Experimental Investigation of Deposition and Wall Growth in Water Saturated Hydrocarbon Pipelines in the Absence of Free Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a combination of micromechanical force and flowloop measurements, hydrate deposition on a pipe wall surface was investigated for ‘dry’ hydrates formed in the bulk phase and for hydrates growing on the pipe surface. Cyclopentane ‘dry’ hydrates (without a free water phase) were used to predict whether hydrates, formed in a bulk condensate phase, would adhere to a pipe wall. Adhesion forces between cyclopentane hydrates and steel were measured using a micro-mechanical force apparatus. The average force of adhesion was measured to be very small, less than 0.01 N/m. This force was used in a particle force balance, predicting that hydrates formed in the bulk phase would not deposit on the pipe wall. It was hypothesized than in the presence of a water saturated hydrocarbon, hydrates would grow on the pipe wall as the fluid cooled below its equilibrium temperature. This hypothesis was confirmed using a single pass condensate flowloop. Water was continuously dissolved into the flowloop inlet stream as water deposited in the flowloop test section, resulting in both a pressure drop and fluid temperature increase. This work illustrates the need for a hydrate wall growth model.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".