Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Study on sealing performance of packer rubber based on stress

relaxation experiment
Xu Zheng, Bin Li *
School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the last few decades, rubber seal elements have been extensively used in the oil and gas in­
Compression packer dustry. However, mechanical properties of rubber decrease at high temperatures, and stress
Stress relaxation relaxation can lead to sealing performance degradation, even sealing element failure. Therefore,
High temperature
how high temperature and stress relaxation affect the sealing performance of rubber is an
Finite element analysis
Sealing performance
important issue in oil and gas production. According to the oilfield feedback information, hy­
drogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) was chosen for sample tension test at different
temperature (20 ◦ C and 120 ◦ C) and the stress relaxation tests at 120 ◦ C. The constitutive model
of rubber was fitted by the test data. At the setting pressure of 14 MPa, the influence of tem­
perature and stress relaxation on the packer rubber seal system was investigated by finite element
analysis (FEA) software. The results indicated that temperature and stress relaxation had an
appreciable impact on the sealing performance of packer rubber seal system. The average contact
stress at 120 ◦ C between the rubber and the borehole wall, compared with the calculation results
at 20 ◦ C, decreased by more than 15% and the maximum contact stress decreased by 20%.
Similarly, the average contact stress before the relaxation decreased by more than 35% after
stress relaxation behavior at 120 ◦ C. In addition, the maximum contact stress decreased by 50%
due to the stress relaxation. Our experimental results and discussion enable us to provide some
advice to improve the sealing performance of a packer seal system, and present a basic experi­
mental and theoretical foundation for future research into the optimum design of a packer sealing
system.

1. Introduction

Rubber, which has superior softness, ductility and elasticity, is widely used as a sealing element in the oil and gas industry [1–3]. At
present, the main way to increase oil and gas recovery efficiency is through the use of multistage fracturing technology, which adopts a
compression packer as the primary separate-layer tool [4]. Fig. 1 shows how sealing rubbers are compressed over some distance by
axial setting force so that the rubbers can contact with the borehole wall and separate the borehole to achieve borehole stratification.
Therefore, the sealing rubber, which is regarded as the most important seal element in a compression packer sealing system, can
directly impact multistage fracturing [5].
Note: Fig. 1 displays a bi-directional setting compression packer. When setting, hydraulic cylinders at both ends of the packer push
the packer rubber at the same time, which lead the sealing rubbers to deform and seal the borehole. The diagram on the left is the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105692
Received 21 December 2020; Received in revised form 20 August 2021; Accepted 20 August 2021
Available online 23 August 2021
1350-6307/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

schematic diagram before setting, and the diagram on the right is the schematic diagram after setting
Considerable research has been undertaken in order to improve packer sealing performance. Researchers found that CO2 and H2S
can accelerate the corrosion of packer rubber at high temperature and pressure, reducing the hardness, tensile properties and elon­
gation of the rubber[6–9].And the working condition of high temperature has been showed to accelerate the aging of rubber and
decreases its mechanical properties[10,11]. In addition, high temperature has been found to have a great impact on the sealing
performance of rubber by accelerating the stress relaxation rate of a rubber seal [12,13]. In order to evaluate the sealing performance
of a rubber seal element, contact stress between the rubber and the contact face of the borehole wall was put forward [4,14–16].
Research has indicated that the higher the contact stress was, the better the sealing performance became [17]. The manual graphical
optimization trial method was used to systematically study the mechanical behavior and sealing performance of packer rubber at
different heights, thicknesses, external bevel angles, loading modes and steel rubber friction coefficients [18]. At the same time, ac­
cording to their calculation results, the packer structure could be optimized to improve the rubber seal reliability. During the setting
process of a compression packer, decreasing the radial friction coefficient could effectively reduce the tearing risk of the sealing el­
ements and improve the sealing reliability and service life of packer rubber [19]. By developing the delayed swell oil packer can
enhances the ability to reliably compartmentalize large open holes with potential washout sections [20]. Moreover, it has been
confirmed that designing the protective components or improving the mechanical properties of rubber can improve the sealing per­
formance of a packer sealing system.
However, the role that changing the rubber mechanical behavior plays on the sealing performance of a packer has barely been
addressed in the available literature. For that reason, the most efficient method combines the experiments and finite element analysis
methods was adopted to describe the impact of the work temperature and stress relaxation on packer sealing system. Reasonable
material constitutive models were fitted, according to the detailed tension test data and stress test data of rubber sample at working
temperature. Then an analysis model of a packer sealing system was established to simulate the setting behavior at working conditions
so that scientific suggestions could be put forward based on the results of analysis. This paper reveals the influence of rubber sealing
performance by temperature and stress relaxation, which has certain guiding significance for future research and the improvement of
packer rubber sealing performance.

