IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 40, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2002
2083
Electromagnetic Logging Technique Based on Borehole Radar Sixin Liu and Motoyuki Sato, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—An electromagnetic logging technique based on borehole radar is introduced in this paper. The tool consists of one transmitter and two receivers, which can be used to cancel the effect of the antenna characteristics by taking the ratio of two receiver signals. Since receiver signals measured in the time domain can be converted into the frequency domain by Fourier transformation, the amplitude ratio and the phase difference between two receiver signals in a wide-frequency band are obtainable. The response of the tool to different formations is investigated, and the algorithm that converts the amplitude and the phase information to the conductivity and the relative permittivity of the surrounding medium is given by a three-dimensional finite-difference time domain. The effect of the borehole on measurement and the response of the tool to a formation interface are simulated and analyzed numerically. The validity of this technique is confirmed by experiment. This technique can be applied to detect physical properties, including the conductivity and the relative permittivity, of the surrounding medium and the locations of the fractures intersecting the borehole. Index Terms—Borehole radar, conductivity, electromagnetic (EM) logging, finite-difference time domain (FDTD), relative permittivity conductivity.
I. INTRODUCTION
B
OREHOLE electromagnetic (EM) logging tools have been applied extensively in oil exploration. An early mode of dielectric logging [1]–[3] operates at 1.1 GHz and employs four pad-mounted antennas, which can reduce the effect of mud-cake. The travel time and attenuation measured by dielectric logging can be used to deduce the relative permittivity and the conductivity of the surrounding formation [2]. Thus, dielectric logging in the gigahertz frequency range is a measurement of water content that does not have a major dependence on the salinity of formation water. However, a measurement-while-drilling (MWD) resistivity sensor [4]–[9], operated at 2 MHz and mounted on the drilling collar, can obtain the dual resistivity, the amplitude-based resistivity, and the phase-based resistivity. In practice, electrical conductivity is most important in oil explorations for evaluating the water saturation in both porous and fracture formations when the formation water is saline. On the other hand, the relative permittivity is independent of the salinity and primarily a function of the water content. These characteristics of the electrical conductivity and the relative permittivity allow EM logging measurement of the water-bearing characteristic of the surrounding media, even in nonsaline shaley sand [1]. Manuscript received May 24, 2001; revised April 9, 2002. S. Liu was with the Center for Northeast Asian Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8576, Japan. He is now with Jilin University, Changchun 130012 China. M. Sato is with the Center for Northeast Asian Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8576, Japan (e-mail:
[email protected]). Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TGRS.2002.803847
Borehole radar [10]–[13] is mainly used to measure the wave reflected from the interfaces and targets in the formation. Because borehole radar uses EM waves to probe its environment, the frequency band must be wide enough to generate a pulse that is short enough to give the radar the desired range resolution [14]. The range resolution and the radial detectable depth of the borehole radar conflict, since the wide-frequency band leads to large attenuation at high frequencies. Hence, the requirements of high range resolution and deep radial detection depth are difficult to achieve simultaneously. For our borehole radar system, the central frequency of about 80 MHz is determined by the characteristics of the transmitting antenna. The range resolution is on the order of 1 m. The radial penetrating depth is about 10 m in some ideal material, such as granite. Borehole radar often employs two or more cylindrical dipole antennas. One is used to transmit an EM signal, and the others are used to receive the signal, including the direct coupling wave between the transmitter and the receiver and the wave reflected from the formations. Although the signal is dominated by the direct coupling component, the reflected component is of main interest. The time domain signals [11]–[13] can be used to obtain a radar profile along the borehole. Borehole radar generally operates best in granite or other hard rocks. If the rock or the soil is very conductive, the field reflected from far objects cannot be measured clearly, due to the high attenuation of the EM wave in the material [14]. Even in this case, the directly coupled component between the transmitting and the receiving antennas has a high signal-to-noise ratio. In this paper, we propose a new technique that uses the direct coupling of the borehole radar measurement for EM logging. The borehole radar is originally intended for the detection of geological scatters in crystalline rock, such as water-filled fractures and other geological targets when the scattered signal is determined mainly by permittivity. The EM logging based on borehole radar cannot only measure the radar image but also the conductivity and the relative permittivity simultaneously at many frequencies because it is a pulsed tool. However, induction logging and MWD resistivity sensors are mainly sensitive to conductivity, while dielectric logging is mainly sensitive to relative permittivity. The physical property measured by the tool is additional information of borehole radar. The operating frequency, the configuration, and the size of the antenna are all designed to sense the weak scattering signals. The spacing for borehole radar measurement is determined by taking into account the mutual coupling and the power of input signals, while a radar image can be obtained by migration of raw data. However, for EM logging, the vertical resolution and the investigation depth are mainly determined by the configuration
