• 대한교통학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한교통학회 1995년도 제27회 학술발표회
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 1995

The Highway Capacity Manual specifies procedures for evaluating intersection performance in terms of delay per vehicle. What is lacking in the current methodology is a comparable quantitative procedure for ass~ssing the safety-based level of service provided to motorists. The objective of the research described herein was to develop a computational procedure for evaluating the safety-based level of service of signalized intersections based on the relative hazard of alternative intersection designs and signal timing plans. Conflict opportunity models were developed for those crossing, diverging, and stopping maneuvers which are associated with left-turn and rear-end accidents. Safety¬based level-of-service criteria were then developed based on the distribution of conflict opportunities computed from the developed models. A case study evaluation of the level of service analysis methodology revealed that the developed safety-based criteria were not as sensitive to changes in prevailing traffic, roadway, and signal timing conditions as the traditional delay-based measure. However, the methodology did permit a quantitative assessment of the trade-off between delay reduction and safety improvement. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) specifies procedures for evaluating intersection performance in terms of a wide variety of prevailing conditions such as traffic composition, intersection geometry, traffic volumes, and signal timing (1). At the present time, however, performance is only measured in terms of delay per vehicle. This is a parameter which is widely accepted as a meaningful and useful indicator of the efficiency with which an intersection is serving traffic needs. What is lacking in the current methodology is a comparable quantitative procedure for assessing the safety-based level of service provided to motorists. For example, it is well¬known that the change from permissive to protected left-turn phasing can reduce left-turn accident frequency. However, the HCM only permits a quantitative assessment of the impact of this alternative phasing arrangement on vehicle delay. It is left to the engineer or planner to subjectively judge the level of safety benefits, and to evaluate the trade-off between the efficiency and safety consequences of the alternative phasing plans. Numerous examples of other geometric design and signal timing improvements could also be given. At present, the principal methods available to the practitioner for evaluating the relative safety at signalized intersections are: a) the application of engineering judgement, b) accident analyses, and c) traffic conflicts analysis. Reliance on engineering judgement has obvious limitations, especially when placed in the context of the elaborate HCM procedures for calculating delay. Accident analyses generally require some type of before-after comparison, either for the case study intersection or for a large set of similar intersections. In e.ither situation, there are problems associated with compensating for regression-to-the-mean phenomena (2), as well as obtaining an adequate sample size. Research has also pointed to potential bias caused by the way in which exposure to accidents is measured (3, 4). Because of the problems associated with traditional accident analyses, some have promoted the use of tqe traffic conflicts technique (5). However, this procedure also has shortcomings in that it.requires extensive field data collection and trained observers to identify the different types of conflicts occurring in the field. The objective of the research described herein was to develop a computational procedure for evaluating the safety-based level of service of signalized intersections that would be compatible and consistent with that presently found in the HCM for evaluating efficiency-based level of service as measured by delay per vehicle (6). The intent was not to develop a new set of accident prediction models, but to design a methodology to quantitatively predict the relative hazard of alternative intersection designs and signal timing plans.

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제46권3호
• /
• pp.290-297
• /
• 2008

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-supported fixed cantilever prostheses are influenced by various biomechanical factors. The information that shows the effect of implant number and position of cantilever on stress in the supporting bone is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of implant number variation and the effect of 2 different cantilever types on stress distribution in the supporting bone, using 3-dimensional finite element analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 3-D FE model of a mandibular section of bone with a missing second premolar, first molar, and second molar was developed. $4.1{\times}10$ mm screw-type dental implant was selected. 4.0 mm height solid abutments were fixed over all implant fixtures. Type III gold alloy was selected for implant-supported fixed prostheses. For mesial cantilever test, model 1-1 which has three $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with no pontic, model 1-2 which has two $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with a central pontic and model 1-3 which has two $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with mesial cantilever were simulated. And then, 155N oblique force was applied to the buccal cusp of second premolar. For distal cantilever test, model 2-1 which has three $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with no pontic, model 2-2 which has two $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with a central pontic and model 2-3 which has two $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with distal cantilever were simulated. And then, 206N oblique force was applied to the buccal cusp of second premolar. The implant and superstructure were simulated in finite element software(Pro/Engineer wildfire 2.0). The stress values were observed with the maximum von Mises stresses. RESULTS: Among the models without a cantilever, model 1-1 and 2-1 which had three implants, showed lower stress than model 1-2 and 2-2 which had two implants. Although model 2-1 was applied with 206N, it showed lower stress than model 1-2 which was applied with 155N. In models that implant positions of models were same, the amount of applied occlusal load largely influenced the maximum von Mises stress. Model 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, which were loaded with 155N, showed less stress than corresponding model 2-1, 2-2 and 2- 3 which were loaded with 206N. For the same number of implants, the existence of a cantilever induced the obvious increase of maximum stress. Model 1-3 and 2-3 which had a cantilever, showed much higher stress than the others which had no cantilever. In all models, the von Mises stresses were concentrated at the cortical bone around the cervical region of the implants. Meanwhile, in model 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, which were loaded on second premolar position, the first premolar participated in stress distribution. First premolars of model 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 did not participate in stress distribution. CONCLUSION: 1. The more implants supported, the less stress was induced, regardless of applied occlusal loads. 2. The maximum von Mises stress in the bone of the implant-supported three unit fixed dental prosthesis with a mesial cantilever was 1.38 times that with a central pontic. The maximum von Mises stress in the bone of the implant-supported three-unit fixed dental prosthesis with a distal cantilever was 1.59 times that with a central pontic. 3. A distal cantilever induced larger stress in the bone than a mesial cantilever. 4. A adjacent tooth which contacts implant-supported fixed prosthesis participated in the stress distribution.