Cement Design Based on Cement
Mechanical Response
M.J. Thiercelin, SPE, Bernard Dargaud, and J.F. Baret, SPE, Dowell, and W.J. Rodriquez, Intevep S.A.
Summary
The disappearance of cement bond log response as a result of
variations of downhole conditions has been observed in numerous
wells. This observation has led to concern about the loss of proper
zonal isolation. Stresses induced in the cement, through deforma-
tion of the cemented casing resulting from the variation of down-
hole conditions, are the cause of this damage.
We present an analysis of the mechanical response of set cement
in a cased wellbore to quantify this damage and determine the key
controlling parameters. The results show that the thermo-elastic
properties of the casing, cement, and formation play a significant
role. The type of failure, either cement debonding or cement
cracking, is a function of the nature of the downhole condition
variations. This analysis allows us to propose appropriate cement
mechanical properties to avoid cement failure and debonding. We
show that the use of high compressive strength cement is not always
the best solution and, in some cases, flexible cements are preferred.
Introduction
The prime objective of cementing the annulus, which is present
between the casing and the formation, is to provide zonal isolation
of the formations that have been penetrated by the wellbore. No
fluid communication should develop during the life of the well
among these various formations, whether they are saturated with
water, oil, or gas, and the surface. However, even in situations
where the cement was properly placed and initially provided a good
hydraulic seal, the disappearance of zonal isolation with time is
observed often.1, 2 This disappearance is revealed, for example, by
a gas migration problem that was not initially detected, or by the
fracturation of a wrong zone during a stimulation treatment. The
loss of the cement bond log response with time also creates some
concern about the quality of the isolation. Laboratory studies show
that stresses induced in the cement from the variation of downhole
conditions are the cause of this damage.1-5
Various processes can result in a variation of downhole condi-
tions in a cased section of a wellbore. These processes include the
drilling of the wellbore, the perforation of the casing, and the
stimulation and production of the reservoir. Drilling involves a
variation of pressure, if the mud weight has been changed to drill
the next section, and a temperature increase of the cased sections
when the mud, which has been heated by the formation being
drilled, returns to the surface via the annulus. Associated with the
drilling process are the various pressure increases that result from
integrity and leakoff tests. Pressure increase during perforation
follows the firing of the guns, and, although it is applied dynam-
ically to the casing (cement is more resistant to dynamic loading
than to static loading), can lead to cement damage. The amount of
pressure increase during perforation is significant because values in
excess of 6,000 psi have been measured in laboratory experiments.6
The increase of wellbore pressure during hydraulic fracture stim-
ulation is more damaging to the cement sheath because the fluid
injection lasts from minutes to hours.
Increase of pressure and temperature during production mainly
concerns the near-surface casing sections, where surface pressure
is increased from about atmospheric pressure to production pres-
sure, and temperature is increased to about, in some cases, down-
hole temperature. The pressure variation usually concerns only the
Copyright 1998 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 52890) was revised for publication from paper SPE 38598, first
presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San
Antonio, Texas, 5–8 October. Original manuscript received for review 21 October
1997. Revised manuscript received 30 June 1998. Paper peer approved 1 July 1998.
266
production tubing and, therefore, does not affect the cemented
sections, unless a gas migration problem results in an annulus
pressure increase. A temperature increase also can lead to pressure
increase in the annuli following gas expansion, if the annuli are
saturated with gas.
Pressure decrease during production mainly affects the bottom of
the hole where downhole pressure, which is controlled by the
production rate, decreases from formation pore pressure to down-
hole production pressure.
Finally, loading, other than changes of wellbore pressure and
temperature, can be applied to the cement sheath during the life of
the well. For example, an increase of the pressure on the external
surface of the cement represents a situation where the formation
loads the wellbore because of creep. Far-field minimum stress
changes can also occur following a change of reservoir pore
pressure or reservoir temperature.
Despite these various changes of downhole conditions, little
effort has been made to quantify the damage as a function of
downhole conditions and downhole geometry and to define opti-
mum cement mechanical properties to sustain the induced stresses.
We attempt to address this issue. After a description of the models
used to predict the state of stress in a cased cemented wellbore, we
present an analysis of the mechanical response of a set cement to
variation in downhole pressure and temperature. We then show a
field example to document the variation of downhole conditions in
the field and to demonstrate some types of zonal isolation problems
and how to address them.
Modeling
In this section, we present a brief description of the modeling of
stresses. The stresses in the cement are calculated assuming that
steel, cement, and rock are thermo-elastic materials.7 It is also
assumed that the steel/cement interface and the cement/rock inter-
face are either fully bounded or unbounded. Finally, in the analysis
presented here, it is also assumed that the cement is under no
internal stress after setting. Only the variations of pressure, stress,
or temperature that occur once the cement is set are considered.
The geometry of the problem is axisymmetric, with the axis of
symmetry being the wellbore axis allowing the use of cylindrical
coordinates r, u, and z. The simplest situation is when the boundary
and initial conditions (wellbore pressure, far-field state of stress,
wellbore, and far-field temperature) are independent of u. The
variables of interest are then the radial displacement, radial stress,
s r; tangential stress, s u; axial stress, sz; the shear stress, trz; and
the temperature, T. The tangential stress is a principal stress. Radial
stress and tangential stress are shown in Fig. 1. The sign convention
is that tensile stresses are positive. Thermo-elasticity provides a
linear relationship between the strains, «r, « s, «z, and grz, stresses,
and temperature, T.
sr m
«r 2 aT 5 2 ~s 1 sz !, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
E E u
su m
«u 2 aT 5 2 ~s 1 sz !, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
E E r
sz m
«z 2 aT 5 2 ~s 1 su !, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
E E r
1
and grz 5 trz , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
G
SPE Drilling & Completion, December 1998

