Research Paper

Split Viewer

Econ. Environ. Geol. 2021; 54(3): 311-330

Published online June 28, 2021

https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

© THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY

Deterioration Diagnosis and Evaluation of Physical Properties in the Dinosaur Footprint Fossils in Cheongsong Sinseongri, Korea, for the Conservation Plans

Hye Ri Yang, Chan Hee Lee*, Jun Hyoung Park

Department of Cultural Heritage Conservation Sciences, Kongju National University, Gongju 32588, Korea

Correspondence to : *Corresponding author : chanlee@kongju.ac.kr

Received: May 3, 2021; Revised: May 17, 2021; Accepted: May 19, 2021

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The Sinseongri site contains at least eleven theropod trackways, three sauropod trackways, and one or more ornithopod walkways of dinosaur footprints. The host rock at the site is primarily siltstone and mudstone, but thermal alterations have metamorphosed it into hornfels. Except for micro cracks and exfoliations, joint systems in various directions appeared on the surface of the fossils site and showed a low share of all damage factors. The host rocks in the fossils site demonstrated relatively high physical properties as a result of ultrasonic velocity and were classified as stable. More than half of the fossils required reinforcement to control the progression of cracks if the type of conservation treatment was subdivided according to the damage type of dinosaur footprint fossils. The white paint used to visualize the footprints seems to deteriorate, allowing rock debris to spill out and causing damage to the fossil site, and alternative visualization schemes should be considered.

Keywords dinosaur footprint fossils, siltstone and mudstone, damage factors, ultrasonic velocity, conservation treatment type

보존방안 수립을 위한 청송 신성리 공룡발자국 화석지의 손상도 진단 및 물성평가

양혜리 · 이찬희* · 박준형

공주대학교 문화재보존과학과

요 약

청송 신성리 공룡발자국 화석지에는 최소한 수각류 보행렬 11개, 용각류 보행렬 3개 및 조각류 보행렬 1개 이상 존재하여, 국내 다른 공룡발자국 화석지에 비해 수각류 보행렬의 밀집도가 높다. 공룡발자국의 모암은 미사암과 이암의 암상을 보이나 전체적으로 열변질을 받아 혼펠스화되어 있다. 이 화석지의 표면에는 다양한 방향의 절리가 나타나며 미세균열과 박락을 제외하면 모든 손상요인에서 낮은 점유율을 보였다. 초음파 속도 측정 결과, 화석지의 암석은 비교적 건전한 물성을 보여 안정적인 것으로 평가되었다. 공룡발자국 화석의 손상형태에 따라 보존처리 유형을 세분하면, 균열의 진전을 제어할 수 있는 강화처리가 필요한 발자국화석이 절반 이상의 비율을 보였다. 또한 발자국의 가시화를 위해 도포한 흰색 페인트가 열화되면서 암편 탈락을 유발하여 오히려 화석의 손상을 촉진하는 것으로 나타나, 이를 대체할 방안이 검토되어야 할 것이다.

주요어 공룡발자국 화석지, 미사암 및 이암, 손상요인, 초음파 속도, 보존처리 유형

Article

Research Paper

Econ. Environ. Geol. 2021; 54(3): 311-330

Published online June 28, 2021 https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

Copyright © THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY.

Deterioration Diagnosis and Evaluation of Physical Properties in the Dinosaur Footprint Fossils in Cheongsong Sinseongri, Korea, for the Conservation Plans

Hye Ri Yang, Chan Hee Lee*, Jun Hyoung Park

Department of Cultural Heritage Conservation Sciences, Kongju National University, Gongju 32588, Korea

Correspondence to:*Corresponding author : chanlee@kongju.ac.kr

Received: May 3, 2021; Revised: May 17, 2021; Accepted: May 19, 2021

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The Sinseongri site contains at least eleven theropod trackways, three sauropod trackways, and one or more ornithopod walkways of dinosaur footprints. The host rock at the site is primarily siltstone and mudstone, but thermal alterations have metamorphosed it into hornfels. Except for micro cracks and exfoliations, joint systems in various directions appeared on the surface of the fossils site and showed a low share of all damage factors. The host rocks in the fossils site demonstrated relatively high physical properties as a result of ultrasonic velocity and were classified as stable. More than half of the fossils required reinforcement to control the progression of cracks if the type of conservation treatment was subdivided according to the damage type of dinosaur footprint fossils. The white paint used to visualize the footprints seems to deteriorate, allowing rock debris to spill out and causing damage to the fossil site, and alternative visualization schemes should be considered.

Keywords dinosaur footprint fossils, siltstone and mudstone, damage factors, ultrasonic velocity, conservation treatment type

보존방안 수립을 위한 청송 신성리 공룡발자국 화석지의 손상도 진단 및 물성평가

양혜리 · 이찬희* · 박준형

공주대학교 문화재보존과학과

Received: May 3, 2021; Revised: May 17, 2021; Accepted: May 19, 2021

요 약

청송 신성리 공룡발자국 화석지에는 최소한 수각류 보행렬 11개, 용각류 보행렬 3개 및 조각류 보행렬 1개 이상 존재하여, 국내 다른 공룡발자국 화석지에 비해 수각류 보행렬의 밀집도가 높다. 공룡발자국의 모암은 미사암과 이암의 암상을 보이나 전체적으로 열변질을 받아 혼펠스화되어 있다. 이 화석지의 표면에는 다양한 방향의 절리가 나타나며 미세균열과 박락을 제외하면 모든 손상요인에서 낮은 점유율을 보였다. 초음파 속도 측정 결과, 화석지의 암석은 비교적 건전한 물성을 보여 안정적인 것으로 평가되었다. 공룡발자국 화석의 손상형태에 따라 보존처리 유형을 세분하면, 균열의 진전을 제어할 수 있는 강화처리가 필요한 발자국화석이 절반 이상의 비율을 보였다. 또한 발자국의 가시화를 위해 도포한 흰색 페인트가 열화되면서 암편 탈락을 유발하여 오히려 화석의 손상을 촉진하는 것으로 나타나, 이를 대체할 방안이 검토되어야 할 것이다.

주요어 공룡발자국 화석지, 미사암 및 이암, 손상요인, 초음파 속도, 보존처리 유형

    Fig 1.

    Figure 1.Comparative photographs and conservation status of the representative dinosaur footprint fossils in the study area. (A) Recovery site after the 2003 landslide. (B) Site location and environment. (C) Results of alignment to the true north of Orthomosaic image created by UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) photogrammetry. (D) Sauropod footprint of trackway S2 in 2011 academic survey (Moon, 2011). (E, F) Surface contaminants, blistering and exfoliation on the footprint fossils.
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Fig 2.

    Figure 2.Occurrences of sauropod, ornithopod, and theropod trackways in the study area. (A) The 18th sauropod footprint of trackway S3. (B) The 20th sauropod footprint of trackway S3. (C) Ornithopod footprint of trackway O1 (Kim et al., 2019). (D) The 30th ornithopod footprint of trackway O1. (E) Theropod footprint of trackway T4 (Kim et al., 2019). (F) The 12th theropod footprint of trackway T2. (G) The 15th theropod footprint of trackway T10. (H, I) Sauropod footprint of trackway S1, S2, and S3 (modified from Kim et al., 2019).
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Fig 3.

    Figure 3.Schematic map showing dinosaur footprints and track site in the study area. T; theropod trackways, S; sauropod trackways, O; ornithopod trackway.
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Fig 4.

    Figure 4.Lithological photographs, polarizing microscopic images, and X-ray powder diffraction patterns for host rock of dinosaur track site in the study area. (A) Occurrence of siltstone. (B) Occurrence of mudstone. (C, D) X-ray powder diffraction patterns. Bt; biotite, Ch; chlorite, Hb; amphibole, Px; pyroxene, Q; quartz, Pl; plagioclase, K; alkali feldspar.
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Fig 5.

    Figure 5.Representative physical weathering states of dinosaur track site in the study area. Occurrences of joints (A, B), various blistering, and exfoliation (C to F) on each footprint fossils.
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Fig 6.

    Figure 6.Diagrams showing the crack index (CI) and quantitative deterioration rate of dinosaur track site in the study area. (A) Crack index for micro cracks. (B) Deterioration rate for exfoliations.
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Fig 7.

