GEOPHYSI(‘S, VOI,. XXVII, NO. 4 (AUGUST. lYhz), PP. Jh3-WI, 8 FIGS.

Downloaded 01/11/19 to 125.163.52.108. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

PROPAGATION EFFECTS ON RADIAL RESPONSE

IN INDUCTION LOGGING*

W. C. DUESTERHOEFT, JR.? AND H. W. SMITH?

This paper considers the problem of the field of an alternating magnetic dipole on the axis of cylindrical boundaries
separating isotropic conductive formations. The study accounts for attenuation, phase shift, and reflection in the
conducting formations. Numerical results are presented for the voltage induced in a separated coaxial receiver coil.
The results are applicable directly to induction logging theory.

INTRODUCTION

Induction log systems are composed of trans-

mitter-receiver coil pairs such as illustrated in
Figure 1. A regulated alternating current in the EARTHEN

transmitter coil induces a voltage in the receiver

coil that is approximately 90 degrees out-of-
phase with the transmitter current and also in-
duces current flow in the formation surrounding
the borehole. The eddy currents that flow in the
earth are approximately proportional to conduc-
tivity and approximately 90 degrees out-of-
phase with the transmitter current; these currents
in turn induce voltages in the receiver coil that
are in-phase with the transmitter current. The
electronic circuitry of the receiver is designed to
detect the in-phase component of the receiver coil
voltage and this in-phase component serves as a TRANSMITTER TRANSMITTER
OSCILLATOR COIL
measure of the conductivity of the formation.
Electromagnetic waves originating at the trans- U
mitter coil experience attenuation and phase shift
PIG. 1, Induction log schematic.
in the formation as well as reflection at media dis-
continuities. This paper accounts for these prop-
agation effects on the response of induction coil original study by Doll (1949) presents an equa-
systems in formations with layered radial varia- tion for a radial geometrical factor that can be
tion of conductivity. The paper complements an used to determine the radial response provided
earlier study wherein the response in horizontally the conductivity of the surrounding iormation is
stratified formation was considered and a similar not too high (Duesterhoeft, 1961). When fre-
analysis was utilized (Duesterhoeft, 1961). quencies, conductivities, and coil spacings of the
Studies of the radial response of the induction order of 20 kc, one mho per meter, and one meter
log have been presented by Doll (1949), Nikitina are encountered, then the propagation effects of
(1960), and De Witte and Lowitz (1961). The attenuation and phase shift as functions of posi-
analysis of Nikitina as well as that of De Witte tion in the conducting media assume importance
and Lowitz present the theory of the induction and should be considered in an analysis of the
log but do not present numerical results. The system response. This requires evaluation of the

* Manuscript receivedby the Editor October2, 1961.

t Department of Electrical Engineering,University of Texas and Consultantsto Lane Wells, Inc
463
 464 W. C. Duesterhoeft, Jr., and H. W. Smith

integral transform equations of Nikitina (1MO),

and De Witte and Lowitz (1001). The object of
the study presented here was to determine the
Downloaded 01/11/19 to 125.163.52.108. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

radial response of the induction log with full COW

sideration being given to the propagation or skin-
effect. The integral transform equations were
programmed for evaluation on a large-scale digi-
tal computer. Numerical results of the study are
presented.

