WELL LOGGING
Modeling Electromagnetic
Tool Response
Barbara Anderson Resistivity modeling was used as far back as
Gerald Minerbo 1927, when Conrad Schlumberger first rea-
Michael Oristaglio soned how current from an electrode
Schlumberger-Doll Research spreads out into the formations around a
Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA borehole. But he would have called it “the-
orizing.” Characteristics were assigned to
Tom Barber the formation (the formation model) and the
Bob Freedman laws of physics, usually in idealized form,
Frank Shray were used to predict analytically the
Schlumberger Well Services response made by some electrode configu-
Houston, Texas, USA ration (the sonde, or tool, model) to the
modeled formation. Both theoretical and
experimental modeling have passed through
many stages since then.
Early experimental modeling used small
electrodes in “infinite” saltwater baths.
Resistivity modeling is shortening the learning curve in gaining understanding of the reservoir.
Although almost as old as logging itself, resistivity modeling is an integral part of the latest developments,
from steering horizontal wells to investigating the effects of anisotropy.
Later, tool responses were studied using
mock-up sondes in more realistic environ-
ments created by using thin impermeable
membranes to separate waters of different
salinity. For a number of years, a resistor
network was used at the Schlumberger-Doll
Research laboratory in Ridgefield, Connecti-
cut USA. This network, consisting of tens of
thousands of electrical resistors, simulated
resistivities in borehole, invaded zone and
virgin formation. In addition, theoretical cal-
culations of sonde responses to layered and
invaded formations generated books of
departure curves. This theoretical approach
was especially important for tools that had
large depths of investigation or were not
readily adaptable to laboratory experiments.
Large improvements in computing capa-
bility have introduced qualitative changes in
22
the role of modeling during the last decade.
Computerized modeling has reduced from
weeks to minutes the time required to cal-
culate many effects of tool design changes.
One can now systematically explore the
effects of environmental conditions such as
borehole rugosity and caves, mudcake,
invasion, dip, shoulder beds, and formation
anisotropy on resistivity tool responses.
The latest stage in this evolution is aimed
at providing rapid, low-cost log interpreta-
tion through the use of fast computers with
large, high-speed memories and efficient
programs. Recently, even massively parallel
processing has been introduced to serve
these goals. Some log interpretation by
interactive modeling is possible even on
personal computers.1 Program packages for
simple one-dimensional (1D) modeling are
commonplace; two-dimensional (2D) and
three-dimensional (3D) modeling are practi-
cal in many special cases, although they
generally require the use of mainframes or
supercomputers. Two-dimensional modeling
permits examination of axially symmetric
radial variations—for example, treating
zero-dip layering and coaxial invasion
simultaneously. Three-dimensional model-
ing also handles azimuthal variations such
as circumferentially irregular caves or inva-
sion, sonde eccentering and dipping beds.
Oilfield Review
Modeling Versus Inversion
The distinction between modeling—fre- Model Rt Profile Model Rt Profile

Depth, ft
quently “forward” modeling—and inversion
is sometimes muddied. The latter typically Computed Deep Computed Deep
Induction Induction
attempts to “back out” true resistivity, Rt , ohm-m ohm-m
0.2 2000 0.2 2000
directly from the log with a minimum of 1800
assumptions. The best known example of
this approach is vertical deconvolution
through the use of inverse filters. In its 1810
purest form, this method requires only that
the vertical response function (VRF) of the
tool be known accurately.2 In practice, VRFs
1820
are usually formation dependent, so approx-
imations must be used. Nevertheless,
deconvolution has been employed success-
fully, running in real time on logging unit 1830
computers. Artifacts may appear, however, if
inverse filters overreach in trying to achieve
fine vertical resolution or if the 2D assump- 1840