    Figure 7.Detail P-XRF measuring points for fresh part and surface contaminations of dinosaur track site in the study area. (A) Fresh parts. (B) Black contaminants. (C) Brown contaminants. (D) White paint. (E) Blue paint. (F) Red paint. The yellow circles in the figures are the P-XRF measurement points.
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Fig 8.

    Figure 8.Measuring points and concentrations in ppm on fresh part and surface contaminations of dinosaur track site in the study area. The numbers are the same as those in Table 3.
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Fig 9.

    Figure 9.Microphotographs showing the representative scanning electron microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) for surface contaminations analysis of dinosaur track site in the study area. (A, B) Yellow contaminants. (C, D) Brown contaminants. (E, F) White paint. (G) Red paint. (H) Blue paint.
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Fig 10.

    Figure 10.Ultrasonic velocity map showing the 2D contour modeling for dinosaur track site in the study area.
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Fig 11.

    Figure 11.Distribution of uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) on the rock surface for dinosaur track site in the study area and its relation to the ultrasonic velocity (Vp). (A) Estimation of UCS based on Schmidt hammer rebound at each measuring point. (B) The UCS versus multiple P-wave. (C) Comparison of ultrasonic velocity with the calculated value of the rebound hardness. R; Schmidt hammer rebound number, ρ; density value.
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Fig 12.

    Figure 12.Distribution map showing the suggestion types for conservation treatments of dinosaur track site in the study area. T; theropod trackways, S; sauropod trackways, O; ornithopod trackway.
    Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 311-330https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.311

    Table 1 . Locations of ground control points (GCPs) and survey results of the Sinseongri dinosaur track site. The coordinates were measured at each point using GNSS.

    Measuring PointGCPsX(m)Y(m)Altitude(m)
    CP1414721.649198582.785336.524
    CP2414691.547198609.954317.184
    CP3414681.891198620.039309.347
    CP4414674.807198608.200307.918
    CP5414668.177198597.961306.569

    Table 2 . Summary on the dinosaur trackways and quantitative deterioration assessment of the study area.

    TypesTrack waysNo. of FootprintsCrack Index (CI)Exfoliation (%)
    MinMaxMeanMinMaxMean
    SauropodS1550.804.102.09-5.000.87
    S227-4.501.38-5.801.58
    S328-5.302.66-4.400.80
    TheropodT151.103.502.46---
    T2330.406.102.28-13.002.49
    T3191.606.303.030.7018.207.83
    T4212.408.805.332.6018.908.26
    T5132.507.905.22-27.8012.73
    T6134.008.205.56-12.105.24
    T10151.905.403.421.5017.206.91
    OrnithopodO1330.607.104.652.4035.309.70

    Table 3 . Measurement results (ppm) on the contaminants by P-XRF of dinosaur track site in the study area.

    Measuring pointSiAlFeMnCaKTiSBaCuZnSnPb
    FreshC-1171,68380,61563,1443,47345,7117,1427,054---292--
    C-2196,065127,56433,0061,05420,808-114,523--22143--
    C-3145,68383,61527,72476618,615-90,658---109--
    ContaminantsY-1217,311118,491189,5342778,243-6,233---105--
    Y-2219,536112,563181,3783,04111,008-11,113---370--
    Y-3240,648100,644149,5085,52717,6556,6366,3433,166--261--
    Y-4249,21187,159121,5233,0335,0567,1049,320---370--
    G-1241,416102,093110,94513,12127,05412,15010,8427,311--510--
    G-2231,588108,456100,88844,30420,28910,0906,2661,515--192--
    G-3205,065127,564193,86144810,525-5,836---167--
    G-4230,27781,297124,4678,32164,23614,7109,5009,800--660--
    G-5230,36777,161151,04224,69529,73311,5698,3967,129--538681194
    B-1243,020108,468133,8014,27714,4417,07410,5562,579--489--
    B-2216,83499,341194,2679,3849,5535,8186,1218723,533-255--
    B-3240,77991,855154,6887,10616,22010,2339,2002,798--284--
    B-4209,74697,015209,7508,09210,1645,4476,4842,4283,673-338--
    B-5217,16596,312184,96912,46711,7987,6067,9944,1073,739-291--
    PaintsRP134,49861,935250,8635,592138,4905,3085,8365,602--736--
    CP267,90287,41460,1652,21368,74818,5598,7571,541--241-347
    WP-1257,911105,71797,4799,26019,09415,1646,7813,986--388--
    WP-2162,93287,51770,76487610,8965,124192,2222,195--380516-
    WP-3181,68383,61589,0653,5732,42912,333140,1443,384--361--
    WP-423,82198,371111,8134,56617,6579,26282,7264,765--475--
    WP-5175,66094,23581,5181,51057,5677,047119,3202,702--285--
    Average190,72484,468128,5907,37430,1837,43236,7592,74545613435023

    C; fresh parts, Y; yellow, G; black, B; brown, RP; red paint, CP; blue paint, WP; white paint.


    Table 4 . Results on contaminants by SEM-EDS analysis of dinosaur track site in the study area.

    Measuring pointOxide Concentration (wt.%)
    SiO2Al2O3Fe2O3MnOCaOMgONa2OK2OTiO2C
    ContaminantsY138.1117.3724.38-0.955.774.19--9.24
    237.1116.3831.82-1.152.871.98-1.137.56
    338.1914.5343.57--2.891.980.82--
    B452.1211.2311.2512.160.600.64-1.08-10.93
    528.3210.999.7931.601.771.40-0.89-15.24
    625.9014.297.2235.531.091.78-1.99-12.21
    PaintsWP718.9211.152.91--4.40-0.8548.5214.10
    818.8610.476.87--2.96--35.7825.06
    RP914.886.3747.29-5.565.680.690.2727.2929.28
    CP1031.1319.813.02-36.17----9.87
    1137.2024.430.45-27.03----10.90
    1231.3219.363.11-35.78----10.42
    1335.7522.352.11-26.86----12.93

    Location of each measuring numbers are presented on the Figure 9..


    Table 5 . Summary on ultrasonic velocity and uniaxial compressive strength of dinosaur track site in the study area..

    ClassificationMeanMinMaxSD
    Ultrasonic velocity (m/s)3,0747105,000961
    Coefficient of weathering (k)0.140.001.000.21
    Weathering gradeSWFRCWMW
    Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa)Fossil surface56.2841.3768.206.63
    Upper portion of inclined planehorizontal59.5735.9075.168.06
    vertical64.0650.8176.166.91

    SW; slightly weathered, FR; fresh, CW; completely weathered, MW; moderately weathered, SD; standard deviation.


    Table 6 . Proposed equations of predicting uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) for dinosaur track site in the study area.

    ReferencesEquationabR2
    Moradian and Behnia(2009)UCS = a exp(b/Vp)165.05-4,451.070.70
    UCS = a exp(b/ρVp)142.47-9,560.570.75
    Choi and Baek(2014)UCS = b+aVp0.0252-18.72870.57
    UCS = aVpb0.00171.29000.58
    UCS = b+a(Vpγ)0.0010-16.03150.73

    UCS; uniaxial compressive strength (MPa), Vp; P-wave velocity (km/s), ρ; density value.


    Table 7 . Classification on deterioration types and method of representative treatments for all dinosaur footprint fossils in the study area.

    Track waysType AType BType CType DTotal Number
    No.Ratio(%)No.Ratio(%)No.Ratio(%)No.Ratio(%)
    T15100.0------5
    T2515.22472.7412.1--33
    T3--2996.713.3--30
    T414.8628.61466.7--21
    T5215.41184.6----13
    T6192.3127.7----13
    T73100.0------3
    T10--426.71173.3--15
    T115100.0------5
    S1616.71747.21233.312.836
    S227.42281.5311.1--27
    S3--2796.413.57--28
    O1721.2824.21854.5--33
    TotalNo.37160641262
    (%)14.161.124.40.38100.0
    Weathering FormMicrocrackMicrocrack, ExfoliationMicrocrack, BlisteringMicrocrack, Structural crack, Blistering-
    TreatmentConsolidationConsolidationConsolidation, FillingConsolidation, Adhesion

    KSEEG
    Feb 29, 2024 Vol.57 No.1, pp. 1~91

    Stats or Metrics

    Share this article on

    • kakao talk
    • line

    Economic and Environmental Geology

    pISSN 1225-7281
    eISSN 2288-7962
    qr-code Download