phase 1 final presentation: intelligent bop ram actuation … · 2018-06-07 · 1 . phase 1 final...

1

PHASE 1 FINAL PRESENTATION: Intelligent BOP RAM Actuation Sensor Systems

11121-5503-01

Emad Andarawis

GE Global Research

Ultra-Deepwater Drilling, Completions and Interventions TAC meeting

June 4, 2014

Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council Boardroom, Sugar Land, TX

rpsea.org

2

Working Group / Domain Experts

o Leonard Childers (BP)

o Herve De_Naurois (Total)

o Greg Gillette, Anthony Spinler (GE Hydril)

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

Task 5 — Develop BOP Ram Sensing and Interface Concept

o 5.1 — Perform sensor evaluation for diameter, thickness, and

location measurement

o 5.2 — Characterize drilling fluids

o 5.3 — Develop sensor signal conditioning and processing concepts

o 5.4 — Evaluate sensing system error sources

o 5.5 — Evaluate multi-sensor data correlation

o 5.6 — Perform sensor system operational reliability and risk

assessment

6

Task 6 — Develop Sensor Integration Concept

o 6.1 — Evaluate mechanical integration of sensor with BOP

o 6.2 — Evaluate software integration of sensor with BOP

o 6.3 — Phase 1 report

7

Phase 2

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

8

Financials

Through May 2nd

Tech Transfer current spend: $10,761

$-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Year 1 Cumulative Baseline/Actual Comparison

Project

Cost

Baseline

Actual

9

Envisioned BOP Sensing System

Envisioned Auto-compensated sensing system capable of accurately performing the measurement in the presence of confounding noise.

10

Program Approach

o Sensing System

• Evaluate applicable sensing technologies including:

Ultrasound

Electromagnetic, RF, Capacitive

Xray

• 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

• Endurance testing in simulated vibe, pressure and temperature environment

11

Sensor Selection

12

Sensor Evaluation testbed

o Initial-subscale sensor evaluation testbeds for sensor down selection

• Sub scale/fullscale geometries

Critical performance parameters

• Sensor down-selection based on

Attenuation/coupling through drilling fluid

Signal/noise versus distance

Achievable measurement resolution/fidelity

13

Sensor Evaluation – X-ray

o Critical Parameters

• Energy level

• Wetted versus unwetted

• Field shaping

• Distance/attenuation

• Integration time

• Transmission vs. backscatter

Image Quality Indicator

X-ray test setup

14

Sensor Evaluation – X-ray

Drilling mud

Drilling mud + 1 1” steel plate (BOP body)

Drilling mud + 2 1” steel plates (BOP body)

15

Sensor Evaluation – X-ray

X-ray attenuation evaluation through oil & water based mud for wetted and unwetted source and detector

Mud Thickness (inches)

X-ra

y co

unts

(si

gnal

leve

l – lo

g sc

ale)

16

X-ray summary

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 These 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

Un-wetted x-ray not a suitable modality to measure drill string location.

17

Sensor Evaluation – Electromagnetic

o Critical Parameters

• Wetted versus unwetted.

• Field shaping

• Frequency

• Distance

• Losses in magnetic materials / Distance of sensor from BOP body

• Power

18

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)

Impe

danc

e Time

Drill Collar BOP Body

19

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

20

Electromagnetic validation tests

1. Measurement in air 2. With tool joint 3. Measurement in drilling mud

Medium frequency excitation

Low frequency excitation

• Low frequency excitation provides better signal quiality in the presence of ferromagnetic shield.

• Electromagnetic measurement is insensitive to presence of drilling mud

21

Two-Coil EM Measurement

Sig

nal

leve

l V

Signal Magnitude for tool joint passing in vecinity of sensor

22

EM error sources - Estimation error versus drill pipe diameter

Uncertainty due to measurement noise increases for larger pipe diameter

Actual pipe diameter

Cal

cula

ted

pipe

dia

met

er

Pipe Diameter %

err

or in

dia

met

er e

stim

ate

3.5” 9.5”

23

Two-Coil EM Measurement

24

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

Uncertainty due to signal dependence on pipe position

25

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

Diff

eren

tial o

utpu

t (V)

Position (inches)

Tx Rx1 Rx2

26

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

27

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

28

Sensor Evaluation -- Ultrasound

o Critical parameters

• Mechanical Coupling

• Wetted versus unwetted

• Frequency

• Ring-down

• Distance

• Placement

29

Setup

Steel plate positioned at various distances from transducer.

Mixing motor to stir up mud and prevent settling.

30

Ultrasound Signal, low freq 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

31

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

32

Ultrasound Modeling Approach

Discretized Approach, Random Sampling Track Surface, Length, Coordinates Assign Signal Strength Integrate over visible/exposed region for overall effect

• Estimate the Center of the Pipe • Estimate Diameter

• How many Sensors ? (3 Vs 4 Vs 5) • Sensor Parameters

• Width, Cut Off • Fresnel Zone Vs Far Field Zone

For a given Diameter At least 2 Sensors needed to determine Center For a continuous diameter estimation At least 3 Sensors essential

33

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

34

Effect of Detection Width

# Sensor Views improved by Sensor Width

0.5” detection column width 1” detection column width

2” detection column width

35

Effect of Sensing Distance

# Sensor Views improved by Sensor Threshold

5” detection distance 7” detection distance

9” detection distance 11” detection distance

36

Effect of # Sensors on detection region

Sensor Count improves quality of diameter inference

37

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

38

Sensor mechanical integration

UT sensors

EM Sensors

EM wire ports

Protective layer

39

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 ultrasound and 3-coil EM sensors provides robust signal detection and error correction

40

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

41

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

42

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

43

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

44

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."

45

Contacts

PI: Emad Andarawis

GE Global Research

andarawis@ge.com

518-387-7791

RPSEA PM: Donald Richardson

drichardson@rpsea.org

281-690-5514