Managing training simulator projects

Operator training simulators are not cheap, yet their value in preparing
personnel for the fast startup and operation of new process plants is significant

Nick Harbud Foster Wheeler Energy Limited

T
here is no doubt that over the
last 20 years the improvements
in the dynamic simulation of
OTS trainee workstation DCS controller
process plants have enabled a range of
Emulation
new operational tools to become Printer Computers
widely available. Among these is the
high-fidelity, customised operator
training simulator (OTS), which can
DCS LAN
now be readily obtained for almost all
Plant model/
chemical processes. However, the DCS interface
dazzling advances in OTS technology computers
should not blind us to the fact that
these items are a significant expense Instructor
station
and their engineering constitutes a Plant model
major project in its own right. simulators Printer
Typically, an OTS costs in the order of
$1 million, which can amount to more
than 20% of the combined cost of proc- Plant model LAN
ess control and safety systems. These
systems generally take a year to deliver Figure 1 A two-part OTS architecture
and the OTS must be ready at least six
months prior to plant startup. OTS underlies the simulator and who probably devel-
projects require prodigious quantities of input data, oped the steady-state heat and material balance
including heat and material balances, process flow for the real plant
diagrams, most equipment and instrument data • The plant operators, who can tell whether it
sheets, as well as all the information that would provides a realistic simulation of the real plant.
normally be supplied to a distributed control Unfortunately, none of these can normally be
system (DCS) or emergency shutdown (ESD) spared to manage the OTS project, so it follows
system vendor, such as piping and instrumentation that the supervision of an OTS supplier normally
diagrams (P&IDs), input/output lists, control falls upon someone who does not have the most
narratives, and cause and effect diagrams. comprehensive technical under-standing of what
If this is not a sufficient challenge, OTS systems is being ordered. This is often a control systems
are normally understood technically by three groups engineer, as the OTS tends to be perceived as an
of people: extension of the DCS.
• Specialist engineers working for an OTS
supplier. This group may comprise no more than Generic simulators
a few hundred individuals worldwide Many companies provide so-called generic train-
• The process technologist, who comprehends ing simulators for common unit operations, such
the fundamental chemical engineering that as boilers, fluidised catalytic cracking, crude

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000076 PTQ Q4 2006 1

 The need for speed
How fast does a simulator need to run? Rather
than seriously consider this question, most OTS
specifications will simply include a requirement for
“minimum speed at least 10 x real-time” – this being
a nice round number.
While most simulation models can be arranged
to meet this speed, they can generally only do so by
simplifying the model to an unacceptable degree.
Therefore, one should consider carefully any situation
where such high execution speeds might appear
necessary.
A typical simple training exercise might take about
an hour to execute, so reducing this time to 20 or 30
minutes is generally satisfactory. It is probably not
surprising that most suppliers will simply provide
models with a maximum speed of around 2–3 x real-
time.
10 x real-time can be tempting where the model
response is a long one, such as filling large vessels,
purging lines or plant cool-down. However, if it makes
no sense to have a trainee wait for ten hours while the
plant model cools down, does it make any more sense
to have him wait one hour with the model executing
in high speed? Why not create an additional initial
condition representing the plant after its lengthy
response?
distillation and vacuum distillation. These simu-
lators are typically complete packages that run
on a single computer. The models, instrumenta-
tion, screens, DCS/ESD system configurations
and training exercises will generally be based
upon common industry examples. They cost a
few thousand dollars each — significantly less
than an equivalent high-fidelity OTS. The generic
simulator is an off-the-shelf item that does not
require detailed design information from the real
plant. It may therefore be procured independ-
ently of the main project schedule and delivered
to the users many months earlier than a high-
fidelity OTS. However, the generic OTS has its
drawbacks.
Generic simulators will generally not be availa-
ble for anything other than commonly used unit
operations. Thus, for an application involving,
say, a chemicals plant, there is unlikely to be a
generic solution available.
The generic OTS will be based upon a typical
2 PTQ Q4 2006
configuration of a plant and DCS. If the real
plant is larger, smaller or of an unusual configu-
ration, its dynamic response may differ
significantly from the generic OTS, even to an
extent where the training benefit becomes
questionable.