Fig. 1—Radial stress sr and tangential stress su. Tensile
stresses are positive.
where E, m, and G are the Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and
shear modulus, respectively, and a 5 the coefficient of linear
thermal expansion.
The temperature distribution as a function of time is obtained
from the heat diffusion equation, which is expressed, with the
conditions that the initial and boundary conditions do not depend
on u, as
­2 T 1 ­T ­2 T rC ­T
1 1 5 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
­r2 r ­r ­z2 K ­t
where K 5 thermal conductivity, r 5 density, and C 5 specific
heat.
Plane strain is also assumed, which means that no axial move-
ment is allowed. This is usually a good assumption although axial
movement could develop when casing sections are being heated and
when axial casing deformation is not prevented at the surface.
When only variations of pressures are considered, the stress
model uses analytical solutions. The hollow cylinder solution for an
elastic medium is the starting point to construct the model. The
hollow cylinder represents each ring of material (in Fig. 1, the first
ring is the casing, the second ring is the cement, and the last ring
represents the rock and has an infinite thickness). The complete
solution is constructed with the conditions that radial displacements
and radial stresses are continuous across the interface between two
materials. The inner ring, which represents the casing, has imposed
radial stress condition on its inner surface, which is given by the
variation of wellbore pressure. The outer ring, which represents the
rock, has an imposed radial stress condition on its outer surface that
is the far-field stress. In the simplest version of the model presented,
the variation of the far field is assumed isotropic. If non-equal
variation of far-field stresses needs to be considered, axisymmetry
is lost. The model then follows the more complex solution pre-
sented by Atkinson and Eftaxiopoulos.8 The number of rings is not
limited. Once the complete set of boundary and continuity condi-
tions have been satisfied, the state of stress in each ring is fully
determined as a function of the various elastic properties, boundary
conditions, and cased wellbore geometry.
When the influence of an increase of temperature on the state of
stress in a cased cemented wellbore is considered, finite element
calculations are performed with the program CESAR from Labo-
ratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris. The model assumes
that the steel, cement, and rock are thermo-linear elastic materials
and that heat transport is caused by conduction, as previously
described. The model follows the work of Coussy.9 The influence
of temperature on the state of stress is caused by the thermal
expansion of the various materials. Time is introduced by the heat
diffusion process.
Results
The casing and cement sheath are submitted to various types of
loading during the drilling, completion, and production. Most types
of loading can be analyzed with the models presented. In this
SPE Drilling & Completion, December 1998
section, we are considering wellbore pressure increase, wellbore
pressure decrease, formation pressure increase, and well tempera-
ture increase; however, the model also can analyze the influence of
pore pressure and far-field stress decrease/increase. The results
presented later are for a hole drilled with a 8.5-in.-diameter bit and
cased with a 7-in. 35 lbm/ft, grade P110 liner (i.e. the internal
diameter of the liner is 6.004 in.), although any type of configu-
ration can be analyzed.
Wellbore Pressure Increase. Figs. 2 and 3 show the effect of an
increase of pressure on the state of stress where the radial stress and
tangential stress in the cement are shown as a function of the
distance from the wellbore axis. The Young’s modulus for steel,
cement, and rock are 29.0 3 106, 0.725 3 106, and 1.45 3 106 psi,
respectively, and Poisson’s ratio are 0.27, 0.2, and 0.2, respectively.
The wellbore pressure increase is 1,000 psi. The stress values are
a linear function of wellbore pressure, which means, for example,
that doubling the wellbore pressure results in doubling the value of
the stresses in the cement. These figures show that, in this case, the
radial stress is compressive and the tangential stress is tensile. The
highest value of the tangential stress is at the steel/cement interface,
which is, therefore, where failure should occur first. Cement failure
should correspond to the initiation and propagation of tensile radial
cracks because tensile cracks propagate normal to the direction of
the maximum tensile stress.
The value of the tangential stress at the steel/cement interface
gives the value of the tensile strength the cement must have to avoid
failure if the wellbore pressure is increased by 1,000 psi. This
tensile strength requirement is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of rock
elastic properties and cement elastic properties. Results are given
for rock Young’s modulus ranging from 0.145 3 106 to 4.350 3
106 psi. Poisson’s ratio for the cement and for the rock is 0.2.
Results show that the tensile strength requirement increases with an
increase of cement Young’s modulus and a decrease of rock
Young’s modulus. The decrease of the tensile strength requirement
with the increase of rock Young’s modulus is caused by the increase
of the support the rock provides to the cement. These curves
intercept the zero tensile strength line when the tangential stress in
the cement at the steel/cement interface become compressive. Fig.
5 demonstrates this, which shows the tangential stress as a function
of distance from wellbore axis where the cement and rock Young’s
modulus are 0.145 3 106 and 2.9 3 106 psi, respectively. It is
observed that, in that case, the tangential stress in the cement is
compressive, especially near the cement/rock interface. This in-
creases the strength of the cement sheath because cements are
stronger in compression than in tension; therefore, it is advanta-
geous to use a low Young’s modulus cement to take advantages of
rock mechanical support. Obviously other considerations have to be
Fig. 2—Cement radial stress as a function of distance from the
wellbore axis. The steel/cement interface is at 3.5 in. and the
cement/rock interface at 4.25 in.
267
Fig. 3—Cement tangential stress as a function of distance from
the wellbore axis.
Fig. 4 —Cement tensile strength requirement as a function of
cement Young’s modulus in case of a wellbore pressure in-
crease of 1,000 psi. Rock Young’s modulus is: —(top curve) 5
0.145 3 106 psi; –z–5 0.725 3 106 psi; zzzz 5 1.450 3 106 psi; – – 5
2.900 3 106 psi; —(bottom curve) 5 4.350 3 106 psi.
taken into consideration in the final design, such as casing protec-
tion and casing support.
These results demonstrate that, to check whether the cement will
fail or not under a wellbore pressure increase, one has to know the
tensile strength of the cement, the elastic properties of the cement
and also that of the rock. The geometry of the cased wellbore is also
an important parameter. For example, increasing the casing thick-
ness will decrease the value of tensile strength requirement.
Wellbore Pressure Decrease. The decrease of wellbore pressure
is seen by the cement as a tensile stress applied to the inner radius
of the casing. The results are actually equivalent to Figs. 2 and 3
but with a change of sign. The radial stress is now tensile and
becomes the critical stress. It is maximum at the steel/cement
interface and excessive value can lead to cement debonding. Radial
stress is actually also highly tensile at the cement/rock interface,
and the location of debonding, if debonding occurs, will depend on
the bonding strength of the two interfaces.
Fig. 6 shows the tensile strength requirement, based on the value
of the radial stress at the steel/cement interface, as a function of
cement Young’s modulus, for various rock Young’s modulus value,
and for a decrease of wellbore pressure of 1,000 psi. Poisson’s ratio
268
Fig. 5—Cement tangential stress as a function of distance from
the wellbore axis, in a case where the rock provides good
mechanical support. The steel/cement interface is at 3.5 in. and
the cement/rock interface at 4.25 in.
Fig. 6 —Cement tensile strength requirement as a function of
cement Young’s modulus in case of a wellbore pressure
decrease of 1,000 psi. Rock Young’s modulus is: —(bottom
curve) 5 0.145 3 106 psi; –z–5 0.725 3 106 psi; zzzz 5 1.450 3 106
psi; – – 5 2.900 3 106 psi; —(top curve) 5 4.350 3 106 psi.
for the cement and for the rock is 0.2. Contrary to the previous case,
the strength requirement increases with the value of rock Young’s
modulus because a stiff rock prevents cement deformation.
Debonding is, therefore, more likely to happen when the cement is
placed in front of a stiff rock. There is also a rapid increase of
strength requirement with cement Young’s modulus, at low cement
Young’s modulus value, especially for the stiff rock.
Increase of Outer Cement Stress. An increase of outer stress
creates a compressive state of stress in the cement as shown in Fig.
7. This case assumes that the pressure on the outer boundary of the
cement has been increased to 1,000 psi; therefore, the analysis is
independent of the rock properties. The casing acts as a hard
inclusion that gives the observed increase, in absolute terms, of the
radial stress and a decrease of the tangential stress at the steel/
cement interface with a decrease of the cement Young’s modulus.
The radial stress is more compressive than the tangential stress and
should be checked against the cement compressive strength, but one
has to take into account the influence of the tangential stress on the
failure criterion, as it provides some confining stress and, therefore,
SPE Drilling & Completion, December 1998

