energies

Article
Investigation of Elastomer Seal Energization:
Implications for Conventional and Expandable
Hanger Assembly
Harshkumar Patel and Saeed Salehi *
Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73071,
USA; harsh@ou.edu
* Correspondence: salehi@ou.edu; Tel.: +1-405-325-6829




Received: 16 January 2019; Accepted: 22 February 2019; Published: 25 February 2019


Abstract: Elastomer seals are extensively used in various wellhead and casing/liner hanger
equipment as barriers for isolating fluids. Seal assemblies have been identified as one of the major
cause of well control incidents. Majority of hangers utilize conventional weight- or mechanical-set
slip-and-seal assembly. The objective of this paper is to conduct a detailed investigation of seal
energization in conventional and relatively newer expandable type hanger seal assembly. To achieve
the objective, the finite element modeling approach was employed. Three dimensional computer
models consisting of concentric casings and annular elastomer seal element were constructed. Seal
energization process was modelled by manipulating boundary conditions. Conventional seal
energization was mimicked by applying rigid support at the bottom of elastomer element and
compressing it from the top. Expandable hanger type seal energization was modelled by radially
displacing the inner pipe to compress annular seal element. Seal quality was evaluated in terms of
contact stress values and profile along the seal-pipe interface. Different amounts of seal energization
were simulated. Both types of seal energization processes yielded different contact stress profiles. For
the same amount of seal volumetric compression, contact stress profiles were compared. In case of
conventional seal energization, contact stress profile decreases from the compression side towards
support side. The seal in expandable hanger generates contact stress profile that peaks at the center
of contact interface and reduces towards the ends. Convectional seal assembly has more moving
parts, making it more prone to failure or under-energization. Finite Element Models were validated
using analytical equations, and a good match was obtained. The majority of research related to
elastomer seal is focused on material properties evaluation. Limited information is available in public
domain on functional design and assessment of seal assembly. This paper adds novel information
by providing detailed assessment of advantages and limitations of two different seal energization
process. This opens doors for further research in functional failure modes in seal assembly.

Keywords: elastomer seal; finite element analysis; contact pressure; sensitivity analysis; well integrity;
liner hanger

1. Introduction
Elastomer is a cross-linked network of natural or synthetic polymers. Elastomer material is
relatively cheaper and exhibits characteristics property of deforming and recovering under load
(elasticity and resilience). Moreover, elastomer seals are suitable for dynamic application [1] and their
sealability does not depend on surface characteristic like metal-to-metal seal [2]. Because of these
advantages, elastomer material is still widely used in various drilling, completion, and wellhead
equipment. In addition to packers, blow-out preventers, and safety valves, elastomer seals is a critical
component of casing and liner hanger assemblies.

Energies 2019, 12, 763; doi:10.3390/en12040763 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 763 2 of 15
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16

There are two majormajor types

types ofof elastomer
elastomer seal
seal assembly
assembly in in liner
liner hangers—conventional
hangers—conventional and
expandable. As shown in Figure 1a, conventional seal assembly is set by applying axial compression
load on compression plate or cone cone either
either mechanically
mechanically or hydraulically.
hydraulically. As As the
the load
load is applied,
elastomer
elastomer component
componentexpandsexpandsradially
radiallyand
andseals annular
seals annular pressure
pressure below
belowthethe
hanger. Slips
hanger. element
Slips has
element
serrated teeth which engages the opposing surface when the compression
has serrated teeth which engages the opposing surface when the compression is applied and keeps is applied and keeps the
seal under
the seal energization.
under Expandable
energization. liner hanger
Expandable is a relatively
liner hanger newer newer
is a relatively technology which offers
technology whichseveral
offers
operational advantages over traditional assemblies [3–7]. Expandable liner hanger
several operational advantages over traditional assemblies [3–7]. Expandable liner hanger consists of consists of a smooth
body withbody
a smooth no moving
with noparts and elastomer
moving parts and elements
elastomerbonded
elements to its outer to
bonded profile (Figure
its outer 1b).(Figure
profile The idea is
1b).
to
Theexpand
idea isthe liner either
to expand the hydraulically by applying by
liner either hydraulically internal
applyingpressure or mechanically
internal by running inby
pressure or mechanically a
solid mandrel having larger outer diameter than the internal diameter of hanger.
running in a solid mandrel having larger outer diameter than the internal diameter of hanger. Expansion of hanger
body leads of
Expansion elastomer elements
hanger body leadsto elastomer
compress against
elements thetocasing resulting
compress againstin seal energization.
the casing resultingTheinseals
seal
not only provide
energization. Thehydraulic integrity,
seals not only but hydraulic
provide also act as integrity,
anchor forbut thealso
liner.
act as anchor for the liner.

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Schematic of (a) typical conventional and (b) expandable type hanger seal assemblies.

Failure in elastomer seal can compromise the well integrity and lead to a loss of well control
(LOWC) event with health, safety,
safety, environment,
environment, and and business
business consequences.
consequences. An informal survey of
Gulf of Mexico operators conducted by Lohoefer et al. [7] revealed that about 30% to 50% of the seals
in liner-casing overlap fail. Another study indicated that up to 18% of offshore wells have some form
of failure or weakness [8]. This problem has also been acknowledged by regulator Bureau of Safety
and Environmental
Environmental Enforcement
Enforcement(BSEE)
(BSEE)ininaarecent
recentinvestigation
investigationreport ofof
report anan
incident [9].[9].
incident Analysis of
Analysis
156 LOWC
of 156 LOWC events’ data
events’ (2000–2015)
data (2000–2015) [10,11]
[10,11]reveal
revealthat
thatalmost
almosthalf
half(46%)
(46%)of
ofthe
thecauses
causes of
of secondary
barrier failure are associated with seal or seal containing components of the well (Figure 2). A 2015
survey by Oil & Gas iQ [12] puts seals as one of the top technical challenges (18% of total) associated
with High-Pressure
High-Pressure High-Temperature
High-Temperature(HPHT)(HPHT)oil oiland
andgas
gasexploration.
exploration.
Majority of the research related to elastomer seal and industry standards/guidelines have been
focused on material composition, properties evaluation, and qualification [11,13]. Elastomer seal
failure in the form of physical and chemical degradation such as rapid gas decompression, extrusion,
compression set, abrasion, volumetric swelling, etc., is widely studied [11,14–16]. However, very
limited information is available on function aspects of elastomer seal assemblies. Particularly, major
research gaps are: the effect of seal energization method, the impact of energization failure, the
consequence of failure in supporting components, and the effect of low quality energization. This
Energies 2019, 12, 763 3 of 15

paper attempts to fill one of these knowledge gaps by performing detailed comparison of conventional
versus
Energies expandable
2019, 12, x FORtype
PEERenergization
REVIEW method. 3 of 16

Figure
Figure 2. Causesofofsecondary
2. Causes secondary barrier
barrier failure
failure in 156
in 156 lossloss of well
of well control
control events
events occurred
occurred duringduring
2000–
2000–2015.
2015.