Despite the widespread adoption of Microsoft
Windows as a platform for DCS operator work-
stations, the look of the trainee’s interface is
unlikely to match that of the real plant DCS. The
degree of customisation available on a generic
simulator is generally limited.
Overall, any off-the-shelf simulator should be
thoroughly investigated before any decision is
made with respect to its adoption and, while the
generic solution should be considered, one
should not rely upon it being either available or
entirely suitable.
Two-part OTS architecture
Most modern training simulators use a two-part
architecture comprising a mixture of DCS
components linked to a dynamic model of the
real process plant (Figure 1). Typically, the DCS
supplier provides:
• Standard operator consoles to form the trainee
workstation
• Computers running DCS controller emulation
software, onto which the real plant DCS configu-
ration will be loaded
• An interface server that alternately passes DCS
outputs to the plant model and plant model
calculated values to the DCS inputs.
The OTS supplier provides:
• A dynamic simulation of the real process plant
(the plant model)
• An instructor station for controlling the simula-
tor, running training exercises, initiating
malfunctions and evaluating trainee performance.
This is an attractive architecture from the
perspective of suppliers, as a single plant model
can interface with many types of DCS, and vice
versa. From a purchaser’s viewpoint, its main
advantage is that the trainees will be learning in
an environment that is pretty much identical to
the real thing. However, it can have certain limi-
tations, including:
• Limitations on simulator speed and the ability
to backtrack or rewind a training exercise
• DCS alarms and events often cannot be
recorded within the instructor station or stored
as part of the training records
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000076
• Storing snapshots, reloading and re-initialising
exercises involving sequences and other complex
control schemes can be problematic.
But whatever the advantages and disadvan-
tages, this is the most likely platform for
implementing the OTS. This should be kept in
mind when specifying the simulator
requirements.
Defining simulator scope
For any project to be successful, it needs a well-
defined scope. In OTS terms, this means
defining:
• How much of the process will be simulated
• What equipment will be simulated
• How the plant will be partitioned into different
simulator models
• How non-DCS systems, such as the ESD
system, compressor or turbine control systems,
fieldbus control functions and advanced process
control (APC) controllers, will be simulated.
A good starting point for any definition is the
simulator for a similar existing facility. However, if
there is no such example to hand, the definition
must be made from first principles.
When deciding what equipment should be
included in the OTS, it is of prime importance to
consider the potential training benefits to trainee
operators. These are not always the same items
that cause problems on existing plants. For exam-
ple, a complex chemical plant included several
intermediate storage tanks of one to two days’
capacity. Operators frequently overfilled these
tanks, and it was suggested that rigorous model-
ling within the new OTS scope would allow
operators to practise preventative measures.
However, it was deemed impractical to devise a
training exercise that involved a trainee waiting
for several hours for an undesirable situation to
occur. Nor is it always appropriate to exclude
infrequently used equipment. Some of the most
common training scenarios involve plant startup,
shutdown and upset conditions. Special startup
equipment, lines and ESD overrides should be
included within the OTS.
In general, utilities and bulk storage facilities are
modelled as infinitely large sources or sinks of
materials. This can be justified on the grounds that
the relevant storage capacity is measured in terms
of days, and the means of generating utilities is
normally straightforward and does not interact
with the main process dynamics. Loss of particular
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000076
utilities or feedstock is easily simulated, for exam-
ple, by placing a (simulated) manual valve in a line
that the instructor can open or close. Exceptions to
this rule are utilities such as steam from waste heat
boilers and fuel gas systems, both of which are
generated by the process itself and are therefore
intimately connected to the main process
dynamics.
Another decision is whether to split a large plant
model into a number of smaller models. It is possi-
ble, of course, to simply ask the OTS supplier to
include everything in one model. However, this will
probably result in a large, slow model that is
unwieldy both for the supplier to develop and for
the instructors to work with. It is therefore good
practice to define small, practical models, yet with-
out losing any important dynamic interactions.
If the particular process has been simulated
before, discussions with those involved can provide
a reasonable guide to the scope of individual OTS
models, and some plants are obviously self-
contained. However, if one does not have an earlier
example, a good starting point is to consider the
responsibilities of the individual panel operators.
OTS training exercises are often designed within
the working area of a single panel operator, and
even in a large process there are generally well-
defined interface points separating the different
operators’ areas of responsibility.