Fig. 7—Cement radial stress (—) and tangential stress (zzzzz) at the
steel/cement interface as a function of cement Young’s modulus
in case of a 1,000 psi pressure increase on the cement outer
surface.
increases the strength of the cement. Hard cement helps to reduce
the stress on the casing, but the magnitude of this effect is negligible
if the state of stress in the steel is analyzed. However, the danger
with formation creeping is also the buckling of the casing, and, in
this case, a high strength cement could help significantly.
Temperature Increase. The calculation of stresses caused by a
temperature increase on cement involves additional parameters
such as the density, specific heat, thermal conductivity, and coef-
ficient of thermal expansion of the various materials. For simpli-
fication, we have assumed that the coefficient of thermal expansion
of the steel, cement, and rock are the same and equal to 1.3 3 1025
K21. The complete set of thermo-elastic properties are given in
Table 1.
Fig. 8 shows the finite element mesh used to discretize the cased
cemented wellbore and a portion of the formation. The formation
has been meshed up to about 7 ft from the wellbore axis. The first
three elements mesh the steel and the next four mesh the cement.
The boundary conditions of interest are the boundary conditions
at the wellbore and at 7 ft from the wellbore (which represents the
far-field boundary conditions). The boundary conditions are an
imposed temperature increase at the wellbore, no variation of
pressure at the wellbore, and no variation of pressure and temper-
ature at a radius of 7 ft.
In Figs. 9 and 10 radial stress and tangential stress in the cement
are shown as a function of the distance from the well axis, in the
case where the Young’s modulus of the cement and the rock are
equal to 2.9 3 106 psi and 1.45 3 106 psi, respectively. In that case,
the cement is stiffer than the rock. The stresses shown are those
generated 100 seconds after the well temperature has been in-
creased up to 100°F. The radial stress is always compressive. The
tangential stress is compressive near the steel/cement interface and
tensile near the cement/rock interface. This behavior is caused by
the nonuniform thermal expansion of the materials. The region near
the well is at a higher temperature than the region away from the
TABLE 1—THERMO-ELASTIC PROPERTIES
Solid density, kg/m3
Specific heat, J kg21 K21
Thermal expansion coefficient, K21 1.3 3 1025
Thermal conductivity, W/m K
SPE Drilling & Completion, December 1998
well and, therefore, is more expanded. Compressive tangential
stress is generated in this region because its deformation is confined
by the lower amount of thermal expansion of the surrounding
region. Similarly, tensile stress is generated in the surrounding
region, which is being pressurized by the near wellbore region. As
temperature diffuses in the cement, the cement achieves a more
uniform thermal expansion and, therefore, is under lower stress
(Figs. 11 and 12).
The critical stress is the tangential stress, and its highest value is
the value at the cement/rock interface, at least after 100 seconds.
Fig. 13 shows the evolution of the tangential stress at the cement
rock/interface as a function of time, up to 9,000 seconds after the
wellbore temperature was increased. The tangential stress decreases
with time and tends toward a compressive value. Its maximum
tensile value is about 1,300 psi, which is actually well above
conventional cement tensile strength value.
Fig. 14 shows a similar curve when the Young’s modulus of the
cement is 0.725 3 106 psi. The Young’s modulus of the rock
remains unchanged. The cement is now more flexible than the rock.
The tangential stress achieves a compressive value more rapidly
with a low Young’s modulus cement than with a high Young’s
modulus cement. Its maximum tensile value is about 190 psi, i.e.,
almost 7 times less than in the previous case, whereas the cement
Young’s modulus is only 4 times less. This shows that, in the case
of thermal stress generation caused by temperature increase, a low
Young’s modulus cement will resist better than a high Young’s
modulus cement.
Field Examples. Two examples are shown. The first one concerns
the influence of wellbore pressure on the cement behavior, whereas
the second one addresses the influence of wellbore temperature
increase. In these examples, cement mechanical properties and rock
