SPE-181560-MS

A Pigging Model for Wax Removal in Pipes

Qiyu Huang, Wenda Wang, Weidong Li, Yijie Ren, and Fangda Zhu, China University of Petroleum

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dubai, UAE, 26-28 September 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Pigging is widely used in pipelines for wax removal. However, pigging operation relies heavily on "rules-of-
thumb." Because of its complexity, rather limited pigging models were presented to predict the wax removal
mechanics in past decades. This work aims to develop a pigging model for wax removal in pipelines. A
unique experimental facility was designed and constructed for simulating pigging operation for wax removal
in pipelines. This facility comprises five main parts: an experiment system, a wax casting system, a motor
and control system, a measurement and data acquisition system, and a special designed pig system. The
mixture of crude oil and field wax deposit was cast inside the test section to carry out the pigging experiments
with disc and cup pigs. It was found that hardness of the scraping element in pig has a profound effect
on wax removal, and this effect depends on the wax thickness on the pipe wall tightly. A pigging model,
which could well explain the effects of wax thickness, wax hardness, pipe diameter, pig geometry as well
as hardness of the scraping element in pig, was established based on the experimental findings. To the best
of our knowledge, this is the first time to incorporate the effect of hardness of the scraping element in pig
on wax removal into a pigging model. 17 sets of pigging experiments were used to verify the developed
pigging model with an average relative error of 10.69%. The pigging model developed in this work could
be a practical tool in designing economic and safe pigging programs.

Introduction
Wax deposition has been a big challenge in flow assurance for waxy crude oil. It reduces pipeline flowing
area, limits transportation capacity, and brings additional strain on pumping facility. In extreme cases, it can
cause complete flow blockage or a stuck pig. So far, it is often reported worldwide that wax deposition in
pipelines caused huge economic loss and severe production intervention (Moritis 2001; Azevedo 2003). In
field operation, the mechanical pig is widely used for removing the wax buildup from the internal pipeline
wall (Davidson 2002; Tiratsoo 2013).
Pigging is a regular operation for most pipelines. However, it relies heavily on "rule-of-thumb." This
implies high risks for a stuck pig or wax plugging during the pipeline pigging. Therefore, it demands a
better understanding of wax removal in pipes to support field operation. In past decades, study in field
of wax removal pigging is rather limited (Ronningsen 2012). Azevedo et al. (1996, 1999) and Souza
Mendes et al. (1999) assumed the mechanics of the pigging process to be adequately represented by uniaxial
compression or simple shear load models. Barros et al. (2005) made validation experiment for these two
2 SPE-181560-MS

models. However, the shear stress determination method from the compression test may not be applicable
for wax due to its special rheological properties. Furthermore, this load model presented by Petrobras
oversimplifies the wax removal as it assumes uniform properties within the deposit and ignores the friction
force between the pig and the pipe wall.
Southgate (2004) compared the pigging operation for wax removal to the orthogonal metal cutting.
Experiments were designed to validate this theory in application of pipeline pigging under different
conditions. It was found that the wax failure mode has an important impact on wax removal force. Tan et
al. (2013, 2014, 2015a, b) discussed the tribological behaviors of wax-in-oil mixture and formation physics
of wax chips during pipeline pigging. It is found that the tribology of the scraping element in pig plays a
dominant role in wax chips formation. The wax removal force is sensitive to the geometry of the scraping
element in pig, and the pigging efficiency is a function of Young's module of the scraping element.
Wang and Sarica (2001) divided the wax removal force into three parts: the baseline force, the wax
breaking force, and the wax-plug transportation force. A typical pigging operation for wax removal in pipes
can be divided into four stages: wax breaking, plug formation, accumulation and production phases. It is
finally concluded that the wax removal force was affected by the pig geometry, the wax consistency and
thickness. Wang and Sarica (2008) investigated the pigging performances for both regular and by-pass
disc pigs under the flowing conditions. It is indicated that the wax removal force increases as the wax
thickness increases, and the wax plug transportation force gradient is independent of the wax plug length.
It is additionally found that the wax transport behavior of the by-pass pig is significantly different than that
of the regular pig. Hovden et al. (2004) developed a pigging model from Wang and Sarica's experimental
data (Wang and Sarica 2001). The pigging model seems to give good prediction for the wax breaking force
compared with the available data. But this model doesn't consider the effect of hardness of the scraping
element in pig on wax removal. Galta (2014) analyzed the forces acting on a bypass pig in operation. It is
concluded that the friction force is much higher than the wax removal force.
Wang (2008) discussed the mechanical and rheological behaviors of the wax deposit by a visco-elastic
model and a nonlinear visco-elastic-plastic model. It is found that the wax deposit has a more loose structure
than the wax gel due to the bigger wax crystal size and the larger space among the wax crystals. Bai and
Zhang (2013a) pointed out that the yield stress of waxy oil gels decreases with the increase in the average
carbon number of wax regardless of quiescent or shear conditions. The average size and the boundary fractal
dimension of the wax crystals decrease but the aspect ratio increases with the increase in the average carbon
number of wax. In addition, Bai and Zhang (2013b) revealed the thermal, macroscopic, and microscopic
characteristics of field wax deposits. Finally, Bai (2013) presented a new indirect method for measuring
the wax deposit hardness and a correlation for calculating the minimal pressure difference for removing the
wax deposit. However, the predictions are too conservative due to the wax failure mechanism difference
between the simulated method and the real wax removal pigging operation.
In short, most of the findings for wax removal in pipes in the past were refined from the laboratory
experiment with the waxy gels or the mixtures of commercial wax and mineral oil. So far, the pigging model
development is still not mature. In response, this paper aims to develop a pigging model to predict the wax
breaking force. This paper is an extension of the wax removal mechanism study (Wang et al. 2015; Wang
2016), which reveals that the wax failure stress always exceeds the yield stress of the same wax deposit
during pipeline pigging. In this paper, a laboratory setup is used to conduct the pigging experiments to
investigate the effect of hardness of the scraping element in pig on wax removal. Furthermore, a pigging
model is developed to describe the wax removal from the pipe wall. This model could be a practical tool
in designing the optimal pigging programs.
SPE-181560-MS 3

