Applied Geophysics

, Volume 15, Issue 3–4, pp 401–412 | Cite as

3D FEM simulation of responses of LWD multi-mode resistivity imaging sonde

  • Zheng-Ming Kang
  • Shi-Zhen KeEmail author
  • Xin Li
  • Jin-Tai Mi
  • Wei-Ning Ni
  • Ming-Yu Li


A new multi-mode resistivity imaging sonde, with toroidal coils as source, can conduct three resistivity measurements: azimuthal resistivity, lateral resistivity, and bit resistivity measurements. Thus, the logging time and cost are greatly saved. The toroidal coils are simplified as an extended voltage dipole and the response equations are derived for a homogenous formation. Based on 3D FEM, the depth of investigation (DOI), vertical resolution, circumferential azimuthal capacity, borehole diameter, mud resistivity, thickness of target formation, and the resistivity of the surrounding formation and mud invasion are simulated. The results suggest that the three measurement modes of the new sonde are different in vertical resolutions and DOIs. The circumferential detection ability of the azimuth button depends on the contrast between the anomaly and formation resistivity and the open angle of the anomaly. Whether the borehole is truncated at the bit or not has a great influence on the simulation results. The borehole and mud invasion affect the apparent resistivity in all modes, but the effects of resistivity of surrounding formation and thickness of the target formation are only corrected for lateral resistivity measurement.


3D FEM LWD multi-mode resistivity imaging detection characteristics environmental effects 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors would like to thank Sinopec Research Institute of Petroleum Engineering for allowing using the data in this study and Dr. Yin Chengfang for her constructive comments. We are grateful to Nan Yousheng and Xu Zexi for their help in drawing the relevant figures. We also wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers.


  1. Abdelaal, A. F., Ihab, T. M., Sayed, R. H., et al., 2012, High resolution logging while drilling, lateral well resistivity and image interpretation a case study: 53th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, 16–20 June, Cartagena, Colombia, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Allouche, M., Chow, S., Dubourg, I., et al., 2010, Highresolution images and formation evaluation in slim holes from a new logging–while–drilling azimuthal laterolog device: SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, 14–17 June, Barcelona, Spain, SPE131513.Google Scholar
  3. Arps, J. J., 1967, Inductive resistivity guard logging apparatus including toroidal coils mounted on a conductive stem: US, US3305771.Google Scholar
  4. Bargach, S., Falconer, I., Maeso, C., et al., 2000, Real–time LWD: logging for drilling: Oilfield Review, 12(3), 58–78.Google Scholar
  5. Bittar, M. S., and Hu, G., 2004, The effects of rock anisotropy on LWD toroidal resistivity sensors: 45th Annual Logging Symposium. SPWLA. 6–9 June, Noordwijk, Netherlands, USA, Paper WW.Google Scholar
  6. Bonner, S., Burgess, T., Clark, B., et al., 1993, Measurements at the bit: a new generation of MWD tools.: Oilfield Review, 5, 44–54.Google Scholar
  7. Bonner, S., Bagersh, A., Clark, B., et al., 1994, A new generation of electrode resistivity measurements for formation evaluation while drilling: 35th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, 19–22 June, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, Paper OO.Google Scholar
  8. Bonner, S., Fredette, M., Lovell, J., et al., 1996, Resistivity while drilling–images from the string: Oilfield Review, 8(1), 4–19.Google Scholar
  9. Gianzero, S., Chemali, R., Lin, Y. Y., et al., 1985, A new resistivity tool for measurement–while–drilling: 26th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, USA 17–20 June, Dallas, Texas, Paper A.Google Scholar
  10. Finlay, S., Bounoua, N., Irani, F., et al., 2014, Improvements in reservoir fracture network characterization using high resolution Logging While Drilling resistivity images in extended reach wells under high stick slip conditions: International Petroleum Technology Conference, 19–22 January, Doha, Qatar, IPTC–17655–MS.Google Scholar
  11. Fulda, C., Hartmann, A., and Gorek, M., 2010, High resolution electrical imaging while drilling: 51st Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, 19–23 June, Perth, Australia, 46830.Google Scholar
  12. Kang, Z., Ke, S., Jiang, M., et al., 2018, Environmental corrections of a dual–induction logging while drilling tool in vertical wells: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 151, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lofts, J., Morris, S., Ritter, R., et al., 2005, High quality electrical borehole images while drilling provide faster geological petrophysical interpretation, with increased confidence: 46th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, 26–29 June, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Paper BB.Google Scholar
  14. Li, A. Z., Li, Q. M., Zhu, J., et al., 2014, Numerical analysis of logging responses for LWD azimuthal laterolog resistivity imaging tool: Well Logging Technology (in Chinese), 38(4), 407–410.Google Scholar
  15. Li, D. Q., Zheng, S. M., and Tan, Y. J., 1980, Application of finite element method in electrical logging: Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing.Google Scholar
  16. Li, H., Liu, D. J., Liu, Y. C., et al., 2012, Application of self–adaptive hp–FEM in numerical simulation of resistivity logging while drilling: Chinese J.Geophys(in Chinese), 55(8), 2787–2797.Google Scholar
  17. Ortenzi, L., Dubourg, I., Os, R. V., et al., 2011, New azimuthal resistivity and high–resolution imager facilitates formation evaluation and well placement of horizontal slim boreholes: Petrophysics, 53(3).Google Scholar
  18. Prammer, M. G., Morys, M., Knizhnik, S., et al., 2007, Field testing of an advanced LWD imaging resistivity tool: 48th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, 3–6 June, Austin, Texas, USA, Paper AA.Google Scholar
  19. Prammer, M. G., Morys, M., Knizhnik, S., et al., 2009, High–resolution LWD resistivity imaging tool field testing in vertical and highly deviated boreholes: Petrophysics, 50(01).Google Scholar
  20. Ritter, R., Chemali, R., Lofts, J., et al., 2004, High resolution visualization of near borehole geology using while drilling images: 45th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, 6–9 June, Noordwijk, Netherlands, USA, Paper PP.Google Scholar
  21. Rosthal, R., Young, R., Lovell, R., et al., 1995, Formation evaluation and geological interpretation from the resistivity–at–the–bit tool: SPE Annual Technology Conference and Exhibition, 22–25 October, Dallas, Texas, USA, SPE 30550.Google Scholar
  22. Wang, H. M., Shen, L. C., and Zhang, G. J., 1998, Dual laterolog response in 3–D environments: 39th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, 26–28 May, Keystone, Colorado, USA, Paper X.Google Scholar
  23. Xu, W., Ke, S. Z., Li, A. Z., et al., 2014, Response simulation and theoretical calibration of a dual–induction resistivity LWD tool: Applied Geophysics, 11, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Xu, W., Ke, S. Z., Yin, C. F., et al., 2016, Calibration response simulation of a triaxial induction tool with a metal mandrel: Geophysics, 81(4), 419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Editorial Office of Applied Geophysics and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zheng-Ming Kang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shi-Zhen Ke
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Xin Li
    • 3
  • Jin-Tai Mi
    • 3
  • Wei-Ning Ni
    • 3
  • Ming-Yu Li
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Geophysics and Information EngineeringChina University of PetroleumBeijingChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and ProspectingChina University of PetroleumBeijingChina
  3. 3.Sinopec Research Institute of Petroleum EngineeringBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations