An Automatic Inversion of Normal
Resistivity Logs
Walter W. Whitman: Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado
Jurgen Schon: Bergakademie Freiberg, GDR
Guy Towle: Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado
Jin-Hoo Kim: Dong-A University, Pusan, Korea
Abstract: This paper presents a method to automate the
inversion of a normal log. Most inversion procedures require
an initial model, usually found by an interactive fit of the
data with the forward model. The initial model is then im-
proved iteratively by the inversion scheme. This paper shows
how to automate the choice of initial model parameters
through the construction of an approximate focused log
(laterolog7)from the original normal log. The bed boundaries
are chosen by the relatively abrupt changes in the ratio of
the two focusing currents. The corresponding bed resistivities
are then picked directly from the synthetic focused log.
The forward model has horizontal layers of varying resis-
tivities, borehole with mud, and invaded zones. A finite dif-
ference approximation to the potential equation is used in
the forward modeling. The inversion procedure follows the
ridge regression or Marquardt technique, wherein ill-condi-
tioned matrices are avoided by the addition of a stabilizing
parameter.
For each of two examples with 16 in normal log data, the
automatic inversion process is compared with one using hand-
picked initial bed boundaries and resistivities. The compar-
ison shows little difference in either the initial guess model
or the final model, indicating that the automatic initial model
performs quite satisfactorily.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to describe a method for
the automation of the inversion of a normal electrode
well log. By inversion we mean constructing an earth
model from the log data; on the other hand, the reverse
of inversion- forward modeling- means generating a log
from an earth model. Generally, parametric inversion
requires a forward model for the earth, using parameters
such as depth at lithologic changes, resistivity of the var-
ious rock types encountered, mud resistivity, hole di-
ameter, and resistivity and depth of invaded zones. In
particular, after the interpreter specifies approximations
for the various parameters in the assumed earth model,
this initial model is turned over to an automatic inversion
process, which generates the final earth model. It is the
initial model that this paper proposes to automate from
the original log data, so that the entire inversion process
is performed automatically. Of course, final validation
remains in the hands of the interpreter.
The automated initial model provides approximate bed
10 The Log Analyst
boundaries and resistivities without consideringthe bore-
hole. The procedure for producing this initial model will
be a variation on that described in Pusch et al. (1987).
This method essentially uses the available normal log data
to synthesize a focused log (laterolog7) from which the
bed boundaries are inferred. The synthetic focused log is
then used directly to approximate the resistivities for the
assumed beds.
To implement the automatic inversion we need both
a forward model and a general inversion scheme. The
forward model employs a finite difference (F-D) approach
to solve the potential equation with an exponentially in-
creasing grid spacing both radially and vertically from the
current source. For details of the F-D scheme see Kim
(1986) or Towle et al. (1988); for a summary see Whitman
et al. (1989). For the general inversion scheme, which is
the ridge regression or Marquardt inversion method, see
Whitman et al. (1989). Comparable forward modeling
results have been obtained using a different expanding
grid system, also based on the finite difference method
(see Rosler and Schon, 1984; Schon and Weller, 1984).
The forward modeling in Schon and Weller (1984) in-
cludes both normal and focused logs.
The first portion of this paper describes the generation
of the automatic initial model. In the latter portion of
this paper data from two 16 in normal logs are used to
compare inversion (interpretation) employing the auto-
matic initial model versus hand-picked initial model.
Borehole effects are considered for both logs, whereas
invasion effects are studied only for the second log (they
appear to be minimal for the first log).
GENERATING THE INITIAL MODEL
Generally in inversion processes the initial model is
fashioned by an expert. The procedure described in this
