DOE/NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research and Training Center · DOE/NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research and Training Center Scoping Study ii SimSci-Esscor (DynSim), Trax Corporation

DOE/NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator

Research and Training Center

May 2006

Volume 1: Scoping Study

DOE/NETL-2008/1321

NETL Collaboratory for Process & Dynamic Systems Research

Disclaimer

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States

Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their

employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or

responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,

product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The

views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the

United States Government or any agency thereof.

DOE/NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator

Research and Training Center

DOE/NETL-2008/1321

NETL Collaboratory for Process & Dynamic Systems Research

Volume 1: Scoping Study

May 2006

NETL Contact:

Stephen E. Zitney, Ph.D. Director, Collaboratory for Process & Dynamic Systems Research

NETL Office of Research & Development

Prepared by:

Michael R. Erbes, Ph.D.

Enginomix, LLC

Menlo Park, CA

National Energy Technology Laboratory

www.netl.doe.gov

DOE/NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research and Training Center Scoping Study

i

Executive Summary

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is emerging as an attractive technology option

for providing clean, low-cost electricity for the next generation of coal-fired power plants and will

play a central role in the development of high-efficiency, zero-emissions power plants. Several

major utilities and developers recently announced plans to build IGCC plants and other major

utilities are evaluating IGCC’s suitability for base-load capacity additions. This recent surge of

attention to IGCC power generation is creating a growing demand for education and experience

with the analysis, operation, and control of commercial-scale IGCC plants. To meet this need,

the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has

launched a project to develop a generic, full-scope, IGCC dynamic plant simulator and establish

a state-of-the-art simulator research and training center. The flagship location for the

DOE/NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research & Training (DSR&T) Center will be at NETL in

Morgantown, WV, with a satellite location at West Virginia University’s (WVU) National

Research Center for Coal and Energy (NRCCE). This report describes the results of the initial

phase of that work, a scoping study to define the IGCC simulator requirements and features, as

well as identify potential operator training system (OTS) frameworks and suppliers, R&D

technology collaborators, and members of an advisory board to guide simulator development

and establishment of the training center.

A partial list of the key IGCC simulator requirements and features identified in this scoping study

includes:

• High-fidelity, real-time dynamic model of process-side (gasification) and power-side (combined cycle) for a generic IGCC plant

• Full-scope OTS capabilities including startup, shutdown, load following and shedding, response to fuel and ambient variations, control strategy analysis (turbine and gasifier lead), malfunctions/trips, alarms, scenarios, trending, snapshots, data historian, and trainee performance monitoring

• Suitable for systems analysis, detailed engineering studies, as well as education and training purposes

• Extendable to incorporate new, advanced technologies such as fuel cells and including IGCC systems with carbon capture and zero-emission polygeneration plants

A comprehensive review of major software vendors capable of providing an IGCC operator

training and dynamic modeling framework was completed. This review included Aspen

Technology (Aspen Dynamics / Aspen HYSYS), GSE Systems (SimSuite), Honeywell (UniSim),


ii

SimSci-Esscor (DynSim), Trax Corporation (ProTrax), and Western Services Corporation

(3KeyMaster). These software systems were evaluated for their suitability and applicability for

the combined need of delivering a full-scope, complete-plant IGCC operator training system as

well as a software framework for engineering studies that could be learned and used by

researchers at NETL and other organizations (such as universities).

A plan for establishing a group of research and development partners and an industry advisory

panel was developed and discussed with potential members from other research organizations

(such as EPRI), end users (such as American Electric Power and TECO), engineering firms

(such as General Electric, Bechtel, and Parsons) and potential software vendors (such as

Honeywell and Simulation Sciences). In particular, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

expressed interest in finding ways for the two organizations to collaborate: EPRI has strong ties

to other utility and industrial organizations through its CoalFleet initiative and discussed possible

ways this group might contribute to the development of a generic IGCC simulator. Further

details of such potential collaboration arrangements, including the industry advisory board, will

be developed during the subsequent detailed planning phase.

Work on the detailed planning phase will be undertaken as part of the Collaboratory for Process

& Dynamic Systems Research (CPDSR) established between NETL and three of its major

regional university partners, namely Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh, and

West Virginia University. The objective of this Collaboratory is to accelerate the development of

an advanced process engineering and dynamic simulation capability for fossil energy systems

and promote its use to produce increasingly valuable outcomes for DOE and the Nation. A

major project included in this Collaboratory will be the detailed planning for this generic IGCC

dynamic plant simulator that was the focus of this scoping study, and the establishment of the

DOE/NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research & Training (DSR&T) Center at NETL, with a

satellite location at WVU’s NRCCE.


iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. i

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................... iii

Background and Rationale...................................................................................................... 5

Need for NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research & Training Center .................................. 5

Previous Dynamic IGCC Simulators & Existing Power Plant Training Centers ....................... 6

Overall Project Significance.................................................................................................... 7

Relevance to NETL Mission ................................................................................................... 8

Overall Project Plan and Objectives ....................................................................................... 8

Overall Project Objectives ...................................................................................................... 8

Project Work Plan................................................................................................................... 9

Next Step: Detailed Planning and Elaboration Phase ............................................................. 9

Future Work...........................................................................................................................10

Requirements, Key Features and Capabilities......................................................................10

Simulator Requirements ........................................................................................................10

Vendor Requirements............................................................................................................11

Training Center Requirements...............................................................................................11

Industry Advisory Panel Requirements ..................................................................................12

Modeling Requirements.........................................................................................................13

Hardware Requirements........................................................................................................13

Key Project Deliverables........................................................................................................14

Data Typically Provided to OTS Vendors...............................................................................14

Sample DCS Graphics...........................................................................................................16

NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research & Training (DSR&T) Center.................................18

Evaluation of Potential OTS Software Vendors ....................................................................18

Potential Project Partners ......................................................................................................20

Initial cost estimates and schedule .......................................................................................20

Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................................21

Summary and Recommendations..........................................................................................22


iv

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations.....................................................................................23

References ..............................................................................................................................24

Appendix A..............................................................................................................................27

Summary of Key Site Visits and Meetings ............................................................................27

Project Announcement ..........................................................................................................27

Kickoff Meeting......................................................................................................................27

Simulator Site Visits...............................................................................................................28

Discussions at Industry Forums.............................................................................................29

Appendix B..............................................................................................................................30

