P17301: LORD Downhole Test Simulator
/public/

Results Matrix

Table of Contents

Analyses A1 & A2 - Validation of Shaker Performance

Date Started:
October 29th, 2016
Date Finished:
December 6th, 2016
Engineering Requirements Met:
No
Executive Summary:
The initial validation of our proposed axial/lateral system linkage consisted of a pair of numerical and computational analysis processes. The first validation generated a state-space model of the system and showed that we can properly transmit vibration loads through the system with minimal back-propagation. It also showed significant resonance which should be measured in the actual system before operation. The second analysis used the provided vibration capabilities of the system to determine the maximum vibration at any load point and vibration frequency. With the system we quoted, we are able to generate the required 50 g vibration at frequencies above 150 Hz and at static loads of less than 1300 pounds. This can be greatly improved by using a set of linear seals that can handle higher linear speeds.
Link to Final Report:
AxLat Analysis (A1A2).pdf

Simulation S1 - Lateral Axial Simulation

Date Started:
January 24th, 2017
Date Finished:
February 4th, 2017
Engineering Requirements Met:
Yes, with redesign
Executive Summary:
In order to determine the static stress properties of the proposed Axial/Lateral transfer linkage, a series of Solidworks models and individual static stress analyses were run. Included are the two most telling models, analyzing the torsional stress applied to the linkage. It was found that the lateral and axial loads were negligible compared to the applied torsional load, so those analyses were not included in this report. It was found that the original design could not withstand more than 1 kip-ft of torsional load, as shown in the second included report. The first included report describes a new design that has been strengthened to be able to withstand the required 50 kip-ft torsional load. Drawings and costs for the new design will be included in the final drawing package. The improved model can meet all static load engineering requirements.
Link to Final Report:
AxLatStaticAnalysis (S1).pdf
Link to individual test reports (including previous design tests):
LateralAxialAxialSimReports.zip

Prototype T1 - Lateral Axial Prototype

Date Started:
February 6th, 2017
Date Finished:
March 22nd, 2017
Engineering Requirements Met:
Yes
Executive Summary:
This test was performed to determine the capabilities of the proposed linkage system and to determine the damping effects of submerging such a system in water. Preliminary results show the capability to drive the system in both lateral and axial vibration at many different frequencies through rubber seals. The expected amplitude ratio between axial and lateral vibration was also noted. The water provided considerable attenuation to the vibration signal, reducing the lateral vibration by a factor of 1.9 and the axial vibration by a factor of 3.5. These values are unlikely to scale to the full facility, but it is likely that the lateral and axial damping will be different from each other.
Link to Final Report:
Lateral Axial Report (T1).pdf

Analysis A3 - Mud Flow Analysis

Date Started:
December 13th, 2016
Date Finished:
December 13th, 2016
Engineering Requirements Met:
Yes
Executive Summary:
A basic flow analysis was performed in order to look at major head loss in the piping system as well as the flow regime. The analysis was performed looking at both the min and max volumetric flow rate requirements, 350 and 800 GPM respectively. The major head loss was calculated to be 0.516 and 3.73 ft for the min and max flow requirements, respectively. At the minimum flow rate requirement the flow is within the laminar regime, but at the maximum requirement it enters into the turbulent regime. The Reynolds number for the min and max flows are 2382 and 5444.
Link to Final Report:
Mud Flow Analysis (A3).pdf

Simulation S2 - Mud Flow Simulation

Date Started:
January 24th, 2017
Date Finished:
April 16th, 2017
Engineering Requirements Met:
Yes
Executive Summary:
The goal of this simulation was to demonstrate the behavior of the drilling mud flowing through the main pressure vessel section of the test rig. Demonstration of the flow through this section included looking at both velocity and pressure profiles throughout the section. Simulations were conducted utilizing both 2D and 3D analysis. Results show the formation of a fully developed velocity profile, typical of traditional pipe flow in both 2D and 3D analysis. Low velocity vortices developed behind the intersection of the two inlet flows as well as in the corners of the tapered section of pipe. Overall, these simulations give a good visualization of the flow behavior within the pressure vessel section of the test rig.
Link to Final Report:
Mud Flow Simulation Report (S2).pdf

Analysis A5 - Torsional Vibration Analysis

Date Started:
December 13th, 2016
Date Finished:
December 13th, 2016
Engineering Requirements Met:
Yes
Executive Summary:
We performed a baseline stress and vibration analysis to determine the static and dynamic behaviors of the torsional application system. We modeled the system using a set of state-space equations and analyzed the system analytically. The cam length was determined to be 12 inches in order to apply the appropriate amount of torque using the linear actuators quoted from Moog.
Link to Final Report:
A5_TorsionalVibAnalysis.xls