tions implicit in the filter are violated.
In modeling, on the other hand, the ana-
lyst suggests an environmental model. This
trial model includes a description of the
borehole and formation geometry and
“parameter values”—numbers assigned to
variables such as borehole diameter and
bedding dip, thickness and resistivity. Then,
the tool physics —a model in its own
right—is used to compute an expected log,
which is compared with the field log. If the
match isn’t good enough, the initial trial
model is altered and the calculation
repeated. This process is iterated until the
two logs match satisfactorily. Several criteria
for the quality of match are used, from sim-
ple eyeballing to the more sophisticated
least-squares and maximum entropy meth-
ods described later. The model’s geometry
or parameter changes are executed interac-
tively, using the analyst’s intuition and expe-
rience, or automatically, if computers and
programs of sufficient power are available.
Modeling intrinsically yields consistency
with the field log, even though the solution
isn’t unique. This nonuniqueness is seldom
nThe lack of uniqueness in forward mod-
eling. Different formation models can
lead to nearly identical induction logs.
The ambiguity is resolved, however, by
addition of nearly any log with high verti-
cal resolution.
a serious problem, however, because the
range of possible formation models can be
severely constrained by local knowledge
from cores and logs. An extreme example of
this condition shows two grossly different
models that predict the same deep induc-
tion log (above ). But in practice, almost any
additional log with vertical resolution of
about 1 foot [30 cm] or less (gamma ray,
EPT Electromagnetic Propagation Tool, dip-
meter or photoelectric factor, Pe) would
resolve this ambiguity.
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Charles
Flaum, Services Techniques Schlumberger, Montrouge,
France; Stan Gianzero, Austin, Texas, USA; Martin
Lüling, Schlumberger-Doll Research, Ridgefield, Con-
necticut, USA; Bill MacGregor, Schlumberger Austin Sys-
tems Center, Austin, Texas, USA; Richard Rosthal,
Schlumberger Well Services, Houston, Texas, USA; Liang
C. Shen, Well Logging Laboratory, University of Hous-
ton, Houston, Texas, USA; Julian Singer, Schlumberger,
New Delhi, India.
In this article, AIT (Array-Induction Imager tool), CDR
(Compensated Dual Resistivity), EPT (Electromagnetic
Propagation Tool), Phasor and MicroSFL are marks of
Schlumberger. Cray is a mark of Cray Research, Inc.
Connection Machine is a mark of Thinking Machines
Corp. VAX is a mark of Digital Equipment Corp.
1. Georgi DT, Phillips C, Hardman R: “Applications of
Digital Core Image Analysis to Thin Bed Evaluation,”
Society of Core Analysts Transactions, paper 9206,
June 14-17, 1992, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA,
(in press).
2.“Vertical Resolution of Well Logs: Recent Develop-
ments,” Oilfield Review 3, no. 3 (July 1991): 24-28.
The vertical response function describes the character-
istic response of the tool as it passes, perpendicularly,
an infinitely thin bed.

July 1992 23
 Measured depth, ft Model One Model Two
nThe importance of
Rt Rt Rt modeling. For a

True vertical
well inclined 56°,

depth, ft
Computed Deep Induction Computed Deep Induction Computed Deep Induction an initial trial
model and its com-
puted deep induc-
Measured Deep Induction Measured Deep Induction Measured Deep Induction
tion log are com-
2 ohm-m 200 2 ohm-m 200 2 ohm-m 200 pared with the field
0 0 log (model one).
Modification of the
model leads to bet-
ter agreement
A between computed
and field logs, but
some discrepancies
B remain (model
two). The final
C model (right) pro-
duces nearly per-
fect agreement.
D Depths in models
one and two are on
E
a log-measured
scale, while the
final results are pre-
F sented on a true
vertical depth scale.
The two scales are
different because
the well is slanted.

50

25

Examples of Formation Evaluation
The economic importance of modeling is
illustrated by a North Sea reserves calcula-
tion based on induction log interpretation
carried out with a Schlumberger program
called Induction Sonde in Multilayered
Media (ISMLM).3,4 This is a 1D induction
modeling code for layered media that
neglects borehole and invasion effects. It
handles up to 150 parallel dipping layers.
Invasion was considered negligible because
the well was drilled with oil-base mud.
The measured deep induction log, initial
trial formation model and computed log are
shown in the first model (above, left ). High-
resolution details of the trial model were
provided by an EPT log. The effects of the
first model revision are based on the ana-
lyst’s experience. The analyst changes the
thicknesses of conductive beds, adds layers
to the sands, and improves the depth match
between the induction and EPT curves.
Since visible discrepancies between the
field log and the modeled log remained, fur-
ther model revisions were needed to
achieve the final results (above, right ). The
final model reduced the well’s estimated
average water saturation from 9.7% to
7.2%. Because the hole is deviated 56°, the
log-measured depths (MD) are greater than
the true vertical depths (TVD), and bed
thicknesses are similarly magnified. This
MD expansion of scale, obvious in highly
deviated wells, will be observed again in a
later example.
Subsequent to this work, the ISMLM code
was made part of the Electromagnetic Mod-
eling package, called the ELMOD program.
The program consists of 1D and 2D codes
that compute the responses of electric log-
ging tools to models of downhole environ-
ment. The programs can be run at any
Schlumberger Data Services Center or on a
Schlumberger VAX workstation. Configura-
tions include induction and laterologs in
multiple horizontal beds with borehole and
invasion, and induction and CDR Compen-
sated Dual Resistivity logs in multiple dip-
ping beds without borehole or invasion.
Other tool environments and fast induction
codes are being evaluated for addition to
the package. Other codes in this program
can be used for dipping bed interpretation.
In the dipping bed interpretation using the
ELMOD program, bed boundaries were pro-
vided by the Phasor deep induction log, and
an apparent dip of 38° by the dipmeter log.5
Discrepancy between the field induction log
and initial computed log led to revision of
the trial model and a recomputed log (next
page, top). This improved the fit, but one
more iteration—fine-tuning the shapes of
some beds and adjusting for overcompensa-
tion—yielded an excellent visual match
(ELMOD Simulation Three). Although the
final model is not a unique representation of

24 Oilfield Review
 ELMOD Simulation One ELMOD Simulation Two ELMOD Simulation Three

Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity

0.2 ohm-m 2000 0.2 ohm-m 2000 0.2 ohm-m 2000
1000

1050
Depth, ft

1100

Measured deep
Phasor induction
Modeled deep
Phasor induction
Rt
1150

nModeling simulation using the ELMOD program for interpretation of a deep induction Phasor log in a North Sea well with
apparent dip of 38°. The initial trial model was refined in two steps, left to right, until agreement was reached between the
model-computed and field logs. Simulation Three was consistent with the log analyst’s knowledge of the field.

