Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-tx785 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-11T16:55:45.086Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microstructure-dictated resistance properties of some Indian dinosaur eggshells: finite element modeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Rahul Srivastava ,
Ashok Sahni ,
Syed A. Jafar  and
Sanjay Mishra
Rahul Srivastava
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Nagaland University, Kohima-797002, India. E-mail: rahulsrivastava71@rediffmail.com
Ashok Sahni
Affiliation:
Centre of Advanced Studies in Geology, Panjab University, Chandigarh 160 014, India
Syed A. Jafar
Affiliation:
1-87, Dargah H. Shahwali, P.O. Golconda, Hyderabad-500 008, India
Sanjay Mishra
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow-226021, India. E-mail: sanjay-mishra@rediffmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Finite element modeling (FEM) has been used to evaluate microstructure-controlled stability of selected eggshells of Indian dinosaurs. Our study suggests that under static load the eggshell microstructure of Megaloolithus cylindricus displays a low magnitude of tensile stress over most of the spherolith. The magnitude of this tensile stress is lower than that displayed in M. jabalpurensis, M. baghensis, and Subtiliolithus kachchhensis. In M. cylindricus, a shell thickness matching the length of the spheroliths prevents the failure of eggshells, whereas in M. jabalpurensis and M. baghensis, which have thinner shells, the development of additional subspheroliths compensates for the relatively higher magnitude of tensile stresses. Extremely thin eggshell in S. kachchhensis shows a still higher magnitude of tensile stresses, thereby making it prone to cracking, but the propagation of cracks is apparently checked and stability reinforced by wider spacing of pore canals.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , Spring 2005 , pp. 315 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ar, A., Paganelli, C. V., Reeves, R. B., Greene, D. G., and Rahn, H. 1974. The avian egg: water vapor conductance, shell thickness and functional pore area. Condor 76:153–158.Google Scholar
Ar, A., Rahn, H., and Paganelli, C. V. 1979. The avian egg: mass and strength. Condor 81:331–337.Google Scholar
Bathe, K. J. 1982. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
Board, R. G., and Scott, V. D. 1980. Porosity of the avian eggshell. American Zoologist 20:339–349.Google Scholar
Carpenter, K., Hirsch, K. F., and Horner, J. R. 1994. Dinosaur eggs and babies. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
CCA-Europe (Calcium Carbonate Association-Europe), Belgium. 2004. http:/www.ima.eu.org/en/ccawhat.html.Google Scholar
Chiappe, L. M., Coria, R. A., Dingus, L., Jackson, F., Chinsamy, A., and Fox, M. 1998. Sauropod embryos from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia. Nature 396:258–261.Google Scholar
Chiappe, L. M., Dingus, L., Jackson, F., Grellet-Tinner, G., Aspinall, R., Clarke, J., Coria, R., Garrido, A., and Loope, D. 2000. Sauropod eggs and embryos from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia. First international symposium on dinosaur eggs and babies Isona, Spain, Extended abstracts, pp. 23–29.Google Scholar
Chiappe, L. M., Salgado, L., and Coria, R. A. 2001. Embryonic skulls of titanosaur sauropod dinosaurs. Science 293:2444–2446.Google Scholar
Entwistle, K. M., and Reddy, T. Y. 1996. The fracture strength under internal pressure of the eggshell of the domestic fowl. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 263:433–438.Google Scholar
Entwistle, K. M., Silyn-Roberts, H., and Aboudha, S. O. 1995. The relative fracture strengths of the inner and outer surfaces of the eggshell of the domestic fowl. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 262:169–174.Google Scholar
Erben, H. K. 1970. Ultrastructures and mineralization of recent and fossil avian and reptilian eggshells. Biomineralization 1:1–66.Google Scholar
Gardner, T. N., and Mishra, S. 2003. The biomechanical environment of a bone fracture and its influence upon the morphology of healing. Medical Engineering and Physics 25:455–464.Google Scholar
Griffith, A. A. 1921. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 221:1–163.Google Scholar
Hirsch, K. F. 1994a. The fossil record of vertebrate eggs. Pp. 269–294in Donovan, S., ed. The paleobiology of trace fossils. Wiley, London.Google Scholar
Hirsch, K. F. 1994b. Upper Jurassic eggshells from the Western Interior of North America. Pp. 137–150in Carpenter, et al. 1994.Google Scholar