Non-DCS systems found on the real plant will
generally not be emulated in the same way as the
DCS. Therefore, if they are to be included as part
of the OTS, they must be simulated as part of the
plant model. Each system should be considered in
its own right:
• Many OTS suppliers have tools that can
convert an ESD system software configuration
into a plant model logic block. If such a tool is
not available, the ESD logic must be derived
manually from cause and effect diagrams and
other documents
• The functions of a compressor anti-surge
controller can often be simplified or, for exam-
ple, in the case of an air compressor completely
omitted
• Simulating fieldbus control functions is not
normally a problem, as most simulators contain
standard function blocks for PID controllers and
other functions. However, the OTS specification
should reflect the philosophy used on the real
plant
• The ability to integrate an APC computer into
PTQ Q4 2006 3

Supporting OTS development
Obtaining technical support from the purchaser’s
organisation is crucial to the success of the OTS
project. Make sure you have on board a process
technologist who comprehends the underlying
process and a plant instructor or a senior operator
experienced in the behaviour of the real plant.
Make sure both of the above are fully involved in
and approve the functional design specification of
the OTS. This will ensure their enthusiastic support
during the later testing phases.
The process technologist should be asked to review
the plant model behaviour and compare its steady
state with the original heat and material balance.
The plant instructor, as the end user, is the best
person to attend FAT.
Initial conditions: where to start?
The state of a simulator at the beginning of a training
exercise is known as its initial condition. Most
OTS quotations will include two initial conditions
per model. One will represent the plant at normal
operating conditions and the other when it is shut
down. As most training exercises represent start-up,
shutdown or upsets from normal operation, this is
generally sufficient. Furthermore, most OTS systems
can readily create additional initial conditions from
simulator snapshots.
When should more initial conditions be specified?
If the real plant has more than one normal operating
state, then an initial condition for each one should be
considered. This can arise, for example, when there
are different feedstocks or operations differ between
summer and winter.
Also, if plant startup includes a long period where the
operator has little to do, an additional condition can be
created representing the plant state at the end of this
period. Alternatively, if reaching this point is relatively
straightforward, one can specify that this point will
represent the plant shutdown initial condition.
the OTS may depend upon its ability to commu-
nicate with the DCS emulation. One can also
take the view that a principal objective of the
OTS is to train operators in how to operate the
plant without APC and hence omit it.
4 PTQ Q4 2006
Defining simulator fidelity
Having decided what should be modelled within
each OTS model, it is now necessary to decide
how rigorously it should be modelled. In theory,
everything could be modelled with complete
rigour. However, there are normally a number of
reasons why this is undesirable.
First, the information available may not enable
some parts of the plant to be modelled rigor-
ously. This situation often arises where particular
equipment or groups of equipment are being
supplied under licence. The information relevant
to any dynamic model is the intellectual property
of the licensor, who is often reluctant to give it
to others, even under the terms of a confidential-
ity agreement.
Second, a simpler model will always execute
faster than a more rigorous one. It is desirable to
simplify the model wherever it will not impact
unduly on the simulator’s fidelity (see The need
for speed). There are several basic methods for
simplifying a simulator:
• Reduce the number of chemical components
either by eliminating compounds that are only
present in low concentrations or by grouping
components, for example, by treating all non-
reactive gases as nitrogen
• Model only one equipment item from a duty/
standby arrangement
• Model parallel equipment as a single item. For
example, where a large relief duty requires two
or more real relief valves to be installed in paral-
lel, this can be modelled as a single simulated
relief valve with an orifice area equal to the sum
of the real valves
• Model groups of equipment in a drastically
simplified manner as so-called “black boxes”. For
example, a molecular sieve package with its asso-
ciated sequence controls and regeneration
facilities can be modelled as a simple component
splitter that removes the unwanted components
from a process stream.
Time spent considering the OTS scope is rarely
wasted, and having a clear understanding of the
user’s requirements is a prerequisite to placing
an order.
OTS project execution
Once ordered, the development of an OTS will
normally fall into five main phases:
1. Functional specification During this phase, the
OTS supplier will provide a detailed simulator
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000076
scope, how each simulator model is to be split
into area models and the modelling approach to
be used for implementing each area model
2. Area modelling The individual parts of the
simulator model are configured and tested using
simulated DCS controllers
3. Model integration The area models are
connected together and the whole plant model
tested
4. DCS/ESD integration The plant model is inte-
grated with the actual DCS and ESD systems
configurations
5. Testing and installation The complete OTS is
tested and shipped to site.
