Pascal Analyzer Crack

However, I am unable to crack the first two examples with it. PUT /my_index { "settings": { "analysis": { "analyzer": { "my_analyzer". Auvergne/Institut Pascal Analysis of Crack Growth in Compressor Blade Pascal Clermont Ferrand France; L. Heller–Institute of. swept into the building through foundation cracks by advection due to the indoor-outdoor contaminant sources, developing the sampling and analysis plan.

Pascal Analyzer Crack -

Fantasy Football Week 3 prep: PPR league cheat sheet to help you get the most out of your lineups

The Lineup Cheat Sheet combines Fantasy analysis and game-flow predictions with a confidence scale to give you a definitive answer on who to start in your leagues.

It's pretty simple: The scale runs from 1-10. The higher the number next to a player's name, the more confident you should be to start him. The numbers are not a projection, just a confidence score to help you pick who to start. Every relevant player for Week 2 is here, so if a player isn't listed, don't start him.

To find a specific player, use your search function -- CTRL-F on PCs and Command-F on Macs. If neither of those are options, or if you're on a mobile device, you can scroll by game.

If you're still unsure, just send a note on Twitter (@daverichard) and I'll give it a look, time permitting. Ready to get off on the right foot? Here's how to approach every play for Week 3 in PPR leagues -- you can find our non-PPR cheat sheet here.

More Week 2 help: Trade Value Chart

Peganza Pascal Expert v9.4.5 Cracked

Peganza Pascal Expert v9.4.5 Cracked
Peganza Pascal Expert v9.4.5 Cracked


Pascal Expert is our new plug-in for Embarcadero's Delphi IDE (RAD Studio). It was released in October 2015. Pascal Expert main task is to make a static code analysis. It only needs the source code, unlike other similar tools that perform an analysis of the running program. Pascal Expert will help you better understand your code and support you in producing code of higher quality, consistency, and reliability. It will point out possible issues and errors in your code.

Pascal Expert is a subset of our standalone static code analyzer Pascal Analyzer. Pascal Expert displays the same results as Pascal Analyzer, but integrated in the Delphi IDE, which makes it an ideal tool when working with code, as it lets you find problems earlier, and fix them at once.

If you want to also buy the full-fledged Pascal Analyzer, you will find favorable pricing. Similarly, if you already use Pascal Analyzer, you will get a very large discount when buying Pascal Expert. See our web site for more details. Pascal Expert can be installed for these Delphi IDE versions:

Delphi 10.3 Rio
Delphi 10.2 Tokyo
Delphi 10.1 Berlin
Delphi 10 Seattle
Delphi XE8
Delphi XE7
Delphi XE6
Delphi XE5
Delphi XE4
Delphi XE3
Delphi XE2
Delphi XE
Delphi 2010
Delphi 2009
Delphi 2007

Pascal Expert parses your source code in the same way as the compiler. The results are displayed as messages on a tab page in the Output window in the RAD Studio IDE. This tab page is normally located at the bottom of the window.



Only for V.I.P

Warning! You are not allowed to view this text.

Delphi

Источник: https://developer.team/delphi/25730-peganza-pascal-expert-v945-cracked.html
 RB Preview 

Sustainability problems of the Giza pyramids

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Published:

Heritage Sciencevolume 8, Article number: 8 (2020) Cite this article

  • 44k Accesses

  • 5 Citations

  • 13 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstract

The Pyramids complex in Giza consists of three main pyramids in addition to the famous Sphinx and small queen’s pyramids. Recently, the pyramids of Cheops (Khufu), Chephren (Khafre) and Mykerinos (Menkaure) on the Giza plateau have been threatened by a rising groundwater table resulting from water leakage from the suburbs irrigation canals, and mass urbanization surrounding the Giza pyramids. The pyramids at Giza suffer from a lot of Geo-environmental and structural problems. The main objectives of this study are (1) to assess the current status of the preservation of this unique and high valuable archaeological site, (2) to analyze the various actions that cause the destruction of the pyramid complex, in particular the weathering activities and strong seismic event, and (3) to determine the geochemical and engineering properties for construction materials using different types of tools and advanced analytical and diagnostic techniques. Structural stability analysis requires good assessment of present conditions of major materials used such as stones and structural mortar. The paper shows a thorough analysis of the current condition of the Great Pyramids at Giza. The work includes a discussion and analysis of the natural character and source of the pyramids building stones, geological context, damage survey, petrographic investigation, and physical and mechanical characterization of the stones and structural mortars, by means of laboratory and in situ testing. The results are displayed, described and analyzed in the paper in the context of potential threats to the monuments. The experimental study indicates the dependence of mechanical geological properties on the physical properties and the mineral composition of the studied building materials. The physical and petrographic characteristic of the stones are related. The modeling of properties indicates a reliable relationship between the various visible pores and uniaxial compression force parameters that can be applied to predict and characterize limestone elsewhere.

Introduction

The Pyramids of Giza are the largest and most famous pyramid structures in the world. It was built to honor some pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt during a period known as the Old Kingdom. The Old Kingdom was the first great era of Egyptian civilization and lasted from 2686 to 2181 BC.

Pyramids of Giza, fourth Dynasty (about 2575–2465 BC) pyramids were erected on a rocky plateau on the west bank of the Nile near Giza in northern Egypt. In ancient times, they were included in the Seven Wonders of the ancient World. The ancient monuments of the Memphis region, including the Pyramids of Giza, Saqqara, Dahshuor, Abu Rawash, were designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1979.

The Pyramids of Giza, built to endure forever, did exactly this. Archaeological tombs are remnants of the Old Kingdom of Egypt and were built about 4500 years ago.

Pharaohs thought in the resurrection, that there is a second life after death. To prepare for the next world, they set up temples of gods and huge pyramid tombs for themselves—filled with all the things each ruler would need to guide and preserve in the next world [1,2,3].

Pharaoh Cheops (Khufu) began the first project of the Pyramid of Giza, around 2550 BC. Its largest pyramid is the largest in Giza and is about 481 ft. (147 m) high above the plateau. Its stone masses estimated at approximately 2.3 million, weigh an average of 2.5 to 15 tons. The great pyramid builders used stones of different sizes and heights for the different layers. The stone blocks of Khufu’s pyramid were very large in the lower layers (1.0 m × 2.5 m base dimensions and 1.0–1.5 m high, 6.5–10 tons). For the layers that are higher up, it was easier to transport smaller blocks (1.0 m × 1.0 m × 0.5 m, appx 1.3 tons). For calculations most Egyptologists use 2.5 tons as the weight of an average pyramid stone block. 8000 tons of granite were imported from Aswan located at more than 800 km away. The largest granite stones in the pyramid, found above the “King’s” chamber, weigh 25 to 80 tons each. About 500,000 tons of mortar was used in the construction of the great pyramid. Many of the casing stones and inner chamber blocks of the Great Pyramid were fit together with extremely high precision. Based on measurements taken on the north eastern casing stones, the mean opening of the joints is only 0.5 mm wide (1/50th of an inch). There are three known chambers inside the Great Pyramid as follows: (a) The lowest chamber is cut into the bedrock upon which the pyramid was built and was unfinished. (b) The so-called Queen’s Chamber and King’s Chamber are higher up within the pyramid structure. The Great Pyramid of Khufu at Giza is the only pyramid in Egypt known to contain both ascending and descending passages. Originally, the Great Pyramid was provided with a stone cladding that formed a smooth outer surface; what is seen today is the underlying core structure. The cladding can still be seen around the top part of the Pyramid [4]. As shown in (Fig. 1a).

a General view of the Cheops pyramid in Giza area. b General view of the Chephren pyramid in Giza area. c General view of the Mykerinos pyramid in Giza area

Full size image

Pharaoh Chephren (Khafre), son of Khufu, built the second pyramid in Giza, around 2520 BC. His tomb also included the Sphinx, a mysterious limestone monument with the body of a lion and Pharaoh’s head. The Sphinx may stand guard for the entire tomb of the Pharaoh, as shown in (Fig. 1b).

One-third of the pyramids of Giza are much smaller than the first two. Built by Pharaoh Mykerinos (Menkaure) around 2490 BC, the temple houses much more complex funerals. The Menkaure pyramid is built at the far end of the Giza diagonal on the edge of the Mokattam formation, where it dips down to the south and disappears into the younger Maadi formation. The complex includes a valley temple, a causeway, and a mortuary temple on the east side of the pyramid. The pyramid’s base lies 2.5 m higher than Khafre’s pyramid and occupies only a quarter of the area used by the Khafre and Khufu pyramids. With its original height of 66 m, Menkaure’s pyramid represents only about a tenth of the mass in comparison to the Khufu pyramid [5]. The bottommost 15 m of the pyramid were cased with granite blocks from Aswan. Further up, the casing was made of fine limestone.

Each huge pyramid is only one part of a larger complex, including palace, temples, solar boat pits, and other features, (see Fig. 1c).

The Giza plateau was in ancient times, geologically connected to the Moqattam hill on the other side of the Nile crossing the site of what is now the capital Cairo. The top level of the Moqattam hill is now + 200 m. The top level of the Giza plateau must have acquired a level hypothetically close to the Moqattam surface level, i.e. + 200 m, or so. The geological formation of both sites, the Giza plateau and the Moqattam hill, is composed of a cretaceous nucleolus amid an Iocenean formation”, an action happened when Abu-Rawash concave cap mass was transposed upside down in the late upper cretaceous, resulting in a solid cap well exposed on the surface”. Amid that process, the site was formed as hill heights along with convexes of the vallies, keeping an “axis running from the eastern North to the western South” [6]. That axis almost coincides with the axis connecting the centers of gravity of the three pyramids. “The iocenean formation of the site is mainly composed of two strata, one higher and one lower. The lower stratum is identified as denser and more homogeneous.”

Conservation of historic buildings and archaeological sites is actually one of the most difficult challenges facing modern civilization. It involves a number of factors belonging to different areas (cultural, human, social, technical, economic and administrative), intertwined in inseparable patterns. The complexity of the topic is that it is difficult to imagine guidelines or recommendations that summarize what needs to be done and describe activities to continue, intervention techniques, design approaches.

From the point of view of the engineer, the specificity of this type of intervention is a requirement of respect for safety, along with ensuring safe use.

In the context of the principles of restoration, maintain the full integrity of The monument must be a well-accepted concept and this requires not rushing to stabilize measures until the monument’s behavior is properly understood.

