Mandar S.

Apte Investigation of Paraffin

Ahmadbazlee Matzain1
Hong-Quan Zhang
e-mail: hong-quan-zhang@utulsa.edu
Michael Volk
James P. Brill
e-mail: brill@utulsa.edu
The University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK 74104
Jeff L. Creek
Chevron Petroleum Technology,
La Habra, CA 90633
e-mail: LCRE@chevron.com
Deposition During Multiphase
Flow in Pipelines and
Wellbores—Part 2: Modeling
A Joint Industry Project to investigate paraffin deposition in multiphase flowlines and
wellbores was initiated at The University of Tulsa in May 1995. As part of this JIP, a
computer program, based on the molecular diffusion theory, was developed for prediction
of wax deposition during multiphase flow in pipelines and wellbores. The program is
modular in structure and assumes a steady-state, one-dimensional flow, energy conser-
vation principle. This paper will describe the simulator developed for predicting paraffin
deposition during multiphase flow that includes coupling of multiphase fluid flow, solid-
liquid-vapor thermodynamics, multiphase heat transfer, and flow pattern-dependent par-
affin deposition. Predictions of the simulator are compared and tuned to the experimental
data by adjusting the film heat transfer and diffusion coefficients and the thermal conduc-
tivity of the wax deposit. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.1369359兴

Introduction Based on experimental observations, Creek et al. proposed that

Since its inception, the petroleum industry has been plagued by
paraffin. Its long time nature as a nuisance, easily and inexpen-
sively treated with chemicals and scrapers, has resulted in a lack
of basic research regarding the actual deposition phenomena.
However, paraffin deposition can be the determining factor for not
producing deepwater fields, many of which are tied in to nearby
platforms with subsea flowlines. Paraffin deposition can lead to a
potentially expensive, catastrophic event in the history of a
project.
The cost of remediation due to pipeline blockage is proportion-
ally greater as development depth increases. Many oil and gas-
related companies have conducted significant research on the phe-
nomenon of paraffin deposition for several years, yet the physics
of the actual deposition process remains poorly understood. Com-
mercial codes that predict paraffin deposition during single-phase
flow are available. However, these codes need experimental veri-
fication and may not be suitable for the multiphase flow condi-
tions encountered in most flowlines.
Paraffin Deposition in Single-Phase Flow Systems. In the
case of single-phase oil flow, molecular diffusion is generally con-
sidered to be the dominant mechanism, while shear dispersion
effects are considered negligible 关1,2兴. The consensus of the pe-
troleum industry is that, once a radial temperature gradient is es-
tablished between the oil and pipe wall, and the oil temperature is
below its WAT, deposition occurs 关3兴.
Fick’s law as given by Eq. 共1兲 is then used to predict wax
deposition buildup rates.
dm w dC w dC w dT
⫽⫺ ␳ o D wo A i ⫽⫺ ␳ o D wo A i (1)
dt dr dT dr
The molecular diffusion coefficient, D wo , is often expressed
either as an experimental constant divided by the viscosity of the
oil or by empirical correlations developed for normal paraffins by
Wilke and Chang 关4兴 or Hayduk and Minhas 关5兴.
Contributed by the Petroleum Division and presented at the ETCE/OMAE2000,
New Orleans, Louisiana, February 14–17, 2000, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by the Petroleum Division, October
28, 1999; revised manuscript received January 15, 2001. Guest Associate Editor: G.
Kouba.
1
Now with Petronas Research & Scientific Services, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Fick’s diffusion law could not solely and adequately describe wax
deposition phenomena. Usually, all higher carbon number compo-
nents constituting the wax phase are lumped into one single, in-
dependent, constituent of the oil. The diffusion coefficient, D wo ,
is determined between this wax phase and the oil. Creek et al.
pointed out that this is not appropriate, as wax was not a single
compound, but rather a combination of many hydrocarbon com-
pounds with carbon chain lengths ranging from C15 up to C70⫹.
Creek 关6兴 hypothesized that paraffin deposition is analogous to
diffusion-controlled crystallization. Among several pieces of in-
formation required for predicting paraffin deposition buildup
rates, of special importance is the knowledge about the oil content
of the wax deposit. Burger et al. 关7兴 determined that the trapped
oil content ranged from 83 to 86 percent, while Rygg et al. 关8兴
used 60 percent for their gas-oil example with some success. Lund
关9兴 reported oil in wax concentration values of 90 percent for soft
deposits and from 50 to 72 percent for hard deposits.
Several researchers assumed the thermal conductivity of the
wax deposit to be equal to the thermal conductivity of the oil
关10,11兴. This would be a reasonable approximation for soft depos-
its 共⬃85 percent oil兲. However, Lund reported much higher values
of thermal conductivity for hard deposits 共⬃50 percent oil兲.
Among other phenomena, the aging of the deposit also needs to be
considered wherein the wax deposit characteristics change with
time and result in significantly harder deposits. Such a behavior
affects the physical properties of wax and wax deposition rates as
experimentally reported by Lund.
Paraffin Deposition in Multiphase Flow Systems. Paraffin
deposition under multiphase flow conditions has not been system-
atically investigated, and therefore remains poorly understood. In
multiphase systems, the additional gas phase adds to the complex-
ity of understanding wax deposition phenomena. There have been
very few published studies reported on the effect of multiphase
flow on the phenomena of paraffin deposition.
Rygg et al. 关8兴, Dawson 关12兴, Hsu et al. 关13兴, and Apte et al.
关14兴 have proposed models for predicting paraffin deposition dur-
ing multiphase flow. These models contain several assumptions
that have not been verified with appropriate experimental data.
Rygg et al. developed a computer program for the prediction of
paraffin deposition that uses the Hayduk and Minhas 关5兴 correla-
tion to calculate the molecular diffusion coefficient for each of the

