Home Services Projects Clients Personnel News Tech Topics Employment Links About Us Contact

UsAlliances

Engineering
Safety/Risk Mgmt
Environmental

Services

Process Engineering Services

Process Design Types

Detail Engineering Phase Process Integrity Oversight

Process Technical & Economic Evaluations

Pilot Plant Evaluation and Scale Up

Process Design Components

Process Modeling and Simulation

Operations Support

Additional Capabilities

 Process Design Types

Feasibility Studies and Conceptual Design

When clients are contemplating a new plant or major process expansion, they typically have more
questions than answers. Will the idea even work? PROCESS is able to assist by providing
experienced and knowledgeable chemical engineers that can identify, and systematically narrow
down, the possible technical options for a given process goal. By necessity this occurs at the major
unit operations level. Once the viable technical options are identified, an economic evaluation is
performed. Based on technical merits, system reliability, and economics (capital and operating), and
other factors, a preferred choice is usually clear as to which direction the future process design should
take. At this point a conceptual design can be done that includes preliminary process flow diagrams,
mass & energy balances, and a list of major equipment. A very rough order of magnitude cost
estimate can be provided as well.

Front End Engineering Design (FEED)

The very front end of every large design project is critical to the long-term success or failure of the
plant.  While the business plan identifies the economic opportunity, the Front End Engineering
Design (FEED) will establish the set of process operating conditions and equipment to achieve the
level of reliability, efficiency, and safety required. This design phase sets the direction for the rest of
the project. Because it is so critical to the future success or failure of the overall objectives, we feel
our clients make the wise choice by purchasing proven licensed processes or selecting a firm like ours
which specializes in process design engineering.

PROCESS has learned to put great emphasis on the development of the design basis at the initiation
of the FEED. When the design basis is complete, we typically have the following information
defined:

 Raw material specifications

 Plant capacity requirements
 Product specifications
 Critical plant operating parameters
 Available utilities specifications
 Individual unit operations performance requirements
 Process regulatory requirements
 All other operating goals and constraints desired by the plant owners/operators/engineers

Once the design basis is in place, and agreed upon by our client, our team of chemical process
engineers goes to work to create, analyze, and refine the many aspects of the plant design. The end
result is process documentation that describes the process from which future, more detailed, design
work can be done.

Schedule A and Basic Engineering Design Packages

The Schedule A or Basic Engineering Design package refers to a completed process design package
that includes all the necessary information required by an Engineering/Construction firm or Detail
Engineering firm to perform the detail engineering of the plant (details such a structural steel
supports, buildings, wiring, piping details, insulation, equipment vendor/model selection, etc.).
PROCESS provides this package and is there to answer any questions the client or engineering firm
might have to ensure a smooth transition into the detail engineering phase.

 Process
Integrity Oversight During Detail Engineering &
Construction Phases
More and more, PROCESS is requested to remain on during the detail engineering and construction
phases of projects for which we have performed the process design. In this oversight role, any process
change requests are routed through our engineers for approval or comment. This helps ensure that the
client understands what the impact may be on the process as changes and alternatives are suggested.
Many times there is great pressure to hold down costs as the civil, mechanical, electrical, and
instrumentation details of the plant are developed. The temptation to remove seemingly
inconsequential process components can lead to off-spec product, inadequate throughput, high
operating costs, etc. We are able to help prevent such problems simply by serving as the process
integrity watchdog.

In addition, many times PROCESS is asked to provide vendor technical and cost proposal evaluations
to assist the client in making the best technology selection possible. Since we are not aligned with any
equipment companies, we provide these services in a completely objective manner and make what we
feel is the best recommendation based solely upon the technical and economic aspects of the options.

 Process Technical and Economic Evaluations

We are often called upon by clients to evaluate process options aimed at achieving one or more
specific goals. These goals run the gamut from improved throughput, quality, or consistency, to
emissions reduction, energy recovery, or waste minimization. In such cases we begin by determining
the current state of the process. This is done through a series of interviews and discussions with the
client's technical, engineering, and plant operating personnel. Additionally plant process data is
collected in various forms, some of which include P&IDs, batch sheets, DCS data logs, heat and
material balance information (if it exists), operation logs, etc. Our engineers then begin to analyze the
situation via experience, calculations, simulation techniques, and consultation with other engineers at
PROCESS as needed. The outcome is a technical engineering critique of the current process with a
focus on the areas which need the most improvement. The economic cost implications of the current
process are modeled to establish the baseline from which all potential improvements will be
evaluated. Many times we are asked to further identify viable technical options and provide an
economic comparison between them. Based on technical process option merits, economic cost
implications (capital/operating, fixed/variable), and our experienced based evaluation of the relative
suitability of each process option, a final solution is recommended. Although more detailed
engineering effort is required to make the best option a tangible operational solution, our clients can
do so with confidence knowing they have made an intelligent, thorough, systematic, and informed
decision.