paper is not expected to better that type of initial model,
but rather it is expected to yield roughly as good a final
earth model after the iterative inversion process improves
the initial earth model. This process can also provide a
good quality control check, as these normal logs, due to
their unfocused nature, require both talent and experience
to interpret. The only real demand on the interpreter,
however, is to judge the geologic quality of the final in-
version (interpretation).
January-February, 1990
 Automatic Inversion of Normal Resistivity Logs
MEASURE ME NT CALCULATION
( N o r m a l log1
individual potential synthesized
tool log values (examples) focusing tool
RN
Figure 1: Approximate synthesized focused log (laterolog7)
from normal log and sample calculations.
Because the inversion process will refine a reasonable
initial model to fit the available data, the initial approx-
imation only needs to be not "too far" from a realistic
solution. Usually the positioning of bed boundaries and
associated resistivities can be improved somewhat from
the initial model with interactive modeling feedback.
However, as the whole inversion process is one of iter-
ative improvement, we feel that efforts to refine a rea-
sonable initial model will not improve the final model.
Constructionof the initial model proceeds in two stages.
The first and most critical stage is determiningthe number
and positioning of possible lithologic boundaries. The
second stage is assigning appropriate resistivities for the
beds. Our experience suggests that the assignment of re-
sistivitiesis less crucial than the boundary determination.
Indeed, there are bedding sequences that might mask cer-
tain boundaries due to the specific tool geometry. This
emphasizes the utility of and need for the variety of spac-
ings on a standard electrical survey log.
To pick the bed boundaries and resistivities for the
initial model, we synthesized an approximate focused log
(laterolog7) from the measured normal log data. The
rationale behind this approach is that the focused log a)
has a relatively sharp response to bed boundaries, and b)
approximates the true bed resistivity. It will be demon-
strated by example that a special current-ratio quotient
changes its value rather abruptly as boundaries are crossed.
For quality control the laterolog7 will be checked against
the final earth model to corroborate its approximation to
the true bed resistivities.
The theoretical basis for the synthetic laterolog7 is giv-
en in Roy (198 l), showing that the response of a focused
tool can be synthesized from the responses of different
types of electrode spacings (normals, laterals). Using this
principle, various types of synthetic laterologs have been
January-February, 1990
"I
-
'
Y y l
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
;,;-2 I 1 1 1 1 1
Ib-I I I I I "111 1
I
10
developed (see Siege1 et al., 1982; Schon, 1986; Weller,
1986). Also, this principle led to a method to upproxi-
mutely synthesize laterologs (Pusch et al., 1987). Pusch
et al. (1987) isthe primary reference source for our de-
velopment.
We refer to Figure 1 for the visualization of our syn-
thesized laterolog and the actual normal log with a sam-
pling of exemplary calculations. Our notation for the syn-
thesized laterolog7 will use A . as the focused current (io)
electrode, with A representing the upper current (iJ elec-
trode and A , representing the lower current (i,) electrode.
The latter are, of course, the adjusting currents to main-
tain the equipotential surfaces between the upper poten-
tial electrodes, M , and M,, and the lower potential elec-
trodes, M3 and M4, respectively. U will denote potential
with its subscript(s) implying the reference points. These
potentials are with respect to the reference potential dis-
tant at the surface and denoted by N.
The entire approximation depends on three relation-
ships: 1)the equipotential relations, 2) the apparent upper
and lower resistivities, and 3) the principle of superpo-
sition. For the details of the construction of the synthetic
laterolog7, see Appendix A;
A plot of laterolog7 current ratios, specifically log(n,/
n,) versus depth (see Equation (A.3) in Appendix), is used
to pick approximate boundary levels for our earth model.
This is done by choosing those depths which are extrema
or turning points on this log curve versus depth (see Figure
2 for an illustration of this plot), as the current ratio reacts
rather sharply to changes in resistivities. Note that ex-
The Log Analyst 11
 Whitman et al.

