SPE 71731

New Processing Techniques to Meet Challenges of LWD Acoustic Logging

Jennifer Market, Craig Barnett, Ron Deady, Gary Althoff Sperry-Sun Drilling Services, Houston and Georgios L. Varsamis,
Joakim Blanch SensorWise, Inc. Houston

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

include the identification and elimination of various types of
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and residual tool modes and spatial aliasing. Examples are drawn
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September3 October 2001.
from both fast and slow formations.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to Introduction
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at LWD acoustic tools have been available for a number of
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper years.1,2 These tools have proved beneficial in a number of
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
ways but, due to early design limitations, were not able to
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acquire all of the information needed to complete the
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. operators evaluation requirements. With the development and
use of LWD quad combo logging services that include a
fullwave sonic dipole type tool, many operators have increased
Abstract
their reliance on LWD logging, permitting further replacement
LWD acoustic logging presents several challenges beyond
of conventional wireline logs and their associated costs. The
those faced in wireline logging: the LWD environment is
real-time nature of LWD measurements also allows for more
inherently noisier, the drill collar supports additional
timely, cost effective decisions which, in turn, optimize the
propagation modes, the data are obtained at irregular depth
well planning, well drilling, and evaluation processes.
intervals, and tool centralization is generally poor.
All LWD tools must first be designed as part of a drilling
Furthermore, it is difficult to achieve a pure monopole or pure
system, able to withstand the rigors of the downhole drilling
dipole transmitter mode in LWD tool configurations; this
environment. The downhole drilling environment presents
complicates slow shear measurements based on flexural or
particular challenges when designing a tool that is able to
Stoneley interface modes. These factors often result in a
measure the acoustic properties of the formation. The drilling
greater number of coherent arrivals being detected at the
environment is inherently acoustically noisier than the wireline
receiver arrays, and prohibits the effective use of some
logging environment with noise contributions originating
conventional techniques such as data stacking and dipole
from the bit, bottom-hole assembly, mud flow through the
receiver subtraction, raising the challenge of properly
center of the tool, and mud with cuttings flowing up the
identifying the various coherent modes of interest in
borehole annulus around the receivers.
determining formation compressional and shear velocities.
The tool discussed in this paper is the Bi-Modal Acoustic
To address the added complications of LWD sonic
Tool (BATTM) (see Fig. 1), which has incorporated several
logging, new processing and analysis techniques have been
mechanical design methods to minimize the contribution of the
developed for use with a second-generation LWD sonic tool.
drilling noise and direct transmitter-receiver coupling of the
In addition to the standard slowness vs. arrival time coherence
acoustic signal. The BATTM tool has employed a unique
computation, the frequency, energy, delay, and attenuation of
method of acoustically isolating the transmitters and receivers
each coherent arrival is also computed. These properties can
from drill collar itself, resulting in the virtual elimination of
be examined at each acquisition to determine the properties of
direct acoustic coupling. A series of bands and slugs of high-
the desired compressional, refracted shear, and interface
density viscoelastic material around the drill collar attenuates
modes. A new and innovative graphical user interface then
both the drilling induced noise and the remnant direct
allows the processing analyst to employ all of the relevant
transmitter-receiver coupling contributions to the signal. This
properties of the various coherent arrivals when producing the
isolation system, along with waveform filtering, has proven to
final compressional and shear slowness logs.
be highly effective in managing drilling noise and the tool
Field examples from various formation and borehole
mode contribution on the acoustic signal. More detailed
environments illustrate the application of the multi-parameter
analysis approach to LWD sonic log processing. Examples discussion on the BAT tool design itself and isolation
effectiveness can be found in the previous literature3,4.
2 MARKET, BARNETT, DEADY, ALTHOFF,VARSAMIS, BLANCH
Several differences exist between wireline and LWD
