Modeling
Volume 5, Issue 1 2010 Article 25
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.
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.
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
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
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
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 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,
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 4
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
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
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 6
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
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.
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 8
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
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.
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 10
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
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.
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
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 12
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 14
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
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
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 16
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
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.
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 18
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
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
Engineering. 24, 1-5.
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
Chemical Engineering. 27, 7-12.
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.
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 20
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 22
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator
http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol5/iss1/25 24
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1502
Ahmad et al.: Safety and Operational Improvement via Dynamic Simulator