evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs

A small, bird-like North American dinosaur incubated its eggs in a similar way to brooding birds – bolstering the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs, researchers at the University of Calgary and Montana State University study have found.

Among the many mysteries paleontologists have tried to uncover is how dinosaurs hatched their young. Was it in eggs completely buried in nest materials, like crocodiles? Or was it in eggs in open or non-covered nests, like brooding birds?

Using egg clutches found in Alberta and Montana, researchers Darla Zelenitsky at the University of Calgary and David Varricchio at Montana State University closely examined the shells of fossil eggs from a small meat-eating dinosaur called Troodon.

Darla Zelenitsky from the University of Calgary collaborated with David Varricchio at Montana State University to closely examined the shells of fossil eggs from a small meat-eating dinosaur called Troodon. - Jay Im (University of Calgary).

Darla Zelenitsky from the University of Calgary collaborated with David Varricchio at Montana State University to closely examined the shells of fossil eggs from a small meat-eating dinosaur called Troodon. – Jay Im (University of Calgary).

In a finding published in the spring issue of Paleobiology, they concluded that this specific dinosaur species, which was known to lay its eggs almost vertically, would have only buried the egg bottoms in mud.

“Based on our calculations, the eggshells of Troodon were very similar to those of brooding birds, which tells us that this dinosaur did not completely bury its eggs in nesting materials like crocodiles do,” says study co-author Zelenitsky, assistant professor of geoscience.

“Both the eggs and the surrounding sediments indicate only partial burial; thus an adult would have directly contacted the exposed parts of the eggs during incubation,” says lead author Varricchio, associate professor of paleontology.

Varricchio says while the nesting style for Troodon is unusual, “there are similarities with a peculiar nester among birds called the Egyptian Plover that broods its eggs while they’re partially buried in sandy substrate of the nest.”

Paleontologists have always struggled to answer the question of how dinosaurs incubated their eggs, because of the scarcity of evidence for incubation behaviors.

As dinosaurs’ closest living relatives, crocodiles and birds offer some insights.

Scientists know that crocodiles and birds that completely bury their eggs for hatching have eggs with many pores or holes in the eggshell, to allow for respiration.

This is unlike brooding birds which don’t bury their eggs; consequently, their eggs have far fewer pores.

The researchers counted and measured the pores in the shells of Troodon eggs to assess how water vapour would have been conducted through the shell compared with eggs from contemporary crocodiles, mound-nesting birds and brooding birds.

They are optimistic their methods can be applied to other dinosaur species’ fossil eggs to show how they may have been incubated.

“For now, this particular study helps substantiate that some bird-like nesting behaviors evolved in meat-eating dinosaurs prior to the origin of birds. It also adds to the growing body of evidence that shows a close evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs,” Zelenitsky says.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by the University of Calgary

Ancient Snail Shells Hint at Future Global Warming

A major global cooling event 34 million years ago chilled land as well as sea, according to climate clues found in an unusual place: fossil snail shells.

The new research, published on April 22 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveals the historical links between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and surface temperatures on Earth. Between about 333.5 million years ago and 34 million years ago, the climate transitioned from the balmy, carbon-dioxide-rich Eocene epoch climate to the cooler, low-carbon-dioxide Oligocene epoch. Scientists estimate that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dropped from 1,000 parts per million to about 600 to 700 parts per million in this time frame.

During this time, ice sheets emerged over Antarctica and the ocean cooled by some 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius). Researchers have been able to peg ocean temperatures accurately using cores of rock and mud drilled from the deep ocean. Figuring out what was happening on land has been more difficult, however.

So study researcher Michael Hren, a professor of chemistry and geosciences at the University of Connecticut, and his colleagues turned to snails. They tested fossils of a freshwater snail, Viviparus lentus, from the Isle of Wight in Great Britain, looking for variations in carbon and oxygen molecules called isotopes. [Gallery: Strange & Slimy Snails]

Most important, the researchers examined how the carbon and oxygen isotopes were bound together in the fossils. These bonds are temperature-dependent, so they told researchers how chilly or warm the water was when the snails lived. From that information, the scientists could calculate how hot the air must have been.

Shells of the freshwater gastropod

Shells of the freshwater gastropod

The shells revealed that freshwater temperatures cooled by 18 degrees F (10 degrees C) during the Eocene-Oligocene transition. The water-cooling translates to about a 7.2 degree to 11 degree F (4 to 6 degrees C) drop in air temperatures over northern Europe, the scientists reported.

These findings are important because human greenhouse gas emissions could drive atmospheric carbon dioxide up to near-Eocene levels. Ice cores put pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels at about 278 parts per million from A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1800. Today, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are at about 397 parts per million and climbing. According to a 2011 study in the journal Science by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), if carbon dioxide continues to rise as it is today, Earth’s atmosphere could hit 900 to 1,000 parts per million of carbon dioxide by 2100.

“We are on a path to fundamentally alter our global climate state,” Hren said in a statement. “These data definitely give you pause.”

Source:

WFS found nano prehistoric Teredina Sp. on wood fossil

Image 1

Image 1

Fossils provide insight into origin of Antarctic ecosystem

The circum-Antarctic Southern Ocean is an important region for global marine food webs and carbon cycling because of sea-ice formation and its unique plankton ecosystem. The origin of its ecosystems can be traced back to the emergence of the Antarctic ice sheets approximately 33.6 million years ago. This discovery was made by an international team including scientists from the Goethe University and the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre in Frankfurt, Germany. Their study, published today in Science, shows that the development of the sea-ice ecosystem possibly triggered further adaptation and evolution of larger organisms such as baleen whales and penguins.

