PSIG 0901 Important Aspects of Gas Temperature Modeling in Long Subsea Pipelines

Joakim Ramsen, Polytec, Norway (1) Svein-Erik Losnegrd, Polytec, Norway (1) Leif Idar Langelandsvik, Gassco, Norway (2) Are J. Simonsen, Dynavec AS, Norway (3) Willy Postvoll, Gassco, Norway (4)
Copyright 2009, Pipeline Simulation Interest Group This paper was prepared for presentation at the PSIG Annual Meeting held in Galveston, Texas, May 12 May 15 2009. 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
Gassco supplies Norwegian natural gas to the European market through nearly 5,000 miles of large-diameter highpressure subsea pipelines. In 2007 3106 MMSCF of gas were exported from the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS). During the winter, demand for gas usually exceeds the estimated transport capacity of the pipelines. More accurate modeling of the flow can lead to improved use of available network capacity. The pipelines in Gasscos network are typically 200 560 miles long, and the gas temperature is only measured at the inlet and outlet. Consequently, the calculated gas temperature along the pipeline depends on the accuracy of the assumed ambient temperature and the estimated heat transfer. This paper mainly focuses on heat transfer modeling, and how this affects the estimated gas temperature. The importance of a correct total heat transfer coefficient for different conditions has been studied, and the most important parameters associated with this coefficient have been identified. A recommendation regarding which parameters to focus on under different conditions such as different burial depths and flow rates is given.

The Norwegian export pipelines are between 200 and 560 miles long, and have diameters up to 44 inches. Pressure transmitters, flow meters and temperature measurements are only located at the inlet and at the outlet. To know the state of the gas between those two points one has to rely solely on computer models and simulators, which are very important in order to obtain optimal operation of the pipelines. The computer models are used for general monitoring of the gas transport, providing estimated arrival times for possibly unwanted quality disturbances and pigs, predictive simulations when the operational conditions changes and for transport capacity calculations. The transport capacity is usually made available to the shippers of the gas many years in advance, and accurate calculations early in a pipelines lifetime are appreciated and valuable. High accuracy in the transport capacity calculations is important to ensure optimal utilization of invested capital in the pipeline infrastructure. The calculations need to be as close to, but not higher than, the true capacity as possible. This will ensure optimal utilization of invested capital. As soon as a pipeline is built, the true capacity is determined by the diameter, length, available inlet compression, gas temperature and other physical parameters. A lot of effort is put in to estimate this capacity figure exactly. In 2004 a research program was launched to optimize the gas transport modeling involving high flow rates, high pressures, large diameters and very low roughnesses. The R&D Foundation Polytec and Gassco have worked together for several years to optimize the gas transport modeling. In the project several subtasks have been conducted or are ongoing; to improve the friction factor correlation, viscosity measurements and implement new viscosity correlation, use of more accurate ambient temperatures and more accurate modeling of heat transfer. This paper will focus on work performed related to heat transfer. After realising that the simulation tool used in the project did not model the heat transfer for partially buried pipelines, a literature survey was conducted to identify an appropriate model. It seems that very few published articles discuss this topic [1, 2]. An analytical model [1] was identified, able to

INTRODUCTION
The Norwegian gas is transported in seven large diameter subsea pipelines to United Kingdom and continental Europe, covering around 15 % of the European natural gas consumption. The transportation network is operated by the state-owned company Gassco.

J. RAMSEN, S-E. LOSNEGRD

PSIG 0901

calculate the heat transfer for partially buried pipelines. This model, which has been evaluated by CFD simulations, has been used to calculate the gas temperature in partially buried pipelines. This paper starts with a system description, followed by a theory section about heat transfer including the most important equations used in pipeline gas temperature modeling. Then, the parameters determining the total heat transfer coefficient are studied. Also, the gas temperature responses for relevant total heat transfer coefficients are given. These responses are used to discuss the accuracy of gas temperature modeling and in particular the modeling of partially buried pipelines. Mainly, a constant ambient temperature profile is applied, but a scenario where the ambient temperature is increased over a short distance is also looked into. Only gas temperature modeling in connection with steady-state simulation is considered.

Theory
The general heat transfer equation The general heat transfer equation used by pipeline simulation software is given by Equation 1.