Topography, geology, climate and human actions seem to have a significant impact on environmental processes, and therefore a significant impact on the conservation of the built environment.

The pyramid complex suffered from different types of structural damage and construction materials decay and disintegration. The sources of this degradation can generally be classified as: nature, time, and man-made. In recent years, the great pyramids and the Great Sphinx have been threatened by rising groundwater levels caused by water infiltration from the suburbs, irrigation canals and mass urbanization surrounding the Giza plateau [7]. The rising of groundwater levels represents a threat to the Egyptian Heritage of the Giza Pyramids Plateau (GPP) particularly since the area surrounding the plateau has been developed into the suburb of Greater Cairo. Today, Giza is a rapidly growing region of Cairo. Population growth in Egypt continues to soar, leading to new construction. New roads for large new developments are increasing obviously in the desert hills northwest and southwest of the Giza pyramids, As shown in space station views in (Fig. 2a–d).

a Space station view, photograph taken by astronauts in (2001, August 15). Roads and new constructions for large new developments are obvious in the desert hills northwest and southwest of the Giza pyramids. After NASA-JSC Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (http://eol/jsc.nasa.gov/sseop). b Space station view, photograph taken by astronauts in (2012, August 18). The new constructions in the desert hills northwest and southwest of the Giza pyramids rapidly increased. After NASA-JSC Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (http://eol/jsc.nasa.gov/sseop). c Space station view, photograph taken by astronauts in (2016, May 3). The new constructions in the desert hills northwest and southwest of the Giza pyramids extended many times. After NASA-JSC Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (http://eol/jsc.nasa.gov/sseop). d Space station view, photograph taken by astronauts in (2019, October 14). The new constructions in the desert hills northwest and southwest of the Giza pyramids. After MAXAR Technologies 2019 (https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/)

Full size image

Understanding the passage ways of rain water on the plateau, groundwater and sewage from both the Nile flood plain and Abo Roash area play an important role in the conservation strategy for the unique artifacts of the Giza Plateau Two regional aquifers are located behind the Sphinx statue with a water level at a depth of 1.5 to 4 m below the surface (for example). The second aquifer is a broken carbon aquifer that covers an area beneath the pyramid and sphinx plateau, where the depth of the groundwater ranges from 4 to 7 m. The recharge of the aquifer underneath the Sphinx area occurred mainly through diversion of the water network and overall urbanization [7].

Due to the unique values of the three great pyramids in Giza, the present work is very important to analyze the nature and sustainability of the construction materials of the pyramid complex also to assess the effects of mechanical, dynamic and physiochemical actions of deterioration and structural deficiency, especially earthquakes and weathering impact on the pyramid structure.

Materials and methodology

Several tests and laboratory analyzes were carried out to determine the problems of the nature and sustainability of the outer casing stone blocks (granite, marble and limestone), filling stone blocks (limestone) and the structural mortars joining the stone units used in the construction of the three great pyramids in Giza. To investigate the above questions, we selected a total of 45 samples of fallen fragments from different locations around the three pyramids. The selected samples belong to the back layers and facades and represent typical building material features.

The laboratory work was carried out on site:

  • Photographic documents, architectural and geodetic survey of the pyramid.

  • Geomorphology, petrographic and chemical analysis.

  • Engineering properties and mechanical analysis of stones and structural mortars.

  • Record all cracks.

Eight thin sections were examined using polarized light microscopy to identify the petrographic and geochemical characteristics of these building materials (stones and binding mortars). X-ray diffraction (XRD) and X-ray florescence (XRF) probes were conducted to identify slices and ratios of the installation stones and mortar. Together with Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) attached with Energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) for microscopic examination and microscopic examination. Examples of XRD diffraction for both studied stones and slurry tests are increased by Cu K. radiation. The filtering speed is 2θ = 1°/min. With a constant voltage of 40 kV, 30 m and the use of X-ray diffraction PW 1480. Significant components (by weight %) of stone and mortar tests studied using X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (XRF) were performed on an advanced wavelength-dispersed spectrometer (Axios, WD- XRF Spectrometer, PANalytical, 2005, Netherlands). The chemical analyses were carried out adopting the ASTM specifications (ASTM C114-00, (ASTM C114-15)”), and electron microscopy images (SEM) were performed on a smaller scale analyzer JXA 840A for electron testing, Japan,

Engineering characteristics of the studied building materials (granite, limestone and structural mortar) were achieved. Fifteen cylindrical samples of stones were prepared to determine the petrophysical and geochemical properties. Specific gravity (GS), unit weight (γ), water absorption (wc), porosity (n) and saturation (sr) are the specific physical aspects. While the mechanical characterization included the determination of uniaxial compressive strength (σc), Young’s modulus (E) and Brazilian split tensile strength (σt), shear strength (T), Schmidt hammer index recovery number (SHV), durability or impact indexes are estimated by AIV, in addition to the non-destructive pulse ultrasonic wave velocity test (Vp) through stone examples, estimates of Young’s dynamic coefficient (Edy) and shear modulus (G) [8].

Geomorphologially and geological context of Giza plataeu

The Cheops, Khephren and Mykerinos pyramids are located in the north-western part of the Giza plateau (see Fig. 2). The altitude above sea level of the rock bases surrounding these monuments is approximately 68 m for Khephren and 62 m for Kheops (60 m at the SE corner), as shown in (Fig. 3a, b). The Sphinx and Queen Kentkawes’ Mastaba lie further down on the plateau towards the Nile Valley. Their rock base altitudes are approximately 22 m around the Sphinx and 38 m around Kentkawes [9].

a Wireframe Topography and Rendered Structures in Plan View (after http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/projects/giz/comp_model.html). b Rendered Giza Plateau Model from Northeast

Full size image

Geomorphologically, the area under consideration is divided into four distinct units: the plateau, the cliff and the slopes, terraces and the Nile flood plain. The height of the plateau ranges from 20 m in the northeastern and eastern bottom and 105.8 m in the peaks of the Western side top summits [10]. The top of the Giza plateau is flat and varies in height from 60 to 106 masl whereas the elevation of the area of the pyramids vary from 60 to 70 masl. The dip angles range from 4o to 7o for the eastern part of the plateau near the Sphinx [11].

The studies show that the monuments of the fourth dynasty of the plateau of Giza are built on a sedimentary sequence with dominant carbonated formations deposited in an epicontinental sea of variable depth. All the authors agree that these sedimentary layers have the characteristics of the Mokattam formation and Maadi formation, from Middle to Late Eocene age, as shown in (Fig. 4a–c).

(modified after ElArabi et al. [30])

a The geological setting of the Giza plateau, where the pyramids are built (modified after Yehia [12]). b A cross section using the ERT data shows how the groundwater elevation changes from the Sphinx to Menkaure Pyramid. It indicates an increase in groundwater elevation from west to east) (modified after Sharafeldin et al. [17]). c Groundwater aquifers affecting the Giza Plateau

Full size image

OMara [12], Yehia [13] and El Aref and Refai [14] carried out structural studies on the Giza Pyramids Plateau. The plateau is an oriented NE-SW and dipping SE monocline. This monocline is the SE anticlinal limb of the Wadi El Toulon anticline, lying in the southern part of the Abu Rawash folded complex. The dip of the layers of this monoclinal structure is homogeneous. El Aref and Refai [14] gives a value ranging between 4 and 7° for the zone carrying the study sites.

This monoclinal is affected by hectometric faults with normal dominant and weak throw oriented NW–SE which does not affect the study sites. On the 1/100,000 map of Greater Cairo the plateau is located in the Mokattam formation of the Middle Eocene, linked in the south by faults with the Maadi formation of the Late Eocene. The weak throw and the orientation of these faults essentially suggest a discrete deformation by synsedimentary normal faults during the Eocene deposition period.

The entire plateau is affected by karstic processes, described by El Aref and Refai [14] and Dowidar and Abd-Allah [11], which developed according to the local structural and stratigraphic conditions and led to a particular morphology of stepped terraced escarpments, karst ridges and isolated hills. These authors relate the development of karst features to Mediterranean climatic conditions [9].

From the observations made in the boat-pits, at the NE corner of the Cheops pyramid and on the esplanade around the pyramid, we have seen that the rock base of the monument is mainly composed of nummulitic packstone.

Observations at Cheops pyramid show that the rocky basement is not very visible in the lower parts of the pyramid. It is however possible to establish the presence of original rocky hill, as shown in (Fig. 5a, b). The Northern East corner of the great pyramid of Khufu is the visible part of the original hill [9].

a Cheops (Khufu) Pyramid. The Northern East corner of the great pyramid. The visible part of the original hill. The visible part of the original hill. b Kheops Pyramid. Boatpit located at the NE of the pyramid showing pyramid base geological series

Full size image

Petri [15] observed the rock in the inner proportions at an altitude of 8 m above the level of the scheme. For Eyth [16] the maximum height of the rock platform is 12.5 m, and Dormion [17] is only 6.60 m. They observed natural rock in the galleries of the pyramid of Cheops and Khephren where the lining of the walls had disappeared [9].

The study area fractures are found in three major groups heading west–northwest, northwest and northeast. Fractures to the west and northwest are predominant in the northern, western and eastern sides of the Pyramids of Cheops and North of the Pyramids of Chephren [9,10,11].

Depending on the depth of the 2012 groundwater contour map, there are two groundwater systems in the study area. The first part relates to the groundwater aquifer system and covers the eastern part of the Sphinx area where the depth of the groundwater ranges from 1.5 to 4 m below the surface of the ground and increases the depth of groundwater west. The second system is linked to water. The bearing layers belong to the formation of broken limestone (below Sphinx area), where the depth of groundwater ranges from 4 to 7 m below the surface [7].

Structural damage and materials decay

Dynamic actions

According to historical recordings the strong earthquakes and seismic events that have stuck the Giza area induced small or medium damages and structural deficiency to the pyramids complex. Up to the end of the ninth century the secular number of reported earthquakes fluctuates between zero and three. A relatively high number (eight) of earthquakes has been reported in the tenth century. The reported earthquakes reach their highest number (17) in the nineteenth century [18].

The Question: What is the reason for the proven resistance of the monuments to the seismic events of the past? The good seismic behavior of the Giza plateau (limestone tertiary/cretaceous) or is it that the way in which the buildings were constructed enabled them to with stand successfully the seismic actions.

The instrumental seismicity map indicates that the pyramids site is characterized by very low seismicity setting [19].

The site selection and the geological properties of the area, being away from seismic effects, floods and groundwater levels, the stability of the geometric form of the pyramid, the solidity of the structural engineering and precision of execution arguably are the reasons why the Great Pyramids of Giza are the only survivors of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Most of the destructive earthquakes’ epicenters are localized in the eastern bank of the River Nile. Also, the isoseismal intensity contour map reflected that the pyramid site has not been affected by intensity value more than VI on Mercalli scale. Moreover, one of three seismotectonic trends affecting Egypt passes by Fayoum province but avoid the Pyramids’ site.

The sedimentary layers where the pyramids were considered a suitable foundation that can safely support the massive rock structure.

The good seismic behavior of the Giza plateau (limestone tertiary/cretaceous Formations) is a result of the transmission of the earthquake acceleration in the limestone or rock Formations is much lower than the transmission of the same earthquake acceleration in the soft and medium soils, as shown in (Fig. 6a) [20]. Also the spectrum acceleration coefficient and force in the rock Formations are much lower than the spectrum acceleration Coefficient and larger force in the soft and medium soils in particular the clay soil as shown in (Fig. 6b) [21]. Note: soil type coefficient should be examined for the top 30 m of soil or rock Formations layer. Also the ground accelerations are strongly modified by the soil conditions. Rock sites will have high frequency shaking, while on soft soil sites high frequencies (short period) will be reduced or filtered out, but low frequencies will be amplified as shown in (Fig. 6c) [22].

a Transmission of seismic waves through different soil types (after, Junbo Jia [19]). b Response spectra for rock and soil sites (after, Krishna [20]). c Earthquake response (frequency) on sites with different soil types (after, Ansell and Taber [21])

Full size image

The construction details, where the rock keys were used to stabilize the slope against slippage in the Great Pyramid (very functional especially during earthquakes). It is amazing to note that the maximum static stress under the Greater Pyramids is about 3500 kPa; yet this huge stress value did not entail any observed or likely foundation failure (bearing capacity or excessive settlement). Show that the builders had taken into consideration the likelihood of seismic loading. Founding of the monuments for the most part on solid rock and good quality of construction of the foundations favour their good anti seismic behavior.

The Pyramidal shape represents an extraordinary advantage, since the pyramid is the most earthquake-resistant structure possible, even more than the domes. For the construction details; several layers of smoothed stones without any mortars or sticky materials between them actually form a kind of base isolation for the foundations, where some flat small stones like pillow were laid to absorb the first shock of earthquake force on the pre-prepared soil under foundations. Some big stones layers were put over these small stones. The number of layers in most of the times was three and no mortar was used, the large foundation stones are called “Orthostat” stones. The pyramid shaped building is suitable in earthquake prone area due to its higher stiffness and less displacement.

The only earthquake that affected the pyramids was in the 14th century on August 8, 1303. A massive earthquake (M = 6.5 Richter) hit the Fayoum area and loosened many of the outer casing stones, some of the stones can still be seen as parts of these structures to this day. Later, explorers reported massive piles of rubble at the base of the pyramids left over from the continuing collapse of the casing stones which were subsequently cleared away during continuing excavations of the site. Nevertheless, many of the outer casing stones around the base of the Khufu Pyramid can be seen today in site, displaying the same workmanship and precision as has been reported for centuries [19]. Table 1 represents the Earthquakes causing intensities VII or greater near Giza area.

Full size table

In August 1303 AD, Eastern Mediterranean: A strong shock was felt throughout northern Egypt. Arabic sources reported that this earthquake was the strongest in Egypt, particularly in Alexandria. In Cairo, almost all houses suffered some damage and many large public buildings collapsed. The earthquake caused panic, and women run into the streets without their veils. Minarets of the mosques of Cairo were particularly affected. In Alexandria, many houses were ruined and killed a number of peoples. The lighthouse was shattered and its top collapsed. The damage extended to Southern Egypt up to Qus. This earthquake was placed by Sieberg to Faiyum, south of Cairo because of the severe damage in Middle Egypt. It was also reported that this earthquake caused large-scale damage in Rhodes and Crete. Ambraseys [23] placed its epicenter in the Mediterranean Sea as As-Souty mentioned that the advance of sea submerged half of Alexandria. According to Arabic sources (e.g. El-Maqrizy; As-Souty) aftershocks continued during 3 weeks [18].

Recently the present area is near to relatively active earthquake area to the west of downtown Cairo. In that area, the most destructive event in recent history of Egypt took place in October 12th, 1992. The epicentral distance is only about 30 km. Damage report after that earthquake showed that great pyramids at Giza were severely damaged, and few years later a restoration plan was inaugurated to save the pyramids from more damage and instability problems. In addition, other earthquake activities are also observed at east Cairo, like Aqaba earthquake in 1995. But Dahshour seismic zone constitutes the epicenter of the 12th October 1992 Cairo earthquake, and other seismic activity area produced earthquakes with magnitudes seldom reaching a magnitude of 5. However, due to their proximity from the dense population Cairo metropolitan, such earthquakes were widely felt in greater Cairo area. The seismic zone at Dahshour is only few kilometers from the pyramids complex. The epicentral distance between Cairo earthquake and pyramids is few kilometers only. This proximity indicates that Dahshour seismic zone might have the highest effect especially at short periods.

Most of the typical land failure effects were as extensive as soil liquefaction [24]. Giza Governorate was exposed to liquids during the 12 October earthquake [25].

Soil liquefaction has been reported in Giza. Since this is the last major earthquake affecting the monument, it is possible to assume that the present deformed form and the cracking of the inner chambers and the inner and outer stone layers [26,27,28,29]. According to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram in 13 October 1992, several small outer casing blocks on the top of the great pyramid and supporting panels fell down during the Dahshuor earthquake 1992.

It is important to note that after the first earthquake, permanent distortions (and therefore moments of permanent curvature) remain, so that global behavior, even in the case of low-level earthquakes, becomes weaker and weaker. The structure is weakened after earthquakes between the blocks and deformations of the exits and pressure in the walls; from this point of view, the current situation is worse than in the past, as shown in (Fig. 7a, b). Permanent deformation of blocks in the zone of borders of the façades and corners of the great Cheops pyramid. The increasing weakness of the structure after earthquake causing the friction and sliding between the casings and filling blocks. Show extremely slow degradation process which affected the backing stone blocks of the great pyramid, many blocks were detached. The outer casing stone blocks fell down completely in 1303 strong earthquake.

a Permanent deformation of blocks in the zone of borders of the façades and corners of the great pyramid of Khufu. The increasing weakness of the structure after earthquake causing the friction and sliding between the facing and backing blocks. b Show extremely slow degradation process which affected the backing stone blocks of the great pyramid, many blocks were detached. The outer casing stone blocks fell down completely in 1303 strong earthquake

Full size image

After the 1992 earthquake, the Giza pyramids remained deserted and thus suffered a gradual deterioration. Attention initially focused on the lateral boundaries of the remaining facades, where discontinuity and consequently the disappearance of peripheral stress led to a very disadvantageous situation, exacerbated by the dynamics that affected the current boundaries of the areas at risk.

The walls of the pyramid complex suffered from shear forces due to previous earthquakes; vertical cracks and cracks with a direction of about 35–45° above the horizontal, shows the corresponding failure mechanism. Some cracks affect specific elements such as thresholds for openings, doors and foundation stones, as shown in (Fig. 8a, b). Cracking of backing limestone blocks due to the overloading and material decay and strength regression, which affected the great pyramid stability. The honey comb (differential) weathering aspects are obvious on the surfaces of backing limestone blocks. The outer facing limestone blocks are missed completely.

a Cracking and splitting of backing limestone blocks due to the high compression and overloading and material decay and strength regression, which affected the great Cheops pyramid stability. b The honeycomb weathering (differential erosion) patterns are obvious on the surfaces of limestone blocks. Alveolization develops her as cavities illustrating a combination of honeycombs and alignment following the natural bedding planes of the limestone

Full size image

It is difficult to determine the actual degree of stability. Despite this uncertainty, the state of internal pressure of the structure, on the contrary, is well defined. Loss of balance cannot occur during the adjustment. This is the correct aspect of the behavior of building structures that can explain the great durability and longevity of many historic buildings.

The old builders were not Civil engineers. While the modern engineer’s interest is to prevent settlements, the old engineers were willing to allow the movements of institutions and the resulting cracks. There is something unique in the behavior of construction structures. This is due to the mechanical construction response, and differs significantly from those shown by the usual flexible materials. The difference is due to the low tensile strength of the construction and to the different response of the construction in stresses [30]. The pyramids were severely damaged on the surface of lower-level stone walls due to long-term static and dynamic actions, extensive cracks in walls caused mainly by settlements, and only because of seismic loads while the foundation stone sites were specifically removed.

Physiochemical actions

The climatic conditions in the study area are semi-arid; warm in winter with little rain and hot to dry in summer. The climate is characterized by the following parameters. With regard to precipitation, the average annual rainfall does not exceed 25 mm, which is generally rare throughout the year, sometimes occurring in the form of sudden and short showers associated with wind. The average annual relative humidity is around 46% with a maximum of 70% in November and a minimum of 30% in May. The maximum annual temperature is 28 °C while the lowest annual temperature is 13.8 °C. For winds, the prevailing wind blows are from the northwest and the monsoon known as Khamasin from the southwest and south. Wind speeds range from 7 to 14 km/h [31].

The great pyramids at Giza and have been threatened by rising groundwater levels caused by water infiltration from the suburbs. Irrigation canals, mass urbanization surrounding GPP, (as shown in Fig. 2a–c). Two regional aquifers are located behind the Sphinx statue with a water level at a depth of 1.5 to 4 m below the surface (for example). The second aquifer is a broken carbon aquifer that covers an area beneath the pyramid and sphinx plateau, where the depth of the groundwater ranges from 4 to 7 m. The recharge of the aquifer underneath the Sphinx area occurred mainly through diversion of the water network and overall urbanization. The shallow water table elevation at Nazlet El-Samman village reaches 16–17 m and might recharge the aquifer below the Sphinx and Valley Temple, which is considered a severe hazard on the site [7].

