GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 62, NO. 4 (JULY-AUGUST 1997); P. 1047–1058, 12 FIGS., 2 TABLES.
Modeling of low-frequency Stoneley-wave
propagation in an irregular borehole
Kazuhiko Tezuka∗ , C. H. (Arthur) Cheng‡ ,
and X. M. Tang∗∗
ABSTRACT
A fast modeling method is formulated for low-
frequency Stoneley-wave propagation in an irregular
borehole. This fast modeling method provides synthetic
waveforms which include the effects of two borehole
irregularities, diameter changes (washout), and forma-
tion property changes. The essential physics of the low-
frequency Stoneley waves are captured with a simple
1-D model. A mass-balance boundary condition and a
propagator matrix are used to express Stoneley-wave in-
teractions with the borehole irregularities. The accuracy
of the proposed method was confirmed through com-
parison with existing finite-difference and boundary in-
tegral modeling methods that yielded cross-correlations
INTRODUCTION
Petroleum production is coming increasingly from lower per-
meability reservoirs that rely on formation natural fractures for
economic productivity, and in geothermal reservoirs natural
fractures are typically the only source of productivity. There-
fore, better methods for detecting and characterizing natural
fractures are actively being sought. A variety of methods are
employed currently to detect the presence of natural fractures
(Zemanek, 1969; Luithi and Souhaite, 1990), however, detect-
ing the presence of natural fractures is not enough—resource
production depends not just on the presence of natural frac-
tures, but on the permeability of the natural fractures. In con-
trast to more conventional fracture detection methods such as
BHTV (borehole televiewer) and FMI1 (formation micro im-
age) logging, Stoneley-wave logging has the potential to detect
1
Mark of Schlumberger
Presented at the 64th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists. Manuscript received by the Editor April 3, 1995; revised
manuscript received September 4, 1996.
∗
JAPEX Research Center, Chiba, 261 Japan. E-mail: tezuka@rc.japex.co.jp.
‡Earth Resources Laboratory, Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02139. E-mail: chcheng@mit.edu.
∗∗
Western Atlas Logging Services, Houston, Texas 77251. E-mail: xtang@wassun24.was.waii.com.
°c 1997 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
1047
greater than 0.98. Comparison of synthetic records cal-
culated for an actual borehole with field records showed
qualitative agreement in the major reflections because
of the washout zones, but showed some disagreements
in the reflections caused by the fractures. Since the syn-
thetic records include only information relating to the
borehole geometry and the elastic properties of forma-
tion, the reflection caused by the fracture will appear
only in the field record. These results suggest the possi-
bility of distinguishing Stoneley-wave reflections caused
by fractures from those caused by borehole irregularities.
Further, the fast computational speed of this method—
over 300 times faster than either boundary integral or
finite-difference methods—makes it quite suitable for
field application.
the permeability of natural fractures. A Stoneley wave is a
guided wave that has a large amount of energy at relatively
low frequencies and is sensitive to formation permeability.
When the Stoneley wave propagates across a fracture, it atten-
uates and generates a reflected wave (Paillet and White, 1982;
Hornby et al., 1989). The reflection patterns, which we can see
easily on the waveform variable density log (VDL), provides
information about the presence and permeability of fractures.
However, the Stoneley-wave reflections occur not only because
of the fractures but also because of the lithology and borehole
diameter changes (Paillet, 1980; White, 1983; Hardin et al.,
1987). In our experiences with field data, a borehole washout
is one of the biggest causes of generating reflections. Thus, for
evaluating fractures using the Stoneley-wave reflection, it is
important to know the effects of borehole irregularities on the
Stoneley-wave propagation. There were several approaches to
1048 Tezuka et al.

