Methodology for Evaluating Drag Reduction Characteristics of Friction Reducer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Friction reducers have been an integral part of the oil and gas industry for many years. They possess very unique properties of reducing friction pressure associated with the flow of fluid in tubulars. Friction pressure loss or hydraulic characteristics of friction reducers depend greatly on how they are tested and evaluated in the laboratory. Today, there is no standard procedure for their evaluation. American Petroleum Institute (API) oversees the development and publication of industry standard practices for various fluids and materials. Recognizing the need for a standard testing procedure for friction reducers, a Committee made up of members from industry and academia was formed and charged to develop a document outlining the standard procedure. Round-robin tests were conducted by four industry organizations and one academic institution, employing their in-house flow loops and were requested to report the results. Tests were to conduct friction pressure measurements of friction reducers, and to develop and deliver to the industry a standard procedure and method to measure and analyze friction reducers data in straight pipes. The test fluids chosen were two friction reducers: one anionic and the other cationic. Water data were also gathered as base line. Same fluid samples were submitted to all laboratories. The calibration procedure and fluid testing procedure was developed and distributed to all involved in fluid testing. The analysis for data reduction and for reporting results was also developed and distributed to all. It was found that the calibration procedure was more critical than originally thought. The determination of internal diameter of the circular tube is the most important parameter that influences the friction pressure loss results greatly. In this paper, the details of various flow loops, calibration procedure, data analysis procedure, and results obtained with water as base line and two friction reducers are presented and discussed. A standard procedure for testing and evaluating friction reducers for their friction loss properties is outlined. Following this standard procedure and carefully performing the testing with friction reducers will yield very similar results among various laboratories in the industry. This will make it easy when comparing the performance of friction reducers for their friction loss properties from different organizations.
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".