ABSTRACT

In the quest of energy resources, oil exploration and production is in its peak activity during the present era. Oil and
gas fields worldwide are reaching maturity, pushing operations to more challenging areas. During transportation of
oil through a pipeline, when the oil temperature is higher than the pipe wall temperature, there will be a dissolved
wax concentration gradient between the bulk oil and pipe wall. Crystallization and deposition of waxes occurs if the
wall/interface temperature falls below the wax appearance temperature (WAT) of oil being transported. It can affect
single wells along with transportation pipelines that are critical to the safe supply of oil to processing facilities. Wax
deposition is a very complex phenomenon. As remedial costs increase with decreasing production, wax precipitation
and deposition significantly influence the economy for a field. There are several wax deposition models with
different approaches on modeling wax deposition. The basic wax deposition models are Rygg, Rydahl and
Ronningsen (RRR) model and the Matzain model. The important element is to illustrate how wax deposition models
predict wax build up. The present study intends to analyze the effect of wax deposition on pipelines using the RRR
and Matzain models and estimate the temperature profile in the entire length of pipeline using OLGA simulation
tool. The study used experimental and field data obtain from a hypothetical field in Niger Delta to compare the wax
deposition models. The trend prediction from the Matzain model gave a much higher prediction of wax thickness
than that predicted by the RRR model. The over prediction of the wax deposit thickness of the Matzain model is
attributed to incorporate deposition enhancing coefficients introduced into the Matzain correlations. The result of the
study shows that a high deposit thickness was predicted by the Matzain model with a value of 3.80957mm at
1198.8m (red line) and 0.870068mm for the RRR model at 737.601m (black line) in figure 4.4.
NOMENCLATURE

PT pressure

TM temperature,

ACCLIQ accumulated liquid flow,

DXWX thickness of wax layer deposited at wall

MWXWALL specific wax mass at the wall

MWXDIS mass of wax dissolved in oil

HOL liquid holdup fraction

VISHLTAB oil viscosity from fluid tables

ID flow regime identification

𝑑𝑀𝑤/𝑑𝑡 rate of wax deposited (kg/s)

𝜌𝑤 density of the solid wax (kg/m3)

𝐷𝑤 diffusion coefficient of the wax in the oil phase (m2/s)

𝐴𝑤 area of wax deposition (m2)

𝑀𝐵 mass of deposited wax due to Brownian diffusion (kg)

WAXAP wax appearance temperature (°F)

WXMPREC wax mass precipitation rate (kg/s)

 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 OLGA® and Multiflash® software

3.1.1 OLGA®

The OLGA® dynamic multiphase flow simulator models time-dependent behaviors, or transient

flow, to maximize production potential. Transient modeling is an essential component for

feasibility studies and field development design. Dynamic simulation is essential in deep-water

and is used extensively in both offshore and onshore developments to investigate transient

behavior in pipelines and wellbores. The OLGA® Wax module calculates the deposition and

transport of wax components along the pipeline. It models the effects of increase in pipe wall

roughness, decreases in pipeline diameter, and the increased apparent viscosity of the oil phase

with precipitated solid wax particles. The Wax deposition module supports tuning fluid

properties related to molecular diffusion, dissolution, shear related wax transport, and effective

viscosity of an oil/wax mixture to dynamically model wax deposition, dissolution, and transport

effects. The OLGA simulator also simulates pigging operations for wax layer removal and

transport. OLGA is a multiphase flow simulator that has been widely used for several decades in

the flow assurance industry to study and predict wax deposition processes in the hydrocarbon

pipelines. OLGA is structured into modules and some of these modules include the slugging and

wax deposition modules that are commercially used for wax precipitation and slugging
prediction and calculations in the oil and gas industry. OLGA software was used in this research

to compare Matzain and RRR models.

In order to construct an OLGA model, it was necessary to gather data (e.g. pvt file and wax file),

to build the model and define the simulation case, and to run simulations and view results in the

form of graphs. Wax deposition simulations performed in this work was done with OLGA

2017.2.0.107 version. OLGA receives the crude oil propriety input values (for example, the

weight percentage of carbon numbers, density, compressibility, viscosities, surface tension,

enthalpies, heat capacities and thermal conductivity) in pressure and temperature values. These

properties enter the OLGA simulator as a tab file created from the tab generating a PVT package.

The wax deposition module in OLGA further requires details about the wax component,

structure, porosity, etc., converted to a wax file in a tab format generated from the multiflash wax

interface. The wax file provides information about the wax fraction as a function of the wax

forming components, temperature and pressure, and wax mixture. Results and prediction of the

OLGA simulator are largely influenced by the accuracy of table values generated from

multiflash. Figure 3.1 shows the steps involve in OLGA simulation.

Figure 3.1: Steps of the OLGA Simulation Process

3.1.2 Multiflash

Multiflash is a powerful and versatile system for modeling physical properties and phase

equilibrium. It can be used as a standalone program or in conjunction with other program.

Multiflash can provide:

 All the thermodynamic and transport properties needed for engineering studies.

 Comprehensive fluid characterization and model tuning for petroleum fluids.

 Flash calculations to determine the phases present at specified conditions of pressure and

temperature and their type, composition and amounts.

 Modeling solids formation, including pure solids, halide scales, hydrates, waxes and

asphaltenes.

 Complete phase envelopes, showing phase boundaries and critical points.

  Multiflash has a comprehensive set of configurable options, making it easy to specify all

aspects of a study. Each configuration can be saved for future use with Multiflash or

other compatible applications.

Figure 3.2 shows the multiflash procedure flow diagram.

3.2 Fluid characterization

The fluid characterization was done through multiflash, which is a tool available in OLGA.

Multiflash works as a fluid characterization environment, where different files are generated.

Such files are later read by OLGA to determine the properties of the fluids involved in the

simulation.

The oil API density, single carbon number (SCN) composition of the oil and n-alkane analysis,

presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, were entered in the Single Fluid characterization option of the

PVT Analysis module as basic information needed for Multiflash to perform the fluid

characterization.
Figure 3.2: Multiflash procedure flow diagram

3.3 Crude Oil Properties for Wax Table and PVT Table files

Wax table file (. wax) and PVT table file (.tab) were the two most essential table files required to

run wax deposition simulation study using OLGA. These files contained all the properties of wax

forming components and PVT parameters. In this study, a fluid package called Multiflash 6.1

version was used to generate the table and wax files. Multiflash is a tool embedded within the

OLGA software, which is designed specifically for fluid characterization using a thermodynamic

wax model known as Redlich Kwong Soave Advanced (RSKA) model. Similarly, Multiflash

was used to understand the waxing behavior of crude oil and predicts both wax appearance

temperature, the amount of wax precipitated at different temperatures and pressures. The input

parameters required to flash a sample crude include the oil compositions and its properties, e.g.
the n-paraffins pseudo-components i.e. those with 15 carbon number or higher (defined as the

main forming wax fractions in the fluid model). Other parameters are the density of oil, wax

content, API and WAT (Table 3.1 and 3.2). Also, the files required for OLGA simulation was

generated within the system temperature and pressure ranges.

Table 3.1: Crude oil composition from GC-FID Analysis

Composition Amount (ppm or mg/l) Wt%(ppm/10000) Mol %

C8 2816.58913 0.2817 2.51
C9 4739.76021 0.474 4.23
C10 4102.63419 0.4103 3.66
C11 3385.02543 0.3385 3.02
C12 5652.15692 0.5652 5.04
C13 4136.06351 0.4136 3.69
C14 5837.23462 0.5837 5.21
C15 3685.58655 0.3686 3.29
C16 3927.03164 0.3927 3.5
Pr 2681.54897 0.2682 2.39
C17 4768.15446 0.4768 4.25
C18 4981.87943 0.4982 4.44
Ph 3178.12454 0.3178 2.84
C19 2773.72692 0.4315 3.85
C20 4314.54875 0.4315 3.85
C21 2538.90341 0.2539 2.27
C22 2738.57669 0.2739 2.44
C23 1563.64931 0.1564 1.4
C24 3692.01588 0.3692 3.29
C25 3327.72004 0.3328 2.97
C26 3691.69781 0.3692 3.29
C27 4316.82015 0.4317 3.85
C28 3493.05785 0.3493 3.12
C29 3118.36027 0.3118 2.78
C30 2547.5211 0.2548 2.27
C31 2903.92165 0.2904 2.59
C32 4178.20431 0.4178 3.73
C33 3682.69102 0.3683 3.3
C34 5101.01826 0.5101 4.55
C35 4210.13041 0.421 3.76
C36 - - -
 C37 - - -
C38 - - -
C39 - - -
C40 - - -
TOTAL 112084.3534   100

