3d flatpack simulations: effect of perforating · 2019-naps-2.1 3d flatpack simulations: effect of...
TRANSCRIPT
3D Flatpack Simulations:Effect of Perforating
2019-NAPS-2.1AUTHORS: G G Craddock, Stuart Wood, Eric Holley, Halliburton.
DALLAS - FORT WORTH. AUGUST 5-6, 2019.
Introduction Problem Definition
Review 2D results (ATCE SPE Paper)
3D Setups Without clamp, without cement Without clamp, cement encased With single clamp With clamp and bar
Results
Damage?
2D comparison?
Discussion
Outline
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
Introduction
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating3
Clamp with arm
Flatpack
Introduction
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating4
•Flatpack is a diagnostic tool measuring temperature and acoustic properties.
•Used in this case with single-sided shooting guns in North America
•Investigate with a Shock Hydro code (CTH from Sandia Laboratory):The shock hydrodynamic computer code is simulation software designed to treat a wide variety of shock wave propagation and material phenomena in one to three spatial dimensions. The Shock Hydro code only considers short-duration shock phenomena up to milliseconds. Long time scale oscillations are better examined by FEA codes.
•Look at Potential Failure Inducing Quantities at Flatpack:• Pressure• Velocity• Acceleration
•Explore Different Configurations in 2D and 3D
•21.0-gram shaped charge, 3-1/8-in. gun, 5-1/2-in. casing
Previous 2D Simulations
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
Baseline Clamp
Cement
Eccentered
90 degree
Note Distortion of encasement
X
Y
Configuration ComparisonsRun 1
Run 2
Run 4
Run 3
Run 5
Previous 2D SimulationsConfiguration Data
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
On Fiber
Sensors
Note Largest PressureFor Eccentered Configuration
Lowest Pressure is for90-degree rotation
Cement is superiorto Clamp
X
Y
Previous 2D Simulations
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
X
Y
SS Tubes
Charge:21g
Runs Eccentered Cement
Encase
ment
Angle (°)
1 yes yes 180
2 yes yes 135
3 yes yes 90
4 yes yes 45
Baseline Case
Run Matrix
Angular Dependence 1 2 3 4
Previous 2D SimulationsAngular Data
AverageAcceleration
Y Acceleration (g)
X Acceleration (g)
Acceleration Magnitude(g)
180 4249 -117.8 4251
135 -922.9 2318 2495
90 82.3 170.9 189.7
45 -1493 -911.6 1749
Pressure
Acceleration
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
90 degrees is the superior angular locationin terms of pressure
90 degrees is the superior angular locationin terms of acceleration
3D Simulations
Setup
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
Fixed Grid
80 cm long
½ volume to save space/compute time
90-degree flatpack location
Look at basic flatpack confinement Free or unconfined Cement End clamp Middle clamp with bar
ShapedCharge
FlatpackNumerical Sensors orTracers
3D Simulations
Runs
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
Cement Encased
Solitary Clamp at End orEnd of Clamp Structure
No Cement or “free” flatpack
Middle Clamp
3D Simulations
Data at 66.5 cm from Charge
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
Smoothed
3D Simulations
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
Data at 36 cm from Charge Smoothed
3D Simulations
Discussion
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
In terms of shock pressure and velocity, cement encasement looks to be superior to clamps
Solitary clamp is only moderately better than a free flatpack: Clamps themselves vibrate Consistent with 2D results
Large swings in the free (no cement) flatpack velocities correspond to the flatpack beginning to “Flap in the wind”
Clamping at one end of the flatpack may be worse than a free flatpack (the “bullwhip” effect)
Middle clamp seems to be the worst solution in terms of shock
3D SimulationsDamage/Failure Parameters: Perpendicular Acceleration Magnitude and Peak Pressure
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
Average
Perpendicular
Acceleration (g)
66.5 cm
Average
Perpendicular
Acceleration (g)
36 cm
Peak
Pressure
(psi)
66.5 cm
Peak
Pressure
(psi)
36 cm
No Cement 35878 39761 504 550
Cement 9813 16552 151 159
End Clamp 64378 23591 486 530
Clamp and Bar 41645 42965 424 541
CTH has no damage models for fibersTesting is needed!
Cement Encasement Superior to Clampsin terms of Pressure and Acceleration
SmoothedSmoothed
3D Simulations
Comparison to 2D
2019-NAPS-2.1 3D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
2D simulation is cylindrical This corresponds to the gun and casing being a “ball” The flatpack is a circular belt around this ball
2D was run adaptively (Adaptive Mesh Refinement) Adaptive on Flatpack Materials
3D run was not adaptive (adaptive runs in progress)
3D run adds physics in the third direction Axial x direction
Comparison shows similar temporal behavior, but 3D simulation has higher values…(being explored)
Conclusions
2019-NAPS-X2.13D Flatpack Simulations: Effect of Perforating
2D results reviewed Cement encasement better than clamp 90-degree location is superior
3D simulation Cement encasement better than clamps Clamps
Mixed results: Single clamp without bar may be better Clamps seem to have significant vibrations
2019-NAPS-2.1AUTHORS: G G Craddock, Stuart Wood, Eric Holley, Halliburton.
DALLAS – FORT WORTH. AUGUST 5-6, 2019. Acknowledgements
Brendon Grove for Graphicsdeveloped on a Previous Project
2019-NAPS-2.1AUTHORS: G G Craddock, Stuart Wood, Eric Holley, Halliburton.
DALLAS - FORT WORTH. AUGUST 5-6, 2019. QUESTIONS? THANK YOU