SIMULATION OF RESISTIVITY LOGGING-WHILE-DRILLING

(LWD) MEASUREMENTS USING A SELF-ADAPTIVE

GOAL-ORIENTED HP FINITE ELEMENT METHOD.
D. PARDO , , L. DEMKOWICZ , C. TORRES-VERDIN , AND M. PASZYNSKI ,

Abstract. We simulate electromagnetic (EM) measurements acquired with a Logging-While-

Drilling (LWD) instrument in a borehole environment. The measurements are used to assess electrical
properties of rock formations. Logging instruments as well as rock formation properties are assumed
to exhibit axial symmetry around the axis of a vertical borehole.
The simulations are performed with a self-adaptive goal-oriented hp-Finite Element Method
(FEM) that delivers exponential convergence rates in terms of the quantity of interest (for exam-
ple, the difference in the electrical current measured at two receiver antennas) against the CPU
time. Goal-oriented adaptivity allows for accurate approximations of the quantity of interest with-
out the need of obtaining an accurate solution in the entire computational domain. In particular,
goal-oriented hp-adaptivity becomes essential to simulate LWD instruments, since it reduces the
computational cost by several orders of magnitude with respect to the global energy-norm based
hp-adaptivity.
Numerical results illustrate the efficiency and high-accuracy of the method, and provide physical
interpretation of resistivity measurements obtained with LWD instruments. These results also de-
scribe the advantages of using magnetic buffers in combination with solenoidal antennas for strength-
ening the measured EM signal so that the signal-to-noise ratio is minimized.

Key words. hp-finite elements, exponential convergence, goal-oriented adaptivity, computa-

tional electromagnetics, Maxwells equations, through casing resistivity tools (TCRT).

AMS subject classifications. 78A25, 78A55, 78M10, 65N50

1. Introduction. A plethora of energy-norm based algorithms intended to gen-

erate optimal grids have been developed throughout the last decades (see, for example,
[7, 18] and references therein) to accurately solve a large class of engineering prob-
lems. However, the energy-norm is a quantity of limited relevance for most engineering
applications, especially when a particular objective is pursued, for instance, to sim-
ulate the electromagnetic response of geophysical resistivity logging instruments in
a borehole environment. In these instruments, the amplitude of the measurement
(for example, the electric field) is typically several orders of magnitude smaller at the
receiver antennas than at the transmitter antennas. Thus, small relative errors of the
solution in the energy-norm do not imply small relative errors of the solution at the
receiver antennas. Indeed, it is not uncommon to construct adaptive grids delivering a
relative error in the energy-norm below 1% while the solution at the receiver antennas
still exhibits a relative error above 1000% (see [13]).
Consequently, in order to accurately simulate LWD resistivity measurements in
this paper, we develop a self-adaptive strategy to approximate a specific feature of
the solution. Refinement strategies of this type are called goal-oriented adaptive
algorithms [11, 17], and are based on minimizing the error of a prescribed quantity of
interest mathematically expressed in terms of a linear functional (see [3, 9, 12, 11, 17,
19] for details).

Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences (ICES), The University of Texas at

Austin, Austin TX 78712

Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin,

Austin TX 78712
On leave from AGH University of Science and Technology, Department of Computer Methods

in Metallurgy, Cracow, Poland

1
2 D. PARDO, L. DEMKOWICZ, C. TORRES-VERDIN, M. PASZYNSKI

In this paper, we formulate, implement, and study (both theoretically and nu-
merically) a self-adaptive hp goal-oriented algorithm intended to solve electrodynamic
problems. This algorithm is an extension of the fully automatic (energy-norm based)
hp-adaptive strategy described in [7, 18], and a continuation of concepts presented in
[14, 20] for elliptic problems.
We apply the self-adaptive hp goal-oriented algorithm to accurately simulate in-
duction LWD instruments in a borehole environment with axial symmetry. These
instruments are widely used by the geophysical logging industry, and their simula-
tion requires resolution of EM singularities generated by the LWD geometry and rock
formation materials [22], as well as resolution of high material constrasts that occur
between the mandrel and the borehole.
The organization of this document is as follows: In Section 2, we describe the
main characteristics of induction logging instruments. We also describe our problem
of interest, composed of an induction LWD instrument in a borehole environment,
and used for the assessment of the rock formation electrical properties. In Section
3, we introduce Maxwells equations, governing the electromagnetic phenomena and
explaining the physics of resistivity measurements. We also derive the corresponding
variational formulation for axisymmetric problems. A self-adaptive goal-oriented hp
algorithm for electrodynamic problems is described in Section 4. The corresponding
details of implementation are discussed in the same section. Simulations and numer-
ical results concerning the response of LWD instruments in a borehole environment
are shown in Section 5. Section 6 draws the main conclusions, and outline future
lines of research. Finally, in the Appendix, we compare numerical results with a
semi-analytical solution obtained using Bessel functions for a simplified LWD model
problem. The comparison is intended to verify the code as well as to illustrate the
high accuracy results obtained with the self-adaptive goal-oriented hp-FEM.
2. Alternate Current (AC) Logging Applications. In this article, we con-
sider an induction1 LWD instrument operating at 2 Mhz. The instrument makes use
of one of the following two types of source antennas/coils:
solenoidal coils (Fig. 2.1, left panel), and
toroidal coils (Fig. 2.1, right panel).
2.1. Induction LWD Instruments Based on Solenoidal Coils. For ax-
isymmetric problems, these logging instruments generate a T M field, i.e., the only
non-zero components of the electromagnetic (EM) fields are E , H , and Hz , where
(, , z) denote the cylindrical system of coordinates.
A solenoidal coil (Fig. 2.1) produces an impressed current Jimp that we mathe-
matically describe as
(2.1) Jimp (r) = I( a)(z) ,
where I is the electric current measured in Amperes (A), is the Diracs delta function,
and a is the radius of the solenoid. In the numerical computations, we replace function
( a)(z) with an approximate
R function UF that considers the finite dimensions of
the coil, and such that UF ddz = 1.
The analytical electric far-field solution excited by a solenoidal coil of radius a
radiating in homogeneous media is given in terms of the electric field by (see [10])

1 Induction logging instruments are characterized by the fact that impressed current J imp is

divergence free (i.e., Jimp = 0).

