The following is a tabulation of some prior art that presently appears relevant:
Deployable planar or shell structures are used for a variety of applications, from satellite solar arrays to overhead doors. Other non-structural applications include awnings, blinds, or stretched flexible sheets.
Existing designs of deployable flat or curved surface structures may be generally classified into three categories: (a) those constituting a single thin elastic sheet, (b) designs comprised of a plurality of relatively rigid elongated panels hinged together and (c) a plurality of relatively rigid panels that are not connected in the stowed configuration.
The first two designs are normally stowed by winding the sheet or plurality of panels onto a cylindrical mandrel. Deployment of these structures is generally accomplished by unwinding the sheet or plurality of panels onto a guide or track. In at least one design, a permanent non-elastic deformation of the thin sheet provides self-support. Deployment of the final category is accomplished utilizing differing, generally complicated, mechanical devices which reposition the individual panels onto racks.
(a) U.S. Pat. No. 9,156,568, depicting a deployable solar panel, is representative of the single thin sheet design category. Applications for this category are limited to environments where external loading is small, such as space based solar arrays. The major disadvantage of these systems is the very limited lateral load capacity of the deployed structure, unless the overall size of the deployed structure is quite small. Also, single thin metallic sheets offer minimal insulation for heat transfer normal to the sheet surface.
(b) The hinged relatively rigid panel design category is illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 8,857,497. Applications of this design category include overhead doors where security may be an important requirement. Also included are applications where basic weather protection is required. Here, the major disadvantage is a relatively small allowable lateral load to structure weight ratio. Also, unless some type of membrane is used to seal the hinged joints, this type of structure is not completely weather-tight.
(c) As illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 8,371,070, the third deployable structure category is usually used where a large lateral load capacity is required. In this case, individual panels are quite heavy and complicated panel deployment or stowage devices or structures are generally required.
Sandwich plates or shells, comprised of two relatively thin elastic sheets connected by a core medium, have high lateral load to structure weight ratio and stiffness to weight ratio. Since these structures are generally quite rigid, a deployable system, utilizing conventional sandwich design, requires a plurality of hinged sandwich panel elements. Thus, this design falls into category (b) where load weight ratio is improved, but still having the non weather-tightness limitation.
Arendts (1969), as summarized in Arendts and Sanders (1970), shows that structures, such as box girder bridges, consisting of two relatively thin elastic sheets connected by a plurality of transverse webs, theoretically and actually behave as sandwich plates with orthogonally differing core transverse shear properties. Such a structural system may be modified, through hinging the web—sheet connections, so that it is deployable. Overall stiffness and strength of the deployed structure is not significantly reduced by hinging the webs and stability is achieved through proper external support of the deployed system.
A deployable sandwich-like shell structural system consists of two relatively thin elastic sheets connected by a plurality of elongated web panels. These connections are hinged so that the overall structure may be compactly stowed. Stability and strength of the deployed structure is achieved through proper external support of the system.
In the deployed configuration, this sandwich-like shell structure has the following advantages when compared with existing systems:
(a) Very large allowable transverse load to structural weight ratio,
(b) Very large stiffness to structural weight ratio,
(c) Weather tightness,
(d) Excellent transverse heat flow insulation due to trapped air in the deployed cells,
(e) Ability to easily modify the curvature of the deployed shell.
In the drawings, closely related figures have the same number but differing alphabetical suffixes.
This embodiment is illustrated in
The sheets, 11 and 12, could be comprised of homogenous metallic material or of composite construction such as fiber reinforced polymer (FRP). The webs, 13, are subject to only in-plane stresses due to bending stress relief of the hinges, and may thus be constructed of light homogeneous materials or a FRP wrapped core. The hinges, 14, could be conventional mechanical hinges or constructed of flexible polymer composite. Various methods may be employed for hinge attachment to sheets and webs, including mechanical (rivets or spot welds) or adhesives. Also, the webs may be designed to include the hinge elements so that the only attachments required are web-to-sheets.
Maximum strain, emax, in a cylindrically bent elastic sheet is given by the following well known relationship:
e max=t/2R,
where t is the thickness and R (15) is a typical radius of curvature of the bent sheet. From this relationship, a design t/R ratio is determined by equating emax with the material design strain, as determined in the preceding paragraph.
