Russian Geology and Geophysics 52 (2011) 725–729

www.elsevier.com/locate/rgg

3D simulation of transient electromagnetic field

for geosteering horizontal wells
E.V. Onegova a,*, M.I. Epov a,b
a
Baker Hughes Russian Science Center, ul. Kutateladze 4a, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
b
A.A. Trofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
pr. Akademika Koptyuga 3, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
Received 13 September 2010; accepted 7 December 2010

Abstract

The article discusses numerical simulation of the transient electromagnetic field. The field source is an induction coil. We consider the
situation when a logging tool is in a horizontal well in a medium with horizontal and vertical boundaries. The specific features of this problem
are the metallic mandrel of the tool, 3D geometry, and distant boundaries. The method of separate computation of normal and anomalous
fields is proposed. The finite element method is used for spatial approximation of the field, and the implicit finite-difference scheme is used
for approximation of the field in time. Correctness and advantages of the method are shown. Some numerical results are demonstrated. The
method proposed can be used when designing tools for geosteering.
© 2011, V.S. Sobolev IGM, Siberian Branch of the RAS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: geosteering; transient electromagnetic method; finite element method

Introduction First publications on inductive logging using TEM ap-

As more deviated and horizontal wells are drilled today,
geosteering has become a relevant issue. Geosteering is used
for correcting the well trajectory based on the measurements
performed while drilling, the goal being to achieve the optimal
trajectory and thus, to maximize well productivity. When
drilling deviated and horizontal wells, it is essential to
determine the distances to the top and base of the reservoir,
and to its inner boundaries (water-oil and gas-oil contact, clay
layers), as early as possible. In this case, the drillstring can
be redirected in time to avoid opening the water-bearing bed
or the gas cap. The deeper the logging while drilling for the
data one may obtain, the more efficient are the solutions which
could be available.
It is well known that in the transient electromagnetic
method (TEM), sensitivity to remote areas of the formation
tends to enlarge with the increase of the signal registration
time, while closely-located objects seem to lose their influ-
ence. The main limitation for using TEM while drilling is the
highly-conductive drillstring, as its signal can exceed that of
the medium by several orders of magnitude.
peared in the 1970s (Kaufman and Sokolov, 1972; Plyusnin
and Vilge, 1969). These papers considered the signal from a
vertical magnetic dipole in the homogeneous medium (Plyus-
nin and Vilge, 1969), on the well axis and in beds of finite
thickness (Kaufman and Sokolov, 1972). In (Anderson and
Chew, 1989), numerical modeling of a well tool with an
insulating mandrel in an axially symmetrical medium was
described. A number of articles focused on TEM-based well
flaw detection (Epov et al., 2002; Potapov and Kneller, 2000;
Sidorov, 1996). In this case, the medium can be adequately
described by a 2D model, calculations here must take into
account both electric conductivity and magnetic permeability
of the casing.
The paper offers numerical schemes of modeling the
situation typical of geosteering. The finite element method is
used for modeling the transient electric field in the medium
penetrated by the horizontal well, with horizontal layers and
vertical boundary, taking into account electromagnetic prop-
erties of the drillstring (Fig. 1).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Elizaveta.Onegova@bakerhughes.com (E.V. Onegova)
1068-7971/$ - see front matter D 201 1, V . S. S o bolev IGM, Siberian Branch of the RAS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.rgg.2011.06+.005
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/rgg/article-pdf/52/7/725/5224841/v52i7_s1068797111001088.pdf
by CNOOC user
 726 E.V. Onegova and M.I. Epov / Russian Geology and Geophysics 52 (2011) 725–729

that the medium corresponding to the normal field can contain

any axisymmetrical objects, including parts of the tool.
The normal field E0 can be described by the following
equation:

1  ∂E0 ∂J
rot  rot E0 + σ0 =− , (2)
 µ  ∂t ∂t

where σ0 is electric conductivity of the axisymmetrical me-

dium. Therefore, σ0 differs from σ only in those parts of the
computational domain that are not axisymmetrical. For the
model shown in Fig. 1, σ0 differs from σ in the upper and
lower horizontal layers and in the layer ahead the well,
because electric conductivity σ0 coincides with that of the
Fig. 1. Model of the medium. 1, reservoir cap; 2, drillstring with transmitter and middle layer. In this case, the normal field is the field of the
receiver coils; 3, well; 4, reservoir; 5, underlying medium; 6, vertical boundary. pipe in the well in the homogeneous medium.
Subtracting Eq. 2 from Eq. 1, we arrive at the equation for
the anomalous field E+:
Mathematical model
1  ∂E+ ∂E0
rot  rot E+ + σ = (σ0 − σ) . (3)
Without taking into account displacement currents, the µ  ∂t ∂t
transient electric field can be described by the following Thus, the computation process can be reduced to the
equation: following:
1  ∂E ∂J 1) From zero to a certain value of t0, we will be solving
rot  rot E + σ =− , (1)
 µ  ∂t ∂t the axisymmetrical problem.
2) Starting with the moment t0, we will be each time layer
where E is the vector of the electric field, µ is magnetic
be solving the axisymmetrical problem and the 3D problem.
permeability, σ is electric conductivity, t is time, and J is
density of the extraneous current. In both problems, we have homogeneous initial conditions:
Let us set the z axis of the Cartesian coordinates in the line E0 = 0, (4)
of well (Fig. 1). Because a coil coaxial with the pipe is used t = 0
as the source, density of the extraneous current J will have E+ = 0. (5)
only one nonzero component, Jϕ. Changes in density of the t = t0
extraneous current with time are described by the Heaviside
step function. Approximate homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions
In accordance to the Faraday law of induction, after the are used here:
current in the source is turned off, eddy currents in the medium E0 × n = 0, (6)
tend to be located next to the source. Then, in the process of ∂Ω0
evolution, the currents begin to diffuse into the medium.
Before the currents reach horizontal boundaries, the electric E+ × n = 0. (7)
∂Ω
field remains axisymmetrical just as in the coil, and has only
one nonzero component, Eϕ. Let us use this fact and, for early where ∂Ω0, ∂Ω are the boundaries of the axisymmetrical and
times, solve a 2D problem in cylindrical (r, z) coordinates, 3D computation problems, n denotes the external normal to
rather than 3D. the corresponding boundary.
The presence of the metal pipe next to the source, as well
as distant boundaries whose influence becomes noticeable only
at later times, make the problem quite complex and difficult Method of solution
to compute. Because the signal from the currents in the pipe
dominates in the total signal, let us divide the total field into To solve initial boundary problems (2), (4), and (6) and
the normal field due to the pipe in the axisymmetrical domain (3), (5), and (7) numerically, the finite elements method is
E0 = (0, Eϕ (r, z), 0)T and the anomalous field due to the rest used here. The variational formulation of the 2D problem has
of the medium E+ (Onegova, 2010; Tabarovsky and Sokolov, the following form:
1982). These fields will be computed separately. In this case, ∂E0
1
fine grids will be needed only in the 2D problem, and thus, ∫ µ rot E0 ⋅ rot ψ dΩ + ∫ σ0 ∂t
⋅ ψ dΩ =
computation time will be greatly reduced. It should be noted Ω0 Ω0

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/rgg/article-pdf/52/7/725/5224841/v52i7_s1068797111001088.pdf

by CNOOC user
 E.V. Onegova and M.I. Epov / Russian Geology and Geophysics 52 (2011) 725–729 727

∂J
−∫ ⋅ ψ dΩ ∀ ψ ∈ H0 (rot, Ω0),
∂t
Ω0

where
H0 (rot, Ω0) = υ ∈ (L2(Ω0))3  rot υ ∈ (L2(Ω0))3,

 
υ × n|∂Ω = 0
0 
is the space of test functions, ψ = (0, ψϕ, 0)T.
The variational equation for the 3D problem has the
following form:

1 ∂E+
∫ µ rot E+ ⋅ rot ψ dΩ + ∫ σ ∂t
⋅ ψ dΩ = Fig. 2. The electromotive force in the homogeneous medium. 1, with pipe; 2, no
pipe.
Ω Ω