acoustic data acquisition. These differences need to be
considered when devising a data processing method. To begin
with, wireline logging speed is controlled by the operator and
optimized for the type of tools being run and the
logging/processing objectives. Wireline data is simultaneously
acquired on a depth and time basis and the data is immediately
communicated to the surface via the wire. Conversely, for
LWD operations it is common for the driller to control the
logging speed, or rate of penetration, which is often quite
variable over the duration of the bit run. LWD tools are
programmed to acquire data at given time intervals. This
variation of logging speed and the fixed time acquisition
intervals leads to irregularly depth-sampled datasets. This
makes is difficult to stack waveforms from multiple
acquisitions. Furthermore, all of the LWD data is stored in
memory downhole on a time basis and is reconciled to depth
with the drillers pipe tally information at the end of the run.
Processing rule sets are downloaded to the BATTM tool prior
to the run for the downhole determination of formation
slowness (Dt) values, which are then transmitted to the surface
via real-time MWD telemetry for while-drilling interpretations,
such as pore-pressure determination and seismic correlation.
There are also important distinctions between the logging
environment during the acquisition of LWD and of wireline
data. LWD data is often acquired very shortly after the
borehole has been drilled. This gives the LWD tools the
benefit of making measurements with only a minimal time of
exposure of formation to the drilling fluid, thus minimizing the
possibility formation alteration. There are however, specific
design issues that need to be considered when making acoustic
measurements in an LWD environment.
Fig. 2 is a cross-sectional representation of a 3 5/8-in.
wireline sonde in an 8 -in. hole, and a 6 -in. LWD tool,
also in an 8-in. hole. The wireline environment consists of a
nearly acoustically transparent sonde centralized in the
borehole. Effective centralization of wireline dipole tools is
critical if dipole receivers or an array subtraction routine is
used to eliminate monopole (Stoneley) modes and isolate
dipole (flexural) waves.
The second portion of Fig. 2 illustrates that the LWD tool
takes up a large portion of the borehole. Due to directional
drilling considerations, it is generally not practical to
centralize LWD tools, so this tool is designed to run without
the requirement for centralization. The difference in travel
time through the mud for the different sides will depend upon
their respective distances from the borehole wall. Since these
distances are generally not precisely know for LWD,
combining waveforms to enhance monopole or dipole modes
individually is difficult. In addition, the transmitters are
located near the OD of the drill collar, close to the borehole
wall. Pure monopole and pure dipole modes are difficult to
achieve with the transmitters offset from the center of the hole.
For this reason the tool operates in a pseudo-monopole or
pseudo-dipole mode. A 12-15 kHz transmitter firing is used to
SPE 71731
excite compressional and refracted shear modes, while a 6-8
kHz pseudo-dipole firing excites flexural waves for slow shear
measurement. .
At the low frequency limit, borehole flexural waves travel
at (or very close to) formation shear wave velocity. At higher
frequencies they will travel at slower speeds, dictated by a
combination of fluid velocity and formation shear velocity.
Thus, at higher frequencies, a dispersion, or bias correction
is needed to deduce the formation shear velocity from the
flexural wave velocity. Stoneley wave velocity does not
converge to formation shear velocity at the lower limit. Thus,
at low frequencies of wireline dipole tools (1-3 kHz), it is
important to be able to separate the contributions form the
Stoneley and flexural modes. This is generally accomplished
(for wireline tools) by adding the waveforms from front and
back receiver arrays. This will cause the out-of-phase Stoneley
waves to cancel and the in-phase flexural waves to combine.
However, if the tool is not centered, the symmetry is broken
and this method will suffer. Explicitly, the travel time through
the annulus will be different for each side and without
correcting for this effect, in- and out- of phase arrivals will no
longer cancel or add, resulting in Stoneley contamination of
the flexural mode measurement, and an erroneously slow shear
log value.
The BAT tool takes a different approach to the slow
shear measurement. In particular, two components of the
downhole drilling environment make the wireline approach
difficult. The first, as mentioned above, is presence of an
uncentralized drill collar. Not only does this complicate
waveform combination, but the asymmetry also leads to mode
conversions between Stoneley and flexural waves. The second
is the frequency content of the drilling noise. The bulk of the
