SECTION

INDUCTION
INDUCTION THEORY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF
CONTENTS.................................................................................................i

HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE......................................................................................1

INDUCTION
PRINCIPLES............................................................................................2

Formation X-
Signal.................................................................................................4

Sonde
Error..............................................................................................................5

Factors Influencing the Conductive Measurement.................................................5

Geometric Factor
Theory............................................................................6

Skin
Effect.................................................................................................10

Skin Effect And The Formation X-

Signal.................................................13

Tool
Constant............................................................................................14

Multicoil Sondes....................................................................................................15

Factors Influencing the Depth Of Investigation.....................................................16

Analysis Of The Environmental Effects..................................................................17

Borehole
Effect............................................................................................18

Bed Thickness Effect - Shoulder Bed

Correction.......................................20

Invasion Effect - Depth of

Investigation.....................................................24

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL i

 INDUCTION THEORY

The digitally focused Log

(DFL)............................................................................29

Measurement Principles of the

DFL.......................................................................30

DFL Response
Characteristics................................................................................30

LOGGING
EXAMPLES..................................................................................................32

REFERENCES..................................................................................................................
35

APPENDIX

TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The most widely used log, the induction log, provides information that's indispensable for
locating hydrocarbon-bearing formations and estimating reserves. By measuring the
electrical conductivity of downhole formations and fluids, an induction tool can distinguish
between hydrocarbon-bearing formations (non-conductive) and water-bearing formations
(usually conductive).

Induction logging evolved out of the principles utilized by a jeep-mounted mine detector
that Henri Doll developed for the U.S. War Department during World War II. The
detector was composed of two wire coils mounted horizontally on a wooden boom slung
ahead of the jeep. Alternating current passing through one coil created a magnetic field
and induced eddy currents in the earth. The second coil detected the secondary magnetic
field created by the eddy currents. Because mines were metallic and conductive, they
caused larger than usual eddy currents. Doll's detector sensed this effect and
automatically applied the jeep's brakes.

After the war, Doll adapted the technique to log boreholes. He recognized his approach
might permit measuring formation conductivity in wells drilled with oil-base (non-
conductive) mud, which precludes use of resistivity measuring devices. In 1949, three
years after the first experimental induction log was run in Texas, Doll unveiled induction
logging to the industry.

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 1

 INDUCTION THEORY

INDUCTION PRINCIPLES
To understand induction principles, we look at a simple two coil induction tools as
depicted in figure (1).

FIG: 1 Induction Principles

A transmitter coil, with an alternating current passing through it, sets up an alternating
magnetic field. “Faraday's law” predicts this time-varying field will establish an emf in the
formation. The emf causes eddy currents to flow in circular paths around the tool (coaxial
with the borehole) in areas of formation known as "ground loops." The eddy currents are
90° out of phase with the transmitter currents. Their magnitude depends on the
surrounding formation's conductivity. “Ampere's law” predicts that these eddy currents
will produce their own magnetic fields. These fields cut through the receiver coil and
induce an alternating voltage at the receiver that is proportional to the strength of the
secondary magnetic field and therefore related to formation conductivity.

2 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

The receiver voltage reflects not only the electromagnetic fields produced by the eddy
currents, but also other contributions that do not reflect formation conductivity (i.e.,
direct mutual inductance between coils). Due to the fact that each voltage component has
a specified phase relationship to the transmitter current, the induced signals can be
separated and the unwanted one eliminated.

The voltage components are classified in one of two groups depending on their phase
relationship to the transmitter current. These components are termed the R-signal and the
X-signal.

The R-signal is 180° out of phase with the transmitter current and reflects formation
conductivity. It's phase relationship to the transmitter current is as follows: The magnetic
lines of flux (BT) produced by the transmitter is in phase with the transmitter current.
Voltage induced into the formation by BT produces an eddy current (IL) that lags the
transmitter current by 90°. Secondary magnetic lines of flux (BL), in phase with the
formation current, surround the ground loops. BLcauses a voltage (R-signal) to be
induced into the receiver that lags the formation current by 90°. Thus, the total phase
differential between the transmitter current and the R-signal is 180°. This is demonstrated
in figure (2).

