 Subparagraphs 7.2 & 7.3)

& Operational Targets (SAES-A-030 Paragraph 10)
Collect Assets Information & Configuration (SAES-A-030 Paragraph 9)
Build Facility RAM Model Collect Saudi Aramco Site R&M

(SAES-A-030 Subparagraph 7.4) data (SAES-A-030 Subparagraph 8.2)
Validate Facility RAM Model Validate R&M Data

(SAES-A-030 Subparagraph 7.5) (SAES-A-030 Subparagraph 8.1.10 & 8.4)
Finalize Facility RAM model
Run RAM Industry Model Run RAM Site Model

(Using Industry R&M Data) (Using Saudi Aramco Site R&M Data)
Benchmark Industry and Saudi Aramco Site R&M

data RAM Models Results (SAES-A-030 Paragraph 11.3)
Adjust Saudi Aramco Site R&M data if and as

needed (SAES-A-030 subparagraph 8.3)
Generate RAM Base-Case Model (SAES-A-030 Subparagraph 11.4)
Run RAM Base-Case Model and Submit RAM Study

Draft Report (SAES-A-030 Subparagraph 11.7)
Identify Sensitivity Cases to be Analyzed (SAES-A-030 Paragraph 16)
Run Sensitivity Cases Analysis (SAES-A-030 Paragraph 16)
Generate RAM Study Final Report (SAES-A-030 Paragraph 18)
Figure 4 - RAM Study Overall Process Workflow
7.1.5 Saudi Aramco type “B”, “C”, and “C1” 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 reviewed by IPT/PMT and Proponent representatives.
7.1.6 Instrument air is a critical commodity for plant operation and shall have
a targeted availability of 100%.
7.2 RAM Study Boundaries and Scope of Application
7.2.1 The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable to new projects,

upgrade projects and to existing plants and facilities.
7.2.2 In line with SAEP-1350, The RAM study Engineering Standard is

applicable to the FEL 2 (DBSP) phase of the projects.
7.2.3 In line with SAP-12, The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable
to the FEL 3 (Project Proposal) phase of the projects.
7.2.4 The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable to the Execution

(commissioning) phase of the projects.
7.2.5 The RAM study Engineering Standard is applicable, but not mandatory,
to the O&M phase for existing plants and facilities. However, if a
facility elects to conduct a RAM O&M; then, the RAM study shall
comply with this all this Engineering Standard and more specifically
with subparagraph 10.4 requirements for O&M phase.
7.2.6 For each RAM study, IPT/PMT (for new projects) and Proponent/FPD
(for existing facilities) representatives shall define the RAM study scope
of work and RAM study boundaries.
7.2.7 RAM Service Provider(s) shall conduct, and document, a kickoff

meeting with IPT/PMT (for new projects) and Proponent/FPD (for
existing facilities) representatives where the study scope, phases,
methodology, deliverables and tentative study schedule shall be outlines.
7.2.8 The RAM Study kickoff meeting shall be organized by IPT/PMT (for
new projects) and Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities).
7.2.9 The RAM study scope of work shall require full compliance with
SAES-A-030 requirements.
7.2.10 For new projects, the RAM study boundaries shall be defined according
to the project scope of work as defined in DBSP (FEL 2).
7.2.11 For existing facilities, the RAM study boundaries shall be defined by the
proponent and/or FPD representatives for the case of Master Plan
Development.

7.3 RAM Study Objectives
The RAM service provider(s) shall deliver the five (5) below objectives, i.e.,
7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, 7.3.4 and 7.3.5, while conducting a RAM study
7.3.1 Predict and quantify plants and facilities Production Mean Deliverability
in MBCD, MMScfd, MW, KTA or any other applicable production unit.
Note: Production Mean Deliverability is defined as the production average rate
achievable from a given feedstock(s) to produce a given end product(s).
It is given in MBCD, MMScfd, MW, KTA, or in any other production unit.
7.3.2 Predict and quantify plants and facilities Mean Availability in percentage (%).
7.3.3 Predict and quantify plants and facilities Mean Utilization in percentage (%).
7.3.4 Predict and quantify plants and facilities Production Losses due to
internal and external interruptions, e.g., trips, failures, restarts, T&I,
planned maintenance, process upsets, material handling deficiencies,
feedstock shortage, failure to lift end product(s), external failures, etc.
7.3.5 Predict and quantify plants and facilities Reliability Losses due to
internal interruptions, e.g., trips, failures, restarts, process upsets,
unplanned maintenance, etc.
7.4 RAM Modeling Requirements
7.4.1 Plants and facilities’ assets shall be built in the RAM model as by logical
process flow function outlined by the facility PFDs.
7.4.2 For new plants and facilities, the IPT/PMT shall avail to the contractor the
latest of the PFD’s versions of plants and facilities with the process
description and operation instruction manual in electronic format.
7.4.3 For existing plants and facilities, the Proponent/FPD shall avail to the
contractor the latest of the PFDs versions of plants and facilities with the
process description and operation instruction manual in electronic format.
7.4.4 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
the SAES-A-030 Appendix A spreadsheet.
7.4.5 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.

7.4.6 Plants and facilities’ RAM model assets shall be limited to those displayed
in the PFDs.
7.4.7 Plants and facilities’ assets drilldown structure shall not go beyond the
assets displayed in the PFDs.
7.4.8 Plants and facilities’ assets modeling drilldown beyond the PFDs layout
levels (i.e., P&IDs level) 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.
7.4.9 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.
7.4.10 The RAM model building blocks composition and description shall
correspond to any of the description below:
7.4.10.1 The asset description as described in the PFDs (e.g., CCR

recycle gas compressor, CGT power block, CDU/VDU
bottom pump, etc.).
7.4.10.2 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.).
7.4.10.3 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.).
7.4.10.4 A specific function associated with a specific operation step-

taking place after a failure mode or a damage mechanism
(e.g., equipment restart, cold restart, warm restart, etc.).
7.4.10.5 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, and
fin fan outlet header, etc.).
7.4.11 The RAM model shall reflect plant operations, including operational
objectives with operations schemes, scenarios, and constraints.
7.5 RAM Model Review and Validation
7.5.1 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.
7.5.2 Prior to RAM model execution in the simulation platform, the RAM
Model shall be reviewed, verified, and approved by the following
representatives
7.5.2.1 RAM Service Provider representative(s)
7.5.2.2 Saudi Aramco proponent Process/Operations designated

Engineer(s)
7.5.2.3 Licenser(s) designated Process Engineer(s)
7.5.2.4 Saudi Aramco proponent designated representative(s)

