HCDP Analyzer Phase I Report Final

S O U T H W E S T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E
6220 CULEBRA ROAD l POST OFFICE DRAW ER 28510 l SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, USA 78228-0510 l (210) 684-5111 l TELEX 244846
Department of Fluids Engineering

January 30, 2008
To: Participants of the Hydrocarbon Dew Point Analyzer Evaluation JIP

From: Darin L. George
Reference: Testing of Methods for Measuring Hydrocarbon Dew Points in Natural Gas
Streams FINAL REPORT
SwRI Proposal No. 18-45425-A, Project No. 18.12918
Attached is a copy of the Final Report for the Hydrocarbon Dew Point Analyzer Joint
Industry Project. If you have any questions or comments about the report, please feel free to
contact me at (210) 522-2355 or via e-mail at darin.george@swri.org.
Respectfully submitted,
Darin L. George, Ph.D.

Senior Research Engineer
Flow Measurement Section
Approved:
Terrence A. Grimley, Program Coordinator

Flow Measurement Group
cc: Ray Adcock, Ametek E. B. Bowles, SwRI

Andrew J. Benton, Michell J. C. Buckingham, SwRI
David F. Bergman, Ph.D., BP (for GPA) R. C. Burkey, SwRI
Ilia Bluvshtein (Union Gas) D. M. Deffenbaugh, SwRI
David Bromley, BP (for PRCI) D. L. George, SwRI
Ron Brunner, GPA T. A. Grimley, SwRI
Paul Burnett, PMC (for Michell) R. A. Hart, SwRI
Ben Ho, BP (for PRCI) Report Copy B
Dean Osmar, Ametek D. Todd, SwRI
Dan Potter, Ametek T. Walvoord, SwRI
William H. Ryan, El Paso (for API)
Andrew Stokes, Michell
Mike Whelan, PRCI
Catalog No. L5XXXX
Tests of Instruments for Measuring Hydrocarbon Dew Points in

Natural Gas Streams, Phase 1
Prepared for the

Measurement Technical Committee
of
Pipeline Research Council International, Inc.
Prepared by the following Research Agency:

SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mechanical and Fluids Engineering Division
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas, USA 782385166
Authors:
D. L. George, Ph.D.
R. C. Burkey
Publication Date:
January 2008
PRCI Version Control

Version Date of Last Revision Date of Uploading Comments
1 September 13, 2007 September 14, 2007 Draft final report submitted for review
2 December 30, 2007 January 2, 2008 Second draft report submitted for review
3 January 30, 2008 Final report submitted for publication
This report is furnished to Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. (PRCI) under the terms
of SwRI Contract 18-45425-A, between PRCI and Southwest Research Institute. The contents
of this report are published as received from Southwest Research Institute. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed in the report are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of PRCI, its member companies, or their representatives. Publication and dissemination
of this report by PRCI should not be considered an endorsement by PRCI or Southwest
Research Institute, or the accuracy or validity of any opinions, findings, or conclusions
expressed herein.
In publishing this report, PRCI makes no warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with
respect to the accuracy, completeness, usefulness, or fitness for purpose of the information
contained herein, or that the use of any information, method, process, or apparatus disclosed in
this report may not infringe on privately owned rights. PRCI assumes no liability with respect to
the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, method, process, or
apparatus disclosed in this report.
The text of this publication, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced or transmitted in any
form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, storage in an
information retrieval system, or otherwise, without the prior, written approval of PRCI.
Pipeline Research Council International Catalog No. L5XXXX
Copyright 2008
All Rights Reserved by Pipeline Research Council International, Inc.
PRCI Reports are published by Technical Toolboxes, Inc.
3801 Kirby Drive, Suite 340

Houston, Texas 77098
Tel: 713-630-0505
Fax: 713-630-0560
Email: info@ttoolboxes.com
TESTS OF INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING HYDROCARBON DEW
POINTS IN NATURAL GAS STREAMS, PHASE 1
D. L. George, Ph.D.
R. C. Burkey
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Mechanical and Fluids Engineering Division
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas, USA 782385166
ABSTRACT
Research has assessed the accuracy of two commercially-available hydrocarbon dew point
(HCDP) analyzers, an Ametek Model 241 CE II and a Michell Condumax II. An experimental
HCDP research apparatus, first designed to gather reference hydrocarbon dew point data, was
modified to test the automated analyzers. Both automated analyzers, along with a Bureau of
Mines chilled mirror device serving as a reference, were tested on gravimetrically prepared gas
blends chosen to simulate a transmission-quality gas and a production gas. Multiple HCDP
measurements were made with each instrument at gas pressures below, at, and above the
cricondentherm of the gas blend. Analyzer results were compared to HCDP measurements taken
with the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device and a digital video camera. Results were
adjusted for small changes in the heavy hydrocarbon content of the test gases over time, using
predictions from an equation of state based on gas chromatographic (GC) analyses of the test
gases.
The repeatability of the Ametek 241 CE II was found to be somewhat better than the manual
chilled mirror, while the Michell Condumax II exhibited the best repeatability of the three
instruments tested. Measurement uncertainties were assessed where possible, using calibration
data and manufacturer specifications. For the leaner transmission-quality test gas, the Ametek
241 CE II consistently reported dew point temperatures 1F to 6F (1C to 3C) higher than
those measured by the Michell Condumax II. On the richer production-quality gas, the
relationship shifted with gas pressure, such that the Michell unit reported slightly higher dew
point temperatures than the Ametek at the test pressure above the cricondentherm, while the
Ametek measurements were 2F to 3F (1C to 2C) above Michell Instruments values at the test
pressure below the cricondentherm.
Trends in the analyzer and manual chilled mirror measurements suggest that the differences in
performance between the automated units are related to their measurement techniques and
default set points. The Ametek 241 CE II records the temperature at which a thin hydrocarbon
film is detected, analogous to the iridescent ring dew point of the Bureau of Mines chilled
mirror. The default trip point for the Condumax II was chosen by Michell Instruments to agree
with manual visual chilled mirror measurements of the droplet hydrocarbon dew point, which
occurs a few degrees below the iridescent ring dew point.
iii
Elevated temperatures involved in measuring dew points on the richer gas blend had no effect on
the overall cycle time of the Michell Condumax II, but the overall cycle time for the Ametek
decreased when the unit measured dew points for the richer gas blend. The total cycle time of
the Condumax II is preset by the user, but operation of the Ametek unit is governed by user-
controlled temperature set points, so that as the dew point of the gas stream increases, the span
between initial and final mirror temperatures (and the cycle time) decreases. It was also
concluded that the filters used on both the Michell and Ametek units did not adversely impact
dew point accuracy.
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bureau of Mines chilled mirror dew point tester is the most commonly-accepted instrument
for measuring dew points of natural gas streams at field sites. In this device, a natural gas
sample flows continuously from a pipeline across the surface of a small mirror. An operator
slowly decreases the mirror temperature while watching through an eyepiece for hydrocarbon
condensation on the mirror surface. When condensation is seen, the operator reads the mirror
temperature and records it as the hydrocarbon dew point.
This device is often used to resolve custody transfer disputes over natural gas quality. However,
its use requires skill and training to operate, and measurement techniques can vary from operator
to operator. Some advances in operator training are being made through the use of video
technology to record the condensation process. Because the dew point is detected visually,
however, the chilled mirror is still considered a subjective instrument. An ideal dew point
instrument would rely on objectively measured properties of the gas flow to identify the dew
point, and could have the potential for improved repeatability, tighter measurement uncertainties,
and less bias than the chilled mirror device. Two commercial instruments sold worldwide use
optical methods to objectively detect condensed hydrocarbons and measure the hydrocarbon dew
point. The first phase of a Joint Industry Project has independently evaluated the accuracy of
these commercially-available devices, and provided information that will guide the use of these
devices in custody transfer situations.
Two commercially-available hydrocarbon dew point analyzers, an Ametek Model 241 CE II
and a Michell Condumax II, were provided by JIP participants for testing. An experimental
HCDP research apparatus, first designed at Southwest Research Institute to gather reference
hydrocarbon dew point data, was modified to test the automated analyzers. Both automated
analyzers, along with a Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device serving as a reference, were
installed in the apparatus. Gravimetrically-prepared gas blends containing hydrocarbons through
decane were used as test gases, and a small warm box was built to keep the test gases above their
hydrocarbon dew points at various simulated line pressures.
Tests were performed using two well-characterized hydrocarbon gas blends, one prepared to
resemble a transmission-quality gas (heating value of 1,050 Btu/scf, 39.12 MJ/Nm3), the other a
production gas (1,145 Btu/scf, 42.66 MJ/Nm3). The production gas composition was chosen to
provide information on analyzer performance in gas streams where marginally-rich gas supplies
or liquefied natural gas (LNG) have entered the transmission system instead of conventional lean
gas supplies. Multiple HCDP measurements were made with each instrument at gas pressures
below, at, and above the cricondentherm of each gas blend. Analyzer results were compared to
HCDP measurements taken with the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror dew point tester and
recorded with a digital video camera. Effects of small changes in the gas composition during the
tests were approximated using dew point temperatures predicted by common cubic equations of
state and gas chromatographic analyses of the test gases.
While the scope of work did not allow for assessment of the instruments reproducibility
(closeness of dew point measurements under the same conditions at different times), their
repeatability was determined using sequential repeat measurements at each dew point
measurement condition. The repeatability of both the Ametek 241 CE II and the Michell
Condumax II were tighter than that of the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror, with the Condumax
exhibiting the best repeatability of the three. Measurement uncertainties were also assessed,
v
where possible, using analyzer specifications and calibration data provided by the manufacturers,
along with uncertainties of instrumentation in the test apparatus. The table below summarizes
the estimated measurement uncertainties of the devices examined in this work, after adjustment
for small changes in test gas compositions.
Table ES-1. Estimated measurement uncertainties of individual dew point pressures and
temperatures determined by each device at each test condition, after
adjustment for changes in test gas composition.
Manual chilled mirror Ametek 241 CE II Michell Condumax II
Quantity Temperature Pressure Temperature Pressure Temperature Pressure
Measurement uncertainty 2.4F 3 psi 2F 3 psi 0.9F 4.8 psi
estimated for test article (1.3C) (21 kPa) (1C) (21 kPa) (0.5C) (33.1 kPa)
(95% confidence level)
For the leaner 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) test gas, the Ametek 241 CE II reported dew point
temperatures 1F to 6F (1C to 3C) higher than those measured by the Michell Condumax II.
On the richer 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas, this relationship shifted with gas pressure,
such that the Michell unit reported slightly higher dew point temperatures ( 1F or 0.6C
higher) at the highest test pressure of 1,000 psia (68.9 bara), but Ametek dew points were 2F to
3F (1C to 2C) above The Michell unit values at the lowest pressure of 300 psia (20.7 bara).
These differences are thought to be related to the measurement techniques of the two automated
devices and their set points. The Ametek 241 CE II records the temperature at which a thin
hydrocarbon film is detected, analogous to the iridescent ring dew point of the Bureau of
Mines chilled mirror. The default trip point for the Condumax II was chosen by Michell
Instruments to agree with manual visual chilled mirror measurements of the droplet
hydrocarbon dew point, which occurs a few degrees below the iridescent ring dew point. The
table below summarizes the test conditions and measurements by each device during the research
(with 95% confidence intervals indicating measurement repeatability).
Table ES-2a. Comparison of averages and 95% confidence intervals of dew point
pressures and temperatures measured by each device at each test condition,
after adjustment for changes in test gas composition.
Bureau of Mines chilled mirror
Line Iridescent ring dew points Droplet dew points Ametek 241 CE II Michell Condumax II
pressure
(psia) T (F) P (psia) T (F) P (psia) T (F) P (psia) T (F) P (psia)
1,050 Btu (94.75% methane, 0.1% C6+)

750 29.0 749.2 25.4 0.5 749.3 0.8 31.5 0.5 753.7 0.9 27.7 0.6 754.2 0.8
500 33.7 3.1 505.2 0.6 31.7 2.1 505.0 0.6 37.4 2.3 501.3 0.3 33.2 0.9 497.3 0.3
300 36.7 4.1 306.7 0.7 31.4 1.4 306.7 0.6 35.0 1.0 306.1 0.7 30.3 0.8 305.6 0.4
1,145 Btu (85.25% methane, 0.25% C6+)
1,000 78.0 1,001.0 76.9 0.7 1,000.7 1.7 78.9 0.2 962.7 0.9 79.7 0.5 978.2 2.2
650 79.8 650.1 79.7 0.9 650.1 0.2 80.8 1.0 643.1 0.0 80.3 0.2 644.9 0.6
300 70.5 308.6 68.2 0.9 308.7 0.2 71.0 0.4 303.8 0.0 68.7 0.3 307.9 0.5
vi
Table ES-2b. Comparison of averages and 95% confidence intervals of dew point
pressures and temperatures measured by each device at each test condition,
after adjustment for changes in test gas composition.
Line Iridescent ring dew points Droplet dew points Ametek 241 CE II Michell Condumax II
pressure
(bara) T (C) P (bara) T (C) P (bara) T (C) P (bara) T (C) P (bara)
3
39.12 MJ/Nm (94.75% methane, 0.1% C6+)
51.7 -1.7 51.66 -3.7 0.3 51.66 0.06 -0.3 0.3 51.97 0.06 -2.4 0.3 52.00 0.06
34.5 0.9 1.7 34.83 0.04 -0.2 1.2 34.82 0.04 3.0 1.3 34.56 0.02 0.7 0.5 34.29 0.02
20.7 2.6 2.3 21.15 0.05 -0.3 0.8 21.15 0.04 1.7 0.6 21.10 0.05 -0.9 0.4 21.07 0.03
3
42.66 MJ/Nm (85.25% methane, 0.25% C6+)
68.9 25.6 69.02 24.9 0.4 69.00 0.12 26.1 0.1 66.38 0.06 26.5 0.3 67.44 0.15
44.8 26.6 44.82 26.5 0.5 44.82 0.01 27.1 0.6 44.34 0.00 26.8 0.1 44.46 0.04
20.7 21.4 21.28 20.1 0.5 21.28 0.01 21.7 0.2 20.95 0.00 20.4 0.2 21.23 0.03
The measurement cycle times for the Michell Condumax II were consistent at ten minutes
throughout the tests. Since the total cycle time of the Condumax II is preset by the user, the
elevated temperatures needed to measure dew points on the richer gas blend had no effect on
either the overall cycle time or the cooling time of the Condumax II. For the Ametek 241 CE II,
the maximum mirror temperature after warming, the mirror cooling rates, and the unit purge time
are preset parameters. The overall cycle time for the Ametek shortened from 20 minutes to
17 minutes when the unit measured dew points for the richer gas blend, because of the smaller
span between the initial mirror temperature and the final dew point temperature. It was also
concluded that the filters used on both the Michell and Ametek units did not impact dew point
accuracy.
Further tests are now planned to assess the impact of moisture and methanol in the gas stream on
analyzer performance. The follow-on work will modify the test apparatus to introduce known or
controlled amounts of each contaminant separately to the known gas stream. The Ametek and
Michell analyzers will then be tested to determine their ability to accurately measure
hydrocarbon dew points when H2O or CH3OH is present in the gas stream. These tests will
provide valuable information on analyzer performance under adverse conditions, data that will
be useful to the natural gas industry in the creation of guidelines for their use and possible U.S.
industry standards. Completion of this additional work will determine the ability of these
automated units to easily and accurately replace the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device for
routine dew point determination at field sites.
vii
This page is intentionally blank.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 THE NEED FOR OBJECTIVE DEW POINT MEASUREMENT ......................................... 1
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES............................................................................................ 2
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK AND TECHNICAL APPROACH ....................................................... 2
2. MODIFICATION OF APPARATUS FOR HCDP ANALYZER TESTS......................... 5
2.1 DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................. 5
2.2 TEST ARTICLES..................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Bureau of Mines Manual Chilled Mirror .................................................. 6
2.2.2 Ametek Model 241 CE II .......................................................................... 7
2.2.3 Michell Condumax II................................................................................ 9
2.3 FINAL APPARATUS DESIGN ................................................................................. 11
2.3.1 Layout .................................................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Warm Box .......................................................................................... 18
2.3.3 Pressure and Temperature Instrumentation............................................ 18
2.3.4 Gas Chromatograph............................................................................... 19
2.3.5 Modifications to the Test Articles ........................................................... 20
2.4 TEST GAS COMPOSITIONS ................................................................................... 25
3. TEST PROCEDURES................................................................................................... 29
3.1 PREHEATING OF GAS BLENDS AND EQUIPMENT ................................................... 29
3.2 GAS CHROMATOGRAPH CALIBRATION................................................................. 29
3.3 INTRODUCTION OF A NEW TEST GAS ................................................................... 30
3.4 DEW POINT MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES ........................................................... 31
3.4.1 Procedure for the Bureau of Mines Chilled Mirror................................. 32
3.4.2 Procedure for the Ametek 241 CE II....................................................... 32
3.4.3 Procedure for the Michell Condumax II ................................................. 33
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 35
4.1 MEASUREMENTS OF MOISTURE CONTENT ........................................................... 35
4.2 COMMENTS ON HCDP CALCULATIONS................................................................ 37
4.3 1,050-BTU/SCF (39.12-MJ/NM3) TEST RESULTS .................................................. 38
4.4 1,145- BTU/SCF (42.66-MJ/NM3) TEST RESULTS ................................................. 51
4.5 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ....................................................................................... 62
4.5.1 Results from the Bureau of Mines Chilled Mirror ................................... 62
4.5.2 Results from the Ametek 241 CE II ......................................................... 63
4.5.3 Results from the Michell Condumax II.................................................... 64
4.5.4 Effect of Filtration on Analyzer Accuracy............................................... 65
4.5.5 Automated Analyzer Response Times...................................................... 67
4.5.6 Measurement Uncertainty and Analyzer Repeatability............................ 68
5. CONCLUSIONS AND PLANS FOR FURTHER WORK............................................. 72
APPENDIX: APPROVED TEST PROCEDURE FOR HYDROCARBON DEW POINT
EXPERIMENTS ........................................................................................................... 79
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIGURE 2-1. A CHANDLER CHANSCOPE II CHILLED MIRROR DEW POINT TESTER
SIMILAR TO THE UNIT USED IN THIS RESEARCH. .................................................... 6
FIGURE 2-2. EXAMPLES OF HYDROCARBON DEW POINT FORMATIONS ON A
MANUAL CHILLED MIRROR. LEFT, AN IRIDESCENT RING DEW POINT;
RIGHT, A DROPLET DEW POINT. ............................................................................ 7
FIGURE 2-3. AN AMETEK MODEL 241 CE II AUTOMATED DEW POINT TESTER
SIMILAR TO THE UNIT USED IN THIS RESEARCH. .................................................... 8
FIGURE 2-4. CUTAWAY VIEW OF THE MEASUREMENT CELL WITHIN THE AMETEK
241 CE II (AMETEK, 2005). ................................................................................ 8
FIGURE 2-5. DETAIL OF THE AMETEK 241 CE II SAMPLE FILTRATION SYSTEM.......................... 9
FIGURE 2-6. A MICHELL CONDUMAX II AUTOMATED DEW POINT TESTER SIMILAR
TO THE UNIT USED IN THIS RESEARCH..................................................................10
FIGURE 2-7. REPRESENTATION OF THE REFLECTED LIGHT PATTERN FROM THE
CONDUMAX II CHILLED MIRROR WHEN HYDROCARBON CONDENSATE
FORMS...............................................................................................................10
FIGURE 2-8. LAYOUT OF THE TEST SYSTEM. ...........................................................................12
FIGURE 2-9. SCHEMATIC OF THE TEST SYSTEM. ......................................................................13
FIGURE 2-10. TEST SYSTEM RECIRCULATING LOOP IN THE INTERIOR OF THE WARM
BOX...................................................................................................................13
FIGURE 2-11. DESIGN OF THE MAGNETICALLY-COUPLED RODLESS CYLINDER USED
TO DRIVE THE FLOW OF THE TEST GAS.................................................................14
FIGURE 2-12. INTERNAL SCHEMATIC OF THE PISTON ACCUMULATOR USED TO
CONTROL LOOP PRESSURE AND MIX THE TEST GAS...............................................15
FIGURE 2-13. SCHEMATIC OF THE GAS HANDLING SIDE OF THE TEST SYSTEM. ...........................16
FIGURE 2-14. SCHEMATIC OF THE TEST ARTICLE SIDE OF THE TEST SYSTEM. .............................17
FIGURE 2-15. VARIAN CP-4900 PORTABLE GAS CHROMATOGRAPH USED TO
ANALYZE TEST GASES. .......................................................................................19
FIGURE 2-16. AMETEK 241 CE II STANDARD SAMPLING SYSTEM SCHEMATIC............................22
FIGURE 2-17. AMETEK 241 CE II MODIFIED SAMPLING SYSTEM SCHEMATIC. ............................22
FIGURE 2-18. PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AMETEK 241 CE II MODIFIED SAMPLING
SYSTEM. ............................................................................................................23
FIGURE 2-19. MICHELL CONDUMAX II STANDARD SAMPLING SYSTEM SCHEMATIC....................24
FIGURE 2-20. MICHELL CONDUMAX II MODIFIED SAMPLING SYSTEM SCHEMATIC. ....................24
FIGURE 2-21. PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MICHELL CONDUMAX II MODIFIED SAMPLING
SYSTEM. ............................................................................................................25
FIGURE 4-1. TRENDS IN ANALYZED NITROGEN CONTENT OF THE 1,050-BTU/SCF
(39.12-MJ/NM3) GAS BLEND DURING TEST PREPARATIONS. .................................39
FIGURE 4-2. TRENDS IN ANALYZED DECANE CONTENT OF THE 1,050-BTU/SCF
(39.12-MJ/NM3) GAS BLEND DURING TEST PREPARATIONS. .................................40
FIGURE 4-3. TRENDS IN ANALYZED NITROGEN CONTENT OF THE 1,050-BTU/SCF
(39.12-MJ/NM3) GAS BLEND DURING ANALYZER TESTS.......................................41
FIGURE 4-4. TRENDS IN ANALYZED NONANE CONTENT OF THE 1,050-BTU/SCF
x
FIGURE 4-5. TRENDS IN ANALYZED DECANE CONTENT OF THE 1,050-BTU/SCF
FIGURE 4-6. COMPARISON OF 1,050-BTU/SCF (39.12-MJ/NM3) GAS DEW POINTS
MEASURED WITH THE BUREAU OF MINES CHILLED MIRROR WITH
DEW POINT CURVES PREDICTED FROM GC ANALYSES. .........................................44
MEASURED BY THE AMETEK ANALYZER WITH DEW POINT CURVES
PREDICTED FROM GC ANALYSES. .......................................................................45
MEASURED BY THE MICHELL ANALYZER WITH DEW POINT CURVES
MEASURED BY ALL INSTRUMENTS AND PREDICTED FROM ALL GC
ANALYSES. ........................................................................................................48
MEASURED BY ALL INSTRUMENTS, AFTER ADJUSTMENTS FOR
CHANGES IN GAS COMPOSITION DURING TESTS. ...................................................50
FIGURE 4-11. TRENDS IN ANALYZED NITROGEN CONTENT OF THE 1,145- BTU/SCF
FIGURE 4-12. TRENDS IN ANALYZED NONANE CONTENT OF THE 1,145- BTU/SCF
FIGURE 4-13. TRENDS IN ANALYZED DECANE CONTENT OF THE 1,145- BTU/SCF
FIGURE 4-14. COMPARISON OF 1,145- BTU/SCF (42.66-MJ/NM3) GAS DEW POINTS
MEASURED WITH THE BUREAU OF MINES CHILLED MIRROR WITH
DEW POINT CURVES PREDICTED FROM GC ANALYSES. .........................................55
MEASURED BY THE AMETEK ANALYZER WITH DEW POINT CURVES
MEASURED BY THE MICHELL ANALYZER WITH DEW POINT CURVES
MEASURED BY ALL INSTRUMENTS AND PREDICTED FROM ALL GC
ANALYSES. ........................................................................................................59
MEASURED BY ALL INSTRUMENTS, AFTER ADJUSTMENTS FOR
CHANGES IN GAS COMPOSITION DURING THE TESTS. ............................................61
FIGURE 4-19. FILTERS FROM THE AUTOMATED ANALYZERS AS FOUND AFTER THE
TESTS, SHOWING NORMAL COLORATION: (A) THE FILTER MEMBRANE
FROM THE MICHELL CONDUMAX II; (B) FIRST-STAGE MEMBRANE
FROM THE AMETEK 241 CE II, SHOWING SMALL PARTICLES NEAR
THE TOP AND RIGHT EDGES BUT NO DISCOLORATION; (C) SECOND-
STAGE MEMBRANE FROM THE AMETEK UNIT, SHOWING DIMPLING
BUT NO DISCOLORATION; (3) THIRD-STAGE FILTER FROM THE
AMETEK UNIT, SHOWING NORMAL COLORATION. ................................................66
xi
FIGURE A1. TEST SETUP SCHEMATIC. ...................................................................................84
FIGURE A2. TEST SETUP SCHEMATIC DEW POINT DEVICE DETAIL. .....................................85
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 2-1. SPECIFICATIONS OF THE MANUAL CHILLED MIRROR AND ANALYZERS