Experimental Part
Experimental Setup
A unique experimental setup is designed and constructed for simulating pigging operations. As
schematically described in Fig. 1, this pigging experiment facility comprises five main parts: an experiment
system, a wax casting system, a motor and control system, a measurement and data acquisition system, and
a special designed pig system.

Figure 1—Schematic of the experimental facility (Wang et al. 2015).

The test section in experimental setup consists of a 50-mm-ID, 600-mm-long, horizontal pipe. It has
an accurate temperature control for wax casting and removal processes. The test section (1) can be either
assembled or removed from the table top (51) easily via the fixed frame (101), which is important for quick
conversion between the wax casting process and pigging experiment. The wax casting mold has three types
of external diameter of 46, 42, 38 mm. That is to say, accordingly, there are three kinds of wax thickness of
2, 4, 6 mm. A simple chamfer-structured pig launcher (2) with length of 69 mm and external diameter of
57 mm is coaxially equipped with the test section (1) to guide the pig entering the test section (1) smoothly.
A KH-1000 digital tensile force transducer (9) is placed at the hanger (8) and its centerline is set to be
overlapped with the axis of the test section (1). It has a maximum load of 1000 N and accuracy of 0.5%.
Two measuring force rings at the two ends of the tensile force transducer (9) are connected to the wirelines
(10, 11) to measure the total force applied on the pig during wax removal experiment. As shown in Fig. 1,
the servo motor (60) is equipped at the side of the reduction gearbox (61) to output the moment of force
upon speed conversion. The whole servo control system, including the servo controller, pulse controller and
microswitch (26), is totally controlled by PLC programming controller.
4 SPE-181560-MS

Two-cup and two-disc pigs are used in this study. Either the polyurethane cup or disc (shrinkage ratio:
1.5%) has three typical Shore A hardness (HA) of 80, 85, 90. In order to highlight the study of wax breaking
force and weaken the influence of contact force between the pig (3) and the pipe wall, the pig without
oversize against the test section (1) is used to carry out the wax removal experiment. In this study, all pigs
(3) are pulled along the test section (1) at a constant velocity of 0.03 m/s in all the experiments. More details
about the experiment facility can be found in literature (Wang et al. 2015).

Wax Sample
The mixture of crude oil and field wax deposit was cast inside the test section (1) for pigging experiments.
For the properties of the crude oil and the wax deposit, please refer to literature (Wang et al. 2015). Figure
2 shows a photograph of field wax deposit. Heat the crude oil to the fixed temperature of 80 °C and then
mix the sliced wax tablet with it gradually at a constant agitation speed of 800 r/min. Check the melting
progress of wax deposit every 5 min until it is totally melted. Regularly, heat and agitate the solution for
10-15 min additionally at the end of the addition to ensure good melting performance.