drilling noise has very low frequency content, from
approximately 1 to 4 kHz, which means that the low frequency
limit of the flexural wave will be difficult to distinguish from
the drilling noise. However, the interface modes still have a
strong frequency response in the range of 4-8 kHz. In this
region, the LWD dispersion curves for flexural and Stoneley
waves are very similar, i.e. flexural and Stoneley waves
velocities are essentially the same and both modes travel at
velocities proportional to the formation shear wave velocity.
(See Fig. 3.) Though the correction required to derive slow
shear velocity from the interface modes at higher frequencies
is numerically a larger value than the corresponding wireline
value, it is a stable and predictable value. Thus, all that is
required is to use coherence processing to detect the
flexural/Stoneley interface wave arrival and apply a dispersion
correction to determine the formation shear velocity.
The dispersion correction used to determine shear wave
velocities from the mixed-mode interface wave arrival have
been developed through extensive 2D and 3D multiparameter
response modeling. The numerical correction is dependent
upon formation velocities, formation density, mud weight and
mud acoustic velocity. The processing techniques further
detailed in this paper have been developed to specifically take
SPE 71731 NEW PROCESSING TECHNIQUES TO MEET CHALLENGES OF LWD ACOUSTIC LOGGING
into consideration the data acquisition techniques, tool
configuration, and logging environment of the BAT LWD
tools.
Acquisition Method
The BATTM tool is configured with two radially opposed
transmitters with two banks (commonly referred to as front
and back) of seven receivers (see Fig.1). The tools have
diameters of 4, 6, and 8 inches. The first receiver is located
4.5 feet from the transmitter with six inch spacing separation
for the remaining receivers. The transmitters can be configured
to fire in either a high frequency 12-15 kHz mode or a low
frequency 6-8 kHz mode. These dual transmitters are also able
to fire either in or out of phase at these varying frequencies.
Out of phase (pseudo-dipole) firings at lower frequencies
allow for the creation of a flexural wave in the borehole.
Common practice is to program the tool to acquire high and
low frequency samples at each acquisition. Thus 28 waveforms
are gathered for each sample - 7 front high frequency, 7 back
low frequency, 7 front low frequency and 7 back low
frequency. The tool contains its own memory and battery so
that it can run stand-alone (recorded only mode) or fully
integrated with the rest of the LWD string.
Data Analysis
The SWIBAT Software proprietary software package is used
both as both a log production tool as well as for acquisition-
by-acquisition detailed analysis of each set of waveforms.
SWIBAT Software is usually run in an automated mode
to find peaks (high coherence arrivals) on the full range of
acquisitions for a run. This peak finding mode is run
separately on the high frequency front, high frequency back,
low frequency front, and low frequency back data sets.
Front/back or high/low frequency waveform sets are not
combined as raw waveforms. For each data set and at each
acquisition, the coherence, energy, and frequency coherence
are computed and multiple peaks are located by searching the
coherence plot for its highest values. These peaks are then
stored in a file with all relevant information: slowness, arrival
time, coherence, energy, frequency, and Q. At each
acquisition, a coherence vs. slowness curve is also stored,
which will be plotted later as a color VDL (Variable Density
Log) on the final log.
The VDL is a way to display coherence information over a
depth range. Since we cannot combine the 3 dimensional
(time, slowness, coherence) coherence plot for multiple
depths, we instead collapse each acquisition to 2 dimensions,
coherence and slowness, and plot those values over depth. The
way to do this is to find the highest coherence value for each
slowness row in the grid, which will give us a coherence vs.
slowness plot. These are then stacked by depth to form the
final log. Some information can be lost in this manner if there
are two peaks (one real arrival and one alias, perhaps) at a
particular slowness but with different arrival times. Thus, care
must be taken in choosing the semblance corridor.
3
At this point, the coherence peaks have yet to be identified
as compressional, refracted shear, interface mode, etc. This is
handled in the next step, PeakID. The peaks will be read and
displayed as in Fig. 4A. This example illustrates the process of
creating a compressional log, so it uses the peaks for the high
frequency front and high frequency back data sets.
The left-most plot in Fig. 4 (A,B,C) shows the state of the
Dt log at each intermediate step. The red points are high-
frequency front array data and the magenta points are high-
frequency back array points. The final result at each depth
