{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01340033500837521, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.713483146067416, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Two triaxial induction tools: sensitivity to radial invasion profile‡

I study the responses of two different triaxial induction tools to invaded dipping anisotropic formations. I show that the triaxial measurements have generally higher sensitivity to the radial invasion profile, compared to the conventional induction measurements. This enables accurate interpretation of both the anisotropic formation properties and the invasion parameters. Multi‐spacing and single‐spacing multi‐frequency triaxial induction tools can both be used for this purpose. Failure to take the invasion properties into account may lead to misinterpretation of the vertical formation resistivity. Symmetrization of the apparent conductivity matrix opens ways for a visual interpretation of triaxial induction logs for the formation and the invasion zone properties. This technique enables simpler and faster inversion algorithms. I study how the effect of a conductive annulus forming around the invasion zone couples with effects of the dipping anisotropy and the dipping boundaries and show when these effects are additive. Thus, a visual detection of log parts affected by a conductive annulus becomes possible.