Double Fire Door Coordination With Mechanical Brake Backup

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional fire door installations with swing door leaves require manual testing to ensure proper closure order, which is inefficient and lacks a reliable fail-safe mechanism for ensuring both doors close correctly during emergencies.

Innovation Solution

A double door system incorporating a mechanical braking arrangement and an electric coordination system to control the movement of understriking and overstriking door leaves, ensuring the understriking door is closed before the overstriking door, with a backup mechanical system for power failures.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual testing is used to verify door closure order, then service personnel can observe door operation, but the process is inefficient and lacks automated reliability

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedoor closure order verificationVSAvoidtesting efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual mechanical testing with an automated control system that uses sensors to detect door positions and a controller to verify closure order automatically. The service personnel no longer need to manually operate and observe the doors; instead, the system autonomously monitors and validates the closure sequence, improving both reliability and efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements a feedback mechanism where sensors detect the position of each door leaf and provide information to the controller. The controller then verifies whether the closure order matches the predetermined sequence and can generate alerts or prevent operation if the sequence is incorrect, ensuring reliable automated verification.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Extent of automation

If electric coordination system is used to control door closure, then automated coordination is achieved, but the system lacks fail-safe capability during power failures

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedoor closure coordinationVSAvoidfail-safe operation
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent incorporates a mechanical braking arrangement that operates independently of the electric coordination system. This mechanical backup is pre-configured to engage automatically under certain conditions (such as power failure or system malfunction), ensuring that the door closure sequence can still be controlled safely without relying on electrical power.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #11Beforehand cushioning (Prior cushioning)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the operational parameter from purely electrical control to a hybrid system that switches between electrical and mechanical control modes. When the electric system is unavailable, the system transitions to mechanical braking control, maintaining functionality across different operational states and ensuring fail-safe operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If mechanical braking arrangement is added as backup, then fail-safe capability is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefail-safe mechanismVSAvoidbraking system structure
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent extracts the fail-safe function into a separate, dedicated mechanical braking arrangement that operates independently from the main electric coordination system. This modular approach allows the mechanical backup to be added without fundamentally redesigning the entire door control system, managing complexity through functional separation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

4Reliability

If proper closure order control is implemented, then fire safety is improved, but wear on door components increases due to coordinated braking

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefire door safetyVSAvoidcomponent service life
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDuration of action of stationary object

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies braking force selectively and partially rather than continuously. The mechanical braking arrangement engages only when necessary to control the closure sequence or when the electric system is unavailable, rather than operating throughout the entire door movement. This reduces unnecessary wear on braking components while maintaining safety.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentEP3987139B1Double door system
Publication Date: 2025.11.05 ASSA ABLOY ENTRANCE SYST AB
  • EP3987139B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3987139B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3987139B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Double door system (1) comprising an understriking door leaf (2), an overstriking door leaf (3), a first door operator (11) adapted to move the understriking door leaf (2) between an open and a closed position, a second door operator (12) adapted to move the overstriking door leaf (3) between an open and a closed position, a mechanical brake arrangement (100) and an electric coordination system (90).