• International Journal of Railway
• /
• 제2권3호
• /
• pp.124-126
• /
• 2009

Energy savings can be achieved with optimum energy consumptions, brake energy regeneration, efficient energy storage (onboard, line side), and primarily with light weight vehicles. Over the last few years, the rolling stock industry has experienced a marked increase in eco-awareness and needs for lower life cycle energy consumption costs. For rolling stock vehicle designers and engineers, weight has always been a critical design parameter. It is often specified directly or indirectly as contractual requirements. These requirements are usually expressed in terms of specified axle load limits, braking deceleration levels and/or demands for optimum energy consumptions. The contractual requirements for lower weights are becoming increasingly more stringent. Light weight vehicles with optimized strength to weight ratios are achievable through proven design processes. The primary driving processes consist of: $\bullet$ material selection to best contribute to the intended functionality and performance $\bullet$ design and design optimization to secure the intended functionality and performance $\bullet$ weight control processes to deliver the intended functionality and performance Aluminium has become the material of choice for modern light weight bodyshells. Steel sub-structures and in particular high strength steels are also used where high strength - high elongation characteristics out way the use of aluminium. With the improved characteristics and responses of composites against tire and smoke, small and large composite materials made components are also found in greater quantities in today's railway vehicles. Full scale hybrid composite rolling stock vehicles are being developed and tested. While an "overdesigned" bodyshell may be deemed as acceptable from a structural point of view, it can, in reality, be a weight saving missed opportunity. The conventional pass/fail structural criteria and existing passenger payload definitions promote conservative designs but they do not necessarily imply optimum lightweight designs. The weight to strength design optimization should be a fundamental design driving factor rather than a feeble post design activity. It should be more than a belated attempt to mitigate against contractual weight penalties. The weight control process must be rigorous, responsible, with achievable goals and above all must be integral to the design process. It should not be a mere tabulation of weights for the sole-purpose of predicting the axle loads and wheel balances compliance. The present paper explores and discusses the topics quoted above with a view to strengthen the recommendations and needs for the weight optimization by design approach as a pro-active design activity for the rolling stock industry at large.

• 농업과학연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.265-278
• /
• 1986

동력경운기(動力耕耘機) 탑재용(塔載用) 6kW 수냉식(水冷式) 디젤기관(機關)의 성능향상(性能向上)을 도모(圖謀)하기 위(爲)하여 현존(現存)의 냉각장치(冷却裝置)는 그대로 이용(利用)하고 냉각수(冷却水) 용량(容量)만을 2700cc에서 2800cc, 2900cc, 3000cc, 3100cc 로 4수준(水準)으로 변화(變化)시키면서 기관(機關)의 출력(出力), 연료소비율(燃料消費率), Torque, 냉각수(冷却水) 및 윤활유(潤滑油)의 온도(溫度)와 기관(機關)의 마찰손실(摩擦損失)을 D.C. dynamometer를 이용(利用)하여 측정(測定)한 결과(結果)는 다음과 같은 결론(結論)을 얻었다. 1. 공시기관(供試機關)의 출력성능(出力性能)은 한국공업표준규격범위(韓國工業標準規格範圍)에는 들었으나 정격표시마력(定格表示馬力)이 실험결과(實驗結果)보다 약(約) 10% 정도(程度) 낮게 표기(表記)되어 있으며 연료소비율(燃料消費率)은 297.78g/kW-h 로 약간(若干) 높은 수준(水準)이었으며 냉각수(冷却水) 온도(溫度)는 $101^{\circ}C$로 SAE기준(基準)인 $88^{\circ}C$보다는 $13^{\circ}C$ 정도(程度)가 높았다. 2. 공시기(供試機)의 마찰손실(摩擦損失)은 정격상용회전(定格常用回轉)인 2200rpm에서 3.65kW 이었으며 기보고(旣報告)된 측정치(測定値)보다 약간(若干) 높은 범위(範圍)이었다. 3. 냉각수(冷却水) 용량(容量)을 2700cc에서 3100cc로 14.8% 증가(增加)시켰을 때 출력(出力)은 6.7kW에서 7.13kW로 0.43kW의 6.3%가 증가(增加)하였다. Torque도 냉각수(冷却水) 용량(容量) 2700cc일 때 28.85N.m에서 3100cc일 때 30.706N.m로 6.39%가 증가(增加)하는 경향(傾向)을 보였다. 4. 냉각수(冷却水) 용량(容量) 2700cc에서 3100cc로 증가(增加)시켰을 때 연료소비율(燃料消費率)은 310.85g/kW-h에서 304.14g/kW-h로 6.69g/kW-h가 감소(減少)하였으며 30분간(分間) 전하중운전시(全荷重運轉時) 냉각수(冷却水)의 온도(溫度)는 냉각수(冷却水) 용량(容量)이 2700cc에서 $101^{\circ}C$였고 냉각수(冷却水) 용량(容量)이 3100cc에서 $88^{\circ}C$로 $13^{\circ}C$가 감소하여 3100cc일 때는 SAE 표준(標準)과 같았고 윤활유(潤滑油) 온도(溫度)는 냉각수(冷却水) 용량(容量)이 2700cc일 때, $76.7^{\circ}C$였으며 냉각수(冷却水) 용량(容量)이 3100cc에서는 $70.4^{\circ}C$로 $6.4^{\circ}C$가 감소하였다. 5. 기계효율(機械效率)은 냉각수(冷却水) 용량(容量)이 2700cc에서 70.08%였고 냉각수(冷却水) 용량(容量)이 3100cc일 때는 71.08%로 0.95%가 증가(增加)하였다.