FIG: 2 Induction Principle Phase Relationship

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 3

 INDUCTION THEORY

The X-signal (or quadrature signal) is 90° out of phase with the transmitter current. This
signal is from direct mutual induction between the transmitter and receiver coils.
Magnetic lines of flux, produced by the transmitter induce a voltage directly into the
receiver coil that is 90° out of phase with the transmitter current (see Figure 2).

The X-signal usually larger than the R-signal, (often as high as several thousands
millimhos) therefore its contribution to the total receiver signal must be eliminated, leaving
only the R-signal.

Formation X-Signal
A departure from the above theory occurs in highly conductive formations. There the
primary eddy currents generate an EMF in the formation that leads to secondary eddy
current (secondary ground loops). Because these secondary eddy currents are delayed by
an additional 90° phase shift, they effectively induce another quadrature signal in the
receiver coil. Unlike the mutual coupling signal, this formation X-signal does reflect
formation conductivity, and as can be seen in the Figure 3, it is out of phase with the
transmitter current by 270°.

FIG: 3 Formation X Signal

4 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

We will discuss later how this formation X-signal utilize by the HRI to give an improved
conductivity response.

Sonde Error
The primary method of eliminating the undesirable X-signal is with the use of a multicoil
sonde. Modern induction tools combine multiple transmitter coils and receivers coil
wound and counter wound to try to eliminate this signal. These so called “mutually
balanced sondes” practically eliminates the mutual coupling X-signal component. For
such sondes, the residual coupling signal between the transmitter and receiver is known as
sonde error. In theory, the sonde error should be only an X (quadrature) component, but
because copper cables and wires have a finite conductivity, the sonde error exhibits both
(albeit small) X-signal and R-signal components. These are shown in the bottom half of
figure 3. Sonde error can be eliminated by proper calibrations.

Factors Influencing The Conductive Measurement

The induction tool voltage response for the R-signal (VR) can be explained by considering
three contributions:

• Geometric factors

• Skin effect

• Equipment constant

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 5

 INDUCTION THEORY

GEOMETRIC FACTOR THEORY

Considering a two coil sonde in a homogenous, infinitely thick medium, mathematicians
J.H. Moran and K.S. Kunz derived exact expressions for the induced voltage components.

 2  L 2  L 3 
2-1. −VR = Kσ 1 −   +   + ......
 3  δ  15  δ  

δ 2 2  L  1  L  2 
2-2. VX = Kσ  2 −   +   + ......
 L 3  δ  2  δ  

For a multicoil sonde the above equations are directly extended by combining linearly all
transmitter-receiver pairs.

σ = formation conductivity

δ = (2/ωµσ)½ = skin depth

ω = tool frequency

K = tool constant (but dependent on µ, the magnetic permeability of the

formation, which is considered constant for the range of conductivity,
measured by induction tools).

VR = magnitude of the voltage component that is 180° out of phase with the
transmitter current.

VX = magnitude of the voltage component that is 90° out of phase with the
transmitter current.

µ = formation magnetic permeability

L = spacing between transmitter and receiver

6 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

The skin depth, δ, comes from plane wave theory and gives the order of magnitude of the
penetration depth of an electromagnetic field in a conductor. At the depth δ, the field
drops to 1/e (i.e., 0.3679) of it value at the conductor's surface*.

For the actual wave propagation in the borehole and, as a first approach, we look at limits
of very low formation conductivity. We therefore let σ → 0. For this case:

1
δ → ∞, → 0, and (1) becomes:
∞
2-3. -VR = K σ ( 1) = K σ {low conductivity}

We see for low conductivity, the induction response is linear with formation conductivity.
If we divide the equation by K, the tool constant, we obtain the magnitude of the apparent
conductivity (as seen by the tool).

VR
2-4. σa = =σ
K
We see for an infinitely thick, homogenous bed, the tool voltage response, VR, divided by
the tool constant K will give the true bed conductivity (here we assume the borehole
region is part of the homogenous formation).

