Respirator having noncircular centroid-mounted exhalation valve
11305134 · 2022-04-19
Assignee
Inventors
Cpc classification
A62B23/025
HUMAN NECESSITIES
Y10T137/7891
GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
F16K15/148
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
International classification
Abstract
A respirator 10 that has a mask body 12 and a harness 16 has an exhalation valve 23 that includes a valve seat 36 and a flexible flap 42. The valve seat 36 has an orifice 38 and has a noncircular seal surface 40 surrounding the orifice 38. The flexible flap 42 is secured to the valve seat 36 at a centroid of the orifice and has a variable stiffness structure. The variable stiffness structure allows the flap to equally deflect under a given load at different distances from the centroid at the noncircular seal surface. An exhalation valve having this construction may beneficially optimize pressure drop and overall valve performance for applications where valve space may be limited.
Claims
1. An exhalation valve that comprises: (a) a valve seat that has an orifice and that has a noncircular seal surface surrounding the orifice; and (b) a flexible flap that is secured to the valve seat at a centroid of the orifice and that has a variable stiffness structure comprising a plurality of ribs that extend radially from the centroid of the flexible flap, wherein a first rib of the plurality of ribs comprises a stiffness that is different from a stiffness of a second rib of the plurality of ribs.
2. The exhalation valve of claim 1, wherein the flexible flap is secured to the valve seat at a centroid of the flexible flap.
3. The exhalation valve of claim 2, wherein the flexible flap has a first alignment element.
4. The exhalation valve of claim 3, wherein the valve seat has a second alignment element that mates with the first alignment element.
5. The exhalation valve of claim 4, wherein the first and second alignment elements preclude rotation of the flexible flap about the centroid of the orifice in the flap plane.
6. The exhalation valve of claim 5, wherein the first alignment element includes one or more rotation-prevention elements that mate with similarly sized one or more rotation-prevention elements in the second alignment element.
7. The exhalation valve of claim 4, wherein the valve seat has one or more joists that extend radially from the second alignment element to an inner edge of the orifice.
8. The exhalation valve of claim 7, wherein the one or more joists support the second alignment element within the valve orifice at its centroid.
9. The exhalation valve of claim 7, wherein the flap is biased toward the valve seat when in its closed position.
10. The exhalation valve of claim 2, wherein no more than 5 mN of force is needed to lift the flexible flap 1 mm from the seal surface at any point along the flap perimeter when measured according to Flexible Flap Test.
11. The exhalation valve of claim 1, wherein at least some of the ribs have different lengths, and wherein the longer ribs are configured to be stiffer than the shorter ribs.
12. A respirator that comprises: (a) a harness; and (b) a mask body that comprises an exhalation valve that includes: (i) a valve seat that has an orifice and that has a noncircular seal surface surrounding the orifice; and (ii) a flexible flap that is secured to the valve seat at a centroid of the orifice and that has a variable stiffness structure comprising a plurality of ribs that extend radially from the centroid of the flexible flap, where a first rib of the plurality of ribs has a cross-sectional area along a length of the first rib that is different from a cross-sectional area of a second rib of the plurality of ribs along a length of the second rib.
13. The respirator of claim 12, wherein the flexible flap is secured to the valve seat at a centroid of the flexible flap.
14. The respirator of claim 12, wherein the flexible flap has a first alignment element.
15. The respirator of claim 14, wherein the valve seat has a second alignment element that mates with the first alignment element.
16. The respirator of claim 15, wherein the first and second alignment elements preclude rotation of the flexible flap about the centroid of the orifice in a flap plane.
17. The respirator of claim 16, wherein the first alignment element includes one or more rotation-prevention elements that mate with a similarly sized one or more rotation-prevention elements in the second alignment element.
18. The respirator of claim 15, wherein the valve seat has one or more joists that extend radially from the second alignment element to an inner edge of the orifice.
