Chemie

1052 Review Ingenieur

Technik

CAPE-OPEN: Interoperability in Industrial

Flowsheet Simulation Software
Jasper van Baten1,* and Michel Pons2
DOI: 10.1002/cite.201400009

Chemical process modelling and simulation are widely used in process industries to progress in the understanding and in
the improvement of many processes. Due to the complexity and variety of these processes, several pieces of software are
often needed to model a given process, hence requiring interoperability between software. CAPE-OPEN is an industry stan-
dard for interoperability between process simulation software. Compared to proprietary interfaces of software applications,
CAPE-OPEN allows for less overhead on programming and maintenance, fast access to market and a common basis for
collaboration in joint projects.
Keywords: CAPE-OPEN, Interoperability, Modelling, Process, Simulation
Received: January 20, 2014; revised: March 12, 2014; accepted: March 21, 2014

1 Introduction of these custom-made models are available commercially,

Flowsheet simulations are at the heart of process (re-)de-
sign, process control, operator training, feasibility studies,
environmental life cycle assessments and impact assess-
ments in most process industries (chemical, petrochemical,
refining, oil and gas, pharmaceutical, etc.). Flowsheet simu-
lations contain unit operations representing equipment
models, which are connected via material and energy
streams. The overall flowsheet ties the unit operation mod-
els and the stream models together in a graph of inter-
dependencies, typically represented by a visual diagram.
When solving a flowsheet, heat and mass balances are
closed and unspecified process conditions are resolved. To
ensure this is done in a thermodynamically consistent man-
ner, thermodynamic models are defined at flowsheet level
and made available to the unit operations. Flowsheet simu-
lations are implemented in flowsheet software. The role and
architecture of these software tools were well documented
early on by Westerberg and al. [1].
Mainstream commercial flowsheet software is widely
used in industry, academic research and consultancy activ-
ities. Such flowsheet applications contain a number of built-
in, i.e., generic, unit operations and thermodynamic mod-
els. These generic models are not always able to describe
the wide variety of chemical mixtures and pieces of equip-
ment that are found in practice. End-users rely on custom-
made models in order to cope with these limitations. Some
– thermodynamic models to end-users in different organiza-
1
Dr. Ir. Jasper van Baten (jasper@amsterchem.com), AmsterCHEM,
Calle las Rozas 32, 04618 Cuevas del Almanzora, Almería, Spain;
2
Dr. Michel Pons, CO-LaN, 32 rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon, France.
but a substantial part of these custom-made models is re-
stricted to in-house use within companies in order to protect
intellectual property. New models are continuously devel-
oped as a product of research done both in companies and
in universities.
Flowsheet applications typically allow for adding custom-
made unit operation and thermodynamic models via pro-
prietary interfaces. Usually this requires coding of such
models in a framework specific to the flowsheet application
at hand and then dynamically or statically linking the mod-
els to the flowsheet application. The use of specific software
development environments, e.g., particular FORTRAN com-
pilers, may or may not be required. Although this approach
works well in practice, the resulting custom-made models
are limited to operation with the flowsheet application that
they were developed for. Porting to other flowsheet applica-
tions, and in some cases even updating to a newer version
of the same flowsheet application, requires additional pro-
gramming effort.
Making unit operations or thermodynamic models avail-
able for multiple flowsheet applications, so-called interoper-
ability, involves additional software development work. As a
result, custom-made models are made available in combina-
tion with only a limited number of flowsheet applications,
often only one. Typically, chemical engineers are respon-
sible for the model development, and often they are not
computer scientists or software experts. Writing a single in-
terface that targets multiple flowsheet applications is pre-
ferred. This is particularly evident in the case of small com-
panies that distribute their niche unit operations or
tions, each using their own flowsheet applications, as well
as within operating companies that make use of multiple
flowsheet applications.

www.cit-journal.com © 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064
 Chemie
Ingenieur Review
Technik
CAPE-OPEN provides a methodology where unit opera-
tion and thermodynamic models use a single set of com-
mon interfaces that are supported across all main-stream
flowsheet applications.
2 CAPE-OPEN
In the early 90’s, the CAPE-OPEN idea originated in BP
with the concept of taking unit operation models from the
shelf and plugging them into any process simulator. It was
openly discussed at FOCAPD’94, where BASF expressed
support for the idea put forward by BP. Further develop-
ment of the idea went through various paths that ultimately
converged [2]. In the mid 90’s, open software architectures
were declared as the way forward for the next generation of
CAPE (Computer-Aided Process Engineering) tools [3], and
CAPE was to be captured in open interface definitions.
The CAPE-OPEN project, as described in [4], ran from
January 1997 to June 1999, and the feasibility of CAPE-
OPEN interoperability was publicly demonstrated at the
ESCAPE-9 conference (European Symposium Computer-
Aided Process Engineering) using the very first CAPE-
OPEN unit operations and thermodynamic models. Shortly
after, an interim version of the CAPE-OPEN standards was
released. The Global CAPE-OPEN project, from July 1999 to
March 2002, pushed successfully for the commercial avail-
ability of CAPE-OPEN interfaces and much work was done
within the Interoperability Task Force of that project to test
and debug the first commercial implementations of the unit
operation and thermodynamic interfaces.
The CAPE-OPEN and Global CAPE-OPEN projects were
jointly funded by industry and the European Community
within the Industrial and Materials Technologies Pro-
gramme (Brite-EuRam III), under contract BRPR-CT96-
0293 and contract BPR-CT98-9005, respectively. Support
was widely gathered well beyond Europe [5], as shown by
the Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) labelling re-
ceived by the Global CAPE-OPEN project. In a broader per-
spective, CAPE-OPEN was one of several initiatives aimed
at facilitating the widespread adoption of component based
software technology [3].
The CAPE-OPEN Laboratories Network, CO-LaN, was
founded in 2001 as deliverable of the Global CAPE-OPEN
project. It is the nonprofit organization that is responsible
for updating, maintaining and publishing the CAPE-OPEN
specification [6]. Its members are operating companies, soft-
ware vendors, academic institutions and other interested
parties. With currently almost a hundred members world-
wide, CO-LaN shows that CAPE-OPEN is a common ground
in process modelling and simulation activities.
In 2002, version 1.0 of the CAPE-OPEN standards was re-
leased [7]. The set of documents describing the CAPE-OPEN
standards was made freely available on the CO-LaN website
(http://www.colan.org/) and still constitutes the main deli-
verable of the research projects co-funded by the European
Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064 © 2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1053
Community. A major extension to the thermodynamic part
of the CAPE-OPEN standards was released in October 2006
as version 1.1 [8], clarifying, improving, and extending the
applicability of that part of the CAPE-OPEN standards.
This article focuses on the motivations for and industrial
relevance of using CAPE-OPEN. A review of existing indus-
trial usage of CAPE-OPEN was published ten years ago [9].
This article provides an update and describes the progress
made over the last decade.
2.1 Other Interoperability Standards
Early 2000, AspenTech proposed to launch CAPE-S [10], a
standard for interoperability similar to what CAPE-OPEN
has accomplished since then. Its efforts eventually merged
into CAPE-OPEN. The success of CAPE-OPEN is attributed
to the contributions from many experts in many different
companies, where the established standard specifications re-
sult from consensus between many parties so that no single
simulation application was used as its basis. Another inter-
operability standard specification that has successfully been
applied to process simulation is OPC [11], but it focuses on
industrial automation and on access to real time and histori-
cal data and events, and, despite some efforts made [12], not
on model interactions between process modeling compo-
nents like unit operations and thermodynamics. An inter-
esting recent development with OPC involves coupling con-
trols systems to process simulators; however this does not
describe the interaction between individual process model-
ing components. To the authors’ knowledge, the only alter-
native to using CAPE-OPEN is using the proprietary inter-
faces of each simulation application.
2.2 Motivation for CAPE-OPEN
That CAPE-OPEN brings advantages is reflected by its wide-
spread implementation in simulation applications, unit op-
eration models, and thermodynamic servers. These advan-
tages have been perceived early on by the industry as well as
by academia, resulting in the endorsement of CAPE-OPEN
by the German organization Gesellschaft Verfahrenstechnik
und Chemieingenieurwesen under the auspices of the Ver-
ein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V (VDI-GVC) and in the endor-
sement by the CAPE Working Party of the European Federa-
tion of Chemical Engineering (EFCE). The expert group,
assembled in 2001 in Trieste, Italy, by the United Nations
Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), concluded
that one of the most important new features of process
simulation software is the concept of component models
introduced by CAPE-OPEN and that the CAPE-OPEN stan-
dards will help nonexperts to apply the best thermodynamic
model to a given application [13].
CAPE-OPEN defines an interface set for interactions with
thermodynamics and unit operations. The interface set is
www.cit-journal.com