Removing the restriction of an infinitely thick bed, and assuming a conductive borehole
region different from the formation with a borehole fluid that penetrates the formation, the
Geometrical Factor Theory state that the apparent conductivity is a linear function of the
different conductivity of all areas surrounding the sonde and their geometric relationship
to the transmitter and receiver coil. The geometrical factor (G) of a volume having a
specific geometrical orientation with the tool is a fraction of the total signal that would
originate if that volume was an infinite homogenous medium. Considering the logging
environment of Figure (4), the Geometrical Factor Theory predicts:

2-5. σa = Gbhσbh + Gsσs + Gxoσxo + Gtσt

*NOTE: It should be noted that in induction phenomenon σ always appears as ωµσ. Therefore, any
change in the magnetic permeability will affect the computed value of conductivity.
Fortunately, µ = µo (µo = 4π x 10-7 newton/amp²) is a very good approximation in sedimentary
environments.

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 7

 INDUCTION THEORY

Borehole Flushed Zone

Gs
Shoulder Bed
σs

G bh G xo
Bed Gt
Virgin Zone
Thickness σ bh σ xo σt

Gs
Shoulder Bed
σs

FIG: 4 Areas Surrounding The Sonde

σa = apparent conductivity

σbh = conductivity of the borehole region

Gbh = geometrical factor of the borehole region

σxo = conductivity of the invaded zone

Gxo = geometrical factor of the invaded zone

σt = conductivity of the virgin zone

Gt = geometrical factor of the virgin zone

σs = conductivity of the shoulder bed

Gs = geometrical factor of the shoulder bed

The total G's add up to unit by definition.

2-6. G total = ∑ G i = 1
i

8 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

Notice it is necessary to assume that the volumes conform to symmetry of rotation about
the tool. This assumption makes the computation of geometrical factors practical.

Equation 2-5 states that the sum of the products of the individual conductivity and
geometrical factors of all volumes in the range of the tool yields the total magnitude of the
tool signal. The volume of space is defined only by its relationship to the tool and, thus,
has a fixed and computable geometrical factor. The main significance of the geometrical
factor concept is that it permits the construction of mathematically sound correction
factors to account for the effect of borehole fluid, invasion, and adjacent beds. Whereas
equation 2-5 involves all contributing regions, its usually customary to divide G into its
radial and vertical components. The vertical geometrical factor is used to investigate the
tools vertical resolution, whereas the radial geometrical factor similarly reveals what
fraction of the measured signal comes from a specific radial distance from the tool (see
figure 5 and 6).

FIG: 5

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 9

 INDUCTION THEORY

FIG: 6

SKIN EFFECT
The "geometrical factor" theory describes only a portion of the total formation/tool
response in induction logging. Equation 2-5 holds for the special case of very low
formation conductivity. In the general sense the receiver voltage, VR, is less than that
predicted by the geometrical factor theory. Referring to equation 2-1 and 2-2 we remove
the restriction of low conductivity and take the first two terms of the expansions.

  2  L   2   L
2-7. − VR = Kσ 1 −      = Kσ −     Kσ *
  3  δ    3  δ 

δ 2  2   L   2K  2   L 
2-8. VX = Kσ  2 −      = −     Kσ
 L  3  δ   ωµL2  3   δ 

*NOTE: For a multi-coil induction sonde, the R-signal and X-signal components are directly derived
from equations (7) and (8) by combining linearly all voltages from all the elementary

10 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

transmitter-receiver pairs. In particular, the first terms of vx, namely 2k/ωµL² add up to zero
in a balanced multi-coil induction sonde.