0
Table 1: Earth parameters obtained from a semiautomaticin-
3J I version of the Hilchie log for a model with no borehole.
Layers Resistivities (ohm-m) Thicknesses (ft)
1 1.3 1.7
2 3.2 5.5
3 7.7 4.9
4 6.5 4.1
5 5.6 4.2
6 11.6 7.1
7 6.5 4.7
8 1.1 -
I Depth to top of the layer 1 is 5,379.3 ft.

The Hilchie log (see Figure 1 in Whitman et al., 1989)

is used to investigate the possible improvement in final
data fit from including a borehole in the earth model. The
models are evaluated qualitatively using the resolution
g ia 20 matrix (see Whitman et al., 1989). If a diagonal element
20 is close to 1, the resolution matrix indicates that the cor-
APPARENT R E S I S T I V I T Y (OHH-HI
Figure 3: Laterolog7 approximate resistivities for the Hilchie responding parameter is well determined, whereas diag-
log computed from the apparent upper resistivities. onal elements well below 1 indicate that the data were
not adequate to clearly define this particular parameter.
The East Salt Creek log, which includes borehole effects
trema within one or two electrode spacings (1 6 in) of each throughout, compares inversion using the automatic ini-
other are not both chosen, as we assumed that the data tial model with inversion using an interpreters picks.
did not have this fine a resolution. Also in the flat region This is complemented by an automatic inversion that
from 5,391 to 5,397 ft the midpoint of this interval was includes invasion effects as well. By automatic inversion
chosen as a compromise extremum. An overlay of Figures we mean that the synthetic focused log is used to deter-
2 and 5 indicates that the bed boundaries are reasonably mine the initial model, whereas semiautomatic inversion
well pinpointed, wherein we assume that the best fit mod- implies that an interpreters initial model is used.
el is our standard. For the initial guess of bed resistivity In both of our examples, because we are using 16 in
we can use either the upper or lower apparent resistivity normals, the data intervals for display are 16 in. As dis-
(see Equation (A.2)) from the approximate focused log cussed in the Appendix, the approximate synthetic fo-
(see Figure 3) as a better guess than the corresponding cused log computations require that electrodes be spaced
resistivity from the normal log. We chose the resistivity either at the normal log spacing or multiples thereof.
at the midpoint of each apparent bed for our initial model.
A comparison of Figures 3 and 5 indicates the quality of
the resistivity choices. Note particularly that the high Hilchie Log
resistivity bed at 5,400-5,404 ft is well indicated, as is For the Hilchie log we compare borehole modeling
the intermediate resistivity bed at 5,394-5,400 ft, neithereffects. Using a model with no borehole, we compare
of which is well delineated by the 16 in normal log. semiautomatic inversion with automatic inversion. Our
comparisons are completed by investigatingan automatic
CASE STUDIES OF inversion for a model with borehole.
AUTOMATIC INVERSION For the semiautomaticinversion the rms error for Kims
We are now in a position to test our suggested procedure picks (initial model) is 15.5% and for the best fit model
on two examples. The first example employs data from is 6.3%. Table 1 displays the final resistivities and layer
a short normal log published in Hilchie (1978) and stud- thicknesses for the best fit, whereas the diagonal elements
ied in a companion paper on the inversion process by of the resolution matrix corresponding to the best fit may
Whitman et al. (1989). The second example uses short be found in Table 2. Similarly, in the automatic inversion
normal log data from the East Salt Creek field in Natrona Tables 3 and 4 display the respective results with initial
County, Wyoming. In both cases we use a finite difference and final rms errors of 15.9% and 8.l%, respectively.
(F-D) forward model, which means that the potential Considering the tool length of 16 in and its expectable
equation is approximated and solved using finite differ- quality of vertical resolution, there does not seem to be
ences. any remarkable difference, indicating that the laterolog7

12 The Log Analyst January-February, 1990

 Automatic Inversion of Normal Resistivity Logs

Table 2: Diagonal elements of the resolution matrix obtained Table 5: Earth parameters obtained from an automatic inver-
from a semiautomatic inversion of the Hilchie log for a model sion of the Hilchie log for a model with borehole (Rm = 1.0
with no borehole. ohm-m, d = 8 in, no invasion).
Layers . Resistivity resolution Thickness resolution Layers Resistivities (ohm-m) Thicknesses (ft)l
1 0.99 0.99 1 1.5 2.7
2 0.99 0.99 2 3.2 4.8
3 0.99 0.92 3 6.6 5.0
4 0.98 0.80 4 6.3 2.2
5 0.98 0.84 5 5.1 6.2
6 1.oo 1.oo 6 11.9 4.5
7 0.99 0.99 7 6.4 6.7
8 0.99 - 8 1.o -
rms error of initial guess = 15.5%; best fit = 6.3%. I Depth to top of the layer 1 is 5,379.3 ft.

Table 3: Earth parameters obtained from an automatic inver-

sion of the Hilchie log for a model with no borehole. Table 6: Diagonal elements of the resolution matrix obtained
from an automatic inversion of the Hilchie log for a model with
Layers Resistivities (ohm-m) Thicknesses (ft)'
borehole (Rm= 1.0 ohm-m, d = 8 in, no invasion).
1 1.7 3.5
2 4.0 4.4 Layers Resistivity resolution Thickness resolution
3 7.8 4.8 1 0.97 0.87
4 6.6 2.3 2 0.90 0.89
5 5.8 6.4 3 0.94 0.5 1
6 15.9 3.6 4 0.79 0.40
7 7.4 7.1 5 0.97 0.76
8 1.o - 6 0.89 0.75
Depth to top of the layer 1 is 5,379.3 ft. 7 0.96 0.95
8 0.97 -
rms error of initial guess = 14.09/0;best fit = 4.4%.
Table 4 Diagonal elements of the resolution matrix obtained
from an automatic inversion of the Hilchie log for a model with
no borehole.
Layers Resistivity resolution Thickness resolution m I
In- I
1 0.99 0.98 I ----. I N I T I A L OUESS HOOEL
2 0.98 0.96
-
-
1
1 - I N I T I A L OUESS LOO

3 0.98 0.86 0
I 0 0 0 0 OBSERVE0 DATA
w-
m
4 0.90 0.85 In.
5 0.99 0.96
6 0.97 0.97
7 0.99 0.99 0
m-
8 0.99 - - m

rms error of initial guess = 15.9%;best fit = 8.1%.