(e.g., reliability, rotating equipment, static equipment, materials
and corrosion, inspection, etc.) as needed depending the project
scope and asset types covered.
Note: The RAM Service Provider(s) shall use SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 ‘R&M
Data Validation Sheet’ form for R&M data validation.
7.5.3 The RAM service provider representative(s) shall be responsible for

notifying the IPT/PMT or Proponent/FPD representatives of the need of
conducting the RAM model review, verification, and approval meeting,
so they can make the necessary arrangements.
7.5.4 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 approval shall be done
via phone or videoconference call to be arranged by the IPT/PMT (for new
projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities) representatives.
Note: In case this review cannot be done through phone or video conference
call; then, a face to face meeting needs to be held where specified by
IPT/PMT or Proponent/FPD representatives.
7.5.5 The RAM service provider representative(s) shall lead and facilitate the
RAM model review meeting and document the meeting outcome, actions
and conclusions.
7.5.6 Once the RAM model is dully reviewed, verified and approved by the
designated representatives, listed in paragraph 7.5.2, it shall be shared
with the Proponent and the CSD Reliability Group for documentation
and records.
7.5.7 The RAM model validation shall be confirmed by the signoff of a

detailed meeting minutes, by the designated representatives identified in
paragraph 7.5.2.
7.5.8 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 and R&M data validation, in a reasonable
time, after receiving the RAM model or the R&M data from the RAM
service provider.
7.5.9 For existing plants and facilities (i.e., RAM O&M), the Proponent/FPD
shall coordinate the RAM model validation process and secure the
signature of the RAM model validation meeting minutes and R&M data
validation, in a reasonable time, after receiving the official RAM model
or R&M data review and validation request from the RAM service
provider.
7.5.10 The RAM Service Provider(s) shall use SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1

‘RAM Model Validation Sheet’ form and include the following
information.
7.5.10.1 BI Number (for new plants only);
7.5.10.2 BI Title (for new plants only);
7.5.10.3 Date;
7.5.10.4 Facility Name;
7.5.10.5 Attendees Names;
7.5.10.6 Job Title;
7.5.10.7 Company Name;
7.5.10.8 Email;
7.5.10.9 Phone Number;
7.5.10.10 Model Validation Meeting Minutes Details;
7.5.10.11 Attendees Signature.
7.5.11 The RAM model simulation, results generation, and analysis shall not be
executed without the official validation of the RAM model by the
designated representatives identified in paragraph 7.5.2.
7.5.12 The RAM model validation representatives, identified in paragraph

7.5.2, shall comply with the schedule communicated by the IPT/PMT
(for new projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities)
representatives to complete the review and validation of the RAM model
with the signoff of the meeting minutes.
7.6 RAM Study Proposal and Service Provider Evaluation
7.6.1 The IPT (for new project) or Proponent for existing plants shall evaluate
the RAM study technical proposal according to the scope of work
requirements.
7.6.1 The IPT (for new project) or Proponent (for existing plants) shall
evaluate the RAM study Service Provider technical qualifications, and
may refer to Saudi Aramco Best-Practice, SABP-A-047, for Technical
and Performance Evaluation Criteria for Reliability, Availability, and
Maintainability (RAM) Service Providers for guidance.
8 R&M Data Collection and Adjustments
8.1 General
8.1.1 Saudi Aramco does have a standardized format, the SAES-A-030

Appendix-A1 spreadsheet, for collecting and validating R&M data
needed to support the RAM study. The proposed simplified data
collection is allined with industry reliability and data managemnet
concepts including ISO 20815 and ISO 6527.
8.1.2 The RAM analysis service providers can download the SAES-A-030
Appendix-A1 spreadsheet from the specified hyperlink.
Note: In case of problems with getting access to the SAES-A-030 Appendix-
A1 spreadsheet, 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
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 the SAES-A-030 Appendix-A1 spreadsheet,
clean and adjust the R&M data.
Note: Dspite that the existing maintenance information repository
systems (e.g., SAP PM module, PMO, FRACAS, etc.) are
expected to contain assets R&M data,extreme caution should
be exercised while trying to use this data source and we
strongly don’t recommand using it due to the 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, 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 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
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 turaround durations.
Special attention shall be given, by the RAM Service Providers, to
miantainability 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, using
SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 ‘R&M Data Validation Sheet’ form, by the
following representatives
8.1.10.1 Saudi Aramco proponent Process/Operations Engineer(s)

(limited to new projects only).
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 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).
8.1.11 The RAM service provider representative(s) shall be responsible for

sending to the IPT/PMT (for new projects) or Proponent/FPD (for
existing facilities) representatives the R&M data file to be reviewed and
approved by the representatives identified in paragraph 8.1.10 for review
and concurrence.

8.1.12 The IPT/PMT (for new projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing

facilities) representatives shall share the R&M data with the
representatives identified in paragraph 8.1.10 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.

facilities) representatives shall share all R&M data reviewed and
approved by the representatives identified in paragraph 8.1.10, 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 ‘R&M Data
Collection’ Sheet, included in the SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 spreadsheet.
8.2.2 The RAM service provider shall use Excel sheet ‘R&M Data Collection
Sheet’ in the SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 spreadsheet 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 ‘R&M Data Collection Sheet’ in the
SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 spreadsheet and collect the following
information:
8.2.3.1 Plant ID
8.2.3.2 Asset ID
8.2.3.3 Asset Description
8.2.3.4 Asset Category
8.2.3.5 Planned Events Information & Comments
8.2.3.6 Unplanned Events Information & Comments
8.2.3.7 Comments
8.2.3.8 Key Failure Modes and Damage Mechanisms Information &

Comments
Note: For definitions, refer to the definition section or to the ‘Terms

Glossary’ sheet of the SAES-A-030 Appendix A spreadsheet.
8.2.4 The RAM Service Provider(s) shall perform R&M data collection,
cleansing, adjustment, and validation for the RAM study.
8.2.5 The RAM Service Provider(s) 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(s) shall submit an official request to the
IPT/PMT (for new projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities)
designated representative to identify, one to two, similar Saudi Aramco
plants and facilities to be visited to collect R&M data.

facilities) representatives shall work with the Proponent SMEs 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.

facilities) representatives 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.

facilities) representatives shall avail to the RAM Service Provider(s) 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(s) 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(s) shall meet with designated plants and
facilities personnel to collect the needed R&M data as identified in the
‘R&M Data Collection Sheet’ in the SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1
spreadsheet 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(s) shall use the ‘R&M Data Collection
Sheet’ in the SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 spreadsheet 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).
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 Unplanned Events, Field 5)
of the R&M Data collection sheet in the SAES-A-030
Appendix-A1 spreadsheet.
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 (MLI) and Major Shop
Inspection (MSI) shall be covered under planned maintenance
(i.e., planned, checks, inspections, and planned overhauls).
(3) Pipeline Inline Inspection (ILI) and scraping shall be covered under
planned maintenance (i.e., planned inspections and PM activities).
(4) Pressure Vessels & Heat Exchangers inspection shall be covered under
planned maintenance.
8.2.13 The RAM service provider shall use FIELD 6 of the ‘R&M Data
Collection Sheet’ in the SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 spreadsheet 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.
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 is/are unknown
to the frontline personnel, then it shall be recorded in the ‘R&M Data

