Date post: | 13-Jan-2017 |
Category: |
Engineering |
Upload: | altair |
View: | 730 times |
Download: | 1 times |
1
FEA Based Design Optimization to Mitigate Anchor Cage Impact Damage Risk
Ganesh Nanaware
ATCx Houston, October 2015
Agenda
Introduction
About Baker Hughes
Background
Anchor cage Impact Simulation
Design optimization to Mitigate Impact Risk
Results
Summary
2
Leading supplier of oilfield services, products, technology, and
systems to the worldwide oil and natural gas industry.
Operates globally with approximately 60,000 employees.
Headquarter in Houston, Texas.
$24.55 billion USD in revenue in 2014
About Baker Hughes
3
Background
4
Anchor cage subassembly is a part of overall expandable liner hanger setting tool, operates and moves with considerably high velocity and impacts the other parts of the setting tool when the hydraulic pressure reaches a certain level. This impact load increases the risk of structural damage to other parts of setting tool.
Internal Pressure
Test Observations
5
FEA Simulation – Cage Impact in Air
6
Initial Design : After Impact
7
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.00E+00 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.50E-01 2.00E-01 2.50E-01 3.00E-01
Vel
oci
ty (
foo
t/se
c)
Time
Cage Impact Velocity
Cage Impact Velocity
16.4 foot/sec
About 4 foot/sec rebound
7
FEA Simulation – Cage Impact in Air
8
8
Impact Damage Risk
Plastic Deformation (0.034” to 0.039” radial deformation)
0.012” to 0.14” radial deformation
9
9
Impact Damage Mitigation Plan
Strategy : Add Crush Ring to absorb impact Energy and minimize damage on impacting cage.
Crush Ring
Before Impact
After Impact After Impact
10
10
Crush Ring Design Optimization
Design Optimization
Variables : Material, Diameter, Crush Length, Taper,
Groove Depth, Type of Groove, # of grooves, slot width/taper
11
11
Final Crush Ring Design
Final design proposal was selected based on the impact performance, manufacturing constraints, and easy replacement of crush ring after each field run.
Crush ring Washer
Key
Cap Screw
FEA Simulation – Final Design (Cage Impact in Air)
12
Final Design : After Impact
13
13
Crush Ring Deformation Results
Deformed Min ID= 2.83” (Original Min ID 2.96”)
Deformed Max OD= 4.18” (Original Max OD 4.075”)
Crushed length 0.86” (Original length 1.25”)
14
14
Final Crush Ring Design : Results
Aluminum Crush ring with taper and crush initiator grooves, PTFE Washer
Before Impact After Impact
Plastic strain on Cap screw and key
Plastic strain on cage
Red color shows plastic strain > 2%
Cap Screw
PTFE Washer Key
After Impact
FE Model Size
More than 3 million elements and nodes
Software
Hypermesh and Abaqus/CAE to Pre and Post Processing
Abaqus/Explicit as Simulation Solver
Hardware
High Performance Computing (HPC) to run jobs;
Cores per Analysis job = 16 cores, 16GB RAM Each
Computational wall-clock time per single step analysis job : 24h:25m:13s
Simulation Resource
15
FEA based simulations using Altair HyperWorks and other software’s helped us
to
Identify design limitations, capture anchor cage failure modes
Explore multiple design alternatives for the crush ring design to improve
Optimize the anchor product performance to mitigate the impact damage risk
for the anchor cage subassembly before building costly multiple physical
prototypes
16
Summary
17
Questions ?
ATCx Houston, October 2015