http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
박두용 바른역사학술원 2019 역사와융합 Vol.- No.5
From a traditional Korean history study, the founding dates of Gaya had never had questioned. However, later the Japanese Imperialist era, scholars from Japan lowered the periods of the founding dates of Gaya according to emphasis on Nihonshoki under the means of research. Japan praised totalitarianism under the Emperor’s authority and accord to the ideology, Nihonshoki was the most useful tool to justify. Therefore, Japanese scholars such as Sokichi Tsuda and Yasukaza Suematsu dissented any of the early records of ancient Korean history without any evidential argument but admit them as early legend or folk tales. Especially in the case of Gaya, they called the name ‘Gara’ or ‘Mimana’ and argued those records written in Samgukyusa’s Garakgukgi cannot approve as historical fact. More overly, this argument became evidence that Gaya is Mimana and it has been occupied by Yamato’s administration. On the base of this logic, Japanse scholars did not have any interest in the founding date of Gaya as a research subject. Later the Korean peninsula liberated from Japan’s occupation, the study on the history of Gaya was changed compared to previous theories. South Korean academics disapproved of the idea, Ancient Yamato’s administration occupied Mimana existed in the Korean peninsula until the fall under Shilla. On the archaeological fact that the artifacts of iron and pottery in the Korean peninsula is earlier than the same artifacts found in Japan, it is hard to be stated to say Japan ruled South territory of Korea. However, those academic scholars thrive to identify Gaya as Mimana, they’ve used Chinese text on the Records of the Three Kingdoms to prove Gaya has founded the state in 3rd century A.D. and denied the exact record written in the text says 42 A.D. The doctrine of those argument addressed in the late 20th century was mildly evidential but later passed 21st century, the South Korean academics were speculated it in absurd attempts. They do not deny the fact that Gaya found in 42 A.D. but did not become as ‘ancient state’39) until 5th or 6th century from ‘chiefdom’ which was the inferior civilization or not even reached on that stage and disappeared in the account. On the other hand, Gaya’s institutional character is no identify to approve to ‘ancient state’ stage and therefore the exact date, 42 A.D. deemed in suspicion. North Korean academics do not deny the exact date of the founding date. They instead argue with the evidence, Gojoseon’s merchant Yeokgaegyeong displaced the settlements to southward according to the Records of the Three Kingdoms, to provide speculation that Gojoseon’s settlement reached South Korean peninsula and founded Gaya. However, that logic is under the idea Gojoseon’s capital city was in Pyongyang and the settlement moved to Gyeongsangdo province of South Korea which reminds under North Korea’s Juche ideology. It is the hidden message that North Korea wants to be superior to South Korea not only in the political competition but also in history which attempts North Korea to want to be the big brother of South Korea. It is academically difficult to admit. South Korea’s amateur historians grounded epitaph records of Moonmu King’s Tomb and speculated douhou秺候 Jin Medi’s descent Wangmang also the founder of Xin must have exile from later Han emperor Guangwu’s retaliate genocides and moved to Gaya through seaway. The theory is more applicable than North Korean speculation but this cannot able to criticize the academics’ suspicions. Even the fact that the theory according to the amateur is well-stated, it’s more necessary to dismiss the suspicion corresponding to the same text, Samgukyusa’s Garakgukgi, the Records of the Three kingdoms, and Nihonshoki. South Korean academics’ suspicion on Samgukyusa’s Garakgukgi about the reigning periods of King Suro of 199 years is explicitly too long. However, under the evidence from text Donggukyeoji...
일반건축물 단위냉방부하 선정을 위한 용도별 표준모델 구축에 관한 연구
박두용,최슬건,황동곤,오명도 대한설비공학회 2019 설비공학 논문집 Vol.31 No.8
본 연구에서는 단위냉방부하 재산정을 위한 표준모델 구축에 관한 방법론과 국가통계자료 12,743개와 인허가도서 174개를 통해 일반건축물 9개(업무, 근린생활, 숙박, 판매, 교육연구, 백화점, 방송통신, 오피스텔, 학교) 용도에 관한 표준모델을 구축하였다. 2003년 열사용시설 기준 용도별 단위냉방부하, 본 연구에서 구축한 표준모델에 2003년 당시의 단열기준 등의 입력데이터로 시뮬레이션을 진행한 RTS 결과값(인체 0.2인/m2), 2003년 당시의 입력데이터로 시뮬레이션을 진행한 RTS결과값(인체 0.15인/m2) 셋을 상대 비교검증 하였을 때 -6.3~+6.6% 정도 차이나는 것으로 분석되었다. 후속 연구에서는 구축한 표준모델에 대해 RTS-SAREK과 EnergyPlus 및 실사용데이터 간 비교분석을 통해 추가 검증을 실시할 예정이다. The aim of this study is to change the unit cooling load standard of non-residential buildings that have not been revised since 2003 to meet the 2019 building energy saving design standards and institutional viewpoints. In this study, the statistical reference models were applied as the top priority methodology, and practical reference model methods were used when the number of available samples was inadequate. In an effort to reflect the trend of the latest buildings, a total of 174 samples were collected and analyzed based on the design books of the last three years. When the RTS simulation was conducted in 2003 as a reference model built in this study, it was found that the unit cooling load based on the design criteria for heating facility in 2003 was 6.3~6.6% different.