See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327490001

Monitoring and controlling of unaccounted for gas (UFG) in distribution

networks: A case study of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited Pakistan

Article  in  IFAC-PapersOnLine · January 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.284

CITATIONS READS

8 2,890

5 authors, including:

Muhammad Shafiq Matteo M Savino

University of the Punjab Università degli Studi del Sannio
18 PUBLICATIONS   209 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   1,097 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zahid Rashid
University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila
6 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

JOB SHOP MAKESPAN OPTIMIZATION USING ANT COLONY ALGORITHM: A CASE STUDY OF HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX View project

Process Improvement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zahid Rashid on 17 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings,16th
Proceedings,16th IFAC
IFAC Symposium
Symposium on on
Proceedings,16th
Information ControlIFAC Symposium
Problems in on
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Information
Information Control
Control Problems
Problems in Manufacturing
in Manufacturing
Proceedings,16th
Information ControlIFAC
Problems in Manufacturing
Symposium on
Manufacturing
Bergamo, Italy,
Bergamo, Italy,
Italy, June 11-13,
JuneProblems2018
11-13, 2018
2018
Information
Bergamo, Control
June 11-13, in Manufacturing
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 253–258

Monitoring
Monitoring and
and controlling
controlling of
of unaccounted
unaccounted for
for gas
gas (UFG)
(UFG) in
in distribution
distribution
Monitoring
networks: Aand
casecontrolling
study of of
Sui unaccounted
Northern Gasfor gas (UFG)
Pipelines in
Limited
networks: A case study of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited distribution
Pakistan
Pakistan
networks: A case
*
*
study of Sui
**
**
Northern Gas Pipelines
***
***
Limited
****
****
Pakistan *****
*****
Muhammad
Muhammad Shafiq
Muhammad Shafiq**,,, Waqas
Shafiq Waqas Bin
Waqas Bin Nisar
Bin Nisar**
Nisar **,, Matteo
Matteo Mario
, Matteo Mario Savino
Mario Savino***
Savino ***,, Zahid
Zahid Rashid
, Zahid ****,, Zaheer
Rashid****
Rashid Zaheer Ahmad
, Zaheer Ahmad*****
Ahmad *****
* ** *** ****
****, Zaheer Ahmad*****
Muhammad * Department
Shafiq
* Department
* Department of
*, of Engineering,
Waqas Bin Nisar
of Engineering, University
**, Matteo
Engineering, University
University of of Sannio,
Mario
of Sannio, Italy;
Savino
Sannio, Italy; (e-mail:
*** ,
Italy; (e-mail: Zahid shafiqaatir1@gmail.com)
Rashid
(e-mail: shafiqaatir1@gmail.com)
shafiqaatir1@gmail.com)
*****

* Department
* Department
* Department
* Department of Industrial
of Industrial
of Industrial Engineering,
of Engineering,
Engineering,
Engineering, University
University
University
University of
of Sannio, Engineering
Italy; (e-mail:
of Engineering
of Engineering and
and Technology, Taxila
andshafiqaatir1@gmail.com)
Technology, Taxila
Technology, Pakistan
Taxila Pakistan
Pakistan
**
** Department
** * Department
Department
Department of
of Industrial
of Industrial
Industrial Engineering,
of Industrial Engineering,
Engineering,
Engineering, University
University
University of
of Engineering
University
of of Engineering
Engineering
Engineering and
and and
and Technology,
Technology,
Technology, Taxila
Technology,
Taxila
Taxila Pakistan;
Taxila Pakistan
Pakistan;
Pakistan; (e-mail:
(e-mail:
(e-mail:
** Department of Industrial Engineering,waqas.nisar786@gmail.com)
waqas.nisar786@gmail.com)
University of Engineering
waqas.nisar786@gmail.com)
waqas.nisar786@gmail.com) and Technology, Taxila Pakistan; (e-mail:
***
***
*** Department
Department
Department of
of
of Engineering,
Engineering,
Engineering, University
University
University of
of
of Sannio,
Sannio,
waqas.nisar786@gmail.com)
Sannio, Italy;
Italy;
Italy; (e-mail:
(e-mail:
(e-mail: Matteo.Savino@unisannio.it)
Matteo.Savino@unisannio.it)
Matteo.Savino@unisannio.it)
*** Department of Engineering, University of Sannio, Italy; (e-mail: Matteo.Savino@unisannio.it)
****
****
**** Department
Department
*** Departmentof
of Industrial
Industrial Engineering,
Engineering,
of Engineering, University
University
University of
of Engineering
Engineering
of Sannio, Italy; (e-mail:and
and Technology,
Technology, Taxila
Taxila Pakistan;
Pakistan;
Matteo.Savino@unisannio.it) (e-mail:
(e-mail:
**** Department
Department of
of Industrial
Industrial Engineering,
Engineering, University
University of
of Engineering
Engineering and
and Technology,
Technology, Taxila
Taxila Pakistan;
Pakistan; (e-mail:
(e-mail:
**** Department of Industrial Engineering, zahid.rashid@uettaxila.edu.pk)
University of Engineering
zahid.rashid@uettaxila.edu.pk)
zahid.rashid@uettaxila.edu.pk) and Technology, Taxila Pakistan; (e-mail:
*****
***** Department
***** Department of
Department of Industrial
of Industrial Engineering,
Industrial Engineering,
Engineering, University
University of
University of Engineering
of Engineering and
zahid.rashid@uettaxila.edu.pk)
Engineering and Technology,
and Technology, Taxila
Technology, Taxila Pakistan;
Taxila Pakistan; (e-mail:
Pakistan; (e-mail:
(e-mail:
***** Department of Industrial Engineering, zaheer.ahmed@uettaxila.edu.pk)
University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila Pakistan; (e-mail:
zaheer.ahmed@uettaxila.edu.pk)
zaheer.ahmed@uettaxila.edu.pk)
Abstract: Sui Northern Gas zaheer.ahmed@uettaxila.edu.pk)
Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) is a natural-gas distribution company facing
Abstract: Sui
Abstract:
Abstract: Sui Northern
Sui Northern Gas
Northern Gas Pipelines
Gas Pipelines Limited
Pipelines Limited (SNGPL)
Limited (SNGPL) is
(SNGPL) is aaa natural-gas
is natural-gas distribution
natural-gas distribution company
distribution company facing
company facing
facing
huge
huge loss
loss every
every year
year
Sui Northern due
due to
to unaccounted
unaccounted for
for gas
gas (UFG).
(UFG). In
In this
this research,
research, a
a mathematical
mathematical model
model has
has been
been
Abstract:
huge
huge loss
loss every
every year due Gas
year due to Pipelines Limited
to unaccounted
unaccounted for gas (SNGPL)
for gas (UFG). In
(UFG). In is
thisa research,
this natural-gas
research, distribution company
aa mathematical
mathematical hasfacing
model has
model been
been
developed
developed
developed to
to identify
identify
to identify
identify and
and control
control
andtocontrol
control UFG
UFG losses
losses
UFG losses
losses in
in SNGPL.
SNGPL.
in (UFG).
SNGPL.InA A
A
Athissurvey
survey
survey of
of hundred
hundred
of hundred
hundred gas
gas consumers
consumers
gas consumers
consumers has
has been
been
has been
been
huge loss every
developed to year due and unaccounted
UFG for gasin SNGPL. research,
survey of a mathematical
gas model has
carried
carried out
carried out
developed to
to
out to identify factors
identify
to identify factors contributing
contributing
and control
factors UFG losses
contributing to
to UFG.
to UFG. The
The
in SNGPL.
UFG. significance
The significance
A surveyof
significance of
of each
ofeach
each contributing
contributing
hundred factor
factor of
factor of
gas consumers
contributing UFG
UFG
ofhas
UFGbeen is
is
is
carried out to factors contributing to UFG. The significance of each contributing factor of UFG is
determined
determined
carried out
determined tousing
using
identify
using Hypothesis
Hypothesis
factors
Hypothesis Testing.
Testing.
contributing
Testing. The
The
Theto results
results
UFG.
results show
show
The that
that
significance
show that more
more
more of emphasis
emphasis
each should
should
contributing
emphasis should be
be on
on
factor
be onofreducing
reducing
UFG
reducing is
determined using Hypothesis Testing. The results show that more emphasis should be on reducing
leakage
leakage factor (17%). After necessary
Testing.rectification
The resultsof anomalies
that which were identified through
be onsite visits,
leakage factor
determined
leakage factor (17%).
using
factor (17%).
(17%). After
After necessary
Hypothesis
After necessary
necessary rectification
rectification
rectification of
of anomalies
of show
anomalies
anomalies which
which
which were
were identified
more emphasis
were should
identified
identified through
through
through site
site
site visits,
reducing
visits,
visits,
UFG
UFG has been re-calculated for the selected network and per month average savings of 439 Hm3 in terms
UFG has
leakage
has been
factor
been re-calculated
(17%). After
re-calculated for
for the
necessary
the selected
selected network
rectification
network of and per
anomalies
and per month
monthwhich average
were
average savings of
identified
savings of 439 Hm3
through
439 Hm3 in
site
in visits,
terms
terms
of
of gas volume and 7,549 PKR in terms of finances were recorded. Furthermore, a framework has also
UFG
of gas
gas volume
has been
volume and
and 7,549
re-calculated
7,549 PKR
for
PKR in
the
in terms
selected
terms of
of finances
network
finances were
and
were perrecorded.
month
recorded. Furthermore,
average savings
Furthermore, a
aofframework
439 Hm3
framework has
in
hasterms
also
also
been
been
of
been developed
gasdeveloped
volume and
developed to
to minimize
to minimize
7,549 PKR
minimize UFG
UFG
UFG in
in in
in Gas
Gas distribution
Gas distribution
terms networks.
of finances networks.
distribution were recorded. Furthermore, a framework has also
networks.
been developed to minimize UFG in Gas distribution networks.
been developed
© 2018, IFAC to minimize
(International UFG in Gas distributionControl)
networks.
Keywords:
Keywords:
Keywords:
Keywords:
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring andFederation
and
and
and Control, ofUnaccounted
Control,
Control,
Control,
Automatic
Unaccounted
Unaccounted
Unaccounted
For
For Gas
For Gas
For Gas
Gas
Hosting
(UFG),
(UFG),
(UFG),
(UFG),
by Elsevier
Network
Network
Network
Network
Ltd.Balancing
All rights reserved.
Balancing
Balancing
Balancing
Technique
Technique
Technique
Technique
(NBT),
(NBT),
Keywords:Data
Data Reconciliation
Reconciliation
DataMonitoring
(NBT), Data Reconciliation Technique
Technique
and Technique (DRT),
(DRT),
Control, Unaccounted
Technique SNGPL-Pakistan
SNGPL-Pakistan
For Gas (UFG), Network Balancing Technique
(DRT), SNGPL-Pakistan
SNGPL-Pakistan
(NBT), Reconciliation (DRT),
(NBT), Data Reconciliation Technique (DRT), SNGPL-Pakistan
1.
1. INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION fiscal
fiscal year
fiscal year
year 2015-16
year 2015-16
2015-16 and
2015-16 and
and 2016-17
and 2016-17
2016-17 has
2016-17 has been
has been
has carried
been carried
been carried out
carried out which
out which
out which
which
1. INTRODUCTION fiscal
Pakistan
Pakistan
Pakistan possesses
possesses
1. INTRODUCTION
possesses one
one
one of
of
of the
the
the world’s
world’s
world’s most
most
most extensive
extensive
extensive inland
inland
inland shows
shows
fiscal
shows that
that
year
that the
the
2015-16
the losses
losses
and
losses in
in
in winter
winter
2016-17
winter are
are
has
are more
more
been
more than
than
carried
than in
in
in summer.
summer.
out which
summer.
Pakistan possesses one of the world’s most extensive inland shows that the losses in winter are more than in summer.
natural gas
natural gas supply infrastructure
infrastructure with aaa mind
mind boggling totaltotal The
The increased
The increased
increased value
value of UFG
ofinUFG
UFG in winter
in winter
winter is mainly
is mainly
mainly due
due to the
to the
the
natural gas
Pakistan
natural gas supply
supply infrastructure
possesses
supply one of the world’s
infrastructure with
with most
with a mind
mind boggling
extensive
bogglinginland
boggling total shows
total The that thevalue
increased lossesof
value of winter
UFG in
in are more
winter is
is than indue
mainly duesummer.
to
to the
length
natural
length of
gas
of around
supply
around 140,000
140,000 km,
infrastructure
km, enough
with
enough a to
mind
to circle
circle the
boggling
the whole
total
whole reason
The
reason that
increased
that pipeline
value
pipeline
length of around 140,000 km, enough to circle the whole reason that pipeline pressure is increased to fulfill increasedpressure
of UFG
pressure is
in
is increased
winter
increased is to fulfill
mainly
to fulfill increased
due to the
increased
world
world atatofleast three times
times (Dawn, 2015).
2015).toHowever,
circle theUFG of
of gas
length
world at around
least
least three
three140,000
times km, enough
(Dawn,
(Dawn, 2015). However,
However, whole
UFG
UFG of gas requirement
reason
gas that pipeline
requirement
requirement (high
(high
(high pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure is
is required
is increased
is required
required so
so that
to fulfill
so that gas
gas can
thatincreased
gas can
can
both
both
world distribution
distribution
at least three
both distribution
distribution companies
companies
times (Dawn,
companies (SNGPL
(SNGPL
(SNGPL2015). and
and SSGC)
SSGC)
andHowever,
SSGC) is is
is
UFG
is more
more
more travel
of gas long
requirement
travel long distance).
(high
distance). Higher
pressure
Higher gas
is
gas pressure
required
pressure so increases
that gas
increases the
can
the
both
than 10% resulting companies
in huge (SNGPL
financial and
loss SSGC)
(Tribune, more
2013). travel long distance). Higher gas pressure increases the
than
both
than 10% resulting
distribution
than 10%
10% resulting
resulting in huge
companies
in huge
in financial
(SNGPL loss
huge financial
financial loss
loss (Tribune,
and (Tribune,
SSGC) is2013).
(Tribune, 2013).
2013). probability
more travel long of
probability
probability of leakages
ofdistance). and
leakages Higher
leakages ultimately higher
gas pressure
and ultimately
and ultimately UFG
higher increases
higher loss. In
loss.the
UFG loss.
UFG In
In
Due
Due
than to
to
Due 10% this
this loss,
loss,
thisresulting
to this penalties
penalties
in huge are
loss, penalties
penalties are
are imposed
imposed
financial
are imposed by
by
lossby the
the
by(Tribune, regulatory
regulatory order
2013). probability
the regulatory
regulatory order toto overcome
of leakages
to overcome
overcome UFG,
UFG,and the contributing
theultimately
contributing factors
higher UFG
factors should be
loss. be
should In
be
Due to loss, imposed the order UFG, the contributing factors should
authorities
authorities
Due
authorities which
to this which badly effect
badly
loss, penalties
which badly effect
effect the profit
the
are imposed
the profit
by theof
profit ofregulatory
of SNGPL order
SNGPL
SNGPL identified.
identified. As
As per
to overcome
identified. As per
per collected
per UFG,
collected field
field
the field
collected data,
data, the
contributing
field data, the
the leakage
leakage
factors
the leakage factor
factor
should be
factor
authorities which badly effect the profit of SNGPL identified. As collected data, leakage factor
(Limited,
(Limited,
authorities
(Limited, 2015).
2015).
which
2015). badly effect the profit of SNGPL was
was the
the
identified.
was the one
one
one Ashaving
having
per
having highest
highest
collected
highest contribution
contribution
field
contribution data, in
in
in UFG.
UFG.
the
UFG.leakage factor
(Limited, 2015). was the one having highest contribution in UFG.
Therefore, aaa strategy
Therefore, strategy has has beenbeen devised
devised to to implement
implement the the The
The UFG
The the
UFG is defined
ishaving
defined as the
as the
the difference between
differenceinbetween
between the total
the total
total
(Limited,
Therefore,2015).
Therefore, strategy has
a strategy has beenbeen devised
devised to to implement
implement the the was
The UFG
UFG oneis
is defined
defined highest
as
as thecontribution
difference
difference UFG. the
between the total
internationally
Therefore,
internationally a accepted
strategy
accepted has techniques
been
techniques in
devised
in the
the tofield to
implement
field to monitor
monitor the volume
volume
The
volumeUFG of
of
ofisgas
gas
gas available
available
defined as
available the to
to
to a
a transmission/distribution
transmission/distribution
difference
a between
transmission/distribution the total
internationally accepted techniques in the field to monitor volume of gas available to a transmission/distribution
and
and reduce
reduce these losses. Currently,
Currently, inPakistan is facing the
the system and the volume
internationally
and
worst
reduce
energy
these
theseaccepted
crisis
losses.techniques
losses.
in
Currently,
natural gas
the field
Pakistan
Pakistan
sector,
is to
is
resulting
monitor
facing
facing
in
the
huge
volume
system of
system andgas
and the volume toof
theavailable
volume ofa gas
of sold/billed
sold/billed (SNGTI,
transmission/distribution
gas
gas sold/billed (SNGTI,
(SNGTI,
worst
and
worst energy
worstreduce
energythese
energy crisis
crisis in
crisislosses. natural
in natural
in natural gas
Currently, sector,
Pakistan
gas sector,
gas sector, resulting
resulting
resulting in
is facing huge
in huge
in huge 2016).
the system
2016). In
2016). In
Inandother
other
other words,
the words,
volumethe
words, the amount
theofamount of
of gas
gas disappeared
gas sold/billed
amount of gas (SNGTI,
disappeared
disappeared
importenergy
import
worst
import (Ahmed,
(Ahmed,
(Ahmed, crisis2013).
2013). One gas
One
in natural
2013). One of the
of
of the
sector,
the mainresulting
main
main reason inof
reason
reason of huge
of this 2016).
this
this during
during supply
In otheris
supply known
is words,
known the as
as UFG
UFGamount loss.
loss.of gas disappeared
import (Ahmed, 2013). One of the main reason of this during supply is known as UFG loss.
energy
energy
import crisis
crisis
(Ahmed,
energy crisis
crisis is
is the
the
2013).
is the
the huge
huge
hugeOne volumetric
volumetric
of the main
volumetric loss
loss
loss inin
in
in the
the
reason form
form
the formof this
form of
of International
of during benchmark
supply benchmark
International is known asof
benchmark of
ofUFG UFG
UFGloss. is
is 2%2% whereas
whereas UFG UFG
energy is huge volumetric loss the of International UFG is 2% whereas UFG
Unaccounted
Unaccounted
energy
Unaccountedcrisis forfor
for
is the
for Gas
Gas
Gashuge (UFG).
(UFG).
(UFG). Recently,
Recently,
volumetric
Recently, SSGC
SSGC
lossSSGC
in thehas
SSGC has
has
hasformtaken
taken
taken of both
of International
of both Pakistani
both Pakistani companies
benchmark
Pakistani companiesof UFG (SNGPL
is 2% and
(SNGPL and
whereas
and SSGC)
SSGC) UFG is
is
Unaccounted Gas (UFG). Recently, taken of companies (SNGPL SSGC) is
several serious
several
Unaccounted
several seriousforinitiatives
serious initiatives
Gas
initiatives to control
to
(UFG).
to control
Recently,
control this SSGC
this
this rapid increase
rapid
rapid increase
has
increase takenin of
in
in above
above
both
above 10%
10%
10% (Tribune,
(Tribune,
Pakistani
(Tribune, 2013).
2013).
companies
2013). UFG
UFG
UFG (SNGPLof
of
of SNGPL
SNGPL
SNGPLand for
for
SSGC)
for fiscal
fiscal
fiscalis
several
the UFG serious
UFG percentage.
percentage.initiatives
Among to control this
other measures,
measures, rapid increase
surveying in
of above 10% (Tribune, 2013). UFG of SNGPL for fiscal
the year 2015-16
year 2015-16
2015-16 was 10.97%
was 10.97%
10.97% resulting
resulting in 4.28
in 4.28 billion
4.28forbillion
billion
the UFG
several
the UFGserious
percentage.
percentage. Among
initiatives
Among
Among other
other measures,
to control
other this rapidsurveying
measures, increase of
surveying
surveying in above
of
of year
year 10% (Tribune,
2015-16 was
was 2013). UFG
10.97% resulting
resultingof SNGPLin
in 4.28 fiscal
billion
gas
the
gas leakage
UFG
leakage detection
percentage.
detection and
Among
and rehabilitation
other measures,
rehabilitation of
of the pipeline
surveying
the pipeline of cubic
cubic
year
cubic feet
feet
2015-16
feet (BCF)
(BCF)
(BCF) was of
of
of volumetric
volumetric
10.97%
volumetric loss
loss
resulting
loss and
and
in
and 2.49
2.49
4.28
2.49 billion
billion
billion
gas leakage detection and rehabilitation of the pipeline cubic feet (BCF) of volumetric loss and 2.49 billion
network are
are of top
top priority and (Zafar, 2010).
2010). Theftof theof gas
gas can
can (PKR) financial
(BCF)loss (SNGTI,
gas leakage
network
network
be
are
identified
detection
of
of top
and
priority
priority
controlled
rehabilitation
(Zafar,
(Zafar,
through
2010). Theft
Theft
establishment
of pipeline
of gas
of
can
a
cubic
(PKR) feet
(PKR) financial
financial loss
loss (SNGTI, 2016).
of volumetric
(SNGTI, loss and
2016).
2016). Related
2.49 to
Related
Related to
to this
billion
this
this
be identified
network are ofand
be identified
be identified and
and controlled
top controlled
priority (Zafar,
controlled through
through
through2010). establishment
Theft of gasof
establishment
establishment of a study,
ofcanaa (PKR)
study,
study, only
financial
only
only one
one
one research
loss
research
research(SNGTI,has
has
has been
2016).
been
been found
found
found wherein
Related
wherein
whereinto six
this
six
six
centralized
centralized
be database
database
identifieddatabase
centralized to
to
and controlled
database profile
profile
to profile
profile all
all
through
all gasgas
gas customers
customers
establishment
gas customers ofand and
and sigma
anda study, technique
only one research
sigma technique
technique is used
is used
used to to identify
hasidentify
to been found
identify faulty gas
faulty wherein meters
gas meters six
meters
centralized
identify sites
sitesdatabase
that has to
hastoany
any all
abnormality customers
using risk-based sigma is faulty gas
identify
centralized
identify
identify sites
sites that
that
that has
has any
any abnormality
profile all gas using
abnormality
abnormality customers
using
using risk-based
risk-based
risk-based (Mughal,
and sigma
(Mughal,
(Mughal, 2009).
technique
2009). is
2009). No
Noused
No research
to identify
research
research has
has been
has faulty
been
been conducted
gas meters
conducted
conducted to
to
to
analysis
analysis
identify (Wallace,
(Wallace,
analysis sites
(Wallace,that has2011).
2011).
2011). Since
Since
any Since the
the
abnormality
Since installation
installation
the installation
installation of
of
using risk-based first
first address
address
first (Mughal,
of first address and and
and
and control
control
2009).
control overall
overall
Nooverall
research
overall UFG
UFG
UFG losses
losses
haslosses
been of
losses of
of SNGPL.
SNGPL.
ofconducted
SNGPL. In In
In
to
In
analysis (Wallace, 2011). the of address control UFG SNGPL.
meter in
meter in field,
field, unscrupulous people start
start attempting
attempting to to alter
alter developed
developed countries,
countries, the issue
the issue
issue of UFG
of UFG
UFG has been
has been
been
meter in
meter in field,
analysis (Wallace,
field, unscrupulous
2011). Since
unscrupulous
unscrupulous people
peoplethe
people startinstallation
start attempting of
attempting to alter
to first address
alter developed
developed and countries,
control overall
countries, the
the UFG losses
issue of
of UFG of SNGPL.
has
has beenIn
meters
meters
meter
meters in to
to steal
steal
field,
to steal utility-provided
utility-provided
unscrupulous
utility-provided people resources
resources
start
resources (McCullough,
(McCullough,
attempting to
(McCullough, alter addressed
addressed
developed
addressed in
in
in gas
gas
countries,
gas transmission
transmission
the
transmission issue networks
networks
of
networks UFG where
where
has
where NBT
NBT
been
NBT
meters to steal utility-provided resources (McCullough, addressed in gas transmission networks where NBT
2010). Intoorder
meters order to know
stealto know severity of of the
the issue, (McCullough, has
detailed trend addressed been
has been implemented
been implemented
implemented to calculate
to calculate
calculate losses
losses (Arpino,
(Arpino,
2010).
2010). InIn order to utility-provided
severity ofresources
know severity the issue,
issue, detailed
detailed trend
trend hashas been in gas transmission
implemented to
to networks
calculate losses
losses where NBT
(Arpino,
(Arpino,
analysis
2010).
analysis
analysis In of
of UFG
order
UFG
ofinUFG to of
of SNGPL
know
SNGPL
of 1.SNGPLseverityhas
has been
of
been
has been the carried
issue,
carried
carried outout
detailed
out which
whichtrend
whichfor is
is 2014).
has
2014).
is 2014). been implemented to calculate losses (Arpino,
presentedof
presented
analysis
presented in
inUFGFigure
Figure
Figure of 1. Month-wise
Month-wise
1.SNGPL
Month-wise comparison
comparison
has been carried out
comparison of losses
of
of losses
whichfor
losses is 2014).
for
presented in Figure 1. Month-wise comparison of losses for
presented©in2018,
2405-8963 IFAC1.(International
Figure Month-wiseFederation
comparison of Automatic
of lossesControl)
for Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Peer review©
Copyright
Copyright ©under
2018 responsibility
2018 IFAC
IFAC of International Federation of Automatic
253Control.
253
Copyright
Copyright ©
© 2018
2018 IFAC
IFAC 253
253
10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.284
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 253
IFAC INCOM 2018
254
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Muhammad Shafiq et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 253–258

Figure 1: Month-wise UFG loss of SNGPL

The gas losses in gas distribution networks has not
been addressed so far. UFG in Italian networks normally
ranges from 0.2% to 0.5%. In last 10 years, average annual
value of UFG in US is 0.6%. In Pakistan, Oil and Gas
Regulatory Authority (OGRA) is the ruling body to define
UFG benchmark. In difference to international benchmark of
2%, UFG benchmark defined by OGRA for fiscal year (FY)
2015-16 was 4.5%. However, actual UFG of SNGPL for FY
2015-16 was 10.97% resulting in 4.28 BCF of volumetric and
2.49 Billion PRs of financial loss. The above values shows
the significance of addressing the issue of controlling UFG
losses in SNGPL because of clear deviance from local as well
as international standards. Hence, the focus of this study
is to determine
UFG in gas networks.
2. METHODOLOGY
To identify losses in a gas distribution network of
Rawalpindi Region through network balancing
technique (NBT), the study is completed adopting the
following steps:
1. The detailed study of gas distribution network
of the Rawalpindi Region.
2. Identification of localities (as a requirement of
NBT) where town border station (TBS) is
installed and gas network isn’t
looped/connected with gas network of locality
falling under some other TBS. After detailed
analysis, the locality of Defence Housing
Authority II (DHA II) is selected.
3. The installation of a gas measuring gadget on
TBS DHA II to determine the volume of gas
passed into the network.
4. The collection of gas consumption data in
selected region (DHA II) to find out exact
volume of gas billed to the consumers.
5. A mathematical model is used to calculate
UFG using data reconciliation technique (
Oliveira, 2015).
6. Site survey of hundred consumers to identify
contributing factors which are: leakage 17%,
measurement error 2% and gas theft 2%.
7. Remedial actions to address the issues.
8. The UFG of the selected locality is calculated
again to identify impact of the remedial
actions taken. The results show a reasonable
decrease in consumptions, i.e., the gas passed
through TBS due to rectification of leakages
and thus reducing UFG of the locality.
The scanning of the whole locality on individual
consumer basis for possibility of more problematic
sites can bring a considerable decrease in volume of
gas consumed thus improving profit of the
organization. This technique can later on be used
anywhere on the distribution network for reduction of
UFG losses. Although, work has been carried out for
addressing cross country transmission networks, however, in
developing countries like Pakistan where extensive gas
distribution network (95,000 Km approx.) is laid, the need of
the hour is to devise a technique which can be implemented
to identify and reduce gas losses in gas distribution networks
of Pakistan. The scope of work is limited to the gas
distribution network of SNGPL, Rawalpindi region. The
framework of this study to determine is illustrated in Figure
2.
3. EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
A town border station (TBS) is installed on supply
pipeline as shown in Figure 3.
Gas Measuring Meter
Figure 3: Installed gas meter at TBS

254
 IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Muhammad Shafiq et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 253–258 255
Figure 2: Framework to determine UFG
3.1 Mathematical Modelling
Line pack has been calculated both by thumb rule and
using scientific formula. After collecting TBS and gas
consumers’ data of th e locality of DHA II, a
mathematical model has been developed considering
data reconciliation technique (Arpino, 2010). The
mathematical model developed to calculate UFG
values of the locality is given in equation (1).
I = C D +C C +G P +ΔLP+UFG ……….……………….. (1)
Where,
I=Total gas supplied through TBS of DHA II
C D =Volume of gas used by the domestic consumers
C C =Volume of gas used by the commercial consumers
G P =Volume of the gas lost into atmosphere due to
rupture of pipelines by third party
ΔLP=Volume of gas packed into lines i.e., line pack
UFG=Unaccounted for Gas losses of the locality
The above mathematical model is formulated using
data reconciliation technique. As per data
reconciliation technique, if a network is isolated then
the amount of gas entering into the network must be
accounted for such that a “balance” of network is
created. Hence, if “I” amount of gas is passed through
TBS then this amount of gas should be part of the
following, i.e., domestic/commercial consumption, gas
lost into atmosphere due to line rapture, and the
amount of gas packed in the pipelines. If “I” amount
of gas is passed through TBS is not part of any of the
above mentioned categories then it would definitely be
unaccounted for gas in the form of UFG.
3.2 Line Pack Calculation
The line pack is the amount of gas present in
distribution network. The line pack calculation is
255
necessary, otherwise, it would be considered as part of
UFG. The line pack can be determined using thumb
rule; a formula developed by practical experiences at
field and is widely adopted in oil and gas industry.
The rule of thumb to calculate line pack in gas
industry is given in equation (2).
ΔLP= (D 2 ×P×0.372) …….………………………….. (2)
Where
ΔLP=Approx. number of cubic feet of gas in 1000 feet
of pipeline
D=Diameter of pipeline in inches
P=Gauge pressure of gas in pounds per square inch
(psi)
Now, the line pack using formula given in equation
(3).
ΔLP=28.798×(Tb / Pb)×(Pavg / Zavg Tavg)×(D2 L) … (3)
Where
ΔLP=Volume of gas packed in the pipeline
Tb=Temperature at base conditions i.e. 60F
Pb=Pressure at base conditions i.e. 14.65 psia
Pavg=Average pressure of gas calculated through measuring
gadget at TBS
Zavg=Average value of compressibility factor
Tavg=Average temperature of gas calculated through
measuring gadget at TBS
D=Diameter of the pipeline
L=Length of the pipeline
3.3 Comparison of both volumes
Line pack has been calculated using equations (2) and (3) and
the results obtained are presented in Table 1.
IFAC INCOM 2018
256
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Muhammad Shafiq et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 253–258

Table 1: Comparison of line pack (LP) Table 3: Month-wise readings of gas passed from TBS
LP LP Final TBS Vol.
Month Difference Month Initial Reading
(Th. Rule) (Formula) Reading (Hm3)
16-Jan 5.19 5.27 -0.08 Jan-16 39299669 77970390 10961
16-Feb 6.03 6.04 -0.01 Feb-16 77970390 107155292 8272
16-Mar 7.71 7.67 0.04 Mar-16 107155292 128921396 6170
16-Apr 9.81 9.59 0.22 Apr-16 128921396 145027083 4565
16-May 8.27 7.91 0.36 May-16 145027083 156437624 3234
16-Jun 9.67 9.18 0.49 Jun-16 156437624 168449108 3405
16-Jul 9.81 9.38 0.43 Jul-16 168449108 180842968 3513
16-Aug 9.53 9.15 0.38 Aug-16 180842968 194869604 3976
16-Sep 9.25 8.88 0.37 Sep-16 194869604 206258841 3228
16-Oct 8.83 8.6 0.23 Oct-16 206258841 223079340 4768
16-Nov 8.27 8.24 0.03 Nov-16 223079340 245605911 6385
16-Dec 7.43 7.49 -0.06 Dec-16 245605911 278557840 9340
17-Jan 7.01 7.13 -0.12 Jan-17 278557840 320155897 11791
17-Feb 7.99 8.01 -0.02 Feb-17 320155897 349380580 8284
17-Mar 16.82 16.62 0.2 Mar-17 349380580 372785332 6634

3.4 Calculation of UFG: 3.5 Significance of UFG

UFG has been calculated using equation (1). The values of
line pack obtained from equations (2) and (3) have been used
to calculate difference in value of UFG because of both the
line pack techniques, i.e., thumb rule and scientific formula.
The results are given in Table 2.
Table 2: Month wise UFG values using both formulas
The significance of each contributing factor to UFG has been
determined using hypothesis testing. For this, site surveys
have been carried out and a sample of 100 consumers are
checked at filed on individual basis. The results of the survey
are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Factors contributing to UFG Losses

Thumb Rule Scientific Formula Sr. Anomaly # of Site Having % age of

#. Observed Problems Problems
Month
(Hm3) (%age) (Hm3) (%age) 1 Gas Leakages 17 17 %
Measurement
2 2 2%
16-Jan 2257 20.59 2257 20.59 Errors
16-Feb 1686 20.39 1686 20.39 3 Suspected Meters 2 2%
16-Mar 1254 20.33 1254 20.33
16-Apr 1325 29.03 1325 29.03 Table 4 shows the number of sites where problems have been
16-May 1294 40.03 1295 40.05 identified during survey. The most critical issue is leakages
16-Jun 1282 37.66 1283 37.67 contributing 17%. These leakages result into wastage of gas
16-Jul 1169 33.28 1169 33.29 into atmosphere which is dangerous for environment and may
16-Aug 1778 44.73 1778 44.74 lead to explosions as well.
16-Sep 1100 34.1 1101 34.11 Various types of leakages detected, one of such type of
16-Oct 1339 28.09 1339 28.09 leakage just before the regulator is shown in Figure 4.
16-Nov 1005 15.74 1005 15.74
16-Dec 1452 15.55 1452 15.55
17-Jan 1203 10.21 1203 10.21
17-Feb 1022 12.34 1022 12.34
17-Mar 583 8.80 583 8.80

From Table 2, there is no significant difference in

UFG because the value of line pack is very small due
to which its impact on overall UFG is negligible.
After carrying out the load study in DHA II, amount of
the gas passed through TBS and consumed by the
customers is noted to conduct further analyses. The
volume of the gas (month-wise) passed through TBS
of DHA II is presented in Table 3.
Figure 4: Leakage of gas just before the regulator
Measurement errors have been found at two sites because of
the malfunctioning of the gas meters. In reality, the gas was
passing through the meters but not recorded which ultimately
contribute to UFG loss. Figure 5 shows the picture of a
malfunctioned meter.

256
 IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018 Muhammad Shafiq et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 253–258 257

Suspected meters are those which are doubtful of being

tampered to steal the gas. These meters are checked in
laboratory to identify tempering. In this meter (Figure 6), the
rusty digit roll clearly shows that the covering glass has been
removed and then re-fixed.

3.6 Calculation of UFG after Taking Remedial Actions

After rectifications of anomalies at detected (21) sites, UFG

Figure 5: Malfunctioned meter (not registering gas passed) is calculated again to find out the impact of remedial actions.
These types of meter are known as sticky meters and the only Table 6: UFG before and after remedial actions
remedy to this problem is to replace with new meters. The
UFG UFG
reason of these meters to get sticky is wear and tear of gears Months
(Hm3) (%age) Remarks
inside the meter. The wear and tear may be because of age or
17-Feb 1022 12.34 Before
a sudden jerk of flow on meter.
17-Mar 583 8.80 After
Moreover, theft through access/damage to sealed area of the
meter is detected as shown in Figure 6.
From Table 6, the difference in UFG before (Feb) and after
(March) remedial actions is 439 Hm3. The remedial actions
saved 439 Hm3 in a period of just one month.
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis testing has been carried out to calculate
significance of UFG and each contributing factor before and
after taking remedial actions. The results of hypothesis tests
Figure 6: Suspected meter with digit roll rubbed are given in Table 7.

Table 7: Significance of the UFG and contributing factors

p-
Sr.# Significance of s Ho H1 α t-value Remarks
value
UFG before remedial Null hypothesis
1 7 37.62 μ=37.62 μ < 37.62 0.05 -1.86 / -3.55 -
actions is rejected.
0.10 < p
2 Leakages 17 0.27 - - - 1.23 significant
< 0.15
3 Measurement Error 2 0.27 - - - 0.69 p =0.20 Less significant
4 Theft of Gas 2 0.27 - - - 1.46 p =0.20 Less significant
UFG after remedial Null hypothesis
5 5 37.62 μ=37.62 μ < 37.62 0.05 -2.77 / -3.6
actions - is rejected.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Volumetric and Financial Loss before Remedial Actions 4.2 Volumetric and Financial Gain after Remedial Actions

UFG calculations of the selected locality have been carried After remedial actions, the UFG loss for the month of March-
out to figure out the loss in the confined locality. Volumetric 2017 was reduced 8.8% resulting in volumetric savings of
UFG loss for the month of Febraury-2017 was 1022 Hm3, 439 Hm3.
i.e., 12.34%. As the domestic rate of consumers has different The financial savings are given in Table 9. It is evident that
slab rates according to the gas consumption of the user. The saving of 7,549 rupees is achieved in a period of just one
financial loss for the month of February is given in Table 8. month in a small locality of DHA II. The impact can be huge
after implementation on whole SNGPL network.
Table 8: Financial Impact before remedial actions Table 9: Financial savings (PKR) after remedial actions
Sr. Gas Slab Rate Financial Loss
# Consumption (PKR) in Feb 2017 (PKR) Sr. Gas Slab Loss in Savings in
1 Up to 1 Hm3 110 4,221 # Consumption Rate Mar-17 Mar- 17
2 1 to 3 Hm3 220 8,442 1 Upto 1 Hm3 110 2,837 1,384
3 Above 3 Hm3 600 23,025 2 1 to 3 Hm3 220 5,674 2,768
3 Above 3 Hm3 600 15,475 7,549

257
IFAC INCOM 2018
Bergamo, Italy, June 11-13, 2018
258 Muhammad Shafiq et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-11 (2018) 253–258
Figure 7: Volumetric and Financial Savings to SNGPL
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The biggest issue of SNGPL is the financial loss faced by the
company in respect of UFG. The challenge therefore was to
address this issue by reducing UFG losses of the company.
Data reconciliation and network balancing techniques were
implemented to identify UFG and contributing factors in
selected locality of DHA II. Leakage is found to be the
largest contributor of UFG following measurement error and
theft. The remedial actions has also been taken as part of this
study which results in reduction of UFG (DHA II) from 1022
Hm3 (12.34%) to 583 Hm3 (8.80%), i.e., savings of 439 Hm3
in a period of one month only.
The extrapolation of current framework of identification and
remedial actions to whole SNGPL network can result in huge
savings thus increasing profit of the organization. The scope
of this study is limited to DHA II region comprising 3875
consumers which contributed a net profit of 7,549 rupees
(after remedial actions). This saving of 7,549 rupees against
3875 consumers shows that when it would be calculated
against 5.3 million consumers of SNGPL then savings would
be in millions of rupees.
Therefore, it is recommended that SNGPL must allocate
additional resources to implement this technique not only in
Rawalpindi region but throughout SNGPL.
Since, the perquisite to this technique is that gas network
must be isolated, therefore, initiatives must be taken by
SNGPL to make network isolated by removing looping of
network.
REFERENCES
SNGTI, S. (2016). UFG Controllable and Un Controllable
Factors. SNGPL Officers.
Ahmed, A., Chaudhry, A. G., Farooq, H., & Riaz, A. (2013).
Short Fall of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and
Issues Of Affected Community; An Anthropological
Perspective. Sci. Int (Lahore), 25(3), 623-626.
Arpino, F., Dell'Isola, M., Ficco, G., & Vigo, P. (2014).
Unaccounted for gas in natural gas transmission
networks: prediction model and analysis of the
258
View publication stats
solutions. Journal of Natural Gas Science and
Engineering, 17, 58-70.
Arpino, F. C., L. (2010). Unaccounted for gas in natural gas
transport networks.
Dawn, D. (2015). Natural Gas.
http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImag
e=04_10_2015_427_002
de Oliveira, E. C., Frota, M. N., & de Oliveira Barreto, G.
(2015). Use of data reconciliation: A strategy for
improving the accuracy in gas flow measurements.
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering,
22, 313-320.
Limited, S. N. G. P. (2015). Anual Report 2015 Retrieved
from
http://www.sngpl.com.pk/download/AnnualReport-
2015/SNGPLAR-2015.pdf
McCullough, J. (2010). Deterrent and detection of smart grid
meter tampering and theft of electricity, water, or
gas.
Mughal, M., Saeed, N., & Pervaiz, M. (2009). Six sigma
methodology as a problem solving technique.
Journal of Quality and Technology Management,
5(I1).
Irfan Zafar, D. S. A. N. a. D. S. J. H. K. (2010). GIS Helps
Identify “Red Zones” For Gas Leakage In Pakistan.
Pipeline & Gas Journal, 237(9).
Tribune, T. E. (2013). OGRA right in dismissing demands
for higher UFG.
http://staging.tribune.com.pk/story/511914/ogra-
right-in-dismissing-demands-for-higher-ufg/
Wallace, A. (2011). Tackling gas theft.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-
publications/39192/gas-theft-consultation-112-
11.pdf