Figure 2—Field wax deposit.

Experimental Procedure
The experimental test matrix includes wax thickness of 2, 4, and 6 mm; temperature of 10, 20, 25, 30 and 35
°C; mixing ratio of wax deposit to crude oil of 30 wt.%, 50 wt.%, and 70 wt.%; two-cup and two-disc pigs;
and cup/disc Shore A hardness (HA) of 80, 85, and 90. The main experimental links are extracted as follows:
– Step 1: Perform the wax casting process to prepare the wax layer in the test section (1). Figure 3 gives
the images of the final wax layer within the test section (1) after the wax casting.
– Step 2: Begin the pigging experiment for wax removal. Record the wax removal force data
continuously during the experiment. After the wax removal, weigh the received wax debris within
the wax receiver (20).
– Step 3: Rise the temperature of the test section (1) to clean the fouled test pipe.
– Step 4: Conduct the baseline test in the clean test section (1) for measuring the friction force between
the pig (3) and the test section (1).
– Step 5: Determine the wax breaking force based on the wax removal curve (Wang et al. 2015) and
calculate the wax removal efficiency by weighing.
SPE-181560-MS 5

Figure 3—The prepared wax layer in test section (Wang et al. 2015).

In particular, yield stress measurement of wax sample is repeated at the beginning of pigging experiments
to ensure the basically constant wax hardness. All yield stress measurements in this study were performed by
using a controlled stress rheometer, RheolabQC, equipped with ST10-4V-8.8-SN20662 vane testing system.
More details can be found in literature (Wang et al. 2015).

Effect of Hardness of the Scraping Element in Pig on Wax Removal

Wang et al. (2015) investigated the effect of pig aggressiveness (hardness of the scraping element in pig)
on wax removal in a previous study. It is found that hardness of the scraping element in pig has a profound
effect on the wax breaking force. But this effect is not clear due to the limited experimental data in the
past. So the effect of the scraping element hardness on wax removal still needs to be studied further. In this
study, the pigging experiment was enhanced to clarify this issue. Figure 4 shows the wax breaking forces
under different scraping element hardness with cup or disc pigs at 50 wt.% mixing ratio and 30 °C pipe
wall temperature.

Figure 4—Effect of the scraping element hardness on wax breaking force.

6 SPE-181560-MS

The result reveals that the change of the wax breaking force with the scraping element hardness is varied
under different wax thickness for cup pig. In contrast, the wax breaking force increases with the increase in
the scraping element hardness at different wax thickness for disc pig. It can be further concluded that the
effect of the scraping element hardness on wax breaking force depends on wax thickness in the pipe wall.
The contact mode between the scraping element in pig and the pipe wall (as well as the wax layer in the
pipe wall) during pipeline pigging may be responsible for this change. The scraping element deformation
is changed under different wax thickness and scraping element hardness for cup pig. Therefore, the wax
breaking force of cup pig has an irregular change for different scraping element hardness at varied wax
thickness. In contrast, the disc pig contacts the pipe wall (as well as the wax layer in the pipe wall) in an
orthogonal mode. Thus, the deformation mode of disc pig is relatively constant. Therefore, the wax breaking
force for disc pig presents a monotonous trend with the change in the scraping element hardness at various
wax thickness.

Pigging Model
Model Development
It is found that the relationship between the wax failure stress and the wax yield stress during pipeline
pigging can be well fitted as the linear relation, as depicted by Fig. 5 (Wang et al. 2015). It is additionally
found that there is an overwhelming effect between the wax failure stress and the wax yield stress, where
the wax failure stress exceeds the wax yield stress during wax removal.

Figure 5—Relationship between the wax failure stress and the wax yield stress for different pigs (Wang et al. 2015).

This new finding changes our traditional understanding, in which the wax will be broken as the wax
breaking force exerted by pig reaches the wax yielding point. Also, it forms the solid basis for pigging model
development. The relationship between the wax failure stress and the wax yield stress can be expressed as
(1)
where τw is wax failure stress, Pa; τy is wax yield stress, Pa; a is a dimensionless coefficient; b is another
coefficient, Pa.
It is assumed that a mechanical cleaning pig breaks the wax layer by applying a certain force in the
axial direction on its cross section, the wax is distributed uniformly along the axial direction. Then, the wax
failure stress is defined as
SPE-181560-MS 7