2. Experiment and methods

2.1. Preparation

The experiment samples of packer rubber were taken from a horizontal well with a depth greater than 1800 m, Daluhu Oilfield,
China. In this oilfield. The maximum working temperature was 120 ◦ C. And above 10 compression packers were used in the well. The
hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) was used to prepare the sample was the same as the compression packer rubber in the
well. Based on the ASTM D412 [21], the dumbbell shape sample was selected for sample tensile test at room temperature (20 ◦ C) and

Packer
Sealing rubber

Borehole wall

Setting pressure
Compression packer

Fig. 1. Setting progress of a compression packer.

2
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

working temperature (120 ◦ C). Then, rubber constitutive model was fitted according to the stress–strain curve measured in the test to
determine the strain energy density function or undetermined constant in the constitutive relation. Fig. 2a shows the packer sealing
rubber, Fig. 2b shows the exact size of the simple tensile test sample and Fig. 2c shows the rubber sample.
All of the samples were cut from a 500 mm × 150 mm × 2 mm HNBR sheet. Nine samples were used in this experiment, including
six tensile test samples at different temperatures (20 ◦ C and 120 ◦ C) and three stress relaxation test samples at 120 ◦ C.

2.2. Sample tension test

During the test, in order to measure the stress–strain curve of pure unidirectional stretching, the measured position should be far
away from the clamping part, and a laser strain sensor (as shown in Fig. 3) should be used to obtain accurate test data. The sample
tensile tests were performed at 20 ◦ C and 120 ◦ C. During the test, quasi-static cyclic loading was adopted in order to ensure that the
strain rate of the HNBR sample was 0.1% per second. After stretching to the predetermined strain level, the sample was unloaded to the
state of zero stress at the same rate. Fig. 4 shows the sample tensile test at 120 ◦ C.
At working conditions, the strain level of the Y344 packer sealing rubber used in the well of the Dahluhu Oilfield was about 25%.
Therefore, the loading strain level in the test was 25%. Fig. 5 shows the stress–strain test data of the HNBR sample at the 25% strain
level.

2.3. High temperature stress relaxation test

If the rubber is stretched to a specific strain and remain state, the stress of the rubber will decrease over time; this phenomenon is
called stress relaxation [22]. The phenomenon of stress relaxation will become obvious with an increase in temperature [23,24].
Considering that the working temperature of packer sealing rubber is 120 ◦ C, the main purpose of the test is to obtain the short-term
stress relaxation data of the HNBR sample at 120 ◦ C. First, three HNBR samples were heated to 120 ◦ C in a high temperature box. Then,
they were stretched on the universal electronic material testing machine. Quasi-static cyclic loading was still used to make sure the
strain rate of 0.1% per second until the strain level reached about 25% and remained constant. The change value of the stress in 2000 s
was recorded, and all of the samples were kept at 120 ◦ C during the entire testing process. Fig. 6 shows the stress-time diagram of the
stress relaxation test for the HNBR sample at 120 ◦ C.