& = U A (T T ) Q amb gas

Where

Equation 1

& Q
U A Tamb

Heat transferred between the gas and the surrounding medium [Btu/h] Overall heat transfer coefficient [Btu/hftF] Surface area of the pipe [ft] Ambient temperature [F] Gas temperature [F]

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Typical characteristics of the Gassco operated pipelines: Pressure range: 700 3,000 psi Diameter: 30 45 inches Composition: 80 95 % Methane Length: 200 560 miles Flow rate: 700 2,120 MMSCF/d Roughness: ~104 inches, due to internal coating Location: Sea bed (Mostly partially buried) Sea depth: 150 100 ft Metering: Pressure, temperature, flow and composition at inlet and outlet Pipe materials: Steel, Asphalt Enamel and Concrete Total export 2007: 3106 MMSCF

Tgas

The total heat transfer coefficient, U, describes the conductive and convective heat transfer between the gas and the surroundings. Heat transfer with multiple wall layers Long subsea pipelines are usually coated with asphalt enamel and concrete for corrosion protection and bouancy stabilization. Thus, the thermal energy must pass through several shells to enter/exit the pipe. Assuming pure radial flow, these multiple resistances may be combined into a single heat transfer coefficient as shown in Equation 2.

r 1 N ro rn 1 U = o + ln r + h r h k i i n = 2 n n 1 o
Where

Equation 2

Overall heat transfer coefficient of a pipe with outer radius ro [Btu/hftF] Inner radius of pipe [ft] Outer radius of pipe [ft] Outer radius of wall layer n [ft] Conductivity of wall layer n [Btu/hftF] Inside heat transfer coefficient [Btu/hftF] Outside heat transfer coefficient [Btu/hftF]

ri ro rn kn hi ho
Figure 1: Typical pipeline cross section consisting of a steel pipe coated with ashphalt enamel and concrete

The outer film coefficient has to be determined according to the surroundings of the pipeline.

PSIG 0901

Important Aspects of Gas Temperature Modeling in Long Subsea Pipelines

Fully exposed pipelines For pipelines fully exposed to water the convective heat transfer is given by Equation 4, where the Nusselt number can be obtained from Equation 3. The latter equation yields for external flow across a cylinder for Reynolds numbers exceeding 200. This corresponds to velocities greater than 310-4 ft/s, for typical sea water properties and pipeline diameter.

U total =
Where

b U sea + 1 b U ground
H = arccos R

Equation 6

U total

Overall heat transfer coefficient [Btu/hftF]

b
R U sea U ground

Nu = 0.26 Re0.6 Pr 0.3

Where

Equation 3

Outer radius of pipeline [ft] Combination of U wall and convective heat transfer to the sea water [Btu/hftF] Combination of U wall and conductive heat transfer to the soil [Btu/hftF]

Nu Re Pr

Nusselt number Reynolds number Prandtl number

The Nusselt number can then be used to calculate the outside heat transfer coefficient.

ho =

Nu k sea do

Equation 4

C1 2 arctan 2 ( ) 2 b C2 1 b U ground R b = tan + k soil 2 C1 1 ln ( ) 2 1 C2 b b b tan 2

C2 + 1 b tan C2 1

; C 2 > 1

1 C2 1 + C2 ; C 2 < 1 1 C2 1 + C2

Where

Equation 7 Thermal conductivity of sea water [Btu/hftF] Outer diameter [ft] Where

k sea do

C1
Buried pipelines For buried pipelines the outside heat transfer coefficient is given by Equation 5.

C2
Bi

2k soil ho =

ln x + x 2 1

do

Equation 5

H = 1 R H C1 = + R b Bi U R = wall k soil

Evaluation of the Morud model Figure 2 shows the form of Equation 6 and Equation 7 for a typical Bi number. Equation 6 has been verified through comparison with a CFD analysis for five different degrees of burial, and Bi numbers ranging from 0.01 to 1000. The result is shown in Figure 3. As seen in the figure the difference is generally low and stays below 10% for most burial depths and and Bi numbers investigated. It is seen that for high Bi numbers and large degree of burial, H/R 1, the error increase. This is due to a much larger conductivity within the pipe wall than at the outside, leading to a large heat flow in the circumferential direction. Heat flow in the circumferential direction is not accounted for in the Morud model. Pipe wall thickness also plays a role in accuracy of the model. Increase in pipe wall thickness also leads to more heat flow in the circumferential