150 Õ Vol. 123, JUNE 2001 Copyright © 2001 by ASME Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/24/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 components. Dawson proposed the use of a mass transfer coeffi-
cient approach instead of molecular diffusion for predicting wax
deposition rates. The mass transfer coefficient was modified using
the Chilton and Colburn 关15兴 analogy. Hsu et al. modeled wax
deposition phenomena in multiphase flow using semi-empirical
measurements. The effects of diffusion and shear are incorporated
in the model based on specific measurements obtained in a labo-
ratory flow loop.
Forsdyke 关16兴 and Apte et al. 关17兴 suggested that the approach
for estimating paraffin deposition in multiphase flow could be
similar to that for single-phase flow. They described the possible
effects of different flow patterns on wax deposition and speculated
on the nature of the wax deposits that could occur during each
flow pattern.

Overview of Simulator
Based on the recommendations of Forsdyke 关16兴 and Apte 关17兴,
a computer program based on the molecular diffusion theory was
developed for simulating paraffin deposition in multiphase flow
environments. An overview of this simulator presented in the
forthcoming includes coupling of multiphase fluid flow, solid-
liquid-vapor thermodynamics, multiphase heat transfer, and flow
pattern-dependent paraffin deposition. This steady-state simulator
is modular in structure, and each module makes computations for
a particular aspect. The modular structure of the simulator will
permit easy modifications. For example, other multiphase flow
simulators like OLGA™ could be implemented.
The simulator consists of four main modules that perform the
following tasks:
• multiphase flow hydrodynamic calculations,
• multiphase flow heat transfer calculations,
• wax and fluid thermodynamic calculations, Fig. 1 Flow chart for the wax deposition prediction program
• wax deposition rate calculations.
Modern hydrodynamic multiphase mechanistic models are used
tic model by Kaya is used to predict flow patterns, pressure gra-
to calculate the pressure gradient and to identify the flow pattern
dients, and liquid holdups for pipe inclination angles from ⫹30 to
existing in a section of the pipeline or wellbore. Depending on the
⫹90 deg from horizontal.
flow pattern predicted by these mechanistic models, the heat trans-
In the absence of an accurate mechanistic model for inclination
fer module then predicts fluid temperatures along the pipe seg-
angles from ⫹15 to ⫹30 deg, the mechanistic model developed
ment. The thermodynamic module developed by MSI 关18兴 is used
by Kaya has been chosen for prediction of flow patterns, pressure
to predict the wax concentration and properties of existing phases
gradients, and liquid holdups in the simulator.
at specified temperatures and pressures. The wax deposition mod-
ule then predicts the wax deposition rates for the prevailing flow Heat Transfer Calculation Module. The thermal environ-
and temperature conditions. A time step is then taken and the ment and the temperature gradient in a hydrocarbon-carrying
thickness of wax deposited in each pipe segment is calculated at pipeline are of paramount importance in predicting wax deposi-
the end of that time step. This calculation sequence is repeated, tion rates. The heat transfer calculation module utilizes a steady-
taking into consideration the newly deposited wax layer at the end state, one-dimensional flow, energy conservation principle. The
of each time step. The calculation procedure is continued until the two-phase mixture of natural gas and crude oil 共also referred as
given simulation time is reached. The overall flow chart for this ‘‘multiphase mixture’’ hereafter兲 is considered homogenous, re-
program is given in Fig. 1. Each calculation module is explained gardless of the flow pattern. An overall heat transfer coefficient
in detail in following sections. relationship is used to quantify the heat loss to the surroundings.
In the absence of external work, the differential form of the
Hydrodynamic Calculation Module. The pipeline or well-
energy equation for a steady one-dimensional flow for any process
bore under consideration is divided into a number of pipe seg-
can be expressed as
ments and the flow conditions in each of these segments are
evaluated. The hydrodynamic calculation module uses two dq⫹dh⫹ v d v ⫹gdz⫽0 (2)
mechanistic models developed at the Tulsa University Fluid Flow
Projects, viz., Xiao et al. 关19兴 for horizontal and near-horizontal Expressing specific enthalpy h, and heat-added q as heat per
pipelines, and Kaya 关20兴 for inclined and vertical wellbores. unit mass, and elevation z in terms of pipe length L and inclination
The flow patterns encountered during multiphase flow of liquid angle ␪, the enthalpy gradient along the pipe length can be written
and gas in horizontal and near-horizontal pipes are categorized as as
stratified 共smooth and wavy兲, intermittent 共elongated bubble and
slug兲, annular, and dispersed bubble. The mechanistic model by
Xiao et al. is used to predict flow patterns, pressure gradients, and
dh
dL
⫽ ⫺冉 WT 冊冉 冊
U i ␲ d i 共 T o ⫺T g 兲
⫺ v
dv
dL
⫺ 共 g sin ␪ 兲 (3)

liquid holdups for pipe inclination angles from ⫺15 to ⫹15 deg. The change of enthalpy with respect to length is a function of
The flow patterns encountered during multiphase flow in in- the enthalpy change due to the heat loss to the surroundings, ac-
clined and vertical wells are categorized as bubbly, dispersed celeration, and elevation change, respectively. The acceleration
bubble, intermittent 共slug and churn兲, and annular. The mechanis- term is neglected. Slippage does not have an effect on the mixture

Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 2001, Vol. 123 Õ 151

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/24/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 Convective film heat transfer coefficient correlations
for horizontal flow

enthalpy. The total mixture enthalpy of a gas-liquid mixture at a

given pressure and temperature is calculated from a knowledge of
in-situ quality or gas mass fraction. If x is the no-slip gas mass
fraction, then the no-slip mixture enthalpy is
h m ⫽h L 共 1⫺x 兲 ⫹h G x (4)
In Eq. 共3兲, the first term on the right-hand side is due to the heat
loss per unit length, dq/dL. It can be expressed as
dq U i ␲ d i 共 T o ⫺T g 兲
⫽ (5)
dL WT
Here, U i is the overall heat transfer coefficient based on the
inner surface area of a pipe segment. For the multiphase mixture
under consideration, U i can be written as
1 1 dw di dw do dw
⫽ ⫹ ln ⫹ ln ⫹ (6)
U i ␣ TP 2k w d w 2k p d i ␣ o d o
The internal, flow-pattern-dependent, two-phase convective
film heat transfer coefficient, ␣ TP , is obtained from the recom-
mendations made by Kim et al. 关21兴. The second term on the RHS
of Eq. 共6兲 represents the insulation effect from the buildup of wax
on the pipe wall. If no wax or a very small amount of wax layer Fig. 2 Algorithm for prediction of pressure and temperature
were formed, then this term would become negligible. The exter-
nal convective heat transfer coefficient ( ␣ o ) can be calculated
from correlations specific to buried, submerged, or unburied pipe- two-phase flow in horizontal and near-horizontal pipes based on
lines or wellbores. recommendations made by Kim et al. 关21兴; also see 关22–25兴.
The radial temperature gradient is obtained through a heat bal- Table 2 identifies the correlations chosen to determine ␣ TP for
ance at the interface between the wax and the multiphase mixture. two-phase flow in inclined and vertical pipes based on the recom-
It is expressed as mendations made by Kim et al. 关21兴; also see 关25–28兴.
The pressure and temperature profiles along the pipe length are
dT 共 T o ⫺T g 兲

冋 冉 冊 冉 冊 册
⫽⫺ (7) calculated using the equations described in the foregoing
dr 1 dw di dw do dw two modules. Figure 2 shows the algorithm used for these
ko ⫹ ln ⫹ ln ⫹
␣ TP 2k w dw 2k p di ␣ od o calculations.
The temperature at this interface is derived from the following
overall heat balance at the interfacet: Table 3 Test section input data
U id i
T w ⫽T o ⫺ 共 T ⫺T g 兲 (8)
␣ TPd w o
The effective inner pipe diameter, d w , is then calculated with
the knowledge of the wax thickness, ␦, using
d w ⫽d t ⫺2 ␦ (9)
Table 1 identifies the correlations chosen to determine ␣ TP for

Table 2 Convective film heat transfer coefficient correlations

for vertical flow

Table 4 Experimental test results

152 Õ Vol. 123, JUNE 2001 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/24/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 3 Comparison of outlet temperature profile in test section for Test A

Fig. 4 Comparison of wax thickness buildup profile in test section for Test A

Thermodynamic Calculation Module. The thermodynamic
module was developed by MSI 关18兴. It calculates the solid-liquid-
vapor phase behavior of hydrocarbon systems and predicts cloud
point and solid ‘‘wax’’ fraction as a function of temperature and
pressure. It is based on the method described by Erickson et al.
关1兴 and is fully compositional. The method assumes that the wax
phase is comprised essentially of normal paraffins. Output from
this module is in the form of a two-dimensional table of paraffin
concentration gradients (dC w /dT) as a function of pressure and
temperature. The thermodynamic module is also used to generate
a look-up table for the transport properties of the fluid phases
under investigation.
The pressure and temperature iteration loops shown in Fig. 2
are executed to obtain the pressure and temperature at a given
node. Wax concentration at that node is then obtained from
a paraffin look-up table, generated using the thermodynamic
module.
Wax Deposition Calculation Module. In the absence of ad-
equate understanding of deposition physics during multiphase

Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 2001, Vol. 123 Õ 153

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/24/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 5 Comparison of outlet temperature profile in test section for Test B

Fig. 6 Comparison of wax thickness buildup profile in test section for Test B

flow, molecular diffusion is considered the primary mechanism.
Based on the recommendations of Forsdyke 关16兴 and Apte et al.
关14兴, the single-phase approach given by Eq. 共1兲 is used as a first
approximation towards predicting paraffin deposition buildup
rates in multiphase environments.
It is assumed that all the wax that moves to the pipe wall by the
diffusion mechanism deposits on the wall. The pipe wall is as-
sumed fully wetted, except in the case of stratified flow, where
deposition is assumed to occur only on the wetted inner surface of
the pipe.
According to Eq. 共1兲, the rate of deposition of wax is propor-
tional to the concentration gradient of wax in solution (dC w /dT)
and the radial temperature gradient at the wall (dT/dr). The con-
centration gradient of the wax phase is obtained from the thermo-
dynamic module. The radial temperature gradient at the wall is
obtained from the heat transfer module. The diffusion coefficient
is calculated using the empirical correlation of Wilke and Chang
关4兴.
Incorporation of Findings of Lund †9‡. Lund 关9兴 showed
that important factors that must be considered during simulation
of wax deposition buildup rates are shear stripping, changes in oil

