The invention relates to a base for a plastic bottle, especially for beverages under pressure, comprising an annular heel that is preferably integral with the side wall of the bottle, and a concave section that is surrounded by, and integral with, the heel, wherein the concave section comprises reinforcing elements arranged in a star pattern that increase its rigidity.
The invention further relates to a plastic bottle for beverages under pressure having a base whose annular heel is preferably integral with the side wall of the bottle.
A base of the type mentioned at the outset can be found, for example, in DE-OS 1801368.
Plastic bottles are only suitable for holding and storing beverages and the like under pressure if they meet specific design prerequisites. One of the main difficulties that arise when using plastic bottles for this stated purpose is that the center part of the base of the bottle tends to deflect or bulge outwardly beyond the rim of the base, creating positional instability of such bottles. It has become known to design the bottle base as a champagne bottle-type base or petaloid base. A champagne bottle-type base is curved inwardly and can therefore withstand a specific internal pressure without being deflected outwardly. The champagne bottle-type base is particularly common on glass bottles. Suitability of plastic bottles for beverages under pressure depends decisively on the wall thickness of the base. If the base wall is too thin, the bottle structure is too flexible, and excessive bulging of the bottle base cannot be prevented. If the base wall is too thick, material consumption and the manufacturing costs and weight of the bottle will be too high. Champagne bottle-type bases of the conventional type can no longer be used economically from a specific CO2 concentration of the beverage. A petaloid base comprises constrictions that extend up the side walls and between which curved, petal-shaped areas are formed. Petaloid bases are very common, especially in plastic bottles, and they withstand high internal pressure even if the base wall is relatively thin. Disadvantages are less positional stability and in particular the smaller static tipping angle, so that the risk that this bottle topples over is greater than for a comparable bottle with a champagne bottle-type base. The appearance of the bottle is also impaired by the petaloid areas that extend up to the side wall.
Various attempts have been made to improve the strength or rigidity of champagne bottle-type bases for use in plastic bottles. DE-OS 1801368, for example, proposes reinforcing ribs arranged in a star pattern in the concave bottle base, which however result in excessive material consumption since the reinforcing ribs are made of material added to the base, thereby also increasing the weight of the bottle. In addition, producing such a bottle base takes a much greater effort than producing a simple champagne bottle-type base.
It is the object of this invention to improve the base for a plastic bottle such that the bottle is suitable for storing beverages under high pressure while being lightweight and economical in material consumption. Manufacture should be easy, cost-efficient and automated with short cycle times. The bottle should also have an attractive and high-quality appearance; in particular, its base should not entail any restrictions in the design of the bottle.
This object is essentially achieved in a base of the type mentioned at the outset in that reinforcing elements are formed of convex areas of the concave section and in that the concave section, including the convex areas are essentially of a uniform wall thickness. The base starts from the shape of a champagne bottle-type base, and the invention proposes elements to rigidify the concave base section such that the material consumption is not or just negligibly higher than for a simple champagne bottle-type base. The stiffening elements provided according to the invention do not result in any material thickening since they are just formed from the convex areas of the concave base section. It was surprisingly found that such stiffening areas result in a very rigid structure even with very thin base walls, and even very high internal pressures of the bottle do not cause any outward deflection of the base.
Due to the base, the plastic bottle can be manufactured in a simple manner using conventional and proven methods. Especially bottles made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) are preferably manufactured from a so-called PET preform, an injection-molded preform. The process from a PET preform to a PET bottle runs through the following steps: The preform is initially heated up, that is, a temperature profile in accordance with the desired wall thickness distribution is introduced into the preform. Infrared radiant heaters may be used, for example. Then the preform is chucked in a three-piece mold, a thorn moves into the preform and stretches it to the final length of the bottle. Compressed air blows the tube produced in this way into its final shape, and then the bottle is brought to a temperature below the glass transition temperature by cooling the mold. Finally, the mold opens and the finished bottle is ejected.