Pilot Plant Evaluation and Scale Up

Many clients come to us wanting chemical engineering process design assistance after they have done
some level of due diligence to confirm that their process technology should work in real life.
Sometimes the available information will include well executed pilot plant trial data, process heat and
materials balance information, and all the necessary physical and chemical properties fully defined.
Unfortunately, the more typical information consists of academic papers, some lab test data, and
maybe some pseudo pilot plant information with stream property information only on the major
products at best. The client usually has one or more technical staff members who are excellent at
coming up with the innovative process idea, but lack the industrial process or design detail experience
to bring the system to an efficiently functioning reality - that's were we can help.

PROCESS will evaluate this information, review the pilot plant setup, interview the client's technical
staff, and often perform a literature search to determine at what stage the process development is at
and what information may be lacking. Frequently we perform preliminary design verification
calculations to ensure that the data and information, as presented, is not likely breaking any of the
irrefutable laws of physics or thermodynamics. Often the information is insufficient to proceed and
we then suggest a path forward to either collect additional information to fill in the gaps or rethink the
entire process if major flaws are uncovered. We strongly encourage clients to utilize pilot plant trials
to work through the large majority of the process challenges. Our engineers at PROCESS have a great
deal of experience with pilot plant testing and scale up designs. Both our operations and design
experience allow us to make many critical improvement suggestions in areas such as materials of
construction, equipment layout, operational safety considerations, operability and maintenance,
process controls, and more. These inputs are folded into the scaled up design for the larger process. A
rigorous process simulation model is then created to provide compete heat and material balance
information, operating conditions, hydraulic pressure drop data, and more. At this stage the
PROCESS will frankly consult with the client to help evaluate the project's potential technical and
economic changes for success. Finally, assuming the project is deemed viable, P&IDs, equipment
specifications, and a cost estimate of the new commercial sized process is generated. This package is
then ready to be handed over for detail engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC).

Process Design Components

Any of the design services listed above may include some or all of the following components. The
items included and level of detail will vary depending on clients desires or on which phase the project
is in. The more mature the process design, the more of these components will be included.

 Process design basis development

 Regulatory basis development
 Process computer simulation
 Advanced spreadsheet-simulation-spreadsheet user interfacing
 Mass and energy balances
 Technical and economic process alternatives evaluation
 Conceptual process design
 Detail process design
 Process control system design

Complete process design packages normally include:

 Design basis
 Mass and energy balance computer simulations
 Process simulation models for client use
 Process flow diagrams (PFDs)
 Process control logic and process control diagrams (PCDs)
 Capital cost estimate
 Operating cost estimate
 Piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs)
 Equipment plot plans
 Utility flow diagrams
 Equipment lists
 Equipment sizing and specifications datasheets
 Preliminary process hazards analysis documentation
 Plant layouts
 Preliminary process operating manuals

Process Modeling and Simulation

PROCESS uses long-term or short-term licensed commercial Read About Running Plant
process simulation software (CHEMCAD, Aspen, Hysis, Pro/II, Process Simulations, via Excel,
Simsci) and/or in-house simulation programs to perform: without learning simulation
software
 Detailed mass and energy balances
 Unit operation design/evaluation
 Piping system hydraulics calculations Video time: 6.5 min.
 Relief and flare system design/evaluation
 Heat exchanger design/evaluation
View more information on Why Use Process Simulation?, Process Simulation Projects, Advanced
Simulation/Spreadsheet Interfacing

 Operations Support
Listed below are the types of plant operations support that PROCESS typically provides to operating
companies. Additionally, process engineering staff augmentation can be provided for operating
facilities within reasonable commuting distance from one of our regional offices.

 Process evaluation, troubleshooting, optimization

 Debottlenecking
 Control system startup, tuning, optimization
 Commissioning and startup assistance
 Operating procedures, process documentation
 Operator and technical staff training
 Statistical process control

Additional Capabilities
 Plant investment due diligence evaluation
 Process/equipment bid package preparation
 Vendor bid evaluations and recommendations
 Expert witness/legal team technical assistance

Contact Us Home Services

Copyright © 2010 Process Engineering Associates, LLC. All rights reserved.

Search Experience Site Map

 Why Use Process Simulation?
In this modern age of powerful computers, it often makes no sense to put pencil to paper like in the
old days.  Now, new software can perform repetitive chemical engineering calculations in a fraction
of the time it takes to execute them by hand.  Imagine you have been tasked to design a distillation
column to produce a 90% benzene overhead product and a 95% toluene bottoms product.  You look
up the VLE data for benzene-toluene, carefully construct your x-y diagram, draw the feed line, and
step off your McCabe-Thiele trays.  Estimate tray efficiencies.  Then you calculate your mass and
energy balance, product and bottoms dew points and bubble points, and estimate your overhead
condenser and column reboiler duties.  Wrestle with those tedious hydraulics equations to determine
the column diameter.  Then dust off the old heat transfer equations and some time later you have your
condenser and reboiler sized.  Finally - the system is designed.