Table 3.2: Crude oil Data/Properties

Crude oil viscosity @ 27oC 11.95cp or 0.80 lb/ft-s

Crude oil density@ 27oC 0.9570g/ml or 59.7436 lb/ft3
Wax Appearance Temperature 7oC
Pour point 3.2oC
Wax content 11.03%

3.4 Pipeline characteristics

Properties of the pipeline material corresponds to steel with a heat capacity of 500 J/(kg-K), heat

conductivity of 43.25 W/(m-K) and density of 7850 kg/m3. These properties are included in the

software library regarding structural-material properties. In the same library, the pipeline

thickness is defined according to the information presented in table 3.3. With the pipeline created

in the software interface, pipe length and roughness were established based on the information

provided in table 3.4. Finally, the number of sections in which the pipeline is split to increase the

accuracy of the calculation was set.

3.5 Methodology of Wax Deposition Simulation

Before simulating wax deposition along the pipeline, the fluid was characterized with a total wax

content of 11.03wt%, using the SuperTRAPP model for both viscosity and thermal conductivity
and LGST model for viscosity. – a fluid modelling package, which gives the fluid properties,

phase behavior and single carbon number (SCN) distribution. Two feed files containing these

properties data were generated with multiflash, which are essentially required for simulation of

wax deposition with OLGA.

OLGA software and multiflash were used in this research to compare the Matzain and Rygg

Rydahl and Rønningsen wax deposition models. The experimental data for wax deposition

simulation in the flowline was obtained from a hypothetical field. The resulting data was

processed by multiflash program in order to gain data file processable by OLGA software to

design a flowline model for testing different operating conditions.

Table 3.3: Pipeline material data

Heat
Conductivity, k
Material Thickness (m) Density, ρ (kg/m3 ) capacity, Cp
(W/m-K)
(J/kg-K)
Steel 0.0118 43.25 7850 500
Enamel 0.006 0.6 1465 2115

Table 3.4 Pipeline Geometry

Elevation Number of Pipeline diameter Wall Roughness

Pipeline Length [ft] [m] section [inch] [m]
0 -80
 8000 -80 5 14 50х10-9
12,500 -90 5 14 50х10-9
12,500 20 5 14 50х10-9
14,000 20 5 14 50х10-9

The tab file generated from multiflash with tabulated properties of the oil given in tables 3.1 and

3.2 respectively was imported to OLGA as a PVTFILE and wax file. A 14inch subsea flowline

was modeled to transport the crude oil from a typical production wellhead represented as a mass

source called Oil Source at a flow rate of 14000 BPD (24.6559kg/s) with an inlet temperature of

70°C in the first node of PIPE-1 into the flowline as shown in Figure 3.3. The oil flows out of the

flowline at 10bars and 20°C through a pressure node called the separator where mass and energy

interaction are represented by pressure condition of the node. The flowline also consists of a

closed node with no mass and energy transfer on PIPE-1 of the flowline.

The simulation case time was set at 100 days. The time setup also requires setting maximum and

minimum integration time step to control simulation time step. The maximum and minimum

integration time steps were set to 1000 and 1 seconds respectively.

In addition to the pipeline components, an inlet source and outlet nodes were created in the

software interface. In these components, the inlet temperature, fluid mass flow and outlet

pressure were set according to the information presented in table 3.5. When wax deposition

process is analyzed in OLGA, heat transfer calculations cannot be performed based on a given

overall heat transfer coefficient (UGIVEN). Instead of this, the inner wall and ambient heat

transfer coefficients was provided to the software in order to run wax deposition simulations.

Table 3.5: Process conditions

 Inlet pressure (bara) 50
Inlet temperature (°C) 70
Ambient temperature (°C) 4
Minimum Inner wall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-K) 6.5
Ambient heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-K) 50
Arrival pressure (bara) 10
Wax diffusion coefficient multiplier 1
Wax roughness 0
Wax porosity 0.6
Simulation end time (days) 100
Arrival temperature (°C) 20

Figure 3.3 Schematic flowline diagram

 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSSION

4.1 Phase Envelope Curve

A phase envelope was developed to understand the phase changes (gas/liquid/solid) in the

system at different temperatures and pressures. The phase envelope curve as shown in figure 4.1

was obtained using multiflash; this reveals a critical point of 555.331°C and 263.566psig. Liquid

fractions are present in the hydrocarbon mixture at all temperature conditions below this critical

temperature. This suggests the presence of heavy fractions and the stable properties of the liquid

phase at high temperatures. The phase envelop diagram in figure 4.1 showed that the fluid

system is liquid phase dominant. However, below 56°C– the wax line (blue line, point D), which

correspond to WAT value of the oil sample; the system experiences solid wax deposition

problem. A narrow two-phase (liquid and gas) region was observed, which skewed to the right

between the bubble and dew point curve. The narrow area could be due to the nature and the

properties of the oil sample. On the other hand, the gas-phase is present as a dissolved gas and

breaks out at high-pressure and high-temperature.

Figure 4.1: Phase Envelope of the crude sample used for wax simulation using Multiflash

4.2 Wax Precipitation Curve

The wax precipitation curve represents the amount of solids precipitated from the fluid mixture

as a function of temperature. Figure 4.2 shows a plot of wax mass percent of liquid against

temperature. It was found that wax precipitation starts at 139°F. The mass of wax precipitated

was observed to be increasing as the temperature further decrease. The figure was plotted by

multiflash software.
Figure 4.2 Wax Precipitation Curve for the crude sample at different pressure

The wax appearance temperature was 49.784ºC at 100psig. This was calculated in multiflash

using the Cross Polar Microscopy method which assumed that a minimum of 0.045% mass of

wax must be present in order to calculate the wax appearance temperature. The amounts of wax

precipitated at temperatures below the WAT is significant, and the wax phase boundary

predicted shows that at any given pressures and temperatures below the WAT the system is

within the risk area of wax deposition. The same WAT value was observed as the pressure

increased from 10 psig to 200 psig, which implies that the WAT of the crude oil sample was only

affected by temperature change. This behavior could be due to the highly waxy nature of the

crude oil, and perhaps the amount of the dissolved gas presence is relatively small.

4.3 Distribution of SCN in the waxy crude

The single carbon number (SCN) distribution provides information regarding the total amount of

hydrocarbon components in the crude oil, including both n-paraffins and non-n-paraffins. For a
typical crude oil, only n-paraffins precipitate, whereas, the non-paraffins does not due to their

higher melting point than the n-paraffin component. Figure 4.3 shows a comparison between the

calculated single carbon number (SCN) distribution in crude oil sample by multiflash and the

experimental results. The experimental results were sparsely distributed around the experimental

result with a little agreement.

Figure 4.3: Single carbon number (SCN) distribution of the crude oil sample and the

experimental data

For the flowline wax deposition modelling in OLGA, the RRR wax model is preferred to the

Matzain model because it produces a consistent increase of the continuous estimate of the wax

build-up over integration of time for multicomponent mixtures. The trend prediction from the

Matzain model gave a much higher prediction of wax thickness than that predicted by the RRR
model. A simulation verification to confirm the over prediction of the Matzain model was carried

out on the oil with verification result shown by the profile plots of Figure 4.4. The over

prediction of the wax deposit thickness of the Matzain model is attributed to incorporate

deposition enhancing coefficients introduced into the Matzain correlations. This enhancement

coefficient is believed to account for other wax deposition enhancing mechanism, which the

diffusion coefficient and the shear dispersion coefficient could not validate.

As shown in figure 4.4, a high deposit thickness was observed as predicted by the Matzain model

with a value of 3.80957mm at 1198.8m (red line) and 0.870068mm for the RRR model at

737.601m (black line).

Figure 4.4: Thickness of wax layer deposited at wall as predicted by Matzain and RRR

model
Figure 4.5 shows the comparison between fluid temperatures calculated by RRR model with

Matzain model. The outlet temperature for the Matzain model is 40.8302°C and 40.837°C for the

RRR model. The temperature of the fluid keeps on decreasing due to the heat loss to the

surrounding. Although, there is slightly different temperature especially for both models, but it

still proves that the temperature decreasing along the pipeline. The trend shows that the

temperature decreases faster along the length of the pipeline from the inlet to the outlet.

Figure 4.5: Temperature profile plot

Figure 4.6 is a profile plot of the flow regime. As seen from the figure, no separation was

observed between the flow regimes as predicted by the Matzain and RRR model. The flow

regime is 1 meaning stratified flow. Stratified flow deposit wax crystals on the lower section of

the pipe with a decreasing thickness from the bottom to upward positions. This decreasing
behavior is produced due to higher heat transfer rates in the bottom of the pipeline rather than in

upward points. Stratified flow also present soft deposits at the bottom of the pipe and harder ones

on the phase interface.

Figure 4.6: profile plot of flow regime for RRR and Matzain after 100days

Figure 4.7 is a profile plot of wax mass precipitation rate. From the figure, it can observe that the

wax mass precitation rate predicted by the Matzain model (red line) was lower than that

predicted by the RRR model (black line) with a value of 0.36082kg/s and 0.346767kg/s for the

RRR and Matzain models respectively. At the outlet of the pipeline, a negative wax mass

precipitation rate was observed signifying dissolution.

Figure 4.7: profile plot of wax mass precipitation rate for RRR and Matzain models

Figure 4.8 is a pressure profile plot. As shown in figure, an inlet pressure of approximately

1370.2psia (red line) is required to ensure the continuous flow of the crude oil when the Matzain

model was used to predict the pressure profile, while an inlet pressure of 1339.53psia (black line)

is required to propagate the same fluid when the RRR model was used to predict the pressure

profile. At the outlet of the pipeline, the pressure is 189.106psia for RRR model (black line) and

189.048psia for the Matzain model (red line). Thus, a total pressure drop of 1,181.52psia

occurred along the pipeline for the Matzain model and 1,150.424psia for the RRR model.
Figure 4.8: Pressure profile plot for RRR and Matzain model

Figure 4.9 is a profile plot of the overall heat transfer coefficient. At the pipeline inlet, a high

heat transfer was observed with a value of 15.7841W/m2-K (black line) for the RRR model and

16.7855W/m2-K (red line) for the Matzain model. This high overall heat transfer results in a

large deposit thickness as can be seen in figure 4.4 with a thickness of 3.80957mm for the

Matzain model and 0.870068mm for the RRR model. A rapid decrease in the overall heat

transfer coefficient was observed starting from the pipeline inlet to the outlet of the pipeline

since most of the wax deposition occurred at the pipeline inlet. Thus was as a result of the high

insulating layer of the wax deposit thickness.

Figure 4.9: Profile plot of the Overall heat transfer coefficient for Matzain and RRR model.

Figure 4.10 is a profile plot of temperature and the wax appearance temperature for the RRR and

Matzain model respectively. As can be seen from the figure, the fluid temperature falls below the

wax appearance temperature right from the inlet of the pipeline with no intersection between the

two plots. The wax appearance temperature predicted by the RRR model was the same with that

predicted by the Matzain model with a value varying between 139.169- 136.534°F from the inlet

to the outlet of the pipeline.

Figure 4.10: Profile plot of the fluid temperature and wax appearance temperature.
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSION

The following conclusions were drawn from the study:

 The RRR wax model is preferred to the Matzain model because it produces a consistent

increase of the continuous estimate of the wax build-up over integration of time for

multicomponent mixtures.

 The trend prediction from the Matzain model gave a much higher prediction of wax

thickness than that predicted by the RRR model. The over prediction of the wax deposit

thickness of the Matzain model is attributed to incorporate deposition enhancing

coefficients introduced into the Matzain correlations.

 A high deposit thickness was observed as predicted by the Matzain model with a value of

3.80957mm at 1198.8m (red line) and 0.870068mm for the RRR model at 737.601m

(black line) in figure 4.4.

 An inlet pressure of approximately 1370.2psia (red line) is required to ensure the

continuous flow of the crude oil when the Matzain model was used to predict the pressure

profile, while an inlet pressure of 1339.53psia (black line) is required to propagate the

same fluid when the RRR model was used to predict the pressure profile.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Below are some recommendations made:

 It is recommended that good field data be used to perform the simulation.

 To gain a very accurate result, an understanding about the wax deposition phenomena is

required.

 Predicting the pigging frequency is very relevant, as it is not enough by only using the

data

needed and performing the simulation, and then getting the result, but a profound

understanding on the wax deposition phenomena in flowing systems is also important.