 HP -FEM: ELECTROMAGNETIC APPLICATIONS 3

Fig. 2.1. Two coil antennas: a solenoid antenna (left panel) composed of a wire wrapped around
a cylinder, and a toroid antenna (right panel) composed of a wire wrapped around a toroid.

ejkd j
(2.2) E = kIa2 [1 ] ,
4d kd d
p
where k = 2 j is the wave number, j = 1 is the imaginary unit, is
angular frequency, , , and stand for dielectric permittivity, magnetic permeabil-
ity, and electrical conductivity of the medium, respectively, and d is the distance
between the source coil and the receiver coil. In order to avoid the dependence upon
the dimensions of the solenoid, we impose a current on the solenoidal coil equal to
1/(a2 ) A, i.e., equivalent to that of 1 A with a Vertical Magnetic Dipole (VMD).
The corresponding far-field solution in homogeneous media is given by (see [10])
ejkd j
(2.3) E = kI [1 ] .
4d kd d
Thus, solution (2.3) is independent of the dimensions of the coil2 .
2.2. Induction LWD Instruments Based on Toroidal Coils. For axisym-
metric problems, these logging instruments generate a T E field, i.e., the only non-
zero components of the EM fields are H , E , and Ez .
A toroidal coil induces a magnetic current IM in the azimuthal direction. If we
place a toroid of radius a radiating in homogeneous media, the resulting magnetic
far-field is given by (see [10])
ejkd j
(2.4) H = ( + j)a2 IM jk [1 ] .
4d kd d
In order to avoid the dependence upon the dimensions of the toroid, we impose a
magnetic current on the toroidal coil equal to that induced by a ( + j) A electric
current excitation with a Vertical Electrical Dipole (VED), also known as Hertzian

2 In resistivity logging applications, it is customary to consider solutions that have been divided by

the geometrical factor (also called K-factor) [1], so that results are independent (as much as possible)
of the logging instruments geometry. Thus, solutions obtained from different logging instruments
can be readily compared.
4 D. PARDO, L. DEMKOWICZ, C. TORRES-VERDIN, M. PASZYNSKI

dipole. The corresponding magnetic far-field solution in homogeneous media is given

by (see [10])
ejkd j
(2.5) H = ( + j)Ijk [1 ] .
4d kd d
In this case, IM = I/(a2 ).
2.2.1. Goal of the Computations. We are interested in simulating the EM
response of an induction LWD instrument in a borehole environment.
For a solenoidal coil, the main objective of our simulation is to compute the
first difference of the voltage between the two receiving coils of radius a divided by
the (vertical) distance z between them, i.e.,
I I
V1 V 2 2a
(2.6) = E(l) dl E(l) dl /(z) = (E(l1 ) E(l2 )) ,
z l1 l2 z
where l1 and l2 are the first and second receiving coils, respectively, and l1 l1 ,
l2 l2 are two arbitrary points located at the receiving coils. Notice that due to the
axisymmetry of the electric field, E(lij ) = E(lik ) for all lij , lik li .
This quantity of interest (first difference of voltage) is widely used in resistivity
logging applications. Indeed, a first-order asymptotic approximation of the electric
field response at low frequencies (Borns approximation) shows that the voltage at a
receiver coil is proportional to the rock formation resistivity in the proximity of such
a coil (see [10] for details). At higher frequencies (> 20 Khz), asymptotic approx-
imations (see [1] for details) also indicate the dependence of the voltage upon the
rock formation conductivity. Thus, an adequate approximation of the rock formation
conductivity (which is unknown a priori in practical applications) can be estimated
from the voltage measured at the receiving coils. Computing the first difference of
the voltage between two receivers (rather than the voltage at one receiver) is conve-
nient for improving the vertical resolution of the measurements. This well-known fact
among well-logging practitioners will be illustrated here with numerical experiments.
For a toroidal coil, the main objective of these simulations is to compute the
first difference of the electric current at the two receiving coils of radius a divided by
the (vertical) distance z between them, i.e.,
I I
I1 I 2 2a
(2.7) = H(l) dl H(l) dl /(z) = (H(l1 ) H(l2 )) .
z l1 l2 z
Notice that the main difference between a toroidal and a solenoidal coil is that
the former generates an impressed magnetic current, while the latter produces an
impressed electric current. This fact leads to the physical consideration that, if the
voltage due to a solenoidal coil is proportional to the rock formation conductivity, then
the electric current enforced by a toroidal coil is also proportional to the rock formation
resistivity. Thus, the selection of the quantity of interest for toroidal coils (first
difference of electric current) is dictated by the physical relation between solenoidal
and toroidal coils, and the previous choice of a quantity of interest for solenoidal coils
(first difference of voltage).
2.3. Description of a LWD Instrument in a Borehole Environment. We
consider a LWD instrument composed of the following axisymmetric materials (all
dimensions are given in cm):
one transmitter and two receiver coils defined on
 HP -FEM: ELECTROMAGNETIC APPLICATIONS 5

1. C1 = {(, , z) : 7.1 < < 7.3 , 2.5 < z < 2.5},

2. C2 = {(, , z) : 7.1 < < 7.3 , 98.75 < z < 101.25}, and,
3. C3 = {(, , z) : 7.1 < < 7.3 , 113.75 < z < 116.25}, respectively,
three magnetic buffers with resistivity 104 m and relative permeability
104 , defined on
1. B1 = {(, , z) : 6.675 < < 6.985 , 5 < z < 5},
2. B2 = {(, , z) : 6.675 < < 6.985 , 97.5 < z < 102.5}, and,
3. B3 = {(, , z) : 6.675 < < 6.985 , 112.5 < z < 117.5}, respectively,
and
a metallic mandrel with resistivity 106 m defined on M = {(, , z) :
< 7.6}({(, , z) : 6.675 < < 7.6 , 5 < z < 5}{(, , z) : 6.675 < <
7.6 , 97.5 < z < 102.5} {(, , z) : 6.675 < < 7.6 , 112.5 < z < 117.5}).
This LWD instrument is moves along the vertical direction (z-axis) in a subsurface
borehole environment composed of:
a borehole mud with resistivity 0.1 m defined on
1. BH = {(, , z) : < 10.795} (i Bi M ), and,
three formation materials of resistivities 100 m, 10000 m, and 1 m,
defined on
1. M1 = {(, , z) : 10.795 , (z < 50 or z > 100)},
2. M2 = {(, , z) : 10.795 , 50 z < 0}, and,
3. M3 = {(, , z) : 10.795 , 0 z 100}, respectively.
Fig. 2.2 shows the geometry of the described logging instrument and borehole envi-
ronment.

6.675 cm

100 Ohm m
Magnetic Buffer
10000 Ohm m
cm

10000 Relative Permeability

15

100 cm
0.000001 Ohm m

1 Ohm m
0.1 Ohm m

5 cm
100 cm

10 cm

0.000001 Ohm m
50 cm

10000 Ohm m
Mandrel

Borehole
0.1 Ohm m
Radius = 10.795 cm
100 Ohm m

Radius 7.6 cm

Fig. 2.2. 2D cross-section of the geometry of an induction LWD problem composed of a metallic
mandrel, one transmitter and two receiver coils equipped with magnetic buffers, a borehole, and four
layers in the rock formation (with different resistivities). The right panel is an enlarged view of the
geometry (left panel) in the vicinity of the transmitter antenna.