will be a semblance-weighted average of front and back peaks.
The second-from-window displays the energy of each
coherence peak. For each acquisition, three coherence peaks
were located. All three of these possibilities are shown in the
energy plot, but only the one with the highest semblance
(which will be used as the final result) is shown on the left-
most Final Log window. Each point in the energy plot is color-
coded by its energy. Low energy peaks will be colored red,
yellow, or green, whereas high energy peaks will be blue,
purple, or magenta. The goal is to eliminate undesirable peaks
based upon their energy, delay, semblance, frequency, or Q
characteristics. In this case, notice that the remnant tool mode
(around 67 us/ft) has uniformly low energy and can easily be
removed by deleting all yellow and green peaks.
The third-from-left window displays the delay time of each
coherence peak. Delay is derived from arrival time relative to
the transmitter firing. Any peaks which have an arrival time
equal to their slowness multiplied by 7.5 feet (the distance to
the furthest receiver) are considered to have zero delay.
Likewise, any peaks with an earlier arrival time have a
negative delay. This is most useful in discriminating refracted
shear modes from compressional aliases, as the aliases will
always have a negative delay and the refracted shear modes
should have a positive. Deleting all of the red, yellow, and
green points from the delay plot will eliminate the alias very
effectively.
Not shown due to space are the coherence, frequency, and
Q plots, which are used in similar ways to delete undesirable
peaks. This elimination method is tailored to LWD data,
which generally has many different arrivals due to formation
compressional, shear, and interface modes, but also small
residual tool effects, mud arrivals, various coherent drilling
noises, and even effects from the tool in contact with the
formation. Each of these modes will typically have unique
coherence, energy, delay, frequency, or attenuation
characteristics, and can thus be eliminated from the final log
data.
It is also possible to eliminate points by drawing a box
around them in the final log window, as well as choose highest
coherence arrivals in a user defined range on the VDL plot
window. However, as previously described the elimination
method is more robust and preferred in all but the finishing
touches. This final step can be seen in Fig 4C, where the final
few noisy points are eliminated manually.
4 MARKET, BARNETT, DEADY, ALTHOFF,VARSAMIS, BLANCH
Each mode (compressional, refracted shear, and interface
mode) is treated separately as described above. The high
frequency firings are generally used for refracted modes
(compressional and refracted shear) while the low frequency
data is generally used for the interface modes.
Since the refracted shear mode will only be present if the
shear velocity is faster than the fluid, its presence will depend
on the type of formations being evaluated. In the zones where
refracted shear is absent (slow shear formations), we must use
the interface mode with a dispersion correction to determine
the shear velocity (described above in the introduction). For
the final shear log, the refracted shear is used where it is
present, and the corrected interface mode is used where the
formation shear velocity is slower than fluid velocity.
Fig. 5 shows a final log presentation, including a
composite shear curve. Two VDLs are shown. The left VDL is
a high frequency firing, which shows refracted modes
(compressional and refracted shear). The right VDL is a low
frequency firing displaying a strong interface mode arrival.
The small track third from the right is an indicator of whether
refracted shear is present (value 1) or that the shear was
derived from the interface mode (value 0). Any time the shear
arrival is faster than ~ 190 ms/ft (fluid speed), refracted shear is
present.
SWIBAT Software is also a tool for detailed analysis of
each acquisition. This gives the expert user ultimate flexibility
in zones where the correct mode is difficult to determine from
the Peak Identification stage. Rugous boreholes, extreme
drilling conditions and washouts are examples of cases where
in-depth analysis of individual acquisitions might be
necessary.
Fig. 6 shows a high frequency firing, front receiver array.
When performing detailed analysis on a single acquisition, one
set of waveforms is displayed. Note: front and back receiver
raw waveforms are not added/subtracted, due to centralization
issues in the LWD environment, so all the analysis windows
displayed show one set of waveforms (one firing, one 7-
receiver array.)
The analysis window contains five data displays: the raw
time series data from each receiver channel (upper left), the
frequency response of data from each channel (upper center),
coherent energy (upper right), standard time coherence
(semblance) (lower left), and a display showing dispersion, or