0196-2892/02$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
2084
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 40, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2002
of the system, while the investigation depth is also affected by the physical property of the formation. The principle of the measurement will be introduced in Section II. An important characteristic of borehole radar is that the measurement is in the wide-frequency band so that the measured amplitude ratio and the phase difference are of multiple frequencies. In Section III, we use three-dimensional finite-difference time domain (FDTD), including the subgrid [15] locally, to simulate the borehole radar measurement. The amplitude ratio and the phase difference for different formations are given, and their sensitivities to these formations are analyzed. The conversion algorithm for both the conductivity and the relative permittivity is also presented in this section. Section IV is concerned with borehole effects from both the borehole diameter and the water conductivity. The response of the tool to a formation interface is simulated in Section V. The vertical resolution of the conductivity and the relative permittivity are discussed. A network-analyzer-based borehole radar system is introduced in Section VI. A field experiment has been carried out in a granite borehole where there are many subsurface fractures. We processed the experimental data to calculate the conductivities and the relative permittivities, and we found a correspondence between calculated results and formation characteristics, such as fractures, fracture zones, and cavities. II. METHODOLOGY The measurement of borehole radar in cross-hole mode has been described in the literature [10], [11]. We consider the signal response of borehole radar measurements in a single-hole mode as shown in Fig. 1. The tool consists of one transmitter Tx and two receivers Rx #1 and Rx #2, all of which are cylindrical dipoles. The tool is situated in a water-filled borehole and oriented in the direction of a cylindrical system. The conducand , respectively, tivity and the relative permittivity are and for the formafor the borehole water and, similarly, tion. Since the high-frequency pulse is transmitted during the borehole radar measurement, the dipole antenna is used. The frequency of the pulse is determined by the resonant frequency of the antenna. The electric field in the borehole consists of three components: the incident field transmitted by the antenna, the scattered field produced by the borehole wall boundary [14], and the field reflected from formations. Since the reflected component is generally much smaller than the directly coupled component, it is neglected in the following discussion. As the attenuation in the water-filled borehole is generally large, the electric field at the feeding point of the receiver is mainly the refracted surface wave as described in the literature [4]. The wavenumber is similar to that of the surrounding medium. The induced voltage is formulated as in [10] for the cross-hole radar measurement. This is because the separation between antennas is much larger than the wavelength, and the propagation , where factor of the electric field can be expressed as is the distance between antennas; is the wavenumber given by (1)
Fig. 1.
Diagram for the EM logging tool based on a borehole radar.
where , , and are the angular frequency, the magnetic permeability considered as , and the permittivity of the empty space, respectively. For the borehole radar measurement in single-hole mode, the electric field at the receiver is neither near field nor far field. An explicit expression is given for the component of the electric field along the axis for a short hertzion dipole in [14]. It is difficult to derive the corresponding explicit expression for a cylinderical dipole located in a water-filled borehole. The voltage signal at two receivers can be expressed in the frequency domain as (2) where is an antenna factor that includes the antenna effecand are the septive lengths and the input impedances; arations between the transmitter and the #1 and #2 receivers, is the propagation factor corresponding respectively; and to the electric component along the borehole axis and is determined by and the wavenumber of the surrounding formation. Although the antenna characteristics in such a stratified medium can be modeled numerically, such a mode is not practical to use in evaluating the formation. In this paper, we introduce a technique that approximately compensates the
LIU AND SATO: ELECTROMAGNETIC LOGGING TECHNIQUE BASED ON BOREHOLE RADAR
Fig. 2. Signals of the two receivers simulated by FDTD. The tool is located in a water-filled borehole having formation has = 0.006 S/m and " = 5.
antenna effect by using two receivers. The antenna factor cancels out of the ratio of two receiver signals. It is given as (3) are the phase The phase and amplitude of the complex value difference and the amplitude ratio of two signals, which are related to the physical parameters of the surrounding medium and the antenna characteristics. If we assume an expression for , the amplitude ratio and the phase difference can be used to compute the conductivity and the relative permittivity of the formation. The sensitivity of the tool to the physical parameters of the formation may depend on both the operating frequency and the arrangement of the tool. For example, a low-frequency measurement, such as induction logging, mainly meaures conductive properties, while the dependency on dielectric properties dominates at higher frequency; since the borehole radar operates at about 80 MHz, which is between the operating frequency of the MWD resistivity sensor and the operating frequency of the dielectric logging, it could be sensitive to both the conductivity and the relative permittivity. If we consider the cylindrical dipole in a borehole as an electrically short dipole in a homogeneous medium, as in [16], then can be expressed as (4) and the ratio of two voltages becomes (5) Since the wavenumber is determined by the relative permitand the conductivity as shown in (1), the contivity ductivity and the relative permittivity can be determined by (5) is given by measurement. when
2085
= 0.5 S/m and " = 81. The surrounding
The algorithm introduced here is based on the assumptions that the surrounding material is homogeneous and that the dipole is electrically short. In practical situations, both assumptions are invalid; therefore (5) is ineffective. The algorithm that converts the amplitude ratio and the phase difference to the conductivity and relative permittivity is given by numerical simulation in Section III. III. CONDUCTIVITY AND RELATIVE PERMITTIVITY The data processing and interpretation of formation properties, such as the porosity and oil or water saturation, are often related to physical parameters, such as conductivity and relative permittivity. Thus, conversion of the measured complex amplitude ratio to the conductivity and the relative permittivity is an important step in the formation evaluation. The conversion algorithm can be obtained by numerical simulation. Three-dimensional FDTD is used to simulate EM logging based on borehole radar. Fig. 1 shows a water-filled bore10 cm, in the middle of which is located hole, diameter the tool containing one transmitter and two receivers. Both the transmitter and the receivers are cylindrical dipoles, 30 cm long and 5 cm in diameter. In view of the complicated cylindrically stratified structure of the borehole and the tool, the subgrid, whose size is one fifth of the main grid, is used in the region including the borehole and the antennas, while the main grid is used in other regions. By virtue of the polarization of the cylindrical dipole antenna, as the transmitter is excited by a short pulse, two voltage signals determined by the component of the electric field are received at the feeding points of the two receivers. Example values of borehole and formation parameters are 10 cm, 0.5 S/m, , 0.006 S/m, and . The corresponding time domain signals are shown in Fig. 2(a), and the calculated amplitude ratio and the phase difference in wide-frequency band are shown in Fig. 2(b).
2086
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 40, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2002
Fig. 3. Amplitude ratio (a) and the phase difference (b) at 60 MHz as a function of the formation conductivity and the relative permittivity. The borehole has diameter d 10 cm and is filled with water whose physical properties are 0.5 S/m and " 81.
=
=
=
Fig. 4. Conversion algorithm from numerical simulation for 60-MHz data. (a) Curved surface used for the conductivity conversion. (b) Curved surface used for the relative permittivity conversion. The borehole has diameter d = 10 cm and is filled with water whose physical properties are = 0.5 S/m and " = 81.