2.4. Data processing

The strain energy function is usually used to describe the mechanical properties of rubber. The Mooney-Rivlin model is fitted to
describe the large deformation behavior of rubber sealing elements based on stress–strain data. It is assumed that rubber is isotropic
and that the time dependence of the material mechanical behavior is not considered. Then, the strain energy density function W is
[25]:

a) Packer sealing rubber b) Specific size of the sample c) Rubber sample

Fig. 2. HNBR sample.

3
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

Fig. 3. Test data measured by a laser strain sensor.

Fig. 4. Sample tension test at 120 ◦ C.

∑
N ∑N 1
W= Cij (I1 − 3)i (I2 − 3)j + k=1 d
(I3 2 − 1)2k (1)
i+j=1 k

I1 = λ21 + λ22 + λ23 (2)

I2 = λ21 λ22 + λ22 λ23 + λ21 λ23 (3)

I3 = λ21 λ22 λ23 (4)

where λ1,2,3 are the principal elongation ratios.

And, the Mooney-Rivlin model is [26]:
W = C10 (I1 − 3) + C01 (I2 − 3) (5)
Fig. 7 shows the fit curve between the stress–strain data obtained from the simple tension test and the Money-Rivlin constitutive
model at different temperatures. The specific parameters are shown in Table 1.
Rubber is a typical viscoelastic material; its main forms are stress relaxation and creep. The traditional Maxwell model describes
only a short relaxation time, but in fact, the mechanical relaxation process of rubber has a complex relaxation time spectrum composed
of multiple relaxation times, namely the generalized Maxwell model [27,28]:

4
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

Fig. 5. Sample tensile test data at different temperatures.

Fig. 6. Stress–time diagram of the stress relaxation test for the HNBR sample at 120 ◦ C.

Fig. 7. Fit curves between the stress–strain data obtained from the simple tension test and the Money-Rivlin constitutive model.

5
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

Table 1
Specific parameters of the Mooney-Rivlin constitutive model at different
temperatures.
Temperature C10 C01

20 C ◦
− 0.69 2.46
120 ◦ C 1.00 0.04

∑
n
ω2 τ2i
Es (ω) = E∞ + Ei (5)
i=1
1 + ω2 τ2i

∑
n
ωτi
E1 (ω) = Ei (6)
i=1
1 + ω2 τ2i

where ω represents the angular frequency, Es (ω) is the storage modulus, E1 (ω) is the loss modulus and τi represents the relaxation time.
Modulus specific viscosity is present in every Maxwell model, and each Maxwell model has a relaxation time. The corresponding
viscoelastic constitutive model parameters can be fitted by the stress relaxation test data at 120 ◦ C and the Prony series equation [29],
which describes the generalized Maxwell model by equation. The fitting curve is shown in Fig. 8 and the specific parameters are
showed in Table 2.

3. Establishment of the FEA model

A Y344-114 compression packer is taken as the research object in this paper and the schematic diagram is shown in Fig. 9. In order
to improve the calculation accuracy and efficiency, the FEA model of the packer sealing system was established. The following as­
sumptions are made in the model. First, metal components, borehole wall and sealing rubber are all isotropic materials. Second, the
friction coefficient between the sealing rubber and each metal component is the same, and the friction coefficient between the metals is
the same. The friction coefficient between the sealing rubber, metal and borehole wall is 0.3, and the friction coefficient between the
metal is 0.1 [30,31]. Third, because the sealing rubber is the focus in this study, the calculation model contains only those parts that
affect the sealing performance of the sealing rubber, including the pressure cap, protection cap, sealing rubber, spacer ring, center tube
and borehole wall. Since the compression packer has an axisymmetric structure, the Y344-114 compression packer is simplified to an
axisymmetric model when the model is built.
Fig. 10 shows a simplified model of the Y344-114 packer sealing system, based on the above assumptions. The setting pressure of
the packer, which is added to the pressure cap, is 14 MPa while the center tube and the borehole wall are completely fixed.
It is assumed that rubber is incompressible and heat exchange between rubber and other components was not considered. The
borehole wall, which the hardness of borehole wall is over fivefold than rubber, is regarded the as rigid body. And the mechanical
parameters of center tube, spacer ring, pressure cap and protection cap is showed in Table 3.
Rubber, which is a large deformation material, caused the highly nonlinear contact in finite element analysis model. So, it is
necessary to find a most reasonable mesh size that lets computer calculation not only accurately but also efficient.
Generally speaking, the convergence of the model mesh is considered to become satisfied when the numerical variation of the
model result is less than 5% after refining the mesh. As can show in Table 4, when the mesh size is 0.55 mm, the maximum contact
stress variation between the sealing rubber and the shaft wall is 3.8%, which comply with the requirements of mesh convergence.

