MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2305377178 · doi:10.1115/omae2015-41285

Thermal Insulation With Latent Energy Storage for Flow Assurance in Subsea Pipelines

2015· article· en· W2305377178 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Parsazadeh, Xili Duan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Change Materials Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubseaFlow assurancePipeline transportThermal insulationPipe insulationThermal energy storagePetroleum engineeringHeat transferLatent heatEnergy storageMaterials sciencePhase-change materialEnvironmental scienceSubmarine pipelineNuclear engineeringThermal energyThermalMechanical engineeringMarine engineeringEngineeringLayer (electronics)Composite materialHydrateGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsVacuum insulated panelThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flow assurance is critical in offshore oil and gas production. Thermal insulation is an effective way to reduce heat loss from subsea pipelines and avoid the formation of hydrates or wax deposits that could block the flowlines. This paper presents heat transfer analysis from a subsea flowline with different insulation materials, particularly with nano-enhanced phase change materials (NPCMs) that allow thermal energy storage in the pipeline system. The phase change materials (PCMs) can effectively regulate fluid temperature during production fluctuations or increase the cool-down time during production shutdown. This paper considers a pipe in pipe configuration with different insulation methods; the cool-down times are calculated and compared. The results show that thermal insulation can greatly delay the fluid cool-down process. A significant improvement of cool-down time can be achieved with PCM energy storage under a good conventional insulation layer. Moreover, with nanoparticles in a PCM, the latent energy storage is enhanced thus it takes even longer time for the internal fluid to reach its hydrate formation temperature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhase Change Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207