19. The respirator of claim 18, wherein the one or more joists support the second alignment element within the valve orifice at its centroid.
20. The respirator of claim 12, wherein a difference in cross-sectional area between the first rib and the second rib is about 10 to 50%.
Description
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
(1) In the drawings:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
(8) In practicing the present invention, a centroid-supported flexible flap, secured to a valve seat having a non-circular orifice, is provided with a variable stiffness structure that, despite having flap sections of different lengths from the point of securement, can open essentially equally at any point or segment along the flap perimeter. In known exhalation valves, longer length flaps typically lift more easily from the seal surface since the moment is greater. Because the invention has a variable stiffness structure that imparts a greater stiffness to the flap at radial segments that are longer, an increased force or load is required to open the flap on that radial at the same location. The increased stiffness at that radial counters the greater moment, which enables the flexible flap to equally deflect at different radials extending from the centroid when measured at the point where the various radials intersect with the seal surface. An exhalation valve having this construction may optimize pressure drop and overall valve performance for non-circular exhalation valves. A non-circular valve having this construction also may be beneficially shaped into various configurations where similarly performing cantilevered valves have been limited.
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
EXAMPLES
(14) Flap Deflection Test
(15) This test measures the load or force needed to lift the flexible flap from the valve seat seal surface 1 mm in height.
(16) To carry out this test, the exhalation valve is first positioned in a test apparatus that is properly calibrated. ThreeZaber motion linear translation motion stages (model T-LSR 150 are used for 3D sample positioning. They are assembled such that the clamping fixture with the attached sample may be translated in three dimensions for sample positioning and loading via manually operated pots on each stage. The clamping fixture is fashioned to hold the valve seat. A Transducer Techniques load cell (model GSO-10) is positioned below sample in the area of interest with a static fixture and with an 0.5 mm attached flat punch. The flat punch has a diameter of 0.5 mm at the tip with a 1 mm diameter shank of length 16 mm which is attached to a threaded stud which in turn threads into the load cell. The length of the flat punch is 1.25 inches. A Universal Serial Bus (USB) Dinolite™ microscope is set 2.75 inches from the probe/sample for a side view of the punch lifting the flap. The load cell is wired to a 10 volt DC supply via a Transducer Techniques model TMO-1 conditioner where the gain is set to the maximum value. The load cell is attached to a static stand with the punch facing upward towards area of interest. The load cell is tuned using a pot on the TMO-1 conditioner. The load cell and the USB microscope are interfaced to a computer via a Measurement Computing FS1408 USB data acquisition board and an associated Tracer DAQ and Instacal software. The data acquisition board is selected and tested with the Instacal™ software. The load cell is calibrated with gram weights, then a linear fit of the force (mN) vs. millivolt output is calculated. The sample is clamped to the motion stage fixture with flap installed on the valve seat. The punch is located underneath the regions to be tested via the motion stage. The distance measurement is enabled by placing a graduated ruler next to where the flap is to be lifted. The resultant image is saved for 0.5 mm gradations.
(17) Once the test sample is properly positioned in the device, the following steps are carried out to measure the load needed to lift the flexible flap from the seal surface:
(18) 1. The punch is positioned beneath the flexible flap at the location where the flap meets the seal surface. The punch is almost touching the valve. The data acquisition for the load channel is initiated for Tracerdaq™ software. A sample rate of 100 samples/sec and 3 minute sample length is used to take the data.
(19) 2. Immediately after the load channel begins to accumulate data, the operator switches to the video screen to see the probe in near contact with sample. Video recording is initiated.
(20) 3. Using z-stage control, the sample is lowered onto probe while the video shows the valve flap lifting from base due to engagement with the probe.
(21) 4. At a lift value of approximately 1 mm, the dwell controller maintains the probe in place for a 2-3 second time period.
(22) 5. After the dwell segment is completed, the load is removed from flap using the z-stage controller.
(23) 6. A dwell at zero load is then held for 5 seconds.