- _
+In.
1I
L

I .
c
I
e .
,0
IY O
0 -
P
In.

modeling and the automatic inversion are functioning

successfully.
Our final Hilchie log inversion study is automatic in-
..._
0
P
In.
version with borehole. Tables 5 and 6 display the results
for this model of resistivities and layer thicknesses and
of resolution values, respectively, with initial and final 01
(u j
r l " " " " ' 1 " " " " '
rms errors of 14.0% and 4.4%. See Figure 4 for the au- LDO 10 20
tomatic initial model and log versus observed log and APPARENT RESISTIVITY (OHM-MI

Figure 5 for the corresponding comparison with the best Figure 4: Comparison between laterolog7 initial guess model
fit and a schematic of the earth model. There are changes and the Hilchie log data.

January-February,1990 The Log Analyst 13

 Whitman et al.

Table 8: Diagonal elements of the resolution matrix obtained

from a semiautomatic inversion of the East Salt Creek data for
a model with borehole (Rm= 0.8 ohm-m,d = 9 in, no invasion).
Layers Resistivity resolution Thickness resolution
1.oo 0.98
0.99 0.93
I I
0.99 0.93
0.95 0.93
kl 1.0 o w n
0.98
0.97
0.94
0.77
0.99 0.76
1.oo -
L o .
BEST F I T NOOEL rms error of initial guess = 11.1%; best fit = 2.4%.
BE61 F I T LOO
Q O Q Q OBSERVE0 DRTR
0
m
(0-
L o .
interpretation ambiguities, the final rms error of the best
fit has been significantly reduced with this more realistic
model.
0
m-
- 0
+ L o . East Salt Creek Log
-
LL
. The second inversion example uses a forward model
I .
I-
n
w
.
o
- with borehole. The East Salt Creek 16 in short normal
a 0 -
P
Lo.
data (see Figure 6 in Whitman et al., 1989) for Towle's
picks (initial model) has rms error of 11.1% and the best
fit model has rms error of 2.4%.Tables 7 and 8 correspond
2- to the best fit and display, respectively, the resistivities
'0
L o . and thicknesses and the diagonal elements of the reso-
lution matrix. Whereas Towle's picks did not differ sub-
0
stantially from those shown in Figure 8, another layer at
1 about 5,935 ft would probably have afforded a better data
Z d " " " ' I ' 10 I " ' 20
B P P B R E N T R E S I S T I V I T Y (OHM-HI
Figure 5: Comparison between best fit model with borehole
and the Hilchie log data using laterolog7 picks. z.

in both bed thicknesses and resistivities from the previous 0

m
0 -
earth model without borehole. The decrease in resolution Lo.

seems to indicate an interactive effect between boundary

positions and bed resistivities, somewhat lessening the
confidence in specific values. Notwithstanding these mild - m
2-
- -
* L o .
LL

I .
I-
Table 7: Earth parameters obtained from a semiautomatic in- n . .
w
0 0o1 -
version of the East Salt Creek data for a model with borehole m
Lo.
(Rm= 0.8 ohm-m, d = 9 in, no invasion).
Layers Resistivities (ohm-m) Thicknesses (ft)'
m
0 ,
1 3.0 3.2 m
Lo.
2 5.7 4.0
3 3.7 3.8
4 11.0 3.8
5 3.7 3.4
6 15.0 4.0 CURRENT RATIO
7 10.7 4.2 Figure 6: Bed boundaries for the East Salt Creek log picked
8 20.0 -
from extrema of the log of the ratio of the synthetic upper and
Depth to top of the layer 1 is 5,900 ft. lower focusing currents.

14 The Log Analyst January-February, 1990

 Automatic Inversion of Normal Resistivity Logs

0 v
I
"
0
i
0 -
6900.0 FT
I
3.2 FT
4.0 FT
3.7 FT
+9-

0.8
0"n-n
*
3.0
5.7
3.1
10.1
onn-n
onn-n
onn-n
onn-n
m 4.3 FT '
w . 2.9 FT 3.1 O M - H
4.0 FT 14.6 0nH-n
4.4 FT 10.9 o w n

