Copyright 2012, Instituto Brasileiro de Petrleo, Gs e Biocombustveis - IBP

Este Trabalho Tcnico foi preparado para apresentao na Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, realizado no perodo de 17 a
20 de setembro de 2012, no Rio de Janeiro. Este Trabalho Tcnico foi selecionado para apresentao pelo Comit Tcnico do evento,
seguindo as informaes contidas no trabalho completo submetido pelo(s) autor(es). Os organizadores no iro traduzir ou corrigir os
textos recebidos. O material conforme, apresentado, no necessariamente reflete as opinies do Instituto Brasileiro de Petrleo, Gs e
Biocombustveis, Scios e Representantes. de conhecimento e aprovao do(s) autor(es) que este Trabalho Tcnico seja publicado
nos Anais da Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012.
______________________________
1
MSc, Mechanical Engineer - PETROBRAS/TBG
IBP1365_12
AN EVALUATION OF THE SOURCES OF ERROR IN THE
LINEPACK ESTIMATION OF A NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
Fbio Capelassi Gavazzi de Marco
1



Resumo

A finalidade deste trabalho explorar o comportamento do erro aleatrio associado com a determinao do
empacotamento em um complexo gasoduto de gs natural com base no efeito introduzido pela incerteza das diferentes
variveis envolvidas. H muitos parmetros envolvidos na determinao do estoque em um gasoduto: geomtrico
(comprimento, dimetro e perfil de elevao), operacional (temperatura, presso e composio do gs), ambientais
(temperatura ambiente / solo) e dependentes de das hipteses assumidas na modelagem (fator de compressibilidade e
coeficiente de transferncia de calor). Devido extenso de um gasoduto de gs natural e da grande quantidade de
sensores envolvidos invivel a determinao analtica a magnitude da incerteza resultante no empacotamento, assim, o
mtodo de Monte Carlo foi utilizado. A abordagem consiste na introduo de erros aleatrios nos valores de presso,
temperatura e densidade relativa do gs natural e verificar o seu impacto na determinao do estoque. Alm disso, os erros
associados com trs diferentes mtodos de clculo para estimar o estoque so explorados. Os resultados revelam que a
presso a varivel mais crtica, enquanto a temperatura o menos crtico. Desvios da ordem de 1,6% foram verificados
entre os diferentes mtodos para estimativa do empacotamento no gasoduto.


Abstract

The intent of this work is to explore the behavior of the random error associated with determination of linepack in a
complex natural gas pipeline based on the effect introduced by the uncertainty of the different variables involved. There
are many parameters involved in the determination of the gas inventory in a transmission pipeline: geometrical (diameter,
length and elevation profile), operational (pressure, temperature and gas composition), environmental (ambient / ground
temperature) and those dependent on the modeling assumptions (compressibility factor and heat transfer coefficient). Due
to the extent of a natural gas pipeline and the vast amount of sensor involved it is infeasible to determine analytically the
magnitude of resulting uncertainty in the linepack, thus this problem has been addressed using Monte Carlo Method. The
approach consists of introducing random errors in the values of pressure, temperature and gas gravity that are employed in
the determination of the linepack and verify its impact. Additionally, the errors associated with three different modeling
assumptions to estimate the linepack are explored. The results reveal that pressure is the most critical variable while the
temperature is the less critical. In regard to the different methods to estimate the linepack, deviations around 1.6% were
verified among the methods.


1. Introduo

Differently from the distribution network the transmission pipeline is typically characterized by high pressure,
large diameters and long distances between the production fields and the consumers. These attributes permit the natural
gas pipeline to accommodate the variations imposed in the different delivery points and respond properly to the cyclic
market demands. Besides the importance associated to process of natural gas transport there is essentially another feature
that makes a pipeline even more interesting, it is a great natural gas storage. This concept has been addressed in the work
of Richwine and Schroeder (1988) that defined the capacitance as the ability of the pipeline: to store gas and release it at
a later time. Due to increasing demand for energy, natural gas has been established not only as a fundamental alternative
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012
2
to the development of the economy, but also as a strategic tool to complement the energy matrix. In the Brazilian
scenario, most of the energy matrix is based on hydroelectric power generation, therefore, the water level of reservoirs has
remarkable importance in the strategic planning of energy supply chain. In an analogous way, the water dam level is for
the hydroelectric power plant, as well as, the linepack is for the pipeline.
On the other hand, the linepack is also an aspect to be considered in the field of pipeline optimization which the
objective is to find operational condition that minimizes the fuel consumed by the compressors. Some authors consider
the optimization objective to operate the compressors to satisfy a specific linepack profile as verified in Krishnaswami et
al. (2004). According to Uraikul et al. (2000) the linepack it is the most important parameter to optimize a natural gas
pipeline.
There are some algorithms of leak detection in natural gas pipelines that are based on the mass balance. The
basic idea is to perform the mass balance in a section of the pipeline and compare against a threshold. The mass balance is
calculated using two approaches, one via volumetric flow rate and the other one using the linepack. As long as the
uncertainty due to random errors in the linepack estimative is high the sensibility of the leak detection algorithm is
degraded because the leak threshold shall be increased to avoid spurious leak alarms. Some aspects of uncertainty in the
linepack resulting from the errors in the pressure and temperature measurements with the focus on the leak detection are
discussed in the work of Turner and Mudford (1988).
There are many parameters involved in the determination of the gas inventory in a transmission pipeline that
could be a potential source of error like the uncertainties associated with pipe dimensional characteristics or the elevation
profile of the terrain. However, in practical terms these variables do not represent a major concern as long as they are part
of the systematic error, while the measured variables like pressure, temperature and gas composition compose the random
error responsible for degrading the precision of the linepack estimative. Additionally, the entire Bolivia-Brazil pipeline
has a total of 146 pressure and temperature sensors that are spread along its 2593 km and are directly used in the linepack
determination due this and the compressible behavior of the gas, the correct determination of the amount of gas stored
within a pipeline is far more complicated because of errors embedded in the process. Within this context, it is crucial to
understand the qualitative aspects affecting the precision and accuracy of the linepack estimation and establish criteria for
quantifying the error. Another aspect that is relevant in the determination of the linepack uncertainty is gas composition.
Whenever custody transfer takes place it is necessary to perform a chromatographic analysis to determine the gas
composition. Usually, the composition of the natural gas is determined once a day and the gas flow is an uninterrupted
process, it is expect to coexist different gas batches within pipeline at the same time. As long as the linepack is evaluated
with the current gas composition, some error is introduced by the variations in the gas composition. To take into account
these uncertainties the linepack is calculated considering an average gas composition plus the standard deviation obtained
in the chromatography historical data. Finally, the influences of the modeling assumptions are evaluated, assuming
different approaches to estimate the linepack. As it is expected the heat transfer coefficient modify significantly the
temperature profile, thus the average temperature will change and consequentially will affect the linepack.


2. Linepack estimation

In order to determine the volume of gas in a section of the pipeline with length L, the pressure and temperature
profiles are integrated according to Eq. (1). Note that compressibility factor of the natural gas is dependent on the pressure
and temperature and the resulting volume is given at standard condition (Pb = 101325 Pa and Tb = 293.15 K).

dx
x T Sg T P Z
x P D
P
T
Sg T P V
L
b
b
b

=
0
2
) ( ). , , (
) ( .
. 4
.
) , , (


(1)

Due to the physical coupling among the variables, it is necessary to make use of a specialized method to
determine the profiles of pressure and temperature that are not explicitly available. In complex pipeline systems the only
alternative to calculate correctly the linepack is via numerical simulation. However, it is possible to use analytical
expressions to obtain the pressure and temperature profiles and estimate the linepack of a pipeline. One option to
determine the pressure along the pipeline is given by Eq. (2) that is obtained considering the general flow equation in a
horizontal in section of the pipeline, Stuckenbruck (2010). Applying the hypothesis of isothermal flow in steady-state
condition the resulting expression considers the variation of pressure between the extremes of pipeline where the
pressures are known (P1 and P2).