Drilling modes of IODP

Drilling modes of IODP

 

The scientists analyzed sediment samples from drill cores on the seafloor, which were obtained in 2010 off the coast of Antarctica, as part of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP). The cores reach nearly 1000 meters beneath the seafloor and provide new insights into a long gone past.

A study published in 2012 demonstrated that subtropical plants covered Antarctica about 53 million years ago. In the course of the following 20 million years, the global climate cooled continuously. The new study focuses on the interval 33.6 million years ago when within a short time an enormous ice sheet covered Antarctica. This changed the life conditions and the ecosystems on the Antarctic continent and the surrounding Southern Ocean dramatically.

 

Tiny witnesses: Dinoflagellates

 

The ocean plankton mainly consist of algae, most of which are not preserved in sediment samples from drill cores. In contrast, single-celled dinoflagellates, a group of algae containing organic fossilizable substance, do preserve in sedimentary sequences over millions of years. This makes them a valuable tool to reconstruct environmental

 

The researchers found that when Antarctica was sub-tropical and ice-free, the surrounding seas were inhabited by a diverse array of dinoflagellates characteristic for relatively warm climates. However, from the moment that the ice cap formed, the diversity suddenly collapsed, and from that moment, only species occurred that are adapted to temporary sea-ice cover and characterize modern sea-ice environments around Antarctica. They are present in high numbers only when the sea ice melts in spring and summer, and therefore are available as a food source for higher organisms only during a short period of the year.

 

New species due to food shortage

 

The seas around Antarctica play a critical role in the food web of the ocean. Algal blooms only occur in summer, when the sea ice melts. These blooms are a key food source for both small single-cell organisms such as certain species of dinoflagellates and for larger organisms.

“The sudden turnover in the dinoflagellate assemblages indicates clearly that the entire plankton ecosystem of the Antarctic waters had changed”, explains Prof. Jörg Pross, co-author of the study and paleoclimatologist at the Goethe University and the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F) in Frankfurt, Germany. “The explosion of dinoflagellates adapted to a temporary sea-ice cover testifies to an in-depth reorganization of the food web in the Southern Ocean.”

Larger animals higher up in the ocean’s food chain probably adapted their diet because the algal growth season became shorter and more intense. Jörg Pross sums up: ?Our data suggest that this change may have promoted the evolution of modern baleen whales and penguins”. These results stress that major climate change is often accompanied by particularly rapid biological evolution.

 

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by the Goethe University Frankfurt

Iron in Primeval Seas Rusted by Bacteria

Researchers from the University of Tübingen have been able to show for the first time how microorganisms contributed to the formation of the world’s biggest iron ore deposits. The biggest known deposits — in South Africa and Australia — are geological formations billions of years old. They are mainly composed of iron oxides — minerals we know from the rusting process. These iron ores not only make up most of the world demand for iron — the formations also help us to better understand the evolution of the atmosphere and climate, and provide important information on the activity of microorganisms in the early history of life on Earth.

The extent to which microbes in the Earth’s ancient oceans contributed to the formation of iron deposits was previously unknown. Now an international team of researchers from the US, Canada and Germany has published new findings in the journal Nature Communications. Led by University of Tübingen geomicrobiologist Professor Andreas Kappler of the Center for Applied Geoscience, they found evidence of which microbes contributed to the formation of the iron ores, and were able to show how different metabolic processes can be distinguished in the rock formations today.

Iron ore mine in the Hamersley region, Western Australia. (Credit: Professor K.O. Konhauser)

Iron ore mine in the Hamersley region, Western Australia. (Credit: Professor K.O. Konhauser)

The iron in the Earth’s ancient oceans was spat out of hot springs on the seafloor as dissolved, reduced ferrous [Fe(II)] iron. But most of today’s iron ore is oxidized, ferric [Fe(III)] iron in the form of “rust minerals” — indicating that the Fe(II) was oxidized as it was deposited. The classic model for the formation of iron deposits suggested that the Fe(II) from the Earth’s core was oxidized by the oxygen produced by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). This process can happen either chemically (as in the formation of rust) or by the action of microaerophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria.

But scientists are still debating at what point the Earth’s atmosphere contained enough oxygen (produced by cyanobacteria) to allow the formation of big iron deposits. The oldest known iron ores were deposited in the Precambrian period and are up to four billion years old (the Earth itself is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old). At this very early stage in geological history, there was little or no oxygen in the atmosphere. So the very oldest banded iron formations cannot be the result of O2-dependent oxidation.

In 1993, bacteria were discovered which do not need oxygen but can oxidize Fe(II) by using energy from light (anoxygenic phototrophic iron-oxidizing bacteria). Studies by Professor Kappler’s team in 2005 and 2010 showed that these bacteria transform dissolved ferric iron into iron oxide (rust) — like the material in the early iron ores. Now, the geomicrobiologists from Tübingen have been able to demonstrate that, by examining the identity and structural properties of the iron minerals, it is possible to tell that the minerals were deposited by iron-oxidizing microbes and not by oxygen made available by the action of cyanobacteria. To do this, the researchers placed different amounts of organic material together with iron minerals into gold capsules and increased the pressure and temperature to simulate the transformation of the minerals over geological time. They ended up with structures of iron carbonate minerals (siderite, FeCO3), just as they occur in geological iron formations. In particular, they were able to distinguish iron carbonate structures which had been formed in the presence of a rather small amount of organic compounds (microbial biomass) from those formed in the presence of a larger amount.

This research not only provides the first clear evidence that microorganisms were directly involved in the deposition of Earth’s oldest iron formations; it also indicates that large populations of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria were at work in the shallow areas of the ancient oceans, while deeper water still reached by the light (the photic zone) tended to be populated by anoxyenic or micro-aerophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria which formed the iron deposits.