Collection Sheet’ in the SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 spreadsheet 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 ‘R&M Data Collection
Sheet’ in the SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 spreadsheet “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.
8.2.18 Final approved R&M data captured in the ‘R&M Data Collection
Sheet’ in the SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 spreadsheet, shall be shared
by the RAM Service Provider(s) with the Proponent for record and
documentation and with CSD Reliability Group for R&M data
corporate databank development.
8.2.19 The RAM data adjusted and approved by the Proponent collected from
previous RAM studies can be used in Saudi Aramco’s new RAM studies
as a reference. However, there is still a need to undergo the adjustment
process to make sure that they will represent the plants being modeled
specific environment and workforce skills and competency.
8.3 R&M Data Adjustment
R&M data adjustment shall be done by multiplying Saudi Aramco reliability

(MTBF) and maintenance (MTTR) data by the Adjustment Factors (AF)s.
This shall account for Saudi Aramco specific operating environment, 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.
Figure 3 - Assets MTBF Adjustment Factors (AF)s Estimation
8.3.1.2 The MTBF(Reference) shall be adjusted with three (AF)s as

displayed in Figure 5 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 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:
𝑂𝑛−𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝐴𝐹𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹 = 10 𝑡𝑜 20%
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:
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑠
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) shall be adjusted by
decreasing the MTBF(Reference) by 5% to 10%, as deemed
necessary, as follows:
𝑃𝑀
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 (AF)s, 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:
𝑃𝑀 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑂𝑛−𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹(𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑) = 𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹(𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒) × [1 − (𝐴𝐹𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹 + 𝐴𝐹𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹 + 𝐴𝐹𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹 )]
8.3.1.7 As demonstrated by Figure 5 — 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:
𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹(𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑) = 𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹(𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)
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 (AF)s as
displayed in Figure 6 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).
Figure 4 - Assets MTTR Adjustment Factors Estimation
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 MTTR(Reference) by 50% to
100%, as deemed necessary, as follows:
𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
𝐴𝐹𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑅 = 50 𝑡𝑜 100%
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:
𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑠
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:
𝑇𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠
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:
𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑠 𝑇𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠
𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑅(𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑) = 𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑅(𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒) × [1 + 𝑀𝑎𝑥(𝐴𝐹𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑅 ; 𝐴𝐹𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑅 ; 𝐴𝐹𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑅 )]
8.3.2.7 As demonstrated by Fig. 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:
𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑅(𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑) = 𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑅(𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)
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, using SAES-A-030-
Appendix-A1 as identified in paragraph 8.1.10.
8.4.4 Final adjusted and approved R&M data, captured in the SAES-A-030-
Appendix-A1 spreadsheet, 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 Assets Information and Configuration
9.1 RAM service provider shall collect and document the following information as
minimum while conducting RAM studies for Saudi Aramco.
9.1.1 Asset Tag ID: this refers to the asset Tag number as displayed in the PFD.
9.1.2 Asset Name: this refers to the asset description as displayed in the PFD.
9.1.3 Asset Category: corresponds to the class category of the asset (e.g., pumps,
compressors, tanks, reactors, Heat Exchangers, Accumulators, Drums,
Pipes, Blowers, Expanders, Steam Turbines, Gas Turbines, Chillers,
Columns, etc.).
9.1.4 Asset Design Capacity: for new assets, this corresponds to the theoretical
maximum output of the asset in a given period under ideal conditions.
Note: For old assets, the design capcity should be validated or replaced by
the Maximum Test Capacity value.
9.1.5 Asset Configuration: this corresponds to the asset arrangement in the

production system and PFD including the production capacity outline
(e.g., 1x100%, 2x50%, 3x50%, 3x33.3%, 4x25%, other configurations).
9.1.6 Asset Failure Impact on Production: this reflects the impact of an asset
failure on the production system (need to address all possible
configurations).
9.1.7 Comments: this section shall be reserved for explanations and further
details to de added by RAM service provider as deemed necessary.
10 RAM Study Operational Targets
10.1 RAM Model simulation shall be executed for next twenty (20) years facility
operations forecast.
10.2 RAM Service Provider shall request IPT/PMT (for new projects) or Proponent/FPD
(for existing facilities) representatives to supply him with the 9.2. Failure to
avail the asset information part of the RAM reports, including draft next twenty
(20) years facility operations forecast.
10.3 RAM model shall be able to factorize and match either a static (i.e., constant
demand) or dynamic (i.e., either increasing, decreasing or variable with time)
facility operational objectives over twenty (20) years forecast.
10.4 If the facility operational objectives are dynamic with time, the RAM model
shall cater for that production dynamic behavior and reflect it in the RAM
model, so optimized design decisions can be made without investing in any

excess capacity (i.e., oversized capacity) or jeopardizing operations
(i.e., capacity mechanical bottlenecks).
10.5 RAM study Service Provider shall clarify and articulate the facility different
plants production units including the feedstock(s), end product(s) and
intermidiate product(s) as deemed necessary depeonding on the processing
facility.
10.6 RAM study Service Provider shall clarify and articulate the facility production
capacity in Operating days versus Calendar Days and Operating Factor.
10.7 RAM study Service Provider shall work with the IPT/PMT (for new projects) or
Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities) representatives with Process/Operation
Engineers, clarify and define differents units to be considered in the RAM
including input(s), output(s) and result(s) including;
10.7.1 MBOD vs. MBCD and Operating Factor
10.7.2 MWBOD vs. MWBCD and Operating Factor
10.7.3 MMScfd in Operating or Calendar days the Operating Factor
10.8 In case of multiple feeds, of the same product, to the facility, the RAM study
Service Provider shall request the IPT/PMT (for new projects) or
Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities) representatives with Process/Operation
Engineers to calculate the total feedstock quatitiy for each specific product to the
processing facility.
10.9 RAM study shall demonstrate the Capital Efficiency strategy, where production
is delivered with known and acceptable Operational-Risk and no oversizing or
excess capacity is wasted.
10.10 This Capital Efficiency strategy shall be maintained whether the production
profile forecast is static or dynamic.
11 RAM Base-Case Model Development and Adjustment
11.1 During RAM study, as a 1st step, the RAM Service provider shall build the
facility RAM Model and run it using Industry R&M data. This RAM model
shall be called the ‘RAM Industry Model’; see Figure-4 workflow.
11.2 As a 2nd step, the RAM Service provider shall run the facility RAM Model using
Saudi Aramco Site R&M data. This RAM model shall be called the ‘RAM Site
Model’; see Figure-4 workflow.