TESTED IN THIS RESEARCH................................................................................... 6
TABLE 2-2. NOMINAL COMPOSITIONS AND CALCULATED PROPERTIES OF
NATURAL GAS BLENDS CHOSEN FOR THE SWRI HYDROCARBON DEW
POINT TESTS. COMPONENT VALUES ARE IN UNITS OF MOLE PERCENT...................26
TABLE 3-1. EQUIPMENT TEMPERATURES AND TEST CONDITIONS FOR EACH TEST
GAS COMPOSITION..............................................................................................31
TABLE 4-1. WATER VAPOR CONTENT OF THE TEST LOOP BEFORE AND DURING
HYDROCARBON DEW POINT TESTS.......................................................................36
TABLE 4-2. AVERAGES AND 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS OF CYCLE TIMES (IN
MINUTES AND SECONDS) FOR EACH AUTOMATED INSTRUMENT AT
EACH TEST CONDITION. ......................................................................................67
TABLE 4-3. PUBLISHED UNCERTAINTIES IN DEW POINT MEASUREMENTS BY EACH
DEVICE. .............................................................................................................68
TABLE 4-4. CALIBRATION UNCERTAINTIES IN TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE
INSTRUMENTATION USED WITH DEW POINT MEASUREMENT DEVICES....................68
TABLE 4-5. AVERAGES AND 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS OF DEW POINT
PRESSURES AND TEMPERATURES, FOR EACH INSTRUMENT AND TEST
CONDITION, USED TO QUANTIFY MEASUREMENT REPEATABILITY. ........................70
xii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The success of this project was possible only through the aid of many individuals, companies,
and participant representatives, and the authors wish to thank them for their guidance and help.
Foremost are participant representatives and members of the Project Advisory Committee, which
guided the project scope of work and defined its goals:
Ray Adcock (Ametek Process and Analytical Instruments)
Andy Benton (Michell Instruments Ltd.)
Dave Bergman (BP, representing Gas Processors Association)
Dave Bromley (BP, representing Pipeline Research Council International, Inc.)
Ron Brunner (Gas Processors Association)
Paul Burnett (representing Michell Instruments Ltd.)
Dean Osmar (Ametek Process and Analytical Instruments)
Dan Potter (Ametek Process and Analytical Instruments)
William Ryan (El Paso Energy, representing Pipeline Research Council
International, Inc. and liaison to the American Petroleum Institute)
Andrew Stokes (Michell Instruments Ltd.)
Mike Whelan (Pipeline Research Council International, Inc.)
Several of these members took time from their schedules for planning meetings, test observation,
and assistance in test preparation, and their efforts are greatly appreciated.
Others associated with the natural gas industry are recognized for providing supplies and
technical assistance with the project. The authors would like to thank Andy Tomich of Questar
Applied Technology Services and Fred DAngelo of DGC Partnership for their guidance in the
initial calibration of the Varian gas chromatograph. Appreciation is also extended to Mr. Tomich
and Questar Applied Technology Services for the loan of a spare gas chromatograph module to
SwRI, which allowed project preparations to continue on schedule. DCG Partnership and Scott
Specialty Gases donated test gases and GC calibration gases for the project, and their support of
the project is gratefully acknowledged.
Last but not least, the authors would like to thank Dave Spears of the SwRI technical staff.
Without Daves advice and efforts in gathering data, and particularly in operating the Bureau of
Mines chilled mirror, the accomplishments of this project would not have been possible.
xiii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE NEED FOR OBJECTIVE DEW POINT MEASUREMENT

for measuring dew points of natural gas streams at field sites. With this device, a natural gas
sample flows continuously across the surface of a small mirror, while a flow of low-temperature
gas (usually carbon dioxide or nitrogen) cools the mirror from the other side. A resistive
temperature device or thermocouple detects the mirror temperature as it is cooled, and this
temperature is displayed within the field of view of the eyepiece. To measure the dew point of
the natural gas sample, an operator slowly decreases the mirror temperature by adjusting the flow
rate of the low-temperature gas. The operator then watches through an eyepiece for hydrocarbon
condensation on the mirror surface. When condensation is detected, the operator reads the
mirror temperature and records it as the hydrocarbon dew point.
This device is sometimes used to resolve custody transfer disputes over natural gas quality.
Recent investigations into the accuracy of hydrocarbon dew points predicted using equations of
state have also led to the recommendation that the HCDP be measured using a chilled mirror
device where there is uncertainty in the calculated values (American Petroleum Institute, 2006).
However, use of the chilled mirror device requires skill and training to operate, and measurement
techniques can vary from operator to operator. Errors can be made by inexperienced users in
controlling the flow of the low-temperature gas, in identifying condensation when it first
appears, or in identifying the source of moisture (hydrocarbons versus water vapor). Some
advances in operator training are being made through the use of video footage to record the
condensation process. However, because the dew point is detected visually, the chilled mirror is
still considered a subjective instrument.
An ideal dew point instrument would rely on objectively measured properties of the gas flow,
such as density, optical absorption, or temperature changes with pressure drop, to identify the
dew point. Such an instrument could have the potential for improved repeatability and tighter
measurement uncertainties than the chilled mirror device, which is subject to operator bias. An
ideal hydrocarbon dew point instrument would also be useful as a method for settling custody
transfer disputes quickly and impartially, or for improving the efficiency of LNG blending.
Easily installed remote instruments could be used to monitor conditions at custody transfer
points, alerting parties to gas quality problems in real time. The ability to identify problems
before they lead to disputes and shut-ins would make such instruments a cost-effective
alternative to hand-operated chilled mirror devices that must be transported to the site.
Optical methods of detecting water vapor dew points have been incorporated into sensors for
various applications, but the use of these methods to detect hydrocarbon dew points is in its early
stages. Two commercial instruments sold worldwide use different optical methods to detect
condensed hydrocarbons and measure the hydrocarbon dew point directly. Research has been
proposed to independently evaluate the accuracy of these commercially-available devices, and to
provide information for a U.S. industry standard that will guide the use of these devices in
custody transfer situations. This report describes the first phase of a Joint Industry Project to
perform such an independent evaluation.
1
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the Hydrocarbon Dew Point Analyzer JIP is to evaluate existing cost-
effective instruments capable of repeatable, objective dew point measurements that may easily
replace the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device for routine hydrocarbon dew point
determination at remote sites. The instruments are evaluated based on their accuracy and
performance in different gas compositions representing production and transmission gas streams.
Specific objectives of the project are as follows:
Determine the instruments repeatability at various dew point measurement conditions.
Determine the measurement uncertainties of the instruments.
Obtain information on the general capabilities of automated hydrocarbon dew point
instruments that may also be confirmed with data on natural gases in the field, and
eventually used in preparing U.S. industry standards on their use.
Assess the impact of sample filtration on instrument performance and accuracy in natural
gas streams free of particulates, water, and alcohols.
Determine the intervals needed for repeat measurements by the instruments, and verify
the recovery time of the instruments after exposure to elevated hydrocarbon dew point
temperatures.
This report describes Phase I of the project, in which devices have been tested against (1)
measurements made with a Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device, and (2) equation-of-state dew
point predictions based on gas chromatograph analyses of the test gases. Phase II of the project,
under way as this report is being published, will provide additional data to meet these objectives,
as well as assess the impact of moisture and methanol in the gas stream on instrument
performance.
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

Work on the project began with creation of a protocol for testing commercially-available
automated hydrocarbon dew point analyzers. The protocol was closely based on a similar
procedure used with the same apparatus to obtain reference hydrocarbon dew point data (George
et al., 2005b; George and Burkey, 2005c). In this case, test gas composition(s), test pressures,
and evaluation criteria for the analyzers and the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror were chosen
with input from representatives of the JIP participants. The details of the protocol are described
in Section 3 of this report.
After discussions with members of the PRCI Measurement Technical Committee, discussions
with contacts in the natural gas industry, and literature searches, two commercially-available
hydrocarbon dew point analyzers were selected for testing. Two of the JIP participants each
provided one test unit:
Ametek Model 241 CE II
Michell Condumax II
An experimental HCDP research apparatus at Southwest Research Institute was modified to test
these automated analyzers. This apparatus was originally designed to closely control flowing gas
2
conditions in a Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device, as part of tests to provide reference
hydrocarbon dew point data. For this research, the apparatus was modified to supply a
controlled gas stream to the automated analyzers as well as the manual chilled mirror device.
With help from the analyzer manufacturers and other JIP participants, the apparatus was
modified to provide each device with the same gas stream at its own specified flow conditions.
Minor modifications were made to the Ametek and Michell units, primarily downstream of the
dew point sensor locations, to allow the analyzers to operate on the recirculating gas stream. A
small warm box was also built to maintain the test apparatus and lines to the analyzers above the
dew point of production-quality gas compositions. Section 2 describes the apparatus design and
the changes to the Michell and Ametek units for these tests.
Once modifications were complete and the apparatus had gone through a shakedown period, the
HCDP analyzers were tested to determine their ability to accurately measure hydrocarbon dew
points. Tests were performed using two well-characterized, gravimetrically-prepared gas blends
containing hydrocarbons through C10. One blend was prepared to resemble a transmission-
quality gas (heating value of 1,050 Btu/scf, 39.12 MJ/Nm3), the other a production gas
(1,145 Btu/scf, 42.66 MJ/Nm3). The higher heating value was chosen to provide information on
analyzer performance in gas streams where marginally-rich gas supplies or LNG have entered
the transmission system instead of conventional lean gas supplies. Multiple HCDP
measurements were made with each instrument at gas pressures below, at, and above the
cricondentherm of each gas blend. Analyzer results were compared to HCDP measurements
taken with the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror dew point tester and recorded with a digital video
camera, and to predictions from equations of state based on gas chromatographic analyses of the
test gases. Section 4 reviews these results and assesses the analyzers uncertainty and
repeatability. Data on response and recovery time of the analyzers are also presented. Finally,
Section 5 summarizes the test findings and discusses plans for Phase II of this project, which will
evaluate the analyzers performance in gas streams carrying condensable contaminants.
3
4
2. MODIFICATION OF APPARATUS FOR HCDP ANALYZER TESTS
The test apparatus used in the 2005 Gas Technology Institute (GTI)/Pipeline Research Council
International (PRCI) hydrocarbon dew point tests (George et al., 2005b; George and Burkey,
2005c) was modified to provide a controlled test system for the automated analyzers and the
manual chilled mirror. The test apparatus provided a continuous, recirculating gas stream at a
controlled flow rate to each test article individually.
2.1 DESIGN CRITERIA

The test apparatus used in the 2005 GTI/PRCI hydrocarbon dew point tests provided most of the
functionality required for the current research and only relatively minor modifications and/or
additions were required. The key final design parameters for the current embodiment of the test
apparatus included:
Capability to test the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) and 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3)
gas specified for the 2002-2003 and 2005 experiments.
Capability to route flow to one test article at a time during testing.
Test pressures from near atmospheric pressure to 1,500 psia (103 bara) [limited by
pressure rating of test article; 1,000 psia (68.9 bara) maximum planned test pressure].
Minimized system volume (currently approximately 4,250 cm3, 0.15 ft3).
Flow rate across test articles: 5 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh) (2.5 Nl/min).
Pressure measurements with a pressure transducer accurate to 3 psi (21 kPa) at the
one-sigma level.
Chilled mirror dew point tester temperature measurements with a resistance temperature
device (RTD) accurate to 0.2F (0.1C) at the one-sigma level.
2.2 TEST ARTICLES

The primary objective of this Joint Industry Project is to evaluate existing cost-effective
automated dew point analyzers capable of repeatable, objective dew point measurements that
may easily replace the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device for routine HCDP determination at
field sites. Two such analyzers were identified through discussions with members of the PRCI
Measurement Technical Committee, discussions with contacts in the natural gas industry, and
literature searches. These included:
Ametek Model 241 CE II
Michell Condumax II
The manufacturers of each of these analyzers became members of the JIP and provided analyzers
for testing. In addition, comparison measurements were made with a manual Bureau of Mines
chilled mirror device. Results were also compared to dew points estimated using the Multiflash
software package (Infochem, 2007) with the Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation of state and the
Multiflash default binary interaction parameters. Table 2-1 compares the specifications of the
three units tested in this research.
5
Table 2-1. Specifications of the manual chilled mirror and analyzers tested in this
research.
Bureau of Mines Ametek Michell

Device chilled mirror 241 CE II Condumax II
Reported accuracy 2.4F (1.3C)* 2F (1C) 0.9F (0.5C)
Sample flow rate 5 scfh (2.5 Nl/min) 2 scfh to 10 scfh 1 scfh (0.5 Nl/min)
(1 Nl/min to 5 Nl/min) (HCDP)
2 scfh to 10 scfh (1 Nl/min
to 5 Nl/min) (WVDP)
Maximum sample pressure 3,000 psig (207 2,000 psig (138 barg) 1,500 psig (103 barg)
barg)**
Operating environment 40F to 120F 50F to 104F -4F to 140F
(4C to 49C) (10C to 40C) (-20C to 60C)
Maximum gas temperature at inlet no specification 104F (40C) 122F (50C)
* See Warner et al., 2001. ** Specification of SwRI unit.
2.2.1 Bureau of Mines Manual Chilled Mirror

for measuring dew points of natural gas streams at field sites. With this device, a natural gas
sample flows continuously across the surface of a small mirror, while a flow of low temperature
gas (usually carbon dioxide or nitrogen) cools the mirror from the other side. On some older
units, a thermometer in physical contact with the mirror displays the mirror temperature as it is
cooled; on newer units, a resistive temperature device or thermocouple detects the mirror
temperature and a digital readout displays the temperature within the field of view of the
eyepiece (Figure 2-1). To measure the dew point of the natural gas sample, an operator slowly
decreases the mirror temperature by adjusting the flow rate of the low-temperature gas. The
operator then watches through an eyepiece for hydrocarbon condensation on the mirror surface.
When condensation is detected, the operator reads the mirror temperature and records it as the
hydrocarbon dew point.
Pressure gauge
Temperature
readout Heat exchanger
Eyepiece
RTD
Pressure
chamber
Figure 2-1. A Chandler Chanscope II chilled mirror dew point tester similar to the
unit used in this research.
6
Two different types of condensation on the mirror surface may be identified by different chilled
mirror users as the hydrocarbon dew point, as shown in Figure 2-2. Depending upon the
standards and requirements of the user, either formation may be cited as the hydrocarbon dew
point. One type, referred to here as the iridescent ring dew point, is observed when rainbow-
like colors form in the center of the mirror and quickly expand to cover the mirror. This
formation is generally believed to be a thin layer of hydrocarbon condensate, and indeed bears a
visual resemblance to an oil slick moving across the surface of a body of water. The other
formation, referred to in this report as the droplet dew point, occurs when small droplets of
hydrocarbon liquids nucleate and form on the mirror within the iridescent ring or near the edges
of the mirror. Usually, but not always, the iridescent ring dew point is observed first as the
mirror temperature is lowered, followed by the droplet dew point as more condensation occurs
and nucleation begins.
While the droplet dew point is generally cited as the dew point for custody transfer purposes in
the United States (George, 2006), many manual chilled mirror users in Europe use the iridescent
ring dew point as the reference dew point (e.g., Cowper, 2002). Both types of dew points were
recorded where possible in these tests, for comparison with dew points measured by the
automated devices.
Figure 2-2. Examples of hydrocarbon dew point formations on a manual chilled mirror.
Left, an iridescent ring dew point; right, a droplet dew point.
2.2.2 Ametek Model 241 CE II

The Ametek Model 241CE II analyzer (Figure 2-3) uses an automated optical detection method
to identify dew points, avoiding the subjectivity involved with human operation. The 241 CE II
uses a Peltier thermoelectric cooler to control the temperature of a two-sided mirror in a
sample chamber (Figure 2-4). Each side of the mirror is used to identify different dew points:
hydrocarbon condensation is identified on one side of the mirror with a roughened surface, while
water vapor condensation can be identified on the other side, which has a polished, reflective
surface. The lower surface tension of hydrocarbon liquids causes them to form a thin film on the
roughened side, while water condenses into smaller droplets on the polished side. When a thin
hydrocarbon film is detected, the unit records the temperature of the mirror as the hydrocarbon
dew point; this is analogous to the iridescent ring dew point recorded by Bureau of Mines
chilled mirror users. Under normal operation, the 241 CE II uses the water dew point
measurement only as a diagnostic. The placement of the mirrors at the top of the sample
chamber prevents the build-up of liquids on the mirror surfaces in cases where the dew point of
the stream approaches ambient temperatures. Samples entering the analyzer pass through a
multiple-stage filtration system designed to protect the analyzer from aerosols, particulates and
liquid slugs (Figure 2-5).
7
Figure 2-3. An Ametek Model 241 CE II automated dew point tester similar to the unit
used in this research.
Figure 2-4. Cutaway view of the measurement cell within the Ametek 241 CE II
(Ametek, 2005).
8
Figure 2-5. Detail of the Ametek 241 CE II sample filtration system.
The Ametek measurement cycle consists of three stages: a cooling stage, during which the mirror
temperature is lowered until condensation is detected; a warming stage, during which the
condensate is revaporized; and a purge stage, during which sample gas flows through the sample
system and measuring cell to completely purge the measuring cell. During the cooling stage, a
microcontroller controls the cooling rate of the mirror until a photodetector detects changes in
light intensity caused by liquid condensation on the mirror surfaces. The mirror temperature is
measured using a platinum RTD.
The cooling rate of the mirror is controlled so as to provide repeatable measurements. In
particular, the temperature of the mirror is decreased linearly at the fast cooling rate (default
5C/min, 9F/min) from the mirror upper set point temperature until the mirror temperature
reaches a preset temperature (default 10C, 18F) above the last determined HCDP temperature.
After this temperature is reached, the mirror is then cooled at the slow cooling rate (default
2C/min, 3.6F/min) until either the HCDP is detected or the mirror lower set point temperature
is reached. In the initial measurement cycle after power-up or a system reset, the mirror is
cooled at the slow cooling rate for the entire cooling stage. The temperature of all components in
the sampling system must be at least 18F (10C) above the highest expected hydrocarbon dew
point temperature of the gas stream for efficient operation of the Peltier cooler.
The default purge time is ten minutes and the complete measurement cycle takes approximately
20 minutes. The purge time, cooling rates, and the switchover set point can be adjusted from
the default values for specific applications, thereby modifying the overall length of the
measurement cycle as well. These adjustments may be made from the front panel of the
analyzer, using a PC interface, or remotely via Modbus communications.
2.2.3 Michell Condumax II
The Michell Condumax II analyzer (Figure 2-6) also uses an automated optical detection method
to identify dew points. The detection configuration of the Condumax II is essentially
quantitative, responding to the amount of condensate forming on a cooled optical surface, and is
designed for sensitivity on the order of 5 mg/m3 (0.31 lbm/MMcf) of condensate. The stainless
9
steel "mirror" surface contains a central conical-shaped depression, onto which collimated red
light is focused. In the dry condition, the incident light beam is dispersed by the acid-etched
mirror surface, providing a base signal to the optical detector. During a measurement cycle, a
Peltier heat pump lowers the mirror temperature at a controlled rate. When the dew point is
reached, hydrocarbon condensate forms on the optical surface and it becomes reflective, due to
the low surface tension of the condensate. A ring of light forms around the detector, and the
scattered light intensity within the central region is reduced (Figure 2-7). The resulting signal
change is quantified by the measurement electronics in units of millivolts. The Condumax II
determines the HCDP as the temperature of the optical surface when a set signal trip point value
is reached during the measurement cooling cycle. The measurement cell is rated to 100 barg
(1,450 psig) and is specified to have a lowest measurable hydrocarbon dew point of
approximately -35C (-31F).
Figure 2-6. A Michell Condumax II automated dew point tester similar to the unit used
in this research.
Figure 2-7. Representation of the reflected light pattern from the Condumax II chilled
mirror when hydrocarbon condensate forms.
10
The Michell Condumax II measurement cycle consists of a measurement stage during which the
mirror temperature is lowered until condensation is detected, and a recovery stage in which the
optical surface is actively heated to evaporate condensates back into the flowing gas sample.
During the measurement stage, flow to the HCDP cell is interrupted by a solenoid valve closed
downstream of the HCDP measuring cell, and the unit analyzes a fixed sample of the natural gas
stream within the cell. This technique is advocated by Michell Instruments as a way to prevent
preferential drop-out of heavy components from a flowing sample. During start-up, the
Condumax II performs a measurement cycle at a standard chill rate in order to "range-find" the
hydrocarbon dew point. On subsequent cycles, the previously measured HCDP value is used to
determine an optimized chill rate that will cause the sensor surface to cool quickly in the initial
phase. The chill rate is then reduced to 0.1F/sec (0.05C/sec) as the sensor approaches the
hydrocarbon dew point.
Several parameters in the Condumax II measurement cycle are adjustable. The length of the
entire HCDP measurement cycle can be set by the user, and the minimum (and default) cycle
time is ten minutes. This typically results in a measurement stage of 2 to 3 minutes and a
recovery stage of 7 to 8 minutes. The factory default trip point setting of 275mV at 400 psig
(27.6 barg) has been found through field experience to give good agreement with manual visual
chilled mirror measurements of the droplet hydrocarbon dew point at the same analysis
pressure. Adjustment of the trip point setting can allow users to fine tune the measurement
sensitivity of the Condumax II to harmonize with the measurement practices applied by their
individual companies, such as the definition of an iridescent ring dew point, a droplet dew point,
or a predefined volume of liquid condensate as the official dew point. For analysis pressures
higher or lower than 400 psig (27.6 barg), the actual sample volume within the sensor cell will
change proportionately with pressure. Michell Instruments recommends adjusting the default
275mV trip point setting in proportion to the pressure change to maintain consistent
measurement sensitivity in terms of mass of condensate per unit volume of sample gas. Details
on the relationship between the measurement trip point and the mass of condensate per unit
volume of gas are described by Panneman, 2005.
The Michell Condumax II also includes a Michell ceramic moisture sensor that operates on a gas
sample in parallel with the hydrocarbon dew point measurement cell to provide a water dew
point measurement (see Figure 2-19 and Figure 2-20 later in this section). The gas supplied to
the Michell Condumax II is split between the hydrocarbon and water dew point measurement
paths and is recombined after the measurement prior to leaving the Condumax II. The water dew
point sample gas flow is continuous and is not affected by the hydrocarbon dew point
measurement cycle. The water dew point measurement is updated at one-second intervals.
2.3 FINAL APPARATUS DESIGN

