Virtual Reality

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 293–311 | Cite as

Operator training simulators in virtual reality environment for process operators: a review

  • Dipesh S. PatleEmail author
  • Davide Manca
  • Salman Nazir
  • Swapnil Sharma
S.I. : Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality and Commerce


Given the factors such as safety, profitability, and environmental concerns at stake, operator training is an everlasting and vital process in the process industry. An inevitable need for skilled operators in the chemical industry leads to search for novel and effective training methodologies. Consequently, dynamic simulation techniques have been considered as a tool to educate and train inexperienced personnel as expected by the industry. Traditional training methodologies are hardly sufficient to instruct the operators for seldom-occurring perilous situations. Conventional operator training simulators (OTS) are generally effective, but they lack to give operators the actual feel of the scenarios. Training effectiveness can be enhanced by providing operators with a sense of realism. Therefore, integration of OTS with virtual reality (VR-OTS) certainly comes out to be an alternative. VR-OTS can replicate emergency conditions, accidents, and investigate safety protocols. In this work, we discuss the need for virtual reality (VR) in OTS, merits of VR-OTS, and the role of training assessment methods. Contributions of OTS Authors’ in process industry from year 2000 to mid-2017 are reviewed and discussed extensively. The review shows that VR-OTS provides tangible benefits over its conventional counterparts in terms of improved safety of plant, increased productivity, and environmental protection. Finally, this paper outlines future scopes that the current researcher may consider to focus for the increased and improved VR-OTS usage.


Operator training simulators (OTS) Process simulators Virtual reality Training assessment 



We gratefully acknowledge the fellowship awarded to the author, Dipesh S Patle, from Erasmus Mundus Intact for Postdoctoral research.