Fig. 8. Fitting curve of the Maxwell constitutive model and the stress relaxation test data at 120 ◦ C.

6
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

Table 2
Stress relaxation constitutive model parameters at 120 ◦ C.
gi ki τi
0.03806 0 1.27844
0.058 0 14.07867
0.08025 0 142.05245
0.10016 0 1804.6112

Protection cap
Sealing rubber

Hydraulic cylinder

Spacer ring Center tube

Pressure cap

Fig. 9. Y344-114 compression packer.

Borehole wall
Pressure cap

Protection cap

Setting pressure

Sealing rubber 1 Spacer ring Center tube

Sealing rubber 2

Fig. 10. Simplified model of the Y344-114 packer sealing system.

Table 3
The mechanical parameters of materials
Components Materials Passion’s rate The Young modulus/MPa

Center tube 35CrMo 0.286 213,000

Spacer ring 35CrMo 0.286 213,000
Pressure cap 35CrMo 0.286 213,000
Protection cap T3 0.35 97,625

Table 4
Mesh sensitivity analysis of sealing rubber
Size of seed/mm Max contact pressure/MPa Rate of change

7.7 7.58 /
2.2 9.98 37%
1.1 9.02 9.6%
0.55 8.68 3.8%
0.33 8.63 0.6%
0.11 8.59 0.5%

However, the calculation efficiency of the model will be greatly reduced if the mesh is further refined. Therefore, the seed size is
selected based on 0.55 mm.
In addition, the pressure cap, protection cap, borehole wall, center tube and spacer ring are meshed, respectively. The pressure cap,
protection cap, center tube, borehole wall and spacer ring are meshed by the first order quadrilateral non-coordinating units (CAX4R),
and the sealing rubber is meshed by the first order quadrilateral hybrid unit (CAX4H). The finite element model of the whole packer
sealing system was divided into 24,860 mesh cells, while the mesh number of the sealing rubber was 14,496.

7
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

4. Result

4.1. The criterion of sealing performance

In order to analyze the results of finite element model scientifically and reasonably, we propose the several evaluation parameters
for the sealing performance of packer rubber, such as contact stress, contact length and sealing performance coefficient K.

(1) contact stress σc

Stress in and near the contact area between rubber and borehole wall, MPa.
(2) contact length l
The length of the contact area projected on the axis, mm.
(3) sealing performance K
Integral of contact stress along contact length, MPa ⋅ mm.
∑bi
K= a
σci dli (7)
i

In Formula (7), a is the initial contact point and b is the contact end point and i stands for the i-th contact paragraph. After the
packer is setting successfully, contact stress occurs when the sealing rubber contacts with the borehole wall. The greater the contact
stress and the longer the contact length is, the better the sealing performance of sealing rubber will be. In addition, the sealing per­
formance coefficient K is come forward to comprehensive evaluate the sealing performance of sealing rubber.