The design of the test system was planned based on input from the JIP members at the test
protocol development meeting held at SwRI in January 2007 and reviewed in detail with the JIP
members at the design review teleconference held in March 2007. In addition, in late January
2007, Ametek Process and Analytical Instruments and Michell Instruments demonstrated the
operation of the analyzers and provided training to SwRI staff concerning the operation of the
analyzers.
11
2.3.1 Layout
The final design of the test apparatus, including the warm box that houses a recirculating loop,
the test articles, and all ancillary equipment, is shown in its entirety in Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9.
A recirculating, closed loop (Figure 2-10), placed inside the warm box, flows the test gas through
the test articles. Flow is induced through the closed loop and through the test at approximately
5 scfh (2.5 Nl/min) by a magnetically coupled, rodless cylinder chosen to eliminate rod seals
(Figure 2-11). The rodless cylinder is actuated by a worm-gear-driven linear slide, powered by a
stepper motor and control system located outside the chamber. A bank of four
pneumatically-actuated solenoid valves are activated by the motor control system to direct flow
in one direction around the closed loop as the rodless cylinder is stroked back and forth. All
wetted parts of the test apparatus are made of stainless steel or Viton elastomers to avoid
adsorption of heavy hydrocarbons from the gas into the equipment. Samples of the gas in the
loop are sent to a gas chromatograph and moisture analyzer at a pressure of approximately
50 psig (3.4 barg); the regulator through which the samples pass is heated to avoid the potential
distortion of the sample composition by Joule-Thomson cooling.
Ametek 241 CE II Michell Condumax II Gas Chromatograph
LN2 Supply
Dew Scope
Warm Box
Auxiliary Chiller Primary Chiller
Figure 2-8. Layout of the test system.
12
SW2
PS2
5V D C
SW1
PR2
AUXILLARY PRIMARY DEW SCOPE MV1
CHILLER CHILLER INSULATED WARM BOX
T1 LT1
MV2
VIDEO PS1
N2
CAMERA
1 2 V DC
TV
MV7 SSR1
VCR MIXER HP SV4
LN2
D ATA LO GGE R
P1 T2 SV1(a)
MV3 T4
AUTOMATED
VIDEO DATA ANALYZER #1
LN2
CAMERA COM PUT ER (AMETEK) PR7
MV4 SV1(b)
P2
REMOTE MV8 ACCUMULATOR
INTERFACE VENT
N2
UNIT SV3 SV3
MV5
AUTOMATED N.O. N.C. N.C. N.O. SV2 VENT
D2 P3 CV4
ANALYZER #2 PRESSURANT BV1
MV6
(MICHELL) BV2
D1 VACUUM
STEPPER CV3 PUMP
CV1 CV2
MOTOR DV1 P4 DV2
GAS
M OT OR MOTOR PR1 CHROMATOGRAPH
CO NTRO L BV4 BV3
CO MPU TE R
CONT ROL LE R DV6
PRIME MOVER GC PR3 PR4 PR5
T5 PR6 COM PUT ER
DV3 DV4
CGD1
T6
TEST NG
DV5
CAL NG
CH4
He
LT2 T7
HT
T3
PC2
SSR2 BT1
BT2
DPS1 PS3 12VDC LARM
PC1
SSD SSD
SSR3 SSD
SSD
MR1
SSD
SSD
Figure 2-9. Schematic of the test system.
Combustible Gas Detector

Pressure Transducers
Warm Box
(Interior)
Magnetically Coupled,
Rodless Piston
Stepper Motor
Desiccant Cylinders
Heater/Fan Heated Pressure Regulator Accumulator
Figure 2-10. Test system recirculating loop in the interior of the warm box.
13
Figure 2-11. Design of the magnetically-coupled rodless cylinder used to drive the flow of
the test gas.
The flow is ported through an accumulator (Figure 2-12) such that the gas is well mixed in the
accumulator before it reaches the test articles. The static pressure in the closed loop is produced
and maintained by this piston accumulator system, located inside the warm box. The test gas is
delivered from the low-pressure delivery cylinder to the test loop, which includes the top side of
the piston accumulator. Pressurant (compressed nitrogen gas) is applied to the bottom side of the
piston accumulator in order to reduce the test loop volume and to pressurize the test gas to the
desired test pressure. As installed in the current test system, the piston accumulator has
sufficient displacement relative to the internal volume of the remainder of the test system to
increase the test system pressure by a factor of approximately 6.5 above the pressure delivered to
the system with the accumulator fully expanded. Thus, for the current testing for each gas blend,
all test pressures were achieved with a single charge of test gas to the test system (i.e., no gas
was added or removed from the test system, with the exception of GC analysis samples, during
the course of testing each gas blend).
The test system has provisions to pressurize the test gas to more than 6.5 times the maximum
delivery pressure of the delivery cylinder by means of multiple fills and strokes of the piston
accumulator. However, this functionality was not needed or used for the current testing.
14
35.3
Pressurant
Exit
Sliding Bushing
Piston
Inlet
Figure 2-12. Internal schematic of the piston accumulator used to control loop pressure
and mix the test gas.
The schematic in Figure 2-13 shows the layout of equipment on the gas handling side of the
test system. The gas handling equipment includes the test gas cylinder; the gas chromatograph,
along with calibration gases and associated helium carrier gases; the methane cylinder used to
purge the test loop; the nitrogen pressurant cylinder used to pressurize the accumulator; a second
nitrogen cylinder used to control the pneumatic solenoid valves; the vacuum pump; the liquid
nitrogen (LN2) dewars used to purge the interior of the warm box; and the manifold and vent
lines used to route the various gases to and from the test system.
The test gas and calibration gas cylinders were placed on insulated pads to thermally isolate them
from the laboratory floor. The test gas and calibration gas cylinders were wrapped in regulated
heating blankets to control the gas temperature, and insulated covers were placed over the top of
each cylinder and its regulator to minimize convection cooling. The heating blankets were
regulated using an RTD attached to the wall of the cylinder, placed halfway up its height. After
the wall of the cylinder reached the specified temperature, cylinder heating continued for a
minimum of 24 hours before the cylinder was first opened. This requirement was imposed to
ensure that the core temperature of the gas in the cylinder had reached a temperature at least
30F (16.7C) above its calculated hydrocarbon dew point. The gas was heated continuously
until the conclusion of testing. In addition, all components (tubing, valves, and test and
calibration gas cylinder pressure regulators) carrying test gas or calibration gas outside the warm
box were heat traced and insulated to the same time and temperature requirements.
15
SW2
SW1
PR2
PS1
N2
12VDC
SSR1
SV4
LN2
LN2
PR7
VENT
N2
VENT
P3 CV4
PRESSURANT BV1
BV2
VACUUM
CV3 PUMP
P4 CV1 CV2
DV1 DV2
GAS
CHROMATOGRAPH
INSULATED WARM BOX
BV4 BV3
DV6
GC PR3 PR4 PR5
PR6 COMPUTER
DV3 DV4
TEST NG
DV5
CAL NG
CH4
He
HT
T3
PC2
SSR2 BT1
BT2
SSD
Figure 2-13. Schematic of the gas handling side of the test system.
The schematic in Figure 2-14 shows the layout of the equipment on the test article side of the
test system. The test system equipment includes the three test articles; the data acquisition
(DAQ) system collecting temperature and pressure data; the glycol chillers controlling the
chilled mirror temperature; the video system recording the view on the dew scope; and the
manifold used to route flow to each of the test articles. In addition, all components (tubing,
manifold valves, and manual dew point tester) carrying test gas or calibration gas outside the
warm box or the Ametek and Michell heated enclosures were heat traced and insulated.
16
PS2
5VDC
AUXILLARY PRIMARY DEW SCOPE MV1
CHILLER CHILLER
T1 LT1
MV2
VIDEO
CAMERA
TV
MV7
VCR MIXER
HP
DATALOGGER
MV3
AUTOMATED
VIDEO DATA ANALYZER #1
CAMERA COMPUTER (AMETEK)
INSULATED WARM BOX

MV4
REMOTE MV8
INTERFACE
UNIT
MV5
AUTOMATED
ANALYZER #2
MV6
(MICHELL)
MOTOR
CONTROL
MOTOR
CONTROLLER
COMPUTER
Figure 2-14. Schematic of the test article side of the test system.
Two laboratory glycol chillers were required in order to achieve the low coolant temperatures
required for the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas tests. An auxiliary chiller was used to cool
air blown over the condenser coils of the primary chiller to reduce the primary chillers coolant
bath temperature.
The schematic in Figure 2-14 shows that the three test articles may be connected in parallel to
the test system. When changing test system pressure, the test articles were connected in parallel
by opening all manifold valves. The manifold used to route flow to each of the test articles also
allows flow to be routed though one device at a time during testing. In particular, the unit under
test was valved into the test loop and experienced flow, while the other two units not under test
were valved out of the test loop and did not experience flow. The units not under test did remain
filled with test gas while waiting their turn for testing. The manifold used to route flow to each
of the test articles also included two bypass valves (MV7 and MV8) that allowed the three test
articles to be connected in series; this feature was used during loop preparation steps (including
17
the methane and helium fill/flush cycles) only. The bypass valves (MV7 and MV8) were always
closed during testing.
2.3.2 Warm Box

An insulated warm box was constructed in order to maintain the test loop at a temperature of
approximately 110F (43C) for the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas tests. This was done to
ensure that the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) test gas within the test loop would remain in the
gas phase at all test pressures. The warm box was constructed using 3/4 (19-mm) plywood and
includes 3/4 (19-mm) fiberboard insulation on all six interior surfaces. Four 400W heater and
fan assemblies warm and circulate the nitrogen within the warm box. The temperature in the
warm box is maintained using a temperature controller that supplies power to the heaters, as
necessary, based on the measured nitrogen temperature in the warm box. Power to the fans is
supplied continuously to maintain circulation within the warm box. Surface temperatures of
several key components (e.g., the rodless piston and accumulator) are monitored to ensure
appropriate warming. Electrical and plumbing access to and from the warm box is completed
through 1/2 (13-mm) thick PVC plates on each end of the warm box. A clear acrylic window in
the warm box front allows visualization of the motor and rodless piston motion during testing.
Due to the use of non-intrinsically safe hardware (e.g., the stepper motor, heaters, and fans)
within the warm box, two safety shutdowns were implemented (in addition to the thorough
helium leak checking conducted during the test system setup). The two safety shutdowns were
wired in series such than a fault in either safety shutdown would shut down all power sources
inside the warm box. First, the warm box was purged with nitrogen (boil-off from a LN2 dewar)
to reduce the oxygen concentration to less than 5% (as measured with a handheld multigas
detector) before any test gas was introduced to the test setup. The positive pressure nitrogen
purge was maintained within the warm box for the duration of testing and measured oxygen
concentrations were reduced to less than 1.5%. A low-range differential pressure switch was
installed to shut down all power sources within the warm box if the positive pressure nitrogen
purge was not maintained. Second, a combustible gas detector using infrared sensor technology
monitored the interior of the warm box for the presence of natural gas (from a leak in the test
system into the warm box). The combustible gas detector would shut down all power sources
within the warm box if it detected methane at levels greater than 10% of the lower explosive
limit.
2.3.3 Pressure and Temperature Instrumentation

All equipment used to collect test data was calibrated at the SwRI Calibration Laboratory prior to
installation in the test system. Test system pressures (P1, upstream of test articles; and P2,
downstream of test articles) were measured with Rosemount Model 3051TC pressure transducers
with a full-scale range of 4,000 psi (276 bar) and a manufacturers stated accuracy of 0.075% of
full scale. The dew point pressure for the manual dew point tester and the Ametek 241 CE II
were recorded using the upstream test system pressure (P1) transducer. The Michell
Condumax II contained a pressure transducer on board to measure dew point pressure. The dew
point temperature for the manual dew point tester was measured with a 100-Ohm, DIN Class A,
platinum RTD. Data were recorded with an HP 34970A data acquisition unit and HP 34902A
18
multifunction multiplexer cards. Many Type K thermocouples were used throughout the test
setup to confirm proper heating of the test equipment.
2.3.4 Gas Chromatograph

A Varian CP-4900 portable gas chromatograph (Figure 2-15) capable of 5-ppmv (parts per
million by volume) measurement resolution was purchased with SwRI capital equipment funds
for use in the tests. The dual channel unit includes a 0.4-meter Haysep A column with backflush
capability for detecting diluents and light hydrocarbons through propane, and a CP-Sil-5CB
8-meter packed column for detection of heavier hydrocarbons. Injection pressures, column
pressures and temperatures, and elution periods are controlled to allow analysis of hydrocarbons
through C10 in parts per million by volume (ppmv) quantities. This is the same model and
column configuration used in the 2005 hydrocarbon dew point tests sponsored by Gas
Technology Institute and PRCI (George et al., 2005b; George and Burkey, 2005c).
Figure 2-15. Varian CP-4900 portable gas chromatograph used to analyze test gases.
The choice of the Varian micro-GC was guided by several factors.

It is well known that the thermodynamic dew point (the condition at which hydrocarbons
just begin to condense from the stream) depends upon the heaviest hydrocarbon present.
Typical field gas chromatographs are C6+ units that report a single total amount of
hexanes and heavier hydrocarbons without reporting the individual amounts of heptanes,
octanes, etc. While this analysis is sufficient for prediction of heating values and other
19
gas properties needed for custody transfer, details of the heavy component distribution
are needed for accurate dew point predictions by equations of state.
During the 2002-2003 and 2005 hydrocarbon dew point experiments (George et al.,
2005b; George and Burkey, 2005c), the test gases were designed to resemble
transmission and production gases of interest to the industry. These gas compositions,
used again in these tests and shown in Table 2-2 (presented later in this section), contain
normal nonane and decane in amounts on the order of 10 ppmv to 40 ppmv. The Varian
CP-4900 is capable of hydrocarbon analyses through C10 to 5 ppmv resolution, making it
suitable for use with these test gases. (While C11 and C12 would also be present in natural
gas streams, their small amounts would make certifying similar quantities in the test gas
blends difficult.)
Gas chromatographs using flame ionization detector (FID) technology are generally
accepted as having better precision and repeatability in the ppmv range than GCs with
thermal conductivity detector (TCD) technology, such as the Varian CP-4900. Flame
ionization detector GCs are often used in laboratories where sub-ppmv analyses are
required, and such resolution is often desired when dew point predictions are to be made
for gases containing hydrocarbons through C12. However, the expense of FID-based GCs
and the safety considerations associated with the hydrogen carrier gas, made the use of an
FID GC impractical for this study.
2.3.5 Modifications to the Test Articles

In typical field installations, the automated analyzers operate in an open-loop, single-pass-
through mode in which the high-pressure gas to be analyzed is taken from its source, routed
though the sampling and measurement systems of the analyzer, and then dumped to a low
pressure vent. In contrast, the test system developed for the current work evaluated the
performance of automated dew point analyzers in a laboratory-controlled setting. This was
accomplished by providing a continuous, closed-loop, recirculating flow at a controlled static
pressure to each test article individually (i.e., the analyzers experienced high static pressure at
both their inlets and exits). This allowed all test articles to be tested with the same batch of gas
in a controlled fashion. However, the recirculating, closed-loop configuration of the test system
required some modification to each of the automated analyzers sampling systems in order to
integrate the automated analyzers into the test system.
In general, the modifications included removing pressure regulators, because the test pressure
and flow were controlled by the test system (specifically, the rodless piston and piston
accumulator), and involved removing any other unnecessary components that could cause
pressure drops in the sampling system. Any filters in the devices were not modified and
remained in the flow path as in a standard installation. Whenever possible, 1/8 (3-mm) tubing
was used for any additional tubing added to the analyzers as part of the modifications, in order to
minimize system volume. No changes were made to the hydrocarbon dew point measurement
hardware installed in the analyzers.
The modifications to the sampling systems of each test article are described in detail in the
following subsections. The modifications to the sampling systems of each test article were
carefully planned and implemented with the advice, consent, and oversight of all of the members
20
of the JIP, including the analyzer manufacturers. In addition, several modifications to the
Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device were made in order to record visual observations and
mirror temperature data. These modifications were originally implemented during the 2005
GTI/PRCI hydrocarbon dew point tests. The modified unit was reused in the current work, and
the modifications are described in detail below.
Bureau of Mines Chilled Mirror. The dew point testers RTD was replaced by an RTD whose
signal was carried back to a data acquisition system. A digital camcorder focused on the mirror
surface was used to remotely observe condensation on the chilled mirror. The chilled mirror
image from the camcorder was recorded on digital videotape for later review and eventual
storage in DVD format. Simultaneously, the chilled mirror image and the temperature, pressure,
and time readouts from the data acquisition computer were recorded on VHS videotape using an
analog video mixer. The chilled mirror temperature was controlled by glycol coolant flow from
a laboratory chiller. In addition, the light illuminating the dew point testers optical train was
powered by an external, adjustable DC power supply so that the light level could be adjusted to
optimize visualization of the chiller mirror.
Ametek 241 CE II. Figure 2-16 and Figure 2-17 show schematics of the Ametek 241 CE II
(with sampling system details) in the standard, as-delivered configuration and the modified,
as-tested configuration, respectively. Figure 2-18 also shows a picture of the Ametek 241 CE II
in the modified, as-tested configuration. The modifications from the as-delivered configuration
to the as-tested configuration included the following:
The flow restrictors on the inlet and exit of the filter block assembly were removed.
The pressure regulator and check valve between the measuring cell and solenoid valve
were removed.
The trickle purge bypass line and valve were removed, and the input to the filter block
assembly for this bypass was plugged.
The above modifications were completed by Ametek Process and Analytical Instruments when
the 241 CE II was returned to Ametek for installation in a heated enclosure prior to integration of
the analyzer into the test system. After the analyzer was returned to SwRI, the following
modification was completed:
A flow meter (rotameter RT1) was added between the measuring cell outlet and the
solenoid valve (SV1).
While Ametek Process and Analytical Instruments made these changes to the analyzers to
accommodate the recirculating test apparatus, they note that the changes eliminated the normally
large differential pressure between the inlet and vent, and that this may affect the readings and
repeatability of the 241CE II. Having a low vent pressure relative to the inlet increases the flow
velocity in the test cell for a given volumetric flow rate, greatly assisting in the evaporation of
liquids from the mirror and the purge of the cell.
21
Figure 2-16. Ametek 241 CE II standard sampling system schematic.
HEATED ENCLOSURE
MEASURING
CELL
ARRESTOR
FLAME
FLAME
ARRESTOR
RT1
FILTER BLOCK ASSEMBLY

INLET
COALESCING LOW FLOW HIGH FLOW
FILTER MEMBRANE MEMBRANE
FILTER FILTER
FLOW FLOW FLOW

RESTRICTOR RESTRICTOR RESTRICTOR
SV1 FR3 FR2 FR1
S
OUTLET
SYSTEM
TEST
Figure 2-17. Ametek 241 CE II modified sampling system schematic.
22
Ametek 241 CE II Heated Enclosure
Heat Pipe
Electronics
Enclosure
Measuring Cell
Filter Block
Rotameter
Assembly
Heater
Figure 2-18. Photograph of the Ametek 241 CE II modified sampling system.
Michell Condumax II. Figure 2-19 and Figure 2-20 show schematics of the Michell
Condumax II (with sampling system details) in the standard, as-delivered configuration and the
modified, as-tested configuration, respectively. Figure 2-21 also shows a picture of the Michell
Condumax II in the modified, as-tested configuration. The modifications from the as-delivered
configuration to the as-tested configuration include:
The upstream heated pressure regulator (PR1) and pressure gauge (PG1) were removed
from the flow path, because pressure was controlled by the test system accumulator.
The sample normally filtered through F1 was routed to the hydrocarbon dew point
measurement path only. The bypass from the filter (F1) was routed to the water dew
point measurement path only. All other components in the standard bypass/gas letdown
flow path were not used.
The pressure regulator (PR3), non-return valves (check valves NRV1 and NRV3), and
flow meters (rotameters FM1 and FM3) were removed from the hydrocarbon and water
dew point downstream flow paths.
The ball valves (BV1 and BV2) were removed from the analyzer inlet and exit flow
paths.
Two needle valves (NV1 and NV2) and a flow meter (rotameter RT2) were added to the
hydrocarbon and water dew point downstream flow paths. The needle valves were added
in order to adjust the relative restrictions in the hydrocarbon and water dew point flow
paths and ensure that the hydrocarbon measurement cell received adequate flow during
23
the purge stage of the analyzers measurement cycle. The flow meter was added to the
water dew point path to indicate flow in the hydrocarbon dew point path; this was done
by observing the change in water dew point path flow as the analyzer opened and closed
the hydrocarbon dew point flow path during its measurement cycle. During a visit by the
Michell JIP representative just prior to testing, the needle valves were adjusted to ensure
adequate hydrocarbon dew point path flow at a low test pressure. The needle valves
remained at these settings for the duration of testing.
Figure 2-19. Michell Condumax II standard sampling system schematic.

MICHELL CONDUMAX II - SAMPLING SYSTEM RECONFIGURE DETAIL
HEATED ENCLOSURE
CONDUMAX II "MEASURING CELL"
FILTER (F1)
HCDP NV1
S SV1
INLET FILTERED OUTLET
BYPASS NV2
WDP
RT2
TEST
SYSTEM
Figure 2-20. Michell Condumax II modified sampling system schematic.
24
Filter Electronics Enclosure
(HCDP, WDP Measurement)
Needle
Valves
Heater Rotameter
Figure 2-21. Photograph of the Michell Condumax II modified sampling system.

During preparations for the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) tests, it was discovered that the
deadband in the thermostat provided for the Michell heated enclosure allowed the temperature
within the enclosure (near the gas inlet line) to fall unacceptably low (approximately 82F or
28C). An acceptable alternative thermostat could not be obtained without significant delay in
the test schedule. Therefore, the temperature within the heated enclosure was controlled with a
temperature controller supplied by SwRI powering the enclosure heater, using the feedback of a
Type T thermocouple mounted near the thermostat location.
2.4 TEST GAS COMPOSITIONS
The JIP members agreed that the initial scope of work should include tests of the two leanest
nominal gas compositions specified for the 2002-2003 and 2005 hydrocarbon dew point
experiments (George et al., 2005b; George and Burkey, 2005c). These gas blends represent both
transmission-grade and production-grade gases, with heating values of 1,050 Btu/scf
(39.12 MJ/Nm3) and 1,145 Btu/scf (42.66 MJ/Nm3), respectively. Gravimetrically-prepared gas
blends were chosen for testing over samples of natural gas streams from the field based on two
advantages. First, certified gravimetric compositions have smaller relative uncertainties than
analyzed compositions of natural gas streams, and thus have smaller uncertainties in the
predicted HCDPs against which measurements are compared. Second, although preparation of
gas blends with representative amounts of heavy hydrocarbons beyond decane may be difficult,
the ability to specify the gas compositions allowed test conditions and hydrocarbon dew points to
be tuned to meet the research goals.
Table 2-2 lists the compositions and volume-based heating values of the two test gases. The
heating values were computed using data from the latest editions of GPA Standard 2145 (Gas
25
Processors Association, 2007) and GPA Technical Report TP-17 (Gammon, 1988), assuming
ideal gas behavior and standard conditions of 14.696 psia and 60F (101.325 kPa and 15.6C).
The table also includes the cricondentherm (maximum dew point temperature over all pressures)
and cricondenbar (maximum dew point pressure over all temperatures) of each gas, as predicted
by Multiflash (Infochem, 2007).
Table 2-2. Nominal compositions and calculated properties of natural gas blends chosen
for the SwRI hydrocarbon dew point tests. Component values are in units of
mole percent.
Component 1,050-Btu/scf 1,145- Btu/scf
(39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas
methane 94.75 85.25
ethane 2.00 5.00
propane 0.75 3.00
isobutane 0.30 1.00
n-butane 0.30 1.00
isopentane 0.15 0.50
n-pentane 0.15 0.50
2,2-dimethylbutane (neohexane) 0.00004 0.00011
2-methylpentane (isohexane) 0.00021 0.00052
2,3-dimethylbutane 0.00021 0.00273
3-methylpentane 0.00057 0.00142
cyclohexane 0.00005 0.00012
methylcyclopentane 0.00022 0.00055
n-hexane 0.05459 0.13648
2,4-dimethylpentane (cyclohexane) 0.00003 0.00007
3-ethylpentane 0.00002 0.00005
methylcyclohexane 0.00012 0.00030
n-heptane 0.03008 0.07521
2,2,4-trimethylpentane (isooctane) 0.00003 0.00008
4-methylheptane 0.00014 0.00036
n-octane 0.00971 0.02427
n-nonane 0.00177 0.00443
n-decane 0.00134 0.00334
CO2 0.50 1.00
nitrogen 1.00 2.50
Total 100.00000 100.00000
Total C6+ content 0.10000 0.25000
Total diluent content 1.50 3.50
Heating value 1,050.4 Btu/scf 1,146.5 Btu/scf

(39.12-MJ/Nm3) (42.66-MJ/Nm3)
Predicted cricondentherm 43.4F 83.6F
(6.3C) (28.7C)
Predicted cricondenbar 1,298.3 psia 1,614.4 psia
(89.5 bara) (111.3 barg)
26
DCG Partnership Limited and Scott Specialty Gases were both approached to provide the gas
blends to be used in the research. One of these facilities had been visited by SwRI staff to
review their blending practices as part of a 2003 study of reference gas blend accuracy (George,
2003). In preparation for the 2005 dew point experiments, the other facility was also visited to
review their reference gas blending procedures. While several suggestions were made to
improve the companys compliance with the upcoming revision to API MPMS Chapter 14.1, no
flaws in their blending procedures were found that would affect the accuracy of the
gravimetrically-prepared test blends. Both companies were able to donate one or more cylinders
of each gas blend to SwRI for the tests. All cylinders of a given nominal composition were
blended to the same specifications by both companies, but the certified composition of the blend
in each cylinder was used for reference purposes during tests and data analysis.
Calculations were performed to confirm that the amount of gas in a single cylinder from either
company would be adequate to charge the test loop to the pressure required for tests of that gas.
This ensured that mixing of gases from multiple cylinders in the test loop would not be
necessary, and that the certified composition of the gas could be used in evaluating its dew point
behavior. Of the two companies, one provided delivery cylinders containing a higher total mass
of each gas blend than the other company. It was decided to use the gas blends delivered in
smaller amounts from one provider to calibrate the Varian GC and to use the larger-quantity gas
blends from the other provider as the test gases in the loop. Since it was unlikely that both
companies would make identical errors in their blending processes, analyzing the test gases from
one company using a GC calibration based on a gas from the other company, made any errors in
the certified composition of the test gas more likely to be identified before the tests.
27
28
3. TEST PROCEDURES
The test procedures, including preparations of the apparatus for each test and the chosen test
conditions, were developed with the assistance of the JIP members and were based on the test
procedures developed for the 2005 tests. Based on the scope of work, the test plan called for
dew point measurements of each gas to be performed with each instrument at gas pressures
below, at, and above the cricondentherm. The test procedures, as approved by the JIP members,
are included in the Appendix. Annotations by SwRI personnel to aide in the conduct of testing
are marked in the procedure.
3.1 PREHEATING OF GAS BLENDS AND EQUIPMENT

The tests began with preheating of the gas blends in their delivery cylinders, heating of the
transfer lines to the test apparatus, and heating of the apparatus itself as necessary. This was
done to avoid condensation of the heavy components and distortion of the gas composition from
the certified values. Input from Scott Specialty Gases and DCG Partnership was used to create
this procedure.
Each gas storage cylinder and its outlet regulator were heated to a temperature approximately
30F (17C) above the predicted hydrocarbon dew point of the gas. The gas cylinder was heated
to the required temperature and allowed to stabilize for 24 hours before any gas was withdrawn
from the cylinder to calibrate the GC or to charge the test loop. The expected delivery
temperature and pressure of each gas were used to compute the temperature and pressure to
which the cylinder and its contents would be heated. The maximum temperature for all gas
storage cylinders allowed by procedure was 125F (51.7C), based on Compressed Gas
Association (CGA) and American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications (American Petroleum
Institute, 2006).
The storage cylinders were placed on insulated pads to thermally isolate them from the
laboratory floor. The cylinders were wrapped in regulated heating blankets to control the gas
temperature, and insulated covers were placed over the top of each cylinder and its regulator to
reduce convection cooling. The heating blankets were regulated using an RTD attached to the
wall of the cylinder, placed halfway up its height. After the wall of the cylinder reached the
specified temperature, cylinder heating continued for a minimum of 24 hours before the cylinder
was first opened. The requirement was intended to ensure that the core temperature of the gas in
the cylinder had reached a temperature at least 30F (17C) above its calculated hydrocarbon
dew point. The gas cylinder was heated continuously until the conclusion of testing.
3.2 GAS CHROMATOGRAPH CALIBRATION

The Varian GC was calibrated at the beginning of each test day. A gas blend of the same
nominal composition as the gas to be tested, provided by a different blender than the test gas
itself, was used in each GC calibration. After the calibration gas storage cylinder, its outlet
regulator, and the gas manifold and connecting lines had been preheated according to the
procedure described in the previous section, the calibration gas storage cylinder was valved to
supply gas to the GC at approximately 80 psia (552 kPa). A preheater on the GC constantly
heated the sample from the manifold to 212F (100C), as a final step to ensure that the sample
entering the GC was in the gas phase. Six consecutive nine-minute calibration runs were
29
performed on the calibration gas, and data from the last five runs were used to generate
calibration factors for that days analyses. These response factors were checked for linear
detector response and for repeatability, and only calibrations with acceptable response factors
were used to analyze the test gas. Per the test procedure, the test gas was analyzed directly from
the delivery cylinder before its introduction to the test loop, from the test loop prior to any
testing, and from the test loop after testing was completed for each analyzer at each pressure.
3.3 INTRODUCTION OF A NEW TEST GAS

Before the initial tests, several precautions were taken to avoid contamination of the test gas and
ensure the integrity of the apparatus. For the 2005 HCDP experiments, all equipment was
cleaned using wet steam or acetone to remove potential contaminants before first use. In 2007,
all new and modified equipment (including the accumulator, fittings, and tubing) was again
cleaned using wet steam or acetone to remove potential contaminants. The system was leak-
tested at the maximum test pressure (1,000 psia, or 68.9 bara) using helium gas. A thermal
conductivity leak detector was used to find any helium leaking from the test system during these
leak tests. Also, the apparatus was pre-conditioned before use by heating it under vacuum and
introducing a trickle flow of boil-off nitrogen from a liquid nitrogen dewar to remove any
residual water vapor. The Michell Condumax II water dew point measurement cell was used to
check the moisture content in the loop. Also, all gases were introduced into the system through a
desiccant chamber filled with phosphorus pentoxide, so as to remove any water vapor from the
gases.
After calibration of the gas chromatograph and preheating of the equipment as described in the
previous sections, several steps were performed to ensure the integrity of the new test gas as it
was charged to the apparatus.
1. The calibrated GC was used to verify the test gas composition directly from the test gas
delivery cylinder. If the composition in the cylinder did not agree with the certified
composition, the cause was determined before work proceeded.
2. The interior volume of the warm box was purged with nitrogen, and remained purged
with nitrogen throughout the tests. (Safety systems were incorporated into the apparatus
to shut down all power inside the warm box in the event that a leak from the loop was
detected or the nitrogen purge was not maintained.)
3. The system was evacuated to 27-Hg (13.3-psi) vacuum for a minimum of one-half hour.
The temperature of the environmental chamber was brought to a temperature specific to
the gas about to be tested. The specified temperature was 10F (5.6C) above the boiling
point of water at the pressure of the system, in order to encourage vaporization of any
traces of moisture left in the loop. The test loop temperature was then allowed to
stabilize.
4. The system was purged with methane to help extract any heavy hydrocarbon residues
from previous tests. The purge involved five fill/flush cycles with methane at 25 psig to
50 psig (170 kPa to 345 kPa gauge). The methane was circulated through the loop for
five minutes during each fill cycle. After each of the methane flushes, a vacuum of
27 Hg (13.3 psi) was imposed on the system for 15 minutes.
30
5. The system was purged with helium to help extract any remaining contaminants. The
purge involved five fill/flush cycles with helium at approximately 80 psig (552 kPa
gauge). The helium was circulated through the loop for five minutes during each fill
cycle. After each of the helium flushes, a vacuum of 27 Hg (13.3 psi) was imposed on
the system for five minutes.
6. The system was filled with helium at approximately 80 psig (552 kPa gauge), and
circulated in the loop for 30 minutes.
7. The GC and Michell Condumax II water dew point measurement cell were used to check
the helium in the loop for contaminants (remaining hydrocarbons, nitrogen, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, etc.). A GC analysis was performed of the loop contents to confirm
that no contaminants were present. If contaminants were found, steps 5 and 6 were
repeated.
8. The helium was vented from the test system and a vacuum of 27 Hg (13.3 psi) was
imposed on the system for 30 minutes.
9. The system was filled with test gas by performing five fill/flush cycles with test gas at
25 psig to 50 psig (170 kPa to 345 kPa gauge). The test gas was circulated through the
loop for five minutes during each fill cycle. After each of the flushes, a vacuum of 27
Hg (13.3 psi) was imposed on the system for five minutes. After the final flush, the
system was filled with test gas to a pressure that would allow the system to reach all
planned test pressures with a single charge of gas.
10. Finally, the contents of the loop were analyzed by GC to confirm the gas composition in
the loop before the tests began. As before, if the composition in the test system did not
agree with the certified composition, the cause was determined before work proceeded.
3.4 DEW POINT MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES

Once the equipment was at the specified temperature and the test gas composition in the loop had
been confirmed, dew point measurements of the gas began. The pressure in the test loop was
brought to the level specified in the test plan (Table 3-1) by changing the pressure of the nitrogen
pressurant on the back side of the accumulator piston.
Table 3-1. Equipment temperatures and test conditions for each test gas composition.
Gas cylinder, regulator and
Test gas manifold temperature Loop temperature Test pressures
1,050 Btu/scf 110F (43C) Room 750, 500, 300 psia
(39.12 temperature (51.7, 34.5, 20.7
MJ/Nm3) bara)
1,145 Btu/scf 110F (43C) 110F (43C) 1,000, 650, 300 psia
(42.66 (68.9, 44.8, 20.7
MJ/Nm3) bara)
31
After the desired pressure had been achieved in the loop, the stroke speed of the rodless cylinder
was adjusted to produce the required standard volumetric flow rate of 5 scfh (2.5 Nl/min). The
stroke speed was computed using the density of the gas at its pressure and temperature as
computed by the AGA-8 equation of state (American Gas Association, 1994).
3.4.1 Procedure for the Bureau of Mines Chilled Mirror

The manifold used to route flow to each of the test articles was configured to allow flow to the
dew point tester only (MV1 and MV2 open; MV3, MV4, MV5, MV6, MV7, and MV8 closed
(see Figure 2-14)). The stepper motor was started to maintain a standard volumetric flow rate of
5 scfh (2.5 Nl/min). The chiller system was then adjusted to gradually lower the chilled mirror
temperature at a rate no greater than 1F (0.6C) per minute, per the recommendations of ASTM
Standard D 1142 (ASTM, 1995).
The temperature was lowered until hydrocarbon condensation was observed, at which point the
dew point temperature was recorded. As discussed in Section 2, both iridescent ring and
droplet dew points may be observed with the chilled mirror, and depending upon the standards
and requirements of the user, either may be cited as the hydrocarbon dew point. Using the
interpretations described in Subsection 2.2.1, the operator noted the time, line pressure, and
mirror temperature at which the droplet HCDP was first observed. If the iridescent ring HCDP
was observed before the droplet HCDP, its time, pressure, and temperature were also recorded.
Six droplet dew point measurements were performed at each test pressure, with iridescent ring
dew points measured as they were observed. A data logger also recorded temperature and
pressure data during the tests, and video recordings of the view on the dew scope were made as
well. The data files were reviewed after the tests to confirm the dew point conditions noted by
the operator, and the operator and project manager reviewed the video recordings after the tests
to confirm the observations.
After the sixth dew point measurement at each pressure, the flow was allowed to continue
circulating for 30 minutes to ensure that all condensate was re-vaporized prior to GC analysis.
After the tests at each pressure, four consecutive nine-minute GC analysis runs were performed
on the test gas from the loop, and the results from the last three analyses were checked to
determine if the gas composition had significantly changed over the course of the tests.
3.4.2 Procedure for the Ametek 241 CE II

Ametek 241 CE II only (MV3 and MV4 open; MV1, MV2, MV5, MV6, MV7, and MV8 closed
(see Figure 2-14)). The stepper motor was started to maintain a standard volumetric flow rate of
5 scfh (2.5 Nl/min). Flow was maintained during each of the analyzers ten-minute purge times.
However, flow was stopped during the analyzers measuring and warming phases, when the
analyzers solenoid valve was closed and effectively no flow path existed through the analyzer.
The analyzer was allowed to perform nine measurements of hydrocarbon dew point. Per the
manufacturers instructions, the first three measurements after initiating testing with the analyzer
were disregarded, and only the final six measurements were recorded. For the 1,050-Btu/scf
(39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas tests, the default upper and lower mirror temperature set points were used
[68F and 18F (20C and -7.8C), respectively]. For the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas
32
tests, the upper and lower mirror temperature set points were adjusted to 100F and 50F (37.8C
and 10C), respectively.
The operator recorded the time, line pressure, and dew point measurement indicated by the
analyzer. The dew point measurements were also downloaded from the analyzers log file after
the tests.
After the last dew point measurement, the flow was allowed to continue circulating for
30 minutes to ensure that all condensate was re-vaporized prior to GC analysis. After the tests at
each pressure, four consecutive nine-minute GC analysis runs were performed on the test gas
from the loop, and the results from the last three analyses were checked to determine if the gas
composition had significantly changed over the course of the tests.
3.4.3 Procedure for the Michell Condumax II

Michell Condumax II only (MV5 and MV6 open; MV1, MV2, MV3, MV4, MV7, and MV8
closed (see Figure 2-14)). The stepper motor was started to maintain a standard volumetric flow
rate of 5 scfh (2.5 Nl/min). As noted in Subsection 2.2.3, the analyzers signal level trip point
was adjusted for each new test pressure. [The trip points used in these tests (see the Appendix)
were developed by the manufacturer based on the expected gas quality, and may not be generally
applicable to other measurement conditions.] The analyzer was allowed to perform nine
measurements of hydrocarbon dew point. Per the manufacturers instructions, the first three
measurements after initiating testing with the analyzer were disregarded, and only the final six
measurements were recorded.
The operator recorded the time, hydrocarbon dew point measurement, water dew point
measurement, and line pressure indicated by the analyzer. These data were also downloaded
from the analyzers log file after the tests.
After the last dew point measurement, the flow was allowed to continue circulating for
30 minutes in order to ensure that all condensate was re-vaporized prior to GC analysis. After
the tests at each pressure, four consecutive nine-minute GC analysis runs were performed on the
test gas from the loop, and the analysis results from the last three analysis runs were checked to
determine if the gas composition had significantly changed over the course of the tests.
33
34
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Preparation of the test loop was completed during July 2007, and dew point measurements were
taken with the automated analyzers and the manual chilled mirror during July and early August.
Dew point measurements of each test gas blend were performed at three line pressures, one each
above, at, and below the predicted cricondentherm of the gas blend. Representatives of Michell
Instruments, Ametek Process and Analytical Instruments, and PRCI came to SwRI during this
period to witness the tests.
This section discusses the results of these tests, comparing measurements from the Bureau of
Mines chilled mirror and the automated analyzers to one another, and to hydrocarbon dew point
curves predicted using the analyzed gas compositions and the Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK)
cubic equation of state within Multiflash. [The SRK equation was specifically chosen over the
commonly used Peng-Robinson (PR) equation of state for reasons discussed in Subsection 4.2.]
Confidence intervals are shown with each measured dew point, determined from the
uncertainties of each device listed in Table 2-1 and Table 4-3 (presented later in this section).
Confidence intervals have also been placed on each predicted dew point curve, as described in
Subsection 4.2. Temperatures and pressures have been recorded at which both iridescent ring
dew points and droplet dew points were observed on the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror, to
address questions on the interpretation of chilled mirror observations.
The preliminary data were sent to participants for review and comment, and their feedback has
been incorporated into this section. The SwRI project manager and technical staff also reviewed
the videotapes of the chilled mirror measurements to confirm the observed dew points. Less than
one half of the observed dew points were changed as a result of the review, the changes being
made when additional droplet nucleation sites were found in the video. Of those that were
revised, two-thirds were increased by only 0.1F or 0.2F (0.05C or 0.1C); the largest change
in a droplet dew point was +0.6F (+0.3C). No changes to the iridescent ring dew points were
required after review.
4.1 MEASUREMENTS OF MOISTURE CONTENT

