Low-Volume Concrete Block with Interlocking Protrusions

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional retaining wall block systems face challenges such as large envelopes limiting truckload capacity, low radius of curvature, difficult manufacturing, and excessive weight, along with costly and cumbersome forming processes and stabilizing methods prone to corrosion.

Innovation Solution

A wetcast block system with a 2′×2′×4′ envelope, weighing 1,700 lbs and requiring 1.6 cubic ft. of concrete per square foot, utilizing a three-piece hinged forming system for easy setup and stripping, and a stabilizing sheet with reduced coverage to enhance mechanical stability and cost-effectiveness.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If conventional block designs are used, then mechanical stability is achieved, but the radius of curvature is limited to 15 feet or more

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveradius of curvatureVSAvoidmechanical stability

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The block is divided into distinct functional zones: a front face for aesthetics, a body for structural integrity, and a rear portion with integrated curvature features. The protrusions and depressions are segmented to allow independent optimization of interlocking strength and curvature adaptability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The block design incorporates dynamic curvature capability, allowing the retaining wall to adapt to various radii of curvature (including tight 10-foot radii) while maintaining mechanical stability through the engineered interlocking system of protrusions and depressions

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

2Reliability

If stabilizing sheets with 100% coverage are used, then mechanical stability is improved, but cost increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvemechanical stabilityVSAvoidstabilizing sheet coverage

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of requiring 100% coverage of stabilizing sheets, the invention uses partial coverage (60-80%) combined with the interlocking block system to achieve sufficient mechanical stability, reducing material quantity and cost while maintaining performance

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The block system provides self-stabilization through its interlocking protrusions and depressions, reducing dependence on external stabilizing sheets and allowing reduced coverage while maintaining mechanical stability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

3Reliability

If metallic rebar rods are used for stabilizing, then mechanical stability is achieved, but corrosion susceptibility degrades stability over time

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvemechanical stabilityVSAvoidcorrosion

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The invention replaces expensive, corrosion-prone metallic rebar with non-corrosive alternatives such as plastic tabs or reduced stabilizing sheet coverage, achieving sufficient mechanical stability without the long-term degradation issues of metal corrosion

Inventive Principle:

Principle #27Cheap short-living objects (Disposable)

Solution Approach 2:

The stabilizing system uses composite approaches combining plastic components with geo-synthetic stabilizing sheets, creating a corrosion-resistant system that maintains mechanical stability over time without the harmful effects of metal corrosion

Inventive Principle:

Principle #40Composite materials

4Ease of manufacture

If side-by-side configuration of rebar rods is used, then installation is simplified, but physical forces weaken mechanical stability

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveinstallation simplicityVSAvoidmechanical stability

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of manufactureVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of using side-by-side rebar configuration, the invention inverts the approach by using vertically stacked single rods or alternative stabilization methods that better resist the direction of physical forces from the retaining wall and fill material

Inventive Principle:

Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

Data Source

PatentUS7794180B2High face-area low-volume concrete wall block, form and method

Publication Date: 2010.09.14 STONETERRA

AI summary

A retaining wall block and method of forming a retaining wall block are provided. The block includes front, back, top, bottom and side surfaces. The top surface of the retaining wall block includes a set of protrusions and the bottom surface includes a channel for engaging with the protrusions of adjacent blocks. Side surfaces of the block are tapered from the front surface to the back surface. A block form and a method of securing a stabilizing sheet to a block are also provided.