association of well head equipment manufacturers …awhem.org/pdfs/awhem meeting september...

of 3

ASSOCIATION OF WELL HEAD EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS

POST OFFICE BOX 1166 BELLAIRE, TEXAS 77401

AWHEM Meeting Minutes

1. Introduction and Sign in: The meeting was called to order by Roy Benefield, AWHEM President. A sign in sheet was

circulated and each person identified themself. (Attachment 1) 2. Proof of Proper Meeting Notice:

Submitted by Dean Broughton, Executive Secretary. 3. New Members Report Recognition of new members “Valveworks USA” did not show.

Vote process – must have simple majority quorum for a valid vote (needed 16 votes). Must have 2/3 of votes “yes” to pass. “All-Pro Fasteners” and “Integrated Equipment, Inc.” did not pass.

4. Approval of June 2013 Minutes: Motion was made and carried for the approval of the June, 2013 minutes.

5. Old Business:

• Request for a presentation of Load Indicating Fasteners by Valley Forge & Bolting. (Roy Benefield will reject the request.)

• Ashley George will research load indicating processes and present at December

2013 meeting. 6. President’s Report: The president’s report was given by Roy Benefield. Officers elected to give Executive Secretary

15% raise. 7. Financial Report: Schwab is late with statements, so there is not a report this meeting. 8. AWHEM Task Group Reports:

• VR Plugs – Jean Brunges reported for Bob Barnett. One 4” HP plug has been made for testing (now underway). No report available yet.

• 15K Flanges – Reported by Chris Heitman and Raouf Naguib. o Woodco built flange per API (HPHT requirements). Raouf Naguib to send out

report. (Attachment 2) • Galling of ring gaskets – Reported by Eric. No report at this time. Eric Wehner will

assemble a group for discussion. • International AWHEM Committee – Reported by Gary Hurta. Gary Hurta not in

of 3

attendance (no report). o Roy Benefield asked that anyone with suggestions contact Gary Hurta. Task

Group Members discuss to worldwide registration/protection of AWHEM name.

9. API Sub Committee Reports

• SC6 Subcommittee of Valves & Wellhead Equipment – Reported by Lester Burgess (Attachment 3)

• SC16 Drilling Well Control Equipment – Tom Lambert not in attendance (no report). • SC16c Choke & Kill Equipment – Reported by Eric Wehner. Under major rewrite;

not shure if rewrite will make it to ballot this year. • SC17 Subcommittee on Subsea Production Equipment – Gary Hurta not in

attendance (no report). • SC18 Subcommittee on Quality – Reported by Rauof Naguib.

(Attachment 4)

o Q1 Report. o Q 2 under rewrite and beta Testing

• SC19 Completion Equipment – Reported by Bill White (Attachment 5) Met in Washington in June 2013.

• SC 20 Subcommittee on Supply Chain Management – Reported by Eric Wehner (Attachment 6) Met in Washington in June 2013.

o 20A Castings – Addendum 1 balloted. o 20B Open die forge – Published in April 2013. License form completed. o 20C Closed die forge o 20D NDE Services – Published last week. o 20E Published and License applications being taken. o 20G Quality of Welding Suppliers – no meetings yet. o 20H Heat Treat Services (Batch type) o 20J Material Supply Distribution (Stockests) o Individual Inspection Services. 3rd Party Inspection (no meetings yet) o Future Standards

Non-metallic seals Super-duplex (to replace Norsok) F22 consolidated specification

o Next meeting – January 2014 – Addison, Texas

• SC8/TG5 – Hammer Unions. Reported by Ashley George (Attachment 7)

o Dimensions finalized. 4-6 weeks to complete. Testing by Stress Engineering.

10. API CSOEM & Usage Report – Presented by Gary Hurta - Gary not in attendance.

of 3

11. Northsea Committee Report – Presented by Jean Brunjes May meeting minutes finally received.

(Attachment 8)

12. New Business

• Clarification of Gates & Seats welding table/NDE o API SC6a (20th Edit) Appendix F. o Would AWHEM support the test data? o This would have significant impact on AWHEM members. o Considerable discussion. Roy Benefield suggested that we wait until API

completes the document, then we review and comment. • Request from outside entity to allow their use of a link to AWHEM website.

o Roy Benfield will state that we cannot prohibit this, if it’s not represented as our endorsement.

• Dean Broughton asked whether AWHEM should be represented on and liaison with other industry groups (API/ASTM/ASME/etc).

• Bill White asked about AWHEM members reporting to API SC’s and others. • Rauof Naguib agreed to organize and track a list of liaisons for each outside

organization or API SC. • Roy Benefield requested volunteers for 2014 Offices nominating committee: Dean

Broughton/Tom Lambert/Jean Brunges volunteered. 13. Cal l for “New Business”

• Rauof Naguib – U of H endowment increase with excess AWHEM funds. Suggested that we put restrictions on candidates: Engineering Majors, O&G, Manufacturing, undergrad. Roy will put on the agenda for December 2013 meeting.

• Eric Wehner presented an ABS letter; subject, valves and well control equipment. Regarding 16C revision ABS Guide requires compliance with new revision.

(Attachment 8) • Dean Broughton reviewed bylaws following recent votes. Requirements (2 years in

business/ must be a manufacturer). Later requirement for vote-in is required. Should we combine all requirements into one section (relocate in bylaws)? o Ashley made motion: Add to application that: must be in manufacturing, in

business for two years and voted in by majority of members. o Dean Broughton made motion: Revise bylaws to have all three membership

requirements put in one place. • Roy Benefield called for vote to change bylaws. No’s carried. ??? • Roy Benefield called for vote to add member applicant requirements to application

form. Motion Passed. • Lester Burgess informed of some ASTM information:

o A320 – CVN subsize specimens requirements are arbitrary. Under examination.

o A370 – Use of portable hardness units o A751 – chemical analysis – to make allowance for PMI, but not as analytical

device. Motion to Table

14. Motion made, seconded, and carried to adjourn. Next meeting December 10, 2013.

Report to AWHEM on Activities of Swivel Flanges and SC8-TG5 By: Raouf Naguib

- API 15K Swivel Flanges o Woodco successfully designed and manufactured a 4-1/16” 15,000 psi Swivel Flange

Design and Manufacture to API 6A, PSL-3 requirements. Review in process of API High-Pressure High-Temperature (HPHT) Design Guidelines, API Technical Report 17TR8 – draft.

Review in process of API Protocol for Verification and Validation of High-pressure High-temperature Equipment, API Technical Report 1PER15K-1.

Individual needed to chair committee and volunteers needed to carry out the activities to standardize larger Swivel Flanges and Higher Pressure Swivel Flanges based on newly created API Technical Reports.

Attached work done to date.

- API SC8/TG5 o Dimensions have been finalized for Hammer Union, male, female, nut, and retainer

segments. o Stress Engineering has been contracted to carry out the stress analysis on hammer unions. o Expected date of completion for stress analysis is 4-6 weeks. o Dimensional section to be incorporated into final draft standard upon completion of stress

analysis. o Issues still exists with regards to monogramming and marking of hammer union components.

1 Chris Heitman – WOODCO USA – [email protected], 713-672-9491



AWHEM Task Group for the Standardization of API 17D larger size 5,000 and 10,000 psi Swivel Flanges and

newly established 15,000 PSI Swivel Flanges

June 2013




AWHEM Task Group for the Standardization of API 17D larger size 5,000 and 10,000 psi Swivel Flanges and

newly established 15,000 PSI Swivel Flanges

TABLE OF CONTENTS


1.0 Summary of Work Done to Date: The work to establish API 17D Swivel Flanges was begun in the 1980’s in a Joint Industry Project (JIP) study

sponsored by eight companies. The document created from this work can be found in API RESEARCH REPORT -

PROJECT #86-21 CAPABILITIES OF API FLANGES UNDER COMBINATION OF LOADING. The work resulted in a

finding that 10,000 PSI flanges failed to meet the design pressure requirements and that the previous finite element

analysis work, done for API, had modeling assumption errors. In 1990 Cooper Oil Tools, acquired by Cameron

continued the work of the JIP to define the load carrying capacity of the API Swivel Flanges with the design fixes in

place. The document created from this work is available in API RESEARCH REPORT - PROJECT #90-63

CAPABILITIES OF SWIVEL FLANGES UNDER COMBINATIONS OF LOADING. This document established Swivel

Flange dimensions for nominal size flanges 1-13/16” through 13-5/8” in pressure ratings of 5,000 PSI and 10,000 PSI.

An extensive analysis was performed on all flanges through finite element analysis methods combined with laboratory

testing for 2-1/16”, 7-1/16”, and 11” 10,000 PSI Swivel Flanges.

2.0 Purpose

The purpose of this study is to establish larger size Swivel Flanges for 5,000 and 10,000 PSI pressure ratings and to

establish 15,000 PSI swivel flanges in the range of 1-13/16” to 18-3/4” based upon the requirements of API

Specifications 6A, 16A, and 17D. This ultimate result is for these sizes of swivel flanges to be incorporated in API

Specification 17D, Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems-Subsea Wellhead and Tree Equipment.

3.0 Swivel Flange Design The Swivel Flange assembly is an alteration of the standard flange designated in API Specification 6A. The flange

consists of a hub and swivel ring to allow for bolt hole alignment by rotating the swivel ring around the hub. This

design makes alignment much more convenient than with the standard flange, which is especially useful in subsea

applications.

The Hub component utilizes a standard BX ring groove and maintains the 25° tapered shoulder in API Specification

16A. In order to maintain uniformity in design the following criteria was adhered to in first establishing dimensions for

the preliminary designed swivel flanges.

16-3/4”, 18-3/4”, & 21-1/4” 5,000 PSI Swivel Flanges

16-3/4”, 18-3/4”, & 21-1/4” 10,000 PSI Swivel Flanges

• Flange OD remains same as that of API Specification 6A Standard Flange

• Swivel Ring thickness held as 1.3 times the thickness of API Specification 6A Standard Flange

• Hub thickness held in line with that of API Specification 16A with the exception of 16-3/4” 5,000 PSI

Hub which was taken from the thickness of the 13-5/8” 10,000 PSI API 16A Hub and the

18-3/4” 5,000 PSI Hub which was taken from the thickness of the 16-3/4” 10,000 PSI 16A Hub

• Depth of Large ID Recess on Swivel Flange Ring was maintained to provide 3/16” Standoff from Hub

Face to Face of Swivel Flange Ring

• Clearance maintained at 1/16” between OD of Hub and Large ID Recess on Swivel Flange Ring as

well as on Hub Neck OD and Small Swivel Flange Ring ID


• Retainer Ring Groove Radius held as .188 in line with larger Swivel Flanges in API Specification 17D

• Neck of Hub was derived by taking the Standard API Specification 6A Flange Neck Diameter and

subtracting two times the retainer ring groove radius, allowing for nut and wrench clearance.

• Hub OD was derived by the following method:

16-3/4”, 18-3/4”, & 21-1/4” 5,000 psi flanges

Hub OD = B.C. Dia. – (B.H. Dia. + 1 +0.062)

Establishing ½” wall between bolt hole and large ID of recess on Swivel Flange Ring

16-3/4”, 18-3/4”, & 21-1/4” 10,000 psi flanges

Hub OD = B.C. Dia. – (B.H. Dia. + 1.5 +0.062)

Establishing ¾” wall between bolt hole and large ID of recess on Swivel Flange Ring

• Retainer Groove Location was derived by taking the Length of the Swivel Flange Ring and adding

3/16” for standoff from Hub Face and 2 times the retainer groove radius

• Length of Hub Neck was derived by adding the Length of the Swivel Flange Ring, 3/16” standoff from

Hub Face and 5 times the retainer groove radius

1-13/16”, 2-1/16”, 2-9/16”, 3-1/16”, 4-1/16”, 5-1/8”, 7-1/16”, 9”, 11”, 13-5/8”, & 18-3/4” 15,000 PSI

Swivel Flanges

• Flange OD remains same as that of API Specification 6A Standard Flange

• Swivel Ring thickness increased to1.5 times the thickness of API Specification 6A Standard Flange

and rounded up to the nearest ¼”

• Hub thickness held in line with that of API Specification 16A with the exception of 9” 15,000 PSI Hub

which was taken from the average of the 7-1/16” 15,000 PSI Hub and 11” 15,000 PSI Hub

• Depth of Large ID Recess on Swivel Flange Ring was maintained to provide 3/16” Standoff from Hub

Face to Face of Swivel Flange Ring

• Clearance maintained at 1/16” between OD of Hub and Large ID Recess on Swivel Flange Ring as

well as on Hub Neck OD and Small Swivel Flange Ring ID

• Retainer Ring Groove Radius held as .125 in. for smaller flanges and .188 in. for larger flanges

• Neck of Hub was derived by taking the Standard API Specification 6A Flange Neck Diameter and

subtracting two times the retainer ring groove radius, allowing for nut and wrench clearance

• Hub OD was derived by the following method:

1-13/16”, 2-1/16”, & 2-9/16” 15,000 psi flanges


Establishing ¼” wall between bolt hole and large ID of recess on Swivel Flange Ring

3-1/16”, 4-1/16”, & 5-1/8” 15,000 psi flanges


Establishing 3/8” wall between bolt hole and large ID of recess on Swivel Flange Ring

7-1/16” & 9” 15,000 psi flanges

Hub OD = B.C. Dia. – (B.H. Dia. + 1 +0.062)

Establishing ½” wall between bolt hole and large ID of recess on Swivel Flange Ring


11”, 13-5/8”, & 18-3/4” 15,000 psi flanges


Establishing 1 ½” wall between bolt hole and large ID of recess on Swivel Flange Ring

• Retainer Groove Location was derived by taking the Length of the Swivel Flange Ring and adding

3/16” for standoff from Hub Face and 2 times the retainer groove radius

• Length of Hub Neck was derived by adding the Length of the Swivel Flange Ring, 3/16” standoff from

Hub Face and 5 times the retainer groove radius

-

Figure – Hub and bore dimensions for type 17SV flanges for 5,000 psi (34.5 MPa), 10,000 psi (69 MPa), and 15,000 psi (103.5 MPa) rated working pressure


Huba and bore dimensions – 5,000 psi (34.5 MPa)

Nominal size and bore

Outside diameter

Total Thickness

Large diameter of neck Length of neck Groove location Retainer groove

radius Ring

gasket no.

OD T J L M GR BX

in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm in mm

16 3/4 425 23.558 598 2.309 58.7 21.880 556 7.918 201 7.354 187 0.188 5 162

18 3/4 476 28.438 722 3.005 76.3 26.560 675 9.907 252 9.343 237 0.188 5 163

21 1/4 540 31.698 805 3.630 92.2 29.880 759 10.674 271 10.110 257 0.188 5 165 a Hub material strength shall be equal to or greater than 75 000 psi (517.1 MPa).

Huba and bore dimensions – 10,000 psi (69 MPa)


Outside diameter

Total Thickness


radius Ring

gasket no.

OD T J L M GR BX


16 3/4 425 27.498 699 3.005 76.3 25.434 646 9.578 243 9.014 229 0.188 5 162

18 3/4 476 32.998 838 3.630 92.2 29.244 743 12.386 315 11.822 300 0.188 5 163

21 1/4 540 36.568 929 4.005 102 33.004 838 13.322 338 12.758 324 0.188 5 165 a Hub material strength shall be equal to or greater than 75 000 psi (517.1 MPa).

Huba and bore dimensions – 15,000 psi (69 MPa)


Outside diameter

Total Thickness


radius Ring

gasket no.

OD T J L M GR BX


1 13/16 46 4.748 121 1.166 29.6 3.590 91 3.563 91 3.188 81 0.125 3 151

2 1/16 52 5.318 135 1.622 41.2 4.130 105 3.813 97 3.438 87 0.125 3 152

2 9/16 65 6.198 157 1.622 41.2 4.810 122 4.063 103 3.688 94 0.125 3 153

3 1/16 78 6.998 178 1.310 33.3 5.810 148 4.563 116 4.188 106 0.125 3 154

4 1/16 103 9.128 232 1.622 41.2 7.440 189 5.313 135 4.938 125 0.125 3 155

5 1/8 130 11.068 281 1.622 41.2 9.370 238 6.563 167 6.188 157 0.125 3 169

7 1/16 179 14.198 361 2.035 51.7 12.434 316 8.128 207 7.564 192 0.188 5 156

9 228 18.688 475 2.172 55.2 16.624 422 9.628 245 9.064 230 0.188 5 157

11 279 24.318 618 2.309 58.7 22.624 575 12.128 308 11.564 294 0.188 5 158

13 5/8 346 26.438 672 3.005 76.3 23.064 586 13.128 334 12.564 319 0.188 5 159

18 3/4 476 35.318 897 4.005 102 31.624 803 16.128 410 15.564 395 0.188 5 164 a Hub material strength shall be equal to or greater than 75 000 psi (517.1 MPa).


Figure – Basic dimensions of rings and bolts for type 17SV flanges for 5,000 psi (34.5 MPa), 10,000 psi (69 MPa), and 15,000 psi (103.5 MPa) rated working pressure

Basic dimensions of ring – 5,000 psi (34.5 MPa)

Nominal size and

bore of hub

Outside diameter of

ringa

Depth of large ID

Large ID of ring

Small ID of ring

Length of ring Chamfer Diameter of

bolt circle Number of bolts

Diameter of bolt holes

ROD RT RJ1 RJ2 RL C BC

in (mm) in (mm) in (mm) in (mm) in (mm) in (mm) in (mm) in (mm) in (mm)

16 3/4 425 30.38 772 2.107 53.5 23.62 600 21.942 557 6.790 173 0.188 5 26.62 676 16 2.00 51

18 3/4 476 35.62 905 2.803 71.2 28.50 724 26.622 676 8.779 223 0.188 5 31.62 803 20 2.12 54

21 1/4 540 39.00 991 3.428 57.1 31.76 807 29.942 761 9.546 243 0.188 5 34.88 886 24 2.12 54 a Ring material strength shall be equal to or greater than 75,000 psi (517.1 MPa).

Basic dimensions of ring – 10,000 psi (69 MPa)

Nominal size and

bore of hub

Outside diameter of

ringa

Depth of large ID

Large ID of ring

Small ID of ring






16 3/4 425 34.31 871 2.803 71.2 27.56 700 25.496 622 8.450 215 0.188 5 30.56 776 24 2.00 51

18 3/4 476 40.94 1040 3.428 87.1 33.06 840 29.306 744 11.258 286 0.188 5 36.44 926 24 2.38 61

21 1/4 540 45.00 1143 3.803 96.6 36.63 930 33.066 840 12.194 310 0.188 5 40.25 1022 24 2.62 67 a Ring material strength shall be equal to or greater than 75,000 psi (517.1 MPa).


Basic dimensions of ring – 15,000 psi (103.5 MPa)

Nominal size and bore of

hub

Outside diameter of

ringa

Depth of large ID

Large ID of ring

Small ID of ring






1 13/16 46 8.19 208 0.964 24.5 4.810 122 3.652 93 2.750 70 0.125 3 6.31 160 8 1.00 25.4

2 1/16 52 8.75 222 1.420 36.1 5.380 137 4.192 107 3.000 76 0.125 3 6.88 175 8 1.00 25.4

2 9/16 65 10.00 254 1.420 36.1 6.260 159 4.872 124 3.250 83 0.125 3 7.88 200 8 1.12 28.5

3 1/16 78 11.31 287 1.108 28.1 7.060 179 5.872 149 3.750 95 0.125 3 9.06 230 8 1.25 31.8

4 1/16 103 14.19 360 1.420 36.1 9.190 233 7.502 191 4.500 114 0.125 3 11.44 291 8 1.50 38.1

5 1/8 130 16.50 419 1.420 36.1 11.130 283 9.432 240 5.750 146 0.125 3 13.50 343 12 1.62 41.2

7 1/16 178 19.88 505 1.833 46.6 14.260 362 12.496 317 7.000 178 0.188 5 16.88 429 16 1.62 41.2

9 228 25.50 648 1.970 50.0 18.750 476 16.686 424 8.500 216 0.188 5 21.75 553 16 2.00 50.8

11 279 32.00 813 2.107 53.5 24.380 619 22.686 576 11.000 279 0.188 5 28.00 711 20 2.12 53.9

13 5/8 346 34.88 886 2.803 71.2 26.500 673 23.126 587 12.000 305 0.188 5 30.38 772 20 2.38 60.5

18 3/4 476 45.75 1040 3.803 96.6 35.380 899 31.686 805 15.000 381 0.188 5 40.00 1016 20 3.12 79.3 a Ring material strength shall be equal to or greater than 75,000 psi (517.1 MPa).