frequency coherence for the data (lower right) (see Fig. 6). The
raw time series shown in the upper left display of Fig. 6 is
typical of a high frequency firing, i.e., the source is
transmitting a wave containing energy from approximately 4
kHz up to 22 kHz.
Seven channels of data are displayed which corresponds to
one side of the tool. Channel 1 (ch1) corresponds to the
pressure recorded by the receiver closest to the source and
channel 7 (ch7) corresponds to the data recorded by the
receiver furthest away from the source. All of the channels
have been normalized to enhance the visibility of the signal
(for the visual display only, the data remain unaltered). There
SPE 71731
is also the option to scale all the channels by the same factor,
which retains the relative amplitudes of the channels in the
display. The small spike at the beginning of each channel, as
well as the non-zero initial time are effects of applying
frequency filters, as this spike is in the period before any true
response would arrive, it is of no consequence to the
coherence computations.
The data has been filtered using a band-pass filter with
cut-off frequencies of 5 and 25 kHz. If the data were not
filtered the strongest response would be the drilling noise. The
upper frequency cut-off for the drilling noise is typically
around 3-4 kHz1.
The tool collected data for 2.56 ms (512 samples, 5 us
sample rate) for the acquisition displayed in Fig. 6. The total
recording time and sampling period are, however, variable
through software, and the display/processing software
automatically adjusts to the actual values used. It is possible to
see the compressional wave arrival for all channels in the data
as well as an interface wave, which is a little too late to see on
the furthest channels. The amplitude of the residual tool mode
is too small to be noticeable.
The second display (upper center) shows the frequency
response of the recorded data. The recording channels are
ordered as in the time series display. The frequency response
display shows the data scaled with normalized scaling factors
displayed in percent. The scaling is applied to show the
frequency response in as much detail, for all channels, as the
display can provide. The frequency response display confirms
that the source has a broad frequency spectrum as was
mentioned above. There is a strong peak centered around 6
kHz, which is the interface mode, and another lesser peak
centered around 15 kHz, which corresponds to the refracted
modes (compressional and refracted shear).
The upper right display shows the coherent energy, which
is equivalent to the numerator in the typical semblance
calculation. The coherent energy is the same as the energy of
an NMO (normal move-out) corrected stack. The normal
move-out velocity corresponds to the slowness value and the
NMO correction is applied for a refracted wave, instead of for
a reflected wave, as is commonly done in reflection seismic
processing. The coherent energy display aids in discriminating
between different types of waves. The refracted wave arrivals
have less energy than the interface wave arrivals and the tool
mode arrival has minimal energy compared to the other
propagating waves.
The lower left display shows the semblance vs. slowness
and arrival time. The theoretical maximum value of the
semblance computed in this way is equal to the number of
channels used in the computation. The value can be
normalized by dividing it by the number of channels, yielding
a value between 0 and 1. However, the semblance value
displayed here has not been normalized, thus the value is
between 0 and 7 (seven channels). The semblance display in
Fig. 6 shows three peaks (high values), which correspond to
the compressional, refracted shear, and interface waves. There
SPE 71731 NEW PROCESSING TECHNIQUES TO MEET CHALLENGES OF LWD ACOUSTIC LOGGING
is a weak arrival around 67 us/ft which corresponds to the
remnant tool mode. The cross-correlation window used to
compute the semblance value for the compressional wave is
shown by the sloping, dotted line parallelogram in the time
series display.
The last display in the analysis window (lower right) shows
the propagation velocity for different frequency components of
the data. The last display can be viewed as a frequency domain
semblance plot, where a high value indicates a wave with a
certain frequency content propagating at a certain velocity.
The frequency semblance is computed by a Fourier transform
of the time series data into the frequency domain. The
resulting Fourier coefficients are phase shifted according to
different velocities and then summed and squared. The
resulting value is divided by the sum of the squares (energy) of
the values. The value of the frequency semblance will be
between 0 and the number of channels (7 in this example) and
can be normalized (as the semblance) by the number of
channels to always yield a value between 0 and 1.
As discussed above, Fig. 6 is a snapshot of one side of the