A Four-Winged, Fish-Eating Dinosaur

University of Alberta-led research reveals that Microraptor, a small flying dinosaur was a complete hunter, able to swoop down and pickup fish as well as its previously known prey of birds and tree dwelling mammals.

U of A paleontology graduate student Scott Persons says new evidence of Microrpator’s hunting ability came from fossilized remains in China. “We were very fortunate that this Microraptor was found in volcanic ash and its stomach content of fish was easily identified.”

Prior to this, paleontologists believed microraptors which were about the size of a modern day hawk, lived in trees where they preyed exclusively on small birds and mammals about the size of squirrels.

New research reveals that Microraptor, a small flying dinosaur, was a complete hunter -- able to swoop down and pick up fish. (Credit: Image courtesy of University of Alberta)

New research reveals that Microraptor, a small flying dinosaur, was a complete hunter — able to swoop down and pick up fish. (Credit: Image courtesy of University of Alberta)

“Now we know that Microraptor operated in varied terrain and had a varied diet,” said Persons. “It took advantage of a variety of prey in the wet, forested environment that was China during the early Cretaceous period, 120 million years ago.”

Further analysis of the fossil revealed that its teeth were adapted to catching slippery, wiggling prey like fish. Dinosaur researchers have established that most meat eaters had teeth with serrations on both sides which like a steak knife helped the predator saw through meat.

But the Microraptor’s teeth are serrated on just one side and its teeth are angled forwards.

“Microraptor seems adapted to impale fish on its teeth. With reduced serrations the prey wouldn’t tear itself apart while it struggled,” said Persons. “Microraptor could simply raise its head back, the fish would slip off the teeth and be swallowed whole, no fuss no muss.”

Persons likens the Microraptor’s wing configuration to a bi-plane. “It had long feathers on its forearms, hind legs and tail,” said Persons. “It was capable of short, controlled flights.”

This is the first evidence of a flying raptor, a member of the Dromaeosaur family of dinosaurs to successfully prey on fish.

Earth day ,2013 : Think about Mother earth.

Mankind is destroying rainforests, draining marshes and drilling into mountains to provide timber, water, coal and other resources. Some of this destruction has been captured in before and after satellite photos

Mankind is destroying rainforests, draining marshes and drilling into mountains to provide timber, water, coal and other resources.
Some of this destruction has been captured in before and after satellite photos

Cree Indian Proverb quotes

Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.

 

“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.”
~ Mohandas K. Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi)
SAVE EARTH

SAVE EARTH

 

For 200 years we’ve been conquering Nature. Now we’re beating it to death.
~ Tom McMillan

HABITAT DESTRUCTION

HABITAT DESTRUCTION

Man must feel the earth to know himself and recognize his values…. God made life simple. It is man who complicates it.
~ Charles A. Lindbergh, Reader’s Digest, July 1972

 

climate change: Man Made

climate change: Man Made

 

Thomas Alva Edison quotes
Until a man duplicates a blade of grass, Nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. Remedies from chemicals will never stand in favorable comparison with the products of Nature, the living cell of a plant, the final result of the rays of the sun, the mother of all life.

 

 

WFS Tools : Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

1.  What is GPR?

 

  • acronym for Ground Penetrating Radar
  • ground can be soil, rock, concrete, wood – anything non-metallic
  • emits a pulse into the ground
  • records echoes
  • builds an image from the echoes

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is the general term applied to techniques which employ radio waves, typically in the 1 to 1000 MHz frequency range, to map structures and features buried in the ground (or in man-made structures). Historically, GPR was primarily focused on mapping structures in the ground; more recently GPR has been used in non-destructive testing of non-metallic structures.
The concept of applying radio waves to probe the internal structure of the ground is not new. Without doubt the most successful early work in this area was the use of radio echo sounders to map the thickness of ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic and sound the thickness of glaciers. Work with GPR in non-ice environments started in the early 1970s. Early work focused on permafrost soil applications.

GPR applications are limited only by the imagination and availability of suitable instrumentation. These days, GPR is being used in many different areas including locating buried utilities, mine site evaluation, forensic investigations, archaeological digs, searching for buried landmines and unexploded ordnance, and measuring snow and ice thickness and quality for ski slope management and avalanche prediction, to name a few.
How does it work?

 

  1. Emits weak radio frequency signals
  2. Detects the echoes sent back and uses them to build an image
  3. Displays signal time delay and strength

GPR is just like a fish finder & echo sounder

 

1. The finder sends out a ping
2. Signal is scattered back from the fish
3. Signal is scattered back from the bottom
1. As the boat moves it collects recordings
2. The recordings are displayed side by side
3. The result looks like a cross section

 

 

 

GPR Exploration Depths

 

Exploration depth is site specific

 

  • soils absorb radio waves
  • sands and gravel are favourable for GPR
  • fine grained soils such as silt and clay absorb signals
  • salty water is totally opaque

 

 

 

What’s so tough about GPR?

 

  1. The ground is more complicated
  2. Man-made structures are complex
  3. Some things simply do not reflect
  4. Some grounds absorb all of the signal

Why doesn’t the pipe look like a pipe?

A sample GPR cross section through
the middle of a doorway. Note:
(1) the rebar
(2) the utility lines
(3) the trench beneath the concrete

 

 

 

  • the GPR record is a pseudo image of the ground
  • localized features become hyperbolas (inverted V’s)
  • the GPR sends signals into the ground in all directions
  • echoes are observed from all directions
  • closest approach (over target) occurs at apex of V
  • shape of inverted V helps determine exact depth

 

 

 

2. How deep can GPR see?

 

“How deep can You see?” is the most common question asked of ground penetrating radar (GPR) vendors. While the physics is well known, most people new to GPR do not realize that there are fundamental physical limitations.

Many people think GPR penetration is limited by instrumentation. This is true to some extent, but exploration depth is primarily governed by the material itself and no amount of instrumentation improvement will overcome the fundamental physical limits.