  1. Aggarwal R, Black SA, Hance JR, Darzi A, Cheshire NJ (2006) Virtual reality simulation training can improve inexperienced surgeons’ endovascular skills. Eur J Vasc Endovasc 31:588–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad Z, Patle DS, Rangaiah GP (2016) Operator training simulator for biodiesel synthesis from waste cooking oil. Process Saf Environ 99:55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonovsky A, Pollock C, Straker L (2014) Identification of the human factors contributing to maintenance failures in a petroleum operation. Hum Factors 56:306–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayral T, Jonge PD (2016) Operator training simulators for brownfield process units offer many benefits. Hydrocarbon Process 92:45–47Google Scholar
  5. Bell JT, Fogler HS (1996) The status and prospects of virtual reality in chemical engineering. Ann Arbor 1001:48109-2136Google Scholar
  6. Bell JT, Fogler HS (2004) The application of virtual reality to (chemical engineering) education. In: Proceedings of the IEEE virtual reality 2004, Chicago, IL, USA, 27–31 March 2004, pp 217–218Google Scholar
  7. Berg LP, Vance JM (2017) Industry use of virtual reality in product design and manufacturing: a survey. Virtual Real 21:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brambilla S, Manca D (2009) Dynamic process and accident simulations as tools to prevent industrial accidents. Chem Prod Process Model 4:1–15Google Scholar
  9. Brambilla S, Manca D (2011) Recommended features of an industrial accident simulator for the training of operators. J Loss Prevent Proc 24:344–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng-jun C, Feng-shi L, Niu L (2010) Research on chemical process simulation system using distributed virtual reality. In: Third international conference on information and computing, Wuxi, Jiang Su, pp 133–136.
  11. Cibulka J, Komulainen TMK, Mirtaheri PM, Nazir S, Manca D (2016) Virtual reality simulators in the process industry. A review of existing systems and the way towards ETS. In: O’Conner L (ed) 2016 9th EUROSIM congress on modelling and simulation Oulu, Finland, 12–16 September 2016. IEEE, pp 458–464Google Scholar
  12. Colombo S, Manca D, Brambilla S, Totaro R, Galvagni R (2011) Towards the automatic measurement of human performance in virtual environments for industrial safety. In: ASME 2011 world conference on innovative virtual reality (WINVR 2011), pp 1–10Google Scholar
  13. Colombo S, Manca D, Nazir S (2013) Virtual reality as effective tool for training and decision-making: preliminary results of experiments performed with a plant simulator. In: Proceedings of SPE European HSE conference and exhibition health, safety, environment and social responsibility, pp 405–411Google Scholar
  14. Colombo S, Nazir S, Manca D (2014) Immersive virtual reality for training and decision making: preliminary results of experiments performed with a plant simulator. SPE Econ Manag 6:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox RK, Smith JF, Dimitratos Y (2006) Can simulation technology enable a paradigm shift in process control? Modeling for the rest of us. Comput Chem Eng 30:1542–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cozens P, Waters J, Neale R (2002) A virtual reality approach to personal safety and the design of built environment facilities. In: Proceedings of the 18th ARCOM annual conference. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp 461–473Google Scholar
  17. Dalgarno B, Lee MJ (2010) What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? Brit J Educ Technol 41:10–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiske T, Hill D (2010) 3D simulation brings immersive dimension to operator training, ARC INSIGHT. Accessed 14 April 2017
  19. Formosa NJ, Morrison BW, Hill G, Stone D (2018) Testing the efficacy of a virtual reality-based simulation in enhancing users’ knowledge, attitudes, and empathy relating to psychosis. Aust J Psychol 70:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Steptoe W, Oyekoya O, Murgia A, Wolff R, Rae J, Guimaraes E, et al. (2009) Eye tracking for avatar eye gaze control during object-focused multiparty interaction in immersive collaborative virtual environments. In: IEEE virtual reality conference, Lafayette, LA, 2009, pp 83–90.
  21. Haller M, Holm R, Volkert J, Wagner RA (1999) VR based safety training in a petroleum refinery. In: The 20th annual conference of the European association of CG, Eurographics, Milano, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill KJ, Howarth PA (2000) Habituation to the side effects of immersion in a virtual environment. Displays 21(1):25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Howarth PA, Costello PJ (1997) The occurrence of virtual simulation sickness symptoms when an HMD was used as a personal viewing system. Displays 18(2):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanawattanachai P, Yoo Y (2007) The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Q 31:783–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kang S, Kang S (2018) The study on the application of virtual reality in adapted physical education. Clust Comput. Google Scholar
  26. Kluge A (2014) The acquisition of knowledge and skills for taskwork and teamwork to control complex technical systems: a cognitive and macroergonomics perspective. Springer, GermanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kluge A, Sauer J, Schüler K, Burkolter D (2009) Designing training for process control simulators: a review of empirical findings and current practices. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 10:489–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kozlak M, Nawrat A, Kurzeja A (2014) Virtual reality simulation technology for military and industry skill improvement and training programs. Szybkobieżne Pojazdy Gąsienicowe 2:5–12Google Scholar
  29. Lee S, Jeong I, Il M (2000) Development of evaluation algorithms for operator training system. Comput Chem Eng 24:1517–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li Z, Qiu H, Yue Y (2002) Development of a learning-training simulator with virtual functions for lathe operations. Virtual Real 6:96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lily Q, Gang Z, Yong P, Tingfu M, Ming G (2008) Three-dimensional virtual chemical laboratory based on virtual reality modelling language. In: IEEE international symposium on IT in medicine and education. Xiamen, pp 491–496Google Scholar
  32. Luo N, Wang X, Van F, Qian F (2015) Integrated simulation platform of chemical processes based on virtual reality and dynamic model. Comput Aided Chem Eng 37:581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manca D (2017) Technical considerations on operator training simulator (OTS). Accessed 14 June 2017
