PSIG 0609

Nominal Gas Pipeline Transmission Capacity.

A procedure to define nominal capacity.
Oscar G. Alvarez, TGN; Hugo A. Carranza, TOTAL Gas y Electricidad de Argentina; Fernando J. Pillon, TGN

Copyright 2003, Pipeline Simulation Interest Group

This paper was prepared for presentation at the PSIG Annual Meeting held in Williamsburg,
Virginia, 11 October – 13 October 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by the PSIG Board of Directors following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The material, as presented,
does not necessarily reflect any position of the Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, its officers,
or members. Papers presented at PSIG meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial
Committees of the Pipeline Simulation Interest Group. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of PSIG
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, Pipeline
Simulation Interest Group, P.O. Box 22625, Houston, TX 77227, U.S.A., fax 01-713-586-5955.
ABSTRACT
The “Transmission Capacity” of a Natural Gas Pipeline is
generally a definition based on certain assumptions made by
the operator. Meanwhile, the “Design Capacity” is an
assumption made before the pipeline construction.
“Transmission Capacity” is defined after the commercial
pipeline operation, verifying real performance, and assuming
sometimes arbitrarily, certain hypothesis. In theory, the main
difference is based on time and amount of the available
information.
Any definition of “Capacity” is a picture of a vision in steady
state of pipe operation. When somebody mentions 400 Mcf/d
of Capacity (millions of cubic feet day), it means “…in
sometime of the pipe operation … under certain circumstance
assumed...” Clearly, a research to define a framework, the
precedent conditions and the meaning of capacity definition,
could be a useful instrument to show a common understanding
of the “Nominal Capacity” concept.
This paper analyzes the main variables involved, contractual
services obligations, demand curve, border conditions to be
specified, transient vs. steady state, cost benefit analysis, peak
hourly vs. average daily flow rate design, operational policy, ,
etc. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are presented
as a procedure to define “Nominal Transmission Capacity”
and to produce a “Nominal Transmission Capacity Technical
Report” under the concept of arbitrary specific assumptions
for further analysis and discussions.
INTRODUCTION
In any pipeline designed and operated around the world,
“Transmission Capacity” definition is a controversial issue.
The life of a pipeline suffers a lot of changes and
transformations in its own structure and in its border
conditions. At the time of design a lot of assumptions are
made about demand, peak and average flows, gas
specifications, environmental constrains, climate, route
classifications, performance estimations, operational
philosophy, next expansions, regulatory changes, etc.
However, this circumstances generally changes and clearly
this are unpredictable in the design time, thus the pipeline
became incapable to comply with new demands or border
condition changes.
As the design capacity is an assumption made before the pipe
construction, the “real capacity” is a performance result
obtained after the start-up and the beginning of the
commercial operation. Clearly, any definition of the
transmission capability requires a complete description of the
framework and operational environment in which that capacity
is estimated.
The system of TGN (Northern Gas Transmission Company) in
Argentina is one of the several cases that could be taken as an
example.
TGN is mainly composed by two main pipelines called
“North” and “Central West” with a nominal capacity of 1,984
Mcf/d (56.2 Mm3/d) (43% North – 57% C.West) covering the
Northern part of the country along 2,000 miles of R/W and
more than 300,000 HP of installed power in compression
stations.
Along the time a lot of expansions were made to fulfill the
customers’ requierements, starting from 870 Mcf/d in 1993 to
the current 1,984 Mcf/d.
2 ALVAREZ, CARRANZA, PILLON PSIG 0609

2500
However, for many reasons we need to set or define a state of
2000 reference to share and communicate a common understanding
of the capacity or capability of the pipe or a system of pipes.
1500
C.West
Mcfd

North The definition of certain “Transmission Capacity” of a pipe

1000
will be established subject to certain assumptions and/or
500
decisions:
0 • Pipe/Network topology, physical characteristics
and design conditions.
93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04

05
•
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20
Model Adopted
• Fluid Specifications
Figure 1 - 1993-2005 TGN Expansion • Demand Characteristics
• Operational Philosophy
As currently happens in most of the systems the gas • Contractual Obligations - Border Conditions
transported is frecuently distribuited along the pipes, and only • Regulatory Conditions (such as noise levels)
a small amount of gas reaches the final point of the systems.
Obviously, the whole pipe is designed for that condition, that Pipeline design methodology
means that the Nominal Capacity does not say to much about
the real Capability of the system. There are several classic methods for designing a new pipe; a
wide range of possibilities is available for engineers.