Summary of Induction Modeling Programs

Source Program Radial Annuli Horizontal Layering Accounts for Dip? CPU Time Method
University of NLAYER 0 Unlimited No 10 sec4 Transmission
Houston
MLIND 1 30 feet [9 m] No 11 sec4 Perturbation
Well Logging DIPEX 0 3 layers Yes 40 sec4 Analytical
Laboratory1 WLAP 2 10, max 66 ft [20m] No 12 min4 Propagation
NDIP 0 100 layers Yes NA Analytical
IND9110 2 15 layers No NA Eigenmode
Schlumberger ISMLM2 0 150 layers Yes 20 min5 Analytical
(ELMOD)
TRIKHZ3 9 3 layers No 3 min5 Hybrid
(ELMOD)

1. Well Logging Technical Report, No. 7. Houston, Texas, USA: University of Houston Well Log- 3. Anderson B and Chew WC, reference 4.
ging Laboratory, October 30, 1986. These programs are available to supporters of the labora- Anderson B and Chang SK, reference 13.
tory, a consortium including most of the major oil companies. 4. IBM 3090
2. Anderson B and Gianzero S, reference 4. 5. VAX 11/780
Anderson B, Safinya KA and Habashy T, reference 4.

true resistivity, it was consistent with the
analyst’s knowledge of the field, and the
predicted water saturations were accorded a
high degree of confidence.
Many more computer programs for a vari-
ety of electrical logging measurements have
been developed by service companies, oil
companies and universities. Some are avail-
able for commercial use, others only for
research purposes (see “Summary of Induc-
tion Modeling Programs,” above ).
July 1992
3. Fylling A and Spurlin J: “Induction Simulation, The 5. Anderson B, Barber TD, Singer J, and Broussard T:
Log Analysts’ Perspective,” Transactions of the SPWLA “ELMOD—Putting Electromagnetic Modeling to Work
11th European Formation Evaluation Symposium, to Improve Resistivity Log Interpretation,” Transactions
Oslo, Norway, September 14-16, 1988, paper T. of the SPWLA 30th Annual Logging Symposium, Den-
ver, Colorado, USA, June 11-14, 1989, paper M.
4. Details of the ISMLM program:
Anderson B and Gianzero S: “Induction Sonde
Response in Stratified Media,” The Log Analyst 24,
no.1 (1983): 25-31.
Anderson B, Safinya KA and Habashy T: “Effects of
Dipping Beds on the Response of Induction Tools,”
paper SPE 15488, presented at the 61st SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA, October 5-8, 1986.
Anderson B and Chew WC: “A New High Speed
Technique for Calculating Synthetic Induction and
DPT Logs,” Transactions of the SPWLA 25th Annual
Well Logging Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana,
USA, June 10-13, 1984, paper HH. 25
Modeling for Bit Guidance in
Horizontal Drilling
Forward modeling is serving needs other
than conventional log interpretation, such
as guiding the bit while drilling deviated or
horizontal wells and evaluating the influ-
ence of adjacent (shoulder) beds on hori-
zontal well logs.
Recent modeling studies in horizontal
wells make clear that conventional rules-of-
thumb don’t apply. Predictions have been
made of responses of induction and focused
electrode tools to shoulder beds,6 an impor-
tant subject when logging thin beds or in
horizontal wells exhibiting vertical drift.
Because the induction tool is relatively
unaffected by the borehole, its calculations
were carried out analytically. For the
focused electrode tools, however, the bore-
hole is an essential part of the problem, so
forward modeling was carried out with a 3D
finite-element method (FEM) computation, a
much larger enterprise. This investigation
concluded that the electrode devices are
more sensitive to conductive than resistive
shoulder beds, indications of which had
appeared earlier,7 and that the opposite is
true for induction tools. This behavior is the
reverse of that observed in vertical wells. In
the calculated responses of these tools to
the boundary between two beds of 1 ohm-
m and 10 ohm-m, the characteristic polar-
ization horn is clearly visible on the
induction curve (above, right). This horn
appears when surrounding beds have high
resistivity contrast and the bed boundary
dips more than about 45°.8 It is created by
oscillating polarization charges induced at
the bed boundary.
Another modeling study explored the
effects of dipping beds and laminated for-
mations on induction and CDR tool
responses.9 Since the CDR model assumes
6. Gianzero S, Chemali R and Su S-M: “Induction, Resis-
tivity, and MWD Tools in Horizontal Wells,” Transac-
tions of the SPWLA 30th Annual Logging Symposium,
Denver, Colorado, USA, June 11-14, 1989, paper N;
also in The Log Analyst 31 (May-June, 1990): 158-170.
Burgess T and Voisin B: “Advances in MWD Technol-
ogy Improve Real Time Data,” Oil & Gas Journal 90,
no. 7 (February 17, 1992): 51-61.
7. Chemali R, Gianzero S and Su SM: “The Dual Lat-
erolog in Common Complex Situations,” Transactions
of the SPWLA 29th Annual Logging Symposium, San
Antonio, Texas, USA, June 5-8, 1988, paper N.
26
4
Distance from boundary, ft
2
0
-2
Deep induction
Deep laterolog
-4
1 10 100
Resistivity, ohm-m
nShoulder-bed effects on induction logs and laterologs in horizontal wells, calculated
by modeling. These curves show how traditional heuristic thinking does not apply: in
horizontal wells, laterolog tools are more sensitive to conductive than to resistive shoul-
