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