4.2. The influence of temperature

Fig. 11 shows the FEA cloud diagram of the contact stress distribution at room temperature (20 ◦ C) and at work temperature
(120 ◦ C), in which the red circle is the position where the maximum contact stress occurs.
The maximum contact stress of the sealing rubber 1 and sealing rubber 2 are mainly distributed in the grooves at both ends. The
reason is that the design shape of the protection cap and the pressure cap is irregular, and there is a gap between them and the borehole
wall. Therefore, when the sealing rubber is compressed, the acromion process would lead to the generation of a sudden increase in
contact stress. When the temperature rises, the rubber softens and compresses more easily, leading to an increase in the deformation
and the contact stress. After setting successfully, the maximum contact stress of sealing rubber 1 is always greater than that of sealing
rubber 2, because the sealing rubber 2 is not fully compressed.
When the temperature is 20 ◦ C, the maximum contact stress between the sealing rubber 1 and the borehole wall is 9.97 MPa, and
the maximum contact stress between the sealing rubber 2 and the borehole wall is 0.82 MPa (as showed in Fig. 12a and b). When the
temperature rose to 120 ◦ C, the maximum contact stress decreased to 8.68 MPa and 0.67 MPa, respectively (as showed in Fig. 12c and
d).
When the temperature rises, the contact stress of the sealing rubber 1 decreases, while the contact length does not change very
much (as showed in Fig. 13). However, the contact length of the sealing rubber 2 increases, but the total contact length is much less
than the contact length between the sealing rubber 1 and the borehole wall, which indicates that the sealing rubber 2 is not fully
compressed. Furthermore, contact stress of the sealing rubber 2 is small and doesn’t change very much.

4.3. Influence of stress relaxation

When high temperature stress relaxation behavior occurs in rubber, the contact stress of the sealing rubber will decrease, but the
contact stress distribution remains almost unchanged. Due to the stress relaxation of rubber at a high temperature, the contact stress at
the acromion of the sealing rubber decreased (see Fig. 14), and the contact stress between the sealing rubber 1 and the borehole wall
decreased from the initial 8.68 MPa to 7.50 MPa, while the contact stress between the sealing rubber 2 and the borehole wall decreased
from the initial 0.67 MPa to 0.53mpa, as shown in Fig. 15.
The maximum contact stress point between the sealing rubber and the borehole wall is defined as the reference point. Fig. 16 shows
the curve of the maximum contact stress changing among the stress relaxation periods. When t = 0–500 s, the maximum contact stress
decreases significantly, and then gradually flattens. The stress relaxation curve trend of sealing rubber, shown in Fig. 16, was similar as
the curve obtained in stress relaxation test, which verifies the correctness of the finite element simulation analysis.

4.4. Analysis

The contact length between the sealing rubber and the borehole wall does not change significantly while the contact stress
decreased significantly (as shown in Fig. 17). In addition, a comparison of the rubber stress relaxation behavior at 120 ◦ C with that at
the room temperature (20 ◦ C) condition, indicates that the overall decrease of the contact stress between the sealing rubber and the
borehole wall becomes more obvious.
It can be seen from the above figure, setting pressure of the packer is too small, resulting in the maximum contact stress, contact
length and sealing performance coefficient K of sealing rubber 2 being much lower than that of sealing rubber 1.
As showed in Fig. 18, both temperature and stress relaxation lead to a decrease in contact stress. Considering the influence of

8
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

Fig. 11. Contact stress distribution cloud diagram of sealing rubber at different temperatures.

Fig. 12. Cloud diagram of the contact stress distribution between the sealing rubber and the borehole wall at different temperatures.

temperature, the contact stress between the sealing rubber and the borehole wall decreases by about 15% on average, with a maximum
of 21%. When the stress relaxation behavior of rubber at 120 ◦ C is taken into considering, the contact stress between the sealing rubber
and the borehole wall drops by more than 25% on average, the maximum contact stress drop of the sealing rubber 1 is more than 35%,
and the maximum contact stress drop of the sealing rubber 2 is more than 54%. It can be seen that temperature rise and stress
relaxation have a great impact on the sealing performance of the packer rubber system, and the influence is more obvious when the two

9
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

Fig. 13. Contact stress between the borehole wall and the sealing rubber at different temperatures.

Fig. 14. Contact stress distribution cloud diagram of sealing rubber after stress relaxation.

Fig. 15. Cloud diagram of the contact stress distribution between the sealing rubber and the borehole wall after stress relaxation.

conditions exist simultaneously.

Similarly, according to the data shown in Table 5, an increase in both temperature and stress relaxation will lead to a decrease in the
maximum contact stress and the sealing performance coefficient K, which directly impact the sealing capacity of the packer sealing
system. Therefore, in order to eliminate temperature effect and stress relaxation effect on the rubber, the temperature safety factor and
stress relaxation safety factor should be set. If sealing rubber 1 is used as a reference, the temperature safety factor should be set to
above 1.25, while the stress relaxation safety factor should be set to above 1.56.

10
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

Fig. 16. Curves of the maximum contact stress changes among different stress relaxation periods.

Fig. 17. Contact stress distribution curve of the sealing rubber and the borehole wall.

5. Discussion

The HNBR backbone is a carbon chain structure. And, after polymerization there is still a double bond in each unit, which is the
weak link in the molecular chain due to its instability. When the temperature rises, HNBR molecular chain moves faster, and the
binding effect between the rubber molecular chain and the carbon black weakens, resulting in a decline in tensile strength. Therefore,
at the same setting pressure, the contact stress of the sealing rubber at 120 ◦ C decreased.
The fundamental reason for the stress relaxation behavior of rubber is that the viscosity of the rubber molecular chain is very high
so that the external forces are gradually consumed, but the applied forces are difficult to reach the balance in a short period of time.
Over time, the molecular chain of rubber through the movement and rearrangement, so the internal stress gradually balance. The
higher the external temperature is, the shorter the stress relaxation time will be. According to the results of the high temperature stress
relaxation test and our finite element analysis, in a short period of time the sealing performance of the HNBR sealing rubber at 120 ◦ C
decreased by more than 10% due to stress relaxation. However, in most cases the packer will remain downhole for several months or
even a year, so its sealing performance decreases even more because of the stress relaxation and can even cause seal failure.
In view of the above discussion, in order to improve the sealing performance of HNBR sealing rubber of such a type packer, we
suggest the following. First, increase the setting pressure so that the sealing rubber can fully contact with the borehole wall, and
improve the contact stress and total contact length. Second, choose rubber materials that are more resistant at high temperatures to
ensure the mechanical properties of rubber at a high temperature (e.g., fluorine rubber). Third, improve the mechanical properties of
rubber materials (e.g., increase the degree of hydrogenation and saturation).

11
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

Fig. 18. Change rate curves of contact stress between the sealing rubber and the borehole wall.

Table 5
Data statistics of the sealing performance evaluation.
Components Stress relaxation or Temperature/ Maximum contact stress/ Maximum rate of contact Contact length/ K/
not ◦
C MPa stress mm MPa⋅mm

Sealing rubber No 20 9.97 / 46.18 242.71

1
Sealing rubber No 120 8.68 20.22% 48.19 208.43
1
Sealing rubber Yes 120 7.50 36.03% 49.28 190.28
1
Sealing rubber No 20 0.82 / 27.35 17.05
2
Sealing rubber No 120 0.67 20.80% 36.14 16.33
2
Sealing rubber Yes 120 0.53 54.03% 37.59 15.15
2

6. Conclusion

The results of our research, in this paper, reveal the following:

• Rated setting pressure cannot make the packer sealing system fully contact with the borehole wall. Therefore, it is suggested that
the packer setting pressure should be increased or the sealing structure should be optimized.
• Working temperature will decrease the mechanical properties of packer rubber, thus resulting in a decrease in the contact stress
between the packer sealing rubber and the borehole wall. According to the FEA results, compared with the room temperature
(20 ◦ C) condition, the contact stress at work temperature (120 ◦ C) decreases by 15% on average and the maximum decrease is more
than 20%.
• Stress relaxation at work temperature will lead to a significant decrease in packer sealing performance. According to the FEA
results, compared with the room temperature (20 ◦ C) condition, the contact stress after stress relaxation behavior at work tem­
perature (120 ◦ C) will lead to an average decrease of 35% and a maximum decrease of more than 50%.