2. Literature Review
Majority of the research related to elastomer seal and industry standards/guidelines have been
Commonly
focused on material usedcomposition,
elastomer material
properties in the oil & gas
evaluation, andindustry can be[11,13].
qualification grouped into seven
Elastomer seal
groups—NBR
failure in the form (Nitrile Butadiene
of physical andRubber),
chemicalHNBR (Hydrogenated
degradation such as rapidNitrile
gasButadiene Rubber),
decompression, EPDM
extrusion,
(Ethylene
compression Propylene Diene Monomer),
set, abrasion, volumetric FKM (Fluorocarbon),
swelling, etc., is widelyFEPM (Tetrafluoroethylene
studied Propylene),
[11,14–16]. However, very
FFKM (Perfluorocarbon), and PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylen). The elastomer used
limited information is available on function aspects of elastomer seal assemblies. Particularly, major are relatively stiffer
and straingaps
research values are:are less,
the permitting
effect assumption of
of seal energization linear elastic
method, material
the impact behavior requiring
of energization failure,only
the
elastic modulus
consequence of and Poisson’s
failure ratio [17].
in supporting For high deformations,
components, and the effectuse of of
low hyperelastic material model
quality energization. This
such
paperas attempts
neo-Hookean, Mooney–Rivlin,
to fill one of theseOgden, Yeoh, and
knowledge gapsso forth, is needed. The
by performing hyperelastic
detailed material
comparison of
model requires
conventional various
versus physicaltype
expandable measurements
energizationlike uniaxial, planer, biaxial stress behavior, and
method.
volumetric compression data.
2. Literature Review
The majority of relevant studies in the literature are focused on packer equipment, and to some
extent, expandable tubular. Nonetheless, they provide useful information. Berger [18] performed
Commonly used elastomer material in the oil & gas industry can be grouped into seven groups—
physical tests on 7 34 -in. packer to assess different types of backup mechanisms such as steel foldback
NBR (Nitrile Butadiene Rubber), HNBR (Hydrogenated Nitrile Butadiene Rubber), EPDM (Ethylene
ring, mesh rings, and garter springs that support seal during energization process and maintains it
Propylene Diene Monomer), FKM (Fluorocarbon), FEPM (Tetrafluoroethylene Propylene), FFKM
under compression. Feng et al. [19] conducted 2D Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of axial compression
(Perfluorocarbon), and PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylen). The elastomer used are relatively stiffer and
in packer equipment with two elastomer components. They observed consistently higher contact
strain values are less, permitting assumption of linear elastic material behavior requiring only elastic
pressure at the top elastomer element compared to bottom elastomer element. Alzebdeh et al. [20]
modulus and Poisson’s ratio [17]. For high deformations, use of hyperelastic material model such as
studied the effect of seal length, thickness, and compression amount in 2D FEA model of expandable
neo-Hookean, Mooney–Rivlin, Ogden, Yeoh, and so forth, is needed. The hyperelastic material model
tubular sealing against different formations. Al-Kharusi et al. [21] and Al-Hiddabi et al. [22] conducted
requires various physical measurements like uniaxial, planer, biaxial stress behavior, and volumetric
theoretical
compression analysis
data. of compression of elastomer seal in expandable tubular. Assuming linear elastic
materialTheproperties,
majority ofthey presented
relevant studiesanalytical model toare
in the literature predict
focusedcontact stress as
on packer a functionand
equipment, of different
to some
amount of compression and differential fluid pressure across the seal.
extent, expandable tubular. Nonetheless, they provide useful information. Berger [18] performed
Lin [23]
physical testsused
on 7FEA topacker
¾-in. investigate structural
to assess integrity
different typesof ofslip element
backup of packer.such
mechanisms The author
as steelmodelled
foldback
different
ring, mesh teeth spacing
rings, in slipsprings
and garter and examined how itseal
that support affects risk energization
during of failure. Maprocess
et al. [24]
andused 2D FEA
maintains it
model of swelling elastomer packer element to investigate the effects of seal
under compression. Feng et al. [19] conducted 2D Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of axial compression length, swelling amount,
and different
in packer formationwith
equipment on seal
twoquality
elastomer and components.
contact stress.They Theyobserved
observed consistently
that in swellable elastomer
higher contact
packer
pressure equipment,
at the topcontact
elastomerstress profilecompared
element peaks at the to center
bottomofelastomer
the element and declines
element. Alzebdeh towards
et al.both
[20]
ends
studiedof the
the axial
effectlength.
of seal Wang
length,etthickness,
al. [25] studied elastomer failure
and compression amount modes
in 2D such as extrusion,
FEA model sliding,
of expandable
and rupture
tubular by conducting
sealing theoretical
against different analysis supported
formations. Al-Kharusi by visual
et al. experimental observations.
[21] and Al-Hiddabi Zhong
et al. [22]
et al. [26] used FEA model of large bore expandable liner hanger to assess
conducted theoretical analysis of compression of elastomer seal in expandable tubular. Assuming expansion force, cone pull
out fore,
linear contact
elastic stress at
material the seal-pipe
properties, theyinterface,
presentedand deformations
analytical modelintohanger,
predictcasing,
contactcontainment
stress as a
spikes,
function and
of cone body.
different amount of compression and differential fluid pressure across the seal.
Lin [23] used FEA to investigate structural integrity of slip element of packer. The author
modelled different teeth spacing in slip and examined how it affects risk of failure. Ma et al. [24] used
2D FEA model of swelling elastomer packer element to investigate the effects of seal length, swelling
amount, and different formation on seal quality and contact stress. They observed that in swellable
elastomer packer equipment, contact stress profile peaks at the center of the element and declines
towards both ends of the axial length. Wang et al. [25] studied elastomer failure modes such as
extrusion, sliding, and rupture by conducting theoretical analysis supported by visual experimental
observations. Zhong et al. [26] used FEA model of large bore expandable liner hanger to assess
Energies 2019, 12, 763 4 of 15
expansion force, cone pull out fore, contact stress at the seal-pipe interface, and deformations in
hanger, casing, containment spikes, and cone body.
Hu et al. [27][27] conducted
conducted 3D
3D finite
finite element
element analysis
analysis of
of compression
compression packer
packer equipment.
equipment. They
studied the effect of carbon black content in HNBR formulation and ranked the materials in terms of
contact stress, shoulder extrusion, and stresses in structure of the packer. Elhard et al. [11] conducted
measurement of commonly
extensive material properties measurement commonly used oil and gas elastomer material and
presented hyper-elastic models parameters. They They also
also conducted experimental
experimental and finite element
Recently, Patel
modelling study of O-ring extrusion. Recently, Patel et al. [13] used 3D finite element modelling to
evaluate the performance of conventional liner hanger seal assembly. assembly. They conducted parametric
study and ranked various design parameters based on the impact impact on
on seal
seal performance.
performance. They also
correlation to
presented an empirical correlation to predict
predict contact
contact pressure.
pressure.