Use Cases and Actors for IGCC Dynamic Simulation and Training....................................30

Example Actors: ....................................................................................................................30

Example Use Cases: .............................................................................................................30


5

Background and Rationale

Need for NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research & Training Center

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is increasingly recognized within the power

production industry as a significant growth alternative for new fossil fuel generation, especially

moving into a future characterized by higher natural gas prices and more stringent

environmental regulations, including carbon controls. In a clear sign of the increasing interest in

IGCC technology, several commercial alliances (e.g., Bechtel/General Electric,

Fluor/Siemens/ConocoPhillips and Black & Veatch/Uhde/Shell) have been formed in recent

years to offer combined added-value solutions to IGCC customers. Since February 2004, three

major electric utilities (i.e., American Electric Power (AEP), Cinergy, and Excelsior Energy) and

a non-utility developer (i.e., Southern Company) have announced their intentions to construct

IGCC plants and begun working on the detailed engineering design, while other utilities and

developers (i.e., Consol, FirstEnergy, NRG, Wyoming Infrastructure Authority and Erora Group-

Tenaska) have also begun studying or announced plans for IGCC base-load capacity additions.


6

This recent surge of attention to coal-based IGCC power generation is creating a rapidly

growing demand for education and experience with the analysis, operation, and control of

commercial-scale IGCC plants. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has a

unique opportunity to address this emerging need by establishing a national center for IGCC

dynamic simulation research, education and training.

Previous Dynamic IGCC Simulators & Existing Power Plant Training Centers

Several IGCC dynamic simulator software systems have been developed and deployed in the

past, including simulators for the Wabash and Polk IGCC systems in the U.S. and the

Puertollano IGCC plant in Spain. The Wabash and Polk IGCC simulators were both built using

simulator software from Trax. Although neither of these simulators is currently in use,

discussions with representatives from both plants indicated that the simulators were extremely

useful, especially during the early stages of plant start-up and commissioning. Among the key

uses of the simulator at Polk cited by plant personnel was to help with the debugging and tuning

of the plant control system. A factor mentioned as one of the primary reasons both simulators

were no longer in use was the high cost of maintaining and upgrading the simulators, especially

as the plants themselves underwent significant design and equipment changes. The simulator

at the Puertollano IGCC plant was built based on LEGOCAD software from ENEL in Italy.

During this scoping study, the project team visited with two existing power plant simulator

training centers: the EPRI Simulator and Training Center in Charlotte, NC and the AEP

Simulator Learning Center in St. Albans, WV. The power plant simulators at the EPRI training

center were developed through collaborative projects among groups of EPRI member utilities.

Simulators have been developed for GE and Siemens (formerly Westinghouse) gas turbines

and combined cycles. In addition, the EPRI simulator staff engages in projects with member

utilities to assist them in setting up and establishing site-specific simulators for their power

plants, including conventional coal-fired plants. The gas turbine and combined cycle simulators

were developed based on simulator software from Western Services Corporation. The EPRI

staff has also recommended and used the DynSim simulator technology from SimSci-ESSCOR

for several recent coal-plant simulator projects. EPRI offers operator training classes at its

simulator facility in Charlotte and has also helped several utilities build their own simulator

training centers, based on the EPRI simulator models and software.


7

The AEP Simulator Learning Center in St. Albans, WV is the primary training center for AEP’s

power plant fleet, and is the largest power-plant simulator facility in the U.S. AEP selected GSE

as the primary vendor to supply their simulator systems: AEP has a number of different full-

stimulation simulators installed at this training facility. AEP offers a variety of different kinds of

training courses at its Simulator Learning Center, ranging from an introductory power plant

familiarization course that includes several days of simulator training, to detailed, multi-week

operator training courses for plant operating staff. The power plant familiarization course is most

often given to new hires of AEP, not only plant staff, operators and engineers, but also

corporate staff and management. The AEP power plant familiarization course could serve as a

model for the type and scope of training classes that the DOE might offer for IGCC power

plants, based on its generic IGCC dynamic simulator.

Overall Project Significance

At the conclusion of this project, NETL’s IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research & Training Center

will offer much-needed IGCC demonstration, education, and training services such as IGCC

plant operation and control demonstrations, computer-based training programs, intelligent

tutoring systems, and on-site “train the trainer” programs. It is envisioned that a key application

will be equivalent to AEP’s one-week power plant familiarization training course discussed

above. Potential users include electric utilities, engineering and construction firms, gasification

technology suppliers, DOE/NETL system analysts and engineers, university engineering and

training R&D community, and those interested in learning more about IGCC plant operations

and control. Because the simulator will be based on a generic IGCC plant design, it is not

intended for training plant operators on the specific operation and control of the plants they

operate, but IGCC operators may benefit from training on the generic simulator before moving

on to plant-specific training. In addition, the generic IGCC simulator developed for this project

could very well serve as the basis for development of later site-specific simulators, and

discussions of just this approach have already begun with potential project partners and

potential users.

The NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research & Training (DSR&T) Center project which has

been the focus of this scoping study will build on and reach beyond the existing “combined-

cycle” simulators offered at the EPRI and AEP operator training centers to combine for the first

time a “process/gasification” simulator and a “combined-cycle” simulator together in a single

dynamic simulator framework for use in training applications as well as engineering studies.


8

Relevance to NETL Mission

This project is relevant to a number of NETL’s technology areas including coal gasification and

carbon management, as well as onsite research in the areas of energy system dynamics and

computational and basic sciences. In addition, the training focus of this project supports NETL’s

mission to promote educational initiatives at U.S. universities to advance energy science and

technology, and to provide a trained workforce for the energy industry of the future.

Overall Project Plan and Objectives

Overall Project Objectives

The following are the primary overall objectives for the project to establish the NETL IGCC

Dynamic Simulator Research & Training Center, which has been the focus of this scoping study:

• Implement strategic collaborations among key IGCC technology R&D partners, including an OTS vendor

• Develop and deploy a generic IGCC dynamic plant simulator with full-scope OTS capabilities that is also suitable for use in systems analyses and engineering studies.