tool for a high frequency firing. For purposes of illustrating all
three modes (compressional, refracted shear, and interface
mode), a band pass 5-25 kHz filter was applied. This would
not, however, be standard processing technique. The reason
for firing the tool twice at each acquisition (once at high
frequency and once at low frequency), is to enhance the
refracted modes (high frequency) and interface modes (low
frequency). Normally, a high pass filter would be applied to
the high frequency firing, further enhancing the refracted
modes. Likewise, a low frequency filter may be applied to the
low frequency firing. Usual operating mode would also be to
record for at least 4 ms on the low frequency firing, to be sure
to acquire the slower, later interface mode arrivals.
Fig 7 (the main SWIBAT Software window) shows some
of the many options available for analyzing the data. One or
more receivers can be switched off, which can be useful if a
receiver has been damaged downhole and is not acquiring data
optimally. More often, this feature is used in thin beds; for
example, using only the top four receivers shortens the array
length and thus increases the vertical resolution of the
measurement. . Additionally, any noisy receivers those
which never record any signal above the level of the noise
are automatically removed from the semblance calculations.
Defining the semblance corridor is one of the essential
elements in successful processing and mode detection. . The
parameters can be varied in several ways. (See the light blue
boxes in the middle of the SWIBAT Software window.) The
combination of minimum/maximum time and minimum/
maximum slowness, along with the minimum/ maximum slope
define a parallelogram in the time/slowness domain. The use is
best illustrated by an example. For critically refracted modes,
which travel at velocities greater than the fluid, we can
calculate the minimum arrival time at the measuring point for
any wave by multiplying its slowness by the distance. In the
case of the BAT tool, where the furthest receiver (7.5 ft) is
5
the reference point, 100 us/ft times 7.5 feet gives a minimum
arrival time of 750 us. However, this would only be true for
waves traveling a direct route from transmitters to receivers.
Any formation arrivals will be somewhat delayed, due to the
travel time through the mud to reach the formation and return
to the receivers. Anything arriving earlier than this predicted
value is most likely a spatial alias. Thus choosing a minimum
time greater than 750 us for a 100 us/ft wave eliminates
aliases.
Spatial aliasing, or array cycle skipping is an effect
which must be accounted for in coherence processing. It
commonly occurs when the semblance windows picks the first
cycle of a signal for the upper receivers, and the second cycle
of the signal for the lower receivers. Since the first and second
cycles of the signal have the same shape and differ only in
magnitude, the overall result can still be high coherence. There
are two easily identifiable features, readily visible using
SWIBAT Software. First, the arrival time will be early (see
example, Fig. 8) and secondly, in the frequency semblance, the
alias will have very similar shape to the true arrival, but have a
strong dispersive characteristic (see Fig. 8). Thus aliases can
be easily identified and discarded using SWIBAT TM Software.
SWIBAT TM Software provides the expert analyst with
many more features, including front/back receiver comparison,
tool diagnostics, custom peak-finding routines, advanced
signal filtering, and highly detailed frequency analysis.
Conclusions
LWD environments present unique challenges to acoustic
logging. Advanced processing techniques, which account for
drilling properties such as variable drilling rates, eccentering
of the tool and drilling noise effectively produce reliable
quality logs. The computation and analysis of a variety of
physical properties, e.g., slowness, delay, energy, frequency,
and attenuation of coherent arrivals facilitates identification of
the various coherent modes, leading to the production of
accurate compressional and shear slowness logs in both fast
and slow formations.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. and SensorWise, Inc. for
allowing the publication of this work. We thank the
development team at SensorWise and the development support
team at Sperry-Sun Drilling Services. We also thank the team
at MIT-ERL for several discussions, and for their direct
contributions to the understanding of the fundamentals of
acoustic wave propagation in LWD.
References
1. Aron, J., Chang, S.K., Dworak R., Hsu, K., Lau, T., Mason, J-
P., Mayes, J., McDaniel, G., Randall, C., Kostek, S., and Plona,
T. J.: Sonic Compressional Measurements While Drilling,
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22, 1994.
2. Minear, John, Birchak, Robert, Robbins, Carl, Linyaev, Eugene,
Mackie, Bruce, Young, David, and Malloy, Robert:
6 MARKET, BARNETT, DEADY, ALTHOFF,VARSAMIS, BLANCH SPE 71731

