Abstract
This study established an integrated cement sheath integrity experimental device and proposed a strain equivalence method to quantitatively reproduce the cement sheath deformation under downhole conditions in the laboratory to evaluate the effect of cyclic differential pressure (CDP) in underground energy storage wells (UESWs) on cement sheath integrity (CSI). The results indicate that when the cement sheath used for UESWs was cured for 7 and 28 d at 90 °C and 21 MPa, its elasticity moduli were 7.31 GPa and 7.38 GPa and its maximum deviatoric stresses were 35.2 MPa and 39.2 MPa, respectively. Combining the above mechanical parameters, the casing–cement sheath–formation mechanical models were used to calculate the stress and strain of the cement sheath. It can be found that at a differential pressure of 18 MPa, the cement sheath under downhole conditions was undergoing elastic deformation, and its first interface strain reached 0.0378%. In addition, when the cement sheath under experimental conditions reached the same strain, the equivalent differential pressure was 12.2 MPa. Furthermore, the CSI was measured. When the cement sheath was cured for 7, 14, and 21 days, an equivalent CDP of 12.2 MPa was applied to the cement sheath for a total of 90 cycles, and the cement sheath maintained good integrity. On the other hand, when the cement sheath was continuously cured for 28 d, the equivalent CDP was applied only 5 times (for a total of 95 cycles), gas channeling was recorded, and its integrity failed. Comparing the calculated and experimental results, under CDP, the cement sheath did not undergo real elastic deformation; instead, CDP caused strain accumulation and interfacial bonding degradation in the cement sheath with a skeleton pore structure, rather than elastic deformation.
1 Introduction
Using underground geological structures for energy storage is one of the large-scale energy storage approaches with both technical and economic feasibility in the current energy system. Underground energy storage wells (UESWs), including natural gas storage wells, compressed-air energy storage wells, and hydrogen storage wells, play an important role in energy regulation and secure supply because of their large storage capacity and high peak-shaving efficiency (Li, 2016; Perazzelli and Anagnostou, 2016; Li et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2025). During repeated injection and production, the wellbore pressure changes periodically, generating cyclic differential pressure (CDP) among the casing, cement sheath, and formation. Such CDP can affect wellbore sealing integrity, induce sustained casing pressure, and threaten the safe and efficient operation of UESWs (Bu et al., 2020b; Guo et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2024). Therefore, cement sheath integrity (CSI) failure under CDP should not be regarded merely as a problem of insufficient strength but should be systematically analyzed from the perspectives of dynamic load disturbance, interfacial deformation compatibility, damage accumulation, and failure evolution. Compared with the metallic casing, the cement sheath has lower strength and elastic modulus and is located in a complex environment between the casing and formation, making it the weakest component requiring focused evaluation in the wellbore sealing system.
Extensive studies have been conducted on the failure mechanism of wellbore sealing integrity under complex conditions. By combining thick-walled cylinder theory, elastoplastic theory, damage mechanics, and heat-transfer theory, researchers have established casing–cement sheath–formation mechanical models combining wellbore temperature and pressure (Zhao et al., 2019; Bu et al., 2020a; Kuanhai et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; He et al., 2022). Finite element methods have also been used to analyze cement sheath damage under casing eccentricity, high temperature, and multifactor coupling (He et al., 2022; Xi et al., 2022; 2024; Han et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2025). These models have been used to investigate the effects of casing internal pressure increase (Guo et al., 2020), temperature–pressure cycling (De Andrade and Sangesland, 2016; Li et al., 2023), initial stress (Corina and Moghadam, 2025), cement sheath elastic modulus (Yuan et al., 2013), casing steel grade, and wall thickness (Liu et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2019) on CSI. For complex physicochemical processes, fusion methods such as DCCA-RVC, GLPP, and information entropy have been used to address anomaly identification under nonlinear, non-Gaussian, and high-dimensional coupled states (Ali et al., 2024); structure-preserving and nonlinear-learning methods such as DiGLPP-KAN also demonstrated robust detection capability for dynamically evolving fault features (Ali et al., 2026). These studies suggested that evaluation of CSI should emphasize the coupled relationships among load input, structural response, interfacial state, and failure criteria. Existing studies generally agree that in this system, the cement sheath is more prone to damage than the casing and formation and is the key weak point in wellbore sealing integrity failure (Arjomand et al., 2018).
The main factors causing CSI failure include (1) under high differential pressure, the load borne by the cement sheath exceeds the yield limit, leading to radial cracks and plastic deformation; (2) under CDP, the cement sheath undergoes accumulated plastic strain, resulting in deformation incompatibility in the casing–cement sheath–formation system and micro-gap at the interfaces (Wu et al., 2024). From the perspective of complex system diagnosis, failure research should not only determine whether an abnormality has occurred but also identify key contributing variables and their action paths. Multi-model fusion studies have shown that reconstruction-based contribution analysis can identify key variables in abnormal states and provide a basis for variable-level diagnosis (Ali et al., 2025). In CSI research, CDP, radial/circumferential deformation of the cement sheath, interface strain, and gas-channeling pressure response are not isolated; together, they reflect the process by which deformation accumulation evolves into interfacial failure.
Various experimental systems have been established to evaluate CSI. For example, Li et al. (2021) found that cyclic high pressure caused the first interface of the cement sheath to remain under compressive stress without obvious interfacial debonding. Zeng et al. (2019) developed a large-scale integrity device and observed CSI failure under a CDP of 0–70 MPa. Kuanhai et al. (2020) conducted experiments under temperatures of 30 °C–150 °C and pressures of 0–70 MPa and demonstrated that coupled temperature–pressure accelerated CSI damage. These studies showed a close relationship among cyclic loading, interfacial stress state, and sealing failure. They indicated that CSI failure may proceed through continuous stages, including deformation response under CDP, interfacial stress redistribution, micro-gap, seepage-channel connection, and gas channeling.
For the UESW injection–production operation, two key issues required further investigation. First, the laboratory differential pressure needs to be quantitatively related to the interfacial deformation state of the downhole structure. Because the experimental device is different from the actual wellbore in size, stiffness combination, and boundary constraints, directly applying pressure similarity cannot accurately reflect the deformation of the cement sheath. Second, the CDP in UESWs is usually low in amplitude. For natural gas storage wells and compressed-air energy storage wells, the maximum differential pressure during injection–production cycles may be only 18 MPa (Li et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2022a; Wang et al., 2023), yet sealing failure and sustained casing pressure may still occur in the field. Therefore, CSI evaluation in a UESW is also needed to understand the mechanism of CSI failure.
This study developed an integrated CSI experimental device and proposed a first-interface strain equivalence method to determine the equivalent CDP in a CSI experiment. The characteristics of this device and method included (1) high-temperature and high-pressure (HTHP) curing, in situ monitoring of the radial/circumferential deformation, and gas channeling detection of the cement sheath, which are integrated into the CSI experiment. (2) The first-interface strain is used as an equivalence index to determine the equivalent CDP. (3) The deformation monitoring and gas channeling detection of the cement sheath are combined to reveal the cumulative damage characteristics of the cement sheath interfacial failure under CDP. These achievements provided some experimental supports for revealing the CSI failure mechanism, designing the mechanical properties of the cement sheath, and developing the new materials to strengthen the CSI in a UESW.
2 Experimental method for cement sheath integrity
2.1 Experimental device
To analyze the effect of the CDP on CSI, this study developed an integrated experimental device, as shown in
Figure 1a. The device consists of a temperature control system, a pressure control system, a curing and testing system, a gas-channeling detection system, and a data acquisition/control system.
Temperature and pressure control systems are used to achieve HTHP curing of the cement sheath.
The curing and testing system consists of a central column, casing, cement sheath, simulated formation, HTHP container, and testing components. The testing components include two pumps, which can separately control the pressures in Space 1 and Space 2 to apply a differential pressure to the cement sheath. Radial and circumferential displacement sensors are arranged to measure the deformation of the cement sheath under CDP, as shown in Figure 1b.
