• Earthquakes and Structures
• /
• 제9권3호
• /
• pp.481-501
• /
• 2015

Current design codes and technical recommendations often provide rough indications on how to assess effective stiffness of Reinforced Concrete (R/C) frames subjected to seismic loads, which is a key factor when a linear analysis is performed. The Italian design code (NTC-2008), Eurocode 8 and ACI 318 do not take into account all the structural parameters affecting the effective stiffness and this may not be on the safe side when second-order $P-{\Delta}$ effects may occur. This paper presents a study on the factors influencing the effective stiffness of R/C beams, columns and walls under seismic forces. Five different approaches are adopted and analyzed in order to evaluate the effective stiffness of R/C members, in accordance with the scientific literature and the international design codes. Furthermore, the paper discusses the outcomes of a parametric analysis performed on an actual R/C building and analyses the main variables, namely reinforcement ratio, axial load ratio, concrete compressive strength, and type of shallow beams. The second-order effects are investigated and the resulting displacements related to the Damage Limit State (DLS) under seismic loads are discussed. Although the effective stiffness increases with steel ratio, the analytical results show that the limit of 50% of the initial stiffness turns out to be the upper bound for small values of axial-load ratio, rather than a lower bound as indicated by both Italian NTC-2008 and EC8. As a result, in some cases the current Italian and European provisions tend to underestimate second-order $P-{\Delta}$ effects, when the DLS is investigated under seismic loading.

• 의료ㆍ복지 건축 : 한국의료복지건축학회 논문집
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.39-49
• /
• 2016

Purpose: This is the ex-post evaluation on "the Central General Hospital in Quang Nam Province in Vietnam" funded by Korean ODA. Through this evaluation, this study tries to explore useful ways to improve the effectiveness of Korean ODA projects related to hospital establishment. Methods: Field survey and analysis of questionaire to the staffs and patients of Quang Nam Province General Hospital were conducted twice in 2012 and 2014 after the completion of the Hospital. Two sets of surveys and questionaire outcomes have been comparatively analysed by statistics in order to seek the trend of satisfaction level of hospital users and find out the improvement way in hospital design and construction. Results: The satisfaction level on the hospital was relatively high and that of 2014 is higher than that of 2012. The satisfaction level of the users was recorded in Likert 5 scales. Continuous facility complement and maintenance is considered as the main contributor in increasing the satisfaction level of users. As far as the satisfaction level of outpatient is concerned, that of 2012 was recorded as 3.65 and that of 2014 was 4.05. In case of inpatient, the satisfaction level on the hospital in 2012 was 3.76, and 4.06 in 2014. Implications: In overseas hospital projects, proper hospital project management system including medical service plan, strategic plan, brief, design & construction and maintenance have to be put together effectively and efficiently for the success of the hospital project. At the same time local climate, culture, building material and local code have to be considered in order to build sustainable hospital.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.469-497
• /
• 2015

이 논문은 국제법상 우주폐기물감축 연성법(soft law)의 역할에 관한 것으로 경성법(hard law)인 우주관련조약들인 1967년 우주조약, 1968년 구조협정, 1972년 책임협약, 1975년 등록협약, 1979년 달조약 등 5개 조약은 우주폐기물을 직접적으로 다루는 조약이 아니기 때문에 제외하였다. 특히 1967년 우주조약은 제 9조에서 '유해한 오염'이나 '유해한 방해', '환경의 불리한 변화'라는 용어만 사용할 뿐 이것들에 대한 정의가 없으며, 1979년 달조약 역시 우주조약과 마찬가지로 제7조에 '유해한 오염', '불리한 변화', '환경의 방해', '유해한 영향' 등과 같은 중요한 개념에 대한 정의를 내리지 못하고 있다. 실제로 1978년 "Cosmos 954 사건"에서 가해국인 소련과 피해국이 캐나다가 1967년 우주조약과 1972년 책임협약의 당사국임에도 불구하고 우주관련조약을 원용하지 않고 의정서를 체결하여 해결한 점이 조약의 존재에 대한 의구심을 갖게 하였다. 국가들이 국제환경법이나 국제경제법 분야에서 조약체결이나 보충의정서 체결이 힘든 경우 연성법을 채택하여 문제를 해결하던 방식이 이제는 우주법에도 적용되고 있다. 우주폐기물감축에 관한 연성법으로는 'IADC의 가이드라인', '우주폐기물감축 가이드라인', 우주활동국제행동규범, '우주활동의 장기지속가능성을 위한 가이드라인' 등을 들 수 있다. 많은 학자들이 이러한 결의 속에 나타난 몇 개의 원칙들은 국제관습법을 표명하고 있다고 주장한다. 예를 들어 "우주에서의 핵원료사용에 관한 원칙(NPS원칙)"에서 우주에서의 NPS의 통지나 사용, 책임에 관한 규칙들은 법의 일반적 성격에 대한 기초를 형성하는 것으로 간주되는 '근본적으로 규범창설적 성격'(a fundamentally norm-creating character)을 지닌 것으로 볼 수 있는데, 국가관행이 이를 더욱 증명해주고 있다. 또한 이러한 연성법은 기존의 국제관습법이 성문화되는 과정에서 정확성을 제공하여 도움을 주거나 새로운 국제관습법보다 선행하여 이들이 형성되는데 도움을 주기도 한다. 1974년 11월 12일 UN총회가 총회의 '선언'(declaration)과 '결의'(resolution)는 국제법의 발전에 반영될 수 있는 한 방법으로서 국제사법재판소(ICJ)에 의해서 고려되어야 한다고 한 권고는 그런 의미에서 매우 중요하다. 그러나 E. R. C, van Bogaert도 지적한 바와 같이 이러한 결의나 권고, 가이드라인 등 연성법에 관한 법적가치는 과장되어서는 안 되고, 총회는 권고를 표결할 권한을 갖고 있지만 강제적인 법적규칙을 부과하는 것은 불가능하다. 이러한 권고는 컨센서스(consensus)의 표명으로 보는 것이 가능 하지만 아직 불완전한 법이라는 것이다. 법적 견지로 본다면 연성법은 실제 조약과 동일시하는 것은 불가능하다. 따라서 우주폐기물 감축에 관한 연성법은 엄밀하게 말해서 법적 구속력은 없다. 다시 말해서 이것들은 국가들을 구속하는 법문서는 아니며, 현존하는 우주법에 관한 조약들의 관점에서 볼 때는 일종의 권고의 형태로써 우주관련조약들의 보충적 역할을 할 수 있을 뿐이라는 것이다. 그러므로 연성법의 한계를 넘어서기 위해서는 앞으로 우주폐기물감축 연성법을 바탕으로 우주법의 산실인 UN COPOUS가 법적 구속력 있는 조치를 마련할 것으로 기대해 본다.

• 유통과학연구
• /
• 제12권6호
• /
• pp.15-20
• /
• 2014

Purpose - In general, researchers try to abide by the code of research ethics, but many of them are not fully aware of plagiarism, unintentionally committing the research misconduct when they write a research paper. This research aims to introduce researchers a clear and easy guideline at a conference, which helps researchers avoid accidental plagiarism by addressing the issue. This research is expected to contribute building a climate and encouraging creative research among scholars. Research design, data, methodology & Results - Plagiarism is considered a sort of research misconduct along with fabrication and falsification. It is defined as an improper usage of another author's ideas, language, process, or results without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism has nothing to do with examining the truth or accessing value of research data, process, or results. Plagiarism is determined based on whether a research corresponds to widely-used research ethics, containing proper citations. Within academia, plagiarism goes beyond the legal boundary, encompassing any kind of intentional wrongful appropriation of a research, which was created by another researchers. In summary, the definition of plagiarism is to steal other people's creative idea, research model, hypotheses, methods, definition, variables, images, tables and graphs, and use them without reasonable attribution to their true sources. There are various types of plagiarism. Some people assort plagiarism into idea plagiarism, text plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, and idea distortion. Others view that plagiarism includes uncredited usage of another person's work without appropriate citations, self-plagiarism (using a part of a researcher's own previous research without proper citations), duplicate publication (publishing a researcher's own previous work with a different title), unethical citation (using quoted parts of another person's research without proper citations as if the parts are being cited by the current author). When an author wants to cite a part that was previously drawn from another source the author is supposed to reveal that the part is re-cited. If it is hard to state all the sources the author is allowed to mention the original source only. Today, various disciplines are developing their own measures to address these plagiarism issues, especially duplicate publications, by requiring researchers to clearly reveal true sources when they refer to any other research. Conclusions - Research misconducts including plagiarism have broad and unclear boundaries which allow ambiguous definitions and diverse interpretations. It seems difficult for researchers to have clear understandings of ways to avoid plagiarism and how to cite other's works properly. However, if guidelines are developed to detect and avoid plagiarism considering characteristics of each discipline (For example, social science and natural sciences might be able to have different standards on plagiarism.) and shared among researchers they will likely have a consensus and understanding regarding the issue. Particularly, since duplicate publications has frequently appeared more than plagiarism, academic institutions will need to provide pre-warning and screening in evaluation processes in order to reduce mistakes of researchers and to prevent duplicate publications. What is critical for researchers is to clearly reveal the true sources based on the common citation rules and to only borrow necessary amounts of others' research.