Study on wax precipitation characteristics of wax deposit in pipes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wax deposit properties are a significant concern in pipeline pigging during waxy crude oil transportation. In the present work, the impacts of flow conditions and oil properties on the wax precipitation characteristics of wax deposits are investigated. A flow loop apparatus was developed to conduct wax deposition experiments using four crude oils collected from different field pipes. The differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) technique was employed to observe the wax precipitation characteristics of crude oil and wax deposit. The results show that the wax content and the wax appearance temperature (WAT) of the deposits increase with shear stress and radial temperature gradient, and decrease with radial wax molecule concentration gradient near the pipe wall. The DSC tests on the wax deposits revealed that the deposit wax content is strongly correlated to the oil wax content. Furthermore, an empirical correlation was developed to predict the wax content and the WAT of the wax deposit. Verification of the empirical correlation using the different oils indicated that the average relative error of the wax content prediction and average absolute error of WAT prediction were 13.2% and 3.6°C, respectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".