• 한국전산구조공학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국전산구조공학회 1994년도 봄 학술발표회 논문집
• /
• pp.57-64
• /
• 1994

The purpose of this paper is to find minimum surface shape of pneumatic structure using the finite element method. The pneumatic membrane structure is a kind of large deformation problem and very flexible composite material, which mean geomatric nonlinearity. It is not to resist for compression and resultant moment. As the displacement due to internal pressure is getting bigger, it should be considered the direction of forces. It becomes non-linear problem with the non-conservative force. The follower-force depends on the deformation and the direction of force is normal to each element. The solution process is obtained the new stiffness matrix (load correction matrix) depending on deformation through each iterated step. However, the stiffness matrix have not the symmetry and influence on the time of covergence. So in this paper Newton-Rhapson method for solving non-linear problem and for using symmetic matrix, the load direction is changed in each iterated step using the transformation matrix.

• 한국구조물진단유지관리공학회 논문집
• /
• 제4권4호
• /
• pp.171-180
• /
• 2000

This study aims to present a more reasonable control value than the exiting one by comparing and analyzing control values and field instrumentation values of the whole excavation depth of the four case sites using geometric averaging as a statistical method. The range of the study is confined to three things: (1) the axial force of the braced excavation walls among a variety of items prescribed in the control values by stress deformation of walls and adjacent structures; (2) by approximation of the allowable and design value; (3) and by safety factor. As a res it is desirable to revise "(Long term allowable stress + Short term allowable stress)/2 ~ Short term allowable stress," presented in the present control values by stress deformation of walls and adjacent structures, to "(Long term allowable stress + Short term allowable stress)/5 ~ (Short term allowable stress)/3." The result also shows that since there is a difference of about 3.5%, it is not necessary to revise 70, 90, and 100 percent of LEVEL I, II, and III, prescribed in the control values by the allowable and design value approximation. In addition, modifying the control value by the safety factor, now 1.07, is unnecessary, although it varies little difference from the present value.