Impact Absorbing Safety Matting System with Elastomeric Sub-surface Structure

Abstract

A cushioning and impact absorbing pad system with a surface layer of thickness t, and an elastomeric sub-surface structure of height h. The sub-surface structure comprises an array of elastomeric columns wherein each column has a frustoconical column wall surrounding a central void. The cross-sectional thickness of the column wall increases from the first end to the enclosed second end by a percentage within a range of greater than 125% and less than 140%. Column walls are tapered with draft angles in the range of greater than 6 degrees and less than 10 degrees.

Description

[0001]This application in a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15 / 618,109 filed Jun. 8, 2017 which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62 / 348,117 filed Jun. 9, 2016, both of which are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein.TECHNICAL FIELD[0002]The invention relates to systems for attenuating applied force and absorbing impact energy; more particularly, it relates to anti-fatigue and stabilizing padding with elastomeric subsurface structures for attenuating applied force and absorbing impact energy; more particularly it relates to impact absorbing, anti-fatigue matting systems and impact absorbing, stabilizing padding with elastomeric subsurface structures and deformable structures for attenuating applied force and absorbing impact energy for use on surfaces in healthcare, recreation, industry and home, and as padding in sports equipment, footwear and body padding.BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION[0003]Conventionally, some kind of matting system i...

AI Technical Summary

Benefits of technology

[0019]An impact-absorbing padding system with a preferably continuous array of elastomeric subsurface structures is disclosed for use beneath a surface layer for anti-fatigue matting and for use in athletic equipment and shoes. The elastomeric subsurface structures are preferably geometric in shape, such as, for example, cylindrical shapes surrounding a void, the void optionally ending in a dome. The array of defined structures described herein is effective at providing anti-fatigue and athletic impact attenuation with a relatively more stable, relatively less deformable surface layer. The system provides adequate stability and yet provides effective impact and bottoming-out protection.

[0028]The elastomeric structures disclosed preferably flex more at the first end of the columns than at the enclosed layer of the substructure. When used in a matting system, this reduces foot entrapment effects and other surface disturbances around the foot. In anti-fatigue mats, athletic footwear and athletic equipment, this provides adequate stability, even while providing adequate impact attenuation and cushioning. Preferred structures provide greater protection against bottoming out (also referred to as sudden loss of impact attenuation) by providing a structure with at least two zones of different compressibility as discussed above.

[0030]Preferred embodiments provide a surface that feels ‘softer’ to a standing person as load is applied from the weight of the person, but that essentially immediately returns to its resting shape after the worker moves to a different location on the mat or off of the mat. Preferred elastomeric mats have a top surface that is supported by multiple flexing elastomeric cylinders or columns that are more readily deformable or compressible, and actually flex more, at the floor surface than at the top surface. This structure provides a more stable work surface.

[0031]Preferred embodiments provide impact attenuation to a foot impacting the ground during athletic activities as well, while at the same time providing a surface layer stability that stabilizes the foot, because the multiple flexing elastomeric cylinders or columns are more readily deformable or compressible at the lower surface than at the surface closer to the sole of the foot.

Problems solved by technology

The problems with most conventional matting systems are many.

Most conventional impact attenuating structures get harder as the force applied to them increases.

Their cushioning capability is therefore least available when it is most needed.

Foam mats particularly compress to a hardness that does not provide adequate support or cushioning.

In addition, foam materials can easily bottom out, allowing potentially injurious impact right through the mat and onto the harder floor surface beneath.

A surface that is slow to respond when pressure is released will be partially compressed as a load is repeatedly placed on it, and any positive effect of the cushioning will be lost.

Conventional systems tend to compact with time, thus leading to both localized and generalized compaction and hardening of the energy absorption layer.

However, the mats are seldom increased in thickness to compensate for the addition of dense rubber, and therefore it reduces the amount of the more impact-absorbing material for a given height of mat.

Dense forms of rubber do not provide bottoming-out protection and are relatively incompressible providing little anti-fatigue benefit.

Too soft and a mat may actually increase fatigue (imagine standing and working on a mattress).

In addition, when a mat is too soft, the instability will require an unwarranted amount of muscular activity as the body works to retain balance.

This will actually accelerate muscular fatigue, and all its accompanying ills, such as back, hip, knee, ankle and foot pain.

However, a mat that is too hard, or that bottoms out easily with normal standing and moving weight, will not be appreciatively better than standing on no mat at all.

In addition, in most conventional systems, the force absorbing mechanism begins with an immediate displacement at the very surface of the mat, a displacement that often leads to dangerous foot entrapment and / or other displacement instability for those who play, walk or work on such a surface.

This leads to additional fatigue as the worker is constantly, if subtly, walking uphill with each foot movement.

Closed cell foam systems, especially, provide dangerous surface deformation levels that often lead to foot lock or foot entrapment on surfaces having a foam substructure.

Even if the worker does not slip or trip, dealing with the uneven surface causes additional fatigue.

In working situations, where the height of a work surface is standardized, the thickness of anti-fatigue matting is problematic.

While mat heights of 25 to 75 mm were at one time considered optimal, that has changed, and a demand for thinner mats has impacted the market.

However, as a need has developed in recent years for ever smaller cells in thinner materials, it became evident to us that our previous formulations in cell shapes, dimensions, and height ratios (of more compressible to less compressible regions) would not result in impact absorbing materials that could perform at comparable levels with our previous innovations.

However, there has been considerable controversy as to the benefits of cushioning in athletic footwear over the last decade.

All of these systems exhibit the difficulties of any padding system, many of which have been discussed above.

Foam, gels and liquid tend to be heavy.

Other elastomeric structures get harder as the force applied to them increases, and also bottom out suddenly when the tube, wave or bellows flattens.

In addition, problems arise because, as discussed above, these systems must balance cushioning with stability.

Often, in conventional systems, the more cushioning a material or structure provides, the less stability it provides, allowing for sports related injury and reduced performance.

However, this additional muscular training is at the expense of performance.

As with the mats discussed above, most pads used in sports equipment and sports shoes are designed such that they begin with an immediate displacement at the surface of impact, causing dangerous and directionally-unpredictable deformation.

Images