1. API Subcommittee on Well Cements (SC-10) Triaxial Mechanical Properties Testing of Oilwell Cements 2018 Winter Meeting Progress Report

2. Today
Workgroup charge
Members
Testing results
Discussion
2018 plan

3. Workgroup Charge
Investigate and develop a technical report on the characterization of the mechanical behavior of cement under confinement
Workgroup deliverable
Submit a standardized process to be incorporated into the existing TR related to “Mechanical Behavior of Cement” by 2018 Winter Meeting.

4. WorkGroup Members Name Email Address Phone number
Emmanuel Therond - BP
+44 (0)
Antonio Bottiglieri – Baker Hughes
Shailesh Dighe – Baker Hughes
Daniel Bour – Blades Energy
Cam Matthews – C-FER
Paul Sonnier - CSI
Jeff Moon - Chandler
Steven Riedinger - Chevron
Maggie Benge - Halliburton
Jamie Hayes - OFITE
Kevin Madsen - OFITE
Rick Lukay - OFITE
Simon James – Schlumberger
Cory Heinricks - Trican
Steve Priolo - Trican
Axel Bois – CURISTEC
Greg Galdiolo - CURISTEC
Anthony Badalamenti - CURISTEC

5. Mechanical Testing Program – Phase 1
Curing Temperature = 50 deg. C
Curing Pressure = 3000 psi
Curing Time = 14 days
Temperature and pressure be reduced over a 72 hour period to minimize induced stress on the samples.
Confining Pressures
All Labs are to test using the following confining pressures
250 psi, 500 psi, and 1000 psi.
Test Specimens should adhere to a 2:1 ratio (length to diameter)

6. Mechanical Testing Program – Phase 1
Labs are to follow their established testing procedures
All labs have the freedom to add additional confining pressures beyond the three required pressures stated above. Tests results can be submitted as well.
All tests will be tested under a “drained condition”.
Labs have freedom to test under an “un-drained condition” as well and test results can be submitted
Phase 1 Testing completed

7. Phase 1 Testing Program Status
Targeted Phase 1 completion April 01, 2017 was not achieved and has been extended to June 30, 2017
8 labs participating
4 Service Companies
3 Technology Companies
1 Major Operator
23 data sets submitted

8. Summary of all submitted data

9. Test Results Averages

10. Young’s Modulus All Data Points

11. Young’s Modulus All Data Points
Avg. + 10%
Avg. = 3.064
Avg.-10%

12. Poisson’s Ratio All Data Points

13. Poisson’s Ratio All Data Points
Avg. + 10%
Avg. = 0.220
Avg.-10%

14. C.S All Data Points

15. Young’s modulus versus confinment

16. Young’s modulus versus confinment

17. Young’s modulus versus confinment

18. Young’s modulus versus confinment

19. Poisson’s ratio versus confinment

20. Poisson’s ratio versus confinment

21. Poisson’s ratio versus confinment

22. Poisson’s ratio versus confinment

23. Strength versus confinment

24. Strength versus confinment

25. Strength versus confinment

26. Why dispersion?
Different methodologies…

27. Going forward ? Comparison of the methodologies Key parameters
Curing conditions (Temperature, Pressure, Access to water…)
Testing protocol (Saturation, Loading rate, cycling…)
Other cement compositions
Resilient cement system …

28. Going forward
Phase 2 testing program?
For discussion