API Subcommittee 6 Activities Report for September 2013 AWHEM Meeting Subcommittee 6 met in Washington DC on June 26 and 27, 2013. The “Round Table” held Wednesday morning the 26th. The purpose of the Round Table is to allow time for more informal and detailed discussion of specific subcommittee work items. The regular Subcommittee 6 meeting was held Thursday morning the 27th. Items on Main Agenda (in addition to consideration of Round Table items): Specifications released:

6AV1 - Removed a performance requirement level 1, added new level 3 Ballots: Ballot 2855 – RP 6HT re-ballot - In progress (closed 3/11/13) Ballot 2927 – API 6X, 1st Edition re-ballot - In progress (closed 8/9/13) Ballot 2963 – RP 14H re-ballot – In progress (closed 7/9/13) (forwarded to SC16 and SC17 for comment) Ballot 3028 – Recirculation of API 14H (6AV2) 6th edition (closes 9/27/13) Specifications requiring action in 2013: 14H 6FD Specifications requiring action in 2014: 6D 6A718

6DSS 6FC

Specifications requiring action in 2015” 6A 6HT Tasks Groups / Resource Groups / Liaisons: SC18 – Mike Briggs reported TG1 – Pipeline and Valve Standards – Rick Faircloth reported 6FD reaffirmation 6D revision 6DSS revision TG2 – Wellhead Standards and Corrections – David Zollo reported WG 6A revision WG 14H revision WG 6A VR plugs

Resource Group on Tree and Wellhead – Eric Wehner Information incorporated into Zollo report) Resource Group on Materials (6A718 actions) 6A718 other nickel based CRAs 6A718 additional etchants 6A718 higher strength classes RP6HT – second edition published and now available New Business: API 6A Annex G – de-rating of material at high temperature Joel Russo – data on 660 may be misleading – MMS for API staff to issue errata until material s task group can review basis for data. Items on the Round Table Agenda included the following: Overview of SC20 Specifications to SC6 specifications Lester Burgess / Tom Goin Valve Testing issues in 6A – David Zollo / Eric Wehner 6A Annex F – Normative versus Informative – David Zollo / Eric Wehner Elimination of 316 SS overlay requirements from 6A - David Zolo / Eric Wehner Elimination of PSL1 requirements from 6A – David Zolo / Eric Wehner Update on TR8 HPHT Design – Ken Young Next meeting: February 2014 in Houston 9/10/13 Lester Burgess

API 16C 2nd Edition Comments on draft dated January

2013

Eric Wehner, NOV

23 July 2013

Comment 1: 1 Scope

Proposed change: Delete equipment from list: a) actuated choke & kill manifold valve control lines g) drilling choke control lines, exclusive of BOP… Reasons for change: • Control lines have no requirements in 16C: (7.4.14) “Control lines and fittings for drilling choke actuators shall be in accordance with the manufacturer’s written procedures.”

• Control lines are components, not equipment, and are not listed in scope of 16D or 17F.

• Of 215 API 16C licenses, 8 include (a) and NONE include (g) drilling choke control lines.

Comment 2: 4.1 Service Conditions

Proposed change: Replace: “If severe corrosion, abrasion, temperatures, or high levels of sour gas are expected, the user and manufacturer shall jointly address the requirements and determine the suitable product

for the application.” With: “If severe corrosion, abrasion, temperatures, or high levels of sour gas are expected, it is the responsibility of the user to advise the manufacturer of the requirements and determine the

suitable product for the application.”

Comment 2: 4.1 Service Conditions

Reasons for change: • The manufacturer cannot be required to “jointly

address” requirements with the user, since neither Spec 16C nor the manufacturer can impose requirements on the user.

• “Choosing material class and specific materials for specific conditions is ultimately the responsibility of the purchaser.” (6A clause 4.2.3.2) Manufacturers cannot predict or control operating conditions.

• Well control flow conditions cannot be reasonably or accurately reproduced by the manufacturer for product performance testing.

Comment 3: 4.2 Product Specification

Proposed change: Replace: “The following products have requirements established in API 6A and shall have a minimum of product specification level of PSL 3, Material Class EE or higher…” With: “The following products have requirements established in API 6A and shall have a minimum product specification level of PSL 3, Material Class DD, EE, FF or HH, with an H2S rating of 0.5 psia (3.45 KPa) or higher…”


Reasons for change: • The previous draft had changed both PSL & Material

Class: (1.4.2:) “Products listed in 1.2.2 that have requirements established in API 6A shall have a minimum of product specification level PSL 2, Material Class DD or higher…”

• There is no technical advantage to EE over DD. • It is not sufficient or compliant with 6A to specify

M/C DD, EE, FF or HH without the NACE H2S limit. • “Or higher” does not specify what characteristics

are to be higher. 6A material classes are not intended to be ranked alphabetically.


Reasons for change, continued: • DD can be more suitable for choke & kill system

applications than EE, depending on the SST used: MATERIAL CLASS

BODY/BONNET MATERIAL

STEM MATERIAL

GATE & SEAT MATERIAL

GATE & SEAT COATING

MAXIMUM H2S RATING

MAXIMUM CO2 RATING

DD-NL* 4130 STEEL 718 CRA 4130 STEEL STELLITE 3 NO LIMIT 30 PSIA

EE-0.5 4130 STEEL 17-4PH SST 410 SST STELLITE 3 0.5 PSIA 30 PSIA

COMPARE NO DIFFERENCE

DD-NL* SUPERIOR

NO BENEFIT TO EE-0.5

NO DIFFERENCE

DD-NL* SUPERIOR

NO DIFFERENCE

• The only difference between DD & EE is the base material requirement for stems, gates, seats, & choke trim, and 12-Cr SST offers no real advantage over low alloy steel with similar coatings/overlays.

Comment 4: Table 1: Equipment Bore Sizes and Rated Working Pressure Proposed change: Add to Table 1:

• 5-1/8 (130) 10,000 (69.0) • 5-1/8 (130) 15,000 (103.5)

Reason for change: • Expected future demand for 5-1/8” choke and kill

manifolds. • All 6A components exist, so there is no reason to

exclude 5-1/8” 10-ksi and 15-ksi manifolds.

Comment 5: Table 4: Temperature Rating for Metallic and Nonmetallic Materials and Flexible Lines Proposed change: Delete from Table 4 and Table 9 (Impact testing):

Rating Y: 0 to 650 °F (–18 to 343 °C)

Reason for change: • Temp Class Y is for steam or geothermal service,

and is well beyond both current HT requirements and capabilities for choke and kill systems.

• Limited data on material properties at 650 °F. • For these reasons, Temp Class Y is not in Spec 6A

requirements, only in an informative annex.

Comment 6: Table 4: Temperature Rating for Metallic and Nonmetallic Materials and Flexible Lines Proposed change: Replace (from bottom of Table 4):

“NOTE The use of multiple ratings is permitted.” With:

“NOTE The use of combined or multiple ratings is permitted.”

Reason for change: • A combined rating provides a wider temperature

rating, e.g., P+U = -20 °F to 250 °F. • A multiple rating provides a choice of ratings, e.g.,

P, X = -20 °F to 180 °F or 0 °F to 250 °F.

Comment 7: Table 25: Hydrostatic Test Pressures

Proposed change: Add “(minimum)” to title of Table 25:

Hydrostatic Test Pressures (minimum)

Reason for change: • Test pressure requires some tolerance. • Same change was made to Spec 6A in 20th edition.

Comment 8: 7.5.12 Assembled Manifold

Proposed change: Replace: “The manifold assembly shall be subjected to a hydrostatic test in accordance with 7.5.4 prior to shipment from the assembler’s

facility. …” With: “The manifold assembly shall be subjected to a hydrostatic test in accordance with 7.5.4, except that for manifolds assembled entirely with equipment that, other than loose connectors, has been previously hydrostatically tested, only testing to rated working pressure is necessary. Testing shall be performed prior to shipment from the assembler’s facility. …”

Comment 8: 7.5.12 Assembled Manifold

Reasons for change: • Consistency with Spec 6A requirement for

Christmas trees: Duplicate of wording in 6A Clause 7.4.9.3.4.

• Safety: An assembled manifold is larger than most high-pressure test chambers or pits. It is difficult to bleed all air from an assembled manifold, which can increase the energy stored and thus the risk.

• The test at 1.5 X RWP is to verify structural integrity of the body components, not end connections.

Comment 9: 10.11.4: Temperature Ratings (Hydraulic Drilling Choke Controls)

Proposed change:

Replace: “Components of the choke control system, including power oil shall be capable of functioning as a system at

temperature of -20F (-29C) to 200 F (93.3 C), …” With: “Components of the choke control system, including power oil shall be capable of functioning as a system at temperature of -20F (-29C) to 150 F (66 C), …” .

Comment 9: 10.11.4: Temperature Ratings (Hydraulic Drilling Choke Controls)

Reasons for change: • The maximum temp rating required by 6A & 16C for

hydraulic valve and choke actuators is 150 °F. • Spec 16D specifies that drilling control systems be rated for

either maximum ambient or the maximum operating condition. A list of ambient temperatures is included, and the highest is 140 °F for “tropical” surface use.

• If the ambient temperature at the control panel or manifold is above 150 °F, it will be impossible for personnel to operate either hydraulic or manual valves and chokes.

• The requirement to use hydraulic oil rated for 200 °F rules out some environmentally friendly water-base control fluids.