3. Maxwells Equations. In this section, we first introduce the time-harmonic

Maxwells equations in the frequency domain. They form a set of first-order Partial
Differential Equations (PDEs). Then, we describe boundary conditions needed for
6 D. PARDO, L. DEMKOWICZ, C. TORRES-VERDIN, M. PASZYNSKI

the simulation of our logging applications of interest. Finally, we derive a variational

formulation in terms of either the electric or the magnetic field, and we reduce the
dimension of the computational problem by considering axial symmetry.
3.1. Time-harmonic Maxwells equations. Assuming a time-harmonic de-
pendence of the form ejt , where t denotes time, and 6= 0 is angular frequency,
Maxwells equations can be written as


H = ( + j)E + Jimp Amperes Law,




E = j H Mimp Faradays Law,
(3.1)

(E) = Gauss Law of Electricity, and





(H) = 0 Gauss Law of Magnetism.

Here H and E denote the magnetic and electric field, respectively, Jimp is a pre-
scribed, impressed electric current density, Mimp is a prescribed, impressed magnetic
current density, , , and stand for dielectric permittivity, magnetic permeability,
and electrical conductivity of the medium, respectively, and denotes the electric
charge distribution. We assume 6= 0.
The equations described in (3.1) are to be understood in the distributional sense,
i.e. they are satisfied in the classical sense in subdomains of regular material data,
and they also imply appropriate interface conditions across material interfaces.
Energy considerations lead to the assumption that the absolute value of both
electric field E and magnetic field H must be square integrable. Mimp is assumed to
be divergence free due to physical considerations.
Maxwells equations are not independent. Taking the divergence of Faradays
Law yields the Gauss Law of magnetism. By taking the divergence of Amperes Law,
and by utilizing Gauss Electric Law we arrive at the so called continuity equation,
(3.2) (E) + j + Jimp = 0 .

3.2. Boundary Conditions (BCs). There exist a variety of BCs that can be
incorporated into Maxwells equations. In the following, we describe those BCs that
are of interest for the logging applications discussed in this paper. At this point, we
are considering general 3D domains. A discussion on boundary terms corresponding
to the axisymmetry condition is postponed to Section 3.4.
3.2.1. Perfect Electric Conductor (PEC). Maxwells equations are to be
satisfied in the whole space minus domains occupied by a PEC. A PEC is an idealiza-
tion of a highly conductive media. Inside a region where , the corresponding
electric field converges to zero3 by applying Amperes law. Faradays law implies that
the tangential component of the electric field E must remain continuous across mate-
rial interfaces in the absence of impressed magnetic surface currents. Consequently,
the tangential component of the electric field must vanish along the PEC boundary,
i.e.,
(3.3) nE = 0 ,
where n is the unit normal (outward) vector.
3 This result is true under the physical consideration that impressed volume current J imp and

E should remain finite, i.e., hJimp , i, hE, i < for every test function . See [16] for details.
 HP -FEM: ELECTROMAGNETIC APPLICATIONS 7

Since the electric field vanishes inside a PEC, Faradays law implies that the
magnetic field should also vanish inside a PEC in the absence of magnetic currents.
The same Faradays law implies that the normal component of the magnetic field
premultiplied by the permeability must remain continuous across material interfaces.
Therefore, the normal component of the magnetic field must vanish along the PEC
boundary, i.e.,
(3.4) nH=0.
The tangential component of magnetic field (surface current) and normal com-
ponent of the electric field (surface charge density) need not be zero, and may be
determined a-posteriori.
3.2.2. Source Antennas. Antennas are modeled by prescribing an impressed
volume current Jimp . Using the equivalence principle (see, for example, [8]), we
can substitute the original impressed electric volume current Jimp by the equivalent
electric surface current
(3.5) Jimp
S = [nH]S ,
defined on an arbitrary surface S enclosing the support of Jimp , where [nH]S denotes
the jump of nH accross S. Similarly, an impressed magnetic volume current M imp
can be replaced by the equivalent magnetic surface current
(3.6) Mimp
S = [nE]S ,
defined on an arbitrary surface S enclosing the support of Mimp .
3.2.3. Closure of the Domain. We consider a bounded computational domain
. A variety of BCs can be imposed on the boundary such that the difference
between solution of such a problem and solution of the original problem defined over
R 3 is small. For example, it is possible to use an infinite element technique (as
described in [4]). Also, since the electromagnetic fields and their derivatives decay
exponentially in the presence of lossy media (non-zero conductivity), we may simply
impose a homogeneous Dirichlet or Neumann BC on the boundary of a sufficiently
large computational domain.
In the field of geophysical logging applications, it is customary to impose a homo-
geneous Dirichlet BC on the boundary of a large computational domain (for example,
2-20 meters in each direction from a 2 Mhz source antenna in the presence of a resistive
media). We will follow the same approach.
3.3. Variational Formulation. From Maxwells equations and the BCs de-
scribed above, we derive the corresponding standard variational formulation in terms
of the electric or magnetic field as follows.
First, we notice from Faradays law that E (L2 ())3 if and only if Mimp
(L ())3 . Since our objective is to find a solution E H(curl; ) = {F (L2 ())3 :
2

F (L2 ())3 }, we shall assume in the case of the electric field formulation
(E-formulation) derived below that Mimp (L2 ())3 . If the prescribed Mimp /
(L2 ())3 , we may still solve Maxwells equations with H(curl)-conforming finite el-
ements for the magnetic field by using the H-formulation (3.3.2), or simply by pre-
scribing an equivalent source Mimp such that Mimp Mimp does not radiate outside
the antenna [21].
Similarly, for the H-formulation, we will assume that Jimp (L2 ())3 .
8 D. PARDO, L. DEMKOWICZ, C. TORRES-VERDIN, M. PASZYNSKI

3.3.1. E-Formulation . By dividing Faradays law by magnetic permeability

, multiplying the resulting equation by F, where F H(curl; ) is an arbitrary
test function, and integrating over the domain , we arrive at the identity
Z Z Z
1 1 imp
(3.7) (E) (F)dV = j H (F)dV M (F)dV.

Z
Integrating H (F) dV by parts, and applying Amperes law, we obtain

Z Z Z
H (F) dV = (H) F dV [nH]N Ft dS =
(3.8) Z Z N Z
imp
( + j)E F dV + J F dV [nH]N Ft dS,
N

with N denoting a surface contained in the closure of where an impressed

electric surface current Jimp
N may be prescribed. Ft = F (F n) n is the tangential
component of vector F on N , and n is the unit normal outward (with respect if
N ) vector. Substitution of (3.8) into (3.7), and use of equation (3.5) yields to
the following variational identity, valid for any test function F H(curl; ):
Z Z Z
1
(E) (F)dV k 2 E F dV = j Jimp F dV
Z Z
(3.9) 1 imp
+j Jimp
N F t dS M (F) dV ,
N

where k 2 = 2 j.
Finally, in order to obtain a unique solution E H(curl; ) for problem (3.9),
we introduce a Dirichlet boundary condition on a part D of the boundary of the
computational domain . Thus, we obtain the following variational formulation:


Find E ED + HD (curl; ) such that:

Z Z Z

1
(E) (F) dV k 2 E F dV = j Jimp F dV
(3.10)

Z Z

imp 1 imp

+j J N F t dS M (F) dV F HD (curl; ) ,
N

where ED is a lift (typically ED = 0) of the essential boundary condition data ED

(denoted with the same symbol), and HD (curl; ) = {F H(curl; ) : (nF)|D =
0} is the space of admissible test functions associated with problem (3.10). Conversely,
we can derive (3.1), (3.3), and (3.5) from variational problem (3.10).