• Establish the NETL IGCC DSR&T Center to provide demonstration and training services for electric utilities, non-utility developers, gasifier suppliers, DOE/NETL system analysts, university engineering and training R&D community, and those interested in learning more about IGCC plant operations and control

• Form an advisory panel to promote collaboration between project team and industry, provide feedback to ensure project team is meeting industry's needs, and promote awareness to the power, chemical and energy industries


9

Project Work Plan

The project work plan consists of five consecutive and sometimes overlapping phases ranging

from project scoping/planning to simulator development/deployment to the establishment and

on-going support of the NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research & Training Center:

• Phase I – Scoping/Inception (summarized in this report)

• Phase II – Planning/Elaboration (12 months)

• Phase III – Dynamic Simulator Development (18-24 months)

• Phase IV – Deployment of Training Applications (12 months)

• Phase V – Establishment (12 months) and On-going Support of NETL IGCC DSR&T Center

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Phase II

Phase III

Phase IV

Phase V

Next Step: Detailed Planning and Elaboration Phase

The next step for this project is a 12-month Phase II Detailed Planning and Elaboration Phase,

which will be carried out under the auspices of the NETL-University Collaboratory for Process &

Dynamic Systems Research (”Collaboratory”), established between NETL and three of its major

regional university partners, namely Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh, and

West Virginia University (WVU). The objective of this Collaboratory is to accelerate the

development of advanced process engineering and dynamic systems simulation capability and

promote its use to produce increasingly valuable outcomes for DOE and the Nation. The

Collaboratory project also includes the establishment of a world-class NETL IGCC DSR&T

Center at NETL with a satellite location at WVU’s National Research Center for Coal and

Energy (NRCCE).


10

The following are the primary goals of the detailed planning and elaboration phase:

• Generate detailed specification document

• Determine and initiate process for OTS vendor selection

• Develop a preliminary commercial IGCC plant and control system design for use by OTS vendor

• Establish infrastructure for NETL IGCC DSR&T Center at NETL and at WVU’s NRCCE

Future Work

The initial IGCC technology focus for this project will be to design and develop a simulator and

training software system for a commercial-scale IGCC plant based on slurry-fed entrained-flow

gasification technology. Potential future extensions in later stages of the project include

additional gasification technologies (e.g., Shell dry-feed) and new, advanced gas turbine

technologies. The software framework will also be flexible and extendable to enable later

extensions to advanced technologies (such as fuel cells) and to support the modeling of high-

efficiency zero-emission power plants and polygeneration technologies.

Requirements, Key Features and Capabilities

Simulator Requirements

The following list includes the key requirements and features identified during this scoping

phase of the project to develop a generic IGCC dynamic simulator and training software system.

• Rigorous, real-time, IGCC dynamic modeling

� Gasifier

� Air Separation Unit

� Gas Cleanup

� Combined Cycle

� Fuel Handling

• Full-scope OTS capabilities

� Malfunctions/Trips, Alarms, Scenarios, Trending, Snapshots, Data Historian, Trainee Performance Monitoring (TPM)

� Startup/Shutdown

� Load Following, Load Shedding

� Analyzing control strategies (turbine lead, gasifier lead)

� Response to fuel and ambient variations


11

• Suitable for systems analysis and engineering studies

• Unified platform/GUI from model building to OTS

• Maintainable, flexible, and extendable software and models

• Available model libraries and sample projects for both power-side and process side

• Rigorous thermodynamics for process-side

• Ease-of-use for process/control system modeling

• Full DCS emulation

• Support for multiple dynamic simulation engines

• Leverage existing NETL technology and models (Aspen Plus, Dynamics, and Custom Modeler)

• Support future extensions for IGCC systems with carbon capture and zero-emission polygeneration plants

Vendor Requirements

Some of the key requirements identified during this scoping phase include the following:

• Experience (Process, Gasification, Power)

• Expertise and availability of project staff

• Software and project focused

• Size, history, and stability of company

Training Center Requirements

The following list summarizes some of the key requirements, features and considerations

developed for implementing the NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research & Training (DSR&T)

Center as a part of this project. Detailed planning for the NETL DSR&T Center will be

undertaken during the second, detailed planning phase of this project.

• NETL-sponsored and hosted

• Satellite location hosted at WVU’s NRCCE

• Potential Users to be Considered

� Companies considering IGCC technology

� Existing IGCC and gasifier companies

� DOE/NETL system analysts

� University engineering and training R&D community

� Those interested in learning more about IGCC plant operations and control


12

• Demonstration and Training Services to be Provided

� IGCC plant operation and control demonstrations

� Computer-based training program

� Intelligent tutoring system

� On-site “Train the Trainer” program

• Staffing Requirements

� One full-time university staff (research associate or equivalent)

� Several post-doc and graduate student research assistants

� Actual staffing requirements to be determined during detailed planning phase

Industry Advisory Panel Requirements

Some of the key requirements for the Industry Advisory Panel planned for future stages of this

project include:

• Promote collaboration between project team and industry

• Provide feedback to ensure project team is meeting industry's needs

• Promote awareness to power and energy industry

• Target members from:

� Electric utilities and end users

AEP, Cinergy, Southern Company

� Engineering, procurement & construction (EPC) firms

Parsons, Bechtel, Fluor

� Gasifier and equipment suppliers

GE, ConocoPhillips, Siemens, Air Products, …

� Research institutes

EPRI, Gasification Technologies Council

� Academic researchers

During meetings with vendors, potential users and other organizations during the course of this

scoping study, this subject was discussed and most indicated a strong interest in participating

as members of an advisory panel. It is anticipated that the advisory panel will meet several

times a year, perhaps one meeting face-to-face and other meetings through

teleconferencing/web conferencing. At least one organization, the Electric Power Research

Institute (EPRI), expressed interest in discussing ways for EPRI and NETL to collaborate during

future phases of this generic IGCC dynamic simulator project. EPRI has strong ties to utility and

industrial organizations through its CoalFleet initiative, and have discussed possible ways EPRI


13

and CoalFleet might contribute to the project and help to support and expand the industry

advisory board. Further details of such potential Collaboratory arrangements will be developed

during the subsequent detailed planning phase.

Modeling Requirements

During visits with some of the OTS software vendors, discussions were held concerning the

level of technical detail behind unit models such as those for gas turbines and steam turbines.

Some of the issues involved include understanding the level of design and performance data

required to build a representative commercial-grade simulator and what can be built from pre-

existing built-in defaults and templates. Whilst operating plant data is needed to tune the results

from a power plant simulator, the built-in defaults can give reasonably representative results

with only minor tuning and adjustments. This essentially implies adjusting the base rating of the

equipment to match the selected plant equipment design, but relying on the built-in engineering

formulations to provide reasonable representation of the off-design, transient behavior of that

equipment.