(24) 7. Steps 3-6 are repeated twice more.
(25) 8. Load vs. time is saved in Tracerdaq™ software; the video is saved in the Dinolite software.
(26) 9. The video is reviewed to frame the maximum lift during the test. Then the 1 mm lift distance is measured and verified using a calibration from the graduated ruler.
(27) The output from the system is in millivolts. The linear fit is used to determine the load, which is then reported in milliNewtons (mN). The load at a 1 mm deflation is measured at two locations. Location 1 is the point where the shortest radial extending from the centroid intersects with the inside surface of the valve orifice, and location 2 is the point where the longest radial intersects with the inside surface of the valve orifice. Location 1 is identified in
Example E1
(28) An exhalation valve that resembled the valve shown in
(29) The valve seat was produced to have the configuration shown in
(30) The flexible flap was joined to the valve seat by pushing the center boss and alignment feature into a corresponding mating feature on the valve seat. The mating feature has a hole that accepts the boss/alignment feature and holds the valve onto the valve seat
(31) The resulting exhalation valve was tested according to the Flexible Flap Test, and the results are set forth below in Table 1.
(32) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 E1 Results Deflection Location 1 Location 2 (mm) Force (mN) Force (mN) FDR 1 2.45 1.74 1.40
(33) Table 1 shows the FDR for E1, which was 1.40 (2.45/1.74). This data show that the resulting exhalation valve has a FDR within the scope of the present invention. The flexible flap therefore can equally deflect, allowing any segment of the flap perimeter to be lifted from the valve seat during an exhalation.
(34) Deflection/Force Simulation
(35) Finite element analysis software can be used to compare the deflection characteristics of a flexible flap that has a variable stiffness structure to an equivalent flap that lacks such a structure. A computer model of the valve system consists of a mesh of finite elements that represents the flap geometry. Finite elements are small domains of the entire structure. The governing differential equations are numerically calculated across these elements. Each element is bounded by nodes with straight lines between them. Nodes may be a part of a number of neighboring finite elements. All of the elements connected together represent a mesh. This mesh closely approximates the geometry of the structure you are analyzing.
(36) The flexible flaps are thin walled structures that can use shell finite elements to approximate the flap thickness. Shell elements are typically triangular flat elements that have 3 nodes. A shell model has the appropriate thickness applied to the elements as an attribute. The thickness is then accounted for in the computations. If desired, three-dimensional elements can be used to model the thickness also. These 3D elements typically have four faces and three nodes.
(37) To reduce the model size, symmetry can be used. Appropriate boundary conditions need to be applied to the model across planes of symmetry. Nodes that lie on this plane are constrained to allow rotation only within that plane. They are also constrained to ensure there is no deflection out of the plane.
(38) Since the flap is constrained at the support feature at the centroid, the model can be further simplified if desired. For the simulation, the nodes on the seal membrane and the ribs can be fixed at the intersection with the center support instead of modeling the entire support.
(39) The shell mesh needs to be created with a sufficient number of elements to accurately model the flap geometry and the contact to the seal surface. The seal surface should be modeled with rigid contact elements. To preload the flap, the seal surface elements are raised into the flap mesh, which creates the preload.
(40) A representative elastic modulus and a poisson's ratio are applied to the model. The model of the flap without a gravity load is now complete.
(41) For the simulation, one of the nodes at the desired location is raised off of the rigid elements, which represent the sealing surface. The nodes are raised in small increments until the final deflection is reached. For this simulation, the deflection is limited so the effect of the stiffness of the neighboring region does not dominate the results. This technique can replicate the Flap Deflection Test. The results from the analysis are the force at a given deflection at the noted location.
