• Journal of the Korean Geosynthetics Society
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.57-65
• /
• 2022

This study simulated the shock wave propagation through the tamping material between explosives and hole wall at blasting works and verified the effect of tamping materials. The Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian(ALE) method was selected to model the mixture of solid (Lagrangian) and fluid (Eulerian). The time series analysis was carried out during blasting process time. Explosives and tamping materials (air or water) were modeled with finite element mesh and the hole wall was assumed as a rigid body that can determine the propagation velocity and shock force hitting the hole wall from starting point (explosives). The numerical simulation results show that the propagation velocity and shock force in case of water were larger than those in case of air. In addition, the real site at blasting work was modeled and simulated. The rock was treated as elasto-plastic material. The results demonstrate that the instantaneous shock force was larger and the demolished block size was smaller in water than in air. On the contrary, the impact in the back side of explosives hole was smaller in water, because considerable amount of shock energy was used to demolish the rock, but the propagation of compression through solid becomes smaller due to the damping effect by rock demolition. Therefore, It can be proven that the water as the tamping media was more profitable than air.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.49 no.4
• /
• pp.324-332
• /
• 2011

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the stress distribution of teeth and jaw on load by differentiating property of materials according to each layer of widely used mouthguard. Materials and methods: A Korean adult having normal cranium and mandible was selected to examine. A customized mouthguard was constructed by use of DRUFOMAT plate and DRUFOMAT-TE/-SQ of Dreve Co. according to Signature Mouthguard system. The cranium was scanned by means of computed tomography with 1mm interval. It was modeled with CANTIBio BIONIX/Body Builder program and simulated and interpreted using Alter HyperMesh program. The mouthguard was classified as follows according to the layers. (1) soft guard (Bioplast)(SG) (2) hard guard (Duran)(HG) (3) medium guard (Drufomat)(MG) (4) soft layer + hard layer (SG + HG) (5) hard layer + soft layer (HG + SG) (6) soft layer + hard layer + soft layer (SG + HG + SG) (7) hard layer + soft layer + hard layer (HG + SG + HG) The impact locations on mandible were gnathion, the center of inferior border, and the anterior edge of gonial angle. And the impact directions were oblique ($45^{\circ}$). The impact load was 800 N for 0.1 sec. The stress distribution was measured at maxillary teeth, TMJ and maxilla. The statistics were conducted using Repeated ANOVA and in case of difference, Duncan test was used as post analysis. Results: In teeth and maxilla, the mouthguard contacting soft layer of mandibular teeth presented lowest stress measure and, in contrast, in condyle, the mouthguard contacting hard layer of mandibular teeth presented lowest stress measure. Conclusion: For all impact directions, soft layer + hard layer + soft layer, the mouthguard with three layers which the hard layer is sandwiched between two soft layers, showed relatively even distribution of stress in impact.