the role of simulation within the life-cycle of a process plant

The Role of Simulation within the Life-Cycle of a Process Plant Results of a global online survey

February 2015

Mathias Oppelt, Prof. Dr. Mike Barth and Prof. Dr. Leon Urbas Siemens AG, Hochschule Pforzheim, Technische Universität Dresden

The Role of Simulation within the Life-Cycle of a Process Plant

February 2015 1

THE ROLE OF SIMULATION WITHIN THE LIFE-CYCLE OF A PROCESS PLANT

PUBLISHERS / AUTHORS

Mathias Oppelt, Siemens AG, Karlsruhe

Prof. Dr. Mike Barth, Hochschule Pforzheim, Pforzheim

Prof. Dr. Leon Urbas, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden

FEBRUARY 2015

Even though the authors worked very carefully they cannot take any legal responsibility for the

contents.

Copyright for the pictures: Siemens AG

© Authors 2015 All rights reserved.

Please consider the environment before printing this report.


February 2015 2

1 Preface

Nowadays there are a lot of discussions and publications about the use of simulation within the

process industries. Furthermore in a world of rising complexity it can be expected that

simulation will play a key role in finding answers to design, engineering and operational

questions. Last year we had the opportunity to discuss this topic with various people from

industry, leading to an understanding about how individuals and companies are dealing with

simulation. But an industry wide picture of the current use of simulation was still missing and

cannot be found in the literature. Publications are focused on the punctual use of simulation

within the life-cycle of a process plant.

We therefore decided to extend the research on the use of simulation within the process

industries to a very broad level. Besides looking at the status quo, the aim was also to identify a

vision for the use for simulation in the future, which is broadly acceptable throughout the

industry. A third target was to identify the success factor in using simulation and for realizing the

future vision.

Therefore in late spring 2014 work started on a global online survey with the primary goal of

answering the following three questions:

How is simulation used along the life cycle of a process plant today? What is the common vision about the future use of simulation? How can this vision be reached?

The survey was released in July and ran until end of October 2014, generating 221 responses.

We would especially like to thank all participants for their time, input and contributions to this

large set of data.

In addition we would like to thank Dr. Romy Müller (TU Dresden) and Dr. Sabine Rass (Siemens

AG) for their support during the survey design. For the intensive testing and reviewing of the

survey we thank all collogues for their support including the VDI/VDE GMA FA 6.11 members.

Finally, we are grateful to Siemens AG for providing the IT infrastructure to run the survey

professionally. Special thanks to Mr. Guide Fey for implementing and hosting the survey.

We are glad to provide you the report for this survey – which all participants made a success –

and we are looking forward to further discussions about the use of simulation.

Mathias Oppelt, Prof. Dr. Mike Barth and Prof. Dr. Leon Urbas


February 2015 3


February 2015 4

2 Executive Summary

From July to end of October 2014 we conducted a global survey on the current and future use

of simulation during the life-cycle of a process plant. The survey was completed by 221 people

(198 from companies and 23 from universities), providing a sound statistical basis for analysis

and future research. Within the group of participants 60% work for large companies with more

than 1000 employees, 24% work for mid-size companies with 100 to 1000 employees, and 16%

work for small companies with 1-100 employees. The majority (40%) work for an owner and

operator (O&O) company, followed by 35% who work for system integrators and solution

providers (SI), whereas 15% work for equipment manufacturers (EM). The industry split is as

follows: 39% chemical industry, 27% oil & gas, 18% energy, 17% petro-chemicals, 16%

pharmaceuticals, 14% water and wastewater management, and 13% food and beverage

industry (multiple answers possible). The majority of the participants work in engineering (53%),

followed by 15% in management (+4% top management), 10% in development, 8% in research,

and 6% in production. From a global perspective 34% are working in Germany and 24% in the

USA.

Based on these data the following statements about the current use of simulation have been

derived:

i. Safety and quality are priorities in process industries.

ii. A majority of decisions made across the plant life-cycle are based on (1) individual

experience and (2) on standards.

iii. Simulation can be used to answer engineering and operational questions earlier and

with lower risks. Simulation is an accepted technology, even though it is not for free.

iv. Today simulation is most frequently used during engineering, followed by training, then

design, and operation. The effort invested early in the life-cycle is currently not utilized in

the later phases.

v. Dynamic simulation is the most common kind of simulation across the life-cycle.

vi. Most of the time there is no defined process for the use of simulation; meaning that in

more than 50% of the projects, simulation is not used systematically.

vii. Self-developed simulation tools play a significant role across the life-cycle phases.

viii. The wide range of simulation tools are used, with many specific simulation tools. The

commercial tools Aspen Plus, Aspen Hysys and Matlab (Mathworks) are the ones with a

significant role across the life-cycle. SIMIT (Siemens) plays an important role for

engineering and training, and UniSim (Honeywell) for training.

ix. The handling, training effort, modelling efficiency and a reasonable price-performance

ratio are critical factors for the selection of a tool.


February 2015 5

x. The modelling effort is still high across the life-cycle no matter which phase. The

modelling effort does not increase for training and optimization. Are simple models

sufficient?

xi. The equipment manufacturers subjectively make the highest modelling effort.

xii. Model reuse and co-simulation is already strongly demanded.

xiii. Simulation is not only for dedicated experts; it is often used by specific domain experts

(e.g. automation engineers) as a supporting methodology.

For the picture of the future the following theses have been derived from the survey data:

I. Safety and quality will remain major drivers for the future.

II. Costs and time-to-market are significantly more important in Germany than in the USA.

III. Integrated engineering, simulation and standards are the most relevant technological

trends that will change the way of work. Simulation is a valid technology and accepted

by the process industries in contrast to Cloud, Big Data and Cyber Physical System

(CPS) trends.

IV. Across the whole life-cycle of a process plant, simulation will gain major importance.

V. Modular, flexible and open tool chains as well a continuous use of simulation are critical

success factors.

VI. The virtual plant is the future. Thus in future a full virtual representation of the real plant

will be created. Simulation models will be the base to make the virtual plant interactive.

VII. A collaboration model needs to be developed between companies to create the models

for the virtual plant.

VIII. Collaborative innovation is seen more likely within the USA than in Germany.

IX. Equipment manufacturers will provide simulation models for their equipment in the

future.

X. The handling, usability and model reuse are critical success factors (especially in

Germany).

XI. Management acceptance is needed to realize a continuous use of simulation.

XII. System integrators are in need of process models, simulation libraries, modeling

standards and open interfaces.

XIII. The simulation use cases will come together (first engineering and training then with

design then with operation) and enable a continuous use of simulation along the life-

cycle of a process plant.


February 2015 6

Based on the identified drivers and challenges for the process industries as well as the

requirements for the use of simulation and the derived statements about the current and future

role of simulation, we identified fields of action to enable an integrated use of simulation along

the life-cycle of a process plant. These have been clustered into technical and nontechnical

actions. Within the technical actions, the following subcategories have been defined: model

reuse, modelling efficiency, integration and usability. The nontechnical actions have been

categorized into: workflows, acceptance, education and collaboration.

As a next step, we are interested in developing a technology roadmap towards the integrated

use of simulation within the life-cycle of a process plant. This should be carried out together with

experts and survey participants in workshops. The outcome of this activity should be an

accepted roadmap e.g. called “Simulation within the process plant life-cycle 2030”.

Please get in touch with us if you are interested in participating in such workshops.