this problem. Stephen et al. (1985) used the finite-difference For a 1-D wave propagating along the z-direction, the dis-
scheme to model such configurations numerically. Bouchon placement potential is given by
and Schmitt (1988) treated the same problem by using the
boundary integral equation approach combining the discrete φi = Di eik i z + Ui e−ik i z , (1)
wavenumber formulation and showed that when the change in
where ki is the axial wavenumber in layer i. Di and Ui are am-
the borehole diameter was smooth the Stoneley-wave propa-
plitude coefficients of the downgoing and the upgoing wave,
gation was not affected, but a significant amount of reflection
respectively. Let us consider a normalized downgoing Stoneley
could be seen in the case of the steep variation in the diameter.
wave D1 eik 1 z , (D1 = 1, z < z 1 ) incident at the boundary. In the
Both the finite-difference and boundary integral methods
upper layer, there are both incident and reflected waves, since
are impractical for field application, as they require many days
some part of the energy of the incident wave will be reflected. In
of computation on a workstation (i.e. SUN Sparc 2) simply
the lower layer, the potential includes only transmitted waves
to calculate a 100-m interval synthetic waveform VDL for an
but no upgoing waves (U2 = 0). Following White (1983), we
actual borehole. To allow practical field application, Tang and
adopted a mass-balance boundary condition to solve the un-
Cheng (1993b) addressed the computational speed problem
known coefficients. If we assume that pressure and volume flow
by studying Stoneley-wave interactions caused by formation
at the boundary is continuous, the pressure Pi and the particle
changes with a simple 1-D approach. They assumed that the
displacement u i at the boundary (z = z 1 ) can be written as
Stoneley wave propagated along the borehole with no geo-
metric spreading because it is a guided wave. We expand Tang P1 (z 1 ) = P2 (z 1 ), (2)
and Cheng’s method and develop a new algorithm that can
simulate the Stoneley-wave propagation in a borehole with a a1 u 1 (z 1 ) = a2 u 2 (z 1 ), (3)
varying radius.
In this paper, we first review the basic theory by referring where
to the 1-D Stoneley-wave propagation problem. We compare
Pi = ρ f ω2 φi , (4)
the reflection and the transmission of a Stoneley wave caused
∂φi
by the step change in borehole radius with a result of finite- ui = , (5)
difference modeling. Then, we expand the theory to treat bore- ∂z
holes with varying radius (i.e., a rectangular and a sinusoidal ai = πri2 , (6)
washout borehole models) by using the propagator matrix.
The pressure wavefields inside the borehole are calculated for and ρ f is a fluid density, and ω is an angular frequency. Accord-
two cases that include a steeply changing radius model and a ingly, the reflection and the transmission coefficients are given
smoothly changing radius model. Those results are compared by
with the synthetic waveforms obtained by the boundary inte- a1 k 1 − a2 k 2
R = U1 /D1 = ,
gral method, and a calculation speed and an accuracy of compu- a1 k 1 + a2 k 2
tation of the proposed method is confirmed. Finally, we apply (7)
the method to field data to simulate the reflections caused by 2a1 k1
T = D2 /D1 = .
the washout zones and point out a possibility of distinguishing a1 k 1 + a2 k 2
reflections resulting from fractures from those caused by the
borehole irregularities.
BASIC THEORY
Approximation to the 1-D problem
For the most simple case, we consider a fluid-filled bore-
hole surrounded by two layered elastic formations that include
one boundary between the upper and the lower half-spaces
(Figure 1). Each layer is described by compressional velocity
(v p ), shear velocity (vs ), and density (ρ). Parameter z is a co-
ordinate along a borehole axis, and r is a radial axis. The bore-
hole has a step change in radius at the boundary z = z 1 , and
the radius ri is constant in each layer. We assume the logging
is performed at frequencies below the cutoff frequency of any
mode other than the fundamental so that only the Stoneley
wave is excited. Because the Stoneley wave is a guided wave,
most of the energy is trapped inside the borehole. There is no
geometrical spreading. The pressure across the borehole can
be assumed to be uniform (Tang and Cheng, 1993b). Motion
in an axial direction is caused by the pressure gradient along
the borehole axis. Elastic yielding of the wall results in some
radial motion, but radial pressure gradients accompanying this
FIG. 1. Diagram showing a simple two-layer borehole model
motion are too small to modify the piston-like motion in the that has a single boundary between the upper and lower infi-
axial direction (White, 1983). Under these conditions, solving nite half-spaces. Ui and Di denote amplitudes of upgoing and
the problem as a case of wave propagation is sufficient. downgoing waves in each layer.
 Stoneley Modeling in Irregular Borehole
A mass-balance at an interface means that the volume of the
fluid squeezed from the upper layer should be equal to the vol-
ume of the incoming fluid in the lower layer. It is intuitively
acceptable, but it results in a discontinuity of displacement at