It is widely recognized that the usual procedure implies a

design based on steady state simulation with further
860 verification and adjustment for extreme cases using transient
analysis.

However, the uncertainties of capacity required in the future,

behind the initial contracted, the behavior of the demand and
the risks assumed, produce an unbalance between the accuracy
of the method chosen and the data uncertainties.
175

>50
512 Q(n,t)

1126 P(x,t) P(n,t)? t

x(n,t)

P(0 t) t
This limitation of the Nominal Capacity Definition is not Q(x,t)
saved even using the “Transmition Momentum Concept”, it is Q(0,t)?
defining TM= Capacity*distance, as it was said a lot of PC stand by in t(o)
additional information must be done to give a significance at
any figure related with Capacity.
x(0,t) t

TRANSMISSION CAPACITY The figure 1 symbolizes the uncertainties (Power, Flow,

The operation of a pipe never occurs in steady state. As low as
a rate of change could be setting up, something is going to be
different, and some variables will be modifyied. As Heraclitus,
the Obscure of Ephesos, had hold: ”…there is nothing abiding
in the world…all is continuous passing away…”.
Pressure profile, etc.) to predict the demand shape along the
usual day and the assumptions of the pipe capacity using
steady state methods. The design engineer must specify a new
pipeline assuming uncertainties about the variations of the
border conditions in time.
PSIG 0609 Nominal Gas Pipeline Transmission Capacity
Type of transmission services
Typically, a transmission company offers several kinds of
transmission services:
• Firm Capacity
• Interruptible Capacity
• Certain trading services as wheeling, parking,
peaking, depends on the regulatory framework, the
facilities available and the network complexity
By far, the Firm Capacity is the principal transmission
business, the main issues involved in a gas transmission
contract are:
• Capacity contracted: most of the time is performed
on a cubic feet/day referred to a gas quality bases, but
it hides information about the shape of the demand
(weekly and daily load factor)
• Inlet and delivery point: sometimes includes
alternative points
• Gas Specifications: frequently defined as a range of
standard gas quality
• Border conditions: range of input pressure at the
metering point.
Perhaps the more controversial issues could be the assumption
of the utilization factor allowed. A proposed definition is:
Throughput
Utilizatio n Factor = Fu = ≤1
Capacity
To have a more convenient Utilization Factor definition to use
in Natural Gas Transmission it is necessary to define
Throughput and Capacity, Operational Line Pack and
Temporary Dispatching Capacity.
Throughput (T): is the amount of gas transported in a certain
period of time, i.e. a day, a month, a year. Its unit of measure
is the standard cf (m3) (caloric equivalent), or Mcf (Mm3).
Capacity (C): is the aptitude (power or potency to act) to
transport certain amount of gas in time unit. It must be defined
as constant in cf/s (m3/second), or cf/d (m3/day) assuming
that capacity remains constant along the time.
Operational Line Pack (OLP): is the amount of gas stocked
into a segment of pipe that remains available to be additionally
supplied during a period, with no effect in the usual pipeline
operation.
Temporary Dispatching Capacity (TDC): is the amount of
gas available to deliver at fixed node of the pipe during a
period of time. It is an additional temporary capacity
supported by the OLP. Algebraicaly it is:
TDC =T ± OLP
3
In practice, small changes in line pack give flexibility in
pipeline operation. In fact, small changes can be afforded by
the pipe operation, using the line pack of the closest spread of
the pipe; thus the Throughput could be higher than the
Capacity for a while. This is a remarkable property in
networks of pipes without natural gas storages (peak shavings,
depleted fields, etc.)
Utilization Time (UT): hours of the day necessary for
completing the Throughput at full Capacity. Utilization factor
and Utilization time are related as follow:
UT (hs) = Fu * t
Where t is the time period, such as 24 hours.
The concept of Capacity is linked with a constant flow rate
and a steady state simulation. In other words, a pipe designed
for its Capacity in steady state assumes that the maximum
instantaneous flow rate never will be higher than the Capacity.
When the flow rate is assumed constant and equal to the
Capacity, it could be expressed in Mcf/h (Mm3/h ):
C (Mcf/h ) = C (Mcf/d ) *
1(day )
24 (hs )
If the Fu=1, the Throughput will be called Maximum
Throughput (MT), and it will be equal to Capacity::
MT ( Mcf ) = C ( Mcf / h) * 24 ( hs )
Sometimes it is useful to quantify the capability to supply an
additional temporary capacity defining an Overloading Time
and Overloading factor as follow:
Overloading Time (Tol): is the period of the day (in hours or
0/1) in which the TDC could be applied overloading the pipe,
obviously the flow rate will be higher than the Capacity due to
line pack.
Overloading factor (Fol): is a measure of the Temporary
Dispatching Capacity required to deliver the Throughput in
the Overloading Time.
TDC 24 hs
Fol = = ≥1
C Tol (hs )
In the example showed in figure 2 a Throughput of 847 Mcf
(24 Mm3) is delivery in a)1 h, b)16 hs and c)24 hs. Assuming
the Capacity is 847 Mcf/d (24 Mm3/d).
4 ALVAREZ, CARRANZA, PILLON PSIG 0609

