0
Research Papers

Optimum Mandrel Configuration for Efficient Down-Hole Tube Expansion

[+] Author and Article Information
Omar S. Al-Abri

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department,
College of Engineering,
Sultan Qaboos University,
P.O. Box 33, Al-Khod 123,
Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
e-mail: omar.abri@hotmail.com

Tasneem Pervez

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department,
College of Engineering,
Sultan Qaboos University,
P.O. Box 33, Al-Khod 123,
Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
e-mail: tasneem@squ.edu.om

Sayyad Z. Qamar

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department,
College of Engineering,
Sultan Qaboos University,
P.O. Box 33, Al-Khod 123,
Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
e-mail: sayyad@squ.edu.om

Asiya M. Al-Busaidi

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department,
College of Engineering,
Sultan Qaboos University,
P.O. Box 33, Al-Khod 123,
Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
e-mail: asiya.albusaidi@gmail.com

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 30, 2014; final manuscript received March 27, 2015; published online September 9, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Gracious Ngaile.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 137(6), 061005 (Sep 09, 2015) (14 pages) Paper No: MANU-14-1413; doi: 10.1115/1.4030302 History: Received July 30, 2014

In the last decade, traditional tube expansion process has found an innovative application in oil and gas wells drilling and remediation. The ultimate goal is to replace the conventional telescopic wells to monodiameter wells with minimum cost, which is still a distant reality. Further to this, large diameters are needed at terminal depths for enhanced production from a single well while keeping the power required for expansion and related costs to a minimum. Progress has been made to realize slim wells by driving a rigid mandrel of a suitable diameter through the tube either mechanically or hydraulically to attain a desirable expansion ratio. This paper presents a finite element model, which predicts the drawing force for expansion, the stress field in expanded and pre-/postexpanded zones, and the energy required for expansion. Through minimization of energy required for expansion, an optimum mandrel configuration, i.e., shape, size, and angle, was obtained, which can be used to achieve larger in situ expansion. It is found that mandrel with elliptical, hemispherical, and curved conical shapes has minimum resistance during expansion as compared to the widely used circular cross section mandrel with a cone angle of 10 deg. However, further manipulation of shape parameters of the circular cross section mandrel yielded an improved efficiency. The drawing force required for expansion reduces by 7–10% having minimum dissipated energy during expansion. It is also found that these mandrels yield less reduction in tube thickness after expansion, which results in higher postexpansion collapse strength. In addition, rotating a mandrel further reduces the energy required for expansion by another 7%.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Experimental setup: (a) mechanical press machine to make launcher, (b) welding tubular sample to top end of launcher, (c) flange welded to bottom end of launcher, (d) installing assembly on the test-rig, (e) connecting high pressure line to the flange, (f) experimental setup at the onset of the test, (g) conical mandrel assembly, and (h) thickness and diameter measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Schematic diagram of expandable tubular indicating lengths as well as wall-thickness measurement points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Stress–strain curve for tubular material

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

2D axisymmetric finite element model of tubular–mandrel system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Flowchart of sequence adopted in designing optimal mandrel shape

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic diagram of a typical conical mandrel showing the main shape parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic sketch of conventional to monodiameter oil wells

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Experimental and numerical expansion force with respect to mandrel position at fixed expansion ratio of 20%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Experimental and numerical thickness variation with respect to mandrel position at fixed expansion ratio of 20%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Experimental and numerical length variation with respect to mandrel position at fixed expansion ratio of 20%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Expansion force with respect to mandrel position for different mandrel configurations at 20% expansion ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Thickness variation with respect to mandrel position for different mandrel configurations at 20% expansion ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Thickness variations for different mandrel angles and fillet radius at 20% expansion ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Plot of (a) expansion force, (b) thickness variation, and (c) length variation with respect to mandrel position for modified conical 20 deg mandrel against hemispherical mandrel at different expansion ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Plot of (a) expansion force, (b) thickness variation, and (c) length variation with respect to mandrel position for modified conical 20 deg mandrel against conventional 10 deg conical mandrel at different expansion ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Length variations for different mandrel angles and fillet radius at 20% expansion ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Plots of contact pressure variations at contact point in the tubular with respect to the mandrel position for (a) four mandrel configurations and (b) selected mandrel configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Plots of (a) expansion force, (b) thickness variation, and (c) length variation against mandrel position along the tubular for rotating and nonrotating mandrels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Surplus deformation with respect to mandrel position for different mandrel configurations at 20% expansion ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Plots of (a) expansion force, (b) thickness variation, and (c) length variation at fixed–fixed and fixed–free end conditions for modified conical 20 deg mandrel and conventional 10 deg conical mandrel at 20% expansion ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Comparison of dissipated energy (due to plastic deformation) between conventional conical mandrel of 20 deg angle and the modified version with same angle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Length variation with respect to mandrel position for different mandrel configurations at 20% expansion ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Expansion force, length variation, and thickness variation at different lower length (L) values of mandrel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Variations in expansion force for different mandrel angles and fillet radius at 20% expansion ratio

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In