• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.110-119
• /
• 2016

Purpose: This study is aimed to assess changes of stress distribution dependent on different connection lengths and placement of the fixture top relative to the ridge crest. Materials and methods: The internal-conical connection implant which has a hexagonal anti-rotation index was used for FEM analysis on stress distribution in accordance with connection length of fixture-abutment. Different connection lengths of 2.5 mm, 3.5 mm, and 4.5 mm were designed respectively with the top of the fixture flush with residual ridge crest level, or 2 mm above. Therefore, a total of 6 models were made for the FEM analysis. The load was 170 N and 30-degree tilted. Results: In all cases, the maximum von Mises stress was located adjacent to the top portion of the fixture and ridge crest in the bone. The longer the connection length was, the lower the maximum von Mises stress was in the fixture, abutment, screw and bone. The reduction rate of the maximum von Mises stress depending on increased connection length was greater in the case of the fixture top at 2 mm above the ridge crest versus flush with the ridge crest. Conclusion: It was found that the longer the connection length, the lower the maximum von Mises stress appears. Furthermore, it will help prevent mechanical or biological complications of implants.

• Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.37-49
• /
• 1999

The effect of fire-retardant treatment and redrying on the mechanical properties of radiata pine sapwood were evaluated. Small, clear specimens were treated with three different fire-retardant(FR) chemicals, borax-boric acid(BRX), minalith(MIN), and pyresote(PYR), with target retentions of 30 and 60kg/$m^3$, and then redried at maximum dry-bulb temperature of $25^{\circ}C$, $60^{\circ}C$, $80^{\circ}C$ or $110^{\circ}C$. Each specimen, including untreated and water-treated controls, was tested in static bending and in compression parallel to grain. The extent of strength reduction was dependent on the type of FR chemicals, retention, and redrying temperature, and a highly significant interaction existed between FR treatment and redrying temperature. Modulus of rupture(MOR) and work to maximum load(WML) were significantly decreased by FR treatment and redrying. None of three FR chemicals adversely affect modulus of elasticity (MOE) and maximum crushing strength(MCS). MOE of BRX treatment and MCS of both BRX and PYR treatment increased significantly compared to untreated controls. No significant differences existed between retention levels except for MOE and MCS of some combinations of FR chemicals and redrying temperatures. Although MOE and MCS was not significantly affected by any of the redrying temperatures, these properties were generally decreased with the increase in redrying temperature. The significant reduction in MOR and WML was observed in BRX treatment when dried at temperatures of $60^{\circ}C$ and above, and in MIN and PYR treatment when dried at temperatures of $80^{\circ}C$ and above. Consequently, BRX-treated radiata pine should not be redried at temperatures >$60^{\circ}C$, and MIN- and PYR-treated radiata pine should not be redried at temperatures > $80^{\circ}C$ where bending strength and energy-related properties are important design considerations.

• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.89-97
• /
• 2010

This study researches the effects of common features on a no-choice option with respect to regulatory focus theory. The primary interest is in three factors and their interrelationship: common features, no-choice option, and regulatory focus. Prior studies have compiled vast body of research in these areas. First, the "common features effect" has been observed bymany noted marketing researchers. Tversky (1972) proposed the seminal theory, the EBA model: elimination by aspect. According to this theory, consumers are prone to focus only on unique features during comparison processing, thereby dismissing any common features as redundant information. Recently, however, more provocative ideas have attacked the EBA model by asserting that common features really do affect consumer judgment. Chernev (1997) first reported that adding common features mitigates the choice gap because of the increasing perception of similarity among alternatives. Later, however, Chernev (2001) published a critically developed study against his prior perspective with the proposition that common features may be a cognitive load to consumers, and thus consumers are possible that they are prone to prefer the heuristic processing to the systematic processing. This tends to bring one question to the forefront: Do "common features" affect consumer choice? If so, what are the concrete effects? This study tries to answer the question with respect to the "no-choice" option and regulatory focus. Second, some researchers hold that the no-choice option is another best alternative of consumers, who are likely to avoid having to choose in the context of knotty trade-off settings or mental conflicts. Hope for the future also may increase the no-choice option in the context of optimism or the expectancy of a more satisfactory alternative appearing later. Other issues reported in this domain are time pressure, consumer confidence, and alternative numbers (Dhar and Nowlis 1999; Lin and Wu 2005; Zakay and Tsal 1993). This study casts the no-choice option in yet another perspective: the interactive effects between common features and regulatory focus. Third, "regulatory focus theory" is a very popular theme in recent marketing research. It suggests that consumers have two focal goals facing each other: promotion vs. prevention. A promotion focus deals with the concepts of hope, inspiration, achievement, or gain, whereas prevention focus involves duty, responsibility, safety, or loss-aversion. Thus, while consumers with a promotion focus tend to take risks for gain, the same does not hold true for a prevention focus. Regulatory focus theory predicts consumers' emotions, creativity, attitudes, memory, performance, and judgment, as documented in a vast field of marketing and psychology articles. The perspective of the current study in exploring consumer choice and common features is a somewhat creative viewpoint in the area of regulatory focus. These reviews inspire this study of the interaction possibility between regulatory focus and common features with a no-choice option. Specifically, adding common features rather than omitting them may increase the no-choice option ratio in the choice setting only to prevention-focused consumers, but vice versa to promotion-focused consumers. The reasoning is that when prevention-focused consumers come in contact with common features, they may perceive higher similarity among the alternatives. This conflict among similar options would increase the no-choice ratio. Promotion-focused consumers, however, are possible that they perceive common features as a cue of confirmation bias. And thus their confirmation processing would make their prior preference more robust, then the no-choice ratio may shrink. This logic is verified in two experiments. The first is a $2{\times}2$ between-subject design (whether common features or not X regulatory focus) using a digital cameras as the relevant stimulus-a product very familiar to young subjects. Specifically, the regulatory focus variable is median split through a measure of eleven items. Common features included zoom, weight, memory, and battery, whereas the other two attributes (pixel and price) were unique features. Results supported our hypothesis that adding common features enhanced the no-choice ratio only to prevention-focus consumers, not to those with a promotion focus. These results confirm our hypothesis - the interactive effects between a regulatory focus and the common features. Prior research had suggested that including common features had a effect on consumer choice, but this study shows that common features affect choice by consumer segmentation. The second experiment was used to replicate the results of the first experiment. This experimental study is equal to the prior except only two - priming manipulation and another stimulus. For the promotion focus condition, subjects had to write an essay using words such as profit, inspiration, pleasure, achievement, development, hedonic, change, pursuit, etc. For prevention, however, they had to use the words persistence, safety, protection, aversion, loss, responsibility, stability etc. The room for rent had common features (sunshine, facility, ventilation) and unique features (distance time and building state). These attributes implied various levels and valence for replication of the prior experiment. Our hypothesis was supported repeatedly in the results, and the interaction effects were significant between regulatory focus and common features. Thus, these studies showed the dual effects of common features on consumer choice for a no-choice option. Adding common features may enhance or mitigate no-choice, contradictory as it may sound. Under a prevention focus, adding common features is likely to enhance the no-choice ratio because of increasing mental conflict; under the promotion focus, it is prone to shrink the ratio perhaps because of a "confirmation bias." The research has practical and theoretical implications for marketers, who may need to consider common features carefully in a practical display context according to consumer segmentation (i.e., promotion vs. prevention focus.) Theoretically, the results suggest some meaningful moderator variable between common features and no-choice in that the effect on no-choice option is partly dependent on a regulatory focus. This variable corresponds not only to a chronic perspective but also a situational perspective in our hypothesis domain. Finally, in light of some shortcomings in the research, such as overlooked attribute importance, low ratio of no-choice, or the external validity issue, we hope it influences future studies to explore the little-known world of the "no-choice option."

• Journal of Bio-Environment Control
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 1996

The thermal analysis by mathematical model simulation makes it possible to reasonably predict heating and/or cooling requirements of certain greenhouses located under various geographical and climatic environment. It is another advantages of model simulation technique to be able to make it possible to select appropriate heating system, to set up energy utilization strategy, to schedule seasonal crop pattern, as well as to determine new greenhouse ranges. In this study, the control pattern for greenhouse microclimate is categorized as cooling and heating. Dynamic model was adopted to simulate heating requirements and/or energy conservation effectiveness such as energy saving by night-time thermal curtain, estimation of Heating Degree-Hours(HDH), long time prediction of greenhouse thermal behavior, etc. On the other hand, the cooling effects of ventilation, shading, and pad ||||&|||| fan system were partly analyzed by static model. By the experimental work with small size model greenhouse of 1.2m$\times$2.4m, it was found that cooling the greenhouse by spraying cold water directly on greenhouse cover surface or by recirculating cold water through heat exchangers would be effective in greenhouse summer cooling. The mathematical model developed for greenhouse model simulation is highly applicable because it can reflects various climatic factors like temperature, humidity, beam and diffuse solar radiation, wind velocity, etc. This model was closely verified by various weather data obtained through long period greenhouse experiment. Most of the materials relating with greenhouse heating or cooling components were obtained from model greenhouse simulated mathematically by using typical year(1987) data of Jinju Gyeongnam. But some of the materials relating with greenhouse cooling was obtained by performing model experiments which include analyzing cooling effect of water sprayed directly on greenhouse roof surface. The results are summarized as follows : 1. The heating requirements of model greenhouse were highly related with the minimum temperature set for given greenhouse. The setting temperature at night-time is much more influential on heating energy requirement than that at day-time. Therefore It is highly recommended that night- time setting temperature should be carefully determined and controlled. 2. The HDH data obtained by conventional method were estimated on the basis of considerably long term average weather temperature together with the standard base temperature(usually 18.3$^{\circ}C$). This kind of data can merely be used as a relative comparison criteria about heating load, but is not applicable in the calculation of greenhouse heating requirements because of the limited consideration of climatic factors and inappropriate base temperature. By comparing the HDM data with the results of simulation, it is found that the heating system design by HDH data will probably overshoot the actual heating requirement. 3. The energy saving effect of night-time thermal curtain as well as estimated heating requirement is found to be sensitively related with weather condition: Thermal curtain adopted for simulation showed high effectiveness in energy saving which amounts to more than 50% of annual heating requirement. 4. The ventilation performances doting warm seasons are mainly influenced by air exchange rate even though there are some variations depending on greenhouse structural difference, weather and cropping conditions. For air exchanges above 1 volume per minute, the reduction rate of temperature rise on both types of considered greenhouse becomes modest with the additional increase of ventilation capacity. Therefore the desirable ventilation capacity is assumed to be 1 air change per minute, which is the recommended ventilation rate in common greenhouse. 5. In glass covered greenhouse with full production, under clear weather of 50% RH, and continuous 1 air change per minute, the temperature drop in 50% shaded greenhouse and pad ＆ fan systemed greenhouse is 2.6$^{\circ}C$ and.6.1$^{\circ}C$ respectively. The temperature in control greenhouse under continuous air change at this time was 36.6$^{\circ}C$ which was 5.3$^{\circ}C$ above ambient temperature. As a result the greenhouse temperature can be maintained 3$^{\circ}C$ below ambient temperature. But when RH is 80%, it was impossible to drop greenhouse temperature below ambient temperature because possible temperature reduction by pad ||||&|||| fan system at this time is not more than 2.4$^{\circ}C$. 6. During 3 months of hot summer season if the greenhouse is assumed to be cooled only when greenhouse temperature rise above 27$^{\circ}C$, the relationship between RH of ambient air and greenhouse temperature drop($\Delta$T) was formulated as follows : $\Delta$T= -0.077RH＋7.7 7. Time dependent cooling effects performed by operation of each or combination of ventilation, 50% shading, pad ＆ fan of 80% efficiency, were continuously predicted for one typical summer day long. When the greenhouse was cooled only by 1 air change per minute, greenhouse air temperature was 5$^{\circ}C$ above outdoor temperature. Either method alone can not drop greenhouse air temperature below outdoor temperature even under the fully cropped situations. But when both systems were operated together, greenhouse air temperature can be controlled to about 2.0-2.3$^{\circ}C$ below ambient temperature. 8. When the cool water of 6.5-8.5$^{\circ}C$ was sprayed on greenhouse roof surface with the water flow rate of 1.3 liter/min per unit greenhouse floor area, greenhouse air temperature could be dropped down to 16.5-18.$0^{\circ}C$, whlch is about 1$0^{\circ}C$ below the ambient temperature of 26.5-28.$0^{\circ}C$ at that time. The most important thing in cooling greenhouse air effectively with water spray may be obtaining plenty of cool water source like ground water itself or cold water produced by heat-pump. Future work is focused on not only analyzing the feasibility of heat pump operation but also finding the relationships between greenhouse air temperature(T$_{g}$ ), spraying water temperature(T$_{w}$ ), water flow rate(Q), and ambient temperature(T$_{o}$).