IADC/SPE 98632

Characterization of the Early-Time Mechanical Behavior of Well Cements Employed in

Surface Casing Operations
D.T. Mueller, SPE, and R.N. Eid, SPE, BJ Services Co.

Copyright 2006, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Miami,
Florida, U.S.A., 2123 February 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC, SPE, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors and Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 1.972.952.9435.

Abstract
Pressure events that occur after surface casing cementation,
such as casing integrity testing, formation integrity testing, etc.
all impose stress upon the recently set cement sheath. The
magnitude of stress will depend on the pressure state, casing
thickness, cement sheath thickness and mechanical parameters
of the cement and formation. Should pressure testing take
place during the early stages of cement curing, the tangential
stress imposed by the pressure event can exceed the tensile
strength of the cement, thereby inducing cement sheath
failure.
It is well documented that cement is much stronger in
compression than in tension. In most wellbore pressure
scenarios, cement fails in tension. The proportionality between
the compressive strength and the tensile strength of set cement
is generally assumed to be an 8:1 to 10:1 ratio. During typical
pressure testing events, the cement will have a compressive
strength ranging from the 500 psi required for the
commencement of drilling operations to upwards of 2000 psi
depending on the cement curing time. Accordingly,
conventional wisdom would hold that the tensile strength of
the cement would be in the range of 50 to 200 psi at the time
of casing pressure testing. However, accurate prediction of the
degree of pressure induced cement sheath stress requires more
than a general correlation to derive cement tensile strength.
This paper characterizes the early-state physical properties
and mechanical behavior of accelerated API Class A, G, H
and ASTM Type I cement designs during the twelve hours
following placement. The confined/unconfined compressive
strengths, ultrasonic compressive strengths, tensile strengths,
Young's Modulus and Poisson's Ratio of four commonly used
"tail" cements as a function of time are presented. Predictions
of induced stress in typical casing/hole size combinations as
functions of pressure are also included. The results from this
testing provides guidance as to when pressure testing of the

casing/formation can take place without inducing damage to

the set cement sheath.
Introduction
Surface casing used in well construction serves to isolate
unconsolidated formations and fresh water aquifers found at
shallow depths. The surface casing prevents contamination of
groundwater by drilling fluids used in the well and produced
fluids such as oil, gas or brine. Additionally, the surface casing
is the structural foundation of the well, as it is often the first
casing string to which the blowout preventers are connected1.
Surface casing cement performance requirements such as
compressive strength at time of drill out or at a particular time
interval, free fluid, etc. are stipulated by the responsible state
or federal regulatory authority. Typical surface casing cement
designs incorporate economical volume extended slurries
mixed at 11.5 13.5 lbm/gal (leadcement) followed by a
tail cement mixed at 14.8 16.5 lbm/gal (depending on
cement type) that is placed in the lower section of the casingwellbore annulus. Accelerators, such as calcium chloride, are
often used to reduce the slurry thickening time and enhance
early compressive strength development, thereby minimizing
waiting on cement (WOC) time.
Once the cement is in place and set, maintaining annular
isolation will depend upon the mechanical behavior of the
cement and formation and the stress conditions under which
the cement sheath is placed. Post-cementing stress imposed
upon the cement sheath is most often the result of a change in
the pressure environment due to obligatory casing pressure
testing, formation integrity testing or a change in wellbore
fluid density.
Recent efforts within the well cementing industry have
focused attention on the long-term competency of the cement
sheath under the stress conditions expected during the life of
the well2-7. For the most part these investigations have
centered on stress induced events found deeper in the wellbore
or during the productive phase of the well history. The early
state physical properties and mechanical parameters of cement
employed in surface casing applications have not been
reported in the literature.
Slurry Designs and Test Methods
A group of four commonly used tail cements employed in
surface casing applications were evaluated. These include the
following designs:

IADC/SPE 98632

ASTM Type I + 2% CaCl2 mixed at 15.2 lbm/gal

API Class A + 2% CaCl2 mixed at 15.6 lbm/gal

API Class G + 2% CaCl2 mixed at 15.8 lbm/gal

API Class H + 2% CaCl2 mixed at 16.2 lbm/gal.

