Summary
Over the past 10 years, several papers have been published discussing the
long-term mechanical durability of the cement sheath. The customary procedure
is to use a model to predict potential failure scenarios and to subsequently
design a sealant material that will not fail under the expected conditions. The
predictive models are either analytical or finite-element models. The
analytical models can only be applied to relatively simple situations that
require a simplified set of input data. In these cases, the results are
consistent with those of finite-element models. More complex situations can be
simulated with finite-element models, but the input data requirements are far
greater. Typically in the modeling papers, little information is included on
how the input data is obtained. Because of this, several papers have been
published that have proposed ways to obtain the input data, in particular the
mechanical parameters of the set cement. Because typically these papers have
addressed only one or two parameters however, the proposed methods are
inconsistent. This paper critically reviews the published information and
highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the previous approaches.
Subsequently, the paper presents new measurement methods and data analysis
techniques to determine cement mechanical parameters in sufficient detail to
allow them to be implemented in any laboratory with appropriate equipment. The
predictions using data from the new measurement methods have been verified at
the field level through evaluation of actual wells. Finally, the methods have
been used to demonstrate the mechanical durability of flexible cement systems
aged at high temperatures for one year; this is the first time that such data
have been presented on these systems.
Introduction
The effect of pressure and temperature changes on the integrity of the
cement sheath was demonstrated experimentally many years ago (Goodwin and Crook
1992; Jackson and Murphey 1993). More recently, this behavior has been modeled
by use of both analytical (Thiercelin et al. 1997) and finite-element (Bosma et
al. 1999) models. Although finite-element models are capable of handling more
complex situations, they are usually used with simplifying assumptions in which
case they offer no advantages over analytical models. Indeed, Bosma et al.
(1999) used the analytical model and results from Thiercelin et al. (1997) as a
benchmark for their finite-element model and showed good agreement between the
two models. Formation creep, which can potentially induce large strains in the
cement sheath, was also discussed by Bosma et al. (1999), but this will not be
addressed in this paper.
Both types of models assume a linear-elastic mechanical behavior. Therefore,
the response of the cement sheath to strain is determined by the static Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the cement through Hooke’s law. A correction of
dynamic values of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio is required to be used in
Hooke’s relationship. The failure point is given by either the tensile strength
or the compressive strength of the cement (using the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion for the latter), depending on the expected failure mechanism. In
general, decreasing the Young’s modulus or increasing the Poisson’s ratio of
the cement will decrease the stresses induced in the cement sheath and, for a
given situation, will decrease the risk of failure.
In the modeling papers discussed above, there has been little discussion of
how to determine the appropriate parameters that describe the cement mechanical
behavior. Thiercelin et al. (1997) determined the Young’s modulus in flexion
and flexural strength (Mr) from three-point bending tests. The authors noted
that the loading rate is a key parameter in determining the ultimate strength
of the material: the lower the loading rate, the lower the flexural strength
measured. They applied a safety factor of 50% to the flexural strength to
obtain a tensile strength value more representative of downhole conditions.
Because three-point bend tests were performed however, there was no way to
determine the Poisson’s ratio of the cement, so the value was estimated at 0.2.
The model described was a linear thermo-elastic model, so the use of a single
value of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio was appropriate.
© 2008. Society of Petroleum Engineers
View full textPDF
(
910 KB
)
History
- Original manuscript received:
8 December 2006
- Meeting paper published:
5 November 2006
- Revised manuscript received:
26 April 2007
- Manuscript approved:
8 September 2007
- Version of record:
20 March 2008
View Cart
