Study on deposition characteristics and mechanism of waxy oil under the effect of drag reducer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drag reducers have become a common method for reducing resistance and increasing transportation efficiency in pipeline transportation of waxy crude oil. The prominent heat transfer weakening effect of drag reducers may impact the deposition of waxy oil. This study uses cold finger experiments to clarify wax deposition characteristics and mechanisms in drag‐reduced waxy oil. The wax deposition mass and components are examined under different temperatures, stirring rates, drag reducer dosages, and types. The results show that a low dosage of drag reducer at high stirring rates can simultaneously reduce the total wax deposition and the overall wax content in high waxy oil. 5 mg/kg drag reducer can reduce total wax deposition by up to 15.66% and overall wax content by 7.26%. A systematic investigation reveals that adding drag reducers changes the carbon number distribution in the wax deposition layer. This change is similar to the effect of increasing wall temperature. The heat insulation and transfer weakening effects of drag‐reducing fluids are likely the main mechanisms inhibiting the increase in wax deposition mass and wax content. The heat insulation effect reduces the temperature gradient near the pipe wall, while the transfer weakening effect decreases radial heat transfer. However, under low stirring rates and high dosages, the deposition mass of the drag‐reduced waxy oil system increases, with the adhesive effect of polymer‐type drag reducers becoming more pronounced. These findings provide a foundation for optimizing drag reducer usage in waxy crude oil pipelines, potentially leading to significant energy savings and improved operational efficiency.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".