• 한국전산구조공학회논문집
• /
• 제35권4호
• /
• pp.215-226
• /
• 2022

우수한 역학적 성능을 가진 생물체의 구조를 모방하여 고성능의 복합재료를 개발하려는 노력이 최근 활발히 이뤄지고 있다. 진주층 구조는 구성재료 대비 월등히 높은 파괴인성을 지닌다는 점에서 촉망받는 자연 모사 구조 중 하나이다. 하지만, 진주층 모사 구조의 형상이 변형될 때 구조의 충격성능이 어떻게 달라지는지에 관한 연구는 아직 충분히 진행되지 않았다. 본 연구에서는 무작위로 변형된 진주층 모사 복합재의 수치모델을 개발하고 충격성능을 분석하였다. 먼저, 균일한 진주층 모사 패턴에서 플레이트 판의 평면 크기를 무작위로 변형하는 알고리즘을 개발하고 이를 활용하여 불균일한 진주층 패턴 모사 구조를 모델링하였다. 그 후, 낙하충격 시뮬레이션을 수행하고 해당 모델의 충격거동을 에너지 흡수율과 본 미세스 응력 분포, 충격력-시간 그래프를 활용하여 평가하였다. 수치해석결과를 바탕으로, 충돌 범위 주변 플레이트 판의 기하학적 형상이 불균일할수록 진주층 모사 구조의 내충격성이 저하됨을 입증하였다. 이러한 진주층 모사 형상에 대한 심층적인 이해는 진주층 모사 구조의 최적설계를 수립하는 데 효율적으로 활용될 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

• 구강회복응용과학지
• /
• 제17권4호
• /
• pp.283-305
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study was to analyze the stress distribution of condylar regions and edentulous mandible with implant-supported cantilever prostheses on the certain conditions, such as amount of load, location of load, direction of load, fixation or non-fixation on the condylar regions. Three dimensional finite element analysis was used for this study. FEM model was created by using commercial software, ANSYS(Swanson, Inc., U.S.A.). Fixed model which was fixed on the condylar regions was modeled with 74323 elements and 15387 nodes and spring model which was sprung on the condylar regions was modeled with 75020 elements and 15887 nodes. Six Br${\aa}$nemark implants with 3.75 mm diameter and 13 mm length were incorporated in the models. The placement was 4.4 mm from the midline for the first implant; the other two in each quardrant were 6.5 mm apart. The stress distribution on each model through the designed mandible was evaluated under 500N vertical load, 250N horizontal load linguobuccally, buccal 20 degree 250N oblique load and buccal 45 degree 250N oblique load. The load points were at 0 mm, 10 mm, 20 mm along the cantilever prostheses from the center of the distal fixture. The results were as follows; 1. The stress distribution of condylar regions between two models showed conspicuous differences. Fixed model showed conspicuous stress concentration on the condylar regions than spring model under vertical load only. On the other hand, spring model showed conspicuous stress concentration on the condylar regions than fixed model under 250N horizontal load linguobuccally, buccal 20 degree 250N oblique load and buccal 45 degree 250N oblique load. 2. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the posterior and mesial side of working and balancing condylar necks but spring model showed stress concentration on the posterior and mesial side of working condylar neck and the posterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck under vertical load. 3. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the posterior and lateral side of working condylar neck and the anterior and mesial side of balancing condylar neck but spring model showed stress concentration on the anterior sides of working and balancing condylar necks under horizontal load linguobuccally. 4. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the posterior side of working condylar neck and the posterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck but spring model showed stress concentration on the anterior side of working condylar neck and the anterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck under buccal 20 degree oblique load. 5. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the anterior and lateral side of working condylar neck and the posterior and mesial side of balancing condylar neck but spring model showed stress concentration on the anterior side of working condylar neck and the anterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck under buccal 45 degree oblique load.. 6. The stress distribution of bone around implants between two models revealed difference slightly. In general, magnitude of Von Mises stress was the greatest at the bone around the most distal implant and the progressive decrease more and more mesially. Under vertical load, the stress values were similar between implant neck and superstructure vertically, besides the greatest on the distal side horizontally. 7. Under horizontal load linguobuccally, buccal 20 degree oblique load and buccal 45 degree oblique load, the stress values were the greatest on the implant neck vertically, and great on the labial and lingual sides horizontally. After all, it was considered that spring model was an indispensable condition for the comprehension of the stress distributions of condylar regions.