http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Steel/CFRP 이종소재의 표면거칠기에 따른 접합특성 분석에 관한 연구
최찬웅(Chan-Woong Choi),전병욱(Byung-Wook Jeon),강기원(Ki-Weon Kang),진지원(Ji-Won Jin) 대한기계학회 2021 大韓機械學會論文集A Vol.45 No.11
본 논문에서는 steel/CFRP 이종소재의 표면거칠기에 따른 접합강도를 평가하고 분석하였다. 먼저 접합강도 산출을 위해 ASTM D3163에 따라 단일 겹침 전단 시편을 제조하였으며, 접착제의 접착두께를 선정하기 위해 접착두께 변화에 따른 접합강도를 산출하여 최적의 접착두께 0.3 mm를 도출하였다. 다음으로 steel 및 CFRP 소재에 적합한 표면거칠기 선정을 위해 표면거칠기에 따른 접합시험을 수행하였으며, steel 시편의 표면거칠기(Ra)는 1.0~2.0이고, CFRP 시편의 표면거칠기(Ra)는 1.2~2.0으로 적용하였다. 해당 조건을 이용해 접착두께가 0.3 mm인 접합시편을 제작하고 접합강도를 측정함으로 steel 및 CFRP에 적합한 표면거칠기를 선정하였다. 최종적으로 steel/steel, CFRP/CFRP 및 steel/CFRP 접합시편의 표면거칠기에 따른 접합 강도를 분석함으로 steel/CFRP 이종소재에 적합한 표면거칠기를 도출하였다. The bond strength according to the surface roughness of a steel/carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) multimaterial was evaluated and analyzed. First, we prepared a single-lap shear specimen to calculate the bonding strength and analyzed the bonding strength according to the change in the bonding thickness of the adhesive to derive the bonding thickness of 0.3 mm. Next, a bonding test was performed according to the surface roughness of steel and CFRP; the surface roughness (Ra) of the steel specimen was 1.0~2.0 and that of the CFRP specimen was 1.2~2.0. The surface roughness suitable for steel and CFRP was selected by manufacturing a bond specimen with an adhesive thickness of 0.3 mm and measuring the bond strength. Finally, we analyzed the bond strength according to the surface roughness of steel/steel, CFRP/CFRP and steel/CFRP bond specimens and derived the surface roughness suitable for steel/CFRP multimaterial.
위해인지도 맵을 이용한 나노기술 리스크 커뮤니케이션 연구
최찬웅(Chan-Woong Choi),정지윤(Ji-Yoon Jeong),황명실(Myung-Sil Hwang),정기경(Ki-Kyung Jung),이효민(Hyo-Min Lee),이광호(Kwang-Ho Lee) 환경독성보건학회 2010 환경독성보건학회지 Vol.25 No.3
Nanotechnology is the fastest growing area in scientific research and it has important applications in a wide variety of fields. Nevertheless, consumers encountered this new technology without any identification of risks and benefits. Also until now, there are no specific safety evaluation methods for nanotechnology. For this reason, we studied risk communication strategy for nanotechnology to prepare its application in commercialized products on public. A survey was conducted to identify the differences in perception between public (N=110) and expert (N=37) toward applied nanotechnology in food, drugs and cosmetic products. The survey results were used to draw up a risk cognitive map which was introduced by Paul Slovic, and the perception level of public and expert on nanotechnology was evaluated. As a result of the survey, public recognized nanotechnology as unknown but low dread risk factor, but expert recognized it as unknown and high dread risk factor. These results indicate that there are perception differences between two groups. Several risk communication strategies are reported including care, consensus and risk communication. In the case of nanotechnology, it contains both risks and benefits. Considering the nature of nanotechnology, the consensus communication which informs consumers about risks and benefits of issues is the most appropriate strategy.