We first look at equation 2-7. Solving for σ we obtain:

− VR
σ =
2-9.   2 L 
K 1 -     
  3  δ  

-1
For small values of (L/δ), the expression [1 - (2 / 3) (L / δ )] can be replaced by
[1+(2/3)(L/δ)]. Therefore the magnitude of the formation conductivity (for an infinitely
thick, non-invaded, homogenous bed) is given by:

VR   2 L    2 L 
2-10. σ = 1 +  3   δ   = σ a 1 +  3   δ  
K    

The term (2/3)(L/δ) is the skin effect correction to the apparent tool reading. Although
equation (2-10) was derived for an infinitely thick, homogenous uninvaded bed, skin
effect, it was discovered, reduced the apparent voltage in all realistic, physical
environments. Only when conductivity is very low does the skin effect disappears and the
geometrical factor theory work. Since δ = (2/ωµσ)½, we see that skin effect increases
with the square root of operating frequency and directly with the transmitter/receiver
spacing.

We now look at the physical meaning f the skin effect term. Referring to the induced
ground loops, it cannot be assumed that the individual ground loops are independent
systems. There are additional voltages produced in the formation by linkage of each
ground loop with its own magnetic field (self induction), and with the magnetic fields of
the other nearby ground loops (mutual induction between different ground loops). In
addition, a progressive phase shift of the voltage induced into the ground loops will occur
with increasing distance from the transmitter, (usually negligible at low conductivity’s)
thus causing a portion of the signal that reflects formation conductivity to be rejected as an
X-signal

Because of these effects, the resulting ground loop currents will not be as strong as
expected. This results in a reduction of the receiver-coil signal, which in turn causes a
reduction in the apparent conductivity (see Equation 2-4). This reduction in the
apparent conductivity reading is commonly termed skin effect

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 11

 INDUCTION THEORY

At the present time the Dual Induction uphole software corrects for skin effect by
boosting the apparent conductivity by an amount dependent on formation conductivity.
Skin effect has an exponentially increasing affect on the apparent conductivity, such that
total receiver signal reduction caused by skin effect will be greatest at high formation
conductivity. Figure 7 illustrates the correction scheme made by the surface
instrumentation for various apparent conductivity.

FIG: 7 Correction To The Apparent Conductivity

12 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

Skin Effect And The Formation X-Signal

The latest version of the induction tool, the HRI, utilizes the formation X-signal to
dynamically correct for skin effect while logging. Equation 2-8 shows why this is
possible. We see to a good approximation (we used 2 terms of the expansion) the
quadrature component of the received signal. V has two contributions. The first term is
x
independent of formation conductivity and is identified as the unwanted coupling signal.
As previously mentioned, this signal is essentially eliminated by specific coil arrangement
and windings. The second term is seen as the formation X-signal. Whereas the Dual
Induction tool is designed to eliminated any quadrature component, the HRI will use this
formation X-signal for skin effect corrections and to provide, in general, improved
apparent conductivity values. Comparing equations 2-7 and 2-8 we see how a skin effect
correction is possible. Notice the magnitude of this formation X-signal is equal to the skin
effect correction to VR. Therefore, a first order correction can be performed dynamically
by using this quadrature component.

The HRI combines VR and the formation component V ′ through a complex agorithm.
x
In invaded formations, this combination yields a more nearly correct measurement than the
traditional approach used by the dual induction tools (which only use VR). VR and V ′ are
complementary in several ways. x

• In a homogenous conductive formation, the formation X-signal represents almost

exactly that portion of the R-signal lost due to skin effect, as indicated above.

• In a highly conductive formation the depth of investigation of the R-signal is decreased

due to skin effect. The formation X-signal being inherently deeper helps restore the
depth of investigation of the coil array.

• In presence of bedding, the formation X-signal, being more diffuse that the R-signal,
has a significantly poor inherent bed definition. The primary resolution of the coil
array is preserved by the R-signal.

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 13

 INDUCTION THEORY

TOOL CONSTANT
The magnitude of the R-signal induced into the receiver coil has thus far been described
(after eliminating the unwanted X-signal) as a function of formation conductivity,
geometrical factor, and skin effect. Other factors that partially determine the receiver
signal magnitude are:

1. Transmitter signal strength

2. Receiver sensitivity

These two factors, known as the tool constant K of equations (2-1) and (2-2), consist of
several sub-factors, all but on of which are a result of the equipment's effect on induction
measurements,

µ 2 ω2 I T N T A T N R A R *
2-11. K=∑
4πL
K = tool constant

µ = magnetic permeability of the formation **

ω = tool frequency

NT = number of turns in the transmitter coil

NR = number of turns in the receiver coil

AT = cross sectional area of the transmitter coil

AR = cross sectional area of the receiver coil

L = coil spacing

IT = total transmitter current

* The summation is taken over all transmitter-receiver pairs.