Throughout the project, the OTS supplier will
require support not only from the main project’s
design team, but also from the purchaser’s
organisation (see Supporting OTS development).
From the OTS supplier’s viewpoint, the project is
driven by two concerns:
• The availability of information on the real
plant
• Freezing of design information.
Almost immediately upon placing the order for
the OTS, the supplier will probably ask for all the
design information relating to the real plant, so
that he may construct the simulator. As the source
of this information is the main project (which will
generate it over a period of months as the design
progresses and equipment suppliers provide docu-
ments), much of it will simply not exist at order
placement.
Perhaps fortunately, most OTS engineers have
developed various workaround techniques to
handle shortfalls of information. These tend
to be based upon a mixture of understanding the
fundamental process, approximating various coef-
ficients and experimenting until the result looks
about right. It is often surprising what can be
achieved. However, this does not mean that the
information problem should be ignored, as exper-
imentation will take time from the project
schedule and there will be a detrimental effect on
simulator model quality (see OTS quality) that is
typically not discovered until factory acceptance
testing.
To manage this situation, the OTS supplier must
not only be aware of the main project schedule, but
must also agree to use it as the framework for his
own activities. Conversely, the main project must
be reminded of its obligations to supply informa-
tion and that, unlike everybody else, the OTS
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000076
OTS quality
• Fidelity measures the simulator model’s ability to
replicate the dynamic performance of the real plant
• Stability determines how well the model performs
both inside and outside the originally envisaged
operating envelope. Unstable perfor-mance varies
from a wildly unrealistic response to models that
regularly crash
• Elegance is a qualitative measure of how efficiently
the model has been implemented in software. An
elegant model will be compact and execute swiftly.
How much and how long
OTS models differ greatly both in scope and complexity.
Their price and delivery can vary accordingly.
Therefore, to answer this question with any degree
of accuracy requires an OTS supplier (or preferably
several OTS suppliers) to provide a quotation.
However, in the absence of anything better, the
following is the author’s own very rough guide:
• A set of hardware and licences costs around
$0.25M
• A small simulator model will cost around $0.5M
• A large simulator model will cost around $1M
• The supplier’s project manager, specialists and
sundry other hangers-on will add from $0.5M to $1M
to the overall cost
• A small simulator can generally be delivered within
a year of order placement
• A large simulator will generally require 15–18
months to delivery.
supplier has no opportunity to recover schedule
during the construction phase.
The requirements for information during the
different stages of OTS development are illustrated
in Figure 2. In order to define in detail the simula-
tor scope, it will obviously be necessary to provide
P&IDs, process flow diagrams, and heat and mate-
rial balances. The latter will form the basis of the
simulator’s initial conditions (see Initial conditions:
where to start?). Copies of any training exercises
will also be helpful. However, to minimise the OTS
engineer’s guesswork, the two most useful things
that can be provided are:
PTQ Q4 2006 5
 • Copies of any steady-state simulation models
• Access to a technologist from the process
licensor.
This combination will enable the OTS engineer
to decide rapidly upon the best modelling
approaches for the simulator and to complete the
functional design specification (FDS). Regarding
schedule, the availability of suitably firm delivera-
bles to support this exercise will tend to dictate
that functional specification cannot start before the
end of front-end engineering.
As previously noted, part of the FDS will detail
how the overall plant model is to be split into area
models. This activity should not be confused with
the exercise that we, as users, carried out in deter-
mining the scope of the overall plant models. The
objective of area models is to break the simulator
model into manageable chunks that can be devel-
oped, tested and executed individually, thus
enhancing the overall quality of the OTS.
Once all parties have accepted the FDS, program-
ming the area models becomes the main activity. If
the plant is to be modelled with any degree of
rigour, the OTS supplier must be provided with
information of sufficient quality to enable him to
do so. In practice, this means issuing equipment
data sheets. Therefore, scheduling this activity any
earlier than three to six months after the start of
detailed engineering is not normally practical.
