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 Universitt Dresden
The Role of Simulation within the Life-Cycle of a Process Plant
T HE R OLE OF S IMULATION WITHIN THE L IFE -C YCLE OF A P ROCESS P LANT
P UBLISHERS / AUTHORS
Mathias Oppelt, Siemens AG, Karlsruhe
Prof. Dr. Mike Barth, Hochschule Pforzheim, Pforzheim
Prof. Dr. Leon Urbas, Technische Universitt Dresden, Dresden
F EBRUARY 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
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 Mller (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
February 2015
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

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 lifecycle of a process plant.
February 2015

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
Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4
Contents ............................................................................................................................. 7
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
The Current Role of Simulation ..........................................................................................16
The Future Role of Simulation............................................................................................26
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
Future Work and Next Steps ..............................................................................................36
About the Authors ..............................................................................................................38
10
References .....................................................................................................................39
February 2015
February 2015
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 knowhow 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

phases are operations. Simulation today is already present in various phases of the plant lifecycle. 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
Plant Life Cycle
Conceptual
Design
Basic
Engineering
Detailed
Engineering
Design Simulation Offline Optimization
Installation /
Construction
Commissioning
3
Virtual Commissioning
(simulation supported automation engineering)
Operation
Maintenance &
Modernization
Operator Training
Plant Optimization Online

Optimization
F IGURE 1: SIMULATION WITHIN THE LIFE- CYCLE OF A PROCESS PLANT
February 2015
10

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 Universitt 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.
S URVEY 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
To obtain a global response, the survey was

provided in German and English language. To
Color code
avoid a lack of responses in the summer holiday
Evaluation of todays use/relevance
of simulation
season the survey was run from July until the
Evaluation of future use/relevance
end of October 2014. Using international media
of simulation
and forums, the survey was promoted to reach
Evaluation of success factors to
reach future vision
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
11

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.
221
198
After the survey was closed the results have

been discussed with multiple experts to validate
the results and conclusions.
23
Total
Company
University
F IGURE 2: CLASS OF PARTICIPANTS
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 petrochemicals,
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 mediumsized companies with 100 to 1000
employees, and 16% work for
small companies with 1-100
n
Chemicals
39%
Oil and Gas
73
27%
Energy
50
18%
34
Petro-chemicals
17%
31
Pharmaceuticals and
Biotechnology
16%
29
Others*
16%
29
Water and Wastewater
14%
27
Food and Beverage
13%
25
Paper
8%
15
Steel
8%
15
Glass
5%
Solar
5%
Cement
3%
Sugar
3%
F IGURE 3: INDUSTRY SPLIT (MULTIPLE ANSWERS

POSSIBLE )
1-10
11-100
101-1000
more than 1000
8% (14)
8% (14)
24% (41)
60% (102)
n = 171
F IGURE 4: COMPANY SIZE ( NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES )
February 2015
12
System integrator / Solution provider

35%
40%
Plant owner and operator
n = 145
10%
Others*
15%
Manufacturer of plant equipment / product supplier

*Others e.g. (Engineering) Consulting, plant manufacturing, EPCM, process licensor, service provider
F IGURE 5: COMPANY TYPE

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.
53%
Engineering
15%
Management
10%
Development
Research
8%
116
33
22
18
Production
6%
13
Service
5%
12
Others*
5%
12
Sales
5%
10
Top Management
4%
Marketing
4%
8
4
Quality management
2%
*Others: e.g. (plant) maintenance, technical plant supervision, internal tool and process development, project management
F IGURE 6: F UNCTION / ROLE OF PARTICIPANTS
February 2015
13
Country
Country
Country
Germany
58
Saudi Arabia
Indonesia
USA
41
Sweden
Iran
India
Switzerland
Ireland
Canada
UAE
Kuwait
Netherlands
UK
Austria
Brazil
Argentina
Pakistan
Columbia
Bahrain
Russia
Australia
Belize
Sambia
Mexico
Botswana
Singapur
New Zealand
Burkina Faso
Spain
Nigeria
China
Thailand
Norway
France
Venezuela
Peru
Guatemala
Overall
173
F IGURE 7: COUNTRIES OF PARTICIPANTS
February 2015
14
Picture Page?
February 2015
15
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 first
safety and quality are the most dominant drivers
within process industries
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 timeto-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 onethird of the decisions are based on the
The majority of decisions made
experience of individual people and another
across the plant life cycle are
third is based upon the use of standards. Minor
based on (1) individual
roles are currently playing the use of security
factors, an analysis and the use of simulation. experience and (2) on standards
Thus to stay competitive within the future it will
become critical to capture and conserve the
Costs
Time-to-market
49%
30%
29%
Quality
19%
13%
29%
51%
37%
34%
Safety
Standards
12%
62%
Productivity
Sustainability
31%
36%
30%
40%
1 critically important
2%
9%
9%
10%
21%
70%
6%
7%
1%
1% 1%
1%
21%
5%
4% 1%
20%
9%
2%
188
1,81
178
2,42
189
1,49
187
1,61
183
2,04
187
1,44
185
2,13
5 not a factor
F IGURE 8: HOW MUCH IS YOUR DAILY WORK DRIVEN BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING POINTS?
( COMPANIES ONLY )
February 2015
16

