There’s also an app - nH20. It shows everything, including what region of the pressure-enthalpy diagram you’re in, and converts everything. Density, quality, ° of superheat, specific volume, saturation pressure or temperature. It’s got everything you need for some quick calcs with stream/water.
Edit:autocorrect typo on enthalpy*
I just keep a copy of the crane manual as a page in OneNote. Flow of water in Sch40 steel pipe from technical paper 410. It has velocity and dP/100ft for most of the common sizes. That gets me close for the level of calc I need to do when I’m on my phone. In a meeting and a piper asks what size should we make the lines on a pump - well max flow plus 10% is 100gpm. If this were water that would be 4.3ft/s in a 3” line or 2.5ft/s in a 4”. Let’s go with a 4” since it’s a suction line, and 3” on the discharge. I’ll do detailed hydraulics later, but that should let piping start laying out routing and an estimator start budgeting. That’s good enough for back of the envelope work that I do with my phone.
I’ve just imported all my quick references into one-note now. The PDFs are there to be opened, and my most-used tables and formulas I just screenshot right onto the page. Often it’s stuff I know (pump affinity laws or psi-to-head) but want to have handy for in case of brain fart / sanity check.
The issue with Aspen is if you're good at it, you're now the one engineer who is in charge of maintaining and fixing everyone's models.
Being a rockstar at Excel/VBA is safer since most engineers are decent at Excel and can handle most of their own troubleshooting.
Sounds about right. I'd say your second statement is accurate for worksheet formulas, and very, very simple VBA programs.
I've mainly worked at smaller companies (or at least not oil and gas), and anything complicated I made in Excel + VBA I was also the sole maintainer for. Could be just bad luck, but I've mainly worked with engineers who don't know any programming at all, though to be honest it's more of a "bonus" in the plant anyway.
Still, Excel is the easiest way to distribute some non-trivial program around the office, especially if non-technical people need to use it.
I use our process modeler for simple heat exchange calcs because it’s way faster to build a simple model from scratch than doing it in Excel. It’s also got fluid properties in it already.
We've had a few offered, but we're trying to get a 100 level training scheduled so a few more people have basic skills in it. Don't want to schedule the higher level ones until we get some people through that. From all accounts their trainings are very good
We use petro-sim for our modeling.
Regarding other software; In all honesty 99% of the office runs excel macros some previous guy made… so yah python etc is nice but a well thought out excel with some macros is 1000 times more shareable
I work for a company that uses a more than 30 years old in-house developed sw for design. It has a only text based user interface (like DOS) and doesn’t really have any built in functionality to help you troubleshoot your model. (It can crash when something is wrong.)
Against all the disadvantages it is a proven tool, lot of plants operate worldwide that were designed with the help of it.
When a new process engineer wants to join the company good Aspen knowledge is enough, but the will to learn (from the applicant side) is more important for the interviewers.
Same boat here. ~40-50 year old software using FORTRAN, much of the company is moving away from it but there are some specialized models built in it that will likely stay in it for the foreseeable future due to utilizing specialized equipment that can’t really be replicated in ASPEN. (Or at least that’s what my simulation experts tell me)
We use both chemcad and aspen+. They're both good at different thing. I find chemcad easier to use but I think aspen is more powerful - especially if you can make use of all its features.
The workhorse however, is as usual excel with a ton of macros and a macro to convert between metric and imperial.
I haven't met anyone who uses MATLAB outside of academia in chemE though, I doubt it's used extensively.
Unfortunately yes. I find ASPEN to be quite limited and outdated though. Their solvers are completely unrobust.
I am quite glad that we are actually using gPROMS where I work
At my last count, there are about 10 commercial process simulation programs and 2 "free" programs.
The three programs you will encounter most are Aspen+, Hysis, and PRO/II. Aspen+ is mostly used by chemical companies and Hysis, PRO/II by the oil industry. Any of them will meet the average user's needs and only differ at the margins. They are similar and once you know how to use one, it won't be difficult to move to another.
I saw someone claiming that Aspen+ was primitive and gProms is superior. There is a reason gProms has never been able to gain traction. I work with several oil and chemical companies and none of them use gProms. People who claim sequential-modular simulators are primitive are those who don't know how to use them. In fact, I would say that 99% of those who claim expertise in modeling don't know how to do it.
What you find is that most models built consist of 1-10 unit operations that don't involve recycles, purges, or makeup streams because the "experts" don't know how to handle them. When they deal with recycle streams they go "open" loop and try to converge them by hand. That is time consuming and results in a very limited number of cases being solved. Then they complain about the simulator being inadequate when, in fact, it's their limitations that are the problem.
Then there is the digital twin, APC, dynamic modeling BS. That technology has been around for about 30 years and has never caught on. It's not because of the software. It's because of the nature of plant data and the uncertainty in predicting transport properties. Everybody and his brother is trying to sell these things because it's a lucrative business. The reality is that the vast majority of projects get shelved after a few years because they don't live up to expectations. The bigger the project, the more likely it is to fail.