The samples were cured at 100F bottom hole static

temperature (BHST) and ambient pressure. Unconfined
compressive strengths (UCS) and direct tensile strengths were
measured at 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 hour intervals. Youngs
Modulus, Poissons Ratio and confined compressive strengths
were measured at 4 and 12 hour intervals. The ultrasonic
compressive strength testing was conducted for 120 hours at a
nominal 300 psi curing pressure.
Unconfined compressive strength and ultrasonic strength
testing was performed using the techniques defined in API
RP10B, "Recommended Practice for Testing Well Cements,"
Twenty-second Edition, 1997. Ultrasonic compressive
strength was determined by means of an Ultrasonic Cement
Analyzer (UCA). The tensile strengths of the samples were
determined by the briquette mold method described in ASTM
C 190-85, "Tensile Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars,"
using a Gilson Model HM-138 Cement Strength Tester. This
method produces the most conservative tensile strength values
compared to other available test methods8. Youngs Modulus,
Poissons Ratio and confined compressive strength were
statically determined by means of compression testing using a
load frame.
Discussion
The results of the laboratory testing of the four cement designs
are included in Table 1. The early compressive strength
development of the Type I, Class A and Class G systems
demonstrated non-linear behavior from what would be
considered a normal strength development response. For
instance, the three cube average of the eight hour strength for
the Type I + 2% CaCl2 (1261 psi) was actually less than the
three cube average determined at six hours (1539 psi). The
Class A + 2% CaCl2 system exhibited similar behavior (1538
psi compressive strength at six hours, 1440 psi at eight hours).
The Class G + 2% CaCl2 system produced 1665 psi
compressive strength in ten hours, with the twelve hour value
being reduced to 1557 psi. However, the results of the
ultrasonic compressive strength testing of the four systems
showed no indication of non-linearity in the strength vs. time
relationship.
Many decades of API cooperative cement testing has
shown the coefficient of variation for the eight hour, 100F
compressive strength specification test to be among the
highest of all the various API cement specification tests
(thickening time, free fluid, etc.). Dating back to 1988, the
average compressive strength reported using the method
defined in API Specification 10A was 673 psi with a standard
deviation of 170 psi and a coefficient of variation of 25%. The
2004 API Sub-committee 10 Cooperative Testing Program
results produced an average eight hour compressive strength
of 785 psi, a standard deviation of 229 psi and a coefficient of

variation of 29%9. Actions to improve the test method for

compressive strength determination contained in API
Specification 10A (ISO 10426-1) are ongoing10. It should also
be noted that methods for destructive compressive strength
testing for well cements were adopted from ASTM codes used
primarily in civil engineering applications. The test methods
are not meant to reflect the actual conditions found within a
wellbore. Under confining stress found in a wellbore the
compressive strength of well cement is generally much higher
than the values reported using the API (or ASTM) method.
This effect is demonstrated by the compressive strength results
under 1000 psi confining (radial) pressure found in Table 1.
Under confining pressure the compressive strength of the
systems was three to five times higher at a four hour curing
time and two to three times higher at twelve hours.
Given the intrinsic variability of the values of unconfined
compressive strength during early set time, the authors choose
to use a linear regression curve-fit for the raw compressive
strength values contained in Table 1. Figures 1, 3, 5 and 7
represent the curve-fit of unconfined compressive strength
compared with the tensile strength values over the test period.
Figures 2, 4, 6 and 8 represent the actual ultrasonic
compressive strengths vs. tensile strengths over the test period.
Test Results
ASTM Type I + 2% CaCl2 system observations: (Fig. 1 & 2)

Tensile strength gain was rapid between four and six

hours, afterwards, the tensile strength remained
essentially flat and did not follow proportionally with
the increase in UCS or ultrasonic compressive
strength;
This system produced the lowest tensile strengths of
the systems tested;
Ratio of tensile strength to compressive strength
averaged 0.13;
Ratio of tensile strength to ultrasonic compressive
strength averaged 0.16;
Youngs Modulus increased from 173,000 psi at four
hours to 607,000 psi at twelve hours; and
Poissons ratio increased from 0.25 at four hours to
0.28 at twelve hours.