NOMENCLATURE

H= Magnetic field intensity

E = Electric field intensity
cr= Electric conductivity
c,,i= Apparent conductivity
p = Magnetic permeability
w = 275f= Angular frequency
II = Hertz vector potential FIG. 2. Illustration of problemand tlefinitionof symbols.
a, OR, UT= Fixed radii
A = iV7ra*= Effective coil area
H=VXVXTI, (2)
N=Number of coil turns
Y, z, $I = Cylindrical coordinate variables J = aE, (3)
K, 0, 4 = Spherical coordinate variables
M= Magnetic dipole moment and
-Y= (&+~I 1!2= Propagation constant
L= Coil separation v*rI = jw/.MrrI = y*II. (4)
“=L(W/KTj”’
V = Electric potential difference We seek solutions of equation (4) that exhibit
I,,(S), K,,(_Y) = Modified Bessel functions proper behavior at the exciting transmitter coil,
F(X) = Weighting functions of integral at infinite radii, and at boundaries separating dif-
transforms fering media. The receiver coil voltage can be de-
X, D, X = Variable of integration termined from these solutions.
A = {XZ+yz \ 112 Consider the geometry illustrated in Figure 2.
K = Induction log coil-pair constant Let the transmitter coil with dipole moment,
g(r) = Geometric factor for thin cylinder M=.rreT2N~I~= ATIT, be aligned with the z-axis
and located at the origin. For this geometry, E
Subscripts P or S refer to primary excitation or
has only a &component, the vector potential II
secondary waves, respectively. Subscripts T, R
has only a z-component, AIJ,
refer to transmitter or receiver coils. Numerical
subscripts on material properties such as c and
field quantities refer to the medium involved.

THEORY

For a sinusoidally varying magnetic dipole and

with time variation taken as ejwl, the electric and
magnetic field intensities can be derived from a WI = 7% = jw/MAI. (6)
vector potential II, the components of which
General solutions of equation (6) are obtained
satisfy the wave equation. In the conductive
earth WE is neglected in comparison to conduc- by taking the product solution, separating vari-
tivity, (T. Now, ables, and summing solutions over all possible
values of the separation parameter. Resulting
E= -jwpv x n, (1) solutions take the form of the following Fourier
 Radial Response in Induction Logging 465

transforms: and

II=SmF(X)l,(rA)
coszm, yi = jti,u,. (14)
Downloaded 01/11/19 to 125.163.52.108. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

(7)
0 The weight functions, F1 and Fz, are determined
by imposing conditions that must he satisfied on

SII
r~ = (8)
Fm(x)R,,(rii) cos zXdX, the boundary cylinder. These conditions require
that the tangential components, B and 11, ad
normal component of magnetic flux density be
and
continuous across the boundary. ‘l’hus, at Y=U,
A2 = A” + 72. (9)

The functions, I,, and Ko, are the modified Bessel

functions of the first and second kind, respec-
tively. The first solution above exhibits regular
behavior on the v=O axis but is unbounded at
infinite radii. The second solution above has a
singularity at the origin and approaches zero at
infinite radii.
The solution in medium 1 is taken to consist of
a primary component excitation due to the source
dipole and a perturbation due to the medium dis-
continuity. The primary excitation is MtrR/brR,
which is the potential due to the source dipole
that would exist if the formation were homogene-
ous. The cosine transform of this potential is an
expression of the type given by equation (8)
(Erdelyi, 1951) :
and
A12rI1 = A22rI2. (16)
On application of these boundary conditions, the
solution for the function, F,, can IX determined
by virtue of the property that equal functions
have equal integral transforms.
The receiver coil voltage can be determined by
evaluating the integral, /E.dR, about the re-
ceiver coil. The receiver coil voltage then consists
of two components, one due to the primary ex-
citation field and one due to the I)oundary per-
turbation field:

“/, - McyR
4TR
v=
S coil
E.dR = Vp + Vs. (17)

Due to the phase-discriminating tlctection in the

M ;” receiver, our interest centers on the real parts of
zz-

2*” S0
K&A) cos zXdh. (10)
these components. The real part of the component
due to primary excitation has I)een evaluated
On this basis expressions for the solutions in previously (Ducsterhocft, 1961). In order to de-
medium 1 and medium 2 can be written as: termine the radial response, it is required that

S
SW
{K,,(rill) + FI(X)l,(rAl) ] coszXdh, (11)

M * the real part of the I’s-component be evaluated.