154 Õ Vol. 123, JUNE 2001 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/24/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 7 Comparison of outlet temperature profile in test section for Test C

Fig. 8 Comparison of wax thickness buildup profile in test section for Test C

content of the deposit 共which changes the deposit thermal conduc-
tivity兲, and pipe wall roughness. Lund concluded that for simula-
tion of wax deposition during single-phase flow, the commonly
used diffusion coefficient correlations 关4,5兴 significantly underpre-
dict deposit thickness for high flow rate cases. Diffusion coeffi-
cients must be multiplied by 5 to match experimental data. Creek
关6兴 accounted for shear stripping by using the shear dispersion
formulation with a negative dispersion coefficient.
The foregoing findings were incorporated into the multiphase
simulator by providing options for the user to input multipliers for
the oil fraction in the deposit, thermal conductivity of the deposit,
pipe wall roughness, and a choice for a shear-stripping coefficient.
Simulation of Experimental Tests
The computer program was used to simulate the preliminary
wax deposition tests conducted during the experimental phase of
the JIP 关29兴. The oil/gas mixture inlet temperature in the test
section was 105°F and the glycol inlet temperature was 60°F. The
duration of all the tests was 24 h. The predictions of the simulator
were tuned to the preliminary experimental results. Using the
compositions reported by Marathon Oil Company 关30兴, specific
input files for the test fluid were created.
The test section used in this study was simulated as a set of five
pipe segments using the details shown in Table 3. The outside

Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 2001, Vol. 123 Õ 155

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/24/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 5 Tuning parameters used to match experimental data flow in pipelines and wellbores. The program is modular in struc-
ture and assumes a steady-state, one-dimensional flow, energy
conservation principle.
This program was used to simulate the tests performed in this
study. The predictions of the simulator were tuned to the experi-
mental data. The tuning is necessary because some effects in wax
deposition are not captured in the current model, including shear
stripping and aging effects. The model could over predict the wax
thickness if the shear stripping effect is not considered, especially
for turbulent flow. On the other hand, the model could underpre-
dict the wax thickness if the trapped oil in the wax layer is under-
estimated. The trapped oil content is related to the aging effect of
the wax deposit.
These tuning parameters were chosen to match the experimen-
tal data over the entire duration of the test. Turning parameters are
heat transfer coefficient in the jacketed section was calculated proposed for the existing test conditions only, and in particular,
using the Petukhov 关31兴 correlation. The heat transfer coefficient for the existing flow pattern and test duration. Their use needs to
for the unjacketed section was assumed to be 5.67 W/m2. K. 共1 be verified for other test conditions, especially for the same flow
Btu/h.ft2.F兲 关32兴. pattern and test duration.
The simulation results for tests shown in Table 4 are discussed
in the forthcoming. Tests A, B, and C in this study correspond to Acknowledgments
Tests R, G, and C, respectively, in 关29兴. The model predictions
were tuned to the experimental data and the following procedure This work was supported by the member companies of the
was implemented for tuning. Tulsa University Paraffin Deposition JIP, which are: AGIP,
Amoco, ARC, ARCO, BG, BHP, BP, Chevron, Conoco, DOE,
Adjustment of ␣ TP. At initial time 共close to start-up兲, wax ELF, Exxon, Fisher-Rosemount, GRI, JNOC, Kerr-McGee, Mara-
deposition can be assumed negligible. Therefore, the temperature thon, Micro Motion, MMS, Mobil, MSI, Nalco-Exxon, Natco,
profile in the test section during this period should be unaffected NKK, Norsk Hydro, ONGC, PEMEX, Petro-Canada, Petrolite,
by resistance due to a wax layer. Hence, the temperature predic- Petronas, Phillips, Robbins & Myers, Shell, Statoil, Texaco, Total,
tions at initial time were compared and matched with experimen- and Unocal. The authors wish to thank Dr. Robert Kaminsky and
tal data by adjusting the inside convective film heat transfer coef- Dr. Subash Jayawardena for their invaluable contributions and
ficient, ␣ TP . help during this study.
Adjustment of D wo and k w . Assuming molecular diffusion
to be the sole mechanism for wax to deposit, the deposition profile Nomenclature
in the test section was compared and tuned to experimental data.
Ai ⫽ inner surface area of pipe wall 共m2兲
Simultaneously, the temperature profile was also tuned to account
Ci ⫽ concentration of component i in solution 共kg/m3兲
for the insulation effect of the deposited wax layer. The diffusion
Cw ⫽ concentration of wax in solution 共weight percent兲
coefficient was obtained from the Wilke and Chang 关4兴
Dh ⫽ differential enthalpy 共J兲
correlation.
di ⫽ inside pipe diameter 共m兲
Tuning the predictions from the wax deposition module in-
Di ⫽ molecular diffusion coefficient for component i
volved matching the predicted buildup profile to the deposit thick-
共m2/s兲
ness profile obtained from the energy balance across the 25-ft
dL ⫽ unit axial length 共m兲
axial test section. Since hard deposits were observed in Tests A,
do ⫽ outside pipe diameter 共m兲
B, and C, the thermal conductivity of the wax deposit, k w , was
D wo ⫽ molecular diffusion coefficient for wax in oil, 共m2/s兲
assumed to be greater than that of the oil. A wax thermal conduc-
dw ⫽ inside pipe diameter as result of wax buildup 共m兲
tivity between 1.5 and 2 times that of the oil thermal conductivity
FPAT ⫽ flow pattern
was found to match the data. The oil content of the wax sample
g ⫽ acceleration due to gravity 共m/s2兲
was obtained by high-temperature gas chromatography performed
h ⫽ specific enthalpy 共J兲
by Chevron Petroleum Technology Company. The diffusion coef-
i ⫽ number of component
ficient, obtained from the Wilke and Chang correlation, D wo , was
kp ⫽ thermal conductivity of pipe 共W/m°C兲
multiplied by a constant factor.
kw ⫽ thermal conductivity of wax 共W/m°C兲
Tuning Results. Figure 3 shows the predicted and experi- L ⫽ axial length 共m兲
mentally observed outlet temperature profile in the test section for mw ⫽ total dissolved wax, 共kg兲
Test A. Figure 4 shows the predictions of the wax buildup profile q ⫽ heat loss due to cooling of oil per unit mass 共W/kg兲
in the test section for Test A. Also shown in these figures are the r ⫽ radial distance 共m兲
model predictions without any tuning. These were made using the T ⫽ temperature 共°C兲, top of pipe circumference
correlations recommended by Kim et al. 关21兴. t ⫽ time 共s兲
A similar procedure was followed to tune the predictions of the Tg ⫽ bulk glycol temperature 共°C兲
wax deposition module to the experimental data for Tests B and TL ⫽ total length 共m兲
C. Figures 5–8 compare the simulation results with experimental To ⫽ bulk oil temperature 共°C兲
data. Table 5 provides the tuning parameters for the heat transfer TOLH ⫽ tolerance in enthalpy 共J兲
coefficient and the diffusion coefficient which were used to match TOLP ⫽ tolerance in pressure 共kPa兲
the model predictions to experimental data. U ⫽ overall heat transfer coefficient 共W/m2°C兲
Ui ⫽ overall heat transfer coefficient based on inside area
共W/m2°C兲
V ⫽ velocity 共m/s兲
Conclusions v sg ⫽ superficial gas velocity 共m/s兲
A computer program, based on the molecular diffusion theory, v sl ⫽ superficial liquid velocity 共m/s兲
was developed for prediction of wax deposition during multiphase WT ⫽ total mass flow rate 共kg/s兲

156 Õ Vol. 123, JUNE 2001 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/24/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 x ⫽ quality or gas mass fraction
z ⫽ elevation 共m兲
␪ ⫽ inclination angle 共deg兲
␦ ⫽ wax thickness 共m兲
␣ o ⫽ outside convective heat transfer coefficient 共W/m2°C兲
␣ TP ⫽ inside convective heat transfer coefficient of two-
phase mixture 共W/m2°C兲
Additional Subscripts
avg ⫽ average
c ⫽ calculated
g ⫽ guessed value
G ⫽ gas phase
i ⫽ inside pipe wall/nodes
L ⫽ liquid phase, longitudinal
m ⫽ mixture
References
关1兴 Erickson, D. D., Niesen, V. G., and Brown, T. S., 1993, ‘‘Measurement and
Prediction of the Kinetics of Paraffin Deposition,’’ SPE 26548 presented at
SPE 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX.
关2兴 Bern, P. A., Winthers, W. R., and Cairns, J. R., 1980, ‘‘Wax Deposition in
Crude Oil Pipelines,’’ European Offshore Petroleum Conference and Exhibi-
tion, London, UK.
关3兴 Creek, J. L., Matzain A., Apte, M. S., Brill, J. P., Volk, M., Delle Case, E., and
Lund, H., 1999, ‘‘Mechanisms for Wax Deposition,’’ presented at AIChE,
National Spring Meeting, Houston, TX.
关4兴 Wilke, C. R., and Chang, P., 1955, ‘‘Correlation of Diffusion Coefficient in
Dilute Solutions,’’ AIChE J., 1, No 2, pp. 264–270.
关5兴 Hayduk, W., and Minhas, B. S., 1982, ‘‘Correlations for Prediction of Molecu-
lar Diffusivities in Liquids,’’ Can. J. Chem. Eng., 60, pp. 295–299.
关6兴 Creek, J. L., 1998, ‘‘Analyzing Why, How, and Under What Conditions
Waxes, Hydrates, and Asphaltenes Will Form,’’ presented at HR Conference,
Aberdeen, Scotland.
关7兴 Burger, E. D., Perkins, T. K., and Striegler, J. H., 1981, ‘‘Studies of Wax
Deposition in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline,’’ JPT, pp. 1075–1086.
关8兴 Rygg, O. B., Rydahl, A. K. and Ronningsen, H. P., 1998, ‘‘Wax Deposition in
Offshore Pipeline Systems,’’ presented at 1st North American Conference, In
All Situations From Land-Based to Deep Water, MULTIPHASE TECHNOL-
OGY, Technology from the Arctic to the Tropics, Banff, Canada.
关9兴 Lund, H., 1998, ‘‘Investigation of Paraffin Deposition during Singe Phase
Liquid Flow,’’ MS thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
关10兴 Svendsen, J. A., 1993, ‘‘Mathematical Modeling of Wax Deposition in Oil
Pipeline Systems,’’ AIChE J., 39, No. 8, pp. 1377–1388.
关11兴 Niesen, V. G. Brown, T. S., and Erickson, D. D., 1993, ‘‘Thermodynamic
Measurement and Prediction of Paraffin Precipitation in Crude Oil,’’ SPE
26604 presented at SPE 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, TX.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/24/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
关12兴 Dawson, S., 1995, ‘‘Simulation of Wax Deposition Case Study,’’ paper pre-
sented at the IBC Advances in Multiphase Operation and Offshore Confer-
ence, London, England.
关13兴 Hsu, J. C., Elphingstone, G. M., and Greenhill, K. L., 1999, ‘‘Modeling of
Multiphase Wax Deposition,’’ ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 121, pp.
81–85.
关14兴 Apte, M. S., Matzain A., Delle Case, E., Volk, M., Creek, J. L., and Brill, J. P.,