mechanical properties have been determined in the laboratory.
Tensile properties, which have been measured on the cement,
include Young’s modulus and flexural strength. They have been
determined from 3-point bending tests with an electromechanical
testing machine. The samples, which were 333312-cm prisms,
were loaded at a rate of 0.01 cm/min. Compressive properties
include the Young’s modulus in compression, the compressive
strength, and, for the rock of the first example, friction angle and
Poisson’s ratio, with either an electromechanical testing machine or
a servo-hydraulic testing machine. The cement samples tested in
compression were 23232-in. cubes. Whether in tension or in
compression, the elastic properties have been determined with the
linear portion of the stress-strain curves.
One of the problems with the bending test is that the value of the
flexural strength differs from that of the tensile strength determined
from the direct tensile stress test, caused by geometrical and scale
effects. Studies have shown that the tensile strength is about 30 to
50% of the flexural strength.10 Moreover, the strength of the sample
is a function of the loading rate, and the loading rate that is applied
downhole could be very different from the laboratory loading rate.
The tendency is to measure a decrease of strength with a decrease
of loading rate; therefore, a safety factor must be applied to the
calculation. The safety factor decreases the value of the flexural
strength to obtain a tensile strength value more representative of
downhole condition. We have selected this factor to reduce the
flexural strength by 50%. In practice, it is expected that the value
of this factor could be even lower.
Steel Cement Rock
8,000 1,900 2,100
500 2,100 1,000
1.3 3 1025 1.3 3 1025
15.0 1.0 1.0
269
 Fig. 8 —Mesh.
Fig. 9 —Radial stress in the cement as a function of distance
from wellbore axis, after a heating time of 100 seconds. High
Young’s modulus cement. The steel/cement interface is at 3.5 in.
and the cement/rock interface at 4.25 in.
Fig. 10 —Tangential stress in the cement as a function of dis-
tance from wellbore axis, after a heating time of 100 seconds.
High Young’s modulus cement.
Well A. Our example uses a well that was drilled to a true vertical
depth of 15,428 ft to reach a gas reservoir. The drilling and
completion of the liner is of interest. The last section was drilled
with an 8.5-in. bit at 10.9 lbm/gal mud weight. The liner is a 7-in.
35 lbm/ft, grade P110. The internal diameter is 6.004 in. During the
setting of the cement, the wellbore fluid weight was 10.9 lbm/gal.
Far-field pore pressure in the reservoir is 0.54 psi/ft. Bottomhole
temperature is 280°F, whereas circulating temperature is 235°F.
Table 2 shows the formation mechanical properties.
Various cements have been tested, following the procedure
described previously. The key elements in the formulation and the
tensile properties are shown in Table 3. Cements 1 through 4 are
16.2-lbm/gal slurries cured at 274°F under 3,000 psi pore pressure.
Curing time was 3 days. Cement 5 is a 17.1-lbm/gal slurry cured
270
Fig. 11—Radial stress in the cement as a function of distance
from wellbore axis, after a heating time of 1,000 seconds. High
Young’s modulus cement. The steel/cement interface is at 3.5 in.
and the cement/rock interface at 4.25 in.
Fig. 12—Tangential stress in the cement as a function of dis-
tance from wellbore axis, after a heating time of 1,000 seconds.
High Young’s modulus cement.
at 302°F for 3 days, under 3,000 psi pore pressure. It also uses a
different base cement.
Various scenarios can be checked with these data. First, it is
interesting to check the amount of pressure increase during hy-
draulic fracturing. In this well, the fracture gradient is 0.88 psi/ft.
The lowest value of wellbore pressure that is generated during
fracturing is given by the closure pressure, which is the fracture
gradient times the depth of the formation, and is equal to about
13,623 psi. The actual value of the fracturing pressure will be higher
than this value because of the pressure drop through the perforation
and fracture. This pressure drop varies generally between 200 and
1,000 psi. The wellbore pressure during cement setting was 8,730
psi; therefore, the increase of pressure will be at least 4,900 psi. This
loading applies to the section of casing that is not perforated. The
SPE Drilling & Completion, December 1998