3. Objectives
3. Objectives and
and Scope
Scope
The objective
The objective of
of this
this paper
paper was
was to
to compare
compare seal
seal energization
energization and
and resultant
resultant contact
contact stress
stress profiles
profiles
in conventional and expandable type hanger seal
in conventional and expandable type hanger seal assembly. assembly.
For this
For this purpose,
purpose,three
threedimensional
dimensional finite
finite element
element model
model consisting
consisting of liner,
of liner, elastomer
elastomer seal, seal,
and
and casing
casing elements
elements was created.
was created. Bothoftypes
Both types of energization
energization were simulated
were simulated by manipulating
by manipulating boundary
boundary conditions.
conditions. The simulations
The simulations were performed
were performed at different
at different amount
amount of of volumetriccompressions.
volumetric compressions.
Comparison between
Comparison between bothboth types
types of
of equipment
equipment was was performed
performed in in terms
terms ofof contact
contact stress
stress profile
profile
generated at the seal-pipe interface. For thorough comparison, investigation was conducted
generated at the seal-pipe interface. For thorough comparison, investigation was conducted using using both
linear-elastic and hyper-elastic material models under frictionless and frictional
both linear-elastic and hyper-elastic material models under frictionless and frictional surfacesurface conditions.
For expandable
conditions. hanger, configuration
For expandable of containment
hanger, configuration spikes were also
of containment varied
spikes weretoalso
examine
varieditstoimpact
examine on
contact stress profile. The commonly used FKM elastomer was employed as
its impact on contact stress profile. The commonly used FKM elastomer was employed as thethe reference material in
the study.
reference material in the study.

4. Finite
4. Finite Element
Element Models
Models
Two dimensional
Two dimensional schematic
schematic and and top
top view
view of
of the
the both
both FEA
FEA models
models are
are shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 3.
3.
Dimensions of 18-in. liner and 20-in. casing were based on the actual well design
Dimensions of 18-in. liner and 20-in. casing were based on the actual well design where cement in where cement
in liner-casing
liner-casing overlap
overlap likely
likely failed
failed [9]. [9].
The The length
length of pipes
of pipes werewere
kept kept
long long
enoughenough to avoid
to avoid any
any end-
end-effects. Seal axial length was 2.5-in. and radial width was 0.6875-in. To save number
effects. Seal axial length was 2.5-in. and radial width was 0.6875-in. To save number of mesh nodes of mesh
nodesand
used used and minimize
minimize computational
computational power,power,
1/16th1/16th of the model
of the model wasfor
was used used
the for the simulations.
simulations.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Two
Two dimensional schematic of the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) models of (a) conventional
and (b) expandable type hanger seal assembly,
assembly, and
and (c)
(c) the
the top
top view.
view.

Conventional seal energization was mimicked by applying zero displacement boundary

Conventional
conditions i.e., support at the bottom of elastomer element and compressing it from the the top.
top. To
achieve compression, displacement type boundary condition was used. Displacement boundary
condition was used instead of directly applying load because it provides faster and more controlled
numerical convergence with less susceptibility to failure. Expandable hanger type seal energization
Energies 2019, 12, 763 5 of 15

was modelled by radially displacing the liner to compress annular seal element. Casing was fixed
radial and axial during the energization process.
Liner and casing were modelled as isotropic linear elastic material. FKM elastomer was modelled
as both linear elastic and hyper-elastic (Ogden 3rd order) material. Material properties of FKM were
obtained from existing literature [11]. FKM is a common elastomer material used in the oil and gas
applications because of its high resistance to chemical degradation [28]. The material properties for
all three components are listed in Table 1. Hyper-elastic stress-strain behavior of FKM is graphically
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
presented in Figure 4.

achieve compression, displacement type properties

Table 1. Material boundaryused condition was
in the FEA used. Displacement boundary
model.
condition was used instead of directly applying load because it provides faster and more controlled
numerical convergence Material Properties hanger type seal energization
with less susceptibility to failure. Expandable
was modelled by radially displacing the liner to compress annular =seal
Young’s modulus 310.5element.
psi Casing was fixed
Linear elastic FKM at 73◦ F [11]
radial and axial during the energization process. Poisson’s ratio = 0.49
Liner and casing were modelled as isotropic linear Ogdenelastic material. FKM elastomer was
3rd Order
modelled as both linear elastic and
◦ µ1 =
hyper-elastic 278 psi,3rd
(Ogden µ1 =order)
32.31 psi, µ1 = 0.198
material. psi
Material properties of
Hyper-elastic FKM at 73 F [11]
FKM were obtained from existing literature [11]. FKM α1 = 2.661,
is a α 1 =
common-2.661, α1 =
elastomer10.79material used in the
D1 = 1.4 × 10−5 psi−1 , D2 = 2.7 × 10−6 psi−1 , D1 = 0
oil and gas applications because of its high resistance to chemical degradation [28]. The material
properties for all three components Young’s
are listed in Table 1. Hyper-elastic × 106 psi
modulus = 29stress-strain behavior of FKM
Liner and casing
Poisson’s ratio = 0.3
is graphically presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Uniaxial, shear, and biaxial material behavior of Fluorocarbon (FKM).

