Numerical Simulation Analysis of Difference from a Radial Resistivity Testing Method for Cylindrical Cores and a Conventional Testing Method

Jiahuan He (), Tangyan Liu, Long Wen, Tingting He, Min Li, Jin Li, Li Wang and Xin Yao
Additional contact information
Jiahuan He: School of Ocean and Earth Science, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
Tangyan Liu: School of Ocean and Earth Science, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
Long Wen: Exploration and Development Research Institute, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gasfield Company, Chengdu 610041, China
Tingting He: Exploration and Development Research Institute, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gasfield Company, Chengdu 610041, China
Min Li: State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China
Jin Li: Exploration and Development Research Institute, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gasfield Company, Chengdu 610041, China
Li Wang: Exploration and Development Research Institute, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gasfield Company, Chengdu 610041, China
Xin Yao: Exploration and Development Research Institute, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gasfield Company, Chengdu 610041, China

Mathematics, 2022, vol. 10, issue 16, 1-17

Abstract: Rock resistivity is a major geophysical technical parameter in geological and geotechnical engineering, geothermal prospecting, and oil and gas exploration. Its accurate measurement is of great significance to achieve the goal of “carbon peak and carbon neutrality”. To solve anisotropic problems, a method to test the radial resistivity in cylindrical core samples has been proposed and has been deemed the universal method, as it has the virtues of no specially processed sample being needed and nondestructive testing. However, there is still a difference in the radial resistivities obtained from this method and another testing method that is commonly used for cuboid samples. Furthermore, the differences between these methods have not yet been made clear in China or elsewhere. Therefore, we compared the results of the above-two testing methods via numerical simulations after establishing the potential field distribution, and, in combination with their methodological principles, illustrated the differences between the resistivities determined in samples with distinct shapes obtained using the two testing methods, summarized the conditions when there was zero difference and considerable difference when using the two methods, and provided a theoretical basis for the reasonable selection of an appropriate method to test the resistivity anisotropy.

Keywords: complex variable function; anisotropy; rock resistivity; radial resistivity (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/16/2885/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/16/2885/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:16:p:2885-:d:886261

Access Statistics for this article

Mathematics is currently edited by Ms. Emma He

More articles in Mathematics from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().