API 16C 2nd Edition Comments 8/15/2013

Eric Wehner, NOV

Comment 1: Nominal Choke Size

Proposed change:

Marking

Equipment

Articulated Lines Swivel

Joints Unions Rigid Piping

Buffer Chamber

Flexible Choke and Kill Lines Drilling Choke Drilling Choke

Actuators

Choke and Kill Manifold

Assembly

“Spec API 16C” OD Termination OD Nameplate a Nameplate Nameplate

Assembly serial number N/A Termination OD Body and

nameplate Nameplate Nameplate

… … …

Orifice area size c N/A N/A Body and nameplate N/A N/A

a Nameplate marking requirements are satisfied by body marking. b Safety clamp location notation shall be within 3 ft (1 0.9 m) of the end termination or if applicable of the bend stiffener. c In accordance with 10.7.6.

Comment 1: Nominal Choke Size

Reason for change: Align choke size designation for 16C drilling chokes with API 6A and long-standing industry practice.

Comment 2: Drilling Choke Materials

Proposed change: 10.7.11.1 Materials 10.7.11.2 Metallic Materials Materials for bodies, bonnets, plugs, caps, end connections, and parts shall be in accordance with Section 5. Material selection shall conform to API 6A, Material Class EE, FF or HH, with an H2S rating of 1.5 psia (10.34 KPa) or higher. Reasons for change: Add requirements for what types of material are required for drilling chokes.


Proposed change: 4.2 Product Specification The following products shall meet the requirements of API 6A and shall have a minimum product specification level of PSL 3, Material Class DD EE, FF or HH, with an H2S rating of 1.5 psia (10.34 KPa) or higher, and a temperature rating from Table 4 as appropriate for choke and kill system applications: (continued on next slide)


a) check valves; b) production chokes; c) crosses and tees; d) flanged, studded end and outlet connections; e) flow-through valves; e) hubbed end and outlet connections; f) production choke actuators; g) ring gaskets; h) studs and nuts; i) threaded end connections; j) valve actuators. Valves shall meet the requirements of API 6A and shall have a minimum product specification level of PSL 3, material Class DD, EE, FF or HH, with an H2S rating of 1.5 psia (10.34 KPa) or higher, and a temperature rating from Table 4 as appropriate for choke and kill system applications.

Comment 3: Product Specification

Reason for change: Allowance for M/C DD only required for valves. For most components (tees, crosses, flanges, spools…) there is no difference between DD and EE. “Production chokes” is not a term used in 6A; could cause confusion.

Report to AWHEM on Activities of API SC18 on Quality By: Raouf Naguib

SC 18 on Quality met in Washington DC in Jun 2013. The SC has the following Task Groups:

TG2 – (Chair: Austin Freeman)

Charge: To revise Q1 independently of TS29001 while meeting or exceeding the requirements of ISO 9001, the intent of Q1, 8th edition, and maintaining close alignment in structure and language with Q2.

The work is done. The document is published with a one year implementation date. Color code the new edition, and submit the results to TG8 on the development of a guidance document for input in the content of the document.

TG3 – (Chair: Ed Durante)

Charge: To review issues and develop recommendations for improvements to the API Monogram program.

Request assistance from the SC17 chair for volunteers to work on TG3.

TG5 – (Chair: Stacey Hagen) `

Charge: Oversee the development of Spec Q2 - Quality Management Systems for Service Supply Organizations for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries.

Stacy Hagen Took over the chair position. TG finished several beta-test site assessments for various drilling. TG to start performing beta-test assessments on drilling contractors. After the reviews are completed, mock audits will be performed.

TG is charged with Develop language for potential revisions of Spec Q2.

TG6 – (Chair: Bud Weightman)

Charge: To review all API product specifications to cross-functionally identify requirements for welding; the purpose to identify welding criteria to be recommended for use in all product specifications where welding is required.

No activity to report on this TG.

TG7 – (Chair: Gary Devlin)

Charge: To create a life-cycle management system document that provides the means of identifying the continued compliance of product to its original and/or current manufacturing and design requirements and the ability to demonstrate product compliance to original and/or current product standards and industry/product-specific technical and regulatory requirements throughout the product lifecycle.

modified charge of TG7: To create a life-cycle management system document that provides the means of identifying the continued compliance of product to its original and/or current manufacturing and design requirements and the ability to demonstrate product compliance to original and/or current product standards and industry/product-specific technical and regulatory requirements throughout the product lifecycle.

TG8 – (Chair: Kim Wiita)

Charge: To create a document in order to facilitate the use of the new Spec Q1, 9th Edition and to work with API Staff to determine the need for beta-site assessments and/or mock audits based on the new Spec Q1, 9th Edition.

TG started meeting to decide on which way to go and what kind of document to do.

September 10, 2013

API SC19 Well Completion Equipment

API SC19, Well Completion Equipment met June 23, 2013, in Washington DC under chairman Austin

Freeman.. SC19 organizational chart is enclosed.

Summary of TG reports:

19G – Perforating – Mark Brinson

• Progress made toward rewrite with current target of next year for new edition of spec.

• All active API manufacturers will have section 2 or 4 test facilities by the end of this year.

• Charge testing in stressed rock is now fully accepted.

• SC now looking at normalization of test variances among the testers.

ISO 17824 Sandscreens – George Gillespie

• High pressure leak-off testing completed on 74 screens with new pill. Results: Less variability

and higher burst/collapse values

• TG requested two SR3’s: One for testing different gage screens, and one to test metal mesh

screens. The request was approved.

• Target: complete spec rewrite incorporating the new testing by November 2014.

ISO 14998 Completion Accessories – Jeff Lembcke

• FDIS ballot has passed and sent to ISO editors for eventual publication – API back-adoption

could possibly proceed as early as the next SC19 meeting.

• SC19 - motion was made and carried to monitor ISO actions and decide on API action thereafter.

• Interested members should contact Chris Hall and come to the next SC19 meeting prepared to

discuss.

19V Barrier Valves – David McCalvin

• ISO 28781 has been adopted back by API as 19V with a regional annex to correct a few minor

issues and add needed clarification.

19TT1- Downhole Well Test Tools – David McCalvin

• Specification document reported 80% complete (reported 65% complete in January) – completion

still targeted for the end of 2013

• Informative annexes include applications overview and operational recommendations.

• Normative annexes inclusive of: factory acceptance testing, operating envelopes, packer

validation, electrical/electronic requirements.& service center requirements including rental tools.

14A Subsurface Flow Controls – Darren Bane

• Expected to API ballot – fall 2013.

• 14B, led by R. Smith, is expected approximately the same time.

• 14L, Lock Mandrels and Landing Nipples, was reaffirmed, but the group may wish to revisit this

document upon the completion of 14A/B.

19G…. Gas Lift Activities ---- Wayne Maybry

• 19G1 – Side Pocket Mandrels – WG formed

• 19G2 – Flow Control Side Pocket Mandrels – revisions in progress to match Statoil requirements

• 11V5 - Maintenance, Surveillance, Troubleshooting Installations - 2 year extension needed, WG

formed

• 11V6 – Design Continuous Flow – 60% complete (50% complete in Jan 2013)

• 19G8 – Design & Performance Prediction – 45% complete

• 19G9 – Dual Gas Lift Wells – with API for publication

• 19G10 – Intermittent and Chamber Gas-Lift – 90% complete

• 19G11 – Simulation of Gas-Lift Systems – Ballot failed/ requirements too narrow/ to convert to

Technical Report

• 19G12/13/14 – SR3 being drafted for ongoing refinements

• API Book 6 on Gas Lift being turned into a Technical Report - or “Basics” manual --- 3 SR3’s

sent to CSOEM totaling $375K.

Liner Hangers – George Givens

• 3 meetings held thus far

• Considering both conventional and expandable liner hangers

Packers – Rob Hilts

• HPHT validation testing under consideration

• Non-metals requirements under consideration

• Targeting ballot – late 2013

Additional Items of Interest – Roland Goodman

• AISI has alerted new qualities for Oil/Gas steels may be needed by 2025.

• ASTM considering adding material grades modified for the oil and gas industry.

• OGP moving thru two drafts of materials-related standards

• API/ISO/OGP task force reports “little encouragement” to a near term resolution

• SC17 TR8 - guide to implementation of PER 15K-1 in development with other documents

targeted for individual equipment items planned.

A full report of the June meeting may be found at:

http://mycommittees.api.org/standards/ecs/sc19/Meeting%20Minutes/2013/SC19%20Minutes%20-

%20June%202013.pdf

Respectfully submitted,

B. W. White

Austin Freeman, Chair

Wayne Mabry, Vice-Chair

David McCalvin - Secr.

Wayne Mabry

Mark Brinsden

Gaslift Task Group

Perforating Task Group

Rob

Hilts

George Gillespie

Production Packer

Sand Control Screens

Task Group

Task Group

Chris

Hall

Darren Bane

Accessory Eqpmnt

SSSV & SSFC Task Group

Resource Group

David McCalvin

David McCalvin

Barrier Valve Drill Stem Test Tools

Resource Group

Task Group

George Givens

Liner Hanger

Task Group

Enclosure to SC19 report

SC20 REPORT TO AWHEM Sept 10, 2013

API Subcommittee on Supply Chain Management (SC20)

Eric Wehner (NOV), Chair

Jerry Longmire (GE Oil & Gas), Vice-Chair

Most recent meeting

Meeting was held at the E&P Summer Standardization Conference June 26, 2013.

Status of SC 20 Standards

Specification 20A – Carbon Steel, Alloy Steel, Stainless Steel, and Nickel Base Alloy

Castings for Use in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry

Rick Faircloth (Cameron), chair of the 20A Work Group.

Status: The First Edition of Spec. 20A was published March, 2012.

Action since last report: Ballot item was completed to change cleanliness requirement for CSL 3

to report results for information only. One negative vote could not be resolved.

Action pending: Revisions will be balloted for published as Addendum 1; voter will be notified

of appeal methods.

Specification 20B - Open-die-shaped Forgings for Use in the Petroleum and Natural Gas

Industry

Joel Russo (FMC Technologies), chair of the 20B Work Group.

Status: First edition published April, 2013.

Action since last report: Page proofs reviewed and standard published.

Action pending: Develop license information form (license application).

Specification 20C – Closed Die Forgings for use in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry

Gary Kingry, Ellwood Texas Forge Co., volunteered to chair.

Status: Published, first edition, October 2009.

Action since last report: N/A.

Action pending: Form TG and hold kick-off meeting. Goal is to align requirements with 20B and

20A.