the interface. Admittedly, a step change in hole radius disturbs
the fluid-flow flux at the vicinity of the interface, which has been
assumed to be uniform in the 1-D approximation. This distur-
bance causes a transition of a vertical displacement. However,
the smooth transition of displacement occurs in a distance that
is small enough to compare the wavelength (remember the
long wavelength approximation); hence, it can be just as well
taken as a step change at the interface (White, 1983).
The reflection and the transmission coefficients expressed in
equation (7) involve not only the interaction (coupling) caused
by a radius change but also interactions of surrounding forma-
tion changes, those being a change in compressional and shear
velocity, and a change in formation density. These formation
property changes are lumped together and are represented by
the wavenumber ki , which governs the Stoneley-wave propa-
gation in the borehole.
The wavenumber k of the Stoneley wave in the fluid-filled
borehole, surrounded by an elastic formation and containing
a rigid tool at the borehole center, is determined from the fol-
lowing borehole period equation (White and Zechman, 1968;
Cheng and Toksöz, 1981; Tang and Cheng, 1993a).
½ ¾
I0 ( f r ) I1 ( f r t ) K 0 ( f r ) I1 ( f r t ) K 1 ( f r )
+ + 1−
I1 ( f r ) I1 ( f r ) K 1 ( f r t ) I1 ( f r ) K 1 ( f r t )
·µ ¶2
ρ f 2vs2 K 0 (`r )
× −1
ρf ` c2 K 1 (`rt )
½ ¾¸
2vs2 `m 1 2vs2 K 0 (mr )
− + =0 (8)
c2 k 2 mr c2 K 1 (mr )
where In and K n are the first and second kind modified Bessel
functions of order n (n = 0, 1), ρ is formation density, ρ f is
fluid density, c = ω/k is the Stoneley-wave phase velocity and
r and rt are the borehole and the tool radii, respectively. The
radial wavenumbers, `, m, and f are given by
q ±
`= k 2 − ω2 v 2p ,
q ±
m = k 2 − ω2 vs2 , (9)
q ±
f = k 2 − ω2 v 2f .
For the respective elastic properties of the layer, the Stoneley
wavenumber k becomes a function of frequency.
Synthetic waveform
To calculate the synthetic waveforms, we need the Stoneley-
incident amplitude A(ω), which is related to the source and the
excitation function. At the source position, it is given by
A(ω) = S(ω)E(ω), (10)
where S(ω) is the source spectrum and E(ω) is the Stoneley-
wave excitation function. The excitation function of the
1049
Stoneley wave depends on the formation and fluid proper-
ties, borehole radius, and the tool radius (White and Zechman,
1968; Tang and Cheng, 1993a). This function is calculated
by a discrete wavenumber summation technique (Cheng and
Toksöz, 1981). However, we are interested in only the Stoneley
mode, not the other modes, so that the excitation function
can be calculated by the residue theorem (Kurkjian, 1985).
Putting D1 (ω) = A(ω), using the solved amplitude coefficients
(Ui (ω), Di (ω)), the fluid pressure in specific receiver positions
is given as a function of the frequency. The results are then
transformed into the time domain using an inverse Fourier
transform.
Z ∞
1
D(t, z) = P(ω, z)eiωt dω,
2π −∞
Z ∞
ρf
= ω2 φ(ω, z)eiωt dω (11)
2π −∞
Comparison with finite-difference method
Figure 2a shows the synthetic array waveforms of the Stone-
ley wave propagating across a single boundary obtained by the
proposed method. The parameters used in the calculation are
listed in Table 1. The tool radius is ignored in this case, because
it has been shown with numerous simulations that the tool ef-
fect is secondary (Tang and Cheng, 1993a). The kelly source
(Kelly et al., 1976) with the center frequency of 2 kHz is ex-
cited at 1.65 m above the interface. The seismograms recorded
at an array of 30 receivers located along the borehole axis at
distances ranging from 0.1 m to 3.0 m from the source are
displayed. The borehole geometry is depicted beside the wave-
form arrays. A remarkable upgoing reflected wave is generated
at the boundary. Accordingly, the transmitted wave decreases
its amplitude below the boundary.
Figure 2b shows the synthetic array waveforms obtained by
the finite-difference method for the same model. The wave-
forms are calculated by using a velocity-stress formulation on
a staggered grid (Virieux, 1986; Kostek, 1990; Cheng et al.,
1994). A 150 × 250 grid with 1r = 1z = 0.02 m is used. The
time step is set at 2µs. In the results, we can see a significant
reflection at the boundary. The strength of the reflected waves
is the same as that of the reflections we have gotten by the
proposed method. The velocity of the Stoneley wave and the
process of phase changes at the boundary are also in quite good
agreement. The cross-correlations between the traces of the
proposed and the finite-difference methods are greater than
0.98, except for the receivers 16 and 17 that are just above
and below the interface. The difference between the traces of
the two methods are shown in Figure 2c. These results lead to
the understanding that the mass-balance boundary condition
derives an adequate formula to simulate the Stoneley wave
propagating across a boundary with borehole radius changes.
As for the computation time to get the synthetic waveforms in
Table 1. Parameters for single boundary model.
vp vs ρ r
Medium (km/s) (km/s) (g/cm3 ) (m)
Layer-1 5.0 3.0 2.6 0.10
Layer-2 3.0 1.7 2.3 0.15
Fluid 1.5 — 1.0 —
1050 Tezuka et al.

