MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4221136560 · doi:10.2118/208881-ms

Consideration of Various Parameters and Scenarios in the Simulation of Hydrate Formation

2022· article· en· W4221136560 on OpenAlexaff
Farzan Sahari Moghaddam, Hamid Ali, Majid Abedinzadegan Abdi, Lesley James

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubcoolingHydrateClathrate hydrateThermodynamicsSubseaNucleationFraction (chemistry)Materials scienceChemistryHeat transferGeologyGeotechnical engineeringChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigates the effect of various parameters on hydrate formation under two scenarios of regular and cold start-up operations in a flowline and a subsea network. Parameters including hydrate adhesion forces, required subcooling for hydrate nucleation, and a weighting parameter for hydrate-oil slip (COIL) are evaluated. The effect of methanol injection and the mentioned parameters on hydrate formation are compared to 0.2 hydrate fraction threshold from literature. Hydrate formation from oil having 184 m3/m3 GOR and 35% WC is studied using two scenarios of regular and cold start-up operations in a 6-km flowline and a subsea tieback network (consisting of two branches and a main flowline). The overall heat transfer coefficient is 22.7 W/(m2.K), and the simulation is conducted by OLGA-CSMHyK-MUTIFLASH. Slurry relative viscosity, hydrate fraction, and hydrate propensity in terms of temperature difference known as DTHYD are used as indicators, and a hydrate fraction threshold of 0.2 is considered. Adhesion forces (0.5 - 0.005 N/m), required subcooling (3.61 - 10 °C), COIL (0.2-1), and methanol injection are investigated. During regular operation, the flow pattern remains stratified in a single flowline having 35% WC and 1 COIL. By increasing the required subcooling for hydrate nucleation from 3.6 °C to 10 °C, the hydrate fraction was reduced from approximately 1.7% to zero. COIL has the greatest effect on hydrate fraction. The reduction of adhesion forces had a noticeable effect on oil viscosity compared to the other indicators. Plug formation is not expected in the studied single flowline and subsea network under normal operation. On the other hand, a potential plug based on higher hydrate formation occurs in a cold start-up operation even under the effect of the studied parameters. However, the chance of plug formation is considerably reduced by injecting 20 wt% methanol. Overall, assessing the three indicators of hydrate formation (slurry relative viscosity, hydrate fraction, and DTHYD) are critical and provide more realistic insight about hydrate formation compared to using only one of the indicators for the evaluations. This work investigates the three aforementioned indicators of hydrate formation rather than relying on only one indicator (e.g., hydrate fraction) under regular and cold restart operations. The study evaluates hydrate formation based on a hydrate fraction threshold of 0.2 for a potential plug, compared to thermodynamically preventing hydrate formation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena→French-language works237,207→