**Here we note that magnetic permeability is not a function of the tool design, but is considered to be a
constant for the range of conductivity’s measured by the induction tools. Induction tools are calibrated
to eliminate the effect of different tool constants.

14 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

Multicoil Sondes
Although our induction theory so far has only involved a two coil system, as has been
previouslymentioned, modern induction tools consist of multicoil sondes (multiple
transmitter coils and multiple receiver coils). These coils are wound in a precise manner
and spaced at specific locations along the sonde. The coil system, or “coil array," provide
the following advantages over the simple two coil system:
• Improvement of the vertical resolution by suppression of the shoulder bed response.
• Improvement of the investigational depth by suppression of the borehole fluid
response.
• Minimization of the direct coupling (X-signal)
The first two improvements will be analyzed in another section. Multicoil sonde
designations are described in terms of the number of coils used, the type of focusing and
the distance between the main transmitter and main receiver coil. The deep induction
conductivity measurement (from which we obtain RILD) is designated 6FF40.
This configuration has:
• "6" - coils (3 for the receiver and 3 for the transmitter)
• "FF" - fixed focusing (horizontal and vertical)
• "40" - inches between main transmitter and receiver coils.

T3

R1

Signal
Processing R2 Main
Section Spacing
T2
40"

Phase Sensitive T1
Detector
Transmitter
R3 Oscillator

FIG: 8 Schematic Diagram Of The Deep Induction Logging System

Similarly the medium conductivity measurement is designated 8FF34*. Here, the 8 coils
are arranged with 3 coils used for the transmitter and 5 used for the receiver. The coil
configuration for the HRI is proprietary information and will not be covered in this manual

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 15

 INDUCTION THEORY

Factors Influencing The Depth Of Investigation

Two depths of investigation are made by the dual induction tool, and HRI coil systems.

• Induction log deep ( R ILD , R HRD )

• Induction log medium ( R ILM , R HRM )

Depth of investigation is determined by:

1. Transmitter/receiver coil spacing
2. Coil array
3. Conductivity of the areas surrounding the induction tool.

For the simple two coil sonde surrounded by a homogenous medium, it was discovered
that when the transmitter and receiver coil spacing remained constant, the radial
geometrical factor decreased significantly for ground loops whose radii are more or less
than 1/2 the coil spacing. This, of course, indicated that the largest percentage of receiver
signal came from this region of the formation. For the multi-coil sonde a similar
relationship holds that shows that the depth of investigation is directly related to
transmitter/receiver coil spacing, and the coil configuration.

The preceding discussion suggests that the depth of investigation is constant as determined
by the coil spacing and coil array. The investigational depth however, remains constant
only in a homogenous isotropic medium, but is different for every conductivity value. The
factors that cause investigational depth to change proportionally with conductivity are:
1. The signal is attenuated with distance from the transmitter (i.e. ,dissipation of
transmitter energy by eddy currents in the medium near the borehole).
2. Shielding of the transmitter's magnetic field by the nulling effect of the secondary
electromagnetic fields produced by the eddy currents.
3. Progressive phase shift of the voltages induced into the ground loops with increasing
distance from the transmitter.

Areas of formation near the tool with high conductivity then, reduce the depth of
investigation from that which would normally be expected considering only the
transmitter/receiver coil spacing and coil array.

*NOTE: The 8FF34 designation is for the W-series DIL medium measurement. The G-series DIL
medium measurement is designated 7FF34 with 3 transmitter coils and 4 receiver coils.

Analysis Of The Environmental Effects

For the skin-effect corrected apparent conductivity, the geometrical factor equation (2-5)
can be used to analyze the different contributions to the received signal.

16 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

2-12. σ a-Skin = G bh σ bh + G s σ s + G xo σ xo + G t σ t
Corrected

Realizing that the conductivity is the inverse of resistivity equation (2-12) can be rewritten
as:*

1 G G G G
2-13. = bh
+ s
+ xo
+ t
R a -S k i n R bh R s R xo R t
Corrected

This equation shows that the induction tool "sees" the different regions as adding in
parallel. Therefore, the more resistive regions contribute less to the overall signal. An
equivalent electrical circuit is shown for this type of response in the below figure.

αbh Rbh αbh = 1 , etc.

Gbh
β xo R xo

γs R s

δ t Rt

Measured as :

Ra
FIG: 9 Equivalent Induction Circuit

*NOTE: Although some sources omit the shoulder bed contribution, for mathematical completeness we
here include this contribution in our parallel circuit analogy.

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 17

 INDUCTION THEORY

BOREHOLE EFFECT
As has been discussed, the induction tool uses coil located on the mandrel to suppress the
borehole contribution to the received signal. Nevertheless, given a conductive borehole
fluid, a portion of the total signal will be due to the borehole fluid. The magnitude of this
signal is a function of the hole size, the standoff device, and the borehole fluid resistivity
(conductivity). For proper logging interpretation of a skin effect corrected log, the
borehole signal must be eliminated. This is usually accomplished by the use of charts that
provide a value for σabh = Gbh σbh. Here σabh is that portion of the apparent
conductivity due to just the borehole fluid contribution. σabh is subtracted from. σ
a-Skin corr The borehole correction chart for the Dual Induction and HRI is shown in
figures 10 and 11.

FIG: 10 Dual Induction-Short Guard Borehole Corrections

18 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

Halliburton Researchers have found that borehole effects are minimized up to a borehole
geometrical value of approximately 0.001. Comparing the Dual Induction with the HRI,
figures 10 and 11, with 1.5 inch standoff, we see the R ILD has minimal borehole effect up
to a borehole diameter of about 13 inches, and R ILM up to about 9 inches. The R HRD
on the other hand has much less of an error signal than the R ILD with negligible borehole
effects up to 17 inches in diameter, while the R HRM is essentially the same as the R ILM
(approximately 9 inches).

FIG: 11 HRI Borehole Corrections

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 19

 INDUCTION THEORY

BED THICKNESS EFFECT - SHOULDER BED CORRECTION

Another purpose of the multi-coil sonde is to improve the vertical resolution of the
induction tool. Still though, when designing an induction tool, a trade-off is made
between deep depth of investigation and good vertical resolution. Good bed resolution
can easily be obtained with closely spaced transmitter and receiver coils; but closer spacing
also reduces the depth of investigation. The 6FF40 devices (as well as the 8FF34 and
7FF34) are design for “deep” investigation and therefore have mediocre vertical
resolution, especially in beds less than 30 ft. thick. In these cases, the signal received is a
mixture from points both above and below the horizon being measured. This can cause
real problems when the shoulders' bed is much more conductive than the bed of interest.
An example is a 10 ft. thick hydrocarbon-bearing low porosity limestone sandwich
between two shells.

The sensitivity of the deep and medium measurements to horizontal slices of formation
above and below the measure point is quantified by the Vertical Geometric Factor (VGF).
VGF is a measure of both the vertical resolution and the adjacent bed effect of a coil array.
A low VGF indicates little or no effect on the measurement from formations at this point.
Figure 12 and 13 show the VGFs for the DIL and HRI. Note that the vertical resolution
of the Induction deep is about 5 ft. and the Induction medium is about 4.5 ft. Whereas for
the HRI, both deep and medium have identical responses and a vertical resolution of 2 ft.
Because the response is identical, the HRI curves will overlay in the absence of invasion,
thus not giving a false effect of invasion as is often the case with the Dual Induction.