- m
c
-_
0

w . Dv
20.0 own

- .
U

I .
I-
& .
w
0 w
-
-
o
w .
cn

0
I 0 0 0 0 OBSERVED OIITA
m
0 - 0 -
m
w .
m
In.

2-
: z 10 15 20 - 0 7

- .
I - Y ) .
$ 0 5 &I
RPPARENT R E S I S T I V I T Y IOHfl-fl) r -
I-
Figure 7: Laterolog7 approximateresistivitiesfor the East Salt &
w o
.
P 01-
Creek log computed from the apparent upper resistivities. m
w .

fit. However, we were restricted in the allowed number m

0 -
of parameters by the available computer capacity. w
m ,
The bed boundaries are picked from the extrema of the
log of the current ratios versus depth (Figure 6). The
\: f I
0 I
approximate synthesizedfocused log can be seen in Figure 0
m 1 " " 1 " " 1 " " 1 " " l " "
5 10 15 20 25
7, from which the initial model resistivities are picked. RPPRRENT R E S l S T l V l T Y I O H f l - M I
With automatic inversion the initial model comparison,
Figure 9: Comparison between best fit model with borehole
and the East Salt Creek log data using laterolog 7 picks.
0
m
W
w .
----. I N I T I A L OUESS HODEL which has rms error of 13.6%, may be seen in Figure 8.
I
-
Q 0 Q 0
I N I T I A L OUESS LOO
OBSERVED DATA
The best fit comparison, which has rms error of 2.4%,is
shown in Figure 9 with a schematic of the earth model.
The resistivities and layer thicknesses are displayed in
Table 9, whereas the diagonal elements of the resolution
matrix for the final fit may be found in Table 10. As with

Table 9: Earth parameters obtained from an automatic inver-

sion of the East Salt Creek data for a model with borehole (Rm
= 0.8 ohm-m, d = 9 in, no invasion).

Layers Resistivities (ohm-m) Thicknesses (ft)l

1 3.0 3.2
2 5.7 4.0
3 3.7 3.7
4 10.1 4.3
5 3.1 2.9
z
$ 0
6 LO 15 20 z 6 14.6 4.0
APPRRENT R E S I S T I V I T Y I O H M - t i ) 7 10.9 4.4
Figure 8: Comparison between laterolog7 initial guess model
8 20.0 -
with borehole and the East Salt Creek log data. I Depth to top of the layer 1 is 5,900 ft.

January-February, 1990 The Log Analyst 15

Table 10: Diagonal elementsof the resolution matrix obtained
from an automatic inversion of the East Salt Creek data for a
model with borehole (Rm= 0.8 ohm-m,d = 9 in, no invasion).
Whitman et al.

I
6900.0 FT

3.1 FT
--9. -1

3.0 own
4.0 FT 6.7 OHH-R
Layers Resistivity resolution Thickness resolution 3.8 FT 0.8 3.7 om-n
3.9 FT 10.7 OHH-H
1 1.oo 0.98 3.1 FT 3.3 OHH-H
4.8 FT 14.0 OHM-H
2 0.99 0.92 3.6 FT r . l 6 . 2 " 1 13.9 OHH-H
3 0.99 0.92 I 19.9 OHH-H
4 0.95 0.94 Dv
2.1 OHH-H

5 0.98 0.94
6 0.97 0.76
7 0.99 0.74
8 1.oo -
----.
rms error of initial guess = 13.6%; best fit = 2.4%. - BEST FIT n o m
BEST F I T LOO I
the Hilchie log, differences between the best fit models of
the hand pick and the automatic pick do not seem sig-
nificant, with the resolution appearing relatively good in
both cases.
In the final case we consider the effects of invasion using
an automatic initial model with invasion allowed in the
seventh layer; from the data this appears to be the most
likely layer. If we had been less restricted by computer
capacity we would have allowed invasion in all layers.
As it was, in the seventh layer we arbitrarily chose an
initial model with invasion depth of twice the borehole
diameter, and with a resistivity twice that of the mud (the
formation factor would be an appropriate general mul-
tiplier). The remainder of the initial model was deter-
mined automatically using the approximate synthesized
focused log (see Figure 10). The results of the best fit Figure 11: Comparison between best fit model with borehole
and invasion and the East Salt Creek log data using laterolog7
0 picks.
m
W
Ln
----.
I
INITIAL OUESS HOOEL
- INITIAL OUESS LOO inversion (see Figure 11 with its schematic of the earth
Q e Q Q OBSERVED DATA
model) may be found in Tables 1 1 and 12, which display
the resistivities and layer thickness and the resolution
matrix diagonal, respectively, yielding rms initial model
error of 14.8% and best fit error of 2.6%. Compared with
the previous model including borehole effects only, the
resistivities and thicknesses changed somewhat in the sixth
and seventh layers: This is no surprise, because there is
evidence of possible invasion in the log. Thus, not allow-
ing invasion in the previous model forced the inversion
to rationalize the log data. Note that the resistivity effect
in the model with no invasion has been more or less
averaged between the invaded zone and the virgin zone.
The resolution decreases for some parameters, probably
because the additional complexity of the model empha-
i sizes the essential interpretation ambiguities, given that
0
v I
m 1 ' ~ ' ~ " " 1 ' ~ " l ' ' ' '
6 10 15 20 26
we have data from only a single tool. In fact, the depth
APPARENT RESISTIVITY IOHPI-ti) and resistivity of the invaded zone are sufficiently poorly
Figure 10: Comparisonbetween laterolog7 initial guess model determined as to warrant little confidence in their values.
with borehole and invasion and the East Salt Creek log data. This is consistent, however, with the general concept that

