Segmented Fuel Container Support Element for Controlled Shear Failure
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Fuel containers with internal columns face issues of shearing stress during impacts, leading to potential failure at welding points, and ensuring controlled failure at specific deformation forces is challenging due to the complexity of arranging multiple support elements effectively.
Innovation Solution
A fuel container design featuring a column-like support element with a dome-like indentation on the upper base, constructed from thermoplastic plastics material, where the support element is welded to both bases and composed of segments with ribs and catch hook arrangements to facilitate controlled shearing resistance and absorption of tensile forces.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Stability of the object's composition
If column-like support elements are arranged inside the fuel container to increase rigidity, then the resistance to shape changes under pressure is improved, but the shearing resistance of the container is increased making controlled failure difficult to ensure
Solution Approach 1:
The support element is divided into multiple segments (first segment, second segment, third segment) along its length. Each segment has different structural characteristics - the first segment has a larger outer diameter for welding to the upper base, the second segment has a smaller outer diameter forming a neck region, and the third segment has a larger outer diameter for welding to the lower base. This segmentation allows the support element to have varying strength along its length, enabling controlled failure at the weaker second segment while maintaining overall rigidity through the stronger first and third segments.
Solution Approach 2:
Different regions of the support element are given different local properties. The first and third segments have larger outer diameters providing higher strength and rigidity for reliable welding connections to the bases. The second segment has a smaller outer diameter creating a deliberate weakness point. This local quality variation ensures that under excessive shear force, failure occurs at the predetermined second segment location rather than at the welding points, maintaining container integrity.
2Strength
If multiple support elements are arranged inside the fuel container, then the shearing resistance is considerably increased, but it cannot be readily ensured that the support elements fail at the predetermined locations
Solution Approach 1:
Each support element is segmented into distinct sections with varying outer diameters. The second segment has a deliberately reduced outer diameter compared to the first and third segments, creating a clear geometric distinction that ensures failure occurs at this predetermined location. This segmentation approach, when applied to multiple support elements, provides consistent and predictable failure behavior across all elements.
Solution Approach 2:
The outer diameter parameter of the support element is changed along its length, with the second segment having a smaller outer diameter than the first and third segments. This parameter variation creates a deliberate weakness point that controls where failure will occur. When multiple such support elements are used, the consistent parameter change ensures uniform failure behavior across all elements.
3Stability of the object's composition
If the support element is welded to both upper and lower bases, then the rigidity of the container assembly is increased, but the shearing stress during impact may tear the support element out at the welding points
Solution Approach 1:
The support element is segmented into three distinct segments along its length. The first segment with larger outer diameter is welded to the upper base, the second segment with smaller outer diameter forms a neck region, and the third segment with larger outer diameter is welded to the lower base. This segmentation ensures that the welding points (at the stronger first and third segments) are not the weakest points in the system, preventing tear-out at the welding locations during impact.
Solution Approach 2:
The support element exhibits local quality variation with different outer diameters at different locations. The regions at the welding points (first and third segments) have larger outer diameters providing higher local strength and rigidity to resist tear-out forces. The middle region (second segment) has smaller outer diameter creating a controlled weakness point, ensuring that under excessive load, failure occurs at this predetermined location rather than at the critical welding points.
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 design enhances volume consistency and resistance to shape changes under pressure while allowing controlled, non-destructive shearing between the upper and lower bases, ensuring the container remains fluid-tight during impacts.
Implementation Method 1
the support element is welded to a wall of the upper base on the one hand and to a wall of the lower base on the other hand in such a manner that it can absorb tensile forces which are brought about by the pressure inside the container
Implementation Method 2
The upper base 2 is provided with a dome-like indentation 5... has been found to be particularly advantageous with respect to a favorable force path
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2~5
Figure 6
AI summary
The invention relates to a fuel container of thermoplastic plastics material having an upper base (2) and a lower base (3) which are supported against each other by means of at least one column-like support element (4) which is in each case welded at the end side to a wall (6) of the upper base (2) and a wall (6) of the lower base (3), wherein the support element (4) extends between at least one dome-like indentation (5) of the wall (6) of the upper base (2) and the lower base (3) or between at least one dome-like indentation (5) of the wall of the lower base (3) and the upper base (2) or between two opposing dome-like indentations (5) of the wall (6) of the upper base (2) and the lower base (3).