Transportable Barrier Fork Profile Connection
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current transportable protective devices for preventing vehicles from leaving roads lack stable and easy-to-assemble connections between protective wall elements, which are crucial for withstanding impacts and ensuring quick setup in emergency situations.
Innovation Solution
The design features fork profiles on one protective wall element that extend beyond its end face, allowing for a stable and quick connection with another element through a non-positive or positive interaction, enhancing lateral stability and ease of assembly.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If traditional connection methods between protective wall elements are used, then the connection can be made, but the assembly process is time-consuming and the connection stability is insufficient
Solution Approach 1:
The connection system is divided into separate functional components: fork profiles on one element and corresponding receptacles on the mating element. This segmentation allows for quick assembly by simply inserting the fork into the receptacle without requiring complex fastening operations, while maintaining stable connection through the interlocking geometry of these segmented parts.
Solution Approach 2:
The fork profile is designed to fit within and nest into the receptacle structure of the mating protective wall element. This nesting arrangement creates a stable connected state where the fork profile is received by the receptacle, providing both quick assembly and reliable connection without additional fasteners.
2Reliability
If the protective wall elements are designed with extended fork profiles for stable connections, then connection stability improves, but the complexity of individual elements increases
Solution Approach 1:
The fork profile and the receptacle are merged into integral parts of their respective protective wall elements using standardized connection geometries. This merging approach, combined with the use of standard components, simplifies the overall element structure while maintaining stable connections, as the connection features are built-in rather than added as separate complex assemblies.
3Volume of moving object
If the clear distance between fork profiles is reduced to match the width of the second protective wall element, then the connection becomes more compact, but the manufacturing precision requirements increase
Solution Approach 1:
The clear distance between fork profiles is optimized to match the width of the second protective wall element, creating a compact connection. This parameter optimization is achieved through standardized dimensions and tolerances that balance compactness with manufacturability, allowing for precise clearances without excessive manufacturing complexity.
Data Source
Figure 1~2
Figure 3
Figure 4~5
AI summary
A transportable protective device (1) is described as a vehicle restraint system against vehicles leaving the roadway, for roads, highways and other traffic routes, to improve road safety, comprising: at least a first protective barrier element (2.1) and a second protective barrier element (2.2), which are connected or connectable to each other at their ends; which first protective barrier element (2.1) has at least two fork profiles (6a, 6b) in the area of its end face (S) facing or to be faced with the second protective barrier element (2.2), which fork profiles (6a, 6b) are attached or attachable to opposite sides of the first protective barrier element (2.1) and which fork profiles (6a, 6b) extend in a longitudinal direction (L) of the first protective barrier element (2.1) over the respective end face (S) of the first protective barrier element (2.2).1) extend outwards, preferably equally far, while being spaced apart from each other in a transverse direction (Q) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (L) by a clear dimension (M); which second protective wall element (2.2) has at least one contact area (K) on each side, in which contact area (K) one of the fork profiles (6a, 6b) laterally overlaps the second protective wall element (2.2) and preferably interacts with the second protective wall element (2.2) in a force-fit and/or form-fit manner; which clear dimension (M) corresponds at least to a width (B) of the second protective wall element (2.2) in the contact area.