16 The Log Analyst January-February, 1990

 Automatic Inversion of Normal Resistivity Logs

Table 11: Earth parameters obtained from an automatic in- Table 12: Diagonal elementsof the resolution matrix obtained
version of the East Salt Creek data for a model with borehole from an automatic inversion of the East Salt Creek data for a
and invasion (Rm = 0.8 ohm-m, d = 9 in). model with borehole and invasion (Rm = 0.8 ohm-m, d = 9
____
in).
Layers Resistivities (ohm-m) Thicknesses (ft)'
3.0 3.1 Layers Resistivity resolution Thickness resolution
5.7 4.0 1 0.99 0.90
3.7 3.8 2 0.96 0.76
10.7 3.9 3 0.96 0.75
3.3 3.1 4 0.84 0.82
14.0 4.8 5 0.93 0.84
2.1/13.92 1.4/3.6 6 0.91 0.79
19.9 - 7 0.2610.87 I 0.2V0.77
Depth to top of the layer 1 is 5,900 ft. 8 1.oo -
2 Ri = 2.1 ohm-m, Di = 16.2 in.
rms error of initial guess = 14.8%;best fit = 2.6%.
I Resolution for Ri at layer 7 is 0.26, and that for Di is 0.21.

multiple tool geometries are needed to determine rock

properties distant from the borehole. in the final example for the East Salt Creek log the in-
vasion parameters were poorly determined, as expected
when using data from only a single log.
CONCLUSIONS Perhaps a final comment is in order. The general pro-
The process of inverting data from the normal electrode cess by which the initial geologic model is generated from
scheme has been automated; that is, the normal log is the normal log data can also be applied to other electric
used to analytically generate an initial model of bed logs. Thus, although the process is illustrated for the nor-
boundaries and possible resistivities. This is then fed to mal log alone, the principle has rather more widespread
an inversion scheme, known as ridge regression or Mar- applicability.
quardt inversion, which iteratively converges to a geo-
logic model of bed boundaries and associated resistivities. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The initial earth model is derived from an approximate
We gratefully acknowledge the partial support of the Gas
synthesized focused log (laterolog7) and its associated fo-
Research Institute and the consortium funding the CSM Center
cusing currents. The log is manufactured from the given for Well Logging and Petrophysics during the preparation of
normal log data. The ratio of the focusing currents is used this paper.
to pick bed boundaries, as this reacts rather decisively to
changes in resistivity such as might be expected at bed REFERENCES
boundaries. The resistivity values for the initial model
are picked directly from the synthesized focused log. Hilchie, D. W., 1978, Applied openhole log interpretation:
Douglas W. Hilchie Inc., Golden, Colorado, p. 10-25.
The specific forward model employed in the inversion
Kim, J. H., 1986, Forward modeling and inversion of responses
process along with the inversion procedure were de- for borehole normal and lateral electrode arrangements:Col-
scribed and extensively tested in Towle et al. (1 988) and orado School of Mines, Ph.D. thesis. T-3265.
Whitman et al. (1989) where they were found to be in Pusch, C., Schon, J., and Weller, A., 1987, Eine Multipoten-
quite satisfactory agreement with such theoretical solu- tialsonde- Prinzip und Perspektiven, in Der Bohrlochmes-
tions as were available. sung: Zeitschrift Angew. Geologie, Berlin.
Finally, the geologic model generated from the auto- Roy, A., 198 1, Focused resistivity logs, in A. A. Fitch, editor,
matic inversion process was compared with a semiau- Developments in geophysical exploration methods: Appl. Sci.
tomatic inversion, where the initial model was picked by Publ., London, New York, chapter 30.
hand. This comparison was made using two separate 16 Rosler, R., and Schon, J., 1984, Die Berechnung Synthetischer
in normal logs. One example (the Hilchie log) had little Widerstands- Bohrlochmesskurven nach der Methods der
or no invasion, whereas the other (the East Salt Creek Finiten Differenzen: Neue Bergbautechnik, Leipzig, p. 88-90.
log) had some possible invasion. In both cases borehole Schon, J., 1986, Application of numerical methods with focus-
ing effect to resistivity measurements: unpublished manu-
effects were modeled. The agreement was found to be script, Bergakademie Freiberg, GDR.
entirely satisfactory; that is, the automatic procedure per- Schon, J., and Weller, A., 1984, Calculation of synthetic resis-
formed at least as well as that using hand picks for an tivity curves by the finite-differencemethod: Trans. 9th Intl.
initial guess model. In all cases, as the complexity of the Form. Eval. Symp., Paris, paper 23.
model increased, the final best fit rms error decreased, at Siegel,V., Smigiel, G., and Stiller, D., 1982, Syntes krivychsemi-
the cost of increased ambiguity of interpretation. In fact, elektrodnogobokovogo karotasa dlja razvedki burogo uglaja

