Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils, Vol. 50, No. 1, March, 2014 (Russian Original No.

1, January – February, 2014)

STUDY OF PARAFFIN WAX DEPOSITION IN SEASONALLY PIGGED PIPELINES

Wang Wenda,1 Huang Qiyu, *1 Huang Jun,1 Pang Quan, 2 Fu Jun,2

and Wang Fenghui2

Waxy crude oil pipelines are pigged periodically to scrape the adhered wax deposit from the pipe
wall and remove it from the pipeline. If wax deposition on the pipe wall is not too severe and there
is not much change in pipeline throughput due to wax deposition in winter, a pigging operation in
winter is inadvisable because a “paraffin blockage” may occur during pigging due to a lower
operating temperature. Seasonal pigging of this pipeline is advisable if the crude oil is piped at
ambient temperature in summer and the wax deposit on the pipe wall accumulated during winter is
eroded by the oil flow. The pipeline should be pigged during high temperatures in summer rather
than in winter. A semi-empirical wax deposition model developed by our laboratory is used to
predict the wax deposit distribution along the pipeline in different seasons and the volume of
pre-pigging deposit on the pipe wall, and a seasonal pigging program is recommended. An
experimental method consisting of determination of the gel point of wax-contaminated oil ahead of
the pig is developed to calculate the volume of wax deposits removed by the pipeline pigging operation
under actual field conditions to test the model. The wax content in the crude oil is determined from
the gel point. The relative discrepancy between the predicted and the field experimental pigging
operation data is 12.3%.
Key words: waxy crude oil, seasonal pipeline pigging, paraffin wax deposition, gel point.

Pipelines transporting waxy crude oil are periodically pigged to remove the paraffin wax deposits. If
the amount of wax deposits on the pipe wall is relatively small and the reduction in pipeline throughput is

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
1
Beijing Key Laboratory of Urban Oil and Gas Distribution Technology, China University of Petroleum,
Beijing 102249, China. 2 Erlian Branch of Petrochina Huabei Oilfield Company, China National Petroleum
Corporation, Xilinhot 026000, China. E-mail: huang qi-vu@sina.com . Translated from Khimiya i Tekhnologiya
Topliv i Masel, No. 1, pp. 27 – 33, January – February, 2014.

0009-3092/14/5001–0039 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York 39

 insignificant in winter, pigging the pipeline in cold weather is inadvisable because it may lead to paraffin
blockages. If wax deposits built up in the winter are eroded in the summer by the oil flow, seasonal pigging
of the pipeline is recommended, i.e., when ambient temperatures are high. In other words, pipelines transporting
waxy crude oil should be pigged in the summer.
Established models of wax deposition in pipelines are mainly based on the principles of hydrokinetics
and thermodynamics. Burger and Perkins [1] proposed a wax deposition model which takes into account a
molecular diffusion mechanism and a shear dispersion mechanism (erosion away from the wall) and presumes
experimental determination of the deposition rate. Other models are proposed in [2-5]. Singh et al. [6] and
Venkatesan et al. [7] made a significant contribution to study of the physics of wax deposition and wax
gelation. Tinsley et al. [8] and Hoffmann et al. [9] showed that molecular diffusion is the main factor affecting
wax deposition, but an accurate quantitative description is needed in order to take into account the composition
of the deposits and the effect of shear stress.
Huang [10-12] proposed a general wax deposition model that is applicable for most crude oils. This
model does not require experimental study of wax deposition on a closed-loop test bench. The regression
coefficients for this model can be obtained using the physical properties of the crude oil: the
viscosity vs. temperature curve and the solubility of the paraffin wax in the oil. Huang [13] studied the
phenomenon of sloughing of wax deposits and identified the main factors leading to erosion of the deposited
wax layer. The oil flow exerts a shear stress on the deposit. If this stress exceeds the adhesive strength, then
the thickness of the deposits is reduced.