The mold just has to be adapted in the base region to accomplish the base according to the invention, but the general process remains the same and no additional process steps are required. The concave section including the convex areas can easily be produced with an essentially uniform wall thickness using the manufacturing process described. “Essentially” means that the wall thickness may vary slightly due to the manufacturing process, e.g. when the material in the convex areas is stretched to a greater extent than the adjacent areas when the preform is pressed against the mold, such that the base may be slightly thinner in these areas.
The convex areas preferably have an oblong shape, i.e. their radial extension is greater than their circumferential extension. This results in a particularly stable base.
According to a preferred development of the invention, the convex areas are at a spacing from one another in the circumferential direction. The convex areas are evenly distributed, especially in the circumferential direction 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 such areas are conceivable depending on the diameter of the bottle.
In addition to reinforcing the concave base section, the convex areas can also serve as contact area of the bottle. For this purpose, it is preferably designed such that the convex areas include a section parallel to, or forming, a contact area. The section parallel to the contact area may, for example, comprise a bulge or the like protruding from the contact area.
Alternatively, or in addition to the contact area that is formed by the sections of convex stiffening areas mentioned, the bottle may also rest as usual on the heel of the base. In this case, the annular heel of the base comprises a contact area of the base. Thus the base of the bottle is in ground contact along the heel of the base like a conventional bottle with a champagne bottle-type base. This allows the consideration of aesthetic requirements and high-quality bottle design like with champagne bottles, where the side walls can extend to the base in free-form design, and no stiffening elements or the like are visible.
Good stiffening characteristics can be achieved if—according to a preferred development—the convex areas include curved sections in the lateral and inward radial directions adjacent to the section parallel to the contact area or forming a contact area.
The stability of the base can be further improved if the convex areas surround a central concave area.
Another improvement of the stability of the base can preferably be achieved in that the base comprises at least one annular groove, especially next to the heel or between the convex areas and the heel.
Yet another improvement of the stability of the base can preferably be achieved in that the base comprises at least one annular groove between the convex areas and the central concave area.
Yet another improvement of the stability of the base can preferably be achieved in that the base comprises an annular groove between the convex areas and the central concave area.
It is preferred that the convex areas comprise a radial extension that essentially corresponds to the radial distance between the heel and the central area, by which maximum stiffening is achieved.
As mentioned above, the base according to the invention is to be suitable for high internal pressures, wherein the internal pressure primarily depends on the CO2 content of the beverage. In one advantageous development, the base is designed to withstand an internal pressure of the bottle at a CO2 concentration of up to 5 g/L at a temperature of 20° C.
It is important that the walls are kept thin to achieve a cost-efficient and lightweight design consuming little material, however the wall thickness cannot be reduced arbitrarily for stability reasons. In a preferred embodiment in this respect the annular heel and/or the concave section has an average wall thickness equal to or smaller than 1.95 mm, preferably 1.5 mm, and the concave section does not exceed a wall thickness of 1.95 mm, preferably 1.5 mm, preferably 1 mm anywhere.
The invention is explained in more detail and with reference to the embodiment shown in diagrammatic view in the figure below.