What controls penetration?

 

Radio waves do not penetrate far through soils, rocks and most man-made materials such as concrete. The loss of radio reception or cell phone connection while driving a car through a tunnel or into an underground parking garage attests to this.

 

The fact that GPR works at all depends upon very sensitive measuring systems being used and specialized circumstances. Radio waves decrease exponentially and soon become undetectable in energy absorbing materials, as depicted in Figure 1.

 

Figure 1: GPR signals decay exponentially in soil and rock.

 

The exponential attenuation coefficient, a, is primarily determined by the ability of the material to conduct electrical currents. In simple uniform materials this is usually the dominant factor; thus a measurement of electrical conductivity (or resistivity) determines attenuation.

In most materials energy is also lost to scattering from material variability and to water being present. Water has two effects; first, water contains ions which contribute to bulk conductivity. Second, the water molecule absorbs electromagnetic energy at high frequencies typically above 1000 MHz (exactly the same mechanism that accounts for why microwave ovens work).

Attenuation increases with frequency as depicted in Figure 2. In environments which are amenable to GPR sounding there is usually a plateau in the attenuation versus frequency curve which defines the “GPR window”.

 

 

Figure 2: Attenuation varies with excitation frequency and material. This family of graphs depicts general trends. At low frequencies (<1 MHz) attenuation is primarily controlled by DC conductivity. At high frequencies (> 1000 MHz) water is a strong energy absorber.

 

 

 

Can I decrease frequency to improve penetration?

 

Lowering frequency improves depth of exploration because attenuation primarily increases with frequency. As frequency decreases, however, two other fundamental aspects of the GPR measurement come into play.

First, reducing frequency results in a loss of resolution. Second, if frequency is too low, electromagnetic fields no longer travel as waves but diffuse which is the realm of inductive EM or eddy current measurements.

 

Why can’t I just increase my transmitter power?

 

One can increase exploration depth by increasing the transmitter power. Unfortunately, power must increase exponentially in order to increase depth of exploration.

 

 

Figure 3: When attenuation limits exploration depth, power must increase exponentially with depth.

Figure 3 shows the relative power necessary to probe to a given depth for the attenuations depicted in Figure 1. One can readily see increases in exploration depth require large power sources.

In addition to practical constraints, governments regulate the level of radio emissions that can be generated. If the GPR transmitter signals become too large, they may interfere with other instruments, TVs, radios, and cell phones. (Unfortunately, these same ubiquitous devices are usually the limiting sources of noise for GPR receivers!)

Can I predict exploration depth?

 

Yes, provided the material to be probed is known electrically, many numerical calculation programs are available. The simplest way to get estimates of exploration depth is to use the radar range equation (RRE) analysis. Software to carry out these calculations is available and there are numerous papers on the subject. The basic concepts are depicted in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Radar range, shown here in flowchart form, determines energy distribution and provides a means of estimating exploration depth.

RRE analysis is very powerful for parametric studies and sensitivity analyses.

Radar Range is Too Complicated!

 

Many users say RRE is too complicated for routine use. If you don’t like to get into detailed calculations, we suggest using the following simpler rule-of-thumb for estimating exploration depth

 

D= 35/  meters

where  is conductivity in mS/m. While not as reliable as the RRE, this helpful rule is quite useful in many geologic settings.

An even simpler approach is to use a table or chart of exploration depths attained in common materials. An example chart for common materials encountered with GPR is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Chart of exploration depths in common materials. These data are based on “best case” observations. As Figure 9 demonstrates, material alone is not a true measure of exploration depth.

Figures 6, 7 and 8 show examples which range from deep to shallow exploration. Material type can be seen to control exploration depth. Unfortunately, exploration can not always be predicted by knowing only the material in the survey area.

Figure 6: Data from a massive granite – reflections are fractures.

 

Figure 7: Data showing bedding in wet sand deposits.

 

 

Figure 8: Data shows response  of barrels in wet, silty clay.

Figure 9 shows a section where the geology is basically uniform but the depth of exploration is highly variable. Pore water conductivity is varying while the geologic material is invariant! In this case, knowing conductivity provides a better measure of exploration depth than knowing the material.

 

Figure 9: GPR section from sand setting. Depth of exploration is determined by pore water conductivity-not the sand material. Contaminants leaching from a landfill cause variable conductivity (and exploration depth) with position.

 

 

 

3. What creates GPR reflections?

 

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) measurements, such as shown in Figure 1, detect reflected or scattered energy. In technical jargon, reflections are created by changes in the electromagnetic impedance associated with property variations. Unfortunately, many GPR users are not familiar with the more esoteric aspects of radio fields and material properties.

 

Figure 1: Classic data set showing reflections from objects present in the survey area.

 

What are material properties?

 

“Material properties” characterize the physical attributes of a material. These properties range from density, elasticity, porosity, thermal conductivity, color, fabric, and texture to a host of other properties. The physical properties important for radio waves are dielectric permittivity, electrical conductivity and magnetic permeability.

GPR responds to changes in electrical and magnetic properties. People naturally tend to characterize a target by its visual or mechanical properties (i.e. directly sensed by sight, touch, etc.). A correlation often exists between electrical and other physical properties; hence GPR responses often conform to people’s preconceptions.

Why are electrical properties important?

 

Electrical properties control how electromagnetic waves travel through a material; dielectric permittivity primarily controls wave speed; and conductivity determines the signal attenuation.

Radar reflections occur when the radio waves encounter a change in the velocity or attenuation. The bigger the change in properties the more signal reflected.

Many GPR concepts are derived from optics. For example, Snell’s law describes the bending of both light rays and radio waves at a boundary between materials depicted in Figure 2. Bending (or refraction) depends on the change in wave speed between the materials.

Just as in optics, radio waves are partially transmitted and partially reflected at boundaries and the Fresnel reflection coefficient describes both light and radar waves.

 

Figure 2: Radar waves partially transmitted and reflected at boundaries. Rays also change direction crossing the boundary.

 

What are Fresnel coefficients?

 

Fresnel reflection coefficients quantify the amplitude of reflected and transmitted signals at boundaries. The ratio of the reflected-to-incident signal amplitudes is the reflection coefficient; the ratio of the transmitted-to-incident signal amplitudes is the transmission coefficient.

Reflection coefficients depend on the angle of incidence, the polarization of the incident field, and the velocity contrast. Figure 3 illustrates the variation of the reflection coefficient versus angle of incidence and polarization for a GPR wave incident at the water table where a velocity contrast of 1.6:1 might occur.

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Amplitude of reflected signals depends on velocity contrast, direction of incidence, and polarity. The reflections for both polarizations at a water table are depicted. 

Most situations are not this simple; reflector size and shape are also important. Purists argue that reflections are abstractions and that all responses are scattering responses. Fresnel reflection coefficients implicitly assume a planar and very extensive interface. This is seldom true in reality.

How are irregular shapes treated?

 

Some common sources of radar responses are depicted in Figure 4. Rough boundaries, localized features, long thin pipes and cables are all much more common than the planar boundary.

 

 

Figure 4: Common GPR targets can have a variety of geometries and spatial scales.

Geometry becomes important when boundary geometry dimensions approach the same size as the radar signal spatial dimension (i.e. wavelength). When this occurs, targets must be viewed as collections of scattering points that each capture and re-radiate some of the incident signal. These individual scatterers interact with one another to enhance or reduce re-radiated energy.  Scatterers are characterized by their radar cross-section and a back-scatter gain.

What are GPR Cross-Section and Back-Scatter Gain?

 

The cross-section is a measure of the effective area that a scatterer projects into the path of the incident radar signal. The incident radar wavefront energy per unit area multiplied by the cross-sectional area determines the energy the scatterer extracts from the incident wave.

 

 

Figure 5: Illustration of scattering cross-section area and back-scatter gain. In (a) a large area is presented and most energy directed back. In (b) the target presents a small cross-section and the scattered signal is not directed back to the receiver.

The energy extracted signal can be absorbed or re-radiated in any direction. Back-scatter gain measures the amount of energy re-radiated back in the direction of the incident signal as depicted in Figure 5.

Back-scatter gain and cross-sectional area are either computed from numerical modeling or measured for standard geometrical shapes in laboratories. Some simple geometries yield relatively compact analytical back-scatter gain formulas.

The cross-sectional area is a function of the true geometrical cross-section of an object as well as the contrast in electrical properties. The back-scattered gain is primarily controlled by the geometrical attributes of the object.

What does all This Mean?

 

In a nutshell, radar responses are a function of both physical property contrast and geometry. The response of a sphere, as depicted in Figure 6, illustrates this concept.

Figure 6: Scattering from a spherical body as a function of sphere dimensional. For a small sphere, size dominates. For a large sphere, the response approaches a planar target.

For small objects the amount of energy scattered increases as the fourth power of the target dimension. When the target gets large, the response plateaus out and approaches that of a planar boundary (i.e. the Fresnel reflection coefficient). Between the extremes, the response will oscillate due to constructive and destructive interference within the target.

 

 

 

  4.  How do I select a GPR frequency?

 

Frequency selection is controlled by two survey requirements – exploration depth and resolution length, as shown in Figure 1. Resolution length indicates the ability to uniquely identify closely spaced targets. More details on resolution length can be found in the January 2003 EKKO_Update.

 

Figure 1: Frequency selection is controlled by exploration depth and resolution length, D Z.

Exploration depth depends on many site specific factors with the most important being the signal attenuation rate in the host material.  Attenuation rate depends on GPR frequency as indicated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Attenuation dictates exploration depth. In an ideal material, attenuation plateaus above the transition frequency. In real environments, water or volume scattering cause attenuation to increase with frequency. The on-set of high frequency losses is very site specific.

In an ideal material, attenuation plateaus at high frequency.  In real materials, heterogeneity and water relaxation absorption increase attenuation at high frequency.  Scattering losses, as illustrated in Figure 3, always occur.  A street lamp in fog is a good analogy.  Water drops scatter the light resulting in greatly reduced visibility (i.e. light penetration is decreased).

Figure 3: GPR signals are scattered by small heterogeneities in material properties which reduce the transmitted signal.

Resolution length varies proportionately with GPR frequency since system bandwidth equals center frequency for impulse or baseband GPRs, as depicted in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Spatial resolution versus frequency length. Material velocity changes spatial resolution.

Figures 2 and 4 illustrate the dilemma: as GPR frequency increases, resolution increases but the exploration depth decreases. The compromise solution has a logical but not always unique solution.

Plotting exploration depth versus frequency, as shown in Figure 5, provides the basis of this discussion.  For simplicity, exploration depth is selected to be three attenuation lengths in the material.  Attenuation length is the inverse of attenuation rate and often referred to as skin depth.

Figure 5: Exploration depth (assumed to be three attenuation lengths) varies with frequency. The decrease in exploration depth at high frequency limits the upper practical GPR frequency.

As shown in Figure 6, the GPR bandwidth must lie between the shaded areas where GPR is not an appropriate method (dispersion is just too great).  For maximum resolution fc is selected such that the upper edge of the GPR bandwidth touches the exploration depth curve.  In some situations, a range of resolutions and center frequencies can be selected (Figure 7) while some situations leave little choice (Figure 8).