Hardware Requirements

The NETL IGCC dynamic simulator and training software system must be delivered on standard

Windows-based personal computers. All of the OTS software vendors indicated they could meet

this requirement. The number and configuration of PC’s for the NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator

Research & Training (DSR&T) Center will be determined during later phases of this project, but

it is anticipated that the training center would be configured in a similar manner to the generic

combined-cycle operating training center at EPRI in Charlotte, NC. This system was built

around standard Windows-based PC’s, but configured in such a way (with cabinets and dual

displays) to resemble an actual control room. For a complete IGCC plant generic simulator, it is

anticipated that such a setup would require 7-10 PC’s, including the instructor console, with a

larger number of associated display units.


14

Key Project Deliverables

Some of the key deliverables which would be expected from the overall project include:

• IGCC Full-Scope Simulator

• Systems Training Materials

• Integrated Operating Instructions

• Computer-Based Training Program

• Intelligent Tutoring System

• On-Site “Train the Trainer” Program

Data Typically Provided to OTS Vendors

In discussions with OTS technology providers, it quickly became apparent that this project could

not follow the same path as a typical OTS development project. Typical OTS systems are

designed and developed for specific plants, either during the design phase or for an existing

facility. As such, the process design, control system, process and instrumentation diagram

(P&ID), and human-machine interface (HMI) have already been laid out. The development focus

of these more typical OTS development projects for commercial customers can therefore be on

developing software models that realistically match the actual reference plant and developing

mimics of the actual control system (or driving parallel control system hardware) for operator

training. Typically, an OTS development project does not have to involve designing a plant or

process, developing a control system, or laying out the control panels (HMI), so the

organizations which normally provide OTS systems and services do not normally need to have

these skills in-house. One of the key goals of this NETL IGCC simulator project is to develop an

OTS system for a generic, commercial-scale IGCC plant which does not yet exist (so hasn’t

been designed), so in addition to developing the OTS system, the project must also develop the

process design, control system design, and control system panel layout. This will require

additional expertise not normally needed during typical the development of OTS simulators for

existing plants - individuals and organizations besides the OTS vendors themselves in order to

provide the expertise and understanding to successfully implement the design aspects of the

work needed to form the basis for the dynamic simulator and training system.


15

The data typically provided to the OTS vendor for development of an OTS model includes:

• Systems and process descriptions

• Equipment specifications & data sheets, P&ID’s

• DCS graphics, control algorithms, control configuration, logic diagrams (such as the sample DCS graphics developed by EPRI and shown below)

• Process flow diagrams, steady-state simulation data (at varying loads & ambients)

• Process operating procedures

• List of upsets/malfunctions to be simulated


16

Sample DCS Graphics

Sample Gasification Main Menu (courtesy of EPRI)


17

Sample Combined Cycle Main Menu (courtesy of EPRI)


18

NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research & Training (DSR&T) Center

• State-of-the-art simulator training center to be located at NETL in Morgantown, WV

• Satellite location hosted at National Research Center for Coal and Energy (NRCCE) at West Virginia University

• Promotes University-NETL collaboration, leverages collaboration with power and energy industry and other research organizations

• Included in proposal for NETL-University Collaboratory for Process & Dynamic Systems Research

• $100K preliminary hardware estimate

� Two parallel simulator setups (power and gasification)

� Includes PC’s, displays, panels, cabinets, etc.

� Similar to layout of EPRI’s Simulator & Training Center

• Staffing requirements to be determined during detailed planning phase of project

Evaluation of Potential OTS Software Vendors

To evaluate potential supplier of OTS modeling software for this project, the team reviewed

standard product literature, web sites and technical papers, and held discussions with other

organizations (such as EPRI) and OTS users to identify the software vendors to include in the

evaluation. This was followed by a series of conference calls, web demonstrations and, where

possible, face-to-face meetings with the vendors and some of their customers. A summary of

some of the results of the initial screening of OTS software vendors was put into an Excel

spreadsheet, which is presented in Appendix A.

Some of the key dynamic modeling solution providers evaluated during this scoping study

included:

• 3KeyMaster (Western Services Corp.) – web demo, visit to EPRI Simulator Center, WSC visit to NETL

• Aspen Dynamics (AspenTech) – web demo and conference calls

• DynSim (SimSci-Esscor) – web demo, visit to Carlsbad, CA

• ProTrax (Trax) – meeting and demo at PowerGen, discussions with Polk

• SimSuite (GSE Systems) – web demo, visit to AEP Simulator Learning Center

• UniSim (Honeywell) – web demo, visit to Honeywell offices in Houston, TX


19

When assessing which software system would best fulfill the combined needs of delivering a

full-scope, complete-plant IGCC operator training system as well as a software framework for

engineering studies that could be learned and used by researchers at NETL and other

organizations (such as universities), some of the key requirements identified during this scoping

project were software-product focused (licensing and supporting external users vs. project

deliveries), general ease-of-use (for bringing new users and developers up to speed) and

detailed, comprehensive thermodynamic property libraries. Our evaluation concluded that some

of the OTS development frameworks evaluated would be suitable for delivering stand-alone

IGCC operator training projects (where few modifications would be made by the users after

delivery of a working IGCC OTS system), but many of these types of software systems are

generally less suitable for use as a general-purpose modeling framework for broader

engineering applications, as envisioned for additional applications of the selected dynamic

modeling framework within NETL.

One potential approach to be explored further in the detailed planning stage of this project will

be to develop ACM (Aspen Custom Modeler) models that can be called and used by other OTS

modeling frameworks. With such an approach, the selected OTS software system could be

used as the platform for the initial IGCC OTS project development and delivery, and ACM could

be used to develop add-in modules for future, advanced technology extensions (such as fuel

cells). This could potentially be a good combined solution for NETL. DOE NETL will likely find it

advantageous to use Aspen Custom Modeler for in-house development of transient models of

advanced equipment (beyond the equipment models delivered as part of the commercial-grade

IGCC simulator which is the primary focus of this project). From discussions with Aspen Tech

and several of the OTS vendors, it seems feasible to use one of the leading commercial OTS

platforms for the bulk of the primary equipment models, the overall simulation environment, and

the OTS interface, and integrate in ACM models for key, advanced equipment (for future, non-

standard IGCC plant simulation studies).