Remark 1. At this point, an impressed magnetic surface current Mimp

S defined
on a subset of D may be introduced into the formulation by using equation (3.6). It
follows that ED = nE|D = Mimp D .

3.3.2. H-Formulation . By dividing Amperes law by + j, multiplying the

resulting equation by F, where F H(curl; ) is an arbitrary test function, and
integrating over the domain , we arrive at the identity
 HP -FEM: ELECTROMAGNETIC APPLICATIONS 9
Z Z
1
j (H) ( F)dV = E (F) dV
k2 Z
(3.11)
1 imp
j 2
J (F) dV .
k
Z
Integrating E (F) dV by parts, and applying Faradays law, we obtain

Z Z Z
E (F) dV = (E) F dV [nE]N Ft dS =
(3.12) Z Z N Z
imp
j H F dV M F dV [nE]N Ft dS,
N

with N denoting a surface contained in the closure of where an impressed

magnetic surface current Mimp N may be prescribed. Substitution of (3.12) into (3.11),
and use of equation (3.6) yields the following variational identity, valid for any test
function F H(curl; ):
Z Z
1
j 2
(H) (F)dV + j H F dV =
(3.13) Z k Z Z
imp imp 1 imp
M F dV + MN Ft dS j 2
J (F) dV .
N k

Finally, in order to obtain a unique solution H H(curl; ) for problem (3.13)

we introduce a Dirichlet boundary condition on a part D of the boundary of the
computational domain . Thus, we obtain the following variational formulation:


Find H HD + HD (curl; ) such that:
Z
Z Z

1
(H) (F)dV + j H FdV = Mimp FdV
(3.14) Z + j

Z

imp 1

+ MN Ft dS + J imp
(F)dV F HD (curl; ),
N + j

where HD is a lift (typically HD = 0) of the essential boundary condition data HD

(denoted with the same symbol). At this point, an impressed electric surface current
Jimp
S defined on a subset of D may be introduced into the formulation by using
equation (3.5). It follows that HD = nH|D = JimpD .

3.4. Cylindrical Coordinates and Axisymmetric Problems . We consider

cylindrical coordinates (, , z). For the geophysical logging applications considered
in this article, we assume that both the logging instrument and the rock formation
properties are axisymmetric (invariant with respect to the azimuthal component )
around the axis of the borehole. Under this assumption, we obtain that for any vector
field A = A + A + zAz ,
A A Az 1 (A )
(3.15) A = + ( ) + z .
z z

3.4.1. E-Formulation. Next, we consider the space of all test functions F

HD (curl; ) such that F = (0, F , 0). According to (3.15),
F 1 (F )
(3.16) F = + z .
z
10 D. PARDO, L. DEMKOWICZ, C. TORRES-VERDIN, M. PASZYNSKI

Variational formulation (3.10) reduces to a formulation in terms of the scalar field

E , namely,
1

Find E E,D + HD () such that:

Z Z

1 E F 1 (E ) (F )

+ dV k 2 E F dV =

z z 2
Z Z
(3.17) imp imp

j J F dV + j J,N F dS



Z
N


1

imp F imp 1 (F ) 1
M + Mz dV F HD () ,
z

1 1 E
where HD () = {E : (0, E , 0) HD (curl; )} = {E L2 () : E +

E
L2 () , L2 (), E |D = 0}. Similarly, for a test function F = (F , 0, Fz ),
z
variational problem (3.10) simplifies to:


Find E = (E , 0, Ez ) ED + HD (curl; ) such that:

Z Z

1 E Ez F Fz

dV k 2 (E F + Ez Fz ) dV =

z z
Z Z
(3.18) imp imp

j J imp
F + J imp
F dV + j J, F + Jz, Fz dS

z z N N

Z N

1 imp F Fz

M dV F = (F , 0, Fz ) HD (curl; ) ,
z

E
where HD (curl; ) = {(E , Ez ) : E = (E , 0 , Ez ) L2 () , (E)| =
z
Ez
L2 () , (nE)|D = 0}.

In summary, problem (3.10) decouples into a system of two simpler problems
described by (3.17) and (3.18).

1
Remark 2. It has been shown in [2] (Lemma 4.9) that space HD () can also be
1 1
expressed as HD () = {E L2 () : E L2 () , (,z) E L2 ()}.

3.4.2. H-Formulation. Using the same decomposition of test functions (i.e.,

F = (0, F , 0) , and F = (F , 0, Fz )) for variational problem (3.14), we arrive at
the following two decoupled variational problems in terms of (0, H , 0) (3.19), and
(H , 0, Hz ) (3.20), respectively:
1

Find H H,D + HD () such that:

Z

1 H F 1 (H ) (F )

+ 2 dV

+ j z z
Z Z Z
(3.19)


+j H F dV = Mimp F dV + imp
M, F dS


N

Z N

1 F 1 (F ) 1
+ Jimp + Jzimp dV F HD () .
+ j z
 HP -FEM: ELECTROMAGNETIC APPLICATIONS 11


Find H = (H , 0, Hz ) HD + HD (curl; ) such that:

Z

1 H Hz F Fz

dV



Z+ j z z
Z


(3.20) +j (H F + Hz Fz ) dV = Mimp F + Mzimp Fz dV



Z Z

1 imp F Fz

+
imp imp
M,N F + Mz,N Fz dS + J dV



N + j z

F = (F , 0, Fz ) HD (curl; ) .

From the formulation of problems (3.17) trough (3.20), we remark the following:
Physically, solution of problems (3.18), and (3.19) correspond to the T E -
mode (i.e. E = 0), and solution of problems (3.17), and (3.20) correspond
to the T M -mode (i.e. H = 0).
The axis of symmetry is not a boundary of the original 3D problem, and
therefore, a boundary condition should not be needed to solve this problem.
Nevertheless, formulations of problems (3.17) through (3.20) require the use
1
of spaces HD () and HD (curl; ) described above. The former space in-
volves the singular weight 1 , which implicitly requires a homogeneous Dirich-
let boundary condition along the axis of symmetry. The latter space can be
considered as it is (by using 2D edge elements), and no BC is necessary 4 to
solve the problem.

4. Self-Adaptive Goal-Oriented hp-FEM . We are interested in solving vari-

ational problems (3.10) and (3.14) (or alternatively, (3.17), (3.18), (3.19), and (3.20)),
that we state here in terms of sesquilinear form b, and antilinear form f :
(
Find E ED + V
(4.1)
b(E, F) = f (F) F V ,

where
ED is a lift of the essential (Dirichlet) BC.
V is a Hilbert space.
f V0 is an antilinear and continuous functional on V.
b is a sesquilinear form. More precisely, we have:

1
a(E, F) k 2 c(E, F) E-Formulation
(4.2) b(E, F) = ,
1 a(E, F) c(E, F) H-Formulation

k2
where sesquilinear forms a and c are assumed to be Hermitian, continuous
and V-coercive. We define an energy inner product on V as:

1
a(E, F) + |k 2 |c(E, F) E-Formulation
(4.3) (E, F) := ,
1
2 a(E, F) + c(E, F) H-Formulation
|k |
with the corresponding (energy) norm denoted by kEk.

4 From the computational point of view, this effect can be achieved by artificially adding a ho-

mogeneous natural (Neumann) BC.

12 D. PARDO, L. DEMKOWICZ, C. TORRES-VERDIN, M. PASZYNSKI

4.1. Representation of the Error in the Quantity of Interest. Given an

hp-FE subspace Vhp V, we discretize (4.1) as follows:
(
Find Ehp ED + Vhp
(4.4)
b(Ehp , Fhp ) = f (Fhp ) Fhp Vhp .
The objective of goal-oriented adaptivity is to construct an optimal hp-grid, in the
sense that it minimizes the problem size needed to achieve a given tolerance error for
a given quantity of interest L, with L denoting a linear and continuous functional. By
recalling the linearity of L, we have:
(4.5) Error of interest = L(E) L(Ehp ) = L(E Ehp ) = L(e) ,
where e = E Ehp denotes the error function. By defining the residual rhp V0 as
rhp (F) = f (F) b(Ehp , F) = b(E Ehp , F) = b(e, F), we look for the solution of the
dual problem:
(
Find W V
(4.6)
b(F, W) = L(F) F V .
Using the Lax-Milgram theorem we conclude that problem (4.6) has a unique solution
in V. The solution W, is usually referred to as the influence function.
By discretizing (4.6) via, for example, Vhp V, we obtain:
(
Find Whp Vhp
(4.7)
b(Fhp , Whp ) = L(Fhp ) Fhp Vhp .
Definition of the dual problem plus the Galerkin orthogonality for the original
problem imply the final representation formula for the error in the quantity of interest,
namely,
L(e) = b(e, W) = b(e, W Fhp ) = b(e, ) .
| {z }

At this point, Fhp Vhp is arbitrary, and b(e, ) = b(e, ) denotes the bilinear
form corresponding to the original sesquilinear form.
Notice that, in practice, the dual problem is solved not for W but for its complex
conjugate W utilizing the bilinear form and not the sesquilinear form. The linear
system of equations is factorized only once, and the extra cost of solving (4.7) reduces
to only one backward and one forward substitution (if a direct solver is used).
Once the error in the quantity of interest has been determined in terms of bilinear
form b, we wish to obtain a sharp upper bound for |L(e)| that depends upon the mesh
parameters (element size h and order of approximation p) only locally. Then, a self-
adaptive algorithm intended to minimize this bound will be defined.
First, using a procedure similar to the one described in [7], we approximate E
and W with fine grid functions E h , p+1 , W h , p+1 , which have been obtained by
2 2
solving the corresponding linear system of equations associated with the FE subspace
V h , p+1 . In the remainder of this article, E and W will denote the fine grid solutions
2
of the direct and dual problems (E = E h , p+1 , and W = W h , p+1 , respectively), and
2 2
we will restrict ourselves to discrete FE spaces only.
Next, we bound the error in the quantity of interest by a sum of element contri-
butions. Let bK denote a contribution from element K to sesquilinear form b. It then
follows that
 HP -FEM: ELECTROMAGNETIC APPLICATIONS 13
X
(4.8) |L(e)| = |b(e, )| |bK (e, )| ,
K

where summation over K indicates summation over elements.

4.2. Projection based interpolation operator. Once we have a representa-

tion formula for the error in the quantity of interest in terms of the sum of element
contributions given by (4.8), we wish to express this upper bound in terms of local
quantities, i.e. in terms of quantities that do not vary globally when we modify the
grid locally. For this purpose, we introduce the idea of projection-based interpolation
operators.
First, in order to simplify the notation, we define the following three spaces of
admissible solutions:
V = HD (curl; ),
V2D = HD (curl; ), and,
V 1D = HD 1
().
2D 1D
The corresponding hp-Finite Element spaces will be denoted by Vhp , Vhp , and Vhp ,
respectively.
At this point, we introduce three projection-based interpolation operators that
have been defined in [6, 5], and used in [7, 18] for the construction of the fully auto-
matic energy-norm based hp-adaptive algorithm:
curl,3D
hp : V Vhp ,
curl,2D
hp : V2D Vhp 2D
, and,
1D 1D 1D
hp : V Vhp .
We shall also consider three projection operators in the energy-norm:
curl,3D
Php : V Vhp ,
curl,2D
Php : V2D Vhp 2D
, and,
1D 1D 1D
Php : V Vhp .
To further simplify the notation, we will utilize the unique symbol curl hp to denote
all projection based interpolation operators mentioned above. Depending upon the
problem formulation (and corresponding space of admissible solutions), curl hp should
curl,3D curl,2D
be understood as hp for problems (3.10) and (3.14), hp for problems (3.18)
and (3.20), or 1Dhp for problems (3.17) and (3.19). Similarly, we will use the unique
curl curl,3D curl,2D 1D
symbol Php to denote either Php , Php , or Php .
We denote Ehp = Pcurl
hp E. Equation (4.8) then becomes
X X
(4.9) |L(e)| |bK (E, )| = |bK (E curl curl curl
hp E, ) + bK (hp E Php E, )| .
K K

Given an element K, it is expected that |bK (curlhp E Php E, )| will be negligible

compared to |bK (E curl
hp E, )|. Under this assumption, we conclude that:
X
(4.10) |L(e)| |bK (E curl
hp E, )| .
K

In particular, for = W curl

hp W, we have:
X
(4.11) |L(e)| |bK (E curl curl
hp E, W hp W)| .
K
14 D. PARDO, L. DEMKOWICZ, C. TORRES-VERDIN, M. PASZYNSKI

By applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we obtain the next upper bound for |L(e)|:

X
(4.12) |L(e)| kekK kkK ,
K

where e = E curl curl

hp E, = W hp W, and k kK denotes energy-norm k k
restricted to element K.
4.3. Fully Automatic Goal-Oriented hp-Refinement Algorithm. We de-
scribe an hp self-adaptive algorithm that utilizes the main ideas of the fully automatic
(energy-norm based) hp-adaptive algorithm described in [7, 18]. We start by recalling
the main objective of the self-adaptive (energy-norm based) hp-refinement strategy,
which consists of solving the following maximization problem:


Find an optimal hp-grid in the following sense:


2 2
(4.13) X kE curlhp EkK kE hp
curl
c EkK


hp = arg maxc N
,
hp K

where
E = E h , p+1 is the fine grid solution, and
2
c
N > 0 is the increment in the number of unknowns from grid hp to grid hp.
Similarly, for goal-oriented hp-adaptivity, we propose the following algorithm
based on estimate (4.12):


Find an optimal hp-grid in the following sense:



"
X kE curl curl

hp
= arg max hp EkK kW hp WkK
(4.14) c
hp N

K #
curl
kE c EkK kW curl

c WkK


hp hp
,
N

where:
E = E h , p+1 and W = W h , p+1 are the fine grid solutions corresponding to
2 2
the direct and dual problems, and
c
N > 0 is the increment in the number of unknowns from grid hp to grid hp.
Implementation of the goal-oriented hp-adaptive algorithm is based on the opti-
mization procedure used for energy-norm hp-adaptivity [7, 18].
4.4. Implementation details. In what follows, we discuss the main implemen-
tation details needed to extend the fully automatic (energy-norm based) hp-adaptive
algorithm [7, 18] to a fully automatic goal-oriented hp-adaptive algorithm.
1. First, the solution W of the dual problem on the fine grid is necessary. This
goal can be attained either by using a direct (frontal) solver or an iterative
(two-grid) solver (see [13]).
2. Subsequently, we should treat both solutions as satisfying two different partial
differential equations (PDEs). We select functions E and W as the solutions
of the system of two PDEs.
3. We proceed to redefine the evaluation of the error. The energy-norm error
evaluation of a two dimensional function is replaced by the product k E
curl curl
hp E k k W hp W k.
 HP -FEM: ELECTROMAGNETIC APPLICATIONS 15

4. After these simple modifications, the energy-norm based self-adaptive algo-

rithm may now be utilized as a self-adaptive goal-oriented hp algorithm.
5. Numerical Results. In this Section, we apply the goal-oriented hp self-
adaptive strategy described in Section 4 to simulate the response of the induction
LWD instrument operating at 2 Mhz considered in Section 2.3, using formulation
(3.17) for solenoidal coils, and (3.19) for toroidal coils. Exactly the same results are
obtained with formulations (3.20) and (3.18), respectively, as predicted by the theory.
Thus, formulations (3.20) and (3.18) have been used as an extra verification of the
simulations, and the corresponding results have been omitted in this article to avoid
duplicity.
Fig. 5.1 displays the first vertical difference of the electric field (divided by the
distance between the two receivers) for the described LWD instrument equipped with
solenoidal coils. The three curves correspond to:
1. the rock formation with no mud-filtrate invasion,
2. the rock formation with a 2 m 40 cm. horizontal mud layer invading the 1
m rock formation layer, and a 5m 90cm. horizontal mud layer invading
the 10000 m rock formation layer, and
3. the previous (mud invaded) rock formation, using a mandrel with relative
magnetic permeability of 100.
For toroidal antennas, we display in Fig. 5.2 the first vertical difference of the magnetic
field (divided by the distance between the two receivers). The three displayed curves
correspond to the three situations discussed above.

Invasion Study Solenoid

3 3
No Invasion No Invasion
0.4/0.9 m Invasion 0.4/0.9 m Invasion
2.5 0.4/0.9m Invasion, Perm. Mandrel=100 2.5 0.4/0.9m Invasion, Perm. Mandrel=100
Vertical Position of Receiving Antenna (m)

Vertical Position of Receiving Antenna (m)

2 100 Ohmm 2 100 Ohmm

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.52 Ohmm (0.4m) 1 Ohmm 0.52 Ohmm (0.4m) 1 Ohmm

0 0
5 Ohmm (0.9m) 10000 Ohmm 5 Ohmm (0.9m) 10000 Ohmm
0.5 0.5

1 100 Ohmm 1 100 Ohmm

1.5 1.5
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 200 100 0 100 200
Amplitude First Vert. Diff. Electric Field (V/m2) Phase (degrees)

Fig. 5.1. LWD problem equipped with a solenoidal source. Amplitude (left panel) and phase
(right panel) of the first vertical difference of the electric field (divided by the distance between
receivers) at the receiving coils. Results obtained with the self-adaptive goal-oriented hp-FEM. The
spatial distribution of electrical resistivity is also displayed to facilitate the physical interpretation
of results.
16 D. PARDO, L. DEMKOWICZ, C. TORRES-VERDIN, M. PASZYNSKI

Invasion Study Toroid

3 3
No Invasion No Invasion
0.4/0.9 m Invasion 0.4/0.9 m Invasion
2.5 0.4/0.9m Invasion, Perm. Mandrel=100 2.5 0.4/0.9m Invasion, Perm. Mandrel=100
Vertical Position of Receiving Antenna (m)

Vertical Position of Receiving Antenna (m)

2 100 Ohmm 2 100 Ohmm

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.52 Ohmm (0.4m) 1 Ohmm 0.52 Ohmm (0.4m) 1 Ohmm

0 0
5 Ohmm (0.9m) 10000 Ohmm 5 Ohmm (0.9m) 10000 Ohmm
0.5 0.5

1 100 Ohmm 1 100 Ohmm

1.5 5 3 1
1.5
10 10 10 200 100 0 100 200
2 Phase (degrees)
Amplitude First Vert. Diff. Magnetic Field (A/m )

Fig. 5.2. LWD problem equipped with a toroidal source. Amplitude (left panel) and phase
(right panel) of the first vertical difference of the magnetic field (divided by the distance between
receivers) at the receiving coils. Results obtained with the self-adaptive goal-oriented hp-FEM. The
spatial distribution of electrical resistivity is also displayed to facilitate the physical interpretation
of results.