Where

k soil
x

Thermal conductivity of the soil [Btu/hftF]

= 2H

do

Distance from center of pipeline to sea floor [ft]

Partially buried pipelines An analytical model has been used to model the heat transfer in partially buried pipelines. This model was developed by J. C. Morud [1]. It is described by Equation 6, from which Usea is given by combining Equation 2 and Equation 4 and Uground is given by Equation 7. Figure 6 illustrates how the burial depth is defined.

J. RAMSEN, S-E. LOSNEGRD

PSIG 0901

direction, and thereby increase the error. A final remark is concerning the common use of a linear interpolation between the fully buried and fully exposed cases to obtain U total . The heat transfer, as a function of burial depth, becomes less linear as the Bi number increases. For high Bi number a linear assumption therefore is less accurate.
3.5 3 UsoilR/k soil 2.5 2 1.5 1 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

& =m & C p (T2 T1 ) Q

Where

Equation 8

& m Cp

Mass flow rate [lb/s] Specific heat capacity [Btu/lbF] Exit temperature after a distance L [F] Inlet temperature [F]

a)

Bi=5

T2 T1

According to Mohitpour et al [3] the gas temperature profile can be estimated by combining Equation 1 and Equation 8. The resulting equation (see Equation 9) has been used to calculate the gas temperature profiles given later in this paper.

5 4 UtotR/k soil 3 2 1 -1

b)

T2 =

T1 Tamb + j / a + Tamb j / a e aL

Equation 9

Where
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 H/R 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 2: Normallized heat transfer coefficients for a typical Bi number. a) Transfer coefficient to the ground (Equation 7). b) Total transfer coefficient (Equation 6).

Tamb j L
a
d U

Ambient temperature [F] Joule-Thomson coefficient per length [F/ft] Length [ft]

d U
& Cp m

Diameter [ft] Total heat transfer coefficient [Btu/hftF]

(Utot,Eq 5.-(Utot,cfd )/(Utot,cfd

-5

-10

-15

Note that specific heat capacity, pressure drop per length and Joule-Thomson coefficient, j , is assumed constant, see Table 1. In reality these will typically change as a function of pressure and temperature which again change as a function of distance.
H/R=-1 H/R=-0.5 H/R=0 H/R=0.5 H/R=1

-20

Table 1: Assumed values for some important parameters for calculating the gas temperature Parameter j , low flow
10
0

-25

Typical value 3.0 E-06 1.8 E-05 0.76

Unit F/ft F/ft Btu/lbF

-30 -2 10

10

-1

10 Bi

10

10

j , high flow Cp

Figure 3 : Difference in % between numerical and analytical analysis, Equation 6, of the heat transfer from five partly buried pipes. Gas temperature profile The heat exchange with the environment described above leads to a change in gas temperature along the pipeline. This temperature change is described by Equation 8.

Qualitative description of gas temperature profiles As can be seen from Equation 9 the gas temperature profile will level out after some distance. The temperature after this point is called the equilibrium temperature (Teq), see Figure 7. This Teq can be calculated by letting L go to infinity in Equation 9, which gives Equation 10.

PSIG 0901

Important Aspects of Gas Temperature Modeling in Long Subsea Pipelines

Teq = Tamb j / a = Tamb

d U

& Cp jm

Equation 10

This is given in Table 3. Table 3: Properties of surrounding medium Value Sea water Density, s 63.05 Conductivity, ks 0.33 Viscosity, s 1.05 Sp. heat capacity, cps 1.00 Sea current, us 0.33 Re ~105 Soil Ground conductivity, ksoil 1.16 Parameter Unit lb/ft Btu/hftF cP Btu/lbF ft/s Btu/hftF

