• 한국소성가공학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국소성가공학회 2002년도 춘계학술대회 논문집
• /
• pp.33-38
• /
• 2002

Nowdays, related with vehicle weight reduction, many automotive maker are trying to develop spaceframe. If aluminum member and steel member are applied together in constructing spaceframe, there will be many advantages in aspect of inclosing strength and saving weight of automotive. In this case, joining method of aluminum and steel members has to be proposed. For this method, electomagnetic joining has many advantages compared to welding. In this paper, joining of aluminum tube and steel tube using eletomagnetic pressure was studied and strength of joint was evaluated through commission test.

• International Journal of Automotive Technology
• /
• 제6권5호
• /
• pp.519-527
• /
• 2005

Recently, weight reduction of vehicles has been of great interest and consequently the use of low-density materials in the automotive industry is increasing every year. However, the substitution of one material for another is not simple because it accompanies several problems, for example, weakness in the strength and stiffness and difficulty in the joining. To overcome these problems, the structure of the automobile redesigned totoally. Aluminum spaceframe is rapidly being adopted as a body structure for accommodating lightness, stiffness and strength requirement. In aluminum spaceframe manufacturing, it is often required to join aluminum tube. However, there are few suitable methods for joining aluminum tube, so that much interest has been focused on testing suitable joining methods. Joining by electromagnetic forming (EMF) can be useful method in joining aluminum tube, which offers some advantages compared with the conventional joining methods. In this paper, joining by EMF was investigated as a pre-study for applying an automotive spaceframe. Finite element simulations and strength tests were performed to analyze the influence of geometric parameters on joint strength. Based on these results, configurations of axial joint and torque joint were suggested and guidelines for designing EMF joint were established.

• 한국강구조학회 논문집
• /
• 제12권5호통권48호
• /
• pp.475-485
• /
• 2000

본 연구에서는 시공성을 고려한 변단면을 갖는 합성형 강상자형교의 최소비용을 구하기 위한 자동화 최적설계 프로그램을 개발하였다. 강상자형교 설계에 필요한 설계 제약조건은 도로교 표준 시방서를 비롯한 각종 설계기준과 실무자의 경험을 바탕으로 정식화하였다. 최적화의 효율성을 위해 강상자형교의 특성을 고려한 제약조건 소거기법, 설계 변수 연결기법, 응력 재해석 기법을 적용하였다. 본 연구에서 개발된 프로그램은 구조해석 모듈, 최적설계모듈, 사용자의 입력 편의를 위한 전처리모듈 설계 업무자동화를 위한 후처리모듈로 구성되어 있으며, 구조해석은 신뢰성이 입증된 상업용 구조해석 프로그램인 RM-SPACEFRAME을 이용하여 격자모델에 대해 실시하도록 하였다. 또한 개발된 최적 설계 프로그램의 효율성과 실용성을 확인하기 위하여 몇 가지의 수치예제를 적용하였다. 본 연구에서 개발된 최적설계 시스템은 향후 타 형식의 교량에 최적설계 프로그램의 모형으로 활용될 수 있으리라 사료된다.

• 한국공간구조학회논문집
• /
• 제2권3호
• /
• pp.81-92
• /
• 2002

The objective of this paper is to help to make decision of the appropriate structural types in long span structured building due to range of span. For the intention, based on 7 forces of structural element, it is analized the relationships among 6 configurations of structural element(d/1), 25 structural types, 4 materials, and span-length known with 186 sample from 1850 to 1996. 1) bending forces: $club(1/100{\sim}1/10),\;plate(1/100{\sim}1/10),\;rahmen(steel,\;10{\sim}24m)\;simple\;beam(PC,\;10{\sim}35m)$ 2) shearing forces: $shell(1/100{\sim}1/1000)\;hyperbolic\;paraboloids(RC,25{\sim}97m)$ 3) shearing+bending forces: plate, folded $plate(RC21{\sim}59m)$ 4) compression axial forces: club, $arch(RC,\;32{\sim}65m)$ 5) compression+tension forces: shell, braced dome $shell(RC,\;40{\sim}201m),\;vault\;shell(RC,\;16{\sim}103m)$ 6) compression+tension axial forces: $rod(1/1000{\sim}1/100)$, cable(below 1/1000)+rod, coble+rod+membrane(below 1/1000), planar $truss(steel,\;31{\sim}134m),\;arch\;truss(31{\sim}135m),\;horizontal\;spaceframe(29{\sim}10\;8m),\;portal\;frame(39{\sim}55m),\;domical\;space\;truss(44{\sim}222m),\;framed\;\;membrane(45{\sim}110m),\;hybrid\;\;membrane\;(42{\sim}256m)$ 7) tension forces: cable, membrane, $suspension(60{\sim}150m),\;cable\;\;beam(40{\sim}130m),\;tensile\;membrane(42{\sim}136m),\;cable\;-slayed(25{\sim}90m),\;suspension\;membrane(24{\sim}97m),\;single\;layer\;pneumatic\;structure(45{\sim}231m),\;double\;layer\;pneumatic\;structures(30{\sim}44m)$