1054
independent of the simulation application or the unit opera-
tion model or the thermodynamic model. It is called a sock-
et-and-plug architecture where the simulation application
represents the socket, in which unit operation models and
thermodynamic models can plug in. Each socket and plug
is responsible for providing their own implementation of
the CAPE-OPEN interfaces. As a result, for each socket and
plug, only one single interface implementation has to be de-
veloped and maintained in order to achieve interoperability
between all sockets and plugs. This is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Compared to a scenario where unit operation models or
thermodynamics models require a specific interface to each
simulation application, the use of CAPE-OPEN clearly re-
duces the effort of software development and maintenance.
Of course, from the point of view of the unit operation and
thermodynamic model providers, this is only an advantage
in case a sufficiently large number of simulation applica-
tions provide support for CAPE-OPEN. Currently, the use of
unit operation models and thermodynamic models via
CAPE-OPEN is supported in most commercially available
chemical flowsheet simulators. Clearly, the benefit does not
only hold for commercial model developers, but also for
research institutes, such as universities, that develop unit
operation models or thermodynamic models. CAPE-OPEN
provides a way of disseminating research results to indus-
trial users. CAPE-OPEN equally provides a way of distribut-
ing deliverables amongst various members of Joint Indus-
trial Projects (JIPs).
The time frame of adapting a unit operation or thermody-
namic model to interoperate with a number of mainstream
process simulators is also positively affected by CAPE-
OPEN. Negotiating support for particular features that are
required for interoperability with the simulation software
vendors may be a time consuming and costly process, that
can be avoided by using functionality that is already avail-
able via CAPE-OPEN.
Simulator 1 Simulator 2
Thermodynamic
T Unit
models operations
Figure 1. Interoperability. Every thermodynamic model and
every unit operation can be used in multiple simulation applica-
tions. Consequently, every simulation application may select from
a variety of unit operations and thermodynamic models.
www.cit-journal.com © 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Chemie
Review Ingenieur
Technik
For companies that use multiple simulation environ-
ments, consistency is a concern. Unit operation models
need to produce equal results, independent of the simu-
lation environment used. This requires not only the unit
operation models, but also the thermodynamics used to
simulate the process to be interchangeable between the
simulation environments. This is made possible by using
the unit operation models and thermodynamic models via
CAPE-OPEN.
Any company using a particular flowsheet application
may at some point wish to switch to another software provi-
der. Having the capability to keep the existing know-how, ac-
quired and translated into proprietary unit operation or ther-
modynamic models, safely working in any other flowsheet
application, is of major importance in this scenario.
Fewer restrictions on the interoperability between indivi-
dual sockets and plugs also allows for greater flexibility: the
most suitable unit operation models and thermodynamic
models can be combined with the most suitable simulation
application for a particular study.
For process modelling components, such as unit opera-
tions and thermodynamic servers, CAPE-OPEN makes it
possible to reach out to a wider market without having to
invest in lengthy software development. So indeed CAPE-
OPEN may prove to be of business interest more to a niche
software provider than to a leader in process simulation soft-
ware. The immediate flexibility in use provided by CAPE-
OPEN permits researching and use of the best in kind piece
of software for a given purpose.
Objectively evaluating the impact made by CAPE-OPEN
is difficult. CAPE-OPEN is a freely available industry stan-
dard. There is no commercial activity involved with securing
the CAPE-OPEN standards for implementation in any given
piece of software. There is no revenue linked to usage of
CAPE-OPEN interfaces. There is no systematic trace left by
the use of CAPE-OPEN that can serve to measure its impact.
Only the use of CAPE-OPEN as described in literature and
presented on conferences is available for evaluation of the
impact made by CAPE-OPEN.
The examples presented in this article are taken from a
rather large and diverse population of companies and uni-
versities. The aim is to demonstrate the widespread adop-
tion of CAPE-OPEN. Even though the standard specification
originates from Europe for most of its funding, applications
in other parts of the world are numerous.
3 Software Implementing CAPE-OPEN
CAPE-OPEN uses the terms Process Modelling Environ-
ment (PME) and CAPE-OPEN Simulation Environment
(COSE) to describe simulation applications with support for
CAPE-OPEN, typically but not exclusively chemical flow-
sheet applications. PMEs are the sockets that can be used to
plug in Process Modelling Components (PMCs), which are
the plugs. The types of PMCs that are widely supported are
Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064
 Chemie
Ingenieur Review 1055
Technik

unit operations and thermodynamic packages. However,
CAPE-OPEN defines other PMCs, such as chemical reaction
packages that describe chemical reactions. By far, most
PMC implementations are unit operations and thermody-
namic packages. CAPE-OPEN itself merely describes the
interfaces that are used for two software components to
communicate with each other. As such, no software imple-
mentation is associated with CAPE-OPEN; the only binary
redistributable part of CAPE-OPEN is the type library that
defines the interfaces. The software components that imple-
ment the functionality of the CAPE-OPEN interfaces are the
PMEs and the PMCs.
In 2000 Bernt Lie [14] developed a membrane separation
module as a CAPE-OPEN Unit Operation with the objective
to use it in HYSYS. This was in the early days of CAPE-
OPEN and Bernt Lie was probably the first developer inde-
pendently trying out CAPE-OPEN. The first CAPE-OPEN
Unit Operation publicly mentioned and developed by an op-
erating company may have been the FIBER Unit Operation
from IFP in 2003 [15]. Other CAPE-OPEN PMCs were de-
veloped within several operating companies around the
same period. These early implementations demonstrated
specific needs, and how CAPE-OPEN might be the solution.
The need for documentation and example materials as well
as services supporting CAPE-OPEN-based development
quickly became evident. In the following years, CO-LaN pro-
vided a CAPE-OPEN component tester suite, software
wizards, source code examples, free consultancy [16], log-
ging tools [17], developer training, user conferences, and
more. At the same time, other parties also developed a busi-
ness model around the implementation of CAPE-OPEN
interfaces.
Currently, the CAPE-OPEN unit operation and thermo-
dynamic interfaces are widely supported in mainstream
process simulators. In addition to many in-house imple-
mentations at major operating companies, a number of
commercial implementations of unit operations and ther-
modynamic servers are available.
3.1 Process Modeling Environments
Many commercial PMEs support unit operations and/or
thermodynamics via CAPE-OPEN. Tab. 1 lists some popular
PMEs that support CAPE-OPEN. Please note that Tab. 1 is
not meant to be an exhaustive listing of all applications that
support CAPE-OPEN.
CAPE-OPEN defines the interfaces that are used by two
software components to interact. In addition to the interface
definitions, agreement on the binary compatibility is required.

Table 1. Commercial PMEs that implement support for CAPE-OPEN.

Product Developed by Remarks

AspenPlus [18] AspenTech AspenPlus was one of the first CAPE-OPEN socket implementations available. In the early
years this has been the de-facto standard for interoperability testing.
Aspen HYSYS [18] AspenTech Hyprotech developed HYSYS before being purchased by AspenTech, and along with
AspenPlus, HYSYS was one of the first CAPE-OPEN sockets around. The HYSYS product
later on branched in Aspen HYSYS and Honeywell Unisim Design.
ChemCAD [19] ChemStations The support for CAPE-OPEN in ChemCAD is currently limited to thermodynamics.
gPROMS [20] PSE gPROMS implements a socket to use CAPE-OPEN thermodynamics for equation based
problem set-ups. The gPROMS authors have been involved in CAPE-OPEN from the start.
Indiss Plus [21] RSI Indiss Plus is the first to apply CAPE-OPEN to dynamic flowsheet simulations.
Multiphysics [22] COMSOL Multiphysics is a generic simulation tool that allows for using rigorous thermodynamics
in physics simulations via CAPE-OPEN.
Petro-SIM [23, 24] KBC KBC purchased InfoChem, who have been involved heavily in the development of the
thermodynamics standard specification.
Pro/II [25, 26] Invensys / SimSci The developers of SimSci actively take part in the CAPE-OPEN unit operation standard
maintenance and development.
ProMax [27] BR&E ProMax will support CAPE-OPEN unit operations and thermodynamics in the upcoming
release.
ProSimPlus [28] ProSim ProSimPlus is one of the few simulators that currently supports CAPE-OPEN information
streams in addition to material streams. The definition of information streams was
completed relatively late in the unit operation standard specification.
Unisim Design [29, 30] Honeywell Hyprotech developed HYSYS before being purchased by AspenTech, and along with Aspen
Plus HYSYS was one of the first CAPE-OPEN sockets around. The HYSYS product later
on branched in Aspen HYSYS and Honeywell Unisim Design
Vali [31] Belsim The Vali simulator specializes in data validation and reconciliation. CAPE-OPEN
thermodynamics can be used.

Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064 © 2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cit-journal.com

1056
Such binary compatibility is defined by the middle-ware.
CAPE-OPEN currently uses the Microsoft Common Object
Model (COM, [32]) or the Common Object Request Broker
Architecture (CORBA, [33]). Nearly all currently available
PMEs and PMCs are based on the COM middle-ware. As
COM is an integral part of Microsoft Windows, only the
Windows versions of the applications listed in Tab. 1 cur-
rently support CAPE-OPEN. The apparent platform depen-
dence of CAPE-OPEN is currently being addressed by CO-
LaN, and new middle-ware, specific to CAPE-OPEN, may
bring a solution [34]. Such middle-ware will also be opti-
mized particularly for CAPE-OPEN use, bringing additional
advantages including more efficient operation and easier
and less error prone CAPE-OPEN development.
It is worth noting that CAPE-OPEN has also been used as
the design basis of PMEs. At least three general purpose
PMEs have been built with CAPE-OPEN as a basis: COCO,
MFFPPT [35], and SolidSim [36]. COCO [37 – 45] from
AmsterCHEM is available free-of-charge. Often used as the
testing platform for new CAPE-OPEN developments, it is
quoted in many presentations. Evans and Brown demon-
strate the use of COCO within a major industrial company
because its CAPE-OPEN functionality provides options that
are not available in other simulators [46]. The Metal Finish-
ing Facility Pollution Prevention Tool (MFFPPT), developed
by the US Environmental Protection Agency, supports the
CAPE-OPEN open interface standards and can be used as a
general chemical process simulation application. SolidSim
has been developed as a research project between 11 insti-
tutes from 9 different German universities. It aimed at
developing a generally applicable flowsheet application that
includes the necessary structure to simulate solid processes,
such as physical treatment, thermal treatment, and reac-
tions. Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg took a
leading role in SolidSim development and CAPE-
OPEN was adopted as the basis of the software archi-
tecture [36, 47, 48]. SolidSim was acquired by Aspen-
Tech in 2012.
3.2 CAPE-OPEN Unit Operations
Unit operations in CAPE-OPEN are treated as se-
quential modular. This implies that inputs and out-
puts are identified, and the responsibility of a unit
operation is to provide values for all its outputs. To
this end, ports and parameters have a direction. Dur-
ing calculation, a unit operation must produce va-
lues for the output parameters, and it must specify Configuration front-end
all values on outlet streams. Material streams are
specified by flow rate and composition. In addition,
two additional values specify the phase equilibrium,
e.g., temperature and pressure, or pressure and en-
thalpy. Because a unit operation specifies the phase
equilibrium at the material outlet streams, the PME
does not need to know which values the unit opera- Figure 2. CAPE-OPEN unit operation and associated objects.
www.cit-journal.com © 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Chemie
Review Ingenieur
Technik
tion actually produced, as all values on the outlet stream are
thermodynamically consistent. Similarly, during calculation
a unit operation can safely assume that feed values are in
phase equilibrium.
The material objects connected to the material ports serve
two purposes. They carry the data that describe the material
streams attached to the ports. But they also serve as a gate-
way to the underlying thermodynamic system. The unit
operation, for example, duplicates a material object con-
nected to a feed, populates it with calculation conditions,
then requests property and thermodynamic phase equili-
brium calculations from the material object as necessary for
solving its internal equations. Allowing access to thermody-
namic calculations via material objects is how flowsheet-
wide thermodynamic consistency is obtained. Note that in
this context, it is not required for the thermodynamic sys-
tem to be imported into the simulation via CAPE-OPEN; to
the unit operation it is transparent whether the thermody-
namics that are accessed are implemented natively in the
PME or externally as a CAPE-OPEN thermodynamic model.
A unit operation may be configured via its parameters,
but a unit operation may also provide a private user inter-
face that allows for its configuration. The changes that were
made by the user to the unit operation’s configuration may
be stored along with the flowsheet via the CAPE-OPEN pro-
vided persistence mechanisms. Where the private user in-
terface is intended solely for interaction with users, the para-
meters serve a double role; the user may modify values of
the parameters to change the unit operation configuration,
and parameters are also optionally coupled to other infor-
mation in the flowsheet; support for coupling parameter
values to optimizers and goal finders is common.
Fig. 2 depicts a unit operation and its associated objects.
Each unit operation has a name and a description. A unit
Name and description
Collection of Ports
Ports
Name and description
Type: material, information, energy
Direction: inlet, outlet
Connected object
Material object
Information object
Energy object
Collection of Parameters
Parameter
Name and description
Type: real, integer, Boolean, option, array
Direction: input, output
Value
Attributes (min, max, dimension, …)
Collection of Reports
Report
Name
Content
Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064
 Chemie
Ingenieur Review 1057
Technik

operation connects to streams in a flowsheet via ports. Ports
have a direction and a type. Definitions exist for material,
energy, and information ports, but in practice only material
ports are widely supported. Other information can be ex-
changed with the flowsheet via the use of parameters. Para-
meters have a type, a direction, and a value. Depending on
the type of a parameter, there are attributes to describe var-
ious aspects of the value. For example, for a real parameter,
the attributes include a minimum and maximum value, a
default value, and a description of the dimensionality re-
flecting the SI-based unit of measure of the value. Finally, a
unit operation may produce additional information via tex-
tual reports.
Tab. 2 lists a selection of unit operations that can be used
via CAPE-OPEN. Please note that this table is not exhaus-
tive; more implementations exist, several of which are pro-
prietary to operating companies.
It is no surprise that a number of CAPE-OPEN unit opera-
tions were developed to model reactors [49, 50, 53, 61, 62] and
separation equipment [51, 54, 58] as these models typically re-
present an important part of any chemical process model
while the diversity and complexity of reactors and separation
devices are not easily captured in the generic set of built-in
unit operations that are provided by a PME. Hardware manu-
facturers can also benefit from CAPE-OPEN to deliver to their
clients a detailed model of the pieces of equipment they are
developing and marketing. Such is the course taken by Fives
Cryo [57] as well as by Alstom Power [63].
CAPE-OPEN-based unit operation models have also been
used for sampling simulated process stream data, for example
for sustainability indicators [42]. Although generic in its set-
up, the use of unit operations for this purpose may not be the
most practical solution. A more suitable mechanism, called
flowsheet monitoring, has been proposed [39]. Still, the unit
operation approach chosen by Fermeglia et al. [42]
demonstrates the flexibility of CAPE-OPEN unit operations.
This flexibility is also demonstrated by the variety of
CAPE-OPEN unit operation frame-
works around general modelling
tools, such as Microsoft Excel [64],
Name and description
Matlab [38], Scilab [64], gPROMS
[55], GAMS [65], and MoT [44]. Such
tools provide chemical engineers
with the possibility to create PME-in-
dependent unit operations without
writing programming code while Phase equilibrium
having access to equation solvers. Calculations
SASOL uses CAPE-OPEN technol-
ogy for a number of unit operation
models. As a side result of this work,
a wizard for developing CAPE-OPEN
CO-LaN members from the CO-LaN web site), by the US-
EPA [35] and others. Additional flexibility is obtained when
flowsheets themselves can be used as unit operations inside
other flowsheets, such as is the case, for example, for COCO
and SolidSim [67].
3.3 CAPE-OPEN Thermodynamic Components
CAPE-OPEN defines different types of thermodynamic cal-
culation components. One can, for example, write software
components that only know how to calculate certain proper-
ties, or one can write software components that only know
how to calculate thermodynamic phase equilibrium [68].
However, the only thermodynamic software component that
currently is widely supported is a property package, the con-
cept of which is illustrated in Fig. 3. A property package
defines compound, phases, and calculation methods for
thermodynamic properties and thermodynamic phase equi-
libria. A property package is designed so that a material type
in a flowsheet simulation is fully configured, once it is asso-
ciated with a property package. Of course it is up to the
PME to make further configurations; for example, a PME
may choose to use only a subset of compounds defined by a
property package.
Like a unit operation, a property package may expose
parameters and a private user interface for configuration,
but such functionality is not (yet) widely supported by
PMEs. A more typical scenario is that a property package is
pre-configured using separate configuration software, and
the PME merely instantiates and accesses the property pack-
age. Often these configurations are grouped together in a
Thermodynamic System, or Property Package Manager.
Such a manager can be used by a PME to ask for a list of
available property packages, and subsequently to instantiate
a property package from that list. So a single software instal-
lation may expose a collection of property packages.
Collection of Compounds
Compound
ID
String properties (CAS, Formula, …)
Real properties (critical properties, MW, …)
Temperature dependent properties
(Vapor pressure, Ideal gas heat capacity…)
Pressure dependent properties
Collection of Phases
Phase
ID
State of aggregation
Attributes (Description, key compound, …)

Unit Operations in Borland Delphi

was built and then made available as
open source [66]. Unit operation crea-
tion frameworks are also made avail-
able by IFP and TOTAL (available to
Property Calculations
Single phase properties (fugacity, density, …)
Two-phase properties (K-values, surface tension)
Figure 3. Functionality exposed by a CAPE-OPEN property package.

Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064 © 2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cit-journal.com
 Chemie
1058 Review Ingenieur
Technik

Table 2. A selection of CAPE-OPEN unit operations.

Product Developed by Remarks

Ammonia reactor [49] CONICET A CAPE-OPEN compliant simulation module for an ammonia reactor unit was
developed. Visual Basic was used as the programming language to encapsulate the
original FORTRAN 77 code.
ChemKin [50] Reaction Design The CAPE-OPEN unit operation uses ChemKin Reactor Networks. Networks consist
of clusters of perfectly stirred reactors and/or plug-flow reactors and are solved in a
sequential-modular fashion, with tearing for re-cycle connections between clusters.
Since the CAPE-OPEN component is based on ChemKin technology, this enables
much more detailed kinetics and reactor models to be used within flowsheet
simulations.
ChemSep [51] ChemSep In February 2005, the authors of ChemSep announced support of CAPE-OPEN for
their non-equilibrium distillation column model, combining a state-of-the-art rate-
based column simulation model and access to PME supplied thermodynamic
calculations. ChemSep’s CAPE-OPEN based column simulators have been used
by several organizations within various PMEs. The implementation of CAPE-OPEN
allowed development of interoperability with a PME used by their clients, to which
the ChemSep had no access [52]. Such developments are only possible because the
CAPE-OPEN interfaces are not specific to a particular PME.
Entrained Bed Universitat Politècnica A mathematical model of an entrained bed gasifier, divided in three stages
Gasifier [53] de Catalunya, Barcelona (devolatilization/pyrolysis and volatile combustion, gasification, combustion) was
developed for enhanced synthesis gas production from coal and solid waste. This
model embedded in a CAPE-OPEN Unit Operation improves the understanding of the
entire process simulated in Aspen Plus and can be used as an accurate predictive tool.
Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Tulsa University The GLCC model developed was originally a stand-alone application. The addition of
Cyclone (GLCC) [54] CAPE-OPEN support allowed for the results of research on GLCCs to be used in many
flowsheeting PMEs.
gO:CAPE-OPEN [55] PSE Ltd Enables execution of any gPROMS model as a CAPE-OPEN unit operation.
The gPROMS authors have been involved in CAPE-OPEN from the start.
IPSEpro [56] Enginomix LLC Rising interest in Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) power plants and
other complex integrated chemical/power processes led to interest and need to
combine the traditional capabilities of chemical process simulation software to model
the chemical process sides of these plants with the capabilities of codes such as
IPSEpro to model key power equipment (such as gas turbines and steam turbines).
A detailed gas turbine model built in IPSEpro was run as a unit operation in a
CAPE-OPEN compliant PME.
ProSec [57] ProSim, university and This collaborative development provided a rigorous validation of the correlations used
Fives Cryo for the calculation of the heat exchange coefficients and pressure drops and, above all,
enabled the representation of the full complexity of this type of equipment. CAPE-
OPEN allows for using of the full complexity of ProSec model within the simulation
of a complete process and for avoiding the manual transfer of data between different
tools.
Shortcut Distillation AixCAPE e.V. The shortcut distillation model targets non-ideal mixtures, and is more advanced
Model [58] than the widely used Fenske-Underwood approach. It assesses the feasibility of the
separation and handles azeotropic mixtures.
TUWAX [59] Tulsa University A pipe unit operation model to predict wax deposition, initially a stand-alone
application; the use of CAPE-OPEN facilitated combining the unit operation with
InfoChem’s wax specialty thermodynamic models, available in Multiflash.
Xchanger Suite [60] Heat Transfer Research, HTRI provides software for the design, rating and simulation of heat transfer
Inc. (HTRI) equipment. Early on, HTRI provided their entire Xchanger Suite as CAPE-OPEN
compliant software so that the unit operation models can perform thermodynamic
calculations. BP reported that because CAPE-OPEN-based operation of the HTRI unit
operation models permits simultaneous simulation and rating, the time required to
optimize a design is substantially diminished and a better design is obtained through
the use of rigorous models.

www.cit-journal.com © 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064
 Chemie
Ingenieur Review 1059
Technik

The calculation conditions, including the selection of
compounds, temperature, pressure, and composition, are
stored on a material object. The material object is passed to
the property package for property and phase equilibrium
calculations, and the calculation results are stored on the
material object. This may or may not be the same material
object that is associated to a material stream connected to
the port of a unit operation. These material objects expose
the same interfaces, and consequently a unit operation may
access all functionality that is exposed by a property package
as in Fig. 3, even if a CAPE-OPEN property package is not
in fact used but the thermodynamic calculations performed
by the PME itself.
Tab. 3 lists a selection of commercial and noncommercial
property package implementations. Please note that this
table is not exhaustive; more implementations exist, several
of which are in-house to operating companies.
Generic modelling environments, i.e., applications that
use thermodynamics for purposes other than flowsheeting,
directly benefit from the diversity of thermodynamics that
are available via CAPE-OPEN. Examples include gPROMS
(PSE), Multiphysics (COMSOL, [22]), OpenOffice Calc (via
AmsterCHEM), Excel [77], Scilab [64], Matlab [64, 77], and
OpenModelica [78]. A recent interesting development is
the addition of CAPE-OPEN thermodynamic access via
MOSAIC, an environment by the Technische Universität
Berlin for describing systems of equations that can be
transcribed to various software tools for solving the equa-
tions [79].

