Frangible Vessel Self-Destruct Mechanism With Fragment Containment

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing systems lack a reliable and cost-effective method for controlled, triggerable self-destruction of frangible structures, particularly thick glass, to facilitate safe and efficient scuttling of sealed vessels like buoys without scattering fragments.

Innovation Solution

Integration of electrically-activated mechanical actuators and pressure devices with containment structures, such as adhesive coatings or hard shells, to break predetermined regions of frangible structures while capturing fragments, allowing for controlled deformation and containment of broken pieces.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Object-affected harmful factors

If conventional breaking methods are used on thick frangible structures, then the structure can be broken, but fragments scatter uncontrollably causing safety hazards and loss of containment

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefragment scatteringVSAvoidcontrolled self-destruction

Core Design Contradiction:

Object-affected harmful factorsVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by pre-embedding triggerable mechanisms and containment structures within the frangible structure during manufacturing. The containment structure is positioned and secured before the breaking event, ensuring it is ready to immediately capture fragments when the trigger is activated. This pre-positioning eliminates the need for rapid response during the breaking event itself, resolving the contradiction between controlled destruction and fragment scattering.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The containment structure serves as an intermediary element between the breaking event and the fragments. It intercepts and captures fragments before they can scatter, acting as a mediator that transforms the uncontrolled breaking process into a controlled containment event. This intermediary structure resolves the technical contradiction by providing a physical barrier that prevents harmful fragment scattering while maintaining the breaking function.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Reliability

If triggerable mechanisms are integrated into frangible structures, then controlled breaking is achieved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecontrolled self-destructionVSAvoidmechanism integration

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The triggerable mechanism is designed with multi-functionality, serving both as the activation system for controlled breaking and as part of the overall containment system. The mechanism integrates multiple functions (detection, activation, and coordination with containment) into a single unified system, reducing the need for separate independent components and thereby managing device complexity while maintaining reliable controlled self-destruction capability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The frangible structure is designed to be self-sufficient, with the triggerable mechanism and containment structure working together as an integrated self-contained system. The structure uses its own internal resources and geometry to achieve controlled breaking and fragment containment without requiring external intervention or additional complex support systems, thereby reducing overall device complexity while maintaining reliability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

3Object-affected harmful factors

If containment structures are added to capture fragments, then fragment scattering is prevented, but manufacturing complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefragment scatteringVSAvoidcontainment structure integration

Core Design Contradiction:

Object-affected harmful factorsVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The containment structure utilizes flexible shells or thin film materials that can conform to the geometry of the frangible structure. These flexible containment elements are easier to manufacture and integrate than rigid structures, as they can be applied as coatings or wraps that adapt to the underlying geometry. This approach prevents fragment scattering while maintaining ease of manufacture through the use of formable, adaptable materials.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #30Flexible shells and thin films

Solution Approach 2:

The containment structure employs composite materials that combine the properties of strength, flexibility, and ease of fabrication. These composite materials allow the containment structure to be manufactured using standard processes while providing adequate fragment capture capability. The use of composite materials resolves the manufacturing complexity issue by offering a balance between performance requirements and manufacturability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #40Composite materials

Data Source

PatentUS12013043B2Triggerable mechanisms and fragment containment arrangements for self-destructing frangible structures and sealed vessels

Publication Date: 2024.06.18 GENESEE VALLEY INNOVATIONS LLC

AI summary

An apparatus comprises a frangible structure coupled or integral to at least a portion of the apparatus and a triggerable mechanism disposed at or proximate the frangible structure. The triggerable mechanism is configured to break the frangible structure in response to a trigger signal. A containment structure is disposed on or over at least a portion of the frangible structure. The containment structure is configured to allow at least the portion of the frangible structure to deform or change shape in response to breaking of the frangible structure while keeping substantially all fragments of at least the portion of the broken frangible structure together.