And then they decide they want 95% benzene, and by the way, the feed rate is 2,500 pounds per hour,
not 1,500....

The Advantage of Simulation

For the example above, getting the initial solution using process simulation software would
take....about the same amount of time.  BUT, when the design conditions are changed - and has there
ever been a design where they haven't? - the speed and accuracy of process simulation begins to save
tremendous time and money.  And not only for design changes.  In the example above, you had to
select your reflux rate based on some old rule of thumb about the optimum reflux being some
multiple of the minimum reflux.  Wouldn't it be better to be able to plot reflux rate versus energy
usage?  Versus number of trays?  And automatically, with one software command?

Multiple runs - quickly.  Process design optimization - quickly.  Such is the power of process
simulation.  The example given above is for a distillation tower, but the same holds true for any
number of chemical engineering unit operations - heat exchangers, reactors, heaters, absorbers,
extractors, crystallizers, evaporators; even pumps, compressors, and piping systems.  In fact, even an
entire plant - in one model.

And operations.  Have you ever wondered if that old packed tower or heat exchanger will work in this
new application?  Let's model it and see.

Our Commitment to Simulation

It is our opinion that process engineering services are no longer adequate or complete without the
presence of comprehensive process simulation software and chemical engineers highly skilled in its
use.  In the ever more competitive world of manufacturing, it is no longer acceptable to determine just
a correct answer - the BEST answer is required.  And it is almost never possible to achieve the best
answer within the confines of any client's project budget without the use of simulation software. 
Answers like: 

 The feasibility of, and optimum operating conditions for utilizing a two-tower valve tray
distillation system (originally designed for depropanizing and debutanizing gasoline) for the
production of high-purity propane, iso-butane, and n-butane from various pipeline and
refinery feedstocks
  The optimum process orientation and operating conditions for a multi-tower absorption
system for producing maximum product concentration, minimum offgas concentration, and
minimum operating costs
 The optimum reactor design and operating conditions for maximum product yield and
minimum byproduct contamination
 The fact that despite energy savings as compared to a distillation system, a multi-effect
evaporator was not technically feasible due to operational instability
 The optimum number of stages and operating conditions for minimizing energy consumption
for a product-concentrating distillation system
 The best retrofit option for a solvent recovery condensing system, maximizing product
recovery while eliminating downtime due to freezing events
 The best retrofit option for a fume incineration system, minimizing supplemental fuel usage.

 All real projects recently completed by PROCESS.  In all cases it was possible to get the BEST
answer from process simulation. 

Our Choice of Simulation Software

In the beginning, PROCESS took three months to evaluate the leading simulation softwares.  At the
end of the process, we selected Chemstations' ChemCAD simulation software product.  To a large
extent, we believe that the leading softwares are technically equivalent - but we wanted a partner in
this endeavor, and it was our perception that Chemstations' customer and technical service personnel
were superior to their competitions'.  Our engineers have trained extensively on the proper use and
application of the software.  We have worked very closely with Chemstations over the past few years
with the development of improvements to the software.  But most importantly, we consult with their
expert simulation engineers on a frequent basis, both as a check on our work and for assistance in
solving unusual or complex problems.

The Benefits to You 

 Accurate design information
 Software-produced mass and energy balances and process flow diagrams
 Multiple design cases at a fraction of the cost
 Process optimization, finding the process' maximum performance point
 Sensitivity analyses, determining the process' key control variables and degree of operating
stability.

Call us with your application.  It might be the most cost-effective thing you do all year.
Sample Process Simulation Projects
PROCESS' licensed commercial process simulation softwares, Chemstations' ChemCAD and
CCTherm, have been used increasingly with great effectiveness in the course of process engineering
and process design projects. Several of our engineers are also familiar and proficient with other
industry-leading simulation packages such as Aspen, Hysis, Pro/II, Simsci, etc. With engineers
proficient in the use of these softwares, PROCESS has been able to utilize these tools to save
engineering time on projects (resulting in corresponding savings to our clients).
PROCESS has performed hundreds and hundreds of process simulations (thousands if you count
process alternatives that were explored). The following list of examples represents only a small
fraction of our experience with computer process simulation. More information on our experience can
be found at more Process Simulation Projects - also see projects where we have Developed
Simulation Tools and Design Aids for clients and Taught Simulation Training Courses.
Biodiesel Plant Cellulosic Ethanol Plant
 Simulation Diagrams  Simulation Diagrams
o Transesterification o Pulverizing and Delignification
o Methyl Ester-Glycerine Separation o Bioreactor Section
o Methyl Ester Drying  Project Summary
o Glycerine Soap Splitting
 Project Summary