Table 3. A selection of thermodynamic servers supporting CAPE-OPEN.

Product Developed by Remarks

Aspen Properties AspenTech Part of the AspenOne simulation suite.

COM Thermo AspenTech Part of the AspenOne simulation suite.
DWSIM Daniel Wagner The thermodynamics that are used by the open source DWSIM flowsheet simulation
environment are available via CAPE-OPEN.
GERG-2004 Ruhr Universität Ruhr Universität Bochum in collaboration with E.ON Ruhrgas AG made the GERG-
[41, 69] Bochum 2004 equation of state available via CAPE-OPEN. GERG-2004 describes natural gas
mixtures with a very high precision. The availability of GERG-2004 as a CAPE-OPEN
component enabled its use for design and verification projects requiring the accuracy
provided by GERG-2004. This example demonstrates CAPE-OPEN as a means of
distribution of academic research to industrial end-users.
IK-CAPE [70] Dechema The IK-CAPE thermodynamics server was developed by a consortium of German
companies in the 80s. It was made a CAPE-OPEN PMC by AixCAPE e.V. It makes
the calculation engine immediately usable under the same interface in various PMEs
of interest to the German process industry.
Multiflash KBC Infochem Infochem, now part of KBC Advanced Technologies, was involved in the Global
CAPE-OPEN project and provided CAPE-OPEN support for their Multiflash software
CAPE-OPEN compliant early on. Not only does this allow for using Multiflash
thermodynamics in a variety of PMEs, but it also allows for CAPE-OPEN-based unit
operations that depend on some of the specialty thermodynamics of Multiflash,
such as wax deposition thermodynamics for the TUWAX model [71] and mercury
thermodynamics used by in-house unit operations of Conoco Phillips [46] and hydrate
formation thermodynamics in the HYSIFLO pipe unit operation model, developed
by a JIP [72] between ENI, TOTAL, Chevron, Petrobras and IFPEN.
PPDS [73] TUV SUD Ltd CAPE-OPEN was applied to allow access to the PPDS thermodynamic server from
multiple PMEs.
REFPROP NIST The highly accurate reference thermodynamics from the National Institute of
Standards and Technology are available via CAPE-OPEN using software distributed
by AmsterCHEM.
Simulis ProSim SA Simulis Thermodynamics from ProSim SA operates as a thermodynamic calculation
Thermodynamics engine from which it is possible to export CAPE-OPEN Property Packages as well as
[74, 75] to import CAPE-OPEN Property Packages.
TEA COCOSimulator Freely available thermodynamics server, part of the COCO simulation suite.
Unisim Thermo Honeywell Part of the Unisim Design simulation suite.
VMGThermo [76] Virtual Materials In addition to thermodynamic server that can be accessed via CAPE-OPEN, VMG
Group distributes an application that runs a CAPE-OPEN unit operation using the
VMGThermo engine.

Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064 © 2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cit-journal.com

1060
3.4 Collaborative Projects
CAPE-OPEN provides a common ground within collabora-
tive projects. The APECS (Advanced Process Engineering
Co-Simulator) project [80] relied heavily on CAPE-OPEN to
provide the link between various tools and various organiza-
tions involved in the project. Originally, APECS aimed at
seamlessly integrating process simulation and computa-
tional fluid dynamics (CFD). APECS combined steady-state
process simulation with multiphysics-based equipment si-
mulations [81] and addressed CFD-based reduced-order
modeling [43], stochastic simulation [82], and optimization
[83], all integrated through CAPE-OPEN. The versatility of
CAPE-OPEN becomes evident. While APECS development
is no longer pursued at the National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL), the NETL-led Carbon Capture Simu-
lation Initiative (CCSI) is making use of the CAPE-OPEN
interfaces in the REVEAL reduced modeling (RM) tool [84].
REVEAL generates steady-state reduced models from pro-
cess simulation and CFD codes.
The TINA (Transient Integrated Network Analysis) project
was a collaborative project between IFP Energies Nouvelles
(IFPEN) and TOTAL in the field of flow assurance [85]. Its
domain of application was design and verification of flow
lines from well-bore to topside facilities with a compositional
approach. TINA relied on the INDISS platform for integrat-
ing modules, on IFPEN’s knowledge of pipe flow calcula-
tions, and on various third-party software components, both
unit operations and thermodynamics. CAPE-OPEN technol-
ogy was used to couple these software applications. It
enabled a swift integration in INDISS of specification and
optimization modules provided by ProSim SA [86].
The Center for Energy Resources Engineering (CERE) at
Denmark Technical University hosts an industrial consor-
tium that, among other results, delivers CAPE-OPEN soft-
ware components [87, 88] to its members, particularly in the
form of a thermodynamic server implementing a PC-SAFT
equation of state and other thermodynamic models. Statoil
[89] mentioned that CAPE-OPEN is used to implement new
tools in a way that can be easily utilized by their process
engineers, exemplified by the use of the CPA model from
CERE as a CAPE-OPEN component in the study of hydrate
inhibition by mono-ethylene glycol (MEG).
KBC Advanced Technologies (KBCAT) released in 2004
Petro-SIM, a plant-wide flowsheet simulation application.
In September 2007, KBCAT implemented a CAPE-OPEN
Unit Operation socket in Petro-SIM [23] so that its engi-
neers may extensively use the Xchanger Suite from HTRI
within their flowsheet simulation software. In 2012, follow-
ing KBCAT acquisition of Infochem, CAPE-OPEN technol-
ogy enabled quick and efficient integration between Info-
chem and KBC Advanced Technologies software products
through the implementation of a CAPE-OPEN thermody-
namic socket in Petro-SIM [24]. Of course, as a bonus this
opens up the possibility for using other sources of thermo-
dynamics in Petro-SIM.
www.cit-journal.com © 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Chemie
Review Ingenieur
Technik
4 Industrial Relevance
Even though the industrial use of CAPE-OPEN is not
limited to the operating companies that are members of
CO-LaN, these companies are a good place to start for de-
monstrating the industrial use. The operating companies
that are full members of CO-LaN pay a yearly membership
fee that is used to run the organization, organize the user
meetings and training sessions, and maintain and publish
the interface standard documentation. The full members
currently are Air Liquide, BASF, BP, Shell Global Solutions,
the Dow Chemical Company, and TOTAL. These companies
have representatives in the CO-LaN board of directors. All
other members of CO-LaN are associate members; associate
membership is free of charge. Operating companies are
excluded from associate membership.
Air Liquide uses the interoperability possibilities offered
by Simulis Thermodynamics. In its R&D and engineering
divisions, Air Liquide uses a range of simulation platforms,
including Aspen HYSYS, Aspen Plus, ProsimPlus, Belsim
Vali, and Honeywell Unisim Design. Like in other compa-
nies, consistency is required across PMEs. Air Liquide
applies CAPE-OPEN-based thermodynamics to obtain this
consistency [90], relying on Simulis Thermodynamics.
BASF process engineers use AspenPlus as well as the in-
house simulator CHEMASIM. The equation oriented simula-
tor CHEMASIM was developed for about thirty years and is
tailored to the needs of BASF. OPEN CHEMASIM was made
available to the academic community in September 2005 by
the University of Stuttgart [91], but this project is now closed.
The main focus of the thermodynamic calculations in
CHEMASIM was the low pressure region. In order to per-
form calculations in the high pressure region, additional
equations of state were needed in CHEMASIM. Rather than
implementing each of these models in-house, the decision
was made to use third party implementations. Consistency is
required between the simulation platforms used, so CAPE-
OPEN was chosen as the technology [92]. For the same rea-
son, CHEMASIM’s thermodynamics are exposed via CAPE-
OPEN so that it can be used in other PMEs.
BP started applying CAPE-OPEN with the ChemSep
separation simulation software used via CAPE-OPEN in
Aspen Plus [93]. More recently, the GAP software of Petro-
leum Experts was used as feed block unit operation via
CAPE-OPEN in Aspen HYSYS and other PMEs, so that the
well production can be optimized by adjusting items such
as gas or water injection pressures directly from the down-
stream simulation, using the optimizer of the PME [94], see
Fig. 4.
Shell Global Solutions uses in-house models in combina-
tion with in-house thermodynamics in multiple PMEs [52].
The keyword again is consistency. Recently, Shell Global So-
lutions together with SimSci took the initiative of finalizing
and applying petroleum property extensions to the CAPE-
OPEN standard. This results in a suite of models, amongst
which is their hydro-cracker model, to run in Pro/II [95],
Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064
 Chemie
Ingenieur Review
Technik
Figure 4. Integration of Petroleum Experts’ GAP to predict the reservoir part of the simulation into Aspen HYSYS.
The injection pressure and other parameters can be optimized for maximum production whilst ensuring the asset
remains within the safe operating envelope [94]. Reproduced with permission of BP: presentation made at
OPTIMIZE 2011.
exchanging not only classical stream information, but modi-
fying the pseudo properties of petroleum fractions and
refinery inspection properties as the result of unit operation
calculations.
The Dow Chemical Company has used gPROMS as a
basis for custom reactor models via CAPE-OPEN in Aspen-
Plus [96]. This demonstrates a software coupling that is not
likely if CAPE-OPEN was not used.
TOTAL used CAPE-OPEN to benefit from deliverables of
industrial consortia at Tulsa University (Gas-Liquid Cylind-
rical Cyclone [54] and TUWAX pipe model to predict wax
deposition [59]), of a JIP with ENI, Chevron, Petrobras, and
IFPEN developing the hydrate formation prediction pipe
unit operation HYSIFLO [72] and a JIP with IFPEN around
the Transient Integrated Network Analysis (TINA) simula-
tor [85] and black-oil thermodynamics [97].
It is unclear to what extent CAPE-OPEN-based models
are used in other companies. CAPE-OPEN may be used
transparently as this is the technology applied by the se-
lected models, or it may be used actively in in-house models
or JIP-based developments, such as by PDVSA [68, 98, 99],
SASOL [66], IFP Energies Nouvelles [72, 85, 86, 97], Conoco
Phillips [46], Statoil [89], Alstom Power [63], ENI, Chevron,
and Petrobras [72].
4.1 Other Types of CAPE-OPEN Components
CAPE-OPEN interfaces can roughly be divided in four
groups: interfaces pertaining to thermodynamics, interfaces
pertaining to unit operations, generic common interfaces,
and numeric solver interfaces. The generic interfaces in-
clude collections, identification, parameters, life span, PME
services, and persistence. These can be used by all CAPE-
Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064 © 2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1061
HYSYS
AspenTechTM
GAP
Petroleum ExpertsTM
OPEN objects. When the unit operation, thermodynamic,
and common interfaces are combined and made available
as collections, they may be used to describe a new type of
PMC that can be used for post-processing of flowsheet solu-
tion results [35, 39].
The numeric interfaces include interfaces to numerical
solvers, as prototyped by PSE and implemented for example
by Benqlilou et al. [100], interfaces for optimizer, as imple-
mented for example by Lang and Biegler [101], and inter-
faces for data reconciliation [102]. Support for such objects
in PMEs is scarce.
Interfaces are actively being maintained and expanded.
The unit operation interface is being expanded upon for dy-
namic flowsheet simulations [21]. The thermodynamic in-
terface specification 1.0 was improved upon and re-released
as a new version 1.1. This version is gaining momentum
and is now commonly supported. Version 1.1 makes for an
improvement of performance compared to 1.0, but the deci-
sive factor for performance remains an efficiently imple-
mented material object [103]. An extension to include reac-
tion data, reactive equilibria, and apparent versus real
compounds is in the making. A new interface specification
is being developed for hydrodynamic point calculations.
5 Conclusions
CAPE-OPEN has been around since 2000 within commer-
cial process simulation tools. Initially, only two different
PMEs were implementing a set of CAPE-OPEN interfaces,
limiting the impact of the interoperability achieved with
CAPE-OPEN. Nowadays, the process simulation software
applications most widely used by the process industries are
implementing CAPE-OPEN. A critical mass appears to have
www.cit-journal.com

