Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90656
ONLINE APPLICATION OF HYDRAULIC SIMULATION SOFTWARE TO GASSCOS SUBSEA PIPELINE NETWORK
Eadred Birchenough, James Munro, Jun Zhang ATMOS International Limited Manchester, United Kingdom Dagfinn Hansen, Ola Rinde, Vidar Sakariassen, Ben Velde Gassco AS Haugesund, Norway ABSTRACT This paper addresses the on-line application of ATMOS SIM simulation software, integrated with ABB Network Manager WS500, to a subsea pipeline network of 7,800 km (4,847 mile) length see Figure 1. The pipeline system is operated by Gassco Norway, and it delivers an annual volume of approximately 100 billion standard cubic meters of Norwegian gas to customers in Western Europe. One of the main challenges to such a great subsea pipeline system is the limited measurements available. For nearly all of the pipelines, the only location where flow, pressure and temperature are measured is at the inlet and outlet which could be more than 800 km (497 mile) apart. The following applications will be addressed in this paper: IT architecture. User controls including Common Alarm List. Data validation overview. Pipeline inventory calculation. Continuous calculation of settle-out-pressures for (sub)sections of pipelines to provide information for emergency shutdown systems. Integration of ambient seabed temperatures as provided by UK Met. Composition tracking including the possibility to track user specified trace components. Estimated arrival times and volumes of off-specification gas. Tracking of the parentage of batches such that the party responsible for off-spec gas can be identified (polluter pays principle). Facilities to restart models from historic data with the possibility to remove erroneous inputs.

Continuous running of look-ahead cases based on user defined transient time series and nominations for contractual exit points. Using larger network models to plan and monitor mixing of gasses to prevent off-spec gas. Comparisons between simulated and measured values will be made to illustrate the accuracy of the hydraulic models. In addition, the application of Maximum Likelihood State Estimation will be discussed to demonstrate its effectiveness in overcoming measurement errors. INTRODUCTION In June 2011 Gassco control room operators began using ATMOS SIM as their online simulation tool for monitoring operation of their gas pipeline network as part of their new pipeline management system (PMS). The system consists of 17 separate pipeline models (plus one combined model), each of which simulates one of Gasscos subsea networks using live SCADA pipeline measurement data as the input. State estimation techniques are used to provide an up to date calculation of the hydraulic and compositional properties of the networks. In addition the PMS uses a schedule of predictive cases to provide forecasting of results based on the current calculated state of the system and assumed future operations. Results, reports and statuses from all online and predictive systems are available to users both inside and outside the main control room through ATMOS own user controls hosted within ABBs WS500 SCADA HMI. With this system all the information from multiple models is available in one place, alongside the usual data provided by the SCADA system itself. Integration with the GUI also allows the user controls to leverage functionality provided by the HMI framework, such as

Copyright 2012 by ASME

authentication of the logged in user, navigation between screens and saving a screen (such as a trend) to a persistent file such that it may be reloaded later. The PMS system includes a Common Alarm List (CAL). ATMOS SIM can be configured to raise alarms under various circumstances, e. g. when calculated properties (such as a demand pressure) violate Hi/Lo limits or in response to certain system events such as a model being restarted. These alarms are sent to the SCADA system such that they appear in the alarm list, alongside other SCADA alarms, which is permanently displayed in the control room. DATA VALIDATION OVERVIEW For an online model it is important that the PMS is robust against suspect or bad quality data arriving from the SCADA system. Due to instrumentation redundancy (both flow and pressure at the same location or co-located pressure meters) the models are already tolerant of incorrect or bad quality measurements which persist for reasonably short periods of time, although model accuracy will be degraded if these conditions persist for longer. As a consequence it is important for operators to be aware of instrumentation which the PMS considers to be incorrect in order that they may remedy the problem. For the Gassco PMS an overview of the instrumentation used by all models is available in a single data validation overview (Figure 2). Within this screen the following pieces of information are notable: The Status column indicates an overall status assigned to each instrument depending on whether it has been flagged as bad quality in either the SCADA system or in ATMOS PMS, or whether the instrument has been preset in either system. By default the most severe issues are listed at the top of the screen. The SCADA Signal, SCADA Preset, PMS Preset, Out of Range and Stuck columns give a more detailed indication of the state of the instrument, for example the signal may have bad quality from SCADA but has been preset in the ATMOS PMS, in which case there will be an indication in both the SCADA Signal and the PMS Preset column. The Val. SCADA column indicates the measurement value arriving from SCADA, which under certain circumstances may be adjusted by ATMOS data validation code before being used by the simulation model, e.g. the value may be clamped to the upper or lower range of the range data validation, or use the last good value. This adjusted value is indicated in Val. PMS column. Where relevant the simulated value calculated by the model is indicated in the PMS Output column, which by comparing with the Val. PMS value the user may get an indication of the closeness of the model solution to the actual measurements. This closeness may also be