Figure 2, the proposed method takes about 30 s on the SUN

Sparc2 workstation, while the finite-difference method takes
about three hours on the same workstation.
MULTILAYERED CASES

Propagator matrix formulation

Actual borehole geometry is not as simple as shown in
Figure 1. More practical cases are treated in this section. We as-
sume an n-layer model (Figure 3) whose top and bottom layers
are infinite half-spaces. Each layer is described by the parame-
ters shown in the figure. The form of the displacement potential
within each layer is expressed by equation (1). The amplitude
coefficients satisfy the following relation at the boundary
µ ¶ µ ¶
Ui Ui+1
= Mi , (12)
Di Di+1

where Mi is the Thompson-Haskell propagator matrix given FIG. 3. Diagram showing a borehole including washout zone in
by the multilayered formation. The n-2 layers are each described
µ ¶ by their parameters and borehole radius and are sandwiched
m 11 m 12 between the upper and the lower infinite half-spaces. Ui and Di
Mi = , (13) denote amplitudes of upgoing and downgoing waves in each
m 21 m 22 layer.

(a) Proposed Method (b) Finite Difference (c) Difference {(a)-(b)}

FIG. 2. Comparison of the synthetic waveforms calculated by the proposed method (a) with those calculated by the finite-difference
method (b) for the borehole model that has a step change in radius. The seismograms recorded by an array of 30 receivers located
along the borehole axis at 0.1 m interval are displayed. Amplitude is normalized to the maximum amplitude of the first receiver. A
reflection is generated at the boundary and the transmitted wave decreases its amplitude below the boundary. Both results are in
good agreement. The third panel shows a cross-correlations between (a) and (b). Panel (c) shows differences between (a) and (b).
The parameters of the formation and the fluid are listed in Table 1. A kelly source (Kelly et al., 1976) with a center frequency of
2 kHz is applied as a source.
 Stoneley Modeling in Irregular Borehole 1051

and where Figure 4 shows the total transmission (a) and reflection (b)
ai ki + ai+1 ki+1 i(ki −k )zi curves of the Stoneley wave. The parameters and the borehole
m 11 = e i+1 ,
geometry used for the calculation are depicted in the figure.
2ai ki
The figure shows the amplitude of both the total coefficients
ai ki − ai+1 ki+1 i(ki +k )zi versus frequency for two zone thicknesses, L = 0.5 m and
m 12 = e i+1 ,
2ai ki L = 0.1 m. As the total reflection coefficient comes mainly
(14)
ai ki − ai+1 ki+1 −i(ki +k )zi
m 21 = e i+1 ,
2ai ki
ai ki + ai+1 ki+1 −i(ki −k )zi
m 22 = e i+1 .
2ai ki
Successive application of equation (12) yields
µ ¶ µ ¶ µ ¶
U1 U2 U3
= M1 = M1 M2 = ··· =
D1 D2 D3
µ ¶
Un
= M1 M2 · · · Mn−1 ,
Dn
µ ¶
Un
= MT , (15)
Dn a)
with MT , the multiple propagator matrix, defined by the matrix
product
Y
n−1 µ ¶
m T 11 m T 12
MT = Mi = . (16)
i=1
m T 21 m T 22
If we assume a unit impulse incident wave onto the interface
z = z 1 from the upper half-space (D1 = 1) and no upgoing waves
in the lower half-space (Un = 0), the unknown coefficients U1
and Dn can be given by
µ ¶ µ ¶
U1 0
= WT , (17)
Dn 1
where
µ ¶
1 m T 11 m T 22 − m T 12 m T 21 m T 12
WT = . (18)
m T 22 −m T 21 1
b)
U1 is the amplitude coefficient of the reflected Stoneley wave in
the upper half-space, and Dn is that of the transmitted Stoneley
wave in the lower half-space. Once we know Dn and Un = 0,
we can successively solve for Un−1 , Dn−1 , Un−2 , Dn−2 , · · · up to
U2 , D2 using equation (12).