Simulated Exhalation Valve—Example SE1
(42) The exhalation valve produced according to this example was a valve that had the same flexible flap as example E1, that is, it was a computer simulation of the E1 valve having the same flexible flap. The finite element analysis software used in this example was ABAQUS®. The simulated example used a modulus of 350 pounds per square inch(psi) and a Poisson's ratio of 0.5 to represent the 3001-60 silicone material. An analysis was run at each of the two locations specified in the Flap Deflection Test (Location 1 and Location 2). At each location, the flap was raised off the contact elements, representing the seal surface at one location. The maximum deflection used was 1 mm. The deflection was applied in ten increments until the flap was opened to the maximum deflection value. At each increment, the reaction load was calculated by the software.
(43) To maximize the flap efficiency, at a defined opening around the perimeter, the loads should be “equivalent”. Stated differently, the flap deflection should be the same at a given load. To determine this, the FDR is calculated from the output of the analysis between locations 1 and 2 at the valve seal surface. The FDR between the longest and the shortest radials was used as a representative measure of this equivalency. Table 2 shows the resultant force and FDR for each deflection increment for example SE1.
(44) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 SE1 Results Displacement Location 1 Location 2 (mm) Force (mN) Force (mN) FDR Ratio 0.2 0.260 0.198 1.30 0.3 0.334 0.262 1.27 0.4 0.387 0.308 1.26 0.5 0.439 0.349 1.26 0.6 0.484 0.387 1.25 0.675 0.525 0.421 1.25 0.75 0.566 0.453 1.24 0.85 0.594 0.482 1.23 0.95 0.624 0.508 1.23 1 0.653 0.532 1.23 AVG 1.25
(45) At 1 mm deflection, the SE1 FDR is 1.23 which shows good correlation to the E1 FDR of 1.4 considering modeling and test variability.
Simulation Comparison Example—SCE1
(46) SCE1 is a simulation of the test run in E1, using the same flap as E1, with exception of having the ribs removed. The same simulation approach was replicated from SE1, but the ribs were removed from the mesh. Table 3 shows the resultant force and FDR for each deflection increment.
(47) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 SCE1 Results Displacement Location 1 Location 2 (mm) Force (mN) Force (mN) FDR Ratio 0.2 .0158 0.133 8.41 0.3 .0309 0.163 5.25 0.4 .0452 0.188 4.15 0.5 .0589 0.210 3.56 0.6 .0719 0.229 3.18 0.675 .0844 0.246 2.92 0.75 .0964 0.263 2.73 0.85 0.108 0.278 2.58 0.95 0.119 0.294 2.46 1 0.130 0.306 2.34 AVG 3.76
(48) Table 2 and Table 3 show the results for SE1 and SCE1 respectively. As expected, the non-ribbed version had lower loads. This was expected because the membrane thickness was maintained at 0.28 mm. This flap thickness, however, was not adequate to hold the valve shut in all orientations under gravity.
(49) Both tables show the FDR at locations 1 and 2 for each case. A fully optimized system would have a ratio of 1. SE1 has an average ratio of 1.25 when deflected at increments between 0.2 mm to 1 mm. The “equivalent” stiffness example (SCE1) without the ribs had a much higher average ratio of 3.76. At 1 mm deflections, the FDRs were 1.23 and 2.34 respectively.
Simulated Exhalation Valve—Example SE2
(50) Another exhalation valve with a lower aspect ratio was analyzed. The flexible flap had a long axis length of 35.5 millimeters (mm) (17.75 mm from the centroid) and had a short axis length of 32 mm (16 mm from the centroid). The flexible flap was designed to stay shut under a gravity load at any orientation. The ribs extended radially from the centroid such that adjacent ribs were spaced from each other at about 24 degrees. The angular spacing was the same for each of the ribs. The continuous flap sheet that was joined to the ribs had a thickness of about 0.28 mm. The cross-sectional area of the ribs varied. The ribs at the long axis had a maximum cross-sectional area of about 0.23 mm.sup.2. The ribs at the short axis had a maximum cross-sectional area of about 0.19 mm.sup.2. Ribs that had such a cross-sectional area were found to buckle when the flap was exposed to a force that caused the flap to bend. The length of the longest rib was 16.9 mm. The length of the shortest rib was 14.0 mm. The rib height at the centroid of the longest rib was 0.77 mm. The rib height at the centroid of the shortest rib was 0.68 mm. The tallest rib tapers to approximately a 0.4 mm height at the perimeter. The shortest rib tapers to approximately a 0.25 mm height at the perimeter. The rib width was 0.31 mm and was the same for all ribs. The boss and alignment feature were the same as described in SE1.
(51) The finite element analysis software used in this example was ABAQUS®. The simulated example used a modulus of 350 pounds per square inch(psi) and a Poisson's ratio of 0.5 to represent the 3001-60 silicone material. An analysis was run at each of the two locations specified in the Flap Deflection Test (Location 1 and Location 2). At each location, the flap was raised off the contact elements, representing the seal surface at one location. The maximum deflection used was 1 mm. The deflection was applied in ten increments until the flap was opened to the maximum deflection value. At each increment, the reaction load was calculated by the software.
(52) The results for the simulation are shown in table 4
(53) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 SE2 Results Displacement Location 1 Location 2 (mm) Force (mN) Force (mN) FDR 0.2 0.244 0.328 1.35 0.3 0.305 0.411 1.35 0.4 0.347 0.471 1.36 0.5 0.382 0.519 1.36 0.6 0.418 0.557 1.33 0.675 0.448 0.589 1.31 0.75 0.486 0.618 1.30 0.85 0.502 0.645 1.29 0.95 0.526 0.672 1.28 1 0.549 0.698 1.27 AVG 1.32
Simulation Comparison Example—SCE2
(54) For SCE2 the same simulation approach was replicated from SE2, but the ribs were removed from the mesh. Table 5 shows the resultant force and FDR for each deflection increment.
(55) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 SCE2 Results Displacement Location 1 Location 2 (mm) Force (mN) Force (mN) FDR Ratio 0.2 0.126 0.242 1.92 0.3 0.166 0.302 1.82 0.4 0.197 0.343 1.74 0.5 0.218 0.376 1.73 0.6 0.235 0.402 1.71 0.675 0.251 0.424 1.69 0.75 0.267 0.444 1.66 0.85 0.282 0.463 1.64 0.95 0.297 0.481 1.62 1 0.312 0.496 1.59 AVG 1.71
(56) Table 4 and Table 5 show the results for SE2 and SCE2 respectively. Both tables show the FDR at locations 1 and 2 for each case. SE2 has an average ratio of 1.32 when deflected at increments between 0.2 mm to 1 mm. The “equivalent” stiffness example (SCE2) without the ribs had a higher ratio of 1.71. At 1 mm deflection, the FDR's were 1.32 and 1.51 respectively.
(57) The FDR's were closer due to an aspect ratio's approaching 1. The advantage of a variable stiffness flap decreases as the shortest length radial and the longest length radial become similar. However, there is still an advantage as long as the radials are of difference lengths.
(58) The variable stiffness valves, SE1 and SE2, had “equivalent load” for equal deflections when comparing the perimeter location at the longest distance from the centroid to the location at the shortest distance to the centroid This results in the flap lifting open around the entire periphery under a given exhalation pressure. With more flap perimeter lifting a greater distance from the seal surface, the pressure drop decreases across the valve orifice, which increases user comfort by reducing the exhalation pressure at a given flow rate.
(59) This invention may take on various modifications and alterations without departing from its spirit and scope. Accordingly, this invention is not limited to the above-described but is to be controlled by the limitations set forth in the following claims and any equivalents thereof.
(60) This invention also may be suitably practiced in the absence of any element not specifically disclosed herein.
(61) All patents and patent applications cited above, including those in the Background section, are incorporated by reference into this document in total. To the extent there is a conflict or discrepancy between the disclosure in such incorporated document and the above specification, the above specification will control.