1999, ‘‘Investigation of Multiphase Flow Paraffin Deposition,’’ paper pre-
sented at BHRG Multiphase Technology Conference, Cannes, France.
关15兴 Chilton, T. H., and Colburn, A. P., 1934, Ind. Eng. Chem., 26, p. 1183.
关16兴 Forsdyke, I, 1995, internal report: British Petroleum.
关17兴 Apte, M. S., 1999, ‘‘Investigation of Paraffin Deposition during Multiphase
Flowin Pipelines and Wellbores,’’ MS thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa,
OK.
关18兴 Multiphase Solutions Inc. 共MSI兲, 1997, ‘‘A Thermodynamic Model for Pre-
dicting Vapor/Liquid/Solid Equilibria of Hydrocarbon Systems,’’ submitted to
WAX JIP members.
关19兴 Xiao, J. J., Shoham, O., and Brill, J. P., 1990, ‘‘A Comprehensive Mechanistic
Model for Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines,’’ SPE 20631 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA.
关20兴 Kaya, A. S., 1998, ‘‘Comprehensive Mechanistic Modeling of Two-Phase
Flow in Deviated Wells,’’ MS thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
关21兴 Kim, D, Sofyan, Y., Ghajar, A. J., and Dougherty, R. L., 1997, ‘‘An Evalua-
tion of Several Heat Transfer Correlations for Two-Phase Flow With Different
Flow Patterns In Vertical and Horizontal Tubes,’’ Proc., National Heat Trans-
fer Conference, Baltimore, MD.
关22兴 Sieder, E. N., 1936, Ind. Eng. Chem., 28, pp. 1429–1435.
关23兴 Kudirka, A. A., Grosh, R. J., and Mcfadden, P. W., 1965, ‘‘Heat Transfer in
Two-Phase Flow of Gas-Liquid Mixtures,’’ Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 4, No.
3, pp. 339–344.
关24兴 Shah, M. M., 1981, ‘‘Generalized Prediction of Heat Transfer During Two
Component Gas-Liquid Flow in Tubes and Other Channels,’’ AIChE Symp.
Ser., 77, No. 208, pp. 140–151.
关25兴 Knott, R. F., Anderson, R. N., Acrivos, A., and Petersen, E. E., 1959, ‘‘An
Experimental Study of Heat Transfer to Nitrogen-Oil Mixtures,’’ Ind. Eng.
Chem., 51, No. 11, pp. 1369–1372.
关26兴 Aggour, M. A., 1978, ‘‘Hydrodynamics and Heat Transfer in Two-Phase Two-
Component Flow,’’ Ph.D. theisis, University of Manitobal, Canada.
关27兴 Rezkallah, K. S., and Sims, G. E., 1987, ‘‘An Examination of Correlations of
Mean Heat Transfer Coefficients in Two-Phase and Two-Component Flow in
Vertical Tubes,’’ AIChE Symp. Series, 83, pp. 109–114.
关28兴 Ravipudi, S. R., and Godbold, T. M., 1978, ‘‘The Effect of Mass Transfer on
Heat Transfer Rates for Two-Phase Flow in a Vertical Pipe,’’ Proc., 6 th Int.
Heat Transfer Conf., Toronto, Canada, Vol 1, pp. 505–510.
关29兴 Matzain, A., Apte, M. S., Zhang, H.-Q., Volk, M., Brill, J. P., and Creek, J. L.,
2000, ‘‘Investigation of Paraffin Deposition during Multiphase Flow in Pipe-
lines and Wellbores—Part 1: Experiments,’’ presented at ETCE/OMAE 2000,
New Orleans, LA.
关30兴 Marathon Oil Company, 1999, ‘‘Fluid Characterization and Property Evalua-
tion: Final Report, submitted to WAX JIP members.
关31兴 Petukhov, B. S., 1970, ‘‘Heat Transfer and Friction in Turbulent Pipe Flow
with Variable Physical Properties,’’ Advances in Heat Transfer, eds., J. P.
Hartnet and T. V. Irvine, Academic Press, 6, New York, NY, pp 505–564.
关32兴 Creek, J. L., 1999, personal communication.
JUNE 2001, Vol. 123 Õ 157