11.3 The RAM Service Provider shall run a benchmark of both Industry and Saudi
Aramco Site R&M data and shall highlight the differences between both cases
so appropriate actions can be taken to make the necessary R&M data
adjustments as outlined in sub-paragraph 8.3 of this Enginnering Santandard;
see Figure-4 workflow.
11.4 Once R&M data has been adjusted, following the process outlined by
sub-paragraph 8.3, the RAM Service provider shall rerun the facility RAM
Model using adjusted Industry and Saudi Aramco Site R&M data. This RAM
model shall be called the ‘RAM Base-Case Model’; see Figure-4 workflow.
11.5 The RAM Base-Case Model shall be the basis for all the subsequent Sensitivity
Analysis Cases and modifications.
11.6 After running the RAM Base-Case Model, the RAM Service Provider shall
generate the RAM study Draft Report to be subimmited to the IPT/Proponent for
review and comment; see Figure-4 workflow.
11.7 The RAM study Draft Report shall address and contain the following elements
11.7.1 RAM Industry Model inputs, assumptions, constraints and results.
11.7.2 RAM Site Model inputs, assumptions, constraints and results.
11.7.3 The benchmark of both Industry and Saudi Aramco Site R&M data
highlighting the differences between both cases the necessary R&M
data adjustments as outlined in sub-paragraph 8.3 of this Enginnering
Standard.
12 RAM Base-case Model
12.1 RAM Base-Case model shall be issued and cannot be modified after validating
the RAM model and R&M data by different represnetatives, listed in paragraph
7.5.2 and in sub-paragraph 8.1.10.
12.2 The RAM Base-Case model shall the basis of all subsequent sensitivity analysis
cases to be evaluated and analyzed.
12.3 When a sensitivity analysis case recommendations are inplemented, then this
sensitivity analysis case shall become the new RAM Base-Case model.
13 RAM Study Modeling Phases
13.1 RAM FEL 2 (DBSP)
13.1.1 Shall model, at high-level (i.e., BFDs at DBSP stage), the plants’ and
facilities’ overall production configuration. The RAM Model shall be

limited to the BFDs as developed at the DBSP stage. Figures 7 and 8
display a high-level BFD (DBSP stage) for a refinery and gas plant.
Note: A high-level RAM model shall not model the asset as reflected by the
final BFDs 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 as outlined per sub-paragraph 13.1.2.
Figure 5 - Example of High-Level Refinery BFD at DBSP Stage

Figure 6 - Example of High-Level Gas Facility BFD at DBSP Stage
13.1.2 Shall include plants’ and facilities’ major building blocks

configurations, capacities, buffer tanks sizes, and different approved
operating logics to operate the plants and associated assets.
13.1.3 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.
13.1.4 Shall benchmark and rank the operating plants and facilities’ reliability
figures with regard to known industry benchmarks, if and as available
and applicable.
13.1.5 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.
13.1.6 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 operational targets in a cost-effective manner
over the plant life cycle.
13.1.7 For new projects where the PFDs have been extensively developed
during the early phase of FEL 2 phase (i.e., DBSP phase) or extension
projects where existing PFDs are being modified, RAM FEL 2 (DBSP)
shall be replaced by RAM FEL 3 (PP). In this case, RAM FEL 3 (PP)
shall be advanced to kickoff at RAM FEL 2 (DBSP) start date and shall
be completed prior to project FEL Gate 2. RAM FEL 2 shall be
dismissed, and replaced by RAM FEL 3 while keeping RAM FEL 2
execution timeline.
13.2 RAM FEL 3 (PP)
13.2.1 Shall leverage the RAM FEL 2 (DBSP), Section 13.1, model to cover
all plants and facilities’ assets at the PFDs level.
13.2.2 Shall quantify production performance 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.
13.2.3 Shall quantify Mean Production Mean Deliverability versus Losses and
provide a Graph (bar chart) and a Table that outlines both over the next
twenty years’ operations forecast.
13.2.4 Shall quantify Mean Production Availability versus Utilization and

provide a Graph (line chart or bar chart) and a Table that outlines both
over the next twenty years’ operations forecast.
13.2.5 Shall identify high impact opportunities where design changes and
maintainability improvement opportunities are to be considered,
mitigated, by IPT/Proponent, and included during the detailed design
phase of the project.
13.2.6 RAM FEL 3 (PP) design changes shall first address the failures modes
and damage mechanism, identified in FIELD 6 of the SAES-A-030
Appendix-A1 spreadsheet, that are hindering production through-puts,

which are normally a provider by the simulator under the top 20% bad
actors or performance loss contributors.
13.2.7 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 ()
13.2.8 Shall identify and rank, in a Table and a Graph, the top 20% Critical
Assets limiting production performance with regard to Production
Mean Deliverability target(s) (i.e., driven by production losses).
13.2.9 Shall identify and rank, in Graph and a Table, the top 20% Critical
Assets limiting production performance with regard to facility Mean
Availability (i.e., driven by availability losses).
13.2.10 Shall identify and rank, in Graph and a Table, the top 20% Critical
Assets limiting production performance with regard to facility Mean
Utilization.
13.2.11 Shall identify and rank, in a Graph and a Table, the top 20% Critical
Assets limiting production performance with regard to Reliability
Losses associated with unreliability events (i.e., driven by assets
failures frequencies).
13.2.12 Based on RAM FEL 3 (PP) results and gaps, RAM Service Provider
can guide and recommend improvement opportunities, for IPT/PMT
(for new projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities)
representatives, for review and approval to be considered as Sensitivity
Cases for analysis.
13.2.13 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.

13.2.14 IPT/PMT (for new projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities)

representatives shall work with the proponent SMEs to form, or hire if
deemed necessary, a Failure Analysis Team and perform a failure
analysis on the top 20% of assets, limiting production performance.
Note: The RAM service provider is not responsible for performing the failure
analysis on the top 20% of assets limiting production performance.
13.2.14.1 For the known key failure modes and damage mechanisms,
the Failure Analysis Team shall work directly on a mitigation
plan to address them, and the approved solution(s) and
recommendation(s) shall be submitted for implementation
during the Detailed Design phase of the project.
13.2.14.2 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
recommendation(s) shall be submitted for implementation
during the Detailed Design phase of the project.
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 13.2.14.2
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.
(5) The IPT/PMT (for new projects) or Proponent/FPD (for

existing facilities) representatives can hire a 3rd party
contractor if needed to perform the failure analysis on the
top 20% of assets limiting production performance identified
by the RAM study. They can also engage SMEs from Saudi
Aramco 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.
13.2.15 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.
13.3 RAM Exec (Execution, Commissioning)
13.3.1 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), subparagraphs 13.2.8, 13.2.9, 13.2.10, and
13.2.11.
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).
13.3.2 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 Exec
(Execution, Commissioning) shall not be conducted.
13.3.3 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) 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.
13.3.4 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 if any.
13.3.5 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 Exec (execution, commissioning)

analysis.
13.3.5.1 RAM FEL 3 (PP) recommended vs. implemented design

improvement modifications as identified in paragraph 13.2.8,
13.2.9, 13.2.10, and 13.2.11 but limited to Critical Assets only.
13.3.5.2 Design errors and omissions on plants’ Critical Assets that

took place during the project construction phase.
13.3.5.3 Engineering Standards’ violations and waiver’s consequences

obtained for plants’ Critical Assets during the project
execution.
13.3.5.4 Materials and assets’ procurement deficiencies and QA/QC

noncompliance on plants’ Critical Assets.
13.3.5.5 Materials and assets’ installation deficiencies and

noncompliance with regard to the RAM FEL 3 (PP) approved
design but limited to Critical Assets only.
13.3.6 The list of deviations identified in paragraph 13.3.5 is considered as the

minimum list of deviations to be considered during the RAM execution
(commissioning) analysis on plants’ Critical Assets only.
13.3.7 The IPT/PMT representative shall avail the list of deviations, on plants’
Critical Assets, listed in paragraph 13.3.5 for the RAM service provider
in order to perform the RAM Exec (execution, commissioning) analysis.
13.3.8 Deviations, on plants’ Critical Assets, from approved designs shall be

identified and associated with BI ID, Project Name, Facility Name, and
Asset ID.