Standard 20D - Non-Destructive Examination (NDE) Services for Equipment Manufactured

in accordance with API Product Specification used in the Petroleum and Natural Gas

Industry

Jim Harris (GE Oil & Gas), WG chair.

Status: Published September 6, 2013.

Action pending: Develop license information form.

Specification 20E - Alloy and Carbon Steel Bolting for use in the Petroleum and Natural Gas

Industry

Tom Goin (TSP), WG chair.

Status: The First Edition was published October 1, 2012

Action since last report: Color coding and audit questions developed by API were reviewed.

Specification 20F - Stainless Steel and CRA Bolting for use in the Petroleum and Natural

Gas Industry

Tom Goin (TSP), WG chair.

Status: New work item, standard number changed from 20H to 20F.

Action since last report: Two meetings have been held, June 25 and August 20.

Action pending: Continue development.

Standard 20G - Qualification of welding suppliers

Bud Weightman, SC18 TG chair.

Status: New standard. Has been pending conclusion of SC18 TG6 welding study.

Action since last SC meeting: Work of welding TG of SC18 was completed.

Action pending: Form TG and hold kick-off meeting.

Standard 20H - Heat treatment services

Joel Russo (FMC Technologies), WG chair.

Status: New standard in development. Standard number changed from 20F to 20H. Targeted

publication in Q1 2015.

Action since last report: Two TG meetings have been held. Scope has been defined to be heat

treatment for final material properties.

Action pending: Continue to develop working draft.

New Standards

Standard 20J - Material distributors and suppliers

Des Burnley (Baker Oil Tools), volunteered to chair TG.

Status: New standard approved by SC. Proposed scope to be material stockists supplying

standard-form materials, including forged bar, mechanical tubing, and plate.

Action since last SC meeting: N/A.

Action pending: Form TG and hold kick-off meeting.

Publication number TBA - Individual Certification of Site Inspectors

Phil Klefas (Saudi Aramco), TG chair.

Status: New standard approved by SC. Proposed scope is development of an API training

program, training manual, and exam to certify third-party inspection personnel.

Action since last report: API issued call for volunteers.

Action pending: No report.

Future standards - Still under consideration (and issues):

o Elastomers/Non-metallic Seals (Issue: Chair and subject matter experts needed.)

o Super Duplex (Issue: ISO 17881 & 17882 have been published replacing NORSOK

standards M630 & M650.)

o Modified F22 (Issue: Material specification could be a departure from SC20 scope; project

could belong in Materials Resource Group.)

Future standards - Previously under consideration and resolved to delete from list:

o Test Laboratories (Issue: Multiple certification standards exist.)

o Painting and Coating (Issue: Many user company standards exist; consensus could be

difficult.)

o Electronic component suppliers: (Issue: Chair and subject matter experts needed.)

New Business

Will Vangeertruyden (Exxon-Mobil) presented a possible NWI to develop a specification for

critical forgings in subsea applications. Issues discussed included overlap with JIP work,

resource availability, and narrow industry application. Tabled pending clarification.

Next Meeting

The next meeting of SC20 will be at the E&P Winter Conference on Standardization of Oilfield

Equipment and Materials in Addison, TX, January 20-24, 2014.

Report prepared August 29, 2013 by Eric Wehner

ASSOCIATION OF WELL HEAD

EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS

PO Box 18265, Howe Moss Avenue, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 0UJ

Author: David Thompson. Page 1 of 10 AWHEM NS Mom 15th May 2013 Rev 0 (2).Docx

MINUTES OF MEETING NORTH SEA COMMITTEE

2ND QUARTER

15TH MAY 2013

Tor-Na-Coille

BANCHORY

ABERDEENSHIRE

AWHEM MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Association of Well Head Equipment Manufacturers is to proactively influence value-added standardization of well head and related equipment in a positive, professional manner and to serve as technical consultants to national and international standards bodies.





Agenda 1 HSE Brief and Orientation 09:10

2 Welcome and Apologies 09:15

3 Round the Table introductions 09:15

4 Review Minutes of the Previous Meeting Approval of previous Minutes Review outstanding actions from Previous Minutes University of Aberdeen AWHEM Prize

09:20

5 Treasurer’s report 10:10

6 Chairman’s Correspondence Mail received New Members

10:15

7 Review AWHEM US minutes from Last meeting 10:20

Break for Tea and Coffee 10:20 - 10:45

8 Presentations by James Savage & Dr Simon Leefe - Wilde Analysis

Computational Fluid Dynamics and its uses for Valve Design and Reliability.

10:45

Lunch 12:45 - 13:30

9 Future meetings (Venue & Topics) Wed 21st August - Whitfords, Runcorn.

Manufacturers of Xylan Coatings Wed 20th November – Tor Na Coille, Banchory Wed 19th February - Gateshead Hilton Wed 21st May – Tor Na Coille, Banchory

13:30

10 A.O.B. Xodus Presentation:- Assessing Pipework integrity using CFD

CFD erosion analysis examples – chokes, Xmas trees, flow lines, water & cuttings reinjection

Vibration analysis for subsea Xmas trees, jumpers and manifolds – CFD & FEA





Thermal analysis – Gas injection annulus case, insulation and trapped water/doghouse assessment

Joule Thompson example Cavitation erosion in water injection chokes

Close of Meeting





See Attachment 1 for list of Attendees & Apologies.





Minutes of May 2013 Quarterly Meeting 1 Opening, HSE Brief and Orientation.

Paul Shillito opened the meeting and gave the meeting the HSE briefing for the day, noting the appropriate emergency escape routes and assembly points and advised that there were no expected fire drills that day.

09:10

2 Welcome Paul then welcomed all AWHEM Members to the meeting, before asking if all had signed the attendance sheet and added any further apologies. See Attachment 1 for list of Attendees & Apologies.

09:15

3 Round the Table introductions Each attendee gave a brief introduction for the benefit of the other attendees.

09:15

4 Review of the Previous Meeting Before reviewing the minutes of the previous meeting, Paul Shillito commended Marie Mitchell in her absence for her service and organisation as Association Chair in the previous year and her assistance in planning this year's activities.

a) Review & Approval of previous Minutes Item 4:- APOS Standards. At the previous meeting Ian Hamilton advised some success through Aker channels and Statoil had been asked to issue some formal guidance, but no information has been forthcoming. As Ian had now moved on, there was no update from Aker on any response. John Cullion advised that new Technical Requirements (in TR2XXXX series) documents were being added to Statoil enquiries as mandatory compliance requirements. Archie Fleming also advised that these were also being imposed on bolting. This is a matter of concern, as it appears that Statoil are introducing preferential standards by a back-door method, introducing materials and design requirements through standards presented as limited to work methodology only and contravening the intent of the Norsok & other standards. API. It was agreed that the US committee would be requested to

09:20





Minutes of May 2013 Quarterly Meeting provide early notification of documents for ballot and for copies of any relevant committee minutes or other correspondence to be forwarded to the North Sea Committee via the Secretary. Golf. Several members noted that they had not received the e-mails regarding the golf outing arrangements. All members were again requested to check that their details were up to date on the membership listing. AWHEM Prize. Following review of the initial draft of the agreement, it was agreed that the revised aim met the aims of the Association and that it should now commence in 2014, subject to agreement with the college of some outstanding clarifications Item 6 - Chairman's Correspondence. No comments Item 7 - AWHEM (US) Minutes. No new minutes had been received. Item 9 - AOB:- The Statoil J.I.P. on long term seal performance has currently pulled one tree for inspection of the seals & a follow-up meeting is scheduled for March. Additional trees and other long term subsea equipment from other end-users [BP, Conoco-Phillips] are also being pulled and Alan Bickley is expecting to receive the results of the meeting & inspections and will report back at the next quarterly meeting. Action Alan Bickley. The previous minutes were then proposed as a true & correct record of the meeting by Trevor Smith & seconded by Archie Fleming

b) Review outstanding actions from Previous Minutes See Separate Actions List for Updates. BP Risk Management / Post Macondo presentation. This date of this presentation remains uncertain due to personnel changes in BP.





Minutes of May 2013 Quarterly Meeting See Action List for details.

5 Treasurer’s report. Outstanding Fees Due & Non-Payments for 2011. Due to changes in the office bearers of the association, it would be necessary to change the signatories for the Association's cheques. It was agreed that the new signatory would be David Thompson. As Martin was unable to attend the Action on him to arrange the necessary paperwork remains outstanding. Invoices have been prepared & sent for the members for 2013. Prompt payment was requested from the members & most had now paid. It was noted that the current balance of funds was some £20,140 and whilst this is not a large amount, it remains healthy.

10:10

6 Chairman’s Correspondence Mail received

- No mail had been received and the mailbox service is being allowed to lapse

Membership changes Claxton had made an approach with a view to joining AWHEM, but after an initial exchange of information regarding membership requirements, nothing further has happened. It is thought that they are not suitably qualified for membership as they appeared to have limited design capabilities.

10:15

7 Review minutes from last AWHEM US meeting (if available). No minutes were available at this time.

Break 10:20 - 10:45

10:20

8 Presentation by James Savage & Dr Simon Leech - Wilde Analysis:- Computational Fluid Dynamics and its uses for Valve Design and Reliability. [Attachment 2]

10:45





Minutes of May 2013 Quarterly Meeting The uses and appropriate application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) & Finite Element Analysis (FEA).

Dr. Leefe opened his presentation by stating that CFD and FEA analysis techniques are not a panacea for all problems and cautioned against an absolute belief in the results from any computer analysis, advising that knowledge gained through practical experience was key to identifying incorrect predictions from analyses. He stressed that it was important to remember that these techniques were simulations only, and their predictions were limited by key factors such as:

o The accuracy of the mathematical description of the system being analysed.

o The accuracy of the initial state information o Assumptions made in defining the system boundaries o Unknowns

Dr Leefe added that it was important that anyone assessing or working from information derived through CFD or FEA clearly understood these limitations and applied appropriate safeguards to mitigate for these. Prime among the mitigation strategies is to use selective testing at or around key boundary conditions to verify the predictions of the analyses. Dr. Leefe advised that due to the above, caution be exercised when selecting appropriate tasks for CFD and FEA analyses. CFD he advised was particularly limited in the case of multiphase flow regimes due to the difficulties in modelling the unsteady flow conditions, droplet size, gas solubility & mass transfer rates between phases and as a result, the optimal "safe" use for CFD in this situation is as a "snapshot" only. Similarly, the use of both techniques is very limited in thermal analysis. Finally before proceeding with the slide presentation, Dr. Leefe emphasised the careful selection of situations and systems by experienced personnel, based on previous experience and understanding of the fundamentals of the system being analysed, giving examples of critical considerations [See Attachment 3]





Minutes of May 2013 Quarterly Meeting James Savage then gave a brief presentation on Reliability & Risk, again cautioning on the correct use of data and need for applying intelligence to the results obtained from any analysis. Following a question and answer session, Paul Shillito thanked both speakers for their clear and instructive presentation.

Lunch 12:45 - 13:30

9 Future Meetings:

August Meeting:- It was confirmed that the meeting venue will be Whitfords, manufacturers of Xylan coatings for studs & nuts, based in Runcorn, Cheshire. An invitation with relevant details for attendees will be circulated in the usual manner later in the year. November Meeting:- David Thompson confirmed that Richie Barker had agreed to attend the November meeting to give a presentation on the implementation and adoption of Computed Radiography. Future Meetings: - It now appeared that the next available date for NAMTEC to attend and present on subsea materials & selection would be some time in 2014. However, it was hoped that this might be pulled forward, if suitable people were available to attend the August or November meetings. Paul Shillito to confirm.

13:30

10 Any other business: Presentations:- Considering the topic of today's presentation, it was agreed to accept the offer of a presentation on a similar theme by XODUS, but as a a future presentation for 2014. DNV JIP on Forgings:- John Cullion advised that there was a JIP being proposed by DNV on large forgings for use in producing subsea materials and components. This JIP was to establish & promote best practices and

13:45





Minutes of May 2013 Quarterly Meeting would involve companies based in the US, UK & Norway. John Cullion agreed to represent AWHEM's interests in this JIP. It was anticipated that this would kick off around the 25th of May 2013. Golf Outing:- It was noted that perhaps due to the communications issue mentioned above, only 12 members & guests had attended the golf outing, but the clubs are requiring groups of at least 15 players before offering any discount, and members were urged to attend next year's outing. This year's outing had been won (again) by Ronnie Whyte.

13:50 Close of Meeting

List of Attachments Ref Description 1 Attendees & Apologies 2 Computational Fluid Dynamics and its uses for Valve Design and Reliability 3 Key Considerations for Accuracy in CFD / Reliability & Risk 4 Reliability & Risk Presentation

www.wildeanalysis.co.uk 0161 474 7479 Simulation in the Design of Reliable Equipment

Simulation in the Design of Reliable Equipment

AWHEM Meeting, Aberdeen, May 15th 2013

Dr. Simon Leefe Technical Director, CFD

[email protected]

Simulation in the Design of Reliable Equipment

optimising design by analysis

James Savage Business Development Manager

[email protected]


Who am I?

James Savage BEng (Hons), MBA, CEng, MIMechE

• Reliability Lead • Wilde Analysis Ltd

• Address: Brindley Lodge, Adcroft Street, Stockport, Cheshire, SK1 3HS • Telephone: 0161 474 7470 • Email: [email protected]

• 10+ years in Consulting Engineering, including FEA, Reliability and Manufacturing

• UK Reliability Technical Support and Training

James Savage

mailto:[email protected]


Who am I?

Simon Leefe BA (Oxon), PhD, CEng, FIMechE, AMChemE

• Technical Director, CFD • Wilde Analysis Ltd

• Address: Brindley Lodge, Adcroft Street, Stockport, Cheshire, SK1 3HS • Telephone: 0161 474 7470 • Email: [email protected]

• 30+ years in fluid and solid mechanics, including 15+ years in world-leading fluid sealing R&D group

• 20+ years in consulting, especially computational fluid dynamics • Fluid Dynamics and Multiphysics modelling, simulation and design

guidance

Simon Leefe




Solutions About Wilde Analysis


• Formed in 1980 as Finite Elements Ltd • 1200+ clients, including:

• Member of Wilde Group of 70+ employees • 28 employees directly involved in analysis sales, services & admin (25

are engineers) • ISO 9001:2008 approved QMS • On UK Steering Committee for NAFEMS • Involved with many industry associations

Analysis About Wilde Analysis

../../

http://www.thalesgroup.com/

http://www.luxfer.com/default.asp

http://www.total.co.uk/uk/ukcorporate.nsf/VS_SWIHPG/A946F87757BB47D2C12571560036E831?opendocument

../../

http://www.balfourbeatty.com/bbeatty/

http://www.ukaea.org.uk/index.htm

http://www.burohappold.com/bh/

http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/index.html

http://www.lafarge.com/cgi-bin/lafcom/jsp/home.do?rubric=home&BV_SessionID=@@@@0207748834.1177019458@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccdaddkfkidjfhcfngcfkmdhgfdggf.0

../../

http://www.cummins.com/cmi/index.jsp?siteId=1&langId=1033&newsInfo=true

http://www.volvo.com/volvoaero/global/en-gb/

http://www.baesystems.com/index.htm

http://www.terex.co.uk/index.php


Mission

To optimise the design of our clients’

products & processes by providing ‘best

of class’ analysis solutions

Wilde Analysis Mission Statement


• About you • About Wilde Analysis • Simulation: why, when and what?

– Main focus on fluid-handling applications

• Typical relevant application areas • Brief technical explanation • Illustrative examples • Getting the most out of simulation • Discussion

Analysis Agenda


• What does ‘analysis’ and ‘simulation’ mean to you? • Anybody used CFD or FEA? • How successfully? • How do you see the connection between safety, reliability, design and

analysis? Does this extend beyond control systems? • What role do you see for analysis and simulation?

Analysis About you


Optimise product & process design more efficiently and effectively

Add value • Evaluate options early in design process to save on more expensive design

changes later • Provide insights otherwise unobtainable at reasonable cost, hence steer

design thinking • Replace or reduce physical testing where not possible or cost-effective • Characterise equipment

o understand / improve / optimise performance o use in model of system behaviour

• Inform lifetime estimation

Simulation toolkit • CFD (computational fluid dynamics) • FEA (finite element analysis) • Reliability: various statistical techniques Clearly focussed on design process

Simulation: Why, When and What?

Focus of presentation


Simulation in Process Engineering

Conceptual

Basic eng’g

Detailed eng’g

Commission

Workover and Intervention

Decommission

+ Safety case

Evaluate specific alternatives

Optimise

Troubleshooting Diagnostics

Evaluation: - Downhole tools

- Changed op conds

Compliance

Hazard evaluation

Development studies: - Complex interactions - Understand behaviour

Simulation in the lifecycle

Life extension

Equipment evaluation


Cv values • Minimise losses, maximise flow

System pressure and flow balancing • Design for intended flow split in a network • Bypass flows

Hydrodynamic forces on sub-assemblies • Valve fully-open flow rate threshold for spring-loaded valves • Actuator loads

Dynamics of opening / closing • Actuation time for safety-critical valves

Lifetime Estimation • Sand erosion • Elastomer seal ageing • Wear in metal seal

Temperature distribution • Seal integrity and operational limits • Insulation U-values

Typical Relevant Application Areas


CFD: What and why

• Coupled thermal, hydrodynamic, chemical and physical phenomena

INSIGHT SMART DECISIONS

• Computational Fluid Dynamics – simulates fluid flow

– Traditionally:

• stand-alone models of principal phenomena • simplified geometry

– CFD: • framework for integration • interactions observed • realistic geometry • couple with solid simulations / CAD

CFD: What is it?


How Does It Work?

– Transport equation

• conservation statement for quantities transported by the flow – Control volume

• region of space to which conservation statements for mass, enthalpy, etc. are applied

Net inflow by convection

Net inflow by diffusion + Sources +

Rate of appearance

Sinks -

Rate of disappearance

• CFD applies transport equation to connected control volumes:

Rate of increase =

Zero for steady- state problems

• Key ideas

CFD: Brief Technical Explanation


The Grid

Divide region of interest

• Flow across face of one control volume = flow into neighbouring

control volume • This linkage gives large set of simultaneous equations


into set of small connected control volumes (“the grid”)


Results

• Solve equations by iterative matrix methods

– Numerically • Flow rates, reaction forces, erosion rate, peak Mach number , exit temperature,

etc.


• Interpret results – With graphical tools


• Replace physical test to obtain Cv value from pressure drop vs flow rate • Pinpoint origins of losses and steer design improvements (increase Cv)

Cv Values

Example: stab connector

Streamlines coloured by velocity


• Obtain Cv or loss coefficient vs % open

Cv Values

Contours of total pressure

Example: non-return valve


• Characterise valves by loss coefficients derived from CFD (see previous slide)

• Use in flow network analysis • Include hypothetical restriction as variable loss coefficient • Determine value(s) to give desired flow split • Size corresponding orifice / restriction

System pressure and flow balancing

ZONE 1 ZONE 2

Depth xxx ft Depth xxx ft

Pressure xxx psi Pressure xxx psi

Required flow xxx bbl/day Required flow xxx bbl/day

ZONE 3

Depth xxx ft

Pressure xxx psi

Required flow xxx bbl/day

1

2

3 4

5

6 7

orifice2 orifice5

orifice8

Ko2 Ko5

K13 K46

9K34 Ko8 K89

pipe

K45'

K78

K12'

8

4

5

6A5B5

6


Use force coefficients • Characteristic of geometry • Derive from CFD at one flow condition • Use to calculate force at arbitrary flow rate with fluid of different density • Example: lift coefficient characterises aircraft wing at any speed or altitude • Restrictions: turbulent incompressible flow (OK for weakly compressible)

Hydrodynamic forces

ρ, u

CFD → actuation torque @ few angles, θ → CT(θ) (curve fit)

θ

Actuation torque at any angle, θ for fluid of any density, ρ at

any mean velocity, u:

𝑻 = 𝑪𝑻 𝜽 .𝝅𝑫𝟐

𝟒. 𝑫. 𝟏

𝟐𝝆𝒖𝟐

D


• Example: subsea safety valve (HIPPS) • Slab gate valve held open against spring force by hydraulic actuator

pressure • CFD → actuation force as f(% closed)