A gas-channeling detection system is used to test CSI under complex conditions. During the experiment, 1–2 MPa nitrogen is applied to the end face of the cement sheath, and the gas flow is monitored in situ. Once gas flow is detected, CSI is considered to have failed.
The control system is used to regulate experimental temperature and pressure and acquire experimental data.
FIGURE 1
The CSI experimental steps included the following:
The radial displacement sensor is installed on the central column; then the casing and metal tube are installed on the base, as shown in Figure 1c.
The cement slurry is prepared according to API 10B-2 (American Petroleum Institute, 2013) and injected into the annular space (Figure 1c). Then, the annular space is sealed, and the circumferential displacement sensor is installed on the metal tube (see Figure 1d).
The HTHP container is installed, and heat-transfer medium is pumped into Space 1 and Space 2 simultaneously. The curing temperature and pressure are set using the control system to ensure that the cement slurry is cured under simulated downhole HTHP conditions.
Nitrogen at 1–2 MPa is injected onto the end face of the cement sheath. During the experiment, the pressure in Space 2 is kept constant, while the pressure in Space 1 is changed, and the radial displacement, circumferential displacement, and gas flow under CDP are recorded.
Based on the differential pressure, displacement, and gas-channeling flow results, the stress-strain relationship and failure mechanism of the cement sheath under complex conditions are analyzed.
The device integrates curing and in situ testing functions. Its advantage is that controllable HTHP curing, CDP, deformation monitoring, and gas-channeling detection are incorporated. This integrated workflow provides a stable experimental platform for studying interfacial deformation, micro-gap formation, and sealing failure induced by CDP.
2.2 Equivalence method for laboratory conditions
Effective simulation of downhole CDP under controlled laboratory conditions is essential for accurately evaluating cement sheath deformation and failure behavior. This study proposes a first-interface strain equivalence method.
The interface between the casing and cement sheath named the first interface, where interfacial debonding and micro-gaps are most likely to form. Figure 2 shows the workflow of this method. First, thick-walled cylinder theory and elastoplastic theory are used to calculate the strain at the first interface of the cement sheath under downhole conditions. Second, the first-interface strains in the laboratory under differential pressures are calculated. When the laboratory cement sheath and the downhole cement sheath reach the same strain level at the first interface, the equivalent differential pressure can be determined.
FIGURE 2
The experimental device and equivalence method can be used to measure the deformation response and gas-channeling behavior of the laboratory cement sheath and evaluate its sealing integrity under CDP. By unifying the analytical basis of differential pressure, strain, and gas-channeling signals, this method links laboratory results with interfacial integrity risks in UESWs and provides a quantitative basis for subsequent failure-mechanism analysis.
The above experimental device and method were used to characterize CSI under the injection-production conditions of the Shuang 6 gas storage well in China (Zhu et al., 2022b). The reservoir containing the Shuang 6 natural gas storage well in China has an average porosity of 19%, permeability of 224 mD, and thickness of 35.1 m. Since commissioning, the formation pressure has decreased from the initial 24.6 MPa to approximately 6 MPa. During injection and production, the casing pressure fluctuates between 10 MPa and 24 MPa, causing the casing and cement sheath to experience a differential pressure of 4–18 MPa; this is the key parameter in CSI analysis (Wang, 2018; Zhu et al., 2022a).
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Mechanical properties of cement sheath
Table 1 lists the cement slurry formulation used in this experiment. The experimental materials included high-sulfate-resistant G oil-well cement supplied by Jiahua Special Cement Co., Ltd.; microsilica, latex (commercial code GR-L), dispersant (formaldehyde–acetone condensate polymer, trade code USZ), fluid-loss additive (AMPS-AM-AA copolymer, commercial code G310), and retarder (commercial code GH-9) supplied by Henan Weihui Chemical Co., Ltd.
TABLE 1
| Cement (g) | Microsilica (g) | Latex (g) | Dispersant (g) | Fluid-loss additive (g) | Retarder (g) | Water (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 800 | 40 | 80 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 270 |
Cement slurry formulation used in the experiment.
To obtain the mechanical properties of the cement sheath, the stress–strain curves were tested using an HTHP rock comprehensive testing system at 90 °C. Figure 3 shows the stress–strain curves of the cement paste. The results indicate that as the curing time increased from 7 d to 28 d, the maximum deviatoric stress of set cement increased from 35.2 MPa to 39.2 MPa, while its Young’s moduli were 7.31 GPa and 7.38 GPa, respectively.
FIGURE 3
In the CSI test, a Q235 metal tube with a wall thickness of 3 mm and an inner diameter of 60 mm was used to simulate P110-grade casing commonly used in cementing engineering. Q235 was selected because its Young’s modulus is the same as that of P110 casing, ensuring mechanical similarity. The outer metal tube was also made of Q235, with an inner diameter of 92 mm and a wall thickness of 3 mm, and was used in the experiment.
3.2 Stress distribution and displacement calculation
Figure 4 shows schematic diagrams of the casing–cement sheath–formation structures under downhole and laboratory conditions, and the parameters of each component are listed in Table 2. Based on the parameters and the differential pressure of 4–18 MPa, the stress–strain distribution on the cement sheath under downhole conditions was calculated. In addition, the stress–strain distribution of the cement sheath under laboratory conditions was also calculated.
FIGURE 4
TABLE 2
| Component | Downhole conditions | Laboratory conditions | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Young’s modulus (GPa) | Poisson’s ratio | Inner radius (mm) | Outer radius (mm) | Young’s modulus (GPa) | Poisson’s ratio | Inner radius (mm) | Outer radius (mm) | |
| Casing | 210 | 0.3 | 78.535 | 88.9 | 210 | 0.3 | 30 | 33 |
| Cement sheath | 7.31 | / | 88.9 | 117.5 | 7.31 | / | 33 | 46 |
| Formation | 20 | 0.28 | 117.5 | 1175 | 210 | 0.3 | 46 | 49 |
Size and mechanical parameters of each component.
3.2.1 Stress distribution of the cement sheath under downhole conditions
Figures 5, 6 show the radial and circumferential stress of the cement sheath under downhole conditions. It can be observed that as the differential pressure increased from 4 MPa to 18 MPa, the radial stress at the first interface (r = 88.9 mm) of the cement sheath increased significantly. The circumferential stress distribution indicates a stress discontinuity at the first interface, suggesting that the first interface experiences strong load transfer. Because the casing stiffness is much higher than that of the cement sheath, the casing becomes the main load-bearing component, while the first interface becomes the location where deformation incompatibility is most concentrated under CDP.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 6
3.2.2 Stress distribution of the cement sheath under laboratory conditions
Figures 7, 8 show the radial and circumferential stress distributions of the cement sheath under laboratory conditions. The radial stress at the first interface of the cement sheath under laboratory conditions increased with increasing differential pressure. Similar to the cement sheath under downhole conditions, an obvious circumferential stress discontinuity also appeared at the first interface. The stress borne by the cement sheath decreased sharply, while the casing carried most of the differential pressure. As the differential pressure continued to increase, the inner wall of the cement sheath expanded outward and exhibited obvious deformation, indicating that the laboratory setup could sensitively capture the interfacial deformation response.
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 8
3.2.3 Determination of equivalent differential pressure
Figure 9 shows the relationship between differential pressure and the strain at the first interface of the cement sheath under downhole and laboratory conditions. Owing to differences in geometric dimensions and boundary stiffness, the strain response of the cement sheath under laboratory conditions was more sensitive than that of the cement sheath under downhole conditions. When the downhole differential pressure was 18 MPa, the first-interface strain reached 0.0378%. In addition, the cement sheath under laboratory conditions reached the same strain at a differential pressure of only 12.2 MPa. Therefore, the CDP of 4–18 MPa under downhole conditions could be equivalently converted to a CDP of 2.7–12.2 MPa under laboratory conditions.
FIGURE 9
Figure 9b shows that the relationship between the differential pressure under downhole and laboratory conditions is approximately linear, and the conversion relationship can be expressed as follows:where is the actual differential pressure under downhole conditions, MPa; is the experimental differential pressure under laboratory conditions, MPa. When the CDP under downhole conditions was 4–18 MPa, the equivalent CDP under laboratory conditions was 2.7–12.2 MPa, enabling the cement sheath to reach an equivalent first-interface strain.
3.3 Cement sheath integrity experiment
The cement sheath under downhole conditions must withstand cyclic loads induced by long-term injection–production operation in UESWs. The time-dependent evolution of CSI and deformation of the cement sheath cured for 7–28 d was tested in situ in the laboratory. Figures 10a–d show the CSI and displacement of the cement sheath at different curing time. Figures 10a–c show that when the equivalent CDP was applied to the cement sheath for 90 cycles after curing for 7, 14, and 21 d, the cement sheath exhibited regular deformation without gas channeling and maintained good integrity. When the cement sheath was continuously cured for 28 d, the equivalent CDP continued to be applied to the cement sheath; however, only after 5 additional cycles of equivalent CDP gas channeling of approximately 300 mL/min was detected, and the CSI failed (see Figure 10d). After disassembly, a micro-gap was observed at the first interface. This result reveals the cumulative effect of the CDP during long-term injection and production in UESWs on the cement sheath.
FIGURE 10
Figures 11a–d show the relationship between differential pressure and the radial displacement of the cement sheath at different curing times. The results indicate a good linear relationship between the differential pressure and radial displacement of the cement sheath.
FIGURE 11
Based on the results in Figures 11a–d, the average elastic modulus of the simulated casing–cement sheath combination could be calculated. When the cement sheath was cured for 7–21 d, the average modulus of the combination ranged from 11.25 to 12.06 GPa. After curing for 28 d, the average modulus decreased to 10.53 GPa, indicating that equivalent CDP altered the structure and stress distribution of the combination. This change corresponded to the occurrence of gas channeling and the micro-gap at the first interface, further indicating that interfacial degradation was an important manifestation of CSI failure.
3.4 General discussion
Wellbore integrity formed by the metal casing and cement sheath is critical to the safe and efficient operation of UESWs. Because the mechanical properties of the cement sheath are weaker than those of the casing and it is placed between the casing and formation, the first interface is often the most sensitive region under CDP. The results of this study indicate that the key risk under CDP is not instantaneous failure of the cement sheath but progressive deformation incompatibility, bonding degradation, and fatigue-type cumulative damage at the first interface. This understanding extends the evaluation of cement sheaths for UESWs from a single strength index to include interfacial deformation compatibility and cyclic damage evolution.
The calculated results in Figures 5, 7 show that because the elastic modulus of the casing is much higher than that of the cement sheath, the casing bears most of the radial differential pressure, while the cement sheath mainly functions as a filler and pressure-transfer medium. As the differential pressure increases, the stress and strain at the first interface increase rapidly, making this region highly sensitive to micro-gap formation. Therefore, the first interface is the core location for evaluating the effect of CDP on the CSI.
The experimental displacement results in Figures 10, 11 provide further evidence for this mechanism. The internal radial displacement of the cement sheath varied synchronously with CDP, whereas the external radial displacement remained essentially unchanged, indicating different deformation states at the first and second interfaces. During repeated loading and unloading, the small irreversible deformation produced in each cycle can gradually accumulate at the first interface. When the interfacial bonding constraint is continuously weakened by accumulated deformation, interfacial debonding and micro-gap expansion jointly extend the gas-channeling pathway. Figure 12 shows the comparison of the calculated and experimental first interface strain of the cement sheath under laboratory conditions. The consistency between the calculated and experimental values reached 92.85% and 89.89%, respectively. It can prove that the experimental device and equivalence method can effectively evaluate interfacial deformation and the CSI under the CDP.
FIGURE 12
To enhance the transferability of this method in engineering applications, this study further clarifies the main factors affecting differential-pressure conversion, including the elastic modulus of cement sheath, simulated formation stiffness, geometric dimensions, and interfacial bonding strength. For different wellbore structures, material systems, and formation conditions, the conversion coefficient can be recalculated using the present workflow, thereby enabling extended application to the CSI evaluation.
The combined calculation and experimental results show that under equivalent CDP of 2.7–12.2 MPa, the cement sheath exhibited accumulated deformation and interfacial degradation, rather than immediate compressive or tensile failure. The gas-channeling failure of the cement sheath cured for 28 d can be understood in terms of the synergistic effects of cement sheath stiffness evolution, interfacial strain accumulation, microscopic heterogeneity, and cyclic fatigue damage. The porous skeleton structure in the cement sheath provides the microscopic basis for local deformation accumulation, while repeated loading at the interface promotes gradual micro-gap expansion. Future studies may further combine SEM, CT, pore-structure analysis, and interfacial bonding strength tests to deepen understanding of interfacial microstructure evolution under CDP and reveal the mechanism of the CSI.
4 Conclusion
This study established an integrated experimental device and proposed a first-interface strain equivalence method to investigate the CSI failure behavior under CDP in UESWs. The study focused on CDP conversion, deformation monitoring, gas-channeling assessment, and interfacial failure mechanisms, forming a CSI evaluation approach. Based on the experiments and theoretical results, the following conclusions are drawn.
The experimental device integrates HTHP curing, in situ CDP loading, radial and circumferential displacement monitoring, and gas-channeling detection. The device provides an experimental platform for studying CSI in UESWs.
Based on elastoplastic and thick-walled cylinder theories, a strain equivalence method was proposed to convert downhole CDP into laboratory conditions. Under the maximum differential pressure of 18 MPa under downhole conditions, the first-interface strain was 0.0378%; the laboratory cement sheath reached the same strain at an equivalent differential pressure of 12.2 MPa. This method provides a basis for determining the equivalent differential pressure under laboratory conditions.
In the casing-cement sheath combination, the casing bears most of the differential pressure because of its higher stiffness, whereas the cement sheath mainly fills and transfers load. Therefore, the first interface is the key region where deformation incompatibility and interfacial debonding are most likely to concentrate. CSI evaluation should focus on the first-interface strain response and the evolution of the bonding state.
The integrity experiments show that cement sheaths cured for 7–21 d maintained good integrity after 90 cycles of equivalent CDP were applied to the cement sheath and it had a good integrity. On the other hand, when the cement sheath was continuously cured for 28 d, only 5 cycles of equivalent CDP were applied to the cement sheath, after which its integrity failed. This indicates that even when the loading differential pressure is lower than the compressive strength of the cement sheath, low-amplitude CDP still induced sealing failure through fatigue-type interfacial damage and micro-gap expansion.
Future work will focus on interfacial strengthening, low-modulus, high-toughness cement sheaths, fatigue-life prediction, microstructural characterization, and intelligent diagnosis using multi-source monitoring signals, providing support for long-term integrity design and early warning of UESWs.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
LJ: Writing – review and editing. WL: Writing – review and editing. YZ: Writing – review and editing. JiZ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. JP: Writing – original draft. FW: Writing – review and editing. JuZ: Writing – original draft. ZZ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. XW: Writing – review and editing. LH: Writing – review and editing. KL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
Authors LJ, WL, YZ, FW, JZ, JP, ZZ, XY, LH were employed by company PetroChina Southwest Oil and Gasfield Company.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AliH.SafdarR.RasoolM. H.AnjumH.ZhouY.YaoY.et al (2024). Advance industrial monitoring of physio-chemical processes using novel integrated machine learning approach. J. Ind. Inf. Integr.42, 100709. 10.1016/j.jii.2024.100709
2
AliH.SafdarR.DingW.ZhouY.YaoY.YaoL.et al (2025). Intelligent machine learning-based multi-model fusion monitoring: application to industrial physio-chemical systems. Control Eng. Pract.162, 106361. 10.1016/j.conengprac.2025.106361
3
AliH.PuspitaD.SafdarR.SabariahT.AbdB.ZhouY.et al (2026). A hybrid DiGLPP – kolmogorov – arnold network framework for robust fault detection in industrial chemical processes. Process Saf. Environ. Prot.212, 108854. 10.1016/j.psep.2026.108854
4
American Petroleum Institute (2013). API 10B-2 Recommended Practice for Testing Well Cements.
5
ArjomandE.BennettT.NguyenG. D. (2018). Evaluation of cement sheath integrity subject to enhanced pressure. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.170, 1–13. 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.06.013
6
BuY.MaR.GuoS.DuJ.LiuH.CaoX. (2020a). A theoretical evaluation method for mechanical sealing integrity of cementing sheath. Appl. Math. Model.84, 571–589. 10.1016/j.apm.2020.03.001
7
BuY.TianL.GuoB.WangC.SunB. (2020b). Experiment and simulation on the integrity of cement ring interface in deep water shallow formation. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.190, 107127. 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107127
8
CorinaA. N.MoghadamA. (2025). On the evolution of cement sheath stress in wells during curing. Cem. Concr. Compos.162, 106102. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2025.106102
9
De AndradeJ.SangeslandS. (2016). Cement sheath failure mechanisms: numerical estimates to design for long-term well integrity. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.147, 682–698. 10.1016/j.petrol.2016.08.032
10
GuoX.LiJ.LiuG.XiY.ZengY.HeM.et al (2019). Numerical simulation of casing deformation during volume fracturing of horizontal shale gas wells. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.172, 731–742. 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.08.067
11
GuoS.BuY.YangX.WangC.GuoB.SunB. (2020). Effect of casing internal pressure on integrity of cement ring in marine shallow formation based on XFEM. Eng. Fail. Anal.108, 104258. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104258
12
HanX.FengF.ZhangJ. (2023). Study on the whole life cycle integrity of cement interface in heavy oil thermal recovery well under circulating high temperature condition. Energy278, 127873. 10.1016/j.energy.2023.127873
13
HeT.WangT.WangD.XieD.DaemenJ. J. K. (2022). Failure mechanism of gas storage salt cavern cement sheath under the coupling effect of plasticity and fatigue damage. Constr. Build. Mater.354, 129179. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129179
14
KuanhaiD.YueY.YiH.ZhonghuiL.YuanhuaL. (2020). Experimental study on the integrity of casing-cement sheath in shale gas wells under pressure and temperature cycle loading. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.195, 107548. 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107548
15
LiG. (2016). Sensible heat thermal storage energy and exergy performance evaluations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.53, 897–923. 10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.006
16
LiJ.SuD.TangS.LiZ.WuH.HuangS.et al (2021). Deformation and damage of cement sheath in gas storage wells under cyclic loading. Energy Sci. Eng.9, 483–501. 10.1002/ese3.869
17
LiJ.LiangW.ChenY.QiuY.LiH.ZhangS. (2022). Study on gas leakage along cement sheath interfaces in salt cavern gas storage well. J. Nat. Gas. Sci. Eng.103, 104621. 10.1016/j.jngse.2022.104621
18
LiX. R.GuC. W.DingZ. C.FengY. C. (2023). THM coupled analysis of cement sheath integrity considering well loading history. Pet. Sci.20, 447–459. 10.1016/j.petsci.2022.09.001
19
LiuK.GaoD.TaleghaniA. D. (2018). Analysis on integrity of cement sheath in the vertical section of wells during hydraulic fracturing. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.168, 370–379. 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.05.016
20
PerazzelliP.AnagnostouG. (2016). Design issues for compressed air energy storage in sealed underground cavities. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng.8, 314–328. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2015.09.006
21
WangY. (2018). Shuang6 Gas Storage Well Testing Interpretation Methods and Injection-Production Capacity Research. Beijing: China University of Petroleum.
22
WangY.ZengJ.GaoD. (2020). Assessment on the sustained casing pressure (SCP) with consideration of the infiltration of formation fluid into the annulus of deepwater wells. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.189, 106999. 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.106999
23
WangB.ZhaoC.ChenX. (2023). Drilling technology for large-diameter injection-production wells in shuang6 gas storage. Oil Drill. Prod. Technol.45, 410–417. 10.13639/j.odpt.202211042
24
WuX.LiZ.HouZ.LiuJ.HuangS.SuD.et al (2024). Analytical perspectives on cement sheath integrity: a comprehensive review of theoretical research. ACS Omega9, 17741–17759. 10.1021/acsomega.4c00475
25
XiY.JinJ.FanL.GuoX.ShenJ.LiJ. (2022). Research on the establishment of gas channeling barrier for preventing SCP caused by cyclic loading-unloading in shale gas horizontal wells. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.208, 109640. 10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109640
26
XiY.YaoY.GuoX. L.LiJ.TianY. D.LiuG. H. (2024). Failure evaluation mechanism of cement sheath sealing integrity under casing eccentricity during multistage fracturing. Pet. Sci.5, 3428–3445. 10.1016/j.petsci.2024.04.013
27
YuanZ.TeodoriuC.SchubertJ. (2013). Low cycle cement fatigue experimental study and the effect on HPHT well integrity. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.105, 84–90. 10.1016/j.petrol.2013.03.006
28
ZengY.LiuR.LiX.ZhouS.LuP. (2019). Cement sheath sealing integrity evaluation under cyclic loading using large-scale sealing evaluation equipment for complex subsurface settings. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.176, 811–820. 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.02.014
29
ZhangX.LiJ.LianW.SunZ.ZhangJ.LiuG. (2025). Study on the sealing integrity of cement sheath under cyclic internal pressure considering temperature effects. Geoenergy Sci. Eng.249, 213761. 10.1016/j.geoen.2025.213761
30
ZhaoC.LiJ.LiuG.ZhangX. (2019). Analysis of the influence of cement sheath failure on sustained casing pressure in shale gas wells. J. Nat. Gas. Sci. Eng.66, 244–254. 10.1016/j.jngse.2019.04.003
31
ZhouN.WuL.YuanJ.XiaoF.DengK.LinY. (2025). Feasibility evaluation of cement sheath sealing within large-size casing structures in gas and hydrogen storage wells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy115, 265–280. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.03.101
32
ZhuJ.ZhangJ.LuanR.YangQ. (2022a). Capability evaluation of injection-production for liaohe shuang6 gas storage. Oil Drill. Prod. Technol.44, 763–768.
33
ZhuJ.ZhangJ.LuanR.YangQ. (2022b). Evaluation on injection-production capacity of Shuang 6 storage in liaohe oilfield. Oil Drill. Prod. Technol.44, 763–768.
Summary
Keywords
cement sheath integrity, cyclic differential pressure, failure mechanism, strain equivalence, underground energy storage well
Citation
Jiao L, Li W, Zheng Y, Zhou J, Pu J, Wang F, Zhao J, Zhang Z, Wu X, He L and Liu K (2026) Integrity failure behavior and mechanism of cement sheath under cyclic differential pressure: application to underground energy storage wells. Front. Mater. 13:1902469. doi: 10.3389/fmats.2026.1902469
Received
07 June 2026
Revised
21 July 2026
Accepted
23 July 2026
Published
03 September 2026
Volume
13 - 2026
Edited by
Roberto Fedele, Polytechnic of Milan, Italy
Reviewed by
Nicola Cefis, Polytechnic of Milan, Italy
Husnain Ali, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, SAR, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Jiao, Li, Zheng, Zhou, Pu, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, Wu, He and Liu.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Kaiqiang Liu, kaiqiangliu@swpu.edu.cn
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.