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

ranked according to the following categories:
13.3.10.1 Deviations, on plants’ Critical Assets, from approved

designs due to the design changes and/or modifications.

designs due to material selection changes and/or
modifications.

designs due to manufacturing deficiencies.

designs due to assembly and installation deficiencies.

designs due to material and asset procurement changes
and/or modifications.

designs due to construction deficiencies.

designs due to inspection and QA/QC deficiencies.

designs due to commissioning process deficiencies.
13.3.11 All RAM FEL 3 (PP) deviations categories, listed in paragraph 13.3.10,
from the approved design on Critical Assets shall be listed in a Table
and documented in the RAM Exec report.
13.4 RAM O&M (Operate and Maintain)
13.4.1 The RAM O&M shall not be executed for new projects.
13.4.2 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.
13.4.3 If a facility elects to conduct a RAM O&M, then the RAM study shall
comply with this all this Engineering Standard and more specifically
with subparagraph 13.4 requirements for O&M phase.
13.4.4 The RAM studies’ typical objectives listed under Section 7.4 are all
applicable to the RAM O&M.
13.4.5 The RAM modeling requirements listed under Section 7.5 are all
applicable to the RAM O&M with exception to paragraph 7.5.2.
13.4.6 The R&M data collection and adjustment outlined in Section 8 are all
applicable to the RAM O&M.
13.4.7 RAM O&M execution and mandatory execution requirements shall be

identical to RAM FEL 3 (PP) requirements and execution process.
All RAM FEL 3 (PP) mandatory requirements and execution steps

shall apply to RAM O&M.
13.4.8 During RAM O&M, RAM FEL 3 (PP) IPT/PMT representative shall be
substituted by the Proponent/FPD representative.
13.4.8.1 Proponent representative shall be the lead for the RAM O&M.
13.4.8.2 FPD representative shall be the lead for the RAM O&M
and it shall support Master Plan Development.
13.4.9 Prior executing RAM O&M phase, RAM Service Provider shall execute
the following tasks
13.4.9.1 RAM Service Provider shall walkthrough with the Proponent

Process/Operation Engineers and the Foremen the facility
PFDs to update them accordingly.
13.4.9.2 RAM Service Provider shall request the Proponent/FPD

representative the facility 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.
13.4.9.3 RAM Service Provider shall request the Proponent/FPD to

conduct the feedstock(s) analysis to update assets design
nameplate capacity with regard to the feed(s) specifications
deviations, from design values, and account for their impact
with potential capacity limitations or bottlenecks.
Note: In case the plants’ latest feedstock(s) analysis has been
conducted more than 5 years ago, it is highly
recommended to perform a feedstock(s) analysis and
use its results as the basis to update the assets
nameplate capacity.
14 RAM Improvements Identification and Prioritization
14.1 The RAM study improvement shall be limited to the top 20% of assets, limiting
production performance only.
14.2 RAM Service provider(s) shall identify the facility the top 20% of assets,
limiting production performance as outlined in subparagraphs 13.2.8, 13.2.9,
13.2.10, and 13.2.11.
14.3 RAM Service Provider shall recommend, explain and justify where technical
improvements (i.e. design upgrades, redundancy, maintainability, products
buffering, etc.) should be focused and prioritized based on the production
performance deficiencies and gaps so the facility operational targets can be
attained in effective manner.
14.4 RAM Service Provider(s) shall not introduce any design/technical

recommendation on how the facility production performance limiters shall be, or
should be, resolved. This shall be the responsibility of the IPT/PMT (for new
projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities) representatives with the
Proponent Subject Mater Experts (SMEs).
14.5 IPT/PMT (for new projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities)

representatives and Proponent SMEs shall identify the needed design/technical
recommendations on how the facility production performance shall be closed.
14.6 RAM Service Provider(s) can suggest design/technical recommendation on how

the facility production performance limiters could be resolved; however, it shall
be subject to the IPT/PMT (for new projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing
facilities) representatives with the Proponent Subject Mater Experts (SMEs)
approval or rejection.
14.7 RAM Service Provider(s) shall recommend and guide the IPT/PMT (for new
projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities) representatives where
design/technical enhancements efforts shall be most effective to enhance the
facility production deficiencies.

representatives and Proponent SMEs shall resolve static assets instrumentation
and control systems issues thru operations and instrumentation and/or revising
instrumentation design (sparing instrumentation and control components if
needed), but not thru the static asset upgrade and/or sparing.

representatives shall use, if and as needed, Failure Analysis techniques and tools to
identify recommendations to close the performance gaps on the top 20% of assets
limiting production performance key failure modes and damage mechanisms.
14.10 The selection and prioritization of the failure improvement recommendations

shall be as follows:
14.10.1 RAM Improvements First Priority
14.10.1.1 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.
14.10.1.2 Reduce asset MTTR through the influence of asset design

to achieve ease of maintenance and designing out
maintenance, thereby reducing maintenance time, and cost.
14.10.1.3 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.
14.10.2 RAM Improvements Second Priority:
14.10.2.1 Shall use redundancy and capital spares in case the first
priority improvements do not close the production
performance gaps. In this case, capital expenditures on
capital spares become justifiable.
14.10.2.2 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.”
14.10.3 RAM Improvements Third Priority:
14.10.3.1 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.
14.10.3.2 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.
14.10.3.3 The buffer tank optimization process shall evaluate whether

extra buffering tank storage capacities are needed.

14.10.3.4 The buffer tank optimization process shall identify for what
product(s) and for how long (capacity) extra buffering tank
storage capacities are needed.
14.10.3.5 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.
15 RAM Improvement, Repair versus Replace Options Guidelines
15.1 The RAM study selection between repair vs. replace options, for existing plants’
assets, shall follow the following guidelines
15.1.1 Shall consider repairing the assets if the assets’ production throughput
gap, with regard to the updated nameplate capacity, is less than 25%.
This means that the asset production throughput is more than 75% of the
design updated nameplate capacity.
Note: While considering all the available repair option of the asset, 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.
15.1.2 Shall consider replacing the assets if the production throughput gap of
that asset, with regard to the updated nameplate capacity, is exceeding
25%. This means that the asset production throughput is less than 75%
of the design updated nameplate capacity.
16 RAM Study Sensitivity Analysis Cases
16.1 For new projects, RAM study Sensitivity Analysis Cases shall be conducted
during RAM FEL 3 (PP) phase only.
16.2 For existing facilities, RAM study Sensitivity Analysis Cases shall be conducted
during RAM O&M (Operate & Maintain) phase only.
16.3 Conducting RAM study Sensitivity Analysis Cases during RAM FEL 2 (DBSP)
or RAM Exec (Execution, Commissioning) 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.

representatives shall identify the needed Sensitivity Analysis Cases and share
them with the RAM Service Provider for execution.

16.5 RAM Service Provider shall perform the Sensitivity Analysis Cases to reflect
design/technical modifications, introduced by IPT/PMT (for new projects) or
Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities) representatives SMEs, and quantify their
contribution to closing the facility production performance deficiencies.
16.6 The objective of conducting Sensitivity Analysis Cases, by the RAM Service
Provider, is to verify and validate the design/technical recommendations,
identified by the IPT/PMT (for new projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing
facilities) representatives SMEs, to make sure that they are adding value and
effectively closing production deficiencies.
16.7 For new projects, the RAM Service Provider is expected to modify/run the
RAM FEL 3 (PP) model between four (4) to eight (8) times (i.e., scenarios and
alternative cases analysis) while evaluating the RAM improvements and
recommendations impact on the results (i.e., delivering operational objectives
and verify the effectiveness of the recommendations).
16.8 For existing plants, the RAM service provider is expected to modify/run the
RAM O&M model between four (4) to eight (8) times
(i.e., scenarios and alternative cases analysis) while evaluating the RAM
improvements and recommendations impact on the results
(i.e., delivering operational objectives and verify the effectiveness of the
recommendations).
Note: When conducting the RAM Sensitivity Analysis and evaluating the possible
facility improvement(s) alternatives, the RAM model modifications are, in
general, minor as the RAM Base-Case Model has been already built.
17 RAM Benchmarking Process
17.1 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
Provider(s) can request those figures from the Proponent and use them for RAM
benchmarking purposes.
17.2 The RAM study Mean 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.
17.3 The RAM study simulation projected Mean Availability figures shall be compared
to industry benchmark availability figures for information purposes only.
17.4 Industry benchmark of the Mean Availability figures shall not be met through
project CAPEX, but through performance (i.e., TPRM, inspection operation and
maintenance strategies and practices, CMP, SMS and OE practices, etc.).
17.5 Industry benchmark of Mean Availability figures shall be met through

performance by implementing effective APM programs and optimizing
inspection operation and maintenance strategies.
18 RAM Study Draft and Final Report
18.1 RAM Service Provider(s) shall include the following information in the front
page of the RAM study reports including Draft and Final Reports:
18.2.1 BI Number (for new projects only)
18.2.2 Project Name (for new projects only)
18.2.3 Facility Name
18.2.4 Report Identification
18.2.5 Specify whether it is a Draft Report or a Final Report
18.2.5 Report Revision number
18.2.6 RAM Study FEED Phase [i.e., RAM FEL 2 (DBSP), RAM FEL 3
(PP), RAM O&M (Operate & Maintain), or RAM Exec (Execution,
Commissioning)]
18.2.7 RAM Service Provider Name
18.2.8 Engineer’s Name in charge of executing the RAM study
18.2.9 Senior Engineer’s Name that Reviewed and Approved the RAM study
report
18.2 RAM Service Provider(s) shall structure the RAM Study, Draft, and Final,
reports as follows
18.2.1 1. Executive Summary
18.2.2 2. Acronyms List
18.2.3 3. INTRODUCTION
18.2.4 4. METHODOLOGY
18.2.4.1 4.1. Study Objectives
18.2.4.2 4.2. Scope of Work
18.2.4.3 4.3. Study Input Data
18.2.4.4 4.4. Indenture Level for Study
18.2.4.5 4.5. RAM Model Cases (i.e., RAM Industry Model, RAM
Site Model, RAM Base-Case Model, and Sensitivity
Analysis Cases)
18.2.5 5. Ram Model Inputs, Data, Assumptions, and Coding Logic

18.2.5.1 5.1. General Assumptions
18.2.5.2 5.2. RAM Modelling Assumptions
18.2.5.3 5.3. Operational Assumptions
18.2.5.4 5.4. Assets Information and Configuration
18.2.5.5 5.5. Reliability and Maintenance Data
18.2.5.5.1 5.5.1. R&M Industry Data
18.2.5.5.2 5.5.2. R&M Site Data
18.2.5.6 5.6. RAM Model Coding Logic
18.2.6 6. Results and Conclusions

18.2.6.1 6.1. RAM Industry Model Results
18.2.6.2 6.2. RAM Site Model Results
18.2.6.3 6.3. RAM Industry Model & Site Model Results Benchmark
18.2.6.4 6.4. RAM Base-Case Model Results
18.2.6.4.1 6.4.1. Overall Production Mean Deliverability
18.2.6.4.2 6.4.2. Overall Production Mean Availability
18.2.6.4.3 6.4.3. Overall Production Mean Utilization
18.2.6.4.4 6.4.4. Annual Production Mean Availability
18.2.6.4.5 6.4.5. Overall Production Losses (Production
Criticality)
18.2.6.4.6 6.4.6. Overall Reliability Losses (Asset
Criticality)
18.2.6.5 6.5. Sensitivity Analysis Cases Results
18.2.6.6 6.6. Conclusions and Recommendations
18.3 RAM Service Provider(s) failure to deliver the RAM study Draft or Final report

as per the structure mentioned in paragraph 18.2 shall lead to an automatic

rejection of the RAM study report.
18.4 RAM Study Deliverables Summary
18.4.1 RAM Service Provider(s) shall attach to the RAM study Draft and
Final Reports the facility PFDs.
Final Reports the facility PFDs.
Final Reports R&M Data, in Excel sheet format, from Industry and
Saudi Aramco Site.
Final Reports R&M Site Data validation, by the proponent designated
representatives, signoff meeting minutes.
Final Reports R&M Site Data validation, by the proponent designated
representatives, signoff meeting minutes.
18.4.6 RAM Service Provider(s) shall include in the RAM study Draft and
Final Reports with the R&M Excel sheet the R&M Site Data
adjustments calculation details.
Final Reports the facility assets information and configuration.
Final Reports the RAM study assumptions.
18.4.9 RAM Service Provider(s) shall attach to the RAM Draft and Final
reports the native Excel file including all RAM results and graphs.
18.4.10 RAM Service Provider(s) shall avail the raw data for all the graphs
included in the RAM Draft and Final reports.
18.4.11 RAM Service Provider(s) shall include and explain in the RAM Draft
and Final reports all the what-if scenarios and logic coding used in the
RAM Model.
18.4.12 The RAM study Draft and Final reports findings, assumptions, and
recommendations with the RAM model executable file shall be shared
with IPT/PMT and CSD Reliability Group for record and documentation.

