Safety Improvement and Operational Enhancement Via Dynamic Process Simulator - A Review

Chemical Product and Process
Modeling
Volume 5, Issue 1 2010 Article 25
Safety Improvement and Operational

Enhancement via Dynamic Process Simulator:
A Review
A.L. Ahmad, Universiti Sains Malaysia

E.M. Low, Universiti Sains Malaysia
S.R. Abd Shukor, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Recommended Citation:
Ahmad, A.L.; Low, E.M.; and Abd Shukor, S.R. (2010) "Safety Improvement and Operational
Enhancement via Dynamic Process Simulator: A Review," Chemical Product and Process
Modeling: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1, Article 25.
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
©2010 Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.
Safety Improvement and Operational
Enhancement via Dynamic Process Simulator:
A Review
A.L. Ahmad, E.M. Low, and S.R. Abd Shukor
Abstract
This paper aims to fast track the historical development in simulation technology as a
powerful tool of computer aided process engineering and discusses versatility of the dynamic
process simulators. The focus of this paper is on the application as a dynamic operator training
simulator, appreciating the benefits it brings especially in the process safety and operability
improvements. Motivations behind the utilization of this enabling tool are thoroughly explored.
KEYWORDS: dynamic process simulator, operator training simulator, operational enhancement,

safety improvement
Author Notes: E.M. Low gratefully acknowledges Universiti Sains Malaysia for the financial
support received for her graduate program, via Vice Chancellor’s Award and USM-RU-PRGS.
Please send correspondence to AL Ahmad at chlatif@eng.usm.my, Tel: +6-04-5941012, Fax:
+6-04-5941013.
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
1.0 Introduction
Process simulation is hardly a new concept but has been adopted in process
engineering for decades. In fact, in this age, computer simulation covers
practically all the activities existed in process engineering. Traditionally,
simulation could be classified into two types; steady state simulation and dynamic
simulation, with the latter deemed as the more powerful and versatile engineering
tool in computer aided process engineering or process system engineering. The
capability of dynamics simulation as a flexible and powerful tool for various
engineering applications has increasingly been recognized, as demonstrated in the
following sections.
Evolutions in simulation technology are fast tracked in Section 2.0;
meanwhile Section 3.0 captures the essentiality of modeling and simulation
technology throughout the life cycle of a process plant. The discussion in Section
4.0 focuses on the application as a dynamic operator training simulator,
appreciating the benefits it brings especially in process safety improvement and
operability enhancements. Motivations behind the utilization of this enabling tool
are thoroughly explored from both intangible and tangible aspects in Section 5.0.
2.0 Brief Description of the Historical Developments in Simulation

Technology
Modeling and simulation garner lots of attention since its beginning in the 1920s,
predominantly focusing on analogue techniques initially. Simulation entered its
new era in the 1950s when digital computers emerged (Astrom et al., 1998).
Transcendence of digital computers for simulation is inevitable (Brennan and
Linebarger, 1964). Advances in digital computers and software techniques were
continuously being explored and exploited in the simulation techniques
development. The state of the art, development and advances in modelling and
simulation have been intensively discussed throughout the years. A large numbers
of publication is available covering these topics, hence won’t be covered in this
paper. For the convenience of the readers to trace evolution of the simulation
technology, some selected publications would be listed, and tabulated in Table 1
and Table 2.
Early development of simulation technology could be found in reports by
Brennan and Linebarger (1964), Tiechroew et al. (1967), Nilsen and Karplus
(1974), Korn (1974) and Rosen (1980), which mostly focused on steady state
simulation. The subsequent developments of the technology could be found in
monographs by Breitenecker (1983), Motard (1983), Takamatsu (1983),
Stephanopoulos (1987), Biegler (1988), Lirov et al. (1988), Pantelides (1988) and
Pritchard (1989). Development of mini-computers in the 1970s (Hangos and
Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 1

Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 5 [2010], Iss. 1, Art. 25
Cameron, 2001a), followed by major developments in hardware and software that

took place in the mid 1980s rendered the development of modelling and
simulation field. Work stations and personal computer with sophisticated graphics
were made available.
Table 1: List of selected monographs published prior the 21st century that are
reporting the progress in simulation
Year Ranges Focuses References / Publications
1960’s Steady-state Brennan and Linebarger (1964)
simulation Tiechroew et al.(1967)
1970’s Development of Nilsen and Karplus (1974)
mini-computers Korn (1974)
Rosen (1980)
1980’s Major Breitenecker (1983)
developments in Motard (1983)
hardware and Takamatsu (1983)
software Stephanopoulos (1987)
Biegler (1988)
Lirov et al. (1988)
Pantelides (1988)
Pritchard (1989)
1990’s Development in Burton and Malinowski (1990)
computing hardware Ming Rao et al. (1990)
systems Shaw (1990)
Pantelides and Bartont (1993)
Nilsson (1993)
Merkuryeva and Merkuryev (1994)
Bogusch and Marquardt (1995)
Gaubert et al. (1995)
Jensen and Gani (1995)
Kevrekidis (1995)
Maguire et al. (1995)
Ponton (1995)
Longwell (1994)
Lien and Perris (1996)
Lee et al. (1996)
Marquardt (1996)
Riksheim and Hertzberg (1998)
Torvi and Hertzberg (1998)
Astrom et al. (1998)
Pham (1998)
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 2
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Advances in the computing technology continue to excite the development

of modelling and simulation techniques and its technologies in the 1990’s, as
reported in a number of monographs (Table 1). Stephanopoulos and Han (1995)
provided a comprehensive review on the status of the intelligent system in process
engineering, which essentially discussing about the state-of-art of modelling and
simulation. Technology advancement in the computing hardware systems further
fuelled up the development of dynamic simulations as disclosed in monographs
by Longwell (1994), Lien and Perris (1996), Lee et al. (1996), Marquardt (1996),
Riksheim and Hertzberg (1998), Torvi and Hertzberg (1998), Astrom et al. (1998)
and Pham (1998).
Table 2: List of selected monographs published in the 21st century that are
reporting the progress in simulation
Focuses References / Publications
Development in computing Braunschweig et al. (2000a)
software systems Braunschweig et al. (2000b)
Shacham et al. (2000)
Software interoperability Barak(2001)
Hangos and Cameron (2001b)
Open system architectures Pantelides et al. (2001)
Pingen (2001)
Belaud et al. (2002)
Benqlilou et al. (2002)
Banks et al. (2005)
Braunschweig (2005)
Testard et al. (2005)
Pigeon et al. (2006)
M. Barrett et al. (2007)
Balasko et al. (2007)
Charpentier et al. (2007)
Gani et al. (2007)
Klatt et al. (2007)
Morales-Rodríguez et al. (2007)
Cameron and Ingram (2008)
Gani et al. (2009)
Klatt and Marquardt (2009)
O'Connell et al. (2009)
Stephanopoulos et al. (2009)

The interest in modeling and simulation continues to spur research in 21st

century; and discussions of its development are abundant (Table 2). Computers
are not just available, but are ubiquitous, providing instantaneous access to the
sophisticated mathematical and informatics tools which have been and will be
developed. In contrast with dominance of hardware development previously,
development in software started to dominate the modelling and simulation area
(Ponton, 1995).
The emergence of abundant process engineering software is clearly a
positive factor for the chemical process industries and has resulted in major
benefits (Braunschweig et al., 2000b). Numerous publications could be found
covering the progress of simulation, mainly focussing on software interoperability
and open software architectures (Braunschweig et al., 2000a, Braunschweig et al.,
2000b, Shacham et al., 2000, Barak, 2001, Hangos and Cameron, 2001b,
Pantelides et al., 2001, Pingen, 2001, Belaud et al., 2002, Benqlilou et al., 2002,
Banks et al., 2005, Braunschweig, 2005, Testard et al., 2005, Pigeon et al., 2006,
M. Barrett et al., 2007). The importance and prospect of process modelling and
simulation are continuously mooted by researchers (Sargent et al., 2004, Banks et
al., 2003, Belaud et al., 2002, Ören, 2002a, Ören, 2002b, Perkins et al., 2003,
Gani, 2004, Saraph, 2004, Sargent, 2004, Cameron et al., 2005, Sargent, 2005).
More recent discussions of the progress of modelling and simulation could be
found in publications by Balasko et al. (2007), Charpentier et al.(2007), Gani et
al. (2007), Klatt et al. (2007), Morales-Rodríguez et al. (2007), Cameron and
Ingram(2008), Gani et al (2009), Klatt and Marquardt (2009), O'Connell et al.
(2009) and Stephanopoulos et al.(2009).
Despite its long history, research interest in modeling and simulation area
is here to stay. Continuous efforts will be invested to achieve advances in the
understanding, representation and manipulation of complex system (Ponton,
1995). The focus is not limited to its science, methodology and technology; but
also its application areas (Ören, 2002b). Models and their parameters are to be
properly and efficiently matched to lab- or pilot-scale experiments and to existing
production plants, accordingly (Klatt and Marquardt, 2009).
3.0 Applications of Simulation Technology
The applications of simulation are almost limitless, but more importantly is, it
needs to be meaningful. Attempted modeling is driven largely by the availability
of high performance computing and the demands of an increasingly competitive
marketplace. In fact, a shift in paradigm a decade ago saw that simulation is
involved through the complete life cycle of a process plant, from the cradle to the
grave (Cameron, 2008; Virkki-Hatakka, 2003; Merritt, 2006; Mexandre, 2003).
Advances in simulation technology could be applied starting with the idea,
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
through experiments in laboratory, during scale up at different levels, to process

design and operation (Edgar, 2000).
Area of applications for simulation is vast. Process simulation is a well-
established tool in the process industry, applicable for studying individual unit
operations as well as multiple interconnected units or entire plants (Bezzo et al.,
2004). A significant numbers of publications can be found reporting on the
applications of simulation (Table 3).
Table 3: Selected examples of applications of simulation

No. References Applications
1. Doig (1977) Mass balance steady state models
Sequential plant start-up and shutdown models
Plant simulator
2. Greathead (1982) Operator training simulator
3. Ben Clymer and Design checking
Ricci (1986) Refresher training of operators
4. Womack (1986) Engineering design of capital projects
Operator training
Solution of operational problems
Evaluation of process changes
De-bottlenecking studies
5. Jones (1992) Training simulator
Operational use such as operating procedure
development and testing; incident analysis and
What if analysis
Engineering purposes such as checking out the
design of the plant; distributed control system
configuration validation
6. Cole and Yount Control strategy development and demonstration
(1994) Comparison of alternative control strategies
Improved process understanding
Operator training
Safety analysis
7. Laganier (1996) Retrofitting studies for a heat furnace
Start-up studies for a distillation column
Safety studies for a gas cleaning section
8. Mayer and Process development
Schoenmakers (1998) Project management
Plant operation
9. Cameron et al. (2001) Operability and safety studies
Control system checking and validation

Operator training
10. Ören (2002b) Training
Evaluation of alternative courses of action
Operational support
Engineering design
Prototyping
Fault diagnosis
Proof of concept
11. Horner et al. (2003) Scale-up studies
Process development
13. Virkki-Hatakka et al. Research and development
(2003) Conceptual design
Detailed design
Operation and further development
12. Bezzo et al. (2004) Plant operating condition studies
Control system performance assessment
13. Ylén et al. (2005) Automation testing and control design
Grade change optimisation
Safety analysis
14. Bausa et al. (2006) Automation and control studies
15. Merritt (2006) Control system development and startup
Troubleshooting
Operator training
16. Charpentier et al. Optimal process control
(2007) Safety analysis and environmental impact studies
17. Patel et al. (2007) Design, operation and troubleshooting
18. Santos et al. (2008) Operator training
19. Seccombe (2008) Operator training
20. Okol'nishnikov and Development of control system; debugging,
Zenzin (2008) optimization and testing
Operator training
21. Brambilla and Manca Safety analysis
(2009)
22. Klatt and Marquardt Process synthesis and design
(2009) Process control and operations
23. Monroy et al. (2010) Fault diagnosis system
24. Liu et al. (2010) Fault detection and identification
25. de la Mata and Control system reconfiguration
Rodríguez (2010)
26. A.L.Ahmad (2010) Operator Training
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
However, the application of simulation is beyond those demonstrated in

the published works listed in Table 3. The capabilities and versatilities of both
steady state and dynamic simulation are tremendous, mainly in industry outlook;
with the latter deemed as the more powerful tool.
3.1 Application of a Simulator in Chemical Process Industry
Figure 1 provides a comprehensive overview of utilization of a simulator in

chemical process industry, reflecting the versatilities of simulation tool (Ylén et
al., 2005). Three major application areas depicted are the engineering, research
and development, and operation and maintenance, which lead to the ultimate
objective of obtaining optimal operation of the plant. Simulation is the core
activity in these applications, reflecting the involvement of process simulator at
different stages of a plant lifecycle (Mexandre, 2003, Ylén et al., 2005). These
application areas are interconnected, with several activities that are overlapping
with each other.
Figure 1: Overview of utilization of a simulator in chemical process industries

(Ylén et al., 2005).

The list is far from complete, and each category can be further extended.
Most of the time, each application area may require different simulation models
depends on its objective (Mexandre, 2003), yet they share a large number of first
principle models, such as thermodynamics, chemical kinetics, transport
phenomena and other fundamental theories (Hangos and Cameron, 2001a). It is
desirable that the same models are used, with minimum changes at all stages of a
process life-cycle (Virkki-Hatakka et al., 2003). If a model is to be reused across
the lifecycle, it helps to minimize the engineering efforts through the
implementation of a same modelling and simulation method in an efficient and
economical way. However, it still remains a further challenge to properly match
models and their parameters to lab- or pilot-scale experiments and to in-operation
plants, accordingly (Klatt, 2009).
The engineering phase or the design stage sees that simulation provides
means for systematic investigation at different alternatives that can be developed
for a given design problem. Combined steady state and dynamic simulation can
help to understand the process dynamics, which forms the basis for process
controllability studies and plantwide control strategy implementation (Mexandre,
2003). Dynamic modelling provides possibility of process control evaluation by
testing and debugging the plant functions by simulation even before the facility
itself is being built. A good process simulator is also applicable for pre-
engineering and commissioning planning to operator training and troubleshooting
(Ylén et al., 2005). The key benefit reaped from a dynamic model comes from the
improved process understanding that a user can get.
Among others, some examples of dynamic simulation applications in
process design are operability of heat integrated processes, scale-up or surge
capacity sizing, process improvement and also design and analysis of batch and
cyclic processes. In process control and operability, simulation is utilized in
development and analysis of control studies, development of advanced control
algorithm and operability studies. It is also reported that dynamic simulation is
used in safety studies for design and analysis of emergency and relief systems,
investigation of previous accidents and to determine the consequences of possible
accidents (Cai and Craddock, 2002, Brambilla and Manca, 2009). Fault diagnosis
system, HAZOP, FMEA and other safety studies are also commonly using
simulation technology as demonstrated by Monroy et al. (2010) and Rossing et al.
(2010).
As depicted in Figure 1, process simulation enables minimization of
research experimental effort. Innovation of novel sustainable processes is possible
to be simplified using modelling and simulation, where innovative solutions that
are difficult to be investigated experimentally can be explored (Mexandre, 2003).
For operation and maintenance, simulation is not limited to process
troubleshooting, but is also used for integrated preventive maintenance system.
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
This can be further extended to integrate the manufacturing sector with the supply
chain, which leads to enterprise-wide control system. Perhaps, the most prominent
and possibly the most important application of dynamic simulation is as a training
simulator (Jones, 1992), the main focus in this paper, which will be explored
further in the following section.
4.0 Dynamic Operator Training Simulators
Figure 2 shows the analogy of a Dynamic Operator Training Simulator (DOTS) or

process plant simulator system to a real plant. A process plant simulator system is
a virtual replica of physical process plant. It is designed to represent the
characteristic of the real plant productions, with the necessary functions of the
operation (Li et al., 2006) and control system. The plant dynamic model and the
actual process plant were analogous. These dynamic models are mathematical
representations of actual plants that accurately mimic the process conditions on
the plant using chemical engineering theory (Jago, 2008).
Figure 2: Analogy of process plant simulator system to the real plant.

A plant in the context of chemical engineering can be defined in terms of

major process equipment items, chemical unit operations, and process material
properties. Some of the major equipment items include vessels, heat exchangers,
pumps, and control valves. This equipment provides the environment to perform
the desired unit operations, such as reaction, separation, absorption and material
transfer. The material properties include the desired thermodynamic state and
physical properties of the product. The control content in the chemical
engineering viewpoint is the stream properties such as flow rate and temperature
coupled with the adjustments to the streams to achieve the desired operating
conditions (Erickson and Hedrick, 1999).
A process model is a mathematical representation of an existing or
proposed industrial (physical or/and chemical) process. Process models normally
include description of mass, energy and fluid flow, governed by known physical
laws and principles. A plant model is a complex of mathematical relationship
between dependent and independent variables of the process in a real unit. Plant
models are basically obtained by assembling one or more process models. It will
be ideal to build the simulator using the same modelling technology that had been
used during the process design and offline engineering studies, for the effective
utilization of the engineering effort. Dynamic process modelling is being
developed to be used in macroscopic scale. A full complex plant models may
consists of up to 5.0 x 104 variables, 2.0 x 105 equations and over 1.0 x 105
optimization variables (Dobre and Marcano, 2007).
Control system in the physical plant will be imitated using an engineering
workstation. A control system generally consists of data acquisition and
rectification, database, and advanced applications. The data acquisition and
rectification and the database work together to realize data exchange among the
basic control systems and advanced applications. Advanced applications include
process monitoring, fault diagnose, safety evaluation, online optimization and
steady state simulation of process, etc (Li et al., 2006).
The third element; the operator console is the human-machine interface
(HMI) for process monitoring, and getaway to process controlling whenever the
need arises. In the simulator system, operator console can be emulated or directly
connected to the original console. However, the latter option is normally not
preferred as it involves high cost. The former option is realized through utilization
of graphical imitation, closely resembling the actual display of the console.
In the context of chemical engineering, the focus and attention given are
on the process models and control systems emulation. However, it must be
stressed that process plant simulator system is not merely modeling and
simulation. High fidelity models become the backbone of a process simulator
system where the rigorous dynamic process models are based on a physical, first
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
principle equations that capture the hydraulic, thermo, phase and reactive
behaviour of the process. Implementation of a process simulator requires
engineering insight and in-depth understanding of the process requirements and
the effect on controllability and dynamic operability of not only simple unit
operations, but also the interaction between existing unit operations in the
process.
5.0 Safety Improvement and Operational Enhancement via Dynamic

Process Simulator
Application of dynamic simulation as training simulator is not a new concept.

Adoption of training simulators has been widely practiced in industries where
capital investment is high, processes with high complexities and enormous
hazardous consequences in case of failure. Industries of this type are not limited
to chemical processes, but are also apparent in aviation, shipping, power and
energy industry, medical and nuclear system (Yang et al., 2001, Cameron et al.,
2002, Merritt, 2006, Seccombe, 2008, Murugappan, 2009). DOTS is an example
of high fidelity simulation models application. The use of such high fidelity
model within operation has many important applications with significant
implications. The consistent improvement in the area of dynamic process
simulation and the steadily increasing computational power gave rise to the
increasing use of operator training simulators in the chemical and petrochemical
industry in recent years (Klatt and Marquardt, 2009).
Generally, training simulator can be classified as operator trainer and
process trainer. The latter is a rigorous dynamic process models used to train
operation engineers in a general process and control of the plant, which focuses
on the process, with little or no effort to replicate the look or feel of the actual
control graphics in the plant itself. Operator trainer or virtual plant simulator or
DOTS trains facility control room operators and engineers in both the process
behaviour of the plant as well as the use of distributed control system (DCS) to
control the plant. A DOTS either includes the actual hardware used within a
control room or a very good emulation of its graphics and control outlook (Jones,
1992). More examples of applications of simulation in training and education
could be found in monograph by Ören (2002b), whereas Cameron et al. (2002)
provides comprehensive descriptions on dynamics operator training simulators.
Discussions in the previous sections spelt out the involvement of
simulation throughout the process lifecycle. This scenario similarly applies to
DOTS application. DOTS can be used as a mean to transmit and retain knowledge
throughout the process lifecycle (Cameron, 2002). Experiences and historical data
from previous operations can be transferred and translated into the design of
future plants and also the retrofit of existing facilities (Merritt, 2006). However,

the focus of this monograph is to appreciate the beneficial values of DOTS

application in safety improvement and operational enhancement, as detailed out in
the following sub-sections.
5.1 Safety Improvement
The tagline “Safety first” is commonly found in almost any working facilities
throughout the world. This reflected how highly important safety is being
stressed. In fact, process safety, health and environmental is at the heart of all
responsible process engineering (Preston et al., 1996). A number of safety policies
and standardizations are in place to govern the compliance of safety practice in
workplace. As an example, Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series,
OHSAS is an international management system and standardization that is widely
adopted in Malaysia to enhance the safety practice in workplace. It is well
recognized and accepted that safety issue is the most important aspect of industry
process operations (Ming et al., 2003). Regardless of how comprehensive and
extensive the safety guidelines provided, essentially it is the competency of the
operator that really matters to guarantee safety in a workplace. The need to
include human factors in operability and safety assessment of chemical process
operations is unquestionable (Sebzalli et al., 2000).
In a survey conducted by a consortium led by Honeywell around the world
including UK, USA, Canada, Europe and Japan, about 40% of abnormal
operations were caused by human errors (Sebzalli et al., 2000). In another
separate monograph by Yang et al., it the results of industry studies on the cause
of accident in the hydrocarbon processing industry over a span of 30 years was
reported. It was shown that 28% of the 170 largest property-damage losses in the
study were due to operational error or process upsets (Yang et al., 2001). These
statistical figures imply that operator’s lack of skills and/or careless operations are
main causes of accidents in chemical industries (Goh et al., 1998, Brambilla and
Manca, 2009). Thus, properly trained operators are critical to ensure plant safety
and profitability. Employee continually seeks way to improve and increase the
competency and efficiency of its workforce; and an operator training simulator is
used to address this issue.
In fact, there are governmental legislations in some countries for
compulsory emergency operations training using realistic simulations (Podmore et
al., 2008). Government scrutiny has increased and regulatory demands to certify
that plants can be safely operated (Dissinger, 2008). In addition to that, a more
stringent and stricter environmental and hazard regulations is also another pushing
factor in promoting utilization of dynamic process simulator. DOTS is part of the
strategy to properly train and certify plant operators (Cheltout et al., 2007).
Exposure to abnormal process operations, such as process upsets and emergency
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
operating procedures is made possible through DOTS. DOTS offers a unique

environment to safely gain hands-on experience as there is no other way to
practice emergency responses or procedures for unit recovery or shutdown.
Hence, DOTS can be deemed as the most effective application to develop the
highest skill levels and proficiency of operators (Yang et al., 2001).
Technology advancement of plant automation and advanced process
control and plant automation or system has successfully improved plants
operations and profitability (Carrasco and Dormido, 2006). However, as a result
of this success, the stable operation may lead to reduction in confidence of
experienced operators, and less opportunity to run the plant ‘hands-on’ for the
new operators (Vasconcelos et al., 2005). This is due to the incomplete
automation and the failure of the automation system itself will lead to disastrous
impact. Thus, effective training essentially helps to empower operators and
provide them the necessary skills to more effectively implement, operate and
maintain their automation and control solutions. Process simulators offer an
environment to safely gain hands-on experience. Operators are required to do
more with less formalized training time, and there is pressure on engineering
personnel to reduce cost, avoid unplanned downtime, minimize disruptions to the
process, and also reduce installation and commissioning times (Nishitani, 1996,
Cameron et al., 2002, Ming et al., 2003, Meloni et al., 2003). Thus, application of
dynamic process simulator as training tool not only greatly enable skill and
competency enhancement of operators, but also elevated the awareness of safety
in process operations (Schreiber et al., 1992).
These can make the difference in driving down production costs and
improving operational efficiencies, as it helps to minimize, if not totally eliminate
costly human errors made due to being not familiar with the equipments or
processes. The cumulative effect of ongoing cost savings and improved operating
rate can be substantial (Pingen, 2001). Training utilizing DOTS is directed at
identifying and closing the gap between required knowledge and skills and the
measured knowledge and skills of individual operators (Schreiber et al., 1992,
Spanel et al., 2005, Yang et al., 2001).
5.2 Operational Enhancement
As discussed in the previous section (Section 3.0), a good process simulator

makes dynamic simulation a powerful throughout the complete life cycle of a
plant; starting from pre-engineering and commissioning planning to operator
training and troubleshooting. This contributes to operational readiness. Start-up
time is to be reduced and maximum efficiency at start-up is to be achieved (Elston
and Potter, 1989, Suksupha et al., 1993, Dawson et al., 2006, Doig, 1977). Issues
that typically cause delays in start up or slow start ups due to unplanned incidents

are addressed in achieving operational readiness. Study carried out by ARC

Advisory Group for Honeywell identified the key component as operational
personnel readiness that can be achieved through the use on an operator training
simulator, as tabulated in Table 4 (ARC, 2009). The design of the operator
process interface is also critical, ensuring best practices are incorporated into the
automation (Tomschi et al., 2007).
Table 4: Early Incorporation of Technologies Like Simulation and Advanced

Process Control (APC) Can Significantly Reduce Project Costs (2009)
Typical startup
Operations readiness - source of savings
savings
Process technology training 5 days
Simulator based training 5 days
Procedural training for operators 2 days
Licensor prepared scenarios 2 days
Licensor specified process models 1 days
Operating procedure validation/optimization on
5 days
simulator
Controls check/verification on simulator 5 days
Safety shutdown system verification on simulator 5 days
Better initial controller tuning from simulator 1 days
Faster start-up from operations readiness 26 days US$26M
Startup Savings
Operations effectiveness
Startup Availability
Procedural operations 1 day 1 day
ASM Graphics 1 day 1 day
Mishap avoidance from operation
4 days US$4M
effectiveness
PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION Improved Performance
APC delivered sooner through 6 months early US$19M
simulation program
TOTAL BENEFITS ~US$49M
Training, or people readiness, is perhaps the most important aspect of the

success of operational readiness. An untrained operator is not competent to run
the plant to the optimum degree of efficiency. Taking an analogy to autopilot,
advanced process control (APC) typically removes the reactive actions required
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
by a process operator to allow more time to be spent on optimizing production.