  34. Manca D, Nazir S, Colombo S (2012a) Performance indicators for training assessment of control-room operators. Chem Eng Trans 26:285–290Google Scholar
  35. Manca D, Nazir S, Lucernoni F, Colombo S (2012b) Performance indicators for the assessment of industrial operators. Symp Comput Aided Process Eng 17:20Google Scholar
  36. Manca D, Brambilla S, Colombo S (2013a) Bridging between virtual reality and accident simulation for training of process-industry operators. Adv Eng Softw 55:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manca D, Colombo S, Nazir S (2013b) A plant simulator to enhance the process safety of industrial operators. In: European HSE conference and exhibition, society of petroleum engineers, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  38. Manca D, Nazir S, Colombo S, Kluge A (2014) Procedure for automated assessment of industrial operators. Chem Eng Trans 36:391–396Google Scholar
  39. Manca D, Nazir S, Komulainen TM, Øvergård KI (2016) How extreme environments can impact the training of industrial operators. Chem Eng Trans 53:193–198Google Scholar
  40. Manesh HF, Schaefer D, Hashemipour M (2011) Information requirements analysis for holonic manufacturing systems in a virtual environment. Adv Mater Res Switz 53:385–398Google Scholar
  41. Monferini A, Konstandinidou M, Nivolianitou Z, Weber S, Kontogiannis T, Kafka P, Kay AM, Leva MC, Demichela M (2010) Human & organizational factors impact on risk level in an NG treatment and storage plant. In: European safety and reliability conference 2010. ESREL, pp 1820–1827Google Scholar
  42. Muravyev A, Berutti M (2007) Operator training system for hydrocracking unit: real world questions and answers. In: AIChE annual meeting, Texas, conference proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  43. Naderpour M, Nazir S, Lu J (2015) The role of situation awareness in accidents of large-scale technological systems. Process Saf Environ 97:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nazir S, Manca D (2015) How a plant simulator can improve industrial safety. Process Saf Prog 34:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nazir S, Colombo S, Gallace A, Bordegoni M, Manca D (2012a) Performance comparison of different training methods for industrial operators. In: de Waard D, Brookhuis K, Dehais F, Weikert C, Röttger S, Manzey D, Biede S, Reuzeau F, Terrier P (eds) Human factors: a view from an integrative perspective. Proceedings HFES Europe chapter conference Toulouse, pp 235–242Google Scholar
  46. Nazir S, Totaro R, Brambilla S, Colombo S, Manca D (2012b) Virtual and augmented reality as viable tools to train industrial operators. Comput Aided Chem Eng 30:1397–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nazir S, Colombo S, Manca D (2012b) The role of situation awareness for the operators of process industry. Chem Engineer Trans 26:303–308Google Scholar
  48. Nazir S, Colombo S, Manca D (2013a) Testing and analyzing different training methods for industrial operators: an experimental approach. Comput Aided Chem Eng 32:667–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nazir S, Colombo S, Manca D (2013b) Minimizing the risk in the process industry by using a plant simulator: a novel approach. Aidic Conf Ser 11:271–280Google Scholar
  50. Nazir S, Kluge A, Manca D (2014) Can immersive virtual environments make the difference in training industrial operators. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society, pp 251–265Google Scholar
  51. Nazir S, Øvergård KI, Yang Z (2015a) Towards effective training for process and maritime industries. Procedia Manuf 3:1519–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nazir S, Sorensen LJ, Øvergård KI, Manca D (2015b) Impact of training methods on distributed situation awareness of industrial operators. Saf Sci 73:136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Park J, Jung W, Ha J, Shin Y (2004) Analysis of operators’ performance under emergencies using a training simulator of the nuclear power plant. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 83:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Passos C, Nazir S, Mol AC, Carvalho PV (2016) Collaborative virtual environment for training teams in emergency situations. Chem Eng Trans 53:217–222Google Scholar
  55. Patle DS, Ahmad Z, Rangaiah GP (2014) Operator training simulators in the chemical industry: review, issues, and future directions. Rev Chem Eng 30:199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reinach S, Viale A (2006) Application of a human error framework to conduct train accident/incident investigations. Accid Anal Prev 38:396–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rose FD, Brooks BM, Rizzo AA (2005) Virtual reality in brain damage rehabilitation: review. Cyberpsychol Behav 8:241–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Jenkins D, Ladva D, Rafferty L, Young M (2009) Measuring situation awareness in complex systems: comparison of measures study. Int J Ind Ergonom 39:490–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shang X, Chung P, Fry J, Vezzadini L, Colombo M (2009) How a process simulator and a rule-based system contribute to virtual reality applications for process safety. Comput Aided Chem Eng 26:435–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Siminovich C, Joao S (2014) Dynamic operator training simulators for sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid, and DAP production units. Procedia Eng 83:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Toro R, Ortiz JM, Zamora C (2013) An integrated simulation-based solution for operator effectiveness. IFAC Proc Vol 46:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vidulich MA, Tsang PS (2006) Mental workload and situation awareness. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 3rd edn. Wliey, New Jersey, pp 243–268Google Scholar
  63. Wasfy TM, Noor AK (2001) Visualization of CFD results in immersive virtual environments. Adv Eng Softw 32:717–730CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. Yang SH, Yang L, He CH (2001) Improve safety of industrial processes using dynamic operator training simulators. Process Saf Environ 79:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhiyun Z, Baoyu C, Xinjun G, Chenguang C (2003) The development of a novel type chemical process operator-training simulator. Comput Aided Chem Eng 15:1447–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Civil and Chemical EngineeringVellore Institute of TechnologyVelloreIndia
  2. 2.PSE-Lab - Process Systems Engineering Laboratory, CMIC Chemical Engineering DepartmentPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Training and Assessment Research Group (TARG)University College of Southeast NorwayBorreNorway
  4. 4.Chemical Engineering DepartmentMotilal Nehru National Institute of Technology AllahabadAllahabadIndia

Personalised recommendations