Cargo Decking Beam End Latch for Even Force Distribution

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing decking beam latches used in cargo containers do not effectively distribute forces across the L-track surfaces, leading to increased wear, chipping, cracking, and potential failure due to uneven force distribution.

Innovation Solution

A decking beam end assembly with a U-shaped foot and a latch featuring a unique 'anchor' shape that engages both circular and straight openings of the L-track, providing a more secure fit and even force distribution, combined with a two-leg coil spring for enhanced retention and redundancy.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a traditional latch is used to engage the L-track, then the latch can provide retention force, but the force is concentrated on small contact areas leading to increased wear, chipping, and cracking of the L-track surfaces

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvelatch retention reliabilityVSAvoidwear and damage to L-track surfaces
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The retaining lug is designed with a multi-section geometry where each section engages a different opening type (circular or straight) in the L-track. This creates locally optimized contact areas that distribute forces evenly across the track surface, preventing concentrated stress that causes wear and damage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The latch transitions from engaging only circular openings to engaging both circular and straight rail openings by extending the retaining lug into a third dimension along the L-track. This dimensional expansion allows force distribution across multiple opening types, reducing stress concentration.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

2Device complexity

If a simple latch design is used, then the device complexity is low, but the force distribution across the L-track is uneven leading to potential failure

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvelatch structure complexityVSAvoidconnection strength and durability
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The retaining lug is segmented into multiple engagement sections that interact with different L-track openings. This segmentation allows each section to bear a portion of the load, distributing forces evenly and improving overall connection reliability without requiring a completely complex latch mechanism.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The latch design engages with multiple types of L-track openings (circular and straight) using a single retaining lug structure. This multi-functional engagement provides both secure retention and even force distribution, achieving high reliability without proportionally increasing complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

3Device complexity

If a single-spring retention system is used, then the device complexity is low, but there is no redundancy leading to potential failure points

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespring system complexityVSAvoidretention system redundancy
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The coil spring is extracted from a single-point retention system and reconfigured as a two-leg spring system where each leg independently engages the retaining lug. This extraction and reconfiguration provides redundancy while maintaining relatively simple device complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

The two-leg coil spring system provides built-in redundancy that cushions against potential failure. If one spring leg fails, the other continues to provide retention force, preventing catastrophic failure before it occurs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #11Beforehand cushioning (Prior cushioning)

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

The solution reduces wear on both the track and latch, providing a stronger, more durable connection that can withstand greater forces without damage, while ensuring safety and reliability through improved force distribution and redundant spring engagement.

Implementation Method 1

A two-leg coil spring retains the retaining lug in the circular openings and the straight rail opening

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectElasticity: Elasticity

Implementation Method 2

A two-leg coil spring retains the retaining lug in the circular openings and the straight rail opening

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectSpring: Spring

Data Source

PatentUS11110851B2Cargo decking beam end
Publication Date: 2021.09.07 B2B CASUALS INC
  • US11110851B2 patent drawing
  • US11110851B2 patent drawing
  • US11110851B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A decking beam end assembly is provided. The assembly comprises a beam end body configured to be slidably disposed within an end of a hollow beam member. A U-shaped foot is pivotally coupled to the beam end body, wherein the foot further comprises a flanged head configured to be slidably captured within a capture area of an L-track. A latch is pivotally coupled to the foot, wherein the latch comprises a retaining lug configured to concurrently fit into two successive circular openings of the L-track and a straight rail opening in the L-track connecting the two circular openings.