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.
n
Conceptual design
Basic engineering
Detailed engineering
Installation and construction
Commissioning
Operation
Maintenance and
modernization
Experience
33%
29%
27%
34%
35%
30%
29%
Analysis
22%
10%
16%
12%
14%
28%
16%
9%
20%
10%
25%
21%
13%
24%
12%
Use security factors
Use of norms
1%
187
1%
186
3%
186
16%
2%
188
15%
1%
187
1%
188
16%
34%
13%
187
13%
28%
15%
2%
14%
20%
23%
7%
13%
Use of simulation
I dont know
F IGURE 9: ALONG THE PLANT LIFE CYCLE MANY DECISIONS ARE MADE . HOW IS THE DECISION
PROCESS SUPPORTED TODAY ? ( COMPANIES ONLY )
Investigating the role of simulation on a scale from 1 (completely agree) to 5 (dont 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
Simulation can be used to
efforts (average 2.37/2.29) (Figure 10).
answer engineering and
Therefore it can be derived that participants see
high value in simulation to reduce time and
operational questions earlier
risks during engineering and operations.
and with lower risks.
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
Simulation is an accepted
the possibility to capture the experience of
technology, even though it is
people within simulation models and to base
not for free.
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.
February 2015
17
By the use of simulation questions during plant engineering can be answered

earlier
51%
...with lower risks.
28%
47%
...with lower efforts.
31%
more reliable
31%
14%
36%
25%
22%
200
1,77
200
1,76
4%
199
2,37
2%
200
2,17
3%
200
2,03
3%
198
1,89
198
2,29
198
2,21
4% 1%
18%
35%
7%
14%
23%
10%
By the use of simulation questions during plant operations can be answered

earlier
43%
...with lower risks.
28%
47%
...with lower efforts.
34%
more reliable
33%
16%
29%
16%
24%
24%
31%
1
22%
3
Agree completely
12%
6%
12%
11%
5%
4%
5
Dont agree at all
F IGURE 10: BY THE USE OF SIMULATION QUESTIONS DURING PLANT

ENGINEERING / OPERATIONS CAN BE ANSWERED
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.
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.
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
Dynamic simulation is the most
in- and output signals as well as device
common kind of simulation
feedback signals towards the automation
used across the life-cycle.
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.
February 2015
18
Gain know-how and

understanding
2%
204
1,64
2%
203
1,76
202
2,01
2%
201
1,86
11%
3% 1%
203
1,72
30%
12%
3% 2%
204
1,68
27%
15%
3%
195
2,39
11%
4% 2%
204
1,63
201
1,78
59%
Problem identification
26%
54%
Increase quality
26%
40%
Decrease time
Minimize risks
19%
35%
49%
28%
Test: Validation and checkout
60%
Visualization and presentation
5% 4%
35%
27%
24%
52%
5%
15%
54%
Support communications
4%
13%
32%
43%
Support decisions
9%
27%
14%
4%
5%
3%
Listed in others:
12
1
5
No not at all
Yes definitely
F IGURE 11: A SIMULATION CAN SUPPORT DIFFERENT TASKS . W OULD YOU USE SIMULATION
FOR ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TASKS ?
n
Planning and design
24%
Engineering and commissioning

Training
Operation decision support and optimization
18%
27%
24%
20%
14%
38%
32%
28%
25%
Always
20%
37%
38%
Regulary
Even now and then
189
17%
190
16%
193
23%
189
Not at all
F IGURE 12: H OW OFTEN IS SIMULATION CURRENTLY USED WITHIN EACH PHASE ?