18.4.13 The RAM Model executable file.
18.5 All submitted information and documents shall be in electronic formats and
shall include
18.5.1 RAM study Draft and Final report in both MS Word format and PDF
format.
18.5.2 The SAES-A-030 Appendix-A1 spreadsheet.
18.5.3 The RAM R&M Industry and Site Data in Excel sheet format.
18.5.4 The RAM R&M Data validation meeting minutes in PDF format.
18.5.5 The RAM model validation meeting minutes in PDF format.
18.5.6 The RAM model Waiver Request Form, if any, in PDF format.
18.5.7 The RAM study approved waivers in PDF format.
18.5.8 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
08 September 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.
03 March 2016 Major revision to include Value Engineering (VE) study findings and recommendations to
minimize study RAM study costs.
01 April 2017 Minor revision to amend three RAM simulation platforms to be used for RAM studies.
10 June 2019 Major revision to include enhancements and simplifications resulted from May 10, 2018
SAES-A-030 Revision Workshop that involved CSD Reliability Group Engineers and all
RAM Approved Service Providers.
Summary of Change Form (10 June 2019)

Paragraph Change Type
No. Technical Change(s)
Number (New, Modification,..)
For new projects where the PFDs have been
extensively developed during the early phase of
FEL 2 phase (i.e., DBSP phase) or extension
projects where existing PFDs are being
1 1.5.4 Modification
modified, RAM FEL 2 (DBSP) shall be
replaced by RAM FEL 3 (PP). In this case,
RAM FEL 3 (PP) shall start at RAM FEL 2
(DBSP) due date and shall be completed prior
to project FEL Gate-2.

Added clarification to the list of installtions to
2 1.5.7 New
which RAM will no be applied
Updated list of references and eliminated some
3 2 Modification outdated/deletated references (e.g., Front End
Loading (FEL) Manual, etc.)
To assure that process, steps, data, assumptions,
logic coding, deliverables, roles and
4 3.6 New responsibilities, when utilizing service
providers to perform the RAM study, are
clearly defined.
Planned Event: Corresponds to a planned
shutdown of the asset (e.g., Preventive
Maintenance, planned repair, planned overhaul,
planned inspection, T&I, etc.). During planned
5 5 New
shutdowns, there is always the planning and
coordination of the planned event and which
includes budgeting, scheduling, necessary work
permits, contracting and tooling, etc.
Production Mean Deliverability: is defined as
the production average rate achievable from a
6 5 New given feedstock(s) to produce a given end
product(s). It is given in MBCD, MMScfd,
MW, KTA or in any other production unit.
Unplanned Event: Corresponds to an unplanned
shutdown of the asset (e.g., trips, failure, fail-
to-start, unplanned overhaul, leak, etc.). During
unplanned shutdowns, emergency response and
reactive work are needed to bring back the asset
7 5 New
to normal and safe operation. Facility critical
assets unplanned shutdown increases
maintenance NDEs and could have major
production losses, product(s) quality depletion,
and/or HSE impact.
Added a figure that outlines the current
8 7.1.3 New
approved RAM study process steps (Figure 4)
Saudi Aramco type “A” Type Projects
(Figure 3), RAM study findings and reports, for
each of the RAM study phases [i.e., RAM FEL
9 7.1.4 Modification 2 (DBSP), RAM FEL 3 (PP) and RAM
Execution (Commissioning)], shall be
submitted to the CSD Reliability Group for
review and agreement.
Saudi Aramco type “B”, “C”, and “C1” Type

Projects (Figure 3), RAM study findings and
reports, for each of the RAM study phases [i.e.,
10 7.1.5 New RAM FEL 2 (DBSP), RAM FEL 3 (PP) and
RAM Execution (Commissioning)], shall be
reviewed by IPT/PMT and Proponent
representatives.
Deleted the paragraph that referenced the RAM
simulation platforms available is Saudi Aramco
11 7.2 Deletion & Modification
and replaced it with RAM Study Boundaries
and Scope of Application requirments.
Added clarification to RAM study objectives
12 7.3 Modification and how to outline RAM simulation results an
outputs.
Deleted the list of RAM Study Typical
13 7.4 Deletion/Modification Objectives and replaced with RAM Modeling
Requirements.
Added a list of specific information on the
project to be included in the RAM report as
14 7.5.10 New
outlined by SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 ‘RAM
Model Validation Sheet’.
Added new section for RAM Study Proposal
and Service Provider Evaluation as follows
7.6.1 The IPT (for new project) or Proponent
for existing plants shall evaluate the RAM
study technical proposal according to the scope
of work requirements.
7.6.1 The IPT (for new project) or Proponent
15 7.6 New
(for existing plants) shall evaluate the RAM
study Service Provider technical qualifications,
and may refer to Saudi Aramco Best-Practice,
SABP-A-047, for Technical and Performance
Evaluation Criteria for Reliability, Availability
and Maintainability (RAM) Service Providers
for guidance.
Simplified the ‘R&M Data Collection Sheet’ in
the SAES-A-030-Appendix-A1 Excel
document to be used by RAM Service Provider
to collect R&M data
Prior to the RAM model execution in the
simulation platform, the RAM data, identified
17 8.2.17 New
in paragraphs 8.2.3 and 8.2.12, shall be
reviewed, verified and approved by the
representatives identified in paragraph 8.1.10.

The RAM adjusted data and assumptions shall
be duly reviewed and approved by the
18 8.4.3 New
proponent representatives, using SAES-A-030-
Appendix-A1 as identified in paragraph 8.1.10.
Deleted the paragraph related to the RAM
Study Service Provider Qualification, and
replaced it Assets Information & Configuration.
RAM Service Provider(s) shall be technically
19 9 Deletion/Modification
evaluated by the IPT (for new projects) or
Proponent (for existing facilities) using the
technical evaluation process outlined in this
best-practice.
Added new pragraph for RAM Study
20 10 New
Operational Targets
Added new paragrph for RAM Base-Case
21 11 New
Model Development and Adjustment
Added new paragraph for RAM Base-Case
22 12 New
Model
For new projects where the PFDs have been
extensively developed during the early phase of
FEL 2 phase (i.e., DBSP phase) or extension
projects where existing PFDs are being
modified, RAM FEL 2 (DBSP) shall be
replaced by RAM FEL 3 (PP). In this case,
RAM FEL 3 (PP) shall be advanced to kickoff
at RAM FEL 2 (DBSP) start date and shall be
completed prior to project FEL Gate 2. RAM
FEL 2 shall be dismissed, and replaced by
RAM FEL 3 while keeping RAM FEL 2
execution timeline.
Shall quantify Mean Production Mean
Deliverability versus Losses and provide a
24 13.2.3 New
Graph (bar chart) and a Table that outlines both
Shall quantify Mean Production Availability
versus Utilization and provide a Graph (line
25 13.2.4 New
chart or bar chart) and a Table that outlines both
RAM FEL 3 (PP) design changes shall first
address the failures modes and damage
26 13.2.6 New
mechanism, identified in FIELD 6 of the
SAES-A-030Appendix-A1 Excel document,
that are hindering production through-puts,

