The Effect of Coil Design on the Performance of the Induction Log

The attenuation and phase shift which formations produce in the electromagnetic field of an induction-type electrical well-logging instrument are great enough to substantially affect the response of the tool to formation conductivity under normal logging conditions. The application of the general equations for the propagation of an electromagnetic field in a conductive medium to the transmitter receiver coil pair of an induction-logging-tool coil system gives an expression for the response which properly takes the propagation effects into account. A comparison of a calculation of this type with the response computed from the commonly used geometric factor concept, which does not include the propagation effect, leads to a factor G representing the ratio of the responses computed by the two methods. The value of G decreases not only with increasing formation conductivity, but also with increasing transmitter-to-detector coil spacing. For a single coil pair with a 40-in. spacing, the value of G is 0.972 in a 20-millimho/m formation. The value is reduced to 0.915 and 0.812 for conductivities of 200 and 1,000 millimhos/m. As a result, the basic signal generated by the induction-logging coil system is not linearly related to formation conductivity as expected from the geometric factor concept. A uniform conductivity scale can be obtained only by adding a suitable nonlinear element to the recording system. The addition of auxiliary coils, having spacings less than the main-coil span, to achieve focusing results in an even greater departure of the basic signal from linearity with conductivity. The solution of the field equations near the interface between two formations of different conductivity gives the curve shape on an induction logging tool in crossing the interface. The addition of auxiliary coils to achieve focusing can add anomalous character to the curve shape in crossing the interface, which might be mistaken for lithological detail. Preliminary calculations which include the propagation effects in the determination of the conductivity correction for thin beds lead to correction factors which are substantially smaller than those obtained from geometric factor considerations. It is apparent that thin-bed corrections derived from geometric factor calculations are of doubtful validity.