• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.246-257
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of various occlusal loading sites and directions on the stress distribution of the cervical composite resin restorations of maxillary second premolar, using 3 dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) analysis. Extracted maxillary second premolar was scanned serially with Micro-CT (SkyScan1072; SkyScan, Aartselaar, Belgium). The 3D images were processed by 3D-DOCTOR (Able Software Co., Lexington, MA, USA). HyperMesh (Altair Engineering, Inc., Troy, USA) and ANSYS (Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc., Houston, USA) was used to mesh and analyze 3D FE model. Notch shaped cavity was filled with hybrid (Z100, 3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA) or flowable resin (Tetric Flow, Vivadent Ets., FL-9494-Schaan, Liechtenstein) and each restoration was simulated with adhesive layer thickness ($40{\mu}m$). A static load of 200 N was applied on the three points of the buccal incline of the palatal cusp and oriented in $20^{\circ}$ increments, from vertical (long axis of the tooth) to oblique $40^{\circ}$ direction towards the buccal. The maximum principal stresses in the occlusal and cervical cavosurface margin and vertical section of buccal surfaces of notch-shaped class V cavity were analyzed using ANSYS. As the angle of loading direction increased, tensile stress increased. Loading site had little effect on it. Under same loading condition, Tetric Flow showed relatively lower stress than Z100 overall, except both point angles. Loading direction and the elastic modulus of restorative material seem to be important factor on the cervical restoration.

• Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology
• /
• v.23 no.5
• /
• pp.431-438
• /
• 2009

The main purpose of this research is to prepare and provide basic materials for the propagational strategy of eelgrass by investigating on the morphological adaptation of Korean Zostera marina to ocean currents. An eelgrass plant mainly consists of rhizome, leaf sheath, leaves and roots. The rhizome is the horizontal stem of the plant that serves as the backbone from which the leaves and roots emerge. The leaf sheath is the bundle at the base of the leaves that holds the leaves together, protecting the meristem, the primary growth point of the shoot. Leaves originate from a meristem which is protected by a sheath at the actively growing end of the rhizome. As the shoot grows, the rhizome elongates, moving across or within the sediment, forming roots as it progresses. The aggregated leaves from the leaf sheath are found to have two cell layers on one side and multiple layers of airy tissues called aerenchyma on the other. The aerenchyma tissues are developed in multi-layered cell structures surrounding the veins which are formed in the leaf sheath. Generative shoots are made of rhizomes, which are circular or ovoidal, stem, and spathe and spadix. The transverse section of rhizome and the stem and central floral axis is found to be circular, ovoid and in the shape of convex respectively, and the vascular bundle, which is a part of transport system, has one large tube in the center and two small tubes on both sides. The layers of collenchyma cells numbered from 12 to 15 in the stem, and from 7 to 12 in the rhizome. The seed coat is composed of sclereids, small bundles of sclerenchyma tissues, which prevent the influx of sea water from the outside and help endure the environmental stress. In conclusion, alternative multi-layer structure in circular, convex type aggregated leaf base are interpreted to morphological adaption as doing tolerable elastic structure through movement of seawater. The generative shoots develop long slim stem and branches in circular or ovoidal shapes to minimize the adverse impacts of sea current, which can be interpreted as the plant's morphological adaptation to its environment.

• KSCE Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research
• /
• v.26 no.6C
• /
• pp.395-406
• /
• 2006

Drilled shafts are a common foundation solution for large concentrated loads. Such piles are generally constructed by drilling through softer soils into rock and the section of the shaft which is drilled through rock contributes most of the load bearing capacity. Drilled shafts derive their bearing capacity from both shaft and base resistance components. The length and diameter of the rock socket must be sufficient to carry the loads imposed on the pile safely without excessive settlements. The base resistance component can contribute significantly to the ultimate capacity of the pile. However, the shaft resistance is typically mobilized at considerably smaller pile movements than that of the base. In addition, the base response can be adversely affected by any debris that is left in the bottom of the socket. The reliability of base response therefore depends on the use of a construction and inspection technique which leaves the socket free of debris. This may be difficult and costly to achieve, particularly in deep sockets, which are often drilled under water or drilling slurry. As a consequence of these factors, shaft resistance generally dominates pile performance at working loads. The efforts to improve the prediction of drilled shaft performance are therefore primarily concerned with the complex mechanisms of shaft resistance development. The shaft resistance only is concerned in this study. The nature of the interface between the concrete pile shaft and the surrounding rock is critically important to the performance of the pile, and is heavily influenced by the construction practices. In this study, the influences of asperity characteristics such as the heights and angles, the strength characteristics and elastic constants of surrounding rock masses and the depth and length of rock socket, et. al. on the shaft resistance of drilled shafts are investigated from elasto-plastic analyses( FLAC). Through the parametric studies, among the parameters, the vertical stress on the top layer of socket, the height of asperity and cohesion and poison's ratio of rock masses are major influence factors on the unit peak shaft resistance.