Fig. 13—Tangential stress in the cement, at the cement/rock
interface, as a function of heating time. High Young’s modulus
cement.
Fig. 14 —Tangential stress in the cement, at the cement/rock
interface, as a function of heating time. Low Young’s modulus
cement.
TABLE 2—FORMATION MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Young’s modulus, psi 2.5 3 106
Poisson’s ratio 0.20
Compressive strength, psi 8,600
Friction angle 30°
Tensile strength, psi 300
perforated section is under a more complex loading because the
fracturing fluid is also injected in the formation, which pressurizes
the annulus and, consequently, could result in the debonding either
of the steel/cement interface or the cement/rock interface.
Fig. 15 shows the tensile strength requirement and the tensile
strength measurement, as a function of cement Young’s modulus,
for the expected 4,900 psi wellbore pressure increase. A cement
Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 has been assumed. A safety factor of 0.5 has
been applied to the flexural strength value as mentioned before. It
can be seen that the tensile strength of the various cements is above
the requirement and, consequently, that they should not fail under
the expected pressure increase, assuming the safety factor is ap-
propriate to the downhole condition. It is safer to use the low
SPE Drilling & Completion, December 1998
Young’s modulus cements than the high Young’s modulus cements
because the first ones have a higher ratio of the measured tensile
strength over the required tensile strength.
The cement sheath behavior during production must be checked
as well. During production, wellbore pressure at the bottom hole
decreases from pore pressure to production pressure. This decrease,
found by use of data from adjacent wells, can reach 3,500 psi.
Fig. 16 shows that only the high Young’s modulus cement could
resist without failure to the decrease of wellbore pressure. However,
it is assumed in this calculation that the tensile strength of the
bonding is either equal to or higher than that of the cement. In
practice, the tensile strength of the bonding could be quite low;
therefore, this type of loading could lead to debonding of the
interfaces. For this well, the decrease of wellbore pressure, caused
by depletion, stresses the cement sheath more than the wellbore
pressure increase caused by hydraulic fracturing. This leads to the
need of a high strength cement. Other downhole conditions can lead
to the opposite situation, especially if the formation is weak. In this
case, a low strength but flexible cement is required.
Well B. In Well B, wellbore temperature has been increased by
200°F during stimulation that uses steam injection. In this well, loss
of zonal isolation was observed after the steam injection process.
The formation depth is between 1,800 and 2,500 ft. The well was
drilled with a 12.25-in. bit and the casing external diameter is
10.75 in. The formation is a poorly consolidated sandstone with a
Young’s modulus of about 300,000 psi. Poisson’s ratio is assumed
to be 0.2. Table 4 gives the properties of the cement that was used
initially to cement the annulus.
Fig. 17 shows the maximum value of tensile stress generated in
the well as a function of cement elastic properties, after a temper-
ature increase of 200°F. The tensile strength requirement is well
above the tensile strength of the cement that was used (Cement 6).
This result provides an explanation of the observed loss of isolation.
For comparison, Cements 1 through 5 have been added to the plot
with a low density cement (Cement 7). Cements 1 through 5,
although of much better quality (they have a much better ratio
tensile strength to Young’s modulus), do not fulfill the requirement.
It is recommended that a cement similar to Cement 7, i.e., a highly
flexible cement, or a cement with a very high value of the ratio
strength to Young’s modulus, be used to cure the problem.
Both analyses show that the requirement in terms of cement
properties depends strongly on the loading that is expected during
the life of the well and on the rock mechanical properties. It is
necessary to have knowledge of these properties when a durability
problem is suspected. Casing geometry is also required. Moreover,
cement properties can be optimized to avoid cement sheath failure.
Various properties can be controlled, such as the cement Young’s
modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and tensile strength. Results also show
that a high strength cement is not always the best solution. We do
not address other properties, such as the bulk shrinkage/expansion,
the shear bond strength, the permeability, and the resistance to
chemical attack. They are also required to provide a complete
analysis.
Conclusion
We show that the integrity of the cement sheath is a function of the
mechanical properties of the set cement, geometry of the cased
wellbore, and mechanical properties of the rock. Mechanical prop-
erties of the set cement must be selected from a knowledge of these
various parameters and the expected types of loading because the
requirement, in terms of properties, is a primary function of the
loading. Although we have not addressed all the issues that are
associated with the mechanical behavior of the cement sheath, it is
believed that the approach proposed will develop and become
common practice for wells that exhibit severe types of loading, such
as the high pressure/high temperature well, geothermal wells, wells
drilled in difficult environments, and wells that are submitted to
steam injection.
271
 TABLE 3—CEMENT MECHANICAL PROPERTIES DETERMINED IN TENSION