∂E0
(σ0 − σ) ∫ ⋅ ψ dΩ ∀ ψ ∈ H0 (rot, Ω),
∂t
Ω
where ψ = (ψx, ψy, ψz)T.
To approximate the time derivative of the solution, the
completely implicit three-layer scheme is used (Marchuk
1980)
∂E 
≈ γ0 Ej − γ1 Ej−1 + γ2 Ej−2,
∂t t = t
j of loops in the transmitter coil was 100; the number of loops
∆01 + ∆02 ∆02
where γ0 = , γ1 = , γ12 =
∆01 ∆02 ∆12 ∆01 ∆12 ∆02
tj−1 − tj−2, ∆02 = tj − tj−2, ∆01 = tj − tj−1, ti is the time layer, and
Ei is the solution at the ith layer.
For the finite-element discretization, rectangles with piece-
wise-bilinear basis functions are used for the 2D problem, and
hexahedrons with edge basis functions of the first order, for
the 3D problem (Nedelec, 1980).
Testing
The results of 3D modeling using the bedded medium were
compared to known solutions (Tabarovsky and Sokolov,
1982). The magnetic dipole was used as the field source. In
the 3D formulation, a coil with the radius of 0.01 m was used
as the field source. Relative discrepancy between solutions did
not exceed 1% in the time range between 10–7 and 10–2 s.
Besides, the results of solving the 2D problem were
compared with computations obtained using FEMAX (Be-
spalov, 2002) and COMSOL (Pryor, 2009). The transient
process in the homogeneous medium with a metal pipe of a
finite length was modeled. A coil coaxial with the pipe was
used as the field source. Pipes with diverse electric conduc-
tivity and magnetic permeability (magnetic steel, nonmagnetic
steel, and copper) and diverse containing media were consid-
ered. Average relative discrepancy between solutions obtained
using three different methods was 2–3% in the time range
between 10–7 and 10–2 s.
To understand the degree of the impact the pipe might have
upon the signal and show the possibilities of the computational
scheme developed, let us consider some computations. Fig-
ure 2 shows the electromotive force induced in the receiver
coil as a function of time. Two results are presented: with pipe
and without pipe. Formation resistivity was 100 Ohm⋅m; steel
pipe resistivity was 7.14 × 10–7 Ohm⋅m; its magnetic perme-
ability was 100µ0 (µ0 = 4π × 10−7H/m); the outer and inner
radii of the pipe were 0.04 and 0.07 m, respectively; coil radius
was 0.085 m; the distance between the transmitter coil and
receiver coil was 5 m; the electric current was 5 A; the number
∆01 in the receiver coil was 10.
, ∆12 =
In the graph, the pipe affects the transient process greatly,
both quantitatively and qualitatively. In the range between
5 × 10−4 and 5 × 10−2 s, the signal from the pipe decreases
quite slowly, and one can even observe some increase at the
time of 2 × 10−2 s. After the time of 0.1 s, the signal from the
pipe decreases greatly, and after the time of 2 s, it attenuates
as t−5 / 2. Physically, this means there are no more currents in
the pipe, and the other currents are far from the initial source
that the situation becomes equivalent to that of a magnetic
dipole in the homogeneous medium. On the other hand, the
signal level at these times is much lower than the measured
values. Generally, it should be noted that the computational
scheme can model the signal in the dynamic range around
200 dB.
Numerical experiments
Let us consider a geoelectrical model typical of the west
Siberian oil and gas province. The horizontal interval of the
well is in the oil-saturated reservoir (ρ1 = 15 Ohm⋅m, Fig. 3).
The reservoir has a clay cap (ρ2 = 4 Ohm⋅m). Under the
reservoir, there is a water-saturated interval (ρ3 = 8 Ohm⋅m).
In front of the tool, orthogonally with respect to the well, there
is a clay layer (ρ4 = 2.0–3.5 Ohm⋅m). The drilling mud with
a high clay content has electric resistivity of 2 Ohm⋅m.
Resistivity of the pipe made of nonmagnetic steel is
7.14 × 10−7 Ohm⋅m. The outer and inner radii of the pipe were
0.04 and 0.07 m, respectively; coil radius was 0.085 m for

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/rgg/article-pdf/52/7/725/5224841/v52i7_s1068797111001088.pdf

by CNOOC user
 728 E.V. Onegova and M.I. Epov / Russian Geology and Geophysics 52 (2011) 725–729
Fig. 3. Problem domain and model parameters.
both transmitter coil (T) and receiver coil (R); the well radius
was 0.108 m. The electric current in the transmitter coil was
5 A; the number of loops in the transmitter coil was 100; the
number of loops in the receiver coil was 10. The object of
measurements was the electromotive force induced in the
receiver coil.
Figure 4 shows a grid of hexahedrons for the computational
domain. Inside the well, the grid is radial in the xy plane, and
in the neighborhood of the horizontal boundaries, it becomes
rectangular. Because the computational domain is symmetrical
with respect to the axis y = 0, the problem was solved in a
half of the domain only (y ≥ 0), and the homogeneous Dirichlet
boundary conditions were applied at the line of symmetry.
As it was mentioned, the total field was divided into the
normal and anomalous fields, and these components were
computed separately. The medium for the normal component
consisted of the pipe and the well penetrating the homogene-
ous formation (ρ1 = 15 Ohm⋅m). The normal field was com-
puted with the relative error of 0.1%. This estimate was made
on the basis of comparing two solutions obtained at two nested
grids. The relative error of computing the anomalous field,
on the average, was about 2%. It should be noted that the
anomalous component does not exceed 10% of the total field.
Thus, the error of computing the total field does not exceed
Fig. 5. Anomalous component of emf. 1, top layer only (ρ4 = ρ1, ρ3 = ρ1,
h1 = 4 m); 2, bottom layer only (ρ4 = ρ1, ρ2 = ρ1, h2 = 9 m); 3, horizontal layers
only (ρ4 = ρ1, h1 = 4 m, h2 = 9 m); 4, with all boundaries (ρ4 = 3.5 Ohm⋅m, ∆ =
11 m); 5, with all boundaries (ρ4 = 2.0 Ohm⋅m, ∆ = 11 m)
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/rgg/article-pdf/52/7/725/5224841/v52i7_s1068797111001088.pdf
by CNOOC user
Fig. 4. Cross section via the xy plane with the hexahedron grid.
0.3% when the grid of 606 thousand finite elements is used.
Without dividing the total field into the normal field and the
anomalous field, this error reached 2% even though the grid
comprised 1035 thousand finite elements.
Time dependence of the modulus of the anomalous com-
ponent of the electromotive force for different resistivities of
layers ρ2, ρ3, and ρ4 are shown in Fig. 5. The time interval
shown is the one where the curves are especially dissimilar.
We consider anomalous fields, because the relative difference
between the total fields in different models does not exceed
9%. The magenta curve corresponds to the model with the top
layer only (ρ4 = ρ1, ρ3 = ρ1); green, with the bottom layer
only; black, with horizontal layers (no vertical interlayering);
red and blue are the curves corresponding to the models with
all boundaries with ρ4 = 3.5 Ohm⋅m and 2.0 Ohm⋅m, respec-
tively. The top horizontal layer gives a greater contribution to
the signal than the bottom one, as it is closer to the source
and has higher conductivity. All transient curves differ with
respect to the moment of time when the sign change takes
place.
Figure 6 shows the ratio between the modules of the
anomalous component of the electromotive force in the model
with and without the vertical boundary, in the presence of the
horizontal boundaries. Results are given for different distances
Fig. 6. Anomalous component of emf relative to the signal in model with
no vertical boundary for different distances to the vertical boundary,
ρ4 = 2.0 Ohm⋅m.
 E.V. Onegova and M.I. Epov / Russian Geology and Geophysics 52 (2011) 725–729
Fig. 7. Anomalous component of emf relative to the signal in model with no
horizontal boundary for different distances to the horizontal boundaries,
ρ4 = 2.0 Ohm⋅m.