Figure 4. Uniaxial, shear, and biaxial material behavior of Fluorocarbon (FKM).
The model was discretized using hexahedral mesh because of its near orthogonality. Augmented
Table 1. Material
Lagrange type contact formulation was usedproperties used in the seal-pipe
for representing FEA model. contact interfaces. Stiffness
factor was adjusted to achieve minimum possible penetration (10 3 to 10−4 inch) while still successfully
−
Material Properties
achieving convergence.
Model verification was performed by ensuring that Young’s modulusconditions
boundary = 310.5 psi were being fulfilled
Linear elastic FKM at 73°F [11]
and results were independent of symmetry plane selection Poisson’s ratio =size.
and mesh 0.49 Additionally, analytical
validation was performed to ensure accuracy of the model predictions.
Ogden 3rd Order
5. Analytical Validation μ1 = 278 psi, μ1 = 32.31 psi, μ1 = 0.198 psi
Hyper-elastic FKM at 73°F [11]
α1 = 2.661, αbetween
To validate the FEA model, the analytical relationship 1 = -2.661, α1 = 10.79
bulk modulus, volumetric
compression, and pressure can be used. As shown in×the
D1 = 1.4 10 Figure
−5 psi , D5,
−1 2.7 × 10−6 psi−1, hanger
2 =conventional D1 = 0 seal model
is constrained in radial and axial direction after energization. The pressure
Young’s modulus = 29 × 106 psi generated at all four
Liner
frictionless contacting and casing
surfaces should be same. This situation is similar to how bulk modulus is
Poisson’s ratio = 0.3

The model was discretized using hexahedral mesh because of its near orthogonality. Augmented
Lagrange type contact formulation was used for representing seal-pipe contact interfaces. Stiffness
factor was adjusted to achieve minimum possible penetration (10−3 to 10−4 inch) while still successfully
achieving convergence.
Model verification was performed by ensuring that boundary conditions were being fulfilled
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

To validate the FEA model, the analytical relationship between bulk modulus, volumetric
compression, and pressure can be used. As shown in the Figure 5, conventional hanger seal model is
constrained in radial and axial direction after energization. The pressure generated at all6 of
Energies 2019, 12, 763
four
15
frictionless contacting surfaces should be same. This situation is similar to how bulk modulus is
defined, i.e. application of equal external pressure over the surface of a three dimensional body to
defined, i.e. application
achieve bulk volumetric of equal external pressure over the surface of a three dimensional body to
compression.
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16
achieve bulk volumetric compression.
∆V P
To validate the FEA model, the analytical =− . (1)
V relationship
K between bulk modulus, volumetric
compression, and pressure can be used. As shown in the Figure 5, conventional hanger seal model is
E
constrained in radial and axial direction Kafter = energization. The pressure generated at all four (2)
3(1 − 2ν)
frictionless contacting surfaces should be same. This situation is similar to how bulk modulus is
where
defined, P, i.e.
K, and ν are pressure,
application of equal bulk modulus,
external andover
pressure Poisson’s ratio,ofrespectively.
the surface V is the original
a three dimensional body to
volume of elastomer seal, and
achieve bulk volumetric compression. ∆V is change in volume as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Volumetric compression in FEA model of conventional hanger seal

∆V P
. (1)
V K
E
K (2)
3 1 2ν
where P, K, and ν are
Figure
Figure 5. pressure,
5. Volumetricbulk
Volumetric modulus,
compression
compression andmodel
in FEA
in FEA Poisson’s
model ratio, respectively.
of conventional
of conventional sealV is the original
hanger seal.
hanger
volume of elastomer seal, and ΔV is change in volume as shown in Figure 5.
Pressure
Pressure calculated Equation(1)
calculated using Equation (1)were
werecompared
comparedwith withFEA
FEA simulated
simulated contact
contact pressure
pressure for
∆V P
different volumetric compression values. As shown in. the Figure 6, a good match
for different volumetric compression values. As shown in the Figure 6, a good match was (1)
obtained.
obtained.
Deviation
Deviationfrom
fromanalytical
analyticalcalculation
calculationwas
was4%
Vto7%
4%to 7%at
Klowerends
atlower endsofofcompression
compression(less(lessthan
than5%)
5%)and
and
less
lessthan
than3%
3%atathigher
higherends
endsofofcompression
compression(more
(morethan E 5%).
than 5%).
K (2)
3 1 2ν
where P, K, and ν are pressure, bulk modulus, and Poisson’s ratio, respectively. V is the original
volume of elastomer seal, and ΔV is change in volume as shown in Figure 5.
Pressure calculated using Equation (1) were compared with FEA simulated contact pressure for
different volumetric compression values. As shown in the Figure 6, a good match was obtained.
Deviation from analytical calculation was 4% to 7% at lower ends of compression (less than 5%) and
less than 3% at higher ends of compression (more than 5%).

Figure 6. Comparison between contact stress simulated by FEA model and calculated using
Figure 6. Comparison between contact stress simulated by FEA model and calculated using analytical
analytical equation.
equation.
6. Simulation Results
6. Simulation Results
Five parameters were varied to run a total of 50 simulation cases. Factors investigated were
Five parameters
energization were varied
method, amount to run a compression,
of volumetric total of 50 simulation cases. Factors
friction coefficient, investigated
and material were
behavior.
energization
Results method, based
were grouped amountonofthe
volumetric
individualcompression, friction
parameters being coefficient, and material behavior.
examined.
Results were grouped based on the individual parameters being examined.
6.1. Effect of Energization Method
Figure 6. Comparison between contact stress simulated by FEA model and calculated using analytical
Contact stress profiles generated in conventional and expandable liner hanger are presented
equation.
in Figures 7 and 8 respectively. The profiles were generated at different volumetric compression
6. Simulation Results
Five parameters were varied to run a total of 50 simulation cases. Factors investigated were
energization method, amount of volumetric compression, friction coefficient, and material behavior.
Results were grouped based on the individual parameters being examined.
conventional assembly) and % change in seal inner radius (for expandable assembly) are also
provided. Surface conditions were assumed to be frictionless. For expandable seal assembly,
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16
elastomer containment in axial direction was not considered.
6.1. Effect of Energization Method
Energies 2019, 12, 763 7 of 15
Contact stress profiles generated in conventional and expandable liner hanger are presented in
Figures 7 and 8 respectively. The profiles were generated at different volumetric compression using
linearlinear
using elasticelastic
FKM FKMelastomer. Compression
elastomer. ratio ratio
Compression defined as %aschange
defined in axial
% change seal seal
in axial height (for
height
conventional
(for conventional assembly) andand
assembly) %% change
changeininseal
sealinner
innerradius
radius (for
(for expandable
expandable assembly) are are also
also
provided.Surface
provided. Surface conditions
conditions were
were assumed
assumed to be frictionless.
to be frictionless. For expandable
For expandable seal elastomer
seal assembly, assembly,
elastomer containment
containment in axial
in axial direction direction
was was not considered.
not considered.

Figure 7. Contact stress profiles generated in conventional seal assembly at different volumetric
compression.