These results illustrate the strong dependence of the LWD response on the rock
formation resistivity. We observe that solenoidal antennas are more sensitive to highly
conductive formations as well as to the electrical permeability of the mandrel, while
toroidal antennas are more sensitive to highly resistive formations.
Fig. 5.3 illustrates the effect of the magnetic buffers. By removing the magnetic
buffers from the logging instruments design, the amplitude of the received signal
decreases by a factor of up to 200 in the case of a solenoidal source. For practical
applications, a strong signal on the receivers is desired to minimize the noise-to-signal
ratio. Thus, it is appropriate to use magnetic buffers in combination with solenoidal
antennas. On the contrary, the use of magnetic buffers with toroidal antennas is not
advisable since they weaken the received signal. In both cases, the phase and shape
of the solution is not sensitive to the presence (or not) of magnetic buffers, and the
corresponding results have been omitted.
The exponential convergence obtained using the self-adaptive goal-oriented hp-
FEM is shown in Fig. 5.4 (left panel), by considering an arbitrary fixed position of
the logging instrument for a solenoid antenna. The final grid delivers a relative error
in the quantity of interest below 0.00001%, i.e. the first 7 significant digits of the
quantity of interest are exact. In Fig. 5.4 (right panel), we display the exponential
convergence of the energy-norm based hp-FEM. The final hp-grid delivers an energy-
norm error below 0.01%. Nevertheless, the quantity of interest still contains a relative
error above 15%.
A final goal-oriented hp-grid delivering a relative error in the quantity of interest
of 0.1% is displayed in Fig. 5.5.
 HP -FEM: ELECTROMAGNETIC APPLICATIONS 17

Solenoid Toroid
3 3 3 3
With Magnetic Buffers WithWith
Magnetic
Magnetic
Buffers
Buffers With Magnetic Buffers
Without Magnetic Buffers Without
Without
Magnetic
Magnetic
Buffers
Buffers Without Magnetic Buffers
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Vertical Position of Receiving Antenna (m)

Vertical Position of Receiving Antenna (m)

Vertical Position of Receiving Antenna (m)

Vertical Position of Receiving Antenna (m)

2 100 Ohmm 2 2 100100
Ohmm
Ohmm 2 100 Ohmm

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1 1

0.5 1 Ohmm 0.5 0.5 1 Ohmm

1 Ohmm 0.5 1 Ohmm

0 0 0 0
10000 Ohmm 10000
10000
Ohmm
Ohmm 10000 Ohmm
0.5 0.50.5 0.5

1 100 Ohmm 1 1 100100

Ohmm
Ohmm 1 100 Ohmm

1.5 4 2 0
1.51.5 5 1.5
10 10 10 200 10 100 0 100 100 200 105 200 100 0 100 200
Phase (degrees) Phase (degrees)
Amplitude First Vert. Diff. of Electric Field (V/m2) Amplitude First Vert. Diff. of Magnetic Field (A/m2)

Fig. 5.3. LWD problem equipped with a solenoidal source. Results obtained with the self-
adaptive goal-oriented hp-FEM correspond to the use of solenoidal antennas (left panel), and toroidal
antennas (right panel), respectively. The spatial distribution of electrical resistivity is also displayed
to facilitate the physical interpretation of results.

6. Summary and Conclusions. We have successfully applied a self-adaptive

goal-oriented hp-FE algorithm to simulate the axisymmetric response of an induction
LWD instrument in a borehole environment. These simulations would not be possible
with energy-norm adaptive algorithms.
Numerical results illustrate the exponential convergence of the method (allow-
ing for high accuracy simulations), the suitability of the presented formulations for
axisymmetric electrodynamic problems, and the main physical characteristics of the
presented induction LWD instrument. These results suggest the use of solenoidal an-
tennas for the assessment of highly conductive rock formation materials, and toroidal
antennas for the assessment of highly resistive materials. Solenoidal antennas should
be used in combination with magnetic buffers to strengthen the measured EM signal,
while the use of magnetic buffers with toroidal antennas should be avoided. Both
types of antennas can be used to study mud-filtrate invasion.
Since the influence function used by the self-adaptive goal-oriented hp-adaptive
algorithm is approximated via Finite Elements, the numerical method presented in
this article is problem independent, and it can be applied to 1D, 2D, and 3D FE
discretizations of H 1 -, H(curl)-, and H(div)-spaces.

Appendix. A Loop-Antenna Radiating in a Homogeneous Lossy Medium

in the Presence of a Highly Conductive Metallic Mandrel. In this appendix,
we consider a problem with known analytical solution. We use this problem as an
additional mechanism to verify the code, as well as to provide comparative results
between analytical and numerical solutions.
We consider a solenoid (or a toroid) of radius a radiating at a frequency of 2 Mhz
18 D. PARDO, L. DEMKOWICZ, C. TORRES-VERDIN, M. PASZYNSKI

GoalOriented hpAdaptivity Energynorm hpAdaptivity

3 3
10 10
Upper bound for |L(e)|/|L(u)| Energynorm error
|L(e)|/|L(u)| |L(e)|/|L(u)|
2 2
10 10

1 1
10 10

0 0
Relative Error in %

Relative Error in %
10 10

1 1
10 10

2 2
10 10

3 3
10 10

4 4
10 10

5 5
10 10
0 1000 8000 27000 64000 0 1000 8000 27000 64000
Number of Unknowns N (scale N1/3) Number of Unknowns N (scale N1/3)

Fig. 5.4. LWD problem equipped with a solenoidal source. Left panel: convergence behavior
obtained with the self-adaptive goal-oriented hp-FEM shows exponential convergence rates for esti-
mate (4.8) (solid curve) used for optimization. The dashed curve describes the relative error in the
quantity of interest. Right panel: convergence behavior obtained with the self-adaptive energy-norm
hp-FEM shows exponential convergence rates for the energy-norm. The dashed curve describes the
relative error in the quantity of interest.
2Dhp90:
D A Fully automatic
m hp-adaptive Finite EElement
m code

p=8

p=7

Rece ver II
p=6
Rece ver I
p=5

p=4

p=3

p=2
Transm tter
p=1

y
F g 5 5 LWD ns rumen equ pped w h a so eno da source Por on (120z cm x x 200 cm) o
he fina hp-gr d D fferen co ors nd ca e d fferen po ynom a orders o approx ma on rang ng
rom 1 ( gh grey) o 8 (wh e)
 HP -FEM: ELECTROMAGNETIC APPLICATIONS 19

in a homogeneous lossy medium (with resistivity equal to 1 m), in the presence of

an infinitely large cylindrical mandrel (with resistivity equal to 106 m) of radius
b < a. The coil and the mandrel exhibit axial symmetry (see Fig. A.1).

COIL (Toroid/Solenoid)

b a

MANDREL

Fig. A.1. Geometry of a loop-antenna radiating in a homogeneous lossy medium in the presence
of a highly conductive metallic mandrel.

