1

PHASE 1 FINAL PRESENTATION: Intelligent BOP RAM Actuation Sensor Systems

11121-5503-01

Emad Andarawis

GE Global Research

Ultra-Deepwater Technology Conference

September 3, 2014

Norris City Center Conference Center

Houston, TX

rpsea.org

2

Team, Working Group and Domain Experts

o Jose Piedras (Project Champion – Total)

o Herve De_Naurois (Total)

o Leonard Childers (BP)

o Greg Gillette, Anthony Spinler (GE Hydril)

o Ed Nieters, Mahadevan Balasubramaniam, Esmaeil Heidari, Yuri Plotnikov,

Chris Wolfe, Steven Klopman, Cheng-Po Chen (GE Global Research)

3

Program Overview

o Phase 1

• Develop sensing system for detecting drill collars, tool joints and other

un-shearable objects in vicinity of BOP rams

• Develop sensor error correction scheme for reliable detection

• Develop sensor integration concept

o Phase 2

• Design and construct and test prototype

o Phase 1 Oct 2013 – July 2014

o Phase 2 July 2014 – July 2016

o POP 33 - months

4

Program Schedule, Milestones and Deliverables

5

Financials

Cost Share current spend:

$63,325

Tech Transfer current spend:

$17,956

6

Envisioned Sensing System

Envisioned Auto-compensated sensing system capable of accurately

performing the measurement in the presence of confounding noise.

7

Program Approach

o Sensing System

• Evaluate applicable sensing technologies including:

Ultrasound, Electromagnetic, RF, Capacitive, X-ray

• Sub-scale/full-scale geometries test bed for sensor down-selection

Critical performance parameters

o Attenuation/coupling through drilling fluid

o Signal/noise versus distance

• Multi-sensor data correlation / auto-compensation approach

Homogeneous sensors

Heterogeneous sensors

o Prototype

• Functional testing in lab-scale test bed

• Functional validation in BOP emulating test bed

• Testing in simulated vibe and temperature environment

8

Sensor Evaluation – X-ray

o Critical Parameters

• Energy level

• Wetted versus un-wetted

• Distance/attenuation

• Integration time

Image Quality Indicator X-ray test setup

9

Sensor Evaluation – X-ray

Drilling mud

Drilling mud + 1

1” steel plate

(BOP body) Drilling mud + 2

1” steel plates

(BOP body)

10

X-ray Sensor Evaluation Summary

Mud Thickness (inches)

X-r

ay c

ou

nts

(sig

na

l le

ve

l –

log s

ca

le)

X-ray attenuation evaluation through oil & water based

mud for wetted and un-wetted source and detector

Un-wetted x-ray not a suitable modality to

measure drill string location.

o Mud is more attenuating than water.

o The WBM and OBM is very similar in

behavior.

o X-ray counts through 2” steel, 19” mud very

low.

o Data taken over 6 second integration

window. Drill string movement during that

time would cause image blurring.

o Challenge with high energy, high-flux

marinized x-ray sources

11

Oscillator Amplitude

& Phase

Detector

Drive coil

Meas. coil

Input Amp.

EM Monitor

2-coil system

Sensor Evaluation – Electromagnetic operation and

detection

Region of

highest

detection

sensitivity

o Critical Parameters

• Wetted versus unwetted.

• Frequency

• Distance

• Losses in magnetic materials

12

Sensor Evaluation – Electromagnetic

Test Setup enables evaluation of pipe diameter and position on measurement

Baseline (no

drill pipe) Smaller

diameter pipe

Larger diameter

pipe (drill collar)

Complex impedance versus pipe

diameter (1-coil test system)

Impedance

Time

Drill Collar BOP Body

EM sensors exhibit sensitivity to diameter

13

Electromagnetic validation tests

Medium frequency

excitation

Low frequency excitation

• Low frequency excitation provides

better signal quality in the presence

of ferromagnetic shield.

• Electromagnetic measurement is

insensitive to presence of drilling mud

Frequency choice is critical to sensor performance

14

EM error sources - Estimation error versus drill pipe

diameter

Uncertainty due to measurement noise increases for larger pipe diameter

Actual pipe diameter

Calc

ula

ted p

ipe d

iam

ete

r

Pipe Diameter

% e

rror

in d

iam

ete

r e

stim

ate

3.5” 9.5”

15

Two-Coil EM Measurement

Joint shift

Pipe position affects EM signal level

16

EM error sources - Estimation error versus drill pipe

position

o Large region with flat signal response: no diameter estimation error

o Signal drop when drill pipe gets close to bop body wall

apparent reduction in pipe diameter

o Error correction needed for accurate

detection of un-shearable pipes

Pipe diameter uncertainty due to signal dependence on pipe position

reduces efficacy of measurement

17

Differential detection- Position Error Correction

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

diff centered

diff-offset

Diffe

ren

tia

l o

utp

ut (V

)

Position (inches)

Tx Rx1 Rx2

Differential measurement amplifier pipe diameter changes,

reduces effect of position error

18

EM Characterization - Summary

Config. Single Element sensor 2-element

Wheatstone

bridge

2-element Drive-

Receive

3-element

Differential-

Receive

Baseline Air High High High High

Wetted sensor Med Med High High

Un-wetted sensors Low Low Med Med

Coils Embedded in

BOP body

No detection

Error due to pipe

movement

High Med Med Low

Differential receive wetted sensor configuration capable of accurate

pipe diameter detection

19

Sensor Evaluation -- Ultrasound

Steel plate positioned at

various distances from

transducer.