• Model adopted. Hydraulic and network equations, iterative

TDC method adopted, mathematical model, constrains and
Mcf/h model limits.
a): 847 Mcf/h • Fluid specification. Compositional range, inert contents,
(Mm3/h)
(24 Mm3/h) contaminants and dust limits, mix properties.
• Demand Characteristics. Peak and average flow, special
b) 53 Mcf/h flow requirements, typical demand curve, contractual
(1.5 Mm3/h) obligations (make up, delivery or pay, swap, etc.).
• Border conditions. Maximum and minimum pressures, rate
c) 35.3 Mcf/h flows.
(1.0 Mm3/h)
For example, given the system showed in Figure 3 as a study
Capacity case. defined initially with 4 segments (spreads), 3
1 hs 16hs 24 hs 847 Mcf/d compression plants, 1 inlet points with 1 supplier, and 1 city
4% 67 % 100% 24 Mm3/d gates with 1 client (assumed shippers).
It is important to point out that at this moment the system is
well known, with all its physical characteristics defined pipe
The case “a” is generally impossible to meet with the steady diameter, wall thickness, pressure test, branches length and
state design concept. It is a very uncommon situation the nodes location, compressions unit data, performance test,
design of a gas pipeline for high peak demand. There are a constraints and technical limits.
wide range of cases as “b” (with a reasonable Fol) and “c”
(steady state) where the operation could be possible depending First of all we should answer the questions how and where the
on the OLP. Capacity is defined: at the beginning of the pipe? In each
spread? For metering points included in the system
Case Tol Fol Comments simulation?
Hs 0/1 0/1
A 1 0.042 24 Improbable to meet We need to establish the sorroundings and the environment
B 16 0.67 1.5 Depends on OLP constrains such as soil temperature, air temperature, wheather ,
C 24 1 1 Steady state type of soil, etc.

