Standard library or domain libraries and literature? A controlled comparison of two Modelica models of the same industrial pump unit on open plant data

A physics-based model of a specific machine can be assembled from the Modelica Standard Library and the equipment documentation, or from domain libraries and published measurements as well. We measured what the second option adds. The object is a boiler feed pump unit: a seven-stage centrifugal pump with a 110 kW induction motor, observed in eight open telemetry campaigns of the CIRA P507 station. Two configurations of our model-synthesis method were compared under criteria registered before computation. They share the object, the data, the acceptance regimes and the calibration and validation protocol: • configuration I uses the standard library and the documents; • configuration II uses eight libraries and a literature base on the thermal behaviour of fan-cooled motors. Model II is built from ThermoPower components with IAPWS-IF97 water. It passed all 148 behavioural acceptance checks without manual changes, on its second build. The literature halves the bias of the prediction from documents alone: median bias 7.8 → 3.3 K, median RMSE 8.1 → 6.3 K. The gain comes mostly from heat transfer of the stopped frame. After calibration on telemetry the two configurations converge: • held-out RMSE is 2.00 against 2.05 K; • heat-soak error is 1.82 against 1.85 K; • identifiability is the same, and the same unexplained factor of two remains. The libraries change the water side, which the plant sensors do not observe. Water heating in the pump is 0.76 K instead of 1.6 K, and it agrees with an IF97 estimate to 0.02 K. The frame temperature changes by less than 0.13 K, and computing time grows fivefold. The registered verdict is “does not improve”. Two findings concern domain components themselves: • they carry assumptions of their own: the pump volume balance omits the pressure work; • they remove a natural guard: a dead-headed pump is computed into superheated steam instead of stopping. Literature priors pay off before calibration and for risk bounds. Domain libraries pay off where the fluid side is the object of monitoring. For calibrated thermal monitoring with one frame sensor the standard library is sufficient.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23676580
Primary Topic
Modeling and Simulation Systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Standard library or domain libraries and literature? A controlled comparison of two Modelica models of the same industrial pump unit on open plant data

I. Komakhidze, A. Abakarov, V. Troshin
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Modeling and Simulation Systems
article

Standard library or domain libraries and literature? A controlled comparison of two Modelica models of the same industrial pump unit on open plant data

I. Komakhidze, A. Abakarov, V. Troshin
article en

Abstract

A physics-based model of a specific machine can be assembled from the Modelica Standard Library and the equipment documentation, or from domain libraries and published measurements as well. We measured what the second option adds. The object is a boiler feed pump unit: a seven-stage centrifugal pump with a 110 kW induction motor, observed in eight open telemetry campaigns of the CIRA P507 station. Two configurations of our model-synthesis method were compared under criteria registered before computation. They share the object, the data, the acceptance regimes and the calibration and validation protocol: • configuration I uses the standard library and the documents; • configuration II uses eight libraries and a literature base on the thermal behaviour of fan-cooled motors. Model II is built from ThermoPower components with IAPWS-IF97 water. It passed all 148 behavioural acceptance checks without manual changes, on its second build. The literature halves the bias of the prediction from documents alone: median bias 7.8 → 3.3 K, median RMSE 8.1 → 6.3 K. The gain comes mostly from heat transfer of the stopped frame. After calibration on telemetry the two configurations converge: • held-out RMSE is 2.00 against 2.05 K; • heat-soak error is 1.82 against 1.85 K; • identifiability is the same, and the same unexplained factor of two remains. The libraries change the water side, which the plant sensors do not observe. Water heating in the pump is 0.76 K instead of 1.6 K, and it agrees with an IF97 estimate to 0.02 K. The frame temperature changes by less than 0.13 K, and computing time grows fivefold. The registered verdict is “does not improve”. Two findings concern domain components themselves: • they carry assumptions of their own: the pump volume balance omits the pressure work; • they remove a natural guard: a dead-headed pump is computed into superheated steam instead of stopping. Literature priors pay off before calibration and for risk bounds. Domain libraries pay off where the fluid side is the object of monitoring. For calibrated thermal monitoring with one frame sensor the standard library is sufficient.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Modeling and Simulation Systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
Standard library or domain libraries and literature? A controlled comparison of two Modelica models of the same industrial pump unit on open plant data — I. Komakhidze, A. Abakarov, et al. · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS