Deposition from “Waxy” Mixtures under Turbulent Flow in Pipelines: Inclusion of a Viscoplastic Deformation Model for Deposit Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mathematical model is described and used to predict solids deposition from multicomponent paraffinic “waxy” mixtures under turbulent flow in pipelines. The model is based on the moving boundary problem formulation, in which the deposit formation and growth is modeled primarily as a heat-transfer process with phase change. The effects of shear stress (or Reynolds number) and deposition time (or deposit aging) are incorporated via a viscoplastic model, which is based on one-dimensional deformation of a cubical cage that squeezes out a fraction of the liquid phase from the deposit. Numerical solutions were obtained for the radial and axial growth of the deposit with time at Reynolds numbers ( Re ) of 10 000−25 000. The predicted trends are in agreement with the experimental results from recent laboratory deposition studies. The steady-state deposit thickness under turbulent flow is predicted to be considerably smaller than that under laminar flow, and it decreased with an increase in Re . The average wax content of the deposit is predicted to also increase with Re and deposition time (or aging), causing the deposit to become enriched in heavier paraffins and depleted in lighter paraffins. The results indicate that, although an increase in Re and deposition time causes wax enrichment in the deposit, the deposit thickness is dependent on heat-transfer and thermodynamic phase equilibrium considerations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".