20

Potential Project Partners

There might be advantages to structure future phases of this project differently than originally

considered. Originally, it had been planned to award one primary contract for both the software

platform and the engineering services to build the IGCC simulator models. It might instead be

advantageous to break that into two separate phases. During the first phase, the software

platform would be selected. Then, the bulk of the engineering work, to build and deliver an

IGCC OTS model using the selected simulation software system, could be put out to bid in a

separate stage of the project immediately following the first stage. It is likely that the software

provider selected during the first phase would bid on the engineering work for the second

phase, but AE firms would also be able to bid, since they have experience building simulators

and are familiar with the technologies in question, which might present advantages due better

in-house data, experience and industry contacts. Such a two-stage approach would work only if

the OTS software vendors are capable of and willing to deliver their software as stand-alone

licenses. Several of the OTS vendors evaluated during the scoping phase of this project

indicated that they were willing to directly license their software.

Other potential R&D collaborators identified and contacted during the scoping study included

the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and American Electric Power (AEP). To gain first-

hand knowledge of existing “combined-cycle” simulators and training centers, the project team

visited the EPRI Simulator and Training Center in Charlotte, NC and the AEP Simulator

Learning Center in St. Albans, WV. In addition to facility tours and simulator demonstrations,

the operator training center teams at EPRI and AEP provided detailed overviews of their

simulator technology, deployment processes, training resources, expertise, and procedures.

Initial cost estimates and schedule

One of the key challenges for this project will be to determine a project plan that can be

developed within a reasonable budget. A high-fidelity detailed, plant-specific operator training

system can cost one to two million dollars, and needs to be tuned to real plant data. An

additional challenge for this project is that there will be that no actual reference plant to use as

the basis for the overall process design and the control system design, which will add the cost

and schedule. After delivery of the required information to the organization selected to develop

the OTS models (this information would include the process and control system design, as

discussed above), the expected time frame required for the vendor to deliver the simulator

would be 12-18 months.


21

Detailed cost estimates and proposed project schedules will be prepared in the detailed

planning stage of this project, but discussions with several organizations familiar with OTS

system deliveries and costs (including EPRI, OTS vendors and OTS customers) lead us to the

following preliminary cost estimates and considerations:

• Expected cost for software licensing and modeling services alone of $1M to $2M for delivery of a generic IGCC OTS system

� Based on detailed OTS system development and commercial delivery

� Based on EPRI combined-cycle simulator experience

� Equivalent to two (2) parallel full-scope OTS systems (one for power plant, one for gasification)

� Possible cost reductions due to visibility of project, software license contributions, etc.)

• $100K minimum hardware costs for simulator center

• Additional costs to establish and run DSR&T Center

• Expected outside consulting expertise needed to develop generic IGCC plant control system design is 2-3 man-months

• Other project costs to be determined

Risk Assessment

There are likely to be legal and bureaucratic issues that need to be investigated more closely

relating to such issues as setting up an Industry Experts Group, use of technology collaborators

and in-kind contributors, restrictions on release of data/software/models at end of project, and

selection of vendors. These issues will be addressed during the following detailed planning

phase of this project.

Another risk area of this project is that since the plant to be modeled is a generic plant and

therefore does not exist, there is no existing data for the process or control system for the plant,

so both must be designed as part of the project. A related challenge will be to try and obtain

access to any control system data from technology providers, particularly gas turbine, HRSG

and steam turbine vendors. It is unlikely that access could be gained to detailed vendor data for

syngas-fired current-generation gas turbines, due to fact that these are early-generation

machines in a new market. It will therefore be necessary to determine how to build up operator

training models that are still realistic without access to proprietary control data.


22

Summary and Recommendations

The recent surge of interest in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power

generation is creating a growing demand for education and experience with the analysis,

operation, and control of commercial-scale IGCC plants. In this scoping study, the project team

identified key IGCC simulator requirements and features, identified and evaluated potential

operator training system (OTS) frameworks and suppliers, explored possible R&D technology

collaborators, and identified potential members of an industry experts group to guide simulator

development and establishment of the DOE/NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research &

Training (DSR&T) Center at NETL in Morgantown, WV with a satellite location at WVU under

the auspices of the NETL-University Collaboratory for Process & Dynamic Systems Research.

Some of the key IGCC simulator requirements and features identified for this project include:

• High-fidelity, real-time dynamic model of process-side (gasification) and power-side (combined cycle) for a generic IGCC plant

• Full-scope OTS capabilities including startup, shutdown, load following and shedding, response to fuel and ambient variations, control strategy analysis (turbine and gasifier lead), malfunctions/trips, alarms, scenarios, trending, snapshots, data historian, and trainee performance monitoring

• Suitable for systems analysis, detailed engineering studies, as well as education and training purposes

• Extendable to incorporate new, advanced technologies such as fuel cells and including IGCC systems with carbon capture and zero-emission polygeneration plants

• Unified software platform/GUI from model building to OTS to facilitate application of framework to new technologies by researchers and engineers at NETL and universities

• Maintainable, flexible, extendable, and easy-to-use software, including model libraries with sample projects

• Full distributed control system (DCS) emulation

A comprehensive review of major software vendors capable of providing an IGCC operator

training and dynamic modeling framework was completed. The project team reviewed available

product literature and discussed the features and capabilities of the packages via conference

calls and on-site visits with as many of the potential vendors as possible.

A plan for establishing a group of research and development partners and an industry experts

group was developed and discussed with potential members from other research organizations,

end users, engineering firms and potential software vendors.


23

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACM Aspen Custom Modeler (software product from AspenTech).

AE Architect Engineering

AEP American Electric Power

CAPE-OPEN Computer-Aided Process Engineering Open Standard.

CMU Carnegie Mellon University

CPDSR Collaboratory for Process & Dynamic Systems Research

DCS Distributed Control System

DSR&T Dynamic Simulator Research & Training

EPC Engineering, Procurement & Construction

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

FEED Front-End Engineering Design

GE General Electric

GUI Graphical User Interface

HMI Human-Machine Interface

HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator

IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory

NRCCE National Research Center for Coal and Energy

OTS Operator Training System

P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram

PC Personal Computer

RFP Request for Proposal

QFD Quality Functional Deployment

Syngas Synthesis Gas

TPM Trainee Performance Monitoring

WVU West Virginia University


24

References

1. ANSI/ANS, 1998, Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training, ANSI/ANS 3.5.

2. ANSI/ISA, 1993, Fossil Power Plant Simulators – Functional Requirements, ANSI/ISA S77.20-1993.

3. Carrasco, J. A. and M. Paljakka, 2004, “Simulation Aids In the Automation Of Industrial Processes, Tecnatom, S.A. and VTT Industrial Systems, technical white paper.