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.
February 2015
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.
19
F IGURE 13: W HAT KIND OF SIMULATIONS DO YOU CURRENTLY USE WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL
PHASES ? (1/2)
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
Self-developed simulation tools
significant role across the life-cycle. For
play a significant role across
engineering and training SIMIT (Siemens) plays
the life-cycle phases.
a significant role (6%) and for training UniSim
(Honeywell) (8%).
February 2015
20
F IGURE 14: W HAT KIND OF SIMULATIONS DO YOU CURRENTLY USE WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL
PHASES ? (2/2)
n
Planning and design
27%
10%
31%
Training
17%
17%
6%
11%
13%
9%
28%
8%
29%
14%
9%
29%
28%
38%
21%
157
167
28%
162
29%
151
Simulation is an integrated part of the normal engineering process

Own/company internal guideline on the use of simulation
Process is currently developed
Dependent on individual experts
No explicit process for the use of simulation
F IGURE 15: W HICH PROCESS SUPPORTS YOUR CURRENT USE OF SIMULATION?
February 2015
21
Planning and
design
Engineering and
commissioning
Training
Operation decision
support and
optimization
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
design
Engineering and
commissioning
Training
Operation decision
support and
optimization
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*
2%
5*
4%
11*
3%
6*
1%
2*
2%
4*
2%
7*
2%
4*
1%
1*
SimSci DYNSIM (Schneider Electic, ehemals

invensys)
SimSci DYNSIM Checkout (Schneider Electic,
ehemals invensys)
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*
F IGURE 16: W HICH SIMULATION TOOLS DO YOU CURRENTLY USE ?
Tool handling concept
42%
Effort for learning

and training
51%
Integration with the

current tool-chain
36%
Flexibility regarding
the field of use
38%
Availability of libraries for

model development
Availability of experts
regarding the tool
33%
34%
27%
47%
3% 2%
18%
2% 1%
15%
4% 1%
23% 5% 2%
33%
38%
2% 1%
14% 2%
21%
41%
46%
23%
17%
37%
42%
Modeling efficiency
Modeling concept and
language
38%
26%
12%
6% 2%
11% 2%
161
1,83
Supported standards
178
1,70
Openness of the tool
166
1,98
Price and licensing
174
1,87
Already available
within the company
29%
172
1,81
Clear separation between

simulation an reality
28%
172
1,97
Quality / excellence /
performance of simulation
170
1,84
165
2,32
1 very important
33%
41%
37%
32%
49%
47%
15% 8% 3%
22%
25%
29%
40%
2,07
168
2,08
5% 2% 173
1,83
170
2,32
15% 7%
153
2,50
9%
176
1,70
21%
28%
30%
n
167
8% 3%
16%
9%
6%
2% 1%
5 very unimportant
F IGURE 17: F ROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE : WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA WHEN
CHOOSING A SIMULATION TOOL ?
February 2015
22

Important criteria for choosing a simulation are
especially the effort for learning and training, and
the overall handling concept (Figure 17). In
Subjectively, the equipment
addition, the flexibility in using the tool is
manufacturers report the
important as well as the modelling efficiency.
highest modelling effort.
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.
Planning and design

4%
18%
1% 12%
Training
7%
8%
24%
27%
30%
11%
28%
32%
30%
16%
25%
30%
1 very low
25%
26%
23%
3
23%
153
3,58
159
3,67
148
3,52
140
3,36
5 very high
F IGURE 18: WHAT IS THE EFFORT ( TIME AND COSTS ) TO USE SIMULATION WITHIN THE
PHASES ?
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.
Model reuse and co-simulation

is already in strong demand.
February 2015
23
70%
Yes
30%
152
No
F IGURE 19: DO YOU HAVE / SEE THE NEED TO INTEGRATE MODELS DEVELOPED IN ONE
SIMULATION TOOL INTO ANOTHER SIMULATION TOOL ?
Coupling different process

