Effect of Jet Perforating on Bond Strength of Cement
Authors: Godfrey W.K. 
Published: December 2007

The highest compressive strength cement has the highest bond strength in tests in which the cement is subjected to a confining pressure. After perforating, the bond strength is reduced to nearly zero when the pipe is supported by weak cement. Perforating does not affect the bond strength, however, when the pipe is supported by strong cement. Pipe supported by weak cement is damaged by perforating with expendable capsule jets, but is not damaged by perforating with the hollow carrier gun. High strength cements are recommended for oil wells that are to be perforated.

Introduction

The purpose of this work is tar, determine the effect of jet perforating on the bonding strength of oilwell cement at simulated down-hole, conditions. Bond strength is a good criterion for determining the effectiveness of cement in performing its main function, i.e., that of isolating zones. According to the literature on the subject, the optimum cement strength for perforating is low and should not exceed 2,000 psi compressive strength. This conclusion was based on the appearance of bullet and jet perforations in neat and gel cements, largely done in, the absence of a confining pressure more than 15 years ago.

Discussion

Literature

A relatively weak cement has been recommended in the literature as having optimum properties for perforating. In 1947, Oliphant and Farris tested bullet perforating of neat cements at various curing times.1 Some of the tests were made at down-hole conditions. They reported that the optimum cement strength for perforating was about 2,000 psi compressive strength. Enlarged holes occurred when strength was too low, and the cement shattered and cracked when the strength was too high.

In 1951, Morgan and Dumbauld tested bullet and jet perforating of neat and gel cements at surface conditions.2 They reported that optimum cement has a compressive strength less than 2,000 psi. In their tests at atmospheric pressure, high strength cement shattered and cracked when perforated. Thus, the optimum cement strength was based on the appearance of neat and gel cement after perforating.

In 1953, Clark showed a relation between cement strength and fluid shutoff.3 He concluded that a 500 psi compressive strength is required for good fluid shutoff and that maximum bonding ability is developed at approximately 1,000 psi compressive strength.

In 1964, Bell and Shore invalidated most of the conclusions by the previous authors when they demonstrated that atmospheric pressure tests cannot be used to determine casing deformation and damage that will result from perforating under down-hole conditions.4 They showed that the higher the hydrostatic pressure, the more restricted will be the expansion of gases generated by the charge. Less casing deformation and damage occurs under downhole conditions than at atmospheric pressure.

In recent work, Bearden et al. reported that jet perforating at surface pressure with the hollow carrier gun caused the cement sheath to shatter and crack.5 The perforating, however, did not seriously affect the pressure required to leak past, the casing cement bond. Only three cementing mixtures were tested, and presumably they had strengths in excess of 2,000 psi. Bearden et al. also reported that the hydraulic bonding strength increased as the compressive strength increased. Their hydraulic test showed that approximately 1,000 psi pressure is sufficient to break the casing cement bond for a well aged neat Portland cement sheath. Unfortunately, the tests were not run with a confining pressure, so Bearden et al. were merely measuring the strength of their outer 8 5/8-in. casing. In our investigation, we measured the hydraulic bond strength of cement to pipe under a confining pressure and found that the bond strength was not limited to 1,000 psi.

Cement Bond

The bond strength is a good criterion. for measuring the effectiveness of cement in performing its main function, that of preventing interzonal communication of fluids behind the casing. Measuring bond strength after perforating should be a good quantitative method of determining optimum cement properties, and should be a better method than that used by previous investigators,1,2 who simply observed the appearance of the cement after perforating.

Literature

A relatively weak cement has been recommended in the literature as having optimum properties for perforating. In 1947, Oliphant and Farris tested bullet perforating of neat cements at various curing times.1 Some of the tests were made at down-hole conditions. They reported that the optimum cement strength for perforating was about 2,000 psi compressive strength. Enlarged holes occurred when strength was too low, and the cement shattered and cracked when the strength was too high.

In 1951, Morgan and Dumbauld tested bullet and jet perforating of neat and gel cements at surface conditions.2 They reported that optimum cement has a compressive strength less than 2,000 psi. In their tests at atmospheric pressure, high strength cement shattered and cracked when perforated. Thus, the optimum cement strength was based on the appearance of neat and gel cement after perforating.

In 1953, Clark showed a relation between cement strength and fluid shutoff.3 He concluded that a 500 psi compressive strength is required for good fluid shutoff and that maximum bonding ability is developed at approximately 1,000 psi compressive strength.

In 1964, Bell and Shore invalidated most of the conclusions by the previous authors when they demonstrated that atmospheric pressure tests cannot be used to determine casing deformation and damage that will result from perforating under down-hole conditions.4 They showed that the higher the hydrostatic pressure, the more restricted will be the expansion of gases generated by the charge. Less casing deformation and damage occurs under downhole conditions than at atmospheric pressure.

In recent work, Bearden et al. reported that jet perforating at surface pressure with the hollow carrier gun caused the cement sheath to shatter and crack.5 The perforating, however, did not seriously affect the pressure required to leak past, the casing cement bond. Only three cementing mixtures were tested, and presumably they had strengths in excess of 2,000 psi. Bearden et al. also reported that the hydraulic bonding strength increased as the compressive strength increased. Their hydraulic test showed that approximately 1,000 psi pressure is sufficient to break the casing cement bond for a well aged neat Portland cement sheath. Unfortunately, the tests were not run with a confining pressure, so Bearden et al. were merely measuring the strength of their outer 8 5/8-in. casing. In our investigation, we measured the hydraulic bond strength of cement to pipe under a confining pressure and found that the bond strength was not limited to 1,000 psi.

Cement Bond

The bond strength is a good criterion. for measuring the effectiveness of cement in performing its main function, that of preventing interzonal communication of fluids behind the casing. Measuring bond strength after perforating should be a good quantitative method of determining optimum cement properties, and should be a better method than that used by previous investigators,1,2 who simply observed the appearance of the cement after perforating.