4. Chen, C., M. Horio and T. Kojima, 2000, “Numerical Simulation of Entrained Flow Coal Gasifiers. Part I: Modeling of Coal Gasification in an Entrained Flow Gasifier”, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 55, pp. 3861-3874, Sept. 2000.

5. Chen, C., M. Horio and T. Kojima, 2000, “Numerical Simulation of Entrained Flow Coal Gasifiers. Part II: Effects of Operating Conditions on Gasifier Performance”, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 55, pp. 3875-3883, Sept. 2000.

6. Cordero-Cruz, J. C., et al., 2002, “Development of a Full-Scope Simulator for Operators Training of Combined Cycle Power Plants, Using a Graphical Environment”, presented at the 2002 Society for Computer Simulation Summer Meeting.

7. Dahlquist, E. and F. Wallin, 2004, “Dynamic Simulators for Process Control and Optimization as Well as for Operator Training in Pulp and Paper Industry”, paper for SIMS – 43rd Conference on Simulation and Modeling, December 2004.

8. Dawson, J. M., A. Pekediz, and J. W. Womack, 2006, “RasGas Makes Extensive Use of Process Operator Training Simulators in LNG Operations”, Presented at AiChE Spring Meeting, Feb. 2006.

9. De Michele, G. and C. Zeppi, 1997, “The Puertollano Plant Dynamic Simulator”, EPRI 1997 International Fossil Simulation and Training Meeting, Atlanta USA, 6-10 April 1997.

10. De Souza-Santos, M. L., 2004, Solid Fuels Combustion and Gasification: Modeling, Simulation, and Equipment Operation, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.

11. Depew, C., A. Martinez, G. Gollodi and R. Meloni, 1998, “Dynamic Simulation for IGCC Process Design and Control, Hydrocarbon Processing, January 1998, pp. 107-116.

12. Dixon, R., “Advanced Gasifier Control”, Computing & Control Engineering Journal, Vol. 10, pp93-96, Aug. 1999.

13. DOE Office of Fossil Energy/NETL, 2005, A Current Perspective on the Gasification Industry: Robust Growth Forecast – 2004 World Survey Results, September 2005.

14. ELCOGAS, 2000, “Puertollano IGCC: A Clean Coal Gasification Power Plant”, ELCOGAS, Final Report to European Commission Directorate General for Energy and Transport, October 2000.

15. EPRI, 1980, Entrained Gasification Combined-Cycle Control Study, Electric Power Research Institute, AP-1422, 1980.

16. EPRI, 2001, “Specification for a General Electric Frame 7FA+ Combined Cycle Training Simulator,” April 2001.

17. EPRI, 2005, “Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Demonstration Simulator – System Descriptions Overviews (Draft)”, Electric Power Research Institute, internal working document, November, 2005.


25

18. Glaser, D. C., 2005, “Process Plant Simulators for Training Plant Operators”, Simulation Solutions, Inc., technical white paper, 2005.

19. Higman, C. and M. van der Brugt, 2003, Gasification, Elsevier Science, Burlington, MA.

20. ISA, 1996, “Fossil Fuel Power Plant Human-Machine Interface –CRT Displays”, ISA, Research Triangle Park, NC, ISA–TR77.60.04–1996.

21. Karhela, T., 2002, A Software Architecture for Configuration and Usage of Process Simulation Models. Software Component Technology and XML-Based Approach, VTT Industrial Systems, Espoo, Finland, VTT Publications 479, ISBN 951-38-6011-6; 951-38-6012-4.

22. Koch, I., F. Hannemann and U. Hoffmann, 1999, “Dynamic Simulation of Operating Cases and Malfunctions of an IGCC Power Plant Fuel System”, Chemical Engineering & Technology, Vol. 21, pp. 568-570, May 1999.

23. Koyama, M., S. Kraines, K. Tanaka, D. Wallace, K. Yamada and H. Komiyama, 2003, “Integrated Model Framework for the Evaluation of an SOFC/GT System as a Centralized Power Source”, International Journal of Energy Research, Vol. 28, pp. 13-30, Dec. 2003.

24. Lee, J., 2006, “Deciding between high fidelity stimulated or high fidelity emulated DCS simulators for Fossil Units”, presented at PowerSim ‘06, Atlanta, GA, February 6-8, 2006.

25. Luyben, W. L., 1990, Process Modeling, Simulation and Control for Chemical Engineers, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

26. Moreea-Taha, R., 2000, Modelling and Simulation for Coal Gasification, IEA Coal Research, CCC/42, December 2000.

27. Ondrey, G., 2005, “Simulation and Modeling Spread Their Wings”, Chemical Engineering, pp. 27-31, June 2005.

28. Paen, D., D. Cameron and C. Colantonio, 2005, “Enhancing Process Modelling Environments: CAPE-OPEN Dynamic Unit Operations”, presented at the 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering, Glasgow, Scotland, July, 2005.

29. Pisacane, F., R. Domenichini and L. Fadabini, “Dynamic Modeling of the ISAB Energy IGCC Complex”, presented at the 1998 Gasification Technologies Conference.

30. Podmore, R., M. Robinson, A. Bose, 2001, “Simulation Environment for Development and Testing of Plug Compatible Power System Applications”, Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2001.

31. Reed, M. and J. White, 1995, “Dynamic Modeling of Power Systems”, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Morgantown Energy Technology Center, DOE/METC/C-96/7204, presented at Advanced Coal-Fired Power Systems ’95 Review Meeting, June, 1995.

32. Renault, P., T. Uslander, L. Indesteege, J. Theunisz, T. Malik and L. Jourda, 2000, OPERA: OPERAtors Training Distributed Real-Time Simulations, Final European Commission Report, ESPRIT Project no. 24950, February 2000.

33. Robson, D. G., 2000, “Use of Process Training Models during Plant Commissioning”, Jacobs Engineering, UK, white paper.