FIG 12 VGF DIL FIG 13 VGF HRI

20 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

As mentioned before, bed thickness effects are very serious problem in zones less than 30
ft. thick. A set of charts: figure 14 and 15 is used to correct for these cases. The symbols
RS refers to the resistivity of the beds immediately above and below the zone. Notice the
bed thickness is plotted against R ILD − CORR or R HRD-CORR , and the lines on the charts
represent the values of the apparent log reading, R ILD or R HRD (Already corrected for
borehole effects). As an example, for R ILD = R HRD = 13Ω-m, with a bed thickness of
13 ft., and R S =1.2Ω-m, R ILD − CORR will give a value of 22Ω-m while the
R HRD-CORR will be 11.5Ω-m.

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 21

 INDUCTION THEORY

FIG: 14

22 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

FIG: 15

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 23

 INDUCTION THEORY

INVASION EFFECT - DEPTH OF INVESTIGATION

As a rule, the ratio R mf / R w should be greater than 2.5, and the diameter of invasion no
greater than 100 inches for optimum R t determination from induction logs. This means
that the induction log must be used with some caution where salt muds are used in drilling
the hole. In such a case, the invaded zone may be more conductive than the virgin zone.
From equation (2-12) we know the induction tool responds to the more conductive (less
resistive) zones.
We can take a more in-depth, quantitative approach to invasion effects by using the skin
effect corrected equation (2-13). After correcting the log initially for the borehole effect,
and secondly for the shoulder bed (bed thickness) effect, we are left with an apparent
resistivity that has only two contributions:

1 G xo G t
= +
R a R xo R t
2-14.
since ∑ G i = 1
i
equation (2-14) becomes:

1 Gxo (1 − Gxo )
2-15. = +
Ra Rxo Rt
Gxo is called the Integrated Radial Geometrical Factor (IRGF). The IRGF gives the
response of the tool to a cylindrical region of formation, and provides a means of
quantifying the invasion response of different tool arrays. The point where the IRGF is
equal to 50% is traditionally taken as the depth of investigation of the tools. Figures 16
and 17 show the IRGF for the Dual Induction and the HRI. Notice for the R ILD the 50%
point is at a diameter of 130 inches. The depth (or radius) of investigation is then 130/2
or 65 inches, which is 5.4ft. The R ILM like wise is 58/2 = 29 inches or about 2.5ft. On
the other hand, the R HRD has a depth of investigation of 182/2 = 91 inches or 7.58ft.,
and the R HRM is 78/2 = 39 inches or 3.25 ft.

24 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

FIG: 16

FIG: 17

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 25

 INDUCTION THEORY

Returning to the invasion effect, figure 18 illustrates a typical invasion profile with high
filtrate saturation in the invaded zone and low connate water saturation in the uninvaded
zone.

FIG: 18 Invasion Effect

For most logging applications, R t , R xo and d i are crucial for proper interpretation. In
order to determine these three unknowns, three equations are obviously required. Since
the IRGF for the medium induction log is different from the deep for the same diameter of
invasion, Equation 2-15 provides two separate equations:

1 G (1 − G D )
2-16. = D +
R D R xo Rt

1 G (1 − G M )
2-17. = M +
R M R xo Rt

Here R D = corrected log deep reading, R M = corrected log medium reading, G D = deep
geometric factor, G M = medium geometric factor. A third equation is provided by a
shallow measuring device. This could be the Short Guard, the Laterolog-3,
Microspherically Focused log (MSFL), or the Digitally Focused log (DFL). Which ever
one is used, we can say,

2-18. R SHALLOW = f (R t , R xo , d i )

The solution to these three equations is provided graphically in Figures 19 and 20 for the Dual
Induction/Short Guard and the HRI/DFL. With these charts R t , R xo and d i are calculated
from the corrected (borehole, bed thickness, mudcake) log values of the deep medium and
shallow measurements.