Reflection and transmission at washout zones

Let us consider the Stoneley-wave propagation across a sim-
ple rectangular washout zone sandwiched between two infinite
half-space formations of the same properties. Using equation
(14)–(18) and putting n = 3, z 1 = 0, and z 2 = L, the total trans-
mission and reflection coefficients at the washout zone whose
thickness of L are given by
4a1 a2 k1 k2 e−ik1 L
T = D3 /D1 =
G
¡ 2 2 ¢ (19)
2i a2 k2 − a12 k12 sin(k2 L)
R = U1 /D1 = , FIG. 4. Total transmission and reflection coefficients for a
G Stoneley wave at the rectangular washout zones of different
thicknesses. (a) Results obtained for the washout zone with a
where G is thickness of 0.5 m. (b) Results obtained for the washout zone
with a thickness of 0.1 m. Borehole geometry and model pa-
G = (a1 k1 + a2 k2 )2 e−ik2 L − (a1 k1 − a2 k2 )2 eik2 L . (20) rameters are depicted above the curves.
1052
from the superposition of the two primary reflected upgoing
waves (at z = 0 and z = L), it shows a periodic spectrum.
The periodicity is a function of the averaged Stoneley veloc-
ity and is inversely proportional to L. If the center frequency
of the Stoneley wave is close to the frequency corresponding
to the minima, the reflection is small, even if there are signifi-
cant radius changes. The superpositions of the primary reflec-
tions from the several boundaries are essentials characterizing
the total reflection from the complicated borehole geometry.
Figure 5 shows the total reflection and transmission coefficient
at the sinusoidal washout zone. The washout zone is mod-
eled by 100 layers. The borehole radii of the layers vary sinu-
soidally giving the characteristic bulge at the washout zone. The
FIG. 5. Total transmission and reflection coefficients of a
Stoneley wave at the sinusoidal washout zones. The zone thick-
nesses are 0.1 m, 0.2 m, and 0.5 m. R0.1 denotes the total re-
flection for the 0.1 m thickness model. T0.5 denotes the total
transmission for the 0.5 m thickness model.
Tezuka et al.
formation and the fluid properties are the same as in Figure 4.
The coefficients calculated for three different zone thickness
(L = 0.1 m, 0.2 m, and 0.5 m) are plotted against frequency. The
total reflection coefficients depend strongly on the frequency.
They have peaks at specific frequencies that are a function of
zone thicknesses. The peak frequency shifts to the lower, and
the bandwidth of the spectrum becomes narrower with increas-
ing zone thickness. In the case of the smooth varied washout
zone (L = 0.5 m), only the limited low-frequency Stoneley
wave will be reflected.
COMPARISON WITH BOUNDARY INTEGRAL METHOD
Bouchon and Schmitt (1989) studied the Stoneley-wave
propagation in an irregular borehole by using the boundary
integral equation combining the discrete wavenumber formu-
lation. This is a semianalytical approach. They calculated the
synthetic waveforms by using two types of models, and re-
ported that a smooth variation in a borehole radius does not
affect the records obtained ahead of the discontinuity location,
but that the presence of steep radius discontinuity reflects a
significant amount of the Stoneley energy. We apply the prop-
agator matrix formulation to the two types of models, which
are used in their study, to confirm its performance. Hereafter
for convenience, we call the proposed modeling method the
propagator matrix method.
The two types of models are a steep model and a smooth
model, each of which has a steep and a smooth sinusoidal vari-
ation in the borehole radius, respectively. The parameters of the
formation and the fluid are listed in Table 2. In the propagator
matrix method, we finely discretized the transition interval into
100 layers. Putting the infinite half-space on the top and at the
bottom layer of the interval, a total of 102-layer model is used
for the calculation. A kelly source with a center frequency of 2
kHz is applied again as a source.
Figure 6 shows the sets of waveform arrays obtained by the
propagator matrix method and the boundary integral method
in the steep model. The results show quite good agreement with
each other. The steep change in the borehole radius gives rise
to a reflected Stoneley wave. The amplitudes of the reflected
waves are almost the same. We can also see good agreement in
the results of the smooth model in Figure 7. There are no re-
flections or any perturbations resulting from the radius changes
to be seen. Only the amplitude of the Stoneley wave becomes
larger corresponding to the smooth decrease in radius. We can
conclude that the results of the propagator matrix method are
consistent with those of the boundary integral method.
The advantage of the propagator matrix method is its very
fast calculation speed. It takes only about five minutes to cal-
culate the synthetic waveforms of Figure 6 on the SUN Sparc2
workstation, while the boundary integral method takes about
24 hours on the same workstation. This is a great advantage
for an application in an actual field study that requires a big
model to synthesize sonic waveforms. Although much slower,
Table 2. Parameters for sinusoidal borehole model.
vp vs ρ r
Medium (km/s) (km/s) (g/cm3 ) (m)
Formation 5.0 3.0 2.6 0.10
Fluid 1.5 — 1.0 —
 Stoneley Modeling in Irregular Borehole
the boundary integral method as well as the finite-difference
method have the advantage of making a full wavefield calcula-
tion over all frequency. We have to be aware of the frequency
limitation when using the propagator matrix method. Figure 8
shows the comparison between the boundary integral method
and the propagator matrix method for the source center fre-
quencies up to 5 kHz. The steep model is used. Although good
agreement can be seen in the case of 2 kHz and 3 kHz, the re-
sults become inconsistent at frequencies higher than 4 kHz. In
the results of propagator matrix modeling, there are no wave
modes other than Stoneley wave, while other modes such as
the pseudo-Rayleigh wave are presented in the results of the
boundary integral method. Generally speaking, the propaga-
tor matrix method should be used only in the lower frequency
range where the wavelength of the Stoneley wave is at least
twice the borehole diameter.
APPLICATION
Synthetic iso-offset records
Full waveform traces of acoustic logging are often displayed
as so-called iso-offset records forms, that is an array of traces
recorded by fixing the source-receiver distance and moving the
tool along the borehole. In the iso-offset records, the reflection
event makes a specific pattern of spreading both upward and
downward symmetrically. The pattern helps an analyst recog-
nize the location of the obstacles causing the reflections. In
the previous section, the source was sitting in the infinite half-
spaces. In practical cases, however, we need to allow the source
a) b)
FIG. 6. Comparison of the synthetic waveforms calculated by
the propagator matrix method (a) with those calculated by
the boundary integral method (b). The steep borehole model,
depicted beside the waveforms, has an interval whose radius
changes sinusoidally from 12 cm at an axial distance of 1.5 m
from the source to a value of 7 cm at the distance of 1.6 m. The
parameters of the formation and the fluid are listed in Table 2.
A kelly source (Kelly et al., 1976) with a center frequency of
2 kHz is applied as a source. Both results show good agreement
with each other. The steep change in the borehole radius gives
rise to a reflected Stoneley wave.
1053
to be located at any depth in any layer where some special
treatments are required. This problem is analogous to the prob-
lem of the sources in the layered elastic medium (Temme and
Müller, 1982). The procedure for treating the source inside the
irregular borehole is described in the Appendix.
In the case of the big scale model consisting of many layers,
the reflection, whose arrival time exceeds the window length
of our interest, appears as a wraparound ghost on the trace. To
prevent the ghosts, one should estimate the maximum distance
of the boundary from the source that makes a reflection arriv-
ing on the receiver within the time window. Then replace the
layers beyond the maximum distance with a infinite half layer.
Application to field data
In the following, we present synthetic iso-offset records cal-
culated for the actual borehole model. Figure 9 is the composite
log chart showing profiles of compressional and shear veloci-
ties, formation density, and borehole diameter, which are used
in the modeling. These curves are discretized using a 0.1524 m
(0.5 ft) interval to produce a 560-layer model. The mud velocity
and density are set at 1600 km/s and 1.5 g/cm3 , respectively. The
tool radius is ignored. The propagator matrices are calculated
at each boundary, then the synthetic waveforms are obtained
by following the procedure described in the preceding section.
The kelly source with a center frequency of 1.5 kHz is applied
as the source. The receiver is fixed at 2.74 m (9 ft) above the
source. The source and receiver set is moved from the depth of
X151 m up to X092 m.
a) b)
FIG. 7. Comparison of the synthetic waveforms calculated by
the propagator matrix method (a) with those calculated by the
boundary integral method (b). The smooth borehole model,
depicted beside the waveforms, has an interval whose radius
changes sinusoidally from 12 cm at an axial distance of 1.0 m
from the source to a value of 7 cm at the distance of 2.0 m. The
parameters of the formation and the fluid are listed in Table 2. A
kelly source (Kelly et al., 1976) with a center frequency of 2 kHz
is applied as a source. Both results show good agreement with
each other. Neither reflections nor any perturbations caused
by the radius changes can be seen.
1054 Tezuka et al.

Figure 10 shows two sets of the iso-offset records for both
the field data (a) and the synthetic data (b). Each trace is
plotted at the center depth of the source and the receiver.
Two large reflection patterns corresponding to the washout
zone are recognized at depths of X097 m and X137 m in the
synthetic records. The reflection at the upper washout zone
seems smaller than the reflection at the lower washout zone,
despite the fact that the upper washout zone is larger than
the lower one. This is because of the shape of the washout
zone shown in the borehole geometry depicted beside the iso-
offset records. The bottom part of the lower washout zone has a
rapid change in the borehole radius as compared to the smooth

FIG. 8. Comparison between the propagator matrix method (PMM) and the boundary integral method (BIM) for the source center
frequencies up to 5 kHz. The steep model is used. Although good agreement can be seen in the case of 2 kHz and 3 kHz, the results
become inconsistent at frequencies higher than 4 kHz. The propagator matrix method should be used only in the lower frequency
range where the wavelength of the Stoneley wave is at least twice the borehole diameter.
 Stoneley Modeling in Irregular Borehole
shape of the upper washout zone. The rapid change causes the
big reflection. We can also see some reflection patterns in the
field records, however, the transmitted waves make it difficult
to see the amplitudes of the reflected waves. To remove the
transmitted waves, the median filter (Hardage, 1983) is applied
to both the field and the synthetic data sets.
Figure 11 shows the scattered wavefield of both the field
records (a) and the synthetic records (b). The field records
show the large reflections corresponding to the washout zones.
The reflection strength associated with the upper washout zone
is smaller than that of the upper washout zone and is con-
sistent with the synthetic records. As for the washout zone,
both records are in qualitative agreement. However, we also
have interesting disagreement at some depths. At the depth of
X106 m at which the notable reflection pattern is seen in the
field records, we cannot find a similar big event in the synthetic
record. There are neither distinctive changes in the borehole
geometry nor drastic lithology changes. The reflection seems
to be caused by something else, such as fracture. The left-hand
column in Figure 11 shows the fracture density obtained by
FIG. 9. Composite log chart showing profiles of compressional
and shear velocities, formation density, and borehole diameter
(caliper). These curves are discretized by 0.5-ft interval, and a
560-layer model is created for the synthetic iso-offset records
calculation.
1055
counting fractures on the resistivity image of the formation
micro scanner. There are high density anomalies around the
depth of X106 m where the inconsistent reflection has been
seen in the field records. There are also other reflection events
only in the field records that correspond to the fracture density
anomalies at depths of X120 m and X126 m. These inconsis-
tent reflections are thought to be generated by the fractures
crossing the borehole.
This study is still at a qualitative stage for field applications.
Because of the complex borehole environment and the un-
known borehole source signature, it is not practical or mean-
ingful to obtain direct quantitative numerical comparison of
all aspects of the full waveform. It is the intention of this paper
to show that a simple technique proposed here can model, at
least qualitatively, the Stoneley-wave reflections from borehole
radius changes, while previous simplified formulations cannot.
It is difficult to discriminate the reflections associated with
the fractures from the other reflections on the field records;
however, this becomes easier if the synthetic records are in-
troduced. The synthetic records provide the image including
only the information related to the borehole geometry and the
elastic properties of the formation. The image can be used as
helpful background information in the interpretation of frac-
tures by the use of the Stoneley-wave reflections.
CONCLUSION
We have formulated a fast modeling method for the
Stoneley-wave propagation in an irregular borehole. In this
modeling, the Stoneley wave is treated as a 1-D wave, which
has a piston-like motion along the borehole axis. The bore-
hole and the surrounding formation are modeled by a stack
of multilayers discretized along the borehole axis. Coupling of
the Stoneley wave at the boundary is solved on the basis of
the mass-balance boundary condition, then wavefields of each
layer are connected by propagator matrices. Through the com-
parisons with the finite-difference method for the case of a sin-
gle boundary model and with the boundary integral method for
the cases of sinusoidally changing radius models, we found our
proposed method could provide consistent results with those
of existing methods at the lower frequency range where the
wavelength of the Stoneley wave is at least twice the bore-
hole diameter. The comparison also showed the remarkably
fast computation speed of this method which is approximately
three hundred times faster than the existing methods. This is
an advantage for the application in the field data study requir-
ing a large-scale modeling. We have applied the method to the
field data and compared the synthetic records with the field
records. The results are in qualitative agreement in the ma-
jor reflections because of the washout zones, but show some
disagreements in the reflections resulting from the fractures.
Since the synthetic records include only information relating
to the borehole geometry and the elastic properties of forma-
tion, the reflection caused by the fracture will appear only in
the field record. This fact suggests the possibility of distinguish-
ing the Stoneley-wave reflection caused by the fracture from
those caused by borehole irregularities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was carried out during K. Tezuka’s stay as a vis-
iting scientist in the Earth Resources Laboratory at M.I.T. He
1056 Tezuka et al.

thanks Prof. M. Nafi Toksöz for the opportunity to work in
the stimulating research environment at ERL. He also thanks
Prof. Michel Bouchon for his valuable advice and help in the
use of his boundary integral modeling code. C. H. Cheng was
supported by the Borehole Acoustic and Logging Consortium
at M.I.T., and by Department of Energy grant no. DE-FG02-
86ER13636.
REFERENCES
Bouchon, M., and Schmitt, D. P., 1989, Full-wave acoustic logging in
an irregular borehole: Geophysics, 54, 758–765.
Cheng, N. Y., Zhu, Z., Cheng, C. H., and Toksöz, M. N., 1994, Ex-
perimental and finite difference modeling of borehole Mach waves:
Geophys. Prosp., 42, 303–319.
Cheng, C. H., and Toksöz, M. N., 1981, Elastic wave propagation in
a fluid-filled borehole and synthetic acoustic logs: Geophysics, 46,
1042–1053.
Hardage, B. A., 1983, Vertical seismic profiling, Part A: Principles, in
Helbig, K., and Treitel, S., Section 1. Seismic exploration: Handbook
of Geophys. Expl., 14A, 182–188.
Hardin, E. L., Cheng, C. H., Paillet, F. L., and Mendelson, J. D., 1987,
Fracture characterization by means of attenuation and generation
of tube waves in fractured crystalline rock at Mirror Lake, New
Hampshire: J. Geophs. Res, 92, 7989–8006.
Hornby, B. E., Johnson, D. L., Winkler, K. H., and Plumb, R. A., 1989,
Fracture evaluation using reflected Stoneley-wave arrivals: Geo-
physics, 54, 1274–1288.
Kelly, K. R., Ward, R. W., and Treitel, S., 1976, Synthetic seismograms:
A finite-difference approach: Geophysics, 41, 2–27.

FIG. 10. Comparison of the synthetic iso-offset records (b) with the real field records (a). The synthetic records are calculated by
the propagator matrix method. The model parameters used in the calculation are shown in the composite log chart (Figure 9). The
kelly source (Kelly et al., 1976) with the center frequency of 1.5 kHz is used for the source function.
 Stoneley Modeling in Irregular Borehole 1057

FIG. 11. The scattered wavefield of the field records (a) and the synthetic records (b). The median filter is applied to extract only
the scattered wavefield from the total wavefields shown in Figure 10. The left-hand column shows the fracture density histogram
obtained by counting fractures on the resistivity image of the formation micro scanner.