Prototype T2 - Torsional Prototype

Date Started:
November 20th, 2016
Date Finished:
April 5th, 2017
Engineering Requirements Met:
Yes
Executive Summary:
The goal of this test was to determine that capability of generating torsional load and vibrating to the unit under test with minimal damping. We designed a simplified engineering system to validate the mechanism of the final design. Various static load and vibration were applied to during the test. Overall the test was a successful proof-of-concept for torsional load and vibration that we have designed.
Link to Final Report:
Torsional Report (T2).pdf

Analysis A6 - Component Heating Analysis

Date Started:
December 13th, 2016
Date Finished:
December 13th, 2016
Engineering Requirements Met:
Yes
Executive Summary:
To ensure proper heating of the part during system start-up, we performed a lumped-capacitance style heating analysis of our system. We assumed uniform temperature, well-mixed air as the heat transfer medium. Lord provided us with information that the part in question could be heated to an appropriate temperature in 5 minutes using a water bath, we compared the heat convection coefficients of air and circulated water to estimate the heating time for our part. Since the heat convection coefficient for circulating air is approximately ten times lower than the convection coefficient for stagnant water, we estimate that our system can heat the part to an appropriate temperature within 1 hour. This is assuming that we can heat the air to a temperature comparable to the water bath used by Lord.
Link to Final Report:
A6_HeatComponentAnalysis.xls

Analysis A7 - Mud Heating Analysis

Date Started:
December 13th, 2016
Date Finished:
December 13th, 2016
Engineering Requirements Met:
Yes
Executive Summary:
A basic heating analysis was performed in order to look at the time required to heat the drilling fluid up to the desire operating temperature. Using the thermal properties of water and a basic closed control volume analysis the time to heat the stored mud to the minimum operating condition of 125°F [51.67°C] is 41 mins. The time to heat the mud to the max operating condition of 250°F [121.11°C] is 13.5 hours. Both of these calculations were performed using a 240 kW immersion heater. Using a 180 kW immersion heater in order to best balance the purchase cost and performance, the heating time for the min operating condition is 55 mins and 18 hours for the maximum operating condition.
Link to Final Report:
Mud Heating Analysis (A7).pdf

Analysis A8 - Piping Analysis

Date Started:
December 13th, 2016
Date Finished:
December 13th, 2016
Engineering Requirements Met:
Yes
Executive Summary:
The thin wall pressure vessel formula was used to analyze the factor of safety of a pipe due to a pressurized liquid flowing through the pipe. Piping was sourced from a manufacturer, and then the thin wall pressure vessel was used to determine which available piping provided the best factor of safety for the given inner diameter, wall thickness and material properties. An upper limit of possible factor of safety was determined based on the piping that could be sourced from off- the-shelf piping. Non off-the-shelf piping was not considered for this project.
Link to Final Report:
Piping Analysis (A8).pdf

Simulation S4 - Pressure Vessel Simulation

Date Started:
February 14th, 2017
Date Finished:
April 16th, 2017
Engineering Requirements Met:
Yes
Executive Summary:
In order to validate the structural integrity of the pressure vessel, a FEA simulation was performed to determine the effects of static stress from the environmental pressure as well as the actuator loads. The FEA simulation results are used to determine recommended wall thicknesses as well as determine the optimal geometry for the pressure vessel. After the simulation was performed at standard operating condition of 20,000 psi, an additional test was done at pressure increased beyond normal operating pressure to 30,000 psi in order to validate the design with a “proof test” as recommended by Lord Corporation. After design iterations, a wall thickness of 8 inches and an inner diameter of 28 inches was chosen. The final factor of safety for the chosen design was determined to be approximately 1.7. The model showed that there are small stress concentrations with a factor of safety of approximately 1.5. However, these stress concentrations account for less than 0.1% of the inner surface of the pressure vessel and are therefore neglected. The final factor of safety for the “proof test” was determined to be approximately 1.15 with similarly neglected stress concentrations of 0.98. Based on the results of these preliminary tests, the wall thickness of the pressure vessel should be at least 8 inches as determined by the “proof test.”
Link to Final Report:
Pressure Vessel Static Analysis (S4).pdf

Home | Planning & Execution | Imagine RIT

Problem Definition | Systems Design | Preliminary Detailed Design | Detailed Design

Build & Test Prep | Subsystem Build & Test | Integrated System Build & Test | Integrated System Build & Test with Customer Demo | Customer Handoff & Final Project Documentation