Young’s
Silica Flour Latex Concentration Modulus
(% by Weight of of Cement in Flexion Flexural Strength
Formulation Content) (gal/sack)* (psi) (psi)

Cement 1 0 2 591,000 1,050

Cement 2 10 0 691,940 1,141
Cement 3 35 0 929,160 1,434
Cement 4 50 0 1,080,000 1,444
Cement 5 35 4 1,225,540 1,618
* Sack of cement 5 94 lbm.

TABLE 4—MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF THE CEMENT

USED IN WELL B

Young’s
Modulus Flexural
in Flexion Strength
Cement Formulation (psi) (psi)

Cement 6 804,000 780

Fig. 15—Tensile strength measurement and tensile strength re-

quirement for a wellbore pressure increase of 4,900 psi as a
function of Young’s modulus. Well A, a safety factor of 0.5 has
been applied to the flexural strength value; * 5 Cement 1; E 5
Cement 2; 3 5 Cement 3; M 5 Cement 4; € 5 Cement 5.

Fig. 17—Tensile strength measurement and tensile strength re-

quirement following a 200°F temperature increase as a function
of Young’s modulus. Well B, a safety factor of 0.5 has been
applied to the flexural strength value; * 5 Cement 1; E 5 Cement
2; 3 5 Cement 3; M 5 Cement 4; € 5 Cement 5; 1 5 Cement 6;
> 5 Cement 7.