Similarly, by keeping the same borehole conditions as above and gradually changing the conductivity and the relative perof the formation, the amplitude ratio and the phase mittivity difference in wide-frequency band for different formations can be obtained. Here, both the conductivity and the relative perare independent variables. Fig. 3 shows the amplimittivity tude ratio and the phase difference at 60 MHz, as a function of the conductivity and the relative permittivity. In this figure, the ranges between 0.0001 and 0.1 S/m, while the conductivity ranges between 5–25. The amplitude relative permittivity ratio is mainly a function of the conductivity and is less sensitive to this parameter below 0.001 S/m. The phase difference is mainly a function of the relative permittivity. The relationships between the signal characteristics (including the amplitude ratio and the phase difference) and the formation parameters (including the conductivity and the relative permittivity at various frequencies) can be established for this borehole condition. In other words, for a given conductivity and relative permittivity, there is a corresponding amplitude ratio and phase difference, and vice versa. Using these relationships,
we obtain the algorithm for converting the amplitude and phase ratio to the conductivity and relative permittivity. As an example, the conversion algorithm for the 60-MHz data is shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b). The curved surfaces in Fig. 4 are monotonic; there is a conductivity value and a relative permittivity value for an amplitude ratio and phase difference pair. The conversion algorithm for other frequencies can be obtained directly. It appears that the conductivity and the relative permittivity are determined primarily by the amplitude ratio and the phase difference, respectively. However, the conductivity is also affected by the phase difference, and the relative permittivity is also affected by the amplitude ratio. Unlike the conventional algorithm that is based on a homogeneous formation requiring a borehole correction, the present algorithm already includes the borehole effect. The tool is sensitive to both the conductivity and the relative permittivity of the formation. The relative permittivity is nearly a linear function of the phase difference. On the other hand, the sensitivity is not high, since the conductivity is less than 0.001 S/m. The conversion algorithm is obtained here through
LIU AND SATO: ELECTROMAGNETIC LOGGING TECHNIQUE BASED ON BOREHOLE RADAR
2087
Fig. 5. Borehole effect as the borehole diameter is parameterized. The conductivity and the relative permittivity of the borehole water and the surrounding formation are fixed at 0.5 S/m, " 81, = 0.01 S/m, and " = 10, respectively. The simulated signals are converted into the conductivity (a) and the relative permittivity (b).
=
=
Fig. 6. Borehole effect as the borehole water conductivity is parameterized. The other properties of the borehole and formation are d = 10 cm, = 0.01 S/m, and " = 10, respectively. The simulated signals are converted into (a) the conductivity and (b) the relative permittivity.
numerical simulation; however, this is by no means the only way. It can also be accomplished by measurements in test tanks [4]. IV. BOREHOLE EFFECTS This section investigates the effects of borehole diameter and borehole water conductivity on the conductivity and the relative permittivity. The simulated signals are converted into conductivity and relative permittivity as shown in Fig. 5. The curves in the figure are parameterized by the borehole diameter, and they correspond to a surrounding formation with physical pa0.01 S/m and , and borehole water rameters 0.5 S/m and . As the borehole diameter with decreases or increases, the conductivity and the relative permittivity deviate from model values, but the error is not larger than 10% for both conductivity and relative permittivity.
"
= 81,
In another situation, the simulated signals are converted into the conductivity and the relative permittivity as shown in Fig. 6. The curves in this figure are parameterized by the borehole conductivity , with and fixed at 81 and 10 cm, respectively. The surrounding formation has the physical parameters 0.01 S/m and . The error for conductivity is less than 20%, while the error for relative permittivity is very large, as the borehole water conductivity changes a lot. As for the smooth borehole, the conductivity and permittivity conversion methods have some error tolerance and are applicable even as the borehole condition changes a little. Although the relationship between the calculated conductivity and real conductivity of formation is known for some special cases above, the conventional borehole corrections chart cannot be constructed generally for both conductivity and permittivity, which are treated as independent parameters and measured
2088
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 40, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2002
(a) Fig. 7. Rugose borehole effect as
(b)
= 0:5, "
(c)
=81, = 0.01 S/m, and " = 10, respectively. (a) Borehole model. (b) Relative permittivity. (c) Conductivity.