L
x
P
P
P x P
(
(

|
|

\
|
=
2
1
2
1
1 1 ) ( (2)
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012
3

The temperature profile is obtained from the energy equation in a horizontal buried pipeline with gas flowing
from x=0 to x=L, assuming steady-state condition the resulting expression is given by Eq. (3), according to Abdolahi et al.
(2009).

(

\
|
|
|

\
|
+ +

\
|
|
|

\
|
+ =

dx
dP
T e
dx
dP
T T x T
g
x
g

.
0
) (
(3)

where: = (D
0
U/m.C
p
), D
0
is the outside pipe diameter (m), U is the overall heat transfer coefficient (J/m2 s K), m is the
gas mass flow rate (kg/s), C
p
is the specific heat capacity (J/kg.K), is the Joule-Thomson coefficient (K/Pa).
The compressibility factor of the natural gas is evaluated using the CNGA equation (Eq. 4) that was developed
by the California Natural Gas Association and uses the relative density, pressure and temperature as input parameters and
according to Menon (2005) the equation is valid for pressures greater than 7.0 kgf/cm :

( )
( )
(
(

|
|

\
|

+
=
825 , 3
785 , 1 5
10 10 170653163 . 5
1
1
) , , (
T
P
Sg T P Z
Sg

(4)

where: P is the gauge pressure in kgf/cm; T is the absolute temperature in Kelvin and Sg is the relative density.

Based on Eqs. (1), (2), (3) and (4) it is possible to perceive the primary parameters that affect the linepack
calculation in natural gas pipeline and categorize them into four different kinds:

i) Geometrical/physical: diameter, length, elevation, wall thickness, wall roughness, ground characteristics;
ii) Operational: uncertainty associated with measurement of pressure, temperature, flow rate and gas
composition;
iii) Gas properties: gas density, viscosity, thermal properties;
iv) Modeling: equation of state, pressure and temperature profiles determination, heat transfer coefficient.

All the listed parameters represent potential sources of error in the determination of the linepack in complex
pipeline systems. The evaluation of these sources of error under a different perspective may also identify that the groups
(i), (iii) and (iv) are associated to systematic errors while in the group (ii) the random error is found.

Considering the purpose of the present work it is reasonable to estimate the linepack instead of integrating the
profiles of pressure, temperature and compressibility factor along the various pipelines segments.



2.1. Method 1

The first approximations for the linepack considers the Eq. (5) that gives the average pressure in a pipe segment
with the pressure known at the two extremes of the pipe given by the sub index 1 and 2, according to Menon (2005).

|
|

\
|
+
+ =
2 1
2 1
2 1
.
3
2
P P
P P
P P P
AVG

(5)

According to Ettouney and El-Rifai (2009) an approximation to Eq. (1) may be obtained using average
arithmetic values of the compressibility factor and temperature combined with Eq. (5), resulting in the Eq. (6):

( ) ( )
2 1 2 1 2 1
2 1
2 1
2
1
1 1 .
3
8
. 4
.
Z Z T T P P
P P
P P
P
LD T
V
b
b
b
+ +
|
|

\
|
+
+ =


(6)


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012
4
2.2. Method 2

The second approximation for the linepack considers the Eq. (5) combined with the average arithmetic values of
the temperature with the compressibility factor calculated using the pressure determined by Eq. (5) and average
temperature as indicated in the Eq. (7):

( )
AVG b
b
b
Z T T P P
P P
P P
P
LD T
V
1 1 .
3
4
. 4
.
2 1 2 1
2 1
2 1
2
2
+
|
|

\
|
+
+ =


(7)

