Some thoughts on industrial needs related to CAPE

Michel PONSProcess Simulation Group leader

michel.pons@atofina.com

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Data driven models

• Data historians on more and more processes– PI (OSI), IP21 (AspenTech),…

• Plant data appear cheap and readily available• Discrepancies between 1st principles process

models and plant data– 1st principles process models need to be fitted– Lack of ab initio models

• A data fitted model fits data!!!

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Data driven models

• Issues not to be forgotten– Raw data have to be sorted out– Data reconciliation requires process knowledge– Data driven models valid in observation window only– Lack of predictive capabilities

• Perspectives– Failures of 1st principles models have to be resolved– Advances in fundamental process engineering still needed– Actions needed are out of direct scope of CAPE

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

First principles driven models

• Most first principles rely on some correlations based on experimental data– Heat transfer coefficient in heat exchanger modeling– Mass transfer coefficient in column modeling– Catalyst efficiency in reactor modeling

• Experimental data at lab or pilot scale expensive and time consuming

• Identification from plant data prevented by lack of sensors, by lack of microscale measurements

• Maintenance of models difficult

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

First principles driven models

• More fundamental research needed• Modeling: long lasting process knowledge• Modeling to rely on 1st principles model library• Tracking needed of hypothesis made• Model management

– Macroscopic management needed and available– Detailed modeling management achievable?

• How do that relate to CAPE?

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Model usage

• Models embedded and used in software tools– “Black/grey” box models in model libraries

• Unit Operations• Thermodynamic & Physical Property models

– “Open” model from modeling tool• Equations written / modified• Full access to variables, parameters, equations

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Model usage

• Model libraries– Documentation available– Major hypothesis listed– Access to main parameters / correlations– Complexity in usage already: routes, options, …– Directly available in common process simulators

• Modeling tools– Documentation left to developers– Close to programming language– Flexible / powerful but highly complex– Seldom available in common process simulators

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Model usage

• In order to progress in 1st principles modeling, “open” modeling tools a must?

• But presently reserved to expert modelers• Need to develop access by more process engineers

– Model documentation � CAPE issue– Automatic build-up of models � CAPE issue– Interoperability with process simulation tools

� CAPE issue

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Interoperability

• The more advanced a model is, the larger a market it needs to sustain its development– Rate-based absorption column modeling

• RateFrac linked to Aspen Plus only, now linked to PRO/II only• Not a sufficient market through each process simulator

– Heat exchanger detailed design and verification• Xist from HTRI available in all process simulators

• The market is dominated by a few process simulator providers

• These process simulators are a vector of distribution

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

“Open” models integration

• Advanced model to be linked to a process simulator– gO:CAPE-OPEN from PSE

• A standardized solution: gPROMS models usable in Aspen Plus, HYSYS.Process, and soon PRO/II

– Aspen Custom Modeler models usable in Aspen Plus• A proprietary solution available within a suite of software

– SPYRO linked to Aspen Plus, ROMEO• EO SPYRO is a proprietary AspenTech solution: it is costly both

for AspenTech and for its clients

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Proposed solution

• CAPE-OPEN is a technology to widen the application range of any software component

• However CAPE-OPEN is a technology difficult to master quickly alone

• This difficulty has been recognized by CAPE-OPEN Laboratories Network as slowing down adoption

• CO-LaN proposes the CAPE-OPEN Consultancy scheme

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Objective

• Catalyse faster development of CO-compatible components– “We don’t have time to find out about complicated

interface rules”

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Roles

• Consultancy provider: a CO-LaN approved CO consultant

• Component developer: an organisation wishing to create a CO-compliant PME or PMC (or to migrate an existing one).

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Scheme

• CO-LaN contracts a service provider to assist CO component developers in efficient debugging and testing of CO interfaces.

• Service provider provides support directly to nominated 3rd party developers of CO components, as agreed by CO-LaN

• Component developers must meet certain criteria: – Component developer must join CO-LaN as an

Associate Member.– Components must be available to all CO-LaN Full

Members, subject to commercial agreements.

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Actions to Date

• Four Consultancy providers approved– AspenTech, J.-P. Belaud, RSI, UPC

• First consultancy action underway– AixCAPE Shortcut Toolbox with AspenTech

EFCE WP CAPE, June 2004

Conclusion

• Modeling tools are expanding their usage basis and market

• They are capable to reduce distance between 1st principles models and plant data

• They need to be introduced in common process simulators

• Adopting standardized interfaces will help to achieve interoperability

• The process industry is acting to develop adoption of interoperability technology