• see previous slide for conceptual approach • CFD → Cv values for hydraulic pressure dump valve and fittings in

pressure dump line • see earlier slides on determining Cv

• Equation of motion for actuator + gate moving assembly • Input / results via Excel spreadsheet with embedded routine to solve

equation of motion • Use Excel to plot graphs of forces, pressures, displacements etc vs time • Gate displacement vs time → valve closure time

• Explore system behaviour and identify/evaluate risk for control system design options

• Examine effect of hydraulic system (e.g. line bore) on closure time • Identify if friction prevents closure • etc

Valve closure dynamics (1)


Valve closure dynamics (2)

Gate friction from gate lateral

force arising from pressure difference

across gate

Weight

Seawater plus hydraulic pressure

Seawater pressure

Seawater pressure

Fluid pressure (non-uniform)

Net vertical fluid force (“stem ejection force”) ►

Seal friction

Spring force

Forces on gate ass’y in dir’n of motion High-integrity pipeline protection system

(HIPPS) valve in closed position

Flowline

CFD characterisation

Hydraulic dump line (connected to control system)

= dump line back-pressure

CFD characterisation

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

1.E+10

0 0.2 0.4

K_

v

Gate travel (m)

K_v from CFD

curve fit

extrapolation

Obtained from CFD-derived loss coefficient


Valve closure dynamics (3) Tr

avel

(mm

)


• Sand erosion model available • Implemented with particle tracking • Uses empirical relationship for erosion rate, E, in terms of particle

mass flow rate, mp, impact velocity Up, and angle, α, for given material combination

𝑬 = 𝒎𝒑𝑲 𝑼𝒑𝒏

𝒇 𝜶 • CFD tracks suitable number of particles, collates statistics of particle-

wall collisions and scales results for nominal flow rate of solids

Erosion

Erosion rate on pipe bend [kg.s-1.m-2]

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90f(a

)

a (deg)


Elastomer seal life prediction

Initial contact stress → sealing

Diffusion

C ( x, y, z, t ) Behaves like thermal conduction

ageing (chemical reaction)

permanent set changed properties

reduced contact stress over time

Concentration change

Possible loss of seal

Simulate in ANSYS

Workbench

Elastomer seal ageing


Critical metal seal (details confidential) • Subject to transient thermal loading (flow / no-flow cycles in hot well) • Gives rise to differential thermal expansion • Different radial expansions increase clearance, hence reduces sealing stress • Axial distortions cause sliding, hence wear • Contact pressure less on subsequent cycles due to plastic deformation in 1st cycle

Metal seal wear

Tube hanger seal pocket temperatures

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06

time (sec)

tem

p (d

egC

)

seal pocket ID tempseal pocket OD tempDifference peak temperature

diff: 94 degCxxx

Tube hanger seal pocket radial displacements

-1.5E-04

-1.0E-04

-5.0E-05

0.0E+00

5.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.5E-04

2.0E-04

2.5E-04

3.0E-04

1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06

time (sec)ra

dial

dis

pl (m

)

ID radial displOD radial displDiff (-ve is compressive)

max red'n in seal pocket w idth = 0.129mm (c/f clearance of 0.14 mm above seal pocket)

xxxxxxxx xxxxx


Transient thermal analysis

• Site pup weld simulation (simplified) • Valve pre-assembled and welded on site • Can leave static seals (e.g. PTFE)

vulnerable to overheating

Typical valve geometry

Model geometry (simple representation for illustrative example)

Heat source run around this outer surface

Seat ring

Part of body

Temperature monitor points


Transient thermal analysis

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

0 2 4 6 8 10

Tem

per

atu

re (

de

g C

)

Time (min)

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

Pre-heat temp

Peak temp at seal pocket: 242 degC

• Note: in this example, potential problem for PTFE-based seat seal

Click to animate


Getting the most out of simulation

• Resources - Software: ANSYS CFD in Workbench - Hardware: typically multi-core desktop PC (8-16 processors advisable), but

can run in serial on laptop - People: for best results need someone who understands fluid mechanics

and the models and assumptions that are involved in simulation • Identification of problem essentials: abstraction • Getting maximum information for minimum simulation • Choice of models, methods, boundary conditions, etc. • Getting a solution

- Numerics - Convergence not the same as accuracy

• Results interpretation • Validation


Validation

Validated modelling approach

Established test cases or relevant data

Flow problem formulation

Process models (e.g. reaction

kinetics)

CFD solver

Simulation results

• CFD relies on models and assumptions: validation of simulation approach important for new class of problem

• In most instances, sufficient experience exists

Validation

Comparison


Validated CFD modelling approach

Design optimised or problem solved

Design development / evaluation

Trial configuration Results

Goals and constraints

Data from related trials

Evaluation

Design with validated method

Recent advances in automated

optimisation


Discussion

• Questions • Comments




Author: David Thompson File:Minutes Attachment 3 2013_May.Docx Revised by: David Thompson Date created: 28th June 2013

Page 1 of 2 Date of Revision :11/7/12

AWHEM North Sea Committee Meeting 2nd Quarter 2013

Tor-Na-Coille Hotel, Banchory

Attachment 3 to Minutes Key Considerations for Accuracy in CFD

1 CFD (&/or FEA) is most effective when used as early as possible in the design phase and can be particularly effective as an early phase design discriminator to assess design options.

2 Boundary Conditions must be:- Appropriate to the system being analysed Accurate

3 Caution must be observed to (very) accurately describe: Boundary Layer Flow Conditions Unsteady Conditions Flow through small / narrow gaps with larger parallel flow paths

4 It is better to avoid situations of: Large thermal gradients in the flow, where these change the

assumed fluid properties Significant temporal variation in flow boundaries Analysis based on extrapolation outside of the range of test data

5 All data must be:- Realistic Achievable (i.e. within the limits of the system) Properly Delimited (e.g. where condensation of gas limits rising

pressure or dropping temperature causes might result in hydrate, waxing or other solid formation)

6 All simulations are susceptible to Garbage in Garbage Out, hence the results must be taken in context and be proven reflective of true system behaviour before being accepted.

7 Any tools, analogies or boundary conditions must be appropriate to the system being analysed.




Author: David Thompson File:Minutes Attachment 3 2013_May.Docx Revised by: David Thompson Date created: 28th June 2013

Page 2 of 2 Date of Revision :11/7/12

Key Considerations for Accuracy in CFD 8 Analysis and interpretation of results benefits greatly from the use of

highly skilled and practiced personnel. The occasional user will be very likely make errors in the basic analysis definition and will be unlikely to be able to detect these errors in the analysis output.

9 Analysis should be verified by testing at appropriate points.

Key Considerations for analysis of Reliability & Risk 1 Input Data must be obtained Reliably 2 Input Data must be realistic, i.e. reflect the expected service conditions 3 Input Data must not be used indiscriminately, i.e. not all data is good data 4 Feedback on actual performance is key to obtaining good input data and

good results 5 New Designs must include reliability feedback or there is no point in

producing new designs 6 Again, reliability analysis is most effective when undertaken as early as

possible in the design process, but can bring benefits at any stage.

www.WildeFEA.co.uk© Wilde FEA Ltd. 2009

improving design by simulation

Introduction to Reliability EngineeringIntroduction to Reliability Engineering29th July 2009

Mike McCarthyReliability Specialist

Wilde FEA Ltd

Wilde Webinar Series


“But the design looked good on paper”


What is Reliability & Reliability Engineering?


Definitions and terminology

Definition of Reliability:• The ability of an item to perform a required function under

stated conditions for a stated period of time Source: BS 4778 or MOD Defence Standard 00-40

or• It is the probability R(t) that an item can perform a required

function without failure under given conditions for a given timeinterval.

Reliability…• Deals with orders of magnitudes not decimal places• Strong on comparison and trends but weak on absolutes


What is Reliability Engineering?

A multidiscipline process that attempts to…• ensure product or process capability• predict product/process failures • understand why the failures occurred • improve the product/process in an objective way• give insight into spare parts stocking, contractual

compliance, maintenance planning, warranty budgeting…

• provide evidence for dependability claims• etc…

Basically it is good ‘engineering’ practice throughout the product/process lifecycle


Quality vs. Reliability

Quality is…• The extent to which internal processes, procedures &

documentation are free from defects.• The level to which a product conforms to requirements at the

start of use.• Concerned with performance at ONE point in time – usually at

point of manufacture.• Performance = ‘compliance to specification’

Reliability is…• The extent to which a product CONTINUES to conform to

requirements• Concerned with performance of a product or process over its

operational lifetime.• A function of time, cycles, miles, operations…

Reliability = “Quality over time under stated conditions”


6σ vs. Reliability

6σ is usually regarded as a process quality goal (3.4 defects per million opportunities)Methodology is: Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve, Control • Change management driven by statistics

Designing for reliability has wider scope• Quality & variability of components and manufacturing process• Accuracy of operating environment to design specification

6σ requires Statistical Process Control…Reliability tools are used within 6σ (FMEA, FRACAS, HALT, FTA, Root Cause Analysis…)

6s is a framework to apply reliability tools


Reliability, Dependability and Liability

End user

Supply chain

Manufacturer

Your seal leaks!

LiabilityControl?

This is all about risk

management


Likelihood-Consequence Curve

Likelihood (frequency)Impossible Certain

to occur

Consequence

Catastrophic

Negligible

‘Acceptable’

Prohibited

ALARP


Why is Reliability Important?

Liability/SafetyProduct performanceCost• Warranty costs• Product recalls/campaigns• Cost of ownership for the customer • ‘Hidden factory’ costs

– Overtime, rework, downtime, audits and inspection…

Competitive marketplaceCustomer satisfaction


Product / Process Life Cycle

Funds Committe

d

Funds

Spent

Life Cycle Cost

TimeStart of life

End of life

LCC cost reduction opportunity

Increasing difficulty/cost to fix problems

Pre-Production

Design

Volume ProductionIn-Field

Concept Simulation & Prediction

‘Decommissioning phase for some

products’


Why do things fail?