2.3. Method 3

The third approximation for the linepack considers the arithmetic averages of pressure, temperature and
compressibility factor as represented in the Eq. (8):

( )( )
|
|

\
|
+ +
+
=
2 1 2 1
2 1
2
3
2
. 4
.
Z Z T T
P P
P
LD T
V
b
b
b

(8)


3. Monte Carlo Simulation

There are essentially two kind of error that can affect the determination of the amount of gas contained in the
domains of large pipelines and they are: systematic and random errors. By definition (Glover et al., 2011), the systematic
error is: a reproducible discrepancy that makes your measurement different from the true value, while the random error
is: due to fluctuation in the environment that yields results that differ from experiment to experiment even though you
believe that the conditions imposed by you were identical. These definitions are strictly connected with the concepts of
precision and accuracy, the first with the random errors and the second with the systematic errors.
As discussed earlier, the linepack value gives the necessary inputs to guide the decisions in the field of
optimization, leak detection, planning, etc. In regard to those inputs, the determination of the exact amount of gas
contained in a pipeline is important but not fundamental, on the other hand, the variation of the amount of gas during a
defined period is extremely valuable. The linepack value in a complex pipeline is always interpreted based on the upper
and lower operational limits. Thus, the accuracy has minor impacts on the decision strategies and the goal is to have the
linepack estimation as precise as possible. The first step to achieve such goal is to understand the impact of the random
error in the linepack estimation and then quantify it.

3.1. Error propagation

There are essentially three popular methods for determining the uncertainty of quantities that are indirectly
measured and according to Diek (1997) they are: Taylors Series, Dithering Method and Monte Carlo Simulation. The last
one is the approach that has been assumed in this work and some examples of similar applications are found in the works
of: Christos and Yeung (2001), Herrador et al. (2005) and Mathioulakis et al. (2011).
To account for random errors associated with the operational data it has been assumed a Gaussian probability
distribution function and the errors are introduced via standard deviation according to Eq. (9). Thus a stochastic approach
is utilized to obtain the variations in the linepack resulting from errors typically associated with pressure, temperature
measurements and uncertainties in the composition of the natural gas.

( )
2 2
2 /
2
1
) , ; (
I
x
I
I
e x f

=
(9)


where: x is the input variable; is the mean value of the input variable;
I
is the standard deviation in the input variable.
The Monte Carlo simulation is defined as a numerical method that uses a pseudo-random or quasi-random
numbers to simulate variations in a process and produce a large amount of possible outputs. The approach assumed in
this work consists of calculating the linepack of the entire pipeline repeatedly with the random error introduced by
perturbations in pressure, temperature and the composition of the gas. This perturbations introduced with the random
numbers distributed uniformly over the range [0,1].
The relative error of the linepack is calculated according to Eq. (10) that considers the linepack calculated with
the values of the input variables and the linepack calculated with the standard error introduced in the input variable.
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012
5

) , , (
)) , , ( ) , , ( (
100
Sg T P V
Sg T P V Sg T P V
i
b
i
b
i
b
Vb

=
(10)

where:
Vb
is the relative error in the linepack (%), V
b
is the value of the linepack (Mm
3
) calculated at standard condition
(1 atm and 20C), the index i indicate the method.

3.2. Deviation associated with the method of estimation

In the previous section a Monte Carlo Simulation is employed to create artificially the behavior of the linepack
estimation in regard to the existing uncertainty of the pressure, temperature and molar composition of the natural gas.
However in this section, the Monte Carlo simulation is employed to identify the discrepancies in regard to the method
utilized to estimate the linepack. As long as the intention is to verify the discrepancies of the different methods, the
random error associated with the input variables (P, T and Sg) are not considered. Thus, the Monte Carlos simulation is
performed assuming that pressure and temperature can vary within the operational range of the Gasbol pipeline and the
difference between the methods are calculated according with Eq. (11):

) , , (
)) , , ( ) , , ( (
100
Sg T P V
Sg T P V Sg T P V
D
a
b
b
b
a
b
Vb

=
(11)

where: a and b are the different methods to estimate the linepack.


3.3. Monte Carlo Simulation Error

In order to provide the basis for evaluating the precision of the results provided by Monte Carlo Simulation it is
necessary to consider an estimative of the numerical error () of the simulation according to Eq. (11) found in Gould,
(2007):

N

=
(12)


where N is the number of trials or histories in the Monte Carlo simulation.
The error in the Monte Carlo simulation approaches zero, as long as the number of histories (N) approaches a
large number.
Another criterion to evaluate the numerical error is the relative error (
R
) that is given by Eq. (13), where the
evolution of the standard deviation after each iteration is monitored:

N
N N
R

=
(13)

For each Monte Carlos simulation performed in this work a total of N=10
6
histories have been assumed.


4. Results

The results regarding the random error associated with pressure, temperature and gas composition determined
using the Method 1 are presented in the Tabs. (1) thru (5), respectively for standard deviations of 0.1%, 0.25%, 0.50%,
1,0% and 1,5%. The results are reported in terms of maximum, minimum and standard deviation of the relative error in
the linepack, and it is also reported the maximum and minimum limits of the linepack that have been calculated in the
simulation. It has been considered five different possibilities for introducing the random error. In the first condition, it is
assumed that all the variables (P, T and Sg) are influenced by the same random error. In the second condition, the error in
the gas composition has been neglected, consequentially only pressure and temperature are evaluated. In the other three
conditions, the isolated influence of each variable is evaluated.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012
6

Table 1 Quantitative analysis for = 0.10%.


Variable Method Linepack error (
Vb
) Linepack limits (Mm)
Max (%) Min (%) (%) Max Min
P+T+Sg 1 0.092 -0.094 0.019 93462 71380
P+T 1 0.079 -0.090 0.017
P 1 0.077 -0.086 0.017
T 1 0.009 -0.009 0.002
Sg 1 0.040 -0.041 0.008


Table 2 Quantitative analysis for = 0.25%.

Variable Method Linepack error (
Vb
) Linepack limits (Mm)
Max (%) Min (%) (%) Max Min
P+T+Sg 1 0.214 -0.233 0.047 93162 71178
P+T 1 0.198 -0.205 0.042
P 1 0.195 -0.208 0.042
T 1 0.025 -0.023 0.005
Sg 1 0.106 -0.100 0.021


Table 3 Quantitative analysis for = 0.50%.

Variable Method Linepack error (
Vb
) Linepack limits (Mm)
Max (%) Min (%) (%) Max Min
P+T+Sg 1 0.461 -0.441 0.093 93466 71469
P+T 1 0.394 -0.403 0.084
P 1 0.395 -0.395 0.083
T 1 0.049 -0.053 0.010
Sg 1 0.208 -0.208 0.042


Table 4 Quantitative analysis for = 1.00%.

Variable Method Linepack error (
Vb
) Linepack limits (Mm)
Max (%) Min (%) (%) Max Min
P+T+Sg 1 0.847 -0.927 0.187 93304 71329
P+T 1 0.814 -0.835 0.167
P 1 0.821 -0.843 0.166
T 1 0.095 -0.094 0.019
Sg 1 0.374 -0.466 0.083


Table 5 Quantitative analysis for = 1.50%.

Variable Method Linepack error (
Vb
) Linepack limits (Mm)
Max (%) Min (%) (%) Max Min
P+T+Sg 1 1.335 -1.297 0.280 92640 71615
P+T 1 1.236 -1.203 0.251
P 1 1.282 -1.195 0.249
T 1 0.148 -0.144 0.029
Sg 1 0.555 -0.688 0.125

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012
7
The verification of the simulation validity concerning the error propagation analysis (Tab. 1 thru 5) is presented
in the Figs. (1) and (4) for two extreme conditions, with the error in the input variables in 0.1% and with 1.5%. Figures (1)
and (3) represent the numerical error in the Monte Carlo simulation and are calculated with Eq. (12), while Figs. (2) and
(4) represent the relative error of the interest quantity, the standard deviation of the random error, calculated according to
Eq. (13).

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
Number of Histories
N
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

E
r
r
o
r

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
-10
10
-8
10
-6
10
-4
10
-2
10
0
10
2
Number of Histories
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

N
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

E
r
r
o
r


Figure 1 Numerical error for = 0.10%.

Figure 2 Relative numerical error for = 0.10%.

The behavior of the numerical error is accordance with the expected trend in a typical Monte Carlo simulation,
where the numerical error decays at a rate proportional to 1/N
-1
. It is necessary to mention that all the simulation have
been carried out with a number of histories of 10
6
, assuming the greatest standard deviation is around 0.3, thus, the
expected numerical error in the worst case is lower than 3.10
-5
.

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
Number of Histories
N
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

E
r
r
o
r

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
-8
10
-6
10
-4
10
-2
10
0
Number of Histories
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

N
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

E
r
r
o
r


Figure 3 Numerical error for = 1.5 %.

Figure 4 Relative numerical error for = 1.5 %.

In the Fig. (5) is presented the influence of the input variables on the linepack error. In this analysis are
considered five different possibilities: the combined error of all variables (P, T and Sg), the combined effect of P and T
without varying Sg, and the isolated effect of each variable. The error amplitude considered in the vertical axis is the
difference between the maximum and minimum error found. Although the expression to calculate the linepack includes
complex mathematical operations, it is clear that there is a linear relationship among the input error in the variables and
the resulting error in the linepack. Considering this, Fig. (6) is obtained considering the angular coefficient of the curves
presented in Fig. (5) and it has the meaning of the relationship between the input error and output result. Per example, if
the pressure alone is considered, for each one percent of standard deviation in the pressure measurement would represent
1.66 % of error in the linepack. The pressure is the most important parameter within the variables studied, on the other
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012
8
hand, the importance of temperature on the overall error is negligible, for each one percent of error in the gas gravity there
will be 0.19% error in the linepack.


Figure 5 Sensitivity investigation.

Figure 6 Error ratio between input/output.

The results concerning the deviation of the methods to estimate the linepack are summarized in the Tab. (6). The
greatest deviation has been given by the method 3, while methods 1 and 2 are very close. In comparison with methods 1
and 2, the method 3 has a tendency to overestimate the linepack. It should be pointed out that the behavior of the
deviations between the methods has not a systematic characteristic, but inconstant. Depending on the operational profile
of pressure and temperature, the deviation is variable.

Table 6 Evaluation of the deviations associated with the methods.

Variable Method Difference between methods (D
Vb
)
Max (%) Min (%) Average (%) (%)
P, T, Sg 2/1 0.09 -0.31 -0.08 0.04
P, T, Sg 3/1 1.30 0.16 0.56 0.12
P, T, Sg 2/3 -0.12 -1.61 -0.64 0.15

The verification of the simulation validity concerning the deviation of the methods analysis (Tab. 6) is presented
in the Figs. (1) and (2), respectively, the numerical error in the Monte Carlo simulation and the relative error of the
interest quantity, in this case, the relative deviation between the methods. In the Figs. (2), (4) and (8), it can be seen that
the oscillation amplitude of the relative error tends to increase as long as the number of histories increases, however, there
is a decay of the error magnitude. This behavior with the round off error, as the simulation moves toward a large number
of histories the standard deviation tends to a constant.
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
Number of Histories
N
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

E
r
r
o
r

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
-10
10
-8
10
-6
10
-4
10
-2
10
0
Number of Histories
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

N
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l

E
r
r
o
r


Figure 7 Numerical error for = 0.10%.

Figure 8 Relative numerical error for = 0.10%.
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012
9
5. Discussion and conclusion

The present work is comprised by two parts, in the first, the error propagation analysis and in the second, the
deviations regarding the method to estimate the linepack. In the error propagation analysis, the effect introduced by
pressure instrumentation has been identified as the most critical. For each one percent uncertainty in the pressure, results
in 1.7% the overall uncertainty in the estimation of the linepack, while for gas gravity is 0.83% and for the temperature is
0.19%. Given that the linepack is an important parameter in many decisions-making processes, it is very important to
control the sources of random error associated with estimative. If the Bolivia-Brazil pipeline is considered with a typical
operational linepack around 80,000 Mm, then an uncertainty of 1% in the pressure would result in an uncertainty of
1400 Mm that is significantly high.
In the second part of this work, the focus has been on the deviations originated in the different ways to estimate
the linepack. It has been verified that the deviations between the methods to estimate the linepack is not systematic, it is
variable and will depend on the operational profile. In the worst case, the deviation is around 1.6%.


8. Referncias

ABBASPOUR, M., KRISHNASWAMI, P., CHAPMAN, K.S., Transient optimization in natural gas compressor stations
for linepack Operation, Journal of Energy Resources Technology, v. 129, p. 314-324, 2007.
CHRISTOS, E.P., YEUNG, H., Uncertainty estimation and Monte Carlo simulation method, Flow Measurement and
Instrumentation, V. 12, p.291298, 2001.
DIEK, R.H., Measurement uncertainty: method and applications: a guide to estimating and understanding the accuracy of
test and experimental data, Instrument Society of America, 2nd Edition, p.228, 1997.
ETTOUNEY, R.S., EL-RIFAI, M.A., Quick estimation of gas pipeline inventory, Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, v. 69, p. 139142, 2009.
GLOVER, D.M., JENKINS, W.J., DONEY, S.C., Modeling Methods for Marine Science, Cambridge University Press,
571 p., 2011. MENON, E.S., 2005. Gas Pipeline Hydraulics, Taylor and Francis Group, CRC Press, pp. 132135.
HERRADOR, M.A., ASUERO, A.G., GONZLEZ, A.G., Estimation of the uncertainty of indirect measurements from
the propagation of distributions by using the Monte-Carlo method: An overview, Chemometrics and Intelligent
Laboratory Systems, V. 79, p. 115122, 2005.
KRISHNASWAMI, P., CHAPMAN, K.S., ABBASPOUR, M., Compressor station optimization for linepack
maintenance. In: PSIG annual meeting held in Palm Springs, California, October 2004.
MENON, E. S., Gas pipeline hydraulics, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005.
MATHIOULAKIS, E., PANARAS, G., BELESSIOTIS, V., Estimation of uncertainties in indirect humidity
measurements, Energy and Buildings, V. 43, p.28062812, 2011.
PIRES, L.F.G., MENDES, D.M., Efeitos do estoque de gs natural nos dutos da malha sudeste durante problemas no
fornecimento. In: Proceedings of Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2003.
RICHWINE, T.E., SCHROEDER, D.W., The impact of system capacitance on gas pipeline facility design In:
Proceedings of SPE Gas Technology Symposium, held in Dallas, TX, June 13-15, 1988.
GOULD, H., TOBOCHNIK, J., CHRISTIAN, W., An Introduction to computer simulation methods: Applications to
physical systems, 3
rd
Ed., Addison-Wesley Publisher, 720 p., 2007.
STUCKENBRUCK, S. Escoamento em dutos, PUC Rio de Janeiro, 2010.
TURNER, W.J., MUDFORD, N.R., Leak detection, timing, location and sizing in gas pipelines, Math. Compur.
Modelling, v. 10, N. 8, pp. 609-527, 1988.
URAIKUL,V., CHANB, C.W., TONTIWACHWUTHIKULA, P., Development of an expert system for optimizing
natural gas pipeline operations, Expert Systems with Applications, v. 18, p. 271282, 2000.