Hirsch, K. F. 1996. Parataxonomic classification of fossil chelonian and gecko eggs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16:752–762.Google Scholar
Hirsch, K. F., and Quinn, B. 1990. Eggs and eggshell fragments from the Upper Cretaceous Two Medicine Formation of Montana. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 10:491–511.Google Scholar
Huiskes, R., and Chao, E. Y. S. 1983. A survey of finite element analysis in orthopedic biomechanics: the first decade. Journal of Biomechanics 16:385.Google Scholar
Khosla, A., and Sahni, A. 1995. Parataxonomic classification of Late Cretaceous dinosaur eggshells. Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India 40:87–102.Google Scholar
Kingery, W. D., Bowen, H. K., and Uhlmann, D. R. 1976. Introduction to ceramics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Mikhailov, K. E. 1986. Pore complexes of noncarinate avian eggshells and the mechanism of pore formation. Palaeontological Journal 3:77–86.Google Scholar
Mikhailov, K. E. 1991. Classification of fossil eggshells of amniotic vertebrates. Acta Palaeontographica Polonica 36:193–238.Google Scholar
Mikhailov, K. E., Sabath, K., and Kurzanov, S. 1994. Eggs and nests from the Cretaceous of Mongolia. Pp. 88–115in Carpenter, et al. 1994.Google Scholar
Mohabey, D. M. 1999. Indian Upper Cretaceous (Maestrichtian) dinosaur eggs: their parataxonomy and implications in understanding the nesting behavior. First international symposium on dinosaur eggs and babies, Isona, Spain, Extended abstracts, pp. 45–46.Google Scholar
Mohabey, D. M. 2001. Indian dinosaur eggs: a review. Journal of the Geological Society of India 58:479–508.Google Scholar
Norell, M. A., Clarke, J. M., Chiappe, L. M., and Dashzeveg, D. 1995. A nesting dinosaur. Nature 378:774–776.Google Scholar
Rahn, H., Paganelli, C. V., and Ar, A. J. 1987. Pore and gas exchange of avian eggs. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Suppl. 1):165–172.Google Scholar
Rensberger, J. M. 1995. Determination of stresses in mammalian dental enamel and their relevance to the interpretation of feeding behaviors in extinct taxa. Pp. 151–172in Thompson, J. J., ed. Functional morphology in vertebrate paleontology. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Sahni, A., Tandon, S. K., Jolly, A., Bajpai, S., Sood, A., and Srinivasan, S. 1994. Upper Cretaceous dinosaur eggs and nesting sites from the Deccan volcano-sedimentary province of peninsular India. Pp. 204–226in Carpenter, et al. 1994.Google Scholar
Schleich, H. H., and Kaestle, W. 1988. Reptile egg-shells: SEM atlas. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Seymour, R. S. 1979. Dinosaur eggs: gas conductance through the shell, water loss during incubation, and clutch size. Paleobiology 5:1–11.Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., and Simkiss, K. 1987. Gas diffusion through non-tabular pores. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Suppl. 1):187–191.Google Scholar
Srivastava, R. 1998. Biomechanical analyses of rodent incisors: a morphological and microstructural adaptation. Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Historische Geologie 38:209–225.Google Scholar
Tetelman, A. S., and McEvily, A. J. 1967. Fracture of structural materials. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Toien, O., Paganelli, C. V., Rahn, H., and Johnson, R. R. 1987. Influence of eggshell pore shape on gas diffusion. Experimental Zoology (Suppl. 1):181–186.Google Scholar
Viney-Liaud, M., Mallan, P., Buscail, O., and Montgelard, C. 1994. Review of French eggshells: morphology, structure, mineral and organic compositions. Pp. 151–183in Carpenter, et al. 1994.Google Scholar
Zhao, Z. K. 1975. The microstructure of the dinosaurian eggshells of Nanxiong Basin, Guangdong Province. 1. On the classification of dinosaur eggs. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 13:105–117.Google Scholar
Zhao, Z. K. 1979a. The advancement of research on the dinosaurian eggs in China. Pp. 330–340in Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Paleoanthropology and Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, eds. Mesozoic and Cenozoic red beds of South China. Science Press, Beijing. [In Chinese.]Google Scholar
Zhao, Z. K. 1979b. Discovery of dinosaurian eggs and footprint from Neixang county, Henan Province. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 14:42–44.Google Scholar
Zhao, Z. K. 1994. Dinosaur eggs in China: on the structure and evolution of eggshells. Pp. 184–203in Carpenter, et al. 1994.Google Scholar
Zhao, Z. K., and Li, Z. C. 1988. A new structural type of the dinosaur eggs from Anly County, Hubei Province. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 26:107–115.Google Scholar