(2)

where τw is wax failure stress, Pa; Fw is wax breaking force, N; d is internal diameter of pipeline, m; δw is
wax thickness, m.
Substitute Eq. 2 into Eq. 1, therefore
(3)
where Fw is wax breaking force, N; τy is wax yield stress, Pa; d is internal diameter of pipeline, m; δw is wax
thickness, m; a is a dimensionless coefficient; b is another coefficient, Pa.
As pointed out in this paper, the wax thickness has a significant impact on the relationship between
the wax breaking force and the scraping element hardness. In addition, the pig shape also has an equally
important impact on this relationship. Therefore, the effect of the pig feature including the shape and
hardness of the scraping element on the wax breaking force can be lumped into the second term at right
for Eq. 3.
Eq. 3 can be transformed into Eq. 4:
(4)
where Fw is wax breaking force, N; A is a dimensionless coefficient; B = bπδw, B is used for describing the
effect of the pig feature on the wax breaking force, N/m; d is internal diameter of pipeline, m; δw is wax
thickness, m; τy is wax yield stress, Pa.
B is defined as the contact tension between the pig and the pipe wall, also the deformation stress along
the perimeter of the scraping element rim in pig. This force is perpendicular to the wax layer inside the pipe
wall. B is positive when the pig contacts the pipe wall (wax layer in the pipe wall) in an orthogonal mode,
otherwise B is negative. The deformation of the scraping element in pig varies with the change in the pig
shape and the scraping element hardness. Thus, the magnitude and direction of B vary accordingly. The
values of A and B for different pigs are summarized in Table 1 by regression analysis.

Table 1—Model coefficient regression.

Pig Shape Shore A A B (N/m)

Hardness (HA)

80 3.57 31.45

Cup 85 4.49 -225.12

90 4.86 -349.48

80 3.68 182.97
Disc
90 3.92 77.78

As shown in Table 1, the magnitude of B decreases with the increase in the scraping element hardness.
For disc pig and 80HA cup pig, B is positive. For 80HA cup pig, the contact mode between the pig and the
pipe wall is close to the orthogonal pattern due to its small hardness and big deformation of the scraping
element. So the wax removal performance of 80HA cup pig is similar to that of the disc pig and B is positive.
In comparison, B is negative for cup pig with 85HA and 90HA. This results from the contact mode between
the pig and the pipe wall deviating from the orthogonal mode in their big hardness of the scraping element. B
is varied in both magnitude and direction for different pig shapes and the varied scraping element hardness
due to the changed contact modes between the pig and the pipe wall. The magnitude of A increases with
the increase in the scraping element hardness.
8 SPE-181560-MS

In fact, A and B reflect the effect of pig feature on wax removal. In other words, the wax thickness and
the wax hardness, together with the pig feature predominates the wax breaking force. Different pigs have
different A and B. In this case, the wax breaking force of cup pig has an irregular change for different
scraping element hardness at varied wax thickness.

Model Verification
Another 17 sets of pigging experiments were conducted to verify the model, as shown in Table 2 through 6.

Table 2—Pigging model verification against experiment for 80HA cup pig.

Mixing Pipe Wall Wax Wax Yield Experimental Calculated Relative

Ratio (wt.%) Temperature Thickness Stress (Pa) Wax Breaking Wax Breaking Error (%)
(°C) (mm) Force (N) Force (N)

50 20 4 74700 52.0 54.9 5.32

50 30 4 48500 36.0 36.2 0.58

70 30 4 140000 101.5 101.6 0.06

Table 3—Pigging model verification against experiment for 85HA cup pig.

Mixing Pipe Wall Wax Wax Yield Experimental Calculated Relative

Ratio (wt.%) Temperature Thickness Stress (Pa) Wax Breaking Wax Breaking Error (%)
(°C) (mm) Force (N) Force (N)

50 20 6 78400 77.5 94.3 17.81

50 30 4 44900 27.5 29.0 5.32

70 30 6 135000 151.5 170.5 11.15

Table 4—Pigging model verification against experiment for 90HA cup pig.

Mixing Pipe Wall Wax Wax Yield Experimental Calculated Relative

Ratio (wt.%) Temperature Thickness Stress (Pa) Wax Breaking Wax Breaking Error (%)
(°C) (mm) Force (N) Force (N)

50 30 6 44100 40.0 46.9 14.62

50 20 4 88400 64.0 68.5 6.55

70 30 4 129000 110.0 108.0 -1.88

50 25 4 67500 45.0 48.2 6.57

70 27 6 162000 183.0 218.8 16.37

Table 5—Pigging model verification against experiment for 80HA disc pig.