(chemical) simulation tools
62%
39%
Coupling process (chemical)

simulation tools with other
63%
37%
141
Coupling different
other simulation tools
62%
38%
133
Yes
143
No
F IGURE 20: DO YOU HAVE / SEE THE NEED TO COUPLE DIFFERENT SIMULATION TOOLS?
n
Plant designer
9%
16%
11%
Process / chemical engineer
18%
19%
Automation engineer
18%
21%
Simulation expert
External solution provider
44%
10%
11%
1 Daily
43%
26%
24%
25%
22%
2 Weekly
14%
34%
3 Monthly
13%
28%
15%
132
21%
8%
16%
12%
24%
4 Rarely
150
159
135
119
5 Not at all
F IGURE 21: HOW OFTEN ARE WORKING THE FOLLOWING PERSONS WITH SIMULATION AT YOUR
COMPANY ?
In addition, the survey investigated the need to
reuse simulation models once these have been
Simulation is not only for
developed. First, the participants indicated a
dedicated experts; it is often
high demand for the integration of models
used by specific domain
developed within one simulation tool into
another simulation tool (Figure 19). Further,
experts (e.g. automation
about two-thirds of the participants need to
engineers) as a supporting
couple different simulation tools. On the one
methodology.
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).
February 2015
24

Picture Page?
February 2015
25
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.
Safety and quality remain major

drivers for the future.
Costs and time-to-market are

significantly more important in
Germany than in the USA.
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
Winning qualified personnel
47%
Cost pressure
47%
Time pressure
46%
Quality
Environmental protection
12%
39%
11%
36%
54%
16%
38%
49%
Safety resources
Limited resources
37%
13% 5%
18%
45%
33%
2
4% 1%
182
1,75
2% 2%
187
1,73
2% 1%
186
1,76
185
1,55
184
1,77
186
1,46
182
1,83
9%
32%
71%
7%
19%
4
1%
4% 1%
3% 1%
5 not a factor
F IGURE 22: HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU ANTICIPATE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CHALLENGES
WILL BE FOR YOU IN 6-8 YEARS? ( COMPANIES ONLY )
February 2015
26

accepted technology within the process industries in contrast to cloud technology, Big Data and
Cyber Physical Systems [2].
Cloud / web-driven
solutions and products
Data-driven solutions
and products (Big Data)
20%
31%
26%
Simulation-driven solutions/
products (plant engineering)
33%
33%
Modularization of plants
33%
Integrated engineeringand working processes
2,34
3%
203
1,97
4%
202
2,15
4%
195
2,19
6% 1%
198
1,80
13%
8%
160
2,51
17%
5%
196
1,92
38%
4
11%
11%
24%
39%
6%
8%
20%
31%
190
21%
39%
3%
15%
33%
2,60
7%
13%
38%
43%
Standards for interfaces

and architectures
186
18%
35%
24%
24%
38%
Simulation-driven solutions/
products (plant operation)
Cyber physical Systems
24%
2%
5 not a factor
F IGURE 23: HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU EXPECT THE FOLLOWING TECHNOLOGY TRENDS WILL BE
TO YOUR DAILY WORK IN 6-8 YEARS ?
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.
n
Planning and design
Training
Much more than today
31%
39%
37%
38%
More than today
43%
2% 1%
176
1% 1%
180
17%
1% 1%
177
16%
1% 1%
172
23%
40%
45%
19%
44%
Similar than today
Less than today
Much less than today
F IGURE 24: F ROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW : W HAT WILL BE THE RELEVANCE OF SIMULATION IN 68 YEARS?
February 2015
27
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.
37%
8%
29%
10%
23%
31%
40%
24%
25%
44%
20%
40%
1 Agree completely
10% 6%
28%
21%
The continuous use of simulation will be supported by a

modular, open and flexible tool landscape.
19%
34%
172
2,19
184
3,64
10%
4%
173
2,35
9%
4%
170
2,25
173
1,95
3% 3%
20%
5 I dont agree at all
F IGURE 25: HOW MUCH DO YOU AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ?
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
The virtual plant is the future.
and to adjust the workflows to support
simulation.
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.
35%
28%
The simulation models are built during the normal engineering

process by the responsible groups.
33%
33%
The simulation models are built and provided by suppliers.
33%
34%
26%
22%
42%
22%
21%
31%
20%
30%
1 very good
16%
19%
174
2,16
2%
170
2,18
8%
172
2,57
6% 2%
179
2,01
176
2,23
177
2,16
176
2,61
12% 5%
21%
26%
5%
8%
17%
46%
6%
22%
32%
10%
14%
9%
3%
5 very bad
F IGURE 26: THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS DESCRIBE THE USE OF SIMULATION WITHIN THE LIFE
CYCLE OF A PROCESS PLANT IN 6-8 YEARS . H OW WELL DO THEY DESCRIBE YOUR
EXPECTATIONS ?
February 2015
28

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
Simple handling of simulation tools
Little effort for building simulation models
Detailed models for e.g. chemical processes
Reuse of simulation models across different projects
Calculation with uncertain parameter
Availability of simulation libraries
Open interfaces for the coupling of different simulation
Know-How protection for simulation models
Standards for modeling
10
Management acceptance
11
Availability of users and experts
53%
32%
45%
36%
43%
35%
33%
41%
36%
23%
34%
29%
21%
39%
49%
46%
38%
2
5 very unimportant
1,57
3% 2%
174
1,79
2,23
1,56
2% 2%
161
1,84
4% 1%
168
1,74
163
2,15
3%
2%
171
1,91
5%
2%
167
1,98
4%
169
2,05
168
2,14
172
1,75
173
1,76
5%
23%
34%
GE
2,03
5% 4%
20%
29%
US
1,68
11%
24%
42%
1 very important
17%
39%
32%
174
14%
36%
46%
n
2% 2%
10%
7% 2%
2% 2%
13%
12%
2%
2%
F IGURE 27: W HAT ARE THE MOST RELEVANT REQUIREMENTS TO ENABLE A CONTINUOUS USE
OF SIMULATION ALONG THE LIFE CYCLE OF A PROCESS PLANT ?
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.
February 2015
Management acceptance is
needed to realize a continuous
use of simulation.
A collaboration model between

companies to create the models
for the virtual plant needs to be
developed.
System integrators are in strong

need for process models,
simulation libraries, modeling
standards and open interfaces.
29

Another interesting aspect was found when
Equipment manufacturers will
looking at the scenarios addressing some kind
of collaboration, e.g. using the virtual plant for
provide simulation models for
approval and validation of the deliveries and the
their equipment in the future.
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
No simulation no success
make the continuous use of simulation
Survey participant
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 knowhow 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
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
30
Design
Engineering &
Commissioning
Operator
Training
Operations &
Optimization
Design
Design
Design
Engineering &
Commissioning
Engineering &
Commissioning
Operator
Training
Operator
Training
Operator
Training
Operations &
Optimization
Operations &
Optimization
Engineering &
Commissioning
Operations &
Optimization
F IGURE 28: THE SIMULATION USE CASES WILL GROWTH TOGETHER

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.
The simulation use cases will

growth together and enable a
continuous use of simulation
along the life-cycle of a process
plant.
February 2015
31

Picture Page?
February 2015
32
Enabling the
Simulation
Integrated
Use
of
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
33
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
34

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 nonsimulation-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
35
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: oppelt.mathias@siemens.com).
Planned timeline: Summer/Autumn 2015
Planned location(s): Germany and/or USA
February 2015
36

Picture Page?
February 2015
37
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
Universitt 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: oppelt.mathias@siemens.com, 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: mike.barth@hs-pforzheim.de, Tel: +49 (7231) 28 6475
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Leon Urbas is head of the Chair of Process Control Systems
Engineering at Technische Universitt 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 Universitt Dresden, 01062 Dresden
E-mail: leon.urbas@tu-dresden.de, Tel: +49 (351) 463-39614
February 2015
38
10
References
[1] Abele, T. (2006): Verfahren fr das Technologie-Roadmapping zur Untersttzung des

strategischen Technologiemanagements. Dissertation. Heimsheim: Jost Jetter Verlag (IPA-IAO
Forschung und Praxis, 441).
[2] Acatech (2013): Umsetzungsempfehlungen fr das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0.
Abschlussbericht des Arbeitskreises Industrie 4.0.
[3] Barth, M. (2011): Automatisch generierte Simulationsmodelle verfahrenstechnischer Anlagen fr
den Steuerungstest. Dissertation. Dsseldorf: 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. 218230.
[5] Bausa, J.; Dnnebier, 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. 38.
[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, gewerkbergreifender Modellierung
industrieller Anlagen. In: VDI Wissensforum GmbH (ed.): Tagungsband Automation 2010. VDI
Berichte.
[8] Bergert, M.; Diedrich, C. (2008): Durchgngige 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.
576581.
[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.; Pflger, D. (2013): Modellbildung und Simulation. Eine
anwendungsorientierte Einfhrung. 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.
15421552.
[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. 25442552.
[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. 1322. DOI:
10.1002/caet.200406114.
February 2015
39

[17] Engl, G.; Krner, 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 fr 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. 11051110.
[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 chemischpharmazeutischen Industrie. In: atp (1-2), p. 6671.
[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] Krtgen, A.-T.; Nagl, M. (2011): Tools for consistency management between design products. In:
Computers and Chemical Engineering 35, p. 724735.
[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] Lder, 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. Interdisziplinre Aspekte der
Produktionsmodellierung. In: at - Automatisierungstechnik 59 (1), p. 717.
[30] Mhrle, M.G.; Isenmann, R. (ed.) (2008): Technologie-Roadmapping. Zukunftsstrategien fr
Technologieunternehmen. 3rd edition: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
[31] Morbach, J.; Wiesner, A.; Marquardt, W. (2009): OntoCAPE - A (re)usable ontology for computeraided process engineering. In: Computers and Chemical Engineering 33, p. 15461556.
[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
40

[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 fr 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.; St, 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.
199216.
[40] Schaich, D.; Hanisch, F. (2010): Einsatz von Operator-Training-Simulatoren (OTS) ber 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. 186202.
[42] Schulze, K. (2014): Trainingssimulation in der Prozessindustrie. Umfrageergebnisse zur
Anwendung von Trainingssimulatoren. In: atp edition (1-2), p. 6672.
[43] StatSoft, Inc. (2013): Electronic Statistics Textbook. Tulsa, OK. Online verfgbar unter
http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/.
[44] Tauchnitz, T. (2013): Integriertes Engineering - wann, wenn nicht jetzt! Notwendigkeit,
Anforderungen und Anstze. In: atp edition (1-2), p. 4653.
[45] Urbas, L. (2012): Process Control Systems Engineering. Unter Mitarbeit von A. Krause und J.
Ziegler. 1. Aufl. Mnchen: 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-, Materialfluund Produktionssystemen.
[48] VDI-Guideline 4499, Part 2, May 2011: VDI 4499: Digital Factory.
[49] Wehnert, T.; Winzenick, M. (2011): Technologie-Roadmap Automation 2020+ Energie.
Zukunftsmrkte fr die Automationstechnologien. In: atp edition (5), p. 4654.
February 2015
41
February 2015
42

The Role of Simulation Within The Life-Cycle of A Process Plant

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Role of Simulation Within The Life-Cycle of A Process Plant

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Role of Simulation within the

Life-Cycle of a Process Plant

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

T HE R OLE OF S IMULATION WITHIN THE L IFE -C YCLE OF A P ROCESS P LANT

Copyright for the pictures: Siemens AG

Authors 2015 All rights reserved.

Please consider the environment before printing this report.

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

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

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

Safety and quality are priorities in process industries.

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

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

The equipment manufacturers subjectively make the highest modelling effort.

Model reuse and co-simulation is already strongly demanded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Research Motivation

The Plant Life-Cycle and Simulation

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

Design Simulation Offline Optimization

Plant Optimization Online

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

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

The Survey Design

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 the vision be reached?

Before the survey was designed some expert

To obtain a global response, the survey was

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

After the survey was closed the results have

F IGURE 2: CLASS OF PARTICIPANTS

The Survey Participants

The survey was completed by

Oil and Gas

Water and Wastewater

Food and Beverage

F IGURE 3: INDUSTRY SPLIT (MULTIPLE ANSWERS

more than 1000

F IGURE 4: COMPANY SIZE ( NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES )

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

System integrator / Solution provider

Plant owner and operator

Manufacturer of plant equipment / product supplier