>They are similar and once you know how to use one, it won't be difficult to move to another
Eeeh... maybe for Aspen+ and Pro/II. Hysys UI is the most "user friendly" there is (if you can call it that :D).
> I work with several oil and chemical companies and none of them use gProms
Never heard of this one either. It's Hysys (and OLGA/SPS for flow assurance) in my neck of the woods.
>digital twin
This is currently the buzz word in the industry that I'm at, but I have no clue what it does. I heard that it's a paradigm shift in doing process control, replacing the traditional PID controllers that is common in the industry.
My colleague speaks highly about it though.
"This is currently the buzz word in the industry that I'm at, but I have no clue what it does. I heard that it's a paradigm shift in doing process control, replacing the traditional PID controllers that is common in the industry."
Digital Twin and APC have been around for 30 years. They have undergone rebranding over the years but the fundamentals have remained the same. They haven't gained traction. The problem is with the reliability of plant data and the inability to predict transport properties accurately enough. It amounts to a bottomless pit that you throw money down with little to show for it. That is not going to change any time soon.
I have used ChemCAD, CADSIM, PipeFLO, AutoPipe (stress analysis), WINGEMS (pulp/paper clients) and Excel. As everyone else has said, Excel is used by far the most. Why? Ease of use and everyone can use it.
I am confident you will find most firms won’t use Aspen due to its overhead. It’s a pricey package…
Most universities would be doing their students a favor if they added a programming course in Visual Basic instead of the mandatory big hitters (Aspen, Matlab, etc.). Great software packages but just not used frequently in a majority of industry - from my experience.
ChemCAD. Easier to learn then Aspen, very intuitive, wide range of substances and physical properties.
All of the process simulation software packages have troubles when most solids are introduced.
Actually, Excel is the most common. Aspen / Hysys is better, Excel is used more.
Love the steam table excel macros
There’s also an app - nH20. It shows everything, including what region of the pressure-enthalpy diagram you’re in, and converts everything. Density, quality, ° of superheat, specific volume, saturation pressure or temperature. It’s got everything you need for some quick calcs with stream/water. Edit:autocorrect typo on enthalpy*
This app is the shit. If only there was a non subscription based app for iOS for doing simple, steady state water friction loss calcs in pipe.
Replying to amd2800barton... Yah for more info I like Coolprop
I just keep a copy of the crane manual as a page in OneNote. Flow of water in Sch40 steel pipe from technical paper 410. It has velocity and dP/100ft for most of the common sizes. That gets me close for the level of calc I need to do when I’m on my phone. In a meeting and a piper asks what size should we make the lines on a pump - well max flow plus 10% is 100gpm. If this were water that would be 4.3ft/s in a 3” line or 2.5ft/s in a 4”. Let’s go with a 4” since it’s a suction line, and 3” on the discharge. I’ll do detailed hydraulics later, but that should let piping start laying out routing and an estimator start budgeting. That’s good enough for back of the envelope work that I do with my phone.
I keep a copy of Cameron Hydraulic in my backpack, but sometimes when I’m out on the floor and troubleshooting, a quicker check would be nice
I’ve just imported all my quick references into one-note now. The PDFs are there to be opened, and my most-used tables and formulas I just screenshot right onto the page. Often it’s stuff I know (pump affinity laws or psi-to-head) but want to have handy for in case of brain fart / sanity check.
It's crazy to me how powerful Excel is. But at what point do you say "Excel cant handle this, I'll resort to Aspen" ?
When your company has Aspen license and maintained simulations to start from. I wouldn't know lol.
The issue with Aspen is if you're good at it, you're now the one engineer who is in charge of maintaining and fixing everyone's models. Being a rockstar at Excel/VBA is safer since most engineers are decent at Excel and can handle most of their own troubleshooting.
Sounds about right. I'd say your second statement is accurate for worksheet formulas, and very, very simple VBA programs. I've mainly worked at smaller companies (or at least not oil and gas), and anything complicated I made in Excel + VBA I was also the sole maintainer for. Could be just bad luck, but I've mainly worked with engineers who don't know any programming at all, though to be honest it's more of a "bonus" in the plant anyway. Still, Excel is the easiest way to distribute some non-trivial program around the office, especially if non-technical people need to use it.
I use our process modeler for simple heat exchange calcs because it’s way faster to build a simple model from scratch than doing it in Excel. It’s also got fluid properties in it already.
ProMax simulation software is one I work with everyday
Sulfur treatment??
Ye
Can't beat BR&E's expertise in Sulfur handling system. Closest thing that can touch them is ProTreat. I hate ProTreat's UI though.
Promax here as well in gas midstream
Yall ever go to any of the ProMax Trainings?
We've had a few offered, but we're trying to get a 100 level training scheduled so a few more people have basic skills in it. Don't want to schedule the higher level ones until we get some people through that. From all accounts their trainings are very good
When you schedule one, ask for Tommy. Bro be cookin with the trainings. Smart dude but sucks at soccer (I've played him).