Mixing Pipe Wall Wax Wax Yield Experimental Calculated Relative

Ratio (wt.%) Temperature Thickness Stress (Pa) Wax Breaking Wax Breaking Error (%)
(°C) (mm) Force (N) Force (N)

50 20 6 69500 107.0 85.9 -24.58

50 30 4 45700 52.0 42.8 -21.53

70 30 6 132000 146.0 154.9 5.75

SPE-181560-MS 9

Table 6—Pigging model verification against experiment for 90HA disc pig.

Mixing Ratio Pipe Wall Wax Wax Yield Experimental Calculated Relative
(wt. %) Temperature Thickness Stress (Pa) Wax Breaking Wax Breaking Error (%)
(°C) (mm) Force (N) Force (N)

50 20 4 84800 56.0 70.4 20.51

70 30 6 123000 125.0 148.7 15.94

70 35 4 98500 87.0 81.2 -7.15

It can be seen from Table 2 through 6 that the developed pigging model has an average relative error of
10.69% and the maximum relative error of 24.58%.
In addition, the prediction results from the pigging model developed in this study and Hovden model
(Hovden et al. 2004) were compared in Table 7 and Fig. 6.

Table 7—Comparison of wax breaking force between pigging model prediction and Hovden model prediction.

Pigging Model Hovden Model

Experimental
Mixing Pipe Wall Wax Calculated Calculated
Wax Yield Wax
Pig Type Ratio Temperature Thickness Wax Relative Wax Relative
Stress (Pa) Breaking
(wt.%) (°C) (mm) Breaking Error (%) Breaking Error (%)
Force (N)
Force (N) Force (N)

50 20 4 74700 52.0 54.9 5.32 54.1 3.96

80HA Cup 50 30 4 48500 36.0 36.2 0.58 35.2 -2.41

70 30 4 140000 101.5 101.6 0.06 101.5 -0.02

50 20 6 78400 77.5 94.3 17.81 97.2 20.29

85HA Cup 50 30 4 44900 27.5 29.0 5.32 37.1 25.92

70 30 6 135000 151.5 170.5 11.15 167.4 9.51

50 30 6 44100 40.0 46.9 14.62 55.4 27.77

50 20 4 88400 64.0 68.5 6.55 74.0 13.52

90HA Cup 70 30 4 129000 110.0 108.0 -1.88 108.0 -1.86

50 25 4 67500 45.0 48.2 6.57 56.5 20.36

70 27 6 162000 183.0 218.8 16.37 203.4 10.04

50 20 6 69500 107.0 85.9 -24.58 83.1 -28.71

80HA Disc 50 30 4 45700 52.0 42.8 -21.53 36.4 -42.68

70 30 6 132000 146.0 154.9 5.75 157.9 7.53

50 20 4 84800 56.0 70.4 20.51 69.3 19.20

90HA Disc 70 30 6 123000 125.0 148.7 15.94 150.8 17.10

70 35 4 98500 87.0 81.2 -7.15 80.5 -8.07

10 SPE-181560-MS

Figure 6—Comparison of wax breaking force between two models.

It can be seen from Table 7 and Fig. 6 that Hovden model has an average relative error of 15.23% and
the maximum relative error of 42.68%. In comparison, the pigging model developed in this study has better
prediction than Hovden model for the wax breaking force.

Conclusions
In this study, an experimental facility was designed and constructed for simulating pigging operation for
wax removal in pipelines. The effect of hardness of the scraping element in pig on wax removal was further
investigated by extending the experiment matrix. It was revealed that hardness of the scraping element in
pig has a profound effect on wax removal, and this effect depends on wax thickness on the pipe wall tightly.
A pigging model with an average relative error of 10.69% was finally developed based on the experimental
findings. This model makes the effect of hardness of the scraping element in pig on wax removal clear.
What's more, it has better prediction accuracy than Hovden model for the wax breaking force. This work
could be a practical tool in designing economic and safe pigging programs.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSF, Grant No. 51374224
& No. 51134006).