In order to solve the issue of temperature effect and stress relaxation effect on the rubber, the temperature safety factor and stress
relaxation safety factor is put forward. For example, temperature safety of sealing rubber 1 should be set to above 1.25, while the stress
relaxation safety factor should be set to above 1.56.

Data availability

The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared at this time due to technical and time limitations.

12
X. Zheng and B. Li Engineering Failure Analysis 129 (2021) 105692

Author statement

We certify that the submission is not under review at any other publications and the figures and tables in the manuscript are the
original work of the authors.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the National Major Science and Technology Project of China (2016ZX05038).

References

[1] G.R. Hitchcock, A.R. Akisanya, D.S. Thompson, The mechanical response and anti-extrusion characteristics of fibre-filled elastomers, Proc. Instit. Mech.
Engineers, Part L: J. Mater.: Design Appl. 213 (1) (1999) 37–46.
[2] A.N. Gent, Engineering with Rubber, Eng. Rubber (2012). I, III–XV, XVII–XVIII.
[3] S. Ahmed, S. Salehi, C. Ezeakacha, C. Teodoriu, Experimental investigation of elastomers in downhole seal elements: Implications for safety, Polym. Test. 76
(2019) 350–364.
[4] D. Zhang, Y. Dai, X. Ma, L. Zhang, B. Zhong, J. Wu, Z. Tao, An analysis for the influences of fracture network system on multi-stage fractured horizontal well
productivity in shale gas reservoirs, Energies 11 (2) (2018) 414.
[5] Z.M. Li, J.B. Liu, Y.Q. Ding, Finite element analysis of the packer at fracturing, Appl. Mech. Mater. 385-386 (2013) 159–162.
[6] D. Zhu, Y. Lin, H. Zhang, Y. Li, D. Zeng, W. Liu, C. Qiang, K. Deng, Corrosion evaluation of packer rubber materials in CO2 injection wells under supercritical
conditions, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 151 (2017) 311–317.
[7] Z. Dajiang, L. Yuanhua, Z. Huali, L. Yufei, L. Yafeng, S. Gang, D. Kuanhai, WITHDRAWN: Experimental studies on CO2 corrosion of rubber materials for packer
under compressive stress in gas wells, Eng. Fail. Anal. (2017).
[8] B. Dong, W. Liu, L. Cheng, J. Gong, Y. Wang, Y. Gao, S. Dong, Y. Zhao, Y. Fan, T. Zhang, L. Chen, Investigation on mechanical properties and corrosion behavior
of rubber for packer in CO2-H2S gas well, Eng. Fail. Anal. 124 (2021).
[9] D. Zeng, B. Dong, Y. Qi, Z. Yu, J. Wang, X. Huang, X. Liu, Y. Liu, On how CO2 partial pressure on corrosion of HNBR rubber O-ring in CO2–H2S–CH4
environment, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (11) (2021) 8300–8316.
[10] X. He, X. Shi, M. Hoch, C. Gögelein, Mechanical properties of carbon black filled hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber for packer compounds, Polym.
Test. 53 (2016) 257–266.
[11] B. Alcock, J.K. Jørgensen, The mechanical properties of a model hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) following simulated sweet oil exposure at
elevated temperature and pressure, Polym. Test. 46 (2015) 50–58.
[12] C.J. Derham, Creep and stress relaxation of rubbers—the effects of stress history and temperature changes, J. Mater. Sci. 8 (7) (1973) 1023–1029.
[13] B. Slay, W. Webber, Stress relaxation of elastomer compounds, Sealing Technol. 2011 (2) (2011) 9–12.
[14] G. Hu, P. Zhang, G. Wang, M. Zhang, M. Li, The influence of rubber material on sealing performance of packing element in compression packer, J. Nat. Gas Sci.
Eng. 38 (2017) 120–138.
[15] B. Li, S.M. Zhang, Contact Pressure Research of Drill Pipe and Packer of Rotating Blowout Preventer, Appl. Mech. Mater. 121-126 (2011) 3200–3204.
[16] H. Patel, S. Salehi, C. Teodoriu, R. Ahmed, Performance evaluation and parametric study of elastomer seal in conventional hanger assembly, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.
175 (2019) 246–254.
[17] V.L. Polonsky, A.P. Tyurin, Design of Packers for Sealing of the Inter-Tube Space in Equipment used for Recovery of Oil and Gas, Chem. Pet. Eng. 51 (1-2) (2015)
37–40.
[18] J. Liu, K. Deng, S. Liu, X.i. Yan, L. Li, D. Zou, Y. Lin, Mechanical Behavior and Structure Optimization of Compressed PHP Packer Rubber, J. Mater. Eng. Perform.
30 (5) (2021) 3691–3704.
[19] B.L. Qu, Effects of the friction coefficient on sealing performance of packer element, in: S. Yingying, C. Guiran, L. Zhen (Eds.), Proceedings Of the 2016
International Conference on Education, Management, Computer and Society, Atlantis Press, Paris, 2016, pp. 868–872.
[20] A. Sadana, A. Kovalchuk, C. Cook, Delayed oil swell packer for openhole zonal isolation of long laterals wells. International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Dhahran, 2020.
[21] ASTM D412-16, Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers—Tension, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2021.
[22] K. Yamaguchi, A.G. Thomas, J.J.C. Busfield, Stress relaxation, creep and set recovery of elastomers, Int. J. Non-linear Mech. 68 (2015) 66–70.
[23] N.G. Patel, A. Sreeram, R.I. Venkatanarayanan, S. Krishnan, P.A. Yuya, Elevated temperature nanoindentation characterization of poly(para-phenylene
vinylene) conjugated polymer films, Polym. Test. 41 (2015) 17–25.
[24] S. Ronan, T. Alshuth, S. Jerrams, N. Murphy, Long-term stress relaxation prediction for elastomers using the time–temperature superposition method, Mater.
Des. 28 (5) (2007) 1513–1523.
[25] R.W. Ogden, Large Deformation isotropic elasticity – on the correlation of theory and experiment for incompressible rubberlike solids, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 326
(1567) (1972) 565–584.
[26] M. Mooney, A theory of large elastic deformation, J. Appl. Phys. 11 (9) (1940) 582–592.
[27] H. Schiessel, R. Metzler, A. Blumen, T.F. Nonnenmacher, Generalized viscoelastic models: their fractional equations with solutions, J. Phys. A 28 (23) (1995)
6567–6584.
[28] R. Xiao, H. Sun, W. Chen, An equivalence between generalized Maxwell model and fractional Zener model, Mech. Mater. 100 (2016) 148–153.
[29] C. Miehe, J. Keck, Superimposed finite elastic–viscoelastic–plastoelastic stress response with damage in filled rubbery polymers. Experiments, modelling and
algorithmic implementation, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48 (2) (2000) 323–365.
[30] W. Ma, B. Qu, F. Guan, Effect of the friction coefficient for contact pressure of packer rubber, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C-J. Eng. Mech. Eng. Sci. 228 (16)
(2014) 2881–2887.
[31] G. Hu, G. Wang, L. Dai, P. Zhang, M. Li, Y. Fu, Sealing failure analysis on V-shaped sealing rings of an inserted sealing tool used for multistage fracturing
processes, Energies 11 (6) (2018) 1432.

13