As shown in the Figure 7, contact stress values remained constant along the seal length. This is
because of the frictionless assumption for surface. For expandable liner hanger seal assembly (Figure
8), the contact stress peaked at the center of the seal and declines away from it. This is due to the fact
that elastomer is not contained at the ends. Plus, seal-pipe interface is frictionless. Hence, the seal
slidesFigure
away7.from the center
Contact stress while being
profiles compressed;
generated leading seal
in conventional to peak contact
assembly at stress at the
different middle and
volumetric
zero compression.
contact stress
Figure 7. at the
Contact ends.
stress profiles generated in conventional seal assembly at different volumetric
compression.

As shown in the Figure 7, contact stress values remained constant along the seal length. This is
because of the frictionless assumption for surface. For expandable liner hanger seal assembly (Figure
8), the contact stress peaked at the center of the seal and declines away from it. This is due to the fact
that elastomer is not contained at the ends. Plus, seal-pipe interface is frictionless. Hence, the seal
slides away from the center while being compressed; leading to peak contact stress at the middle and
zero contact stress at the ends.

Figure 8.
Figure Contact stress
8. Contact stress profiles
profiles generate
generate in
in expandable
expandable seal
seal assembly
assembly at
at different
different volumetric
volumetric
compression.
compression.

As shown in the Figure 7, contact stress values remained constant along the seal length. This is
because of the frictionless assumption for surface. For expandable liner hanger seal assembly (Figure 8),
the contact stress peaked at the center of the seal and declines away from it. This is due to the fact that
elastomer is not contained at the ends. Plus, seal-pipe interface is frictionless. Hence, the seal slides
away from the center while being compressed; leading to peak contact stress at the middle and zero
contact stress at the ends.
Figure 8. Contact stress profiles generate in expandable seal assembly at different volumetric
It is clear from the profiles that contact stress value increases with an increase in the amount
compression.
of compression. The increment is practically linear for both of the seal assemblies as shown in the
Figure 9. For the same amount of volumetric compression, conventional energization yields higher
contact stress. For example, at 7% volumetric compression, conventional and expandable assembly
 Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

It is clear from the profiles that contact stress value increases with an increase in the amount of
compression.
Energies 2019, 12, 763 The increment is practically linear for both of the seal assemblies as shown in the Figure 8 of 15
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16
9. For the same amount of volumetric compression, conventional energization yields higher contact
stress. For
It isexample,
clear fromatthe
7%profiles
volumetric compression,
that contact conventional
stress value increasesandwithexpandable
an increase assembly generate
in the amount of
generate355
355psipsi
andand
compression. 63
63 psi
The psi
peak peak
increment contact
contactisstress, stress,
linearrespectively.
respectively.
practically This of
for both is the This
expected
seal is expected
because
assemblies the because
of shown
as lack
in of of the lack of
theelastomer
Figure
containment
elastomer containment in expandable
9. For the same amount ofseal assembly.
volumetric
in expandable sealcompression,
assembly. conventional energization yields higher contact
stress. For example, at 7% volumetric compression, conventional and expandable assembly generate
355 psi and 63 psi peak contact stress, respectively. This is expected because of the lack of elastomer
containment in expandable seal assembly.

Contact
Figure 9.Figure pressure
9. Contact as aas
pressure function ofofvolumetric
a function compression
volumetric compression forfor conventional
conventional and expandable
and expandable
assemblyassembly (withwithout
(with and and without elastomer
elastomer containment).
containment).
Figure 9. Contact pressure as a function of volumetric compression for conventional and expandable
Next,
Next, the the effect
assembly
effect (with of without
and
of elastomerelastomer containment
elastomer spikes was
containment).
containment spikes was studied.
studied.Containment
Containment spikes spikes
were were
represented by zero displacement boundary conditions as shown in Figure 10. Five containment
represented byNext,
zero displacement boundary conditions as shown inContainment
Figure 10.spikes
Five were
containment
configurationsthewereeffect of elastomer
studied—0, 25, 50,containment
75, and 100% spikes was studied.
containment. The configurations on either side
configurations
were
were by
represented studied—0,
kept the same.zero
Volumetric
25,
displacement 50, 75, and
boundary
compression
100%
conditions
was
containment.
as shown
kept constant
The10.configurations
in Figure
at 4% and surfacesFive containment
were considered
on either
side were configurations
kept the were studied—0,
same. Volumetric 25, 50, 75, and 100% containment.
compression was kept The configurations
constant at 4% onand
either side
surfaces were
frictionless.
consideredwere kept the same. Volumetric compression was kept constant at 4% and surfaces were considered
frictionless.
frictionless.

(a) (b) (c)

(a)
Figure 10. Elastomer seal containment (b)
in expandable liner hanger: (c)
(a) no containment, (b) 50%
containment, and (c) 100% containment.
Figure 10. Elastomer seal containment in expandable liner hanger: (a) no containment, (b) 50%
Figure 10. Elastomer seal containment in expandable liner hanger: (a) no containment, (b) 50%
containment, and (c) 100% containment.
containment, andfrom
It is clear (c) 100% containment.
the results shown in Figure 11 that as elastomer containment increases, contact
It is clear
stress profile from from
changes the results shown
parabolic to in Figure 11 that flatter
a progressively as elastomer containment
one and eventuallyincreases,
becomescontact
constant
It isatclear
stressfrom
100% the
profile
containment.results
changes from
Peak shown
contact instress
parabolic Figure
to 11 that
a progressively
values as elastomer
flatter
increases one and
with containment
eventually
increase in %becomes increases,
Thecontact
constant
containment.
stress profile changes
at 100%
increment not from
linear.parabolic
iscontainment. AtPeak tovolumetric
contact
the same a stress
progressively
values flatter
increases
compression oneincrease
with
contact and
stresseventually
and becomes
in % containment.
profile constant at
values atThe
100%
increment is
containment
100% containment. is not
same
Peak linear.
as inAt
contact the
the samevalues
volumetric
conventional
stress seal compression
assembly
increases with contact
(Figure 9 stress
increase profile
andinFigure and values atThe
12).
% containment. 100%increment
containment is same as in the conventional seal assembly (Figure 9 and Figure 12).
is not linear. At the same volumetric compression contact stress profile and values at 100% containment
is same as in the conventional seal assembly (Figures 9 and 12).
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

Figure 11. Contact stress profiles generated in expandable seal assembly at different amounts of
Figure 11. Contact stress profiles generated in expandable seal assembly at different amounts of seal
seal containment.
containment.
 Figure
Energies 11.763
2019, 12, Contact stress profiles generated in expandable seal assembly at different amounts of seal9 of 15
containment.

Figure 12. Contact stress profiles generate in expandable seal assembly with 100% containment and
Figure 12.
different Contact stress
volumetric profiles generate in expandable seal assembly with 100% containment and
compression.
different volumetric compression.
6.2. Effect of Material Behavior
6.2. Effect of Material Behavior
Next, the effect of material behavior was studied. Specifically, hyper-elastic material behavior of
FKMNext,
(Ogden the3rdeffect of material
order) behavior
was modelled was
and studied.contact
resultant Specifically,
stresshyper-elastic
profiles werematerial
compared behavior
with theof
FKMgenerated
ones (Ogden 3rd order)
using was modelled
linear-elastic and resultant
material behavior.contact
Contactstress
stressprofiles
profileswere compared
using with the
the hyper-elastic
ones generated
FKM using linear-elastic
for conventional material
and expandable behavior.
assembly Contact
without stress profiles
containment using the in
are presented hyper-elastic
Figures 13
FKM
and 14for conventional and expandable assembly without containment are presented in Figures
respectively.
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
13
10 of 16
and 14 respectively.

Figure 13. Contact stress profiles in conventional seal assembly for hyper-elastic FKM.
Figure 13. Contact stress profiles in conventional seal assembly for hyper-elastic FKM.
Energies 2019, 12, 763 10 of 15
Figure 13. Contact stress profiles in conventional seal assembly for hyper-elastic FKM.

Figure 14. Contact stress profiles in expandable seal assembly for hyper-elastic FKM.
Figure 14. Contact stress profiles in expandable seal assembly for hyper-elastic FKM.
Results indicate that the contact stress profile in both assembly remains unchanged after switching
Results indicate
to hyper-elastic materialthatmodel.
the contact stress profile
The contact in both
stress values areassembly remains
notably higher unchanged
than in the caseafter
of
switching to model
linear-elastic hyper-elastic
(Figure material
15). This model. The contact
is most likely stress
due to the factvalues
that inare notably higher
hyper-elastic model,than in the
elastomer
case of linear-elastic
material modelstiffer
typically becomes (Figure 15). This
at higher is most
strain likely
values anddue to the
hence, factsame
at the that amount
in hyper-elastic model,
of deformation,
elastomer
higher material
contact typically
stress becomes
is generated. As stiffer
shownatinhigher strain15,
the Figure values
seal and hence, at curve
energization the same
stillamount
remained of
deformation,
practically higher
linear with contact stress ismaterial
hyper-elastic generated. As shown in the Figure 15, seal energization curve
behavior.
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16
still remained practically linear with hyper-elastic material behavior.

Figure 15. Contact pressure as a function of volumetric compression for conventional and expandable
Figure 15.with
assembly Contact pressure
linear- as a functionmaterial
and hyper-elastic of volumetric compression for conventional and expandable
behavior.
assembly with linear- and hyper-elastic material behavior.
6.3. Effect of Friction
6.3. Effect of Friction
All results discussed so far were generated assuming frictionless contact surface. Our next task
was toAll results discussed
investigate so far were
effect of friction generated
on contact assuming
stress frictionless
profiles generated incontact surface.
conventional andOur next task
expandable
was assemblies.
seal to investigate effect
Typical of friction
friction on between
coefficient contact elastomer
stress profiles generated
and steel tubing isin0.3
conventional and
or higher [29].
expandable
Figure 16sealpresents
assemblies. Typical
contact friction
stress coefficient
profiles between elastomer
in conventional and steel
seal assembly tubing is
assuming 0.3 or
friction
higher [29].of 0.3 at elastomer-pipe interface. Frictionless contact stress profiles are also overlapped
coefficient
Figure
for easier 16 presents
comparison. In contact stressofprofiles
the presence friction,in conventional
contact seal is
stress profile assembly
no longerassuming
constant.friction
At the
coefficient ofside
compression 0.3 of
at the
elastomer-pipe
seal, contact interface. Frictionless
stress values are highercontact stress
than the profilesreference.
frictionless are also overlapped
Conversely,
for easier comparison. In the presence of friction, contact stress profile is no longer constant. At the
compression side of the seal, contact stress values are higher than the frictionless reference.
Conversely, at the support side, contact pressure values are notably lesser than frictionless. It is clear
that the compression or energization is not translated to the axially opposite end of the seal. The effect
is more pronounced as volumetric compression increases. It can also be extrapolated that longer seal
was to investigate effect of friction on contact stress profiles generated in conventional and
expandable seal assemblies. Typical friction coefficient between elastomer and steel tubing is 0.3 or
higher [29].
Figure 16 presents contact stress profiles in conventional seal assembly assuming friction
coefficient
Energies of 763
2019, 12, 0.3 at elastomer-pipe interface. Frictionless contact stress profiles are also overlapped 11 of 15
for easier comparison. In the presence of friction, contact stress profile is no longer constant. At the
compression side of the seal, contact stress values are higher than the frictionless reference.
at the support
Conversely, at side, contactside,
the support pressure
contactvalues are notably
pressure values arelesser thanlesser
notably frictionless. It is clearItthat
than frictionless. the
is clear
compression or energization is not translated to the axially opposite end of the seal. The
that the compression or energization is not translated to the axially opposite end of the seal. The effect effect is more
pronounced as volumetric
is more pronounced compression
as volumetric increases.
compression It can also
increases. be extrapolated
It can that longer
also be extrapolated thatseal
longerwould
seal
also have more pronounced effect of friction. Failure to consider true frictional effect
would also have more pronounced effect of friction. Failure to consider true frictional effect in in conventional
seal assembly seal
conventional design could be
assembly detrimental
design could besince significantly
detrimental sincelower contact lower
significantly pressure values
contact at the
pressure
bottom
values at of the
the bottom
seal canofincrease
the sealthe
canrisk of fluid
increase thepenetration.
risk of fluid penetration.

Energies 2019, 12,Figure

x FOR PEER REVIEW
16. Effect of friction on contact stress profile in conventional seal assembly. 12 of 16
Figure 16. Effect of friction on contact stress profile in conventional seal assembly.

Figure 17,
As shown in Figure 17, unlike
unlike conventional
conventional seal assembly,
assembly, expandable
expandable assembly
assembly retained
retained the
the
overall shape
overall shapeofofcontact
contactstress
stress profile
profile in presence
in presence of frictional
of frictional sliding.
sliding. However,
However, the contact
the peak peak contact
stress
stress increased
value value increased with increase
with increase in friction
in friction coefficient
coefficient from 0 from
to 0.30toto0.6.
0.3 to 0.6.

Figure 17. Effect of friction on contact stress profile in expandable seal assembly.
Figure 17. Effect of friction on contact stress profile in expandable seal assembly.
7. Practical Implications
7. Practical Implications
For the same volumetric compression, conventional seal assembly yields higher contact pressure
than For the sameseal
expandable volumetric
assemblycompression, conventional
without containment. At seal
100% assembly yields
elastomer higher contact
containment, pressure
contact stress
profile in the expandable assembly matches with the conventional assembly. Actual expandablestress
than expandable seal assembly without containment. At 100% elastomer containment, contact seal
profile assembly
hanger in the expandable assembly
would almost matches
always with the conventional
have elastomer assembly.
containment spikes Actual
on either expandable
sides. However,seal
to
hanger assembly would almost always have elastomer containment spikes on either sides. However,
to facilitate smooth running-in of the tool into the well, the spikes have to be shorter. This would
provide less than 100% containment. Thus, in frictionless conditions, assuming that supporting
components of either assemblies do not fail, conventional type energization will always yield higher
contact pressure and should be preferred to the expandable type energization mechanism.
Energies 2019, 12, 763 12 of 15

facilitate smooth running-in of the tool into the well, the spikes have to be shorter. This would provide
less than 100% containment. Thus, in frictionless conditions, assuming that supporting components of
either assemblies do not fail, conventional type energization will always yield higher contact pressure
and should be preferred to the expandable type energization mechanism.
However, in the real field applications, contact surfaces are never frictionless. In presence of
frictional stresses, contact stress profile of conventional seal assembly deviates from the uniform profile
observed in frictionless condition (Figure 16). Moreover, the deviation is significantly dependent on
amount of volumetric compression. Contact pressure peaks at a shorter distance from the compression
side and declines rapidly towards the support side (Figure 16). Low contact pressure at the bottom
would permit easy penetration of the fluid. On the other side, in expandable type energization, contact
stress profile in frictional case maintains the same symmetry as the frictionless case (Figure 17). The
profile becomes slightly narrower at the center but the contact pressure values at all locations are higher
than the frictionless case. This improves the seal’s performance. Although, peak contact pressure
values are lesser than in the conventional energization, the difference would reduce with elastomer
containment spikes. Overall, in presence of friction, expandable type energization is likely to be
more reliable than the conventional energization because the former yields uniformly higher contact
pressure than frictionless case while also maintaining the symmetry of the contact pressure profile.
Conventional seal assembly, in addition to the compression plates on either side, has moving parts
like slips for supporting bottom plate and a mechanism to exert load on the top plate. Expandable seal
assembly only has non-moving containment spikes on either side of the seal (Figure 1). If elastomer
containment spikes in expandable assembly fail, the seal would still maintain contact pressure as
shown in Figure 8. However, if slips or compression plates in conventional assembly fail, contact
pressure and consequently sealability will be completely lost.
Expandable type seal energization also has additional design advantages over the conventional
assembly. In expandable assembly, the seal is energized radially. Hence, it is possible to install
multiple seal elements along the length of pipe and achieve same contact pressure in all of them. This
redundancy further minimizes the risk of failure. In conventional assembly with multiple alternating
seal elements and compression plates, because of the frictional stress being parallel to the compression
load, it is not possible to achieve the same contact pressure in each seal. Based on the effect of friction
shown in Figure 16, it can be inferred that the peak contact pressure would subsequently decrease
from the top seal element to the bottom seal element. This effect of friction has also been demonstrated
previously by Ma et al. [27] in simulations of dual rubber packer equipment.
As discussed in Section 6.2, selection of material model in modelling did not impact the shape of
contact pressure profile in either of the seal assemblies. However, hyper-elastic FKM yielded higher
contact pressure values than the linear elastic FKM. This is because of the fact that FKM material
exhibited more stiffness at higher strain values. Thus, to prevent under-estimation or over-estimation
of the seal’s performance, it is important to measure the elastomer material behavior over the range of
operating strains and use correct material model in predictions.

8. Conclusions
Using three dimensional finite element models, this study presents detailed comparison of seal
energization in conventional and expandable liner hanger seal assemblies. The following are major
conclusions from this work:

• In conventional seal assembly, contact stress value decreases along the seal length from the
compression side towards the support side. In case of frictionless assumption, contact stress
remains constant along the seal length.
• In expandable seal assembly, irrespective of friction coefficient, contact stress peaks at the
center of the seal length and declines towards either sides of the axial ends. The profile
becomes progressively flatter with increase in elastomer seal containment and becomes similar to
conventional seal assembly at 100% containment.
Energies 2019, 12, 763 13 of 15

• Contact pressure values increases with increase in amount of compression, i.e., %volumetric
compression. The increment is practically linear, irrespective of energization method and
material behavior.
• Selection of material model in modelling did not impact the shape of contact pressure profile in
either of the seal assemblies. However, hyper-elastic FKM yielded higher contact pressure values
than the linear elastic FKM. Therefore, it is important to measure the elastomer material behavior
over the range of operating strains and use appropriate model in predictions.
• In frictionless condition, conventional type energization will almost always provide higher peak
contact pressure values and should be preferred to the expandable type energization mechanism.
• In case of frictional contacts, expandable type energization is likely to be more reliable than the
conventional energization because the former yields higher contact pressure than the frictionless
case while also maintaining the symmetry of the contact pressure profile.
• Expandable energization is more robust to failure in supporting components than the conventional
assembly. Even if both elastomer containment spikes completely fail, the expandable seal assembly
would still maintain contact pressure.
• In expandable energization, it is possible to install multiple seal elements along the length of
pipe and achieve same contact pressure in all elements. In conventional assembly with multiple
alternating seals and compression plates, peak contact pressure would subsequently decrease
from the top seal element to the bottom seal element.

Author Contributions: H.K.P. conceptualized the idea, developed FEA models, and ran simulations. S.S. provided
guidance in data analysis and paper writeup.
Funding: Work was partially funded by Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (Project No:
E17PC00005).
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to the University of Oklahoma for
providing necessary resources and granting the permission to publish this work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
Acronyms
BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
EPDM Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
FEPM Tetrafluoroethylene Propylene
FFKM Perfluorocarbon
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FKM Fluorocarbon
HPHT High Pressure High Temperature
HNBR Hydrogenated Nitrile
LOWC Loss of Well Control
Symbols
αi Ogden 3rd order material constant
deltaR Percentage change in inner radius of seal
deltaV Change in seal volume due to energization
deltaZ Percentage change in axial seal height
Di Ogden 3rd order material constant
E Elastic modulus / Young’s modulus
K Bulk modulus
µi Ogden 3rd order material constant
ν Poisson’s ratio
P Contact pressure
V Initial seal volume
∆V Change in seal volume due to energization
Energies 2019, 12, 763 14 of 15

References
1. Tu, B.; Cheng, H.L. Alternative Methodology for Elastomeric Seal RGD and Aging Testing Validates
Long-Term Subsea Seal Performance and Integrity. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, TX, USA, 2–5 May 2016. [CrossRef]
2. Patel, H.; Hariharan, H.; Bailey, G.; Jung, G. Advanced computer modelling for metal-to-metal seal in API
flanges. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 24–26
September 2018. [CrossRef]
3. Mullins, F. Metal-Formed Liner Hanger Avoids High-Setting-Pressure Requirements. J. Pet. Technol. 2016, 68,
4–8. [CrossRef]
4. Mccormick, J.; Matice, M.; Cramp, S. Big Bore Expandable Liner Hangers for Offshore and Deepwater
Applications Reduces Cost and Increases Reliability: Global Case History. In Proceedings of the SPETT 2012
Energy Conference and Exhibition, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, 11–13 June 2012. [CrossRef]
5. Walvekar, S.; Jackson, T. Development of an Expandable Liner-Hanger System to Improve Reliability of
Liner Installations. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3
May 2007. [CrossRef]
6. Smith, P.; Williford, J. Case Histories: Liner-Completion Difficulties Resolved With Expandable Liner-Top
Technology. In Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada,
13–15 June 2006. [CrossRef]
7. Lohoefer, C.L.; Mathis, B.; Brisco, D.; Waddell, K.; Ring, L.; York, P. Expandable liner hanger provides
costeffective alternative solution. In Proceedings of the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA,
USA, 23–25 February 2000. [CrossRef]
8. Van Dort, R. Metal-to-metal seals meet downhole hazard demands. J. Pet. Technol. 2009, 61, 24–26. [CrossRef]
9. BSEE. QC-FIT Evaluation of Seal Assembly & Cement Failures Interim Summary of Findings; Internal QC-FIT
Report #2014-02; Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
10. Holand, P. Loss of Well Control Occurrence and 49 Size Estimators, Phase I and II; 51 Report #ES201471/2; Bureau
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
11. Elhard, J.D.; Duguid, A.; Heinrichs, M. Research on Safety Technology Verification for Materials and Pressure
High Temperature (HPHT) Continental Shelf (OCS), High Corrosions in the U.S. Outer Material Evaluation.
Technical Assessment Program Report (TAP 767AA) Prepared for Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement. Available online: https://www.bsee.gov/tap-technical-assessment-program/research-on-
safety-technology-verification-for-materials-and (accessed on 15 September 2018).
12. Oil & Gas iQ. High Pressure High Temperate, High Costs, High Stakes? 2015. Available online: https:
//www.oilandgasiq.com/content-auto-download/5b04c1b543dfd0385d3c7c22 (accessed on 4 October 2018).
13. Patel, H.; Salehi, S.; Teodoriu, C.; Ahmed, R. Performance evaluation and parametric study of elastomer seal
in conventional hanger assembly. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 175, 246–254. [CrossRef]
14. Fernández, C.; Castaño, P. Compatibility Behavior of Elastomers for PCP Applications. 2016. Available
online: https://www.onepetro.org/conferencepaper/NACE-2016-7106 (accessed on 20 October 2018).
15. Cong, C.B.; Cui, C.C.; Meng, X.Y.; Lu, S.J.; Zhou, Q. Degradation of hydrogenated nitrile-butadiene rubber in
aqueous solutions of H2 S or HCl. Chem. Res. Chin. Univ. 2013, 29, 806–810. [CrossRef]
16. Campion, R.P.; Thomson, B.; Harris, J.A. Elastomers for Fluid Containment in Offshore Oil and Gas
Production: Guidelines and Review. Research Report (RR 320) Prepared by MERL Ltd for the Health
and Safety Executive, U.K. 2005. Available online: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr320.pdf
(accessed on 20 September 2018).
17. Bosma, M.G.R.; Cornelissen, E.K.; Schwing, A. Improved Experimental Characterization of Cement/Rubber
Zonal Isolation Materials. In Proceedings of the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Brisbane, Australia, 16–18 October 2000. [CrossRef]
18. Berger, S. Experimental and Finite Element Analysis of High Pressure Packer Elements. Master’s Thesis, MA
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, September 2004.
19. Feng, D.; Yuan, Y.; Tan, B.; Yang, C.; Xu, G.; Wang, P. Finite Element Analysis of The Packer Rubbers on
Sealing Process. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Mechanic Automation and Control
Engineering, Wuhan, China, 26–28 June 2010. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 763 15 of 15

20. Alzebdeh, K.; Pervez, T.; Qamar, S.Z. Finite Element Simulation of Compression of Elastomeric Seals in
Open Hole Liners. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2010, 132, 031002. [CrossRef]
21. Al-Kharusi, M.S.; Qamar, S.Z.; Pervez, T.; Akhtar, M. Non-Linear Model for Evaluation of Elastomer
Seals Subjected to Differential Pressure. In Proceedings of the SPE/DGS Saudi Arabia Section Technical
Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 15–18 May 2011. [CrossRef]
22. Al-Hiddabi, S.A.; Pervez, T.; Qamar, S.Z.; Al-Jahwari, F.K.; Marketz, F.; Al-Houqani, S.; van de Velden, M.
Analytical model of elastomer seal performance in oil wells. Appl. Math. Model. 2015, 39, 2836–2848.
[CrossRef]
23. Lin, Z.C. The strength analysis and structure optimization of packer slip based on ANSYS. Appl. Mech. Mater.
2013, 423, 1967–1971. [CrossRef]
24. Ma, M.; Jia, W.; Bu, Y.; Guo, S. Study on rubber seal design of a swellpacker in oil well cementing. Open
Access Libr. J. 2014, 1, 1. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, Z.; Chen, C.; Liu, Q.; Lou, Y.; Suo, Z. Extrusion, slide, and rupture of an elastomeric seal. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 2017, 99, 289–303. [CrossRef]
26. Zhong, A.; Johnson, M.R.; Kohn, G.; Koons, B.; Saleh, M. Performance Evaluation of a Large Bore Expandable
Liner Hanger for Field Operations in the Gulf of Mexico. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2015. [CrossRef]
27. Hu, G.; Zhang, P.; Wang, G.; Zhang, M.; Li, M. The influence of rubber material on sealing performance of
packing element in compression packer. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 38, 120–138. [CrossRef]
28. Salehi, S.; Ezeakacha, C.P.; Kwatia, G.; Ahmed, R.; Teodoriu, C. Performance verification of elastomer
materials in corrosive gas and liquid conditions. Polym. Test. 2019, 75, 48–63. [CrossRef]
29. Ma, W.; Qu, B.; Guan, F. Effect of the friction coefficient for contact pressure of packer rubber. Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2014, 228, 2881–2887. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).