February 2015 7

3 Contents

1 Preface ............................................................................................................................... 2

2 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4

3 Contents ............................................................................................................................. 7

4 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 The Research Motivation ............................................................................................. 9

4.2 The Plant Life-Cycle and Simulation ............................................................................ 9

4.3 The Survey Design .....................................................................................................11

4.4 The Survey Participants ..............................................................................................12

5 The Current Role of Simulation ..........................................................................................16

6 The Future Role of Simulation ............................................................................................26

7 Enabling the Integrated Use of Simulation .........................................................................33

7.1 Workflows ...................................................................................................................33

7.2 Acceptance .................................................................................................................33

7.3 Education ....................................................................................................................33

7.4 Collaboration ...............................................................................................................34

7.5 Model reuse ................................................................................................................34

7.6 Modelling Efficiency ....................................................................................................34

7.7 Integration ...................................................................................................................34

7.8 Usability ......................................................................................................................35

8 Future Work and Next Steps ..............................................................................................36

9 About the Authors ..............................................................................................................38

10 References .....................................................................................................................39


February 2015 8


February 2015 9

4 Introduction

4.1 The Research Motivation

Process plants are very complex environments and are becoming increasingly complex within

all classic process industries such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, oil & gas, food & beverage,

water & wastewater, and glass & solar. Therefore the challenges for plant design, engineering,

construction, commissioning and operations are increasing as well. In addition to the classic

demands to minimize costs and time-to-market and at the same time to increase quality, safety

also plays a critical role within process industries. Many process plants are producing

hazardous products – either continuously or by batch processes [29]. Thus the highest target for

process plants is to operate safely and to avoid dangerous process states. Additionally, process

plants should operate continuously in a 24/7 mode for years without any stops. Therefore a

process plant is a bad place for engineers to use a trial-and-error methodology to achieve the

desired operating mode. The engineers have to get it right from the very start. Furthermore it is

well known that errors found early during the design stage can be corrected more easily and

more cost efficiently than errors found at later stages.

Throughout the life-cycle of a process plant, decisions have to be made by engineers and

operators. One technology which can support the decision making process and capture know-

how is simulation. Using simulation it is possible to get questions answered and make decisions

on a sound basis.

Simulation can be understood as a virtual experiment to better understand a certain system

[47]. The user of simulation will model a system or an aspect of it to investigate a certain

question about the behavior. Thus simulation mimics the dynamic behavior of a process or

system over time, based on dynamic and mathematical models imitating the reality [11].

Looking at the possibilities provided by simulation on the one hand and on the current use of

simulation on the other hand, why is simulation not used continuously throughout the life-cycle

of a process plant? Based on various discussions with people from industry it was found that

there are people who see huge value in using simulation, but still most of the time simulation is

only used at particular points within the life-cycle. To gain a broader understanding of the

current use and especially the future vision on the use of simulation, we decided to leave the

field of individual discussions and conduct empirical research on a larger scale with a global

online survey.

4.2 The Plant Life-Cycle and Simulation

The typical life-cycle of a process plant can be divided into the phases of conceptual design,

basic engineering, detailed engineering, installation and construction, commissioning, operation

and maintenance, and finally modernization [13, 14, 32, 45]. The phases from conceptual

design until commissioning can grouped under ‘design and engineering’, while the following


February 2015 10

phases are ‘operations’. Simulation today is already present in various phases of the plant life-

cycle. The following four use cases have been identified from the literature and the interviews.

(1) Design simulation [5, 17]: Simulation is started with the use of static simulation to design

the production process at a steady-state of production. The process layout is the result of this

phase. Sometimes dynamic simulations are also used to investigate the transient phases in the

production process and to design the startup and shutdown behavior of the plant and to size the

process units accordingly. Dynamic simulation is also very helpful for the development of the

standard operating procedures.

(2) Simulation supported engineering and virtual commissioning [3, 4, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22,

25, 36 and 48]: As the process is designed, the control system engineering is the next step and

this can be supported by a simulation system providing a model including the signals and values

a controller expects from the real plant devices. The controller (e.g. programmable logic

controller, PLC) can either be available as a real controller (the so called hardware-in-the-loop

setup) or is replaced by an emulated controller (software-in-the-loop) [46]. As early as possible

during this phase it is important that the original controller program is used to test the program

which is later deployed within the plant.

(3) Operator training [12, 17, 24, 33, 39, 40 and 42]: The purpose of an operator training

simulator is to train the plant operation personal with the use of the process control system and

the interaction between the control system and the process. Usually for process training very

detailed dynamic process simulations are used to mimic the normal production process, but also

emergency situations, startup and shutdown behavior and abnormal process conditions.

(4) Simulation supported plant optimization [10, 12 and 23]: Simulation is used in a variety of

ways during the operation phase, starting from model based predictive controllers up to

simulation supported assist systems supporting the operator during a decision process and also

providing suggestions on how to run the production process in an optimized manner.

Figure 1 shows these use cases for simulation along the life-cycle of a process plant. But why

can simulation not be used continuously throughout the life-cycle, reusing developed models

whenever possible. For specific aspects, this idea has been raised in the literature. Some

authors [5, 6, 15, 16, 31, 41] are looking at ways to reuse mathematical models from the

process design phase in the control optimization phase. Data modelling aspects to use data in

more life-cycle phases are investigated in [7, 8, 9, 26]. Others [15, 27, 28] have investigated the

digital factory for discrete manufacturing and the role of simulation along the product and

production life-cycle. Even though the idea of using simulation continuously across the life-cycle

FIGURE 1: SIMULATION WITHIN THE LIFE-CYCLE OF A PROCESS PLANT

Design Simulation – Offline Optimization

Virtual Commissioning

(simulation supported automation engineering)

Operator Training

Plant Optimization – Online

Optimization

1 3

2 4

OperationMaintenance &

Modernization Commissioning

Installation /

Construction

Detailed

Engineering

Basic

Engineering

Conceptual

Design

Plant Life Cycle


February 2015 11

SURVEY STRUCTURE

Drivers, challenges and trends within process industries

Drivers today

Drivers tomorrow Technology trends affecting

tomorrow

Current use of simulation along the life cycle of a process plant

Current decision making support Role and goals with simulation Kinds of simulation and used tools Criteria for tool selection Effort for simulation Reuse of simulation models

Vision about the future use of simulation along the life cycle of a process plant

Relevance of simulation tomorrow Scenarios describing tomorrow Requirements to enable continuous

use of simulation along the life cycle of a process plant

Color code

Evaluation of today’s use/relevance of simulation

Evaluation of future use/relevance of simulation

Evaluation of success factors to reach future vision

of production plants has been around for some time it is still not a standard in industry yet.

4.3 The Survey Design

At the beginning of the survey design, we formulated the following three major questions, to be

answered in as much detail as possible.

1. How is simulation used along the life-cycle of a process plant today?

2. What is the common vision about

the future use of simulation?

3. How can the vision be reached?

Before the survey was designed some expert

discussions and interviews were conducted to

sound out opinions about these questions. In

personal discussions, ideas for the survey

design and question formulation were generated

and tested. The first set of questions were

optimized together with survey design experts

from the Technische Universität Dresden and

the Siemens Global Shared Marketing Services,

who later also hosted the survey through their

infrastructure. Before the survey was released in

July 2014 it was tested with a smaller group of

people including the members of the VDI/VDE

GMA working group 6.11 to perform a final

validation of understandability.

To obtain a global response, the survey was

provided in German and English language. To

avoid a lack of responses in the summer holiday

season the survey was run from July until the

end of October 2014. Using international media

and forums, the survey was promoted to reach

as many people as possible. The publication of

the survey was supported by organizations like

VDI/VDE GMA, NAMUR and processNet. The following journals and media published notes on

the survey: OpenAutomation, atpedition, Process News, Automation.com and PROCESS.

The survey was completely anonymously and structured to evaluate the current role of

simulation, the future role of simulation, and the relevant success factors to reach the vision

about simulation.


February 2015 12

The future was defined as ‘within the next six to

eight years’, because this timeframe extended

beyond the next budget cycle but not too far into

the future that the respondents would not feel

affected by this anymore. No incentives were

provided for participation in order to avoid bias.

After the survey was closed the results have

been discussed with multiple experts to validate

the results and conclusions.