At the inlet, after compression, the gas temperature will typically be higher than the ambient temperature (Zone A in Figure 7). Due to heat transfer, plus a minor contribution from the Joule-Thomson effect, the gas temperature will drop with distance. In this region, use of a too high U-value in the model will give a too low simulated gas temperature. After a certain distance the gas temperature reaches the ambient temperature (Zone B in Figure 7). Without the JTeffect the gas temperature would now be more or less equal to the ambient temperature. But since the JT-effect is present the gas temperature will decrease below the ambient temperature. The resulting difference between Tamb and the gas temperature will depend on, as can be seen from Equation 10, the heat transfer (U-value), JT-coefficient and flow rate. The higher the flow rate the higher JT-effect due to higher pressure drop per length. A too high estimated U-value in this zone results in a too high simulated gas temperature. Zone C describes the last kilometres, near the coast line. In this zone the pipeline is typically totally buried, which means that the heat transfer is low. Also, due to higher velocities in this section the pressure drop per length will be higher near the outlet compared to the rest of the pipeline. Consequently, the gas temperature drops further toward a lower Teq. Zone C is relatively short for the studied pipelines. This paper will focus on Zone B in the following, as this represents the main part of the pipeline.

The most difficult properties to obtain are the actual sea current at the ocean floor and the ground conductivity. The velocity of the sea current, changes with time and position, while the ground conductivity depends on type of soil, density, porosity etc. In this paper, for simplicity, they are assumed to be constant. Sensitivity The influence of different parameters on U-value can be seen in Table 9, where the differences in U-value between the base case and the sensitivities are given. It is shown that the thickness and conductivity of concrete has much more impact on the total U-value than any of the other properties. Only the conductivity of the corrosion coating and the soil influence the U-value to a comparable extent. The effects from the other properties are practically neglible.

THE U-VALUE
The heat transfer in a pipeline is given by Equation 1. This section identifies the parameters that determine the U-value at different burial depths. The U-value is, in addition to burial depth, dependent on the convective heat transfer at the inside and outside of the pipeline and the conductive heat transfer through the wall layers. In Table 2 the properties of a standard pipeline are given. This pipeline defines the base case in this analysis. Table 2: Definition of wall layers for a standard pipeline Wall layer Steel Corrosion coating (AE) Concrete Thickness [inches] 1.07 0.24 3.94 Conductivity [Btu/hftF] 28.9 0.4 1.16

GAS TEMPERATURE PROFILES

Equation 9 has been used to calculate the gas temperature profile when the pipeline is fully exposed to sea water and totally buried. The gas temperature profiles for partially buried pipelines will, of course, be within this span. The cases are defined in Table 4. Case 1-2 are for low flow (~7 ft/s) and Case 3-4 are for high flow (~16 ft/s). A typical JT-coefficient per length, j , is used for the different flows (defined in Table 1). Standard pipeline configuration and surrounding medium properties were used (see Table 2 and Table 3). It is assumed that the gas temperature for all cases is equal to the ambient temperature (Zone B) at the inlet. Table 4: Cases to study the influence of U on gas temperature. Standard pipeline is used to find U Case 1 2 Flow Low Low Ambient temperature Constant Constant Burial depth totally buried exposed U [Btu/hftF] 0.49 3.13

The inner diameter of the pipeline is set to 40. To determine the outer heat film coefficient, based on Equation 2, a set of parameters for the surrounding medium has to be defined.

J. RAMSEN, S-E. LOSNEGRD

PSIG 0901

3 4 5 6

High High High High

Constant Constant Increasing Increasing

totally buried exposed totally buried exposed

0.49 3.13 0.49 3.13

Low flow Figure 8 shows the gas temperature profiles for case 1 and 2. Constant ambient temperature along the pipeline is assumed. It is shown that the burial depth does not have a significant effect on the simulated gas temperature at low flows. The difference in calculated gas temperature (Teq) between Case 1 and 2 is only about 0.65 F. Thus, for situations where the pressure drop and flow are low, the uncertainties due to heat transfer are considered to be low compared to other uncertainties. The following parts of this paper will therefore focus on high flow. High flow The two high flow and high pressure drop cases give quite different gas temperature profiles compared to low flow (see Figure 9). It can be seen that as the U-value decreases the distance to reach Teq increases. Up to 15.5 miles the two cases give quite similar gas temperatures. From this point the difference in gas temperatures increases with length, see Table 5. Table 5: Difference in gas temperature at different distances Distance [miles] 31 62 124 311 T , Case 4 Case 3 [F] 1.8 3.2 6.0 9.2 Figure 4: Sea bottom temperatures [C] for August 21st 2002, estimated by the Shelf-seas model [5]. Figure 10 illustrates the situation described in the text above. The differences in gas temperature along the pipeline are given in Table 6. Table 6: Gas temperature deviation when ambient temperature increases Distance [miles] 31 62 124 311 T , Case 6 Case 5 [F] 3.4 5.2 7.2 9.4

Consequently, for high flow cases it is significant to use a correct U-value to model an accurate gas temperature profile. Increasing ambient temperature Typically, the major parts of the pipelines are resting at great water depths. Hence, the elevation profile can be quite steep as the pipeline approaches landfall. As the sea bottom temperature depends on the water depth the pipeline can face an abrupt increase in ambient temperature, especially during the warmest months. A temperature change of 3.6 F or more within a few kilometres is not unusual. This is illustrated in Figure 4.

When comparing Table 5 and Table 6 it is seen that the difference in temperature, due to different U-values, deviate quicker when the ambient temperature changes. Consequently, the temperature deviation imposed by setting a wrong U-value increase compared to a constant ambient temperature situation. Partially buried pipeline The previous section showed that the gas temperature profile for a fully exposed pipeline can be quite different compared to a totally buried pipeline, especially for long pipelines where the ambient temperature changes along the pipeline. This indicates that the degree of burial depth is significant to the calculated gas temperature. Table 7 shows typical U-values for partially buried pipelines at given burial depths. The U-values are calculated by use of the Morud model [1]. The standard pipeline properties were

PSIG 0901

Important Aspects of Gas Temperature Modeling in Long Subsea Pipelines

used. In the Low conductivity case the wall and ground conductivities have been decreased to what is considered to be the minimum values, hence representing the lowest realistic U-values. Table 7: U-values for different burial depths Burial depth (H/R) Totally buried 0.75 0.25 0 -0.25 -0.75 exposed U-value [Btu/hftF] Base case Low conductivity 0.49 0.25 1.25 0.67 1.69 0.93 1.9 1.06 2.11 1.18 2.62 1.48 3.13 1.78

the last part, correct modeling of this part is more likely to disguise errors in the heat transfer modeling of the first part. This can make it difficult to tune the model according to the temperature reading at the outlet. Table 8: Recovery length for different U-values at high flow U-value [Btu/hftF] 0.49 1.25 1.69 3.13 Recovery Length [miles] 261 103 76 41

Figure 11 shows difference between Tamb and Teq with increasing U-value. The difference between Tamb and Teq versus U-value forms a hyperbolic curve (see Equation 10). At high U-values the gas temperature profile is relatively insensitive to an error in the U-value. For U-values lower than 1.76 Btu/hftF the sensitivity starts to increase. This corresponds to a burial depth greater than H/R > 0 for the base case. The low conductivity case resulted in quite low U-values for the whole burial span. Hence, for pipelines with a low U-value the importance of using correct burial depths increases. Figure 12 shows the gas temperature profiles for this case. It is shown that the gas temperature profile is more sensitive to changes in burial depth when the pipeline is more than half buried (H/R>0). Recovery length Incorrect heat transfer modeling in the first part of the pipeline can be disguised if a sufficient length of the last part is correctly modelled. In this paper that length is called the recovery length, and a sensitivity study was carried out to see how long this is for different U-values. In the sensitivity study recovery length is the length required to correct an error of 3.6 F in the calculated gas temperature compared to the real gas temperature. It is assumed that Teq for each U-value is equal to the correct gas temperature. The gas temperature is set to be 3.6 F lower at distance 0. Then the recovery length is found when the gas temperature is within -0.36 F from the real gas temperature (Teq), see Figure 13. Note that an isothermal ambient temperature profile is used in the analysis. The results from the analysis are shown in Table 8. It can be seen that the recovery length decreases significantly with increasing U-values. Thus, for pipelines with high U-values in

The U-values in a typical pipeline operated by Gassco are plotted in Figure 14. It is shown that the U-values for the last 60 miles, range from 0.28 0.32 Btu/hftF. This is because this part usually is fully buried. In zone A and B, however, the pipeline is partially buried or fully exposed. Hence, errors made in zone C will give a temperature deviation at the outlet, while errors made in zone A and B can be disguised.

TEMPERATURE TUNING
If there is a discrepancy between the modeled and measured outlet temperature in a pipeline it is common to tune the model, either by adjusting heat transfer or the ambient temperature. From the observations made in this article the following can be related to tuning. For high flows (>16 ft/s): If the U-values are high (>1.76 Btu/hftF) for the main part of the pipeline, the accuracy of calculated gas temperature will depend strongly on the accuracy of the ambient temperature. Thus, if the modeled outlet temperature deviates significantly from the measured temperature this is most likely due to an error in the imposed ambient temperature profile. For low U-values (<1.06 Btu/hftF) the accuracy of the calculated gas temperature depends on on the accuracy of both the U-value and the ambient temperature.

For low flows (<7 ft/s) the modeled U-value has minimal impact on the accuracy of the calculated gas temperature. At these conditions the gas temperature will be very close to the ambient temperature (ref. Figure 11).

COMPARISON WITH REAL DATA

To verify the heat transfer modeling, the U-values in one of Gasscos pipeline models were tuned so that the simulated gas temperature corresponds to actual gas temperature measurements. These temperature data were collected during pigging of this pipeline (see Figure 5), which is one of the

J. RAMSEN, S-E. LOSNEGRD

PSIG 0901

large pipelines leading to Europe. The U-values that were tuned with these data, see Figure 15, are called Utuned, and represent the actual U-values of the pipeline.

THE IMPORTANCE OF A CORRECT

ESTIMATED GAS TEMPERATURE
The importance of a correct estimated gas temperature has been looked into by Langelandsvik [4] in a sensitivity study. It is shown that, for a fully exposed pipeline, the ambient temperature and the density of the gas are the two parameters with the most significant impact on the outlet flow. Both of these parameters are directly related to the gas temperature. The ambient temperature determines the gas temperature, and the density changes with the gas temperature. The density of the gas will decrease with increasing temperature, which in turn decreases the achievable flow rate. Likewise, decreasing temperature enhances the flow rate through the pipeline. Deviations of around 1 % in hydraulic capacity, due to monthly temperature variations of 5 7 F in average, have been observed during capacity tests of the pipelines operated by Gassco.

Figure 5: The pig prior to launching at Krst gas processing plant. The pig launcher is seen in the background. In todays model the pipeline will be assumed either fully exposed or totally buried based on best available data. In this analysis U is set to 0.7 Btu/hftF when H/R>0 and correlation for fully exposed pipeline is used when H/R<0. Uvalues obtained by this method are called Utoday, and represent todays modeling. With Moruds analytical model [1] available it is possible to estimate the U-value for partially buried regions as well. Uvalues obtained this way are called Upbur. As it can be seen from Figure 15 the U-values calculated by the partially buried model are in good agreement with the tuned U-values. These 3 sets of U-values have been simulated, using TGNet version 5.3, and the resulting temperature profiles are given in Figure 16. It is shown that the partially buried model gives a curve that follows the logged gas temperature reasonably well. There is some deviation after about 120 miles but the shape of the curves are similar. The deviation between Utuned and Upbur can possibly be explained by error in applied wall conductivities, soil conductivity and/or burial depth. The gas temperatures using Utoday are close to the correct temperature in the part from 120 190 miles. This is because in this part the pipeline is almost fully exposed. Due to some uncertainty associated with the conductivity of the concrete, this value was adjusted for the partially buried model (see Ucond). It is seen that the U-values and gas temperatures from the partially buried model are in better agreement with those of the tuned model after the adjustment. This illustrates again the importance of accurate wall data.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper has investigated the modeling of heat transfer in long subsea pipelines, with the geometry given in the system description section. Based on the observations from this work the following conclusions can be made: For the fully exposed and partially buried parts of the pipeline, conductivity of concrete and corrosion coating, and the thickness of concrete, has the greatest impact on the total heat transfer coefficient. At low flows (<7 ft/s) the gas temperature will quickly approach the ambient temperature, and is therefore not as dependent on the U-value as it is on the ambient temperature. At high flows (>16 ft/s) the gas travels longer before the gas temperature settles out. Also, the JouleThomson coefficient is higher, so for pipelines partially or fully buried, the gas temperature will deviate more from the ambient temperature. Hence, for high flows and low U-values, it is important to model the heat transfer correctly. When the ambient temperature is increased over a short distance the calculated gas temperature is even more sensitive to the U-value The equilibrium temperature for the gas, Teq, is influenced by the U-value. As the U-value is decreased, the length to reach this temperature increases. At low U-values (<1.06 Btu/hftF) the gas temperature is more sensitive to the U-value, and an

PSIG 0901

Important Aspects of Gas Temperature Modeling in Long Subsea Pipelines

error of 0.18 Btu/hftF can lead to an error of more than 3.6 F in the calculated gas temperature. Even though the calculated outlet temperature equals the measured one this does not necessarily verify the model. If a part of the pipeline has a high U-value (>1.76 Btu/hftF), a correct modeling of this part may disguise errors in the model upstream. The Morud model for partially buried pipelines agrees well (within 10%) with CFD calculations. At high Biot numbers (>102) the deviation increases, especially for buried pipelines. Subsea pipelines usually have a Biot number below 10.

2.

3. 4.

5.

Alessandro Terenzi and Francesco Terra, External heat transfer coefficient of a partially sunken sealine, Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer. Vol. 28. No. 2, pp 171-179, 2001 M. Mohitpur, H. Golshan and A. Murray, Pipeline Design and Construction A Practical Approach, p. 106-110 Leif Idar Langelandsvik, Modeling of natural gas transport and friction factor for large scale pipelines Laboratory experiments and analysis of operational data, 2008 Martin Mathiesen, North sea bottom temperature, Polytec R&D Foundation June 2004

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Norwegian Research Council is acknowledged for the funding provided for the PhD-work in this research project.

REFERENCES
1. J. C. Morud and A. Simonsen, Heat transfer from partially buried pipes, 16th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference December 2007

10

J. RAMSEN, S-E. LOSNEGRD

PSIG 0901

TABLES
Table 9: A sensitivity study on the properties of the pipeline and its surroundings. The sensitivities are tabulated as difference from the the base case (sensitivity base case) Case Description Value From Base case Sensitivity 1 Sensitivity 2 Sensitivity 3 Sensitivity 4 Sensitivity 5 Sensitivity 6 Sensitivity 7 Sensitivity 8 Sensitivity 9 Sensitivity 10 Sensitivity 11 Sensitivity 12 Sensitivity 13 Sensitivity 14 Sensitivity 15 Sensitivity 16 Sensitivity 17 Base case Change in concrete conductivity Change in asphalt conductivity Change in steel conductivity Change in concrete thickness Change in asphalt thickness Change in steel thickness Change in velocity of sea current Change in ground conductivity Ignoring hi --3.5 3.5 1.2 1.2 86.5 86.5 4.2 4.2 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.3 3.5 3.5 52.8 To --5.2 1.7 1.7 0.7 103.8 69.2 5.4 2.9 0.3 0.2 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.2 5.2 1.7 0.0 Fully Expose d = 3.1 +1.1 -1.4 +0.1 -0.3 0.0 0.0 -0.5 +0.7 -0.1 +0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 H/R = -0.75 = 2.6 +0.9 -1.1 +0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.4 +0.6 -0.1 +0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 +0.1 -0.1 0.0 Utotal H/R = 0 = 1.9 +0.6 -0.7 +0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.3 +0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 +0.1 -0.1 0.0 H/R = 0.75 = 1.2 +0.3 -0.4 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 +0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 +0.1 -0.2 0.0 Totally Buried = 0.5 +0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 +0.2 -0.2 0.0

PSIG 0901

Important Aspects of Gas Temperature Modeling in Long Subsea Pipelines

11

FIGURES

Figure 6: Definition of coordinates for partially buried pipelines

Figure 7: Qualitative description of gas temperature profiles

12

J. RAMSEN, S-E. LOSNEGRD

PSIG 0901

41.5

Temperature [F]

41.0 Tamb Case 1 Case 2 40.5

40.0 0 50 100 150

Distance [mi]

200

250

300

Figure 8: Gas temperature responses for low flow and low pressure drop situations

45.0

Temperature [F]

40.0 Tamb Case 3 Case 4 35.0

30.0 0 50 100 150

Distance [mi]

200

250

300

Figure 9: Gas temperature response for high flow and high pressure drop situations

PSIG 0901

Important Aspects of Gas Temperature Modeling in Long Subsea Pipelines

13

45.0

Temperature [F]

40.0 Tamb Case 5 Case 6 35.0

30.0 0 50 100 150

Distance [mi]

200

250

300

Figure 10: Gas temperature response when the ambient temperature increase by 2 C over a short distance

18 16 14 Tamb-Teq [F] 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 U-v alue 2 2.5 3 High Flow Low Flow

Figure 11: Difference between Tamb and Teq versus U-value

14

J. RAMSEN, S-E. LOSNEGRD

PSIG 0901

45.0

Tamb 40.0 Temperature [F] Fully exposed H/R = -0.75 35.0 H/R = 0 H/R = 0.75 Totally buried 30.0

25.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Distance [mi]

Figure 12: Gas temperature profiles including partially buried pipelines (Low conductivity case)

Temperature

Ambient temperature Real gas temperature / Teq T = 0.36 F When gas temperature is 0.36 F from the real gas temperature the recovery length is Gas temperature response found.

Simulated gas temperature At this point the simulated gas temperature is 3.6 F below the real gas temperature.

Distance Recovery Length Assumed that U is correct for this part

Figure 13: Illustration of recovery length

PSIG 0901

Important Aspects of Gas Temperature Modeling in Long Subsea Pipelines

15

U-value [Btu/ft Fh]

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Length [mi]

Figure 14: U-values in a typical Gassco operated pipeline

U_tuned U_as_today U_pbur U_pbur_high_conductivity

6 5 U-value [Btu/ft F h] 4 3 2 1 0 10 50 90 130 mi 170 210 250

Figure 15: Comparison of 4 sets of U-values

16

J. RAMSEN, S-E. LOSNEGRD

PSIG 0901

U_tuned 49.5 48.5 Temperature [F] 47.5 46.5 45.5 44.5 43.5 45 90

Partial buried m odel

As _Today

PBur high cond.

135 mi

180

225

270

Figure 16: Temperature profiles based on simulation with different U-value sets.

PSIG 0901

Important Aspects of Gas Temperature Modeling in Long Subsea Pipelines

17

Authors
Joakim Ramsen is a researcher at the R&D foundation Polytec located in Haugesund, Norway. He started his professional career in 2003 and has worked mainly with projects concerning gas transport modeling. Since 2005 he has been the project leader for a project called optimized flow modeling. In addition he has been involved in several CO2 transport simulations projects conducted in Norway. Svein-Erik Losnegrd is a researcher at Polytec R&D Foundation. He holds a MSc. Degree in Mechanical engineering from NTNU (2006). His work has mainly been concerned with gas transport modeling. Leif Idar Langelandsvik is a principal engineer with Gassco, Technology Department. He is about to finish up a PhD degree at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) with focus on modeling of gas transport in full scale pipelines at large Reynolds numbers. Particular focus is on the wall friction at such conditions. The work at Gassco is mainly focused on improving gas transport models, pipeline simulations, fluid dynamics and transport capacity calculations. He received his MSc. degree in cybernetics/control systems at NTNU in 1999. Are Simonsen is currently project manager in Dynavec AS. He holds a PhD. in fluidmechanics from the University of Trondheim, NTNU(2003). The last years he has worked with fluidmechanics, heat-, and mass transfer related problems as a researcher in SINTEF Materials&Chemistry. Willy Postvoll is the Real Time Systems Advisor in Gassco AS. He holds a MSc degree in Petroleum and Reservoir Engineering from the University of Stavanger (1985). He started his professional career with Statoil in 1985 where he worked as a Reservoir Engineer in the Oil and Gas Field Development division. After spending 5 years as a Senior Engineer providing technical support for reservoir simulation he joined the Transport Division specializing in Real-Time Systems, Transport Control and Supervision.