der beds, while the opposite is true for induction tools.
point dipoles, the code was first qualified by
comparison with exact FEM calculations for
horizontal multiple beds and with test tank
experiments covering dips of 0° to 90°. This
study predicted that both dip and shoulders
can cause shallow resistivity, Rps , and deep
resistivity, Rad , to separate, with Rps reading
closer to R t . Prominent polarization horns
appear at high-dip bed boundaries when
resistivity contrast is large, and the CDR tool
makes resistivity anisotropy apparent (Rps >
Rad ), the effect increasing with dip angle.
Oxy USA used forward modeling exten-
sively while drilling horizontally into the
Cruse sand in La Salle Parish, Louisiana,
USA.10 To avoid the problem of water con-
ing they had observed in vertical wells, Oxy
engineers planned to penetrate horizontally
into the top 10 feet [3 m] of the 40-foot [12-
m] thick Cruse. Resistivity models of marker
beds and of the pay sand itself were created
8. Anderson B, Barber TD and Lüling MG: “The Role of
Computer Modeling in Log Interpretation,” Transac-
tions of the SPWLA 13th European Formation Evalua-
tion Symposium, Budapest, Hungary, October 23-
25,1990, paper L.
9. Anderson B, Bonner S, Lüling MG, and Rosthal R:
“Response of 2-MHz LWD Resistivity and Wireline
Induction Tools in Dipping Beds and Laminated For-
mations,” Transactions of the SPWLA 31st Annual
Logging Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, June
24-27, 1990, paper A.
10. Leake J and Shray F: “Logging While Drilling Keeps
Horizontal Well on Small Target,” Oil & Gas Journal
89 (September 23, 1991): 53-59.
Medium induction
Shallow laterolog
1 10 100
Resistivity, ohm-m
from induction logs in two nearby vertical
wells. Then, logs expected in the horizontal
well were computed for the CDR tool used
in Logging While Drilling (LWD). This 2-
MHz resistivity tool provides two outputs:
Rps from a phase-shift measurement, and
Rad from attenuation.11 No one knew accu-
rately in advance what the logs would look
like as the well curved through the markers
and into the Cruse. In addition, actual bore-
hole inclination is often not exactly as
planned. Therefore, prior to drilling,
ELMOD’s dipping-bed code was used to
compute CDR logs expected at several
apparent dips.9 Thus, the right modeled log
would be available immediately for com-
parison with the field log when the actual
relative dip became known while drilling.
Since the two CDR resistivity measure-
ments have different depths of investigation,
the curves are predicted to separate just
11. Clark B, Lüling MG, Jundt J, Ross M and Best D:
“A Dual Depth Resistivity Measurement for FEWD,”
Transactions of the SPWLA 29th Annual Logging
Symposium, San Antonio, Texas, USA, June 5-8,
1988, paper A.
12. “Formation Anisotropy: Reckoning With its Effects,”
Oilfield Review 2, no. 1 (January 1990): 16-23.
Anderson et al, reference 8.
Oilfield Review
before the highly inclined tool leaves the cap
shale and enters the sand. Also, at the sand’s
upper boundary, the Rps curve predicts the
characteristic polarization horn.8 This horn is
expected to be somewhat broader on the
field log than on the computed log because
modeling calculations ignore the borehole
and the finite size of the tool’s transmitter
and receiver dipoles. These features are visi-
ble on logs modeled for the planned inclina-
tion of the borehole (85°) at the top of the
target sand, and on actual field logs (below ).
The boundary of the Cruse is located pre-
cisely, confirming that the bit entered the
sand at the desired depth.
Modeled CDR Resistivity
at 85°
Measured depth, ft
Modeling played a role in interpreting an
unexpected logging observation within the
target zone. Differences between shallow
and deep CDR readings seemed too large to
explain by invasion because CDR measure-
ments are made shortly after a section is
drilled. Furthermore, the vertical-well induc-
tion logs measured only 4 ohm-m, while in
the nearly horizontal well, the CDR deep
attenuation measurement approaches 10
ohm-m. In the vertical well, core analysis
from the upper part of the Cruse suggested
modeling it as a series of high- and low-
resistivity streaks. Logs calculated on this
model agreed with both the vertical deep
induction log and horizontal Rad measure-
ments, confirming that the formation resis-
tivity is anisotropic. 12 This study led to
How Modeling Calculations Are
Carried Out
Prior to starting the modeling process, many
analysts apply chartbook corrections to the
field log. These corrections make the field
log more accurate—closer to R t , for exam-
ple—and allow the use of simpler models
and faster computer programs for modeling.
Then, the corrected field log and all other
constraining information are used in setting
up the initial trial formation model. Less fre-
quently, the uncorrected field log is used,
and the burden of accounting for features
like borehole, invasion, shoulder and skin
effect is borne by the formation model, tool
model and computing code. In this case,
the environmental corrections are
accounted for simultaneously, as preferred,