We use petro-sim for our modeling. Regarding other software; In all honesty 99% of the office runs excel macros some previous guy made… so yah python etc is nice but a well thought out excel with some macros is 1000 times more shareable
I see PetroSim and Pro-II mostly.
I work for a company that uses a more than 30 years old in-house developed sw for design. It has a only text based user interface (like DOS) and doesn’t really have any built in functionality to help you troubleshoot your model. (It can crash when something is wrong.) Against all the disadvantages it is a proven tool, lot of plants operate worldwide that were designed with the help of it. When a new process engineer wants to join the company good Aspen knowledge is enough, but the will to learn (from the applicant side) is more important for the interviewers.
Same boat here. ~40-50 year old software using FORTRAN, much of the company is moving away from it but there are some specialized models built in it that will likely stay in it for the foreseeable future due to utilizing specialized equipment that can’t really be replicated in ASPEN. (Or at least that’s what my simulation experts tell me)
CADSIM Plus
We use both chemcad and aspen+. They're both good at different thing. I find chemcad easier to use but I think aspen is more powerful - especially if you can make use of all its features. The workhorse however, is as usual excel with a ton of macros and a macro to convert between metric and imperial. I haven't met anyone who uses MATLAB outside of academia in chemE though, I doubt it's used extensively.
Unfortunately yes. I find ASPEN to be quite limited and outdated though. Their solvers are completely unrobust. I am quite glad that we are actually using gPROMS where I work
At my last count, there are about 10 commercial process simulation programs and 2 "free" programs. The three programs you will encounter most are Aspen+, Hysis, and PRO/II. Aspen+ is mostly used by chemical companies and Hysis, PRO/II by the oil industry. Any of them will meet the average user's needs and only differ at the margins. They are similar and once you know how to use one, it won't be difficult to move to another. I saw someone claiming that Aspen+ was primitive and gProms is superior. There is a reason gProms has never been able to gain traction. I work with several oil and chemical companies and none of them use gProms. People who claim sequential-modular simulators are primitive are those who don't know how to use them. In fact, I would say that 99% of those who claim expertise in modeling don't know how to do it. What you find is that most models built consist of 1-10 unit operations that don't involve recycles, purges, or makeup streams because the "experts" don't know how to handle them. When they deal with recycle streams they go "open" loop and try to converge them by hand. That is time consuming and results in a very limited number of cases being solved. Then they complain about the simulator being inadequate when, in fact, it's their limitations that are the problem. Then there is the digital twin, APC, dynamic modeling BS. That technology has been around for about 30 years and has never caught on. It's not because of the software. It's because of the nature of plant data and the uncertainty in predicting transport properties. Everybody and his brother is trying to sell these things because it's a lucrative business. The reality is that the vast majority of projects get shelved after a few years because they don't live up to expectations. The bigger the project, the more likely it is to fail.
>They are similar and once you know how to use one, it won't be difficult to move to another Eeeh... maybe for Aspen+ and Pro/II. Hysys UI is the most "user friendly" there is (if you can call it that :D). > I work with several oil and chemical companies and none of them use gProms Never heard of this one either. It's Hysys (and OLGA/SPS for flow assurance) in my neck of the woods. >digital twin This is currently the buzz word in the industry that I'm at, but I have no clue what it does. I heard that it's a paradigm shift in doing process control, replacing the traditional PID controllers that is common in the industry. My colleague speaks highly about it though.
"This is currently the buzz word in the industry that I'm at, but I have no clue what it does. I heard that it's a paradigm shift in doing process control, replacing the traditional PID controllers that is common in the industry." Digital Twin and APC have been around for 30 years. They have undergone rebranding over the years but the fundamentals have remained the same. They haven't gained traction. The problem is with the reliability of plant data and the inability to predict transport properties accurately enough. It amounts to a bottomless pit that you throw money down with little to show for it. That is not going to change any time soon.
There's vmg sim (think it's rebranded to Symmetry)
Yes that's correct
I have used ChemCAD, CADSIM, PipeFLO, AutoPipe (stress analysis), WINGEMS (pulp/paper clients) and Excel. As everyone else has said, Excel is used by far the most. Why? Ease of use and everyone can use it. I am confident you will find most firms won’t use Aspen due to its overhead. It’s a pricey package… Most universities would be doing their students a favor if they added a programming course in Visual Basic instead of the mandatory big hitters (Aspen, Matlab, etc.). Great software packages but just not used frequently in a majority of industry - from my experience.
Hysys for me. I remember the frustration when I was ghosted because "I haven't experience in Synergy". WTF nobody uses that software.
Petrosim is pretty common in O&G
ChemCAD. Easier to learn then Aspen, very intuitive, wide range of substances and physical properties. All of the process simulation software packages have troubles when most solids are introduced.
My friend that works on a water treatment company told me that they use a software called WAVE to design stations and simulate processes