26

34. Schoen, P., 1993, Dynamic Modeling and Control of Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle Units, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands, September, 1993.

35. Shadle, L. J., L. O. Lawson, S. D. Noel, 1997, Dynamic Analysis of Process Reactors, DOE/METC/C-97/7275.

36. Shin, J. Y., Y. J. Jeon, D. J. Maeng, J. S. Kim and S. T. Ro, 2002, “Analysis of the Dynamic Characteristics of a Combined-Cycle Power Plant”, Energy, Vol. 27, pp. 1085–1098, 2002.

37. Spear, M., 2006, “Simulation Gets a New Dynamic”, Chemical Processing, April 2006.

38. Tórólfsson, G., J. T. Magnússon, J. V. Guðgeirsson, P. Runólfsson, and A. Bjarnason, 2003, “Simulator for Operator Training in the Sudurnes Regional Heating Corporation 30 MW Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant”, presented at the International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, Iceland, Sept. 2003.

39. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2001, Regulatory Guide 1.149 – Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operating Training and License Examinations, Revision 3, October 2001.

40. White, J. S., R. T. Getty, M. R. Torpey, 1995, Commercial Second-Generation PFBC Plant Transient Model, Topical Report, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Morgantown Energy Technology Center, DOE/MC/25177-5034 (DE96000570), April, 1995.

41. Wood, A. and B. F. Wollenberg, 1996, Power Generation, Operation and Control, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

42. Živković, D., 2000, “Nonlinear Mathematical Model of the Condensing Steam Turbine”, Facta Universitatis Series: Mechanical Engineering Vol.1, No. 7, pp. 871 – 878, 2000.


27

Appendix A

Summary of Key Site Visits and Meetings

Project Announcement

2005 Gasification Technologies Conference, October 9-12, San Francisco, CA

• Announced IGCC Dynamic Simulator Project

• Presentation and discussions with 25+ member companies attending the Gasification User’s Group meeting

• Project announcement fliers distributed to more than 200 conference participants

• Initial contacts & discussions with potential Industry Advisory Panel members

• GE, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Fluor, Air Liquide, Polk, AEP, Cinergy, TECO, Eastman, Elcogas, …

Kickoff Meeting

NETL, Morgantown, WV, November 15, 2005

• Presentation/discussion with Office of Science and Engineering Research (OSER) researchers

� Goals and objectives

� Draft requirements, QFD

� Potential applications, possible role of DSR&T Center

� Review of possible modeling platforms

� Discussion of key technologies and technology providers

� Potential partners, Industry Advisory Board, foreign participation

� Potential issues and problems

• Meeting with Bill Rogers, Div Dir. Computational Science Division, OSER

• Followed by site visits to EPRI and AEP


28

Simulator Site Visits

American Electric Power (AEP) Simulator Learning Center, St. Albans, WV

• Largest OTS Center in the U.S.

• Demonstrations and discussions – OTS systems using GSE’s SimSuite Power Software and Trax software

• Web demonstration with GSE OTS development group

• Discussion of AEP’s plans and schedule for IGCC project: COD 2010, OTS delivery 2009

• Discussion of projects and schedule for a full-scope OTS (based on AEP experience with fossil plant GSE OTS projects): Typically 12-18 months for existing plant

• Discussion of potential uses of OTS systems – types of courses, learning programs, (not just plant operator training)

• Offer for NETL and Enginomix personnel to attend power plant familiarization class: one-week course intended for new employees, plant engineers, managers, etc

Electric Power Research Institute Simulator and Training Center, Charlotte, NC

• Simulator Training Center – tour and discussion

• Similar to size and scope of potential NETL center

• PC-based simulators - ~$100K Hardware

• Can load different simulators: WSC, SimSci-Esscor

• Western Services Corp.’s 3KeyMaster Software

• GE Frame 7FA Combined Cycle

• GE Frame 7EA Simple Cycle

• SW 501F Simple Cycle

• Discussion of required OTS project documentation, potential collaboration

• Example documentation provided: detailed specification, draft IGCC systems description


29

Discussions at Industry Forums

PowerGen

• Met with technology vendors and engineering companies (WorleyParsons and ConocoPhillips)

• Held software demonstrations and discussions with dynamic modeling providers (Trax and Cooper Etheridge)

• Discussed dynamic modeling needs at TECO Polk IGCC plant with operation supervisor

REI NETL Project Advisory Meeting

• Discussed need for integrated IGCC modeling platform (steady-state, dynamic, optimization)

• Consensus was no current solution fills most needs

• Optimism that simulation inter-operability (e.g., CAPE-OPEN for steady-state) would help, but not yet used for commercial IGCC applications


30

Appendix B

Use Cases and Actors for IGCC Dynamic Simulation and Training

Example Actors:

Simulation Programmer: The user who using the dynamic simulator’s modeling language or

interfaces to external codes creates new dynamic unit operations thus extending the features

available for building IGCC plant models.

Plant Modeler: The user who constructs complete IGCC plant models from unit operations and

control loops based on a specific flowsheet. This actor also establishes scenarios (conditions

for streams and equipment) for starting a simulation (i.e. cold startup, shutdown, changes in

plant output power level). If the simulation environment supports taking snapshot of process

conditions these will easier to create. Also need to be able to create control system human-

machine interface (HMI) screens.

Simulation User: Selects a plant model and simulation scenario for testing.

Simulation Observer: Uses the simulator output and HMI instrumentation displays to observe

the behavior of an IGCC plant operating based on a selected scenario.

Example Use Cases:

Add Unit Operation – Simulation Programmer

For a unit operation the Simulation Programmer either writes code describing the mass and

energy balance and dynamic behavior in the simulation environment’s language or links to an

external routine written in a traditional programming language. Simulation Programmer will add

required getting unit operation data and material stream data from the simulation executive.

Most systems require adding an icon that represents the unit operation and describing how the

unit operation can be connected to other unit operations. This package is then made available

to the simulation environment for use in building models.

Edit Unit Operation – Simulation Programmer

Simulation programmer modifies either; the unit operation model code, icon, or material stream

connectivity after it has been made available to the simulation executive.


31

Create Process Model – Plant Modeler

The plant modeler starts with a blank flowsheet in the simulator model editor. Unit operations

are added to the process flowsheet. Connections between unit operations representing material

streams are added. Control logic for each operation is added. Unit operations are configured

thru input screens. The process modeler will save the model created with a descriptive name

Save Process Model – Plant Modeler

The plant modeler working in the simulator model editor commits the plant model, either newly

created or modified, to permanent storage. A newly created model should prompt the modeler

to supply a descriptive name.

Load Process Model – Plant Modeler

The plant modeler will select a plant model to load into the simulator model editor from a list of

plant models stored on the simulation computer. The process model is displayed for the

modeler.

Edit Process Model – Plant Modeler

The plant modeler loads a plant model into the simulator model editor. The model is then

changed by adding or removing unit operations, streams, or control logic. Changes can also be

made to unit operation configuration data (i.e. heat exchanger surface area, tank volumes). The

modified model can then be saved,

Add Unit Operation to Process Model – Plant Modeler

Precondition: The plant modeler has loaded a process model or is creating a process model.

The plant modeler selects unit operations from a list of operations available. Depending on

whether simulator model editor is a drag-and-drop GUI or text based the actions necessary will

be different. After adding a unit operation it will be necessary to add connecting streams

between the new unit operation and existing unit operations. The modeler will also need to

enter unit operation configuration data.


32

Remove Unit Operation from Process Model – Plant Modeler

Precondition: The plant modeler has loaded a process model or is creating a process model.

The plant modeler selects an existing unit operation in a process model and selects from the

simulator model editor commands to delete the unit operation from the process model.

Depending on the simulator, streams and control logic connected to this unit operation will either

be disconnected or deleted.

Add Control Logic to Process Model – Plant Modeler

Precondition: The plant modeler has loaded a process model or is creating a process model and

that process model has connected unit operations in it.

The plant modeler selects the type of control logic they wish to add. The controller is then

configured with a variable to control (i.e. a vessel level) and variable to manipulate (i.e. a valve

percent open) to effect control. User will need to supply a set point and may optionally change

the controller gain and minimum and maximum values.

Remove Control Logic from Process Model – Plant Modeler


that process model has connected unit operations in it with control logic.

The plant modeler selects a control loop and then selects from the simulator model editor the

delete command. The control loop is removed including the links to the controlled unit operation

and the manipulated value.

Create Process Model Operation Scenario – Plant Modeler



The plant modeler enters stream state and composition for plant model inflows and sets starting

conditions for equipment. Set points for major unit operation control loops are set. These

values are saved to create a scenario for starting the simulation (i.e. cold start). Depending

upon the simulator, the plant modeler may be able to script actions that happen such as starting

a gas turbine on natural gas but switching to syngas at a predetermined condition.


33

Save Process Model Operation Scenario – Plant Modeler


that process model has connected unit operations in it with control logic. The modelers have

added stream state information for input and recycle streams and initial conditions for unit

operations. Also the modeler may nave run the dynamic simulation to a predetermined point

and stopped the simulation.

The modeler will select to save the scenario based on the method of the simulation model

editor. The modeler will be prompted for a name for the scenario that will be the scenario

description and that name is used as a key when the model is saved to permanent storage.

Load Process Model Operation Scenario – Plant Modeler



The process modeler selects a scenario from a list and the stream and unit operation conditions

are loaded from permanent storage.

Post condition: The dynamic simulation is ready to be run or be edited.

Edit Process Model Operation Scenario – Plant Modeler

Precondition: The plant modeler has loaded a process model has connected unit operations in it

with control logic. The plant modeler has loaded an existing operation scenario.

The plant modeler can then make changes to the stream states or the unit operation conditions

so that either the scenario can be saved under its current name or saved using a new name.

Create Process Model HMI Display – Plant Modeler


with control logic.

This operation is dependent on the dynamic simulation system. Some editors allow drag and

drop creation of generic HMI displays, drawing graphics representing unit operations adding

graphs or panel displays (PID controller set point, gain and current value). Some editors allow

placing links on a background graphic to either data values or other HMI displays. Other editors

allow HMI displays to be pulled from a DCS using OPC.


34

Save Process Model HMI Display – Plant Modeler


with control logic. The plant modeler has created or edited a HMI display.

The simulation system command for saving a HMI display is invoked which should ask for a key

name or description for the HMI display if it has not been saved before. The HMI display is

saved in permanent storage.

Load Process Model HMI Display – Plant Modeler


with control logic. The plant modeler has created a HMI display.

The plant modeler selects a HMI display from a list. The HMI display is loaded and updated as

the dynamic simulation is run.

Edit Process Model HMI Display – Plant Modeler


with control logic. The plant modeler has created a HMI display.

The plant modeler selects a HMI from a list. The HMI display is loaded into a system dependent

editor for modification.

Select Process Model – Simulation User

Precondition: There are complete process models available to the simulation system.

Simulation user selects the process model from a list. The selected process model is loaded

from permanent storage.

Select Process Model Scenario – Simulation User

Precondition: The simulation user has loaded a completed process model.

The simulation user selects a scenario from a list and that scenario is loaded from permanent

storage.

Post Condition: The dynamic simulation is ready to be run.


35

Edit Process Model Operation Scenario – Simulation User

Precondition: The simulation user has loaded a completed process model. The simulation user

has loaded an existing operation scenario.

The simulation user can then make changes to the stream states or the unit operation

conditions and run the scenario. The ability to save the changed scenario will vary depending

on dynamic simulation application. For some the changed scenario maybe saved for that users

use only under the current name or saved using a new name.

Run Process Model Scenario – Simulation User

Precondition: The simulation user has loaded a completed process model. The simulation user

has loaded an existing operation scenario.

The simulation user then selects a command in the simulation environment to start the dynamic

simulation. The simulation user then interacts with either the HMI displays to observe the

process or flowsheets representing the model to observe data values of interest. The data

values can also be plotted on moving line graphs.

Select Process Model HMI Display – Simulation Observer

Precondition: A process modeler or a simulation user (instructor) has loaded an existing

process model and an operation scenario. The scenario run is started.

The simulation observer, usually on a separate workstation (computer), connects to the

simulation and selects HMI displays in order to interact with the dynamic simulation either to

select different HMI displays to view or changing controller set points in order to observe plant

responses.

Documents

DOE/NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research and Training Center · DOE/NETL IGCC Dynamic Simulator Research and Training Center Scoping Study ii SimSci-Esscor (DynSim), Trax Corporation