T. J.: Sonic Compressional Measurements While Drilling,

SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22, 1994.
2. Minear, John, Birchak, Robert, Robbins, Carl, Linyaev, Eugene,
Mackie, Bruce, Young, David, and Malloy, Robert:
Compressional Slowness Measurements While Drilling,
SPWLA 36th Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 1995.
3. Varsamis, Georgios L., Wisniewski, Laurence T., Arian, Abbas,
and Althoff, Gary: A New Full Wave Dual Mode Sonic Tool
Design and Case Histories, SPWLA 40th Annual Logging
Symposium, May 30-June 3, 1999.
4. Varsamis, Georgios L., Abbas, A., Blanch, J., Market, J.,
Wisniewski, L., Althoff, G., and Barnett, C.: LWD Shear
Velocity Logging in Slow Formations Design Considerations
and Case Histories, SPWLA 41st Annual Logging Symposium,
June 4-7, 2000.

Wearband Seven Receivers (Front) Transmitter Wearband

Seven Receivers (Back) Bulk Isolation Transmitter

Fig. 1LWD Bimodal acoustic tool - 2 transmitters and 14 receivers also displaying the isolation system.

3-5/8-in. 6-3/4-in. BAT

wireline tool tool in 8.5-in.
in 8.5-in. borehole
borehole

Fig. 2Cross Sectional view of a centered wireline sonde and eccentered LWD tool in an 8 -in. hole
SPE 71731 NEW PROCESSING TECHNIQUES TO MEET CHALLENGES OF LWD ACOUSTIC LOGGING 7

Flexural and Stoneley Dispersion

1000

900

800
Flexural
700
Stoneley
600

500
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency (kHz)

Fig. 3Flexural and Stoneley dispersion curves for the BAT tool.
Depth

Slowness (ms/ft) Slowness (ms/ft) Slowness (ms/ft) Slowness (ms/ft)

Fig. 4aInitial view from Peak Identification (Unedited).

8 MARKET, BARNETT, DEADY, ALTHOFF,VARSAMIS, BLANCH SPE 71731

Depth

Slowness (ms/ft) Slowness (ms/ft) Slowness (ms/ft) Slowness (ms/ft)

Fig. 4bPeak Identification view after editing early and low energy arrivals.
SPE 71731 NEW PROCESSING TECHNIQUES TO MEET CHALLENGES OF LWD ACOUSTIC LOGGING 9

.
Depth

Slowness (ms/ft) Slowness (ms/ft) Slowness (ms/ft) Slowness (ms/ft)

Fig. 4cPeak identification view of final compressional log.

10 MARKET, BARNETT, DEADY, ALTHOFF,VARSAMIS, BLANCH SPE 71731

Fig. 5Final log display illustrating composite shear log.

SPE 71731 NEW PROCESSING TECHNIQUES TO MEET CHALLENGES OF LWD ACOUSTIC LOGGING 11

Time Series Frequency Response Energy Stack

Time (ms) Frequency (kHz) Time (ms)

Semblance Frequency Semblance

Interface mode

Slowness (ms/ft)
Slowness (ms/ft)

Refracted Shear

Compressional

Time (ms) Frequency (kHz)

Fig 6.Analysis Mode example showing compressional, refracted shear, and interface mode arrivals.
12 MARKET, BARNETT, DEADY, ALTHOFF,VARSAMIS, BLANCH SPE 71731

Fig. 7SWIBAT Software tool initialization window.

SPE 71731 NEW PROCESSING TECHNIQUES TO MEET CHALLENGES OF LWD ACOUSTIC LOGGING 13

Time Series Frequency Response Energy Stack

Slowness (ms/ft)
Time (ms) Frequency (kHz) Time (ms)

Semblance Frequency Semblance

Slowness (ms/ft)

Slowness (ms/ft)

Compressional
Alias

Compressional

Time (ms) Frequency (kHz)

Fig. 8Analysis window example of a spatial alias.