which are normally a provider by the simulator
under the top 20% bad actors or performance
loss contributors.
Shall identify and rank, in a Table and a Graph,
the top 20% Critical Assets limiting production
27 13.2.8 Modification performance with regard to Production Mean
Deliverability target(s) (i.e., driven by
production losses ).
Shall identify and rank, in Graph and a Table,
performance with regard to facility Mean
Availability (i.e., driven by availability losses).
Shall identify and rank, in Graph and a Table,
performance with regard to facility Mean
Utilization.
Shall identify and rank, in a Graph and a Table,
30 13.2.11 Modification performance with regard to Reliability Losses
associated with unreliability events (i.e., driven
by assets failures frequencies).
Based on RAM FEL 3 (PP) results and gaps,
RAM Service Provider can guide and
recommend improvement opportunities, for
31 13.2.12 Modification IPT/PMT (for new projects) or Proponent/FPD
(for existing facilities) representatives, for
review and approval to be considered as
Sensitivity Cases for analysis.
Deviations, on plants’ Critical Assets, from
approved designs shall be identified and
32 13.3.8 New
associated with BI ID, Project Name, Facility
Name, and Asset ID.
If a facility elects to conduct a RAM O&M,
then the RAM study shall comply with this all
33 13.4.3 New this Engineering Standard and more specifically
with subparagraph 13.4 requirements for O&M
phase.
During RAM O&M, RAM FEL 3 (PP)
IPT/PMT representative shall be substituted by
34 13.4.8 New the Proponent/FPD representative as follows
13.4.8.1 Proponent representative shall be
the lead for the RAM O&M.
13.4.8.2 FPD representative shall be the

lead for the RAM O&M and it shall support
Master Plan Development.
Added clarification on prerequisite tasks prior
35 13.4.9 New
executing RAM O&M phase
The RAM study improvement shall be limited
36 14.1 Modification to the top 20% of assets, limiting production
performance only.
RAM Service provider(s) shall identify the
facility the top 20% of assets, limiting
37 14.2 Modification production performance as outlined in
subparagraphs 13.2.8, 13.2.9, 13.2.10, &
13.2.11.
RAM Service Provider shall recommend,
explain and justify where technical
improvements (i.e. design upgrades,
redundancy, maintainability, products
38 14.3 Modification
buffering, etc.) should be focused and
prioritized based on the production performance
deficiencies and gaps so the facility operational
targets can be attained in effective manner.
RAM Service Provider(s) shall not introduce
any design/technical recommendation on how
the facility production performance limiters
shall be, or should be, resolved. This shall be
39 14.4 New
the responsibility of the IPT/PMT (for new
projects) or Proponent/FPD (for existing
facilities) representatives with the Proponent
Subject Mater Experts (SMEs).
IPT/PMT (for new projects) or Proponent/FPD
(for existing facilities) representatives and
40 14.5 New Proponent SMEs shall identify the needed
design/technical recommendations on how the
facility production performance shall be closed.
RAM Service Provider(s) can suggest
design/technical recommendation on how the
facility production performance limiters could
be resolved; however, it shall be subject to the
41 14.6 New
(for existing facilities) representatives with the
Proponent Subject Mater Experts (SMEs)
approval or rejection.
42 14.7 New RAM Service Provider(s) shall recommend and
guide the IPT/PMT (for new projects) or

Proponent/FPD (for existing facilities)
representatives where design/technical
enhancements efforts shall be most effective to
enhance the facility production deficiencies.
(for existing facilities) representatives and
Proponent SMEs shall resolve static assets
instrumentation and control systems issues thru
43 14.8 New
operations and instrumentation and/or revising
instrumentation design (sparing instrumentation
and control components if needed), but not thru
the static asset upgrade and/or sparing.
Dedicated pargraph 15 to RAM Improvement,
44 15 Modification
Repair Versus Replace Options Guidelines
Introduced a paragraph for RAM Study
45 16 New
Sensitivity Analysis Cases
Introduced changes to the RAM Study Draft &
46 18 Modification
Final Report


Saes A 030

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

Saes A 030

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Standard

SAES-A-030 10 June 2019

Previous Issue: 2 May 2019 Next Planned Update: 10 June 2024

©Copyright 2019, Saudi Aramco. All rights reserved.

1.2 This SAES applies to the following facilities

1.3 This SAES applies to the following assets:

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

Examples of such projects could be

1.5.2.1 Comparing different combustion gas turbine (CGT) suppliers

1.5.2.2 Comparing different gas compressor designs for the same

1.5.2.3 Comparing different process licensers for the same application.

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

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

1.5.6.1 Exploration projects (BI-33)

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

1.5.6.2 Development Drilling projects (BI-60)

1.5.6.3 Saudi Aramco nonindustrial projects and projects that are

1.5.7 A RAM study will not be applied to the following installations:

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

2 Conflicts and Deviations

 Saudi Aramco Documents

- Saudi Aramco Best Practice

- Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

 Industry Codes and Standards

- American Petroleum Institute

- International Electrotechnical Commission

- International Organization for Standardization

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

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

Asset Redundancy: The duplication of the asset(s) or function(s) of a process(es) with

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

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

Planned Event: Corresponds to a planned shutdown of the asset (e.g., Preventive

Production Availability: The ratio of actual production system readiness to planned

Production Mean Deliverability: Is defined as the production average rate achievable

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

RAM: A business performance improvement tool used to improve business

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

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

Unavailability: The proportion of a timespan that a system is unavailable or not ready

Figure 2 - Availability vs. Unavailability of a Compression Train

Un-planned Event: Corresponds to an unplanned shutdown of the asset (e.g., trips,

6 Acronyms and Abbreviations

7.1.1 The RAM methodology currently approved and implemented in this

7.1.2 Use of other RAM methodologies is not permissible in Saudi Aramco

RAM FEL 3 (PP), and RAM Execution (Commissioning)], shall be

Figure 3 - Saudi Aramco Project Types Characterization as per Portfolio

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Define RAM Study Boundaries (SAES-A-030 Subparagraphs 7.2 & 7.3)

Collect Assets Information & Configuration (SAES-A-030 Paragraph 9)

Build Facility RAM Model Collect Saudi Aramco Site R&M

Validate Facility RAM Model Validate R&M Data

Finalize Facility RAM model

Run RAM Industry Model Run RAM Site Model

Benchmark Industry and Saudi Aramco Site R&M

Adjust Saudi Aramco Site R&M data if and as

Generate RAM Base-Case Model (SAES-A-030 Subparagraph 11.4)