Crude Atmospheric Distillation Unit Batch Plant Vent System

 Simulation Diagram  Simulation Diagrams
 Project Summary o Plant Wide System
o Thermal Oxidizer
 Project Summary

Organic Chemical Production Distillation Towers Crude Vacuum Distillation System

 Simulation Diagram  Simulation Diagram
 Project Summary  Project Summary

Light Ends Fractionation System Sodium Hydrosulfide Production System

 Simulation Diagram  Simulation Diagram
 Project Summary  Project Summary

HCl Regeneration System Condensing Solvent Recovery System

 Simulation Diagram  Simulation Diagram
 Project Summary  Project Summary

Solvent Recovery Distillation System Refinery Flare System

 Simulation Diagram  Simulation Diagram
 Project Summary  Project Summary

Multi-Tower HCl Absorption System Fume Incinerator Heat Recovery System

 Simulation Diagram  Simulation Diagram
 Project Summary  Project Summary

Nuclear Facility Cooling Water Loops Refinery Fuel Gas Conditioning System
 Simulation Diagram  Simulation Diagram
 Project Summary  Project Summary
Exploring the Potential of Spreadsheet-Simulation Interfaces

PROCESS has advanced the use of CHEMCAD process simulation software by creating visual basic
(VBA) linking to Excel spreadsheets for process model inputs and outputs. This means that anyone
(operators, accountants, production managers, etc.) can now harness the power of a plant simulation
without having to learn how to use the program. The inputs are simply entered into Excel and a low
cost "run time" version of the simulation software runs in the background. The results are output in
user defined formats.

Ways these tools can help design and optimize your operation:

New Plant Investor

 Evaluate the profitability and product quality based on predicted or worst case changes in the
process (changes in feedstock composition, raw material price changes, utility price
fluctuations, etc.)
 Use the model to easily demonstrate the plant operation to potential capital investors in a
powerful, simple, and realistic manner.

Technology Provider or EPC Engineering Design

 Significantly reduces process design package development time when designing similar plants
for multiple locations.
 Almost eliminates manual data entry and lessens the opportunity for human errors.
 Model individual process areas separately and link them. This provides flexibility and allows
the client to add, remove, and change specific areas of the plant without changing the entire
plant simulation.
 Fast alternatives case evaluation tool that allows the mass and energy balance to conform to
different design conditions, e.g., to size vent lines for a worst case vapor flow scenario that
may be different than normal production.
 Allows utilization of less experienced engineers to enter process inputs into spreadsheets and
output equipment specification sheets without having to use simulation software.
 Correctly formatted, high-quality data sheet outputs. View Sample Pump Datasheet, Sample
Heat Exchanger Data Sheet
 Improved deliverable accuracy and consistency.

Existing Plant Operations

 All knowledge specific to the process can be captured in the simulation for future reference,
i.e., actual process data or lab data for temperature-dependent physical properties, vapor-liquid
equilibrium, reactor rate data, etc. can be regressed into the model and used in the simulation
calculations so the model reflects real operating experience.  Over time, the model becomes
the repository of information that reflects process expertise without having to rely on in-house
experts who may someday leave unexpectedly or retire.
 The user can run quick optimization and sensitivity studies to determine how certain inputs
affect the mass flows and energy usage throughout the entire plant.
 Input real time cost factors (feedstock prices, changes in feed quality, utilities cost, etc.) and
output an accurate predicted profitability margin. Juggle your operating parameters and
product mix to maximize your profits.
  Easily change operating parameters (feed compositions, tower pressure, cooling water
temperature, etc.) and see what the effects are on your process (product yield, product
composition, throughput, etc.).
 Allows corporate groups (operations management, sales, marketing, etc.) to evaluate
economic impacts of product mixes prior to embarking on sales campaigns.
 Use of the simple spreadsheets provides operations engineer and operator 'what-if' scenario
training.
 Get the power of long-term process simulation use at greatly reduced cost.