API Class A + 2% CaCl2 system observations: (Fig.3 & 4)

Tensile strength gain was rapid between four and six

hours, from six to twelve hours the tensile strength
remained essentially flat. As with the ASTM Type I
system, tensile strength did not follow proportionally
the with increase in UCS or ultrasonic compressive
strength;
This system produced comparable compressive
strengths to the ASTM Type I system and higher
tensile strengths than the ASTM Type 1 system;
Ratio of tensile strength to compressive strength
averaged 0.14;
Ratio of tensile strength to ultrasonic compressive
strength averaged 0.18;

IADC/SPE 98632

Youngs Modulus increased from 251,000 psi at four

hours to 401,000 psi at twelve hours; and
Poissons ratio decreased from 0.33 at four hours to
0.26 at twelve hours.

API Class G + 2% CaCl2 system observations: (Fig.5 & 6)

Tensile strength gain was linear through the first six

hours, plateaued through eight hours, then increased
again through twelve hours. The tensile strength
development was more proportional to ultrasonic
compressive strength gain than the ASTM Type I and
API Class A systems. However, comparing the ten
and twelve hour values of ultrasonic compressive
strength and tensile strength shows the ultrasonic
compressive strength increasing 18% in two hours vs.
a 9.7% increase in tensile strength over the same
period;
This system produced higher compressive and tensile
strengths than the ASTM Type 1 and API Class A
system, but lower than the API Class H system;
Ratio of tensile strength to compressive strength
averaged 0.17;
Ratio of tensile strength to ultrasonic compressive
strength averaged 0.20;
Youngs Modulus increased from 235,000 psi at four
hours to 441,000 psi at twelve hours; and
Poissons ratio remained essentially unchanged vs.
time with a 0.27 value at four hours and a 0.26 at
twelve hours.

API Class H + 2% CaCl2 system observations: (Fig.7 & 8)

Tensile strength gain was linear through the first six

hours, decreased somewhat through eight hours, then
increased through twelve hours. As with the API
Class G system, the tensile strength development was
more proportional to ultrasonic compressive strength
gain than the ASTM Type I and API Class A
systems. However, comparing the ten and twelve
hour values of ultrasonic compressive strength and
tensile strength does show the ultrasonic compressive
strength increasing 19% in the two hours vs. a 5.3%
increase in tensile strength over the same period;
This system produced the highest compressive and
tensile strengths of any of the systems tested;
Ratio of tensile strength to compressive strength
averaged approximately 0.13;
Ratio of tensile strength to ultrasonic compressive
strength averaged 0.17;
Youngs Modulus increased from 240,000 psi at four
hours to 510,000 psi at twelve hours; and
Poissons ratio remained essentially unchanged vs.
time with a 0.28 value at four hours and a 0.29 value
at twelve hours.

Comparing the performance of all four systems it is

interesting to note the API Class H design produced both the
highest compressive strength and the highest tensile strength