Mixing motor to stir up

mud and prevent settling.

o Critical parameters

• Mechanical Coupling

• Wetted versus unwetted

• Frequency

• Distance

20

Ultrasound Signal, low frequency probe

Blue: ~12” of Oil Based Mud

Red: ~9” of Oil Based Mud

0 2 4 6 8

x 10-4

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Volt

s

time (seconds)

Received signals

9” echo 12” echo

Acceptable Signal-to-Noise ratio achieved

with one-way distance of 10+”

Transducer ring-down

21

Ultrasound signal versus distance to pipe

5” distance

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

x 10-3

-0.5

0

0.5

Volts

Time (s)

6” distance

7” distance

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

x 10-3

-0.5

0

0.5

Volts

Time (s)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

x 10-3

-0.5

0

0.5Vo

lts

Time (s)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

x 10-3

-0.5

0

0.5

Volts

Time (s)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

x 10-3

-0.5

0

0.5

Volts

Time (s)

8” distance

9” distance

22

Ultrasound errors due to pipe position

Identical UT sensor time of flight for two

different diameter pipes offset in annulus

Multiple sensor needed to differentiate between

diameter and position changes

23

Ultrasound Modeling Approach

For a given Diameter

At least 2 Sensors needed to determine

Center

For a continuous diameter estimation

At least 3 Sensors essential

• Number of Sensors

• Sensor Parameters

• Width, Cut Off

• Fresnel Zone Vs Far Field Zone

24

UT Sensing Simulation Sample Result (5 Sensors)

Legend for #

Sensors viewing

Pipe Movement space color

coded by # sensors view

9” detection limit, 1” column width, 5 degree divergence

25

Effect of Sensing Distance

Number of sensor views improved by number of

sensor and sensor range

5” detection distance 7” detection distance

9” detection distance 11” detection distance

3 sensors 4 sensors

5 sensors

26

EM Sensor-BOP integration

Wire port

o 3-element differential sensor

o Separate differential and single ended receive chains

o Local signal conditioning for signal demodulation, filtering and thresholding

o Estimated power consumption of sensor system ~2-3Watt @100% duty cycle

27

UT Sensor-BOP integration

o Local, per sensor, time-of-flight signal processing

o Multi-sensor pipe position triangulation and diameter detection

o Estimated power consumption of sensor system ~1 Watt per sensor

@100% duty cycle

Impedance

matching coupler

and protective liner

BOP body

UT Transducer

28

Sensor mechanical integration

UT sensors

EM Sensors

EM wire ports

Protective layer

29

Summary of Sensor Evaluation

EM risks and mitigation

UT risks and mitigation

30

Sensing approach and down-selection summary

• X-ray least promising detection technology for environment

• EM not affected by drilling mud characteristics, but suffers signal

losses due to steel in BOP body

• Error in pipe position can be corrected in 3-coil system

• Drilling mud highly attenuative to ultrasound signals

• Acceptable signals detectable to 10+ inches

• Multiple circumferentially placed transducers capable of localizing

and detecting pipe diameter

• Total sensing system power consumption of <10 watts expected –

reduction of 2-5x possible with duty-cycle control

System combining 5 UT and 3-coil EM sensors provides robust

signal detection and error correction

31

Phase 2 plan:

o Task 7 —Detailed Sensor System Design

• 7.1 — Define sensor configuration and design sensor electronics

• 7.2 — Design signal conditioning and sensor data processing algorithms

and software

• 7.3 — Develop mechanical integration design

o Task 8 — Prototype Construction

• 8.1 — Build sensor prototype

• 8.2 — Develop software for integration with sensor prototype

• 8.3 — Evaluate sensing system manufacturability

o Task 9 — Sensor System Prototype Test

• 9.1 — Design and build test bed

• 9.2 — Perform sensor system functional testing in simulated environment

• 9.3 — Perform mechanical and endurance testing

32

Questions?

"This presentation was prepared with the support of RPSEA under Award

No. 11121-5503-01. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions or other

recommendations expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not

necessarily reflect the views of RPSEA."

33

Contacts

PI:

Emad Andarawis

GE Global Research

andarawis@ge.com

518-387-7791

Project Manager:

Jay Jikich

Sinisha.Jikich@netl.doe.gov

304-285-4320

Technical Coordinator:

Bill Head

Bhead@rpsea.org

281-690-5519

34

Backup

35

Task 7: Detailed Sensor System Design

o Task 7 —Detailed Sensor System Design

• 7.1 — Define sensor configuration and design sensor electronics

Finalize number of sensors, locations, sensing duty cycle and performance

requirements

Validate performance in simulation environment

• 7.2 — Design signal conditioning and sensor data processing algorithms

and software

Develop signal processing algorithms for data analysis, error correction and

noise reduction

Validate algorithm performance using lab and simulated data

• 7.3 — Develop mechanical integration design

Select target BOP for integration

Define components need for integration, including support and sealing.

Analyze mechanical integrity of design

36

Task 8: Prototype Construction

o Task 8 — Prototype Construction

• 8.1 — Build sensor prototype

Construct prototype sensor and electronics

Evaluate subcomponent performance relative to design specifications

• 8.2 — Develop software for integration with sensor prototype

Design and write software required for integrating sensor output into the

BOP software for transmission through MUX cable

• 8.3 — Evaluate sensing system manufacturability

Refine estimates of system costs and reliability

37

Task 9: Sensor System Prototype Test

o Task 9 — Sensor System Prototype Test

• 9.1 — Design and build test bed

Build sensor evaluation test bed with application-relevant materials and geometries

• 9.2 — Perform sensor system functional testing in simulated environment

Test sensing system prototype under simulated well conditions

• 9.3 — Perform mechanical and endurance testing

Evaluate sensor mechanical endurance over vibration, pressure and temperature

cycling

Leverage Hydril Test Facilities

for prototype testing