4.4 The Survey Participants

The survey was completed by

221 people, of which 198 were

from companies and 23 from

universities (Figure 2), providing a

sound statistical basis for analysis

and future research. The industry

split was as follows: 39% work for

chemical, 27% for oil & gas, 18%

for energy, 17% for petro-

chemicals, 16% for

pharmaceuticals, 14% for water

and wastewater and 13% for food

and beverage sector (Figure 3,

multiple answers possible). Within

the group of participants, 60%

work for large companies with

more than 1000 employees,

whereas 24% work for medium-

sized companies with 100 to 1000

employees, and 16% work for

small companies with 1-100

FIGURE 4: COMPANY SIZE (NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES)

24% (41)

11-100

60% (102)8% (14)

101-10001-10 more than 1000

8% (14) n = 171

FIGURE 2: CLASS OF PARTICIPANTS

23

198

221

UniversityCompanyTotal

FIGURE 3: INDUSTRY SPLIT (MULTIPLE ANSWERS

POSSIBLE)

Food and Beverage 13%

Water and Wastewater 14%

Others* 16%

Pharmaceuticals and

Biotechnology16%

Petro-chemicals 17%

Energy 18%

Oil and Gas 27%

Chemicals 39%

Steel

Paper

Glass

Solar

Cement

Sugar

8%

8%

5%

5%

3%

3%

n

73

50

34

31

29

29

27

25

15

15

9

9

6

5


February 2015 13

employees (Figure 4). The majority (40%) work for an owner and operator (O&O) company,

followed by 35% who work for system integrators and solution providers (SI), and 15% work for

equipment manufacturers (EM) (Figure 5). The majority of the participants work in engineering

(53%), followed by 15% in management (+4% top management), 10% in development, 8% in

research, 6% in production (Figure 6). From a global perspective 34% work in Germany and

24% in the USA (Figure 7).

Across these groups (company or university, country, company size/type, role, industry)

significant differences have been evaluated based on the T-test for paired subcategories [43]

and the ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) for multiple subcategories [43]. The error threshold was

set to 10% to identify significant differences across these groups.

FIGURE 5: COMPANY TYPE

35%System integrator / Solution provider

10%

Others*

Manufacturer of plant equipment / product supplier

15%

Plant owner and operator40%

n = 145

*Others e.g. (Engineering) Consulting, plant manufacturing, EPCM, process licensor, service provider

FIGURE 6: FUNCTION / ROLE OF PARTICIPANTS

n

Quality management

2%

Marketing 4%

Top Management 4%

Sales 5%

Others* 5%

Service 5%

Production 6%

Research 8%

Development 10%

Management 15%

Engineering 53% 116

33

22

18

13

12

12

10

9

8

4

*Others: e.g. (plant) maintenance, technical plant supervision, internal tool and process development, project management


February 2015 14

FIGURE 7: COUNTRIES OF PARTICIPANTS

Country N

Germany 58

USA 41

India 9

Canada 6

Netherlands 6

Brazil 4

Columbia 4

Australia 2

Mexico 2

New Zealand 2

Nigeria 2

Norway 2

Peru 2

Country N

Saudi Arabia 2

Sweden 2

Switzerland 2

UAE 2

UK 2

Argentina 1

Bahrain 1

Belize 1

Botswana 1

Burkina Faso 1

China 1

France 1

Guatemala 1

Country N

Indonesia 1

Iran 1

Ireland 1

Kuwait 1

Austria 1

Pakistan 1

Russia 1

Sambia 1

Singapur 1

Spain 1

Thailand 1

Venezuela 1

Overall 173


February 2015 15

Picture Page?


February 2015 16

Safety and quality are first

within process industries

The majority of decisions made

across the plant life cycle are

based on (1) individual

experience and (2) on standards

5 The Current Role of Simulation

This chapter evaluates the responses about the current status quo of simulation in the life-cycle

of a process plant.

The survey first addressed the current drivers in

the daily work of the respondents. The

statements from the participants indicate that

safety and quality are the most dominant drivers

within the process industry (Figure 8). These are

closely followed by productivity and then costs.

For the costs driver there was a significant difference between the USA and Germany,

indicating that costs are more important for the participants from Germany. The last group of

drivers is formed by sustainability, standards and time-to-market. Interestingly, within the time-

to-market driver there was no significant difference between the industries but only between the

company types (most important for the EMs, then SIs, and finally for the O&Os).

Next, the survey considered the current support for decisions made along the life-cycle of a

process plant (Figure 9). One of the results is

that in any phase of the life-cycle about one-

third of the decisions are based on the

experience of individual people and another

third is based upon the use of standards. Minor

roles are currently playing the use of security

factors, an analysis and the use of simulation.

Thus to stay competitive within the future it will

become critical to capture and conserve the

FIGURE 8: HOW MUCH IS YOUR DAILY WORK DRIVEN BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING POINTS?

(COMPANIES ONLY)

Standards 30% 40%

21%

2%20%

Safety

9%

Sustainability

5%

Productivity

4% 1%70%

7%21% 1%34% 36%

37%

29%

51% 10%

62%

29%

1%

Quality

1%

Time-to-market

1%9%

13% 9%19%30%

12% 6% 2%49%Costs 31%

1 critically important 3 42 5 not a factor

n Ø

188 1,81

178 2,42

189 1,49

187 1,61

183 2,04

187 1,44

185 2,13


February 2015 17

Simulation is an accepted

technology, even though it is

not for free.

Simulation can be used to

answer engineering and

operational questions earlier

and with lower risks.

experience of the workforce and to find and investigate different ways to support the decision

making process within a company. Otherwise if the knowledge retires it will become hard to

judge on about one-third of the decisions necessary to been made.

Investigating the role of simulation on a scale from 1 (completely agree) to 5 (don’t agree at all)

the survey participants ranked highest that simulation can answer engineering/operational

questions with lower risks (average 1.76/1.86) and earlier (average 1.77/2.03). Followed by the

opinion that questions can be answered more

reliable (average 2.17/2.21) and with lower

efforts (average 2.37/2.29) (Figure 10).

Therefore it can be derived that participants see

high value in simulation to reduce time and

risks during engineering and operations.

Another question revealed that simulation

would be used by the participants to gain

understanding and identify problems (Figure

11). Further the participants would use

simulation to support their decisions, leading to

the possibility to capture the experience of

people within simulation models and to base

decisions upon simulation. In addition

simulation would be used for validation and

testing. Even though simulation might not lower

the effort clear value is seen by using it. Clearly simulation is seen as a serious technology to

support the business rather than being something to play around with.

FIGURE 9: ALONG THE PLANT LIFE CYCLE MANY DECISIONS ARE MADE. HOW IS THE DECISION

PROCESS SUPPORTED TODAY? (COMPANIES ONLY)

16% 28% 16% 1%

Basic engineering 29% 16% 14% 28% 13% 1%

Conceptual design 33% 22% 10% 20% 14% 2%

Maintenance and

modernization29% 24% 12% 23% 13% 1%

Operation 30% 21% 13% 20% 15% 1%

Commissioning 35%

3%

13% 25% 16% 2%

Installation and construction 34%

10%

15% 34% 7%

Detailed engineering 27% 12%

9%

I don’t knowUse of norms Use of simulationUse security factorsAnalysisExperience

n

187

187

186

186

188

187

188


February 2015 18

Today simulation is most

frequently used during

engineering, then training, then

design followed by operation.

But the effort invested early in

the life-cycle is currently not

utilized in the later phases.

Dynamic simulation is the most

common kind of simulation

used across the life-cycle.

Looking at the current use of simulation along

the life-cycle of a process plant it is most

commonly used during engineering then training

then design and less frequent during the

operational phase (Figure 12). This answer

could lead to the conclusion that the investment

done early within the life-cycle it not fully utilized

during later phases of the life-cycle.

The question about the used kind of simulation

revealed a strong dominance of dynamic

simulation across the whole life-cycle (Figure 13

and Figure 14). During the design phase

material flow and static simulation play also a

major role. Within engineering the simulation of

in- and output signals as well as device

feedback signals towards the automation

systems and emulations of the control system

are used intensively too. The same holds true for

training. Within the operations phase dynamic

simulation is clearly the strongest kind of simulation.