There is deterioration in many parts of the three pyramids, associated with the aging of materials and the impact of aerial and ground water attack, and extreme stresses and cracks have accelerated the related phenomena, as shown in (Fig. 9a, b), extremely slow degradation process which affected the backing limestone blocks of the Cheops, Chephren and Mykerinos pyramids is obvious. Many blocks was detached and are hanging.

a Show the limestone chipping under high compression and loading. Also represents the extremely slow degradation process which affected the backing limestone blocks of the Mykerinos, pyramid. Many blocks was detached and are hanging. b The outer casing granite blocks fell down completely due to the 1303 strong earthquake. The scattering of the granite facing blocks around the pyramid area is obvious

Full size image

The pyramids stones are characterized by minute cracks, thin and superficial fractures, gaps in the stone veneer, separate stone layers and large gaps below the surficial hard crust.

The backing limestone of the three pyramids are characterized by deep and hollow pits on the surface crust. They are very thin and are based only on a few points. Some parts have lost their shell, and for this reason, large parts are characterized by strong separation. A severe phenomenon is the separation and peeling of the limestone layer due to the capillary rising of ground water, as shown in (Fig. 8).

The backing limestone blocks characterized by weak cementation and adhesion due to the presence of small cracks, or pores, of secondary origin resulting from salt weathering.

Our analysis showed that the poor state of conservation of the three pyramids can be attributed to two main factors: internal (or intrinsic) causes, related to the characteristics of the fossil limestone itself (e.g., mineral composition, stratification, fractures, etc.) and external causes (or Externalities), due to external factors (such as ground water, climate change etc.). While the latter began the process of weathering on limestone blocks, the development and increase of this process is due to lack of cohesion in limestone cement. In fact, the very poor state of maintaining interior walls is due to several internal factors, as in the past, are strictly interconnected.

On the other hand, external causes are associated with daily-acute environmental factors Seasonal thermal changes, solar radiation, wind direction and density—work in synergy with the internal causes of limestone degradation.

The most obvious and most common phenomenon is peeling (or lids) due to the capillary rising of ground water, specific both on the surface, in the form of high elevated chips, deeper parts, with thick detachable layers of limestone blocks. The layer is associated with temperature changes that cause the expansion and contraction cycles of the material, resulting in strong mechanical pressures.

Cracking within crystals is also very common in the fragile deformation of posterior limestone blocks characterized by high gaps. Means within crystals (not between) crystals. In highly penetrating stones, pressure builds up through the grain—the grain contact becomes large because the forces spread over very small areas (stress is the strength of each area), making it easily breakable internally than if porosity is small or non-existent.

The degradation of granite blocks casing the Mykerinos, pyramid is a complex process resulting from the interaction of many associated factors such as climate zone, a rising groundwater table resulting from water leakage from the suburbs irrigation canals, and mass urbanization surrounding the Giza pyramids and material properties that ultimately lead to chemical, physical/mechanical and biological weathering. Moreover, the behavior of building materials under weathering conditions is predicted by the design of the element and constructive elements. On the other hand, there are some specific weathering forms that affect different granite blocks depending on the surrounding environmental conditions such as red crusts that dominate the case study of aggressive alternative drying and urination cycles, as well as other chemically or biologically related degradation factors for the weathering rates of silicate minerals. Thus, it can be emphasized that the particular weathering model that characterizes our effects is due to all these factors and associated mechanisms; they consist mainly of complex types of iron oxide-dyed clay minerals. All these factors above require some conservation measures to protect the monuments through various scientific strategic plans containing many preventive and multiple measures.

Human impact

The pyramids used to be cased. The great Cheops pyramid was covered with outer casing white fine limestone blocks from Tura limestone quarry, only a few of these now remain at the pyramid’s base on the corners. The backing limestone blocks of Chephren pyramid was covered and cased with fine limestone blocks, also the stone cap now remain on the top of the Chephren pyramid. The Mykerinos pyramid was covered and cased with granite facing blocks were quarried and imported from Aswan quarry, 1000 km from Cairo.

During the middle Ages, much of the pyramid’s outer facing blocks were fell sown because of the 1303 earthquake, Table 1. Many facing blocks were taken and reused for the buildings of many Coptic and Islamic monuments in Cairo city, revealing the Fossiliferous limestone backing blocks.

Construction of the pyramids of Giza

The fact now that the surface level of the area to the west of Cheops pyramid reaches + 110 m does not mean that it was the original height before its construction, as shown in (Fig. 3). Moreover as up mentioned, the other part of the formation—the Moqattam—on the east of the Nile is having an elevation + 200 m. Having this fact, and investigating the formation of the stones of the building material of the pyramid and the ground surface where pyramids were built, one could easily find that the former one was chosen from the upper stratum of Eocenean site while the latter one is the original lower dense stratum of the Eocenean which was used as a base for the structure, as shown in (Fig. 4a).

In the mean time, to have the three pyramids visually well perceived from Iunu, their bases’ levels acquired 10 m difference from each other i.e. Khufu’s was on + 60 m, Khafre’s on + 70 m, and Menkaure’s on + 80 m. By mentioning that, the sum of masses of the pyramids almost reached 13.5 million tons, it should be said that as this was the dynamic weight, the equivalent static weight in place prior to the construction was five or six times, i.e. 67.5 or 81 million tons. That was the net weight of the blocks but, if we consider the wasted ruble resulted from shaping the blocks that number could easily have been doubled i.e. around 160 million tons. If the plateau was considered as the area between the contour lines of + 60 and + 80, then the area was 797,692.5 m2. That means that the height of that area could have reached level + 160 m or higher. So, that height was used as the building material in situ for the pyramid. Having that elevation of the original plateau, the logic tells the fact of transposing the huge masses extracted from the high levels to levels below, and eight ramps were used to roll blocks down. There is an example of such a ramp in front of the second pyramid [32].

It is noticed that the Great Pyramid was built on a carved outcrop using the existing topography at the time of its construction. The part of original hill constitutes 23% of the volume for the Khufu/Cheops Pyramid and the carved outcrop constitutes 11.5% of Khafre Pyramid [19].

Results and discussion of the petrigraphical study

From the observations made in the digging of boats, in the northeast corner of the pyramid of Khufu and on the deck around the pyramid, we have seen that the rocky base of the monument consists primarily of nummulitic packstone. Observations in Kheops, pyramid, based on the same criteria as Khephren’s pyramid, indicate that the rocky basement is very invisible in the lower parts of the pyramid. However, it is possible to prove the existence of an original rocky hill.

Mineralogical characteristics (by X-Ray diffraction)

X-ray diffraction was also used to identify minerals for whole stone powders and clay part. Semi-quantitative data are given for each metal present by their relative density the metal composition was determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, which was conducted through the National Center for Housing and Building Research in Cairo. Graphs of the representative body of limestone, specimens of structural limestone layers and samples of structural mortar layers were recorded. All results are summarized in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Full size table

Full size table

Full size table

Full size table

Full size table

Full size table

Full size table

Full size table

The outer casing limestone blocks (Cheopss great pyramid)

The outer casing limestone consists of a whitish to whitish-yellow, very fine-grained limestone and can be easily distinguished from the heterogeneous filling limestone blocks with its much coarser microstructure.

Many of the outer casing stones and inner chamber blocks of the Great Pyramid were fit together with extremely high precision. Based on measurements taken on the north eastern casing stones, the mean opening of the joints is only 0.5 mm wide (1/50th of an inch).

Tura limestone formations were used as coated casing stones to cover the local limestone filling blocks of the Great Pyramid of Khufu. Although some of the casing remains, most have been removed. However, each of the ten stones discovered had inscriptions on the back sides.

The outer casing limestone blocks are constructed from large white fine limestone with a mineral content of 100% calcite (CaCO3), few blocks are still in place, mostly at the base. It may be extracted from Tura quarry that belongs to the Mokattam Plateau. Hair and cracks are filled with fine stone with dust and soft sand. The upper units are indicated by weak limestone blocks with structural mortars. The outer layers of casing or lumps are made of limestone, which is characterized by pure fine limestone, mainly from calcite CaCo3 (100%) and the results of the analysis are shown in Table 2.

The backing limestone blocks (Cheops great pyramid)

The layers of backing limestone blocks which is irregular in size can be observed, these layers constitutes up to four courses lie between the outer casing layers and the core masonry, this core is not exposed.

The backing limestone blocks of Cheops great pyramid is composed mainly of calcite (CaCO3) as the essential component associated with minor amount of iron oxides and quartz (SiO2) and rare of dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2), opaque minerals and halite (NaCl). Results of XRD pattern are presented in Table  3.

The main quarry area, supplying the backing and core masonry of the Khufu pyramid, was situated some 500 m south of the pyramid’s southern edge. The more eastern parts of this central quarry field were generally exploited by Khafre to gain core material for his pyramid.

The structural joining mortars (Cheopss great pyramid)

The structural mortar joining the backing limestone blocks composed of gypsum (Ca(SO4)(H2O)2), rock fragments (composed of calcite and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2), biotite, muscovite and rare quartz grains cemented by very fine-grained matrix of gypsum, anhydrite (CaSO4), calcite admixed with minor iron oxides. The analysis results are presented and summarized in Table 4.

The backing limestone blocks (Chephren’s pyramid)

The backing limestone blocks of Chephren’s pyramid is composed mainly of calcite (CaCO3)as the essential component associated with rare amounts of iron oxides, microcrystalline quartz and opaque minerals Results of XRD pattern are presented in Table 5.

The structural joining mortars (Chephren’s pyramid)

The structural mortar joining the filling limestone blocks is composed of gypsum (Ca(SO4)(H2O)2), anhydrite and rock fragments (composed mainly of calcite) associated with minor amounts of quartz, biotite, iron oxides and opaques cemented by very fine-grained matrix of gypsum admixed with calcite, anhydrite, halite and iron oxides. The analysis results are presented in Table 6.

The outer casing granite blocks (Mykerinos’s pyramid)

The outer casing granite blocks of the Mykerinos’s pyramid is composed mainly of potash feldspar (microcline, orthoclase and perthite), quartz and plagioclase associated with considerable amounts of hornblende and biotite and accessory amount of muscovite ((K, Ba, Na)0.75 (Al, Mg, Cr, V)2 (Si, Al, V)4 O10 (OH, O)2), titanite, zircon and opaque minerals. Secondary minerals are represented by iron oxides sericite and clay minerals. The analysis results are presented in Table 7.

The backing limestone blocks (Mykerinos, pyramid)

The backing limestone blocks of Mykerinos, pyramid is composed mainly of calcite (CaCO3) as the essential component associated with minor amount of iron oxides and rare amounts of quartz, gypsum and opaque minerals. Results of XRD pattern are presented in Table 8.

The structural joining mortars (Mykerinos, pyramid)

In the present study more than 6 mortars samples were analyzed in terms of determination of chemical composition and salt content. In an effort to correlate the salt content with the role and structure of the structural joining mortars.

The structural mortar joining the backing limestone blocks is lime based mortar and composed mainly of Calcite, magnesian (Mg.064 Ca.936)(CO3) (55%), Rancieite (Ca, Mn)Mn4O9.3H2O (15%), Triplite (Fe, Mn)2 FPO4 (10%), Quartz, syn SiO2 (20%). The analysis results are presented in Table 9.

Morphological description and qualitative microanalysis by SEM attached with EDAX

Microscopic examination and initial partial analysis on the front and back stone blocks and structural slurry samples from the three great pyramids were performed by the SEM attached with EDAX to study the texture, cement texture, fine image pores and the remaining carbonate portion on the filter paper to also identify structural mortar elements.

The backing limestone blocks from the three pyramids

The morphological investigation indicate that the Fossiliferous limestone (Biomicrite) bodies from the three pyramids contain different surface features, such as the wide distribution deteriorated crusts, corroded quartz grains and the presence of some large voids and micro pores, as well as, some disintegration aspects in each grain, as shown in (Fig. 10a, c d) for the filling limestone blocks from Cheopss pyramid (Fig. 15a, c) for the filling limestone blocks from Chephren, pyramid (Fig. 11a) for the filling limestone blocks from Mykerinos, pyramid.

a SEM micrographs of limestone from the backing stone blocks of Cheops pyramid. Observations of minute and deep cracks in the microstructure and salt crystallization into. b EDX spectrum and micro analysis of the previous image of the limestone grains from the backing stone blocks of Cheops pyramid. A strong Calcium signal is observed. c SEM micrographs of limestone from the backing stone blocks of Cheops pyramid. The micrographs show the reaction interfaces, service environment and degradation mechanism of the backing limestone blocks. d SEM micrographs of limestone from the backing stone blocks of Cheops pyramid

Full size image

a SEM microscopic examination and micro structure of the backing limestone blocks of Mykerinos pyramid. The composite structure of the stone is obvious where the disconnecting between the quartz and calcite grains is clear, also the abundance of salt content inside the pores and cracks between grains. Deterioration of stone grain surface as a result of the weathering and mechanical factors. b EDX spectrum from the previous image of limestone grains of the backing limestone of Mykerinos pyramid. A strong calcium signal is observed

Full size image

The micro analysis with EDX for the filling limestone from the three pyramids complex revealed that the limestone consist mainly of specific elements such as (Ca, Si, O, Al, Ca, O, K, Na, Al, C), (Figs. 10b, 11b, and 13b).

The structural mortars from the three pyramids

SEM observations indicated that there is a relative deposition of calcium from the binder due to physical and chemical actions that reduced alkalinity and strength and increased absorption of this lime mortars. The lime linker becomes less hydraulic but has the highest resistance to perfusion, and some observations have indicated the presence of a condensed halite within the mortar composition. The presence of carbon and organic residues within the mortar composition was also apparent, as shown in (Figs. 12a, c, 13a, c).

a SEM micrographs of structural mortars joining the backing stone blocks of Cheops pyramid. Amorphous silica are participated on the limestone surfaces. b EDX spectrum and micro analysis of the previous image of the structural mortars grains joining the backing stone blocks of Cheops pyramid. A strong Calcium, sulphur and silica signals are observed. c SEM micrographs of structural mortars joining the backing stone blocks of Cheops pyramid. The micrographs show the characterization of the building material structures, contaminant analysis on and within building materials. The open pits and pore holes due to extensive weathering is obvious

Full size image

a SEM micrographs of limestone of the backing limestone blocks of Chephren pyramid. Amorphous silica is participated on the limestone surfaces. b EDX spectrum and micro analysis of the previous image of the backing limestone grains from blocks of Chephren pyramid. A strong Calcium signal is observed. c EDX spectrum and micro analysis of backing limestone blocks of Chephren pyramid. Individual calcite grains are approximately 2.5 microns with smooth intergrown blocks with open pits

Full size image

Specific energy dispersion X-ray analysis

The energy-dispersed X-ray spectrometer (EDS) is a powerful tool for research studies on building materials, particularly structural mortars. Elemental quantification contained in a gypsum mortar microscope can be performed at excellent spatial accuracy. Examination of all samples shows the use of stone fragments in mortar as filler or coarse raw material, and in the relevant EDX analysis showed Ca and Si.

For the structural mortar collected from the pyramids of Cheops and Chephren, the results obtained indicate the presence of Ca, Si, O, S, Cl, Na, and C elements as the main elements in the formation of mortar, suggesting that the structural mortar in these two pyramids is a cannon Gypsum mortar (gypsum and sand), as shown in (Figs. 12b and 14b). In addition to the presence of calcite and iron oxide aggregates, the presence of sodium chloride due to salt contamination (Fig. 14b). The presence of carbon residues and scorched organic matter represented in phosphorus, nitrogen and oxygen P, N, C. While the results obtained from samples collected from the pyramid of Mykerinos revealed that the structural mortar is lime mortar.

a SEM micrographs of structural mortars joining the backing stone blocks of Chephren pyramid. Observation of minute and deep cracks in the mortar structure and salt crystallization into mortars. b EDX spectrum and micro analysis of the previous image of the structural mortars grains joining the backing stone blocks of Chephren pyramid. A strong Calcium and silica signals are observed. c SEM micrographs of structural mortars joining the backing stone blocks of Chephren pyramid. The open pits and pore holes due to extensive weathering is obvious

Full size image

The outer casing granite blocks from Mykerinos, pyramid

The morphology of aggregate granite surfaces evaluated by SEM and the results obtained show that the confrontation blocks have been severely affected by various dynamic procedures and physical–chemical action, especially weathering factors that lead to some degradation effects such as: Degradation and fracture of shapes in addition to filling the gaps between grains, (Fig. 15a). The accumulated particles consist of some types of clay minerals and salts. Create red crusts, small cracks and other forms of degradation, (Fig. 15c).

a SEM microscopic examination and micro structure of the outer facing granite blocks of Mykerinos pyramid. Micrographs show heavy materials disintegration and few trace elements are slightly immobile, whereas most major (particularly Ca and Na) and trace elements are mobile from the beginning of the granite weathering. On the other hand, there were mineralogical changes initiated from a plagioclase breakdown, which shows a characteristic circular dissolved pattern caused by a preferential leaching of Ca cation along grain boundaries and zoning. The biotite in that region is also supposed to be sensitive to exterior environmental condition. b EDX spectrum of the previous image of the grains of the facing granite blocks of Mykerinos pyramid. A strong silica, aluminum and potassium signals are observed. c SEM microscopic examination and micro structure of the facing granite blocks of Mykerinos pyramid. It seems that some rock-forming minerals in the granitic facing blocks are significantly unstable due to the environmental condition. d EDX spectrum of the previous image of granite grains of the facing granite blocks of Mykerinos pyramid. A strong silica signal is observed

Full size image

Chemical analyzes of red weathering spots (diameter 3.23 to 50.32 mm) conducted by EDX proved that different proportions of racial oxides are strongly affected but with different degrees according to the location and depth of weathering spots. These results can be summarized as follows:

The cortex samples consist of (Si, Al, K, Ca, O, K, Na, C), (Fig. 15b, d).

The primary oxide averages for cortex or crust samples are (SiO2, 31%), (Al2O3, 9%), (K2O, 21%), (O, 20%), (CaO, 12%) and (NaO, 0.37%).

Thin section analysis under polarizing microscopy (petrographic and mineralogical characteristics)

Thin section analysis was performed to study the cement texture, porosity and permeability. Ten thin sections were prepared for the petrographic study of the sandstone and limestone body and slurry was incorporated to determine the mineral composition and experimental processes of the studied building material samples.

It is important to examine the building materials and the construction of the three great pyramids under polarized light microscopy, to determine the basic type of building materials (building stones and structural mortars) and to identify the original quarries for these stones and building materials. This method relies on polarized light that passes through a thin section of the sample.

The backing limestone blocks (Cheops, great pyramid)

Rock name: Fossiliferous limestone (Biomicrite).

Rock type: Organic, carbonate sedimentary rock.

Texture: The rock is very fine to fine-grained. Microfossils of different sizes and shapes are present in a significant amount, scattered in the rock matrix. Few pore spaces (irregular shapes and sizes) are present in heterogeneous distribution in carbonate matrix of the rock.

Mineral composition: the rock is composed mainly of calcite as the essential component associated with minor amount of iron oxides and quartz and rare of dolomite, opaque minerals and halite.

Calcite represents the majority of the matrix of the rock. It occurs as very fine-grained aggregates, Anhedral crystals interlocked with each other’s. Many microfossils of different sizes and shapes are scattered in the matrix of the rock and filled by recrystallized calcite and/or dolomite. Dolomite is very fine to fine-grained, subhedral crystals and associated with calcite. Quartz occurs as fine to very fine-grained Anhedral crystals scattered in the rock. The rock is highly stained by iron oxides in some parts (Fig. 16).

Microscopic photograph shows the backing Fossiliferous limestone (Biomicrite) blocks of Cheops pyramid, which composed mainly of calcite as the essential component associated with minor amount of iron oxides and quartz and rare of dolomite, opaque minerals and halite

Full size image

These limestones are of a grey-beige to yellow–brown colour, mostly compact but also porous in places, and they feel chalky due to marly components. Many of small-sized fossil remains are detectable but hard to identify. Occasionally, small nummulites up to 5 mm in length could be recognized at polished surfaces. During storage over a longer period, various salts effloresce at the surface, which can be washed off easily with the finger. With a hand lens, the fossils appear mostly as small nummulites, shells and other fossil remains, all irregularly imbedded and mostly secondarily calcified within the limestone matrix.

The present study confirms that the building stones of the pyramids are natural rocks and were not formed by using artificial concrete.

Structural mortar (Cheops, great pyramid)

Sample Name: Mortar Sample.

Sample Type: Archaeological sample.

Texture: very fine to coarse-grained, showing prophyrtic texture (fine to coarse-grained of rock fragments gypsum, biotite, muscovite and rare quartz grains enclosed in a very fine-grained matrix). Many irregular pore space are detected in the sample.

Mineral composition: The sample is very fine to coarse-grained and composed of gypsum, rock fragments (composed of calcite and dolomite), biotite, muscovite and rare quartz grains cemented by very fine-grained matrix of gypsum, anhydrite, calcite admixed with minor iron oxides. Minor amounts of mafic minerals (biotite and muscovite) and opaque minerals are observed scattered in the sample. Rock fragments are represented by fossiliferous limestone, dolostone, gypsum and anhydrite.

Rock fragments occur as medium to coarse-grained of rounded to subangular outlines, scattered in the sample matrix. Quartz occurs in rare amounts as very fine to fine-grained of rounded to subangular outlines cemented by a mixture of very fine-grained cement matrix. Iron oxides and opaque minerals occur as very fine to medium-grained scattered in the sample. Mafic minerals present as very fine to fine-grained, and observed in the matrix of the sample. Many of irregular pore spaces and cavities are detected in the sample (Fig. 17).

Microscopic photograph shows the structural mortars joining the backing limestone blocks of Cheops pyramid. The joining mortar is very fine to coarse-grained and composed of gypsum, rock fragments (composed of calcite and dolomite), biotite, muscovite and rare quartz grains cemented by very fine-grained matrix of gypsum, anhydrite, calcite admixed with minor iron oxides

Источник: https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-020-0356-9

Week 5 MNF Showdown: Indianapolis Colts At Baltimore Ravens

Advanced stats and analytics will be utilized to identify favorable matchups and players to avoid. The purpose of this article is to paint a picture of how the teams play and matchup with one another in less than 1,000 words.

As the season continues, less emphasis will be put on last season and early season’s stats. Vegas trends will also be implemented to help predict the game flow. I’ll conclude the article with a Cliff Notes section and give the readers my prediction for the game.

Welcome to the newest edition of Monday Night Showdown. I have officially taken over for theSalary Cap-tain, who is putting in the work on the Underworld social platforms, and now I’ll be guiding you through the important aspects to watch in every Thursday AND Monday night matchup.

Without further ado, let’s what the Colts and Ravens have in store for us this week.

Vegas Trends

  • Indianapolis are 10-2 ATS in their last 12 games against Baltimore.
  • The total has gone OVER in 4 of Indianapolis’ last 5 games on the road.
  • Indianapolis are 0-6 ATS in their last 6 games against an opponent in the AFC North division.
  • Baltimore are 9-3 ATS in their last 12 games.
  • The total has gone UNDER in 6 of Baltimore’s last 8 games.
  • The total has gone OVER in 5 of Baltimore’s last 6 games at home.

Indianapolis Colts

Wentz, Taylor, and Hines

Carson Wentz comes into today without an injury designation, so both ankles should be 100-percent ready to go against the Ravens bottom-10 pass defense. The Colts’ offense has been sluggish, with Wentz only crossing 250 passing yards twice. Game Script doesn’t seem to matter for this team. Wentz will throw somewhere between 30-40 passes and rack up his weekly 18 fantasy points. He’s a top 20 option with minimal upside.

Despite earning less touches than expected, Jonathan Taylor has still received 56.8 (No. 11) Weighted Opportunities, which is a respectable count. Despite a -3.35 (No. 23) Game Script, the Colts are dedicated to feeding Taylor, due to the fact that he’s one of the most efficient backs in the league. He checks in with 51 (No. 2) Evaded Tackles, a 73.9-percent (No. 1) Juke Rate, and 4 (No. 8) Yards Created Per Touch. Taylor faces a tough matchup in Baltimore, but he’s a start nonetheless.

Jonathan Taylor 2021 Advanced Receiving & Efficiency Metrics

In both games where the Colts played catch-up, Nyheim Hines finished as a top-15 RB in PPR leagues. He’s heavily involved in the passing game, shown by his 13.1-percent (No. 11) Target Shareand 6 (No. 10) Slot Snaps. There is risk baked into Hines, as he’s been phased out in close games. Based on the projected Game Script, this would be a week to play him. He’s a risky flex if you have to play him, but he’s also an intriguing DFS play to go against the Jonathan Taylor chalk play.

Pittman, Pascal, and Campbell

Michael Pittman, the No. 1 WR in this offense, draws a tough matchup against No. 11-ranked cornerbackMarlon Humphrey. Pittman has had a decent start to the season, with three straight games of six-plus receptions. Yet, despite 6 (No. 7) Red Zone Targets, has failed to find the end zone. His efficiency metrics are average, but the opportunity for him is there. He has a 99.3-percent (No. 3) Route Participation and a 26.3-percent (No. 17) Target Share. Pittman has flex appeal, despite the tough matchup, in a game where Indy will have to throw to win.

Michael Pittman 2021 Opportunity & Productivity Metrics

The other receiving options have a dismal outlook.Zach Pascal‘s only bright spot is his 9 (No. 1) Red Zone Targets. He’s touchdown dependent, and even then carries bountiful risk. Parris Campbell has failed to break through, earning a dreary 9.7-percent (No. 92) Target Share and 3 targets per game. Both Pascal and Campbell have good cornerback matchups, but cannot be trusted in fantasy.

Baltimore Ravens

Lamar Jackson And His Playmakers

Lamar Jackson faces off against a top 10 passing defense, but one that has also given up 11 (T-No. 1) passing touchdowns. Jackson hasn’t been the fantasy game-breaker that he’s previously proved to be, but that’s due to a lack of touchdowns. He comes in with only 1 passingand .5 rushing touchdowns per game. Still, Jackson averages 69.8rushing yards per game and has been efficient through the air. Jackson will carve up the Colts defense, who are missing Kwity Payeand Rock Ya-Sin tonight.


The true alpha of the passing game has always been Mark Andrews. Mandrews has three straight games of five-plus targets and 50-plus yards. He dominates opportunity in Baltimore, with a 13-percent (No. 14) Hog Rate and a 20.2-percent (No. 7) Air Yards Share. The Colts have faired well against TEs, but Andrews is the first elite TE they’ve faced. Start him as normal.

Mark Andrews 2021 Opportunity & Productivity Metrics

Marquise Brown is the No. 1 WR in this offense, as displayed by his 52.9-percent (No. 3) Dominator Rating. A case of the dropsies is the reason that he isn’t a PPR WR1. His productivity and efficiency metrics are solid, with 117 (No. 10) Yards After Catch and 3.08 (No. 10) Yards Per Route Run. The deep threat speedster is a start vs No. 63-ranked CBKenny Moore, and should be slotted into DFS lineups.

The Sit-ables

The Ravens running back room is a crap shoot. Ty’Son Williams, the team’s most efficient runner, was a healthy scratch last week. Latavius Murray filled the void, trudging his way to 59 yards and a touchdown. Both backs have shown poor elusiveness, but Williams has been more effective with 5.6 (No. 2) True Yards Per Carry. Despite this, the Ravens have more confidence in Murray. He has emergency flex-appeal against a mid-tier rush defense if Williams sits, but neither have playable upside.

Ty’Son Williams Advanced Stats & Metrics Profile

It’s too soon to tell whether or not rookie Rashod Bateman will make his debut against the Colts. If he does, it’s best to sit him. It’s tough to tune out the excitement, but he’s playing his first snaps post-groin injury. Make Bateman show some promise first.

Sammy Watkins sees as many targets as Marquise Browndoes, but Watkins hasn’t done anything with them. He’s posted a nauseating 66.7-percent (No. 90) True Catch Rate and has yet to crack 15 fantasy points. He has a decent matchup against Xavier Rhodes, but is still a sit due to the fact that he stinks.

Cliff Notes

 

fantasy-football-dynasty-league-rankings

Conclusion

This is a clear-cut game, fantasy wise. Both teams have shown consistency in their touch distribution, and don’t have many ambiguous roles. The starts are guys you are typically comfortable with starting weekly, and the sits are guys you don’t consider playing unless you’re in a real jam.

This looks to be a Monday Night rout. I like the Ravens to cover the -7 spread in a game where they lead by multiple possessions for most of the game. Both teams play at a sluggish place. The Colts struggle to move the ball and the Ravens chew the clock when leading, and for that reason I’m favoring the under 46 point total.

My record on written Vegas predictions so far this season: 5-4

Score prediction:Ravens 31-13.

Follow @Babich_matt10

Источник: https://www.playerprofiler.com/article/week-5-mnf-showdown-indianapolis-colts-at-baltimore-ravens/

BitCracker: Password-cracking software designed to break Windows’ BitLocker

Open source tool leverages graphics processing to decrypt BitLocker-protected units

Researchers have outlined their progress in further developing BitCracker, a GPU-powered password-cracking tool built specifically to break BitLocker, the full disk encryption built into Microsoft Windows.

A white paper (PDF) recently published by Elena Agostini, software engineer at Nvidia, and Massimo Bernaschi, director of technology at National Research Council of Italy (CNR), describes BitCracker as a solution designed to “attempt the decryption, by means of a dictionary attack, of memory units encrypted by BitLocker”.

BitCracker was first released in December 2015 and has been continually developed since.

Dictionary attack

BitLocker is Microsoft’s implementation of full-disk encryption, first released as an upgrade to Windows Vista in 2007. BitLocker is compatible with Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs) and encrypts data stored on disk to prevent unauthorized access in cases of device theft or software-based attacks.

BitLocker To Go works in the same manner for external devices, such as USB drives.

The technology uses 128 bit AES encryption by default, but this can be configured to 256 bits for a heightened level of security.

As BitLocker utilizes high levels of AES encryption, BitCracker relies on high-performance Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) to make a dictionary attack viable.

The software is available to the open source community and accessible via GitHub.

An OpenCL implementation of BitCracker was integrated with the popular, open source password hacking tool John The Ripper, version Bleeding-Jumbo, released last year.

“BitLocker decryption process requires the execution of a very large number of SHA-256 hashes and also AES, so we propose a very fast solution, highly tuned for Nvidia GPU, for both of them,” the researchers explain.

BitCracker has been tested with three Nvidia GPU architectures: Kepler, Maxwell, and Pascal.


LISTEN NOWSwigCast, Episode 2: ENCRYPTION

Bits and pieces

BitLocker uses two different modes of authentication; a user password or recovery mode, in which a user either types in a password to encrypt or decrypt a drive, or uses a 48-digit recovery key generated by BitLocker to access their content.

During encryption, each sector volume is encrypted individually using a Full-Volume Encryption Key (FVEK) and Volume Master Key (VMK), the latter of which is also encrypted and stored in the volume.

If a drive has been encrypted using the user password method, for example, in volume metadata you will find two encrypted VMKs – one encrypted with the user password and one encrypted with the recovery password.

During decryption, BitLocker begins decrypting the VMK, then FVEK, and then the disk itself.

The BitCracker tool focuses on decrypting a VMK key, exposing a password capable of decrypting a device.

A dictionary attack is performed, leveraging GPU performance and power. The SHA-256 standard transforms messages into what is known as “W blocks” before being hashed, and so to speed things up, the team created a precomputation facility for some sets of W words, reducing the number of required arithmetic operations by creating a rainbow lookup table.  This cannot be applied to other SHA-256 setups, however.


YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKEOpen source tools helps detect security of cloud containers


To further increase the speed of potential attacks, Agostini and Bernaschi were also able to remove MAC computation and comparison.

BitCracker’s performance was benchmarked against another popular password cracker, Hashcat, using a Pascal GPU.

The team acknowledges that the comparison is not entirely fair, as Hashcat does not use BitCracker’s W-block functions or MAC computation.

However, Hashcat was capable of 3,290 million hashes per second (MH/s), a result the researchers say is “comparable to BitCrackers’ best performance on the same GPU.”

BitLocker’s complex encryption process means that there is a limit to the number of passwords that can be tested at one time.

However, the research paper suggests that with a single high-end GPU, it is theoretically possible that over 122 million passwords could be attempted in only 24 hours.

“The results show that BitCracker may compete with a state-of-the-art password cracker in terms of raw performance on the basic computational kernels whilst it is the only one providing specific shortcuts to speed up the BitLocker decryption procedure,” the researchers explain.

Future developments

There are limitations to BitCracker. The tool is currently only able to evaluate passwords of between eight and 27 characters, and users must supply their own input dictionary.

In addition, BitLocker is often used in conjunction with a TPM in enterprise settings rather than relying solely on a user password, so attacks may be limited to consumer setups or perhaps individuals in particular organizations rather than company-wide deployments.

As noted by Reddit user and GitHub contributor Rarecoil, it is also the case that the tool is several years old, and both dictionaries and optimized rulesets have now advanced beyond BitCracker’s scope of attack.

Agostini and Bernaschi have also proposed methods to improve BitCracker in the future, including adding a mask mode attack or assigning smart probabilities to input dictionaries to speed up the process.

Microsoft declined to comment on the academics’ work.

The Daily Swig has reached out to the authors of the paper but has not heard back at the time of publication.


READ MORESnufflepagus: Open source security tool hardens PHP sites against cyber-attacks

PasswordsDeep DivesHacking ToolsEncryptionOpen Source Software

WhatsAppFacebookRedditLinkedInEmail

Источник: https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/bitcracker-password-cracking-software-designed-to-break-windows-nbsp-bitlocker

Pascal Analyzer 4.0.2 Download

Pascal Analyzer 4.0.2 Description:

Pascal Analyzer parses Delphi or Borland Pascal source code.

It builds large internal tables of identifiers, and collects other information such as calls between subprograms.

When the parsing is completed, extensive reports are produced. These reports contain a great deal of important information about the source code.

This information will help you understand your source code better, and will assist you in producing code of higher reliability and quality.

Pascal Analyzer 4.0.2 Features:

· Status Report
· Warnings Report
· Optimization Report
· Memory Report
· Code Reduction Report
· Convention Compliance Report
· Inconsistent Case Report
· Prefix Report
· Totals Report
· Complexity Report
· Object-oriented Metrics Report
· Modules Pascal Analyzer Crack Identifiers Report
· Duplicate Identifiers Report
· Literal Strings Report
· Subprogram Index Report
· Bindings Report
· Third-party Dependencies Report
· Most Called Report
· Pascal Analyzer Crack Tree Report
· Reverse Call Tree Report
· Call Index Report
· Brief Cross-reference Report
· Cross-reference Report
· Conditional Symbols Report
· Used Outside Report
· Uses Report
· Class Index Report
· Class Summary Report
· Class Hierarchy Report
· Class Field Access Report
· Control Index Report
· Control Alignment Report
· Control Size Report
· Control Tab Order Report
· Control Warnings Report
· Property Value Report
· Missing Property Report
· Form Report
· Events Report

Pascal Analyzer 4.0.2 Limitations:

· the reports do not always show complete results. There are also a couple of reports, the Reverse Call Tree Report and the Cross-Reference Report that are not generated

Related searches:

borland delphi - pascal - dev pascal - turbo pascal 7 - bde borland - borland bde 501 - borland bde - borland delphi 2005 - borland delphi 5 bde - borland delphi 8 - borland turbo pascal - borland

Pascal Analyzer security information

You cannot download any crack or serial number for Pascal Analyzer on this page. Every software that you are able to download on our site is legal. There is no crack, serial number, hack or activation key for Pascal Analyzer present here. Our collection also doesn't contain any keygens, because keygen programs are being used in illegal ways which we do not support. All software that you can find here is freely downloadable and legal. corel paintshop pro 2019 keygen only Pascal Analyzer installation package is prepared to be downloaded from our fast download servers. It is checked for possible viruses and is proven to be 100% clean and safe. Various leading antiviruses have been used to test Pascal Analyzer, if it contains any viruses. No infections have been found and downloading Pascal Analyzer is completelly problem free because of that reason. Our experts on malware detection tested Pascal Analyzer with various spyware and malware detection programs, including fyxm.net custom malware and spyware detection, and absolutelly no malware or spyware was found in Pascal Analyzer.

All software that you can find on our servers, including Pascal Analyzer, is either freeware, shareware or open-source, some of the software packages are demo, trial or patch versions and if possible (public domain licence), we also host official full versions of software.

Because we want to be one of the fastest download sites on the web, we Pascal Analyzer Crack all the software including Pascal Analyzer on our servers. You cannot find here any torrents or download links that would lead you to dangerous sites.

Fyxm.net does support free software, however we do not support warez or illegal downloads. Warez is harming producers of the software.

Enjoy!

Источник: http://downloads.fyxm.net/Pascal-Analyzer-14814.html

Peganza Pascal Expert v9.4.5 Cracked

Peganza Pascal Expert v9.4.5 Cracked
Peganza Pascal Expert v9.4.5 Cracked


Pascal Expert is our new plug-in for Embarcadero's Delphi IDE (RAD Studio). It was released in October 2015. Pascal Expert main task is to make a static code analysis. It only needs the source code, unlike other similar tools that perform an analysis of the running program. Pascal Expert will help you better understand your code and support you in producing code of higher quality, consistency, and reliability. It will point out possible issues and errors in your code.

Pascal Expert is a subset of our standalone static code analyzer Pascal Analyzer. Pascal Expert displays the same results as Pascal Analyzer, but integrated in the Delphi IDE, which makes it an ideal tool when working with code, as it lets you find problems earlier, and fix them at once.

If you want to also buy the full-fledged Pascal Analyzer, you will find favorable pricing. Similarly, if you already use Pascal Analyzer, you will get a very large discount when buying Pascal Expert. See our web site for more details. Pascal Expert can be installed PortraitPro 19.0.5 Crack + License Key Free Download 2020 these Delphi IDE versions:

Delphi 10.3 Rio
Delphi 10.2 Tokyo
Delphi 10.1 Berlin
Delphi 10 Seattle
Delphi XE8
Delphi XE7
Delphi XE6
Delphi XE5
Delphi XE4
Delphi XE3
Delphi XE2
Delphi XE
Delphi 2010
Delphi 2009
Delphi 2007

Pascal Expert parses your source code in the same way as the compiler. The results are displayed as messages on a tab page in the Output window in the RAD Studio IDE. This tab page is normally located at the bottom of the window.



Only for V.I.P

Warning! You are not allowed to view this text.

Delphi

Источник: https://developer.team/delphi/25730-peganza-pascal-expert-v945-cracked.html

Week 5 MNF Showdown: Indianapolis Colts At Baltimore Ravens

Advanced stats and analytics will be utilized to identify favorable matchups and players to avoid. The purpose of this article is to paint a picture of how the teams play and matchup with one another in less than 1,000 words.

As the season continues, less emphasis will be put on last season and early season’s stats. Vegas trends will also be implemented to help predict the game flow. I’ll conclude the article with a Cliff Notes section and give the readers my prediction for the game.

Welcome to the newest edition of Monday Night Showdown. I have officially taken over for theSalary Cap-tain, who is putting in the work on the Underworld social platforms, and now I’ll be guiding you through the important aspects to watch in every Thursday AND Monday night matchup.

Without further ado, let’s what the Colts and Ravens have in store for us this week.

Vegas Trends

  • Indianapolis are 10-2 ATS in their last 12 games against Baltimore.
  • The total has gone OVER in 4 of Indianapolis’ last 5 games on the road.
  • Indianapolis are 0-6 ATS in their last 6 games against an opponent in the AFC North division.
  • Baltimore are 9-3 ATS in their last 12 games.
  • The total has gone UNDER in 6 of Baltimore’s last 8 games.
  • The total has gone OVER in 5 of Baltimore’s last 6 games at home.

Indianapolis Colts

Wentz, Taylor, and Hines

Carson Wentz comes into today without an injury designation, so both ankles should be 100-percent ready to go against the Ravens bottom-10 pass defense. The Colts’ offense has been sluggish, with Wentz only crossing 250 passing yards twice. Game Script doesn’t seem to matter for this team. Wentz will throw somewhere between 30-40 passes and rack up his weekly 18 fantasy points. He’s a top 20 option with minimal upside.

Despite earning less touches than expected, Jonathan Taylor has still received 56.8 (No. 11) Weighted Opportunities, which is a respectable count. Despite a -3.35 (No. 23) Game Script, the Colts are dedicated to feeding Taylor, due to the fact that he’s one of the most efficient backs in the league. He checks in with 51 (No. 2) Evaded Tackles, a 73.9-percent (No. 1) Juke Rate, and 4 (No. 8) Yards Created Per Touch. Taylor faces a tough matchup in Baltimore, but he’s a start nonetheless.

Jonathan Taylor 2021 Advanced Receiving & Efficiency Metrics

In both games where the Colts played catch-up, Nyheim Hines finished as a top-15 RB in PPR leagues. He’s heavily involved in the passing game, shown by his 13.1-percent (No. 11) Target Shareand 6 (No. 10) Slot Snaps. There is Pascal Analyzer Crack baked into Hines, as he’s been phased out in close games. Based on the projected Game Script, this would be a week to play him. He’s a risky flex if you have to play him, but he’s also an intriguing DFS play to go against the Jonathan Taylor chalk play.

Pittman, Pascal, and Campbell

Michael Pittman, the No. 1 WR in this offense, Pascal Analyzer Crack a tough matchup against No. 11-ranked cornerbackMarlon Humphrey. Pittman has had a decent start to the season, with three straight games of six-plus receptions. Yet, despite 6 (No. 7) Red Zone Targets, has failed to find the end zone. His efficiency metrics are average, but the opportunity for him is there. He has a 99.3-percent (No. 3) Route Participation and a 26.3-percent (No. 17) Target Share. Pittman has flex appeal, despite the tough matchup, in a game where Indy will have to throw to win.

Pascal Analyzer Crack Pittman 2021 Opportunity & Productivity Metrics

The other receiving options have a dismal outlook.Zach Pascal‘s only bright spot is his 9 (No. 1) Red Zone Pascal Analyzer Crack. He’s touchdown dependent, and even then carries bountiful risk. Parris Campbell has failed to break through, earning a dreary 9.7-percent (No. 92) Target Share and 3 targets per game. Both Pascal and Campbell have good cornerback matchups, but cannot be trusted in fantasy.

Baltimore Ravens

Lamar Jackson And His Playmakers

Lamar Jackson faces off against a top 10 passing defense, but one that has also given up 11 (T-No. 1) passing touchdowns. Jackson hasn’t been the fantasy game-breaker that he’s previously proved to be, but that’s due to a lack of touchdowns. He comes in with only 1 passingand .5 rushing touchdowns per game. Still, Jackson averages 69.8rushing yards per game and has been efficient through the air. Jackson will carve up the Colts defense, who are missing Kwity Payeand Rock Ya-Sin tonight.


The true alpha of the passing game has always been Mark Andrews. Mandrews has three straight games of five-plus targets and 50-plus yards. He dominates opportunity in Baltimore, with a 13-percent (No. 14) Hog Rate and a 20.2-percent (No. 7) Air Yards Share. The Colts have faired well against TEs, but Andrews is the first elite TE they’ve faced. Start him as normal.

Mark Andrews 2021 Opportunity & Productivity Metrics

Marquise Brown is the No. 1 WR in this offense, as displayed by his 52.9-percent (No. 3) Dominator Rating. A case of the dropsies is the reason that he isn’t a PPR WR1. His productivity and efficiency metrics are solid, with 117 (No. 10) Yards After Catch and 3.08 (No. 10) Yards Per Route Run. The deep threat speedster is a start vs No. 63-ranked CBKenny Moore, and should be slotted into DFS lineups.

The Sit-ables

The Ravens running back room is a crap shoot. Ty’Son Williams, the team’s most efficient runner, was a healthy scratch last week. Latavius Murray filled the void, trudging his way to 59 yards and a touchdown. Both backs have shown poor elusiveness, but Williams has been more effective with 5.6 (No. 2) True Yards Per Carry. Despite this, the Ravens have more confidence in Murray. He has emergency flex-appeal against a mid-tier rush defense if Williams sits, but neither have playable upside.

Ty’Son Williams Advanced Stats & Metrics Profile

It’s too soon to tell whether or Pascal Analyzer Crack rookie Rashod Pascal Analyzer Crack will make his debut against the Colts. If he does, it’s best to sit him. It’s tough to tune out the excitement, but he’s playing his first snaps post-groin injury. Make Bateman show some promise first.

Sammy Watkins sees as many targets as Marquise Browndoes, but Watkins hasn’t done anything with them. He’s posted a nauseating 66.7-percent (No. 90) True Catch Rate and has yet to crack 15 fantasy points. He has a decent matchup against Xavier Rhodes, but is still a sit due to the fact that he stinks.

Cliff Mp3 joiner software - Free Activators src="https://www.playerprofiler.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/dd.jpg" alt="fantasy-football-dynasty-league-rankings" width="775" height="276">

Conclusion

This is a clear-cut game, fantasy wise. Both teams have shown consistency in their touch distribution, and don’t have many ambiguous roles. The starts are guys you are typically comfortable with starting weekly, and the sits are guys you don’t consider playing unless you’re in a real jam.

This looks to be a Monday Night rout. I like the Ravens to cover the -7 spread in a game where they lead by multiple possessions for most of the game. Both teams play at a sluggish place. The Colts struggle to move the ball and the Ravens chew the clock when leading, and for that reason I’m favoring the under 46 point total.

My record on written Vegas predictions so far this season: 5-4

Score prediction:Ravens 31-13.

Follow @Babich_matt10

Источник: https://www.playerprofiler.com/article/week-5-mnf-showdown-indianapolis-colts-at-baltimore-ravens/
 WR Preview 

Six ways to break DES

by Pascal Junod

DES (Data Encryption Standard) Leawo Prof. Media Keygen a symmetric cryptographic algorithm which was adopted in January 1977 as a standard (see [1]) for protecting non-classified information in the United States by the former National Bureau of Standards (now known as National Institute of Standards and Pascal Analyzer Crack. It is widely used for protecting sensitive informations and for the authentication of banking transactions, for example. We propose here to present six different ways to break DES, the last one being currently analysed at the LASEC.

Exhaustive key search

DES is an algorithm which encrypts 64 bits blocks of data using a 56 bits secret key. A common scenario is the following: we have an encrypted block at disposal, we have some information about the plaintext (we know that it is an ASCII text, or a JPEG image, for example) and we would like to recover the secret key.

The simpler Bulk Image Downloader 5.2.0 Crack + Keygen Full Download is to try to decrypt the block with all the possible keys. The information we have on the clear text will allow us to recognize the right key and to stop the search. In average, we will have to try 36'028'797'018'963'968 (36 millions of billions) of keys. Knowing that a common modern PC can check about one to two millions keys each second, this represents a work time of about 600 to 1200 years for a single machine.

A dedicated machine

An exhaustive search is quite time consuming for a single PC, but it is possible to do better. In 1998, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Fundationhas built a dedicated machine ([10]) in order to show to the world that DES is not (or no more) a secure algorithm. Deep Crack, that's the name of the machine, costs $200'000 and is built with 1536 dedicated chips. Deep Crack is able to recover a key with the help of an exhaustive search in 4 days in average, checking 92 billions of keys each second. Knowing the budget of electronic intelligence agencies (for example, the National Security Agencyin the USA), it is easy to be pessimistic on the security of DES against such organizations!

A huge cluster of computers

One needs not even a lot of money to break DES. Volunteers which are ready to donate their machine's idle time and the Internet are sufficient. In January 1999, Distributed.Net, an organization specialized in Pascal Analyzer Crack and managing computer's idle time, broke a DES key in 23 hours! More than 100'000 computers (from the slowest PC to the most powerful multiprocessors machines) have received and done a little part of the work; this allowed a rate of 250'000'000'000 keys being checked every second.

A time-memory tradeoff

An exhaustive search needs a lot of time, but negligible memory at all. It is now possible to imagine an scenario: we have a lot of available memory, and we are ready to precompute for all the possible keys kthe encrypted block ycorresponding to a given block xof data and storing the pairs (y, k). So we will be able to find very quickly the right key if we have at disposal an encrypted version x'of our known block with an unknown key k'by searching in this kind of dictionnary. This method becomes to be interesting in the case where we have more than one key to find and we have enough memory at disposal.

In 1980, Martin Hellman proposed in [2] a time-memory tradeoff algorithm, which needs less time than an exhaustive search and less memory than the storing method. His algorithm needs in the order of 1000 GB of storage possibilities and about 5 days of computations for a single PC.

Differential cryptanalysis

In 1990, Biham and Shamir, two Israeli cryptographers working at the Weitzmann Institute, have invented (see [3]) a new generic technique to break symmetric algorithms called the differential cryptanalysis. It was the first time that a method could break DES in less time than an exhaustive search.

Imagine that we have a device which encrypts data with a hard-wired secret key, and imagine furthermore that we don't have the tools needed to "read" the key in the chip. What we can do is to choose some blocks of data and to encrypt them with the device.

The data analysis phase computes the key by analysing about 247 chosen plaintexts. A big advantage of this attack is that its probability of success increases linearly with the number of available chosen plaintexts and can thus be conducted even with fewer chosen plaintexts. More precisely, the attack analyses about 214 chosen plaintexts Panda Dome Essential Latest Version - Crack Key For U succeeds with a probability of 2-33.

Linear cryptanalysis

Another very important generic method to break ciphers is the linear cryptanalysis ([4]), which was invented in 1994 by a japanese researcher working at Mitsubishi ELectronics, Mitsuru Matsui. If we have 243= 8'796'093'022'208 known plaintext-ciphertext pairs at disposal, which represents 64'000 GB of data, it is possible to recover the corresponding key in a few days using linear cryptanalysis. It is the most powerful attack on DES known at this time.

A current research project at the LASEC is the cost analysis of this attack. We have first implemented a very fast DES encryption routine using advanced techniques on a common Intel Pentium III architecture; this routine is able to encrypt at a rate of 192 Mbps on a PIII 666MHz processor. We have then implemented the attack; it is currently running on 18 CPU's, breaking a DES key in 4 days.

The goal of this project is to do a better statistical analysis on its complexity and on its success probability. First experimental and theorical results have shown that a linear cryptanalysis needs in reality less time as estimated by Matsui in 1994.

Conclusion

DES shows some signs of old age. It can no more be considered as a secure cryptographic algorithm. The NIST has launched a process in order to develop a new standard, called AES (Advanced Encryption Standard), which will replace DES for the next 10 years.

References

[1] "Data Encryption Standard", in Federal Information Processing Standards Publications, No. 46, U.S Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, January 1977

[2] M. Hellman, "A cryptanalytic time-memory tradeoff", IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, v. 26, n.4, Jul. 1980, pp 401-406

[3] E. Biham and A. Shamir, Differential Cryptanalysis of DES, Springer-Verlag, 1993

[4] M. Matsui, "Linear Cryptanalysis of DES cipher", Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT '93 Proceedings, Springer-Verlag, 1994, pp. 386-397

[5] NIST Homepage

[6] EFF Homepage

[7] NSA Homepage

[8] distributed.net

[9] AES Project Homepage

[10] "Cracking DES", Electronic Frontier Fundation, May 1998, O'Reilly

Источник: https://lasec.epfl.ch/memo/memo_des.shtml
 TE Preview Pascal Analyzer Crack

Notice: Undefined variable: z_bot in /sites/ioion.us/crack/pascal-analyzer-crack.php on line 107

Notice: Undefined variable: z_empty in /sites/ioion.us/crack/pascal-analyzer-crack.php on line 107

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *