How does the user define the level of simulation fidelity required to train operators or test control strategies?
When I describe to potential customers the use of the Virtual Plant / Control System using Mimic and the business benefits they may realize, I inevitably get the question: “How real is the response of the Mimic models to the real plant”. Not wanting to be a smart aleck, I have to resist the temptation to turn the question back around and ask them, “How real does it need to be?” However, in this case, the question is appropriate and timely when planning a dynamic simulation for operator training or automation system testing and development. Asking the question, “How real does the simulation need to be?”, will avoid turning the development of a practical plant operations tool into a research and development project. It will also avoid the problem of trying to use an inadequate model for learning the complexities of an integrated, sophisticated process.
In addition to material already posted on our MYNAH Website (see Understanding Simulation Fidelity), Greg McMillan in a recent posting of www.modelingandcontrol.com examines this topic in his blog entry, Exceptional Opportunities in Process Control - Virtual Plants. Greg’s thoughts cover the key issues in this topic and I will refer to his points throughout this posting.
Specifications asking for an overly high level of simulation fidelity are often submitted for bid on automation projects, resulting in wasted time and money. This is usually because the submitting engineer has confused the use and requirements of a steady-state design model with a dynamic model for operator training or control system development. In the former, a high level of fidelity is required to accurately perform the material and heat balance of the plant, in order to make informed decisions about process equipment sizing and selection. In the latter, a real-time, dynamic response that represents the complex interactions of the plant to disturbances and load changes is required. The goal of the latter is always not to duplicate the response of the process in complete accuracy but support tasks that bring the process into acceptable states, either by the control system or the operator.
On the other hand, there have been theories purported that successful operator training exercises can be conducted with simplified lower fidelity models. While I do not doubt that, in the full range of operator training exercises, some can be carried out with a simple model (some can also be carried out without an off-line control system for that matter) that does not diminish the value of a good dynamic simulation. An off-line Virtual Plant / Control System that looks, feels, and behaves, like the production plant and control system, is an indispensible tool for helping plant operators develop a sophisticated mental model (see How Good Is Your Operator’s Mental Model). Simplified lower fidelity models will usually fall short of meeting the operational needs of most process plants.
In his posting, Exceptional Opportunities in Process Control - Virtual Plants at www.modelingandcontrol.com, Greg gives a 5-level definition of simulation fidelity based upon the task (or opportunity). He then gives a definition of the model characteristics for these 5 levels. Please note that in his definition, the highest level obtainable and recommended has the goal of “Control system set point optimization” with a definition of “process metrics …sufficiently accurate (eg 5%) to find optimums”. This definition is a great place to begin when planning a dynamic simulation. The user can easily correlate the goals of the use of the simulation to the model requirements using Greg’s definition. This approach will allow the user to develop a solution that blends the best combination of performance, cost, and time to market.
While the fidelity of model should be applied based upon the task at hand, there is really only one correct way to build the process models in a dynamic simulator. Process models should be designed and built based upon first principles thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. Historical data or other empirical data from the plant or plant design can (and should) be used to tune or correlate the first principles models to the installed response of the plant. However, if the model is built primarily based upon empirical data correlations, it will not handle process load changes and upsets in a realistic and repeatable manner. In a recent discussion with Greg McMillan, he concurred with this idea also. Dynamic simulations need to be built on the basis of first principles and not empirical data correlations alone.
In a perfect world the Virtual Plant / Control System used in operator training and control system development system would function and respond identical to the real process. In the real world we have to find a balance of time and money invested versus absolute simulation fidelity. There are some simple, practical guidelines that can be followed to achieve this balance.
I look forward to your comments, questions, or suggestions.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Mart Berutti, 02/02/10
MYNAH Technologies LLC
390 South Woods Mill Road, Suite 100
Chesterfield, MO 63017 USA
© MYNAH Technologies 2012 - 2020. All rights reserved.
Designs are marks of MYNAH Technologies, Emerson Process Management, DeltaV, and the DeltaV design are marks of one of the Emerson Process Management of companies. All other marks are property of their respective owners. The contents of this publication are presented for informational purposes only, and while every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, they are not to be construed as warrantees or guarantees, expressed or implied, regarding the products or services described herein or their use or applicability. All sales are governed by our terms and conditions, which are available on request. We reserve the right to modify or improve the design or specification of such products at any time without notice.
While this information is presented in good faith and believed to be accurate, Mynah Technologies does not guarantee satisfactory results from reliance upon such information. Nothing contained herein is to be construed as a warranty or guarantee, express or implied, regarding the performance, merchantability, fitness or any other matter with respect to the products, nor as a recommendation to use any product or process in conflict with any patent. Mynah Technologies reserves the right, without notice, to alter or improve the designs or specifications of the products described herein.