by a large dipole antenna system. The corresponding curved surfaces parameterized by the borehole parameters are needed if the borehole condition changes to a great degree. Although this method has low efficiency, it can solve the problem. Subsequently, a rugose borehole is modeled as shown in Fig. 7(a), where a borehole diameter is enlarged or shrunk in three sections. The borehole and formation are parameterized 0.5 S/m, , 0.01 S/m, and . The as conductivity and the relative permittivity calculated from the simulated signals are shown in Fig. 7(b) and (c). It seems that conductivity is more affected by borehole than permittivity. This technique is only fitted for smooth boreholes. V. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE A numerical result is given here for a formation containing a horizontal interface, above which the conductivity and the rela0.05 S/m and respectively, tive permittivity are and below which the conductivity and the relative permittivity 0.01 S/m and , respectively. The boreare hole diameter equals 10 cm, and it is filled with water whose 0.5 S/m conductivity and the relative permittivity are , respectively. In this paper, the depth of the tool and is measured at the midpoint of the two receivers. The calculated amplitude ratio and phase difference at 60, 70, 80, and 90 MHz are shown in Fig. 8(a) and (b), respectively. The converted conductivity and the relative permittivity are shown in Fig. 8(c) and (d), respectively.
We find that the calculated conductivity and relative permittivity are in good agreement with the formation model parameters. In addition, this example shows the response of this tool to a formation interface. The vertical resolution of the amplitude ratio, or the conductivity, is similar to the separation between the two receivers, while the vertical resolution of the phase difference, or the relative permittivity, is smaller than this. This is contrary to the statement in [6] that the attenuation measurement is less resolved than the phase measurement. VI. EXPERIMENT A borehole radar system based on a network analyzer [12] has been developed. The borehole radar experiment consists of two measurements corresponding to a change in the separation between the transmitter and the receiver from 1.0–1.6 m. Since the network analyzer is very stable, and since we can fix the sonde position very exactly, the measurement in two steps is equivalent to measurements from one transmitter and two receivers. As the sonde moves along a borehole, an EM signal corresponding to that depth can be measured. Field experiments were carried out at the Kamaishi mine in Japan, where there are many permeable and water-filled fractures caused by tectonic activities. The borehole is located in a tunnel that has been dug for mining. The main purpose of the borehole radar experiment is to detect the position of the fractures. The fractures or fracture zones intersecting the borehole are detectable by the technique proposed in this paper.
LIU AND SATO: ELECTROMAGNETIC LOGGING TECHNIQUE BASED ON BOREHOLE RADAR
2089
=
=
Fig. 8. Simulated results for a formation with an interface, above which the conductivity and the relative permittivity are 0.05 S/m and " 15, respectively, and below which the conductivity and the relative permittivity are = 0.01 S/m and " = 8:5, respectively. (a) Calculated amplitude ratio. (b) Phase difference. (c) Relative permittivity. (d) Conductivity.
Fig. 9. Experimental results. Borehole KR-4, Kamaishi, Japan: (a) Calculated amplitude ratio. (b) Phase difference. (c) Relative permittivity. (d) Conductivity. (e) Borehole radar profile, when the separation between the two antennas is 1.6 m. The circles mark the zones where the direct coupling wave is weak.
The measurement data of borehole KR-4 has been processed by this technique. The calculated amplitude ratio, phase difference, the relative permittivity, and the conductivity at 60, 70, 80,
and 90 MHz are shown in Fig. 9(a)–(d), respectively. The corresponding borehole radar profile is shown in Fig. 9(e). We find that the direct coupling wave is weak at some zones, marked by
2090
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 40, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2002
Fig. 10. Borehole televison images. (a) Section between 6–8 m. (b) Section between 12–14 m. (c) Section between 16–18 m. The arrows beside the images refer to the position of the deduced permeable fractures.
