HTC10 Baker

j2
Copyright 2010 Altair Engineering, Inc. Proprietary and Confidential. All rights reserved.
Risk Analysis of Tubing Design- Integrating DOE and Stochastic Study Into Design Optimization
Guijun Deng, Goang-Ding Shyu Baker Hughes Incorporated Girish Kamthe Altair Engineering, Inc
Slide 1 j2 Dr Curicuta is not listed as an author, but he is presenting?

joreloua, 4/5/2010
Agenda
Introduction to current tubing design program Comparison between Safety Factor Method and Risk Analysis Method An Example of Using Risk Analysis Method 1). Design of Experiments 2). Stochastic Study Summary
Breadth and Depth / Technology Leading Completion Systems
Anim1.h3d
Safety factor j3 Method vs. Risk Analysis Method.

Safety Factor Method 1). It uses conservative elasticitybased theories and minimum yield strength in design 2). It gives the engineer no insight into degree of risk, thus it is impossible to assess the risk-cost balance 3). It is based on failure criterion, not on the uncertainties inherent in loads, geometry, and material. 4). It makes the design engineer change loading or accept small safety factors to fit design specification without knowing the risk he is taking Risk Analysis Method 1). It is based on both mechanical elasticity-based theories and computation of probability and statistics 2). It presents a target of probability of failure of design, thus it enable j4 engineer to assess the risk. 3). All uncertainties inherent in loads, geometry, and material are addressed in calculation. 4). It leads to more rational, better and risk-consistent designs
Slide 5 j3 j4 Factor
joreloua, 4/5/2010
enables the
joreloua, 4/5/2010
Design of Experiments (DOE)

What is DOE? Design of Experiment (DOE) can be defined as a series of tests in which purposeful changes are made to the input variables of a process or system so that the reasons for change in the output responses can be identified and observed. Objectives of DOE study 1). To determine which factors are most influential on the responses. 2). To determine where to set the influential controlled input variables so that: The response is close to the designed nominal value. Variability in output response is small. The effects of the uncontrolled variable are minimized 3). To construct an approximate model that can be used as a surrogate model for the actual computationally intensive solver.
SAMPLE DATA OF TUBING

Tbg/csg size 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 WT T/C LB/FT 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 42.70 46.40 50.10 53.60 57.10 WPE LB/FT 25.66 28.72 31.67 35.48 37.26 42.55 46.32 50.06 53.66 57.24 MIN OD 6.965 6.965 6.965 6.965 6.965 6.965 6.965 6.965 6.965 6.965 MAX OD 7.070 7.070 7.070 7.070 7.070 7.070 7.070 7.070 7.070 7.070 MIN ID 6.187 6.088 5.990 5.892 5.801 5.616 5.481 5.343 5.207 5.068 NOMINAL ID 6.276 6.184 6.094 6.004 5.920 5.750 5.625 5.500 5.376 5.250 MAX ID 6.381 6.293 6.208 6.123 6.043 5.883 5.766 5.647 5.531 5.413 drift DIA 6.151 6.059 5.969 5.879 5.795 5.625 5.500 5.375 5.251 5.125
Table1. Sample Data of API Tubing/CASING

Variables
Thickness Size Ovality Eccentricity Young's Modulus a=3.5" delta=0 (0.362 thick) 30,000,000psi
Nominal
0.362" 7" b=3.5" ID=6.276" 7" B=3.4825" 0 27000,000psi
Variation
ID=5.25" 9" A=3.535" 0.07" 31,000,000psi
Loads Collapse Burst Tension 10,000psi 10,000psi 100,000 lbf 9500 9500 95000 10500 10500 105000
Table2. Variation of Geometry, Material and Loads
CAE Software Tools

Radioss/Optistruct HyperMesh HyperMorph Hyperstudy
Geometrical Parameters (Variables)
a). Size
b). Thickness
c). Eccentricity
d). Ovality
Load Parameters (variables)
Tension
Burst
Collapse
Material Parameters (variables)