Environmental Management

 Summarize and tabulate waste stream or process vent information quickly and accurately.
 Use the simulation to easily predict changes in waste streams based on changes in feed or
operating conditions, e.g., predict the new wastewater loading and composition based on
proposed process changes.
 Powerful incident or 'what-if' evaluation tool that allows the mass and energy balance to
conform to different operating upset conditions, e.g., quickly iterate what the process was
doing to predict vapor release quantities based on a recorded maximum outlet temperature on
a gas scrubber.
AspenTech Product Portfolio

Unparalleled breadth and depth of offerings

AspenTech's product portfolio represents the broadest footprint of process optimization solutions in
the market. Our best-in-class products span across engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain and
are fully aligned with our integrated aspenONE solutions, enabling you to create and maintain
sustainable best practices while driving operational excellence.

 aspenONE® V7
 Virtualization in the Process Industries

Process Engineering
 Aspen Licensing Center

Process Simulation - Chemicals

 Aspen Adsorption (formerly Aspen Adsim)

 Aspen Batch Distillation (formerly Aspen BatchSep)
 Aspen Custom Modeler®
 Aspen Distillation Synthesis (formerly Aspen Split™)
 Aspen Energy Analyzer (formerly Aspen HX-Net)
 Aspen Flare System Analyzer (formerly Aspen FLARENET)
 Aspen Plus®
 Aspen Plus Dynamics® (formerly Aspen Dynamics™)
 Aspen OTS Framework
 Aspen Polymers (formerly Aspen Polymers Plus)
 Aspen Process Engineering Console
 Aspen Properties®
 Aspen Rate-Based Distillation (formerly Aspen RateSep)

Process Simulation - Oil & Gas

 Aspen EO Modeling Option

 Aspen Flare System Analyzer (formerly Aspen FLARENET)
 Aspen HYSYS®
 Aspen HYSYS Amines™
 Aspen HYSYS Crude™
 Aspen HYSYS Dynamics™
 Aspen HYSYS Dynamics Run-Time
 Aspen HYSYS Pipeline Hydraulics—OLGAS 2-Phase (formerly Aspen HYSYS OLGAS)
 Aspen HYSYS Pipeline Hydraulics OLGAS 3-Phase
 Aspen HYSYS Pipeline Hydraulics—PIPESYS (formerly Aspen HYSYS PIPESYS)
 Aspen HYSYS Upstream™
 Aspen HYSYS Upstream Dynamics
 Aspen OTS Framework
 Aspen Process Engineering Console
Process Simulation - Refining

 Aspen Adsorption (formerly Aspen Adsim)

 Aspen Energy Analyzer (formerly Aspen HX-Net)
 Aspen Flare System Analyzer (formerly Aspen FLARENET)
 Aspen HYSYS®
 Aspen HYSYS Amines™
 Aspen HYSYS CatCracker (formerly Aspen RefSYS CatCracker)
 Aspen HYSYS Crude™
 Aspen HYSYS Dynamics™
 Aspen HYSYS Hydrocracker (formerly Aspen RefSYS Hydrocracker)
 Aspen HYSYS Petroleum Refining™ (formerly AspenRefSYS)
 Aspen HYSYS Reformer (formerly Aspen RefSYS Reformer)
 Aspen HYSYS Thermodynamics COM Interface
 Aspen OTS Framework
 Aspen Process Engineering Console

Process Simulation - Batch/Pharma

 Aspen Batch Distillation (formerly Aspen BatchSEP)

 Aspen Batch Process Developer (formerly Aspen Batch Plus)
 Aspen Chromatography®
 Aspen Custom Modeler®
 Aspen OTS Framework
 Aspen Process Engineering Console
 Aspen Process Manual™
 Aspen Process Tools™
 Aspen Properties®

Model Deployment

 Aspen Model Runner™

 Aspen Online Deployment™
 Aspen OTS Framework
 Aspen Process Engineering Console
 Aspen Simulation Workbook™

Equipment Modeling

 Aspen Air Cooled Exchanger (formerly Aspen Acol+)

 Aspen Exchanger Design & Rating
 Aspen FRAN™
 Aspen Fired Heater™
 Aspen HTFS Research Network™
 Aspen Muse™
 Aspen OTS Framework
 Aspen Plate Exchanger (formerly Aspen Plate+)
 Aspen Plate Fin Exchanger
 Aspen Process Engineering Console
 Aspen Shell & Tube Mechanical (formerly Aspen Teams)
 Aspen Shell & Tube Exchanger (formerly Aspen Tasc+)
Basic Engineering

 Aspen Basic Engineering (formerly Aspen Zyqad)

 Aspen Capital Cost Estimator (formerly Aspen Kbase)
 Aspen OTS Framework
 Aspen Process Engineering Console

Economic Evaluation

 Aspen Capital Cost Estimator (formerly Aspen Kbase)

 Aspen Economic Evaluation
 Aspen In-Plant Cost Estimator (formerly Aspen Icarus Project Manager)
 Aspen OTS Framework
 Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly Aspen Icarus Process Evaluator)
 Aspen Process Engineering Console

Advanced Process Control

 Aspen Adaptive Modeling
 Aspen Adaptive Modeling for Olefins
 Aspen DMCplus®
 Aspen DMCplus Controller for Olefins
 Aspen Inferential Qualities (formerly Aspen IQ™)
 Aspen Nonlinear Controller (formerly Aspen Apollo)
 Aspen OnLine®
 Aspen Online Deployment™
 Aspen PID Watch™
 Aspen Polymer Production Control™
 Aspen Process Controller
 Aspen Process Recipe®
 Aspen Process Sequencer (formerly Aspen Transition Manager)
 Aspen SmartStep Automated Tester for Olefins
 Aspen Process Statistical Analyzer (formerly Aspen IQmodel Powertools)
 Aspen Real-Time Optimizer (formerly Aspen RTO)
 Aspen RTO Watch Performance Monitor (formerly Aspen RTO Watch)
 Aspen SmartStep Automated Tester (formerly Aspen SmartStep Advanced)
 Aspen Watch Performance Monitor (formerly Aspen Watch)
 Aspen Watch Performance Monitor for Olefins

Planning & Scheduling

 Aspen Collaborative Demand Manager™
 Aspen Operations Reconciliation and Accounting (formerly Aspen Advisor)
 Aspen Petroleum Scheduler (formerly Aspen Orion XT)
 Aspen PIMS™
 Aspen Plant Scheduler™ Family
 Aspen Refinery Multi-Blend Optimizer (formerly Aspen MBO)
 Aspen Scheduling Insight™
 Aspen Supply Chain Connect™
 Aspen Supply Chain Planner™ (formerly Aspen Supply Planner)
  Aspen Tank and Operations Manager (formerly Aspen AtOMS)

Supply & Distribution

 Aspen Inventory Management and Operations Scheduling™
 Aspen Petroleum Supply Chain Planner (formerly Aspen DPO)
 Aspen Retail
 Aspen Transport Manager

Production Management & Execution

 Aspen Cim-IO™
 Aspen Event Manager
 Aspen Golden Batch Profiler™
 Aspen InfoPlus.21®
 Aspen Integration Infrastructure™
 Aspen IP.21 Process Browser (formerly Aspen Web.21)
 Aspen KPI Builder (formerly Aspen OpsKPI)
 Aspen Manufacturing Master Data Manager (formerly Aspen Operations Domain Model)
 Aspen Process Explorer™
 Aspen Production Execution Manager (formerly Aspen eBRS)
 Aspen Production Record Manager (formerly Aspen Batch.21)
 Aspen Real-Time Statistical Process Control Analyzer (formerly Aspen Q Server)
 Aspen Role-Based Visualization™
 Aspen Utilities Operations™
 Aspen Utilities Planner™

FTC Orders Aspen Technology, Inc. to Divest Assets from its

2002 Purchase of Hyprotech, Ltd
Commission’s Complaint Alleged Acquisition Was
Anticompetitive;
Companies Were World’s Largest Providers of Process
Engineering Simulation Software
In an action taken to restore competition in the market for process engineering simulation software,
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced a consent order requiring Aspen Technology,
Inc. (AspenTech) to divest the overlapping assets it obtained through its $106.1 million 2002
acquisition of Hyprotech, Ltd., its closest competitor in developing and supplying this specialized
software. In August 2003, the Commission filed a complaint alleging that the acquisition was
anticompetitive and seeking relief that would restore competition. The consent order, which addresses
the Commission’s allegations, settles the charges and resolves the administrative court action, is
subject to a 30-day public comment period.

The main requirements of the order include AspenTech’s sale of the Hyprotech process engineering
software and the AspenTech operator training software business to a buyer that obtains the
Commission’s prior approval and the sale of Hyprotech’s AXSYS integrated engineering software
business to Bentley Systems, Inc. (Bentley), a technology firm that provides software for a variety of
building, industrial, and civil engineering applications.

“This consent order contains strong relief to restore competition in this market,” said Susan A.
Creighton, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “The fact that the parties to an
anticompetitive transaction were not required to file a pre-merger notification form and have
consummated their transaction does not imply that the Commission will turn a blind eye. Parties bear
the burden of restoring the competition that their transactions eliminated.”

AspenTech and Hyprotech

Founded in 1981, AspenTech is a for-profit corporation with headquarters in Cambridge,

Massachusetts, that licenses software and provides related services, such as consulting, maintenance,
and training. Before AspenTech acquired Hyprotech in May 2002, AspenTech’s customers included
46 of the world’s 50 largest chemical companies, 23 of the 25 largest petroleum companies, and 18 of
the 20 largest pharmaceutical companies. AspenTech develops a variety of software products,
including engineering simulation software, that it licenses to external clients. In fiscal year 2003, the
company had total revenues of $323 million.

Until 2002, when it was acquired by AspenTech, Hyprotech, headquartered in Calgary, Canada, was a
subsidiary of AEA Technology plc (AEA). Founded in 1976, the company’s clients included 14 of
the world’s 15 largest petroleum companies, 13 of the top 14 chemical companies, eight of the top 10
pharmaceutical companies, and all of the top air-processing companies. Like AspenTech, Hyprotech
developed and supplied simulation and optimization software for use in industrial applications. In
fiscal year 2002, Hyprotech had revenues of approximately $68.5 million.

The Consummated Transaction

Before the acquisition, AspenTech and Hyprotech both developed, licensed, and supported
continuous and batch process engineering simulation software. Batch process simulation models
processes that have discrete production runs with distinct beginnings and ends. It differs from
continuous process simulation, which models processes involving continuous flows. Continuous
process simulation software models individual units or an entire process chain inside a refinery,
chemical plant, or other process industry. Before the acquisition, AspenTech’s BatchPlus software
suite included the leading batch simulator, with the BaSYS suite from Hyprotech second in the
market. The companies also developed integrated engineering software to gather information
generated from process engineering software and allow users to store, update, and retrieve data
depending on their needs. Prior to the acquisition, AspenTech’s Zyqad was the leading application for
these uses, and Hyprotech’s AXSYS was in development and ready for release to buyers, some of
which had made commitments to purchase the product.

On March 10, 2002, AspenTech announced it was acquiring Hyprotech from AEA in an all-cash
transaction. AspenTech consummated the transaction on May 31, 2002. Prior to the acquisition,
AspenTech, Hyprotech, and Invensys Systems’ SimSci-Esscor division (SimSci) were the three
leading providers of engineering process simulation software for process industries. Post-transaction,
AspenTech’s share of the relevant markets for various engineering process simulation software was
between 67 and 82 percent.
The Commission’s Complaint

Before the acquisition, AspenTech and Hyprotech were direct and actual worldwide competitors for
the development, licensing, and support of process engineering software in the following markets: 1)
continuous process engineering simulation flowsheet software for process industries; 2) continuous
process engineering simulation flowsheet software for upstream oil and gas process industries; 3)
continuous process engineering simulation flowsheet software for downstream refining process
industries; 4) continuous process engineering simulation flowsheet software for chemical process
industries; 5) continuous process engineering simulation flowsheet software for air separation process
industries; 6) batch process engineering simulation flowsheet software for process industries; and 7)
integrated engineering software for process industries.

According to the FTC, the acquisition allegedly significantly increased concentration in the relevant
product markets, led to the combination of the two closest competitors, and left a combined
AspenTech/Hyprotech as a dominant number one with only SimSci as a relatively smaller number
two. Based on company estimates, the combined AspenTech/Hyprotech accounted for as much as 82
percent of the process simulation software market, with SimSci holding virtually all remaining sales.

Further, the complaint stated that entry into the relevant markets would not be timely, likely, or
sufficient to deter or counteract the alleged anticompetitive effects of AspenTech’s acquisition of
Hyprotech. The acquisition allegedly eliminated actual, direct, and substantial price and innovation
competition between the two companies and gave AspenTech unilateral market power.

Terms of the Order

The order remedies the anticompetitive effects of the consummated transaction in the relevant
markets by requiring AspenTech to divest the overlapping Hyprotech assets it obtained in 2003. The
main divestitures include: 1) Hyprotech’s continuous process and batch process assets, along with
AspenTech’s operator training software and service business, which will be sold to a Commission-
approved buyer; and 2) the integrated engineering software business (Hyprotech’s AXSYS business),
which will be sold to Bentley, subject to final FTC approval.

Under the order, if AspenTech is unable to sell the first set of assets to an acceptable buyer within the
time required, the FTC may appoint a trustee to accomplish this divestiture within this time. In
addition, the order assures the viability of the divestiture of the continuous and batch process
engineering software by: 1) requiring AspenTech to divest its operator training software and services
business; and 2) allowing customers with licenses to Hyprotech software to procure software
maintenance and support agreements with the Commission-approved buyer without a penalty. The
order also allows AspenTech to license the continuous and batch process engineering software back
from the buyer to preserve product integrations that have occurred since the acquisition.

In acquiring Hyprotech’s integrated engineering software products, Bentley also will be provided
with updates, upgrades, and new releases of AspenTech’s engineering and other products on
favorable terms for five years. AspenTech also must provide Bentley with free support services for
the AXSYS assets for two years to ensure that Bentley can create and maintain a product that
effectively interfaces with AspenTech’s products.

Finally, the order contains terms to ensure the viability of both asset packages; specifies how both
Commission-approved buyers may hire employees to manage the divested assets; requires AspenTech
to publish and maintain software interfaces and technical standards; contains a provision that
AspenTech will not enter into nor enforce any secret agreement with a competitor that has the
purpose of impeding or obstructing the conduct or organizational structure of any standard-setting
organization, and is inconsistent with the purpose of the order; and includes a standard divestiture
trustee provision that can be implemented if AspenTech does not meet its divestiture requirements.

