article · Petroleum
This study developed a data-driven surrogate-box correlation to predict wax deposition rates in crude-oil pipelines and help address the limited generalizability of empirical and mechanistic models under variable flow and thermal conditions. Literature-derived dataset of 215 experimental and field observations was compiled with inputs as oil temperature , wall temperature , dynamic viscosity , wall shear stress , flow velocity , wall temperature gradient , and wall concentration gradient , and target as wax deposition rate (g/m 2 .h). After outlier control, standardization, and ANOVA-based feature engineering, Five supervised black-box models; SVR, Random Forest, MLP, Gradient Boosting, and KNN, models were trained with an 80/20 train–test split, 5-fold cross-validated, hyperparameter-tuned and evaluated using MSE, RMSE, MAE, , and AAPRE. The top performing model, KNN, was modeled into an interpretable surrogate via Elastic Net (benchmarked against polynomial Ridge degree-2/3) to yield a closed-form correlation. KNN achieved excellent test performance ( , RMSE ⁓ 0.101, AAPRE ⁓ 5.09%), outperforming alternative models. The Elastic Net surrogate preserved predictive ability with balanced generalization ( ≈ 0.61–0.65 for train/validation/test) while exposing parameter level effects and nonlinear interactions among temperature, viscosity, shear stress, velocity, and wall-scale gradients. When compared to a physics-based correlation, the surrogate exhibited tighter clustering to measurements, which indicates improved field relevance. The principal contribution of this study is a hybrid workflow that couples high-accuracy black-box learning with transparent surrogate modeling to help enable real-time monitoring and control, proactive pigging scheduling, and optimized chemical/thermal treatments of oil flow in pipelines. The resulting correlation offers a deployable, interpretable alternative to nontransparent machine learning models or assumption-heavy empirical relations, with clear value for flow-assurance planning and operational reliability.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1016/j.petlm.2026.03.002
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.