References
Azevedo, L.F.A., Braga, A.M.B., Nieckele, A.O., Naccache, M.F., Gomes, M.G.F.M. 1996. Simple Hydrodynamic Models
for the Prediction of Pig Motions in Pipelines. Presented at Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 6-9 May.
Azevedo, L.F.A., Braga, A.M.B., Nieckele, A.O., Souza Mendes, P.R. 1999. Simulating Pipeline Pigging Operation.
Proceedings of the Pipeline Pigging Conference, Stavanger, Noruega, 15-17 June.
Azevedo, L.F.A., Teixeira, A.M. 2003. A Critical Review of the Modeling of Wax Deposition Mechanisms. Petrol. Sci.
Technol. 21: 393–408.
Barros Jr, J.M., Alves, D.P.P., Barroso, A.L., Souza, R.O., Azevedo, L.F.A. 2005. Experimental Validation of Models for
Predicting Wax Removal Forces in Pigging Operations. Proceedings of 18th International Congress of Mechanical
Engineering, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil, 6-11 November.
Bai, C.Y., and Zhang, J.J. 2013a. Effect of Carbon Number Distribution of Wax on the Yield Stress of Waxy Oil Gels.
Ind. Chem. Eng. Res. 52 (7): 2732–2739.
Bai, C.Y., and Zhang, J.J. 2013b. Thermal, Macroscopic, and Microscopic Characteristics of Wax Deposits in Field
Pipelines. Energy Fuels 27 (2): 752–759.
Bai, C.Y. 2013. Study on Some Fundamental Issues of Removing Wax Deposit in Crude Oil Pipelines. PhD Thesis, China
University of Petroleum, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)
SPE-181560-MS 11

Davidson, R. 2002. An Introduction to Pipeline Pigging. Presented at Pigging Products and Services Association Seminar
2002, Aberdeen.
Galta, T. 2014. Bypass Pigging of Subsea Pipelines Suffering Wax Deposition. MS Thesis. Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Hovden, L., Xu, Z.G., Ronningsen, H.P., Labes-Carrier, C, Rydahl, A. 2004. Pipeline Wax Deposition Models and Model
for Removal of Wax by Pigging: Comparison between Model Predictions and Operational Experience. Paper presented
at 4th North American Conference on Multiphase Technology, Banff, Canada, 3-4 June. BHR Group.
Moritis, G. Flow Assurance Challenges Production from Deeper Water. 2001. Oil Gas J. 99: 66–71.
Ronningsen, H.P. 2012. Production of waxy oils on the Norwegian Continental Shelf: Experiences, Challenges, and
Practices. Energy Fuels 26 (7): 4124 - 4136.
Souza Mendes, P.R., Braga, A.M.B., Azevedo, L.F.A., Correa, K.S. 1999. Resistive Force of Wax Deposits During Pigging
Operation. ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol. 121 (3): 167–171.
Southgate, J. 2004. Wax removal using pipeline pigs. PhD Thesis, Durham University, Durham, England. June. 269 pp.
Tiratsoo, J. 2013. Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Technology, 4th edition. London: Clarion Technical Publishers.
Tan, G.B., Liu, S.H., Wang, D.G., Zhang, S.W. 2013. In Situ Observation of Wax-in-Oil Flow in Rough Soft Contact.
Tribol. Lett. 52: 93–103.
Tan, G.B., Wang, D.G., Liu, S.H., Zhang, S.W. 2014. Probing Tribological Properties of Waxy Oil in Pipeline Pigging
with Fuorescence Technique. Tribol. Int. 71: 26–37.
Tan, G.B., Liu, S.H., Wang, D.G., Zhang, S.W. 2015a. Tribological Behaviours of Wax-in-Oil Gel Deposition in
Orthogonal Cleaning Process. Tribol. Lett. 57: 16.
Tan, G.B., Liu, S.H., Wang, D.G., Zhang, S.W. 2015b. Spatio-Temporal Structure in Wax–Oil Gel Scraping at a Soft
Tribological Contact. Tribol. Int. 88: 236–251.
Wang, Q., Sarica, C., Chen, T.X. 2001. An Experimental Study on Mechanics of Wax Removal in Pipeline. Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September-3 October.
Wang, Q., Sarica, C., Volk, M. 2008. An Experimental Study on Wax Removal in Pipes with Oil Flow. J. Energy Resour.
Technol. 130 (4): 0430011–5.
Wang, Z.F. 2008. Mechanical Response Characteristics of the Paraffin Deposits in Pipelines. China University of
Petroleum, Dongying, China. (in Chinese)
Wang, W.D., Huang, Q.Y., Liu, Y.J., Kamy Sepehrnoori. 2015. Experimental Study on Mechanisms of Wax Removal
During Pipeline Pigging. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 28-30
Septemberr.
Wang, W.D. 2016. Study on Wax Layer Removal and Transport Behaviors during Crude Oil Pipeline Pigging. PhD Thesis,
China University of Petroleum, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)