The sectional view shown in
The features of the invention disclosed in the above description, the claims and the figures can be relevant both individually and in combination for implementing the various embodiments of the invention.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
A 1577/2010 | Sep 2010 | AT | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/EP2011/004717 | 9/21/2011 | WO | 00 | 6/12/2013 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2012/038075 | 3/29/2012 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3043461 | Glassco | Jul 1962 | A |
3137748 | Makowski | Jun 1964 | A |
3468443 | Marcus | Sep 1969 | A |
3643829 | Lachner | Feb 1972 | A |
3881621 | Adomaitis | May 1975 | A |
3934743 | McChesney et al. | Jan 1976 | A |
4108324 | Krishnakumar et al. | Aug 1978 | A |
4174782 | Obsomer | Nov 1979 | A |
4249666 | Hubert et al. | Feb 1981 | A |
4276987 | Michel | Jul 1981 | A |
4355728 | Ota et al. | Oct 1982 | A |
4465199 | Aoki | Aug 1984 | A |
4525401 | Pocock et al. | Jun 1985 | A |
4598831 | Nakamura et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
4863046 | Collette et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4892205 | Powers et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
5005716 | Eberle | Apr 1991 | A |
D320154 | Alberghini et al. | Sep 1991 | S |
5205434 | Brunson et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5320230 | Hsiung | Jun 1994 | A |
5492245 | Kalkanis | Feb 1996 | A |
5503283 | Semersky | Apr 1996 | A |
5553753 | Abplanalp | Sep 1996 | A |
5593063 | Claydon et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5603423 | Lynn et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5763030 | Matsui | Jun 1998 | A |
5780130 | Hansen et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5785197 | Slat | Jul 1998 | A |
5829614 | Collette et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5908128 | Krishnakumar et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6045001 | Seul | Apr 2000 | A |
6065624 | Steinke | May 2000 | A |
D445033 | Bretz et al. | Jul 2001 | S |
6409035 | Darr et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6585123 | Pedmo et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6595380 | Silvers | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6634517 | Cheng et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6769561 | Futral et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6896147 | Trude | May 2005 | B2 |
6908002 | Young et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
7051889 | Boukobza | May 2006 | B2 |
7185525 | Werth et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7416089 | Kraft et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7461756 | Pedmo et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7543713 | Trude et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7556164 | Tanaka | Jul 2009 | B2 |
D606410 | Kissinger et al. | Dec 2009 | S |
7780025 | Simpson, Jr. et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
D627652 | Dorn | Nov 2010 | S |
D630515 | Bretz et al. | Jan 2011 | S |
7861876 | Stowitts | Jan 2011 | B2 |
D632576 | Hermel | Feb 2011 | S |
7891513 | Mody et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7891968 | Lesueur | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7900425 | Bysick et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7963088 | Simpson et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8011919 | Penet et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
D648220 | Dorn | Nov 2011 | S |
D651901 | Miller et al. | Jan 2012 | S |
8096434 | Bunel et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8152010 | Melrose | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8245872 | Hanot et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8308006 | Nievierowski et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8424709 | Boukobza | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8444002 | Schneider et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8529975 | Trude et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8584879 | Melrose et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8590729 | Kamineni et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8662332 | Wurster et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8726616 | Bysick et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8881937 | Derrien | Nov 2014 | B2 |
20020063105 | Darr et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20040000533 | Kamineni et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040195199 | Maki et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050127024 | Darr | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050139571 | Darr | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20060131257 | Gatewood et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20070231530 | Pedmo et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080047964 | Denner et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20090159556 | Patcheak et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090202766 | Beuerle et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090242575 | Kamineni et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100219152 | Derrien et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110049083 | Scott | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110147392 | Trude et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20130001235 | Patcheak et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1801368 | May 1969 | DE |
140792 | May 1985 | EP |
237196 | Sep 1987 | EP |
2034663 | Jun 1980 | GB |
04-294735 | Oct 1992 | JP |
2002-308245 | Oct 2002 | JP |
2004-149157 | May 2004 | JP |
2005-112361 | Apr 2005 | JP |
2005-119742 | May 2005 | JP |
2009-208813 | Sep 2009 | JP |
2007060529 | May 2007 | WO |
2009120988 | Oct 2009 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Hans de Grys, “Determining the Pressure inside an Unopened Carbonated Beverage”. Jul. 2007. Journal of Chemical Education. vol. 84 No. 7. |
Ottmar Brandau, “How to Address Uneven Wall Thickness in Stretch-Blow Molding”, Plastics Technology, Dec. 2014, Accessed Jun. 8, 2016. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130270214 A1 | Oct 2013 | US |