FIGURE 10: BY THE USE OF SIMULATION QUESTIONS DURING PLANT

ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS CAN BE ANSWERED…

By the use of simulation questions during plant engineering can be answered…

…more reliable 31% 35% 22% 10% 2%

...with lower efforts. 31% 25% 23% 18% 4%

...with lower risks. 47% 36% 14%4% 1%

…earlier 51% 28% 14% 7%

By the use of simulation questions during plant operations can be answered…

12% 5%

...with lower risks. 47% 29% 16% 6% 3%

…earlier 43% 28% 16% 12% 3%

…more reliable 33% 31% 22% 11% 4%

...with lower efforts. 34% 24% 24%

54321

Agree completely Don‘t agree at all

n Ø

200 1,77

200 1,76

199 2,37

200 2,17

200 2,03

198 1,89

198 2,29

198 2,21


February 2015 19

Most of the time there is no

defined process for the use of

simulation; in more than 50% of

the projects simulation is not

used systematically.

Looking at how simulation is currently used, the

answers show that the use of simulation depends

most of the time on individuals, no matter in

which phase (always 50% or more) (Figure 15).

On the other hand, almost 1/3 of the participants

say that simulation is an integrated part of their

normal engineering workflow within the design

and engineering phase.

FIGURE 11: A SIMULATION CAN SUPPORT DIFFERENT TASKS. WOULD YOU USE SIMULATION

FOR ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TASKS?

14% 5% 3%

Test: Validation and checkout 60% 24% 11% 4% 2%

Support communications 27% 28% 27% 15% 3%

Minimize risks 54% 30% 12%3% 2%

Support decisions 49% 35% 11%3% 1%

Decrease time 43% 35% 15% 4% 2%

Increase quality 40% 32% 19% 5%

Listed in others:

Problem identification 54% 26% 13% 5% 2%

Gain know-how and

understanding

4%

26% 9% 4% 2%

Visualization and presentation 52% 27%

59%

54321

Yes definitely No not at all

n Ø

204 1,64

203 1,76

202 2,01

201 1,86

203 1,72

204 1,68

195 2,39

204 1,63

201 1,78

12

FIGURE 12: HOW OFTEN IS SIMULATION CURRENTLY USED WITHIN EACH PHASE?

Operation decision support and optimization 14% 25% 38% 23%

Training 20% 28% 37% 16%

Engineering and commissioning 27% 24% 32% 17%

Planning and design 24% 18% 38% 20%

Always Even now and thenRegulary Not at all

n

189

190

193

189


February 2015 20

Self-developed simulation tools

play a significant role across

the life-cycle phases.

Investigating the tools currently used by the participants shows that self-developed tools play a

major role, with 14% or more across all different simulation use cases (Figure 16). Furthermore,

the field of the used simulation tools is very diverse with many specific simulation tools. The

commercial tools Aspen Plus, Aspen Hysys and

Matlab (Mathworks) (always above 9%) have a

significant role across the life-cycle. For

engineering and training SIMIT (Siemens) plays

a significant role (6%) and for training UniSim

(Honeywell) (8%).

FIGURE 13: WHAT KIND OF SIMULATIONS DO YOU CURRENTLY USE WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL

PHASES? (1/2)


February 2015 21

FIGURE 14: WHAT KIND OF SIMULATIONS DO YOU CURRENTLY USE WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL

PHASES? (2/2)

FIGURE 15: WHICH PROCESS SUPPORTS YOUR CURRENT USE OF SIMULATION?

11% 8% 29% 21%

Planning and design 27% 10% 6% 28% 29%

Operation decision support and optimization 17% 9% 9% 38% 29%

Training 17% 13% 14% 28% 28%

Engineering and commissioning 31%

No explicit process for the use of simulation

Dependent on individual experts

Process is currently developed

Own/company internal guideline on the use of simulation

Simulation is an integrated part of the normal engineering process

n

157

167

162

151


February 2015 22

FIGURE 16: WHICH SIMULATION TOOLS DO YOU CURRENTLY USE?

Planning and

designn

Engineering and

commissioningn Training n

Operation decision

support and

optimization

n

Aspen Plus (AspenTech) 17% 46* 11% 32* 11% 21* 22% 34*

Aspen HYSYS (AspenTech) 13% 35* 10% 29* 9% 18* 15% 24*

ASSETT, K-SPICS (Kongsberg) 1% 3* 1% 4* 2% 3* - -

CHEMCAD (Chemstations) 4% 11* 3% 9* 3% 5* 2% 3*

COCO Simulator (AmsterCHEM) 1% 3* 1% 2* 1% 2* - -

Dymola (Dassault Systems) 2% 6* 3% 9* 3% 6* 3% 4*

IDEAS (Andritz) 1% 3* 2% 7* 2% 4* 1% 1*

INDISS (RSI) 1% 3* 2% 6* 2% 4* - -

Matlab (Mathworks) 16% 42* 10% 31* 10% 20* 16% 25*

MiMiC (Mynah Technologies) 1% 3* 3% 8* 2% 4* 1% 2*

Omegaland (Yokogawa) 2% 4* 1% 4* 2% 4* 1% 2*

OpenModelica (OpenSource) 2% 6* 3% 9* 2% 3* - -

Planning and

designn

Engineering and

commissioningn Training n

Operation decision

support and

optimization

n

ProSim Plus, ProSim DAC (ProSim) 2% 4* 1% 3* 2% 3* 3% 4*

SIMIT (Siemens) 3% 8* 6% 17* 6% 12* 3% 5*

SimulationX (ITI) 2% 5* 2% 5* 1% 1* 1% 1*

SimSci (Schneider Electic, ehemals invensys) 3% 8* 3% 8* 3% 6* 2% 3*

SimSci DYNSIM (Schneider Electic, ehemals

invensys) 2% 5* 4% 11* 3% 6* 1% 2*

SimSci DYNSIM Checkout (Schneider Electic,

ehemals invensys) 2% 4* 2% 7* 2% 4* 1% 1*

TrySim (Cephalos GmbH) 1% 2* 2% 5* 2% 4* - -

UniSim (Honeywell) 5% 12* 5% 15* 8% 16* 3% 4*

Virtuos (ISG Industrielle Steuerungstechnik) 1% 3* 2% 7* 2% 4* 1% 2*

WinMOD (Mewes & Partner) 2% 6* 4% 13* 3% 6* 4% 6*

Within system specific tools 2% 6* 7% 20* 5% 10* 5% 8*

Self developed tool 14% 37* 14% 41* 16% 31* 17% 27*

FIGURE 17: FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE: WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA WHEN

CHOOSING A SIMULATION TOOL?

Modeling concept and

language23% 38% 26% 11% 2%

Modeling efficiency 47% 33% 12%6% 2%

Availability of experts

regarding the tool42%

Tool handling concept

23% 5% 2%

Availability of libraries for

model development

Flexibility regarding

the field of use38% 41% 18%

2% 1%

Integration with the

current tool-chain36% 37% 21%

3% 2%

Effort for learning

and training51% 33% 14% 2%

42% 38%

27%

17%2% 1%

15%46%1%4%

34%

5 very unimportant3 421 very important

n Ø

161 1,83

178 1,70

166 1,98

174 1,87

172 1,81

172 1,97

170 1,84

165 2,32

22% 29% 15% 7%

Already available

within the company29% 30% 25% 9% 6%

Price and licensing 49% 28%

2%

5% 2%

Openness of the tool 37% 32% 21% 8% 3%

Supported standards 33% 41%

Quality / excellence /

performance of simulation

8% 3%

47% 40%

16%

9%

1%

Clear separation between

simulation an reality28%

15%

n Ø

167 2,07

168 2,08

173 1,83

170 2,32

153 2,50

176 1,70


February 2015 23

Subjectively, the equipment

manufacturers report the

highest modelling effort.

Model reuse and co-simulation

is already in strong demand.

Important criteria for choosing a simulation are

especially the effort for learning and training, and

the overall handling concept (Figure 17). In

addition, the flexibility in using the tool is

important as well as the modelling efficiency.

The availability of libraries with simulation

components is critical. The performance of the

simulation and the price are relevant factors too.

