Logo of NTNUCover page of Fuel journalResearchers in the  Department of Energy and Process Engineering from NTNU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim published today online a paper in Fuel where they are comparing various process simulators for the purpose of conducting a dynamic simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture for coal-fired power plant. The three commercial simulators compared are Aspen Hysys v8.6, Aspen Plus and Dynamics v8.6 and gPROMS.

“CAPE-OPEN Thermo” is listed as one of the features checked for all three simulators. They mention as another comparison feature “Interfacing with other software”. However they are not mentioning CAPE-OPEN there, and they focus on interfacing through Excel while mentioning also that gPROMS benefits from an open software architecture.

CO-LaN believes that the CAPE-OPEN interface standard for dynamic unit operations is not in a status that calls for it to be included in the comparison. Anyway none of the three process simulators considered is implementing the current prototype version of the CAPE-OPEN interface specification for dynamic unit operations.

Still, especially for the process considered that requires dedicated thermodynamic models, more emphasis could have been made on the capabilities offered by the CAPE-OPEN thermodynamic socket available in each of the three process simulators.

On the positive side for CO-LaN is the fact that, while not being discriminating between the considered process simulators, CAPE-OPEN thermodynamics was mentioned by the researchers of this CO-LaN Associate Member.

The authors eventually chose Aspen Hysys v8.6.