∆. Two time intervals can be set apart, based on the curve
behavior: less and greater than 10–5 s. For the first interval,
the relative value of the electromotive force reaches its
maximum, which corresponds to the sign switch of its
anomalous component. For the second interval, the electromo-
tive force in the model with a vertical boundary differs from
the corresponding model with no vertical boundary by the
factor of 1.5 at ∆ = 11 m, by the factor of 1.2 at ∆ = 15 m,
and by the factor of less than 1.1 at ∆ = 20 m. That is,
sensitivity to the boundary is observed when it is located
11–15 m away from the source. The vertical boundary at 20 m
does not seem to have any effect on the signal. Thus, there
are limitations on determining the distance to a remote
boundary ahead of the tool.
Let us consider sensitivity of the signal to the horizontal
boundaries. Figure 7 shows the ratio between the modules of
the anomalous component of the electromotive force in the
model with and without the horizontal boundaries, in the
presence of the vertical boundary. As one can see, the red and
black curves, corresponding to a fixed distance to the top
boundary h1 and different distances to the bottom boundary
h2, agree quite well. This means that sensitivity to the lower
boundary is weak. At the same time, the tool retains sensitivity
to the top boundary located at h1 = 20 m.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/rgg/article-pdf/52/7/725/5224841/v52i7_s1068797111001088.pdf
by CNOOC user
729
Conclusions
A computational scheme for simulation of the transient
electromagnetic field in the 3D medium with highly conduc-
tive objects present has been developed. Adequacy of the
scheme developed and advantages of separate computation of
normal and anomalous fields have been shown. Examples of
computations have been presented. Sensitivity of the signal
measured to the horizontal boundaries and the boundary ahead
of the tool has been analyzed. The scheme developed may be
used when designing tools for geosteering.
References
Anderson, B., Chew, W.C., 1989. Transient response of some borehole
mandrel tools. Geophys. 54 (2), 216–224.
Bespalov, A., 2002. FEMAX—Software for simulation of magnetic induction
tools in vertical wells. SEG Expanded Abstracts 21, 708–711.
Epov, M.I., Morozova G.M., Antonov, E.Yu., 2002. Electromagnetic Method
of Finding Faults in Casing of Oil and Gas Wellbores (Theoretical Basis
and Method) [in Russian]. NITs OIGGM, SB RAS Publishing House,
Novosibirsk.
Kaufman, A.A., Sokolov, V.P., 1972. Theory of Inductive Logging Using
Transient Electromagnetic Method [in Russian]. Nauka, Siberian Branch,
Novosibirsk.
Marchuk, G.I., 1980. Methods of Computational Mathematics [in Russian].
Nauka, Moscow.
Nedelec, J.C., 1980. Mixed finite elements in R3. Numer. Math. 35, 315–341.
Onegova, E.V., 2010. Effect of multicoil electromagnetic tool eccentricity on
measured signals. Russian Geology and Geophysics (Geologiya i Geofiz-
ika) 51 (4), 423–427 (540–545).
Plyusnin, M.I., Vilge, B.I., 1969. Foundations of inductive logging using
transient electromagnetic method. Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zave-
denii. Geologiya i Razvedka, No. 5, 158–165.
Potapov, A.P., Kneller, L.E., 2000. Mathematical modeling and interpretation
of borehole pulsed electromagnetic wall thickness measurements. Geofiz-
ika, No. 5, 27–30.
Pryor, R., 2009. Multiphysics Modeling Using COMSOL: A First Principles
Approach. Jones & Bartlett Learning, Sudbury.
Sidorov, V.A., 1996. Borehole fault analyzers and wall thickness measurement
tools for logging multistring boreholes. NTV Karotazhnik, No. 24,
pp. 83–94.
Tabarovsky, L.A., Sokolov, V.P., 1982. Code for computing transient field
of dipole sources in horizontally layered medium (ALEKS), in: Elektro-
magnetic Methods in Geophysics [in Russian]. IGiG SO AN SSSR,
Novosibirsk, pp. 57–77.
Editorial responsibility: A.D. Duchkov