Least important are the availability within the company and the clear separation between reality

and simulation. But for the last point there is a significant difference between the different roles

within a company. Participants from research and development ranked this point as significantly

less important than participants from management. Therefore the separation between

simulation and reality is especially important during the real plant operation phase and it must

be always be clear whether the user is dealing with a simulation or the reality.

The effort for the use of simulation is still quite high across the life cycle, no matter in which

phase. On a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) the subjective effort (time and money) to

use simulation is quite high in all phases (averages: design 3.58, engineering 3.67, training

3.52, operations 3.36) (Figure 18). Also for training and optimization the modelling effort does

not increase. This was a surprise. Does it mean that simple models are sufficient for training

too?

Interestingly, there is a significant difference between the company types, with the EMs having

the highest subjective modelling effort. During the design and engineering phase the EM

showed a significant higher effort then the O&O as well as the SI (average design/engineering:

O&O 3.15/3.50, SI 3.75/3.64, EM 4.22/4.32). We believe that a lack of process know-how

makes it harder for the EM to build up sufficient models. A difference in the tools or the kind of

simulation that is used could not be found in the data.

FIGURE 18: WHAT IS THE EFFORT (TIME AND COSTS) TO USE SIMULATION WITHIN THE

PHASES?

8% 16% 30% 23% 23%

7% 11% 30% 25% 26%

1% 12% 30%

Planning and design

32% 25%

Operation decision support and optimization

4% 18% 24% 27% 28%

Training

Engineering and commissioning

5 very high4321 very low

n Ø

153 3,58

159 3,67

148 3,52

140 3,36


February 2015 24

Simulation is not only for

dedicated experts; it is often

used by specific domain

experts (e.g. automation

engineers) as a supporting

methodology.

In addition, the survey investigated the need to

reuse simulation models once these have been

developed. First, the participants indicated a

high demand for the integration of models

developed within one simulation tool into

another simulation tool (Figure 19). Further,

about two-thirds of the participants need to

couple different simulation tools. On the one

hand they want to couple process simulation

tools with other simulators (vertical coupling),

but on the other hand they also want to couple on the same level e.g. process simulation tool

(horizontal coupling) (Figure 20).

The current users of simulation were also evaluated with the result that simulation is not only for

dedicated experts and is commonly used by experts from specific domains like automation

engineering (Figure 21).

FIGURE 19: DO YOU HAVE/SEE THE NEED TO INTEGRATE MODELS DEVELOPED IN ONE

SIMULATION TOOL INTO ANOTHER SIMULATION TOOL?

30%70%152Yes

No

FIGURE 20: DO YOU HAVE/SEE THE NEED TO COUPLE DIFFERENT SIMULATION TOOLS?

Coupling different

other simulation tools62% 38%

Coupling process (chemical)

simulation tools with other63% 37%

Coupling different process

(chemical) simulation tools62% 39%

143

141

133

No

Yes

FIGURE 21: HOW OFTEN ARE WORKING THE FOLLOWING PERSONS WITH SIMULATION AT YOUR

COMPANY?

9% 16% 11% 43% 21%

External solution provider 10% 11% 22% 34% 24%

Simulation expert 44% 15% 14% 16% 12%

Automation engineer 18% 21% 25% 28% 8%

Process / chemical engineer 18% 19% 26% 24% 13%

Plant designer

5 Not at all4 Rarely3 Monthly2 Weekly1 Daily

n

132

150

159

135

119


February 2015 25

Picture Page?


February 2015 26

Safety and quality remain major

drivers for the future.

Costs and time-to-market are

significantly more important in

Germany than in the USA.

6 The Future Role of Simulation

The investigation of the future role of simulation

began with a set of questions to identify relevant

future drivers (Figure 22). Regarding the

challenges, the participants indicated that safety

and quality will remain the most important driver

in the future. Other drivers like winning qualified

personnel, costs pressure and time pressure,

environmental protection or limited resources are

following in the ranking. Interestingly, regarding

cost and time pressure there is a significant

difference between responses from Germany

and the USA, and participants from Germany

find these significantly more important.

Another question concerned the expectations regarding particular technological trends (Figure

23). Within the evaluated trends, three major groups can be found. The first includes integrated

engineering and working processes [44], simulation-driven solutions and products for plant

engineering, and standards for interfaces and architectures. These technological trends will

most likely change the daily work of the participants in the future. The second group, with less

impact, includes simulation-driven solutions and products for the plant operation and

modularization of plants. And the group of trends which are expected to change the daily work

the least includes data-driven solutions and products (big data), cloud and web-driven solutions

and products and cyber physical systems. For simulation it can be concluded that it is an

FIGURE 22: HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU ANTICIPATE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CHALLENGES

WILL BE FOR YOU IN 6-8 YEARS? (COMPANIES ONLY)

5%1%

Quality 54% 38% 9%

Time pressure 46% 36% 16% 2% 1%

Safety resources

47% 39% 11% 2% 2%

Winning qualified personnel 47% 37% 12% 4% 1%

19%Limited resources 45% 33% 3% 1%

71% 18%

Cost pressure

7% 4% 1%

Environmental protection 49% 32% 13%

3 5 not a factor421 critically important

n Ø

182 1,75

187 1,73

186 1,76

185 1,55

184 1,77

186 1,46

182 1,83


February 2015 27

Integrated engineering,

simulation and standards are

the most relevant technological

trends that will change the way

we work.

Across the whole life-cycle of a

process plant, simulation will

gain major importance.

accepted technology within the process industries in contrast to cloud technology, Big Data and

Cyber Physical Systems [2].

FIGURE 23: HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU EXPECT THE FOLLOWING TECHNOLOGY TRENDS WILL BE

TO YOUR DAILY WORK IN 6-8 YEARS?

Standards for interfaces

and architectures39% 38% 17% 5% 2%

Cyber physical Systems 24% 31% 24% 13% 8%

Integrated engineering-

and working processes43% 39% 11% 6% 1%

Modularization of plants 33% 33% 20% 11% 4%

Simulation-driven solutions/

products (plant operation)33% 35% 21% 8% 4%

Simulation-driven solutions/

products (plant engineering)38% 38% 15% 6% 3%

Data-driven solutions

and products (Big Data)26% 33% 24% 13% 3%

Cloud / web-driven

solutions and products20% 31% 24% 18% 7%

5 not a factor4321 critically important

n Ø

186 2,60

190 2,34

203 1,97

202 2,15

195 2,19

198 1,80

160 2,51

196 1,92

FIGURE 24: FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW: WHAT WILL BE THE RELEVANCE OF SIMULATION IN 6-8 YEARS?

37% 45% 17%1% 1%

Engineering and commissioning 39% 40% 19% 1% 1%

Planning and design 31% 43% 23% 2% 1%

Operation decision support and optimization

Training

1% 1%38% 44% 16%

Much less than todayMore than today Similar than todayMuch more than today Less than today

n

176

180

177

172


February 2015 28

The virtual plant is the future.

The following question evaluated the relevance of simulation within the future (Figure 24).

Clearly in all phases of the life-cycle simulation will gain more or much more importance than

today according to the participants.

Investigating statements about the future (Figure 25) indicated that an important functionality to

enable a continuous use of simulation across the life-cycle of a process plant is a modular,

flexible and open tool landscape. The majority of the participants also agreed that using

simulation at a single point within the life-cycle delivers less value than simulation used

continuously along the life-cycle. Further, it will

be important to extend the information

management with simulation relevant aspects

and to adjust the workflows to support

simulation.

FIGURE 25: HOW MUCH DO YOU AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS?

28% 31%

29%37% 19%

40% 34% 20% 3% 3%

24% 44% 20% 9% 4%

6%

21% 40% 25% 10% 4%

10%

8% 10% 23%

5 I don’t agree at all4321 Agree completely

n Ø

172 2,19

184 3,64

173 2,35

170 2,25

173 1,95

Simulation used at single points within the life cycle delivery is

less value than simulation used continuously along the life cycle.

The value of simulation is strongly overestimated.

Workflows must be supported by simulation.

The information management of the process plant must be

extended by simulation relevant aspects.

The continuous use of simulation will be supported by a

modular, open and flexible tool landscape.

FIGURE 26: THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS DESCRIBE THE USE OF SIMULATION WITHIN THE LIFE

CYCLE OF A PROCESS PLANT IN 6-8 YEARS. HOW WELL DO THEY DESCRIBE YOUR

EXPECTATIONS?

33% 33% 21% 10% 3%

35% 28% 19% 12% 5%

31% 46% 16% 6% 2%

20%

32% 21% 17% 8%

26% 42% 22% 8% 2%

33% 34% 22% 6% 5%

30% 26% 14% 9%

22%

21 very good 43 5 very bad

n Ø

174 2,16

170 2,18

172 2,57

179 2,01

176 2,23

177 2,16

176 2,61

The future plant is first developed purely virtual and simulation

will be the basis of this virtual plant.

Plant migrations are also based on a virtual plant, if needed the

virtual plant is built based on the available real plant.

Based on the virtual plant all delivery parts of different groups

are verified and approved.

The future plant engineering is to a high degree integrated and

simulation is an important basis.

During the plant operation the virtual plant is running in parallel

to continuously optimize it.

The simulation models are built during the normal engineering

process by the responsible groups.

The simulation models are built and provided by suppliers.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


February 2015 29

A collaboration model between

companies to create the models

for the virtual plant needs to be

developed.

Management acceptance is

needed to realize a continuous

use of simulation.

System integrators are in strong

need for process models,

simulation libraries, modeling

standards and open interfaces.

A set of scenarios were evaluated by the participants (Figure 26). The scenario that the future

plant engineering will be highly integrated and simulation will provide an important basis was

ranked highest. This is closely followed by the scenario that in future plants will first be

developed virtually and simulation will be the

basis for this virtual plant. The option that the

simulation models will be built during the normal

engineering process by the responsible groups is

ranked high too. Lower in the rankings was that

plant migrations will also be based on a virtual

plant and if this is not available the virtual plant

will be built. Very diverse responses were

received for the scenario that during the plant

operation the virtual plant will run in parallel to

continuously optimize it. This scenario got the

most votes for describing the future “very well”,

but on average it was only number four. The last

two scenarios ranked by the participants are the

one that the virtual plant is used to verify and

approve all deliveries of the different groups and

that the simulation models are built and provided

by the suppliers. But especially the last point

showed a significant difference between the

different types of company. The EM ranked this

scenario much higher than an O&O participant,

indicating that the EM is willing to provide

models for their equipment.

FIGURE 27: WHAT ARE THE MOST RELEVANT REQUIREMENTS TO ENABLE A CONTINUOUS USE

OF SIMULATION ALONG THE LIFE CYCLE OF A PROCESS PLANT?

Availability of simulation libraries 42% 33% 20% 3% 2%

Calculation with uncertain parameter 32% 35% 24% 5% 4%

Reuse of simulation models across different projects 46% 39% 11% 4% 1%

Detailed models for e.g. chemical processes 43% 36% 17% 2% 2%

Little effort for building simulation models 45% 36% 14%3% 2%

Simple handling of simulation tools 53% 32% 10%2% 2%

5%34%

5%29% 23%41%

21% 4%

Open interfaces for the coupling of different simulation 2%

Know-How protection for simulation models 36%

Standards for modeling

34%2%

Management acceptance

2%

39% 23%

12%46%

2%

13%2%

Availability of users and experts

7%29%

49%

38%

2%5 very unimportant4321 very important

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

n Ø US GE

174 1,68 2,03 1,57

174 1,79 2,23 1,56

161 1,84

168 1,74

163 2,15

171 1,91

167 1,98

169 2,05

168 2,14

172 1,75

173 1,76

9

10

11


February 2015 30

“No simulation no success” Survey participant

“Simulation will be in continual

use. Models will be refined

automatically based on real

time data.” Survey participant

“As companies develop

corporate responsibility and

accountability programs and/or

regulations force change,

companies will need to seek

ways to minimize impact on all

social, environmental and

economic levels. Simulation will

by conformity provide an

expected outcome to ensure

that many unintended outcomes

will best be answered and

benchmarks may be set.” Survey participant

Equipment manufacturers will

provide simulation models for

their equipment in the future.

Another interesting aspect was found when

looking at the scenarios addressing some kind

of collaboration, e.g. using the virtual plant for

approval and validation of the deliveries and the

building of simulation models by the suppliers.

There is a large difference between participants

from the USA and participants from Germany, and these scenarios are seen as more likely by

participants from the USA. One action derived from this evaluation is that collaboration models

around the virtual plant need to be developed for the future; currently there are no collaboration

models across companies to provide and

exchange simulation models. This is essential to

make the continuous use of simulation

successful and to enable the model development

by the most appropriate party/company involved

in the design, engineering and commissioning of

a process plant.

Investigating the most relevant requirements to

allow a continuous use of simulation along the

plant life-cycle delivered the results shown in

Figure 27. The handling, usability, model

reusability and modelling efficiency are important

criteria for success. In addition it was shown that

the acceptance by management is another very

important factor for success. The availability of

simulation libraries, open interfaces and know-

how protection are relevant too, but significantly

more relevant to SIs than O&Os. We believe this

is because an SI does not have the detailed

process knowledge to hand and would gain

considerably if they could directly use good

models (e.g. of a chemical process) to validate

their control system design without the need to

develop such models themselves.

From the survey results it could be seen that the

future use of simulation should be a continuous

one along the life-cycle. Thus the cases of single

simulation use need to growth together (Figure

28). The results suggest it is most likely that the

engineering and training simulation will merge

first and start using a common model base.

Then the design will join, and finally the

operation simulation. The biggest challenge will

be to bring down the barriers between


February 2015 31

The simulation use cases will

growth together and enable a

continuous use of simulation

along the life-cycle of a process

plant.

engineering and operations if one set of people and companies have the responsibility for

designing, engineering and building a plant and another set of people and companies are then

responsible for operating it. Each handover of responsibilities will be a major hurdle for a

continuous use of simulation.

FIGURE 28: THE SIMULATION USE CASES WILL GROWTH TOGETHER

Design

Operations &

Optimization

Operator

Training

Engineering &

Commissioning

Design

Operations &

Optimization

Operator

Training

Engineering &

Commissioning

Design

Operations &

Optimization

Operator

Training

Engineering &

Commissioning

Design

Operations &

Optimization

Operator

Training

Engineering &

Commissioning


February 2015 32

Picture Page?


February 2015 33

7 Enabling the Integrated Use of Simulation

Based on the drivers and challenges for the process industries as well as the requirements for

the use of simulation and the survey results about the current and future role of simulation, we

identified possible fields of action to enable an integrated use of simulation along the life-cycle

of a process plant. These actions will be described briefly here as a basis for further

discussions. The target is to develop a commonly accepted technological roadmap for the

continuous use of simulation within the life-cycle of a process plant. The actions have been

clustered into technical and non-technical actions. Within the technical actions the following

subcategories have been defined: model reuse, modelling efficiency, integration, and usability.

The non-technical actions have been categorized into: workflows, acceptance, education, and

collaboration.

7.1 Workflows

The following four actions were derived: (1) workflows, (2) iVComm (integrated virtual

commissioning), (3) iCAPE (simulation integrated computer aided process engineering), (4)

iO&M (simulation integrated operations and maintenance). (1) addresses the need to generally

change existing workflows within companies to make simulation a standard within the future,

without major additional efforts. (2) looks at the development of an integrated virtual

commissioning workflow as standard within each automation project [36]. (3) addresses the

need to extend the integration of workflows into the design and planning phase to enable an

integrated computer aided process engineering. Finally with action (4) the integration of

simulation into the operations and maintenance workflow should be developed.

7.2 Acceptance

The acceptance action field holds the action to gain acceptance from the management of the

company for the use of simulation technology. The generation of success stories was added to

support the management acceptance but also the general acceptance and trust in the use of

simulation.

7.3 Education

A common methodology and terminology should be developed to ease the understanding of

other simulation systems. This will also have great benefits in the technological action fields e.g.

in terms of data and tool chain integration. In addition it is necessary to extend the education

curricula towards the integrated use of simulation by using simulation technologies as standard

e.g. within the training of process and automation engineers.


