Interpretation of an anomalous magnetic response involves determining the parameters that characterize the source of the anomaly. The depth to the top of the structure is a parameter that is commonly sought, and the Source Parameter ImagingTM (SPITM) method is one way of determining this depth estimate. One advantage of the SPI method is that the depths can be displayed on an image. Typically there can be one image for an assumed contact (fault) model and another image for an assumed dipping thin sheet (dike) model. The depth estimate obtained will depend on the model assumed. An improvement to the source parameter imaging method extends the method to horizontal cylinders and at the same time allows the most appropriate model to be determined automatically. This model can be displayed on an image and the correct depth estimate for each anomaly can also be determined. The depth estimates can therefore be summarized on one map independent of an assumed model. The images generated from synthetic and field data show that the improved SPI method makes the task of interpreting magnetic data significantly easier.

In taking into account both compressional (P) and shear (S) waves, more geologic information can likely be extracted from the seismic data. The presence of shear and converted shear waves in both land and marine seismic data recordings calls for the development of elastic wave‐migration methods. The migration method presently developed consists of simultaneous migration of P- and S-waves for offset seismic data based on the Kirchhoff‐Helmholtz type integrals for elastic waves. A new principle of simultaneously migrating both P- and S-waves is introduced. The present method, named the Kirchhoff elastic wave migration, has been tested using the 2-D synthetic surface data calculated from several elastic models of a dipping layer (including a horizontal layer), a composite dipping and horizontal layer, and two layers over a half‐space. The results of these tests not only assure the feasibility of this migration scheme, but also demonstrate that enhanced images in the migrated sections are well formed. Moreover, the signal‐to‐noise ratio increases in the migrated seismic section by this elastic wave migration, as compared with that using the Kirchhoff acoustic (P-) wave migration alone. This migration scheme has about the same order of sensitivity of migration velocity variations, if [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] vary concordantly, to the recovery of the reflector as that of the Kirchhoff acoustic (P-) wave migration. In addition, the sensitivity of image quality to the perturbation of [Formula: see text] has also been tested by varying either [Formula: see text] or [Formula: see text]. For varying [Formula: see text] (with [Formula: see text] fixed), the migrated images are virtually unaffected on the [Formula: see text] depth section while they are affected on the [Formula: see text] depth section. For varying [Formula: see text] (with [Formula: see text] fixed), the migrated images are affected on both the [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] depth sections.

No abstract

Although Kirchhoff integral migration has attracted considerable attention for seismic data processing since the early 1970s, it, like all other seismic migration methods, is only applicable to compressional (P) waves. Because of a recent surge of interest in shear (S) waves, Kuo and Dai (1984) developed the Kirchhoff elastic (P and S) wave migration (KEWM) formulation and migration principle for the case of source and receiver noncoincidence. They obtained encouraging results using two‐dimensional (2-D) synthetic surface data from various geometric elastic models, including a dipping layer, a composite dipping and horizontal layer, and two layers over a half‐space.

It may not be completely obvious that in our Kirchhoff elastic wave‐migration formulation for the case of noncoincident source and receiver the traction vector [Formula: see text] and the displacement vector field [Formula: see text] on the boundary of a region in our equation (1) are indeed the total traction vector and the total displacement vector field. Therefore, the boundary condition [Formula: see text] on the free surface specified by S′ is correctly imposed.