Kostek, S., 1990, Modeling of elastic wave propagation in a fluid-filled
borehole excited by a piezoelectric transducer: M.S. Thesis, Mass.
Institute of technology.
Kurkjian, A. L., 1985, Numerical computation of individual far-field
arrivals excited by an acoustic source in a borehole: Geophysics, 50,
852–866.
Luthi, S. M., and Souhaite, P., 1990, Fracture apertures from electrical
borehole scans: Geophysics, 55, 821–833.
Paillet, F. L., 1980, Acoustic propagation in the vicinity of fractures
which intersect a fluid-filled borehole: Trans., SPWLA 21st Ann.
Symp., Paper DD.
Paillet, F. L., and White, J. E., 1982, Acoustic models of propagation in
the borehole and their relationship to rock properties: Geophysics,
47, 1215–1228.
Stephen, R. A., Pardo-Casas, F., Cheng, C. H., 1985, Finite-difference
synthetic acoustic logs: Geophysics, 50, 1588–1609.
Tang, X. M., and Cheng, C. H., 1993a, Effects of a logging tool on the
Stoneley wave propagation in elastic and porous formations: The
Log Analysts, 34-5, 46–56.
——— 1993b, Borehole Stoneley wave propagation across permeable
structures: Geophys. Prosp., 41, 165–187.
Temme, P., and Müller, G., 1982, Numerical Simulation of vertical seis-
mic profiling: J. Geophys., 50, 177–188.
Virieux, J., 1986, P-SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media:
Velocity-stress finite difference method: Geophysics, 51, 889–901.
White, J. E., 1983, Underground sound: Elsevier Science Publ. Co. Inc.
White, J. E., and Zechman, R. E., 1968, Computed response of an
acoustic logging tool: Geophysics, 33, 302–310.
Zemanek, J., Caldwell, R. L., Glenn, E. E., Holcomb, S. V., Norton, L. J.
and Straus, A. J. D., 1969, The borehole televiewer—A new concept
for fracture location and other types of borehole inspection: J. Petr.
Tech., 25, 762–774.
1058 Tezuka et al.

APPENDIX
TREATMENT OF A SOURCE IN AN IRREGULAR BOREHOLE

The geometry of the medium is illustrated in Figure A-1. The where

source is located in the Sth layer at the depth of z = z s . The Sth Y
s−1 µ ¶
s11 s12
layer requires special treatment, because there is a stress jump S= Mi = , (A-3)
at the source point, and the source potential has to be included i=1
s21 s22
in the displacement potential of the Sth layer φs . We separate and
the Sth layer into two. Above the source (z < z s ), we use a new µ ¶ µ ¶
Us− 0
denotation S+ with amplitude coefficient Ds+ , Us+ , and below = Ms Ms+1 · · · Mn−1 ,
the source (z > z s ), we assign Ds− , Us− to the coefficients. The Ds− Dn
relation between the two pairs of coefficients is µ ¶
µ ¶ µ ¶ µ ¶ 0
=T , (A-4)
Us+ Us− As Dn
= + , As = eiks zs (A-1)
Ds+ Ds− −1/As
where
Y µ ¶
where As is the source term. With additional relations of D1 = 0 n−1
t11 t12
(no downgoing wave in the upper half-space) and Un = 0 (no T = Mi = . (A-5)
i=s
t21 t22
upgoing wave in the lower half-space), we apply equation (12)
to the layer 1 to s+, and layers s− to n, separately. Substituting equation (A-4) into equation (A-2) through equa-
µ ¶ µ ¶ tion (A-1), we get
U1
= M1 M2 · · · Ms−1
Us+
, µ ¶ µ ¶ µ ¶
0 U1 0 As
Ds+ = S∗T +S , As = eiks zs .
0 Dn −1/As
µ ¶
Us+ (A-6)
=S (A-2) This equation can be solved for the unknown coefficients U1
Ds+
and Dn in term of matrix with source potential.
µ ¶ µ ¶µ ¶
U1 1 ξ t22 −ξ t12 As
= , (A-7)
Dn η −s21 −s22 −1/As
where

η = s21 t12 + s22 t22 , ξ = s11 s22 − s12 s21 .

Once we know U1 and Dn , the other coefficients can be solved
for successively in the same manner as the multilayered cases.
However, this requires some attention. The coefficients in lay-
ers n − 1 to s− may be solved from the lower layers as
µ ¶ µ ¶
Ui Ui+1
= Mi , (A-8)
Di Di+1
and, the coefficients in layer 2 to s+ must be solved from the
upper layers as
µ ¶ µ ¶
FIG. A-1. Diagram showing an acoustic source in a washout Ui+1 Ui
zone surrounded by a multilayered formation. The Sth layer = Mi−1 , (A-9)
that includes the source requires special treatment. It is sepa- Di+1 Di
rated into two layers s+ and s−. Ui and Di denote amplitudes
of upgoing and downgoing waves in each layer. where Mi−1 is the inverse matrix at the ith boundary.