Before, during, and after each series of HCDP tests, data were also collected on the moisture
content of the gas in the test loop. The moisture content was determined using the water vapor
dew point sensor incorporated into the Michell Condumax II and software provided by Michell
Instruments. The intent was to keep the moisture dew point well below the hydrocarbon dew
point, to avoid interference in HCDP measurements. A general tariff specification for natural
gas pipelines is that moisture content be no more than seven pounds of water per million
standard cubic foot of gas (7 lbm/MMscf) (112 mg/Nm3), or approximately 150 ppmv. At a line
pressure of 1,000 psia (68.9 bara), this moisture level corresponds to a water dew point of 32F
(0C).
Table 4-1 shows the water vapor dew points measured by the Condumax II at various points
during the tests and the moisture content determined from the dew point values. The general
trend of increasing moisture content with decreasing pressure is the result of water vapor
desorbing from the walls of the test loop and entering the test gas. Note, however, that the
highest moisture level of 43.8 ppmv (about 2 lbm/MMscf or 33 mg/Nm3) is well below the
common tariff limit, and that all measured water vapor dew points are well below the
hydrocarbon dew points reported in this section.
35
Table 4-1. Water vapor content of the test loop before and during hydrocarbon dew
point tests.
Measured water vapor dew point
Event Temperature Pressure Temperature Pressure Water vapor
(F) (psig) (C) (kPa content
gauge) (ppmv)
Helium flush before 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) tests -51.7 297.3 -46.5 20.50 2.8
-52.1 298.5 -46.7 20.58 2.7
3
1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm ) gas test at 750 psia (51.7 bara) -15.9 734.3 -26.6 50.63 10.4
-16.2 733.1 -26.8 50.55 10.3
-16.2 733.1 -26.8 50.55 10.3
-16.4 733.1 -26.9 50.55 10.2
-16.6 733.1 -27.0 50.55 10.0
-17.0 732.0 -27.2 50.47 9.8
1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas test at 500 psia (34.5 bara) -17.3 479.2 -27.4 33.04 14.6
-17.7 479.2 -27.6 33.04 14.3
-18.0 479.2 -27.8 33.04 14.0
-18.0 479.2 -27.8 33.04 14.0
-18.2 479.2 -27.9 33.04 13.9
-18.4 478.1 -28.0 32.96 13.8
3
1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm ) gas test at 300 psia (20.7 bara) -17.1 284.8 -27.3 19.64 24.4
-17.3 284.8 -27.4 19.64 24.1
-17.5 284.8 -27.5 19.64 23.8
-17.5 284.8 -27.5 19.64 23.8
-17.9 283.6 -27.7 19.55 23.4
-17.9 284.8 -27.7 19.64 23.3
Helium flush before 1,145-Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) tests -7.2 282.5 -21.8 19.48 42.4
-6.9 281.3 -21.6 19.39 43.3
-6.9 282.5 -21.6 19.48 43.1
-6.7 281.3 -21.5 19.39 43.8
3
1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm ) gas test at 1,000 psia (68.9 -5.6 955.0 -20.9 65.84 14.2
bara)
-5.6 955.0 -20.9 65.84 14.2
-5.8 953.9 -21.0 65.77 14.0
-5.8 952.7 -21.0 65.69 14.1
-5.6 952.7 -20.9 65.69 14.2
-6.2 952.7 -21.2 65.69 13.8
1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas test at 650 psia (44.8 bara) -9.0 622.2 -22.8 42.90 18.0
-8.9 622.2 -22.7 42.90 18.1
-8.9 622.2 -22.7 42.90 18.1
-8.9 622.2 -22.7 42.90 18.1
-9.0 622.2 -22.8 42.90 18.0
-9.0 622.2 -22.8 42.90 18.0
1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas test at 300 psia (20.7 bara) -12.8 281.3 -24.9 19.39 31.4
-13.0 281.3 -25.0 19.39 31.0
-12.8 281.3 -24.9 19.39 31.4
-12.8 281.3 -24.9 19.39 31.4
-12.8 281.3 -24.9 19.39 31.4
-12.6 281.3 -24.8 19.39 31.7
After final tests -13.7 277.9 -25.4 19.16 30.2
36
4.2 COMMENTS ON HCDP CALCULATIONS
In situations where the hydrocarbon dew point of a natural gas stream is impractical to measure,
the industry often uses equations of state and GC analyses of the stream to predict the dew point.
Many different calculational methods are available for predicting hydrocarbon dew points,
including various software packages, equations of state, and methods for characterizing heavy
hydrocarbon distributions that field GCs cannot resolve. These various methods often produce
results that are inconsistent from one method to another, and for some gas streams, calculational
methods have been found to significantly underpredict hydrocarbon dew point temperatures.
This has led, in part, to the recent emphasis on direct dew point measurements and measurement
accuracy. However, for this work, predicted dew points for the test gases were still required for
choosing test conditions and for comparison to the various measurements.
Two recent studies sponsored by Gas Technology Institute, Pipeline Research Council
International, Inc. and the U.S. Minerals Management Service (George et al., 2005a; George,
2007) evaluated existing and new approaches for predicting hydrocarbon dew points of natural
gas streams using GC compositional data as input. The research evaluated the accuracy of
several C6+ characterization methods, software packages, generic equations of state, and gas
property datasets in predicting dew points for a wide range of production, transmission, and
distribution gases. The findings of these research reports were as follows:
By far, the calculational variable with the largest influence on predicted dew point
accuracy is the method of characterizing heavy hydrocarbons. Characterization refers
to the process of assigning amounts to individual heavy hydrocarbon components
(heptane, benzene, isooctane, etc.) when only the total amount of hydrocarbons above a
certain carbon number is known. Some software users, unfamiliar with dew point
prediction methods and given only a total C6+ fraction from a process GC, will often
characterize the total hexanes-plus fraction as normal hexane. Using this C6+
characterization instead of the complete analytical gas composition beyond C9 was
found to bias the computed dew point by as much as 70F (40C). An adaptation of a
Gaussian characterization method used by the petroleum industry was found to best
simulate actual distributions of hexane and heavier components in many natural gases,
but limited experimental dew point data from the literature prevented the creation of a
versatile and generally acceptable characterization method.
In the most recent study, characterizations were tested using the GERG-2004 equation of
state, and the Peng-Robinson and Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) cubic equations of state
(EOS) as implemented by the Multiflash software package. The SRK equation of state
was found to have advantages over the other equations in predicting dew points. In
particular, the SRK equation consistently predicted dew point temperatures a few degrees
higher than the Peng-Robinson equation. Comparisons of several EOS results to
experimental dew point data (George et al., 2005a; George and Burkey, 2005c) have
shown that, particularly for production-quality gases with high amounts of hexane and
heavier hydrocarbons, commonly-used equations of state can underpredict actual
hydrocarbon dew points by as much as 30F (17C). The use of the SRK equation of
state can eliminate at least part of this underprediction error, by virtue of its higher
predicted dew points.
37
The 2005 research sponsored by Gas Technology Institute found that different software
packages and different sets of binary interaction parameters (BIPs) produce hydrocarbon
dew points that differ by relatively small amounts compared to the effect of heavy
hydrocarbon characterizations and EOS selections. Four software packages computed
dew point temperatures in agreement to within 5F (3C) of one another for the same
gas compositions and pressures, and using the same equations of state. Similarly,
calculations with the Multiflash package using the default BIPs from the Dechema Data
Series (Knapp et al., 1982) and other BIP sets assuming BIP values of zero between
dissimilar molecules, found the impact of changing BIPs to be only 4F (2C).
Based on these findings, it was decided to use the SRK equation of state in this project to predict
hydrocarbon dew points for experimental design and for comparison to measured values. It was
also expected from previous experience with the apparatus that small changes could occur in the
heavy hydrocarbon content of the gases over the course of the tests, and that these changes could
affect their dew point temperatures, as discussed in the next section. Predicted dew point curves
have been used in this section to estimate biases in measured dew points caused by these small
shifts in composition.
All predicted HCDP curves were computed using the Multiflash software package with BIPs
from the Dechema Data Series (the default set used by Multiflash). All components, including
all normal and non-normal hydrocarbons in the certified and analyzed gas compositions, were
input to the equation of state. Earlier comparisons of HCDP data measured on these nominal gas
compositions and predicted using this equation of state, software, and inputs indicated that the
experimental and analytical dew points would be in reasonable agreement (George et al., 2005a
and 2005b).
Even so, the reader is reminded that the dew points produced by equations of state are predicted
values, and should not be taken as an absolute reference value that measurements must
unconditionally agree with. To emphasize this, confidence intervals at the 95% level have been
estimated for each predicted HCDP curve and shown in this section as dashed lines. The 95%
confidence intervals were estimated by moving the certified or analyzed amounts of hexane and
heavier hydrocarbons to the lower end (or upper end) of their own 95% confidence intervals,
then proportionately shifting the amounts of lighter hydrocarbons and diluents in the other
direction to maintain a total composition of 100%. Comparisons of measured and predicted dew
points will involve comparisons of their confidence intervals as well, to identify instances where
the probability of agreement is high even though the observed and calculated values do not agree
exactly.
4.3 1,050-BTU/SCF (39.12-MJ/NM3) TEST RESULTS

Dew point measurements with the various devices were made in succession on the same gas
stream, but as noted above, differences among the various measurements can be expected. In
previous experience with the test apparatus (George et al., 2005b; George and Burkey, 2005c),
small changes in the heavy hydrocarbon content were observed over time. The most significant
changes occurred in the cyclic hydrocarbons benzene and toluene, which were not included in
the gases tested here. Smaller decreases were also observed in normal heavy hydrocarbons such
as nonane and decane, which were included in the test gases for this work.
38
Gas chromatograph analyses were performed before and after dew point measurements with each
device, and the results were used with the Multiflash software package and the SRK equation of
state to predict hydrocarbon dew point curves for each test condition. Comparisons of these
curves allow the effect of any changes in gas composition to be estimated and compared to the
differences in measured dew points between analyzers. Uncertainty budgets were also applied to
the GC analyses, incorporating uncertainties in certified gas compositions and GC repeatability.
Average analyzed amounts in components from successive GC analyses, including 95%
confidence intervals on the averages, were compared to find any sudden or statistically
significant changes in the test gas composition over the course of the tests.
Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 show two examples of component histories from preparations for the
1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) tests. While many components were checked for signs of sudden
change, data for two components of interest, nitrogen and decane, are shown here. Nitrogen was
monitored for indication of leaks of the pressurant from below the accumulator piston into the
test gas, while the decane plot is typical of data for the heavy hydrocarbons in the gas blend. A
statistically-significant change in component content is indicated when the 95% confidence
intervals for successive amounts do not overlap. For nitrogen, the analyzed amount is consistent
throughout all of the pretest analyses. For decane, the small amount present leads to noticeable
changes over the pretest analyses, but the 95% confidence intervals overlap and show no
statistically-significant difference.
nitrogen
1.04
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
mole percent
0.94 nitrogen
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.86
0.84
cylinder analysis
Michell analysis loop
Day 2 repeat pretest

second charge to
of gas in loop at 750

Pretest check of gas
Day 2 pretest check
check of gas in loop

Second check with
in loop at 750 psia
Pretest check with
blowdown and
at 750 psia (51.7

psia (51.7 bara)
Check after
(51.7 bara)
loop
in line
in line
bara)
analysis
Figure 4-1. Trends in analyzed nitrogen content of the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas
blend during test preparations.
39
n-decane
0.0014
0.0012
0.0010
0.0008
mole percent
0.0006 n-decane
0.0004
0.0002
0.0000
-0.0002
cylinder analysis
Day 2 repeat pretest

second charge to
of gas in loop at 750

Pretest check of gas
Day 2 pretest check
check of gas in loop

Second check with
in loop at 750 psia
Pretest check with
blowdown and
at 750 psia (51.7

psia (51.7 bara)
Check after
(51.7 bara)
loop
in line
in line
bara)
analysis
Figure 4-2. Trends in analyzed decane content of the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas
blend during test preparations.
The next three figures present similar results during the tests of the 1,050-Btu/scf
(39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas itself. The GC was used to analyze the gas immediately after dew point
measurements with each device; the horizontal axis notes the conditions of the test immediately
preceding the GC analysis, in the format test gas heating value date pressure in psia
instrument used. Figure 4-3 shows that the nitrogen content was again relatively constant
during all tests, confirming that no N2 pressurant had leaked into the system. Figure 4-4 suggests
a small decrease in the nonane content occurred over the course of the tests, but the changes are
not considered statistically significant. In Figure 4-5, the average amount of decane found by the
GC analysis dropped noticeably during tests at 500 psia (34.5 bara) and 300 psia (20.7 bara), but
the large 95% confidence intervals (which extend below zero mole percent) again mean that the
changes are not considered statistically significant. These changes could be explained by small
amounts of the heavy hydrocarbons from the gas stream adsorbing onto the walls of the
apparatus during the tests. It was unclear, because of the large confidence intervals on the
nonane and decane amounts, whether the levels were stabilizing asymptotically to an equilibrium
level, or whether they would have eventually depleted through adsorption if the tests had
continued.
40
mole percent mole percent
Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-3.
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1.00
1.02
1.04
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
0.0016
1050Btu-071207-
1050Btu-071207- 750-DewScope
750-DewScope
1050Btu-071207-
1050Btu-071207- 750-Ametek
750-Ametek
1050Btu-071207-
1050Btu-071207-
750-Michell
750-Michell
1050Btu-071307- 1050Btu-071307-
500-DewScope
500-DewScope
blend during analyzer tests.

1050Btu-071307- 1050Btu-071307-
500-Ametek2 500-Ametek2
analysis
analysis
nitrogen
n-nonane
1050Btu-071307- 1050Btu-071307-
500-Michell 500-Michell
1050Btu-071607- 1050Btu-071607-
300-Pretest 300-Pretest
1050Btu-071607- 1050Btu-071607-
300-Dewscope 300-Dewscope
1050Btu-071607- 1050Btu-071607-
300-Ametek 300-Ametek
1050Btu-071607-
1050Btu-071607-
300-Michell
300-Michell
n-nonane
nitrogen
Trends in analyzed nonane content of the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas

Trends in analyzed nitrogen content of the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas
41
n-decane
0.0015
0.0010
0.0005
mole percent
n-decane
0.0000
-0.0005
-0.0010
1050Btu-071207-
1050Btu-071207-
1050Btu-071207-
1050Btu-071307-
1050Btu-071307-
1050Btu-071307-
1050Btu-071607-
1050Btu-071607-
1050Btu-071607-
1050Btu-071607-
750-DewScope
500-DewScope
300-Dewscope
500-Ametek2
750-Ametek
300-Ametek
300-Pretest
750-Michell
500-Michell
300-Michell
analysis
Figure 4-5. Trends in analyzed decane content of the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas
The next several figures in this section compare dew points measured with the Bureau of Mines
chilled mirror, the Ametek automated analyzer, and the Michell automated analyzer. The
measurements are compared to one another, and to dew point curves predicted using the GC
analyses before and after tests with each instrument. Dashed lines shown in Figure 4-6 through
Figure 4-10 represent the confidence intervals on the predicted dew point curves, as discussed in
Section 4.2. Comparison of the curves themselves suggest the fraction of the difference in
measured dew points that can be attributed to the changes in composition indicated by Figure 4-1
through Figure 4-5. Additional information on the uncertainties in the dew point measurements,
indicated by the error bars on the data points, can be found in Section 4.5.6.
Some trends are evident in the data:
As the test pressure falls, both the iridescent ring and droplet dew points recorded
using the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device shift position relative to the
corresponding analytical curve (Figure 4-6) and to the measurements from the automated
devices (Figure 4-9). For example, at 750 psia (51.7 bara), the droplet dew points are
about 5F (3C) lower than the analytical dew point predicted from the corresponding GC
analysis taken after the chilled mirror measurement. The droplet dew points are also
lower than the measurements from both the automated devices, though the disagreement
with the values from the Condumax II is not statistically significant. At 300 psia
(20.7 bara), the droplet dew points fall between the Ametek and Michell values, and are
typically 2F (1C) higher than the corresponding analytical dew point. Similarly, the
difference in iridescent ring dew point temperatures relative to the analytical curves range
from -2F at 750 psia (-1C at 51.7 bara) to +9F at 300 psia (+5C at 20.7 bara).
42
Shifts with pressure in the bias between the droplet dew point and the analytical dew
point predicted by cubic equations of state have been observed before with this gas
composition (George et al., 2005b; George and Burkey, 2005c). It was found here that
the iridescent ring dew point (which occurs a few degrees above the droplet dew point)
shows a similar shift in bias relative to the predicted dew point curves with changing
pressure.
The Ametek unit consistently reported dew point temperatures higher than the
corresponding analytical dew point temperature (Figure 4-7), while the Michell unit
reported dew point temperatures at or below the corresponding analytical dew point
temperature (Figure 4-8). This trend is expected, given that the Ametek 241 CE II
defines the dew point as the first appearance of a film of condensate on its mirror
similar to the iridescent ring dew point identified by manual chilled mirror users and
the Michell Condumax trip point is calibrated to give good agreement with manual
chilled mirror measurements of the droplet hydrocarbon dew point, which occurs at a
lower temperature than the iridescent ring dew point. However, note the error bars
showing uncertainties in dew point measurements from each of the instruments, and the
dashed lines indicating uncertainties in the predicted dew point curves due to
uncertainties in GC analyses of the test gases. The confidence intervals on corresponding
measured and predicted dew points overlap in each figure, indicating that the observed
differences are not statistically significant.
While the Ametek unit reported hydrocarbon dew points 4F to 7F (2C to 4C) higher
than the Michell unit at each test condition, differences in the dew point curves predicted
from the corresponding gas analyses are 1F (0.5C) or less. This suggests that most of
the difference in measurements between the two instruments is due to differences in their
measurement techniques, not due to the changing gas composition. In Figure 4-10, the
measurements from the three instruments have been corrected for changes in the gas
composition over the course of the tests. The adjustment was made using the following
assumptions:
o The effect of the lost heavy hydrocarbons on the true dew point was accurately
estimated by the shift in the dew point curves predicted by Multiflash and the
SRK equation of state.
o The overall shift in dew point between the start and end of the tests with each
device occurred at a constant rate. Under this assumption, for example, the
second of nine measurements with an analyzer would be corrected by applying
two-ninths of the total dew point shift predicted from GC analyses at the
beginning and end of tests with the analyzer.
o The effects of lost heavy hydrocarbons accumulated over all tests at a given
pressure, so that all measurements were corrected back to the compositional
analysis before tests with all instruments at that pressure.
After the adjustment, the difference between the Ametek and Michell dew points was
reduced to a range of 1F to 6F (0.6C to 3C), confirming that the majority of the
differences between measurements is due to differences in the automated instruments
themselves.
43
3
1,050-Btu/scf (39.12 MJ/Nm ) HCDP data and curves computed from analyses (SRK EOS)
750-psia (51.7-bara) Bureau of Mines chilled mirror data
800
780
760
740
720
pressure (psia)
700
680
660
Pretest analyses
640
Analysis after chilled mirror measurements
620 chilled mirror 'iridescent ring'
chilled mirror 'droplets'
600
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
temperature (deg. F)
1,050-Btu/scf (39.12 MJ/Nm3) HCDP data and curves computed from analyses (SRK EOS)
600
580
560
540
520
pressure (psia)
500
480
460
Pretest analyses
440 Analysis after chilled mirror measurements

chilled mirror 'iridescent ring'
420 chilled mirror 'droplets'
400
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Figure 4-6. Comparison of 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas dew points measured with
the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror with dew point curves predicted from GC
analyses.
44
3
400
380
360
340
320
pressure (psia)
300
280
Pretest analyses
260

220
200
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Figure 4-6 (continued).

3
750-psia (51.7-bara) Ametek data
800
780
760
740
720
pressure (psia)
700
680
660
Pretest analyses
640 Analysis after Ametek measurements
620 Ametek
600
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Figure 4-7. Comparison of 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas dew points measured by

the Ametek analyzer with dew point curves predicted from GC analyses.
45
3
600
580
560
540
520
pressure (psia)
500
480
460
Pretest analyses
Ametek
420
400
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
3
400
Pretest analyses
380
Analysis after Ametek measurements
360 Ametek
340
320
pressure (psia)
300
280
260
240
220
200
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
46
3
750-psia (51.7-bara) Michell data
800
780
760
740
720
pressure (psia)
700
680
660
Pretest analyses
640
Analysis after Michell measurements
Michell
620
600
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
3
600
580
560
540
520
pressure (psia)
500
480
460
Pretest analyses
440 Analysis after Michell measurements
Michell
420
400
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Figure 4-8. Comparison of 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas dew points measured by

the Michell analyzer with dew point curves predicted from GC analyses.
47
3
400
380
360
340
320
pressure (psia)
300
280
Pretest analyses
260
240
Michell
220
200
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

3
All 750-psia (51.7-bara) data
800
780
760
740
720
pressure (psia)
700
Pretest analyses
680
660
Ametek
620 Michell
600
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Figure 4-9. Comparison of 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas dew points measured by all
instruments and predicted from all GC analyses.
48
3
600
580
560
540
520
pressure (psia)
500
480
Pretest analyses
420 Ametek
Michell
400
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
3
400
380
360
340
320
pressure (psia)
300
280 Pretest analyses

Ametek
220
Michell
200
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
49
All 750-psia (51.7-bara) data, adjusted for changes in gas composition
800
780
760
740
720
pressure (psia)
700
680
Pretest analyses

640
Ametek
620 Michell
600
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
600
580
560
540
520
pressure (psia)
500
480
Pretest analyses

440
Ametek
420
Michell
400
25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45
Figure 4-10. Comparison of 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas dew points measured by all
instruments, after adjustments for changes in gas composition during tests.
50
400
380
360
340
320
pressure (psia)
300
280 Pretest analyses

240
Ametek
220
Michell
200
25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45
4.4 1,145- BTU/SCF (42.66-MJ/NM3) TEST RESULTS

For tests of the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas, the same general approach was used, with
the key difference that heat was applied to all equipment to maintain it at a temperature at least
30F (17C) above the expected cricondentherm temperature of the gas. A change was also
made to the testing order at the request of the JIP participants. During the 1,050-Btu/scf
(39.12-MJ/Nm3) tests, measurements were collected in the order: chilled mirror, Ametek,
Michell. It was requested that for the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) tests, the order be changed
to: chilled mirror, Michell, Ametek. The same types of data were collected, including GC
analyses of the test gas before, between, and after dew point measurements with each device, and
measured dew points from all tests were compared to one another and to hydrocarbon dew point
curves predicted from the GC analyses.
Figure 4-11 through Figure 4-13 present component history data gathered before and during the
1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) tests. In Figure 4-11, the nitrogen content of the gas is shown as
analyzed directly from the delivery cylinder, and from the test loop before and between tests.
Because of the number of analyses involved in GC calibration and verification of the test gas, the
confidence intervals on the check of the test gas straight from the cylinder are larger than the
confidence intervals once the gas has been introduced to the loop. A difference in the average
nitrogen content between the cylinder and the loop appears to be present, but as with the
1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas, the 95% confidence intervals overlap among the various
analyses, and the difference cannot be considered statistically significant. Note also that the
51
nitrogen level remains constant throughout the tests, indicating no leak of N2 from the pressurant
side of the accumulator.
nitrogen
2.80
2.70
2.60
mole percent
2.50
2.40 nitrogen
2.30
2.20
2.10
2.00
Cylinder analysis
7-31-07, 1000 psia (68.9 bara) pretest

Pretest verification of test gas in loop
7-31-07, 1000 psia (68.9 bara) after
7-31-07, 1000 psia (68.9 bara) after Michell
7-31-07, 1000 psia (68.9 bara) after
8-1-07, 650 psia (44.8 bara) after
8-1-07, 650 psia (44.8 bara) repeat after
8-2-07, 300 psia (20.7 bara) after