1062
been achieved that makes CAPE-OPEN an attractive plat-
form for industrial users, unit operation and thermody-
namic software vendors, freeware developers, and research
institutions, such as Joint Industrial Projects and universi-
ties.
CAPE-OPEN defines numerous types of interactions, for
example, for optimization solvers or for data reconciliation.
However, only software components that define unit opera-
tions and thermodynamic property packages are currently
widely supported.
Although it remains impossible to establish a percentage
of process simulation applications that apply CAPE-OPEN
technology, it is clear that CAPE-OPEN is well established.
The reasons behind the success of CAPE-OPEN include
(i) the ability to distribute CAPE-OPEN-based implementa-
tions without any CAPE-OPEN-related license or intellectual
property restrictions, which makes CAPE-OPEN suitable for
distribution of academic and JIP results; (ii) developing a
CAPE-OPEN interface immediately results in interoperabil-
ity with many established implementations, resulting in
optimal flexibility of selecting the most suitable software
components for each particular problem, (iii) implementa-
tion of a single interface set reduces the effort spent on soft-
ware development and maintenance, (iv) consistency of
simulation results across simulation platforms.
Jasper van Baten studied
chemical engineering at
the Delft University of
Technology and received
his Ph.D. in 2000 from the
University of Amsterdam.
His research interests
range from CFD simu-
lations of distillation
columns, bubble columns,
and airlift reactors to
Kinetic Monte Carlo simu-
lations, Molecular Dynamics applied to studies of
adsorber and membrane separation devices, chemical
flowsheeting and thermodynamics. Over a 100 refereed
articles resulted from more than 10 years of collabora-
tion with Prof. R. Krishna. Since 2004, he is active as
freelance chemical engineering software consultant
operating under the name AmsterCHEM. He provides
custom-made software implementations and has a
passion for CAPE-OPEN.
[10] GCO Consortium, Global CAPE-OPEN Final report,
www.cit-journal.com © 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Chemie
Review Ingenieur
Technik
Michel Pons studied
chemical engineering in
Nancy, France (B.Sc. and
Ph.D.) and at Northwes-
tern University (M.Sc.).
After 20 years in various
research, process modeling
and process engineering
positions within industry,
he is acting as Chief Technology Officer of the CAPE-
OPEN Laboratories Network since 2005. As the
representative for ELF and then TOTAL, he has been
involved in CAPE-OPEN since its start. For this work,
together with Bertrand Braunschweig, he was
presented in 2006 with the 1st Recent Innovative
Achievements Award from the CAPE Working Party of
the European Federation of Chemical Engineering.
The authors would like to acknowledge all members of
CO-LaN for actively taking part in CAPE-OPEN, with
special thanks to Richard Baur and Malcolm Woodman
for their expert feedback on this writing.
References
[1] A. Westerberg , H. P. Hutchinson, R. L. Motard, P. Winter,
Process Flowsheeting, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
1979.
[2] P. S. Banks, K. A. Irons, M. R. Woodman, Oil Gas Sci. Technol.
2005, 60 (4), 607 – 616.
[3] B. L. Braunschweig, C. C. Pantelides, H. I. Britt (2000), Chem.
Eng. Prog. 2000, 96, 65 – 76.
[4] M. Jarke, J. Köller, B. Braunschweig, W. Marquardt, L. von
Wedel, 1st IEEE Conf. on Standardization and Innovation in
Information Technology (SIIT 99), Aachen, September 1999.
[5] W. D. Smith, in Impact of Advances in Computing and Commu-
nication Technologies on Chemical Science and Technology: Re-
port of a Workshop, National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C. 1999, 62 – 73.
[6] J. P. Belaud, M. Pons, K. Irons, W. Merk, P. Banks, FOCAPO
2003, Coral Springs, FL, January 2003.
[7] J. P. Belaud, M. Pons, 12th Eur. Symp. on Computer Aided
Process Engineering (Eds: J. Grievink, J. van Schijndel), Com-
puter Aided Chemical Engineering, Vol. 10, Elsevier,
Amsterdam 2002, 847 – 852.
[8] M. Pons, in Chemical Engineering Transactions (Ed: S. Pieruc-
ci), Vol. 11, AIDIC Servizi, Milan 2007, 223 – 228.
[9] M. Pons, in AIDIC Conference Series (Ed. S. Pierucci), Vol. 6,
Reed Business Information, Milan 2003, 253 – 262.
Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, Brussels 2003,
www.ims.org (last accessed on January 17, 2014).
Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064
 Chemie
Ingenieur Review
Technik
[11] OPC Foundation, OPC standards specifications, www.opcfoun-
dation.org
[12] P. Greppi, 20th European Symp. on Computer-Aided Process
Engineering (ESCAPE20), Ischia, June 2010.
[13] Proc. of the Expert Group Meeting on “The Role of Process Simu-
lation for Sustainable Industrial Development“ (Ed: M. Ferme-
glia), International Centre for Science and High Technology
(ICS-UNIDO), Trieste 2002.
[14] B. Lie, HYPROTECH 2000 Conf., Amsterdam, November
2000.
[15] J. P. Belaud, P. Roux, X. Joulia, M. Pons, in AIDIC Conference
Series (Ed: S. Pierucci), Vol. 6, Reed Business Information,
Milan 2003, 35 – 44.
[16] M. Pons, Eur. Symp. on Computer Aided Process Engineering-15
(Eds: L. Puigjaner, A. Espuña), Computer Aided Chemical En-
gineering Series, Vol. 20, Elsevier, Amsterdam 2005, 283 –
288.
[17] M. Pons, P. Banks, B. Braunschweig, 17th Eur. Symp. on
Computer Aided Process Engineering (Eds: V. Plesu,
P. S. Agachi), Computer-Aided Chemical Engineering Series,
Vol. 24 Elsevier, Amsterdam 2007, 225 – 230.
[18] S. Watanasiri, AIChE 2007 Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT,
November 2007.
[19] Y. Peng, N. H. Gray, AIChE 2007 Annual Meeting, Salt Lake
City, UT, November 2007.
[20] B. Keeping, 2nd Annual U.S. CAPE-OPEN Meeting, Morgan-
town, WV, May 2005.
[21] D. Paen, D. Cameron, C. Colantonio, 7th World Congress of
Chemical Engineering (WCCE7), Glasgow, July 2005.
[22] H. von Schenk, G. Andersson, J. M. van Baten, E. Fontes,
AIChE 2008 Annual Meeting, Philadephia, PA, November
2008.
[23] M. Aylott, B. van der Merwe, AIChE 2008 Annual Meeting,
Philadelphia, PA, November 2008.
[24] M. Aylott, R. Szczepanski, CAPE-OPEN 2012 Annual Meeting,
Lyon, September 2012.
[25] D. Jerome, 2nd Annual U.S. CAPE-OPEN Meeting, Morgan-
town, WV, May 2005.
[26] K. M. Penukonda, CAPE-OPEN 2013 Annual Meeting, Lyon,
September 2013.
[27] M. W. Hlavinka, J. Martinis, H. Docherty et al., AIChE 2012
Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, November 2012.
[28] A. Vacher, S.Dechelotte, O. Baudoin, AIChE 2006 Annual
Meeting, San Francisco, CA, November 2006.
[29] S. Saha, 2nd Annual U.S. CAPE-OPEN Meeting, Morgantown,
WV, May 2005.
[30] E. Zhao, CAPE-OPEN 2013 Annual Meeting, Lyon, September
2013.
[31] E. Radermecker, U. Wising, M.-N. Dumont, G. Heyen, AIChE
2008 Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, November 2008.
[32] D. Rogerson, Inside COM, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA
1997.
[33] Common Object Request Broker Architecture (COBRA), Object
Management Group, http://www.omg.org/spec/CORBA/
(accessed on May 23, 2014).
[34] J. M. van Baten, M. Pons, W. M. Barrett Jr, AIChE 2012 An-
nual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, November 2012.
[35] W. M. Barrett Jr., J. Yang, Comp. Chem. Eng. 2005, 30, 191 –
201.
[36] E.U. Hartge, M. Pogodda, C. Reimers et al., KONA Powder
Part. J. 2006, 24, 146 – 158.
Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064 © 2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1063
[37] D. Peshev, A. G. Livingston, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2013, 104, 975 –
987.
[38] R. De María, I. Díaz, M. Rodríguez, A. Sáiz, Int. J. Chem.
React. Eng. 2013, 11 (1), 1 – 9.
[39] W. M. Barrett, J. M. van Baten, T. Martin, Comput. Chem. Eng.
2012, 35, 2680 – 2686.
[40] J. M. van Baten, R. Szczepanski, Comput. Chem. Eng. 2011,
35, 1251 – 1256.
[41] F. Dauber, R. Span, R. Schley, gwf International – gas solutions
2010, 13, 70 – 72.
[42] M. Fermeglia, G. Longo, L. Toma, AIChE J. 2009, 55 (4),
1065 – 1078.
[43] Y. Lang, A. Malacina, L. T. Biegler, S. Munteanu et al., Energy
Fuels 2010, 23 (3), 1695 – 1706.
[44] R. Morales-Rodríguez, R. Gani, S. Déchelotte, A. Vacher,
O. Baudouin, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2008, 86, 823 – 833.
[45] R. Baur, J. M. van Baten, H. Kooijman, W. Drewitz, NPT
Procestechnol. 2006, 4, 22 – 24.
[46] M. Evans, L. Brown, AIChE 2012 Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh,
PA, November 2012.
[47] M. Pogodda, Ph.D. Thesis, TU Hamburg-Harburg 2007.
[48] E. Hartge, M. Poggoda, C. Reimers, D. Schwier, G. Gruhn,
J. Werther, 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering
(WCCE7), Glasgow, July 2005.
[49] V. L. Perez, A. O. Domancich, G. E. Vasquez, N. B. Brignole,
2nd Mercosur Congress on Chemical Engineering, Village Rio
das Pedras, August 2005.
[50] T. Garratt, C. P. Chou, AIChE 2012 Annual Meeting, Pitts-
burgh, PA, November 2012.
[51] H. A. Kooijman, R. Taylor, The ChemSep Book, Libri Books,
Norderstedt 2001.
[52] R. Baur, J. M. van Baten, M. Pons, ECCE-8, Berlin, September
2011.
[53] M. Perez-Fortes, C. A. Pinilla, A. D. Bojarski, N. Mitta, E. Velo,
L. Puigjaner, Eur. Congr. of Chemical Engineering – 6,
Copenhagen, September 2007.
[54] M. Gassies, A. Ricordeau, R. S. Mohan, O. Shoham, AIChE
2008 Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, November 2008.
[55] A. Cano, R. Blanco, T. Williams, D. Jerome, K. Penukonda,
P. Duchet-Suchaux, S. Savin, AIChE 2009 Annual Meeting,
Memphis, TN, November 2009.
[56] M. R. Erbes, E. Perz, AIChE 2006 Annual Meeting, San Fran-
cisco, CA, November 2006.
[57] S. Dechelotte, O. Baudoin, A. Vacher, D. Averous, R. Egal,
F. Picard, R. Sardeing, AIChE 2013 Annual Meeting, San
Francisco, CA, November 2013.
[58] L. von Wedel, ACHEMA 2006, Frankfurt, May 2006.
[59] A. Ricordeau, C. Sarica, A. Mathieu, AIChE 2007 Annual
Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, November 2007.
[60] J. W. Holmes, D. L. Johnson, S. Ogundiran, M. Lichtenauer,
AIChE 2006 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, November
2006.
[61] E. R. Morais, B. H. Lunelli, R. R. Jaimes et al., in Chemical
Engineering Transactions (Ed. S. Pierucci), Vol. 24, AIDIC
Servizi S.r.l., Milan 2011, 403 – 408.
[62] B. H. Lunelli, E. R. Morais, R. Maciel Filho, M. R. W. Maciel,
33rd Symp. on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals, Seattle,
WA May 2011.
[63] D. Sloan, W. A. Fiveland, S. Zitney, M. Syamlal, in Proc. of the
27th Int. Technical Conf. on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems,
Coal Technology Association, North Potomac, MD 2002, 87 – 98.
www.cit-journal.com

1064
[64] J. M. van Baten, H. Kooijmann, R. Taylor, AIChE 2010 Annual
Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, November 2010.
[65] A. O. Domancich, V. Perez, P. M. Hoch, N. B. Brignole, Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 2010, 88 (4), 421 – 429.
[66] C. Crause, http://capeopenwizard.sourceforge.net/, 2006. (ac-
cessed on May 23, 2014)
[67] J. Werther, G. Gruhn, E. Hartge , M. Pogodda , C. Reimers,
D. Schwier, Fifth World Congress on Particle Technology, Orlan-
do, FL, April 2006.
[68] C. Pernalete, B. Torres Manaure, A. Moreno Villamizar, Simu-
lation and Modelling Conference (JMS2010), Merida, November
2010.
[69] F. Dauber, R. Span, Comp. Chem. Eng. 2012, 37 (10), 15 – 21.
[70] L. Von Wedel, AIChE 2007 Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City,
UT, November 2007.
[71] B. Edmonds, T. Moorwood, R. Szczepanski, X. Zhang, AIChE
2007 Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, November 2007.
[72] M. Gainville, CAPE-OPEN 2009 Annual Conference, Freising,
April 2009.
[73] A. Johns, A. Scott, CAPE-OPEN 2008 Annual Meeting,
Cambridge, April 2008.
[74] O. Baudoin, A. Vacher, S. Dechelotte, AIChE 2007 Annual
Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, November 2007.
[75] O. Baudoin, S. Dechelotte, P. Guittard, A. Vacher, 18th Eur.
Symp. on Computer Aided Process Engineering (Eds: B.
Braunschweig, X. Joulia), Computer Aided Chemical Engi-
neering Series, Vol. 25, Elsevier, Amsterdam 2008, 635 – 640.
[76] S. Sama, N. Goula, CAPE-OPEN 2013 Annual Meeting, Lyon,
September 2013.
[77] A. Vacher, M. Pons, AIChE 2005 Annual Meeting, Cincinnati,
OH, November 2005.
[78] C. Sandrock, P. de Vaal, Comput.-Aided Chem. Eng. 2009, 26,
859 – 864.
[79] G. Tolksdorf, CAPE-OPEN 2013 Annual Meeting, Lyon,
September 2013.
[80] S. E. Zitney, M. Syamlal, 12th Eur. Symp. on Computer Aided
Process Engineering, (Eds: J. Grievink and J. van Schijndel),
Computer Aided Chemical Engineering Series, Vol. 10,
Elsevier, Amsterdam 2002, 397 – 402.
[81] S. E. Zitney, Comput. Chem. Eng. 2010, 34 (9), 1532 – 1542.
[82] J. M. Salazar, U. M. Diwekar, S. E. Zitney, Energy Fuels 2010,
24 (9), 4961 – 4970.
[83] K. Subramanyan, U. M. Diwekar, S. E. Zitney, Comput. Chem.
Eng. 2011, 35, 2667 – 2679.
www.cit-journal.com © 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Chemie
Review Ingenieur
Technik
[84] K. Agarwal, P. Sharma, J. Ma et al., Comput. Sci. Eng. 2013, 16
(2), 44 – 53.
[85] M. Gainville, P. Roux, M. Pons et al., SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA, November 2007.
[86] P. Floquet, X. Joulia, A. Vacher, M. Gainville, M. Pons,
Comput. Chem. Eng. 2009, 33, 660 – 669.
[87] M. P. Breil, G.M. Kontogeorgis, N. von Solms, E. H. Stenby,
Chem. Eng. 2007, 144, 52 – 55.
[88] B. Maribo-Mogensen, CAPE-OPEN 2013 Annual Meeting,
Lyon, September 2013.
[89] G. K. Folas, InMoTher 2012, Lyon, March 2012.
[90] P. Arpentinier, XIVème congrès de la Société Française de Génie
des Procédés, Lyon, October 2013.
[91] H. Hasse, B. Bessling, R. Böttcher, 16th Eur. Symp. on
Computer Aided Process Engineering and 9th International
Symposium on Process Systems Engineering, (Eds. W. Marquardt,
C. Pantelides), Computer Aided Chemical Engineering
Series, Vol. 21, Elsevier, Amsterdam 2006, 255 – 260.
[92] F. Güttner, W. Drewitz, AIChE 2006 Annual Meeting, San
Francisco, CA, November 2006.
[93] I. Palou-Rivera, M. Woodman, CAPE-OPEN 2008 Annual
Meeting, Cambridge, April 2008.
[94] M. Woodman, OPTIMIZE 2011, Washington, DC, May 2011.
[95] R. Baur, A. Dewan, J. van Baten, D. H. Jerome, P. Krishna-
Murthy, AIChE 2012 Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, Novem-
ber 2012.
[96] W. Hensen, J. W. Verwijs, P. Hayot, CO-LaN 3rd European
Meeting, Cannes 2006.
[97] M. Gainville, R. Lugo, CAPE-OPEN 2008 Annual Meeting,
Cambridge, April 2008.
[98] G. Leon, C. Pernalete, CAPE-OPEN 2013 Annual Meeting,
Lyon, September 2013.
[99] C. Pernalete, J. Contreras, AIChE 2012 Annual Meeting,
Pittsburg, PA, November 2012.
[100] C. Benqlilou, S. Bel, A. Espuna, L. Puigjaner, M. Pons, 52nd
Canadian Chemical Engineering Conf., Vancouver, October
2002.
[101] Y. Lang, L. Biegler, 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering
(WCCE7), Glasgow, July 2005.
[102] C. Benqlilou, M. Graells, A. Espuna, L. Puigjaner, 13th Eur.
Symp. on Computer Aided Process Engineering (Eds. J. Grievink
and J. van Schijndel), Computer Aided Chemical Engineering
Series, Vol. 10, Elsevier, Amsterdam 2002, 853 – 858.
[103] R. Szczepanski, J. van Baten, T. Williams, 6th CAPE-OPEN
European Conf., Freising, April 2009.
Chem. Ing. Tech. 2014, 86, No. 7, 1052–1064