For a solenoidal coil located at z = 0, the resulting solution for a b is given

by [10, 15]:
Z
(1) (1)
(A.1) E (, z) = [J1 (k a) + H1 (k a)]H1 (k )eikz z dk ,
4a
(1) (1)
where = J1 (k b)/H1 (k b), Jp and Hp are
qthe Bessel and Hankel functions of
the first type of order p, respectively, and kz = k 2 k2 .
For a toroidal coil located at z = 0, the resulting solution for a b is given
by:
Z
i (1) (1)
(A.2) H (, z) = [J1 (k a) + H1 (k a)]H1 (k )eikz z dk ,
4a
(1)
where = J0 (k b)/H0 (k b).
In figures A.2 and A.3, we display a comparison between analytical and numerical
results (obtained using the self-adaptive hp goal-oriented algorithm) for the solenoidal
and toroidal coils, respectively. We selected b = 0.0254 cm, and a = 0.03048 cm. The
numerical results accurately reproduce the analytical ones, both in terms of amplitude
and phase.
When considering a solenoid, the logging instrument response using a mandrel of
resistivity 105 m or a PEC mandrel are indistinguishable in terms of amplitude.
A similar situation occurs for a toroid. In terms of phase, induction instruments
equipped with solenoidal coils appear to be more sensitive to the mandrel resistivity
than those equipped with toroidal coils.
Acknowledgments. This work was financially supported by Baker-Atlas and
the Joint Industry Research Consortium on Formation Evaluation supervised by Prof.
C. Torres-Verdin. We would also like to acknowledge the expertise and technical advise
20 D. PARDO, L. DEMKOWICZ, C. TORRES-VERDIN, M. PASZYNSKI

3.5 3.5
Analytical solution
7 Analytical solution
Mandrel Resisitivity: 10 7
5 Mandrel Resisitivity: 10
Mandrel Resisitivity: 10 5
Mandrel Resisitivity: 10
Mandrel Resisitivity: 103
3 3 Mandrel Resisitivity: 103
Mandrel Resisitivity: 1
Mandrel Resisitivity: 1
Distance in zaxis from transmitter to receiver (in m)

Distance in zaxis from transmitter to receiver (in m)

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 8 6 4 2 0 0.5
10 10 10 10 10 180 90 0 90 180
Amplitude (V/m) Phase (degrees)

Fig. A.2. Solution (electric field) along the vertical axis passing through a solenoid radiating
in a homogeneous medium in the presence of a metallic mandrel. Analytical solution (mandrel is
a PEC) against the numerical solution for different mandrel resistivities (10 7 , 105 , 103 , and 1
m) obtained with the self-adaptive goal oriented hp-FEM.

received from L. Tabarovsky, A. Bespalov, T. Wang, and other members of the Science
Department of Baker-Atlas.

REFERENCES

[1] B. I. Anderson, Modeling and Inversion Methods for the Interpretation of Resistivity Logging
Tool Response, PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2001.
[2] F. Assous, C.(Jr.) Ciarlet, and S Labrunie, Theoretical tools to solve the axisymmetric
Maxwell equations., Math. Meth. Appl. Sci., 25 (2002), pp. 4978.
[3] R. Becker and R. Rannacher, Weighted a posteriori error control in FE methods., in ENU-
MATH 97. Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on numerical mathematics and
advanced applications held in Heidelberg, Germany, September 28-October 3, 1997. Includ-
ing a selection of papers from the 1st conference (ENUMATH 95) held in Paris, France,
September 1995. Singapore: World Scientific. 621-637 , Bock, Hans Georg (ed.) et al., 1998.
[4] W. Cecot, W. Rachowicz, and L. Demkowicz, An hp-adaptive finite element method for
electromagnetics. III: A three-dimensional infinite element for Maxwells equations., Int.
J. Numer. Methods Eng., 57 (2003), pp. 899921.
[5] L. Demkowicz, Finite element methods for Maxwell equations., Encyclopedia of Computa-
tional Mechanics, (eds. E. Stein, R. de Borst, T.J.R. Hughes), Wiley and Sons, 2003, in
review, (2003).
[6] L. Demkowicz and A. Buffa, H 1 , H(curl), and H(div) conforming projection-based inter-
polation in three dimensions: quasi optimal p-interpolation estimates., Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng., 194 (2005), pp. 267296.
[7] L. Demkowicz, W. Rachowicz, and Ph. Devloo, A fully automatic hp-adaptivity., J. Sci.
Comput., 17 (2002), pp. 117142.
[8] R. F. Harrington, Time-harmonic electromagnetic fields., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961.
[9] V. Heuveline and R. Rannacher, Duality-based adaptivity in the hp-finite element method.,
J. Numer. Math., 11 (2003), pp. 95113.
 HP -FEM: ELECTROMAGNETIC APPLICATIONS 21

3.5 3.5
Analytical solution Analytical solution
7 7
Mandrel Resisitivity: 10 Mandrel Resisitivity: 10
5 5
Mandrel Resisitivity: 10 Mandrel Resisitivity: 10
3 3
Mandrel Resisitivity: 10 3 Mandrel Resisitivity: 103
Distance in zaxis from transmitter to receiver (in m)

Mandrel Resisitivity: 1 Mandrel Resisitivity: 1

Distance in zaxis from transmitter to receiver (in m)

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 10 5 0 5 0.5
10 10 10 10 180 90 0 90 180
Amplitude (A/m) Phase (degrees)

Fig. A.3. Solution (magnetic field) along a vertical axis passing through a toroid radiating in
a homogeneous medium in the presence of a metallic mandrel. Analytical solution (mandrel is a
PEC) against the numerical solution for different mandrel resistivities (10 7 , 105 , 103 , and 1
m) obtained with the self-adaptive goal oriented hp-FEM.

[10] J. R. Lovell, Finite Element Methods in Resistivity Logging, PhD thesis, Delft University of
Technology, 1993.
[11] J.T. Oden and S. Prudhomme, Goal-oriented error estimation and adaptivity for the finite
element method., Comput. Math. Appl., 41 (2001), pp. 735756.
[12] M. Paraschivoiu and A. T. Patera, A hierarchical duality approach to bounds for the outputs
of partial differential equations., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 158 (1998), pp. 389
407.
[13] D. Pardo, Integration of hp-adaptivity with a two grid solver: applications to electromagnet-
ics., PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, April 2004.
[14] D. Pardo, L. Demkowicz, and C. Torres-Verdin, A Goal Oriented hp-Adaptive Finite
Element Method with Electromagnetic Applications. Part I: Electrostatics., ICES Report
04-57. Submitted to Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 0 (2005), p. 0.
[15] M. Paszynski, L. Demkowicz, and D. Pardo, Verification of Goal-Oriented hp-Adaptivity.,
ICES Report 05-06, (2005).
[16] C. R. Paul and S. A. Nasar, Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1982.
[17] S. Prudhomme and J.T. Oden, On goal-oriented error estimation for elliptic problems: appli-
cation to the control of pointwise errors., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 176 (1999),
pp. 313331.
[18] W. Rachowicz, D. Pardo, and L. Demkowicz, Fully automatic hp-adaptivity in three di-
mensions., Tech. Report 04-22, ICES Report, 2004.
[19] R. Rannacher and F.T. Suttmeier, A posteriori error control in finite element methods via
duality techniques: application to perfect plasticity., Comput. Mech., 21 (1998), pp. 123
133.
[20] P. Solin and L. Demkowicz, Goal-oriented hp-adaptivity for elliptic problems., Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 193 (2004), pp. 449468.
[21] J. Van Bladel, Singular Electromagnetic Fields and Sources., Oxford University Press., New
York, 1991.
[22] T. Wang and J. Signorelli, Finite-difference Modeling of Electromagnetic Tool Response for
Logging While Drilling., Geophysics, 69 (2004), pp. 152160.