automatically monitored by the PMS, such that if the measured and modelled values are different by more than a certain configurable amount for longer than a certain period of time the signal is flagged as being in drift. This status is also indicated in the Drift column which may be used as an indication that a particular model is diverging away from the measurements. This could suggest that either the model is converging on a poor solution, perhaps due to incorrect tuning, and requires attention or conversely that a particular meter is reading incorrect values or requires recalibration. In the latter case this kind of data validation is difficult to do automatically by other means. The final two columns show custom information editable by the user and a time at which the instrument is next likely to need attention. For example if the instrument is undergoing maintenance an operator may preset the instrument value, in which case the Instrument Comment column may be used to indicate the reason for the preset value and the Due Date/Time can specify the time when the maintenance is due to be completed, and hence when the preset may be removed. Alternatively if the control room has already received a report from the field as to why an instrument has bad quality then the comment field may be used to record this. From the Data Validation overview any instruments validation and preset settings may be edited on the fly (assuming the operator has sufficient privileges) and immediately applied to the running simulation without requiring a restart of the model. In addition a trend may be launched showing the last two days of the instruments values, comparing the original SCADA value, the adjusted PMS value and the equivalent simulated value (Figure 3). PIPELINE INVENTORY CALCULATION AND SETTLE OUT PRESSURES In addition to many more calculated properties, The PMS provides a real time calculation of the current pipeline inventory, and in addition provides a future forecast of inventory based on predictive model results. For example the trend in Figure 4 shows both the online historic (white background) and predicted (grey background) results for one of the pipeline networks, with a length of over 800 km and diameter of 1 meter. In Figure 4 the top chart shows the flow at one demand, which according to the nominations is due to be operating at around 55.4 Msm3/d for at least the next day. The middle plot shows the volumetric inventory of the entire network as it has been responding to the operations. Because of the planned flow increase the predicted results show this inventory reducing as the line is unpacked. For completeness the lower plot shows the demand pressure which also shows the unpacking behaviour. With the PMS it is also possible to configure sub regions of a network for which inventory may be calculated, for example if the inventory of a specific branch needs to be known.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The calculated inventory values are also available as OPC tags for display in the SCADA screens. The PMS also provides a real time (and forecast) calculation of the settle out pressure of the network or sub region of the network. The settle out pressure is defined as the uniform pressure which the fluid within the whole network a or sub region is expected to settle at if the flow were to be immediately stopped, based on the current average density of the gas in the region. For each region two values are actually calculated, one on the assumption that the fluid remains at the current temperature and one assuming that the fluid cools or warms to ambient temperature. The former is useful if the settle out time is expected to be much shorter than the time the fluid would take to reach thermal equilibrium. Internally these pressures are calculated relative to zero metres elevation; however it is possible to define one or more so called named elevations for a region which might correspond to a particular location of interest, for example a change in pipeline wall thickness, where pipe pressure is important to monitor due to the design pressure discontinuity. The base pressures for the region are then adjusted to the elevation of these named locations to provide the settle out pressure at that point. These values may then be trended, as shown in Figure 5, which illustrates the expected pressure for a particular elevation were the whole network to be shut in. The red curve shows the expected pressure for the current fluid temperature; the green curve shows what the pressure would be reduced to once the fluid had cooled to ambient temperature. USE OF SEABED TEMPERATURE FILES Accurate modelling of the thermal properties of the network is important to the accuracy of the simulation results. In order to achieve a good estimate of the ambient temperature outside the pipeline the PMS makes use of seabed temperatures provided by the UK Met Office. Gassco receive a file every day containing modelled seabed temperatures for the North Sea on a regularly spaced grid. Based on lat/long coordinates configured within the model the system interpolates the grid file temperatures along the length of each pipe. As a result a detailed profile of ambient temperature is used by the model, as shown in Figure 6. The red line shows the ambient temperature as used by the model at each point along the network and for comparison purposes the simulated fluid temperature is also shown in green. The grid file also includes seabed temperatures for the previous day and the next four days, allowing interpolation of temperatures to be done in time as well as spatially. This also means ambient temperatures are available into the future for the predictive models. Before using the seabed temperature files, the PMS will validate the values against a pair of grid files containing the typical monthly temperatures for the seabed and the temperature standard deviations for each month. In the event that the daily grid file values are not within a certain number of standard deviations of the typical temperatures for the current time of

year the daily grid file is rejected and the monthly temperatures used instead. For pipe sections which are on landfall, and therefore there are no seabed temperatures available, or for sections not on the seabed, i.e. risers, it is possible to specify a set of twelve monthly temperatures at points along the section. This then allows the model to be configured with sensible ambient temperatures even when there is no suitable data available in the grid files. Another important aspect of the model is the simulation of the insulating effects of the pipe wall layers and the burial substrate on the heat flux between the ambient medium and the gas. ATMOS SIM calculates a combined overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC) for multiple pipe layers of varying thicknesses and thermal conductivities assuming radial symmetry. A typical set up is to define individual layers for the pipe wall itself, the pipes plastic and concrete coatings and the burial substrate of the seabed. In the case where the pipeline may be only partially buried the assumption of symmetry will not be accurate. In these circumstances the system will calculate the OHTC for the burial substrate layer according to an analytical model[1] and determine an equivalent thickness of a radially symmetric coating of the same substrate which produces the same OHTC value. This equivalent layer can then be used in the calculation of the combined heat transfer coefficient of all insulating layers. COMPOSITION AND PEAK TRACKING The PMS is capable of tracking batches of fluid through the network based on composition measurements at the supplies and the simulated flow through the pipeline. As a result it is possible to profile the gas components along routes through the network, as shown in the distance plot in Figure 7. Included in Figure 7 are the carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide components of the gas. The latter is treated by the model as a so called trace component. These do not affect the model but trace components are a useful feature for tracking gas properties not required for hydraulic modelling calculations through the network. Other examples from the PMS system include calculated composition dependent quantities such as soot index which are made available as pseudo measurements on the SCADA system. In principle any quantity could be tracked in such a way, for example the unit production cost of the gas could be tracked as a property of the batches. The composition tracking in the model will calculate the resulting composition where gas is mixed at the junction of two branches. This allows the composition to be estimated downstream of these mixing nodes without requiring composition measurements there. For example the trend in Figure 8 shows the CO2 composition both before (the red curve) and after (the green curve) a mixing node after being combined with a small branch with poor quality gas (the blue curve). In order to fulfil their legal and contractual obligations Gassco need to be aware of volumes of gas which are outside of

Copyright 2012 by ASME

the required specifications, known in the system as peaks. By being able to track such peaks through the networks the users are able to plan operations in order to minimise their impact, for example by planning mixing or flaring, or to warn neighbouring operators of the arrival of such gas well in advance. In order to meet Gassco's requirements a custom peak tracking management system was built on top of the models composition tracking. For each network it is possible for triggers to be set up on each gas component (or derived component), the setup for which is illustrated in Figure 9. When fluid enters the network whose composition falls outside the limits defined by the triggers a peak is launched and tracked by the system. The peaks currently being tracked in all networks are available to be viewed in a single display in the SCADA user interface (Figure 10). For each peak in Figure 10 the operator can see where the peak is in the network, its size as a volume, what type it is (i.e. what component is outside the trigger limits), its estimated time of arrival (ETA) to the main location of interest in the network (normally the demand), plus the average and peak value of the violating composition. The operator may also assign free text to the peak in order to make notes. Once a peak has exited the network the operator may archive it, with the ability to retrieve details about historical peaks at a later date. More detailed information about each peak can also be accessed, as shown in Figure 11. Of note in the figure is the following: The total energy of the peak is reported, based on the calorific value and volumes of the individual batches in a peak. Although the most important ETA is indicated in the main peak list screen the details show ETAs to multiple locations. A peak may be detected at a mixing node if the resulting mixed fluid still violates the trigger limits. It is important for the system to track which gas days the peak is due to arrive on (where a gas day is defined as 06:00 to 06:00 to coincide with shift patterns) since information regarding approaching peaks is sent to shippers as a day by day breakdown. For example a peak which is due to first arrive at the demand at 02:00 and will finally finish exiting at 08:00 after the 06:00 gas day change will be arriving over the course of two gas days. Based on the ETA the system breaks the peak down into a summary for each gas day, indicating the average and peak value for that gas day of the violating component. RESTARTING MODELS With an online system it is inevitable that the simulation models will occasionally need to be started again after they have stopped, for example in the case of a software update or an accumulation of instrument errors has caused the model to

