C-Shaped Support Frame Layout for Stable Lightweight Beer Tables
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Prior art beer benches and tables suffer from instability due to thin metal legs, leading to increased material consumption, weight, and production costs, especially when subjected to the forces of dancing visitors, necessitating a more stable and lightweight support frame.
Innovation Solution
A support frame formed from C-shaped support profiles with varying leg widths, including a central leg and two outer legs connected by cross-connections, which can be diagonal, horizontal, or a combination, to enhance stability while reducing material thickness and weight.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Stability of the object's composition
If the wall thickness of the legs is increased to improve stability, then the stability and strength of the support frame is improved, but the material consumption and weight increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies different wall thicknesses to different legs of the support frame. Specifically, the first leg has a wall thickness of 2.7-3mm while the second leg has a wall thickness of 1.5-2.5mm. This local differentiation allows the structure to maintain stability where needed while reducing material consumption and weight in less critical areas, directly resolving the contradiction between stability and weight.
Solution Approach 2:
The support frame employs asymmetric leg design where the first and second legs have different wall thicknesses. This asymmetric configuration optimizes the distribution of structural strength, providing enhanced stability in directions where loads are most likely to occur while minimizing material usage in other directions, thereby achieving both stability and weight reduction.
2Strength
If the wall thickness of the legs is increased to improve stability, then the strength of the support frame is improved, but the material consumption and production costs increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements local quality by assigning different wall thicknesses to different legs based on their structural requirements. The first leg receives thicker walls (2.7-3mm) for primary load-bearing, while the second leg uses thinner walls (1.5-2.5mm) where full strength is less critical. This targeted approach maintains overall strength while significantly reducing material consumption compared to uniform thick-walled designs.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the parameter of wall thickness from a uniform value to a differentiated set of values (2.7-3mm for the first leg, 1.5-2.5mm for the second leg). This parameter optimization allows the structure to achieve required strength levels with minimized material consumption, directly addressing the contradiction between strength and material usage.
3Quantity of substance
If the wall thickness of the legs is decreased to reduce material consumption and weight, then the material usage and weight are reduced, but the stability and strength decrease
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies local quality by differentiating wall thicknesses across different legs. The first leg maintains a thicker wall (2.7-3mm) to preserve stability in critical load-bearing positions, while the second leg uses a thinner wall (1.5-2.5mm) to reduce material consumption in less critical areas. This selective approach prevents overall stability loss while achieving material reduction goals.
Solution Approach 2:
The asymmetric wall thickness design ensures that stability is maintained in directions where it is most needed by preserving thicker walls in primary support legs, while allowing thinner walls in secondary legs. This asymmetric configuration optimizes the stability-to-material-ratio, preventing stability degradation while achieving material reduction.
4Weight of stationary object
If the wall thickness of the legs is decreased to reduce weight, then the weight is reduced, but the stability under load decreases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements local quality by assigning different wall thicknesses to different legs based on their structural importance. The first leg with wall thickness of 2.7-3mm provides sufficient strength for primary load-bearing, while the second leg with 1.5-2.5mm wall thickness reduces overall weight. This differentiated approach maintains adequate strength where required while achieving weight reduction overall.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent optimizes the wall thickness parameter by creating a distribution rather than using a uniform value. The range of 2.7-3mm for the first leg and 1.5-2.5mm for the second leg represents parameter optimization that balances strength requirements with weight reduction goals, achieving both objectives simultaneously.
Data Source
AI summary
The support frame comprises a carrier profile (2), and three legs (3-5), each having the same or different wall thickness (6) and comprised as a central leg and two outer legs, in which two of the legs differ from one another in terms of their width. The wall thickness of the legs amounts to a value of 1.5 mm to less than 3 mm, preferably 2 mm. The carrier profile further comprises a longitudinal beam.