circles; this corresponds to the anomaly zones where both the conductivity and the relative permittivity are high. VII. DISCUSSION The conductivity and the relative permittivity are high at three sections of borehole KR-4, namely, 6–7 m, around 13 m,
and 16–18 m, and we think these are fractured zones. This can be proven by the borehole television images, as shown in Fig. 10(a)–(c), respectively. From these images that are optical images of the borehole wall, we find the following fractures or fracture zones: a fracture zone containing two fractures below 7 m, a fracture just below 6 m, a fracture zone containing three fractures around and below 13 m, a fracture at about
LIU AND SATO: ELECTROMAGNETIC LOGGING TECHNIQUE BASED ON BOREHOLE RADAR
16.4 m, and a fracture zone containing fractures cavities at about 17.7–17.9 m. The fractures that we deduce from Fig. 10 are all permeable and marked by arrows. The borehole radar tool cannot detect fractures filled with veins. However, these fractures are of no industrial interest. Regarding the borehole television images, we should point out that a thick black line along the borehole direction is not a fracture; it is the cord affixed to the borehole. The vertical resolution of the conductivity is higher than that of the relative permittivity. There is only one peak for the relative permittivity between 6–8 m, but we find two peaks for the conductivities at 70 MHz and two peaks for the conductivities at 80 MHz. These two peaks may correspond to several fractures, one of which is a little below 6 m and the other two which are a little below 7 m. There are two peaks in the conductivities at 80 or 90 MHz from 16–18 m; the upper peak may correspond to a fracture at about 16.4 m, while the lower peak may correspond to a fracture zone at about 17.7–17.9 m. The corresponding peaks of the relative permittivity are not so clear. The baselines of the relative permittivity and conductivity and calculated from the experimental data 0.005 S/m, respectively. These correspond to and 0.005 S/m that are calculated from the cross-hole radar measurement [11]. The little difference between these values could be due to the fact that borehole EM logging measures the response of the formation near the borehole, while cross-hole measurement mainly corresponds to the virgin formation, whose fractures are possibly not water saturated. The calculated conductivity and relative permittivity are very large only in some sections. We think that these conductive and dielectric characteristics are caused mainly by water-filled fractures and cavities near the borehole. The lithologic effect is small, because the conductivity and the relative permittivity of the rock matrix are very small. Borehole radar is basically used in crystalline rock where attenuation is small. As the attenuation tends to become large, the scattered signal could not be sensed while the directly coupled wave is still clear so that it can be used for EM logging to deduce the physical property of the surrounding formation. The vertical resolution and the investigation depth are mainly determined by the configuration of the tool. The vertical resolution for conductivity roughly equals the receiver–receiver spacing, while the vertical resolution for relative permittivity is larger than it. The exact investigation depth is extremely difficult to compute. Pseudogeometrical factors based on step profile [6] are not very effective to estimate the investigation depth because the operating frequency of the borehole radar is high. Even though, we believe the investigation depth is about 0.5–1 m, which needs further verification. Since the tool was not designed initially for EM logging, it may not have the same good performances, such as vertical resolution and investigation depth, as the commercial tools. The research in this paper is still very fundamental. Although the application is mainly in the crystalline rock (where the invasion and the thin bed do not exist generally) in this paper, the application in sedimental rock (where invasion and shoulder corrections are necessary) will be the future research topic.