Wax deposition model

In most wax deposition models, it is postulated that molecular diffusion is the main mechanism, while
experimental evidence is in favor of lack of a significant effect from gravitational settling, Brownian diffusion,
and shear dispersion from flow of the liquid. It is assumed that in the turbulent oil flow regime, the turbulent
temperature and momentum profile results in an almost uniform distribution of precipitated and dissolved
particles in the turbulent flow region. Consequently, transport of the wax will be controlled by the gradients
predominant in the laminar sublayer close to the wall. The radial temperature gradient in this sublayer leads
to a concentration gradient of the dissolved wax between the bulk oil flow and the surface/liquid interface.
This is what leads to molecular diffusion of the dissolved wax from the oil flow to the wall. In the laminar flow
regime, the indicated transport mechanism for the wax particles predominates [1, 14].
When the oil temperature is lowered, the dissolved wax moves in the direction toward the wall as a
result of molecular diffusion. However, in fact as the oil flows through the pipeline, not all wax crystals
precipitate on the wall: shear flow prevents this and also promotes removal of already precipitated wax. Thus
in order to design an adequate wax deposition model, especially for the turbulent flow regime, we need to
simultaneously take into account the molecular diffusion mechanism (promoting deposition) and mechanisms
for removal of wax deposits, including shear forces (sloughing, ablation). The wax deposition rate can be
expressed in terms of Fick’s law [10]:

B  dC  dT 
W  fWm  f L    (1)
  dT  dr 

where W m is the wax deposition rate according to Fick’s law, g/(m 2·h); W – is the actual wax deposition
rate, g/(m 2·h); f is a coefficient reflecting shear effects (a tuning coefficient); dT/dr is the radial temperature

40
gradient close to the surface/liquid interface, °C/m; dC/dT, the concentration gradient of dissolved wax between
the bulk crude oil flow and the pipe wall (in 10 -3 /°C), depends on the solubility of the paraffin wax, which can
be measured by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) [10];  is the viscosity of the crude oil, Pa·s;  L is the
wax density, kg/m 3; B is an empirical constant.
For a specific crude oil, the density and the coefficient B are practically constant [1, 15], and so
expression (1) can be written as follows:

1  dC  dT 
W  f    (2)
  dT  dr 

where f  is the wax deposition tendency factor, f   f L B .

Many parameters, including the temperature of the crude oil and the pipe wall and the wall shear
stress, potentially affect wax deposition. The interaction between these parameters is complicated. As shown
by our previous studies [10, 16], the factor f depends to a significant extent on the wall shear stress and the
temperature gradient close to the pipe wall or at the surface/liquid interface. It was observed that f  decreases
as the wall shear stress increases, due to lowering of the oil temperature for constant flow velocity and
temperature difference between the wall and the oil flow. As the oil temperature is lowered, the concentration
gradient of the dissolved wax close to the pipe wall is reduced. The viscosity of the crude oil also increases,
and as a result the diffusion coefficient for the dissolved wax moving toward the pipe wall is
reduced [1, 15]. Furthermore, as the shear stress increases, f ’ is reduced due to sloughing. We should add that
for a constant temperature drop, the value of f ’ is lower at high flow velocities, which is due to sloughing of
the deposits. This conclusion is consistent with the above-indicated effect of an increase in wall shear stress.
It was also concluded that for constant velocity and pipe wall temperature, the value of f ’ is significantly lower
for a large temperature gradient close to the wall. A regression equation for determining the factor f ’ has been
proposed [10, 16]:

n
 dT 
f   k wm   (3)
 dr 

where  w is the shear stress close to the pipe wall, Pa; k, m, n are constants determined by the properties of the
crude oil. These constants do not depend on the experimental conditions, and can be obtained by substituting
the results of the experiment in the unified model we developed [12] into the regression equation.
The final semi-empirical deposition rate model can be obtained by combining Eqs. (2) and (3):

1 n
1  dC  dT  m 1  dC  dT 
W  f     k w    (4)
  dT  dr    dT  dr 

Compared with other models, the effect of wall shear stress is explicitly incorporated into our model.
The effect of other factors, including the paraffin wax content in the deposit, is expressed by a single
coefficient k. More details about the model are given in [10].