January-February, 1990 The Log Analyst 17

 Whitman et al.

v GDR: Proc. 27th Intl. Geophys. Symp., Bratislava, v. 2, p. are possible for all distances equal to A M . For multiples of A M ,
82-93. we approximate as illustrated in the following example:
Towle, G. H., Whitman, W. W., and Kim, J. H., 1988, Electric
modeling log with a finite difference method: The Log Analyst, uM3(A2) = (iO/2kN)R, 64-51
v. 29, no. 3, p. 184-195. where the reciprocal of R is the average conductance spanned
Weller, A., 1986, Berechnung Geoelektrischer Potentialfelder by the new length of twice AM (using the conductances from
mit dem Differenzenverfahren: Freiberger Forschungshefte the short normal with electrode spacing AM). Therefore,
C405, Leipzig.
Whitman, W. W., Towle, G. H., and Kim, J. H., 1989, Inversion
R-l = + 2)
(%)[RN-l(i + RN-I(i+ 3)], (A4
of normal and lateral well logs with borehole compensation: where we again refer to Figure 1, and note that the 2 multiplier
The Log Analyst, v. 30, no. 1, p. 1-1 1. in the denominator of Equation (A.5) recognizes that we are
dealing with a normal tool of twice the length A M , hence, its
geometric factor doubles. Note that Equation (A.6) assumes an
APPENDIX homogeneous medium, whereas most earth environments are
essentially heterogeneous. However, this assumption is only used
The following describes the process of synthesizing a laterolog7
to calculate an initial model that will be iteratively improved
from a normal resistivity log. We begin with three relationships
in the inversion process. In fact, this type of approximation for
upon which the entire approximation depends: 1) the equipo-
an initial model is quite typical for parametric inversion pro-
tential relations, 2) the apparent upper and lower resistivities,
cedures, such as the Marquardt inversion.
and 3) the principle of superposition.
Using the principle of superposition, as expressed in Equation
The equipotential relations (to maintain the focus) are
(A.3), the equipotential relations in (A. I), together with Equa-
U, = U,, - U,, = 0, and tions (A.4) and (A.5), we can calculate the two current ratios n ,
(A.1) and n,. Using (A.2) we can compute the apparent upper and
U*fIM2= UM, - UM2= 0. lower resistivities for our synthesized tool. Specifically, the com-
putations proceed as follows. As there is another pair of equa-
The apparent upper and lower resistivities (for the upper fo-
tions from the principle of superposition for the other guard
cusing system between A , and M , and for the lower focusing
positions, M , and M4,these can be combined and reduced to
system between A , and M3)are
two, using the equipotential relations in (A. 1). After computing
R , , = k~U,,.,,/i,), and all of the potentials associated with the individual currents, as
('4.2) in Equations (A.4) and (A.9, these values can be used in the
Ra,/ = k x u M 3 / i 0 ) , final pair of superposition relations. Note that all terms will now
have i, in them, which can be canceled, leaving only n , and n,
where k,is the shape factor for the focusing tool geometry.
as unknowns in the resulting two combined superposition equa-
The principle of superposition (for the upper and lower po-
tions. The apparent resistivity log can now be computed from
tential guards) is expressed as
Equation (A.2), using Equation (A.3) with relations typified by
U,, = UM,,A,)+ n,(U,,,,J + n2(UM,,,)), and Equations (A.4) and (A.5) (note that i, cancels out).
(A.3)
uM3 = uM3(A,) + ndUM3(Al))+ n2(UM3(A2))?
where the second subscript in parentheses denotes the current
electrode; n , and n , are the current ratios i,/i, and i2/io,re-
spectively, dictated by the equipotential relations (A. 1). It is
important to note that by using the current ratios in Equation
(A.3), all potentials are related to the same current, i,.
We are now in a position to compute the various potentials
on the synthetic tool and the associated current ratios. The result
of these computations will be a) the current ratios n , and n,,
and b) the apparent resistivity log for the focusing system. For
the calculations we will assume that distances between elec-
trodes will be spaced at A M (or multiples thereof-see Pusch et
al., 1987), the normal tool spacing from which we obtain all our
data.
As a first partial result we use:
uMl(Ao, = (idkN)RN(i),and
(A.4)
= (io/kN)RN(i + 11,
UM~(A,)
where RN(i)is the resistivity of the normal array at depth point
A B O U T THE A U T H O R S
i (see Figure l), and kN is the shape factor for the normal tool Walter W. Whitman received a Bachelor of Engineering Phys-
array (kN= 47rAM). We note that calculations similar to (A.4) ics degree from Cornell University in 1959. In 1964 he was