By the end of area modelling (an activity that
takes anywhere from three months to a year), the
supplier should have produced a reasonable
collection of area models. It is at this point, before
the area models are integrated into a complete
plant model, that one needs to implement strict
control of further changes. Introducing substan-
tial changes to the model from this point on will
often result in the integration process having to
be restarted from scratch. Therefore, the start of
&UNCTIONAL 0LANT AREA
SPECIFICATION MODELS
0)$S 0&$S %QUIPMENT
3TEADY STATE SIMULATIONS DATA SHEETS
(EAT  MATERIAL BALANCES
4RAINING EXERCISES
Figure 2 OTS project phases and information requirement
6 PTQ Q4 2006
model integration should be scheduled after the
issue of construction P&IDs and associated data
sheets and vendor documents from the main
project. This will enable any last-minute plant
changes to be incorporated prior to model
integration.
Finally, the real plant DCS and ESD system
configurations must be integrated with the plant
model. As with the integration of the area models,
substantial changes to either DCS or ESD configu-
rations will often cause this process to be restarted.
It follows that one should wait until the DCS and
ESD systems have completed FAT before starting
integration. Even then, it can be expected that suffi-
cient problems (ranging from missing points to
control schemes that simply do not work) will arise
to justify the full-time support of a DCS applica-
tions engineer at the OTS supplier’s premises
during this operation. As several of the major DCS
suppliers also sell their own dynamic simulation
packages, placing the OTS order with the DCS
supplier will ensure smooth integration of DCS
configuration and plant model. Alternatively,
subcontracting the OTS supplier to the DCS
supplier is a popular strategy.
Managing the OTS development schedule to
meet the requirements of the main project sched-
ule can be challenging, but is normally quite
achievable. Any float is generally most apparent
at the earlier stages, which is when extra effort
can provide the most benefits later on. Towards
the latter stages of the project, any spare time
tends to disappear and the project also becomes
constrained in terms of the amount of resources
that can be deployed to make up any slippage.
Late changes should therefore be avoided.
Managing multiple simulators
So far this discussion has only considered the
development of a simulator for a single process
0LANT AREA $#3%3$ 4ESTING AND
INTEGRATION INTEGRATION INSTALLATION
#ONSTRUCTION $#3 CONTROLS
ISSUE 0)$ %3$ LOGIC
)NSTRUMENT DATA
6ENDOR DATA
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000076
plant. However, when several OTS models are
required as part of, for example, a refinery or
petrochemicals complex development project,
one should always consider whether to order
them all from a single supplier or place separate
orders with different suppliers for each
simulator.
Training simulator models, like most other
commodities, are cheaper when ordered in quan-
tity. Placing an order for all the training
simulators with a single OTS supplier typically
provides the following benefits:
• Savings on project managers and sundry other
overheads
• Significant savings in licence fees by installing
the simulators on common hardware
• Flexibility during pre-startup operator training
as a result of having several identical OTS sets
available.
The magnitude of any potential savings may be
judged from the observations noted in How
much and how long? Against this must be recog-
nised the difficulties:
• Scheduling several simulators within a
common time frame can be difficult. Schedules
for smaller simulators may contain long periods
of inactivity while work is completed on the
bigger ones
• The schedule can become constrained by the
need to share the common OTS hardware during
some development stages
• A single OTS supplier can find difficulty in
obtaining technical support from multiple proc-
ess licensors.
In summary, a case can be made either for or
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000076
against placing a single order for several simula-
tors. The final decision will likely depend upon
the particular combination of required simula-
tors and the capabilities of individual OTS
suppliers.
Route to success
Operator training simulators are not cheap, yet
their value in preparing personnel for the fast
startup and operation of new process plants is
increasingly appreciated. Their importance to
the end users is generally greater than is appre-
ciated by the main project team.
Operator training programs and the time allo-
cated to simulator training are very inflexible.
Tight control of information and a well-managed
OTS supplier are required if the simulator is to
be ready on time.
Understanding the constraints on these
complex projects and acting upon them to
provide adequate resources at the correct time is
the route to a successful project.
Nick Harbud is a principal control systems engineer at Foster
Wheeler Energy Limited in Reading, UK. He has over 25 years of
experience in the refining, upstream oil and gas, LNG and GTL,
petrochemical, chemicals, power and pharmaceuticals business
sectors. Email: nick_harbud@fwuk.fwc.com
LinkS
More articles from: Foster Wheeler USA
More articles from the following category:
Process Modelling & Simulation
PTQ Q4 2006 7