 The effort to understand the wax deposition behavior must be increased.

 Verification of wax deposition models should be done in order to ensure the selection of

the best model for the prediction and to increase the accuracy of the result.
Appendix 1

Table -4: PT Flash at 20°C and 14.696psi

Componen OVERALL (mol

S/N t fraction)
LIQUID1 (mol fraction) WAX (mol fraction)
1 I8-27 0.257114312 0.261579173 0
2 I28-31 0.078149849 0.079506943 0
3 I32-34 0.048705781 0.049551571 0
4 I35-37 0.03346441 0.034045529 0
5 I38-40 0.023724334 0.024136313 0
6 I41-43 0.016805657 0.017097492 0
7 I44-47 0.01156302 0.011763815 0
8 I48-53 0.007412417 0.007541135 0
9 I54-62 0.004020342 0.004090156 0
10 I63+ 0.001180547 0.001201048 0
11 N8- 9 0.094211227 0.095847231 0
12 N10-12 0.094211227 0.095847231 0
13 N13-15 0.094211227 0.095847231 0
14 N16-19 0.094211227 0.095847231 0
15 N20-23 0.045867955 0.046274546 0.022453892
16 N24-25 0.014218798 0.01377269 0.039908469
17 N26-27 0.009011731 0.007735779 0.082488935
18 N28-29 0.006316355 0.003808727 0.150721093
19 N30-31 0.004593861 0.001428302 0.186886326
20 N32-34 0.00337032 0.000432755 0.17253348
21 N35-37 0.002443181 0.000124355 0.13597547
22 N38-41 0.001709163 3.06E-05 0.098372958
23 N42-45 0.001109288 5.70E-06 0.064660464
24 N46-53 0.000607081 5.40E-07 0.035535473
25 N54+ 0.000178607 7.93E-09 0.010463438
26 Pr 0.02357467 0.02398405 0
27 Ph 0.028013415 0.028499876 0
  Total 1 0.982931129 0.017068871
Appendix 2

Table -4: Phase properties at 20°C and 14.696psi

  OVERALL LIQUID1 WAX

Mw 294.2648437 291.1225623 475.2168306
Z (Fugacity Model) 0.013954614 0.013820187 0.021695772
Density/Vol (lb/ft³) 54.72616031 54.66840255 56.84485032
H (J/mol) -99009.58179 -95953.69639 -274986.3545
S (J/mol/K) -166.9167441 -159.5032212 -593.8332246
G (J/mol) -50077.93826 -49195.32711 -100904.1448
U (J/mol) -99043.59433 -95987.38129 -275039.2351
Viscosity (Pa.s) 0.034357388
Thermal Conductivity (W/m/K) 0.14408561
Cp (J/mol/K) 542.5258824 534.0034031 1033.302929
Cv (J/mol/K) 507.6079295 499.6438445 957.0443223
Compressibility (1/psi) 5.77E-06 5.84E-06 3.49E-06
Expansivity (1/°C) 0.000545107 0.000546279 0.000502109
JT Coefficient (°C/psi) -0.003584303 -0.003604953 -0.002969763
Sound Speed (m/s) 1206.631555 1200.793055 1531.099213
Inter. Tension (N/m)
LIQUID1
WAX      
Appendix 3

Fluid composition after modelling in multiflash

Amount
S/N Component
(mol)
1 I8-27 26.06624894
2 I28-31 7.922831727
3 I32-34 4.937792096
4 I35-37 3.392621882
5 I38-40 2.405172965
6 I41-43 1.703757483
7 I44-47 1.172258982
8 I48-53 0.751470794
9 I54-62 0.407582251
10 I63+ 0.119683873
11 N8- 9 9.551134182
12 N10-12 9.551134182
13 N13-15 9.551134182
14 N16-19 9.551134182
15 N20-23 4.650093257
16 N24-25 1.441501731
17 N26-27 0.913609287
18 N28-29 0.64035205
19 N30-31 0.465725617
20 N32-34 0.341683065
21 N35-37 0.247689658
22 N38-41 0.173274933
23 N42-45 0.112459605
24 N46-53 0.061545916
25 N54+ 0.018107165
26 Pr 2.39
27 Ph 2.84