8-1-07, 650 psia (44.8 bara) after Ametek
8-2-07, 300 psia (20.7 bara) after Ametek

dewscope analysis
dewscope tests
dewscope tests
Ametek tests
dewscope tests
analysis
analysis
analysis
analysis
analysis
tests
tests
tests
analysis
Figure 4-11. Trends in analyzed nitrogen content of the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas
Figure 4-12 and Figure 4-13 present analysis histories for the heavy hydrocarbons nonane and
decane. As in the case of the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) tests, the amounts analyzed from
the delivery cylinder and from the test loop before the start of the tests do not differ statistically.
The amounts of these components decline slowly (and possibly asymptotically) over the course
of the tests, and while the results from one test to the next have overlapping confidence intervals,
the confidence intervals on the amounts observed at the beginning and the end of the
1,145-Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) tests do not overlap. The change over the entire course of the
tests is therefore considered significant, and the resulting change in predicted dew point must be
considered in evaluating the performance of the various analyzers. If tests with this gas
composition or richer gases are repeated in the future, ways of stabilizing or preventing the
depletion of heavy hydrocarbons will be investigated to minimize the potential for bias in HCDP
determination.
52
mole percent mole percent
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
Cylinder analysis Cylinder analysis
Pretest verification of test gas in loop Pretest verification of test gas in loop
7-31-07, 1000 psia (68.9 bara) pretest 7-31-07, 1000 psia (68.9 bara) pretest
analysis analysis
7-31-07, 1000 psia (68.9 bara) after 7-31-07, 1000 psia (68.9 bara) after
dewscope tests dewscope tests
7-31-07, 1000 psia (68.9 bara) after Michell 7-31-07, 1000 psia (68.9 bara) after Michell
tests tests
Ametek tests Ametek tests

analysis analysis
analysis
analysis
n-decane
n-nonane
8-1-07, 650 psia (44.8 bara) repeat after 8-1-07, 650 psia (44.8 bara) repeat after
tests tests
8-1-07, 650 psia (44.8 bara) after Ametek 8-1-07, 650 psia (44.8 bara) after Ametek
tests tests
analysis analysis
dewscope analysis dewscope analysis
analysis analysis
8-2-07, 300 psia (20.7 bara) after Ametek 8-2-07, 300 psia (20.7 bara) after Ametek
analysis analysis
n-decane
n-nonane
Figure 4-13. Trends in analyzed decane content of the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas
Figure 4-12. Trends in analyzed nonane content of the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas
53
Figure 4-14 through Figure 4-17 compare dew points measured with the Bureau of Mines chilled
mirror, the Ametek automated analyzer, and the Michell automated analyzer for the
1,145-Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas. As before, measurements from each instrument are
compared to one another and to dew point curves predicted using the GC analyses before and
after tests with each instrument. Several differences in analyzer performance are noted for the
1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) tests.
For this gas composition with higher C6+ content, both the Ametek and Michell units
consistently identified dew point temperatures higher than their corresponding analytical
dew point curves. For the Ametek analyzer, the measured dew point temperatures are
about 2F to 4F (1C to 2C) above the predicted HCDP temperatures at all pressures.
For the Michell unit, the measured values are above the analytically-predicted
temperatures by amounts ranging from less than 1F at 300 psia (0.6C at 20.7 bara) to
over 4F at 1,000 psia (2C at 68.9 bara). This trend in the Michell measurements with
respect to the analytical curves is similar to that in the data from the Bureau of Mines
chilled mirror (Figure 4-14).
Because of the larger amounts of heavy hydrocarbons in the 1,145-Btu/scf
(42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas, the uncertainties in the gravimetric blend compositions, GC
calibrations, and test gas analyses are smaller. Notably, at the highest pressure of
1,000 psia (68.9 bara), confidence intervals on the Ametek measurements barely overlap
the confidence band on the corresponding analytical curve (Figure 4-15). The confidence
intervals on the 1,000-psia (68.9-bara) Michell data (Figure 4-16) do not overlap those of
its analytical curve at all, meaning that the differences are statistically significant. Again,
this is similar to the performance of the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device in richer
hydrocarbon gases (George and Burkey, 2005c).
Measurement biases between the various devices are much smaller for this richer gas
blend. Before corrections were made for changes in the gas composition during the
tests, differences among all of the dew point temperatures at each pressure from the three
devices (Figure 4-17) were no more than 3.5F (1.9C). By comparison, the largest
change in predicted dew points from the test gas analyses is slightly over 1F (0.6C). As
with the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) data, the measured values were adjusted for the
observed gas composition changes, producing the results in Figure 4-18. At the highest
test pressure, the Michell unit reports the highest HCDP temperatures of the three
instruments, but the span between the Michell dew points and the Bureau of Mines
droplet dew points is 3.5F (1.9C) after adjustment, compared to 2.5F (1.4C) before
adjustment. At 650 psia, the dew points reported by all three analyzers span a range of
less than 2.5F (1.4C), both before and after adjustment. At 300 psia (20.7 bara), biases
between the various devices are also essentially unaffected by the adjustment; the Michell
measurements lie on top of the manual chilled mirror droplet dew points, while the
iridescent ring dew point falls within 1F (0.6C) of the Ametek analyzer results. In
summary, measured dew points from all of the devices at a given pressure, both before
and after adjustment for the changing gas composition, are within a 3.5F (1.9C) band
on the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) test gas, compared to a 7F (3.9C) band for the
1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) test gas.
54
3
1,000-psia (68.9-bara) Bureau of Mines chilled mirror data
1100
1080
1060
1040
1020
pressure (psia)
1000
980
960
Pretest analysis

920
900
65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85
3
750
730
710
690
670
pressure (psia)
650
630
Pretest analysis
610
Repeat analysis after chilled mirror measurements

590
550
65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85
Figure 4-14. Comparison of 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas dew points measured with
the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror with dew point curves predicted from GC
analyses.
55
400
380
360
340
320
pressure (psia)
300
280
Pretest analysis
260
240
200
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

3
1,000-psia (68.9-bara) Ametek data
1100
1080
1060
1040
1020
pressure (psia)
1000
980
960 Pretest analysis
Ametek
920
900
65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85
Figure 4-15. Comparison of 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas dew points measured by
the Ametek analyzer with dew point curves predicted from GC analyses.
56
3
750
730
710
690
670
pressure (psia)
650
630
Ametek
570
550
65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85
400
380
360
340
320
pressure (psia)
300
280
220 Ametek
200
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80
57
3
1,000-psia (68.9-bara) Michell data
1100
1080
1060
1040
1020
pressure (psia)
1000
980
960
Pretest analysis
940
920
Michell
900
65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85
3
750
730
710
690
670
pressure (psia)
650
630
590
Michell
570
550
65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85
the Michell analyzer with dew point curves predicted from GC analyses.
58
400
380
360
340
320
pressure (psia)
300
280
240 Analysis after Michell measurements
220 Michell
200
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

3
All 1,000-psia (68.9-bara) data
1100
Pretest analysis
Michell
1020 Ametek
pressure (psia)
1000
980
960
940
920
900
65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85
all instruments and predicted from all GC analyses.
59
3

730 Repeat analysis after chilled mirror measurements
710
690
670 Michell
pressure (psia)
Ametek
650
630
610
590
570
550
65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85
400
380
360
340
320
pressure (psia)
300
Pretest analysis
280
260

220 Michell
Ametek
200
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80
60
All 1,000-psia (68.9-bara) data, adjusted for composition change
1100
Pretest analysis
1080
1060
1040 Michell
1020 Ametek
pressure (psia)
1000
980
960
940
920
900
65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85
All 650-psia (44.8-bara) data, adjusted for composition changes
730
710
690
Michell
670
pressure (psia)
Ametek
650
630
610
590
570
550
65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85
all instruments, after adjustments for changes in gas composition during the
tests.
61
All 300-psia (20.7-bara) data, adjusted for composition changes
400
380
360
340
320
pressure (psia)
300
Pretest analysis
280

260

240
Michell
220
Ametek
200
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80
4.5 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4.5.1 Results from the Bureau of Mines Chilled Mirror

The measurements made in this work with the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror are consistent with
previous studies (George et al., 2005a and 2005b; George and Burkey, 2005c). For the
1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas blend, Figure 4-6 shows that confidence intervals of droplet
hydrocarbon dew points overlap the confidence intervals of analytical dew point curves predicted
using the gas compositions and the SRK equation of state, though the values themselves do not
always fall within the curve confidence intervals. (Since the analyses were made at
approximately the same time as the measurements, adjustments of the measurements for changes
in gas composition over time are not necessary for valid comparisons.) Measured droplet dew
points range from about five degrees below the analytical curve at the highest pressure to one or
two degrees above the curve at the lowest pressure. For the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas
blend (Figure 4-14), the measured droplet dew points at 1,000 psia (68.9 bara) shift to higher
temperatures relative to the predicted curve, but confidence intervals still overlap one another.
This is consistent with the key observation from the 2005 work that as line pressure and heavy
hydrocarbon content increase, the SRK cubic equation of state with common binary interaction
parameters begins to underpredict droplet HCDPs measured with the chilled mirror. (Notably,
the Peng-Robinson cubic equation of state, more often used by the industry than the SRK EOS,
underpredicts measured dew points by a larger margin than SRK at these conditions.)
62
Unlike previous tests with the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror, separate measurements were
made, where possible, of the iridescent ring dew point temperature. Since the iridescent ring
dew point appears at a higher temperature than the droplet dew point, it should be expected that
these measurements would compare differently to the EOS predictions. For the 1,050-Btu/scf
(39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas blend, the iridescent rings all appeared at temperatures within the
confidence interval of the SRK curve. Differences between measured and predicted dew point
temperatures ranged from one or two degrees below the curve at the highest pressure to as much
as ten degrees above the curve at the lowest pressure. For the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3)
blend, iridescent ring dew points appeared above the predicted curves at all pressures, but by a
margin of no more than four degrees.
Some in the natural gas industry advocate that the iridescent ring formation should be specified
as the hydrocarbon dew point, while others advocate the droplet dew point. Since the iridescent
ring dew points appear first (i.e., at a higher temperature than the droplet dew points), some may
consider the use of the iridescent ring dew point a conservative approach to avoiding
hydrocarbon condensation in pipelines. In cases of higher heavy hydrocarbon content and higher
line pressure, where the cubic equations of state tend to underpredict observed dew points, use of
the iridescent ring dew point would also make the differences between predicted and measured
dew points even larger.
On the other hand, the data show that the temperature differences between the iridescent ring
formation and the droplet formation are generally larger for the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3)
gas than for the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas. This can be explained by noting that to
obtain a certain amount of liquid condensate, a leaner natural gas blend must be cooled further
below its theoretical dew point (where condensation first begins) than a richer gas blend with
more heavy hydrocarbons present. Hypothesizing that the iridescent ring dew point, like the
droplet dew point, becomes visible to the eye once a particular threshold level of hydrocarbons
form on the mirror, the difference between the two kinds of observed dew points should be
smaller for the richer gas composition, as observed here. This trend, however, would reduce the
conservative advantage of the iridescent ring dew point criterion in avoiding condensation at
higher pressures and for richer gases.
4.5.2 Results from the Ametek 241 CE II

As discussed in Section 2, the Ametek unit is designed to detect the first appearance of
condensation, analogous to the iridescent ring dew point on the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror.
The Ametek dew point temperature measurements were always higher than the corresponding
dew point temperatures predicted by Multiflash using the SRK equation of state and GC analyses
of the test gas. Recall that in most cases, the iridescent ring dew points measured by the Bureau
of Mines chilled mirror device were also above the corresponding dew point temperatures
predicted by SRK. For the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas, the Ametek dew point
measurements in Figure 4-7 were anywhere from 2F to 5F (1C to 3C) above the
corresponding SRK curve at each pressure, while for the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas, the
Ametek unit consistently produced measurements 2F to 4F (1C to 2C) above the predicted
dew point curve at all pressures (Figure 4-15). By comparison, the iridescent ring dew points
from the manual chilled mirror in Figure 4-14 showed biases relative to the corresponding SRK
predictions that increased with C6+ content and line pressure.
63
For the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas, Figure 4-17 and Figure 4-18 show that both before
and after adjustment for composition changes, the Ametek measurements were in statistical
agreement with results from both the Michell analyzer and the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror
device (both iridescent ring and droplet dew points). For the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas,
the agreement between the Ametek and the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device depended on
test pressure. After adjustment for composition changes (Figure 4-10), Ametek measurements at
300 psia (20.7 bara) were in statistical agreement with all of the manual chilled mirror droplet
dew points, and in all but one case, were also in statistical agreement with the iridescent ring dew
points, the type of dew point for which agreement would be expected. At 500 psia (34.5 bara),
the Ametek results were within statistical agreement of the majority of Bureau of Mines
iridescent ring dew points, but significantly higher (2F to 8F, or 1C to 4C) than the majority
of Bureau of Mines droplet dew points after adjustment for composition changes over time.
Similarly, at 750 psia (51.7 bara), the Ametek measurements were significantly (5F to 6F, or
3C) higher than the manual chilled mirror measurements, but still in statistical agreement with
the iridescent ring dew points. Ametek Process and Analytical Instruments concurs with these
comparisons to the Bureau of Mines results. They attribute the larger differences between results
for the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas to the sensitivity of the optical detector and the larger
temperature drop needed to obtain a given amount of condensate from a leaner gas blend, as
discussed in the previous subsection.
4.5.3 Results from the Michell Condumax II

The performance of the Michell Condumax II was similar to the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror
in several respects. Dew point temperatures measured by the Condumax II and droplet dew
point temperatures measured with the manual chilled mirror on the same nominal gas blend at
the same pressure were nearly always in statistical agreement with one another (that is, their
uncertainty bands overlapped one another), both with and without adjustments for the changing
gas composition. Notably, the measurements from the Michell analyzer also followed two trends
observed in the 2005 tests with the manual chilled mirror: (1) Michell dew point measurements
for the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas blend were in statistical agreement with the
corresponding dew point temperatures predicted by the SRK equation of state (Figure 4-8); and
(2) for the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas blend, the SRK equation of state used by
Multiflash with common interaction parameters underpredicts the observed dew point by an
increasing margin with increasing pressure (Figure 4-16). This latter trend in the Condumax II
measurements was also noted in an earlier comparison to the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror
device (Brown et al., 2007), particularly on natural gas streams with heavier C6+ content and
methane content below 90%.
These similarities may be explained by the trip point setting used with the dark spot
measurement technique of the Condumax II. As described in Section 2, the optical detector is
quantitative, in that the output signal changes with the amount of condensate that forms on the
optical surface during cooling. The factory default trip point of 275mV at 400 psig (27.6 barg)
has been selected by Michell Instruments, based on field experience, to give good agreement
with visual chilled mirror observations of the first formation of hydrocarbon droplets at the same
pressure (as described in Subsection 2.2.3). Michell Instruments expected their readings using
the default trip point to fall somewhere between the iridescent ring dew points and droplet dew
points measured using the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror at each test condition; this held true
64
for some of the test cases in this investigation, but not all. Still, the agreement between the
Bureau of Mines droplet dew points and Michell dew points is notable, as is the agreement
between the SRK equation of state and the Michell measurements for the leaner test gas.
4.5.4 Effect of Filtration on Analyzer Accuracy
One goal of this research is to identify any impact of filtration on analyzer accuracy. Both the
automated analyzers incorporate filtration to remove any particulates or liquids from the gas
stream before it reaches the dew point sensors. While manual chilled mirrors may be used with
filtration, none was placed upstream of the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device in the
apparatus for these tests, which provided a reference case to address this question. It was
concluded that the filters used on both the Michell and Ametek units have negligible impact on
dew point accuracy. This conclusion is based upon the following observations:
1. The dew points measured by the Michell analyzer with its filtration are in good
agreement with the droplet dew points from the unfiltered manual chilled mirror. Of a
total of 36 dew points measured by the Michell unit, 30 agree to within experimental
uncertainty with all chilled mirror droplet dew points at the same pressure and gas
composition, after adjustment for differences in heavy hydrocarbon content. The other
six agree statistically with all but the lowest droplet dew point at the same pressure and
gas composition, with the Michell values being higher. If the filtration on the Michell
unit were removing heavy hydrocarbons from the stream, it should produce dew point
temperatures lower than the unfiltered chilled mirror, not higher.
2. The Michell data and manual chilled mirror droplet dew points show similar trends
relative to their corresponding predicted dew point curves. Notably, for the 1,145-
Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas at the highest test pressure, the Michell results actually
deviate slightly more from the corresponding analytical curve than the Bureau of Mines
droplet dew point data. If the filtration on the Michell unit were removing heavy
hydrocarbons from the stream, it should produce dew point temperatures closer to EOS-
predicted values than the unfiltered chilled mirror, not dew point temperatures further
from the predicted curve.
3. At four of six test conditions, the Ametek analyzer with its filtration consistently reported
dew point temperatures with confidence intervals that overlapped the iridescent ring dew
points and its confidence intervals measured with the unfiltered manual chilled mirror.
At each of the other two test conditions the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas blend at
300 psia (20.7 bara) and 500 psia (34.5 bara) the Ametek dew points were still in
statistical agreement with all but one of the five iridescent ring dew points (Figure 4-10).
4. GC analyses of the test gases, before and after tests with each HCDP analyzer at each test
condition, did not show statistically significant composition changes; all analytical dew
point curves fell within the confidence intervals of all other analytical curves at a given
pressure and gas composition. In all but two cases, the shift in predicted hydrocarbon
dew points for analyzed compositions before and after each test was less than 1F
(0.6C). Over the course of all tests on a particular gas composition, significant changes
in heavy hydrocarbon content were observed, but this occurred over several days as the
test gas was recirculated through the entire loop. The slow decreases in heavy
hydrocarbon content were observed both during tests on the unfiltered Bureau of Mines
chilled mirror device, and during tests on the filtered, automated analyzers, suggesting
65
that the filtration in the Ametek and Michell analyzers was not responsible for these
changes.
5. The filters on both automated analyzers were disassembled and visually inspected after
all tests were completed. The Michell filter showed no coloration and was in like new
condition. Some small, black particulates were found on the first membrane of the three-
stage Ametek filter assembly, and a dimple was found in the second stage membrane, but
the coloration of the three filters was identical to a new set of filters provided by Ametek
as spares. The normal coloration indicated that no heavy hydrocarbons had been trapped
in the filters during testing.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 4-19. Filters from the automated analyzers as found after the tests, showing
normal coloration: (a) the filter membrane from the Michell Condumax II;
(b) first-stage membrane from the Ametek 241 CE II, showing small particles
near the top and right edges but no discoloration; (c) second-stage membrane
from the Ametek unit, showing dimpling but no discoloration; (3) third-stage
filter from the Ametek unit, showing normal coloration.
66
4.5.5 Automated Analyzer Response Times
A secondary goal of the research was to document the time required for each of the automated
analyzers to complete a measurement cycle, and to determine whether the cycle time was
dependent on the gas composition or hydrocarbon dew point. As discussed in Subsection 2.2,
the Michell Condumax II was tested using the default total cycle time of 10 minutes, though the
cycle time can be adjusted directly as desired by the user. The Ametek 241 CE II allows the user
to adjust the length of the cooling cycle indirectly by changing the mirror upper set point
temperature, cooling rates, and purge time. The cooling and warming phases end when
hydrocarbon condensation is detected and the upper sensor temperature set point is reached,
respectively. In this research, the Ametek unit was tested with the purge phase of its cycle preset
to a length of ten minutes, as recommended by Ametek, and the other parameters at constant
values for all tests.
With a constant upper temperature and constant cooling rates, it was expected that the length of
the cooling cycle for the Ametek unit would vary with the difference between the set point and
the dew point temperature and, therefore, that the entire cycle length would vary with gas
composition. The Ametek unit did not provide data on the length of individual phases during its
cooling/warming/purge cycle, but the start time for each cycle was recorded in a logbook for
later review. These data were analyzed to determine if and how the overall cycle time depended
on gas composition through its dependence on starting sensor temperature. The Michell unit
logged the duration of its overall cycle time and its combined warming/purge cycle; from this,
the duration of the cooling phase could be computed.
Table 4-2 shows the average duration and 95% (k = 2) confidence interval of the overall
measurement cycle for both automated analyzers at each test condition. For the Michell unit, the
average and 95% confidence interval of the cooling phase of the cycle is also tabulated. The data
suggest that the overall measurement cycle of the Ametek unit may be shortened when
measuring dew points of richer gases at higher temperatures. This observation is not conclusive,
however, since the durations of the individual cooling and warming cycles were not available.
For the Michell analyzer, the total cycle time and the duration of the individual cooling phase are
clearly unaffected by the sensor temperatures, as expected.
Table 4-2. Averages and 95% confidence intervals of cycle times (in minutes and
seconds) for each automated instrument at each test condition.
Line pressure Ametek 241 CE II Michell Condumax II
(psia) (bara)
Test gas Total cycle time Total cycle time Cooling phase
1,050 Btu 750 51.7 19:23 1:50 10:00 0:06 2:18 0:12
(39.12 MJ) 500 34.5 19:12 0:39 10:00 0:01 2:22 0:08
300 20.7 19:25 0:06 10:00 0:04 2:21 0:08
1,145 Btu 1,000 68.9 18:02 0:35 10:00 0:01 2:16 0:20
(42.66 MJ) 650 44.8 17:41 0:34 10:00 0:02 2:17 0:13
300 20.7 19:36 0:14 10:00 0:01 2:23 0:02
67
4.5.6 Measurement Uncertainty and Analyzer Repeatability
An uncertainty analysis was performed to obtain the confidence intervals on all individual
measurements shown in Figure 4-6 through Figure 4-10 and Figure 4-14 through Figure 4-18.
This analysis considered the following sources of measurement uncertainty:
Published uncertainties in pressure and temperature found in the documentation for the
automated units, and in published studies on Bureau of Mines chilled mirror performance
(Warner et al., 2001; George et al., 2005a).
95% confidence intervals on calibration data provided by Ametek Process and Analytical
Instruments and Michell Instruments with the test units.
95% confidence intervals on calibrations of pressure transducers and RTDs installed in
the test loop by SwRI.
Published uncertainties in dew point measurements from each device are listed in Table 4-3,
while uncertainties in instrument temperature and pressure measurements based on instrument
calibration data are listed in Table 4-4. Except for pressure measurements by the Condumax II,
the published uncertainty for each test unit dew point measurement was larger than the
calibration uncertainty of the instrument involved. The published uncertainties for the manual
chilled mirror and the Ametek unit were used as the 95% confidence intervals on their
individually-measured dew point temperatures and pressures, as represented by the error bars in
the figures above. For the Michell unit, the published uncertainty in temperature and the
calibration uncertainty in pressure were used to determine the 95% confidence intervals.
Table 4-3. Published uncertainties in dew point measurements by each device.