HZ = -p (F&)Ko(rAs) 1 coszXdX, (12) If Ii’, is substituted in equation (1 I), the opera-
A s 0
tions of equations (5) and (17) are performed,
and the approximation, Zl(aRA,) ~a~h,/2, is
A, = (X2 + y$‘/2, (13) used to obtain:

(18)
 466

where
Downloaded 01/11/19 to 125.163.52.108. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

and

Ai = (A” + jw/&JT)r’2.

Where there are two cylindrical boundaries at,

say, ~=a and r=b >a, with conductivity u=ur NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

for r <a, g=c2 for a <v <b, and CJ=U~for r >b, the After the change of variables:
development proceeds in much the same manner
as above. The vector potential can bc taken as
composed of the primary excitation and a pertur-
bation of the equation (7) type in the region
r<a, of components of both equation (7) and
equation (8) type in the region (I <r <O, and a
component of the equation (8) type for r >O. expression (18) can be written as:
L4pplication of the boundary conditions discussed
above and solution for PI(X) produces the result:

The signal, T’S, is obtained by substitution of

this expression for F,(X) in equation (18).

(20)

and

(21)
 Radial Response in Induction Logging 467

This integral was programmed for evaluation on

a large digital computer. In rationalizing the
above integral it was found convenient, for values
of the dimensionless radius, I’, greater than
Downloaded 01/11/19 to 125.163.52.108. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

unity, to take a path of integration, e=(l+j)jl,

for real 3’. For this path the Bessel functions of
0.6
complex argument could be expressed in terms of b”
the Thompson functions. Power series expansions \
were used for the Thompson functions of small c 0.4
argument and the semi-convergent series for
arguments greater than 4.5. The integral for this
path of integration does not converge for small
values of the dimensionless radius, U. For values
of I: less than unity, the path of integration
taken was that of the real D axis. The quantities
lo(X), Ko(X), 1,(X)/S, and K,(S)/X were ex-
0 I 2 3 4 5
u = o/L
pressed as series of even functions of the complex
number that could be easily separated into real FIG. 3. Apparent conductivity versus bountlar)
radius with varying parameter nl = (w~u,L*[~‘* for
and imaginary components for rationalization (T”=lOUI.
purposes.
Results of the numerical analysis are shown as
are the readings for the homogeneous u1 forma-
Figure 3. The curve indicated by crr=O is the no
tion. These values have been given previously
skin-effect curve that was obtained from a cor- (Duesterhoeft, 1961).

:
rected expression previously given by Doll (1949)
for the radial geometrical factor, g(r)
cc
The change of parameter, (Y], from 0.1277 to
0.2534 corresponds to a change by a factor of 4

c7*
=S04)&W, (22) in the product, urL*, for fixed frequency; i.e. a
factor of 2 in length or 4 in conductivity. Other

where
g(r)
=Ik’(u)Pb (23)
values of the parameter, (Y,are listed in Table 1 for
selected values of conductivity considered in this
paper for a 40.inch coil spacing at a frequency of
20 kc/set. Figure 4depicts the expected result that
u = 2r,/L,
if the coil pair is submerged in the more conduc-
tive medium, the response differs little from re-
F(u) = u
results of the radial geometric factor analysis.
(u” + 1)2
Profiles of the four curves of Figure 3 are shown
. { (u’ + 3)(-\/iiqT- l)K(k’) as Figure 5, which illustrates the variation of
- (U” - l)(.\/zG + 1+ l)E(k’)) (23) response with the dimensionless parameter,
(Yr= {w/.lffJ*}r’*.
K, = 2(u2 + 1)1’4(du2 + 1 - 1) Values taken from these profiles can be used to
. (25)
u*
Table 1. Values ofpropagation factor, a, for selected
K(k’) and E(k’) are the complete elliptic inte- values of conductivity forf= ZOkc, p=4?rlO-‘,
grals of first and second kinds, respectively. and L = 40 inches.
All curves shown on Figure 3 are for a con-
C, mhos/meter p, ohm-meter cy= (w/ML*)’ 2
trast uJur = 10. The dimensionless parameter,
(or= {w/.~a~L*)“~=0.1277, is that which would 0.025 40.0 0.0638
occur for values of u1=O.l mho per meter, L =40 0.1 10.0 0.1277
0.25 4.0 0.2018
inches, and f= 20 kc/set. Figure 4 depicts similar 0.4 2.5 0.255
curves for contrasts of ut/up= 10. The U =0 inter- 1.0 1.0 0.4037
4.0 0.25 0.8074
cepts are the values for the homogeneous (~2for-
10.0 0.1 1.277
mation and the asymptotes for large values of 1’
 468 W. C. Duesterhoeft, Jr., and H. W. Smith

0.8
Downloaded 01/11/19 to 125.163.52.108. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

0.6
06
e
b‘
\
2 0.4
e 0.4

0.2

0
0 40 80 120 160 21
RADIUS IN INCHES
U = a/L
FIG. 6. Comparison of response of two-coil system and
FIG. 4. Apparent con(luctivily versus hountlary radius four-coil system with minimum mud column effect.
and pa’dmeter oL1= (,/LuIL*)1~2 for fT,= lOua.

that nulls the mutual inductance coupling be-

obtain the variation of ult/u:! versus radius param-
tween transmitter coils and receiver coils. The
eter U for new values of 01,. Such an interpolation
flat nature of the multi-coil system response in
procedure can be used to obtain the response oi the mud column region when the system is de-
coil pairs of a multi-coil system in which several
signed for mutual inductance balance is apparent.
coil spacings are utilized.
4 numerical analysis for a three-layer radial
Results showing comparison of 2.coil and I-coil
distribution of conductivity was programmed in
systems with anti wthout account taken for skin-
the same manner discussed previously for the two
effects are given in Figure 6. The 2.coil system
layer case. Equation (19) was substituted in equa-
considered had a coil spacing of d0 inches. The
I-coil system had a main coil spacing of 40 inches
0.3
with focus coils negatively wound 25 inches from
the main coils. The ratio of main coil turns to
focus coil turns was N,In=8.2, the turns ratio

I 0

0.2

b’
b” O6
\
bp 04 0. I

02

0
0 IO 20 ?
0
0 I 2 3 4 5
W q b/L
FIG. 5. Apparent conductivity versus crl= {w~,~u~L*)~~~
with parameter U= a/L for Q= 10~~. FIG. 7. Example response in three-layer formation.
 Radial Response in Induction Logging 469

0;~ versus W= b/L.. For comparison, the C’=O

curve that indicates the contribution due to the
mud column is included along with curves com-
Downloaded 01/11/19 to 125.163.52.108. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

puted using the geometrical factor equation (22)

in order to illustrate the propagation effects.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Lane Wells, Inc.,

for whom the study was conducted, for permis-
sion to publish the material. The aid of Mr.
Floyd George in programming is gratefully
acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Ik K’itte, A. J.. t,owitz, David A., 1961, Theory of the

induction log: Paper presented to Society of Profes-
sional Well Log Analysts, May.
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 Doll, H. C., 1949, Introduction to induction logging
W= b/L and application to logging of wells tlrilled with oil
base mud: Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 1,
FIG. 8. Example response in three-layer formation. n. 6, pp. 148-162.
Duesterhoeft, W. C., 1961, Propagation effects in in-
duction logging: Geophysics, v. 26, n. 2, pp. 192-204.
tion (18) and the resulting integral was rational- Erdelyi, A., 1954, Table of integral transforms, v. 2:
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
ized and numerically integrated. Results for mid- Nikitina, V. N., 1960, The general solution of an axially
continent conditions (pi=], p2=50, pa=4 and symmetrical problem in induction logging theory:
lzvest. Geophys. Ser., pp. 607-616.
pi=O.l, ~2’5, p3=4) are shown as Figures 7 and
Smythe, William R, 1950, Static and dynamic elec-
8. These results are for U=a/L=O.l and show tricity, 2nd ed.: hew York, McGraa--Hill Book Co.