41
 Parameters of the model
In order to determine the distribution profile of wax deposits, we need to know the parameters
of Eq. (4): the axial oil temperature profile, the radial temperature gradient close to the pipe wall, the wall shear
rate, the solubility factor of the paraffin wax crystals close to the wall. Furthermore, after deposits (wax or
gelled oil) are formed on the pipe wall, the flow field and the temperature field change. Due to thermal
resistance of the deposits, the temperature difference between the crude oil and the surface decreases, heat
exchange decreases, and consequently the wax deposition rate changes. In other words, prediction of wax
deposition to a significant extent requires study of heat and mass transfer for non-isothermal flow in pipelines,
and the deposition rate varies with the thickness of the waxy layer and accordingly the wax deposition time.

Oil temperature [17]. The axial temperature profile in the pipeline can be calculated using the equation:

 KDL 
Tm  T0  TR  T0 exp  
(5)
 GC p 
 

where T m is the oil temperature at the distance L (in meters) from the previous heat station, °C; T 0 is the
temperature of the subsoil in which the pipeline is laid, °C; T R is the temperature at the outlet of the
heat station, °C; K is the overall heat transfer coefficient, W/(m 2·deg); D is the outer diameter of the
pipeline, m; G is the mass flow rate, kg/s; Cp is the specific heat of the oil, J/(kg·deg).

Radial temperature gradient close to pipe wall or at the surface/liquid interface [17]. Based on the principle
of heat balance, the radial temperature gradient can be calculated using the equation:
Viscosity, mPa·s

Temperature, °C
Fig. 1 Viscosity—temperature curve of crude oil for shear rate, s -1 : 1) 20; 2) 50; 3) 100.

42
 Amount of wax, ‰, at 1°C intervals

Temperature, °C
Fig. 2 Temperature dependence of amount of precipitated paraffin wax.

 dT 
GC p  
dT  dL  (6)

dr d

where  is the heat conductivity of the crude oil, W/(m·deg); d is the inner diameter of the pipeline (in meters),
decreasing as the wax deposit layer thickness increases; dT/dL is the temperature drop per unit length of the
pipeline, °C/m.

Wall shear rate [17] as a result of flow of a Newtonian fluid in the turbulent flow regime can be calculated
using the equation:

8
 w  4.94 10 3 Re 0.75 (7)
D

where Re is the Reynolds number; v is the flow velocity.

In the laminar flow regime for a Newtonian fluid, the shear rate is calculated using the equation:

 w  8 / D (8)

If the crude oil is not a Newtonian fluid, it can be approximately considered as a pseudo-plastic fluid:

 3n  1 8 
w  Cf    (9)
 4n D 

43
 In Eq. (9),
1
 f n
C f   

 16 / Re MR 
(10)

d n 2 n
Re MR  n
 3n  1  n 1 (11)
K  8
 4n 

where K is the consistency coefficient, Pa·s n; n is the rheological index; Re MR is the Metzner—Reed Reynolds
number; f is the Fanning friction factor.
In the laminar flow regime for a non-Newtonian fluid, C f = 1.

Viscosity and density of the crude oil. The viscosity of a specific oil at different temperatures can be found
from the viscosity—temperature curve. Oil density at temperature T is calculated using the familiar dependence:

   20   T  20 (12)

  1.825  0.001315  20 (13)

where  20 is the oil density at 20°C, kg/m 3 .

The solubility factor of paraffin wax crystals close to the pipe wall at a specific temperature can be calculated
by interpolation of the curve dC/dT = f(T). This curve is plotted from the results of experimental determination
of the paraffin wax solubility. DSC is considered to be the most practical and accurate method for these
purposes.

Overall heat transfer coefficient K w , taking into account paraffin wax deposits:

1
Kw  (14)
1 / K   / w

Table 1
Temperature, °C November December January February March April
Section PS1-PS2
Subsoil 14.73 9.10 7.57 5.51 4.83 7.40
Crude oils at outlet from PS1 18.86 15.60 17.16 16.07 14.06 10.20
Section PS2-PS3
Subsoil 12.10 9.10 7.57 5.51 4.91 6.62
Crude oils at outlet from PS2 16.11 13.81 11.42 10.17 9.48 9.31

44
 a b

Layer thickness, mm
Layer thickness, mm

Distance from PS1, km Distance from PS2, km

Fig. 3 Distribution of wax deposits over the length of the pipeline in different sections:
a) PS1-PS2; b) PS2-PS3; 1) December; 2) January; 3) February; 4) March; 5) April.
Layer thickness, mm

Distance from pumping station, km

Fig. 4 Predicted layer thickness of wax deposits in section PS1-PS2 (curve 1)
and PS2-PS3 (curve 2) of the pipeline in August 2009.

where K is the overall heat transfer coefficient in the absence of wax deposits, W/(m·deg);  W is the heat
conductivity factor for wax deposits, W/(m·deg);  is the thickness of the wax deposit layer, m.

Computational procedure
Eqs. (4) and (5)-(14) were solved simultaneously to obtain the profiles and time trajectory of the wax
deposit layer thickness. Since the layer thickness varies along the length of the pipeline and also over time, the
calculations must be performed relative to both length and time. The entire pipeline was divided into sections
of length 1 km. The time step was equal to one day. An iterative method was used to solve the equations with
respect to the length of the pipeline and simultaneously with respect to time.
Solving the indicated system of equations for a certain instant of time allows us to obtain the deposit
thickness profiles at that time. From the profiles obtained, we obtained the new value of the inner diameter of

45
 a

b
Gel point, °C

Time
Fig. 5 Change in gel point of crude oil contaminated by wax deposits during pigging of
section PS1-PS2: a) August 25; b) August 31; c) September 8; d) September 13.

46
the pipeline and the overall heat conductivity coefficient, and then the equations were solved for the next
instant of time. Thus we obtained the deposit thickness profiles for each section of pipeline at the required
instants of time.

Example of analysis of paraffin wax deposition in a real pipeline

We considered a pipeline with outer diameter 813 mm, wall thickness 10.3 mm, overall
length 242 km, throughput 10 7 t/year. Over the entire length of the pipeline, there are three pumping stations
(respectively PS1, PS2, and PS3), where the distance between the first and second stations is 134 km. The gel

c
Gel point, °C

Time
Fig. 6 Change in gel point of crude oil contaminated by wax deposits during pigging of
section PS2-PS3: a) August 21; b) August 28; c) September 4; d) September 10;
e) September 15.

47
 point of the piped oil is 2°C; the paraffin wax content is 10.5%; the oil density at 20°C is 840,8 kg/m 3. Figure 1
shows the viscosity—temperature curve for the crude oil; Fig. 2 shows the temperature dependence of the
amount of deposited wax. The crude oil is heated in winter at the pumping stations; in summer, it is transported
without heating. Table 1 gives the subsoil and crude oil temperatures in Winter 2008-2009.
The equation for calculating the factor f  is:

 0.4181
 dT 
f   67.36 w0.3038  
 dr 

The wax deposition rate can be calculated from the following equation:

0.5819
1  dC  dT 
W 67.36 w0.3038   
  dT  dr 

The wax deposition model with known pipeline operating parameters was used to predict the
distribution profile of wax deposits along the length of the pipeline in Winter 2008-2009. According to the
calculations, the maximum thickness (2.1 mm) of the wax deposit layer is reached at the outlet of PS1 in April
(Fig. 3). The thickness of the wax deposit layer smoothly decreases as the distance from the pumping station
increases. This is explained by the decrease in the driving force as the oil temperature decreases. It is also
important to note that the amount of deposit formed is greater in section PS1-PS2 than in the second section.
After April, almost no new wax deposition is observed because of the increase in subsoil temperature and the
decrease in the temperature difference between the oil and the pipe wall. Furthermore, owing to the sloughing
phenomenon, erosion of the paraffin wax layer occurs and the wax layer thickness decreases in summer.
Sloughing of wax deposits in summer was studied under laboratory conditions. It was found that in
summer, under actual pipeline operating conditions, 84.5% of the deposits are removed [10]. Based on these
data, we found the thickness of the deposit layer at the end of summer (August 2009) before the pipeline was
pigged (Fig. 4). The maximum thickness of the wax deposit layer was only 0.35 mm. About 73 m 3 of the wax was
concentrated in section PS1-PS2, while the amount of wax in section PS2-PS3 in August 2009 was insignificant.
The wax deposition model could be tested using data on the pressure drop between pumping stations.
However, the wax deposit layer thickness calculated by this method is an average value, and does not reflect
the actual nonuniform distribution of wax deposits along the length of the pipeline. Uncertainties in the
measurement tools and the variable conditions also prevent proper testing of the mathematical model.
Furthermore, the amount of wax deposits has an insignificant effect on the pressure drop. Therefore it is not
possible to test the model by this method. In this work, we propose an experimental method for testing the
model by determining the gel point of wax-contaminated crude oil ahead of the pig.

Table 2
Pigging stage
Indices
I II III IV
Pipeline throughput, m3/h 1030 1440 840 1000
Volume of paraffin wax deposits in crude oil ahead of pig, m3 7.14 17.28 8.12 32.5

48
Testing the model on a real pipeline
In August and September 2009, a pigging operation was carried out on the test pipeline. Paraffin wax
removed by the pig from the pipeline wall is not dissolved in the crude oil due to the lack of heating, and
therefore a high-viscosity slurry is formed ahead of the pig. The gel point of the contaminated crude oil
increases. Since the gel point of the wax-in-oil slurry directly depends on the volume fraction of the wax, the
volume of the deposits in the oil and consequently the amount of the wax deposits on the pipeline walls can
be determined based on the physical properties of the oil ahead of the pig.
The crude oil contaminated by the wax deposits while pigging the pipeline was sampled at different
time intervals, with the aim of determining the gel point. At the same time, wax deposits collected from the pig
receiver were added to a sample of uncontaminated oil to obtain a slurry like the crude oil ahead of the pig. We
determined the gel point of the artificially obtained slurry and established a functional relationship between
the gel point and the volume fraction of wax in the oil. From this relationship, we can determine the wax
content in crude oil ahead of the pig.
When pigging a long pipeline to remove large amounts of wax deposits, it is important to make sure
the pig does not push out too much deposit. Otherwise the pig may get stuck in the pipe. Section PS1-PS2 was
pigged in four stages; the time interval between each stage was a few days. In each pigging run, i.e., in each
stage, the crude oil was sampled at PS2 at certain time intervals and its gel point was determined (Fig. 5). The
peaks on the figures are due to suspension of wax deposits removed from the wall in the oil ahead of the pig.
Table 2 gives the results of determination of the amount of removed wax deposits in all four pigging stages
according to the proposed experimental procedure. A total of 65 m3 of wax was removed in the four stages from
section PS1-PS2. Calculations according to the proposed mathematical model gave 73 m 3; the relative error
is 12.5%.
Section PS2-PS3 was pigged in five stages. In each pigging run, the crude oil was sampled
at PS3 at certain time intervals and its gel point was determined (Fig. 6). As we see, the gel point remains
almost unchanged over time in all pigging stages, which is explained by the almost complete absence of wax
deposits in section PS2-PS3 in Summer 2009, due to erosion of the deposits by the oil flow. This conclusion is
consistent with the calculation results using the proposed mathematical model.
The amount of wax deposits in the studied pipeline is not very significant, due to the large diameter
and throughput. On the one hand, the temperature gradient (affecting the mass transfer driving force) is
smaller than for a larger pipeline diameter, which leads to a smaller concentration gradient for paraffin wax
molecules at the oil/deposit interface. On the other hand, erosion of the deposits is greater for higher pipeline
throughput. Most of the deposits may be eroded if the shear stress of the oil flow exceeds the adhesive
strength of the deposit layer. In this case, there is no increase in operating expenses due to wax deposition,
and the wax deposit layer thickness reaches a minimum in the summer. From the standpoint of safe and
economical operation, for pipelines of the type considered, seasonal pigging in summer is recommended.

REFERENCES
1. E. D. Burger and T. K. Perkins, “Studies of wax deposition in the trans-Alaska pipeline,” J. Pet.
Technol., 33, No. 6, 1075-1086 (1981).
2. A. A. Hamouda and J. M. Ravnoy, “Prediction of wax deposition in pipelines and field experience on
the influence of wax on drag-reducer performance,” in: 24th Annual Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas USA, 1992; OTC 7060/pp. 669-679.

49
 3. A. A. Hamouda and B. K. Viken, “Wax deposition mechanism under high-pressure and in presence of
light hydrocarbons,” SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, New Orleans, Louisiana
USA, 1993; SPE 25189/pp. 385-395.
4. J. J. C. Hsu et al., “Wax deposition of waxy live crudes under turbulent flow conditions,” in: SPE 69th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana USA, September 1994; SPE
28480; pp. 179-191.
5. J. J. C. Hsu and J. P. Brubaker, “Wax deposition scale-up modeling for waxy crude production lines,”
in: 27th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas USA, 1995; OTC 7778/pp. 731-740.
6. P. Singh et al., “Formation and aging of incipient thin film wax-oil gels,” AICHE J., 46, No. 5, 1059-1074
(May 2000).
7. R. Venkatesan and H. S. Fogler, “Comments on analogies for correlated heat and mass transfer in
turbulent flow,” AICHE J., 50, No. 7, 1623-1626 (July 2004).
8. J. F. Tinsley et al., “Novel laboratory cell for fundamental studies of the effect of polymer additives on
wax deposition from model crude oils,” Energy & Fuels, 21, No. 3, 1301-1308 (May/June 2007).
9. R. Hoffmann and L. Amundsen, “Single-phase wax deposition experiments,” Energy & Fuels, 24,1068-
1080 (December 2010).
10. Q. Y. Huang, “Study on the wax sedimentary dynamics model for the waxy crude oil pipeline,” Doctoral
Dissertation, China University of Petroleum, Beijing (2000).
11. Q. Y. Huang et al., “A new method to test the wax deposition volume of crude oil,” Oil & Gas Storage
and Transportation, 24, No. 9, 34-38 (2005).
12. Q. Y. Huang et al., “Unified wax deposition model,” Acta Petrolei Sinica, 29, No. 3, 459-462 (2008).
13. Q. Y. Huang and S. S. He, “Scouring test of wax deposition layer,” Oil & Gas Storage and
Transportation, 30, No. 9, 312-313 (2011).
14. L. F. A. Azevedo and A. M. Teixeira, “A critical review of the modeling of wax deposition mechanisms,”
Petrol. Sci. Technol., 21, 393–408 (2003).
15. C. R. Wilke and P. Chang, “Correlation of diffusion coefficient in dilute solution,” AICHE J., 1, No. 2,
264-270 (June 1955).
16. Huang, Q. Y., et al., “A new wax deposition model,” Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation, 22, No. 11,
22-25 (2003).
17. X. H. Yang, Design and Administration of the Oil Pipeline, China University of Petroleum Press,
Dongying (2006).

50