18 The Log Analyst January-February, 1990

 Automatic Inversion of Normal Resistivity Logs

awarded a Ph.D. in Mathematics, also from Cornell. His first ical measurements in the region of a borehole, in the far field
position was that of Instructor and then Assistant Professor of and in the laboratory. He is also developing models of porous
Statistics at the University of California at Berkeley. This was rocks to characterize their behavior.
followed by appointment as Associate Professor of Mathematics
at Colorado School of Mines. He was shortly promoted to Full
Professor at the youngest age in the some one hundred year
history of CSM.
In 1982 he was appointed a Full Professor of Geophysics at
Colorado School of Mines, his current position. His initial ex-
periences in well-logging were as collaborator circa 1969 with
the late G. R. Pickett. The initial effort was published in The
Log Analyst, concerning the Ratio Test for crossplots.
As a member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists
(SEG), he has also published expository essays in The Leading
Edge, a general forum for Geophysicists,and is currently Chair-
man of the Editorial Board of The Leading Edge. He is the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
representative from the SEG, and a member of the Steering
Committee for the AAAS Consortium of Affiliates for Inter-
national Programs, representing the physical sciences.
As a member of the SPWLA, his interests include inversion
techniques and statistical applications. He is a member of the Jin-Hoo Kim graduated from Seoul National University, Ko-
Publications Committee of The LogAnalyst, and has been con- rea, in 1978 with a Bachelor of Science in Earth Science. He
ducting annual seminars based on the SPWLA Transactions at was employed by the Earth Science Department of Seoul Na-
Colorado School of Mines. He is Director of the CSM Center tional University while continuing his geophysics studies as a
for Well Logging and Petrophysics, which commenced opera- postgraduate. He received his Ph.D. in geophysics from Colo-
tions in the Fall of 1988. rado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, in 1986. While at
CSM, he was involved in the Borehole Geophysics Project for
two years as a research assistant. Currently, he is an Assistant
Professor of Geophysics at Dong-A University, Pusan, Korea.
He is a member of the SPWLA, SEG, and ASME. He also serves
as a member of the editorial staff for the Korea Committee for
Ocean Resources and Engineering (KCORE).

Guy H. Towle is an Associate Professor in the Department

of Geophysics at Colorado School of Mines where he teaches
well logging and rock properties. He is also the Principal Sci-
entist in the school's Center for Well Logging and Petrophysics
which commenced operation in the Fall of 1988.
He has over 30 years of experience in well log interpretation.
He was a co-founder of PBT, Inc., a rock properties measure-
ment service company and has 14 years experience in that area.
He is a member of SPWLA, SCA, SPE, and SEG.
Towle earned Professional and Ph.D. degrees in Geophysical
Engineering at Colorado School of Mines.
His current interests concern the effects of stress on geophys-
Jurgen H. Schon graduated in Geophysics and received the
degrees Dr. rer. nat. and Dr. sc. nat. from the Bergakademie
Freiberg (German Democratic Republic). He is author of a text-
book, Petrophysik, and technical papers. He is currently Pro-
fessor of Petrophysics and Borehole Geophysics and Head of
Geophysics within the Department of Geosciences at the Berg-
akademie Freiberg. In 1989 he became a Corresponding Mem-
ber of the Akademie des Wissenschaften der DDR (Academy
of Sciences GDR).

January-February, 1990 The Log Analyst 19