ENGI 8926: Mechanical Design Project II Downhole Turbine for Drilling Preliminary Design

ENGI 8926: Mechanical Design Project IIDownhole Turbine for Drilling

Preliminary Design

Supervisor: Dr. J. Yang

G5Downhole:

Bret KennyLida LiuPiek Suan SawChintan Sharma

March 4, 2014

Agenda

Project Overview Design Methodology

Theoretical Computational Experimental

Results Comparison Conclusion Forward Plan

Project Overview

Client: Advanced Drilling Group Purpose: Design a downhole turbine-operated assembly to

power a variety of downhole drilling tools Inlet

Outputto Drilling Tool

RotorStatorStages

GearBox

Bearing

Output Shaft

Phase 1 Recap

Research & Conceptual

Design

Preliminary

Design

Design Optimiz

ation

Reviewed

- Existing Applications

- Scientific Literature

- Patents

Contacted

- Industry Professionals

- Potential Suppliers

- Faculty Members

Concept Selection

Phase 2 Overview

Theoretical Analysis• Rotor and stator sizing: • Blade length• Blade angle

• Turbine length• Stage requirement

CFD Analysis• Turbine power curves• Power and stage

relationship• Pressure and stages

relationship

Experimental Analysis

• Turbine power curves• 3 stage turbine

Research & Conceptual

Design

Preliminary Design

Design Optimization

Theoretical Analysis: Blade Length

Purpose: Maximize output power with OD = 4.0”

* ω=600rpm, α=45°, β=135°

Rotor Cross-Section

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

2

4

6

8

10

12

14Power vs. Flow Rate

D =0.5"D=1.0"D=1.5"D=2.0"D=2.5"D=3.0"D=3.5"

Flow Rate (GPM)

Pow

er (

kW

)

Theoretical Analysis: Blade Angle

Purpose: Maximize output power with 25°<α<45°, 100°<β<135°

α

β

Stator

Rotor

* ω=600rpm, Di = 3.0”, Q =500gpm

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Power vs. Alpha

B = 100B = 135B = 150

Alpha (degrees)

Pow

er (

kW

)

Theoretical Analysis: Conclusion

Variable Design Constraint Value

Outer Diameter

Max. 4.0” Tool Diameter

4.0”

Inner Diameter 3.0”

Blade Length 0.5”

α 25°<α<45° 45°

β 100°<β<135° 135°

ΔP ΔP ≤ 300 psi 300 psi

# of Stages (3”/Stage)Max. 6’

24

Turbine Length 6’

* ω=600rpm, Q=200gpm

CFD: Power-Stage Relationship

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Turbine Power Curve - Computational Analysis

Flow Rate (GPM)

Pow

er (

kW

)

50 Stages

10 Stages

5 Stages

1 Stage

3 StagesNo Power

Weak Dependency of Power on Stages

Strong Dependency of Power on Stages

Experimental Analysis

Flow source

0.5” Output shaft

4” ID ABS Pipe

2”X4” Crossover

2” 90° elbow

2” ID ABS Pipe

2” Male Connection

Perforated Cap

RPM Encoder

3 Stage Turbine

Experimental Result

• Total Cost: $465• Test Flow Rate: 40-90 GPM• Output Speed: 200-600 RPM• Tested Max. Load: 1 kg

Result Comparison

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Power Comparison Curve

Flow Rate (GPM)

Pow

er (

W)

Computational Result

Theoretical Re-sult

Experimental Result

Conclusion

Completed Turbine Sizingo 4” OD/3” ID Rotor/Statoro # of Stages: Max. 24

Developed Relationshipo Power and # of Stageso ΔP and # of Stages

Conducted Preliminary Experimento Acquired Data for Flow, Torque, and RPM

Revised Solidworks Model

Completed In-progress To be completed

Current Project Status

Project Phase Objectives Status Finish Date

Phase 1

Background Research Completed

Concept Scoring Completed

Concept Selection Completed

SolidWorks Model - Draft 1 Completed

Phase 2

Turbine Sizing Completed

Computational Analysis Completed

Power Curve Development Completed

Preliminary Experimentation Completed

Phase 3System Optimization End of Week 12

SolidWorks Model - Final End of Week 12

Advanced Experimentation End of Week 12

Forward Plans

Phase 3: Design Optimization Load Estimation (axial, torsional and lateral)

Bearing Selection Drive Shaft Design

Advanced Flow Testing Generate Efficiency and Flow Relationships Generate Power and Turbine Stage Relationship

System Optimization Finite Element Analysis Finalize Overall Tool Specification

Thank You!Questions?

AcknowledgementsDr. M. HincheyH. Wang/T. Pike

Dr. N. KhanD. Tyler/C. Koenig

B. Gillis

http://g5downhole.weebly.com

Theoretical Analysis: Blade Length

Power vs. Flow Rate Curves

Theoretical Analysis: Blade Length

ΔP vs. Flow Rate Curves

Result

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Turbine Curve - Pressure Drop

Flow Rate (GPM)

Pre

ssu

re D

rop

(P

si)

50 Stages

10 Stages

5 Stages

3 Stages1 Stage