For daily operations, under the same assumptions the analysis
would be extended to other terms, Weekly, Monthly and
Quaterly.
Finally, whatever conclusions of the analysis were, the
changes into obligations established in the Transmission
Contract will affect the design, and the necessary upgrade of
the pipe, in order to agree with the new contractual terms,
must be made. Another important issue is the Special Clauses
of the Transmission Contract that would contain certain relief
as swaps or exceptions to the obligation of supply for some
days, and others mitigation measures as Insurance Policy.
Nominal transmission capacity definition
Due to Gas Pipeline constraints in commercial operation, the
estimation of the “Capacity” is a subjective decision. As
before mentioned the definition of certain “Transmission
Capacity” of a gas pipeline will be subject to certain variables
and constraints:
• Pipe/Network topology and physical characteristics.
Diameter, length, input/output nodes, branches locations,
compressions unit data, wall thickness.
• Operation philosophy. Operational flexibility and
reliability standards, maintenance practice, stand by and
spare parts policy, physical constraints.
A special paragraph is necessary to describe the operation
philosophy, according the gas control organization and
structure, available human resources and the general client
satisfaction policy, a coefficient would be adopted to have a
more confident operation, generally reducing the capacity
available.
The model or technique of choose of simulation is another
important point that could also modify the results
Several changes occur during the life of the pipeline and we
get a new configuration: 4 segments (spreads), 3 compression
plants, 2 inlet points with 2 supplier, and 3 city gates with 3
clients (assumed shippers) is showed in Figure 4. For each
point the gas specifications, minimal contractual, pressures,
etc, are well known.
The input data collection is completed defining the Border
Conditions, rate flows, maximum and minimum operative
pressures.
PSIG 0609 Nominal Gas Pipeline Transmission Capacity 5

The Method adopted for simulation is based on steady state its power.
with some transient scenarios to verify special contractual
obligations. The result of the study shows that the system can support the
imposed border conditions (Design conditions) without any
At this moment a definition of Nominal Transmission difficulty. The table 2 shows the results and the figure 5, 6 and
Capacity is: “the total gas quantity capable to be injected in a 7 gives additional information.
gas pipeline system, expressed in Mcf/d (Mm3/d), to give a Variable Design New
firm transmission service to a group of clients in agreement Conditions Conditions
with the assumptions described in the Nominal Transmission Capacity 611 646
Capacity Technical Report. (NTCTR) (See Appendix 1)” (Mcf/d)
Peak Daily Flow 769 802
TDC (Mcf/d)
PIPELINE SIMULATION Maximum power
An example of simulation to answer the topics required in required (HP)
CS1 (9,000 inst) 8,994 5.100
NTCTR.
CS2 (12,500 inst) 11,221 12,200
CS3 (10,500 inst) 10,366 9,000
Description
Utilization factor 100% 100%
In the system described in Figure 3, defined as “Design
Utilization time (hs) 24 24
Condition” contrains the following assumptions:
Overloading factor 1.26 1.24
• The system supplies natural gas for a LDC located at the
Overloading time (hs) 19.04 19.3
end of the pipe in the spread 4 (called metering point 1).
Table 2: Sumary of results
• The Capacity required for that client was 611Mcf/d
Desing Condition - OILFILE 1
(17,3Mcm/d)(Table 1). Based on that assumptions the
system was designed in a steady state considering only one 650 960

injection point (Oilfield 1) 640

940
• The lowest pressure is 355.5 psig (25 kg/cm2 g) 630
920
620
Spread KP Node Design New 900
610
0 P Flow P Flow
Flow( M SCFD)

Presure (psig)
(psig) (Mcfd) (psig) (Mcfd 600 880

) 590
860

S1 01 OF1 946 611 946 364 580

81 Mi 840
570
31 OF2 - - 909 282 820
560
S2 81 CS1 638/ 611 710/ 646
93 Mi 953 953 550
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121
800

S3 174 CS2 587/ 611 529/ 646 Time (hour)

Flow Pressure

93 Mi 953 953 Figure 5:Design Condition – Oilfield 1

267 MP3 - - 503 141 Desing Condition - Compresor Station 3
S4 267 CS3 580/ 611 503/ 505
650 1000
93 Mi 853 853 640
341 MP2 - - 796 106 630
900
360 MP1 417 611 671 399 620

Table 1: Design vs New Conditions 610

600 800

590
Flow( M SCFD)

Presure (psig)

A transient state simulation for an hourly load curve is showed 580

700
in figure 7. 570

560

The term of study is 120 hours and the following facts were 550 600

540
taken into account: 530
a) The pressure injections remain constant along the 520
500

time analyzed. 510

b) The demand changed according the load curve 500

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121
400

c) The compression stations (CS1, CS2 and CS3) Time (hour) Flow
Discharge Pressure
Succion Pressure

worked at discharge pressure constant and limited by Figure 6 Design condition – Compresor Station 3
6 ALVAREZ, CARRANZA, PILLON PSIG 0609