February 2015 34

7.4 Collaboration

The need to develop a collaboration model between companies to realize the virtual plant was

already formulated in summary about the future role of simulation and this action was added to

the collaboration action field. In addition, a common model development guideline for simulation

models delivered by the EM needs to be created.

7.5 Model reuse

Technically very essential will be the reuse of models which have been developed earlier in the

life-cycle of the plant. First action would be to develop a co-simulation standard that is accepted

by both vendors and users, followed by (or combined with) a standard for model exchange

between different simulation tools (An analysis of co-simulation work can be found in [36]). A

way to create a simulation or a virtual plant in a modular fashion (plug-and-play) based on

available engineering or operation models needs to be developed. This plug-and-play

functionality will also demand a commonly accepted modelling standard for simulation.

7.6 Modelling Efficiency

To drive down the effort for the use of simulation, the modelling efficiency needs to be improved.

First the automatic generation of simulation models from existing data based on the latest

information from the engineering or operating phase is needed [3, 4, 20, 21, 34, 37 and 38].

Usually, this includes the integration of various heterogeneous information models, the

application of transformation mechanisms and a manual enrichment of simulation-specific

information.

Second, libraries for devices as well as for processes need to be developed and provided

ready-to-use. Managing simulation models across the life-cycle is also a challenge that has to

be addressed. Finally the management of change in simulation models will be also a critical

factor for success which could for example be achieved by a specialized model and simulation

version control systems.

7.7 Integration

As it is expected that the vision will not be realized with a completely new set of tools that

require users to change their complete IT infrastructure it is necessary to work on possible tool

chain integration. The simulation should be deeply integrated both in engineering workflows as

well as operating workflows to support the decision in a seamless way. Along the life-cycle of

plants, many different information silos are created which can all be valuable for an integrated

use of simulation. The heterogeneity of the data sources in terms of syntax and semantics

requires further data integration concepts.

The sharing of simulation models across organizational boundaries can provide high-quality

models. However, the domain experts demand a way to protect their critical knowledge. For the


February 2015 35

subsequent use of simulation within operations it is necessary to provide a secure online

interface between the simulation system and the real plant operation.

7.8 Usability

Finally it is important to work constantly on the usability to create benefits also for non-

simulation-experts. An important aspect is the provision of the prediction uncertainty so that the

simulation results can be assessed. This is an important criteria for humans in their decision

making process during plant operations, with backing from simulation decision support systems.

Therefore concepts for the integration of simulations into the plant operations have to be

developed further.


February 2015 36

8 Future Work and Next Steps

Based on the survey results we are interested in developing a technology roadmap (e.g. [1, 18,

30 and 49]) towards the integrated use of simulation within the life-cycle of a process plant. This

should be done together with experts and survey participants by organizing workshops to

develop the roadmap. The outcome of this activity should be an accepted roadmap, for example

with the title “Simulation within the process plant life-cycle 2030”.

The authors appreciate input and support. Please get in touch with us if you are interested in

participating within the workshops (E-mail: [email protected]).

Planned timeline: Summer/Autumn 2015

Planned location(s): Germany and/or USA

mailto:[email protected]


February 2015 37

Picture Page?


February 2015 38

9 About the Authors

Mathias Oppelt is Product Manager at Siemens AG. He is responsible for

simulation in context of process control system and the simulation system SIMIT.

In addition he is co-chairman of the GMA FA 6.11 “virtual commissioning” and

external doctoral student at the institute for automation at the Technische

Universität Dresden. Mathias Oppelt graduated from Hamburg University of

Technology (TUHH) with a Diploma (Dipl.-Ing.) in Mechatronics Engineering and

from the Northern Institute of Technology Management (NIT) with a Masters in

Technology Management (MTM).

Siemens AG, Oestliche Rheinbrueckenstr. 50, 76187 Karlsruhe,

E-mail: [email protected], Tel: +49 (721) 595-2178

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Mike Barth is Professor for the Engineering of Mechatronic

Systems at Pforzheim University. His research interests include the engineering

of automation systems - especially the field of simulation based methods. Prof

Barth is spokesman of the task force GMA FA 6.11 "Virtual Commissioning" and

member of scientific advisory board of the renowned scientific journal atp edition -

Automatisierungstechnische Praxis.

Hochschule Pforzheim, 75175 Pforzheim

E-mail: [email protected], Tel: +49 (7231) 28 6475

Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Leon Urbas is head of the Chair of Process Control Systems

Engineering at Technische Universität Dresden. His research interests include

formal information and simulation models in automation, their application in

model driven methods for engineering support systems and integrated highly

efficient workflows for human-computer-collaboration in automation engineering.

These technology oriented topics are supported by research in human-centered

automation, in particular process visualization and operation across control

rooms and shop floors, usability engineering in supervisory control and human

performance modelling. Prof Urbas is spokesman of the task force GMA FA 5.16

"Middleware in industrial automation", member of the board of the processNet

working group PAAT and Editor-in-Chief of the journal atp edition -

Automatisierungstechnische Praxis.

Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden

E-mail: [email protected], Tel: +49 (351) 463-39614





February 2015 39

10 References

[1] Abele, T. (2006): Verfahren für das Technologie-Roadmapping zur Unterstützung des

strategischen Technologiemanagements. Dissertation. Heimsheim: Jost Jetter Verlag (IPA-IAO

Forschung und Praxis, 441).

[2] Acatech (2013): Umsetzungsempfehlungen für das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0.

Abschlussbericht des Arbeitskreises Industrie 4.0.

[3] Barth, M. (2011): Automatisch generierte Simulationsmodelle verfahrenstechnischer Anlagen für

den Steuerungstest. Dissertation. Düsseldorf: VDI Verlag GmbH (Fortschritt-Bericht VDI, Nr.

438).

[4] Barth, M.; Fay, A. (2013): Automated generation of simulation models for control code tests. In:

Control Engineering Practice 21, p. 218–230.

[5] Bausa, J.; Dünnebier, G. (2006): Life Cycle Modelling in the chemical industries: Is there any

reuse of models in automation and control? In: 16th European Symposium on Computer Aided

Process Engineering and 9th Int. Symposium on Process Systems Engineering, p. 3–8.

[6] Bayer, B.; Marquardt, W. (2003): A Comparison of Models in Chemical Engineering. In:

Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 11 (129).

[7] Belkius, B.; Holm, T.; Tetzner, T. (2010): Nutzen integrierter, gewerkübergreifender Modellierung

industrieller Anlagen. In: VDI Wissensforum GmbH (ed.): Tagungsband Automation 2010. VDI

Berichte.

[8] Bergert, M.; Diedrich, C. (2008): Durchgängige Verhaltensmodellierung von Betriebsmitteln zur

Erzeugung digitaler Simulationsmodelle von Fertigungssystemen. In: VDI Wissensforum GmbH

(ed.): Tagungsband Automation 2008. VDI Berichte.

[9] Biffl, S.; Schatten, A.; Zoitl, A. (2009): Integration of Heterogeneous Engineering Environments

for the Automation Systems Lifecycle. In: 7th IEEE Int. Conf. on Industrial Informatics (INDIN),p.

576–581.

[10] Bohlmann, S.; Becker, M.; Balci, S.; Szczerbicka, H. (2013): Online Simulation Based Decision

Support System for Resource Failure Management in Multi-Site Production Environments. In:

Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory

Automation.

[11] Bungartz, H.J.; Zimmer, S.; Buchholz, M.; Pflüger, D. (2013): Modellbildung und Simulation. Eine

anwendungsorientierte Einführung. 2. Aufl.: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

[12] 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. In: Computers and Chemical Engineering 30, p.

1542–1552.

[13] PAS PAS 1059:2006-02, 02.02.2006: Planung einer verfahrenstechnischen Anlage -

Vorgehensmodell und Terminologie.

