Folding Wing Door Obstacle Sensor Control

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Folding wing door systems face challenges in precisely and rapidly monitoring the main closing edge to prevent finger crushing and physical contact with pedestrians, as existing sensor protection methods are either time-consuming or imprecise, leading to potential injuries and unpleasant experiences.

Innovation Solution

A folding wing door system equipped with a control unit, incremental encoder, and obstacle sensor, where the position sensor ensures precise positioning and the obstacle sensor is deactivated outside a predefined activation range to avoid self-recognition and erroneous obstacle detection, allowing for controlled and efficient door closure with adjustable locking force.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the obstacle sensor is permanently active to monitor the main closing edge, then safety is improved, but false detection occurs when the folding door enters the sensor field during opening/closing

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidobstacle detection accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The obstacle sensor is switched between active and inactive states based on the door's position. The monitoring unit activates the obstacle sensor only when the door is in positions where obstacle detection is meaningful, and deactivates it when the door is in positions where self-detection would occur, thereby resolving the contradiction between continuous safety monitoring and false detection avoidance

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses feedback from the position sensor to control the obstacle sensor's operation. The monitoring unit receives position information and uses it to dynamically adjust the obstacle sensor's active state, creating a closed-loop control system that prevents false detection while maintaining safety

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Measurement precision

If the obstacle sensor is deactivated outside the activation range to avoid self-detection, then measurement precision is improved, but safety monitoring is reduced during critical closing phases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveobstacle detection accuracyVSAvoidsafety monitoring
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The obstacle sensor's operational state is dynamically adjusted based on door position feedback. The monitoring unit activates the sensor precisely when the door enters the activation range where obstacle detection is critical, and deactivates it when the door is in positions where self-detection would occur, optimizing both safety and precision

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Measurement precision

If precise adjustment of the sensor is made to prevent self-detection, then false detection is avoided, but installation time increases and reliability decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesensor field positioningVSAvoidinstallation time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses the door's own position information to control the obstacle sensor's operation. By making the obstacle sensor responsive to the door's position through the monitoring unit, the system eliminates the need for complex manual sensor adjustment, allowing the sensor to be installed in a standard position without time-consuming calibration

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The position sensor provides continuous feedback about the door's position to the monitoring unit, which then controls the obstacle sensor's active state. This feedback mechanism replaces the need for precise manual sensor adjustment with an automated position-based control system

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

4Device complexity

If motor current detection is used to protect the main closing edge, then device complexity is reduced, but detection speed and accuracy decrease leading to physical contact

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesensor systemVSAvoidobstacle detection speed
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSSpeed

Solution Approach 1:

The system replaces motor current detection (a mechanical/electrical measurement) with an optical obstacle sensor that detects obstacles before contact occurs. The obstacle sensor provides non-contact, rapid detection of obstacles in the door's path, eliminating the delay inherent in motor current-based detection

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

Data Source

PatentEP3034754B1Folding leaf door assembly
Publication Date: 2020.02.12 DORMAKABA DEUT GMBH
  • EP3034754B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3034754B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3034754B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

The invention relates to a folding wing door system (1) comprising at least one folding wing door (2, 3), and at least one drive unit (4) for moving the folding wing door (2, 3) between a closed position and an open position, a control unit (23) for controlling the drive unit (4), at least one position sensor for determining the position of the folding wing door (2, 3), at least one obstacle sensor (57) for detecting obstacles in a travel range of the folding wing door (2, 3), and a monitoring unit (23), wherein the monitoring unit (23) is configured to receive signals from the position sensor and/or the obstacle sensor (57), wherein the position sensor is an incremental encoder, which is in particular arranged on a motor shaft of the drive unit (4), wherein the incremental encoder has a resolution between 3000 and 35000, preferably between 5000 and 30000, particularly preferably between 7500 and 20000.The number of pulses per travel distance between the open and closed positions is...