New Condition - OILFILE 1

Desing Condition - Delivery Point

450 950

800 800 440

945
430

750 420 940

700
410
935
700 400

600 390 930

Flow( M SCFD)

Presure (psig)
650
380
Flow( M SCFD)

Presure (psig)
925
370
600 500
360 920

350
550 915
400 340

330 910
500
320
300 905
310
450
300 900
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121
400 200 Time (hour)
Flow Pressure
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121
Time (hour)
Flow Pressure
Figure 8: New Condition – Oilfield 1
Figure 7 Design condition – Metering Point 1
New Condition - OILFILE 2

400 914
Probably, but not certain, some spare capacity could be 390

possible, but always will depend on the change of the border 380
370 912

conditions. 360
350
910
340

Due to changes in the LDC requirements and the natural gas 330
320
producer availability, new border conditions had to be
Flow( M SCFD)

Presure (psig)
908
310

established. 300
290
906
280

The LDC has now 3 metering points (called MP1, MP2 and 270
260
904
MP3) totalizing a capacity required by 646 Mcf/d (18,3 250
240
Mm3/d) as is showed in Table 2. Simultaneously the gas is 230 902
suppled by 2 differents nodes (called OF1 and OF2), showed 220
210
in figure 4, 8 and 9. 200 900
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121
Time (hour)
Flow Pressure

Figure 9: New Condition – Oilfield 2

The new demands have different hourly load curves as it is

showed in figure 10 and 12.

New Condition - Delivery Point 1 & 3

800 900

700 800

700
600

600
500
Flow( M SCFD)

Presure (psig)

Figure 4 – New Condition 500

400
400

300
300

200
200

100 100
Flow 1 Flow 3
Pressure 1 Pressure 3

0 0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121
Time (hour)

Figure 10: Metering Point 1 and 3

PSIG 0609 Nominal Gas Pipeline Transmission Capacity 7

New Condition - Delivery Point 2 Nominal transmission capacity technical report

300 900
(NTCTR)
850
This paper recommends a procedure, called Nominal
250
800 Transmission Capacity Technical Report (NTCTR) with the
750 indicative contents showed in Appendix A.
200

700
Flow( M SCFD)

Presure (psig)
The results of the simulations could be call “Nominal
150 650
Capacity” only if it is based on a Technical Report. Without
600

100
this complement information the Capacity losses all the
550
meaning. In other words, the Capacity of 646 Mcf/d calculated
50
500 above, means nothing if it is not supported by a NTCTR
450

0 400
A short example of NTCTR for this case is:
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121
Time (hour)
Flow 2 Pressure 2
NTCTR –“System figures 4”
Figure 11: Metering Point 2
New Condition - Compresor Station 3
1. Description: The current report is made to define the
“Nominal Transmision Capacity“ of the “Systems
550 1000

540
described in figure 4” and to describe the border
530 900
conditions and constrains under which the NTC is
520 defined.
510
800
500 2. General Information : see Appendix A
490
Flow( M SCFD)

Presure (psig)

700
480
3. Vocabulary, Definitions: (Not Applied).
470
600
460

450
4. System description: Figures 4. Tables 1 and 2.
500
440

430
5. Demand: Table 1 and defined gas specs.
420 400

410 6. Hydraulic Model: Peng Robinsong equation state,

400 300 roughness of pipe, isothermal flow,etc. Standard
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121
Time (hour) Flow Succion Pressure commercial software employed for simulations.
Discharge Pressure

Figure 12: Compressor Station 3 7. Operation philosophy: All the compression stations
and pipelines are able to operate at the mechanichal
A new pipeline simulation is necessary to know if it is design conditions.
possible to agree with the new customers requierements.
8. Simulation: The result of simulation are summarized
With the new border conditions and the same method, steady all in the tables 1 and 2 and the figures 5 to 12.
state plus transient simulation, we verified the customers’
requierements who asked us about the necessary investment 9. Conclusions and notes: The system can supply the
The results are: new requirement. The Nominal Transmission
Capacity for the system described under the current
a) The system Capacity could be 646 Mcf/d for the new report is 646 Mcfd (18,3 Mcm/d).
conditions, without any significant additional
investment. 10. Third Party additional comments: any objection made
b) The minimum pressures are higher than the obtained to the current report performed by third parties must
for the “Design Condition” be summarized in this section. It does not apply for
c) The Power of the Compression Stations is enough for this case.
the new conditions. However, it works at 100% with
limitations of discharge pressures in short terms. 11. Procedures to upgrade the report: for example, “this
report will be upgraded under any of the following
This results let us to conclude that the system can supply a circumstances (any of which occurs first)
new capacity of 646 Mcfd (18.3 Mcm/d) without additional
investments and according the border conditions assumed. a. For the next 39th PSIG by October 2007
Tables 1 and 2, and figures 8 to 12 summarize the results.
b. Any time a client requires a new service
8 ALVAREZ, CARRANZA, PILLON
DISCUSSION
This paper is submitted to discussion by the experts and the
pipeline operators in order to find a common understanding on
the Nominal Transmission Capacity definition.
Other possibilities exist to find out the Nominal Transmission
Capacity. For example, if the gas transmission company chose
an operation philosophy based on a constant flow through the
compressors.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors propose a detailed method to define Nominal
Transmission Capacity.
It is essential to check the new conditions with the changes
proposed in the systems. NTCTR is the first way. Any
additional check became in strength for the transmission
company.
The procedure based on the state of art of the pipeline
simulation, and it contains a lot of provision to have the
minimum information necessary for understanding under what
conditions the defined capacity is possible to meet.
The suggested NTCTR covers most of the issues related with
the technical and commercial operations of the pipeline.
Despite the form in which a NTCTR finally could done, any
type of NTCTR will be necessary to understand that any
figure expressed in Mcfd could mean a reference to
Transmission Capacity.
REFERENCES
1. Osiadacz A., “Simulation and Analysis of Gas
Networks”, Gulf Publishing Company, 1987.
2. Santos L. and Alvarez O., “ Nuevos métodos de Cálculo
y simulación de Redes de Transporte de Gas Natural”,
Gas del Estado, Buenos Aires 1988
3. Alvarez O., Carranza H., Casanova J., Casares C.,
“Natural Gas Power Generation- Basic Pipeline Design
Requirements “, PSIG 0105 - 2001
4. Osiadacz A., “Different Transient Models- Limitations,
Advantages and Disadvantages”, PSIG 9606 – 1996
5. Modisette J.,Nicholas R. and Whaley R., “A Comparison
of Transient Pipeline flow Models and Features”, PSIG
Annual Meeting 1984.
6. Modisette J., “Equation of State Tutorial”, PSIG 0008 –
2000
7. Osiadacz A. and Chaczykowski M., “Comparison of
isothermal and non isothermal transient models”, PSIG
9802 – 1998
8. Don Schroeder, “Steady-state assumptions: what it
means and how it works”, Pipeline Industry, March 1992
PSIG 0609
9. Casares C. and Lanziani J.L.”The Natural Gas
Composition in Transport by Pipelines”, 1rst Latin
American and Caribean Gas and Electricity Congress,
SPE –1997, Bariloche, Argentina
10. Pereira dos Santos S.,”Transient Analysis – A Must in
Gas Pipeline Design”, PSIG 9703 –1997
11. Alvarez O. and Carranza H. “Simulación de operación de
un Gasoducto Regional”-Congreso IBP –1993
12. Alvarez O. and Carranza H. “Impacto Operativo de un
Almacenamiento de Gas en un sistema Regional”-
Congreso IBP –1993
13. Carranza H. “Regional energy Interconnection-Gas
Pipelines vs Power transmission Lines comparison”, 1rst
Latin American and Caribean Gas and Electricity
Congress, SPE –1997, Bariloche, Argentina
14. Thumb S.L., Mason S., Crameros A. and Hibbs J. “
Natural Gas Pipeline Engineering and Operations for
Power Generation Load”, PSIG 9403 – 1994
15. Rojey A. “Le Gaz Naturel-Production, Traitement,
Transport” 1994-Technip-París
16. Machado L., Moraes da Silva M. “Conciliating Supply
and Delivery Contractual Conditions on the Transport
System Design” – PSIG 0510 - 2005
17. API Publication 2564 “Guidelines for the use of
International System of Units (SI) in the Petroleum and
allied Industries”, American National Metric Council.
18. GPA standard 2145/95 “ Table of Physical Constant of
Paraffin Hydrocarbons and other Components of Natural
Gas”
19. Soil Temperature Impact In Natural Gas Transmission,
modeling and analysis – “Impacto de la temperatura del
suelo en transporte de gas natural, modelado y análisis
del sistema de cañería enterrada”. GIMOR 2004, 20 de
Octubre, 2004. www.spe.org.ar.
20. Heat Transfer between a Buried Gas Pipeline and Soil,
temperature profiles - “Transferencia de calor entre un
gasoducto enterrado y el suelo, obtención de los perfiles
de temperature”. Cuarta reunión argentina de usuarios de
ABAQUS, 11 y 12 de Noviembre, 2004
21. Water and Hydrates in Hydrocarbon Transmission –
“Condensación de Agua y Formación de Hidratos en
Transporte de Hidrocaburos, técncias de operación y
diseño”. Awarded with first prize at GIMOR 2005
October 2005. www.spe.org.ar
22. Capacity planning of transfer-stations Marco Hoogwerf
N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie. PSIG 2006 (0509)
23. Conciliating supply and delivery contractual conditions
on the transport system design Leandro Bastos Machado
Marcos José Moraes da Silva
Petrobras. PSIG 2006 (0510)
PSIG 0609 Nominal Gas Pipeline Transmission Capacity 9

BIOGRAPHIES Appendix A
Oscar G. Alvarez has Civil Engineering Degree from
Universidad Tecnológica Nacional in Buenos Aires, Nominal Transmission Capacity
Argentina. He has more than 20 years worked in several
positions into the gas transmission industry. He is currently Technical Report
working as System Planning Supervisor for TGN. He is a
Professor in postgrade courses and author of several technical
papers. Contents
Hugo A. Carranza has Electrical Engineering Degree from 1. Introduction, purpose , description
Universidad Tecnológica Nacional in Buenos Aires, 2. General information: company, gas pipeline system,
Argentina. He has postgraduate studies in Natural Gas in date
Universidad Naconal de Buenos Aires. He worked in several 3. Vocabulary, Definitions
positions into the energy transmission industry. He is currently 4. System description
working as Technical Manager in TOTAL Gas Transmission a. Topology
Argentina. He is a University Professor in grade and b. Technical data
c. Compression facilities
postgraduate courses and author of several technical papers.
d. Reception and deliveries facilities
5. Demand
Fernando J. Pillon has Chemical Engineering Degree from
a. Contractual capacity required
Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires, Argentina and
b. Type of services
Systems Dynamics Specialization from Universtat Politècnica
c. Boundaries contractual obligation (Minimum,
de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. With more than 9 years
maximum)
experience in gas transmission including 2 in the area of
d. Relief clauses
process analyzing and improvement, actually he is working in
e. Demand curve shape and contractual obligations
Gas Control for TGN.
f. Gas spec
g. Special clauses
6. Hydraulic Model
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Simulation methodology- model utilization
description
The authors want to thank their companies staff and directors b. Description of the model utilized
for their drive and cooperations to prepare an present this c. Description of the simulation methodology
paper. utilized
d. Main assumptions of the model (state equation,
roughness, heat transfer coefficients, etc)
7. Operational philosophy
a. Gas Control and dispatch criterions
b. Operational flexibility standards
c. Operational reliability standards
d. Border condition assumed (set points)
i. Receive and delivery nodes
ii. Flow rates and pressure by nodes
iii. Gas spec by receive nodes
iv. Contractual obligations in delivery
nodes
8. Simulation
a. Results of the simulation
b. Nominal capacity calculated chart
9. Conclusions and notes
10. Third party additional comments
11. Procedures to upgrade the report.