2091
VIII. CONCLUSION Borehole radar introduced in this paper can be used for EM logging, and the conductive and dielectric property of the surrounding formation can be measured. An algorithm is given for finding the conductivity and the relative permittivity of formation from the borehole radar signal. The effect of the borehole is considered. The relative permittivity is essentially determined by the phase difference, while the conductivity is determined to a large degree by the amplitude ratio. The effect of the water-filled borehole on the measured signals is investigated numerically by FDTD. The numerical simulation of a formation interface shows that the vertical resolution of the conductivity is higher than that of the relative permittivity. The experimental data is processed, and the calculated conductivity and relative permittivity are in good agreement with the locations of fractures that are observed by borehole television. Borehole radar provides a method for measuring both the conductive and dielectric characteristics of the in situ formation and the positions of the permeable fractures intersecting the boreholes. Measurements can be made over a wide frequency range, but the best frequency range for processing may differ for different types of formations. REFERENCES [1] O. Serra, Fundamentals of Well-Log Interpretation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 1984, pp. 251–260. [2] W. C. Chew, “Modeling of the dielectric logging tool at high frequencies: Theory,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 26, pp. 383–387, July 1988. [3] , “Modeling of the dielectric logging tool at high frequencies: Applications and results,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 26, pp. 388–398, July 1988. [4] L. C. Shen, “Theory of a coil-type resistivity sensor for MWD application,” Log Analyst, vol. 32, pp. 603–611, Sept.–Oct. 1991. [5] J. Li and L. C. Shen, “Vertical eigenstate method for simulation of induction and MWD resistivity sensors,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 31, pp. 399–406, Mar. 1993. [6] S. Gianzero, G. A. Merchant, M. Haugland, and R. Strickland, “New developments in 2 MHz electromagnetic wave resistivity measurements,” in Proc. SPWLA 35th Annu. Logging Symp., 1994, Paper MM. [7] B. Clark, D. F. Allen, D. Best, S. D. Bonner, J. Jundt, M. G. Luling, and M. Ross, “Electromagnetic propagation logging while drilling: Theory and experiment,” in Proc. 63rd Annu. Technical Conf. and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), 1988, SPE Paper 18 117. [8] B. Clark, M. G. Luling, J. Jundt, M. Ross, and D. Best, “Dual depth resistivity measurement for FEWD,” in Proc. SPWLA 29th Annual Logging Symposium, 1988, Paper A. [9] W. H. Meyer, L. W. Thompson, M. M. Wisler, and J.-Q. Wu, “A new slimhole multiple propagation resistivity tool,” in Proc. SPWLA 35th Annu. Logging Symposium, 1994, Paper NN. [10] M. Sato and R. Thierbach, “Analysis of a borehole radar in cross-hole mode,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 29, pp. 899–904, Nov. 1991. [11] T. Miwa, M. Sato, and H. Niitsuma, “Subsurface fracture measurement with polarimetric borehole radar,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 37, pp. 828–837, Mar. 1999. [12] M. Sato and T. Miwa, “Polarimetric borehole radar system for fracture measurement,” Subsurf. Sens. Technol. Appl., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 161–175, 2000. [13] O. Olsson, L. Falk, O. Forslund, L. Lundmark, and E. Sandberg, “Bore-hole radar applied to the characterization of hydraulically conductive fracture zones in crystalline rock,” Geophys. Prospect., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 109–142, 1992. [14] T. B. Hansen, “The far field of a borehole radar and its reflection at a planar interface,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 37, pp. 1940–1950, July 1999.
2092
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 40, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2002
[15] M. W. Chevalier, R. J. Luebbers, and V. P. Cable, “FDTD local grid with material traverse,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 45, pp. 411–421, Mar. 1997. [16] L. C. Shen and J. A. Kong, Applied Electromagnetism, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: PWS, 1995, pp. 210–258.
Sixin Liu received the B.E. and M.E. degrees from Changchun College of Geology, Changchun, China, in 1989 and 1992, respectively, both in applied geophysics. He received the Ph.D. degree from Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, in 2002, in geoscience and technology. Currently, he is with the Jilin University, Changchun, China. He had been with Changchun College of Geology from 1992 until 1998. His main research interests are borehole radar, electromagnetic well logging, finite-difference time domain, polarimetry, and interferometry.
Motoyuki Sato (M’78–SM’02) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrocommunications in 1980 and 1982, respectively, and the Dr. Eng. degree in information engineering in 1985, all from Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. Currently, he is Professor at the Center for Northeast Asian Studies, Tohoku University. He joined the Department of Resource Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tohoku University, in 1985. During 1988–1989, he was with the Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources (BGR), Hannover, Germany as a Visiting Researcher. His current interests include transient electromagnetics and antennas, radar polarimetry, borehole radar, ground-penetrating radar, and synthetic aperture radar. He has served as technical chairman of the 6th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR’96). Dr. Sato was awarded the IEICE (Institute of Electronics, Information, Communication Engineers) Young Engineer’s Award in 1984, the SPWLA (Society of Professional Well Log Analysts) Best Poster Award in 1994, and the SEG-J (Society of Exploration Geophysicists-Japan) Best Award in 1999.