terminate. When this happens it is not desirable to start the simulation from a new steady state for the following reasons: The network inventory and its composition information will be lost and it will take a period equal to the throughput time of the pipeline before a full inventory is achieved again. Information about tracked peaks will be lost. Depending on how transient the operation of the network currently is a steady state solution may be a poor estimate of the pipeline hydraulics and the simulation will take some time to converge to a good solution. In order to mitigate against this the online models will periodically save their internal states. When a model needs to be restarted the operator can select the most appropriate saved state, which the model can then load and re-run historical data from the state time until it has caught up with the current actual time. In this way the model is able to recreate its online run and carry on from the current time, thus avoiding losing any information. The user screen for controlling this is shown in Figure 12. If the model has had to be stopped due to poor results as a consequence of incorrect measurements arriving from the instrumentation it is also possible to manually edit the data used during a restart. In the restart control screen shown in Figure 12 a list of the instrumentation used by the model is shown on the left. If any of these are selected then the instrument value over the last two days is plotted in a trend area. The user is able to delete, add and move points within this plot area in order to modify the data used for the restart, which is particularly useful for eliminating bogus composition spikes. Once the user is satisfied with the changes they may save them and initiate a restart of the model. In the event that there is no suitable model state to restart from, for example if the model has been producing poor results for some time such that recent states are not a reasonable representation of the network, there is the second option of a cold restart. For this the user selects a time in the past. The model then calculates a steady state solution based on the instrumentation at that time and continues with a transient simulation using historical data until the current time is reached. Although less desirable than a restart from a state it does avoid the issues with having to wait for a full inventory and convergence to a good transient solution. LOOK AHEAD CASES The PMS system continuously runs a schedule of predictive cases for each of the networks in order to provide forecasts of network behaviour based on assumed future operations. For each network there are one to three standard cases defined, each of which has a configurable run frequency (e.g. every quarter of an hour or every hour). An example schedule is shown in Figure 13. When a case is due to run it is allocated to one of a number of dedicated machine resources which then performs the simulation. This approach allows the system to be scalable by

Copyright 2012 by ASME

adding additional resources if necessary, thus increasing the throughput of the cases. In general all of Gasscos predictive cases are run on flow control, where supply flows are assumed to be held constant and demand flows are either assumed to be held constant, or where available based on the flows determined by the nomination system. In the latter case the expected flow rates at the demands are dictated by capacity booked by the shippers; the PMS integrates with Gasscos third party nominations system in order to retrieve the hourly nomination flow rates, as illustrated in Figure 14. When the predictive case is run the model will use these nominations as the flow setpoint. Figure 15 shows the results of a predictive run, where the demand flow in the top plot can be seen to follow the nominations in the future (grey background) portion of the trend. The lower plot shows the forecasted demand pressure responding to the changes in flow. The networks also have pressure constraints enabled at the supplies and demands. This allows the system to automatically switch to pressure control in the event that a supply pressure constraint is exceeded or a demand pressure goes below its constraint. When this occurs it is possible to see from the trended results of the predictive case how much curtailment is required. The user is allowed to modify the standard cases in the event that operations need to be adapted. For example a platform shutdown may be required, in which case it is necessary to know whether the network is still able to meet the agreed capacity without violating minimum operating pressures. The operator is able to edit in a shutdown flow into the supply flow for the network which can be done directly in a trend of the current setpoints (time series). Figure 16 illustrates the editing screen before the user has done any editing, where the dotted line represents the setpoint to be used. Points may be added, removed and moved to the setpoint to specify the expected shutdown operation. Figure 17 shows the setpoint after a user has configured a shutdown at the supply. As well as the standard cases it is possible for users to make temporary copies of these in order to experiment with alternative operating plans. These cases may themselves be scheduled and will be run on their own dedicated computer resources in order that they do not interfere with the running of the standard cases. Predictive cases may also be configured to raise the same alarms as the online model would in order that operators may see when they may be likely to get real alarms in the future. For example an alarm may be set on the composition at a mixing point which could then be used as an indication of when peaks may be expected. Although look ahead alarms can be automatically sent to the CAL they can also be viewed within a dedicated PMS user control (Figure 18).

MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD STATE ESTIMATION AND MODEL PERFORMANCE For online simulations the number of measurements available is usually greater than the boundary constraints to the system and as a consequence state estimation techniques can be used to find a physically correct hydraulic solution that meets all boundary conditions (e.g. zero flow at closed valves) whilst minimising the difference between the flow and pressure measurements and the solutions results at the instrument locations. The PMS uses maximum likelihood state estimation (MLSE)[2], where the quantity to be minimised is a sum of the squares of the difference between each flow and pressure measurement and the solution value. In the sum each individual meter is weighted by a configurable error level which allows the model to depend more on high accuracy meters whilst allowing poorer quality meters to influence but not dominate the results. In addition measurements which are flagged as having bad quality automatically have their accuracy level degraded in order that they do not detrimentally influence the solution. By using accuracy based weighting much flexibility is introduced in tuning the model. In Gasscos case where accurate simulation of mixing is required for the purposes of composition tracking low flow branches producing poor quality gas can be given high flow accuracy to ensure that a particular sources contribution to the composition is correctly modelled. The simulation performance can be tuned to achieve better accuracy by modifying certain parameters such as the pipeline roughness and OHTC values such that an offline run of the model produces expected results for known conditions. This approach is described in the references[3]. To illustrate the accuracy of the MLSE approach, Figure 19 shows a comparison between measured and modelled flows and pressures at one demand and Figure 20 shows the same for two supplies. This shows a typical pressure error of 0.1 bar or less and a typical flow error of 0.05 MSm3/d or less. The accuracy of the model may also be demonstrated by comparing the modelled composition as it arrives at the demand with the measured composition at the same demand, as shown in Figure 21. Figure 21 demonstrates a typical inaccuracy in the arrival time of the batches of up to half an hour. In a network whose throughput time is three days this represents a 0.7% inaccuracy in the throughput time. Shown in Figure 22 is a comparison of modelled and measured flows and pressures at a low flow supply in one of the branched networks. The instrumentation at this supply has been configured to have a very high accuracy on the flow meter at the expense of the pressure meter, allowing the model to run this supply under pseudo flow control. Even with this set up the modelled pressure remains close to the measured pressure, with short periods of deviation occurring after supply start up.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

CONCLUSIONS The on-line hydraulic simulation software ATMOS SIM has become an essential tool for Gassco to manage the daily operations of their large sub-sea gas network. The use of nominations in Look Ahead forecasting and the accurate online calculations of the pipeline inventory and the Estimated Time of Arrival of gas batches have helped Gassco optimise utilisation of pipeline capacity and reduce operational cost significantly. This paper has demonstrated how an integrated online model can utilise more available inputs and new functionality to become a better tool for operational decision making. The integration with SCADA in one common GUI has also made the PMS available to many new users within Gassco. An accurate model could also be a viable alternative to expensive sub-sea instrumentation and maintenance. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Gassco AS and ATMOS International for their support for the publication of this paper. NOMENCLATURE PMS - pipeline management system GUI graphical user interface REFERENCES 1. Joakim Ramsen et al, Important Aspects of Gas Temperature Modeling in Long Subsea Pipelines, Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, May 12-15 2009, Galveston, Texas, USA 2. Jason P. Modisette, State Estimation in Online Models, Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, May 12-15 2009, Moody Gardens Hotel, Galveston, Texas, USA 3. Garry Hanmer et al, Tuning of Subsea Pipeline Models to Optimize Simulation Accuracy, Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, May 15-18 2012, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

APPENDIX FIGURES

Figure 1 The Gassco North Sea network

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 2 An Overview of the instrumentation states as determined by the PMS

Figure 3 Trend of a SCADA composition measurement and the equivalent simulated value

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 4 Historical and forecasted pipeline inventory for one Gassco Pipeline

Figure 5 Expected settle out pressures for current and ambient temperature conditions

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 6 Distance plot of ambient temperature and fluid temperature

Figure 7 Distance plot along the pipeline of the tracked composition for two gas components

10

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 8 CO2 content of two mixed streams and the resulting composition

Figure 9 Configuration of trigger limits for detecting off spec gas

11

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 10 Off spec gas currently being tracked in all networks

Figure 11 Detailed information for a peak

12

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 12 The Restart Control Screen

Figure 13 The Schedule of Look Ahead cases

13

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 14 Hourly flow nominations for a network demand

Figure 15 Predictive model results using flow nominations data

14

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 16 Supply flow setpoint before user editing

Figure 17 User edited demand flow setpoint

15

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 18 Look Ahead alarms for a single predictive simulation

Figure 19 Comparison of modelled and measured pressures and flows at one demand

16

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 20 Comparison of modelled and measured pressures and flows at two supplies

Figure 21 Comparison of modelled and measured composition at a demand

17

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 22 Comparison of measured pressures and flows at a low flow supply

18

Copyright 2012 by ASME