Youngs Modulus: Nominal Values 30,000 ksi, and varies from 27,000 ksi to 31,000 ksi Poisson Ratio: Nominal values 0.3, and varies from 0.27 to 0.33
DOE Process 1. Assign design variables 2. Perform nominal run to create response for DOE study 3. Select DOE type for controlled and/or uncontrolled factors (full or fractional factorial) 4. Export the solver input files for the specified runs 5. Solved the above exported files with Radioss 6. Extract the responses for the above solved files 7. Study the main effects, interactions, etc.
Main Effects (all variables)

Stress (psi)
Main Effects (Eccentricity, Ovality, E, and Nu)

Stress (psi)
Main Effects (collapse and burst)

Stress (psi)
Approximations/Regression
Regression is the polynomial expression that relates the response of interest to the factors that were varied.
Linear Regression Model F(x) =a0+a1*x1+a2*x2+error Interaction Regression Model F(x)=a0+ a1*x1+a2*x2+a3*x1*x2+error Quadratic Regression Model (2nd order) F(x)=a0+a1*x1+a2*x2+a3*x1*x2+a4*x1^2+a5*x2^2
3-D Regression Model
The Plot of Analysis of Variance
Stochastic Studies
Stochastic Methods (also called statistical or probabilistic methods) are used to measure uncertainty in any system Steps for Stochastic Studies: 1). Define PDF (Probability Distribution Function) for random variables. 2). Sample the random variable values based on the PDF. 3). Perform simulation/experiments at each of these sampled values of the random variable. 4). The desired result is derived from analysis of the response data from the simulations performed in the above step.
Uncertainties in Tubing Design

Geometry Size, thickness, eccentricity, ovality Material Youngs Modulus, Poisson Ratio Load Burst, collapse
Variables
Thickness Ovality Eccentticity Young's Modulus Poission Ratio
Mean
0.362" (ID) a=3.5", b=0.35 0 30,000,000psi 0.3
Standard deviation
0.02625 0.0175 0.035 15000 0.015
Randomization
Normal distribution Normal distribution Normal distribution Normal distribution Normal distribution Normal distribution Normal distribution
collapse Burst
10,000psi 10,000psi
250 250
Table 3. Randomization of Geometrical, Material and Loads
Stochastic Studies
Stochastic Studies
Stochastic Studies
PDF (Probability Distribution Function) and CDF (Cumulative Distribution Function)
Risk Analysis
Result Comparison Between Two Methods

Probability of Failure vs. Temperature
100 90
Probability of Failure (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
BMS N201
20
Temp(F) 70 200 250 300 350 400

450
Probability of Failure 7 33 44 60 86.5 91
Reliability 93 67 56 40 13.5 9
10
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Teperature (F)
Risk Analysis of 7 26# Tubing to Stand Both 10ksi Burst and Collapse Pressure (BMS N201)
Pass Design Specification with safety factor 1.1 Pass Design Specification with safety factor 1.25
Stress Prediction of 7 26# Tubing to Stand Both10 ksi Burst and Collapse Pressure (BMS N201)
Summary
Risk Analysis Method enables engineers or manager to do risk assessment. Risk Analysis Method takes variation of all design variables into consideration, therefore it is more rational. Risk Analysis method is an iterative process.
Questions?

HTC10 Baker

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HTC10 Baker

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

j2

Slide 1 j2 Dr Curicuta is not listed as an author, but he is presenting?

Breadth and Depth / Technology Leading Completion Systems

Safety factor j3 Method vs. Risk Analysis Method.

Design of Experiments (DOE)

SAMPLE DATA OF TUBING

Table1. Sample Data of API Tubing/CASING

Table2. Variation of Geometry, Material and Loads

CAE Software Tools

Geometrical Parameters (Variables)

Load Parameters (variables)

Material Parameters (variables)

Main Effects (all variables)

Main Effects (Eccentricity, Ovality, E, and Nu)

Main Effects (collapse and burst)

3-D Regression Model

The Plot of Analysis of Variance

Uncertainties in Tubing Design

Table 3. Randomization of Geometrical, Material and Loads

PDF (Probability Distribution Function) and CDF (Cumulative Distribution Function)

Result Comparison Between Two Methods

Probability of Failure (%)

Temp(F) 70 200 250 300 350 400

Probability of Failure 7 33 44 60 86.5 91

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

You might also like