Manual chilled mirror Ametek 241 CE II Michell Condumax II
Contribution Temperature Pressure Temperature Pressure Temperature Pressure
Published accuracy 2.4F* 3 psi 2F 3 psi 0.9F 2.9 psi
(1.3C) (21 kPa) (1C) (21 kPa) (0.5C) (20 kPa)
* See Warner et al., 2001.
Table 4-4. Calibration uncertainties in temperature and pressure instrumentation used

with dew point measurement devices.
Uncertainty Manual chilled mirror Ametek 241 CE II Michell Condumax II
contribution
Temperature Pressure Temperature Pressure Temperature Pressure
95% confidence 0.1F 0.7 psia 0.1F 0.7 psia 0.7F 4.8 psia
interval on linear (0.1C) (4.8 kPa) (0.05C) (4.8 kPa) (0.4C) (33 kPa)
calibration
Bias in best-fit linear + 0.05F - 0.7 psia + 0.3F - 0.7 psia - 0.4F - 0.3 psia
calibration (+ 0.03C) (- 4.8 kPa) (+ 0.2C) (- 4.8 kPa) (- 0.2C) (- 2.1 kPa)
Data from RTD used with manual chilled mirror.
Data from Rosemount pressure transducer installed in test loop.
68
As defined by the ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (ISO, 1995),
measurement repeatability is the closeness of agreement between the results of successive
measurements of the same measurand carried out under the same conditions of measurement,
including the same instrument used under the same conditions, and repetition of measurements
over a short period of time. Reproducibility refers to the closeness of measurements taken
under different conditions, such as different reference standards, different instruments, or
different times. Under the test procedure used here, successive dew point measurements were
taken by a given instrument at each test condition, but measurements on the same test gas at the
same pressure were not taken at different times by the same device. The repeatability of each
measurement device can therefore be quantified by computing the 95% confidence interval on
the average of the six repeat measurements at each test condition (gas composition and pressure).
Unfortunately, no data are available to quantify the reproducibility of any of the test items.
Table 4-5 lists the average and 95% confidence intervals of dew point conditions measured by
each instrument, on each gas composition, at each test pressure. The confidence intervals in the
table can be taken as estimates of the repeatability of each instrument. (These repeatabilities
are separate from measurement uncertainties on the average measured dew point temperatures
and pressures; in fact, in some cases, the 95% confidence intervals are larger than the
corresponding estimates of measurement uncertainties in Table 4-3 or Table 4-4.) Confidence
intervals of the Ametek 241 CE II dew point temperatures ranged from 0.1F to 1.7F (0.06C to
0.9C) before adjustment for changes in the gas composition, and 0.2F to 2.3F after
adjustment. The 95% confidence intervals of the Michell Condumax II measurements were
more consistent across both gas compositions and all line pressures, ranging from 0.2F to 0.7F
(0.1C to 0.4C) before adjustment and from 0.2F to 0.9F (0.1C to 0.5C) after adjustment.
By comparison, the confidence intervals of the manual chilled mirror measurements ranged from
0.5F to 2.1F (0.3C to 1.2C) for droplet dew points after adjustment for changing gas
compositions, and were as large as 5.3F (2.9C) for iridescent ring dew points. Based on these
95% confidence intervals, it is concluded that both automated instruments exhibited better
repeatability than the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror.
69
Table 4-5. Averages and 95% confidence intervals of dew point pressures and
temperatures, for each instrument and test condition, used to quantify
measurement repeatability.
Iridescent ring dew points Droplet dew points Ametek 241 CE II Michell Condumax II
Line
Test gas pressure (psia) T (F) P (psia) T (F) P (psia) T (F) P (psia) T (F) P (psia)
Before adjustment for changes in test gas composition

1,050 Btu 750 29.2* 749.2* 25.6 0.5 749.3 0.8 31.1 0.3 753.7 0.9 26.5 0.4 754.2 0.8
500 33.6 3.1 505.2 0.6 31.6 2.0 505.0 0.6 35.3 1.7 501.3 0.3 29.7 0.5 497.3 0.3
300 34.6 5.3 306.7 0.7 29.3 0.9 306.7 0.6 31.4 1.0 306.1 0.7 26.5 0.7 305.6 0.4
1,145 Btu 1,000 77.6* 1,001.0* 76.3 0.3 1,000.7 1.7 77.3 0.1 962.7 0.9 78.4 0.4 978.2 2.2
650 79.4* 650.1* 79.3 0.5 650.1 0.2 79.7 1.0 643.1 0.0 79.6 0.2 644.9 0.6
300 70.0* 308.6* 68.0 0.7 308.7 0.2 70.3 0.5 303.8 0.0 68.2 0.3 307.9 0.5
After adjustment
1,050 Btu 750 29.0* 749.2* 25.4 0.5 749.3 0.8 31.5 0.5 753.7 0.9 27.7 0.6 754.2 0.8
500 33.7 3.1 505.2 0.6 31.7 2.1 505.0 0.6 37.4 2.3 501.3 0.3 33.2 0.9 497.3 0.3
300 36.7 4.1 306.7 0.7 31.4 1.4 306.7 0.6 35.0 1.0 306.1 0.7 30.3 0.8 305.6 0.4
1,145 Btu 1,000 78.0* 1,001.0* 76.9 0.7 1,000.7 1.7 78.9 0.2 962.7 0.9 79.7 0.5 978.2 2.2
650 79.8* 650.1* 79.7 0.9 650.1 0.2 80.8 1.0 643.1 0.0 80.3 0.2 644.9 0.6
300 70.5* 308.6* 68.2 0.9 308.7 0.2 71.0 0.4 303.8 0.0 68.7 0.3 307.9 0.5
* Fewer than five iridescent ring dew points were observed at these test conditions, so the 95% confidence interval is not considered valid and is
not listed here.
70
Table 4-5b. Averages and 95% confidence intervals of dew point pressures and
temperatures, for each instrument and test condition, used to quantify
measurement repeatability.
Iridescent ring dew points Droplet dew points Ametek 241 CE II Michell Condumax II
Line
Test gas pressure T (C) P (bara) T (C) P (bara) T (C) P (bara) T (C) P (bara)
(bara)
Before adjustment for changes in test gas composition

39.12
MJ/Nm3 51.7 -1.6* 51.66 -3.6 0.3 51.66 0.06 -0.5 0.2 51.97 0.06 -3.1 0.2 51.97 0.06
34.5 0.9 1.7 34.83 0.04 -0.2 1.1 34.82 0.04 1.8 0.9 34.56 0.02 -1.3 0.3 34.56 0.02
20.7 1.4 2.9 21.15 0.05 -1.5 0.5 21.15 0.04 -0.3 0.6 21.10 0.05 -3.1 0.4 21.10 0.05
42.66
MJ/Nm3 68.9 25.3* 69.02 24.6 0.2 69.00 0.12 25.2 0.1 66.38 0.06 25.8 0.2 66.38 0.06
44.8 26.3* 44.82 26.3 0.3 44.82 0.01 26.5 0.6 44.34 0.00 26.4 0.1 44.34 0.00
20.7 21.1* 21.28 20.0 0.4 21.28 0.01 21.3 0.3 20.95 0.00 20.1 0.2 20.95 0.00
After adjustment
39.12
MJ/Nm3 51.7 -1.7 51.66 -3.7 0.3 51.66 0.06 -0.3 0.3 51.97 0.06 -2.4 0.3 52.00 0.06
34.5 0.9 1.7 34.83 0.04 -0.2 1.2 34.82 0.04 3.0 1.3 34.56 0.02 0.7 0.5 34.29 0.02
20.7 2.6 2.3 21.15 0.05 -0.3 0.8 21.15 0.04 1.7 0.6 21.10 0.05 -0.9 0.4 21.07 0.03
42.66
MJ/Nm3 68.9 25.6 69.02 24.9 0.4 69.00 0.12 26.1 0.1 66.38 0.06 26.5 0.3 67.44 0.15
44.8 26.6 44.82 26.5 0.5 44.82 0.01 27.1 0.6 44.34 0.00 26.8 0.1 44.46 0.04
20.7 21.4 21.28 20.1 0.5 21.28 0.01 21.7 0.2 20.95 0.00 20.4 0.2 21.23 0.03
* Fewer than five iridescent ring dew points were observed at these test conditions, so the 95% confidence interval is not considered valid and is not listed
here.
71
72
5. CONCLUSIONS AND PLANS FOR FURTHER WORK
In this study, two automated hydrocarbon dew point analyzers were tested alongside a manual
Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device. All three instruments were used to perform dew point
measurements of the same gas stream at the same controlled line conditions. Results of the three
units were compared to one another and to estimated dew point curves predicted using gas
chromatograph analyses of the test streams and the SRK equation of state in the Multiflash
software package. Primary objectives of the research were to evaluate the ability of the
automated analyzers to objectively measure hydrocarbon dew points, to evaluate their
repeatability, and to assess their usefulness in replacing the manual chilled mirror device.
The following conclusions have been made regarding the Michell Condumax II and Ametek 241
CE II automated dew point analyzers.
The instruments repeatability was quantified using the standard deviations of six repeat
measurements at the various dew point conditions, with approximate adjustments for
changes in the test gas compositions over the course of the tests. The repeatability of the
Ametek 241 CE II was found to be considerably better than the manual chilled mirror,
while the Michell Condumax II exhibited the best repeatability of the three units. Using
two standard deviations as a 95% confidence interval on the mean dew point
measurement, the Ametek average measurements had 95% confidence intervals
(repeatabilities) ranging from 0.2F to 2.3F (0.1C to 1.3C), while the Condumax II
average measurements had 95% confidence intervals ranging from 0.2F to 0.9F (0.1C
to 0.5C). Due to limitations of time and resources, the test plan did not allow data to be
collected that could be used to assess instrument reproducibility.
Measurement uncertainties were also assessed during the research, where possible, using
published uncertainty data, analyzer specifications and calibration information provided
by the individual manufacturers, along with calibration uncertainties of instrumentation
in the test loop itself.
o The Ametek 241 CE II is reported to have a temperature accuracy of 1C (2F)
and a repeatability of 0.4C (0.7F). Calibration data provided with the
Ametek unit indicated a temperature bias of only +0.3F (+0.2C) and a 95%
confidence interval on the calibration of only 0.05F (0.03C). For
conservatism, the reported accuracy was assigned to all Ametek temperature
measurements. Ametek measurements of temperatures at which condensation
first appeared were compared to the analogous iridescent ring dew point
temperatures from the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device, the de facto
standard reference device used by the natural gas industry. For the 1,145- Btu/scf
(42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas, and for nearly all measurements of the 1,050-Btu/scf
(39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas, the Ametek measurements were in statistical agreement
with the Bureau of Mines iridescent ring dew points, after accounting for test gas
composition changes.
o The Michell Condumax II is reported to have a temperature accuracy of 0.5C
(0.9F). Calibration data provided with the test unit showed an average bias in
temperature measurements of 0.4F (0.2C) and a 95% confidence interval on
the temperature calibration of 0.7F (0.4C). For comparisons to the chilled
mirror, the uncertainty of 0.5C (0.9F) reported by Michell Instruments was
73
assigned to all Condumax dew point temperatures. Dew point temperatures
measured by the Condumax II and droplet dew point temperatures measured with
the manual chilled mirror on the same nominal gas blend at the same pressure
were nearly always in statistical agreement with one another, both with and
without adjustments for changes in gas composition during the tests. Like the
manual chilled mirror, the Michell also measured dew points higher than the
analytically-predicted HCDP curve for the 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas, by
a margin that increased with increasing pressure.
o Only the Condumax II includes an integral transmitter for dew point pressure
measurements. Pressure measurements associated with the Ametek 241 CE II and
the Bureau of Mines chilled mirror were collected using a pressure transmitter
specific to the test setup. Comparisons of pressure accuracy made here would not
be generally useful, since field units may have different pressure instruments and
different accuracies.
For the leaner 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) test gas, the Ametek 241 CE II consistently
reported dew point temperatures higher than those measured by the Michell Condumax
II, by margins ranging from 1F to 6F (0.6C to 3C) after adjustments for changes in
gas composition during the tests. On the richer 1,145- Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas, the
relationship shifts as the gas pressure increases; at the lowest pressure of 300 psia
(20.7 bara), Ametek dew points are 2F to 3F (1C to 2C) above Michell values after
adjustment, while the Michell reports slightly higher (within 1F or 0.6C) dew point
temperatures at 1,000 psia (68.9 bara). When unadjusted dew points on the 1,145-Btu/scf
(42.66-MJ/Nm3) test gas are compared to dew point curves predicted from associated GC
analyses and the SRK equation of state, Ametek measurements maintain a fairly
consistent margin above the analytical dew point curve, while the margin for the Michell
measurements (like the margin for droplet dew points on the Bureau of Mines chilled
mirror) increases with increasing pressure.
o The differences in results are thought to be related to the different measurement
techniques of the two automated devices and their set points. The Ametek 241
CE II records the temperature at which a thin hydrocarbon film is detected,
analogous to the iridescent ring dew point of the Bureau of Mines chilled
mirror, while the default trip point for the Michell Condumax II was selected to
agree with manual visual chilled mirror measurements of the droplet
hydrocarbon dew point. By definition, the droplet dew point involves a larger
amount of liquid condensation from the gas stream than the iridescent ring dew
point, and therefore occurs at a lower temperature than the iridescent ring, all else
being equal. The smaller amount of condensation associated with the iridescent
ring dew point may also explain the larger scatter in the Ametek measurements.
If further research is warranted, it might be useful to adjust the threshold detection
limits of one or both units to indicate dew points at the same amount of liquid
condensate, eliminating the bias of the dew point definition from the
comparisons and allowing the measurement techniques to be compared more
directly.
It is concluded that the filters used on both the Michell and Ametek units did not impact
dew point accuracy by removing components of interest from the gas stream. During the
74
tests, the manual chilled mirror had no active filtration, while both automated analyzers
included their standard filter configurations. Dew points measured by the Michell
analyzer were in good agreement with droplet dew points from the manual chilled mirror
to within experimental uncertainty, and the Ametek analyzer results agreed to within
experimental uncertainty with all but two iridescent ring dew points from the manual
chilled mirror at the same test conditions. Had the filtration removed heavy
hydrocarbons from the gas stream, the automated units would be producing significantly
lower dew point temperatures than the reference chilled mirror. In addition, the Ametek
and Michell filters showed no discoloration after the tests or other evidence of having
trapped heavy hydrocarbons.
The measurement cycle times for the Michell Condumax II were consistent throughout
the tests, as expected. Since the total cycle time of the Condumax II is preset by the user,
the elevated temperatures needed to measure dew points on the richer gas blend had no
effect on either the overall cycle time or the cooling time of the unit. For the Ametek 241
CE II, the maximum mirror temperature after warming, the mirror cooling rates, and the
unit purge time are preset parameters. Data logged by hand suggest that the overall cycle
time for the Ametek became shorter when the unit measured dew points for the richer gas
blend, because of the smaller span between the final dew point temperature and the initial
mirror temperature. The measurement cycle for the Ametek unit lasted between 17 and
20 minutes for the 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3) gas and between 19 and 20 minutes for
the 1,145-Btu/scf (42.66-MJ/Nm3) gas, while the Michell measurement cycle lasted
10 minutes for both gases.
The research reported here assessed the performance of the Michell and Ametek automated
analyzers on gas blends similar to production gas streams and transmission-quality gas streams.
Both gas blends consisted solely of hydrocarbons and low levels of water vapor, as would be
found in processed gas supplies. As clean, dry gas supplies are consumed and the natural gas
industry turns to less conventional supplies, it is increasingly likely that automated analyzers will
encounter streams containing contaminants such as high levels of water. Also, in offshore
production and other unconventional onshore production locations, methanol is often added to a
gas stream to prevent the formation of hydrates that can damage pipelines. Methanol remaining
in the gas stream may also be encountered by automated analyzers. While trained operators of
manual dew scopes will be able to identify water and methanol condensation on the mirror, the
question is open as to how automated analyzers will handle these contaminants.
Plans are being made to expand the scope of the Joint Industry Project to assess the impact of
moisture and methanol in the gas stream on instrument performance. The follow-on work will
first modify the test protocol in the Appendix to test the analyzers on two gas streams, one
containing water vapor and the other containing methanol. The 1,050-Btu/scf (39.12-MJ/Nm3)
gas blend used in these experiments will be used as the base gas, to allow comparisons with the
results of this work. Test gas compositions, test pressures and evaluation criteria will again be
chosen with input from representatives of the JIP participants. The experimental apparatus used
here will be modified to introduce known or controlled amounts of each contaminant separately
to the known gas stream. A design review will be scheduled with the Project Advisory Group to
approve the modifications before they are installed. Once the changes are approved, the Ametek
and Michell analyzers will be tested to determine their ability to accurately measure hydrocarbon
dew points when H2O or CH3OH is present in the gas stream. These tests will provide valuable
75
information on analyzer performance under adverse conditions, data that will be useful to the
natural gas industry in the creation of guidelines for their use. Completion of this additional
work will determine the ability of these automated units to easily and accurately replace the
Bureau of Mines chilled mirror device for routine dew point determination in the field.
76
6. REFERENCES
Ametek Process and Analytical Instruments [2005], Model 241 CE Hydrocarbon Dewpoint
Monitor User Manual, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
American Gas Association [1994] Report No. 8, Compressibility Factors of Natural Gas and
Other Related Hydrocarbon Gases, Second Edition, Second Printing, American Gas Association,
Arlington, Virginia, July 1994.
American Petroleum Institute [2006], Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, Chapter 14
Natural Gas Fluids Measurement, Section 1 Collecting and Handling of Natural Gas
Samples for Custody Transfer, Sixth Edition, American Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C.,
USA, February 2006.
ASTM Standard D 1142 [1995], Standard Test Method for Water Vapor Content of Gaseous
Fuels by Measurement of Dew Point Temperature, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, USA, 1995.
Brown, A., Milton, M., Vargha, G., Mounce, R., Cowper, C., Stokes, A., Benton, A., Bannister,
M., Ridge, A., Lander, D., and Laughton, A. [2007], NPL Report AS 3, Comparison of Methods
for the Measurement of Hydrocarbon Dew Point of Natural Gas, National Physical Laboratory,
Teddington, Middlesex, UK, May 2007.
Cowper, C. J. [2002], Natural Gas Hydrocarbon Dewpoint; Comparison of Measurement and
Calculation Methods, Proceedings of the Second Gas Analysis Symposium and Exhibition,
National Physical Laboratory (United Kingdom), Maastricht, The Netherlands, January 2002.
Gammon, B.E. [1988], Technical Project TP-17, Table of Physical Properties of Hydrocarbons
for Extended Analysis of Natural Gases, Thermodynamic Research Center, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas, USA, December 1988.
Gas Processors Association Standard 2145-03 [2007], Revision 2, Table of Physical Constants
for Hydrocarbons and Other Compounds of Interest to the Natural Gas Industry, Gas Processors
Association, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, July 2007.
George, D. L. [2003], Preparation of Natural Gas Blends Used as Calibration Standards:
Sources of Uncertainty and Best Preparation Practices, Topical Report to the U.S. Minerals
Management Service and Gas Research Institute, GRI Topical Report GRI-03/0080, Gas
Research Institute, Des Plaines, Illinois, USA, April 2003.
George, D. L., Barajas, A. M., Kelner, E., and Nored, M. [2005a], Metering Research Facility
Program: Natural Gas Sample Collection and Handling Phase IV, Gas Research Institute
Topical Report GRI-03/0049, Gas Research Institute, Des Plaines, Illinois, USA, January 2005.
George, D. L., Burkey, R. C., and Morrow, T. B. [2005b], Metering Research Facility Program:
Natural Gas Sample Collection and Handling Phase V, Gas Research Institute Topical Report
GRI-05/0134, Gas Research Institute, Des Plaines, Illinois, USA, March 2005.
George, D. L., and Burkey, R. C. [2005c], Measurements of Hydrocarbon Dew Points of Rich
Natural Gases, Final Report to U.S. Department of Energy, May 2005.
George, D. L. [2006], Reducing Measurement Uncertainty in Process Gas Quality
Measurements, Proceedings of the 2006 International School of Hydrocarbon Measurement,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, May 2006, class 5330.
77
George, D. L. [2007], Development of Accurate Methods for Predicting Hydrocarbon Dew
Points, Topical Report to the U.S. Minerals Management Service and Pipeline Research Council
International (PRCI), May 2007.
Infochem Computer Services Ltd. [2007], User Guide for Multiflash for Windows, Version 3.6,
London, UK, May 2007.
ISO [1995], Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, First Edition, International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Panneman, H. J. [2005], A Traceable Calibration Procedure for Hydrocarbon Dew Point
Meters, Proceedings of the 2005 American Gas Association Operations Conference, American
Gas Association, Arlington, Virginia, USA, May 2005, paper 05-OP-27.
Warner, H. R., Leamer, E. E., Spence, A. P., Bone, R. L., Hubbard, R. A., Bernos, J., and Kriel,
W. A. [2001], Hydrocarbon Dewpoint Determination of Lean Natural Gases, Proceedings of
the Eightieth GPA Annual Convention, San Antonio, Texas, USA, March 2001.
78
APPENDIX: APPROVED TEST PROCEDURE FOR HYDROCARBON DEW POINT
EXPERIMENTS
Procedure written by Darin L. George and Russell Burkey, SwRI, 2/14/2007.
Annotations in bold underlined italics added by Russell Burkey and David Spears, SwRI,
6/28/07.
Preheating of Gas Blends:

Each gas storage cylinder and its outlet regulator will be heated to the temperature listed in the
procedure. The gas will be heated to the required temperature before any gas is withdrawn from
the cylinder to calibrate the GC or to charge the test system. The expected delivery temperature
and pressure of each gas have been used to compute the temperature and pressure to which the
cylinder and its contents will be heated. The temperatures listed are at least 30F above (a) the
predicted hydrocarbon dew point at the final cylinder pressure after heating, if this pressure is
below the cricondentherm pressure, or (b) the predicted cricondentherm dew point for the gas, if
the final cylinder pressure is above the cricondentherm pressure. The maximum temperature for
all gas storage cylinders is 125F, based on Compressed Gas Association specifications.
The storage cylinder will be placed on an insulated pad to thermally isolate it from the laboratory
floor. The cylinder will be wrapped in a regulated heating blanket to control the gas temperature.
An insulated cover will be placed over the top of the cylinder and the regulator to prevent
convection cooling. The heating blanket will be regulated using a thermocouple or RTD
attached to the wall of the cylinder, placed halfway up its height. After the wall of the cylinder
reaches the specified temperature, the cylinder shall continue to be heated for a minimum of
24 hours before the cylinder is first opened. The requirement is intended to ensure that the core
temperature of the gas in the cylinder has reached a temperature at least 30F above its calculated
hydrocarbon dew point. The gas cylinder will be heated continuously until the gas is no longer
needed.
Calibration of the GC:

This will be performed each time that the test system is charged with a new test gas and at the
beginning of each test day.
A gas blend nominally identical to the gas to be tested will be used to calibrate the GC before
each test series. These gas blends should have values of octane, nonane, and decane content
certified to 5 ppm or better.
1) Preheat the calibration gas storage cylinder and the outlet regulator according to the
procedure, Preheating of Gas Blends. If the calibration gas in the storage cylinder is too
cold, heavy components could condense out inside the storage cylinder, voiding the
calibration gas certificate.
2) Select a calibration gas of the same nominal composition as the test gas to be charged to the
system. Connect the outlet of the calibration gas storage cylinder to the GC inlet. The
connecting line should be heat traced to the same temperature as the storage cylinder, or
should pass through the environmental chamber, to avoid condensation in the line.
79
3) Confirm that the preheater on the GC is operating. Set the regulator on the cylinder outlet to
the correct outlet pressure for the GC (45 psia, or 310 kPa).
4) Perform five consecutive calibration runs on the GC using the calibration gas.
5) Check the calibration factors from the five runs for response factor linearity and for
repeatability. If the average response factors are acceptably linear when graphed against
molecular weight, and provide 95% confidence intervals on measured compositions of 5 ppm
or better in octane, nonane, and decane, the calibration can be applied to analyze test gases
and the contents of the test system before it is charged.
Charging the System with a New Gas:

Note that the accumulator and other equipment must be cleaned with reagent-grade acetone or
steam cleaned, then leak-tested at the maximum allowable pressure using helium gas, and finally
pre-conditioned by heating under vacuum and LN2 boil-off trickle flow to remove water vapor
before first use. A thermal conductivity detector or similar natural gas leak detector will be used
to check system integrity during leak tests. Before use, the helium must be checked for water
vapor using the Michell Condumax II Water Dew Point measurement. Also, all gases will enter
the system through a desiccant chamber filled with phosphorus pentoxide to remove water vapor.
1) Calibrate the GC as described above.
2) Preheat the test gas storage cylinder and the outlet regulator according to the procedure,
Preheating of Gas Blends, before analyzing its contents or charging the system. If the test
gas in the storage cylinder is too cold, heavy components could condense out inside the
storage cylinder, and the test gas could be ruined.
3) Use the calibrated GC to verify the test gas composition straight from the test gas delivery
cylinder. If the composition in the cylinder does not agree with the certified composition,
determine the cause before proceeding.
4) Purge the interior volume of the test chamber with nitrogen from the nitrogen purge
subsystem. The interior volume of the test chamber must remain purged with nitrogen
throughout the testing. Use oxygen detector to confirm that the chamber is below 5%
oxygen.
5) Configure the test system to flow through each dew point device in series:
Open: MV4, MV5, MV7, MV8
Closed: MV1, MV2, MV3, MV6
For all tests flowing through the Ametek analyzer, ensure that the Ametek is powered on
and in the Purge stage (i.e., its solenoid valve is open) so that a flow path exists through
the analyzer. The Purge stage may be extended to a maximum of 255 minutes from its
default of 10 minutes. Use the Ametek software to adjust the Purge stage duration (Edit
menu, Device Properties selection, Setup tab, Advanced Setup button, Cell Purge
Duration variable, click OK, click Apply; Do not click Save to Analyzers
EEPROM).
80
6) Bring the temperature of the test chamber to a temperature 10F above the boiling point of
water at the pressure of the system, or the initial temperature of the system listed in the table
below, whichever is higher. Allow the test system temperature to stabilize.
Connect vacuum pump secondary outlet to N2 Pressurant Vent Valve in order to pull a
vacuum on N2 Pressurant side of accumulator to ensure that the piston remains fully
down, thus maximizing loop volume. Configure the test system:
Open: SV1, SV2, DV1, DV3, DV5, DV6, N2 Pressurant Vent Valve
Closed: DV2, DV4
Evacuate the system to 27 Hg vacuum (including N2 Pressurant side of accumulator) for a
minimum of 0.5 hour while driving the prime mover at approximately 250 cc/min. Provide a
trickle flow of LN2 boil-off to help remove water vapor, if necessary.
Test gas NG#1 (1,050 Btu/scf, 39.12 MJ/Nm3)
All equipment should be at 70F or higher (approximately room temperature) for this gas.
System
Storage cylinder System Dew scope starting
Step temperature
temperature (F) pressure (psia) temperature (F)
(F)
Charging Room Room
750 N/A
the system temperature temperature
Room Room
Test 1 750 50
temperature temperature
Room Room
Test 2 500 50
Room Room
Test 3 300 50
Test gas NG#2 (1,145 Btu/scf)

All equipment should be at 110F or higher for this gas.
System
Storage cylinder System Dew scope starting
Step temperature
temperature (F) pressure (psia) temperature (F)
(F)
Charging
110 1,000 110 N/A
the system
Test 1 110 1,000 110 90
Test 2 110 650 110 90
Test 3 110 300 110 80
81
7) [All valves remain in same configuration as previous steps.] Purge the system with methane
(heavy hydrocarbons have higher solubility in methane than in inert gases) by performing
five fill/flush cycles with methane at 25 psig 50 psig. Circulate the methane through the
system at approximately 250 cc/min for five minutes during each fill cycle. Vent the
methane from the system. After each of the methane flushes, pull a 27 Hg vacuum
(including N2 Pressurant side of accumulator) for 15 minutes. The vacuum pump may
remain running continuously; use Vacuum Valve to apply or remove vacuum from the test
loop. On last fill, vent methane pressure out of the regulator. Close methane cylinder
supply valve.
8) [All valves remain in same configuration as previous steps.] Purge the system with helium
by performing five fill/flush cycles with helium at 25 50 psig (80 psig is OK). Circulate the
helium through the system at approximately 250 cc/min for five minutes during each fill
cycle. Vent the helium from the system. After each of the helium flushes, pull a 27 Hg
vacuum (including N2 Pressurant side of accumulator) for five minutes.
9) Fill the system with helium at 25 psig 50 psig (80 psig is OK). Lock the pressure in the
test loop by closing SV2 and DV6. SV1 remains open. Vent the remaining helium from
the system outside the test loop. After venting, close DV1, DV2, DV3, DV4, and DV5.
Disconnect vacuum pump secondary outlet from N2 Pressurant Vent Valve. Apply N2
Pressurant to the accumulator to pressurize the test loop to 300 psia. Circulate the helium
at approximately 250 cc/min for 30 minutes.
10) Use the GC and Michell Condumax II Water Dew Point measurement to check for
contaminants in the system (remaining hydrocarbons, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapor,
etc.). Perform three GC analyses of the contents of the system to confirm that no
contaminants are present. If contaminants are found, repeat fill/flush cycles with methane,
helium, and/or LN2 boil-off and repeat this step.
If no contaminants are detected, vent the helium from the test system. Maintain nitrogen
pressurant (approximately 100 psia - 300 psia) to the accumulator to minimize the system
volume. As accumulator is pressurizing, vent from the loop by opening Vent Valve, SV2,
DV1, DV3, DV5, and DV6. After venting, close Vent Valve.
11) [Before applying a vacuum, open SV2 and DV1, DV3, DV5, and DV6.] Pull a vacuum of
27 Hg vacuum on the system for a minimum of 0.5 hour. Bring the temperature of the
environmental chamber to the initial temperature of the system listed in the table.
12) Charge the system with test gas up to the system pressure listed in the table.
a) Open SV1 and SV2. (Leave DV1, DV3, DV5, and DV6 open.) Purge the system with the
test gas by performing five fill/flush cycles with the test gas at 25 psig 50 psig. (Leave
nitrogen pressurant applied to accumulator.) Close SV2. Circulate the test gas through
the system at approximately 250 cc/min for five minutes during each fill cycle. Open
SV2. Vent the test gas from the system. After each of the test gas flushes, pull a 27 Hg
vacuum for five minutes.
b) Remove the nitrogen pressurant from the accumulator to maximize the system volume.
Done with the vacuum pump, it can be turned off; close DV1, DV3, and DV5; leave
DV6 open.
82
c) Open SV1 and SV2. Charge the accumulator and test system with test gas up to the
delivery pressure of test gas. Around 120 psig will be sufficient.
d) Close SV2. (Vent remaining test gas outside of the test loop; close all DV valves.)
Apply nitrogen pressurant to the accumulator to compress the test gas from the
accumulator into the test system. (Steps (e) (g) are only required if a higher loop
pressure is desired.) For all cycles after the first compression, open SV1 when the
nitrogen pressure approximately equals the existing pressure inside the test system.
e) Close SV1. Release the pressurant from the accumulator to allow the accumulator to
expand.
f) Open SV2 to fully expand the accumulator. Charge the accumulator with test gas up to
the delivery pressure of the test gas. (Leave N2 Pressurant Vent Valve open to relieve
further accumulator pressure.)
g) Repeat steps (e) through (g) as many times as necessary to reach the desired system
pressure.
h) Maintain pressurant to the accumulator at the desired system pressure throughout testing.
During testing, SV1 remains open and SV2 remains closed.
13) Use the GC to verify the gas composition in the system after charging the system, but prior to
the beginning of a test series (perform three GC analyses). If the composition in the system
does not agree with the certified composition, determine the cause before proceeding.
83
SW2
PS2
5 VDC
SW1
PR2
DEW SCOPE MV1
CHILLER
INSULATED WARM BOX
T1 LT1
MV2
VIDEO PS1
N2
CAMERA
1 2VDC
TV
MV7 SSR1
VCR MIXER SV4
HP P1 T2
DATALOGGER SV1(a)
MV3
DIGITAL AUTOMATED T4
VIDEO
RECORDER VIDEO DATA ANALYZER #1
CAMERA COMPUTER (AMETEK) PR7
MV4 SV1(b)
P2
REMOTE MV8 ACCUMULATOR

INTERFACE VENT
N2
UNIT SV3 SV3
MV5
AUTOMATED N.O. N.C. N.C. N.O. SV2 VENT
ANALYZER #2 D2 P3
PRESSURANT CV4
MV6 BV1
(MICHELL) BV2
D1 VACUUM
STEPPER CV3 PUMP
MOTOR P4 DV2 CV1 CV2
DV1
GAS
PR1 CHROMATOGRAPH
M OTOR
CONTROL
MOTOR BV4 BV3
COMPUTER
CONTROLLER DV6
PRIME MOVER GC PR3 PR4 PR5
T5 PR6 COMPUTER
DV3 DV4
CGD1
T6
TEST NG
DV5
CAL NG
CH4
He
VENT
LN2
LN2
LT2 T7
LN2
HT BT1
BT2
DPS1 PS3 12 VDC LARM T3
PC1
SSD PC2
SSR3 SSD
SSD SSR2
MR1
SSD
SSD
SSD
Figure A1. Test Setup Schematic.

Note: MV1-MV8 (MV = Manual Valve) are shown in the schematic in positions to help ensure understanding of their functions. In the actual test setup,
these valves are located close together (manifold arrangement) in order to minimize dead volume in the test system when flowing though one dew point
device at a time. MV7 and MV8 are included in the test system to allow flowing through the three dew point devices in series in the system preparation steps.
MV7 and MV8 will always be closed during testing, and flow will be routed through one dew point device at a time.
84
PS2
5VDC
DEW SCOPE MV1
CHILLER
T1 LT1
MV2
VIDEO
CAMERA
TV
MV7
VCR MIXER
HP
DATALOGGER
MV3
DIGITAL AUTOMATED
VIDEO
RECORDER VIDEO DATA ANALYZER #1
CAMERA COMPUTER (AMETEK)
MV4
REMOTE MV8
INTERFACE
UNIT
MV5
AUTOMATED
ANALYZER #2
MV6
(MICHELL)
Figure A2. Test Setup Schematic Dew Point Device Detail.

Note: MV1-MV8 (MV = Manual Valve) are shown in the schematic in positions to help ensure understanding of their functions. In the actual test setup,
these valves are located close together (manifold arrangement) in order to minimize dead volume in the test system when flowing though one dew point
device at a time. MV7 and MV8 are included in the test system to allow flowing through the three dew point devices in series in the system preparation steps.
MV7 and MV8 will always be closed during testing, and flow will be routed through one dew point device at a time.
85
Starting Tests at a New Pressure and/or Temperature
1) Open test system to all dew point devices in parallel (in preparation for flowing through one
dew point device at a time) by closing MV7 and MV8, MV9, MV10 and opening MV1,
MV2, MV3, MV4, MV5, and MV6.
2) Maintain the purge of the interior volume of the test chamber with nitrogen. The interior
volume of the test chamber must remain purged with nitrogen throughout the testing.
3) Bring the temperature of the test chamber to the system temperature listed in the table.
4) Bring the pressure of the system to the system pressure listed in the table. Note that the
accumulator can be used to vary the pressure in the test system by a ratio of approximately
6:1 8:1 using the same charge of test gas.
a) To increase pressure in the system from the current pressure:
Increase the pressure of the nitrogen pressurant (up to a maximum of 2160 1,500 psia) in
order to compress the accumulator and increase the pressure in the test system (SV1
open; SV2 closed).
b) To decrease pressure in the system from the current pressure:
Decrease the pressure of the nitrogen pressurant in order to expand the accumulator and
decrease the pressure in the test system (SV1 open; SV2 closed).
5) Enter the test gas composition, system pressure, and system temperature into the SuperZ
(AGA-8) program to compute the test gas density. (See table for required flow rates across
the dew point devices.)
6) Compute the required actual flow rate Qa across the dew point devices, given the following
standard flow rates and the formula below.
a) Bureau of Mines Chilled Mirror Dew Point Tester: Qs = 5 scfh
b) Ametek Model 241CE II Dew Point Analyzer: Qs = 5 scfh
c) Michell Condumax II Dew Point Analyzer: Qs = 2 scfh
where
s = gas density at STP (lbm/scf)
a = gas density at actual conditions (lbm/acf)
7) Confirm that all test equipment (in particular, the HP data logger, video camera, video
monitor, and video storage device) is operating as required. Check that the clocks on the data
logging PC and the video camera are synchronized.
8) Conduct Testing
a) Use the GC to verify the gas composition in the system (perform three GC analyses). If
the composition in the system does not agree with the certified composition, determine
the cause before proceeding.
86
b) Bureau of Mines Chilled Mirror Dew Point Tester Tests:
i) Open MV1 and MV2 to route flow to and from the Bureau of Mines Chilled Mirror
Dew Point Tester. Ensure that MV3, MV4, MV5, MV6 MV7, and MV8 MV9 and
MV10 are closed to prevent flow to and from the other dew point devices under test.
ii) Set the flow rate in the stepper motor control software to the required actual flow rate.
iii) Following the recommendations of API 14.1, Appendix G, gradually lower the
chilled mirror temperature (using the glycol coolant bath subsystem) at a rate no
greater than 1F per minute until the hydrocarbon dew point is observed.
iv) Perform six measurements of the dew point at each system test pressure.
(1) After the dew point is recorded, keep recording and drop the temperature until
many drops are visible moving around the mirror. This will allow the dew
point to be better visualized on the video when reviewed. If no dew point is
observed before the lower range of expected dew point temperatures is reached,
contact the project manager.
(2) Data to record in the logbook for each test:
(a) Start time and end time of each video recording session.
(b) Start time and end time of each HP data logger data file.
(c) Run number
(d) Start time of the test run (when lowering of the mirror temperature starts)
(e) System pressure and system temperature (recorded by the HP data logger)
(f) Dew scope temperature (recorded by the HP data logger)
(g) Time when the dew point is observed
(h) Glycol coolant bath temperature
(i) Flow rate of gas across the dew scope
(3) Record anything unusual that happens. If unsure whether or not the dew point
condition is reached, record why: Looks like water vapor instead of
hydrocarbon, fluttering fog, drops are on the edges instead of the center,
cloudy, or looks funny see video.
v) Continue to circulate flow through the chilled mirror device for 30 minutes after the
conclusion of testing at each system test pressure.
vi) After the tests, review the videotape to confirm the measured dew points.
c) Use the GC to verify the gas composition in the system (perform three GC analyses). If
87
d) Ametek Model 241CE Tests:
i) Open MV3 and MV4 to route flow to and from the Ametek Model 241CE dew point
analyzer. Ensure that MV1, MV2, MV5, MV6, MV7, and MV8 MV9 and MV10 are
closed to prevent flow to and from the other dew point devices under test.
The Ametek Model 241 dew point analyzer operates in three stages during its
measurement cycle:
1. Purge
2. Cooling (HCDP measurement)
3. Warming
The analyzer has a normally-closed solenoid valve that is closed during the Cooling
and Warming stages of its measurement cycle so that the full line pressure with
no flow is applied to its measurement cell. The solenoid valve opens during the
Purge stage to allow flow through the measurement cell. Therefore, for the
purposes of this testing, the analyzer provides no flow path during the Cooling and
Warming stages, and the test loop flow MUST be stopped during these stages. The
test loop flow MUST be restarted during the Purge stage.
Power up the Ametek analyzer. On power up, the analyzer will automatically enter
the Purge stage and open its solenoid valve. Start the Ametek software. Once the
analyzer has entered the Purge stage and opened its solenoid valve, start the stepper
motor to start flow around the test loop. Stop the stepper motor to stop flow around
the test loop when approximately 15 seconds remain in the Purge stage (i.e., before
the analyzer begins the Cooling stage). The status of the analyzer, including the
Purge stage countdown clock, can be viewed with the Ametek software (Edit
menu, Device Properties selection, Results and Status tab) Ensure that the
Cell Purge Duration variable is set to ten minutes for testing.
Stage Solenoid Valve Flow Motor
Purge Open Flow Running
Cooling Closed No Flow Stopped
Warming Closed No Flow Stopped
iii) Follow (and record) the manufacturers recommendations for initiating and
conducting tests with the dew point analyzer. In particular, disregard the first three
measurements of hydrocarbon dew point after initiating testing with the analyzer.
iv) Allow the analyzer to perform six measurements of the dew point at each system test
pressure. Download data file from analyzer.
(a) Start time and end time of each testing session. Record a simultaneous value
of the analyzer run time clock and data logging computer clock in order to
allow time synchronization between the Ametek analyzer and HP data
logger, if necessary.
88
(b) Analyzer data file name.
(c) System pressure and system temperature (recorded by the HP data logger).
(d) Data logger file name.
(e) Flow rate of gas in the test system.
v) Continue to circulate flow through the analyzer for 30 minutes after the conclusion of
testing at each system test pressure.
e) Use the GC to verify the gas composition in the system (perform three GC analyses). If
f) Michell Condumax II Tests:
i) Open MV5 and MV6 to route flow to and from the Condumax II dew point analyzer.
Ensure that MV1, MV2, MV3, MV4, MV7, and MV8 MV9 and MV10 are closed to
prevent flow to and from the other dew point devices under test.
iii) Follow (and record) the manufacturers recommendations for initiating and
conducting tests with the dew point analyzer. In particular, disregard the first three
measurements of hydrocarbon dew point after initiating testing with the analyzer.
Power up the Michell analyzer (plug and switch). On power up, the analyzer will
automatically enter the Purge stage. Start the Michell software on the Remote
Interface (RI).
Adjust the analyzer Trip Point based on the test pressure according to the following
table. From the RI Main Parameters screen, select Setup/Variables; enter
password Michell; double click Sig. Trip Point; enter value and click OK;
select Main Parameters to return to the home screen.
Pressure (psia) Trip Point (mV)
300 196
414.7 (Default) 275 (Default)
500 334
650 437
750 506
1,000 677
iv) Allow the analyzer to perform six measurements of the dew point at each system test
pressure. Download data file from analyzer.
(a) Start time and end time of each testing session.
(b) Analyzer data file name.
(c) System pressure and system temperature (recorded by the HP data logger).
(d) Data logger file name.
89
(e) Flow rate of gas in the test system.
v) Continue to circulate flow through the analyzer for 30 minutes after the conclusion of
testing.
g) Use the GC to verify the gas composition in the system (perform three GC analyses). If
Additional Data to Record in the Logbook:

1) Record anything unusual that happens.
2) Make a note of when significant test steps have been performed (vacuum is pulled on the
system, GC analysis, etc.).
At the End of Tests at a Given Pressure:

1) Use the GC to verify the gas composition in the system (perform three GC analyses). Save
the analyses to disk.
2) Copy the data files from the HP data logger and dew point devices to disk.
At the End of the Day:

1) Use the Michell Condumax II Water Dew Point measurement to verify the lack of moisture
in the system.
2) Make copies of the notes from that days test runs. Take the data files (temperature,
pressure, GC analysis, etc.) and copies of notes to the project manager.
3) Reduce the pressure in the system as much as possible by venting the nitrogen pressurant
from the accumulator. The test chamber must remain overnight at the temperature at which it
will be used the following day.
90

HCDP Analyzer Phase I Report Final

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

HCDP Analyzer Phase I Report Final

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

S O U T H W E S T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

Department of Fluids Engineering

To: Participants of the Hydrocarbon Dew Point Analyzer Evaluation JIP

Darin L. George, Ph.D.

Terrence A. Grimley, Program Coordinator

cc: Ray Adcock, Ametek E. B. Bowles, SwRI

Tests of Instruments for Measuring Hydrocarbon Dew Points in

Prepared for the

Prepared by the following Research Agency:

PRCI Version Control

Pipeline Research Council International Catalog No. L5XXXX

PRCI Reports are published by Technical Toolboxes, Inc.

3801 Kirby Drive, Suite 340

SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

1,050 Btu (94.75% methane, 0.1% C6+)

TABLE 2-1. SPECIFICATIONS OF THE MANUAL CHILLED MIRROR AND ANALYZERS

1.1 THE NEED FOR OBJECTIVE DEW POINT MEASUREMENT

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

2.1 DESIGN CRITERIA

2.2 TEST ARTICLES

Bureau of Mines Ametek Michell

2.2.1 Bureau of Mines Manual Chilled Mirror

2.2.2 Ametek Model 241 CE II

2.2.3 Michell Condumax II

2.3 FINAL APPARATUS DESIGN

Ametek 241 CE II Michell Condumax II Gas Chromatograph

Figure 2-8. Layout of the test system.

Figure 2-9. Schematic of the test system.

Combustible Gas Detector

Heater/Fan Heated Pressure Regulator Accumulator

INSULATED WARM BOX

2.3.2 Warm Box

2.3.3 Pressure and Temperature Instrumentation

2.3.4 Gas Chromatograph

The choice of the Varian micro-GC was guided by several factors.

2.3.5 Modifications to the Test Articles

FILTER BLOCK ASSEMBLY

FLOW FLOW FLOW

Figure 2-17. Ametek 241 CE II modified sampling system schematic.

Figure 2-18. Photograph of the Ametek 241 CE II modified sampling system.

Figure 2-19. Michell Condumax II standard sampling system schematic.

Figure 2-20. Michell Condumax II modified sampling system schematic.

Figure 2-21. Photograph of the Michell Condumax II modified sampling system.

Heating value 1,050.4 Btu/scf 1,146.5 Btu/scf

3.1 PREHEATING OF GAS BLENDS AND EQUIPMENT

3.2 GAS CHROMATOGRAPH CALIBRATION

3.3 INTRODUCTION OF A NEW TEST GAS

3.4 DEW POINT MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES

3.4.1 Procedure for the Bureau of Mines Chilled Mirror

3.4.2 Procedure for the Ametek 241 CE II

3.4.3 Procedure for the Michell Condumax II

4.1 MEASUREMENTS OF MOISTURE CONTENT

4.3 1,050-BTU/SCF (39.12-MJ/NM3) TEST RESULTS

Michell analysis loop

Michell analysis loop

Day 2 repeat pretest

of gas in loop at 750

Day 2 pretest check

check of gas in loop

Pretest check with

at 750 psia (51.7

Michell analysis loop

Michell analysis loop

Day 2 repeat pretest