7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
1/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
HAVING A BLAST!
FREUDENBERG
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
SIMULIA UK RUM 2015
Park Royal Hotel, Cheshire
3rd November 2015
Dr. David Win f ield & John Stobbart
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
2/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
Introduction
The Blast Chamber
FEA Simulation Methodology
Material Model Development
Simulation Limitations & Validation
FEA Simulation Results
Conclusions & Future Work
11/9/2015Page 2
Contents
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
3/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/20153
Introduction
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
4/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 4
Project Scope
Introduction
FO> have moved into a larger upgraded facility.
FO> to bring all component qualification programs in-
house for the first time (subsea, topside, onshore,
offshore).
Provision of a bespoke testing program for individual,high profile clients.
Blast chamber and auxiliary support equipment (pumps,
monitors, piping etc); 350,000.
Design a blast chamber to contain 0.2 MJ of energy.
Initial developmental Stage 1 FE simulation of the blast
chamber in conjunction with a physical test program.
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
5/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/20155
The Blast Chamber
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
6/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 6
Construction & Key Features
The Blast Chamber
Disc
Springs
Vertical Steel
Column & BaseConcrete Base
Polyurethane
Dampers
Oak
(120x250 mm)
Pine
(95x250 mm)
L-Frame
Steel Girder
6 mm
Blast
Plate
20 mm
Blast
Plate
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
7/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 7
The Blast Chamber
x 4 x 643,000x 11,250,000
~450 m
3
.because size iseverything!
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
8/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/20158
FEA Simulation Methodology
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
9/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 9
Engineering Hurdles
FEA Simulation Methodology
Difficult to design a blast chamber due to the lackof available
performance data for materials subjected to ballistic tests.
Assumptions made in hand calculations are extremely specific
and do not consider elasto-plastic material properties.
Interaction of components under flexure isdifficult to predict.
Blast chamber design must be conservative. Highsafety factors
are required to account for unexpected events.
0.2 MJ; family car travelling at ~40 mph.
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
10/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 10
.How to get from A to B
FEA Simulation Methodology
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
11/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 11
Sub-modelling Architecture
FEA Simulation Methodology
Series of simple sub-models benchmarkingfactory tests to develop material properties.
Series of less complex sub-models ofinteracting parts with damage and erosion.
Single panel impact on nominal geometry tocheck speed of the solution.
Creation of 3 panel simulation with exactgeometries and component positioning.
Multiple simulation runs consideringprojectile position, mass and velocity.
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
12/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 12
Mesh Discretization
FEA Simulation Methodology
1.02x106
Nodes
795x103
Elements
91 % C3D8R
9 % S4R
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
13/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 13
Boundary Conditions
FEA Simulation Methodology
Friction co-efficient 0.15 on all contacting
surfaces.
Ambient temperature (20C).
Eroding surface contact specified.
Projectile fired 1 m above ground level at panel
center.
1,778 kg @ 15 ms-18.5 kg @ 217 ms-1 0.2 MJ
6in OD 26in OD
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
14/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/201514
Material Model Development
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
15/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 15
Physical Testing vs. FEA; Pine & Oak
3 Point Bend Test Rig
Test; 57 mm, FEA; 61.6 mm, + 8.1 % Test; 173 mm, FEA; 194 mm, + 12.6 %
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
16/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 16
Steel Blast Plates [7]
Ballistic Testing
3D solid plate
19.3 mm thick
19.8 kg projectile
80 ms-1
3D shell plate
26.7 mm thick
19.8 kg projectile
102 ms-1
[7] Health & Safety Executive, Pressure Test Safety; Contract Research Report 168/1998, Department of Chemical Engineering & Chemical Technology and BJS Research.
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
17/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 17
Dampers & Disc Springs
Further Sub-Modelling
4 (spring) beam elements
connecting 2 solid bodies.
k= 250 N/mm.
ASME VIII Div.2 ANNEX 3-D.
Polyurethane 80shoreA
Standard ASTM D412-06a
test methods.
Elastomer material models
developed further by
Freudenberg GmbH to
ensure highly accurate
dynamic response.
Dynamic travel (50 mm)
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
18/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/201518
Simulation Limitations &
Validation
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
19/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 19
Simulation Limitations
Random nature of grain direction and presence of knots in wooden
sleepers means material models are based on average data
obtained from 3 point bend test.
Ballistic testing of steel blast plates benchmarked with limited
available test data (BRL [7]).
Material models for oak, pine and steel are purposefully kept as
simplistic as possible for initial stages of simulation development.
Mass scaling used in very small sections of specific part
geometries to improve overall solution timescale (further
investigation required to assess impact on final solution).
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
20/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 20
Key Features
FEA Validation
DATA
THEORY
FEA
(+/-) %
NOTES
Deflection of
polyurethane
damper
18 mm
9.08 mm
-49 %
Average of 18 dampers around
the steel plate before disc spring
is energized.
Average bolt force 23,125 N 22,347 N -4 %To resist column moment at
maximum deflection
Deflection of column
3.31 mm
7.83 mm
+137 %
Recorded at height 1 m above
ground before disc spring isenergized.
Stress in main
support column
519.7 MPa
373.2 MPa
-28 %
Theory limited to elastic
properties only
Less flexure in dampers than expected.
Greater flexure in steel plate(s).
Hand calculations consider elastic material performance only.
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
21/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/201521
FEA Simulation Results
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
22/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 22
1,778 kg @ 15 ms-1@ Panel
FEA Simulation Results
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
23/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 23
1,778 kg @ 15 ms-1 @ Panel
FEA Simulation Results
Dynamic response of dampers
Compression of disc springs
Flexure of blast plates
Free movement in pine/oak sleepers
Sway in complete panel(s)
Recovery of panel(s)
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
24/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 24
1,778 kg @ 15 ms-1 @ Panel
FEA Simulation Results
FEA Si l i R l
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
25/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 25
1,778 kg @ 15 ms-1 @ Main Column
FEA Simulation Results
FEA Si l ti R lt
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
26/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 26
1,778 kg @ 15 ms-1 @ Main Column
FEA Simulation Results
FEA Si l ti R lt
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
27/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 27
1,778 kg @ 25 ms-1THE SHOW STOPPER!!!
FEA Simulation Results
FEA Si l ti R lt
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
28/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 28
FEA Simulation Results1,778 kg @ 25 ms-1THE SHOW STOPPER!!!
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
29/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/201529
Conclusions & Further Work
C l i
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
30/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 30
Conclusion
Detailed Stage 1 explicit simulation model generated to represent
the impact of a projectile into the walls of a custom blast chamber
design.
Implementation of simplistic and detailed dynamic material models
derived based on physical tests for oak, pine, steel and elastomers.
Blast chamber integrity is maintained up to a total impact energy of
0.2 MJ at multiple impact locations.
Blast chamber can contain a range of projectile geometries and
velocities.
Sacrificial failure of multiple components ensures containment
integrity.
F th W k
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
31/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 31
Further Work
Based on flexure seen from Stage 1 simulation,
additional design changes and reinforcement will be
made.
Factory testing to be scheduled on a mock-up single
panel wall section in the guise of a drop test.
Model developed and correlated further based on the
dynamics of the drop test.
A k l d t
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
32/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
11/9/2015Page 32
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following individuals and companies for their invaluable support
during the project:
Mr. John Stobbart (Technical Director)
Mr. Laurence Marks & Support Team
Abaqus UK Headquarters, CSE
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
33/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield
34/34
OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES
Dr. David Winfield
FEA & CFD Development Engineer, R&D
Freudenberg Oil & Gas Technologies LtdMetal Sealing Solutions - Vector Products
+44(0) 7952 055 963
+44(0) 1639 822 555 ext. 723
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]Top Related