Consider three categories:

• Intrinsically reliable components– Electronics (properly operated), mechanical non-moving

parts, correct software– ie. stuff that does not ‘wear-out’

• Intrinsically Unreliable components– Light bulbs, bearings, drive belts…– ie. stuff that we know will need replacements - they ‘wear-

out’

• Systems– Many components & interfaces – many ways to fail– eg cars, dishwashers, laptops (!!)…


Why do things fail?

The design is inherently incapable• eg. too weak, exhibits a resonance…The product is overstressed• eg. tyre is over inflated, voltage too high…The population exhibits strength variation• some items are weaker than others in the same environment…Failures occur from wear-out• Degradation over time from fatigue, corrosion, evaporation…Failures arise from errors• eg. errors in specification, software coding, poor assembly,

incorrect maintenance, incorrect use, incorrect operating instructions…

Any others?…When do they occur?


Why do things fail?

0

Probability

ValueS

Can the product in this application fail?Yes – when L exceeds S

L S

In reality Operating Loads (L) and Component Strength (S) are distributions:

L

Proportion of the population

failing


Failure Rate

TimeT2T1

‘Wear-in’ ‘Wear-out’

‘Random’

0

The bath-tub curve

Applicable in many areas of engineering

Applies to humans as well!

Weak design Assembly errors

Damaged components Poor joints/connections

Dirt & contamination

Operating Stresses Poor maintenance

Operator abuse Accidents

Weak design Wear

Insulation breakdown Fatigue

Corrosion

Where are typical failures found?


Human bath-tub curve

Life table for the total population: USA 1997National Vital Statistics Report Vol 47, No.28 Dec.13,1999

00.0020.0040.0060.0080.01

0.0120.0140.0160.0180.02

0.0220.0240.026

0-1

3-4

6-7

9-10

12-1

3

15-1

6

18-1

9

21-2

2

24-2

5

27-2

8

30-3

1

33-3

4

36-3

7

39-4

0

42-4

3

45-4

6

48-4

9

51-5

2

54-5

5

57-5

8

60-6

1

63-6

4

66-6

7

69-7

0

Age

Proportion dying during age interval

Wear-OutApprox > 40yrs

Infant Mortality (Wear-in)Approx < 2yrs

‘Operating Life’(Darwinian!)


What is Reliability?

RCM

CMMS

RGA

ALARP

RCA

MTBF

FRACAS

FME(C)A

B10

KPIs

RBDs

MTTR

FTA


Reliability Plan

FTA

FME(C)ARBDs

Tools/Techniques

Weibull

KPIs

Measures

MTTR

B10 Availability

MTBF

RCA ALARP

FRACASRCM RGA

CMMSSystems/Methodologies


Typical ‘Reliability’ data

“Any port in a storm!”

MeanTimeBetweenFailure



α − failure mode probability



Weibull Analysis


Some Typical Reliability Tools


Typical Reliability Tools

Design ReviewsFRACAS/DRACASSubcontractor Review

Part Selection & Control (including de-rating)Computer Aided Engineering Tools (FEA/CFD)FME(C)A / FTAPrediction & AllocationQFDCritical Item AnalysisThermal/Vibration Analysis & ManagementEffects of Storage, Handling etcLife Data Analysis (eg Weibull)

Reliability Qualification TestingMaintainability Demonstration TestingAccelerated Life TestingProduction Reliability Acceptance TestsReliability Growth Testing


Typical Reliability Tools

Design ReviewsFRACAS/DRACASSubcontractor Review

Part Selection & Control (including de-rating)Computer Aided Engineering Tools (FEA/CFD)FME(C)A / FTAPrediction & AllocationQFDCritical Item AnalysisThermal/Vibration Analysis & ManagementEffects of Storage, Handling etcLife Data Analysis (eg Weibull)

Reliability Qualification TestingMaintainability Demonstration TestingAccelerated Life TestingProduction Reliability Acceptance TestsReliability Growth Testing

Review & Control

Design & Analysis

Test & Evaluation


RCA Tools

Typical tools:

Brainstorming

Cause & Effect Diagram

Pareto Analysis

Process Mapping

Statistical Process Control

+ -

Force Field Analysis

Checksheets

IIII IIIA

B

D1 D2

II

‘The 5 Why technique’

Logic Trees


FMECA

Reliasoft’s Xfmea 4 software


FMECA


Computer Aided Engineering

Typical CAE areas covered include:• Stress analysis on components and assemblies

using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) • Thermal and fluid flow analysis using

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)• Manufacturing Simulation • Monte-Carlo Simulation• etc…


Structural (static and transient)– Solve for stresses and deformations.– Nonlinear Structural to account for large deflection effects, plasticity and contact

nonlinearities.– Structural response of system under random or sinusoidal excitation as a function

of frequency.

[K(x)] {x} = {F}

[K(T)] {T} = {Q(T)}

Finite Element Analysis

Heat Transfer (steady state and transient)– Solve for temperature field and heat flux. Temperature-dependent conductivity,

convection and Thermal-stress analysis.

Buckling (Linear and Non-linear)– Determine failure load or safety factor for buckling and buckling mode shapes.


FEA/CFD Models

FEA/CFD has become a critical element of rapid product development and testing It is now possible to use these models to explore variations in material, geometry, loads and operating environments This facilitates ‘Robust Design’


Robust Design

0

pdf

t

0

pdf

t

0

pdf

t

0

pdf

t

ModelModel

Equation or Equation or Simulation Simulation

Input parameters (material, dimensional, environmental variation)

Model Solution(Possibly multiple measures)

UpperSpecLimit

LowerSpecLimit

Gives probability of meeting design requirement

Can find which input variables have the biggest impact on output scatter – these

are the variables to optimise


Life Data Analysis

Life Data Analysis is the use of probabilistic models to describe the failure behaviour of components and risk populations.• The most common distributions are:

(λ)Exponential

β

η ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛−

=t

etR )(tetR λ−=)( ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛ −

Φ−=σ

μttR 1)(

(μ, σ)Lognormal(β, η)Weibull


Why is Weibull important?

A general parametric plotting tool for any distributionCan work with sparse data• don’t need to wait for many failures to do something!

Weibull parameters have physical meaning • can easily codify expert opinion in absence of data

Models infant mortality type failuresModels failures associated with degradation processes• Fatigue, corrosion, diffusion, mechanical erosion

The most widely used life distribution • Used to predict times-to-failure of electronic, hydraulic, pneumatic

and mechanical systems and componentsHuge amount of literature available

Life Data Analysis


The standard Weibull Model(3 constant parameters)

F(t) = Cumulative distribution functionParameters are physically meaningful

β is the shape parameter (defines failure rate pattern)η is the scale parameter (point at which 63% have failed)τ is the location parameter (‘guaranteed life’)

⎥⎥⎦

⎤

⎢⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛ −−−=

β

ητttF exp1)(

Life Data Analysis


Failure Rate

TimeT2T1

‘Wear-in’ ‘Wear-out’

‘Random’

0

The bath-tub curve

Exponential

Lognormal

Weibull

Normal

β < 1

β = 1

β > 1

( ) 1-t h(t) ββη

β=


Life Data Analysis


Accelerated life testing is a method designed to provide reliability information on a product, component or system using fewer samples and with shorter test duration than conventional test methods. Data is obtained using higher stress levels or higher usage rates compared to normal operating conditions.The test condition that created the failure must be quantified with respect to the use condition.• Physics of failure may indicate a life-stress relationship.

The accelerated life test data is used to extrapolate back to normal use conditions.

Accelerated Testing


Accelerated Testing

Accelerated life models usually consist of:A life distribution (e.g. Weibull)Life-stress relationship(s)

1.00

5.00

10.00

50.00

99.00

0.01 10000.000.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

Probability Plot

Time, (t)

Unr

elia

bilit

y, F

(t)


Reliability vs. Time vs. Stress Relationship

Reliability vs Stress Surface


Life-Stress Relationships


Reliability Block Diagrams

A reliability block diagram is a graphical representation of how the components/ subsystems of a system are “reliability-wise” connected.Blocks represent the components of the system.• Each block has failure and repair characteristics

Lines connect the blocks.• The structure of these connections affects the

reliability of the system.



RBD

RPD


Fault Tree Analysis

RBDFault Tree


What have I left out?

Software Reliability – a black art!• Software re-production does not suffer from production variation.• Systems are usually very complex with many interfaces and

interdependencies.• Discrete nature of software systems means interpolation of

behaviour practically impossible.• Failures arise from defective coding – very difficult to predict since

they arise from combinations within environments (‘Triggers’).• Time to failure dependant on execution speed of computer and

size of program and ‘data environment’.• Testing can only show presence of errors – never their absence.• Improvement method: TAAF and use proven re-usable

components (‘objects’)


Guiding Principles of Reliability Engineering

No amount of good manufacturing can correct a poor designHowever, poor manufacturing can ruin the best engineering designsHence three requirements for achieving a reliable product/process:• The design must have margin with respect to the stresses it is

subjected to during production and operational use.• The production process must be stable and completely documented.

Any variations should be considered experimental until proven.• There must be an effective feedback and corrective action system

which can identify and resolve problems quickly in engineering, production and in the field.


Reliability & Dependability

‘Dependability’ covers Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Project Management issues.

‘Dependability’ needs an effective DRACAS/FRACAS

Dependability assurance requires systematic & rigorous effort throughout the product/process lifecycle

Supporting evidence includes effectiveness of actions taken to mitigate known risks/issues.

Needs honest dialogue between Purchaser, Supplier and End User


Evidence for ‘Dependability’

a) Performance in previous operation;b) Analysis of the required operational cycle;c) Design calculations;d) Predictions and modellinge) Testing;f) Simulation; g) Expert opinion including previous recorded success of

the Supplier;h) Correct implementation of best practicei) Supplier’s Dependability Cases.

BS 5760- part 18


What do I advise decision makers to do?• Set a policy for a failure free environment• Use data to predict problems & FIX THEM• Quantify Unreliability costs• Plan for organised improvement• Learn new tools for solving old problems• Prevent system failures


Contacting us

Mike: [email protected]: [email protected]: 0161 474 7479

www.wildereliability.co.uk www.wildefea.co.uk

association of well head equipment manufacturers …awhem.org/pdfs/awhem meeting september...

Documents