• KSCE Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.227-237
• /
• 1993

This paper dealt with numerical analysis of sand drain considering the smear effect around drain wells and discontinuous deformation behavior due to difference in rigidity between drain materials and adjacent clayey soils. Biot's equation was selected as governing equation coupled with MODCAM (Modified Cam-clay) model or EVP(Elasto-Viscoplastic) model as constitutive equation. The validity as well as the accuracy of the method developed by author was checked by comparing the proposed method with those by Siriwardane and Ghaboussi using joint element. The FEM analysis developed in this study was applied to both 2-dimensional model foundation and actual foundation. the result of which proved to be satisfactory.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.15 no.5
• /
• pp.271-280
• /
• 2023

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to compare the accuracy of the conventional facebow system and the newly developed POP (PNUD (Pusan National University Dental School) Occlusal Plane) bow system for occlusal plane transfer in asymmetric ear position. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two dentists participated in this study, one was categorized as Experimenter 1 and the other as Experimenter 2 based on their clinical experience with the facebow (1F, 2F) and POP bow (1P, 2P) systems. The vertical height difference between the two ears of the phantom model was set to 3 mm. Experimenter 1 and Experimenter 2 performed the facebow and POP bow systems on the phantom model 10 times each, and the transfer accuracy was analyzed. The accuracy was evaluated by measuring the angle between the reference virtual plane (RVP) of the phantom model and the experimental virtual plane (EVP) of the upper mounting plate through digital superimposition. All data were statistically analyzed using a paired t-test (P < .05). RESULTS. Regardless of clinical experience, the POP bow system (0.53° ± 0.30 (1P) and 0.19° ± 0.18 (2P) for Experimenter 1 and 2, respectively) was significantly more accurate than the facebow system (1.88° ± 0.50 (1F) and 1.34° ± 0.25 (2F), respectively) in the frontal view (P < .05). In the sagittal view, no significant differences were found between the POP bow system (0.92° ± 0.50 (1P) and 0.73° ± 0.42 (2P) for Experimenter 1 and 2, respectively) and the facebow system (0.82° ± 0.49 (1F) and 0.60° ± 0.39 (2F), respectively), regardless of clinical experience (P > .05). CONCLUSION. In cases of asymmetric ear position, the POP bow system may transfer occlusal plane information more accurately than the facebow system in the frontal view, regardless of clinical experience.