Annular seals are an often used tool in downhole systems. They are particularly useful and indeed indispensable in, for example, hydrocarbon production systems where complexity is the rule and various strata of a particular formation are productive of different types of fluid. Whether all of the fluids accessed by the well are desirable and simply need to be separately managed or desirable and undesirable fluids are accessed simultaneously requiring exclusionary control of unwanted fluids, annular seals consistently play a significant part.
Considering the importance of annular seals, and the potential “cost” of failure of these seals, it might be expected that the materials used for their construction would be robust. This is not generally the case, however, in that elastomers have long been the seal material of choice due to their sealing ability but are not particularly robust. Elastomers are susceptible to degradation from exposure to heat, pressure swings and chemically harsh environmental species. Since all such derogatory factors are plentiful in the downhole environment of a hydrocarbon well, degradation of annular seals is axiomatic and the requirement for repair thereof regular. The art would unequivocally welcome an annular seal that is more resistant to the commonly existing environmental conditions downhole.
An annular seal device includes a mandrel, at least one cone axially moveable on the mandrel, at least one sealing element having a frustoconical outer surface and a frustoconical inner surface, at least one contact feature at the at least one cone and operably engageable with the at least one sealing element, and at least one of a blocking element and a resilient member at the mandrel, the at least one of a blocking element and a resilient member supporting a blocking surface in opposition to the at least one contact feature.
A resilient member includes a tubular body having spring rings at axial ends thereof, and a plurality of beams extending spirally from one axial end to the other axial end.
Referring now to the drawings wherein like elements are numbered alike in the several Figures:
Referring to
It is further to be understood that one or more resilient members are desirable to maintain energy in the sealing element(s) but that if a configuration to maintain force on the sealing element is of sufficiently small lost motion that energy remains in the element, a resilient member is not necessary.
Referring back to
At least one of cone 14 and 16 is moveable upon mandrel 12 in at least an axial direction. Cones 14 and 16 may also be rotationally free or may be rotationally fixed as desired. Whether one or both of cones 14 and 16 are axially moveable, the important thing is that the space between them may be reduced. Such reduction in space between cone 14 and cone 16, when of sufficient magnitude, causes element 20, resilient member 18 and element 22 to be axially loaded between cones 14 and 16. Axial loading as described causes resilient member 18 to elastically deform (some plastic deformation may also occur but is not specifically desired) and causes sealing elements 20 and 22 to reconfigure such that a radial load is placed upon an outside diameter of the mandrel 12 and an inside diameter 24 of a target tubular 26 (see
Each sealing element 20, 22, etc. is configured as a frustocone having a frustoconical outer surface 28 and a frustoconical inner surface 34. It is the frustoconical shape of the elements that allows them to have the action described when axially loaded. A frustocone by nature is possessed of two measurements that one might call “radial”. A first is a measurement taken from an inside diameter to an outside diameter, the measurement taken perpendicularly to an axis of the sealing element, the element being at rest. Another measurement one might call “radial” follows the frustoconical surface of the element from the inside diameter to the outside diameter of the element. It will be perfectly clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, the second of these two measurements is of greater length. If, then, the frustoconical shape is put under axial stress sufficient to force the frustocone to become flatter, (or if the visual is easier, shorter when set on a surface like a volcano), the distance of the outer edge of the frustocone from the axis of the frustocone increases and the distance from the inside edge of the frustocone to the axis of the frustocone decreases. Because radial distance between the mandrel 12 and a target tubular 26 is known and does not change, one can easily determine the desired angle of the frustoconical shape for the elements 20 and 22 to provide for optimal radial growth (and inside diameter reduction) upon axial compression of the element. The angle is driven by the distance between the mandrel and the target tubular. The elements 20 and 22 must have sufficient angle in the expanded condition such that the element can maintain its structural integrity. In some embodiments, an angle of about 30 degrees to about 45 degrees is used. The shallower the angle, the larger the range of casing sizes coverable whereas the steeper the angle, the smaller the range of casing sizes coverable but the lower the setting force required. In some embodiments, the element will contact the casing at a range of about 15 degrees to about 20 degrees between the inside diameter of the casing and the element in the actuated condition.
In order to ensure that axial compression of the elements 20 and 22 occurs as desired, the cones 14 and 16 and resilient member 18 are constructed with specific end profiles discussed hereunder with reference to
In Addressing resilient member 18 directly, the member is, in the illustrated embodiment, a resilient one but it is to be understood that the reason for the resilience in the member 18 is to maintain energy in the sealing elements 20 and 22. In the event sufficient energy can be maintained without member 18 being resilient, it would not need to be resilient and in such case could simply be a sleeve presenting at least one of surfaces 40 and 42, (depending upon whether there are one or more sealing elements in the particular system.) One possibility for retaining sufficient energy would be a fine ratchet thread (well known in the art) to maintain at least one of the cones in the actuated position. In an embodiment configured as shown in the figures hereof, member 18 is indeed resilient. During actuation of the annular seal device 10, resilient member 18 is compressed. Because to a large extent the compression of resilient member 18 is in the elastic range, the energy stored in the compressed member 18 is available to supplement any lost mechanical axial compression due to pressure reversals in the well. The resilient member may be a coil spring, a spring member as shown, or other resilient material or configuration. Additionally, the member may be configured as a variable constant spring. Any of these configurations are workable providing they are capable of operating elastically at the compression load designed for the particular application.
In the illustrated embodiment, and referring to
The specifically illustrated embodiment in
In operation of the embodiment illustrated in
As described, it should be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the annular seal device is of significant benefit to the art as the elements 20 and 22 may be constructed of any material desired for a specific application from elastomers, to soft metals (lead, bronze, etc.), to harder materials (stainless steel, inconel, etc.) having extremely high resistance to downhole conditions all while maintaining very simple structure and reliable sealing.
While preferred embodiments have been shown and described, modifications and substitutions may be made thereto without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, it is to be understood that the present invention has been described by way of illustrations and not limitation.
This is a divisional application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/713,183 filed Mar. 2, 2007, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
699746 | Hall et al. | May 1902 | A |
1905103 | Johnson | Apr 1933 | A |
1909010 | Riker, Jr. | May 1933 | A |
2092843 | Henderson | Sep 1937 | A |
2447319 | De Fourchambault | Aug 1948 | A |
2836252 | Lane | May 1958 | A |
2893717 | Simmons | Jul 1959 | A |
2915306 | Hickman | Dec 1959 | A |
3015482 | Maker | Jan 1962 | A |
3343461 | Tinsley | Sep 1967 | A |
3389919 | Petty | Jun 1968 | A |
3545286 | Stenstrom | Dec 1970 | A |
3602490 | Mueller et al. | Aug 1971 | A |
3879025 | Dillard | Apr 1975 | A |
3951477 | Townshend | Apr 1976 | A |
4127168 | Hanson et al. | Nov 1978 | A |
4206808 | Kreft | Jun 1980 | A |
4269400 | Jensen | May 1981 | A |
4281840 | Harris | Aug 1981 | A |
4441721 | Harris et al. | Apr 1984 | A |
4623991 | Vitringa | Nov 1986 | A |
4749043 | Rodenberger | Jun 1988 | A |
4753444 | Jackson et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
5100114 | Reuter et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5542473 | Pringle | Aug 1996 | A |
5915677 | Yajima et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6113082 | Fujino | Sep 2000 | A |
6318461 | Carisella | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6382606 | Horng | May 2002 | B1 |
6422791 | Pallini et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6769491 | Zimmerman et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6896049 | Moyes | May 2005 | B2 |
20020049006 | Zhao et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020195256 | Metcalfe et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030205858 | Hall et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040036225 | Ritter et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040065445 | Abercrombie Simpson et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20050115707 | Pedersen et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050279599 | McPherson | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005963 | Hiorth et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060156851 | Jacobsen et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2074635 | Nov 1984 | GB |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090066030 A1 | Mar 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11713183 | Mar 2007 | US |
Child | 12271296 | US |