Figure 6: On a log scale, GPR bandwidth and, hence, resolution increase and decrease as center frequency is changed. The highest resolution (smallest resolution length) is achieved when the upper edge of the bandwidth box touches the exploration depth curve at the desired exploration depth.

 

Figure 7: The GPR frequency can be placed anywhere in the unshaded region, as depicted in the figure. As the center frequency is decreased, the bandwidth, B, decreases resulting in lower resolution.

Figure 8: In some cases, there is no choice about frequency, as shown here.
As the heterogeneity scale length increases, the high frequency cut off moves lower.

The following is a simplified algorithm which can be coded in a spreadsheet and used to estimate fc based on this logic.
(a) Characterize the site by estimating local relative permittivity, K, low frequency conductivity, , and heterogeneity scale, L (typical length of local variability in the host material).
(b) Compute the exploration depth (see Figure 5).

 

 

(c) Specify the desired exploration depth, D (must be less than dplat).
(d) Estimate high frequency limit factor for scattering

 

 

(e) Estimate maximum resolution ratio

 

using

 

(f) If R < 1, GPR is inappropriate.
(g) If R > 1 then the GPR center frequency that gives the fairest depth versus resolution length compromise is:

 

If the host is very wet (high water content > 5%), then fc should be limited to less than 1500 MHz if the computed value is greater.

 

These results are upper limits on frequency.  Not included in this simple analysis is the fact that GPR system power and sensitivity tend to increase with decreasing frequency.  Using a somewhat lower frequency than computed is often a wise choice.

 

5.  How can velocity be extracted from hyperbolas?

 

Accurately determining the depth of a reflection in a GPR data record requires knowledge of how fast the signals travel in the material under investigation.  Several techniques are used such as CMP (common mid-point), WARR (wide angle reflection and refraction), known-depth-target, hyperbolic fitting to a local target and diffraction tail matching.

All of these techniques require GPR measurements along a traverse where the geometry is varying in controlled fashion.  In other words, the distance to a target varies such that estimates of velocity can be extracted.

 

 

Figure 1: The GPR traverse should be perpendicular to the pipe or cable strike direction.

For pipe and cable location, or, in the Conquest example of rebar and conduit location, long linear features are localized targets if the GPR system traverses perpendicular to the feature alignment (Figure 1).  To estimate velocity, the path length to the object must vary.

Figure 2:  Plan view looking down on ground from above. Traverse 1 is perpendicular to strike and is optimal for velocity determination. Traverse 2 is at an oblique angle and traverse 3 is parallel to the pipe strike axis. Data from traverses 2 and 3 are not suitable for determining velocity.

Figure 2 illustrates this using a straight pipe or cable as an example.  In order to extract velocity information, the radar system must be moved perpendicular to the axis of the pipe or cable.  The long-axis direction is commonly called the “strike direction” or “strike” for short.  If a GPR traverses perpendicular to the strike, the distance varies from the radar system to the pipe in a regular fashion.  Traversing parallel to the pipe strike yields no change in the distance of the pipe and hence, a flat, non-changing event on the GPR record.  Figures 3 and 4 show these two extremes using real data from a drainage pipe in a farm field.

Figure 3: GPR data over a clay drainage pipe perpendicular to pipe direction (line 1 in figure 8)

 

Figure 4: GPR data over a clay drainage pipe parallel to pipe direction (line 3 in figure 8).

GPR cross-sections display signal amplitude versus position (normally on the horizontal axis denoted as x) and time (which is normally the vertical axis denoted as T). A local target has a travel time versus position as depicted in Figure 5. The mathematical form is a hyperbolic shape (inverted U on a GPR section) relating spatial position (x) to travel time (T). Figure 6 shows the response in a GPR cross-section as the target depth is varied while in Figure 7 the velocity is changed for a fixed depth.

 

 

 

Figure 5: Relationship between GPR position (x), object depth (d) and travel time (T).  To is travel time when GPR is directly over the object.

 

Figure 6: Schematic variations in GPR response when object depth is varied for constant velocity.

Figure 7: Schematic variations in GPR response when velocity is varied for a fixed object depth.

A handy interpretation aid is to visually fit a model hyperbolic shape to the GPR data as illustrated in Figure 8.  Placing the top of the model (triangle point) over the apex (top of inverted U) in the data section selects To.  Adjusting the model shape to match the data yields an estimate of the velocity, v. Combining v and To yields an estimate of the depth to the top of the target.

Good field practice entails several traverses over an object.  Only use the hyperbolic fitting on the traverse that gives the steepest slope to the arms of the inverted U.  This approach assures getting the most correct velocity.  A traverse not perpendicular to strike (line 2 in Figure 8) will always yield a velocity higher than the true velocity and the object depth will appear deeper than reality.

 

 

Figure 8: Example of shape fitting to a target response on the DVL screen in the field. This feature is standard on Noggin, Conquest and pulseEKKO systems.

6.  Are GPR emissions hazardous to my health?

 

Radio frequency electromagnetic fields may pose a health hazard when the fields are intense.  Normal fields have been studied extensively over the past 30 years with no conclusive epidemiology relating electromagnetic fields to health problems.  Detailed discussions on the subject are contained in the references and the Web sites listed below.

The USA Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) both specify acceptable levels for electromagnetic fields.  Similar power levels are mandated by corresponding agencies in other countries.  Maximum permissible exposures and time duration specified by the FCC and OSHA vary with excitation frequency.  The lowest threshold plane wave equivalent power cited is 0.2 mW/cm2 for general population over the 30 to 300 MHz frequency band.  All other applications and frequencies have higher tolerances as shown graphically in Figure 1.

Figure 1:  FCC limits for maximum permissible exposure (MPE) plane-wave equivalent power density mW/cm2.

All Sensors & Software Inc. pulseEKKO, Noggin® and Conquest™ products are normally operated at least 1 m from the user and as such are classified as “mobile” devices according to the FCC.  Typical power density levels at a distance of 1 m or greater from any Sensors & Software Inc. product are less than 10-3 mW/cm2 which are 200 to 10,000 times lower than mandated limits.  As such, Sensors & Software Inc. products pose no health and safety risk when operated in the normal manner of intended use.

References

 

1. Questions and answers about biological effects and potential hazards of radio-frequency electromagnetic field.

USA Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering & Technology

OET Bulletin 56
(Contains many references and Web sites)

2. Evaluation Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields.

USA Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering & Technology

OET Bulletin 56
(Contains many references and Web sites)
3. USA Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations paragraph 1910.67 and 1910.263.

Web Sites

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/

 

 

 

 

7. Will my GPR cause interference with other types of instruments operating nearby?

 

All governments have regulations on the level of electromagnetic emissions that an electronic apparatus can emit.  The objective is to assure that one apparatus or device does not interfere with any other apparatus or device in such a way as to make the other apparatus non-functional.

Sensors & Software Inc. extensively test their pulseEKKO, Noggin and Conquest subsurface imaging products using independent professional testing houses and comply with latest regulations of the USA, Canada, European Community, and other major jurisdictions on the matter of emissions.

GPR instruments are considered to be UWB (ultra wideband) devices.  The regulatory regimes worldwide are devising new rules for UWB devices.  Sensors & Software Inc. maintains close contact with the regulators to help guide standard development and assure that all products conform.  You should continually monitor the “News” link on our website (www.sensoft.ca) for updates on standards.

Electronic devices have not always been designed for proper immunity.  If a GPR instrument is placed in close proximity to an electronic device, interference may occur.  While there have been no substantiated reports of interference to date, if any unusual behavior is observed on nearby devices, test if the disturbance starts and stops when the GPR instrument is turned on and off.  If interference is confirmed, stop using the GPR.
 

 

8. What is the difference between frequency and time domain GPR systems?

 

Frequency and time domain GPR’s are in principle no different and in a perfect world would yield identical results. The reason that there are two different types of systems stems from various approaches of capturing wide band transient signals when direct capture is not electronically possible (A/D converters are not yet fast enough for most GPR applications). The result is a bunch of electronic mumbo jumbo that confuses non-electronic specialists.

In the frequency domain, the signals are emitted as a sinusoidal wave. The response, as the frequency of the sinusoid changes over a given bandwidth, is extracted. The transfer function is measured by heterodyning or mixing techniques. By suitable signal manipulation (Fourier transform) echo strength versus delay time is extracted. These methods of implementation are called FM-CW and step frequency radars.

In the time domain, all frequencies are emitted essentially at the same time and they constructively interfere to give pulses and create directly the echo strength versus travel time delay information. The signal capture uses synchronous detection of the signal. (The frequency domain signal can be synthesized by Fourier transform of the time domain signal). Common names for time domain systems are impulse, base band and UWB radars.

 

 

 

9. What are the advantages of a digital GPR system over an analog system?

 

GPR systems must acquire very rapidly changing radio frequency signals. The capture of these signals for analysis and interpretation requires a considerable degree of electronic sophistication such that high fidelity data are acquired.

Commercial GPR use equivalent time sampling (ETS) to capture the transient radio wave signals. ETS uses the same principles as a stroboscope. In its earliest form, analog electronic circuitry was designed to translate the rapidly varying GPR voltage into an audio frequency signal that could be recorded and displayed.

With time, GPR technology of signal capture with ETS has evolved substantially. Key developments over the past 30 years have been as follows.
(a) Recording the analog audio frequency signal on analog audio tape recorders for replay.
(b) Digitizing of the analog audio frequency signal to record the data on digital magnetic tape or computer disks. Computers are used for replay and analysis.
(c) Elimination of audio instrument stage with direct digital signal capture at the receive antenna while retaining the same analog signal clocking. Digital data were recorded on digital media.
(d) Digitization of signal at the receive antenna with digitally (computer) controlled delay times. Digital data are recorded. All analog ETS components are removed. Such systems are said to use digital equivalent time sampling (DETS).

The key benefits of DETS are as follows
(a) Timing and signal amplitude stability and fidelity.
(b) The ability to use digital compensation schemes to assure time base linearity and calibration.
(c) Acquisition of GPR data on demand without the need to keep analog clocking running.
(d) Removal of analog filtering stages in audio portion ETS circuits which can create distraction.
(e) Ability to collect spatially synchronized data (i.e. data are collected at known location triggered by user or electronic positioning). No need to rubber band to take out traverse speed variations.
(f) Ability to use programmable stacking versus GPR delay time.
(g) Ability to log a variety of diagnostic data with each GPR trace.

All of Sensors & Software’s GPR systems use DETS to assure the highest possible GPR data quality.

10. What advantages does Conquest offer for Concrete inspection over other NDT methods?

Compared to X-rays:

 

  • GPR/Conquest does not pose any heath hazards and such work can be conducted during normal business hours.  With X-rays, work must be carried out when there are no people in the vicinity due to the hazards of stray radiation; this usually means working after midnight.
  • X-ray personnel need to be certified and work will require several people on site, some to setup and operate the machine and others to ensure that no unauthorized people are present.  Conquest requires a single person to operate it and they need only understand the basic theory of GPR to interpret results.  No formal certification is necessary.
  • With X-rays, you need access to both sides of a slab.  With Conquest, all scanning can be done from one side.
  • Conquest results are in real time, X-Rays require some film development and analysis in the truck.
  • Depths to target are easily determined using Conquest, where X-rays require some calculations and assumptions involving source/target geometry.

Compared to cover meters:

  • Conquest can penetrate much deeper than cover meters, which are typically good up to 5″ maximum.
  • Cover meters work on the magnetic induction in metallic structures in concrete (e.g. Rebar), and will not pick up a non-metallic conduit. Conquest can detect metallic and non-metallic structures.
  • Conquest can accurately determine depth to those features, where cover meters estimate depth with a large error margin.

Source: Article with M/s Sensors & Software Inc,Canada.

Carnivorous Dinosaur Dahalokely tokana Raises More Questions Than It Answers

The first new species of dinosaur from Madagascar in nearly a decade was announced today, filling an important gap in the island’s fossil record.

Dahalokely tokana (pronounced “dah-HAH-loo-KAY-lee too-KAH-nah”) is estimated to have been between nine and 14 feet long, and it lived around 90 million years ago. Dahalokely belongs to a group called abelisauroids, carnivorous dinosaurs common to the southern continents. Up to this point, no dinosaur remains from between 165 and 70 million years ago could be identified to the species level in Madagascar-a 95 million year gap in the fossil record. Dahalokely shortens this gap by 20 million years.

Outline of Dahalokely tokana with a human for scale, showing known bones in white and missing areas patterned after related animals. (Credit: Copyright Andrew Farke and Joseph Sertich)

Outline of Dahalokely tokana with a human for scale, showing known bones in white and missing areas patterned after related animals. (Credit: Copyright Andrew Farke and Joseph Sertich)

The fossils of Dahalokely were excavated in 2007 and 2010, near the city of Antsiranana (Diego-Suarez) in northernmost Madagascar. Bones recovered included vertebrae and ribs. Because this area of the skeleton is so distinct in some dinosaurs, the research team was able to definitively identify the specimen as a new species. Several unique features — including the shape of some cavities on the side of the vertebrae — were unlike those in any other dinosaur. Other features in the vertebrae identified Dahalokely as an abelisauroid dinosaur.

When Dahalokely was alive, Madagascar was connected to India, and the two landmasses were isolated in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Geological evidence indicates that India and Madagascar separated around 88 million years ago, just after Dahalokely lived. Thus, Dahalokely potentially could have been ancestral to animals that lived later in both Madagascar and India. However, not quite enough of Dahalokely is yet known to resolve this issue. The bones known so far preserve an intriguing mix of features found in dinosaurs from both Madagascar and India.

“We had always suspected that abelisauroids were in Madagascar 90 million years ago, because they were also found in younger rocks on the island. Dahalokely nicely confirms this hypothesis,” said project leader Andrew Farke, Augustyn Family Curator of Paleontology at the Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology. Farke continued, “But, the fossils of Dahalokely are tantalizingly incomplete — there is so much more we want to know. Was Dahalokely closely related to later abelisauroids on Madagascar, or did it die out without descendents?”

The name “Dahalokely tokana” is from the Malagasy language, meaning “lonely small bandit.” This refers to the presumed carnivorous diet of the animal, as well as to the fact that it lived at a time when the landmasses of India and Madagascar together were isolated from the rest of the world.

“This dinosaur was closely related to other famous dinosaurs from the southern continents, like the horned Carnotaurus from Argentina and Majungasaurus, also from Madagascar,” said project member Joe Sertich, Curator of Dinosaurs at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science and the team member who discovered the new dinosaur. “This just reinforces the importance of exploring new areas around the world where undiscovered dinosaur species are still waiting,” added Sertich.

The research was funded by the Jurassic Foundation, Sigma Xi, National Science Foundation, and the Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology. The paper naming Dahalokely appears in the April 18, 2013, release of the journal PLOS ONE.

Anal fin of Euphanerops Fossil offers new insight into evolution

An unusual fossil fish that has fins behind its anus could have implications for human evolution according to a scientist at The University of Manchester.

Dr Robert Sansom from the Faculty of Life Sciences identified the paired fins of Euphanerops, a fossil jawless fish that swam in the seas around 370 million years ago. The find makes the fish one of the first vertebrate to develop paired appendages such as fins, legs or arms.

This is an image of the Euphanerops with the anal fins visible near the tail. - Biology Letters

This is an image of the Euphanerops with the anal fins visible near the tail. – Biology Letters

However, their positioning is incredibly unusual, as Dr Sansom explains: “Euphanerops is unique because its anal fin is paired meaning there is one fin on each side of the fish. Up until now anal fins have only been seen on jawed fish where they are unpaired and this is true of both extinct and modern fish. The age of Euphanerops is important as it dates from the time of a deep evolutionary split between jawed and jawless fish, the two main divisions of vertebrates alive today. As such, it represents an important stage in the evolution of paired appendages.”

He continues: “It’s not clear why the fins are positioned so far back on the fish, or what advantage they might have provided. However, they do show that our early vertebrate ancestors tried out lots of different body plans before settling on two arms and two legs. If they hadn’t then our bodies would have looked very different!”

Dr Sansom came across the paired fins as part of a study of Euphanerops fossils in Quebec, Canada. 3D surface scans of fossils and comparison of specimens preserved in different conditions revealed that there were two fan-shaped fins, a left and a right.

Dr Sansom’s research on the paired fins followed on from a 2009 study of early vertebrate evolution and fossil preservation with colleagues from The University of Leicester. Their findings have been published in the Royal Society’s journal Biology Letters.

Dr Sansom says it was an exciting find: “The unusual paired anal fin of Euphanerops lends support to the idea that there was some degree of developmental and evolutionary experimentation in some fish. After the Devonian period and the extinction of a lot of species, the jawed vertebrate body exhibits fewer deviations from the formula of paired pectoral, paired pelvic, unpaired dorsal and unpaired anal appendages. The discovery of new anatomical conditions will hopefully shed more light on the timing and sequence of the events underlying the origin and diversification of vertebrate appendages.”

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by the University of Manchester