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

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Mathematics (Basel) Vol. 10; no. 16; p. 2885
Main Authors: He, Jiahuan, Liu, Tangyan, Wen, Long, He, Tingting, Li, Min, Li, Jin, Wang, Li, Yao, Xin
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Basel MDPI AG 01.08.2022
Subjects:
Anisotropy
Carbon
complex variable function
Electric properties
Electric resistance
Electrical resistivity
Electrodes
Energy industry
Energy resources
Geotechnical engineering
Heat conductivity
Mathematics
Methods
Natural gas utilities
Nondestructive testing
Numerical analysis
Numerical methods
Oil exploration
Physical properties
Potential fields
radial resistivity
rock resistivity
Rocks
Simulation
China
ISSN:2227-7390, 2227-7390
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:2227-7390
2227-7390
DOI:10.3390/math10162885