development of a CDR software package rather than sequentially, as when applying

Rps that provides continuous logs of calculated chartbook corrections. Unfortunately, this
horizontal and vertical resistivities, using approach requires large programs and long
Rad measured apparent resistivity and relative computer times.
2
ohm-m
2000 dip angle as inputs. Although further advances in computing
power will likely change the picture in the
future, current practice usually requires the
x700
log analyst to construct an initial trial model
and propose changes at each iteration.
Rps
“Feel” or “intuition” are frequently the basis
Measured depth, ft

for doing this, often acquired from field

Rad experience or published studies of tool
ohm-m
2 2000 responses to specific environmental fea-
tures. In the last five years there has been a
surge of such studies that, themselves, were

nModeled (left) and measured CDR resis-

x750 tivity logs as the tool curves into a pay
sand in a horizontal well. The measured
Rps and Rad curves (right) show a charac-
x750
teristic crossover as the tool crosses from
the cap shale into the sand. Just below
Polarization Polarization the boundary, Rps exhibits a polarization
horn, top of Cruse horn, top of Cruse horn created by induced oscillating
charges at the interface. The logs com-
puted from a model assuming an 85°
inclination show the same characteristics.
This inclination expands the MD scale by
a factor of 11.47 relative to the TVD scale.
(At 85°, 1 foot of TVD equals 11.47 feet of
MD [30 cm of TVD = 344 cm of MD].)

x800

x800

July 1992 27

carried out by modeling (see “Tool Responses
to Environmental Features,” below ).
Even when forward modeling strives only
for formation description, most of the bur-
den is on codes that implement the tool
model—a representation of hardware and
physics for calculating how the tool
responds to its environment. This model
may be approximate because it idealizes
50
Purely analytical methods, using exact
mathematical solutions, employ codes that 40
run rapidly and require only modest com-
puter memories. This makes them well 30
suited to the small computers readily avail-
able to most log analysts, but they are intrin- 20
sically limited to simple geometries such as
invasion with no layering or layering with 10
no invasion.

z, in.
0
tool hardware—treating finite-size coils or From this standpoint, numerical methods
electrodes as points, for example. Or it may are ideal. They break intractable mathemati-
-10
simplify the physics—as by using the geo- cal problems into smaller, more manageable
metric factor approach rather than pieces. Numerical methods, such as 2D- -20
Maxwell’s equations in calculating induc- and 3D-FEM codes, can solve differential
tion tool responses. Alternatively, the hard- equations in almost any geometry. The FEM -30
ware or the physics, or both, may be treated is widely used in research and engineering,
exactly. The decision is a trade-off between from the design of automobile bodies to the -40
accuracy and computing efficiency. In study of diffusion over corrugated surfaces.
either case, some particular computation A typical logging application is the -50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
algorithm becomes the vehicle for arriving numerical solution of Maxwell’s equations ρ, in.
at the goal. for induction tools. This problem eventually
nA small section of a simple grid used in
Tool Responses to Environmental Features axially symmetric finite-element model-
ing calculations of induction logs. In the
Tool Environmental Conditions Reference calculation, the electromagnetic field is
determined at each node, or intersection,
Induction Dip, shoulders, thin beds, 1, 2, 3, 4 on the grid. In some cases the complete
(standard, Phasor) anistropy, laminations, R xo << R t grid must extend hundreds of feet radially
Array Induction Borehole, caves, shoulders, 5, 6 and vertically.
Imager Tool radial resistivity variation reduces to solving a (usually) large number
Laterolog Shoulder, high dip, caves, 2, 7 of simultaneous linear equations by matrix
anisotropy, very high R t methods.13 The immediate objective is to
High-resolution Magnetic mud and formation 8 find the electromagnetic field’s vector poten-
induction minerals, conductive caves tial at the nodes, or intersections, of a 3D
EPT Mudcake, standoff, invasion, 9
grid, in the most general case. Simpler grids
depth of investigation, laminates (above) can be used in solving axially sym-
metric (2D) problems. The complete grid
CDR Dip, shoulder radial resistivity 4, 10
may extend hundreds of feet vertically and
variation
radially to adequately cover the electromag-
1. Anderson B: “The Analysis of Some Unresolved Induction Interpretation Problems Using netic field. In one modeling exercise, the
Computer Modeling,” The Log Analyst 27 (September-October 1986): 60-73.
grid was terminated where the vector poten-
2. Chemali R, Gianzero S and Su SM: “The Effect of Shale Anisotropy on Focused Resistivity
Devices,” Transactions of the SPWLA 28th Annual Logging Symposium, London, England,
tial had fallen 15 orders of magnitude—to
June 29-July 2, 1987, paper H. zero for practical purposes—from the start-
3. Anderson B and Barber T: “Strange Induction Logs—A Catalog of Environmental Effects,” ing point near the transmitter. Grid size
The Log Analyst 29 (July-August 1988): 229-243.
increases with distance from the transmitter
4. Reference 9, main text.
in regions where both vector potential and
5. Grove GP and Minerbo GN: “An Adaptive Borehole Correction Scheme for Array Induction
Tools,” Transactions of the SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, Midland, Texas, USA, generalized geometric factor are falling
June 16-19, 1991, paper P. slowly. This increases computational effi-
6. Hunka JF, Barber TD, Rosthal R, Minerbo GN, Head EA, Howard AQ Jr, Hazen GA and ciency, with negligible loss in accuracy. In
Chandler RN: “A New Resistivity Measurement System for Deep Formation Imaging and
High-Resolution Formation Evaluation,” paper SPE 20559, presented at the 65th SPE
1982, a CDC CYBER 750 computer typically
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 23- took five hours to compute 25 feet [7.6 m] of
26, 1990. induction log.14 Today, the whole log takes
7. Reference 7, main text.
only 15 minutes on a Cray supercomputer.
8. Strickland R, Chemali R, Su SM, Gianzero S, Walker M, Klein J and Sakurai S: “New Devel-
opments in the High Resolution Induction Log,” Transactions of the SPWLA 32nd Annual
Most pure FEM codes need a fast vector pro-
Logging Symposium, Midland, Texas, USA, June 16-19, 1991, paper ZZ. cessor or a Cray unit to run with reasonable
9. Anderson B, Liu Q-H, Taherian R, Singer J, Chew WC, Freedman B and Habashy T: “Inter- turnaround times. Unfortunately, this means
preting the Response of the Electromagnetic Propagation Tool in Complex Borehole Envi-
ronments,” Transactions of the SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, Midland, Texas,
interfacing from a remote site, a capability
USA, June 16-19, 1991, paper XX. with only limited availability at present.
10. Habashy T and Anderson B: “Reconciling Differences in Depth of Investigation Between 2- Hybrid techniques that retain the advan-
MHz Phase Shift and Attenuation Resistivity Measurements,” Transactions of the SPWLA tages of both purely analytic and purely
32nd Annual Logging Symposium, Midland, Texas, USA, June 16-19, 1991, paper E.
numerical methods have been developed.
They typically break the problem into two

28 Oilfield Review
 100 nComparison of parts, one of which is attacked analytically
hybrid and finite- and the other numerically. This leads to
element modeling
codes that can quickly solve, even on exist-
calculations for
deep and shallow ing workstations, some problems in fairly
laterologs. The two complicated geometries. The axially sym-
methods yield metric problem of the laterolog in a bore-
10 nearly identical hole through horizontal, layered formations
Resistivity, ohm-m

logs, but the

hybrid calculation provides a simple example of a hybrid
uses only one- approach. The 2D Laplace’s equation that
eighth as much governs the potential distribution around the
computer time tool is reduced to two 1D problems in radial
(2 1/2 minutes on an
(r ) and vertical (z) planes, respectively, by
IBM 3081) as the
1
complete finite-ele- the customary separation-of-variables tech-
ment calculation. nique. Then, the vertical distribution of the
Hybrid method potential can be treated numerically—by
Finite-element method the FEM, for example—and the radial distri-
Rt bution treated analytically—by modal anal-
ysis—or vice versa.14 Compare the dual lat-
0.1 erolog results of this method with a
100
complete FEM calculation in a 5-foot [1.5-
m] thick noninvaded bed (left). The logs are
essentially identical, but the hybrid calcula-
tion uses only one-eighth as much computer
time as the complete FEM calculation. If the
hybrid calculation is extended to 25 beds
10
(below, left), the hybrid time is increased
from 2.5 minutes to 12 minutes on an IBM
Resistivity, ohm-m

3081. Most of the additional time, however,

was used in segmenting the log into man-
ageable portions and then recombining
them, rather than in the computation itself.
Earlier studies of hybrid techniques
1
describe other methods for modeling induc-
tion tool responses.15 Numerous codes and
Hybrid method
Finite-element method 13. Anderson B and Chang SK: “Synthetic Induction
Rt Logs by the Finite Element Method,” Transactions of
the SPWLA 23rd Annual Logging Symposium, Cor-
0.1 pus Christi, Texas, USA, July 6-9, 1982, paper M;
-120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 The Log Analyst 23 (November-December 1982):
17-26. Also published with more mathematical
Depth, in. detail as “Simulation of Induction Logging by the
Finite Element Method,” Geophysics 49 (November
1000 nHybrid modeling 1984): 1943-1958.
calculation of deep 14. Gianzero S, Lin YY and Su SM: “A New High-Speed
and shallow lat- Hybrid Technique for Simulation and Inversion of
erologs in 25 beds. Resistivity Logs,” SPE Formation Evaluation 3 (March
1988): 55-61.
100 Calculating time
increased to 12 15. Kaufman AA: “Theory of Induction Logging,”
Siberian Dept. of Nauka Press, Novosibirsk, 1965.
Resistivity, ohm-m

minutes (compare
with figures above), Anderson and Chew, reference 4.
but most of the
10 additional time
was used in seg-
menting the log
and recombining
1 the pieces, rather
than in the compu-
Deep laterolog Rt tation itself.
Shallow laterolog
0.1
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
Depth, in.

July 1992 29

Analytical
Geometrical factor theory:
1 min VAX (Doll H, 1949) 1
Invasion
Bed
boundaries front
Unlimited cylindrical boundaries:
1-2 min VAX (Gianzero S and
Anderson B, 1984)2
Unlimited bed boundaries:
1-2 min VAX (Anderson B and
Gianzero S, 1983, reference 4)
Axis of
symmetry
Eccentricity: 5 min VAX
(Gianzero S, 1978)3
Unlimited dipping beds:
2-3 min VAX (Anderson B, Safinya
KA and Habashy T, reference 4)
Axis of
symmetry
Known boundaries
30
Hybrid
Hybrid with/without skin effect:
2 min VAX (Kaufman AA, reference 15)
Fast, semianalytic: 3 min VAX
(Anderson B and Chew WC, reference 4)
Dip with borehole and invasion:
15 min VAX (in progress)
Numerical
2D finite elements: 20 min Cray
(Anderson B and Chang SK, ref. 13)
3D finite elements:
< 2 hrs Cray (in progress)
Nonuniform
invasion
front
Approximated boundaries
computer times exist for various types of
modeling (next page). Dashed boundaries
indicate problems solved with geometric
factor theory; solid boundaries indicate
solutions developed using exact electromag-
netic theory. The times shown are all for 50-
foot [15-m] sections of log, where bed
boundaries exist, and for a single-point cal-
culation in the two cases where one
infinitely thick bed is indicated (in this case
the log is constant as the tool moves verti-
cally). These codes may be used for study-
ing tool responses to specific environmental
perturbations, as well as in modeling for for-
mation evaluation.
Least-Squares and Maximum Entropy
Matching Criteria
Subjective eyeballing can usually evaluate
the fit between the field log and the mod-
eled log. But two other matching criteria,
least squares and maximum entropy (MEM),
have received attention. They are of interest,
however, more because they use algorithms
that converge automatically to their respec-
tive best-fitting models than because of their
inherent objectivity. No human intervention
is needed to alter the model at each itera-
tion. In application, these criteria lead to
computational methods that are different
from one another and from the manual
interactive approach.
One application of the least-squares crite-
rion picks the set of formation parameters
that minimizes the sum of the squares of dif-
ferences (SSD) between the field log and the
log derived from the assumed formation
model.16 In the language of statistics, the
mean square deviation, or variance,
between the two logs is minimized. For
example, with initial trial values of thickness
and resistivity assigned to each bed in the
model, the program computes the predicted
log and finds the SSD between it and the
nA sampling of codes and computer times
used in modeling induction tool responses.
Dashed boundaries indicate cases for
which geometric factor theory was used;
solid boundaries indicate use of Maxwell’s
equations. Times shown are for 50-foot
sections of log, where boundaries exist,
and for a single-point calculation where
one infinitely thick bed is indicated.
1. Doll HG: “Introduction to Induction Logging and Applica-
tion to Logging of Wells Drilled with Oil-Base Mud,”
Transactions, AIME 186 (1949): 148-162.
2. Gianzero S and Anderson B: “Mathematical Theory for
the Fields Due to a Finite H.C. Coil in an Infinitely Thick
Bed with an Arbitrary Number of Co-Axial Layers,” The
Log Analyst 25, no. 2 (March-April 1984): 25-32.
3. Gianzero SC: “Effect of Sonde Eccentricity on Responses
of Conventional Induction-Logging Tools,” IEEE Transac-
tions on Geoscience Electronics GE-16, no. 4 (October
1978): 332-339.
Oilfield Review
field log. Then, the model’s bed thicknesses nForward model-
and resistivities are automatically changed 24 in. ing by applying
200 ohm-m the least-squares
to reduce the SSD. This procedure repeats 25
method to a set of
ohm-m
until the SSD converges to a minimum. simulated logs.
Computing time depends, as in other iter- Synthetic induction
ative schemes, on how close the initial logs and a lat-
40 in. erolog (lower left)
model log is to the field log. To keep this were computed for
time short, the user frequently minimizes the formation

Borehole
the number of parameters to be optimized model shown.
since computing time increases with this 200 Then, using the
50 ohm-m dotted-line param-
number. Also, if some parameters “interfere” ohm-m
eter values (esti-
with one another—produce similar effects mated by a stan-
on the log—their precision is adversely 1 dard interpretation)
affected even though they are optimally ohm-m as the initial guess,
determined in the least-squares sense. the least-squares
method converged
Consider an application of the least- to the solid-line
32 in.
squares method to a set of simulated logs “final iteration”
(right ). The initial trial model used parame- 15 ohm-m 5 ohm-m model (lower right).
ter values estimated by a standard interpre- 8 in.
tation. Because flushed zone resistivity, Rxo,
values were assumed known from the
MicroSFL resistivity tool, the modeling pro- Computed
gram was called upon to determine the pay Simulated Resistivity Computed Rt
Invasion Diameter
zone thickness in addition to Rt and inva- 0.2 ohm-m 2000 0.2 ohm-m 2000 0 in. 100
0
sion diameter in each of the three beds. This
early-1980s calculation took 20 minutes on Laterolog
Depth, ft