The Commission vote to accept the consent order and to place a copy on the public record was 4-0-1,
with Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour not participating. The order will be subject to public
comment for 30 days, until August 13, 2004, after which the Commission will decide whether to
make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W., Washington, DC 20580.

NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of
a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of
law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of
$11,000.

Copies of the complaint, proposed consent order, and an analysis to aid public comment are available
on the FTC’s Web site at www.ftc.gov. The FTC’s Bureau of Competition seeks to prevent business
practices that restrain competition. The Bureau carries out its mission by investigating alleged law
violations and, when appropriate, recommending that the Commission take formal enforcement
action. To notify the Bureau concerning particular business practices, call or write the Office of
Policy and Evaluation, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600
Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580, Electronic Mail: [email protected]; Telephone
(202) 326-3300. For more information on the laws that the Bureau enforces, the Commission has
published “Promoting Competition, Protecting Consumers: A Plain English Guide to Antitrust Laws,”
which can be accessed at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/index.htm.

Aspentech’s Hysys: Fluid Package (Thermodynamics) Notes

2009 December 4
tags: aspentech, peng robinson, process simulation, simulation tool, thermodynamic method
by admin

Aspentech’s Hysys is a process simulation tool. You always have to pick a “fluid package” when you
use the program: a thermodynamic method it will use to calculate properties, especially vapour-liquid
equilibria. I watched an old “webinar” (presentation given through the Internet) on their property
packages and took some notes.

You can combine this post with the Hysys manual, the Hysys property package wizard, Aspentech
Support’s advice, and books on simulation, and put it all together to choose the best package in each
case. If you are in doubt Aspentech Support can always give you personalized advice.

Here are my notes:

-Hydrocarbons: normally use an Equation of State method

-Vapour pressure models are OK at low pressures
-Activity coefficient like NRTL is poor model for hydrocarbons

Equations of State:
-Peng-Robinson is most enhanced in Hysys, highest T & P range, has special treatment for key
components, largest binary interaction database: good standard for hydrocarbons
-PRSV: extends PR to moderately non-ideal systems and better represents poor components and
mixtures. Adds a new parameter to the equation. Slower calculation speeds than Peng-Robinson
-SRK: modified Redlich Kwong model. Similar to accuracy/use to PR, but has less enhancements in
Hysys.
-PR-Twu, SR-Twu for hydrogen solutes In liquid hydrocarbons
-TST: hydrocarbons with non-ideal components (used in glycol package)
-GCEOS: generalized cubic EOS for user to add their own parameters
-MBWR: modify the old BWR models, 32 parameters, more empirical, so works very well in the
range where it has data
-Lee-Kesler-Pockler: modified BWR for non-polar substances, mixtures
-BWRS: modified BWR for multicomponents, requires experimental data
-Zudkevitch Joffee: modified RK method for VLE, systems with H2
-Kabadi-Danner: modified SRK with Liquid-Liquid-Equilibrium calcs for liquid H2O-Hydrocarbon
systems, especially dilute, parameters must be tuned to experimental data
-Sour PR/SRK: sour water systems with H2S, CO2, NH3 at low to moderate P

Vapour Pressure Models:

OK for hydrocarbons. Historically they were used since computationally easier. Now with computers
EOS is easy to do so vapour pressure is less used. But Braun K10 is good for vacuum units still.
-Modified Antonie: OK for low pressure ideal systems
-Braun K10 Model: strictly applicable to only heavy Hydrocarbons @ low pressures
-Esso K: only heavy Hydrocarbons @ low Press

Semi-Empirical methods:
-Chao-Seader: hydrocarbons if T = 0-500C, P<10,000 kPa
-Grayson-Streed: Chao-Seader extention with emphasis on hydrogen, good if heavy hydrocarbon with
lots of hydrogen like hydrotreaters. Is recommended for vacuum units.

-Glycol Package: TEG circulation rates, purities of lean TEG, dew points and water content of gas
stream used in natural gas dehydration. Use PR for MEG, DEG, but be careful of results outside of
standard range
-Clean Fuels: Thiols and Hydrocarbon
-OLI: electrolyte
-Amine: sour sweetening with amines
-Steam tables: ASME, NBS

Binary Interaction Permaters:

-Are many defaults, others estimated by BP & Density, most user can overwrite

Refining:
-For hydrocarbons and hypocomponents use PR, SRK, or other EOS
-Vacuum unit – GS, PR, BK10
-High-hydrogen units like hydrotreaters – GS, PR, PR-Twu, or ZJ
-Sour gas sweetening – Amine
-Sour water – Sour PR/SRK
-Clean fuels for sulphur components & HC
-Utilities with water – use one of the steam tables. Steam tables are only for 100% water systems but
are the best choice for these systems