For the deployed structure to be statically stable, a means of support must be provided as shown in
Referring to
Referring to
s(a)=C{k[sin(a)]+E(k,a)},
x(a)=k[s(a)]
where E(k, angle) is the incomplete elliptic integral of the second kind which may be found in mathematical function tables or calculated numerically.
Web-to-web spacing, and thus number of webs, is independent of the geometry. This spacing is dependent on embodiment design requirements such as magnitude of design lateral loads and overall deployed configuration stiffness.
Even though the specification of geometric relationships is somewhat complicated, actual embodiment construction principles are quite simple. Once materials and dimensions are chosen, the embodiment is assembled on an armature of the same dimensions as the embodiment stowed dimensions (of the same radius as R (15),
Stowage of the embodiment from the deployed configuration, as illustrated in
In the above descriptions, the stowed overall geometry was taken to be generally circular cylindrical. However, this is not an absolute requirement; a variable curvature cylindrical configuration, such as elliptical cylindrical, could be realized through continually variable web connection spacing (i.e., variable k). Although this realization of the embodiment may not be highly useful, it is included as an independent claim.
Among many possible, three additional, embodiments are briefly described. Note that the depictions of these embodiments are not to scale; stowed embodiment configuration may be shown at a more magnified scale for clarification of details.
Both sheets, 11 and 12, are attached to the mandrel, thus providing longitudinal (transverse to webs) support to both sheets and providing the means of torque application to the embodiment. The mandrel also provides support to the stowed embodiment. Operation of the door embodiment is accomplished by a means of torque applied to the mandrel which results in rotation of the mandrel (for either stowage or deployment).
A means of lateral support (for example, a track or guide) is provided for the ends of the webs in such a manner that the outer sheet, 11, is flat in the deployed configuration for embodiment stability and a clean weather-side exposure.
A typical door embodiment of dimensions 3 m high by 10 m wide (representative of a small private plane hangar door) was structurally analyzed for 130 km/hr, normal to outer sheet, dynamic pressure wind loading. Results proved that (for thin gauge high strength aluminum used for sheets 11 and 12) the door embodiment was well-behaved with respect to both stiffness and strength.
The final additional embodiment described is a wind-powered sail embodiment, as illustrated in
For dangerous wind conditions (storms, gales or hurricanes),
From the furled state, the embodiment may be deployed to the configuration shown in
For non-dangerous, but unfavorable wind conditions,
The starboard tack state,
A number of advantages are evident in the embodiments described above:
(a) Very high stiffness and strength to weight ratios of the deployed configurations enable light weight embodiments to carry large environmental transverse loads, such as those induced by water and wind.
(b) Seamless surfaces of the deployed configurations enable the closure embodiments to be weather tight and capable of forming static pressure boundaries.
(c) Air trapped in the cells of the deployed configurations enables natural insulation of transverse heat transfer in the embodiments.
(d) In the case of the wind sail embodiment, flexibility of the deployed configurations enables the camber of the sail to be easily reversed resulting in rapid course tacks.
(e) Efficient airfoil cross-section shapes enables the wind sail embodiment to generate significant driving force for a wide variety of wind strengths and directions.
A deployable sandwich-like shell structural system has been disclosed. This system is simple in concept and construction, yet has many potential uses which take advantage of this system's unique capabilities:
Although the above discussion contains many specificities, these should not be construed as limiting the scope of the embodiments, but as merely providing illustrations of some of several embodiments. Thus the scope of the embodiments should be determined by the appended claims and their legal equivalents, rather than by the examples given.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4313422 | McEntee | Feb 1982 | A |
4997021 | Brutsaert | Mar 1991 | A |
5139603 | Kunz | Aug 1992 | A |
8312653 | Fritsche | Nov 2012 | B2 |
9156568 | Spence | Oct 2015 | B1 |
10189582 | Spence | Jan 2019 | B1 |
20080191511 | Neuer | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20090104411 | Endres | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090272043 | Zwern | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100040817 | Purdy | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20120012154 | Keller | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20170233997 | Stevenson | Aug 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20170298678 A1 | Oct 2017 | US |