of all the systems tested. The Class H system has the highest
density of all the systems tested and this may be an
influencing factor for the higher tensile strength. The Class H
cement is also, from a particle size perspective, the coarsest of
the base cements used in this evaluation.
The most significant finding from the results in Table 1
and illustrated by Figures 1-8 is the lack of correlation
between the rate of compressive strength development and the
rate of tensile strength development during the early set
history of the samples. From a strength development
standpoint these two parameters are proceeding at different
rates.
Wellbore Stress Modeling
Once having established the various mechanical parameters of
the cement designs, these results were used to predict the
coupled behavior of casing/cement/formation as a response to
a pressure change. A Lame hollow cylinder solution was used
to quantify the magnitude of displacement for a given pressure
condition. The model assumes the casing, cement sheath and
formation are isotropic and non-porous. Further, it is implied
that the casing, cement sheath and formation are mechanically
coupled and concentric11.
For linear elastic, isotropic materials, the stresses induced
by a pressure event will be both radial and tangential in nature.
Radial stress acts perpendicular outward from the axis of the
wellbore while tangential stress acts perpendicular from the
direction of radial stress. Under the stated test conditions, for
the examples contained in Table 2, the radial stress is
compressive in nature while tangential stress produces a
tensile load.
Wellbore Stress Modeling Results
Table 2 presents the results of wellbore stress modeling for the
various slurries as a function of applied pressure. The applied
pressure used for modeling purposes was 80% of internal yield
for a K-55 grade of casing. Casing weights typical of those
used in 13 3/8 and 10 3/4 surface casing applications were
chosen.
Test results indicate that in none of the modeling scenarios
did the compressional or tensional stress imposed by the
pressurization event exceed the compressive or tensile strength
of the cement sample. The Type I design at twelve hours
curing time was closest to tensional failure in the 10 3/4
casing, 2000 ft, 2504 psi pressure, sandstone scenario with a
predicted tensional stress of 182 psi compared to a measured
tensile strength of 197 psi. The other twelve hour simulations
using the Type I system mechanical parameters indicate
increasing safety margin between the tensional stress imposed
by the pressure event and the tensile strength of the set
cement. Pressure testing in less than twelve hours to 80% of
casing internal yield may produce a tensile stress in excess of
the cement tensile strength. It should be emphasized, as
mentioned earlier; the method for determining tensile strength
of the cement is the most conservative of methods typically
employed. Additionally, the Youngs Modulus and Poissons
Ratio were determined using static compression methods. It
has been reported that Youngs Modulus for a granular
material such as cement will be lower if measured in tension12.
This difference between compressionally derived Youngs

Modulus and tensionally derived Youngs Modulus does

provide an intrinsic safety factor that is not accounted for in
the modeling results.
The tensile strength of the Class A, G and H systems at
twelve hours are all in excess of twice that required to
maintain sheath integrity under the simulated pressure
conditions. The compressive strength of the Type I system in
all test cases was well above the compressional stress induced
by the pressurization event. This was also the case with the
Class A, Class G and Class H designs. This observation does
demonstrate the overemphasis given to compressive strength
as a principal performance characteristic of well cement. A
cement sheath will normally fail in tension, not in
compression. Tensile strength of cement is therefore a much
more important factor in maintaining zonal isolation than is
the compressive strength of the material.
Conclusions
1. The Youngs Modulus of the tested designs increases
as a function of curing time.
2. The Poissons Ratio of the tested designs, once
established, varied little over time.
3. During the early set period, compressive strength
development and tensile strength development
proceed at different rates. Test results indicate these
two strength parameters are not coupled and develop
independently.
4. The ASTM Type I and Class A designs reached a
plateau in tensile strength after six hours curing time.
The Class G and H systems exhibited a different
mode of tensile strength development; gaining tensile
strength through six hours, followed by a latent
period, followed by a second phase of strength
development.
5. Under simulated pressure events all the tested designs
have on average twice the required unconfined
compressive strength to withstand the anticipated
compressional stress.
6. Under simulated pressure events the Class A, Class G
and Class H designs have, on average, twice the
required tensile strength required to withstand the
anticipated tensional stress after twelve hours of
curing. In one test case however, the tensile strength
of the Type I design is only 10% higher than the
predicted tensional stress.
7. The modeling of wellbore pressure events
demonstrates the importance of cement tensile
strength, not compressive strength, as the key
parameter in the maintenance of zonal isolation.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr. Russ Maharidge for his
technical assistance and Ms. Issa Mendez for the formatting
and preparation of this manuscript. The authors thank BJ
Services for permission to publish this paper
Nomenclature
API
= American Petroleum Institute
ASTM
= American Society for Testing and Materials
BWOC
= By weight of cement

IADC/SPE 98632

ISO
UCA
UCS
WOC

= International Organization for Standardization

= Ultrasonic Cement Analyzer
= Unconfined compressive strength
= Waiting on cement

References
1.

Nelson, Erik B.: Well Cementing, Elsevier Science BV,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands, (1990).

2.

Thiercelin, M., Baumgarte, C., and Guillot, D.: A Soil

Mechanics Approach to Predict Cement Sheath Behavior,
paper SPE/ISRM 47375, presented at the SPE/ISRM
Eurock '98, Trondeim, Norway, 8-10 July 1998.

3.

Thiercelin, M.J.: et al.: Cement Design Based on Cement

Mechanical Response, paper SPE 38598 presented at the
1997 Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, October
5-8.

4.

Goodwin, K.J. and Crook, R.J.: Cement Sheath Stress

Failure, paper SPE 20453, presented at the 65th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
September 23-26, 1990.

5.

DiLullo, G. and Rae, P.J.: Cements for Long Term Design Optimization by Computer Modelling and
Prediction, paper IADC/SPE 62745 presented at the 2000
IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference,
Kuala Lumpur, September 11-13.

6.

Rae, P.J., DiLullo, G. and Aboud, R.: Cement Design

Using a Computer Model to Predict Zonal Isolation, paper
SPE/GSTT-WC06 presented at the 2000 Geological
Society of Trinidad and Tobago/SPE Conference, Port-of
Spain, Trinidad, July 10-13.

7.

Dean, Gregory D. and Torres, Ricardo S.: Novel Cement

System for Improved Zonal Isolation in Steam Injection
Wells, paper SPE/Petroleum Society of CIM/CHOA
presented at the 2002 SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and International
Well Technology Conference, Calgary, November 4-7.

8.

Heinold, T., et al.: Analysis of Tensile Strength Test

Methodologies for Evaluating Oil and Gas Well Cement
Systems, paper SPE 84565 presented at the 2003 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 5-8
October.

9.

Report of API SC-10 Task Group on Cooperative Testing,

2004-2005 Cooperative Test Program, William Carruthers Chairman, presented at the 2005 API Winter Meeting,
Santa Ana Pueblo, New Mexico, February 15, 2005.

10. Report of API SC-10 Work Group on Compressive

Strength, Scott Saville - Chairman, presented at the 2005
API Winter Meeting, Santa Ana Pueblo, New Mexico,
February 15, 2005.
11. Mueller, D.T., et al.: Characterizing Casing-CementFormation Interactions under Stress Conditions: Impact on
Long-Term Zonal Isolation, paper SPE 90450 presented at
the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, September 26-29.

IADC/SPE 98632

12. Haimson, B.C. and Tharp, T.M.: Stresses around

Boreholes in Bilinear Elastic Rock, paper SPE 4241
presented at the SPE AIME Sixth Conference on Drilling
and Rock Mechanics, Austin, 22-23 January 1973.

Conversion Factors
(F-32)/1.8
= C
lbm/gal x 1.198264 E+02 = kg/m3
in x 2.54*
E+00 = cm
psi x 6.894757
E+00 = kPa
ft x 3.048
E01 = m
*

Conversion factor is exact

IADC/SPE 98632

Table 1
Slurry
Design
Type I +
2% CaCl2

Class A +
2% CaCl2

Class G +
2% CaCl2

Class H +
2% CaCl2

Density

BHST

(lbm/gal)
15.2

15.6

15.8

16.2

UCA
Strength

Comp.
Str.
(psi)

Confined
C.S.
1000 psi

Tensile
Str.
(psi)

E
106

P. R.

(F)

Cure
Time
(hrs)

100

507

554

>2500

88

0.173

0.25

803

1539

1080

10

100

100

100

UCA
Strength
(psi)
24 hr

2393

188

48 hr

2933

1261

164

72 hr

3213

1326

1543

175

96 hr

3402

12

1554

1312

3805

197

0.607

0.28

120 hr

3540

492

545

>2580

93

0.251

0.33

24 hr

2397

833

1538

192

48 hr

3306

1086

1440

216

72 hr

3534

10

1294

1750

221

96 hr

3712

12

1494

1475

3570

203

0.401

0.26

120 hr

3866

405

618

2560

116

0.235

0.27

24 hr

2543

727

733

160

48 hr

3598

1043

1036

172

72 hr

4084

10

1320

1665

245

96 hr

4416

12

1561

1557

3412

269

0.441

0.26

120 hr

4670

569

832

>2627

124

0.24

0.28

24 hr

2841

1099

1355

210

48 hr

3583

1516

1842

179

72 hr

3974

10

1859

2543

340

96 hr

4257

12

2109

2844

120 hr

4479

4775

358

0.51

0.29

IADC/SPE 98632

Table 2
Slurry Design

Type I + 2% CaCl2
Density: 15.2 ppg
Time : 12 Hrs
UCA Str. : 1554 psi
Comp. Str. : 1312 psi
Tensile Str.: 197 psi
E: 0.607 10e+06
: 0.28

Class A + 2% CaCl2
Density:15.6 ppg
Time : 12 Hrs
UCA Str. : 1494 psi
Comp. Str. : 1475 psi
Tensile Str.: 203 psi
E: 0.401 10e+06
: 0.26

Class G + 2% CaCl2
Density:15.8 ppg
Time :12 Hrs
UCA Str.: 1561 psi
Comp. Str.: 1557 psi
Tensile Str.: 269 psi
E: 0.441 10e+06
: 0.26

Class H + 2% CaCl2
Density: 16.2 ppg
Time : 12 Hrs
UCA Str. : 2109 psi
Comp. Str. : 2844 psi
Tensile Str.: 358 psi
E: 0.510 10e+06
: 0.29

Casing
Size/Wt

Casing
Depth

Test
Pressure

Formation
Type

Maximum
Radial
Stress

Maximum
Tangential
Stress

(in/lbmft)

(ft)

(80% of
internal
yield psi)

Compression

Tension

10 3/4/40.5

2000

2504

Sand

777 psi

182 psi

10 3/4/40.5

2000

2504

Shale

822 psi

152 psi

10 3/4/40.5

4000

2504

Sand

810 psi

149 psi

10 3/4/40.5

4000

2504

Shale

851 psi

124 psi

13 3/8/61

2000

2472

Sand

797 psi

166 psi

13 3/8/61

2000

2472

Shale

845 psi

133 psi

13 3/8/61

4000

2472

Sand

829 psi

133 psi

13 3/8/61

4000

2472

Shale

874 psi

105 psi

10 3/4/40.5

2000

2504

Sand

671 psi

93 psi

10 3/4/40.5

2000

2504

Shale

705 psi

77 psi

10 3/4/40.5

4000

2504

Sand

704 psi

61 psi

10 3/4/40.5

4000

2504

Shale

733 psi

49 psi

13 3/8/61

2000

2472

Sand

696 psi

79 psi

13 3/8/61

2000

2472

Shale

733 psi

61 psi

13 3/8/61

4000

2472

Sand

728 psi

46 psi

13 3/8/61

4000

2472

Shale

761 psi

32 psi

10 3/4/40.5

2000

2504

Sand

696 psi

114 psi

10 3/4/40.5

2000

2504

Shale

732 psi

95 psi

10 3/4/40.5

4000

2504

Sand

729 psi

81 psi

10 3/4/40.5

4000

2504

Shale

760 psi

67 psi

13 3/8/61

2000

2472

Sand

719 psi

99 psi

13 3/8/61

2000

2472

Shale

759 psi

79 psi

13 3/8/61

4000

2472

Sand

752 psi

67 psi

13 3/8/61

4000

2472

Shale

787 psi

50 psi

10 3/4/40.5

2000

2504

Sand

735 psi

117 psi

10 3/4/40.5

2000

2504

Shale

777 psi

91 psi

10 3/4/40.5

4000

2504

Sand

768 psi

85 psi

10 3/4/40.5

4000

2504

Shale

805 psi

63 psi

13 3/8/61

2000

2472

Sand

757 psi

101 psi

13 3/8/61

2000

2472

Shale

802 psi

72 psi

13 3/8/61

4000

2472

Sand

790 psi

68 psi

13 3/8/61

4000

2472

Shale

830 psi

44 psi

Note: Assumed hole size for 10 3/4 casing scenario is 14.5, hole size for 13 3/8 casing scenario is 17.5
Mechanical parameters of formations: Sandstone: Youngs Modulus: 2.2 x 106 psi, Poissons Ratio: 0.29
Shale: Youngs Modulus: 2.59 x 106 psi, Poissons Ratio: 0.26

IADC/SPE 98632

Type I + 2% CaCl2 @ 15.2 ppg @100F

Compressive (UCS) vs. Tensile Strength
2000

Compressive / Tensile Strength (psi)

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

8
Cure Time (hrs)

Tensile Strength (psi)

10

12

14

12

14

CS Trendline (psi)

Figure 1
Type I + 2% CaCl2 @ 15.2 ppg @100F
Compressive (Ultrasonic) vs. Tensile Strength
2000

Compressive / Tensile Strength (psi)

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

10

Cure Time (hrs)

UCA Strengths (psi)

Figure 2

Tensile Strength (psi)

IADC/SPE 98632

Class A + 2% CaCl2 @ 15.6 ppg @ 100F

Compressive (UCS) vs. Tensile Strength
2000

Compressive /Tensile Strength (psi)

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

10

12

14

12

14

Cure Time (hrs)

Tensile Strength (psi)

CS Trendline (psi)

Figure 3
Class A + 2% CaCl2 @ 15.6 ppg @ 100F
Compressive (Ultrasonic) vs. Tensile Strength
2000

Compressive /Tensile Strength (psi)

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

10

Cure Time (hrs)

UCA Strengths (psi)

Figure 4

Tensile Strength (psi)

10

IADC/SPE 98632

Class G + 2% CaCl2 @ 15.8 ppg @ 100F

Compressive (UCS) vs. Tensile Strength
2000

Compressive / Tensile Strength (psi)

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

10

12

14

12

14

Cure Time (hrs)

Tensile Strength (psi)

CS Trendline (psi)

Figure 5
Class G + 2% CaCl2 @ 15.8 ppg @ 100F
Compressive (Ultrasonic) vs. Tensile Strength

2000

Compressive / Tensile Strength (psi)

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

10

Cure Time (hrs)

UCA Strengths (psi)

Figure 6

Tensile Strength (psi)

IADC/SPE 98632

11

Class H + 2% CaCl2 @ 16.2 ppg @ 100F

Compressive (UCS) vs. Tensile Strength
3300

Compressive / Tensile Strength (psi)

3000
2700
2400
2100
1800
1500
1200
900
600
300
0
0

10

12

14

12

14

Cure Time (hrs)

Tensile Strength (psi)

CS Trendline (psi)

Figure 7
Class H + 2% CaCl2 @ 16.2 ppg @ 100F
Compressive (Ultrasonic) vs. Tensile Strength

3000

Compressive / Tensile Strength (psi)

2700
2400
2100
1800
1500
1200
900
600
300
0
0

10

Cure Time (hrs)

UCA Strengths (psi)

Figure 8

Tensile Strength (psi)