[14] DIN EN 62381 (IEC 62381:2012), April 2013: Automatisierungssysteme in der

verfahrenstechnischen Industrie – Werksabnahme (FAT), Abnahme der installierten Anlage

(SAT) und Integrationstest (SIT).

[15] Dores Cardoso, L.; Assis Rangel, J. J.; Teixeira Bastos, P. J. (2013): Discrete Event Simulation

for integrated Design in the Production and Commissioning of Manufacturing Systems. In:

Proceedings of the 2013 Winter Simulation Conference, p. 2544–2552.

[16] Eggersmann, M.; Wedel, L. von; Marquardt, W. (2004): Management and Reuse of Mathematical

Models in the Industrial Design Process. In: Chem. Eng. Technol. 24 (1), p. 13–22. DOI:

10.1002/caet.200406114.


February 2015 40

[17] Engl, G.; Kröner, A.; Pottmann, M. (2010): Practical Aspects of Dynamic Simulation in Plant

Engineering. In: 20th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering -

ESCAPE20.

[18] Frauenhofer Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung ISI (ed.) (2012): Produkt-Roadmap

Lithium-Ionen-Batterien 2030. Karlsruhe.

[19] Gu, F.; Harrison, W. S.; Tilbury, D. M.; Yuan, C. (2007): Hardware-In-The-Loop for Manufactoring

Automation Control: Current State and Identified Needs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual IEEE

Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, p. 1105–1110.

[20] Hoffmann, P.; Schumann, R.; Maksoud, T. M. A.; Premier, G. C. (2010): Virtual Commissioning of

Manufacturing Systems a Review and new Approaches for Simplification. In: Proceedings 24th

European Conference on Modelling and Simulation.

[21] Hoyer, M.; Schumann, R.; Hoffmann, P.; Premier, G. C. (2008): Virtuelle Inbetriebnahme mit

Model-CAT. In: VDI Wissensforum GmbH (ed.): Tagungsband Automation 2008. VDI Berichte.

[22] Hoyer, M.; Schumann, R.; Premier, G. C. (2005): An Approach for Integrating Process and

Control Simulation into the Plant Engineering Process. In: European Symposium on Computer

Aided Process Engineering 15.

[23] Kain, S.; Heuschmann, C.; Schiller, F. (2008): Von der virtuellen Inbetriebnahme zur

Betriebsparallelen Simulation. Herauforderungen im Anlagenbetrieb und Nutzenpotentiale der

betriebsparallelen Simulation. In: VDI Wissensforum GmbH (ed.): Tagungsband Automation

2008. VDI Berichte.

[24] Klatt, K.-U. (2009): Trainingssimulation. Erfahrungen und Perspektiven aus Sicht der chemisch-

pharmazeutischen Industrie. In: atp (1-2), p. 66–71.

[25] Ko, M.; Ahn, E.; Park, S.C. (2013): A concurrent design methodology of a production system for

virtual commissioning. In: Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 21 (2), p. 129–

140. DOI: 10.1177/1063293XI3476070.

[26] Körtgen, A.-T.; Nagl, M. (2011): Tools for consistency management between design products. In:

Computers and Chemical Engineering 35, p. 724–735.

[27] Kuehn, W. (2006): Digital Factory - Integration of Simulation enhancing the Product and

Production Process towards operative Control and Optimization. In: Int. J. of Simulation 7 (7).

[28] Lüder, A.; Rosendahl, R.; Schmidt, N. (2013): Validation of behavior specifications of production

systems within different phases of the engineering process. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE

International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation.

[29] Mersch, H.; Behnen, D.; Schmitz, D.; Epple, U.; Brecher, C.; Jarke, M. (2011): Gemeinsamkeiten

und Unterscheide der Prozess- und Fertigungstechnik. Interdisziplinäre Aspekte der

Produktionsmodellierung. In: at - Automatisierungstechnik 59 (1), p. 7–17.

[30] Möhrle, M.G.; Isenmann, R. (ed.) (2008): Technologie-Roadmapping. Zukunftsstrategien für

Technologieunternehmen. 3rd edition: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

[31] Morbach, J.; Wiesner, A.; Marquardt, W. (2009): OntoCAPE - A (re)usable ontology for computer-

aided process engineering. In: Computers and Chemical Engineering 33, p. 1546–1556.

[32] NAMUR Arbeitsblatt NA 35, 24.03.2003: NA 35 - Abwicklung von PLT-Projekten.

[33] NAMUR Arbeitsblatt NA 60, 11.04.2006: NA 60 - Management von Trainingssimulatorprojekten.

[34] Oppelt, M.; Drumm, O.; Lutz, B.; Wolf, G. (2013): Approach for integrated Simulation based on

Plant Engineering Data. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Conference on Emerging

Technologies and Factory Automation.

[35] Oppelt, M.; Urbas, L. (2014): Integrated Virtual Commissioning as Part of the Automation

Engineering Process. In: Proceedings 40th Annual Conference of IEEE Industrial Electronics

Society - IECON 2014.


February 2015 41

[36] Oppelt, M.; Wolf, G.; Urbas, L. (2014): Capability-Analysis of Co-Simulation Approaches for

Process Industries. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Conference on Emerging

Technologies and Factory Automation.

[37] Oppelt, M.; Wolf, G.; Drumm, O.; Lutz, B.; Baudisch, T.; Wehrstedt, J.C. et al. (2014):

Automatische Generierung von Simulationsmodellen für die virtuelle Inbetriebnahme auf Basis

von Planungsdaten. Vorstellung eines generischen Konzepts und einer prototypischen

Implementierung. In: VDI Wissensforum GmbH (ed.): Tagungsband Automation 2014. VDI

Berichte.

[38] Oppelt, M.; Wolf, G.; Drumm, O.; Lutz, B.; Stöß, M.; Urbas, L. (2014): Automatic Model

Generation for Virtual Commissioning based on Plant Engineering Data. In: Proceedings of the

19th World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control.

[39] Patle, D. S.; Ahmad, Z.; Rangaiah G. P. (2014): Operator training simulators in the chemical

industry: review, issues, and future directions. In: Reviews in Chemical Engineering 2 (30), p.

199–216.

[40] Schaich, D.; Hanisch, F. (2010): Einsatz von Operator-Training-Simulatoren (OTS) über den

Lebenszyklus von Anlagen. In: VDI Wissensforum GmbH (ed.): Tagungsband Automation 2010.

VDI Berichte.

[41] Schopfer, G.; Yang, A.; Wedel, L. von; Marquardt, W. (2004): CHEOPS: A tool-integration

platform for chemical process modelling and simulation. In: International Journal Software Tools

Technology Transfer (6), p. 186–202.

[42] Schulze, K. (2014): Trainingssimulation in der Prozessindustrie. Umfrageergebnisse zur

Anwendung von Trainingssimulatoren. In: atp edition (1-2), p. 66–72.

[43] StatSoft, Inc. (2013): Electronic Statistics Textbook. Tulsa, OK. Online verfügbar unter

http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/.

[44] Tauchnitz, T. (2013): Integriertes Engineering - wann, wenn nicht jetzt! Notwendigkeit,

Anforderungen und Ansätze. In: atp edition (1-2), p. 46–53.

[45] Urbas, L. (2012): Process Control Systems Engineering. Unter Mitarbeit von A. Krause und J.

Ziegler. 1. Aufl. München: Oldenbourg Industrieverlag GmbH.

[46] VDI-Guideline 2206, June 2004: VDI 2206: Design methodology for mechatronic systems

[47] VDI-Guideline 3633, Part 1, December 1993: VDI 3633: Simulation von Logistik-, Materialfluß-

und Produktionssystemen.

[48] VDI-Guideline 4499, Part 2, May 2011: VDI 4499: Digital Factory.

[49] Wehnert, T.; Winzenick, M. (2011): Technologie-Roadmap Automation 2020+ Energie.

Zukunftsmärkte für die Automationstechnologien. In: atp edition (5), p. 46–54.


February 2015 42

the role of simulation within the life-cycle of a process plant

Documents

role of simulation

future use of simulation

current use of simulation

punctual use of simulation

life cycle

process plant results

process industries

survey design