G 5 Shear modulus, m/Lt2, psi

K 5 thermal conductivity, mL/Tt3, W/m K
L 5 distance from wellbore axis, L, in. [cm]
r, u, z 5 cylindrical coordinates
t 5 time, t, seconds
T 5 temperature, T, oF [K]
a 5 coefficient of linear thermal expansion, T21, K21
Fig. 16 —Tensile strength measurement and tensile strength re- «r 5 radial strain
quirement for a wellbore pressure decrease of 4,000 psi as a «z 5 axial strain
function of Young’s modulus. Well A, a safety factor of 0.5 has «u 5 tangential strain
been applied to the flexural strength value; * 5 Cement 1; E 5 grz 5 shear strain
Cement 2; 3 5 Cement 3; M 5 Cement 4; € 5 Cement 5. m 5 Poisson’s ratio
r 5 density, m/L3, lbm/gal [gr/m3]
sr 5 radial stress, m/Lt2, psi
Nomenclature sz 5 axial stress, m/Lt2, psi
C 5 specific heat, L2/Tt,2 J kg21 K21 su 5 tangential stress, m/Lt2, psi
E 5 Young’s modulus, m/Lt2, psi trz 5 shear stress, m/Lt2, psi

272 SPE Drilling & Completion, December 1998

Acknowledgments
We thank Dowell and Intevep for permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Goodwin, K.J. and Crook, R.J.: “Cement Sheath Stress Failure,” SPEDE
(December 1992) 291.
2. Jackson, P.B. and Murphey, C.E.: “Effect of Casing Pressure on Gas
Flow Through a Sheath of Set Cement,” paper SPE 25698 presented at
the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 23–25 February.
3. Parcevaux, P.A. and Sault, P.H.: “Cement Shrinkage and Elasticity: A
New Approach for a Good Zonal Isolation,” paper SPE 13176 presented
at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
16–19 September.
4. Jutten, J.J., Guillot, D., and Parcevaux, P.A.: “Relationship Between
Cement Slurry Composition, Mechanical Properties, and Cement-Bond-
Log Output,” SPEPE (February 1989) 75.
5. Bol, G.M. et al.: “Cementing: How to Achieve Zonal Isolation,” paper
presented at the 1997 OMC Conference, Ravenna, Italy, 19–21 March.
6. Behrmann, L.A. et al.: “Borehole Dynamics During Underbalanced
Perforating,” paper SPE 38139 presented at the 1997 SPE European
Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2–3 June.
7. Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, J.N.: Theory of Elasticity, third edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1970).
8. Atkinson, C. and Eftaxiopoulos, D.: “A Plane Model for the Stress Field
Around an Inclined, Cased and Cemented Wellbore,” Intl. J. Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics (1996) 20, No. 8, 549.
9. Coussy, O.: Mécaniques des Milieux Poreux, Edition Technip, Paris
(1991).
10. Evans, I.: “The Tensile Strength of Coal,” Coll. Eng. (1961) 38, 428.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
in. 3 2.54* E202 5 m
SPE Drilling & Completion, December 1998
°F (°F232)/1.8 5 °C
ft 3 3.048* E201 5 m
U.S. gal 3 3.785 412 E203 5 m3
lbm 3 4.535 924 E201 5 kg
psi 3 6.894 757 E100 5 kPa
*Conversion factors are exact. SPEDC
Marc Thiercelin is a product development team manager at
Dowell’s Riboud Product Center in Clamart, France. His areas of
interest are well construction and well-stimulation processes. He
holds an engineering degree from Ecole de Géologie de
Nancy, France, and a PhD degree in rock mechanics from the
Inst. de Mécanique de Grenoble, France. Thiercelin served as
a 1993–94 member of the 1994 Eurock Program Committee.
Bernard Dargaud is a development engineer for Dowell. He has
more than 20 years of experience in the development of new
products and techniques in stimulation and cementing. He
holds a BS degree in physics and chemistry. J. François Baret
manages a product development team for Dowell’s Riboud
Product Center in Clamart, France. He has also been a ce-
menting expert for Dowell North America operations. Before
joining Dowell in 1986 he taught physics at the U. of Provence
in Marseilles, where he conducted research on surfactants and
interfacial chemical physics. He holds a PhD degree in physics
from the U. of Provence. Wilfredo Rodriquez is an advanced
specialist on well cementing with Intevep, a division of Petróleos
de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), where he is responsible for inte-
grated services in drilling engineering. Since joining PDVSA in
1982, he has worked on drilling operations as drilling engineer
and as principal investigator at PDVSA’s Research Center. He
holds a chemical engineering degree from the U. de Oriente in
Venezuela.
273