an IBM 360, using FEM. Today it can be

done on a workstation in under 60 seconds.
The maximum entropy criterion comes
from Shannon’s information theory and has
been used for reconstruction of blurred
satellite photographs and for extracting sig-
nals from noisy data. It leads to a different
method of calculation 17 although the
method bears some similarity to the least-
squares approach—differences between
field log and modeled log are used in calcu-
lation of χ2, a quantity related to the SSD.
With respect to the use of χ2, the maximum
entropy method can be considered an
extension of the least-squares approach. The
actual algorithms employed reduce χ2 itera-
tively, while maintaining entropy close to its
maximum at each iteration. This procedure
16. Lin Y-Y, Gianzero S and Strickland R: “Inversion of
Induction Logging Data Using the Least Squares
Technique,” Transactions of the SPWLA 25th
Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA, June 10-13, 1984, paper AA.
17. Dyos CJ: “Inversion of Induction Log Data By the
Method of Maximum Entropy,” Transactions of the
SPWLA 28th Annual Logging Symposium, London,
England, June 29-July 2, 1987, paper T.
Freedman R and Minerbo GN: “Maximum Entropy
Inversion of Induction Log Data,” paper SPE 19608,
presented at the 64th SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA,
October 8-11, 1989. Also published with minor
changes in SPE Formation Evaluation 6 (June 1991):
259-268.
Deep
Induction
Medium
Induction Initial guess
30
Final iteration
selects the unique least-squares solution
having maximum entropy.
There is an important difference between
the MEM and least-squares methods. The
final model selected by the MEM is the
smoothest possible profile rather than the
one that yields a minimum SSD. Of all pos-
sible models, it is the one that has minimum
information content (in the information-the-
ory sense) consistent with the field log. Con-
sequently, this criterion inhibits the appear-
ance of artifacts that sometimes show up
when using the least-squares method.
Unfortunately, the MEM is computationally
expensive. The cost is reduced if a priori
knowledge of bed boundaries is included in
the initial model, as with other methods, but
cost remains the main impediment to wider
MEM use at present.

July 1992 31
 Oklahoma Formation
Nevertheless, the MEM can provide a for-
nForward model- mation model from an induction log, with-
1000 ing of an induction out assuming knowledge of bed boundaries
log by the maxi-
mum entropy (left ). The synthetic “field” log was calcu-
method (MEM) lated by applying geometric factor theory
100 (left) and using (for simplicity) to the Rt distribution shown,
Resistivity, ohm-m

information from and geometric factor theory was thus used

the medium induc- in representing tool response in the forward
tion log to remove
oscillations modeling. Oscillations visible in the thicker
10 (below). Geometric beds are not a consequence of the MEM,
factor theory was but result from so-called blind frequencies
used to calculate in the Fourier spectrum of the deep induc-
MEM without beds input the synthetic deep
1 Raw Doll ID signal induction log from tion’s VRF. These oscillations are readily
Rt the assumed Rt pro- suppressed by adding information from the
file. An advanced medium induction. Addition of the medium
version of the max- induction contributes a smoothing effect. An
imum entropy actual example shows how well an MEM-
method, assuming
1000 no bedding struc- predicted log matches its corresponding
ture in the initial field-measured induction (below, left ).
trial model, then
converged to the The Future
final R t profile.
Resistivity, ohm-m

100
Oscillations in the Further developments in modeling are
thicker beds result already in the pipeline. Generally, these
from the Fourier take two forms, depending on the computa-
10 spectrum of the tion size envisioned. One effort is aimed at
deep induction providing a computed log in about one
MEM without beds input tool’s vertical reso-
lution function, minute, using interfaces that are suitable for
Medium induction workstations. These should make the pro-
1
and are unrelated
Synthetic deep induction to use of the maxi- cess more analyst-friendly, through features
Rt mum entropy mod- like entry of parameters in graphical format
eling approach.
and windows that display the field log, the
-1000 -500 0 500 1000
computed log and the model, including its
Vertical position, in.
parameters, dips and boundaries.
1000 17 nA deep induction The other development arena involves
field example com- extending the capabilities of large comput-
paring the log ers. Primarily intended for use in tool
computed by the
Conductivity, milliSiemens/m

15 design, these studies are deep into the 3D

100 maximum entropy
domain, using the FEM for modeling com-
method with the
measured log. The putations that take hours even on a super-
Caliper, in.

13
predicted final- computer. Still more exploratory are investi-
10 model profile is gations of advanced algorithms and
MEM computed raw deep
induction signal 11
also shown. automatic code generation for speeding up
Measured raw deep complex calculations. Some algorithms are
induction signal
1 Caliper being applied in commercial seismic pro-
9
cessing using parallel computers like the
CM-2 Connection Machine. —JT
0.1 7
8200 8250 8300 8350

Vertical position, ft

32 Oilfield Review