MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799898098 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23492

A new approach to model friction losses in the water‐assisted pipeline transportation of heavy oil and bitumen

2019· article· en· W2799898098 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sayeed Rushd, M. McKibben, R. Sean Sanders

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoulingPipeline transportAsphaltComputational fluid dynamicsPetroleum engineeringFlow (mathematics)Materials scienceViscositySurface finishEnvironmental scienceMechanicsGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Continuous water‐assisted flow (CWAF), where a water layer surrounds a viscous oil core, provides low energy, long distance transport of heavy oil and bitumen without requiring heating or solvent addition. In industrial applications of CWAF, the pipe wall is fouled by a thin coating of oil, an effect not considered in many studies of water‐lubricated pipe flows. In the present study, a new method to model pressure loss in the water‐assisted pipeline flow of heavy oil is introduced. The hydrodynamic effects produced by the wall‐fouling layer are incorporated in the model as input parameters for CFD simulations. The most important of these parameters are the thickness of the wall‐fouling layer and the equivalent hydrodynamic roughness it produces. The CFD methodology described here was developed on the ANSYS‐CFX platform and is able to capture the effects of the wall‐fouling layer, the hydrodynamic roughness produced by this layer, and the water hold‐up. The new CFD model was validated using previously collected data from tests conducted in two separate pipeline loops (100 and 260 mm in diameter), using a range of oil viscosities, water fractions, and mixture velocities. Compared to existing models, the one presented here provides more accurate predictions and requires significantly fewer computing resources. Because the model was developed using a physics‐based approach, it is a useful tool in evaluating the effects of pipe diameter, oil viscosity (or temperature), water cut, and mixture velocity on pressure losses in water‐assisted heavy oil pipelines.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

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

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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207