2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield

7/25/2019 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield

1/34

OIL & GAS TECHNOLOGIES

HAVING A BLAST!

FREUDENBERG


SIMULIA UK RUM 2015

Park Royal Hotel, Cheshire

3rd November 2015

Dr. David Win f ield & John Stobbart


2/34


Introduction

The Blast Chamber

FEA Simulation Methodology

Material Model Development

Simulation Limitations & Validation

FEA Simulation Results

Conclusions & Future Work

11/9/2015Page 2

Contents


3/34


11/9/20153

Introduction


4/34


11/9/2015Page 4

Project Scope

Introduction

FO&GT have moved into a larger upgraded facility.

FO&GT 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.


5/34


11/9/20155

The Blast Chamber


6/34


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


7/34


11/9/2015Page 7

The Blast Chamber

x 4 x 643,000x 11,250,000

~450 m

3

.because size iseverything!


8/34


11/9/20158



9/34


11/9/2015Page 9

Engineering Hurdles


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.


10/34


11/9/2015Page 10

.How to get from A to B



11/34


11/9/2015Page 11

Sub-modelling Architecture


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.


12/34


11/9/2015Page 12

Mesh Discretization


1.02x106

Nodes

795x103

Elements

91 % C3D8R

9 % S4R


13/34


11/9/2015Page 13

Boundary Conditions


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


14/34


11/9/201514

Material Model Development


15/34


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 %


16/34


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.


17/34


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)


18/34


11/9/201518

Simulation Limitations &

Validation


19/34


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).


20/34


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.


21/34


11/9/201521



22/34


11/9/2015Page 22

1,778 kg @ 15 ms-1@ Panel



23/34


11/9/2015Page 23

1,778 kg @ 15 ms-1 @ Panel


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)


24/34


11/9/2015Page 24

1,778 kg @ 15 ms-1 @ Panel


FEA Si l i R l


25/34


11/9/2015Page 25

1,778 kg @ 15 ms-1 @ Main Column


FEA Si l ti R lt


26/34


11/9/2015Page 26

1,778 kg @ 15 ms-1 @ Main Column


FEA Si l ti R lt


27/34


11/9/2015Page 27

1,778 kg @ 25 ms-1THE SHOW STOPPER!!!


FEA Si l ti R lt


28/34


11/9/2015Page 28

FEA Simulation Results1,778 kg @ 25 ms-1THE SHOW STOPPER!!!


29/34


11/9/201529

Conclusions & Further Work

C l i


30/34


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


31/34


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


32/34


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


33/34



34/34


Dr. David Winfield

FEA & CFD Development Engineer, R&D

Freudenberg Oil & Gas Technologies LtdMetal Sealing Solutions - Vector Products

[email protected]

+44(0) 7952 055 963

+44(0) 1639 822 555 ext. 723
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield

Documents

Transcript of 2015 Simulia Uk David Winfield