26 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

FIG: 19

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 27

 INDUCTION THEORY

FIG: 20

28 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

The Digitally Focused Log (DFL)

The DFL is an electrode system that is physically a part of the HRI tool. It is designed to
provide a shallow measurement. The electrode configuration of the tool is the same as the
SFL (Spherically Focused Logging Tool) and the MSFL (Microspherically Focused
logging tool). These electrodes are positioned on the HRI outer sleeve to match in depth
the coil arrays of the R HRD and the R HRM . Figures 21 and 22 show the arrangement
of the various electrodes. The array is symmetrical about the central electrode A o from
which flow both the survey currents I measure and the focusing current I buck . The survey
current returns to a remote electrode B, while the focusing current returns at the nearby
A 1 , electrode pair (upper and lower). The main measuring voltage electrodes M o are
located between A o and A 1 , the monitoring electrodes M 1 and M 2 are outside the
focusing current loops. Figure 21 shows the current patterns.

FIG: 21 DFL Array

A0/SP

B RETURN M2U A1U A1L M2L

MASS ISOLATOR SONDE M1U M0U MOL M1L

HOUSING

FIG: 22 DFL Electrode Array

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 29

 INDUCTION THEORY

Measurement Principles of the DFL

Traditional focused resistivity tools such as the MSFL relies on a feed-back system to
keep the survey current dynamically focused. The DFL on the contrary, avoids all stability
problems associated with such designs, simply by recomputing in real time the response of
the electrode array from a series of highly accurate elementary measurements. More
specifically, to achieve spherical focusing, the MSFL must continuously monitor the
difference of potential between monitor electrodes M 1 and M 2 and control I measure to
keep this difference of potential at virtually zero volts. The digital focusing, on the
contrary, simply sequentially sends up the measured values of I measure and I buck . During
each processing cycle, the difference of potential between monitor electrodes
M 1 and M 2 is also sent to the surface, along with the M o values. From these
elementary measurements, the surface computer determines directly what ratio of
I measure / I buck would keep the tool in focus. This ratio is determined accurately
without having the tool actually achieve the focused state.
The resistive computed from the DFL measurement has the same from as that from any
electrode tool.
2-19. R a = Kρ *
Here K is a tool constant in units of meters. and ρ* is a resistance in units of ohms. The
ρ* is a function of the measured values Imeasure , Ibuck, VMOU , VMOL , VM1U , VM2U , VM2L .
The exact expression for ρ* is given in the appendix.

DFL Response Characteristics

The DFL has a two foot bed resolution similar to the that of the HRI. The borehole
effect is quite minimal particularly for low contrasts of R t / R m where focused laterologs
are significantly affected by the mud, and in the high resistivity contrasts, even when the
tool is run excentered with a simple 1.5 inch standoff. Some borehole correction charts
are shown in the figure 23. As stated previously, in combination with the HRI, the DFL,
helps resolve the invasion profile through the tornado chart (figure 20).

30 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

FIG: 23 Borehole Correction

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 31

 INDUCTION THEORY

LOGGING EXAMPLES
Log example one (figure 24) shows the DILT/Short Guard with the standard scales of 0.2
to 2000 Ohm-m across tracks 2 and 3. Log example two (figure 25) shows a comparison
between the Dual Induction and HRI in an oil based mud (no Short Guard or DFL
curves). Notice the better response and thin bed resolution of the HRI. Also, note the
false invasion indicators (curve separation) at different depths for the Dual Induction that
are not indicated by the HRI.

FIG: 24 Log Example One

32 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001
INDUCTION THEORY

FIG: 25 Log Example Two

REFERENCES

08/27/2001 TRAINING MANUAL 33

 INDUCTION THEORY

1. Moran, J.H., and K.S. Kunz, "Basic Theory of Induction Logging and Application to
Study of Two Coil Sonde", Geophysics, December 1962
2. Bateman, Richard M., Open-Hole Log Analysis and Formation Evaluation, IHROC,
Boston, 1985
3. Dewan, John T., Essentials of Moden Open-Hole Log Interpretation, Penn Well
Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1983
4. Weidner, Richard T., and Robert L. Sells, Elementary Classical Physics, Volume 2,
Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston
5. Stratton, Julius Adams, Electromagnetic Theory, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York
1941
6. Welex Log Interpretation Charts, 1985
7. Schlumberger, Log Interpretation Principles, 1972

34 TRAINING MANUAL
08/27/2001