However, from time to time, operators need to be able to take control of the
process to manage an upset. This gap can be filled by a DOTS, analogous to a
flight simulator, it is proved to be extremely valuable, allowing the operator to
continually develop skills, make mistakes and learn in a safe simulated
environment (Merritt, 2006, ARC, 2009, Murugappan, 2009). For ensuring the
effectiveness of a DOTS, its backbone, the dynamic models need to be rigorous
and robust enough to cover all the operations. These high fidelity models need to
represent key operating scenarios such as start up, shutdown, normal operations
and also abnormal situations, such as equipment failure (Mohammed et al., 2005,
Muravyev and Berutti, 2007). This feature is inarguably the most important and
vital element for a good and reliable simulator.
Another beneficial application of dynamic simulators which often
overlooked on a project is during the delivery phase of the projects. Start up and
operating procedures can be developed and validated using DOTS along with
human-man interface (HMI) design. Simulators can be used during factory
acceptance test (FAT) to test and effectively pre-commission automation systems.
APC can also be step tested on simulators (Mexandre, 2003). These benefits can
also have a large impact on reducing start up time by uncovering design flaws that
would have delayed start up. Control loops can be tuned prior to actual plant start
up, leading to smoother and quicker plant start ups, bringing substantial economic
benefits (Dissinger, 2008). The use of dynamic simulation will increase due to the
increasing requirements on process design and process automation (Cox et al.,
2006). The ever increasing requirements on operation also lead to the intensive
utilization of dynamic simulation for operational enhancement.
For the applications of these dynamic simulations, the advantages sought
are tangible measures such as more profitable operation, less off spec-products,
improved process operability, improved process safety, and less human errors in
operation and due to better process understanding. An example of success
application reported a tangible achievement was in the case of Freeport LNG.
Honeywell was able to provide economic value proposition through reduced
startup time, running the end users through the business simulation scenario that
identified potential problems before startup, and achieving operational readiness
at startup without incident and running at full potential from day one. DOTS
drove a 25 percent reduction in the overall training cost, uncovered design flaws
and reduced overall startup time from three days to one (ARC, 2009).
Human capital is another huge motivational behind the utilization of
DOTS. With the dwindling numbers of chemical engineering graduates and
ageing population, workforce training becomes vital (Jago, 2008, Dissinger, 2008,
A.L. et al., 2010)). Recent years, the rapid surge in oil and gas sector has created a
huge demand for human capital. The construction of major new facilities and

assets in regions of the world like oil platforms off the coast of Africa, new
chemical plants and refineries in the Middle East and central and eastern Asia has
created a surge in demand for technically trained personnel (Dissinger, 2008).
Some major companies opt to lure international labour force rather than
developing their available manpower. Malaysia is not spared of the adverse effect
from this phenomenon. Many experienced, semi-skilled and skilled local
workforce are targeted by these foreign companies. Lucrative employment
packages are being offered and have successfully attracted many local labours to
work overseas. Spinning off from there, companies are looking into effective
training to address knowledge or skills gaps of new recruits of all levels, that is a
reliable DOTS.
6.0 Conclusion
Simulation technology holds tremendous promise for overall process safety

improvement and operation enhancement, by functioning as an enabling tool
throughout the life cycle of a process plant. From process design to human capital
building, the endless effort to achieve operational efficiencies improvement and
plant safety will place modeling and simulation at an utmost important position in
process engineering. It is no longer only considered an added benefit or value to
be able to model and thereby predict, modify and adapt proactively to changing
conditions, but this competitive advantage is actually a hallmark attribute of
companies in pursuit of operational excellence of sustainability. Extensive
development of computing hardware and intensive research in the modelling and
simulation software will continue to spur the interest for DOTS utilization. The
cost of computing hardware shall no longer hinder a company to adopt DOTS into
its operation. For the years to come, it is the authors hope that all technical
education institutes develop its own DOTS and incorporated it into the institute’s
syllabus. Early exposure to DOTS may enhance one’s understanding of process
operation and application of chemical engineering theories in a greater
perspective.
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
References
A.L., Ahmad, E.M., Low & S.R., Abd Sukor (2010) Development of an operator
training simulator for gas sweetening plant. Computer Aided Chemical
Engineering, 28, 1627-.
ARC (2009) Honeywell I-MAC capabilities provide a path to operational
excellence. Dedham, USA, ARC Advisory Group.
Astrom, K. J., Elmqvist, H. & Mattson, S. E. (1998) Evolution of continuous-time
modeling and simulation. The 12th European Simulation Mutliconference,
ESM'98.
Balasko, B., Nemeth, S., Janecska, A., Nagy, T., Nagy, G. & Abonyi, J. (2007)
Process modeling and simulation for optimization of operating processes.
Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 24, 895-900.
Banks, J., Hugan, J. C., Lendermann, P., Mclean, C., Page, E. H., Pegden, C. D.,
Ulgen, O. & Wilson, J. R. (2003) The future of the simulation industry.
Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, 2033-2043.
Banks, P. S., Irons, K. A. & Woodman, M. R. (2005) Interoperability of process
simulation software. Oil & Gas Science and Technology - Rev. IFP, 60,
607-616.
Barak, B. (2001) How to go beyond the black-box simulation barrier..
Proceedings. 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer
Science, 2001.
Bausa, J., Dünnebier, G., Marquardt, W. & Pantelides, C. (2006) Life cycle
modelling in the chemical industries: Is there any reuse of models in
automation and control? Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 21, 3-8.
Belaud, J.-P., Pons, M. & Johan Grievink and Jan Van, S. (2002) Open software
architecture for process simulation: The current status of cape-open
standard. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 10, 847-852.
Ben Clymer, A. & Ricci, L. P. (1986) Justifying simulators in the process
industry. Simulation Series. 2 ed.
Benqlilou, C., Graells, M., Espuña, A., Puigjaner, L. & Johan Grievink and Jan
Van, S. (2002) An open software architecture for steady-state data
reconciliation and parameter estimation. Computer Aided Chemical
Engineering, 10, 853-858.
Bezzo, F., Bernardi, R., Cremonese, G., Finco, M. & Barolo, M. (2004) Using
process simulators for steady-state and dynamic plant analysis : An
industrial case study. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 82, 499
- 512.
Biegler, L. T. (1988) Advances in computer-aided process design. Analytica
Chimica Acta, 210, 97-108.

Bogusch, R. & Marquardt, W. (1995) A formal representation of process model

equations. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 19, 211-216.
Brambilla, S. & Manca, D. (2009) Dynamic process and accident simulations as
tools to prevent industrial accidents. Chemical Product and Process
Modeling, Vol. 4 : Iss. 2, Article 7.
Braunschweig, B. (2005) Software interoperability for petroleum applications. Oil
and Gas Science and Technology, 60, 587-596.
Braunschweig, B. L., Pantelides, C. C., Britt, H. I. & Sama, S. (2000a) Open
software architectures for process modeling : Current status and future
perspectives. Foundations of computer-aided process design. AIChE
Symposium Series.
Braunschweig, B. L., Pantelides, C. C., Britt, H. I. & Sama, S. (2000b) Process
modeling: The promise of open software architectures. Chemical
Engineering Progress, 96, 65-76.
Breitenecker, F. (1983) The concept of supermacros in today's and future
simulation languages. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 25, 279-
289.
Brennan, R. D. & Linebarger, R. N. (1964) A survey of digital simulation - digital
analog simulator programs. Simulation, 3, 22-36.
Burton, A. W. & Malinowski, K. (1990) Parallel methodologies for large-scale
simulation. IEE Colloquium (Digest). 50 ed.
Cai, R. & Craddock, D. M. (2002) Protrax simulator technology for fossil power
plant and industry process. Proceedings of Asian Simulation Conference;
System Simulation and Scientific Computing (Shanghai).
Cameron, D., Clausen, C., Morton, W., Bertrand, B. & Rafiqul, G. (2002) Chapter
5.3: Dynamic simulators for operator training. Computer Aided Chemical
Engineering. 11, 393-431.
Cameron, D. B., Ødegaard, R. J., Glende, E. & Rafiqul Gani and Sten Bay, J.
(2001) On-line modelling in the petroleum industry: Successful
applications and future perspectives. Computer Aided Chemical
Cameron, I. T., Fraga, E. S., Bogle, I. D. L., Luis, P. & Antonio, E. (2005)
Process modelling goals: Concepts, structure and development. Computer
Aided Chemical Engineering. 20, 265-270.
Cameron, I. T. & Ingram, G. D. (2008) A survey of industrial process modelling
across the product and process lifecycle. Computers & Chemical
Carrasco, J. A. & Dormido, S. (2006) Analysis of the use of industrial control
systems in simulators: State of the art and basic guidelines. ISA
Transactions, 45, 295-312.
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Charpentier, J.-C., Valentin, P. & Paul Serban, A. (2007) Among the trends for a
modern chemical engineering: Cape an efficient tool for process
intensification and product design and engineering. Computer Aided
Chemical Engineering. 24, 11-18.
Cheltout, Z., Coupier, R. & Valleur, M. (2007) Capture the long-term benefits of
operator training simulators. Hydrocarbon Processing, 86, 111-116.
Cole, J. D. & Yount, K. B. (1994) Applications of dynamic simulation to
industrial control problems. ISA Transactions, 33, 11-18.
Cox, R. K., Smith, J. F. & Dimitratos, Y. (2006) Can simulation technology
enable a paradigm shift in process control?. Modeling for the rest of us.
Computers and Chemical Engineering, 30, 1542-1552.
Dawson, J. M., Pekediz, A. & Womack, J. W. (2006) Rasgas makes extensive use
of process operator training simulators in lng operations. AIChE Annual
Meeting, Conference Proceedings.
Dissinger, G. R. (2008) Studying simulation. Hydrocarbon Engineering.
Dobre, T. G. & Marcano, J. G. S. (2007) Chemical engineering : Modelling,
simulation and similitude, Vch Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh.
Doig, R. M. M. (1977) Human operators and simulation within a chemical
industry. Measurement and Control, 10, 307-310.
Edgar, T. (2000) Process information : Achieving a unified view. Chemical
Engineering Progress.
Elston, H. & Potter, D. (1989) Simulator trains for new equipment use.
Hydrocarbon Processing, 68.
Erickson, K. T. & Hedrick, J. L. (1999) Plantwide process control, New York,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gani, R. (2004) Chemical product design: Challenges and opportunities.
Computers & Chemical Engineering, 28, 2441-2457.
Gani, R., E. Grossmann, I., Valentin, P. & Paul Serban, A. (2007) Process
systems engineering and cape -- what next? Computer Aided Chemical
Gani, R., Rita Maria De Brito Alves, C. A. O. D. N. & Evaristo Chalbaud Biscaia,
Jr. (2009) Modelling for pse and product-process design. Computer Aided
Gaubert, M. A., Bourseau, P., Boudiba, M. & Muratet, G. (1995) A general
environment for steady state process simulation structure and main
features. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 19, 259-264.
Goh, S., Chang, B., Jeong, I., Kwon, H.-T. & Moon, I. (1998) Safety
improvement by a multimedia operator education system. Computers &
Chemical Engineering, 22, S531-S536.
Greathead, J. A. A. (1982) Simulators for industrial operations. IEE Review, 28,
236-238.

Hangos, K. M. & Cameron, I. T. (2001a) Process modelling and model analysis,

London, Academic Press.
Hangos, K. M. & Cameron, I. T. (2001b) The role of models in process systems
engineering. Process systems engineering. Academic Press.
Horner, D. J., Bansal, P. S., Andrzej, K. & Ilkka, T. (2003) The role of cape in the
development of pharmaceutical products. Computer Aided Chemical
Jago, S. (2008) Even better than the real thing. The Chemical Engineer. UK,
Institution of Chemical Engineers.
Jean-Peter Ylén, Matti Paljakka, Tommi Karhela, Savolainen, J. & Juslin, K.
(2005) Experiences on utilising plant scale dynamic simulation in process
industry. Proceedings 19th European Conference on Modelling and
Simulation.
Jensen, A. K. & Gani, R. (1995) Development and application of problem specific
"Local" Process simulators in cape. Computers & Chemical Engineering,
19, 311-316.
Jones, D. R. (1992) Current application of simulators in the process industries and
future trends. IEE Colloquium on Operator Training Simulators.
Kevrekidis, I. G. (1995) Matrices are forever: On applied mathematics and
computing in chemical engineering. Chemical Engineering Science, 50,
4005-4025.
Klatt, K.-U. & Marquardt, W. (2009) Perspectives for process systems
engineering--personal views from academia and industry. Computers &
Chemical Engineering, 33, 536-550.
Klatt, K.-U., Marquardt, W., Valentin, P. & Paul Serban, A. (2007) Perspectives
for process systems engineering --a personal view from academia and
industry. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. 24, 19-32.
Korn, G. A. (1974) Recent computer system developments and continuous system
simulation. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 16, 2-11.
Laganier, F. (1996) Dynamic process simulation trends and perspectives in an
industrial context. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 20, S1595-S1600.
Lee, K. W., Lee, K. J., Choi, S. H. & Yoon, E. S. (1996) Stochastic dynamic
simulation of chemical processes with changing uncertainties. Computers
& Chemical Engineering, 20, S557-S562.
Li, X., Qian, Y., Jiang, Y., Marquardt, W. & Pantelides, C. (2006)
Implementation of an integrated platform of process system operations for
education and research. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. 21, 2105-
2110.
Lien, K. & Perris, T. (1996) Future directions for cape research perceptions of
industrial needs and opportunities. Computers & Chemical Engineering,
20, S1551-S1557.
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Lirov, Y., Rodin, E. Y., Mcelhaney, B. G. & Wilbur, L. W. (1988) Artificial

intelligence modelling of control systems. Simulation, 50, 12-24.
Longwell, E. J. (1994) Dynamic modeling for process control and operability. ISA
Transactions, 33, 3-10.
M. Barrett, W., Pons, M., Von Wedel, L. & Braunschweig, B. (2007) An
overview of the interoperability roadmap for com/.Net-based cape-open.
Computer Aided Chemical Engineering.24, 165-170.
Maguire, P. Z., Scott, D. M., Paterson, W. R. & Struthers, A. (1995) Development
of an advanced modelling environment. Computers & Chemical
Marquardt, W. (1996) Trends in computer-aided process modeling. Computers &
Mayer, H. H. & Schoenmakers, H. (1998) Application of cape in industry - status
and outlook. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 22, S1061-S1069.
Meloni, R., Gaffuri, P. & Pathe, D. (2003) Technical advances in operator
training simulator systems: The simulator system for profertil’s fertilizer
plant. Proceedings ERTC Computing Conference June 2003, Milan, Italy.
Merkuryeva, G. V. & Merkuryev, Y. A. (1994) Knowledge based simulation
systems - a review. Simulation, 62, 74-89.
Merritt, R. (2006) From design to startup and beyond. Control For The Process
Industries. PutmanMedia.
Mexandre, C. D. (2003) Chapter 2 introduction in process simulation. Computer
Aided chemical Engineering. 13, 33-58.
Ming Rao, Wen, J., Zhang, Y., Bingzhen, C. & Arthur, W. W. (2003) Incident
prevention training simulator. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. 15,
1472-1477.
Ming Rao, Jiang, T.-S. & Tsai, J. J.-P. (1990) Integrated intelligent simulation
environment. Simulation, 54, 291-295.
Mohammed, J. L., Ong, J. C., Li, J. & Barbara Sorensen, H. (2005) Rapid
development of scenario-based simulations and tutoring systems.
Collection of Technical Papers - AIAA Modeling and Simulation
Technologies Conference 2005.
Monroy, I., Benitez, R., Escudero,G. & Graells, M. (2010) A semi-supervised
approach to fault diagnosis for chemical processes. Computers &
Morales-Rodríguez, R., Gani, R., Valentin, P. & Paul Serban, A. (2007)
Computer-aided multiscale modelling for chemical process engineering.
Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. 24, 207-212.
Motard, R. L. (1983) Computer technology in process systems engineering.

Muravyev, A. & Berutti, M. (2007) Operator training system for hydrocracking

unit: Real world questions and answers. AIChE Annual Meeting,
Conference Proceedings.
Murugappan, R. (2009) The virtues of virtual : Tested and approved. The Star,
WE1-WE3.
Nilsen, R. N. & Karplus, W. J. (1974) Continuous-system simulation languages:
A state-of-the-art survey. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 16,
17-25.
Nilsson, B. (1993) Object-oriented modeling of chemical processes. Doctoral
Dissertation.
Nishitani, H. (1996) Human-computer interaction in the new process technology.
Journal of Process Control, 6, 111-117.
O'connell, J. P., Gani, R., Mathias, P. M., Maurer, G., Olson, J. D. & Crafts, P. A.
(2009) Thermodynamic property modeling for chemical process and
product engineering: Some perspectives. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research, 48, 4619-4637.
Okol'nishnikov, V. & Zenzin, A. (2008) Use of simulation for development of
process control system. Proceedings - 2008 IEEE Region 8 International
Conference on Computational Technologies in Electrical and Electronics
Engineering, SIBIRCON 2008.
Ören, T. I. (2002a) Future of modelling and simulation : Some development area.
Proceedings of the 2002 Summer Computer Simulation Conference.
Ören, T. I. (2002b) Growing importance of modelling and simulation :
Professional and ethical implications. Proceedings of the ICSC'2002 - The
5th Conference on System Simulation and Scientific Computing (Part of
the Asian Simulation Conference).
Pantelides, C. C. (1988) Speedup--recent advances in process simulation.
Pantelides, C. C. & Bartont, P. I. (1993) Equation-oriented dynamic simulation
current status and future perspectives. Computers & Chemical
Pantelides, C. C., Rafiqul, G. & Sten Bay, J. (2001) New challenges and
opportunities for process modelling. Computer Aided Chemical
Patel, V., Feng, J., Dasgupta, S., Ramdoss, P. & Wu, J. (2007) Application of
dynamic simulation in the design operation, and troubleshooting of
compressor systems. Proceeding of the Thirty-Sixth Turbomachinery
Symposium 2007.
Perkins, J. D., Darton, R. C., Prince, R. G. H. & Wood, D. G. (2003) Chemical
engineering -- the first 100 years. Chemical engineering: Visions of the
world. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science B.V.
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Pham, Q. T. (1998) Dynamic optimization of chemical engineering processes by

an evolutionary method. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 22, 1089-
1097.
Pigeon, L., Roux, P., Braunschweig, B. & Gautier, T. (2006) Dynamic cape-open
simulation approach on cluster oriented architecture. AIChE Annual
Meeting, Conference Proceedings. San Francisco, CA.
Pingen, J. (2001) A vision of future needs and capabilities in process modelling,
simulation & control. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. 9, 1065-
1070.
Podmore, R., Robinson, M., Sadinsky, M. & Sease, R. (2008) A virtual instructor
for simulator training. Power and Energy Society General Meeting -
Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in the 21st Century, 2008
IEEE.
Ponton, J. (1995) Process systems engineering: Halfway through the first century.
Chemical Engineering Science, 50, 4045-4059.
Preston, M. L., Richards, D. C. & Rushton, D. A. (1996) Cape-crusading for
process safety: An industrial perspective. Computers & Chemical
Engineering, 20, S1533-S1538.
Pritchard, K. (1989) Applying simulation to the control industry. Control
Riksheim, H. C. & Hertzberg, T. (1998) A hybrid strategy for dynamic process
flowsheeting. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 22, S805-S808.
Rosen E, M. (1980) Steady state chemical process simulation: A state-of-the-art
review. Computer applications to chemical engineering. Washington, D.
C., Amreican Chemical Society.
Rossing, N.L., Lind, M., Jensen, N. & Jorgensen, S.B. (2010) A functional
HAZOP methodology. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 34, 244-253.
Santos, R. A., Normey-Rico, J. E., Gã³mez, A. M., Arconada, L. F. A. & Moraga,
C. D. P. (2008) Distributed continuous process simulation: An industrial
case study. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 32, 1203-1213.
Saraph, P. V. (2004) Future of simulation in biotechnology industry. Proceeding
of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference.
Sargent, R. (2005) Process systems engineering: A retrospective view with
questions for the future. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 29, 1237-
1241.
Sargent, R., Barbosa-Póvoa, A. & Matos, H. (2004) Process systems engineering-
a retrospective view with questions for the future. Computer Aided
Sargent, R. W. H. (2004) Introduction: 25 years of progress in process systems
engineering. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 28, 437-439.

Schreiber, R. P., Paulsen, M. J. & Schafer, D. E. (1992) Training treatment plant

operators using the 'optrain' computer simulator. Water Science and
Technology, 26, 2515-2518.
Sebzalli, Y. M., Li, R. F., Chen, F. Z. & Wang, X. Z. (2000) Knowledge
discovery from process operational data for assessment and monitoring of
operator's performance. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 24, 409-414.
Seccombe, P. W. (2008) The benefits of using dynamic simulation and training
systems for expanding operator knowledge and understanding.
Shacham, M., Brauner, N. & Cutlip, M. B. (2000) Open architecture modelling
and simulation in process hazard assessment. Computers & Chemical
Shaw, J. A. (1990) Use your personal computer for real time process simulations.
Instrumentation in the Chemical and Petroleum Industries, Proceedings.
Spanel, U., Roggatz, C. & Papazoglou, T. (2005) Training for power system
operators regarding new challenges caused by distributed wind power
generation. WSEAS Transactions on Systems, 4, 1269-1277.
Stephanopoulos, G. (1987) Artificial intelligence in process - current state and
future trends. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 11, 1259 - 1270.
Stephanopoulos, G., Rita Maria De Brito Alves, C. A. O. D. N. & Evaristo
Chalbaud Biscaia, Jr. (2009) Process systems engineering: From solvay to
the 21st century. A history of development, successes and prospects for
the future. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. 27, 149-155.
Suksupha, K., Wiley, M. E. & Bailly, S. (1993) Simulator training lets novice
operators succeed in startup and keep production high. Advances in
Instrumentation and Control : International Conference and Exhibition. pt
2 ed.
Takamatsu, T. (1983) The nature and role of process systems engineering.
Testard, L., Belaud, J.-P. & Luis Puigjaner and Antonio, E. (2005) A cape-open
based framework for process simulation solutions integration. Computer
Aided Chemical Engineering. 20, 607-612.
Tiechroew, D., Lubin, J. F. & Truitt, T. D. (1967) Discussion of computer
simulation techniques and comparison of languages. Simulation, 9, 181-
190.
Tomschi, U., Newald, R., Jäckisch, H. & Dr. David, W. (2007) Operator guidance
simulator: A new power plant training tool concept. Power plants and
power systems control 2006. Oxford, Elsevier Science Ltd.
Tørvi, H. & Hertzberg, T. (1998) Methods for evaluating uncertainties in dynamic
simulation -- a comparison of performance. Computers & Chemical
Engineering, 22, S985-S988.
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Vasconcelos, C. J. G., Filho, R. M., Spandri, R., Wolf-Maciel, M. R. & Luis

Puigjaner and Antonio, E. (2005) Dynamic models towards operator and
engineer training: Virtual environment. Computer Aided Chemical
Virkki-Hatakka, T., Rong, B.-G., Cziner, K., Hurme, M., Kraslawski, A.,
Turunen, I., Andrzej, K. & Ilkka, T. (2003) Modelling at different stages
of process life-cycle. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. 14, 977-
982.
Womack, J. M. (1986) Dynamic simulation in the processing industries : Case
studies from mobil experience. Modeling, Identification and Control, 6,
201-216.
Yang, S. H., Yang, L. & He, C. H. (2001) Improve safety of industrial processes
using dynamic operator training simulators. Process Safety and
Environmental Protection, 79, 329-338.

Safety Improvement and Operational Enhancement Via Dynamic Process Simulator - A Review

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Safety Improvement and Operational Enhancement Via Dynamic Process Simulator - A Review

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Chemical Product and Process

Safety Improvement and Operational

A.L. Ahmad, Universiti Sains Malaysia

KEYWORDS: dynamic process simulator, operator training simulator, operational enhancement,

2.0 Brief Description of the Historical Developments in Simulation

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 1

Cameron, 2001a), followed by major developments in hardware and software that

Advances in the computing technology continue to excite the development

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 3

The interest in modeling and simulation continues to spur research in 21st

3.0 Applications of Simulation Technology

through experiments in laboratory, during scale up at different levels, to process

Table 3: Selected examples of applications of simulation

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 5

However, the application of simulation is beyond those demonstrated in

3.1 Application of a Simulator in Chemical Process Industry

Figure 1 provides a comprehensive overview of utilization of a simulator in

Figure 1: Overview of utilization of a simulator in chemical process industries

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 7

4.0 Dynamic Operator Training Simulators

Figure 2 shows the analogy of a Dynamic Operator Training Simulator (DOTS) or

Figure 2: Analogy of process plant simulator system to the real plant.

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 9

A plant in the context of chemical engineering can be defined in terms of

5.0 Safety Improvement and Operational Enhancement via Dynamic

Application of dynamic simulation as training simulator is not a new concept.

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 11

the focus of this monograph is to appreciate the beneficial values of DOTS

5.1 Safety Improvement

operating procedures is made possible through DOTS. DOTS offers a unique

5.2 Operational Enhancement

As discussed in the previous section (Section 3.0), a good process simulator

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 13

are addressed in achieving operational readiness. Study carried out by ARC

Table 4: Early Incorporation of Technologies Like Simulation and Advanced

Training, or people readiness, is perhaps the most important aspect of the

by a process operator to allow more time to be spent on optimizing production.

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 15

Simulation technology holds tremendous promise for overall process safety

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 17

Bogusch, R. & Marquardt, W. (1995) A formal representation of process model

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 19

Hangos, K. M. & Cameron, I. T. (2001a) Process modelling and model analysis,

Lirov, Y., Rodin, E. Y., Mcelhaney, B. G. & Wilbur, L. W. (1988) Artificial

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 21

Muravyev, A. & Berutti, M. (2007) Operator training system for hydrocracking

Pham, Q. T. (1998) Dynamic optimization of chemical engineering processes by

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 23

Schreiber, R. P., Paulsen, M. J. & Schafer, D. E. (1992) Training treatment plant

Vasconcelos, C. J. G., Filho, R. M., Spandri, R., Wolf-Maciel, M. R. & Luis

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 25

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen